cal change, brought about by a man's own free activity; while the former is non-ethical, brought about by an activity from without, over which a man has no control. Now, it is undoubtedly true that the Johannine conception emphasizes the divine side of the process, while the Synoptic emphasizes the human. But does not the Synoptic μeтávoia presuppose a divine agency in the very challenge with which it is given? The reason for the call to repentance is found in the fact that the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Matt. 4: 17); and in that is found the only guarantee of its possibility. It were utterly idle to call upon a man to repent, to turn from sin, if there were not at hand a kingdom of righteousness and truth to which he can turn, and from which he may derive the help and the strength to resist the temptations of the evil one. And does not the Johannine new birth thus conceived as the entrance into us of a new, divine, spiritual, and ethical energy, imply the same ethical activity which is implied by the μeTávola? The only difference is that the Synoptic conception approaches the subject from the standpoint of the human activity which is involved, while the Johannine approaches it from the standpoint of the divine energy by which alone that activity becomes possible.

To say that" ethical conceptions fall into a secondary place " in the Johannine representation, is to misunderstand both Gospel and Epistle entirely. On the contrary, love, with all its ethical implications, is as much an inherent quality of eternal life, as John conceives it, as it is of God. Love is the very evidence that we are begotten of God (I. 4: 7); and the fact that a man is begotten of God is the very reason why he does not live in sin (I. 3:9; 5: 18).

7. Why Called Eternal.-One question remains. Why is this life spoken of as eternal?

It is not because it is thought of as belonging to the future state, which we are accustomed to speak of as eternal in distinction from our present temporal life. If we had nothing but the Synoptic Gospels, we might perhaps so conceive it;

for eternal life is there generally, if not always, spoken of in connection with the future. When the rich young man came to Jesus with his question concerning eternal life he said, "Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life" (Mark 10: 17). He thought of it as a good, which lay in the future, and which he seems to have associated with a future state. So after he had turned away sorrowful, and after Jesus had spoken to his disciples about the perils of wealth which had proved to be the stumbling block in this young man's way, he went on to tell them what they should have who had left all to follow him, ending with the statement, "And in the world to come eternal life" (10:17). And so throughout the Synoptic Gospels eternal life is generally used in an eschatological sense. But in the Fourth Gospel that is not the case. Here eternal life is usually represented as a present possession. "He that believeth on the Son hath eternal life; but he that obeyeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth upon him" (3:36). Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of death into life" (5: 24). "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth hath eternal life. . . . He that eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood hath eternal life; and I will raise him up at the last day" (6: 47, 54). Eternal life is now the blessed possession of the believer; and the adjective "eternal" must have some other meaning than that this life belongs simply to the world

to come.

66

Does it then mean that this life is continuous, never-ending, immortal? There are passages, where eternal life is spoken of in contrast with perishing in such a way as possibly to suggest this view. "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth on him should not perish, but have eternal life" (3:16). "My sheep hear my voice, and I know them, and they follow me: and I give unto them eternal life; and they shall never perish, and no

man shall snatch them out of the Father's hand" (10: 27, 28). Does "perish" here mean destruction in the sense of annihilation? If "eternal" in the contrasted phrase means simply everlasting, then that might be the case; but it seems better to take it as a description of moral destruction, perishing in the sense of missing the end of existence. This seems to become clear, where life and death are placed into contrast, as in 5: 24. "Verily, verily I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth him that sent me, hath eternal life, and cometh not into judgment, but hath passed out of death into life." Death here is the state in which the sinner finds himself now. In the Greek it is used with the article, "the death," meaning death which is really such, and hence something different from physical dissolution, or even cessation of being; and hence life must mean something else than simply continuance of being. Life is also used with the article," the life," the true life, life which is such indeed; and the emphasis hence is on something else than simple continuance of existence. That idea is no doubt there; for eternal life necessarily implies permanency: but the permanency is not the primary conception; it is dependent on what the life itself is. What then is that deeper element in the conception of eternal life, which gives to it its permanency? The answer is suggested by the contrast just referred to. Eternal life, in contrast with death, is the life, the true life, the life which is really life, because it partakes of the divine, because it is in harmony with the divine, because it answers to the divine ideal and purpose of life. And for St. John, as for the writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, the heavenly and the eternal are the forms under which the real and the true exist. The contrast between the eternal and the temporal is, indeed, that between the permanent and the vanishing; but it is much more that between the real and the true, and that which is shadowy and unreal. Eternal life hence is the life which is real, true, which has in it the power and potency of life. It holds in the realm of which time is not a part.

LANCASTER, PA.

IV.

THE OLD TESTAMENT CONCEPTION OF GOD.

BY THE REV. SAMUEL Z. BEAM, D.D.

Is Jehovah Elohim, according to the writers of the Old Testament, only the tribal god of Israel over against the tribal gods of the Gentiles? or is He above all the only true and living God?

Do the Old Testament descriptions of Him indicate that He is cruel, revengeful, vindictive, and unworthy the love and confidence of men?

Does the Old Testament teaching consist of the religious vagaries of intelligent, but superstitious, teachers, well-meaning, but unreliable, as spiritual guides? or are we to regard it in any sense as a divine revelation, and its writers as men inspired of God to communicate that revelation to men?

Will the correct answer to these questions justify us in accepting the theories of destructive criticism, which discredit many of the stories of the Old Testament writers, and their ethical standards, and largely overthrow the traditional interpretation of those scriptures, and with it all faith in the moral teaching and predictive character of the Prophets?

It is not, of course, pretended, in the short space of a review article, to make an exhaustive investigation, or to furnish a complete answer to these questions. They are placed at the head of this article to indicate the line of thought which it is proposed to follow.

The writer has been led to this line of investigation by reading some startling statements, made in the interest of destructive criticism, and arrived at by scientific inference, which seem to him to be untenable, and not warranted by the

facts. It is very possible and very easy for a critic, or a dogmatic scientist, to draw erroneous inferences from ascertained facts, which the facts may not justify. The history of science itself furnishes innumerable instances, where such inferences, upon further investigation, turned out to be false and grossly misleading. This appears to the writer to be the case in regard to the statements just referred to, and, if so, they are likely to do more harm than good. And hence he was impelled to make an inquiry concerning the teaching of the Old Testament, on the nature and character of the God of Israel, and, also, incidentally, on the credibility and trustworthiness of the writers as ethical leaders and spiritual guides. This, of course, will involve the question of their divine inspiration, as agents through whom God has revealed Himself.

If Jehovah, or Jahveh, is found to be only a tribal god over against, and on an equality with, the gods of the nations, and is swayed by the same passions and prejudices which characterize them and their worshipers, and if the teaching of the Prophets is nothing more than a call to Israel to be loyal to Jehovah, as over against other local and tribal deities; and if the so-called predictions of these Prophets are only records of past events, or at best tolerably good guesses concerning the future and a coming Messiah, then, as far as we can see, Christianity rests on a shaky foundation, and is destined, through some moral cataclysm, to suffer a disastrous overthrow.

I. Is then Jehovah or Elohim only a local or tribal god in the estimation of the writers of the Hebrew scriptures? No doubt the masses of the Hebrew pepole regarded Him in that light, or they could not so easily have been seduced to the worship of Baal, and other heathen gods. But did the writers and Prophets of the Old Testament so regard Him?

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" (Gen. 1: 1). Here is a simple, unadorned statement, made by an ancient writer, who thus accounts for the existence,