In contrast to the Palestinians, the Alexandrian Jews applied the idea of retribution to the future as well as to the present life. Wisdom clearly teaches the doctrine of future rewards and punishments (31%). The Day of Judgment is expressly men- tioned (37-38), The terrors of an evil conscience and the thought of future condemnation are jointly set forth in 172. In 19! the hardening of Pharaoh's heart is represented as a necessary doom, quite after the analogy of the Greek Nemesis. :
Another distinctive note of the Alexandrian ethics is its universalistic tendency. According to
DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE 295
Wisdom the peculiar advantage of the Jew con- sists, not in his birth but in his possession of the knowledge of God. Pagans are sinners, not because they are not of Abraham’s race but because they are without the knowledge of the true God (13), It is from this standpoint that idolatry is regarded as the source of evil and the corruption of life (14”). Philo departs even more emphatically than Wisdom from the Jewish particularism taught in Palestine. All men are brethren, similarly organ- ized and endowed ; before all is set the same task of emancipating the soul from the bondage of the body. Slavery is the greatest of all evils, and virtue consists in obeying the voice of conscience. It is the mission of the Israelites to be the priests and prophets of the whole human race, and herein lies their privilege. But in order to accomplish this momentous task they must have a true spiritual understanding of their Law, 7.¢. they must become philosophers. This extreme spiritualism was due partly to the influence of Greek philosophy, and partly to the distance of the Alexandrian Jews from Palestine. Equally shut off from contact with the schools of the home land, and from the observance of the Ceremonial Law, they soon ideal- ized their religion.
7. Christian doctrine gave final shape and pre- cision to the Jewish anthropology, and threw a flood of light upon the obscurities of a period un- rivalled for religious wavering and confusion. To many things in the current theological teaching Christ gave His assent ; with regard to others He set men upon the right track; others still He re- jected or supplanted by positive doctrine of a contrary character. To a large extent this was done through the use of well-known ideas and expressions. The words of Jesus with reference to unpardonable sin (Mt 12%* ||; cf. 1 Jn 516, He 64*:) probably reflect a phraseology familiar to the Judaism of the age. A propos of this example, Langen suggestively remarks that the key to many theological difficulties of NT passages lies in approaching them from the standpoint of their historical connexion (Judenthum, p. 381). With- out essentially altering its content, Christian doc- trine introduces light and definiteness into the well- nigh chaotic mass of religious thought and theory which represented the accumulation of centuries. As to the nature of man, it distinguishes between soul and spirit without embracing Plato’s doctrine of trichotomy, and rejects the Pythagorean view of the connexion between soul and body. It teaches, further, that there is a personal future life for man, a resurrection to life, but also to judgment. In St. Paul’s Epistles we have the facts of redemp- tion joined on to the teaching of the opening chapters of Genesis, and raised to a definite system. Sin, death, and grace appear in their true signifi- cance and connexion. On the one hand, we have the loftiest ideal towards which to strive in our moral and spiritual growth and development, and on the other the Almighty will working from eternity towards the fulfilment of His purposes (Ro 8). While not showing how the two octrines can be held in combination without neutralizing each other, it teaches both free will and an over- ruling Providence. Finally, Christian ethics neither ignores the motive inspiring conduct, nor minimizes the importance of the external act. It teaches that, While the moral quality of an action is deter- mined by the inner motive, its outward manifesta- tion is < a worthy of praise or blame (Mk 14°).
y. Tur MesstAnic Hopg.—l. Meaning of the expression. —The word Messiah (Heb. 1¥?, Gr. Xpiords) means ‘anointed,’ and is used most fre- quently in OT of the theocratic king of Israel (LS 12° ete.), but with a special significance when applied to David and his descendants (Paeelste
296 DEVELOPMENT OF DOCTRINE
89'°"-), In Dn 9% the reference is apparently to Cyrus (cf. Is 451), The title does not occur either in the Apocrypha or in the Apocalyptic literature written during the last century and a half B.c. In the latter especially there are undoubtedly Messianic passages, but the style of composition lent itself most naturally to the use of the sym- bolical. The earliest extant instance of its dis- tinctive use as a technical form is found in the anti-Sadducean Psalms of Solomon (17% 185 8), composed ¢c. 140 B.c. It may be noted here also that the expression ‘ Messianic hope’ is not free from a certain ambiguity, seeing that under this title are frequently comprehended two things which should be carefully distinguished, viz. the expectation of the Messianic era, and the expecta- tion of the Messianic king. In tracing the develop- ment of the Messianic idea in Israel it is necessary to keep in view the fact that many Prophetic and Aepontrptis writers who look forward confidently to a glorious future for the nation entertain no expectation of a personal Messiah. The Jews cherished a strong belief in the restoration of their national prestige as Jehovah’s chosen people. After purifying the nation by discipline, He would bestow ae them all that heart could wish. This faith, already preached by the prophets of the 8th cent. B.C., they firmly held apart from and prior to the notion of a unique personal deliverer in the form of the Messiah. In certain sections of Judaism also, and at certain periods, when the latter ex- pectation grew dim, the wider hope was never relinquished.