Chapter VI ST PAUL’S CONCEPTION OF THE CONSUMMATION OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD In the present chapter we must attempt not so much to describe St Paul’s conceptions of certain additional events of the End, as rather to gather together various hints, more or less vague, which he has thrown out in his Epistles, and from these to present as clear a view as we can reach of his foreshadowing of the final Consummation. Part of our task will be to carry a stage or two further some of the conceptions which have occupied us already, and to fill in the outline of a larger setting or background for these. And we will also endeavour to bring out into bolder relief several aspects of the Pauline Eschatology, which have hitherto only been touched in passing.
Students of New Testament theology during the past decade have grown weary of the endless, and it must be said, somewhat uninspiring, discussions which have centred round the idea of the Kingdom of God. The teaching of Jesus has had frequently to suffer violence that it might square with the pet theory of theologians. After all, there still prevails a large divergence of opinion as to the meaning and content of this ruling thought of the Master. Thus, e.g., Ritschl defines Jesus’ doctrine of the Kingdom of God as “not the common exercise of worship, but the organisation of humanity through action inspired by love.”1 [Note: Justification and Reconciliation, vol. iii. (E. Tr.) p. 12.] Haupt, on the other hand, holds that Jesus regards the Kingdom, “not as a fellowship, but as an organism of heavenly-i.e. supernatural-blessings, gifts, and forces, which are to operate in humanity, and transform it into the province of the rule of God.”2 [Note: S.K., 1887, p. 383.] Kähler speaks of Jesus’ preaching of the Kingdom as His “veiled self-assertion,” as contrasted with the Gospel of Christ, which is “His revealed and fully unfolded self-assertion.”3 [Note: Gehört Jesus in d. Evangelium, p. 22.] Orr describes it as that idea which “defines the aim and purpose of God in Creation and Redemption.”4 [Note: Christian View of God and World, p. 354.] Whatever be its most accurate definition, in our judgment even so (apparently) rich a concept as this is far too meagre to embrace the spiritual outlook of Jesus Christ. But we willingly allow that its formulation and application have been very fruitful, both for the comprehension of the basis of Christian thought, and for the relating of Jesus’ view of His Gospel to the needs of present-day religion. In the midst of all diversities of interpretation, most competent New Testament scholars admit that Jesus’ idea of the Kingdom included a distinctly eschatological element. We say “included,” for it is surely a case of theorising run mad to put forward the hypothesis, which J. Weiss defends so strenuously in his Predigt Jesu vom Reiche Gottes, that the conception of Jesus was nothing else than eschatological. Such a position can only be established by the clumsy device of arbitrarily weakening the force of those passages in the Synoptic Gospels which are its refutation. The Kingdom, in our Lord’s view of it, was unquestionably the Messianic kingdom, foreshadowed from of old under various guises. But then it was Messianic in the same sense in which He was the Messiah. No unprejudiced reader of the New Testament needs to be reminded of the contrast between His conception of Himself and the Messianic forecasts dimly adumbrated in the Old Testament, and worked out in greater or less detail in Judaistic literature and the theology of the Synagogue. For Him the religious aspect of Messiah and His kingdom was all in all. Surrender to the gracious rule of God as Father which He proclaimed, and all the blessedness of fellowship with God which that surrender brought in its train, constituted in His view the true aim of life for individuals and for the world. On this basis, the certainty of the Kingdom was, at one stroke, dissevered from all political and national contingencies. It was a certainty planted in the religious consciousness. Hence Jesus, in the midst of humiliation and rejection, could regard the fortunes of His Kingdom with unbroken calm. For He felt the pledge of its consummation in His own experience, in that union of life with God which must be the supreme ideal for humanity. The soul which is made conscious of that life is, at the same time, made sure that God’s all-embracing purpose of good must be fulfilled. The community which knows that life of God, and is ruled by it, already forms the nucleus of the Kingdom.1 [Note: Ritschl expresses, with characteristic insight, the transformation of the kingdom-idea which Jesus wrought: “While the Divine purpose in the world is bound up with the naturally conditioned unity of the Israelitish nation, the position of this nation in the world is made dependent upon legal and political conditions and material advantages, which as such are of a mundane order, and do not correspond to the supra-mundane position of the one God. Thus there was forced upon Israel the necessity of always postponing to a future, which never became present, the reconciliation between its position in the world and God. Jesus rose above this standpoint, and introduced a new religion by setting free the lordship of the supra-mundane God from national and political limitations, as well as from the expectation of material well-being, and by advancing its significance for mankind to a spiritual and ethical union, which at once corresponds to the spirituality of God, and denotes the supra-mundane end of spiritual creatures” (Justification and Reconciliation, vol. iii. (E. Tr.) p. 455). See also the instructive parallelism and contrast between the Synoptists and the Rabbinic writers with regard to the Kingdom of God, in Volz, op. cit., pp. 299, 300.] It was this religious aspect which He pressed home upon the hearts of His disciples and those who assembled to listen to His preaching. As soon as it was appreciated and began to assert itself in human lives, He knew that the foundation of the Kingdom had been laid in the world. But inevitably, from this point of view, it must have a forward look. He plants the seed (Mark 4:26-29). It germinates and begins to spring up. But the process, although present from the first-present in its essence and living reality-is at best but tardy. Thus the gaze of the Husbandman will always be directed to the distant end-the harvest-time-when the fruit of His toil is ripe for the ingathering, and His original aim is completely realised.
It would lead us too far afield even to attempt the briefest examination of the eschatological element in our Lord’s conception of the Kingdom. But hints of it have already been presented. In our discussion of the Parousia, we had occasion to quote many passages from the Gospels directly bearing upon it. These prove beyond doubt that Jesus looked forward to a time, known only to the Father, when the Kingdom which he had already founded in the world should enter upon a new, which was to be the final, stage of its development. The Son of Man was to come “in the glory of His Kingdom.” There was to be the inauguration of that splendid epoch which He once names the παλινγενεσία (Matthew 19:18), “the new birth” (of things), in which His loyal followers should find a high recompense, in which fidelity to Him should rank as the most honourable distinction. Several passages, in the order in which the Synoptic Gospels place them, seem to hint that this coming epoch might be near. But the unparalleled impression made on the minds of the first generation of Christians by the destruction of Jerusalem (70 a.d.) and all the disturbances which led up to that crisis, has probably introduced complications into the eschatological discourses. This Synoptic tradition, as we have already noted, exerted a powerful influence upon the thinking of St Paul. He could receive it, not merely as stamped with the authority of Christ Himself, but also as embodying and bringing to a fit culmination all the foreshadowings of the great prophetic men. The experiences and historical development of the people of Israel seemed, of course, to the apostle to supply the mould within which the highest spiritual life of humanity was to shape itself. No other conception could appear so truly adapted to set forth the future advance in the apprehension of God and His revelation, and in the realisation of His will in the world, as that of the Theocracy, the Divine rule of men. Only, it had to be raised above all nationalism, had to be viewed in the immense range of its significance and possibilities, had to be left unrestricted, so that it should, on the one hand, take the form of the brotherhood, the society, the Church (the side of organisation, if we may so call it); while, on the other, it stood for a Divine power, a Divine redemptive purpose, a Divine life actually working in individuals, and thus making the spiritual community possible as God’s representative in the world. When we think of the largeness of scope belonging to this whole point of view, we are better able to understand the actual position of the apostle Paul.
It must appear strange, at first sight, that the central term of the Synoptic tradition, βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ (or τῶν οὐρανῶν), should occur, comparatively speaking, so rarely in the Pauline Epistles. When it does appear, it is generally used in a predominantly eschatological sense. Thus, in 1 Thessalonians 2:12, it is directly combined with the eschatological term, δόξα (τοῦ θεοῦ τοῦ καλοῦντος ὑμᾶς εἰς τὴν ἑαυτοῦ βασιλείαν καὶ δόξαν). In 2 Thessalonians 1:5, it is found in the phrase, εἰς τὸ καταξιωθῆναι ὑμᾶς τῆς βασιλείας τοῦ θεοῦ, “that you may be deemed worthy of the Kingdom of God,” a collocation which vividly reminds us of the words of Jesus in Luke 20:35, καταξιωθέντες τοῦ αἰῶνος ἐκείνου τυχεῖν καὶ τῆς ἀναστάσεως τῆς ἐκ νεκρῶν, “being accounted worthy to attain the future Æon and the Resurrection from the dead,” and is really a direct parallel to them.1 [Note: Cf. the phrase common in Rabbinic writings: “To be worthy of the future Æon” (see Dalman, Worte Jesu, p. 97). J. Weiss (op. cit., p. 107 f.) is justified in emphasising the connection at many points between Jesus’ conception of the Kingdom of God and that of theαἰὼν μέλλων.] We need scarcely observe that its bearing is wholly future. This may also be said of its employment in 1 Corinthians 15:24, a passage which will demand careful consideration later on. To the same category must be referred those statements of the apostle which speak of an “inheriting” of the Kingdom. Such are- 1 Corinthians 6:9, “Know ye not that unrighteous men shall not inherit the Kingdom of God”; Galatians 5:21, “They that do such things shall not inherit the Kingdom of God”; Ephesians 5:5, “Every fornicator, or impure person, or covetous man … hath not an inheritance in the Kingdom, of Christ and of God”; 1 Corinthians 15:50, “Flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.” This last example clearly shows the sense in which St Paul uses the term, which is evidently that of the future epoch of the consummation, the era of a new and spiritual order of existence.2 [Note: See also Wernle, Reichsgotteshoffnung, pp. 2, 3.] Of precisely similar significance are his words in Romans 8:17, although the term “Kingdom” does not occur in that context: “If children, also heirs, heirs of God, joint-heirs with Christ, if so be that we suffer with Him, that we may also be glorified with Him.” This passage is so typical for another aspect of the Kingdom in St Paul’s writings, that we must return to it. Meanwhile it is fair to say that no one with any true appreciation of Paulinism can restrict the apostle to the purely eschatological sense of the word, or the idea which it embodies. Thus, in 1 Corinthians 4:20, he declares that “the Kingdom of God is not in word, but in power,” and from the context it is plain that the “power” is something not expected in the future, but now present, and capable of being put to the proof. We may compare the answer of Jesus in reply to the Pharisees who asked Him when the Kingdom of God should come: “The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation (μετὰ παρατηρήσεως, practically = ‘as an event which causes a sensation’).… For behold the Kingdom of God is within (or, ‘in the midst of,’ ἐντός) you” (Luke 17:20-21). This instance gives a suggestive hint as to St Paul’s interpretation of the Synoptic tradition, with which he must have been familiar; and it is corroborated by such affirmations as Romans 14:17, “The Kingdom of God is not eating and drinking (the questions which had stirred up controversy in the Christian brotherhood), but righteousness, and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit; for he that in this matter serves Christ is well-pleasing to God, and approved by men.” Here it is noteworthy that membership in the Kingdom and serving Christ are deliberately identified. In Colossians 1:12-14, also, he gives thanks to the Father, “who delivered us from the power of darkness, and transferred (μετέστησεν) us into the Kingdom of the Son of his love, in whom we have the redemption, the forgiveness of our sins.” The Kingdom, to his mind, is obviously a realised fact, a sphere already existing. Perhaps he would call it at its present stage, more strictly, the “Kingdom of Christ;”1 [Note: J. WEISS SUPPOSES THAT THE IDEA OF AΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑ ΤΟῦ ΧΡΙΣΤΟῦ, AS DISTINCT FROMΒΑΣΙΛΕΙΑ ΤΟῦ ΘΕΟῦ, IS “A PRIMITIVE-CHRISTIAN CONCEPTION FOUND IN THE NEW TESTAMENT, FIRST IN PAUL, AND NOT IN THE TEACHING OF JESUS” (OP. CIT., P. 41). THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT MIGHT BE EXPECTED, AND IS QUITE IN LINE WITH THE METHOD OF JESUS’ SELF-REVELATION, AS DESCRIBED IN THE SYNOPTISTS. IF IT WERE NECESSARY, THE ROOTS OF THE TWO CONCEPTIONS COULD BE TRACED BACK TO THE OLD TESTAMENT. THE ONE, AS DALMAN POINTS OUT, “ATTACHES ITSELF TODaniel 7:14; Daniel 7:27, WHERE THE DOMINION IS GIVEN FIRST TO THE ‘SON OF MAN,’ THEN TO THE SAINTS OF THE HIGHEST. THE OTHER RESTS ONDaniel 2:44, ACCORDING TO WHICH ‘THE GOD OF HEAVEN’ WILL AT THE END SET UP AN EVERLASTING ‘DOMINION,’ WHICH DESTROYS ALL OTHER DOMINIONS” (WORTE JESU, P. 109).] that would explain the remarkable utterance of 1 Corinthians 15:24, “Then the end, when He shall have delivered up the Kingdom to His God and Father.”
Some scholars (e.g. Bornemann on 2 Thessalonians 1:5) endeavour to account for the comparative rarity of the term in the Epistles, by supposing that all the time the idea lay in the background of the apostle’s thought, and that the Christian communities to which he wrote were so familiar with it from his oral teaching, and so ready to take it for granted, that it required no direct emphasis. We cannot say that such an hypothesis carries conviction. It is hard to reconcile with the method of St Paul. His favourite conceptions are not kept in the background, but have a habit of asserting themselves with remarkable prominence throughout his writings. We are far more inclined to believe that the idea of the Kingdom, which was certainly very familiar to him, has been clothed by St Paul in various guises. And these are not difficult to identify, as we shall discover. The fact must be related to the teaching of Jesus Himself. We have already pointed out that the bare conception of the Kingdom does not suffice to contain all the breadth and depth of the revelation of Jesus. Again and again, for example, He uses the idea of the family to express the highest relationship between God and men. It is scarcely necessary to give instances, but we may refer to such well-known passages as Matthew 7:9-11; Matthew 11:25 f., 5:43-48, 6:1-8; Luke 15:11 f. Here it is not the relation of ruler and subjects which He has in view, but that of father and children. Titius, indeed, endeavours to show that in the East there is no sharp distinction between the State and the family, and accordingly, that when Jesus speaks of God’s fatherly relation to men, the thought of the Kingdom is still implied. In proof of his position, he quotes the remarkable phrase, “the children of the Kingdom,” which occurs in Matthew 8:12; Matthew 13:38 (p. 32). We would not deny that there is some force in the contention. But the very fact that the kingdom-idea has to be so enlarged as to become virtually a different (although it may be a related) conception, verifies our position. The example we have chosen is most suggestive for St Paul, as revealing one of the highest aspects in which he has remodelled the kingdom-idea, possibly on the basis of the teaching of Jesus. In the words which were quoted from Romans 8:17, “If children, then heirs, heirs of God, joint-heirs with Christ,” the apostle brings the two related thoughts into intimate connection. The position of “children of God” is attained by the reception of the Spirit. The Spirit teaches the believer in whom He dwells to cry, “Abba, Father” (ver. 15). The Spirit attests their own conviction that they are children of God (ver. 16). None other than children can inherit the future, eternal Kingdom. This passage shows how the central teaching of the apostle, his teaching on the Spirit and the sonship (υἱοθεσία) of believers, may be directly related to the idea of the Kingdom. But a further evidence of the form in which the idea possessed him is to be found in his doctrine of the Lordship (κυριότης) of Christ. This, for St Paul, is no mere title of adoration. Its typical significance appears in the designation which he frequently gives himself in the opening sentences of his Epistles, δοῦλος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. It is shown also by such utterances as Romans 12:11, τῷ κυρίῳ δουλεύοντες; Colossians 3:24, τῷ κυρίῳ Χριστῷ δουλεύετε. Here we touch the very root of the matter. For the apostle, the idea of the Kingdom is really concentrated in the person of the exalted Christ. He is Lord of the realm of His δοῦλοι. They prove their membership in His Kingdom by serving Him faithfully. In the end they shall receive “the recompense of the inheritance” (ἀπὸ κυρίου ἀπολήμψεσθε τὴν ἀνταπόδοσιν τῆς κληρονομίας, Colossians 3:24, quoted above). As Feine well sums it up, “The reason why Paul did not carry on Jesus’ preaching of the Kingdom is given in 2 Corinthians 1:20 : ‘Howsoever many are the promises of God, in Him is their yea’ ” (Jesus Christus u. Paulus, p. 172). But to realise the profoundness with which the apostle conceives the idea of the Kingdom, from the point of view which has been illustrated by our last quotations, we must refer to his far-reaching doctrine of the Body of Christ, the unity and mutual service of the members of the ἐκκλησία in the exalted Lord, their life-principle and Head.1 [Note: Thus, e.g., Kaftan holds that St Paul really continues Jesus’ preaching of the Kingdom, in the emphasis he lays on the fellowship of life which believers share with the glorified Christ (see Das Wesen d. christlichen Religion,2 p. 253).] New Testament theology has been too apt to lay exclusive stress on the individualism of St Paul. And truly, in his great conceptions of the genesis of the Divine life in the soul, and the liberty of the Christian man, that aspect of his thought can scarcely be over-estimated. But the liberty, based on a genuinely personal relation to Christ the Redeemer and Revealer of the Father, carries with it immense responsibilities, responsibility as regards the brethren (the members of the same elect family or society) for whom Christ died, and in mutual interaction with them, direct responsibility to the Lord Himself. Full justice must be done to those momentous passages, occurring with growing frequency as his life advances, in which the apostle earnestly reminds his readers of the duties of the “members” to the “body” (see Romans 12:1-21; Romans 13:1-14; Romans 14:1-23; Romans 15:1-6; 1 Corinthians 12:1-31; 1 Corinthians 13:1-13; 1 Corinthians 14:1-40; Colossians 1:13-23; Colossians 2:18-19; Ephesians 1:9-10; Ephesians 1:22-23; Ephesians 2:18-22; Ephesians 4:1-24), and exults in the unifying of all jarring elements through the possession of the same Spirit in the one Lord and Head.
Throughout our discussion we have been mainly occupied with the eschatological conceptions of St Paul in their bearing upon individuals, and that aspect must at no stage be allowed to slip out of view. But we must also leave room for the broader sweep of his spiritual vision. We must avoid one-sidedness in the presentation of the apostle’s thought, by emphasising the loftier flights of his religious intuition. The Pauline doctrine of the New Life and of the πνεῦμα, its creative principle, has been examined at length. We have attempted to follow the development of the πνευματικοί up to that stage at which they are raised from the dead by the power of God, through the instrumentality of the indwelling Spirit. From the time of resurrection, at all events, they possess a σῶμα πνευματικόν, which is the fitting organism and expression of their Divinely-imparted life. This crucial event, with all its accompaniments, is placed in intimate connection with the Parousia of the Saviour and the final Judgment of mankind. We must now inquire, What is to be the culminating experience, according to St Paul’s view, of those who belong to Christ, who possess the pledge of the Spirit? Their future condition is described by the apostle under various vivid pictures. One of the most significant represents them as transformed into the image (εἰκών) of Christ (2 Corinthians 3:18; Romans 8:29; cf.1 John 3:2, “It doth not yet appear what we shall be; but we know that, when He shall appear, we shall be like Him,” ὅμοιοι αὐτῷ). We can discover the profound sense which belongs to this term from its use in Colossians 1:15 : “Who (i.e. Christ) is the Image (εἰκών) of the invisible God, the First-begotten of every creature” (or, “all creation,” πάσης κτίσεως). Here, plainly, εἰκών has a cosmic significance. It bears a relation to the Divine purpose in the universe from the beginning. It is normative for the whole Divine self-expression which we call “creation.” Not mere semblance is implied in St Paul’s use of εἰκών, but semblance resting on identity of nature, community of being. Thus for believers the apostle expects not only fellowship with Christ, but a real assimilation to His Divine nature. That expectation is expressed in clear language by the remarkable statement of Php 3:21, which asserts that Christ “shall transform the body of our humiliation (the σῶμα σάρκινον or ψυχικόν) into conformity with (σύμμορφον) the body of His glory (σῶμα τῆς δόξης αὐτοῦ = σῶμα πνευματικόν), according to the working whereby He is able even to subdue all things to Himself.” In this passage, as has already been noticed, σῶμα does not mean mere form, but the form which corresponds to the inner principle of life, the self-realising, self-revealing nature. The same event or experience he designates in Romans 8:23 by the words, “the redemption of our body” (τὴν ἀπολύτρωσιν τοῦ σώματος ἡμῶν; cf.Ephesians 1:14, ἀπολύτρωσιν τῆς περιποιήσεως, “redemption of that which has been acquired,” illustrated by Acts 20:28, τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ, ἣν περιεποίησατο διὰ τοῦ αἵματος τοῦ ἰδιόυ, “which He purchased by His own blood”).1 [Note: Perhaps the phrase may be a reminiscence ofPsalms 74:2,μνήσθητι τῆς συναγωγῆς σου ἦς ἐκτήσω ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς· ἐλυτρώσω ῥάβδον κληρονομίας σου: “Remember Thy congregation which Thou didst purchase from the beginning: Thou didst redeem the staff of Thine inheritance.”] The phrase is typical of his manner of thought. A redemption of the soul would not satisfy him. He cannot conceive a true personal life on that basis. It must be a redemption of the whole person as a unity. And he finds a basis of certainty for that high prospect in the experience of the risen Lord, who cannot be regarded as a mere disembodied, glorified Spirit, but has been exalted in the glorification of His whole nature, His Spirit (the πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης) controlling all things, and yet endowed with an organism which preserves the continuity of His human nature, and is the perfectly appropriate embodiment of His Spirit, which is the “Ego.” But that is the nature in which He became incarnate, so conferring unique dignity on human life, and claiming the creation of God for its Creator. This claim is now, in very deed, to be made good, made good in Him who is “the First-begotten among many brethren” (Romans 8:29). In Him human creatures are to become truly sons of God, for His Spirit which the believer receives is the “spirit of sonship” (πνεῦμα υἱοθεσίας, Romans 8:15; Galatians 4:5-6), which remoulds the whole nature into fitness for a place in the Divine Family.
It has been noted in a former chapter, as a fundamental axiom of eschatological thought, that “the End is to be as the Beginning.” Thus, in 4 Ezra 7:30, we read that at the opening of the new epoch “the world shall be transformed into the silence of the primitive time, for seven days, as in the beginning.” One of the questions which Baruch puts to God is, “Shall the structure of the world return to its original nature?” (Apoc. Bar. iii. 7). And Enoch tells how the angel Uriel showed him all the laws of the heavenly lights and all the divisions of time, “until the new eternally-enduring creation is made” (Enoch lxxii. 1). The Christian Father, Barnabas, expresses the conception distinctly, ἰδού, ποιῶ τὰ ἔσχατα ὡς τὰ πρῶτα (6:13). It is easy to dismiss this axiom as part of an artificial scheme, devised by apocalyptic writers for the sake of securing a rounded-off completeness in their speculations on the Last Things. But the attitude of the apostle reveals the kernel of truth which lies within. Through the defacing influence of sin, humanity has failed of its high purpose in the Divine mind. It has failed to show forth the untarnished glory of its Divine source. Man’s God-given power of free choice has issued in disobedience to the Highest. But that is not the conclusion of the whole matter:
“My own hope is a sun will pierce The thickest cloud earth ever stretched; That after Last returns the First, Tho’ a wide compass round be fetched; That what began best, can’t end worst, Nor what God blessed once, prove accurst.”
(Browning, Apparent Failure, vii.) The Second Adam, who is from heaven, has become the Founder of a renewed humanity-not its Founder, as standing apart from it, and looking upon His work in aloofness, but as having brought the Divine into a relation of intimacy with it, in full accord with the original purpose of God. As the εἰκών of the Invisible God, as having eternal relations to the Father, Christ is essentially the πρωτότοκος πάσης κτίσεως, “the First-begotten of every created thing,” its norm and type, that which sets for it its true end, “for in Him were created all things in heaven and on earth … all things have been created through Him, and with a view to (εἰς) Him” (Colossians 1:15-16).1 [Note: Cf. and contrast Philo, De Confus. Ling. 146, C.W.:κἄν μηδέπω μέντοι τυγχάνῃ τις ἀξιόχρεως ὢν υἱὸς θεοῦ προσαγορεύεσθαι, σπουδαζέτω κοσμεῖσθαι κατὰ τὸν πρωτόγονον αὐτοῦ λόγον.] Here we discover what, for the apostle’s mind, is His essential cosmic significance. But now this significance has been unveiled to men, can be understood by humanity in the new creation (בְּרִיתחֲדָשָׁה in Rabbinic literature, see Weber, p. 382, καινὴ κτίσις in St Paul, e.g.Galatians 6:15), of which Christ, as perfected and carrying with Him all the fruits of His redemptive work, is the life-giving principle, for He is “the beginning (ἀρχή, basis, precisely = our “first principle”), the First-begotten (πρωτότοκος, same term as above) from the dead (the aspect which bulks most largely in the apostle’s vision), in order that He might become (γένηται, for Christ’s glorious position as exalted κύριος is always represented by St Paul as the culmination of the process which the Epistle to the Hebrews calls the τελείωσις) of the first rank (πρωτεύων) among all” (ἐν πᾶσιν, no doubt purposely left indefinite, including every province of creation), Colossians 1:18. The Incarnation, the accomplishment of His redeeming purpose through death, the Resurrection, all these processes and events were needful to disclose to men the marvellous aim of God, and to begin the realisation of the aim on the stage of human history. We can discern, therefore, what lofty heights of thought lie around St Paul’s conception of the future of redeemed humanity. These, indeed, are only adumbrated in such expressions as transformation into the εἰκών of Christ, conformation to the body of His glory; but in view of what he has outlined in Colossians and elsewhere, we can discover that they involve perfect assimilation to the very nature of God. That this will include a transfiguration of the material, is plain from the apostle’s confident expectation of the ἀπολύτρωσις τοῦ σώματος, the redemption of the body, a redemption which, as we shall see later, extends to universal creation (Romans 8:18-23). Hence St Paul, in face of the marvellous vision which bursts upon his soul, gives thanks to the Father, “who hath made you capable (ἱκανώσαντι) of your share (τὴν μερίδα) in the heritage (τοῦ κλήρου)1 [Note: Cf. Enoch lxviii. 7: “For he (i.e. the Son of Man) shall preserve the portion of the righteous.” “ ‘To take possession of the future Æon’ (κληρονομεῖν) is a favourite Jewish expression, whose use can be proved from the end of the first century onwards” (see Dalman, Worte Jesu, p. 102 f., where numerous examples and parallels are given from Old Testament and apocalyptic literature; and also Volz, p. 306).] of the saints in light” (ἐν φωτί), Colossians 1:12. This description, which focusses in itself various hints to be found throughout the Epistles, calls now for consideration. We have had occasion in previous chapters to notice St Paul’s predilection for describing the condition of future bliss by terms which imply brightness and radiance. In estimating the effect of his conversion-experience upon the shaping of his eschatological conceptions, we briefly sketched the Old Testament basis of his idea of δόξα, “glory”; an idea which plays so prominent a part in his forecasts of the life to come. We saw that God’s revealed presence, was constantly designated His “glory,” as, e.g., in Isaiah’s vision of “the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up,” the Seraphim cry to one another, “Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of Hosts; the whole earth is full of His glory” (Isaiah 6:3). Yet almost always, the overpowering sense of radiance which is created by His presence in those who realise it, is accompanied by a no less irresistible impression of His unchanging and unceasing might, the energy which is the self-expression of the living God. His whole environment is one of glory in the senses named. “They shall speak of the glory of Thy kingdom, and talk of Thy power” (Psalms 145:2). “Who is this King of glory? The Lord of Hosts, He is the King of glory” (Psalms 24:10). “Let them praise the name of the Lord … His glory is above the earth and heaven” (Psalms 148:13). The conception is especially prominent in Isaiah 40:1-31; Isaiah 41:1-29; Isaiah 42:1-25; Isaiah 43:1-28; Isaiah 44:1-28; Isaiah 45:1-25; Isaiah 46:1-13; Isaiah 47:1-15; Isaiah 48:1-22; Isaiah 49:1-26; Isaiah 50:1-11; Isaiah 51:1-23; Isaiah 52:1-15; Isaiah 53:1-12; Isaiah 54:1-17; Isaiah 55:1-13; Isaiah 56:1-12; Isaiah 57:1-21; Isaiah 58:1-14; Isaiah 59:1-21; Isaiah 60:1-22; Isaiah 61:1-11; Isaiah 62:1-12; Isaiah 63:1-19; Isaiah 64:1-12; Isaiah 65:1-25; Isaiah 66:1-24, where the glory of the Lord is virtually equivalent to His saving revelation (see, e.g., Isaiah 40:5; Isaiah 60:1; Isaiah 06:2). In the postcanonical literature we can trace the idea in certain concrete and closely-related forms. On the one hand, “glory” is used as a description of the Divine presence and sphere of existence. On the other, it is the designation of that future bliss which awaits the righteous, who are thus conceived as sharing in the condition of God. Examples of the former are, 4 Ezra 7:78, “Then the spirit severs itself from the body, and returns to Him who has given it, in order to do reverence before the glory of the Highest”; ibid., 91, “At first they behold with pure delight the glory of Him who takes them to Himself.” Closely related is the phrase which accurs repeatedly in Enoch, “the throne of His glory,” e.g., Leviticus 4:1-35, lxi. 8. For the latter, we may refer to Apoc. Bar. xv. 8, “This world is for them trouble and labour, with much strenuousness, and that which is to come a crown with great glory”; xlviii. 49, “I will tell of their blessedness, and will not be silent in praising their glory, which is kept prepared for them”; 4 Ezra 8:51, “Do thou rather reflect on thine own lot, and inquire into the glory which thy brethren are to inherit”; and cf. Enoch lviii. 3, “The righteous shall be in the light of the sun, and the elect in the light of eternal life.” The Rabbinic literature contains the same line of thought. Thus in the world to come (Olam Habbâ), the righteous shall sit with crowns on their heads, and enjoy the radiance of the Shekinah (i.e., the localised presence of God, an idea prevalent in the Targums). From the brightness of the Divine glory there streams forth a brilliance which the Targums and Talmud name זִיו. This effulgence fills the heavenly spaces (Weber, pp. 160, 385). In the Messianic age, God’s presence is shown by the glory which rests on the face of each person (., 304).1 [Note: For the equivalent in Hebrew and Jewish literature of the terms “face,” “form,” and “glory” of Jehovah, see Cheyne, Origin of Psalter, p. 431, note p. He refers especially to the very significant passage,Exodus 33:18ff.] These terms implying radiance and splendour, of which “glory” is a typical instance, have taken a permanent place in the Christian vocabulary, and we all make constant use of them without realising their full content. Perhaps it belongs to the common sense of Christian experience to preserve a certain margin of vagueness and mystery in their usage. But probably we lose something by ignoring their linguistic basis, and the origin of their existence in our religious terminology. We speak of “the saints in glory.” We sing- “Ten thousand times ten thousand, In sparkling raiment bright; The armies of the ransomed saints,
Throng up the steeps of light.”2 [Note: Cf. in the Avesta, Yast xxii. 15, which describes the soul of the righteous, after death, as coming, with the fourth step it takes, into the “unending light”; while that of the ungodly (according to Yast xxii. 33) comes into the “unending darkness” (see Böklen, op. cit., p. 60.) “Heaven is represented, above all, as the abode of light (Yast iii. 1; Yasna xix. 6; Vendîdâd xxii. 1), and light is used in a figurative as well as in its proper sense” (Söderblom, op. cit., pp. 97, 98).] No words of the New Testament come so readily to our lips, when we speak of the future state of the redeemed, as those which place them in the environment of pure radiance. Probably, if we were asked to define more strictly what we meant-e.g., by the glory we assign to departed believers, we should translate it into “blessedness,” “felicity,” “perfect rest,” and the like. But it is possible, by a study of the apostolic terms, to penetrate deeper into the conception. St Paul does not employ those expressions at random. When he speaks, as above, of “the heritage of the saints in light,” he has, we believe, a more or less definite conception before his mind-that conception whose Hebrew and Jewish background we have endeavoured to fill in. But it seems to us to stand closer to the Old Testament than to Judaistic literature. The latter, when it speaks of the “glory” of God, emphasises rather what we may call the sensuous side of the idea. It thinks of the condition of radiance which characterises the Divine sphere of existence. The Old Testament keeps ever in the forefront the Divine might and energy, of which the radiance is the symbol.1 [Note: See Grill, Untersuchungen, i. p. 274.] We can easily discover St Paul’s main thought by looking at one or two instances. In Colossians 1:11 the phrase occurs, “strengthened with all power, according to the might of His glory.” Here κράτος, “might” is singled out as the content of the δόξα of God, in its bearing upon believers. The very same idea is found most vividly in Ephesians 3:16, “That He might grant unto you to be strengthened with power, according to the riches of His glory through His Spirit in your inner man.” Here there is an addition of great importance, consisting in the intimate connection indicated between δόξα and πνεῦμα. And a remarkable feature of that side of the conception is presented by Romans 6:4, “as Christ was raised from the dead through (διά) the glory of the Father.” It is needless to observe in these passages how prominently the element of might in δόξα discloses itself. Yet the apostle does not leave out of sight the thought of God’s self-revelation, as a revelation, although with the utmost skill and insight, he takes care to avoid all materialistic conceptions. It is important to look at his use of δόξα in the third and fourth chapters of 2 Corinthians, for that is characteristic of its significance for his mind, in its related shades of meaning. He speaks in chap. 3:7 of the “glory” of Moses’ countenance as he came forth from communion with God, a glory which the children of Israel could not gaze upon; so that their leader was obliged to veil his face. But this was a fading reflection, and he adds the comment that the very reason why they were not to look upon that glory was its transiency (3:13). In contrast to that experience of Old Testament times, St Paul places the experience of the Christian dispensation in which “we all, with unveiled countenance, reflecting as in a mirror1 [Note: The mirrors of the ancients were of metal, and so gave forth a blurred and broken image.] (or, beholding as in a mirror) the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image (εἰκόνα), from glory to glory, inasmuch as (this influence proceeds) from the Lord the Spirit” (3:18, καθάπερ ἀπὸ κυρίου πνεύματος). Quite evidently this δόξα, which is the aim and result of the believer’s transformation even now, is the direct effect of the Spirit, is that change which the Spirit produces. It is, for the present, a process going on in the inner man (εἰς τὸν ἔσω ἄνθρωπον, Ephesians 3:16, sup.), that is to say, a wholly spiritual process, none other than the imparting of the life and might of God. To make this doubly clear, he has inserted the word κυρίου, the exalted Lord. Here, plainly, there is no thought of anything sensible, any visible semblance. That is also true of his remarkable utterance in chap. 4:3, 4: “Now if our Gospel is indeed hidden, in the case of the perishing it is hidden, in whom the God of this age blinded the thoughts of the unbelieving, so that the enlightening (φωτισμόν) of the Gospel of the glory of Christ (who is the εἰκών of God) should not irradiate (αὐγάσαι) them.” Believers have a contrary experience. “It is the God, who said, Light shall shine out of darkness (Genesis 1:3), who shone in our hearts with a view to (πρός) the enlightening of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ” (4:6). But it must be noticed that in 3:18 he speaks of the transformation of believers as a process which passes through various stages. It is ἀπὸ δόξης εἰς δόξαν. 1 [Note: Schmiedel (ad loc.) comparesPsalms 84:7: “They go from strength to strength, every one of them in Zion appeareth before God.”] The present stage is confined to what we, from the point of view of our earthly, physical existence, must call “the inner man.” But, as we have seen, St Paul looks forward to a time when the conditions of life shall be altered, and the renewed spirit shall have complete control of its organism, its individualising σῶμα. Then it will have reached the final stage of δόξα. That means complete assimilation to Him whom he calls κύριος τῆς δόξης, “the Lord of glory.” It is perhaps easier to see now why he is so fond of using Light and its associated ideas to set forth the great effects of the indwelling of the Spirit. We have had occasion repeatedly to refer to his conception of the exalted Christ as clothed in a “body of glory” (esp. Php 3:21). It has also been pointed out that the impression made upon him by the “vision” on the Damascus road was one of overpowering radiance. Hence, while great caution is needful, lest we should attribute crassly literalistic notions to St Paul for which there is no warrant, the evidence seems to justify us in affirming that he believed the σῶμα πνευματικόν, the organised condition of the believer as finally conformed to his Lord, to possess a character of radiance which he never attempts more closely to define, a radiance which distinguishes the self-expression, if we may say so, of the Divine πνεῦμα. In this way we can understand more clearly such phrases as that from which our discussion started, the description of the future condition of blessedness as “the inheritance of the saints in light.” They are not wholly metaphorical, although the nature of the “glory,” which is their most characteristic feature, is left entirely uninvestigated. They rest on a conception which has shaped itself in St Paul’s mind (and probably the minds of other apostles)1 [Note: Cf. the narratives of the Transfiguration of Jesus, in which occur the vivid expressions:ἔλαμψεν τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ ὡς ὁ ἥλιος, τὰ δὲ ἰμάτια αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο λευκὰ ὡς τὸ φῶς(Matthew 17:2);τὰ ἱμάτια αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο στίλβοντα λευκὰ λίαν(Mark 9:3). In Luke, His raiment is described asἐξαστράπτων, “coruscating,” and His heavenly visitants are spoken of asὀφθέντες ἐν δόξῃ(Luke 9:29; Luke 9:31).] as the result of personal, spiritual experiences, and in harmony with the Old Testament pictures of Theophanies (cf., e.g., Ezekiel 1:4 ff.; Psalms 18:7-13; Psalms 50:1-3, etc.), in which no symbol seemed so appropriately to set forth the combined brilliance and energy of the Divine self-manifestation as that of light or fire.1 [Note: In our judgment, it is needless to expect any real light on St Paul’s conception of the future condition of believers from the mysterious words of2 Corinthians 12:1-4. He himself acknowledges that the experience which he describes asἁρπαγέντα…ἕως τρίτου οὐρανοῦandἡρπάγη εἰς τὸν παράδεισον, was an ecstatic one (“whether in the body or outside the body, I know not”). Certainlyπαράδεισος, in this passage, must mean, as it often does in Judaistic literature, a part of heaven itself, for theἄρρηταῥήματαcan be none other than the words of God. Cf. Sibyl. Orac, prooem. 85, 86:ζωὴν κληρονομοῦσι, τὸν αἰῶνος χρόνον αὐτοὶ οἰκοῦντες παράδεισον ὄμως ἐριθηλέα κῆπον. Probably Paradise is here pictured as in the “third heaven” (see Gebhardt in Luthardt’s Zeitschr., 1886, p. 569, who gives cogent reasons for holding that St Paul here understands by “the third heaven,” not the third of the Rabbinic series of seven heavens which is = the cloud-heaven, but the highest sphere of heaven in the religious sense). This is borne out by Slavon. Enoch viii. 1, 3, 8: “And these men took me from thence and brought me to the third heaven, and placed me in the midst of a garden (cf.κῆπονabove), a place such as has never been known for the goodliness of its appearance.… And in the midst (there is) the tree of life, in that place in which God rests when He comes into Paradise. And I said: ‘What a very blessed place is this.’ ” Cf. Enoch lx. 8: “On the east of the garden, where the elect and righteous dwell.” Bousset traces the root of St Paul’s ecstatic experiences to his Rabbinic past (Archiv f. Religionswiss. iv. 2-144 ff.).] As the apostle pictures that future kingdom of redeemed believers, all transfigured into the likeness of their Redeemer and Head, the whole scene glows and quivers with radiant splendour.2 [Note: Cf. Philo, De Josepho, 146, C. W., who describes the nature of heaven as “an eternal day without night and without shadow, for it is lighted by inextinguishable and unalterably pure radiance”; 4 Ezra 7:42 (of Day of Judgment), “Not mid-day or night or dawn, not gleam or brightness or shining, but wholly and alone the radiance of the glory of the Most High.” (See also Enoch lviii. 3 f., already quoted.) According to the Persian religion, men shall cast no shadow in heaven (see Böklen, op. cit., p. 135). In a hymn of praise to Ahuza-Mazda, the worshippers speak of a time when, “united with parents and family, under trees through which a green-gold light sparkles, we solemnly move with rhythmic motions” (see F. Justi, Preuss. Jahrbücher, lxxxviii. H. 2, p. 243). See the splendid vision of the Light of Paradise, in Dante’s Paradiso, xxx. 100 ff. (Cary), “the yellow of the rose-perennial, which, in bright expansion, lays forth its gradual blooming, redolent of praises to the never-wintering sun.”] Is there an obverse side to this glorious picture? How does St Paul deal with the future condition of those who have turned a deaf ear to the appeal of the Gospel of Christ? It is of importance to notice that when he does treat of this awe-inspiring subject, he has almost exclusively before his mind those who have actually rejected the word of salvation. Indeed, the only passage where he deliberately takes a larger view is peculiarly interesting, as revealing the remarkable breadth and scope of his thought. “For when-soever the heathen, which have not the law, do by nature the things of the law, they, although not having the law, are a law unto themselves, inasmuch as they show forth the effect (τὸ ἔργον) of the law written on their hearts” (Romans 2:14-15). This is an extraordinary standpoint for a man brought up in “the straitest sect of the Pharisees.” In general, however, he restricts his outlook. And surely with reason, for he writes, not as a dogmatic theologian, who must handle each element in the situation, and mutually adjust them, but as a devoted missionary concerned about the special needs of some Christian community, and his letters have always to be regarded, in the first instance, as genuine missionary-documents.1 [Note: The emphasising of this fact (sometimes unduly) is one of P. Wernle’s great services to the interpretation of early Christian thought.]
Some exegetes have endeavoured to demonstrate, mainly on the basis of 1 Corinthians 15:21-22; 1 Corinthians 15:28; Romans 5:12-21; and the obscure passage, Ephesians 1:10, that St Paul has the conception of a universal salvation. Passing by the last-cited reference in the meantime, let us attempt to reach the apostle’s meaning in the other sections named. To begin with, it is of supreme importance to interpret any isolated affirmations of a writer in the light of his general view of things, so far as that can be gathered from his writings as a whole. Now, whatever difficulty there may be in mutually adjusting some of the less essential details in St Paul’s religious teaching (and we have in our discussion been confronted by some of these perplexities) he is certainly not a writer who leaves his readers in doubt on the central themes of his Gospel. That Gospel is pre-eminently a setting-forth of the method of human salvation, the indispensable conditions of eternal life. These conditions have burst in upon the apostle with all the force of an epoch-making revelation. If anywhere he feels sure of his ground, it is here. Accordingly, he makes as plain as the terms he employs can make them the spiritual processes by which a human soul is justified in the sight of God, is united to the living and exalted Lord, and receives the supernatural gift of the Holy Spirit. Apart from these saving momenta, if we may so describe them, he has no conception of salvation at all. As to a period of probation after death, in which these redemptive opportunities, neglected during earthly existence, might again be offered and seized, he says not a single word. In fact, as we have noted, the idea of an Intermediate State is one which seems never to have appealed to him, and it is ignored as of secondary importance. Yet, if it were a condition which appeared to him in any way to make feasible the redemption of those who, in blindness, refused the grace of God while living their present life, we can scarcely conceive that so large-hearted a missionary as St Paul, who yearned with a surpassing ardour for the salvation of his fellows, should fail at least to express some faint hopes of a possible restoration of such as had died without God and without Christ in the world. Plainly, the main outlines of his doctrinal teaching leave no place for, and suggest no approximation to, a theory of universal salvation. We are quite alive to the force of such passages as Php 2:9-11, “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted Him, and given Him the name that is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow … and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord”; and Colossians 1:19-20 (a true parallel), “It pleased the Father that in Him should all fulness dwell; and having made peace through the blood of His cross, by Him to reconcile all things unto Himself.” The apostle, it seems to us, is quite clear as to the universal scope of the Divine purpose of mercy. But he realises also that there are proud and perverse wills which steadfastly refuse to bow to that purpose.1 [Note: See, e.g., Ménégoz, Le Péché et la Rédemption d’après St Paul, pp. 131-133, 143, 144.]
Just as little is any such theory to be found in those paragraphs of the Epistles which are usually quoted for it. Let us consider 1 Corinthians 15:21-22, in the first instance, as here he is specially occupied with the experience of death and a future life: “For seeing that by man (came) death, by man also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive.” These verses must on no account be isolated from their context. Solitary proof-texts have wrought more havoc in theology than all the heresies. St Paul has just declared that Christ is the first-fruits of them that have fallen asleep (verse 20). He never applies κοιμᾶσθαι to any but believers. Here he states that Christ, as risen, is the first and choicest sheaf reaped of that which is to be a glorious harvest of risen souls. And then he turns to his favourite contrast of the first and second heads of the race. He was evidently versed in that Adam-theology which seems to have been current in the Rabbinic schools of the day, and more than once it supplies the framework of his discussions.1 [Note: “As the sentences which Paul utters concerning the fall of Adam and its meaning inRomans 5:11, are on precisely the same lines as those of 4 Ezra, Baruch, and the later Talmudic anthropology, we must affirm that already in the first half of the first Christian century, the Adam-theology was circulating in Rabbinic circles” (Bousset, Religion d. Judenthums, p. 389). See also Bacher, op. cit., i. p. 36.] The comparison must obviously be taken in the widest sense. “Through man, death; through man, resurrection of the dead.” In these words there is no question as to the range embraced by the contrasted experiences. But when he adds, “For as in Adam (τῷ Ἀδάμ, the head of the genus) all die,” a fact which is universally admitted, he does not feel any necessity for qualifying the “all” whom he has in view in the antithetical clause by such additions as οἱ πιστεύσαντες or οἱ δικαιωθέντες (δεδικαιωμένοι). As a matter of fact, the words of the clause are themselves sufficiently clear to prevent misunderstanding. All his readers knew well enough what to be ἐν τῷ Χριστῷ meant for the apostle. That is the central note of his theology, the pivot on which everything hinges. And even if this were not sufficient proof, there is abundance of further evidence in the verb ζωοποιηθήσονται. For this term only applies to those who have received the gift of the πνεῦμα, those who in this present have become “new creatures” (see 1 Corinthians 15:36; 1 Corinthians 15:45, Romans 8:11, where the ζωοποιεῖν is entirely dependent on the πνεῦμα ἐνοικοῦν ἐν ὑμῖν. Cf. Charles, Eschatology, p. 391.) “In Adam,” we may paraphrase the words, “all who belong to Adam’s family must die. Similarly, in Christ, all who belong to Christ shall be made alive.” The passage in Romans is almost an exact parallel to this. Here, again, the two heads and the two families are before his mind. On Adam’s side, transgression, condemnation, death; on the side of Christ, free gift of grace, justification, life. The closest similarity is to be found in 5:19, “For as through the disobedience of the one man the many were constituted sinners, so also by the obedience of the one shall the many be constituted righteous.” It is evident that he is not employing terms with any strictness, or he would have substituted πάντες (as in verse 12) for πολλοί in the first clause. As it is, he uses πολλοί to correspond to the second πολλοί, whom he already has in view. The same usage appears in verse 5, where he only affirms that οἱ πολλοὶ ἄπεθανον, to bring the clause into sharp contrast with “the many” who have enjoyed the free gift of God’s grace, although a sentence or two before, in verse 10, he has deliberately affirmed, εἰς πάντας ἀνθρώπους ὁ θάνατος διῆλθεν. But over and above these most valid considerations, it happens that St Paul himself has supplied the materials for the limitation which we are defending. For, in verse 17, the future victorious life is restricted to οἱ τὴν περισσείαν τῆς χάριτος καὶ τῆς δωρεᾶς τῆς δικαιοσύνης λαμβάνοντες, “those receiving the superabundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness,” where the participle shows that he has in view those whom he elsewhere designates οἱ σωζόμενοι. It is safe to conclude that no definite and unmistakable traces of a universalistic doctrine are to be found in the Pauline letters, while the whole content of his soteriology, as well as many distinct affirmations, points the other way.1 [Note: Cf. Wernle, Anfänge, pp. 174, 175.]
There is a strange disproportion between St Paul’s treatment of the future destiny of unbelievers and that accorded to it in modern times. And, looking at the matter from the largest point of view, the advantage lies on the side of the apostle. He was not possessed by any painful curiosity. He knew that he had found eternal life in Christ Jesus. That fact gave its decisive basis to his Eschatology. The influence upon his heart and mind of the crucified and risen Messiah fixed for ever the point of emphasis in his outlook upon the future. He was able to ignore many aspects of the Last Things on which Jewish and Christian Apocalyptic had set great importance. To go to Christ, to be with Christ, overshadowed all the accompaniments of the End. He knew that nothing could separate His followers from the love of Christ in time or in eternity.2 [Note: See this fact well brought by Bornemann in his introductory remarks on the section,1 Thessalonians 4:17-18; 1 Thessalonians 5:1-10. “Felicity in the heaven of Mazdeism consists above all in being with the Lord; ‘yes, in truth, in the worlds where dwells the Lord’ ” (Yasna lxiii. 3), (Söderblom, op. cit. p. 101).] Of what use, then, or profit could it be for him to speculate on the fate of those who had rejected the choicest gift which had ever been offered them? What possible value could accrue to the Christian communities whom he addressed in his Epistles from any discussion of the penalties which awaited the stubborn and disobedient? Doubtless he would sympathise with the words of 4 Ezra 9:13, “Enquire not further how the ungodly are to be tormented, but rather investigate the manner in which the righteous are to be saved.” One may even question whether in his missionary preaching he laid strong emphasis on the doom of the impenitent in comparison with that on the bliss of the redeemed. So much dearer were the positive aspects of the Christian faith at all times to this man than the negative.1 [Note: See Reuss, Histoire de la Théol. Chrét. ii. p. 237. In the sacred books of Persia, also, a far deeper interest is shown in the journey of the pious soul from earth to heaven than in the contrasted fate of the impious (see Söderblom, op. cit., p. 86).]
Whatever be the precise reason, there is extraordinarily scanty material in the writings of St Paul on which to build up anything like a detailed theory on this most awe-inspiring of all subjects. Yet we cannot but believe that he has said enough to permit of our drawing clear inferences of a more or less general kind. The terms he employs to denote the fate of the unbelieving are: ὄλεθρος (1 Thessalonians 5:3; 2 Thessalonians 1:9), θάνατος (e.g., Romans 6:23; Romans 8:6), φθορά (Galatians 6:8), ἀπώλεια, ἀπόλλυσθαι (1 Corinthians 1:18; 1 Corinthians 10:9; 1 Corinthians 15:18; 2 Corinthians 2:15-16; 2 Corinthians 4:3; Romans 2:12; Php 1:28; Php 3:18), ὀργή (e.g., 1 Thessalonians 5:9; Romans 2:5; Romans 2:9; Romans 5:9). The last-named term applies strictly to the visitation of sinners at the Day of Judgment. It expresses the reaction of God against persistent sin. Necessarily it is an idea common to the other descriptions of doom which have to be examined. These combine to form a group of conceptions which have the one idea of “destruction” linking them together. In one instance (2 Thessalonians 1:9), the much-debated adjective αἰώνιος is joined to ὄλεθρος. In another (Php 3:18), St Paul speaks with tears (κλαίων) of some “whose end (τέλος) is destruction” (ἀπώλεια; cf.Romans 6:21, τὸ γὰρ τέλος ἐκείνων θάνατος). The two questions which have bulked most largely in modern discussions of the problem before us are: (1) the nature, (2) the duration, of that experience which the apostle habitually views as “destruction.” In a preceding chapter, in dealing with St Paul’s conception of death, we endeavoured to show that this was an experience which he never attempted to analyse. He looked at the fact synthetically, and the thought of it filled him with horror. He felt no need of further inquiry into the nature of death, as it visited those who did not possess the life-giving (ζωοποιοῦν) Spirit of the living Lord. Their death could only be regarded as sheer doom and disaster. Distinctions, such as “physical” and “spiritual” in the sphere of death, possessed, as we saw, no significance for the apostle. In a previous investigation, also, we sought to guard against unwarranted deductions which might be drawn from his use of the terms ἀπώλεια, ἀπόλλυσθαι (and cognates such as ὄλεθρος and φθορά). Destruction, like death, means for St Paul paralysis of life: its negation, its undoing. For him it is not a question of existence-that is to say, not a physical or even a metaphysical problem. The problem belongs altogether to the religious sphere. The use of ἀπώλεια (and its related terms) in the LXX. (which is of primary importance in an inquiry like the present), or in ordinary Greek literature, by no means connotes such ideas as that of annihilation or the extinction of consciousness. Such speculations would have appeared meaningless to the apostle. For him, as for Hebrews and Greeks alike, there would probably always remain in the background the notion of a dreary, wretched existence, removed by the whole infinitude of God from that which he designated “Life.” Hence, if we proceed to ask how St Paul understood what is commonly termed the “punishment” of the impenitent, it is sufficient to reply that he could conceive no more awful doom than that of separation from God, that exclusion from the bliss of the heavenly Kingdom, called by our Lord, τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον, “the darkness outside,” in contrast to the joy and brightness of the marriage-festival of the King (cf. Ps. Sol. 14:6, “their inheritance is Hades and darkness and destruction” [see Volz, pp. 284-285], and “the obscure world,” which is a designation of hell in the Avesta, Vendîdâd 5, 62 [Söderblom, op. cit., p. 104]), which was involved in ἀπώλεια, and made the condition of such persons one of hopeless ruin.1 [Note: Contrast the “wise Agnosticism” (the phrase is Dr Orr’s in discussing the teaching of Scripture on eternal punishment) of St Paul with the attempted theories of the Synagogue-theologians (see Weber, pp. 327-330, 373-380). Philo’s teaching as to the bliss of the righteous and the condemnation of the wicked is tersely summed up by Volz, op. cit., pp. 143, 144.] It is because the modern mind has failed rightly to estimate the meaning of “life” and “death,” for the first Christians, and especially for St Paul, that it has exhausted its energies in striving to extract from the New Testament a decisive verdict as to the nature and conditions of future punishment.
We have noted that there are only two passages which explicitly shed any light on the apostle’s idea of the duration of doom. In one, he speaks of a “destruction” (ὄλεθρος) which is αἰώνιος (2 Thessalonians 1:9). In the other, he describes a class of persons “whose end is destruction” (ἀπώλεια, Php 3:18). A large number of expositors, of whom Farrar and Cox may be cited as leading representatives; have expended a vast amount of ingenuity in the attempt to rid the adjective αἰώνιος of its natural, and apart from this controversy, invariably accepted sense, “eternal,” in the writings of the New Testament. These discussions reveal with striking clearness the difference between the early Christian and the modern standpoint. Yet, in our judgment, the evidence, both detailed and general, tells completely against the modern hypothesis. We know, for example, that in the metaphysical arguments of Plato, αἰώνιος is synonymous with our term “eternal” (see, e.g., Timæ. 38 D, ἡ μὲν οὖν τοῦ ζώου φύσις ἐτύγχανεν οὖσα αἰώνιος; Legg. 904 A, ἀνώλεθρον δὲ ὂν γενόμενον, ἀλλʼ οὐκ αἰώνιον, ψυχὴν καὶ σῶμα). Aristotle, De Cælo, i. 9, 15, gives an interesting and important definition of αἰών: “The limit (τὸ τέλος) which embraces the time of each man’s life, outside of which there is nothing by nature, is named each man’s epoch (αἰών). Similarly, the limit of the whole heaven, and that which embraces all times and infinity (τὴν ἀπειρίαν) is αἰών, taking its name from ἀεὶ εἶναι” (sic). We have referred to the philosophical usage, since this is so frequently appealed to in exegetical discussions, although for our own part we believe that such an appeal often confuses the issues, inasmuch as the apostolic writers used the popular terminology of their day. Accordingly, when we turn to the LXX., which reflects the colloquial language, we find the phrase, εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα (or, εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας), employed as the equivalent of the idea which we express by the English collocation, “for ever.” Now we quite readily admit that αἰών and αἰώνιος may be used to express, not merely endless time, but longer periods or epochs, as we commonly designate them. Thus, as Heinrici (on 1 Corinthians 10:11) observes, αἰών can be joined, e.g., with γενεά, generation (see Colossians 1:26). In this aspect it passes over into the sense of κόσμος, world; cf.Hebrews 1:2, “By whom also He made τοὺς αἰῶνας,” virtually, “the worlds”; 11:3, “By faith we discern that τοὺς αἰῶνας (‘the worlds’) were framed by the word of God.”1 [Note: See also Beet, Last Things, pp. 118-123.] This phase of the meaning of αἰών has been laid hold of, and upon its basis has been framed the adjective “æonial” (= “age-lasting”), a translation which has been rashly supposed to solve the problem for the New Testament writers. But such an interpretation in no sense alters the situation as we find it in St Paul. For him, as for all his Jewish and Christian contemporaries (see, e.g., Volz, p. 270), the whole providential order of things is divided into two great epochs, ὁ αἰὼν οὗτος, co-extensive with the present world, and evil, as not yet subordinated to the Divine dominion (see, e.g., Romans 12:2, 1 Corinthians 1:20, 2 Corinthians 4:4, Galatians 1:4, etc.; οἱ αἰῶνες in 1 Corinthians 10:11, probably from the idea of the present epoch being made up of a number of smaller subdivisions of time), and ὁ αἰὼν ὁ μέλλων, the coming age, the era of the sway of God, attained through the mediation of Christ. The actual phrase is only found in St Paul’s writings in Ephesians 1:21, and the parallel, οἱ αἰῶνες οἱ ἐπερχόμενοι, in Ephesians 2:7. He has preferred to substitute for it such phrases as ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ θεοῦ (see Dalman, Worte Jesu, p. 120), or, what is almost an equivalent, “eternal life.” We need not linger here over the various and conflicting opinions which prevailed in Jewish thought as to the point of time at which the αἰὼν μέλλων (עוֹלָםהַבָּא) should begin. An admirable account of these, terse and yet adequate, may be found in Marti, Geschichte d. Israelit. Religion, pp. 295-299. The one epoch, in St Paul’s view, is drawing on towards its close. The ends of the age (τῶναἰώνων, 1 Corinthians 10:11) have overtaken them. The new era, in which the rule of God shall be established, is soon to set in. That era, however, from the very nature of the case, has no termination. So strictly is this true, that at length the adjective αἰώνιος, in many Johannine passages, seems to lose the time-notion, and rather to express the qualitative idea of “supra-earthly,” becoming virtually equivalent to “transcendent, perfect.”1 [Note: See Haupt, Eschat. Aussagen Jesu, pp. 83-85. Haupt shows that in the third section of Enoch this same usage appears. The examples in Volz, pp. 286, 287, 328, 368, 369, clearly prove that in Jewish books the eternity of bliss and woe was the normal doctrine.] The age of God’s dominion is necessarily final. If St Paul does not describe it as “eternal,” in so many words, it is because the conception is self-evident to his readers. “The things which are seen are temporal; the things which are unseen (τὰ μὴ βλεπόμενα, primarily, the future epoch of blessedness and transfigured life) are eternal” (2 Corinthians 4:18). The other passage which was quoted (Php 3:18), occurring in one of the latest of his writings, bears out our conclusion to the full. If the apostle affirms ἀπώλεια to be the “end” (τέλος) of a certain group of persons, it is plain that he thinks of something decisive and final. And it is important to observe that τέλος means far more than “termination.” It denotes the issue as expressing and manifesting the goal of the whole course. It is parallel to his utterance in Galatians 6:8, “He that soweth to his own flesh, shall of the flesh reap destruction” (φθοράν). It is also in strict accord with the general tenor of his teaching. To the one group of his hearers, the knowledge of Christ which he proclaims in the Gospel is a “savour from life unto life”; to the other (οἱ ἀπολλύμενοι), “a savour from death unto death.” The result is one which may well overawe the reflective mind, and the apostle, it is clear, feels its terrific pressure, for he adds, “And who is sufficient for these things?” (2 Corinthians 2:15-16). But it is time to turn from that part of St Paul’s thought which deals with the future destinies of individuals, and to reach some conception of the manner in which he pictured to his mind the actual consummation of all things. At this point we are confronted by one or two perplexing problems, problems which mainly arise from the brevity of his descriptions, and his habit of throwing out isolated hints rather than of entering into detailed statements. It is perhaps most convenient to begin with the important paragraph in 1 Corinthians 15:22-28 : “For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each (ἕκαστος) in his own order (τάγμα): the first-fruits Christ, thereafter those who belong to Christ at His Parousia; then (εἶτα) the end, when He shall have handed over the kingdom (βασιλείαν) to His God and Father, when He shall have abolished every rule and every authority and power. For it is needful for Him to reign until He shall have put all his enemies under His feet. As the last enemy is abolished death (ὁ θάνατος): for all things He (i.e. God) subordinated under His (i.e. Christ’s) feet. But when it is said (εἴπῃ, a quotation from Psalms 8:7, πάντα ὑπέταξας ὑποκάτω τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ) that all things have been subordinated, it is evident that He (i.e. God) is left out who subordinated all things to Him (i.e. Christ). But when all things shall have been subordinated to Him (i.e. Christ), then the Son Himself also shall be subordinated to Him (i.e. God) who subordinated all things to Him (i.e. the Son) that God may be all in all.” With this passage we may combine the difficult statement of Ephesians 1:9-10 : “(God) having made known to us the mystery (μυστήριον = “secret now revealed,” see Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, pp. 58, 59) of His will, according to His good pleasure which he purposed in Him (i.e. Christ) with a view to a dispensation (οἰκονομίαν, lit. “arranging” or “ordering”) of the fulness of the times (this, in Judaistic literature, is the time of Messiah’s entrance to restore Israel politically and spiritually, see Marti, op. cit., p. 295), to sum up (ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι) all things in Christ, the things in heaven and the things on earth (cf. verses 20-22, “Having raised Him from the dead, and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, high above every rule, and authority, and power, and lordship, and every name that is named not only in this age but also in that to come; and subordinated all things beneath His feet, and gave Him as Head over all things to the Church”). The verses quoted from 1 Corinthians supplement those conceptions of St Paul concerning the Last Things which have already been the subject of our consideration. These we followed up to their climax along certain lines in the case of individuals, both believers and unbelievers. Now we have to keep before us a larger development. The paragraph starts with the resurrection of deceased believers and the transformation of the living. “In Christ all shall be made alive” (ζωοποιηθήσονται). The word τάγμα in the next sentence, translated “order” in our version, means more strictly “division,” “troop,” or “group.” In the LXX. (also in Aquila, Theodotion, and Symmachus) it is the rendering of the Heb. דֶּנֶל, lit. “banner,” “ensign”: hence, like Latin , the troop or company marshalled under the same colours (see Dillmann on Numbers 2:2). Thus Polybius uses τάγμα as the equivalent of the Latin , a subdivision of the legion, .g. . ii. 69, 5: κατ ̓ ἄνδρα καὶ κατὰ τάγμαἁμιλλᾶσθαι. Possibly the introduction of τάγμα may be due to a difficulty the Corinthians may have felt because their dead Christian friends did not rise on the third day, or soon after death, like their Lord. But more probably the apostle employs the conception because he recognises two “groups” of the risen.1 [Note: There is a curious parallel in the Persian Eschatology. According to Bundehesh xxx. 7, men will rise in a determined order: first, Gaya Maretan, the original man, then Mastya and Mastyana, then the rest of mankind. Böklen, in quoting this statement, refers to Vita Adæ et Evæ xlii., and Apoc. Mosis xiii. 41, which affirm that Adam shall first be raised, then his posterity (op. cit., p. 109).] The one contains none but Christ Himself: He stands solitary and unique: He is the First-begotten from the dead, the First-fruits (ἀπαρχή) of those that have fallen asleep. Thereafter (ἔπειτα) the other group appears, and it is composed of those who belong to Christ at His Parousia. Evidently the παρουσία defines the point of time as ἔπειτα.
It is at this stage that perplexities have been dragged into the discussion. Grimm (Z. w. Th., 1873, pp. 399 ff.), Kabisch (op. cit., pp. 259, 260), Teichmann (p. 108), and others have put forward the hypothesis that between the ἔπειτα (defined as above) and the following εἶτα, an intervening period must be assumed, of indefinite duration, in which Christ rules over His kingdom, and gradually subdues all His enemies. This period is made equivalent to the Millenium of the Apocalypse. Students of Paulinism are not in a position to determine whether the apostle did or did not hold this conception. But on the basis set before us in our present passage, we have no hesitation in asserting that it would be most precarious and unwarranted to build up any such theory.1 [Note: So also Titius, pp. 47, 48; Charles, Eschatology, pp. 389, 390; Reuss, Histoire de la Théol. Chrét, ii. p. 227 et al.] Here, again, there is a danger of being misled through ignoring St Paul’s standpoint. We are accustomed to think of Christ’s conquest of the opposing forces of evil as a long and gradual process. That is the appearance of things as it presents itself in the fortunes of the Kingdom in this world. But St Paul, in the words we are reviewing, has before his mind a different series of events altogether. We might almost say that for him these unique experiences of the End are timeless. After speaking of the Resurrection in the clause beginning with ἔπειτα, he goes on to describe the final culmination of the history of redemption in the sentence which opens with εἶτα. Numerous examples in the New Testament demonstrate that εἶτα by no means presupposes an interval of any duration between the preceding clause and that which it introduces. See, e.g., John 13:4-5, “Taking a towel, He girded Himself, then (εἶτα) He puts water into the basin”; 19:26, 27, “He saith to His mother, Woman, behold thy son. Then (εἶτα) saith He to His disciple, Behold thy mother.” In this same chapter of 1 Corinthians, there are some very instructive instances of the usage in connection with the various appearances of the risen Jesus to His disciples, e.g. verse 5, “He appeared to Cephas, then (εἶτα, a few hours intervening at most) to the twelve; verse 6, “Thereafter (ἔπειτα) He appeared to above five hundred brethren at once …; (verse 7) thereafter (ἔπειτα) He appeared to James, then (εἶτα) to all the apostles” (these various events being all embraced within a few days). But apart from linguistic considerations, which evidently do not favour the theory, our position is corroborated by the actual statements made here by St Paul. The end (τὸ τέλος),1 [Note: Although we always hesitate to differ from Heinrici, we can by no means agree with his interpretation ofτὸ τέλοςin this passage as “the point of time in which … this Age ceases, and all that must happen before the entrance of the complete rule of God is accomplished.” It is rather the culmination of the events which usher in the new Æon. For a concise summary of Rabbinic teaching as to the relation between the Messianic period and the coming Æon, see Volz, op. cit., p. 63.] the final consummation, the perfect realisation of the Divine aim, is made possible “when He shall have abolished every rule (ἀρχήν) and every authority (ἐξουσίαν) and power” (δύναμιν). This might appear to justify the notion that in St Paul’s view He has still to wage a conflict with many authorities and powers. But how does the case actually stand? In Colossians 2:15, he boldly declares of Christ: “Having hurled aside (ἀπεκδυσάμενος, lit. stripped off Himself) the rules (τὰς ἀρχάς) and the authorities (τὰς ἐξουσίας), He made a show of them openly (or boldly, ἐν παρρησίᾳ), triumphing over them in it” (i.e. the Cross). That province of His dominion, therefore, has been attained. He has baffled, defeated, defied all “the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places” (Ephesians 6:12).
It would lead us too far aside from the main course of this investigation to examine with care St Paul’s conception of those mysterious, spiritual forces, antagonistic to the Divine dominion, which, in the passage before us, he names ἀρχαί, ἐξουσίαι, and δυνάμεις. To these he adds κυριότητες in Ephesians 1:21 (cf.ἀρχαί and ἐξουσίαι in Ephesians 3:10), and in 6:12 the group consists of ἀρχαί, ἐξουσίαι, κοσμοκράτορες τοῦ σκότους τούτου, τὰ πνευματικά τῆς πονηρίας ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις. In Colossians 1:16, he speaks of θρόνοι, κυριότητες, ἀρχαί, and ἐξουσίαι, while the latter two classes appear in 2:10, 15. We may associate with these the strange figure of Ephesians 2:2, ὁ ἄρχων τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ ἀερός, τοῦ πνεύματος τοῦ νῦν ἐνεργοῦντος ἐν τοῖς υἱοῖς τῆς ἀπειθείας. Probably in most of these passage, the recurring terms describe invisible powers of evil. As God has His hosts, those ministers of His that do His pleasure, so the apostle pictures a hierarchy of wickedness, waiting on the bidding of the “prince of the power of the air.” But this can scarcely be held of Colossians 1:16, and perhaps not of Colossians 2:10. Possibly we have a parallel to these mysterious powers in the four angels of Revelation 7:2, “to whom it was appointed to hurt the earth and the sea.” So, in Revelation 14:18, we read of an angel “who had power over fire.” But this is uncertain (cf. the observations of Volz as to the two-fold view of the stars in Jewish dogmatic, on the one hand as examples of obedience, on the other as demonic forces opposed to God, p. 298). In any case, we find many points of contact between this world of ideas and the Jewish apocalyptic writings. Thus, in Enoch lxi. 10, 11, it is said of the Messiah, “He shall summon the whole army of heaven, all the holy ones on high, the army of God, the Cherubim, Seraphim, and Ophanim, all the angels of the authority (ἐξουσία), all the angels of the lordships (κυριότητες), the elect ones, and the other powers (δυνάμεις) which are upon terra firma and above the water, and they shall raise one voice.” Slav. Enoch xx. 1 tells how Enoch was brought to the seventh heaven, “and I saw there a very great light, and all the fiery hosts of great archangels, and incorporeal powers, and lordships, and principalities, and powers; Cherubim and Seraphim, and the watchfulness of many eyes.” In Jub. ii. 2 there is a description of the creation of the various spirits which serve before God: “The angels of the Presence … the angels of the spirit of the wind, the angels of the clouds of darkness and of the snow and of the hail and of the frost, and the angels of the sounds and of the thunderbolt and of the lightning, and the angels of the spirits of cold and heat and winter … and of all the spirits of His works in the heavens and on earth, and in all the abysses of the deep and of darkness and of evening,” etc., etc. And Enoch lxxxii. 10 ff. gives an elaborate catalogue of the “leaders” (ἄρχοντες) of the stars, who rule the progress of the seasons. Parallels to these strange lists are to be found in later writings, both Jewish and Christian. Thus, in the Syriac Apocalypse of Adam,1 [Note: Published by Renan, Journal Asiatique, Sér. V. tome ii. p. 458 f., qu. by Bousset, Archiv f. Religionswiss. iv. H. 3, p. 269.] a classification of angels is given, corresponding to the seven heavens, according to which ἄγγελοι rule over men, ἀρχάγγελοι over beasts, ἀρχαί over clouds, snow, and rain, ἐξουσίαι over the heavenly bodies, δυνάμεις are the guardians against demons, κυριότητες have the sway over kingdoms, while θρόνοι do service before the throne of Messiah. No doubt in a book like this, the direct influence of the New Testament might be suspected. But the tradition apparently belongs to Judaism. For in a quaint mediæval treatise of magic, of Jewish origin, the Schemhamphorasch Salomonis Regis,2 [Note: Horst’s Zauberbibliothek, iii. pp. 134 ff. (qu. by Bousset, loc. cit.).] the same classification is adjusted to the gods of the Roman Pantheon. Saturn is identified with θρόνος, Jupiter with κυριότης, Mars with ἐξουσία, Sol with δύναμις, Venus with ἀρχή, Mercury with ἀρχάγγελος, and Luna with ἄγγελος. Evidently we have here a curious angelology, apparently unknown to the Old Testament, although a hint of it appears in Daniel 10:13, where the “prince” (LXX. ἄρχων) of the kingdom of Persia, that is, the angel who is set over the kingdom, is mentioned, and as his antagonist, Michael, “one of the chief princes,” named in Jude 1:9, “the archangel,” ἀρχάγγελος, and described in Revelation 12:7 as warring against the dragon. And again, in Daniel 12:1, he is designated “the great prince” (ὁ ἄρχων ὁ μέγας), the guardian angel of Israel (ὁ ἑστηκὼς ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τοῦ λαοῦ σου). In the apocalyptic literature of which Daniel is the prototype, the conception of the hierarchies of spirits is enormously developed, no doubt incorporating many elements of popular tradition, until it finds a permanent place in late Jewish theology.1 [Note: IT IS POSSIBLE THAT PERSIAN INFLUENCE HAS CONTRIBUTED TO THIS DEVELOPMENT. SEE STAVE, PARSISMUS, PP. 175, 196 F., 203; BOUSSET, RELIGION D. JUDENTHUMS, PP. 472, 473; MOULTON, ART. “ZOROASTRIANISM,” IN H.D.B. ON ST PAUL’S CONCEPTIONS IN THIS PROVINCE OF THOUGHT AS A WHOLE, SEE EVERLING, DIE PAULINISCHE ANGELOLOGIE UND DÄMONOLOGIE. IT CONTAINS MANY EXAGGERATED STATEMENTS, BUT GIVES A FAIR SURVEY OF THE FIELD. OF IMPORTANCE FOR THE SUBJECT IN GENERAL IS MICHAEL, BY W. LUEKEN, GÖTT., 1898.] In all likelihood the prominence of these groups of intermediate spiritual beings in the apocalyptic period is mainly due to the feeling of the remoteness of God. His transcendence, as we have seen, was a characteristic belief of later Judaism. In their craving to have some access to God, the apocalyptic writers fill in the gulf that lies between earth and heaven with a multitude of mediating supra-earthly existences. The New Testament only affords us the rarest glimpses into this strange realm, for the spiritual peerlessness of Jesus Christ banishes these dim figures of the invisible world into the darkness, whence they emerge again in the writings of the heretical sects, more especially of Gnosticism. In the Jewish tradition, they seem, for the most part, to be in the service of the Most High, exemplifying the description of Hebrews 1:14, “ministering spirits” (λειτουργικὰ πνεύματα); cf.Psalms 103:21. St Paul appears not to have wholly departed from it, for his language in Colossians 1:16 at least is neutral. This may be due to the special circumstances of the Colossian Church, where Jewish influences were probably shaping a kind of incipient Gnosticism (cf. 2:18 ff.). But in any case, several of the instances we have quoted from the Epistles are unmistakable, notably Ephesians 6:12, “our conflict is not with flesh and blood, but with rules (ἀρχάς), with authorities (ἐξουσίας), with the world-governors of this darkness, with spiritual powers of wickedness in the heavenly places,” and the passage which we are considering. It is conceivable that the apostle, feeling no need of the mediation of angels between God and the world, once the supreme revelation in Christ, the Head of all things, has been given, applies the terms which were originally used in a good or a colourless sense (personifications of powers of nature) to those unseen forces of wickedness which strive against the complete establishment of the Divine Kingdom. The question cannot be decided on the basis of our evidence. But it is altogether groundless to rear on this foundation the theory of a cosmic dualism in St Paul. He does not think of the present world as being, from its very essence, under the control of Satan, in contrast to the future era when God shall be supreme. For him the Old Testament principle is authoritative, that the world is God’s world, as created by Him and destined ultimately to fulfil His purpose. The passages we have already discussed, bearing on the cosmic significance of Christ, are sufficient evidence of this. But necessarily, on the foundation of his own experience, he is conscious of the existence of opposing forces, which have to be subdued before God’s right to His own can be fully vindicated.1 [Note: SEE ALSO TITIUS, P. 247. UNDOUBTEDLY SUCH A DUALISM IS COMMON IN JUDAISTIC LITERATURE, AND REVEALS THE “IMMENSE PROSTRATION OF POST-EXILIC JUDAISM” (J. WEISS). PERHAPS THE FORMS IN WHICH IT CLOTHES ITSELF ARE RELATED TO PERSIAN INFLUENCE; SEE STAVE, EINFLUSS DES PARSISMUS AUF D. JUDENTHUM, P. 196, AND PORTER, ART. “REVELATION,” H.D.B. IV. P. 246. CERTAINLY ONE OF ITS RESULTS WAS TO INSPIRE A MORE TRANSCENDENTAL VIEW OF SALVATION.] In 1 Corinthians 15:24, therefore, when read in the light of Colossians 2:15, he takes for granted that a great part of the victory has been already won by the triumphant Saviour, won in principle (cf. Chrysost. on θάνατος in this passage: τῇ μὲν οὖν δυνάμει καὶ νῦν κατήργηται, τῇ δὲ ἐνεργείᾳ τότε), that is to say, like His victory over sin, won for all who are willing to shelter themselves in the great Victor. The “rules” and “authorities” and “powers” have been reduced to impotence against those who will arm themselves with the panoply of God (see Volz, pp. 270, 271). But Christ must still reign until all His enemies have been subdued. This reign, according to St Paul’s view, is not one which begins after the Parousia. He has left behind him the Messianic Hope of Judaism. The rule of Christ has begun with His exaltation as κύριος, Lord; He already sits on the throne, and His advent at the last is simply the culmination of His sway (so also Charles, Eschatology, p. 390). Are there any foes which still hold out? The apostle has one supreme Power in his mind, which apparently continues to defy the royal supremacy of Christ. That Power is Death. His expression, ὁ θάνατος, almost personifies it. “As the last enemy, death is abolished.” When “he” has been vanquished, Christ’s dominion is complete.1 [Note: WE MAY COMPAREIsaiah 25:8, “HE WILL SWALLOW UP DEATH IN VICTORY”;Hosea 13:14, “O DEATH, I WILL BE THY PLAGUE; O GRAVE, I WILL BE THY DESTRUCTION”; 4 Ezra 8:53, “THE GERM OF SIN IS SEALED UP FROM YOU, SICKNESS IS TAKEN AWAY, DEATH IS HIDDEN, HADES HAS DISAPPEARED”;Revelation 20:14, “DEATH AND HADES WERE CAST INTO THE LAKE OF FIRE.” BOUSSET FINDS IN THIS CONQUEST OF DEATH AN ASPECT OF THE FINAL CONFLICT BETWEEN GOD AND THE DEVIL, WHO IS LORD OF DEATH (RELIGION D. JUDENTHUMS, PP. 241, 242). THERE MAY BE SOME GROUND FOR THE HYPOTHESIS, BUT IT WAS QUITE NATURAL TO PERSONIFY DEATH VAGUELY, AND EXULT OVER HIS DOWNFALL.] Obviously, this final destruction of death is revealed by the event of the Resurrection, when the redeemed of the Lord prove by their rising that they also are stronger than death-that the indwelling might of the πνεῦμα of Christ has vanquished the darkness of the grave. Thus, in our judgment, the argument to be drawn from St Paul’s own words is decisive against a protracted struggle between Christ and His adversaries after the Parousia. But even had it been impossible to appeal to definite statements, we could not associate with the thought of the revelation of the returning Lord a further process of conflict with human conditions. This would be utterly alien to the apostle’s standpoint. Take, as an instance of his point of view, his description of the fate of the “lawless one,” “whom the Lord Jesus shall destroy by the breath of His mouth, and abolish by the manifestation of His coming” (2 Thessalonians 2:8); or, recall the pictures of judgment in 2 Thessalonians 1:7-10, and Romans 2:5-10. These passages make it indubitably clear that, in the apostle’s idea of it, the crowning revelation of the exalted Christ is one which overwhelms and renders powerless all opposing forces, whether human or diabolic.2 [Note: SEE VOLZ, P. 302. A REMARKABLE PARALLEL IS FOUND IN THE PERSIAN DOCTRINE OF THE FINAL CONFLICT OF GOOD AND EVIL. AFTER LASTING THROUGHOUT THE COURSE OF THE WORLD, IT IS ENDED BY THE ANNIHILATION OF EVIL ON THE LAST DAY. AHURA MAZDA, THE AMSHASPANDS, THE TRUE WORD, AND SRAOSHA ON THE ONE HAND, STRUGGLE WITH ANGRA MAINYU, THE ANTI-AMSHASPANDS, THE WORD OF LIES, AND AÊSHMA, ON THE OTHER SIDE-BUNDEHESH XXX. 29 FF. (SEE BÖKLEN, OP. CIT., P. 125; HÜBSCHMANN, JAHRB. F. PROT. THEOL. 1879, PP. 225, 226; SÖDERBLOM, OP. CIT., PP. 267, 268.)]
Probably this is the stage in God’s redemptive purpose which is before St Paul’s mind, when, in Ephesians 1:10, he speaks of the Divine intention “to sum up (ἀνακεφαλαιώσασθαι) all things in Christ, the things in heaven and the things on earth.” The expression is difficult, and there is no parallel to it in the New Testament.1 [Note: The phrase inActs 3:21,ἄχρι χρόνων ἀποκαταστάσεως πάντων ὦν ἐλάλησεν ὸ θεός, is no true parallel, and only appears so because of the misleading translation in A.V., “until the times of restitution of all things, which God hath spoken.” There should be no comma after “things,” and, as Dalman shows, the Syriac version gives the correct sense, “until the fulfilling of the times of all that God hath said,” etc. (Worte Jesu, pp. 145, 146).] Gunkel (on 4 Ezra 12:25, in Kautzsch) holds that ἀνακεφαλαιοῦν is “certainly an apocalyptic term; at the end of the world-history all the evil that is diffused and isolated, and in the same way also the good, shall be summed up.” There may possibly be traces of this conception lying in the background of the apostle’s thought. In any case, it seems to us that the idea is virtually equivalent for him to the statement in 1 Corinthians 15:28, “When all things shall have been subordinated to Him” (i.e. Christ). No doubt it includes more than the subordination, for the idea of summing-up seems to be related to his conception of Christ as the root-principle of all creation. “He is before all things, and in Him all things consist” (συνέστηκεν, Colossians 1:17; the whole passage, Colossians 1:15-19, is the best commentary on the thought). The development and final issue must correspond to the original intention of the Creator. The world-plan is a unity. This unity is realised in the Eternal Son, who became incarnate, accomplished redemption, conquered sin and death (to the apostle’s mind the great forces of disturbance in the Divine order), and has been exalted at God’s right hand to claim that universal adoration which is His due (Php 2:9-10). In His Incarnation, He has become the type and pattern for humanity; in His atonement for sin, He has reconciled men to God; in His resurrection and glorified life, He reveals that splendid vista which is the consummation of perfected human nature. “As the inferior stages of existence are summed up in man, who stands at the head of earthly creation, and forms a first link between the natural and the spiritual, so are all stages of humanity summed up in Christ, who in His person as God-man, links the creation absolutely with God” (Orr, Christian View, p. 284).1 [Note: See also Weizsäcker, Apost. Zeitalter, p. 120.] Bearing in mind that it involves this aspect, we may note that intimate connection with the idea of subordination to which reference has already been made. Now, when this subordination is viewed in the light of its context, it means that evil has been finally vanquished, so that it can no more raise up its head in defiance of the exalted Lord. The continuous existence of impenitent sinners, which might seem to conflict with that victory as affecting the completion of the divine purpose, is a question which lies outside the apostle’s horizon. He is only concerned with the antithesis of life and the loss of it. It means that redeemed humanity has now reached its full assimilation to its Lord and Head. His Divine σῶμα (τοῦ σώματος, τῆς ἐκκλησίας, Colossians 1:18) has reached its maturity. There is no dissension between the Head (ἡ κεφαλή, Ephesians 1:22) and His members (τὰ μέλη). His life circulates through them in unimpeded richness. They have now attained “to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ” (Ephesians 4:13). They, the ἐκκλησία, make up “the fulness of Him that filleth all in all” (τὸ πλήρωμα τοῦ τὰ πάντα ἐν πάσιν πληρουμένου, Ephesians 1:23). God’s aim is secured, the aim of “reconciling through Him (i.e. Christ) all things unto Himself, having made peace through the blood of His cross, whether the things on earth or the things in heaven” (Colossians 1:20). Thus Christ is “all and in all” (πάντα καὶ ἐν πᾶσιν, Colossians 3:11). The summing-up and the subordination each describes the crowning of the Father’s purpose in His exalted Son.
It is comparatively easy to understand the application of St Paul’s words to “the things that are in heaven.” We are not so ready to give its full force to his equally emphatic declaration about “the things on earth.” He takes a large view of creation. For him the whole universe is animated by the breath of the Divine life.1 [Note: Cf. Wisd. 1:14:ἔκτισεν γὰρ εἰς τὸ εἶναι τὰ πάντα καὶ σωτήριοι αἱ γενέσεις τοῦ κόσμου, καὶ οὐκ ἕστιν ἐν αὐτοῖς φάρμακον ὀλέθρου, οὔτε ᾅδου βασίλειον ἐπὶ γῆς.] The moral and spiritual order extends to the material world. Existence as a whole is connected in one process. There is “one spiritual life,” as Dr E. Caird expresses it, “which flows out from God to the Creation, and which flows back to Him again through man, the highest of all the creatures” (Evolution of Religion, ii. p. 125). The being of the material world has been affected by that sin which human self-will has introduced into the universe. It has been subjected to futility, to vain striving (τῇ γὰρ ματαιότητι ἡ κτίσις ὑπετάγη, Romans 8:20). We may compare 4 Ezra 7:11 : “For your sakes, indeed, I created the Æon; but when Adam transgressed my commandments, the creation was judged.”1 [Note: SEE GUNKEL (AD LOC.), WHO CALLS THE CONCEPTION OF A FALL OF CREATION “A COMPROMISE BETWEEN THE OLD OPTIMISTIC VIEW OF THE WORLD, WHICH IS ONLY RECOGNISED FOR THE PRIMITIVE AGE, AND THE MODERN PESSIMISTIC VIEW OF JUDAISM, WHICH HOLDS GOOD FOR THE PRESENT.” BUT THE GROWTH OF SUCH AN IDEA IS QUITE CONCEIVABLE WITHOUT ANY SUCH EXPLANATION.] It is under the sway of φθορά, decay. The very process which is the pathos and doom of human life is the law of the universe also. And the sensitive heart of the apostle overhears the complaint of creation. It becomes animate to his mind, as the offspring of God’s creative will, and its sigh for permanence, for the realisation of purpose, for perfection, catches the ear of his soul (Romans 8:19-22), and echoes in sympathy with his own craving for complete, victorious life. Now if there is to be a redemption (ἀπολύτρωσις) of the material body, a rescue of it from the bondage of decay, an inspiration of it with an immortal existence, a prospect which for St Paul is a glorious certainty, why may not the redemption go further: why may not it extend to that entire creation which as it left His shaping hand, the Creator pronounced to be very good? The thought had appeared already in the Old Testament: e.g., Isaiah 65:17, “Behold, I create new heavens and a new earth”; Isaiah 66:22, “As the new heavens and the new earth which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the Lord, so shall your seed and your name remain” (cf.Psalms 102:26). It finds frequent expression in apocalyptic literature: e.g., Enoch xlv. 4, 5, “I will transform heaven and make it an everlasting blessing and light. I will transform the earth and make it a blessing, and cause mine elect to dwell upon it”; Jub. i. 29, “And the angel of the Presence … took the tables of the division of the years … from the day of the new creation onwards, when heaven and earth and all its creatures are to be renewed”; Apoc. Bar. xxxii. 6, “Greater than both these tribulations shall be the conflict, when the Almighty will renew His creation.”1 [Note: “As the sin and death of the First Adam, the Old Man (ὁ πρῶτος Ἀδάμ, ὁ ἕσχτος Ἀδάμ,1 Corinthians 15:45; ὁ πρῶτος ἄνθρωπος,1 Corinthians 15:47; ὁ παλαιὸς ἃνθρωπος,Colossians 3:4ff.), were decisive for the earlier epoch, so will the righteousness of life of the New Man, the Second Adam, be for the Second” (Gunkel, Schöpfung und Chaos, p. 368). The same idea is expressed by theπαλινγενεσίαofMatthew 19:28; .Revelation 21:1. See also the admirable statement of Dr Davidson, which lays bare the basis of St Paul’s thought: “The great conception of the Old Testament is, that the world is a moral constitution. Behind the physical world is God, a free, conscious, moral being; on this side of it and over it, is man, another free, moral being. The world is but the means of their intercourse. It is this moral character of its whole constitution, which explains how the external world is always drawn into the relations of God and man, and reflects these relations according as they are normal and disturbed, rejoicing and blossoming like the rose in man’s redemption, and falling into desolation in man’s destruction under God’s wrath” (Testament Prophecy, p. 209).] For St Paul, the expectation is confirmed by the future experience of believers as he conceives it. The material universe stands there as the realm of man’s earthly activity. It is the sphere assigned him for the present realisation of his relation to God. May it not be that, when the spiritual reaches its full development, completely conquering and controlling the material in the person of redeemed man, there shall still be a province for this new, glorified life, consisting in a transformed and glorified universe in which that which has been imperfect shall be done away?1 [Note: Cf. Ducasse, Revue de Théol., July 1882 (summarised by Orr, op. cit., p. 447): “Does not a new kingdom appear in man?… He is the bond of union between the world of nature and the Divine world. Why then should it not have been precisely his vocation to spiritualise matter, and lead it up to the conquest of new attributes?” It is stating the facts in too speculative a fashion to say with Dr E. Caird, that inRomans 8:19f., “St Paul combines the idea of the spirituality of God, which was characteristic of monotheism, with the idea of the immanence of God, which was characteristic of pantheism, uniting both in one conception by the aid of the idea of evolution” (Evolution of Religion, ii. p. 125). What we find in the passage is rather the poetry of the religious imagination.] Perhaps there is a hint of this prospect in 1 Corinthians 7:31 : “The fashion (σχῆμα) of this world (κόσμος) passeth away.” There is more than a hint in Romans 8:19-21. The creation looks with eager longing for the manifestation (ἀποκάλυψιν) of the sons of God, which is to be a manifestation of glory (verse 18). That manifestation must have a direct bearing on its own future, for the outlook which lies before it is deliverance from the bondage to decay, and an entrance upon the liberty of the glory of the children of God. Such is the splendid vision which opens to the apostle’s ardent soul.2 [Note: A REMARKABLE PARALLEL IS FOUND IN THE PERSIAN CONCEPTION OF THE NEW WORLD. “THE DEAREST DREAM OF MAZDEAN PIETY,” SAYS SÖDERBLOM, “WAS THAT OF LIFE ETERNAL IN A PURIFIED, INCORRUPTIBLE BODY, UPON A NEW EARTH DELIVERED FROM ALL THAT WHICH AS YET MARS IT.… MEN, HAVING THE APPEARANCE OF PEOPLE OF FORTY AND FIFTY YEARS, LIVE IMMORTAL, WITHOUT NEEDS, FREE FROM EVERY EVIL. THE END OF ‘THE PROGRESS’ IS ATTAINED, ‘THE WORLD IS MADE PROGRESSIVE (FRASEM) ACCORDING TO ITS DESIRE’ (YAST XIX. 89).… THE IDEAL WORLD OF MAZDEISM IMPLIES NOT MERELY THE EXTINCTION OF HELL, BUT THERE IS NO LONGER ANY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN HEAVEN AND EARTH. ‘THE EARTH EXTENDS TO THE SPHERE OF THE STARS’ … MEN CAN EXIST IN HEAVEN WITH THEIR BODIES” (OP. CIT., PP. 269, 270). SEE ALSO MOULTON, ART. “ZOROASTRIANISM,” IN H.D.B.] Is it not in harmony with the profoundest intuitions of those who have “The sense sublime Of something far more deeply interfused, Whose dwelling is the light of setting suns And the round ocean and the living air And the blue sky, and in the mind of man: A motion and a spirit, that impels All thinking things, all objects of all thought, And rolls through all things.”1 [Note: It is of curious interest to compare with this forecast one which is thrown out by an evolutionary philosopher like Herbert Spencer. “Confining ourselves to the proximate and not necessarily insoluble question,” he says, “we find reason for thinking that after the completion of the various equilibriums which bring to a close all the forms of Evolution we have contemplated, there must continue an equilibrium of a far wider kind. When that integration everywhere in progress throughout our Solar System has reached its climax, there will remain to be effected the immeasurably greater integration of our Solar System with other such systems” (First Principles, p. 536). His conclusion appears to be a succession of evolutions, “ever the same in principle, but never the same in concrete result.”]
There still remains one stage to be considered in St Paul’s conception of the consummation of the Kingdom of God. He introduces it in the paragraph which we have been examining, at first, without any qualification. “Then the end, when He shall have delivered up (παραδιδοῖ) the Kingdom to His God and Father” (τῷ θεῷ καὶ πατρί). Some further light is thrown upon this momentous statement by verses 27, 28. In verse 27, quoting Psalms 8:7 (cf.Psalms 110:1, which our Lord Himself quotes in support of His Messianic Kingship), he assigns the subordination of all things under Christ to the direct power of God. Still keeping this fact in the forefront, he draws the inference that one Power or Authority lies outside this universal subordination. For manifestly He, by whose operation the subordination is brought about, cannot Himself be included in it. Not only so; he takes a further step. There cannot remain two co-equal authorities in the Kingdom of redemption. For “when all things have been subordinated to Him (Christ), then the Son Himself also shall be subordinated to Him (God), who subordinated all things to Him (Christ), in order that God may be all in all” (πάντα ἐν πᾶσιν). It is of importance to inquire whether there are other passages in St Paul’s writings which illustrate or elucidate this remarkable conception. The inquiry is a delicate one, for we know that the apostle attributed divinity, in its full and essential sense, to Jesus Christ. Various suggestive utterances may be found which help us to understand his view in the words before us. We are familiar with such passages as Romans 8:11 : “If the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwell in you, He that raised from the dead Christ Jesus, shall quicken also your mortal bodies.” Here, and in its parallels, the potency of the new spiritual life is directly referred to God the Father, even as regards Christ Himself (cf., e.g., 1 Thessalonians 4:14, “So also them that sleep through Jesus will God bring with Him”). But the apostle looks upon this power as mediated by the Son. Thus, in 1 Corinthians 15:57, he ascribes thanks “to God who giveth us the victory through (διά) our Lord Jesus Christ.” In 2 Corinthians 5:18, we meet his favourite thought of God as “reconciling us to Himself through Christ.” It is needless to quote instances of this conception, as they occur on every second page of the Pauline Epistles. But repeatedly we find St Paul emphasising the fact that God, as the Father, is both the primal source and the ultimate goal of all things. Hence he makes such affirmations as that of Romans 11:36, “For from (ἐκ) Him, and through (διά) Him, and unto (εἰς, with a view to) Him, are all things”; Ephesians 4:6, where, after enumerating the binding ties of the Christian brotherhood, “one Lord, one faith, one baptism,” he names “one God and Father of all, who is over (ἐπί) all and through (διά) all, and in (ἐν) all”; 1 Corinthians 8:6, “For us there is one God the Father, from (ἐκ) whom are all things, and we unto (εἰς) Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through (διά) whom are all things, and we through Him”; and we may add Colossians 1:19-20, “It was the good pleasure (of the Father) that the whole fulness should dwell in Him (Christ), and through (διά) Him, to reconcile all things unto (εἰς) Himself (God).” Plainly, from the above passages, a ruling thought with St Paul is that of God as the final aim of all redemptive activity.1 [Note: Cf. the suggestive statement of Titius (p. 25): “As with Jesus, so with Paul, in this new view of God (i.e. as Father), the source of the whole of salvation is given” (the italics are ours).] All things, indeed, are summed up in Christ, in whom dwells the complete fulness of the Divine nature in organised form (σωματικῶς, Colossians 2:9). But Christ Himself carries forward the Divine purpose to its fulfilment. As the Son, He performs His mediatorial function; as the Son, in the deepest reciprocal relation of love with the Father, His life is “with God, for God, in God.” The Divine consummation is attained when “God is all and in all.”1 [Note: IT IS PERHAPS NEEDLESS TO POINT OUT THAT ΠΑΝΤΑ ANDἐΝ ΠᾶΣΙΝ(WHICH IS EQUIVALENT TO ΠΑΝΤΑ), IN THE APOSTLE’S VIEW, HAVE NO REFERENCE SAVE TO THE REDEEMED KINGDOM OF GOD. THIS IS EVIDENT, IF WE REMEMBER THAT ST PAUL IS HERE OCCUPIED WITH A DISCUSSION OF THE RELATION OF THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST TO THAT OF BELIEVERS. HE IS ONLY CONCERNED WITH THOSE WHO, THROUGH CHRIST, HAVE BEEN SUBORDINATED TO THE SWAY OF GOD. EVERYTHING BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE DIRECT DEVELOPMENT OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD LIES OUTSIDE HIS RANGE. (SEE ALSO AN EXCELLENT NOTE OF HEINRICI, AD LOC.)] The process by which such a climax of the highest development of life is reached, may be felt to be suggested by the statement of 1 Corinthians 3:22-23, “All things belong to you, and you belong to Christ, and Christ belongs to God.” This relationship is expressed even more definitely in 1 Corinthians 11:3, “Now I desire you to know that of every man, the Head is Christ. But the Head of Christ is God.” Here is an ascending scale, as in the preceding passage, in which God, as it were, gives unity and complete realisation to the whole series of spiritual relations. It is from the same point of view that St Paul, in dealing with the supreme glory of the risen Christ (Php 2:9-11), declares that “God hath highly exalted Him, and given Him the name which is above every name (i.e., the name κύριος, virtually equivalent to the Old Testament Jehovah); that in the name of Jesus (often erroneously taken as τὸ ὄνομα τὸ ὑπὲρ πᾶν ὄνομα) every knee should bow, of things in heaven and things on earth, and things under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.” The supreme dignity of the risen Christ, that is to say, points beyond Him to God the Father. Even the most daring human thought can go no further than the culmination of all things in God.
It would be useless to speculate on the manner in which St Paul conceived this great consummation to be fulfilled. Unquestionably he would have regarded all philosophical categories as inapplicable to his momentous theme. For his mind, its interest and importance are wholly religious. He could not realise a more glorious issue for the wondrous process which germinated for humanity with the Incarnation, blossomed in the atoning Passion, and came to full maturity in the Exaltation, than a re-entrance of the glorified Lord into the depths of the Godhead, so that His own words should receive their profoundest significance, “I and my Father are one.” In that crowning end, the Consummation of the Kingdom of God is accomplished.
