1. The Messianic Hope in Later Judaism
J. Gresham Machen, The Literature and History of New Testament Times (1915), chapter 6, “The Messiah”. Assigned excerpt. The interpretations are the author’s.
After the close of the Old Testament, the promise did not die. It was preserved in the Scriptures. It continued to be the life of the Jewish nation. But it was not only preserved. It was also interpreted. Some of the interpretation was false, but much of it was true. The Jewish interpretation of the Old Testament promise is worthy of attention. What did the Jews of the first century mean by the Messiah, and what did they mean by the Messianic age?
In the first place, they retained the hope of a king of David's line—a human king who should conquer the enemies of Israel. When it was held in a one-sided form this was a dangerous hope. It led logically to materialistic conceptions of the kingdom of God and to political unrest. It led to the effort of the Jews to take Jesus by force and make him a king. John 6:15. It led to the quarrel of the disciples about the chief places in the kingdom. Matt. 18:1-4; Mark 9:33-35; Luke 9:46,47. This conception of the Messiah had to be corrected by Jesus. "My kingdom is not of this world." John 18:36. Yet even where the Messiah was conceived of as an earthly ruler, the spiritual hope was by no means always and altogether lost. The "Psalms of Solomon," for example, Pharisaic psalms of the first century before Christ, though they look for an earthly ruler, picture him as one who shall rule in righteousness. "And a righteous king and taught of God is he that reigneth over them; And there shall be no iniquity in his days in their midst, for all shall be holy and their king is the Lord Messiah" (Ps. Sol. xvii, 35, 36. See Ryle and James, "Psalms of the Pharisees," especially pp. 137-147). No iniquity in the days of the Messiah! That is true understanding of the Old Testament, even joined with the political ideal. In the second place, however, the Messianic age is sometimes in later Judaism conceived of as purely supernatural. The Messiah is not an earthly ruler, merely helped by God, but himself a heavenly being, a preëxistent "Son of Man," judge of all the earth. The Messianic age is ushered in not by human warfare, but by a mighty catastrophic act of God. Not a liberated Canaan is here the ideal, but a new heaven and a new earth.
This transcendental, supernaturalistic form of the Messianic hope appears in the "Book of Enoch" and other "apocalypses." Its details are fantastic, but it was by no means altogether wrong. In many respects it was a correct interpretation of the divine promise. The new heavens and the new earth are derived from Isa. 65:17. The doctrine of the two ages was accepted by Jesus and by Paul—for example Matt. 12:32; Gal. 1:4; Eph. 1:21. The heavenly "Son of Man" goes back to Dan. 7:13,14. The Book of Enoch was not altogether wrong. Its use of the title "Son of Man" prepared for the title which Jesus used.
Finally, the Messianic hope was held in a pure and lofty form by the "poor of the land"—simple folk like those who appear in the first two chapters of Luke. In the hymns of Mary and Zacharias and Simeon, purely political and materialistic conceptions are in the background, and the speculations of the apocalypses do not appear. The highest elements of prophecy are made prominent. "For mine eyes have seen thy salvation, which thou hast prepared before the face of all peoples; a light for revelation to the Gentiles, and the glory of thy people Israel." Luke 2:30-32. In those circles, the hope of Israel burned still and pure.
Later Judaism thus preserved the manifoldness of prophecy. There was exaggeration and there was one-sidedness; but in Judaism as a whole the promise was preserved. One element at most was forgotten—the suffering servant and his sacrificial death. The death of the Messiah was no easy conception. The disciples had difficulty with it. When Peter heard of it, he took Jesus, and began to rebuke him. Matt. 16:22. The lesson was not easy, but it had to be learned. And it was worth learning. The cross is the heart of the gospel.
Thus in Jesus nothing was left out, except what was false. The whole promise was preserved. The revealer of God, the ruler of the kingdom, the great high priest, the human deliverer, the divine Lord—these are the elements of the promise. They find their union in Christ. Leave one out, and the promise is mutilated. Such mutilation is popular to-day. The whole Christ seems too wonderful. But the Church can be satisfied with nothing less.
2. The Resurrection: A Well-Attested Fact
J. Gresham Machen, The Literature and History of New Testament Times (1915), chapter 8, “The Cross and the Resurrection the Foundation of Apostolic Preaching”. Assigned excerpt. The interpretations are the author’s.
The passage in First Corinthians is deserving of very careful attention. For, unlike the Gospels, that epistle can be dated to within a year or so. It was written only about twenty-five years after the crucifixion. Even though possibly some of the Gospels were written still earlier, the precision with which the epistle can be dated makes its witness particularly valuable. Furthermore, the author of the epistle is well known. No one doubts that First Corinthians was written by Paul, and Paul is the best-known man of apostolic times. Evidently his witness to the facts is of the utmost value. Paul himself was a direct witness of the resurrection. He saw the risen Lord. I Cor. 9:1; 15:8. In I Cor. 15:1-8, however, he does not content himself with his own witness, but reproduces the testimony of others in an extended list. That testimony had come to Paul by ordinary word of mouth. "I delivered unto you first of all," says Paul, "that which also I received." In what follows there is a list of the appearances of the risen Christ. "He appeared to Cephas; then to the twelve; then he appeared to above five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain until now, but some are fallen asleep; then he appeared to James; then to all the apostles; and last of all, as to the child untimely born, he appeared to me also." Evidently these appearances are not conceived of merely as "visions," but as events in the external world. The mention of the burial, v. 4, is a plain hint that what Peter and the rest saw was the body of Jesus raised from the tomb.
That view of the matter is amply confirmed in the Gospels and in the book of The Acts. In the Gospels, we are told that the tomb was found empty on the morning of the third day after the crucifixion. It was found empty by some women and by Peter and John. Since the tomb was empty, the body which appeared to the disciples had some connection with the body which had been taken down from the cross. Furthermore, the Gospels and The Acts make the bodily character of the appearances abundantly plain. Jesus did not merely appear to the disciples at a distance. He walked with them on the road to Emmaus. He broke bread with them. He came into the very midst of them when they were assembled in a room. Thomas could even touch his hands and his side. These are merely examples. Clearly the testimony of the disciples is testimony not to mere spiritual experiences, but to the bodily presence of the Lord. It may be admitted that the body was a glorified body. After his resurrection Jesus was freed from the limitations of his earthly life. Nevertheless, he was not merely a "spirit." Luke 24:39. There was some real, though mysterious, connection between the glorified body and the body that had been laid in the tomb. The New Testament attests not merely the immortality of Jesus, but his resurrection. The resurrection, in these days, is hard to accept. For it is a miracle. Against any miracle there is a tremendous presumption. In this case, however, the presumption has been overcome. It has been overcome by the character of Jesus. It is in the highest degree unlikely that an ordinary man should rise from the dead; but it is not unlikely that Jesus should have risen. The resurrection is unique. But so is the life of Jesus of Nazareth. The two wonders support one another. Explain away the testimony to the resurrection, and your task is not done. You must also explain away that sinless life. If Jesus rose from the dead he had a unique experience. But that is to be expected. For Jesus himself was unlike any other of the children of men. There are mysteries in his life that have never been explained.
The resurrection of Jesus is a well-attested fact of history. The proof of it is cumulative. Any one of the proofs might be regarded as insufficient when taken alone, but when taken together they are overpowering. The sinless, unearthly character of Jesus separates him from the rest of men, so that probabilities which apply to others do not apply to him. His mysterious self-consciousness involves so lofty a claim, that if he was not divine he was a megalomaniac—he whose calmness and strength have left an impression which the centuries have done nothing to efface! The specific testimonies to the empty tomb and to the plain bodily appearances of the risen Lord are independent and varied. Finally, unless the resurrection be a fact, the very origin of the Christian Church becomes an insoluble mystery. The resurrection alone can explain the sudden transformation of a company of weak, discouraged men into the conquerors of the world. The resurrection of Jesus is a fact of history. It is not an aspiration of the heart. It comes ultimately through the testimony of the senses. The apostles came forward with a piece of plain information. They were witnesses to a fact in the external world. That fact has put a new face upon life. It is good news of salvation.
3. Justification by Faith in Romans
J. Gresham Machen, The Literature and History of New Testament Times (1915), chapter 21, “The Gospel of Salvation”. Assigned excerpt. The interpretations are the author’s.
In vs. 16, 17, the theme of the epistle is announced—the gospel the power of God unto salvation, the gospel which reveals a righteousness of God that is received by faith. The meaning of "a righteousness of God" has been much disputed. Some think that it refers to the righteousness which is an attribute of God. More probably, however, it is to be interpreted in the light of ch. 10:3; Phil. 3:9. It then refers to that right relation of man to God which God himself produces. There are two ways of receiving a sentence of acquittal from God the Judge. One is by keeping the law of God perfectly. The other is by receiving through faith the righteousness of Christ. The former is impossible because of sin. The latter has been made possible by the gift of Christ. As sinners, we are subject to the punishment of death. But that punishment has been paid for us by Christ. We therefore go free; we can start fresh, with the consciousness of God's favor. We are "justified"—that is, "pronounced righteous"—not because we are free from sin, but because by his grace God looks not upon us but upon Christ. We have been pronounced righteous, but not on account of our own works. We possess not our own righteousness but "a righteousness of God."
This righteousness of God is received by faith. Faith is not a work, it is simply the willingness to receive. Christ has promised by his death to bring us to God. We may not understand it all, but is Christ to be believed? Study the Gospel picture of him, and you will be convinced that he is.
Justification by faith, then, means being pronounced righteous by God, although we are sinners. It might seem to be a very dangerous doctrine. If we are pronounced righteous whether we are really righteous or not, then may we not go on with impunity in sin? Such reasoning ignores the results of justification. Faith brings more than forgiveness. It brings a new life. In the new life sin has no place. The Christian has broken forever with his old slavery. Though perfection has not yet been attained in practice, it has been attained in principle, and by the power of the Spirit all sin will finally be removed. The Christian cannot compromise with sin. Salvation is not only from the guilt of sin, but also from the power of it. The sixth chapter of Romans leaves no room for moral laxness.
It is interesting to compare Romans with Galatians. The subject of the two epistles is the same. Both are concerned with salvation by faith alone, apart from the works of the law. In many passages the two are parallel. The fuller exposition in Romans is often the best commentary upon the briefer statements of Galatians. For example, the words: "What then is the law? It was added because of transgressions"—very obscure as they stand in Galatians—are explained by Rom. 5:20; ch. 7. In tone, however, the two epistles are widely different. Galatians is written in view of one definite attack upon the gospel; Romans is a general exposition summing up the results of the conflict. When Paul wrote Galatians he was in the thick of the battle; at the time of Romans he had fought his way through to the heights.
The Epistle to the Romans, however, is no cold, purely logical treatise. Theology here is interwoven with experience. No exposition can do justice to this wonderful letter. To read about it is sometimes dull; but to read it is life. Chapters 9 to 11 of this epistle are interesting in a great many ways. They are interesting, for example, in their tremendous conception of the mystery of the divine will. The ninth chapter of Romans is a good corrective for any carelessness in our attitude toward God. After all, God is a mystery. How little we know of his eternal plan! We must ever tremble before him. Yet it is such a God who has invited us, through Christ, to hold communion with himself. There is the true wonder of the gospel—that it brings us into fellowship, not with a God of our own devising, not with one who is a Father and nothing else, but with the awful, holy, mysterious Maker and Ruler of all things. The joy of the believer is the deepest of all joys. It is a joy that is akin to holy fear.
4. The Jesus of the Gospels: Man and More than Man
J. Gresham Machen, The Literature and History of New Testament Times (1915), chapter 31, “The Jesus of the Gospels”. Assigned excerpt. The interpretations are the author’s.
At any rate, if there is a contradiction between the first three Gospels and the Gospel of John, the contradiction is by no means easy to formulate. It cannot be said, for example, simply that the Synoptists present a human Jesus and John a divine Jesus. Whatever the differences among the four Gospels, all four agree at least in two essential features. All four present Jesus, in the first place as a man, and in the second place as something more than a man.
(1) Humanity in the Synoptists.—The former feature is perhaps especially clear in the Synoptists. According to the first three Gospels, Jesus led a genuine human life from birth to death. As a child he grew not only in stature, but also in wisdom. He was subject to human parents and to the requirements of the Jewish law. Even after the inauguration of his ministry the human conditions of his life were not superseded. He was even tempted like other men. He grew weary and slept. He suffered hunger and thirst. He could rejoice and he could suffer sorrow. He prayed, like other men, and worshiped God. He needed strengthening both for body and for mind. No mere semblance of a human life is here presented, but a genuine man of flesh and blood.
(2) Humanity in John.—But if the Jesus of the Synoptists is a true man, how is it with the Jesus of John? Does the Fourth Gospel present merely a heavenly being who walked through the world untouched and unruffled by the sin and misery and weakness that surrounded him? Only a very superficial reading can produce such an impression. The Fourth Gospel indeed lays a supreme emphasis upon the majesty of Jesus, upon his "glory" as it was manifested in works of power and attested by God himself. But side by side with these features of the narrative, as though to prevent a possible misunderstanding, the author presents the humanity of Jesus with drastic touches that can scarcely be paralleled in the Synoptists themselves. It is John who speaks of the weariness of Jesus at the well of Samaria, ch. 4:6; of the human affection which he felt for Lazarus and Martha and Mary, ch. 11:3,5,36, and for an individual among the disciples, ch. 13:23; of his weeping, ch. 11:35; and indignant groaning, v. 38; and of his deadly thirst. Ch. 19:28. As clearly as the other evangelists John presents Jesus as a man.
(3) Divinity in John.—In the second place, all four Gospels, if they present Jesus as a man, also present him as something far more than a man. With regard to the Gospel of John, of course the matter is unmistakable. The very first verse reads: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Jesus according to John was plainly no product of the world, but God come in the flesh. John 1:14. The teaching of Jesus himself, as it is reported in the Fourth Gospel, is concerned with the relation of perfect unity that exists between the Father and the Son. (4) Divinity in the Synoptists.—In the Synoptists the supernatural character of Jesus is somewhat less on the surface. His teaching, as the Synoptists report it, is largely concerned not directly with his own person, but with the kingdom that he came to found. Even his Messiahship is often kept in the background; the demons are often commanded not to reveal it.
A closer examination, however, reveals the essential unity between the Synoptists and John. If the supernatural character of Jesus appears in the Synoptists less plainly on the surface, it is really no less pervasive at the center. It does not so often form the subject of direct exposition, but it is everywhere presupposed. The doing by Jesus of what only God can do, Mark 2:5,7; the sovereign way in which he legislates for the kingdom of God, Matt. 5:17-48; his unearthly holiness and complete lack of any consciousness of sin; the boundlessness of his demand for obedience, Luke 9:57-62; his expected freedom from limitations of time and place, Matt. 28:20; the absolutely central place which he claims for himself as ruler and judge; the substantiation of all his lofty claims by wonderful power over the forces of nature—these are only indications chosen almost at random of what is really plain upon every page of the Synoptic Gospels, that the Jesus who is there described is no mere human figure but a divine Saviour of the world. The invitation of Matt. 11:28-30, which is typical of the Synoptic teaching, would have been absurd on the lips of anyone but the Son of God. Moreover, the divine nature of Jesus is not merely implied in the Synoptic Gospels; there are times when it even becomes explicit. The relation of perfect mutual knowledge that exists between Jesus and the Father, Matt. 11:27, reveals a perfect unity of nature. The Jesus of the Synoptists, as well as the Jesus of John, might say, "I and the Father are one."
5. John’s First Epistle and the Reality of the Incarnation
J. Gresham Machen, The Literature and History of New Testament Times (1915), chapter 36, “The Life of the Children of God”. Assigned excerpt. The interpretations are the author’s.
The First Epistle of John does not contain the name of its author. According to tradition, however, it was written by the apostle John, and tradition is here supported by the characteristics of the epistle itself. The author of the epistle was evidently the same as the author of the Fourth Gospel. The marked similarity in style can be explained in no other way. Even the careless reader observes that the style of the Fourth Gospel is very peculiar. Short sentences are joined to one another with the utmost simplicity; the vocabulary is limited, but contains expressions of extraordinary richness; the total effect is singularly powerful. These same characteristics, though they are so peculiar, appear also in the epistle. There is the same simplicity of sentence structure, the same use of such terms as "life" and "light" and "love," the same indescribable spirit and tone. Yet the epistle is no slavish imitation of the Gospel—differences stand side by side with the similarities. These two works are evidently related, not as model and copy, but as living productions of the same remarkable personality.
As in the Gospel, so also in the epistle the author presents himself clearly as an eyewitness of the life of Jesus, I John 1:1-3; 4:14; as in the Gospel he lays stress upon simple testimony. Even those things which have just been noticed as characteristic of his style are connected ultimately with the teaching of Jesus. In both Gospel and epistle, the beloved disciple has reproduced what he heard in Galilee and in Judea, though in both he has made the memory a living, spiritual fact.
The First Epistle of John is perhaps scarcely to be called an epistle at all. Practically all the characteristics of a letter are missing. There is no address; there is no greeting at the close; there are no personal details. The readers are indeed referred to in the second person; but preachers as well as letter-writers say, "you." First John is a sort of general address written probably to some extended group of churches.
These churches are probably to be sought in Asia Minor. Throughout the epistle the readers are addressed in a fatherly tone. See, for example, ch. 2:1. Evidently the writer was well known as a sort of patriarch throughout an extended region. Such conditions prevailed in Asia Minor after the apostle John had begun to reside at Ephesus. Trustworthy tradition as well as the New Testament informs us of a period in the apostle's life when he had outlived all or most of the other apostles and was revered as the head of the Asian church. At some time within this period—probably nearer the end than the beginning—the First Epistle of John was written.
The form of error against which the epistle is directed becomes clearest, perhaps in ch. 4:2,3. The false teachers had denied that Jesus Christ was come in the flesh. This may be interpreted in several different ways.
(1) Docetism.—In the first place, John may mean that the opponents simply denied the reality of the earthly life of Jesus. Such a form of error is by no means unknown in the history of the Church. It is called "Docetism." According to Docetism the Son of God did not really live a human life—with human sufferings and a human death—but only appeared to do so.
(2) Cerinthus.—In the second place, the meaning of the passage may be that the opponents denied the unity of the person of Jesus Christ. Compare ch. 2:22. Some persons in the early Church supposed that there were two separate persons in the figure that is described in the Gospels. A heavenly being, the Christ, it was thought, united himself with the man Jesus at the time when the dove descended after the baptism. Matt. 3:16,17. Such was the view of Cerinthus, who is declared by tradition to have been an opponent of the apostle John at Ephesus. It has been suggested, therefore, that it was actually Cerinthus, with his disciples, who is combated in the First Epistle of John.
(3) Denial of the Incarnation.—Both Cerinthus and the Docetists denied the reality of the incarnation—both denied that the Son of God actually assumed a human nature and lived a complete human life. According to Cerinthus and others like him, the Christ stood only in somewhat loose relation to the man Jesus. He was united with him only late in life, he left him before the crucifixion. On this view, it was not the Christ who lay in the manger at Bethlehem, it was not the Christ who suffered on the cross. Cerinthus, like the Docetists, kept the Son of God out of any close relation to the world and to us.
(4) John's Reply.—Against some such view as one of these, John was concerned to establish the reality of the incarnation—the truth that "the Word became flesh." In the Gospel, that truth underlies the whole of the narrative; in the First Epistle it is directly defended against the opposing error. It is defended first of all by an appeal to what the writer had seen and heard. "We knew Jesus in Palestine," says John in effect, "and we can testify that Jesus himself was none other than the Christ, the Son of God." I John, 1:1-4.