find the idea of two resurrections in the words: "Christ the first-fruits; then they that are Christ's at his coming. Then cometh the end," etc. (1 Cor. xv. 23, 24), that is, the end of the resurrection, that is, the resurrection of nonChristians. But this interpretation is improbable in view of the words which follow and which seem to explain "the end," namely: "When he shall deliver up the kingdom to God, even the Father" (v. 24). "The end" most naturally refers to Christ's consummation of his Kingdom, and denotes the termination of the present world-period, the goal of human history.

Whether Paul held that the resurrection will be universal or not is a difficult and disputed question. In Acts xxiv. 15 he is described as asserting "a resurrection both of the just and unjust." In his epistles, however, he nowhere speaks of a resurrection of all mankind, unless he does so in the passages just noticed. The words: "As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor. xv. 22), can hardly be appealed to in support of the absolute universality of the resurrection, since the context and drift of the whole argument naturally limit “all," in its concrete application, to those who are in living fellowship with Christ. Moreover, the whole argument for the resurrection, in 1 Cor. xv., is based upon mystic union with Christ as its ground and guaranty, and would be inapplicable to unbelievers. Such are the facts of the case. What is the natural inference from the facts? Those who argue from the silence of the epistles respecting the resurrection of unbelievers and from the applicability of his arguments to Christians only, may be referred to Acts xxiv. 15, and to the fact that, according to Paul, all men are to be judged (1 Cor. vi. 2; xi. 32), and that Paul regards the judgment as preceded by and presupposing resurrection. Moreover, the argument of 1 Cor. xv., which was addressed to Christians, may have been constructed in view of a special situation, and may not have represented the only ground on which Paul would have affirmed belief in the resurrection. On the whole, it is probable that he assumed the resurrection of all men,

though in some different sense and with different accompaniments and conditions, in the case of the righteous and in that of the wicked respectively.

All men are amenable to the final judgment. The work of Christians shall be tested and approved or rejected, but even if the work is burned up in the fire of the judgment, the persons shall be saved, but as if by escaping through the flames which consume their misdirected life-work (1 Cor. iii. 14, 15). "We shall all (that is, all Christians) stand before the judgement-seat of Christ. Each of us shall give account of himself to God" (Rom. xiv. 10, 12). But in the day of judgment God will render to all men according to their works (Rom. ii. 5-9). The apostle here seems to describe the judgment in strictly legal terms, and to represent its awards as bestowed according to the works of men (2 Cor. v. 10). How can such a conception be harmonized with the doctrine that God deals generously with the obedient and trustful. If equivalence to one's deeds is the principle of award in the judgment, what becomes of the doctrine of grace? Various answers have been proposed for this difficulty. It has been held that the correlatives, faith and works, and grace and debt, express theoretic contrasts which are resolved in application to life and character. Some have said that Paul's doctrine of judgment remained Jewish, and was never assimilated to his doctrine of grace. It is certain that Paul has expressed his doctrine of judgment in Jewish, rather than in evangelical, terms. But the sugges

tion of Weiss, that the equivalence between the awards and the deeds done "is not to be regarded in the rigid judicial sense, but as the natural correspondence of harvest and seed-time" (Gal. vi. 7, 8),1 seems to me very pertinent. The Christian's "deeds" are not regarded by Paul as legal "works" of merit, but as deeds and services which, as inwardly inspired by the Spirit, naturally flow from the Christian life. It is no more necessary to separate Paul's doctrine of judgment from his gospel of grace and faith than it is to read his doctrine of salvation in juridical

1 Bibl. Theol. § 98, d.

terms alone, because of his doctrine of justification. For some reason Paul did not carry over the terms of his doctrine of grace and apply them to the subject of final judgment. But it is impossible that he could have conceived of the principle of equivalence as having the same application, in the judgment, to the believer and to the unbeliever. For the former whom God has graciously accepted and forgiven there is "no condemnation," either here or hereafter. His references to the judgment must be read in the light of his central doctrine of gracious forgiveness.

The order of the events which we have studied, as Paul conceives it, is, the parousia, the resurrection, and the judgment. These issue in the final consummation of the Messianic Kingdom. Then Christ, after vanquishing all enemies, will surrender to God his mediatorial Kingdom, that God may be all in all (1 Cor. xv. 24-28; Col. i. 20; Phil. ii. 10, 11). The apostle is confident of the victory of Christ over all opposing powers. Does he conceive this victory as involving the voluntary submission of all, that is, universal restoration to holiness, or does the supposition of a reduction of all foes to impotence, even should they remain foes, satisfy the apostle's language? Paul's strong expressions concerning the triumph of Christ must be understood in the light of his system as a whole. Taken in isolation such phrases as: "In Christ shall all be made alive" (1 Cor. xv. 22), and, "that God may be all in all" (v. 28; cf. Eph. i. 10), strongly suggest universal restoration. But the former doubtless refers to resurrection and how can "all" be raised "in Christ" unless they first be joined to Christ by the union of faith and love? In the second phrase (ó leòs тà πávтa ÉV TâOI), the word Tâow, whether taken as masculine or neuter, cannot well be understood as more comprehensive than the "all things" which have just been mentioned as ruled over by the Son. All shall bow to Christ (Phil. ii. 10), but the apostle does not say that all shall willingly and obediently bow to him. He certainly does not conceive that, at the judgment, all will have received Christ, but that there will then be those who "are factious and obey

not the truth, but obey unrighteousness" to whom God will render "wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish" (Rom. ii. 8, 9).1

The apostle's eschatology was the projection of Christian hope into the life beyond. The form of this hope was not a little affected by the views of the future life in which he had been trained. Paul was certain that God would judge the world in righteousness (Acts xvii. 31) and that a blessed and perfected life awaited the Christian. His language cannot be made to yield any definite and complete eschatological programme. The elements of his teaching are not coördinated into a scheme of doctrine. It is only by making the most generous inferences from his language that any of the modern eschatological systems can be derived from his teaching. On this subject, as on all others, he wrote, not with a view to satisfying speculative thought, but with the hope of fostering and strengthening the Christian faith and hope.

1 On "Alleged Pauline Universalism" see Note C to Lecture IX. in Orr's Christian View of God and the World.

ᏢᎪᎡᎢ Ꮩ

THE THEOLOGY OF THE EPISTLE TO THE

HEBREWS

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTORY

WITH respect to the historical problems which concern the Epistle to the Hebrews there is but a single point on which modern critics are substantially agreed, and that is the rather barren negative conclusion that the epistle was not written by the apostle Paul. This result is the less satisfying because there is no cogent reason known to us why it should ever have been regarded as Pauline. It does not claim to have been written by Paul, and the diction, style, and mode of argument are so widely different from Paul's as to furnish almost a demonstration that the epistle is the work of some other hand. Little, if any, progress, however, has been made in modern times towards a positive view respecting its authorship. Criticism is still compelled to acquiesce in the ancient opinion of Origen, as reported in Eusebius.1

The most plausible conjectures respecting the authorship are those of Tertullian and Luther, the former of whom assigned the epistle to Barnabas, the latter to Apollos. Either of these suppositions would fairly well

1 "Who it was that really wrote the epistle, God only knows." Ecc. Hist. Bk. VI. ch. xxv.

66

2" For there is extant an epistle of Barnabas, inscribed to the Hebrews, a man of such authority that Paul has placed him next to himself in the same course of abstinence" (1 Cor. ix. 6). De Pudicitia, ch. xx.