dyia<r/x6s, the XT word for ' sanctification,' does not occur at all in the recorded sayings of Jesus. But He was constantly speaking ai)out the thing itself. Therefore we are constrained to recog- nize some special significance in the absence of the familiar wonls from the Lonl's teaching. Probably the explanation is found in the state of religi(ms feeling in His day. 07105 is tlie nearest Greek equivalent of the Hebrew dSi^. This term, with its kindred terms, had acquired a distinct con-
* For a vinedresser (Mt 20i'6); for a Roman soldier (Tac. Ann. i. 17).
562 SANCTIFY, SANCTIFICATION
SANCTIFY, SANCTIFICATION"
notation. It has been pointed out tliat the idea of holiness in OT is progressively spiritualized, and re- ceives more and more ethical content. But whilst this is true of OT usage, the Greek period in Jewish history had ushered in a time of reaction in the sig- nificance of religious terms. The struggle of pious Jews to resist Hellenizing tendencies threw the emphasis of religion upon keeping the Law. Thus arose the Pharisaic interpretation of piety as rigid obedience to the Law. Under this influence holi- ness was again interpreted ceremonially instead of morally. When Jesus Avas born, the religious phraseology of the day was legal rather than ethical. Now this conception of sanctihcation was the subject of unsparing denunciation by Jesus. One long chapter in Matthew'.s Gospel gathers up scathing rebukes of those who put the emphasis of religion upon what is external (Mt 23i-='« ; of. Lk ll3a-52). In the Sermon on the Mount He said : ' Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, ye shall in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven' (Mt 5^"). So that, if Jesus had used the current terms, He would have been understood in the current sense. In order to secure new moral contents for the terms. He had to drop them, and to use other phraseology to describe their true meaning.
A further explanation of the absence of the familiar terms is found in Jesus' method of teaching. His teaching was not doctrinal. He did not ex- press His ideals in formulas, but in pictures of what men ought to be. Instead of reiterating familiar maxims. He minted new precepts for men's daily use. Neglecting the outworn dogmas of the scribes. He uttered sharp calls to men as to what they ought to do. His teaching was ' new,' and was 'with authority' (Mk 122.27) When we turn to the Epistles, we discover that, though the familiar terms reappear, they reappear in a new form. They have no longer the Pharisaic connotation. They have a new Christian connotation, which lifts them above the highest ethical attainment of OT. The NT writers use OT words with the significance that Jesus Christ has given to the idea they repre- sent.
1. Christ's teaching about sanctification. — i. His teaching about the ideal of saint- hood. — Jesus Christ's conception of sanctification started from the holiness of God the Father. He found certain attributes in God that are capable of being the ideal for men. These attributes belong to the Fatherhood of God. He summed up many exhortations in the words, ' Be ye therefore perfect, even as your heavenly Father is perfect ' (Mt 5^^). This command held out a new ideal of perfection. Hitherto men had found their ideal in various human excellences. Jesus fixed attention upon God the Father. There are many Divine attributes that are inaccessible to men. No man can be perfect even as God is perfect. The omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence of God are abso- lutely beyond human reach. But as ' Father,' God displays certain qualities that may be copied by men ; and these qualities unite to form the Christian ideal. Such teaching rested upon the underlying belief of Jesus that man has a capacity for sonship of God, and that he reaches his ideal by realizing his sonship. And Jesus could conceive sonship only in the ethical realm. To give men power to become children of God, is to make them resemble their Father ethically (Jn F2).
The details of the teaching may be summarized conveniently under some of the leading categories of thought used by Jesus :— (1) His own example. He claimed to set forth the moral ideal, because He was the Son of God (Jn 14"). As the Son, He revealed the Father (Mt II2', Jn H^- ^o) ; therefore the children of God are those who resemble Him
(Mt 1128). The imitation of Christ is the true sanctification.
(2) Love. The central and all-pervading glory of the Divine Fatherhood is love (Mt b*^, Jn 1421- 23j. The Apostolic phrase 'God is love' (1 Jn 4") sums up the irresistible testimony of Jesus to the Father (cf. 1 Jn 31 49- 10, Jn 3i«). Therefore holy people must be loving. The first demand is for love towards God. To ' love the Lord ' is the greatest commandment (Mt 22^' ||). The character that lacks this devoted love for the heavenly Father is fatally defective. But Jesus bracketed the com- mandment to ' love thy neighbour as thyself ' with this ' first and greatest ' (22^^ ||) ; and the parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk lO^*"^^) has been inter- preted as teaching that ' charity is the true sanctity ' (Bruce). Likeness to the heavenly Father is im- possible without the cultivation of a loving spirit (Mt S^-'s, Lk 1525-32). This love must be unselfish (Lk 14^*- "). It must forgive freely and unweariedly (Mt 1821- 22). It must not judge (7^- % It must be full of compassion towards all needy ones, and must find a neighbour in any one requiring assist- ance (Lk \0-*'^^). Jesus also inculcated the supreme importance of love by His rebukes of its opposites : of lack of compassion (Mt 1823-35, Lk 10) ; of .sel- fishness (Lk 16i»-3i) ; of inhumanity (Mt 25*^-^% Equally terrible were His denunciations of Phari- saic injustice to the weak (23''- ^* ||).