darkness, there the reign of God; here simply endurance and hope, there enjoyment: such is the essence of the apocalyptic scheme, and Paul has destroyed it. And the vital point at which Paul overcame this lies in his idea of salvation as essentially inner and spiritual and ethical, and so available for men now. Whatever he may add as to the consummation, the essential fact is that "the kingdom of God is righteousness and peace, and joy in the Holy Spirit," and that men may have all these here and now.

One or two other items need to be noted to bring out this side of Paul's thought. First, if the kingdom be moral and spiritual, if it be righteousness and peace and joy, then the kingdom is present just so far as these are present. That is clearly implied in Rom. 14. 17 and in I Cor. 4. 20. It is stated specifically in Col. 1. 13, 14, where Paul speaks of an accomplished fact: "who delivered us out of the power of darkness, and translated us into the kingdom of the Son of his love." This too is not changed by the fact that most of Paul's references to the kingdom are eschatological. Second, we must note Paul's conception of the church here. It is this thought of a fellowship of the children of God that displaces in effect for Paul the phrase kingdom of God. Two things are to be said here about this church. (1) It is not so many scattered individuals, but a more or less mystical fellowship bodied forth in the Christian community. It is the body of Christ, indwelt by him, informed by him, having its life through his presence. (2) In this new creation is seen the purpose of God, taking the place of the old nationalistic ideal of the Jews. Here is the mystery of God's purpose, "to sum up all things in

Christ," and to "give him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fullness of him that filleth all in all" (Eph. 1. 10, 22, 23). The apostle expects his people to be saved, but there is no word of the old national-political hope. On the contrary, he sees in the church the new and spiritual Israel. Here are Abraham's children; these are the heirs to the promises; for their sakes it is that the words were spoken of old. In this new and glorious community the national distinctions have been abolished, "there can be neither Jew nor Greek," and all, Jew and Gentile alike, because they are Christ's are "Abraham's seed, heirs according to promise." The Jerusalem that is above is the mother of Christians, and these, and not the children of the Jerusalem of earth, are the free children and the heirs (Gal. 3. 26-29; 4. 26-31; Rom. 4. 9-25). And while the old temple and all things connected with it pass away, this fellowship, indwelt by the Spirit of Christ, is growing into a new and abiding "holy temple in the Lord” (Eph. 2. 19-22).

It is exceedingly instructive simply to read through Paul's letters and note the matters to which he gives largest attention, and the occasional passages in which he summarizes his message. It need hardly be said that with Paul, as with Jesus, the constant burden of the message is moral and spiritual. Repentance, faith, the life that God will give to men in his Spirit, the life that men are to live with God in trust and obedience and with men in the spirit of Christ-here is his constant theme. And the great summaries of his gospel bear out this thought: "God was in Christ reconciling the world unto himself;" "We preach Christ crucified, the power of God

and the wisdom of God;" "Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision, but faith working through love" (2 Cor. 5. 19; 1 Cor. 1. 23, 24; Gal. 5. 6). Nothing will so surely obscure the real spirit of the great interpreter of Jesus as the piecemeal study of isolated passages undertaken with the assumption that all Paul's ideas must be crowded into a consistent theological system.

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

We may summarize our findings as to Paul as follows: Paul held the general apocalyptic framework, a common Jewish and early Christian possession. For him, as for the early Christians all, Christ and his return was the heart of the apocalyptic hope. At the same time there was another side of his thought of Christ, and this element grew for him in meaning and power. Christ was the reconciler of men to God, the spirit of a new life in men, the mediator of God's own Spirit and all God's gifts, and the bond of a new fellowship in which all divisions of race and class were overcome and in which a new family of God was being established in the earth. This is what Paul means when he speaks distinctively of his gospel, here is the distinctive Christian element of the new faith, and this is the message that grows in wonder and meaning as Paul sees its power illustrated in the widening circles of his world apostolate. Nor was this the least service that Paul wrought in the setting forth of these great truths. For when the apocalyptic hope faded, when the hope of a speedy visible return of Jesus was proven false by the historical event, the Christian Church moved on without disaster in the strength of that life and faith which Paul had done so much to set forth.

THE GOSPEL OF JOHN

We have seen how in Paul there lie side by side the thoughts of salvation as an apocalyptic hope and as a present spiritual experience. As the years passed by and the ardent hope of an immediate return of Jesus to establish his kingdom was not realized, what attitude did the church take? We have not the material in the New Testament for any full reply, but there are two writings yet to be considered which throw light on this question, both of them, according to the common opinion of scholars, coming from around the close of the first century. Tradition has assigned these books to the same author, the apostle John, though dissent from this opinion appears very early in the church. It is not necessary to decide here whether John of the Apocalypse is the same as John the beloved disciple to whom the fourth Gospel has been commonly assigned. It is necessary, however, to consider each writing by itself, for the answers which they give to our question are clearly contrasted. One of these answers gives the apocalyptic side of early Christian belief, and that in its fullest and sharpest form, with far more of Jewish apocalypticism than appears anywhere else in the New Testament. The other drops the apocalyptic form almost altogether and lifts out the eternal and spiritual content of the gospel.

This last is the work of the fourth Gospel. It was Paul's great service to set forth the meaning of the new faith as a salvation which by grace through faith was open to all men now. At the same time there was as the constant background of Paul's hope the thought of a future apocalyptic consummation. In John the apoca

lyptic framework has practically disappeared. There is an allusion to a return of Jesus, apparently in the old sense (John 21. 22), and once there is a reference to a general resurrection and judgment that lies in the future (5. 28, 29). But the interest of the book as a whole is not in the apocalyptic drama with its succession of events, with its salvation coming in great and future crises; rather it is in that which is spiritual and present and timeless. It is a great presentation, or interpretation, of the message and meaning of Jesus, and, with the great word of Paul, it has ruled the thought of the church through all these centuries. As we look at its idea of salvation we shall note that point by point it stands in contrast with the apocalyptic form of hope.

For John salvation is spiritual and ethical, not political and national. The thought of the kingdom of God, as we have seen, was common to Jew and to Christian as the expression of the future hope. It was the rule of God which was to bring the good of men. But the phrase was capable of many meanings. It might be the rule of a new life and spirit controlling men's will and affections. Often it was simply national and political, the rule of God being conceived as in effect the rule of Israel. Sometimes it was external, and the picture of a rule "with a rod of iron" had a fateful influence. Acts 1. 6 shows that the early disciples had not emancipated themselves from this more external conception. It may be that the desire to avoid this national-political element helps to explain the fact that the phrase "the kingdom," which appears in the synoptic Gospels one hundred and two times, is used by Paul only fourteen times, and in the fourth Gospel in but two passages (five