HP's ' Si >Y^LE«¥IMir^EIESIIeinf- DIVINITY SCHOOL TROWBRIDGE LIBRARY THE THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. & ^antiboofe for idtble lotu&ents. BY THE REV. J. J. VAN OOSTERZEE, D.D... Professor of Theology in the University of Utrecht. translated from the dutch, by MAURICE J. EVANS, B.A., Translator of Dr. Hoffmann's "Prophecies of Our Lord and Hit Apostles! NEW YORK DODD, MEAD & COMPANY, 75UBEQAQWAT. INTEODUCTOEY NOTE TO THE AMEEIOAN EDITION-. The author of this volume is very generally regarded as the ablest living Dutch divine of the evangelical school. He is already well known in this country by his contributions to Lange's Commentary, viz : on Luke, the Pastoral Epistles, Phile mon, and James. These expositions are among the very best in this comprehensive Bible Work, edited by Dr. Schaff. A small treatise of his, History or Boma/nce, in reply to Renan, has been published by the American Tract Society. Besides these works, Dr. Van Oosterzee has also written a Life of Jesus, 3 vols., 2d ed., 1863-1865 ; a Ghristology ; or, Mammal for Christians, 3 vols., 1855- 1861, and several other essays and articles, and he has vigorously defended the Christian faith against the assaults of rationalism. He is at present engaged upon a manual of Dogmatics, a transla. tion of which is already announced in England, and which will be, in some sort, a continuation of the present volume. Dr. Van Oosterzee was born at Rotterdam, Holland, in 1817 j studied at the University of Utrecht ; was pastor of one of the chief churches in Rotterdam for eighteen years ; and, since 1862, ii Introductory Note. he has been a Professor of Theology in the University of Utrecht He is no less distinguished in the pulpit than in the professor's chair. The present volume was prepared for the use of his own classes in the University, to meet a want which is likewise felt in the theological seminaries of this country. Besides the able treatises on Doctrinal Theology, of all schools, which are accept able to our students, there is also needed a manual on Biblical Theology proper.* The existing German works on this branch, learned and admirable as some of them are, do not in all respects so well meet the demand as does this volume of Dr. Van Ooster. zee. It is clear, simple, well arranged, and thoroughly imbued with the spirit of the New Testament writers. Its criticisms of other works, and its literary references will also be found of value. It has already been translated and published in this country by Dr. Day, in the Theological Eclectic. The present edition, printed from the English stereotype plates, will, it is hoped, increase its circulation and usefulness. It may safely be said, that every student of theology should have it at hand ; and also that it will be of great use to all intelligent laymen interested in the study of the Sacred Scripture, especially in its doctrinal contents. New Toek, Nov. 10, 1871. * See an article on Biblical Theology with especial reference to the New Testament, By Rev. O. A. Briggs, American Presbyterian Review, 1870. Also an article In the saml "«evlew, 1870, by Kev. T. P. Westervelt, on Oosteraee's Theology of the New Testament. Missing Page Missing Page AUTHOR'S PREFACE. THE present handbook owes its origin to the personal need of the writer. Called, inter alia, to lecture on the Biblical Theology of the New Testament as a separate branch of theological science, I looked in vain for a manual which should in all respects correspond to my wishes. Taking into account the. great wealth of the subject, and the limited time which could be devoted by my class to this important theological discipline, I felt impelled as early as possible to set my hand to the work, and to present my students with a book which should by no means render unnecessary a more complete analysis of the material therein treated of, but should rather incite thereto \ and should thus form, in some measure, the basis on which yet further to build. From the nature of the case, therefore, much could be only hinted at which calls for additional oral information; and, on the other hand, as far as possible, all had to be set aside which belongs to the, domain of kindred theological science. In the choice, also, of literature to which the student is referred, I had regard less to completeness than to vi Author's Preface. adaptation, and reserve to myself the right and the duty of adding thereto as occasion may demand. The " points for inquiry " at the end of each section are designed to serve, not as rigid bonds, but as hints leading to further discussion and interchange of thoughts. I hope in this way to have contri buted something also towards the "self-culture" of those who think they can derive some profit from the study of my book. TJiat constant application to Holy Scripture itself must inseparably accompany the use of this handbook will be at once self-evident. Only thus can it call forth a thorough acquaintance with the Scriptures,, and prepare the way for the study of Systematic Theology. Should this attempt answer the end in view, it is my intention to issue a similar compendium of Christian Dogmatics, and possibly also of Practical' Theology — to both which subjects, no less than to Biblical Theology, I am called to devote my best endeavours. To the former and present members of my class, who have hitherto followed these lectures with interest, and not without profit, these pages bring with them my sincere and heartfelt salutations. VAN OOSTERZEE. Utrecht, Sept., 1867. TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE. BUT few words are necessary in introducing an English Edition of this work. That such a text book for students was felt to be needed is apparent from its speedy reproduction in a German form (Barmen, 1869). Another reason also has weighed with the Translator. There are not a few, among those who make no claim to the title of Theological Students, for whom the Christian faith — no less than the Christian life — of the first age will always be a matter of supreme importance; — who believe, moreover, that independent research in the domain of New Testament doctrine is essential to the cultivation of genuine devotion ; — and who will gladly avail themselves of every suitable means of learning somewhat more fully what is "the mind of the Spirit." For such, a trustworthy compendium of the teaching of the New Testament Scriptures themselves is well-nigh indispensable. In making use of the present volume to this end, the neces sary labour of consulting the Scripture authorities viii Translator's Preface. will be abundantly repaid — not least in those cases where the bearing of a citation is not at once seen. In the literature of the earlier part of the volume some of the Continental works have been referred to by their English titles, even where no translation exists : where a translation is extant, the fact has, as a rule, been indicated, except in the case of well- known writers, such as Neander. Readers who have an opportunity of consulting the work of Archbishop Trench on the Parables of our Lord, and the Bible Dictionaries of Drs. Smith and Kitto on the various Apostolic writers of the New Testament, will acquire thereby a considerable addition to the English literature of the subject. For convenience of reference, there has been added to the English translation an index of subjects, and another of the principal Greek words cited in the volume. M. J. E. Strat/brd-on-Avon, Sept., 187a CONTENTS. INTRODUCTION. ncnoN Mia i. Definition of the Science ... i 2. Its History ' 9 3. Its Method, Main Division, and Requirement ... 21 FIRST PART. OLD TESTAMENT BASIS. 4. MOSAISM 28 5. Prophetism 37 6k Judaism 47 7. John the Baptist ~. 57 3. Result ... ... ... ••¦ ••• •¦• "° SECOND PART. THE THEOLOGY OF JESUS CHRIST. $. General Summary ... 61 x Contents. FIRST DIVISION. THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS. SECTION PAGE io. The Kingdom of God 68 u. Its Founder 74 12. The King of Kinos 8o 13. The Subjects 87 14. Salvation 98 15. The Way of Salvation 109 16. The Completion 118 SECOND DIVISION. THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. 17. Introduction 129 18. The Son of God in the Flesh 135 19. The Son of God in His relation to the' Father... 142 20. The Son of God in His relation to the World 150 21. The Son of God in relation to His Disciples ... 163 22. The Son of God in relation to His Future ... 170 THIRD DIVISION. HIGHER UNITY. 23. Diversity and Harmony 175 24. Result 186 THIRD PART. THE THEOLOGY OF THE APOSTLES. 25. General Survey 190 ^.otlitsnTS. Xl FIRST DIVISION. THE PETRINE THEOLOGY. suction *agb 26. Summary 198 27. Peter, an Apostle of Jesus Christ 20? 28. Peter, the Apostle of the Circumcision 217 29. Peter, the Apostle of Hope 225 30. The Second Epistle of Peter ... 233 31. Kindred Types of Doctrine 241 32. Result and Transition 251 SECOND DIVISION. THE PAULINE THEOLOGY. 33. General Survey 255 FIRST SUBDIVISION. HUMANITY AND THE INDIVIDUAL MAN BEFORE AND OUT OF CHRIST. 34. The Gentile and Jewish World 265 35. The Cause of this Condition 271 36. Its Consequences - 281 SECOND SUBDIVISION. HUMANITY AND THE INDIVIDUAL MAN THROUGH AND IN CHRIST. The Plan of Salvation 286 The Christ 296 The Work of Redemption 304 The Way of Salvation 316 The Church " 324 The Future 333 Kindred Types of Doctrine 343 xii Contents, THIRD DIVISION. THE JOHANNINE THEOLOGY. SECTION FAG1 45. General Summary 37* FIRST SUBDIVISION. THE GOSPEL AND THE EPISTLES. 46. The World out of Christ 381 47. The Appearing of Christ 389 48. Life in Christ 398 SECOND SUBDIVISION. THE APOCALYPSE. fg. Diversity and Harmony 406 FOURTH PART. HIGHER UNITY. 50. Harmony of the Apostles with each other ... 416 51. Harmony of the Apostles with the Lord ... 427 52. Harmony of the Lord and the Apostles with the Scriptures of the Old Testament 433 THE THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. INTRODUCTION. SECTION I. ^tfax&im flf % Soma. The Biblical Theology of the New Testament is that part of theological science which presents in a summary form the doctrine of the New Testament concerning God and Divine things, and expresses the same in systematic order. In its character, extent, and aim, it is distinguished , from Christian dogmatics, and belongs to the domain of historic theology. I. Theology is in general the science of God and of Divine things : according to a newer, but not, therefore, better definition, the science of religion. In the stricter sense, this word designates the science of God, in con tradistinction from that of man, of sin, of Christ, etc.. Theology, the name for the locus de Deo in dogmatics, as distinguished from anthropology, hamartology (doctrine of sin), Christology> etc. There is no religion of any importance which has not a more or less developed theology, as, for instance, the B 2 Theology of the New Testament. theology of Mosaism, of Islamism, of Buddhism,, etc,,; yea, even philosophy has its theology, as well as its anthropology and cosmology. From this purely philosophic theology, the Christian, however, is dis tinguished : inasmuch as the former is the fruit of our own thought, matured by reflection and experience ; the latter, on the other hand, is derived from a special Divine revelation, whose authentic document is the Holy Scripture. To this latter alone the words of Thomas Aquinas have their application — a Deo docetur, Deum docel, el ad Deum ducit. 2. The Biblical theology of the New Testament has to do with the ideas of God and Divine things which are presented in the New Testament. It investigates, in other words, the doctrine of the New Testament, without, at the same time, wishing to maintain that the New Testament presents a strictly defined system of doctrine, and much less that the essential characteristic of the Christian saving revela tion consists exclusively or principally in its doctrine. If this is justly denied, it cannot be disputed that the New Testament really contains a doctrine of God and of Divine things. This doctrine the Biblical theology of the New Testament presents in a summary manner, contemplates each of its parts in itself and in con nection with the others, and determines its place in history as a complete whole. In the widest sense of the word, Biblical theology embraces the doctrine of Divine things, as contained in the Old Testament as well as in the New. It is known how close is the connection between the two. Definition of the Science. 3 •' Novum testamentum iti vetere latet: vetus e novc patel (Augustine). If, therefore, a perfect separation is scarcely conceivable, a certain distinction is yet pos sible, desirable, in some sense necessary ; and has, consequently, often been attempted, especially in -later times, with the desired result. 3. The distinction between1 Biblical theology of the New Testament and Christian dogmatics— which are not seldom confounded to their common injury — begins already to be clear to us. Both parts of theo logical science have their peculiar character. That of Christian dogmatics is historico-philosophic ; that of the Biblical theology of the New Testament, on the contrary, is purely historic. The former investigates, not what the Christian Church in general, or one of its parts, acknowledges as truth, but, above all, what, in the domain of Christian faith, must really be regarded 'as truth. The Biblical theology of the New Testament, on the other hand/ inquires only what is adduced as truth by the New Testament writers. From its' stand-point, it has to do, not with the correctness, but with the contents of the ideas which it finds in the teaching ' of Jesus and the Apostles. Elk nd dimohtre pas, elle raconte (Reuss).* It has in this another aim than that proposed by one who treats of systematic theology1. While dog matics seeks to develop the subject-matter of ' the - * Obscure and incorrect is the distinction of Schenkel ICkristliche Dogmatik, yolVii. p. 3?o). "Its design -is, np,t, to bringr to light the truth of salvation, but only the reaiity of the Scripture history of salv* UQO." - ¦' ' ¦¦•¦'¦>¦ ••' '"'" ' "'",- '' ' '¦ 4 Theology of the New Testament. Christian faith, and to lay firm its foundations, Biblical theology, of the New Testament, has fulfilled its task when it has clearly presented what, in the New Testa ment, in contradistinction from other religious docu mentary authorities, is proclaimed as truth ; although the question, with what right it is so proclaimed, is left to the sister science. If its aim is in so far a humbler one it has, on the other hand, a so much wider compass. Though, since the time of Calixtus (1634), dogmatics and ethics have been separated — with what right we here leave undecided — yet this separation is, in the domain of the Biblical theology of the New Testa ment, as little justifiable as desirable. A clear line of demarcation between the doctrine of salvation and -the doctrine of life had no existence in the mind of Jesus and his Apostles. From the stand-point of the New Testament writers, faith and life are not only united, but one. Biblical theology has, consequently, not less to investigate the practical than the theoretical side of the New Testament teaching. On the other hand, it cannot have as its proper object to treat of the life of the Lord and his Apostles in addition to their doctrine, which is attempted, amongst others, by C. F. Schmid, in a work to which we shall shortly have occasion to refer. While the Biblical theology of the- New Testament has a much more objective character than Chris tian dogmatics, it can yet dispense with the" help of the latter, although Christian dogmatics cannot pos- si-Diy dispense with its help. It demands, therefore, in one who treats of it, not only that he should be a Definition of the Science. 5 Christian philosopher, but also, above all, a good exegete and thorough historian. As for the herme-. neute, so also for the Biblical theologian of the New Tqstament, the main question is, What readest thou?* It is on this account also better to designate our science by the name of- Biblical theology than of Biblical Dogmatics of the New Testament. When we speak of the Biblical dogmatics of the New Testament, we naturally think of a complete system of ideas, so far as this can be deduced, as a whole, from the New Testament. Biblical theology, on the other hand, seeks to investigate, in a purely historical manner, the whole teaching (leerbegrip) of each single writer of the New Testament. Besides this, the word dogma reminds us almost involuntarily of the Church. The sayings of Jesus and of the Apostles, with which the. Biblical theology of the New Testament has to do, have been just the elements from which the later dogmas have been derived, and by which they have b,een established. 4. The character of our science we have above indicated determines at the same time its place in thq- organic whole of the theologieal encyclopaedia. If we distinguish between exegetical, historical, syste matic, and practical theology, it will soon be seen that the Biblical theology of the New Testament takes its place at the head of the second of these. wherq it shines as " a focus of light in theological study",(Hagenbach). Thankfully this science receives * Compare J. J. Eoedes, " Hermeneutics of the New Testament Writings." (English translation.) 6 Theology of tlie New Testament. the indispensable services which exegesis renders to it, and in turn confers these services upon the follow- ing parts of historic theology, as well as of systematic and practical theology, and especially on the history of Christian doctrines, whose basis and initial point it is. On the other hand, it can leave the critical investigation of the history of those sources from whence it draws, to the so-called introductory science — Isagogics of the New Testament. Without doubt, Biblical theology may not leave unused the light kindled by the latter science as a help in its investigation. On disputed questions, which are of importance for his subject, it is to be expected of the Biblical theologian that he should express his opinion, support, and defend it ; but a formal treatment of these questions, leading to a final decision, ought not to be expected of him in this capacity. The un ceasing accumulation of material demands, above all in our days, a division of labour. The ideal of our science is attained if it presents a clear, well-arranged, complete, and comprehensive view of the doctrines contained in the writings of the New Testament> without troubling itself what is asserted, with or without justice, by criticism, concerning the origin^ the connection, and the value of these books. 5. The importance of the investigation in which Biblical Theology is engaged, after what we have said, scarcely needs to be mentioned. Even from a purely historic point of view, it merits the attention of every one who treats of the history of humanity and of the kingdom of God upon earth. The ad« :. Definition of the Science. tf vanced Christian justly attaches great value to an exact acquaintance with the answer given by the Lord and his Apostles to the highest questions of life. Especially must the Christian tlieohgian learn to distinguish the teaching of Jesus and his Apostles from many other teachings. As a Protestant, he has, moreover, an interest in this investigation which is not felt by the Roman Catholic, or not felt in the same degree ; and far from its being the case that in our time this investigation is rendered less important on account of the variously modified views of Holy Scripture, it is rather manifest of itself that — entirely apart from the justice of the modifications we have indicated — the very signs of- the times most urgently impel us to its unwearied prosecution. On the idea and character of our science, compare F. F, Fleck on Biblical Tlieology as a Science in our Time, in Rohr's " Prediger-Bibliothek," anno 1834,; Schenkel, The Problem of Biblical Tlieology, etc., in "Studien und Kritiken," 1852; the ' introduction to Lange's Bible Work (" Homiletical Commentaries," English. Translation, Edinburgh) ; and; above all, the article of C. I. Nitzsch, in Herzog's "Real-Encyklo- psedie," vol. ii. p. 219 and following. POINTS FOR INQUIRY. Character and psychological basis of theological science in general. ^Wherefore was the investigation of the Old and the New Testament theology at /first combined and afterwards separated? — Criticism of some other definitions of our science, more or less different from our own. — View* 8 Theology of the New Testament. in regard to its place in the Encyclopaedia. — Wherefore does not the life of Jesus and his Apostles belong to its domain ?^— More exact statement and defence of its im portance in itself, and in comparison with other branches of theological science. — From what cause is the low estimation of this science on many hands to be explained ; and where fore and how is this to be combated? SECTION IL Jfis Pisiurg. The age of the Biblical theology of the New Testament, as an independent part of theo logical science, extends not far beyond the present century. It has passed through a loug period of preparation, but has developed itself, in any considerable degree, only within a short time, and is now in a condition of promise and of life, which powerfully impels to its further cultivation. I. Not without reason is it usual, in the introduction to any scientific investigation, to afford a sketch of its history. In this case, also, history proves itself " the light of truth, the witness of the times, the instructress of life." It makes us acquainted with that which has been already done within a given sphere, and on this account, also, with that which* yet remains to be done. It shows how- the science has gradually attained to -an independent rank, affords the key to the explanation of its present corv io Theology of tlie New Testament. dition, and places us thus in a position further to build upon a foundation already laid. 2. Some one has justly termed the Biblical theo logy of the New Testament an "especially Protestant" science. It is so at least to this extent, that though the germ of this science was before present, it could only freely develop itself on the soil of Protestantism. The period before the Reformation may be designated the preparatory one. To this period belong the most important Fathers of the first, centuries, who are more or less Biblical theologians. Especially does this honourable title belong to the coryphaei of the Alexandrine school. In some measure, the work de testimoniis, which is usually ascribed to Cyprian (obiit A.D. 258); may be adduced as an instance qi independent research within this sphere, as well, as also that of the African bishop, Juniliiis, de partibus legis, which belongs to the sixth1 century. That the Middle Ages were not favourable to works on Biblical theology is manifest from the nature of the case. As a rule, the question . then was not^-What is the teaching of Scripture? but — What is the teaching of the Church ? They did not, however, entirely abstain from appealing to Scripture against those who differed from them ; and the age before the Reforma tion prepared at the same time the way.fof a juster and more successful treatment of Biblical theology, especially that of the New Testament. The Doctores ad Biblia were expressly called to its explanation^ and Luther's example shows with what zeal indi viduals among them entered upon this work. The Its History. II dogmatic masterpieces of the Reformation are at the same, time the fruit of an earnest study of the Bible ; although it was by no means entered. upon from an historic standpoint, or with a purely scientific aim. Unfortunately, there arose in the seventeenth century a new scholasticism ¦ in place of the old, and the boundary line between Biblical theology and the dogmatics of the Church was more and more oblite rated. Exegesis retired to the background, polemics Came to the front. Even polemics,- however, appealed to the so-called dicta probantia, which were expounded more or less according to the tenets of a particular school. The desire to find the truth of salvation, as clearly and perfectly expressed as possible, even in those living under the Old Covenant, gave rise to very special investigations. Thus the theology of Job (1687), of Jeremiah (1696), even, that of Elizabeth (1706), was treated with minute care. In an in creasing degree: — alongside of scholastico-dogmatie investigation — the necessity for Biblical exegesis (not yet purely historical) made itself felt, and, the. means thereto were' supplied on various hands. In Strasburg, Sebastian Schmidt published his Collegium Biblicum (3rd edition, 1689) ; in Holland, Wits.ius and Vitringa called forth a purely Biblical school. Even the reac tion of Pietism against orthodoxy affected favourably our science in its earliest stage ; and during the' whole eighteenth century there is manifested; an increasing effort to th'.ow off the scholastic yoke,, and in the presentation of the Christian doctrine of faith and life, to retrrn to Biblical simplicity. As types of this 12 Theology jf the New Testament. tendency, we may mention M. C. Heyman, Versuch einer Bibl. Theol. in Tabellen (4th edition, 1758); A. F. Busching, Epitome Theologia,- e solis litteris sacris concinnata (1757), and -by the same writer, Gedanken von der Beschajfenlieit und der Vorzug der Bibl. Dogm. Theol. vor der scolastisclien (1758); above all, D. G. F. Zacharise, Bibl. Theologie, oder Unter- suchung des Bibl. Grundes der vomehmsten Theol. Lehren (3rd edition, in five parts, 1786) ; and Storr, Doclrintz Christiance e solis litt. SS. repetitce Pars Theor. (Stuttgard, 1793 and 1807). Their footsteps were followed, both within and without our country, at the end of tlie last century and the beginning of the present, by distinguished Biblical theologians of the supernaturalistic school. 3. Yet, however valuable all this is, the purely historical treatment of the Biblical theology of the; New Testament is entirely a fruit of modern time, which brings forth ever more clearly the distinction between this and ecclesiastical or philosophical dog matics. The idea that the Biblical theology of the New Testament must be treated as an independent part of historic science was first expressed with clear consciousness on the rationalistic side. This took place on the part of J. Ph. Gabler (Professor at Altorf) in the year 1787, in an academic discourse, De justo discrimine T/ieol. Bibl. et Dogm., wherein he insisted that in the domain of the first-named science (Biblical theology) the doctrines of the different writers must be objectively investigated, distinguished from each other, and accurately arranged. His main thought Its History. _ - 13 was further developed by his colleague, G. L. Bauer, who (1 800-1 802) published a Biblical Theology of the New Testament, in four parts, to which a fifth was promised. While this writer gave to his historic investigation an apologetico-practical tendency, an independent standpoint was taken by C. F. Ammon, in his Outline- of a purely Biblical Theology (Erl. 1792), and his Biblical Theology (2nd edition, in three parts, 1801,-1802). According to his view, Biblical theology should deal only with the "materials, fundamental ideas, and results of Biblical teaching, without troubling itself about the connection of the same, or weaving them into an artificial system." " This business," he says, " is preserved '.{ for the writer on dogmatics, who harmonises together these results." Whether the task of dogmatics is so simple as ' it would appear from these words, may remain for us at present a matter of indifference; it suffices that the historic character of ' our science has been intelligently expressed by Ammon. Yet more clearly is this done by G. P. C. Kayser, in his work, Bibl. Theologie, oder Judaismtts und ChristianismuSj etc. (Erl. 181 3-14);- but especially by the Basle, Professor, W. M, L. de Wette (died 1850), who has rendered this science most important services, less as concerns results than as concerns method. He. placed Biblical dogmatics parallel with those of the Lutheran Church, in a certain respect opposite to them, and distinguished in the former better than had been before done between the ideas of Hebraism and those of Judaism, between the doctrine of JesUs and that of. the Apostles. He asked, above all things, not 14 Theology of the New Testament. whether he could harmonize his views with the Scrip ture teaching, but what the Scriptural conceptions were, how they were developed from each other, and beside each other, and in what connection they stood with the peculiar ideas of the time in which they were first uttered. Without doubt this work also has its weaker sides : Biblical theology is here too much Biblical dogmatics in the stricter sense of the word, and the peculiar philosophic standpoint of the author — he belonged to the school of Fries — had an overweening influence upon the historic view of his subject. This, however, does not prevent his having made, in some respects, gigantic progress in the good way, so that others with the desired success could further build upon the foundation he had laid. This was done also, although in a- less happy form, by L. F. O. Baumgarten-Crusius, Professor in Jena, in his Outlines of Biblical Theology '(1828); by L. D. Cramer, Prelections upon the Biblical Theology of the New Testa ment, brought out by Nabe, Leipzig, 1830; and on a much greater scale by D. V. Colin, Professor at Breslau, whose Biblical Theology, in two parts, was published after his death, in 1836, by Dr. D. Schulz. It was, however, not only the wholly or half ration alistic school of theology which devoted itself with manifest preference to the prosecution of this part of the science ; on the supernaturalistic side also its domain was cultivated by skilled hands. During the second quarter of the century, the theology of the Old Testament began to receive especial attention. The writings on this subject of Steudel (1840), Oehler ¦•>',.(,¦ Its History. 15 (1840), and( especially of Havernick (1848) (deserve to be mentioned with honour. .As far as the New Testa ment is concerned, our science is especially under deep obligation to the ever-memorable Neander (died 1858). In the first part of his Life of Jesus (ist edi tion, 1837), he gave an historic summary of the doc trine of. the Redeemer as derived from his parables, in which we cannot fail , to recognise the master hand which had already analysed with .rare, ; tact the doc trinal teaching of the different apostolic writers, in his Planting and Training of the Apostolic Church (ist edition, .1832)., ; He: brought out the finer shades of thought in the peculiarity of each one, but at the same time pointed out the higher unity, and sought -especially to show "how, notwithstanding all differ ence, .there was an essential unity beneath, unless one is deceived by the form, and how the form in its diversity is easily explained." The weaker sides of Neander's treatment are avoided in one of the best works which we have here to mention, C. F. Schmidts _ Bibl. Theol. des N. T., which, after his death, was edited by Dr. K. Weizsacker (1853), of which a new edition appeared in 1864 He presents the theology of, the. New Testament objectively and clearly, and ¦penetrates with manifest sympathy into the organism of the different, groups of doctrines; the treatment of „ which is preceded, by a special biography of the Lord and His Apostles. If the latter is not to be com mended (comp. § .1, 3), his work deserves the preference to the .incomplete Theology of the New-- Testament, by Dr. G. L, Hahn, Leipzig) 1854 This treats only of the 1 6 Theology of the New Testament. fundamental idea of God and the world, which under lies the teaching both of the Lord and His Apostles, without making a just distinction between the different . doctrinal types, and brings out indeed very clearly the unity of the fore-mentioned ideas of God and the world, but without doing sufficient justice to the diversity of the doctrinal development in the writers of the New Testament As far as the theology of the Apostles especially is concerned, we give the pre ference to H. Messner, The Doctrine of the Apostles, Berlin, 1856 — a book here and there a little heavy In style, but rich in contents, and constructed on a good method; and especially G. V. Lechler, The Apos tolic and Post-Apostolic Age, with regard to Diversity and Unity in Doctrine and Life, crowned in the year 1848 by the Teyler Society, and published in 1857 a second time, so greatly augmented and improved that it may almost be called a new work. The special literature of the Petrine, Pauline, and Johannine theology we shall cite in the proper place. That the treatment especially of the theology of Jesus must be considerably modified through the influence of the criticism of Strauss and the Tubingen school, was a natural consequence of the spirit of the time, and is manifest, besides, from many examples. ,, In general we must not suppose that even where the purely historical character of our science is acknowledged and defended, the theological and philosophical standpoint of the writer has been without great influence upon its treatment How prejudicially the Hegelian philosophy has affected Its History. 17 Biblical theology we may perceive from the work of Vatke (1835), whose d priori construction of doctrine and history has been combated but not improved by Bruno Bauer, The Religion of the Old Testament, Berlin, 1838-39. As far as the New- Testament is concerned, we should bestow a yet higher praise than we do upon the, in many respects, so excellent Histoire de la Tlieol. Chret. du Siecle Apostol., by E. Reuss, Strasburg, 1852 (latest edition 1864), if the clearness and completeness of the pre sentation were equalled by its strict objectivity. But in the grouping, here and there also in the" treatment and appreciation of the materials, the author's con siderable sympathy with the Tubingen construction of the earliest Church history is unmistakable, whilst nis investigation, moreover, extends beyond the limits ^i the New Testament ; which is not advantageous for the recognition of the entirely peculiar value of its1 cuiitents. In a far greater degree, however, does this objection apply to the work of the head of the 'f ubingen school, Dr. F. C. Baur," in whose Prelections on New Testament Theology, published after his death by his son (1864), the well-known bright and dark sides" of this school are, so to speak, concentrated. The whole rich material of New Testament theology Baur divides into three different periods, after he has first separately dealt with 'rhe teaching of Jesus. To the first of these he assigns the four Pauline epistles, acknowledged by him as genuine, together with the Apocalypse, and discusses their dogmatic contents. I"i the second follow the Epistle to the Hebrews, the C 1 8 Theology of the New Testament. smaller epistles of Paul (with the exception of those to Timothy and Titus), and, further, the Epistles of Peter and James, the Synoptical Gospels and the Acts. In the third, finally, the doctrinal contents of the pastoral epistles and the Johannine writings, which, according to Baur, are by far the latest in the whole canon. Thus the whole conception and method rests upon a system of isagogics and criti cism, to which no one will give the name of impartial. Yet more arbitrarily and with much less talent has this presentation of history been attempted from the same standpoint by L. Noack in his Bibl. Thsol., Introduction to the Old and New Testament, Halle, 1853. From the Roman Catholic side an important contribution to our science has been made is. Ger many by J. A. B. Lutterbeck, On tlie New Testowsnt Doctrines ; or, Investigations as to tlie Period cf the Religious Change, the Stages preparatory to Chris tianity, and the first form of the same. (Two parts, Mainz, 1852). It contains a treasure of material, although the author himself has published it 011V as a Handbook of the Earliest History of Doctrines and Systematic Exegesis of tlie New Testament, and although he leaves the doctrine of Jesus entirely untreated of, and, on the other hand, has taken up a great deal that does not properly belong to the; subject. As far as the literature of Holland is concerned, comparatively much has been done for the advance ment of Biblical and Evangelical dogmatics (Mun- tingbe, Egeling, Heringa, Vinke), but as yet but little .' Its History. 19 for the scientific and purely historic treatment of New Testament theology. From the standpoint of the Groningen school many an important contribution to the knowledge of the doctrines of Paul and his fellow- Apostles has been received' in the early issues of WaarJieid in Liefde. A copious compendium was afforded to his students by the Leyden professor, J. H. Scholten, in his History of Christian Doctrine during the Period of the New Testament (2nd edition), Leyden, 1858, in which the well-known clearness and acuteness of the author is just as little to, be denied as the influence of his own dogmatic system upon the result. An important contribution to Biblical theo logy was made by Dr. A. H.;. Blom, in his treatise, The Doctrine of t/ie Messianic Kingdom among the First Christians, according to the Acts of tJie Apostles, Dordr., . 1863.; a study in which, not in vain, the requirement of strict objectivity is made. - In regard to Eschatology, an exact and thorough historic and exegetical investigation has (been made by J. P. Briet (Two parts), Thiel, 1857, 1858. 4. At the end of our Jiistorie summary we see that, while it is by no means impossible to treat Biblical theology as an independent science, just as little is a new attempt at the development and completion of this science to be regarded as superfluous. ; It is fur ther clear that the requirement of the science; is so much the more fully met, in proportion as we keep before the eye its objective historic character; that, on the other hand, untimely admixture of one's own dog matic and philosophic opinions can only tend to its 20 Theology of tlie New Testament. essential injury. During a succession of years, ship wreck has been made on one or other of these rocks alternately ; either the unmistakable diversity of the doctrinal contents was sacrificed to the prosecution of an ideal unity, or the higher unity was sacrificed to a too strongly coloured diversity. The former of these~ especially was more prevalent at an earlier period, under the influence of ruling dogmatism ; the latter more especially in our own time, under the influence of the criticism which gives the present tone. True wisdom demands that we avoid Scylla, and remain equally far from Charybdis. But this leads us to the following section. Compare, on the subject treated- of in this sec tion, Reuss, Histoire de la Theol. Chrtt:, pp. 13-28 ; Baur, Vorlesungen iiber neu-testamentliclie TheoJogie,, p. 1-44. POINTS FOR INQUIRY. Whence is it that the Biblical theology of the New Testament is as yet a comparatively youthful science? What beneficial and what hurtful : influence: has the Tiibingen school exerted upon its development? Is it possible and necessary to keep it firee from the influence of a definite Christian philosophic system ? SECTION III. |ts fft*%ir, iftara gibisratt, anir Squiwrncri. The method of our investigation can, from the nature of the case, be no other than the genetic, chronologico-analytic. The' main division of the material is determined by thev peculiarity and mutual connection of the different doctrinal systems which are met with in the. New Testament. If the treatment is to correspond to its object, it must be carried out in a truly scientific manner, but at the same time in a truly Christian spirit. , I. In every science the question as to the mode of proceeding is of primary importance. All the value of a result stands , or falls with the legitimacy of the method by which it is obtained. As a part of historic theology, our science can obey no other laws than those which apply to every historic investigation. The method must, consequently, be a genetic one, that is, it must take into account not only the con- 22 Theology of the. New Testament. tents, but also the manner of origination (genesis) of the different ideas. In this, historico-psychor logical exegesis, especially, will render good service. Further, it must be chronological. We find in the New Testament a series of writings and thoughts which, gradually formed, were not seldom developed under the opposing influence of one writer upon another ; even the inner process of development of one and the same writer — e.g., that of Paul — was by no means immovably fixed "during a succession of years. " History is the unfolding of life " (Schmid). Here, consequently, the well-known direction, dis tingue tempora, is to be carefully observed. Finally, analytical or disjunctive. We have to ask not at once after the doctrines of the Apostolic age en bloc, but after those of each of the different witnesses which meet us in the New Testament. It is true we have here also to do with a higher unity ; but this becomes manifest only when the manifest diver sity is first clearly presented. The synthesis has no value unless the analysis has been pure. "It is of analysis that we shall seek the light which shall lighten our path ; of analysis, which teaches the historian to lose sight of himself, in order not to fail of his subject, which knows how to respect the particular character of each fact, of each idea that it meets, which recognises to each epoch, to each group, to - each individuality even, however small, its right to appear to-day in the mirror of history, that which it once was in the reality of life"(Reuss). Its Method, Main Division, etc. 23 2. The main division of the subject upon which we are entering is already, in principle, indicated by what we have said. First, we must separate the theology of the Lord Jesus, Christ and that of the Apostolic writers from each other, and treat of the former before the latter. In dealing with the first, the difference between the utterances of the Lord in the Synoptics arid those in the Gospel of John is at once evident. Also, the investigation of the Apostles' doctrine demands a similar threefold division. Peter, Paul, John, give—and indeed in this order — their successive testimony. Around these leading forms are grouped also others, who manifest more or less of spiritual affinity with them and their thoughts. Thus, to the Petrine theology belongs the doctrinal system of James and Jude; the Gospels of Matthew and Mark must also be arranged under this head. Around Paul are grouped his predecessor Stephen, Ins fellow-labourer Luke, and his spiritual kinsman the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. John stands , alone ; but the John of the. Fourth Gospel and of the Epistles,, on the one hand, and the John of the Apocalypse, on tlie . other hand, are sufficiently different for us to listen to the one only, after the other has spoken. In these two main divisions, the material for our investigation is comprehended^ but not yet fully mastered. We cannot understand the teaching of t'fie Lord and His Apostles so long as we have not— even though only in a general sense— le»rnt to know the ground out of which the plant grew, 24 Theology of the New Testament. A preparatory chapter must consequently precede the investigation of these, a chapter in which,; indeed, not the whole theology of the Old Testa ment is treated of, but the religion from which Christianity sprang, the expectations it fulfilled,, the condition, finally, the thoughts and wants of the age in which the Lord and His Apostles arose ; . in other words, Mosaism, Prophetism, and Judaism, as distinguished from an earlier Hebraism. We may best sum up the contents of this first, merely preparatory — but, nevertheless, indispensable— chap ter, under the name of Old Testament basis. Upon this follows, as the second part, the theology of Jesus Christ ; as a third, that of the Apostles, ac cording to the plan above indicated. But is our investigation with this at an end? Just as little as the building whose foundations are laid, and whose walls are brought to the required height, but to which roof and gable are still wanting. In a fourth, or last part, must the synthesis of the com pleted analysis be attempted; in other words, the higher unity of the doctrine of the Apostles with each other, and with the Lord, must be spoken of. Only thus does the edifice of New Testament theo logy stand before our eyes as a compact whole. "Thus will New Testament theology have before it the task of developing the organic connection of New Testament doctrine " (Schmid). Only with this can we rest contented. And if now it is seen that none of the main parts before mentioned can either be left out or placed in other order, without the harmony Its Method, Main Division, etc. 25 being broken, then is at once made manifest the necessity as well as the justice of our main division. 3. The demand that the investigation to be insti tuted should be at the same time both scientific and Christian, will, as a whole, be contradicted by no one. Nevertheless, a word of further explanation will not be superfluous. 'An investigation is scientific when it corresponds with the requirements of science in general, and of that science in particular to which it relates.. "Science is a well-grounded and- well-ordered knowledge, the fruit of just observation and philosophic induction " (Mulder). Theological science is. consequently a well- grounded and well-ordered knowledge of God and Divine things, derived from those sources whence necessarily it must be drawn. This science in its examination receives light from faith in God and His revelation ; but this faith, in place of fettering or obscuring the spirit of free investigation, rather calls it forth, and gives to its labour the most suitable direction. In regard to this investigation, also, the requirement is made that it should be thorough, exact, complete, impartial, and truth-loving. .Im partiality, however, must not be conceived of a syste- 'matic denying or ignoring of all the principles upon which others * proceed (freedom from prepossession), for this is neither 'necessary nor possible. It rather demands that, with candid mind and spirit, we hold ourselves open to everv impression, and desire nothing but truth, whether it harmonises or not with our own favourite opinions. Such a love of truth, which 26 Theology of the New, Testament. becomes no one more than him who is treating of theological science, is naturally united with that moral earnestness which can by no means be wanting in an investigation like the present. To this extent, we may say that a truly scientific .spirit is not merely a bent of the mind, but of the whole intellectual and moral life, so that, like eloquence, it may be called not only a gift, but a virtue. Scientific investigation will at the same time be Christian, if it is, above all,: begun and continued in a Christian spirit. Even in the examination of the doctrine of Jesus and the Apostles, we may not possibly forget what great' importance the New Tes tament possesses for the religious and Christian life., The theologian who is also a Christian cannot pos sibly be untrue to his faith when he enters upon the domain of science. Nor is this by any means de manded : faith here also leads to a better recognition and knowledge, and the latter in turn puts us in a position better to believe (i John v. 13.) . Never theless, the Christian and the ecclesiastical stand point must not here be regarded as entirely the same. The New Testament is here regarded and consulted purely as an historical document : the question whether it is still more than this, and in what relation it stands to the faith and life of the Christian, belongs exclusively to the domain of Christian dogmatics, and on this account is not here discussed. Then, also, must our investigation, secondly, be undertaken in a Christian spirit, that is, in the spirit of Christian humility, which is conscious of its limited capacity ; Its Method, Main Division, etc. 27 iri the spirit of living faith, which impels so much the more powerfully to seek to fathom the mysteries of the kingdom of God ; above all, in the spirit of ardent love for the Gospel, which easily and willingly enters into the spirit of the sacred writer. Here, also, sym pathy is the indispensable condition of a deeper insight. Finally, the investigation must have a Christian aim : personal sanctification through the knowledge of the truth ; the upbuilding of the kingdom of God in us and around us ; and thereby, above all, the glorifying of Him for whom are all things, even in the domain of science. Compare Schenkel; Task of Biblical Theol., in Studien und Kritiken, 1852, i. p. 61 and following; Nitzsch, Article in Herzog's Real-Encycl. ii. p. 225. POINTS FOR INQUIRY. The importance of method in the theological domain. — Criticism of some other modes of division and sub division. — To what extent is an absolute impartiality in the investigation of our science indispensable, possible; desi rable ?—Is a purely historical investigation, such as is here attempted, consistent with the reverence we owe to Holf Scripture ? FIRST PART. OLD TESTAMENT BASI& SECTION IV. Mosaism is the religio-political institution which the Israelitish nation owes to Moses, and in consequence of which Israel has occu pied an entirely unique position in the history of the development of the religious life of humanity. The main source of knowledge in regard to it is the Canonical Scripture of the Old Testament; its basis is a special revela tion ; its character, monotheistic ; its form, theo cratic ; its worship, symbolico-typical ; its design, purely moral ; its standpoint, that of external authority, but, at the same time, of conscious preparation for a higher development. i. The edifice of the New Testament theology reposes entirely upon an Old Testament basis. The Gospel is to be understood, neither in point of con- Mosaism. 29 tents or form, without a knowledge of prophetic Scrip ture; and this again leads back to Moses and the religion founded by him.* 2. That the Israelitish nation occupies an entirely unique place, particularly in the history of religion, cannot be ignored. In commerce and luxury it is surpassed by the Phoenicians, in art and science by the Greeks, in bravery by the Romans and other nations. In the religious domain, on the other hand, we meet in Israel with ideas, institutions, expec- tations, which we find nowhere else ; historic forms, whose counterpart we elsewhere seek in vain ; above all, a self-consciousness, which can only be the fruit of boundless arrogance, or of an inestimable privilege, f The objective and subjective height on which Israel stands is only to be explained by Mbsais,rn.. : 3. For a just knowledge and appreciation of Mosa ism, that of Moses himself is necessary. This is derived partly from profane sources^ — Egyptian, Grecian, Roman ; partly from the sacred archives of the Old Testament, and above all of the Pentateuch. Not all, however, is of purely Mosaic origin' which is called after the name of Moses ; just as, also, not all is Christian which is associated with the name of Christ. It is the no less indisputable than important vocation of a thorough criticism to distinguish the originally Mosaic element from, that which was later added, whether by way of development or through a process of degeneration. * Camp. John iv. 22 ; 2 Tim. iii. 15. t Dent. iv. J ', xxxiii. 29. Ps. Ixxxix. 15 ; cxlvii. 19, 2a 30 Theology of the New Testament. 4. Notwithstanding all that Moses has in common with other founders of religion in antiquity, his person ality, his character, would remain absolutely inexpli cable, unless he ha#d been the interpreter and bearer of a special Divine revelation. The idea, the possi bility, the reality, the characteristics of this special revelation, are brought out by the science of dogmatics. Biblical theology only attests the fact that Moses arose as an extraordinary messenger of God,* was recognised as' such by his contemporaries and by posterity,f yea, even by Jesus and the Apostles, J and proved himself such, not only by signs and prophecy, but especially by the inner excellence of his religious teaching, which no one has yet succeeded in explain ing upon purely natural principles. The Divine revelation granted to Moses, nevertheless, has its roots in an earlier one, and is the continuation of a golden thread of Divine promises, whose beginning is lost in hoary antiquity.g Only from a supernaturalistic Christian standpoint can Mosaism be fully under stood. 5. Mosaism shows from the beginning a strictly monotheistic character. It recognises Jehovah not only as the highest, but also as the dnly God,|| beside whom to no creature in heaven or on earth may religious adoration be paid. If Israel in the wilder ness and later was guilty of idolatry,^ this took place in direct antagonism with the Mosaic principle, which * Numb. xii. 6-8. f Deut. xxxiv. 10-112. J Matt. xv. 3-6; Rom. iii. 2 § Exod. ii. 24, 25. | Deut. vi. ^ ; \ Amos v. 35-27. 1 Mosaism. jt pronounces^ death upon this trangression. There is just as little ground for maintaining that this Mosaism arose out of an earlier Polytheism in the way of gradual development, as for explaining it out of the peculiarity of the Semitic race. " Ce qui domine dans I' histoire des Juifs, ce ri est pas la race, mais la religion, deux choses distinetes, et quine s'expliquent pas mutuelle-, ment." (La BoUlaye.) On the contrary, everything forces us to think of a personal revelation of God, in whatever -form, given to the father of the nation, forgotten by his descendants in Egypt, renewed to Moses; and in Mosaism enriched with new elements. In consequence of this revelation, Israel knows the Lord — the Almighty Creator of heaven and earth — in. His. unity, majesty, spiritual nature, and His spotless holiness, united- with compassion and . faithfulness. This truth is here the axis around which all turns — " le dogme des dogmes." Its recognition raises Israel, • above all the, nations of the earth, and is the unalter^ abler condition of national and individual happiness. Nevertheless, the prospect of this latter does noty as a rule;- extend farther than on, this side,. the grave* However firmly the hope of individuals clings even in death to the Ever-living One, life and immortality have been, first brought to light by the Gospel. ,f ,, ".. 6. The covenant which God, according to His proT mises, established- with Israel through the mediation of Moses, becomes tile/; basis of the Theocracy, The word is from Josephus (contra Apion. ii. 16).; the thing itself is to be regarded neither as an imitation * Exod. xx. 12. " +2 Tim. i, io. 32 Theology of the New Testament. of other forms of religion — e.g., Egyptian — nor as >a ; merely natural fruit of a limited nationality of senti ment, nor as the involuntary consequence of reaction against heathenism. It was the work of the free and gracious choice of Him who, though He is Lord of the whole creation, made Israel more especially to be the people of His possession. The covenant-act of the theocracy thus founded was the law-giving at Sinai ; its seat the sanctuary ; its end-— not the arising of the kingdom, by which it was only modified — but the destruction of the Israelitish state ; its highest benefit finally was the appearing of Him who put an end to the wall of separation between Israel and the nations. Only when we have recognised this its theocratic character, is the history of Israel, and in connection with this, the ever higher revelation of the majesty of God, credible, and in a certain degree comprehensible. 7. As Covenant-God will God not only be acknow ledged by Israel, but also be worshipped in a way well pleasing to Him. The ritual appointed by Moses displays a symbolico-typical character.* The outward forms are the visible expression of higher religious ideas ; the ceremonies then present are at the same time shadows of future persons and things (typi personates et reales). Type and symbol is by no means the same thing. The symbol stands related to the idea, as its sensuous expression ; the type to the antitype, as the shadow to the reality. The symbol shadows forth the invisible ; the type repre- • Coloss. ii. 17; Epistle to Hebrews, passim. Mosaism. 33 sents that which is as yet concealed. We see both united in the most important religious act — as of every religion, so also of Mosaism — the sacrifice. It is the symbol of voluntary consecration to God, and especially is the sin-offering a type of the perfect sacrifice of the New Covenant. " The notion of the typical is inseparable from that of a teleological development, in which the present is pregnant with the future " (Martensen). Rules for the further expla nation of particulars are supplied' by the symbolics and typology of the Old Testament. 8. If, consequently, the form of Mosaism is a lofty accommodation to the rude condition of the nation, its tendency is at the same time a purely moral one. The religious and moral element is here most inti mately blended. The spotless holiness of the King of Israel becomes at the same time the highest ideal of the subject* The lively feeling of one's own un- holiness, the need for forgiveness of sin, delight in the grateful praise of God, is by the sacrificial ritual at once called forth and satisfied ; and the spirit of love, compassion, humanity — notwithstanding the narrowest limitations of nationality — is cherished by a legisla tion which, even in the minutest particulars, manifests the design, to unite together as closely as possible reiigion and life. Without justice has it been main tained that the Mosaic economy is founded merely upon legality, not upon morality, in the proper sense of ,the word, inasmuch as it regulates only external actions, no inner principles. Even the beginning of * Levit. xix. 2. 34 Theology of the New Testament. the decalogue proves the contrary* With all the experience of the terror of the Lord, the requirement of love to Him stands ever in the foreground ;f and when Jesus sums up the whole law in this one precept, trie genuinely Israelitish conscience testifies that He has interpreted it with perfect justice. J That which, regarded alone, would seem to stand in more or less of opposition to this strictly moral character of Mosaism, § must be explained with the eye upon the whole, in the light of that age, and in connection with the special government of God. 9. To the law it was nevertheless impossible to work the fulfilment of its just demands in sinful man. Its stand-point was that of outward authority, like that of the pedagogue over unruly lads.|| In Mosaism, man stands to God, not in the relation of a child to a fathe^ but of a subject to his king, or of a transgressor to his judge. By far the greater number of com mandments manifest, therefore, a prohibitory cha racter ; If and as the promise of life is attached to obedience, so also is the threatening of death made to transgression.** It is true, the love of God is here in principle manifested and recognised ; ft but for the awakened conscience this is less prominent than His holiness and righteousness, which must ever impose new chastisements. Thus, then, is love to Him * Exod. xx. 2. + Deut. vi. 5. t Mark xii. 28-34. § 'S- Exod. iii. 21, 22 ; I Sam. xv. 3. || Gal. iv. 1, 2: If Coloss. ii. 21. •* Gal. iii. 10. ft Exod. xxxiv. 6,7 ; Psalm ciii. 13 ; I Kings xix. 11-13, Mosaism. 35 , certainly demanded, but by no means wrought, by the law.* , Mosaism, indeed, knows the promise of a rege neration of the heart ;f but the letter, as such, kills. J In this respect, the spirit and power of Mosaism is admirably symbolized in the bearing of the nation at Sinai. § 1 o. Thus regarded, Mosaism will be less a prepa ration for Christianity than an opposition thereto ; since therein — that which here can be by no means overlooked — no plaGe was left for higher development. But the same Divine revelation, which had founded Mosaism, had at the same time made provision for its development by means of. prophetism. || Mosaism displays a particular colouring, but universalistic are the reminiscences of ancient promises, which it has preserved intact,^f and the aspirations which its inter* preters express from the highest stand-point of their religious development.** Thus it manifests in itself a harmonious unity; not, however, that of the completed building, but of the firm foundation upon which the edifice is to be further raised. Compare, on the Theology, of the Old Testament in general, the works cited in Section II. On the history of, Israel and of the Old Testament, those of Hess, Kalkar, Kurtz [English Translation], Ewald [English Translation], Stanley. , Also the Prelections of Da Costa, over waarh en waardij der Schriften v. h. 0. V. Amst. 1844. Articles on . Moses and Egypt, in * Rom. viii., 15. t Deut. xxx. 6. J 2 Cor. iii. 6., y Exod. xx. 18-21. II Deut. xviii. 15-18. % Gen. iii. 15 ; xlix. 10. ** Numbers xi. 29 ; 1 Kings viii. 41-43. 36 Theology of tlie New Testament, Herzog. Auberlen : Gbttliche Offenbarung (Divine Revelation.) Trip : Ueb. die Theophanien d. A. T, in the works of the Society of the Hague, 1856. Dillmann: Ueb. den Ur sprung der A. T. -lichen Religion. Giessen, 1865. Bahr : Symbol, des Mos. Cult, Heidelb., 1837. Kurtz : Mosaic Sacrifices. Piccardt : De legislat. Mos. indcrle morali, Traj., 1839. Tholuck: Das Alt. Test. im N. Test, (two appendices to the Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews). Umbreit : Das Evang. im A. T, in Studien and Kritiken, 1849. I. POINTS' FOR INQUIRY. Diversity and connection of the Old and the New Testa ment. — Summary and criticism of the different views of Mosaism. — Is it possible to explain the origin of Mono theism in Israel in a purely natural way ? — The hypothesis of stone-worship. — Harmony and diversity of the theocracy and the later hierarchy. — To what extent is Mosaism entirely original ? (Spencer and Witsius.) — The different forms of special revelation. — The symbolical character, also, of other ancient religions. — How is the former over-estimate and the later neglect of typology to be explained ? — Detailed indi cation of the symbolico-typical element in different kinds of sacrifices. — To what extent can the MdSaic legislation, as compared with others, serve as a proof of the Divine origin of Mosaism ? — Mosaism and the Messianic expectations. SECTION V. frorf^fism. Prophetism, which is in its nature not less unique than the original Mosaism, and is just as little to be explained in a rationalistic or magical way, was at once the continuation and fulfilment of earlier revelation, and as such an inestimable blessing, not only for Israel, but also for the Gentile world. It prepared the way for the Gospel of the New Covenant, exercised con siderable influence upon its contents and form, and raised -itsN high value above all reasonable doubts. I. As Moses had, as prophet, stood far above his contefnporaries,*so also there arose after him, here and there, extraordinary men of God. Even in the time of the Judges we see single prophets arise,f although the m period of unbroken prophecy begins only with Samuel. He appears to have been the founder of the so-called * Numbers xii. 6-8. t Judges iv. 4 ; vi. 8. 38 Theology of the New Testament. schools of the prophets, which soon after came to a higher development under Elijah and Elisha. Their own relation towards Saul and David represents at the same time that of their successors towards later kings. As representatives of the theocracy, called by Jehovah himself, they arise out of different tribes and .districts. They are by no means above the law, but maintain its authority, enforce its spiritual observance, and interpret God's deeds and purposes, into which they have a deeper insight than others. On this account, in more than one respect different from the priests, they bear the names of Messenger or Ambas sador of God, (n; ^tibo) Speaker, (K'DJ) Seer, (TBfl), and others of similar import. They teach the nation to understand the signs of the times, and even not seldom utter prophecies in the strict sense of the term, i.e., definite proclamations of such events of the future as could not possibly be calculated in a natural way. Just as little as the predicting of the future is to be regarded as the highest vocation of the prophet, just so little will an impartial criticism exclude, d priori, from their activity the prophesying of those hidden things which stood in organic con nection with the development of the kingdom' of God. The assertion that the truths made known to the prophets in no case extended beyond the natural. limits of human knowledge, is in irreconcilable con flict as well with the expressions of their own self- consciousness as with the facts themselves. 2, That the Israelitish Prophetism is an entirely unique phenomenon is seen if we regard it, on the Prophetism. 39 "one hand, in itself, on the other hand, in com parison with heathen soothsaying (mantik). Only on theistic soil, can a plant like this flourish ; only as a link in a chain of special Divine purposes of salvation can Prophetism be explained. Here, also, there is no choice between a supernatural concep tion and an unnatural representation thereof. He who explains Prophetism rationalistically forgets that the expression of the human feeling, and of the prophetic consciousness .of the Seer, is often diametrically opposed ;* and makes the whole theo cracy, finally, a work of reflection and calculation, exceptionally favoured by the. course of events. The Israelitish prophet sees more than others, because more has been communicated to) him by God than to others. No , doubt, the capacity for receiving this communication was present .in the prophets in no ordinary degree ; but the source of their personal certainty, as regards the present and the future, lay in a special revelation given to them, in preference to others, and, in different ways. With the untenable theory of a merely magical or mechanical inspiration, the fact, of this inspiration itself does not fall. Pro phecy was the ripened fruit, not of a divination only, but. of a revelation whose ^contents and form attached themselves to the individuality of the > prophets and the condition of the moment, without, however, being explicable from these, alone. " History supplies the occasion for prophecy, but not its measure;" — (De- litzsch.) Genuine prophecy arises through the co- * 1 Sam. xv. 11 ; xvi. 6, J; 2 Sam. vii. '3-7. 40 Theology of tlu New Testament. operation of the Divine with the human factor, and builds upon the result of the past and present, in order thence to direct its glance to the mysteries of the future. 3. Prophetism stands in very close relation to Mosaism. It secures the observance of the pre cepts of the latter, which would else be constantly forgotten ;* but developes at the same time its dog matic contents, and adds to it essentially new elements. While Mosaism had proclaimed God!s unity, Israel's prophets, at the same time, extolled His majesty in an unapproachable manner, and wielded the lash of satire against the folly of idolatry, f The idea of the Angel of the Covenant, and that of the Spirit of the Lord, manifests itself much more clearly in the word of the Prophets than in Moses, f The doctrine of Angels as well as of Demons, of which Mosaism possesses only slight traces, is, especially by the later prophets, developed powerfully and on many sides. Also, the expectation of resurrection and judgment after death, in regard to which Moses had been silent, is by some of them expressly mentioned.§ While even Mosaism in principle was purely moral, the prophetic word, above all, directs the attention to the spiritual nature of God's commandments, || and urges in opposition to a mechanical formalism and ceremonialism, the necessity for a spiritual consecra- * Mal..iv. 4, S- + Isaiah xl. and xliv. X Isaiah lxiii. 9, 10. { Isaiah xxv. 6-9 xxvi. 19; Ezek. xxxvii. 1-14; Dan. xii 2, 3. || I Sam. xv. 22 ; Isaiah i. 11-1S; Micah vi. 6-8. Prophetism. 41 -tion of self to God as the essence of the sacrificial ritual.* Finally, if Mosaism was adapted only for a particular nation ; the prophets placed themselves upon the wall of separation, which they are not yet 'able to take away> . and, proclaim a kingdom of God which, proceeding from Jerusalem, embraces all nations, f- — a golden age of the future, fairer than the heathen ever imagined it.+ 4. Messianic prophecy also, as well, in the nar rower as in the wider sense — in regard to the • person and kingdom of the Messiah — may in a certain sense be regarded as an outgrowth from Mosaism. It is the continuation of a golden string -of promises, with which the Pentateuch had already made the prophets and their contemporaries ac quainted (See § IV. 10). The house of David, him self a prophet rejoicing in the loftiest prospect of the future,§ becomes the point around which gather -the fairest expectations, shadowed forth in ever clearer outline. In the earlier prophets, || Joel, "Amos, Hosea, these are expressed in more general forms ; but already, in Micah, and especially in Isaiah, the ardently-desired offspring of David is depicted in ever livelier colours.^ To the descrip tion of his kingly glory, attaches that of his; pro- -phetic and high-priestly activity, especially in the last chapters of Isaiah.** If here, also, the posterity * 1 Sam. xv. 22 ; Isaiah i. 11-18 ; Micah vi. 6-8. f Isaiah ii. 4. • X Isaiah xi. 6-9. § 2 Sam. xxiii. 3-7 ; Matt. xxii. 43 ; Acts ii. 30. || Joel ii. 28-32; Amos ix. 11, 12; Hosea iii. J. *D Micah iv. 5.,; Isaiah vii. 14; ix. 1-6; xi. l-ia ** Isaiah xiii. and xlix. ; 1. 4-11 ; Iii. 13— laL 12. 42 Theology of tlie New Testament. of David is not forgotten (lv. 3), yet it is especially the servant of the Lord, who brings salvation not only to Israel, but also to the Gentiles, who appears as suffering, the innocent for the guilty, and as the true spiritual Israel becomes at once the source of temporal and of spiritual blessing for all the nations of the world.* That, consequently, which has been already indicated before the captivity is, during this period, repeated, enriched with new traits. As it were- out of the ruins of the destroyed Jerusalem, Jeremiah sees the throne of David arising in glorious bright- ness,f and sets forth at the same time all the spiritual glory which the new dispensation has above the old.J Ezekiel represents the Son of David under the beautiful image of a Cedar and of a - Shepherd,§ and sees a stream of living water flowing out of the new temple. || Daniel stands as the world's prophet upon a height; whence in the stillness of the night he beholds how the image of the earthly monarchy is broken before his eyes, and sees the kingdom of heaven, symbolised under the form of a Son of man, coming upon the clouds of heaven, f And also after the captivity, the same expectation of spiritual blessings manifests itself in variously modified forms, but in substance essentially the same. Haggai** looks for a revelation of God * Comp. Oehler, der Kneckt JekovaKs im Deutero {?) Jesaiah. Stutt- gard, 1865. t Jer. xxiii. 5, 6. J Jer. xxxi. 31-34. } Ezek.' xvii. 22-24'; xxxiv. 23. || Ezek. xlvii. I-I2. U Dan. c vii. ** Hagg. ii. 6-9. Prophetism. 43 even among the Gentiles, in consequence of which the latter glory of God's house far surpasses the former glory. Zechariah* sees the priestly and the kingly office united in the offspring of David, who comes in meekness to the wretched. Malachi, f who sees in Him the Angel of the Covenant, proclaims at the same time the second Elias as his forerunner. Each prophet towers above his predecessor : all together point to the One who is the end (final aim) of Law and Prophecy. -5. No wonder that such a Prophetism, was ines^ timably beneficial for Israel. It was the continual channel of revelation, the bulwark of religion and, so to speak, the unswerving conscience ~oi the Theo cratic state. By means of Prophetism, Israel saw at once its past conserved, its present enlightened, its future assured. , Thence it happens that the pos session of prophets was regarded as a peculiar privi lege^ their cessation bewailed as a national misfortune.^ Even for the Gentile nations, Prophetism was ex ceptionally beneficial. The activity of many pro phets (Elisha, Jonah, Daniel) extended beyond the limits of the land of promise, with the definite _ effect of preparing for the -founding of the kingdom.^ of God on a wider scale. Above all, the Greek translation of; the word of prophecy was exceedingly. serviceable to this end. 6. Prophetism thus, both in, Israel and- in the Gentile world, prepared the way for the Gospel of, * Zech. vi. 12, 13 ; ix. 9. \ MaL iii. I ; iv. 5. \ Nehem.ix, 30; Amos ii. II. § Psalm lxxiy. 9. 44 Theology of the New Testament. the New Testament. Without doubt, it tended- to preserve that Monotheism, without which a special revelation of spiritual blessings was not conceivable. It called forth and intensified the consciousness of sin, that the nation might so much the more ardently sigh for deliverance. It preserved alive hope, even when hope seemed to be in vain, and, as opposed to the terrors of the law, proclaimed the consolation of the promise. Even the whole personality — the work . and the fate of the leading prophets — served as a foreshadowing of Him who was to be the crown and centre of all the revela tions of God.* , 7. For the writer on New Testament Theology, also, the study of the prophetic word of the Old Testament is of an importance which cannot be overlooked. Upon the contents and form of the first proclamation of the Gospel it exercised a many-sided influence. The . Gospel appears as the fulfilment of prophetic expectations; and appeals, in proof of its Divinity, to prophetic utterances.f In the mirror of this Scripture, the Lord beheld his own image, and in it have thousands recognised Him as the Christ As well the description of His person, as the representation of His work in the New Testament, finds its key in the language and ritual of the Old. Yea-, however great the difference between the form of the prophetic and the apostolic utterances^ the influence of the former upon the latter * Isaiah lxi. I ; Comp. Luke iv. 18, 19 ; Matt, xii, 40 ; xxiii. 37. f Luke xxiv. 27 ; Acts xvii. 3 ; and many other places. Prophetism. 45 is in this respect also indisputable. The eschatology Of the New Testament, for instance, r, in great mea sure clothed in the language of the Old Testament prophets, and Old Testament voices find their more powerful echo therein. Leave prophetic Scripture unregarded, and apostolic Scripture will be, for you, partly unintelligible, partly incredible Regard the latter in the light of the former, and