Another question, the full discussion of which lies beyond the scope of this article, must be mentioned. The movement of the soul to Christ does not originate with itself. Jesus traces it to the ' drawing ' of the Father (Jn 6''^*- ; cf. Jn 12'=). In this we have a suggestion of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. But it is obvious that this involves neither compulsion on the one hand nor lessening of human responsibility on the other. A man's coming to Christ, under the Divine influence, is a voluntary surrender. A man's refusal to come is and will be just ground of condemnation.
It remains only to point out the harmony of the rest of the NT with the teaching of Christ in the Gospels in respect of our subject. The phrase 'coming to Christ' belongs, it is true, almost ex- clusively to the Gospels, and is found in its highest meaning mainly in that of St. John (but see 1 P 2*, Rev 22", and cf. He 7^=). But all the NT is Christo- centric, and implies a call to men to come to Christ. ' In none other is there salvation : for neither is there any other name under heaven that is given among men wherein we must be saved' (Ac 4'2), sums up the wliole teaching of NT history and letters. But there is a diii'erence between the Gospels and the other books which it is important to notice, not a difference in essential truth, but in the point of view from which it is presented. In the Gospels, ' Come unto me ' is the personal call of Christ as teacher and Lord. In the rest of the N'T the call is to the crucified and ascended Christ. This is indeed anticipated in the Gospels {e.g. Mt 2028, Jn 12»2 et al.), but its full development before the death of Christ would have been premature, if not impossible. Immediately after the Crucifixion and Ascension, however, these two great historical facts are placed in the foreground of Apostolic preaching, e.g. in St. Peter's sermon on the day of Pentecost (Ac 2), in his remonstrance with the people after the healing of the lame man (ch. 3), in the declaration before the Council (!>""■). They are the central truths of the Pauline and other letters: 'We preach Christ crucified' (1 Co 1=^), ' Far be it from me to glory, save in .the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ' (Gal 6"), 'He is able to save to the uttermost them that draw near to God through him, seeing he ever liveth to make inter- cession for them' (He 7=^ cf. Rev S" etc.). We must interpret the invitation and the claim in the light of the Cross and of the Throne.
kt s Commentaries on John's Commentaries on the o/ Jcstm the Messiah ; da> ) and ' Kingdom of
IlfERATlRE — W
Gosi els Fdei
Hastmts -D-B j, . „.^„... „,
God (Orr) I) / i)j Drumniond's Rela-
tion or Apoit I hi iq of Christ ; Hort's
1/enay Tl I II 111 II '^W\ens- Theol. of the XT ; W endt s featl j l/ Je us Beysohlafc s NT Theology.
Ch \rles S Macalpine. COMMANDMENTS.— As commandments (^^roXal) Jesus leco^nizes (1) the injunctions of the Deca- logue, (2) certain other lequiiements of similar ethical character laid down in the Law. In one instance (Mk 10°) the Mosaic regulation for divorce is quoted as a 'commandment,' but its temporary provisional natiire is clearly indicated. ' This com- landment,' gi\en for a time in view of special
circumstances, is implicitly contrasted with the true and abiding ivroXai. In the case of a purely ritual ordinance the term irpoaiTa^di is used (Mt 8*,
Mk 1« Lk S'"). The 1
the Mount (Mt ! (Mt 161-20, Mli T oung ruler (Mt
His attitude to the Sermon on iris.aic tradition ■rply to the rich (4) the dialogue
with the la\v\
mentof the S.al,b.Uh cou.nKiii.hnLiit (Mk -•:<■-', Lk 6i-i» 131«16)
will have to be considered under Law and Sabb.ath.
It is assumed by Jesus that the commandments were given directly by God, and as such they are contrasted with the ' traditions of men ' (Mt 15", Mk ?*• '). This assumption of their Divine origin determines His whole attitude towards them. As ordained by God they are valid for all time and authoritative ; the keepiu"' of them is the neces- sary condition of eternal life (Mt 19", Mk 10'») ; men will take rank in the Kiiigilum of Heaven according to their obediriuc di thr commandments (Mt 51"). It is objecU-a 1.. tli.' l■|..■lli^(■(■s us tlu-ir chief offence that they li:n c |icr\ ci IimI and ovcrhiiil with tradition the comin:uKliiirnt> (it (jud (Mt W-, Mk 7').
In view, then, of the Divine origin of the com- mandments, Jesus accepts them as the eternal basis of morality. His own ethic is presented not as something new, but as a truer and more inward interpretation of the existing Law. It has been maintained (most notably in recent times by Tolstoi) that Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount enacts an entirely new moral code, — five new laws in contrast to those ordained ' in old time.' This, however, is opposed to His own declaration, ' I came not to destroy but to fulfil.' The authority which He claims for Himself is not an authority to originate laws, but to explain more fully in their Divine intention those already laid down by God. ' It was said to them of old time,— I say unto you,' implies an opposition not of tlie Decalogue and the new Christian code, but of the ancient interpreta- tion of the Decalogue !in<l tlie Chiistian intcrpieta- liciii. AVlirrc the m.-n of old tiuM! ^tc.|.i.c.l short with thr IcKiT, .Ic-iis uiih.M-; llic iinv^ir.l i.iiiK-iple