Prayer Power Works Every Hour My problem is that I cannot concentrate when I pray. In other matters I am quite able to keep my mind from wandering but not when I kneel to pray. Is there something wrong with me? There is not necessarily anything wrong with you. This was the problem the disciples had in the Garden of Gethsemane. They went to sleep when they had been commanded to "watch and pray." Of all the activity of the Christian life, prayer is the most difficult. The Bible even points this out, saying that "We know not how to pray as we ought." Someone has said: "Satan trembles when the weakest saint is upon his knees." When we get to Heaven, I am convinced we will be amazed at our prayerlessness. Prayer can move mountains. Thus Satan will do all in his power to distract you. You may never be entirely free from distraction in prayer, but you can improve by quoting Psalms, using prayer helps. Remember also that prayer is a two-way conversation. Be still and listen for the voice of God. Most of us want to do too much talking in prayer. God has promised special help in the matter of prayer. "And in like manner the Spirit helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit himself maketh intercession for us" (Romans 8:26). No matter what your problem, don't get discouraged. Continue to pray. Is it more meaningful to kneel while you pray? Is it just an expression of humbleness, or are one's prayers more likely to be heard when kneeling? It is not the posture of the body, but the attitude of the heart that counts when we pray. The Bible speaks of bowing in prayer, kneeling, on the face before God, standing, sitting, and walking. The important thing is not the position of the body but the condition of the soul. If the heart is attuned to God, one can pray in any posture imaginable. Jesus prayed sitting, standing, kneeling, and in a prone position. Moses often fell on his face to pray. Daniel frequently kneeled. The disciples were sitting in the upper room when the Holy Spirit descended upon them in answer to prayer. Ahab prayed with his face between his knees. There are times when I like to kneel in prayer. There are other times when it seems more natural to sit or stand. I don't believe there is any special virtue in any particular posture. God doesn't look upon the outward appearance, but upon the heart. Is it always necessary to pray for long periods of time to maintain a spiritual outlook? It is not the length of the prayer that is important. Do you think God is persuaded by long prayers or by the earnestness with which we pray? Put it on the level of the human: What makes the strongest impression on you? Is it the long but indifferent request or the terse but earnest plea of one who has a strong desire? I am sure you can see that it is the condition of the heart and the definiteness of the request that makes the difference. Jesus said, "When you pray, do not as the heathen do, using vain repetition." The simple and direct request in Jesus' Name will accomplish far more than millions of halfhearted and indefinite words. Finally, pray expecting. God knows when you pray without hope of an answer. You cannot pray unless you pray with hope. It is interesting to note that Jesus often prayed all night in private but His public prayers were very brief. In a public function where there are people of different faiths, should a Christian pray and not pray in the name of Christ? I presume that the question is taking into consideration the possibility of praying in the name of Christ offending some of another faith. The real consideration is whether we shall offend God. Christ has specifically told us to make our prayers in His name. To omit His name for the sake of a supposed courtesy to others is a very dangerous procedure. An American citizen will proudly admit his American citizenship, regardless of who is present. Should Christians refuse to admit their Christian citizenship for fear of offending others? Your question is of considerable importance because the New Testament teaches so plainly that man has access to God in and through the name of His Son. That is why we end our prayers, "For Christ's sake." I have a friend who recently had a caller. The young man standing at the door (a total stranger to him) said: "I saw your son out in New Mexico last week." He was immediately welcomed into the home, not because of who he was but for the sake of the son in the West whom they had not seen for some time. In the same way we are "welcome" to God only because we know His son. How can I get close to God? Praying to Him is like praying to a brick wall; and although countless prayers of mine have been answered, it seems that my prayers just slide into the blackness of I-don't-know-where. Do you think you could possibly help me? I'm afraid you are trying to use God as a genie, as a kind of Aladdin's lamp proposition. You say that countless prayers have been answered. That seems to me like a pretty good average. God answers all of our prayers, but in His wisdom, he often answers some of them with a "no." Prayer is not using God; it is more often to get us in a position where God can use us. I watched the deck hands on the great liner, United States, as they docked that ship in New York Harbor. First, they threw out a rope to the men on the dock. Then inside the boat the great motors went to work and pulled on that great cable. But oddly enough, the pier wasn't pulled out to the ship; but the ship was pulled snugly up to the pier. Prayer is the rope that pulls God and man together. But it doesn't pull God down to us: it pulls us to Him. We must learn to say with Christ, the master of the art of prayer: "Not my will; but thine be done." We know people who won't help a living thing. They drink, they swear, and they lie . . . and yet they seem to prosper. Is this the kind of life God wants? Does He answer the prayers of the wicked? I pray, but despair of ever having wealth like other people have. Please help me and make me believe there is a God. I detect a tone of bitterness and resentment in your letter, and I am sorry for you. You should not envy the material prosperity of people who are spiritually impoverished! Jesus said: "Seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness, and all these things shall be added unto you." Resentment and bitterness are hell's greatest destroyer's of human happiness. They canker the spirit, and will rob you of the joy you are entitled to. Nowhere do we read in the Bible that the scales of life are in perfect balance. Jesus spoke of the greedy rich man who had much, and the good Lazarus who had nothing. But in the afterlife, their positions were reversed, and in due time they were both rewarded. I suggest that you obey the commandment "Thou shalt not covet," and give your time and attention to accumulating spiritual treasure — the kind that will endure throughout eternity. "Seek first the kingdom of God." Why is it that so many prayers are unanswered? In fact, I wonder if there is anything to prayer at all. There are many reasons why prayer is not answered. God is by no means obliged to answer every prayer for every person. The Bible tells us that sometimes prayers are not answered because we nourish and cherish sin in our hearts. Again it tells us that it is because we desire things to consume on ourselves, in other words, selfish reasons. But most of all, you should remember that God promises to answer prayers for certain things, not just anything. He will answer the prayer of any sinner who prays for pardon in the name of Jesus (Romans 10:13). He will give Himself in His fullness to any believer who sincerely desires His fullness (Luke 11:14). He promises to cleanse all the sins of any child who comes to Him confessing his sin (I John 1:9). He will give wisdom and spiritual insight to those who acknowledge their lack and who sincerely desire such wisdom (James 1:15). If you are a fully yielded Christian, and commit your whole life to Him, He promises to give you even the whole desire of your heart (Psalm 37:4, 5). This is a simple formula, but it will encourage you to pray according to His will. Then you will not need to feel that God ignores your request. Of course, there are many other prayers that God answers that are not mentioned in the Bible — if we pray according to His will in Christ's name with a motive to glorify God. I have been praying that my husband would become a Christian and stop drinking. Can he be saved through my prayers if he doesn't pray about it? I can't talk to him about it because he becomes violently angry when I do, and then he just drinks all the more. Certainly God can answer your prayers to bring about the conversion of your husband, but don't be more concerned about discovering a cure for his drinking than in the conversion of a lost soul. It is doubtful if selfish prayers are given much consideration in heaven. In the Bible it is written: "Ye ask, and receive not, because ye ask amiss, that ye may consume it in your pleasures" (James 4:3). As good as prayer is, and as persistent as your prayers may be, it is essential for you to pray without any selfish motive. But before your husband is truly converted he will have to pray. Everyone does. It is the simple prayer of a penitent sinner who prays: "God be merciful to me, a sinner, and save me for Jesus' sake." The best part of it is that if he would do just that simple thing, God would accept him, not for his own goodness, but because salvation has been offered to all who trust in Christ. It is also important that you don't nag your husband about this matter. The Bible says: "Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that if any obey not the word they also may without the word be won by the life of the wife" (I Peter 3:1). My husband is in prison and we need him so. I've prayed that God would let him out, but so far my prayers have not been answered. Help me to know how to pray. I am sorry that your husband is in prison. This is tragic, not only for him, but for his family. These things have a way of following a man down through the years, with the family bearing a big end of the reproach. I can realize how badly you want your husband to be released, but may I remind you that God does not defy law and order. Obviously, your husband committed a wrong, and the Bible says: "Whatsoever a man soweth, that same shall he also reap." You ask that I tell you how to pray. First, pray that grace will be given you to bear the reproach of being a convict's wife. This will not be easy. But, if you love him, which you obviously do, you will share in his suffering and embarrassment. Then, you should pray that this prison sentence will serve as a time of soul improvement for your husband. I receive letters from prisoners every week, telling how they discovered God behind the bars. Many men have come out of prison changed men. Pray that your husband might meet Christ there, and that the motives which led him into evil will be removed and remedied. Then pray for the parole board, that if and when your husband has earned parole that they will have wisdom as to how to deal with his case. May God bless you and give you patience and strength. Can a person be saved by his mother's prayers? A man who has a praying mother has a most cherished possession. I can think of no greater heritage than that of a saintly, praying mother. I have thanked God over and over again for a Christian mother. However, though a mother's prayer may greatly influence a man's life and invoke the mercy of God on his behalf, it could hardly be said that a person can be saved by his mother's prayers. Our decision for Christ is one that we must make ourselves. Your mother's faithful prayers may have a great effect on you, but the ultimate and final decision is up to you. This is said with no intention of minimizing the value and effectiveness of faithful, praying parents. Once in Northern Africa there was a Christian mother named Monica. She had a wayward son who was given to drunkenness and reveling. Before he left for a trip to Italy, she prayed all night that he might not go, but he went anyway. Later he wrote: "That night I stole away and she was left behind in weeping and prayer. And what, O Lord, was she with so many tears asking of Thee but that Thou wouldst not suffer me to sail? But thou in the depth of thy counsels, knowing the main point of her desire, regardest not what she then asked, that Thou mightest accomplish the greater thing for which she was ever imploring Thee." Though long delayed, the mother's prayers were answered for that boy became the great Christian, St. Augustine. Since God is infinitely busy with the great affairs of the universe, should we bother Him by praying about minor matters in our lives? Your trouble seems to be that you have a wrong idea about God. Your conception of Him is far too small and limited. You are thinking of Him as though He were a finite being like yourself; whereas the God revealed to us in the Bible is a Being of infinite power and love. And the ultimate miracle is that He is not so busy with the great affairs of the universe that He cannot bother about these little lives of ours. The mighty God who created the world and set the stars in motion is personally interested in every one of us. He loves us with an everlasting love. He gave His only begotten Son to die for our sins. The Cross is the measure and proof of how much He cares for us. And when by faith in Jesus Christ we respond to His love, we enter into a new and very personal relationship with Him as His children. The Bible says concerning the Lord Jesus: "As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the children of God, even to them that believe on His name" (John 1:12). When thus we receive Christ as our Lord and Saviour, God becomes known to us not only as the omnipotent Creator but as our loving Heavenly Father. And because He is our Father, He delights to hear and answer our prayers. He invites us to cast all our care upon Him because He cares for us. How can I have faith that God will care about the comparatively trivial problems? One of the striking truths in the teachings of Jesus is that God is concerned about, and cares for the "little things." He said: "Are not two sparrows sold for a farthing? And one of them shall not fall to the ground without your Father. But the very hairs of your head are numbered. Fear ye not therefore, ye are of more value than many sparrows." Sparrows and hairs! What could be more insignificant? And yet His eye is on the sparrows, and he keeps record of the number of the hairs of your head! Since our minds are finite, it is difficult to grasp the ability of an infinite God to be interested in our trivial problems. But the Bible says that he is. It says, "Ye are of more value than many sparrows." It is reasonable to believe that God, who was concerned enough to send His Son to redeem us, is interested in the little burdens and cares that distress us. Just as an affectionate parent is interested in every little detail of his child, just so, only in greater measure, God cares for us. Peter, who had discovered God to be the God of little things, said: "Cast all your care upon Him, for he careth for you." Sometimes when I am trying to pray I am distracted by all kinds of thoughts of both good and evil. They come racing through my mind until I feel that I know nothing at all about praying. This has made me doubt my salvation. Is it true that if I am saved these things will not happen to me? There are very few people who know how to pray without interruption in thought. There are also very few who know exactly what to pray for. Romans 8:26 tells us that prayer is the great weakness of the average Christian, but it also tells us that we have help in our praying. In every other area of the Christian life we draw upon God's resources by recognizing our own weakness and insufficiency. I think you would find it true in your own prayer life that you will find new joy and new effectiveness in praying if you came to realize that you need the assistance of the Holy Spirit in your praying, and depend upon Him to prompt you and to direct your thoughts. Practice your prayer life in this way, and you will find it to be a richly rewarding experience. Spend plenty of time in your meditation upon the Scriptures for through His Word, God will encourage you to pray.
Monday, January 31, 2011
MyAnswer: Billy Graham "Prayer Power Works Every Hour"
Sunday, January 30, 2011
TheFellowshipofFacebook: Sunday Reasonings "The Internet Expert"
Sundays Reasonings
"The Internet Expert"
News First:
1) Managed to restore alot of my computer after a "pernicious" malware attack. No data files really affected but lost Google Chrome. 24hours of computer time wore me out with all the Info and fixes FOR Chrome when it is corrupted. Unless they get a Chrome Fix it Progrma for me, I did all the detailed and normal routines and "IT AIN"T HAPPENING", so Chrome now goes the way of Firefox and Internet Explorer sitting unused on Computer. So safari and flock are arguing over my Ram and trying to stay running while I cut and paste and post........,
Lord are you sure this is the way Elisha started?
2) Looks good for J. Vernon McGee Audio postings. Prayed about and it seems a positive promotion to provide for everyone.
3) Hit the 5,000 daily reads for the total of all blogs. It humbled me and helped me to evaluate the enourmous time challenges this presents. In a ministry under a "umbrella" of accountablity and financing, it is much easier to just "go for it" because you ahve the safety net of ministry. In a "totally free and clear of ads" ministry it is REALLY REALLY REALLY different. But since God said "if it is even for just one person, at one moment in time, needing one word, or one post, or one thought, than it is my will it be done for I shall speak to just that one person; and you will never know...," <<<<<<AWWW Gee Lord, thanks for tha ahhh......Encouragement? LOL
4) Still praying about "scheduling" some posts to only appear on certain days.
5) REALLY REALLY REALLY, Did I say really? wanting to move "up to" Vid posts like last years Last Call but I can tell it "feel' right but the pieces onece again are not all in place. (and I haven't figuered out how NOT TO SLEEP yet)
"The Internet Expert"
Have you met an "internet expert" yet? I did.
We all have available to us the greatest tools Christendom has ever possesed short of Jesus himself appearing. It is called the Internet and your resource "ought to be" GOOGLE IT!!!!
This week I had the chance to meet someone who used my favorite line and favorite "short answer" by posting the words "Google it." The interesting thing was He wanted me to "google it" after starting a conversation with "ALL the BIBLE SCHOLARS ARE WRONG".
Of course, that made me perk up and listen.........(yeah right).
But the point was this person seemed to think they had an "original" idea about some well documented and factual piece of scripture. Each and every point He made flew in the face of Logic and as the person wrote you could see they "liked" the sound of their own thoughts on paper and made wilder and wilder statements. By the time the post was done, you could read that the person had convinced himself..........,but no one else.
Posting is like that. Alot of people "feel" like Instant Experts because they are "posting" on the Internet. The "see" themselves in Big Lights of thier own Monitor "ON THE WEB" and thier is "instant" ego boost. ( Most people on the internet "get over it" realizing that somethings on the Internet, though rarely removed from every source, also are most likely never seen unless God brings it forward.)
But that also reminds us if we are on FACEBOOK and other social, media, and "fellowship" exchanges; PROVE ALL THINGS.
As with this gentleman posting, there is a "force" of emotion that Does Invoke a responsive chord in readers. This is a "spiritual aspect" to the "eye" and reading. It is area that influences our soul by way of "conduit" into our mind and can "create" in us an emotional response. THAT ALONE is a very dangerous area for ALL people because Propaganda, Error, DECEPTION, even Foolish Venting can produce consequences most people do not "think thru"
When I directly answered this man in a protracted post that addressed each point He made, I hit enter and the post wiped. I thought, bummer......, (it was a good piece of writing), yet when I went to bed and tried to sleep, God talked to me. (and kept me up most the night...GRRRR)
The jist was, this person was convinced he was right and nothing said or read would change his mind because He wants to be right so bad he refuses to be wrong, in order to be right.
LEARN FROM THIS
It is Ok to be wrong. Learning is a process of developing the skills to learn How to evaluate and process information. If you think by the church you go to, or the training you recieved that you will never be wrong, you are decieved. God will make you wrong, at some point in time, to show you right.
And How will you know?
Be open to the Processing of Information. No one is ALL WRONG and most certainly, NO ONE IS ALL RIGHT. NO ONE. NADA. NInguno. NYET. Not you and not me. That is why being an "internet expert" can be good or bad. But what you read on the Internet or find in "google it" is not ALL EXPERT or ALL IDIOT, it is as Jesus once said to a "group of experts"
You do err no knowing the scriptures...., WHOAH that was a slap like a punch in the nose because these guys prided themselves on Knowing the Scriptures, but they were wrong. That means you, me, a pastor or anyone CAN BE wrong a times.
So what do we do?
We listen and carefully weigh the information. No one Bible Teacher will say all the "right things" because A) they might be wrong B) God is not applying it to you. So it it crucial to become not an Internet Expert, but a expert at carefully examining and proving what is stated or posted or taught. LOOK FOR those who disagree and see if the point is valid or some point is and see if there is an answer. Google the question and Google the answer and you'll get alot to play with, but you will get the jist of it. THEN you can evaluate accurately information.
The One Thing I admired about my encounter with the "internet expert" this week was, UP FRONT he said, "I reject all the Bible Scholars." Later, "NO JEWS UNDERSTAND" and some other "all" statement which meant, NO he didn't GOOGLE IT like He said and READ ALL the information because the point he was trying to make had alrady been said and done and refuted and posted and frankly left "out there" as a learning tool to not follow in the same mistake.
But, when a person, Old or Young< wants to come up with something "new in scripture" they have no idea usually that after all this time, it's been done and said.
If you are an Internet Expert, you can "see" the errors from the fallacies and forest from the trees and you need only to google enough sites and you will have a handle on HOW to Process Information.
HOW and WHAT you do with that Information will make you a "Internet Expert" like my friend, or an "Information Expert" like me.
(but I could be wrong)
Michael James Stone
PreceptsForLife: Kay Arthur "1 SAMUEL, PART 2 (WHO ARE YOU MOST LIKE – SAUL OR DAVID?)" Demo
DEMO
1 SAMUEL, PART 2 (WHO ARE YOU MOST LIKE – SAUL OR DAVID?)
PROGRAM 10 (#911020)
WEEK 2 (911304)
2011 PRECEPT MINISTRIES INTERNATIONAL
1
PRECEPTS FOR LIFE
If you have questions concerning the material covered in this broadcast, Kay has published a number of books explaining the Scripture in depth. These books may be ordered by contacting the telephone number or address printed above.
SERIES: 1 Samuel, Part 2 (Who Are You Most Like – Saul or David?)
OPEN
Is everything going absolutely great for you, Beloved? I mean can you feel the wind of the Spirit behind your back? Can you sense His power on your life? That is great. That is awesome. I am thrilled for you. But be careful, be very, very careful that all of a sudden you don’t forget where the wind of the Spirit is coming from, where the power is coming from, because if you forget, then you’re in danger. We’ll talk about it today.
PART ONE
David has brought down Goliath, this young man; this ruddy youth stood before this giant on the battlefield. He has run to the front line; he has pulled out a stone; he has put it in a sling; he has slung that thing around his head and let it go. It hits the giant Goliath; the Philistine straight in the forehead and the giant falls flat on his face. He’s come over; he’s taken out the giant’s sword and he’s cut off his head and he just picks up that head in great
purpose on this program is to take you through the Word of God book-by-book, chapter-by-chapter, verse-by-verse. We are a ministry that is looking for people who are looking for truth that are really serious about their spirituality, serious about being a man or woman of God, serious about consecrating your life to God and living for Him whether by life or by death. And that’s what Paul said, [“Whether I live or die my one ambition is to be pleasing to God.”] (Paraphrase, 2 Corinthians 5:9) So if there is a gnawing and a drawing inside of you I want you to know that it’s no accident that you found this program, because I’ve been praying, and our staff has been praying. And we have been praying that God would create a hunger and thirst in people’s hearts and in people’s lives for righteousness. What is righteousness? It is living right. Right, according to whom, you say? Well that’s a good question in a day when we don’t want any absolutes, when we don’t want any authority, when each one of us wants to be our own man or our own woman and do our own thing and call the shots and say what’s right and what’s wrong. And you know what? You can do that and you can believe that lie, but you have been blinded by the enemy. You have been blindsided by the forces of darkness and it’s only going to end in your death and destruction. God has a way for us to live and it’s found in this Book. So let’s get into the book. Let’s go to 1 Samuel, chapter 17. Remember David has now taken off the head of the enemy. In verse 50 we pick it up. And it says, “Thus David prevailed over the Philistine with a sling and a stone, and he struck the Philistine and killed him; but there was no sword in his hand. Then David ran….” Remember we saw he didn’t hesitate. “…[he ran, he] stood over the Philistine, [he] took his sword and [he] drew it out of its sheath and killed him, and cut off his head with it. [And] When the Philistines saw that their champion…,”(1Samuel 17:50-51a) and you marked the champion the same way you mark the Philistine. When you mark key repeated words, and in this chapter I don’t always mark the main characters of the chapter; but I did here, because I wanted to see every time that the Philistine was mentioned. And so, as we suggest in your
1study guide, which you can download by going to preceptsforlife.com, preceptsforlife.com, I told you to put a brown box around the Philistine. Well, when you come here you’ve to a synonym and you want to mark the synonyms in the same way. And what you see is, “…When the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled.”(17:51b)
Now do you know what’s going to happen? Someday, Beloved, the whole world is going to see that Jesus Christ is Lord. The whole world is going to bow the knee. The whole world is going to confess that there is no other God, but Jesus Christ; and they’re going to give obedience to Him. But when they see Him, when they see Him what they’re going to do is they’re going to flee. I mean they’re going to absolutely flee. All right so it says that, “The men of Israel and Judah…,” when they started to flee, “The men of Israel and Judah arose and shouted and pursued the Philistines…,”(17:52a) Once again they’re following David’s example. The enemy has to be dealt with thoroughly and completely. “…and [they] pursued [them] the Philistines as far as the valley, and to the gates of Ekron….”(17:52b) Now Ekron is one of the major cities of the Philistines and it’s on the way to Gaza, okay. And you know where Gaza is today, because Gaza is in the news. “…And the slain Philistines lay along the way to Shaaraim, even to Gath and Ekron.”(17:52c) Those are Philistine cities. “[And] the sons of Israel returned from chasing the Philistines and plundered their camps. Then David took the Philistine‟s head…,” Now this is so important. It’s so exciting! “…and [he] brought it to Jerusalem, but he put his weapons in his tent.”(17:53-54) Now when it says he brought it to Jerusalem, what he did was he brought to Jebus, J-e-b-u-s, and that was the previous name of Jerusalem. Later on it’s going to be named Jerusalem. And it’s going to be named that by David when David becomes the king over Israel. Now remember he’s already been anointed for that, but this has not happened. And it won’t happen for quite some time, because before he mounts the throne he has to be thoroughly tested by God. And he will be thoroughly tested and he will pass the test. You’ve got to know Beloved that when you
believe in Jesus and when you follow Him it does not mean that everything in life is going to be easy. It’s not going to be a piece of cake. Why? Because “…the whole world…,” 1 John 5:19, “…lies in the power of the evil one.”(1John 5:19b) because we’re in a warfare, as I’ve been telling you, because there are Goliaths that want to bring us down, that want to fight with us, that think that they can conquer us and think that they can defeat us. And if you and I don’t follow these principles you know what? They are going to get us on the ground. But we don’t have to be on the ground; we can stand firm. That’s what Ephesians, chapter 4 is about when it talks about spiritual warfare; [that we’re wrestling not with flesh and blood, but we’re wrestling with principalities and powers and spiritual wickedness in high places.] (Paraphrased…Ephesians 6:11-12) Our struggle is against the devil. And the devil wants to take us and pen us to the ground. I mean it is a wrestling match that is not a put on show like some of the wrestling matches you see. I mean it’s a big, big show. It’s entertainment.But this is not entertainment; this is reality and the enemy wants to struggle against us. And it means to wrestle someone to the ground. But we can stand firm if we know and understand these precepts for life, these principles. So let’s get it. Now watch what he says. He takes the head of the enemy and this is common; they’re going to do this later on to Saul. They’re going to take off his head and they’re going to put his head on the walls of Beth-shean. It’s a place that we go when we take our annual study tour of Israel. And if you really want to study the Bible, go with us and you will get an Inductive Study Bible and you will study it on site and you won’t forget it. But it was common practice to take the head of the enemy and put it on the wall of the city so that they could say, “Hey, I brought down the enemy.” So David takes Goliath’s head; this is very, very beautiful, and he takes it to Jerusalem to Jebus and he nails it on the wall of this city. Well he takes the head there. “…[He] brought it to Jerusalem, but he put his weapons in his tent.”(1Samuel 17:54b) Now what is he showing us? There is a day coming when from Jerusalem, from Jerusalem the Messiah will rule and the enemies’ head will be totally taken
care of; He will bring down all the strongholds, all the head of evil, when Jesus Christ comes with all of His saints and ends up on earth and does battle right in Jerusalem and brings all the armies, multitudes, multitudes in the Valley of Decision, when He brings them to their knees. We’ll talk about it more when I come back.
PART TWO
You know cutting off the head of the enemy Beloved was a sign of triumph and that’s what David had. And so they would take that head and they would display it publicly, and it’s so significant, as I was saying before our break. That he took Goliath’s head and he took it to Jerusalem, and I believe that it’s a wonderful wonderful picture of the time of triumph, and you and I need to remember that. I told you in an earlier program that we work overseas. We work in 121 countries. We work in countries where people’s lives are laid on the line every single day. We have had people that have been martyred because of their Christianity. And I think about one dear brother. I was overseas and we bring people together from all these different countries and then I will teach them for a solid week. We call it our leadership training. These are heads of denominations.
They’re bishops, they’re heads of churches, they’re heads of women’s ministries, leaders that come by invitation. And so we’ll have maybe a 100 or 200 to be able to train them, and it’s such a time of encouragement. And I remember the day that Jack looked at this one man, and he was from this Muslim country, and he didn’t want us to take his picture because he knew that he was in danger. But I remember that man standing on the bus, and we were dropping him off; and as he was going to go to the train and he turned around and he looked at me and he said, “Sister Kay, would you please pray for me, pray for me?” And you know what? I didn’t pray for him as I ought to, and maybe a year later we heard that he had disappeared, and his wife didn’t know where he was. She didn’t know what had happened to him. And we all assumed that
he had been arrested because he was nowhere to be found. And then one day his wife went to the market place, and as she was walking through the market place, and this is where they buy their vegetables and fruits. It’s very different from our country. It’s not superstores like we have. And as she was walking through she looked up and she looked at her husband’s face and he was impaled up there; his head was on display. And what his head was saying to those people is, “Don’t you dare go against us. Don’t you dare stand for Jesus Christ.” That’s how she knew what had happened to her husband. We think that that’s a defeat, and yet, in a sense, there is a day when everyone of those knees that did that to that man are going to bow before God, bow before the Lord Jesus Christ, and they’re going to acknowledge that He is God and that there is no other. They are going to give obedience and obeisance to Him. They are going to bow and they are going to say, “There is only one God. His name is not Allah. He’s not the god of the Hindus. He’s not the god of the Muslims. He is not the spirit gods. There is only one God and His name is Jehovah, Yahweh. He is the one and only and true living God.” All the other gods are figments of our imagination. And yet others have persuaded men that you can believe in any god that you want.And Beloved, that’s not true. There is only one and there is only one way to God and Jesus said, [“I am the way, and I am the truth, and I am the life; and no one, absolutely no one, Jew or Gentile, comes to the Father except but through by Me.”] (John 14:6 Paraphrase) There’s only salvation in One; there’s only one Mediator between God and man and it’s the Lord Jesus Christ. And I just want to ask you a question. Have you bowed the knee to Him? Have you recognized that there is only one God and that there is only one way to God, and that’s through the One who came and was born of a virgin, who was God in the flesh, who died on the cross, who paid for your sins in full totally? There was one sacrifice for sin for all time and He made it with His body. He died on that cross. They buried Him. They knew He was dead, but God raised Him from the dead, because God’s holiness, God’s righteousness was satisfied with Jesus Christ’ death. And so
since His righteousness was satisfied He raised Him from the dead never to die again. Death has been conquered because Jesus paid the price. The question is: do you know that? Do you know that there is only one? Have you bowed the knee? Have you said, “My Lord and My God”? If you haven’t Beloved, then you’re not in the family. But I can tell you this: you’re hearing this because God wants to bring you into the family. God wants you to understand that Jesus is coming. He’s coming again a second time. And when He comes, He comes not for salvation, but He comes for judgment. [“It is appointed unto man once to die and after that the judgment.”] (Hebrews 9:27 Paraphrase) And when Jesus Christ comes the second time He comes not as a suffering Savior; He’s done that, but He comes as King of kings to rule. And the question is: will you bow the knee now? Because if you do not bow the knee now and you do not confess Him you will bow it when He comes, and then it will be too late, because then Beloved, you will be cast into the lake of fire, “…where the worm dies not, and the fire is not quenched.” (Mark 9:48)You say, “Well, I’ll just be burned up.” No you won’t. Hell is as eternal as life is. So what is the message here? That if you have bowed the knee, if you have received Jesus Christ as your Lord, as your Master, as your God, as your Savior, your sins are forgiven, and that you will never face them again. God has taken them and put them in the deepest ocean. He has put them behind His back. He remembers them no more. Your sins are forgiven. You have a brand new clean slate. [You have been made a new creature in Christ Jesus. Old things have passed away now. All things have become new.] (Paraphrase, 2 Corinthians 5:17) [You have died with Christ. You are buried with Christ. You were raised to walk in newness of life.] (Paraphrased, Romans 6:4) You have a brand new life before you. The enemy has been put to death. We have the victory, but we have to know that that victory did not come because of us; it only comes through us. And David sees that. Now watch what happens. It says, “Then David took the Philistine‟s head…,” I’m in verse 54, “…and brought it to Jerusalem, but he put his weapons in his tent.”(1Samuel 17:54) You
want to watch that, because you know where they are and David’s going to use that sword later. “Now when Saul saw David going out against the Philistine, he said to Abner the commander of the army, „Abner, whose son is that young man?‟ And Abner said, „By your life, O king, I do [don’t] not know.‟”(17:55) In other words, David had been there and had been in the presence of Saul, and yet he never really hit him who he was. And he says, [“Now whose this man’s father?”] “[And] The king said, „You inquire whose son the youth is.‟”(17:56) And he wants to inquire because he’s going to bring David into his home. It says, “So when David returned from killing the Philistine, Abner took him and brought him before Saul with the Philistine‟s head in his hand.”(17:57) So it’s before David takes the Philistine’s head to Jebus or to Jerusalem. And, “Saul said to him, „Whose son are you, young man?‟
And David answered…,”(17:58a) Now listen, he didn’t say, “It doesn’t matter whose son I am. I just conquered the Philistine. I just brought the enemy down.” He doesn’t say that. This is what he says: “…„I am the son of your servant, [your servant] Jesse the Bethlehemite.‟”(17:58b) In other words, Jesse’s from Bethlehem and I’m his son. Aha, the Messiah has to come from Bethlehem. That’s what we’ll hear later from the prophet Micah. So God is establishing the lineage of the next king of Israel, upon whose throne the Messiah will someday sit. You say, “Okay, but tell me more.” Well, that’ll come in the next program, because we’re going to see now how David has to remember that this victory that he has had is because of God. And he’s going to understand that, [“It’s not by might, and it’s not by power, it’s by My Spirit,” saith the Lord.] (Zechariah 4:6 Paraphrase)
Saturday, January 29, 2011
MyAnswer: Billy Graham "How to Make Wrong Things Right"
How to Make Wrong Things Right My husband and I are Christian people, and have tried to have a home that would please the Lord. We have some relatives who come to visit once in a while, and when they come they practice some of their bad habits that trouble us greatly. We would hate to have some of our friends find them in our house. Do you think it would be right to invite them to leave or to inform them of our regulations? In the many times they have visited, have you tried definitely to help them spiritually? Perhaps they come to you in the hope that they will receive some spiritual help. Perhaps they are ignorant of your standards, or at least perhaps they do not know why you have standards at all. Your house might become a vacuum if you just abstain from things you consider to be bad. Make it a positive thing in which there is a spiritual influence brought to bear upon all who visit you. Prayer over the meals, a discussion of the Bible without argument, a rehearsal of the goodness of God in your lives would be most appropriate. You can attempt to be so tactful that you fail to make a contact. Remember that even Jesus ate with sinners, but He always met them on His conditions, and He never lowered His standards. I do not recall that He was ever ashamed of being found in their company, for He lifted people but never was lowered by them. I have caused a former friend much suffering through financial losses and terrible injustices I have committed for my own financial gain. What can I do to be forgiven for my awful crime? Your question projects a dark picture, but the fact that you realize you have done wrong shows there is hope. The Bible gives a precise formula for people in your plight: "If thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee; leave thy gift before the altar, first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift." Go to the person you have wronged. In humility ask him to forgive you. Then assure him that you will repay all that you owe him in due time. Then, and only then, will you be prepared to give your life to God. Too many people try to climb into the kingdom of God over the accumulated debris of an ugly and sinful past. God can forgive the sins of the heart, but wrongs done against others must be made right if we are to have peace with God. When Zacheus, the crooked tax-collector, came face to face with Christ and his own wickedness he said: "If I have wronged any man, I will restore him fourfold." When he said that, Jesus said: "Today I will abide at thy house." Christ comes to live with every man who sincerely vows to straighten out his life in the way God requires. Some time ago I served as the treasurer of the church. From time to time I took small sums of money, intending to repay it as soon as possible. Now another man has been elected to the office and I am ashamed to tell him what I did, but I must repay the amount to balance the record. Can you help me with a suggestion? You must clear your conscience and keep the record straight. You cannot have peace until you do so. I would suggest that you take into your confidence the pastor of the church. Your problem is certainly one that has some spiritual implications, and you can be sure that he will not betray your confidence. There is no question about what must be done. It is merely a matter of procedure, and it would be the proper procedure to confide in your pastor. He will be the kind of person you need to include in such a problem. In fact, he has much at stake in every such problem. The Bible tells us that we should submit to them who have such responsibility "As they must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not grief: for that is unprofitable for you" (Hebrews 13:17). Some years ago my sister and I had a fuss over the division of our mother's property and we have not visited each other or spoken since. I still believe I was right but I am truly unhappy about it. It is probable that your sister is just as unhappy about this as you are and that she also thinks she was right. It is my guess that you both were wrong and that you have been acting like spoiled children, rather than as adults. Could any possible division of your mother's things in your favor have made all of this unhappiness worthwhile? Can you take one single thing with you when you die? The thing for you to do is phone, write, or go to see your sister and ask her forgiveness. You may be rebuffed but my guess is that she will welcome you with open arms. I would also go right to the root of your trouble and offer to make any adjustment which she may desire. If you do this in true love I believe you both will find a new joy and peace in your lives. Incidentally, family rows like you describe take all of the joy out of life. Take the first step and make amends for what has happened. It may seem hard at first but I believe it will bring you great happiness. Some time ago I cheated in an examination in college. The rule of the college is that we lose credit for any course in which we cheat. Now it bothers my conscience, but if I report my action, I am in danger of losing my degree from the college. Would it be right for me to just let this matter alone, and perhaps I can eventually overcome my troubled conscience? God gave each one of us a conscience for a reason. An enlightened conscience is our best guide. But if you stifle it and refuse to listen to it, you will soon render it ineffective. You are in danger of destroying its voice. You know that your action was wrong. There is only one way to clear up the matter. It would be much better to take that course over again at some convenient time than to disobey the voice of your conscience. I cannot tell what the college authorities will do about it. You must do whatever is right no matter what the consequences may be. I am sure that the knowledge that you have acted in the light God has given you will more than repay whatever you stand to lose through such action. Some months ago I passed on a bit of innocent gossip about a person who is truly my friend. I did not mean any harm but recently this has become the basis of a scandal, and I feel guilty and sorry. What can I do to make amends? Gossip, even about incidents that seem very minor, is a serious sin. We can never recover our words and they always grow and become distorted. There is a game sometimes played where people pass on some remark to the next person in line, and doing so in a whisper, by the time the story reaches the end of the line it is very different. This illustrates what happens when we gossip. It is like taking a bag of feathers and dropping one one at a time while walking down the road. We can never walk back and pick up all of the feathers. In your case the Christian thing to do is go to your friend and confess what you have done, ask for forgiveness and then do all that you possibly can to tell others and right the wrong. The Bible says: "A tale-bearer revealeth secrets; but he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth a matter." In this, as in all other matters, the Bible gives us wisdom for daily living. Try telling others some of the good things you know of individuals, you will be surprised how happy it will make you, and all concerned. For some time I have been stealing small amounts of money from the company that employs me. Now that I have come to know Christ, I feel that I must do something about this. I'm afraid to tell my employer lest I lose my position, yet I cannot live with my conscience troubling me as it now does. What would you suggest? I think you will find that every employer will respect you for making an honest confession. Even though your life up until this time has been one of deception, yet the confession will convince him more than ever that something has taken place in your life and I feel that he will come to regard you as one of the most dependable workers he has. Even more important than clearing your own conscience, it is the thing you should do in order to give you the best possible opportunity to tell what God can do in the life of one who turns to Him. Having done what is pleasing to God, you can always leave the results to Him. We will pray that you will have courage to do what you know is the right thing. Some time ago I drove a car for a gang which robbed a filling station. Since then I have become a Christian and my conscience hurts me. What should I do? In the eyes of the law you were an accomplice in a crime. In God's eyes you were just as guilty as those who did the actual robbing. My advice to you is to go to see the judge in the place where this robbery took place and tell him the whole story. Explain the difficulty you have in involving other people in a crime. Tell him you have become a Christian and want to do the right thing, taking any punishment which you should take. Ask his advice and take that advice. It would probably be wise for you to talk this over with your pastor first and, if he is willing, take him with you to talk to the judge. This is a hard decision and it may mean that you will have to suffer for it, but it will bring peace to your soul and enable you to witness for the Saviour you have put your trust in. I have a friend who had much the same experience you have had and he made a full confession. The result is that God is using him in a very wonderful way today. I have been in prison for four years for robbery. Since coming here I have been converted. But I did not commit the robbery for which I was convicted and I do not know who did it. However, I was guilty of another robbery about which they know nothing. What shall I do when I get out next year? As a Christian you owe it to the authorities to confess the previous robbery and ask for mercy. Then you owe it to the one or ones whom you robbed to repay that which you stole. This may take a lot of hard work but it is the right thing to do and you will get great satisfaction in doing it. The outlook of a Christian must be different from other people and we have to learn to take things which come to us as Christ would have us do. In making confession to the authorities and restitution to the ones you have wronged you can glorify God and at the same time He may use your actions to win someone else to Him. My wife and I were never legally married. She is what I think you would call a "common law wife." After living in this country for a number of years our friends have told us that we are living in adultery and not truly married at all. What is your judgment in this matter? In our social system in the United States, we have come to consider marriage as being legal and binding only when it is performed by a person who is really authorized to perform such a service, either a minister or a justice of the peace. There are many foreign countries where this is not the case. Certainly, the many people who have been married according to the customs of other countries cannot be considered to be living in adultery. Marriage is a spiritual thing before it is a physical and legal matter. It is the agreement of hearts and minds to come together under God for a lifetime relationship. You have been faithful to each other through the many years that you have lived together and God has blessed your relationship with fine children. I would certainly not advocate a return to common law marriages, but we know too well that there are many marriages that are legally correct and yet there is no love existing and there is much unfaithfulness. It is only God who in the final analysis can unite a man and woman in marriage together. I would, however, urge you to get legally married, immediately. Make it a time of dedication to each other and God. I understand that the Bible tells us to forgive our enemies many times. Although I have tried to forgive a certain person for a wrong done deliberately, I simply cannot. I have no other enemies. Do you think God will judge me for having just this one person that I cannot forgive? Forgiveness is natural for the Christian and is contrary to the non-Christian. Even the non-Christian has friends and loved ones, but he loves them because they love him in return. Here is the distinctiveness of the Christian life. Jesus said: "Love your enemies, do good to those that despitefully use you," and on another occasion He said that they should forgive until seventy times seven. God can and will give you a forgiving spirit when you accept His forgiveness through Jesus Christ. When you do, you will realize that He has forgiven you so much that you will desire to forgive any wrong. In the world, a policy of getting even with the other fellow is generally accepted. Among Christians, it is the policy of enduring wrong for the sake of Christ and forgiving that men might through us discover the grace of God in forgiving the sinner.
TheChurch: HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH* (CHAPTER XI.) THEOLOGY OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH.
HISTORY OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH* CHAPTER XI. THEOLOGY OF THE APOSTOLIC CHURCH. § 66. Literature. I. Works on the Theology of the whole New Testament. AUGUST NEANDER (d. 1850): Geschichte der Pflanzung und Leitung der christl. Kirche durch die Apostel. Hamburg, 1832; 4th ed., 1847, 2 vols. (in the second vol.); Engl. transl. by J. A. Ryland, Edinb., 1842; revised and corrected by E. G. Robinson, New York, 1865. Neander and Schmid take the lead in a historical analysis of the different types of Apostolic doctrine (James, Peter, Paul, John). SAM. LUTZ: Biblische Dogmatik, herausgeg. von R. Rüetschi. Pforzheim, 1847. CHRIST. FRIEDR. SCHMIDT (an independent co-laborer of Neander, d. 1852): Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Ed. by Weizsäcker. Stuttg., 1853, 2d ed. 1859. 2 vols. (The Engl. translation by G. H. Venables, Edinb., 1870, is merely an abridgment.) EDWARD REUSS (Prof. in Strassburg): Histoire de la théologie chétienne au siécle apostolique. Strassb., 1852. 3d ed., Paris, 1864. 2 vols. English translation from the third French ed. by Annie Harwood. London, 1872. 2 vols. LUTTERBECK (a liberal Rom. Cath.): Die N. T. lichen Lehrbegriffe, oder Untersuchungen über das Zeitalter der Religionswende. Mainz, 1852. 2 vols. G. L. HAHN: Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Bd. I. Leipzig, 1854. H. MESSNER: Die Lehre der Apostel. Leipz., 1856. Follows in the path of Neander. P. CHR. BAUR (d. 1860): Vorlesungen über neutestamentliche Theologie. Leipz., 1864. Published after his death, by his son. Sums up the bold critical speculations of the founder of the Tübingen School. The most important part is the section on the system of Paul. W. BEYSCHLAG: Die Christologie des Neuen Testaments. Berlin, 1866 (260 pages). THOMAS DEHANEY BERNSARD: Progress of Doctrine in the New Testament. Lectures on the Bampton Foundation. London and Boston, 1867. H. EWALD: Die Lehre der Bibel von Gott oder die Theologie des alten und neuen Bundes. Leipzig, 1871–76. 4 vols. (More important for the Old Test. than for the New.) A. IMMER: Theologie des neuen Testaments. Bern, 1877. J. J. VAN OOSTERZEE: Biblische Theol. des N. T. (translated from the Dutch). Elberf., 1868. Engl. transl. by Prof. G. E. Day. New Haven, 1870. Another English translation by Maurice J. Evans: The Theology of the New Test., etc. London, 1870. BERNH. WEISS: Bibl. Theologie des Neuen Testaments. Berlin, 1868; 4th ed., 1884. Engl. translation, Edinb., 1883, 2 vols. II. Separate works on the doctrinal types of the several apostles, by W. G. SCHMIDT, AND BEYERSCHLAG, ON JAMES; BY MAYERHOFF, WEISS, AND MORICH, ON PETER; BY USTERI, PFLEIDERER, HOLSTEN, LEATHES, IRONS, ON PAUL; BY REIHM, ON HEBREWS; BY FROMMANN, KÖSTLIN, WEISS, LEATHES, on John—quoted in previous sections. III. The doctrinal sections in the Histories of the Apostolic Church by LANGE, LECHLER, THIERSCH, STANLEY, AND SCHAFF (PP. 614–679), BESIDES NEANDER ALREADY MENTIONED. COMP. ALSO CHARLES A. BRIGGS: The idea, history and importance of Biblical Theology, in the "Presbyterian Review," New York, July, 1882. IV. For the contrast between the apostolic and the rabbinical theology, see FERD. WEBER (a missionary among the Jews, d. 1879): System der altsynagogalen paltästinsichen Theologie, aus Targum, Midrasch, und Talmud dargestellt. Nach des Verf. Tode herausgeg. von Frz. Delitzsch und G. Schnedermann. Leipz., 1880. § 67. Unity of Apostolic Teaching. Christianity is primarily not merely doctrine, but life, a new moral creation, a saving fact, first personally embodied in Jesus Christ, the incarnate Word, the God-man, to spread from him and embrace gradually the whole body of the race, and bring it into saving fellowship with God. The same is true of Christianity as it exists subjectively in single individuals. It begins not with religious views and notions simply; though it includes these, at least in germ. It comes as a new life; as regeneration, conversion, and sanctification; as a creative fact in experience, taking up the whole man with all his faculties and capacities, releasing him from the guilt and the power of sin, and reconciling him with God, restoring harmony and peace to the soul, and at last glorifying the body itself. Thus, the life of Christ is mirrored in his people, rising gradually, through the use of the means of grace and the continued exercise of faith and love to its maturity in the resurrection. But the new life necessarily contains the element of doctrine, or knowledge of the truth. Christ calls himself "the way, the truth, and the life." He is himself the personal revelation of saving truth, and of the normal relation of man to God. Yet this element of doctrine itself appears in the New Testament, not in the form of an abstract theory, the product of speculation, a scientific system of ideas subject to logical and mathematical demonstration; but as the fresh, immediate utterance of the supernatural, divine life, a life-giving power, equally practical and theoretical, coming with divine authority to the heart, the will, and the conscience, as well as to the mind, and irresistibly drawing them to itself. The knowledge of God in Christ, as it meets us here, is at the same time eternal life.748 We must not confound truth with dogma. Truth is the divine substance, doctrine or dogma is the human apprehension and statement of it; truth is a living and life-giving power, dogma a logical formula; truth is infinite, unchanging, and eternal; dogma is finite, changeable, and perfectible. The Bible, therefore, is not only, nor principally, a book for the learned, but a book of life for every one, an epistle written by the Holy Spirit to mankind. In the words of Christ and his apostles there breathes the highest and holiest spiritual power, the vivifying breath of God, piercing bone and marrow, thrilling through the heart and conscience, and quickening the dead. The life, the eternal life, which was from the beginning with the Father, and is manifested to us, there comes upon us, as it were, sensibly, now as the mighty tornado, now as the gentle zephyr; now overwhelming and casting us down in the dust of humility and penitence, now reviving and raising us to the joy of faith and peace; but always bringing forth a new creature, like the word of power, which said at the first creation. "Let there be light!" Here verily is holy ground. Here is the door of eternity, the true ladder to heaven, on which the angels of God are ascending and descending in unbroken line. No number of systems of Christian faith and morals, therefore, indispensable as they are to the scientific purposes of the church and of theology, can ever fill the place of the Bible, whose words are spirit and life. When we say the New Testament is no logically arranged system of doctrines and precepts, we are far from meaning that it has no internal order and consistency. On the contrary, it exhibits the most beautiful harmony, like the external creation, and like a true work of art. It is the very task of the historian, and especially of the theologian, to bring this hidden living order to view, and present it in logical and scientific forms. For this work Paul, the only one of the apostles who received a learned education, himself furnishes the first fruitful suggestions, especially in his epistle to the Romans. This epistle follows a logical arrangement even in form, and approaches as nearly to a scientific treatise as it could consistently with the fervent, direct, practical, popular spirit and style essential to the Holy Scriptures and inseparable from their great mission for all Christendom. The substance of all the apostolic teaching is the witness of Christ, the gospel, and the free message of that divine love and salvation, which appeared in the person of Christ, was secured to mankind by his work, is gradually realized in the kingdom of God on earth, and will be completed with the second coming of Christ in glory. This salvation also comes in close connection with Judaism, as the fulfilment of the law and the prophets, the substance of all the Old Testament types and shadows. The several doctrines entering essentially into this apostolic preaching are most beautifully and simply arranged and presented in what is called the Apostles’ Creed, which, though not in its precise form, yet, as regards its matter, certainly dates from the primitive age of Christianity. On all the leading points, the person of Jesus as the promised Messiah, his holy life, his atoning death, his triumphant resurrection and exaltation at the right hand of God, and his second coming to judge the world, the establishment of the church as a divine institution, the communion of believers, the word of God, and the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper, the work of the Holy Spirit, the necessity of repentance and conversion, of regeneration and sanctification, the final completion of salvation in the day of Jesus Christ, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting—on all these points the apostles are perfectly unanimous, so far as their writings have come down to us. The apostles all drew their doctrine in common from personal contact with the divine-human history of the crucified and risen Saviour, and from the inward illumination of the Holy Spirit, revealing the person and the work of Christ in them, and opening to them the understanding of his words and acts. This divine enlightenment is inspiration, governing not only the composition of the sacred writings, but also the oral instructions of their authors; not merely an act, but a permanent state. The apostles lived and moved continually in the element of truth. They spoke, wrote, and acted from the spirit of truth; and this, not as passive instruments, but as conscious and free organs. For the Holy Spirit does not supersede the gifts and peculiarities of nature, which are ordained by God; it sanctifies them to the service of his kingdom. Inspiration, however, is concerned only with moral and religious truths, and the communication of what is necessary to salvation. Incidental matters of geography, history, archeology, and of mere personal interest, can be regarded as directed by inspiration only so far as they really affect religious truth. The revelation of the body of Christian truth essential to salvation coincides in extent with the received canon of the New Testament. There is indeed constant growth and development in the Christian church, which progresses outwardly and inwardly in proportion to the degree of its vitality and zeal, but it is a progress of apprehension and appropriation by man, not of communication or revelation by God. We may speak of a secondary inspiration of extraordinary men whom God raises from time to time, but their writings must be measured by the only infallible standard, the teaching of Christ and his apostles. Every true advance in Christian knowledge and life is conditioned by a deeper descent into the mind and spirit of Christ, who declared the whole counsel of God and the way of salvation, first in person, and then through his apostles. The New Testament is thus but one book, the teaching of one mind, the mind of Christ. He gave to his disciples the words of life which the Father gave him, and inspired them with the spirit of truth to reveal his glory to them. Herein consists the unity and harmony of the twenty-seven writings which constitute the New Testament, for all emergencies and for perpetual use, until the written and printed word shall be superseded by the reappearance of the personal Word, and the beatific vision of saints in light. § 68. Different Types of Apostolic Teaching. With all this harmony, the Christian doctrine appears in the New Testament in different forms according to the peculiar character, education, and sphere of the several sacred writers. The truth of the gospel, in itself infinite, can adapt itself to every class, to every temperament, every order of talent, and every habit of thought. Like the light of the sun, it breaks into various colors according to the nature of the bodies on which it falls; like the jewel, it emits a new radiance at every turn. Irenaeus speaks of a fourfold "Gospel."749 In like manner we may distinguish a fourfold "Apostle,"750 or four corresponding types of apostolic doctrine.751 The Epistle of James corresponds to the Gospel of Matthew; the Epistles of Peter and his addresses in the Acts to that of Mark; the Epistles of Paul to the Gospel of Luke and his Acts; and the Epistles of John to the Gospel of the same apostle. This division, however, both as regards the Gospels and the Epistles, is subordinate to a broader difference between Jewish and Gentile Christianity, which runs through the entire history of the apostolic period and affects even the doctrine, the polity, the worship, and the practical life of the church. The difference rests on the great religious division of the world, before and at the time of Christ, and continued until a native Christian race took the place of the first generation of converts. The Jews naturally took the Christian faith into intimate association with the divinely revealed religion of the old covenant, and adhered as far as possible to their sacred institutions and rites; while the heathen converts, not having known the law of Moses, passed at once from the state of nature to the state of grace. The former represented the historical, traditional, conservative principle; the latter, the principle of freedom, independence, and progress. Accordingly we have two classes of teachers: apostles of the Jews or of the circumcision, and apostles of the Gentiles or of the uncircumcision. That this distinction extends farther than the mere missionary field, and enters into all the doctrinal views and practical life of the parties, we see from the accounts of the apostolic council which was held for the express purpose of adjusting the difference respecting the authority of the Mosaic law. But the opposition was only relative, though it caused collisions at times, and even temporary alienation, as between Paul and Peter at Antioch.752 As the two forms of Christianity had a common root in the full life of Christ, the Saviour of both Gentiles and Jews, so they gradually grew together into the unity of the catholic church. And as Peter represents the Jewish church, and Paul the Gentile, so John, at the close of the apostolic age, embodies the higher union of the two. With this difference of standpoint are connected subordinate differences, as of temperament, style, method. James has been distinguished as the apostle of the law or of works; Peter, as the apostle of hope; Paul, as the apostle of faith; and John, as the apostle of love. To the first has been assigned the phlegmatic (?) temperament, in its sanctified Christian state, to the second the sanguine, to the third the choleric, and to the fourth the melancholic; a distribution, however, only admissible in a very limited sense. The four gospels also present similar differences; the first having close affinity to the position of James, the second to that of Peter, the third to that of Paul, and the fourth representing in its doctrinal element the spirit of John. If we make the difference between Jewish and Gentile Christianity the basis of classification, we may reduce the books of the New Testament to three types of doctrine: the Jewish Christian, the Gentile Christian, and the ideal or unionistic Christian. The first is chiefly represented by Peter, the second by Paul, the third by John. As to James, he must be ranked under the first type as the local head of the Jerusalem wing of the conservative school, while Peter war, the oecumenical head of the whole church of the circumcision.753 § 69. The Jewish Christian Theology—I. James and the Gospel of Law. (Comp. § 27, and the Lit. given there.) The Jewish Christian type embraces the Epistles of James, Peter, and Jude, the Gospels of Matthew and Mark, and to some extent the Revelation of John; for John is placed by Paul among the "pillars" of the church of the circumcision, though in his later writings he took an independent position above the distinction of Jew and Gentile. In these books, originally designed mainly, though not exclusively, for Jewish Christian readers, Christianity is exhibited in its unity with the Old Testament, as the fulfilment of the same. They unfold the fundamental idea of the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5:17), that Christ did not come to destroy the law or the prophets, but to "fulfil." The Gospels, especially that of Matthew, show historically that Jesus is the Messiah, the lawgiver, the prophet, priest, and king of Israel. On this historical basis James and Peter build their practical exhortations, with this difference, that the former shows chiefly the agreement of the gospel with the law, the latter with the prophets. JAMES, the brother of the Lord, in keeping with his life-long labors in Jerusalem, his speech at the Council, and the letter of the Council—which he probably wrote himself—holds most closely to the Mosaic religion, and represents the gospel itself as law, yet as the "perfect law of liberty."754 Herein lies the difference as well as the unity of the two dispensations. The "law" points to the harmony, the qualifying "perfect" and "liberty" to the superiority of Christianity, and intimates that Judaism was imperfect and a law of bondage, from which Christ has set us free. Paul, on the contrary, distinguishes the gospel as freedom from the law, as a system of slavery;755 but he re-establishes the law on the basis of freedom, and sums up the whole Christian life in the fulfilment of the law of love to God and to our neighbor; therein meeting James from the opposite starting-point.756 James, the Christian legalist, lays great stress on good works which the law requires, but he demands works which are the fruit of faith in Him, whom he, as his servant, reverently calls "the Lord of glory," and whose words as reported by Matthew are the basis of his exhortations.757 Such faith, moreover, is the result of it new birth, which he traces to "the will of God" through the agency of "the word of truth," that is, the gospel.758 As to the relation between faith and works and their connection with justification at the tribunal of God, he seems to teach the doctrine of justification by faithand works; while Paul teaches the doctrine of justification by faith alone, to be followed by good works, as the necessary evidence of faith. The two views as thus stated are embodied in the Roman Catholic and the evangelical Protestant confessions, and form one of the chief topics of controversy. But the contradiction between James and Paul is verbal rather than logical and doctrinal, and admits of a reconciliation which lies in the inseparable connection of a living faith and good works, or of justification and sanctification, so that they supplement and confirm each other, the one laying the true foundation in character, the other insisting on the practical manifestation. James wrote probably long before he had seen any of Paul’s Epistles, certainly with no view to refute his doctrine or even to guard it against antinomian abuse; for this was quite unnecessary, as Paul did it clearly enough himself, and it would have been quite useless for Jewish Christian readers who were exposed to the danger of a barren legalism, but not of a pseudo-Pauline liberalism and antinomianism. They cannot, indeed, be made to say precisely the same thing, only using one or more of the three terms, "to justify," "faith," "works" in different senses; but they wrote from different standpoints and opposed different errors, and thus presented two distinct aspects of the same truth. James says: Faith is dead without works. Paul says: Works are dead without faith. The one insists on a working faith, the other on faithful works. Both are right: James in opposition to the dead Jewish orthodoxy, Paul in opposition to self-righteous legalism. James does not demand works without faith, but works prompted by faith;759 While Paul, on the other hand, likewise declares a faith worthless which is without love, though it remove mountains,760 and would never have attributed a justifying power to the mere belief in the existence of God, which James calls the trembling faith of demons.761 But James mainly looks at the fruit, Paul at the root; the one is concerned for the evidence, the other for the principle; the one takes the practical and experimental view, and reasons from the effect to the cause, the other goes deeper to the inmost springs of action, but comes to the same result: a holy life of love and obedience as the necessary evidence of true faith. And this, after all, is the ultimate standard of judgment according to Paul as well as James.762 Paul puts the solution of the difficulty in one sentence: "faith working through love." This is the Irenicon of contending apostles and contending churches.763 The Epistle of James stands at the head of the Catholic Epistles, so called, and represents the first and lowest stage of Christian knowledge. It is doctrinally very meagre, but eminently practical and popular. It enjoins a simple, earnest, and devout style of piety that visits the orphans and widows, and keeps itself unspotted from the world.764 The close connection between the Epistle of James and the Gospel of Matthew arises naturally from their common Jewish Christian and Palestinian origin. NOTES I. JAMES AND PAUL.. The apparent contradiction in the doctrine of justification appears in James 2:14–26, as compared with Rom. 3:20 sqq.; 4:1 sqq.; Gal. 2:16 sqq. Paul says (Rom. 3:28): "Man is justified by faith apart from works of law" (pivstei cwri;" e[rgwn novmou), comp. Gal. 2:16 (ouj dikaiou'tai a[nqrwpo" ejz e[rgwn novmou eja;n mh; dia; pivstew" Cristou' jIhsou'), and appeals to the example of Abraham, who was justified by faith before he was circumcised (Gen. 17:10). James 2:24 says: "By works a man is justified, and not only by faith" (ejx e[rgwn dikaiou'tai, a[nqrwpo" kai; oujk ejk pivstew'" movnon), and appeals to the example of the same Abraham who showed his true faith in God by offering up his son Isaac upon the altar (Gen. 22:9, 12). Luther makes the contradiction worse by unnecessarily inserting the word allein (sola fide) in Rom. 3:28, though not without precedent (see my note on the passage in the Am. ed. of Lange on Romans, p. 136). The great Reformer could not reconcile the two apostles, and rashly called the Epistle of James an "epistle of straw" (eine recht ströherne Epistel, Pref. to the New Test., 1524). Baur, from a purely critical point of view, comes to the same conclusion; he regards the Epistle of James as a direct attack upon the very heart of the doctrine of Paul, and treats all attempts at reconciliation as vain. (Vorles. über neutestam. Theol., p. 277). So also Renan and Weiffenbach. Renan (St. Paul, ch. 10) asserts without proof that James organized a Jewish counter-mission to undermine Paul. But in this case, James, as a sensible and practical man, ought to have written to Gentile Christians, not to "the twelve tribes," who needed no warning against Paul and his doctrine. His Epistle represents simply an earlier and lower form of Christianity ignorant of the higher, yet preparatory to it, as the preaching of John the Baptist prepared the way for that of Christ. It was written without any reference to Paul, probably before the Council of Jerusalem and before the circumcision controversy, in the earliest stage of the apostolic church as it is described in the first chapters of the Acts, when the Christians were not yet clearly distinguished and finally separated from the Jews. This view of the early origin of the Epistle is maintained by some of the ablest historians and commentators, as Neander, Schneckenburger, Theile, Thiersch, Beyschlag, Alford, Basset, Plumptre, Stanley. Weiss also says very confidently (Bibl. Theol. 3d ed., p. 120): "Der Brief gehört der vorpaulinischen Zeit an und steht jedenfalls zeitlich wie inhaltlich dem ersten Brief Petri am nächsten." He therefore treats both James and Peter on their own merits, without regard to Paul’s teaching. Comp. his Einleitung in d. N. T. (1886), p. 400. II. JAMES AND MATTHEW. The correspondence has often been fully pointed out by Theile and other commentators. James contains more reminiscences of the words of Christ than any other Epistle, especially from the Sermon on the Mount. Comp. James 1:2 with Matt. 5:10–12; James 1:4 with Matt. 5:48; James 1:17 with Matt. 7:11; James 1:20 with Matt. 5:22; James 1:22 sqq. with Matt. 7:21 sq.; James 1:23 with Matt. 7:26; James 2:13 with Matt. 6:14 sq.; James 2:14 with Matt. 7:21–23; James 3:2 with Matt. 12:36, 37; James 3:17, 18 with Matt. 5:9; James 4:3 with Matt. 7:7; James 4:4 with Matt. 6:24; James 5:12 with Matt. 5:34. According to a notice in the pseudo-Athanasian Synopsis, James "the Bishop of Jerusalem" translated the Gospel of Matthew from the Aramaic into the Greek. But there are also parallelisms between James and the first Epistle of Peter, and even between James and the apocryphal books of Ecclesiasticus and the Wisdom of Solomon. See Plumptre, Com. on James, pp. 32 sq. § 70. II. Peter and the Gospel of Hope. (Comp. the Lit. in §§ 25 and 26.) PETER stands between James and Paul, and forms the transition from the extreme conservatism of the one to the progressive liberalism of the other. The germ of his doctrinal system is contained in his great confession that Jesus is the Messiah, the Son of the living God.765 A short creed indeed, with only one article, but a fundamental and all-comprehensive article, the corner-stone of the Christian church. His system, therefore, is Christological, and supplements the anthropological type of James. His addresses in the Acts and his Epistles are full of the fresh impressions which the personal intercourse with Christ made upon his noble, enthusiastic, and impulsive nature. Christianity is the fulfilment of all the Messianic prophecies; but it is at the same time itself a prophecy of the glorious return of the Lord. This future glorious manifestation is so certain that it is already anticipated here in blessed joy by a lively hope which stimulates to a holy life of preparation for the end. Hence, Peter eminently deserves to be called "the Apostle of hope."766 I. Peter began his testimony with the announcement of the historical facts of the resurrection of Jesus and the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, and represents these facts as the divine seal of his Messiahship, according to the prophets of old, who bear witness to him that through his name every one that believes shall receive remission of sins. The same Jesus whom God raised from the dead and exalted to his right hand as Lord and Saviour, will come again to judge his people and to bring in seasons of refreshing from his presence and the apokatastasis or restitution of all things to their normal and perfect state, thus completely fulfilling the Messianic prophecies. There is no salvation out of the Lord Jesus Christ. The condition of this salvation is the acknowledgment of his Messiahship and the change of mind and conduct from the service of sin to holiness.767 These views are so simple, primitive, and appropriate that we cannot conceive how Peter could have preached differently and more effectively in that early stage of Christianity. We need not wonder at the conversion of three thousand souls in consequence of his, pentecostal sermon. His knowledge gradually widened and deepened with the expansion of Christianity and the conversion of Cornelius. A special revelation enlightened him on the question of circumcision and brought him to the conviction that "in every nation he that fears God and works righteousness, is acceptable to him," and that Jews and Gentiles are saved alike by the grace of Christ through faith, without the unbearable yoke of the ceremonial law.768 II. The Epistles of Peter represent this riper stage of knowledge. They agree substantially with the teaching of Paul. The leading idea is the same as that presented in his addresses in the Acts: Christ the fulfiller of the Messianic prophecies, and the hope of the Christian. Peter’s christology is free of all speculative elements, and simply derived from the impression of the historical and risen Jesus. He emphasizes in the first Epistle, as in his earlier addresses, the resurrection whereby God "begat us again unto a lively hope, unto an inheritance incorruptible, and undefiled, and that fadeth not away, reserved in heaven," when "the chief shepherd shall be manifested," and we "shall receive the crown of glory." And in the second Epistle he points forward to "new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness."769 He thus connects the resurrection of Christ with the final consummation of which it is the sure pledge. But, besides the resurrection, he brings out also the atoning efficacy of the death of Christ almost as strongly and clearly as Paul. Christ "suffered for sins once, the righteous for the unrighteous, that he might bring us to God;" he himself "bare our sins in his body upon the tree, that we, having died unto sins, might live unto righteousness;" he redeemed us "with precious blood, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot."770 Christ is to him the only Saviour, the Lord, the Prince of life, the Judge of the world. He assigns him a majestic position far above all other men, and brings him into the closest contact with the eternal Jehovah, though in subordination to him. The doctrine of the pre-existence seems to be intimated and implied, if not expressly stated, when Christ is spoken of as being "foreknown before the foundation of the world" and "manifested at the end of the time," and his Spirit as dwelling in the prophets of old and pointing them to his future sufferings and glory.771 III. Peter extends the preaching, judging, and saving activity of Christ to the realm of the departed spirits in Hades during the mysterious triduum between the crucifixion and the resurrection.772 The descent into Hades is also taught by Paul (Eph. 4:9, 10). IV. With this theory correspond the practical exhortations. Subjective Christianity is represented as faith in the historical Christ and as a lively hope in his, glorious reappearance, which should make the Christians rejoice even amidst trials and persecution, after the example of their Lord and Saviour. § 71. The Gentile Christian Theology. Paul and the Gospel of Faith. (See the Lit. in § 29, pp. 280 sqq.) The Gentile Christian type of the gospel is embodied in the writings of Paul and Luke, and in the anonymous Epistle to the Hebrews. The sources of Paul’s theology are his discourses in the Acts (especially the speech on the Areopagus) and his thirteen Epistles, namely, the Epistles to the Thessalonians—the earliest, but chiefly practical; the four great Epistles to the Corinthians, Galatians, and Romans, which are the mature result of his conflict with the Judaizing tendency; the four Epistles of the captivity; and the Pastoral Epistles. These groups present as many phases of development of his system and discuss different questions with appropriate variations of style, but they are animated by the same spirit, and bear the marks of the same profound and comprehensive genius. Paul is the pioneer of Christian theology. He alone among the apostles had received a learned rabbinical education and was skilled in logical and dialectical argument. But his logic is vitalized and set on fire. His theology springs from his heart as well as from his brain; it is the result of his conversion, and all aglow with the love of Christ; his scholasticism is warmed and deepened by mysticism, and his mysticism is regulated and sobered by scholasticism; the religious and moral elements, dogmatics, and ethics, are blended into a harmonious whole. Out of the depths of his personal experience, and in conflict with the Judaizing contraction and the Gnostic evaporation of the gospel be elaborated the fullest scheme of Christian doctrine which we possess from apostolic pens. It is essentially soteriological, or a system of the way of salvation. It goes far beyond the teaching of James and Peter, and yet is only a consistent development of the teaching of Jesus in the Gospels.773 THE CENTRAL IDEA. Paul’s personal experience embraced intense fanaticism for Judaism, and a more intense enthusiasm for Christianity. It was first an unavailing struggle of legalism towards human righteousness by works of the law, and then the apprehension of divine righteousness by faith in Christ. This dualism is reflected in his theology. The idea of righteousness or conformity to God’s holy will is the connecting link between the Jewish Saul and the Christian Paul. Law and works, was the motto of the self-righteous pupil of Moses; gospel and faith, the motto of the humble disciple of Jesus. He is the emancipator of the Christian consciousness from the oppressive bondage of legalism and bigotry, and the champion of freedom and catholicity. Paul’s gospel is emphatically the gospel of saving faith, the gospel of evangelical freedom, the gospel of universalism, centring in the person and work of Christ and conditioned by union with Christ. He determined to know nothing but Christ and him crucified; but this included all—it is the soul of his theology. The Christ who died is the Christ who was raised again and ever lives as Lord and Saviour, and was made unto us wisdom from God, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption.774 A dead Christ would be the grave of all our hopes, and the gospel of a dead Saviour a wretched delusion. "If Christ has not been raised then is our preaching vain, your faith also is vain."775 His death becomes available only through his resurrection. Paul puts the two facts together in the comprehensive statement: "Christ delivered up for our trespasses, and raised for our justification."776 He is a conditional universalist; he teaches the universal need of salvation, and the divine intention and provision for a universal salvation, but the actual salvation of each man depends upon his faith or personal acceptance and appropriation of Christ. His doctrinal system, then, turns on the great antithesis of sin and grace. Before Christ and out of Christ is the reign of sin and death; after Christ and in Christ is the reign of righteousness and life. We now proceed to an outline of the leading features of his theology as set forth in the order of the Epistle to the Romans, the most methodical and complete of his writings. Its central thought is: The Gospel of Christ, a power of God for the salvation of all men, Jew and Gentile.777 1. THE UNIVERSAL NEED OF SALVATION.—It arises from the fall of Adam and the whole human race, which was included in him as the tree is included in the seed, so that his one act of disobedience brought sin and death upon the whole posterity. Paul proves the depravity of Gentiles and Jews without exception to the extent that they are absolutely unable to attain to righteousness and to save themselves. "There is none righteous, no, not one." They are all under the dominion of sin and under the sentence of condemnation.778 He recognizes indeed, even among the heathen, the remaining good elements of reason and conscience,779 which are the connecting links for the regenerating work of divine grace; but for this very reason they are inexcusable, as they sin against better knowledge. There is a conflict between the higher and the lower nature in man (the nou'", which tends to God who gave it, and the savrx, which tends to sin), and this conflict is stimulated and brought to a crisis by the law of God; but this conflict, owing to the weakness of our carnal, fallen, depraved nature, ends in defeat and despair till the renewing grace of Christ emancipates us from the curse and bondage of sin and gives us liberty and victory. In the seventh chapter of the Romans, Paul gives from his personal experience a most remarkable and truthful description of the religious history of man from the natural or heathen state of carnal security (without the law, Rom. 7:7–9) to the Jewish state under the law which calls out sin from its hidden recess, reveals its true character, and awakens the sense of the wretchedness of slavery under sin (7:10–25), but in this very way prepares the way for the Christian state of freedom (7:24 and Rom. 8).780 II. THE DIVINE INTENTION AND PROVISION OF UNIVERSAL SALVATION.—God sincerely wills (qevlei) that all men, even the greatest of sinners, should be saved, and come to the knowledge of truth through Christ, who gave himself a ransom for all.781 The extent of Christ’s righteousness and life is as universal as the extent of Adam’s sin and death, and its intensive power is even greater. The first and the second Adam are perfectly parallel by contrast in their representative character, but Christ is much stronger and remains victor of the field, having slain sin and death, and living for ever as the prince of life. Where sin abounds there grace super-abounds. As through the first Adam sin (as a pervading force) entered into the world, and death through sin, and thus death passed unto all men, inasmuch as they all sinned (in Adam generically and potentially, and by actual transgression individually); so much more through Christ, the second Adam, righteousness entered into the world and life through righteousness, and thus righteousness passed unto all men on condition of faith by which we partake of his righteousness.782 God shut up all men in disobedience, that he might have mercy upon all that believe.783 (1.) The PREPARATION for this salvation was the promise and the law of the Old dispensation. The promise given to Abraham and the patriarchs is prior to the law, and not set aside by the law; it contained the germ and the pledge of salvation, and Abraham stands out as the father of the faithful, who was justified by faith even before he received circumcision as a sign and seal. The law came in besides, or between the promise and the gospel in order to develop the disease of sin, to reveal its true character as a transgression of the divine will, and thus to excite the sense of the need of salvation. The law is in itself holy and good, but cannot give life; it commands and threatens, but gives no power to fulfil; it cannot renew the flesh, that is, the depraved, sinful nature of man; it can neither justify nor sanctify, but it brings the knowledge of sin, and by its discipline it prepares men for the freedom of Christ, as a schoolmaster prepares children for independent manhood.784 (2.) The SALVATION ITSELF IS COMPREHENDED IN THE PERSON AND WORK OF CHRIST. It was accomplished in the fulness of the time by the sinless life, the atoning death, and the glorious resurrection and exaltation of Christ, the eternal Son of God, who appeared in the likeness of the flesh of sin and as an offering for sin, and thus procured for us pardon, peace, and reconciliation. "God spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all." This is the greatest gift of the eternal love of the Father for his creatures. The Son of God, prompted by the same infinite love, laid aside his divine glory and mode of existence, emptied himself exchanged the form of God for the form of a servant, humbled himself and became obedient, even unto the death of the cross. Though he was rich, being equal with God, yet for our sakes he became poor, that we through his poverty might become rich. In reward for his active and passive obedience God exalted him and gave him a name above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow and every tongue confess that he is Lord.785 Formerly the cross of Christ had been to the carnal Messianic expectations and self-righteousness of Paul, as well as of other Jews, the greatest stumbling-block, as it was the height of folly to the worldly wisdom of the heathen mind.786 But the heavenly vision of the glory of Jesus at Damascus unlocked the key for the understanding of this mystery, and it was confirmed by the primitive apostolic tradition,787 and by his personal experience of the failure of the law and the power of the gospel to give peace to his troubled conscience. The death of Christ appeared to him now as the divinely appointed means for procuring righteousness. It is the device of infinite wisdom and love to reconcile the conflicting claims of justice and mercy whereby God could justify the sinner and yet remain just himself.788 Christ, who knew no sin, became sin for us that we might become righteousness of God in him. He died in the place and for the benefit (uJpevr, periv) of sinners and enemies, so that his death has a universal significance. If one died for all, they all died.789 He offered his spotless and holy life as a ransom (luvtron) or price (timhv) for our sins, and thus effected our redemption (ajpoluvtrwsi"), as prisoners of war are redeemed by the payment of an equivalent. His death, therefore, is a vicarious sacrifice, an atonement, an expiation or propitiation iJlasmov", iJlasthvrion, sacrificium expiatorium) for the sins of the whole world, and secured full and final remission (a[fesi") and reconciliation between God and man (katallaghv). This the Mosaic law and sacrifices could not accomplish. They could only keep alive and deepen the sense of the necessity of an atonement. If righteousness came by the law, Christ’s death would be needless and fruitless. His death removes not only the guilt of sin, but it destroyed also its power and dominion. Hence the great stress Paul laid on the preaching of the cross (oJ lovgo" tou' staurou') in which alone he would glory.790 This rich doctrine of the atonement which pervades the Pauline Epistles is only a legitimate expansion of the word of Christ that he would give his life as a ransom for sinners and shed his blood for the remission of sins. (3.) While Christ accomplished the salvation, the HOLY SPIRIT appropriates it to the believer. The Spirit is the religious and moral principle of the new life. Emanating from God, he dwells in the Christian as a renewing, sanctifying, comforting energy, as the higher conscience, as a divine guide and monitor. He mediates between Christ and the church as Christ mediates between God and the world; be is the divine revealer of Christ to the individual consciousness and the source of all graces (carivsmata) through which the new life manifests itself. "Christ in us" is equivalent to having the "Spirit of Christ." It is only by the inward revelation of the Spirit that we can call Christ our Lord and Saviour, and God our Father; by the Spirit the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts; the Spirit works in us faith and all virtues; it is the Spirit who transforms even the body of the believer into a holy temple; those who are led by the Spirit are the sons of God and heirs of salvation; it is by the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus that we are made free from the law of sin and death and are able to walk in newness of life. Where the Spirit of God is there is true liberty.791 (4.) There is, then, a threefold cause of our salvation: the Father who sends his Son, the Son who procures salvation, and the Holy Spirit who applies it to the believer. This threefold agency is set forth in the benediction, which comprehends all divine blessings: "the grace (cavri") of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the (ajgavph) of God, and the communion (koinwniva) of the Holy Spirit."792 This is Paul’s practical view of the Holy Trinity as revealed in the gospel. The grace of Christ is mentioned first because in it is exhibited to us the love of the Father in its highest aspect as a saving power; to the Holy Spirit is ascribed the communion because he is the bond of union between the Father and the Son, between Christ and the believer, and between the believers as members of one brotherhood of the redeemed. To this divine trinity corresponds, we may say, the human trinity of Christian graces: faith, hope, love.793 III. THE ORDER OF SALVATION.—(1.) SALVATION HAS ITS ROOTS IN THE ETERNAL COUNSEL OF GOD, HIS FOREKNOWLEDGE (provgnwsi"), and his FOREORDINATION (proorismov", provqesi"); the former an act of his omniscient intellect, the latter of his omnipotent will. Logically, foreknowledge precedes foreordination, but in reality both coincide and are simultaneous in the divine mind, in which there is no before nor after.794 Paul undoubtedly teaches an eternal election by the sovereign grace of God, that is an unconditioned and unchangeable predestination of his children to holiness and salvation in and through his Son Jesus Christ.795 He thus cuts off all human merit, and plants the salvation upon an immovable rock. But he does not thereby exclude human freedom and responsibility; on the contrary, he includes them as elements in the divine plan, and boldly puts them together.796 Hence he exhorts and warns men as if salvation might be gained or lost by their effort. Those who are lost, are lost by their own unbelief. Perdition is the righteous judgment for sin unrepented of and persisted in. It is a strange misunderstanding to make Paul either a fatalist or a particularist; he is the strongest opponent of blind necessity and of Jewish particularism, even in the ninth chapter of Romans. But he aims at no philosophical solution of a problem which the finite understanding of man cannot settle; he contents himself with asserting its divine and human aspects, the religious and ethical view, the absolute sovereignty of God and the relative freedom of man, the free gift of salvation and the just punishment for neglecting it. Christian experience includes both truths, and we find no contradiction in praying as if all depended on God, and in working as if all depended on man. This is Pauline theology and practice. Foreknowledge and foreordination are the eternal background of salvation: call, justification, sanctification, and glorification mark the progressive steps in the time of execution, and of the personal application of salvation.797 (2.) The CALL (klh'si") proceeds from God the Father through the preaching of the gospel salvation which is sincerely offered to all. Faith comes from preaching, preaching from preachers, and the preachers from God who sends them.798 The human act which corresponds to the divine call is the conversion (metavnoia) of the sinner; and this includes repentance or turning away from sin, and faith or turning to Christ, under the influence of the Holy Spirit who acts through the word.799 The Holy Spirit is the objective principle of the new life of the Christian. Faith is the free gift of God, and at the same time the highest act of man. It is unbounded trust in Christ, and the organ by which we apprehend him, his very life and benefits, and become as it were identified with him, or mystically incorporated with him.800 (3.) JUSTIFICATION (dikaivwsi") is the next step. This is a vital doctrine in Paul’s system and forms the connecting link as well as the division line between the Jewish and the Christian period of his life. It was with him always a burning life-question. As a Jew he sought righteousness by works of the law, honestly and earnestly, but in vain; as a Christian he found it, as a free gift of grace, by faith in Christ. Righteousness (dikaiosuvnh), as applied to man, is the normal relation of man to the holy, will of God as expressed in his revealed law, which requires supreme love to God and love to our neighbor; it is the moral and religious ideal, and carries in itself the divine favor and the highest happiness. It is the very end for which man was made; he is to be conformed to God who is absolutely holy and righteous. To be god-like is the highest conception of human perfection and bliss. But there are two kinds of righteousness, or rather two ways of seeking it: one of the law, and sought by works of the law; but this is imaginary, at best very defective, and cannot stand before God; and the righteousness of Christ, or the righteousness of faith, which is freely communicated to the believer and accepted by God. Justification is the act of God by which he puts the repenting sinner in possession of the righteousness of Christ. It is the reverse of condemnation; it implies the remission of sins and the imputation of Christ’s righteousness. It is based upon the atoning sacrifice of Christ and conditioned by faith, as the subjective organ of apprehending and appropriating Christ with all his benefits. We are therefore justified by grace alone through faith alone; yet faith remains not alone, but is ever fruitful of good works. The result of justification is peace (eijrhvnh) with God, and the state of adoption (uiJoqesiva) and this implies also the heirship (klhronomiva) of eternal life. "The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit that we are children of God: and if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified with him."801 The root of Paul’s theory of justification is found in the teaching of Christ: he requires from his disciples a far better righteousness than the legal righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, as a condition of entering the kingdom of heaven, namely, the righteousness of God; he holds up this righteousness of God as the first object to be sought; and teaches that it can only be obtained by faith, which he everywhere presents as the one and only condition of salvation on the part of man.802 (4.) SANCTIFICATION (aJgiasmov").803 The divine act of justification is inseparable from the conversion and renewal of the sinner. It affects the will and conduct as well as the feeling. Although gratuitous, it is not unconditional. It is of necessity the beginning of sanctification, the birth into a new life which is to grow unto full manhood. We are not justified outside of Christ, but only in Christ by a living faith, which unites us with him in his death unto sin and resurrection unto holiness. Faith is operative in love and must produce good works as the inevitable proof of its existence. Without love, the greatest of Christian graces, even the strongest faith would be but "sounding brass or clanging cymbal."804 Sanctification is not a single act, like justification, but a process. It is a continuous growth of the whole inner man in holiness from the moment of conversion and justification to the reappearance of Jesus Christ in glory.805 On the part of God it is insured, for he is faithful and will perfect the good work which he began; on the part of man it involves constant watchfulness, lest he stumble and fall. In one view it depends all on the grace of God, in another view it depends all on the exertion of man. There is a mysterious co-operation between the two agencies, which is expressed in the profound paradox: "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who worketh in you both to will and to work, for his good pleasure."806 The believer is mystically identified with Christ from the moment of his conversion (sealed by baptism). He died with Christ unto sin so as to sin no more; and he rose with him to a new life unto God so as to live for God; he is crucified to the world and the world to him; he is a new creature in Christ; the old man of sin is dead and buried, the new man lives in holiness and righteousness. "It is no longer I (my own sinful self) that lives, but it is Christ that lives in me: and that life which I now live in the flesh, I live in faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself up for me."807 Here is the whole doctrine of Christian life: it is Christ in us, and we in Christ. It consists in a vital union with Christ, the crucified and risen Redeemer, who is the indwelling, all-pervading, and controlling life of the believer; but the union is no pantheistic confusion or absorption; the believer continues to live as a self-conscious and distinct personality. For the believer "to live is Christ, and to die is gain." "Whether we live, we live unto the Lord; whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s."808 In Romans 12, Paul sums up his ethics in the idea of gratitude which manifests itself in a cheerful sacrifice of our persons and services to the God of our salvation.809 (5.) GLORIFICATION (doxavzein). This is the final completion of the work of grace in the believer and will appear at the parousia of our Lord. It cannot be hindered by any power present or future, visible or invisible, for God and Christ are stronger than all our enemies and will enable us to come out more than conquerors from the conflict of faith. This lofty conviction of final victory finds most eloquent expression in the triumphal ode which closes the eighth chapter of Romans.810 IV. THE HISTORICAL PROGRESS of the gospel of salvation from Jews to Gentiles and back again to the Jews.811 Salvation was first intended for and offered to the Jews, who were for centuries prepared for it by the law and the promise, and among whom the Saviour was born, lived, died, and rose again. But the Jews as a nation rejected Christ and his apostles, and hardened their hearts in unbelief. This fact filled the apostle with unutterable sadness, and made him willing to sacrifice even his own salvation (if it were possible) for the salvation of his kinsmen. But he sees light in this dark mystery. First of all, God has a sovereign right over all his creatures and manifests both his mercy and his righteousness in the successive stages of the historical execution of his wise designs. His promise has not failed, for it was not given to all the carnal descendants of Abraham and Isaac, but only to the spiritual descendants, the true Israelites who have the faith of Abraham, and they have been saved, as individual Jews are saved to this day. And even in his relation to the vessels of wrath who by unbelief and ingratitude have fitted themselves for destruction, he shows his long-suffering. In the next place, the real cause of the rejection of the body of the Jews is their own rejection of Christ. They sought their own righteousness by works of the law instead of accepting the righteousness of God by faith. Finally, the rejection of the Jews is only temporary and incidental in the great drama of history. It is overruled for the speedier conversion of the Gentiles, and the conversion of the full number or the organic totality of the Gentiles (not all individual Gentiles) will lead ultimately to the conversion of Israel. "A hardening in part has befallen Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in; and so all Israel shall be saved." With this hopeful prophecy, which seems yet far off, but which is steadily approaching fulfilment, and will be realized in God’s own time and way, the apostle closes the doctrinal part of the Epistle to the Romans. "God has shut up all men (tou;" pavnta"¼ unto disobedience that he might have mercy upon all men. O the depth of the riche" both of the wisdom and the knowledge of God[ how unsearchable are hi" judgment", and hi" way" past tracing out[ ... For of Him »ejx aujtou'¼ and through Him »dij aujtou'), and unto Him (eij" aujtonv) are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen."812 Before this glorious consummation, however, there will be a terrible conflict with Antichrist or "the man of sin," and the full revelation of the mystery of lawlessness now held in check. Then the Lord will appear as the conqueror in the field, raise the dead, judge the world, destroy the last enemy, and restore the kingdom to the Father that God may be all in all (ta; pavnta ejn pa'sin).813 NOTES. I. The PAULINE SYSTEM OF DOCTRINE has been more frequently explained than any other. Among the earlier writers Neander, Usteri, and Schmid take the lead, and are still valuable. Neander and Schmid are in full sympathy with the spirit and views of Paul. Usteri adapted them somewhat to Schleiermacher’s system, to which he adhered. Next to them the Tübingen school, first the master, Baur (twice, in his Paul, and in his New Test. Theology), and then his pupils, Pfleiderer and Holsten, have done most for a critical reproduction. They rise far above the older rationalism in an earnest and intelligent appreciation of the sublime theology of Paul, and leave the impression that he was a most profound, bold, acute, and consistent thinker on the highest themes. But they ignore the supernatural element of inspiration, they lack spiritual sympathy with the faith of the apostle, overstrain his antagonism to Judaism (as did Marcion of old), and confine the authentic sources to the four anti-Judaic Epistles to the Galatians, Romans, and Corinthians, although recognizing in the minor Epistles the "paulinische Grundlage." The more moderate followers of Baur, however, now admit the genuineness of from seven to ten Pauline Epistles, leaving only the three Pastoral Epistles and Ephesians in serious doubt. The Paulinismus of Weiss (in the third ed. of his Bibl. Theol., 1881, pp. 194–472) is based upon a very careful philological exegesis in detail, and is in this respect the most valuable of all attempts to reproduce Paul’s theology. He divides it into three sections: 1st, the system of the four great doctrinal and polemical Epistles; 2d, the further development of Paulinism in the Epistles of the captivity; 3d, the doctrine of the Pastoral Epistles. He doubts only the genuineness of the last group, but admits a progress from the first to the second. Of French writers, Reuss, Pressensé, and Sabatier give the best expositions of the Pauline system, more or less in imitation of German labors. Reuss, of Strasburg, who writes in German as well, is the most independent and learned; Pressensé is more in sympathy with Paul’s belief, but gives only a meagre summary; Sabatier leans to the Tübingen school. Reuss discusses Paul’s system (in vol. III., 17–220) very fully under these heads: righteousness; sin; the law; the gospel; God; the person of Christ; the work of Christ; typical relation of the old and new covenant; faith; election; calling and the Holy Spirit; regeneration; redemption; justification and reconciliation; church; hope and trial; last times; kingdom of God. Sabatier (L’apôtre Paul, pp. 249–318, second ed., 1881) more briefly but clearly develops the Pauline theology from the Christological point of view (la personne de Christ Principe générateur de la conscience chrétienne) under three heads: lot, the Christian principle in the psychological sphere (anthropology); 2d, in the social and historical sphere (religious philosophy of history); 3d, in the metaphysical sphere (theology), which culminates in the qeo;" ta; pavnta ejn pa'sin "Ainsi naît et grandit cet arbre magnifique de la pensée de Paul, dont les racines plongent dans le sol de la conscience chrétienne et dont la cime est dans les cieux." Renan, who professes so much sentimental admiration for the poetry and wisdom of Jesus, "the charming Galilaean peasant," has no organ for the theology of Paul any more than Voltaire had for the poetry of Shakespeare. He regards him as a bold and vigorous, but uncouth and semi-barbarous genius, full of rabbinical subtleties, useless speculations, and polemical intolerance even against good old Peter at Antioch. Several doctrines of Paul have been specially discussed by German scholars, as TISCHENDORF: Doctrina Pauli apostoli de Vi Mortis Christi Satisfactoria (Leipz., 1837); RÄBIGER: De Christologia Paulina (Breslau, 1852); LIPSIUS: Die paulinische Rechtfertigunglehre (Leipz., 1853);ERNESTI: Vom Ursprung der Sünde nach paulinischem Lehrgehalt (Wolfenbüttel, 1855); Die Ethik des Paulus (Braunschweig, 1868; 3d ed., 1881); W. BEYSCHLAG Die paulinische Theodicee (Berlin, 1868); R. SCHMIDT: Die Christologie des Ap. Paulus (Gött., 1870); A. DELITZSCH:Adam und Christus (Bonn, 1871); H. LÜDEMANN: Die Anthropologie des Ap. Paulus (Kiel, 1872); R. STÄHELIN: Zur paulinischen Eschatologie (1874); A. SCHUMANN: Der weltgeschichtl. Entwickelungsprocess nach dem Lehrsystem des Ap. Paulus (Crefeld, 1875); FR. KÖSTLIN: Die Lehre des Paulus von der Auferstehung (1877); H. H. WENDT: Die Begriffe Fleisch und Geist in biblischen Sprachgebrauch (Gotha, 1878). II. The CHRISTOLOGY OF PAUL is closely interwoven with his soteriology. In Romans and Galatians the soteriological aspect prevails, in Philippians and Colossians the christological. His christology is very rich, and with that of the Epistle to the Hebrews prepares the way for the christology of John. It is even more fully developed than John’s, only less prominent in the system. The chief passages on the person of Christ are: Rom. 1:3, 4 (ejk spevrmato" Dauei;d kata; savrka ... uiJo" qeou' kata; pneu'ma aJgiwsuvnh"); 8:3 (oJ qeo;" to;n ejautou' uiJo;n pemya" ejn oJmoiwvmati savrko" aJmartiva") 8:32 (o}" tou' ijdivou uiJou' oujk ejfeivsato) 9:5 (ejx w|n oJ Cristo;" to; kata; savrka, oJ w]n epi; pavntwn, qe;o" eujloghto;" eij" tou;" aijwna"—but the punctuation and consequently the application of the doxology—whether to God or to Christ—are disputed); 1 Cor. 1:19 (oJ kuvrio" hJmw'n, a very frequent designation); 2 Cor. 5:21 (to;n mh; gnovnta aJmartivan); 8:9 (ejptwceusen plouvsio" w[n, i{na uJmei'" th/' ejkeivnou ptwceiva/ plouthvshte ); Phil. 2:5–11 (the famous passage about the kevnwsi"); Col. 1:15–18 (o{" ejstin eijkw;n tou' qeou' tou' ajoravtou prwtovtoko" pavsh" krivsew", o{ti ejn aujtw/' ejkrivsqh ta; panvta ... ta; pavnta dij aujtou' kai;i; eij" aujto;n e[ktistai ...); 2:9 (ejn aujtw/' katoikei' pa'n to; plhvrwma th'" qeovthto" swmatikw'" ); 1 Tim. 3:16 (o}" ejfanerwvqh ejn sarkiv ...); Tit.2:13 (tou' megavlou qeou' kai; swth'ro" hJmw'n Cristou' jIhsou', where, however, commentators differ in the construction, as in Rom. 9:5). From these and other passages the following doctrinal points may be inferred: 1.The eternal pre-existence of Christ as to his divine nature. The pre-existence generally is implied in Rom. 8:3, 32; 2 Cor. 5:21; Phil. 2:5; the pre-existence before the creation is expressly asserted, Col. 1:15; the eternity of this pre-existence is a metaphysical inference from the nature of the case, since an existence before all creation must be an uncreated, therefore a divine or eternal existence which has no beginning as well as no end. (John carefully distinguishes between the eternal h\n of the pre-existent Logos, and the temporal ejgevneto of the incarnate Logos, John 1:1, 14; comp. 8:58.) This is not inconsistent with the designation of Christ as "the first-born of all creation," Col. 1:15; for prwtovtoko" is different from prwtovktisto" (first-created), as the Nicene fathers already remarked, in opposition to Arius, who inferred from the passage that Christ was the first creature of God and the creator of all other creatures. The word first-born corresponds to the Johannean monogenhv", only-begotten. "Both express," as Lightfoot says (Com. on Col.) "the same eternal fact; but while monogenhv" states it in itself, prwtovtoko" places it in relation to the universe." We may also compare the protovgono", first-begotten, which Philo applies to the Logos, as including the original archetypal idea of the created world. "The first-born," used absolutely (prwtovtoko" B]kror Ps. 89:28), became a recognized title of the Messiah. Moreover, the genitive pavsh" ktivsew" is not the partitive, but the comparative genitive: the first-born as compared with, that is, before, every creature. So Justin Martyr (pro; pavntwn tw'n ktismavtwn), Meyer, and Bp. Lightfoot, in loc.; also Weiss, Bibl. Theol. d. N. T., p. 431 (who refutes the opposite view of Usteri, Reuss, and Baur, and says: "Da pavsh" krivsew" jede einzelne Creatur bezeichnet, so kann der Genii. nur comparativ genommen werden, und nur besagen, dass er im Vergleich mit jeden Creatur der Erstgeborne war"). The words immediately following, John 1:16, 17, exclude the possibility of regarding Christ himself as a creature. Lightfoot, in his masterly Comm. (p. 212 sq.), very fully explains the term as teaching the absolute pre-existence of the Son, his priority to and sovereignty over all creation. The recent attempt of Dr. Beyschlag (Christologie des N. T., pp. 149 sqq., 242 sqq.) to resolve the pre-existent Christ of Paul and John into an ideal principle, instead of a real personality, is an exegetical failure, like the similar attempts of the Socinians, and is as far from the mark as the interpretation of some of the Nicene fathers (e.g., Marcellus) who, in order to escape the Arian argument, understood prototokos of the incarnate Logos as the head of the new spiritual creation. 2. Christ is the mediator and the end of creation. "All things were created in him, in the heavens and upon the earth, things visible and things invisible ...; all things have been created through him (di j aujtou' and unto him (eij" aujtovn); and he is before all things, and in him all things consist," Col. 1:15–18. The same doctrine is taught in 1 Cor. 8:6 ("Jesus Christ, through whom are all things"); 10;9; 15:47; as well as in the Ep. to the Hebrews 1:2: ("through whom he also made the worlds" or "ages"), and in John 1:3. 3. The divinity of Christ is clearly implied in the constant co-ordination of Christ with the Father as the author of "grace and peace," in the salutations of the Epistles, and in such expressions as, "the image of the invisible God" (Col. 1:15); "in him dwells the fulness of the Godhead bodily" (2:9): "existing in the form of God," and "being on an equality with God" (Phil. 2:6). In two passages he is, according to the usual interpretation, even called "God" (qeov"), but, as already remarked, the exegetes are still divided on the reference of qeov" in Rom. 9:5 and Tit. 2:13. Meyer admits that Paul, according to his christology, could call Christ "God" (as predicate, without the article, qeov" not oJ qeov"); and Weiss, in the 6th edition of Meyer on Romans (1881), adopts the prevailing orthodox punctuation and interpretation in Rom. 9:5 as the most natural, on purely exegetical grounds (the necessity of a supplement to kata; savrka, and the position of eujlovghto" after qeov"): "Christ as concerning the flesh, who [at the same time according to his higher nature] is over all, even God blessed for ever." Westcott and Hort are not quite agreed on the punctuation. See their note in Greek Test., Introd. and Appendix, p. 109. 4. The incarnation. This is designated by the terms "God sent his own Son (Rom. 8:3, comp. 8:32); Christ "emptied himself, taking the form of a servant, being made in the likeness of men" (Phil. 2:7). Without entering here into the Kenosis controversy (the older one between Giessen and Tübingen, 1620–1630, and the recent one which began with Thomasius, 1845), it is enough to say that the Kenosis, or self-exinanition, refers not to the incarnate, but to the pre-existent Son of God, and implies a certain kind of self-limitation or temporary surrender of the divine mode of existence during the state of humiliation. This humiliation was followed by exaltation as a reward for his obedience unto death (Phil 2:9–11); hence he is now "the Lord of glory" (1 Cor. 2:8). To define the limits of the Kenosis, and to adjust it to the immutability of the Godhead and the intertrinitarian process, lies beyond the sphere of exegesis and belongs to speculative dogmatics. 5. The true, but sinless humanity of Christ. He appeared "in the likeness of the flesh of sin" (Rom. 8:3); he is a son of David "according to the flesh" (1:3), which includes the whole human nature, body, soul, and spirit (as in John 1:14); he is called a man (a[nqrwpo") in the full sense of the term (1 Cor. 15:21; Rom. 5:15; Acts 17:31). He was "born of a woman, born under the law"(Gal. 4:4); he was "found in fashion as a man" and became "obedient even unto death" (Phil. 2:8), and he truly suffered and died, like other men. But he "knew no sin" (2 Cor. 5:21). He could, of course, not be the Saviour of sinners if he himself were a sinner and in need of salvation. Of the events of Christ’s life, Paul mentions especially and frequently his death and resurrection, on which our salvation depends. He also reports the institution of the Lord’s Supper, which perpetuates the memory and the blessing of the atoning sacrifice on the cross (1 Cor. 11:23–30). He presupposes, of course, a general knowledge of the historical Christ, as his Epistles are all addressed to believing converts; but he incidentally preserves a gem of Christ’s sayings not reported by the Evangelists, which shines like a lone star on the firmament of uncertain traditions:, "It is more blessed to give than to receive" (Acts 20:35). III. PAUL’S DOCTRINE OF PREDESTINATION.—Eternal foreknowledge of all persons and things is necessarily included in God’s omniscience, and is uniformly taught in the Bible; eternal foreordination or predestination is included in his almighty power and sovereignty, but must be so conceived as to leave room for free agency and responsibility, and to exclude God from the authorship of sin. Self-limitation is a part of freedom even in man, and may be exercised by the sovereign God for holy purposes and from love to his creatures; in fact it is necessary, if salvation is to be a moral process, and not a physical or mechanical necessity. Religion is worth nothing except as the expression of free conviction and voluntary devotion. Paul represents sometimes the divine sovereignty, sometimes the human responsibility, sometimes, as in Phil. 2:12, 13, he combines both sides, without an attempt to solve the insolvable problem which really lies beyond the present capacity of the human mind. "He does not deal with speculative extremes; and in whatever way the question be speculatively adjusted, absolute dependence and moral self-determination are both involved in the immediate Christian self-consciousness," Baur, Paul, II. 249. "Practical teaching," says Reuss (II. 532) to the same effect, "will always be constrained to insist upon the fact that man’s salvation is a free gift of God, and that his condemnation is only the just punishment of sin." Comp. also Farrar, St. Paul, II. 243, 590; Weiss, p. 356 sqq.; Beyschlag, Die paulinische Theodicee (Berlin, 1868). Weiss thus sums up Paul’s doctrine of predestination: "An sich hat Gott das absolute Becht, die Menschen von vornherein zum Heil oder zum Verderben zu erschaffen und durch freie Machtwirkung diesem Ziele zuzuführen; aber er hat sich in Betreff des christlichen Heils dieses Rechtes nur insofern bedient, als er unabhängig von allem menschlichen Thun und Verdienen nach seinem unbeschränkten Willen bestimmt, an welche Bedingung er seine Gnade knüpfen will. Die Bedingung, an welche er seine Erwählung gebunden hat, ist nun nichts anders als die Liebe zu ihm, welche er an den empfänglichen Seelen vorhererkennt. Die Erwählten aber werden berufen, indem Gott durch das Evangelium in ihnen den Glauben wirkt." There can be no doubt that Paul teaches an eternal election to eternal salvation by free grace, an election which is to be actualized by faith in Christ and a holy life of obedience. But he does not teach a decree of reprobation or a predestination to sin and perdition (which would indeed be a "decretum horribile," if verum). This is a logical invention of supralapsarian theologians who deem it to be the necessary counterpart of the decree of election. But man’s logic is not God’s logic. A decree of reprobation is nowhere mentioned. The term ajdovkimo", disapproved, worthless, reprobate,is used five times only as a description of character (twice of things). Romans 9 is the Gibraltar of supralapsarianism, but it must be explained in connection with Rom. 10–11, which present the other aspects. The strongest passage is Rom. 9:22, where Paul speaks of skeuvh ojrgh'" kathrtismevna eij" ajpwvleian. But he significantly uses here the passive: "fitted unto destruction," or rather (as many of the best commentators from Chrysostom to Weiss take it) the middle: "who fitted themselves for destruction," and so deserved it; while of the vessels of mercy he says that God "before prepared"them unto glory (skeuvh ejlevou" a} prohtoivmasen, 9:23). He studiously avoids to say of the vessels of wrath: a} kathvrtisen, which would have corresponded to a} prohtoivmasen, and thus he exempts God from a direct and efficient agency in sin and destruction. When in 9:17, he says of Pharaoh, that God raised him up for the very purpose (eij" auvto; tou'tov ejxhvgeirav se) that he might show in him His power, he does not mean that God created him or called him into existence (which would require a different verb), but, according to the Hebrew (Ex. 9:16, the hiphil of [;m'd), that "he caused him to stand forth" as actor in the scene; and when he says with reference to the same history that God "hardens whom he will" (Rom. 9:18. o}n dev qevlei sklhruvnei), it must be remembered that Pharaoh had already repeatedly hardened his own heart (Ex. 8:15, 32; 9:34, 35), so that God punished him for his sin and abandoned him to its consequences. God does not cause evil, but he bends, guides, and overrules it and often punishes sin with sin. "Das ist der Fluch der bösen That, dass sie, fortzeugend, immer Böses muss gebären." (Schiller.) In this mysterious problem of predestination Paul likewise faithfully carries out the teaching of his Master. For in the sublime description of the final judgment, Christ says to the "blessed of my Father:" "Inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world" (Matt. 25:34), but to those on the left hand he says, "Depart from me, ye cursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels" (25:41). The omission of the words "of my Father," after "ye cursed," and of the words, for you, "and, from the foundation of the world," is very significant, and implies that while the inheritance of the kingdom is traced to the eternal favor of God, the damnation is due to the guilt of man. IV. The doctrine of JUSTIFICATION. This occupies a prominent space in Paul’s system, though by no means to the disparagement of his doctrine of sanctification, which is treated with the same fulness even in Romans (comp. Rom. 6–8 and 12–15). Luther, in conflict with Judaizing Rome, overstated the importance of justification by faith when he called it the articulus stantis vel cadentis ecclesiae. This can only be said of Christ (comp. Matt. 16:16; 1 Cor. 3:11; 1 John 4:2, 3). It is not even the theme of the Epistle to the Romans, as often stated (e.g., by Farrar, St. Paul, II. 181); for it is there subordinated by gavr to the broader idea of salvation (swthriva), which is the theme (Rom 1:16, 17). Justification by faith is the way by which salvation can be obtained. The doctrine of justification may be thus illustrated: Dikaiosuvnh ( qd,x, , hq;d;x] ) Dikaiosuvnh tou' novmou Dikaiosuvnh tou' qeou' ejx e[rgwn ejk qeou' ijdiva. th' " pivstew" ejk th' " pivstew" dia; pivstew" Cristou'. The cognate words are dikaivwsi", dikaivwma, divkaio", dikaiovw. The Pauline idea of righteousness is derived from the Old Testament, and is inseparable from the conception of the holy will of God and his revealed law. But the classical usage is quite consistent with it, and illustrates the biblical usage from a lower plane. The Greek words are derived from jus, right, and further back from. divca, or div", two-fold, in two parts (according to Aristotle, Eth. Nic., v. 2); hence they indicate a well-proportioned relation between parts or persons where each has his due. It may then apply to the relation between God and man, or to the relation between man and man, or to both at once. To the Greeks a righteous man was one who fulfils his obligations to God and man. It was a Greek proverb: "In righteousness all virtue is contained." Dikaiosuvnh (qd,x, hq;d;x]) is an attribute of God, and a corresponding moral condition of man, i.e., man’s conformity to the will of God as expressed in his holy law. It is therefore identical with true religion, with piety and virtue, as required by God, and insures his favor and blessing. The word occurs (according to Bruder’s Concord.) sixty times in all the Pauline Epistles, namely: thirty-six times in Romans, four times in Galatians, seven times in 2 Corinthians, once in 1 Corinthians, four times in Philippians, three times in Ephesians, three times in 2 Timothy, once in 1 Timothy, and once in Titus. Divkaio" (qyDix;) righteous (rechtbeschaffen), is one who fulfils his duties to God and men, and is therefore well pleasing to God. It is used seventeen times by Paul (seven times in Romans), and often elsewhere in the New Testament. Dikaivwsi" occurs only twice in the New Test. (Rom. 4:25; 5:18). It signifies justification, or the act of God by which he puts the sinner into the possession of righteousness. Dikaivwma, which is found Rom. 1:32; 2:26; 5:16, 18; 8:4 means a righteous decree, or judgment. Aristotle (Eth. Nicom., v. 10) defines it as to; ejpanovrqwma tou' ajdikhvmato", the amendment of an evil deed, or a legal adjustment; and this would suit the passage in Rom. 5:16, 18. The verb dikaiovw (iq]Dex , qyDix]hi)occurs twenty-seven times in Paul, mostly in Romans, several times in the Synoptical Gospels, once in Acts, and three times in James 2:21, 24, 25. It may mean, etymologically, to make just, justificare (for the verbs in ovw, derived from adjectives of the second declension, indicate the making of what the adjective denotes, e.g., dhlovw, to make clear, fanerovw, to reveal, tuflovw, to blind); but in the Septuagint and the Greek Testament it hardly, ever has this meaning ("haec significatio," says Grimm, "admodum rara, nisi prorsus dubia est"), and is used in a forensic or judicial sense: to declare one righteous (aliquem justum declarare, judicare). This justification of the sinner is, of course, not a legal fiction, but perfectly true, for it is based on the real righteousness of Christ which the sinner makes his own by faith, and must prove his own by a life of holy obedience, or good works. For further expositions see my annotations to Lange on Romans, pp. 74, 130, 136, 138; and my Com on Gal. 2:16, 17. On the imputation controversies see my essay in Lange on Romans 5:12, pp. 190–195. On the relation of Paul’s doctrine of justification to that of James, see § 69 of this vol. V. Paul’s doctrine of the CHURCH has been stated in § 65 of this vol. But it requires more than one book to do anything like justice to the wonderful theology of this wonderful §72. John and the Gospel of Love. (See the Lit. in § 40 p. 405.) GENERAL CHARACTER. The unity of Jewish Christian and Gentile Christian theology meets us in the writings of John, who, in the closing decades of the first century, summed up the final results of the preceding struggles of the apostolic age and transmitted them to posterity. Paul had fought out the great conflict with Judaism and secured the recognition of the freedom and universality of the gospel for all time to come. John disposes of this question with one sentence: "The law was given through Moses; grace and truth came through Jesus Christ."814 His theology marks the culminating height of divine knowledge in the apostolic age. It is impossible to soar higher than the eagle, which is his proper symbol.815 His views are so much identified with the words of his Lord, to whom he stood more closely related than any other disciple, that it is difficult to separate them; but the prologue to his Gospel contains his leading ideas, and his first Epistle the practical application. The theology of the Apocalypse is also essentially the same, and this goes far to confirm the identity of authorship.816 John was not a logician, but a seer; not a reasoner, but a mystic; he does not argue, but assert; he arrives at conclusions with one bound, as by direct intuition. He speaks from personal experience and testifies of that which his eyes have seen and his ears heard and his hands have handled, of the glory of the Only-begotten of the Father full of grace and truth.817 John’s theology is marked by artless simplicity and spiritual depth. The highest art conceals art. As in poetry, so in religion, the most natural is the most perfect. He moves in a small circle of ideas as compared with Paul, but these ideas are fundamental and all-comprehensive. He goes back to first principles and sees the strong point without looking sideways or taking note of exceptions. Christ and Antichrist, believers and unbelievers, children of God and children of the devil, truth and falsehood, light and darkness, love and hatred, life and death: these are the great contrasts under which he views the religious world. These he sets forth again and again with majestic simplicity. JOHN AND PAUL. John’s type of doctrine is less developed and fortified than Paul’s, but more ideal. His mind was neither so rich nor so strong, but it soared higher and anticipated the beatific vision. Although Paul was far superior to him as a scholar (and practical worker), yet the ancient Greek church saw in John the ideal theologian.818 John’s spirit and style may be compared to a calm, clear mountain-lake which reflects the image of the sun) moon, and stars, while Paul resembles the mountain-torrent that rushes over precipices and carries everything before it; yet there are trumpets of war in John, and anthems of peace in Paul. The one begins from the summit, with God and the Logos, the other from the depths of man’s sin and misery; but both meet in the God-man who brings God down to man and lifts man up to God. John is contemplative and serene, Paul is aggressive and polemical; but both unite in the victory of faith and the never-ending dominion of love. John’s theology is Christological, Paul’s soteriological; John starts from the person of Christ, Paul from his work; but their christology and soteriology are essentially agreed. John’s ideal is life eternal, Paul’s ideal is righteousness; but both derive it from the same source, the union with Christ, and find in this the highest happiness of man. John represents the church triumphant, Paul the church militant of his day and of our day, but with the full assurance of final victory even over the last enemy. THE CENTRAL IDEA. John’s Christianity centres in the idea of love and life, which in their last root are identical. His dogmatics are summed up in the word: God first loved us; his ethics in the exhortation: Therefore let us love Him and the brethren. He is justly called the apostle of love. Only we must not understand this word in a sentimental, but in the highest and purest moral sense. God’s love is his self-communication to man; man’s love is a holy self-consecration to God. We may recognize—in rising stages of transformation—the same fiery spirit in the Son of Thunder who called vengeance from heaven; in the Apocalyptic seer who poured out the vials of wrath against the enemies of Christ; and in the beloved disciple who knew no middle ground, but demanded undivided loyalty and whole-souled devotion to his Master. In him the highest knowledge and the highest love coincide: knowledge is the eye of love, love the heart of knowledge; both constitute eternal life, and eternal life is the fulness of happiness.819 The central truth of John and the central fact in Christianity itself is the incarnation of the eternal Logos as the highest manifestation of God’s love to the world. The denial of this truth is the criterion of Antichrist.820 THE PRINCIPAL DOCTRINES. I. The doctrine of GOD. He is spirit (pneu'ma), he is light (fw'") he is love (ajgavph).821 These are the briefest and yet the profoundest definitions which can be given of the infinite Being of all beings. The first is put into the mouth of Christ, the second and third are from the pen of John. The first sets forth God’s metaphysical, the second his intellectual, the third his moral perfection; but they are blended in one. God is spirit, all spirit, absolute spirit (in opposition to every materialistic conception and limitation); hence omnipresent, all-pervading, and should be worshipped, whether in Jerusalem or Gerizim or anywhere else, in spirit and in truth. God is light, all light without a spot of darkness, and the fountain of all light, that is of truth, purity, and holiness. God is love; this John repeats twice, looking upon love as the inmost moral essence of God, which animates, directs, and holds together all other attributes; it is the motive power of his revelations or self-communications, the beginning and the end of his ways and works, the core of his manifestation in Christ. II. The doctrine of CHRIST’S PERSON. He is the eternal and the incarnate Logos or Revealer of God. No man has ever yet seen God (qeovn, without the article, God’s nature, or God as God); the only-begotten Son (or God only-begotten),822 who is in the bosom823 of the Father, he and he alone (ekei'no") declared him and brought to light, once and forever, the hidden mystery of his being.824 This perfect knowledge of the Father, Christ claims himself in that remarkable passage in Matthew 11:27, which strikingly confirms the essential harmony of the Johannean and Synoptical representations of Christ. John (and he alone) calls Christ the "Logos" of God, i.e., the embodiment of God and the organ of all his revelations.825 As the human reason or thought is expressed in word, and as the word is the medium of making our thoughts known to others, so God is known to himself and to the world in and through Christ as the personal Word. While "Logos" designates the metaphysical and intellectual relation, the term "Son" designates the moral relation of Christ to God, as a relation of love, and the epithet "only-begotten" or "only-born" (monogenhv") raises his sonship as entirely unique above every other sonship, which is only a reflection of it. It is a blessed relation of infinite knowledge and infinite love. The Logos is eternal, he is personal, he is divine.826 He was in the beginning before creation or from eternity. He is, on the one hand, distinct from God and in the closest communion with him (pro;" to;n qeovn); on the other hand he is himself essentially divine, and therefore called "God" (qeov", but not oJ qeov").827 This pre-existent Logos is the agent of the creation of all things visible and invisible.828 He is the fulness and fountain of life (hJ zwhv, the true, immortal life, as distinct from bivo", the natural, mortal life), and light (to; fw'", which includes intellectual and moral truth, reason and conscience) to all men. Whatever elements of truth, goodness, and beauty may be found shining like stars and meteors in the darkness of heathendom, must be traced to the Logos, the universal Life-giver and Illuminator. Here Paul and John meet again; both teach the agency of Christ in the creation, but John more clearly connects him with all the preparatory revelations before the incarnation. This extension of the Logos revelation explains the high estimate which some of the Greek fathers, (Justin Martyr, Clement of Alexandria, Origen) put upon the Hellenic, especially the Platonic philosophy, as a training-school of the heathen mind for Christ. The Logos revealed himself to every man, but in a special manner to his own chosen people; and this revelation culminated in John the Baptist, who summed up in himself the meaning of the law and the prophets, and pointed to Jesus of Nazareth as "the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world." At last the Logos became flesh.829 He completed his revelation by uniting himself with man once and forever in all things, except sin.830 The Hebraizing term "flesh" best expresses his condescension to our fallen condition and the complete reality of his humanity as an object of sense, visible and tangible, in strong contrast with his immaterial divinity. It includes not only the body (sw'ma), but also a human soul (yuchv) and a rational spirit (nou'", pneu'ma); for John ascribes them all to Christ. To use a later terminology, the incarnation (ejnsavrkwsi",incarnatio) is only a stronger term for the assumption of humanity (ejnanqrwvphsi",Menschwerdung). The Logos became man—not partially but totally, not apparently but really, not transiently but permanently, not by ceasing to be divine, nor by being changed into a man, but by an abiding, personal union with man. He is henceforth the Godman. He tabernacled on earth as the true Shekinah, and manifested to his disciples the glory of the only begotten which shone from the veil of his humanity.831 This is the divine-human glory in the state of humiliation as distinct from the divine glory in his preexistent state, and from the final and perfect manifestation of his glory in the state of exaltation in which his disciples shall share.832 The fourth Gospel is a commentary on the ideas of the Prologue. It was written for the purpose that the readers may believe "that Jesus is the Christ (the promised Messiah), the Son of God (in the sense of the only begotten and eternal Son), and that believing they may have life in his name."833 III. THE WORK OF CHRIST (Soteriology). This implies the conquest over sin and Satan, and the procurement of eternal life. Christ appeared without sin, to the end that he might destroy the works of the devil, who was a liar and murderer from the beginning of history, who first fell away from the truth and then brought sin and death into mankind.834 Christ laid down his life and shed his blood for his sheep. By this self-consecration in death he became the propitiation (iJlasmov") for the sins of believers and for the sins of the whole world.835 His blood cleanses from all the guilt and contamination of sin. He is (in the language of the Baptist) the Lamb of God that bears and takes away the sin of the world; and (in the unconscious prophecy of Caiaphas) he died for the people.836 He was priest and sacrifice in one person. And he continues his priestly functions, being our Advocate in Heaven and ready to forgive us when we sin and come to him in true repentance.837 This is the negative part of Christ’s work, the removal of the obstruction which separated us from God. The positive part consists in the revelation of the Father, and in the communication of eternal life, which includes eternal happiness. He is himself the Life and the Light of the world.838 He calls himself the Way, the Truth, and the Life. In him the true, the eternal life, which was from the beginning with the Father, appeared personally in human form. He came to communicate it to men. He is the bread of life from heaven, and feeds the believers everywhere spiritually without diminishing, as He fed the five thousand physically with five loaves. That miracle is continued in the mystical self-communication of Christ to his people. Whosoever believes in him has eternal life, which begins here in the new birth and will be completed in the resurrection of the body.839 Herein also the Apocalypse well agrees with the Gospel and Epistles of John. Christ is represented as the victor of the devil.840 He is the conquering Lion of the tribe of Judah, but also the suffering Lamb slain for us. The figure of the lamb, whether it be referred to the paschal lamb, or to the lamb in the Messianic passage of Isaiah 53:7, expresses the idea of atoning sacrifice which is fully realized in the death of Christ. He "washed" (or, according to another reading, he "loosed") "us from our sins by his blood;" he redeemed men "of every tribe, and tongue, and people, and nation, and made them to be unto our God a kingdom and priests." The countless multitude of the redeemed "washed their robes and made them white (bright and shining) in the blood of the Lamb." This implies both purification and sanctification; white garments being the symbols of holiness.841 Love was the motive which prompted him to give his life for his people.842 Great stress is laid on the resurrection, as in the Gospel, where he is called the Resurrection and the Life. The exalted Logos-Messiah has the keys of death and Hades.843 He is a sharer in the universal government of God; he is the mediatorial ruler of the world, "the Prince of the kings of the earth" "King of kings and Lord of lords."844 The apocalyptic seer likewise brings in the idea of life in its highest sense as a reward of faith in Christ to those who overcome and are faithful unto death, Christ will give "a crown of life," and a seat on his throne. He "shall guide them unto fountains of waters of life; and God shall wipe away every tear from their eyes."845 IV. THE DOCTRINE OF THE HOLY SPIRIT (Pneumatology). This is most fully set forth in the farewell discourser, of our Lord, which are reported by John exclusively. The Spirit whom Christ promised to send after his return to the Father, is called the Paraclete, i.e., the Advocate or Counsellor, Helper, who pleads the cause of the believers, directs, supports, and comforts them.846 He is "another Advocate" (a[llo" paravklhto"), Christ himself being the first Advocate who intercedes for believers at the throne of the Father, as their eternal High priest. The Spirit proceeds (eternally) from the Father, and was sent by the Father and the Son on the day of Pentecost.847 He reveals Christ to the heart and glorifies him (ejme; doxavsei¼_ he bear" witnes" to him »marturhvsei peri; ejmou'¼_ he call" to remembrance and explain" hi" teaching »uJma'" didavxei pavnta kai; uJpomnhvsei uJma'" pavnta a{ ei|pon uJmi'n ejgwv); he leads the disciples into the whole truth (oJdhghvsei uJma'" eij" th;n ajlhvqeian pa'san¼_ he take" out of the fulnes" of Christ and show" it to them »ejk tou' ejmou' lambavnei kai; ajnaggelei' uJmi'n ¼. The Holy Spirit i" the Mediator and Intercessor between Christ and the believer, a" Christ i" the Mediator between God and the world. He i" the Spirit of truth and of holines". He convict" »ejlevgcei¼ the world, that i" all men who come under hi" influence, in respect of sin »peri; aJmartiva"¼, of righteousnes" »dikaiosuvnh"¼, and of judgment »krivsew"¼_ and thi" conviction will result either in the conversion, or in the impenitence of the sinner. The operation of the Spirit accompanie" the preaching of the word, and i" alway" internal in the sphere of the heart and conscience. He i" one of the three witnesse" and give" efficacy to the other two witnesse" of Christ on earth, the baptism »to; u}dwr), and the atoning death (to; ai|ma) of Christ.848 V. CHRISTIAN LIFE. It begins with a new birth from above or from the Holy Spirit. Believers are children of God who are "born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God."849 It is a "new" birth compared with the old, a birth "from God," as compared with that from man, a birth from the Holy "Spirit," in distinction from carnal birth, a birth "from heaven," as opposed to earthly birth. The life of the believer does not descend through the channels of fallen nature, but requires a creative act of the Holy Spirit through the preaching of the gospel. The life of the regenerate is free from the principle and power of sin. "Whosoever is begotten of God doeth no sin, because his seed abideth in him; and he cannot sin because he is begotten of God."850 Over him the devil has no power.851 The new life is the life of Christ in the soul. It is eternal intrinsically and as to duration. Eternal life in man consists in the knowledge of the only true God and of Jesus Christ—a knowledge which implies full sympathy and communion of love.852 It begins here in faith; hence the oft-repeated declaration that he who believes in Christ has (e[cei) eternal life.853 But it will not appear in its full development till the time of his glorious manifestation, when we shall be like him and see him even as he is.854 Faith is the medium of communication, the bond of union with Christ. Faith is the victory over the world, already here in principle.855 John’s idea of life eternal takes the place of Paul’s idea of righteousness, but both agree in the high conception of faith as the one indispensable condition of securing it by uniting us to Christ, who is both righteousness and life eternal.856 The life of the Christian, moreover, is a communion with Christ and with the Father in the Holy Spirit. Our Lord prayed before his passion that the believers of that and all future ages might be one with him, even as he is one with the Father, and that they may enjoy his glory. John writes his first Epistle for the purpose that his readers may have "fellowship with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ, and that thus their joy may be made full."857 This fellowship is only another word for love, and love to God is inseparable from love to the brethren. "If God so loved us, we also ought to love one another." "God is love; and he that abideth in love abideth in God and God abideth in him." Love to the brethren is the true test of practical Christianity.858 This brotherly fellowship is the true essence of the Church, which is nowhere even mentioned in John’s Gospel and First Epistle.859 Love to God and to the brethren is no mere sentiment, but an active power, and manifests itself in the keeping of God’s commandments.860 Here again John and Paul meet in the idea of love, as the highest of the Christian graces which abides forever when faith shall have passed into sight, and hope into fruition.861 NOTES. The INCARNATION is expressed by John briefly and tersely in the phrase "The Word became flesh" (John 1:14). I. The meaning of savrx. Apollinaris confined "flesh" to the body, including the animal soul, and taught that the Logos occupied the place of the rational soul or spirit (nou'", pneu'ma) in Christ; that consequently he was not a full man, but a sort of middle being between God and man, half divine and haIf human, not wholly divine and wholly human. This view was condemned as heretical by the Nicene church, but renewed substantially by the Tübingen school, as being the doctrine of John. According to Baur (l.c., p. 363) savrx ejgeneto is not equivalent to (a[nqrwpo" ejgevneto, but means that the Logos assumed a human body and continued otherwise the same. The incarnation was only an incidental phenomenon in the unchanging personality of the Logos. Moreover the flesh of Christ was not like that of other men, but almost immaterial, so at; to be able to walk on the lake (John 6:16; Comp. 7:10, 15; 8:59 10:39). To this exegesis we object: 1. John expressly ascribes to Christ a soul, John 10:11, 15, 17; 12:27 (hJ yuch/' mou tetavraktai), and a spirit, 11:33 (ejnebrimhvsato tw/' pneuvmati); 13:21 (ejtaracqh tw/' pneuvmati); 19:30 (parevdwken to; pneu'ma). It may be said that pneu’ma is here nothing more than the animal soul, because the same affection is attributed to both, and because it was surrendered in death. But Christ calls himself in John frequently "the Son of man" 1:51, etc.), and once "a man" (a[nqrwpo", 8:40), which certainly must include the more important intellectual and spiritual part as well as the body. 2. "Flesh" is often used in the Old and New Testament for the whole man, as in the phrase "all flesh" (pa'sa savrx, every mortal man), or miva sarvx (John 17:2; Rom. 3:20; 1 Cor. 1:29; Gal. 2:16). In this passage it suited John’s idea better than a[nqrwpo", because it more strongly expresses the condescension of the Logos to the human nature in its present condition, with its weakness, trials, temptations, and sufferings. He completely identified himself with our earthly lot, and became homogeneous with us, even to the likeness, though not the essence, of sin (Rom. 8:3; comp. Heb. 2:14; 5:8, 9). "Flesh" then, when ascribed to Christ, has the same comprehensive meaning in John as it has in Paul (comp. also 1 Tim. 3:16). It is animated flesh, and the soul of that flesh contains the spiritual as well as the physical life. II. Another difficulty is presented by the verb ejgevneto. The champions of the modern Kenosis theory (Thomasius, Gess, Ebrard, Godet, etc.), while differing from the Apollinarian substitution of the Logos for a rational human soul in Christ, assert that the Logos himself because a human soul by voluntary transformation; and so they explain ejgevneto and the famous Pauline phrase eJauto;n ejkevnwsen, morfh;n douvlou labwvn (Phil. 2:7). As the water was changed into wine at Cana (John 2:9: To; u{dwr oi|non gegenhmevnon), so the Logos in infinite self-denial changed his divine being into a human being during the state of his humiliation, and thus led a single life, not a double life (as the Chalcedonian theory of two complete natures simultaneously coexisting in the same person from the manger to the cross seems to imply). But 1. The verb ejgevneto must be understood in agreement with the parallel passages:, "he came in the flesh," 1 John 4:2 (ejn sarki; ejlhluqovta); 2 John 7 (ejrcovmenon ejn sarkiv), with this difference, that "became" indicates the realness of Christ’s manhood, "came" the continuance of his godhood. Compare also Paul’s expression, ejfanerwvqh ejn sarkiv, 1 Tim. 3:16. 2. Whatever may be the objections to the Chalcedonian dyophysitism, they cannot be removed by running the Kenosis to the extent of a self-suspension of the Logos or an actual surrender of his essential attributes; for this is a metaphysical impossibility, and inconsistent with the unchangeableness of God and the intertrinitarian process. The Logos did not cease to be God when he entered into the human state of existence, nor did he cease to be man when he returned to the state of divine glory which he had with the Father before the foundation of the world. III. Beyschlag (Die Christologie des N. T, p. 168) denies the identity of the Logos with Christ, and resolves the Logos into a divine principle, instead of a person. "Der Logos ist nicht die Person Christi ... sondern er ist das gottheitliche Princip dieser menschlichen Persönlichkeit." He assumes a gradual unfolding of the Logos principle in the human person of Christ. But the personality of the Logos is taught in John 1:1–3, and ejgevneto denotes a completed act. We must remember, however, that personality in the trinity and personality of the Logos are different from personality of man. Human speech is inadequate to express the distinction. § 73. Heretical Perversions of the Apostolic Teaching. (Comp. my Hist. of the Ap. Ch., pp. 649–674.) The three types of doctrine which we have briefly unfolded, exhibit Christianity in the whole fulness of its life; and they form the theme for the variations of the succeeding ages of the church. Christ is the key-note, harmonizing all the discords and resolving all the mysteries of the history of his kingdom. But this heavenly body of apostolic truth is confronted with the ghost of heresy; as were the divine miracles of Moses with the satanic juggleries of the Egyptians, and as Christ was with demoniacal possessions. The more mightily the spirit of truth rises, the more active becomes the spirit of falsehood. "Where God builds a church the devil builds, a chapel close by." But in the hands of Providence all errors must redound to the unfolding and the final victory of the truth. They stimulate inquiry and compel defence. Satan himself is that "power which constantly wills the bad, and works the good." Heresies in a disordered world are relatively necessary and negatively justifiable; though the teachers of them are, of course, not the less guilty. "It must needs be, that scandals come; but woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh."862 The heresies of the apostolic age are, respectively, the caricatures of the several types of the true doctrine. Accordingly we distinguish three fundamental forms of heresy, which reappear, with various modifications, in almost every subsequent period. In this respect, as in others, the apostolic period stands as the type of the whole future; and the exhortations and warnings of the New Testament against false doctrine have force for every age. 1. The JUDAIZING tendency is the heretical counterpart of Jewish Christianity. It so insists on the unity of Christianity with Judaism, as to sink the former to the level of the latter, and to make the gospel no more than an improvement or a perfected law. It regards Christ as a mere prophet, a second Moses; and denies, or at least wholly overlooks, his divine nature and his priestly and kingly offices. The Judaizers were Jews in fact, and Christians only in appearance and in name. They held circumcision and the whole moral and ceremonial law of Moses to be still binding, and the observance of them necessary to salvation. Of Christianity as a new, free, and universal religion, they had no conception. Hence they hated Paul, the liberal apostle of the Gentiles, as a dangerous apostate and revolutionist, impugned his motives, and everywhere, especially in Galatia and Corinth, labored to undermine his authority in the churches. The epistles of Paul, especially that to the Galatians, can never be properly understood, unless their opposition to this false Judaizing Christianity be continually kept in view. The same heresy, more fully developed, appears in the second century under the name of Ebionism. 2. The opposite extreme is a false Gentile Christianity, which may be called the PAGANIZING OR GNOSTIC heresy. It is as radical and revolutionary as the other is contracted and reactionary. It violently breaks away from the past, while the Judaizing heresies tenaciously and stubbornly cling to it as permanently binding. It exaggerates the Pauline view of the distinction of Christianity from Judaism, sunders Christianity from its historical basis, resolves the real humanity of the Saviour into a Doketistic illusion, and perverts the freedom of the gospel into antinomian licentiousness. The author, or first representative of this baptized heathenism, according to the uniform testimony of Christian antiquity, is Simon Magus, who unquestionably adulterated Christianity with pagan ideas and practices, and gave himself out, in pantheistic style, for an emanation of God.863 Plain traces of this error appear in the later epistles of Paul (to the Colossians, to Timothy, and to Titus), the second epistle of Peter, the first two epistles of John, the epistle of Jude, and the messages of the Apocalypse to the seven churches. This heresy, in the second century, spread over the whole church, east and west, in the various schools of Gnosticism. 3. As attempts had already been made, before Christ, by Philo, by the Therapeutae and the Essenes, etc., to blend the Jewish religion with heathen philosophy, especially that of Pythagoras and Plato, so now, under the Christian name, there appeared confused combinations of these opposite systems, forming either a PAGANIZING JUDAISM, i.e., Gnostic Ebionism, or a JUDAIZING PAGANISM i.e., Ebionistic Gnosticism, according as the Jewish or the heathen element prevailed. This SYNCRETISTIC heresy was the caricature of John’s theology, which truly reconciled Jewish and Gentile Christianity in the highest conception of the person and work of Christ. The errors combated in the later books of the New Testament are almost all more or less of this mixed sort, and it is often doubtful whether they come from Judaism or from heathenism. They were usually shrouded in a shadowy mysticism and surrounded by the halo of a self-made ascetic holiness, but sometimes degenerated into the opposite extreme of antinomian licentiousness. Whatever their differences, however, all these three fundamental heresies amount at last to a more or less distinct denial of the central truth of the gospel—the incarnation of the Son of God for the salvation of the world. They make Christ either a mere man, or a mere superhuman phantom; they allow, at all events, no real and abiding union of the divine and human in the person of the Redeemer. This is just what John gives as the mark of antichrist, which existed even in his day in various forms.864 It plainly undermines the foundation of the church. For if Christ be not God-man, neither is he mediator between God and men; Christianity sinks back into heathenism or Judaism. All turns at last on the answer to that fundamental question: "What think ye of Christ?" The true solution of this question is the radical refutation of every error. NOTES. "It has often been remarked that truths and error keep pace with each other. Error is the shadow cast by truth, truth the bright side brought out by error. Such is the relation between the heresies and the apostolical teaching of the first century. The Gospels indeed, as in other respects, so in this, rise almost entirely above the circumstances of the time, but the Epistles are, humanly speaking, the result of the very conflict between the good and the evil elements which existed together in the bosom of the early Christian society. As they exhibit the principles afterward to be unfolded into all truth and goodness, so the heresies which they attack exhibit the principles which were afterward to grow up into all the various forms of error, falsehood and wickedness. The energy, the freshness, nay, even the preternatural power which belonged to the one belonged also to the other. Neither the truths in the writings of the Apostles, nor the errors in the opinions of their opponents, can be said to exhibit the dogmatical form of any subsequent age. It is a higher and more universal good which is aimed at in the former; it is a deeper and more universal principle of evil which is attacked in the latter. Christ Himself, and no subordinate truths or speculations concerning Him, is reflected in the one; Antichrist, and not any of the particular outward manifestations of error which have since appeared, was justly regarded by the Apostles as foreshadowed in the other." — Dean STANLEY (Apostolic Age, p. 182). LITERATURE.—The heresies of the Apostolic Age have been thoroughly investigated by Neander and Baur in connection with the history of Ebionism and Gnosticism (see next vol.), and separately in the introductions to critical commentaries on the Colossians and Pastoral Epistles; also by Thiersch, Lipsius, Hilgenfeld. Among English writers we mention BURTON: Inquiry into the Heresies of the Apostolic Age, in eight Sermons (Bampton Lectures). Oxford, 1829. Dean STANLEY: Sermons and Essays on the Apostolic Age, pp. 182–233, 3d ed. Oxford, 1874. BishopLIGHTFOOT: Com. on St. Paul’s Ep. to the Colossians and to Philemon, pp. 73–113 (on the Colossian heresy and its connection with Essenism). London, 1875. Comp. also HILGENFELD: Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristenthums. Leipzig, 1884 (642 pages). * Schaff, Philip, History of the Christian Church, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1997. This material has been carefully compared, corrected¸ and emended (according to the 1910 edition of Charles Scribner's Sons) by The Electronic Bible Society, Dallas, TX, 1998. 748 John 17:3. 749 euvaggevlion tetravmorfon. 750 ajpovstolo". 751 Comp. tuvposdidach'", Rom. 6:17, and the remarks of Weiss in loc. (6th ed. of Meyer’s Com., 1881), who takes the word in specific application to the Pauline doctrine of Christianity; while others refer it to the Christian system in general. Similar terms in Plato, tuvpoi paideiva", tuvpo" th'" didaskaliva", etc. 752 Gal. 2:11 sqq. See § 85, pp. 352 sqq. 753 Schelling’s great idea of the three ages in the history of Christianity, the Petrine (catholic), the Pauline (Protestant), and the Johannean (future), is well known. I saw the aged philosopher shortly before his death, in a hotel at Ragatz, Switzerland (August, l854), and found him lying on his bed, as pale as a corpse, but with clear mind and brilliant eyes. When I asked him whether he still held to that construction of church history, be emphatically replied in the affirmative, but added that he had, on further reflection, made room for James as the representative of the Greek church, in distinction from the Roman or Petrine church. I mention this as an interesting modification of his theory, not made known before, and as containing a grain of truth. 754 James 1:25: eij" novmon tejleion to;n th'" ejleuqeriva". 755 Gal. 5:1; 2 Cor. 3:6. 756 Comp. Gal. 6:2 (the law of Christ); Rom. 13:8 sqq.; 3:22; 8:2. 757 James 1:1; 2:1; thvn pivstin tou' Kurivou hJmw'n jIhsou' Cristou' th'" dovzh". 758 James 1:18: boulhqei" ajpekuvhsen hJma'" lovgw/ ajlhqeiva". 759 James 2: 22 hJ pivsti" sunhvrgei toi'" e[rgoi" aujtou' kai; ejk tw'n e[rgwn hJ pivsti" ejteleiwvqh. 760 1 Cor. 13:2. 761 James 2:19. 762 See Rom. 2:6 (oJ" ajpodwvsei eJkavstw/ kata; ta; e[rga auvtou'); 2 Cor. 5:10; Gal. 6:7; comp. Matt. 12:37; 25:35 sqq. The solution of the apparent contradiction between the doctrines of justification by faith and judgment by works lies in the character of the works as being the evidence of faith. 763 Gal. 5:6: pivsti" dij ajgavph" ejnergoumevnh, is operative (in the middle sense, as always in the New Test.). "These words," says Bishop Lightfoot (in loc.),"bridge the gulf which seems to separate the language of St. Paul and St. James. Both assert a principle of practical energy, as opposed to a barren in active theory." To quote from my own commentary on the passage (1882): "The sentence ’faith working through love’ reconciles the doctrine of Paul with that of James; comp. 6:15; 1 Thess. 1:3; 1 Cor. 13; 1 Tim. 1:5; James 2:22. Here is the basis for a final settlement of the controversy on the doctrine of justification. Romanism (following exclusively the language of James) teaches justification by faith and works; Protestantism (on the authority of Paul), justification by faith alone; Paul and James combined: justification and salvation by faith working through love. Man is justified by faith alone, but faith remains not alone: it is the fruitful mother of good works, which are summed up in love to God and love to men. Faith and love are as inseparable as light and heat in the sun. Christ’s merits are the objective andmeritorious ground of justification; faith (as the organ of appropriation) is the subjective condition; love or good works are the necessary evidence; without love faith is dead, according to James, or no faith at all, according to Paul. A great deal of misunderstanding in this and other theological controversies has arisen from the different use of terms." 764 James 1:27; comp. 5:13sqq., and the concluding verse. 765 Matt. 16:16; comp. John 6:68, 69. 766 Weiss (p. 172): "Die Hoffnung bildet in der Anschauung des Petrus den eigentlichen Mittelpunkt des Christenlebens. Sie erscheint bei ihm in der höchsten Energie, wonach die gehoffte Vollendung bereits unmittelbar nahe gerückterscheint." 767 See his Pentecostal sermon, Acts 2:14 sqq.; his addresses to the people, 3:12 sqq.; before the Sanhedrin, 4:8 sqq.; 5:29 sqq.; to Cornelius, 10:34 sqq. 768 Acts 10:35; 15:7-11. 769 1 Pet. 1:3-5; 5:4; 2 Pet. 3:13. 770 1 Pet. 1:18 sqq.; 2:4; 3:18 sqq. 771 1 Pet. 1:20: Cristou' proegnwsmevnou mevn pro; katabolh'" kovsmou, fanerwqevnto" dev, k. t. l.; 1:11: to; ejn aujtoi'"(toi'" profhvtai")pneu'ma Cristou' promarturovmenon, k. t. l. Schmid, Lechler, Gess, and others understand these passages as teaching a real pre-existence; Beyschlag (l.c., p. 121) finds in them only an ideal pre-existence in the foreknowledge of God, and emphasizes the ejpoivhsen in Acts 2:36. He refers the pveu'ma Cristou'to the Holy Spirit, which was afterwards given in full measure to Christ at his baptism. So also Weiss (p. 161). But in this case Peter would have said to; peu'ma a{gion, as he did 1 Pet. 1:12; 2 Pet. 1:21; Acts 2:33, 38. 772 1 Pet. 3:19; 4:6; comp. Acts 2:27. The reference of the first passage to a preaching of Christ through Noah at the time of the flood is artificial, breaks the historic connection (ajpevqanen ... qamatwqeiv" ... zwopoihqeiv" pneuvmati ... ejkhvruxen ... poreuqei;" eij" oujranovn ) and is set aside by 1 Pet. 4:6, which explains and generalizes the statement of the former passage. Baur (p. 291) understands the pneuvmata ejn fulakh/' to be the fallen angels (comp. 2 Pet. 2:4; Gen. 6:1), and the preaching of Christ an announcement of the judgment. But in this case we should have to distinguish between the ejkhvruxen, 1 Pet. 3:9, and the eujhggelivsqh in 4:6. The latter always means preaching the gospel, which is a savor of life unto life to believers, and a savor of death unto death to unbelievers. 773 Dr. Baur, who was formerly disposed to make Paul the founder of Christian universalism, admits in his last elaboration of the Pauline system (N. T. liche Theol., p. 128), that "Paul only expressed to the consciousness what in itself, in principle and actually, or by implication, was contained already in the doctrine of Jesus (was an sich principiell und thatsächlich, oder implicite schon in der Lehre Jesu enthalten war)."Pressensé misstates here Baur’s position, but himself correctly calls Paul’s doctrine "as a whole and in all its parts, the logical deduction and development of the teaching of the Master" (Apost. Era, p. 255). 774 1 Cor. 1:30; 2:2. 775 1 Cor. 15:13. 776 Rom. 4: 23. The first diav is retrospective, the second prospective: for the destruction of sin and for the procurement of righteousness. 777 Rom. 1:17:duvnami"' qeou' eij" swthrivan panti; tw/' pisteuvonti , jIoudaivw/ te [prw'ton]kai; {Ellhni. Other pregnant passages in which Paul summarizes his dogmatics and ethics, are Rom. 1:16, 17:3: 21-26<cbr>; 4:25</cbr>; 11:32; 1 Cor. 15:22; Gal. 3:22; Tit. 3:3-7. 778 Rom. 1:18; 3:20. First the depravity of the heathen, then that of the Jews (2:1, comp. 2:17). 779 Rom. 1:18-21; 2:14-16; comp. Acts 17:28. 780 The Augustinian application of this conflict to the regenerate state, involves Rom. 7 in contradiction with Rom. 6 and 8, and obliterates the distinction between the regenerate and the unregenerate state. Augustine understood that chapter better in his earlier years, before the Pelagian controversy drove him to such an extreme view of total depravity as destroys all freedom and responsibility. We see here the difference between an inspired apostle and an enlightened theologian. The chief object of Rom. 7 is to show that the law cannot sanctify any more than it can justify (Rom. 3), and that the legal conflict with the sinful flesh ends in total failure. Paul always uses here nou'" for the higher principle in man (including reason and conscience); while in Rom. 8, where he speaks of the regenerate man, he uses pneu'ma, which is the nou'" sanctified and enlightened by the Holy Spirit. In 8:25 he indeed alludes to the regenerate state by way of anticipation and as an immediate answer to the preceding cry for redemption; but from this expression of thanks he once more points back with a\ra ou\n to the previous state of bondage before he enters more fully with a\ra nu'n into the state of freedom. 781 1 Tim. 1:15; 2:4, 6; Tit. 2:11. Particularistic restrictions of "all" in these passages are arbitrary. The same doctrine is taught 2 Pet. 3:9, and John 3:16; 1 John 2:2. The last passage is as clear as the sun: "Christ is the propitiation (iJlasmov") for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world"(ouj movnon ... ajlla; kai; peri; o{lou tou' kovsmou ). 782 Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:1, 22. The pavnte" and the oiJ polloiv (which is equivalent to pavnte" and opposed, not to a few, but to the one) in the second clause referring to the second Adam, is as comprehensive and unlimited as in the first clause. The English Version weakens the force of oiJ polloiv, and limits the number by omitting the article. The pollw'/ ma'llon (Rom. 5:15, 17) predicated of Christ’s saving grace, is not a numerical, nor a logical, but a dynamic plus, indicating a higher degree of efficacy, insomuch as Christ brought far greater blessings than we lost in Adam. 783 Rom. 11:32; Gal. 8:22. These contain the briefest statement of the sad mystery of the fall cleared up by the blessed mystery of redemption. In the first passage the masculine is used (tou;" pavnta"), in the second the neuter (ta; pavnta), and the application is confined to believers (toi'" pisteuvousin). 784 Rom. 3 –7; Gal. 2 - 4; especially Rom. 3:20; 5:20; Gal. 3:24 785 Rom. 8:3, 32; Phil. 2:6-11; 2 Cor. 8:9. On the Christology of Paul, see the Notes at the end of this section. 786 Gal. 5:11; 6:12. 1 Cor. 1:23. 787 1 Cor. 15:3: "I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures." 788 Rom. 3:26: eij" to; ei\nai aujto;n divkaion kai; dikaiou'nta to;n ejk Cristou'. Bengel calls this "summum paradoxon evangelicum." 789 2 Cor. 5:15: o{ti ei\" ujpevr pavntwn ajpevqanen, a[ra oiJ pavnte" apevqanon. Mark the aorist. The prepositions uJpevr (used of persons) and periv (of things, but also of persons) express the idea of benefit, but often in close connection with the idea of vicariousness (ajntiv). Comp. Gal. 1:4; 3:13; Rom. 4:25; 5:6, etc 790 Rom. 3:21-26; 5:6-10; 8:32; 1 Cor. 1:17, 18; 2:2; 6:20; 7:23; 11:24; 15:3; 2 Cor. 5:15, 18, 19, 21; Gal. 1:4; 2:11 sqq.; 3:13; 6:14, etc. Comp. Weiss, p. 302; Pfleiderer, p. 7; Baur (N. T. Theol., p. 156). Holsten and Pfleiderer (in his able introduction) regard the atoning death of Christ as the kernel of Paul’s theology, and Holsten promises to develop the whole system from thus idea in his new work, Das Evangelium des Paulus, of which the first part appeared in 1880. But they deny the objective character of the revelation at Damascus, and resolve it into a subjective moral struggle and a dialectical process of reflection and reasoning. Luther passed through a similar moral conflict and reached the same conclusion, but on the basis of the Scriptures and with the aid of the divine Spirit. 791 The passages in which the Holy Spirit is mentioned are very numerous, especially in the Thessalonians, Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, and Ephesians. Comp. Rom. 5:5; 7:6; 8:2, 5, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 26; 1 Cor. 2: 4 sqq.; 3:16<cbr>; 6:11, 17, 19</cbr>; 12:3-16; 2 Cor. 1:12; 2:7; Gal. 4:6; 5:16, 22, 25; Eph. 1:17; 2:2; 4:23, 30; 5:18; 1 Thess. 1:5, 6; 4:8; 5:19, 23; 2 Thess. 2:2, 8, 13; 2 Tim. 1:7, 14; Tit. 3: 5. 792 The concluding verse in the second Epistle to the Corinthians; comp. Eph. 2:18, 22; 4:4-6, where God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are mentioned as distinct personalities, if we may use this unsatisfactory yet indispensable term. 793 1 Cor. 13:13. 794 Rom. 8:29: "Whom he foreknew (ou}" proevgnw), he also foreordained (prowvrisen), to be conformed to the image of his Son. "The verb proginwvskw occurs in the New Test. five times (Rom. 8:29; 11:1, 2; Acts 26:5; 1 Pet. 1:20), the noun provgnwsi" twice (Acts 2:23; 1 Pet. 1:2), always, as in classical Greek, in the sense of previous knowledge (not election). The verb proorivzw occurs six times, and means always to foreordain, to determine before. The words ejklegw and ejklevgomai, ejkloghv, ejklektov" occur much more frequently, mostly with reference to eternal choice or election. See note below. 795 Eph. 1:4: "Even as he chose us in Christ (ejxelevxato hJma'" ejn aujtw/') before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love: having foreordained us unto adoption as sons (proorivsa" hJma'" eij" uiJoqesivan )through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will." 796 Phil. 2:12, 13. Comp. Romans 9 with 10. 797 Rom. 8:30: "Whom he foreordained them he also called (ejkavlesen): and whom he called them he also justified (ejdikaivwsen), which is also the beginning of sanctification), and whom he justified, them he also glorified (ejdovxasen)."The proleptic aorist is used for the future to indicate the absolute certainty that God will carry out his gracious design to the glorious consummation. 798 Rom. 10:14, 15. A chain of abridged syllogisms (sorites) by which Paul reasons back from effect to cause till he reaches the first link in the chain. On the klh'si"(vocatio) see Rom. 11:29; 1 Cor. 1:26; 7:20; Gal. 1:6; Eph. 1:18; 4:14; Phil. 3:14, etc. The verb kalevw is of very frequent occurrence in the Gospels and Epistles. 799 Rom. 2:4; 2 Cor 7:9, 10; 2 Tim. 2:25. 800 Baur (p. 154) distinguished five conceptions of pivsti" (from peivqein): 1st, conviction in general, a theoretical belief or assent. In this sense it does not occur in Paul, but in James 1:17. 2d, conviction of the invisible and supernatural; 2 Cor. 5:7, pivsti" as distinct from ei|do". 3d, religious conviction, 1 Cor. 2:5; 2 Cor. 1:24, etc. 4th, trust in God, Rom. 4:17-21. 5th, trust in Christ, or the specific Christian faith, Rom. 3:22; 1 Cor. 15:14; Gal, 1:23, and always where justifying faith is meant. Weiss (p. 316) defines the Pauline idea of justifying faith as "the very opposite of all the works required by the law; it is no human performance, but, on the contrary, an abandonment of all work of our own, an unconditional reliance on God who justifies, or on Christ as the Mediator of salvation." But this is only the receptive side of faith, it has an active side as well, pivsti" is ejnergoumevnh di j ajgavph". See below. 801 Rom. 5:1; 8:15-17; Gal. 4:5-7. If we read in Rom. 5:1 (with the oldest authorities) the hortative subjunctive e[cwmen "let us have" (instead of the indicative e[comen "we have"), peace is represented as a blessing which we should grasp and fully enjoy—an exhortation well suited for Judaizing and gloomy Christians who groan under legal bondage. On justification see the notes below. 802 Matt. 5:20; 6:33; 9:22, 29; 17:20; Mark 11:22; 16:16; Luke 5:50; 18:10-14; John 3:16, 17; 6:47, etc. 803 Comp. Rom. 6:19, 22; 1 Cor. 1:30; 1 Thess. 4:3, 4, 7; 2 Thess. 2:13. 804 1 Cor. 18:1, 2. Luther’s famous description of faith (in his Preface to Romans), as "a lively, busy, mighty thing that waits not for work, but is ever working, and is as inseparable from love as light is from heat," is in the very spirit of Paul, and a sufficient reply to the slander brought against the doctrine of justification by faith as being antinomian in its tendency. 805 1 Thess. 5:23: "The God of peace sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire, without blame at the coming (parousiva)of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is he that calleth you, who will also do it." Comp. Romans 6 –8, which treat most fully of sanctification, also Rom. 12 –15, and all the ethical or hortatory portions of his other epistles. 806 Phil. 2:12, 13. The apostle emphatically uses the same verb, ejnergw'n and ejnerfei'n, while the E. V., with its usual love for variation, renders "worketh" and "to do." Augustin (De dono persev. 33): "Nos ergo volumus, sed Deus in nobis operatur et velle nos ergo operamur, sed Deus in nobis operatur at operari." Phil. 2:13 "supplies at once the stimulus to, and the corrective of the precept in the preceding verse: ’Work, for God works with you;’ and ’The good is not yours but God’s.’" Lightfoot, in loc. Comp. also Calvin, Alford, and Braune, in loc. 807 Gal. 2:20. This passage is obscured in the E V. by the omission of oujkevti, "no longer," and the insertion of "nevertheless." 808 Gal. 3:27; Eph. 5:30; 1 Cor. 1:9; 2 Cor. 1:3, 5; 5:17; 13:4; Col. 3:4; Phil. 1:21; Rom. 6:4-8; 14:8; 1 Thess. 5:10. Comp. those numerous passages where Paul uses the significant phrase ejn Cristw/', living and moving and acting in Him, as the element of our spiritual existence. 809 Hence the Heidelberg Catechism, following the order of the Ep. to the Romans, represents Christian life, in the third and last part, under the head: "Thankfulness." 810 Erasmus justly regarded the conclusion of Rom. 8:31-39 as unsurpassed for genuine eloquence: "Quid unquam Cicero dixit grandiloquentius It is only equalled by the ode on love in 1". 811 This is the subject of Rom. 9–11. These three chapters contain a theodicy and an outline of the philosophy of church history. They are neither the chief part of Romans (Baur), nor a mere episode or appendix (De Wette), but an essential part of the Epistle in exposition of the concluding clause of the theme, Rom. 1:17 ... "to the Jew first, and also to the Greek" (or Gentile). Romans 9 treats of divine sovereignty; Rom. 10 (which should begin at Rom. 9:30) treats of human responsibility; Rom. 11 of the future solution of this great problem. They must be taken together as a unit. Romans 9 alone may be and has been made to prove Calvinism and even extreme supralapsarianism; Rom. 10 Arminianism; and Rom. 11 Universalism. But Paul is neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian nor a Universalist in the dogmatic sense. See the doctrinal expositions in Lange on Romans, much enlarged in the translation, pp. 327-334. 812 Rom. 11:32, 33, 86. 813 2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 Cor. 15:28. 814 John 1:17. 815 Herein Baur agrees with Neander and Schmid. He says of the Johannean type (l.c., p. 351): In ihm erreicht die neuteitamentliche Theologie ihre höchste Stufe und ihre vollendetste Form." This admission makes it all the more impossible to attribute the fourth Gospel to a literary forger of the second century. See also some excellent remarks of Weiss, pp. 605 sqq., and the concluding chapter of Reuss on Paul and John. 816 For the theology of the Apocalypse as compared with that of the Gospel and Epistles of John, see especially Gebhardt, The Doctrine of the Apoc., transl. by Jefferson, Edinb., 1878. 817 John 1:14 (ejqeasavmeqa th;n dovxan aujtou'); 1 John 1:1-3. 818 In the strictest sense of qeolovgo" as the chief champion of the eternal deity of the Logos: John 1:1:qeov" h|n oJ lovgo".So in the superscription of the Apocalypse in several cursive MSS. 819 John 17 3<cbr>; 15:11</cbr>; 16:24; 1 John 1:4. 820 Comp. John 1:14; 3:16; 1 John 4:1-3. 821 John 4:24; 1 John 1:5; 4:8, 16. The first definition or oracle is from Christ’s dialogue with the woman of Samaria, who could, of course, not grasp the full meaning, but understood sufficiently its immediate practical application to the question of dispute between the Samaritans and the Jews concerning the worship on Gerizim or Jerusalem. 822 There is a remarkable variation of reading in John 1:18 between monogenhv" qeov" ,one who is God only-begotten, andoJ monogenhv" uiJov" ,the only-begotten Son. (A third reading: oJ monogenh;" qeov" ,"the only-begotten God," found in a’ and 33, arose simply from a combination of the two readings, the article being improperly transferred from the second to the first.) The two readings are of equal antiquity; qeov" is supported by the oldest Greek MSS., nearly all Alexandrian or Egyptian (a* BC*L, also the Peshitto Syr.);uiJov" by the oldest versions (Itala Vulg., Curet. Syr., also by the secondary uncials and all known cursives except 33). The usual abbreviations in the uncial MS., Qo-forqeov"and UO for uiJov" ,may easily be confounded. The connection of monogenhv" withqeov"is less natural than with uiJo;" although John undoubtedly could call the Son qeov" (not oJ qeov"), and did so in 1:1. Monogenhv" qeov"simply combines the two attributes of the Logos, qeov" 1:1, and monogenhv", 1:14. For a learned and ingenious defence of qeov" see Hort’s Dissertations (Cambridge, 1877), Westcott on St. John (p. 71), and Westcott and Hort’s Gr. Test. Introd. and Append., p. 74. Tischendorf and nearly all the German commentators (except Weiss) adopt uiJov", and Dr. Abbot, of Cambridge, Mass., has written two very able papers in favor of this reading, one in the Bibliotheca Sacra for 1861, pp. 840-872, and another in the " Unitarian Review" for June, 1875. The Westminster Revision first adopted " God" in the text, but afterwards put it on the margin. Both readings are intrinsically unobjectionable, and the sense is essentially the same. Monogenhv" does not necessarily convey the Nicene idea of eternal generation, but simply the unique character and superiority of the eternal and uncreated sonship of Christ over the sonship of believers which is a gift of grace. It shows his intimate relation to the Father, as the Pauline prwtovtoko" his sovereign relation to the world. 823 Lit."towards the bosom" (eij" to;n kovlpon), i.e., leaning on, and moving to the bosom. It expresses the union of motion and rest and the closest and tenderest intimacy, as between mother and child, like the German term Schoosskind, bosom-child. Comp. prov" to;n qeovn John 1:1 and Prov. 8:30, where Wisdom (the Logos) says: "I was near Him as one brought up with Him, and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him." 824 With this sentence the Prologue returns to the beginning and suggests the best reason why Christ is called Logos. He is the Exegete, the Expounder, the Interpreter of the hidden being, of God. "The word ejxhghvsato used by classical writers of the interpretation of divine mysteries. The absence of the object in the original is remarkable. Thus the literal rendering is simply, he made declaration (Vulg. ipse enarravit). Comp. Acts 15: 4. Westcott, in loc. See the classical parallels in Wetstein. 825 John 1:1, 14:1 John 1:1; Rev. 19:13. The Logos theory of John is the fruitful germ of the speculations of the Greek church on the mysteries of the incarnation and the trinity. See my ed. of Lange’s Com. on John, pp. 51 and 55 sqq., where also the literature is given. On the latest discussions see Weiss in the sixth ed. of Meyer’s Com. on John (1880), pp. 49 sqq. Lovgo" means both ratio and oratio reason and speech, which are inseparably connected. " Logos," being masculine in Greek, is better fitted as a designation of Christ than our neuter " Word." Hence Ewald, in defiance of German grammar, renders it "der Wort."On the apocalyptic designation oJ logo" tou' quou' and on the christology of the Apocalypse, see Gebhardt, l.c., 94 and 333 sqq. On Philo’s idea of the Logos I refer to Schürer, Neutestam. Zeitgeschichte, pp. 648 sqq., and the works of Gfrörer, Zeller, Frankel, etc., there quoted. 826 These three ideas are contained in the first verse of the Gospel, which has stimulated and puzzled the profoundest minds from Origen and Augustin to Schelling and Goethe. Mark the unique union of transparent simplicity and inexhaustible depth, and the symmetry of the three clauses. The subject (lovgo") and the verb (h|n) are three times repeated. " The three clauses contain all that it is possible for man to realize as to the essential nature of the Word in relation to time and mode of being and character: He was (1) in the beginning: He was (2) with God: He was (3) God. At the same time these three clauses answer to the three great moments of the Incarnation of the Word declared in John 1:14. He who ’was God,’ became flesh: He who ’was with God,’ tabernacled among us (comp. 1 John 1:2): He who ’was in the beginning,’ became (in time)." Westcott (in Speaker’s Com.). A similar interpretation is given by Lange. The personality of the Logos is denied by Beyschlag. See Notes (in text at end of § 72). 827 Here we have the germ (but the germ only) of the orthodox distinction between unity of essence and trinity of persons or hypostases; also of the distinction between an immanent, eternal trinity, and an economical trinity, which is revealed in time (in the works of creation, redemption, and sanctification). A Hebrew monotheist could not conceive of an eternal and independent being of a different essence (eJteroouvsi") existing besides the one God. This would be dualism. 828 John 1:3, with a probable allusion to Gen. 1:3, "God said," as ejn arch/' refers to bereshith, Gen. 1:1. The negative repetition oujde; e[n, prorsus nihil, not even one thing (stronger than oujdevn nihil), excludes every form of dualism (against the Gnostics), and makes the pavnta absolutely unlimited. The Socinian interpretation, which confines it to the moral creation, is grammatically impossible. 829 John 1:14: oJ lovgo" sa;rx ejgevneto a sentence of immeasurable import, the leading idea not only of the Prologue, but of the Christian religion and of the history of mankind. It marks the close of the preparation for Christianity and the beginning of its introduction into the human race. Bengel calls attention to the threefold antithetic correspondence between 1:1 and 1:14: The Logos was (h|n) in the beginning became (ejgevneto) God, flesh, with God. and dwelt among us 830 Paul expresses the same idea: God sent his Son "in the likeness of the flesh of sin," Rom. 8:3; comp. Heb. 2:17; 4:15. See the note at the close of the section. 831 John 1:14: ejskhvnwsen ejn hJmi'n, in allusion to the indwelling of Jehovah in the holy of holies of the tabernacle (skhnhv) and the temple. The humanity of Christ is now the tabernacle of God, and the believers are the spectators of that glory. Comp. Rev. 7:15; 21:3 832 John 17:5, 24; 1 John 3:2. 833 John 20:31. 834 1 John 3:5, 8; comp. the words of Christ, John 8:44. 835 John 6:52-58; 10:11, 15; 1 John 2:2: aujto;" iJlasmov" ejstin peri; tw'n aJmartiw'n hJmw'n, ouj peri; tw'n hJmetevrwn de; movnon, alla; kai; peri; o]lou tou' kovsmou.. The universality of the atonement could not be more clearly expressed; but there is a difference between universal sufficiency and universal efficiency. 836 1 John 1:10; John 1:29; 11:50; comp. 18:14. 837 1 John 2:1: eja;n ti" aJmavrth/, paravklhton e[comen pro;" to;n patevra jIhsou'n Cristo;n divkaion. 838 1 John 1:2: hJ zwh; ejfanerwvqh, kai; eJwravkamen kai; marturou'men kai; ajpaggevllomen uJmi'nth'n zwhvn th;n aijwvnion h{ti" h|n pro;" to;n patevra kai; ejfanerwvqh hJmi'n. Comp. John 1:4; 5; 26; 14:6. The passage 1 John 5:20: ou|tov" ejstin oJ ajliqino;" qeo;" kai; zwh; aijwvnio" , is of doubtful application. The natural connection of ou|to"with the immediately preceding jIhsou' Cristw/', and the parallel passages where Christ is called " life," favor the reference to Christ; while the words oJ ajlhqino;" qeov" suit better for the Father. See Braune, Huther, Ebrard, Haupt, Rothe, in loc. 839 John 6:47; and the whole mysterious discourse which explains the spiritual meaning of the preceding miracle. 840 Apoc. 12:1-12; 20:2. Comp. with 1 John 3:8; John 8:44; 12:31, 13:2, 27; 14 30; 16:11. 841 Apoc. 1:6; 5:6, 9, 12, 13;7: 14, etc. Comp. John 1:29; 17:19; 19:36; 1 John 1:7; 2:2; 5:6. The apocalyptic diminutive ajrnion(agnellus, lambkin, pet-lamb) for ajmnov" is used to sharpen the contrast with the Lion. Paul Gerhardt has reproduced it in his beautiful passion hymn: "Ein LÄMMLEINgeht und trägt die Schuld." 842 Apoc. 1:5: "Unto him that loveth us," etc.; comp. John 15:13; 1 John 3:16. 843 Apoc. 1:5, 17, 18 2:8; comp. John 5:21, 25; 6:39, 40 –11:25. 844 Apoc. 1:5; 3:21; 17:14; 19:16. 845 Apoc. 2:10; 3:21; 7:17; 14:1-5; 21:6, 7; 22:1-5. Comp. Gebhardt, l.c., 106-128, 343-353. 846 John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7. Comp. also 1 John 2:1, where Christ is likewise called paravklhto". He is our Advocate objectively at the throne of the Father, the Holy Spirit is our Advocate subjectively in our spiritual experience. The E. V. renders the word in all these passages, except the last, by " Comforter" (Consolator), which rests on a confusion of the passive paravklhto" with the active paraklhvtwr. See my notes in Lange’s Com. on John, pp. 440 sqq., 468 sqq. 847 There is a distinction between the eternal procession (ejkpovreusi")of the Spirit from the Father (para; tou' Patro;" ejkporeuvetai, procedit, John 15:26), and the temporal mission (pevmyi") of the Spirit from the Father and the Son (15:26, where Christ says of the Spirit: o}n ejgw; pevmyw, to, and 14:26, where he says: o} pevmyei oJ path;r ejn tw/' ojnovmativ mou). The Greek church to this day strongly insists on this distinction, and teaches an eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father alone, and a temporal mission of the Spirit by the Father and the Son. The difference between the present ejkporeuvetai and the future pevmyw seems to favor such a distinction, but the exclusive alone (movnon) in regard to the procession is an addition of the Greek church as much as the Filioque is an addition of the Latin church to the original Nicene Creed. It is doubtful whether John meant to make a metaphysical distinction between procession and mission. But the distinction between the eternal trinity of the divine being and the temporal trinity of the divine revelation has an exegetical basis in the pre-existence of the Logos and the Spirit. The trinitarian revelation reflects the trinitarian essence; in other words, God reveals himself as he is, as Father, Son, and Spirit. We have a right to reason from the revelation of God to his nature, but with proper reverence and modesty; for who can exhaust the ocean of the Deity! 848 1 John 5:8. There are different interpretations of water and blood: 1st, reference to the miraculous flow of blood and water from the wounded side of Christ, John 19:34; 2d, Christ’s baptism, and Christ’s atoning death; 3d, the two sacraments which he instituted as perpetual memorials. I would adopt the last view, if it were not for to; ai\ma, which nowhere designates the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, and more naturally refers to the blood of Christ shed for the remission of sins. The passage on the three heavenly witnesses in 5:7, formerly quoted as a proof text for the doctrine of the trinity, is now generally given up as a mediaeval interpolation, and must be rejected on internal as well as external grounds; for John would never have written: "the Father, the Word, and the Spirit," but either "the Father, the Son, and the Spirit," or God, the Word (Logos), and the Spirit." 849 2 John 1:13: tevkna qeou' ... ejk qeou' ejgennhvqhsan. The classical section on the new birth is Christ’s discourse with Nicodemus, 3: 1-15. The terms gennhqh'nai a[nwqen, to be born anew, afresh, or from above, i. e., from heaven, Comp. 3:31; 19:11 (the reference is not to a repetition, again, a second time, pavlin, deuvteron, but to an analogous process); 3: 6, 7; gevnhqh'nai ejx u]dato" kai;pneuvmato" of water (baptism) and spirit, 3:5;ejk qeou', of God, ejk tou' oujranou'from heaven, are equivalent. John himself most frequently uses ejk qeou', 1:13; 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18. He does not use ajnagennavomai, to be begotten or born again (but it occurs in Justin Martyr’s quotation, Apol. I. 61; also in 1 Pet. 1:23, a[agennhmevnoi ... dia; lovgou zw'nto" qeou', and 1 Pet. 1:3, ajnagennhvsa" hJma'" eiv" ejlpivda), and the noun ajnagevnnhsi", regeneration, is not found at all in the Greek Test. (though often in the Greek fathers); but the analogous paliggenesiva occurs once in connection with baptism, Tit. 3:5 (e[swsen hJma'" dai; loutrou' paliggenesiva" kai; ajnakainwvsew" pneuvmato" aJgivou), and once in a more comprehensive sense of the final restitution and consummation of all things, Matt. 19:18. Paul speaks of the new creature in Christ (kainh; ktivsi" , 2 Cor. 5:17) and of the new (kaino;" a[nqrwpo" ,Eph. 4:24). In the Rabbinical theology regeneration meant simply the change of the external status of a proselyte to Judaism. 850 1 John 3:9; comp. 5:18. But 5:16 implies that a "brother" may sin, though not "unto death," and 1:10 also excludes the idea of absolute freedom from sin in the present state. 851 1 John 5:18: oJ ponhro;" oujc a}ptetai aujtou'. 852 John 17:3, words of our Lord in the sacerdotal prayer. 853 1 John 5:12, 13: oJ e[cwn to;n uiJo;n e[cei th;n zwh;n ... zwh;n e[cete aijwvnion. Comp. the words of Christ, John 3:36; 5:24; 6:47, 54; and of the Evangelist, 20:31. 854 1 John 3:2: oi|damen o{ti eja;n fanevrwqh/' (he, or it), o{moioi aujtw/' ejsovmeqa, o{ti oyovmeqa aujto;n kaqwv" ejstin. 855 1 John 5:4: au{th ejsti;n hJ nikhvsasa to;n kovsmon, hJ pivsti" hJmw'n. 856 John uses the term dikaiosuvnh, but neverdikaivwsi" ordikaiovw. A striking example of religious agreement and theological difference. 857 John 17:22-24; 1 John 1:3, 4. 858 1 John 3:11, 23; 4:7, 11; comp. John 13:34, 35; 15:12, 17. 859 The word ejkklhsiva occurs in the third Epistle, but in the sense of a local congregation. Of the external organization of the church John is silent; he does not even report the institution of the sacraments, though he speaks of the spiritual meaning of baptism (John 3:5), and indirectly of the spiritual meaning of the Lord’s Supper (6:53-56). 860 1 John 2:3, 4; 3:22, 24; 4:7, 11; 5:2, 3; 2 John 6; comp. the Gospel, John 14:15, 21: "If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments," etc. 861 Rom. 13:7-10; 1 Cor. 13:1-13. 862 Matt. 18:7; 1 Cor. 11:19: "There must be also heresies (factions) among you, that they who are approved may be made manifest among you." Comp. Acts 20:30; 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Pet. 2:1-3. 863 Acts 8:10: hJ Duvnami" tou' qeou' hJ kaloumevnh Megavlh. 864 1 John 2:23; 4:1-3.