Already in the infant Church, following, as we believe, hints of the Lord Himself, there was a tendency to explain the death of the Crucified by means of principles inherent in the OT, by the idea of sacrifice and by the idea of vicarious suffering ; on the one hand, by the analogy of the Levitical sacrifices, and, on the other hand, by the descrip- tion of the Servant of Jahweli in Deutero-Isaiah. St. Paul took up these ideas, and worked them out in his own manner : the sacrificial idea, especially in Ro 325 59, 1 Co 57 (cf. He 9^2) ; the vicarious idea, esp. in 2 Co 5^'. St. Paul also added a new explanation of his own in Gal 3'^ This last might be described as somewhat Rabbinical ; but the same cannot be said of the other two. The prin- ciples of sacrifice and of vicariousness are deeply impressed upon God's world ; and that they should culminate in a supreme act of self-devotion has in it nothing incredible.
5. Justification and reconciliation. — The death of Christ established a new relation between God and man. It established it, as it were, objectively and ideally. For it to take full effect, man had to do his part ; he had to realize the new relation in a reformed and regenerate life. But the Christian was allowed to anticipate this. He had not to wait for the Divine forgiveness, which Mas vouchsafed to him at once as soon as he became a Christian and was launched upon that career of amendment and advance to which as a Christian he was
Sledged. St. Paul uses a judicial term, and escribes the convert from the first as ' justified,' i.e. ' declared righteous ' or ' acquitted.' This is the Divine answer to the faith by which he makes his profession and has it sealed by baptism. By this decisive act the Christian enters at once into the circle of the Divine favour ; he is received as a son reconciled to his Heavenly Father, as a prodigal returned. Henceforth his course is not one of weary effort and failure, but the way is smoothed for him and brightened by the Father's love.
This was one way of describing the process. Another way turned round St. Paul's characteristic manner of conceiving the relation of the Christian to Christ of which we have spoken. We have said that in St. Paul's own experience the vision of the exalted Christ was, as it were, clasped to his heart. The act was so intense and so absorbing that it amounted to a kind of identification : ' No longer I, but Christ liveth in me.' And j^et this ideal
Christ still wears the features of the historical Christ. It is the Christ who died and rose again. The Christian who is identified with such a Christ must himself also die and rise again — in such sense as he can, i.e. in a moral and religious sense ; he must die to sin, and rise again to newness of life (Ro 6^'") ; he must emerge from the imprisonment in which he is held by sin into the free and spacious life of the Spirit (see below).
6. Laiv and grace. — In his earlier experience, religion for St. Paul, as for the rest of his country- men, meant primarily obedience to law ; to be righteous was to keep the Law. But that was really an impossible task. The Law might com- mand, but it could not secure performance. Human nature was too weak to keep up obedience to its rigorous behests. In the multitude of rules and precepts there were always some that were neglected. And to break the Law in any degree was to break it, and to forfeit the reward of well- doing.
It was otherwise with the service of Christ. Here the motive was personal loyalty and de- votion, caiTied out under the conditions which have just been described, with the assurance of forgiveness, of Divine favour and Divine aid. Thus, whatever might be its outward conditions, the life of the Christian was one of inward joy and peace.
An incidental consequence of this new experience was that in his controversy with the Judaizers St. Paul was able to take his stand upon a broad ground of principle. He was able to contrast Christianity with Judaism as a higher type of religion, as a reign of Grace over against a reign of Law.
7. Developed Christology. — At this point we may turn to consider St. Paul's contribution to the Christian doctrine of God. So far as Christianity brojight a change in this doctrine, it all arose from theirecognition of the Divine nature and mission of Chrisl, and from the further consequences which that recognition brought with it. Jesus Himself had certainly come as the promised Messiah, though during His life on earth the full supernatural attri- butes of the Messiah were veiled and restrained. The Resurrection was the decisive proof that they were really there ; and from that time onwards the little band of believers proclaimed ojienly tlie central article of its faith. It did so especially under the double title of Messiah and Son of God. St. Paul took over these titles in the full depth of their meaning. We have seen that for him the Messiah was especially the glorified Messiah. That was, indeed, since the Resurrection, essentially the case with all Christians, but St. Paul grasped his belief with peculiar intensity and concentration. Whereas, too, the title 'Son of God,' though literally and strictly meant, was used by the first disciples in a way that was naive and unreHective, St. Paul evidently dwelt upon it, and pressed its full metaphysical meaning. He had clearly satis- fied himself that the manifestations of Christ's Divine Sonship required nothing short of this. And then, as Ave might expect, he went on to make use of other terms that his speculative training naturally suggested, to illustrate and carry home the same fundamental idea.