trifling compared to some of the apparent reasons for division which existed in Paul's day. Yet he held them together, and he did so because he believed, and succeeded in making others believe, that the Church's true unity is not outward but inward; that it does not consist in uniform opinions or uniform ritualistic practice, but in the unity of the Spirit. This unity was what the apostle labored to induce his churches to keep (Eph. iv. 3), and they kept it-not, indeed, perfectly, but sufficiently to prevent the believing community from falling apart into unsympathetic divisions over every point of difference that might arise. It was reserved for a later age to develop a conception of Church unity which is widely different from Paul's, namely, that of a leaden uniformity of opinion and practice. This conception has been in full operation for many centuries. It has worked out its results on the largest scale in modern Protestantism on the principle that the Church is a means of discriminating against those who have defective opinions, and that men who differ in some theory or point of ritual cannot, of course, belong to the same Church. Had this principle prevailed in the apostolic age, the early Church would have been rent into contending factions. That this principle, which so readily allies itself with human prejudice and selfishness, was not permitted to assert itself and to do its divisive work in the early Church, must be credited, I think, in great measure to the splendid advocacy, by the apostle Paul, of a truer and more Christian view.1

1 "The one real sin against the unity of the Church is the spirit which would exclude from its fellowship any who confess Christ as Head and own the common brotherhood in him." D. W. Forrest, The Christ of History and of Experience, p. 287.

CHAPTER XII

ESCHATOLOGY

THE conceptions of the apostle which fall under this head are chiefly developed in connection with his descriptions of the Christian's hope of a life beyond this. The Lord's second coming and the resurrection are the most prominent themes of Paul's eschatology. His arguments on both these subjects are directed towards the strengthening of the believer's faith and hope. To the Lord's parousia the apostle, with the whole apostolic Church, looked forward as the great day of deliverance and triumph, when Christ should destroy his enemies by the brightness of his coming (2 Thess. ii. 8). He dwelt upon the resurrection in order to remove the difficulties and objections which were felt by the Greek mind with regard to it, and to assure the Corinthian believers that there would be provided, even in the spiritual world, a suitable embodiment for the spirit (1 Cor. xv. 12 sq.). The references by Paul to other eschatological themes than these are rather incidental.

There can be no reasonable doubt that the apostle expected the personal, visible return of Christ to occur in the near future. In 1 Thessalonians he expresses himself in such a way as to show that he hoped to be living at the parousia. In his preaching Paul had emphasized the hope of Christ's speedy coming (v. 2). When some of the members of the church died, the question naturally arose: How should those who had died stand related to the Lord's advent? Would not they be at some disadvantage as compared with the living, who would be ready and waiting to enter at once into the joys and rewards of the Messianic Kingdom? To this difficulty the apostle

addresses himself in 1 Thess. iv. 13-18. He assures his readers "by the word of the Lord"-some saying of Jesus which he regards as covering the point- that those who have fallen asleep in Jesus will be at no disadvantage. The certainty of resurrection is the guaranty of their full and immediate participation in the Messianic blessedness at the parousia. At the Lord's coming "the dead in Christ" shall at once arise so as to be ready to join the living in being caught up into the clouds to meet the Lord in the air, hence to be ever with the Lord (v. 17). Paul evidently regards those members of the Church who had died as forming in this scene a minority as compared with those who should be living, among whom he himself expected to be. Twice he uses the expression: "We that are alive" (μcîs oi Câvtes, vv. 15, 17), in contrast to those who shall have died before the Lord returns. The wellknown fact to which the whole New Testament testifies, that the apostolic Church regarded the parousia as near at hand, confirms this natural interpretation of the passage in question.

Did the apostle abandon this expectation in later years? It is certainly less prominent in the later epistles. The references to it are less definite. Still, the Lord's coming is urged as a motive to faithfulness. The Corinthians are urged to await the Lord's coming (1 Cor. i. 7, 8); to refrain from judging "until the Lord come, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and make manifest the counsels of the hearts" (iv. 5). In his later letters also he refers to the manifestation of Christ in glory (Col. iii. 4), and his watchword still is: "The Lord is at hand” (ò KúρLos éyyús, Phil. iv. 5). Such are the facts. The natural inference to be drawn from the facts is that, as time went on, the parousia ceased to be central in Paul's thought. The great controversies over the doctrine of salvation drew his attention away from that subject and concentrated it upon other themes. Thus there took place a change of emphasis and of proportion in the apostle's doctrine. It is improbable that the expectation of personally surviving the parousia remained so fixed and defi

nite in his mind as it was in his earlier ministry. How could this be the case, when in prison he faced the prospect of speedy martyrdom? He still believed that in the near future the Lord would come to consummate his Kingdom and to judge the world, but he must have deemed it less and less likely that he would still be living when that event should occur. It would be natural that the expectation of the advent should lose something of its definiteness with the passing of time and the unfolding of events. Still we cannot affirm, as some have done, that Paul changed his opinion respecting the nature or the nearness of the second advent. All that can be legitimately inferred from his language is that his later expectation was less definite and precise, and that the parousia had a relatively less prominent place in his thoughts than it had formerly occupied.

This changed emphasis may be accounted for in part by considerations which meet us in the passage commonly called "the Pauline Apocalypse," 2 Thess. ii. 1-12. The practical effect at Thessalonica of the preaching of the Lord's speedy return had been to develop fanaticism. Some had relinquished their employments and given themselves up to idleness and to indifference respecting the present life (2 Thess. iii. 11, 12). The apostle must have perceived the dangers attending a form of expectation which so easily led to such results. In the second Epistle he seeks to recover his readers from the fanatical excitement into which they had been thrown by directing their attention to certain intermediate events which must happen before the parousia. He declares that he had never taught them, and that there is no reason to believe, that the day of the Lord is on the very point of dawning (évéστηKev, ii. 2), that is, in the immediate future. Various events must precede it. Not until these have occurred should the parousia be expected. These intermediate events are described by the terms, "the apostasy" (ii. 3), the revelation of "the man of sin, the son of perdition (v. 3), and the "mystery of lawlessness" (v. 7). The apostle evidently has in mind some form of the doctrine.

of the dolores Messia which was current in Judaism. Messiah's advent is to be preceded by dread signs and portents.

Within what sphere these events were to occur and of what nature they were to be, are questions on which the most divergent opinions have been entertained. I hold that the manifestation of evil of which the apostle speaks was conceived of as occurring within the sphere of antiChristian Judaism. This view is favored both by the opposition to his work, which he had encountered from the Jews (cf. Acts xiii. 46, 50; xiv. 2; xvii. 13), and by the terms in which he describes the wickedness in question. It is an "apostasy," which naturally suggests a defection from the true religion, and is embodied in a "lawless one," apparently a false Messiah, who takes his place in the temple and sets up blasphemous pretensions. The power which is holding this "mystery of wickedness" in check is, I cannot doubt, the Roman Empire. This view is favored alike by the vague terms in which Paul names it (ὁ κατέχων; τὸ κατέχον, υυ. 6, 7), which are quite natural in connection with the intimation of its approaching destruction (ἕως ἐκ μέσου γένηται, υ. 7), and by his experience in being protected by the Roman power against Jewish fanaticism during this period of his career (cf. Acts xix. 35–41; xxii. 22-29). It should not be claimed, however, on the ground of this passage that Paul changed his view of the parousia between the time. of writing the first and that of writing the second Epistle. He simply qualified his statement of it by emphasizing considerations which were adapted to temper the expectation of the parousia as immediate by directing attention. to certain events which must first occur. The materials for this representation, which does not meet us elsewhere in Paul, were present in his mind and are amply illustrated in the existing form of our Synoptic tradition. They represent a survival in the early Church of the Jewish conception of the premonitions and accompaniments of Messiah's advent. This conception was transferred by the disciples from the first to the second coming