Because of these characteristics, we are, in interpreting St. Paul, to observe the following principles : (1) Not to be too literal or exact in method, or to crowd his figures. (2) To understand that we have to do not simply with the revelation of Christ, but with the reflexion of a man of deep religious feel- ing, 'fiery fanc}%' and extraordinary logical power, who is developing facts into doctrines. (3) That he is doing this for practical purposes rather than to give the Church a theology, and aims to meet needs and special points of view characteristic of his da.y. (4) That the inner religious experience of the man, out of which he wrote, is not fully dissociated from Rabbinical dialectics and Pharisaical conceptions, which had been v\'ell wrought into the framework of his religious thinking. He had to express himself by means of 'the ideas and association of ideas lying ready in his consciousness,' which bore a decided Jewish stamp. (5) That he is sufficiently tinctured with Alex- andrian methods of interpreting Scripture to use Biblical cita- tions in accommodated senses. (6) That the Alexandrian ideas about the opposition of flesh and spirit, the earthly man and the heavenly man, have determined the direction of some of his reflexions. (7) That the Pharisaical theology had much to do in determining the form of his presentation of the doctrine of vicarious sacrifice. This theology construed the relations be- tween man and God from the legal standpoint. Men who do not fulfil the Law are responsible and involved in guilt. This guilt must be recompensed, or punishment must be visited on the offender. Good deeds, meritorious performances, voluntary mortifications are availing, but with most men the guilt of mis- doing is so great that such compensations are not sufficient to balance accounts and avert deserved punishment. Hence it is necessary to look to the superfluous merits of some eminently just or lioly person to be imputed to sinners for the covering of their deficiencies. (8) While the husk of St. Paul's thought is at times Jewish, there is in him a kernel of his own, a spiritual
VICARIOUS SACRIFICE
VICARIOUS SACRIFICE
797
and inner side which we must grasp to understand his real teachings. Most of the theories of vicarious sacrifice which do not accord with our modern ethical spirit and with the prin- ciples of our modern thought, arise from making too much of the ' earthen vessels ' into which Paul's real beliefs are cast, and it is clear that we must get rid of these to find the ' heavenly treasures.'
Most interpreters see in St, Paul a twofold representation of Christ's vicarious sacrifice, a juridical, based on his Pharisaical conceptions, and an etliico-niystical, a product of his vital religious experience. A. B. Bruce thinks they indicate different stages of the development of the doctrine of reconciliation in the Apostle's thinking, but one can scarcely consider them as 'two doctrines,' for
(1) They are wrought out in the same Ejiistles ;
(2) They interpenetrate. PHeiderer explains them psychologically, making them the expression of ' two souls which always struggled with each other in the breast of the Pharisee and the Apostle Paul, namely, the legal Jewish soul and the evan- gelical Christian soul.' As the juridical concep- tion arises in his discussion with the Jews and has reference to Jewish ideas only, it may be that the juridical element is adopted as a form of argument which will be most convincing to a special class, and that it is not intended for a universal form in which to put the doctrine. We shall, therefore, not depend so much on the form as on the reality which seems to lie behind it — the spiritual idea — in trying to set forth Paul's view. The main posi- tions of the Apostle which bear on his conception of Jesus' vicarious sacrifice can be stated under the following heads :
(1) Man is separated from God hy the fact of sin. — This is due (a) to the attitude of God toward sin. The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who, light having been given them, are without excuse and are treasuring up for themselves wrath in the day of wrath (Ro psff-, Eph 5'', Col Z% (h) Man because of sin is at enmity with God, minding the things of the flesh and not the things of the spirit, nor being subject to the law of God (Ro 8^"*). For men to be brought back to God they must be led to renounce sin, for God can never allow it or har- monize witli it.
(2) God ivants to save men from sin and reconcile them to Himself. — {a) The work of reconciliation, St. Paul says, is begun by God, who was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself (2 Co 5'^- '"), who sent Him forth (Ro 3^', Gal 4*) to redeem them which were under the Law ; and since He ' spared not his own Son, but delivered him up for us all, how shall he not also with him freely give us all things?' (Ro 8^^). In view of these explicit statements, there is no place for the idea that Jesus' vicarious sacrifice was to reconcile God to us. The word KaraXXdacrot), ' reconcile,' is used three times in 2 Co S'*'-*', and in each case the reconciliation is to God, and not of God to the Avorld. The noun KaraWayri is twice \ised in this passage to indicate something given to us, and reinforces the affirmation of the verb. The peace the sinner receives through this reconciliation is a peace irpbs rbv debv, tovvtrd God, and not a peace of God toward men. Christ, therefore, in seeking tlie salvation of man, is the expression of God ; it is God's action, God's kindness, God's sacrifice. Whatever Christ meant in His life and work God meant, (i) This idea is further enforced by the passages which speak of Christ's Avork as one of grace (Ro 3^'') : those Avho would lie justified ])y the LaM' are fallen away from grace (Gal S''), for salvation is the gift of God (Eph 2'").