But here we find ourselves involved in difficulties growing out of the criticism of the sources. These centre mainly about two points — (1) the relation of Jesus' teachings to that of Ilia contemporaries; ('2) the relation of His teaching to that of Ilil successors.
(1) We have altcadv noted the purely transcendent and esohatological fortu which the idea of the Kingdom bad assumed
SALVATION, SAVIOUR
SALVATION, SAVIOUE 363
In contemporary Judaism. The question arises how far Jesus felt Himself in ej-mpathy with this \iew. Tliere are pas.-^:.:es In the Synoptics, especially in the so-called Apocalypse of Jesus (Mk 13 and parail.)* wliich have marked poiuls of resemblance to the conleni]toniry Ap^xralj-pses. The Kingdom is spoken of M purely future — a miraculous state to be ushered in by the Parousia ol Jesus, and involving a sudden and complete trans- formation of the prejic-nt order of tilings (cf. Mk S^s 91, Mt 19'-^, Lk 2(>^ ^). What sltall we think of these passages V Do they represent the genuine teaching of Jesus? and if so, are we to think of nim, with many recent scholars, as holding a point of view essentially the some as that of His contemporaries'/ or, following Weitlenbach, Wendt, and others, are we to regard these apocalyptic elements as later additions, derived from Jewish or Jewish-Christian sources, and therefore to be disre- garded t or, linalty, is it possible, without recourse to the theorj- of interpolation, so to interpret Jesus' escliatological teaching as to bliow its harmony with the deeper and more spiritual views elsewhere expressed? This is one class of questions now being actively discussed, a fviU answer to which seems necessapi' before It is j>ossible adequately to set forth Jesus' doctrine of salvation.
(2) The other class of questions leads us into the criticism of the Fourth Gospel. Here it is the absence of the idea of the Kingdom which is most striking. In place of the Kingdom, the great gift which Jesus bnn;^ ia eternal life, which is repre- sented, not, as in the ti>T)0ptic8, as a blessing to be enjoyed in the future (.Mk 103^^), but as a present posses.sion (624 640.'47. M). When we hear the Christ of the Fourth Gospel saying, ' He that believeth hath eternal life '(647), we seem to be in a ditferent world from that of the eschatological discourses of the Syn- optit'fi. It is the world of a St. Paul, who 6.\vs, ' If any man is In Christ, he is a new creature ' (2 Co ."i'T) ; of a St- John, who writes, ' Whosoever shall confess that Jesus is the Son of Ood, God abidfth in him and lie in Ood ' (1 Jn 41^). Are we to believe that the s;une Christ spoke ilt 2'i and Ju 14-16 ; and if so, how is their teaching to be reconciled?
Fortunately, we are not shut up for our ^iew of Jesus' doctrine of salvation to the settlement of either of these disputed ques- tions. There are enough perfectly' plain and undisputed ftas- sages — apart from these — to give us a clear view of His cetit^al teaching. Possibly we may find, if we take our stand upon this more cert-ain ground, that before we have Gnisbi-d we shall have gained li^iit which will help us in the BOlutioa of the more difficult problems.
If we would understand our Lord's doctrine of Balvation in its epoch-niaking significance, we must consider its relation to llie views of His contem- poraries. While it i.s true that Jesus fed His spirit upon the writings of the OT prophets, and drew thence many truths which His contemporaries had for^'otten, it is no less true tliat He was also a man of His own time, and that His teaching was infiu- eneed, not merely negatively but positively, by the development whose main lines we nave traced. We may illustrate this by a reference to the two points must prominent in the contemporary view of the kingdom — (a) its transcendence, and (6) its indi- vidualism.
(a) We are often tempted, because of the familiar human features in Jesus' teaching, to overlook its transcendent elements. Yet there can be no doubt that our Lord's conception of the Kingdom is dis- tinctly supermundane. Whatever may be the origin of the phrase, ' Kingdom of heaven,' found only in the first evangelist, it cannot be denied that the idea was characteristic of Jesus. The Kingdom of which He is the Mes.siah belongs to a dilleient and higher order from that whicli at present obtains. Its blessings are not earthlv but heavenly. The evidence for this may be found in all parts of HLs teaching (cf. His promise, to the persicuted disciples, of reward in heaven, Mt 5", cf. Lk 10* ' rejoice that your names are written in heaven'; the comiiiand to lay up treasures in lieaven, Mt 6", cf. Mt 19", Mk 10='. Lk 12-' 10"; the parable of the Unjust Steward, Lk l(i'"; the indillerence which He showed Himself, and which He recommended to His disciples, with reference to this world's goods, MtB'"; the answer to the Sadducces about the resurrection, Lk SO^"*"; the answer to I'ilate, Jn 18^ '.My Kingdom is not of this world'; as well as sncli distmctly eschato- logical passa'-es as Mt 24*' 20"'). In view of such tiUeiances, sharply contrasting the Kingdom, as belonging to the heavenly world, with all that is earthly, there can be no doubt that .lesus' con- ception stood in many respectts closer to the tran-