Paul Compared With Christ
The nearest equivalent to St. Paul's righteousness of God in the teaching of our Lord is, as has been pointed out, the free pardon of sin, which occupied a prominent place in Christ's gospel.
Content
PAUL COMPARED WITH CHRIST ALEXA DER BALMAI BRUCE, D.D.,
In the course of our study of St. Paul's conception of Christianity we have taken occasion, as opportunity presented itself, to compare the views of the apostle with the teaching of Christ as it is set forth in the first three Gospels. The comparison touches mainly four topics : the idea of righteousness 1 ; the significance of Christ's death 8 ; the doctrine of Sonship 8 ; and the law of growth in the Christian life. 4 We found that St. Paul's conception of the righteousness of God does not occur in the Gospels. The righteousness of God spoken of there is not, as in the Pauline Epistles, a righteousness God-given, but a righteousness of which God is the centre. 6 The nearest equivalent to St. Paul's righteousness of God in the teaching of our Lord is, as has been pointed out, the free pardon of sin, which occupied a prominent place in Christ's gospel. In reference to the death of Christ, we had occasion to remark that the ethical view of that event set forth in the first lesson on the doctrine of the cross * is overlooked by St. Paul, his interest being concentrated on the religious or theological aspect. On the subject of Sonship, we found that in representing sonship as constituted by adoption, the apostle seems to give it an aspect of artificiality or unreality, contrasting unfavourably with the sonship presented to view in the Gospels, which rests on an essential identity between the nature of God and the nature of man. In so far as this contrast is real, it points to a deeper difference in the way of conceiving God. But it was pointed out that there is reason to believe that the theology of the schools has not in this connection done full justice to the thought of St. Paul. Finally, on the subject of gradual sanctification we were forced to the conclusion that the Pauline Epistles contain nothing parallel to the firm grasp and felicitous statement of the great law of growth in the kingdom of God, exhibited in the parable of the blade, the green ear, and the ripe corn. A somewhat elaborate study on the contrast between the two types of doctrine has recently appeared from the
pen of Wendt, a the well-known author of the work, Die Lehre Jem, of which a portion has been translated into English. 8 Among the points of comparison are these : the essence of the Messianic salvation, the righteousness of the saved man, the condition of the natural man, the Person of the Messiah, the significance of Christ as the Mediator of salvation, and the conditions of participation in salvation. 1. In reference to the first topic, the author finds a general agreement between the Master and the apostle, in so far as both taught that the Messianic salvation came with Jesus, and consisted not in the fulfilment of Old Testament hopes of an earthly kingdom, but in a gracious relation of sonship to God, begun here and perfected hereafter. The point of difference, according to Wendt, is that in the teaching of Jesus there is no developed doctrine as to the possession by believers of the Holy Spirit, such as we find in the Pauline letters. 2. On the second topic, the righteousness of the saved man, Wendt finds in both types of doctrine, as a common element, recognition of the truth that only the ethical has real value in God's sight, and that ritual possesses no intrinsic importance. The difference lies in the ground on which this truth is made to rest. In the teaching of Christ it is the purely ethical and spiritual nature of God, and the certainty thence flowing that the only acceptable righteousness is that which is kindred to God's own moral nature. In the teaching of St. Paul the worthlessness of ritual is a deduction from the redeeming work of Christ. Christ, by being made under law, has redeemed us from subjection to law. But this redemption covers the whole law, as law, without distinction between the ethical and the ritual. Insight into the essential difference between the two is not so markedly characteristic of the apostle. 8. In connection with the third topic, the condition of the natural man, Wendt finds a considerable difference between the two types of doctrine. Christ's view of average human nature is, he thinks, less sombre than that of St. Paul. The natural man, as he appears in the Gospels, is not doomed by the flesh to sin. Then the Gospels contain no such speculations as to the malign influence of Adam's transgression on the character and destinies of the race, as we find in Romans v. 12-21.
4. As to the person of the Messiah, a common element in the two types of doctrine is the idea that the Messiahship of Jesus rested exclusively on His filial relation to God. either Christ nor Paul, according to Wendt, attached any real importance to the Davidic descent. The point of contrast under this head is found in the idea of pre-existence, propounded by the apostle, but not, according to our author, to be found in the authentic utterances of Jesus. 5. The point at which the greatest difference between the two types of doctrine reveals itself is the significance of Christ as the Mediator of salvation. There is first, according to our author, the great general contrast, that whereas Christ Himself gave special, not to say exclusive, prominence to His revealing, or prophetic, or teaching function, the apostle left that very much in the background, and made all turn on the redemptive significance of Christ's death. Then there is the specific contrast between the manner in which that death is viewed in the two types. The apostle, according to Wendt, assigned to Christ's death the significance of a vicarious penal suffering, on the part of the innocent One on behalf of the guilty. He finds no such doctrine in the words of our Lord, not even in the saying concerning the ransom in Mark x. 45, nor in the words spoken at the institution of the Sapper. He holds that Jesus taught the doctrine of a free forgiveness to all penitent sinners unmediated by any atonement, and that this doctrine set forth in the parable of the prodigal, and elsewhere, He did not cancel or limit towards the end of His life. The words spoken at the institution of the Supper offer no justification for such a supposition. 4 4 It is, ' ' he says, " only a prejudice arising out of our dogmatic tradition, that the thought of the saving significance of Christ's death for His followers must include or presuppose the idea of a vicarious expiation. I believe that Jesus, in the words of institution, had no such thought in His mind, although He did mean to express the other idea of a saving significance attaching to His death. It was a conception naturally arising out of His certainty as to the overwhelming love and grace of God, that God would reward the loyal obedience of His Son with rich blessings, affecting not Himself only, but also those who belong to Him, even as, in the Old Testament, we find God promising to reward
the truth of those who keep His covenant with benefits to thousands (Exodu* xx. 6). But this certainty as to the greatness of divine grace did not lead Jesus to imagine that, in order to be able to forgive penitent sinners, God demanded the vicarious sufferings of His obedient Son. As Jesus did not regard earthly suffering in general simply as evil, and as penalty of sin, it was by no means a self-evident truth to Him that His innocent suffering must have a penal relation to the sin of other men. He did not regard His death as vicarious penal suffering, but only as a proof of obedience, which God in His grace would not fail to reward." 1 The question here raised is very important. And with regard to the answer given to it by Wendt, who holds that Christ and Paul here offer two entirely different gospels, it may be frankly admitted that the two types of doctrine are certainly not coincident at this point. There is, e.g., a difference as to the view to be taken of suffering. For the apostle it is an axiom that all suffering is on account of sin. And, as we have elsewhere pointed out, this axiom raises a question to which the Pauline literature offers no answer. What about the sufferings of the righteous, the prophets, for example ? Did they suffer for their own sins ? Then they must have been exceptionally great sinners, as Job's friends said he was. Or did they suffer for the sins of others redemptively ? If neither view is adopted, what other alternative is there which goes to the root of the matter ? In Christ's teaching the penal meaning of suffering is not accentuated. He spoke not merely of a suffering for sin, whether personal or relative, but also and very emphatically of a suffering for righteousness, and He undoubtedly looked on His own suffering as belonging to the latter category. But He also recognised that the sufferings of the righteous might bring benefit to the unrighteous. This is admitted in the passage above quoted. Even in Wendt's own statement, as there given, there is room for a theory of redemptive value attaching to Christ's death. God, it is admitted, gives blessings to men for Christ's sake. This general truth is of more 1 ZeiUchriftftor Theologie und Kirche, 1804, pp. 66, 66.
importance than any special theological formulation of it. It may be possible to formulate the fundamental truth in this matter better than theologians have formulated it,
or even to improve on St. Paul's statement. But the main point to notice is, that there is a fact or truth to be formulated — that God confers blessings spiritual and temporal on some men for the sake of other men. This thought is contained in the teaching of our Lord, as well as in the letters of St. Paul. And in view of this fact it cannot be truly affirmed that the doctrine of Jesus was auto-$oteric, while that of St. Paul was heterosoteric. 1 Self -salvation, salvation by another — the difference between the Master and the apostle, is not so great as that. Both teach essentially the same doctrine, that God for Christ's sake blesses the world. How this doctrine is to be adjusted to the natural order of the universe is a problem requiring more consideration than it has yet received. How can ten righteous men save Sodom ? What does such a supposition mean, translated into terms of natural law ? How do prayers count, how pains, sorrows, tears, crucifixions ? Theology teaches that God has a regard to these things, and because of them imputes, and does, good to the unthankful and the evil. What is the equivalent of this divine procedure, in the world of which science takes cognisance? I do not know, but I believe that the sacrificial lives of the saintly were eternally in God's view, that they are the things of value in His sight; 1 Vide Macintosh, The atural History of the Christian Religion (1894), where the difference between Jesus and Paul is thus put. Vide especially chap. xv.
that the world exists for them and is preserved by them. 6. On the last topic, little needs to be said. According to Wendt, our Lord and the apostle were at one in attaching great importance to faith as a condition of participation in salvation. But they differed in this, that while Jesus insisted also on repentance as a joint condition, St. Paul gave prominence to faith only. But, on close inspection, it will be found that in the teaching of our Lord, not less than in that of St. Paul, faith is the great watchword. Difference at this point is on the surface only.
1. 68 FREE BOOKS http://www.scribd.com/doc/21800308/Free-Christian-Books
2. ALL WRITI GS http://www.scribd.com/glennpease/documents?page=970
In the course of our study of St. Paul's conception of Christianity we have taken occasion, as opportunity presented itself, to compare the views of the apostle with the teaching of Christ as it is set forth in the first three Gospels. The comparison touches mainly four topics : the idea of righteousness 1 ; the significance of Christ's death 8 ; the doctrine of Sonship 8 ; and the law of growth in the Christian life. 4 We found that St. Paul's conception of the righteousness of God does not occur in the Gospels. The righteousness of God spoken of there is not, as in the Pauline Epistles, a righteousness God-given, but a righteousness of which God is the centre. 6 The nearest equivalent to St. Paul's righteousness of God in the teaching of our Lord is, as has been pointed out, the free pardon of sin, which occupied a prominent place in Christ's gospel. In reference to the death of Christ, we had occasion to remark that the ethical view of that event set forth in the first lesson on the doctrine of the cross * is overlooked by St. Paul, his interest being concentrated on the religious or theological aspect. On the subject of Sonship, we found that in representing sonship as constituted by adoption, the apostle seems to give it an aspect of artificiality or unreality, contrasting unfavourably with the sonship presented to view in the Gospels, which rests on an essential identity between the nature of God and the nature of man. In so far as this contrast is real, it points to a deeper difference in the way of conceiving God. But it was pointed out that there is reason to believe that the theology of the schools has not in this connection done full justice to the thought of St. Paul. Finally, on the subject of gradual sanctification we were forced to the conclusion that the Pauline Epistles contain nothing parallel to the firm grasp and felicitous statement of the great law of growth in the kingdom of God, exhibited in the parable of the blade, the green ear, and the ripe corn. A somewhat elaborate study on the contrast between the two types of doctrine has recently appeared from the
pen of Wendt, a the well-known author of the work, Die Lehre Jem, of which a portion has been translated into English. 8 Among the points of comparison are these : the essence of the Messianic salvation, the righteousness of the saved man, the condition of the natural man, the Person of the Messiah, the significance of Christ as the Mediator of salvation, and the conditions of participation in salvation. 1. In reference to the first topic, the author finds a general agreement between the Master and the apostle, in so far as both taught that the Messianic salvation came with Jesus, and consisted not in the fulfilment of Old Testament hopes of an earthly kingdom, but in a gracious relation of sonship to God, begun here and perfected hereafter. The point of difference, according to Wendt, is that in the teaching of Jesus there is no developed doctrine as to the possession by believers of the Holy Spirit, such as we find in the Pauline letters. 2. On the second topic, the righteousness of the saved man, Wendt finds in both types of doctrine, as a common element, recognition of the truth that only the ethical has real value in God's sight, and that ritual possesses no intrinsic importance. The difference lies in the ground on which this truth is made to rest. In the teaching of Christ it is the purely ethical and spiritual nature of God, and the certainty thence flowing that the only acceptable righteousness is that which is kindred to God's own moral nature. In the teaching of St. Paul the worthlessness of ritual is a deduction from the redeeming work of Christ. Christ, by being made under law, has redeemed us from subjection to law. But this redemption covers the whole law, as law, without distinction between the ethical and the ritual. Insight into the essential difference between the two is not so markedly characteristic of the apostle. 8. In connection with the third topic, the condition of the natural man, Wendt finds a considerable difference between the two types of doctrine. Christ's view of average human nature is, he thinks, less sombre than that of St. Paul. The natural man, as he appears in the Gospels, is not doomed by the flesh to sin. Then the Gospels contain no such speculations as to the malign influence of Adam's transgression on the character and destinies of the race, as we find in Romans v. 12-21.
4. As to the person of the Messiah, a common element in the two types of doctrine is the idea that the Messiahship of Jesus rested exclusively on His filial relation to God. either Christ nor Paul, according to Wendt, attached any real importance to the Davidic descent. The point of contrast under this head is found in the idea of pre-existence, propounded by the apostle, but not, according to our author, to be found in the authentic utterances of Jesus. 5. The point at which the greatest difference between the two types of doctrine reveals itself is the significance of Christ as the Mediator of salvation. There is first, according to our author, the great general contrast, that whereas Christ Himself gave special, not to say exclusive, prominence to His revealing, or prophetic, or teaching function, the apostle left that very much in the background, and made all turn on the redemptive significance of Christ's death. Then there is the specific contrast between the manner in which that death is viewed in the two types. The apostle, according to Wendt, assigned to Christ's death the significance of a vicarious penal suffering, on the part of the innocent One on behalf of the guilty. He finds no such doctrine in the words of our Lord, not even in the saying concerning the ransom in Mark x. 45, nor in the words spoken at the institution of the Sapper. He holds that Jesus taught the doctrine of a free forgiveness to all penitent sinners unmediated by any atonement, and that this doctrine set forth in the parable of the prodigal, and elsewhere, He did not cancel or limit towards the end of His life. The words spoken at the institution of the Supper offer no justification for such a supposition. 4 4 It is, ' ' he says, " only a prejudice arising out of our dogmatic tradition, that the thought of the saving significance of Christ's death for His followers must include or presuppose the idea of a vicarious expiation. I believe that Jesus, in the words of institution, had no such thought in His mind, although He did mean to express the other idea of a saving significance attaching to His death. It was a conception naturally arising out of His certainty as to the overwhelming love and grace of God, that God would reward the loyal obedience of His Son with rich blessings, affecting not Himself only, but also those who belong to Him, even as, in the Old Testament, we find God promising to reward
the truth of those who keep His covenant with benefits to thousands (Exodu* xx. 6). But this certainty as to the greatness of divine grace did not lead Jesus to imagine that, in order to be able to forgive penitent sinners, God demanded the vicarious sufferings of His obedient Son. As Jesus did not regard earthly suffering in general simply as evil, and as penalty of sin, it was by no means a self-evident truth to Him that His innocent suffering must have a penal relation to the sin of other men. He did not regard His death as vicarious penal suffering, but only as a proof of obedience, which God in His grace would not fail to reward." 1 The question here raised is very important. And with regard to the answer given to it by Wendt, who holds that Christ and Paul here offer two entirely different gospels, it may be frankly admitted that the two types of doctrine are certainly not coincident at this point. There is, e.g., a difference as to the view to be taken of suffering. For the apostle it is an axiom that all suffering is on account of sin. And, as we have elsewhere pointed out, this axiom raises a question to which the Pauline literature offers no answer. What about the sufferings of the righteous, the prophets, for example ? Did they suffer for their own sins ? Then they must have been exceptionally great sinners, as Job's friends said he was. Or did they suffer for the sins of others redemptively ? If neither view is adopted, what other alternative is there which goes to the root of the matter ? In Christ's teaching the penal meaning of suffering is not accentuated. He spoke not merely of a suffering for sin, whether personal or relative, but also and very emphatically of a suffering for righteousness, and He undoubtedly looked on His own suffering as belonging to the latter category. But He also recognised that the sufferings of the righteous might bring benefit to the unrighteous. This is admitted in the passage above quoted. Even in Wendt's own statement, as there given, there is room for a theory of redemptive value attaching to Christ's death. God, it is admitted, gives blessings to men for Christ's sake. This general truth is of more 1 ZeiUchriftftor Theologie und Kirche, 1804, pp. 66, 66.
importance than any special theological formulation of it. It may be possible to formulate the fundamental truth in this matter better than theologians have formulated it,
or even to improve on St. Paul's statement. But the main point to notice is, that there is a fact or truth to be formulated — that God confers blessings spiritual and temporal on some men for the sake of other men. This thought is contained in the teaching of our Lord, as well as in the letters of St. Paul. And in view of this fact it cannot be truly affirmed that the doctrine of Jesus was auto-$oteric, while that of St. Paul was heterosoteric. 1 Self -salvation, salvation by another — the difference between the Master and the apostle, is not so great as that. Both teach essentially the same doctrine, that God for Christ's sake blesses the world. How this doctrine is to be adjusted to the natural order of the universe is a problem requiring more consideration than it has yet received. How can ten righteous men save Sodom ? What does such a supposition mean, translated into terms of natural law ? How do prayers count, how pains, sorrows, tears, crucifixions ? Theology teaches that God has a regard to these things, and because of them imputes, and does, good to the unthankful and the evil. What is the equivalent of this divine procedure, in the world of which science takes cognisance? I do not know, but I believe that the sacrificial lives of the saintly were eternally in God's view, that they are the things of value in His sight; 1 Vide Macintosh, The atural History of the Christian Religion (1894), where the difference between Jesus and Paul is thus put. Vide especially chap. xv.
that the world exists for them and is preserved by them. 6. On the last topic, little needs to be said. According to Wendt, our Lord and the apostle were at one in attaching great importance to faith as a condition of participation in salvation. But they differed in this, that while Jesus insisted also on repentance as a joint condition, St. Paul gave prominence to faith only. But, on close inspection, it will be found that in the teaching of our Lord, not less than in that of St. Paul, faith is the great watchword. Difference at this point is on the surface only.
1. 68 FREE BOOKS http://www.scribd.com/doc/21800308/Free-Christian-Books
2. ALL WRITI GS http://www.scribd.com/glennpease/documents?page=970
