There is another passage in the Ep. (1 Th .■>*') in which there Is the same intimate combination of 'our God and Father' and * our L<tr<I -iesiis.' Here the context is not exactly mystical, but the two names are mentioned in connexion with the divine pre- rogative of ordering event.s. The apostle prays that (Jod and Christ will together 'direct' (KaTtvBvfai, 'make straight and unimpeded ') his way to them (the Thessalonians).
It is not by accident that the Holy Siiirit is In a similar manner implicated iii divine action d'^. « 4^ 6'^'), though It would be too much to say that the Spirit Is spoken of distinctly as a Person.
JESUS CHRIST
JESUS CHRIST
G4H
Tbe historical events or the life of Christ urc hardly alluded to, except lIlA death and resurrection C!'"4".V). In the last of these verses Christ is said to have died ' for us ' ; and in the preceding? verse 'salvation.' which is conlrastetl with 'death,' is ^aid to come 'throu^'h' lliui. In P" He is also spoken of as delivering t'hrlsthius 'from the wrath to come.* It is assumed that Christ is In heaven, from whence lie is expected to come asrain with linoresslve nianifestations of power (1»0 4'"-; of. also the frei|Uent ulliisiuns to ^ napovtria Tou Kuptou).
The Second t'uminj; is the only iiolnt on which the Ep. can be said ti» contain direct and formal tcacliinu'. The other points mentioned are all assumed as something already known, not as imparted for the first time.
Not only ina,v we say that they are known, but It is also fair to infer that tiiey are unillspute<l. There Is a hint of contro- versy with llie unbelieving .lews, but no hint of controversy with the .ludiean Churches, which stand In the same relation to fhrist (^»*-'«). This is Important; and it is fully borne out by tile other Kpistles. which show Just Iniw far the disputed ground between St. Paul and the other apostles extended. There was a good deal of shar[i debate about the terms on which Gentiles sh<»uld be admittetl. There is no trace of any debate as to the estimate of the I*crson of Christ,
We have referred to the Pauline mysticism and to the liint.'i, .slight but si,i;iiificaiit, of what is known a.s the doclrine of the Atoiieinent. It is dear that St. Paul ascribed to Chri.st not only tlivinc attributes but divine activities — activities in the supersensual sphere, what he elsewhere calls 'heavenly places' (t4 iKovpdvta). We know hnw these activities are enlarged upon in Kpp. to Co. (jal, and Ho. It would, of course, be wrons; to suppose that all Christians, or indeed any great number, had an intelligent gnusp of these ' mys- teries' ; but we can .see front the Kp. to lie, 1 1', Kpp. .In, and ]{ev, that conceptions quite as traii.scendental had a wide diffusion. And a verse like 2 ('o l:j'* shows that there inusi have been large tracts of important teaching which are im- perfectly represented in our extant documents. When we consider how occasional these documents are in their origin, the wonder is not that they have conveyed to us so little of the apostolic teaching, but that they have conveyed so much.
The summary impression ihat we receive is indeed that the revolution fureshadowed at the eiul of the last section has been accomplished. The historical facts of the Lord's life were not neglected ; for Gospels were being written, of which those which we now possess are only sur- viving specimens. Hut in the whole epistolary literature of NT they have receded very much into the background, as compared with those transcen- ilental conceptions of the Person and Work of Christ, to which the Gospels pointed forward, but which (with one exception) they did not directly expound.
No doubt this was in the main only what was to be expected. The narrative of the Gospels goes back to the period before the Uesurrection ; the ejiistolary literature dates altogether after it. .Siill it is remaikable how we seem to be plunged all at once into the midst of a developed theology. Nor is the wonder les.seiied. it is rather increased, when we remark that this theology is only in part set before us deliberately as teaching. The fact that it is more often i)resuppo.sed shows how ileep a hold it must have taken alike of the writer and of his readers.
Impressive contr:ists are sometimes drawn {e.tj. at the beginning of Dr. Hatch's Ilihliirl Lerlun) between the Sermon on the .Mount and the Nicene Creed ; and the contra.st certainly is there. Hut it goes back far beyond the ])eriod of the Arian controversy. It is hardly less marked between the Sermon on the Mount ami the writings which have come down to us under the names of St. Peter and St. Paul. And yei these writings are practically contemporary with the comiiosition of the Go.spels. The two streams, of hist4irical narrative on the one hand ami theological inference on the other, really run side by side. They do not exclude but rather supplement, and indeed critically conllrm,
each oilier. For if the Gospels had been really not genuine histories of the words and acts of Christ, but coloured products of the age succeeding Ills death, we may be sure that they would have reflected the characteristic attitude of that age far more than they do. They do not retlect it, but they do account for it by tlio.se delicate liints and subtly inwoven intimations that He who called Himself so persistently Sou of Man was also Son of God.