H

PAUL
THE MAN, THE MISSIONARY, AND
THE TEACHER

:ih£&&-

z.

PAUL

THE MAN, THE MISSIONARY, AND
THE TEACHER

BY

ORELLO CONE, D.D.

AUTHOR OF "GOSPEL-CRITICISM AND HISTORICAL CHRISTIANITY," "THE
GOSPEL AND ITS EARLIEST INTERPRETATIONS," ETC.

Neto got*
THE MACMILLAN COMPANY
LONDON : MACMILLAN & CO., LTD.
1898
All rights reserved

Copyright, 1898,
Bv THE MACMILLAN COMPANY.

£9Sc

Norfaoab 3prrssa
J. S. Cashing & Co. — Berwick & Smith
Norwood Ma3B. U.S.A.

To
<©tto ;pietoem, SP.HD.
PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY AT THE UNIVERSITY OF BERLIN
IN GRATEFUL APPRECIATION OF AN IMPULSE TO AND HELP IN THE
STUDY OF PAUL RECEIVED FROM HIS WRITINGS
AND OF PERSONAL KINDNESS AND FRIENDSHIP EXPERIENCED
FROM HIM DURING A RECENT WINTER'S
RESIDENCE IN BERLIN
Eftia 800ft 10 affecttonatelg Hetiicatrti
BY THE AUTHOR

PREFACE
OINCE the beginning of serious biblical study a pro-
*—* found interest has been felt in the personality, life,
and teachings of the great apostle to the gentiles. This
interest is not confined to Bible-students, but has extended
to the large number of persons who are attracted by the
history of civilisation and of liberty and by the study of
the causes which have effected the enfranchisement and
progress of human thought. Its highest degree and its
widest extent are amply justified both by the wonderful
character and genius of the man and by the epoch-making
force of his thinking and his religious insight. It is not to
be put to his credit that he emancipated Christianity from
Judaism. To have separated it from what is best in the
Jewish religion and ethics would have been to render it a
great disservice. That he liberated it from bondage to
externalities and formalism, and gave it to mankind not
only as a doctrine, but also as a power of the Spirit and as
an ethical life, is his indefeasible merit.
One of the most remarkable phenomena of the history
of mankind is presented in the personality and character
of this man who suddenly appeared "as one born out of
due time" with incalculable force and resistless enthusiasm
upon the field of primitive-Christian activities. Though he
be called a man of God, a providential man, in the eminent
sense of the words, he must remain inexplicable until he is
vii

Vill PREFACE
interpreted with due regard to his natural antecedents and
his intellectual and religious environment. From these he
could not free himself. By the highest flights of his
genius he could not escape from the atmosphere in which
his spirit drew the breath of life. It is in the hope of
contributing somewhat to such an interpretation of the
life and teaching of the greatest of the apostles of Jesus
that this book has been written. Aware of the difficulty
of the task and conscious of his own limitations the author
craves the considerate judgment and the helpful criticism
of his readers.
It is not in accordance with the purpose of this book,
which it is hoped will meet the wants of the general
reader interested in its subject, as well as satisfy the
requirements of the biblical student, to enter upon an
elaborate criticism of the Pauline Epistles. The discussion
of the apostle's teachings has, however, been based upon
those writings of his which are accepted as genuine by all
except a small minority of scholars. These six Epistles,
Romans, I and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, I Thessalonians,
and Philippians, not only contain all that is important in
his teaching, but also present his views in the most suc
cinct and self-consistent form.
The consideration of the apostle's missionary work has
been conducted not from the external point of view of
Acts, but from the inward aspect presented in the Epistles,
which reveal the internal condition of the churches, as
well as the personality of the great teacher and his de
meanour in the midst of the trials and conflicts incident to
his work, while they disclose the forces which were operat
ing in primitive Christianity.

PREFACE IX
The frequent reference to certain doctrines of the
apostle in the course of the book will not incur the
criticism of repetition from any one who considers how
intimately his fundamental teachings are related not only
to one another, but also to numerous subsidiary matters
treated of in the Epistles.
A few of these chapters have been previously published
in The New World and The American Journal of Theology,
but they have all received revision and additions. O. C.

CONTENTS
PART I. — THE MAN
CHAPTER I PAGE
Formative Influences  3
CHAPTER II
Personal Traits  22
CHAPTER III
The Conversion  S3
PART II. — THE MISSIONARY
CHAPTER IV
The First Years — Galatia and the Galatian Epistles . 69
CHAPTER V
Philippi, Thessalonica, Corinth  95
CHAPTER VI
Ephesus — Rome  128
CHAPTER VII
The Paul of the Acts and the Paul of the Epistles . 146
PART III — THE TEACHER
CHAPTER VIII
The Law  !79
xi

Xll CONTENTS
CHAPTER IX PAGE
The Pauline Terms, "Death," "Life," and "Salvation" 199
CHAPTER X
The Doctrine of Sin .... ... 218
CHAPTER XI
Salvation — Atonement  251
CHAPTER XII
The Person of Christ  280
CHAPTER XIII
Supernaturalism — The Spirit  311
CHAPTER XIV
Faith and Justification  342
CHAPTER XV
Ethics  370
CHAPTER XVI
Predestination  398
CHAPTER XVII
The Church and the Sacraments  412
CHAPTER XVIII
Eschatology  423
Index of Subjects and Names  459
Index of Passages  466

PART I
THE MAN

PAUL, THE MAN, THE MISSIONARY,
AND THE TEACHER

CHAPTER I
FORMATIVE INFLUENCES
OF the early years of the great apostle to the gentiles
we have unhappily only meagre information. As to
his education in boyhood and youth and the influences and
associations amid which he grew up, we have no definite
knowledge, and must resort to conjectures drawn from
what we know of his situation and surroundings and of
the customs of the time. His birthplace, Tarsus, in Cilicia,
the southwest province of Asia Minor, was a city of some
commercial importance, one of the chief occupations of
whose inhabitants was the manufacture of sail-cloth from
the hair of goats. This handicraft the young Saul doubt
less acquired here, and we may assume that his early years
were occupied with its pursuit. That he was of humble
parentage and under the necessity of supporting himself
by his own labour is as evident as it is that he did not think
self-support discreditable. Rather he was inclined to boast
of the renunciation of his right to be nurtured by his
churches and of living by the work of his own hands
(i Cor. ix. 5-15 ; 1 Thess. ii. 6, 9). The fact that it was
the custom for Jewish boys to learn a trade does not
render the poverty of Saul's family improbable. It is
3

4 THE MAN
evident from his own declarations that he was not a man
of fortune or even of a competency, and that his mission
ary travels and work were performed under the conditions
attendant upon extreme indigence. Here in Tarsus the
youthful Saul was surrounded by the unadulterated cult
of the rankest heathenism. But the seclusion of the
Jewish quarter, his education at home, and the natural
antipathy of a Jew to polytheistic rites, must have pre
served him from close contact with the corrupting in
fluences of idolatrous worship. On the other hand, it
is not improbable that the impression made upon his
young mind by the moral degradation of heathen Tarsus
was reproduced in the dark picture of gentile vice and
shame drawn in Rom. i. 21-32, just as the inscription upon
the pedestal of the statue of Sardanapalus in a neighbour
ing city : "Eat, drink, enjoy thyself; the rest is nothing,"
may have suggested the pessimistic words : " Let us eat
and drink, for to-morrow we die" (1 Cor. xv. 32).
The schools of the sophists, the rhetoricians, and the
grammarians in Tarsus appear to have excited disgust
rather than interest in the mind of the young man, who
later in life could speak only with contempt of the " dis
putes" and "the wisdom of this world" (1 Cor. i. 20).
It is probable accordingly that he was less influenced by
Greek culture than some have supposed, a strong repug
nance to which as degrading and corrupting was a settled
feeling in Jewish houses. An education in the Greek
language would have rendered him more skilful in writing
it than he was according to his own confession (Gal. vi. 1 1),
and would have made it unnecessary for him to dictate his
letters to amanuenses. His Greek style denotes that his
knowledge of the language was not acquired in the schools
of the rhetoricians, but was rather such as a Jew of the
Dispersion, a Hellenist, might gain from living in a com-

FORMATIVE INFLUENCES 5
munity in which it was spoken and from the reading
of the Greek translation of the Old Testament and the
apocrypha. As to Greek literature in general, there is no
indication in his writings of an acquaintance with it. He
does not write like a man who has formed his style upon
Greek models, and he certainly does not reason after the
manner of a student of the Grecian philosophers. His
citation of current adages from Greek poets should not be
adduced as an evidence of his familiarity with their writ
ings. The quotation from Menander, " Evil communica
tions corrupt good manners" (i Cor. xv. 33), was probably
in everybody's mouth, and attention has been called to
the circumstance that in writing it the apostle " missed the
metre," and thus showed that he was not familiar with the
Greek prosody. Whatever culture he had was that of a
Hebrew who had diligently studied the literature of his
own people. He thought in Hebrew, expressed himself
in the Hebrew idiom, and his writings betray throughout
the absence of the breadth and refinement of a cosmopolitan
literary training. His own boast was that he was " of the
stock of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of the
Hebrews ; as touching the law, a Pharisee " (Phil. iii. 5),
and his entire performance as a writer makes good the
boast. Whether Saul could ever have become Paul the apostle
to the gentiles or not, if he had been reared in a Palestinian
village instead of in the commercial centre Tarsus, is a
question that we need not discuss. If, however, we take
account at all of natural causes in his development, we may
well believe that a youth passed in Tarsus could not be
without important consequences in the production of such
a capacity for dealing with men as the apostle displayed.
Natural qualifications must of course have their rights ;
but these do not come to their fruitage without dependence

6 THE MAN
upon early influences and associations. The impressions
and impulses received in youth may contribute to form
breadth of view and great policies in manhood, just as
they show themselves in the writer, while he cannot tell
how it happens that his style is such as it is. The con
trast has been pointed out between the illustrations em
ployed by Jesus and those with which Paul embellished
his teachings, the former drawn from the fields and gar
dens of Palestine, the latter from the Jewish household, the
city, and the arena. The difference, however, is not al
together due to education and environment in youth. To
Paul was wanting the poetic soul of Jesus. Tarsus was
surrounded by magnificent natural scenery, and in his
journeys the apostle passed where the most delightful views
of mountain and plain must have been before him. But
he does not appear to have been impressed by the gran
deur and beauty of nature, and of close observation of the
outer world he could have had none, or he would not have
assumed that a wild olive slip was grafted upon a fruitful
tree (Rom. xi. 17). Who will say that his disposition
toward the gentiles, which made his mission as their apos
tle possible, did not have its roots in the same early associa
tions and culture that led him to introduce as a matter of
course into an Epistle to one of his churches an illustration
from the Grecian games, which were an abomination to the
average Jew ?
As " a Hebrew of the Hebrews " the youthful Saul
must have had in his father's house the education and
training of the Jewish boy of pious parentage. An out
line of this preeminently religious education has been
gathered from Jewish sources, and is in general to the
following purport : " With the fifth year began in the
house of the Pharisee the reading of the Scriptures, and
not much later the visiting of the synagogue on the three

FORMATIVE INFLUENCES 7
hours of prayer, which to the Jews of the Dispersion sig
nified the three daily sacrifices in the temple in Jerusalem.
On Mondays, Thursdays, and Saturdays, the reading of
the law was listened to. The scholar gradually grew into
the school and into the office of a teacher. He read the
law, undertook its interpretation, and shared in the contro
versies. Attendance upon the catechetical and disputa-
torial exercises and zeal in copying the sacred Scriptures
completed the scribe." This was essentially a biblical
training, by means of which the boy became familiar with
the text of the Old Testament, lived in the history of his
race, that wonderful history of miracles and providential
guidance, and held converse with the great lawgiver and
with prophets and psalmists. One cannot read a page of
Paul's writings without finding the traces of such an educa
tion. So penetrated was he with the ideas of the Old Tes
tament that he could not write on a doctrinal or religious
theme without reference to them. Hence it has been said
that he " judaised," and that " his thinking was a thinking
in quotations." It cannot, however, but appear to us with
our regard for exact interpretation of the text as an incon
sistency in the apostle that, holding the Old Testament to
be the word of the Spirit, he .should have been so indiffer
ent to the actual meaning of '_ passages in it as to employ
the incorrect Septuagint version whenever it gave a sense
better suited to his purpose than that of the Hebrew.
In order, however, that the Old Testament should be one
of the formative influences in the education of the young
man, it must be interpreted, and its interpretation is itself
an influence which has innumerable hazards. The inter
pretation dominates the book, and subjects it to its point of
view and purpose. Accordingly, it should not surprise us
to find that the Old Testament pure and simple, that is,
interpreted by a strict grammatical and historical method,

8 THE MAN
influenced Paul less than did the method of treating it in
which he was reared, or, in other words, than the Jewish
theology in the light of which it was expounded to him.
In the first place, it was a fundamental principle in this
theology that the sacred writings were the immediate ex
pression of the divine thought and will, and as such were
to be regarded as an infallible authority. Secondly, there
was wanting to its conception and treatment of the Scrip
tures a definite view of the relation of its parts to one
another, or, in other words, an historical apprehension of
the whole, so that separate passages instead of being inter
preted in their proper connection were arbitrarily torn from
it, and applied according to the exigencies of the particular
case or occasion. The Jewish theologians also adopted
the allegorical method of interpreting the Scriptures. Pro
ceeding from their premises of inspiration, they believed
that every passage must contain a profound and important
sense, and when the grammatical rendering did not give
such a sense, they made the passage mean something else,
or allegorised it.*
This allegorical method of interpretation, conspicuously
represented by .the Alexandrian school, was adopted by
Paul in conformity with the ideas of the time, and he
makes frequent use of it apparently without a conscious
ness and certainly without a purpose of distorting the
Scriptures in order to make them subserve his ends.
Wishing to maintain by a biblical passage the doctrine that
the preachers of the gospel were entitled to support from
the churches, he refers to the direction in Deut. xxv. 4,
that the ox which threshes the corn should not be muzzled,
and declares that it was not written on account of the
oxen, since God does not care for them, but with reference
* From &X\a and dyopeiw, " to say other things," i,e. other things than the
literal or obvious sense conveys.

FORMATIVE INFLUENCES g
to the missionaries, "for our sakes" (i Cor. ix. 9, 10). A
sense directly opposed to that conveyed by the word in
the original Hebrew is imposed upon " seed " in Gal. iii.
16, where reference is made to the promise to Abraham
that in his seed should all nations be blessed. In order
to make an application of the passage to Christ he says
that the singular form of the word, which evidently means
the entire posterity of Abraham, is used, and that the
writer did not mean, " and to seeds as of many, but as of
one, and to thy seed, which is Christ." In Gal. iv. 22-27
the history of the two sons of Abraham, Isaac and Ishmael,
is allegorised in the sense that they represent the two
covenants, although in the original there is not the slight
est hint that such a meaning was in the thought of the
writer. " Hagar," he remarks, "is Mount Sinai in Arabia,
and answereth to Jerusalem which now is, and is in
bondage with her children." In this laboured allegorising
he overlooks the fact that the legislation of Sinai was
given to the descendants of Isaac, and that it was they
who were "in bondage" to the law. Sarah, nevertheless,
represents the " Jerusalem which is above," the free
Jerusalem, "which is the mother of us all; " and in proof
of this he quotes from Isaiah words addressed by the
prophet to the new Jerusalem that was to be built, as if
they had application to Sarah and her descendants. In
like manner he reads into the account of Abraham's faith,
which was reckoned to him for righteousness, the quite
foreign sense that this was not written for his sake alone,
but for us also, "if we believe on Him who raised up our
Lord Jesus from the dead " (Rom. iv. 23 f.).
In this connection an argument is constructed to prove
that the promise to Abraham was not to " his seed through
the law," that is, to his Jewish descendants, but to " his
seed through the righteousness of faith." This turn is

IO THE MAN
given to the passage in order to bring the gentiles under
the promise, and the proof is found in the words from the
Old Testament, " I have made thee a father of many
nations." This citation is made with the utmost naivete", as
if the writer quoted were thinking of the same application
which Paul makes of the passage, while it is evident that
such a sense was as remote as possible from the intention
of the former. This imposing upon a passage of a mean
ing remote from its original sense cannot be regarded as
furnishing a proof from Scripture even on the presump
tion of its authority by any one who holds to established
principles of interpretation, and it is not surprising that
Luther thought this kind of scriptural argument "too
weak to hold." But Paul's preoccupation with a dogmatic
purpose led him to see in the Jewish Scriptures the ideas
which filled his own mind, and his education in the
current theology of his time had not taught him to read
his Bible' with a view to ascertaining its historical sense.
In this respect he was as truly a child of his age as was
Philo, and his exegesis must be judged as we judge that of
the latter.
To one who does not regard the matter in this light, it
is surprising to find the apostle proceeding naively to
condemn the Old Testament doctrine of legal righteous
ness out of that collection itself by bringing different
parts of it into conflict with one another. In order to
prove, for example, his great proposition that righteous
ness is not by the works of the law, he quotes Deut. xxvii.
26, " Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things
which are written in the book of the law to do them " — a
passage which evidently implies that every one ought to
keep the law, and can keep it if he will, and so avoid the
curse. Then in order to show that this very thing is
impossible, and that " no man is justified by the law," he

FORMATIVE INFLUENCES II
quotes from Habak. ii. 4, "The just shall live by faith," as
if the writer of Habakkuk had in mind precisely the
Pauline doctrine of justification by faith. Immediately he
adds, "And the law is not of faith," and again quotes:
"The man that doeth them shall live in them," that is, the
man who keeps the commandments of the law shall live in
them, the very thing of which he is arguing the impossi
bility (Gal. iii. 10-12). His preoccupation with justifica
tion by faith leads him to another even more arbitrary
treatment of an Old Testament passage (Deut. xxx. 11-15)
in which the writer represents the law as so near to every
man that he is inexcusable who does not observe its
requirements. It is not in heaven, that it should be
brought down by a messenger sent up for it, and it is not
beyond the sea, that some one should go and fetch it, but
" it is very nigh unto thee in thy mouth and in thy heart,
that thou shouldst keep it." The doctrine of righteousness
by works, which Paul vehemently repudiated, could not be
more explicitly declared than it is here. Yet he interprets
the passage to a directly opposite intent, by putting the
words of Deuteronomy into the mouth of Righteousness
by faith personified and referring them to Christ instead
of to the law : " But the Righteousness which is by faith
speaketh in this wise,- Say not in thine heart, who shall
ascend into heaven (that is, to bring Christ down from
above), or who shall descend into the deep (that is, to
bring Christ up from the dead). But what saith it ? The
word is nigh thee, even in thy month and in thy heart."
This "word," however, is not the word of the law, as in
Deuteronomy, but with a most astonishing simplicity the
apostle adds, "that is, the word of faith which we preach "
(Rom. xi. 6-8).
Paul also learned from his Jewish teachers the interpre
tation known as the typological, the principle of which is

12 THE MAN
that events and persons of a past time may be regarded
as prefiguring occurrences and individuals of a later age.
It is evident that if this method of interpretation has any
validity at all, it must be because the earlier historian or
biographer was conscious of the relation of the historical
incidents and personages of his record to the future, and
definitely indicated that relation, This alone could furnish
a check upon the arbitrary reference of any event or per
sonality in the past to any subsequent occurrences under
the relation of type and antitype. The fact, however, is
that the typological interpretation, as it was practised by
the ancients, was entirely without such a restraint, and was
accordingly fanciful and wholly unsound, unless one is
willing to adopt the presumption that the writers who
employed it were infallibly inspired, and thus qualified to
discern in the history of the past relations and profound
meanings which the authors of that history give no intima
tion of having intended to convey. But there is no need
to resort to a supernatural explanation of typology, since
an historical account of its origin is at hand. It was doubt
less an adaptation by the Hellenistic Jews, that is, the Jews
whose thought was influenced by Greek ideas, from the
Platonic doctrine of idea and type, and was extensively
employed by Philo, the Alexandrian Hellenist, to whom
the entire Old Testament history was full of types whose
antitypes he had no difficulty in finding. The writer of
Hebrews, in whom the Hellenistic influence is more con
spicuous than in Paul, finds in Melchisedec a type of
Christ and in the Jewish sacrifices the " shadow of heav
enly things." For to him " Christ did not enter into the
holy places made with hands, which are a figure of the
true, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence
of God for us." * In like manner Paul interprets the his-
* Heb. v. 6, vi. 20, viii. 5, ix. 24.

FORMATIVE INFLUENCES 1 3
tory of the Israelites in the wilderness. They were all
baptized unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea, ate the
spiritual food, drank the spiritual drink of the spiritual
Rock that followed them, that is, Christ, displeased God,
became some of them idolaters, and committed fornication.
All these things happened to them for en samples or types,
and are written for our admonition upon whom the ends
of the world are come (i Cor. x. i-ii). Jewish rabbinical
and Hellenistic influences are manifest in this interpre
tation. In the rabbinical tradition the rock is represented
as having rolled through the desert after the Israelitish
host, and the Hellenistic book, the Wisdom of Solomon,
finds in the overshadowing cloud the person of the divine
Wisdom, while Philo takes the rock for Wisdom and the
Logos. Such coincidences are most naturally explained by the
supposition that the education of Paul was influenced by
the current ideas of the time, and that he derived from his
teachers the method of interpretation which they employed.
Various contacts in his writings with ideas and expressions
contained in the book of the Wisdom of Solomon already
mentioned indicate that Hellenistic ideas as well as the
Hellenistic method of interpretation were among the influ
ences that formed the apostle's thinking. " This book,
written by an Alexandrian Jew in the first century before
Christ, contains a polemic against heathen materialism
and idolatry and an apology for the Jewish belief in God
as the true Wisdom which secures the blessedness of man
in this life and in that which is to come." The author
was familiar not only with the Old Testament, but also
with the philosophy of the Greeks, of which he makes use
in his argument, particularly of the Platonic doctrine of
the immortality of the soul. It is probable that Paul was
acquainted with this book, though he so far surpasses its

14 THE MAN
point of view that its influence upon him cannot be re
garded as of great importance. If Hellenism gave him
his ideas of the outward and inward man, the " mind "
(vow), the "soul" (yjrvxi,), "conscience," and the "flesh,"
the use which he makes of them shows how far he
passed beyond his teachers, and how the religious genius
can transform to divine ends materials which in other
hands serve only trivial purposes. The Book of Wisdom
says that the body weighs down the soul, and oppresses
the mind, and in this fact the writer finds an explanation
of the defects of the human understanding and of spiritual
incapacity. But all that he says bears no comparison with
Paul's arraignment of the flesh as the seat of sin and his
graphic and powerful delineation of the fruitless struggle
of the inward man with the outward, of the mind which
serves the law of God with the fatal law in the members
(Rom. vii. 15-25). Paul was himself a Hellenist, and
owed not a little to Greece, but the ideas which he re
ceived from his Hellenistic teachers were subordinated to
his gospel of the cross, and came out of his Christian con
sciousness transformed.
Whether the education of the youthful Saul was com
pleted in the synagogue at Tarsus, or in Jerusalem " at
the feet of Gamaliel," as the writer of Acts represents, is
a question which we must leave without discussion.* We
have no declaration on the subject in the letters of the
apostle, which also contain no intimation of his presence
in Jerusalem at the time of the trial and crucifixion of
Jesus, f His own assertion that he was a Pharisee of the
* Acts xxii. 3. The speeches ascribed to Paul in Acts must in the nature
of the case be regarded as composed by the writer of that book.
f The fact that Paul gives no intimation in his Epistles of a knowledge of
the preaching of the Baptist and of a personal acquaintance with Jesus does
not indeed exclude his prior residence for a few years in Jerusalem, The know-

FORMATIVE INFLUENCES 1 5
strictest sort is borne out by his teachings and his atti
tude in general toward the questions with which the Jew
ish teachers were occupied. Although the doctrine of the
resurrection of the dead underwent important modifica
tions at his hands, and was stripped of its materialistic
features, its source is evident. His gospel of the cross is
Christian rather than Jewish ; but only a man imbued with
the Jewish doctrine of satisfaction, of atonement for sin,
could have conceived it. His doctrine of righteousness
had its roots in Judaism, but it was a bold and radical
modification of all that he had learned on the subject from
his Jewish teachers. His transformation of the national
doctrine of the Messiah furnished him with a solution of
the problem, how the mass of men in whom the evil
impulse predominated could attain the righteousness
requisite for the Messianic kingdom, which his teachers
were unable to resolve. To them the Messiah was to be a
national deliverer, and they had no idea of his religious
office as an atonement for sin. Paul solved the problem
by the original conception of the Messiah as the second
Adam, the representative of the human race, in which
capacity his death on the cross satisfied the demands of
the law for all, and made accessible to them a new
righteousness by faith. In this teaching, however, he
ing of Christ "according to the flesh" (Kara odpKa), to which he confesses in
2 Cor. v. 1 6, does not imply a personal acquaintance with him, but rather denotes
a knowledge of him prior to his conversion the opposite of that spiritual appre
hension of his person and mission which he afterwards entertained. The
interpretation of the passage given by Jowett (The Epistles of St. Paul to the
Thessalonians, Galatians, and Romans, Vol. I., pp. 8 ff.) to the effect that the
knowledge " according to the flesh " was " in a more Jewish and less Christian
manner," that it was subsequent to the conversion, and that the apostle later
attained a more spiritual point of view, is not supported in the Epistles. The
fact that the profounder apprehension of Christ does not appear in I Thessa
lonians is explained by the point of view of that letter and the matters with
which he had to deal in writing it.

1 6 THE MAN
held fast to the Pharisaic doctrines, that there is no for
giveness of sin without a satisfaction which accords to the
law its indefeasible rights, that death is the divinely
ordained penalty for sin, and that atonement for the
transgressions of men who have not themselves rendered
satisfaction may be representatively made by another. In
connection with his Messianic doctrine the Pharisaic
teaching as to the coming end of the age, eschatology, the
establishment of the Messiah's kingdom, appears to have
made a most indelible impression upon him.
This hope of his race did not, however, escape the
transformation which the apostle's religious genius effected
in everything that it appropriated. Yet in its fundamental
features it remained an important factor in his thinking.
With eager and intense expectation he looked for "the
day of the Lord," which would " come as a thief in the
night" (i Thess. v. 2) to the joy of the believers and to
the " sudden destruction " of the unbelievers, who " say
peace and safety." His doctrine of salvation was con
structed with reference to this impending consummation,
and to be "saved " was for him to be received in the king
dom which Christ would establish at his coming (Parousia*).
His solicitude for his converts was that they might be "un
blamable in holiness before God at the coming of our Lord
Jesus Christ with all his saints" (1 Thess. iii. 13). The
Jewish doctrine of the resurrection of the righteous at
the coming of the Messiah to introduce " the age to come "
he held under the modifications that the righteous were the
believers in Christ, that these would be raised with spiritual
bodies, and the living Christians would be "changed," the
mortal putting on incorruption. His intense preoccupation
* This word, which to the primitive church denoted the expected presence
(vapovola) of the absent Jesus, is frequently employed in this volume to
designate his second coming.

FORMATIVE INFLUENCES 1 7
with this idea reacted upon his ethics, and affected his
views of marriage, of slavery, and of the relation of the
citizen to the state. For "the time is short," he writes
to the Corinthians, " it remaineth that both they that have
wives be as though they had none, and they that weep as
though they wept not, and they that buy as though they
possessed not, and they that use this world as not abusing
it; for the fashion of this world passeth away" (i Cor.
vii. 29-31).
From his Pharisaic teachers Paul also adopted the idea
of a supersensible world of spiritual existences, good and
bad, whose interference in earthly matters affects the
course of affairs and individual fortunes. He formulates
no specific doctrine of good and evil spirits, but his inci
dental mention of them shows how his beliefs were to
a degree determined by his environment. The angels,
principalities, and powers of Rom. viii. 38 denote ranks
or hierarchies of spiritual existences supposed to inhabit
the upper regions of the atmosphere. So far as they
were conceived as evil, their chief was designated "the
prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh
in the children of disobedience " (Eph. ii. 2). Accord
ingly, the wrestling of the Christians was not against flesh
and blood, but against principalities, powers, the rulers of
the darkness of the world, spiritual wickedness in the high
(heavenly, upper-air) places (Eph. vi. 12). In like man
ner, "the rulers of this world " (age) are conceived as inter
fering in human affairs and being instrumental in putting
Christ to death (1 Cor. ii. 8). Angels are conceived as
looking down upon the apostles, who become to them a
" spectacle " (1 Cor. iv.9). In his hymn to love the apostle
says that though he " speak with the tongues of angels,
and have not love, he is become as sounding brass and a
tinkling cymbal (1 Cor. xiii. 1), and in Gal. 1. 8, that if he or
c

I 8 THE MAN
an angel from heaven preach any other doctrine than his
gospel of the cross, let him be accursed. The Galatians
are commended in that despite their temptation in the flesh
they received him as an angel of God or as Christ Jesus
(iv. 14). There is nothing inconsistent with his doctrine of
angels in the passage in 1 Cor. xi. 10 to the effect that a
woman ought to have her head covered when she prayed
or prophesied in the worshipping assemblies, " because of
the angels." It cannot be rejected on grounds of textual
criticism, and has been regarded by some expositors as a
gloss only because it is grammatically inappropriate. Ac
cording to Gen. vi. 2 and its rabbinic interpretations, with
which Paul may have been acquainted, although they were
not in his time committed to writing, angels were seduced
by the beauty of earthly women, and the passage in ques
tion was evidently written with reference to this tradition.
Chrysostom's proposed interpretation retains the angel-
ology, but gives the passage a more agreeable aspect :
" Because good angels present at Christian worship rejoice
to see all things done decently and in order." But this
does not explain why it should be regarded as decent and
orderly for women to be veiled.
Paul has little to say of demons, but that he shared the
current view of his Jewish environment with regard to
them is evident from his directions to the Corinthians
respecting their eating of the flesh offered to idols in the
gentile sacrifices. He declares that " the things which the
gentiles sacrifice they sacrifice to devils [demons] and not
to God ; and I would not that ye should have fellowship
with devils " (1 Cor. x. 20). Though " there be gods many
and lords many" (1 Cor. viii. 5), the idols are not any
thing; but behind them lies the realm of evil spirits, who
make use of the idolatrous worship for their unholy pur
poses. The evil spirit by preeminence, the great adver-

FORMATIVE INFLUENCES 1 9
sary, who is called " diabolus " and " the evil one," in Eph.
iv. 21 ; vi. n, 16, Paul designates "the god of this world,"
who has blinded the minds of his Jewish opponents -
(2 Cor. iv. 4). In his indignation at the fornication among
the Corinthians he declares himself determined to deliver
the guilty man to Satan "for the destruction of his flesh "
— an expression in which is doubtless implied a miracu
lous punishment, a long and painful affliction of the flesh,
through which the offender had sinned, until it should be
destroyed, in order that his " spirit might be saved in the
day of the Lord," the Parousia (1 Cor. v. 5). Since this pun
ishment was to be inflicted by Satan, he must have been
conceived as subject to the control of a higher power, so as
to be constrained to serve the purpose of the salvation of a
sinner, just as in the book of Job the adversary is sent by
Yahweh under orders which he is not to exceed. Accord
ingly, when Paul says that there " was given " to him " a
thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet " him,
he doubtless conceived the affliction as of divine appoint
ment and as effected by Satan, as whose messenger or
"angel" the disease was regarded. Or he may have
thought that Christ dealt with him through the adversary,
since he says he besought him thrice that it might depart
from him (2 Cor. xii. 7 f.).
That Paul's education in the Jewish schools included
instruction in the Hagadah or the rabbinical traditional
lore has already been made apparent. He was at home
in this " maze of flowery walks " as well as in the Script
ures themselves, and it is especially noteworthy that,
with all his reverence for the Old Testament as the word
of the Spirit, he quotes from the Hagadah as if it were
equally valid with the latter, just as ideas of the Wisdom
of Solomon flow readily from his pen. All the literature
with which he was acquainted was good for him, if it only

20 THE MAN
served to support his argument. The declaration that
"Satan is transformed into an angel of light" (2 Cor. xi.
14) was doubtless derived from the tradition that an angel
of Satan disguised wrestled with Jacob. The persecution
of Isaac by Ishmael (Gal. iv. 29) is unknown to the Old
Testament, but is recorded in the book of Jubilees, where
is also found the tradition that Abraham before his call
was an uncircumcised idolater, and that he received the
promise that he should be "the heir of the world " (Rom.
iv. 10, 13), all of which is foreign to the Old Testament
record. The current Jewish idea of orders of heavens
is adopted in 2 Cor. xii. 2, 4, as if there were actually such
a succession of abodes of the blessed (cf. Rev. ii. 7).
Further illustrations are not needed to show to how great
an extent the Hagadah constituted the background of the
apostle's thought, and to serve as a commentary on his own
declaration that he had profited in the Jews' religion above
many of his equals in his own nation, being more exceed
ingly zealous of the traditions of his fathers (Gal. i. 14).
These considerations show, what indeed is a priori
manifest without them, that Paul, like every other man,
could not escape from his environment, or resist its influ
ence upon his thought, -and that he was a son of his race
and age intellectually as well as by physical descent a
Hebrew. Only by a miracle could he have been other
wise developed. The treasure of his apostleship was, as
he himself says, in an " earthen vessel," and in the
troubled earthly atmosphere he saw "through a glass
darkly." A knowledge of these limitations is necessary
as a guide to the interpretation of his thought and as a
check upon the too prevalent error of regarding him as a
divine oracle where he is only speaking the language of
his time. With the choice before him between expound
ing the Pauline Epistles in accordance with these facts or

FORMATIVE INFLUENCES 21
of resorting to exegetical artifices, violence to the rules of
grammatical and historical interpretation, and even to the
apostle's own allegorical method, the conscientious exegete
cannot hesitate as to which course he ought to pursue.
The apostle is fairly treated, and his greatness made ap
parent, not by the attempt to show that he did not act
like a man, and think like a Pharisee, and interpret the
Bible like a rabbi or an Alexandrian Jew, and put the Haga
dah and the current literature under contribution like his
contemporaries ; but much rather by such a sympathetic
interpretation of his thought along with an acknowledg
ment of his limitations as will make it manifest that in the
penetration of his spiritual insight, in the flight of his
religious genius, in his original comprehension of the gos
pel, in lofty courage and heroic sacrifice, in devotion to
his Master, and in love for mankind, he rose above the
pettiness and formalism and legal bondage of his race,
above Pharisaism, the Hagadah, and Alexandrian specula
tion, and became by the strength and soundness of his
intellectual and moral character one of the great religious
forces of the world.

CHAPTER II
PERSONAL TRAITS
THE materials for forming an idea of the personality
of Paul are extremely meagre, and we are obliged to
put up with intimations scattered through his writings and
with traditions not altogether trustworthy in the attempt
to construct a picture of the man as he lived and worked.
In the Acts of Paul and Thecla written in the third cen
tury, he is represented as " short, bald, bow-legged, with
meeting eyebrows, hooked nose, full of grace." John of
Antioch, writing in the sixth century, has preserved the
tradition that he " was in person, round-shouldered, with a
sprinkling of gray on his head and beard, with an aquiline
nose, grayish eyes, meeting eyebrows, with a mixture of
pale and red in his complexion, and an ample beard.
With a genial expression of countenance, he was sensi
ble, earnest, easily accessible, sweet, and inspired with
the Holy Spirit." The pseudo-Lucian's contemptuous
reference to him, in the fourth century, is to a similar
effect, and there are hints in his writings which confirm
the general impression that tradition has preserved. In 2
Cor. x. 10 ff. he quotes what his Jewish opponents said of
him to the effect that " his letters are weighty and power
ful, but his bodily presence is weak, and his speech con
temptible." We may fairly assume that this was not an
altogether groundless statement, although it came from
men who were hostile to him, yet who could hardly so
speak of him in one of his churches without a basis of
fact. It is accordingly probable that he was not a man of

PERSONAL TRAITS 23
imposing personal appearance calculated to make a pow
erful impression as an orator. The reference to the
" earthen vessel " in which he bore the treasure of his
gospel may have sprung from a sense of the frailty of
his " outward man " which he speaks of as perishing day
by day (2 Cor. iv. 7, 16).
The tradition preserved in the Acts that in Lystra the
people took Barnabas for Jupiter and Paul for Hermes of
inferior stature goes to confirm the inference that may
fairly be drawn from his own reference to his weak per
sonal presence (Acts xiv. 12). To the Corinthians he
writes : " I was with you in weakness and in fear and
much trembling," and to the Galatians : " Ye know that
through [on account of] infirmity of the flesh I preached
the gospel to you at the first" (1 Cor. ii. 3 ; Gal. iv. 13).
He who always " bore about in his body the dying of the
Lord Jesus " writes to the Corinthians : " For we who
are in this tabernacle do groan, being burdened, not that
we would be unclothed, but clothed upon, that mortality
might be swallowed up of life" (2 Cor. iv. 10, v. 4). This
must at least be regarded as the expression of a man who
had had a sad experience of the burden of a troubled
physical existence, if it was not written with an immediate
reference to bodily ills. When we think of his long and
wearisome journeys and the hard labour with his hands for
his own support, we may well wonder that no more com
plaints flowed from his pen. When he " might have been
burdensome," he says to the Thessalonians : " For ye
remember, brethren, our labour and travail ; for labouring
night and day because we would not be chargeable unto
any of you, we preached unto you the gospel of God"
(1 Thess. ii. 9). He gloried in this renunciation, and
would rather die than that any man should make his
glorying void, willing to suffer all things lest he should

24 THE MAN
hinder the gospel of Christ (i Cor. ix. 12, 15). To the Co
rinthians he writes : " Behold the third time I am ready to
come to you, and I will not be burdensome to you ; . . .
and I will very gladly spend and be spent for you,
though the more abundantly I love you, the less I be
loved " (2 Cor. xii. 14).
In two passages (2 Cor. xii. 7 and Gal. iv. 13, 14) Paul
makes specific reference to an affliction in the flesh which
doubtless had important relations to his inward experi
ences and to personal peculiarities. In the former pas
sages he calls it " a thorn in the flesh," given him that he
may not be too much exalted by reason of the revelations
that he received. As if he conceived a diabolical influence
to have been employed to inflict the calamity, he calls it
"a messenger of Satan to buffet him." His prayer, thrice
offered to Christ that it might depart from him, was
answered only by the assurance that his grace was'
sufficient. "Most gladly, therefore," he says, "will I
rather glory in my infirmities, that the power of Christ
may rest upon me." In the second passage he writes:
" Ye know that on account of infirmity of the flesh I
preached unto you the first time, and your temptation in
my flesh ye despised not nor rejected [loathed], but re
ceived me as an angel of God, as Christ Jesus." These
are certainly extremely vague intimations from which to
derive a conclusion as to the nature of the affliction in
question. That it was some sort of physical infirmity is
now generally maintained in opposition to the theory of
spiritual attacks of Satan, solicitations of unholy thoughts,
or conflicts with sensual impulses. The "thorn in the
flesh " and the buffeting or smiting as with the fists indi
cate severe bodily suffering, and it appears from verse 9
that he could not get rid of it even by an appeal to Christ,
but was still undergoing the affliction. Light is thrown

PERSONAL TRAITS 2$
upon the nature of the malady only when it is brought
into connection with the foregoing account of his " visions
and revelations of the Lord " (verses 1-6). Such a connec
tion is obvious from the. remark that the " thorn in the
flesh" was given him lest he be too much exalted on
account of these visions and revelations. The natural
meaning is, that as a sequence of the high nervous tension
and excitement attendant upon the visions there was a
physical suffering which he describes as a buffeting or
beating by a demonic agency.
The phenomena of epilepsy which have been gathered
from numerous examples in ancient and modern times fit
the case better than any other explanation that has been
proposed. The ancient physicians are said to report that
affections of the eyes accompany the attacks of this
disease (Gal. iv. 15), and they prescribed a three-days'
fast and a shearing of the head (Acts ix. 9, xviii. 18). If
not too frequent, the epi'eptic attacks would not seriously
interfere with the prosecution of such a work as Paul's.
It appears from the passage in Gal. iv. 13 f. that he was
detained in Galatia by an "infirmity of the flesh," and he
commends the Galatians because they did not despise that
in his flesh which was a " temptation " to them ("your
temptation" is the proper reading), a circumstance from
which the inference is natural that the affliction was one
which, like epilepsy, was calculated to excite disgust on
account of the distressing phenomena which accompany it.*
That Paul was not married at the time when he wrote
the first Epistle to the Corinthians is manifest. The
* Reference has been made in this connection to Mahomet, whom on the
occasions of his " visions and revelations " an angel was supposed to torment,
so that " he foamed at the mouth, and struck wildly about him, until a fast,
death-like sleep restored him " to his normal condition. Many other similar
examples are adduced by Krenkel, Beitr'dge zur Aufhellung der Geschichte
und der Briefe des Paulus, 1890, pp. 117-125.

26 THE MAN
question addressed to this church : " Have we not power
[the right] to lead about a sister, a wife, as well as other
apostles and as the brethren of the Lord and Cephas ? "
(ix. 5), contains at least an implication that he was not
a married man. Decisive of the question, however, is
another passage in the same Epistle (vii. 7), in which he
expresses the wish that all men were even as himself, in
connection with remarks depreciative of the marriage
relation. Whether he had formerly been married, and
was at this time a widower, is a question on which inter
preters differ. The passage in the eighth verse of the
chapter in question has accordingly received different
explanations : " I say therefore to the unmarried and
widows it is good for them to abide even as I." It is
maintained by some expositors that the word " unmarried "
(ayd/wi?) here means "widowers," and that Paul intended
simply to enjoin upon them and upon widows that they
should follow his example as a widower by not remarry
ing. The word itself, however, does not mean exclusively
widowers, but all the unmarried, and no good reason has
been assigned for giving it here the limited signification.
The fact that the unmarried in general are the subject of
consideration in the earlier verses does not exclude them
from consideration in this general declaration. There is
no ground for supposing that his own widowerhood was
prominent in his thought, and that in verse 7 he expresses
the wish that all men were as he was in that respect. The
dominant idea is that the unmarried state is preferable for
all, and he would have all men remain, as he has remained,
unmarried. The keynote of the section is in the first
verse : "It is good for a man not to touch a woman," and
the succeeding verses cannot be properly interpreted with
out reference to this.
Luther's opinion that the directions to married people

PERSONAL TRAITS 27
contained in verses 3-5 indicate the apostle's experience
in the marriage relation is not well taken, although Dr.
Farrar thinks it shows "a deep and fine insight." They
are simply such rules as a man might lay down who
regarded marriage as permissible only in order that
"fornication" might be prevented (verse 2), and who
would have that relation when entered upon furnish no
occasion for temptation to unlawful sexual intercourse
(verse 5). To draw, as Hausrath does, from such expres
sions as, "We were gentle among you even as a nurse
cherisheth her children" (1 Thess. ii. 7); "My little
children, of whom I travail in birth again until Christ be
formed in you "(Gal. iv. 19); and "Sudden destruction
shall come upon them, as travail upon a woman with
child" (1 Thess. v. 3); the conclusion that they show
" so deep a feeling for family life and such rich experience
in it" as to strengthen the supposition that he had been
married, only betrays the weakness of a position which
requires such support. It is questionable, too, whether
the same scholar's remark is confirmed by the experience
of conspicuously successful unmarried men, that " only in
a man of experience [in which marriage is implied] are all
ages and sexes accustomed to have the confidence which
greeted the apostle everywhere in his churches." On the
whole, the presumption is against the supposition that a
man was ever married who held the views of the relation
of husband and wife which Paul expresses in 1 Cor. vii.
1 and 9. Rather the implication is that he wished to have
it understood that he possessed the " gift " of continence,
(verse 7), and meant to assign this according to verses 2
and 9 as a reason for his celibacy. One who believed,
as he did, that a father who does not allow his virgin
daughter to marry " does better " than the one who gives
her in marriage, could hardly with a good conscience have
taken a maiden as his wife.

28 THE MAN
The apostle's confession of his ante-Christian relation to
the religion in which he was reared, to the effect that he
was, above his equals in his own nation, " exceedingly
zealous of the traditions of his fathers " (Gal. i. 14), dis
closes an interesting aspect of his personality. His nature
was of that eager, tempestuous sort in which intensity of
conviction and resoluteness of purpose are leading charac
teristics. He could do nothing by halves. His aim, once
clearly set before him, became the dominant power of his
life, and pushed him to its realisation without fear of con
sequences and without self-regard. As a Jew, he believed
that the Christian sect was an enemy of his religion, an
offence to God, and a menace to the institutions of his
race, and he threw himself into the cause of an un
sparing extermination of them. On the other hand,
" when it pleased God ... to reveal his Son in me,"
he writes, "immediately I conferred not with flesh and
blood, neither went I up to Jerusalem to them who were
apostles before me." This consciousness that he had a
revelation, a divine commission, induced " immediately "
a resolution to act independently of all human counsel,
and to preach his own gospel in his own way, — a resolu
tion to which he adhered with all the intensity and energy
of his determined nature throughout his life. Opposition,
persecution, the attempt to alienate the confidence of his
churches, could not turn him from his great purpose to
preach the gospel to the gentiles, or shake his conviction
that without submission to Jewish rites, those of them
who believed in Christ were entitled to an equal rank with
Jews in the coming kingdom.
Such a man could take the uncircumcised Titus with
him into the stronghold of the circumcision, and at
Antioch could withstand Peter to the face, and charge
him with dissembling (Gal. ii. 3, 11, 13). The quality of

PERSONAL TRAITS 29
the zealot which he manifested as a Jew remained, trans
figured by Christian love, his prominent characteristic as
a missionary of the new religion, so that "more" than his
judaising opponents he was "a minister of Christ" — "in
labours more abundant, in stripes above measure, in prisons
more frequent, in deaths oft." He was undaunted by
long and laborious journeys through wild and perilous
regions. He was not turned aside from the pursuit of his
great mission by the " forty stripes save one " five times
inflicted by the Jews ; by being " thrice beaten with rods,"
"once stoned," "thrice shipwrecked"; by "a night and
a day upon the deep " ; by perils of waters, of robbers,
from his own countrymen, from the heathen, in the city,
in the wilderness, among false brethren ; " in weariness
and painfulness, in watchings often, in hunger and thirst,
in fastings often, in cold and nakedness." Rather, he
exclaims, " I take pleasure in infirmities, in reproaches, in
necessities, in persecution, in distresses for Christ's sake ;
for when I am weak, then I am strong" (2 Cor. xi. 24-27,
xii. 10). Besides all this, with unbending resolution he
carried out his purpose of self-support, " working day and
night." The zealot Saul, who was a vehement persecutor of
the Christians, naturally became the zealot Paul in his
advocacy and defence of his peculiar interpretation of
Christianity. His Christian experience did not radically
change his nature. If he was indefatigable, self-sacrificing,
and fearless in the prosecution of his mission to the
gentiles, he was impatient of the opposition which those
who did not share his apprehension of the gospel felt
called upon to put in his way. There was a vein of intol
erance in his nature which rendered him severe and
unsparing in his judgment of those who represented a
point of view opposed to his. He could not put up with

30 THE MAN
a course of conduct which he regarded as trimming. But
whether Peter's change of attitude at Antioch under the
influence of the emissaries from James, with whose point of
view he probably sympathised, deserved so hard a name
as " dissembling," may be questioned. One cannot but
think that Peter and his associates must have looked upon
the charge as not a little harsh and savouring of assump
tion from a man who in support of his authority could
only appeal to "revelations" which he claimed to have
had, that the original apostles of Jesus did not "walk
uprightly according to the truth of the gospel," because
they did not believe with him that uncircumcised gentiles
were entitled to equal privileges with Jewish Christians in
the kingdom of Christ, and that a man is justified by faith
and not by the works of the law, in opposition to all that
they had learned from Moses and the prophets (Gal. ii. n-
17). It does not concern us here which of the two views
was right, and which was destined to prevail in accord
ance with the tendency of human thought. There was
right on both sides. The gentile mission prevailed, and
became one of the great forces in human history; but
justification by faith, as Paul apprehended it, has not
enjoyed such a fortune, and is a doctrine of doubtful
ethical worth.
We are concerned only to point out that Paul's charges
and his withstanding to the face indicate a trait of his
personality that did not render him a calm and unpas-
sionate judge of the attitude and the grounds of his
opponents. In the same Epistle (i. 7 f.) he charges the
judaising Christians with an intention to " pervert the
gospel of Christ," and calls down a curse on any one who
preaches a gospel different from that which he had
preached to the Galatians, and to make the anathema
doubly strong he repeats it. In the excess of his irri-

PERSONAL TRAITS 3 I
tability and the intensity of his indignation against the
men who sought to impose "another gospel" upon the
Galatians, he expresses with terrible irony the wish that
these advocates of Jewish rites might intensify and make
more thorough their own circumcision (Gal. v. 12)!* In
2 Cor. ii. 14-17 the apostle characterises his opponents
as "those that perish" in contrast with "those that are
saved," thus, according to his doctrine of the last things,
dooming them to the death from which there is no resur
rection. He then proceeds to charge them with corrupting
the word of God, that is, making it a source of gain (KairrfK-
evof), and in xi. 13-15 he arraigns them as "false apostles,
deceitful workers, transforming themselves into apostles
of Christ." "No marvel," he goes on to say, "for
Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be
transformed as the ministers of righteousness, whose end
shall be according to their works." This is the climax of
an odium theologicum which is not softened by a touch of
sympathy or consideration for an opponent's point of view.
The apostle's relations to his churches often placed him in
difficult and delicate situations which called for great tact
and skill in the management of men and affairs. These
circumstances bring into view important traits of his char
acter. The situation in the Galatian churches was espe
cially trying. The judaising opponents had endeavoured
to convince the simple-minded believers here that Paul
had misled them with his gospel of the uncircumcision,
that he was really no apostle of Christ, and that in order
to become real members of the Christian fold and partici
pants in the blessedness of the coming kingdom they must
submit to the Jewish rites. The Epistle to the Galatians
was intended to counteract this influence, and though it
* iqbekov diroKbipovrai, make themselves eunuchs.

32 THE MAN
was evidently written in a white heat of indignation and
under great excitement, it is a masterpiece of apologetic-
polemic writing in its adaptation to the circumstances.
Even in the salutation, in which he invokes " grace and
peace from God the Father and from our Lord Jesus
Christ " upon the churches, he cannot refrain from touch
ing upon the subject of his apostleship which lay so near
his heart, and accordingly begins : " Paul, an apostle, (not
of men, neither by man, but by Jesus Christ, and God the
Father, who raised him from the dead)." Then he throws
himself immediately into his theme : " I marvel that ye
are so soon removed from him that called you into the
grace of Christ unto another gospel, which is not another,"
that is, is no real gospel at all, for, he adds, those who
preach it " pervert the gospel of Christ." Then follows
the harsh anathema already referred to.
Immediately Paul proceeds to the defence of his apos
tleship, which was vital to the discussion, with a rapid
sketch of his call, of the revelation of the Son of God in
him, and of his subsequent contest with and victory over
the original apostles in Jerusalem. "I certify to you,
brethren," he exclaims, "that the gospel which was
preached of me is not after man" (Gal. i. n). In his
indignation and irritability he bluntly calls the Galatians
"foolish," and repeats the epithet (iii. i, 3). He declares
that they have been "bewitched," and as if he knew by
report or by his knowledge of the method of his opponents
that they had appealed to the promise to Abraham, he
enters upon an exposition of that matter from his own -
point of view (iii. 16-19, iv. 22-28). He draws from the
armory of the judaisers the weapons with which he over
comes them, and shows from the Scriptures themselves
that the promise to Abraham had no validity through the
law, which brought only a curse, but that its entire signifi-

PERSONAL TRAITS 33
cance rested upon the atonement of Christ, whereby was
provided the sole true righteousness, that by faith (iii. 13,
14, 22-26, v. 5, 6, 18). But though he could rebuke unspar
ingly, and denounce with impassioned zeal, he knew how
to mingle tenderness for his converts with reproach of
them and invective against those who would alienate them
from him. After charging them with returning to "the
weak and beggarly elements whereunto they desire again
to be in bondage," after expressing the apprehension lest
the labour he had bestowed upon them had been in vain,
and after the implication that they regarded him, their
best friend, as an enemy, because he had told them the
truth, he gives expression to the love and yearning in his
heart for his spiritual children, whom he had taught in the
midst of suffering from the infirmity of his flesh, in the
pathetic outcry : " My little children, of whom I travail in
birth again until Christ be formed in you, I desire to be
present with you now, and to change my voice" (iv. 9, 11,
13, 19, 20). "For," he says, "I am in doubt of you."
He is not clear in his mind whether the tone of severity
and reproof which he had assumed in the Epistle was the
one best adapted to the end he had in view, and evidently
felt that if he could see and talk with them face to face, he
could better adapt himself to the emergency. There is a
note of kindliness and consideration in these words which
reveals the gentleness and the greatness of his heart.
The situation in the Corinthian church prior to the writ
ing of the two Epistles addressed to it was extremely com
plicated, and these letters may be regarded as furnishing
the best example that the apostle has left of his ability to
deal with divisions and strife and to adjust delicate affairs.
The believers here who were mostly of the common sort of
people, "not many wise men after the flesh, not many
mighty, not many noble" (1 Cor. i. 26), had evidently

34 THE MAN
become not a little confused by the gospel of Paul and by
other teachers who had been among them, and had divided
themselves into contending parties. Paul's metaphysics
of the flesh and the Spirit had shared the fortune which
often falls to metaphysics of not only being misunderstood,
but also perverted to an opposite intention. From their
reasonings on the relation of the flesh and the Spirit
opposite conclusions had been drawn, some evidently
thinking that whatever pertained to the former was of
slight importance, and that its lusts might be gratified
with impunity, and others that all indulgence of it was
corrupting, and that even celibacy was preferable to mar
riage. The question of circumcision appears also to have
divided the church, and there prevailed conflicting opin
ions on the resurrection. The ecstatic phenomena of ,
speaking with tongues had assumed undue proportions, so
that there was danger lest outsiders should think the be
lievers to be " mad." Excesses were rife in the observ
ance of the Lord's Supper, the believers were going to law
with one another before heathen magistrates, and to com
plete the confusion fhe women were asserting their equal
ity with the men, and claiming the right to speak in
prayer or prophesying in the religious assemblies with
their heads unveiled.
The first Epistle was written with reference to these
complications, and its various motifs are manifest on a cur
sory reading. With exhortation, argument, and appeal,
with rebuke and admonition, with a mingling of doctrine
and practical precepts, with plea and threat, and with love
and religious fervour, the apostle develops his skilful diplo
macy. With not a little acumen he rebukes the partisans
who claimed to be " of Paul " with the questions, " Was
Paul crucified for you ? or were ye baptized in the name of
Paul ? " There could consistently be only one party, and

PERSONAL TRAITS 35
that "of Christ," since he was crucified for them, and in
his name they were baptized. His condemnation of the
believers on account of their " envying and strife and divi
sions" is not only very severe from his own doctrinal point
of view as to the flesh and the Spirit, but it also involves
a renunciation of his great principle that Christian be
lievers were as such in possession of the Spirit (Rom. viii.
9, 15, 16, 26; Gal. iii. 2, 5 ; 1 Cor. xii. 3). He calls them
bluntly "carnal," which is as much as to say that they are
not Christians, but "fleshly," as they were according to
iii. 1 when he began his ministry among them. According
to ii. 6 they did not belong to the " perfect " to whom he
could speak "wisdom." Yet to these same Corinthians he
says that they " came behind in no spiritual gift," and that
"the Spirit of God dwells in them" (1 Cor. i. 7, iii. 16,
vi. 19), while in the zeal of his condemnation of them for
going to law with one another before heathen magistrates,
he charges them with defrauding their brethren, and asks
them if they do not know that " the unrighteous shall not
inherit the kingdom of God " ( 1 Cor. vi. 8 f .). The agreement
of this with the doctrine in Rom. viii. 29, that the Chris
tians are "the called" according to God's "purpose," that
" whom he foreknew he also predestinated to be con
formed to the image of his Son," and that these he "jus
tified," is not apparent. In his zeal for the welfare of the
church and his preoccupation with practical affairs he dis
regards the relation of his words to his general doctrines.
He was too intense and impetuous to be always consistent.
There is a bitter irony in the declaration (iv. 3), " It is a
very small thing that I should be judged of you or of man's
judgment," whether or not, as Weizsacker thinks, it had
really been planned in Corinth that the apostle should be
put on trial.
With what cutting sarcasm are the Corinthians rebuked

36 THE MAN
for their self-sufficiency and pride, for glorying in what
they had as if it had not been given them, and for assum
ing to act the part of rulers and judges ! " Now ye are
full, now ye are rich, ye have reigned as kings without us ;
and I would to God ye did reign, that we also might reign
with you." This irony is heightened by the picture imme
diately following, of the humiliation and self-denial of the
apostle himself : " For I think that God hath set forth us
the apostles last, as it were appointed unto death ; for we
are made a spectacle unto the world and to angels and to
men. We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise ; we
are weak, but ye are strong ; ye are honourable, but we are
despised." Then the masterpiece of invective is com
pleted by a pathetic delineation of the hunger and thirst
and nakedness and buffeting and homelessness and labour
with his own hands which had been his wretched lot
(i Cor. iv. 7-14). Immediately, however, his heart asserts
itself, and as if he repented of his severity he says : " I
write not these things to shame you, but as my beloved
sons I warn you. For though ye have ten thousand in
structors in Christ, yet have ye not many fathers ; for in
Christ Jesus I have begotten you in the gospel." Then
again the mood changes, and he remembers the salutary
uses of fear : " Now some are puffed up, as though I
would not come to you. But I will come to you shortly, if
the Lord will, and will know, not the speech of them who
are puffed up, but the power. What will ye ? shall I
come to you with a rod, or in love ?"
With reference to the judgment pronounced upon the
fornicator or incestuous man (1 Cor. v. 5), to which
reference has been made in the foregoing chapter, one
cannot but admire the moral earnestness of the apostle
and his zeal for the purity of the church, while one is com
pelled to admit that the proceeding indicates the impetu-

PERSONAL TRAITS 37
osity of his character and a haste and passionateness
which, as Riickert remarks, can never do any good. One
cannot but ask how he could be certain of the issue with
respect to the ethical results of the terrible ordeal to which
he determined to subject the man. Was it certain that
in the power of Satan for "the destruction of the flesh"
the man's "spirit" would be "saved in the day of the
Lord " ? Could he have considered whether the satanic
agency was trustworthy in the matter of saving a soul
through a disciplinary penalty ? The idea proposed by
Heinrici that he had excommunication in mind, the cast
ing out of the man into the non-Christian world, of which
Satan was the ruler according to 2 Cor. iv. 4, and that
Satan by giving his passions full sway would finally
destroy his flesh, neither removes the difficulty involved in
the delivery of the man to demonic powers, nor explains
how unrestricted indulgence of the flesh could save his
spirit. In either case the judgment was harsh and the
proceeding hasty, and we may as well frankly acknowledge
this fact, and say with Schmiedel, " But an apostle also
remains after all a man, and does not sit in the council of
God." With regard to the contention that " all things are
lawful," Paul concedes it with an important qualification.
It was probably urged by those who favoured the eating of
things offered to idols, on the ground that what concerned
the flesh was of no importance. But while maintaining
that he cannot permit himself to be brought under the
power of anything, he says that all things are not expedi
ent, and every one must consider in his conduct the wel
fare of the weaker (1 Cor. vi. 12, viii. 9).
The principle of personal liberty, which the apostle ex
presses in the declaration that he cannot permit himself to
be brought under the power of anything, denotes in its
application by him a prominent characteristic. He would

38 THE MAN
not have his " liberty judged of another man's conscience "
(i Cor. x. 29). The injunction to the Christians, however,
not to use their liberty as an occasion to the flesh, indicates
his sane and sober view of freedom, and shows that he
regarded it as the worst kind of bondage, if it were not
subject to reason and employed in subordination to right
ethical principles. He conceived himself to be a freeman
only in the sense that he was Christ's freeman. In his
sense of independence we see a natural characteristic
which was not only intensified by his Christian experience
of liberation from the restrictions of the Jewish law, but
also subdued and chastened by "the love of God shed
abroad " in his heart, and by the sentiment of brotherhood
and self-sacrifice, which could not but prevail in him as
one having his life " in Christ." Accordingly, though
"free from all men," he made himself "the servant of all,"
that he " might gain the more," becoming to the Jews as
a Jew, to them that were without law as without law, to
the weak as weak, and all things to all men ; that he
"might by all means save some" (1 Cor. ix. 19-22). The
qualification which he inserts in connection with the dec
laration that he was " without law," " under the law to
Christ " (evvofioo ^jokj-tq)), is significant of the salutary sub
ordination of his liberty and of his sense that in being
free in Christ he was dependent upon him, and recognised
in his indwelling presence the source of his ability to
serve and save. How his independence asserted itself
without any mitigation we have already seen in his dealing
with those who opposed his mission and "perverted" the
gospel among his churches. His attitude toward the
original apostles in Jerusalem was similar to that which he
assumed toward the " false brethren " who " came in
privily to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ
Jesus, that they might bring us into bondage " (Gal. ii. 4).

PERSONAL TRAITS 3f
He speaks of them with an undisguised consciousness of
his own equality with, if not of superiority to, them. He
asserts the right as an apostle to claim as they did the
hospitality of the churches for a wife, were he so disposed
(i Cor. ix. 5)-* These men who "seemed to be some
what," "added nothing" to him. He recognised in them
no authority to control his conscience. Men, whatever
their standing and antecedents, were nothing to him,
where a principle was involved. " God accepteth no man's
person." " Not for an hour" did he "give place to them
by subjection" (Gal. ii. 5, 6). "In nothing" did he think
himself "a whit behind the very chiefest apostles." Yet
his freedom and independence were not asserted without
a consciousness that they rested upon a valid basis. Pie
believed that he was illuminated, that he possessed " the
Spirit," and that as the subject of a divine revelation he
had a " knowledge " of the truth with respect to Chris
tianity, which rendered it unnecessary to inquire of any
one, to " seek counsel of flesh and blood," and in virtue of
which the sacrifice of his liberty would be treason to
Christ who had illuminated him. Accordingly, he says in
a tone which borders on boasting, when he for the second
time makes the declaration of his equality with "the
* A " wife," and not a " sister," who may be assumed to have travelled
with him in a relation of reciprocal " Platonic affection," according to the
apocryphal story of The Acts of Paul and Thecla. The apostle does not say,
a sister or a wife, but " a sister, a wife." Mr. S. Baring-Gould (A Study of
St. Paul, 1897) thus wonderfully "paraphrases" the passage, I Cor. ix. 5:
" There is a difference between a wife and a female companion. It is much
better to be attended by the latter and to live in Platonic affection, because
then the time of the woman is not taken up with domestic affairs. But if one
so living finds that his affection is ripening into love, by all means let him
marry her. There is no harm in so doing. Yet the former is in my opinion
under present circumstances most to be recommended" ! Of the method of
interpretation which reads into a passage ideas totally foreign to the thought
of the writer, this is a most astounding example.

40 THE MAN
chiefest of the apostles " : " Though I be rude in speech,
yet not in knowledge " (2 Cor. xi, 6).
In his treatment of the question of marriage and the
sexual relation, about which the Corinthian church had
written the apostle, there is a manifest limitation of the
point of view that is characteristic of him in the discussion
of other matters. The whole matter is discussed from the
standpoint of the illicit relations of the sexes. If this
limitation was contained in the questions proposed to him,
as may have been the case, this circumstance furnishes
only a partial palliation of the defect. The general propo
sitions are that it is good for a man to have no sexual
relations with a woman ; that if one have not the " gift "
of continence, one may marry rather than permit oneself
indulgence in illicit relations ; that his own wish is that all
men remain unmarried as he has remained; and that the
father who does not give his daughter in marriage does
better than the one who allows her to marry (1 Cor. vii.
i> 2, 7, 9, 37, 38). Nothing is said of the sanctity of the
marriage relation, of the purifying influence of the chaste
affection of husband and wife, of the blessedness of pa
ternity, and of the inestimable uses of the home as a
moral and social power. We cannot be limited in our
judgment of a man by what he says on a given subject.
We must also take into account what he does not say.
The reason why Paul did not say more is evident. He
wrote for the day and the hour. He wrote with reference
to having his believers " unblamable in the day of the
Lord." He saw everything in the blinding light of the
approaching "glory" of the great day of the Parousia.
Hence he gave no thought to the foundations of a perma
nent social order upon the earth. Another limitation
appears in his treatment of divorce. The question is not
considered from the point of view of the social order, but

PERSONAL TRAITS 4 I
from that of belief and unbelief. He sets out with " the
word of the Lord " (Christ) to the effect that divorce is
absolutely impermissible. Then he proceeds to say on his
own authority that in case one of the parties to a mar
riage-contract is an unbeliever, the continuance of the
relation may depend upon this one's choice, if she or he
"be pleased to dwell with " him or her (i Cor. vii. 12, 13),
as if he thought " the word of the Lord " had no applica
tion to an "unbelieving" husband or wife. Upon the
apparently unquestionable proposition that the children of
these mixed marriages are " holy " he founds the doctrine
that "the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the [be
lieving] wife, and the unbelieving wife by the [believing]
husband." It is easy to see that the question is here treated, as is
often Paul's manner, from the point of view of a principle
which he regarded as once for all settled. The " holi
ness " of the children of mixed marriages is assumed, and
thence is drawn the conclusion that both parents must be
" sanctified," since if they were " carnal," that is, did not
possess the Spirit, the taint of the flesh must descend to
their offspring. Yet it appears from the questions in
verse 16 : " What knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt
save thy husband ? or how knowest thou, O man, whether
thou shalt save thy wife?" that this reciprocal sanctifi
cation was not conceived as securing the salvation of the
person so sanctified. It had no further consequences than
to make the children "holy." The question of slavery is
in like manner disposed of under a general principle, that
of liberty in Christ. The believing slave is free anyway ;
is the freeman of the Lord (Christ), because "in the
Lord " he has been " called." Let him not take it to heart
that he is a slave, but if he have an opportunity to be
made free, let him rather remain in bondage. Free and

42 THE MAN
enslaved are alike servants of Christ. For the apostle
this point of view dominates the whole discussion of the
subject, and excludes consideration of it from any other.
Being " bought with a price " (that paid by Jesus on the
cross), slaves should regard themselves as Christ's servants,
and not feel and act as if they were the servants of men
(i Cor. vii. 21-23).
In approaching the delicate subject of the claims of the
women in the church in Corinth to an equality with men
in the religious assemblies, the apostle praises the be
lievers for having kept the ordinances which he had
delivered to them, thus smoothing his way to the discus
sion of a difficult matter, which it seems had not presented
itself elsewhere, since the custom in question was un
known to "the churches of God" (1 Cor. xi. 1, 16). Here
j again the method previously referred to is adopted. Ll
S taking ground against the_claims of the women and the
advocates of their cause._whom they may be presumed to
have had in a party among thejmen, hepasses over the
numerous practical considerations which he might have
adduced, and rests~his entire argument upon a theological
doctrine. Accordingly, he begins with the declaration :
" Iwould have you know that the head of every man is
Chnskjmd the head of the woman is the man, and the
head of Christ js God."  He does not offer proof of thjs
proposition, and appears to havcxxpected it to be accepted
on his authority. Incidentally, he establishes from Script
ure the principle that the man is the head of the woman,
when he says, "the man is not of the woman, but the
woman of the man " (verse 8), evidently with reference to
the story of woman's creation (Gen. ii. 21 f.). The two
other principles in the proposition he probably derived
from the Jewish theology, according to which the two
fold account of the creation of man in Genesis (i. 26 and

PERSONAL TRAITS 43
ii. 7) was to be interpreted in the sense that one of them
related the creation of the Messiah, Paul's " second Adam,"
and the other that of the progenitor of the human race,
Paul's " first Adam " (i Cor. xv. 46, 47). Since, according to
Paul, Christ was "the image of God" (2 Cor. iv. 4), it is
an easy step to the principle that God, the Creator of this
second Adam, might be called his " head." It is not so
evident, however, how the relation of Christ to man as his
" head " was conceived. He says that the man is " the
image and glory of God " (verse 7), which the woman of
course is not. He is, then, in this respect like Christ ;
but being of the earth, earthy, and " natural " or " psychi
cal," while Christ is the " heavenly," " spiritual " man, he is
subordinate to him, and Christ may be called his "head."
Such may have been the course of the apostle's thought.
We are especially concerned here, however, with calling
attention to the apostle's method of dealing with the ques
tion that had been proposed to him. His reasoning from
above downward does not appear to be very lucid when he
comes to the particular application of it. It is not clear why
a man dishonours his "head" (Christ) by praying covered,
and the woman dishonours her " head " (the man) by pray-
ing_uncovered : and the matter is not .made any_clea.r.er„.-by
the declaration that " a man ought not to cover his head,
forasmuch as he is the image and glory ofGod," but that
the woman ought to have hers covered because she is
" the glory of the man " (verse 7). The woman, being
"created for the man," ought to "have power on. her
head," that is, a covering asjtjie__symbol of man's power
oyer her or of her subordination. Yet the argument runs
to the effect that man's subordination to his " head "
(Christ) is shown by his being uncovered in worship.
One cannot, moreover, but feel the extreme hardness and
severity of the remark, that for a woman to pray or

44 THE MAN
prophesy with her head uncovered is the same as if she
were shaven, which can only mean, according to the
custom of the time, that it is the same as if she classed
i herself among disreputable women. In view of the fact
I that the women in the Corinthian church who made the
claim of equality with men in religious worship (and there
appears to be no reason for supposing that an assertion of
" equal rights " in general had been-made) proceeded upon
!a doctrine of the apostle himself that in Christ there is
"neither male nor female" (Gal. iii. 28), and that they
were very likely sincere and devout, the harshness of this
saying is set in a still more vivid light.
In the directions given to the Corinthians concerning
idolatry and the eating of flesh offered in sacrifice to idols
the apostle employs his favourite dialectical method, the
argument from a principle which is followed to its utmost
consequences ; but it is interesting to observe here that at
the end of the discussion the practical Christian idea of
fraternal consideration for the welfare of others is made
prominent. The fundamental doctrine is that as Christians
the cup of blessing is " the communion of the blood of
Christ " ; and the bread is " the communion of his body " ;
just as in " Israel after the flesh " they who eat of the
sacrifices are partakers of the altar (1 Cor. x. 16-33, vm-
4-13). Hence the absurdity of the idea that the Chris
tians could at the same time " drink of the cup of the Lord
and the cup of devils." Then, after turning aside from
his argument to insert a threat in the questions : " Do we
provoke the Lord [Christ] to jealousy ? are we stronger
than he ? " he lays down the practical doctrine that while
all things are lawful to him, " all things are not expedient ;
all things edify not," and gives the eminently Christian
direction : " Let no man seek his own, but every man
another's," His indifference on principle to the eating of

PERSONAL TRAITS 45
flesh offered to idols is indicated in the teaching that the
believers may "eat whatsoever is sold in the shambles,
asking no questions," and that they may eat whatever is
set before them at a feast of unbelievers ; but if they are
told that the flesh has been offered to idols, they are not
to eat it " for his sake that showed it and for conscience'
sake." One can hardly help feeling that there is an in
consistency here. For if the prohibition in question is at
all a matter of conscience (whether the conscience of the
weaker or that of the stronger be meant), the believer is
inexcusable on moral grounds for not " asking questions "
and ascertaining whether he is doing the forbidden thing
or not. The reason given by the apostle why a Christian
may eat whatever is offered in the market, " asking no
questions for conscience' sake," is characteristic of his
method. He quotes from Ps. xxiv. i, "The earth is the
Lord's and the fulness thereof," in a sense not intended
by the psalmist, — all things are Christ's, and do not be
long to idols or demons. But the second application of
the quotation to the case where the eating is forbidden "for
conscience' sake " is inept and forced.* Finally the matter
is brought under a religious principle, and the injunction
is given to the believers, "Whether, therefore, ye eat or
drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God "
(i Cor. x. 31). Offence should be given to none, whether
Jews or gentiles, and especially not "to the church of
God," "even as I please all men in all things, not seeking
my own profit but the profit of the many, that they may
be saved " — a distinct disclosure of the chief aim of the
apostle's life from the time he engaged in the service of
Christ. * Since " the earth is the Lord's and the fulness thereof," eat not of flesh
sacrificed to idols when informed of its character, on account of the conscience
of him who informed you !

46 THE MAN
In dealing with the question of spiritual "gifts," which
had evidently caused no little trouble at Corinth, the
apostle characteristically sets out from the general principle
that " there are diversities of gifts, but the same Spirit."
In all administrations of the church there is the one Lord
Christ, so that the fact that there are different manifesta
tions does not prejudice the principle that all have the
Spirit. Those, then, who are gifted with the more strik
ing and prominent charism of speaking " with a tongue "
should not exalt their "gift" too much, and depreciate
others, the expression of which was less obtrusive. Just
as all parts of the body are essential to the unity and
strength of the whole organism, so all the various gifts
have their place in the body of Christ, the church. In
assigning by a skilful and tactful course of reasoning the
speaking with a tongue to its proper, that is, subordinate,
place among the gifts he gives the practical interest pre
dominance. All gifts should be so employed that "the
church may receive edifying." The man who " prophe
sies " " speaketh unto men to edification and exhortation
and comfort." But the ecstatic who speaks " with a tongue "
only " edifieth himself." " Even so ye, forasmuch as ye
are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the
edifying of the church." He thanks God that he speaks
with a tongue more than they all, yet he says that in the
church he would rather speak five words with his under
standing, that by his voice he might teach others, than ten
thousand words in a tongue. The picture is forcible of a
" whole church " raving together in, this ecstasy, while " un
believers" looking on say that they are "mad." "But if
all prophesy, and there come in one that believeth not or
one unlearned, he is convinced of all, he is judged of all."
Finally, the sum of the whole matter is the practical pre
cept, " Let all things be done to edifying " (i Cor. xii. xiv.).

PERSONAL TRAITS 47
It must be conceded, however, that the concessions made
to the merely external manifestations of the so-called
"gifts of the Spirit " accord to them more recognition than
is conducive to the welfare of the church, whether it be
the church of the first or of any succeeding century.
The concluding portion of 2 Corinthians (x. i-xiii. 10),
which is so different in tone from the preceding chapters
as to furnish strong support to the hypothesis that it origi
nally had no connection with them, and is in fact a
separate letter, reveals striking traits of the apostle's per
sonality, and shows how unsparinglyvhe could deal with
refractory elements in his churches. He evidently re
gards it as an humiliation that he must boast of himself, of
his revelations and privations and labours, and he exclaims :
" I am become a fool in glorying ; ye have compelled me ;
for I ought to have been commended of you." They had
been receiving, some of them evidently with favour, his
opponents, the judaisers, the ministers of Satan (2 Cor.
xi. 15), and he says that " seeing that many glory after the
flesh," he will glory also; for, he adds, "ye suffer fools
gladly, seeing ye yourselves are wise " (verses 18, 19). This
is a biting sarcasm. Since they listen to the boasting of
other fools, his opponents, they will doubtless suffer him
in their superior wisdom to make a fool of himself by
boasting like the others. The irony is apparent in the
correct rendering of xi. 4: "For if he that cometh [the
judaiser] preach another Jesus whom we have not preached,
or if ye receive another Spirit which ye have not received,
or another gospel which ye have not accepted, ye bore it
well"; did finely to take pleasure in a gospel hostile to
mine. "You bear it," he tells them, "if a man bring
you into bondage, if a man devour you, if a man take you
[capture you], if a man exalt himself, if a man smite you
on the face " (xi. 20). He fears that when he comes they

48 THE MAN
will find him as they would not like to find him, and to " those
who have sinned and to all others " he announces that if
he comes again he "will not spare" (xii. 21, xiii. 2).
Finally he tells them to examine themselves and see
whether they be really Christians or " in the faith." They
ought to know that unless they are "reprobates" Jesus
Christ is in them, and he intends to let them see that he
himself is at least not a reprobate. According to his pro
fession (xii. 1 5), we must regard all this as the language of
wounded affection.
The apostle's style is characteristic of the man in a
greater degree than that of most writers, and this for the
reason that he knew and would know nothing of the art of
concealing himself. To him language was not " invented
to conceal thought," but thought was invented to shape,
to master, to crush language. His style is that of one who
did not think of style because possessed and dominated by
the ideas that he wished to express. All graces and artifi
ces are foreign to it. The polished rhetoricians of the Greek
schools would have been shocked at the way in which he
treated their language. Renan's remark is doubtless some
what extravagant, that " it is impossible to violate more au
daciously, I will not say the genius of the Greek language,
but the logic of human language." The genius of the
Greek language could certainly not have consideration from
one who could never get rid of the Hebrew idiom. He
had not, moreover, the imagination which is essential to
the production of a fine literary style. When we add to
this that his letters were often dictated in haste and under
great excitement, so that they have been compared to " a
rapid conversation stenographically reported and repro
duced without correction," it is a marvel that the blem
ishes are so few. His intense preoccupation with his
theme, which rendered him regardless sometimes of the

PERSONAL TRAITS 49
logical connection of his thought, could not' but react
upon his style, may, in fact, be said to a degree to have
constituted it. Hence the want of sequence, the breaks
and jerks, "the harshness and roughness which suggest
that the thought is far too weighty for the language, and
can scarcely find fit form for the superabundant matter it
would express." It is this preoccupation often with a dog
matic idea which leads him to make sweeping statements
without considering whether or no they are in accord with
what he has elsewhere said. Hence the paradoxes or an
tinomies of his teaching, which must always remain stum
bling-blocks to the theologians who study him with the pre
supposition that his writings contain a system of doctrine
which is throughout accordant and consistent with itself.
He had not time to consider whether he was consistent
with himself or no, and as for formulating a doctrinal sys
tem or even writing a sacred and infallible literature,
nothing was farther from his thought. It would be im
possible for a man, in whose mind the Jewish theology
and various Hellenistic speculations lay unreconciled, not
to leave such an antinomy as that death is the penalty of
sin, and that man is naturally mortal on account of the
perishable nature of the flesh. But he was greater than
all speculation, and all paradoxes, and all theologies. He
could afford to perpetrate antinomies and to write in a
style which, like himself, was both Hebraic and Grecian.
It was because he was both Greek and Hebrew, and had a
far-seeing vision, which looked beyond the making of a the
ology, and a great love that embraced mankind, that he
became the conqueror of the world. It was because he
saw in the cross the symbol of redemption for gentiles as
well as Jews and in the Abrahamic promise an all-inclu
sive divine purpose, and because he was great enough and
kind enough to become "all things to all men, that he

50 THE MAN
might save some," that through him the gospel of Jesus
became a religion for the world instead of the possession
of a Jewish sect.
The portraiture of Paul's personality is not completed,
or his influence accounted for by regarding him simply as
a theologian and the author of a new interpretation, one
may even say a transformation, of the gospel of Jesus.
A sketch of his teaching and his missionary work furnishes
only a bare outline, meagre and cold, until it is filled with
the religious content which was the vital principle of his
character, the mainspring of his activity, and the source of
his power. He can never be understood until he is inter
preted out of his personal experience, that is, until his in
terpreter recognises the fact that his doctrine, far from
being an independent structure to be studied by itself apart
from all living motives, is the attempt of a powerful in
tellect to put into an objective form what was most vital in
his religious consciousness, to give an outward expression
to an inward life in God. It could not be otherwise than
that his religion was experienced to some degree in subor
dination to his thought, and took on the colour of his doc
trine. Accordingly, while in its essence it reproduces the
old, eternal experience of the human soul, in some of its
forms and expressions it has the transient character of cer
tain of his theological conclusions. The revelation of the
Son of God in him (Gal. i. 15 f.) was a revelation of
God's love for him and for mankind, which he interpreted
in the sense that " God commendeth His love toward us in
that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us " (Rom.
v. 8). Through Christ the believer has " access " to God
and " peace " with Him, and His " love is shed abroad in the
heart " (Rom. v. 1 f.). The mystic fellowship with Christ,
whose outward symbol is baptism, is a "newness of life,"
in the experience of which he conceived himself to be " dead

PERSONAL TRAITS 5 1
to sin, but alive to God." Being made free from sin he
would henceforth be "the servant of righteousness," and
have his "fruit unto holiness " (Rom. vi. 3, 4, 11, 22). In
his death with Christ to the flesh the old, sinful life with
its fruitless struggle and bondage was put away, and in
the gift of the divine Spirit was brought into his being a
new religious principle which contained infinite possibili
ties of blessedness and of victory. By virtue of this in
dwelling power the " deeds of the body " are overcome,
and that " life " is attained which is " hid with Christ in
God," and which in the end overcomes "the last enemy,"
death. The summit of religious experience is reached in
the " witness " of this Spirit with his spirit that he was a
child of God ; for " as many as are led by the Spirit of
God, they are the sons of God." Here was a source of
strength to him to do and dare and suffer all things. " If
God be for us, who can be against us ? He that spared
not His own Son, but freely gave him up for us all, how
shall He not with him also freely give us all things ? "
The love of God was not only shed abroad in his heart,
but it also made him "more than conqueror," and was a
protection round about him in which he lived and worked
secure from the machinations of the " principalities and
powers " of the realm of darkness, and from which
" neither height nor depth nor any other creature " could
separate him (Rom. viii. 13-16, 31-39). In this religious
experience faith was a pivotal principle, " a new point of
gravity." It was an indestructible trust in the love of
God, through whom came the " atonement," and a confi
dence in the divine promise inclusive of gentiles as well as
of Jews. Through this Paul conceived a new righteous
ness to be attained, "if not by way of the law, then by
way of God" — a righteousness which if not expounded
by him to our comprehension, was yet to him a reality and

52 THE MAN
an inalienable possession. Yet the real spring of his life
was "the Spirit of Christ," the love which "believeth all
things, hopeth all things, endureth all things," and is
greater than the faith .that rests in God and the hope that
lays hold on the coming kingdom.

CHAPTER III
THE CONVERSION
THE most important event in Christian history next to
the birth of Jesus, the conversion of Paul, is involved
in the obscurity that attaches to all spiritual processes which
the subject of them cannot adequately explain to himself,
much less to others. It does not appear from the apos
tle's own writings that he wished to make to others any dis
closures as to the character and details of this great expe
rience. Rather with a delicacy which the writer of Acts
does not attribute to him he appears to shrink from such a
proceeding, and we have only allusions to the fact of the
change that throw little light upon its antecedents or its
process. It is probable that the prominence of Paul in
the early church may have been the occasion of more im
portance being attached to his conversion than he attached
to it himself, or than was warrantable under the circum
stances. The conversion of a Jew to Christianity was not
so unusual at the time that there was any occasion for
proclaiming the fact as a miracle ; and if the church had
never had the accounts of Paul's conversion in Acts,
which show how the event was regarded a half-century or so
after it happened, and how tradition had given the occur
rence a legendary form and embellishment, no one would
have thought of resorting to a miracle to explain it. It is
worthy of note as a fact generally overlooked in the dis
cussion of the matter that Paul does not anywhere men
tion a conversion, but says that Christ was " seen " of him
S3

54 THE MAN
and " revealed " in him (i Cor. xv. 8 ; Gal. i. 16). Whether
these events coincided with his first believing in Christian
ity or not he does not say. He does not tell us, and we
do not know, but that these revelations and visions were
subsequent to his acceptance of Christianity and con
nected with his call to the apostleship to the gentiles.
For the question why Paul became an apostle is legiti
mate, although the answer to it can be only conjecture.
Many Jews were converted who do not appear to have
thought of being apostles. Why, moreover, should he
have felt called to be the apostle to the gentiles ? Accord
ing to his own statement this idea of a gentile apostleship
was inseparably connected with the revelation of Christ in
him ; for his words are : " When it pleased God ... to
reveal His Son in me, that I might preach him among the
heathen" (Gal. i. 15, 16). He says nothing here of a con
version to Christianity, but evidently has in mind the great
theme which on this occasion was of paramount impor
tance, — his call to the apostleship to the gentiles. In the
entire connection of the passage in question, which is the
one generally referred to as containing his own most im
portant words on his "conversion," he speaks only of his
apostleship, or rather of his call to the apostleship, declar
ing that he is " an apostle not of men, neither by man, but
by Jesus Christ and God the Father, who raised him from
the dead" (Gal. i. 1). He says furthermore that the gos
pel which he preaches is not after man, neither was he
taught it, but by the revelation of Jesus Christ (Gal. i. 12).
Weizsacker's conclusion that since he uses the same terms
in speaking of his apostleship and of his gospel, he must
in that passage refer to his becoming a Christian or his
acceptance of the gospel, is not valid. For his apostleship
and his gospel were the apostleship and the gospel to the
gentiles, and it is a gratuitous assumption that his dis-

THE CONVERSION 55
tinctive apprehension of the gospel came to him at the
moment of his conversion. We know that he did not
immediately begin the gentile mission, but that he
"went into Arabia, and returned again to Damascus"
(Gal. i. 17).
If by the conversion of Paul one means his acceptance
of his distinctive apprehension of Christianity, the gospel
and the apostleship to the gentiles, one should hesitate to
designate it with Weizsacker as " sudden." It was essen
tially different from the change from an evil to a virtuous
course of life of a man in whose consciousness there is
an accumulation of good ethical influences and precepts
which only await the right occasion to assert themselves.
It was different from the ordinary conversion of Jews to
Christianity. His " gospel " was fundamentally different
from that. of the Jewish Christians in general. The change
that took place in him was radical, and this fact furnishes
a presumption against its suddenness and in favour of the
hypothesis that in its completeness it was the result of a
series of impressions, influences, and reflections. Weiz
sacker, in commenting on the passage in Gal. i. 15, 16,
says that Paul in writing this " is conscious of no transition-
period of wavering reflection and questioning, but the time
of his persecution is immediately connected in his life
with his belief and his apostleship " (Apostol. Zeitalter, 2te
Aufl., p. 68). But it is evident that in this passage the
apostle is not giving an account of his conversion with the
intention of indicating the sequence of events in time.
He says that he had persecuted the church, that he had
been exceedingly zealous of the traditions of his fathers,
and that when he felt called to be an apostle to the gen
tiles he "did not confer with flesh and blood." We must
not put too strict an interpretation upon a mere allusion
like this, which is devoid of all details. One is as much

56 THE MAN
justified in reading into it a series of events as in binding
the several stages inseparably together.
The same writer concludes from Paul's words in the
first chapter of Galatians, that his conversion was inde
pendent of anything that he may have learned from men
concerning Christ, and infers from the first verse that the
certainty of the resurrection of Jesus was the content of
the "revelation" that he received. But Paul's declaration
that he did not receive his " gospel " from man does not
exclude a knowledge gained in a natural way of the man
Jesus, the Jesus " after the flesh," his claims, his work,
his crucifixion, and his resurrection. That he should have
persecuted the Christians without a very good knowledge
of their beliefs is contrary to all that we know of his char
acter and his conscientiousness. But if it be admitted that
he was thus informed, it is evident that this knowledge
could not have been without an influence upon him, and
could not but have given rise in such a mind as his to
"reflection and questioning." It must be questioned
whether under such circumstances the "revelation" which
Paul says he received was "the cause of the entire de
cision, entering suddenly and unexpectedly." We can
easily conceive of the crisis as sudden, when the accumu
lated influences which induced it were ready to discharge
themselves, and preceding "reflection and questioning"
culminated, as in a logical and courageous mind they must,
in the urgent pressure to a decision ; but a sudden " reve
lation " that the Jesus whom he was persecuting in the
person of his followers was the true Messiah, that he had
been crucified " to deliver us from this present evil world "
(Gal. i. 4), and that he had been raised from the dead, to
one who had learned nothing of the matter "from men,"
and had not reflected and questioned with conscientious
anxiety to know the truth, can only with difficulty be
shown to be probable.

THE CONVERSION 57
It is superficially apparent from the apostle's words in
Galatians that he did not regard his undertaking of the
apostleship to the gentiles as an act of his own self-de
termination, and his preparation for it as acquired in an
altogether natural way, whether by his own study and
meditation or by instruction from others. He says ex
plicitly of his gospel that he " was not taught it," but that
he had it " by revelation of Jesus Christ." These words,
however, must be interpreted, and we have fortunately
other sayings of his of a somewhat similar purport, which
throw a little light upon them. It is important to ascer
tain as nearly as possible what psychological conditions he
connected with the " revelations " that he claims to have
received. We have already seen that in 2 Cor. xii. 1-4
he relates that he had " visions and revelations of the
Lord " (Christ) under circumstances which undoubtedly
indicate abnormal physical conditions, since he connects
them with a disease, which he calls "a thorn in the flesh."
He declares that he does not know whether when he had
these visions and revelations he was " in the body or out
of the body," and we can of course attach no objective
importance to his reference to the current Jewish ideas of
"the third heaven" and "paradise." It appears, then,
that some of the " revelations " that he had were received
during a suspension of his normal consciousness. The
numerous cases on record of similar phenomena render it
hazardous to maintain that his experience was altogether
exceptional and supernatural, and throw the burden of
proof upon him who would support the affirmative of this
proposition. The question is, what did Paul mean by a
"revelation " ? and we have in this passage from the sec
ond Corinthian letter the answer, that he sometimes meant
what he experienced under conditions familiar to physi
cians who have studied abnormal physico-psychological

58 THE MAN
phenomena. That he saw in these visions what he had
never before thought of, is far from being as probable
as that the revelations were an intensification of ideas
prominent in his normal thinking. The mention of " the
third heaven" and "paradise" is proof of this latter
hypothesis, for these were ideas which he derived from
his Jewish environment, and he does not intimate that
these fictitious localities were made known to him in the
revelations, but only " unspeakable words which it is not
lawful for man to utter."
Another instance of a revelation is mentioned by the
apostle in his account of his visit to Jerusalem to defend
his gospel against the judaisers of that church. He says
simply : " And I went up by revelation, and communi
cated to them that gospel which I preach among the
gentiles " (Gal. ii. 2). From this bare statement we can
not determine whether the "revelation" in question was
received under conditions similar to those implied in the
passage in second Corinthians or not. One thing is, how
ever, in the highest degree probable, and that is that the
matter in question was one that had intensely occupied
his thought and deeply moved him. The attitude toward
his mission to the gentiles, which prevailed in Jerusalem,
was a matter about which he was greatly concerned. It
was the question whether the work which lay so near his
heart was to be 'overcome and rendered futile by hostile
influences, whether, in his own words, he "by any means
should run, or had run, in vain " (Gal. ii. 2). Now it is
manifestly impossible for us to determine whether or not,
from his strictly theistic point of view, from which second
causes were disregarded, and phenomena were attributed
to direct divine intervention, he ascribed to a revelation
from God a profound conviction respecting his mission,
that was in fact the result of his earnest reflection. It

THE CONVERSION 59
is hazardous here to dogmatise either affirmatively or
negatively, and we must leave the matter undecided with
calling attention to the fact that neither the hypothesis of
naturalism nor that of supematuralism is susceptible of
proof. The appeal to the apostle's use of the word
" revelation " in the interest of the latter is ruled out, for
the reason that it is precisely the meaning which must be
attached to this term that is the question in debate.
In another passage, in which the apostle is not speaking
of his conversion, but is defending his claims to the apostle
ship (i Cor. ix. i), he asks: "Am I not an apostle? have
I not seen Jesus our Lord ? " There is no cogent reason
for applying this passage to his conversion. He may have
" seen " the Lord in one of the visions mentioned in 2 Cor.
xii. 1. But leaving this matter undecided, the question of
moment is what he meant by having " seen " Christ. In
1 Cor. xv. 5-7> after mentioning various appearances of
Jesus after his resurrection, he says : " And last of all he
was seen of me as of one born out of due time." The
probability that he refers here to the same experience
mentioned in Gal. i. 16 as God's revelation of His Son in
him is so great that it is not worth while to argue the case.
Yet no one would assume on the ground of this latter pas
sage that he had in mind anything but an inward mani
festation, a conviction, which left the matter beyond all
question that Jesus was the Son of God and the Saviour,
in the sense peculiar to his gospel, the gospel of the cross
and of the uncircumcision. For it was on this revelation
that he grounded his apostleship to the gentiles. In the
interpretation of " seen " (a><f>6rj) recourse must be had to
the apostle's doctrine of the resurrection-body. In 1 Cor.
xv. 40, 44 he says that there are "terrestrial," that is,
material, and " celestial " bodies, and that the body that is
"raised" is a "spiritual body." He evidently did not

60 THE MAN
believe in the " bodily resurrection " in the crude material
istic sense that the old body of flesh was raised. " Thou
sowest not that body that shall be ; . . . but God giveth it a
body as it hath pleased Him" (i Cor. xv. 37, 38). More
especially he says in Phil. iii. 20, 2 1 that we look for the
Saviour from heaven "who shall change our vile body,
that it may be fashioned like unto his glorious body " or
"his body of glory." It is hence evident that he 'did not
think of the resurrected Jesus as possessing a body of
corruptible flesh which " cannot inherit the kingdom of
God," but as clothed with a spiritual corporeity. That he
conceived this spiritual body to be visible to the eye of
flesh is improbable not only on account of the " in me "
of Gal. i. 16, but also from 2 Cor. iv. 6: " For God who
commanded the light to shine out of darkness hath shined
in our hearts to give the light of the knowledge of the
glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ." The reference
of this passage to his call to the apostleship, that is, to his
profound "knowledge " of the gospel, cannot be doubted.
The use of the plural, "our hearts," does not exclude this
reference, for in 2 Cor. iii. 2 he says, " Ye are our epistle
written in our hearts." In any case the experience
described is plainly an inward one, and has no relation
to a seeing with the eye of flesh, just as in 2 Cor. iii. 18 he
says of himself and the believers generally : " But we all
with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the
Lord [Christ], are changed into the same image from
glory to glory, as by the Spirit of the Lord," that is, by
Christ, who is the Spirit (2 Cor. iii. 17), and whose illumi
nation and transformation of the apostle and of the be
lievers is conceived as effected, not through the senses,
but by the inward working of his power.
The change from a persecutor of Christianity to an
apostle was not only an inward process, but also a condi ¦

THE CONVERSION . 6l
tional or dependent one, — a process determined by definite
antecedents. Let this be stated as an hypothesis, and not
as a dogmatic affirmation. We do not know enough about
the matter to warrant dogmatism from any point of view,
and we certainly cannot infallibly point out the assumed
antecedents of the crisis. It is legitimate, however, to
undertake to show the probabilities that are favourable to
the hypothesis. Before all, then, no one will dispute the
proposition that Paul's conversion to the religion of Jesus
had its ground in his nature, as is the case with every
man's conversion. Not every Jew persecuting the Chris
tians would have had Paul's experience. Not every Jew
converted from a persecutor to a Christian would have
become an apostle. Not every Jew who might have be
come an apostle, would have become an apostle to the
gentiles. Few will have the hardihood to affirm that God
could have made of any Jew the great apostle to the
gentiles. If He could have done it, we know very well
that such is not His way. God's truth forces no man, but
it transforms and shapes to divine ends him who has the
native genius for it. The prophets and apostles are born
God-endowed. No one can read the Epistle to the
Romans without receiving a profound impression of the
nature, the intellectual character of the author. Paul
shows himself here to be preeminently a reasoner, a dia
lectician of a high order. The probability that -he first
learned to reason after he became a Christian is too slight
to merit consideration. But the probability that such a
man would have given up the religion of his race in which
he was himself a zealot, and accepted in its most radical
interpretation another which he was in the act of trying to
exterminate, without reasons born of intense thought, few
will for a moment entertain. 'A conversion without psy
chological antecedents is not now regarded as rational in

62 THE MAN
enlightened Christian circles. We do not think the divine
grace to be independent in its operations of subjective
conditions, and we provide them with no small skill.
We shall not understand the conversion of Paul until we
approach it from a similar point of view, that is, until we
endeavour to ascertain what were the psychological condi
tions in his nature and in his thinking prior to the event.
As to his nature, no one will dispute that he was thor
oughly conscientious. He undoubtedly entered upon his
persecution of the Christians with a good conscience, be
lieving that as enemies of his religion and of God they
ought to be exterminated. But conscience has its sedi
tions and its revolutions from within, which are most
radical and violent in the deepest and strongest natures.
It is at least among the probabilities of the case, one may
even say that it is an antecedent condition, without which
his conversion, like that of any other man, is inexplicable,
that Paul was tormented with conscientious scruples, and
that they concerned his cruel persecution of the inoffen
sive Christians. The probability is raised to a certainty,
when we consider that many years after he had not over
come these scruples, as is apparent from the humble con
fession : "For I am the least of the apostles, that am not
meet to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the
church of God" (i Cor. xv. 9). That he saw and felt
more keenly the wrong after his conversion than before
may be conceded. But that he was conscious of it before
that event, and that his scruples were among the causes
that determined it, is in accord with human nature and
with all we know about conversion.
That intellectual doubts accompanied the conscientious
scruples is in the highest degree probable. The chasm
that separated a persecuting Jewish zealot from a Chris
tian apostle to the gentiles, is too wide to be bridged with-

THE CONVERSION 63
out an intellectual process. A conversion like that in
question could be nothing short of a transformation of the
entire inward man, mind, heart, and soul. A man like
Paul can hardly be conceived to have become the enthusi
astic preacher of the gospel of the uncircumcision without
first giving himself a rational account of the matter.
Much less, without being grounded in this conviction
would he so persistently have adhered to it throughout
his life. Nothing is more evident from his writings than
that he regarded his peculiar apprehension of the gospel
as a thesis which must be defended by argument and
supported by reason. Shall we say, then, that he accepted
the apostleship to the gentiles against a prejudice which
even the original apostles of Jesus could not overcome,
and first thought of the reasons for it afterwards ? Such
a construction of the matter were most unpauline. It is
true that he does not tell us that he had reasoned on the
matter prior to his conversion, and we have only an inci
dental hint as to his scruples of conscience. But " the
light of the knowledge of the glory of God " which shone
in his heart may well have been the white light of reason
to a man so zealous as he was to " prove all things."
That a man so enthusiastic as Paul was for righteousness
and so intent upon reasoning should have accepted an
entirely new theory of it without reasoning upon its
grounds is not likely, when we consider how persistently
and thoroughly he argues for it in the Epistle to the
Romans. We have seen that as a Pharisee he believed
in the Messianic kingdom, the condition of which was the
righteousness of the people.
To a logical mind like Paul's the alternative was pre
sented of either abandoning this great Messianic hope or
of finding a new way of righteousness, — another way than
the impossible righteousness of the law, which, even if he

64 THE MAN
felt that he, the "blameless," had attained it, was far from
being attained by the mass of his people. That in his
acceptance of Christ was implied his belief in the new
righteousness by grace, can hardly be doubted. For the
question is legitimate here, why did he accept Christ at
all ? One will scarcely dare to affirm that he accepted
him without any reason whatever. Was it because of a
"revelation" ? If so, the revelation must have had a con
tent ; and if that content was in part the theological doc
trine of righteousness by faith without the works of the
law, we have a choice between two interpretations of the
matter — either this doctrine was supernaturally made
known to him without his own reflection, or it was a dis
covery of his reason, which he called a "revelation."
The way in which in his Epistles he seeks to buttress the
doctrine on every side with argument, favours- the latter
alternative, and indicates that he did not think it could
stand by authority. Two words in the passage in
Gal. i. 16 reveal the apostle's consciousness at the time
of his call to the gentile ministry and the grounds of his
acceptance of the Christian faith. He says it pleased God
to reveal His Son in him. He does not say, to reveal
Jesus, and the thought undoubtedly is that his Christian
belief rested upon his conviction that Jesus of Nazareth
was the Son of God, the true Messiah. Without this
belief Paul could never have become a Christian. He did
not believe in Jesus because of his teachings, with which
he shows little acquaintance, and so long as he thought
him to have been a pretending Messiah ignominiously put
to death, he persecuted his followers. The first verse of
Galatians throws still more light upon the process of the
change which took place in his thought. It cannot escape
the observing reader that he is here intent upon stating
the grounds of his apostleship to the utmost. Hence he

THE CONVERSION 65
does not stop with saying that he is an apostle, "not of
men, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father," but he
adds, "who raised him from the dead." Every one who
has a slight knowledge of the apostle's doctrine knows
that the resurrection of Jesus was one of its fundamental
principles. By this Jesus was " declared to be the Son of
God with power" (Rom. i. 4). Had Saul of Tarsus not
been convinced of this, there would have been no apostle
ship to the gentiles.
Here, then, we have the key to the solution of the
problem of the great apostleship. The exaltation of Jesus
by divine power from the realm of death to heaven in a
"body of glory" was to Paul indisputable proof that God
recognised him as His Son. From this principle the step
was easy by a process of reasoning from premises of the
Jewish theology to the conclusion that his death was an
atonement for the sins of men, and on this doctrine is
founded that of the new righteousness by faith, the aboli
tion of the law, the overthrow of sin and death, and by a
marvellous stroke of religious genius the mystic union of
the believer with Christ in the fellowship of the Spirit,
the blessedness, the sonship, the victory. The Pharisaic
doctrine of the last things furnished the idea of the great
consummation, the coming of the glorified Messiah in his
kingdom "with all his saints," the resurrection of the
believers, Christ being the " first fruits," the " peace and
joy" of the kingdom in which God should be "all in all."
How, then, did Paul come to believe in the resurrection
of Jesus ? That he had heard of it cannot be doubted.
That he did not believe it while he was persecuting the
Christians is certain, for otherwise he would have been
one of them. As a Pharisee, the doctrine of the resurrec
tion "at the last day" was not new to him. But why
should he have believed in this miracle of the special

66 THE MAN
resurrection of Jesus? What he had witnessed at the
martyrdom of Stephen, and perhaps of other Christians,
may have made a strong impression upon him, and given
him the idea of the glorified Jesus "sitting at the right
hand of God" (Acts vii. 55). The transformation may
have been completed by a vision of Christ (1 Cor. xv.
8), which, in the conditions to which he was subject, would
be regarded by him as representing an objective reality
according to 2 Cor. xii. 1-4.*
* According to the generally accepted chronology of Paul's life and work,
his conversion was in the year 34 or 35 of our era. This chronology is based
upon the dating of the appointment of Festus as procurator in the year 60 or
61. Harnack dates Festus' appointment in the year 56 and the conversion
accordingly in the year 30. A detailed discussion of this matter is remote from
the purpose of this work, and it is sufficient to remark that Harnack's data are
not of a character to place his conclusion beyond question. For a discussion
of Harnack's construction the reader is referred to an article by Professor F.
W. Christie in The New World for September, 1897. See also Heuduck,
Die Chronol. der neutest. Schriften, in Evan. Kirchenzeilung. 1897, No. 3 f.,
and Schiirer, Zur Chronol. des Lebens Fault, in Zeitschr. fur wissenschaftl.
Theol. 1897, i. pp. 21-42.

PART II
THE MISSIONARY

CHAPTER IV
THE FIRST YEARS — GALATIA AND THE GALATIAN EPISTLE
THE man Paul could not but become Paul the apostle.
He could not, however, be simply an apostle, a
Jewish-Christian apostle, but must of necessity become
the apostle to the gentiles. To be this lay in his nature,
which permitted him to do nothing by halves. The call
of God, who revealed His Son in him, that he "might
preach him among the heathen" (Gal. i. 15), was the
objective apprehension and expression of a subjective
necessity, — a necessity of his nature, a requirement of
his reason and conscience. His Epistles show, as we have
seen, the method of his thinking to have been the treat
ment of a subject from the point of view of its funda
mental principle, which he followed out to its logical
consequences. The death of Christ as an atonement for
sin was the central thought of his Christian belief, and
we have seen that without this apprehension of it, that is,
if he had regarded it as only a martyrdom for a principle,
he could never have become a Christian. To him the
cross must symbolise "the end of the law" and the over
throw of the Jewish dispensation with its bondage and its
whole system of righteousness by works. Accordingly,
a Christianity which was only another form of Judaism
was impossible to him. This is clear from his declaration
that "if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is
dead in vain " (Gal. ii. 21). The logical conclusion from
these premises to such a mind as Paul's was that the law

70 THE MISSIONARY
being abolished, Jews and gentiles, those "under the law ''
and those "not under the law," were on an equality in
the Christian dispensation. Christ was "the end of the
law " not to Jews only, but to all who should believe. "If
ye be Christ's," he writes to a gentile church, "then are
ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise "
(Gal. iii. 29). This is the logical side of the apostleship to
the gentiles. It has also its emotional side.
That Paul had an irresistible natural impulse to defend
and propagate his convictions is evident from his own con
fessions. The man who before his conversion to Christian
ity was a Jewish zealot and persecutor could not become
a merely passive believer in the new religion. He felt that
he was born to be an apostle, a missionary, an evangelist.
He designates himself as one " called to be an apostle of
Jesus Christ by the will of God " (1 Cor. i. 1). " Necessity
is laid upon me," he says, "yea, woe is me if Lpreach not
the gospel" (1 Cor. ix. 16). The matter demanded haste,
and he set himself to the task with eager interest and
unquenchable zeal. "The time is short" to him, forthe
Lord Christ would soon come to establish his kingdom,
and he was zealous to " present " to him on that great
day a multitude of believers as his "crown," his "joy"
(1 Thess. ii. 19). His was not a nature capable of enjoying
alone the blessedness of the new faith and its promises.
Christ died for all, and the apostle's hope was that the
Master's kingdom when he came might be universal.
With the love of Christ for all men he grieved especially
over his " brethren according to the flesh " because of
their blindness, and we have a revelation of the great
missionary's heart in the words : " Brethren, my heart's
desire and prayer to God for Israel is that they might be
saved " (Rom. x. 1).
With all his zeal for the gentile mission the salvation

THE FIRST YEARS 7 1
of the Jews lay near the apostle's heart. He could not
forget that for them the Messiah's kingdom was primarily
intended, and that the Messiah was " of the seed of David
according to the flesh." His eager desire for the evan
gelisation of "Jew and Greek" alike is expressed in the
words : " For whosoever shall call on the name of the
Lord shall be saved. How then shall they call on him
in whom they have not believed ? and how shall they
believe in him of whom they have not heard ? and how
shall they hear without a preacher ? and how shall they
preach except they be sent?" (Rom. x. 13-15). His
dream of the kingdom of Christ so ardently expected and
longed for was that it should not only contain " the fulness
of the gentiles," but that in it also " all Israel " would be
"saved" (Rom. xi. 25, 26). Attention has already been
called to the fact that it was far from the apostle's thought
to be the founder of a system of theology. The ruling
impulse of his life was to carry the gospel of Jesus, his
gospel, the Pauline good news of universal grace, far and
wide, up and down in the earth. " I have planted," he
says, and to put the seed of Christian truth in new soil
was the mission to which he was "called." "According
to the grace of God which is given unto me," he writes to
the Corinthians, " as a wise master-builder I have laid the
foundation, and another buildeth thereon" (1 Cor. iii. 10).
He conceived Christ to have wrought by him wondrous
things "to make the gentiles obedient by word and deed."
With the true spirit of the pioneer he sought out new
fields, and strove " to preach the gospel, not where Christ
was named," lest he should "build on another man's
foundation" (Rom. xv. 18, 20), but where the good tidings
had not been proclaimed.
To a man of such impulses and ambitions the appro
priate gifts could not have been wanting. For what is a

72 THE MISSIONARY
" call " but the inward cry of capacities and powers for an
opportunity to fulfil their destiny ? We have no means
of forming an adequate conception of the apostle as a
preacher. The discourses attributed to him in Acts cannot
be exact reproductions, but must be compositions based
upon what he was reputed to have said, and embellished
according to the fancy of the writer. But we may con
clude from many passages in his Epistles that, notwith
standing the charge of his enemies that " his bodily
presence was weak, and his speech contemptible " (2 Cor.
x. 10), he was a speaker of no little fire, passion, and per
suasion. In Rom. vii. and viii. are manifested graphic
power and moving pathos, and in 1 Cor xiii. he attains to
lyric beauty and classic completeness. It is the inward man,
the conviction, the earnestness, the pent-up fire, that moves,
and is mighty "to the pulling down of strongholds"; and
if a man have these qualities he may be a power even
with a fragile body and an unprepossessing exterior.
Whatever advantage in convincing, moving, and control
ling men belongs to him who has the courage of his con
victions was certainly on the side of the apostle as a
missionary. The boldness with which he preached his
gospel of liberty and his fearless defence of it against the
judaisers could not but captivate and hold to his cause a
class of minds whose support was essential to its success.
To this was joined the intensity that sprang from the
concentration of his thought upon one theme which he
made central in his ministry — that of the cross. "For I
was determined," he writes to the Corinthians, "to know
nothing among you save Jesus Christ and him crucified"
(1 Cor. ii. 3).
There was one preeminent qualification, moreover, to
which, however we may seek to explain it psychologically,
the apostle's power as a preacher was largely due. He

THE FIRST YEARS

73

believed that his word was not his own, but that he spoke
by the authority of the Spirit. A superhuman power,
now conceived as the Spirit of God, now as Christ, was to
him not only the source of his " gospel," but also a con
stant inspiration. " I can do all things," he declares,
"through him who strengtheneth me" (Phil. iv. 13). To
the Corinthians he writes : " And my speech and my
preaching were not with enticing words of man's wisdom,
but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power" (1 Cor.
ii. 4). Again in the same chapter (vv. 12, 13) he says : "Now
we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit
which is of God, that we might know the things that are
freely given us of God ; which things we also speak, not in
the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the
Holy Ghost teacheth, comparing spiritual things with
spiritual." The power which a man with such a con
sciousness of communion with the unseen world, whose
gaze was fixed upon the things that are invisible and
eternal, could wield over the simple-minded who were pre
disposed to a belief in the supernatural, is not easily
conceived by us at this distance and in this age.
This inner light, this "revelation," this "witness" of
the Spirit with his spirit (Rom. viii. 16), was the source of
the apostle's religious life and experience. Here was the
basis of his religious belief, his " seat of authority," on
which he placed the utmost reliance, not indeed without
dogma, but through and beyond all dogma. His theism,
his doctrine of Christ, of the atonement, and of the resur
rection, were all lifeless to him without this direct
illumination of his consciousness from above, without the
divine witness that he was a son of God, and without the
mystic fellowship with Christ in which he became one
with him. This independence of external authority, of
tradition, and of human counsel and experience, which

74 THE MISSIONARY
would have been hazardous to a man without Paul's
religious genius and sobriety of judgment, was to him
indispensable, and wanting it he could not have under
taken his mission. For his " gospel " was not that of the
original apostles. He must, then, have a new one, or he
had none. Whence was he to derive it ? Not from the
tradition of the teaching of Christ of which he knew
but little. He had no recourse but to his own conscious
ness illuminated by the Spirit and glowing with the
spiritual baptism of immediate fellowship with Jesus.
We find no evidence of any speculation of his on the
psychology or philosophy of this experience. " The light
of the knowledge of the glory of God " which had dawned
in his mind he ascribed to the immediate operation of the
Spirit, or to the indwelling Christ. The speculative and
dialectic interest, which was so strong in him where ques
tions of doctrine were concerned, did not lead him upon
this holy ground. We may well hesitate to venture upon
it and to attempt an analysis and definition of that
which to him was unanalysable and indefinable. Let it
suffice us here to note that this consciousness of divine
quickening and guidance made him very bold, and pro
duced an astonishing self-reliance.
When the light of his new gospel dawned upon Paul —
an event which, he implies, occurred at Damascus —
instead of seeking for information and instruction as to
the personality, life, and teachings of Jesus from those
who had had intercourse with him, he boasts that he
"conferred not with flesh and blood," but "went into
Arabia, and returned again to Damascus." He does not
specifically mention a reason for this action, but the
natural inference from his words (Gal. i. 16, 17) is that he
did not feel the need of such a conference. The evident
intention, the motive, of the passage is a distinct declara-

THE FIRST YEARS 75
tion of his independence of human teachers and of the
knowledge of Christ which the apostles might have given
him. Weizsacker' s remark that "the most probable ex
planation [of this procedure] is that the external relations,
dangers, which immediately threatened him on account of
the step he had taken, made it necessary," is not based
upon any legitimate inference from the apostle's own
declaration. It was not until three years later that he
went up to Jerusalem, and during this period, passed be
tween Arabia and Damascus (for that he was in Arabia
all this time is an unwarrantable assumption), he must
have matured his purpose, and formed his plans for his
life work. Why he three years later decided to go to Je
rusalem he does not inform us ; but we shall not err in
assuming that it was not to seek instruction in the gospel
from the original apostles or from any one of them. This
would be contrary to the manifest intention of his words.
The same reason that restrained him from seeking an
interview with them immediately after his conversion
must, on the assumption of his honesty, be operative at a
later period. If his " revelation " was sufficient, he could
not at any time be false to it.
What the motive of this visit to Jerusalem was, is in the
absence of any intimation regarding it by the apostle him
self purely a matter of conjecture. We may positively
say that he did not think that in taking this step he was
prejudicing his position as " an apostle not of men, neither
by man, but by Jesus Christ and God the Father." His
refraining for three years from seeking counsel of man
was sufficient to show his independence and his consist
ency with his claim of an adequate revelation from above.
His mention of the limitation which he imposed upon him
self in Jerusalem as to intercourse with the apostles can
hardly have been made without a purpose. He says he saw

76 THE MISSIONARY
Peter, and abode with him fifteen days, but that he saw
no other of the apostles, but only James, the brother of
Jesus. Was his motive in going to Jerusalem perhaps to
ascertain the attitude of these two prominent leaders of
the church in that city toward his mission to the gentiles ?
If he came to any understanding with them at this time on
this subject, we may conclude from subsequent events that
it was not a radical and thorough one. That their opposi
tion to him was not violent is probable from the fact that
he does not intimate that there was any, but says that
afterwards when he carried on his mission in " the regions
of Syria and Cilicia," and "the churches of Judea" heard
that their former persecutor was a preacher of " the faith
which he once destroyed," " they glorified God " in him
(Gal. i. 22, 23), although "the pillar-apostles" in Jerusa
lem are not necessarily included in this statement. The
mission to Jerusalem appears to have been a private
and confidential one in any case, and the inference is
legitimate, that Paul wished to avoid the irritation to which
a public discussion of the grounds of his new gospel might
have given rise, and that his procedure indicates " how
much there yet was to be overcome, how much yet lay
between Paul and the believing Jews in Jerusalem." The
presumption is a very natural one that he here learned
something of the events of the life of Jesus and of his
teaching, although neither the former nor the latter occu
pies a very prominent place in the writings that he has
left. For a discussion of the account of the first years of
Paul's work given in Acts, the writer of which omits all
mention of the journey into Arabia and the three-years'
interval, and brings him directly from Damascus to Jerusa
lem, the reader is referred to Chapter VII., in which the
relation of that book to the Epistles is considered. In
regard to the matter in question, it will suffice to quote

THE FIRST YEARS J?
here Weizsacker's remark, that "the narrative of Acts is
as clearly and completely excluded by Paul himself as it
possibly could be."
In one point the account in Acts agrees substantially,
however, with a statement made by the apostle himself,
that regarding his narrow escape from death at Damas
cus : "In Damascus," he says, "the governor under
Aretas the king kept the city of the Damascenes with a
garrison, desirous to apprehend me ; and through a win
dow in a basket I was let down by the wall, and escaped
his hands " (2 Cor. xi. 32 f.). The account in Acts omits
mention of Aretas and the governor and the garrison, and
ascribes the persecution to "the Jews " (Acts ix. 23-25).
This happened, according to this narrative, " some days "
after the conversion, and since the journey to Arabia is
here omitted, we cannot learn from it whether it was be
fore or after it; and since, moreover, in the passage in
2 Corinthians the incident is simply mentioned without ref
erence to its connection with other events, it is impossible
to assign it a definite place in the apostle's career. Paul
says in Galatians that after going to Arabia he returned
to Damascus. It is hardly probable, accordingly, that the
persecution and escape occurred prior to the departure for
Arabia, since he would not be likely to come back to
Damascus where he would be exposed to so great a dan
ger. The peril and escape are more probably assigned to
the period subsequent to his return from Arabia, and there
seems to be no good reason for the conjecture that they
find their place during a third visit to Damascus after the
fifteen days spent with Peter in Jerusalem ; a visit of
which the apostle makes no mention, and for which he can
hardly be said to leave room, when he says, " afterwards
I came into the regions of Syria and Cilicia" (Gal. i. 21).
Of this period of the apostle's work, occupying fourteen

78 THE MISSIONARY
years, we have unhappily no details. He simply says that
he was employed in these regions, and " was unknown by
face to the churches of Judea," which "glorified God" in
him when they heard that he, the former persecutor, was
"preaching the faith that he once destroyed" (Gal. i. 22-
24). The natural inference from this is that he was un
disturbed in his work in Syria and Cilicia by interference
from Jerusalem. That he was here occupied with the
gentile mission is probable, one may almost say certain,
from what we know of him and from the predominant pur
pose of his life according to his interpretation of the
"call" of God "by his grace" (Gal. i. 15). Hausrath's
contention that during this period he was a preacher of
the circumcision, a Jewish-Christian apostle, carrying on a
mission in the synagogues acceptable to the Jerusalem
authorities, is not well supported, to say nothing of its
antecedent improbability. There is not the slightest inti
mation of such a mission in the section in Galatians under
consideration. On the contrary, in immediate connection
with the mention of his mission in Syria and Cilicia, the
apostle gives an account of his journey to Jerusalem to
communicate to the leaders of the Jewish-Christian church
"the gospel" which he preached "among the gentiles,"
"lest by any means," he says, "I should run or had run
in vain " (Gal. ii. 2). The natural reference of this pas
sage is to the preceding fourteen years. In fact we can
not find any other period of his life to which it relates,
for the " had run " implies a mission prior to the confer
ence in question. The appeal to the passage in Gal. v. 17 :
" And I, brethren, if I yet preach circumcision, why do I
yet suffer persecution," cannot sustain the contention.
For there is no reference here to any particular period of
the apostle's ministry. The argument of the passage is
that his preaching of uncircumcision is an offence to the

THE FIRST YEARS 79
Jewish-Christian opponents who were troubling the Gala
tians, an "offence of the cross " ; if he continue to promul
gate circumcision this offence would disappear so far as
they are concerned, and this offence being taken away,
their persecution of him ceases. The only purpose of the
passage is to make it apparent to the Galatians that he
is persecuted solely because he is not a preacher of circum
cision, and it does not by any means follow from these
words that, during fourteen years of his ministry or indeed
at any time since he became a Christian apostle, he had
been an advocate of a teaching directly opposed to that
"gospel" to which he had been especially "called." The
hazard of hanging upon a single passage of somewhat
doubtful interpretation the doctrine that the apostle did
not really begin the mission of his life till after fourteen
years of judaising, is too manifest to require farther argu
ment. His declaration, moreover, that "to those under
the law" he was "as under the law" cannot fairly be
pressed into the support of the position in question. In
being "all things to all men" the apostle never com
promised his fundamental doctrine, otherwise his journey
to the conference in Jerusalem and the Epistles to the
Galatians and Corinthians are inexplicable. The fact that
during at least a part of this period of fourteen years he
was undisturbed by the church in Jerusalem, and that the
Christians in Judea "glorified God" in him, indicates
only that the attention of the apostles at the head of the
Jewish-Christian organisation was not at first directed to the
peculiar character of his work, and that the questions which
called him to the conference were not agitated until later,
that is, until toward the end of this mission in Syria and
Cilicia. The "irrepressible conflict" was, however, inev
itable. That Paul was true to his gentile mission during this

80 THE MISSIONARY
period is apparent from the mention of Titus in Gal. ii. 3.
This Greek was in all probability one of the converts made
during the mission, and Paul took him to the conference
in Jerusalem as an uncircumcised Christian according to
his gospel, where he must have been an offence to the
judaisers, who apparently brought a pressure upon the
apostle to have him submit to the Jewish rite. But Paul
writes in a tone of triumph to the Galatians that Titus was
"not compelled to be circumcised." This reference to a
single instance may be regarded as an indication of the
general principle of his mission in the regions in question,
and proves that here as elsewhere, in this earlier period as
well as later, he accepted as Christians men of gentile birth
without imposing Jewish rites upon them, and thus pro
ceeded in accordance with the great principle of liberty in
Christ, without which there could have been no mission to
the heathen. It is significant of the point of view and pur
pose of Acts that Titus is not even mentioned in that book.
The writer of it could find no place in his construction of
primitive Christian history and of the relation of Paul to the
original apostles for the bold procedure of taking an un
circumcised Greek believer into the stronghold of the cir
cumcision. It appears that the apostle was not alone in
his mission in Syria and Cilicia. The mention of Barnabas
in Gal. ii. 1 as his companion on the journey to attend the
conference in Jerusalem implies the participation of this
Jewish Christian in his missionary work. He received also
with Paul at the close of the conference " the right hand of
fellowship, that we should go unto the heathen " (Gal. ii. 9).
From the fact that when afterwards Peter came to Antioch,
and after him " certain came from James," and induced
him to withdraw from the relations which he had had with
the gentile Christians, " other Jews dissembled likewise with
him" (Gal. ii. 12), it appears that the church in Antioch

THE FIRST YEARS 8 1
was not composed entirely of converts from the heathen,
but in part of Jewish Christians. This may be regarded as
an indication of the general results of the mission in these
regions. To say nothing of the apostle's ardent interest in
the conversion of his "brethren according to the flesh," it
is not probable that he should have made no effort to urge
Jews to his apprehension of the gospel.
The understanding at the conference that Paul and Bar
nabas were to " go to the heathen," and the original apostles
"to the circumcision," should not be so rigidly interpreted
as to exclude the effort on both sides to bring any willing
hearer into the Christian communion. The principle for
which Paul contended was the freedom of his converts from
the bondage of the law. The difficulty of organising purely
gentile-Christian churches composed, as they must be, of
men who had had no traditions connecting them with the
antecedents of Christianity and no knowledge of the Script
ures, on which the apostolic preaching founded it, must
have appeared to a man of Paul's insight insuperable. The
Messiahship of Jesus could have little significance to men
who were not familiar with the great Jewish hope in the
Deliverer who was to come and with the prophetic writings
of the Old Testament. Paul's doctrine of the atonement
would also be with difficulty appreciated by minds not
schooled in the Jewish theology, although heathenism did
not wholly lack points of contact with it. It must, then,
be regarded as the great good fortune of the mission to
the gentiles that the churches founded by it contained a
nucleus of converts from Judaism. It was also its good
fortune that the man who conducted it was a Hellenist
in sympathy with the thought of those whom he sought to
win, and with a mind hospitable enough to receive and
appropriate in his teaching certain ideas with which they
were familiar, or in his own words, able to become "to

82 THE MISSIONARY
those without the law as without law." In the hands of
purely Jewish propagandists the gentile mission would
have been a failure. A Jewish Christianity could not be
come a world-religion.
It is related in Acts that the disciples were first called
Christians in Antioch (xi. 26) — ¦ a statement which there is
no good reason for doubting. In connection with this,
however, the construction of the history of this period
which the author makes is open to question as to its ac
curacy. The manifest purpose is to make it appear that
the missionary work in Syria was watched over and directed
by the authorities in Jerusalem. That the church in
Antioch was founded by " men of Cyprus and Cyrene " who
fled from Jerusalem on occasion of "the persecution that
arose about Stephen," and who there preached " unto the
Grecians the Lord Jesus," is not incredible or improbable.
The mission in Antioch may have been begun indepen
dently of Paul, and that it was a gentile Christian mission
is evidently implied in the narrative in Acts xi. 20. But
the account of the relations of Paul to the Jerusalem
authorities given in this section is in the highest degree
improbable from his own statement of the matter which we
must regard as the historical source. He represents that
the attitude of the church in Jerusalem toward his work in
Syria and Cilicia was such that he was apprehensive that
he " should run or had run in vain," and that the situation
required that he should go up there, and set before the
apostles the character and grounds of his mission. The
legitimate inference from this is that during these four
teen years he had been the real representative of the
gospel to the gentiles in those regions, and that this was
his mission, and not one carried on chiefly by Barnabas
and others to which the Jerusalem church stood as a foster
mother.

THE FIRST YEARS 83
But the writer of Acts, after relating that Paul's visit to
Jerusalem, instead of being a private one to Peter, was a
public one in which he was with the apostles, "coming in
and going out at Jerusalem," and " speaking boldly in the
name of the Lord and disputing with the Grecians " (Acts
ix. 27-29), says that instead of his acting independently
"the brethren brought him down to Csesarea, and sent
him forth to Tarsus." Here he is left until Barnabas, the
representative of the apostles, goes and brings him to
Antioch (Acts xi. 25, 26). In all this the motive to assign
him a subordinate part is manifest, as is the attempt to
make it appear that the gentile mission in Syria was
watched over by the mother-church, and that such cor
dial relations existed between the two that relief was sent
by the adherents of the former to the latter during a
famine which a "prophet" from Jerusalem had foretold
would extend "throughout all the world." To complete
the series of improbabilities, Paul is made one of the mes
sengers to carry this contribution to Jerusalem, although
he says that until he went up there to the conference he
was personally unknown "to the churches of Judea"
(Acts xi. 30; Gal. i. 22); and plainly indicates that he did
not make the journey after his first visit until he went for
that purpose.*
Paul went to Jerusalem, then, to defend his mission as
the self-conscious representative of a cause and a work
which he thought to be in jeopardy from that source. He
returned to his labours with a consciousness of victory.
The apostles had accorded him "the right hand of fellow
ship," because they were convinced that " He who wrought
effectually in Peter to the apostleship of the circumcision
was mighty in him toward the gentiles " (Gal. ii. 8). We
must not, however, draw too sweeping a conclusion from
* See Chapter VII.

84 THE MISSIONARY
this recognition that " grace was given " to Paul for his
work. _ We may well believe rather that, as is the case in
compromises generally, the whole question at issue was
not ventured upon. A complete accord was in the nature
of the case impossible. Paul's "revelation " had not been
vouchsafed to Peter and James and John. They had not
learned from Jesus that his death was " the end of the law,"
and that " if righteousness come by the law, Christ was
dead in vain." That Paul demanded of them the full
recognition of his gospel is improbable. To make such a
demand were to lose his cause. He doubtless asked for
what he actually obtained — the recognition of his freedom
to preach his gospel to the gentiles as a missionary. He
does not intimate that he secured a recognition of his
apostleship, the claim to which he was afterwards so
strenuous to maintain, when it was disputed by men who
from the Jewish-Christian side came into his churches to
oppose him (i Cor. ix. 1-5).* If it was accorded to Paul
that his gentile converts should not be subjected to cir
cumcision, the full observance of the law was doubtless
reserved for the Jewish-Christian believers. A complete
accord between the two parties to the controversy would
have required a recognition of the principle that the way
of salvation was the same for Jewish and gentile converts,
either by the observance of the law or by its non-observance
on both sides. But subsequent events show that no such
agreement was reached. Paul certainly did not yield his
doctrine that salvation is without the works of the law, and
the apostles did not abandon their doctrine that the law
was the way of life. We cannot think of them as admit
ting that righteousness is not "through the law," that
they who are under the law are under a " curse" (Gal. iii.
10), and that in a Christian experience it "is found to be
* It is significant that the writer of Acts studiously avoids this recognition.

THE FIRST YEARS 85
unto death " (Rom. vii. 10). In "the right hand of fel
lowship that he should go unto the heathen " was not
implied the settlement of the question as to the relations
of Jewish-Christian and gentile converts in churches com
posed of both. We have no intimation that this important
matter was discussed at all.
If Paul understood the compact to mean that both
classes should associate on an equality, and eat at the same
table, it is evident that James did not so construe it (Gal.
ii. 12). That a Jew should overcome the deep-seated re
pugnance of his race for the uncleanness of heathenism
required his endowment with the " grace " of Paul, just as
his recognition of the doctrine that Christ was " the end of
the law" was impossible "without the great apostle's
religious insight and genius. That Paul in this matter
had " the Spirit of Christ " no one will now dispute. In his
doctrine that in Christ "there is neither Jew nor Greek,"
and that the spiritual relation of man to God is one of
inward union of the human with the divine will in indepen
dence of outward forms, he rescued from Jewish Chris
tianity, and preserved for mankind our most precious
inheritance in Jesus. That he was glad to accede to the
request to "remember the poor" among the Jewish Chris
tians is in accord with his doctrine that "all are one in
Christ Jesus" (Gal. ii. 10, iii. 28). However defective
the compact in question was, on- account of insuperable
prejudices and opposing irreconcilable points of view, it is
of vast importance in so far as the recognition of the
Pauline mission laid the foundations of a Christian church
for the world.
The incompleteness of the Jerusalem compact became
soon after apparent at Antioch, where Peter joined with
other Jewish Christians in eating at the same table with
the gentile converts, but withdrew from this fellowship

86 THE MISSIONARY
when emissaries "from James" apparently brought the
influence of that leader to bear upon him (Gal. ii. 12).
The situation was critical for both parties. The authori
ties in Jerusalem could not but see that for Peter to make
such a concession was practically the abandonment of the
principle for which they contended. On the other hand,
Paul's cause was in peril, for the contagion of Peter's " dis
sembling" extended to "the other Jews " in the church at
Antioch, and " Barnabas also was carried away with their
dissimulation" (Gal. ii. 13). The procedure of Paul in
the emergency reveals the leading traits of his character,
decision, the courage of his convictions, inflexibility, inexo
rable logic. Not to take a decided position now was to lose
his cause and to be false to his "gospel." The vacillation
of Peter filled him with indignation. He had him at a great
disadvantage, and he did not fail to improve his oppor
tunity. He charges him with hypocrisy for having fel-
lowshipped the gentile Christians apparently on principle,
and immediately changed his policy, because " he feared
them who were of the circumcision." Whether Peter in
previous interviews had substantially adopted Paul's inter
pretation of Christianity or no is not important here.
Paul's charge " to his face " before the assembled church
was well founded on the fact that he had freely associated
with the gentiles at first, and had retreated through fear.
He had acted according to the Pauline principle that
"there is nothing unclean of itself" (Rom. xiv. 14), and
had then been intimidated, and driven into a course of
conduct which was a declaration that he regarded his gen
tile brethren as unclean. He had suffered the spirit of
Christ which had ruled him for a time to be driven out of
his breast by the fear of man. From Paul's pointed ques
tion, which exposes Peter's inconsistency : " If thou being
a Jew livest after the manner of the gentiles [as he had

THE FIRST YEARS 87
done there in Antioch] and not as do the Jews, why com-
pellest thou the gentiles to live as do the Jews ? " it may
be inferred that the latter had endeavoured to force the
gentile believers to accept the Jewish rites.
This of course aggravated Peter's offence in the eyes
of Paul. Perhaps he had justified his withdrawal by the
declaration that the gentiles were by nature "sinners,"
unclean, from the Jewish point of view. In any case Paul
takes up this thought, and says : " We Jews by nature, and
not [as you say] sinners of the gentiles, knowing that a
man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the
faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus
Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ,
and not by the works of the law ; for by the works of
the law shall no flesh be justified" (Gal. ii. 14-16). The
inference from these words is that of the two, Paul alone
had acted consistently with the profession of Christian
faith. Why should one call oneself a Christian at all,
if one is still to attain righteousness in the old way of
the law? But, the apostle continues, in seeking this
new righteousness by faith, in disregarding the works of
the law, and in living like gentiles and with them we
are not " sinners," are not unclean, otherwise Christ is
"the minister of sin" (Gal. ii. 17). The seeking after
justification through faith in Christ, the practical over
throw of the law, is no sin, but "if I build again the
things which I destroyed [seek to restore the law and
attain righteousness by works] I make myself a trans
gressor" (Gal. ii. 18). By restoring the law, which was
done away in Christ, by seeking righteousness as Peter
would have it sought, he would put himself in the way of
becoming a transgressor, because there is transgression
only where there is law (Rom. iv. 15). But "through the
law," he adds (by reason of the fact that according to the

88 THE MISSIONARY
law the penalty of sin is death), " I am dead to the law . . .
I am crucified with Christ" (Gal. ii. 19; see Rom. vii. 4).
To do otherwise is to " frustrate the grace of God."
It would be unjust to charge James, and Peter in follow
ing him perhaps through fear of excommunication, with a
violation of the agreement made with Paul in Jerusalem.
For, as has already been pointed out, that agreement did
not contemplate and provide for a situation like that in
Antioch, where the relations of Jewish and gentile Chris
tians in a mixed church were concerned. The rupture
in Antioch showed the hollowness of the compromise,
showed that in fact there could be no adjustment of dif
ferences so radical. The gentile church was not born of
the compact in Jerusalem, which was adapted only to men
who do things by halves, but of the conflict in Antioch,
out of which the great apostle who never did anything by
halves came forth at last the victor.
Among the missionary-fields of the apostle which have
an imperishable record in his Epistles that of the churches
of Galatia is one of the most important. It is remote from
our purpose to enter upon a discussion of the question of
the exact location of these churches, that is, whether they
lay in the Roman province in which were the cities of
Derbe and Lystra or in the northern region inhabited
chiefly by Celts. The greater probability appears to be
in favour of the former hypothesis, but the decision of the
question does not affect the character of Paul's missionary
work and the conflict in which he was involved on behalf
of the Galatian churches. We have already seen that
Paul declares explicitly in Galatians that the first fourteen
years of his work succeeding his visit to Peter in Jerusalem
were passed in " the regions of Syria and Cilicia," after
which he went up to Jerusalem for conference with the
apostles. On the contrary the writer of Acts records a

THE FIRST YEARS 89
mission of " Barnabas and Saul " in Cyprus, Pamphilia,
Pisidia, and Lykaonia (Acts xiii., xiv.), prior to the con
ference in Jerusalem. Since Paul could not have included
these regions in " Syria and Cilicia," it is probable that
the order of time in Acts is not historical, and that we
have here one of the many deviations of this book from
the course of events indicated in the Epistles. Although
the legendary character of many of the events recorded
in these chapters is evident, the account of the journey
appears to have an historical basis in the names of the
cities visited, and it is not improbable that we have here
such a narrative of the beginnings of the Galatian churches
as might have been written at the end of the first or the
beginning of the second century by such a writer from
the fragmentary sources at his disposal. There is no
reason on the ground of intimations in the Epistle to the
Galatians for assuming that the churches of that name
were founded prior to the conference in Jerusalem. The
words in Gal. ii. 5 : "To whom we gave place by subjec
tion, no, not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel might
continue with you," do not contain such an implication,
for the entire fortune of the gentile mission was at stake
in the contest, and a special application is made to the
Galatians in the Epistle as gentiles whose interest in the
issue did not depend upon the time of their conversion.
Gal. iv. 13 contains a reference to two visits to these
churches prior to the -writing of the Epistle. " Ye know
how," the apostle writes, "through infirmity of the flesh
I preached the gospel to you at the first," that is, the first
time. The sources at our disposal do not make this matter
clear beyond question, and we cannot do better than resort
to Weizsacker's conjecture that the second visit was on the
return journey of the first missionary tour recorded in
Acts xiv. 21-26, or that it occurred on the second mis
sionary journey (Acts xvi.).

90 THE MISSIONARY
The Epistle to the Galatians is exceedingly bare of
references to the external conditions of the churches, such
as their locations, the journeys made in founding them, and
the attendant circumstances and incidents. The internal
situation was the urgent matter that called the Epistle
forth, and with this it is intensely occupied. Apart from
this particular exigency, however, occasional intimations
occur which throw light upon the antecedents of the con
verts and the character of the mission. There is no reason
for doubting that the Galatian churches were composed
chiefly of converts' from heathenism. This appears from
the words : " Howbeit, then, when ye knew not God, ye
did service unto them which by nature are no gods " (Gal.
iv. 8). Not the existence, but the divinity of the beings
formerly worshipped, is here denied. They belong to " the
weak and beggarly elements," that is, elementary powers
mentioned in the next verse which were associated with
the Jewish observance of "days and months and times
and years" (verse io) as the spirits of the heavenly bodies
(Gal. iv. 3). In iii. 13, "bought us off from the curse of
the law," "us" apparently refers to the Jews, but the
immediately following words, "that the blessing of Abra
ham might come on the gentiles," denotes that not Jewish-
Christian, but gentile-Christian readers were in the writer's
mind. To these simple-minded idolaters Paul, detained
among them by his infirmity, preached his gospel of theism,
of the one true God, and of the great redemption through
Jesus Christ, of the sonship into which they were born by
reason of their acceptance of the atonement, of the Spirit
which as sons they receive (iv. 6), of the love of God, who
sent His Son to deliver them "from this present evil world"
(i. 4), of the faith through which they received the Spirit that
by works could not have been theirs (iii. 2), and of the
liberty to which through Christ they were called (v. 13).

THE FIRST YEARS 9 1
That the question of " another gospel " had been touched
upon in his preaching either on his first or second visit is
clear from i. 9 : " As we said before, so say I now again,
if any man preach another gospel ... let him be accursed,"
and an echo of the contest with the judaisers is plainly heard
in the words : " For I testify again to every man that is
circumcised that he is a debtor to the whole law " (v. 3).
Here "before" and "again" indicate that he had in his
original teaching warned them against the enemies of his
gospel who might come to " spy out their liberty " and
"bring them into bondage" (ii. 4).
The unhappy situation which called forth the Epistle
full of energy and passion soon intervened. " I marvel,"
he writes, "that ye are so soon removed from him that
called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel "
(i. 6). From the question : " Am I therefore become your
enemy, because I tell you the truth ? " we may infer that
his opponents had so represented him to the churches.
He doubtless knew to whom the disturbance of the faith
of his converts was chargeable, but he does not definitely
indicate him or them in the Epistle. In immediate con
nection he speaks of one and more, "he who troubleth
you" and "they who trouble you" (v. 10, 12). There can
be no question as to the source from which the "trouble "
came and as to the authorisation of those who had made
it. The rupture at Antioch had doubtless made the juda
isers in Jerusalem more than ever determined to employ
every means in their power to uproot the Pauline gospel.
We have, indeed, no proof that James or Peter or John
sent emissaries among the Galatians to antagonise the
apostle by sowing disaffection among his converts. But
that such a work should have been undertaken without the
sanction of those in authority is extremely improbable.
When the men went to Antioch to set Peter right from

92 THE MISSIONARY
the Jerusalem point of view, Paul distinctly says that they
came "from James," and this circumstance furnishes a
presumption in favour of a similar authorisation in the case
in hand.*
What was the message which these emissaries brought,
and what were their arguments ? The Galatians believed
that in becoming Christians they had an inheritance in the
kingdom of Christ. So Paul had doubtless taught them.
If they were sons of God (iv. 5), then they were " heirs,"
who would at Christ's coming in his kingdom be " glorified
together" with him (Rom. viii. 17). The judaisers doubt
less endeavoured to convince them that they were not really
God's people, and could not be until they entered the
ancient and only true household of faith through submis
sion to Jewish rites (vi. 12, 13), and observed the Jewish
forms, days, etc. (iv. 10). The note of personal sensitive
ness and defence in the Epistle indicates that his claim
to the apostleship had also been impugned. Hence the
earnest defence of his position, the reference to the "reve
lation " that he had received, and the assertion of his
independence. To this attack upon him we owe the
account of the contest with Peter in Antioch, for which
* The Epistles to the Galatians and the Corinthians are unintelligible on
the theory of Paul's relation to the Jerusalem apostles put forth by Lightfoot
in the dissertation, St. Paul and the Three, in St. Paul's Epistle to the Gala
tians, 1866. He sees in Paul's earlier visit to Jerusalem the purpose of obtain
ing " instruction in the facts of the gospel," and accordingly a " recognition of
the authority of the elder apostles." This is an improbable motive to attribute
to one who expressly declares that he did not confer with flesh and blood. As
to recognising the " authority " of the apostles, nothing is more evident than
that he nowhere admits their superiority to himself. Dr. Lightfoot's teaching,
moreover, that in the conference "the Three" admitted in Paul "a perfect
equality" with themselves, is not supported by the facts which the Epistles
disclose. There is no evidence that they recognised him as an apostle. On
Lhe contrary, James sent emissaries to Antioch to compel Peter to act in direct
antagonism to him, as one without coordinate authority.

THE FIRST YEARS 93
the writer of Acts found no place in his scheme of the
history of primitive Christianity. A few words in the
Epistle indicate the power wielded by the apostles in Jeru
salem, and show the grounds of Peter's fear of " those who
were of the circumcision," when he withdrew from the
gentiles at Antioch. Paul charges the emissaries who dis
turbed the Galatians with striving to constrain them to be
circumcised, " lest they [of the mission] should suffer per
secution for the cross of Christ" (vi. 12). This plainly
shows not only that they had orders to go among the
Galatians on this mission, but also that they did not dare
refuse for fear of the authorities. To suffer persecution
"for the cross of Christ" meant for Paul to suffer it for
advocating his gospel that in the cross the law was done
away. This throws light on a difficult passage already
considered : "If I yet preach circumcision, why am I yet
persecuted" (v. 11)? in which, it has been conjectured, he
employs substantially the words of his opponents who may
have represented to the Galatians that Paul could not be
preaching the right kind of gospel from the point of view
of the only competent authorities, for if he were, why
would these authorities be against him ?
The answer of the apostle to his opponents is a vindica
tion of the principles of his own gospel. After pronounc
ing a curse upon those who pervert the truth as it is in
Jesus and showing the grounds on which his apostleship
rests, he makes clear to the Galatians the real significance
of'accepting Judaism. It is no light matter to assume the
yoke of the law, for " he who is circumcised is a debtor to do
the whole law " (v. 3). He that is under the law is " under
a curse," for it is written in the law itself that every one
is cursed "who continueth not in all things which are
written in the book of the law to do them " (iii. 10). Juda
ism in its observance of years and days and months is no

94 THE MISSIONARY
better than the heathenism out of which they had come,
but like it is a subjection to the weak and beggarly elemen
tal powers, which are "no gods." If they accept circum
cision, "Christ is become of no effect," and they are "fallen
from grace," having rejected the gospel of grace whose
righteousness is not that of works. He shows them that
all that the judaisers claim for themselves as inheritors
of the promise to Abraham belongs also to the gentiles
on the condition of faith, and that in Christ there is neither
Jew nor Greek (iii. 14-29). Against all the requirements
of the judaisers and the perils of accepting them he lays
down the one injunction: "Walk in the Spirit, and ye
shall not fulfil the lusts of the flesh " ; for if they are led by
the Spirit they are not under the law (v. 16, 18). "The
fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentle
ness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance." Against
those who do these things the law can make no charge
(v. 22, 23). This brief Epistle is one of the most impor
tant documents of primitive Christianity in so far as it
reveals the condition of parties, the personality and strug
gles of Paul, and the powers with which he had to contend.
If it is one-sided in its judgment of the law and incomplete
in its exposition of the apostle's gospel, it was not written
with the purpose of expounding either. It doubtless in a
good degree attained its end as a defence of the author and
an exhortation to the churches. On the south-Galatian
theory it was written at Antioch soon after the council in
Jerusalem, and subsequent to the second visit to Derbe and
Lystra. Those who support the north-Galatian hypothesis
place the composition at Ephesus in the year 55, a date
which must be changed to 50 if Harnack's construction be
adopted.

CHAPTER V
PHILIPPI, THESSALONICA, CORINTH
THE beginning of Paul's missionary work in Europe
was made in Philippi of Macedonia, an inland city
with a harbor, Neapolis, opening into the vEgean Sea on
the north. It is related in Acts that after he had "gone
through Phrygia and the region of Galatia" on his second
missionary journey, he was " forbidden of the Holy Ghost
to preach the word in Asia," and that in a "vision in the
night" a man of Macedonia appeared to him and "prayed
him saying, Come over into Macedonia, and help us " (xvi.
6, 9). The mission in Philippi is mentioned by Paul him
self in 1 Thess. ii. 2, where he speaks of sufferings there
which appear to have left a deep impression upon him and
of going thence to Thessalonica. His companions on this
mission were Timothy and Silas (Acts xv. 40, xvi. 1-4,
xvii. 14, 15; 1 Thess. i. 1, iii. 2; Phil. i. 1, ii. 19). The
account in Acts of the apostle's work in Philippi is very
meagre, but a portion of it is important, since it is based
upon the " we-sections," which were probably fragments
of a journal kept by one of his companions. The limits of
these sections are not precisely determinable, and we do
not know with how much freedom the writer of Acts em
ployed them. Weizsacker assigns in chapter xvi., verses
10-24 and 35-39, to the "we-sections." It is not certain
that there was a synagogue here, although that there were
Jews is evident from Acts xvi. 13: "On the Sabbath we
went out of the city by a river-side where prayer was wont
to be made." In any case, there is no mention here in this
95

96 THE MISSIONARY
doubtless most trustworthy source of Acts of an attempt
to preach to the Jews — a procedure which is elsewhere so
regularly recorded as to give rise to the suspicion of a
purpose on the part of the writer to make it appear that
the gentile mission was secondary to that to the Jews in
the apostle's thought.
Here a woman " named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the
city of Thyatira, who worshipped God, heard," was con
verted, and baptized with her household (Acts xvi. 14).
From the circumstance that she "worshipped God" the
inference is not to be drawn that she was a proselyte to
Judaism (see the case of Cornelius, Acts x. 1, 2-28, 35, xi.
1, 18, xv. 7). In the Epistle to the Philippians two other
women are mentioned, Euodias and Syntyche (Phil. iv. 2).
Mention is also made of the casting out of an unclean
spirit from "a certain damsel" (Acts xvi. 16-18), which
may be regarded as an example of the " miracles " of
which Paul speaks as the signs of his apostleship (2 Cor.
xii. 12) and as among the "gifts of the Spirit" (1 Cor. xii.
28).* The story of the imprisonment and the miraculous
* That Paul should have believed himself to be possessed of supernatural
powers is not surprising when we consider his doctrine of the Spirit. The
" gifts " bestowed by this indwelling divine principle were conceived by him
to be supernatural in the sense that they came from God, and were not expli
cable as productions of the natural human faculties. His entire theology, his
teaching of salvation, of Christology, and of eschatology, proceeds, moreover,
upon premises of the divine interference. It is true that he does not often
appeal to outward "signs" as an evidence of his apostleship, but rather to his
" call " and to the fruits of his mission (Gal. i. I ; I Cor. ix. I f. ; 2 Cor. iii. 2 f.).
His call, however, was conceived to be supernatural and effected by a revela
tion by God of His Son in him (Gal. i. 16), and his message he regarded as of
the same origin (i Cor. ii. 10-16). The speaking with a tongue, in which he
thanked God he was proficient above all the Corinthian Christians, he thought
to be one of the gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor. xii. 10, xiv. 18). He appears
accordingly to have believed that an apostle possessed in a greater measure
than other Christians the supernatural powers common to all of them as
TwevfiaTiKol or those having the Spirit. This idea is implied in the expression,

PHILIPPI, THESSALONICA, CORINTH 97
deliverance is invalidated not only by its legendary feat
ures, but by the improbability that Paul should have allowed
himself to be ill treated when the mention of his Roman
citizenship would have prevented such a procedure, as is
apparent from the account itself (Acts xvi. 37, 38). "Only
one thing stands here," says Weizsacker, "not as the
kernel of the narrative, but as the condition of its origin,
that during his sojourn in Philippi Paul was in great dis
tress . . . and was obliged to flee." When five years
later (58, according to the generally accepted chronology)
he went from Ephesus the second time into Macedonia,
giving " much exhortation " to the believers (Acts xx. 2),
he says that he had no rest, "without were fightings,
within were fears" (2 Cor. vii. 5 ; see also i. 16, ii. 13), but
the character of his opponents is not mentioned. A visit
to Philippi is doubtless implied.
About ten years after the establishment of the church in
Philippi Paul wrote a letter to the believers here from his
prison in Rome. That in the interval other letters were
written them is probable, but the canonical Epistle to the
Philippians is the only one that has been preserved, and is
our sole source of information as to the relations of the
apostle with this church. From this we learn that these
relations were undisturbed by such unhappy complications
as those in the Galatian churches. There is no intimation
" signs of an apostle." That the gift to perform " miracles " as well as various
wonderful works was thought to be possessed by others than apostles is evident
from 1 Cor. xii. 8-10, 28. The Epistles of Paul furnish no data for forming a
conception of the nature of these " signs " (cr-fuxeia) and " mighty works "
(dw&ueis). They were phenomena of an age in which ignorance of the
natural forces gave free scope to the invoking of supernatural powers for their
explanation. Events doubtless similar received a like explanation one hundred
years later by Justin Martyr (Apol. ii. 6; Dial. 30, 39). Compare the account
in Acts xx. 7 ff. of the resuscitation 'by the apostle of a young man supposed to
be dead.

98 THE MISSIONARY
that the judaising opponents found their way to the believ
ers here. In the Epistle he thanks God for their " fellow
ship in the gospel from the first day until now " (Phil. i. 5).
He exhorts them to maintain unity without intimating that
deplorable divisions had taken place among them : " Stand
fast in one spirit, with one mind striving together for the
faith of the gospel" (i. 27). He commends them for
having "always obeyed," not only in his presence, but also
in his absence (ii. 12), and calls them " dearly beloved and
longed for," his "joy and crown" (iv. 1). That he saw
the need of exhortations regarding their relations to one
another perhaps on account of the self-exaltation of some
may be inferred from ii. 4-10, where he counsels them to
consideration of one another, and enforces his admonition
by reference to the example of Christ who " made himself
of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant,
and was made in the likeness of men." The kindly rela
tions existing between him and the Philippians are indi
cated by the fact that he received more than once support
from them, notwithstanding his boast that he earned his
bread with his own hands (1 Thess. ii. 9; 1 Cor. iv. 12, ix.
4-18). He tells the Corinthians that what was lacking to
him " the brethren from Macedonia supplied " (2 Cor. xi. 9),
and writes to the Philippians themselves that they had
"once and again " sent to his necessities (iv. 15, 16), and
out of his imprisonment he "rejoices in the Lord" that
now at the last their " care for him hath flourished again "
(iv. 10), and in ii. 25 he mentions Epaphroditus as their
messenger who had come to him and ministered to his
wants. The Epistle contains numerous exhortations to unity,
indeed, and it is apparent that information had reached the
apostle of certain divisions, " murmurings, and disputings."
He beseeches Euodias and Syntyche that they be " of the

PHILIPPI, THESSALONICA, CORINTH 99
same mind in the Lord," and admonishes the believers
generally to let their moderation be known unto all men,
for "the Lord is at hand," as if personal strife and passion
were trivial in view of the great consummation of the
Parousia (iv. 2, 5). But we are not warranted in supposing
that any such conflict existed in the church as divided the
churches of Galatia, or that if there was a Jewish-Christian
party in it they had taken the extreme ground that the
gentile Christians must submit to Jewish rites. Opponents
actual or possible from whom danger existed or was threat
ened are mentioned in severe terms with a warning against
them in iii. 2, 18. They are "dogs," and "enemies of the
cross of Christ," "evil workers," and "of the concision,"
while the Christians are "the circumcision," that is, repre
sent the true circumcision of the heart, and " have no con
fidence in the flesh." The most probable reference in
these passages is to a Jewish influence from without, from
which danger was apprehended. The want of unity which
evidently attracted the apostle's attention may very likely
have been between Jewish and gentile Christians. But the
distinct expression of Paul's gratitude for the "fellowship
in the gospel " excludes all deep-seated doctrinal differences.
From Philippi Paul and his companions went by way of
Amphipolis and Apollonia to Thessalonica, where accord
ing to Acts xvii. 2 he immediately devoted himself to
a Jewish-Christian instead of a gentile mission. On the
contrary, the apostle afterwards wrote to this church as
if it were composed of converts from heathenism : " Ye
turned," he says, "to God from idols to serve the living
and true God" (1 Thess. i. 9). Again he writes them
that, just as the churches of God which are in Judea had
been persecuted by the Jews, so they have suffered from
their own countrymen (ii. 14). Distressed after his arrival
in Athens about the condition of the Thessalonians, when

IOO THE MISSIONARY
he "could no longer forbear," he sent Timothy to them to
"establish and comfort" them in their faith (i Thess. iii.
I, 2). This "brother and minister of God" brought him
in Corinth " good tidings of their faith and charity," so
that he was " greatly comforted " in all his affliction and
distress (verses 6, 7). This first Epistle gives important
information as to the situation in Thessalonica on the con
dition that its genuineness is established. It has been
contested on grounds which can hardly be regarded as
sufficient to warrant its rejection. The account of the
founding of the church sounds, indeed, like a narrative
made to persons who knew nothing of the matter rather
than to those who already had a knowledge of it, and the
reference to the church as " ensamples to all that believe
in Macedonia and Achaia " has been thought to denote a
later period. The distinctive Pauline doctrines of faith and
justification, of the law, and of the ¦ atonement are not
referred to in the Epistle, or at least receive no detailed
exposition. But the internal evidences of Pauline author
ship far outweigh the indications to the contrary. The
apostle's style and mode of thought are distinctly evident,
especially in the greeting, the exhortations, and the con
cluding words. The doctrine of the resurrection as the
ground of the believers' hope at the coming of Christ,
when " God will bring with him " those " who are asleep
in Jesus" reminds us of 1 Cor. xv. 22, 23 (1 Thess. iv.
14, v. 10). The wrath of God and deliverance from it
through the death of Christ (i. 10, iv. 9 f.) are distinctly
Pauline conceptions (see 2 Cor. v. 15; Phil. iii. 10; Rom.
xiv. 7-9).
Pfleiderer calls attention to "a still more compelling
reason against a later authorship " in the expression of
the apostle's expectation that he would survive the coming
of Christ, contained in the words, " we who are alive and

PHILIPPI, THESSALONICA, CORINTH 101
remain unto the coming of the Lord" (iv. 15). "This no
one could have written after Paul's death." This Epistle
was written from Corinth by Paul, Silvanus, and Timothy
perhaps within a year after his mission in Thessalonica,
probably about 54 or 55, if we assume 34 or 35 as the date
of his conversion, instead of 30 according to Harnack.
Although it is a joint letter (i. 1), the apostle frequently
takes occasion to speak in his own name, and it bears
throughout the impress of his personality. The report
which Timothy had brought, while on the whole encour
aging, as we have seen, evidently impressed the apostle
with the conviction that the church needed certain exhor
tations as to Christian conduct. There was something
"lacking" in their faith and in their "love toward one
another" (iii. 10, 11). He would have them "abound
more and more " in accordance with the precepts he had
given (iv. 1, 10). There is a plain intimation that some
of them had gone astray and needed to be admonished
to " abstain from fornication " and from defrauding one
another (iv. 3, 6). Some were troubled as to the future
fortune at the coming of Christ of those of their friends
who had died, and he tells them that when Christ shall
descend from heaven "the dead in Christ" will be raised,
since Jesus himself had been raised from the dead (iv. 14-
17). The "unruly" needed to be warned, the "feeble
minded" comforted, andthe "weak" supported, and these
offices the brethren should themselves perform (v. 14).
Those who " laboured among " them and were " over
them in the Lord" were not duly esteemed, and all the
believers were apparently not " at peace " among them
selves (v. 12, 13). It is evident in the note of personal
defence that charges against Paul had been made in some
quarters, perhaps from the heathen opponents, which he
thought ought to be answered. Hence his disclaim-

102 THE MISSIONARY
ing of "deceit," "flattery," "covetousness," etc. (ii. 4,
5, 6, 9).
The second Epistle to the Thessalonians furnishes no
new information of importance regarding the conditions in
the church at Thessalonica even on the hypothesis of its
genuineness. It is, however, very doubtful that it came
from the hand of Paul. The slight deviations from Paul
ine usage in words and forms of expression are hardly
sufficient to support an argument against its genuineness.
But the indications of imitation both in the substance
and form are suspicious, and Schmiedel concludes that the
turns of expression are to such a degree drawn from the
first Epistle as would have been impossible for Paul him
self without a fresh reading of it. The so-called " little
apocalypse" (ii. 1-12) is almost certainly spurious on ac
count of its disagreement with what the first Epistle teaches
as to "the last things" or the Parousia. According to
ii. 5 Paul had " told " the Thessalonians that certain definite
signs would precede the second coming of Christ, the ap
pearance of "the man of sin," "the son of perdition"
(ii. 3 f.). If this is genuine, he must have taught them
orally the direct opposite of what he wrote them in the
first Epistle. For in this he says that the day of the Lord
will "come as a thief in the night" (1 Thess. v. 2), and
tells them that they know this perfectly, as if he had so
taught them. " Sudden destruction " will come upon
those who " cry peace and safety." This certainly means
an unexpected coming of the great day, and is incompati
ble with such preceding signs as are mentioned in the
second letter. In the first Epistle he declines to tell them
anything about the " times and the seasons " of the advent,
since they knew well that its coming is without warning,
like that of a thief.
In the second letter, on the contrary, he enters into this

PHILIPPI, THESSALONICA, CORINTH 103
very question, and warns the believers against thinking
that the day is "at hand," and plainly tells them that they
will know by certain signs when to expect it. The warn
ing against being misled by spurious letters purporting to
come from the apostle (ii. 2) is suspicious. There is no
trace of such letters written during the lifetime of the
apostle, and the improbability against the existence of them
is great. An intensifying of the first Epistle is manifest
in several features of the second, particularly in all that
relates to the catastrophe of the end. Here we have
Christ " taking vengeance in flaming fire," and instead of
the " sudden destruction " of 1 Thess. v. 3 which would
come upon those who cry peace and safety, the second
letter tells of a punishment with " everlasting destruction "
to be visited upon " those who know not God, and obey
not the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ " (i. 8). As if,
moreover, the evil tendencies in those who are to " perish "
were not sufficient to compass their ruin, the writer
represents that " God will send them a strong delusion,
that they should believe a lie, that they all might be
damned" (ii. 11, 12). The hypothesis of a genuine let
ter consisting substantially of i. 1-4 and ii. 13 — iii. 18,
which was interpolated prior to the year 70, can hardly
be sustained, since it leaves such a fragment as Paul
would hardly have written. The portions omitted on this
hypothesis constitute the kernel of the Epistle.
Of the succeeding fortunes of the Macedonian churches
Acts gives us no information, although it mentions a
visit of the apostle to that region (xx. 1-3). But the
second Epistle to the Corinthians written thence throws
some light upon the conditions existing there four or five
years after the founding of the churches. He wishes the
Corinthians to know of " the grace of God bestowed^ upon
the churches of Macedonia, how that in a great trial of

IO4 THE MISSIONARY
affliction the abundance of their joy and their deep poverty
abounded unto the riches of their liberality " (2 Cor. viii.
1, 2). The natural inference from his words is that the
distress was so great that he could not find it in his heart
to ask them to contribute to the collection that he was
making for the needy Christians. He says, however : " To
their power I bear record, yes, and beyond their power
they were willing of themselves, praying us with much
entreaty that we should receive the gift, and take upon us
the fellowship of the ministering to the saints " (2 Cor.
viii. 3, 4). " Not as we hoped," he says, " but first gave
themselves to the Lord and unto us by the will of God."
So freely and liberally did they give, that he calls their
generosity a giving of themselves. The apostle wishes
that through the visit of Titus to the Corinthians in the
interest of the collection "the same grace" may be com
pleted in them also. With Titus Paul sends from Mace
donia two companions to the Corinthians, one of whom he
calls " the brother whose praise is in the gospel throughout
all the churches." The other he designates as "our
brother, whom we have oftentimes proved diligent in many
things" (2 Cor. viii. 18, 22). Conjecture as to who these
men were is fruitless. In Acts xx. 4 mention is made of
two men from Thessalonica as companions of Paul on his
journey with the collection, Aristarchus and Secundus,
but we cannot certainly connect these with the two men
tioned in 2 Cor. viii. 18, 22.
According to 1 Thess. iii. 1 Paul was in Athens when he
sent Timothy to Thessalonica to establish the church and
comfort them concerning their faith. In 1 Cor. xvi. 15 he
speaks of "the house of Stephanas" as "the first fruits of
Achaia," and in 2 Cor. i. 1 he addresses "the church of
God which is at Corinth with all the saints who are in all
Achaia." That in Achaia there were believers outside of

PHILIPPI, THESSALONICA, CORINTH 105
Corinth is accordingly probable. We are not warranted,
however, in assuming a ministry in the Pauline sense and
the founding of a church in Athens. That Paul while in
Athens was inactive and silent is hardly probable from our
knowledge of him, and the mention of Dionysius and the
woman Damaris (Acts xvii. 34) has the appearance of
being derived from an historical source. The historical
value of the account as a whole is, however, doubtful.
That Paul's spirit should have been " stirred within him "
at sight of a "city wholly given up to idolatry" is not
improbable ; but why on this account he should have dis
puted " in the synagogue with the Jews and with the devout
persons" is not apparent (Acts xvii. 16, 17). The address
attributed to the apostle on Mars' Hill, to say nothing of
the impossibility of its being reproduced with anything like
accuracy forty or fifty years later, does credit to the inven
tion of the author ; but we miss in reading it the distinctive
Pauline traits. It contains no message of salvation through
Christ, who is represented simply as the agent of divine
judgment; and the summons to repentance, because God
" will judge the world," is more after the manner of John
the Baptist than of Paul. In any case, whatever one may
think of the discourse as Pauline or unpauline, it is improb
able that so important an event as a ministry in Athens,
discussions with Greek philosophers, and an address to the
enlightened Athenians on Mars' Hill would not have been
mentioned by the apostle, if it ever occurred.
Of the church in Corinth, the history of which is of the
greatest importance for a knowledge of the mission among
the gentiles, of the personality and methods of Paul, and
of his relations with the Jerusalem authorities, we should
know nothing of value if we had no other source of infor
mation than Acts (xviii. 1-19). The writer of this book,
for reasons about which it is useless to speculate, tells us

106 THE MISSIONARY
nothing of the inner history of the church, nothing of the
parties and their conflicts, nothing of the Epistles or of the
occasions that called them forth, and nothing of the skil
ful dealing' of the apostle with the trying emergencies
which confronted him there. That he should have been
unacquainted with the Pauline Epistles appears incredible,
and his omissions here as well as his passing over in silence
of the important episode of the conflict of Peter and Paul
at Antioch constitute one of the unsolved problems of his
problematical work. From his narrative it would appear
that Paul was primarily occupied with a mission to the
Jews, and did not think of preaching to the gentiles until
the Jews rejected him. This is not in accord with Gal. i.
1 6, and has not the slightest support in the Corinthian
Epistles. Not only are the omissions noteworthy, but the
brief account of the mission leaves much to be desired
regarding the matters with which it deals. Paul goes
immediately to a Jew of Pontus lately come from Italy,
and stays with him because the two are ofthe same handi
craft, tentmakers. Of this Aquila and his wife Prisca
("Priscilla" is a diminutive) we are not told whether they
became Christians or not, and if we may infer that they
did, whether or no they were converted by Paul. The
apostle goes at once to the synagogue, and " reasons " there
" every sabbath," how many sabbaths, we are not told.
But during all this time it would appear that he was reason
ing about something else than Christianity, for he did not
"testify that Jesus was Christ," until "Silas and Timothy
came from Macedonia," when he was "pressed in spirit,"
and took up the subject of his mission. There is no inti
mation that during this period he had thought that he was
the divinely appointed apostle to the gentiles (Acts xviii.
1-6). Only when the Jews " opposed themselves, and
blasphemed," did he "shake his raiment," and declare that
he would "go to the gentiles."

PHILIPPI, THESSALONICA, CORINTH 107
It is from the Corinthian Epistles (57-58) that we learn
whatever may be known of the founding of the church
in Corinth and of its internal history during the first
years of its existence. The apostle writes that the gospel
of the Son of God was here preached by himself and
Silvanus and Timothy (2 Cor. i. 19); that he was the
founder of the church (1 Cor. iii. 6); that the Christians
here are his "work in the Lord" (1 Cor. ix. 1); and that
though they " have ten thousand instructors in Christ, they
have not many fathers," for in Christ Jesus he begot them
in the gospel (1 Cor. iv. 15). He says that his message to
them was only "Jesus Christ and him crucified" (1 Cor. ii.
2); that he was with them "in weakness and fear and
much trembling," "not in enticing words of man's wisdom,
but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power" (1 Cor.
n- 3_5); triat he could not speak unto them "as unto
spiritual, but as unto carnal," feeding them as babes with
"milk" (1 Cor. iii. 1-3); and that in his preaching he had
nothing to glory of, for a " necessity was laid upon him "
(1 Cor. ix. 16). The church was composed chiefly of the
common people, " not many wise after the flesh, not many
mighty, not many noble" (1 Cor. i. 26), although from the
requirement to give bountifully (2 Cor. ix. 6) it may be
inferred that some were at least not poor. That the mis
sion began among the gentiles is apparent from the men
tion of Stephanas as the " first fruits "_. whom and his
household Paul himself baptized (1 Cor. xvi. 15). The
apostle writes to the believers here as if they were chiefly
converts from heathenism. "Ye know," he says, "that ye
were gentiles, carried away unto these dumb idols, even as
ye were led" (1 Cor. xii. 2); yet there were evidently some
converts from Judaism (1 Cor. vii. 18, ix. 20, xii. 13). It is
noteworthy that in his account of the beginnings of his
ministry in Corinth he makes no mention of the persecu-

108 THE MISSIONARY
tions and perils related in Acts. His timidity and "fear"
are to be ascribed to his want of confidence in himself as
a public speaker, who could not employ the rhetorical
methods to which the people in this cultivated community
were accustomed. He could rise above all personal defi
ciencies only by the power of the word which he had to
speak. What the substance of the apostle's message to the
Corinthians was may be learned chiefly from the first Epis
tle, although, from the fact that it was written in answer to
questions that arose after he had left them, we must con
clude that it treats of some matters not included in his oral
teaching. "The gospel which he preached to them," he
says, was that of the death of Christ " for our sins," his
resurrection, and his manifestation to the apostles and last
of all to himself (i Cor. xv. 1-8). By this gospel they will
be " saved," if they keep in memory what he preached to
them. He also delivered to them what he had "received
of the Lord" respecting the last supper (i Cor. xi. 23-25).
The kernel of his gospel, however, was evidently that
apprehension of the cross which was to the Jews a stum
bling-block and an " offence " to the Jewish Christians. So
we must doubtless understand 1 Cor. i. 23. That in a mes
sage to idolaters, however, the preaching of the one God
occupied the foremost place, and was made fundamental
to the entire message is antecedently probable, and indica
tions are not wanting in the Epistles that this was the
course pursued. He writes to the believers what he must
before have preached to them that " an idol is nothing in
the world, and that there is none other God but one."
Though "there be gods many and lords many," "to us,"
he declares, "there is but one God, the Father, of whom
are all things, and we in Him " (1 Cor. viii. 4-6). He tells
them that formerly they "were carried away unto these

PHILIPPI, THESSALONICA, CORINTH 109
dumb idols" (1 Cor. xii. 2). But the way to this one God
was shown to be through Christ, and he was preached
among them as "the Son " (2 Cor. i. 19). It was God who
established the preachers along with the hearers, who
anointed them, and sealed them, and gave them "the
earnest of the Spirit"; but this was done "in Christ"
(2 Cor. i. 21, 22). Through God Christ Jesus in whom they
are is made to them "wisdom and righteousness and sanc
tification and redemption" (1 Cor. i. 30). Jesus died for
all, that they who live should not henceforth live to them
selves, but to him who died for them and rose again," and
if any man be "in him," he is a new creation; old things
are passed away ; behold, all things are become new "
(2 Cor. v. 15, 17). In Christ the believer comes into a spirit
ual fellowship in which new and noble ethical motives pre
vail. The body has become a " member of Christ," and
should not be debased to unholy uses, is "the temple of
the Holy Ghost" which is in them, which they have of
God, and they are not their own. They are " bought with
a price," and should glorify God in their spirit and their
body "which are God's" (1 Cor. vi. 20).
The organisation of the little religious community, which
probably assembled in a private house, as in Ephesus
(1 Cor. xvi. 19), is not clearly defined in the Epistles.
Intimations are, however, not wanting, which throw some
light upon the matter. Among these nothing appears to
favour the supposition that men were appointed to govern
ing positions with official titles, according to the represen
tation in Acts to the effect that it was the apostle's custom
to " ordain elders " in every church (Acts xiv. 23). Paul
does not intimate that he assumed such a function in his
churches. On the contrary, the organisation appears at
first to have had a much simpler form than the writer of
Acts supposes, who looked upon the matter from the point

IIO THE MISSIONARY
of view of a later time. In i Cor. xii. 28 the apostle enu
merates certain classes of persons whom " God hath set in
the church," and mentions successively apostles, prophets,
teachers, miracles, gifts of healing, helps, governments,
diversities of tongues. None of these appear to have been
formally "ordained," and the natural inference from the
passage is that each one took upon himself, probably with
the tacit consent of the others, such functions as his gifts
fitted him to perform. When the apostle calls attention
to irregularities in the church, he mentions no titled func
tionary with authority to control and to check extrava
gances, but appeals to the little community as a whole
(1 Cor. v. 3-5 ; 2 Cor. ii. 6), which elects its envoys, and
in which there are no distinctions of rank, sex, or race
(1 Cor. xii. 13, xvi. 3). The relation of the organisation
to that of the heathen cult-associations cannot be precisely
ascertained, but it is probable that, while similarities may
have existed, the needs of the church were the determining
factor. Under " governments " may be included a presid
ing officer, but there is no indication that a title belonged
to him, and the supposition is not improbable that the
persons first converted took an active part in the manage
ment of affairs, and thus naturally attained a leadership
either by tacit common consent or by election.
There must in any case be assumed the freedom of a
self-governing body to adapt itself to circumstances and
provide for such needs as its situation and development
made apparent. In Corinth the first convert appears to
have held a prominent position in the church when the
first Epistle was written, for the apostle exhorts the be
lievers as follows : " I beseech you, brethren (ye know the
house of Stephanas, that it is the first fruits of Achaia,
and that they have addicted themselves to the ministry of
the saints), that ye submit yourselves unto such and to

PHILIPPI, THESSALONICA, CORINTH III
every one that helpeth with us and laboureth" (i Cor.
xvi. 15). These words indicate that there were leaders
in the church who had " addicted themselves to the minis
try of the saints," but they are not mentioned with an
official title, and nothing is intimated as to their appoint
ment. Rather the voluntary performance of certain duties
appears to have been preliminary to the attainment of a
position which warrants the apostle in requiring others to
"submit" themselves to them. The Thessalonian church
presents an analogous situation in the apostle's exhortation :
" We beseech you, brethren, to know them who labour
among you, and are over you in the Lord, and admonish
you ; and to esteem them very highly for their works'
sake" (1 Thess. v. 12, 13). Here "labour among you"
and " are over you " denote special and prominent activities
without any indication of such a title as "elders " {irpea^v-
repoi) or of an " ordination " by the apostle himself. It is
evident that similar conditions existed in Ephesus, to which
Rom. xvi. 1-20 was probably originally written, where
separate organisations perhaps meeting in private houses
appear to be addressed and greeted through their presid
ing officers. In Rom. xii. 8, "he that ruleth, with diligence"
doubtless refers to such a leading personage. Here the
position appears to belong to one who was supposed to
have the requisite "gift," and he is mentioned along with
those who have the gifts of prophecy, ministry, exhortation,
teaching, and giving, as if each one assumed his position,
and performed its appropriate duties in the interest of all
according as he was regarded by all to be qualified by
special endowment. The mention of "bishops and dea
cons" in the address of the Epistle to the Philippians
doubtless denotes a later development, or the terms
eirCaKOTj-oi and Std/cavoi may signify no more than is
implied in "those who are over you" (irpo'baTdfj.evoi) and

112 THE MISSIONARY
"those who labour among you" (icoTnoovre'i) of I Thes
salonians. The first Epistle to the Corinthians was occasioned by
internal conditions in the church which arose shortly after
Paul's departure from Corinth for Ephesus, and was writ
ten from the latter city, when he was contemplating a visit
to them (i Cor. xvi. 2-8). An intervening visit is main
tained by some authorities, upon the discussion of whose
reasons for the contention we cannot here enter. He had
in any event received information as to the situation from
various persons. Some dependents of "the house of Chloe "
had told him of "contentions " (1 Cor. i. 11). Stephanas,
Fortunatus, and Achaicus had visited him (1 Cor. xvi. 17),
and Apollos had come, and was with him when the Epistle
was written (1 Cor. xvi. 12). A letter that has not been
preserved he had also written them, in which he says
expressly that he had charged them " not to company with
fornicators" (1 Cor. v. 9). He had also had a letter from
them to which he refers with a special indication of its
subject-matter (1 Cor. vii. 1). As to the relation of
Apollos to the "contentions" which had arisen in the
church, we have no definite information. In mentioning
the party " of Apollos " Paul throws no blame upon him,
as if he had endeavoured to form a faction opposed to him.
On the contrary, he speaks of him as having "watered"
where he had "planted" (1 Cor. iii. 6). A very natural
explanation of the situation is that given in substantial
accord by Pfleiderer and Weizsacker to the effect that
Apollos had imparted instruction of a more philosophical
character than that of the simple gospel which Paul had
preached to the Corinthians as "babes," and that, schooled
as he was in the Alexandrian method of interpretation, he
had made somewhat hazardous flights in the regions of
allegorising. That a certain class of minds should have

PHILIPPI, THESSALONICA, CORINTH 1 13
been captivated by a ready teacher of this sort is in accord
ance with the nature of things, and they may naturally be
assumed to have gone beyond their teacher to the extent
of perverting his teachings, and to have grouped them
selves into a party bearing his name. The letter which
the apostle had received from the Corinthian church prior
to the writing of the first Epistle contained questions con
cerning marriage, the eating of flesh offered to idols, and
spiritual gifts, and the indications point to divisions of
opinion on these subjects. His treatment of these matters,
so far as it shows his personal qualities as a man and a
missionary, has been considered in a preceding chapter,
and we do not need here to enter upon the subject.
The matter of the party-divisions is not treated by the
apostle in such a manner as to indicate that a serious
rupture had occurred which had separated the church into
hostile camps. That the influence of Apollos had led
some to declare themselves of his party would naturally
lead the friends of the Pauline teaching, or rather we
should say, method (for there is no reason for supposing a
radical difference of doctrine) to array themselves on the
side of their first teacher. Thus the origin of these two
factions is easily accounted for. It is not so clear why
others should have taken Peter as their party-name, for
there is no reason for thinking that he had been in Corinth,
and nowhere in the Epistle does Paul express himself about
him as if he were an opponent in this field. His attitude
toward the question which he discusses with so much
vehemence in Galatians indicates that it had not here
assumed such a form as there. The existence of a party
of Peter cannot, however, be denied, and the most obvious
explanation of the fact of its existence is the supposition
that the judaisers had found their way into the church,
and were exerting an influence hostile to Paul and his
1

114 THE MISSIONARY
gospel. The reference to circumcision in i Cor. vii. 18
shows that the question was discussed, although it may not
have been "the open question of the day," and although
there is no reason for concluding from what the apostle
says about it that a distinct demand had been made on the
part of a Jewish-Christian party for the subjection of the
gentile Christians to the rite.
But that the advocates of views distinctively opposed to
those of the apostle were on the ground is indicated not
only by the existence of the party of Peter, but by pointed
references to them in the second Epistle as the preachers
of "another Jesus" and "false apostles" (2 Cor. xi. 4, 13).
Since Peter was the acknowledged head among the apostles
in Jerusalem, it is natural that those of the Corinthians
who were favourable to the Jewish-Christian interpretation
of the gospel should call themselves, or be called, the party
of Peter. That those who instigated this party were not of
Corinth, but came with authorisation, is indicated in the
reference of Paul to "epistles of commendation" which
were brought by "some" (2 Cor. iii. 1). There can be
little doubt that to this party is to be traced an influence
tending to overthrow the authority of Paul. Such an
influence was evidently exerted. This is an unavoidable
inference from his defence of himself. He speaks of being
"judged " by the Corinthians, and says it is a small matter,
that of their judgment. He has one who judges him, and
that one is Christ. The admonition to judge nothing
before the time, until Christ came, is a reproof of their
plainly-implied censure of him. Whether or no Weiz
sacker's opinion have sufficient exegetical support to justify
it, that the Corinthian church proposed to call the apostle
to account, and had appointed a time for a hearing, the
inference is warranted that a party was busy in opposition
to him. The question mooted may have been his claim

PHILIPPI, THESSALONICA, CORINTH 115
to apostolical recognition. In fact his words show this
plainly. " Am I not an apostle ? " he asks. " Have I not
seen Jesus Christ our Lord ? are ye not my work in the
Lord ? " The opponents, the judaisers who denied his
apostleship, are definitely enough indicated in the words :
" If I be not an apostle unto others, yet doubtless I am to
you, for the seal of my apostleship are ye in the Lord"
(1 Cor. ix. 1, 2).
A third party, that "of Christ," appears to be denoted
in 1 Cor. i. 12, and perhaps, as Schmiedel maintains, one
cannot on strictly exegetical grounds deny its existence.
But not without, good reasons does Pfleiderer argue that
the expression, "I am of Christ," is to be understood as
the common cry of the three other parties in the sense
that "each made for itself the chief or even exclusive
claim of belonging to Christ on the ground that it con
fessed to faith in him according to Paul or Apollos or
Peter." In this interpretation he follows Robiger who,
he thinks, has assigned the Christ-party to its proper
place — "the realm of shadows, of historical phantoms"
{Urchristenthum, p. 90). The passage presents exegetical
difficulties, but the question in the following verse, " Is
Christ divided?" may very well be interpreted in the sense,
Are there three doctrines which can be called Christian,
that of Paul, that of Apollos, and that of Peter ? Can you
all say that you are "of Christ," while you confess to three
forms of Christian doctrine ? Apart, however, from the
exegetical question, it is difficult to explain the existence
of such a party beside the other three. It is conceivable
that the adherents of the party of Peter might claim that
the original apostles, having been personally with Christ,
were rather entitled to be called Christians than Paul and
his supporters, and that such an idea was current and
had come to Paul's knowledge appears from his question,

Il6 THE MISSIONARY
"Have I not seen Christ?" This ground of the attack
of the judaisers upon Paul's claims to the apostleship has
already been referred to, and it is difficult to discover a
basis for a party of Christ in distinction from the Petrine.
Besides, it is worthy of note that apart from this one pas
sage of difficult and doubtful interpretation no reference is
made by the apostle in the Epistle to this so-called Christ-
party. On the contrary, when he in another place men
tions the subject of party-divisions, he says nothing of this
fourth faction while explicitly naming the other three : " Let
no man glory in men ; for all things are yours, whether
Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or
things present or things to come ; all are yours ; and ye
are Christ's, and Christ is God's" (i Cor. iii. 21, 22). More
over, the question, "Is Christ divided?" (1 Cor. i. 13) is
appropriate on the supposition of the three parties, those
of Paul, Apollos, and Peter, but has no application to a
party of Christ. The passage in 2 Cor. x. 7 : " Do ye look
on things after the outward appearance ? If any man trust
to himself that he is Christ's, let him of himself think this
again, that as he is Christ's, even so are we Christ's," which
Weizsacker adduces in support of the theory of a Christ-
party, doubtless relates to Paul's claim to apostolical author
ity which was disputed by the judaisers, and is accordingly
adapted to the party of Peter. In the next verse he says :
" For though I should boast somewhat more of our author
ity." The sense is the same if we translate the first clause
of the former verse with Schmiedel : " Look upon what
lies before your eyes." To have authority as an apostle
and to be Christ's are here one and the same.
Before despatching the first Epistle Paul had sent
Timothy to Corinth, to bring them into remembrance of
his ways which are in Christ, as he taught everywhere
in every church (1 Cor. iv. 17). He promises himself to

PHILIPPI, THESSALONICA, CORINTH 1 17
"come shortly" to them, and asks them whether he shall
come "with a rod or in love and in the spirit of meekness."
It appears that Timothy's mission was ethical rather than
doctrinal, for the apostle says : " I beseech you be ye fol
lowers of me. For this cause I have sent Timothy," etc.
The "ways" into remembrance of which he was to bring
them relate to his walk and conversation, and the mission
denotes his solicitude as to the morals of the church. To
this matter he devotes in fact a section of the first part
of the Epistle, which includes the first six chapters. In
chapters v. and vi., namely, he addresses himself to the
moral shortcomings of the church in respect to fornica
tion of which he had written them in a previous letter, and
in respect to going to law with one another before heathen
magistrates. In the second part of the Epistle, from chap
ter vii. to the end, which is " in some sort a new letter,"
he attends to the questions addressed to him in the letter
from the church — marriage, virgins, flesh offered to idols,
women in the church, the so-called "gifts of the Spirit."
He returns to the matter of his personal defence, his apos
tleship, inserts the hymn to love, treats of excesses in the
observance of the Lord's Supper, and finally discusses the
matter of the resurrection (chap. xv.). This was a vital
question, and he addresses himself to its discussion with a
manifest sense of its importance.
The feeling, force, eloquence, and argumentative skill
displayed render this chapter one of the most noteworthy
and masterful productions of the apostle's genius. Pie
regards his entire mission as standing or falling with this
doctrine of the resurrection of the dead. The resurrection
of Jesus, which was a central thought in his teaching, was
for him an assurance of the resurrection of those who
'believed in him, and of their entrance into his kingdom
when he should appear. Accordingly, he argues that " if

Il8 THE MISSIONARY
the dead rise not, then is Christ not risen ; and if Christ
be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is
also vain" (i Cor. xv. 13, 14). From the question : "How
say some among you that there is no resurrection of the
dead ? " it is evident that his argument was occasioned by
reports of the doubts of some persons in the church as to
the resurrection, their denial of it in fact. This denial
could not have come from Jewish-Christian believers, and
hardly from those who were of the party of Paul. If they
belonged to any one of the parties it was that of Apollos,
though we are not warranted in supposing that Apollos
had so taught them. The denial may have arisen from
the revolt of gentile-Christian thought against the super-
naturalism of the doctrine of the resurrection (Weizsacker),
or from opposition to the materialism which belonged to
the Jewish doctrine of the bodily resurrection (Pfleiderer).
The apostle evidently endeavoured to overcome the mate
rialistic objection by a spiritual doctrine, teaching that the
resurrection-body is "incorruptible" and "celestial," and
that " as we have borne the image of the earthy, we shall
also bear the image of the heavenly" (1 Cor. xv. 40-49).
From this Epistle one obtains a tolerably good idea of
the difficulties which were encountered in the attempt to
establish the pure morality of the gospel among a people
accustomed to the laxity of the heathen mode of life. The
apostle and his gospel could not have been subjected to a
greater trial than just here in this city of license. A
strange Christianity that of the Corinthian church must
have been at the time the first Epistle was written — a
Christianity of which we can scarcely form a conception ;
a mixture of lofty- ideas dimly apprehended with " the
weak and beggarly elements of the world," of Jewish the
ology, Pauline mysticism, and the Alexandrian speculations
and allegorising of Apollos, of conflicting notions as to the

PHILIPPI, THESSALONICA, CORINTH 119
flesh and the Spirit, continence and license, marriage and
celibacy, circumcision and uncircumcision, the authority
of Paul and that of Jerusalem, theism and polytheism; a
conflict of old customs and habits with new principles half
understood, of the " puffed-up " spirit of self-assertion and
dogmatism with the mode"sty that waits to be instructed,
of the sense of decorum with the loud demand for the
unveiled " prophesying " of the women, of a sound feeling
of the fitness of things with a heathenish glee and glut
tony at the Supper of the Lord ; and a babel of a many-
voiced speaking "with a tongue," which led the looker-on
to think the church was " mad." The situation might well
dishearten as brave and great a man as Paul, not only as
to local success, but also as to the entire future of the
cause of Christ. Who could have foreseen that out of
such crudeness and elemental fermentation could come the
Christendom of the nineteenth century ? It needed the
courage, the hope, the divine patience of the great apostle,
the sure insight and faith of a religious genius, who looks
upon "the things that are not seen," to undertake the
mighty task of bringing order out of this chaos. Not by
violence and rough compulsion could the task be achieved,
but only by the ideal and by the love that "hopeth all
things,- endureth all things." He who could at the same
time assert authority and charm with the spirit of Christ
might venture. This Paul could do, and he has left us
the first Epistle to the Corinthians as an evidence of his
skill and mastery.
That the first Epistle did not, however, altogether pro
duce its intended effect is evident from the second, if we
assume that in its existing canonical form it is the second.
The difficulties instead of being removed appear to have
taken on a more intense and aggravated form. That
Timothy on his return had reported the result of the first

120 THE MISSIONARY
letter is probable, as well as that he had brought informa
tion regarding the condition of the church. In any case
the situation seemed sufficiently serious to require that
Paul should at once carry out the purpose of visiting them,
of which he makes mention in the first Epistle (i Cor. iv.
21, xi. 34, xvi. 5-8). The indications are that the visit,
suddenly resolved upon, was short, and that he soon re
turned to Ephesus. The visit is proved by references to
it in the second Epistle which also contains intimations of
his experiences in the course of it. In 2 Cor. xii. 13, speak
ing of a contemplated visit, he says : " Behold, the third
time I am ready to come to you." In xiii. 1, 2 he writes
again of a third proposed visit, and tells the believers-
there that, just as when he was with them the second time,
so now in his absence he warns " those who have sinned "
that if he comes again he "will not spare." These words
cannot fairly be interpreted as referring to intentions to
visit them which were never carried out. The words :
" But I determined this with myself that I would not come
to you again in heaviness [sadness], for if I make you
sorry, who then is he that maketh me glad " (2 Cor. ii.
1, 2), taken in connection with, "I call God for a record
upon my soul [to witness against my soul] that to spare
you [out of consideration for you] I have not yet come to
Corinth" (i. 23), cannot by any fair interpretation be re
ferred to his first visit. They plainly indicate a second in
which he had had painful experiences. Not only was
there, then, a second visit with distressing accompani
ments, but a second letter following our first and prior to
our second canonical Epistle is distinctly referred to. " I
wrote this same to you," he says, "lest when I come
I should have sorrow from them of whom I ought to
rejoice ; " " For to this end did I write, that I might know
the proof of you, whether ye be obedient in all things"
(2 Cor. ii. 3, 9).

PHILIPPI, THESSALONICA, CORINTH 121
There can be no doubt that this letter was written after
the apostle's second visit, and had reference to the humil
iating and grievous circumstances which accompanied it.
" Out of much affliction and anguish of heart," he says,
" I wrote unto you with many tears " (2 Cor. ii. 4). Just
as he intimates that this visit had been a sorrowful one, so
he says of the letter that follows it : " For though I made
you sorry with a letter, I do not repent, though I did
repent, for I perceive that the same epistle hath made you
sorry, though it were but for a season " (2 Cor. vii. 8).
These words cannot be referred to our first canonical
Epistle, and no more characterise its general tone than
what he says about his second visit describes his first mis
sion. It appears, then, that four letters were written by
Paul to the Corinthians: 1. The one preceding our first
canonical Epistle (1 Cor. v. 9); 2. Our first canonical
Epistle; 3. An intervening one between our two canonical
Epistles ; 4. Our second canonical Epistle, unless the
second part of this, x. i-xiii. 10, was No. 3. Between our
two canonical Epistles was a visit of Titus to the church,
who was doubtless sent by the apostle with reference to
the painful incidents connected with the latter's second
visit, and who brought him a report in Macedonia whither
he had come from Ephesus (2 Cor. vii. 6, 13). It is not
improbable that he was the bearer of letter No. 3. Pie
could hardly have been sent in any case without a writing
from the apostle. On his relations with the church, see
2 Cor. vii. 7, viii. 6, 16.
The first part of our second Epistle doubtless contains
references to the situation which occasioned the apostle's
second visit to Corinth, and with which the letter that
followed it dealt. He speaks of a man who had " caused
grief," and been punished "of many," that is, probably,
by the majority of the church. Now he should be for-

122 THE MISSIONARY
given, and Paul himself is ready to forgive (2 Cor. ii. 5-10).
Again in another place he relates how Titus had told him
of the " mourning " of the church and writes of his hav
ing made them "sorry with a letter," of their "repentance,"
of their "clearing" of themselves, their "indignation, zeal,
revenge," and says that the letter in question was written
neither on account of him who did the wrong, nor on ac
count of him who was wronged, but that his care for the
church might be apparent (2 Cor. vii. 8-12). The refer
ence of this to the case of the incestuous person (1 Cor.
v. 1-5) is hardly satisfactory. The punishment which
Paul had determined on for him was nothing less than his
delivery to Satan for the destruction of his flesh, and we
should not without good reason assume the apostle to
have so far changed his attitude and purpose as to be
ready to forgive him ; and there appears to be no other
reason for this explanation than the interpretation of the
second Epistle out of the first.
The indications which we have rather point to an occur
rence on Paul's second visit in which he had been grossly
maltreated by some one, and are moreover to the effect
that the church supported this person, and had afterward
perhaps under the influence of the apostle's second letter
"repented," and shown "their indignation" against the
offender. Those who favour the hypothesis already re
ferred to that it was proposed by some of the apostle's
enemies in Corinth to put him on trial, think that the
plan was carried out on his second visit, and that in the
course of the proceedings the apostle was deeply offended,
"wronged" by some one. In any case the references
to the matter in second Corinthians indicate a personal
offence against him, which he was ready to forgive after
the punishment inflicted " of many " (2 Cor. ii. 6). It is
not improbable that the second letter, which doubtless

PHILIPPI, THESSALONICA, CORINTH 1 23
dealt with this matter, gave rise to the remark to which
he refers that " his letters indeed are weighty and power
ful, but his bodily presence is weak" (2 Cor. x. 10). To
what extent the opposition and maltreatment were repre
sented by the Jewish-Christian party we are unable to
say. The indications in the second Epistle are not pre
cise enough to warrant any positive conclusions regarding
the matter, but the definite reference to a second visit and
a second letter render its explanation in connection with
these highly probable.
That between the writing of our first and second
canonical Epistles the opposition to the apostle on the
part of the judaisers was largely developed and much
intensified is evident from the tone of 2 Cor. x-xiii., the
second division of the letter. There is a reference to
them in the first part where he asks : " Do we need, as
some others, epistles of commendation to you ?" and per
haps in the words : " But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to
them that are lost " (2 Cor. iii. 1, iv. 3). It is difficult to
determine to what extent this portion of the Epistle is
addressed to an opposing party in the church ; probably
that "of Peter" instead of that "of Christ," but the
apostle seems to have had them in view, while his invec
tive is directed against intruders of the Jewish-Christian
propaganda who doubtless were known by him to have
sympathisers among the believers. They appear to have
charged that he was no real apostle, that with his bold
letters and contemptible personal presence he was not
worthy of consideration, that there was nothing to be
feared from him, and that a man was of small account
who went about working at a wretched handicraft for his
support. He retorts upon them with a fine irony, and
says that he will not make himself "of the number of
those who commend themselves," and "measure them-

124 THE MISSIONARY
selves by themselves." The charge is plainly implied that
these judaisers have come into his field and "boast of
other men's labours," and he says that he proposes to
preach the gospel in regions beyond Corinth, and not to
" boast in another man's line of things made ready to his
hand" (2 Cor. x. 15-18). The self-commendation of his
opponents is not to be accepted. The one commended by
the Lord (Christ) has alone the true commendation.- He
is apprehensive lest the false teachers "corrupt" the
minds of the believers " from the simplicity that is in
Christ," just as the serpent beguiled Eve (xi. 3).* Against
the charge that he was "rude in speech" he sets the
assertion that he is not deficient " in knowledge," and in
order to "cut off occasion from them who desire occasion "
he defends himself against the "offence" which his oppo
nents found in his working with his hands to support him
self (xi. 7-12). Then in the climax of his invective he
charges "the false apostles," who "transform themselves
into ministers of Christ," with being ministers of Satan,
"transformed as the ministers of righteousness" (xi.
i3-i5)-t * The comparison is appropriate only in the sense that Eve was through the
serpent (identified with Satan, verse 14, Rom. xvi. 20) made unfaithful to her
husband, as the Corinthians are in danger of being made unfaithful to Christ,
to whom they are " espoused " (verse 2). Paul may have had in mind the
Jewish tradition that Satan or his angel seduced Eve to commit adultery.
How early this tradition was current we do not know, but Irenaeus was ac
quainted with it among the Ophites. Paul's implied reference to it here
would be doubtful if he always kept to the Bible in his illustrations, as we
have seen that he did not. See Everling, Die paid. Angel, u. Damonol.,
p. 51 ff., and Schmiedel on the passage.
t Dr. McGiffert makes a discrimination between judaisers and judaisers, and
thinks that those who worked against the apostle in Corinth are to be distin
guished from his opponents in Galatia and Antioch, for the reason that in the
Corinthian Epistles Paul does not openly "expose their purpose" (p. 31c).
But the strong terms which he employs in 2 Corinthians in denunciation of

PHILIPPI, THESSALONICA, CORINTH 1 25
The tone and contents of the section of our canonical
second Epistle included in x. i-xiii. 10 furnishes consider
able support to the hypothesis that we have here the prin
cipal part (the introduction being absent) of the letter
referred to in 2 Cor. ii. 4, vii. 8, the next letter following
our first Epistle or No. 3 of the whole series of four letters
written to the Corinthians. The difference between this
section and the preceding portion is so marked in the atti
tude and feeling of the apostle toward the church as to
render the supposition extremely improbable that he could
have expressed himself in such a way in one and the same
letter. In v. 12 he says he does not commend himself
again to the church, but gives them occasion to glory on
his behalf, so that glorying in him they may answer those
who glory only in appearance, that is, the judaisers ; while
in the second part (xii. 11) he says he is "compelled" by
their attitude toward him to "become a fool in glorying."
The entire submission of the Corinthians to his require
ments, so that he is "filled with comfort," and repents of
the severity with which he had written them, since they
have "cleared the'mselves " by their compliance is ac
knowledged in vii. 4-15 ; while in xii. 20, 21 he fears that
when he comes he will not find them such as he would,
and will be " humbled " among them on account of their
"envyings," "wraths," etc., against which he will be
obliged to proceed with such severity that they will find
them appear to indicate that he had no less persons than his old enemies in
mind. Besides, what is more likely than that the judaisers with " letters of
commendation " probably from the Jerusalem authorities, should in Corinth
have charged that Paul was no real apostle, while asserting that their sponsors
were the only true apostles, since they had been with Jesus ? The fact that
Paul, as Dr. McGiffert says, " defends his apostolic character " in opposition to
them denotes what sort of enemies they were, and what was the nature of their
antagonism. A Jewi6h-Christian contention apart from the question of the
Jewish rites is hardly supposable,

126 THE MISSIONARY
him as they would not. The supposition that this section
is substantially the letter written after his second visit
to the church, and that the preceding portion (i.-ix.) was
written later, that is, after he had received favourable news
from them, has been supported by a considerable number
of authorities, and most recently by Schmiedel.*
Our two canonical Epistles to the Corinthians are
among the most important of the existing writings of the
apostle, especially in what they show of his character and
of his dealing with the most trying and critical emergen
cies arising from the contact of Christianity with heathen
ism. They are also of no small doctrinal importance,
although the circumstances and the readers did not require
such an expounding of his opinions on the law and the
atonement as we find in Romans. For his doctrine of
Christ and of the last things they furnish an abundant
material, and of his ethics we learn more from them than
from any other source, particularly as to marriage and
divorce, the relations of the sexes, and social purity. We
learn here more than anywhere else of his physical and
mental condition, of his "visions and revelations," of his
seeing of the Lord, of the place that he would assign to
women in the Christian community, of his attitude toward
idolatry, and of his dealing with the matter of the "gifts
of the Spirit." Not a little do we find in them too of his
method of interpretation, and of his style as a writer they
furnish a striking example. The spiritual apprehension of
the resurrection is expounded in detail and with graphic
power. The great missionary here openly confesses him
self to those whom he loved and for whom he suffered.
In his timidity, his hesitation before his great task, his
humiliation at the hands of his enemies, his outbursts of
* Dr. McGiffert must now be reckoned among the supporters of this
hypothesis {The Apostolic Age, p. 313).

PHILIPPI, THESSALONICA, CORINTH 127
indignation, his irony and scorn, his devotion to his spirit
ual children, his wrestling with himself, his anguish, and
his tears, he stands before us in unveiled exposure. The
Epistles are, moreover, of great value on account of the
vivid picture which they present of the fortunes of primi
tive Christianity in its ethical and religious relations with
modes of life so foreign to its principles and spirit as those
that prevailed in Corinth. Not less important, too, are
they than Galatians in what they show of the attitude and
methods of Paul's unwearied opponents, the judaisers;
and if in his opposition to them he expresses himself with
more bitterness and severity than we can approve, we shall
do well to remember that he was human, that the cause
of his life was at stake, and that in the classic hymn to
love is revealed the deep and permanent mood of his
spirit — a mood without which his success would have
been impossible.

CHAPTER VI
EPHESUS — ROME
PASSING in our study of Paul's missionary work from
Corinth to Ephesus is like going out of light into
darkness. The vividness with which the Corinthian
Epistles delineate the relations of the apostle to the
church, and the bold relief into which they throw his per
sonality, invest these writings with an interest that makes
the meagreness of the information concerning the mission
in Asia the more keenly felt. Of his work here during
nearly three years we have only the most unsatisfactory
intimations. In first Corinthians he says he will "tarry
at Ephesus until Pentecost" (i Cor. xvi. 8). We have
seen that after this letter was written he made a second
journey to Corinth, whence he doubtless returned to
Ephesus. In second Corinthians which was written in
Macedonia' after he had left Ephesus he says: "For we
would not have you ignorant, brethren, of our trouble
which came to us in Asia, that we were pressed out of
measure, above strength, insomuch that we despaired even
of life " (2 Cor. i. 8). How extensive a missionary work is
implied in "the churches of Asia salute you" (1 Cor. xvi.
19) we do not know. The so-called Epistle to the Ephe
sians affords no information as to Paul's relations with the
cnurch in Ephesus. This fact is in itself unfavourable to
its genuineness. That after his extended labours there
and the perils to which he was exposed, he should have
written as long a letter as this without the personal remi
niscences in which his Epistles addressed to churches
128

EPHES US — R OME

129

which he had founded abound is highly improbable. The
deviations apparent in it from the style and thought of his
unquestionably genuine writings throw doubt upon it from
another source. It is, moreover, doubtful whether it was
addressed to the Ephesian church, for according to the
conclusions of textual criticism the words "in Ephesus" in
the first verse " were either originally not there at all, or
were very early stricken- out," from which circumstance
the conclusion is drawn that "the Epistle was indeed
accepted, but was not regarded as directed to Ephesus."*
All the later indications go to show that the apostle's work
in Ephesus left no permanent results. The words which
the writer of Acts puts into his mouth when on the last
journey to Jerusalem he avoided Ephesus and addressed
"the Elders" of the church at Miletus, having sent for
them to come to him there : "And of your own selves shall
men arise speaking perverse things to draw away disciples
after them," are probably a prophecy after the event (Acts
xx. 30). The author of second Timothy represents that
"all they who are in Asia are turned away from" the
apostle (2 Tim. i. 15). The strange occurrence of numerous
greetings in the last chapter of Romans, an Epistle ad
dressed to a church which the apostle had never visited,
and where he could hardly have had twenty-five or thirty
personal friends, has led, as has before been remarked, to
the supposition that this portion of that letter (xvi. 1 -20)
was addressed to the Ephesian believers.
If this supposition be correct, we know that the church
of Ephesus was in existence at least until toward the end
of Paul's work. The fragment is a recommendation of
Phebe of Cenchrea, the harbour of Corinth, and the refer
ences to the various persons are such as only one could
* For a discussion of the Epistle in detail the reader is referred to the
author's volume in the International Handbooks to the New Testament.

130 THE MISSIONARY
make who knew not only them but also their situation,
their households, etc., and had had personal relations with
them. Rome being excluded, the most probable address
of this letter of commendation is Ephesus. The mention
of Epsenetus as the first fruits of Asia (not Achaia) favours
this supposition, as does also that of Prisca and Aquila,
who are represented as here in i Cor. xvi. 19, and as
having a church in their house in Ephesus. Whether this
was originally the conclusion of a letter to the Ephesians
or a complete writing intended according to the first verse
to commend Phebe to the various persons mentioned we
can only conjecture. The latter supposition is not at all
improbable. How the letter came to be connected with
Romans we cannot tell. It has been conjectured that
Phebe was the bearer of the Epistle to the Romans as well
as of the short letter of commendation to friends of the
apostle in Ephesus, and that she went from the latter city
to Rome. The verses 21-24, whose position is variously
given in different MSS., are believed by some authorities
to have been the concluding greeting to the Romans. If
they were written by a transcriber on a sheet on the other
side of which was Phebe's letter to Ephesus, the incorpo
ration of the latter with Romans is not strange in the
course of copying (so Lipsius). These conjectures arise
out of the improbability already mentioned that Paul should
have sent these greetings to Rome, and proceed upon
the supposition that both letters were written from the
same place (Corinth) by the same hand. The concluding
verses of the chapter (25-27) are of doubtful genuineness.
The different concluding formulas of the Epistle (xv. 33,
xvi. 20, 24) show that in the process of transcribing the end
of the letter was early confused ; and the insertion of the
greetings doubtless contributed to this result.
That the apostle was exposed to some great peril while

EPHESUS— ROME 1 3 I
in Ephesus we have seen from the passage 2 Cor. i. 8.
In the letter of commendation (Rom. xvi. 4) he says of
Prisca and Aquila that they have for his life "laid clown
their own necks," that is, probably, exposed themselves to
great danger in order to save him. Again in 1 Cor. xv. 32
he says : " If after the manner of men I have fought with
beasts at Ephesus, what profiteth it me if the dead rise
not ? Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die." These
are all vague allusions, and we cannot be certain that they
relate to one and the same event. The last is the most
definite, and yet expositors do not agree as to its inter
pretation. If there was an actual contest with beasts in
the arena, which could be possible only if he were con
demned by the authorities of the city on some grave charge,
it is in the first place improbable that he would have come
out of it alive, and in the second place, exceedingly strange
that he should not have mentioned the peril in 2 Cor. xi.
23-27. Notwithstanding these objections, Holsten and
Weizsacker maintain the literal interpretation of the passage,
the latter expressing himself with rather more positiveness
than the circumstances warrant. If Paul was a Roman
citizen (Acts xvi. 37, xxii. 25), he could not, even if con
demned to death, have been so executed by the Ephesian
authorities. A difficulty in the way of a figurative inter
pretation of the passage lies in the word employed for
" fought with beasts " (idrjpto/xd'xrjae) which according to
usage denoted a contest with beasts in the arena, and was
not applicable to an encounter with them in case of meet
ing them on a journey. This difficulty Krenkel seeks to
overcome by supposing that there was a sort of secret
language among the Christians in which "wild beast"
(dr/piov) signified the Roman power according to the cur
rent interpretation of the four beasts in Daniel ii. and vii.
Whether this view be tenable or no, the objections

132 THE MISSIONARY
against the literal rendering can hardly be overcome, and
we must be content with the only fact that stands indu
bitable, namely, that in Ephesus the apostle was exposed
to a mortal peril. We may also assume that the Corinthian
Christians knew enough of it to enable them to understand
and correctly interpret the expression "fought with beasts."
Weizsacker's conjecture that a fighting with beasts in the
arena drew public attention to the apostle, and was thus
the occasion of the opportunity referred to in i Cor. xvi. 9:
"A great door and effectual is opened unto me," is not
supported by any hint in the Epistles, and certainly not in
Acts, where the episode is not mentioned. In 2 Cor. i.
8-1 1 the apostle refers after he had left Ephesus to a
"trouble which came to him in Asia," in which he was
"pressed out of measure, above strength," insomuch that
he "despaired even of life." The time of his writing of
this was far enough from that of the reference in 1 Cor.
xv. 32 to exclude the probability that he had the same
peril in mind. Yet what this second danger was is uncer
tain. It may have come from a renewal of the persecu
tions, or it may have been a dangerous illness (see 2 Cor.
iv. 10; Gal. vi. 17; Phil. iii. 10). In any case, the deliv
erance was as from death.
We learn little more of the Ephesian church and of
Paul's relation to it from any source. The information
furnished in Acts is unsatisfactory even if trustworthy.
As usual this book tells us nothing of the inner history of
the church, and nothing that covers the indications of
perils to which the apostle himself makes reference. The
affair with the silversmith, Demetrius, may have an his
torical basis (Acts xix. 23-41), but the situation of the
apostle in this difficulty is not represented as excessively
perilous. He is surrounded with the protection of " certain
of the chief of Asia," or at least is saved from going into

EPHES US — R OME 1 3 3
danger by their counsel. An officer of the city addresses
the crowd, and the matter ends in the confusion and failure
of those who wished to harm him and his companions.
There is nothing here that corresponds to the critical
situation which Paul characterises as a fight with beasts.
We learn nothing from Acts, moreover, of the circum
stances under which Prisca and Aquila for the apostle's
life "laid down their own necks," nor do we find an inti
mation of a situation in which these friends exposed them
selves for him, or Andronicus and Junias became his
"fellow-prisoners'' (Rom. xvi. 7). The salutations in
Phebe's letter (Rom. xvi. 3-16) throw little light on the
affairs of the church in Ephesus. We learn from the
names and from the designation "kinsmen" that several
of the persons were of Jewish descent. Two of these,
Andronicus and Junias, he calls "apostles" (verse 7), a
use probably of the word in the wider sense (Acts xiv. 14),
and says of them that they were "in Christ" before him.
They were evidently Christian missionaries temporarily
located in Ephesus. Then there are the " kinsmen "
Herodion (verse 11) and Mariam (verse 6) and of course
Prisca and Aquila. Among those greeted we find espe
cially mentioned certain persons as "helpers," as those who
"labour in the Lord," "laboured much in the Lord," etc.,
a designation very likely denoting such prominent positions
in several little communities, perhaps meeting in private
houses, as that assigned to Stephanas in 1 Cor. xvi. 15.
These labourers in Christ may also have been helpers of
the apostle in missionary work. If in verse 6 we adopt
a well-authenticated reading (ek vfid$) the woman here
mentioned is designated as one who bestowed much labour
on the church instead of on the apostle. We learn from
greetings sent to persons of certain households that there
were some slaves among the converts. Every one inter-

134 THE MISSIONARY
ested in following the apostle's work will regret that so
great an obscurity hangs over the scene of a labour long
continued and full of perils.
We have arrived at the end of Paul's distinctive mission
ary work as the apostle to the gentiles ; and yet we are
not at the end of his mission, for he appears in another
relation as a missionary to the Jewish Christians. He
never forgot the compact made in the conference at Jeru
salem that he would "remember the poor" (Gal. ii. io);
and it is an evidence of his magnanimity that, although he
was harassed and crippled in his gentile mission in Galatia
and Corinth by Jewish-Christian emissaries, who sowed
discord and threatened to destroy his work by undermining
his influence, he never abandoned the purpose of a collec
tion for the needy Christians in Jerusalem, but carried it
out, not as a matter of contract, but as a privilege. His
frequent references to the matter show how near it lay to
his heart. In Rom. xv. 26, 27 he says : " For it hath
pleased them of Macedonia and Achaia to make a certain
contribution to the poor saints who are at Jerusalem. It
hath pleased them verily, and their debtors they are. For
if the gentiles have been made partakers of their spiritual
things, their duty is also to minister to them in carnal
things." We may infer that in this characteristic style he
urged the collection upon his churches as a "duty." He
also urges it upon the ground that it will not only "supply
the want of the saints," but will likewise be " abundant by
many thanksgivings unto God" (2 Cor. ix. 12), that is,
will cause thankfulness to God to abound in the recipients,
and will accordingly have a religious result. From Ephesus
he writes to the Corinthians that he has " given order to
the churches of Galatia" concerning the collection, and
exhorts the believers in Corinth that "upon the first day
of the week every one lay by him in store, as God hath

EPHES US—R OME 1 3 5
prospered him," that all may be in readiness when he
comes. His purpose at this time appears to have been to
send from each church to Jerusalem as the bearer of the
gift some one "approved by letters," instead of going
himself (1 Cor. xvi. 1-3). Later he writes them of "the
grace of God bestowed on the churches of Macedonia, how
that in a great trial of affliction the abundance of their joy
and their deep poverty abounded unto the riches of their
liberality" (2 Cor. viii. 1, 2), and urges the Corinthians
that they, according to their previous "readiness to will,"
now show "a performance also out of that which they
have" (verse 11).
It must have been with no little hesitation that Paul
finally himself undertook to go to Jerusalem as the bearer
of the collection. He must in so doing put himself into
the hands of the men who "both killed the Lord Jesus
and their own prophets," and had " persecuted " him,
"forbidding him to speak to the gentiles that they might
be saved, to fill up their sins always; for the wrath is come
upon them to the uttermost" (1 Thess. ii. 15, 16). The
we-source of Acts represents that at Tyre certain disciples
said to Paul "through the Spirit that he should not go up
to Jerusalem " (Acts xxi. 4), and in Csesarea the prophet
Agabus foretold as the word of "the Holy Ghost" that if
he went he would be "delivered into the hands of the
gentiles " (verse 11). The former statement must be taken
with some allowance, for the apostle was not accustomed
to disregard the express commandments of "the Spirit."
At any rate, neither warnings nor entreaties could shake
his resolution. He was " ready not to be bound only, but
also to die at Jerusalem for the name of the Lord Jesus "
(verse 13).
According to Acts the " brethren " in Jerusalem, the
Jewish-Christian believers, "James and all the elders,"

136 THE MISSIONARY
received Paul "gladly," but counselled him, in order to
appease the multitude of believing Jews "all zealous of the
law," to perform a Jewish rite so as to show that he " walked
orderly, and kept the law." That he should have taken
steps to do this, as Acts represents, is simply incredible
(Acts xxi. 17-24).* The writer of Acts is more interested
in representing Paul as ready to sacrifice his principles to
please the Jewish brethren than he is to report the real
object of the apostle's mission to Jerusalem. He makes
no mention in this connection of the important fact that
this object was to bring the collection that he had gathered
for the poor of the church, and in the preceding account of
his resolution to go to Jerusalem and of the journey thither
there is no intimation of his benevolent purpose. Before
the time for the completion of the ceremony, however, the
Jews, among whom appear to have been some of his old
enemies from Asia, fell upon him, and " went about to kill
him," and he was saved from their wrath only by the inter
ference of the "chief captain of the band" and his soldiers
(Acts xxi. 27-34).
The unconcealed hostility of the Jewish-Christian be
lievers is unmistakable in the terms in which Paul is
asked to assume the Nazarite vow. He is told that there
are "many thousands" of them, and that, when they hear
that he is there, "they must needs come together." They
have heard that he teaches the Jews among the gentiles
"not to circumcise their children," etc., and the manifest
implication is that he will be in peril unless he joins in the
performance of a Jewish rite in order to appease them
(Acts xxi. 20). It is no wonder that emissaries could be
found in Jerusalem to go to Galatia and Corinth. To this
Acts here bears unconscious testimony, although the book
makes no mention of this interference from any quarter.
* See Chapter VII.

EPHES US—R OME 1 3 7
It does not appear, moreover, that of these " many thou
sands " any interfered to save the apostle, who had come
with a gift of love to their poor, from the hands of the Jews
who would have killed him. After he was a prisoner in the
hands of the Romans, these zealots for the law, these
"enemies of the cross of Christ" to whom the Pauline
apprehension of the cross was an "offence" (Gal. v. n),
continued their work among his believers, whom he warned
against them out of his imprisonment " even weeping "
(Phil. iii. 1 8, cf. verses 2, 3). If at this distance in time and
in this age of toleration and indifference to dogma, we
cannot join with him in calling them "dogs," we can at
least sympathise with him in proportion as we share his
noble passion for liberty. We shall do well to consider,
however, that these men were doubtless as sincere and
conscientious as he was in regarding him as an enemy of
Christ and a perverter of his gospel, while he denounced
them as " false apostles " and ministers of Satan. The
situation illustrates the persistence and indomitable force
of dogma in a dispensation which was according to the
poetic fancy of an evangelist heralded with the announce
ment of "peace and good-will," but which under the con
ditions of human nature could not "bring peace."
Paul went to Rome as a prisoner on his appeal to Cassar,
and not, as he had hoped and expected to go, as a mission
ary. From Corinth he had written to the church in Rome
that he had often purposed to come to them, that he might
have some fruit among them also, as among other gentiles,
and that so far as in him lay he was ready to preach the
gospel to them (Rom. i. 13-15, xv. 25, 32). This city was
not destined to be a field of his personal missionary labours,
yet it was made a missionary field of his by the great
Epistle. This, then, calls for consideration in an account
of his missionary activity, more especially since, having

138 THE MISSIONARY
been written to a church that had had no communication
from him, it probably shows more than any other of his
letters his method of presenting his message. It is most
distinctively a gospel-Epistle, an Epistle of the Pauline
gospel, in which the development of his religious and theo
logical theme is not disturbed by questions of administra
tion and the dealing with practical affairs. Conjectures as
to when and by whom the church in Rome was founded
are fruitless. We also know with certainty almost nothing
of its composition, that is, whether it was preponderatingly
gentile-Christian or Jewish-Christian. The former suppo
sition is supported by such passages as i. 13, 14, xi. 13-32,
and especially by the fact that the apostle grounds his
writing of the Epistle upon his apostleship to the gentiles
in i. 5, where the correct rendering is "grace and apostle
ship for obedience to the faith among all the gentiles."
On the other hand, not a little of the argument of the
Epistle is adapted especially to Jewish Christians (iii. 1-8,
31, iv. 1, vi. 15, vii. 7, 13, xi. 1, 11). The readers are
sometimes addressed as knowing the law or formerly under
it (vii. 1-5), and such passages as ix. 1-5 and x. 1 would be
inappropriate unless Jewish-Christian readers were among
those for whom the Epistle was intended. These doubt
less constituted a portion, probably a minority, of the
church. In any case, there is no evidence in the letter
that they had to the apostle's knowledge attempted to
force the gentile Christians to accept their interpretation
of Christianity. While the argument of the Epistle bears
in some parts an analogy to that of Galatians, the note of
antagonism to Jewish Christianity which we discern in
the latter is here wanting, and the treatment of the law in
general is milder and more conciliatory. It was evidently
written out of a different mood and for different conditions.
The object of the Epistle is clearly indicated. The

EPHESUS— ROME 139
apostle intended to visit the church in Rome in which he
was deeply interested, making mention of it in his prayers
(i. 9-13), and he wrote in order to prepare the way for his
coming to impart to them " some spiritual gift to the end
that they may be established" (i. 11), that is, may be
instructed in the Pauline gospel. The Epistle indicates
that he was cognizant of difficulties to be encountered in
Rome, a Jewish-Christian opposition, or at least a preju
dice, to be overcome, and it was written with this end in
view. There may have been a conciliatory purpose in his
mention of his mission on account of the collection for the
needy Jewish Christians in Jerusalem (xv. 25-29), and the
exhortation to unity (xii. 3, 16, xiv. 1-20, xv. 5-9) is
naturally connected with his proposed visit. The Epistle
does not, accordingly, constitute an exception to the letters
of Paul in general which are writings directed to special
local occasions and exigencies, and is not to be regarded
as a purely dogmatic treatise addressed to the world at
large. As to its contents the Epistle may be considered in
three grand divisions : 1. The exposition of the gospel of
the righteousness of God through faith and not through
the works of the law (i.-viii.); 2. Proof that this gospel is
not prejudiced by the failure of the Jews to accept it
(ix.-xi.) ; 3. Exhortations adapted to the conditions in the
Roman church and a statement of the reasons for writing
the Epistle (xii.-xv.). After the introduction (i. 1— 1 5) the
theme of the letter is stated to the effect that the gospel
is "the power of God unto salvation to every one that be
lieveth, to the Jew first and also to the Greek," etc. (i. 16,
17). Then follows a proof of the futility of striving for
righteousness by works on the ground of the failure of
Jews and gentiles alike to attain it, their sinfulness, and
their exposure to the wrath of God (i. 1 8— iii. 20). The

140 THE MISSIONARY
atonement is shown to be the basis of the only true
righteousness, that by faith (iii. 21-26). There follows,
then, the declaration that the Jews have nothing to boast
of in respect to an advantage over the gentiles (iii. 27-30).
This equality of Jews and gentiles is in accord with the
Old Testament, and is established by the typical faith of
Abraham (iii. 31-iv. 25). "Being justified by faith we
have peace with God," "justified by the blood of Christ,
we shall be saved from wrath through him," and we "joy in
God through our Lord Jesus Christ through whom we
have now received the atonement" (v. 1-2 1). The
Romans are exhorted not to let sin reign in their bodies,
having come into fellowship with Christ, but to over
come the impulses of the flesh, since they "are not under
the law, but under grace." "The wages of sin is death,
but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our
Lord" (vi.). Under the law, man is under the power of
sin (vii.).
The mystic fellowship with Christ frees from " condem
nation," and the Spirit dwelling in the believer assures
him of his resurrection. God's "predestinated " cannot be
separated from His love (viii.). The second division
begins with a declaration of the apostle's solicitude and
sorrow on account of the Jews (ix. 1-5). The Jews' idea
of the divine promises is invalid, because God is not
limited in His promises to the natural descendants of
Abraham, but "hath mercy on whom He will, and
whom He will He hardeneth," making "one vessel unto
honour and another unto dishonour " (ix. 6-29). Israel failed
to attain righteousness because seeking it by works and
not by faith. The true righteousness is by faith through
Christ (ix. 30-x. 21). God has not, however, "cast away
His people," but " there is a remnant according to the elec
tion of grace." As to the others, their exclusion is only

EPHESUS — ROME 141
temporary, and when " the fulness of the gentiles be come
in, all Israel shall be saved," for God hath concluded them
all in unbelief, that He might have mercy upon all. Then
follows praise of God for " the depth of the riches of His
wisdom and knowledge " (xi.). The third part consists of
exhortations, a warning against self-exaltation, the recom
mendation of brotherly love, unity, and conciliation, an ad
monition to obey "the powers that be," the injunction to
owe no man anything, but to love one another, for "love
is the fulfilling of the law," and the grounding of these
teachings on the doctrine of the near approach of the day
of the Lord (xii., xiii.). Then follow some admonitions
regarding divisions in the church ; the relation of the
strong to the weak in faith and of Jewish and gentile
Christians ; a mention of the reason for writing the Epistle
and of the collection for the needy Christians in Jerusa
lem ; a communication of his plan to visit the Romans
(xiv., xv.); the letter for Phebe probably addressed to the
church in Ephesus (xvi. 1-20); greetings (xvi. 21-24);
and a doxology, probably by another hand (xvi. 25-27).
This Epistle written to prepare the Romans for his
intended visit to them is the most complete exposition of
the apostle's gospel that we possess. Its purpose mani
festly was not only to instruct the gentile Christians of the
church in Rome in the fundamental doctrines of his mis
sion, but also to overcome the opposition of the Jewish
Christians whom we can see in the lines of the letter that
he had constantly in mind. In his argument he places
himself upon their ground, adopts their point of view, and
employs their premises and forms of thought in order to
overthrow their pretensions. From the point of view of
the law and righteousness by works he brings home to
their consciousness the fact of universal sinfulness which
they cannot deny. " For circumcision verily profiteth if

142 THE MISSIONARY
thou keep the law ; but if thou be a breaker of the law
thy circumcision is made uncircumcision " (ii. 25). Since
none of you keep the whole law, your righteousness by
works is a fiction. He proves to them from their Script
ures that "there is none righteous, no not one" (iii. 10).
As to Abraham, his faith was "counted to him for right
eousness," and his circumcision was "the seal of the
righteousness of the faith which he had yet being uncir
cumcised, that he might be the father of all them that
believe, though they be not circumcised " (iv. n). Thus
the history of this patriarch is made to support the gentile
gospel. The law, by which they expect to be saved, only
makes sin abound, and though "ordained to life," is on
account of the flesh really " unto death " (vii. 8-24).
The logical consequence of the Jewish doctrine of
atonement the apostle shows to be the transfer to the
believers of the atoning efficacy of the blood of Christ,
whom God "set forth to be a propitiation through faith."
Thus the law which man cannot fulfil is satisfied, "re
demption " is secured, and a new righteousness " imputed "
on account of faith, becomes the possession of the believer,
who in mystic fellowship with Christ has the witness of
the Spirit that he has become a child of God and an heir
of the divine promises (iii. 20-28, vi. 3-8, viii. 9-18). The
greatness of the conception of doctrine in the Epistle is
apparent in its. historical significance. Two great periods
of human history are set over against each other — the
Adamic order of sin and death, and the Christ-order of
righteousness and life. In the former ruled the flesh with
its fatal consequences of transgression and destruction.
In the latter Christ is king victorious over death, "the
end of the law," the beginning of a new order of life,
which will be consummated in the resurrection of those
who believe and in the glory of the kingdom. Over

EPHESUS — ROME I43
against Judaism and Jewish Christianity this doctrine is a
new conception of the world, a new interpretation of his
tory, a new philosophy of religion, which had its tempo
rary place in the development of Christianity — a second
gospel which prepared the way for the first to the con
quest of the world.
In his account of Paul's journey from Csesarea to Je
rusalem the writer of Acts follows his we-source beginning
with chapter xxvii. Of the sources of the preceding
narrative (xxii. -xxvi.) we know nothing, but the impression
which it makes upon the reader is that its vividness is due
" not so much to the knowledge as to the art of the narra
tor." If the sources were tradition, the fancy of the
writer, and his own invention of the discourses, such a
picture as is presented might well be the outcome. That
the apostle should have delivered such an address as repre
sented before the mob in Jerusalem, in which he gives an
account of his conversion, has been declared to be " un
thinkable " (Weizsacker). It is at least improbable (Acts
xxii. 1-2 1 ).
Improbable also it is that Paul should have said before
the sanhedrim that he was called in question on account
of the hope of the resurrection of the dead (Acts xxiii. 6),
when he knew very well that the gentile mission and his
attitude toward the law (Acts xxi. 28) had excited the
Jews against him ; and it is equally unlikely that Pharisees
and Sadducees should have forgotten their animosity
toward him, and fallen into a strife over this question,
the former supporting Paul because he agreed with them
on this point. Felix is represented as keeping Paul in
prison and often "communing" with him in the hope of
getting money from him (Acts xxiv. 26) ! Festus, in order
that he may have some "certain thing to write" to Rome,
calls together along with Agrippa and Bernice a grand

144 THE MISSIONARY
assembly of " the chief captains and principal men of the
city," before whom Paul delivers an extended discourse,
in which he again tells of his conversion with the impor
tant variation from his previous account of it that he
represents Jesus as making an extended speech to him out
of heaven, which concludes with the announcement that
Paul is sent to the gentiles "to open their eyes, and to
turn them from darkness to light, and from the power of
Satan unto God, that they may receive forgiveness of sins
and inheritance among them who are sanctified by faith
that is in me " (Acts xxvi. 1-18) !
Festus succeeded Felix in the year 61, according to the
generally accepted chronology, and there is no reason for
supposing that he delayed sending Paul to Rome on his
appeal to the Emperor. The two-years imprisonment in
Csesarea, however, remains a problem in view of the fact
that according to Acts Felix could not have believed the
apostle " worthy of death or of bonds." The reasons given
why he detained him are trivial. The account of the voy
age to Rome given in the trustworthy we-section of Acts
shows interesting traits of the apostle's personality. After
the author brings him to Rome, however, he has little more
to tell. He leaves him there in comfortable imprisonment
living in his "hired house" under the guard of a soldier
(Acts xxviii. 16, 30). That he must have known of the tragic
fate of his hero one cannot but believe, and it is one of the
many problems of the book why he tells us nothing of it.
The epistle of Clement of Rome to the Corinthians, writ
ten at the end of the first or the beginning of the second
century, leaves no doubt that he suffered martyrdom.
Thus ended the earthly career of the man who among the
apostles and early followers of Jesus is eminently entitled
to be called great. Intent upon carrying the message of
the cross far and wide in the earth, zealous, intense, and

EPHESUS— ROME 145
courageous, he was the foremost of missionaries. Plis life in
the service of his Master was a succession of conflicts, and
was passed amidst conditions of hardship, sacrifice, and
labour at a wretched handicraft for his own support. Under
the circumstances his achievement must be regarded as
remarkable, although the number of his converts was not
large, and many of the little churches which he founded
early disappeared, and have left no record in the history of
Christianity. His passion for liberty and his fearless
defence of his convictions against tendencies which would
have resulted in stifling Christianity in its cradle, denote a
championship of principles to whose success and supremacy
is due all that is most precious and fruitful in human civilisa
tion. His apostleship of the gentiles was the apostleship
and the gospel of humanity, of freedom from the yoke of
formalism, and of the love that "hopeth all things."
Whatever may be the fortune of his dogmatic interpreta
tion of Christianity in the judgment of mankind, his spiritual
interpretation of it, his idea of the mystic fellowship with
Jesus, and his conception of the life that is hid with Christ
in God, will be cherished by the devout wherever the
religion of the Master shall be most deeply understood.
His ethical zeal, his life of devotion, of heroic sacrifice, of
single-eyed service, of unflinching fidelity, will remain as an
ideal and inspiration to the generations to come. His ideas
and conflicts as well as certain traits of his personality
isolated him in his life, and rendered him a solitary figure
in primitive-Christian history. Alone, a unique and
majestic figure, he went to his death amidst the decay of
the mightiest pagan civilisation — -yet not to death, but to
the resurrection and the life which in the order of God
belong to the true, the brave, and the good.

CHAPTER VII
THE PAUL OF THE ACTS AND THE PAUL OF THE EPISTLES*
IN the history of apostolic Christianity no subject is of
more importance than the part taken by the apostle to
the gentiles in the activities of the time, and the relation
which he held to the "pillars" of the church in Jerusalem
respecting the burning question as to the conditions on
which the converted heathen should be admitted into the
community of expectant believers, to whom the coming of
their Lord from heaven would, they believed, secure the
complete fruition of the kingdom of God. The difficulties
of the problem, which are evident from the difference of
opinion on important points still apparent after an exhaus
tive discussion during nearly three quarters of a century,
arise from the relation of the two sources of informa
tion on the subject, the Acts and the Pauline Epistles.
That these two sources differ widely both in some matters
which they have in common and in incidents and circum
stances contained in one of them alone no one will under
take to dispute. The historical trustworthiness of the
only canonical account of the fortunes of the apostolical
church has accordingly been the centre about which the
conflict of opinion has raged most violently. It has been
maintained that this ostensible history is in fact a " ten
dency-writing," the author of which, having a certain theory
of the relations of the parties in the early church to estab
lish, invented situations and suppressed facts in the inter
est of his manifest purpose ; that remote from the events
* The New World, June, 1897.
146

PAUL OF THE ACTS AND THE EPISTLES 147
and depending on sources not altogether good he has ideal
ised the history, and given the colour of his own time to
important episodes ; and that (as Spitta has recently done)
by assigning various portions of the book to sources of
different degrees of credibility a tolerably consistent his
tory can be constructed from the best of them, and the
difficulties diminished by the assumption of the author's
defective information. Adherents of the apologetic school
have proceeded upon the assumption of the general trust
worthiness of the history in Acts, and have employed the
expedients and arts of the harmonist in order to bring it
into accord with the Pauline Epistles. Sympathy with
this procedure is apparent in some details of the treatment
of the subject by a few representatives of the critical ten
dency, particularly Keim and Pfleiderer (see the former's
Aus dem Urchristenthum and the latter's Das Urchristen-
thum). Paul's relation to the heads of the church in Jerusalem
and his attitude toward the Jewish ceremonial observances
are matters of great importance in forming a judgment of
his character and work and of the course of affairs in the
history of apostolic Christianity. He himself lays so
much stress upon the former that we are not justified in
passing lightly over it, and in a judgment upon the latter
is involved something more than the consistency of his
conduct with principles which he clearly enunciated.
Great difficulties present themselves in the attempt to
reconcile his own positive affirmations regarding these
matters with the accounts of them in Acts. In writing to
the Galatians of his conversion, which he thought to be
the revelation of God's Son in him for the express purpose
that he might "preach him among the gentiles," he de
clares in a manner which shows that he regarded his inde
pendence of men and his immediate authority from God as

148 THE MISSIONARY
involved in the statement, that he " conferred not with
flesh and blood," neither went up to Jerusalem to the apos
tles, but went away into Arabia, then returned to Damas
cus, and after three years went to Jerusalem to visit Peter
tarrying with him fifteen days and seeing no other of the
apostles, but only James, the Lord's brother (Gal. i. 16,
17). To this fragment of biography he adds the emphatic
declaration : " Now, touching the things which I write
unto you, behold, before God, I lie not." On the con
trary, the writer of Acts betrays a purpose to bring Paul
after his conversion with all possible despatch into rela
tions with the apostles in Jerusalem, as if to make it ap
pear that he sought there the very recognition which he
himself takes pains to affirm that he did not want. Omit
ting mention of the journey to Arabia he represents Paul
as betaking himself immediately to the synagogue in Da
mascus and there preaching Jesus to the Jews, as if he
had no thought of a mission to the gentiles. The Jews,
displeased with the proclamation of Jesus as "the Son of
God," attempt to kill him, and he escapes with difficulty
and repairs to Jerusalem, where he tries to "join himself
to the disciples," who, it appears, were suspicious of him,
and received him only through the intervention of Bar
nabas. That these two accounts convey, or were intended by
their writers to convey, the same conception of Paul's
movements directly after his conversion and of his rela
tions with Jerusalem, cannot be successfully maintained.
They are not so related that one can be said to supple
ment the other, so that the two can be combined into a
consistent and probable narrative. The purpose of the
writers, so far as it can be judged by their reports, was not
to relate the same course of events. Either the author of
Acts did not know of the journey to Arabia, — in which case

PAUL OF THE ACTS AND THE EPISTLES 149
he could not have read the Epistle to the Galatians, — or
knowing it he omitted mention of it for a purpose not far
to seek. He evidently did not intend that the inference
should be drawn from his narrative that Paul allowed three
years to elapse from his conversion before seeking the ac
quaintance of the original apostles or endeavouring to " at
tach " himself to them. The term of his residence in
Damascus is given as "a considerable number of days"
(finepat iicavai), and this answers all the requirements of
Paul's own account of the episode in 2 Cor. xi. 32, 33.
The sojourn in Arabia and the return to Damascus are ex
cluded by the immediate sequence of the mention of the
journey to Jerusalem. The supposition that the persecu
tion in Damascus occurred, according to the meaning and
intention of the writer of Acts, after Paul's return from
Arabia, or three years after his first arrival in that city, is
contrary to the evident sense of 7}p,epat licavaC, and requires
a reading into the passage of a sense which was manifestly
not intended, and which only the interest of a violent har
monising could suggest. It is, moreover, rendered im
probable by the subsequent events in Jerusalem recorded
by the writer of Acts himself. For he represents the
apostles in Jerusalem as suspicious of Paul and ignorant
of his conversion, so that the good offices of Barnabas were
necessary in order that he might succeed in his effort to
"attach" himself to them, — a condition of affairs which
has not been too strongly characterised as " unthinkable "
three years after the great event on the road to Damascus
and a ministry in the synagogues of that city. Damascus
was not so remote from Jerusalem, and intercourse be
tween the two cities so infrequent, that the apostles can
be supposed not to have heard of the conversion of the
vehement persecutor of the Christians. Moreover, the
account in Acts of this first visit of Paul in Jerusalem does

150 THE MISSIONARY
not accord with that of the apostle himself in other particu
lars. Paul represents that he went up to Jerusalem to visit
Peter, and that during the fifteen days of his sojourn there
he saw no other one of the apostles, but did see James, the
brother of Jesus, who was not an apostle (Gal. i. 18, 19).
On the contrary, it is explicitly stated in Acts that when
he came to Jerusalem he endeavoured to "attach himself
to the disciples," that they were "all afraid of him," and
that Barnabas " took him and brought him to the apos
tles " (ix. 26, 27). As Paul's declaration that the object
of his journey was to visit Peter, and that he saw no other
one of the apostles, was not without an intention in con
nection with the assertion of his independence, so the
writer of Acts, if he was not ignorant of the facts, could
hardly have related without a purpose ("tendency") a
story of directly the opposite purport, — that Paul on his
arrival in Jerusalem did not simply visit one of the twelve,
but endeavoured to "attach" ( KoWaaOai) himself to the
apostles in general, and was taken to them by Barnabas to
this end. Again, the apostle's declaration that immedi
ately thereafter he was " unknown by face to the churches
of Judea " (Gal. i. 22) is irreconcilable with the statement
in Acts that he was introduced to the apostles, and con
ducted for some time an active ministry in Jerusalem (ix.
28, 29) ; and especially with the words which the writer
puts into the mouth of Paul in one of the accounts of his
conversion, that immediately after that event he preached
repentance "both to them of Damascus first and at Jeru
salem and throughout all the country of Judea and also to
the gentiles " (xxvi. 20).
It is evidently necessary to an understanding of the in
fluences which determined the history of primitive Chris
tianity as well as to a knowledge of Paul's motives and
character and actions to make a right choice between

PAUL OF THE ACTS AND THE EPISTLES 1 5 I
these two accounts, since no combination of them into a
consistent whole can be fairly made. The testimony of
the apostle must not assuredly be rejected in the face of
his asseveration of truthfulness (Gal. i. 21). His genuine
Epistles must be regarded as a first-class source outrank
ing in trustworthiness the record of Acts, of whose writer
and his means of information we are, to say the least, not
accurately informed. In any case we are compelled to
believe that he was either ignorant of important facts or
capable of suppressing them in the interest of a theory of
primitive-Christian history or of seeing them inaccurately
through the medium of a later time. It is also inadmissi
ble to read the record of Acts into the statements of Paul
regarding his relations with, and his attitude toward, the
original apostles, since to do so is to modify his testimony
to the extent that it is practically invalidated. In like
manner, the story in Acts cannot be interpreted by insert
ing into its framework the historical incidents mentioned
in Galatians without reaching a result which is opposed to
the manifest intention of the writer of that book. Noth
ing is gained by this attempt to maintain the credibility of
an author whose work is admitted by many of those who
engage on his side to contain not a few unhistorical and
improbable accounts. The injury to a sound hermeneutics
resulting from such a procedure has no compensation.
After making all due allowances for Paul's zeal as an "ad
vocate " (see W. W. Fenn, Lessons on the Acts, p. 50), we
cannot impugn his testimony in any important particu
lar without attacking his character for integrity ; and this
any one should hesitate to do on the authority of a writing
composed perhaps from forty to fifty years after the events
in question occurred, from sources about which we must
remain uncertain. If Paul on his first visit to Jerusalem
after his conversion did not go solely to visit Peter, and

152 THE MISSIONARY
if it is not true that he saw no other of the apostles, but
sought to " attach " himself to the twelve, then is Gala
tians rather than Acts a "tendency-writing," if not worse,
and important consequences must follow for our construc
tion of the history of apostolic Christianity.
The report in Acts of other journeys of Paul to Jerusa
lem is not favourable to the trustworthiness of that record,
or to the correctness of the writer's conception of the
relation of the apostle to Judaism. The account of
the journey undertaken in order to carry "relief to the
brethren that dwelt in Judea" (xi. 29) is manifestly
incorrect according to Gal. ii. 1, for it supposes a connec
tion with Jerusalem which Paul could not have omitted to
mention in that context without exposing himself to the
charge of evasion or concealment. The unmistakable
meaning of his words is, that he did not go up to the
holy city after the visit recorded in Acts ix. 26-30 (Gal. i.
18-20) until fourteen years afterward, but was unknown
in the mean time to the churches in Judea (Gal. i. 22).
This second visit, mentioned in Gal. ii. 1, is identical with
that recorded in Acts xv. 2, and here incorrectly appears as
the third. Meyer's expedient, that in the journey recorded
in Acts xi. 29 Paul did not go as fer as Jerusalem, is
scarcely worthy of refutation (see Mr. Fenn, tit supra, p.
64). A journey to Jerusalem is intimated in Acts xviii. 22
(ava/Sa?) which has caused no little perplexity to the com
mentators. In verse 21 Paul appears in great haste to get
away from Ephesus, though for what reason does not
appear, unless the words are genuine : " I must by all
means keep this feast that cometh in Jerusalem." They
are wanting in ABESin., and some other MSS., and are
omitted by Lachmann and Tischendorf ; but most MSS.,
the Syrian included, retain them, and they are defended
by Zeller, Ewald, De Wette-Overbeck, Hilgenfeld, and

PAUL OF THE ACTS AND THE EPISTLES 1 53
Meyer. Their omission in the cases mentioned is ac
counted for by Meyer with great probability on account
of the uncertainty of the sense of avafids (verse 22) ; but
that the reference here is to Jerusalem is regarded by
Weizsacker as unquestionable. The words "and went
down to Antioch " (verse 22) can hardly signify anything
else than a journey from Jerusalem to Antioch. The
entire account is involved in great uncertainty, and
Holtzmann very properly remarks on the improbability
of Paul's making a journey to Jerusalem at this period of
"open conflict." The intention of the author of Acts,
however, to represent that such a journey was made, is
scarcely to be doubted, whether its purpose was to attend
a Jewish festival or to "salute the church." The supposi
tion that he was misinformed or confused by his sources
can alone save him from the charge of a definite intention
to bring Paul as frequently as possible into friendly rela
tions with the church in Jerusalem, regardless of histori
cal accuracy. Such an intention is probable in xix. 21,
where Paul is represented as having "purposed in the
spirit ... to go to Jerusalem," without any apparent
motive in the midst of his successful activity in Ephesus,
where " mightily grew the work of the Lord and pre
vailed." This view of the matter is supported by the
apparent interest of the writer in making the apostle
seem to have been zealous in the observance of Jewish
ceremonies, when he puts into his mouth the declarations
that he went up to Jerusalem to worship and to present
offerings in the temple, and that, "after the way which
they call a sect," he served the God of our fathers, "be
lieving all things which are according to the law " (xxiv.
11, 14, 17); and when he represents him, according to
the most probable rendering, as "having shorn his head
in Cenchrea, for he had a vow " (xviii. 18).

154 THE MISSIONARY
More befitting the Paul of the Acts than the Paul of
the Epistles is the account of a procedure of his in Jeru
salem in connection with a Nazarite vow (Acts xxi. 21-24).
Paul is here informed by "the elders" that the Jewish
Christians, who were "all zealous for the law," had been
told that he was teaching the Jews who were among the
gentiles to forsake Moses, and neither to circumcise their
children nor to walk after the customs ; and is advised by
them to take four men who had a vow on them, purify
himself with them, and be at charges for them, that they
may shave their heads, that all might know that the accu
sations against him were false, and that he was walking
orderly and keeping the law. This Paul is represented as
having done without a word of objection, as if he were
himself a zealot for the law ! Since he is said to have
acted on the advice of the elders in order to invalidate the
charge that he was teaching the Jewish Christians not to
circumcise their children and observe the customs, the
question arises whether he could have regarded this
charge as a calumniation to be answered by such a sub
jection of himself to a Jewish ceremonial. The Paul of
the Acts, the Paul of the so-called apostolic council, as
reported by the author of that book, may have made the
unresisting concession here related if the words of the
elders, probably by the mouth of James, can be regarded
as a commentary on the decree of that council : " That
thou thyself walkest orderly, keeping the law. But as
touching the gentiles who have believed, we wrote," etc.
(verses 24, 25). For the import of this plainly is that Paul
and other Jewish Christians were bound by the terms of
the council, as Jews, to observe the law, while the gentiles
were exempted. But could the historical Paul, the Paul
of the Epistles, ever have accepted such a principle ?
Could he have deemed himself calumniated by the charge

PAUL OF THE ACTS AND THE EPISTLES 1 55
that he taught his Jewish converts not to circumcise their
children ? Must not he have opposed on principle the
subjection of the offspring of Christian parents to this
rite, he who solemnly declared to the Galatians, " I, Paul,
say unto you that if ye receive circumcision, Christ will
profit you nothing" (Gal. v. 2)? Would he not have
thought them, if circumcised, to be as truly "debtors to
do the whole law " as he affirmed that the gentile converts
would be ? It is futile, as Zeller has shown, to quote
1 Cor. vii. 18 f., for according to Paul's gospel of uncir
cumcision the children of Jewish-Christian parents were
born iv a/cpofivo-Tta (see 1 Cor. vii. 14), and hence the in
junction fit] treptTefiveadco was applicable to them. It is
evident that more was involved for Paul in the advice of
the elders than the mere performance of a Jewish rite,
more than a matter which he could have " deemed indif
ferent." The central principle of his gospel was at stake,
since he was asked to refute a charge which, according to
his entire teaching, was false ; and if such a counsel was
given him he must have resented it as an insult, and have
felt that to follow it were a degradation. But, conceding
that he had connived at the circumcision of the children
of the believing Jews of the dispersion or permitted it, one
cannot but think with Holtzmann that it involved a sort
of mental reservation, an ambiguous proceeding, or, at
least, anything but a grand mode of action, to make use
of such a fact in Jerusalem as a last resort for the support
of the assertion that all which they had heard of his under
mining of the law was nothing, and for the promotion of
the idea that he "walked orderly, keeping the law." Un
der the circumstances, Paul's tame and humiliating accept
ance of the advice of the elders can be regarded according
to the record as nothing short of an acknowledgment that
he was, contrary to 1 Cor. ix. 20, vtto tov vo/xov as a

156 THE MISSIONARY
tyvkdcrcrav tov vofiov. For "all apologetic efforts go to
pieces upon the fact that no act of accommodation, but a
confession is reported, and turn moreover into charges as
well against James as against Paul, to the effect that the
advice of the former was unsatisfactory, unfitting, un
timely, and the following of it on the part of the latter a
' weakness and undue haste ' " (Hand-Commentar, i. p. 407).
Apropos of the fact that Calvin thought that he must
excuse the one as well as the other for participation in the
superstitious vow, Hausrath remarks that it is rather cred
ible that Calvin on his death-bed should have vowed a
golden robe to the Mother of God than that Paul should
have gone in the way indicated.
The account of the circumcision of Timothy by Paul
(Acts xvi. 1-4) presents similar difficulties. Timothy, ac
cording to the report, was a convert to Christianity, whose
father was a Greek. His mother, however, was a Jewess,
and he had not been circumcised. Paul wanted him as a
companion, and performed the Jewish rite upon him, "on
account of the Jews that were in those parts." To one
whose knowledge of Paul's character and principles is de
rived entirely from Acts, this narrative, related as if the
proceeding were a matter of course, would present no seri
ous difficulty. But the case is quite different when we un
dertake to judge of it with the Paul in mind who vehe
mently rebuked Peter in Antioch for "dissimulation," and
wrote the account of his determined opposition to the cir
cumcision of Titus in Jerusalem. Meyer expresses the
opinion that Paul could not have performed the rite on
this occasion if the request had been made by Jewish
Christians, but might have done it "on account of the
Jews," so that they should not take offence at his having
as a companion an uncircumcised man who was on one
side of Jewish parentage. But it is not apparent why he

PAUL OF THE ACTS AND THE EPISTLES 1 57
should yield to Jews what he would not concede to Jewish
Christians, and in fact refused to them in the case of
Titus. If he was willing to be as a Jew to Jews in order
that he might gain some of them, can he be supposed to
have carried this accommodation so far as to perform the
rite of circumcision upon a Christian companion out of
deference to Jewish prejudice ? The judgment must turn
upon the question whether for Paul a principle was at
stake in the case. Professor Pfleiderer remarks on the
subject that such a condescension of Paul's constitutes so
striking a contrast to his inflexibility regarding Titus,
shortly before in Jerusalem, that a doubt of the correctness
of the account seems justified. The apostle, he says, was
always unyielding where questions of religious principle
arose out of legal externalities ; while, where this was not
the case, he judged the latter as religious dZidfyopa,* and
made no objection. f This scholar finds a solution of the
difficulty in the supposition that the writer of Acts has
placed here an event which occurred early in Paul's minis
try, when according to Gal. v. 1 1, the apostle may have
favoured circumcision. But, to say nothing of the absence
of grounds for the assumption of a displacement of the
narrative, the passage referred to does not necessarily
imply that Paul advocated circumcision at the beginning
of his ministry, or ever as an apostle. The passage is
equivalent to, " If I were still preaching circumcision, I
should not still be persecuted." % But it is very doubtful
whether the apostle could have regarded such a matter as
among dSidcpopa, or things indifferent, either before or after
the episode concerning Titus. The proceeding is in direct
* adiddiopa, things indifferent.
t Das Urchristenthum, p. 585 f.
\ el wepiro/xiiv en eK^pvooov, omM iv ediuKburiv. See Meyer, Commentar,
in loc, and Lipsius, Hand- Commentar, ii. p. 59.

158 THE MISSIONARY
opposition to the doctrine : " If any one is called in uncir
cumcision, let him remain uncircumcised" (1 Cor. vii. 18).
One can hardly think of Paul as circumcising a believer
"on account of the Jews" when he held that the rite
implied the obligation to keep the whole law, and that
Christ profited him nothing on whom it was performed.
The question has well been raised why the apostle whose
ministry was to the gentiles should be believed to have
made such a concession "on account of the Jews." About
to depart on a journey, why should he regard the prejudice
of "the Jews that were in those parts"? If the "incon
sistency " of Paul is to be easily assumed, he should not at
least be charged with it unless a good reason for it can be
shown. Not without grounds has doubt been cast upon
this narrative, which probably does not belong to the "we-
source," because of the writer's apparent purpose to repre
sent Paul as chiefly associating in his ministry with those
to whom the unbelieving Jews, zealots for the law, would
take no exception. His omission of any mention of Titus
and of the apostle's inflexible opposition in Jerusalem to
the demand for his circumcision is noteworthy in this con
nection, and can with difficulty be explained on any other
hypothesis than that of an intention to disregard facts
not in accord with his conception of Paul's character and
work. This writer's account of the apostle's work as a mission
ary is in fact hardly reconcilable with the spirit and aim of
Paul as he represents himself in the Epistles. Not to
dwell upon the fact that, according to Acts, it is not the
apostle to the gentiles, but Peter, who was the real founder
of the mission to the uncircumcised (Acts x. 1 f.), the
ministry of the former is generally represented as primarily
to the Jews. In most cases his preaching to the gentiles
is set forth as merely incidental and as occasioned by the

PAUL OF THE ACTS AND THE EPISTLES 159
hostility of the Jews to his message. It is made to appear
that the redoubtable advocate of the gospel of the uncir
cumcision, who said of himself that God had revealed His
Son in him in order that he might preach the good news
to the gentiles (Gal. i. 16), goes to them for the reason
that his own people reject and persecute him (Acts xiii.
46). At an advanced period in his ministry he is made to
say to the unbelieving and blasphemous Jews : " Your
blood be upon your own heads ; I am clean ; from hence
forth I will go unto the gentiles " (xviii. 6). Yet repeatedly
thereafter he pursues the settled policy, "as was his cus
tom," of beginning his ministry at various points in the
synagogues. Some exceptions to this procedure are,
indeed, to be noted (xiii. 7-12, xiv. 6, 7, 21, xvii. 11. 12,
17-34), but in the first instance Sergius Paulus is only
incidentally converted after the synagogue had been
favoured with a ministration. The theory of the author of
Acts is carried out with striking consistency and vigour to
the very end of Paul's work as he records it, so that in
Rome his relations with the Jews are at first unconstrained,
until, rejected by a portion of them, he hurls at them a
condemnatory prophecy, and declares that the " salvation
of God is sent unto the gentiles " (xxviii. 23-28). Thus
the writer represents from first to last that the origin of
the Pauline gentile church is due to the obstinate unbelief
of the Jews. On the other hand, it must be conceded that
Paul was profoundly interested in the conversion of his
"brethren" to the Christian faith. But, according to his
own declarations on the subject, the method should have
been the reverse of that pursued if the representation in
Acts is correct; for the Jews were to be incited to "jeal
ousy " by the prior acceptance of the gospel on the part of
the gentiles, the "fulness" of whom was first to be
brought in (Rom. x. 16-21, xi. 5, 11-16, 20, 23, 25-31.

l60 THE MISSIONARY
See Holtzmann, ut supra, p. 316). Single instances of
beginning his ministry first among the Jews are not of
so much importance as the "suspicious regularity" (Weiz
sacker, Holtzmann) of the procedure according to Acts,
where it appears as a "principle " of his mission (xiii. 46, 47,
xviii. 6, xxviii. 26-28). On this theory "the principal
difference between Paul and the original apostles is that
he turned to the gentiles when the Jews would not hear
him," in direct contravention of the agreement reached in
Jerusalem between him and them (Gal. ii. 9), according to
which they were to undertake the ministry to the Jews,
and he that to the gentiles.
For an estimate of the two representations of Paul in
question, his doctrinal teachings as given in the respective
sources furnish important data. We should expect to find
in a history of the apostle, which a considerable portion of
Acts ostensibly is, an account of his method of presenting
his peculiar apprehension of Christianity, or at least speci
mens of his missionary preaching in which his distinctive
doctrines would be given emphatic expression. It is true
that some of his speeches in Acts are apologetic, and do
not furnish occasion for such an exposition. But oppor
tunities for it are not wanting, and where they occur we
are invariably disappointed by the contrast between the
Epistles and the addresses in this history. In Antioch of
Pisidia he delivered an address to the Jews in the syna
gogue, in Athens to gentiles, and at Miletus to Christians ;
yet in neither of these does he go beyond the average
Jewish-Christian profession of faith, — the one God, Christ
the Messiah, and the resurrection (xiii. 16-41, xvii. 22-31,
xx. 17-35), Just as elsewhere he testifies of repentance
and conversion, and "reasons of righteousness and tem
perance and the judgment to come" (xxii. 1-2 1, xxiv.
10-21, xxvi. 2-23). In all the speeches of the apostle

PAUL OF THE ACTS AND THE EPISTLES l6l
reported in Acts, there is little that indicates the vigorous
champion of the new gospel of grace who has impressed
the stamp of his originality on almost every page of the
Epistles. The Pauline terminology is, indeed, employed
in xiii. 39 (BtKaiovrai), but according to Holtzmann " this
passage presents instead of a full Paulinism in the sense
of Rom. i. 17, vi. 7, viii. 3 a negative conception of justifi
cation, i.e. absolution, and presupposes like Luke xviii. 14
that a certain though unsatisfactory measure of it is to be
found as the ground of the law." An intimation of the
doctrine of justification by faith is contained in xvi. 31,
and possibly in xx. 21 ; yet the fact is significant with
reference to the relation assumed in Acts of Paul and the
original apostles to Christianity that, as has been re
peatedly pointed out, the distinctive " watchwords " of
Paulinism are put into the mouth of Peter, who 'represents
himself as " a good while ago" chosen of God to preach
the gospel to the gentiles (Acts xv. 7-1 1). But if the
apostles in Jerusalem felt, as Peter here represents, that
the law was " a yoke upon the neck of the disciples "
which neither they nor their fathers "were able to bear,"
it is not easy to see what ground for controversy there
was between them and Paul. It is precisely this contro
versy, however, that the writer of Acts is studious to
ignore. He may not, as the older Tubingen school sup
posed, have drawn the portraits of Peter and Paul with a
conscious "tendency," but may rather, perhaps, as Dr.
Pfleiderer remarks, have " made Peter speak like an eccle
siastical Jewish Christian, and Paul like an ecclesiastical
deutero-Paulinist of his own time. Because these two
tendencies had then come so near each other to the point of
indistinguishability, it was very natural that their typical
representatives should appear much closer together than
they in reality once stood" (Das Urchristenthum, p. 581).

1 62 THE MISSIONARY
The conference which Paul held with the apostles in
i Jerusalem on his second visit to that city concerning the
central question of the church at the time, that of the
circumcision of the gentile converts, has already been
referred to in the course of the preceding discussion.
The two accounts of this event (Gal. ii. i-io, Acts xv.
1-35) are, if not controlled by opposite aims, at least from
widely different points of view. The veritable course of
affairs in this conference, the attitude of Paul and of
" those in authority '' (ol SoKofWe?) in Jerusalem respect
ing the question in debate, and the actual outcome of the
council, are matters of the gravest importance for the his
tory of apostolic Christianity. It was not without good
reason that the keen insight of the great founder of the
Tubingen school saw in this passage of Galatians the right
point of departure for the critical study of the literature of
the primitive church. The question, whether this litera
ture could have been what it is if the account in Acts is
correct, must be determined by a careful analysis of that
report, and a comparison of its statements with those
made by the apostle himself on the subject.
It is, first of all, of paramount importance to ascertain
as nearly as possible Paul's point of view and feeling
respecting all that was involved in the journey to Jeru
salem, and it will not be denied by the ardent supporters
of the credibility of Acts that the most trustworthy source
for this information is found in his own declarations in
Galatians. Now it is manifest to the student of the first
two chapters' of this Epistle that the apostle is concerned
before all with the assertion of his independence of men,
especially of the " pillars " in Jerusalem, in all that related
to his credentials as a preacher of the new gospel to the
gentiles (Gal. i. 1). He also declares specifically that no
man taught him this gospel, but that he had it " through

PAUL OF THE ACTS AND THE EPISTLES 1 63
revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal. i. 12). It is with the one
end in view of making prominent the original character of
his authority as an apostle that he mentions his conver
sion, wrought by God for the sole purpose of sending him
to the gentiles, and emphasises the fact that he did not
thereupon go to Jerusalem " to them that were apostles
before " him, but only after three years, and then solely to
visit Peter, seeing no other of the apostles. After having
disregarded during fourteen years those "reputed to be
somewhat " in Jerusalem, and apparently shown himself
disposed to ignore them indefinitely except in an especial
emergency, he went up at length " by revelation." There
is no intimation in his account that those in authority
there had paid any more attention to him than he had to
them, — that they had molested him, or in any way inter
fered with his work. Nothing is known of the character
or contents of the "revelation," but the mention of it in
the connection is important, as Weizsacker has pointed
out,* since it indicates, like the "revelation" of his con
version, a consciousness of direct authority from above
and independence of external constraint. Whether, ac
cording to Acts, he was sent to Jerusalem by the church
in Antioch, or no, is not a matter of moment, but it is
of the greatest consequence whether he went to argue a
question which had been discussed in that church, before
an apostolic tribunal whose authority he who "took not
counsel of flesh and blood" could recognise in the matter
in dispute. It is not expressly declared, but is probably
implied in the account in Acts, that the question of salva
tion without circumcision remained unsettled after "no
small dissension " in the Antiochian church, and could
only be settled by an appeal " to the apostles and elders "
in Jerusalem. But in view of the spirit and feeling mani-
* Jahrbucher fur deutsche Theologie, 1873, p. 195.

1 64 THE MISSIONARY
fested by Paul in his account of the affair, and of the
connection in which he places it, his acceptance of such
a mission is unthinkable on any just estimate of his char
acter. He to whom the gospel of the uncircumcision had
come by " revelation of Jesus Christ," and who for four
teen years had not recognised the authority of "those
reputed to be somewhat," could not thus have compro
mised himself even out of deference to the wishes of the
" brethren " in Antioch. Had such a humiliating propo
sition been made' to him, could he have let slip the oppor
tunity of declaring in the Epistle to the Galatians his
indignant rejection of it ? It is altogether unmistakable,
from what he says of the matter in this Epistle, that he
could not have gone to Jerusalem to seek a human author
isation for a gospel which he believed to be divinely
authenticated to him. His own words comport well with
his sense of dignity and authority : " I went up by revela
tion, and I laid before (avede/j,rjv) them the gospel which I
preach among the gentiles " (Gal. ii. 2). The journey was
evidently undertaken with the purpose of compelling, of
winning by a contest if necessary, the recognition of the
"pillars " of the church ; but he does not by a word cast
the least doubt upon his own conviction of the Tightness
of his cause, or intimate that he could be strengthened in
his assurance of it by anything that the apostles might
say. Probably a knowledge on his part of a feeling hostile
to him in Jerusalem, and of an influence against him issu
ing thence, must be assumed as the occasion of the expe
rience which he calls a "revelation." At any rate, he
went up with the "proud conviction" that in his gentile
mission he was not running and had not run " in vain,"
and that the presentation of the matter to the apostles
would at least secure him from any further interference
with his work on their part.

PAUL OF THE ACTS AND THE EPISTLES 1 65
That the apostle did not make this journey in a spirit of
compromise, or to secure a "supplementary authorisation"
of his gospel, or to bring for decision before a higher tri
bunal a question debated in Antioch, is apparent from the
fact that he took with him the uncircumcised Greek Titus
" as a living example " of the principle of his mission.
This circumstance, the mention of which did not accord
with the purpose of the writer of Acts, he places before
the Galatians with an unconcealed pride, and adds that
he did not yield for an hour to the demand that the Jew
ish rite should be performed upon his companion, " that
the truth of the gospel might continue " with them
(Gal. ii. 5). He stakes the principle of his mission on
this contest, which he glories in having brought to a vic
torious conclusion, and which had its chief significance for
him and his cause on account of "the false brethren who
came in privily [among his churches] to spy out their lib
erty." That Titus was not circumcised at all, whether by
compulsion or voluntarily, is too evident from the tone and
context of the account to warrant discussion. The reason
is manifest why the writer of Acts, who records the cir
cumcision of Timothy "on account of the Jews," should
have omitted mention of this episode on which Paul lays
so much stress. It does not accord with the point of view
of that book to give prominence to any conflict between
Paul and the Jewish-Christian leaders in Jerusalem. But
that a bitter conflict arose in the case in question is evi
dent from the sketch in Galatians. That the apostle,
moreover, regarded it as of great importance, and as denot
ing a crisis, an epoch, in Christian history, there can be
no doubt. Its significance certainly depends in no small
degree upon the part taken in it by "those in authority."
Paul's condensed statement of the matter leaves us in
uncertainty on this point. He doubtless means to be

1 66 THE MISSIONARY
understood as declaring that a pressure was brought to
bear upon him in Jerusalem for the circumcision of Titus.
The passage is very difficult, and has received widely dif
ferent interpretations. If we read "on account of the
false brethren," etc. (hia tovo trap. yjrevB.), in close con
nection with the foregoing, the sense may be that the
demand was made by reason of these persons, assumed to
be present in Jerusalem ; while, if we separate them as in
the revised version, it may be that Paul's attitude and
struggle were with reference to them in his several
churches.* But, in any case, he does not say that " the false
brethren " made the demand, and he certainly could not
mean to imply that he resisted the requirement because they
made it, as if he would have acceded to it under different
circumstances. Whether he was required by performing
the act in question to bear public testimony against his
gospel by the whole church in Jerusalem, by few, by many,
or by the apostles themselves, he does not tell us. Perhaps
Lipsius goes too far in saying that it results "with cer
tainty " from the account that the apostles at first required
the circumcision of Titus. f It is certain, however, that
the demand came from a source which Paul deemed of so
much importance as to justify emphatic mention. It is
also of no little significance, as Weizsacker has pointed out
(ut supra, p. 304), that he gives as the sole reason why the
requirement was not carried out his own opposition to it,
and does not intimate that he had support in his resistance
from any quarter. The fact that the pillar-apostles yielded
in the end does not necessarily carry with it the implica
tion that they did not at first join in making the demand.
Not only did Paul successfully resist the demand in ques
tion, but he secured from the three chief apostles, Peter,
* So Lipsius in Hand- Commentar, in loc.
t Article, " Apostel-Convent " in Schenkel's Bibel- Lexicon.

PAUL OF THE ACTS AND THE EPISTLES 1 67
James, and John, a recognition of his mission to the gentiles.
He does not intimate, however, that fellowship was extended
to him on behalf of the whole church in Jerusalem, or that
he had that of the other believers there. An important
question arises here respecting the relation of these three
men to the rest of the Christian community in the holy
city, in which- is involved the significance of apparently
ironical expressions of the apostle's regarding the former.
If these chiefs did not join in the demand respecting Titus,
they at least did not prevent it, and were perhaps unable
to do so. From this point of view, Paul's words with ref
erence to them, "those reputed to be somewhat," "what
soever they [once] were, it maketh no matter to me," may
be significant of the fact that they were not masters of the
situation, and could not control their followers. On the
other hand, if they favoured the requirement, or counselled
his acquiescence in it for the sake of harmony, these ex
pressions may denote, in view of his successful resistance,
his superior authority and his triumph over them. Another
question arises, which is of still greater importance, because
it involves the trustworthiness of the account in Acts xv. :
Were the transactions in question "privately" conducted
before " those who were of repute," or before a veritable
council of "the apostles and elders " ? If we leave without
discussion Weizsacker's opinion that the writer of Acts had
Galatians as a source for his narrative, it is in any case
evident that, besides omitting the account of the strife
about Titus, he has given a graphic delineation of an event
of which Paul gives no intimation, — a formal council in
which speeches were made, and a decree was agreed upon.
Paul's statement is simply that he went up to Jerusalem,
and laid before "them" his gospel, "but privately before
them who were of repute." The former "them" has no
immediate antecedent, and the probably correct interpreta-

1 68 THE MISSIONARY
tion is that, when he used it, he had in mind the apostles,
but qualified it immediately by saying that he meant only
those who were recognised as their leaders. It is upon
this private conference that he lays the entire stress, and
no place can be found in his account (Gal. ii. 2-10), without
the greatest violence, for such proceedings as those re
corded in Acts. The author of this book, looking at the
matter from the point of view of his time, could see noth
ing so fitting as an ecclesiastical council, and he accord
ingly knew nothing of a private transaction, a compact of
the chief apostles with Paul, a right hand of fellowship.
The supposition of a formal council encounters the diffi
culty involved in Paul's silence about it. If it was held
after a private conference, which he explicitly mentions, it
would be significant as giving a public sanction and author
ity to whatever compact was made in the latter. Accord
ingly, he could not have omitted to give it prominence in
his account of the proceedings, for to do so would have
strengthened his position. It is unthinkable that in such
a council the chief apostles should not have been conspicu
ous, and equally unthinkable that Paul should have said
nothing of their attitude and words. A private conference
after the council could have no significance unless it were
held in order to reverse the formal decree, in which case
the latter would be made a farce.
The attitude and relation of Paul toward the apostles in
Jerusalem, as set forth in the two accounts, present a con
trast which is of no small historical significance. Accord
ing to Acts, he goes up as a delegate, along with others,
to lay before an ecclesiastical council the question of the
circumcision of the gentile converts, which had been dis
cussed in Antioch, where it would appear that he was not
himself recognised as an authority on the subject. Arrived
in Jerusalem, he does not go before his peers, the apostles,

PAUL OF THE ACTS AND THE EPISTLES 169
to defend his gospel and assert his rights as one who, hav
ing " seen the Lord " and had a " revelation," acknowledged
no superior among. them, but he submits to present the
vital question of his mission to an assembly composed of
"the apostles and elders," according to one statement, and
according to another, of "the apostles and elders and the
whole church," as if the matter at issue were one on which
he could accept a majority vote as decisive. In this council
he is no conspicuous figure. He has no cause to argue.
There is no contest over the question for the defence of
which he would have given his heart's blood. He does
not appear as the redoubtable antagonist of those "reputed
to be somewhat " for the exposition of his gospel of liberty
and for the arraignment of those who would bring his gen
tile converts into bondage. No words of his are reported,
but he is consigned to obscurity with the remark that
together with Barnabas he rehearsed "what signs and
wonders God had wrought among the gentiles by them."
Finally, he meekly receives the decree of the council, and
departs to publish it among the gentile churches. On the
contrary, according to the account in Galatians Paul went
to Jerusalem, not because he was sent to appeal a case to
a council, but by reason of an inward intimation which he
regarded as a "revelation." He was not "appointed" to
gether with certain others, but apparently chose his own
companions, and had the boldness to take with him the
Greek Titus into the stronghold of the circumcision. On
arriving there he does not go before an assemblage of the
church to receive instructions, but lays privately before those
whom he regarded as his equals, not his superiors, the gos
pel which he preached by direct divine authority among
the gentiles. He resists the demand for the circumcision
of Titus, and wins his cause alone. The result is that
"those who were reputed to be somewhat " imparted noth-

170 THE MISSIONARY
ing to him, but rather derived from him the conviction that
he " had been intrusted with the gospel of the uncircum
cision." When about to depart he receives no decree sat
isfactory to "the apostles and the elders and the whole
church," but the right hand of fellowship which he had
won from the pillar-apostles, accompanied with the request
that he should remember the poor, a thing which he "was
zealous to do." These two accounts are so opposed in spirit
and evident intention that an inward, essential reconciliation
of them is impossible. An external harmonising of them
appears, accordingly, superficial and trivial. The construc
tion of a "composite" portrait of the Paul of history and
the Paul of fancy serves rather the ends of amusement
than of instruction.
That the historical Paul is represented in the account of
these events in Galatians is probable from some circum
stance incidental to them. It is difficult to explain his
journey to Jerusalem at all, to find an adequate motive for
it, unless the implications of it were such as he sets forth.
He would hardly have taken all the trouble of such a jour
ney unless an object of great moment were to be achieved.
This could have been nothing less than a conference, a
contest, with the chief apostles. Why should he go up and
lay before them the gospel that he preached if he believed
them to be already favourable to it ? A subordinate dis
affected party, which the apostles could very well hold in
check if they were friendly to his cause, would hardly be
worthy of such an effort. Again, it will not be disputed
that Paul's account of the affair with Titus is historical.
Yet he speaks of an influence brought to bear upon him
which was of the nature of an attempted compulsion. A
pressure that he could so designate could have come only
from an authoritative source. Accordingly, the presump
tion is very strong that the apostles not only, as we have

PAUL OF THE ACTS AND THE EPISTLES 171
seen to be probable, gave him no support in this contest,
but also either joined in the demand, or lent their influence
to those who pressed it upon him. They would have this
concession on his part, until they saw they could not obtain
it, as the condition of the sort of "fellowship" which he
at length gained as the result of the contest. All this
would have been very improbable, the journey to Jerusa
lem, the contest, the note of triumph in Galatians, if the
attitude of the apostles is correctly represented by the
speech of Peter at the "council," as reported in Acts.
For he is there represented as saying not only that he was
himself the divinely appointed agent of the gentile mission,
and that God made no distinction between Jews and gen
tiles, but also that it was a tempting of God to require
circumcision, and thus put a yoke upon the neck of the
disciples which neither the Jewish fathers nor their de
scendants were able to bear. " But we believe," he de
clares, " that we shall be saved through the grace of our
Lord Jesus " (xv. 7-1 1). These remarks, which the author
of Acts composed and put into the mouth of the chief of
the apostles of the circumcision, contain, as far as they go,
a confession of the Pauline faith. If they represent the
supposed council, and there is no intimation of a dissenting
voice, it is difficult to see any reason for Paul's journey, or
how the demand respecting Titus could have been made.
Peter's subsequent demeanour in Antioch in eating with
gentiles furnishes no presumption in favour of his having
acknowledged the essentials of the Pauline gospel in Jeru
salem. In fact, his immediate retreat at the command
of James shows that he stood upon no liberal conviction in
the matter. The speech put into the mouth of James is
even more improbable from what we know of him, and
both cannot be better characterised than by saying
that they are well adapted to the harmonising purpose

172 THE MISSIONARY
of the writer of Acts or at least to his historical point of
view.* The story of a decree of a council in Jerusalem which
Paul submitted to receive, and to go about promulgating
* Dr. McGiffert, whose work on The Apostolic Age comes under the writer's
notice as this book is going through the press, expresses the opinion (p. 209)
that " there is nothing improbable in the supposition that Peter and James
made such addresses as are ascribed to them in Acts xv.," although he casts
doubt upon one-half of Peter's speech. Apart from the fact that the rejection
of a part of the speech throws suspicion on the rest, and favours the theory
that the whole of it is a composition of the writer of Acts, it should be re
marked that the section, of the genuineness of which Dr. McGiffert is doubtful
(verses 9 and 10), is precisely that part of it which is important to the question
that was under discussion. Peter, for example, is represented as having said :
(Vs. 8) " And God who knoweth the hearts bare them [the gentiles] witness,
giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us ;
(Vs. 9) " And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts
by faith.
(Vs. 10) " Now therefore why tempt ye God to put a yoke upon the neck of
the disciples which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
(Vs. 11) "But we believe that through the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ we
shall be saved even as they. "
The eighth verse contains only a general declaration as to the bestowal of
the Spirit, and the eleventh is a confession of faith in the Pauline " gospel,"
in accordance with the manifest purpose of the writer of Acts to make
Peter speak like Paul. But if we allow the genuineness of these words, it is
evident from Peter's conduct at Antioch that he did not interpret salvation by
" grace " in the Pauline sense, or he could not, as Paul charges, have endeav
oured to " compel the gentiles to live as do the Jews " (Gal. ii. 14). Without
verses 9 and 10 Peter's speech is emptied of significance, and may as well be
left out of account altogether.
As to the speech ascribed to James, to say nothing of the improbability of
its having been reproduced with anything like accuracy fifty years afterwards,
together with the long quotation from the Old Testament, the declaration :
" My sentence is that we trouble not them who from among the gentiles are
turned unto God," stands in direct opposition to the bitter " trouble " which
James soon after prepared for the gentiles in Antioch, when he sent the
emissaries to Peter. James appears in history in a better light, so far as
honesty is concerned, on the supposition that he made no such speech at the
council as Acts represents.

PAUL OF THE ACTS AND THE EPISTLES 1 73
among his churches, has against it every probability in the
case. It does not at all comport with the spirit of inde
pendence and the consciousness of an authority not de
rived from men, that constitute the nerve of Paul's account
of the matter in Galatians, that he should passively have
received such a decree, which denotes an acknowledged
jurisdiction of the Jerusalem church over the gentile
mission. The sense of his own autonomy is plainly im
plied in the declaration that those who were reputed to
be somewhat imparted or communicated nothing to him
(ovSev TrpoaavedevTO Gal. ii. 6), together with a deprecia
tion of the authority which they assumed, or which was
assumed for them. Moreover, despite the fact that Paul
asserts one of the results of the conference to have been
that the apostles made of him "only" the modest request
that he should "remember the poor" (Gal. ii. io), the
account in Acts represents certain "necessary things" to
have been required in the decree, — Jewish prescripts as to
food, abstinence from " things sacrificed to idols, and from
blood and from things strangled " (Acts xv. 29). Apart
from its direct contradiction of Paul's declaration, the de
cree implies, as Weizsacker remarks, a purpose to so regu
late the deportment of the gentile converts that the Jewish
Christians could associate with them. Yet, if such a
decree was actually promulgated, Peter's subsequent diffi
culty in Antioch is inexplicable, — -a matter about which
Acts has for obvious reasons nothing to say. It is,
moreover, irreconcilable with the existence of such a
decree that Paul nowhere in his Epistles takes the least
notice of it, particularly when, as in 1 Cor. viii. 1 f., x. 28 f.,
he discusses' the question of the eating of things offered
to idols. Here he might very effectively have quoted the
decree of the "council," and could in fact hardly have
refrained from doing so, if such a document had been in

174 THE MISSIONARY
existence. But he does not even enjoin the abstinence in
question on the ground that the eating of such things is
wrong in principle, but recommends it for the sake of the
weaker brethren who " have not knowledge." * The decree
of the council has, then, no historical basis, and with it
falls the entire account in Acts of the transactions in
Jerusalem, of the false position of the original apostles,
the humiliation of Paul, and the distorted view of his
character and mission.
In any case, however, even on Paul's own account of it,
the issue of the conference must have been quite unsatis
factory. In the attempt to reconcile irreconcilables, only
a "preliminary expedient" was reached. The "right
hand of fellowship " had small significance. There was a
division of the work, and each might go to his own. But
neither party was convinced that the other was right.
For the original apostles to concede that uncircumcised
gentiles might sit with Jews in the kingdom, which Christ
was about to establish at the Parousia, was in fact to
admit that the rite was not necessary to the latter. Ac
cordingly, the conjecture appears probable that this
matter was not really determined in their minds at all,
and that the "expedient" was "preliminary" also in the
sense that the Lord would settle that question at his
coming. In the "right hand of fellowship," then, Paul
received recognition neither of the truth of his gospel nor
of his own claim to the apostleship. The gospel of the
circumcision was still to be preached, and Jerusalem was
* Regard is had to him that is weak and to the one who may have indicated
to the believer that the flesh was offered to idols : " For if any man see thee
who hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, should not the conscience
of him that is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to
idols?" (i Cor. viii. io). Again he says: "If any man say to you, This is
offered in sacrifice to idols, eat not for his sake that showed it, and for con
science' sake " (i Cor. a. 28).

PAUL OF THE ACTS AND THE EPISTLES 175
the centre to which the gentile converts might send their
offerings. On Paul's part, the gospel of the apostles could
not be accepted as that of Christ, and stood over against
his own in irreconcilable opposition. He was destined to
go his way alone, and alone to contend and to triumph.
His cause prevailed, because in the nature of things the
victory belongs to the spirit over the letter, to liberty over
bondage, to Jesus over Judaism.

PART III
THE TEACHER

CHAPTER VIII
THE LAW*
A KNOWLEDGE of Paul's apprehension of the law,
his interpretation of it, and his attitude toward it,
is necessary to an understanding of his thought and an
appreciation of his mission. His gospel to the gentiles
* The chapters in this third part, which is devoted to an elucidation of the
teachings of the apostle, have not been arranged in accordance with the hy
pothesis that his theological doctrine is to be regarded as a system, the different
parts of which can be related to one another under the notion of dependence
or of development. He was, indeed, the first among the followers of Jesus to
give to Christianity a theological or doctrinal expression ; but to do this was
not his primary purpose. He was before all and essentially a missionary, and
his work as a teacher was subordinate to his work as a travelling herald of the
cross. The elaboration of a system of theology was incompatible with the con
ditions of his activity and with the circumstances amidst which his Epistles
were written. These were all writings of the occasion, called forth by the
exigencies of his missionary work, and adapted to the needs of his churches.
In them, it is true, are distinctly emphasised the pivotal doctrines of his
"gospel"- Christ, the Son; his death as an atonement for sin; the mystic
fellowship of the believer with him; his resurrection as evidence of his divine
sanction; the abolition of the law; the new righteousness by faith; andthe
Christian's sonship of God, which was to be consummated at the early coming
of Jesus in his kingdom and glory. These cardinal doctrines, however, which
were doubtless the burden of his preaching as a missionary, find in his writings
no systematic elaboration, but are presented according to the requirements of
the occasion, with varying emphasis, and with different forms of expression
which sometimes reveal the most astounding paradoxes. The theory which
has been advocated by some ofthe apostle's expositors, that his teaching reveals
a progressive development, must be taken with some grains of allowance. One
must in particular be cautious about accepting the doctrine to which Dr.
Matheson ( The Spiritual Development of Paul) unreservedly commits himself
that Paul during many years after his conversion was a preacher of the circum
cision — an idea irreconcilable with the fact that he distinctly declares the
179

l8o THE TEACHER
was aggressive as toward the advocates of the permanent
validity of the law, and no small part of his work con
sisted in a justification and defence of his position against
Jewish-Christian contentions and interference. Hence his
theology was to a large degree polemical, and was wrought
out in a contest which turned upon this question of the
law. His mission was necessarily an apology for an atti
tude toward the traditional opinions and prejudices of his
race, which excited as much surprise and indignation
among his opponents as among us it elicits admiration of
his courage and genius. The more this limitation must
in the nature of the case give a temporary and transient
significance to much of his thought, the more do his occa
sional bold flights beyond it reveal his greatness. If,
because he was a Jew, and could not wholly free himself
from his environment, his theology is in some respects
Jewish, yet because he was a Christian and a thinker of
profound spiritual insight, he gave the world the gospel of
liberty, and revealed the heights and depths of universal
religious experience. The prominence accorded to the
law in his writings is externally apparent in the circum
stance that the word (6 v6p,o<; or vo/u,o<;) occurs more than
one hundred times in the four great Epistles. The word
conviction of his call to be the apostle to the gentiles to have been one of his
first experiences of the new religion. That the exigencies of his mission may
have elicited differing forms of expression for his fundamental doctrines
is not improbable; but that they occasioned any modifications of the original
"gospel" which was given in the "revelation" of the Son of God in him is
not apparent from his writings, and may be regarded as a groundless theory.
For the reason, then, that the doctrine of Paul is not regarded and treated as a
system of theology, coherent and consistent throughout, it has been thought
expedient to place first in this part of the book two chapters which contain an
elucidation of some words belonging to the Pauline terminology, a knowledge
of which, is necessary to an understanding of his teachings — a chapter on the
apostle's use of the term " The Law," and a chapter on the sense in which he
employs the terms "Death," "Life," and "Salvation."

THE LAW l8l
is employed in general (vopo*; with or without the article)
of the Mosaic law. The attempt to establish a difference
in the meaning of the word according as the article is
present or absent (Volkmar, Holsten, Lightfoot, and
Gifford) has not been successful, and it is significant that
the two acutest investigators, Holsten and Volkmar, who
have undertaken to maintain a discrimination of this kind
have arrived at directly opposite conclusions.* Fine dis
tinctions between the Mosaic law and law in general are not
Pauline. The apostle was too much a theist to recognise
any law that was not God's, and too much a Jew to discrimi
nate in general between God's law and the Mosaic. In Gal.
iii. 23, 24 he says, for example : " We were shut up under
the law " (vo'ju.09 without the article) ; " wherefore the law
(w'/xo? with the article) was our schoolmaster," etc., where
the Mosaic law is in both cases unquestionably meant.
Also in Rom. ii. 23-27 the frequent recurrence of i>d/xo?
and 0 vopos denotes no change in the point of view, which
is throughout that of the Mosaic law. In "breaking the
law " (tov vo/jlov) and " a breaking of the law " (vo/iov) two
conceptions of "law" are not implied.
The law, then (vojaos or o mj'/xo?), denotes in Paul's usage
for the most part the law as laid down in the Pentateuch.
This was so well understood by himself and assumed to be
understood by the readers addressed that the qualification,
"of Moses," is not generally employed. Once he says:
"It is written in the law of Moses" (1 Cor. ix. 9), and
twice in Romans "the law of God" is used with reference
undoubtedly to the same Old Testament legislation (Rom.
vii. 22, viii. 7). That the purely legislative portion of the
Pentateuch is not meant is evident from Gal. iv. 21-28,
* For a discussion of this matter in detail, upon which it is remote from the
purpose of this work to enter, the student is referred to Grafe's monograph,
Die paulinische Lehre vom Gesetz, pp. 2-7.

1 82 THE TEACHER
where he asks those who "desire to be under the law"
if they do not "hear the law," and then quotes from the
historical part of the so-called " Thora " or book of the law,
a section of the story of Abraham. Not only the entire
Pentateuch, legislative and historical, but the whole Old
Testament is included under the term "law." In Rom.
iii. 19, after several quotations in preceding verses from
various parts of the Old Testament, he refers to them as
"whatsoever things the law saith," and in 1 Cor. xiv. 21
a quotation from Isaiah is introduced with the words : "In
the law it is written." The term "law" or "the law,"
then, generally means in Paul's usage according to the
connection the Mosaic legislation from the point of view
of the Mosaic authorship of the Pentateuch, the historical
portions of these five books, or the entire Old Testament
revelation, which along with his Jewish contemporaries
he regarded as the word of the divine Spirit. It is doubt
ful whether Grafe is justified in his conclusion that Paul
employs "the law" in "an extended signification" denot
ing "the natural moral consciousness of the heathen,"
when he says that they "do by nature the things con
tained in the law" (Rom. ii. 14) and have "the work of
the law written in their hearts." "The law " here is only
that of the Old Testament revelation, and what they have
"written in their hearts" corresponds to it. When they
" do by nature the things contained in the law," they con
form to the standard of the written legislation. If they
are "a law to themselves," it is because in their conscience
is an analogon of the Mosaic law. The several passages
in which "the law" denotes simply a norm or standard,
" law of the mind," etc., contain their own explanation.
It must also be borne in mind that by "law" or "the
law " the apostle means generally the entire Mosaic legis
lation and the Old Testament revelation without making

THE LAW 183
a distinction between the ritual and ethical portions. If,
as Holsten maintains, he had regarded the ritual prescripts
as no real part of the law, but only as " traditions of the
fathers," he could not have been so strenuous with regard
to merely outward forms in his polemic against Judaism.
To him the rite of circumcision carried with it the obliga
tion to keep "the whole law." It was, then, a part of the
law, and was not in his thought discriminated from it as
one of the "traditions." As Grafe remarks, the whole law
in all its parts was to him of divine ordination. This fact,
however, does not carry with it the exclusion of such a dis
crimination as may be made in emphasising now the ritual
and now the ethical contents of the law. When he says
that the whole law is fulfilled by love (Rom. xiii. 8, 10) he
evidently refers to the ethical requirements, and to the
gentiles who have the law written in their hearts, and fulfil
what the law requires without written prescripts, the ritual
prescripts are of course not applicable.
It is a still greater error to suppose that the apostle in
his depreciation of the law as a means of attaining right
eousness and in his demonstration of the futility of " works
of the law " had in mind only the ritual and ceremonial
prescripts. The attempt to carry out such a discrimina
tion would introduce confusion into the interpretation of
his Epistles, and obscure all his teaching. The impossi
bility of keeping the law is emphasised with such intensity,
and elaborated with so much feeling as to denote unmis
takably a profound moral interest. No one can read
attentively the seventh chapter of Romans without receiv
ing such an impression. "The law is spiritual," he says,
"but I am carnal, sold under sin." "The commandment
is holy and just and good." This he could not have said
of the ceremonial law. On the contrary, he sets the ethi
cal prescripts over against the tendencies and impulses of

1 84 THE TEACHER
the "carnal" man. The "delight in the law of God after
the inward man " is certainly not declared with reference
to anything but the ethical requirements of .the law,
against which the other law of the fleshly nature contends,
so that the man in whom the hopeless conflict is waged
feels himself bound to a " body of death." The observ
ance of the ritual prescripts of the law might indeed be
regarded as burdensome, but Paul could not have spoken
of it as an impossibility, and when he says that every man
who is circumcised is "a debtor to do the whole law"
(Gal. v. 3), he does not mean the ritual part of it. The
inclusion of the ethical requirements of the law in the
general term, "the law," is, moreover, evident when we
consider how much stress he laid upon the matter of
attaining righteousness by "the works of the law." It is
irreconcilable with his depreciation of all ceremonial forms
to suppose that he could have connected them alone with
righteousness, and that by the expression, "justified by
the law," he could have meant justified by keeping the
outward prescripts. One would hardly undertake to main
tain that he attached no other significance to the death of
Christ with reference to the Old Testament economy than
that it rendered the ritual observances ineffective. On
the contrary, when he says that "if righteousness come
by the law then Christ is dead in vain (Gal. ii. 21), he
evidently includes in the general term all that the ancient
economy of Israel signified to the Jew. The same inter
pretation of the term is required in the declaration : " I
had not known sin but by the law ; for I had not known
lust, except the law had said, thou shalt not covet "
(Rom. vii. 7); and he certainly could not have said that
the ceremonial law "was our schoolmaster to bring us
unto Christ " (Gal. iii. 24). The antithesis of law and
grace, which runs through all his theology, would be flat

THE LAW 185
if not meaningless, if he intended to convey by it only the
opposition of the gospel to the Mosaic ritual, and did not
rather set over against each other the two historic dispen
sations, that of the old Covenant and that of the new
righteousness by faith (Rom. vi. 15).
It is only from this point of view that we can rightly
understand the apostle's conception of the place of the law
in the divine order, his interpretation of its significance.
His attitude toward it was so directly and fundamentally
opposed to that of the Jews and the Jewish Christians that
it is no wonder that they assumed a position of irreconcila
ble antagonism to him. From their point of view, which
was that of all the teachers of the Old Testament, the law
was given in order to be obeyed, and because through
obedience to its requirements righteousness was attainable.
This was the ancient historical significance and object of
the law, which underlay all the admonitions and exhorta
tions of lawgivers and prophets. Paul undertook the haz
ardous task of denying this hallowed traditional doctrine,
and set over against it the teaching that " by the works of
the law no flesh shall be justified," and that a law had not
been given which could have imparted life, otherwise the
new plan of salvation through Christ would not have been
devised (Rom. iii. 20; Gal. ii. 21, iii. 11, 21). To him the
old order of the law of works was not simply overshadowed
by the new order of righteousness by grace, but it was
done away. It came to an " end " in Christ for " every
one that believeth " (Rom. x. 4). That by " the works of
the law " he does not mean mere legalism, but includes the
entire ethical code is evident from his declaration that
"the commandment was ordained to life," and that "the
man who doeth these things [keeps the requirements of the
law] shall live by them," that is, shall find "life " in them
(Rom. vii. 10, x. 5 ; Gal. iii. 12). This he could not have

I 86 THE TEACHER
said of the Mosaic ritual prescripts alone. He did not
deny that the ethical precepts of the law, "the law" as a
whole in fact, were intended to produce righteousness, and
that they might produce righteousness if observed. But
his contention was that the law would not produce right
eousness, because, on account of the flesh, man could not
keep it. It does not appear to be a logical conclusion from
his theism and his doctrine that the Old Testament was the
divine and authoritative word of the Spirit, to teach that
the law which "was ordained to life " was "found" by
him, Paul, " to be unto death," that is, that the result of a
divine ordinance was directly opposite to its original inten
tion. Such inconsequences, however, show the difficulties
and fhe hazards of his position. If we may regard the
graphic delineation of the struggles of the natural man to
attain righteousness under the law against the fatal ten
dencies of the flesh as a chapter out of his own life (Rom.
vii.), the opinion that his experience contributed to the
doctrine of the impossibility of this sort of righteousness is
well founded. He saw too that Jews and gentiles were all
alike incapable of attaining it, and were " treasuring up
wrath against the day of wrath" (Rom. ii. 5); and as if
this fact were not manifest enough to the open eye, he
proceeds to establish it by a series of citations from the
Old Testament to the end that "every mouth may be
stopped, and all the world may become guilty before God"
(Rom. iii. 10-19). The old order shows by its results its
inadequacy to produce righteousness.
The apostle reached the conclusion that righteousness
by the works of the law is impossible from two points of
view, one theoretical and the other practical. Theoreti
cally he argues from the premises of his Christology. If
Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah of God, then his mission
must have a profound historical significance. He must

THE LAW 187
have established a new order of life, a new righteousness.
" The last Adam " stood historically over against the first
as the founder of a new dispensation. The old order has,
then, no longer any utility. The fact that another was in
stituted showed its inadequacy. The main argument, how
ever, was from the cross backward to the law. Christ's
death was not an ignominy, but a glory, and its glory it was
that it abolished the old economy of the law and sin and
death, and established the new way of grace and of life.
The law was against the whole race, and held over them one
and all its awful judgment of death as the penalty for the
sins which were accumulating into an appalling record. As
the representative of the race Christ paid this penalty of
death once and for all. As many as have faith in this
atonement become free from the law, of which Christ is
"the end to every one that believeth," and are made par
takers of the new righteousness, which is not of works, but
of faith. This is the doctrinal kernel of the apostle's gos
pel. As a new philosophy of religion it had no standing
unless the righteousness "by the works of the law" were
null and void. Both could not stand, and with relentless
logic he declared the abolition of the old order. His
Christianity with its "glorious liberty" was at stake. To
him, if "the works of the law " stood, the cross must go
down in darkness and shame. " If righteousness come by
the law, then Christ is dead in vain " (Gal. ii. 21).
From the practical side the apostle saw the inadequacy
of the law to effect righteousness in the power of the flesh
as he experienced and observed it. Although " the law is
spiritual," man is "carnal," and through this carnality the
law is found to be " weak." It commands, but can furnish
no inward impulse that is able to overcome the resistance
of the flesh, so that the result of the unequal contest is
that "the law in- the members warring against the law of

1 88 THE TEACHER
the mind" brings the "wretched man" "into captivity to
the law of sin." " The carnal mind is enmity against God,
for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can
be." Far from being able to deliver the carnal man from
the stress of this conflict, the law rather conspires with the
flesh to effect his complete overthrow. "The command
ment works all manner of concupiscence. For without the
law sin was dead." "When we were in the flesh, the mo
tions of sin which were by the law, did work in our mem
bers to bring forth fruit unto death " (Rom. vii. viii.). On
this line of argument the apostle's logic brings him to the
conclusion that the law, which thus incites to sin, and
alone "revives" it out of its sleep of death, was given for
this very purpose. We have seen that he has declared it
to have been in its intention "unto life," but to have been
"found to be unto death." Yet from the fact that it pro
vokes to sin, he argues teleologically, that is, from its
actual effect to its intention, that it was given for this very
purpose. He makes no attempt to reconcile these conflict
ing conclusions, and betrays no consciousness of the con
tradiction. " The law entered that the offence might
abound" (Rom. v. 20). To the question, "Wherefore
serveth, then, the law ? " he answers, " It was added for the
sake of transgressions " (tSsv trapafSdaetov %dpiv), in order
to give to actions which otherwise would not be formal
sins the character of transgressions, not to increase them,
not to bring them to knowledge, since they must first exist
as transgressions before they can be known as such, and
least of all to check them, which is opposed to the meaning
of X"-Pcv and to the plain sense of Rom. v. 20. " Where
there is no law, there is no transgression," and " I had
not known sin but by the law" (Rom. iv. 15, vii. 7), are
passages which denote the result of the law, while in Rom.
vii. 13, the law is the occasion of sin, and sin works death.

THE LAW 189
Thus the law is " found to be unto death " in the sense
that it is the occasion of sin, whose penalty is death.*
It did not, however, suit the apostle's grand style of
thinking to leave the matter in this merely individual
relation. To him the law has also an historical signifi
cance in the divine economy. Not only does it result in
bringing home to every man the conviction of his inability
to attain a righteousness by its "works," a righteousness
of his own, but it also has a part in the development of
God's plan of salvation for mankind, according to which
all men were " concluded under sin, that the promise by
faith of Jesus Christ might be given to them that believe."
They were "kept under the law, shut up unto the faith
which should afterwards be revealed"; so that "the law
was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we
might be justified by faith" (Gal. iii. 22-24). "Heirs of
God" men are, indeed, through faith; but "the heir, as
long as he is a child, differeth nothing from a servant . . .
but is under tutors and governors until the time appointed
of the father. Even so we, when we were children, were
in bondage under the elements of the world," until "the
fulness of the time was come," when " God sent forth His
Son " (Gal. iv. 1-3). Under this bondage to the flesh and
the law the "wretched man" cries out to be delivered from
"this body of death" (Rom. vii. 24). "In this sense,"
remarks Grafe, " one may ascribe to the law a negative
* The distinction must be kept in mind between sin as carnality, as a
tendency inhering in the flesh and entailing its consequence, death, even
upon those who did not, between Adam and Moses, sin against a positive
commandment, and sin as a transgression of the law. Paul conceived the
law to have been given because of the former condition for the sake of realis
ing the latter. It was not the law, which is " good," he says, that slew him,
but sin becoming by the law " exceedingly sinful." Without this discrimina
tion Dr. McGiffert's remark is likely to be misleading, that the law was given
" in consequence of sin." ( The Apostolic Age, p. 138.)

190 THE TEACHER
preparation for the New Testament economy of grace. A
positive causal relation between law and salvation Paul
denies throughout." In Rom. iii. 21 "the righteousness
of God," that is, the righteousness of faith which belongs
to the new dispensation, is declared to be " without the
law " (%«/3t? vofiov), an expression which excludes the law
from any part in the attainment of righteousness, and which
is in contrast with " by the law [Sid vopov] is the knowledge
of sin " in the preceding verse. In like manner the apostle
says that "the promise [to Abraham] that he should be the
heir of the world " " was not through the law, but through
the righteousness of faith " (Rom. iv. 13). This temporary
and transient institution was destined to be "done away,"
to be "abolished," and to find its "end " in the coming of
the new dispensation (Rom. x. 4; 2 Cor. iii, 11, 13, 14).
In view of these sweeping declarations one reads at first
with astonishment Rom. iii. 31 : "Do we then make void
the law through faith ? God forbid ; yea, we establish the
law." This is introductory to a proof that the righteous
ness by faith, that is, without "the works of the law," is
testified to by the law itself. In this demonstration is
evident the flexibility of the term "the law" in the apos
tle's usage. While in the passages quoted in the preceding
paragraph he plainly intends by the term to denote the
law as legislation, that is, the ceremonial and ethical re
quirements, with the purpose of showing that by the at
tempt to observe these the attainment of righteousness is
impossible, he here (iii. 31-iv. 25) proceeds to show from
"the law," that is, from the historical part of the Penta
teuch, that his position is supported in the Old Testament.
One might suppose that a Jewish or a Jewish-Christian
logician would object to this mode of argumentation as
an artful avoidance of the question in debate. To the
apostle, however, the whole Old Testament economy is

THE LAW 191
" the law," and he appears to have thought that he could
make out his case and " establish " that which he had
vehemently rejected by a single historical instance of
"righteousness by faith" in the person of a representative
Israelite. Accordingly, he appeals to the case of Abraham,
whose faith was accounted to him for righteousness, and
argues that the law which came four hundred and thirty
years afterward could not annul and make of no effect the
promise which was made to Abraham, and which " was not
to him or to his seed through the law, but through the
righteousness of faith" (Rom. iv. ; Gal. iii.). To this ar
gument a Jew might have answered that it is a grasping
at words, and is not based upon historical facts. In fact
the imputation of righteousness on account of faith in the
Pauline sense is not implied in the story of Abraham, to
whom it was simply reckoned as an evidence of his piety
that he believed in God's promise that he should have
a numerous posterity despite his old age (Gen. xv. 6).
Moreover, that nothing is known in this connection of
righteousness without works is apparent from the fact that
the commandment is given to Abraham to circumcise him
self and "every man child that is born in the house or
bought with money of any stranger," and that accordingly
he was circumcised when he was ninety-nine years old
(Gen. xvii. 10-27). According to the Pauline doctrine
that he who is circumcised " is a debtor to do the whole
law " (Gal. iv. 3), Abraham's righteousness by faith without
works is not historically apparent.
The law is also shown to be inferior to the promise to
Abraham on account of the different way in which it was
given. The inheritance was given directly to Abraham by
God through His promise. The law, on the other hand,
which was "added for the sake of transgressions," "was
ordained by angels in the hand of a mediator." Then

192 THE TEACHER
follows the passage which has been a riddle to interpreters :
" Now a mediator is not a mediator of one, but God is
one" (Gal. iii. 18-20). The idea evidently is that the
subordination of the law to the promise is shown in the
fact that it was given through a " mediator," Moses, who
stood between the author of the law and the people, and
mediated its transmission, while in the giving of the prom
ise God, who is one, acted as one, and communicated it
without a mediator to Abraham. The place and function
of the "angels" in the transaction are, however, not appar
ent, unless the law was conceived as given by them to
Moses. But it is probable that Paul had in mind Lev.
xxvi. 46: "These are the laws which the Lord made be
tween him and the children of Israel in Mount Sinai by
the hand of Moses." It is to be noted that he does not
say that God was the author of the law, yet we know from
other passages that this was his doctrine. The idea that
angels were the medium of the giving of the law appears
to have been a current Jewish tradition. We find it in the
speech put into the mouth of Stephen in Acts (vii. 53), in
Heb. ii. 2, and in Josephus, Ant. xv. 5. Such is the apos
tle's argument ; but it is not apparent how the law becomes
subordinate because it was not communicated to the people
directly, but to Moses, their representative. In the account
of the giving of the law in Exodus nothing is said about
" angels " having a part in the transaction, but God speaks
directly to Moses amidst the most terrific accompaniments
of solemnity and majesty. In fact, Yahweh would not
give the law in any other way than through Moses, and
"the people and the priests" are ordered not to "come up
unto Yahweh," lest He "break forth upon them" (Ex.
xix. 24). Paul seems to have written not with immediate
reference to the account of the Sinaltic legislation in
Exodus, but rather with the Jewish tradition about the law

THE LAW 193
as "ordained by angels" before his mind. His interpreta
tion from the point of view of the Old Testament narrative
of the giving of the law is altogether fanciful and super
ficial. The apostle undertakes to show by another reference to
the giving of the law through Moses that it was of a tran
sitory character. "The children of Israel," he says, "could
not steadfastly behold the face of Moses for the glory of
his countenance, which glory was to be done away." He
argues that "if that which is done away was glorious,"
"that which remaineth" is much more glorious. Accord
ingly, he says, " we use great plainness of speech ; and not
as Moses, who put a veil over his face, that the children of
Israel could not look steadfastly to the end of that which
is abolished" (2 Cor. iii. 7, 11-13). There is no intima
tion, however, in the narrative referred to (Ex. xxxiv.
33-35) that Moses veiled his face in order to conceal from
the people whom he represented the fading away of the
"glory," or that the people could not look upon his face
because of its splendour. On the contrary the writer says
that they saw the face of Moses, that it shone, and that he
spoke to them in this condition, being himself ignorant of
it (verses 29-32). Paul appears to have understood that
Moses, conscious that the light on his face faded away,
put on a veil, in order that the people should not interpret
this waning of the " glory " as a symbol of the transient
character of the law. The Old Testament writer does not
seem to have thought of this, and it did not occur to him
to represent the great lawgiver as capable of coming forth
from the presence of Yahweh and deceiving the people as
to the nature of the sacred legislation.
Paul appears to have recognised the fact that his
doctrine of the abolition of the law had its ethical perils.
This freedom in Christ from obligation to the law might

194 THE TEACHER
be abused in the interest of license. That his opponents
made the most of this is apparent from his attempts to
parry the objection. " But if," he asks, "while we seek to
be justified by Christ, we ourselves also are found sinners,
is therefore Christ the minister of sin ? God forbid" (Gal.
ii. 17). This is the ethical side of his contest with the
Jewish Christians ; and that such a conflict of opinion
existed is evident not only from occasional references to it
in his Epistles, but from the fact of the constant opposi
tion to which he was exposed. His teaching that the law
was given to increase transgression in order that grace
might the more abound (Rom. v. 20, 21) was met with
the derisive answer, " The more sin, then, the more grace."
Accordingly, the apostle declares the damnation of those
men to be just who "slanderously report" him to say,
"Let us do evil that good may come" (Rom. iii. 8).
Again he asks, " What shall we say then, shall we continue
in sin that grace may abound" (Rom. vi. 1)? Jewish-
Christian opposition and misinterpretation did not, how
ever, deter him from the bold assertion and defence of the
doctrine that liberty in Christ meant unqualifiedly deliver
ance from the law as the rule of life. He could not
logically take any other ground ; for if " Christ was the
end of the law to every one that believeth," then the law is
no longer the standard or rule of life for believers. With
out this practical application his entire contention would
have been a mere strife about words. The fundamental
proposition is that "where the Spirit of the Lord [Christ]
is, there is liberty" (2 Cor. iii. 17). This liberty is
deliverance from the law — a doctrine which is laid down
in unmistakable terms in the declaration that, " if ye be
led by the Spirit, ye are not under the law" (Gal. v. 18).
The law was conceived as adapted only to the natural,
carnal man, and served the purpose of making the offence

THE LAW 195
" abound " which was stimulated by the flesh. The
Christian, being the possessor of the Spirit, was exalted
above the law and lived in a higher realm. " They that
are Christ's have crucified the flesh, with the affections and
lusts" (Gal. v. 24), and have now no longer any practical
relation to the law, which binds the carnal man with chains
of steel. The exhortation to them is : " If we live in the
Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit " (Gal. v. 25). They
are "dead to the law," that they may "live unto God"
(Gal. ii. 19). Accordingly, the apostle writes to the
Romans : " Now are we delivered from the law, that being
dead wherein we were held, that we should serve in new
ness of Spirit and not in oldness of the letter " (Rom. vii.
6), that is, in the new condition of being impelled by the
Holy Spirit, in opposition to the bondage of the law. He
who is led by the Spirit is a son of God (Rom. viii. 14),
and owes allegiance to no law but "the law of the Spirit of
life in Christ Jesus" (Rom. viii. 2). Although the ancient
ordinances may be "spiritual" and "holy and just and
good," the Spirit is supreme, and has its own law. He
who possesses it is no longer in " bondage " to old
ordinances and dispensations, but is driven by it whither
soever it " listeth." * That this was not conceived as a
condition of moral indifference and laxity, but of the
highest ethical-spiritual life, is manifest, and the apostle
very naturally repudiated with indignation the charge that
his doctrine contained a principle of license. The "sons
of God," "led by the Spirit," or impelled by this super
natural agency, cannot go astray. Under the law a man
painfully produced only " works," and of these not enough
* " Wer darf mir Halt gebieten? Wer dem Geist
Vorschreiben der mich fiihrt? Der Pfeil muss fliegen
Wohin die Hand ihn seines Schiitzen treibt."
— Schiller, Jungfrau von Orleans, ii. 4.

196 THE TEACHER
to effect righteousness. In the Spirit he bears "fruits,"
against which the law can make no complaint (Gal. v. 22,
23). This doctrine undoubtedly has its ethical perils, and
to Paul's opponents it must be granted that they were not
altogether wrong. There is wanting a test of the actual
possession of "the Spirit," and the ordinary man, puffed
up with sense of an inward illumination, may sin against
all laws human and divine.
The moral hazards of this teaching have doubtless
furnished the motive of the contention on the part of some
expositors that Paul had in view only the abolition of the
ceremonial law. This position has an apparent support in
passages in which he speaks of love as the fulfilling of the
law, mentioning once a portion of the decalogue (Gal. v.
14; Rom. xiii. 9, 10), and particularly in the words:
"That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us
who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" (Rom.
viii. 4). It should be borne in mind, however, that when
Paul addresses Christians, he speaks to them as not
"under the law," but "under grace." He did not regard
love as one of " the works of the law," and it would be a
denial of one of the fundamental tenets of his theology to
maintain that he thought it could be produced and prac
tised under the law. If it is the fulfilment of the law, it
includes all righteousness ; and he explicitly declares that
"if righteousness come by the law, Christ is dead in vain,"
and that "if there had been a law given which could have
given life, verily righteousness should have been by the
law" (Gal. ii. 21, iii. 21). On the contrary, to him love is
one of "the fruits of the Spirit" (Gal. v. 22). It is not
conceived as a matter of obedience, but as a product, a
"fruit," of the indwelling Spirit. Rom. viii. 4 must be
interpreted from the same point of view. " The righteous
ness of the law " is accomplished in the believer not by his

THE LAW 197
"works," but by the power of "the Spirit." All that is
vital in the law the Spirit impels its possessor to do, for
there is no essential difference between the law, which was
given by the Spirit, and the rule of life which the Spirit
fulfils in him in whom it resides. But the two kinds of
life are separated "by the whole diameter of being," and
what is brought forth in him who is " under grace " is pre
cisely that which "the law could not do" (Rom. viii. 3).
The law is "the ministration of death," "the letter" that
"killeth " (2 Cor. iii. 6, 7), not because its contents are not
"spiritual," but because it is simply a law, a letter, com
manding and threatening and punishing with death, an
external authority furnishing no inward quickening.* But
the Spirit is a productive power which dwells within
(1 Cor. iii. 16, vi. 19; 2 Cor. i. 22), and "sheds abroad the
love of God in the heart" (Rom. v. 5). Through this,
which " helpeth our infirmities," are freedom, spontaneity,
and life.
If despite this repudiation of the law the apostle says
that "the doers of the law are justified," and admits that
gentiles without a written code may "do the things con
tained in the law" (Rom. ii. 13, 14; see also verses 26, 27),
it should be borne in mind that in these passages he does
not appear to deny that in rare cases it might be kept, and
that he who kept it was completely justified. Yet the
absolute declaration that "by the works of the law shall no
flesh be justified " is not reconcilable with that concession.
* In view of the estimate of the law given in Romans, the teaching that it
is "spiritual," " holy, just, and good," and of the declaration that " the doers
of the law shall be justified" (Rom. ii. 13), the following words from Dr.
Matheson (The Spiritual Development of Paul, p. 98) are plainly a. mis
interpretation of the apostle : " Paul felt that a man might be legally blameless
and a deep-dyed sinner still. He felt that he might keep the law without even
offending in a single point, and yet be at that moment in the gall of bitterness
and the bonds of iniquity."

198 THE TEACHER
Perhaps Rom. ii. 13 may be regarded as conditional in the
sense, "if any are doers of the law," as verses 25, 26, and 27
certainly are. It should be said besides that the points of
view from which the law is judged in Galatians and in
Romans are not altogether accordant. The characterisa
tion of the lapse of the Galatians to the observance of the
law as a return to "the weak and beggarly elements of
the world," hardly agrees with the declaration in Romans
that the law is "spiritual" (Gal. iv. 3, 9; Rom. vii. 14).
Some allowance must undoubtedly be made for the cir
cumstances under which the two Epistles were written,
the readers, and the objects in view. Moreover, apparent
and real inconsistencies will not trouble the student of
Paul who bears in mind that he is not reading a systematic
theologian, but a man whose temperament and special
dogmatic or practical purpose are always to be considered.
Finally, the recognition of the fact that the apostle's
attitude toward the law was that of an extremist whose
j method was uncompromising, and whose judgments were
harsh, will lead to a fair estimate of the position of his
opponents. They could plead both the spirit and the
letter of the Old Testament, and might well maintain that
the doctrine that the law was not given to effect righteous
ness, but to make sin abound, was a perversion and a false
judgment of the whole economy. The difficulties and
hazards of Paul's contention are manifest in the proposi
tions that the law was given to produce "life," and that it
was "a ministration of death," in the attempt to reject the
law as a way of righteousness by an appeal to the law
itself, and in the strained and artificial interpretation by
which he sought to support his argument from the case of
Abraham's righteousness by faith, from the ordaining of
the law through " angels," and from the veil over the face
of Moses.

CHAPTER IX
THE PAULINE TERMS, "DEATH," "LIFE," AND "SALVATION"
THE terms "Death," "Life," and " Salvation " are of so
much importance in the doctrine of Paul as to war
rant a detailed consideration of them in connection with
an exposition of his thought. The first may be regarded
as set over against the other two in an opposition which
can be removed only by the triumph of the powers of
goodness. Two great dispensations of the divine economy
are accordingly represented by these terms — the dispen
sation of sin and its consequences, at the head of which
was the progenitor of the human race, Adam, and the dis
pensation of redemption, whose great Head was the Lord
from heaven, the last Adam, Christ. The first Adam was
simply the progenitor of physical life, "became a living
soul" (¦tyv-yrj), was "of the earth, earthy," and in the pro
gressive order according to which the lower form of exist
ence precedes the higher he was only "natural" (-v/rin^ixro?).
The last Adam, however, became a life-giving Spirit. He
was from heaven, and, " as we have borne the image of the
earthly," Paul says to the believers, "so also shall we bear
the image of the heavenly." If by the first Adam death
came into the world, by the last Adam came "the resur
rection of the dead" (i Cor. xv. 21, 45-49). The drama
of human existence is thus conceived as a conflict between
these opposing powers. Against the "god of this world"
and all the forces of dissolution and destruction is arrayed
the divine Son with his great atonement and his revelation
of grace, and the destiny of each individual is decided ac-
199

200 THE TEACHER
cording as he shall through faith appropriate the life-giving
Spirit, or remain in bondage to " the law of sin and death"
(Rom. iii. 28, vi. 11, viii. 2).
The meaning of the term " Death " (OdvaToo) in Paul's
theology has been the subject of no little discussion, and
an examination of the principal passages in his Epistles in
which it occurs is necessary in order to determine its
sense. The doctrine that death is the consequence of sin,
a result following according to the relation of cause and
effect, is laid down by the apostle with an explicitness
which leaves no doubt as to his meaning. In Rom. v.
12-14 the introduction of this dread power into the world
is attributed to the transgression of Adam, the apostle of
course assuming the literal truth of the story of Eden.
Accordingly, he says : " Therefore, as through one man sin
entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death
passed unto all men, for that all sinned ; for until the law
sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is
no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses
even over those who had not sinned after the likeness of
Adam's transgression." Here the meaning evidently is
that in the divine order of human existence death is the
inevitable consequence of sin, and that its sway in the
world originated in the first transgression in Eden. Since
that event its reign has continued over all men, inasmuch
as all have sinned, whether like Adam in violation of an
express commandment or otherwise.
Attention has been called in a preceding chapter to the
influence of Paul's environment upon his thought ; and it
is of interest in this connection to note that a doctrine
similar to this appears in the Jewish theology, the docu
ments of which are, indeed, much later, but the substantial
contents of which very likely existed in his time. Weber
declares it to have been a capital and fundamental idea of

DEATH, LIFE, AND SALVATION 201
the Synagogue that death was caused by Adam's fall, and
has since reigned in the world, and will reign until the
Messiah removes it.* To the question of the angel why
the first Adam died the answer is given : "Because he did
not keep my commandments." Likewise in the Wisdom
of Solomon it is declared that " God created man for
immortality, and made him to be an image of His own
being, but through the envy of the devil death came into
the world" (i. 13 ff. ii. 23). Also in Sirach xxv. 23 it is said
that "of the woman came the beginning of sin, and through
her we all die." The apostle's doctrine that "in Adam all
die" is so closely related to these sayings as to indicate
its origin in the current Jewish thought.
That the OdvaTos of Rom. v. 12 is primarily physical
death there can be no doubt, not only on account of the
analogy of the Jewish theology, but also because the word
is employed without any indication that other than its
literal sense is intended. The contrast of "justification of
life" in which the word is placed in verse 18 does not
invalidate this interpretation of it, since, as will be shown
later, the prevailing Pauline conception of "life" is that of
a transfigured corporeity not subject to death. In verses
13 f. Paul proceeds to establish the doctrine that the death
of all men is consequent upon Adam's sin by arguing that
"death reigned from Adam until Moses," through whom
the law was given, even over those who had not sinned,
as the progenitor did, against an express commandment,
doubtless on the ground that those who "have sinned
without law shall also perish without law" (Rom. ii. 12);
although the declaration that "sin is not imputed where
there is no law" (Rom. v. 13) is irreconcilable with this
"reign" of its penalty "from Adam to Moses."
That Paul's doctrine of death as the penalty of sin has
* System der altsyn. pal'dstin. Theol., p. 238.

202 THE TEACHER
its roots in the Old Testament as well as in the Jewish
theology is evident from Gen. ii. 17, where death is threat
ened in connection with the prohibition of the fruit of the
tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Yet 1 Cor. xv. 47,
"The first man is of the earth, earthy," doubtless implies
the natural mortality of Adam and consequently of his
descendants. The first man as "natural" (^w^t/co?) must
according to the analogy of the apostle's teaching be re
garded as subject to death, since " life" and " incorruption "
belong only to those who through Christ, the "life-giving
Spirit," have entered into a supernatural relation to God
(Rom. vi. 8, viii. 11), or have received the adoption as sons
(Rom. viii. 14-17; Gal. iii. 26, iv. 5-7). That the death in
question is primarily that of the body is evident from the
declaration that " he that is dead is justified from sin "
(Rom. vi. 7). This doctrine of the Jewish theology that
" all the dead are atoned by death " (Weber, System, etc.
p. 311) is here applied by the apostle as a proof of the
teaching that those who have died symbolically with Christ
in baptism are freed from sin, having died to it, since
Christ's representative satisfaction of the law, the payment
of its penalty on the cross for the race as its Head in the
new order of " life," is available for all who through faith
and baptism come into mystic fellowship with his passion.
The conclusion must not be drawn, however, that he taught
the certain resurrection of all men to life ; for according
to the Pauline theology only those would rise at the second
coming of Christ (the Parousia) who in their lifetime had
come into spiritual union with Jesus, who having "died to
sin " for all received those alone into the fellowship of his
resurrection who had become "members" of him. Those
who died without thus possessing the Spirit, which is the
"earnest" of the resurrection, paid the penalty of sin by
dying absolutely, that is, without hope of living again

DEATH, LIFE, AND SALVATION 203
(1 Cor. i. 18; 2 Cor. ii. 15 ; Rom. viii. 11, 23 ; 1 Thess. v. 3).
This sense of "death" is apparent in the passage : "Yield
yourselves unto God as those who are alive from the dead "
(Rom. vi. 13), where the condition of subjection to death or
to "perishing" in exclusion from the resurrection is con
ceived as that of all men who have not come into spiritual
fellowship with Christ. This is apparent from verses 21
and 23, where the "end" of their former mode of life and
"the wages of sin" are declared to be "death." To be
" alive from the dead " is to pass from the condition in
which "sin reigns in the mortal body "(verse 12), and with
sin its consequence, death, into that of "life," which is that
of those in whom the Spirit abides that insures the final
overcoming of death, the quickening of the mortal body
(Rom. viii. 11), or the resurrection at the Parousia.
A similar anticipation of death occurs in Rom. viii. 10,
where the apostle says to his readers that if Christ is in
them the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life
because of righteousness. Here the actually accomplished
death of the body is of course not meant, but its condition
of subjection to death because of sin whose "wages" it
is — a condition from which he hastens to say it will be
delivered through the Spirit that dwelleth in them. An
analogous application of the idea of dying occurs in Rom.
vii. 9, "And I was alive apart from the law once, but when
the commandment came, sin revived, and I died ; and the
commandment which was unto life I found to be unto
death." The human race, for whom Paul is here speak
ing, since he could not himself at any time have lived apart
from the law, was "alive," that is, without consciousness
of the law, prior to a positive commandment, and hence
not knowing sin. But it is obvious that Paul does not
mean that when the law came those who were its subjects
at once " died " (diredavov), but that the death which sin

204 THE TEACHER
entails became operative in them, and would take its
dreadful course working their " destruction," unless
through faith in "the last Adam," who abolished death,
they should fulfil the condition of attaining "life."
It is plainly a doctrine of the apostle's that the body is
the seat and organ of sin, and carries in it the seeds of
death during its life. Sin "reigns in the mortal body,"
and commands obedience to its lusts (Rom. vi. 12). The
"members" (f^eXr)) are "instruments of unrighteousness."
"The body of sin," that is, the body in which resides the
power of sin, may be "done away" or "destroyed" (Rom.
vi. 6). " The deeds of the body " may be " mortified " by
the Spirit (Rom. viii. 13). The body is also capable of
"redemption," that is, transformation into or being "clothed
upon" with the "spiritual body" or "body of glory" at
the Parousia (Rom. viii. 23). It is " vile," and its " change "
is earnestly desired as a deliverance into freedom and glory,
in which condition it will be conformed to the resurrection-
body of Christ (Phil. iii. 21). This doctrine receives a
graphic expression in Rom. vii. 9-24, where the apostle
represents the man who is under the law as powerless to
do the good that he would, as delighting in the law of God
after the inward man, but seeing a different law in his
members which wars against the law of his mind, and
brings him into captivity to the law of sin that is in them.
Hence the longing for that transfigured corporeity which
should never die, the incorruptible "body of glory," and
the cry to be delivered from " this body of death," whose
impulses lead to the "destruction " of the whole man.
It is very doubtful whether Paul ever employs the words
"death," "dead," and "die" in the sense of moral or
spiritual death, as they have come to be used in our cur
rent theological terminology. Rather he appears always
to have in mind physical death as the penalty of sin, with

DEATH, LIFE, AND SALVATION 205
the supplementary idea of "perishing" or the deprivation
of the resurrection-life. Accordingly, he sets over against
death the life of the resurrection instead of a moral-spirit
ual renewal in 1 Cor. xv. 21 : "For since by man came
death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead."
The counteracting of the death " in Adam " by Christ
is not simply a spiritual transformation of the spiritually
dead, but the delivering of the man who dies in Christ
from hades and the clothing of him with a "body of glory "
for the new kingdom. " For this corruptible must put on
incorruption " (1 Cor. xv. 53). The "God who quickeneth
the dead " is He whose indwelling Spirit will give life to
the "mortal body" (Rom. viii. 11). When the apostle
declares himself to be "a savour of death unto death" to
them that are "perishing" (2 Cor. ii. 16), he means that
to the unbelievers in his gospel, who are in a condition
which if persisted in will end in the hopeless fate of those
who will not be raised at the Parousia, his message will
bring precisely this result. Accordingly, Christ is the
source of death or of life according as he is rejected or
accepted. A similar conception is contained in the words :
"The sorrow of the world worketh death" (2 Cor. vii. 10),
that is, the sorrow which those whose only stake is the
sensuous well-being of the world, that of unbelievers,
whose minds "the god of this world has blinded," works
out the fate which awaits them, death, "perishing" the
Messianic dTrwXeta.
No other meaning of " death " is required in the passage :
" Know ye not that to whom ye present yourselves as ser
vants his servants ye are whom ye obey, whether of sin
unto death or of obedience unto righteousness " (Rom. vi.
16)? In the two parallel clauses Paul has in view the end
"unto" (eh) which the two sorts of obedience lead, as in
verses 21 and 22 he declares that "the end" is in the one

206 THE TEACHER
case "death" and in the other "eternal life." Two oppo
site awards will be adjudged at the Parousia. Those who
have been the servants of sin will then be found to have
died never to live again, while the servants of obedience
will receive the reward of righteousness or resurrection
to "eternal life." This interpretation will at once be seen
to be the only correct one by those students of Paul who
have apprehended the prominence in his thought of the
great consummation which was to be effected when Christ
should presently come in power and glory to bring the
existing world-order to an end. A similar anticipation
of the result of sin is apparent in the words : " For when
we were in the flesh, the sinful passions which were
through the law wrought in our members to bring forth
fruit unto death " (Rom. vii. 6). That moral or spiritual
death is not intended here is evident from the fact that
those in whom this destructive power is working are
represented as already "in the flesh," that is, in a state
of subjection to sin, while the condition which will result
is the " fruit " yet to be borne of the sinful passions,
which is nothing else than death or "perishing" in the
underworld. The same idea is conveyed in the words :
"The commandment which was unto life, this was found
to be unto death," and, "Did that which was good become
death unto me ? God forbid ! But sin, that it might be
shown to be sin, by working death to me through that
which was good" (verses io, 13). There are two opposing
powers which are of world-historical significance to the race
and of tragic significance to each individual, — "the law
of sin and death " and "the law of the Spirit of life in Jesus
Christ." The latter sets " free " from the former the man
who fulfils the required conditions. The Parousia will
reveal the result of the conflict between the two in the
precise terms of "life," "resurrection," and "glory" on

DEATH, LIFE, AND SALVATION 207
the one hand, and of "death," "perishing," and "destruc
tion" on the other, according as men have believed or
have not believed.
Such is also the fateful significance of the words : "The
mind of the flesh is death " (Rom. viii. 6). The works of
the flesh enumerated in Gal. v. 19 result precisely in ex
cluding those who "practise such things" from inheritance
in the kingdom of God — an exclusion which is simply and
only "death" in its ultimate form. The futurity of this
consummation is plainly expressed in the words : " If ye
live after the flesh ye are sure to die" (Rom. viii. 13).
Here the form of expression in the use of /ae'XXere unmis
takably shows what we have seen to be frequently implied,
how the apostle looked forward to the completion of the
course of sin, when at "the end" the work of death would
be made manifest in the irrevocable fortune of those who
should then be found to be without "the life-giving Spirit."
The reference to the future contained in /xe'WeTe excludes
moral-spiritual death; and mere physical dissolution, to
which all men are subject on account of sin, is of course
not meant, but the secondary and final result of sin, from
which all may escape by faith. The final overthrow of
death is the issue of the conflict between it and the powers
of life. " When this corruptible shall have put on incorrup-
tion, then shall come to pass the saying that is written,
Death is swallowed up in victory" (1 Cor. xv. 54). The
resurrection of the believers and the " change " of the
living Christians (1 Cor. xv. 51 f.) denote the victory over
death. In the kingdom death would have no dominion.
The saints clothed with incorruption would die no more.
Paul has left us no data for determining whether the
destruction of death at the Parousia (1 Cor. xv. 26) was
conceived as extending to the realm of the underworld.
So far as the kingdom is' concerned, this "last "enemy"

208 THE TEACHER
is certainly conceived to be destroyed, for it is a kingdom
of "life." If the annihilation of the underworld is implied
(Rev. xx. 14), "the whole creation" would be delivered
from "the bondage of corruption," and become a suitable
abode for the children of God.
The foregoing interpretation of "death" furnishes the
key to the meaning which Paul attaches to its opposite,
"life" (£»??). As death is the dissolution of the body and
Messianic or eschatological " destruction " (dirdfkeia), so
life is not primarily moral and spiritual, but Messianic and
eschatological. The Pauline "life" includes the potential
or actual incorruptible corporeity of the coming kingdom
of God which the Parousia and its eternal life would reveal.
In the words : " If Christ be in you, the body is dead be
cause of sin, but the Spirit is life because of righteousness"
(Rom. viii. 10), the body is represented as a prey to death
on account of sin, as "the wages of sin," while the spirit
possessing righteousness by reason of the fact that Christ
dwells in it is " life," or has already the life-principle which
will manifest itself at the Parousia in the " quickening of
the mortal body " according to the following verse. Thus
Paul does not regard the moral-spiritual life which the be
lievers possessed by reason of their fellowship with Christ
or of the indwelling of the Spirit as an end in itself, but
considers it with reference to the great consummation at
the Parousia, that is, eschatologically. This is apparent
in the section Rom. vi. 4-8, where the being buried with
Christ in baptism, in which " the old man was crucified
with him," carries with it the obligation to "walk in new
ness of life," because this fellowship with him in his death
implies a participation in his resurrection. Being dead
with Christ the believers will at "the end" "live with
him." Their "life" in the present has not only its real
significance, but also its motive, in the future consumma-

DEATH, LIFE, AND SALVATION 209
tion, where they will be "glorified together with him."
Accordingly, the apostle proceeds to say that Christ in his
death " died unto sin once, but in that he liveth he liveth
unto God." In like manner, the believers should reckon
themselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God (verses 10,
11). Having paid the penalty of sin for men in his death
he now lives in his resurrected state the eternal life that
is not subject to death. He has now the incorruptible
"body of glory," and the completion of the believers' fel
lowship with him will consist in their possessing new
spiritual bodies "conformed" to his. In their possession
of the Spirit they have the "earnest" or pledge of "the
redemption of their bodies." The ^atj which they have
by virtue of their mystic union with Christ is potentially
the Messianic eternal life, and the term must not be
emptied of this signification.
Likewise in the passage previously quoted (Rom. viii. 2):
" The law of the Spirit of life hath made me free from the
law of sin and death," "life " is the opposite of all that
"death" meant to the apostle. Over against the dissolu
tion of the "mortal body" and the "perishing" in the
underworld is placed the resurrection with its attendant
blessedness in the kingdom. If "the mind of the flesh,"
to be carnally minded, " is death," " the mind of the
Spirit," the being spiritually minded, has the earnest of a
share in the " glory " presently to be revealed. Those
who by the Spirit mortify the deeds of the body shall
" live," for " the Spirit beareth witness " with the spirit of
the believers that they are " children of God ; and if chil
dren then heirs," whose great fortune it is that in the Pa
rousia they "will be glorified with him" (Rom. viii. 6-17).
It is this triumphant end that Paul always has in mind
when he writes of the Christian's possession of the " life "
which was in Christ victorious over death. Those who

2IO THE TEACHER
" seek for glory and honour and incorruption " or immor
tality, will receive as their award just this, that is, "eternal
life " (Rom. ii. 7). Theirs will be an " eternal weight of
glory " and the putting on of " incorruption " (2 Cor. iv.
17; 1 Cor. xv. 53). The "fruit" of the believers' "being
made free from sin" is "sanctification, and the end eter
nal life " (Rom. vi. 22). Over against the reign of death
"through the trespass of one" is set the future "reign in
life" of those who "receive" the offered grace and "the
gift of righteousness" (Rom. v. 17). The writer of
1 Timothy expresses the apostle's idea in the declaration
that if the believers "endure" they "will also reign with
Christ " (1 Tim. ii. 12). In like manner the "Justification
of life " which the believers receive through Christ (Rom.
v. 18) is the justification that leads to life, that is to the
"eternal life" in the kingdom (verse 21).
The foregoing interpretation is supported by the doc
trine of the resurrection which predominates in 1 Cor. xv.
Here the dying in Adam and the being made alive in
Christ are contrasted as physical death with its secondary
conception of perishing in the case of unbelievers and the
resurrection to existence in the spiritual body of those who
accept him. The first ma.n was only a living soul (tyv-xfi)
doomed to death, as are all those who inherit only from
him, while the last Adam was made "a life-giving Spirit"
(trvedfia), and those who through faith become "members"
of him will be raised at his coming and "bear the image of
the heavenly." No careful student of Paul can have failed
to observe the prominence of the eschatological factor
of his Christology. To this his interest in the ethical
aspects of the life of Jesus is subordinate. Just so the be
liever's relation to him at the end or in " the day of the
Lord " has everywhere the chief place in the apostle's
thought. As the life of their Lord was consummated in

DEATH, LIFE, AND SALVATION 211
the resurrection, so will theirs be. Burdened and groaning
in this tabernacle of flesh, they long to be clothed upon
with "the building from God," the " celestial body," and
this swallowing up of what is mortal will be the crowning
and completion of "life." They have sown to the Spirit,
and their glorious harvest will be eternal life (Gal. vi. 8).
The passages discussed in the foregoing pages show the
great significance which death and life have in the apostle's
thought. In them he sees the consummation of human
existence under the divine order of award in connection
with the plan of redemption. The ultimate result of sin is
death, the end of righteousness is life. The terrible evil
that came into the world through Adam carried with it, so
long as sin was left to do its awful work unchecked, not
only the dissolution of the body, but also the "destruction"
of those who had no hope of the resurrection at "the last
day." On the other hand, the principle which came into
the world through "the last Adam " was destined to coun
teract in those who should come into fellowship with him
the power of death, is the greatest good, and the consum
mation of their fortune. This is " life," the resurrection,
the putting on of incorruption, the entrance into the
"glory" of the Messianic kingdom. While death and life
are conceived as states beginning in the present world,
they receive their chief prominence either in an actual
or an implied reference to "the end." Here will be the
supreme reward, and all the appointments of religion exist
for its realisation. All that is to be hoped for at the end,
all that can be conceived of blessedness, yea all that it hath
not entered into the heart of man to conceive of things
reserved for the believers, and all that is to be reaped in
the great harvest of joy in the time to come, the Messianic
age, is included in the "life" on which the apostle dwells
with exhaustless interest. For the sake of securing this

212 THE TEACHER
blessedness Christ died and rose triumphant, for this are
all the steadfastness, the hoping, the enduring, the waiting
for the coming of the Lord, and for this is the Spirit be
stowed which is the earnest of the redemption of the body.
To this faith looks forward beholding the things that are
unseen and eternal ; for by faith the believer is united in
mystic fellowship with Christ, through which he has the
assurance that he will "live" and "reign" with him.
Hence "life" and not "righteousness" is the preeminent
possession. The latter is subordinate to the former, and a
means for its attainment. The "gift of righteousness"
serves to secure to those who receive it the Messianic
blessedness, and they will "reign in life." Righteousness
is the means through which " grace reigns unto eternal
life." The meaning of " salvation " (o-atT-qpia) in the apostle's
terminology is implied in several of the passages quoted
in the foregoing discussion. Like the terms " life " and
"death" it denotes, indeed, a condition in the earthly
state of existence, but its predominant sense is not that of
a moral and spiritual order of life, but rather that of a final
deliverance from that dreaded evil, that greatest of calami
ties, the Messianic "perishing" or "destruction." In a
word, its significance is eschatological. It either expresses
or implies in the connection in which it is employed a parti
cipation in the glorious Messianic kingdom. Those who are
to be saved are the living believers and the Christians who
in the touching Pauline phrase had "fallen asleep." The
former will be "changed" into an incorruptible corporeity,
and the latter raised from the dead with spiritual bodies.
The former will not "anticipate" the latter (i Thess. iv.
13-18; 1 Cor. xv. 52-58). This doctrine is grounded upon
the principle that "flesh and blood cannot inherit the king
dom of God " (1 Cor. xv. 50). The kingdom was to be one

DEATH, LIFE, AND SALVATION 213
of "incorruption." The living believers would, accord
ingly, escape the " tribulation and anguish " which were
appointed for the wicked who should survive until the Mes
sianic judgment. As to how the transformation of the
bodies of the living saints was to be effected the apostle
gives no intimation. Perhaps he regarded the teaching
that the bodies of those who were "Christ's at his coming"
would be "quickened" through the Spirit dwelling in them
as including all that needed be said upon the subject. That
salvation was to be the portion of the living and the dead
believers on the great "day of the Lord " is evident from
the declaration : " For God appointed us not unto wrath,
but unto the obtaining of salvation through our Lord Jesus
Christ, who died for us, that, whether we wake or sleep [at
the time of his coming], we should live together with him "
(i Thess. v. 9, io). This passage accords with the declara
tion that at the coming of Christ, with which salvation was
associated in the mind of the apostle, " We that are alive,
that are left, shall with them [the raised] be caught up in
the clouds to meet the Lord in the air ; and so shall we
ever be with the Lord (i Thess. iv. 17). Then when the
wicked shall in vain be saying, " Peace and safety," and
" sudden destruction " shall come upon them, and they
shall in no wise escape (1 Thess. v. 3), the believers will
receive salvation or deliverance from the dread Messianic
dirdfkeia, the overthrow, the perishing; for, "being now
justified by his blood, shall we be saved from the wrath of
God through him " (Rom. v. 9). The end to which the
apostle looks forward amidst his tribulations lies beyond
the confines of "this present evil world," to "deliver"
believers out of which Christ died (Gal. i. 4), and his gaze
is steadfastly fixed upon the heavenly kingdom that is to
come in the joyful day when the Lord shall appear. Salva
tion is deliverance from the bondage to the clogging flesh,

214 THE TEACHER
"the body of death," into "the glorious liberty of the
children of God." Accordingly he declares : " Our citizen
ship is in heaven ; whence also we wait for a Saviour, the
Lord Jesus Christ, who shall fashion anew the body of our
humiliation that it may be conformed to the body of his
glory, according to the working whereby he is able to sub
ject all things unto himself " (Phil, iii. 20, 21). It was "in
the day" of this Saviour expected from heaven that the sal
vation of the believers was to be consummated. A Chris
tian guilty of incest might be delivered over to Satan " for
the destruction of his flesh," but the apostle hopes for the
salvation of the offender's " spirit " " in the day of the Lord
Jesus" (1 Cor. v. 5). An anticipation of "the end" is
implied in the words : " For the word of the cross is to
them that are perishing foolishness ; but unto us who are
being saved it is the power of God" (1 Cor. i. 18). Here
the condition of being exposed to the Messianic " perish
ing " at the last day on the one hand, and that of hope for
the Messianic deliverance and entrance into the kingdom
of God on the other, are contained by implication in
the participial form of expression either, says Meyer, as a
certainty or as a process of development. So the declara
tion that "the body is dead because of sin " means that the
body is certain to die under the universal law of death, and
the phrase "by which ye are saved " (1 Cor. v. 2) must be
understood as implying a condition which will in the end
result in salvation. "The day [of the Lord] will declare"
the work of each teacher, " because it is revealed in fire."
When the fire shall have " proved " the work, and it shall
be burned up, the man will suffer loss, but he himself will
be saved, "yet so as through fire." So the character and
the work of men are regarded as conditions in which is
involved either the " destruction " or the " salvation " of
their souls and bodies when, at the great judgment of the

DEATH, LIFE, AND SALVATION 21 5
Parousia, God "shall judge the secrets" of their hearts.
The emphasis is, however, not placed by the apostle on the
present moral-spiritual state as something complete and
sufficient in itself, but is thrown forward to the consumma
tion which is to be effected in the future when the salva
tion or destruction will be accomplished in fact by the final
award of "life" or "death." Accordingly, he admonishes
the Corinthians that they "judge nothing before the time,
until the Lord come, who will both bring to light the hid
den things of darkness, and make manifest the counsels of
the hearts ; and then shall each man have his praise from
God " (i Cor. iv. 5).
The blessedness of Christian " salvation " that is to be
the portion of believers is a glorious fortune to which they
are exhorted to look forward, " waiting for the revelation
of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall also confirm you unto
the end, that ye be unreprovable in the day of our Lord
Jesus Christ " (1 Cor. i. 7, 8). It wilr consist, in part, in
the "fellowship" (tcoivtovia) of God's Son, Jesus Christ
(verse 9), which is a participation in the glory of the divine
sonship, in the "eternal life" of the Messianic kingdom.
If this adoption as sons (vloOeala) has its beginning in this
life, its consummation is looked forward to as a bodily and
spiritual event of the great " day of the Lord." " And not
only so, but ourselves also who have the firstfruits of the
Spirit, even we ourselves groan within ourselves, waiting
for our adoption, to wit, the redemption of our body "
(Rom. viii. 23). Not only is the putting on of "incorrup
tion" included in this "fellowship" with Christ, not only
will believers appear when their salvation is consummated
in the "glory " of his transfigured body, but those for
whom this great fortune is reserved are promised a higher
blessedness appropriate to their divine sonship. Hence
the admonition : "Walk worthily of God, who calleth you

2l6 THE TEACHER
into His own kingdom and glory" (i Thess. ii. 12). "The
image of the earthy " will not alone be put off, and that of
the "heavenly" put on, but as sons they will become
"heirs of God, joint-heirs with Christ," in the dominion
and eternal joy of the kingdom soon to come (Rom. viii.
17; 1 Cor. xv. 49). Since the believers having suffered
with Christ will be "glorified with him," the apostle
exclaims, looking forward to the realisation of the joint-
heirship : " Let us rejoice in hope of the glory of God "
(Rom. v. 2). This "hope" receives the expression appro
priate to an assured fact in the words : " For whom He
foreknew He also foreordained to be conformed to the
image of His Son, that he might be the firstborn among
many brethren ; and whom He foreordained them He also
called ; and whom He called them He also justified ; and
whom He justified them He also glorified" (Rom. viii. 29).
The being "conformed to the image of His Son " is doubt
less the "adoption,"*" the redemption of our body" spoken
of in verse 23, the future "glory which shall be revealed"
(verse 18) when the believers shall enter into the kingdom
clothed with "incorruption." The glorification which is
actually in the future, is spoken of as already accomplished
(iSogaae), so certain is the apostle of its consummation.
The "glory" and "incorruption," which are among the
chief goods of salvation as conceived by the apostle, are
set in strong contrast with the earthly conditions of exist
ence. With the latter he associates qualities and states
which he regards with extreme repugnance, while he looks
forward to the former with eager longing and inextin
guishable hope. Here the believer is bound to "the body
of death" which he "buffets and brings into bondage"
(1 Cor. ix. 27). It is a "body of humiliation" (Phil. iii.
21) which at death is sown in "corruption," "dishonor,"
and "weakness" (1 Cor. xv. 43). On the great day of sal-

DEATH, LIFE, AND SALVATION 2f]
vation this will be transformed into a "body of glory." It
will be raised in "incorruption," "glory," "power," and
as "a spiritual body." The living believers will be
"changed" (i Cor. xv. 51), and the groaning creation will
be delivered from the bondage of corruption into "the lib
erty of the glory of the children of God" (Rom. viii. 21),
so that the kingdom of God and the theatre of its manifes
tation will contain nothing that has the taint of death.
The supreme blessedness of this condition of salvation
will consist in a clearer vision of God than is possible to
the believer while he is in the tabernacle of flesh. " For
now we see in a mirror, darkly ; but then face to face.
Now I know in part ; but then shall I know even as also
I have been known " (1 Cor. xiii. 12). "As it is written,
Things which eye saw not, and ear heard not,
And which entered not into the heart of man,
Whatsoever things God prepared for them that love him."

CHAPTER X
THE DOCTRINE OF SIN*
IN the writings of Paul no explicit doctrine of sin, its
origin, nature, and operations, is distinctively set
forth as a part of a complete theological system. In fact
there is no Pauline system of doctrine to which a teaching
concerning sin could have an articulate relation in the
sense of dogmatic construction. The currents of the apos
tle's thought centre in soteriology, and the classical pas
sage regarding the entrance of sin into the world (Rom. v.
12-19) is one °^ tne members of an antithesis, the two
terms of which are Adam, the head of the old order of sin
and death, and Christ, the founder of the new order of
righteousness and life (see also 1 Cor. xv. 45-50). It
would, however, be a mistake to conclude from this cir
cumstance that his teaching regarding sin is of slight
importance to his doctrine as a whole. On the contrary,
it is of such fundamental significance that a right under
standing of it is essential to an adequate comprehension
and a due relating of other aspects of his thought. The
profound interest of the apostle himself in the subject is
evident from the prominence given to it in the opening
chapters of the Epistle to the Romans and from numerous
passages in the four great Epistles, f
* The American Journal of Theology, April, 1898.
fSee in particular Rom. iv. 7, 8, v. 12-21, vi. I, 2, 6, 7, 10, II, 12-14,
22, 23, vii. 5, 7-9; 1 Cor. xv. 3, 17, 56; -t Cor. v. 21; Gal. i. 4, ii. 17,
iii. 22. 218

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN 219
Sin is conceived by Paul under a twofold aspect, (1) as
a principle and a power in the individual and in human
life and history (d^apria) and, (2) as an act in violation of
the divine law (Trapdfiacn<;, dfiapTdvetv). The former may
be regarded as its objective and the latter as its subjective
aspect. The term d^apTta has not, however, throughout
an objective reference, but sometimes expresses in the
plural number concrete acts of disobedience, as when sins
are said to be "covered" (Rom. iv. 7), or "taken away"
(Rom. xi. 27), and when Christ is said to have " died for
our sins" (1 Cor. xv. 3 ; see also 1 Cor. xv. 17 and Gal. i.
4). Sin as a category, a general term, a principle, is
spoken of as a subject to which certain predicates may
be attached quite as if it were conceived as a personal
agent. It has come into the world, where it has domin
ion, works concupiscence, slays, comes to life, deceives,
does the wrong which the better self rejects, holds men
in bondage, and is a force which has a "law" (Rom. v.
12, 21, vi. 14. 17, vii. 9, 11, 20, 23, 25). The universal
sway of this power in human life and history is a capi
tal proposition of the apostle's which he undertakes to
establish by an induction from observed facts of sinful
ness, by individual experience, and by Scripture (Rom.
chaps, i. ii. ; iii. 10-12, 19, 23, vii. 23). He makes no ex
ception in favour of the Jews who, equally with the gentiles,
are "included under sin." In this respect he is not in
accord with the Jewish theology, striking agreements with
which are not wanting elsewhere in his thought, as will
appear in the course of our inquiry, For the Jewish the
ology maintained not only the possibility of sinlessness in
man, but also that some men were actually without sin, for
example, the Patriarchs, Elijah, and Hezekiah.*
* See Weber, System der altsynagogalm Palastinischen Theologie, pp. 52 f.,
223 f.

220 THE TEACHER
How Paul thought sin (d/jtapTta) as a power and princi
ple to be connected with human nature is a problem which
must be considered before we can further pursue the in
vestigation of the subject in hand. The discussion of this
question requires a glance at one or two points in his doc
trine of man or his anthropology. In the apostle's physical
anthropology the outward man (o e£<u avdpa>Troo) is regarded
as a material organism, the substance of which is flesh
(crdp%). This is the perishable part of man's nature, which
"cannot inherit the kingdom of God," the "corruptible,"
which in the resurrection " must put on incorruption "
(i Cor. xv. 50, 53, 54). A man may speak of it as belong
ing to himself and as that of which he is in part composed
(Rom. vii. 18, "my flesh," vii. 14, "I am fleshly," adpicivoo,
of flesh). Bodily or physical descent is " according to the
flesh "(Rom. ix. 5, 8; Gal. iv. 23; 1 Cor. x. 18), and to
live the bodily life is to "be in the flesh," while the mate
rial support of the physical being is designated as "carnal
things " (2 Cor. x. 3 ; Rom. xv. 27). The matter constitut
ing the body cannot, however, be regarded as lifeless, and
accordingly Paul employs the term ¦tyvyf) for the life-
principle, and it has been truly remarked that adp% and
¦tyvyf) are so closely related in his anthropology that the
one conception is not to be thought of without the other.
Inseparable in life, they are together devoted to corrup
tion. The closely related sense of the two terms is shown
by the use in the same signification of the adjectives
o-dpiuvos and i/ru^t/cd?, and by the extended application of
both words with 7m? to denote all men * in accordance
with Old Testament usage (see also o-Sip,a ¦tyvyiicov, " natu
ral body," i.e., body of flesh, as contrasted with the spir
itual body," 1 Cor. xv. 44). The flexibility of words in
the Pauline terminology (a fact too often overlooked in
* iraaa odp^, rraaa tyvxh-

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN 221
the study of the apostle's thought) is apparent in the
frequent employment of "flesh" in the sense of "body"
or " members " and vice versa. Accordingly, we find
"body of sin" and "flesh of sin" (Rom. vi. 6, viii. 3),
and "flesh" and "body" in substantially the same sense.*
Yet the employment of "body" where "flesh" would be
entirely inappropriate and even self-contradictory shows
that the two terms are not in the Pauline usage through
out synonymous.
The discrimination maintained by Ludemann,f Pfleid-
erer,J Holtzmann, § Schmiedel, || and others that adp%
denotes the "substance" and aSy/jta the "form" of the
outer man is tenable so long as it is not applied with too
much "vigour and rigour." For Paul undoubtedly con
ceived the resurrection-body, the o-a>fj,a irvevfiaTticov, as hav
ing a form identical with that of the a&jxa "Afvyiicov, but a
different substance, since it was to be a "body of glory,"
"fashioned like unto" that of the risen and ascended Christ
(1 Cor. xv. 44, 49 ; Phil. iii. 21). While the body is said to
be "mortal" (Rom. vi. 12), as it must be when conceived
simply as consisting of corruptible flesh, it is declared to
be capable of "redemption" (Rom. viii. 23), i.e., of being
saved from "perishing" in death, and of being "quick
ened" (Rom. viii. 11), on condition that the Spirit of Him
who raised up Christ from the dead dwelt in its possessor.
It is noteworthy that such affirmations are nowhere made
of the flesh. The discrimination in question is supported
by the frequent antitheses of "flesh " and all that pertains
to and partakes of it and the divine Spirit and its opera
tions and ministry. " He that soweth to his flesh [not
body] shall of the flesh reap corruption ; but he that
*Rom. viii. 13; 2 Cor. iv. 4, 10, u, *v. 6, x. 2, 3; Phil. i. 22, 24.
t Die paulinische Anthropologic. %Neutest. Theol.
% Paulinismus. || Hand- Commentar.

222 THE TEACHER
soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlast
ing" (Gal. vi. 8).* The contention that adpt; denotes the
whole man empirically constituted and conscious of his
opposition to the law fails in view of the antithesis of the
outward and the inward man, and is irreconcilable with
the distinction made with unmistakable clearness between
the self (eyd>) and the sin dwelling in the flesh, and
between the "law in the members" and "the law of the
mind" (vovs) in Rom. vii. 17-23.
In the ethical signification of o-dp% in the anthropology
of Paul we find the relation of sin to human nature, and it
is precisely in the conflict already mentioned between the
outward and the inward man that the kernel of the problem
lies. Leaving on one side for the present the consideration
of the question how sin came to exist in man (a question
which Paul does not definitely answer), it will be sufficient
to indicate the part of his nature to which it is assigned.
There is certainly no want of precision in the apostle's
declarations on this point. In speaking of the law as
calling sin into activity he says that in man (for he must
here be regarded as personating mankind in general),
"that is, in his flesh, dwelleth no good thing," and when, a
little further on, he asserts that it is not the man, that is,
the essential eyw, who does the wrong, but sin that dwell
eth in him, it is evident that sin as a power and principle
is equivalent in his thought to the "no good thing," or
evil of the preceding verse, and that, accordingly, it has its
seat in the flesh. The physical sense of adp% in this con
nection is apparent from what immediately follows, when
* The terms of these antitheses are such as " flesh " (oipi,, for which we
cannot think of Paul as here using "body") and "Spirit" (irvevp.a), "cor
ruption " (ipBopd), which pertains to the flesh, and " incorruption " (ddidapota),
"the natural" (rd fvxucbv) and "the spiritual" (to Trvevp.ariK6v), " fleshly "
(oapKiKd), and "mighty" (Sivara), etc. (Rom. i. 3, 4, ii. 28, 29, I Cor. ii.
14, 15; 2 Cor. i. 12, a. 4; Gal. iv. 29).

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN 223
he proceeds to contrast the outward and the inward man,
and represents the subject as delighting in the law of God
after the inward man, but finding in his " members " another
law warring against the law of his mind and bringing him
into captivity to the law of sin which is in his members.
The conclusion of this much misunderstood passage is :
" So then with the mind (you?) I myself serve the law of
God, but with the flesh (odp%) the law of sin," where adp%
must evidently be interpreted by "members" in the pre
ceding verse (Rom. vii. 17-25). This interpretation is
supported by the fact that Paul often connects sin with
the body regarded as the form which the flesh assumes in
the earthly life of man. "The body of sin" (Rom. vi. 6)
signifies the physical organism or the " members," so far
as it is controlled by sin, and is parallel with " the flesh
of sin" or "sinful flesh" (Rom. viii. 3). "This body of
death" (not "the body of this death") in Rom. vii. 24,
and the crdjfia veicpov of Rom. viii. 10 correspond with
"mortal flesh" in 2 Cor. iv. 11. Compare also "live after
the flesh" and "mortify the deeds of the body" in Rom.
viii. 13 and "crucify the flesh" in Gal. v. 24.
The misinterpretation of o-dp% as something different
from the material substance of man's earthly body is clue
in part to the erroneous idea that the apostle's thought on
the subject moved entirely within the circle of the Old
Testament anthropology. His conception includes, indeed,
the essential notion of flesh "l1^ expressed in the canon
ical Hebrew writings, which, according to Wendt,* is
that of "living beings with the accessory notion of the
absolute weakness and transitoriness of their nature over
against the power and living operation of God." But he
passes altogether beyond the Old Testament idea in asso
ciating with the crap!; an element of sinfulness which Wendt
* Die Begriffe Fleisch und Geist, etc.

224 THE TEACHER
is unable to find in any of the writers of that literature.*
Paul " would have remained," says Holtzmann, " within
the Jewish representation if, according to his apprehen
sion, just as the inward man, reason, heart, conscience,
would gravitate to the good, so the outward man, or rather
the flesh of which it consists, would also gravitate to the
bad." f But for the apostle the flesh, while not itself sin,
contains impulses, desires, and lusts which are in direct
opposition to the good, which "war against the law of the
mind," and bring man into captivity to the law of sin that
is in his members (Rom. vii. 23).
Whether in this position Paul was on the ground of the
later Jewish theology or that of Hellenistic ethical dualism
or that of the first Christian anthropology, which was his
own, is a question which has received contradictory an
swers. There is probably truth in all three positions.
While the radical metaphysical dualism of Greek thought
finds no expression in his writings, the Hellenistic influence
is probably apparent in his ethical dualism of the vow and
the crap!;, which, with the substitution generally of crcofia,
Ta irdO-q, and related terms for crap!;, is frequently found in
Philo. In his idea of the flesh in relation to the mind,
which would serve the law of God, he appears to be in
accord with the Hellenistic Wisdom of Solomon, according
to which the body is an encumbrance to the vofc. His
doctrine of the flesh bears, again, a close analogy to the
weaker dualism of the later Jewish theology, according to
which, while the soul is pure by nature, the body is impure,
not simply as perishable, but because it is the seat of the
evil impulse called the jeser Jtara, which is to it what the
leaven is to the dough — a fermenting, impelling power.J
* See Dickson, Paul's Use of the Terms Flesh and Spirit, p. 112.
f Neuteslamentliche Theologie, ii. p. 38.
J Weber, System, p. 221.

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN 225
This is counteracted, however, to some degree by the good
impulse which resides in the soul, and which in excep
tional cases was thought to have been so strengthened
by religious exercises as completely to overcome the jeser
hara. The idea, finally, that the flesh, not constituting a
part of the real personality of man, is doomed to perish,
while the body may, by means of the indwelling divine
Spirit, be " quickened " into a oStfia irvevfiaTiicov, is a
distinctively original feature of the Pauline anthropology.
The " redemption of the body " is a specifically Christian
conception, and rests upon the central doctrine of the
Pauline theology that Christ became in his resurrection the
head of a new order of the Spirit and of life, which was
intended through faith to overcome the Adamic order of
sin and death.
The interpretation of crap!; which finds it to denote not
the substance of the physical or "natural" body, but "the
weak and creaturely side of our nature" is objectionable,
because it separates the apostle's physical and ethical
anthropology at the foundation. It yields a result which is
altogether vague and confusing and a definition which it
self needs to be defined. What is this weak and creaturely
side of human nature in view of the fundamental distinc
tions of the outward and the inward man ? Paul employs
no language which naturally yields itself to this interpreta
tion. He says in so many words : "Let not sin, therefore,
reign in your mortal body, that ye should obey it in the
lusts thereof," where o-co/j,a means the flesh as organised
in the psychical or natural body. So long as the Christians
were in this physical body, and had not yet the o-£>fx,a
7rvevfiaTiic6v (spiritual body), they were in danger of yield
ing to its "lusts " and of making their "members " instru
ments of unrighteousness on account of the "infirmity" of
their "flesh" (Rom. vi. 12, 13, 19). The law in the mem-
Q

226 THE TEACHER
bers which wars against the law of the mind (Rom. vii. 23)
is the mode of operation of the lusts of the flesh proceed
ing with the fateful regularity of a natural necessity. With
the lusts of the flesh and the lusts of the body as inter
changeable terms there can be no question that the adp^
is conceived as the body organised for its temporal exist
ence. (Compare Rom. vi. 12 and xiii. 14.) "The likeness
of sinful flesh " (crap/cbs dftapTiao) in which Christ is said
to have appeared (Rom. viii. 3) evidently has reference to
his physical being as a man, and not to "the weak and
creaturely side of his nature," however we may interpret
the difficult 6/j.oico/ia (likeness). It was, moreover, "in the
flesh" of Christ on the cross that the judgment of con
demnation upon sin was executed. It is only When we
regard the flesh not as a vague "side of human nature,"
but as a definite part of it, that the opposition of the crap!;
and the irvevpta, i.e., the divine Spirit, which occupies so
conspicuous a place in the apostle's theology, has a clearly
defined significance. In this grand ethical antithesis the
outward, psychical, sarkical man, the earthly, material man,
with stormy passions and fateful lusts, is conceived as at
warfare with the inward man, the vow and the human
irvevfia, in which the Spirit of God finds an abode.
The conflict is represented in the apostle's thought as
one power, one substance, contending against another
power and substance, each having its spontaneous and con
tradictory impulses and desires. The issue of the tragic
contest is determined according as on the one hand "the
lusts of the flesh," "the law in the members" (Rom. vii.
23 ; Gal. v. 16), or on the other the forces of the divine
Trvev/ia preponderate : " For if ye live after the flesh ye
shall die ; but if ye through the spirit%do mortify the deeds
of the body ye shall live" (Rom. viii. 13). The funda
mental relation of the physical and ethical sides of the

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN 227
apostle's anthropology is apparent in the employment al
ready mentioned of the attributive terms derived from
crap!;, o-dpicivoo, consisting of flesh as to the outward man,
and aapiaicos, morally fleshly so far as the subject is de
termined in his activity by the lusts of his sarkical nature.
Because he is crdpicLvo<;, fleshly as to the physical substance
of his being, he is o-apiciicof, fleshly, as to the quality of
his ethical life, i.e., living in the flesh, he walks according
to the flesh, unless the divine Spirit intervenes, and -" cuts
the causal nexus" between the nature which is aapiavo<i
and the actions which are aap/ciicd (Rom. iv. 12; 2 Cor.
x. 3). A few terse words in the pathetic and impassioned
passage, Rom. vii. 14-25, indicate the relation between the
flesh, as such, and sin — a relation inseparable, except
through the supernatural intervention of the divine Trvevfia
— " But I am of flesh (crap/civo?), sold under sin," where
the relation of the two clauses evidently is that the former
gives the reason for the latter — because I am of flesh, I
am sold under sin, doomed like a slave to its dread do
minion, so that even "the law of the mind" is ineffective
against the fatal "law in the members."
The objection to the interpretation of adp^ herein de
fended on the ground of 2 Cor. vii. i, " Let us cleanse
ourselves from all filthiness [defilement] of the flesh,"
rests upon an erroneous idea of the relation of sin to the
flesh in the thought of the apostle, and upon a misappre
hension of the passage itself. Dickson's difficulty is thus
disposed of,* who errs and confuses the whole matter in
supposing that in the interpretation which he opposes sin
and the flesh are identified, instead of the latter being
regarded as the seat of the former. The judgment of
Dr. Schmiedel that the words are "certainly unpauline,"
results from a too rigorous application of the term " flesh,"
*Loc. cit., pp. 310, 313.

228 THE TEACHER
as distinct from the "body," conceived to mean the flesh
as organised in the human earthly existence.* "The
flesh," he remarks, "is defiled, and hence one can only
speak of a cleansing of it when in conversion it should be
set free from sin. ... In fact, then, it comes to this :
that this power of sin is suppressed in Christians through
the Spirit of God ; removed out of the flesh it is not."
" Only the body," he says further, " is the temple of the
Holy Spirit and capable of holiness" (i Cor. vi. 19 ; vii. 34).
But it is an error to suppose that Paul makes a rig
orous distinction between the crap!; and the aio/j,a and its
"members" in relation to the seat of sin. What differ
ence exists in his thought between "the law in the
members" and the uniform and necessary working of the
lusts of the flesh ? The body, which may become the tem
ple of the Holy Spirit, is the body of flesh, and those who
are not " in the flesh," since the Spirit of God dwells in
them, who have "crucified the flesh" (Rom. viii. 9; Gal.
v. 24), are in peril of yielding their "members as instru
ments of unrighteousness" (Rom. vi. 13). To be "holy
both in body and spirit " (1 Cor. vii. 34) is the same thing as
to be cleansed from all defilement of the flesh and spirit,
and to have the members as "instruments of righteous
ness." If, however, the meaning of the passage were
necessarily, " Let us cleanse ourselves from all defile
ment that may come to the flesh and spirit," then defile
ment of flesh might be regarded as unpauline, since the
flesh is by nature already defiled. But if we may render it
in the sense that the apostle exhorted the Corinthians to
cleanse themselves from all defilement which inheres in
the flesh as the seat of sin, and may taint the spirit
through its connection with the flesh, then the passage is
in accord with the Pauline doctrine that even the believers,
* Hand- Commentar , on the passage.

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN 229
whose flesh had been crucified with Christ, were still in
peril from it (Rom. vi. 12, 13, 19).
In view of all the foregoing considerations, the judgment
of Holtzmann does not appear to be expressed with too
much vigour when he says : " When a writer so plainly
gives his readers to understand that by ' flesh ' he really
means flesh, and nothing but flesh ; that for the elucida
tion of his meaning he speaks occasionally of ' deeds of
the body' (Rom. viii. 13, actually not different from 'the
works of the flesh,' Gal. v. 19), and of 'the law of sin
in the members' (in them dwells sin, as in the flesh,
Rom. viii. 18, 23), then it is not he, at least, who is to
blame, but the determination of his theological exposi
tors to misunderstand him, .... when to his words
the only sense which they can have is continually de
nied, and from the throughout clear and unitary concep
tion which they express is derived an understanding that
is arbitrarily changing, contradictory, and with difficulty
intelligible."* The objection which is raised on the
ground that in Gal. v. 19 ff., referred to in the foregoing
quotation, other sins are mentioned than those proceeding
immediately from the crap!; literally regarded, is invalid,
because it would be manifestly unjust to such a thinker as
Paul to require that if he regarded the sensuous nature as
the seat of sin, its manifestations must be directly related
to the body alone, and not allowed a wider range into the
domain of thought and feeling. It has already been
pointed out that the apostle thought man to be sold
under sin," in bondage to it, because he was crap/civo? or of
flesh. But the "sin" in question in this passage is sin in
general, and not sin specifically related to the physical
nature. The physical basis is not, however, lost sight of,
and in fact the list of "works of the flesh" in the passage
* Neuiestamentliche Theologie, ii. p. 40.

230 THE TEACHER
under consideration begins and ends with offences of a
directly sensuous character. Man, being by nature
crdpictvo<i, becomes ethically crap/ciKo^. or carnal in the
entire scope of his activity, and this sarkical quality of his
acts exists precisely and only because he is "of flesh."
Moreover, are we able to determine categorically, with our
present knowledge of psychical phenomena, what con
nection "hatred, wrath, and strife" have with the physical
nature, or dare we affirm dogmatically that they have none ?
The latent sin which has its seat in the flesh is brought
into activity, "revived" (Rom. vii. 9), through the agency
of the "law." By the term w'/xo? or 6 vo/mos Paul under
stands primarily the Mosaic legislation, moral and cere
monial, includes under it, however, the Old Testament
Scriptures generally, and recognises an inward law where
no outward commandment has been given in Rom. ii. 9 :
" For when the gentiles, who have no law, do by nature
the things contained in the law, these not having a law
[i.e., according to the Jewish idea of the law as an express
injunction], are a law unto themselves." This last view of
law, which was current among the Greeks, has an impor
tant relation, as will appear further on, to the apostle's
doctrine of the entrance of sin and death into the world.
With all his depreciation of the law, Paul concedes so
much to the genius of his race out of which it sprang as to
declare it to be "spiritual" and "holy, just, and good." It
is, however, ineffective in spiritual results, because man is
"of flesh" (adptctvoo, Rom. vii. 14). It cannot stop the
course of sin and produce righteousness, because it is
" weak through the flesh " (Rom. viii. 3), powerless against
the lusts of the adp%, by whose force its divine ordinances
are swept aside, so that it is totally inoperative "to make
alive " (faoTroirjcrai, Gal. iii. 21). Though man may "delight
in the law of God " according to the vo/j,o$ tov voos (the law

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN 23 1
of the mind), the other law in his "members" overcomes
the good impulses of the " mind," and he can only cry out
in impotent despair : " O wretched man that I am, who
shall deliver me from this body of death ? " (Rom. vii. 24.)
Thus he finds the commandment, which was ordained to
life, to be unto death (Rom. vii. 10).
But Paul does not stop here in his exposition of the re
lation of the law to sin. Not only is it unable to " make
alive," i.e., although "spiritual" and "holy," to effect
righteousness, but it also actually produces subjective sin
or transgression, since through it comes the knowledge of
sin, the consciousness that the impulses of the flesh which
without the law take their inevitable course by natural
necessity, are in fact sinful. " The motions of sin " are
"by the law," and without it man would never have known
sin, for "I had not known lust [as such] except the law
had said ' Thou shalt not covet ' " (Rom. vii. 5, 7). It is
through "the commandment" that the sin which was as
such before inoperative "took occasion," and "wrought all
manner of concupiscence." " For without the law sin was
[is] dead" (Rom. vii. 8). This is a general proposition re
garding sin. and the law, and is to the same purport as the
declaration that "sin is not imputed where there is no
law " (Rom. v. 13). Without the law, by which the apostle
probably means an express commandment, the lusts of the
flesh in their nature sinful, partaking of d/xapTia, pursue
their natural course blindly, and the man is "alive "(lives),
but "when the commandment came, sin revived " and the
man "died," i.e., became subject to death (Rom. vii. 9).
Whether if "the commandment" had not come man would
have lived forever in this merely animal existence without
moral consciousness is a question which Paul neither
raises nor answers, and which we may pass by for the
present at least. It should, however, be remarked that

232 THE TEACHER
if he had in mind the human race prior to the giving of the
law through Moses, he is not consistent with himself in
giving this alone a place in the scheme ; for he recognises
for the gentiles an inward law and a conscience according
to which they are held responsible (Rom. ii. 14-16). Per
haps there hovered before his mind the Adamic legend of
the innocent childhood of the race or the thought of the
childhood of the individual before the dawn of conscience.
In any case the 0 vopos in verse 12, which evidently means
the Mosaic law, and the occurrence of " commandment "
(evTo\r\) repeatedly in verses 9-13, which he does not em
ploy to designate the inner law (Rom. xiii. 9; 1 Cor. vii.
19, xiv. 37), create a difficulty for which there appears to
be no solution without violence to the natural sense of the
passage. We might, indeed, suppose the apostle to have
regarded the law of the conscience unenlightened by divine
revelation as carrying an kvroXr) by implication, but this is
a gratuitous expedient, and the probability is that the ques
tion in hand did not present itself to him at all.
Paul's teaching regarding the entrance of sin into the
world is one of the most difficult and most disputed points
of his theology ; yet, as before remarked, he does not set
out to formulate a specific doctrine on the subject. The
matter involves the questions : whether he means to teach
that sin first made its appearance in the world through
Adam's transgression, whether in that transgression was
implied a "fall" of Adam in the traditional sense of the
term and a radical change of human nature, whether in
the sin of the progenitor as the federal head of the race all
men sinned, and whether sin is to be regarded as belonging
originally to the divine order of human existence or as
chargeable to man's free activity. The classical passage
on the subject is the much-disputed Rom. v. 12-19, which
opens with the declaration that "as by one man sin entered

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN 233
into the world, and death by sin, and so death passed upon
all men, for that all sinned ; " the thought is here broken off
to be resumed in the eighteenth verse, where the parallel
between Adam and Christ is carried out. That the apostle
does not here mean that sin came into the world through
Adam as a man having the fleshly nature (o-dptavos), and
thus beginning an order of life in which sinfulness or sin
as an objective power was to prevail, is evident from the
fact that in verses 17, 18, and 19 he speaks of Adam's
"offence" and "disobedience." He has in mind, then,
Adam's transgression of the divine commandment in ac
cordance with the account in Genesis. Through this
transgression, he declares, death (physical death without
hope of resurrection except through " the last Adam," the
"life-giving spirit," 1 Cor. xv. 45) passed upon or unto all
men, for that all sinned.
The crux interpretum of this passage is the expression
icj>' co irdvTes rj/jtapTov, which can only mean, "inasmuch as
[because] all sinned" (2 Cor. v. 4; Phil. iii. 12), and the
central question is whether Adam's sin is regarded as the
sin of all, or all are declared to have sinned individually.
The former interpretation is without support in the Greek
text since ecf> & does not mean "in whom," and since to
supply "in him" after "sinned" is to read a new idea into
the passage. The simple statement is that "all sinned"
as the reason why all are subject to death, and Paul never
employs the verb "to sin" (dfiapTavco) in any other sense
than that of individual transgression. Accordingly, the
meaning is not that all men became sinful at the same
time with Adam and through his sin. Nevertheless, the
expression "by one man" must have its rights, so that
the sin of Adam shall not be cut off from connection with
the sin of his posterity, and the transgressions of the latter
for which they suffer death be regarded as independent of

234 THE TEACHER
his "offence." Otherwise the argument of the entire
section would be destroyed, which draws a parallel between
Adam and Christ as the respective heads of the two world-
orders of sin and death and righteousness and life ; and as
men do not and cannot attain salvation without connection
with, "the last Adam," so they are not conceived as bring
ing destruction upon themselves or as being naturally
subject to death independently of "the first Adam." "As
in Adam [i.e., on the ground of Adam] all die, so in Christ
shall all be made alive." " For as by one man's disobe
dience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of
one shall many be made righteous" (i Cor. xv. 22; Rom.
v. 19).
If, however, under the new order men do not become
righteous simply because of the righteousness of Christ
and without their own choice, neither under the old order
did Paul think them to be subject to death without their
own acts of sin. Each representative head is conceived
only as the occasion of the results of his work, on the one
hand in the tragic order of death, and on the other in the
blessed order of life — the occasion indispensable to all that
follows in either order. It may be questioned whether
Pfleiderer does not state the case too strongly when he
says that the sin of Adam's posterity is regarded as "the
necessary consequence " of the sin of the first man (Paul-
inismus, 2te Aufl., p. 54). It does not necessarily follow
from the employment of the aorist rjjxapTov that the sinning
of all is conceived as contained in that of Adam, although
this sense must be conceded as grammatically possible. It
is not, however, the only grammatically defensible sense.
The aorist is technically not used for the perfect, and
"have sinned" may be an incorrect translation if one will
be excessively exact. But strict accuracy is not always
observed in the use of the aorist, and this tense is often

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN 235
employed when a connection with the present closely
analogous to our perfect is intended. It would not be
regarded as a gross inaccuracy to translate in Luke i. 1,
eTrexetprjcrav "have taken in hand," or to make one invited
guest say in xiv. 19, " I have bought a field," and another,
" I have married a wife." (So in each case the Revised
Version.) Moreover, Paul himself says: "For all have
sinned and are come short of the glory of God " (Rom. iii.
23), where rj/jtapTov certainly does not denote such a definite
past act filling only one point of time as is claimed for it in
the passage in question, but means that all began to sin in
some past time and have continued sinning till at the
present, as before, they are in the condition mentioned.
The perfect tense could not express this idea more clearly.
In fact the perfect of dp,apTavco is rarely used in the New
Testament and not at all by Paul except in the participial
form, while the aorist is repeatedly employed in connec
tions in which our perfect would be the accurate equivalent
(Luke xv. 18, 21; Rom. ii. 12; 1 Cor. vii. 28, "If thou
marry, thou hast not sinned" ^/xajOTe?). In almost every
place except Rom. v. 12 the revisers have rendered the
aorist of d/xapTavco by the perfect tense. Why not there ?
The apostle's teaching on this subject has a point and
vividness which are doubtless due to his own experience of
sin and to his conversion, and it may be regarded as his
original contribution to hamartiology. The doctrine was
certainly remote from the Jewish point of view and even
antagonistic to the thought and feeling of a Jew that sin
became exceeding sinful by the commandment, and that
the law was given for the express purpose of making "the
offence abound" (Rom. v. 20, vii. 13). The sin that is in
the flesh is brought to life through the presence of the
commandment, and rushes forth into every forbidden field
simply because of the prohibition. The objective sin

236 THE TEACHER
becomes subjective, the "material sin" becomes "formal."
All that Paul says, however, on the law and sin is inci
dental to a purpose to which any specific doctrine of sin
was for him subordinate, to show, namely, that righteous
ness is unattainable through the law. If the law can do
nothing but make men sinners and expose them to death
and the wrath of God, it certainly does not open a way to
eternal life. The entire observance of its requirements is
impossible. The more a man knows of it the wider yawns
the chasm within him between ideal and achievement,
between what the law of his mind requires and what the
law in his members fatally compels him to do.
It is an error, however, to suppose that Paul thought the
law to be imperfect as a law or an incomplete disclosure of
the divine will. The Old Testament was to him the per
fect word of God. Accordingly, if the law was a pedagogue
to lead men to Christ, it had this office in the sense that it
was intended to hold them in subjection, convict them of
sin, show them their inability to save themselves by their
own works, and fling them at last upon Christ who
abolished the old law and revealed the new law of the
Spirit and of life. He therefore, as Weizsacker remarks,
"accepted the paradox involved in the two propositions,
that the law contains the commands of God by whose
fulfilment man obtains life and righteousness, and that as
a matter of fact its only effect was to produce the know
ledge of sin." The solution of this paradox is superficial
according to which the law is conceived as " spiritual " and
given " unto life," but performs a transitional function in
producing the knowledge of sin and in showing to man the
impossibility of salvation by works, in order to prepare the
way for salvation under the new dispensation, and so in
fact to fulfil its original purpose. An incidental result of
the law, that Paul himself discovered, does not invalidate

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN 237
its original intention, which he declares in the most precise
terms to have been "to life" (eh %co-qv); and yet in the
same breath he asserts that he had found the law to be
"unto death" (eh OdvaTov, Rom. vii. 10). A divine ordi
nance produces a result directly the opposite of its original
intention! Verse 13 does not resolve the paradox, for
although he there says that not the law which is good is
the occasion of death to him, but rather sin, the responsi
bility still falls upon the law, since it was given in order
that sin might abound. If "the sting of death is sin,"
"the strength of sin is the law" (Cor. xv. 56).
To the question which one of the two terms of the
antinomy under consideration is supported by the historico-
religious facts relative to the law the apostle himself
furnishes the only valid answer when he says that this was
given "unto life." From the point of view of the Old
Testament the law was unquestionably given not to make
"sin abound," but to produce righteousness. Obedience
is not therein enjoined by the voice of teachers and
prophets from age to age as if it were an impossibility, but
as an achievement within the power of men. Actual right
eousness achieved by conforming through good works to
the will of God is not enforced by unremitting warning
and exhortation as if it were an unattainable ideal, but as
a possible accomplishment of which many shining examples
exist. It is hardly necessary to add that the teaching of
Jesus in this regard is in accord with that of the illustrious
representatives of the genius of the old Hebrew morality
and religion (Matt. v. 19, vii. 21, viii. 50, xix. 16-21 ;
Luke xvi. 29). Even Paul himself occasionally shows that
he had in fact "profited in the Jews' religion" (Gal. i. 14),
and echoes the mighty voice of his race, when he for the
moment loses sight of the dogmatic purpose which led him
into the antinomy in question (Rom. ii. 6-13; 1 Cor. iii.

238 THE TEACHER
13, v. 10; Gal. vi. 7). Another obscurity appears in the
connection in which the apostle here speaks of "the law"
as occasioning sin in connection with the flesh, and de
clares that without it no formal sin could exist. That he
has in mind, as before remarked, the Mosaic law, and
includes its moral precepts is evident from the words : " I
had not known lust except the law had said, ' Thou shalt
not covet ' " (Rom. vii. 7). Yet he recognises sin as exist
ing in an aggravated form among the gentiles " who have
not the law," and speaks of sinning " without law " (Rom.
ii. 12, 14). His intense preoccupation with polemical
dialectic, and the impetuous rush of his thought toward
the end that this proposed for him furnishes the only
explanation of such paradoxes, which are stumbling-blocks
to those only who are wanting in insight into the nature
and the absorbing aims of the great apostle.
The interpretation which we have given to Rom. v. 12
is the only one consistent with verses 13 and 14 in which
the apostle proceeds to establish the proposition that all
individually sinned : " For until the law sin was in the
world ; but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam until Moses even
over them that had not sinned after the similitude of
Adam's transgression." This does not mean, as Lipsius
will have it,* and as Meyer maintains, that individuals
were not punished by death for their actual sins but by
reason of the objective transference of the sin of Adam.
This might be Paul's meaning in accordance with his
doctrine that " without the law sin is dead " (Rom. vii. 8),
if a sin that is "dead" be punishable, but why should he
take the trouble to state the obvious fact that sin which is
not sin in fact and in form is not "imputed"? Meyer's
remark on this point, which is irreconcilable with his
* Hand- Commentar , on the passage.

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN 239
interpretation of the passage as a whole, is that "in the
absence of the law the action which in and by itself is
unlawful is no transgression of the law and cannot, there
fore, be brought into account as such!' *
But that these "actions" performed under the universal
reign of dp,apria were regarded by Paul as individual sins
is evident from Rom. i. 19-32, ii. 12. They were viola
tions of the inner law by those who knew "the judgment
of God that they who commit such things are worthy of
death " (Rom. i. 32). Besides, in the passage in hand he
says of those who lived before the giving of the formal
law that they had "sinned," although not like Adam by
violating an express outward commandment. This cer
tainly is not a sinning "in Adam." The death, then, that
"reigned from Adam until Moses," reigned over all because
*The difficulties presented in the words, "Sin is not imputed where there
is no law," are exceedingly perplexing whether the non-imputation be re
ferred to God, or to the individual conscience. The sinning of men between
Adam and Moses is explicitly declared, and with equal explicitness the apostle
affirms that those who sin against the innner law know that they are " worthy
of death." Hence there can be no non-imputation in the sinners' conscience,
and if they are " worthy of death " their sin must be imputed by God. Bovon
objects to the interpretation herein supported that it makes Paul in the passage
in question (Rom. v. 13, 14) " withdraw with one hand what he gives with the
other" (Theologie du nouveau Testament, ii. p. 268). It would not, however,
surprise any one who is familiar with the Pauline paradoxes if this hypothesis
were found to be necessary to the solution of the difficulties which according
to any explanation inhere in the section. It is futile to adduce the words
"sin is not imputed where there is no law," in support of the doctrine that
according to Paul the men over whom death reigned from Adam to Moses
bore the consequences, not of their own sins, but of the transgression of the
progenitor; for the apostle expressly says that these men "sinned" in a par
ticular way, and is, moreover, debarred by his own declarations from affirm
ing that their sins were not " imputed " because there was no " law " in the
case. He declares unequivocally that those who " have not the [Mosaic] law
are a law unto themselves," and that they have the " accusing " and " excus
ing " " conscience." It is hardly legitimate for an expositor to take advantage
of a paradox of the apostle's in order to support a theory of his meaning in a
given passage.

24O THE TEACHER
" all sinned." Meyer remarks that the Rabbinical writers
derived universal mortality from the fall of Adam, all
having sinned in him, and thinks that Paul's doctrine may
have had its roots in his Jewish training. According to
Weber, however, the Jewish theologians found an anti
nomy in the two propositions that death came as the con
sequence of Adam's sin, and that sin is not inheritable.
They concluded accordingly that death has power over
the individual only on the ground of his own sin.* Paul's
teaching also was that death came into the world as the
penalty of Adam's offence, and that since penalty can be
conceived as inflicted only where there is actual sin, the
death of his descendants, sin not being transmissible, was
due to the fact that all had sinned. The death of innocent
children is not taken into the account.
The difficulties which inhere in the Pauline doctrine of
the origin of sin are not, however, cleared up by the
passages thus far considered. It cannot be denied that
in Rom. v. 12 ff. the apostle speaks of sin as though it had
no existence in the world prior to Adam's transgression,
and as though through the principle of solidarity " by
some sort of continuity " the descendants of the progeni
tor were subject to sin and death through him. Such
expressions as " By one man's offence death reigned ; "
"By the offence of one judgment came upon all men to
condemnation," and " By one man's disobedience many
were made sinners" (Rom. v. 17, 18, 19), indicate that
Adam's act is conceived not as the act of an isolated
individual from which no consequences follow to others,
but as one fraught with such far-reaching tragic results as
can proceed only from the head of the race, just as Christ's
act of atonement extended to the whole series of his de
scendants in the spiritual order. In other words, the
* System, pp. 240 f.

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN 24 1
teaching appears to be that just as grace could not "reign
through righteousness unto eternal life" except "through
Christ," "sin," and so "death" as its consequence
"reigned" primarily "by one" (Rom. v. 17, 21). If in
these passages the origin of sin in the descendants of Adam
appears to lie outside themselves, it is not in 2 Cor. xi. 3
placed in the progenitors themselves, but in the serpent
or Satan, in which evil personality Paul evidently believed
(Rom. xvi. 20; 1 Cor. v. 5, vii. 5 ; 2 Cor. ii. 11, i. 14).
To the question raised by Sabatier * : " Why, then,
did not the apostle say that sin entered into the world
with Satan and by him ? " the inquiry may be proposed to
determine what he does mean to say here if not precisely
this. For, according to Sabatier himself, he here follows
the Adamic legend in Genesis as an " authority," and that
recognises no sin either objective or subjective in the pro
genitors except through an outward seduction. On the
other hand, according to a series of passages already quoted
and elucidated, the apostle regards the origin of " formal "
sin in the individual as due to "material" sin residing in
the flesh in connection with the law which provokes and
calls it into activity. He certainly ascribes to all the de
scendants of Adam an indwelling principle of sin which
is "dead" until the law brings it to life. And this, too,
despite the principle of solidarity and some sort of causal
connection of the first sin with that which reigned in the
world subsequent to Adam, he appears to regard as the
natural condition of man. The first man Adam was only
a "living soul" (^vx>i), was "earthy" (^oiko?), and had
not the spiritual quality of "the second man from heaven,"
otherwise he would not have sinned. In the divine order
"that is not first which is spiritual, but that which is nat
ural," and the yfrvxij and the Trvev^ia represent the antithetic
* L'Apbtre Paul, 3me ed., 1896, p. 384.

242 THE TEACHER
orders of life (i Cor. xv. 45 f.). "The natural (-v/rin^/coE?)
man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God" (1 Cor.
ii. 14), i.e., he is essentially cra/D/a/co? because he is "of
the flesh " (adpicovoo), and " no good thing " dwells in him,
namely, in his flesh, but rather sin ready to manifest itself
when the "occasion" is presented "through the com
mandment," and to " bring forth fruit unto death."
It is a natural conclusion from these premises that one
at least of the apostle's doctrines of the origin of sin was
that it resided primarily in the nature of man and in " the
first man Adam " as well as in his descendants. If this
conception, so far as Adam is concerned, does not appear
in the account of the first sin in Genesis, which he seems
to accept in ascribing sin to the temptation or deception
of Satan, then there is in this regard if not an antinomy
at least a gap in his thought which he has not formally
filled. That he believed the children of Adam to have
"all sinned" in the same way and for the same reason,
i.e., because they had like him the evil impulse in the
flesh, is evident from the foregoing considerations. There
is, then, no solution of the antinomy which is contained in
this proposition and in the other that sin and death came
to men through Adam, except on the assumption that their
fleshly nature, their evil impulses, were inherited from
him. But Paul nowhere intimates the doctrine that either
the nature of Adam or that of his descendants underwent
a change by reason of the first transgression. We must
conclude accordipgly, that his teaching, as we have it,
furnishes no means of resolving this paradox.
That the traditional doctrine of the fall of man is not
taught by Paul is not only based upon exegesis, according
to which such a teaching would be incompatible with the
idea that man was originally " earthy," i.e., the opposite
of "spiritual," but also upon the natural and obvious phi-

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN 243
losophy of the matter derivable from the reasoning of the
apostle. For assuming the premises from which he pro
ceeds, the Eden-legend, the absence -of fleshly or sinful
impulses in " the first man " leaves the beginning of sin
inexplicable. That this difficulty inheres in the Genesis-
story, and that Paul appears once to have overlooked it,
need not enter into the consideration. Enough, that it is
a fundamental principle of his thought that only the man
can be superior to the flesh and sin in whom dwells the
life-giving Spirit imparted through Christ. Sin inheres
in the flesh of the psychical or natural man, and it is from
the fleshly nature that sin proceeds, that is, it is grounded
in the original constitution of man. Sin did not make
man fleshly through "the fall," but he sinned first, and
has always sinned, because of the flesh. The law is spirit
ual, but man is carnal, sold under sin. According to the
inner man he aspires and strives toward the service of
God in which his mind delights, but the law in his mem
bers brings him into captivity to the law of sin and death
which is in his members, so that he does what he would
not and what he hates. "In no place," says Weizsacker,
" where the antithesis of flesh and Spirit is broadly dis
cussed is there any hint that the flesh, considered in its
moral aspect, is a secondary growth (ein Gewordenes), It
is only its full moral influence that is to be thought of as
a later development. . . . But the law is incapable of
attaining its object. It was weak on account of the flesh
(Rom. viii. 3). After all this there can hardly be a doubt
that for Paul the antithesis of flesh and Spirit ultimately
rests on the nature of the flesh, that is, on the natural
quality of man." *
We are thus led to the conclusion that according to a
fundamental doctrine of Paul's man cannot be regarded as
* Apost. Zeitalter, p. 131.

244 THE TEACHER
naturally immortal. It was "by man" that death came,
by " the first man," who was " earthy " and as such by
nature doomed to corruption (cpdopd). " In Adam all die."
Life, incorruption, the glory of the blessed in the Mes
sianic kingdom, the resurrection, pertain only to those
who, through having accepted Christ, have " the earnest
[pledge] of the Spirit," and who can hopefully wait for
"the redemption" of their bodies (Rom. viii. 23). Even
believers, though possessing "the Spirit," are conceived
as subject to physical death, and it was only when Christ
should come for the resurrection that the dead would be
" raised incorruptible," and the saints then living would
"be changed" (1 Cor. xv. 52). Incorruptibility belongs
only to the kingdom of God, which "flesh and blood can
not inherit." The body, which is mortal by reason of
having the flesh as its substance, becomes triumphant
over death only when "quickened" by the indwelling
Spirit of God. This is only another way of saying that
the body of the believer conceived as a form will have at
the resurrection an incorruptible spiritual substance, and
will become like that of Christ in his exalted state a
"body of glory." With this principle, which cannot be
removed from the apostle's theology without leaving it a
soulless body, it is not easy to reconcile his doctrine that
death came into the world in consequence of Adam's
transgression, that "by one man's offence death reigned
by one" (Rom. v. 17), and that "death passed upon all
because all sinned." Death is "the wages of sin," and
the doctrine that it is imposed as a divine judgment for
sin could not well be more explicitly expressed than it is
in the words: "Therefore as by the offence of one judg
ment came upon all men to condemnation," etc. (Rom.
v. 18), where the "offence" is the sin on account of
which "death reigned" (verse 17).

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN 245
We have, then, the two propositions over against each
other, (1) that man being "of flesh" and "earthy" is
naturally mortal, and (2) that his mortality is by reason
of the divine judgment upon sin. It is true, as Sabatier
remarks, that Paul does not say that " the physical law of
death did not exist in the world before the sin of Adam."
Neither does he say explicitly that Adam was by nature
immortal, and would not have died if he had not sinned.
But this proposition and its opposite are legitimate deduc
tions from two series of passages. The same inconsistency
existed in the later Jewish theology, which taught that
Adam was created mortal, and yet in consequence of the
fall became subject to death.* The Pauline antinomy
cannot be solved ; it can only be explained, as it has
been, by supposing that two ways of regarding the sub
ject were in the apostle's mind without reconciliation :
the Pharisaic-Jewish, according to which death was a posi
tive punishment of the definite transgression of Adam,
and that corresponding to the old Hebraism as well as
to Hellenism, according to which death was the natural
consequence of the perishableness of all earthly material
(so Pfleiderer,f Holtzmann, | Schmiedel, § and others).
The passage concerning "the groaning creation " (Rom.
viii. 19-22) is in accord with the ancient Hebrew tradition
recorded in Gen. iii. 17 as well as with the later Jewish
theology. The latter taught that the earth had its part
in the curse of Adam, so that not only human nature, but
also the inanimate creation, underwent a change in con
sequence of the fall. The earth brought forth harmful
insects, and the course of the planets was altered as a
result of Adam's sin ; their path was lengthened and their
speed retarded. || An echo of this idea appears to be the
* Weber, System, pp. 214, 238. f Paulinismus. X Neutest. Theol.
§ Hand- Commentar. || Weber, System, p. 216.

246 THE TEACHER
teaching that "the whole creation groaneth and travail
eth in pain together until now," in "earnest expectation "
waiting "for the manifestation of the sons of God" — the
glorious revelation of their sonship which would be effected
at the Parousia, "the restoration of all things." That this
condition of the creation is not conceived as inhering in
its original constitution, but as imposed upon it from
without, is evident from the expression, "on account of
him who subjected " it, whether this one be man effecting
the result through sin, or God who did it "because His
counsel and will had to be thus satisfied." The sin
which struck man with mortality brought a maledic
tion upon nature.
The objection to this construction of the Pauline the
ology, according to which sin is conceived as arising out
of the natural fleshly impulse of human nature in conjunc
tion with the divine law, that it makes God the author of
sin, though not "scientific " from the point of view of exe
gesis, but dogmatic, may well have a brief consideration,
because its discussion will throw light upon the apostle's
hamartiology. If man was originally of " flesh " (adpicivosi),
"earthy" (^ot'/co'?), and "psychical" (i/w^t/eo?), so that sin
must immediately "revive" when the commandment
comes, and if the power of this inherent dfiapTia was so
great that its desolating sway has been universal, it would
appear to be a valid inference that sin is a part of the
divine order (Rom. ix. 13, 17, 18, xi. 7, 8, 32; Gal. iii. 21,
22), a necessary result of the infirmity of the human con
stitution. In fact, according to the strenuous theism of
Paul God is the Author of everything (Rom. xi. 36 ; 1 Cor.
viii. 6). It is He who created "the first man," the psychi
cal, earthly one (Rom. ix. 20-22), and He also created the
last Adam, "the life-giving spirit," who was destined con
ditionally to restore all that the former had devastated.

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN 247
The apostle knows nothing of an absolute human freedom.
On the one hand, the psychical man is powerless under
the servitude to the flesh and its indwelling sinfulness
(Rom. vii. 14, 23). "The carnal mind is not subject to the
law of God, neither indeed can be " (Rom. viii. 7).
Thus man cannot liberate and save himself ; but on the
other hand, his salvation is effected by the supernatural
intervention of the mighty Spirit of God by whose power
his spiritual life is just as certainly determined as his sinful
activity was governed by the indomitable " carnal mind."
The sons of God are "driven," impelled, determined in their
living by the Spirit of God.* If the unregenerate man is
determined in his activity by the compelling flesh, the be
liever, who has the Spirit, acts under the compulsion of this
supernal power, this masterful over-soul. " Since the days
of the prophets no one had so strongly felt the constraint of
the divine thought upon man as Paul. If in general man
regards the operations of his being as his free actions, be
lieves that he pushes, and is pushed, is like a stone which is
thrown, and thinks it flies, much more did the apostle clearly
feel the flight of his spirit to be a cast from the hand of
God." j Yet the apostle employs in unmistakable terms
the language of freedom and responsibility. He condemns
men for their transgressions, and exhorts them to the
activities of obedience and righteousness quite as if he
regarded them as free agents and moral beings in the
libertarian sense. If all this denotes an antinomy in his
thought, it is one which still lurks in our thinking, and
which theistic philosophy has not yet been able to resolve.
The dark picture of the natural man's servitude to. the
flesh and of his inability to do right is relieved by the doc
trine of the eaco avdpqnros, so that Paul cannot be charged
* wvetifmri 0eov iyovrai, Rom. viii. 14.
f Hausrath, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, iii. p. 113.

248 THE TEACHER
with teaching the traditional dogma of total depravity.
The flesh is not the whole man despite Holsten's acute
reasoning. There is a delight in the law of God after the
inner man, and the mind (vovs) renders a spontaneous ser
vice to the divine order of virtue, struggling against the
fleshly impulses which reign in the members (Rom. vii.
22 f .). While according to the apostle's philosophy of salva
tion the vovs is unable without the divine irvev/xa to attain
righteousness, and appears to be represented in Rom.
vii. 13-23 as consenting to the law that it is good and
serving it so far at least as a recognition of its demands
and a desire to fulfil them are concerned, but still doing
what it hates, there is on the other hand in passages
written without the doctrinal preoccupation which often
leads him into extreme statements a recognition of man's
ability to " do by nature the things contained in the law,"
even when the subjects are gentiles who have only the in
ward law. It would indeed be a fruitful inquiry that should
enable the expositors of Paul to determine to what extent
a manifest polemic-dogmatic interest on his part in con
nection with the antinomies of his thought should incline
them to regard one or the other member of them as ex
pressing his deepest conviction. There is, however, only
an apparent antinomy in his teaching on the subject in
question, and the importance of the right anthropological
point of view to a comprehension of his doctrine is here
apparent. The vow is a part of man, and is to be distin
guished from the divine irvevpa which is elsewhere repre
sented as striving against the flesh. The activity in the
direction of the good which he here ascribes to the w5?
renders his teaching on the subject of man's moral ability
essentially different from Augustine's..
The dreadful consequences which Paul attaches to sin
indicate the deep earnestness which underlay his teaching

THE DOCTRINE OF SIN 249
regarding its nature and operations. As has already been
pointed out, the judgment upon sin is conceived as an im
mediate decree of God, a divine condemnation. The hard
and impenitent heart treasures up "wrath " that will break
forth "in the day of wrath," i.e., at the judgment of the
Parousia which will manifest the divine "indignation and
wrath," and bring "tribulation and anguish" upon evil
doers, then to be overwhelmed by the might of Him who
"taketh vengeance" (Rom. ii. 5, 8, 9, iii. 5, v. 9. See
also Eph. v. 6). This terrible judgment conceived and
executed by almighty power denotes the dread significance
of " death " (6dvaTO<;) which is so frequently mentioned as
the penalty of sin. This means not only the going out of
existence of the physical body, of soul (irv^, life-principle
of the flesh) and body, but also the exclusion of the indi
vidual from participation in the resurrection, his hopeless
tarrying in the underworld, hades, the realm of the dead,
if not the absolute destruction of his personality. The
words "corruption" (cf>6opd), "destruction" (atrcoXeia) and
their corresponding verbs (c\>9eipea6ai and aTroXXvaOai) do
not mean simply punishment and to punish, and do not
convey the mere idea of temporal overthrow, but their
proper sense is exclusion from existence as ordinarily un
derstood and in particular from the life of believers who
alone, since they had "the Spirit," could hope for resurrec
tion. It is not of great moment whether the terms signify
the absolute extinction of being or simply exclusion from
the resurrection, for according to the ideas of the time the
sad and gloomy existence of shades in the underworld was
scarcely to be preferred to annihilation. The Jewish the
ology believed in the destruction of the wicked in gehenna
with discrimination against some.* For Paul's use of the
words see in particular Rom. ix. 22 ; 1 Cor. iii. 17. Such
* Weber, System, pp. 374, 375.

250 THE TEACHER
being the apostle's view of the fate of the wicked, it is
evident that the doctrine of their endless punishment has
no support in his writings, but that his thought on the
matter is rather expressed by the alcpvi'Stos oXedpo'; (swift
destruction) of 1 Thess. v. 3.
The Pauline doctrine of sin considered by itself presents
a gloomy view of human nature, life, and destiny — the
indomitable flesh with its debasing appetites and passions ;
the law in the members in endless warfare against the law
of the mind ; the inward man which delights in the law of
God engaged in a doubtful struggle with the powers of
evil ; and the universal reign of death in whose awful har
vest the wicked are gathered to destruction. A full view
of the apostle's thought requires a consideration of his doc
trine of redemption, from which a gleam of hope is thrown
upon this darkness, and in which the despairing exclama
tion " O wretched man that I am!" is answered by the
cry of triumph, " Thanks be to God who giveth us the
victory through our Lord Jesus Christ."

CHAPTER XI
SALVATION — ATONEMENT
TO Paul salvation was inseparably connected with par
ticipation in the approaching kingdom of God which
Christ at his second coming (Parousia) was to establish.
In this respect his conception of soteriology is in accord
with that of the other New Testament writers (Matt. xxv.
31-46; Mark xiii. 24-37; I Tim. vi. 14; 2 Tim. iv. 1, 8;
2 Pet. iii. 10-14). He reminds the Thessalonians that
they had turned "from idols to serve the living and true
God," not as an end sufficient in itself, but with a view to
an ulterior though not remote consummation, viz. : "to
wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the
dead, even Jesus, who delivers us from the wrath to come "
(1 Thess. i. 10). This deliverance from the "wrath"
which would be manifested against unbelievers in the great
day of Christ's Parousia constitutes the nerve of salvation
from the Pauline and the general New Testament point of
view. This was the inheritance of the New Testament
writers from Judaism, to which " the age to come," the
Messianic age, held all the blessedness and glory that God
purposed to bestow upon His people. Accordingly, to
Paul he that is to be " saved " will be " saved in the day of
the Lord Jesus" (1 Cor. v. 5). The Romans are admon
ished to exercise brotherly love and keep the command
ments as "knowing the time, that it is now high time to
awake out of sleep ; for now is our salvation nearer than
when we believed," that is, became believers. " Salva-
2SI

252 THE TEACHER
tion" is not thought to be consummated in the practice of
the moral virtues or the keeping of the commandment in
which all the others are "comprehended," but is to be
realised in the near future, the Messianic "age to come";
and because the great "day is at hand," the apostle says,
"let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us
put on the armour of light " (Rom. xiii. 8-13). From this
point of view the "promise," the "inheritance," and the
glory of the approaching kingdom appear not only as a
hope and encouragement, but also as a motive.
As Christ was to come to usher in and establish the
kingdom, as he then would claim his own to reign with
him, so he is conceived as the sole and indispensable
agency of salvation. The glorious deliverance which will
be effected at the coming of the kingdom depends uncon
ditionally upon his previous relation to those who are to
enjoy it. Their title to the inheritance comes only
"through" him. The kingdom is one of righteousness,
and he must be righteous who becomes a member of it
and a participant in its blessedness. This was not an
original Christian idea, but was derived from the Messi
anic doctrine of Judaism. Paul made it his own, however,
and he declares that "the kingdom of God is righteous
ness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost." Now the
Pauline doctrine of salvation takes its departure from two
propositions which to its author were indisputable, namely,
that no man is by nature righteous and therefore fitted for
the kingdom, and that no one can of himself obtain right
eousness. On the one hand, "Jews and gentiles are all
under sin" (Rom. iii. 9), and on the other, "by the deeds
of the law there shall no flesh be justified " (verse 20), that
is, the righteousness which is requisite for admission to
the kingdom is unattainable by the utmost endeavour to
observe the requirements of the law as they are laid down

SALVATION— ATONEMENT 253
in the Old Testament. The only righteousness that can
avail is that which is " of God," that is, bestowed by God,
and the condition of attaining this is "faith in Jesus
Christ." All may be justified freely by the grace of God
through the redemption that is in Christ (verses 22, 24).
The sum of the whole matter is expressed in the words :
"Therefore we conclude that a man is justified by faith
without the deeds of the law " (verse 28).
It is evident, then, that since "all have sinned, and come
short of the glory of God," the relation between God and
man is abnormal and discordant, and that the entire fortune
ofthe kingdom of God, or in other words, the destiny of the
human race, depends upon the establishment of right rela
tions between them, that is, upon the extent to which the
mission of Christ should realise its purpose. A reconcilia
tion must be effected, an atonement made, before man, the
" servant of sin," who cannot alone free himself from his
bondage, can become a subject of the kingdom of God.
Paul does not appear ever to have raised the question why
God chose this means of saving man, that is, the intervention
of Christ, or whether He might not have accomplished the
same result in another way, by a general and uncondi
tional pardon, for example. It was enough for him that
according to the "revelation" that he had had this was
God's plan. When it pleased God to reveal His Son in
him (Gal. i. 15, 16), the Christ that he saw was the resur
rected and glorified Christ, and in the resurrection he rec
ognised God's seal confirming the Son as the Saviour of
the world and transforming the opprobrious cross into a
symbol of redemption. Accordingly, Menegoz has admi
rably remarked that " Paul's faith in the expiatory sacrifice
of Christ was not the conclusion of a process of reasoning
on the relation between the mercy and justice of God,
but on the contrary, the apostle's ideas on the justice and

254 THE TEACHER
mercy of God were founded on his faith in the expiatory
death of Christ."
The entire Pauline scheme of salvation through Christ
hinges upon his death, and no greater violence can be done
to this teaching than to interpret it in the sense that the
office of Jesus was simply a reconciliation of man to Go.d
through the moral influence of his life. From this point
of view the death on the cross has no other significance
than that, as an inevitable consequence of Jesus' devotion
to duty, it may serve as an example and an ethical impulse
to men in the interest of a similar consecration. This
interpretation, which springs from a rationalistic motive or
a motive to make the apostle's teaching correspond with
what seems rational to the expositor, is without exegetical
support. The attempt to maintain it is made in total
disregard of the most explicit declarations of the apostle,
in which the entire stress in defining the work of Christ is
laid upon his death, or these declarations are not accorded
their legitimate force and meaning. The central sig
nificance of the death of Christ appears unmistakably in
such passages as the following: "When we were yet
without strength, in due time Christ died for the un
godly " ; " While we were yet sinners, Christ died for us " ;
" We were reconciled to God by the death of His Son " ;
" Being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from
wrath through him " (Rom. v. 6-10); "For in that he
died, he died unto sin once"; "If we have been planted
together in the likeness of his death " (Rom. vi. 5, 10) ;
" Who was delivered for our offences, and was raised again
for our justification " (Rom. iv. 25) ; "Whom God set forth
to be a propitiation through faith in his blood" (Rom. iii.
25); " If righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead
in vain "(Gal. ii. 21) ; "Who died for us, that whether we
wake or sleep [are living or dead at the time of the

SALVATION— ATONEMENT 255
Parousia — cf. 1 Thess. iv. 13-17] we should live together
with him " (1 Thess. v. 10) ; " For the preaching of the cross
is to them that perish foolishness ; but unto us who are
saved it is the power of God " ; " We preach Christ cruci
fied " ; "I determined not to know anything among you
save Jesus Christ and him crucified" (1 Cor. i. 18, 23, ii. 2).
These passages show unmistakably that to the apostle
the death of Christ was vital and essential in his redemptive
work. There is besides no evidence that he attached a
fundamental importance to the moral qualities of the life of
Jesus or to his example. In Rom. v. 10, " For if when we
were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of
his Son, much more being reconciled, we shall be saved
by his life," means that, just as the believer's justification
and reconciliation have been effected by the death of
Christ, so his future salvation, his deliverance from the
wrath of God and his participation in the glory and
blessedness of the coming kingdom, will be brought about
through the resurrection of Jesus. The fact that Jesus
now lives, and will come again gives him assurance of the
consummation of his salvation. The " obedience " of
Christ which is set over against the disobedience of Adam,
and represented as the means of counteracting it by
making many righteous (Rom. v. 19) does not relate to his
ethical conduct or to the influence of his example, but to
his subjection of himself to the death of the cross, which
though voluntary on his part was yet in accordance with
the will of God: "Who gave himself for our sins, that he
might deliver us from this present evil world [age, the
' evil ' time preceding the Parousia and ' the age to
come '] according to the will of God " (Gal. i. 4). Accord
ingly, the apostle says of Christ that he humbled himself,
and became obedient unto death, even the death of the
cross (Phil. ii. 8). It is significant, moreover, that when he

256 THE TEACHER
enforces upon the believers the practice of brotherly love,
he does not adduce the life of Jesus as an example, but
cites only the fact of his death "for all" as a reason why
"they who live should not henceforth live to themselves,
but to him who died for them, and rose again." No one
familiar with the self-sacrificing life of Jesus and holding
it in high regard as an example could instead of using
illustrations drawn from it resort to an Old Testament
quotation as he does in Rom. xv. 2, 3 : " Let every one of
us please his neighbour for his good to edification ; for even
Christ pleased not himself, but as it is written, the re
proaches of them that reproached thee fell upon me."*
The object of the death of Christ, as Paul conceived it,
was to counteract the effects of Adam's sin and thus
restore the normal relations between God and man.
This thought is clearly defined in the words: "Therefore
as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to
condemnation, even so by the righteousness of one the
free gift came upon all men unto justification of life"
(Rom. v. 18). This act of righteousness which in the
following verse is called "obedience," that is, compliance
with the will of God on the cross, was an atonement for all
men objectively considered and subjectively for as many
* In Rom. viii. 3, God's sending of His Son " in the likeness of sinful flesh,"
and thereby condemning sin in the flesh, is interpreted by Dr. Stevens ( The
Pauline Theology, p. 231) as "certainly" implying "that the overthrow of the
dominion of sin in the flesh was conditional upon the sinlessness of the life of
Jesus." But " in the flesh" should be connected with "condemned." The
condemnation of sin was in the flesh of Christ on the cross. In his death was
executed the judgment of condemnation upon it, and the benefit of this repre
sentative suffering of the death entailed in the divine order upon sin accrues to
men in so far as through faith they come into that mystic fellowship with the
death of Christ, whereby they ideally die to that to which he died. Thus, and
thus only, " the righteousness of the law may be fulfilled " in them, since by
reason of his atonement and their appropriation of it they are no more " after
the flesh, but after the spirit " (verse 4).

SALVATION— ATONEMENT 257
as through faith lay hold on the salvation thus offered,
and so become subjects of the divine decree of "justifica
tion " which assures them " life," yet, not merely the
moral-religious quality of life in the present existence, but
superiority to death, the resurrection, and participation in
the blessedness of the kingdom at the Parousia. The
necessity of an atonement was conceived to be based upon
the relation of hostility between man and God, the removal
of which could alone save the race from " destruction."
Unless a new principle of "life" were introduced, the
" death " which had come into the world through Adam's
sin would continue unmitigatedly its dreadful work, until
all would " perish," as some were destined to be destroyed
in "the day of the Lord " (i Thess. v. 2, 3). The relation
of hostility is expressed in various terms. In Rom. v. 10,
the apostle says : " For when we were enemies, we were
reconciled to God by the death of His Son " ; and again :
" The carnal mind is enmity against God, for it is not
subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be" (Rom.
viii. 7). The condition of the natural man, the man who
is not "in the Spirit," is one in which it is impossible to
"please God" (Rom. viii. 8, 9).
The hostility in question is of the nature of an active
opposition expressing itself in disobedience and in a course
of life which cannot meet with the divine approval. An
enmity of man from the divine point of view, as passive
enmity, certainly belongs to this general conception of hos
tility, and if it is not implied in the passages in hand, is
unequivocally expressed in Rom. xi. 28, where "enemies"
of God are contrasted with those who are " beloved " of
Him. The hostility of God to the natural man, who is
controlled by the carnal mind, is expressed by the term
"wrath." Because the law induces transgression, the
apostle says that it "worketh wrath." "The wrath of

258 THE TEACHER
God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and
unrighteousness of men." The evil-doer "treasures up
wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of the right
eous judgment of God " (Rom. i. 18, ii. 5, iv. 15 ; cf. 1 Thess.
i. 10, ii. 16). There is an apparent incongruity in the fact
that in Rom. xi. 28 the Jews are represented as at the same
time objects of God's hostility and of His love. The same
must be said of the conception of God's wrath toward sin
ners in general, which to the apostle is not incompatible
with His love for them that is preeminently manifested in
the mission of Christ, for "God commendeth His love
toward us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died
for us " (Rom. v. 8). This dual state of feeling is not,
however, foreign to our experience, and the apostle's rep
resentation of the matter doubtless belongs to the general
anthropopathic conception of the age. It must not be
forgotten that he thought of God's relation to man in ac
cordance with the judicial idea of Judaism, to which the
law was inexorable.* It was an expression of God's attitude
toward sin, and must take its inevitable course of retri
bution unless an atonement was provided. The thought
never appears to have occurred to Paul that God could
arrest the penal operation of the law on any other condi
tion, but must allow it to proceed in its remorseless inflic
tion of death and destruction.
But though God is conceived as unable to arrest the
fatal course of the law, though His " wrath " must have
*The "Jewish basis" must not be disregarded. "Ancient thought in gen
eral, but in particular the religious consciousness of the later Judaism, regu
lated the relations between the Deity, who represented the moral requirements
and avenged the transgression of them, and men, from the axiom that on the
one hand compensation must be made to requiting justice for guilt incurred,
a sacrifice must fall, but on the other, an innocent person may intervene for the
atonement of the offence, and thus take the penalty upon himself." — Holtz
mann, Neutest. Theol. ii. p. 109.

SAL VA TION— A TONEMENT 259
its work upon the transgressor under the natural order,
His love for man is manifested in the fact that He origi
nates the scheme by which man may be delivered from the
impending "destruction." He "sends His Son," and the
Son, whose glorious estate was such that he is represented
as being "in the form of God," "made himself of no repu
tation, and took upon himself the form of a servant, and
was made in the likeness of men," that through obedience
unto death on the cross he might effect the great redemp
tion (Rom. v. 8 ; Phil. ii. 7, 8). It is unwarrantable, then,
so to rationalise the Pauline doctrine of the atonement that
it shall appear that of the two parties in the hostile rela
tion one only, man, was " reconciled " through a change of
disposition or the abandonment of his enmity. The atone
ment proceeds from God, and is a transaction conceived
in heaven without man's participation. Christ does not
come to effect by his teaching and example such a change
in the moral disposition of men that they shall be recon
ciled to the divine order. This is a secondary result. Pri
marily the law must be satisfied. Then those men who
accept through faith this atonement are "freely justified
by His grace " ; but only " through the redemption that is in
Jesus Christ " (Rom. iii. 24). Far from proceeding from men,
the atonement comes to them through the office of Jesus,
" by whom we have now received the atonement " (Rom. v.
11). "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto Him
self " (2 Cor. v. 19). Not only is the initiative on His part,
but the process is defined as His in that He does "not
impute their trespasses unto men." Accordingly, if, when
in the following verse Paul prays the Corinthians to "be
reconciled to God," their change of disposition completed
the transaction, then it were idle to speak of God's part in
not imputing their trespasses.
According to the Pauline doctrine, men's trespasses are

260 THE TEACHER
no longer reckoned as theirs when they have accepted
Christ by faith, because he has made the atoning sacri
fice which satisfies the demands of justice, and does away
with the law, so far as it can have any claims upon them
after they have fulfilled the conditions. The penal opera
tion of the law ceases for them, and since this is the ex
pression of the divine " wrath," it may be said that God
has for them laid aside His wrath. Accordingly, the atone
ment as the apostle understood it implies a change of
attitude on God's part ; and, indeed, this may be regarded
as the most important factor in the transaction. He con
ceives and institutes the atonement. He provides for the
satisfaction of the law, and offers this means of reconcilia
tion to men. They have only to accept it through faith
and enter into the mystic fellowship with Christ by being
"baptized into his death" (Rom. vi. 3, 4). Then they will
receive "the Spirit" and the "adoption as sons," will
henceforth be under "the law of the Spirit of life in Jesus
Christ," and may look forward with joy to the resurrection
and the blessedness of the approaching kingdom. If the
idea of a change of disposition and attitude in God is repul
sive to our theistic philosophy, this is no good reason why
we should maintain that it does not belong to Paul's theol
ogy, which must be ascertained by exegesis and not by a
priori reasoning. The result of exegesis is that he believed
that God's "wrath" was directed against the sinner, and
that it would pursue him to "destruction," unless an aton
ing satisfaction intervened. If he thought there was any
other way in which the constant grace and love of God
could come to the relief of man in the bondage to sin, he
does not give any intimation of such an idea.
How according to Paul Christ effected the salvation of
men is explicitly expressed in the words : " Christ hath
redeemed us from the curse of the law, having been made

SALVATION— ATONEMENT 26 1
a curse for us ; as it is written, cursed is every one that
hangeth on a tree" (Gal. iii. 13). Here is evident the
emphasis heretofore pointed out which he places upon the
death of Christ. It is by means of the death on the cross
that man's redemption is effected. The idea here is plainly
that of vicarious expiation. By his death on the cross
Christ paid the price of the deliverance of men from bond
age to the law, whose curse rests upon all that are subject
to it, since being unable to fulfil its requirements they
must bear its penalty of destruction. "Redeemed" (iZyyo-
paaev) means " bought off," and the thought is that as
the representative head of the race Christ by his death in
which he became a curse for us purchased our ransom.
The law, conceived as a power which even God cannot dis
regard, demands the penalty of sin, and Christ is doubtless
here conceived as paying for the human race that penalty
to the law, for the apostle cannot have thought of him as
buying off mankind from God or from the devil. The
citation from Deut. xxi. 23 relates to the requirement that
the body of one hanged for a crime worthy of death should
not be. left over night upon the tree, lest the land be
defiled, "for he that is hanged is accursed of God." Paul
regards Christ in suffering this accursed death as bearing
the curse of the law in his capacity as the redeeming
Messiah, instead of being a rejected and abandoned out
cast who by the fact of his crucifixion was branded with a
curse, as he must have thought of him before his conver
sion. Lipsius' opinion that these words from Deuteronomy
were of fundamental importance for Paul's whole theology
is hardly well taken, although he concedes that this point of
view does not appear in Romans, and Dr. Everett has made
too much of a passing allusion to the curse that in Israel
attached to a particular mode of executing criminals.*
* The Gospel of Paul.

262 THE TEACHER
The fact "of fundamental importance" for Paul was that
Christ suffered death, the penalty of the law, and thus
satisfied its demands "once" as the head of mankind, so
that all might be redeemed from its curse. The cross is
made prominent in his teaching generally not because under
the Old Testament order a curse attached to hanging, but
because it happened to be the instrument of Christ's death.*
The passage in question must be interpreted in connection
with verse io : " For as many as are of the works of the
law are under the curse of the law," that is, he who under
takes to attain salvation by keeping the law is under its
curse, and will "perish." But Christ (verse 13) redeemed
men from this curse, by taking upon himself the penalty
of the law, death, and thus becoming a curse for them.
The law being thus satisfied was abolished, Christ became
through his atonement "the end of the law," and the new
dispensation of " the Spirit " and " life " was introduced.
This interpretation is supported by other passages which
represent the Christians as redeemed in the sense that a
"price" has been paid for them: "Ye are bought with a
price" (1 Cor. vi. 20, vii. 23). Similarly Christ is said to
have been "made of God unto us wisdom and righteous
ness and redemption" (1 Cor. i. 30). Here "redemption"
is used in the sense of the payment of a ransom (Ex. xxi.
8). Paul does not use the word in the weaker sense of
" setting free from " except once, and then in connection
with the body (Rom. viii. 23). The words in Col. i. 14 :
"In whom we have redemption through his blood" express
the Pauline idea. The blood of Christ is the ransom
(XvTpov) which releases man from the curse of the law.
Pfleiderer has appropriately pointed out the futility of
* One would hardly attempt to maintain that Paul's doctrine of the atone
ment would have been different if Jesus had been put to death through any
other instrumentality than the cross.

SAL VA TION— A TONEMENT 263
raising such questions as, "To whom was the price of
redemption paid?" "Why was there need of paying a
price?" "Can Christ's death be regarded as a satisfactory
price or equivalent for man's redemption ? " " Paul himself
doubtless never found any occasion for raising such dog
matic questions, because he did not proceed from a priori
dogmatic reflections on the necessity or possibility of a
saving atonement, but from given facts and theories, which
he simply related to one another, interpreting the one in
the light of the other."
It should be borne in mind that the apostle's doctrine
of atonement is due to the circumstance that instead of
being a rationalising Christian philosopher of the nine
teenth century he had been educated in the school of
ancient thought and particularly in the Jewish theology,
where any one may learn what he had learned that "the
suffering and death of the righteous have an atoning
power to make satisfaction for their own sins and for
those of the whole people." Believing that Christ had
died for men, he could not but interpret his death as he
had been accustomed to regard atonement in general.
That the law or the righteousness of God of which it is an
expression must be satisfied, and that man could render
a satisfaction only by his death in the sense of "everlasting
destruction," were the two premises from which he set out.
The conclusion was inevitable that man could be "saved "
from "perishing" only by a representative satisfaction
rendered by "the second Adam," "the man from heaven."
A prominent feature of the atonement as held by
Paul is doubtless that of sacrifice, "construed," as Holtz
mann concludes, "from the premises of expiation and
recompense." He finds here the influence of the later
Jewish ideas of "exchange," "substitution," and "satis
faction." The reaction of the sacrificial death of Christ is

264 THE TEACHER
expressed in the non-imputation of their sins to those for
whose benefit the satisfaction of the law was effected
through the sacrifice (2 Cor. v. 19). Such is probably the
doctrine of Rom. viii. 3 : " For what the law could not do
in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending His
own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh and for sin con
demned sin in the flesh." The end in view is the deliver
ance from the power of sin and death and the fulfilment in
the believers of the righteousness of the law (verses 2, 4)
through the atoning effect of Christ's death. This the law
could not do on account of the power of "the flesh." It
could enjoin, and declare the penalty of sin, but had not
the strength to break its power. Man could not attain
righteousness under it, could not free himself from its
"bondage," because by reason of his inability to fulfil it
the account was constantly running up against him. His
deliverance came through Christ " in the likeness of sinful
flesh." Without the flesh he could not accomplish man's
deliverance. His appearance, if that were possible, in the
"glory" of his heavenly state as a teacher of spiritual
truth, the exercise of moral influence to quicken the facul
ties of men, would not meet the conditions of the problem
as it presented itself to Paul. The penalty of sin must
first be paid before "the law of the Spirit of life" could
become operative. Death is that penalty, and it must be
paid, and can only be paid in the flesh. To save man from
death with its attendant "everlasting destruction," a sub
stitute, a representative of the race, must die "in the
flesh." Hence we must interpret "the likeness of sinful
flesh " not in the sense that Jesus had a flesh merely
similar to that of man yet without the natural impulses
which belong to the flesh in the Pauline sense of the word.
If he was " without sin," it does not follow that he was with
out sinful impulses, which indeed are implied in the synoptic

SALVATION— ATONEMENT 265
story of the temptation and in the Epistle to the Iiebrews.
Paul, it is true, nowhere represents him as undergoing a
struggle with temptation, neither does he imply that he
was conceived and born otherwise than after the natural
manner. "Born of the seed of David according to the
flesh" is his formula (Rom. i. 3). "He was made to be
sin for us" (2 Cor. v. 21) in the fact that he suffered the
penalty of sin, yet he was not made, and did not become,
according to Paul's thought, a sinner.
Now the purpose- for which God sent Jesus in the flesh
is declared to be the condemnation of sin, its condemnation
"in the flesh." This cannot on the one hand mean that
God through the sinless life of Jesus pronounced a con
demnation of sin, or exhibited sin in an eminent manner as
condemnable, or on the other that his condemnation of
sin was simply the ethical overcoming of it by Christ. Sin
was already condemned by the law so far as the announce
ment of its wrong and its penalty is concerned, and the
idea of overcoming is not conveyed in " condemnation "
(/caTdtcpi/jba) or in the verb (KaTa/cptveiv). Besides, it were
an awkward expression to say that God overcame sin in
the moral victory of Christ. The apostle's thought is that
God condemned sin in the flesh of Christ by executing
upon him in the flesh the judgment of condemnation
originally pronounced upon sin, that is, death. That this
death was substitutional, the act of one appointed to per
form it as the representative of mankind, is clear, not only
from the analogy of the apostle's thought, but also from
the connection of the' passage in question. The design of
this offering was "that the righteousness of the law might
be fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh, but after the
Spirit"— in us who could accomplish no righteousness by
obedience to the law, and could come into the liberty of
"the law of the Spirit of life" only after Christ by his

266 THE TEACHER
death had become " the end of the law " by satisfying its
demands.* That the death of Christ was regarded by Paul as repre
sentative is evident from 2 Cor. v. 14: "Because we thus
judge, that if one died for all then were all dead " (cor
rectly, "then all died"). Pfleiderer regards this passage,
rightly interpreted, as " the key to the Pauline doctrine of
salvation." Christ is so identified with the human race
that his real death is ideally the death of all. Accordingly,
"for" in the usage of Paul when he. is treating of the
relation of Christ's atonement to man does not mean "for
the benefit of," but denotes the representative character of
the transaction on the cross, "the head of every man" (1
Cor. xi. 3) performing an act in which all participate.
This conception of solidarity was familiar to the ancients,
and appears in Paul's doctrine of the relation of the first
* Holsten, whose posthumous work (Das Evangelium des Paulus,Theil. II.,
die paulinische Theologie) comes to the writer's hand as this book is going
through the press, admirably remarks (pp. 54, 55) : "Through the substitu
tional atoning death those who were destined to salvation were unburdened of
their sins and their punishment. . . . Here Paul's logical thought tran
scended the ideas of Peter and the Jewish Christians. Peter saw in the death
of the Messiah on the cross a death for our sins; but he did not go beyond the
negative notion of the forgiveness of past transgressions. For real, positive
righteousness he held fast the principle of the law, the actual fulfilling of its
commandments by those whose sins were forgiven. . . . His principle of salva
tion was the connection of faith and works (ttIotis ko.1 %pya). This was the
essence of his gospel ofthe circumcision; and because the gospel was bound
to the law, it could be preached only to the Jews, to whom the law was given.
But here appeared the illogicalness of Peter's thinking. If the believers
should acquire righteousness by keeping the law, and could they do this after
the death of the Messiah, then they might have done it before his death. In
that case, then, his death was superfluous (Gal. ii. 21). . . . Paul therefore
drew the conclusion : This death as a death for salvation is not only forgive
ness of sin, but also bestowal of righteousness [by the decree of God] without
man's acts of obedience to the law. . . . Thus the Jewish idea of righteousness
passes over into the Pauline conception of justification, justitia into justificatio,
although the word dittaioovvt] remains."

SALVATION— ATONEMENT 267
and the last Adam to mankind — the one standing at the
head of the order of sin and death, the other at the head
of the order of righteousness and life, so that, " as by one
man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by the
obedience of one [unto death] shall many be made
righteous " (Rom. v. 19). It is evident that by the ex
pression, "all died," Paul does not mean that all actually
died ; and it is certain also that he did not have in mind a
gradual moral conquest of evil. A process of ethical
growth in accordance with the natural order was not in his
thought. The process as it presented itself to him was
supernatural. Christ, the supernatural representative of
the race, "the man from heaven," died for all, and in his
death all men suddenly, supernaturally died in an ideal
sense. In dying he put off the flesh, the seat of sin,
destroyed "the body of sin," "died unto sin once" (Rom.
vi. 6, 10), to the law and all legal limitations (Rom. vii. 4),
to distinctions of race, and to the world (Gal. iii. 28, vi. 14).
The result of this substitutional death is the dying of
all men in similar relations, so that the apostle could
speak of them as " crucified with " Christ (Rom. vi. 6 ;
Gal. ii. 20).
The interpretation of this passage should not be con
fused by raising such a question as, " If Paul held that
Christ died representatively for all men, how could he then
say that all men died, since his death in their stead should
render theirs unnecessary ? " For Paul does not think of
men as dying the kind of death that Christ died. In
becoming a "curse" for them, he received in his flesh the
penalty of sin, which is death, broke the power of sin when
its sentence of condemnation was executed upon him, and
having satisfied the law abolished it. Men are thus
delivered from the law and from sin and from death the
consequence of sin or from the " perishing " which is the

268 THE TEACHER
deprivation of the resurrection and of the " life " of
the kingdom. This deliverance is their ideal dying in
the death of Christ. Their "old man is crucified with
him, that the body of sin might be destroyed," and having
thus died they are "freed from sin." Its penalty was
paid by Christ in his death, and by virtue of their partici
pation in it they are freed from sin (Rom. vi. 6-8).
While it is evident that according to the passage in
question man has nothing to do in the atonement, the
entire transaction being conducted by God and Christ, it
must not be interpreted in the sense that the advantage
accrues to all men unconditionally. In fact, all men did
not die with Christ. The benefits of his sacrifice accrue
only to those who believe on him. Upon all others
" sudden destruction " will come in " the day of the Lord "
(i Thess. v. 2, 3). In the same sense must the words be
understood : " Being now justified by his blood, we shall
be saved from wrath through him " (Rom. v. 9). The
atonement is devised of God, performed by Christ, and
offered to men. Those who actually " receive " it are the
" we " so often employed by the apostle to designate the
believers. These are "justified by his [Christ's] blood,"
and are saved from the wrath of God expressed in the
remorseless operation of the law. Those who do not
receive the proffered grace remain "enemies," are shut out
irom the fellowship of the life in Christ and in the Spirit
in their earthly existence, and are finally overtaken by that
death from which there is no resurrection (Rom. viii. 6).
The necessity of an atonement for the justification of
men or their salvation from the power of sin is un
equivocally expressed in the words: "Being justified
freely by his grace through the redemption that is in
Jesus Christ, whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation
through faith in his blood, to declare His righteousness for

SAL VA TION— A TONEMENT 269
the remission of sins that are past, through the forbear
ance of God" (Rom. iii. 24, 25).* Here we find the
premises of the apostle's doctrine of salvation, that right
eousness is through the "grace" of God, it being regarded
as unattainable in the natural order or under the law by
an endeavour to obey it. It is, then, a "free" gift of God
through Christ, both of whom furnish the atonement. It
is given not only simply through Christ, however, but
through the " redemption " or buying off or ransoming
that is in him. Him God " set forth in his blood " (for
this is the correct connection), that is, through his sacri
fice, to be a means of propitiation on the condition of faith.
The idea of a satisfying sacrifice is so evidently required
by the trend of the passage that it is surprising that any
one should have found another meaning in the word
rendered " propitiation " (IXao-T-qpiov). That " a means of
propitiation " or " a propitiatory sacrifice " is the true
sense of the term is now admitted by most authorities,
and Weiss remarks quite appropriately that " God can
accomplish His covenant purpose only when He either
punishes or atones the sin which stands opposed to it."
Accordingly, the apostle says that the object in view in
the atoning sacrifice of Christ was that God might declare
His righteousness on account of the " remission," that is,
the passing by unpunished, not the forgiveness, of former
sins committed by men. Paul conceives that God had
been formerly long-suffering, and that hence His justice
* The righteousness of God is not here conceived, as Ritschl will have it, as
" a proceeding consistently corresponding to the salvation of the believer,"
that is, as only " grace." But if it is benevolent, since it accepts an atonement,
it is also regarded as just in that it demands the satisfaction of the law, and
declares no one righteous until the penalty of his sins is paid. The acceptance
of a substitute may not correspond to our idea of justice, either in respect to
" past " or present sins, but we do not look at the matter from Paul's point of
view.

270 THE TEACHER
had not been adequately expressed. God was not in
accord with Himself, since there were "sins that were
past" which had neither been adequately punished nor
indeed forgiven for want of an atonement.*
But in the suffering of Christ, in his bearing of "the
curse of the law," God manifests His righteousness in
showing that He cannot altogether pass by and disregard
sin, but that He can be "just" in requiring an atonement
and merciful in being "the justifier of him who believeth
in Jesus." Thus according to 2 Cor. v. 21 : "He made
him to be sin who knew no sin, that we might be made
the righteousness of God in him." He does "not impute
their trespasses" to men (verse 19), because Christ as
their representative stands in their place, that is, in suffer
ing death, the penalty of sin, is treated as if he were sin
itself. There is an imputation of man's sin to Christ and
of Christ's righteousness to man. This Pauline idea of
ransom appears in most distinct expression outside his
writings in the New Testament. The writer of 1 Timothy
speaks of Christ as one who " gave himself a ransom for
* Holsten (ut supra, pp. 56, 57) denies that Paul conceived of Christ's
death as a sacrifice for sin. " The sacrifice," he says, " is always an act of man
for Go.d," while the apostle " regarded, and must have regarded, the death of
the Messiah as an act of God and of the Messiah." ..." It is ever only the
death of Christ, which as the death of one not sinning atones for the sin of the
sinning." His death is a " Odvaros IXaor-^pios for the sinner." ... If Paul
" apprehends it as an diroXirpoiois, the death of the Messiah is a ransom
which this one pays to the power of sin and the law, in order to satisfy their
claims upon sinful man and upon his death." Paul, however, conceived of the
Messiah as " the man from heaven," who in his death was a representative of
the human race. As an " act of God " his atonement was an expression of
God's love; as his own act, he "gave [sacrificed] himself for man" (Gal. ii. 20).
As an Ihaor-npiov (Rom. iii. 25) he may be regarded as an atoning sacrifice.
But this is not Ritschl's idea of sacrifice, which is devoid of all atoning quality.
On the " theory of sacrifice " the student may consult Holtzmann's Neutesl.
Theol. ii. pp. 102 ff.; and on Ritschl's doctrine, Pfleiderer, Die RitschVsche
Theologie, pp. 49 ff.

SAL VA TION— A TONEMENT 2 7 1
all" (ii. 6). The same term is employed in Matt. xx. 28
and Mark x. 45. In the latter passage we have "a ransom
in place of many" (XvTpov dvn troXXcov), and in Titus ii.
14, " He gave himself for us (vrrep fjfiiov) in order that
he might redeem us (XvTpcoarjTat). Menegoz thinks that
the two ideas, "for" (in behalf of) and "in the place of,"
were confounded in the thought of Paul. In the expres
sion of the idea of substitution it is worthy of note that
the victim is never represented either by Paul or the writer
of Isaiah liii. as the object of the divine wrath. Accord
ingly, it may be that the apostle chose with forethought to
say, not that Christ was accursed, but that he was " made a
curse," and not that he was made a sinner, but sin. In
accordance with his conception of the relation between God
and the Son he could not have spoken otherwise.
The ethical theory of the atonement, according to which
the work of Christ resulted in effecting in men a new spir
itual life, is not without support in the Epistles of Paul.
Its capital error is that it claims to be a complete and
sufficient explanation of the Pauline doctrine, whereas in
fact it is only one side of it. That Paul attached an ethical
significance to the death of Christ cannot be disputed.
But to him the ethical value of the atonement was entirely
dependent on the validity of the juridical principle. Both
aspects of it were inseparably connected in his thought with
the death of Christ. The transactions on Calvary and at
the sepulchre — the crucifixion and the resurrection — were
the two conditions without which he could have constructed
no soteriology. His doctrine of salvation is essentially
contained in the declaration that Christ " was delivered [to
death] for our offences [to expiate them], and was raised
again for our justification " (Rom. iv. 25). The two events
were inseparable in the apostle's thought as factors in the
atonement. He did not think of the resurrection as effect-

272 THE TEACHER
ing of itself man's justification. Rather according to the
analogy of his teaching this was due to the death of Christ.
But since justification is absolutely conditioned upon faith,
and faith upon the resurrection, the latter was consistently
emphasised as it is in this passage. The dependence of
the ethical aspect of the atonement upon the expiatory
principle is illustrated in the passage previously considered :
" If one died for all, then all died." The ideal death of men
to sin and the flesh is here made dependent upon the rep
resentative death of Christ. Only because in his sacrifice
deliverance is effected from the guilt of sin, and because
he became "the end of the law" which caused sin to
" abound," was it conceived possible that the new " law of
the spirit of life," the new ethical order, could be intro
duced. In the old order " sin reigned unto death," but in
the new order " grace reigns through righteousness [that
is imputed to the believers] unto eternal life by Jesus
Christ our Lord " (Rom. v. 21).
The new moral-spiritual life which the death of Christ
has made possible receives a mystical expression in the
earnest and pointed questions which the apostle addresses
to the Romans : " How shall we that are dead to sin live
any longer therein ? Know ye not that as many of us as
were baptized into Jesus were baptized into his death ? "
His conclusion is : " Therefore, we are buried with him by
baptism into death, that, like as Christ was raised up from
the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should
walk in newness of life" (Rom. vi. 2-4). It cannot escape
the attentive reader that the apostle here bases the ethical-
religious life of the believers upon the fundamental fact of
the death of Christ. It is because of its representative
character and their participation in it that they are " dead
to sin," or in other words, " in that he died, he died to sin
once " (Rom. vi. 10), and with him they, having ideally

SALVATION— ATONEMENT 2fl
died, are "justified [set free] from sin." * He through pay
ing the penalty of sin, which is death, becomes free from
it, having satisfied its claims. Participants in his death,
the Christians enter into his "glorious liberty," being "no
longer debtors to the flesh, to live after the flesh," that is,
to live in sin (Rom. viii. 12). Hence the incompatibility of
a life in sin with the believers' condition of death to sin
(Rom. vi. 2), and hence the practical moral force of the
doctrine of the atonement. A glorious and inspiring hope
also sprang from this doctrine — a hope the influence of
which upon the fortunes of the primitive church and of
Christendom can scarcely be estimated, although its origi
nal Pauline basis may have early disappeared. Christ's
sacrifice cancelled the claim of death, so that the apostle
declares that "death hath no more dominion over him"
(Rom. vi. 9).
In like manner, the believers, who had come into the fel-
* Pfleiderer's lucid exposition of this passage is here subjoined : " The formula,
rrj aaaprlg. diridavev idiaTra^, is misunderstood by most exegetes, because they
mistake the juristic way of regarding the matter which is, however, clearly
enough expressed in verse 7, and which everywhere forms the basis of the
Pauline doctrine of the atonement. The words mean neither that Christ mor
ally died to sin — that would presuppose that he had formerly Hved to it, and
thus that he did not know no sin (2 Cor. v. 21) — nor also that by his death
he stepped out of relation to the sin of men which surrounded and tormented
him — a trivial thought, with which the idea of the removal of the dominion of
sin over Christians that dominates the whole section would stand in no per
ceptible connection. But the sin is here, as in v. 21, and as immediately before
Bdvaros, death, represented as a sort of personal ruling power which on the
ground of the divine decree (nplp.a and Kardxpifia, v, 16, 18) exercises its do
minion in effecting death in mankind. Christ let sin have this its right in
dying for mankind the death which was a curse, and thus fulfilled once for all
[received in himself] the curse which sin works, and thereby at the same time
removed it. One may thus designate d/iaprla as a dative commodi and incom-
modi both at once. Exactly so according to Paul is the death of Christ related
to the law. While he paid it its tribute (Gal. iii. 13), he at the same time
wrung from it its right." — Paulinismus, 2te Auflage, p. 146.
T

274 THE TEACHER
lowship of Jesus' death, were free from the same dominion ;
though their outward man might perish, their inward man
was renewed from day to day, and when the trump of the
Parousia. should sound, they would be clothed upon with
bodies of glory, and enter into the kingdom prepared for
them from the foundation of the world : " For if we be
dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live with
him." There is liberty also from the bondage of the fruit
less endeavour to attain righteousness by fulfilling the law.
To all who believed, Christ was "the end of the law."
" The law has dominion over a man as long as he lives."
But " by the body of Christ [which died to the law] ye are
become dead to the law " (Rom. vii. i, 4). Now by means
of this mysterious union with Christ in his death the be
lievers enter upon a new order of life in which righteous
ness is accounted not of works, but of faith which is
"imputed for righteousness" (Rom. iv. 22). They "are
delivered from the law, that being dead wherein they were
held, that they should serve in the newness of the Spirit and
not in the oldness of the letter." In their new spiritual life
they are "married to another, even to him who was raised
from the dead that they should bring forth fruit unto God "
(Rom. vii. 4, 6). They have also been raised with him, and
their old man having been crucified with him they become
partakers of the glorious life of the Spirit in which he lives
in his celestial estate (Rom. vi. 6, 11). It is no merely
natural moral-religious development of which the apostle
speaks in the exalted strain of Romans vi. The supernatu
ral atonement is consummated in a supernatural religious
condition dominated by the divine Spirit, and the miracu
lous end will be nothing less than the coming of the king
dom with its catastrophe, its victory, and its disasters.
The reader will have observed that the apostle's doctrine
of salvation appears to be adapted only to the Jews accord-

SALVATION— ATONEMENT 27$
ing to its prominent features. Primarily it was to those
who were " under the law " that Christ through his death
became "the end of law." Yet Paul was preeminently the
apostle to the gentiles, and when God revealed His Son in
him, it was that he "might preach him among the heathen "
(Gal. i. 1 6). He does not explicitly state in what relation
he conceived the gentiles to stand to the expiatory death
of Christ, which redeemed " us," the Jews, "from the curse
of the law," he having been made a curse for "us." But
in the immediate connection (Gal. iii. 13, 14) he says that
this was done " that the blessing of Abraham might come
on the gentiles through Jesus Christ, that we [Jews and
gentiles] might receive the promise of the Spirit through
faith." He seems to have thought that the promise to
Abraham that in his seed should all nations be blessed
primarily concerned the Jews, and could not be realised
either for them or for the gentiles until, after the abolition
of the law and of the dispensation of works through the
death of Christ, the new order of righteousness by faith
should be established, or rather reestablished, for he re
garded it as actually grounded in Abraham whose faith
was accounted to him for righteousness. But the law had
intervened, "added because of transgressions," that is, to
call them forth (Rom. iii. 20), until "the seed [Christ]
should come," and it must be abrogated by the cross be
fore either Jews or gentiles could receive the promise of the
Spirit. Moreover, the gentiles, while not technically under
the Mosaic dispensation, were nevertheless conceived as
under law and responsible to its requirements "written in
their hearts" (Rom. ii. 12, 15).
If, then, the Jews with all the "advantage" (Rom. iii. 1)
that they had could not be saved by works, how much less
the gentiles, who had only the inward light and not the
"oracles of God." According to the premises of his doc-

276 THE TEACHER
trine of the person of' Christ Paul could not but include the
gentiles in the scheme of redemption. For to him Christ
was not simply the Jewish Mess'iah, " born of the seed of
David according to the flesh," but as the son of God was
also the representative head of the human race, and in his
death made atonement for "all" (2 Cor. v. 14, 15, 19).
Thus the offer of salvation was extended to as many
through the last Adam as the condemnation that came
through the first Adam had reached. It is difficult to de
termine, however, whether in the apostle's thought the
blessing would ultimately neutralise the curse. At the
beginning the advantage was on the side of sin and death
on account of the flesh with its passions and lusts, the
carnal mind, which is "not subject to the law of God,
neither indeed can be." The stream of natural tendency
sweeps with fatal force downward toward the abyss. On
the other hand the atonement effects no absolute restora
tion, is no unconditional counteracting of the fall. It is
effective only so far as it is voluntarily appropriated.
Those alone die with Christ to the flesh and sin who
choose to "receive" the atonement. In view of the meagre
results of the apostle's mission, and in particular of the
opposition and hostility of the Jews, there would appear to
be no very good prospect of an extended conquest of the
powers of " the world " before the time of the approaching
Parousia and judgment. Yet he is so optimistic as to
expect "the furness of the gentiles" "to come in," and "all
Israel" to be "saved" (Rom. xi. 25, 26) — a consummation
which calls forth from him an exclamation on " the depth
of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God,"
"of whom and through whom and to whom are all things."
This recognition of the love of God does not first appear
in the apostle's doctrine when he takes into consideration
the consummation of the work of Christ. As we have

SAL VA TION— A TONEMENT 277
already seen, the idea of the divine love underlies the entire
scheme of the atonement, which is, indeed, preeminently
the way in which " God commendeth His love toward us "
(Rom. v. 8). But the apostle dwells especially upon this
aspect of the divine nature when he comes to consider the
practical, ethical side of the work of God in Christ. The
conception of God as a being who on the one hand insists
inexorably on the exaction of the penalty of sin upon the
person of the sinner or upon a substitute, and on the other
is so abounding in love as to institute and carry out a plan
of atonement whereby men might be saved from His
"wrath," was not so difficult to the apostle from his Old
Testament and later Jewish point of view that he felt a
necessity of attempting a reconciliation. In any case, the
severity and hardness, the almost mechanical aspect of sal
vation, which appear in the strictly judicial side of the doc
trine of the atonement, drop out of sight when he dwells
upon the fellowship of the believer with Christ and the
blessed endowment of the Spirit. In this new relation,
which, however, we must not forget, is due to the awful
sacrifice on Calvary, by which the demands of the law were
satisfied, the believer is a "new creation" ; "old things are
passed away, and behold all things are new" ; "the fearful
looking for of judgment" is no more; no longer is the
doubtful contest waged between the law in the members
and the mind which would gladly serve the law of God ;
and out of the dread bondage to the flesh and the ever-
menacing law he has emerged into the liberty and peace
of assured sonship.
Accordingly, the apostle strikes the note of joy and
triumph in the eighth of Romans in marked contrast with
the despair, the lamentation, and the cry for deliverance in
the seventh : "There is therefore now no condemnation to
them who are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh,

278 THE TEACHER ¦
but after the Spirit. For the law of the Spirit of life in
Jesus Christ hath made me * free from the law of sin and
death." The fruitless struggle of the carnal man to keep
the law is no more ; but " the Spirit helpeth our infirmi
ties." In baptism the believer has died with Christ to the
flesh and sin, and been raised to "newness of life"; thus
"the body is dead because of sin," for it was on account of
sin that it must ideally die with Christ in the baptismal
rite, and in this blessed estate of moral-religious experience,
the indwelling "Spirit is life because of righteousness."
The apostle's recognition of the ethical aspect of the
atonement is apparent in the note of exhortation and ad
monition which he sounds, particularly in the sixth of
Romans. Having been mystically buried with Christ in
baptism into death, that is into death to sin through fellow
ship with Christ's death, who died to sin, the believer
should practically by his own choice and will live worthy of
his high calling, and as Christ was raised up from the dead,
so ought he also to " walk in newness of life." His mem
bers should not be yielded as instruments of unrighteous
ness, but of righteousness unto God. The background of
supematuralism remains in the atonement, in the mystic
dying with Christ, and in the operations of the Holy Spirit ;
but side by side with the interference of supersensible
powers for the Christian's salvation goes his own obligation
to have his "fruit unto holiness." His doctrine of death
as the penalty of sin and of the expiation of sin by the
death of an innocent substitute under the conception of the
solidarity of the race Paul derived from the theology of
his people. His rigorous application of these doctrines to
the office of Christ in relation to men constitutes the
juridical side of his teaching of the atonement.
But the idea of a renewal of the life by a mystic union
* "Thee " («) according to K BFG.

SALVATION— ATONEMENT 279
with Christ and of the operation of the Spirit in the pro
duction of the common Christian virtues was original with
the apostle, and reveals the penetration of his spiritual
insight and the force of his religious genius. His total
conception of man and his relation to God was not, how
ever, destined to prevail in subsequent ages, which could
-accept it only with radical modifications and exceptions.
With an anthropology which does not regard death as the
penalty of sin his doctrine of the death of Christ as an
atonement for the sins of the world is irreconcilable. An
ethics which interprets human conduct by the spirit rather
than by the letter, and regards the good purpose and in
tention as virtues, though they often fail of a complete
obedience, cannot approve his teaching regarding the in-
efficacy of works. To a philosophy which does not regard
sin as an offence entailing eternal death, but as an incident
in the course of human evolution, which draws after it
consequences that are disciplinary and educational to the
individual and the race, and that have no further signifi
cance or issue, his whole doctrine of a closed and arbitrary
penalty must be unacceptable. With that doctrine must
fall the theory of an atonement which intervenes to arrest
the course of natural development. An age which does
not look for the immediate coming of the kingdom of God
with catastrophes and disasters of judgment cannot regard
salvation as a deliverance from an impending definite peril,
which is to be sought with such stress and urgency and
with such indifference to temporal relations as he enjoined.
Finally, his doctrine of a mystic fellowship of the Christian
with Christ must undergo radical modifications with respect
to its supematuralism in an age in which the spiritual life of
man is not regarded as an exception to the universal sway
of natural law.

CHAPTER XII
THE PERSON OF CHRIST*
THE last and most important task of the higher criti
cism of the New Testament is to determine the
historical setting of the doctrines of its several books.
As a procedure which follows the historical method it
cannot regard these doctrines as isolated phenomena, and
treat them as if they had no connection with antecedent
beliefs and modes of thought. Moreover, it is forbidden
by its fundamental presuppositions to attempt to explain
them as independent supernatural creations rather than as
the products of the thinking of men, which as such must be
conceived as related to the antecedents and environments
of their authors. This method is especially necessary
to the successful study of the Pauline Christology, since in
none of his writings has the apostle made a distinctive
statement of doctrine on the subject, and his opinions as
to the person of Christ must be gathered from incidental
words and phrases belonging to the discussion of subjects
which appear to have interested him more than the topic
in question. While these scattered intimations of belief
respecting the person of Christ must be subjected to a
careful exegesis and studied in their connection, a know
ledge of the Messianic ideas which prevailed shortly before
and at the time of the apostle is indispensable to their
interpretation. For while the Pauline Christology is a
transformation of both the Jewish and the Jewish-Christian
Messianism, it is not without some features of each.
* The New World, June, 1894. (With revision and additions.)
280

THE PERSON OF CHRIST 28 1
While Paul undoubtedly entertained the Messianic hopes
of his nation, Tesus was to him the Messiah in a peculiar
and original sense. He does not explicitly define what he
saw in the vision in which Christ was revealed to him, or
rather "in" him, but in his reference to it he employs a
term which is frequently used in the New Testament to
express the appearance of things of the supersensible
world and the occurrence of spiritual manifestations (&c\>Qt),
1 Cor. xv. 8). The "visions and revelations of the Lord"
(2 Cor. xii. 1), which were probably not infrequent experi
ences of his, and in which he had a consciousness*of being
in the "third heave*" and hearing "unspeakable words,"
were doubtless of this sort. As a consequence of these
spiritual intuitions it appears that his conception of the
Messiahship was entirely changed. For he says that if
prior to the true manifestation of the Christ to him he had
known and accepted a fleshly Messiah, a " Christ after the
flesh," yet thereafter he "knew him so no more " (2 Cor.
v. 16). This "Christ according to the flesh" was of the
Israelites, his "kinsmen," to whom belonged "the cove
nants and the giving of the law " (Rom. ix. 4), the descend
ant of David, "born of a woman," "born under the law"
(Gal. iv. 4), in whom the national Messianic hopes were
realised so far as his appearance at least was concerned.
But as a believer, as a convert to the new spiritual Mes
sianic faith, the apostle declares that he is " a new creature,"
and that he henceforth knows Christ no longer in the old
way, for " the old things are passed away." Now he knows
him only as freed from the flesh through his death and
resurrection ahUTexisting in a heavenly stale, " the image
of GqaVabeing of "light" and "glory." Accordingly,
the Christ of the flesh, the human Jesus, has no important
place or function in the Christology of the apostle. If he
was acquainted with the tradition of the life and teachings

282 THE TEACHER
of Jesus he makes little use of this knowledge except in an
occasional reference to an aphorism. He founds few im
portant doctrines upon the words of the Master, and never
appeals to the Gospel-miracles to support the claims of
Christ to dignity or authority. The personality as well as
the name of the Son of Man disappears from a teaching
which shows no contact with the freshness and spontaneity
of the primitive tradition ; and the kingdom of heaven,
in the sense in which it was the burden of the original
message, sinks into insignificance, or is lost from view in
the absotbing interest in a metaphysical doctrine of the
Christ. The Messiah of the early apostolic faith, who was
a lowly teacher, and was expected to come again in human
form as the Son of Man to sit on the throne of judgment
upon all nations, and to place his apostles on twelve
thrones to judge the twelve tribes of Israel, is transformed
in the Pauline thought into the divine Lord of glory, whose
saving mission is to all people, and who will come at length
as a spiritual personality to gather in one fellowship his
dead resurrected and the living believers with bodies " con
formed to his body of glory."
Accepting the current Jewish belief of his time in the
inspiration and authority of the Old Testament Scriptures
Paul regardecL Jesus as the expected Messiah foretold by
the prophets. He speaks of himself as " separated unto the
gospel of God, which He promised afore by His prophets in
the Holy Scriptures " (Rom. i. 2), and as to the ministry
of Jesus he declares that through it "a righteousness of
God hath been manifested, being witnessed by the law and
the prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith
in Jesus Christ" (Rom. iii. 21). In the two events of the
career of the Master which were to him of fundamental
importance, he sees the fulfilment of foreshadowings in
the ancient sacred writings. " For I delivered unto you,"

THE PERSON OF CHRIST 283
he writes to the Corinthians, " first of all that which also I
received, how that Christ died for our sins according to the
Scriptures ; and that he was buried ; and that he hath been
raised on the third day according to the Scriptures " (1 Cor.
xv. 3, 4). He does not, indeed, inform his readers where the
prophetic passages in question are to be found ; but it is prob
able that in his oral instructions he had pointed them out,
and expounded them in accordance with the prevailing rab
binical method of interpreting the Old Testament which he
did not hesitate to employ upon occasion (1 Cor. x. 1 1 ; Gal.
iii. 16, iv. 24). It is evident, however, that Paul's accept
ance of the traditional Messianism was merely external
and formal. In the^iational Messiah as such he had no
interest and no faith. It is not this personality whom
he finds in the Scriptures ; it is rather " the gospel of
God," "the righteousness of God," and the crucified and
risen Lord. The functions of the Messiah in whom he as
a Christian believed were not, with reference to righteous
ness and the final consummation, those of the Messiah of
the popular faith. In the Jewish theology it was laid down
that the Messiah would come when righteousness should
prevail among the people (Weber, System, p. 333);
but according to Paul the Christ came for the purpose
of bringing them into_this~~condition.
TKaFEin applying to Christ the appellation " Son of God "
Paul attached to him a unique and exceptional dignity
there can be no doubt. The frequent and emphatic use of
this term by Paul marks a distinction between his writ
ings and the synoptic Gospels. According to these latter
records, Jesus' constant self-designation is the " Son of
Man " ; he teaches that other men may become sons of
God by fulfilling certain conditions, such as being peace
makers, tells the disciples that 'God is their Father, and
instructs them to pray to Him as such. The universal

284 THE TEACHER
fatherhood of God is implied in such parables as that of
the prodigal son (Luke xv. 11 f.) and that of the two sons
(Matt. xxi. 28 f.) and in the passages Matt. v. 45 and Luke
vi. 30. When in these Gospels Jesus is represented as
calling, himself the Son in a preeminent sense, he appears
to express a relation different only in degree from that
which other men hold or may hold to the Father— a son-
ship attained through lovrng__obedience arid spiritual
communion with God. Accordingly, he could speak of
possessing a knowledge of God surpassing that of all
others (Matt. xi. 27). In the first Gospel he is reported to
have accepted the title Son of God, as a Messianic desig
nation from the lips of Peter ; but M the second Gospel,
which probably more correctly represents the original tra
dition, the appellation is omitted (Matt. xvi. 16; Mark viii.
29). But nowhere in these Gospels is there an indication
that he intended by the term " Son " to express his participa
tion in the divine nature or a metaphysical relation to God.
It is evident, however, that to Paul the Son of God " re
vealed in" him at his conversion represented a conception
of Christ unknown to the primitive tradition and to the
original apostles (Gal. i. 15, 16). He had not recognised
the Jesus "according to the flesh" as the Messiah, but
had vehemently and bitterly opposed him by persecuting
his followers to the death. But as soon as he had seen
in this vision the Christ according to the Spirit, the true
Messiah, the divine Son of God, he was furnished with
an ample revelation, so that he felt no need to "confer
with flesh and blood" or to turn his steps toward Jeru
salem. He had seen not the marred and lowly form of
the Son of Man, but the majestic " Lord of glory," and
from this vision dates a new apprehension of Christ and
a new epoch in the history of Christianity.
Through this apprehension of his person the cause of

THE PERSON OF CHRIST 285
Jesus received a direction and development which it could
never have had within the limits of the interpretation given
to it by the original apostles. A mere Jewish teacher and
Messiah could never have been accepted as the spiritual
head_of mankind, The world is now coming, indeed, to
see that this man who delivered great moral and religious
truths in aphorisms, preached the brotherhood of man and
the kingdom of God, and went about doing good was the
greatest spiritual and ethical teacher of mankind. But
Christianity could not have begun to become a world-
religion in the first century, and could not have held sway
over the minds of men since, without a conception of the
person of Christ in which he was something more than a
Jewish teacher who had been ignominiously put to death,
and was expected presently to come again to establish the
national kingdom of God. There was needed an idea of
his mission which extended it to mankind, and a theory of
his nature which invested it with mystical and metaphysi
cal qualities and relations. Paul's conception of Christol
ogy, based not upon historical facts, but upon speculation,
furnished the impulse which was necessary to carry Chris
tianity forward upon its mission of the conquest of the
world. Its dualism answered a twofold purpose. On the
one hand it was a concession to Tewish Messjanism in its
doctrine that Jesus was " according_to the flesh born of
the seed of David," and on the other it responded to the
speculative interest in its metaphysical idea that Christ in
his higher and most essential nature was the divine Son of
God. In this latter phase of his thought respecting the
Messiah he was in contact with the speculations of the
Jewish theology. Christ was exalted above all other cre
ated beings, men and angels. To men was indeed granted
adoption as sons of God (vloQeaia, Rom. viii. 15 J, but Christ
wal by naturVGod's own (t'Sto?) Son.

286 THE TEACHER
To Paul the person of Christ was central and vital in
his apprehension of Christianity. All that the new religion
signified to him of relief from the oppression and burden
of sin and the law and of hope for his own regeneration
and that of mankind was contained in his thought of the
exalted Lord of glory. As he put into his conception of
the Son of God a significance which is not contained in
the synoptic tradition, but which prepared the way for the
metaphysical idea of the Logos of the fourth Gospel, so
the death of Christ assumed to him an importance, and
contained consequences, wholly foreign to the minds of the
primitive disciples. They had regarded this event as the
signal of the overthrow of their Messianic hopes and of
their faith in Jesus as the one who " should restore the
kingdom to Israel." But to Paul as the act of a supernat
ural, metaphysical being, it had consequences far surpass
ing the extinction of a life or the disappointing of Messianic
expectations. Its results were conceived as magical or
miraculous. The existing spiritual order was shaken, and
" old things " gave way to the new economy of which the
cross was the symbol. With the death of Jesus mighty
powers of the former age became extinct. When he_bowed
his headjipon Calvary the Christ "according to the flesh,"
the national. Jewish Messiah, died never to live again, and
the age of the spiritual Messiah was ushered in. In dying
he died to Judaism, abdicated the Messiahship of a people,
and assumed the sceptre of the universal Messiahship of
mankind. By a spiritual magic which eludes accurate
definition he put away the law not alone for Jews, but for
all men, effected their deliverance from sin, and by "one
act of righteousness" secured to them the free gift " to
justification of life." An offering for sin he condemned it
in the "flesh," and died unto it "once for all." The fet
ters of man's bondage were broken by the abolition of the

THE PERSON OF CHRIST 287
law of sin and death, and the law of the spirit of life as
sumed its beneficent sway. To the great apostle Calvary
signified the subjugation of a spiritual world-order of
powers inimical to man by the higher powers of a new
dispensation of grace.
That the being who was able to accomplish by his mis
sion this vast cosmic-spiritual transformation was not
conceived to be an ordinary human personality in his
essential nature goes without saying. It is a degradation
of the apostle's mystic and metaphysical thought by the
worst kind of rationalism to interpret his words so as to
make them teach that one whose work and sacrifice were
followed by such immense consequences affecting the
economy of salvation, the purposes of God, and the entire
human race, could have been regarded by him in whose
mind the scheme took form as "a mere man." No one of
the apostle's Ch Histological conceptions has a more definite
and precise expression than this, that Christ was essen
tially Spirit (trvevp,a). The declaration that "the Lord is
the Spirit " is entirely unambiguous. In his thought the
total order of human life as related to the economy of
redemption includes the celestial and nether spheres of
existence, It is the destiny of the lower order to be
uplifted and transformed through connection with the
higher. Accordingly, the first man Adam (the first to
appear on the stage of existence) became a living soul,
the last Adam, a life-giving Spirit (1 Cor. xv. 45). First in
order of appearance is that which is natural or psychical
(yjrvxtKov), then that which is spiritual (Trvev fiaTt/cov).
Though this is the order of temporal development, it
by no means follows that the spiritual personality sprang
out of the conditions of time and sense. On the contrary,
Paul declares explicitly that the second man is from
heaven (1 Cor. xv. 47). In his spiritual, heavenly exist-

288 THE TEACHER
ence Christ was conceived by Paul as a being possessing a
formoJ_J^glory," in accordance with the idea that spirit is
essentially a luminous substance.
There is no real contradiction between the two state
ments, that Christ was "the image of God" (i Cor. iv. 4)
and "in the form of God" (Phil. ii. 6), and that in the
resurrection the bodies of believers would be "conformed
to his body of glory" (Phil. iii. 21). For while Paul
thought him to be godlike, since he was essentially
Spirit, he appears to have conceived of him in no other
way than "in fashion as a man," whether in his heavenly
or earthly existence. As "the light of the knowledge of
the glory of God" was reflected "in the face of Jesus
Christ," so this luminous spiritual effulgence is again
reflected in the gospel which is " the gospel of the glory
of Christ." That the divinity of Christ is not implied by
Paul in designating him "the image of God" is evident
from 1 Cor. xi. 7, where he says of man that he is "the
image and glory of God." In this connection is a passage
which shows how he combined in his thought the divine
sonship and the perfect humanity of Christ, his relation
both to. God and man : " But I would have you know that
the head of every man is Christ ; and the head of the
woman is the man, and the head of Christ is God " (verses
3,4). Here the "head" (icecpaXi)) of each class represents
that one of whom the subordinate is the reflected ray or
"glory " (Soga). Accordingly, the woman is said to be the
glory of the man, while the man is subordinate to Christ,
his head, who in turn is subordinate to God whose glory
he reflects. Thus is assigned to Christ a mediate position
between God and man. Dependent upon God on the one
hand, he is on the other the head of mankind. As to
other men, they are "the image and glory of God," because
in the order of creation Christ is their head, so that

THE PERSON OF CHRIST 289
mediately through him their head is God, as the woman's
head is Christ in and through the man. Conceived as to
his essential nature Christ is Spirit, but relatively to man
and the economy of salvation he is the " life-giving Spirit "
which working in mankind is destined to destroy death
and sin and to quicken the mortal flesh of believers, so
that they shaiTbef" conformed to his body of glory."
The fact, however, that in the thought of Paul Christ
was "the Son of God" by preeminence, "the image of
God," "the Spirit," a being of whom God was the head,
as he himself is the head of every man, is not incompatible
with his teaching, that in his nature Christ was essentially
and only a man, a man in the sense that does not admit of
the idea that he possessed divine attributes and was of the
divine essence. In writing of the two dispensations, that
of sin and death, and that of righteousness and life, the
apostle declares that "if by the trespass of the one
[Adam], the many died, much more did the grace of God
and the gift by the grace of the one man Jesus Christ
abound unto the many" (Rom. v. 15). Death was not to
have the victory, for " since by man came death, by man
came also the resurrection of the dead" (1 Cor. xv. 21).
If " the first man is of the earth, earthy, the second man is
from heaven." These words admit of no other meaning
than that Christ was by nature man, as Adam was, onlyin
a higher sense,"'"a"fnan whose spiritual, transforming power
should counteract the deadly and woful influence of the
earthy progenitor of the race. The Spirit which he was
to Paul's thought (2 Cor. iii. 17) was the earnest of the
victory that he was to gain. It was placed at the head of
the genus, but did not signify a superhuman nature. The
higher heavenly principle in him was a perfect humanity.
In him human nature had its glorified, archetypal form.
Over against the _ earthy, psychical- man, Adam, who

290 THE TEACHER
represented the human race .subjected to death through
sin, Christ was. conceived as the spiritual, heavenly man,
"the man from heaven," the head and representative of
this face transformed, so far as it should come into touch
with him, by the powers of life into a condition of sinless
ness. For it was essential and fundamental in Paul's
conception of Christ that he was without sin (pr) yvow
dpapTiav, 2 Cor. v. 21). He had, indeed, a bodily nature
like all other men, but as the ideal man he was superior to
them in that his flesh was not touched with the contami
nation of sin. The expression employed by Paul for this
idea, "the likeness of sinful flesh" (6fio(co/j,a crapicos
a/iapTtot?, Rom. viii. 3), has received contradictory inter
pretations, and some have thought that he was inconsist
ent with himself in employing these words and asserting,
despite them, that Christ knew no sin. But the use of the
word "likeness" may be regarded as intended to guard
against this inconsistency. Christ came, indeed, in the
flesh, and was " born of the seed of David," so that in his
natural descent he was, like all other men, subject to the
" sarkical " conditions to which in the usual order of nature
sin attaches. Yet while the term "likeness" does not
carry with it the notion that he had not a real body of
flesh and blood, it excludes the implication that in his flesh
evil tendencies had their accustomed sway. The humanity
in which he appeared was only the likeness of sinful flesh,
not that of sinful flesh itself. His body was formed after
the likeness of that flesh to which sin ordinarily belongs in
human nature.*
* "Christ is thought of as indeed fighting the battle [with evil], but as con
tinually victorious by reason of the inborn ' Spirit of holiness.' . . . This entire
construction of the personality of Christ is accordingly sketched from the point
of view ofthe putting an end to death in the resurrection. A termination of
[earthly] destiny so far surpassing all that is ordinarily human can be
grounded only in a nature of the subject of that destiny which likewise sur-

THE PERSON OF CHRIST 29 1
The declaration that Christ appeared on the earth in
"the likeness of sinful flesh" may be regarded as express
ing the doctrine of his entire humanity. For Paul does
not use the term "flesh" of the bodily nature only, but of
" the whole man, body and soul, reason, and all his faculties
included, because all that is in him longs and strives after
the flesh." If, then, he was in the likeness of sinful flesh,
and yet did not know sin, it was because, by the power of
the .Spirit, the principle of_ his ideal, heavenly humanity,
he either had no imful desires, or, having them, was
superior to their influence. Which of these two alterna
tives lay in the mind of the apostle it may be impossible
to determine, but it is favourable to the former that he
nowhere represents Christ as subject to a struggle with
evil propensities and engaged in a conflict with sin. But
it is difficult to reconcile this view of the matter with
Paul's doctrine of the effect of the sin of the first Adam
upon his posterity. For he certainly believed that in and
through this primal transgression sin and death became
powers in human nature from whose sway no man was
exempt. " Death passed unto all men in that all sinned "
(Rom. v. 12). All became mortal through Adam's sin,
because Adam's having sinned was, so far as this conse
quence is concerned, a sinning of all, for "by the trespass
of the one, the many died." Hence the idea of a man
having a nature in "the likeness of sinful flesh" and yet
knowing no sin appears to tend to the Docetic conception
of Christ, that is, that his body was not a real one of flesh
passed all that is ordinarily human. Thereby was the personality of the
Founder of Christianity first removed from the ranks of mankind, to which it
belonged in a measure only half-way, 'according to the flesh,' in order to sur
pass humanity the more decidedly on the side of God, i.e., according to that
which Christ had from God — -a first step, indeed, toward the Church doctrine
of the twofold nature, but differently construed from this." — Holtzmann,
Neutest. Theol., ii. p. 74.

292 THE TEACHER
and blood — a doctrine which has been maintained by
some high authorities as that of the apostle. Yet that
this cannot have been Paul's idea is evident from his
teaching that Christ's descent was in the natural order, he
being "of the seed of David according to the flesh"
(Rom. i. 3). Moreover, since there is nowhere in Paul's
writings the slightest intimation that he believed in the
supernatural generation of Jesus according to the story in
the first and third Gospels, recourse cannot be had to this
doctrine in order to explain his idea that Christ was only
in "the likeness of sinful flesh" and without a knowledge
of sin. This difficulty in the Pauline Christology is
similar to that which attaches to the teaching of the
Jewish theology, from which its origin may perhaps be
traced, that though all men have by nature the impulse to
sin, some individuals, the patriarchs in particular, remained
sinless. These, however, were not regarded as without
tendencies to sin, and their sinlessness was conceived as
the result of overcoming them (see Weber, System, p. 224).
Perhaps Rom. viii. 3 and 2 Cor. v. 21 may fairly be inter
preted according to the analogy of this Jewish doctrine.*
Although "born of the seed of David according to the
flesh," this "last Adam," this " man from heaven," was
not conceived by Paul to have begun his existence when he
began his earthly life. This notion of the ideal, heavenly
* " Before Paul there arose for his Messianic idea two contradictory require
ments: 1. The Messiah must have been a being without a <rSp.a oapKOs in
order to have been without sin; 2. The Messiah must have been a being
with a aa/ia oaptcbs in order to have been able to die [as an atonement for
men]. Paul satisfied both, [these requirements] by apprehending the two
required conditions as following each other in time. The Messiah was origi
nally a heavenly being, and as such a Sivap.is (an ivffpwiros) liaapKoi, and he
becomes in the fulness of time an earthly being and an &v8ponros eveapnos
through his appearance as the heavenly man xPMT°s> who, according to
Gen. i. 26, was created in the image of God, in order to die the death of the
Messiah." — Holsten, Die paulin. Theol., p. 100.

THE PERSON OF CHRIST 293
humanity of Christ which was fundamental in the apostle's
Christology, bears so great a similarity to certain specula
tions of the Jewish theology that its origin in them is
highly probable. This theology "found taught in the first
and second chapters of Genesis a twofold creation of man,
that of the heavenly, spiritual, and archetypal man, and
that of the earthly, sensuous, and antitypal man." " In
part at least it saw in that first-created, heavenly man the
Messiah, who was concealed with God prior to his earthly
appearance." "Since Paul the theologian," remarks Pflei
derer, from whom the two preceding quotations are taken,
" was acquainted with these doctrines of his school, it were
strange if he should have constructed his so essentially
similar Christology without any reference to those Jewish
theologumena by mere reflection upon his own pious experi
ences " (Der Paulinismus, 2te Aufl., p. 1 19). The preexist-
ence of Christ, together with his participation in the Old
Testament economy, is unequivocally expressed in the dec
laration that in the desert the Israelites " drank of the spir
itual rock that followed them; and the rock was Christ"
(1 Cor. x. 4). As the manna was not a natural product,
but a "spiritual food," so the miraculous rock which fur
nished water to the thirsty Israelites was no ordinary, nat
ural rock, but a ireTpa irvevfiaTiKfj, real, but of heavenly
origin, because it was the actual self-revelation and appear
ance of the invisible Son of God.
This idea is related to that of Philo, who regarded the rock
as Wisdom (aocpia), just as the manna was to him the Logos.
The notion of prefiguration and type is neither expressed
nor intimated by the apostle in the passage, but the people
are said to have been supplied with a "spiritual drink"
which was furnished them by Christ in the "phenomenal
form " of the rock. Again, Christ is. represented as having
entered into human existence by. an act of his own choice,

294 THE TEACHER
by which he gave up the riches of his glorious, preexistent
state, and becamejoor in order that hel ieyers_might
through his poverty become rich (2 Cor. viii. 9). Likewise
it is declared that Christ, though being in the form of God
in his heavenly estate, "emptied himself, taking the form
of a servant," and "was made in the likeness of men." As
Spirit, as the heavenly man, he lived in godlikeness, but
in order to accomplish his work for men he assumed their
lowly condition, and became "obedient unto death" (Phil.
ii. 6-8). Preexistence is plainly expressed in the words :
"God sent His Son in the likeness of sinful flesh," and
"when the fulness of the time came God sent forth His
Son, born of a woman " (Rom. viii. 3 ; Gal. iv. 4). The
mention of his sending forth in connection with emphatic
reference to his coming in the flesh and his birth under
human conditions evidently implies a passing from one
state of existence to another. These specifications as to
the mode 6T"earthly existence and the entrance upon it
would be altogether unnatural, except of one to whose prior
condition they did not belong. " Such language is appli
cable only to a spiritual being passing into the conditions
of incarnate life."
It is a debatable question whether Paul believed that
Christ in his preexistent state participated in the creation.
The meaning of the passage in 1 Cor. viii. 6 is not entirely
clear : " Yet to us there is one God, the Father, of whom
are all things, and we unto Him ; and one Lord Jesus
Christ, through whom are all things, and we through him."
Without doubt the Jewish monotheism, the doctrine of the
absolute supremacy of God as the first cause, is here main
tained intact in the words ef ov Ta irdvTa, " of whom are all
things." Only with reference to the interpretation of 8£
011 rd trdvTa, " through whom are all things," is there any
uncertainty. Yet there can be no good reason for regard-

THE PERSON OF CHRIST 295
ing the rd travTa of the second clause as either including
less than the same words in the former clause, or as refer
ring to something different as being "through" Christ
from that which in the first instance is declared to be "of"
God as primary cause. " All things '' are said to be of
God as the original ground of existence, and " we to Him "
as the one whose purposes the Christians were intended to
serve as the ethical end of their being. It is the Lord
Christ, however, through whom all things *are7" and live
through himTTcT wKoriTour spiritual new creation as believ
ers is due. A clear distinction is thus drawn between " all
things" as the totality of, creation and the Christians as
the special discriminated from the general. It is extremely
arbitrary to assume, as Kostlin does, that Si' ov in the sec
ond clause is so "indefinite" that any other verb than the
eyevero, which is clearly to be understood in the first clause,
may be substituted in the second, so that we may suppose
"live," "are governed," or "are sustained," to be in
tended. While Rom. xi. 36 lends some support to this
interpretation, since oY ov is there employed of the sustain
ing and governing activity of God between the origin and
the consummation of the world, the relation of the two
clauses in the passage in question renders it most natural
at least if not necessary to supply in the second the verb
which is implied in the first. Thus Christ is regarded as
the mediate cause oL the_ creation, which was immedi
ately effected by the "one God " as its primary ground and
source. The fact that Paul regarded Christ as himself a
created being ("the last Adam became [was created] a life-
giving Spirit," 1 Cor. xv. 45) cannot be urged against this
interpretation For, as Pfleiderer has pointed out, the
thought of the Jewish theologians did not exclude the con
ception that a creature of God might be the secondary
cause or agent of the creation, as is apparent in the case of
Wisdom in Prov. viii. 22 f.

296 THE TEACHER
It is interesting to note in this connection that Philo
regarded the Logos as the organ of creation (opyavov 81 ov
icaTaaicevdaOri [6 icoo-p.o<;]), although Paul's relation to Philo's
thought is not determinable. It was, however, as the Son
of God, " the man from heaven," who shared the divine
"glory" as "the image of God," and not as the divine
Logos of the Johannine speculation, that Paul thought of
Christ in reference to his participation in the creation.
Accordingly, he does not employ the specific terms of the
fourth Gospel in which it is said that the Logos " was God,"
and that "the world was made by him." The Pauline doc
trine of the person of Christ represents an early stage of
the development of New Testament Christology which
reaches its culmination in the conception of the Logos.
Pfleiderer has suggestively conjectured that although it
cannot be determined whether the Jewish theology of the
time of Paul ascribed to the Messiah a participation in the
work of creation, " it is not unthinkable that a combination
of the sayings concerning the divine Wisdom and the pre
existent Messiah may have taken place in the circles of the
Jewish school before the time of Paul ; whereby the doc
trine of the apostle as to the mediate activity of Christ in
the creation would be the more explicable."
The question whether Paul attributed a divine nature to
Christ is regarded by some commentators as settled in the
affirmative by Rom. ix. 5 : " And of whom is Christ as
concerning the flesh, who is over all, God blessed forever"
(Revised Version), or, " From whom as to the flesh was
Christ: He who is over all, God, be blessed forever!"
(Noyes). The words 6 &v iirl irdvTcov dew euXoyrjTo'i are
capable of either rendering, so far as construction is con
cerned, and their interpretation depends upon the placing
of a full stop or a comma at the end of the first clause.
If, with Tischendorf, the full stop be employed, the words

THE PERSON OF CHRIST 297
in question are an ascription of praise to God, or a doxol-
ogy, of which other examples are found in Paul's Epistles
(Rom. i. 25 ; 2 Cor. xi. 31). It must be regarded as a
strong presumption against the former interpretation that
Paul everywhere maintains the Jewish monotheism in its
strictest sense. The absolute alonenessjDfjGod is a funda
mental principlein his theologyE As to Christ's relation
to God, he implies and affirms so constantly the doctrine of
the Son's subordination that it may be said to be the under
lying presumption of his Christology ; and since nowhere
else in all his indisputable Epistles has he written anything
that can be construed into an ascription of a divine nature
to him, it is only by a violent interpretation that these
words can be so understood.
The argument presented by Dr. Stevens (The Pauline
Theology,^. 202) that as applied to Christ the words form
a natural antithesis to to tcaTa crdpica, is of weight only if it
can be shown that an antithesis can be regarded as required
or even expected in this connection. The same scholar's
appeal to Colossians for the ascription to Christ of "lofty
attributes and prerogatives of creation and sovereignty over
the world," cannot be admitted in view of the doubtful gen
uineness of this Epistle. The fact, indeed, that the deu-
tero-Pauline writings contain a more developed Christology
than that of the undisputed Epistles of Paul is one of the
reasons for discrediting them. The passage in the Epistle
to Titus (ii. 13) cannot fairly be brought into the argument
in the present state of the criticism of the Pauline writings.
The interpretation based upon the insertion of a full pause
corresponds with the general tendency of the New Testa
ment writers to draw a delicate line of distinction between
the absolute God and Christ. This is true even of those,
who represent the most developed Christology, and assign
to the Son a far higher rank than he has in the Pauline

298 THE TEACHER
thought. Moreover, it is in the highest degree improbable
that Paul, who calls Christ " the second man, the Lord from
heaven," "the last Adam," and "the man Christ Jesus,"
could have intended to designate him as " God blessed for
ever." Baur's words are worthy of consideration in this
connection, that "The passage rightly apprehended proves
exactly the opposite of that which is generally found in it
— how much it lay outside the apostle's circle of ideas to
put Christ on an equality with God, and to call him God "
(Paulus, 2te Aufl. ii. p. 264).*
Another view of this subject deserving of notice is based
upon the apostle's use of the term "God," which among the
ancients was not always employed as rigidly as it is by us.
Assuming on the ground of Paul's usage a certain flexibility
of the designation in this passage, the interpretation which
does not admit the full stop, and assigns the disputed
words to Christ, might be allowed. In 1 Cor. viii. 5, the
apostle concedes that the heathen are not irrational in
assuming the existence of their divinities, since " there are
gods many and lords many." These gods and lords are,
indeed, subordinated to the Supreme Deity, and regarded
doubtless as created beings, but they are recognised as
superhuman powers, as in Deut x. 17 it is declared, "The
Lord your God is God of gods and Lord of lords." An
employment of the term which denotes a marked departure
from strict usage is found in 2 Cor. iv. 4, where Paul calls
Satan "the god of this world" (alcovos). The two terms,
god and lord, are probably essentially synonymous in these
passages, and designate beings holding a position of do
minion and power which may be regarded as godlike. If,
* An exhaustive exegetical discussion of the passage in question may be
found in the Journal of the Society for Biblical Literature and Exegesis for
1881. It is from the pens of Dr. Ezra Abbot and Dr. Timothy Dwight. Dr.
Abbot's paper has been reprinted in his Critical Essays.

THE PERSON OF CHRIST 299
now, even in the Johannine theology the Logos was called
god without a conscious impairment in the writer's mind
of the traditional monotheism, it is not impossible that
Paul, who assigned to Christ a rank as "the man from
heaven" and "the image of God" in a preeminent sense,
may have designated him as god without intending to
place him on equality with the Supreme Deity either as to
nature or functions, precisely as in Rom. x. 12, he says of
him, "The same Lord is Lord of all." Accordingly,
whether this interpretation or that supported in the pre
ceding paragraph be accepted, the passage in question is
found to be in accord with the general Pauline doctrine of
the subordination of Christ to God, and it cannot be re
garded as having the importance which has usually been
attached to it in opposition to the assignment of the Paul
ine Christology to its proper place in the development of
theology in the New Testament. It goes, then, without
saying that the Trinitarian dogma has no standing in the
thought of the apostle.*
We have seen that the glorious existence and celestial
rank of Christ as the archetypal, heavenly man prior to his
appearance in the flesh are fundamental tenets of the
apostle's Christology. His essential preeminence belonged
to him by virtue of his creation as "the last Adam." In a
unique and exceptional sense he was the Son of God, and
* " As little as one can speak of n personal difference [in the thought of
Paul] of the Spirit from God or Christ, so little can Christ coincide with God.
His ' divinity ' would directly exclude the idea that he is originally ' the
man from heaven,' who, in his historical appearance, is called quite simply
'man' (Rom. v. 15; I Cor. xv. 21). Just as little, too, do such formulas as
' divine nature,' ' God-man,' ' incarnation,' express the Pauline doctrine with
any precision. This knows only of a man with a divine content of life upon
the earth, and in consequence thereof also with a spiritual form of exist
ence above the earth in the sphere of God." — • Holtzmann, Neutest. Theol., ii.
p. 94.

300 THE TEACHER
as such was " sent " into the world (Rom. viii. 3 ; Gal.
iv. 4). Yet there are some passages which appear to in
dicate that his exalted rank was accorded on account of his
devotion to the service of man, and in particular because
of his death and resurrection. In Rom. i. 3 it is said that
Christ was " born of the seed of David according to the
flesh," and "declared [appointed, determined] to be the Son
of God according to the Spirit of holiness by the resurrec
tion of the dead." This passage is brought into conflict
with explicit declarations of Paul's if it is interpreted
to teach that Christ's divine sonship was originally and
essentially determined by his resurrection. The apos
tle's thought probably was that through the resurrection
Christ was declared to the faith of men to be what in his
existence icaTa o-dp/ca he did not appear to be, that is, the
Son of God. But that the rank which was "declared"
(opto-de'v;) to belong to him was always essentially his is
indicated by the declaration that his divine sonship cor
responded to the fact that he possessed "the Spirit of
holiness." This peculiar expression is evidently chosen in
order to denote the belief that as belonging originally to
Christ the endowment included more than can pertain to
any earthly man, and distinguished its possessor preemi
nently as a participant in the heavenly divine life. For
this "Spirit of holiness" which constituted the personality
of Christ must be regarded as of celestial origin. Accord
ingly, he was able to be to believers a "life-giving Spirit."
By a transference of the Messiah-idea of the Jewish theol
ogy to Christ he was regarded as the preexistent, heavenly
man who in distinction from men of earthly mould pos
sessed as essential qualities of his being "the Spirit of
holiness " and the Spirit of life which qualified him to be
the head of a new, regenerated humanity.
The exaltation of Christ which Paul believed to be ac-

THE PERSON OF CHRIST 301
corded to him on account of his death and through his
resurrecrion_douhtless includes an increment of functions
ratTier~than an increase of essential dignity and rank of
nature. By reason of these two events of his earthly fort
une, which to Paul were of central and paramount signifi
cance, he attained the rank of lordship, a godlike position
of dominion.* Accordingly, in Rom. xiv. 9, the apostle y
declares : " For to this end Christ died and lived again,
that he might be Lord both of the dead and the living."
A similar conception is expressed in Phil. ii. 9 f . : " Where
fore [because of his humiliation], also, God highly exalted
him, and gave unto him the name which is above every
name ; that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
of things in heaven and things on earth and things under
the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus
Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father." In this
bowing of the knee is expressed the declaration that to the
exalted Lord Christ is due the worship not only of angelic
beings and spirits in sheol in accordance with the popular
mythology but also of all living men. Since, however, this
worship is "to the glory of God the Father," no prejudice \
to the monotheistic doctrine is implied. Christ is Lord of
the heavenly spirits and of all the living and the dead.
Believers belong to him whether in life or death, to him
* " He, who through the resurrection is exalted above all earthly limitation
and weakness, has thereby become that for which he was already designed,
during and before his earthly existence, by reason of the Spirit of holiness that
dwelt in him as a principle forming his personality." " In truth, Christ had in
the flesh, according to Phil. ii. 6-8, exchanged ' the form of God ' (ixopipT) deov),
which in any case must be thought as radiant with glory (tv Sifi? in the sense
of 2 Cor. iii. 7, 8, 11), for the 'form of a servant' (p-optp^ SooXov), and re
nounced every divine mode of manifestation as incompatible with the flesh.
But after the hitherto latent irvevp,a became free and potent with the resurrec
tion, the glory of God shines in its highest and purest form constantly ... in
his face, as is fitting to the 'image of God' (eUiiv toC BeoO)." — Holtzmann,
Neutest, Theol., ii. pp. 78, 81,

302 THE TEACHER
are due their allegiance and adoration, and in him is their
hope. The idea of his descent to the underworld is not, how
ever, necessarily implied here, as Meyer maintains. It
accords with this sentiment of worship toward a being of
exalted rank and authority that the term " Lord," which in
the Septuagint is a designation of Yahweh, is frequently
applied to Christ. The salvation of men is declared to
depend upon confession to him as Lord (Rom. x. 9). Yet,
while he is represented as sitting at the right hand of God,
that is, as a participator in the divine government, his
subordination to the Father is implied in his office as an
intercessor for the believers (Rom. viii. 33, "who also
maketh intercession for us "). In accordance with a con
ception of the Messiah not unknown to Judaism (Enoch-
Parables, xiv. li. lxix.), the function of judge of men is
ascribed to Christ, which he would exercise at the consum
mation of the existing world-order, when "the Lord himself
shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of
the archangel, and with the trump of God" (1 Thess. iv.
16), and when "the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and
we [the living believers] shall be changed " (1 Cor. xv. 51).
Accordingly, Paul enjoins upon the Corinthians that they
"judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who
will bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and make
manifest the counsels of the hearts" (1 Cor. iv. 5), and
declares that "we must all be made manifest before the
judgment-seat of Christ, that each may receive the things
done in the body, according to what he hath done, whether
it be good or bad" (2 Cor. v. 10). The "glory" in which
the apostle conceived Christ to exist after his resurrection
and exaltation to the right hand of God is doubtless that in
which he believed him to have preexisted when, " being in
the form of God, he counted it not a prize [dp7rayp,6v, a

THE PERSON OF CHRIST 303
thing to be eagerly grasped after] to be on equality with
God" (Phil. ii. 6). By "form" (fiopcprj) is without doubt
meant the mode of existence of the Deity and the heavenly
beings generally which, as before remarked, Paul conceived
to be that of a luminous splendour or "glory" (compare the
"great light" in the account of Paul's conversion, Acts
xxii. 6), and in which consisted the riches of Christ that
were renounced when he "emptied himself," and assumed
the position of a "servant" in order to accomplish his
earthly mission. This godlike mode of existence (to elvai
iaa 8ea>) he did not count aE prize, but having voluntarily
renounced it for a life of sacrifice, he attained it as a
reward for his humiliation and service. Hence his Lord
ship and "the name which is above every name." That
the existence of Christ in the "image " or "form " of God
was not, however, conceived by Paul as incompatible with
his archetypal humanity is evident from 1 Cor. xi. 7 already
referred to, where man is said to be "the image and glory
of God " ; from Rom. viii. 29, " whom He foreknew He also
foreordained to be conformed to the image of His Son " ;
and from Phil. iii. 21, "who shall fashion anew the body of
our humiliation, that it may be conformed to the body of
his glory, according to the working whereby he is able even
to subject all things unto himself."
The importance of the doctrine of the preexistence of
Christ in the Pauline Christology is apparent when we
consider the apostle's teaching regarding the incarnation.
For the most conspicuous feature of this teaching is the
conception of a voluntary self-devotion of an exalted being
who out of love for man left his high estate in the heavenly
regions, and descended to participate in the lowly fortunes
of earthly men for their redemption. This idea denotes a
marked departure ot Paul from the current Jewish Mes-
sianism, according to which the Messiah was concealed in

304 THE TEACHER
the heavens awaiting the time of his manifestation.* The
Messiah whom Judaism was awaiting, Paul recognised in
Jesus of Nazareth. He whom his Jewish contemporaries
expected to see come in pomp and power for the overthrow
of their enemies, Paul saw already manifested in a mission
of loving sacrifice undertaken in order to effect the right
eousness which should prepare for his fin al "coiiTtng as
judge in the great consummation of the age. "This new
feature [the love manifested in the incarnation], which the
apostle added to the traditional Messiah of his school, was
the fruit of the ethical impression that the crucified Jesus
had made upon his mind, and it betrays itself precisely in
this, that this impression was at bottom the decisive motive
for his faith in the Messiahship of him who died upon the
cross " (Pfleiderer, nt supra).
A barren idea of the Jewish theological speculation, that
of the "concealed," preexistent Messiah, was transformed
by the apostle into a great ethical and spiritual doctrine in
which he found the hope of his own deliverance and of that
of all who should believe on the crucified one from bondage
to the law into "the glorious liberty of the children of
God " (Rom. viii. 21). The incarnation of Christ was not,
however, in the thought of the apostle that of the second
person of a divine trinity. There is no ground for suppos
ing that he so far departed from the current Messianism
as to think of the Messiah as such in other terms than
those of the popular theology according to which the ex
pected one was a preexistent heavenly man. Accordingly,
he conceived the incarnation as the passage of ^'_th,ej3ian
from heaven " into human conditions, as his abandonment
through self-sacrificing love of his condition of "glory"
and godlikeness and the assumption of a body conformed
?See Weizsacker, Das aposlol. Zeitalter, 2te Aufl. p. 125, and Pfleiderer,
Paulinismus, 2te Aufl. p. 123.

THE PERSON OF CHRIST 305
to the earthly, sensuous organisms of men, or "in the like
ness of sinful flesh." From this point of view is apparent
the'Tnjustice to the thought of the apostle which is done
by the bold rationalism that interprets his conception of
the preexistence of Christ as ideal or existing only in the
mind of God. This view renders Christ a mere instrument
of the purposes of God, and robs his work of self-devotion,
of the vol un t ary , L_e£hicaLelem ent which was fundamental in
Paul's thought of the redemption effected on the cross.
Moreover, the terms employed'by Paul relative to Christ's
coming in the flesh can only by the most violent exegesis
be regarded as applicable to an ideal being or a principle
existing in the divine purpose, when we consider how they
must have been understood by his readers. Only of an
existing personality can it be said that he was rich, and
became poor; that he was "in the form of God," and
assumed that of a servant ; that after his humiliation he
was exalted, and that he was "born of a woman" and
" under the law."
Professor Beyschlag has undertaken to explain away a
real incarnation as pertaining to the Pauline Christology
by reasoning that the heavenly man could not be thought
by the apostle to have preexisted along with the Father
without the ascription to him in his preexistence of all that
belongs to the real man, that is, spirit and flesh, and assum
ing in that state a development resting upon these. Since
this supposition is absurd and cannot be attributed to the
apostle, it is concluded that he conceived of the preexist
ence of the heavenly man as ideal. But this position has
been shown to be entirely untenable, since Paul speaks of
" celestial " and " spiritual " bodies, and declares that "flesh
and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God" (1 Cor. xv.
50). An existence purely spiritual and independent of the
flesh could not have presented any difficulty to one who
x

306 THE TEACHER
wrote of being absent from the body and at home with the
Lord (2 Cor. v. 8) and of the fashioning anew of the body
of our humiliation into conformity with Christ's body of
glory (Phil. iii. 21). "One cannot in fact oppose more
fundamentally Paul's entire mode of thought and that of his
age than by attributing to him the opinion that the sub
sistence of the personality depends on the sarkical exist
ence " (Pfleiderer, ut supra, p. 126). The conception, then,
of a real incarnation of Christ by an entrance upon bodily
conditions out of a preexistent state of pure spirituality can
be offensive only to those interpreters of Paul who will at
all hazards bring his thought into accord with certain mod
ern ideas by stripping it of its mystic and supernatural feat
ures. It is evident from the foregoing considerations that
the "nerve" of the Pauline teaching as to the incarnation
consists in "the identity of the heavenly Christ and the
earthly Jesus."
The person jDf Christ was, however, in the Pauline doc
trine so intimately connected with Christianity as a prin
ciple of a new world-order of life that, the two cannot be
adequately considered apart. To the apostle, Christ as a
person and Christ as a spiritual principle of cosmic signifi-
cance are identical. ~El"wo"orders of existence are constantly
before his mind, and the shadows of the one are mingled
with the light of the other in many of the most impressive
expressions of his thought. On the one_.hand is the fleshly
nature of man, in which sin and death are provided for as
an inevitable result, though death is represented as the
penalty of transgression, — an antinomy which does not,
perhaps, admit of reconciliation. At the head of this order
stands the fleshly progenitor of the race "through " whom
" sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so
death passed unto all, for that all sinned" (Rom. v. 13, 14).
Here are those who sin under the law which, though "holy,

THE PERSON OF CHRIST 307
just, and good," is only an occasion of transgression, and
has no saving efficacy. It "entered," indeed, "that the
offence might abound," and apart from it "sin is dead."
There is no hope in themselves alone for those who are
chained to "this body of death." With their best en
deavour, they can scarcely do more than bring forth the
horrid spiritual brood of "the works of the flesh." Here,
too, are those who sin without the law, the gentiles, against
whom "the wrath of God is revealed from heaven," who
are given up "in the lusts of their hearts unto unclean-
liness," and the catalogue of whose manifold depravities
and abominations casts a terrible shadow upon the opening
pages of the greatest of the Epistles.
Over against this gloomy world-order of sin and death
the apostle places the new world-order j)f regeneration and
life, Christianity and Christ conceived together as a princi
ple of redemption and spiritual transformation. At the
head of this order of life stands " the man from heaven,"
"the last Adam," who was made a "quickening Spirit."
Through him are to be done away the baneful evils of the
former order of things for as many as shall believe in him.
"The man Christ Jesus," who had been revealed in Paul at
his conversion, was the resurrected Lord of glory, and in
his j^sJ^regt^oa- the -apostle saw the hope_of the victory
over death for all in whom the Spirit should dwell. He
was not thinking of the end of physical death, but of the
taking away of the "sting of death," which is sin, through
him who had destroyed it by his propitiation. It was the
sting of death that the departed, who had no hold upon life
because without spiritual connection with Christ, could
have no resurrection, but must remain in the shadowy life
of the underworld, when the Lord should presently descend
in glory. Accordingly, he declares that if Christ be not
risen the faith of the believers is vain, and they are yet in

308 THE TEACHER
their sins. If in this life only they have hoped in Christ,
they are of all men most miserable (i Cor. xv. 19).
It does not belong to the scope of this chapter to discuss
the method according to which the powers of this new
world-order were conceived to operate and to determine
how the Christ-principle of life was believed to be effica
cious in neutralising the Adamic principle of death. Suf
fice it to say that in the Christology of the great apostle
the dethronement of Death and the crowning of Life were
not thought to be effected by natural processes. " The
sting of death " was not taken away, the deliverance of
souls from the realm of sheol was not consummated by the
ethical influence of a man who was on a level with all others
except by reason of preeminent spirituality. So tame a con
ception could have had no place in the mystical thought of
Paul. The great transformation was effected by a super-
natural being from the upper realm. It was the heavenly
man, the life-giving Spirit, whom death could not hold,
who not only gave by his resurrection evidencejaL_the
resurrection of those who should enter into spiritual union
with him, but became "the first fruits of them that slept,"
and the head of the new humanity, reconstituted and vital
ised by a celestial principle which should transform the
mortal body into the "glory" of which his heavenly body
was the type. The two world-periods, that of the reign of
death represented by Adam and that in which the princi
ple of life predominated, at the head of which was Christ,
were not conceived by Paul as absolutely opposed in their
fundamental character, but as having a bond of union in
the fact that they were human dispensations, since the chief
of each was a man. All men die in the earthy man, Adam,
because according to the flesh they partake of his nature;
and all may " be made alive " in the heavenly man, Christ,
because spiritually they may partake of his. The principle

THE PERSON OF CHRIST 309
which he represented could be realised in humanity only
because he partook of the nature of man,* and as the spir
itual archetype of the race was fitted to become the head of
a new order of human life. Only as man could he have
been the "first fruits" of those who slept the sleep of
death, and have furnished believers with that "hope in
Christ" for the life to come without which they were "of
all men most miserable."
The Pauline teaching of the person of Christ thus pre
sents an important phase of the development of Christo-
logical conceptions apparent in the New Testament. It
stands in marked contrast with the Christology of the
Petrine gospel, which saw in Jesus the Jewish Messiah
whose mission had been interrupted by death, " whom the
heavens must receive until the time of the restoration of
all things whereof God spake by the mouth of His holy
prophets," and who was to set up at his coming his own-'
"throne" of judgment upon the "nations" and twelve
thrones for his twelve apostles. The conception which
Paul set over against this was that of Christ as no national
Messiah merely, but as the man from heaven, the spiritual
representaj^ej^the^hiiman race which having gone down
in death through the_ first Adam might through the last
Adam be raised to life and immortality. Men may differ
as to whether or no the apostle had any historical or rational
grounds for this doctrine, but no one can "deny the gran
deur of its main conception or the depth of insight and pure
passion of aspiration with which when once free from the
tangle of its dialectics it rushes upon its sublime conclu
sions." It occupies an intermediate position between the
* Biedermann's discrimination may well be noted in this connection : " His
ego was from the beginning not in » like relation to the <rdp£ with our ego.
Herein consisted the mere similarity and not perfect equality with us in refer
ence to the body."

3IO THE TEACHER
Christology of the original apostles and that of the post-
Pauline Epistles to the Colossians and Ephesians, and by
its idea of the preexistence of Christ prepared the way for
the Johannine doctrine of the Logos, who was with God,
and was God. In originality of conception, in mystic pro
fundity and spiritual insight, it is preeminent among the
Christologies of the early Church.

CHAPTER XIII
SUPERNATURALISM — THE SPIRIT.*
ONE is doubtless not justified in speaking of a primi
tive-Christian philosophy of religion in any other
sense than that definite and easily discernible principles
underlie the accounts given by the New Testament writers
of the religious phenomena and experiences of the time.
The one point of view common to these writers is that
the knowledge of spiritual truth, the religious life, the ex
ternal authentications of their belief, all come from a
supersensible world, or are of heavenly origin. The Old
Testament prophecy that the Messiah should come out of
Judah, or that he would be a lineal descendant of David
in the natural order, their age could not let stand in its
original sense, and accordingly produced the legend of the
miraculous conception of the mother of Jesus. The mis
sion and work of Jesus and his place in the historical order
could not, of course, be apprehended in such a time as
having a natural connection with Hebraism and Judaism
in the sense of bearing a relation to them in the course of
normal human progress. Hence he is thought to have
come into the world through the agency of the Holy Ghost
and announced by angels, or to have descended as a pre
existent divine being out of the glory which he had with
the Father before the world was (Matt. i. 18, 20; John
xvii. 5). Not only is he regarded by the evangelists as a
miracle-worker, but he is reported to have appealed to his
* The New World, September, 1898. (With revision and additions.)
3"

312 THE TEACHER
supernatural powers as evidence of his Messiahship (Matt.
xi. 4 f.). These powers are represented to have been trans
ferred to the apostles (Matt. x. i ; Acts iii. 7, xiv. 3) ; those
who should believe in their message would be superior to
such natural forces as fire and poison (Mark xvi. 18),* and
the possession of ability to perform miracles is regarded as
an evidence of apostleship (2 Cor. xii. 12).
The primitive-Christian supematuralism, however, reached
its highest point, and attained its most refined expression in
the conception of the Spirit. This is especially true of
Paul, who appears to have attached only a subordinate
importance to merely external supernatural phenomena.
Before discussing his views on this important subject it
will be well to consider briefly the popular ideas of the
operations of the Spirit chiefly as they appear in the synop
tic Gospels and the Acts. Here in the first place is to be
noted a considerable contraction of the field of the activity
of the Spirit in comparison with the Old Testament point
of view, according to which any extraordinary manifesta
tion of power, as in the case of Samson, Othniel, Gideon,
etc., as well as the spiritual endowments of the prophets
and men of God, is referred to this source. j Gunkel has
shown the error in Cremer's view that all self-manifesta
tion of God was ascribed by the early Christians to the
Spirit, and has successfully maintained that, almost with
out exception, only such events as concern the life of man
are regarded as due to its activity. This is in general true
of the works represented as done by Jesus, who must have
been thought to owe his power to the Spirit, whether be-
* The spuriousness of the section in which this passage occurs does not affect
the present discussion, which is concerned only with the ideas prevalent in the
early Christian community.
t Judges iii. io, vi. 34, xiii. 25, xiv. 6, 19, xv. 14; 1 Sam. xvi. 13; Ex. xxviii.
3, xxxi. 3 ; Isa. xi. 2, lxi. I.

SUPERNATURALISM— THE SPIRIT 313
stowed at his conception or at the baptism. The "works "
wrought upon external nature are comparatively few. An
important feature of the popular primitive-Christian con
ception of the operations of the Spirit, whereby it is
essentially different from that of Paul, is that it is not
regarded as the principle of the moral-religious life to
which all Christian activities are to be referred. This has
been shown by Weiss, Pfleiderer, Gunkel, and Harnack,
and Gloel has not succeeded in maintaining the contrary.
According to the popular view, the Spirit manifested
itself in exceptional " mighty works " (Swa^et?) rather than
in the ethical and religious daily walk. Peter, therefore,
is represented as seeing in the extraordinary phenomena
on the day of Pentecost the fulfilment of the prophecy of
Joel as to the pouring out of the Spirit of God, the mani
festations of which would be in prophesying, the seeing of
visions, and the dreaming of dreams (Acts ii. 17-19). The
Spirit was thus Messianic in the sense that its operations
belonged in part according to the prophetic promise to " the
last times," which it was conceived would abound in
strange and miraculous phenomena. Thus we find Stephen
reported as doing " great wonders and miracles among the
people " because he was " full of the Holy Ghost," and his
discourse could not be resisted on account of " the power
and the Spirit by which he spake " (Acts vi. 8, 10). Tlie
apostles are promised miraculous instruction in their com
ing extremity (Matt. x. 18 f.). When Cornelius of Csesarea
and other gentiles received the Spirit on the occasion of
Peter's discourse, the only sign of their possession men
tioned by the writer of Acts was that " they heard them
speak with tongues and magnify God " (x. 44-46). It
would be easy to show by numerous citations from the
prophets that their view of the matter was in general the
same. The gift of the Spirit was to them an exalted know-

314 THE TEACHER
ledge, insight, courage in the performance of their official
functions of revelation of the divine will, or, as Wendt
expresses it, " genius in the religious domain."* In the
later Judaism, the intimate connection of which with Chris
tianity should not be overlooked, a similar view of the
matter was the prevalent one, although few phenomena
of the kind appear.
There can be little doubt, after Gunkel's careful discus
sion of the matter, that in the primitive church the mani
festations of the Spirit were recognised as such by their
wonderful, exceptional, or, in other words, their supposed
supernatural character, rather than by any end they might
have been believed to serve in the divine economy. The
commandment of the Spirit is simply recognised as an in
ward divine intimation which orders, or does not "permit"
(Acts xvi. 6, 7). A prophet speaks, and is at once believed,
because his message is regarded as supernatural (Acts xi.
27-29). The sound as of a rushing mighty wind, the pen-
tecostal flame, and the speaking with tongues testify to the
descent of the Spirit from above. When the new converts
break forth in inarticulate utterances, the evidence is at
hand, and no other seems to be needed or thought of, that
the supernatural divine presence has come upon them.
When Paul lays his hands upon the disciples at Ephesus,
who had "not so much as heard whether there be any
Holy Ghost," the Spirit comes upon them, and they "speak
with tongues, and prophesy." Here it is evident that "the
Spirit gives them utterance," and that the external phe
nomena furnish the evidence of its operation (Acts xix. 6).
God himself "bears witness" to the calling of the gen
tiles in that He bestows upon them the Holy Ghost
(Acts xv. 8).
* Gunkel has shown by an analysis of a large number of passages that in the
prophets the moral-religious operations of the Spirit are to others in the ratio
of 1 to 5.

SUPERNATURALISM— THE SPIRIT 315
One of the most conspicuous evidences to the early
Christians of the presence of the Spirit was the so-called
"speaking with tongues " (yXo)o-crai<; XaXelv). The mean
ing of the term is not precisely determinable, and we
cannot profitably undertake more than to deal with the
phenomena as they are presented to us. Certain it is that,
however we may attempt to explain them by our psy
chology as natural expressions of the human mind under
certain conditions, they were regarded as supernatural in
their time, and are placed by Paul among " the gifts of the
Spirit " (1 Cor. xii. 10). Whether we hold with Weizsacker,
Heinrici, Gunkel, and others that the preference for this
gift which prevailed in the Corinthian church according to
1 Cor. xiv. was due to the previous gentile religious views
of the believers there or not, is unimportant, for that it
was also appreciated by Jewish Christians is evident from
Acts, to the sources of which it could hardly have been
foreign. It seems to have had different manifestations, for
Paul speaks of " kinds of tongues " (1 Cor. xii. 10), and also
to have been bestowed upon some to the exclusion of
others (1 Cor. xii. 30, "do all speak with tongues?"); and
it appears that those who possessed it exalted themselves
on account of it above their less fortunate brethren, and
became objects of their envy (1 Cor. xii. 12-28). Paul
evidently saw that the church was threatened with schism
(verse 25), and the fourteenth chapter of the Epistle is
intended to obviate a too high estimate of the gift. From
this chapter we learn something of the character of the man
ifestations of this charism, which was doubtless esteemed
so highly above other endowments of the Spirit because
of its extraordinary and wonderful features. He who spoke
"in a tongue" did not speak "to men," but to God, "for
no man understandeth him." He might thereby "edify
himself," but not the church, for, says the apostle, "if I

316 THE TEACHER
know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him
that speaketh a barbarian." There was wanting "a dis
tinction in the sounds " comparable to "an uncertain sound"
of a trumpet or a confused playing of a pipe or harp.
This defect (for so the apostle evidently regarded it)
was due to the fact that the subject did not himself know
what he was saying, for when a prayer was uttered "in a
tongue" the "Spirit" prayed, but the "understanding"
(vow) was "unfruitful." Since the speaking with tongues
is accounted one of the gifts of the Spirit, it is probable
that praying with the Spirit and blessing with the Spirit
should be interpreted as manifestations of the divine power,
"divers kinds of tongues." It is evident, then, that the
operations of the Spirit which the apostle could commend,
such as "prophesying," were not incompatible with the nor
mal use of the subject's own intelligence, and in fact re
quired it in order to be fruitful. The speaking "with a
tongue," the utterance of mere words or sounds without
"distinction," was unprofitable to the hearer without an
"interpretation," which was of itself a special gift of the
Spirit. The nature of this operation is not defined, but it
is likely that the ability was possessed by some to enter
into such a relation with the speaker as enabled them to
convey to the congregation an idea of the general drift of
the ecstatic and indistinct utterance of feeling in which his
understanding was unfruitful. It is evident, then, that in
the speaking "with a tongue" the subject was supposed to
be overcome by the power of the Spirit, so that he was pas
sive under its influence and without the normal use of his
faculties. Accordingly Paul says that "the unlearned or
unbelievers " who witness the performance will think the
subjects to be "mad." The author of Acts has preserved
a feature which throws light upon the matter, when he says
that on the pentecostal occasion the perplexed bystanders

SUPERNATURALISM— THE SPIRIT 317
remarked that the subjects of the possession were " full of
new wine," although he misunderstood the nature of the
phenomenon in supposing that it consisted in speaking in
foreign languages.
Related to these phenomena in the sense that they were
supposed to have a supernatural origin are the operations
of the Spirit designated "visions and revelations." The
subject is supposed to be "in the Spirit," to be impelled or
driven by the Spirit, doubtless in a manner which involved
the suspension of his own volition and the subordination of
his intelligence (Rev. i. 10; Luke ii. 27, iv. 1, 14; Acts
viii. 29). When the apostle was on one occasion the sub
ject of such a revelation he did not know whether he was
in the body or out of it (2 Cor. xii. 2, 3). He thought him
self "caught up into the third heaven," where he heard
"unspeakable words." On the way to Damascus he hears
Jesus speak from heaven in the midst of a blinding light.
He has a " revelation " that he must go to Jerusalem. It
is by the command of the Holy Ghost that he and Barnabas
were set apart for the work of the ministry, and by the
same divine power they were " sent forth."* The Spirit is
regarded as laying upon those whom it possesses an irresist
ible compulsion. Paul goes "bound in the Spirit" to Jeru
salem, and knows nothing of his future fortune, except that
"the Holy Ghost witnesseth in every city" of the coming
"bonds and afflictions" (Acts xx. 22 f.). Manifestly he
felt it to be a power not himself which thus commanded,
impelled, or restrained him, and even overcame his own
endeavour (Acts xvi. 6 f.).
Prophecy, in like manner, which Paul recommends as
preferable to the speaking with tongues (1 Cor. xiv. 1), was
a gift of the Spirit bestowed upon certain believers ; but we
* 2 Cor. xii. 4 ff. ; Gal. ii. 2; Acts ix. 3, xiii. 2, xvi. 6 ; cf. Acts vii. 55, viii.
39; Apoc. Bar. vi.; Enoch xxxix. 3, Iii. 1.

318 THE TEACHER
are ignorant of the personal qualifications which drew down
this blessing and of the activity on the part of any one that
might effect its descent. For the injunction to "strive
earnestly for the best gifts" (i Cor. xii. 31) implies other
conditions than pure passivity in the subject. It is probable
that exceptional endowments from above such as " wisdom,"
which all did not possess (Acts vi. 3), and the being " full of
the Holy Ghost " were conditioned by subjective qualities
apart from faith, which was a common qualification. The
words "ye may all prophesy "(1 Cor. xiv. 31) must be under
stood in the sense that "all" means all who have the gift,
which according to 1 Cor. xii. 10, belonged only to some be
lievers. The prophet had in the first place a power, evidently
thought to be supernatural, of foretelling future events
which were hidden from the ordinary knowledge of men.
So Agabus predicts a famine and the delivery of Paul by the
Jews into the hands of the gentiles at Jerusalem (Acts xi.
28, xxi. 10). But this was not the prophet's sole function,
for by him the secrets of the heart of an unbeliever may be
revealed, so that he will fall down and worship God, and
report that God is in the believers (1 Cor. xiv. 24 f.). The
revelation which comes to the prophet is of- such a nature
that " all may learn, and all may be comforted " (verses 30,
31). That the prophetic discourses had a religious and
eschatological content is very probable. The apostle him
self enjoyed revelations as to the religious future of the
Jews and as to the great consummation of the kingdom
(Rom. xi. 26 ; 1 Cor. xv. 24 ff., 49-54), and in the early
church religion and " the last things " were intimately con
nected. Faith in Jesus was faith in the resurrected and
ascended Lord who was soon to come in glory. The de
livery of the prophecy is distinguished from the speaking
with tongues in that it is intelligible. The prophet addresses
himself not to God, but to men, and he speaks to "edifica-

SUPERNATURALISM—THE SPIRIT 319
tion and exhortation and comfort." Thus, he is not mas
tered by his enthusiasm and inspiration, for " the spirits of
the prophets are subject to the prophets " (1 Cor. xiv. 3, 32).
Since the Spirit was bestowed only upon Christians, and
accordingly on condition of a confession of Jesus and faith,
the mention of "faith" as one of the "gifts" of the Spirit
(1 Cor. xii. 9) is somewhat surprising. But the apostle
probably had in mind an intensified quality of this Christian
grace which would render its possessor steadfast in trial
and persecution and temptation, or give him a "boldness "
like that of the apostles Peter and John, who, when " filled
with the Holy Ghost," declared the word without fear (Acts
iv. 29, 31). The point of interest is that all extraordinary
achievements in the religious domain were regarded by the
early Christians as effected not by an intensified human
energy and will, but by a supernatural power. Supernatural
also were thought to be the gifts of "healing," "the word
of wisdom," "the word of knowledge," whatever fine dis
tinction may be drawn between these two, " the working of
miracles," "the discerning of Spirits," and " the interpreta
tion of tongues." Since of those whom God "has set in
the church" apostles are accounted "first " (1 Cor. xii. 28),
it must be assumed that Paul regarded the charism of
apostleship as the most important among the supernatural
endowments bestowed upon the Christians. More than any
other must he be "filled with the Holy Ghost" who was
appointed to be the founder and counsellor of churches and
the guide of souls. To him were vouchsafed " revelations
and visions of the Lord " (2 Cor. xii. 1); he could show as
his authentication "the signs of an apostle" in "wonders
and mighty deeds" (verse 12; Rom. xv. 18 f.), and his
preaching was in " demonstration of the Spirit and of power"
(1 Cor. ii. 4). He did not live his spiritual life apart and
by himself, but in constant intercourse with the supersen-

320 THE TEACHER
sible world, whence came to him counsel in emergencies,
revelations, and supernatural power. The Spirit which he
has received is not that of this world, but the Spirit of God,
and the wisdom which he speaks is that of God " in a mys
tery " (i Cor. ii. 7, 12).
It is apparent from the foregoing discussion that Paul
adopted the popular supematuralism of the primitive
church, while he endeavoured to moderate the zeal of some
of the believers in respect to the gift of tongues. We have
now to consider how, proceeding from the same general
point of view, he enlarged and exalted the supernaturalistic
conception in connection with his profounder views of reli
gious experience, of salvation, and of the coming kingdom of
God. But first of all let it be considered that we have not
here to deal with a dogmatic construction. The apostle
indeed proceeded upon the premises of supematuralism, as
he could not but do from the Jewish religious point of view ;
but the new creation which he produced was evolved out
of his own Christian experience. This began with his
conversion which, explain it as we may from natural psy
chological antecedents, he regarded as supernatural, as
nothing short of God's revelation of His Son in him, that
he "might preach him among the heathen" (Gal. i. 16).
To him Christ crucified and raised from the dead was the
beginning of a new supernatural religious order which did
not supplement, but did away with, the former divine dis
pensation of the law. " For what the law could not do,
. . . God sending His own Son, . . . condemned sin in
the flesh ; that the righteousness of the law might be ful
filled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the
Spirit " (Rom. viii. 3 f.).
Paul recognised no natural scheme of salvation, no natu
ral connection between the state of sin and the state of
" grace." To him the transition from the former condition

SUPERNATURALISM—THE SPIRIT 32 1
to the latter was not made by a process of development, of
growth, of the slow formation of character, according to
the modern philosophy of religious experience, but the
entire process was supernatural — an atonement for sin
provided for in the divine counsel and an illuminating
Spirit sent down from heaven (Rom. v. 18 f., viii. 10 f., 16
f. ; Gal. iii. 13 f.). That the divine bestowal of the Spirit
is conditioned upon the atonement is evident from the con
nection of thought in Gal. iii. 13 f. : " Christ hath redeemed
us from the curse of the law, . . . that we might receive
the promise of the Spirit through faith." Without the
atonement of Christ and its acceptance through faith there
is no " newness of life " in the Spirit, but man remains
"under the curse" (Gal. iii. 10).
The supermundane origin and character of the entire
scheme are manifest. It is only through faith in the super
natural Christ that the blessing of Abraham could come
on the gentiles (verse 14). For notwithstanding the an
nouncement of "glory, honour, and peace to every man that
worketh good, to the Jew first and also to the gentile," and
the declaration that "the doers of the law," Jew or gentile,
"shall be justified" (Rom. ii. 10, 13 f.), the manifest infer
ence from Gal. iii. 8-15 is that the gentiles, however faith
fully they might " do by nature the things contained in the
law," could not naturally attain salvation in the Pauline
sense of the word. The author of Ephesians expresses the
Pauline view as to the gentiles when he says that they
were "without Christ . . . having no hope and without
God in the world" (Eph. ii. 12). They became "partakers
of the promise " only through the same atonement which
opened the way of salvation to the Jews. The funda
mental proposition of salvation through Christ according to
Paul is that of justification by faith. The ethical require
ments of the law can be fulfilled neither by Jew nor gentile.

322 THE TEACHER
The law must first be abrogated for the Jews by the atone
ment, that the promise to Abraham which primarily con
cerned only his seed might be extended to the gentiles ;
both must first accept by faith the supernatural scheme of
satisfaction, before they can come under " the law of the
Spirit of life in Jesus Christ " (Rom. viii. 2). The incom
patibility of this doctrine with the naturalism of Rom. ii.
13 will surprise no careful student of the apostle.
A similar point of view, that is, one transcending natural
human experience and taking no account of the law of
growth, is represented in the doctrine of dying and being
raised with Christ in baptism. The apostle, having de
clared that where sin abounded grace did much more
abound, anticipates the question, " Shall we then continue
in sin, that grace may abound?" "Far be it!" he an
swers ; how shall we believers who are dead to sin live any
longer in it ? In our baptism we were baptized into the
death of Christ. Having been buried with him by baptism
into death, we should walk in newness of life, as he was
raised up. Our old man is crucified with him, that the
body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should
not serve sin. For he that is dead is freed from sin. So
we should reckon ourselves dead to sin, but alive to God
through Christ (Rom. vi. 1-11). This does not mean that
in believing in the ethical principles of the life of Jesus,
taking him as' our example, and assuming in baptism the
vows of a Christian life, we receive a moral-spiritual im
pulse which will aid us in the conflict with evil tendencies,
and give us at length the victory. All this is modern
rationalising of the apostle's doctrine. For with him the
whole process of the believer's renewal depends upon the
death of Christ. In his death "to sin once" Christ super
naturally (magically ?) broke the .power of sin and the
flesh for all who should believe on him. On the cross God

SUPERNATURALISM—THE SPIRIT 323
"condemned sin in the flesh." In the resurrection of
Jesus He showed the triumph of the Spirit over death.
Baptism, then, is to Paul a magical rite, a symbol of the
believer's appropriation through faith of the death and
resurrection of Jesus — of the crucifixion of " the old man "
and the raising up of "the new man."
The connection between Jesus and the believer is such
that "if one [Jesus] died for all, then all died," that is, all
who through faith appropriate his death die with him to the
flesh and sin, "crucify the flesh with its affections and
lusts" (Gal. v. 24). Thus "he that is dead is freed from
sin." In the believer's magical death with Christ he has
paid the legal penalty of sin, which is death, and is there
fore set free from it; his "old man" has perished; the
claims of the law are satisfied, and he is no longer under
its " curse," for now he is subject only to "the law of the
Spirit of life in Jesus Christ." How evidently does
the great and marvellous transaction on the cross lie at the
basis of this entire dogmatic structure ! Without it there
would have been no such profound significance to Paul in
the rite of baptism. If " the old man " dies in baptism, it is
because the subject of the rite has by faith appropriated to
himself the death of Christ. But the apostle does not con
ceive the believer's relation to Christ in this mystic dying
and living again with him simply in connection with the
present life. His view includes an intensification of the
marvellous in the extension of the fellowship into the life to
come ; and in this fact we have conclusive evidence that a
merely ethical conception of the believer's relation to
Christ was not in his thought. When he says, " For if we
have been planted together in the likeness of his death, we
shall be also in "the likeness of his resurrection," and, " Now
if we be dead with Christ, we believe that we shall also live
with him " (Rom. vi. 5, 8), the future tense can only be

324 THE TEACHER
understood as referring to the resurrection and the life of
the Messianic age. Verse 8 certainly cannot mean, we
believe that we do now, or shall now, in this present life
live with him. The fundamental idea of the whole section
is that of the supernatural "life" of which the believer
partakes through union with Christ in his death and resur
rection ; and the two aspects of this life are presented, that
of this age as a new order of spiritual existence in which
he "should walk," and in which he should judge himself
to be "alive unto God" (verses 4, 8), and that of the glori
ous age near at hand, the consummation of the great mira
cle of redemption, when in the resurrection he would enter
into everlasting fellowship with Christ the Lord. The
latter is probably the basal idea ; for to Paul " life " was
primarily the eternal life of the resurrection-state, which
reacted upon the present not only so that the believer was
" saved by hope," but also in such a manner as to conse
crate his daily walk, and render it worthy of the great fort
une reserved for him.
From these considerations is manifest the important
modification of the primitive-Christian conception of the
Spirit which Paul effected. In his hands the Spirit is no
longer "an abstract-supernatural, ecstatic-apocalyptic prin
ciple," according to Pfleiderer, but is brought into living
connection with the moral-religious life, so that the whole
Christian experience of the believer is dominated by its
influence. The Spirit, however, -as a constant life-giving
presence must not be understood as divested of its super
natural character. This is fundamental in the apostle's
thought, and, as has been remarked, he recognised all the
supernatural and " ecstatic-apocalyptic " features of the
popular religion, while he claimed that he spoke with
tongues more than all those in Corinth who boasted of
this gift (1 Cor. xiv. 18). His apostleship, that "treasure

SUPERNATURALISM—THE SPIRIT 325
in earthen vessels," he has "of God." He is "an apostle
not of men nor through man, but through Jesus Christ
and God the Father." What he declares is, "the wisdom
of God ordained before the world," that which " the Holy
Ghost teacheth" (1 Cor. ii. 7, 13). When he spoke in
"the demonstration of the Spirit" his message was "not
of this world." But he did not regard himself as in this
respect exceptional among the believers.
The same supernatural power poured itself out upon all.
Whoever gives himself in faith to Christ is "joined unto
the Lord in one Spirit" (1 Cor. vi. 17); and since the
glorified Jesus is himself "that Spirit" (2 Cor. iii. 17), the
believer, in this union with him which is effected through
faith and baptism, becomes a partaker in that supersensi
ble life. By no laborious effort of his own, but by the
inflowing of a divine power on the condition of faith on
his part, he has passed from death into life, from the state
of sin and condemnation and bondage into "the glorious
liberty of the sons of God." "The law of the Spirit of
life in Christ Jesus " has made him " free from the law of
sin and death " (Rom. viii. 2). He is " a new creation "
(tcaivrj KTt'aK) — an expression in which a divine super
natural intervention by which the subject is transformed
or re-created is distinctly implied. "The love of God
[God's love] is shed abroad" in his "heart by the Holy
Ghost" (Rom. v. 5). In the renewal of the mind the re
cipient of the Spirit is enabled to know "the deep things
of God," such as " eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither
have entered into the heart of man," for they are "revealed
by the Spirit " (Rom. xii. 2 ; 1 Cor. ii. 9 f.).
The supernatural divine character of the Spirit in the
apostle's teaching is emphasised by the fact that the
human spirit occupies in it a quite subordinate place. In
almost all the places where "Spirit" is mentioned the

326 THE TEACHER
reference is to the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of God, and
some expositors question whether Paul recognised a spirit
as an original endowment of man. This position has
doubtful exegetical support, although the general analogy
of the apostle's doctrine is in its favour. The sanctifica
tion of "the spirit, soul, and body" (i Thess. v. 23), the
exhortation to purify from " all filthiness of the flesh and
spirit" (2 Cor. vii. 1), and the " saving of the spirit in the
day of the Lord " (1 Cor. v. 5) can certainly not be referred
to the divine Spirit. The subject presents difficulties which
exegesis has not satisfactorily solved, and in attempting its
solution it cannot proceed upon the presumption that the
apostle used psychological terms with scientific exactness.
In any case he does not attribute to the "natural" man,
that is, the unregenerate man, a spirit (irvevpa) in the sense
in which he generally employs the term of the supernatural,
life-giving energy which is not originally in man, but de
scends or is poured out upon him on condition of faith.
It is conceded by some of those who maintain that he
does not ascribe a spirit to the natural man that he some
times adopts the popular usage, and employs the word to
designate the inward motive power, as when, for example,
in 1 Cor. ii. 1 1 a " spirit of man " is mentioned alongside
the Spirit of God : " What man knoweth the things of a
man save the spirit of man which is in him ? "
But one cannot conclude from this passage that any reli
gious function is assigned to the human spirit. The term
Spirit in the specific religious sense in which the apostle
generally employs it denotes an opposition to the " flesh,"
that is, to the condition of the natural man, and designates
a supernatural power by which he has been exalted into a
state which he could not of himself and in a natural way
attain. Accordingly, Paul could, in concession to the
popular usage, speak of man as having a spirit when he

SUPERNATURALISM— THE SPIRIT 327
did not at all mean to designate the person in question as
a "pneumatic " (TrvevpaTtKos), that is, one who had through
faith received the heavenly gift of the divine Spirit (1 Cor.
xiv. 37).* In 1 Cor. vi. 20 "spirit" should be omitted
according to the most approved reading. The power of
the " inward man " most closely related to the divine Spirit
is the mind (vow). With this man " serves the law of God "
(Rom. vii. 25), but ineffectually, because of "the law in the
members" which "wars against the law of the mind, and
brings him into captivity to the law of sin and death "
(verses 23, 24), until the Spirit of God comes to his aid, and
delivers him from "this body of death." Accordingly, it
is difficult from the point of view of scientific accuracy to
find a function for the human spirit in this psychology.
While, however, the apostle teaches that man cannot of
himself attain righteousness, even though he "delight in
the law of God after the inward man," because "the law
in his members " compels him to " do the evil that he
would not do " (Rom. viii. 19, 23), and while he regards
the divine Spirit as the only saving efficacy in this ex
tremity, we are not justified in drawing the conclusion
that he looked upon the moral-religious life of the believer
as controlled by this superhuman power after the manner
of a natural necessity. The words "led by the Spirit,"
perhaps "driven" (ayovrai, Rom. viii. 14), appear to assign
to this agency the initiative and doubtless an impelling
function in the Christian life ; but it is evident from the
analogy of the apostle's teaching that, just as a voluntary
appropriation of Christ is the condition of receiving the
Spirit, so the subject's own exertion is the condition of
the continuance of its operations in the religious life and
of the final enjoyment of the eschatological blessedness at
* Such is the sense in I Cor. v. 3, 4, 5, vii. 34, xiv. 14 f. ; 2 Cor. ii. 13, vii. 13 ;
Rom. viii. 16, xii. II.

328 THE TEACHER
the Parousia. The frequent expression of his anxiety for
the continued spiritual welfare of his converts shows that the
apostle did not regard their religious prosperity as deter
mined once for all by their reception of the Spirit and by
their entrance into fellowship with Christ through a single
act of faith. The situation in the Corinthian church which
called forth the first Epistle is a case in point.*
Although Paul thanks God on behalf of the believers
there for the grace given them and for their enrichment
" in all utterance and knowledge," and says that Christ
will confirm them to the end, that they may be "blameless
in the day of the Lord " (the Parousia), yet he reproves
them in that they have fallen into contention and some
of them even into fornication, and pointedly charges them
with being "carnal" (i. 4, 8, 11, iii. 3, v. 1). Yet he de
clares of these brethren that they "are the temple of
God," and that "the Spirit of God dwells in them"
(iii. 16). The warning, " Let him that thinketh he stand
eth beware lest he fall" (1 Cor. xii. 13), throws upon him
who has the Spirit the responsibility for a lapse plainly
implied as a possibility. The apostle even includes him
self among those to whom a cleansing (2 Cor. vii. 1)
is necessary, and though sanctification comes from God
(1 Thess. v. 23), man must work out his own salvation,
through God who works in him to will and to do of His
good pleasure (Phil. ii. 12 f.).
The connection between the operations of the Spirit
upon believers and the mission of Christ — more specifi-
* It is not certain, however, that we have not here one of the paradoxes of
the apostle — theoretically the control of the believer by the Spirit, the cer
tainty of his salvation as its possessor and as one of the " elect," and practi
cally a recognition of the necessity that he be frequently exhorted to ethical
endeavour, as if the whole burden of the conflict with the flesh should not be
thrown upon the Spirit, and as if, although God work within him, he must
work out his own salvation " with fear and trembling."

SUPERNATURALISM—THE SPIRIT 329
cally his death and resurrection — has already been men
tioned. It is an error, however, to suppose that the relation
of Christ and the Spirit in the apostle's teaching is such
that the former is conceived as only a means or instru
ment of the operations of the latter. On the contrary, no
clear distinction is drawn between the work of the two in
the life of the Christian, with the exception that with the
mission of Jesus the entire spiritual economy in the world
originates, and on it depends. Without his death and
resurrection man could have had no true religious life, but
would have remained in the darkness of spiritual death.
That Jesus was originally and before he came into the
world, that is, in his preexistent state, essentially Spirit
may be regarded as a premise of the apostle's Christology.
It was " according to the Spirit of holiness " that the Son
of God and the Son of David, that is, the Messiah, was
established in the divine sonship "with power" by the
resurrection (Rom. i. 3, 4). As " the second man the
Lord from heaven," he was made a quickening or life-giv
ing Spirit (1 Cor. xv. 45, 47). Accordingly, the functions
of the Spirit in the Christian economy of salvation are
ascribed to him.
The supernatural divine "life," which is the possession
of the believer, and which signifies not only a moral-re
ligious renewal in the present state of existence, but also
the final triumph over death in the resurrection, is enjoyed
"with" and "through" Christ (Rom. v. 17, 21, vi. 5, 8,
11, 23; 1 Cor. xv. 22), and it is "in" him that the Chris
tian has become "anew creation " (2 Cor. v. 17). The
frequent recurrence of the expression "in Christ" indi
cates how near to the apostle's heart lay the conviction of
his and his fellow-believers' union with, and dependence
on, the Lord. The Christian's liberty from the bondage
of "the law of sin and death " is through " the law of the

330 THE TEACHER
Spirit of life in Christ Jesus " ; the love of God, from
which nothing can separate him, is "in Christ Jesus our
Lord " ; the grace of God is " given by Jesus Christ "
(Rom. viii. 2, 39 ; 1 Cor. i. 4 ; Gal. ii. 4) ; and in him are
consolation and hope and sanctification (Phil. ii. 1, iii. 3;
1 Cor. i. 2). Dr. Weiss has pointed out that Paul some
times represents the Spirit as proceeding from Christ, and
we find " Spirit of his Son " (Gal. iv. 6) ; " if so be that
the Spirit of God dwell in you " and " if any man have not
the Spirit of Christ," in the same verse (Rom. viii. 9) ;
and " Spirit of the Lord" (2 Cor. iii. 17). In Rom. xv.
18, 19, the apostle speaks of the things that Christ has
wrought by him, " through mighty signs and wonders by
the power of the Spirit of God," thus representing his
operation as indirect instead of direct or as himself the
Spirit. Along with this conception we have an identifica
tion of Christ and the Spirit, as has been remarked (1 Cor.
xv. 45 ; 2 Cor. iii. 17), and, as has frequently been pointed
out by students of the apostle (cf. Pfleiderer, Weiss, Gun-
kel, and others), the conception of a mystic union of the
believers with Jesus through faith and baptism in a won
derful fellowship of life (Rom. vi. 3-1 1 ; Gal. iii. 27, vi.
14), in which he "puts on " Christ, Christ is " formed in
him " and he becomes with him " one Spirit " (Rom. xiii.
14; 1 Cor. vi. 17; Gal. iv. 19). This language cannot
fairly be interpreted as expressing simply an ethical sym
pathy and fellowship with Jesus, or such an inspiration as
might be induced by a devout contemplation of his ex
ample. Such an explanation does not touch the surface
of this profound mysticism.
A psychological analysis may account for the apostle's
state of mind, but it cannot enable us to enter into his
consciousness and describe it — a consciousness which is
possible only to a man of Paul's mystical nature and his

SUPERNATURALISM—THE SPIRIT 33 1
absolute and ardent faith in a supernatural Christ. His
own account of the union by means of an analogy with the
sexual relation (1 Cor. vii. 6 f.) he must himself have re
garded as an inadequate explanation of a reciprocal connec
tion in which Jesus is conceived as imparting his life to
the apostle in the mystic union with him, so that it is
manifest in his mortal flesh (2 Cor. iv. 10 f.), and the suf
ferings and death of Christ become the sufferings and death
of Paul himself, and his afflictions Christ's (2 Cor. i. 5).
This great mystery of the identification of Christ with the
Spirit of God (in operation, though doubtless not in per
son) belongs to the supernaturalistic scheme in which the
apostle's conversion was the first of a series of wonders,
and is due to what he himself had undergone in the tran
sition from Judaism to Christianity. As Gunkel observes :
" The first pneumatic experience of Paul was an experi
ence of Christ." His faith in Christ as the Spirit and the
source of his strength, the fountain of his religious and
moral life, did not rest upon a speculative basis, but was
the product of his experience, as with open face he was
ever " beholding the glory of the Lord," and was " changed
into the same image from glory to glory, as by the Spirit
of the Lord" (2 Cor. iii. 18). What he means by the decla
ration that Christ had been "seen" by him (1 Cor. xv. 8),
and whether or no it implied more to him than that God
" revealed His Son in him," we cannot determine ; but it
is evident that such a sense as he had of the miraculous
indwelling of Jesus and of his own mystic connection with
him could belong to no one who had not a vivid and in
tense realisation of his personality as a living presence.
The expression of his willingness rather " to be absent
from the body and present with the Lord " (2 Cor. v. 8) is
a word out of his heart, which reveals his love and longing
for the person of his adored Master.

332 THE TEACHER
Gunkel's objection to Pfleiderer's view that the apostle's
doctrine of the Spirit arose under the influence of his doc
trine of Christ does not appear to be well taken. Is it not
rather true that to the revelation of the Son of God in him
and to his subsequent sense of union with him in a fellow
ship of quickening and of " life " are due the depth and in
wardness of his conception of the Spirit? This appears
to be more in accordance with the facts than Gunkel's
opinion that Paul's doctrine of Christ was his " peculiar
expression of what he asserts in the doctrine of the Spirit
in dependence on the views of the church ; " indeed this
scholar himself declares that the apostle's "doctrine of
Christ lay nearer to his heart " than the other, that for the
primitive Christians "in the Spirit" meant "in ecstasy,"
while for Paul it meant " in the divine life-giving power,"
and that to the apostle the highest expression of his expe
rience is, "in Christ."
It is an interesting feature of the Pauline doctrine of
the Spirit that in its possession man is in the tender and
beautiful relation of sonship. This is expressly declared
in the words, " For as many as are led by the Spirit of
God, they are the sons of God " (Rom. viii. 14). This
condition is designated as one of "glorious liberty," for
which "the creation" sighs in its "bondage of corrup
tion" (verses 21 1). If, according to the Jewish theology,
even the righteous man lived in no full security, and could
not free himself from the fear of the day of judgment, how
much more must the sinner be tormented by the " fearful
looking for " of the impending retribution. But the law
having been done away in Christ, the believer is delivered
from this servile fear. " Ye have not received the spirit
of bondage again to fear, but ye have received the Spirit
of adoption as sons, whereby we cry, Abba, Father "
(verse 15). By the expression, "Spirit of adoption as

SUPERNATURALISM—THE SPIRIT 333
sons " (irvevfia vlo6eala<;) the apostle does not mean that
the Spirit is the agency through which the "adoption as
sons " is effected, but rather that the Spirit which the be
lievers have received is one that is adapted to sonship or
corresponds with this spiritual condition, just as in Gal.
iv. 6 he says : " Because ye are sons God hath sent forth
the Spirit of His Son into your hearts, crying, Abba,
Father." Here the previous sonship is the condition of
the sending forth of the Spirit. This agrees with the
passage quoted above to the effect that the being " led
by the Spirit " is a token of sonship. The condition of
sonship is conceived as having been attained before the
endowment with the Spirit is vouchsafed, and as to the
method of its attainment the apostle leaves no doubt
when he says : " But when the fulness of the time was
come God sent forth His Son ... to redeem them that
were under the law, that we might receive the adoption as
sons " (Gal. iv. 4 f.).
This is the divine procedure, and man's part in the trans
action is defined with equal precision in the words, " For
ye are all children of God by faith in Jesus Christ, for as
many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put
on Christ" (Gal. iii. 25 f.). This is the sonship of the
Christian dispensation, and not the "adoption" which
pertained to the Jews (Rom. ix. 4). The supematuralism
which in the apostle's teaching conditions the relation of
the believer to God is here again apparent. The powers
of the supersensible world descend upon the earthly scene
at "the time appointed of the Father" (Gal. iv. 2). "The
second man, the Lord from heaven," the "quickening
Spirit," is the divinely appointed agent, who first by his
death on the cross abrogates the law, and buys man. off
from its curse, and who then, on condition of faith, takes
up his abode in him as a sanctifying power. Man's son-

334 THE TEACHER
ship is, then, according to the apostle's thought, not a
natural, but a supernatural relationship to God. It is not
a natural birthright, but a supernatural new birthright,
which belongs to a marvellous scheme of atonement and
faith. It would, moreover, be a gross misinterpretation
of Paul to understand him to teach that Christ's miracu
lous mission secured sonship for all men unconditionally,
so that good and bad alike can be regarded as received
into this blessed relationship. Only " as many are sons
of God as are led by the Spirit of God," and the Spirit
is vouchsafed only to those who in faith and baptism have
" put on Christ" and become "a new creation."
The recognition by Paul of the primitive-Christian ecstasy
in connection with the operations of the Spirit is worthy of
note. In one of the passages above referred to he says that
the believers cry out in the Spirit, "Abba, Father," and in
another that the Spirit itself utters this cry (Rom. viii. 15 ;
Gal. iv. 6). If with Gunkel we construe in Rom. viii. the
sixteenth verse with the preceding, the cry is a witness of
the Spirit that the believers are the sons of God. From
the way in which it is introduced here we may infer that
it was an exclamation often heard among the Christians,
that it was well known to them, and that it was a phenom
enon which belonged to the ecstatic expressions whereby
the supernatural presence and operations of the Spirit
were manifested. Similar if not the same is the ecstasy
referred to in 1 Cor. xiv. 14, where the apostle discusses
the speaking with tongues : " For if I pray in an unknown
tongue [literally, 'in a tongue'] my Spirit prayeth, but my
understanding is unfruitful." Here " my Spirit " is doubt
less the divine Spirit, which, being for the time in the
possession of the believer, is called his, according to the
following verse : " I will pray with the Spirit, and I will
pray with the understanding also." In like manner the

SUPERNATURALISM—THE SPIRIT 335
apostle represents the Spirit as helping the infirmities of
the believers : " For we know not what we should pray
for as we ought ; but the Spirit itself maketh intercession
for us with groanings that cannot be uttered " (Rom.
viii. 26). From the supernaturalistic point of view of
Paul and his contemporaries these groanings, inexpres
sible in words (crTevayp,ol aXdXrjToi), were not thought to
be produced by those who uttered them in loud cries, but
were regarded as expressions of the Spirit, which wrought
in them, "helping" and "interceding."*
The relation of the supernatural " life " bestowed in the
gift of the Spirit to the "inheritance" of the believer in
the Messianic age or in the life to come is of so much im
portance in the apostle's teaching as to deserve more than
the reference to it already made in this discussion. The
" inheritance " which was promised to Abraham (the land
of Canaan) was interpreted allegorically by the Jewish
theologians as referring to the Messianic world-dominion,
and Paul understands by it the blessedness of the Chris
tians in the kingdom soon to be established at the second
coming of Christ (Rom. iv. 13 ; Gal. iii. 18, 29, v. 21).
To him the present possession of the Spirit and the future
participation in the glory of the kingdom were so related
that the latter was only a continuation of the former. The
Christian now has " the firstfruits of the Spirit," and his
*" Maketh intercession" (inrepevrvyxdvei) does not denote a pleading
before God for the believers on account of their sins. Theoretically Paul did
not recognise them as sinners (see note on p. 366). The intercession is not
conceived as before God in heaven, but as a praying of the Spirit within the
believers, who cannot give an articulate expression to their inward state.
Hence the unutterable groanings which suggest the phenomenon of " speak
ing with a tongue." Lipsius regards this presence of the Spirit as an assur
ance to the Christians of the future fulfilment of their hope. A similar office
is ascribed to Christ in Rom. viii. 34. The " intercession " of Christ as the great
high-priest in Heb. vii. 25 is conceived as for the salvation of the believers. The
point of view is here manifestly different.

336 THE TEACHER
"adoption as son" is in this life only preliminary to the
full fruition, and the complete "adoption" will be consum
mated in the age to come in " the redemption of his body "
(Rom. viii. 23). In "this earthly tabernacle we groan
. . . that we would be clothed upon [with the new spiritual
body] that mortality might be swallowed up of life." " God
who has wrought [prepared] us for this [the spiritual cloth
ing upon] hath given us the earnest [pledge] of the Spirit "
(2 Cor. v. 4, 5). Thus the present possession of the Spirit
is an assurance of a still greater miracle or of a continua
tion of the miraculous dispensation in the "glory" (86!ja)
of the coming kingdom. In that consummation the Spirit
would signalise its complete triumph over the flesh in pro
viding for the believer in the place of the earthly taberna
cle a "body of glory " conformed to that of the resurrected
Lord (Phil. iii. 21).
Accordingly, Paul writes to the Romans : " If the Spirit
of Him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you,
He . . . shall also quicken your mortal bodies by His Spirit
that dwelleth in you" (Rom. viii. 11). If the other well-
attested reading, " on account of His Spirit dwelling in you,"
be adopted, the reason for the transformation, that is, the
resurrection of spiritual bodies, is expressed instead of the
indwelling efficient cause. The "adoption as sons" which
the Christians have received, and to which the Spirit
"beareth witness," renders them "heirs of God and joint-
heirs with Christ," for since they suffer together, they will
also be glorified together in the Parousia with a glory with
which " the sufferings of this present time are not worthy
to be compared" (Rom. viii. 15-17).
"Spirit" and "inheritance" belong together, and it is
not strictly accurate to say as Gunkel does that " the former
is the present and the latter the future participation in the
kingdom of God," or with Wendt that "the Spirit is the

SUPERNATURALISM—THE SPIRIT 337
power of supernatural life in the heavenly state of exist
ence." The Spirit as a present possession is a "pledge"
of a future in which its glory will have a fuller manifesta
tion. It dominates both states of existence for the believer,
giving him " righteousness, peace, and joy," in which the
kingdom of God consists, and destined there to disclose
things that eye hath not seen, or ear heard. He who has
the Spirit has a " life " which in its nature is imperishable.
Death has no longer dominion over him, and whether he
die physically before the advent of the Lord, or survive
that event, he is in any case certain to have for his new
existence the spiritual body which, like that of the resur
rected Jesus, will denote his triumph over the grave (1 Cor.
xv. 50-54; 1 Thess. iv. 13-18). It is true that Paul some
times speaks of the eternal life as simply a future possession
(Rom. ii. 7, v. 21, vi. 22 f. ; Gal. vi. 8 ; 2 Cor. v. 4), but had
he seen no deeper than this, he would not have transcended
his age, and given to the world his most fruitful interpreta
tion of the gospel, that eternal life is inseparable from walk
ing in the Spirit (Rom. viii. 12 ; Gal. vi. 8).
What, then, is this Spirit, which in the primitive church
was regarded as taking such violent and compelling posses
sion of the believers, and which in Paul's doctrine domi
nates the entire scheme of salvation, bears such blessed
fruit of good works (Gal. v. 22 f.), and is a "pledge " of the
participation of those in whom it abides in the impending
kingdom of God ? The apostle himself has not attempted
to define it, and it would be hazardous for his students to
venture where he did not presume to go. That it was a
power from God bestowed upon those who had faith in
Jesus; that it witnessed to their adoption as sons ; that it
gave " life " — the moral-religious and the eternal life ; that
through it the love of God was shed abroad upon the hearts
of the Christians ; that it would assure to its possessors a

338 THE TEACHER
spiritual body of glory when their Lord should descend with
his angels at the Parousia ; and that it so abounded in Jesus
that " Spirit " and " the Lord " were conceived as inter
changeable terms,— -all this and much more we have learned
from Paul. But as we cannot define God or life, so we
have no data for a definition of this subtle agency. The
apostle sometimes speaks of it as if he meant to ascribe
personality to it, as when he says it " witnesses " with the
human spirit, represents man before God, distributes gifts,
and searches the deep things of God (Rom. viii. 16, 26 ;
1 Cor. xii. 11, ii. 10.) But that he cannot have conceived it
to be a personality distinct from God and Jesus is certain,
for he declares Jesus to be the Spirit, makes no distinction
between the indwelling in the believer of Christ and of the
Spirit, and says that amidst the diversities of the operations
of the Spirit it is " the same God who worketh all in all "
(1 Cor. xii. 6). That it is designated as "of God " and "of
Christ " denotes that it was neither the one nor the other,
but rather implies that it was a force which both could em
ploy. May it have been conceived as the element in which
God dwells, the ho^a (glory, effulgence) which surrounds
Him (Ex. xxiv. 16 f.), perhaps a supersensible, fine materi
ality, according to the original word, " breath," " wind " — a
glory which Paul regarded as communicated to the counte
nance of Moses (2 Cor. iii. 7), and which in his visions he may
have seen on " the face of Jesus Christ " (2 Cor. iv. 6) ? *
* In I Cor. xii. 4-6 Spirit, Lord (Christ), and God are mentioned in succes
sion, but manifestly not as a " trinity " in the " immanent " sense ; for in verses
10 and 11 the "operations" of verse 6 are ascribed to the Spirit. The only
trinity in the case is one of manifestation. In 2 Cor. xiii. 14 occurs a
similar succession of Christ, God, and the Spirit ; but here there is no
thought of a " coordination " of three personalities constituting a trinity. Such
a conception cannot be reconciled with the apostle's frequent subordination of
Christ to God and his identification of him with the Spirit (see 1 Cor. iii. 23,
viii. 6, xi. 3, xv. 28; 2 Cor. iii. 17). In Rom. viii. 9-1 1 the Spirit is introduced

SUPERNATURALISM—THE SPIRIT 339
The "spiritual body" of the resurrection-state was con
ceived as "conformed to the body of glory," which Paul sup
posed Christ to have in heaven, and he speaks of a gradual
transformation "into the same image from glory to glory"
(2 Cor. iii. 18) from the successive "beholdings of the glory
of the Lord," as if, according to Schmiedel, he may have
believed in mysterious preliminary grades of the eschato
logical glorifying, physically effected through the indwelling
Spirit in connection with the repeated visions of the Christ-
manifestations. But however the question of the materi
ality of the spiritual substance may be decided, and it cannot
be dogmatically determined, it is evident that Paul was in
accord with the Old Testament and the later Jewish con
ception in the idea that exceptional and marvellous perform
ances which were beyond ordinary human power were
attributed to a Spirit sent forth by God, although he differs
from the earlier view in limiting the supernatural agency of
the Spirit to the concerns of the religious life. The root-
idea seems to have been that certain spirit-forces were at
the divine disposal designated as Spirits of lying, of blind
ness, of courage, of wisdom, for instance, which might be
" sent forth " to accomplish a desired end. God sends "an
evil Spirit," "the Spirit of the Lord departs from" a man,
and "an evil Spirit from the Lord troubles " him (Judg. ix.
23 ; 1 Sam. xvi. 14-16, 23, xviii. 10). The prophets ascribe
their message, which they conceived to be supernatural, to
the Spirit of Yahweh. In 1 Kings xxii. 21 a personified
evil Spirit "comes forth and stands before Yahweh," and
offers to go as "a lying Spirit" to Ahab's prophets. In
these cases a discrimination is manifest between the Spirit-
first as of God, then as of Christ, and again as of God, while in the immediate
connection Christ is mentioned as signifying the same indwelling and effective
agency, in accordance with the declaration : " The Lord [Christ] is that
Spirit" (2 Cor. iii. 17),

34O THE TEACHER
agencies and God Himself. They are supernatural powers
which He may command.
Paul's conception of the Spirit appears to have had its
root in the Old Testament idea, and like the Hebrew
writers he speaks of this superhuman power as " of God "
and as "sent forth" by Him.* If he thought with the
fourth evangelist that "God is Spirit," he does not say so,
and certainly not that God is "the Spirit" (to irvevpta).
When he declares that Christ "is that Spirit" he does not
intend to identify two personalities. It must remain un
certain whether he conceived of " Spirit " in the abstract
as an indefinite power, a diffused celestial Sofja or glory of
God, which could be intensified into an agency or agencies
bordering on personality, and sent forth as " the Spirit "
on its ministry to man. The main consideration is that
he transformed the crude, popular, primitive-Christian
supematuralism in its relation to the Spirit into a profound
spiritual supematuralism whereby the entire religious and
ethical life of the believer was brought into living relation
to God and mystic fellowship with Christ.
He does not think the thought of Paul who does not see
the powers of the supersensible world taking a controlling
part in the spiritual fortunes of men, who does not recog
nise a supernatural atonement, a heavenly Christ, and a
* Paul's conception of the transcendence of the Spirit, shown in his employ
ment of the word with reference to man only in cases of necessity, and in his
referring it to God in 91 out of the 103 passages in which the word occurs,
leads Holsten to the conclusion that his thought was here as in some other
matters determined by other than Jewish influences. " This idea of the essence
of ¦wvevp.a, [that of its transcendence], which is not explicable out of the
Jewish consciousness, and the sharp antithesis thereby produced of the nature
of God and man, [the opposition of] irveO/xa and odpl;, which dominated
Paul's thought, cannot be otherwise explained than out of the influence of the
Hellenistic dualism of spirit and matter upon his thinking. But we must not
fail to recognise the fact that a religious requirement, that of the necessity of
sin, urged him to the adoption of this dualism." — Die paulin. Theol. p. 38.

SUPERNATURALISM—THE SPIRIT 34 1
Spirit whose operations dispense with the laws of moral
and religious growth. It has been the fortune of this doc
trine to be transformed in order to meet the varying phases
of human thought. We are now in the midst of one of these
transformations. A fellowship with Christ which is ethi
cal instead of supernatural, an atonement which is only a
reconciliation, a baptism which is a mere outward form, an
eschatology which is an historical evolution without a catas
trophic dinoument, and a Spirit which works according to
law constitute an emasculated Paulinism. The indomitable
tendency of modern thought toward these ideas denotes
our departure from the greatest of the apostles, and indi
cates the transient elements in a teaching which for ages
swayed the thought of Christendom.

CHAPTER XIV
FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION
THE objective condition of salvation according to Paul's
apprehension of it was furnished in the atonement of
Christ, and is summarily expressed in the declaration that
" Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to every
one that believeth" (Rom. x. 4). The "end of the law"
signifies neither its purpose nor its fulfilment, but its
abrogation as a way of salvation or as a means of attaining
righteousness. The apostle lays down no doctrine with
more explicitness and emphasis than this one that right
eousness is unattainable by man's own endeavour to fulfil
the law (Gal. ii. 16, iii. 10), and that "if righteousness
come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain," and "is
become of no effect" (Gal. ii. 21, v. 4). The righteousness
that is by the law and the righteousness that is by faith
are placed over against each other as mutually exclusive.
There is no combination of the two. The former is
impossible, for "by the works of the law shall no flesh be
justified," and accordingly there remains only the latter.
A combination of the two methods is not implied in Rom.
viii. 4, "That the righteousness of the law might be
fulfilled in us who walk not after the flesh but after the
Spirit." For this righteousness which the law requires,
that is, the right moral-religious life, is here represented
as something which "the law could not effect" (verse 3),
and which is made possible only through the sacrifice of
Christ, in whose death the sentence of condemnation
342

FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION 343
against sin was executed. In their fellowship with his
death the flesh is slain for the believers also, and the
righteousness of the law can be fulfilled by them only
because they " walk not after the flesh but after the
Spirit," that is, through receiving the atonement by faith
they have come into an entirely new relation to God, in
which they are "free from the law of sin and death," and
under "the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus."
What they could not do before they can do now by means
of what God has graciously effected for them through
Christ. Their righteousness is not now by the law, but
by faith, through which alone according to the apostle's
thought salvation can be acquired, and which is its sub
jective condition, man's part in its consummation, just as
God's part was the offering of the atonement. In this
original conception, which is a striking manifestation of
the apostle's religious genius, is presented not only a new
religion in contrast with Judaism, but also a new Christi
anity in contrast with the Christianity of the twelve
apostles and the Jewish Christians in general. Their
righteousness was that of the law with Christ, Paul's was
that of God through Christ without the law. To them
Christ was a means of reforming and fulfilling the law,
while to Paul he was the "end" of it, and in him it was
abrogated as a way of attaining righteousness.
In the apostle's declaration that " if righteousness come
by the law, then Christ is dead in vain," the importance
of the subjective condition of salvation is manifest. The
proffered grace of God, the atonement, the dying of Christ
to the law, to sin, and to the flesh, must all be ineffectual,
if men continue in the old way to seek salvation by the
fruitless attempt to fulfil the law. The grace that is
offered, the atonement that is provided, must be "re
ceived," or they are " in vain." The reception of the

344 THE TEACHER
gracious offer of God, its appropriation, is conditioned
upon a receptive state of mind which the apostle des
ignates as faith (rricnvi), and to be in the right attitude
toward it is to believe (incrTeveiv). The grand idea is
confidence, trust in God, and especially in Him as the
author of the new dispensation of grace in Christ.
Accordingly, it is set over against "sight" or knowledge:
" For we walk by faith, not by sight " (2 Cor. v. 7). It is
not founded upon such a conviction as may proceed from
experience and a wide acquaintance with the world. Paul
tells the Corinthians that his preaching to them had not
been "with enticing words of man's wisdom, but in
demonstration of the Spirit and of power," that is, that
God had wrought in him with a super-earthly power ; and
this was to the end that their "faith should not stand in
the wisdom of men, but in the power of God " (1 Cor. ii. 5).
Its support should not be in the knowledge which is of
this world, but in the divine power manifested in the plan
of redemption and in the religious life of the believer, as it
was animated by the Spirit. Faith is trust in God in the
face of and against the natural and probable, as in the case
of Abraham with reference to the birth of a child in the
old age of himself and his wife — a faith that was "against
hope in hope." He cast himself upon "the promise of
God," and was "fully persuaded that what He promised
He was able to perform." This faith "was imputed to him
for righteousness" (Rom. iv. 18, 21, 22). The religious
character of faith as Paul apprehended it is thus manifest.
God is the object of it. It is confidence in His promises,
and from the specifically Christian point of view con
fidence in the plan of redemption consummated by the
death of Christ as an atoning sacrifice and by his resur
rection and ascension to glory, whereby he received the
authentication of his mission from the Father. In other

FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION 345
words, it is not a belief in a course of things naturally to
be expected according to the usual order, but confidence
in a consummation which one might regard as "against
hope," that is, in a supernatural "life" and righteousness
offered to man by the cooperation of God and Christ in the
atonement. The apostle well says of such a faith that it does " not
stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God."
Since it was "through Christ" that the atonement was ef
fected, it is natural that faith should be directed to him, and
we accordingly find "faith of Christ," "faith unto Christ,"
and "faith in Christ," in all which cases is implied con
fidence in him as "the Lord," the Messiah, and the One
who is soon to come again to establish the kingdom. But
faith in him is subordinate to that in God, on whom
depends the fulfilment of the "promise." All faith is
"vain" if Christ were not raised from the dead (1 Cor.
xv. 14), and this crowning miracle of the whole scheme of
redemption was the work of God. He it is from whom
comes the justification of the ungodly (Rom. iv. 5), and to
Him will the kingdom at last be delivered up(i Cor. xv. 24).
When we consider how near to the apostle's heart Christ
was, it is not surprising that he connects faith in him and
faith in God in relation to the atonement. It was in the
revelation of Christ in him that his conversion consisted,
and his heart went out to Jesus in grateful love on account
of the great sacrifice whereby he had been delivered from
the bondage of the law. Accordingly, he coordinates the
"confession" of the Lord Jesus with faith in the fact that
God had raised him from the dead as the two conditions of
salvation (Rom. x. 9), and the love of Christ and the love
of God are mentioned in connection with each other as a
boon from which nothing can separate the believers (Rom.
viii. 35, 39)-

346 THE TEACHER
While the great historical events which to the apostle
were fundamental, that Christ came into the world as the
second Adam for a work of redemption, that in order to
accomplish this work he was crucified, and that in attesta
tion of the divine character of his person and mission God
raised him from the dead, must be believed as the basis of
faith in its profounder significance, still Paul did not stop
in his interpretation of faith with these external facts. For
him there was a deeper, a more inward faith which touched
the springs of conduct, and produced the highest order of
life. Accordingly, he speaks of a faith that is " unto right
eousness," and says that this is a believing " with the
heart " (Rom. x. io). The historical fact of the resurrec
tion of Christ may be so apprehended, and such an appre
hension of it assures salvation (verse 9) in connection
with an open confession of belief in Jesus as " Lord."
Emphasis is laid upon the resurrection, not because in the
apostle's doctrine of the atonement it took precedence
over the death of Christ, but because it was the conspicu
ous event without which he would have appeared in his
death to have been abandoned of God and hence not to
have been the true Son and Messiah. Under this condi
tion he could not have been at all an object of faith, there
would have been in fact no atonement, and men would
have been still in their sins (1 Cor. xv. 17). The faith
which is "unto righteousness" is, then, of the heart (icap-
St'a), and is something more than intellectual assent to
outward facts. It is the opening of the inmost being to
the reception of the salvation provided through the love
of God and of Christ for men. It is a response of the
sentiments to this gracious offer from the open heaven,
and there go with it joy, gratitude, love, and an eager
acceptance of the great boon from the heart of God.
In the recognition of Christ as Lord is implied an ac-

FAITH AND JUST I PICA TION 347
knowledgment of his authority. Accordingly, there goes
with faith the idea of subjection in the good sense, that
is, of glad and grateful obedience as to one who com
mands the heart, and sways the will by love. Submis
sion to "the righteousness of God " (Rom. x. 3), mentioned
in contrast with the futile attempt to establish one's own
righteousness by works, is the equivalent of faith. A
similar attitude is implied in the "bringing into captivity
of every thought to the obedience of Christ " (2 Cor. x. 5).
Pfleiderer's discrimination should, however, here be noted,
that the obedience in question is not to be regarded
as the ethical disposition and effort to fulfil the law, for
this is opposed to the apostle's doctrine of justification
by faith, but as a devotion in absolute self-renunciation to
the gracious divine will, in contradistinction to the seek
ing of one's own righteousness and having "confidence
in the flesh" (Phil. iii. 4). This is a fulfilment of the
divine will, but not of the will that commands under the
law. Rather it is the compliance with the will that gives
under the dispensation of grace, and which demands of
man nothing but the trusting acceptance of the offer.
The Pauline faith is not, however, a mere passive ac
ceptance of the grace of God in Christ, but the believer
consecrates himself to God and Christ, and henceforth
lives in them and they in him. To be "in Christ'' is to be
"a new creation." The former subjection to the law of
works has passed away, or in other words the "old things"
are no more, and "all things have become new" (2 Cor.
v. 17). A new impulse has been imparted to the life, and
with a sense of freedom, with gratitude, love, and devotion,
the believer is conceived as entering upon a spiritual experi
ence hitherto unknown and inconceivable. No longer does
he feel himself alone in a doubtful conflict with the flesh
and in the futile struggle to keep the law. No longer is

348 THE TEACHER
God to him only a lawgiver and a judge. Now rather He
appears to hi-m as the gracious One who out of love for
man has offered the atonement, and sent Christ to con
summate it, and who only requires faith and acceptance of
the boon as the condition of the bestowal of His Spirit
and the adoption of the believer into the divine sonship.
That trust and devotion, love, and longing for communion,
are conditions of the bestowal of the Spirit is psycholog
ically evident, since God cannot bestow Himself upon one
who turns away from Him, or stands in a neutral attitude,
that is, without confidence, affection, and gratitude. Ac
cordingly Paul finds the consummation of faith to be an
intimate fellowship of the believer with God and Christ.
It is difficult for us with our modes of thinking to enter
into the depths of this conception. Perhaps we cannot at
all think and feel with the apostle in this relation. He was
a mystic in some of his deepest moods, and a mystic alone
can interpret him. He thinks of himself as living in Christ
and Christ in him, as if there were a blending of the two
personalities in a mystic union. To him "to live is Christ"
(Phil. i. 21). So completely has he appropriated the entire
life of Christ that the latter's experience of death and
resurrection has become his. He is identified with him in
the work of atonement and in the new and glorious life
which he lives in his exalted heavenly estate. " Through
the law," he says, " I am dead to the law, that I might live
unto God," that is, by reason of the penalty of-death which
the law adjudges to sin, I am dead to the law, because,
through fellowship with Christ, "I am crucified with him."
"Nevertheless," he continues, "I live; yet not I, but
Christ liveth in me, and the life which I now live in the
flesh I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me, and
gave himself for me" (Gal. ii. 19 f.).
This love and devotion of Christ call forth a responsive

FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION 349
affection in the believer, and in love and trust he is so
united to the Saviour that he can say : "He that is joined
to the Lord is one spirit " (1 Cor. vi. 17). In baptism the
believer has " been planted together [with Christ] in the
likeness of his death," and hence may reckon himself "as
dead to sin" (Rom. vi. 5, 11). The possession of the
Spirit of Christ is the evidence that one belongs to him, or
is "his." "Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ,
he is none of his" (Rom. viii. 9). " Know ye not your own
selves, how that Jesus Christ is in you, except ye be
reprobates ?" (2 Cor. xiii. 5). The Pauline faith, then, is
not a belief in Christ and God as external objects of con
fidence, but as an internal principle of life. The apostle
counts all things worthless if only he " may win Christ, and
be found in him not having his own righteousness which is
of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ,
which is of God by faith." He would "know him and the
power of his resurrection and the fellowship of his suffer
ings, being made conformable to his death " (Phil. iii. 8-10).
In Paul's contest with Peter at Antioch, when he "with
stood him to the face, because he was to be blamed " for
not " walking uprightly according to the truth of the
gospel," he laid down according to his own account of the
matter in Galatians the principle at issue between himself
and the Jewish Christians as to the method of salvation
through Christ in these terms : "A man is not justified by
the works of the law, but by faith in Jesus Christ ; . . .
for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified" (Gal.
ii. 16).* The word here rendered "is justified" (SucaiovTai)
* The exact attitude of Peter toward the " gospel " of Paul is involved in
uncertainty. Holsten's conjecture that when Paul first visited him in Jerusalem
the latter was in accord with him as to his gospel of the uncircumcision to the
gentiles is hardly supported in Gal. i. 1 8-24. How much Peter's " right hand
of fellowship " (Gal. ii. 9) at the council denoted we cannot know, just as it is
uncertain whether fear of those of the circumcision (Gal. ii. 12) was the sole

350 THE TEACHER
is borrowed from the judicial usage, and signifies primarily
acquittal from guilt by the decree of the judge. It is
accordingly to be interpreted as a recognition of the
right relation of the subject in question to the law or his
"righteousness." He is declared to be righteous. In the
Greek translation of the Old Testament the word is em
ployed in the same sense (Deut. xxv. i ; Job xxxiii. 32 ; see
also Matt. xi. 29, "Wisdom is justified of her children").
In Paul's usage the word denotes the recognition on the
part of God that the man to whom it is applied stands in
the right religious relation to Him, is acknowledged and
declared to be righteous. This must be clearly distin
guished from the process of rendering one righteous, from
conversion to or growth in righteousness. When the
apostle declares that the doers of the law shall be justified,
he has not in mind their becoming righteous through
obedience, but only the fact that their obedience having
been accomplished they are therefore regarded as righteous
in the sight of God, just as those who fail to keep the law
will be judged by it (Rom. ii. 12, 13).
This is one sort of justification, that under the law, but
a sort that is not recognised by the apostle, whose entire
doctrine of salvation is based upon the principle that by
the works of the law justification is impossible. The sense
motive for his withdrawal from table-companionship with the gentiles in
Antioch. It may be true that in Peter's gospel there was " a certain freedom
with reference to the Mosaic law, at least in all its forms of ritual and worship,"
in accordance with the attitude ascribed to Jesus toward it in Matt. ix. 9-13,
xii. 1-14, xv. 1-20. He may have agreed with Paul too " in the doctrine of
the death of the Messiah on the cross as an atoning substitutional death for
sin "; but the idea that he drew from this Paul's radical conclusion that in his
death Christ was " the end of the [whole] law," ethical as well as ceremonial,
Holsten rightly rejects (Die paulin. Theol., p. 44). One loses the key to the
understanding of Paul's Epistles the moment one attempts to interpret them
from the point of view that his doctrine of justification by faith was shared by
the Jewish-Christian apostles.

FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION 35 I
in which he employs the word "justify" is apparent from
the example of Abraham (Rom. iv. 1-5), of whom he says
that if he were justified by works, as the Jewish Christians
supposed, he has whereof to boast. But Paul denies that
he had anything to boast of before God, since from his
point of view boasting is excluded (Rom. iii. 27). The
Scripture, he declares, says that Abraham believed God,
and it was counted unto him for righteousness. Here
there is manifestly no process implied between the act of
faith and the righteousness. The latter is simply "counted,"
reckoned (Xoyi^eTai) on account of the former. The sub
ject's faith does not make him righteous, as if the relation
were one of cause and effect, but "to him that worketh
not, but believeth on Him that justifieth the ungodly, his
faith is counted for righteousness." The procedure by
which the judgment of righteousness is pronounced is
characterised by the apostle as one "of grace." When a
man fulfils the law, his righteousness of works is somewhat
that he is entitled to, and his reward is "of debt," while
not to "impute sin" on the one hand, and to "impute
righteousness " on the other, are simply to regard one as
not sinful or as righteous independently of one's obedience
or disobedience in relation to the moral law, and so to
declare by a pure act of favour or because one has had
"faith." The same word is employed to express the
relation to the judge in the case of a man who by arduous
effort may have fulfilled the law and in reference to another
who "worketh not," and is pronounced righteous "of
grace" by Him who has the prerogative of pardon, because
of his faith and on account of what Christ has done for
him through the atonement.*
* The exegetical contest over the word "justify" (Smaida) remains unde
cided. Like all verbs of its termination it is " factitive," that is, it denotes the
production of a state in the object. But in usage it is both actually and logi-

352 THE TEACHER
The relation of the apostle's doctrine of justification to
certain teachings of the Jewish theology is worthy of con
sideration. Although the Jewish theology, which Weber
has set forth, is of later date so far as the documents are
concerned, there is reason for believing that it was sub-
cally factitive, as Holsten.has pointed out. It is not, as Dr. McGiffert asserts,
of no importance for the Pauline usage that it is employed in the latter sense
in the Septuagint — " to declare one righteous in consequence of a judgment."
When Paul uses it in connection with his doctrine of justification by faith, it
always has this meaning, and not that of actually rendering one righteous.
The sinner is on account of his faith declared or reckoned (Xoy(ferai) right
eous because of the representative atoning death of Christ. This is the so-called
" forensic " or declaratory sense of the word. Righteousness is not produced
in the sinner, but it is " reckoned " or " imputed " to him (Rom. iii. 24, 26, 28,
30, iv. 5, viii. 30, 33; Gal. ii. 16 f., iii. 8, 24). When the apostle wrote of
justification by faith a process of moral-spiritual renewal does not appear to
have been in his mind. Hence the absence of all reference to repentance,
conversion, and forgiveness. He who has fulfilled the condition of faith is
theoretically a member of Christ and an heir of the kingdom, whether he be a
" Christian " in our sense of the word or not. He is one of the " predestinated,"
and as such is "justified," and by anticipation "glorified" (Rom. viii. 29 f.).
Dr. McGiffert's contention (The Apostolic Age, p. 144) that the non-forensic
sense of SiKatovv " can be clearly shown in Rom. iv. 2-5 and 1 Cor. vi. II " is
not well sustained. The words, " What shall we say then? ... if Abraham was
justified by works he hath whereof to boast," are doubtless an objection antici
pated from a Jewish opponent. Paul answers that there is no ground for boast
ing, for the righteousness of Abraham was " counted to him " because of his faith.
He says nothing of Abraham's being made righteous; and he does not contradict
himself, as Dr. McGiffert assumes, by declaring that Abraham really had ground
for boasting, and yet had none, because none " before God " ! In I Cor. vi. 1 1 :
" Ye are washed, ye are sanctified, ye are justified," etc., the fact that " justified "
follows " washed " and " sanctified," and is connected with " in the Spirit,"
does not " make it very clear that it is to be taken in the real and not in the
forensic sense." The sanctification of men of whom the apostle says that they
were "carnal" and envious (1 Cor. iii. 3) means only their setting-apart as
" holy," " elect," and prospectively members of the kingdom, and no more
denotes a real holiness than justification denotes in his usage a real righteous
ness. We must distinguish in Paul between the theoretical objective right
eousness " imputed " for faith and the real subjective righteousness which
experience with his churches constrained him to urge upon them as an ethical
acquirement. He leaves the two points of view unreconciled. (See p. 366.)

FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION 353
stantially contemporaneous with Paul, and where we find
striking agreements between the two the probability is
much greater that Paul borrowed from the Jewish teachers
than that they borrowed from him. Now in his doctrine
of justification as well as in that of the atonement the
apostle shows striking accords with the theology of his
people, while at the same time he surpasses it by the bold
flights of his religious genius. The Jewish theologians
taught, for example, that men were justified or condemned
on the ground of their works, and that their standing in
the judgment would be determined according to the pre
ponderance of good works over evil or vice versa. The
teaching, however, which is of especial interest to the
present discussion is that a balance in favour of good
works found on settling the account of any one might be
turned to the account of a less fortunate person, so as to
cover his deficiency. Thus men of distinguished piety be
came representatively righteous for the people in accord
ance with the principle of solidarity or the unity of the tribe.
Now it would appear that Paul adopted the representative
idea, that is, the doctrine of the imputation of righteous
ness. He took, however, the more radical ground that
righteousness is not attainable in any degree by works,
since the fulfilment of the law is impossible, and that
it is on principle a matter of grace. His anthropology
had an influence in determining his position on this point.
The flesh with its impulses to sin rendered ineffective the
utmost efforts of "the inward man." A man might,
indeed, with his "mind" "serve the law of God," but the
flesh, the fatal law in the members, tainted, and rendered
inoperative all his endeavours, so that he could not attain
a real righteousness. His sole hope, then, lay in the
destruction of this power of sin and the reckoning to his
account of a righteousness not of his own achievement.

354 THE TEACHER
In the destruction of the flesh of Christ on the cross the
judgment on sin was executed for the race on the person
of its representative head, the old dispensation of the law
was abolished, he was "made to be sin" for mankind, and
righteousness was accounted to them so far as they should
come into such a spiritual relation to him that they could
be included in the religious fellowship from which they
might derive advantage according to the principle of
solidarity. Those who will may come into this relation
through faith, that is, through a sympathetic union and a
fellowship of spirit and life with Christ, so that in a mystic
sense they become one with him, and participate in his
death and resurrection. Thus they derive advantage from
his sacrifice, although his merits are not transferred to
them, as, according to the Jewish doctrine, the virtues of
the fathers were set over to the account of their descend
ants, but they are "made the righteousness of God in
him " (2 Cor. v. 21).* In this new life in Christ not only
* In the term " righteousness of God " (SiKaiooivn Beov) when used by Paul
in connection with his doctrine of justification by faith the genitive is not that
of possession as in Rom. iii. 5, 25, 26, but that of the author. " The righteous
ness of God," or that which He " imputes," is set over against man's own right
eousness by works, and is purely a matter of " grace," a free gift " reckoned "
to men on account of faith and on the ground of the atoning death of Christ.
Hence it is said to be " by faith," and " upon all them that believe " (Rom. iii.
22). It does not denote a condition effected by man through his own works,
or produced in him by God, and hence in no sense a subjective state or char
acter. It is simply an objective condition in which God is pleased " freely " to
regard him as standing through faith in Christ (Gal. ii. 16; Rom. v. 15-17).
If the believer's ideal dying with Christ to the flesh, his life " by faith " (Gal.
ii. 20), and his possession of the Spirit, furnish to the apostle occasion and
ground for ethical exhortation to " walk in the Spirit," and thus appear to
relieve the hardness of the theoretically unmoral doctrine of justification, this
doctrine stands upon an exegetical basis too firm to be shaken by these con
siderations. The ethical aspect of salvation, as Paul apprehended it, has no
standing apart from the idea of the atoning death of Christ, on the ground of
which men may be justified by faith, and be " reckoned " as righteous without
" their own righteousness."

FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION 355
is the former sinful manner of living done away, but the
conditions of it are removed, and it is destroyed root and
branch. Accordingly, the apostle says : " If Christ be in
you, the body is dead because of sin, but the Spirit is life
because of righteousness" (Rom. viii. 10). The sentence
of condemnation to death which the law pronounced
against sin rendered it necessary that the body should die.
It must die "on account of sin," and Paul conceives the
body, the flesh, of the believer as " dead " through his
participation in the death of Christ. But on the other
hand, he has the divine Spirit, which is "life" on account
of the righteousness that he has acquired through this
mystic union with Christ. He enters too into a new
relation with God by reason of faith in Him as the author
of the gracious provision of the atonement, or more pre
cisely, through faith in Christ as the instrument of the
reconciliation offered by God. In entering into fellowship
with the Son by faith the believers become themselves
"children of God" (Gal. iii. 26), "and if children then
heirs, joint-heirs with Christ." United with him in the
mystic fellowship of his death, whereby they die to the
flesh and sin, they inherit with him the blessedness of
the kingdom (Rom. viii. 17).
The doctrine of Paul cannot be understood until we
have fully entered into his conception of the marvellous
transformation effected in the life of the believer through
his fellowship with Christ by means of faith. Marvellous
it must first of all be regarded. The change from the
state of subjection to the law and from the dominion of
the flesh was not conceived by him as effected through
the moral influence of the life and teaching of Christ,
through a subjection by a man's own effort and struggle
of the impulses of the flesh, or in other words through
such a process of growth as from the naturalistic point

356 THE TEACHER
of view we are accustomed to see in the attainment of
righteousness. This would be a salvation "by works,"
which Paul repudiated with all his energy as an im
possibility. The chasm which separated the man " in the
flesh" from the man "in the Spirit," the man under the
law from the man under grace, could according to his
thought be bridged only by a miracle. Repentance has
no prominent place in his scheme of salvation. Instead
of a "baptism unto repentance," he emphasises the baptism
into the death of Christ, whereby the believer comes into
the mystic fellowship of his passion, and rises "to newness
of life " in the fellowship of his resurrection. After he
had given the death blow to the flesh on the cross, Christ
in rising from the dead entered into the glorious life of the
Spirit in the supersensible world. Of this life those par
take who by faith come into fellowship with him. In the
flesh it is impossible to please God. But, says Paul to
the Romans, "ye are not in the flesh, but' in the Spirit, if so
be that the Spirit of God dwell in you." Already in this
state of existence the Christian is living that wonderful
life which belongs to "the spiritually minded" — a life
which no man can attain of himself, though he seek it
with repentance and tears, but which is the " gift of God "
to those who have faith. Its complete consummation is
indeed in the near future, when Christ shall bring it in full
glory in the kingdom, but even now "the powers of the
world to come " work in the believer. The writer of
Ephesians expresses the Pauline thought quite in the sense
of the apostle when he says that God, " when we were dead
in sins, hath quickened us together with Christ (by grace
ye are saved), and hath raised us up together, and made
us sit together [with Christ] in the heavenly places "
(Eph. ii. 6).
Thus justification is an act of God, just as the atone-

FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION 357
ment is His provision and is offered by Him. for men's
acceptance. The subjective factor, the act of faith, is
subordinate, though indispensable, and must not be con
ceived as the effecting of an achievement, the gaining or
attaining of righteousness. One can hardly say that Paul
thought of faith as a means through which man was justi
fied, certainly not in the sense that it was the cause and
justification the effect. The righteousness in question is
on account of faith, and is not regarded as a moral condi
tion into which the subject has brought himself, or even
as one that has been bestowed upon him. He simply
stands in a new relation to God, a relation which can be
accounted for by no natural law or psychological principle,
but one that is dependent upon an arbitrary act of God.
It is He who "justifies the ungodly," who performs this
miracle by which a man who has not a single "good
work" to his credit is declared to be justified or to be
righteous because he has had faith, is "justified by faith
without the deeds of the law " (Rom. iii. 28). " By faith "
is set over against "by works," but is not to be inter
preted in the sense of a growth by means of faith into
a condition of righteousness, for no actual righteousness
in the ethical sense is assumed in the case. Faith is
"reckoned as righteousness," is "imputed" as such (Rom.
iv. 9, 11). The disposition which faith implies, the feeling
of trust and even of love, gratitude, and submission to
God, does not constitute righteousness, since this in the
Pauline sense is acquittal of all sin before the divine judg
ment. It must either be attained by keeping the law
when it becomes a matter of "debt," or it must be ac
corded by the grace of God "without the law," that is,
without obedience and on the sole condition of faith.
Then it is a free "gift," and faith is reckoned as the
equivalent of a complete observance of the law.

358 THE TEACHER
Good works are, indeed, supposed to follow, when, in
fellowship with Christ and in possession of the Spirit, the
believer lives under the new " law of the Spirit of life " ;
but they are not the condition of justification, which is
accorded because of faith, or rather the faith itself is
accounted as righteousness apart from works. If faith
were regarded as a work of righteousness, then justifica
tion would be by works in contradiction with the funda
mental principle of the apostle's soteriology. Moreover, it
will not do to say that the apostle regarded justification as
granted on condition of faith in view of a righteousness
which faith may be assumed to initiate, and which in the
future will develop into a perfect obedience ; for in that
case men would be justified because of an ideal or possible
fulfilment of the law and not because of an actual one
— a doctrine of which there is no hint in Paul's writings.
The faith which is accounted as righteousness is regarded
as equivalent to a complete fulfilment of the law, that is,
it puts the subject in the same relation before God as is
that of the man who, being under the law, is not under its
" curse " because he has " continued in all things which
are written in the book of the law to do them "(Gal. iii. io).
The attempt to find an ethical basis for Paul's doctrine
of justification by faith cam hardly be regarded as success
ful. It is, indeed, offensive to the ethical sense that a man
should be declared righteous who has attained no moral
excellence. Accordingly, it is argued that by reason of
the fellowship with Christ which faith effects justification
by faith has a real ground, and the subject is actually
righteousness before he is declared to be so. But the
apostle says nothing of a righteousness which is attained
by means of faith, when he treats of justification by faith.
There is, indeed, a religious experience that man gains him
self by coming into fellowship with Christ and ideally dying

FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION 359
and being raised with him in baptism. The righteousness,
however, of which the apostle treats in his teaching of
justification is not gained, but is bestowed by God. He is
the justifier (Rom. iii. 26, iv. 5). The justification is His
act of grace pure and simple on the ground of the atone
ment made by Christ, the satisfaction of the law, the con
demnation of sin in the flesh on the cross. This "free
gift," this "gift by grace " (Rom. v. 15-17) consists simply
in this, that the man who has actually no righteousness
of his own (righteousness of his own no man can have
according to Paul) is recognised as righteous by God.
This justification is God's act, just as the atonement was
His, was conceived and carried out by Him without man's
participation. Man's relation to the justification which
God effects is purely receptive. He has only to accept
the proffered grace in trust and confidence in the promises
of God or by faith in Him. This attitude of mind will be
imputed to him as righteousness, just as it was in the case
of Abraham, for " it was not written for his sake alone that
it was imputed to him, but for us also, to whom it will be
imputed if we believe in Him who raised our Lord Jesus
from the dead" (Rom. iv. 23, 24).
In 2 Cor. v. 21, " that we might be made the righteous
ness of God in him [Christ]," "in him" does not relate to
the fellowship of his death, the mystic union with him of
Rom. vi. 3-8, but is to be interpreted in the sense of "in
Christ Jesus " in Rom. iii. 24, that is, of the redemption
that is in him who "was made to be sin for us." In Phil.
iii. 8, 9, "that I may win Christ and be found in him, not
having my own righteousness," the latter clause is not con
nected with the former in the sense that the apostle's
righteousness results from being found (at the Parousia)
in Christ. Rather he says that his righteousness is that
" which is of God by faith." Then he goes on to say, " that

360 THE TEACHER
I may know him and the power of his resurrection and the
fellowship of his sufferings, being made conformable to his
death, if by any means I might attain unto the resurrection
of the dead," as if the deeper communion with Christ and
the mystic fellowship were conceived as a progress in
Christian experience beyond the stage of justification and
as necessary to the attainment of the resurrection of the
dead. In Rom. viii. 1 f. and 2 Cor. v. 17 the apostle is
not considering justification by faith, but the condition of
the believer in the fellowship of Christ and under "the law
of the Spirit of life." Justification as God's act is nega
tively the non-imputation of their sins to men (2 Cor.
v. 19), which is equivalent to forgiveness. Satisfaction for
sin having been rendered on the cross, forgiveness is not
prominent in the apostle's thought. In fact the word is
not employed in the four great Epistles. Sin is simply not
charged against the man who accepts and appropriates the
atonement in faith in God's promise. He then stands in
an entirely new relation to God, is free from the condemna
tion of the law, and is regarded as if he had never trans
gressed. He has received the reconciliation, and has
"peace with God" and joy in Him (Rom. v. 1, n), and
may receive the Spirit and the adoption as son.
While, however, justification is not accorded on the
ground of attainment in the moral-religious life, that is, on
account of such an appropriation of the spirit and life of
Christ as furnishes an ethical basis for it, it is not to be
regarded as a transaction between God and man apart
from Christ. The subject of justification is on the contrary
regarded as holding a relation to Christ which is indis
pensable to the result. In the fiirst place, he is justified
only because he by faith comes under the dispensation of
grace which, while originating with God, was made possible
by the sacrifice of Christ. He is liberated from the law

FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION 36 1
and from the fruitless attempt to attain a righteousness of
his own by obedience to its requirements, and this deliver
ance was effected for him through Christ who on the cross
became "the end of the law to every one that believeth."
Accordingly, the apostle reminds the Romans that they
"are become dead to the law by the body of Christ."
Through the death of Christ the obligation to the law was
representatively fulfilled for all who believe. It is on this
ground, that is, on the ground of the relation of the
believers to Christ into which they come by faith, that
justification is accorded. While as the representative
head of the human race he died for all, his death is effec
tive for justification only to those who believe. For them
"that is dead wherein they were held" (Rom. vii. 6), and
they have entered into a new relation with God in which
righteousness is not to be acquired, but is "imputed," faith
being its equivalent, "The law hath dominion over a man
as long as he liveth."
The believer having died with Christ to the law is now
free from it, and in this freedom he is justified, that is,
declared to be righteous, accounted as such, because he
is now in a relation to God in which righteousness is a
matter of "grace" and not of "works." Accordingly, the
apostle declares that "through the law" he is "dead to
the law" (Gal. ii. 19), that through the requirement of the
law that the penalty of sin is death, he, having died ideally
with Christ, is dead to it. Now he is in the liberty where
with Christ has made him free (Gal. v. 1), having been
"bought with a price" (1 Cor. vii. 23). Along with this
new relation there go certain ethical obligations, and a
mode of life is required, in other words, "works" are
demanded, and the believer is exhorted to "serve in new
ness of the spirit and not in the oldness of the latter," and
to "bring forth fruit unto God" (Rom. vii. 4, 6). If the

362 THE TEACHER
believer is dead to the law, it is that he may "live unto
God " (Gal. ii. 19). He is required not to "let sin reign in
his mortal body, that he should obey it in the lusts thereof "
(Rom. vii. 12). But this ethical life, which is demanded
as alone in conformity with the new relation to God, should
not be regarded as the ground of justification. Faith alone
was its ground, and it was "imputed for righteousness."
As believers the Christians become recipients of the Spirit,
and enter upon a life in which, indeed, the supersensible
agencies, "the powers of the world to come," work in
them, but in which they too must watch and work under
a sense of the highest moral obligation. They must
"obey from the heart that form of doctrine which was
delivered to them " (Rom. vi. 17). They may be "justified
by faith," and the "righteousness of the law is thereby
fulfilled in them," while they "walk not after the flesh,
but after the Spirit."
In accordance with the fundamental idea of the doctrine
of justification, that the righteousness which the believer
obtains is not of his own desert, the apostle calls it " the
righteousness of God." "The gospel of Christ," he says,
"is the power of God unto salvation to every one that
believeth, . . . for therein is revealed the righteousness of
God from faith to faith " (Rom. i. 16, 17) — "from faith"
so far as the justification proceeds from faith (Gal. ii. 16),
and " to faith " so far as the proclamation of the gospel
leads to faith. This righteousness of God is not that
which avails before Him, or that is acceptable to Him, or
that He produces with their cooperation by an influence
exerted upon men, but that of which He is the author,
originator, and bestower, and of which they are the recipi
ents on condition of faith. This doctrine is clearly ex
pressed in the declarations that God "is the justifier of
him who believeth in Jesus," that "to him that worketh

FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION 363
not but believeth on Him who justifieth the ungodly, his
faith is counted., for righteousness," and that " God
imputeth righteousness without works " (Rom. iii. 26,
iv. 5, 6). The words: "The righteousness of God which
is by faith in Jesus Christ unto all (eh iravTas) them
that believe " (Rom. iii. 22), denote that the source of the
righteousness is in God, from whom it proceeds to the
believer by the divine decree or by imputation. In Rom.
x. 3 this righteousness is contrasted with that which men
seek to acquire and possess as " their own," and in Phil.
iii. 9 it is more precisely designated as "the righteousness
which is of God by faith." The meaning is not, however,
that God communicates to man the quality of His own
being known as righteousness, nor that He produces an
activity in him which leads to his attainment of a right
eousness, which would then be to a degree "his own" in
opposition to the ground-principle of the Pauline doctrine
of justification. When the apostle says that on account of
Christ's having been made to be sin for men they " are
made the righteousness of God in him" (2 Cor. v. 21), he
means that by reason of the atonement God attributes
righteousness to men — a righteousness which is His or of
Him in the sense that He declares it of the man who has
faith, and regards him as standing in a relation to Him in
which his trespasses are not "imputed " to him. The act
of justification is not the creation of a condition, but the
declaration and recognition of a relation. This relation
has been made possible through the atonement of Christ,
and is one of reconciliation, so far as the believer has
accepted the proffered grace. On God's part he is recog
nised as through Christ released from the law and from
penalty. On the believer's part he has " peace with God,"
and regards himself as "saved from the wrath through
him" by whose "blood" he has been "justified" (Rom.

364 THE TEACHER
v. 1, 9). In this new relation the Christian life is sup
posed to take its course under the guidance and inspiration
of the Spirit during the brief time which will elapse before
Christ comes to establish his kingdom and claim his own.
But to the question whether he who has been justified
by faith and has received the adoption as a son of God is
certainly saved, that is, safe against the approaching " day
of the Lord " and sure of the " inheritance " in the king
dom, there appear to be conflicting answers. On the one
hand, the believers have the witness of the Spirit that they
are adopted as sons of God, and as sons they are declared
to be "heirs of God" and "joint-heirs with Christ" (Rom.
viii. 16, 17). In other words, having the "earnest of the
Spirit," they are certain of a participation in the coming
"glory" of the kingdom or of "salvation." Moreover, the
believers are elected of God, " God's elect," and as such
are assured of being " Christ's at his coming." For
" whom He did predestinate them He also called, and whom
He called them He also justified, and whom He justified
them He also glorified " (Rom. viii. 30). To be " glorified"
is to share in the " glory" (Soga) of the coming kingdom, or
to be "saved from the wrath," and so certain is it that the
believers will have this great fortune that the apostle
speaks of it as an accomplished fact, since in the purpose
of God it is already effected. The divine love which
"foreknew" and "predestinated" the Christians will
surely gather them to the glorious inheritance prepared
for them from the foundation of the world ; and from this
love both of Christ who died for them and of God who
established the great atonement nothing can separate
them, not tribulation or persecution or famine or sword,
not death or life or the demonic " principalities and
powers " or things present or things to come (Rom.
viii. 35> 38> 39>

FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION 365
On the other hand, nothing can be more evident than
that the apostle in other passages employs expressions
which denote anything but a certainty that those who have
been "justified" will surely be saved. The Christian life
is depicted as a course to be run, a conflict with opposing
powers, a struggle against the flesh, a warfare in which the
issue is doubtful, since the efforts required depend upon
the disposition and choice of the believers themselves.
The "life" of the believers, their moral-religious life in
the present age as well as their eschatological life, that of
the kingdom, or their salvation, is represented as de
pendent on their mortifying, that is, destroying, the " deeds
of the body." If they live after the flesh they will
"die." In this struggle against the flesh they have,
indeed, the aid of the Spirit, but "through the Spirit " they
must themselves slay the flesh (Rom. viii. 13). Accord
ingly, they are exhorted to present their " bodies a living
sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God," and following this
exhortation is a long series of injunctions requiring a great
variety of "works," the crowning one of which is love,
which "is the fulfilling of the law " (Rom. xii. xiii.). Even
believers, who in the early portion of the Epistle are rep
resented as " elected " to salvation, as sons and heirs of
God, are here exhorted to " cast off the works of darkness
and put on the armour of light," as if their spiritual fortune
depended on their personal achievement. The conditions
in the Corinthian church which the first Epistle indicates
show that believers, the elect of God, are not so secure in
their position as not to fall away and require apostolic
admonition and discipline. Their "contentions" denote
anything but the prevalence of "brotherly love," and there
was one case at least of a sexual relation which the apos
tle felt called upon to condemn without qualification (1 Cor.
i. 11, v.i f.). Exhortations to the Thessalonians regarding

366 THE TEACHER
the same matters show that the believers who had been
theoretically justified "without works" must carry on the
old, endless conflict with the flesh, and be watchful as to
how they "ought to walk and to please God" (i Thess. iv.
1-5). Even the apostle himself acknowledges that he has
to "fight," and "keep under his body," and "bring it into
subjection." The "incorruptible crown" must be "ob
tained," and only he "that striveth " will gain it (1 Cor.
ix. 24-27).*
* An interesting aspect of the apostle's doctrine of sin is presented in his
teaching regarding the relation to it in which he theoretically regarded the
believers as standing. For his own part, he expresses no consciousness of sin
from the time of his conversion, and no sense of the daily need of a petition
for the divine forgiveness implied in the Lord's prayer. With the "old
things " that are passed, the old sinful life, he has broken forever, and leaves
them behind (2 Cor. v. 17; Phil. iii. 12). He is a " new creation," and being
" in Christ," he knows no longer anything of the burden of " condemnation "
(Rom. viii. 1). He regarded his fellow-believers from the point of view of his
own consciousness of " life " in the Spirit, so far at least as his theory of their
religious state was concerned. They were " dead to sin," and having been
"made free" from it, they "became servants of righteousness" (Rom. vi. 2,
18). In ideally dying with Christ (Rom. vi. 3, 8, 10) they "crucified the
flesh with its affections and lusts" (Gal. v. 24). They are not "in the flesh,
but in the Spirit," are " led " by it, while it bears witness to them that they are
"the children of God" (Rom. vii. 5, viii. 9, 14, 16). Such expressions lend
support to the supposition that Paul's missionary preaching was religious rather
than ethical, that its emphasis was placed on the mystic effects of baptism, on
"sanctification," and on "justification" (1 Cor. vi. n). His expectation of
the immediate coming of Christ to receive the "justified" believers into the
kingdom may have disturbed his perspective of the course of moral struggle
which actually lay before his churches. Hence the ethical-religious paradoxes.
The Corinthians, whom he rebukes for their moral delinquencies, are declared
to be " enriched in all utterance and all knowledge," and to " come behind in
no gift." God will " confirm them blameless in the day of Christ " (the
Parousia). They are "the temple of God " (1 Cor. i. 4-8, iii. 16, 17). These
morally very censurable men are religiously " sanctified in Christ Jesus, called
to be saints" (1 Cor. i. 2). The "forensic" character of their justification is
thus apparent. That they were " puffed up " in their sense of religious
security is not surprising (1 Cor. v. 2). The fact that doctrinally Paul made no
provision for the sins of believers shows that he took little account of sin as a

FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION 36/
Notwithstanding, moreover, that the possession -of the
Spirit is an assurance of the resurrection (Rom. viii. 11),
the apostle declares to the Philippians that the resurrec
tion is an attainment which yet lies before him, and ex
horts them to work out their own salvation (Phil. iii. 12, ii.
12). Thus in practice "works" come to their rights at
last in a doctrine which theoretically maintained justifica
tion by faith without them. The validity of works in the
judgment is as much a fundamental teaching of the apos
tle as is justification without them. God, " the justifier of
the ungodly " through faith, " will render to every man
according to his deeds " (Rom. ii. 6). Although merit is
vigorously repudiated, it is also acknowledged (1 Cor. ix.
17). Before the judgment-seat of Christ "everyone w'ill
receive the things done in his body, according to that he
hath done, whether it be good or bad" (2 Cor. v. 10).
There is peril lest the Christian who has come into the
liberty of Christ lapse into the old bondage, and he must
watch and struggle in order that he may "stand fast"
(Gal. v. 1). To the Philippians the apostle says: "Those
things which ye have both learned and received and heard
and seen in me, do" (Phil. iv. 9). If "the righteousness
that is by faith " is without an ethical basis, this is abun
dantly supplied for that course of religious experience
condition from which those could need to be delivered who had once been
" justified." The atonement is not applied to them. Faith saves once only,
and he. who through it has become a " new creation " is not conceived as
again needing this salvation. Paul can hardly have thought that any one of
his believers would be finally rejected when Christ should come. The spirit
of even the incestuous man was to be " saved in the day of the Lord." God
would not suffer the Christians to be " tempted above that which they were
able" (1 Cor. x. 13). The appearance of all believers "before the judgment-
seat of«Christ" (1 Cor. iv. 5; 2 Cor. v. 10) does not imply that the condemna
tion to " perishing " would fall upon any one of them. This " heaven-storming
idealism " was not shaken by the apostle's experience of the moral delinquencies
of his converts, which he did not fail to reprove with due energy.

368 THE TEACHER
which the apostle conceived as lying between the theo
retical imputation of righteousness and the judgment of
the Parousia. The relation to God implied in "justifica
tion by faith " — and it must be borne in mind that there
is only a relation in the case — places the subject in a
situation of freedom from the law and its penalty, of
arbitrary separation from his past life, in which he may,
as a child of God and a possessor of the divine Spirit, pur
sue a course of development subject to all the ethical
principles and requirements.
The dependence of the entire theory of justification by
faith upon the apostle's doctrine of the atonement is mani
fest. Without the theoretical satisfaction of the law, the
payment of the penalty of sin, the buying off of the sin
ner from " the curse of the law," there would be no basis
for a justification by faith, the non-imputation of tres
passes, the declaring of a man to be righteous without
works, or his establishment in the same relation to the
law in which he would have been if he had actually ful
filled its requirements. Accordingly, the validity and per
manent value of the doctrine must be questioned by any
one who is not convinced that the Pauline representative
atonement accords with the facts of human nature and ex
perience. To one who believes in the continuity of char
acter, and who cannot accept the teaching that, on condition
of faith in the doctrine that another has suffered for his
sins and given his soul for him, his life can be arbitrarily
severed at the point where that faith emerges, and the
consequences of his past acts annulled, the theory of justi
fication by faith must appear as a speculation which is not
to be taken seriously. To the apostle, however, it was not
an empty form, because he took the doctrine of the atone
ment very seriously, and for him it was a fundamental
proposition that if righteousness were attainable by works,

FAITH AND JUSTIFICATION 369
"Christ is dead in vain" (Gal. ii. 21). Yet, as we have
seen, he could not in practice dispense with works, and
could construe the judgment upon no other basis. Every
reader of his Epistles knows with what intense solicitude
he watched over his converts to see that they did not come
short of a righteousness by works. How he reconciled the
contradictory propositions, if he attempted their reconcilia
tion at all, we do not know. To us they constitute one of
the antinomies of his thought. Their reconciliation is,
however, of slight importance to those who construct their
ethics upon the recognised principle of the continuity of
character and upon the facts of human experience, and who
accept as the basis of their moral philosophy the good
Pauline doctrine that judgment will be rendered "to every
man according to his works."

CHAPTER XV
ETHICS
THAT Saul of Tarsus, born of Jewish parentage and
educated in the Jewish traditions and Scriptures,
should, as the Christian Paul, be a man of profound ethi
cal convictions and earnest ethical purpose, is in the nature
of the case to be expected. It is not, however, to be looked
for that a man of his occupations, a missionary, preacher,
bishop of souls, engaged in a contest with Jewish Chris
tianity, persecuted and imprisoned, should, in the letters
written to the churches to meet special exigencies, formu
late an ethical system. When we consider, moreover,
that his predominant interest was religious, and that, in
view of his expectation of the early termination of the
course of "the present age" by the coming of Christ to
judgment, the salvation of men, or their preparation for
entrance into the kingdom whose establishment would
introduce the eagerly expected "age to come," was the one
matter of most urgent moment, we shall not be surprised
to find his ethics subordinated to his sot'eriology. The so-
teriological interest culminates in the doctrine of the Spirit,
which must be taken into account in the discussion of the
apostle's ethics. The Spirit is a supernatural power, which
he believed to come to the aid of the natural faculties of
men and to enable them to compass a moral-religious life
otherwise unattainable. This teaching is founded upon
his doctrine of Christ, in whose death he saw the end of the
law, the destruction of the flesh, the overthrow of the power
37°

ETHICS 371
of sin, an opportunity for all who would accept the atone
ment by faith to sever themselves from their former life
and all its consequences of penalty and shame, to be de
clared righteous or justified by faith, and to begin a new
spiritual existence under "the law of the Spirit of life."
The righteousness which they could not attain of them
selves by "works" would thus be "imputed" to them on
account of their faith, and coming into mystical fellowship
with Christ in baptism they would, in his indwelling pres
ence, possess the Spirit, the " pledge " of all that the love
of God could bestow.
The Spirit bestows "gifts." "To one is given by the
Spirit the word of wisdom, to another the word of know
ledge, ... to another faith, ... to another gifts of heal
ing, . . . prophecy, divers kinds of tongues " (1 Cor. xii.
6-1 1 ). It " sheds abroad the love of God " in the heart of
the believer. It is the Spirit of adoption as a son, and
bears witness with the spirit of the Christian that he is
the son of God, who walks in the Spirit, is impelled by the
Spirit, serves God in the Spirit, and is the temple of the
Holy Ghost (Rom. v. 5, vii. 6, viii. 14-16; 1 Cor. vi. 19;
Gal. v. 25). The subjection of the entire life of the be
liever to the influence of the Spirit — a teaching original
with Paul and distinguishing his pneumatology from that
of the Jews and the primitive Christians generally — results
in attributing to the Spirit certain ethical qualities and
achievements in the believers which were not by his con
temporaries regarded as of supernatural origin.
This ethical point of view is not free from difficulties
and from inconsistencies which are not easily reconciled.
The apostle's recognition of a moral ability in the natural
man denotes the acceptance of a principle fundamental in
any ethical view of human life. Men possess by nature
an insight into "that which may be known of God," it

372 THE TEACHER
being "shown unto them" in "the things that are
made," so that " the wrath of God is revealed against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men." "The gen
tiles, who have not the law," " show the work of the law
written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing wit
ness and their thoughts accusing or else excusing one
another." Though they go far astray, yet they know
"that they who commit such things are worthy of death "
(Rom. i. 18-20, 32, ii. 14). The "conscience" of the
natural man and his knowledge of God through "the
things that are made " render him "without excuse" for
his moral delinquencies (Rom. i. 20, ii. 1). How much
more the Jew, who has the great "advantage" that to him
"were committed the oracles of God." Yet of both Paul
declares that it is impossible that they should be accepta
ble to God with their utmost ethical striving. Righteous
ness by " works " is unattainable. There is no recognition
of such a righteousness in the theoretical ethics of the
apostle. On the contrary, it is emphatically and re
peatedly repudiated (Rom. iii. 20; Gal. iii. 11). The two
propositions, that man possesses an ethical capacity which
renders him " without excuse " for not attaining righteous
ness, and that with the most conscientious employment of
it he cannot compass such an attainment, are not easily
reconciled. Equally confusing to the ethical judgment are
the two propositions that " as many as sin without law
(i.e. without the explicit Mosaic code) shall also perish
without law," and that where this law, which "worketh
wrath," is not, "there is no transgression," and "sin is
not imputed" (Rom. ii. 12, iv. 15, v. 13). Before the law
was given, "sin was in the world," and men "without the
law" had the accusing conscience, yet sin was not "im
puted." Sin exists, and calls down the divine "indigna
tion and wrath," and yet it is not reckoned as sin. An

ethics 373
express recognition and imputation of it, however, appear
to be declared in the teaching that its penalty, death,
" reigned," and wrought its frightful ravages from Adam
to Moses "even on those who had not sinned after the
similitude of Adam's trangression " (Rom. v. 14).
The radical departure from the Old Testament ethical
point of view denoted by the teaching that man cannot
attain a righteousness of his own, must be regarded as a
defect in the ethics of the apostle. Its result in those who
receive it can be nothing else than a moral discouragement
and a paralysis of the moral powers. One cannot without
mockery exhort men to strive for the unattainable. The
direct relation of the moral agent to God, which is such a
hopeful feature of the Old Testament ethics, is obscured
in the ethics of Paul, in which the law stands like an inex
orable fate between God and man, demands the avenging
divine wrath against the sinner in satisfaction of its claims,
and forbids the extending of the hand of mercy, until
through an acceptance of the sacrifice of Christ a way is
opened for the granting of pardon. The Old Testament
ethics had a great advantage in the fundamental presuppo
sitions, that the law, instead of being "given that sin
might abound," was given that it might be obeyed, and
that obedience was within the ability of the subject. We
cannot too highly estimate the vast ethical encouragement
and inspiration which belong to such a conception of
man's moral relation to God as is expressed in the follow
ing : " For the Lord will again rejoice over thee for good
as He rejoiced over thy fathers, if thou shalt hearken unto
the voice of the Lord to keep His commandments, . . . and
if thou turn unto the Lord with all thy heart and with all
thy soul." The commandment is not so high that it can
not be obeyed, or so far off that it cannot be apprehended.
" It is not in heaven that thou shouldst say, who shall go

374 THE TEACHER
up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, . . . neither is
it beyond the sea, . . . but the word is very nigh unto
thee, in thy mouth and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it"
(Deut. xxx. i, 2, 10-15). One cannot read far in the Old
Testament without meeting with expressions of ethical
courage and strains of hope and of joy in moral victory.
The moral achievement is assumed as a matter of course,
and is attended by the blessedness of dwelling in the di
vine presence. " Who shall abide in Thy tabernacle ? "
asks a psalmist ; and the confident answer is, " He that
walketh uprightly, and worketh righteousness " (Ps. xv.
1, 2). It is assumed that he who knows "the path of
life " is able to walk in it ; and if he grope and stumble,
God will show him the path, and "in His presence is ful
ness of joy" (Ps. xvi. n). The rewards of the Lord are
according to one's own righteousness and " the cleanness
of one's hands " (Ps. xviii. 20) — a most salutary ethical
point of view if the ethics of reward is to be at all rec
ommended, but one which Paul could not approve, who
censures the Jews for " going about to establish their own
righteousness " with " a zeal of God, but not according to
knowledge " (Rom. x. 2, 3). In the Hebrew morals the
moral agent finds encouragement in the divine forgiveness,
when he is despondent in view of his imperfect achieve
ment. " I said, I will confess my transgressions unto the
Lord, and Thou forgavest the iniquity of my sins " (Ps.
xxxii. 5). This relation of man to God could hardly be
acknowledged in the Pauline scheme, for there the non-
imputation of sin was due to the fact that sin had been
atoned for by the sacrifice of Christ, and its penalty thus
paid. Whoever had faith was acknowledged on account
of this as righteous, and his past sins were not "imputed."
The love of God indeed was behind the scheme of atone
ment, but it is manifest that the relation of man to a God

ethics 375
who forgives is radically different from that to a God who
accepts one as righteous "without works," because one has
faith in an atonement which has satisfied the law.
Against the Pauline doctrine of a supernatural righteous
ness for which faith is " imputed," and which is expressly
declared not to be attained by works and not to be of
" merit," must be urged the objection on moral grounds
that it presupposes a breaking of the ethical continuity of
life. If in the course of human experience such a right
eousness were at all possible, its possessor would have
been violently transferred from the natural condition of
moral struggle and endeavour, in which he was neither
wholly good nor altogether bad, into a supernatural state
of complete righteousness, which he had done nothing to
acquire except to perform an act of faith.
The genesis of this ethical teaching must be sought in
related doctrines of the apostle. One of its roots undoubt
edly strikes into his doctrine of the Flesh — the ethical
dualism of flesh and Spirit, which is certainly of Hellenistic
origin. According to this teaching, man could not attain
righteousness by reason of the strength of the evil impulses
of the flesh. The sin that dwells in him impels him to do
what he hates. Despite his delight in the law of God
after the inward man, the law in his members brings
him "into captivity to the law of sin and death" (Rom.
vii. 14-25). "The mind of the flesh is enmity against
God," is not subject to His law, "and cannot be." The
natural man is "in the flesh," and "the motions of sin
which are by the law work in his members to bring forth
fruit unto death " (Rom. vii. 5, viii. 7). To the apostle there
was no natural way of deliverance from this condition.
*By the law came the knowledge of sin. It was given that
sin might abound, and was a provocation to transgression
(Rom. vii. 7-12). It could not effect man's salvation,

376 THE TEACHER
because it was "weak through the flesh" (Rom. viii. 3).
Speaking of himself for the natural man, Paul says : " Sin
taking occasion by the commandment wrought in me all
manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was
dead. For I was alive without the law once ; but when
the commandment came, sin revived, and I died" (Rom.
vii. 8, 9). Since, then, man could not save himself by his
own ethical striving on account of the flesh, and since the
law was ineffective for the same reason, there remained
only a resort to a supernatural righteousness, and the
apostle's resort to this must be regarded as a logical step
from his premises. When all other means fail, the divine
powers must be invoked.
Another root of the ethical principle in question lies in
the apostle's Christology. He could never have become a
Christian had he seen in Christ nothing more than an
ethical and religious teacher who had died as a martyr to
his convictions. It was the followers of a Christ " according
to the flesh " whom he persecuted. The Christ "according
to the Spirit," whom he knew in and after his conversion,
was a supernatural being, who in his death and resurrection
became the author of a supernatural salvation by putting
an end to the old order of sin, the law, and death and
introducing the divine order of "the Spirit of life." A
Christ who did not effect a supernatural atonement, and
become the author of a supernatural righteousness, could
not have won his devotion and service. To him Christ
was the divinely appointed agent for the accomplishment
of a salvation which all other agencies, man's own " mind,"
which "serves the law of God," the law, and the prophets,
could not effect. "What the law could not do in that it
was weak through the flesh, God, sending His own Son in
the likeness of sinful flesh, condemned sin in the flesh, that
the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who

ETHICS 177
walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit " (Rom.
vii. 3, 4). In order to effect man's deliverance from the
law, the righteousness of which was unattainable by his
utmost ethical endeavour, its claims must be satisfied by the
payment of a ransom. Accordingly, to the apostle, Christ
was in his death a "propitiation through faith in his
blood "(Rom. iii. 25), and on the cross he redeemed men
(iijriyopao-ev, bought them off) from the curse of the law
(Gal. iii. 13). The old dispensation with all its great moral
precepts and its splendid examples of righteousness had
for him little ethical or religious significance. At the best
it was a provisional arrangement, " a schoolmaster to bring
us to Christ, that we might be justified by faith," since
justification by works was out of the question. Notwith
standing the fact that he finds in Abraham the original
example of righteousness by faith, he regards pre-Christian
mankind as " shut up under the law unto the faith which
should afterwards be revealed " (Gal. iii. 23, 24). The
ministry of the law was a ministry of servitude, of con
demnation, and of death, notwithstanding the declaration
that it is "spiritual," "holy and just and good" (Rom.
viii. 12, 14). "Life," in the apostle's sense of the word,
that supernatural endowment of the man who is justified
by faith, and possesses the divine Spirit, the law could not
bestow. "For," he says, "if there had been a law given
which could have given life, verily, righteousness should
have been by the law" (Gal. iii. 21). It is evident, then,
that if Christ did not come to transcend the law, he could
have for the apostle no spiritual function and no soterio-
logical office. His entire faith in Christ was staked upon
a belief in him as the bearer of a message of supernatural
righteousness. If he could not hold to the latter, he must
abandon the former. Accordingly, with all his heart and
with all the energy of a profound conviction he held to the

378 THE TEACHER
belief in the doctrine that righteousness could not be
acquired by ethical effort, but must be the gift of God
through Jesus Christ. His reasoning was from the cross
to this ethical principle. If there were no super
natural righteousness, then the cross was vanity and a
symbol of humiliation, since it had no significance if the
old ethical order stood, and men could become righteous
by works. Salvation is by "grace"; and, exclaims the
apostle, " I do not frustrate the grace of God, for if right
eousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain "
(Gal. ii. 21). Out of this Christology the ethics of the
Spirit was a natural and necessary growth.
A third root of this ethics of supernatural grace extends
into the apostle's soteriology. Here the entire scheme is
supernatural. The kingdom is soon to be ushered in by
the miraculous descent of the Lord Christ from heaven.
The matter demands haste. There is no room for
historical development and the perfection of a race
through ages of evolution. The fortune of the individual
is in question. The kingdom is for the "elect" whom
God " predestinated to be conformed to the image of His
Son " (Rom. viii. 29). This personal factor gives a point
and intensity to the apostle's doctrine of salvation which
we can in our conditions with difficulty appreciate, but
which we can see reproduced in the fervour and strained
emotion of those people who still believe in the immediate
personal coming of Christ with the apocalyptic accompani
ments of the primitive-Christian doctrine of "the last
things," and who gather in "ascension-robes " to meet him
as he descends. It is hardly to be supposed that the
apostle believed that a man in ethical striving after a
righteousness by works could do no virtuous act, and
could not achieve righteousness to any degree. This
could not have been his opinion, unless we have here

ethics 379
another of the many antinomies of his thought. The
absolute rejection of righteousness by works is certainly
irreconcilable with the declaration that some gentiles not
having the law " do by nature the things contained in the
law" (Rom. ii. 14) — an expression in which the attain
ment of complete legal righteousness appears to be
implied. It is also not in accord with his assertion
regarding himself that prior to his conversion, when the
only "justification" that he could have pleaded was that
" by works," he was, " touching the righteousness which is
in the law, blameless " (Phil. iii. 6). The unqualified
declaration that " by the works of the law shall no flesh be
justified" (Gal. ii. 16) hardly allows the supposition that
when he made it he had reference only to the mass of
men, and believed that he himself and some others consti
tuted exceptions to the principle. In the same verse he
includes himself among those who have "believed in Jesus
Christ, that they [we] might be justified by faith and not
by the works of the law."
But whether we have here an unresolvable paradox in
the apostle's thought or not does not concern our imme
diate purpose, which has to do with the fact that in all his
soteriological declarations he proceeds upon the principle
that a supernatural righteousness is alone adequate.
With respect to salvation or admission into the kingdom
which Christ was soon coming to establish, he could not
have allowed that any man could attain this great for
tune through a righteousness gained by his own ethical
endeavour. A partial fulfilment of the law on the part
of one to whose credit might be placed good intentions
and an honest, earnest purpose, would not avail along with
forgiveness of the delinquencies. Of such a salvation,
although it abounds in ethical encouragement, the apostle
gives no intimation. When the heavenly kingdom should

380 THE TEACHER
come in its glory and purity, its gates would only open to
the perfect — to those who possessed "the righteousness
which is of God," and whom " the law of the Spirit of life
in Christ Jesus had set free from the law of sin and
death." The apostle's ideal with respect to his elect
believers was that God should " establish their hearts un
blamable in holiness" before Him . . . "at the coming of
our Lord Jesus Christ with all his saints " (i Thess. iii. 13).
They are exhorted to a "perfecting of holiness in the fear
of God" (2 Cor. vii. 1); and in Col. i. 28 his thought with
reference to the spiritual-ethical preparation for the king
dom is expressed by the writer in the words : " Warning
every man and teaching every man in all wisdom, that we
may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus." The
ordinary ethical endeavour of men to attain a righteousness
by works, in which along with a necessarily imperfect
obedience there must always remain something to be
forgiven, was evidently not adapted to this soteriology,
whose fundamental condition was the complete atonement
for sin effected on the cross and a corresponding perfect
righteousness " imputed " in return for faith on the part of
those who accepted the great sacrifice.*
* Paul took quite literally, more literally than the prophets or Jesus, the
declaration that he was " cursed " who " continueth not in all things which are
written in the book of ttie law to do them " (Gal. iii. io). He was in accord
with the Old Testament idea in the doctrine that only a righteous people
should inherit the kingdom of the Messiah. Compare Isa. xi. 9: "They shall
not hurt or destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the
knowledge of the Lord as the waters cover the sea," and see Isa. lxv. 17.
Not only the believers for whom the kingdom was prepared should come into
" the glorious liberty " of the age to come, but " the whole creation " should
be delivered from its groaning and travailing and its " bondage of corruption "
(Rom. viii. 19-22). To the question which Josephus mentions as having
agitated the Jewish parties, whether the righteousness suitable to the Messi
anic kingdom would be effected by man himself or by God, Paul could only
answer, by Him who " maketh one vessel to honour and another to dishonour "

ETHICS 381
The interruption through a supernatural principle of the
natural course of ethical development which is a fundamen
tal premise of the apostle's teaching is illustrated in his
exposition of the new life "in the Spirit" into which the
believer is assumed to enter, when having been justified
by faith he attains the divine sonship. For him there is
deliverance from the haunting presence and accusation
of his past misdeeds. His faith has been reckoned or
"imputed" to him for righteousness, and he now stands
toward God in a relation of "justification" which has
no natural connection with his moral conduct. The re
lation of cause and effect in the ethical and spiritual
domain is entirely ignored. This doctrine is explicitly
laid down in the words : " There is now therefore no
condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, who
walk not after the flesh but after the Spirit. For the
law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me
free from the law of sin and death" (Rom. viii. 1, 2).
In the ethical condition in which a man endeavours to
attain by struggle and self-conquest a righteousness of
his own, a righteousness which is "according to works,"
and is a matter of "merit," he is under "the law of sin
and death." This kind of righteousness being conceived
by the apostle as unattainable, that is, as not meeting
the requirements of his dogmatic Christology and soteri
ology, he assumes a miraculous transfer of the believer
into a relation to God in which "condemnation " falls away
so far as he is personally concerned ; for God, seeing that
man could not attain righteousness under the law on ac
count of its being "weak through the flesh," visited the
condemnation of sin upon the flesh of Christ, and accord-
(Rom. ix. 21). It was He who would "create the new heavens and the new
earth." The righteousness of the coming kingdom was as miraculous as the
deliverance of the groaning creation.

382 THE TEACHER
ingly holds him who accepts this atonement as no longer
subject to penalty. He has a part in the great sacrifice on
the cross by reason of the representative position assigned
to Christ in the Pauline teaching, and his relation thereto
is expressed in the declaration which Paul makes in his
discussion with Peter at Antioch : " I am crucified with
Christ. Nevertheless I live ; yet not I, but Christ liveth
in me; and the life which I now live in the flesh I live
by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave
himself for me " (Gal. ii. 20).
In the place of the natural life of ethical endeavour to
attain a righteousness by works the believer has the super
natural life of the indwelling Christ, who in " giving him
self for him " broke his connection with the old moral
order, and transferred him into the relation of justification
by faith and into the new order of " the law of the Spirit
of life." From this point of view it is not surprising to
find a considerable number of passages in which the per
sonal activity and achievement of the believer appear at a
minimum or are altogether ignored, and also to note that
the apostle does not at all recognise virtue in the abstract
in the sense of a personal attainment or an ethical accom
plishment. On the contrary, the indwelling Spirit, Christ,
and God are the effective forces of his life. Accordingly,
the apostle says to the Philippians that he is confident that
" He who hath begun a good work in you will perform it
until the day of Jesus Christ " (Phil. i. 6). To the Thessa
lonians he writes of reciprocal love not as if it were to be
attained by self-culture, watchfulness, and the subjection
of hostile sentiments, but he calls upon the Lord, that is,
Christ, to " make them increase and abound in love one to
another and to all men," to the end that they may be un
blamable at the coming of Jesus Christ (1 Thess. iii. 13).
The condition of being out of the flesh and in the Spirit is

ETHICS 383
due to no achievement of which a man can "boast" as of
a "merit," but solely to the fact that one has dwelling in
one " the Spirit of God " (Rom. viii. 9). By the same
Spirit, that is, by a supernatural agency, the believers are
"washed," "sanctified," and "justified" (1 Cor. vi. 11).
The mortification of "the deeds of the body" is effected
"through the Spirit" (Rom. viii. 14), while the expression,
" if ye mortify," appears to imply free personal activity,
and the passage may be regarded as denoting that the
activity of the individual is subordinate to and through
that of the divine Spirit. A similar point of view is
represented in the passage in which the list of ethical
virtues is given as "fruits of the Spirit," that is, the human
activities which the indwelling Spirit of God produces in
the believer (Gal. v. 22-24). In the eighteenth verse the
believers are addressed as persons impelled or led by the
Spirit, as if their personal autonomy were at least sub
ordinate, while in verse 25 they are exhorted, since
they "live in the Spirit," to "walk by the Spirit" — an
expression in which, if not their initiative, at least their
effective activity is implied. But the Spirit is generally
conceived as the dominant factor.*
* Alongside the doctrine of supernatural grace, or as " a series of under
tones " to it, there is maintained the ethical point of view of personal endeavour.
Not only did Christ " die for all," so that the " past " trespasses of the believers
are " not imputed " to them, but also the apostle does not wish to be under
stood as teaching that " by reason of this vicarious death a purely passive role
is assigned to those in whose place it was accomplished." Christ died for all,
"that they who live should not henceforth live to themselves, but to him who
died for them and rose again " (2 Cor. v. 14-21). Although by reason of the
supernatural " law of the Spirit of life," the believer theoretically sins no more,
yet this inward principle is conceived as a spur to ethical effort, an ethical
ideal, and an ethical power (Gal. v. 24, 25; Rom. viii. 13). While the appel
lation " saints " (iyioi) theoretically denotes those who are " called " or set
apart without regard to their ethical performance, Holtzmann finds that the
designation indicates also a "task," and "sounds like a requirement directed

384 THE TEACHER
This injunction to "walk in the Spirit" indicates a dis
tinct ethical ideal toward which the believer should strive.
The apostle reminds the Thessalonians that in his preach
ing to them he had "exhorted and charged" them, "as a
father doth his children," that they " should walk worthy
of God " who had called them to His kingdom and glory "
(1 Thess. ii. 11, 12). Despite the fact that every believer
is assumed according to a fundamental principle of the
apostle's soteriology to possess the supernatural imputed
righteousness, the practical righteousness which is attained
by ethical endeavour is held up as an ideal which Christians
ought to strive to attain. The body should be " presented
as a living sacrifice," and the " members " should not be
yielded as "instruments of unrighteousness unto sin," but
as "instruments of righteousness unto God" (Rom. vi. 13,
xii. 1). His "good and acceptable and perfect will" is
the supreme standard which they will " prove " who are
not conformed to this world, but are " transformed by the
renewing of their mind" (Rom. xii. 2). Even "the right
eousness of the law" which was repeatedly declared to be
unattainable in the natural course of ethical endeavour
receives recognition at last, and is represented as the ob
ject in view in the scheme of atonement. God sent His
Son for sin, and condemned it in his flesh, "that the
righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who
walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit " (Rom. viii.
4, 5). Although the believers in virtue of their "faith"
to those so called to become ethically what they already are religiously."
There remains yet to be satisfactorily pointed out the " psychological media
tion," which Schmeidel regards as " urgently needed," " between the objec
tively established- new relation of man to God and the former's ethical
conduct." Holtzmann finds it in the " love of God," which in the hearts in
which it is poured out " calls forth love to men, and becomes the impelling
force of all Christian virtues." But this is one of the " fruits of the Spirit "
(Gal. v. 22), and hence belongs to the supernatural realm.

ETHICS 385
already possess a righteousness not of works which has
been "imputed" to them, are adopted as sons of God,
and are " led by the Spirit," we have here the bold para
dox that there is still a righteousness to be "fulfilled"
by them, and that "the righteousness of the law." Is
there in the apostle's ethics a twofold righteousness,
one imputed and one achieved ; or has he here as else
where abandoned the dogmatic imputed righteousness in
favour of the real righteousness, of which according to the
traditions of his race he should have been the advocate ?
Neither supposition furnishes a satisfactory explanation of
the paradox. In any case the ground of supematuralism
is not abandoned. If the righteousness of the law is ful
filled in the believers, it is precisely because they have the
supernatural endowment of the Spirit, and can achieve
what was impossible to the natural man.
The extreme ground taken in the elaboration of the doc
trine of righteousness by grace is not, however, maintained
with entire consistency throughout even in the immediate
connection of the passages in which it is stated (cf. Rom.
vi. 6, 7, 18, with 1, 12, 13, 15). The exigencies of practi
cal life subject the theory of a supernatural righteousness
to a rude test, and show its weakness. "All the law is,"
indeed, "fulfilled in one word, thou shalt love thy neighbour
as thyself," and the believers as possessors of the Spirit
which has " shed abroad the love of God in their hearts "
should spontaneously fulfil it. But the apostle reminds
them of the peril which they run in biting and devouring
one another, and admonishes them to "walk in the Spirit,"
and not to "fulfil the lusts of the flesh," as if they were,
without his and their own watchfulness, in danger of a
lapse (Gal. v. 14-16).* The solicitude implied in the
* The attitude of the apostle toward " the flesh," his rigorous dealing with
the incestuous person, and his admonitions against fornication denote a great
2C

386 THE TEACHER
words, "if ye live after the flesh," is incompatible with the
doctrine that the believer in his supernatural connection
with Christ in his death has " crucified the flesh with its
affections and lusts" (Rom. viii. 13; Gal. v. 24). The
earnest admonitions in all the Epistles proceed upon the
presumption that the supernatural "grace" is not "suffi
cient " for the stress of life, since those who possess it need
to be put on their guard like other men against fornication
and the defrauding of one another (1 Thess. iv. 3-7). Thus
the ethical principle of righteousness by works, which was
so vehemently repudiated in theory, comes to its rights at
last. While the apostle gives no prominence to the details
of the life of Christ, and may be said in general to have
disregarded them, spiritual fellowship with and likeness to
him are presented as ethical ideals. The divine foreordina-
tion is conceived as directed to the conformity of the elect
to the image of Christ (Rom. viii. 29), and the Corinthians
are exhorted to be imitators of the apostle as he is an imi
tator of Christ (1 Cor. xi. 1 ; see 1 Thess. i. 6). To the
Philippians he writes : " Let this mind be in you which
was also in Christ Jesus," that is, the spirit of self-renoun
cing service, just as benevolence is enjoined upon the Corin
thians by reference to the grace of him who though rich,
for man's sake became poor (2 Cor. viii. 9). He is in tra
vail of the Galatians until Christ be formed in them (Gal.
iv. 19), and his deepest feeling with reference to his own
relation to Jesus is that expressed in connection with his
controversy with Peter : " I am crucified with Christ ;
advance beyond the ethics of the Stoics, who placed so much stress upon the
individual's indifference to externals and upon the disposition out of which
actions proceeded that they theoretically allowed an ethical laxity offensive
to the moral sense of mankind. The moral character, however, of the
great representatives of this school is conceded to have been above re
proach.

ETHICS 387
nevertheless I live ; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me "
(Gal. ii. 20).
The ethical motive is not as explicitly stated as the ideal,
and in order to determine what it was conceived to be sev
eral passages must be analysed. A grateful response to
the love of Christ finds expression in several places, but it
does not appear distinctly as a motive, as some suppose,
in Gal. ii. 20. Christ's- love for men, his self-devotion which
prompted him to leave for a time the glory of his preexist
ent state and to "become poor" for man's sake (2 Cor.
viii. 9), to "die for the ungodly," and to "give himself for
our sins " (Rom. v. 6 ; Gal. i. 4), is represented as " con
straining " the apostle in his zeal for the brethren and as
a reason why "they who live should not live henceforth to
themselves, but to him who died for them " (2 Cor. v. 14,
15). A recognition of God's goodness in the rational ser
vice of the control of the body is expressed in Rom. xii. 1.
On the other hand, the fear of God frequently appears as
a motive for abstaining from acts which will incur the di
vine disapproval. The apostle admonishes the Thessalo
nians that "no man go beyond and defraud his brother in
any matter because the Lord is the avenger of all such "
(1 Thess. iv. 6). He says that his persuasion of men is
founded upon his knowledge of "the terror of the Lord"
(2 Cor. v. 11), and admonishes the Corinthians to perfect
themselves in holiness " in the fear of God " (2 Cor. viii. 1).
" The terror of the Lord " is set forth in the declaration
that at the Parousia, when " the day of the lord so cometh
as a thief in the night," "sudden destruction shall come
upon them" who cry peace and safety, "as travail upon a
woman with child, and they shall not escape" (1 Thess. v.
2, 3). In connection with the admonition, " Take heed
lest he spare not thee," "the goodness and severity of
God " are presented as motives to fidelity, in other words,

388 THE TEACHER
reward and penalty are set forth as incentive and deterrent
with respect to belief and unbelief. Not only is this salva
tion to be " worked out " even by those who have already
become subjects of the supernatural grace, but it must be
done "with fear and trembling" (Phil. ii. 12).
Reward, and especially the eschatological reward or the
blessedness that the believer expected to enjoy when
Christ should come again in glory to establish his kingdom
(the Parousia), holds a prominent place among the motives
which the apostle represents as influencing him, and which
he sets before the Christians to whom he writes. Accord
ingly he writes to the Corinthians : " We labour, that,
whether present or absent, we may be accepted of him.
For we must all appear before the judgment-seat of Christ,
that every one may receive the things done in his body "
(2 Cor. v. 9, 10). He prays that the Thessalonians may
be made to abound in love to one another and to all men,
to the end that they may be " unblamable in holiness at
the coining of Jesus Christ with all his saints " (1 Thess. iii.
13). To the same church he sends the exhortation to be
sober and put on the breastplate of faith and love, because
God has appointed them to obtain salvation, and finally in
his kingdom to live together with Christ, whether they die
before it comes, or survive its advent (1 Thess. v. 8-10).
The same eschatological motive is manifest as crowning
and completing the motives derived from the spread of the
gospel, the being all things to all men in order to save
some, where in 1 Cor. ix. 25-27 the apostle represents that
all his striving in his missionary work is to the end that he
may "obtain an incorruptible crown." Fear also has a part
here, for he declares that he keeps his body in subjection,
lest he should be a castaway. "Troubled on every side"
and persecuted, he could be strong, and hold fast his faith,
knowing that He who raised up the Lord Jesus would raise

ETHICS 389
him up also, and that " the light affliction which is but for
a moment worketh for him a far more exceeding and eter
nal weight of glory." Accordingly, his gaze was fixed upon
the things that are eternal, in which was his everlasting
reward (2 Cor. iv. 8, 14-18 ; see also Rom. xiii. 12 ; 1 Cor.
iii. 8, 14, iv. 5, ix. 23, xv. 32 ; Phil. ii. 16 ; 2 Cor. i. 14).*
The ethics of marriage receives no distinctive treatment
at the hands of the apostle, what he says on the subject
having reference to special exigencies or to a theological
theme which he wishes to illustrate. His treatment of
divorce comes far short of the comprehensiveness and pre
cision of Jesus' teachings on the subject. In Rom. vii. 2, 3
he speaks by way of illustration of man's relation to the
law only of the wife as " bound to her husband as long as
he lives " and as an adulteress if she marry another man
during his life ; and in 1 Cor. vii. 10-16 he lays down the
general principle that a wife is not to depart from her hus
band, and the husband is not to put away his wife. This
* The passage I Cor. xv. 32 has been considered in Chapter VI with respect
to the interpretation of the fighting with beasts. Here we have to do with its
ethical aspect. "After the manner of a man" (Kara. ivBponrov) means, in the
manner of a man who knows nothing of a future life, or for whom there is no
resurrection of the dead. Of what use is it to have exposed myself to mortal
peril for my cause? If there is no resurrection of the dead, let us eat and
drink, for to-morrow we die. The meaning is that he did not expose himself
at Ephesus after the manner of a man for whom there is no future life. To
such a man there would have been wanting fhe courage to sacrifice himself
for an ideal, and he would say, " Let us rather eat and drink." This is the
Karh-ivBpiinrov point of view. If the belief in the resurrection overcomes it,
it is not because it furnishes a motive to sacrifice one's self for the sake of in
tegrity and duty, but one adequate to produce the needed courage and devo
tion. More than this does not appear to lie in the passage. Whether a man of
Paul's nature would have fought with beasts at Ephesus if there were for him
no resurrection of the dead is another matter. Schmiedel thinks Paul could
as little have followed the principle in question as Spinoza, Schleiermacher, or
Biedermann. In I Cor. ix. 16 the apostle represents himself as pursuing his
calling from an inner " necessity."

390 THE TEACHER
is said as a word of the Lord, although it has not the
qualification as to fornication which Jesus allows (Matt.
v. 32, xix. 9). His further discussion of the subject, in
which he professes to speak without authority, denotes
a departure from the unqualified prohibition of divorce in
verses 10 and 11, and forbids separation in marriages of
believing and unbelieving parties only when the unbeliev
ing party to the contract is "pleased to dwell" with the
other. With respect to marriage in itself the apostle's teaching
is a consistent conclusion from the doctrine that the flesh,
the seat of sin, was slain in the believer's crucifixion with
Christ, and that if he would "live" he must "mortify the
deeds of thebody" (Rom. viii. 13). From the premises
that the Christian has " crucified the flesh with its affec
tions and lusts," and that the reaping of "corruption" is
the result of "sowing to the flesh " (Gal. v. 24, vi. 8), legiti
mately follows an ascetic view of life.* Accordingly, it is
not surprising that in answer to a question on the subject
from the Corinthians, we find him advocating entire absti
nence from the sexual relation in the sweeping proposition
that "it is good for a man not to touch a woman" (1 Cor.
vii. 1 ). This can only mean that celibacy is preferable as
the rule of the Christian life to the marriage relation. For
the apostle proceeds to say that marriage may be allowed as
a preventive of fornication, or in other words, may be tole
rated as the less of two evils (verses 2, 9), and that it is
"good" for "the unmarried and widows" "if they abide
* This point of view obtains in I Cor. vii. 5, according to which the sexual
relation is incompatible with private religious exercises (" prayer and fasting "),
and for their sake should be suspended " for a time " by mutual consent. The
suspension should, however, be only temporary by reason of the danger of a
temptation through Satan on account of the assumed " incontinency " (aKpaota)
of the persons addressed.

ETHICS 391
even as he," that is, in a state of celibacy. The directions
regarding the " due benevolence " of husband and wife
toward each other are evidently given with reference to the
preventing of promiscuous sexual relations. All this, he
says, he speaks "by permission and not of commandment,"
although it would seem that a "pneumatic," a man in
possession of "the Spirit," should regard himself as en
titled at all times to speak with authority. He appears to
have regarded himself as possessing besides the other
" gifts of the Spirit " that of abstinence from the sexual
relation, and the inference from verse 7 is that every one
who has this "gift" ought to abstain from marriage on
the theory that the marriage relation is to be allowed only
when, according to verse 9, a greater evil may be pre
vented by entering into it.
Although on good ethical grounds the apostle opposes
the separation of the married, he regards the relation as
unfavourable to such a service of the Lord as he required of
the believers, whom he would have without domestic cares
(verse 32). The married "have trouble in the flesh"
(verse 28), and the woman who is married " careth for the
things of the world, how she may please her husband,"
while "the unmarried careth for the things of the Lord
that she may be holy both in body and in spirit " (verse 34)
— a remark from which it may be inferred that he re
garded the holiness "in body and spirit" of the married
woman as difficult, if not doubtful. He who giveth not his
daughter in marriage does "better" than he who allows
her to marry, and she is happier if she abide unmarried —
a declaration for which the apostle "thinks" he has "the
Spirit of God " (verses 38, 40). It is evident that he had
no such conception of the sacredness of the marriage re
lation as a means of spiritual culture and of the home as
a factor in the ethical life of men as has happily pre-

392 THE TEACHER
vailed in protestant Christendom.* This limitation of his
ethics was in part due to his eschatological expectations
and to the consequent curtailment of his historical per
spective ; and it should also be borne in mind that, as
Weizsacker remarks, his " view is deeply involved with his
doctrine of the flesh, in accord with the judgment on the
life of the senses which was at the time widely prevalent
also in heathenism among the better classes." To him
"the time was short, and it remaineth that those who have
wives be as though they had none " (verse 29), otherwise
he could not have expressed the wish that " all men "
should remain unmarried — an idea which Holtzmann
characterises as "a monstrosity, expressing the self-anni
hilation of mankind and the extreme consequence of a
pessimistic view of life." f
The direction regarding woman's praying^or"prophesy-
Jing in the religious assemblies with heyfiead uncovered
[was doubtless given in answer to questicms-'that had been
* " So far as it is a question of advice to such as had the gift of continence
and of theoretical approval in reference to all (with reservation of the practical
hindrance of axpaola) the Catholic Church rightly claims Paul for itself."
Schmiedel in Hand- Commentar on I Cor. vii. 40.
t Among the Stoics Epictetus held an opinion regarding marriage analogous
to Paul's. He advises the philosopher to abstain from marriage and the
procreation of children. While in a state composed of the wise he might do
this, it is different in the existing situation, in which the true philosopher
ought not to be involved in personal relations and occupations which might
withdraw him from the service of the Divinity. The Stoics in general main
tained, however, that a man should not withdraw himself from the service of
the state or miss any opportunity of taking part in its affairs in order to promote
the good and hinder the bad. Accordingly, he ought not to scorn marriage,
and should neither withhold himself from such a natural and intimate fellow
ship, nor deprive the state of posterity and human society of an example of »
so beautiful family-life. Wife and children belong to the perfection of life and
of the home. The citizen owes children to the state, and family-love is of all
the purest. See Zeller, Die Philosophic der Griechen, etc., iii. 1, pp. 176,
177.

ethics 393
sent to the apostle from the Corinthians or with reference
to conditions which he knew to exist among them. If
there was a tendency in the church toward a recognition
of the equality of the sexes in the religious worship, at
least, it was more in accordance with his doctrine that in
Christ "there is neither male nor female" (Gal. iii. 28)
than his own attitude in r-'GorT^xi^ 3-15, which is evi
dently a logical j^sequem^Qjf-'tfie principle of the sub
ordination of •gtofrtanto man. In fact, this is the chief
reason assigned for the direction, the fundamental motive
of-+he entire section, which begins with the declaration that
Christ is the head of the woman only secondarily, that is,
through the man (verse 3), and the doctrine is reasserted
in the words : " for the man is not of the woman, but the
woman of the man, neither was the man created for the
woman, but the woman for the man " (verses 8, 9). He
continues : " For this cause ought the woman to have power
on her head, because of the angels," that is, on account
of her subordination to man she ought to have her head

covered as a sign of his power over her. The expression,
"because of theangels^seems to have no logical connec-
tion~wTEirwhat precedes, since "the power on her head"
is " for this reason," that is, on account of what is said in
verses 8 and 9, and to add another reason entirely foreign
to this only confuses the sense. If the words are not
spurious, as some authorities suppose them to be, then
the apostle doubtless meant that the angels, assumed ar,
cording to Jewish ideas to be_ present jn the worshipping-
assemblies, might be captivated by the sight of .. the
women with uncovered heads (Gen. vi. 2). In any case
the" partial concealment of the heads of the women from
the sight of the men in the assembly was not improbably
a motive for the direction. For the later post-Pauline
development of the doctrine of women's subordination,

394 THE TEACHER
see Eph. v. 22, 23; 1 Tim. ii. 11-15; Tit. ii. 5 ; 1 Pet.
iii. 1.*
With respect to the existing social order in general, it
did not enter into the apostle's thought, which was fixed
upon the approaching end of the world, to undertake radi
cal reforms. If he thought slavery was wrong, and ought
to be abolished, he gives no hint of such an opinion. On
the contrary, he exhorts that "every man abide in the
same calling wherein he was called. Art thou called being
a servant ? Care not for it ; but if thou mayest be
made free, use it rather [that is, to serve the Lord in this
condition]. For he that is called in the Lord, being a
servant, is the Lord's freeman" (1 Cor. vii. 20, 21). In
returning Onesimus to Philemon, he has nothing to say
of the evils of slavery, and does not ask for his liberation,
but only for a kindly reception and a fraternal adjustment.
With regard to the ethics of the individual's relation to
the state the apostle recognises the latter as an " ordinance
of God," since He is the source of all power. Resistance
to the power is resistance to the ordinance of God, for
* The subordination of women is most decidedly expressed in I Cor. xiv.
34 f. where the apostle writes to the Corinthians that their women should
" keep silence in the churches and be under obedience, ... as also saith the
law " (Gen. iii. 16), and that " it is a shame for them to speak in the church."
This passage is the more surprising in that the apostle had previously in chapter
xi. tacitly permitted women to pray or prophesy on condition that they were
veiled, and may be said to have sanctioned both subject to that restriction.
Thercis no indication that he had different kinds of religious assemblies in
view in the two instances, or that in the latter case he intended only to forbid
the women to ask questions. If when Paul wrote xi. 2-16 he had intended
afterwards to make this sweeping prohibition, he must, as Schmiedel remarks,
have inserted in the former passage a qualification as to the special kind of
religious assembly in view, if such a qualification was in his mind. Here the
women are permitted neither to speak nor to ask questions, but as to the
latter matter they are told to inquire of their husbands at home " if they will
learn anything." If the passage is not a later addition to the text, as some sup
pose it to be, it is irreconcilable with the manifest intention of chapter xi. 2-16.

ethics 395
which those who resist shall receive "damnation." It is
evident that in deriving the doctrine of the state and the
subject's relation to it from the principle of divine right,
he reached conclusions not in accord with political condi
tions then existing or likely to exist. The Roman power
in his time could not be characterised as " not a terror to
good works, but to evil," and "a minister of God" to men
"for good." The whole construction is without a practical
basis, the declarations are sweeping and unqualified, and
no provision is made for emergencies in which the right
eous indignation of men swayed by a sense of justice and
a passion for liberty becomes a "terror" to "the powers
that be." In fact, the historical struggle for liberty has
been a struggle against the Pauline doctrine of the divine
ordination of the tuling powers of the state. If it had
been in the apostle's manner to give advice to the Chris
tians of his time regarding their relation to the state
without laying down an a priori doctrine of the state, the
counsel which he gives in Rom. xiii. 1-7 would have been
wise ; for it is evident that the existence of the primitive
church depended, as Pfleiderer has pointed out, upon its not
assuming the rdle of the reformer and revolutionist with
reference to the social and political order. Yet gentile
Christians in Corinth are commanded not to recognise
the civil courts, but to set up a tribunal of "saints"
before which they may "go to law," because "the saints
will judge the world and even angels" (1 Cor. vi. 1-9).
Following the apostle as an " authority," the state on
the one hand and the church on the other have main
tained their separate "divine rights " to the great injury of
both. The ethics of the apostle finds its purest expression in
the directions which he gives the Christians for their rela
tions with one another and with the world. His morality

396 THE TEACHER
reaches its highest point in his social ethics.* Here the
ethical genius of his race speaks the word of practical
righteousness by works in freedom from dogmatic pre
possessions. In the social order all are "members one
of another," should be " kindly affectioned one to another
with brotherly love, in honour preferring one another,"
blessing the persecutor, rejoicing with them that rejoice and
weeping with them that weep, recompensing no man evil
for evil, providing things honest in the sight of all men,
and as much as possible living at peace with all (Rom. xii.
5-21). Here the welfare of all should be preferred to the
gratification of the individual, who is called upon to make
sacrifices for the common good, and "love beareth all
things, believeth all things, hopeth all things, endureth
all things" (1 Cor. x. 24, xiii. 7; Phil: ii. 4). He who is
weak should be treated with consideration and with the
sacrifice of his own liberty by him who is strong, that
through the "knowledge" of the latter the former may not
" perish." Whoso " sins against the brethren, and wounds
their weak conscience, sins against Christ" (1 Cor. viii.
9, 11, 13). Love outranks faith and hope, subjects the
freedom of the individual to the service of others, and is
the fulfilling of the law (1 Cor. xiii. 13 ; Gal. v. 13 f.),
* " This indwelling Spirit of God is the power not only to break the might of
the odp!- in the ego (Gal. v. 16; Rom. viii. I— II, 13), and thereby to effect
the dyiaopAs and the ayioovvt) of the believer (Rom. vi. 19, 22), but also to
call forth all positive virtues (Gal. v. 22). The first and the most essential
movement of the will of the believer filled with the irvevp.a is dydirrj. As
the Spirit originates in faith (Gal. v. 5), as the infinite life-power which the
believer receives from God in consequence of his faith, so faith is bound up
with love, in so far as it is faith in the love of God and Christ (Rom. v. 5-8;
Gal. ii. 20) , and therefore itself becomes active in deeds of love (Gal. v. 6) ;
but love, as faith become effective, is not only the inward fulfilling of the
Mosaic law (Gal v. 14; Rom. xiii. 10, cf. viii. 4), but the believer also fulfils
in it rbv vbjuiv rod Xpiorov (Gal. vi. 2), and in it lives positively a new life for
God (Gal. ii. 19)." — Holsten, Die paulin. Theol. p. 118.

ethics 397
while through it faith comes to its rights as a practical
power (Gal. v. 6).* Thus out of a conflict with opposing
dogmatic points of view, which threatened to overwhelm
it, there emerges a social ethics, an ethics of righteousness
by the works of the law, which not only reproduces the
highest achievements of the Hebrew ethical genius, but
also represents the spirit and the life of Jesus. Although
it is curtailed at some points by the eschatological point
of view, the conscientious student of the apostle will not
fail to signalise the fact that amidst all the intensity of
strained expectation in view of the approaching " end of
the age" he did not relax his vigilance with reference to
the moral welfare of the churches and his zeal for the
purity, charity, and practical righteousness of the believ
ers. Really if he did think that without their own moral
achievement and "merit" he could "present them per
fect " at the coming of the Lord, he appears sometimes to
have forgotten this doctrine, and his contribution to prac
tical righteousness despite the paradox of grace and works
remains one of the permanent achievements of his genius.
* The social ethics of Paul has interesting points of contact with that of the
Stoics. Despite the emphasis which the Stoic teachers placed upon the inde
pendence of man upon outward relations, they taught that his only rational
attitude was a recognition of fellowship with others and a subordination of
the individual's interests and aims to those of the community. " In his reason
man knows himself as a part of the whole." " We can treat rational beings,"
says Marcus Aurelius, " only from the point of view of fellowship " (koivuvikSs) .
Epictetus gave a religious expression to this doctrine when he grounded his
teaching of human fellowship upon the declaration that " all are brothers, for
all have in like manner God as Father." The divine sonship of men which
Paul emphasises is that into which those enter who accept Christ through
faith. The universal fatherhood of God has no distinctive expression in his
Epistles. On the ethics of the Stoics see Zeller, Die Philosophic der Griechen,
iii. I, pp. 171 ff.

CHAPTER XVI
PREDESTINATION
THE traditional theism of Israel had in Paul a thor
oughly consequent supporter. To him God was the
supreme author and disposer, the first and constant cause.
He has no " counsellor," and no one has first given any
thing to Him. " Of Him and through Him and to Him
are all things " (Rom. xi. 34-36 ; 1 Cor. viii. 6). The
entire economy of salvation, and man in his relation to
it, are regarded from this point of view. The condition
of human sinfulness on account of which the atonement
became necessary is of divine appointment. If the multi
tude of men turn away from the gospel, " God hath con
cluded all in unbelief" (Rom. xi. 32). If the Jews are
indifferent and blind, it is because " God hath given them
the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see, and
ears that they should not hear" (Rom. xi. 8). The "un
cleanness" and "vile affections" of men denote a degra
dation to which " God gave them up " (Rom. i. 24, 26).
Man was created carnal, and as such cannot be subject
to the law of God (Rom. viii. 7). " The law in the mem
bers " brings him " into captivity to the law of sin and
death " (Rom. vii. 23). If the first Adam was made a
mere living soul, a natural man, subject to sin and death,
the second Adam, Christ, was equally by divine appoint
ment made "a life-giving Spirit" and an instrument in
the hand of God to repair the frightful damage which the
former had done. Only the power of the Spirit can over-
398

PREDESTINA TION 399
come "the motions of sin" which, springing out of the
flesh, tend fatally downward toward ruin and death. A
supernatural intervention can alone prevent the " destruc
tion " which was supernaturally determined in the original
constitution of human nature. The historical drama of sin
and redemption was conceived in the council of heaven,
and the celestial powers move the actors on the stage.
The temporary economy of the law was ordained of God,
that sin might abound (Rom. v. 20). He also provided
the atonement for the abolition of the law and the destruc
tion of sin, and the Spirit and the supernatural righteous
ness under the antithetic dispensation of " grace " are His
"free gift" (Rom. v. 15-19).
From this point of view the proofs adduced by the
apostle in Rom. viii. 18-33 that the believers are "heirs
of God," and as "joint-heirs with Christ" will at the
Parousia be "glorified together" with him in the king
dom then to be established, furnishes no surprise to the
attentive student of his thought. The entire construction
proceeds from the premises of supematuralism. The dis
posing hand of God is evident in "the glory which shall
be revealed in us " ; a divine intervention will work the
miracle of the deliverance of " the whole creation " from
"the bondage of corruption" and from the "vanity" to
which it was subjected on account of the sin of man ; the
Spirit, the heavenly, supernatural power, " helpeth the
infirmities" of the believers, and "maketh intercession"
for them ; and by providential disposition "all things work
together for good to them who are the called according
to His purpose." Finally, the teaching that the believers
will inherit the kingdom when Christ shall come is placed
beyond all question by the declaration that this great fort
une has been determined for them in the divine counsel.
" For whom He did foreknow He also did predestinate to

400 THE TEACHER
be conformed to the image of His Son, that he might be
the firstborn among many brethren " (Rom. viii. 29). The
direct divine determination is here unmistakable. " God
makes all things work together for good " (Rom. viii. 28) is
the correct interpretation of crwepyel, 0eo? being implied as
the subject. The " called " are the believers, and they are
believers according to God's purpose (7rp66ecri<;), that is,
because it was His purpose that they should be. To
make the purpose of God dependent upon the act of
faith on their part, that is, to interpret the words to the
effect that God had a purpose regarding them only
after they became believers, is to give a sense to the pas
sage directly opposite to that intended by the apostle.
God did not have a purpose with reference to them be
cause they believed, but they believed because He had
the purpose that they should.
Paul did not think that any one became a believer in
Christ and an heir of the glorious kingdom unless it was
predetermined in the divine counsel that he should be.
Those alone were "predestinated" to this great inheri
tance whom God "foreknew." The determination neces
sarily expressed in "predestinate" cannot be separated
from "foreknew." The one implies the other. To give
the passage the sense that God predestinated to a cer
tain fortune those of whom He foreknew that they would
of their independent choice become believers, is to attri
bute to Paul a self-contradictory determinism of which he
knew nothing.* So to interpret the words is to wrest
them from their connection and introduce confusion into
the entire section. With such a meaning in his thought
* " It is altogether inadmissible to speak of a conditioning of the divine
election (bchoyn) by preaching regarded as calling and by consenting faith,
for these factors come into consideration only as moments in the realisation
of the unlimited election." — Holtzmann, Neutest, Theol. ii. p. 166.

PR EDES 7 'IN A TION 40 1
he could not have written as he did, but would rather have
written : "All things work together for good to them that
love God, for these He did predestinate to be conformed
to the image of His Son." The passage cannot be ex
plained to this effect while the omitted words are retained
without a perversion of its manifest intention. The end
in view in the divine predestination was the conformity of
the believers to the image of the Son of God. This must
be interpreted in connection with the fortune of the be
lievers as "heirs " and with "the redemption of our body "
(Rom. viii. 17, 23). In other words, the passage has an
eschatological reference, that is, a reference to the second
coming of Christ. Then the believers would be conformed
(crvfifi6pcpov<i) to his image, or would have his "form"
(p,opcprj) of glory and splendour as he should come forth from
the heavenly regions of light. " Flesh and blood cannot
inherit the kingdom of God " (1 Cor. xv. 50). Accordingly,
"this corruptible must put on incorruption," and "those
who are Christ's at his coming " will be clothed upon with
"spiritual" or "celestial" bodies (1 Cor. xv. 40, 53). The
"vile body" will be "changed," "that it maybe fashioned
like unto his glorious body" (Phil. iii. 21) or his body of
glory, the "spiritual" form which shines with celestial
effulgence (Soga).
The doctrine of the divine efficacy in the fortune of the
believer is further elaborated in Rom. viii. 30 : " Moreover,
whom He did predestinate, them He also called ; and whom
He called, them He also justified ; and whom He justified,
them He also glorified." There is only a shade of dis
tinction between "predestinated" and "called." For to
" call " in the Pauline usage does not mean simply to invite
to an acceptance of the gospel ; but the " called " are those
whom God has chosen or elected to this divine fortune,
and not only chosen, but also led. The invitation is to

402 THE TEACHER
all, and if the "called" were conceived as simply the in
vited, they would not be definitely discriminated as those
whom God predestinated, and the apostle could not have
written of them as of a fraction of Jews and gentiles, as
he does in Rom. ix. 24 : " Even us whom He hath called,
not of the Jews only, but also of the gentiles." * Not only
is the calling efficacious in the sense that God leads His
chosen ones into the new life, but there follows another
divine act, that of justification: "Whom He called, them
He also justified," that is, bestowed upon them "the right
eousness which is by faith." This is throughout under
stood by Paul to be the act of God, who by virtue of His
supreme right declares those to be righteous who accept
Christ by faith. Accordingly, they possess a righteousness
which is of God instead of one of their own attainment
"by works." The latter is impossible, while the former is
bestowed by "grace," "is a free gift," and in its origin is
outside the connection of natural causation. Here it is a
link in the chain of supernatural events lying between the
" call " of the believers and their inheritance of the king
dom. This inheritance is now spoken of as though already
in the possession of those who have been predestined to
share in its blessedness (1 Thess. ii. 12). Since it is
determined in the divine counsel, Paul writes of it from
this point of view as something accomplished, and sees
the believers, the elect of God, with bodies of celestial
splendour conformed to Christ's "body of glory," as they
meet their descending Lord to be "forever with him."
The further development of the doctrine of predestina
tion shows the occasion of the temporary and transient
character of certain of the apostle's teachings. Rom.
* See 1 Cor. i. 9, vii. 15, 17; Gal. i. 6, 15, v. 8; 1 Thess. ii. 12, iv. 7, v. 24;
and for the later usage 2 Thess. ii. 14; 2 Tim. i. 9; I Pet. i. 15, ii. 9, v. 10;
2 Pet. i. 3.

PREDESTINA TION 403
ix.-xi. was written with especial reference to the offence
taken by the Jewish Christians at the success of the Pauline
mission to the gentiles on the ground that thereby the
traditional right of the Jews to preeminence in the Mes
sianic kingdom was put in peril. After declaring his
"great heaviness and continual sorrow" for his "breth
ren" and his "kinsmen according to the flesh," "to whom
pertaineth the adoption and the glory and the covenants
and the giving of the law and the service of God and the
promises " (Rom. ix. 1-4), he proceeds to reject the Jewish
apprehension of the divine promise on the ground that the
latter did not relate to the descendants of Israel according
to the flesh, but concerned only those chosen of God by
His "purpose according to election" (verses 6-13). The
proofs of this contention are drawn from various examples
in the history of Israel. Of the two sons of Isaac, Jacob
and Esau, the former was alone the child "of the promise."
To the -biblical text, " In Isaac shall thy seed be called
(Gen. xxi. 12), he subjoins an explanation (Midrash) to the
effect : " They who are the children of the flesh, these are
not the children of God ; but the children of the promise
are counted [that is, elected] for the seed." The election
was made prior to the birth of the sons, and accordingly
did not depend at all upon their personal qualities : " For
the children being not yet born, neither having done any
good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election
might stand, not of works, but of Him that calleth." The
free divine purpose reverses the natural order, and makes
the firstborn the servant of the younger (Gen. xxv. 23); and
in order to give to this election of God the hardest possible
expression the apostle applies to the progenitors personally
a passage of Scripture which relates to their descendants
(Mai. i. 2, 3) : "Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated"
(verse 13 ; cf. Rom. ii. 11, " For there is no respect of per
sons with God ").

404 THE TEACHER
Apparently anticipating an objection to his argument
from the Jewish point of view, the apostle proceeds to
defend the election in question on the ground of the right
of the supreme God, who is under obligations to no one, to
act according to His will. The anticipated objection evi
dently was that it is unjust in God to love one man and
hate another before either is born and to elect the one or
the other to a certain fortune regardless of "works." In
meeting it he does not venture upon hazardous metaphysi
cal ground, but knowing that his readers could not dispute
the Scriptures he rests his argument chiefly upon examples
drawn from Old Testament history (Rom. ix. 14-21). "What
shall we say then ? " he asks, " Is there unrighteousness
with God ? God forbid." It will not surprise the student
of Paul who is acquainted with his method of proving his
propositions from Scripture to find that the words purport
ing to be spoken by God to Moses in Ex. xxxiii. 19 have
in the original connection no relation to this matter of
election, but are part of the answer to the lawgiver's re
quest that Yahweh show him His glory. They relate to
this matter only, and mean that Yahweh is gracious to
Moses even though the request in question be not granted
according to its intention. But Paul concludes from the
passage that " it is not of him that willeth nor of him that
runneth, but of God that showeth mercy." The divine
election does not belong to him who wills to accomplish a
certain thing or to him who runs as in a race, but it is
purely a matter of God's determination.*
* "The movement of the created world is only the realisation of the objec
tive, transcendent world-order, without the ability of the freedom of man to
interfere in the once determined course of things [man's unbelief cannot
cause God's fidelity to His promise to fail, Rom. iii. 3]. The determinations
of the divine will with reference to the course of the world enter into history in
great world-ordering acts, and announce to men the law of the world-periods
(aluves), in accordance with which they take their course. In this view of the

PREDESTINA TION 405
Another example of the divine election is found in Pha
raoh, who in his connection with the history of Israel is
conceived as an instrument in the hands of Yahweh. " For
the Scripture saith unto Pharaoh," Paul writes, " Even for
this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might show
my power in thee, and that my name might be declared
throughout all the earth." The form which the apos
tle gives to this passage from Ex. ix. 16, illustrates his
method of quoting from the Old Testament by generally
following the Septuagint but correcting it according to
the Hebrew text when it suited his purpose to do so. The
Septuagint here reads "preserved" or "kept alive," but he
renders from the Hebrew " raised thee up " (egrjyeipa) —
thus extending the divine election back to the origin of
the Egyptian king and rendering the example a more in
tense expression of arbitrary predestination. " That I
might show " (ottco^ ivSetgcofiai) is a distinct declaration of
purpose, and relates to the hardening of Pharaoh's heart
(Ex. x. 20) and his final destruction, and not to the deliv
erance of the Israelites out of Egypt. This is evident
from the conclusion which Paul draws from the history in
Rom. ix. 18 : "Therefore hath He mercy on whom He will
have mercy, and whom He will He hardeneth." Nothing
is said or implied here of God's penal justice or of the
overthrow of Pharaoh as a punishment for his opposition
to God. The one and only doctrine is that the king was
"raised up," and "hardened," for the express purpose of
showing the divine "power." It is, as we have seen, a
Pauline doctrine that God gives men up to "uncleanness "
and "vile affections" on account of their transgressions
(Rom. i. 24, 26). But this teaching cannot be read into
world man's freedom has no place. But since it is again acknowledged in the
sin of Adam, the antinomy between determination and freedom is not recog
nised and resolved." — Holsten, Die paulin. Theol, p. 16.

406 THE TEACHER
the connection in question ; and since Paul did not con
cern himself with the reconciliation of the two proposi
tions, his expositors may well let them stand as he has left
them. The attempt to unite them here can only result in
the confusion of the apostle's thought and the overthrow
of his argument.*
To the very natural objection that if the hardening of
certain persons is God's own act, He cannot justly call
them to account for their conduct, the apostle replies that
the Creator has a right to do what He will with His creat
ures. The anticipated objection is put in the form of
questions : " Why doth He yet find fault ? For who hath
resisted His will ? " That is, what right has God, then, to
censure the man whom He has "hardened," since it is im
possible to resist His will ? Paul at first rules the question
out. " Nay but, O man," he asks, " who art thou that re-
pliest against God ? Shall the thing formed say to him
that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus?" Then
refusing entirely to apply an ethical standard to God's
dealings with men, he rests his argument upon the affirma
tion of the divine " power," as if might made right : " Hath
not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to
make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour ? "
This reminds us of Isa. xiv. 9: " Shall the clay say to him
that fashioned it, what makest thou ? " See also Isa. xxix.
16, lxiv. 8; Jer. xviii. 6; Wisdom xv. j.\ The argument
* "As a matter of course Paul does not attempt to resolve the antinomy
which lies in the conception of freedom; he does not at all regard it" (von
Soden, Zeitschr. fiir Theol. u. Kirche, 1892, p. 119). With respect to Bey-
schlag's attempt to escape the doctrine of predestination on the ground of
Rom. ii. 4, 5, Holtzmann remarks that just as well could one avoid the doctrine
of freedom by appealing to Rom. ix. II, 18.
t Pfleiderer is of the opinion that in writing the section Rom. ix. 19-23
there evidently hovered before the apostle's mind two passages from the Book
of Wisdom, xii. 18-22 and xv. 7. Paul's probable acquaintance with this book
has already been mentioned (Chapter I).

PREDESTINA TION 407
evidently is that man has just as little right to question
God for making some men morally vessels of dishonour and
others vessels of honour as a pot of clay has to question
the potter for making it comely or uncomely. God has the
power, and that is the end of the matter. Paul shuns the
metaphysical question, the one really at issue, and one in
fact raised by himself, whether, when God has by election
"hardened" aman, He can justly hold him responsible.
In avoiding this problem he refuses to know anything of a
divine ethical standard which may be imposed upon men
because it is God's. In this position he is as little in ac
cord with Jesus' teaching that his disciples should be per
fect as their heavenly Father is perfect, as he is with his
own doctrine that the Spirit furnishes the rule of life for
those who possess it.
In the further development of his argument the apostle
proceeds to an application of the doctrine in question to
the election of some Jews and the call of the gentiles (Rom.
ix. 22-29). "What if God, willing to show Plis wrath,"
he says, "and to make His power known, endured with
much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruc
tion." This conditional clause is followed by no conclu
sion, but the sentence was evidently completed in his
mind by some such question as, Will you thus reply against
God ? The meaning is that since God, despite the fact
that He temporarily endured with much long-suffering
the vessels of wrath, will make His power known, and
ultimately accomplish His wrath upon those whom He
has made to be its objects, there is no ground for mak
ing a charge against Him. The endurance with much
long-suffering does not change His purpose with refer
ence to those whom He has "fitted for destruction."
" Willing (deXcov) to show His wrath " means simply "al
though He will show it," and its execution is only postponed

408 THE TEACHER
(see " the forbearance of God," Rom. iii. 25). The ques
tion here again recurs which Paul avoided in the preceding-
discussion : Why should God entertain " wrath " against
those whom He has Himself "fitted for destruction"?
The potter who has made a vessel " unto dishonour " has no
ground for being angry at the vessel because it is uncomely.
To deny the divine agency in the fitness for destruction
and soften the words into "ripe for destruction" is to do
violence to the sense which the words must have according
to the connection of thought, in which the potter and the
clay must not be left out of account, and in which icaT-qTicr-
p,eva eh bpyr\v is set over against a TrporjTOip.acrev eh Sogav,
" which he had before prepared unto glory." The "vessels
of mercy" whom God elected beforehand to enjoy the
" glory " of the Messianic kingdom are designated in verse
24 as "us," that is, the Christian believers "not of the
Jews only, but also of the gentiles." On these God
will "make known the riches of His glory," while upon the
others He will show His "wrath " and His " power." The
passages quoted from Hosea i. 10 and Isa. x. 22 f. in sup
port of the argument are interpreted by the apostle with
out regard to their original connection in which they have
no such meaning as he here gives them.
The exclusion of the Jews is next regarded from the
point of view of their own defective striving after right
eousness, since they sought that which is " of works " and
not the only true righteousness by faith which the gentiles
have attained (Rom. ix. 30-32). The question naturally
arises, If the fault be their own, and their exclusion is due
to their ignorance or perversity, how is this solution recon
cilable with the doctrine of the preceding verses in which
their rejection is declared to be by divine decree ? The
answer is that the apostle here considers the matter accord
ing to the course of events in connection with secondary

PREDESTINATION 409
causation by human actions. That he did not, however,
think of abandoning his doctrine that the end was divinely
determined is evident from the recurrence of " the election
of grace " and from the express declaration that the failure
in question is to be attributed to the fact that " God gave
them the spirit of slumber, eyes that they should not see
and ears that they should not hear (Rom. xi. 5, 7, 8). In
this chapter he proceeds to show that " God hath not cast
away His people whom He foreknew," because "there is
at this present time a remnant according to the election
of grace " (verses 2, 4). " Israel [as a whole] hath not
obtained that which he seeketh for, but the election hath
obtained it, and the rest were blinded."
This hardening and blinding of Israel are, however, only
temporary, and are conceived as a part of the divine plan
of salvation with reference to Jews and gentiles. " I say
then," continues the apostle, " have they stumbled that
they should fall ? " That is, that they should eventually
fail of attaining the Messianic kingdom. "God forbid."
Rather he declares that through their fall or unbelief
salvation is come to the gentiles, by whose example they
will be provoked to rivalry, and at length be received as
those alive from the dead (Rom. xi. 11-33). The divine
procedure was to break off some of the "branches" "be
cause of unbelief" and to graft in the gentiles from "the
wild olive-tree." The gentiles are admonished to take
heed lest they be not spared, as God did not spare the
natural branches. As to the Jews, " God is able to graft
them in again." It is manifest from the terms employed
¦that not only is the entire process included in the divine
purpose, but the several steps in its unfolding and real
isation are effected by the direct action of God, while
at the same time personal censure is implied, and warn
ing is given on the general presumption of individual

41 0 THE TEACHER
responsibility. There is, accordingly, no reconciliation
of divine sovereignty and free agency, and nothing was
further from the apostle's purpose than to attempt a
solution of the problem. The former is over and over
again expressly asserted .in terms that admit of no mis
understanding, in terms that are sharp, inflexible, and
harsh ; the latter is clearly implied. The expositor must
leave the problem as it stands. His task is not that of the
philosopher, and he will contribute nothing to the expound
ing of the apostle's thought by presuming to be wiser
than he was in the attempt to reconcile that which he
has left unreconciled.*
Finally, the pessimistic mood out of which chapter ix.
was written is overcome, and the note of optimism is
struck in the declaration that when "the fulness of the
gentiles is come in," "all Israel shall be saved" (Rom. xi.
25, 26). This conclusion the apostle seeks to establish by
a quotation from Isa. lix. 20, xxvii. 9, which is given freely
after the Septuagint. This Greek translation does not,
however, correctly render the sense of the original, in
* Godet attempts a reconciliation on the theory of God's foreknowledge of
man's free choices : "As a general having a full knowledge of the opposing
commander's plan of campaign would form his own according to this certain
foresight, and bring it about that all the movements and counter-movements
of his enemy must result in the success of his own plans, so God, after estab
lishing the end, employs free human actions, which He beholds out of His
eternity, as factors to which He assigns a role, and out of which He forms so
many means for the realisation of His eternal plan." On this Holtzmann re
marks that irpoyivtioneiv in connection with xpb$e<ris (Rom. viii. 28, ix. 11)
can by no means signify mere foreknowledge, and that, by rbv \abv aorou
irpoiyvu (Rom. xi. 2) the free choice of Israel as a people of God's own can
certainly alone be meant, but not the foreknowledge of an historical fact. He
adds that Godet does well not to set up his solution of the difficulty reached by
changing predestination into prescience, as a result of exegesis (Neutest. Theol.
ii. p. 174). Exegesis can reach only one conclusion. All attempts at a
philosophical resolving of the problem lie outside the sphere of biblical theol
ogy and in the realm of indeterminate speculative controversy.

PREDESTINATION 41 1
which the apostle's thought is not at all contained. The
" Deliverer " who was to come is Christ in his second appear
ance (the Parousia). Then the salvation of Israel will be
consummated by the reception of all the Jews then living
into the kingdom, their "ungodliness" having been "turned
away." Here as elsewhere in the apostle's eschatology no
account is taken of the unconverted Jews or gentiles who
have died, or may die before that event. The boldness of
his optimism becomes apparent when the meagre results
of his mission down to the time of the writing of this
Epistle and the attitude of the Jews toward it are con
sidered, and when, furthermore, the brief time that re
mained before the expected " day. of the Lord" is taken
into account. This difficulty disappears, however, in view
of the hypothesis of the divine ordering and intervention
which underlies the construction of the entire section.

CHAPTER XVII
THE CHURCH AND THE SACRAMENTS
IT accords with the simple, natural, and unconstrained
organisation of the little Pauline religious communities,
which we have seen in Chapter V, that the apostle formu
lated no distinctive doctrine of the Church. It accords
also with what we have found to be a prominent phase of
his thought in the discussion of his teachings concerning
the Spirit, Justification, and Ethics that his mysticism
should here play an important part. In the same manner,
then, as other words borrowed from the Greek received
in his use of them a new significance, so the word for
church, eKKXrjaia, denotes not simply an assembly, but a
collection of persons who are one and all in possession of
the divine Spirit, to whom it is a bond of union and fellow
ship, and signifies their common participation in Christ,
whose "body" they constitute. "As the body is one,"
he writes to the Corinthians, "and hath many members,
and all the members of that one body being many are
one body, so also is Christ"; and the application of this
analogy is, " Ye are the body of Christ, and members in
particular," that is, each one in his part. All the churches
of Christ are conceived as composing his "body," and each
particular organisation is a part of the totality.* Accord-
* " This church of God is a church of the Spirit of God. The unity and
selfhood of the Spirit it is which removes all distinctions ofthe external, fleshly,
national, political, and sexual (Gal. iii. 28), and combines the plurality of the
members of the church into a unity (1 Cor. xii. 13). But the Spirit of God
412

THE CHURCH AND THE SACRAMENTS 413
ingly, while iicicXTjaia is employed to designate single
churches (1 Thess. i. 1 ; 1 Cor. i. 2), it is also used for
the Church as a whole that includes the separate com
munities (Gal. i. 13; Phil. iii. 6; 1 Cor. x. 32, xv. 9),
which, however, were not united in a general organisation.
To Paul the Church is not simply an association of
individuals united by a common purpose to promote their
spiritual culture by means of reciprocal encouragement
and help. Rather the supematuralism which dominated
all his religious thinking plays here a distinctive and
prominent part. The Church is only temporarily and
provisionally connected with the world and with time or
with the " present age " (alcov ovtos). To its members
belongs the "inheritance" of the kingdom of God soon
to appear, to which they are elected, and for which they
are "glorified" (Rom. viii. 17, 30). Accordingly, the
powers of " the age to come," the Messianic age, are
already at work in it. The members belong together
not only by virtue of their common glorious destiny, but
also because they have a "fellowship" which is not of
this world — the "fellowship of the Spirit." If there are
"diversities of gifts," "the same Spirit" works in all
(1 Cor. xii. 4). The church in Corinth is called "the
temple of God," and is told that "the Spirit of God
dwells" in it (1 Cor. iii. 16, 17). The divine wisdom is
individualises in this community the fulness of its divine contents in com
municating to every single person his own gifts, the xtv'<r/uaTa T°o irvei-
itun-os (1 Cor. xii. 4 ff.; Rom. xii. 4ff.). In this way the church becomes a
unity of one body with separate members, a form with coordinate parts, in
which the divine Spirit works through gifts bestowed upon the individuals.
Thus the church is a body of the Spirit, each individual being a member of
the Spirit, and since Christ and the Spirit are identical, the church is a body
of Christ (1 Cor. vi. 15, xii. 27), that is, Christ and the Spirit have in the
church of God the reality of an effective life already existing in this world."
— Holsten, Die paulin. Theol. p. 121.

414 THE TEACHER
their true illumination, and "if any man seemeth to be
wise in this world, let him become a fool." The fellow
ship (koivcovCo) into which God has " called " the believers
is that of His "Son, Jesus Christ our Lord" (i Cor. i. 9),
and its consummation will be effected at his coming in
"his kingdom and glory "(1 Thess. ii. 12). It was alto
gether foreign to the mystic and apocalyptic thought of
the apostle to conceive of the Church as an ethical-religious
association which was not destined as a whole by virtue of
the powers dwelling and working in it to participate in
the glory that was soon to be revealed.* The "fellowship
of the Holy Spirit " (2 Cor. xiii. 14; Phil. ii. 1) was to him
the "pledge" of its resurrection-estate. Accordingly he
could not theoretically recognise the ultimate separation
of even the worst member of the Church from its common
fortune in "the day of the Lord," for which "the spirit"
of the man whom he delivered over to Satan "for the
destruction of his flesh" must be "saved" (1 Cor. v. 5).
The "body of Christ," of which they are all "members"
by reason of possessing his " life-giving Spirit," will be
complete on that day of his triumph, no part being cast
off among those who are "perishing" (1 Thess. iv. 1 3). t
Baptism is regarded by the apostle from the same
mystico-supernatural point of view. The classic passage
on the subject is Rom. vi. 3-8, where he says that bap
tism "into Christ," that is, into faith in him as the Mes
siah, is baptism "into his death," or into a recognition of
his death as an atonement for sin and a means of redemp-
* The ethical point of view is not, however, disregarded. "The church is
rather the ground upon which the virtues most highly appreciated by Paul,
those of reciprocal subordination and sacrifice, come to a full unfolding."
¦ — Holtzmann, Neutest. Theol. ii. p. 175.
t It is evident that the idea of Christ as the " Head " of the Church (Eph.
and Col.) does not belong to the genuine and original Pauline conception, and
cannot be combined with it without confusing the apostle's entire construction
of the matter.

THE CHURCH AND THE SACRAMENTS 41 5
tion. The believers, he goes on to say, are buried with
Christ by baptism into death. The being buried in the
water symbolises what is actually conceived to take place,
that is, the appropriation by the subject of the death of
Christ, so that, as Christ died to sin, he dies to it, his
"old man is crucified," "that the body of sin might be
destroyed." "He that is dead is justified [freed] from
sin." Christ in his death paid the penalty of sin, and as
many as in baptism die with him are by the appropriation
to themselves of his death set free from it, and rise to
"newness of life." The rite is accordingly not regarded
by Paul as simply symbolical of the beginning of an ethical-
religious process in which the subject is conceived as at
taining righteousness by his own endeavour or by " works."
Symbolical it is, but more than this. For to Paul Christ
was not simply an ethical teacher and example into whose
name merely men were baptized as a symbol of their pur
pose to imitate him and follow him in obedience. But
the death and resurrection are to him the central ideas
on which the entire significance of the mission of Jesus
turned. Hence, believers are baptized into his deatli,
"planted together in the likeness of his death " (av/j,cf>vToi),
grow together with him mystically, become of one nature
with him in his dying, so that they die ideally to sin as he
did actually. All that he won by his atonement thus be
comes theirs. With him they have died to sin and to the
law, and when they are raised out of the water this act
symbolises their participation in the new life of the resur
rection which will be consummated in them at the Parousia.
Death has no more power over them than it has over
Christ. Having died with him they "will also live with
him" in the kingdom of God.*
* "In the whole assemblage of the Pauline thoughts there is no element so
remote from and so foreign to the preaching of Jesus, which was rooted in the

416 THE TEACHER
The more than symbolical significance of baptism to
Paul is apparent from the words in i Cor. xii. 13, where in
connection with the doctrine that the believers mystically
constitute the body of Christ he says : " For by one Spirit
are we all baptized into one body, whether we be Jews or
gentiles, whether we be bond or free, and have been all
made to drink one Spirit." The rite is accordingly con
ceived as a baptism by the Spirit, an endowment with this
supernatural power which is " given " to the believer (Rom.
v. 5), and which "bears witness" with his spirit that he
is a child of God (Rom. viii. 16). In this mystic dying
with Christ the subject of baptism is "freed from sin,"
and in being "washed" by means of the sacred rite he is
"sanctified" and "justified in the name of the Lord Jesus
and by the Spirit of our God" (1 Cor. vi. n). This doc
trine is the logical outcome of the apostle's conception of
the flesh, whose power he believed could not be overcome
by a process of the natural development of ethical-religious
forces from within. Only the divine Spirit could dominate
this fateful agency of "destruction." Only "the last
Adam " could counteract the ruinous tendencies which
proceeded from " the first Adam," and this he could do be
cause he was " a lif e-giving Spirit " ; hence the entire econ
omy of salvation and of the Church and its sacraments is
conceived from the point of view of the interference of a
supernatural power. Another expression of the idea of
the fellowship with Christ into which the subject of
ground of Israel, as just this doctrine of baptism. This lies wholly on the
Hellenistic side of the apostle's teaching, and is most intimately connected
with the metaphysical dualism of flesh and Spirit. The iron compulsion of
sin ruling as a power of nature can be broken only by a higher nature-power;
the translation out of the sphere of the physical existence devoted to death,
into the opposite sphere of the resurrection and life, requires the idea of a
corresponding mysterious act, which represents and depicts as well as mediates
and effects the inward catastrophe," — Holtzmann, Neutest. Theol. ii. p. 179.

THE CHURCH AND THE SACRAMENTS 417
baptism comes is given in Gal. iii. 27, where the apostle
says : " For as many of you as have been baptized into
Christ have put on Christ." This is what the writer of
Colossians calls the putting on of the new man (Col.
iii. 10). The "old man" is put off, "crucified" in this
mystic dying with Christ in baptism. The flesh is done
away, "the body of sin" is slain, and in their place is "a
new creation " which must not be rationalised into a new
growth, since God alone is conceived as effecting the
"creation." Beneath the act of baptism, then, Paul saw
the mysterious process of the believer's transfer into a
living fellowship with Christ, in which he became a par
ticipant in all that had been achieved on the cross and at
the sepulchre, in which he was delivered from the bondage
of the law, passed into the life of the Spirit, and became an
heir of the glory which " the day of the Lord " would
reveal.* Paul's account of Jesus' last supper with his disciples
which he says he had " received of the Lord," doubtless
by tradition (1 Cor. xi. 23-27), contains striking deviations
from the report of the event in the oldest Gospels. Only
in the third Gospel, whose author probably followed Paul's
version, do we find the direction, "This do in remembrance
of me," and here are wanting the Pauline words : " This do
ye as often as ye drink it in remembrance of me." The
* Paul neither approves nor disapproves the baptism " for the dead "
(l Cor. xv. 29). But it is significant that this rite was performed in a church
founded upon his teaching. The custom doubtless was that a believer
whose friends or relations had died without baptism was baptized for them or
in their behalf — a ceremony which must have been regarded as equivalent to
baptism in their stead. That this was assumed to secure their resurrection is
evident from the words : " What shall they do who are baptized for the dead,
if the dead rise not at all ? " They can only discontinue the rite as useless.
If baptism was believed in a Pauline church to effect the resurrection and sal
vation at the Parousia of the unbaptized dead, the importance which Paul
attached to the rite is evident.
2E

41 8 THE TEACHER
words : " For as often as ye eat this bread and drink
this cup ye do show the Lord's death till he come," are
a commentary of the apostle's on the account that he
had received. The original, "This is my body," becomes
in his rendering: "This is my body for you" (literally,
" the for you " ), to which the third evangelist adds "given,"
and "the blood of the covenant" becomes "the blood of
the new covenant." That the tradition underwent modifi
cations at his hands can hardly be doubted. The first two
Gospels do not intimate the establishment of a sacramental
observance by Jesus which is implied in the words : " This
do in remembrance of me." The form which the apostle
gives to the account denotes the importance which he
attached to the rite. To him it had a profound mystical
and sacramental significance in connection with his idea of
fellowship with Christ which we have seen to be the cen
tral thought in his teaching as to the church and baptism.
This is evident in the commentary, " Ye do show the Lord's
death till he come," that is, till the Parousia at the end of
the age. This leaves on one side the thought of him as
an example, and goes to that conception of his mission
which was central in the apostle's Christology. In his
death lay the believers' hope "until he come " of the glory
and blessedness which his coming would bring. They had
"died with him," had entered into the fellowship of his
death, and it became them to keep this precious fellowship
sacramentally in mind " until he come," when they hoped
also to be "raised" and "glorified with him."
The sacrament was thus a means of grace, since it served
to bind the believers more closely in that fellowship with
the death of Christ which was the ground of their salvation.
If in the apostle's assurance of the salvation of all who had
once " put on Christ " which, as we have seen, was sometimes
shaken, he did not regard this observance as a necessity,

THE CHURCH AND THE SACRAMENTS 419
he certainly thought it to be eminently fitting. They who
owed all to this fellowship might well keep it in mind,
and show forth the great event on which it rested, until
the Lord should come. The religious mysticism which
Paul has inserted into the simple account in the oldest
Gospels of Jesus' last supper with his disciples is apparent
in his incidental reference to " the Lord's table" in his
admonition to the Corinthians respecting idolatry (1 Cor.
x. 16-21). The heathen who in their sacrifices "partake
of the table of devils," as well as the Jews who eat the
sacrifices of the old covenant, and are " partakers of the
altar," come into a mystic " fellowship " (/coivcovta) with the
demons or the Divinity whom the altars represent. He
would not, he tells the Corinthians, that they " should
have fellowship with devils," and declares that it is impos
sible that they should enter into the twofold communion
implied in partaking of "the Lord's table " and " the table
of devils." The one Kowcovia excludes the other. Neither
is conceived by him as a mere symbol. There is an actual
mysterious " fellowship " in which the " partaker " is bound
with the spiritual personality assumed to stand behind the
outward ceremony. Accordingly, he says : " The cup of
blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the
blood of Christ ? The bread which we break, is it not
the communion of the body of Christ ? " The rite is con
ceived as representing not only " the Lord's death," but
also the mystic fellowship of the believers with it, their
partaking in it, which we have seen to be set forth in Rom.
vi. 3-8. Thereby they are not only one with Christ in his
death but are united in a sacred fellowship with one another,
so that " being many " they " are one bread and one body " ;
"for we are all partakers of that one bread." The ap
propriation of the physical elements is not conceived as
that of the body and blood of Christ actually present, but

420 THE TEACHER
just as the Jewish sacrificers became " partakers " (koivcovoi)
of the altar, or came into communion with God whom
the altar represented, so the Christians in eating and
drinking from "the Lord's table" symbolised their mys
tic fellowship with the death of Christ who was the living
Spirit of the " body " which they constituted, the Church.
The more than symbolical significance which the par
taking of the sacramental bread and wine had for the
apostle is apparent in what he writes to the Corinthians
regarding the eating and drinking "unworthily" (i Cor.
xi. 27-32). After reminding them that in observing the
sacramental rite they " show the Lord's death until he
come," he proceeds to say: " Wherefore, whosoever shall
eat this bread, and drink this cup of the Lord unwor
thily shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord."
The riotous and gluttonous way in which the Corinthians
observed the communion of the Lord's table was an offence
against the sacred " body and blood " of Christ, because
wanting in a due reverence for the symbols. The serious
ness of the offence is denoted in the threatened penalty:
" For he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and
drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lord's
body." The participant in the sacrament should "examine
himself," lest he incur a judgment for failing to discrimi
nate between the elements on the table of the Lord and
ordinary food. The judgment which "many" had drawn
upon themselves for eating and drinking " unworthily "
was sickness and in some cases death : " For this cause
many are weak and sickly among you, and some sleep
[are fallen asleep] " (1 Cor. xi. 30). In Paul's usage
"sleep" signifies the condition of the dead in the grave
or the underworld during the time intervening between the
dissolution of the body and the resurrection (1 Thess. iv.
13 ; 1 Cor. xv. 6, 20). The result of this judgment is indi-

THE CHURCH AND THE SACRAMENTS 42 1
cated in the words : " But when we are judged we are
chastened of the Lord ; that we should not be condemned
with the world " (1 Cor. xi. 32). The judgment of those
who had been supernaturally stricken with sickness or
death was, as in the case of the incestuous person, to save
them in "the day of the Lord" from the condemnation to
"destruction" which would overtake the unbelievers or
" the world," that is, those who from not having believed
in Christ belonged to the present age (alcov), while the
Christians although living in "the present age" were
really citizens of " the age to come," — the age of the
Messiah and the kingdom of God of which they were
" heirs." The apostle appears to have regarded a severe
affliction of the flesh of a believer who had committed an
offence, an affliction amounting to its "destruction" in
the case of the incestuous person and of those eating and
drinking unworthily who had been punished with death,
as conducive to the "saving" of the "spirit" of the sub
ject "in the day of the Lord." If this view is correct, we
do not need to consider the difficulty raised by Schmiedel
as to reform in the underworld which is hardly a Pauline
doctrine. The chastening may, however, refer not to those
who had suffered the judgment of death, but to the living
believers. The importance attached by Paul to the sacraments
suggests the inquiry whether he regarded them as essential
to salvation in the Messianic kingdom and as assuring it.
The student of the apostle soon learns that his emphasis
must be taken with qualifications. We must regard this
fact when we find him writing of baptism as if it were an
essential factor in the believer's ideal dying with Christ
and in his resurrection at the Parousia : " Now if we be
dead with Christ [through baptism], we believe that we
shall also live with him " (Rom. vi. 8, cf. vv. 4-6). Yet

422 THE TEACHER
essential as the rite here appears to be regarded, it is
evident that salvation is not elsewhere represented as
dependent upon it. On the contrary, it is grounded upon
the atoning death of Christ and upon the faith of the
individual through which alone justification is accorded.
The resurrection is assured by the possession of the Spirit
(Rom. viii. u), and the sonship of God from which this
boon is inseparable (Rom. viii. 4) is bestowed on account
of faith in Jesus Christ (Gal. iii. 26). The baptism into
the death of Christ in the following verse denotes only
another side of the one mystic process. The qualification
with which the apostle's emphasis must be taken is
apparent when we consider that the putting-on of Christ,
which in Gal. iii. 27 occurs through baptism, is represented
in Rom. xiii. 14 as an ethical achievement, and that even
faith is subordinate to love in 1 Con xiii. 13. The
student cannot but feel that here, as often, there is "a
certain unrest and confusion in the apostle's views in
contrast with the crystal simplicity and greatness of
Jesus." If the emphasis upon the sacraments favours the
Roman Catholic conception of the church, that upon the
individual's independent relation to salvation overthrows
the principle.

CHAPTER XVIII
ESCHATOLOGY*
THE prominence of the eschatological interest in the
early church is not easily appreciated by the Chris
tian intelligence of the present time. We have come to
regard Christianity chiefly in its practical aspect as a prin
ciple to be applied in the formation of character, in right
living, and in the solution of social problems. Its relation
to destiny concerns us principally as a matter quite remote
from the present time, affecting our individual fortunes
and those of the race in a manner altogether vague and
indeterminate. The question of a final consummation in
which the earthly course of Christianity shall culminate in
a great judicial crisis is looked upon more and more as a
matter of speculation, and is pushed aside in the intense
occupation with the problems of life. We are so much
occupied with the development of Christian truth in the
institutions of civilisation that we have little room for an
interest in the end of the world. With the primitive
Christians, however, the reverse was the case. They re
garded themselves as having come upon "the last times,"
and their eager interest in the impending "end of the
age " reduced to a minimum their concern with the present
life, except so far as it was conceived to be related to the
new order about to be introduced. It is due to the Jewish
origin of Christianity that this conception arose and pre
vailed during the earliest period of its history. The
* The New World, June, 1895, with revision and additions.
423

424 THE TEACHER
proclamation of the kingdom of God could not easily be
dissociated in the Jewish mind, familiar with the current
apocalypses of the nation, from a catastrophic termination
of the existing world-order, and the introduction of a new
and happier course of affairs under the expected ruler,
whose advent was longed for as the fulfilment of prophecy.
It was because the Founder of Christianity was believed
by his followers to have been this expected head of the
kingdom of God, the Messiah, that such hopes were con
nected with his person. Since their Messianic expectations
were not fulfilled in his mission, which ended externally
in ignominy and failure, their belief in his Messiahship
could be saved only by the hope in his future coming in
power and glory, death not having held him in the
underworld, to assume the dignity of the Christ, the
Anointed of God.
It is natural that this hope in the great Messianic ad
vent should be expressed in the manner of the current
thought concerning the coming of the national Deliverer,
that is, that it should be conveyed in the form and with
the colouring of apocalypse. Accordingly, we find in the
Gospels mention of a "renovation, when the Son of Man
shall sit on the throne of his glory," and of a coming of the
Son of Man in the clouds of heaven with power and great
splendour, who will send his angels with a sound of a trum
pet to gather his elect from the four winds (Matt. xix. 28,
xxiv. 30, 31). Whatever Jesus may have said regarding the
future, these words and others of similar import are doubt
less the expression which the primitive Christians gave to
their eschatological hopes. Their intense and absorbing
interest in " the end of the age " presupposes their belief
in its nearness ; and we find accordingly that they ex
pected to live to see their Lord returning with the clouds
of heaven. Their generation would not pass before this

ESCHATOLOGY 425
great consummation should be effected, and the twelve
apostles would sit upon twelve thrones as judges of the
tribes of Israel. Words of an eschatological import are
put into the mouth of John the Baptist when he is made to
declare of the one who was to come that " his fan is in his
hand, and he will thoroughly cleanse his threshing-floor ;
and he will gather his wheat into the garner, but the chaff
he will burn up with unquenchable fire" (Matt. iii. 12).
The proclamation that "the kingdom of God is at hand"
could have no other meaning to those to whom it was
originally made. "The wrath to come" could signify to
them only the terrible judgment of the end of the age.
Whether the apostolic preaching took up the refrain of the
words ascribed to John the Baptist and Jesus, or whether
the record of the latter is- coloured by the predominant tone
of the former, certain it is that the message of the earliest
Christian teachers was that Jesus was the Messiah, or the
one who was to come for the establishment of the kingdom
of God.
The burden of this preaching doubtless finds expression
in the question which the disciples are represented in the
Acts as asking Jesus after the resurrection : " Lprd, dost
thou at this time restore the kingdom to Israel ? " But
when he was immediately "taken up," it is not strange
that, as they "were looking steadfastly into heaven," the
hope should have been born in their breasts which denoted
the Jewish-Christian form of the Messianic expectation,
and which is conveyed in the words of the " two men in
white apparel " who stood by : " Ye men of Galilee, why
stand ye looking into heaven? This Jesus who was re
ceived up from you into heaven shall so come in like man
ner as ye have beheld him going into heaven " (Acts i. 6,
11). In the preaching of Peter recorded in the Acts it is
noteworthy that the apostle urges repentance on eschato-

426 THE TEACHER
logical grounds, that is, in order that preparation may be
made for the great event which was to mark the end of the
age : " Repent ye therefore, and turn again, that your sins
may be blotted out, that so there may come seasons of
refreshing from the presence of the Lord ; and that He
may send the Christ who hath been appointed for you,
even Jesus, whom the heavens must receive until the time
of the restoration of all things, whereof God spoke by the
mouth of His holy prophets since the world began " (Acts
iii. 19, 20). Of the same purport are the words ascribed to
Paul at Athens : "But now He commandeth men that they
should all everywhere repent ; inasmuch as He hath ap
pointed a day in which He will judge the world in right
eousness by the man whom He hath ordained " (Acts xvii.
30, 30-
The prominence of the eschatological interest in the
thought of Paul would be evident from these words if their
genuineness were established. But it does not depend
upon the decision of the question whether he spoke as he
is reported in the Acts. As a Jew who accepted the risen
Jesus as the Messiah his entire conception of the relation
of the old to the new order of things, of the present to the
future, must have undergone a radical transformation of
which there is no evidence, if he did not connect with the
Messiahship the expectation of a Messianic kingdom of
some sort presently to come in power and glory. One
great transformation was, however, effected in his thought,
for he did not conceive the coming kingdom to be a politi
cal or a national Jewish one, but rather a spiritual dominion
which should include all Jews and gentiles who prior to
Jesus' coming had accepted him as their Lord. How much
the future occupied his thought, and how precious it was to
him both on his own account and for the sake of his be
loved spiritual children, the believers in Jesus, is evident

ESCHATOLOGY 427
from the frequent references to it in which his writings
abound. While it cannot be denied that he attached great
ethical and spiritual importance to his own and their belief
in the risen Lord, and that he cherished " a deep religious
interest, which with fear and trembling strove for his own
righteousness before God, and contended for the victory of
the divine will in the world," it must be admitted that the
moral-spiritual motive was not the sole and perhaps not
the dominant one in his thought, but that he was intensely
concerned about the outcome, the reward, of faith to him
self and his fellow-believers, which the future would make
known. Whatever rewards Christian experience may afford in
this present life, Paul conceived that it is only in the life to
come that the believer's real happiness and compensations
will be revealed. Accordingly, he writes to the Corinthi
ans : "If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are
of all men most pitiable" (1 Cor. xv. 19). The connection
in which the passage stands determines this to be its mean
ing, despite the attempts to connect " only " (fiovov) with
" hoped " or with " in Christ." The presence of the words,
"in this life," and their emphatic position in the sentence
are inexplicable if this interpretation is incorrect. The
argument is directed against those who deny the resurrec
tion, and is to the effect that if the dead rise not, then
Christ was not raised, and if he perished, then those who
have fallen asleep in him hoping that God, who raised him
as the first fruits of them that slept, would, because of
their union with him through faith, raise them also, are
likewise perished ; so that, if we have hope in this life only
and not also in the resurrection to eternal life, our condi
tion is most pitiable.
The eudemonistic point of view, reward in the life to
.come for trials endured in the present life, is plainly

428 THE TEACHER
expressed in the words : " If after the manner of men I
fought with beasts at Ephesus, what doth it profit me ?
If the dead are not raised, let us eat and drink, for to
morrow we die" (i Cor. xv. 32). Sacrifices and conflicts,
"jeopardy every hour," for the cause of the Lord Jesus are
warranted only if those who endure such stress have a
hope of the coming glory which is assured by the resurrec
tion of the dead, when, clothed with " incorruption " (verse
42), they shall meet the descending Christ. If this hope
is vain, then rather than "die daily" they will do well to
live a life of sensuous pleasure, for to-morrow they will go
down into the gloomy underworld without return to light.
How Paul must have presented the gospel to the Thessa
lonians, and what the central idea of the " faith " was with
which he inspired them, may be seen from these words in
the first Epistle addressed to them : " In every place your
faith toward God is gone forth . . . and how ye turned
unto God from idols to serve a living and true God and to
wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the
dead, even Jesus, who delivereth us. from the wrath to
come " (i. 8, 9). We have here the two cardinal ideas of
primitive Christianity — the belief in God, to which Jews
did not need to be converted, but which must be preached
to the gentiles, and faith in Jesus as the Messiah who was
to come from heaven, and through whom alone was deliver
ance from the "wrath" of the impending last days.
The eschatological idea predominates also in Paul's long
ing to see again the beloved of Thessalonica, "for," he
asks, "what is our hope, or joy, or crown of glorying?
Are not even ye, before our Lord Jesus at his coming?"
(ii. 19). His cherishing of them is not independent of a
certain degree of "joy" and "glorying" in them, since
their fidelity would enhance his honour when he should
present them before the Lord at the Parousia. The refrain,

ESCHATOLOGY 429
whose leading note is the thought of the last things, occurs
again when he expresses the wish that their love may
abound, "to the end that He may establish your hearts
unblamable in holiness before our God and Father at the
coming of our Lord Jesus with all his saints " (iii. 13); and
again when, at the conclusion of the Epistle, he expresses
his fervent benediction : " And the God of peace himself
sanctify you wholly ; and may your spirit and soul and
body be preserved entire, without blame at the coming of
our Lord Jesus Christ " (v. 23). In like manner, at the
opening of the first Epistle to the Corinthians, he thanks
God for the grace which was given to his brethren in
Corinth in Christ Jesus, "that in everything ye were
enriched in him, in all utterance and all knowledge ; even
as the testimony of Christ was confirmed in you, so that
ye come behind in no gift, waiting for the revelation of
our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall confirm you unto the end,
that ye be unreprovable in the day of our Lord Jesus
Christ '' (i. 5-9).
Confidence and repose in the divine strength for the
trials of the present life do not satisfy the apostle's
religious needs, but his hope looks forward to the end, and
his trust is "in God who raiseth the dead." In other
words, his hope is eschatological, and he finds courage and
strength in the present distress only in the assurance of
the blessed deliverance which the "end" will bring when,
having put off the "earthly house," he shall enter into
that "building from God, a house not made with hands,
eternal in the heavens." Whatever righteousness may be
worth "for its own sake," or whatever earthly compensa
tions it may secure, he looks forward with eager longing
to the assured glory that is to come : " For verily in this
we groan, longing to be clothed upon with our habitation
which is from heaven. . . . For indeed we that are in this

430 THE TEACHER
tabernacle do groan, being burdened ; not that we would
be unclothed, but that we would be clothed upon, that
what is mortal may be swallowed up of life. Now He that
wrought us for this very thing is God, who gave unto us
the earnest of the Spirit. . . . We are of good courage,
and are willing rather to be absent from the body, and to
be at home with the Lord. Wherefore also we make it
our aim, whether at home or absent, to be well pleasing
unto him. For we must all be made manifest before the
judgment-seat of Christ, that each one may receive the
thing's done in the body, according to what he hath done,
whether it be good or bad" (2 Cor. v. 1-10). The object
of all ethical and spiritual striving is the realisation of the
hope that at the coming of Christ, or, if not surviving that
event, then at death, the believer may be clothed upon
with the glorious "spiritual body." His "aim" is to be
well pleasing to Christ, in order that, when he shall appear
before his judgment-seat, he may be found worthy of the
blessed eschatological reward, " the habitation which is
from heaven."
It is evident, accordingly, that the gospel of Paul can
not be comprehended by one who interprets it out of the
"Christian consciousness" of the present age. The lights
and shadows of the impending consummation are so
mingled in it that it can be understood only by the
historical sense that discerns it from the point of view
of the time in which it originated and of the race through
which it took its form. Whatever was to be hoped for or
feared, whatever fearful looking for of judgment or eager
longing for reward there was, the end would reveal ; and
the end was so near that all that was hidden in the terrible
antitheses of death and life, destruction and salvation,
would speedily be manifested. If they who had "the
earnest of the Spirit " might look forward with high hope

ESCHATOLOGY 43 1
to the glory with which they should be crowned, others
might well tremble at their impending fate. The hard
and impenitent heart only treasured up " wrath in the day
of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God,
who will render to every man according to his works ; to
them who by patience in well doing seek for glory and
honour and incorruption, eternal life ; but unto them that
are factious, and obey not the truth, shall be wrath and
indignation, tribulation and anguish, upon every soul of
man that doeth evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek.
. . . For as many as have sinned without law shall perish
without law, and as many as have sinned under the law
shall be judged by the law" (Rom. ii. 5-13). Accordingly,
the great doctrine of justification by faith with its accom
panying "peace with God" is not left to stand by itself,
but only finds its completion in the apostle's thought when
it is supplemented by the eschatological expectation.
Hence he writes to the Romans : " Being therefore justi
fied by faith, let us have peace with God through our Lord
Jesus Christ . . . and let us rejoice in hope of the glory
of God" (verses 1, 2). The "glory" of their transfigura
tion in the kingdom of God, which was to be inaugurated
at the Parousia, is the consummation in which those who
had been justified by faith "rejoice in hope," and is the
end on account of which their justification is the occasion
of such rejoicing.
The great consummation was to be effected by the per
sonal coming of the ascended Christ out of the heavens.
In this aspect of the eschatological doctrine Paul was in
accord both with the apocalyptic conceptions of the later
Jewish theology, on which he was in no small degree
dependent for several of his dogmatic opinions, and with
the views of the original apostles. For it was the apoca
lyptic doctrine that the Messiah was "concealed" in the

432 THE TEACHER
heavens prior to his manifestation ; and since from the
primitive-apostolic point of view he had already appeared,
died, been raised, and ascended, " the heavens must receive
him until the time of the restoration of all things " accord
ing to the preaching of Peter in the Acts. The coming
is explicitly set forth in I Thess. iv. 16 as follows :
" For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a
shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump
of God, and the dead in Christ shall rise first ; then we
that are alive, that are left, shall together with them be
caught up in the clouds to meet the Lord in the air ; and
so shall we be forever with the Lord." Equally specific
is the declaration in Phil. iii. 20, 21 : "For our citizen
ship is in heaven, from whence also we wait for a Saviour,
the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall fashion anew the body of
our humiliation, that it may be conformed to the body of
his glory."
The terms employed in both these passages leave no
doubt that the event in question, the " Parousia," the
"revelation," the "day of the Lord," was not only believed
to be a personal manifestation of Christ, a reappearance,
but that it was also expected soon to occur. The apostle
himself hoped to live to see it, since he includes himself
without doubt in the " we" who were to be "alive" at the
time. He gives no detailed representation of the woes,
tribulations, and travail-pains which according to one form
of the Messianic expectations of the time were to precede
the manifestation of the Messiah, and which find a definite
expression in the synoptic picture of the second advent
(Matt. xxiv. 6-9, 29-31, and parallels). He does not dis
claim a knowledge of the precise time of the Parousia, but
writes to the Thessalonians that "there is no need" that
he should inform them on this point, for they "know full
well that the day of the Lord cometh as a thief in the

ESCHATOLOGY 433
night" (i Thess. v. i, 2). The clay was to come suddenly
and unexpectedly upon the unbelievers, and when they are
saying "peace and safety," "sudden destruction cometh
upon them, as travail upon a woman with child, and they
shall not escape " (verse 3), but of the believers he says :
" But ye, brethren, are not in darkness, that the day should
overtake you as a thief ; for ye are all sons of the light
and sons of the day " (verses 4, 5). To the Romans he
declares that "the night," the present darkened age, "is
far spent, and the day is at hand," and that "salvation,"
deliverance from "death" or extinction as the wages of
sin, and entrance upon the "life" of the coming kingdom
of God, "is nearer to us than when we first believed" (xiii.
11, 12). The declaration to the Corinthians that the be
lievers, including himself, were they " upon whom the ends
of the ages are come," corresponds with the admonition
in an earlier chapter that since "the time is shortened,"
all temporal relations and affairs, such as marriage and
business, should be regarded as of transient significance
and as unworthy of serious attention, "for the fashion of
this world passeth away." It is only on the supposition
that the apostle took a very hopeful view of the progress
of evangelisation that we can reconcile his expectation of
the coming of "the day of the Lord" during his own life
time with the belief that at that time the mass of gentiles
and Jews would be converted, that "the fulness of the
gentiles" would have come in and "all Israel" be saved
(Rom. xi. 25, 26).
Although the coming of Christ at the Parousia is con
ceived as the descent of a spiritual being with a luminous
" body of glory " accompanied by angels,* it appears to be
* It is a disputed question whether the " saints " (ayioi) in the passage
(1 Thess. iii. 13) should be understood as designating angels. Paul nowhere
else uses this word for angels, yet such a use of it appears in the Septuagint,
2 F

434 THE TEACHER
represented as visible to eyes of flesh, in accordance with
the synoptic apocalyptic, in which it is declared that men
"shall see the Son of Man coming on the clouds with
power and great glory" (Matt. xxiv. 30). Other phenom
ena apprehensible to the physical senses are also indicated,
for it is said that the coming of the Lord will be accom
panied by a shout (ev tceXevcrp.an), a word which is explained
by the terms, "the voice of the archangel " and "the trump
of God" (1 Thess. iv. 16). The KeXevo-fia here mentioned
— a word not elsewhere used in the New Testament —
is probably identical with " the last trump " in 1 Cor.
xv. 52, although in the latter passage a series of trumpet
calls appears to be implied, the "last" of which is the
signal for the resurrection of the believers. Not in the
train of the descending Christ are " those who are fallen
asleep in Jesus," but God will bring them with Jesus at
his coming, that is, the Christian believers who had died
prior to the Parousia will come forth out of the underworld
and be united with the descending Lord. They will rise
out of hades with incorruptible spiritual bodies, luminous
bodies of "glory," like the heavenly body of Christ; and
those that are living at this time, that is, the living believers,
will undergo a transformation of their corruptible bodies
into bodies of incorruption and glory (1 Thess. iv. 13-17;
1 Cor. xv. 51-54; Phil. iii. 21).
That there is a radical difference between the body of
flesh and that which at the Parousia would enter into the
kingdom of Christ, between the natural and the spiritual,
the terrestrial and the celestial bodies, is a doctrine of the
Pauline eschatology which has an unmistakable expression.
and it was a current belief that angels were to accompany Christ at the Parou
sia. If angels are not meant, then Paul must have had in mind the holy
men who according to the Jewish belief had passed out of this life into heaven
instead of descending through death to the underworld.

ESCHATOLOGY 435
It is a fundamental tenet that "flesh and blood cannot
inherit the kingdom of God" (i Cor. xv. 35-51). Hence
the believer's body, which was buried at death, was not to
appear at the resurrection when Christ should come, and
the fleshly bodies of the Christians living at that time are
not regarded as fitted without change for the new condi
tions. If the apostle had any theory of the relation of
the two kinds of bodies to each other and of the prin
ciple according to which the natural body was transformed
into the spiritual, whether in the case of those who, hav
ing died, were to be raised, or of those who should be
" changed " without death, he has not given it an alto
gether clear and unmistakable exposition. The penalty
of sin, death, regarded not simply as the dissolution of the
natural body, but also as exclusion from return out of the
underworld or practical extinction of being, he believed
to have been counteracted through the mission of Christ
for all who became his followers. The bodies of those in
whom Christ dwelt were, indeed, subject to death, but if
the Spirit of God dwelt in them, then, on account of or
through this indwelling Spirit, their mortal bodies would
be quickened (Rom. viii. 10, 11).
Those, then, who have the Spirit as a "pledge," and in
whom dwells the second Adam who was "a life-giving
Spirit," may be assured that though their outward man
perish, their inward, essential life cannot be touched by
moral dissolution, and that, if dead at the time of the Parou
sia, they will be raised, and if living, changed, so that
corruption will for them have put on incorruption. The
indwelling Spirit appears, accordingly, to be regarded as
the condition and the principle of the transformation or the
resurrection whereby the mortal puts on immortality. The
illustration by which in 1 Cor. xv. 35 ff. the apostle attempts
to explain the mystery of the resurrection may perhaps be

436 THE TEACHER
related to this doctrine, although in this place he appears
to have forgotten the transformation of the living when he
says, "that which thou sowest is not quickened except it
die." Just as there remains in the seed that perishes in
the ground a life-principle which untouched by decay be
comes the germ of the grain that grows from it, so the
indwelling Spirit is in believers an indestructible principle
by which their resurrection is assured. A strict applica
tion of the analogy would require the indwelling of the
Trvevfia in the body, and it is not clear how the soul of the
believer in the underworld is conceived to be connected
with the body in the grave, out of which according to the
illustration the incorruptible body is supposed to spring.
But doubtless the analogy should not be pressed too far.
It is evident in any case that in the apostle's thought the
Jewish doctrine of the resurrection of the dead was en
tirely transformed.
This view of the resurrection-body as coming from the
former body after the analogy of new grain from a seed is
not easily reconcilable with the passage in 2 Cor. v. 1 ff.
in which Paul writes of the spiritual body as a "house
not made with hands, eternal, in the heavens." The
words, " For we know that if the earthly house of our
tabernacle be dissolved, we have a building from God,"
evidently imply the thought of death prior to the Parousia ;
and the longing to be " clothed upon " and not to be
"found naked" expresses a shrinking from the condition
of a bodiless spirit in the underworld, while absence from
the body and presence with the Lord exclude a tarrying in
hades between death and the resurrection. The present
tense, " we have " (exo/iev), cannot be understood of an
ideal possession of something which is to be had at the
time of the future Parousia, but expresses the certainty of
an actual possession. The "building " for the soul abhor--

ESCHATOLOGY 437
ring the nakedness of the state of being in sheol is now
ready, so that the Christian, weary of the struggle of life
in " this tabernacle," where he " groans " and is " burdened,"
and whence he has a "desire to depart and be with Christ"
(Phil. i. 23), may, should he die before "the day of the
Lord," at once enter into his "everlasting" tent-habitation.
It is probable that Paul, when he wrote the passage in
question and the one in Philippians referred to, had rea
son to think that he might not survive until the longed-for
coming of his Lord, and in his eagerness to be immediately
with him conceived of this spiritual body ready to receive
him in heaven. If what he wrote out of this mood cannot
be made to accord with his doctrine of the resurrection, it
is because he sometimes wrote rather from the mood of
the hour than with a system of theology in view.*
* There is no warrant on exegetical grounds for limiting the "we " in this
• section (2 Cor. v. 1-10) to the apostle, as if he expected by a " prerogative of
grace " to be made an exception to the believers in general. Against this is
" We that are in this tabernacle " (verse 4), and " the Spirit," on the possession
of which the hope in question is based (verse 5), is everywhere assumed to
dwell in all Christians. Likewise "we all " in verse 10 does not denote a
transition of thought from the apostle to the believers generally. There is no
indication that the apostle had in mind the resurrection at the Parousia when
he wrote this section. The point of view from which the interpretation must
proceed is in verse 3 : "If so be that being clothed, we shall not be found
naked." It is from this condition of being "naked" (yvp.v6s), that is, a bodi
less spirit in the underworld, that he shrinks. Death, then, prior to the Pa
rousia is evidently implied as a possibility in uaraXoffrj (" were dissolved ")
verse 1, and the doctrine of an immediate presence with the Lord in the new
heavenly body from the moment of death can hardly be exegetically contested.
Otherwise the being "found naked" were pointless. This is not a resurrection
of the dead in any sense of the term known to Paul or intelligible to his read
ers. For this was conceived as appointed to take place at the Parousia, and in
the interval the dead were " asleep," and were not " clothed upon with the
house which is from heaven." The doctrine of this section is also expressed
in Phil. i. 23, " Having a desire to depart and be with Christ," in which an
intermediate state is excluded.
Although this teaching is irreconcilable with the apostle's doctrine of the

438 THE TEACHER
A prominent feature of the Parousia is the Messianic
judgment. In accordance with the Jewish apocalyptic,
Paul believed that when the Messiah should come he would
execute judgment upon the world and in particular upon
the Christians. Accordingly, the occasion of the advent
is often characterised as " the day of the Lord Jesus Christ "
and "the day of Christ" (i Cor. i. 8, v. 5 ; 2 Cor. i. 14, v.
10; Phil. i. 6, io, ii. 16). A judgment by Christ is
plainly implied in the passage in 1 Thess. ii. 19 already
referred to: "For what is our hope or joy or crown of
glorying ? Are not even ye, before our Lord Jesus at his
coming ? " It is unequivocally expressed in the declaration :
" He that judgeth me is the Lord. Wherefore judge noth
ing before the time, until the Lord come, who will both
bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and make
manifest the counsels of the hearts " (1 Cor. iv. 4, 5), and
in the words previously quoted : " For we must all be made
resurrection at the Parousia in I Thessalonians and I Corinthians, it cannot be
said that he abandoned the latter. For it is expressly indicated in this very
Epistle (2 Cor. iv. 14), " shall raise us up also," and in a later Epistle (Phil. iii.
11), "I might attain unto the resurrection of the dead." The Epistle to the
Romans, also written later than 2 Corinthians, not only contains no intimation
of the ideas of 2 Cor. v. I-IO, but proceeds in its eschatological allusions upon
the presumption of the resurrection. In Rom. i. 4 "the resurrection of the
dead " means that of the believers in general, Christ being " the first-born from
the dead." In vi. 5 the fellowship of the believers with Christ will have as its
result their " resurrection." In viii. 1 1 the quickening of the mortal bodies
on account of the indwelling irvevpia can be understood only of the raising up
of spiritual bodies. So also probably " life from the dead" (xi. 15). From
the point of view of an unbiassed exegesis no reconciliation is possible of these
conflicting teachings which Paul has himself left unreconciled. It is worthy
of note that the eschatology which he has most elaborated (based upon the
Jewish theology), that of the resurrection, appears to commend itself less to
the enlightened Christian consciousness .than the other (derived from Hellen
ism), that of the immediate departure of the believer at death "to be with
Christ." — See Pfleiderer, Urchristenthum, pp. 299 f. ; Schmiedel, Hand-
Commenlar on 2 Cor. v. iff.; and Teichmann, Die paulinischen Vorstdlungen
von Auferstehung und Gericht, etc.

ESCHATOLOGY 439
manifest before the judgment-seat of Christ, that each may
receive the things done in the body " (2 Cor. v. 10).* But
in apparent opposition to this teaching and in accordance
with the Jewish monotheism and the theology of the Old
Testament Paul declares with equal explicitness that God
is the Judge of men, and the implication is hardly mistaka-
ble that it is His judgment which will be executed at the
Parousia in the words : " For we shall'all stand before the
judgment-seat of God " (Rom. xiv. 10). To the same effect
is 1 Thess. iii. 13: "Unblamable in holiness before our
God and Father at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ,"
and " In the day when God shall judge the secrets of
men, according to my Gospel, by Jesus Christ " (Rom.
ii. 16). Other passages to the same effect are: "Them
that are without God judgeth," and "Treasurest up for
thyself wrath against the day of wrath and revelation of
the righteous judgment of God" (1 Cor. v. 13; Rom. ii.
5). These two points of view, judgment executed by
Christ and by God, probably admit of reconciliation on
the ground of the supremacy of the Deity and the sub
ordinate agency of Christ. God is the supreme Judge,
and effects His judicial work "by Jesus Christ."
The manner in which Paul conceived that the judgment
of " the day of the Lord " would be effected is involved in
some obscurity, and it is not always clear whether the terms
that he employs are to be understood as literal or figura
tive. It is evident, however, that the Messianic judgment
of the Parousia would test and reveal men's work, and
affix rewards and penalties in accordance therewith. . Sal-
* " The view of Paul here appears to be that the believers are indeed
destined to life (1 Cor. v. 5, xi. 32), but that in this judgment their reward will
be differently determined (1 Cor. iii. 14), and will consist perhaps in a position
nearer to, or more remote from, God and Christ, or in a ooipa iirovpdviov more
or less radiant (1 Cor. xv. 40, 41)." — Holsten, Die paulin. Theol. p. 130.

440 THE TEACHER
vation by faith does not exclude judgment and award
according to works. Faith and the possession of the Spirit
consequent upon it will save from destruction on the great
day of wrath, but the judgment must determine each man's
rank and standing. Thus is solved the antimony which
Professor Pfleiderer finds between the Pauline doctrines of
judgment and salvation by faith. The justified by faith
may well be supposed to be included in a judgment from
which "angels" were not exempt (i Cor. vi. 3). Unmis
takable words of the apostle's make it certain that he
included believers in the final judgment at the coming of
Christ, although there seems to be no place for the process
of judging them in the brief and vivid sketch of the
Parousia in 1 Thess. iv. 15-18, where it is simply declared
that the believers who had died would be raised and the
living Christians (presumably "changed" according to
1 Cor. xv. 52) would be "caught up" with them in the
clouds to be forever with the Lord. But a place for
their judgment must have been reserved in his thought,
for he writes to the Corinthian believers that they should
"judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who
will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness, and
make manifest the counsels of the hearts." Then each of
them will "have his praise from God," that is, to each
will be assigned the commendation and award which are
due to him according to the degree of his fidelity.
The searching and destroying work of this judgment
is indicated in the declaration that the day " is revealed
in fire." * The work of every teacher who builds on the
* Compare the words in the probably spurious second Epistle to the Thes
salonians, i. 8 : " The revelation of the Lord Jesus from heaven with the angels
of his power in flaming fire, rendering vengeance to them that know not
God." See also 4 Ezra xiii. 9 : " De ore suo sicut flatum ignis, et de labiis
spiritus Jlamma et de lingua ejus emittcbat scintillas et tempestates," etc.

ESCHATOLOGY 441
foundation that Paul has laid will be proved by the fiery
judgment of the Parousia. The teacher's work which
stands the test abides, and the workman receives a reward,
perhaps honour, a "crown of glory," in the Messianic
kingdom, for it must be kept in mind that the award in
question is no other than that to be determined at the
Parousia. But the Christian teacher whose work shall
be "burned up" will lose the reward which accrues to him
who has built of imperishable material, though he himself,
since by the supposition he is a believer, and possesses the
indestructible Spirit, will be saved, "yet so as by fire" (1
Cor. iii. 10-15). That this judgment would also be held
upon the believers who were to be raised at the coming of
Christ there can be no doubt. For their possession of the
Spirit which assures their resurrection should not be
regarded as exempting them from the test that would de
termine their position as partakers of the "glory" of the
spiritual kingdom to be established at the Parousia. The
declaration that " we must all be made manifest before the
judgment-seat of Christ" applies to Christians regardless
of their having died or not prior to "the day of the
Lord " (Rom. xiv. 10 ; 2 Cor. v. 10).
The passages in 1 Corinthians and 1 Thessalonians,
already quoted, in which the apostle describes the Parousia,
are so much occupied with the fortune of believers that
they contain no indication or intimation of the judgment
of unbelievers or of their fate. Definite declarations on
this subject are, however, found in other places, so that
there is no doubt that Paul believed that those who had
not accepted Christ would be judged and condemned at
the Parousia. Such a judgment is presupposed in the
announcement made to the Corinthians that the saints
would judge the world (ic6o-p,os, 1 Cor. vi. 2), in which
it is doubtless implied that they would together with

442 THE TEACHER
Christ sit in judgment on sinners at the "end of the
age." So exalted was to be their position, indeed, that
even " angels " would be judged by them (verse 3). There
is no ambiguity in the words addressed to him who treas
ures up " wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the
righteous judgment of God," and the announcement of
" wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish, upon every'
soul of man that worketh evil " (Rom. ii. 5, 9). An awful
warning is conveyed in the reference to the Israelites who
yielded to temptation or murmured in the wilderness, and
perished by " the serpents " or " the destroyer." This hap
pened to them, says the apostle, " by way of example "; and
"they were written for our admonition upon whom the ends
of the ages are come" (1 Cor. x. 9-1 1). More explicit is
the declaration that "the day of the Lord" would come
unexpectedly upon the wicked, who flatter themselves that
they are in "peace and safety," but who will be visited
with "sudden destruction" from which "they shall in no
wise escape" (1 Thess. v. 3).
The doom of the unbelievers at the Parousia was regarded
by Paul as the direct opposite of the blessedness upon
which the believers were to enter. The latter was salva
tion, deliverance (o-toTt)p(a), escape from the death which
was the penalty of sin. Over those who were "in Christ "
death had no dominion. The Christians who had "fallen
asleep" prior to " the day of the Lord " would come forth
from the underworld at the sound of " the last trump,"
would be "raised incorruptible," and those living at that
time would be suddenly clothed upon with bodies fashioned
after the likeness of Christ's "body of glory." Death could
no more hold the former or have power over the latter than
it could avail to retain Jesus, their Master, "the first fruits
of them that slept," after he was laid in the tomb. " De
struction," "perishing," are the terms employed by Paul

ESCHA TOL OGY 443
to express the fate of the wicked. For those of them who
had died before the coming of Christ to judgment there
was no return from the underworld, no real life. Only
those in whom dwelt the Spirit, that is, those who were " in
Christ," had the "earnest of the Spirit," "the redemption
of their bodies," the hope of the resurrection, the promise
of "life." The "end" ofthe adversaries of the cross of
Christ is " destruction " (dircoXeta, Phil. iii. 19). The gospel
is veiled "in them that are perishing ; in whom the god of
this world hath blinded the minds of the unbelieving, that
the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ . . . should
not dawn upon them " (2 Cor. iv. 3, 4). A most unmistaka
ble expression of this doctrine is in the words in which the
apostle treats of the resurrection of believers as related to
that of Christ. If Christ was not raised, then there is no
resurrection of those who have fallen asleep in him, but
they are "perished," that is, they are doomed to remain
in the underworld, for Christ would never come with the
sound of the trumpet that should call them forth from their
eternal sleep.
The only way in which it was supposed that one who
had died an unbeliever could escape from the underworld,
or be raised from the dead, was by " baptism for the dead."
This is the sole exception mentioned or intimated by
Paul to the principle that those who had died "in Christ"
would participate in the resurrection. He does not, in
deed, expressly approve this vicarious baptism, and it is
not probable that he could so far have disregarded his
fundamental doctrine of salvation by faith as to approve
it ; but the fact that the custom was in vogue among those
whom he had taught shows that they had learned from
him that there was no hope at the Parousia for those who
had died out of Christ. Hence their device of baptizing
the living for those who had so died, in order that the

444 THE TEACHER
latter might be vicariously brought into such a relation
with Christ as to secure their resurrection. If all the
dead were to be raised, baptism for any of them would be
superfluous. Accordingly, Paul asks from this point of
view : " If the [Christian] dead rise not, what are they
doing who are baptized for the dead?" (i Cor. xv. 29).
As to the unbelievers living at the time of the Parousia,
Paul says very little that is specific. The inference that
they were not thought by him to be included among the
saved in the kingdom of God is unmistakable from the fact
that the words " we shall be changed," and " we who are
alive, we who are left, shall be caught up," manifestly refer
to the believers only. They alone who had the indwelling
wvedfia could be "raised" or "changed," and there is no
intimation in the apostle's writings that the work of con
version would go on at or after the coming of Christ. It
is to judgment that the Lord was to come, not to evan
gelisation. The hope expressed for the salvation of "all
Israel" after the "fulness of the gentiles" should have
come in (Rom. xi. 25, 26) appears to indicate that he be
lieved, when he wrote this passage at least, that there
would remain no unconverted Jews or gentiles at the
time of the Parousia.
But if " fulness " and " all " be understood here as in
cluding the totality of Jews and gentiles living at the
coming of Christ, the apostle is in irreconcilable contra
diction with himself. For apart from the fact that the
frequent references to the "destruction" and "perishing"
of the wicked can only with the greatest arbitrariness be
referred to those of them alone who should die uncon
verted, the apostle makes most explicit declarations of a
judgment upon living unbelievers at the Parousia who
treasure up for themselves "wrath in the day of wrath
and revelation of the righteous judgment of God," and

ESCHATOLOGY 445
whom on "the day of the Lord" "sudden destruction"
would overtake. In what manner Paul thought that the
" sudden destruction " of the wicked would be accom
plished at the Parousia, and whether he believed as did
the apocalyptic writer of 2 Thessalonians that Christ
would come "with the angels of his power in flaming
fire rendering vengeance to them that know not God,"
are questions which it is idle to attempt to answer. He
does not hesitate to proclaim the terrors of the divine
"wrath" which would be revealed at that time, and if he
thought of the Messiah as coming to bring "perdition"
to the "adversaries" of his cause (Phil, i 28), he was
at least in accord with the apocalyptic of his age. At
all events, it is unreasonable to suppose in the absence of
specific teachings to this effect that he could have believed
that the living who had not accepted Christ were reserved
for a better fortune in " the day of the Lord " than that
of the unbelievers who, having died without union with
the "life-giving Spirit," were, in accordance with a funda
mental principle of his teaching, consigned without hope
to the underworld.
The question, however, of the fate of unbelievers who
should not survive until the Parousia, or of that of a second
resurrection, is of so much importance in the Pauline
eschatology as to demand a somewhat detailed consider
ation. In the first place, it is of no little significance in
the discussion of this problem that the apostle does not
explicitly affirm the resurrection of unbelievers, while as
to that of believers he leaves no doubt. It is, then, only
by an inference from somewhat ambiguous expressions
that the former can be at all maintained as a teaching of
his. The declaration that "As in Adam all die, so also
in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor. xv. 22), appears
to teach the resurrection of all men irrespective of their

446 THE TEACHER
spiritual condition. These words cannot, however, be
fairly interpreted by themselves, but must be related to
the apostle's fundamental doctrine that the hope of the
resurrection is grounded upon the possession of the Spirit
(Rom. viii. n). By this doctrine the "all" in the second
clause must evidently be limited to those who during their
lives should have fulfilled the condition of participating in
the resurrection at the Parousia by believing in Christ.
In like manner must the passage be interpreted : " For
as through one man's disobedience the many were made
sinners, even so through the obedience of one shall the
many be made righteous" (Rom. v. 19), where "the
many," in the second clause, is obviously limited by the
condition of accepting Christ by faith.* But that all would
not have accepted Christ prior to the final judgment at
the Parousia is as clear as words can make it ; else on
whom were to fall the " wrath " and the " sudden destruc
tion " on that day ? The context of the passage in 1 Cor.
xv. 22 shows Paul to have had believers only in mind.
Just before he says that if Christ was not raised, then
those " who are fallen asleep in Christ are perished," and
" if in this life only we [Christians] have hoped in Christ,
we are of all men most pitiable " (verses 18, 19). Accord
ingly, in verse 22, his thought is : " As in Adam all die, so
also in Christ shall [we] all be made alive." He then
goes on to say that there is a certain " order " (rdypi,a) in
the resurrection, Christ being the first fruits, then they
that are Christ's at his coming ; but there is no mention
of those who are not Christ's. To suppose that he be
lieved all men, good and bad, to be Christ's by some
* The limitation is clearly expressed in verse 17 : " For if by the trespass of
the one death reigned through the one, much more shall they that receive the
abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one,
even Jesus Christ."

ESCHA TOL OGY 447
natural tie, and that he would accordingly claim them all
at the resurrection, is to run counter to all that is most
characteristic and fundamental in the apostle's thought
and to render nugatory his doctrine of the Spirit and of
justification by faith.
Only two groups are mentioned into which those who
are raised are distributed, in accordance with the doc
trine that each man is to be raised " in his own order,"
" Christ, the first fruits, then they that are Christ's at his
coming." "Then," says Paul, "cometh the end." The
resurrection of the wicked might be supposed to be im
plied here, if " end " means the end of the resurrection. Yet
not only is there no intimation that such is its meaning,
but the following words appear to define it beyond mistake :
"When he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, . . .
when he shall have abolished all rule and all authority and
power." "The end " must, then, be understood absolutely
as denoting the consummation of the age or world-period,
which was to be effected at the Parousia. The resurrec
tion of the unbelievers appears to be implied in the
doctrine that the world is to be judged, and Meyer so
interprets Paul. But the passages in which such a judg
ment is declared contain no implication of a resurrection,
and may fairly be interpreted as relating only to those
who should be living at the Parousia.*
* It is denied by some expositors that Paul regarded Christ as constituting
an "order" (rdypia.) in the resurrection. They accordingly find the second
"order" implied in the destruction of death interpreted in the sense that it
means the giving up by this personified power of the unregenerate spirits that
he holds, which Christ "wins from him in the last conflicts." So Holtzmann.
Hence the doctrine of a second resurrection, that of those who had not
accepted the gospel. But the winning by Christ of the spirits of the wicked
from death has no other support than the doubtful interpretation of rdyp.a.
If Paul conceived that during his •¦ reign " Christ was to be occupied with the
evangelisation of the living and dead unbelievers, he has nowhere distinctly

448 THE TEACHER
It is not clear how long Paul conceived that the period
would be between the resurrection of "those that are
Christ's " and " the end " when Christ would deliver up
the kingdom to God. There is no reason for assuming
that he believed in the chiliastic or millenarian doctrine.
He is specific enough, however, to say that Christ will
reign until he shall have abolished all rule and all author
ity and power, until, in fact, he shall have put all enemies
under his feet (i Cor. xv. 24, 25). It is evident that the
/co'<r/xo? which was to be judged at the great assize of the
Parousia included more than the men who should then be
living. The entire existing order of things was conceived
by Paul as hostile to the new spiritual order which was
to corne with the advent of Christ from heaven with the
celestial powers. The wisdom which he speaks is not of
this world whose rulers are coming to naught. God has
made foolish the wisdom of this world (1 Cor. i. 20, ii. 6).
Christ came to deliver the believers out of this present
evil world (Gal. i. 4). Here the time-period (alcov) includes all
that fills it, and may be regarded as equivalent to the ko'o-/hos
which does not know God, and the things which God will
bring to naught (1 Cor. i. 21, 28). Chief among the evil
powers which were to be subdued to Christ was "the god of
this world," * the Devil, whose sway extended over the
existing age until the Parousia. All spiritual potentates f
were to be put down during the Messianic reign, before the
kingdom should be delivered up. All evil must be cast

intimated such a doctrine. If he held it along with his unmistakable teaching
of the diruiKeia of all who were not " Christ's at his coming," then we have
here another of the " many contradictions " which Schmiedel finds that he
" united in himself."
* 6 Bebs tov aldvos tovtov (2 Cor. iv. 4) ; see also Eph. vi. 12, Koa/ioupdrup;
John xii. 31.
t irdoa e^ovola, 1 Cor. xv. 24; compare Eph. i. 21; Col. ii. 10.

ESCHA TOLOGY 449
out and the kingdom made perfect before it was handed
over to the perfect God.
It was probably during this period of indefinite extent
that Paul believed that the transformation of physical nat
ure, " the whole creation," was to be effected. He represents
" the earnest expectation of the creation " as waiting for
"the revealing of the sons of God," and as "groaning and
travailing in pain together." For it "was subjected to
vanity, not of its own will, but by reason of him who sub
jected it in hope that the creation itself shall be delivered
from the bondage of corruption into the liberty of the
glory of the children of God " (Rom. viii. 19-22). This
idea borders closely upon the apocalyptic dream of the
writer of 2 Peter, who looked for the passing away of the
heavens with a great noise, the dissolution of the elements
and the burning up of the world. In the place of this
doomed, old, sinful order of things, he expected to see,
according to the promise of God, "new heavens and a new
earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness " (2 Peter iii. 10-13).
It is probable that when Paul wrote the passage in Romans
viii. he was thinking of the earth when delivered from the
bondage of corruption as the theatre of the reign of Christ
with the saints. The idea of the renovation of the earth
at the coming of the Messiah was derived from the Jewish
apocalyptic, just as the idea of a resurrection and a formal
judgment came from the Jewish theology.* But the former
is incompatible with the doctrine of an immediate departure
at death to be with Christ, and the latter is not easily rec-
* " In this connection Paul perhaps thought of the transformation of the
whole visible creation from perishableness into imperishableness. And indeed,
like the bodies of the believing children of God, will the visible creation then
beam in splendour as imperishable light-matter. But there will then be no
more sin to be punished by the perishableness of the creation. In this view
Paul remained attached to the Jewish consciousness (Rom. viii. 19; cf. Isa. xi.
6 ff.; lxv. 17-25; Ps. cii. 27)." — Holsten, Die paulin. Theol. p. 131.
2G

450 THE TEACHER
onciled with the idea of the ascension of the resurrected
saints to meet the Lord " in the air " and be " ever " with
him. Professor Pfleiderer's opinion appears to be well
grounded, that Paul drew some of his eschatological ideas
from the Jewish theology and the Hellenistic philosophy
represented by the Wisdom of Solomon. But whatever
may have been the sources of his teaching, there is no
greater incongruity in his opinions than might be expected
in those of a man who did not undertake to formulate a
" system " either of theology or of eschatology.
In his teaching of the conflict of Christ at the Parousia
with the spirit-powers and their overthrow, Paul comes
into close relation with the Jewish apocalyptic. He is
also in accord with the synoptic tradition which gives great
prominence to the power of Jesus over evil spirits, and
opens its story with an account of a victory over Satan in
the wilderness. That Paul shared the belief of the Jews
of his time in the existence and baleful influence of evil
spirits, no one can doubt who carefully studies his writings.
" The god of this world " had power to blind the under
standings of unbelievers, and to him and the subordinate
spiritual potentates were due the corruption, sin, and death
which were in the world. "Angels," that is, beings capa
ble of being affected by passion, were supposed to be
present in the worshipping assemblies of the Christians, and
the women were commanded to keep themselves veiled on
their account (i Cor. xi. io). The "rule and authority and
power" which Christ would put down at his coming evi
dently include the hostile agencies like the "world-rulers
of darkness" spoken of in Eph. vi. 12, for the apostle
immediately adds : " He shall reign until he hath put all
enemies under his feet." Death, perhaps personified as
one of the malignant spirit-powers, is declared to be the
last enemy that shall be destroyed. This foe of mankind,

ESCHATOLOGY 45 1
this offspring of Sin, who had " reigned from Adam to
Moses," the mighty Messiah would subdue. How closely
the apostle's thought borders upon the apocalyptic concep
tions is apparent when we compare the destruction of
Death in the lake of fire in the Johannine apocalypse and
the judgment of the Messiah on the evil spirits in the
Enoch-parables. The destruction of death may be regarded
as the end and consummation of the subjection of all the
powers hostile to the kingdom of God which was to come
at the Parousia. Death exists only through sin, and its
destruction is involved in that of the evil forces of the
world and the evil men living in it. Its power ends with
the resurrection of the believers, who shall die no more.
The resurrection of the wicked is not necessary to this
consummation, since they "are perished," as would have
been the case even with believers, had not Christ been
raised. Paul's doctrine of the resurrection is in accord with some
of the Jewish teachings on the subject and in opposition
to others. This was necessarily the case, since the Jewish
writings present contradictory views on the subject. Some
times the resurrection of Israelites alone, good and bad,
appears to be taught, as in Daniel and 2 Maccabees,
and sometimes that of all men, while according to Weber
the Talmudic-Midrashic literature does not recognise the
resurrection of all the dead, but of the righteous only, for
whom it was regarded as a reward. Paul, as we have seen,
is in accord with this latter teaching, which may have been
current in the Jewish theology of his time. But while the
Jewish theologians limited the resurrection to pious Israel
ites, Paul included in it all believers in Christ of whatever
nationality. Accordingly, he based the resurrection upon
a principle unknown to the current doctrine, a principle
derived from his Christian faith. If Christ were not

452 THE TEACHER
raised then is the believer's faith vain, and those who
have fallen asleep in Christ are perished. Without this
great event no return from the underworld would be pos
sible ; but with it a return is promised to those who
possess the Spirit, that is, through faith have come into
living union with Christ and become " his body and sev
erally members thereof" (i Cor. xii. 27).
The Pauline conception of the resurrection is also a
refinement and spiritualisatipn of the popular doctrine
according to which the resurrected would have physical
bodies with the lusts and passions pertaining thereto (see
Matt. xxii. 24 f.). The idea of incorruptible spiritual
bodies conformed to Christ's body of glory, in accordance
with the conception of the Spirit, which Christ was ("the
Lord is the Spirit "), as a luminous substance, involves a
transformation of the current doctrine of the future life
by which it was raised to a higher plane. Membership in
the Messianic kingdom implied in the thought of Paul a
glorious spiritual existence like that of Christ in heaven
prior to his first appearance upon the earth and after his
resurrection. Whether this existence was to be upon the
renovated earth or elsewhere, the idea evidently involves a
transformation of the materialistic Jewish Messianism. It
is probable, however, that the apostle retained the current
doctrine of the underworld, although he does not employ
the word which designated it (aS???),* and makes no men
tion of it in any terms. The doctrine of the resurrection
of believers as set forth in 1 Corinthians and 1 Thessaloni
ans, in the passages already referred to, evidently implies
that of the underworld, which is necessarily involved in
the rising of the dead. The resurrection of the dead
*In 1 Cor. xv. 55, "O grave (abr\s), where is thy victory?" the reading of
Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, and Westcott and Hort is " death " (Bdvarc).
This reading is adopted in the revised version of the New Testament.

ESCHATOLOGY 453
(dvdo-Tacn'; veicpcov) could have conveyed no other idea to
his Jewish readers than that of the coming forth of the
departed from an intermediate state in sheol. Either a
shrinking from this state of existence, or the thought of
the Parousia and resurrection as so near that it became
a fleeting and unimportant moment in the total life of
believers, led him, however, to a doctrine entirely irrecon
cilable with it, that of an immediate departure at death to
be with Christ in heaven (2 Cor. v. 1-4 ; Phil. i. 23).
The indefiniteness of the duration of the Messianic
kingdom after the Parousia has already been referred to.
The fact that the apostle lays no stress upon the reign
of Christ denotes another transformation of the current
apocalyptic conceptions which his great and original mind
effected. Perhaps Professor Pfleiderer's remark is not
strictly accurate that " the Parousia according to Paul did
not have as its object . . . the entrance of the Messiah
upon his kingly dominion, but his immediate abdication of
it to God," since the subjection of the opposing powers
and the reigning until all enemies are put under his feet
involves a sway of no inconsiderable duration. But in
accordance with the. Pauline Christology the position and
work of Christ are here those of a subordinate and agent.
It is not he who subdues all things, but God, and to God
he himself is to become subject at last (1 Cor. xv. 28).
When this consummation shall have been effected, when
all opposing rule and authority and power shall have been
put down, then the kingdom will be complete and fit to be
delivered up to the Father. Then, when sin shall have
been destroyed, the groaning creation set free from "the
bondage of corruption," and all "enemies," human and
demonic, subjugated, the divine perfection of the kingdom
will be signalised by its entire occupation by the all-perfect
God, who will be "all in all." Manifestly, the "all" in

454 THE TEACHER
which God will dwell is the totality of the kingdom, out of
which the Messianic conquest will have banished every
thing that could offend the divine purity. That this is not
a doctrine of universal restoration is evident from what
has already been shown respecting Paul's teaching of the
resurrection at the Parousia of believers only and the
" destruction " of living unbelievers. It is equally evident
that the apostle nowhere teaches the doctrine of the end
less punishment of the wicked. The resurrection of those
of them who died prior to "the day of the Lord " is, as we
have seen, incompatible with one of his fundamental
principles, and punishment in the underworld is unknown
to his thought. Living or dead, they belong to those who
"are perishing," and their end is the extinction of being,
death, from which nothing can save but the indwelling
of the divine irvevfia.*
* Some expositors find Paul in contradiction with himself regarding human
destiny, and maintain that he teaches the destruction of the unbelievers in one
series of passages and in another their final restoration. The former doctrine
is found in the words " perishing " and " destruction " applied to the wicked
in several places, among which may be mentioned I Cor. i. 18; 2 Cor. ii.
15 f.; iv. 3; Rom. ii. 5-12; Phil. i. 28; I Thess. v. 3. Final salvation of the
wicked is held to be taught in Rom. v. 12-15, ^8, and xi. 32. If Rom. v.
12-21 be considered together it will appear, as has been pointed out in the
text above, that verse 1 7 denotes a qualification of the extent of the " life "
that through Christ is set over against the sin and death in Adam, to the effect
that it is the portion of those " who receive abundance of grace and of the gift
of righteousness." The attainment of " life " is thus dependent on the indi
vidual's receiving what God graciously offers in the atonement. Accordingly,
if in verse 18 "the free gift come upon all men to justification of life," it can
not be regarded as unqualifiedly securing " life." Justification is by " faith,"
and Paul knew of no other; but faith depends upon the individual to whom
this kind of righteousness is offered. Just as no one becomes a sinner " by
the offence " of Adam except by his own act, so no one is justified through Christ
but by his act of faith. If Paul meant that all would certainly have the
required faith, he neither implies it here, nor says it elsewhere (see Rom. iii.
22, 26). Rom. xi. 32, "He hath included all in unbelief, that He might have
mercy upon all," teaches the salvation of all only if it can be shown to be a

ESCHATOLOGY 455
It is manifest from the foregoing sketch of the Pauline
doctrine of "the last things" that it by no means presents
a complete eschatology. Apart from its internal incon
gruities, which have been pointed out, it falls far short in
many respects of the clear and precise dogmatic statement
essential to give it a place in a system of theology. It
makes no provision for a judgment of the innumerable
unrighteous dead, who from the earliest times had de
scended to the underworld. They appear to be abandoned
in this shadowy realm with heartless unconcern. The
Pauline doctrine that the divine mercy is effective independently of subjective
conditions. In"" the fulness of the gentiles" and "all Israel" (Rom. xi.
25, 26), for the salvation of whom prior to the Parousia Paul hoped against
hope, no account is taken of the dead. That the unbelieving dead should be
raised at the Parousia requires their possession of " the Spirit," which is the
condition of the resurrection, that is, their evangelisation in the underworld,
of which there is no hint in Paul's writings. The conversion of Christ's
" enemies" is not implied in their subjection "under his feet." Rather their
destruction is indicated in that of "the last enemy, death " (1 Cor. xv. 25 f.).
The kingdom is the domain of the Spirit, which is " life," and the annihilation
of Death and his realm of darkness follows upon its establishment. Without
sufficient grounds Schmiedel finds that in 1 Cor. xv. 24-28 the conversion of
living unbelievers at the Parousia before the " end " is taught, and asks why
the same fortune might not be that of those who had died in unbelief prior
to the Parousia. Why not, indeed, if either doctrine or rather both doctrines
were the apostle's? Teichmann also finds that Paul teaches both the destruction
of the wicked and their resurrection as possessors of the Spirit, the latter on
the ground of I Cor. xv. 22. But since this requires a doctrine that is not
Pauline, the preaching of Christ to shades in hades and, moreover, the cer
tainty that all would accept the message, the interpretation of the passage
given in the text is to be preferred to this construction. Holsten interpreted
1 Cor. xv. 22 as follows : " Since the former irdvres can in reality refer only to
those who bear in themselves the nature of Adam, so the second irdvres can
actually relate to those alone who have the nature of Christ, that is, those who
through faith have received the irveOp,a tov Beov as dirapxrf of the heavenly
goods, and as &ppaf}d>v of eternal life (Rom. viii. 23; 2 Cor. v. 5)." For
those who did not receive the Spirit, the pledge (dppapibv) of the resurrection,
prior to death Paul makes no provision. He gives no hint of the doctrine of
a " second probation " for the shades in hades.

456 THE TEACHER
apostle's eschatological interest seems to have included
only the Christian dispensation down to the time of the
Parousia, and the kingdom which he expected soon to see
appear in glory was to have as its subjects only those who
through faith had accepted Christ. As to what he thought
would be the destiny of the righteous who had died prior
to the mission of Jesus, — the prophets, the good kings,
the saints, — we are left entirely to conjecture, for he has
furnished no definite data for a theory on the subject.
The exclusion from his eschatological scheme of the
generations of men who have lived, or may live after the
time of the expected "day of the Lord," which he believed
would denote the close of the human historical course of
affairs, is of importance with reference to the value of his
eschatology for Christian theology. The attempt to find
in it a doctrine of " the last things " applicable to all men
of all the ages of human existence on the earth must
evidently be abortive. No dogmatic statement of the
universal destiny of mankind can be extorted from his
teachings. His conception of an apocalyptic judgment
falls with the transcending of its time-limit by the re
morseless course of events, which has paid no heed to
dreams of "the last things" and dramatic schemes of a
final assize. Apocalypse has had its day, and must now
give way to the conception of an evolution of human
society attended by a constant, silent judgment announced
by no "trumpet" or "voice of an archangel." The
teachings of the apostle, however, incidental to his escha
tology, which are grounded upon human experience, are of
permanent worth and importance. Chief among these is
the doctrine that disaster follows sin in the natural rela
tion of cause and effect, that "whatsoever a man soweth
that shall he also reap ; for he that soweth unto his own
flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption." On the other

ESCHATOLOGY 457
hand, the promise of victory and joy is to those who come
into spiritual fellowship with Christ, and righteousness is
regarded as the certain fruitage of a seed that is sown in
love and faith : " He that soweth unto the Spirit shall of
the Spirit reap eternal life " (Gal. vi. 8).

INDEX OF SUBJECTS AND NAMES

Abbot, Dr. E., 298.
Abraham, the promise to interpreted
by Paul, 9; his faith accounted as
righteousness, 191.
Acts, on Paul's conversion, 53; the
discourses in, 72; on Paul's journey
into Arabia, 76; omits mention of
Titus, 80; on Paul's first missionary
journey, 83; on other journeys, 152;
on Paul's apostleship, 84; devia
tions in from actual course of events,
89; omits episode between Peter
and Paul in Antioch, 95; on Paul
in Athens, 105; on the Corinthian
Church, 106; on organisation of
the Pauline churches, 109 f.; on
Paul's reception in Jerusalem with
the collection, 135; account of
Paul's missions in contrast with the
Epistles, 146 ff., 158, 160-174; ac
count of Paul's journey from Cassa-
rea to Jerusalem, 143; account of
circumcision of Timothy, 156; hy
potheses as to character and com
position of, 146 f.; on the Ephesian
mission, 132 f.; on the council in
Jerusalem, 172 f.; on Paul's Naza
rite vow, 154.
Adam, the second, 15, 299, 307; sin
of all men in, 233 f.; and Christ,
218, 234, 240, 267, 290, 398; the
first, 241.
Adoption as sons, 215.
Allegorical interpretation, 8-1 1.
ap-apTia, sin as a principle, 259.
Angelology, 17.
Anthropology, 22 f., 225, 227.
Antinomies, 49, 236 f., 242, 245, 247 f.,
306, 379, 406, 410, 437 f.

Antioch, 82, 85 f.; composition of
Church in, 81 f. ; founding of
Church in, 82.
Apocalypse, relation of to eschatology,
427, 429, 431.
Apollos, 113; party of in Corinth,
"5-
Apostleship, Paul's claim to, 32, 57,
59. 61, 65, 75, 93, 115.
Arabia, 55, 75, 148.
Argument, Paul's method of, 41-45.
Atonement, in Romans, 142; Paul's
doctrine of, 251-279; implies
change on God's part, 260; as a
sacrifice, 263 f., 270; ethical theory
of, 271 f.
Baptism, Paul's doctrine of, 414 ff.;
for the dead, 417, 443; Paul's mys
tic conception of, 322.
Baring-Gould, his interpretation of
1 Cor. ix. 5, 39.
Barnabas, 80, 82, 86, 149 f.
Baur, 298.
Beasts, Paul's fight with at Ephesus,
i3'i 3§9. 428.
Beyschlag, 305, 406.
Biedermann, 309.
Bishops, in.
Body (oa/xa), as form, 221; as spirit
ual, 225, 244; redemption of, 220,
225, 244; celestial and terrestrial,
434 f.; of glory, 244, 432, 452.
Bovon, 239.
Csesarea, Paul's journey from to Jeru
salem, 143.
" Called," the, 401 f.
Celibacy, 391.

459

460

INDEX OF SUBJECTS AND NAMES

Christ, as the Son of God and the
Messiah, 64, 282; Paul's seeing of,
59; flesh of on the cross, 226, 265;
agency of in salvation, 252; his
humanity, 288 f., 291; death of,
254, 257, 263, 266, 274, 276, 286;
his satisfaction of the law, 259 ;
made a "curse," 261, 267; as Son
of God, 285; not "a mere man,"
287; Paul's doctrine of person of,
280-310; in "the likeness of sin
ful flesh," 226, 264 f., 290; preex
istence of, 292, 294, 303 ; divine
nature not ascribed to him, 296 f.;
as judge, 302, 438 f.; in "the form
of God," 301, 303; subordination
of to God, 299, 338; relation of the
justified to, 360 f.; reign of, 448;
resurrection of, 117, 268, 272, 300,
351. 368.
Church, Paul's doctrine of, 412 f.
Cilicia, 89.
Circumcision, 81, 94, 154; of Timo
thy, 156.
Collection for the poor, 134 f.
Conversion, the, of Paul, 53-66.
Corinth, mission in, 105 ff., 120 f.
Corinthian Church, confusion in, 33 f.,
118; Epistles to the, 121 ; First
Epistle to the, 34 f., 107, 112 f., 117,
119; Second Epistle to the, x. 1-
xiii. 10, 47, 121, 125; contents of,
H9f.; the two canonical epistles to
the, general character of, 126.
Creation, the groaning, 245, 449 ;
Christ's participation in the, 294.
Criticism of New Testament, method
of, 280.
Damascus, 55, 75, 149.
Death, the penalty of sin, 16, 234,
244, 264, 278; Paul's use of term,
198 f., 249; of the believer with
Christ, 278; baptism into the of
Christ, 415.
Decree of council in Jerusalem, 172 f.

Demetrius, 132.
Demonology, 18.
Depravity, total, 248.
Destiny of man, 45, 46.
"Destruction," 205, 209, 249, 257,
433-
Determinism, 398 f.
Deutero- Pauline writings, 297.
Development of doctrine in Paul,
179.
Devils, the cup of, 44; the table of,
419-
bidliovoi, III.
Dickson, 227.
Divorce, 391.
Docetic conception of Christ's body.
291.
Dwight, Dr. T., 298.
Ecstatic phenomena, 46, 315 f., 334.
Education, Paul's Jewish, 6 f.
Election, 400 f., 405-409.
t/lpLaprov icpy (£ irdvres, 233 f.
Enmity of man toward God, 257.
268.
Ephesians, Epistle to, 128.
Ephesus, mission in, 128 f., 153; fight
with wild beasts in, 131, 398,
428.
Epilepsy, Paul probably afflicted with,
25-
ilrloKOirot, III.
Epistles of Paul, writings of the occa
sion, 179.
Equality of Paul with the older apos
tles, 38 f.
Eschatology, 15 f., 423-457; "death,"
with reference to, 204 f.; "life,"
with reference to, 208; in connec
tion with salvation, 212, 252; the
Spirit in relation to, 355 f.; apoca
lyptic conception of, 424; ethical
application of, 427, 429.
Ethical sense not in righteousness by
faith, 357 f.; motives, 387 f., 427,
429; theory of atonement, 271 f.

INDEX OF SUBJECTS AND NAMES

461

Ethics of Paul, 370-397; contrast of
with that of Old Testament, 373 f.;
genesis of, 375 ff.; social, 396; limi
tations of Paul's, 456.
Eudemonism, 427.
Everett, Dr., 261.
Everling, 124.
Evil spirits, overthrow of, 450.
Faith, 344; righteousness by, 54; and
justification, 342-369; as a gift of
the Spirit, 319; in Christ, 345; with
reference to the life, 347; not the
cause of justification, 357; subordi
nate to love, 422.
Fall of man, 242.
False brethren, the, 165 f.
Farrar, 27.
Fear as an ethical motive, 387.
Felix, 143.
Fellowship with Christ, 73, 139, 142,
145; ofthe Spirit, 413.
Fenn, W. W., 151, 152.
Festus, 143.
Flesh, Christ according to the, 14,
281 ; thorn in the, 24 f.; the, in
the anthropology of Paul, 220 f.,
229; the, ethically regarded, 222,
224, 227, 243; the, and the Spirit,
226; sinful, Christ in the likeness
of, 226, 264 f., 290.
Forgiveness not prominent in Paul's
teaching, 360.
Fornicator, Paul's judgment on the,
36.
Freedom, Paul's conception of, 38 f.,
247; and determinism, 404.
Future, prominence of in thought of
Paul, 427.
Galatia, churches of, 88.
Galatians, Epistle to the, 31 f., 88-94.
Gamaliel, 14.
Genius, the religious of Paul, 14, 21,
65.
Gentile converts, the, 84.

Gentiles, the apostleship to the, 54,
62, 69, 80, 84; relation of death
of Christ to the, 275.
Gifford, 181.
Gloel, 313.
God, love of, 51, 258, 277; monothe
istic conception of, 297; first cause,
398; His purpose in salvation, 400;
His foreknowledge and predestina
tion, 400 f.
Gospel, Paul's, whence derived, 74.
Grace, righteousness imputed by, 35 3 f.,
359. 361.
Grafe, 181 f.
Gunkel, 313 f., 330, 332, 336.
Hagadah, its influence upon Paul, 19 f.
Harnack, 66, 101, 313.
Hausrath, 27, 78, 156, 247.
Heart, the, in relation to faith, 346.
Heathenism and Christianity in Cor
inth, 118, 126.
Hebrews, the Epistle to the, 12.
Heinrici, 37.
Heirs, the believers as, 92.
Hellenism, 49, 224, 245, 340, 416.
Hellenist, Paul a, 14, 81.
Hilgenfeld, 152.
Holsten, 131, 181, 183, 248, 266, 270,
292, 340, 350, 352, 396, 412.
Holtzmann, 153, 155, 160 f., 224, 229,
258, 290, 301, 304, 406, 410, 416,
447-
Idolatry and idols, 44 f.
Illumination, Paul's belief in his, 39.
Illustrations of Jesus and Paul, 6.
Image of God, Christ as the, 288, 301.
Imputation of righteousness, 353, 361.
Incarnation, the, 303; Beyschlag on,
3°5-
Incestuous man, the, Paul's judgment
on, 36, 214.
Independence, Paul's assertion of his,
38, 147 f-
Inheritance of the kingdom, 402.

462

INDEX OF SUBJECTS AND NAMES

Intercession ofthe Spirit, 335.
Interpretation of Old Testament by
Paul, 8-14; of tongues, 316.
Irony, Paul's use of, 47.
Inward man, the, 224, 243, 247.
James, 30, 85, 86, 88; at the council,
171 f.
Jerusalem, Paul's first visit to, 75 f.;
agreement in, 84 f., 162 f.; Paul's
journey to with the collection, 135;
council in, 83 f., 162 ff., 1 68 f.
Jeser har a, 224 f.
Jesus, Paul's acquaintance with teach
ings of, 76, 281 f. ; resurrection of,
see " Christ."
Jewish-Christian nucleus in the
churches, 81.
Jewish method of interpretation, 8.
Jowett on Christ Kara capita, 14.
Jubilees, Book of, 20.
Judicial conception of God's relation
to man, 258.
Justification by faith, 30, 87, 342-369;
with reference to eschatology, 43 1;
through the atonement, 268, 272,
300. 35 !. 368.
Justify (SiKaiovv) "forensic" sense of,
35 1 f-
Keim, 147.
Kindliness of Paul, 33.
Kingdom of God, 252, 282.
Kostlin, 295.
Krenkel, 25, 131.
Last Supper, the, Paul's idea of, 417 ff.
Law, the, 70, 87, 142; Paul's use of
term, 179-198; its relation to sin,
187, 231 f., 236; its historical sig
nificance, 189; as interpreted by
Paul and by the Jewish Christians,
185, 237; satisfaction of by Christ,
263.
Liberty, Paul's doctrine of, 38; see
also " Freedom."

" Life," Paul's use of term, 208 ff., 337,
377-
Lipsius, 238, 261, 335.
Logos, doctrine of prepared for by
Paul, 286, 296, 309.
Lord's Supper, excesses in observance
ofthe, in Corinth, 117, 119, 420 f.
Love, the great impulse, 52; the, of
God, 51, 258, 277; superior to faith,
422.
Ludemann, 221.
Luther on Paul's allegorising, 10; on
Paul's experience as a married man,
26.
Macedonia, 95-103.
Mahomet, 25.
Man, the fall of, 242; not naturally
immortal, 244; see "Anthropology."
Marriage, Paul's, 25 f.; Paul's treat
ment of, 40; ethics of, 389; Stoics
on, 392.
Matheson, 179, 197.
McGiffert, 124, 126, 172, 189, 352.
Melchisedec, type of Christ in He
brews, 12.
Menander, Paul's quotation from, 5.
Menegoz, 253, 271.
Messiah, 15 ; Paul's conception of,
281 f.
Metaphysical conception of Christ, 285.
Meyer, 152, 156, 214, 238, 240, 302.
Miracles, Paul as a worker of, 96 f.,
319; as a manifestation of the
Spirit, 313.
Missionary, Paul as a, 69 f.
p-opip^i 0eoO, 301, 303.
Moses, the veil over the face of, 193.
Motive, the ethical, 252, 387 f.
Mysticism, 308, 330, 348, 354 f., 359,
412.
Naivete, Paul's, in treating the Old
Testament, 10.
Natural man, the, 243, 247, 257.
Nazarite vow, the, 136, 154.

INDEX OF SUBJECTS AND NAMES

46"3

v6p.os and b v6uos, Paul's use of, 180 f.
vovs, 222, 248.
Number of Paul's converts, 145.
Nurture by his churches, Paul's refusal
of, 3, 24, 29.
Odium theologicum, 31.
Old Testament, influence of upon
Paul, 7.
Onesimus, 394.
Opponents of Paul, the Judaising, 31,
91 f., 115, 123, 136 f.
Optimism, 411.
Organisation of the Pauline churches,
109 f.
Outward man, the, 220.
Paradoxes, the Pauline, 232, 237, 238 f.,
242, 328, 379, 385.
Parousia, 16, 202, 207, 255, 324, 423 ff.
Parties in the Corinthian Church, 1 1 3 f.
Paul, birthplace, early life, handicraft,
poverty, 3; relation to Greek culture
and literature, 4; Jewish education,
6-8; interpretation of Old Testa
ment, 8-14; spiritual and moral
greatness, 20 f. ; personal appear
ance, 22 f.; labour with his own
hands, 23 ; whether he was married,
25 f. ; intensity, 28 f.; intolerance,
30 f. ; method of argument, 41-46;
style, 48 f.; conversion, 53-66; re
ligiousness, 50; consciousness of the
Spirit, 72; at the council in Jeru
salem, 88 f., 162-174; preaching,
72, 90, 108; claim to apostleship,
32. 57. 59. 6l, 65, 75, 93; regard
for the poor, 85, 134; relation to
the Nazarite vow, 136, 154; inde
pendence of original apostles, 147 f.;
contest in Jerusalem, 1 62 f., 1 68 f. ;
and Peter at Antioch, 30, 86, 88,
161, 369; as a missionary, 69-175;
journey to Rome, martyrdom, esti
mate of influence, 144 f. ; as a
teacher, 179-457-

Peter, Paul's visit to, 148; and Paul
at Antioch, 30, 86, 88, 161 ; relation
to the gospel of Paul, 349; party
of in Corinth, 1 14 f. ; speech at the
council, 172.
Pfleiderer, 100, 112, 115, 118, 147,
157, 161, 266, 273, 293, 369.
Pharaoh, as an example of election,
405.
Pharisee, Paul a, 5, 14.
Phebe, 130, 141.
Philippi, mission in, 95 f.
Philippians, Epistle to the, 97 f.
Philo, his interpretation, 12, 293;
anthropology of, 224; on the Logos,
296.
Poor, Paul's regard for the, 83, 134.
Potter, the, and the clay, 407.
Preacher, Paul as a, 72, 90, 108.
Predestination, 398-411.
Preexistence of Christ, 292, 294, 303.
Probation, second, 455.
Prophecy, 317 f.
Propitiation, 269.
Psychical body, the, 225; man, the,
'242 f.
Punishment, endless, 454.
Quotations from the Old Testament,
9-13. 45-
Rationalism, 254, 259, 263, 305, 322,
417.
Redemption, 262.
Religious genius of Paul, 14, 21, 65.
Religious spirit of Paul, 50 f.
Renan on Paul's style, 48.
Repentance, 356.
Resurrection of the dead, 15, 451; of
believers, 434 f.; of unbelievers,
445 f. ; Paul's argument for in 1 Cor.
xv., 117; of Jesus, 117, 268, 272,
300.
"Revelations" ofthe apostle, 57 f.,
73. 84, 253.
Reward as ethical motive, 252, 388,

464

INDEX OF SUBJECTS AND NAMES

Righteousness, 15, 51; imputed by
God, 253; for faith, 342 ff.; by
works, 139 f., 186 f., 372; unat-_
tainable through the law, 342 f.;
" of God," 269, 354, 362 f. ; a " gift,"
357; ethical objection to as super
natural, 375.
Ritschl, 269, 270.
Roman Church, composition of, 138.
Romans, Epistle to the, 138-142.
Riickert, 37.
Sabatier, 241.
Sacraments, 414 f., 421.
Sacrifice, 253, 270, 382.
Salvation, Paul's use of term, 212 ff.;
how effected, 247; universal, 454;
of unbelievers, 441, 445 f.; Paul's
doctrine of, 251-279; as super
natural, 320 f., 325.
Sarcasm, Paul's use of, 14, 47.
ua/)| in Paul's anthropology, 220 f. ;
ethically regarded, 222; erroneous
interpretations of, 225.
Satan, Paul's doctrine of, 19, 241 ; de
livery of incestuous man to, 37.
Schmiedel, 37, 115, 116, 221, 227,
384, 392, 455.
Seeing of Christ, Paul's, 59.
Septuagint, Paul's use of the, 7, 405.
Silas, 95.
Sin, Paul's doctrine of, 218-250; in
the divine order, 276; not imputed
when there is no law, 238 f.; en
trance of into the world, 232 f.,
242 f. ; relation of believers to, 366.
Slavery, 394.
Sonship of God, 215, 332 f.; a super
natural relation, 334.
Soul (i/iux1!) in Paul's anthropology,
220.
Spirit, Paul's consciousness of possess
ing the, 51, 73; the new law of,
195, 381 ; as overcoming the flesh,
227, 243, 370; in connection with
supematuralism, 311-341, 371; the

hope of the resurrection, 249; as
Messianic, 313; the human in Paul's
psychology, 325 f.
State, the, 394.
Stevens, 256, 297.
Stoics, ethics of, 385 f., 392, 397.
Style, Paul's, character of, 48 f.
Supematuralism, 308, 311-341, 357,
382, 399, 414.
Syria and Cilicia, 77 f.
System of doctrine not formulated by
Paul, 179, 218.
Thecla, Acts of Paul and, 22.
Theism, 398.
Thessalonians, first Epistle to the,
100 f.; second Epistle to the, 102 f.
Thessalonica, mission in, 95, 99 f.
Timothy, 95, 116.
Titus, 28, 80, 122, 156, 165.
Tongues, the gift of, 46, 315 f.; inter
pretation of, 316.
Transgression and law, 87.
Trinity, doctrine of not taught by
Paul, 298 f., 304, 338.
Trump of God, the, 434.
Tubingen school, the, on Acts, 161.
Typological interpretation, II, 12.
vioBeala, 215, 285, 333.
Unbelief, salvation of those dying in,
454-
Unbelievers, judgment of, 441 ; resur
rection of, 445 f.
Underworld, the, 249, 455 ; Christ's
descent to, 303; longing to avoid,
436-
Unity, Paul's exhortation of the Ro
mans to, 139.
Universalism, 454 f.
Veil over the face of Moses, 193.
Virgins, Paul on marriage of, 27.
"Visions," Paul's, 25, 57 f . ; and
"revelations," 317.
Visit to Rome, the intended, 139, 141.

INDEX OF SUBJECTS AND NAMES

465

Visits of Paul to Corinth, 120 f.
Volkmar, 181.
Vow, the Nazarite, 154.
Weber, 219, 240, 249, 285, 292, 352.
Weiss, 269, 313, 330.
Weizsacker, 35, 55 f., 89, 95, 97, 112,
114, 118, 131, 163, 236, 243, 304.
Wendt, 223, 314, 336.
We-sections, the, in Acts, 95.
Wicked, endless punishment of, 45 1 .
Widows, 26.
Wisdom of Solomon, Book of, 13, 14,
224, 406.

Women, the veiling of, 18, 392; in
the church, 42 f. ; subordination
of. 393. 394; and "the angels,"
393-
Works, not a condition of justification,
358; required of the justified, 361,
3&5 t
Wrath of God, 251, 258, 260, 268, 372;
vessels of, 407.
Yoke of the law, 93.
Zealot, Paul as a, 29.
Zeller, 152, 155, 392, 397.

INDEX OF PASSAGES INTERPRETED OR REFERRED
TO FROM THE PAULINE EPISTLES AND ACTS

Rom.
i. 3  222, 264, 329
4  65,222,329,438
5  '38
9-'3  >39
10  20
11  139
13  20,117
13-15  137 f-
14  138
16  362
17  161,362
18  238
18-20  372
19-32  239
20  372
21-32  4
24  398,405
32  239,372
"• 1  372,431
2  431
4  406
5 ... 186, 249, 258, 406, 439, 442
5"'3  431,453
6  367
6-13  •. . . .237
7  210,237
8  249
9  230,249,442
9-13  232
10  121
11  403
12  201, 232, 235, 238,
239. 275, 35°, 372
13  197. 19S, 322, 35°
13 f.  321
14  182,238,372,379
14-16  232
15  275
16  439
23-27  181
25  198
26  197, 198

Rom. «• 27  197.198
28  222
29  222
iii. 1  275
1-8  138
3  4°4
5  249,354
8  194
9  252
10-12  219
10-19  !86
19  182, 219
20  252, 275, 372
20-28  142, 185
21  190
22  253,354,363,454
23  219,235
24  253,259,269,352,359
25  254,269,270,354,377
26  352.354,359.363,450
27  351
28  200,253,352,357
30  352
31  138, 19°
iv. 1  138
i-5  35i
5  345.359,363
6  363
7  218
8  218, 219
9  357
10-13  20
11  357
12  227
13  190,335
15  87,188,285,372
18  344
21  344
22  274,344
23 f-  9,359
25  254
v. 1  360, 364

466

INDEX OF PASSAGES

467

Rom.
v. 1 f.  50
2  216
5  197.254,325.371
5-8  396
6  387
6-10  254
8  50,258,259,277
9  213,249,268,364
10  254,255,257
11  259
12  201, 219, 225, 238
12 ff.  240, 360
12-14  200
. 12-15  454
12-19  218
12-21  218,454
13  231,238,372
13 f.  201
H  238,239,373
15-17  354.359
15-19  399
17  210, 241,329,446
i7~!9  233,240,244
18  210,244,256,454
18 f.  321
19  234,255,267,446
20  188,235,399
20 f.  194
21 . .210, 219, 241, 272, 329, 337
vi. 1  194, 218, 385
1-11  322
i;  218
2-4  272,273,366
3  366
3f-  5°
3-8  142,260,359,414
3-1 1  330
4  260, 324
4-6  421
4-8  208
5  323.329,349,438
6  204, 218, 221, 223, 267
6-8  268, 274
7  161, 202, 218, 273, 385
8  202, 323, 324, 329, 421
9  273
10  209, 218, 267, 272
11 . . .50, 200, 209, 218, 329, 349
12  203, 204, 225, 226, 385
12-14  218, 221, 229
13,... 203, 225, 228, 229, 384 f.
14  219,230

Rom. vi. 15  138,185,385
16  205,273
17  219, 362
18  273,366,385
19  225,229,396
21  203, 205
22  50, 210, 218, 396
22 f.  337
23  203, 205, 218, 329
vii. 1  274
if.  360
i-5  138
2  389
3  377, 389
4'  88,267,274,361,377
5  218,231,366,375
6  195, 206, 361
7  138,184, 188,231,
238, 274, 371
7-9  218
7-"  375,398
8  231,238,376
9  203,376
9-24  204, 219, 230, 231
10  85, 185, 206, 231, 237
10-16  389
11  219
12  362,377
13  138,206,235
13-23  248
14  198, 220, 247
14-25  227,375
15-25  H
17-23  222
17-25  223
18  220
20  219
22  181
22 f.  248
23  219, 226, 247, 327, 398
24  223,231,327
25  219,327
viii. I  366, 381
1-11  396
2. . . 195, 200, 209, 264, 330, 381
3  161, 197. 221, 223, 226,
243, 256, 264
3f.  .320, 376
4  196, 230, 256, 264,
342, 384, 422
5  384
6  73.207

468

INDEX OF PASSAGES

Rom. viii. 6-1 7  209, 268
7  181,247,257,375
8  257,366
9  35,330,349,366,383
9-1 1  338
9-18  142, 228, 257
10  208, 223
iof.  321,355,435
11  202 f., 205, 221,336,
367, 438, 446
12  273,337
13. .204, 207,221, 223,226, 229,
365. 383. 386, 390, 396
13-16  5°
14  195. 327. 332, 366, 383
H-16  371
14-17  202
15  35,332,334
15-17  336
16  35,327,338,366,416
16 f.  32i,364
17. . .92, 212, 355, 364,401, 413
18  216, 229
18-33  399
19  327,449
19-22  245, 327, 380, 449
21  217
21 f.  332
23  203 f., 215, 221, 224,229,
262,336,401,455
26  35,335
28  400
29. • -35. 216, 378, 386, 400, 410
29 f-  352
3°  352,364,401,413
31-39  5°
33  352
34  335
35  345,364
38  17,364
39  330,345,364
ix- 1-4  403
i-5  138
5  220
6-13  403
8  220
11  406,410
13  246,403
14-21  404
17  246
18  246, 405, 406
20-22  246

Rom. ix. 21  381
22  249
22-29  4°7
24  402, 408
30-32  408
*. 1  7°. '38
2  374
3  347.363,374
4  185,190,333,342
5  185
9  345,346
10  346
13 «  7i
16-21  ;i59
xi. 1  138
2  409,410
4  409
5  159,409
6-8  11
7  246,409
8  246,398,409
11  138
11-16  159
"-33  409
13-32  138
15  438
17  6
20  159
23  159,454
24-31  159
25  276, 400, 433 f.
25 f-  7i
26. . 276, 318, 400, 433, 444, 454
27..  219
28  257, 258
32  246,398,454
34-36  398
36  246
xii. 1  384,387
2  325.384
3  139
4ff-  413
8  in
11  327
16  139
17  139
xiii- 1-7  395
8-13  252
9  196,232
11  433
12  389, 433
14  226,330,422

INDEX OF PASSAGES

469

Rom.
xiii. 16  196, 396
xiv. 1-20  139
7-9  100
10  439,441
14  86
xv. 2  256
3  256
5-9  139
18  330
i8ff.  319
19  330
25  137
25-29  139
26  134
27  134,270
32  137
33  130
xvi. 1-20  in
3-i6  133
4  131
7  133
20  124, 130, 241
21-24  130
24  130
27  130
I Cor. i. 1  70, 328
2  330,366,413
4  328,330
4-8  366
5-9  429
7  35,215
8  215,328,438
9  402,414
n  112, 365
13  116
18  203,214,255,454
20  4,448
21  448
23  108,255
26  33, i°4
28  448
30  109, 202
ii. 2  255
3  23,71
3-5  i°7
4  73,319
5  344
6  35.448
7  320,325
8  17
9  325

1 Cor. ii. 10  338
10-16  96
11  326
12  320
12 f-  73
¦3  325
14  222, 242
15  222
iii. 1-3  107
3  328,352
4  237 f.
6  107, 112
8  389
i°  7i
'0-15  44i
14  389,439
16  35,197.328,366,413
17  249,366,413
21  116
22  116
23  338
lv- 3  35
4f-  438
5  215,367,389
7-H  36
9  17
12  98
14  18,36
15  ....107
17  116
21  120
23  9
v-I  328,365
1-5  122
3  327
3-5  1 1°
4  327
5  19. 36, 214, 241,251,
326, 414, 438, 439
9  , 112, 121
10  238
13  439
vi. 1-9  395
2  44i
3  440,441
7  325
8f.  35
11  352,366,383,416
12  37
15  4i3
17  330,349
19  35,197,228,371

470

INDEX OF PASSAGES

I Cor. vi. 20  109, 262, 327
vii. 1-6  112, 390
1-9  27
2  40,390
3-5  27
5  18, 241
6 f.  331
7  26,40,43
8  42
9  40,390,391
10-16  390
11  391
12 f.  41
14  155
15  402
16  41
17  402
18  107, 114, 158
i8f-  155
19  232
20  394
21  394
21 f.  42
23  262, 361
24  189
28  235,391
29  392
29-31  17
32  39i
34  228,327,391
37 f-  4°
38  391
40  391,392
viii. if.  173
4-6  108
4-13  44
5  18
6  246,338,398
9  37,396
11  396
13  396
«• 1  59
if.  96, 107
i-5  84,115
2  115
4-18  98
5  26,39
9  181
9f-  9
12  24
15  24
16  70, 107,389

I Cor. ix. 17  367
I9ff-  38
20  107,155
23  389
24-27  366
25-27  388
27  216
x. I-II  13
9-ii  442
13  367
16-21  419
16-33  44
18  220
I9ff  38
20  18
24  396
28 f.  173
29  38
31  45
32  413
xi. 1  42, 386
2-16  394
3  266, 338
3-15  393
6-8  11
8  393
9  393
16  42
23-25  108
23-27  417
27-32  420
30  420
32  421,439
34  120
xii. 2  107, 109
3  35
4ff  413
4-6  338
6  338
6-1 1  371
8-10  97
9  3i9
10  96, 315, 318
11  338
12-28  315
13  107,110,328,412,416
25  3i5
27  413.452
28  97,iio,3I9
30  315
31  3i8
xiii. 1  17

INDEX OF PASSAGES

471

1 Cor.
xiii. 7.  396
12  217
13  396.422
xiv. 1  317
3  319
14  334
14 f-  327
18  96.324
21  182
24 f-  318
30  318
31  3i8
32  319
34 f-  394
37  232
xv. 1-8  108
3  218,219
5-7  59
6  420
8  54,66,331
9  62,413
13  "8
14  "8,345
17  218,219,346
18  446
19  427.446
21  199. 205
22  ioo, 234, 329, 445 f.
23  100
24  345. 448
24 f-  318
24-28  455
25  448
25 f-  455
26  207
28  338,453
29  417.444
30  420
32  4.131.389,428
33  5
35 ff-  435
35-51  435
37 f.  60
40  59. 401
40 f.  439
40-49  118
42  428
43  216
44  59, 220, 221
45  233,329
45 f.  242
45-49  199

1 Cor. xv. 45-5°  218
46 f.  43
47  202, 329
49  216, 221
49-54  318
50  212, 220, 401
5°-54 ¦¦•  337
51  217
51 f.  207
51-54  434
52  244,440
52-58  .212
53  205, 210, 220,401
54  207, 220
55  452
56  218,237
xvi. 1-3  135
1-20  129
2-8  112
3  no
5-8  120
6  133
8  128
9  132
12  112
¦5  104,107, in, 133
17  112
19  109, 128, 130
2 Cor. i. I  104
5  331
8  128, 131
8-1 1  132
12  222
14  241
16  47
19  io7> i°9
21 f.  109
22  197
23  120
ii. 1  120
2  1 20
3  120
4  121
5-10  122
6  no, 122
7f-  125
9  120
n  241
13  97.327
14-17  31
15  203,454

£:~. O

* vo OO-vj ONOn 4*. OJ

oo-^o; 0*4* oj

00*a C\ M M "-•

M M i
OvOn O
f* >P ^P
M to M Oj n
M-vj ov M O
tr1 $> £• *P P
Oj oj M Oj n
MUiM4» O
<^i 4* O -^ vp
Oj Oj to Oj M
M Orvj on**t
oovo On O On •

Oj OJ
OJ OJ
On ON ¦

n OJ OJ
OJ 00 M

<OJOjOjOjOJOJOJOo4>OJOJOJ to 4- Oj 4* 4- 4- 4- M

OJ 4^- M OJ OJ

4* 4> OJ OJ
4*. 4a. OJ OJ
Oj Oj n O
OJ 4* 4* OJ OJ ?¦< h hojoj

MOM N M VO M Cp ON ON ON 00 00 00 004*- OCOJ 4* M Ui Oo Oo OJ On UJ £ to OOOJ MOJ 00M0j4>O-iOJOjVOv0vOOJOjvovO Qi m O
MO-iOi m mvjit, OOJ 0 ON^J Oj^I-<I >-. 00H+* Niyisjsjsjoj OvOOJVO OOOJ ^ vo OJ 00 004* ^O 00 O OJ O w oo<5 ON O OJ &

4^ to

o

M „
On oj

Ln - oi
VO OOoqVO
10 00- M

5:0-. c

Ot«4>OJ (0

MH M\)^^ (0 H

i OJ OJ M M

Oj to 4* OJ OOOi 4» Oo

m pi d \o "vi On4* Oo

OOtOtOHMUMH

ii4i.tOtOtOM4*MMiiMMM'iMMONM^^toOj4i4^MMVOM4*M4utOMMl£.toKhJOjnnn^f^^K^rt
4^ vo O O On oi 004* O vO On vo 4* ^1 O^J .O^vo vO vO vO ~ ^5 ^ -¦> £ 0C-£ O 4* ~ £ l3 OW M <J oH !¦> -S -2 £ "oS*2P"-2

INDEX OF PASSAGES

473

Gal. ll{-  3°
0  17
9  90
12  54.163
13  413
14  20, 28
15  69, 78,402
15 f.  50, 54 f., 253
16  54. 59 f-, 74, 96, 106,
148, 159, 275, 320
17  55,H8
18  7,150
18-20  152
18-24  349
19  15°
21  77,151,184
22  83, 150
22 ff.  78
23 f-  ,...76
ii. 1  80, 152
1-10  162
2  58,78,164,317
3  28
4  38,91,330
5  89,165
5f-  39
6  173
8  83
9  80, 160,349
10  85,134,173
11  28
n-17  30
12  80, 85 f., 349
13  28,86
14  172
14 ff.  87
16  342,349
16 f.  352,354,362,379
¦7  194,218
17 *•  87
19  88, 195,396
19 f-  348, 361 f-
20. .267, 270, 354, 382, 387, 396
21  69, 185, 196, 254,
266, 342, 378
iii. 1  32
2  35,90
3  32
5  35
8  352
8-15  321
10  84, 93, 262, 321, 342, 380

Gal. iii. 10-12  n
11  185,372
12  185
13  90,260,262,273,275
13 f-  33,321
14-29  94,275
16-19  32
18  335
18-20  192
21  185, 196,230,246,377
22  218, 246
22-24  :89
22-26  33
23  '•  i8i,377
24  181,184,352,377
25 f  333
26  202,355
27  330
28  44,85,267,393,412
29  70,335
iv. 1-3  189
2  333
3  90,191,198
4f-  333
5  92
5-7  202
6  90,330, 333 f-
8  90
9  33,98
10  ..90, 92
11  •  33
13 f-  24 f., 33
14  18, 24
15  25
19  27,33,330,386
20  33
21-28  181
22-27  9
22-28  32
23  220
29  20, 222
v. 1  361,367
2  155
3  91,93,184
4  342
5  396
5f-  33
6  396 f-
8  402
10  91
11  93,137,157
12  31,91

474

INDEX OF PASSAGES

Gal. v. 13  90
13 f.  396
14  196,396
H-16  385
16  94,226,396
17  78
18  33,94,194
19  207, 229
21  335
22  94,196,396
22 f.  337
22-24  383
23  94,196
24  195, 223, 228, 323, 366,
383, 386, 390
25  195,371,383
vi. 2  396
7  238
8  211,222,337,390
ii  4
12 f.  92 f.
14  267,330
17  132
1 Thess. i- 1  95,ioi,4i3
6  386
8  428
9  99,428
10  100, 251, 258
ii. 4 f.  101
6-9  3
7  27
9  23,98,101
11  384
12  216,384,402,414
H  99
15  135
16  135,258
19  70,428,438
iii. 1  100, 104
2  95, 100
6 f.  100
iof.  101
13  16,380,382,388, 428, 433, 439
iv. 1-5  366
3  101
3-7  386
6  101
7  402
9  100
13  4!4,42o

1 Thess. iv. 13-17  255
13-18  212,337,434
14  100, 101
14-17  IOI
15-18  212,440
16  432,434
17  213
v. if.  433
2  16,257,387
3  27, 203,213, 250,257,
387, 433, 442, 454
4f-  433
8-IO  388
9  213
10  100, 213, 255
12 f.  IOI, III
14  IOI
23  326,328,429
24  402
Phil. i. 1  95, i°i
5  98
6  382,438
10  438
21  348
23  437,453
24  221
28  445,454
"¦ 1  330,4i3
4  396
4-10  98
7  259
8  255,259
9  98
12  98,388
12 f.  328
16  389.438
19  95
25-'  98
iii- 2  99,137
3  137,330
4  347
5  5
6  379,413
8-10  349,359
9  359,363
10  100
10 f.  101, 132
II  438
12  233,366,367
18  137
19  443

3*

tO ti tO m m ONOJ 4*4*»-'-vlMMMMMMii4*M
. | 11 4* N ,_+• 0>QvONl-vO 00-*J Oi O I 4* M  - .
- Ui  71 • 4* to • • • M * M 004* • I ¦ ^OJ ^ ¦ -OJ* O • • M • •-< i i^ ¦ i
 m....vo>On-On-M--0*-'VO*---0*vo- • • -»J

. _, _ _ m . (hOJIhhhOomOJOJ- - -OOOJ- 1 - h- -OjOJOJOJOJOj4*OjOj4* h h • >i Oo •- * n "* h 4* M 4*
VO Oi 0>On OJ 10 On h ONOi OnOi h Ol h w 00 00VO m m\OOi OOOn **JNt-tiiwi-tiiiitoni-i.M VOOO^-JOCnOVOOvOOOJiOJ
OnM MVOOjOjvO M OVO OOM to 004* Oo to OnOj *<r On 00OJ M -*j On -*4 *»J ^l Oo OOVO OnMOjoi oow mu mvj mvO h^q m m4^ m

MMONMMiO\i>-'OJOJtO»-iiinNOJOJWn»-<OvONii4*t000 OC^J

bto

toCo

.... • Oj M O0 • | I 4* 0 0^-J Cn4* h • **j h m o^4* ^ I O VO I • I N
. . 4^. . . io • - • VO ' • ^"OO OJ ~ ^ •• "^ • M ?- ..-..- h • h rj

¦ • - .-.-..-  "On   -....'• _K
H4I-I>HMI1I1I1I1- HHMHMHOJUIIIII- HHHUJ1'-<»1VO'-,|-,,-«4*>-''-''-<* *" ' H •- • * "OJ* 1" HhHOJ'"' N. y
Oi Ov4* 4* On ON4* Oj h OnOj OiOjOjOo iOj M On OnvO OOoOnnOnOiOn OOOM ONOn O VO Ln VO Ui ON OOVO \0 moCnvflviM mm
O O 4* OJ OJ OOo h 4* O On4* On OnOi COOn vD h O 00OJ M Oj 4* vO M OJ T^On ONOn On O VO On On vo VO n wvo On On 4* On ONOn Oj M 4* m V.TL

Small i8mo. Cloth extra, 50 cents each ; Leather, 60 cents.

The Modern Reader's Bible,
A Series of Books from the Sacred Scriptures,
presented in Modem Literary Form.

RICHARp G. MOULTON,
M.A. (Camb ), Ph.D. (Penn.),
Professor of Literature in English in the University of Chicago.

By permission we quote the following
COMMENTS.
" * The Modern Reader's Bible ' is altogether admirable and of special value."
Henry C. Potter,
Bishop of the Protestant Epis. Church.
" To the student, and to all persons who relish truth in its finest form of ex
pression, it is a positive boon." John F. Hurst
Bishop of the Methodist Epis. Church.
" The low price of the little volumes puts them within the reach of the great
majority of American households, and I look for a large increase of interest in
the Bible, for a much better understanding of its general spirit and teaching,
and especially for an increased appreciation of its inspirational power, from the
publication of the Modern Reader's Bible." Lyman Abbott
Editor-in-Chief of The Outlook.
" Professor Moulton has inaugurated a new epoch in Bible study, and it is not
too much to pronounce it one of the most important spiritual 'and literary
events of the times. . . . Each volume contains a very valuable introduc
tory study of the book presented as a piece of literature. . The text is
that of the Revised Version." — Biblia.
" We have so often expressed our high opinion of the scholarly qualities ex
hibited in this series, as well as of the publishers' success in putting it before the
public, that we hardly need add anything now The editor's intent to bring out
distinguish ingly the literary value of the Bible is most successfully accom
plished." — Congregationalist, Boston.
" No literary enterprise of our day promises larger results than the Modern
Reader's Bible. ... In this, series of works the Sacred Scriptures are pre
sented in modern literary form by one of the ablest living English scholars,
Professor Moultcn. No university professor in English, in our time, has awak
ened more widespread interest in the study of English classical literature than
he. On questions of literary interest there is no higher authority, and no more
competent man could be found for this work of quickening literary interest in
the Bible." — The Mail and Empire, Toronto.

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY,
66 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK.

HISTORY, PROPHECY, AND THE
MONUMENTS. BY
JAMES F. McCURDY, PH.D., LL.D. ,
Volumes I. and II. Each $3.00, net. Volume III. In Preparation.
" Professor McCurdy's work is one of which American scholarship has rea
son to feel proud. . . . The announcement that only a few months after its
appearance a second edition of the first volume has been called for is a testimony
alike to the satisfactory character of the work and to the need that existed for
just such a presentation as Professor McCurdy has furnished. He takes up in
succession the northern Semites, Babylonians, Canaanites, Egyptians, Hittites,
Aramaeans, and Assyrians, and treats of their relations, political and religious,
to the Hebrews, from the earliest time down to the destruction of the northern
Hebrew kingdom in 722 B.C. In the second volume the subject will be continued
through the Persian period of supremacy in Western Asia. We look forward
with interest to the continuation of Professor McCurdy's work. It is to be
heartily recommended to the general public as a very useful compendium. For
Bible readers and Bible students alike, it is an invaluable guide." — Prof.
Morris Jastrow, Jr., in the New World.

SOCIAL EVOLUTION. BY
BENJAMIN KIDD.
NEW EDITION, REVISED, WITH A NEW PREFACE.
Crown 8vo. Cloth. Price $1.50.
" It is a study of thfe whole development of humanity in a new light, and it is
sustained and strong and fresh throughout. ... It is a profound work, which
invites the attention of our ablest minds, and which will reward those who give
it their careful and best thought. It marks out new lines of study, and is written
in that calm and resolute tone which secures the confidence of the reader. It is
undoubtedly the ablest book on social development that has been published for
a long time." — Boston Herald.
" Those who wish to follow the Bishop of Durham's advice to his clergy —
' to think over the questions of socialism, to discuss them with one another rev
erently and patiently, but not to improvise hasty judgments' — will find a most
admirable introduction in Mr. Kidd's book on social evolution. It is this, be
cause it not merely contains a comprehensive view of the very wide field of
human progress, but is packed with suggestive thoughts for interpreting it
aright. . . . We hope that the same clear and well-balanced judgment that has
given us this helpful essay will not stay here, but give us further guidance as to
the principles which ought to govern right thinking on this the question of the
day. We heartily commend this really yaluable study to every student of the
perplexing problems of socialism." — The Churchman.

THE MACMILLAN COMPANY,
66 FIFTH AVENUE, NEW YORK.