should be revealed. This, likewise, was the purpose of the Law and the Prophets. In Jesus Christ they were fulfilled. They were fulfilled in his life of perfect holiness and love.

Had Israel proved true to its divine mission, and thereby fulfilled the purpose of God, the Messiah would have been accepted and the crime of the crucifixion would not have been enacted.

God sent his son into the world to be loved, not to be hated; to be accepted, not to be killed. The sacrifice of the Messiah was not a price which God demanded for the opening of the kingdom of heaven. There is some ground for the protest which Beyschlag raises against the traditional view that "Heaven was first opened by the abstract fact of Christ's death, and forgiveness rendered possible, and the angry God transformed into a heavenly Father."* Neither in the Gospels nor in Old Testament prophecy can there be found any warrant for the belief that the necessity of the death of Jesus lies in a fixed purpose of God, which shaped the course of history so as to culminate in the tragedy of the cross. The notion contradicts the idea of divine holiness and justice, and can in no sense be reconciled with the love of God as Father.

The citations which Jesus made from the Old Testament may not, therefore, be interpreted in a fatalistie sense, as directly predicting and enforcing his sufferings and death. To come to a clear understanding of these passages it is necessary, above all else, to have a correct conception of the nature of Old Testament prophecy and of Jesus' method of using it. To discuss this subject now would lead us too far from our present study. I would here simply suggest that when Jesus became fully aware that the pathway of suffering and death was opening before him, he read in his own experience the fulfilment of the scriptures which foretold the sufferings of a righteous people, or of a righteous king; and further, that the conceptions of the prophets, far beyond their own conscious knowledge, came to full realization in Jesus as the ideal of the Messianic kingdom.

As a result of our Synoptic study, and as a summary of the * N. T. Theol., I. 159.

main points in the discussion, I submit the following statements: 1. The mission of Jesus was to establish the kingdom of God among men, primarily by his life of perfect righteousness.

2. The Messianic consciousness of Jesus did not necessarily include the consciousness of his sufferings and death. The latter probably unfolded gradually with the increasing hostility of the Jewish hierarchy and the growing unsusceptibility of the people to the more spiritual aspects of his ministry.

3. The death of Jesus was not a fate suffered in conformity to the determinate counsel of God, nor is it specifically taught in the Old Testament Scriptures.

4. The doctrine of a suffering Messiah was not current in preChristian Judaism. It became a Christian tenet as an accommodation to the facts of history.

5. The necessity of the death of Jesus resulted from the exigencies of history, and was due mainly to the passions of sinful

men.

6. The Synoptic Gospels give no rationale of the death of Jesus. Implicitly they teach that the incarnation, in the actual circumstances of humanity, carried with it the necessity of Jesus' death.

Jesus died because he loved righteousness, counting no sacrifice too great for its defense and attainment.

Jesus died because he loved mankind. His death crowned the complete self-surrender of his life.

I would yet add that the purpose of the foregoing treatment of the sacred theme, on the basis of the Synoptic Gospels, has not been to abate in the least degree but rather to exalt the significance and efficacy of the death of Jesus Christ.

IV.

THE GENESIS OR CREATION OF MAN.

BY PROF. CYRUS THOMAS.

(Read before the Ministerial Association of Frederick, Md.)

The discussion of the creation of man in this paper, which relates almost wholly to his physical nature, will be from the Christian standpoint, subject to the limitations imposed by the acceptance of the fundamental doctrines of the Christian religion, and the acceptance of the Bible as the revealed word of God, the liberty of such personal interpretation as does not conflict with these fundamental doctrines being allowed.

Turning at once to the Bible, to ascertain the limitations there imposed, we find the following statements: Gen. I.: 26, 27: "And God said let us make man in our image, after our likeness. *** So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." And in Gen. 2: 7: "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Allow me to say here that the cases when "created" is to be interpreted "produced, or made from nothing" are not to be determined from the word per se, but from the connection and subject-matter, as it is repeatedly used in these two chapters interchangeably with "made," and sometimes with "formed."

Returning to the Scripture statements quoted, it is necessary for us first to decide whether we consider that of the first chapter as referring to a different creation from that mentioned in the second, or as referring to one and the same creation. Without stopping to discuss the point I assume as I believe you will accept as correct-that both refer to the same genesis of man, for it seems unlikely that there were two separate creations of The question as to whether or not the two chapters are

man.

parts of two different accounts is not material here, as, if two, they are still accounts of one and the same creation, which is the only point under discussion here. Therefore the second statement, which is the more specific, must be taken to be, to this extent, explanatory of the statement in the first chapter, and as forming the limitations under which our discussion must proceed. Here God is expressly named as the Author or Actor, the action is defined by the word "formed," man is the object or result, and "the dust of the ground" the material agent; the work is completed by breathing into his nostrils the breath of life. The only part, therefore, of the statement-"And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground"-which admits of any material difference of opinion, limiting the discussion for the present to man's physical nature, is contained in the word "formed." Of course it may be assumed and argued that the statement is figurative and the account merely an allegory. While we do not doubt that some of the expressions in this Biblical account of the creation are to be considered more or less figurative, our discussion at present is based on the usual somewhat literal interpretation.

It is probable that a considerable per cent. of, or at least many, minister of the gospel, if asked what was the origin of man would content themselves by answering in the words of Scripture which we have quoted. But when asked the further question, How did God form man? What were the steps of the process? would be unprepared to express an opinion. Yet it is evident from the fact that an intermediate agent "the dust of the ground"-is mentioned, and that the word used to define the action is "formed," that the work was accomplished by some proGod did not say as in making light, "let man appear," and man was, or sprang into being. Forming one thing out of another implies a process of some kind be it ever so short, or of indefinite length. Therefore as the how, the process of man's formation has not been revealed, the subject is left for investi

cess.

gation and study; and any conclusion

reached must hinge chiefly

upon the interpretation of the word "formed," subject to the limitations mentioned.

What were the steps of the

How then was man formed? process? That it was not by a single Almighty fiat, without an intervening agent, is too distinctly stated to admit of discussion. Having therefore reached the conclusion that God by some process formed man's physical nature out of earthy substance, the question arises: Was it by means of, and in accordance with the natural laws he had so far implanted in physical nature, or was it by a wholly miraculous and supernatural act? Be it remembered, however, that whatever be the conclusion reached, it is to be understood the power is ever from God and is by his will and wisdom guided.

If the work were wholly miraculous and not through the operation of natural laws, still, as earth was the material used, there must have been transformation, though the process were instantaneous or prolonged; and the process by which this transfor mation was brought about may be entirely beyond our comprehension, yet the extent of that change is within our grasp. And though the resources of the Almighty are infinite we may be able to eliminate some of the theories which are suggested to finite intellects.

It is probable that the first thought that arises in the minds of many, possibly of most persons when they read the passage quoted, is the idea of moulding the clay into the form of the human body and then imparting life to it-breathing into the nostrils the breath of life. This idea, I repeat, probably arises in the minds of many persons when reading this passage, even though it may be rejected on more mature reflection. But is such an idea, though it may seem to accord with the literal interpretation of the language, consistent with reason and the character of our Creator so far as we are able to judge of it?

At first thought the idea of forming out of earthy material a human-like form, seems to imply the use of hands, but this the mind rejects. We may suppose that God commanded a portion of this earthy material to form itself into the human shape, or, in other words, caused it to do so by his miraculous power, and we admit his power to do so. But what does such an idea involve?