In view of such considerations, the Johannine conception of eternal life as a present possession seems no longer foreign to Jesus' teaching. Whatever may be the ultimate decision of criticism as to the origin of tlie discourses in which the phrase occurs, there can be no doubt that the idea is one which accords well with what we learn from other sources of our Lord's doctrine of salvation. Wendt argues strongly for its genuine- ness on the ground that it is needed to account for the presence of similar ideas in the apostolic age {Lehre Jeeii, ii. p. 19S). But, even apart from this, some such conception seems required from what we know of Jesus Himself. Holtzmann is certainly not a critic who can be charged with any leaning to conservative views. Yet, speaking of the Synoptic teaching concerning eternal life 'as gift and good of the future age,' he writes (AVuffjif. Theol. i. t'l'l) : ' Yet it {i.e. eternal life) is not thought of as a merely form.al definition which can be filled up with any content which the imagination may choose to give it. On the contrary, it is a possession of the present, alrea<iy well known, which has been projected into the future. The highest and most intense feeling of existence — a feeling of incompar- able nowcr and richness of content {unvergleicldich kraft-uml gehallvoUes Dasciiinge/iiht) without the slightest trace of twilight or mortality, of dull, hollow flnite.Tcss, — this is Jesus' conception of life and blessedness. Such a thought could be entertained only by one who Himself possessed the thing. In this sense He nmst have already borne the Kingdom of God as an inner good within Himself, must have known it as already present on the ground of His own experience^ And not only 80 ; but wherever His Gospel is preached in the world, wherever the Spirit of God is manifest either in miraculous power or in the hearts of men. wherever, in the sense of the parables, seeds spring up and fruits ripen, there also — with the righti-ousness which makes out the content of the Kingdom— the Kingdom itself is already presenL'
(6) But we shall not fully understand the origin- ality of Jesus' doctrine of salvation until we have considered it at the other point where it is most natural to compare it with that of His contem- poraries, i.e. its individualism. 'We have already
studied the growth of the individualistic tendcncj- in the later Judaism, and seen its ell'ects in subordinat- ing the conception of national to that of individual righteousness, and in extending the doctrine of retribution from this life to that after death. Here, too, we find points of contact in Jesus' teaching. He also insists strongly upon the necessity of individual righteousness. Most of His time is spent in dealing with individual men, and the conditions which He lays down for en- trance to His Ivingdom are such tliat each man must fulfil them for himself. So in His view of the life after death Jesus accepts the results of the intermediate development. Sheol has alto- gether lost its character of colourless monotony. Death involves no interruption in the communion of the individual with Gocl. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob are even now enjo3-ing a resurrection life with God (Lk '20*'-^) ; Lazarus passes at once from this world into Abraham's bosom (Lk 16^) ; and to the dying thief on the cross the promise is made that this day he shall be with hia Master in Paradise (Lk •23«).
And yet it is just in His dealing with individual men that the contrast of Jesus' view of salvation to that of His contemporaries is most apparent. To the Pharisees of His day salvation was the reward of righteousness. And the righteous man was ha who perfectly conformed his life to the require- ments of the ceremonial law. It is difficult for us to appreciate the nature of these demands not only upon a man's good-will, but upon his time and upon his means. As Holtzmann has well shown (I.e. i. 132 f}'.), it was impossible for a man of moderate means to be righteous in the full legal sense, with- out sacrificing all hope of worldly prosperity. A ricli man might indeed keep the law. A few less blessed with this world's goods — the so called 'poor' of the later Jewish literature — had the courage to make the needed sacrifice. For the most part men felt the burden too heavy, and were content to live as they could, without part in the hopes and ideals of their religious teachers, despised by them as sinners and outcasts, without share in the Divine favour or interest in the Divine salvation. (Cf. Jn "■" ' This multitude which knoweth not the law are accursed,' and especially 2 Es ?"• "• '^"'").
It was exactly to this company of outcasts, the poor and despised in Israel, that Jesus directed Hia preaching (Lk 4>»- !», Mt 11=, Lk l^ ; cf. the beati- tudes of tlie Sermon on the Mount, Mt 5'"" and parall. Lk 6'"-^). He said of Himself that He was come to seek and to save the lost (Lk 19'"). He called sinners to repentance (Mk 2", Mt 9'^ Lk 5'-). He declared that there is more joy in heaven over one sinner that repenteth than over ninety and nine just persons that need no rejjent- ance (Lk 15'- '"). He ate and drank with publicans and sinners (Mk 2'°), and declared to the self- righteous Pharisees tliat the publicans and harlots were entering into the Kingdom of heaven before them (Mt 21''). He swept away the burdensome requirements of the ceremonial law, and invited men to the service of a Master who.se yoke was easy and whose burden was light (Mt ll^-*").' He made the conditions of entrance to His kingdom humility, trustfulness, the childlike spirit (Alt 5* 18^' *). In place of a God who cared only for a spiritual aristocracy, whose pleasure it was to make hard conditions that He might incre.a.se the value of the few who were saved (2 Es 7'"" *'), He proclaimed a compassionate and lo\ing Father, willing to receive back the returning prodigal upon the first evidence of repentance (Lk 15*"). lie revived the forgotten prophetic doctrine of the Divine forgiveness, and made the chief blessing of His Kingdom to consist in the remission of sins (Mt 26'^, cf: Mk 2'»).