this story of the intercession of Moses, and his revelation of the "grace" and mercy of the forgiving God, if we remember that to the orthodox Jew this is the supreme instance of intercession for the forgiveness of sin. It is the Mosaic gospel of the "reconciliation " (Karaλλayń) manifesting the "grace" of God in not imputing unto the people their trespasses. Paul's reference to the passing glory on the face of Moses, a transfiguration that caused him to put a veil upon his face that the people might not see how soon it was gone, may seem strange to our mode of thought. If so it may help us to know that Philo, thirty years before this time, had already advanced the doctrine of a transfiguration of Moses through his intercourse with God and that Philo also makes this Moses' preparation for immortality. Describing his departure into Heaven at the summons of the Father (μετακληθεῖς ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρός) Philo declares that by the vision of God Moses' soul and body had been blended into a single new substance, an immortal mind-substance having the appearance of the sun.10 It is not in the words of Philo, but in the mystic language of the mystery-religions that we read in Paul of the gnosis that conveys immortality by reflecting the image of the glorified Savior-god on the mirror of the retina. Paul borrows the phraseology of this religious mysticism to describe the experience of new creation which qualifies for the ministry of the new covenant. Unlike Moses those who receive this ministry have no veil upon their face. As they gaze upon the glorified Master, who for their sakes died and for their sakes was raised again from the dead, the radiant figure is reflected in them as in a mirror. As the retina forms the image of the object gazed upon, so Christ is "formed in them." They are progressively "trans

10 Vita Mos. II, 39.

formed by the renewing of their minds " in preparation for immortality, they are "transfigured into the same image, from glory to glory."

So the long conflict of Paul for his God-given apostleship comes back to its starting-point, the manifestation of the Son of God in him, even as he had been manifested to Peter first of all. Only now he speaks not merely of apostleship, but of a "ministry" of the new covenant whose revelation surpasses the revelation to Moses. He speaks of an "ambassadorship" of the reconciliation; for in it both he and all his fellow witnesses of the resurrection are heralds of peace to the world. He speaks of an immortality for which we were created in the image of God. For that same God who in the creation commanded the light to shine out of darkness had made a new creation; and of this Paul was made a "witness" when the God that "forgiveth iniquity, transgression and sin" shined in his heart to give the light of the knowledge of this his glory "in the face of Jesus Christ."

LECTURE IV

THE TRANSFIGURATION OF THE GOSPEL (Continued)

II. THE MESSAGE OF THE RECONCILIATION

1. Historical Interpretation

The attempt was made in the preceding lecture to show from Paul's own references to his experience in conversion that the ordinary way of reasoning from it almost inverts the true principles of religious psychology. We must learn to look upon the vision as effect rather than cause. Paul had indeed a theory of salvation before his conversion. But the vision of the glorified Jesus did not come into this as a new, inexplicable datum supplying the needed deus ex machina. On the contrary it was the collapse of preconceived ideas which brought about the vision. And however unexpected to him, the vision was by no means without its antecedents. Of these the most obvious are two: on the one side an utterly unbearable strain upon his own soul to achieve peace with God through obedience; on the other the testimony of men who like Peter had found this peace through the grace of the Lord Jesus. There was also the spectacle of men such as Stephen transfigured by the vision of their Advocate with the Father. Paul's knowledge of his victims' experience unconsciously predisposed him to repeat it. At his conversion it was indeed as though scales had fallen from his eyes, so sudden was the change from darkness to light. But this does not mean that others, conscious, as Paul was not, of the hopelessness of his effort to achieve the

79

come.

ideal of the Pharisee, might not have foreseen the outIt only means that Paul was blind to it, so blind that afterwards he stood in amazement at himself. In fact this is the very basis of his conviction of the divine origin of his apostleship and his gospel, inseparable as we have seen them to be in his thought, that they were "wrought in him," not of himself, but by the direct intervention of God.

It is not the purpose of these lectures to argue for Paul's idea of the supernatural method of the divine action in his case. There is just as much of God in it if the process turn out to be intelligible under known psychological laws. It is not my purpose to argue for Paul's theory of vicarious suffering and piacular atone

It seems to me far superior to the medieval caricatures which are supposed to represent it in the later theologies. The piacular conception entertained by Paul may represent only a transition stage in our philosophy of religion. I do not aspire to be a theologian but a historian; not an advocate, but an interpreter. Suppose Paul to have been quite wrong as to the modus operandi of the divine action in bringing him to the knowledge of the eternal Son of God; still he was brought into reconciliation with God, and it was an effect beyond his own capacity. The same is true of piacular atonement. Suppose that the spiritual new creation to which men testify would be otherwise characterized by the technical psychologist. Men speak of it as an experience of peace with God and of participation through Jesus in the eternal life and eternal activity of God, victory over evil propensity, victory over fear, victory over death. This may not be put in proper philosophical language when we describe it as "reconciliation with the Father." Still the peace, the new creation, are there. Let experts in the psychology of religion use their own terminology in explaining it, the

point is it exists. Suppose we hold strong objections to such modes of conception and expression as Paul's when he says, "The wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men. There cannot be reasonable objection to our finding modes of expression which convey the essential idea in less anthropomorphic terms, so long as we recognize that there is a real idea, a real experience, an experience of most vital importance to men who have not peace with God, nor victory, nor joy in an eternal human Christ. We are studying the history and psychology of religion, in particular that movement of the eternal Wisdom of God which produced Christianity. The first step is to understand the witness. After that improve on his mode of statement of his experience if you will and can. Fortunately the self-dedication of the worthiest for the unworthy is not yet a forgotten fact. It is still there to challenge valuation by the theologian.

In Paul's case the witness tells us things which he has seen and heard. They are more or less obscured by that process of double translation of which I have spoken, first into the forms of thought natural to a Jewish rabbi, second into those current in the Hellenistic religions for the benefit of Paul's converts. But we surely are justified both by his explicit testimony regarding the common apostolic teaching antecedent to his own, and by the unchanging principles of religious psychology, in maintaining that the core and kernel of this common gospel was salvation by the grace of the Lord Jesus, forgiveness of sin obtained by his atoning death and present mediation, triumphant assurance of the hope of Israel and of the world in the fact that God had raised him from the dead and revealed him in glory. I have admitted that the Synoptic Gospels retain scarcely a trace of this doctrine of redemption by the