must be simply unto God, bearing all these legitimate and valuable elements, subjecting them to the indwelling Spirit, who will fuse them all together into that sanctified, opulent, and eloquent manhood by which it has ever been "God's good pleasure through the foolishness of the preaching to save them that believe."

ARTICLE III.

THE HISTORIC CHRIST IN THE LETTERS OF PAUL.

BY PROFESSOR RHYS REES LLOYD.

THE careful student of the Pauline letters often asks himself, How much did Paul know about the historic life. of Jesus? How much does he tell his various readers about that life? This article aims to answer these two questions. In trying to do this, it will gather its data from the thirteen letters usually attributed to this apostle. Not a reference to the earthly life of Jesus will be consciously overlooked. Care will be taken to consider thoughtfully all of the so-called "allusions" to that life. But in the consideration of these references and allusions, I shall not call upon the Gospels for help to finish any portion of the portrait of Jesus which Paul may have left unfinished. This process will tend to prevent my reading into certain expressions of Paul ideas which they do not naturally convey to other thoughtful readers. The temptation to read into the words and phrases of Paul ideas that are taught only in the Gospels is very great. But we must watch and pray so as not to enter into that temptation.

Let us then ask, What does Paul teach in these letters about the birth of Jesus? We are told that Jesus was an Israelite (Rom. ix. 5), that he came from the seed of David (Rom. i. 3). Like all other children, he was "born of woman," and born "under law" (Gal. iv. 4; cf. 1 Tim. iii. 16). He was "sent" into the world "in the fullness of the time" (Gal. iv. 4; cf. Eph. i. 6). These expressions contain all of the information given by Paul in answer to our

question. All of them are found in the so-called "indisputable letters." The phrase "the fullness of the time" gives us no possible clew to the year, month, day, or hour in which our Saviour was born. In like manner, "the seed of David" leaves us asking, From what family of the seed of David did he come? Who was his father? What was the name of his mother? To these questions there is no answer, save the phrase "born of woman." Was this expression designed to suggest that there was anything peculiar in the manner of the Saviour's birth? No. Analogous phrases are found in Job xiv. 1 ("Man that is born of woman," etc.), and in Matt. xi. II ("Among them that are born of women"), which designate only ordinary, human births. In the absence of anything in this context which requires that the phrase should have here an exceptional meaning, we conclude that it must carry only its usual signification; hence the phrase designates here an ordinary birth.

The apostle gives us no information respecting the place and the attending circumstances of this famous birth. Did Paul know anything about the thoughts recorded in regard to the birth by Matthew and Luke? We cannot tell. Speculation, therefore, about his knowledge on these points, seems useless.

Does Paul teach us anything about the childhood and youth of Jesus? Some scholars would have us believe that Paul alludes to the circumcision of the Babe of Bethlehem, when he writes to the Colossians as follows: "In whom ye were circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands, in the putting off of the body of the flesh, in the circumcision of the Christ" (Col. ii. 11). Does the phrase "of the Christ" signify that he was the object of this circumcision? When we observe that the circumcision designated by the apostle is a circumcision not made with hands, a circumcision which consists "in the putting off of the body of the flesh,"

we see that "the Christ" is the person through whom this putting off is accomplished. It is performed when man comes into Christ. The circumcision which "Christ" requires may be the true meaning. Bishop Lightfoot seems to regard Christ as "the author" of this circumcision. If the first view be adopted, then there is here no reference to the circumcision of the boy Jesus. Since this is, in my judgment, the correct view, we are constrained to say that there is no allusion in these letters to the childhood and youth of the Saviour.

The incidents connected with his baptism and temptation, and even these events themselves, are passed by unnoticed. I am well aware that many claim that they have found several references to the baptism of Jesus (e. g. Rom. vi. 3-4; 1 Cor. x. 2; Col. ii. 11). These passages, I believe, do not point back to the baptism of the Saviour by John the Baptizer. In Romans we read: "As many as were baptized into Christ were baptized into his death. We were buried ["entombed"] therefore with him through the baptism into the [or his] death, in order that as Christ was raised from the dead," etc. (vi. 3, 4). The phrase "raised from the dead" shows, when taken with the preceding phrase, "baptized into his death," that "the burial" of Christ (ver. 4) cannot possibly refer to the baptism of Jesus in the waters of the Jordan. It points back to his entombment in the tomb of Joseph. These remarks apply equally well to Col. ii. 11; for the context of this passage shows clearly that Paul is referring to the burial of Jesus in the tomb. I fail to see why Hausrath should refer to I Cor. x. 2, in connection with the baptism of Jesus by John the Baptist. I repeat now the statement previously made, namely, that Paul nowhere refers to the baptism of Jesus in water.

Weary of the silence, and of the general statements respecting the birth and the early life of Jesus, we pass with

This period brings before

eagerness to his public career. us the two forms of the Saviour's activity, his teaching and his deeds. Upon each of these we must now seek for light. A careful search of these letters finds only three possible allusions to the teachings that kept the people of Palestine hanging in wonder upon the gracious lips of Jesus. Two of these allusions are so general as to give us no conception of the forms and contents of that teaching. In 1 Tim. vi. 13 we read that "Christ Jesus witnessed the good confession before Pilate." What was this "good confession"? Was it a particular statement? If so, what were its contents? No answers are given to these questions. The other general allusion reads as follows: "And might reconcile them both in one body unto God through the [or his] cross, having slain the enmity thereby; and he came and preached peace to you that were afar off, and peace to them that were nigh" (Eph. ii. 17). The reader will observe that Christ preached peace after he "slew the enmity through the cross"; hence this preaching was done after his crucifixion. This preaching had the Ephesian Christians for its hearers ("To you that were afar off"); consequently it could not be any preaching which was done in the days of his flesh.

Only in 1 Corinthians xi. 23-25 do we find Paul quoting any of the words of his Lord. In these verses he tells his readers that he "received from (aró) the Lord that which" he "also delivered unto" them, "how that the Lord Jesus in the night in which he was delivered up took bread; and having given thanks, brake it, and said, This is my body which is for you. This do to remember me. In like manner also the cup, after supper, saying: This cup is the new covenant in my blood. This do as oft as ye drink it to remember me." This passage gives us two formal citations from the words of Jesus. We are told that they were uttered in the night in which he was delivered

VOL. LVIII. No. 230. 5