/give titflt. Books', >
. for the founding ef a. College iitiAt^Ca/onj/"

¦ ILKIBI^^IEir •

/&S3

NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS.

\/t ESSRS. CLARK have pleasure in forwarding to their Subscribers
^ * the Second Issue of the Foreign Theological Library for
1882, viz. : —
MARTENSEN'S CHRISTIAN ETHICS. (Social Ethics.)
WEISS'S BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT. Vol. I.
The First Issue for 1 882 was : —
DORNER'S SYSTEM OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. Vols. IIL and IV. (completion).
The Volumes issued during 1880 and 1 88 1 were : —
GODET'S COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO THE ROMANS.
Two Vols.
HAGENBACH'S HISTORY OF DOCTRINES. Three Vols.
DORNER'S SYSTEM OF CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE. Vols. I. and II.
MARTENSEN'S CHRISTIAN ETHICS. (Special Ethics.) Vol. I.
The Foreign Theological Library was commenced in 1846, and
from that time to this Four Volumes yearly (or 142 in all) have appeared
with the utmost regularity.
In beginning a New Series, an opportunity is given to many to
subscribe who may be deterred by the extent of the former Series.
The Binding of the Series is modernized, so as to distinguish it from
the former Series.
The Subscription Price will remain as formerly, 21s. annually for Four
Volumes payable in advance. (The Subscription Price of the Volumes
for 1 880, 1 88 1, 1882, is therefore Three Guineas.)
The Publishers beg to announce as in preparation —
WEISS'S LIFE OF CHRIST.
DR. KEIL'S HANDBOOK OF BIBLICAL ARCHEOLOGY.
GOEBEL'S PARABLES OF JESUS.
REUSCH'S BIBLE AND NATURE.
A Selection of 20 Volumes may be had at the Subscription Price of
Five Guineas, from the works issued previous to commencement of New
Series.  1 ¦
Messrs. Clark take this opportunity of expressing their thanks for the
favour with which this New Series of the Foreign Theological Library
has been received.
May they request an early remittance of Subscription for 1883.

CLARK'S

FOKEIGN

THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY.

NEW SERIES.
YOL. XII.

33tbltcal Cfrsologp of ti)c ®tto Certanunt— SHrfciS.
VOL. I.

EDINBURGH:
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.
188 2.

PRINTED BY MORRISON AND GIBB,
FOR
T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.
LONDON, . . nAMM.TON, ADAMS, AND CO.
DUBLIN, GEORGE HERBERT.
NEW YORK, . . SCRIBNER AND WRLFORD.

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY

OF

THE NEW TESTAMENT.

BY

DR. BERNHARD WEISS,
N fit
COUNSELLOR OP THE CONSISTORY AND PROFESSOR OP THEOLOGY IN BERLIN.

Exunslatztt from tfje Eijixt HebtselJ lEtittfon
BY
REV. DAVID EATON, M.A.,
DUFFTOWN.

VOL. I.

EDINBURGH:
T. & T. CLARK, 38 GEORGE STREET.
1882.

PREFACE.

jINCE this book appeared for the second time, much
thorough work has been done in the department of
New Testament theology. It was therefore my
duty, not only to make my readers acquainted in
the proper place with all the works that bear upon the subject,
but also to come to as thorough an understanding as possible
with them. I hope that this time also I have succeeded in
giving, throughout the whole book, not only my oym concep
tion of things, but also a picture of the various leading con
ceptions of them and of the principal points around which the
scientific discussion of them turns. If, indeed, I have paid far
more attention to some publications than to others, it is not any
predilection whatever, far less their size, that has led me to do
so, but the definiteness and importance of their results, as well
as the solidity of the arguments with which these results are
supported. It is absolutely impossible to come to an under
standing with treatises which arrive at no clear, comprehen
sible result, or are destitute of any thorough argument.
Where both are found, it is at once a pleasure and a gain to
give a careful consideration even to opinions that are very
different from one's own, and I trust that this time also such
a comparison has contributed much to the more precise
statement and complete establishment, especially exegetically,
of my own view.
No change has been made in the plan of the book ; the
numbers of all the chapters and paragraphs remain the same.
It has been a source of great inward satisfaction to me that,
notwithstanding the most accurate renewed working out of
every detail, I found nothing to alter in this respect. I, for
my part, do not know how to represent the various systems

Vlll PREFACE.
of doctrine more succinctly and lucidly. I have also satisfied
myself once more, that of the material furnished by the New
Testament for our science, nothing, not even that which is
apparently most trivial, has been overlooked. In matters of
detail, indeed, the expert will easily perceive that my
continued exegetical labours, and the constant direct or
indirect comparison with other views, have led to numerous
improvements and changes, particularly in the portions that
are more important dogmatically. If, notwithstanding these,
and notwithstanding the comprehensive notice taken of the
more recent literature of the subject, the size of the book has
not increased, this is simply owing to the fact that brevity
has been most carefully studied wherever it was possible to
do so without prejudice to the question considered, and that
all detailed discussions have been avoided which did not
improve my own statement of the case, or referred to treatises
which weie of no abiding significance.
For the third time this book begins its career, and the fact
that it may venture to do so renders it unnecessary for me to
make the apologies with which I had to introduce it the first
and second time. The number of those who have found in
it a serviceable guide through the rich world of Scripture
truth in its manifold forms has steadily increased, and, God
willing, will henceforward increase. I believe that my
statements of biblico- theological questions, and of the various
forms under which they are conceived, are objective enough
to be of value even to those who do not share my opinions in
detail, and my presuppositions in points of importance. It
may also be granted to the book to open up the way still
further for a truly historical method of regarding Holy
Scripture, and to support the conclusions which I have
arrived at, on the ground of that method, with regard to the
history of the New Testament age and its records. And
although it cannot in every particular adduce the reasons in
support of these conclusions, which I have elsewhere done
abundantly with respect to the most of the points, yet it
is sufficient to show that they have been arrived at in a
scientific way, and that it is possible to carry them out in a
scientific manner through the whole of the New Testament.
I believe I have shown that I know how to appreciate every

PREFACE. IX
objection to them that is supported by means of argument,
and also that I know how to come to a thorough understand
ing with it.
It is now twenty-seven years since, in my inaugural
academical discourse, I for the first time expressed my love
for the science which this book is meant to serve, and
thoroughly discussed the questions regarding its right con
ception and its methodical representation. I believe that
since that time I have shown in earnest labour that this love
was no mere ebullition of youthful enthusiasm ; and that the
same love still inspires me to-day is also shown by this book
in its new form. May it then still continue to find friends
and bring forth fruit, may it help to introduce men more and
more profoundly into the full riches of the truth of Scripture,
and bring its hidden treasures to the light.
Here also I would take the opportunity of expressing my
heartiest thanks to my young friend, Albert Hirsch, student of
theology in Berlin, who has most carefully verified all the
quotations of Scripture and the registers, and has thus much
furthered the use of the book. B. WEISS.
Berlin, August 1879.

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION.

1. The problem of the science, .
2. Division and arrangement, .
3. Investigation of sources,
4. Method of the representation,
5. The origin of the science,
6. Earlier works on Biblical Theology,
7. The more recent works,
8. Auxiliary labours,

PAGE 1
7
1217
21283035

PART FIRST.
THE TEACHING OF JESUS ACCORDING TO THE EARLIEST
TRADITION.
INTRODUCTION.
9. Life and teaching of Jesus in their relation to Biblical Theology, 43
10. Sources for the representation of the teaching of Jesus, . . 48
11. Critical presuppositions for the use of the three synoptic Gospels, . 53
12. Previous works on this subject, ..... 58

CHAPTER I.
The Message regarding the Kingdom of Ood.

13. The kingdom of God and the Messiah,
14. The kingdom of God and the disciples,
15. The kingdom of God in its consummation,

6267
70

CHAPTER II.
The Testimony of Jesus to Himself as the Messiah.
16. The Son of man, ......
17. The Son of God, . . . .
18. The Anointed One, . . . . • 1 •
19. The Son of David and the exalted Messiah, .

73
7882
87

Xll CONTENTS.
CHAPTER III.
The Messianic Activity.
SECT. PAGE
20. The new revelation of God, ... 92
21. Repentance, ........ 95
22. The Messianic salvation, ...... 99
23. The victory over Satan, ...... 103
CHAPTER IV.
The Righteousness of the Kingdom of God.
24. Righteousness and the law, . . . 106
25. The greatest commandment, ...... 112
26. Righteousness as disposition, ... . 117
27. Appendix. The primitive-Christian anthropology, . . .120
CHAPTER V.
The Messianic Church.
28. The calling, . . . 125
29. Diseipleship, . . ..... 129
30. The elect, ..... 133
31. The apostles and the Church, . . . . 138
CHAPTER VI.
The Messianic Consummation.
32. The doctrine of recompense, . . . . . .143
33. The return of the Messiah, and the judgment, . . 147
34. The consummation of all things, ..... 152
PART SECOND.
THE ORIGINAL-APOSTOLIC TYPE' OF DOCTRINE PREVIOUS TO THE
TIME OF PAUL.
INTRODUCTION.
35. The discourses of the Acts of the Apostles, . . . 159
• 36. The First Epistle of Peter, ...... 163
37. The Epistle of James, . . . . .168
SECTION I.
THE DISCOURSES OF THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
CHAPTER I.
The Proclamation of the Messiah and the Messianic Time.
38. The fulfilment of prophecy in the earthly life of Jesus, . . 173
39. The exalted Messiah, ... 177
40. The coming of the Messianic time, ..... 181

CONTENTS. xiii

CHAPTER II.

The Motlter Church and the Question of the Gentiles.
SECT. PAGE
41. The Church and the apostles, . . . . .185
42. The conversion of the whole of Israel, . . . 191
43. The position of the Gentile Christians in the Church, . 197

SECTION II.
THE FIEST EPISTLE OF PETER.
CHAPTER III.
The Commencement of the Messianic Consummation in the Christian Church.
44. The elect race, ....... 204
45. The peculiar people and the calling, ..... 210
46. The new birth and the nourishment of the new life, . 215
47. Christian social life, ....... 221
CHAPTER IV.
The Messiah and His Work.
48. The Spirit of the Messiah, .... .225
49. The saving significance of the suffering of Christ, . 230
50. The resurrection as the ground of Christian hope, . . . 237
51. The apostle of hope, ..... 243
SECTION III.
THE EPISTLE OF JAMES.
CHAPTER V.
Cliristianity as the Perfect Law.
52. The word of truth, ....... 248
53. Justification, ...... . 253
54. Election, ........ 259
CHAPTER VI.
The Divine Claim and the Divine Recompense.
55. The divine claim, ....... 263
56. Human sin, ........ 267
57. Recompense and judgment, ...... 271

XIV CONTENTS.
PART THIRD.
PAULINISM.
INTRODUCTION.
SECT. PAOE
58. The Apostle Paul, ... ... 274
59. Sources of Paulinism, . ... 280
60. Previous works on Paulinism, ... . 287
SECTION I.
THE EARLIEST PREACHING OF PAUL AS AN APOSTLE TO THE GENTILES.
CHAPTER I.
The Gospel as the way of Deliverance from the Judgment.
61. The ground of salvation, .... . 292
62. The demands of the Gospel, . . . .299
63. The Pauline apocalypse, .... . 305
64. The Parousia and the completion of salvation, . . 311
SECTION II.
THE DOCTRINAL SYSTEM OF THE FOUR GREAT DOCTRINAL AND CONTROVERSIAL
EPISTLES.
CHAPTER II.
Universal Sinfulness.
65. Human and divine righteousness, ..... 315
66. The impossibility of a righteousness of our own, . . . 323
67. The transgression of Adam and its consequences, . . . 331
68. The Pauline anthropology, .... . 339
CHAPTER III.
Heathendom and Judaism.
69. The apostasy of heathendom, ..... 351
70. Heathendom and the divine training, . . . 357
71. Judaism and its law, .... . 362
72. The law and the promise, ...... 367
CHAPTER IV.
Prophecy and Fulfilment.
73. The prophecy of Scripture, ...... 375
74. The use of the Old Testament, . . 380
75. The time of grace, ....... 385

CONTENTS. XV
CHAPTER V.
Christology.
SECT. pao E
76. The Lord of glory, ... . .390
77. The Son of God, ..... 398
78. Christ in the flesh, ....... 402
79. The heavenly origin, ... . 409
CHAPTER VI.
Redemption and Justification.
80. The saving significance of the death of Christ, . . 419
81. The death and resurrection of Christ, . . 430
82. Justification by faith, ... . . 437
83. Sonship, ... .... 447
CHAPTER VII.
The New Life.
84. Baptism, ... . 453
85? The Lord's Supper, ..... .467
86. The process of the development of the new life, . . 472
87. Freedom from the law, .... . 481

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

INTRODUCTION.
§ 1. The Problem of the Science,

|HE biblical theology of the New Testament is
the scientific representation of the religious ideas
and doctrines which are contained in the New
Testament. (&) It assumes that the specific
historical significance and the normative character of the
writings which are united in the New Testament have been
proved by New Testament introduction and by dogmatics.
(c) It has to represent the individually and historically con
ditioned manifoldness of the New Testament forms of teaching,
forms whose unity lies in the historical saving facts of the
revelation of God which has appeared in Christ, (cl) It is
distinguished from biblical dogmatics by this, that the latter
seeks to give a universally valid systematic doctrinal expres
sion to the truth which is recorded in Holy Scripture.
• («) The name, biblical theology, can denote, in the first
place, that division of theological science which has to do
specially with the Bible (cf. e.g. Rosenkranz, Eneyhlopadie der
theolog. Wissenschaften, 2d ed. 1845, p. 115). In more recent
times, however, it has been generally used as the designation
of that discipline which has to do with the representation of
the theology which is contained in the Bible. Naturally this
representation must embrace the Old as well as the New
Testament ; but it follows from the correct definition of the
nature and task of our discipline that it is only separately
that these two can be dealt with. Here we have to do solely
with the theology of the New Testament. By theology, as
VOL. L A

* INTRODUCTION.
we employ the name here, we are to understand, not the
doctrine of God as such, but the totality of those ideas and
doctrines which refer to the relation of man to God. Among
these are to be included not merely religious ideas in the
narrower sense, but, since even ethical questions are, through
out the New Testament, treated of from the religious point
of view, the theology of the New Testament must exclude
nothing which is taught in the New Testament regarding the
natural or religious life of fellowship. Within the province
of biblical theology there cannot be a distinction between
dogmatics and ethics. It will have to bring within its sphere
even the cosmological, anthropological, and psychological ideas
of the writers of the New Testament, in so far as these are
interwoven with their religious ideas. Inasmuch as our
science has to do only with the objective representation of
the religious ideas and doctrines which are to be found in the
New Testament, excluding all subjective criticism, it is a purely
historical discipline.
(b) The justification of the attempt to make the theological
import of the writings which are united in the New Testa
ment the subject of a separate scientific representation, is
found in their specific significance. The theology of the New
Testament cannot begin by proving this significance ; it must
take it for granted. It is only on the assumption that New
Testament introduction has proved that these writings are the
earliest and most original monuments of Christianity, i.e.
in the first place, of the religious consciousness and life which
have received their character from the manifestation of Christ,
that we are justified in separating them from the monuments
of the later and secondary forms of the Christian consciousness
whose development is represented by the history of doctrines.1
1 It is self-evident that we can speak here only of such a proof in regard to
these writings on the whole. The possibility is not thereby excluded of doubts
still remaining as to the right of individual writings of the New Testament to
belong to these monuments ; but these doubts do not, per se, hinder us from
treating of these books also in the theology of the New Testament (cf. § 2, 6).
If, indeed, it were possible to prove that the majority of these books belong, as
to their origin, to the post-apostolic age, it would he altogether unreasonable to
treat of the contemporary non-canonical Christian writings apart from them.
and so to make the latest of the New Testament writings the boundary line of
the first period of the history of Christian doctrines.

§ 1. THE PROBLEM OF THE SCIENCE. 3
But however desirable, from a practical point of view, the
historical position and significance of these writings would
make their separate treatment in a theological discipline
appear, it would not be, as regards method, justifiable, unless
they had at the same time, in virtue of their historical
position and significance, a specific character which none of
the other Christian writings possess. Such a character, of
course, they could not have, if the development of the
Christian religious consciousness and life had had a purely
human beginning ; because in that case, while its real nature
could have been contained, after the manner of a germ, in
its original monuments, it could only, according to the funda
mental law of human development, have gradually unfolded
itself more and more perfectly from imperfect rudiments.
It is only on the assumption that the perfect revelation
of God is given in the manifestation of Christ, i.e. in His
person and His work, as it was commenced during His earthly
life and continued after His exaltation, and that, in the oldest
and most original monuments of the religious consciousness
and life which that manifestation produced, there is secured
a documentary attestation of that revelation of God as it ought
to be understood and in its full saving value — an attestation
which is normative for all time ; it is only on this assumption
that the representation of the religious ideas and doctrines
which are found in these writings can be a special subject of
theological science. The theology of the New Testament
must assume that this normative character of the writings of
the New Testament is proved by dogmatics, if it is not to
surrender the right of being an independent discipline along
side of the history of doctrines. Still it lies in the nature of
the case that it itself will represent, in their proper place,
those ideas and doctrines of the writers of the New Testament
upon which rests their assurance of the absolute trustworthiness
and the specific significance of their attestation of the divine
saving deeds which constitute the perfect revelation of God.
(c) It is acknowledged that the writings which are united
in the New Testament are written by different authors and at
different times. According to all analogy, therefore, a variety
of religious ideas and doctrines is to be looked for in them.
This could not, indeed, be the case if the revelation of God

4 INTRODUCTION.
in Christ consisted, as to its nature, in the supernatural com
munication of a sum of religious ideas and doctrines, whose
correct transmission must also have been secured by an
absolutely supernatural influence of the Spirit of God upon
the writers of the New Testament. On this assumption the
biblical theology of the New Testament would have nothing
else to do than to collect those ideas and doctrines which are
scattered, in a very inappropriate manner, in the heterogeneous
writings of the New Testament, to arrange them systematically,
and, since a certain variety unquestionably presents itself at
the first look, to show their unbroken unity and conformity.
The theology of the New Testament would, in that case, be
no longer a purely historical, but a systematic discipline.3 That
assumption, however, has been substantially disproved by the
results of biblical theology, and the whole of our representa
tion will show how untenable it is. The revelation of God in
Christ has been effected, not by the communication of certain
ideas and doctrines, but by the historical fact of the manifesta
tion of Christ upon earth, which has brought to the lost,
sinful world a salvation whose God -given commencement
has guaranteed its completion. • The writings of the New
Testament are certainly the authentic records of this fact ; but
this is far from excluding _ the possibility that this fact is
apprehended and represented in them from different sides.
This diversity is based, on the one hand, in the idiosyncrasy
of the individuals or of the whole tendencies that found in
Christ the full satisfaction of their various religious needs ; on
the other hand, in the progressive historical development upon
which the salvation which has once appeared in the world
must enter with a view to its complete realization in the world
and in accordance with its general law of life. Accordingly,
the religious consciousness and life which have been produced
by the revelation in Christ must have assumed different forms
in its different leading representatives, and at the different
2 In such a case we should more naturally call this systematic discipline
biblical dogmatics ; and, where the Bible is regarded as the sole immediate
source of a revealed system of doctrine, this must be at the same time imme
diately the dogmatics of the Church. From the old orthodox view of Scripture
there is no more a biblical theology as distinguished from biblical (or ChurcTi)
dogmatics, than, from the negative-critical view, there is a biblical theology as
distinguished from the history of doctrines.

§ 1. THE PROBLEM OF THE SCIENCE. 5
stages of its development. Now, since the religious ideas and
doctrines which are found in the writings of the New Testa
ment are only the immediate expression of this consciousness
and life, biblical theology will have a priori to do with a
manifoldness of religious ideas and doctrines, whose unity lies
in the divine saving deeds in which they have their origin.3
(d) For the right understanding of the problem of biblical
theology, it is of essential importance to distinguish it from
biblical dogmatics. As the former is a historical, the latter is
a systematic science ; as the former has to do with the variety
of biblical forms of teaching, the latter has to do with the unity
of the truth which is recorded in these. Now it is certainly
true that the books of the Bible are in the first place records
of the revelation of God during the Old as well as the New
Covenant, records of the manner in which this revelation was
effected in a series of historical deeds ; but in so far as the
truth consists in the adequate knowledge of these facts and of
their significance, it must allow itself to be expressed in a con
nected series of propositions which are capable of, and demand,
a systematic connected arrangement. For the very reason
that Holy Scripture does not present the truth in this sense n\
the form of a connected doctrinal system, but only allows it to
be discovered from the manifoldness of the forms of the religious
consciousness and life which are produced by divine revelation,
there is need of a special discipline for this latter task.4
* Baur maintains, in his lectures on the theology of the New Testament
{1864, p. 34), that there cannot be a diversity of doctrinal systems without
there being possibly also antitheses and contradictions which destroy the
unity of the whole. In abstracto this is true ; but on the concrete presupposi
tions under which alone there is a theology of the New Testament (note 6), it
is false. If the writings of the New Testament are the normative records of
the revelation of God in Christ, then there can be in them only "the pure,
undiluted truth ; and where there is truth, there must also he unity and
harmony " (p. 33). But this unity lies, not in the form of teaching, hut in the
historical saving facts which, even when they are represented under various
forms, are nevertheless always represented in a manner which corresponds
with the design of their truthful, vivid conception. The " revelation character ' '
of Scripture lies, not in an essentially uniform system of religious ideas and
doctrines, in a "doctrine of revelation, " but in the authentic attestation of the
revelation of God which has appeared in Christ, i. e. in the attestation which
secures its right and complete comprehension.
4 Naturally, we can assign this task also to a concluding part of biblical
theology, as I myself have done in the Deutsche Zeitschrift for 1852, p. 311 ;

0 INTRODUCTION.
Biblical dogmatics takes the results of biblical theology for
granted, and works with them as its material. It examines
the doctrines and ideas of the writers of the Bible which
biblical theology brings out, to see how far they are capable
of forming the universally valid expression of the many-sided
knowledge of the revelation of God in Christ which the whole
history of revelation has in view. Inasmuch as those doctrines
which express the truth only from one side, or as they were
individually conceived, are mutually supplementary ; inas
much as the doctrines which are still somewhat undeveloped
find their stricter definition in those that are developed more
fully; inasmuch as those ideas which the writers have simply
brought over with them from their religious past, or which are
owing to the passing influence of contemporary forces and im
pressions, without being necessarily conditioned or modified by
the saving deeds which are testified to in Scripture, lose their
significance, there arises out of the manifold forms of teaching
a uniform type which has stripped off everything which is
individual and temporal. It will only be necessary that
biblical dogmatics make no given Church or philosophical
system the criterion of its critical or systematizing operations ;
it must take as its rule only the essential significance of the
facts of revelation which appears from the harmonizing state
ments of Scripture. That in this way, however, it will find a
uniform type of doctrine, which proves itself by its methodical
hut as regards method, it would be more correct to reserve it for a special dis
cipline. For it is as certain that it is not a historical task, as that the biblical
records of revelation, conformably with their historical origin and with the
character that corresponds to their practical aims, are not designed to unfold the
truth of salvation on all sides and in a systematic form, and that the doctrinal
statements of their authors do not have their origin in a system of supernatural
knowledge which has been communicated to them, and whose fragments we
should have only to piece together again. It is much rather a scientific need
which is essentially different from that of historical research, which urges us to
connect together, in a constructive manner, the truths which are contained in
Holy Scripture into the unity of a system. For a discipline which performs
this task, the customary term, dogmatics, would be as suitable as it would have
been inappropriate for biblical theology in our sense. Only we must not take
that term as implying a contrast to ethics, a contrast which is wrong in other
respects (and which, according to note a, biblical theology already refuses to
admit) ; but we must thereby think of a system of propositions, and here more
particularly of that system which gives a connected expression to the truth
which is recorded in Holy Scripture.

§ 2. DIVISION AND ARRANGEMENT. 7
arrangement to be the complete expression of the truth of
Scripture, — the pledge of this is the presupposition, which it
shares in common with biblical theology, that the writings
of the New Testament are the authentic records of the perfect
revelation of God in Christ, which again, for its part, points
back to the records of the preparatory revelation of God ; for
from this assumption it naturally follows that it must be
possible to obtain an adequate knowledge of the truth from
these writings.'5

§ 2. Division and Arrangement.
The biblical theology of the New Testament has to give a
separate representation of the doctrinal systems of the indi
vidual books of the New Testament, or of the authors by whom
several of these are written, (b) It borrows the results of New
Testament introduction regarding the date of composition and
the authors of the separate books, with reservation of the deci
sion which it itself can assist us in coming to as to individual,
" If Church symbolics describes the contents of the religious ideas and
doctrines which are set forth in the symbols of a definite Church, and if
Church dogmatics is the systematic representation of their teaching in its
inner connection, then biblical dogmatics is related to biblical theology as
Church dogmatics to Church symbolics. The dogmatics of a Church, however,
which declares that Holy Scripture is the only rule of its teaching, will have to
seek the justification of its system in the proof that it is, in all points, in
agreement with biblical dogmatics, or is logically derived from it. The latter,
accordingly, is still far from being the same as Church dogmatics ; as the dog
matics of a definite Church, the latter will always have an individually and
historically conditioned shape which is more in keeping with a particular biblical
form of teaching, and does not exhaust the whole riches of the saving truth
of the Bible ; while, on the other hand, partly for the purpose of overcoming
the oppositions with which the particular Church has had to contend in the
course of its development, and partly for the satisfaction of a more developed
striving after knowledge, Church dogmatics will follow up the truth of the Bible,
on its various sides, into its ultimate grounds and its further consequences,
whereas the writers of the New Testament had still no occasion to inquire into
these. Naturally, we can also pursue the solution of the problem which we
assign to biblical dogmatics, hand in hand with the representation of Church
dogmatics, which must indeed be continually tested by means of the former ;
but it is self-evident that in doing so, the scheme of the latter obtains an
influence over the connected arrangement of the truth of salvation as con
tained in the Bible, which, according to what has been said as to the relation
of the two, cannot be conducive either to a complete or to an organic reproduc
tion of it.

8 INTRODUCTION.
critically doubtful, questions, (c) It borrows from the history
of the apostolic age, to which it itself affords the material for
the representation of its inner development, the knowledge of
the circumstances and tendencies of the time, in accordance
with which it arranges the individual doctrinal systems.
(d) There are, accordingly, four principal divisions under
which the doctrinal systems of the New Testament writings
are to be discussed.
(a) Since biblical theology has to represent the manifold
ness of the forms of teaching which are found in the books of
the New Testament (§ 1, c), it falls into a series of different
doctrinal systems {Lehrbegriffe). By this common, although
not very happy expression, we mean the representation of the
religious ideas and doctrines which are contained in the writ
ings of the same author.1 We have, however, a number of New
Testament books which stand altogether isolated as the only
monuments of their authors' mode of teaching. If these are
somewhat extensive, and if their principal contents are of a
¦didactic nature, as e.g. the Epistle to the Hebrews, then one
has, for the most part, nothing to object to the separate repre
sentation of their doctrinal system. So much the more fre
quently has it been maintained, that there is no justification for
speaking of the doctrinal system of a few of the smaller books,
particularly of those whose import is predominantly hortatory.
But there would be ground for this objection only if we were
to understand by its doctrinal system the whole import of the
religious ideas and doctrines of its author (and certainly the
name might lead us to understand this), since we cannot
assume that every short writing, especially if it be also
hortatory, afforded an occasion to the author of stating these
in their full extent. But even in the case of those writers
for whose doctrinal system we possess richer sources, we
should err exceedingly if we believed that, with the sum of
the ideas and doctrines which their writings afford, we were
acquainted with the religious consciousness of their author in
1 Where, as in the case of Paul's, these books have been written at very
different times, and where, therefore, a historically conditioned diversity in
his method of teaching can still be found even in them, the representation of the
doctrinal system will also have to keep in view the stages of its development
which are at all apparent.

§ 2. DIVISION AND ARRANGEMENT. 9
its whole extent. Biblical theology, however, is far from
making any such claim. It has only to bring out the religious
ideas and doctrines which are to be found in the given New
Testament records ; and since every detail can be rightly under
stood only when it is looked at in the peculiar circle of ideas
in which it occurs in the author who is being considered, it
has the right and the duty of separately representing even the
doctrinal systems of the smaller or isolated books. Where
it may permit itself a deviation from this rule, will appear
naturally in the course of the investigation.
(b) Biblical theology must not enter into detailed critical
investigations regarding the origin of the books of the New
Testament ; it is only a historico-descriptive, not a historico-
critical, science. It must therefore borrow from historico-critical
introduction to the New Testament the results regarding the
authors and dates of the separate books which it cannot
do without, in order that it may be able to decide what books
it has to regard as sources of a definite doctrinal system,
an,d in what connection it has to exhibit the separate doctrinal
systems. Where historical criticism is so greatly in doubt as
to the authenticity of a book that it does not appear advisable
to give a final decision regarding it, that book will neverthe
less, even when considered in relation to the other books that
bear the same name, belong to so different a time, and show
so many peculiarities in its manner of teaching, that a special
discussion of it appears expedient. The more impartially its
manner of teaching, in all its peculiarity, is investigated, so
much the more will the biblico-theological investigation be
able to contribute its share to the satisfactory settlement of
the historico-critical question. Even where criticism raises
doubts as to the right of a book to belong at all to the monu
ments of the apostolic age (§ 1, b), the representation of its
doctrinal contents and of its relation to the other forms of
teaching of the apostolic age will essentially contribute to the
settlement of the question whether these doubts are weighty
enough to exclude this book from our canon.2
o
2 It might appear advisable to borrow nothing at all from the province of New
Testament introduction, since only a few of its results are above all doubt, and
to regard the books of the New Testament simply as representatives of the
tendencies which biblical theology independently brings out in them. But this

10 INTRODUCTION.
(c) Biblical theology must not arbitrarily arrange the several
doctrinal systems which it represents, since the related doc
trinal systems are, when rightly arranged, mutually illustrative.
Since, however, the manifoldness of the New Testament forms
of teaching is conditioned, partly by the individuality of the
separate authors or of the tendencies to which they belong,
and partly by the standpoint within the historical develop
ment of Christianity upon which they stand, neither the
individual relationship nor the date of the several books alone
can furnish the criterion for the arrangement of the several
doctrinal systems. The more, however, that both these
moments together are brought to bear upon the division of y
biblical theology, so much the more it appears that here alsoj
it must borrow from another discipline, viz. the history of the ';
apostolic age. From this discipline it must assume as well J
known the individualities of the men to whom it is entitled
to assign the several books, or of the tendencies in which it
gives them a place. From it, it must also assume the know
ledge of the peculiarities of the epochs to which it attributes
the several books, and of the questions and controversies by
which they were stirred.3
(d) The history of the apostolic age teaches that the two
leading tendencies which determine its inner development are
procedure cannot be carried out without artificially ignoring results of historical
criticism which are established for the impartial investigator, without depriving
ourselves of the key which the historically known idiosyncrasy of individual
apostolic men affords for the comprehension of their manner of teaching, and
without, in many respects, losing the safe rule for the arrangement of the sepa
rate doctrinal systems. Lastly, it appears illogical to declare that it is altogether
unjustifiable to borrow any such results ; for, according to § 1, 6, it is only
by means of such a borrowing that biblical theology can justify itself as an
independent discipline.
3 Here also, it is true, nothing seems more natural than to adopt a different
method, and to give biblical theology (which, indeed, professes also to be a his
torical discipline) itself the form of a history of the development of theology in
the apostolic age, in so far as it can independently bring out such a development
from its own sources. But apart from the circumstance that this inner history
of the apostolic age can never be adequately represented without attention beiilg
paid to much which belongs to the outer history, and which must therefore be
borrowed from some other quarter, no historical development can be described
without historical criticism, and biblical theology is not a historico-critical, but
a historico - descriptive discipline. According to note a, the history of the
development of theology could not, in regard to many points, be satisfied with
that which our monuments afford regarding the religious ideas and doctrines of

§ 2. DIVISION AND ARRANGEMENT. 11
the original-apostolic and the Pauline. Biblical theology will
therefore have, first of all, to represent the doctrinal systems
of those monuments which owe their origin to the original-
apostolic circle, and belong to the time which still lies on this'
side of the thoroughgoing activity of Paul, or the full de
velopment of his peculiar theology. By the grouping together
of these in the first division, there comes out what is known \
to us of the original-apostolic type of doctrine previous to the '
time of Paul. Then, in the second division, there must follow
the representation of Paulinism in the various stages of its ;
development, including those literary monuments as to whose
direct Pauline origin criticism still remains doubtful. The
third division will represent the doctrinal systems of those
books which belong, as to their fundamental type, to the
original-apostolic tendency, but which are written at a time
when the influence of Paulinism is already traceable, or at'
least conceivable. The grouping of these together will bring'
out what we know of the original-apostolic type of doctrine
after the appearance of Paul. Since, lastly, in the latest
period of the apostolic age one of the original-apostolic doc
trinal systems has received its most individual shape in the
theology of John, the fourth division will have to represent /
this by itself. What books are to be used as sources for the
representation of the various divisions, and what influence the
their authors, or of the tendencies to which they belong ; it must form that into
a complete picture by means of historical combination, or by means of material
drawn from other sources. On the other hand, such a, history would find no
room in its complete picture for many details which our sources afford us ;
whereas biblical theology has to refrain from every criticism as to what appears
essential or non-essential ; it has to represent, with equal carefulness, the whole
contents of the religious ideas and doctrines. Biblical theology, accordingly, in
so far as it investigates the literary monuments of the apostolic age as to their
theological contents, will furnish the history of that age with the material for
the representation of its inner development ; but it cannot encroach upon the
province of the latter science without passing over its own boundaries and en
dangering the solution of its own special problem. We find an instructive parallel
in the recent attempts to give New Testament introduction the form of a literary
history of the apostolic age, which likewise only drag foreign matter into the
discipline, and hinder the complete solution of its own problem. New Testa
ment introduction and biblical theology are auxiliary sciences ; they have to
furnish the material which is first turned to full account in other disciplines.
It does not follow, however, that, there any more than here, this material must
be heaped together in a chaotic fashion, since it bears in itself the rules of a
systematic arrangement.

/

1 2 INTRODUCTION.
individuality of their author on the one hand, and the circum
stances of the time on the other, have had upon the working
out of their doctrinal systems, — these are points which the
special introduction to the several divisions will have to con
sider. In what sense a representation of the teaching of
Jesus is to be prefixed to these four leading divisions must be
reserved for a special investigation.

§ 3. Investigation of Sources.
In ascertaining the ideas of the New Testament, we have,
first of all, to fall back upon the Old Testament. In doing
so, however, we must, of course, regard it in the manner in
which it was conceived in the apostolic age. (b) How far the
religious ideas of later Judaism, or the doctrines of Jewish
theology, have influenced the formation of the ideas and doc
trines of the New Testament, can be ascertained only after we
have brought out the latter by means of biblical theology.
(e) The principal task remains the ascertaining of these
from the connections of thought of the sources themselves, a
fundamental principle being that each writer can be explained
only out of himself, (d) As a preliminary condition of this
there is need of grammatico-historical exegesis, which, how
ever, must continue in constant reciprocal action with biblical
theology. (a) In order to understand the several doctrines of the
writers of the New Testament, the right determination of the
ideas which they connect with the expressions which they
employ is of paramount importance. We must neither, with
out more ado, import into these expressions dogmatic ideas
which a later age has coined and designated with biblical
expressions, nor make the philosophical idea which can some
how or other be attached to the philological analysis of an
expression the criterion of the meaning which the author
connects with it. As a historical science, biblical theology
is referred only to the circle of religious ideas in which the
writers of the New Testament stand historically, and in which
they have grown up. Now, since the Old Testament is the
principal source of this circle of ideas, it is mainly from it

§ 3. INVESTIGATION OF SOURCES. 13
that, in all doubtful cases, the meaning which they connect
with their expressions is to be elucidated. In doing so, of
course, we must not overlook the fact that, in the apostolic
age, the Old Testament was by no means always read and
understood in the sense in which it was originally written.
We shall therefore have to be upon our guard against trans
ferring the ideas which, according to the results of Old Tes
tament theology, were connected with certain expressions in
this or that epoch of Old Testament history, without more ado,
to the analogous expressions of the New Testament. We must,
from the first, remember (and in the course of our investiga
tion this will be more particularly proved) that the writers
of the New Testament read the Old Testament, so far as they
had a particular knowledge of it, as a word of God which was
equally sacred in all its parts, and which therefore contained
only one doctrine, and that they gathered its meaning, not
from the context, or the historical presuppositions, of each
individual passage, but from the sense of it that seemed the
most obvious. We shall not therefore have to measure the
circle of ideas from which they start according to our exege-
tical and historico-critical way of conceiving the Old Testa
ment. In going back upon it we shall have to keep by the
simplest sense of the words, and, as far as possible, confine
ourselves to these Old Testament passages, books, and ways of
representing matters which can be expressly shown to be
familiar to the writers of the New Testament. Lastly, how
ever, we shall have to remember continually, that the Old
Testament can only furnish the starting-point for the ascer
taining of the ideas of the New Testament, and that the form
and shape which they have in the several writers depend also
upon many other moments.
(b) The writers of the New Testament are separated by cen
turies from the epoch whose religious ideas and doctrines we
become acquainted with in the latest books of the Old Testa
ment. That, during this interval, the religious consciousness of
Judaism had gone through a peculiar development, which in
many points and on various sides passed beyond the Old Tes
tament circle of ideas, we learn from its literary monuments
(cf. Bretschneider, systematische Darstellung der Dogmatik und
Moral der ApoJcryphischen Schriften des A. T., Leipzig 1805,

14 INTRODUCTION.
and the biblico-theological works of de Wette and v. Colin ;
cf. § 6, b). But since these were far from attaining the same
diffusion and universal authority as the books of the Old Testa
ment, neither will the religious ideas and doctrines which are
to be found in them have been the common property of the
New Testament time to the same extent as those of the Old
Testament. In this interval, also, falls the beginning develop
ment of a Jewish science of Scripture and of a Jewish
theology, both in its Palestinian-rabbinical, and in its Alex
andrian-philosophical form (cf. the Neittestamentliche Zeit-
geschichte of Hausrath, 2d ed., Heidelberg 1873-75, and
Schurer, Leipzig 1874). But in proportion as the former
stood nearer to the writers of the New Testament, it is the
more difficult to bring out the extent of its development in
the apostolic age from the sources which are partly late, and
which mix up what is old with what is more recent (cf.
Schoettgen, horae hebraicae et talmudicae, Dresden and Leipzig
1733, 1742 ; Gfrorer, das Jahrhundert des Heils, Stuttgart
1838; J. Langen, das Judenthum in Paldstina zur Zeit
Christi, Freiburg 1866); and in proportion as we become
better acquainted with the latter (cf. Dahne, geschichtliche
Darstellung der jildisch-alexandrinischen Beligionsphilosophie,
Halle 1834), it is the more uncertain, historically, how far
the writers of the New Testament had come into contact with
it. However certainly, therefore, the religious ideas of later
Judaism, as well as the doctrines of Jewish theology, had an
influence upon the forming of the religious consciousness as it
is exhibited in the writings of the New Testament, our know
ledge of the extent in which these ideas and doctrines lay within
the field of vision of the writers of the New Testament is far
from being precise enough to permit us to start from them in
ascertaining that religious consciousness. It is only in the
rarest cases that biblical theology will be able to make use
of them with certainty for the purpose of elucidation. As for
the rest, it will have to limit itself to this, viz. to bring out,
as occasion arises, the agreement of the ideas and doctrines
of the New Testament with the contemporary ideas which
are known from other sources; and it will have to leave
it to history to decide how far it is able, by means of other
historical considerations, to show an influence of these ideas

§ 3. INVESTIGATION OF SOURCES.

upon the historical development of theology in the apostolic
age.1 (c) In the great majority of cases, accordingly, we must give
up the attempt of explaining the ideas of the New Testament
by means of contemporary ideas. For such an explanation
even the Old Testament can be regulative only as a starting-
point, and that, too, only in the sense in which biblical theology
shows it to have been conceived of on the part of the writers
of the New Testament. In ascertaining these ideas, we are
therefore limited mainly to the books of the New Testa
ment which lie before us. The essential import of every idea
will have to be ascertained from the heterogeneous context
of all the passages in which it occurs, from its con
nection with other ideas which are already known, from the
characteristic individuality of the authors, and their place
in the history of the apostolic age. It follows that, in
ascertaining the ideas of a book, we are referred, in the first
place, exclusively to that book itself or to the books which
belong to the same author. It is only when these are not
sufficient, or when we wish to obtain a secondary elucidation
of that which is already ascertained, that we are referred, in
the second place, to the books which belong to a kindred ten
dency and to the same time, and, in the third place, to earlier
books of the New Testament, especially if we can prove or
assume that they were known to the author whose ideas
we are investigating. On the other hand, the explanation
1 It must be regarded as an unwarrantable claim which is made upon the
theology of the New Testament, when it is demanded of it that it should set
forth the genesis of the ideas and doctrines, which are found in the hooks of the
New Testament, from the various moments which influenced their authors.
In so far as these show themselves to be the product, on the one hand, of the
revelation of God in Christ, as well as, on the other, of the individuality and
time of the authors, biblical theology will certainly have always to refer also to
these factors. But if it is only for the purpose of ascertaining these ideas that
it goes back even upon the Old Testament, then it is for the critical activity of
biblical dogmatics (§ 1, d) that their causal connection with the contemporary
ideas which are independent of that revelation — a connection which may be
brought to light by history — must first come into consideration. In opposition
to those who deny a historical character and value to biblico-theological investi
gations as soon as they do not enter in detail into all their relations to the non-
biblical contemporary ideas, the word of Baur is valid : "the teaching which
these books contain is so limited in itself, that the knowledge of it can be drawn
out of no other sources than these very books " (p. 30).

16 INTRODUCTION.
by means of one another of books which stand far apart,
both as regards their date and the peculiarity of their writers,
is altogether unjustifiable, and has caused only ambiguity and
confusion in biblical theology. We can only altogether ignore
the individuality of a Peter and a James if we measure them
by means of the Pauline circle of ideas ; we can only render
it impossible for us to comprehend Paul and John, if we
attempt to explain the one by means of the other. If even
each idea receives its peculiar shape from the spiritual
individuality of the several writers, then each doctrine can be
understood in its full significance only if we learn to under
stand it in the connection in which it stands with the other
doctrines of the same author. By means of this connection,
doctrines of different authors, which appear very similar, may
receive a very different colouring. Of course, biblical theology
cannot on that account be satisfied with having found one
proof passage for a doctrine ; it must examine every passage
in which it appears in the peculiar connection of thought in
which it stands, in order that it may discover, as completely
as possible, the threads by means of which it is connected
with other ideas and doctrines. Not till this is done does it
find out the series of ideas and the circles of thought from
which it can obtain the complete picture of a writer's manner
of teaching. (d) Accordingly, a methodical exegesis, i.e. an exegesis
which is carried on in accordance with the rules of grammatico-
historical interpretation, is the most important auxiliary of
biblical theology. No doubt biblical theology cannot always,
without more ado, make use of the results of such an exegesis.
The more exegesis teaches us to understand each book, in all
its details, from its historical situation and the aim which
that involves, so much the more will biblical theology often
have first to divest the statements whose meaning exegesis
has ascertained of that which is due to accidental circum
stances, in order to come at the real contents of the idea or
doctrine of the passage. On the other hand, biblical theology
will have to go much more thoroughly into the analysis
of the lines of thought and the associations of ideas, than
the most careful exegesis requires for the understanding of a
passage of the New Testament. Biblical theology, however,

§ 4. METHOD OF THE REPRESENTATION. 1 7
can never begin its work until exegesis has explained its
sources on all sides.2 Now it is a fundamental hermeneutical
principle of methodical exegesis not to explain the Scriptures
by means of a dogmatic or philosophical system of doctrine,
or by means of imaginary parallel passages whose similarity
we first of all produce ourselves by arbitrarily explaining
them by means of each other, but to explain each writer by
means of himself, so that we may understand every individual
word from out of the whole circle of ideas from which it is
written. Such an exegesis, of course, requires the assistance
of biblical theology, which alone can supply it with this
complete picture of the circle of ideas, as it represents it in
the doctrinal systems of the several writers. Thereby both
disciplines enter into a relation of fruitful reciprocity, which
opens up for each the prospect of an ever richer perfection,
but, on that very account, hardly permits them to come also
to a thoroughly satisfactory conclusion. Because of this re
ciprocal relation to exegesis, biblical theology is, in a special
sense, a growing science.

§ 4. Method of the Representation.
The representation of the several doctrinal systems will
have to start from the central point around which the doc
trinal view of each individual writer moves, and from that
point, following the lines of thought which are found in the
writer himself, it will have to describe the whole circle of his
ideas and doctrines. From this it will naturally appear —
(b) at what points he has accepted, without independent in
vestigation, ideas and doctrines which are more generally
diffused, and (c) at what points he has peculiarly developed
these, or reproduced them in new forms, (d) Lastly, there
will come into view the unity of the revelation of salvation
z A representation of biblical theology cannot enter into detailed exegetical
investigations without altogether losing its succinctness. In the use it makes
of every individual passage it will let the view which it takes of it exegetically
come out as clearly as possible, and in cases which are specially important and
difficult it will state the leading reasons for that view. The justification of its
exegetical views in opposition to others lies only so far in its province as it is
demanded by the rejection of other opinions in Mblico-theologieal questions.
VOL. I. B

18 INTRODUCTION.
which lies at the root of all these forms, in its ever-richer
and deeper comprehension.
(a) The representation of the various doctrinal systems
cannot enumerate the individual ideas and doctrines which
have been ascertained from our sources, without a plan and
in an accidental succession. Just as little, however, can it
make the scheme of a traditional doctrinal system, or a new
systematic scheme, however ingeniously conceived, the basis
of its representation, since details are, a priori, put in a false
light when they are placed in heterogeneous combinations.
Where now, as in the case of Paul's, the doctrinal system
has already, in the spirit of the apostle, attained an almost
systematic shape, it is, of course, only necessary to search
for that. But we can neither assume that all the writers of
the New Testament have given their ideas and doctrines such
a systematic shape, nor would the sources which we possess
be sufficient for such a search in the case of the most of the
other doctrinal systems. Since, however, we can succeed in
ascertaining the separate ideas and doctrines only when we
throughout follow the lines of thought and the connections of
ideas of the writer, it will be possible in this way to find the
central point around which move the principal lines of thought
and circles of ideas of each. From this point, then, the repre
sentation will have to start ; as far as possible, it will have to
connect with this point everything else, just as it incidentally
shows itself connected therewith in the spirit of the author,
until at last the whole extent of his ideas and doctrines is
described. Naturally this method cannot be carried out with
mathematical certainty; much depends upon a happy intui
tion ; and different ways may lead relatively equally well to
the same goal. That certain leading points of view, under
which we are wont to regard and classify the truths of salva
tion, will always be coming up, is unavoidable ; in so far as
they are involved in the nature of the case, these will have
been regulative also for the lines of thought of the writers of
the New Testament.
(&) Although the method which we have just described is
alone able to give us an accurate and complete idea of the
doctrinal system of each individual writer, it is not to be
denied that it renders it difficult to give a succinct view of

§ 4. METHOD OF THE REPRESENTATION. 19
their relation to the ideas and doctrines which are found
throughout the New Testament, although it may be in dif
ferent individual forms. Since the representation every time
takes its peculiar course, the place in which the matter of
detail comes to be discussed is generally a different one. But
this misfortune, which is removed in great measure by means
of references to the places in which the same subject was
discussed in previous doctrinal systems, is far outweighed by
this, that every detail is now considered only in the connec
tion in which it actually occurs in the individual writer. It
cannot occur that, in the interest of a scheme which has once
been fixed, statements are extracted from him regarding ques
tions upon which he nowhere actually enters ; it will rather
naturally appear from the connection in which each question
is discussed, whether the writer has at all looked at it inde
pendently, and answered it in a fashion of his own, or whether
he has only simply adopted and reproduced ideas and doc
trines regarding it which were common to the tendency or
time to which he belonged. It might, indeed, appear as if
this could be attained still more simply, viz. by expressly
representing the ideas and doctrines which are common to all,
or which at least occur in many writers in the same way (espe
cially the Old Testament presuppositions which are more or less
common to all), apart from those which are peculiar to each, and
it cannot be denied that this would simplify much, and render
many wearisome repetitions unnecessary. But thereby the lively
connection of the circle of thought in each individual writer
would be broken up ; that which is peculiar would be isolated,
and, severed from its connection with the common basis, put
in a false light, and the finer shade of meaning which that
which is common often receives from its connection with that
which is peculiar would be easily overlooked.1
(c) If, in the sense of note a, the central point has been
correctly found, around which the doctrinal view of the indi
vidual writer moves, then those points in which his peculiarity
is to be sought will naturally come into the full light. Where
the question considered is not something which is quite new
1 In respect of the primitive Christian anthropology we have allowed ourselves
an exception to this rule (cf. § 27) ; hut it is self-evident that the above-
mentioned evils cannot occur here.

20 INTRODUCTION.
and altogether peculiar to a writer, this peculiarity may con
sist in this, that ideas and doctrines which are found else
where are more deeply and richly developed, or that they are
reproduced in new forms. In order to bring this out, the
representation must always keep in view the comparison of
the later with the earlier doctrinal systems. This compara
tive activity must always go hand in hand with the positively
expository. In doing so there is, of course, the danger of
manufacturing differences in a hair-splitting fashion where
there are really none, or at least making too much of them
by neglecting what is common, as well as, on the other hand,
of obliterating real differences by looking only at what is
common, and overseeing that which is peculiar in the shape
or development. Both dangers can be avoided only by making
the representation of the particular doctrinal system, in its
whole extent and in its inner economy, the leading point of
view, with which the comparative activity is only connected.
As soon as the latter is disconnected from the former, the
temptation is natural to isolate individual, perhaps ingeniously
conceived, points of view of the comparison, which neverthe
less express the actual relation of the doctrinal systems only
from one side, and to place other equally important sides in
the shade.
(d) Biblical theology, as distinguished from biblical dog
matics, can represent no connected system of New Testament
truth, because, according to § 1, c, it has to do with the mani
foldness of the forms of teaching. As distinguished from
the history of theology in the apostolic age (§ 2, c), it can
present no progressive development of the religious ideas and
doctrines. Doctrinal systems, which it has to represent as
later, may preserve more undeveloped forms of the religious
consciousness ; various forms of the religious ideas and doc
trines, although following one another in point of time, may
exist alongside of one another with perfect justification.
Nevertheless, in the representation of the theology of the New
Testament, the unity which lies at the root of all the diversity
of the modes of teaching will and must also come into view ;
and that not in consequence of a system which is imposed
upon it, but in consequence of the inner necessity which lies
in the matter represented. If this unity lies in the saving

§ 5. THE ORIGIN OF THE SCIENCE. 21
fact of the perfect revelation of God in Christ, this revelation
will be ever anew apprehended in the central point, around
which every individual doctrinal view turns (note a), and
looked at from ever new sides. If, in the course of the
further development which starts from this point, that which
is general is distinguished from that which is peculiar to
each, that unity will, like the red thread, run through the
representation of both, and be the guiding point of view for
the comparative establishing of both. If, lastly, the arrange
ment of the several doctrinal systems is determined, not alone,
it is true, but at least partly, by their succession in time, and
if the development of the religious consciousness in time must,
notwithstanding the declensions from the straight line which
attach to all human development, nevertheless lead on the
whole to an always more complete and deeper comprehen
sion of the salvation which is given in Christ, then the repre
sentation of the biblical theology of the New Testament will
be a continued proof that the Spirit which ruled in the
apostolic Church, and secured the preservation in its purity of
the saving revelation of God in Christ, was always guiding it
more and more unto all truth. '
§ 5. The Origin of the Science.
So long as the theology of the Church was conscious,
in a naive manner, of its unity with the theology of the
Bible, no need was felt of a scientific representation of the
latter, (b) The first impulse to such a representation was
given by the separate discussion of the biblical proof passages,
whether this was undertaken in the interest of the doctrine
of the Church or in opposition to it. (c) This naturally led
to the attempt to arrange, in an independent manner, the
results so obtained alongside of the dogmatics of the Church,
either as its support or as its corrective, (d) Gabler was the
first who asserted the purely historical character of biblical
theology, in the manner in which it has since his time been
almost universally acknowledged in principle.
(a) In the course of the second century the Church was
compelled to go back from the living tradition of the teaching
of the apostles to the literary monuments of the apostolic age,

22 INTRODUCTION.
in order to show from them the reason and justification of its
doctrine in opposition to that of the heretics, and since then
the theology of the Church has professed to be essentially
nothing else than a biblical theology. But neither was a
methodical derivation of this theology from Scripture then
attempted, nor, with the dominant unmethodical mode of
interpretation, could such an attempt have succeeded ; for it
was very easy for that method to trace back new forms of
doctrine, in the formation of which totally different moments
had had an influence, in the most ingenuous manner, to
Scripture. Moreover, the more tradition asserted itself, in
principle, as a rule of doctrine alongside of Scripture, so
much the more must the theology of the Church have
deviated, in its further development, from that which is
contained in the Bible. No doubt there were never awanting
men who, in opposition to the dominant Church doctrine,
pointed to the pure teaching of the word ; but the Eeforma-
tion first brought the difference between the doctrine of the
Church and the Bible into clear consciousness, and demanded
a renovation of theology in accordance with its formal
principle, the sole authority of Holy Scripture. The first
representations of evangelical theology professed to be
nothing else than a reproduction of the teaching which is
contained in Scripture. But although exegesis was very
much furthered in the time of the Keformation, on the one
hand, by the revival of classical studies, and, on the other, by
the comprehension of the essential import of Scripture as a
revelation which the Beformers'had in consequence of their
deep sense of their religious need, yet, in consequence of the
dominant doctrine of inspiration, the principle of the per-
spicititas of Holy Scripture, which is self-interpreting, could
be understood only in the sense of an explanation of the
separate parts by the analogia fidei. Just as certainly, more
over, as the believing consciousness of the Eeformers was
produced by the word, so certainly did it receive its form
from the system of ideas which they had in common with
Catholicism, or which was developed in their controversy
with it ; and by means of exegesis this form was carried back
into Scripture. In consequence of this, the doctrine which
was developed from Scripture was, no doubt, one that was

§ 5. THE ORIGIN OF THE SCIENCE. 23
essentially purified by their going profoundly into the meaning
of the New Testament, and corresponded in its inmost kernel
with the teaching of Scripture ; but it was not a doctrine that
was methodically developed from it. The more the scholastic
working out of this doctrine advanced, so much the further did
it deviate, both formally and materially, from the peculiar form
of the religious ideas and doctrines which are contained in the
New Testament. Fully convinced of the scriptural character of
the system of the Church, they treated its independent working
out as of primary importance, its demonstration from Scripture
as secondary; exegesis imported the formulated doctrines of
the system into Scripture, instead of developing the teaching
of Scripture out of itself independently, and thus made it
more and more impossible for a consciousness of the difference
between the theology of the Bible and that of the Church even
arising. (b) The first step by which they began again to separate
the import of Scripture from dogmatics was an independent
grouping together and an exegetico-dogmatic discussion of the
so-called dicta prdbantia, which they had up to this time
annexed, within dogmatics itself, to the several loci as proofs.
(Cf. Sebastian Schmidt, collegium biblicum, Strassburg 1671,
3d ed. 1689 ; Joh. Hiilsemann, vindiciae S. S. per loca classica
system, theolog., Leipzig 1679 ; Joh. Guil. Baier, analysis et
vindicatio illustrium Script, dictorum sinceram fidei doctrinam
asserentium, Altorf 1716 ; C. E. Weissmann, institutiones theol.
exeg. dogm., Tubingen 1739; F. G. Zickler, attsfiihrliche Er-
klarung der Beweisspruche der heiligen Schrift, Jena 1753—65.)
Here the representation of the doctrinal matter of the Bible
is only a means, not an end ; the arrangement is determined
altogether by the dogmatic loci ; the exegesis of the individual
passages, which are torn from their context, has quite a
dogmatic character. The case remained the same when
Rationalism, which had broken with the theology of the
Church, and would yet keep in harmony with Scripture,
employed this form in order to master the dogmatics of the
Church upon its own soil. The treatment of the teaching of
Scripture was by no means freed thereby from the bondage
of a system which was foreign to it ; only the place of the
Church system, which had, nevertheless, originally grown out

24 INTRODUCTION.
of Scripture, was taken by a rationalistic system which had
grown upon an altogether foreign soil, and in whose interest
the collected proof passages were now misinterpreted or
emptied of their real contents (cf. Teller, topice sacrae
scripturae, Leipzig 1761 ; Semler, historische unci Kritische
Sammlungen ilber die sogenannten Beiveisstellen in der Dogmalik,
Halle 1764,1768. Cf. Exegetisches Handbuch fur die hiblischen
Beweisstellen in der Dogmatik, Halle 1795, 1802; Hufnagel,
Handbuch der hiblischen Theologie, Erlangen 1785, 1789).
(c) Pietism, with its living practical piety, had already
deeply felt the difference between the formalism of the
dominant Church system and the direct expression of the
religious consciousness in the mode of teaching employed by
Scripture, and had therefore attempted to represent the
teaching of the Bible in a manner which was simpler, and
more in keeping with the Bible itself, without breaking
essentially with the doctrine of the Church. But these
representations are meant rather for practical use, and are of
no scientific importance (cf. A. F. Biisching, epitome theologiae
e solis Uteris sacris concinnatae, Lemgo 1757 ; also his
Gedanken von der Beschaffenheii v/nd dem Vorzuge der biblisch-
dogmatischen Theologie vor der Scholastischen, 1758). But in
consequence of the criticism of the biblical arguments on the
part of Bationalism, the feeling was aroused even on the
orthodox side that the dogmatics of the Church was in need
of new supports, and that it could obtain these only from an
independent and connected representation of the teaching of
Scripture, although this representation still borrowed from
dogmatics its systematic form (cf. Storr, doctrinae christ. e
solis sacris libris repetitae pars theoretica, Stuttgart 1793,
1807; translated into German, with additions, by C. Ch.
Flatt, 1803, 1813). Zachariae allows that the doctrine of
the Church agrees indeed as to its matter, but not as to its
terminology and arrangement, with Holy Scripture, whose
ideas and whole manner of thinking are in many respects
quite different from ours. He will separately represent the
teaching which is found in Scripture according to its biblical
sense and the arguments which are drawn from Scripture
in its support, and in the order which is implied in Scripture
and the nature of the plan of salvation ; he will then compare-

§ 5. THE ORIGIN OF THE SCIENCE. 25
this with the doctrine of the Church, in the hope that the
latter will not be thereby invalidated, but only be represented
in a new light. However, he also still confines himself
substantially to the individual passages of the Bible ; and in
the manner in which its concrete representations become,
in his hands, abstract ideas, the influence of rationalism is
already very apparent (cf. Biblische Theologie oder JJnter-
suchung des hiblischen Grundes der vomehmsten theologischcn
Lehren, Gottingen and Leipzig 1772, 3d ed. by Vollborth,
1786). From the rationalistic side, K. F. Bahrdt (Ver.such
eines hiblischen Systems der Dogmatik, Gotha and Leipzig
1769, 1770, 2d ed. 1784) attempted, by going back upon
Scripture, to put a system of general truths founded on
reason in the place of that of the Church. C. F. Amnion
(Entwurf ciner reinen hiblischen Theologie, Erlangen 1792,
2d ed. under the title, Biblische Theologie, 1801, 1802)
regards biblical theology as a pioneer and auxiliary of dog
matics, for which it has only to provide materials, without
troubling itself about their connection. It arrives at these
materials as the pure results (i.e. the results separated from
all that is peculiar in the manner of statement) of those
passages from which the propositions of biblical dogmatics
are derived. But although he speaks, in the introduction, of
peculiarities of the sacred writers, of stages of revelation, and
of various types of doctrine, his work is little more than an
arranged discussion of the several proof passages in the spirit
of rationalism. (d) So long as rationalism exerted itself to prove that its
peculiar doctrines were contained in Scripture, it could no
more attain to a real biblical theology than the science which
stood upon the standpoint of orthodoxy. Now, however,
Semler, in his treatises regarding a free investigation of the
canon (Halle 1771-1775), had broken with the old Protestant
dogma of inspiration, and had found, in all the canonical books,
ideas which were purely human and conditioned by the time
of the writer, alongside of eternal and divine truth. If we
were thoroughly in earnest with this distinction, we could
leave it to biblical theology to ascertain, in a perfectly
unprejudiced manner, the religious ideas of the Bible, with
everything individual, local, and temporal which has been

26 INTRODUCTION.
attached to them, and reserve to ourselves the right to declare
the most meagre extract of general religious or moral truths
to be the eternally valid kernel which dogmatics has to
recognise and build up into a system. This step J. Ph.
Gabler took in his epoch-making academical discourse, "de
justo discrimine theologiae biblicae et dogmaticae regundisque
recte utriusque finibus," Altdorf 1789 (reprinted in his minor
theological writings, 1831, vol. ii.). Herewith the purely
historical task of biblical theology was recognised, and it was
demanded that we should have regard to the manifoldness of
the biblical modes of teaching, a manifoldness which was
conditioned by the individuality and time of the several
authors. But this right conception of our discipline by no
means depended upon the rationalistic assumptions in conse
quence of which it was gained. Wherever the conception of
the character of Scripture as a revelation left room for the
recognition of a human factor in the origin of the several
books, a manifoldness of biblical forms of teaching could also
be recognised ; and wherever a unity was found lying at
the root of this manifoldness, the most unqualified normative
validity of Scripture could be reconciled with the free
historical investigation of its forms of teaching. Accordingly,
the conception of biblical theology which was gained by
Gabler has, in principle, obtained an almost general acceptance
in theological science (cf. Stein in Keil and Tzschirner's Ana-
lekten, vol. iii. 1, 1816; Schirmer, die biblische Dogmatik in
Hirer Stellung und in ihrem Verhaltniss zum Ganzen der
Theologie, Breslau 1820 ; Schmid in the Tubingen Zeitschrift,
1838, 4; Schenkel in Stud. u. Kritik. 1852, 1; Weiss in
the deutsche Zeitschrift fur christ. Wiss. u. christ. Leben, 1852,
Nos. 38, 39). § 6. Earlier Works on Biblical TJieology.
The first attempt — that, viz., of Bauer — to carry out Gabler's
conception of our science, was still too much under the
influence of rationalistic dogmatism, (h) The works of de
Wette, Biickert, and v.' Colin are far more scientific, although
even m them justice is not done to its historical character
either formally or materially. (c) In Baumgarten-Crusius,

§ 6. EARLIER WORKS ON BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. 27
however, the right point of view which had already been
gained for the treating of biblical theology is again, for the
most part, surrendered.
(a) According to G. L. Bauer, biblical theology should be
" the development, pure and , purged of all heterogeneous
ideas, of the religious theory of the Jews previous to the time
of Christ, and of Jesus and His apostles, according to the
different ages and views of the sacred writers." Accordingly
he had first of all to give a separate representation of the
biblical theology of the Old (Leipzig 1796) and of the New
Testament (1800-1802); and in the latter he had to dis
tinguish the religious theory of the first three evangelists,
of John, of the Apocalypse, of Peter and Paul.1 But each of
the doctrinal systems which are here represented separately
for the first time is divided, according to the same dogmatic
scheme, into Christology, theology, and anthropology ; and
since Bauer distinguishes throughout between the real view
of Jesus and of His apostles and that wherein they accom
modate themselves to the erroneous ideas of the people, a
real historical comprehension of the several doctrinal systems
(which, besides, stand alongside of each other in a far too
isolated manner) is not to be gained from him. In fact,
however, notwithstanding the definition of the science which
is borrowed from Gabler, such is not his aim. Bauer will
impartially investigate the records of the Christian religion
in order to decide the great question whether Christianity is
a rational and divine religion, and whether it deserves to
become a universal religion. Since, however, he is convinced
that only that which does not contradict the principles of
experience and of sound reason (naturally in the rationalistic
sense) can be universally valid truth, the rationalistic doctrine
must, in an attack upon the system of the Church, ultimately
be proved to be the real kernel of the teaching of the Bible,
and everything else must be rejected as an accommodation to
the ideas of the people.2
1 Vol. v., which was to contain the Epistle to the Hebrews and James, was
not published ; the biblical ethics of the N. T. (Leipzig 1804) is discussed
separately. Cf. also his breviarium theol. biblicae, 1803.
2 Politz {das Urchristenthum nach dem Geiste der sammtlichan Neutestament-
lichen Schriften entwicJcelt, Danzig 1802), Cludius {Uransichten des Christen-
(hums, Altona 1808), and Schwarz {die Lehre des Evangelimns aus den,

28 INTRODUCTION.
(5) The works of W. M. L. de Wette (Biblische Dogmatik
des A. und N. T, Berlin 1813, 2d ed. 1830) and of Dan. v.
Colin (Biblische Tlieologie, edited by Dav. Schulz, Leipzig
1836) mark an essential advance. Both treat first of Hebra
ism and Judaism, then of the teaching of Jesus and His
apostles, to which they prefix a historical section, and in
which they distinguish a Jewish-Christian, a Pauline, and an
Alexandrian tendency. Both, however, represent the teaching
of the apostles in a connected system according to a thoroughly
dogmatic scheme, so that those distinctions (which are also,
according to v. Colin, almost simply formal) are considered
only in the case of particular doctrines. As, in this way, the
historical method in the representation is still prejudiced by
the systematic method, so neither in the conception of the
task, at least in the case of de Wette, is the purely his
torical character of our discipline yet fully accepted. For
although, according to p. 40, he purposes to give that which
we call biblical theology, he nevertheless distinguishes, ac
cording to his philosophical idea of religion (§ 1-45), the
purely religious elements which are found in the Old and
New Testaments from those factors which he conceives to be
heterogeneous, in order that he may thus obtain the material
for his "biblical dogmatics," which represents Christianity in
its relation to contemporary Judaism (§ 46—61). On the
other hand, v. Colin means to carry out the historical principle
more strictly than has yet been done, and to represent the
way of thinking which was characteristic of the several ages
and teachers altogether independently of any Church system,
and of any philosophical party interest. But although he has
worked up the material of biblical theology more thoroughly
TJrkunden dargestellt, Heidelberg 1808) have a similar standpoint. The work
of Kaiser {Biblische Theologie oder Judaismus und Christianismus nac.h der
grammatisch-historischen Interpretationsmethode und nach einer freimiithigen
Stellung in die hritisch-vergleichende Universalgeschichte der Religion und in
die universale Religion, Erlangen 1813, 1814) has little more than the name
in common with our science. It gives a history of the several religious ideas,
religious customs, and ethical principles, in the development of which Judaism
and Christianity are interwoven. It does not give an independent connected
representation of the religion of the Bible ; and here also the historical repre
sentation is not the ultimate aim ; for the guiding interest of the author is to
extract everywhere from the husk of the ideas of the Bible the kernel of his
universal religion.

§ 6. EARLIER WORKS ON BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. 29
than his predecessors, his distinction of a symbolical and an
unsymbolical doctrine of religion is altogether foreign to the
spirit of the writers of the New Testament, and his concep
tion of biblical ideas and doctrines is often influenced by
his own rationalistic views. In his Christian philosophy,
Ruckert (vol. ii. : die Bibel d. h. systematische Darstellung der
theologischen Ansichten des N. T, Leipzig 1825) has also
reduced the teaching of the apostles to a system ; but it is
only incidentally that regard is had to the difference of the
apostolic modes of teaching. Yet he no longer traces this
difference back to the distinction between what is Jewish-
Christian and what is Hellenistic, but to the individuality of
the chief apostles.3
(c) The book of L. F. 0. Baumgarten-Crusius (Grundzuge der
hiblischen Theologie, Jena 1828) marks a retrogression in the
history of our science, considered as always realizing its idea
more and more perfectly. No doubt the doctrines of the Old
and New Testaments are kept apart historically ; still they
are always represented together in every individual point. A
manifoldness of types of doctrine in the New Testament is
not recognised, or, at least, it is reduced to a minimum of
individual moods, and modes of expression and reasoning ;
different tendencies and a progressive development of the
teaching of the New Testament are expressly denied. Yet the
author professes to give a history of the development of the
ideas and doctrines of the writers of the Bible regarding God
and the destiny of man, and busies himself in the first
general part with Judaism and Christianity in their nature and
historical relations, as well as with the characteristics of their
books and writers. The special part treats of the ideas of the
kingdom of God and of the children of God as the fundamental
ideas of both dispensations, but then discusses, according to a
thoroughly dogmatic scheme, the doctrine of God, of man, and
man's salvation. The representation contains much that is fine
and ingenious in details, but is very unequal and aphoristicaL
3 Among smaller works, cf. also C. F. Bohme, die Religion Jesu Christi aus
ihren Urhunden, Halle 1825 ; Die Religion der Apostel Jesu Christi, 1829.
Matthai, der Religionsglaube der Apostel Jesu, Gottingen 1826-1829. L. D.
Cramer, Vorlesungen iiber die biblische Theologie des iV. T., edited by Naebe,
Leipzig 1830.

30 INTRODUCTION.

7. The more recent Works.

Inspired by Neander, Schmid has sought to develop the
manifoldness of the New Testament types of doctrine from
the religious individuality of the writers, and has found
many followers. (V) From the other side, the labours of the
Tubingen school have taught us to conceive the peculiarity
of these types of doctrine rather from the point of view
of the historical development of Christianity, (c) Inspired by
that school, Eitschl and Eeuss have represented the several
doctrinal systems in connection with the history of the apos
tolic age ; while Baur, in his theology of the New Testament,
brings to the light all the advantages, but also all the defects,
of this way of looking at the subject.
(a) A new impulse to the deeper conception and more
thorough performance of the problem assigned to our science
was given by Neander, who, in his " History of the Planting
and Training of the Church by the Apostles" (Hamburg 1832,
4th ed. 1847 [translated in Bonn's Series]), represented the
teaching of the apostles separately, viz. of Paul, of James,
and of John (section ii. 6, p. 653-914 [E. Tr. vol. i. 414-
vol ii. 58]). With his deep comprehension of the pecu
liarity of the religious life in its various shapes and forms of
expression, he had traced back the diversity of the types of
doctrine to the individuality of the apostles, and had shown
the living unity of the Christian spirit in the manifoldness
of the human forms of conceiving it. Chr. Fr. Schmid, in
his " Biblical Theology of the New Testament" (edited by Weiz-
siicker, Stuttgart 1853, 4th ed. by A. Heller, Gotha 1868
[translated in Clark's Series]), maintained this point of view
in express opposition to de Wette and v. Colin, who made
the difference of the doctrinal systems of the apostles de
pendent rather upon historical influences which lie outside
of Christianity. Starting from the fact that Christianity is
the fulfilment of the old covenant, which consists of law and
promise, and that it may be conceived either rather in its unity
with that covenant, or rather in its contrast to it, he obtains
a fourfold possibility of types of doctrine, which, accord
ing to him, has left its imprint in the four apostolic person
alities. James represents Christianity as the fulfilled law,

§ 7. THE MORE RECENT WORKS. 31
Peter as the fulfilled promise, Paul in its contrast to the law,
and John in its contrast to law and prophecy. Although this
classification has found much acceptance, and has certainly
led us in many points upon the right track, yet it cannot be
denied that an a priori scheme is here applied to the individual
manifoldness of the apostolic modes of teaching into which it
could fit only in consequence of an extraordinary accident, or
of a play of divine providence. In reality, however, it does
not fit into it ; for we cannot even speak of a contrast to the
promise of the Old Testament ; and even the slight modifica
tion which Schmid gives to this fourth form is by no means
in congruity with the specific peculiarity of John. Moreover,
Schmid assigns biblical theology by far too great a task when
he describes it as the historico-genetic representation of Chris
tianity as given in the canonical books of the New Testament,
and accordingly, even before he comes to the teaching of the
apostles, describes their life (ii. p. 7-69 [E. Tr. 273-322])
in far greater detail than had been done by de Wette and
v. Colin. His treatment of the several types of doctrine has
apprehended many right points of view, and has made them
the rule for the development of these types in detail, but it is
still, both formally and materially, far too much dependent
upon dogmatic categories, and is frequently deficient in com
pleteness and sharpness in the conception of their peculiarity.
In close dependence upon Neander and Schmid, H. Messner
(Lehre der Apostel, Leipzig 1856) has treated of the several
doctrinal systems (those of the smaller books, however, in
greater detail than they), and has, with great care, sought to
develop each of them in its inner connection, and to compare
it with the others. G. B. Lechler (das apostolische und das
nachapostolische Zeitalter, Stuttgart 1851, 2d ed. 1857) follows
the same method, though far less thoroughly. He prefixes
to the Pauline doctrinal system the representation of the
preaching of the original apostles, and follows it up with the
doctrines of James, Peter, and John in the shape which they
assumed in the period after Paul (cf. also Jul. Kostlin, "uber die
Einheit und Mannigfaltigkeit der N. T. lehre," in the Jahrb.fur
deutsche Theol. 1857, 2; 1858, 1). The handbook of J. J. van
Oosterzee (die Theologie des N. T., Barmen 1869), which is far
from independent, and very deficient in scientific definiteness,

32 INTRODUCTION.
discusses, besides the theology of Jesus Christ (according to
the Synoptists, and according to John), the theology of the
apostles as Petrine, Pauline, and Johannean. The representa
tion of the Petrine, Pauline, and Johannean theology by
Lutterbeck (die Neutestamentlichen Lehrhegriffe, Mainz 1852,
ii. 4) shows how one could accommodate oneself to this way of
lookino- at the New Testament even on the Eoman Catholic
side. The historical nature of this representation, however,
is only apparent, as we may see from the arbitrary manner in
which he determines the relation of these three to one another
(cf. p. 139, specially p. 152-154).
(h) If, since Neander, the diversity of the New Testament
types of doctrine was traced back rather to the religious indi
viduality of the several writers, so now the other side also
was brought into prominence, viz. the fact that this diversity
was determined by the position of the individuals within the
historical development of Christianity. The Tubingen school
regarded this development as the gradual reconciliation of the
original opposition between the Jewish-Christianity of the
original apostles and the anti-Judaism of Paul. It had taught
men to apprehend more exactly the questions which stirred
the apostolic age, and therefore, also, their influence upon its
theology ; it had given them a sharper eye for the differences
of the apostolic tendencies, since it conceived them as con
tradictions; and with a view to the establishing of its historical
and critical apergus, it had subjected the books of the New
Testament to a much more thorough analysis of the whole of
their theological peculiarity than had previously been done
(cf. Plank, Judenchristenthum und Urchristenthum ; Kostlin,
"zur Geschichte des Urchristenthums," in the theologische Jahrb.
1847, 4; 1850, 2; Baur, das Christenthum und die christliche
Kirehe der drei ersten Jahrhunderte, Tubingen 1853, 2d ed.
1860; Hilgenfeld, das Urchristenthum in den Haitptmo-
menten seiner Entivicklungsganges, 1855). In consequence
of the results of this school, a great number of the books of
the New Testament were brought down to the second century,
their specific significance in the sense of § 1, b, was destroyed,
and thereby the theology of the New Testament was made a
history of the doctrines of the apostolic and post- apostolic
ages, in which many writings of the second century were

§ 7. THE MORE RECENT WORKS. 33
equally entitled to find a place alongside of those of the New
Testament. From this point of view Schwegler has represented
" The Post-apostolic Age in the Leading Moments of its Deve
lopment " (das nachapostolische Zeitalter in den Hauptmomenten
seiner Entwicklung, Tubingen 1846), in which he thoroughly
discusses the doctrinal systems of the most important books
of the New Testament. But even he who cannot adopt the
results of these investigations will find in them a great
stimulus for the sharper definition and the historical compre
hension of the New Testament types of doctrine ; especially
as, in accordance with its conception of the nature and history
of Christianity, the Tubingen historico-critical school, as dis
tinguished from the older rationalism, which never altogether
got rid of the inclination to prove that its doctrine founded
upon reason was also the kernel of the teaching of the Bible,
does not feel itself in any way bound to the oldest conceptions
of it, and can therefore devote itself, with perfect impartiality,
to the investigation of them.
(c) After attaining, from an equally free historico-critical
point of view, to a fundamental and thoroughgoing opposition
to the results of the Tubingen school, A. Eitschl has given, in
his " Origin of the Old Catholic Church " (Entstehung der
altkatholischen Kirche, 2d ed., Bonn 1857), an excellent
representation as well of the Pauline doctrine as of the manner
of teaching of those books which represent Jewish-Christianity
in the apostolic age. In his Histoire de la thiologie chritienne
au silcle apostolique (Strasbourg 1852, 3d ed. 1864 [translated
by Hodder & Stoughton]), Eeuss treats of the whole material
of our science from a point of view which is no doubt some
what related to that of the Tubingen school, but which never
theless modernizes and modifies its results in many respects.
Notwithstanding his brilliant gift of exposition, however, the
detailed investigation of the doctrinal systems, which are,
moreover, always ingeniously apprehended and luminously
developed, often interrupts the historical narrative as violently
as the consideration of the moments which are of importance
for the latter hampers the former (cf. § 2, c). After a
representation of the history of Judaism, of the teaching of
Jesus and the development of the apostolic Church, he dis
cusses, first of all, the Jewish- Christian tendency and Paulinism.
vol. i. c

34 INTRODUCTION.
Then follow the books of the mediating tendency, among
which are counted not only the Epistle to the Hebrews, First
Peter, and the historical books of the New Testament, but also
the Epistles of Barnabas and Clemens, and finally the theology
of John. It was not till after his death that Baur's lectures
on the theology of the New Testament (Vorlesungen uher Neu-
testamentliche Theologie, Leipzig 1864) appeared, in the form in
which he had delivered them in the years 1852-60. Although
he describes our science as that portion of historical theology
which has to represent the teaching of Jesus as well as the
doctrinal systems which rest upon it, so far as this can be
done by means of the writings of the New Testament, there
is, from his critical standpoint, which logically permits only
such a representation as that of Schwegler, no justification in
principle for this " so far." For him there really belong to
the " teaching of the apostles " only the doctrinal systems of
Paul and of the writer of .the Apocalypse, which he treats of
as the original antitheses within apostolic Christianity during
the first period. 'The second period, which treats of the
doctrinal systems of the Epistle to the Hebrews, of the
(spurious) Pauline Epistles of the imprisonment, of James,
Peter, and the historical books of the New Testament, and the
third, which closes with the doctrinal system of the Pastoral
Epistles and of the Gospel of John, no longer represent " the
teaching of the apostles," but that of much later Christian
writings, alongside of which the doctrinal systems of other
contemporary writings could stand with equal justification.
Apart from this, Baur has clearly recognised and carried out,
with his usual ability, the task of searching out the " charac
teristic fundamental view " of each system of doctrine, and of
developing from it " the whole import of the ideas which are
related to one another in its natural connection," although his
historico-critical assumptions regarding the historical develop
ment of Christianity and the origin of the books of the New
Testament often, a priori, cause him to put " the individual
conformation" of the several systems of doctrine in a false
light. In general, however, it comes out clearly in his repre
sentation that the consideration of the doctrinal systems of the
New Testament from the standpoint of theological development
is not less one-sided than that which starts exclusively from

§ 8. AUXILIARY LABOURS. 35
the religious individuality of the writers. For the point in
question in these systems is not only as to the solution of
religious philosophical problems, or the opposition and recon
ciliation of theological contradictions, but also as to peculiar
forms of the religious life, forms which determine the several
writers' manner of teaching ; and the lively manifoldness of
these cannot issue in mutually exclusive contradictions, for
the very reason that it was the revelation of God in Christ
which gave the teaching of the apostles its Teligious impulses.
After our handbook had appeared in two editions (1868, 1873),
there was published Dr. A. Immer's " Theology of the
New Testament" (Theologie des N. T, Bern 1877), sub
stantially according to the scheme of the Tubingen school.
After an introductory sketch of the Hebrew and Jewish
religion, he represents the religion of Jesus, the Jewish-
Christianity of the original apostles and the mother Church,
Paulinism, the Jewish- Christianity of the time after Paul (James,
Apoc), the tendency which mediated between Paulinism and
Jewish- Christianity (Luke, Peter), and that which had sur
mounted this opposition (John). Apart, however, from its
historico-critical and dogmatic assumptions, the standpoint of
the school is far from being clearly represented here. The
discussion of the standpoint of the original apostles is exceed
ingly meagre ; an anti-Pauline tendency in the Apocalypse is
as far from being proved as a mediating tendency in the
Epistles of Peter. In general, notwithstanding exact exegesis
on the whole, and a diffuseness which is often very wearisome,
a precise and concise expression is scarcely anywhere given to
the several ideas and lines of thought. What is of little
importance is discussed very diffusely ; what is of decisive
importance is often not discussed at all, often very briefly,
still more frequently it is left in suspense or distorted.
Besides, much exegetical, historical, and critical matter, which
is remote from the rightly conceived task and method of
biblical theology, is interwoven with the representation.
§ 8. Auxiliary Labours.
The attempts to represent a connected system of biblical
doctrine are of assistance to biblical theology in proportion as

36 INTRODUCTION.
they enter into the reproduction of the lines of thought of
the several writers, (h) It is still more directly assisted by
the representation of particular doctrinal systems of the New
Testament, or by dissertations on particular ideas and doctrines
of these systems, (c) Dissertations on particular fundamental
doctrines of theology also furnish much acceptable material in
proportion as they enter, somewhat in detail, into the teaching
of Scripture, (d) Lastly, the lexicography of the New Testa
ment can also enter into the service of our science.
(a) The attempts to develop a system of biblical doctrine
directly out of Scripture start from the assumption, which is
confuted by biblical theology, that a uniform series of religious
ideas and doctrines is to be found in all its parts. In this
sense J. T. Beck (die christliche Lehrwissenschaft nach den
hiblischen Urkunden, Stuttgart 1841) has, without more ado,
worked up the doctrinal material of the Old and New Testa
ments into a whole;1 while J. Chr. K. v. Hofmann (der
Schriftheweis, Nordlingen 1852-55, 2ded. 1857-59), although
strongly opposed to every assumption of different biblical
types of doctrine, establishes in its several parts the system
(" Lehrganze ") with which he commences in such a manner
that he advances from the Old Testament to the New, and
from the sayings of Jesus to those of His apostles. As here
already he gives a closely connected consideration of the
sections of Scripture which refer to each point of doctrine, so
he has later, in his great work on the Bible (die heilige Schrift
neuen Testaments zusammenhdngend untersucht, 7 vols., Nord-
lingen 1862—76), carried out his exceedingly original exegesis
through almost all the Epistles of the New Testament.
Although more inclined to the historical point of view, H.
Ewald (die Lehre der Bihel von Gott, oder die Theologie des
alten und neuen Bundes, 4 vols., Leipzig 1871—76) also finds
already in the Old Testament " such a perfect picture of life in
the true fear of God " (religion), that for the delineation of
" the way to God through Christ and the Holy Spirit," which
1 Only the first part has appeared, in which he begins with the doctrine of
God, and then treats of the creation, fall, and reconciliation of the world as " the
logic of Christian doctrine," or as "the truth which has been made known as
wisdom in Christ." Cf. also Beck, Einleitung in das System der christlichen
Lehre, Stuttgart 1838, 2d ed. 1870.

§ 8. AUXILIARY LABOURS. 37
is to show that it is " only through Christ and the Holy
Spirit that that way could now be securely trodden and passed
over" (iii. p. 303), he needs only about 80 of the 1600 pages
or so of his work which discusses, by way of introduction, the
doctrine of the word of God, and then, in three principal
parts, the doctrine of faith, the doctrine of life, and the doctrine
of the kingdom. Although Sam. Lutz (biblische Dogmatik,
edited by E. Eiietschi, Pforzheim 1847) rightly distinguishes
his task from that of biblical theology, he nevertheless develops,
in a professedly purely historical manner, and with frequent
reference to the historical difference of the Old and New
Testaments, a very artificially constructed system of the funda
mental ideas of the religion of the Bible, ideas which are in
his opinion essentially the same throughout, and then the
conception of history, or the divine economy of revelation in
history, which is connected with these ideas. G. L. Hahn
(Theologie des N. T., Leipzig 1864) also prefixes (in the
first part, which has alone appeared) to his intended repre
sentation of the development of the religious-ethical views
of the apostolic age, from which the formation of the several
systems of doctrine can first be explained, the system of ideas
which lies at the root of the whole of the New Testament, but
in which not only the Old Testament fundamental presupposi
tions, but also God as " executor of an eternal decree with
regard to the world" (§ 70-80), and the Son of God as
well as the Spirit, both in their inner-trinitarian relation
(§ 40-50) and in their relation to the world (§ 84-98), are
already considered, so that in substance the ideas and doctrines
of- the New Testament are already discussed, only without
reference to the peculiarities of the several writers. Although
occupying the standpoint of the newer critical school, which
usually contends most strenuously against the presupposition
of a uniform doctrine of Scripture, Dr. A. E. Biedermann
(christliche Dogmatik, Zurich 1869) nevertheless considers it
possible, by means of the results of the purely historical science
of biblical theology, to give a systematic expression in its inner
connection to the original Christian believing consciousness
which records itself in Scripture ; he does so by bringing out
the several moments of the whole system of faith contained in
the Bible, both in the diversity of their individual forms as

38 INTRODUCTION.
they lie before us in Scripture, and in their development from
the one to the other, and yet in such a manner that it is that
which is common and uniform therein that appears as what is
essential (p. 163). In the first division (the biblical presuppo
sitions of the gospel of Jesus Christ), his representation of the
teaching of Scripture (p. 163-302), which is distinguished by
sharpness and clearness, naturally only incidentally takes
account of the specialities of the biblical writers ; while the
second (the gospel of Jesus the Christ) is divided into the
Christology of the Synoptists, of Paul and of John ; and the
third (the realization of Christian salvation in humanity),
embracing soteriology and eschatology, for the most part points
out in the several doctrines the course of development from
the Old Testament to the theology of John. Following the
example of C. J. Nitzsch (System der christlichen Lehre, Bonn
1829, 6th ed. 1853), E. Kiibel attempts to represent "The
Christian system of do.ctrine according to holy Scripture " (das
christliche Lehrsystem nach der heiligen Schrift, Stuttgart
1873), expressly distinguishing his task from the historical or
descriptive, task of biblical theology. But although he also,
in many doctrines, enters into the diversities of the several
types of doctrine, yet the prevailing tendency is to obtain a
system which is derived from the testimony of Scripture in its
various forms, — a testimony which is full of life, and given
in accordance with experience, and therefore in the form of
intuition, — and developed in the form of discursive scientific
knowledge (p. 9). In the second edition (1874, 75), Dr. K.
F. A. ELahnis has very much abbreviated the biblico-dogmatic
discussions which his " Lutheran Dogmatics " (Lutherisclie
Dogmatik, Leipzig 1861) contained in vol. i. § 14, 15, and
apportioned them among the various articles ; on the other
hand, the very precise summaries of biblical teaching which
Dr. E. A. Lipsius (Lehrhuch der evangelisch-protestantischen
Dogmatik, Braunschweig 1876) prefixes to the several articles
of doctrine often enter also into the development of the various
types of doctrine within the New Testament.
(6) The independent representations of particular doctrinal
systems form exceedingly valuable pioneers of our science,
especially as they often furnish very careful comparisons of
the system which is represented with the other systems of the

§ 8. AUXILIARY LABOURS. 39
New Testament. Of such we have, for the Pauline doctrine,
Meyer, 1801; TJsteri, 1832.-51; Dahne, 1835; Pfleiderer, 1873:
for the Johannean, Frommann, 1839; Kostlin, 1843; Hilgen-
feld, 1849 ; Weiss, 1862 : for the Petrine, Weiss, 1855 ; we
have also the doctrine of James (Schmidt, 1869), of the
Epistle to the Hebrews (Eiehm, 1858, 59), and of the
Apocalypse (Gebhardt, 1873); but these cannot be considered
more particularly till we come to the several systems. Indi
vidual ideas and doctrines of these systems have often been
treated of separately. The writings relating to these will be
cited in the course of our representation of them.
(c) From another side the treatises on particular articles of
systematic theology furnish biblical theology with materials of
various kinds, whether they rather represent the common
fundamental view of the New Testament, or take more parti
cular account of the ideas and doctrines of its several writers.
They are, as it were, transverse sections through the whole of
our discipline; and although they are always somewhat
defective, inasmuch as no individual doctrine can be fully
appreciated outside of the connection of the system in which
it is found, yet they have their peculiar value in this, that the
relationship of the various systems comes out more directly in
a definite point than in the complete representation given by
our discipline. As especially comprehensive, we must here
mention the altogether new edition of his Lehre von der Person
Christi (Basel 1856 ; cf. also his articles on the development
of the New Testament doctrine of reconciliation, in the Jahrb.
fur d. Theol. 1857-59) by W. F. Gess (Christi Person und
Werk nach Christi Selhstzeugniss und der Zeugnissen der Apostel,
Basel 1870, 78, 79), which discusses not only all the sayings
of Jesus which refer to this subject, in their historical order,
but also those of the apostles according to the individual
Epistles ; in doing which, it is true, there is often a want of
succinctness in stating the results. In the second volume of
his " Christian Doctrine of Justification and Eeconciliation "
(Bonn 1874), containing the biblical material of the doctrine,
A. Eitschl has gathered together and amplified his previous
biblico-dogmatic labours (cf. Jahrh. fur d. Theol. 1863, 2, 3,
de ira dei, Bonn 1859). His exceedingly original conceptions
of individual types of doctrine are often based upon a peculiar

40 INTRODUCTION.
view of the fundamental ideas of the Old Testament, to which
he traces them back (cf. especially Diestel on the holiness and
righteousness of God, in the Jahrb. fur d. Theol. 1859, 1,
1 8 6 0, 2 ; Teichmann, " die Opferbedeutung des Todes Jesu," ibid.
1878, 1). Lastly, there appeared das Christushild der Apostel
und der nachapostolischen Zeit, of Dr. Dan. Schenkel (Leipzig
1879), which interweaves into its historical division, which
forms the foundation of all that follows, a comprehensive biblico-
theological description of each of the apostolic and post-apo
stolic writings. Since it is now rather the dogmatic, now rather
the exegetical, now rather the biblico-dogmatic, and now rather
the biblico-theological point of view which is predominant in
the other works that fall to be mentioned here, they are of
very unequal value for our discipline. We cite the most
important of them, without being able to claim completeness
for our list. For Christology, cf. Kleuker (Johannes, Petrus und
Paulus als Christologen, Eiga 1785), Schumann (Christus oder
die Lehre des A. und A". T. von der Person des Erlosers, Ham
burg and Gotha 1852), Beyschlag (die Christologie des N. T.,
Berlin 1866), Hasse (das Lcben des verklarten Erlosers im
Himmel nach den eigenen Ausspriichen des Herrn, Leipzig
1854), E. Ziemssen (Christus der Herr, Kiel 1867), also
Zeller in the Theologische Jahrbucher for 1842, 1, cf. 1842, 3.
Honing (das Sacrament der Taufe, Erlangen 1846), A. Caspers
(der Taufbegriff des Neuen Testaments, Bredstedt 1877),
Scheibel (das Abendmahl des Herrn, Breslau 1823), David
Schulz (die christlichc Lehre vom heiligen Abendmahl nach
dem Grundtext des N. T., Leipzig 1824), Lindner (die Lehre
vom Abendmahl nach der Schrift, Hamburg 1831), Kahnis
(die Lehre vom Abendmahl, Leipzig 1851), Eiickert (das
Abendmahl, Leipzig 1856), treat of the sacraments. Biblical
psychology has been recently discussed by J. T. Beck (Umriss
der hiblischen Seelenlehre, Stuttgart 1843, 3d ed. 1871),
Delitzsch (System der hiblischen Psychologie, Leipzig 1855,
2d ed. 1861 [translated in Clark's Series]), and H. H. Wendt
(die Begrijfe Fleisch und Geist im hiblischen Sprachgebrauch,
Gotha 1878). Cf. also J. Miiller, die christliche Lehre von der
Siinde (5th ed., Breslau 1867 [translated in Clark's Series]);
Winzer, de daemonologia in s. Ni Ti libris (Wittenberg 1812) ;
Liicke on the Lehre vom Teufel (deutsche Zeitschr. f. christi.

§ 8. AUXILIARY LABOURS. 41
Wissenschaft und christi. Lehen, 1851, Feb.); G. Eoskoff,
Geschichte des Teufels (Leipzig 1869). Eschatology has been
discussed with special frequency by Weizel (die urchristliche
Unsterhlichkeitslehre, Stud. u. Krit. 1836, 3, 4; cf. the same
author in the Studien der Wurtemhergischen Geistlichkeit, ix. 2,
x. 1), Kern (Beitrdge zur Neutestamentlichen Eschatologie, Tilbinger
theol. Zeitschrift, 1840, 3), Georgii (fiber die eschatologischen
Vorstellungen der A. T. Schriftsteller, theol. Jahrhilcher, 1845, 1),
Zeller (die Lehre des A. T. vom Zustande nach dem Tode, ibid.
1847, 3), Schumann (die Unsterhlichkeitslehre des A. und
A. T, Berlin 1847), Hofmann (die Wiederkunft Christi und
das Zeichen des Menschensohns am Himmel, Leipzig 1850),
Hebart (die zweite sichtbare Zukunft Christi, einc Darstellung
ier gesammten hiblischen Eschatologie in ihren Hauptmomenten,
Erlangen 1850), Giider (die Lehre von der Erscheinung Christi
unter den Todten in ihrem Zusammenhange mit der Lehre von
den letzten Dingen, Bern 1853), Luthardt (die Lehre von den
letzten Dingen, Leipzig 1861), H. Gerlach (die letzten Dinge,
Berlin 1869); cf. also 0. Zockler, de vi ac notione vocabuli
€\itk in novo test, Giessen 1856. Of books relating to particular
articles of doctrine there should also be mentioned : Kahnis,
die Lehre vom heiligen Geiste (Halle 1847); Schaf, die Siinde
ivider den heiligen Geist (Halle 1841) ; Fr. Hosseus, de notioni-
hus providentiae praedestinationisque (Bonn 1868) ; Ed. Preuss,
die Rechtfertigung des Sunders vor Gott (Berlin 1868); Tholuck,
das Heidenthum nach der heiligen Schrift (Berlin 1853);
Tholuck, das A. T. im A. T. (5th ed., Gotha 1861); Kahler,
das Gewissen (I. 1 : Alterthum und Neues Testament, Halle
1878). (d) The lexicography of the New Testament cannot possibly
avoid entering into biblico-theological investigations. Just as
certainly as it has a purely philological side, so certainly it
cannot, from that side, meet all the requirements of its task.
For although it is mainly from the analogous usus loquendi of
the Old Testament that a series of termini technici, which the
doctrinal language of the New Testament has coined, must be
explained, yet that usage, as well as the meaning which is
commonly given to the words in profane Greek, has in many
ways received a peculiar transformation from the Christian
consciousness (cf. v. Zezschwitz, Profangracitat und hiblischer

42 INTRODUCTION.
Sprachgeist, Leipzig 1859). But if a manifoldness of modes
of representing things and of teaching is brought out in the
writers of the New Testament, then neither will this trans
formation have been by any means the same throughout. Of
New Testament lexicographers only Schirlitz (griechisch-
deutsches Worterhuch zum A. T., Giessen 1851, 2d ed. 1858)
has purposely set himself the task of looking, in the manner
of biblical theology, at the ideas which are expressed in the
several terminis. The Dictionary of the A. T. for the purpose
cf explaining Christian Doctrine, by Dr. W. A. Teller (5th ed.,
Berlin 1792), professed to be a real biblico-theological lexicon.
But, aparj; from its shallow rationalistic standpoint, it is meant
only for practical use, and makes no claim, to be scientific
The composition of such a lexicon has recently been under
taken by H. Cremer (hiblisch-theologisches Worterhuch der N. T.
Grdcitdt, Gotha 1866, 1868, 2d ed. 1872). No doubt it
will always be difficult to explain, in a thorough manner,
the significance of the termini of a doctrinal system outside of
the connection of that system ; but in proportion as this last
aim is attained, such a dictionary will always be one of the
most important auxiliaries of the biblical theology of the New
Testament.2 2 Where individual authors are cited in what follows, without mention being
made of their works, their biblico-theological labours, which have been spoken
of in the Introduction, or are still to he cited farther on, are everywhere
meant.

PAKT FIRST.
THE TEACHING OF JESUS ACCORDING TO
THE EARLIEST TRADITION.

INTEODUCTION.
§ 9. The Life and Teaching of Jesus in their relation to
Biblical Theology.
It is neither methodically permissible nor conducive to the
aim of our science to admit into it a historical representation
of the life of Jesus. (6) It is not the life of Jesus per se in
its historical course, but the conception of its religious signifi
cance upon which the earliest New Testament proclamation
rests, that forms the starting - point of biblical theology.
(c) This conception, however, was mainly conditioned by the
teaching of Jesus, inasmuch as it gave the authentic explana
tion of the significance of His person and of His manifesta
tion ; and hence a representation of this teaching must form
the preliminary section of biblical theology.
(a) It is natural to think that the starting-point of biblical
theology must be a representation of the life of Jesus. If its
aim is to represent the religious import of the ideas and
doctrines of the New Testament writings, inasmuch as these
are the authentic records of the revelation of God in Christ,
then it appears that that series of facts must first of all be
investigated in which that revelation has been accomplished,
seeing that it is with them that the teaching of the apostles is
43

44 TEACHING OF JESUS ACCORDING TO EARLIEST TRADITION.
necessarily connected ; and it is a representation of the life of
Jesus which would have to bring out these facts.1 But if we
were to give such a representation, we should go far beyond
the boundaries of our discipline. Even as regards method,
the scientific representation of the life of Jesus demands in
vestigations of a totally different kind. It presupposes a
historico-critical examination of sources which is of a totally
different nature from the method of biblical theology. The
latter has only to inquire what are the ideas and doctrines of
the writings that lie before us ; the former inquires whether
the accounts contained in these sources are trustworthy or not.
But even as regards contents, every scientific representation
(even the most sketchy) of the life of Jesus must contain an
abundance of concrete details, and must consider a number of
historical questions which, because they are closely connected
with the purely human course of His development, or with its
local and temporal conditions, are of no significance for the
character of this life as a revelation, and therefore also of no
significance for biblical theology. Above all, however, we
must not, without more ado, identify the historical picture of
the life of Jesus which we obtain scientifically from our
sources with that from which the earliest proclamation of the
gospel started. If the latter, inasmuch as it was drawn from
the immediate perception of the public life of Jesus, was, on
the one hand, far richer and more vivid than that which we
can obtain from our sources, which offer but a limited selection
of facts ; yet, on the other hand, it is equally conceivable that,
from what these communicate in consequence of later investi
gations or of individual reminiscences, we are able to discover
other facts which were still awanting in the picture of the life
1 In fact, G. L. Bauer has interwoven detailed investigations into historical
questions connected with the life of Jesus into the first division of his repre
sentation of the doctrinal system of the Synoptists (vol. i.). In the "historico-
critical introduction " which de Wette prefixes to the representation of the teach
ing of Jesus and the apostles, he gives a historical sketch of the life of Jesus
(§ 207-224) ; and similarly von Colin gives a representation of the "circum
stances of the life of Jesus looked at from the religious standpoint " in the
"general part" which stands before his representation of the teaching of Jesus
(§ 132-138). In keeping with his conception of the task of biblical theology,
Schmid, lastly, has, in the representation of the "Messianic age," commenced
with the "life of Jesus " as the first" division of the teaching of Jesus (i. p. 33-120
[E. Tr. p. 25-81]).

§ 9. LIFE AND TEACHING IN RELATION TO BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. 45
of Jesus as it shaped itself in the common tradition of the
mother Church — a picture which was limited mainly to the
public working and suffering of Jesus, and which was confined,
even in regard to these, by certain points of view.2 Accord
ingly, a scientific representation of the life of Jesus cannot
possibly be the starting-point of biblical theology.
(b) No doubt it was the revelation of God which appeared
in Christ, and which was accomplished in His person and in
the salvation-bringing facts of His life, that was the generating
impulse of the religious ideas and doctrines which biblical
theology has to represent as the import of the earliest pro
clamation of the New Testament. But just as it is not these
facts per se, but as conceived in their right significance, that
constitute the perfect revelation of God, so the manner in
which this revelation was conceived and employed didactically
by the earliest witnesses cannot be understood from these facts
per se, but only from the conception of them on the part of
the first preachers of the gospel. It is not what the earliest
writers of the New Testament knew of the facts of the life of
Jesus, but what in these facts was regulative for their view of
2 He who, e.g., regards the supernatural conception of Jesus as a historical
fact in consequence of the histories of His childhood which are contained in our
Gospels (which are among the latest writings of the New Testament), must,
nevertheless, not assume, without more ado, that it was known to the earliest
tradition, and had therefore an influence upon the view of the earliest writers
of the New Testament regarding the person of Jesus. And whoever looks upon
the fourth Gospel as of apostolic origin, will find in it many reminiscences of
which it is by no means evident that they had passed over into the earliest
common tradition, and had therefore been operative in the earliest procla
mation regarding Christ. Whoever, on the other hand, assumes, in conse
quence of historico-critical investigation, that the life of Jesus was altogether
different from that which our sources with their " glorifying legendary adorn
ment " represent it to have been, will have to allow that this result would not
only be worthless, but actually misleading for biblical theology. For if our
Gospels, which rest upon the earliest common tradition, already show such a
distorted picture of the life of Jesus, it is very unlikely that the view of His life,
from which the earliest writers of the New Testament started, was more in
harmony with the state of the case which criticism is alleged to have brought to
the light. And although, in accordance with § 1, b, we are convinced that our
Gospels, as authentic records of the facts of revelation, can offer us no distorted
and perturbed picture of the life of Jesus, yet, even when dealing with the
earliest form of tradition, which is brought out by means of criticism, the
scientific representation of that life will very often have to distinguish between
the historical matter of fact and the idea of events and of the course of their
development which has left its mark upon that tradition.

46 TEACHING OF JESUS ACCORDING TO EARLIEST TRADITION.
the significance of His person and manifestation, and therefore
for the forming of their religious ideas and doctrines, that is
important for biblical theology. It is not, however, derogatory
to the substantial accuracy of their view of the religious sig
nificance of the life of Jesus, a significance which we must,
according to § l,b, undoubtedly presuppose, if all the facts
of revelation were not yet known to them as such. And
biblical theology must not inquire how we, in consequence of
the complete testimony of the New Testament records, have
to conceive the character of the facts of this life as a revela
tion, but only how it was conceived by the earliest preachers
of the gospel, since it is only this conception that can have
had a determining influence upon their religious ideas and
doctrines. For just as certainly as it was only gradually and
under the guidance of the Spirit that the salvation which was
given in Christ was known more and more deeply and com
pletely, so certainly it may be assumed that the knowledge of
the religious significance of the primary facts of revelation has
been always growing, and therefore that these facts are not
yet appreciated in their fullest significance in the earlist pro
clamation.3 (c) If the perfect revelation of God has been accomplished
in the manifestation of Jesus, it must also have made itself
intelligible as such to the world. It lies in the nature of
revelation that it cannot consist only in certain facts, but that
it must also secure, from the first, the essentially correct con
ception of the significance of these facts ; and, in the case of
the revelation of God which has appeared in Christ, this can be
3 From this, however, it is perfectly clear that a scientific representation of
the life of Jesus cannot be made the basis of biblical theology. Suppose, e.g.,
that we can actually show from the oldest Gospel what the historical moments were
which made Jesus what He was, and how He, under the influence of these, has
gradually developed His views and purposes during His public activity, yet the
question always remains, whether the writers of the New Testament knew these
assumed facts as such, and appreciated them in their significance for the con
ception of the person of Jesus. Or if we suppose, e.g., that we must conceive
the occurrence related in the Gospels as taking place at the baptism of Jesus to
be a mere vision of the Baptist, it has plainly a totally different significance from
what it would have if we conceived it to be an experience of Jesus. For biblical
theology, however, that which is mainly of importance is not at all which of
these conceptions is the historically correct one, but which of them was that of
the writers of the New Testament, seeing that it alone could be regulative for
their teaching.

§ 9. LIFE AND TEACHING IN RELATION TO BIBLICAL THEOLOGY. 47
effected only by the self-testimony of Jesus (in the widest
extent) which accompanies His manifestation. It is, however,
self-evident and a matter of history, that it is upon this self-
testimony of Jesus that the conception of His manifestation in
the earliest proclamation of the New Testament rests. We have
already acknowledged (note h) that this conception cannot yet
exhaust its full import as a revelation. The reason of this is
twofold. In the first place, it is not to be expected that the
whole riches of the self-testimony of Jesus has already passed
over into the comprehension and the proclamation of the
earliest witnesses; and, in the second place, Jesus, in His
activity as a teacher (and therefore also in His self-testimony),
was restrained, partly by the pedagogic regard to the inability
of His hearers to comprehend the revelation which was making
its first appearance in the world (cf. John xvi. 12), and partly
by regard to the circumstance, which belongs to the history of
salvation, that the facts of salvation were but tending towards
their completion, and that therefore the full comprehension
of their significance was still unattainable. From this it is
already apparent how inadmissible it is to measure the truthful
ness of the more fully developed apostolic teaching by its being
already found in the teaching of Jesus. Moreover, the dis
tinction of a doctrine of the apostles regarding Jesus, and of a
teaching of Jesus, in the sense in which it has been often pre
viously made, is altogether unhistorical. If the teaching of
Jesus had been essentially a new doctrine of God or of
morals, then the teaching of His apostles could not have turned
round the significance of His person and manifestation to the
extent in which it does. As to its essential kernel, the teaching
of Jesus Himself was much rather nothing else than a doctrine
of the significance of His person and manifestation, and must,
in this respect, have laid the foundation for the original ideas
of the writers of the New Testament regarding these.4 The
4 When such questions are discussed in the representations of the life of Jesus
(note a) which are prefixed to His teaching, as His relation to the Baptist or to
the parties in the nation, His aims and plan, the kingdom of God and the means
of founding it, the Messianic idea and the attitude of Jesus to the Old Testa
ment or to the expectation of the nation, the significance of His miracles and
death, His prophecies, and the designation of His apostles, — these are all
questions which are of decisive significance for the conception of His person and
manifestation ; hut the most obvious answer was given to them in the sayings of

48 TEACHING OF JESUS ACCORDING TO EARLIEST TRADITION.
more we conceive the teaching of Jesus in this its historical
significance, and therefore in its real character as a revelation,
the more simply is the question answered as to the relation
of biblical theology to the facts of His life. In so far, viz., as
the teaching of Jesus points back to these facts in order to
make their true significance known, or in so far as it assumes
them for its own comprehension, they will also be taken into
consideration by biblical theology, and will be presented to it
by the tradition from which it draws the teaching of Jesus.
Still it is only the teaching of Jesus that will form its start
ing-point ; for it is in that teaching that the conception which
the earliest preachers of the gospel had of the significance of
Jesus and His manifestation is rooted ; and it is therefore in
it that there is given the foundation for the comprehension of
their religious ideas and doctrines.

§ 10. Sources for the Representation of the Teaching of Jesus.
The biblico-theological representation of the teaching of
Jesus has not to ask what He said, but what were the say
ings of Jesus which the earliest tradition possessed, and in
what form, (h) Accordingly the Johannean tradition is alto
gether excluded from the sources of this representation.
(c) But even from the synoptic Gospels it is only by means
of critical investigation into their origin and relation to one
another that the actual substance of the earliest tradition of
the teaching of Jesus can be brought out.
(a) Even the scientific representation of the life of Jesus
has to occupy itself with His teaching ; for His teaching not
only formed a principal part of His activity, but also gives the
most direct and certain answer to important questions relating
to His historical position and significance. Hence it will have
to ask which sayings of Jesus authenticate themselves to
historical criticism, and what is the idea of the form and pur-
Jesus, and this answer must have been that which was mainly regulative for the
conception of them hy the apostolic age. All these questions belong therefore
to the teaching of Jesus, nay, they form its real substance. Whatever other
statements of a theological or anthropological import, or whatever other moral
exhortations occur in the sayings of Jesus, we shall have first to see how far they
convey anything that is peculiar to His teaching, and in what connection they
stand with that its central point

§ 10. SOURCES FOR REPRESENTATION OF TEACHING OF JESUS. 49
port of His teaching which is given by as complete a collection
and consideration of these sayings as is possible. With biblical
theology it is different. It only asks what are the sayings of
Jesus with which the earliest writers of the New Testament
were originally acquainted, and what is the conception of His
teaching which comes out from the form in which they
possessed these sayings. Whether the circle of these sayings
gives a perfect idea of that which Jesus had said and taught,
whether their oldest literary forms originate with the ear-
witnesses themselves, and can therefore pass for authentic, —
these are questions which are, in the first instance, of no
importance for it. At any rate, the earliest tradition regarding
the sayings of Jesus, the tradition from which the apostolic
age drew, originated with the ear- witnesses ; but just as
certainly as the guarantee was given in the character of the
teaching of Jesus as a revelation that His disciples had not
misunderstood it in such a manner as to destroy its essential
significance, so certainly we cannot assume, a priori, that
everything which Jesus had said had remained in the memory
of the first witnesses, and so had passed over into the circle of
the earliest tradition, or that everything was conceived by all
in its original meaning, and expressed in a manner which was
in keeping with this meaning. Still it was only in the extent
and conception of it which the earliest tradition represents,
that the teaching of Jesus could influence the commencement
of the doctrinal development of the New Testament. What
ever else Jesus had said, or whatever else may be discovered
as to the meaning of His teaching, was as good as non-existent
for the earliest writers of the New Testament. Accordingly,
biblical theology cannot start from the teaching of Jesus per se,
but only from the teaching of Jesus as it is represented in the
earliest tradition.
(b) It is in accordance with this that we must answer the
question as to the sources from which biblical theology has to
draw its representation of the teaching of Jesus. For such a
representation of His teaching as the life of Jesus demands,
the employment of the Gospel of John (whether we regard it
as directly apostolic or only make it depend upon independent
apostolic tradition) is not only permissible, but altogether in
dispensable, although it certainly cannot claim an unqualified
VOL. I. D

50 TEACHING OF JESUS ACCORDING TO EARLIEST TRADITION.
authenticity for the discourses of Christ which it contains.
But it is not to be used as a source for the earliest tradition
of the teaching of Jesus. However many authentic sayings
of Jesus, both as to import and form, are contained in it, how
ever many sides of His teaching it lets us see in a new light
or with greater clearness, yet the fact that it is in this, the
latest Gospel, that we first hear of these sayings, and have light
thrown upon these sides, shows that in the earliest tradition
these sayings were ^wanting and these sides were in the back
ground, and that they cannot, therefore, have contributed to
determine the development of doctrine in the earlier books of
the New Testament. And even though it were possible to
show that a few of the sayings of Jesus which we owe first
to the Johannean tradition had already become active in the
earlier doctrinal types of the New Testament, yet that would
not justify us in mixing up the so very peculiar sphere of
thought, in which the discourses of Christ contained in this
Gospel move, along with the earliest tradition of the teaching
of Jesus, or in placing it along with the latter at the head
of our representation. Even the consideration which is so
frequently brought under our notice, the consideration, viz.,
that the Apostle John will not have kept to himself the sayings
of Jesus which belong to his individual remembrance or con
ception until the time to which the writings which bear his
name belong, cannot furnish us with an occasion to do so. It
cannot do so, since the form of the earliest common tradition
of the teaching of Jesus — a form which is so peculiarly
different from these, discourses — shows that these have had at
least no sensible influence , upon that tradition. Whether,
therefore, it was not till later that richer reminiscences arose
in the mind of the Evangelist John, and shed their peculiar
light over much in the teaching of Jesus, or whether they
have actually slumbered in him until, connected as they were
with his own theological development, they received their
peculiar stamp, still it is only in connection with the Johannean
theology, which grew out of them and is therefore inseparably
incorporated with them, that their treasures can be represented
in a fruitful manner.1
1 While G. L. Bauer already considered "the Christian theory of religion
according to the three first Gospels " and "according to John " separately, in their

§ 10. SOURCES FOR REPRESENTATION OF TEACHING OF JESUS. 51
(c) The earliest tradition regarding the sayings of Jesus is
found in the three synoptic Gospels. Certainly we must not
overlook the fact that not only have we no manner of pledge,
but that rather, having regard to the circumstances of their
origin, we can only doubt that we still possess in these Gospels
the full riches of the sayings of Jesus from which the earliest
writers of the New Testament drew their views. But biblical
theology possesses no other authorities for the representation
of the earliest tradition of the teaching of Jesus, and must
therefore adhere to these for its first section. On the other
hand, seeing that our synoptic Gospels in their present form
are probably of later origin than the most of the other books
of the New Testament, it is possible that many sayings of
Jesus have already been taken up into them, which were
either altogether, or at least in their present shape, foreign to
the earliest tradition, which the doctrinal development of the
New Testament alone presupposes at its commencement. The
fact that many sayings are testified to by two of them, or by
all the three, while others are contained only in one, makes it
natural to make a distinction in the material that is presented
by them ; and this is rendered still more natural when we
observe that even in them the same saying often already occurs-
representation of the teaching of Jesus de Wette and v. Colin start from all the
four Gospels. The former (§ 226) sets up the principle that, as regards the
import of His teaching, the Gospel of John is to be used as the standard for criti
cism, while the form of delivery is retained more faithfully in the Synoptists ;
and the latter (§ 139) is of opinion that the Gospel of John makes it easier to
ascertain the subjective view of the evangelist, and therefore to distinguish the
real teaching as delivered by Jesus from the subjective form in which it is
transmitted by His disciples. Without more ado, Schmid has represented the
teaching of Jesus according to all the four Gospels (cf. § 3) ; and even Reuss has
done so partially, although he also uses the discourses of Christ which are con
tained in the fourth Gospel as a source for the theology of John (cf. i. p. 156
[E. Tr. i. 133]). It is equally one-sided, of course, when Baur regards it as
proved by recent criticism, that, because of its difference from the Synoptists and
its quite peculiar system of doctrine, the Gospel of John cannot be used at all as
an authority for the teaching of Jesus, but only for the manner in which the
evangelist conceived it (p. 22). But even the manner in which v. Oosterzee
first represents the theology of Jesus according to the synoptic Gospels (§ 10-16)
and according to the Gospel of John (§ 17-22) separately, in order then to
embrace them both in a higher unity (§ 23, 24), does not get over the incon
venience of making biblical theology place at its commencement a representation
of the teaching of Jesus, the full appreciation of which at least cannot appear
till its close.

52 TEACHING OF JESUS ACCORDING TO EARLIEST TRADITION.
in very different shapes and differently conceived. Accordingly,
it is only by means of a careful criticism of sources that a
separation of the earliest form of the tradition of the sayings
of Jesus from the complete body of the synoptic tradition can
be accomplished.2 Of course the necessary investigation into
the origin and relationship of the three synoptic Gospels cannot
be carried on here ; it belongs to historico-critical introduction.
Biblical theology can only axiomatically accept its results as
the basis for its representation.3 It is only on the assumption,
however, that these results justify us in gathering from the
synoptic Gospels the earliest tradition of the teaching of Jesus,
and show us the way to do so, that biblical theology can even
attempt a representation of that teaching.
2 Baur is quite consequent when, in accordance with his critical principle re
garding the Gospels, he puts Luke, as a redaction of Matthew with a tendency,
and Mark, as a redaction which neutralizes the contradictions of both, altogether
aside, and holds exclusively by Matthew ; although even in it not only is a
universalistic redaction to be distinguished from a Jewish - Christian text
{Grundschrift), but even in the latter the Judaism which assumed a more definite
form after the death of Jesus must be distinguished from the original teaching of
Jesus (cf. p. 23). But apart from the question as to the correctness of his
assumption regarding the character and relationship of the synoptic Gospels, this
whole process of separation ultimately leads the critic to the actual "principles
and doctrines of Jesus " (p. 24, 25), with which, according to note a, biblical
theology is not at first at all concerned. If the earliest apostolic tradition had
already actually conceived the teaching of Jesus in the sense of a limited Judaism,
then, for us, the history of the development of Christian doctrine would have
commenced with the teaching of Jesus as so conceived. Moreover, that which
is imagined as to an " original " teaching of Jesus, is only a historical conjecture
without any firm support.
3 It is very unfair to raise the objection against biblical theology, that it builds
its representation of the teaching of Jesus upon arbitrary hypotheses regarding
the Gospels. For, since universally recognised results are not yet gained upon
this field, nothing remains hut for the individual to start from those conclusions
to which he has come, and upon which alone he can base his representation.
Besides, the views which are developed in what follows are nothing less than new
hypotheses. They only gather together the most approved results of previous
investigation, and put them into the form of a complete picture. For their more
particular proof, as well as to see how they stand related to other views, cf. Weiss,
"zur Entstehungsgeschichte der synoptischen Evangelien" {Stud. u. Krit. 1861,
p. 29-100, 646-753) ; " die Redestiicke des apostolischen Matthaus ",(Jahrbihcher
furdeutsche Theologie, 1864, p. 49-140) ; "die Erzahlungsstiicke des apostolischen
Matthaus" {ibid. 1865, p. 319-376) ; das Marcusevangelium und seine synoptischen
Parallelen (Berlin 1872) ; das Matthausevangelium und seine Lucasparattelen
(Halle 1876).

§ 11. EMPLOYMENT OF THE THREE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 53

§11. Critical Presuppositions for the Employment of the Three
Synoptic Gospels.
The Gospel of Mark, which is already used by the other
two Synoptists, depends upon direct apostolic tradition.
(b) There is also an apostolic writing which lies at the basis
of all the three Gospels, a writing which had principally aimed
at being a collection of the sayings of Jesus as they were
circulating in the earliest common tradition, (c) Whatever
other sources Luke has employed, are probably of equal value
with one of these two principal sources, (d) So far as the
jnanner in which these sources are used in our Gospels can be
discovered, it begets the presumption that, both as to import
and form, the earliest tradition can still be gathered from them.
with substantial accuracy.
(a) The assumption that our second Gospel is the oldest of
the three Synoptists, and is used by the two others, made its'.
appearance, it is true, very early (cf. G. Chr. Storr, iiber den-
Ziveck der evangelischen Geschichte und der Brief e Johannis,.
Tubingen 1786, § 58-62), and found in Weisse (Evangelische-
Geschichte, Leipzig 1838) and Wilke (der Urevangelist, Dresdent
1838) a defence which was exceedingly ingenious and*
perfectly conclusive in everything that was essential; but it.
is only since Ewald adopted it in his Jahrhilcher (1848-49;;
cf. die drei ersten Evangelien, Gottingen 1850, 2d ed. 1871)'
that it has come into more and more general acceptance. The-
once almost dominant hypothesis of Owen and Griesbach, which
made Mark the latest of our three evangelists, has recently
been thoroughly defended only from the standpoint of the
Tubingen " Tendenzkritik " (cf. Schwegler, das nachapostolische
Zeitalter, Tubingen 1846; Baur, kritische Untersuchungen
iiher die kanonischen Evangelien, Tubingen 1847; Strauss,
Lehen Jesu, Leipzig 1864; Zeller, Zeitschrift fur wissenschaft-
liche Theologie, 1865, 3, 4; Keim, Geschichte Jesu von Nazara,
Zurich 1867-72), and, within that school itself, it has been
unweariedly combated, and with emphasis and success, by
Hilgenfeld (who, however, adheres to the dependence of Mark
upon Matthew) since 1850. The hypothesis that our second
Gospel is only a redaction of the original Mark (Urmarkus),

54 TEACHING OF JESUS ACCORDING TO EARLIEST TRADITION.
which forms the basis of the other two Synoptists, — a redaction
which, it is true, stands nearest that original Mark, both
formally and materially (Holtzmann, die synoptischen Evangelien,
Leipzig 1863; Weizsacker, Untersuchungen iiher die evangelische
Geschichte, Gotha 1864), — has been more and more given up
again by the newest defenders of the Mark-hypothesis (cf.
Meyer, Commentary on Matthew, Introd. § 4 ; Scholten, das
alteste Evangelium, Elberfeld 1869 ; Volckmar, die Evangelien
oder Marcus und die Synopsis, Leipzig 1870). Seeing that,
according to a report of John the Presbyter, which is being
more and more generally acknowledged to be trustworthy and
to refer to our second Gospel (in Euseb. hist. eccl. iii. 39), the
Gospel of Mark is derived from reminiscences of the oral
narratives of the Apostle Peter (cf. Klostermann, das Marcus-
evangelium, Gottingen 1867; Grau, Entiuiclclungsgeschichte des
Neutestamentlichen Schriftthums, Giitersloh 1871; and my
Marcusevangelium, Introduction), the complete picture of the
life and teaching of Jesus which it gives is the direct product
of the living apostolic preaching, which was naturally very
much richer than the traits of it which are contained in the
Gospel, and it affords, especially in the discourses which are
first written down in it, an abundance of material for the
representation of the teaching of Jesus.
(b) The observation that our first and third Gospels are two
writings which are altogether independent of one another is of
the greatest consequence in the further investigation of the
sources of our Gospels (cf. besides Weisse, Ewald, Holtzmann,
Weizsacker, also Eitschl, theologische Jahrhucher, 1851 ; Plitt,
de composit. evangl. synopt., Bonn 1860 ; Eeuss, Geschichte der
heiligen Schriften N. T., 5th ed., Braunschweig 1874).
From this it follows, viz., that wherever both Gospels show a
literary relationship without the intervention of Mark, another
source is used in common by both, but by each in a peculiar
manner. In this source, most recognise the writing of the
Apostle Matthew which is mentioned by Papias (in Euseb. hist.
eccl. iii. 39), a writing which, it is true, consisted to a very
great extent of discourses and sayings of the Lord, but which
also, according to the result of that analysis, contained narrative
portions (cf. my Matthausev., Introd.). In this writing we
have to seek the richest treasure of direct apostolic tradition

§ 11. EMPLOYMENT OF THE THREE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 55
of words of Jesus, and individual traits of His life, as they
group themselves specially round leading sayings of His. As
this writing has most faithfully reported the tradition which
had become current in the earliest apostolic circle, so it has
also had the most powerful influence, directly and indirectly,
upon the later gospel literature. Our first Gospel, which has
used it most faithfully and completely, and has worked it up,
with the assistance of Mark, into 'a complete history of the
life of Jesus, owes to it the name of Matthew, which it bears.
We shall call it the " apostolic source ;" the first Gospel we
shall, according to custom, call Matthew. Luke has used it
more freely and less completely; but yet he has retained
much out of it which our Matthew has no longer known how
to fit into the frame of his history which he has borrowed from
Mark. It is mainly in consequence of the limitation of this
writing to a mere collection of discourses or sayings that its
use by our second Gospel has been denied. Mark has partly,
by means of Petrine tradition, amplified its narrative portions,
which are short and sketchy, but thrown off in lapidary style,
so as to give them more colour and completeness; he has
partly incorporated within his pragmatism individual sayings,
and, less frequently, even longer portions of discourses, occa
sionally transforming them with considerable freedom. This
explains why it is that, as compared with the first Gospel,
which has often used the apostolic source with greater fidelity,
and has even adhered to it where its redaction by Mark lay
before him, our second Gospel often shows a secondary text,
by means of which criticism has been so frequently led
astray.1 1 Where Matthew and Luke agree as to language, without the intervention of
Mark, we have, accordingly, the very words of the apostolic source which was
used by them. Where they differ from one another, the original form is to be
restored, according to the critical principle, that that form is to be regarded as
secondary, the- motive of which is still recognisable. According to what has been
said above, Matthew has, on the whole, the prejudice of originality in his favour.
Wherever there appears to be an essential difference in the form, we cite the
passage in which the form shows itself to he the most original ; otherwise, we
simply cite Matthew. In the case of sayings where it appeared to be specially
important to show that they occurred in the apostolic source, or where the text
does not appear to be preserved in an altogether original shape in either of them,
we place the parallel passages of both Gospels alongside of one another. Where
narrative portions, expressions, and discourses out of the apostolic source are

56 TEACHING OF JESUS ACCORDING TO EARLIEST TRADITION.
(c) As regards the longer discourses which are peculiar to
Matthew, we may, even without checking them by means of
Luke, consider it as very probable that they are taken from
the apostolic source, and that, after deduction of the doctrinal
peculiarities of the evangelist, they are rendered with sub
stantial fidelity. Even individual expressions, which he
alone has retained, may often be traced back, partly to this
source, partly to an oral tradition which is of equal value.
But since the earliest apostolic source certainly had no history
of the birth, the passion, and the resurrection, everything
which is peculiar to the first evangelist in regard to these is
without the direct guarantee of apostolic tradition. While it
cannot be shown in the case of Matthew that he has used
any other written sources besides those mentioned in notes
a and h, in the case of Luke this is exceedingly probable with
regard to many narrative portions, and at least with regard
to many parables. Now, since he expressly says in his
introduction that he has followed the tradition of eye
witnesses, and appeals to previous works of an analogous
nature (i. 1-3), his sources must either have been of direct
apostolic origin, or they must have been drawn directly out of
apostolic tradition ; they are therefore either of equal value
with the apostolic source or with that of Mark. Wherever,
therefore, a use of such sources can be made probable by
criticism, there even the sections which are peculiar to Luke
prove exceedingly valuable sources for the earliest tradition
of the discourses of Jesus.2
contained in all the three Gospels, the critical operation is, it is true, on the one
hand, more complicated, because the form in Matthew as well as in Luke is often
owing to that of Mark ; but, on the other hand, the result is also often so much
the more certain. We shall frequently have to be satisfied with the relatively
most original form. But, on the one hand, that which is absolutely certain (and,
seeing that Matthew and Luke are so frequently in substantially perfect agree~
ment, there is not little that is so) affords a firm basis and a, guiding rule for
the criticism of that which remains ; and, on.the other, biblical theology may be
satisfied with having brought out the relatively most original form which we
have received of tradition relating to the teaching of Jesus (and also in regard to
His life, so far as it comes under our notice, according to § 9, c). Where the
Gospel of Mark is the original source, it is always cited without regard to the
evangelists who use it. In such a case, these have no independent value.
- Since Luke, indeed, takes much greater liberty than Matthew in the use
that he makes of the apostolic source, the portions containing discourses that
are found in him alone, even where they are in all probability to be regarded as

§ 11. EMPLOYMENT OF THE THREE SYNOPTIC GOSPELS. 57
(d) It is only the manner in which Matthew and Luke
have used Mark that can be directly checked ; but even the
portions of the apostolic source containing discourses which
have been used by both, independently of one another, are
partially preserved with such agreement in language, that
we can easily perceive its whole character, and can, accord
ingly, also show, for the most part with considerable certainty,
where one or both have changed the original form. At least,
we thus obtain a wide field upon which we can make
observations as to how far the freedom of the evangelists in
using their authorities went. And here the suspicion
awakened by the Tubingen school, that they have sub
stantially transformed their material in accordance with
doctrinal tendencies and varying movements of the age, and
have amplified it by altogether free compositions, is shown to
be totally groundless (cf. even Biedermann, p. 223). The
variations of the evangelists from their sources are explained,
for by far the greatest part, by literary .motives, by the en
deavour to illustrate, to explain, to make the thought more
emphatic, or to weave the sayings, which are contained in the
earliest tradition in a disconnected form, into a definite con
nection, in which, it is true, their original meaning is
occasionally altered. That which appeared apt to be taken
in a wrong sense they have rather omitted than made
unintelligible. Even where figurative utterances or parables
are plainly applied and transformed in a manner contrary to
their original meaning, their original reference is still, for the
most part, apparent in some way or another. That which
can be proved to be an addition of an evangelist so often
shows, so far as we can still check it, the endeavour to
attach itself in form and import to one of the older sources,
that the same can be assumed with good reason of the
derived from the apostolic source or from a tradition which is of equal value, do
not, at least as to their form, warrant the same certainty as the analogous
sections in Matthew. Yet, even here, after deduction of whatever can be
shown to be a doctrinal peculiarity of the evangelist, we may nevertheless count
upon a substantially faithful tradition, especially where the original meaning
still shines through the divergent explanation and application given to it by
Luke. On the other hand, that which has been said of the history of the
infancy, of the passion, and the resurrection, in Matthew, applies also to the
similar sections in Luke,

58 TEACHING OF JESUS ACCORDING TO EARLIEST TRADITION.
comparatively few cases where such a check is no longer
possible. The proof of this lies clearly before our eyes when
we consider that which turns out to be a doctrinal peculiarity
of our three Gospels as Gospels ; 3 from that it will be easy
to perceive how little occasion it gave to make a substantial
change upon the oldest tradition.
§ 12. Previous Works on this Subject.
The earlier representations of the teaching of Jesus
start from points of view which are too different from ours
to be fruitful for the task that we have assigned ourselves.
(h) The same applies, it is true, also to Schmid and Eeuss ;
but they have, in many points at least, shown the way to
represent the teaching of Jesus in its specific peculiarity.
(c) Baur has attempted to reduce the teaching of Jesus to an
altogether general ethico-religious principle, (d) Hence the
task still remained to represent it from its historical central
point, and in its inner connection.
(a) Although Bauer has this advantage over de Wette and
v. Colin, that he treats of the Synoptists apart from John, yet
he agrees with them in treating of the teaching of Jesus
according to the same scheme as the teaching of the apostles.
In the first section (" Christology," cf. vol. i.) doctrinal and
historical matters are mixed together in a vague manner ; in
the other two sections (" Theology " and " Anthropology," cf.
vol. ii. § 7-42) he discusses the names of God, His existence,
His unity and attributes, creation and providence, the origin,
name, and communication of sin, etc., and, with special detail,
the doctrine of immortality ; whereas it is shown in § 9, c,
that all this does not make us acquainted with the essential
peculiarity of the teaching of Jesus, but rather places it, a
priori, under a wrong point of view. In de Wette, some
essentially cardinal points of the teaching of Jesus are already
3 Having regard to the position of our Gospels in the history of the age, we
cannot represent this till Part IV. section 4, where those synoptic expres
sions which I cannot reckon to the earliest tradition will also be discussed.
Where such secondary traits of our Gospels, or passages, as to which s. some
what certain judgment can no longer be pronounced, are quoted by way of com
parison, their use is nevertheless expressly distinguished from that of the real
proof passages.

.§ 12. .PREVIOUS WORKS ON THIS SUBJECT. 59
anticipated in the sketch of His life. After an intro
duction as to its "principle and its character," the "teaching
of Jesus " Himself, like that of the apostles, discusses, first,
the doctrine of revelation (§ 230-233), mainly according to
expressions in John ; secondly, the general doctrine of God,
of angels and demons, and of man (§ 234-245), to which
that which has been said of Bauer's two last sections sub
stantially applies; and, finally, the doctrine of salvation
(§ 246-254), in which the most that is said really belongs to
the question. What has been said of de Wette applies, -in
substance, to v. Colin, in whose representation the "un-
symbolical doctrine of religion" (§ 141-153) really dis
cusses the same questions as de Wette's second section,
only that the doctrine of revelation appears here as the
second division of the doctrine of man and his relation to
God within revelation, while the " symbolical doctrine of the
kingdom of Christ" (§ 154-168) first comes to the kernel of
the preaching of Jesus.
(b) Although Schmid also discusses the teaching of Jesus
according to the four Gospels, yet he consciously makes an
attempt to represent it in conformity with an order of arrange
ment which is derived from itself, and not in conformity with
current dogmatic formulae (cf. p. 121, 125 [E. Tr. 90, 93]).
In doing so, he starts, correctly, from the message of the
salvation which has appeared (p. 122 [E. Tr. 90]); but when
this message is, according to § 20, discussed under the
following heads: the doctrine of the glorification of the
Father in the Son (an idea which is formed altogether from
discourses in John), of the redemption of men through the
Son, and of the kingdom of God by means of which this
glorification and redemption are realized, it is altogether out
of keeping with that which is characteristic of the teaching of
Jesus, to make the idea of the kingdom of God appear first at
the close, instead of at the beginning, — a difficulty which
Schmid has indeed felt, but which he has by no means got
rid of (p. 124 [E. Tr. 92]). It is only in appearance, also,
that the dogmatic scheme is forsaken; within the several
divisions it frequently reappears in substance, and hence
thoroughly dogmatic definitions of the nature of God (who is,
according to p. 132 [E. Tr. 98], a "self-comprehending and

60 TEACHING OF JESUS ACCORDING TO EARLIEST TRADITION.
self-existent, but, at the same time, self-communicating life
and being "), of the divine attributes, of the Trinity, of the
different states of Christ, of the Church with its means of
grace, etc., are ascribed to Jesus. Only the order of salvation
is, here and there, treated of in an arrangement which is
original, but by no means always lucid, or in keeping with
the character of the teaching of Jesus. Eeuss (i. p. 149-270
[E. Tr. i. 127-232]) ingeniously connects the development of
the teaching of Jesus with Mark i. 15, and accordingly treats
first of the relation of the gospel to the law; then there
follow the sections : du royaume de dieu, de la conversion,
de la perfection, de la foi, de la bonne nouvelle, with the
latter of which there are connected the sections : de fils de
l'homme et de dieu, de l'eglise and de l'avenir. This is the
most successful attempt which has been made as yet to give
a representation of the teaching of Jesus in so far as it has
become the basis of the teaching of the apostles (cf. i. p. 158
[E. Tr. 134 f.]), although here also the intermixture of expres
sions from John is not to be approved of as regards method,
and the arrangement is not everywhere in keeping with the
design. (c) The representation of the teaching of Jesus by Baur
(p. 45-121) starts, it is true, from false critical postulates;
but since it is in our Matthew that we also find the apostolic
source preserved most completely, he, more than any of the
other previous labourers in this department, treats of the
same material from which we think of drawing our repre
sentation. Undoubtedly it is unhistorical in Baur to regard
Jesus as the "founder of a new religion" (p. 45), for this is
certainly not the point of view under which He, in His teaching,
has placed His manifestation ; and although Baur starts cor
rectly from the relation in which Jesus puts His person and
manifestation to the revelation of the Old Testament, he is
forthwith one-sided in taking into account only His relation
to the law, whereas it is with prophecy that the message
regarding the kingdom of God, with which Jesus commences,
finds its points of contact. Hence also he comes to the
thoroughly erroneous conclusion, that the substantial kernel of
Christianity is its ethical element, that the teaching of Jesus
is not so much religion as ethics (p. 65); he conceives the

§ 12. PREVIOUS WORKS ON THIS SUBJECT. 61
idea of the kingdom of God as that of a new ethico-religious
fellowship, without any reference to the Messianic kingdom
which was looked for in consequence of prophecy (p. 75);
and where he does not get rid of the sayings of Jesus as to
His person and work by means of the most arbitrary criticism
(as in p. 86, 88, 99-105), he gives them an interpretation
which empties them of meaning (p. 89—92), and strips them
as far as possible of everything Messianic, in order that he
may retain, in the name of Son, only the expression for the
new principle of the religious consciousness, a principle which
he finds in the idea of God as the Father (p. 115). There
remain, therefore, as the sum of the teaching of Jesus, only
" fundamental ideas and principles, maxims and precepts, as
direct utterances of the religious consciousness" (p. 46). If,
indeed, the development of the doctrine of the apostles is to
issue in diametrically opposed tendencies, then the common
root of these can only have been such an altogether general
ethico-religious principle ; but Baur has not even satisfactorily
shown the connection with that principle of the doctrinal
antitheses which he has discovered.
(d) The representation of the teaching of Jesus will have
to begin with the message regarding the kingdom of God
as the historical central point of His preaching (chap. i.).
When we have once established the meaning of this message
in its relation to Israel's past and to the consciousness of the
present, it will then branch out, of itself, into these divisions :
that the kingdom of God is present in the Messiah and His
activity, that it is being realized in the company of the
disciples, and that it is coming in its future completion.
Everything else can be only the amplification of these out
lines. With reference to the existence of the kingdom of
God in the Messiah (§ 13), it will discuss the Messianic
self-testimony (chap, ii.) and the Messianic activity (chap, iii.)
of Jesus ; with reference to the realization of the kingdom of
God in the company of the disciples (§ 14), it will treat of
that realization as consisting in the righteousness of the
kingdom of God (chap, iv.), and of its empirical form in the
Messianic Church (chap, v.) ; and, lastly, it will close with
the Messianic consummation (chap. vi. ; cf. § 15). The repre
sentation of the teaching of Jesus according to the Synoptists,

62 THE MESSAGE REGARDING THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
which is given in the work of v. Oosterzee (p. 44-79),
which appeared almost at the same time as my Biblical
Theology, follows this order most closely. It also starts with
the kingdom of God and its founder, then treats of the King
of kings and the subjects of the kingdom, and, finally, of
salvation, the way of salvation, and its completion. Immer
builds his representation of the "Eeligion of Jesus" (p. 50-
177) upon a very unstable critical foundation as regards
the synoptic Gospels, which he, a, priori, assumes to be the
only source (§ 44) ; and he also mixes up the historical
point of view with the biblico-theological. His arrangement
of the " leading ideas of Jesus " is simple and suited to the
subject ; but as he prefaces it with a section concerning the
relation of Jesus to the Baptist, so he follows it up with a
discussion as to His relation to Judaism, in which he can,
naturally, only either repeat what he has already said, or state
what ought to have been said much earlier, and concludes
with a psychological explanation of the scene in Gethsemane
and of the words on the cross. Cf. also the excellent article
by H. Weiss : " die Grundziige der Heilslehre Jesu bei den
Synoptikern " (Stud. u. Krit. 1869, 1), and the, in many
respects, valuable " Contributions to Biblical Theology " by C.
Wittichen (Gottingen, 1865-72 : die Idee Gottes als des
Vaters, die Idee des Menschen, die Idee des Eeiches Gottes).

CHAPTEE I.
THE MESSAGE REGARDING THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
Cf. F. F. Fleck, de regno divino, Lips. 1829.
§ 13. The Kingdom of God and the Messiah.
The central point of the preaching of Jesus was the glad
tidings that the kingdom of God was at hand, because the time
was fulfilled in which its coming was expected. (&) Thereby
Jesus attaches Himself to Old Testament prophecy, which
had looked forward to the perfect realization of the dominion
of God, and therewith of the fullest salvation, in Israel, in the
Messianic time, as well as to the popular expectation which,'

§ 13. THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND THE MESSIAH. 63
in consequence of prophecy, could conceive this completion of
the theocracy only under the forms of the national common
wealth, (c) He exhibited in His activity the signs of the
promised time of salvation which the last and greatest of the
messengers of God must introduce, (d) He professed to be
the promised and expected Messiah ; only as such could He
announce the advent of the kingdom of God.
(a) It is neither a piece of religious information nor an
ethical demand, but a proclamation, that forms the historical
central point of the teaching of Jesus (tcqpva-aeLv, Mark
i. 14, 38, 39). According to the apostolic source, Jesus
Himself, with a plain allusion to Isa. lxi. 1, characterizes His
proclamation as a message of joy to the wretched (Matt.
xi. 5 =Luke vii. 22 : Tnay^ol evayyekl^ovrai)} With special
frequency Mark makes Jesus describe His proclamation as a
message of joy (chap. i. 15, viii. 35, x. 29, xiii. 10, xiv. 9 : to
evayyeXtov). Its import appears from the apostolic source,
according to which Jesus sent forth His disciples on their
probationary mission with the message : tfyyiicev % ftacriXela
tov 0eov (Luke x. 9 = Matt. x. 7) ; and it is with the same
message that Mark mfkes Him appear upon the scene Him
self (i. 15). What this kingdom of God is, is nowhere
expressly said ; the idea is regarded as one quite familiar to
the people. In fact, no one in Israel, which was from the
first to be a kingdom whose supreme Lord and King was
Jehovah, could thereby understand anything else than a
kingdom in which the will of God is fulfilled as perfectly
upon earth as by the angels in heaven (Matt. vi. 10). The
message regarding its nearness does not say that the kingdom
is already there, but neither does it state that it will appear
in a future, however near. It rather assumes that its coming
was expected after the lapse of a (divinely) appointed time, and
announces that this time has elapsed (Mark i. 1 5 : ¦jreifXijpcorat,
6 icaipos), and that therefore the advent of the kingdom of God
is immediately at hand.
1 The »»p/ (Qi)3J)) are neither to be conceived of as the literally poor in the
narrower sense, nor as the spiritually poor in the religious sense ; it is the
whole nation which is meant in its national wretchedness, a wretchedness
which, it is true, was for the theocratic nation at once of a spiritual and political
nature.

64 THE MESSAGE REGARDING THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
(h) Jesus brings no new theology; the God of Abraham, Isaac,
and Jacob is His God (Mark xii. 26). Thereby the revelation
of God in the Old Testament is acknowledged. The central
point, however, of this revelation was this, that in consequence
of His covenant relation with Israel, God had made known
His will to that people, and had attached the promise of the
fullest salvation to its fulfilment. In the Israelitish theocracy,
accordingly, the realization of that ideal of a kingdom of God
(Matt. vi. 10) had always been striven after; as yet, however,
it had not been attained ; and the present, in which the nation
sighed under the burden of national misery in consequence of
its sins, was as far as possible from corresponding with the
demands of God, or the picture of the future which prophecy
had painted. The kingdom of God which was announced
could therefore be only the realization of this ideal. Now
the prophets, who spoke in the Holy Spirit (Mark xii. 36),
had promised this realization in the Messianic time, and
therefore the message regarding the fulfilment of the time
stated that this promised Messianic time was come.2 Naturally,
prophecy assumes throughout that the completion of the
theocracy, which is to commence at that time, will take place
under the forms of the commonwealth of Israel, whether, as
in the earlier prophets, it is conceived of as a restoration of
the old splendour, and a supreme glorification of the Davidic
kingdom, or as in Dan. vii. 13, 14, as the founding of an
everlasting kingdom which makes an end of all the kingdoms
of the world. Hereupon is based the hope which was then
cherished, especially by the pious in Israel, of an everlasting
kingdom of the promised Son of David (Luke i. 32, 33), of
the restoration and completion of the theocracy, a preliminary
condition of which is political emancipation (i. 68-75,
xxiv. 21). In this sense the people greet in the Messiah the
coming kingdom of His father David (Mark xi. 10), in this
2 Accordingly, the kingdom of God which draws near in it is not a new
religious-ethical fellowship to be instituted by Jesus (Baur, p. 75), but the
completion of the Israelitish theocracy which was promised by the prophets.
The vineyard of the theocracy which was committed to Israel (Matt. xxi. 33)
becomes, in the future of salvation which dawns with the fulfilment of the time,
the kingdom of God (ver. 43). We purposely refrain from using the name
kingdom of heaven, because this term, which occurs only in the first Gospel,
cannot have belonged to the apostolic source. Cf. § 138, c.

§ 13. THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND THE MESSIAH. 65
sense they expect the appearing of the kingdom of God (Mark
xv. 43 ; Luke xvii. 20, xix. 11) or the restoration of the
kingdom of Israel (Acts i. 6).3 It was only in the sense of
this expectation that the people could understand the message
of Jesus regarding the kingdom of God. That which is new in
it is, therefore, simply the proclamation of the joyful fact that
the time is come in which the promised and expected com
pletion of the theocracy is to commence. This was the form
rendered necessary by the history of salvation, the form in
which Jesus had to announce the revelation of God which
was accomplished in His manifestation, and which laid the
basis for the completion of salvation.
(c) According to the apostolic source, Jesus refers the
Baptist, who inquires whether He is the expected one, to the
fact that the signs of the Messianic time, which were foretold
in Isa. xxxv. 5, 6, appear in His miracles of healing (Matt.
xi. 3-5 = Luke vii. 19-22; cf. Matt. xvi. 2, 3 = Luke
xii. 54—56).* In it also Jesus explains to the Pharisees,
when He has shown them that it is in the power of God that
He is able to- cast out devils, how that with the overthrow of
the Satanic powers the kingdom of God is come upon earth
(Matt. xii. 28 = Luke xi. 20). Wherever the dominion of
the powers that resist God is broken, there the dominion of
God is established. If, however, it is in His activity that the
realization of the kingdom of God begins, He is its expected
founder; and therefore the Baptist should not be deterred
from acknowledging Him as the expected one, although He
has not commenced to set up the kingdom in the manner in
3 Notwithstanding the investigations of Holtzmann {Jahrbucher fur deutsche
Theologie, 1867, 3), I believe I must maintain that, at the time of Christ, the
expectation of a personal Messiah in the form of the promised Son of David,
was diffused among the people. It is perfectly true that this was by no means
a direct offshoot of the old Messianic expectation of the time of the kings, but
a product of the study of Scripture, which must, however, have necessarily
become a part of the national consciousness through the activity of the scribes
in the synagogue. Cf. Schiirer, p. 565 ff.
4 No more, of course, than in Isaiah, are these miracles conceived of as
mere credentials of a divine mission ; the restoration of those who are oppressed
by the wretchedness of sickness appears rather as a symbol and prelude of the
restoration which realizes all the promised salvation, of the restoration which
must bring the completion of the theocracy to the nation which is sighing under
the misery of the present, and which is therefore also proclaimed at the same
time to the miserable in the glad tidings (xi. 5).
VOL. L E

6'6 THE MESSAGE REGARDING THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
which the people expected (Matt. xi. 6). When He calls
Himself a messenger of God (x. 40, xv. 24, xxi. 34, 37,
xxii. 3, 4), He appears to rank Himself only in the category
of the prophets, as He does expressly in Mark vi. 4. But
since He declared that the time of prophecy has expired with
John the Baptist (Matt. xi. 13 = Luke xvi. 16), who had
pointed to the Messiah as the one coming after him (Matt.
iii. 11), then He Himself could be only the last and greatest
of the messengers of God, the one who was to bring about
the completion of the theocracy. He had, indeed, in the
same connection, declared the Baptist to be the messenger of
God foretold in Mai. iii. 1, who was to prepare the way of
the Messiah (Matt. xi. 10= Luke vii. 27); He also called
him His Elias (Mark ix. 12, 13, cf. Mai. iv. 5), and
regarded him as the one upon the recognition of whom men's
attitude to Himself depended (Mark xi. 28-33). With His
appearing there has commenced a time of joy for His disciples,
which (Mark ii. 19, 20) He compares with the joy of the
companions of the bridegroom who have assembled to the
marriage feast. Nevertheless, He has forbidden the demons
who recognised Him as the Messiah (i. 25, 34, iii. 12), and
even His disciples (viii. 30), to proclaim His Messiahship
publicly. The proneness of the people to make Him the
hero of the Messianic revolution in the sense of their ex
pectation, which conceived political emancipation as a pre
liminary condition of the theocratic consummation, compelled
Him to refrain from directly proclaiming His Messiahship.
(d) The more, however, the approaching catastrophe of His
life relieved Jesus from all reserve, so much the more openly
has He avowed His Messianic dignity. At Jericho He no
longer refuses the popular invocation as the Son of David
(Mark x. 47), and when He enters Jerusalem He allows
Himself to be hailed as the Messianic King (xi. 8—10).
Before the priests He declares Himself to be the corner-stone
of the theocracy spoken of in Ps. cxviii. 22 (xii. 10, 11 ; cf.
Matt. xxi. 44) ; before His disciples He declares Himself to
be the Shepherd promised in Zech. xiii. 7 (Mark xiv. 2 7) ;
and before the tribunal He solemnly avows His Messianic
dignity (xiv. 62 and xv. 2). He has not, however, imported
any new meaning into the Messianic idea (Baur, p. 93), and

§ 14. THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND THE DISCIPLES. 67
wrested it to suit this meaning ; he was convinced that He
conceived and fulfilled the idea of the Messiah in the spirit
of prophecy. Even His indirect claim of Messiahship (note c)
leads throughout to the conclusion that He professed to be
the Messiah promised by the prophets and expected by the
people. He has pointed to the fact that everything which
stands written of the Messiah must be accomplished in His
fate (Mark xii. 10, 11, xiv. 21, 27, 49 ),5 and that the disciples
have found in Him what the prophets and pious men of the
Old Testament longed to see (Matt. xiii. 17=Luke x. 24).
However far He still came short of that which the popular
expectation in its conception of prophecy (a conception which
was in many ways so one-sided) connected mainly, and often
exclusively, with the Messianic idea, and however far He also
excelled even the richest picture of hope contained in the Old
Testament, in the consciousness of His divine mission which
called Him to be the founder of the consummation of the
theocracy or kingdom of God, which was looked forward to
by all prophecy, He could represent Himself as the one who
was come to bring the Messianic time, i.e. the time of the
promised completion of salvation. In His working in con
formity with His vocation, the will of God, which aimed at
the completion of the theocracy, began to be realized upon
earth ; in the Messiah as the founder of the kingdom of God,
the kingdom was already in the midst of His people
(Luke xvii. 21).
.§14. The Kingdom of God and the Disciples.
The aim of the mission of the Messiah, the realization,
viz., of the dominion of God in Israel, begins to be fulfilled
when a company of disciples gathers around Jesus, in whose
midst is the kingdom of God. (b) It is His activity in
founding the kingdom which brings this fellowship into
existence, and this activity does not consist in a violent
interference on the part of God with the external destinies
of the nation, but is of a spiritual nature, (c) Still, Jesus
nowhere directly designates the fellowship of His adherents
5 Regarding the employment of Old Testament prophecy on its formal side,
see more particularly § 74.

68 THE MESSAGE REGARDING THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
as the kingdom of God; in them as well as in the whole
nation, it rather requires an ever-increasing realization by
means of a gradual development, (d) Not even in their
fellowship can the kingdom of God be yet realized in an
absolutely perfect manner, because the Messianic judgment
does not precede the founding of the kingdom, but falls at
the close of its development.
(a) Not only is the kingdom of God to come in the person
of the Messiah, but the Messiah comes in order that the
kingdom may also be realized in Israel. His activity, how
ever, cannot fail to be successful, and therefore, in consequence
of it, the kingdom of God must also exist somehow or other
outside His person. Now, however, in Matt. v. 3, 10, and
Mark x. 14, the possession of the kingdom of heaven is
plainly described as something which is immediately bestowed
upon those who are qualified for it, and in Mark x. 15 as
something which can be received even in the present life, if
sought for in the right manner. According to Matt. xxi. 31,
there are some who already go into the kingdom of God ;
according to xi. 11 (=Luke vii. 28), there are some who are
already therein. If, however, the least in the kingdom of
God is greater than the greatest among them that are born of
women, who still inquires after the expected one, and stands
in danger of taking offence at Him who has come (xi. 3, 6),
it follows that those who see in Jesus the expected one, and
believe that with Him the kingdom of God has come, have
the infinite advantage over the former of. being already in the
kingdom of God. Already they have part in this kingdom ;
in their fellowship it begins to be realized.
(b) In the parable of the field of various kinds of soil,
Jesus represents His activity in founding the kingdom
(Matt. xiii. 3-9). Since its success depends upon the
condition of men's hearts, just as the success of the labour of
the sower depends upon the condition of the field on which
the seed falls, it follows that this activity is of a spiritual
nature. The oldest Gospel makes it the preaching of the
word (Mark iv. 14). The real point of the parable, how
ever, does not lie in the description of the heterogeneous
nature of the field. The mystery of the kingdom of God
which the parable unveils — a mystery which, it is true, is

§ 14. THE KINGDOM OF GOD AND THE DISCIPLES. 69
intelligible only to the susceptible hearers (iv. 11) — lies in
this, that the founding of the kingdom of God does not take
place in the manner in which the popular expectation
assumed. According to that assumption, there must, first of
all, be a political restoration of the theocracy, a restoration
which is successfully ^accomplished by the employment of
physical force ; whereas * the kingdom is realized only where
the spiritual activity of the Messiah succeeds, and this
success depends upon the condition of men's hearts, so that
the true nature of the kingdom of God is independent of its
realization in the forms of the national theocracy. It does
not come in striking events which attract attention (ovk . . .
fiera irapar'qprja'eoai;, ovBe epovcnv' ISoii wSe r\ e'/cei), as is
evident from the circumstance that it is already in the midst
of those who are still inquiring after its coming (Luke
xvii. 20, 21). '"- The striving after an immediate external
dominion of the world Jesus regarded as a temptation of
Satan (Matt. iv. 8-10).
(c) Jesus teaches even His adherents still to strive after
the kingdom of God (Matt. vi. 33), to pray for its coming
(vi. 10), and to surrender every other possession for this
summum honum (xiii. 44-46, xix. 12). Although it is
therefore certainly existing in His adherents, it is as certainly
not yet perfectly realized even in them ; they are rather
subjects of the kingdom of God only inasmuch as they strive
to realize it, and are, in virtue of their faith in Him as the
Messiah, convinced that this striving will attain its goal. In
general, however, the kingdom of God, which is established so
far as regards its vital germs, must grow with an inherent
productiveness until the day comes which brings its comple
tion. In this sense the oldest Gospel has already recast one
of the parables of the apostolic source (Mark iv. 26-29).
Its realization cannot be limited- to the small circle of the
present adherents of Jesus, for these have been chosen for the
express purpose of bestowing upon others what they them
selves possess (Mark iii. 14 ; Matt. x. 26 f.). The kingdom of
God must spread over the whole nation, like the mustard
seed which grows from small beginnings to a disproportionate
greatness ; it must permeate the whole national life as
leaven permeates bread (Matt. xiii. 31-33). On both sides

o

70 THE MESSAGE REGARDING THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
it appears that the kingdom of God is not established upon
earth in its true nature by means of the individual act of the
expected founding of the kingdom, but by means of a gradual
development. Although there is no indication in these
parables that the kingdom will extend beyond the limits of
Israel, yet, on the other hand, its development is described in
such a manner as causes it to appear no longer dependent
upon the conditions of the Israelitish national fellowship and
its civil commonwealth.
(d) In the parables of the tares among the wheat and the
fishes in the net (Matt. xiii. 24-30, 47 f.), Jesus shows that
the sin which exists in the world mixes as a disturbing
influence, not only during the development of the kingdom of
God in the world, but even at its foundation, so that impure
elements are always anew forcing their way into the circle in
which the kingdom of God is being realized. Nevertheless,
it is not only impossible, but also inadmissible, to keep these
back, or to cast them out ; not till the close of this develop
ment can the separation of the genuine members of the
kingdom of God be undertaken ; then, however, it will be
effected. Herein also Jesus places Himself in the sharpest
opposition to the popular expectation. Even the Baptist had
announced that the separation of the unworthy members of
the kingdom, or the Messianic judgment, would be the first
business of the coming Messiah (iii. 10-12). In the con
ception, however, of the founding and development of the
kingdom of God which is exhibited in notes h and c, it was
naturally implied that the Messianic judgment must be
delayed to the close of this development. When Eitschl
(ii. p. 3 6 f.) opposes this view in consequence of such passages
in John as iii. 18, v. 22, 27, 30, he overlooks the fact that,
on the other hand, it is expressly confirmed by John iii. 17,
xii. 47, viii. 15 (compare § 153 c, footnote 6).
§ 1 5. The Kingdom of God in its Consummation.
The gradual development of the kingdom/ 'of God, as
well as the advent of the Messianic judgment at its close,
points to a future in which its consummation first appears.
(h) Herewith a solution of the contradiction between the

§ 15. THE KINGDOM OF GOD IN ITS CONSUMMATION. 71
prophetic description and the present condition of the
kingdom of God is rendered possible ; but the realization of
this possibility remains dependent upon the attitude of the
people to the proclamation of Jesus regarding the kingdom.
(c) For the present, it is only important that from this pro
clamation the true nature of the kingdom of God be
apprehended ; it is a kingdom which is being realized at
every stage of its development, and has the pledge of its
consummation in the manifestation of the Messiah.
(a) Although the kingdom of God is already existent in
the person of the Messiah (§ 1 3), and is in the act of coming
in the circle of His adherents (§ 14), it is nevertheless still
future as to its perfect realization. Accordingly, even for
the adherents of Jesus, entrance into the kingdom of God is
still conceived of as dependent upon the fulfilment of certain
conditions, and therefore as future (Matt. v. 2 0, xviii. 3) ;
while the ultimate decision is expressly reserved for the
Messianic judgment (Luke xiii. 24, 27; Matt. xxv. 34).
Nay, this future entrance is even made dependent upon their
right attitude to the present kingdom of God (Mark x. 15).
It is to this future completion of the kingdom that Luke
xii. 32 also refers.
(b) With the manifestation of the Messiah or the Messianic
time, prophecy had always connected the idea of a future
glorious form of the kingdom of Israel, in which all the
promised salvation should be reabzed. If the former had
appeared while the latter had not yet taken place, then, on the
one hand, prophecy was fulfilled ; on the other, it still waited
for its fulfilment. If it lay, however, in the nature of the
kingdom of God, that, from the time of its being founded, it
should gradually develop to its completion, then on the way
to this completion, that of the national theocracy might still
take place in the manner in which the prophets had promised.
Jesus has not said that this expectation will be fulfilled,
but neither has He ever spoken against the popular expecta
tion which was based upon the prophetic promise. Now in
this form, now in that, all the prophets had made the fulfilment
of their promises dependent upon the behaviour of the people.
Whether and how far, therefore, the prophecy regarding the
glory of the kingdom of Israel could be fulfilled, remained

72 THE MESSAGE REGARDING THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
dependent upon the issue of the Messianic activity of Jesus.
This question could not be answered until this issue began to
show itself in a more and more decisive manner, and even
then it could not yet be answered definitively (cf. § 28, d; 42, h).
(c) Still it appeared as if prophecy had connected together
the commencement and the completion of the future Messianic
time of salvation in an inadmissible manner. But as soon as
only the nature of the kingdom of God is rightly conceived
(cf. Matt. vi. 10, for which see § 13, a), it is self-evident
that it exists at every stage of its realization, inasmuch as at
each stage the will of God, which aims at the completion of
salvation, is being realized, and that, therefore, the promised
future time of salvation has really commenced with the
appearing of the Messiah. On the other hand, the pledge of
the consummation of the kingdom of God is given with the
manifestation of the promised Messiah, and in so far this con
summation is always ideally present. For the very reason
that the sending of the Messiah is a divine deed which bears
in itself the certainty of its accomplishment, the whole future
time of salvation is already ideally given with it in the
present time of salvation. It has been thought that, to be
philologically correct, we must always explain the fiacriXeia
tov Qeov in the same manner, so as to make it refer to the
future Messianic kingdom. But the point in question here is
not the different meanings of a word, but that the idea
expressed by this word is no mere ideal which waits a future
realization, but an idea which is always being immediately
realized for the very reason that it is certain of its fullest
realization. It is this interpenetration of present and future, of
ideal and reality ; it is this certainty of its completion at every
stage of the empirical realization of the kingdom of God, which
has become an inalienable moment of the Christian conscious
ness in consequence of the teaching of Jesus.

§ 16. THE SON OF MAN. 73

CHAPTEE II.
THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS TO HIMSELF AS THE MESSIAH.
Cf. L. Th. Sohulze, vom Menschensohn und vom Logos, Gotha 1 867 ; K. Fr,
Nbsgen, Christus der Menschen- und Gottessohn, Gotha 1869.
§ 16. The Son of Man.
Cf. Baur, Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann in d. Zeitschr. fur wiss. Theol. 1860, 63, 65 ;
Nebe, uber den Begriff des Namens, » vus rati mlf., Herborn 1860.
Most frequently Jesus calls Himself the Son of man,
for the very reason that this was not, at least, one of the
current designations of the Messiah, (b) For His hearers it
implied that He was not a son of man like all others, but that
He was the Son of man who claimed to be known to all
through that which was peculiar to Him. (c) Now, however,
all His sayings regarding this Son of man point to His unique
calling, whose duties, powers, and divinely-appointed destiny
indirectly characterize it clearly enough as the Messianic.
(d) Finally, however, Jesus has, by His use of the name in
the prophecy of His return, pointed so clearly to Dan. vii. 1 3,
that the tradition could not but understand by it the Son of
man who was chosen for the Messianic calling.
(a) We have not here to consider the question whether he
who comes, in Dan. vii. 13, with the clouds of heaven like a
son of man, in order to be invested by Jehovah with dominion
over the eternal kingdom, was conceived of by the prophet as
a personified aggregate, or as an individual. If, in the time of
Jesus, the expectation of a personal Messiah was. so lively as
the earliest tradition assumes throughout, then, at that time,
the passage could be understood only of the Messiah. But
Jesus could scarcely assume that this single passage was so
well known that the people would, without more ado, under
stand by the Son of man him who is mentioned in Daniel ;
especially as in that passage the Messiah is not at all described
as the Son of man, but only as coming like " a son of man."
It would be different if we could take into account the
explanations and amplifications which the passage in Daniel

74 THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS TO HIMSELF AS THE MESSIAH.
has received in the Book of Enoch. But even if we granted
the pre-Christian origin of the sections of the Book of Enoch
which are in question, we should still be far from proving
that its prophecies were so well known and familiar to Jesus
and the circle in which he mainly worked, that an allusion to
them could be assumed. A reference to Ps. viii. 4 (Schmid,
i. p. 150 [E. Tr. 112]), however, is nowhere indicated, and
would at first give no prejudice for the Messianic significance
of the name. When it is assumed in John xii. 34 that the
people identified the ideas of the anointed and of the Son of
man, we must not overlook the fact that this took place at a
time when there could no longer be any doubt as to the
Messianic claim of Him who used this name as a designation
of Himself. On the other hand, the form of the question of
Jesus in Matt. xvi. 13 contains the correct reminiscence, that
He did not regard this designation of Himself as a direct
designation, which was generally intelligible as such, of His
Messiahship. Not until Jesus Himself, by His use of this
name, led them to remember Dan. vii. 13, could it be regarded
as such. This, however, is quite in keeping with the manner
in which Jesus, during the greater part of His activity, usually
avoided the direct proclamation of His Messiahship, so that He
might not encourage the hopes which were connected with the
current Messianic names (§ 13, c).
(b) Our question is not in what sense Jesus, who, according
to note d, has undoubtedly thought of the prophecy in Daniel,
could adopt a name which, if that prorjhecy is applied to a
personal Messiah, describes Him as a heavenly being who is
invested with sovereignty over the kingdom of God, but how
this designation of Himself must have been understood by the
hearers for whose comprehension of it it was meant (against
Immer, p. 106). These, however, could not possibly think of
a man who regarded nothing human as foreign to Him (Baur,
p. 81). For the genuine humanity of the man who stood before
them, and, therefore, also the weakness that belonged to His
human nature as such, and the fact that it was subject to suf
fering and death (Nosgen, p. 16), — these were points as to which
they had no doubt ; and neither the homelessness (Matt. viii.
20) nor the suffering which is claimed for the Son of man in
Mark viii. 31 belongs to the common fate of man. Just as

§ 16. THE SON OF MAN. 75
little could His aversion to all asceticism (Matt. xi. 18, 19)
awaken the idea of a " simple common man " in opposition
to the national expectation of the earthly glory of the Messiah ;
nor does the reference to His service until death (Mark x. 45)
depend upon His " human nature being, as such, subject to
service and death." Neither, therefore, can the name indicate
a " contrast between His lowliness and His greatness" (Immer,
p. 108 ; cf. Schmid, p. 150 [E. Tr. 112]). Just as little, how
ever, could they understand by it Him who realized the ideal
of humanity (Neander, Leben Jesu, 4th ed. p. 154, 155 [E. Tr.
99] ; £f. also Eeuss, i. p. 230 [E Tr. i. 198]) or the heavenly
ideal man (Beyschlag, p. 26), since the philosophemes which
could lead to this idea were altogether foreign, at least to the
popular consciousness.1 That which is peculiar in the expres
sion o wo? tov avdpdnrov, is not the article before the
genitive, which could describe man according to his genus,
but that before the nominative. It is now recognised that,
without the addition of a pronoun, this cannot be taken as
referring deictically to the person of the speaker. No doubt,
however, it points to the fact that the expression means, not a
son of man among others, but a definite Son of man, whose
uniqueness required no explanation for His hearers. From
this it follows, however, that this uniqueness is not to be
sought in a higher divine nature, which constitutes the
deepest essence of this Son of man (Schulze, p. 215 ; Gess, p.
212); for the idea of such a Son of man (even if we might
seek it in Daniel so directly as Schulze does) was altogether
foreign, at least to the popular consciousness. But, no doubt,
every Israelite who believed in Scripture could, in consequence
of prophecy, know of a Son of man who, because Jehovah
1 Even if germs of the later idea of the heavenly ideal of humanity were
already lying at the basis of the passage in Daniel, yet that idea was so far from
being expressed that Beyschlag should not describe it as "the natural and
generally understood meaning " (p. 17) of this name, a name which does not even
occur as such in Daniel, and which, even according to him (p. 31), was not one
of the popular names of the Messiah. Nor does the connection of Mark ii. 28
with ver. 27 (a connection, moreover, which does not belong to the earliest tradi
tion) contain this idea ; for it is not as the representative head of humanity that
the Son of man has to decide regarding the Sabbath, which was instituted on
man's account ; but as He who brings about the perfect salvation of men, He
teaches them to use, in the right manner, everything which has been ordained
for man's salvation.

76 THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS TO HIMSELF AS THE MESSIAH.
would bring about the completion of salvation through Him,
had such a divine calling as no one had ever had, and as no
one after Him could have, i
(c) That it was thus that Jesus wished the name Son of
man to be understood, appears clearly from the purport of all
the sayings in which He used it. For it is plainly of a man
who has been chosen by Jehovah to a unique calling that
He speaks when He describes the calling for the fulfilment
of which the Son of man has come (Mark x. 45 ; Luke
xix. 10). It is upon this calling of His that the authority
rests, which He claims for the Son of man, to forgive sins and
to decide as to the fulfilment of the Sabbath law (Matt. ix. 6,
xii. 8). Both, however, lead us beyond the prophetic calling
to the Messianic (cf. § 22, a, 24). It is upon that which
is required by His calling that there depends also the manner
of life which was peculiar to Him, in accordance with which
He wanders about homeless (viii. 20) ; and when He con
trasts it, on the other side, with that of the Baptist (xi. 18, 19),
it is plain from the context that it is His calling to come to
His people with the completion of salvation, for He there
declares that the last and greatest of the prophets is the
messenger of God who, according to the Scriptures, was to
prepare the way for Him that brings about that consummation
(vv. 9-14).2 Nor does the manner in which (xii. 32) the sin
against the Son of man is estimated as the most grievous
among those which are still pardonable presuppose a divine
nature ; it only presupposes a unique dignity which, accord
ing to ver. 28, can be owing only to His Messianic calling.
When, however, a fate of suffering, which is divinely appointed
2 When Jesus so applies Mai. iii. 1, in which Jehovah promises to come Him
self to His people as judge and dispenser of salvation, that the preparer of the
way goes before the (addressed) Messiah (Matt. xi. 10), He plainly interprets
the passage in such a manner that it is the messenger of the covenant, named
in the parallel clause, in whom Jehovah comes to His people. But to see in
this an allusion to the divine nature of Jesus (Schulze, p. 49 ; Gess, p. 39) is
mere dogmatism, since the idea which naturally results from the representative
relationship, viz. that the sender comes himself in his ambassador, is common to
the Old Testament as well as to the New (cf. Matt. x. 40). It is altogether in
the same sense that the earliest tradition (Matt. iii. 3) already made Isa. xl. 3
refer to the Baptist, by putting the Messiah Himself in the place of Jehovah,
for whom the voice of the preacher in the wilderness prepares the way (cf. my
Marcusev. p. 39, 40).

§ 16. THE SON OF MAN. 77
to the Son of man, is spoken of in Mark viii. 31, ix. 31, x. 33,
xiv. 41 (cf. Matt. xii. 40 ; Mark ix. 9), that only assumes
what is stated expressly in Mark ix. 12, xiv. 21, viz. that
that which the Son of man must endure in His calling was
already written of in the Old Testament, i.e. that He is the
Son of man promised by the prophets, and, therefore, the
Messiah, just as, according to ix. 1 2, He follows the promised
Elias. (d) If Jesus had, by the manner in which He brought the
name Son of man into connection with His unique calling,
indirectly caused men to think of the Messiah of the prophecy
of Daniel, when He spoke of the Son of man, He has at last
proclaimed His return with an allusion to the Son of man in
Dan. vii. 13, an allusion which was evident and, in conse
quence of the similarity of words, unmistakeable (Matt.xxiv. 30 ;
Mark xiv. 62); and in the first passage, our first evangelist
explains, undoubtedly correctly, the coming of a Son of man
in the clouds of heaven, which is mentioned in the prophecy
of Daniel as the signal of the commencement of the kingdom
of the consummation, to be the sign of the final consummation
which was foretold by Jesus (to <rr)fieiov tov vlov t. avdp.). In
keeping with this, the Son of man is often spoken of in the
discourses relating to His return (Mark viii. 38 ; Matt. xxiv. 44 ;
Luke xvii. 22, 24, 26, 30). The apostolic source, as well
as the oldest Gospel, contains these discourses ; and in the
earliest tradition they must have been regulative for the com
prehension of that designation of Himself. For the very
reason, however, that it was in them that the key lay for this
comprehension, the consideration of Dan. vii. 13 did not yet
suggest to the earliest tradition the idea of Christ as a heavenly
being, who has come down to the earth, seeing that these very
discourses appeared to point to this, that it was not till His
return that He would appear as the Son of man, as Daniel
had beheld Him. As the history of the development of the
doctrine of the apostles shows that it was from the fact of the
exaltation of Jesus to divine glory that the knowledge of His
eternal divine being started, so it lay in the nature of the
self-testimony of Jesus as conditioned by the history of salva
tion (§ 9, c), that He could, doubtless, by the prophecy of
His exaltation, point the way to this development, but that

78 THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS TO HIMSELF AS THE MESSIAH.
he could not with clear words express the deepest mystery of
His person before its completion, which first gave the key for
its comprehension. § 17. The Son of God.
Jesus calls Himself the Son of God, and thereby de
notes His unique personal relationship to God. (5) He thereby
attaches Himself to the figurative language of the Old Testa
ment, in which the name Son of God denotes the elect object
of divine love, and therefore belongs to the Messiah in an
eminent sense, (c) Because He is the elect object of divine
love, Jesus also knows Himself to be entrusted with the
highest, the Messianic, calling, and called to all its rights and
honours. (a) In the earliest tradition Jesus nowhere uses the name
Son of God as interchangeable with that of Son of man, where
He speaks of the position which He had among men in virtue
of His calling, and of His duties and destinies which were
conditioned thereby. On the other hand, He calls upon the
Lord of heaven and earth (Matt. xi. 25, 26 =Luke x. 21),
the Almighty (Mark xiv. 36), as His Father (cf. Luke
xxiii. 34, 46) ; He speaks very frequently of God as His
Father (Matt. vii. 21, x. 32, 33, xv. 13, xvi. 17, xviii. 19, 35,
xxv. 34; Mark viii. 38). It is true He also teaches His
followers to pray to God as their Father, and speaks of Him
as their Father ; still He never places His filial relationship
on the same level with theirs, He never prays to our Father,
or speaks of God as our Father. On the other hand, the
apostolic source has preserved at least one saying where He
calls Himself the Son simply in relation to the Father, in
order, undoubtedly, to express a unique personal relationship
to God (Matt. xi. 27 = Luke x. 22), only that this is not at
all conceived of as a relationship of essence, but as a relation
ship of most inward intimacy with one another.1 The oldest
1 The question is not, whether or not "we believe that we can understand
the reciprocity between Jesus and His Father, which is here expressed, without
a fellowship of essence " (Kiibel, p. 212, note), but whether such a fellowship is
expressed in these words. These, however, speak of the calling of Jesus as the
highest mediator of revelation, and expressly trace back His qualification for

§ 17. THE SON OF GOD. 79
Gospel likewise contains a saying in which Jesus expressly
contrasts Himself simply as the Son with angels and men
(Mark xiii 32) ; but there also the point in question is not as
to a consubstantiality of His essence with that of God, which
Lifts Him above all creatures, but as to the intimacy with the
divine decrees which He could most naturally have, seeing
that He was the Son.
(b) The application of the idea of Sonship to His unique
personal relationship to God was suggested to Jesus by the Old
Testament. Already it knew the idea of a heavenly family
of God, in which the angels appear as the sons of God (Job
xxxviii. 7 ; Ps. xxix. 1, lxxxix. 6). Upon the earth, however,
Israel is the son of Jehovah (Ex. iv. 22 ; Hos. xi. 1 ; Isa.
Ixiii. 16 ; Jer. xxxi. 9, 20 ; Mai. i. 6) in virtue of its election
(Deut. xiv. 1, 2). It may be doubted whether the fact that God
has made (begotten) this people a people is anywhere expressly
thought of as the explanation of this filial relationship ; at
least, the quite predominant application of this idea shows
that it denotes the unique relationship of love into which
Jehovah has entered with this people in consequence of its
election. If we may assume, a priori, that the same idea lies,
that calling, not to His metaphysical essence, but to His unique, perfect know
ledge of the Father ; and the assertion that this already presupposes the con-
substantiality of essence, is only a dogmatic axiom. To point to the $ lav
$o!i\ma.i can be no proof whatever of this ; for, according to the context, this
depends simply upon the fact that the Father has delivered everything to the
Son (the amxpufmv as well as the xTroxxXvvmiv, ver. 25) to be independently
carried out by Him. But neither does the circumstance that no one knows the
Son perfectly save the Father prove that Jesus will here assert of Himself a
superhuman essence in the metaphysical sense. Of course it does not merely
refer to the knowledge of His mission (Baur, p. 114), which every believer
knows, or to the knowledge of His supernatural origin (Beyschlag, p. 60), which
could not be concealed from His nearest relatives, but it refers to that which, in
every case, only the Knower of hearts (Luke xvi. 15) can judge of perfectly,
viz. to the ethical quality of His essence, which qualifies the Son, on the one
side, to be the organ of the divine revelation of salvation, just as His perfect
knowledge of God qualifies Him on the other. For it is only in it that God can
have the pledge that, in His independent activity as a revealer, the Son will
acquiesce voluntarily in the praiseworthy counsel of the Father (w. 25, 26).
When it is objected to this view that the knowledge which is thought of in the
parallel clause cannot be limited to the ethical quality of the essence of God
(cf . Gess, p. 42), the fact is overlooked that, even in the revealing activity for
which the Father knows the Son to be qualified, the point in question is not
as to disclosures regarding the metaphysical essence of God, but as to the revela
tion of His fatherly love to the members of the kingdom (cf. § 20).

80 THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS TO HIMSELF AS THE MESSIAH.
throughout, at the base of this figurative transference of the
human paternal relationship to God, the application of it to
the angels shows that it is not the fatherly generation (Hof-
mann, ii. p. 68) that can be the tertium comparationis, while
its application to Israel as a people shows that this cannot be
found in the natural similarity of essence (Nosgen, p. 132).
If this tertium comparationis is rather the natural relationship
of love, which binds the father to the son, we can easily under
stand how the theocratic king, whom God has placed at the
head of the nation, can be called His son in an eminent sense
as the object of His love and fatherly care (2 Sam. vii. 14),
not in order, thereby, to withdraw from the people anything
of His fatherly love, of which it is assured in virtue of its
sonship, but in order to communicate that fatherly love to it
through him. Because Jehovah has chosen him for His son,
He transfers to him the dominion through which He bestows
all salvation upon the people (cf. Ps. ii. 7, 8). As the making
of the elect nation to be His son can be easily thought of
incidentally as a begetting, so can also the anointing of the
king by which he is made king (Ps. ii. 7). From this, how
ever, it does not naturally follow that, according to the view of
the Old Testament, divine sonship depends upon the possession
of His spirit (Nosgen, p. 146). As soon, now, as they saw in
those Old Testament passages, that extol the ideal theocratic
king as the son of God, a prophecy of the Messiah, this attribute
of Son of God must have become, in the mouth of the people,
the title of the Messiah, and it undoubtedly appears as such in
our Gospels (Mark xiv. 61 ; cf. iii. 11, v. 7 ; Matt. iv. 3, 6,
viii. 29, where it is found in the mouth of the demons who
are doing homage, or of the flattering Satan).2 Naturally, it
2 The renewed attempts to dispute this by Schulze (p. 221 ff.) and Nosgen,
the latter of whom even appeals to the Gentile centurion (Mark xv. 39, p. 149 ff.),
are altogether abortive. Even Gess admits (p. 177) that, in the mouth of the
high priest, the " Son of the Blessed" (Mark xiv. 61) is merely a title of the
o Xpirns, and the (plainly secondary) account given by Luke of this scene
is so far from proving anything against this view, that there the question
whether Jesus is the Christ (xxii. 66) is, after Jesus at first answers it evasively,
expressly taken up again with «Jv in the form whether He is the Son of God
(ver. 70). Just as certainly, however, as the demons in Mark iii. 11 will assert
nothing else of Jesus than he who addresses Him in i. 24 as S £.yn>$ mZ 0eoD, so
certainly is the Son of God nothing else than the consecrated one xxt U^ifr,
i.e. the Messiah.

§ 17. THE SON OF GOD. 81
is not hereby said that this title passed for a mere meaningless
one. The earliest tradition has already fully interpreted its
meaning in the Old Testament sense, when, in the form that it
gives to the heavenly voice which bears witness to Jesus as the
Messiah on the occasion of His baptism and His transfigura
tion, it explains the name Son of God by making it describe
Him as the object of divine love, upon whom the good plea
sure of God rests (Matt. iii. 17, xvii. 5).
(c) It was only in the sense in which it was used in the
Old Testament, and in which it was, consequently, familiar to
His contemporaries, that Jesus could apply the name of Son to
Himself. From this it appears that all the attempts to import
into this self-designation the dogmatic idea of a generation
out of God, or of a metaphysical consubstantiality oT essence
with Him, are simply unhistorical, however much they often
claim to give a conception of the matter which is more in
keeping with the language employed.3 In particular, however,
it was natural for Jesus to use this name, which was applied
to the Messiah in the Old Testament, on those occasions when
He referred to the rights and honours which appertained to Him
who was chosen by Jehovah to the Messianic calling. In
Matt. xi. 27, He already indicates that the independent
3 We must not confuse with this question the totally different one, how Jesus
Himself has arrived at the consciousness of His Sonship. If, according to Matt.
xi. 27, He is aware that He is known to be the organ qualified, in virtue of the
ethical quality of His essence, to be the mediator of salvation, this presupposes,
in the first place, a consciousness of an ethical similarity of essence with God,
a similarity which, according to a metaphorical application of the idea of Son-
ship which is common in the discourses of Jesus (cf. § 21), can also be described
as divine Sonship. Starting from the consciousness of His ethical Sonship, He
has arrived at His official consciousness ; for only he who, in virtue of this
ethical quality of his essence, perfectly realized the will of God in his person and
in his life, could be called to realize this ideal also in the kingdom of God
around him ; and only he, upon whom the good pleasure of God rested in the
fullest sense, could also be the highest object of His love and the elect object of
His confidence. But just as in the case of those who become genuine children
of God through Him (cf. § 21), this divine Sonship in the ethical sense will have
its deeper ground in an original relationship of love on the part of God to Him,
— a relationship which is established by the Father Himself. Whether this
reaches back into eternity and depends upon an original relationship of essence
on the part of the Son to the Father, — on this point the self-testimony of Jesus
could give no disclosure, if it would not altogether transcend the intellectual
horizon of those to whom it was addressed. The development of the doctrine
of the apostles could first enter into these questions.
VOL. I. F

82 THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS TO HIMSELF AS THE MESSIAH.
execution of the highest divine decrees was entrusted to Him
as the Son, and in Mark xiii. 32, that the Son could claim an
acquaintance with these decrees such as no other person could
claim. In the parable, the Father sends the Son to the
husbandmen, because He hopes that, in consequence of their
reverence for the Son of the house, He will thus obtain that
which He could not obtain through His servants (Matt.
xxi. 37). Thus Jesus represents in the most striking manner
the increased authority with which the Son appears as the
last ambassador of God, the ambassador who is to bring about
the completion of the theocracy which had not been attained
by all the prophetic missions ; and, in his allegorizing colour
ing of the parable, Mark rightly describes the Son as the
peculiar object of His love (xii. 6), the maltreatment of
whom must bring down the whole wrath of the Lord of
the vineyard upon its keepers (cf. my Marcusev. p. 387).
When Jesus derives His freedom from the theocratic temple
tax from His relationship as the Son (Matt. xvii. 25, 26), it
is not His supernatural origin upon which He bases this claim
(Beyschlag, p. 6 0), but His position of dignity in the theocracy,
since it alone can decide as to His relation to the theocratic
duties, a relation in which He makes even His chosen ones
participate (ver. 27). If this position is still conceived of
here as that of the king's son as contrasted with the subjects,
in Mark xiv. 62 He, in answer to the question of the high
priest, solemnly avows that He is the anointed King of Israel,
and, in proof of the claim which He thereby makes of being
the elect object of divine love, He points to the exaltation to
divine power and glory which is awaiting the Son of man.
Thus His divine Sonship is the deepest ground of the peculiar
calling which is given Him as the Son of man, and of the
dignity which already appertains and will one day appertain
to Him; for only the elect object of divine love can be called
to the highest calling. § 18. The Anointed One.
At His baptism Jesus has been anointed to be the Mes
siah by the Spirit, who qualifies Him for the activity that
is in keeping with His calling, (b) His mighty deeds have

§ 18. THE ANOINTED ONE. 83
been given Him by God for the purpose of carrying out His
Messianic calling; an omnipotence which He can employ
arbitrarily He does not possess, (c) His higher knowledge,
likewise, ministers to the accomplishing of the work which
has been committed to Him ; but it is not unlimited, (d) As
the Messiah, He is the human bearer of a calling which exalts
Him far above all the organs of the Old Testament theocracy,
and gives Him, as contrasted with all men, a unique dignity.
(a) The very name of Messiah points to the anointing which
consecrated the King of Israel to his calling (1 Sam. x. 1,
xxiv. 7), and which must not be awanting in the case of the
ideal King of the completed theocracy (Ps. ii. 2, xiv. 7). It
continued to be the real technical designation of him who was
looked for, in consequence of prophecy, to bring about that
completion (Mark viii. 29, xiv. 61: o XjOto-ro?).1 Although
Luke alone expressly relates that Jesus applied to Himself
that which is said in Isa. lxi. 1 as to one who is anointed with
the Spirit of God (iv. 18, 21), it nevertheless appears even
from the apostolic source, that He characterized His activity as
that of the anointed one which is described there (Matt. xi. 5 ;
cf. § 1 3, a). Undoubtedly, the apostolic tradition has conceived
of the communication of the Spirit which was made on the
occasion of His baptism in the Jordan (Matt. iii. 16= Mark
i. 10) as this anointing (cf. Acts x. 38). Although it is
probable that, in the apostolic source, the descent of the Spirit
was represented as being seen only by the Baptist (cf. my
Marcusev. p. 49), yet it is self-evident that that which was
beheld by him was conceived of as an objective event.2 The
apostolic source already made Jesus be driven into the
1 Most closely related to this designation are the expression : S S.yw; nd 0uu
(Mark i. 24), which likewise points to the consecration which is received by
anointing (cf. John vi. 69), and the express designation as King of the Jews
(Mark xv. 2, 9, 12, 18), which, in xv. 32, explains the name of anointed. Jesus
Himself has used the name S Xpiens in this technical sense (Mark xii. 35,
xiii. 21 ; Matt. xxiv. 5) ; whether, in the earliest tradition, He ever directly
applied it to Himself, is to be doubted ; for the form of Mark ix. 41 is at least
secondary (cf. Matt. x. 42), and Matt, xxiii.. 10 (cf. my Matthausev. p. 487) is
hardly original. He does so indirectly in Mark xiv. 62.
2 The whole difficulty of a communication of the Spirit to Jesus at His bap
tism is removed when we remember that here, as in the whole of the New Testa
ment (with the exception of Paulinism), the Spirit is already conceived of, not
as the principle of a life which is pleasing to God, but as the principle of the

84 THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS TO HIMSELF AS THE MESSIAH.
wilderness by the Spirit which was bestowed upon Him at
His baptism (Matt. iv. 1), and traces back His expulsions of
the devils to the Spirit of God (xii. 28). Thus the Spirit
with which He was anointed on the occasion of His baptism
shows Him what He has to do as the Messiah, and gives Him
the power to accomplish it ; for both His expulsions of the
devils and His conflict with Satan in the wilderness belong
equally essentially to His Messianic activity.
(b) According to § 13 c, Jesus Himself regards His heal
ings of the sick (Matt. xi. 5 ; Luke xiii. 32) and His expul
sions of the devils (Matt. xii. 28) as essential parts of His
Messianic activity ; He describes them as mighty works, whose
impression He reckons so great, that they could have led Tyre
and Sidon, as well as Sodom and Gomorrha, to repentance
(Matt. xi. 21, 23). Already the apostolic source told not
only of expulsions of demons which Jesus worked by His
word of command (viii. 32), even in the case of absent persons
(xv. 28), but also of other sick persons who were healed by
His mere word (ix. 6, xii. 13), such as even the servant of
the centurion, though he was at a distance (viii. 13). It
makes others be healed by the laying on of His hand (viii. 3,
ix. 2 9) ; but even in such cases it ascribes the healing, not at
all to this external means, but to His will and power (viii. 3 :
6eXw K.a6apicr6r)Tb ; ix. 28: irocrTeveTe oti hiiva^at tovto
itoi,ri<7ai). But it also related other mighty deeds. At His
word the sea became calm (viii. 2 6) ; He caused the damsel
to arise from the bed of death (ix. 25), and fed the five thou
sand with a few loaves (xiv. 19, 20). The oldest Gospel is
full of descriptions of His deeds of healing, whic^ He performs
in the same manner as is described in the apostolic source ;
and the detailed description of the procedure of Jesus, when
He healed by the application of outward means, which occurs
in the incidents that are peculiar to it (Mark vii. 32-35, viii.
22-25), is far from being written for the purpose of diminish
ing the wonderful character of these cures. The walking of
gifts of grace with which God equips His servants for the accomplishing of
their calling. In this sense, even in the Old Testament, Moses (Num. xi. 17)
and the prophets (2 Kings ii. 9, 15), the King of Israel (1 Sam. x. 6, 10 ; 2 Sam.
xxiii. 2), and specially the Messiah (Isa. xi. 2, xiii. 1), receive the Spirit of
Jehovah.

§ 18. THE ANOINTED ONE. 85
Jesus upon the sea (vi. 48 f.) and the cursing of the fig-tree
(xi. 14, 20) are also peculiar to it. Although these mighty
works are nowhere traced back to the Spirit of God so ex
pressly as the expulsions of the devils (note a), yet neither are
they conceived of as emanations of a divine omnipotence which
is His own. They are works which God has done through"
Him, and for which He will have God thanked (v. 19). He
beseeches them from God (vii. 34), and thanks God for the
blessing bestowed upon Him (Matt. xiv. 19). The first temp
tation (Matt. iv. 3, 4) shows, not that He must not misuse, in
arbitrary self-help, a power of working miracles which has
been given Him; but that, notwithstanding His Messianic
dignity, He can do no miracle without an express command
of God. The saying which certainly belongs to the earliest
tradition, although it is applied in xxvi. 53 in a peculiar com
bination, shows that Jesus is confident of the miraculous-
protection of God, if occasion required ; but He must not
arbitrarily summon it forth (iv. 5-7). Even in the second-
temptation, that which is spoken of is not a miracle of display
which He could, but must not, perform ; that which is spoken-
of is presumptuous trust in the miraculous help of God.
(c) As the Son who has been charged by the Father with-
the execution of His decrees, Jesus alone knows the Father
and can reveal Him (Matt. xi. 27). His penetrating look
which discerns the heart (Matt. ix. 4 = Luke v. 22; Matt.
xii. 25 =Luke xi. 17 ; Mark xii. 15) is not conceived of as<
divine omniscience, seeing that, according to Luke vii. 39, it
is expected of every prophet, and ministers to the unmasking
of His opponents. Nor does it, by any means, exclude a-
marvelling (Matt. viii. 1 0 ; Mark vi. 6) and a possibility of
being deceived (Mark xi. 13) on the part of Jesus. Jesus>
beholds, prophetically, the whole counsel of God regarding;
His life and the completion of His work. Like His mighty
works, so neither is His word of prophecy expressly traced!
back to the Spirit with which He was equipped, but, after
the analogy of Old Testament prophecy, it is certainly
conceived of as an emanation of that Spirit. Therefore, His
word of prophecy is, bike the word of God in the Old Testa
ment (Matt. v. 18), imperishable and inviolable (xxiv. 35).
But even here that word does not presuppose divine omni-

86 THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS TO HIMSELF AS THE MESSIAH.
science ; the Son, rather, remains well aware of the limits of
His knowledge (Mark xiii. 32, cf. xiv. 35, 36).
(d) The name Messiah points not only to a peculiar equip
ment, but also to a peculiar dignity. As the one who brings
about the completion of the theocracy, Jesus stands far above
all the organs and institutions which the theocracy previously
possessed. He is exalted above the kings and prophets of
the old covenant (Matt. xii. 41 f.). David has called the
Messiah his Lord (Mark xii. 36, 37) ; the Messiah is greater
than the temple, which forms the holiest central point of the
Old Testament theocracy (Matt. xii. 6). In Him Jehovah
Himself comes to His people (cf. Luke i. 17, 76); whoever
therefore receives Him receives God Himself (Matt. x. 40,
for which see § 16, c, footnote 2). It is nowhere a super
human being to whom these statements point ; but there is
implied in them the claim of such a calling as no other man
has, or can have. This applies, particularly, also to the
sayings in which He makes the fate of men depend upon their
attitude to His person. Blessed is he who is not offended in
Him (Matt. xi. 6), who is persecuted (v. 11), and loses his
life (x. 39) for His sake. Only he who confesses Him will
stand before the judgment-seat of God (x. 32, 33); because
the manifestations of brotherly love are shown to Him, they
prove decisive in the judgment (xxv. 34—46). All the duties
•of piety must yield to men's duty to Him (viii. 22); they
must love Him more than father and mother (x. 37). It is
not implied in this that He is more than a man ; it is implied,
however, that He is the Messiah, in whom is present the
kingdom of God and, therewith, the greatest blessing, and
who can therefore, alone, secure to men participation in this
summum bonum.3 When, however, He is addressed by the
people and by His followers as Lord (icvpte, Matt. viii. 2,
3 The common objection to this view is based upon the consideration whether
a mere man is qualified to be the bearer of such a calling. But when once
Jesus is acknowledged to be the unique man, this question cannot be answered
d, priori ; and although the later development of apostolic doctrine indirectly
answers it in the negative by its testimony to the divine nature of Christ,
yet it by no means follows that we are entitled to use the sayings of Jesus
(who ascribes this very calling to the Son of man) regarding the dignity which
is connected with this calling as arguments for His divine nature, the mystery
of which He would thereby reveal to His hearers.

§ 19. THE SON OF DAVID AND THE EXALTED MESSIAH. 87
vii. 21), this is only the common way of showing reverence,
and not yet the expression for this specific dignity.
§ 19. The Son of David and the exalted Messiah.
Neither has Jesus declined the Messianic predicate of the
Son of David, a predicate for which the preliminary condition
was not awanting in His case, (b) He has never controverted
the expectation that He would be raised to royal power, — an
expectation which was necessarily connected with this name,
— seeing that its realization also remained dependent only
upon the attitude of the people to Him. (c) But as the
course of the development showed that His own people
prepared for Him the suffering which was appointed to the
Messiah in conformity with His calling, He has prophesied
that it was through death and resurrection that He would
be exalted to His position of royal dominion, (d) Then,
however, He has thereby attained to full divine glory, in
which He will yet reveal Himself on the occasion of His
return. (a) Apart from the pedigrees and the histories of the
childhood, which do not belong to the earliest tradition, our
sources for that tradition contain, it is true, no express state
ment regarding the Davidic extraction of Jesus ; but neither
do they contain the faintest reminiscence that His enemies
asserted the want of such descent as an objection to His
claim of the Messianic dignity.1 Among the people He
passed for the Son of David (Matt. ix. 27 ; Mark x. 47) ; and
when Jesus allowed Himself to be called upon as such, this
cannot be explained as the indulgence of a popular prejudice,
seeing that the consequences which were connected with the
1 Considering the onesidedness of the dominant Messianic expectation, which
held altogether predominantly by the prophetic Messianic picture of the great
Son of David, it was inconceivable that any one would allow His claim of
Messiahship who regarded His Davidic descent as even doubtful or mcapable of
being proven ; and considering the great stress which the Jews laid upon this
point, the proof must have been given, if His extraction from the family of
David had not been quite notorious. The silence of Jesus as to this point,
which, were it only for the sake of removing possible stumbling-blocks, must
have been thoroughly settled for all time, is the most eloquent acknowledgment
that He Himself was convinced of His Davidic descent.

88 THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS TO HIMSELF AS THE MESSIAH.
acceptance of such a title (note h) must necessarily have been
fatal to Him. When He indicated that the idea of the
scribes, who thought they could express the whole compass of
the Messiah's dignity by insisting upon His descent from
David, was far too meanly conceived, He proves this by their
very inability to answer the question, whence He who is
called to the Messianic dignity, which raised Him far above
David as his Lord, is nevertheless a son of David (Mark
xii. 35-37). He also was therefore convinced that, in
conformity with prophecy, the Messiah must descend from
David ; but He indicates that it could not be this descent
which gave Him His specific dignity, seeing that this
dignity far surpassed that of a successor upon David's
throne.2 (b) In calling upon Jesus as the Son of David, the expecta
tion was implied that He would mount the throne of His
father David (Mark xi 10, cf. Luke i. 32 f.). Jesus has
never controverted this expectation, which was directly
suggested by prophecy. The words of Mark xii. 35-37
were no doubt well fitted to weaken the objections that could
be raised against His Messiahship in consequence of His
2 When attempts have recently been frequently made to find in these words of
Jesus the intention of disputing altogether the idea of the Davidic descent of the
Messiah, the circumstance has been overlooked that, in that case, He would
only have brought out, by means of Ps. ex. 1, a contradiction within prophecy
(which undoubtedly thinks elsewhere of the Messiah as a Son of David) instead
of exposing an error of the scribes. Nor is the impossibility by any means
evident of a descendant of David mounting higher than His great ancestor, and
being greeted by the latter as his Lord because of the dignity which was lent
Him. Only, in that case, of course, He cannot have attained this dignity in
virtue of His extraction from David. But according to the most original form,
that, viz. , in Mark, the question discussed is not at all whether the Davidic ex
traction of the Messiah is compatible with His full dignity, but whence He must
descend from David, seeing that this descent could not lend Him His specific
dignity (cf. my Marcusev. p. 405). It is plainly the parallel passages that have
first found the salient point of the words of Jesus in the disclosure that the
Messiah cannot be merely a Son of David, but that He must be also the Son of
God. But even this form by no means leads to the consubstantiality of His
essence with that of God (Nosgen, p. 159), or to His supernatural conception
(Gess, p. 128), or even to His pre-existence (Beyschlag, p. 62 ; Schulze, p. 50),
since the idea of Sonship cannot be taken as equivalent in both expressions ; it
only, in an obvious apologetic interest, deduces the divine Sonship of Jesus from
His exaltation to divine power and glory in the sense of Mark xiv. 62 (cf. § 17, c),
although it was not the person of Jesus, but only the Messiah as such, who was
originally spoken of (cf. my Matthdusev. p. 481).

§ 19. THE SON OF DAVID AND THE EXALTED MESSIAH. 89
taking no steps for gaining the royal throne of His ancestor ;3
but they did not assert that His ascending the throne did not
also belong to the fulfilment of Messianic prophecy, and that
this could not, or must not, take place in the course of the
development of His activity. Nor can the silence of Jesus
as to the justification of this expectation be explained as an
indulgence of a popular prejudice ; the eradication of this
prejudice, in a forbearing manner, would have been so much
the more a duty, as this very expectation, when once it saw
itself deceived, must have turned the people away from Him,
and led them to espouse the cause of His enemies.4 Just as
little, however, as it could be determined, a priori, whether,
and in how far, the prophecy of the glory of the kingdom of
Israel would be fulfilled (§ 15, b), seeing that this depended
upon the extent to which the present commonwealth still
showed itself capable and disposed to become the bearer of
the development of the kingdom of God, as little could it be
determined, a priori, whether and in how far that prophetic
picture of a king was still capable of being realized. At any
rate, it was only Israel's fault if it was the returning Messiah
whom its capital first greeted as its king (Matt, xxiii. 39 =
Luke xiii. 35). Nor was Jesus without a right to the worldly
kingdom of Israel ; ' and the history of the temptation (Matt.
iv. 8—10) shows that, in His estimation, this was a possession
which He would only not grasp at by false means. It is true
Jesus has declared Himself absolutely against the Jewish
revolution, because the actually existing Eoman dominion
involves, according to divine right, the duty of subjection, a
3 It was only when, starting from the purely political form of the Messianic
idea, they found the principal note of Messiahship in the claim upon the royal
throne which descent from David warranted, that this could be objected to
Jesus. If, however, He would not, merely as a descendant of David, by any
means have had' the supreme dignity in which David already greeted the
Messiah (cf. note a), then the absence of this note could not, in any way, form
a decisive argument against His Messiahship.
4 Here we see once more very clearly the historical impossibility of Jesus
having conceived His calling as a founder of religion and reformer of the law
only from the point of view of the Jewish idea of the Messiah, in order that His
activity might be favourably regarded (Baur, p. 95). That Jesus accommodated
Himself to a popular idea, and then, nevertheless, put Himself into continual
conflict with the popular form of it, a conflict which must have ultimately
delivered Him over, forsaken by the undeceived nation, to the deadly hatred of
His enemies. — this remains a contradiction.

90 THE TESTIMONY OF JESUS TO HIMSELF AS THE MESSIAH.
duty which could not at all come into collision with their
duty to God (Mark xii. 14-17). If only Israel fulfilled the
latter by receiving God's anointed, and allowing Him to bring
about the consummation of the theocracy in the manner
which was divinely appointed, then it remained God's concern
to fulfil His promise, and, by an interposition of His omni
potence, to raise His elect one to the royal throne, in order
that, through Him, He might also bestow all earthly blessings
upon the nation. Only it remained, that, even when seated
upon the throne of His father, the Messiah had not yet
attained His supreme glory.
(c) Jesus indicates very early that He will be removed
from His disciples by death (Mark ii. 20). But it was only
when the knowledge of His Messiahship was secured in the
case of His disciples, that He began, without reserve, to
reveal to them the fate which was appointed to the Messiah
in conformity with prophecy as more deeply conceived
(viii. 32). As soon now as it was a matter of certainty that
the leading authorities of the nation itself were preparing for
Jesus the death which the divine decree appointed Him, a
completion of the theocracy in the forms of the national
commonwealth, and, therefore, an earthly ascension of the
throne by the Messiah, could no longer be counted upon for
the present. But the ultimate exaltation of God's anointed
to royal glory could not be thereby hindered. The violent
slaying of the Messiah could only furnish the occasion for
God to glorify Him by His wonderful deliverance from Hades,
and thus to give the nation the last and greatest token that
He was His elect one (Matt. xii. 39, 40). In the circle of
His disciples, also, Jesus always connected with the prophecy
of His violent death the allusion to His resurrection after
three days (Mark viii. 31, ix. 31, x. 34).5 This, however,
5 By His resurrection, Jesus, it is true, does not understand a resuscitation to
earthly life, but an exaltation to a state of existence which is raised above the
conditions of earthly life (Mark xii. 25) ; but this exaltation is always conceived
of as a resurrection, i.e. as a restoration of His corporeity, although in a form
which is in keeping with the heavenly life (cf. even Biedermann, p. 232).
That which is peculiar, however, is that Jesus is not, like other men, raised up
at the last day, but after a very brief interval, which is proverbially (cf. Hos. vi. 2;
Mark xv. 29 ; Luke xiii. 32) described by the /ura rfus hpi/as, and that He will
therefore continue in death for only a short time (Matt. xii. 40, ef. Luke

§ 19. THE SON OF DAVID AND THE EXALTED MESSIAH. 91
forms the transition to His heavenly exaltation, in which is
now fulfilled that which was prophesied in Ps. ex. 1 of
Jehovah's anointed. Henceforth the Son of man sits at
God's right hand, i.e. He shares in the divine honour and
sovereignty of the world. It is now that He has, for the first
time, entered into the full sovereign dignity which was
appointed the Messiah ; but it is not the throne of His
father David which He has ascended, it is the world-throne
of His Father in heaven. Although the sin of His people
rendered the former impossible, yet He has nevertheless
herewith attained the ultimate end of His calling, which
David already beheld when he called Him his Lord (Mark
xii. 36).
(d) As partaker of the divine honour and sovereignty of
the world, it is self-evident that Jesus is removed from the
sphere of human and creaturely existence — He is a divine
being. Not until the prophecy regarding the end of the way
which God prepares for His elect one can the last veil which
covers the mystery of His person be removed. In prospect
of this future Jesus can promise His divine omnipresence to
His disciples (Matt, xviii. 20). It is in this future that the
prophecy of Daniel can be first perfectly fulfilled (Dan. vii. 1 3),
— that prophecy in consequence of which the Son of man
who has been entrusted with sovereignty over the completed
kingdom of God now comes, as usually only Jehovah Himself,
with the clouds of heaven (Mark xiv. 62). And He returns
to the earth too, in order to discharge the divine function of
judge of the world (Matt. xxv. 31), with great might and
glory (xxiv. 30), which is described in Mark viii. 38 as the
glory of His Father. He comes accompanied by the angels,
the specific servants of Jehovah, who are now His servants
(Mark viii. 38, cf. Matt. xxv. 31); He Himself now sends
them forth to execute His commands (Matt. xxiv. 31), on
which account the first evangelist now calls them His angels.
It is by His relation to the angels that His position as regards
xxiv. 21). Neither in the prophecy of Jesus nor in the earliest tradition is
the ascension to heaven conceived of as an epoch-making event, so far was
the latter from representing it as an occurrence which was perceptible to the
senses. The (rightly understood) resurrection qualifies Him, of itself, for the
heavenly life.

92 THE MESSIANIC ACTIVITY.
the world is most naturally measured. Only a divine being
can be exalted over the angels.6

CHAPTEE III.
THE MESSIANIC ACTIVITY.
§ 20. The new Revelation of God.
As the Messiah, Jesus has, in the first place, to announce
the dawn of the day of salvation, in which He is the mediator
of a new revelation of God. (b) This new revelation of God
is a revelation of His fatherly love, which is graciously mani
fested to the members of the kingdom in caring for and pro
tecting their earthly life, as well as in hearing their prayers.
(c) In the kingdom of God, accordingly, there is realized the
filial relationship, which, in the theocracy of Israel, could be
realized only imperfectly, (d) This revelation of God, how
ever, is published not only by means of the word of Jesus —
everything that He does is a living illustration of it.
(a) Jesus began His Messianic activity with the announce
ment that the time of the kingdom of God was come (§ 13).
This message, however, presupposes a deed performed by God, in
which He reveals Himself anew to His people ; for the king
dom of God cannot come, unless Jehovah Himself comes to
His people in the person of the promised Messiah, in order to
bring about the completion of the theocracy, and, consequently,
the fulfilment of all the promises. Inasmuch, now, as in the
Messianic time there is attained the ultimate aim of the divine
0 Naturally we need not seek a peculiar doctrine of angels in the sayings of
Jesus. The angels are the inhabitants of the heavenly world in which the will
of God is already done as perfectly as it is to be done in the perfected kingdom
of God (Matt. vi. 10). Those who are raised up will be like the angels (Mark
xii. 25), who are therefore conceived of as having a higher, heavenly kind of
corporeity. They are God's servants, whose miraculous protection Jesus would
not beseech in vain (Matt. xxvi. 53). As such they appear even in the earliest
tradition, in order to reward the Messiah whose obedience has stood the test
(iv. 11). They are higher beings than men, but the Son may already, in conse
quence of His unique relation to the Father, rank Himself above them (Mark
xiii. 32, cf. § 17, a). Nevertheless it is the exalted Messiah who first appears as
their Lord.

§ 20. THE NEW REVELATION OF GOD. 93
purposes of salvation with respect to His people, this is the
last, and highest revelation of God. And since it is by means
of His Messiah that God brings about this time of salvation,
the former is the mediator of that revelation of God, not only
inasmuch as it is through Him that it is accomplished, but
also inasmuch as it is to be made known, as a revelation, to
the people ; and He alone can be the mediator of it, because
He by whom the divine decrees of salvation are accomplished
must also have the most perfect insight into them, and is
therefore able to reveal them as such to the people. From
Matt. xi. 27, it is sufficiently clear that even according to the
earliest tradition, Jesus represented His activity under this
point of view : " no one knoweth the Father save the Son, and
he to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal," sc. what He
knoweth concerning the Father. On other occasions also
Jesus describes His activity as a light which shines with such
clearness that it does not stand in need of signs for any one
who has eyes sound enough to see it (Luke xi. 33-36) ; light,
however, is the symbol of revealing activity (cf. Mark iv. 21,
where the further revelation which is to be communicated by
the disciples of Jesus is compared to a lamp ; Luke xvi. 8,
where they themselves, as those who have been enlightened
by revelation, are called the children of the light).
(b) Seeing that in the Messianic time God brings to His
people all the salvation which they were led to expect at the
completion of the theocracy, He reveals Himself in His highest
love. In the symbolical mode of speech which was adopted
by Jesus, the highest relation of human love is employed as
an emblem of this revelation of the love of God (Matt. vii.
9-11), which, however, naturally finds its realization only in
the kingdom of God which is founded by Jesus. It is by no
means the relation in which God stands to all men (Baur,
p. 116) which it is meant to represent in this way; it is the
members of the kingdom, as whose Father in heaven Jesus
designates God (vi. I),1 and whom He teaches to pray to God
as their Father (ver. 9). In the earliest tradition all the
1 From Mark xi. 25, Luke xi. 13, it is plain that this designation, which owes
its origin to the fact that heaven is God's throne (Matt. v. 34, cf. Isa. lxvi. 1),
was already found in the apostolic source. On the other hand, S rarbp S abfivim
appears to belong to the evangelist (cf. my Matthausev. p. 45).

94 THE MESSIANIC ACTIVITY.
addresses in which this designation is found were distinctly
characterized as addresses to the disciples, i.e. as addresses to
the members of the kingdom (§ 14). In opposition to this
assertion, Matt. v. 45 may be appealed to; but while here, no
doubt, the indiscriminate goodness of God towards good and
bad is held up as a pattern to the children of God, it is by no
means declared that this is already the fatherly love which is to
be manifested to the members of the kingdom. It is no doubt
the God, who feeds the fowls of heaven and clothes the flowers
of the field, to whom Jesus points them (vi. 25-30) ; but it is
only as such as strive after the kingdom of God, i.e. only as
members of the kingdom, that they can be certain that God
knows and satisfies their needs, and thereby frees them from
the anxiety of the Gentiles (vi. 31-33), and that He takes
under His protection even that which is most insignificant in
their life (x. 29, 30). He desires their prayers, but He pro
mises also to the prayer of faith an assured answer (Matt.
vii. 7-11 = Luke xi. 9-13 ; Mark xi. 23, 24 = Luke xvii. 6),
provided it be very persevering and does not become faint
(Luke xi. 5-8, xviii. 1-7). That the completion of salvation
extends its blessings even over the whole of the earthly life
is a fundamental thought of Old Testament prophecy, which
the New Testament fulfilment nowhere denies. Even the
members of the kingdom pray daily, full of trust, to the
Father in heaven for their necessary daily bread (Matt. vi. 11).
(c) It is an erroneous assumption that the proclamation of
God as the Father of the members of the kingdom involves a
new representation of His nature. In the Old Testament also
Israel is the son of God, as God is its father (§ 17, h) ; but,
corresponding to the standpoint of the Old Testament revela
tion of God, it is only Israel as the theocratic people, whether
this now is represented collectively as a whole or as a majority.
The chosen people, as such, is assured of the fatherly love of
God ; but the salvation of the theocracy as a whole does not
depend upon what befalls the individual, any more than the
realization of the kingdom of God in each individual is involved
in the realization of the theocracy in the people as a people.
Accordingly the individual invocation of God as Father is still
awanting in the Old Testament. Later the consciousness
dawns that the pious members of the old covenant, in whom,

§ 21. REPENTANCE. 95
as its true members, the nature of the theocracy is realized,
may, in a special sense, assure themselves of the fatherly
love of God (Ps. ciii. 13, cf. Wisd. ii. 16, 18 ; Sir. xxiii. 1, 4,
li. 14). If, however, it is in the Messianic time that the
theocracy attains, its completion, then it must also be in this
time that the paternal relation of God to His people is first
fully realized. And if this completion depends upon this,
that in each individual the idea of the kingdom of God is
realized, because the participation of the individual in the
completed theocracy is dependent no longer upon his partici
pation in the commonwealth as such, but upon the issue of
the activity of Jesus in founding the kingdom (§ 14, b), then
also each individual who belongs to the kingdom of God can
call upon God as his Father.
(d) The Messianic activity of Jesus consists not only in His
teaching, but also in His doing ; in the latter also, therefore,
the new revelation of God must be given. His doing, how
ever, was pure benevolence, in it was. revealed the fatherly
love of God, who comes to His people in the Messianic time
with the fulness even of earthly blessing. Accordingly, His
healings of the sick are an essential part of His Messianic
activity; the deliverance of the children of Abraham from
their bodily evils (Luke xiii. 16) is His real calling (cf.
Biedermann, p. 230). Wherever Jesus came, the sick were
healed, the hungry fed, the threatening waves of the sea had
to be still. Hence He could point to His miracles of healing
as to the signs that the time of the expected salvation was
come (Matt. xi. 5, cf. § 13, c) ; hence He bade His disciples
accompany the preaching of the nearness of the kingdom of
God with the same signs (x. 8).
§ 21. Repentance.
As the Messiah, Jesus has not only to announce the coming
of the kingdom of God, He has also to found it, and for this
the preaching of repentance is required, (h) But His word is
not, on that account, merely a resumption of the prophetic
preaching of repentance ; it does not merely demand, it also
promises, the indispensable renewal, (c) This is spontaneously
effected by means of the vigorous working of His message

96 THE MESSIANIC ACTIVITY.
of salvation, and of the revelation of God which it contains.
(d) Here, too, however, it is not only His word which works,
but the whole of His life is a powerfully working example.
(a) It is the task of the Messiah to realize among the
people the kingdom of God, in which God's will is done per
fectly upon earth (Matt. vi. 10). In the theocracy, however,
as it has been hitherto realized in Israel, the will of God has
not been done. Jesus assumes it as self-evident that men are
evil (Matt. vii. 11), and that they differ only in the degree of
wickedness (Luke xiii. 2-5). It is only hypothetically that
(Mark ii. 17 ; Luke xv. 7) He speaks of righteous men ; those
who, along with the prophets, are called righteous (Matt. x. 41,
xiii. 17, xxiii. 29, 35), are the God-pleasing pious men of the
old covenant, and those who are being persecuted for righteous
ness' sake (v. 10 : eveicev BiKaioavvr]<;, without the article) are
the same as those who hunger after righteousness (ver. 6), since
the existence of a righteousness is still far from involving the
perfect righteousness. It is only comparatively that good and
bad are spoken of (v. 45, xii. 35, xxii. 10). The call to
repentance, therefore, with which Jesus makes His appearance
(Mark i. 1 5 : fieTavoeLTe), and with which He sends forth His
disciples (vi 12), is addressed to all without distinction.
How far this call was the soul of His proclamation appears
from the fact that unsusceptibility to His teaching is charac
terized as a want of readiness to repent (Matt. xi. 20, xii. 41,
xxi. 32 ; Luke xiii. 3, 5). No doubt it is with reference to
the most depraved classes of the people that Jesus says He
is come to call sinners to Himself (Mark ii. 1 7) ; but He says
it in such general terms that it is plain that He feels Himself
to be the physician of sinners with respect to the whole of
mankind, and it is from this very fact that He derives the
right to call to Himself even the most depraved, who need
Him most. Without repentance, however, sinners cannot
participate in the kingdom of God.
(h) If the hearing of the word of Jesus is the one thing
which is needful (Luke x. 42, cf. ver. 39), and if this hearing
must always be accompanied with doing (Matt. vii. 24), then
His preaching seems to have been nothing else than a renewed
inculcation of the divine will ; it seems to be like the preaching
of the prophets, which also always began with the demand of

§ 21. REPENTANCE. 97
a general conversion and repentance. But recently the Baptist
had appeared with such a demand, and had caused the solemnly-
vowed repentance to be ratified by the symbolical act of sub
mersion in the Jordan (Mark i. 4 : BaTTTio-fia fieravolas).
Indeed, Jesus represents Himself (Matt. xxi. 37) as the last
in the series of those who were sent by God to bring to the
people and enforce upon them His demands. When, how
ever, on the other hand, the Sermon on the Mount calls blessed
the spiritually poor, those who are mourning because of their
poverty, and those who are hungering after righteousness
(Matt. v. 3, 4, 6), it is implied that Jesus comes, not, in the
first place, to demand, but to bring something; and it is
expressly promised them that they shall be filled with right
eousness. Thus righteousness appears, not as something
demanded, but as a gift, and it is as a gift that they have
already been led to expect it by Messianic prophecy (Isa.
lxi. 10, xiv. 24 ; Jer. xxxiii. 16). When Jesus (Matt. xi. 28)
promises rest to those who are labouring under the burden of
the law, this is not (with Baur, p. 115) to be referred to the
pressure of the Pharisaic ordinances, as if He were to ease
them of this pressure by putting the inner value of the moral
disposition in the place of the external service of the law.
In this way He would not ease them of their burden, but
would render it more oppressive for every upright heart.
Eest for souls is found only when the way is pointed out
which leads to righteousness, i.e. to the fulfilling of the
divine will.
(c) This apparent contradiction between the two sides of
the proclamation of Jesus is resolved only by the fact that
the new revelation of God, which is brought in the message
concerning the kingdom of God, spontaneously works the
repentance which Jesus demands. God does not demand
that man should meet Him; He Himself meets man with
graciousness, and thereby does the utmost that lies in His
power to make man capable of the repentance, in which He
has His greatest joy (Luke xv. 4-10). He does not make
His revelation of salvation dependent upon the conversion of
the people, as in the preaching of the prophets ; He will
work this conversion by the revelation of His grace. He
comes in the person of the Messiah, and brings the time of
VOL. I. G

98 THE MESSIANIC ACTIVITY.
the completion of salvation. Whosoever now accepts the
joyous message concerning the kingdom of God is a member
of the kingdom; he knows himself to be a child of the
heavenly Father ; and with this knowledge there is implanted
in him a totally new principle for his religious-moral life.
The child must be like his Father (Matt. v. 45, 48) ; this is
not the demand of a new law ; it is, as it were, a necessity of
nature within the province of the kingdom of God. The
relation of sonship, which is constituted by God Himself,
must also be realized, on the part of man, in the becoming
bearing of the child. The member of the kingdom has not
yet to become a child of God ; he is a child of God, and
therefore he cannot but always will to become so more and
more in perfect moral likeness to Him.1
(d) Here, too, the Messianic activity of Jesus consists not
only in His teaching, but also in His doing. What the
children of God are yet more and more to become, that the Son
of God already is in a perfect manner (cf. § 17, c, footnote 3).
Accordingly, those are His nearest relatives who do the will
of God as He Himself does it (Matt. xii. 50; see my Marcus-
evangelium, p. 134). He is come to fulfil the law (v. 17);
He yields Himself unreservedly to the will of God (Mark xiv.
• 36) ; in Him and in His life the will of God is always per
fectly realized. It is no contradiction to this that He will
have the predicate aya66<; reserved for God alone (Mark x. 18
= Matt. xix. 17), because man, without exception, can become
1 This metaphorical application of the idea of sonship rests upon the fact
that only like can originate from like, that the son cannot but resemble his father
(cf. Matt, xxiii. 31). It lies also at the basis of the saying in Matt. v. 16
(which probably does not belong to the earliest tradition), according to which
the light of the new revelation of God spontaneously streams forth from the
good works, by means of which the members of the kingdom imitate, in their
doing, the revelation of God's fatherly doing, to the glory of Him who has made
Himself known to them in His Messiah. While, therefore, the repentance
which is demanded by Jesus is worked by means of His proclamation of salva
tion, the Holy Spirit is not yet conceived of as the principle of this renewal. It
is true the earliest tradition preserves the allusion of the Baptist to the baptism
of the Spirit by the Messiah (Matt. iii. 11), but the only promise of the Spirit
which is found in the words of Jesus relates specially to the equipment of His
apostles for the defence of the gospel before the courts of justice (x. 20). When
and how the prophetic promise of the general outpouring of the Spirit is to be
fulfilled, and what this will bring to the members of the kingdom — on these
points nothing is yet said.

§ 22. THE MESSIANIC SALVATION. 9 9
good only by the progressive performance of his moral task.
Even Jesus has still to prove His moral perfection in the
battle of life with His temptations (Luke xxii 28); not till
the close will He be approved as the good, like the servants in
Matt. xxv. 21, 23. At every step of this way, however, He
corresponds to the ideal ; for He has never in any way put
Himself on a level with the sinners to whom He has come,
considered simply as sinners. The whole of His moral bearing
is, accordingly, exemplary in an absolute sense (Matt. xi. 29 ;
Mark x. 45). In Him the child of God beholds the ideal of
moral likeness to God realized every moment. It does not
present itself to him as a legal demand, but it brings him
the blessed assurance, that what, according to c, he wills to
become, that he also can become in fellowship with Jesus.
Thus, in following Him, to learn of Him, is an easy yoke and
a light burden, — this is the way which leads to the rest of
souls (Matt. xi. 28-30), to full satisfaction with righteous
ness (v. 6). § 22. The Messianic Salvation.
Along with the completion of the theocracy, Jesus, as the
Messiah, also brings salvation to the members of the kingdom
by means of the forgiveness of sins which was expected in
consequence of prophecy, (b) A leading feature of the new
revelation of God, which He brings, is the proclamation of the
pardoning love of God, which is limited only by the blas
phemy of the Spirit. (c) But the Messiah does not only
proclaim the forgiveness of sins, by means of His atoning
death He also secures it, and so establishes the new covenant
of grace and forgiveness.
(a) The completion of salvation, which begins with the
founding of the kingdom of God, has, for its obverse side,
deliverance from the ruin to which the nation is exposed in
consequence of sin. Lost sheep, Jesus calls the present
generation of the theocratic nation (Matt. x. 6, xv. 24). He
is come as the Son of man to save that which is lost (Luke
xix. 1 0). If this is effected, on the one hand (as is shown
by the story of Zaccheus, of which this saying forms the
salient point), by sinners being led to repentance ; yet, on the
other hand, it is also necessary that the guilt of the past be

100 THE MESSIANIC ACTIVITY.
removed from them by the forgiveness of sins. Such a for
giveness they were led in many ways to anticipate in the
Messianic time (Isa. xliii. 25, xliv. 22 ; Jer. xxxiii. 8 ; Zech.
iii. 9, xiii. 1 ; Dan. ix. 24), and in consequence it was a lead
ing feature of the Messianic expectation of the pious in
Israel, who acknowledged their sins (Luke i. 77). Accord
ingly, Jesus promises the comfort of forgiveness to those who
were mourning because of sin (Matt. v. 4). As the Son of
man He claims power to proclaim upon earth the forgiveness
of sins which God bestows in heaven (ix. 6, cf. ver. 2), and
bequeaths this power to His Church (xviii. 18), in order
thereby to ensure to it one of the most essential blessings of
the kingdom of God (cf. Luke xxiv. 47).
(b) The proclamation of the forgiveness of sins is but one
moment in the new revelation of God which Jesus brings.
The parable in Luke xv. 11-32 shows how it is in keeping
with the fatherly love of God to joyfully receive His penitent
returning son (and according to § 20, 21, such an one is
every member of the kingdom), and pardon him all his sins.
Every one, however, stood in need of this forgiveness ; the
parable in Matt, xviii. 23-27 takes for granted, that to every
member of the kingdom of God there has been remitted an
infinite debt, and the prayer of the kingdom teaches them to
pray for forgiveness in the same way as for daily bread (vi. 1 2).
The present day of salvation, however, is the time when re
conciliation with the creditor is still possible by means of the
forgiveness which is proffered by the Messiah. It is neces
sary to use this time, before the judgment draws on, from
which there is no escape (Luke xii. 58, 59). Every sin can
still be forgiven, even the most heinous — the blasphemy of
the Son of man. Only he who persistently denies the power
of God which is more and more clearly manifesting itself in
the works of the Son of man, and so blasphemes the Holy Ghost,
has committed a sin which cannot be forgiven, because it is
the sign of enduring obduracy (Matt. xii. 31, 32).1
1 Like the new revelation of God in general (§ 21, c), neither can this side of
it remain without a direct influence upon the life of the members of the king
dom. The debtor, to whom much is forgiven, will love the creditor most (Luke
vii. 41-43) ; from the love which is shown to the Messiah it is evidenced that
one has received through Him the great blessing of forgiveness of sins (vii. 47).

§ 22. THE MESSIANIC SALVATION. 101
(c) Here also the Messianic activity of Jesus consists not
only in His teaching, but also in His doing. No doubt, His
death is a divine necessity, an element in the lot of suffering
which was foreseen in prophecy, and appointed to the Son
of man in conformity with His calling (§ 16, c); but He
nevertheless surrenders His life in the free fulfilment of His
calling, in order to complete the service which He came to
render; and it is thereby that He procures the salvation
which, by His proclamation of the forgiveness of sins, He led
the members of the kingdom to anticipate (Mark x. 45). If,
viz. in viii. 36 f., He asserts that no man, even although he
should gain the whole world, possesses anything which would
be of sufficient value in God's sight to redeem his soul (cf. Ps.
xlix. 8—10), which (on account of sin) is forfeited to destruc
tion, He here (x. 45) regards the fulfilment of His calling,
which is accomplished in the surrender of His life, as a
performance which is of such value in God's sight, that it
avails as a ransom which He gives instead of the many who
were not in a position to provide it themselves.2 Hereby,
If the child of God must resemble his Father, this is especially true of the for
giving love which he shows to his enemies (Matt. v. 44 f.). Where the forgive
ness which has been experienced does not produce the readiness to forgive the
fellow-servant, which according to its nature it ought to produce, then that
forgiveness can only be withdrawn (Matt, xviii. 28-35). If, accordingly, the
members of the kingdom are always praying anew for the blessing of forgive
ness, they are to remember that it is only as children of God who have allowed
themselves to be induced, by the forgiveness they have already experienced,
to forgive also their debtors that they can receive it (vi. 12 : as «) iifctTs
a.<pvKKfiui). It is neither the ground nor the measure of the solicited forgiveness
which this additional clause is meant to express ; it states the presupposition
under which alone the whole prayer can be offered up, because it is the prayer
of the members of the kingdom, who have received the Messianic blessing of
forgiveness, and are thereby moved to perform a similar act.
2 The right understanding of this passage depends essentially upon our taking
xvri, not along with xirpn, but along with the whole clause (ef. Ritschl, ii. p. 85).
That the death of Jesus is equivalent in value to the death of the many, and in so
far stands in its stead, is not stated here ; and no more does the saying directly
assert that He surrenders His life-in order that they need not surrender theirs,
and in so far redeems them. Nor is it directly stated from what it is that the
ransom paid by Jesus in their stead redeems them ; according to viii. 36 f.,
however, it is undoubtedly the fate of death to which they were exposed on
account of sin ; for to find this, with Ritschl, directly in xirpti, by giving to it
the meaning of a preservative against dying, in consequence of the Hebrew
*)S3> appears to me at least very doubtful. That the soul of Jesus, as being
guiltless, was not forfeited to death, and that thus He was specifically dis-

102 THE MESSIANIC ACTIVITY.
then, there was given the solution of the enigma of His death,
inasmuch as it was represented as the means of delivering the
many (i.e. unquestionably all the members of the kingdom)
from the destruction to which they must have been delivered
over in death because of their sins.3 It is true that the
members of the kingdom are, from the very fact that they are
in the kingdom of God, assured of the sin-pardoning grace of
their Father ; but if it was His life's work to establish the
kingdom of God, and if that work reached its climax in the
surrender of His life, then this surrender was necessary in
order that the people might be placed in the new relation to
God which it was to enjoy in His kingdom. It is only,
accordingly, the positive expression of the same thought,
when, on the occasion of the last Supper, Jesus calls His
blood the blood of the covenant which was shed for many
(xiv. 24). When He spoke thus, no Israelite could think of
anything else than the new covenant (cf. Luke xxii. 20) of
tinguished from men (2d edition) — however certainly this idea is a presupposi
tion of His saying (cf. Ritschl, ii. p. 84), it is not brought out here, where it is
only upon the positive completion of the service which was appropriate to His
vocation that emphasis is laid.
3 The less capable and disposed His disciples were to understand even the
intimation of His death (Mark ix. 32), so much the less could Jesus enter more
thoroughly into its significance with them. It is therefore already, on that
account, unhistorical to be continually deducing from the circumstance that
Jesus proclaimed the forgiveness of sins or taught men to pray for it, without
making mention of His death as the means by which it was procured, the right
to declare that His savings regarding the saving significance of His death are
spurious (Baur, p. 100-105), or, at least, to represent them as "thoughts of
the moment, " which stand in contradiction with His usual view (cf. Holsten,
zttro Evangelium des Paulus und Petrus, Rostock 1866, p. 177 ff.). It is quite
true that the more the result of His activity manifested itself among His people,
so much the more has Jesus regarded His death (and not merely His suffering)
as the consequence that could be anticipated from the bearing of His people to
God's ambassadors in the past (Matt. xxi. 39, xxiii. 37 ; Mark ix. 12, 13 ;
Luke xiii. 33), and, therefore, as the divinely appointed destiny which devoted
Him also to martyrdom (Mark x. 39 ; Luke xii. 50). But the distinction which
is urged by Holsten between a historico-religious and a dogmatico-religious view
of His death is a modern fiction without any historical support (cf. in refutation,
Ritschl, ii. p. 48). For the consciousness of Jesus, which rested upon the Old
Testament, no lot could be appointed the Messiah which did not stand in the
closest connection with His calling. And even if up to the very last He could
hope that the Father's power and wisdom were able to find other ways for the
realization of His purposes of salvation (Mark xiv. 35 f.), it could still never be
doubtful to Him, that, if His death was unavoidable, it must minister to the
saving designs of His Messianic mission.

§ 23. THE VICTORY OVER SATAN. 103
grace and forgiveness which God was to enter into with His
people in the Messianic time (Jer. xxxi. 33, 34). But as the
institution of the old covenant required a covenant-sacrifice,
whose blood was sprinkled purifyingly (Heb. ix. 22) upon the
people (Ex. xxiv. 8), so now also a covenant-sacrifice was
required. Only the atoning blood of the covenant-sacrifice
(cf. Lev. xvii. 11), shed, as is rightly explained in Matt.
xxvi. 28, for the remission of sins, can purify the people, so
that it may be capable of entering into the covenant fellow
ship with God, in which it can then be always certain of the
pardoning love of its Father. If, however, the saying regard
ing the ransom lays emphasis on the God-pleasing performance
of Jesus which secures the salvation of the members of the
kingdom, then His violent (bloody) death appears here as a
suffering which was appointed Him according to the counsel
of God, because it was indispensable to the carrying out of
His purposes of salvation.

§ 23. The Victory over Satan.
So long as the kingdom of God is not set up upon
earth, Satan rules there ; as the tempter to sin he has power
over the kingdoms of the world, (b) In particular, by means
of the unclean spirits he exerts his power over the sick who
are possessed by them. (c) In opposition to this power,
Jesus, in His Messianic activity, proves Himself the victor
who makes an end of its dominion.
(a) In the apostolic source Jesus speaks of Satan and his
kingdom (Matt. xii. 26 = Luke xi. 18), thereby thinking of a
company of spirits who are in his service (ver. 2 8).1 In the
1 In the earliest tradition of the words of Jesus, Satan is called only
o o-arams (cf. Mark viii. 33, iv. 15 ; Luke x. 18, xiii. 16, xxii. 31), and also in
Matt. iv. 10. It is only in the narrative portion containing the history of the
temptation, that he must already in the apostolic source have been called
i IdfaXos (Matt. iv. 1, 5, 8, 11 = Luke iv. 2, 3, 6, 13) ; on the other hand, Matt.
xiii. 39, xxv. 41, certainly belong to the evangelist ; to him also belongs the
designation of the devil as I vompis (xiii. 19, 38), because in those passages
which are taken out of the apostolic source (v. 37, vi. 13) we have to think of
to nor/ip&> (see footnote 2). It cannot be made out with certainty whether, in the
mouth of the people (x. 25, xii. 24, ef. Mark iii. 22), Beelzebub designated Satan
himself or a distinct superior of the demons ; from Matt. xii. 26, 27, it only
follows that in him Jesus saw the same Satanic power active which was active in

104 THE MESSIANIC ACTIVITY.
history of the temptation he appears as the ruler of the world ;
for his offer of all the kingdoms of the world to Jesus (Matt.
iv. 9) is correctly explained in Luke iv. 6 to mean that
power over these kingdoms has been given to him, and that
he can therefore transfer it to another. This can be con
ceived of only in one way, viz. that, in a world which is in
the service of sin, he turns men's hearts according to his
will. Although sin is by no means everywhere traced back
to him as its ultimate cause,2 yet the activity of Satan in
tempting to sin is not excluded. Already the representation
of the history of the temptation in the apostolic source, which
is probably to be traced back to statements of Jesus Himself,
made the temptations which met Him in the path of His
vocation as Messiah be brought to bear upon Him by Satan
himself (Matt. iv. 10), and He calls the temptations which
await His disciples an attempt of Satan to sift them like
wheat (Luke xxii. 31). In the human tempter He sees
Satan himself (Mark viii. 33). In Luke xiii. 16 a case of
bodily sickness is traced back to the working of Satan, even
although in His mode of healing it He does not treat it as
demoniacal (ver. 13).
(b) According to the apostolic source, Jesus shared the idea
that certain sick persons were possessed by unclean spirits
(Matt. xii. 43-45 = Luke xi. 24-26).3 Although in these
the demons ; for when, in v. 26, He says that Satan drives out Satan, and there
fore himself, it is only that He may show, in the strongest way, the absurdity
of their accusations against Him. There is no more need, however, on that
account, to identify Beelzebub than there is to identify the demons with Satan
himself ; and Mark iii. 22, compared with ver. 30 and the reproach of Jesus in
Matt. xi. 18, seems at least to favour the opinion that Beelzebub was conceived
of as a demon and not as Satan himself.
2 It is God who brings about and averts those situations in life which
tempt to sin (Matt. vi. 13) ; and, in the immediate context, it can hardly be the
devil from whose power men are delivered by God's assistance in temptation.
There is as little ground for asserting that, in v. 37, it is meant to describe
every emphasizing of simple agreement or disagreement, which is the fruit of
untruthfulness or distrust, as being of devilish origin. One man becomes to
another a stumbling-block, i.e. gives him occasion to sin (xviii. 6, 7) ; man
even tempts himself, inasmuch as by reason of the weakness of the flesh, i.e. the
sensuous nature of man, the willingness of the spirit to perform that which is
good is rendered powerless (Mark xiv. 38).
3 In this passage, as always in the oldest Gospel, they are called w»si!^«to
ZxdSapr* ; in Luke x. 20, simply mtifinrx. In the apostolic source, however,
there already occurred also the expression txi/iiym, as well in the discourses of

§ 23. THE VICTORY OVER SATAN. 105
passages possession is made a parabolic type of sin, it is by
no means to be explained as a figurative expression, but quite
the contrary, as a reality of the natural life, from whose
province the analogies of the higher life are borrowed in all
the parables. According to ver. 43, the unclean spirits dwell
in the desert (cf. Mark v. 10), and in ver. 45 the possibility
is assumed of a possession by several spirits, such as occurs
in Mark v. 9, a case of possession which was probably
already described in the apostolic source as grievous (Matt.
viii. 28; see my Marcusevangelium, p. 172). It appears
that the possession of a human, or, at least, of an animal soul
(viii. 31), is indispensable to them, and they shun the purely
pneumatic form of existence, in which, in contrast to the angels
(cf. § 19, d, footnote 6), they are conceived of as altogether
incorporeal (cf. Luke x. 20 : TrvevuaTa). Jesus heals those
possessed by them, by commanding the spirits to come forth
(Mark i. 25; Matt. viii. 32); He gives His disciples the
same power (Matt. x. 8), and speaks of their success (Luke
x. 20). He also expressly distinguishes these expulsions of
the demons from His other cures of the sick (Luke xiii. 32),
and if He seems (Matt. xii. 27) to put them on the same
level with the cures of the Jewish exorcists, we must not
overlook the irony which lies in the circumstance, that, from
the standpoint of His opponents themselves, such a com
parison was impracticable, seeing that their slanderous explana
tion of His cures proved that they did not dare to compare
them to common Jewish exorcisms. In the demons, however,
Jesus sees the Satanic power active (ver. 26).
(c) His Messianic activity is placed by Jesus, in the first
place, not in relation to the purely spiritual activity of Satan
as the tempter to sin, but to the power which he has in the
possessed ; probably, however, only because it is in the latter
power alone that the former activity comes to the light in
perceptible symptoms. In His disciples' expulsions of the
demons He sees the headlong overthrow of the Satanic power
(Luke x. 18); but it is He who has given them power to
Jesus (Matt. x. S, xi. 18, xii. 27, 28 ; Luke xiii. 32) as in the narrative (Matt.
ix. 33, 34=Luke xi. 14, 15), and also, it would seem, Zxlftms (Matt. viii. 31).
Compare the expression Sai/toriXtiriai, adopted by all the three evangelists,
viii. 33, ix. 32, xv. 22.

106 THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
fight so victoriously against His enemy (ver. 19). By
the expulsion of the demons He Himself brings about
the sovereignty of God upon earth (Matt. xii. 28, see
§ 13, c) ; but it is only because He has previously overcome
Satan himself (ver. 29) that He can do so. As it is only
he who has previously bound the strong one himself that
plunders his palace, so also the Messiah must have previously
conquered Satan, if by the expulsion of the demons He will
deprive him of his organs among men. It is more than
probable that the defeat of Satan, which is recorded in the
history of the temptation, is here referred to, so that at the
very beginning of His Messianic activity Jesus has broken
the power of Satan upon earth. Inasmuch as the adversary
of God did not succeed in leading into sin the Messiah who
was to bring about the completion of the kingdom of God,
this completion is secured. By following up His first victory,
Jesus is always extending the sovereignty of God into the
domain of Satan ; and the demons, who, as spirits of a higher
rank, recognise in Jesus the Messiah (Mark i. 34, iii. 11),
know that He has come to destroy them (i. 24), and that they
cannot escape this destruction and the torment into which it
brings them, when the day of judgment (i.e. the appointed
Katp6<s) dawns (Matt. viii. 29).4

CHAPTEE IV.

THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
§ 24. Righteousness and the Law.
Cf. Harnack, Jesus der Clirist oder der Erfuller des Gesetzes, Elberfeld 1842 ;
J. E. Meyer, uber das Verhdltniss Jesu und seiner Junger zum Gesetz,
Magdeburg 1853 ; Bleek, Lechler, B. Weiss in den Theol. Stud. 1853, 54, 58 ;
E. Haupt, die Altteslamentlichen Citate in den vier Evangelien, Colberg 1871 ;
4 In a discourse which is taken out of the apostolic source, it is said that
eternal fire is prepared for the devil and his angels (Matt. xxv. 41). This
designation of Satan and his spirits is not found elsewhere in the discourses of
Jesus ; nevertheless an allusion to their ultimate fate may have stood in the
corresponding place.

§ 24. RIGHTEOUSNESS AND THE LAW. 107
W. Beyschlag, Osterprogramm, Halle 1875 ; Bassermann, de loco Matth.
v. 17-20, Jenae 1876; H. Holtzmann, Jahrb. f. protest. Theol. 1877, 4;
1878, 1.
Eighteousness, i.e. the perfect fulfilling of the will of
God which is revealed in the law and the prophets, is an
essential part of the kingdom of God which is to be founded
by the Messiah, (b) The fulfilment of the law which was
customarily taught and practised was a very imperfect one ;
Jesus first fulfilled it, and taught that it was to be fulfilled,
according to the rule of the perfect will of God which was
revealed by Him. (c) Jesus has nowhere drawn a distinction
between a ceremonial and a moral law ; His recognition of
the law refers to it as a whole, (d) This does not mean,
however, that Jesus has looked forward to a lasting con
tinuance of the Israelitish ordinances relating to worship.
(a) If the will of God is to be done perfectly in the
kingdom of God (Matt. vi. 10), then the characteristic quality
of the members of the kingdom must be righteousness, i.e. the
normal quality of life, that quality which corresponds to the
will of God. It is therefore the wedding garment, without
which no one can share in the completed kingdom of God
(xxii. 11 ff, cf. v. 20); the striving after righteousness and
after the kingdom of God (vi. 3 3, read : ttjv §ucaio<rvvr)v ical
ty]v fiaa-tXdav avTov) are most intimately connected, as are
the promises of the kingdom of God and of satisfaction
with righteousness (Matt. v. 3-6). It is only he who does
the will of God that is related to the Messiah (xii. 50), and
can enter the kingdom of God (vii. 21, 24). The will of
God, however, is revealed in the law and the prophets
(v. 17, vii. 12, xxii. 40), and this intentional collocation
already shows that Jesus was as far from laying the chief
stress, after the manner of the Pharisees, upon the fulfilment
of the ceremonial precepts, as, on the other hand, from
denying the divine origin of the Mosaic law. That the com
mandments of God are to be found in the law, He takes for
granted as acknowledged, and self-evidently also for Himself
(Mark x. 19; Luke x. 26). In so far as the scribes and
Pharisees sit on Moses' seat, i.e. teach his law, He fully
recognises their authority (Matt, xxiii. 2, 3). It is only
the additions wherewith they amplify the law, and render it

o

108 THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
more onerous (xxiii. 4), and that, too, not only arbitrarily
(xv. 13), but often also in a sense which is directly contra
dictory to the law, — it is only these additions which He
rejects, and it is in the interest of the divine law that He
does so (Mark vii. 1-13). The law, however, in its Mosaic
basis as well as in its prophetic development, is to continue
in enduring force until the end of the world, or until each of
its commandments is fulfilled, as He has come to fulfil them,
— then, indeed, it will cease as law, but only in order that it
may continue in its fulfilment (Matt. v. 17, 18=Luke xvi. 17).
Yea, the significance of the individual in the kingdom of God
depends upon whether or not he understands how to fulfil
and to teach the whole law, including the least command
ments (Matt. v. 19). The law is an organic whole; and
only he who understands the significance of the individual
commandment in its connection with the whole, understands
the will of God which is revealed in the law.
(b) The manner in which the dominant school of exegesis
taught the law to be understood, and in which Pharisaism
taught it to be fulfilled, as well as the righteousness which
was the consequence of these, was very far from correspond
ing to the will of God which it revealed (Matt. v. 20). It
held exclusively by that side of the law, according to which it
was appointed to regulate the legally organized, and nationally
limited, commonwealth, which was infected with sin, and in
which the theocracy should, first of all, be realized, from
which side, therefore, the perfect will of God, which aimed at
the completion of the theocracy in the kingdom of God, could
not yet be exclusively expressed. Accordingly, Jesus does
not merely contend against Pharisaic additions or interpreta
tions ; but neither will He complete or improve the law, He
will only fulfil it, and teach it to be fulfilled, according to the
rule of the perfect will of God, which is already contained in
the law itself, — a rule, however, which, in conformity with the
still imperfect stage of the development of the theocracy for
which the law was given, has not yet, in all points, found, in
its application to the concrete relations of the Israelitish
national life, its adequate expression, i.e. an expression which
answers to the perfect condition of the theocracy or the
kingdom of God. This is the meaning of the exposition

§ 24. RIGHTEOUSNESS AND THE LAW. 109
which Christ gives to a series of commandments in the Sermon
on the Mount (v. 21-47). The judicial law of the old
covenant forbids murder and adultery, because it can only
recognise and punish sins of deed ; the perfect will of God,
however, esteems anger, invective (which springs from anger),
and the covetous look after another's wife, as already equally
sinful and punishable. The judicial law of a commonwealth
which is infected with sin, cannot do without divorce, oaths,
and the right of retaliation, and only provides for their being
legally administered. Divorce musk be carried out in the
legal forms ; oaths are not to be broken ; the right of retaliation
must be exercised according to the rule of righteousness. But
the perfect will of God declares marriage to be indissoluble
(which Jesus expressly proves from the history of the
primitive Mosaic times, Mark x. 2-9), and therefore that
every re-marriage of divorced persons is adultery ; it declares
that oaths are a product of sin which ought to give place to
the simple affirmation; and it demands that patient self-
sacrificing love should be ready to renounce every claim it
has to demand satisfaction when it has suffered injustice. In
the national law of the old covenant, even the law of love has
its limits in the divinely appointed exclusiveness of the
Jewish nationality ; but the perfect will of God demands a
love which first proves itself to be truly unselfish in the love
of enemies. With all this Jesus does not have in view a
new legislation for the fellowship of His followers. In so far
as sin is already overcome in it, it does not stand in need of
such a new legislation; in so far as even in it there is still
sin, it can no more endure it than the commonwealth of the
Israelitish theocracy could endure the rule of the perfect will
of God directly as its law. From the husk of the Old
Testament law He unfolds its kernel ; as the perfect will of
God this remains the rule and the goal of men's striving after
the righteousness of the kingdom of God; He not only
teaches, but also practises its fulfilment (Matt. v. 17), and
here also shows, in His life, that the ideal which is striven
after in the kingdom of God is already realized (cf. § 21, d).
(c) If not even the least of the commandments in the law is
to remain unfulfilled (Matt. v. 18), then the so-called ceremonial
law cannot be excluded from this fulfilment. The conduct of

110 THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
Jesus is thoroughly in keeping with this. To Him the temple
is His Father's house (Matt, xxiii. 21, cf. Luke ii. 49), and as
such it must not in any way be desecrated (Mark xi. 1 7). He
goes up to Jerusalem to the feast of the Passover, and His
disciples take it for granted that He will keep the legal Pass
over with them (Mark xiv. 12), and even according to the
earliest tradition He has done so in due form. In the Sermon
on the Mount it is taken for granted that His followers offer
the usual sacrifices (Matt. v. 23, 24) ; He expressly directs
the healed lepers to bring the offering which was commanded
by Moses (Matt. viii. 4 ; Luke xvii. 14) ; He has not found
fault with the most punctilious fulfilment of the law of tithes,
but only demanded that the more important commandments
be not kept in the background (Matt, xxiii. 23) ; and He has
paid the temple tax in an ostensible manner (xvii. 27).
Where His free observance of the Sabbath did not really
correspond with the prevailing practice (Luke xiii. 15, xiv. 5),
He has shown, by means of Old Testament analogies, that it
was in keeping with the intention of the divine Lawgiver
(Matt. xii. 3-5). As in the Sermon on the Mount in regard
to other legal enactments, so (Matt. xii. 8) He attributes to
Himself as the Son of man the right to explain the meaning
of the Sabbath law, and therefore to teach its right fulfilment ;
and its strict observance on the part of His disciples is taken
for granted in the apostolic source (xxiv. 20). Accordingly,
Eeuss is altogether mistaken when he still (i. p. 167 f.
[E. Tr. i. 142 f.]) makes Jesus distinguish between a moral
and a ritual law, and traces back His attitude towards the
latter to accommodation. There is no doubt, however, that,
in the spirit of the prophets, He has ranked merciful love
above sacrifices (Matt. xii. 7; Mark xii. 33 f, cf. Hos. vi. 6),
and that He has assigned a higher value to the duty of
rendering compensation for wrong-doing than to the punctual
observance of the ordinances relating to the worship of God
(Matt. v. 24, cf. 1 Sam. xv. 22). He has indicated that all
anxiety relating to external (Levitical) purification attains its
object (the pleasing of God) only when it is preceded by
purification from sin (Matt, xxiii. 26, cf. Isa. i. 15 £). In
particular, He has, with respect to the law of the Sabbath,
plainly made the observance of the theocratic regulations

§ 24. RIGHTEOUSNESS AND THE LAW. Ill
bearing upon life subordinate to moral duty in its absolute
ness (Mark iii. 4) ; and when He reflects upon the fact that
the former were instituted for the wellbeing of man (ii. 27),
the purely ritual point of view is transcended, just as when, in
the case of (voluntary) fasting, He only inquires whether it is
in keeping with the inner disposition, He transcends the stand
point of an observance which is pleasing to God (ii. 19 f.).
But to assume, with Beyschlag and others, that He in any
way describes or treats of the legal regulations bearing upon
life or ritual, whose divine origin He recognised, as defective
in themselves, and no longer in keeping with His views, and
that He has in principle ascribed to Himself authority to
dispose of them with freedom, and has used this authority for
the purpose of freeing His disciples from their yoke, — for one
that looks at the matter from the historical point of view
these assumptions are inconceivable, and cannot be made
good. (d) If the Messiah was greater than the temple (Matt.
xii. 6), then in the Messianic order of things, i.e. in the com
pleted theocracy, the temple could no longer retain the position
and importance which it had in the Israelitish theocracy. With
the fall of the temple prophesied in Mark xiii. 2, there was
necessarily involved a complete change of the whole Old Testa
ment form of religious worship. If the will of God was
revealed in the Old Testament in the form of a regulation of
worship suited to the still imperfect stage of the development
of the theocracy, the fulfilment of the perfect will of God in
the perfected theocracy or kingdom of God could no more remain
bound to this for all time than to the form of the Israelitish
judicial system (note b). It lay in the nature of the histori
cal circumstances that Jesus could not give any more special
intimations regarding the manner and time of this emancipa
tion. In His promise, however, that He, in whom God Him
self had come to His people, will always remain in the midst
of His own (Matt, xviii. 20), there lay the germ of the know
ledge that God would one day dwell among His people in a
more perfect way than in the temple. If the sons of God as
such (and not merely the Messiah) are, in principle, free from
the temple tax (xvii. 26), then in the completed kingdom of
God there must cease to be any need of a temple at all,

112 THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
since no one is any longer bound to support it ; while the
original form of the statement in Mark xiv. 58, xv. 29
pointed in some way or other to the final realization of the
idea of the temple in the kingdom of God founded by Jesus.
If His blood, as atoning sacrificial blood, qualified His own
for the fellowship of the new covenant (xiv. 24), then the
atoning sacrifices of the old covenant must ultimately appear
unnecessary, after their object was fully attained. When Jesus
made the Levitical arrangement relating to purification an
illustration of moral purity (vii. 15), that arrangement, it is
true, was no more directly abolished thereby than any other
natural arrangement which He made the parabolic figure of a
higher ; but it could lead to the development of the conscious
ness that the higher object of the former was attained in the
realization of the latter. On the other hand, the parables in
Mark ii. 21, 22 are spoken, not against fasting, but against
an untimely and immature abandonment of the old forms.1
In these parables the destruction of the old by means of the
new is represented, not as that which must take place, accord
ing to an inner necessity (Baur, p. 59 f.), but (because not
gradually brought about) as injudicious and ruinous for the
new. Jesus was come not to destroy (Matt. v. 17), but to
fulfil — this applies to everything which He did ; and He can
have aimed only at that destruction which was naturally in
volved in the true fulfilment (ver. 18).

§ 25. The Greatest Commandment.
The principle of the law is the demand of likeness to God,
and in consequence of the new revelation of God this is con
firmed and modified into the demand of love, (b) Accordingly,
immediately alongside of love to God, to love one's neighbours
is the greatest commandment, (c) The unselfishness which
manifests itself in the love of enemies, and the readiness to
1 This is plain from the context, according to which they are meant to justify,
not the abstinence of His disciples from fasting, but the fasting (in accordance
with custom) of the disciples of the Baptist whom Jesus had acknowledged, and
whom they had purposely pushed to the front on the occasion when this ques
tion was raised (ver. 18 ; cf. my Markusevang. p. 97). By means of his addi
tion in v. 39, Luke also has explained them in this sense ; and Beyschlag (p. 21)
has acknowledged the right reference, at least in regard to the first parable.

&

§ 25. THE GREATEST COMMANDMENT. 113
make sacrifices, which is shown in forgiving injuries, in
meekness and peaceableness, are essential elements of love.
(d) Neither the gentle nor the ministering love, however, can
exist without humility, in which Jesus Himself has given the
grandest example.
(a) It is certainly not without a purpose that Jesus causes
His exposition of the law (Matt, v.) to reach its climax in a
statement, which, in opposition to all moral atomism, brings to
light the essential unity of all the divine commandments.
But here also He was conscious that He was only explaining
the meaning of the legislator from the standpoint of the full
revelation of God which appeared in Himself. For even in
the Old Testament the demand of likeness to God is the prin
ciple of the law : " ye shall be holy, for I am holy" (Lev. xi. 44).
The revelation of God, which makes Him known, not only as
the sovereign might, but also as the holy One, must always
have the practical aim of influencing the character and life of
man, so as to shape his life in conformity with the rule which
is given in the holy character of God. In the new revelation
of God, however, there is not only given a new motive for
this demand of likeness to God, but this demand receives also
a new import. If God is the Father of the members of the
kingdom, then it is involved in their character as children,
that they must become like to their Father (§ 21, c) ; and if
His revelation as Father is essentially a revelation of His
greatest love, then the demand of likeness to God is more
strictly defined to mean that it is the task of the children of
God to imitate the essential perfection of their Father in
heaven, which consists in His all-embracing love (Matt.
v. 48, cf. ver. 45).
(b) Jesus has not entered into the casuistical question, by
what marks one could distinguish greater and lesser command
ments (Matt. xxii. 36), because there lies at its basis the
wrong assumption that, by means of some human refinement
or other, one could make a distinction between the divine com
mandments which He, theoretically in v. 18, and practically
in ver. 19, abolishes. When He describes the commandment
in Deut. vi. 5 as the absolutely greatest, and therefore as the
first (ver. 37 f.), He will thereby only disclose the intention
of the lawgiver, since the commandment of love to God in
VOL. I. H

114 THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
that passage appears plainly as an explanation of the first com
mandment in the Decalogue (cf. vi. 4 with v. 6, 7), and,
according to the connection with ver. 6 ff, as a presupposition
of every other fulfilment of the law. The inwardness and
exclusiveness of this demand (iv oXy t»? /capSlq aov) cannot
be expressed in stronger terms than it is expressed there.1
That which is new in His answer consists, therefore, simply
in this, that He places alongside of this commandment, and
as of equal worth with it, a second commandment which refers
to our behaviour towards men (ver. 39) ; a commandment, how
ever, which has likewise already found in the Old Testament
the expression of it which was adopted by Him (Lev. xix. 1 8),
and, in the demand of compassionateness (Ps. xii. 1 ; Isa.
lviii. 7—10), its richest and purest application.2 But he also
expressly assigns it as His reason for giving prominence to
these two commandments, that all the demands of God, as
they are proclaimed in the law and the prophets, are depen
dent upon one or other of these commandments, and are
therefore either a demand of love to God or to our neighbour
(ver. 40). In the same sense He, at the close of the Sermon
on the Mount, sums up the demand of the whole law (so far
as it teaches us our duty to our neighbours) in the command
ment, to grant to our neighbour everything which we desire
from him for ourselves, to recognise every individual as a sub
ject with equal rights with ourselves, and to consider our own
need as the measure of our duty to him (vii. 12). For, in
the last resort, it is love which is man's greatest need ; and
whoever grants to every one the love which his own heart
1 According to the earliest tradition, Jesus has not once thought it necessary
to show how the revelation of the love of God as the Father has attached a new
and powerful motive to this demand, and in general He keeps the commandment
of love to God in the background, because, where that motive does not of itself
work its fulfilment, even its demand would be of no avail. Cf. also the beautiful
remarks of Ritschl, ii. p. 97.
2 Hence Baur is altogether mistaken when he says (p. 48) that the teaching of
Jesus is related to Mosaism as inner to outer, as disposition to activity. For
the demand of love to God and to man Jesus has borrowed literally from
the law ; and when Baur says (p. 51) that the latter does indeed contain a
demand upon the disposition, but does not make it the principal matter,
the saying which is borrowed from the Old Testament in Mark vii. 6, and the
repeated appeal of the Old Testament to the fact that God, proves heart and reins
(Ps. vii. 9, xvii. 3 ; Jer. xi. 20, xvii. 10), teach the very opposite.

§ 25. THE GREATEST COMMANDMENT. 115
desires and craves for has become like the Father in heaven,
who only desires for Himself the love with which He Himself
satisfies the need of every one without distinction (v. 45).
(c) It is only by the greatness of the sacrifice which it
makes that the real character of love can be estimated (Mark
xii. 41—44). A show of love, however, which counts upon a
recompense, makes, in reality, no sacrifice whatever, and is
therefore worthless (Matt. v. 46). In the apostolic source,
the parable in Luke xiv. 12-14, which the evangelist has
stripped of its parabolic character by placing it among Christ's
tabletalk, can only have taught that that love alone is real
which claims no recompense. To the question, who is the
neighbour whom the law commands us to love, the parable
of the compassionate Samaritan accordingly gives the answer :
whoever requires our assistance, it is the duty of compas-
sionateness to relieve his distress (Luke x. 29-35, cf. Matt.
v. 7). But by making the application of the parable with
the question, which of the three mentioned in it was neighbour
to the needy one, He leaves to us the consideration that we
must first earn the name of neighbour by such an unselfish
manifestation of love as the Samaritan has shown to his
enemy (vv. 36, 37). It is in such love to our enemies that
our love becomes altogether similar to the all-embracing love
of God (Matt. v. 44, 45). Compared with it, love to the
members of the kingdom, who, as being children of God, are
• brethren to one another (vv. 22, 23, 24, and often), is some
thing self-evident and nothing special (ver. 47). That, how
ever, does not forbid Jesus from seeing in the compassion,
which is shown to them as His brethren (xii. 50), a love
which is shown to Himself (xxv. 35—40), and thereby making
it the mark of the true, i.e. the morally approved divine
sonship, which alone guarantees participation in the completed
kingdom of God. As, lastly, the fatherly love of God reveals
itself through the Messiah as forgiving love (§ 22, b), so also
the forgiving love of the children of God, which is thereby
produced, must know no limits, not only as regards the offences
of brethren (xviii. 21, 22), but also as regards those of men
in general (vi. 12), especially as forgiving love is the founda
tion of all love of enemies after the example of God (v. 44, 45).
For this there is required the meekness (ver. 5) which is not

116 THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
roused to wrath or invective by any offence of one's neighbour
(ver. 22), but is always ready to endure something worse
(ver. 39) ; and there is also required the peaceableness which is
always the first to offer the hand of reconciliation (vv. 23, 24),
and rather yields to the most unreasonable request than com
mences strife (vv. 40-42). To the peacemakers, however, there
is promised the openly acknowledged completion of divine
sonship (ver. 9).
(d) If the new revelation of God is given, not only in the
preaching of Jesus, but also in His doing (§ 21, d), then the
latter is as much an example as the character and govern
ment of God. Jesus points especially to His example in
meekness and humility (Matt. xi. 29); for the former cannot
exist without the latter. It is only an overestimate of self
(Mark vii. 2 2 : vTreprj^avia) that makes us regard the offence
of our neighbour as an unpardonable crime. Now, however,
the parable in Luke xiv. 7—11 (and it is only in consequence
of its insertion in the tabletalk that it also gives room for the
misunderstanding that the matter in question is merely as to
their pressing forward at table ; while it is really only the
material for the narrative of the parable that is borrowed from
this Pharisaic fault (Matt, xxiii. 6)) teaches, as Christ's own
explanation shows, that no one should value himself more
highly than his neighbour; and in Mark ix. 36, 37, Jesus
shows by His own example how no one should count himself
too high to condescend in love to the very lowliest. No over
estimate of self, however, is worse than the pride in his virtue
of him who is high among men, because he makes a show
of his righteousness. It is an abomination in the sight of
God (Luke xvi. 15). This pride leads to the high-minded
judging and reforming of others which overlooks one's own
far ¦ greater faults and weaknesses (Matt. vii. 1-5) ; it leads
to Pharisaic boasting before God, and to contempt for one's
neighbour (Luke xviii. 10-14). The modest estimate of self,
however, forbids also the striving after rank and titles which
does prejudice to brotherly equality as well as to men's
position with respect to God and Jesus (Matt, xxiii. 7-10),
and the striving after dominion which is characteristic of the
worldly life (xx. 25 = Luke xxii. 25). In the kingdom of God
each one is to seek his greatness in service (Matt. xx. 26, 27 =

§ 26. RIGHTEOUSNESS AS DISPOSITION. 117
Luke xxii. 26), which is not possible without self-humiliation
(Mark ix. 33-35). It is only in this way that one becomes
ready for every loving deed. It is precisely in this humble
service of love that Jesus has given the most perfect example
(x. 45). § 26. Righteousness as Disposition.
It is necessary not only that the will of God be in general
recognised and fulfilled, but also that this fulfilment be striven
after as the highest good, (b) Every other aim must give place
to this striving, even the noblest and dearest possessions must
be sacrificed if they stand in its way. (c) All fulfilment of the
divine will in detail is valueless, unless it proceeds from the
fundamental disposition of this striving, (d) Accordingly, it
is not the fulfilment of the divine will in detail, which always
remains imperfect, but only that disposition that can be the
criterion of the measure in which the members of the king
dom are well-pleasing to God.
(a) In the parables of the treasure and the pearl the king
dom is represented as the summum honum (Matt. xiii. 44—46) ;
and the essential reason why it is so, is because in it the
fulfilment of the divine will or righteousness is realized
(§ 24, a). It is righteousness, therefore, which is striven after
in the kingdom of God (vi. 33). Now, however, this striving
is a genuine striving only when it is exclusive, when righteous
ness is striven after, not only in a general way along with
other blessings, but as the only true good, as the highest good,
not in a relative, but in an absolute sense. Hence Jesus says :
" no man can serve two masters " (Matt. vi. 24 = Luke xvi. 1 3).
The service of God, which consists in such an exclusive
striving after righteousness, must regard every other striving
as hostile and obstructive to itself, and must be so regarded
by it ; what it demands is- an exclusive devotion. He who
strives not after to, tov Qeov, but after to, twv dvdpanrojv, is
a Satan (Mark viii. 33). It is this service of God which is
often represented as a working in God's vineyard (Matt.
xx. 1—7, xxi. 28-30); in the kingdom of God there is no
other work than this striving after righteousness ; its results
are the fruits which the Lord of the vineyard causes to be
demanded of the husbandmen (xxi. 34, 43).

11.8 THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
(b) The service of mammon stands opposed to the service
of God (Matt. vi. 24). It is characteristic of earthly posses
sions that they claim the striving of man with the same
exclusiveness which God demands for His kingdom; hence
they are represented by the name N3iDD as a heathen idol.
Such a service of mammon, however, is engaged in, not only
in the gathering together of earthly treasures (vi. 19, 20),
which stands opposed to the gathering together of treasures
which are pleasing to God, viz. righteousness (Luke xii. 21),
but also in the earthly carefulness which makes food and
clothing the summum honum (Matt. vi. 25-32). No doubt
even riches can be used, with true wisdom, in the service of
love, and therefore in the service of righteousness, i.e. with a
view to the obtaining of the kingdom of God as the summum
ionum (Luke xvi. 1-9) ; but, according to experience, riches,
because it so easily draws away the heart from the highest
interests, is one of the greatest obstacles in the way to the
ikingdom of God (Mark x. 23-25), as the parable in Luke
xvi. 1 9-3 1 shows, and must therefore, if need be, be sacrificed
with decisiveness (Mark x. 21). That which is true of riches
is true, however, also of every other good. In Matt. v. 29, 30,
the right eye and the right hand are undoubtedly symbols of
the dearest and most indispensable goods, which, as soon as
they hinder us in the only striving which is right, and there
fore make us falter in the right way, must likewise be
sacrificed. In this sense Jesus regards it as justifiable, if one
abstains from marriage for the sake of the kingdom of God
(xix. 10-12). The same applies also to the holiest family
bonds, as soon as they are like to hinder us from recognising
and striving after the summum bomtm which has appeared in
the Messiah (Matt. x. 37 = Luke xiv. 26) ; it applies even to
our own life, when the striving after its maintenance hinders
us in the highest endeavour (x. 39).1
(c) If the true fulfilment of the divine will consists in this
1 That the kingdom of God is the summum bonum appears also from this,
that, notwithstanding the apparent renunciations which it costs, man neverthe
less really provides best even for his own wellbeing hy striving after it. As
the parable of the foolish rich man shows (Luke xii. 16-20), it is folly to seek
to provide for the soul (as the hearer of the bodily life) by gathering together
earthly treasures. For even although one has superabundance, his life never
theless does not depend upon his possessions (ver. 15). His soul may be un-

§ 26. RIGHTEOUSNESS AS DISPOSITION. 119
exclusive endeavouring after righteousness, then no individual
doing can, as such, ever be well-pleasing to God. Every
performance of righteousness, such as that of which the
Pharisees boasted on occasion of their almsgiving, their prayers
and fasting, is worthless in God's sight, so long as it pur
sues the equally selfish and worldly aim of being seen and
praised by men (Matt. vi. 1), because it is a fulfilling of the
divine will, which, nevertheless, does not proceed from the
striving after this fulfilment, and therefore from the right dis
position, which has its seat in the heart. God, however, who
sees even in secret (Matt. vi. 4, 6, 18), knows the hearts
(Luke xvi. 15) ; therefore He inquires also how matters stand
in this the inmost and most secret ground.2 A people which
honoureth Him with their lips, but whose heart is far from
Him (Mark vii. 6, after Isa. xxix. 13), He cannot abide. How
everything depends upon the heart, upon its fundamental
disposition, cannot be more strongly expressed than in Matt.
vi. 21. The exhortation to lay up treasures for ourselves in
heaven is supported by the truth, that the heart always turns
to the place where we have our treasure. Here it is plainly
assumed as undoubted, that everything depends upon giving
the heart the right bent, and that the bent of the heart towards
heaven is the right one. In heaven, however, the will of God
is done perfectly (Matt. vi. 10), and the bent of the heart
thither is accordingly the disposition which strives after right
eousness as the summum honum.
(d) So long as the kingdom of God is still only tending
towards its realization in the individual as well as in the
expectedly separated from him before he has enjoyed his goods (ver. 20), and,
therewith, his bodily life, for which he has provided, has ceased. On the other
hand, the possession of all goods can be of no avail to man when he loses his
soul (as the bearer of the spiritual life), for there is no price with which he
could redeem it (Mark viii. 36, 37). For this very reason the soul (as the
bearer of the bodily life) must be sacrificed in order that (as the bearer of the
spiritual life) it may be gained or saved (Matt. x. 39 = Mark viii. 35).
2 Love to Him (Matt. xxii. 37), as well as forgiveness (xviii. 35), must be
from the heart ; it is necessary to be lowly in heart (xi. 29) and pure in heart
(v. 8), and adultery in the heart is already adultery in the sight of God (ver. 28).
Hence the commandment against anger (v. 22) and the lusts which come out of
the heart (Mark vii. 21-23), against doubt which dwells in the heart (xi. 23),
against evil words, which are expressions of the heart (Matt. xii. 33-35), and
praying without the heart being interested (vi. 7) ; hence also the condemnation
of the iirixpiiris of the Pharisees (Matt, xxiii. 27, 28).

120 THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
nation (§ 14, c), the striving after righteousness will not yet
attain its aim in every individual case, seeing that it is only
when the kingdom of God is completed that the godless
power of sin can be fully overcome. But if it is not the
individual doing as such which is the object of the good plea
sure of God, neither will God's judgment of the members of
the kingdom proceed in accordance with the still imperfect
issue of their striving, but in accordance with the purity and
stedfastness of this striving in general. Wherever these
exist, there has taken place the repentance which Jesus
demanded (§ 21) ; for the natural bent of the human disposi
tion is towards worldly and selfish ends. Wherever the place
of these has been taken by the striving after the kingdom of
God and His righteousness, there is constituted the likeness
to God which the law demands (§ 25, a); for God reveals
Himself in the time of salvation as the one who, with the
setting up of the kingdom of God, will realize the ideal of
righteousness upon earth, and the child of God, who has made
this aim of the divine will his aim, has become like his
Father.3 Herein he only follows the example of the Son of
God, whose whole life was devoted to this realization of the
divine will, or the bringing about of the kingdom of God.
And however imperfect the issue of his striving may still
remain in the present life, with the manifestation of the
Messiah there is guaranteed the eventual perfect realization
of the kingdom of God in the individual as well as on the
whole. It is only necessary that he belongs, and continues to
belong, to the fellowship in which Jesus realizes the kingdom
of God. (Appendix.)
§ 27. The Primitive-Christian Anthropology.
The essential substance of the human body, that which dis
tinguishes man from the immaterial spiritual beings, is flesh.
3 Here also it appears how little need there was for a special commandment
of love to God in the proclamation of Jesus regarding the kingdom (cf. § 25, b,
footnote 1). The fundamental disposition of. the members of the kingdom is
only the form in which love to God necessarily appears ; just as, on the other
hand, it is only from love to God that a real striving after righteousness or a
condition of being pleasing to God can proceed.

§ 27. THE PRIMITIVE-CHRISTIAN ANTHROPOLOGY. 121
(h) The flesh of living man, however, is flesh possessed of a
soul, and the soul has its seat in the blood, (c) The soul has
originated in consequence of the divine breath of life which
was breathed into the earthly material, and it is therefore also
the bearer of the spiritual life in man which is independent
of his corporeity, (d) The central organ within man is the
heart, which is conceived of as the seat of the whole spiritual
life in man.
(a) This is the most suitable place for explaining the
anthropological and psychological ideas to which many of the
sayings of Jesus which we have just considered point back.
Since these ideas, however, seeing that they are directly
borrowed from the Old Testament, are the same in the whole
of the New Testament, even to the peculiar transformation
which they have received in the Pauline system, we shall
have here to take into account the whole of the writings of
the New Testament, with the exception of those of Paul. The
peculiar nature of man is most naturally measured by his
difference from the other spiritual beings with whom he is
embraced in Heb. xii. 9. As such the New Testament knows
the unclean spirits (demons, or simply spirits, cf. § 23,6;
Apoc. xvi. 13, 14), who also appear as fallen angels (Apoc.
xii. 7, 9, cf. Jude ver. 6 ; 2 Pet. ii. 4), and the angels, who are,
it is true, also called TrvevfiaTa (Heb. i. 14), but who are
nevertheless conceived of (Mark xii. 25) as clothed with a
higher heavenly corporeity. On the other hand, the corporeity
of man is formed out of earthly matter, — Scripture describes
its specific substance as flesh (o-dp^) ; a spirit has not flesh
and bones (Luke xxiv. 39). Hence the Old Testament
^3-73 (Luke iii. 6 ; Acts ii. 17 ; 1 Pet. i. 24) describes man
as to his fleshly nature, in accordance with which he is sub
jected to the perishableness of everything that is earthly
(Matt. xxiv. 22), and needs the communication of a higher
life (John xvii. 2). The days of the flesh are the days of the
earthly life (Heb. v. 7 ; 1 Pet. iv. 2) ; the propagation which
belongs only to the earthly course of the world (Mark xii. 25)
depends upon the fleshly union in marriage (Mark x. 8, after
Gen. ii. 24; John i. 13), as it is also aimed at in unchastity
(Jude ver. 7 ; 2 Pet. ii. 1 0) ; our natural fathers are the fathers
of our flesh (Heb. xii. 9) ; for that which is born of the flesh

122 THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
is flesh (John iii. 6). The flesh constitutes that in man which
is apprehensible externally (John viii. 15, cf. with vii. 24) ; it
is exposed to external defilement (1 Pet. iii. 21 ; Jude ver. 8 ;
Heb. ix. 13), just as such a defilement also proceeds from it
(Jude ver. 23). The flesh is subject to death (1 Pet. iii. 18,
iv. 6, cf. Heb. x. 20; John vi. 51,53) and corruption
(Actsii. 31).
(b) The flesh of the living man is flesh possessed of
a soul ; the flesh from which the soul has departed is
expressly described by the plural cra/j/c-e? (Jas. v. 3 ; Apoc.
xvii. 16, xix. 18, 21), because it has still only the purely
material elements of the o-dp%, which, however, have lost their
organic connection (hence, probably, also Luke xxiv. 39).
The soul is therefore, in the first place, the bearer of the
bodily life, which is prolonged by nourishment (Matt. vi. 25;
Luke xii. 19); for so long as the soul is in man he lives
(Acts xx. 10; Apoc. viii. 9). Whoever endeavours to slay
man aims at it (Matt. ii. 20) ; for in death it is taken away
from man (Luke xii. 20), and is itself thereby lost (Matt.
x. 39 ; Acts xxvii. 10, 22) ; for it requires the body for its
own perfect life. Whoever, therefore, loves it, guards it from
death (John xii. 2 5 ; Apoc. xii. 1 1 ; cf., on the other hand,
Luke xiv. 26 ; Acts xx. 24) ; by being guarded against death
it is saved (Mark iii. 4). In voluntary death the soul is laid
down (John x. 11, 15, 17, 18, xiii. 37, 38, xv. 13 ; 1 John
iii. 16) or surrendered (Mark x. 45 ; Acts xv. 26). Accord
ing to the Old Testament view, however, the soul has its seat
in the blood (Gen. ix. 4; Lev. xvii. 11), by which all living
flesh is permeated, in which its life, as it were, pulsates.
Hence, human nature, as distinguished from the divine (a
distinction which comes out, first of all, in man's corporeity),
can be described as crapf; ical alfia (Matt. xvi. 17), and the
blood can be conceived of as the principle of the propagation
of the bodily life (John i. 13, cf. Heb. ii. 14, where al/ia
xal o-dpi; should be read). If the blood is shed (Matt.
xxiii. 35; Mark xiv. 24; Acts xxii. 20; Apoc. xvi. 6), the
soul departs ; only in consequence of a violent death do flesh
and blood appear severed (John vi. 53, 56). The soul of the
flesh is the subject of every sensuous feeling (i.e. of every
feeling which is owing to the body), Luke xii. 1 9 ; Apoc.

§ 27. THE PRIMITIVE-CHRISTIAN ANTHROPOLOGY. 123
xviii. 14 ; through it, however, even the animated flesh itself
becomes susceptible to sensuous impressions (Mark xiv. 38),
capable of suffering (1 Pet. iv. 1), the subject of sensuous
appetites (John i. 13) and lusts (1 Pet. ii. 11 ; 2 Pet. ii. 18 ;
1 John ii. 16). While, however, the flesh, as that which is
purely material, is that which is common to men, the soul
forms the central point of the life of the individual. Hence
the Old Testament efcr$>3 (Acts ii. 43, iii. 23), hence the
numbering of the individuals according to -tyv%al (Acts ii. 41,
vii. 14, xxvii. 37; 1 Pet. iii. 20 ; Apoc. xviii. 13). Hence
the psychical wisdom is the egoistic wisdom with which each
one seeks to assert his own person (Jas. iii. 15), while, in the
most inward fellowship of love, the different individualities
fuse, as it were, into one soul (Acts iv. 32).
(c) According to Old Testament tradition, the soul owed
its origin to the divine breath of life (cf. Apoc. xi. 11, xiii. 15)
which was breathed into the earthly material (Gen. ii. 7).
God has caused His spirit to make its abode in man (Jas.
iv. 5) ; so man was made in His likeness (Jas. iii. 9, after
Gen. i. 27), and God became the Father of spirits (Heb. xii. 9).
If this spirit quits the body, man is dead (Matt, xxvii. 5 0 ;
Luke xxiii. 46; Acts vii. 59; John xix. 30); if it returns,
he becomes alive again (Luke viii. 5 5) ; without spirit, the
body is dead (Jas. ii. 26). Hence i/cTrvietv in Mark xv. 37
is altogether synonymous with e/c\jrv^eiv in Acts v. 5, 10,
xii. 23. This irvevaa, however, is not only the principle of
the bodily life in man, but (seeing it is derived from God)
also of the higher spiritual life. It therefore forms the
antithesis of the crdpf;, which is determined by sensuous
impressions (Mark xiv. 3 8) ; growth in spirit is the antithesis
of bodily growth (Luke i. 80, ii. 40), just as poverty in the
province of the spiritual life forms the antithesis of literal
poverty (Matt. v. 3). That which is not perceptible to the
senses is perceived in the spirit (Mark ii. 8) ; Jesus sighs in
the spirit when He does not wish to reveal His feelings
(viii. 12); it is in the spirit that man rejoices (Luke i. 47,
x. 21), and is provoked (Acts xvii. 16 ; John xi. 33). It is in
the spirit that purposes are formed (Acts xix. 21, xx. 22); it is
in the spirit that zeal dwells (Acts xviii. 25), as well as
meekness (1 Pet. iii. 4). Now, since this irvevfia has begotten

124 THE RIGHTEOUSNESS OF THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
the human soul, the latter also is not only the bearer of the
bodily-sensuous life, but also of the higher spiritual life. It
is the subject of every higher feeling (i.e. of every feeling
which is not owing to the body), of rest (Matt. xi. 29) and
anxiety (John x. 24, xii. 27, just like the vrvevfia in xiii. 21),
of joy (Luke i. 46, where trvevp.a stands in the parallel
clause) and sorrow (Luke ii. 35 ; Mark xiv. 34), of delight
(Matt. xii. 18; Heb. x. 38) as well as of (spiritual) well-
being (3 John 2), of love (Matt. xxii. 37) as well as of hate
(Acts xiv. 2). As the bearer of the Christian life it is
strengthened (Acts xiv. 22) and exhausted (Heb. xii. 3), it is
endangered by the sensuous lusts (1 Pet. ii. 11; 2 Pet. ii.
8, 14), it is subverted by heresy (Acts xv. 24), it is guarded
(1 Pet. ii. 25, iv. 19 ; Heb. xiii. 17) and purified (1 Pet. i. 22).
For this very reason it does not die at death (Matt. x. 28), it
is only separated from the body. The souls which are separated
from the body (Apoc. vi. 9, xx. 4) are pure spiritual essences
(TrvevfiaTa, 1 Pet. iii. 19; Heb. xii. 23), they continue to
exist iv irvevfiaTi (1 Pet. iii. 19, iv. 6). It is not till after
the death of the body that their final fate is decided, whether
they fall a prey to destruction and are therefore definitively
lost (Matt. x. 28, 39 ; Mark viii. 36, 37), or whether they are
delivered from destruction and therefore gained (Matt. x. 39 ;
Luke xxi. 19 ; 1 Pet. i. 9; Jas. i. 21, v. 20; Heb. vi. 19,
x. 39 ; John xii. 25). From this it follows that the nature
of man is conceived of as dichotomous, and that all dis
tinctions between •tyv'yf) and ivve.vaa in the sense of a tricho
tomy, such as Delitzsch especially has recently adopted, are
arbitrary (cf. Biedermann, p. 193 ; Wendt, p. 47). The soul
is just the -Trvevfia which has entered into man ; in man the
irvevfia becomes soul. It is only in this sense that even in
Heb. iv. 12 the soul is distinguished from the irvevua which
constitutes it, in order to describe the inner life of man even
i i its ultimate grounds.
(d) The central organ within man is the heart. There is
the central point of the circulation of the blood, and therefore
also the real seat of the soul. If, now, the latter is the bearer
of the spiritual life in man, the icapSia does not represent any
particular side of the life of the soul ; it is the seat of the
whole spiritual life in general (1 Pet. iii. 4 ; Jas. v. 8 ; Heb.

§ 28. THE CALLING. 125
xiii. 9). It is in the heart that thoughts dwell (Matt. ix. 4 ;
Luke ii. 35, iii. 15, xxiv. 38) ; it is the seat of self-conscious
ness and of the consciousness of truth (Heb. x. 22 ; 1 John
iii. 19-21; Jas. i. 26 ; Heb. iii. 10). Therefore it is the
spiritual eye, which, illuminated by the light -of the truth
(2 Pet. i. 19), gives light to the whole man (Matt. vi. 22, 23).
Where man does not accept the truth, the reason is to be
found in the unsusceptibility of the heart (Matt. xiii. 15 ;
Mark iii. 5, vi. 52, viii. 17; Luke xxi. 34; Acts vii. 51;
Heb. iii. 8, 15 ; John xii. 40). In the heart that which is
heard is understood (Matt. xiii. 15 ; Acts xvi. 14, xxviii. 27;
John xii. 40), kept, and pondered (Matt. xiii. 19 ; Luke i. 66,
ii. 19, 51, viii. 15, xxi. 14, cf. Heb. viii. 10, x. 16); in the
heart doubt (Luke xxiv. 38) and unbelief (Luke xxiv. 25;
Heb. iii. 12) have their root. It is also the seat of all
feelings, joyous (Acts ii. 26, 46, xiv. 17; John xvi. 22) as
well as painful (Acts ii. 37, vii. 54, xxi. 13 ; John xvi. 6, cf.
xiv. 1, 27), of all inclinations and emotions (Matt. xxii. 37,
after Deut. vi. 5 ; Luke i. 17, xxiv. 32 ; Acts iv. 32, vii. 39,
xiii. 22; 1 Pet. i. 22 ; Jas. iii. 14), of all lusts (Mark
vii. 21-23; Jas. v. 5 ; 2 Pet. ii. 14, cf. Jas. iv. 8; Acts
xv. 9) and resolutions (Acts v. 3, 4, vii. 23, xi. 23; Apoc.
xvii. 17, xviii. 7; John xiii. 2). That, however, which is in
the heart is hidden (Luke xvi. 15 ; Acts i. 24, xv. 8 ; 1 Pet.
iii. 4; Apoc. ii. 23), and cannot be perceived from without;
it is only by that which proceeds from the heart that its
nature is known, as the tree is known by the fruit (Matt.
vii. 15-20, xii. 33-35). Therefore the disposition, as that
which is purely inward and as contrasted with every expres
sion by which it is perceived, has its seat in the heart (Luke
I 51 ; Heb. iv. 12, x. 22 ; 1 Pet. iii. 15 ; Acts viii. 21, 22).
CHAPTEE V.
THE MESSIANIC CHURCH.
§ 28. The Calling.
The founding of the kingdom of God begins with the
calling of the individuals by the Messiah, (b) The success of

126 THE MESSIANIC CHURCH.
this calling is conditioned by the nature of the hearts of the
men whom it reaches, and depends upon the existence within
them of susceptibility and longing for salvation, (c) While
levity and worldliness make at least an enduring success
impossible, selfishness, impenitence, and stupidity render the
heart altogether unsusceptible, (d) Since the majority of the
children of Israel — the nation which was first called — have
rejected this calling, Jesus has already anticipated a calling
of the Gentiles.
(a) The founding of the kingdom of God is effected by
means of a spiritual activity of the Messiah, which must meet
with success in the case of each individual who is to partici
pate in the completed theocracy (§ 14, b). The first condition
of this success is that the individual be reached by that
activity, and in order that this may happen, a call is addressed
to him (Mark ii. 17). As in Luke (v. 32), this call may be
conceived of as a summons to repentance (§ 21); it is, how
ever, also represented as a summons to work in God's vine
yard (Matt. xx. 1-7), i.e. (according to § 26, a) to the striving
after righteousness which is pleasing to God, which striving, of
course, presupposes a thorough repentance. On the other
hand, seeing that it is by means of this calling that the
individual is to be led to participate in the kingdom of God,
and seeing that the kingdom of God is the highest good,
that which brings with it the fulfilment of all the promises
and the full Messianic salvation, it can also be represented
as the invitation to a feast with its joys (Luke xiv. 16 =
Matt. xxii. 2). Lastly, inasmuch as salvation is brought
by the Messiah (§ 22), it can also be described as a seek
ing of the lost (Luke xix. 10, cf. the parables of the lost
sheep and the lost coin, Luke xv. 3-10), or as a careful
gathering together, which resembles the gathering of her
chickens by the hen, that they may find protection and safety
under her wings (Matt, xxiii. 37). Thus the calling is con
ceived of, sometimes as a designation to the fulfilling of a
definite duty, sometimes as a designation to the highest salva
tion. In every case, however, the point in question is not, as
in the Old Testament, the calling of the nation as a nation
(cf. Isa. xiii. 6, xlviii. 12, 15), but of its individual
members.

§ 28. THE CALLING. 127
(h) In the parable which represents the varied success of
the activity of Jesus in founding the kingdom, and therefore
also of the calling (Matt. xiii. 3—9), the oldest Gospel correctly
explains the good soil, which brings forth an hundred fold,
as referring to the susceptible hearts (Mark iv. 20 : oirwe?
dicovovcriv tov Xoyov ical TrapaBe^ovTai). Wherein this
susceptibility consists is stated more precisely in the four
original beatitudes of the Sermon on the Mount (cf. my
Matthdusev. p. 132-136), which specify the conditions of
participating in the already present kingdom of God, and in
its saving blessings. They pronounce the poor blessed, who
mourn on account of their poverty in the province of the
spiritual life (Matt. v. 3, 4), and yearn after righteousness
(ver. 6). If the Messiah proclaims the message of the king
dom of God which has appeared, and in which righteousness
is realized, it is natural that he alone can be susceptible to
this message who feels his poverty in this respect, and there
fore desires that it may be removed. It is the same striving
after righteousness which shows itself, only in another manner,
in the case of those who suffer themselves to be persecuted
for the sake of righteousness (ver. 10), who therefore rather
endure persecution . than leave off striving after that which,
even in its imperfect form (§ 21, a), is to them so great a
good. It is true the invitation to the weary and heavy-
laden (xi. 28) is not addressed, in the first instance at
least, to the penitent ; but the pressure of the law, of which
it speaks (§ 21, b), is nevertheless felt only by those who
continually -perceive their incapacity to fulfil it, or the in
sufficiency of their fulfilment. Jesus sets up children as
patterns of this lively susceptibility, which springs from the
feeling of neediness (Mark x. 14, 15) ; and one can attain this
feeling only when, looking away from everything which he
thinks he already possesses, or is, or can effect, he feels his
poverty, weakness, and insufficiency, and so, humbling him
self, becomes like children, to whom the feeling of their
neediness is natural (Matt, xviii. 3, 4). Accordingly it is
also the simple (xi. 25) to whom the mystery of the kingdom
of God is made known ; on the other hand, the consciousness
of one's own wisdom (o-o<pol ical avveTot) prevents the feeling
of one's neediness from being awakened, and therefore it is

128 THE MESSIANIC CHURCH.
the penitent who obtain salvation, rather than the self-
righteous (Luke xviii. 10-14).
(c) In the parable of the field of different kinds of soil, the
chief hindrances which oppose the calling in men's hearts are
plainly described as stupidity, levity, and worldliness (cf. my
Markusev. p. 141). This parable shows that, under certain
circumstances at least, levity and worldliness permit a kind
of success to the calling, though not a success which is lasting.
On the other hand, no effect is possible, if men resemble selfish
children, who are always demanding that all the others dance
as they pipe (Matt. xi. 16, 17 = Luke vii. 32). As soon as the
call is not after their mind, they will not receive it ; just as
the wise and prudent reject it (ver. 25), because the counsel
of divine wisdom does not correspond with the wisdom of
which they are so proud. The case is the same wherever
there is no previous disposition to obey the call to repentance
(note a; Matt. xi. 20, xii. 41; Luke xiii. 3, 5). This, of
course, may be owing to very different causes. It may be
owing to the self-righteousness which thinks it needs no
repentance (Luke xviii. 11, 12); it may, however, also be
owing to the delight in a life of sin which one will not change.
When Jesus complains of the impenitence of His contempo
raries, the common reason was probably that worldliness, which -
would not be, at least permanently, roused out of its indiffer
ence to all higher interests. How this spirit has no sense
for the call to the kingdom of God is shown by the parable
in Luke xiv. 16-20, according to which the people despise
this call on account of their worldly interests. This is already
the stupidity which Jesus compares to the beaten way, upon
which the seed finds no soil in which to take root (Matt.
xiii. 4), or to the condition of the diseased eye which is unsus
ceptible to the light (Luke xi. 34, 35 = Matt. vi. 22, 23).
This condition, in which every susceptibility is extinguished,
Jesus describes also as death (Matt. viii. 2 2) ; and He describes
in the same way the degradation into a life of sin, from which
one is roused only when the need of repentance again be
comes active (Luke xv. 24, 32).
(d) Jesus knew that He was sent exclusively to the children
of Israel (Matt. xv. 24, cf. Luke xiii. 16, xix. 19) ; His whole
proclamation of the kingdom of God, seeing that it attached .

§ 29. DISCIPLESHIP. 129
itself to Old Testament prophecy, could be meant only for the
nation which had been prepared by that prophecy for the
appearing of the Messiah. But since the calling was always
addressed to individuals, and was by no means certain of
success, it remained possible that the greater part of the
nation which was appointed in the first instance to salvation
would reject this call (cf. § 15, b). Such was indeed the case ;
the longer Jesus continued His activity, the more it became
evident that the nation, on the whole, remained unsusceptible
to the message of the kingdom of God in His sense. The
calling of others must therefore have been looked forward to.
In this sense the parable of the supper (Matt. xxii. 1-14 = Luke
xiv. 16-24) has, already in the apostolic source, hinted at
the eventual calling of the Gentiles instead of the first-called
Jews (cf. my Matthdusev. p. 468 ff); and if Matt. xxi. 43
formed, in the apostolic source, the application of the parable
of the rebellious husbandmen (cf. my Markusev. p. 387), this
parable also anticipates that the Gentiles, instead of the Jews,
may be called to be the bearers of the theocracy, i.e. as com
pleted in the Messianic time. In the apostolic source, how
ever, the rejection of those who had originally belonged to the
kingdom, and the participation of many Gentiles in the festival
of the kingdom, are plainly threatened (Luke xiii. 28, 29 =
Matt. viii. 11, 12) ; although nothing is said as to the man
ner in which they obtain this participation, or in which they
are called (cf. also Luke iv. 25—27). It is only certain that
the calling of them did not lie in the vocation and purpose
of Jesus.1 § 29. Discipleship.
He who is susceptible to the calling listens eagerly to the
preaching of Jesus, and becomes His disciple, (b) In this dis
cipleship he learns to confess Jesus as the Messiah, (c) Still,
at first, faith appears only as trust in the miraculous power of
1 On the other hand, the parable of the labourers in the vineyard does not
refer to the calling of the Gentiles (Matt. xx. 1-7). In this parable the differ
ence of the times at which the individuals are called, a difference which condi
tions the different length of their labours in the vineyard, only serves to bring
out the different nature of their services.
VOL. I. I

130 THE MESSIANIC CHURCH.
Jesus to help, or as faith in His word, (d) If, in this way, the
success of the calling appears to depend entirely upon the
behaviour of man, it is nevertheless also regarded as a
working of God, which is conditioned, however, by human
susceptibility. (a) Whoever has the right susceptibility (§ 28, b) will also
bear himself in the right manner towards the calling which
is addressed to him. If Jesus calls, he comes to Him (Matt.
xi. 28 ; Luke xiv. 26), he hears His word (Matt. xiii. 9 ; Luke
x. 42, cf. ver. 39), accepts it (Mark iv. 20), and keeps it (Luke
xi. 28). It is a sign of such a susceptible hearing that he
comes and inquires, when the meaning of the words of Jesus
remains dark to him (Mark iv. 10, vii. 17). To such eager
listeners Jesus opens up the mysteries of the kingdom of
God, inasmuch as to them He explains the parables, which
remain unintelligible to the unsusceptible people (iv. 11 f., 34).
This hearing, however, awakens the desire for further hearing ;
they attach themselves to Jesus, and follow Him in His
journeys (Mark viii. 34, x. 21; Luke ix. 61). Such as
accompany Him more or less continually, the earliest tradition
calls disciples of Jesus (Luke xiv. 2 7 : uadrjTal). They sub
mit themselves continually to His guidance and instruction ;
they take His yoke upon them, and learn not only from His
word, but also from His example (Matt. xi. 29 ; for which
see § 21, d).
(b) Discipleship involves at the same time a special rela
tion to the person of Jesus. Since He professes to be a
messenger of God, it is only he who receives Him as such
that will hear and receive His word (Matt. x. 40 : o i/xe
Se^o/xeyo?). But since He declares Himself to be not merely
a messenger of God in general, but the Messiah, His disciples
must confess Him as such (x. 32). For His sake (v. 11, x. 39),
or, more strictly, for His name's sake, inasmuch as they
designate Him with the name that becomes Him in virtue of
His vocation (x. 22, xix. 29), they must suffer persecution; in
His name they will gather together as His disciples (xviii. 20).
As such as see in Him the one that was looked for, and
believe, in accordance with His message, that the kingdom of
God has come with Him (xi. 11 ; see § 14, a), they are already
in the kingdom. Still, in the oldest source, this relation to

§ 29. DISCIPLESHIP. 131
His person is not yet called faith in Him.1 It is first of all
in the oldest Gospel that irio-reveiv is used simply of faith in
the Messiahship of Jesus (Mark i. 15, ix. 42, xv. 32).
(c) In the earliest tradition it is primarily that trust in God,
to which, according to § 20, h, the hearing of prayer is
promised, which is called faith (irio-Ti<s, Triarevetv. Matt.
xvii. 20 = Luke xvii. 6= Mark xi. 23 f., cf. ver. 22 : 7rto-Tts
@eov). In particular, it stands very frequently also for trust
in the miraculous power of Jesus to help (Matt. viii. 10,
ix. 2 ; Mark iv. 40) ; but in the last analysis this also is
only a trust in God, a trust which rests on the belief that by
means of His ambassador or the Messiah, God will grant
healing, or otherwise deliver them from their needs. In this
respect the story of the healing of the woman who had an
issue of blood is specially characteristic : according to the
oldest account (Matt. ix. 20-22), she was healed without the
intervention of any power going forth from Jesus, after He
has simply announced to her the cure which she has ex
perienced in consequence of her faith. The deliverance, which
here and elsewhere (Mark v. 23, x. 52, cf. iii. 4) is besought
of Jesus and granted by Him, is naturally deliverance from
bodily needs ; but in so far as this deliverance was besought
of Him as the one who was come as the promised Saviour and
the restorer of the kingdom, this trust in His power to work
miracles of healing must have already involved the belief that
in Him the day of salvation or the kingdom of God was
come. This faith, moreover, however dark and imperfect it
might be,2 Jesus had to demand as a condition of His working
miracles (Matt. viii. 13, ix. 28, 29, xv. 28 ; Mark v. 36,
ix. 19, 23, 24, cf. Mark vi. 5, 6); for the blessings of the
kingdom of God, among which are also the miracles of healing

1 In the only passage where it might appear to be so described (Matt, xviii. 6
= Mark ix. 42) there stood; as appears from Luke xvii. 2, only us rov /uxpuy
toIitwi (cf. Matt. x. 42) as the designation of His disciples (cf. my Markusev.
p. 322, note 2).
2 Even where one, in a somewhat superstitious manner, seeks to work miracles
by uttering the name of Jesus {i.e. His title, which describes His peculiar
significance), without attaching himself to the wider circle of the disciples in
order to hear and learn of Him, Jesus already sees the germ of discipleship, and
will not allow its development to be injured bv the intolerant prevention of
such a doing (Mark ix. 38-40).

132 THE MESSIANIC CHURCH.
(§20, d), can be shared in only by the members of the king
dom. The idea of faith receives another application, when it
denotes the trust with which one receives as true the word of
another (Mark xiii. 21), especially if he trusts him as a
messenger of God (Matt. xxi. 32 ; Mark xi. 31 : eVio-revcraTe
avTw, said of John the Baptist). Although the word occurs
but seldom, it is self-evident that such a faith lies at the root
of all right hearing and receiving of the word of Jesus.
(d) When Peter confessed Jesus to be the Messiah at a
moment when the majority of the people regarded Him as
only one of the forerunners of the Messiah, seeing that, in
His working, He in many ways did not correspond with the
national expectation, Jesus declares that it is not flesh and
blood, but God Himself that has revealed this to him (Matt.
xvi. 1 7). No doubt what is spoken of here is not the origin
of faith in the Messiah in general, but the origin of the faith
of the disciples, which had approved itself in trial, as dis
tinguished from that of the people, which rested upon human
authority or sensuous impressions, and had not stood the test ;
but still thereby the knowledge which determines them to
continue in their relation to Jesus is traced back to an
immediate operation of God. This is the case also in Matt.
xi. 25 (= Luke x. 21), where it is the knowledge, in general,
of the revelation of God which is brought by the Messiah
that is spoken of (ver. 27; cf. also xi. 19, where the children
of wisdom, i.e. those whose character is determined by divine
wisdom, justify it, and therefore attain the knowledge of
salvation). In this very place, however, it is clear that the
consciousness, that man has to thank God alone for the
knowledge which brings salvation, does not at all involve a
divine predestination of individuals to salvation, as Eitschl
(ii. p. 3 9) conceives it, but that it is only the natural arrange
ment, according to which the truth discovers itself to the
simple, and not to those who are biassed by their own
wisdom, which is here traced back to God, and hence that
this divine working does not exclude its being conditioned by
human susceptibility. For the reason why Jesus (xi. 25)
thanks God for this arrangement is evidently this, that, if
the case were different, a whole category of men would be
excluded from the knowledge which brings salvation, seeing

§ 30. THE ELECT. 133
that the simple cannot, of himself, become wise, while, by
humbling himself (xviii. 4), the wise can become a simple
man, who is capable of receiving that divine revelation. It is
true that it is said, on the other hand, that the mystery of
the kingdom of God is given to the people in parables, in
order that they may not understand it and may not attain
the knowledge that brings salvation (Mark iv. 11, 12). But
here the undoubted allusion to Isa. vi. 9, 10 already shows
that the point in question is simply as to the divine judgment
which produces obduracy, in accordance with which those
who will not hear ultimately come to this, that, in conse
quence of a holy arrangement of God, they can no longer
hear ; the people (as distinguished from the questioning dis
ciples, cf. note a) are unsusceptible and are delivered over, not
to a predetermined destruction, but to the punishment which
they have themselves deserved (cf. my Marcusev. p. 144, 145).
Only in x. 27 does a divine operation really appear to be
spoken of, which first produces the susceptibility that is
absolutely awanting (because hindered by riches), and which
is therefore altogether unconditioned. For if it is still more
difficult for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God
than for a camel to go through the eye of a needle (ver. 25),
then, of course, it is absolutely impossible for human strength.
But just as certainly as that comparison is only meant to
bring out the greatest conceivable difficulty, so certainly is
this impossibility only meant to assert, that without the
operation of God in the calling, the latter could plainly have
had no. success here, but not that there was absolutely no
point of contact whatever existing in the case of those in
whom God, by His gracious working, makes possible that
which is humanly speaking impossible.
§ 30. The Elect.
The participation of the individual in the kingdom of God,
which commences with discipleship, does not attain its com
pletion without making ever new and heavy demands upon
the disciples, (h) By reason of sin, however, the development
of disciple life is threatened with many disturbances, for the
overcoming and avoidance of which there is need of prayer,

134 THE MESSIANIC CHURCH.
watchfulness, and fidelity, (c) Accordingly, the completion of
salvation is not attained by all who have accepted the calling
and become disciples, (d) The elect ones, however, who do
attain it, may, even during the earthly development, be certain
of this completion.
(a) As the kingdom of God is not completed with the appear
ing of Jesus, so neither does discipleship render complete the
participation of the individual in that kingdom. It is true
that in consequence of its inherent productive power, the
kingdom of God will grow, not only on the whole (Mark
iv. 26 ff, for which see § 14, c), but also in each individual;
and since, according to § 21, c, the preaching of Jesus is the
energizing principle of a new godlike life, it seems that
righteousness or the kingdom of God must develop, spontane
ously as it were, towards its completion, in the case of those
who have once received the word of Jesus as His disciples.
This process, however, is by no means one naturally necessary ;
it ever afresh demands, on man's part, a free acquiescence in
the transformation of his whole life and character which is
being effected in him. Inasmuch as this transformation is a
continual annihilation of the natural bent of man's life, it
demands a protracted self-denial (Mark viii. 34), and the
readiness to make even the greatest sacrifices (Matt. v. 29 f . ;
see § 26, b). Inasmuch, however, as the kingdom of God, if
it is being realized in the disciples, calls forth a hostile
reaction of the still sinful human world (Matt. x. 17, 18,
21, 22, 28, 34-36), — such a reaction as it called forth
against Jesus (vv. 24, 25) on the part of all who would not
be with Him (xii. 30), — it demands that the disciple of Jesus
take up his cross continually (x. 38), i.e. willingly submit to
the affliction which grows out of the enmity of the world
(cf. v. 10, 11) and continue therein with patience (x. 22).
It is because of these demands, which the kingdom of God
makes upon men in the course of its gradual realization in
them, that the gate is so narrow which leads to its completion
(Luke xiii. 24 = Matt. vii. 13, 14); and not every one who
becomes a disciple of Jesus realizes the whole difficulty of his
task, and considers whether he is fully resolved to submit to
all its demands (Luke xiv. 28—33, cf. ix. 62).
(b) Since, during the development of the kingdom of God

§ 30. THE ELECT. 135
in man, the power of sin is always reasserting itself (cf. Matt.
xiii. 25 ff), and temptation arising from the world necessarily
comes in the way of the disciple (Luke xvii. 1 = Matt, xviii. 7),
it cannot be but that the demands are not always fulfilled,
which the process of the development of disciple life makes
upon him. Not perfect righteousness, but the striving after
it, is the mark of the members of the kingdom during its
earthly development (§26, d). Conscious of his shortcomings,
even the disciple of Jesus has always to pray for forgiveness
of sins ; and conscious of his inability to fulfil these demands,
he has to pray also for preservation against temptation, and
for deliverance from the power of evil (Matt. vi. 12, 13).
As Jesus intercedes for His disciples because of the assaults
of Satan (Luke xxii. 31, 32), so they, on account of the
weakness of the flesh, are to pray that they do not fall into
temptations, which will furnish them with an occasion to sin
(Mark xiv. 38) ; for there is need of prayer in order that any
help of God may be obtained (Mark ix. 29, xi. 24). The
conservation of discipleship, accordingly, is no more possible
without a divine operation than its commencement (§ 2 9, d) ;
but here also there is required susceptibility to this divine
operation, and this susceptibility is manifested in prayer, which
shows that the disciple feels his own weakness and hopes to
obtain divine help. But wherever this susceptibility is found,
that divine helping grace will as certainly be granted as the
member of the kingdom is certain that his prayers will be
heard (cf. § 20, h). In Mark xiv. 38 watchfulness appears
joined with prayer. As in this passage, this may be con
ceived of as the clearness of spirit and the prudence which
keep the eye open to the dangers which menace them upon
the path of disciple life; it may be conceived of, however,
also as the spiritual preparedness, which, in view of the
return of the Messiah, who comes to prove the demeanour of
His disciples, seeks to hold itself always ready, or to put
itself in a state of readiness, for that event (Matt. xxiv. 42-44,
xxv. 1-13; Luke xii. 35-38). During His earthly life the
bond of discipleship which attached them to the Messiah was
sufficient to keep the disciples in the normal process of the
development of the new life, and to guard them against
temptation. For the time after His departure, however, this

136 THE MESSIANIC CHURCH.
can be effected only by watchfulness in the latter sense. To
live continually in the clear consciousness of His return and
in a state of constant readiness for it, is nothing else than to
adhere faithfully to the bond of discipleship which unites the
disciples to the exalted Messiah. Accordingly, in Matt.
xxiv. 45-51, this is expressly described as fidelity. -Above
all, however, the parable of the talents (Matt. xxv. 14-30 =
Luke xix. 11-27) shows that, in the kingdom of God, that
which is of importance is not the task which has been laid
upon the individual, or the result of its performance, but the
fidelity shown in the administration of the goods entrusted to
him (cf. Luke xvi. 10-12), — in this fidelity the disciple is to
manifest the relation in which he stands to the Messiah as a
disciple. (c) Accordingly, it need not surprise us if all the disciples
of Jesus do not attain the completion of this process of the
Christian life. It may happen that one who has confessed
Jesus may, through fear of man, deny Him again in a time of
persecution (Matt. x. 28-33). Without the self-denial, how
ever, which is necessary according to note a, discipleship
becomes something altogether worthless (Luke xiv. 34 f. ; cf.
my Matthdusev. p. 143). It may happen that one who con
fesses Him as his Lord nevertheless does not the will of God,
inasmuch as he neither proves his discipleship to be real by
obedience to His word (Matt. vii. 21, 24-27), nor manifests
fidelity to Him in His service (xxv. 24-28, xxiv. 48-51),
nor shows love to Him in loving the brethren (xxv. 42-45),
and is therefore surprised by His unexpected return, and not
found in the condition of the true disciples (xxv. 8—12).
Whereas, in the normal course of the development of the
Christian life, the disciple is always gaining more and more,
he who does not use the gift he has received loses even that
which he has possessed (Matt. xxv. 29 =Luke xix. 26); he
who does not advance goes backwards, and ends in apostasy.
In consequence of his relapse, however, such a man's last state
is worse than the first (Matt. xii. 45). When the kingdom
reaches its completion, he is without the wedding garment
(xxii. 11-13, cf. v. 20), and remains shut out from this com
pletion, not because he was still sinful, or because there
was something awanting to his perfection, but because Jesus

§ 30. THE ELECT. 137
does not recognise him as His disciple (xxv. 12), and that
because he had never been or had not remained a genuine
disciple (Luke ix. 62). It is only when it is manifest
from one's demeanour that the forgiveness of sins which was
granted him has not worked that which it necessarily works
in the' children of the kingdom (§ 22, b, footnote 1), that it
is recalled (Matt, xviii. 32-35).
(d) In Matt. xxii. 14 it is said that only a few of the
many who are called are chosen ; and the parable, whose
application this saying forms, shows not only that there are
many called who refuse the calling, but also that of those
who accept it, such as are not worthy of the completion of
salvation must be rejected (note c). It follows that the
eicXeKTol are not such as have been chosen by God from all
eternity unto salvation (Eitschl, ii. p. 39) ; they are such as
are selected out of the number of the disciples as genuine dis
ciples, and are therefore, through the divine judgment, counted
worthy of the consummation of the kingdom of God. It is
His selected disciples, whom Jesus will gather together in
order that He may bring them into His kingdom (Matt.
xxiv. 31) ; they are the blessed of God, for whom the kingdom
(of the consummation) has been prepared since the foundation
of the world (xxv. 34) ; and that not because they are predesti
nated for the kingdom, but because, according to the divine
counsel, the kingdom is appointed only for the small flock of
true disciples (Luke xii. 32). This does not forbid that, even
during their earthly life, God knows these His elect ones,
hears their prayers (xviii. 7), and on their account shortens
the troubles of the last time (Matt. xxiv. 22).1 The genuine
1 In the apostolic source it was only the intercession of the elect that was
thought of here ; it delays the downfall of the whole nation in the last judg.
ment, and makes it possible that a remnant may be saved (cf. my Matthausev.
p. 510). On the other hand, Mark (xiii. 20) already plainly thinks of the pre
servation of the elect, whose election he makes to depend upon a divine decree
(t>Ss thki^xn), from the ever-increasing danger of apostasy in the time of the
last tribulations that are to try them, which danger is averted by the abridg
ment of their time of trial. Accordingly, he also already questions the possi
bility of a seduction of the elect (ver. 22 : ii tmarit), because the faithfulness of
God, which shortens the last time of trial on account of His purpose of election,
will also preserve His elect from the danger of seduction, in order that they
may not miss the goal for which He has appointed them (cf. my Marcusev.
p. 423 f.).

138 THE MESSIANIC CHURCH.
disciple of Jesus, however, knows that as such his name is
written in heaven (Luke x. 20) ; he knows that he is appointed
to be a member of the kingdom of God ; and, accordingly, so
long as he adheres closely to the bond of this discipleship, he
can be certain of the completion of his salvation.
§ 31. The Apostles and the Church.
In order that His proclamation may continue its calling
activity even after His death, Jesus has chosen and sent out
the twelve apostles, (b) By means of them, Peter taking a
prominent part in the work, the fellowship of His disciples was
to be gathered together into a separate community, (c) As
to an organization of this community, Jesus has determined
nothing ; but He has bequeathed to it authority to announce
and deny forgiveness of sins, (d) He has constituted the
congregation of the Messianic Church the heir of the grandest
promises given to Israel.
(a) If the realization of the kingdom of God depended
upon the calling reaching the individuals through the proclama
tion of Jesus, then provision had to be made that, even after
His departure from the earth, this proclamation should still
be continued, and for this purpose He has chosen and sent
forth His apostles (Mark iii. 14 : "va diroa-TeKXrj avTov<;
Ktjpvao-eiv), upon whom He has also conferred the full
dignity of ambassadors (Matt. x. 40 : 6 Be%6/j,evo<; v/xdi i/j,e
Bi^erai).1 Since the calling was addressed, in the first place,
to the nation of the twelve tribes (§ 28, d), Jesus therefore
chose twelve of them, with evident reference to the work for
which they were appointed (cf. Matt. xix. 28 = Luke xxii. 30).
From Matt. xxii. 8, 9 one could perhaps conclude, that if
Israel definitively rejected the calling, then the same messengers
were to turn to the Gentiles; but according to x. 18, Jesus
1 That He Himself already designated them as messengers (kmo-mXa, Luke
vi. 13, xi.-- 49 ; John xiii. 16) the earliest tradition is not aware. In the apo
stolic source He occasionally calls them vrpoipvrzi, o-aqdi xx) <ypxp/txrus (Matt.
xxiii. 34, cf. xiii. 52), no doubt because He purposely compares them with God's
messengers in the past and their followers, the popular teachers of the present.
According to the oldest Gospel, Peter and the sons of Zebedee stood the nearest
of all the apostles to Jesus (Mark v. 37, ix. 2, xiv. 33), and after them came
Andrew (xiii. 3, cf. i. 16, 19).

§ 31. THE APOSTLES AND THE CHURCH. 139
foretold to His disciples only that they were to stand before
heathen tribunals, and that their apology there would indirectly
be a testimony also to the Gentile nations.2 As Jesus Him
self had compared His activity in founding the kingdom to a
draught of fishes (Matt. xiii. 47 f.), so He calls the two fishers
from their previous vocation to a higher analogon of the same
(Mark i. 17); for by means of the calling they gather men into
the net of the kingdom of God. Under another image they
are the labourers who, upon the field of the world, gather into
the kingdom the harvest of God, which grows up out of the
preaching of Jesus (Matt. ix. 37 f). In the apostolic source,
the saying regarding the keys of the kingdom of God (xvi. 1 9)
probably also signified nothing else than the authorization of
the apostles to proclaim the message, by means of which men
are called into the kingdom.3 In x. 27, also, this proclama
tion is spoken of as their duty ; by means of it a divine
necessity is accomplished (ver. 26), and therefore they must
allow no fear of man to deter them from discharging it
(ver. 28).
(h) The earliest tradition is not aware of anything that
Jesus has ever done for the purpose of uniting His disciples,
2 It is by Mark that this saying of the apostolic source is first made to mean
that a direct proclamation of the gospel would reach all peoples before the end
(Mark xiii. 10), and in this form it is then repeated in Matt. xxiv. 14 (see my
Marcusev. p. 417). The formal charge to the eleven to be missionaries to the
Gentiles (Matt, xxviii. 19) — a charge which is adopted also into the spurious
appendix to Mark's Gospel (xvi. 15) — is, by the evangelist himself, expressly
put into the mouth of the exalted Christ (ver. 18), who appears there to bid
farewell to His disciples, and hence it can only express the consciousness of the
Church that the direct mission to the Gentiles, to which the apostles were led
by the further development of the history of salvation, lay in the will of Christ.
That this saying, with the whole section of the Gospel in which it occurs, cannot
be derived from the apostolic source, is, for our fundamental critical principle
(cf. § 11, c), unquestionable. But even the later behaviour of the apostles, if it
is not to be altogether incomprehensible, shows unmistakeably that the earliest
tradition knew of no express charge of Jesus to the twelve, which referred to a
mission among the Gentiles.
3 This saying, which is applied by our evangelist to Peter, had, in the apo
stolic source, probably a wider application, like the saying which is immediately
connected with it, and of which we can still prove this from Matt, xviii. 18
(cf. my Matthausev. p. 394). The meaning of the metaphorical statement
appears from xxiii. 13. For just as to shut the kingdom of God means to hinder
men from entering into it, so the keys with which it is opened signify the means
by which entrance into it is made possible for individuals.

140 THE MESSIANIC CHURCH.
in the wider sense, into a separate community. It follows,
however, from the word of promise to Peter (Matt. xvi. 18),
which undoubtedly belongs to the apostolic tradition (cf. my
Matthauscv. p. 391 ff.), that He looked forward to this in
the future. Here, for the first time, we meet the word
iKKXrjcria, whose occurrence in the apostolic source is
guaranteed by xviii. 17, and which, borrowed from the Old
Testament designation of the separate congregation of the
Israelitish national Church (?nj3, Deut. xxiii. 2, 3, LXX.),
designates the separate community of the disciples of Jesus.
Already it involves the eventual renunciation of the hope of
gaining the nation as such, when Jesus looks forward to the
establishment of a special Church belonging to Him within
the national Church which had been chosen by Jehovah (for
the purpose of realizing the theocracy). Jesus compares it to a
building, and as, in the parable in vii. 24 f., only that building
can endure which is founded upon a rock, so He describes
Peter as the rock which secures a durability to this building
more stable than that of the invincible gates of Hades. In
Peter He saw that one among the apostles whose activity
would give the Church its greatest stability and consistency,
and history shows that He was not deceived. Even Paul
still counts him among the pillars of the mother Church
(Gal. ii. 9). For this very reason He has not appointed any
definite external regulations which should guarantee this con
sistency ; He has left these to be settled by the organs, whom
He had chosen, at the time when the question should arise
as to the actual constitution of the Church. The earliest
tradition possessed no express command of Jesus to perform
the rite of baptism upon the disciples who should be gained
by the preaching of the apostles ;4 but, as we shall see,
history shows that, at the instigation of Peter, this was from
the beginning thrown as a firm bond around the fellowship of
the confessors of Jesus. No more did it possess an express
command regarding the repetition of the breaking of bread
4 That which has been said of the charge to send missions to the Gentiles (cf.
footnote 2) naturally applies also to the command regarding baptism in Matt.
xxviii. 19. This command, however, shows unambiguously, and in a way which
is regulative for all time, that, under the guidance of the Spirit, the earliest
Church had arrived at the consciousness, that in baptizing such disciples they
were only fulfilling the will of their exalted Lord.

§ 31. THE APOSTLES AND THE CHURCH. 141
and the consecration of the cup, after the manner of Jesus at
the last supper; but, as we shall see, history teaches that
herein also the practice of the apostles has, from the first,
recognised His intention, and found a bond of fellowship for
His disciples.
(c) The earliest tradition knew so little of a definite
organization which Jesus had given to this fellowship, that
such words as Matt, xxiii. 8—1 0 and xx. 2 5-2 7 seem directly
to preclude it. No definite position was even assigned to the
apostles with regard to the Church which was gathered
together by their preaching; and xvi. 18, when rightly inter
preted (note b), cannot speak of a primacy of Peter in the
sense of a special dignity. Jesus has, in anticipation,
resisted the attempt to. refuse admission within the earthly
form of the kingdom of God to such as wished to be
admitted, — whether it was attempted to keep out impure
elements, or to cast out such as had crept in (xiii. 24-30, 47,
48, for which see § 14, d). Even in xviii. 15-18, according
to its original connection (cf. my Malthausev. p. 420), the
intention of the discourse is by no means to give directions
regarding church discipline, but to show how nothing should
be left untried in order to lead the sinful brother to repent
ance, and so to gain him for the kingdom of God, to which
he would otherwise be lost in consequence of his sin. If
this attempt fails and his impenitence is accordingly brought
out, then the Church has the duty of self-preservation, it has
to exclude him, because of the danger of seduction, from their
Christian fellowship, and that, too, in virtue of its right to loose
sins (i.e. to declare them forgiven, cf. Isa. xl. 2, LXX.), or to
bind them (i.e. to declare them unpardonable). The context
makes every other explanation of the power of binding and
loosing impossible ; the Messianic Church is the legitimate
heir of the power, which the Son of man claims to Himself, to
forgive sins upon earth (ix. 6), and which He must bequeath
to His Church, if she is to remain in possession of one of the
essential blessings of the Messianic time, the immediate
assurance, viz., of the forgiveness of sins (§ 22, a). The
converse of this right, however, is, self-evidently, the right to
deny forgiveness to the impenitent; and wherever this is
denied, that very fact brings out that one no longer belongs

142 THE MESSIANIC CHURCH.
to the circle of the children of God, who alone possess forgive
ness of sins, or to the Christian brotherhood which rests upon
this divine sonship.3
(d) The promise in Matt, xviii. 1 9 f. refers to the eKKXrjcria
in the original sense, i.e. to the separate congregation of the
confessors of Jesus as such ; for that two or three are spoken
of, is only meant to indicate that this promise belongs to the
congregation without any regard to the greatness or smallness
of its numbers. As, however, Jehovah has promised to be in
the midst of Israel in the Messianic time (Joel ii. 27), so
will the (exalted) Messiah be in the midst of His Church ;
and as once the sanctuary of Israel had been the holy place,
where Jehovah would come to His people, to bless them
(Ex. xx. 24), so Jesus consecrates the congregation of the
Messianic Church as the place of blessing, where He will be
near with His gracious presence which secures the hearing of
prayer. In the Messianic time the hearing of prayer is no
longer confined to one holy place, as it had once been to the
temple (Luke i. 10); for, along with the forgiveness of sins,
the hearing of prayer is one of the Messianic blessings of
salvation which is given, immediately and perpetually, with the
new revelation of God in the Messiah (§ 20, b) ; and wher
ever the Church is found gathered in spirit around its
Messiah, there is also this blessing, which is continually
secured to her through Him. Herein it only appears afresh,
that the Church of the disciples and its successor is the
earthly realization of the kingdom of God (§ 14), and that the
latter is nothing else than the promised completion of the
theocracy (§ 13, b).
5 In the apostolic source the whole discourse in which these sayings occur
was a discourse to the fucinreci, i.e. to the disciples in the wider sense (cf. Luke
xvii. 1-4). This authority, accordingly, must not he claimed either for the
apostles, or, with Matt. xvi. 19, specially for Peter (cf. footnote 3).

§ 32. THE DOCTRINE OF RECOMPENSE. 143
CHAPTEE VI.
THE MESSIANIC CONSUMMATION.
§ 32. The Doctrine of Recompense.
Cf. B. Weiss, " die Lehre Christi vom Lohn " {Deutsche Zeitschr. f. christi.
Wiss. und christi. Leben, 1853, 40-42).
Inasmuch as, with the discipleship of Jesus, definite services
are undertaken, the relation of the members of the kingdom
to God is a relation of servitude which is entered into
with a view to a definite reward. (5) This reward is, on the
one hand, equivalent to the service ; on the other hand, it is
the same to all. (c) It consists in the heavenly completion of
the kingdom of God, the certainty of which is to furnish the
always powerful impulse for the necessary services of the
disciple, (d) The punishment must, likewise, be one which is
equivalent to the guilt ; and since there is, in the last analysis,
but one offence, there is also but one punishment for it.
(a) In the normal process of the development of the
Christian life, the likeness of His children to God would
unfold itself spontaneously, as soon as God is recognised as
their Father (§ 21, c). Since, however, this process of
development is not accomplished- without the free fulfilment
of the demands which are made upon the disciples of Jesus
(§ 30, a), there appears even within the kingdom of God a
relation between God and the members of the kingdom which
is altogether similar to that which was found in the original
form of the theocracy. God (or the Messiah in His name)
demands the fulfilment of everything which conditions the
normal course of that process, and it is the unqualified duty
of the members of the kingdom, as His servants, to obey Him.
The BovXeveiv toj 0eo3 (Matt. vi. 24) in the exclusive sense
(§ 2 6, a) is the characteristic righteousness of the members of
the kingdom, who are frequently represented in the parables
as the BovXoi of God (Matt, xviii. 23 ; Luke xvii. 17) or His
Messiah (Matt. xxiv. 45, xxv. 14), like the members of the
Israelitish theocracy (xxi. 33 ff). It is not, however, the
original relation of man to God which is copied in this

144 THE MESSIANIC CONSUMMATION.
relation of servitude; but as the latter rests, in the Old
Testament, upon the covenant between Jehovah and His
people, so here also it is such a relation as comes into exist
ence in consequence of the calling of God and the free
acquiescence in that calling on the part of man. It is the
disciples of Jesus who have become His BovXot (x. 24 £), who
have received His goods (xxv. 14 f.) and gifts, and among
these especially the gift of forgiveness of sin (xviii. 23-27).
Accordingly, in xx. 1-7, this relation is expressly conceived
of as a relation which is regulated by contract,1 and therefore
involves the idea of a reward, and that not only where, as in
this parable, a special arrangement is made as to the reward
by a mutual free agreement, but even where it is only the
daily maintenance which belongs to the servant which is
looked upon as the reward of his labour (x. 10). Even in
the parable in Luke xvii. 7-10 this reward is assumed as
self-evident (ver. 8), and it is only denied that the servant
can claim for his obligatory service a recompense which far
exceeds it. As the servants of God in the Israelitish
theocracy were entitled, by reason of their covenant relation
ship, to look for the fulfilment of the promise as a reward
for their fulfilment of their covenant obligations, so the disciple
of Jesus is entitled to look for the completion of salvation
as a reward for the fulfilment of the demands which are
made upon him in virtue of his being a disciple.2
(b) The fundamental law of every relation of reward is the
equivalence of the reward and the service. In order that
this equivalence may come out in the clearest manner possible,
it is promised the confessor of Jesus that Jesus will confess
him as His (genuine) disciple (Matt. x. 32), or the promised
reward is otherwise described in analogy with the service
which is demanded (cf. v. 7, vi. 14, xxv. 29). In the parable
in Luke xii. 3 7 this is expressed in a manner which is almost
paradoxical ; the reward is exactly the same as the service,
1 This relation of servitude, moreover, forms no opposition whatever to the filial
relation which is constituted by the new revelation of God (§ 20, b). Even the
son has to serve his father (Luke xv. 29), and, if need be, he has to work in the
vineyard, like the day-labourer (Matt. xxi. 28 compared with xx. 4).
2 Reuss is, accordingly, quite mistaken, when he still (i. p. 203 [E. Tr. i.
174 f.]) makes the idea of reward in the discourses of Jesus refer to the reward
which the good deed finds in itself.

§ 32. THE DOCTRINE OF RECOMPENSE. 145
the lord serves the servant as the servant had previously
served his lord. Now, since, according to § 30, a, the service
of the disciple consists essentially in self-surrender and self-
sacrifice, this equivalence can also be so represented as to mean
that they receive again what they have given up (Matt. x. 3 9,
cf. Mark x. 30), or obtain what they have been without (Luke
xiv. 11, cf. Matt. v. 5, where the meek are the very ones who
have no thought of obtaining dominion). Nevertheless, this
equivalence is not to be so conceived of as if it were a quan
titative weighing of the reward according to the measure of
the service, which is spoken of; for the reward is a great one
(Matt. v. 12, 46), it is manifold (xix. 29, cf. Luke vi. 38),
and altogether disproportionate to the service. He who
receives a prophet, a pious man, or a disciple of Jesus as such,
obtains the reward of him whom he has received, although
he has not rendered such a service as he, but has only, by
receiving him, shown his good pleasure in his service (Matt.
x. 41, 42). He who has been faithful over a few things is
set over many things (xxv. 21—23, xxiv. 46, 47). Lastly,
the parable in xx. 1—1 6 teaches expressly that, notwithstand
ing the greatest quantitative difference in the service (a dif
ference which is conditioned by the different time of the
calling, or, according to xxv. 1 5, by the task which is assigned
each one according to his several ability), the reward in the
kingdom of God is the same to all, that the last are made
equal to the first, and vice versa,?
(c) These two apparently contradictory statements regarding
the reward in the kingdom of God (note h) find their point of
union in this, that that equivalence is to be conceived of as
qualitative ; the reward is nothing foreign to the service. It
consists, viz. for every individual, in participation in the
3 Matt. v. 19 does not stand in contradiction with this ; for it is only the sig
nificance of the individual in the kingdom of God in this world which is spoken
of there ; nor do Matt. xix. 28 and Mark x. 40, where the question is as to the
position and significance of the individual in the completed kingdom of God,
but not as to the bestowal of reward. Indeed, Jesus says expressly in Mark
x. 40, that He cannot dispose of the former as of the latter, seeing that
it depends upon the God-given bent of one's nature and the designation
which that implies, in saying which, of course, there is assumed the fulfilment
of the special task which these involve (ver. 38), which fulfilment remains
throughout the condition of participation in the completed kingdom of God.
VOL. L K

146 THE MESSIANIC CONSUMMATION.
completed kingdom of God in heaven ; there, where the
heavenly Father has His dwelling, the will of God is already
done in a perfect manner (vi. 10), there alone can be also the
place of the completed kingdom of God. Since this consum
mation is guaranteed in the manifestation of the Messiah,
the reward is immediately adjudged to the members of the
kingdom; but, meanwhile, it remains deposited in heaven
(v. 12, 46, vi. 1) as a heavenly treasure (vi. 20 ; Mark x. 21),
which they cannot receive till the future. Now, since every
service and sacrifice which is demanded of the disciples of
Jesus is, in the long run, nothing else than a proof of their
striving after the completed kingdom of God (Matt. vi. 33;
see § 26), so the reward is nothing else than the attainment
of that which was striven after in the service, with which, on
the one hand, it must be as homogeneous as, on the other
hand, it surpasses it as far as the consummation surpasses
every present realization. There is not, however, a stronger
impulse for the striving after this kingdom than the assurance
that its end will be reached at last ; in this sense the expecta
tion of the heavenly reward remains the motive for every
service of the members of the kingdom. Every other motive
destroys the value of such service ; he who seeks his reward
in the approbation of men (Matt. vi. 1, 2, 5, 16), or in requital
from them (v. 46 ; Luke xiv. 12—14), has had his reward,
and has no higher reward to expect.. The hope of the
heavenly reward is at all times to give the heart the right
bent towards heaven (Matt. vi. 21), and towards the ideal of
the striving of the members of the kingdom which is already
realized there (cf. § 26, c).
(d) Like the bestowal of reward, the fear of punishment
can also become the motive of service (Matt. x. 28), since the
latter is only the reverse side of the former. Accordingly, the
fundamental law of the equivalence of guilt and punishment
applies here also. Here also, with what measure a man has
measured it is measured to him, he who judges is judged
(vii. 1, 2), he who denies is denied (x. 33), he who does not
forgive does not obtain forgiveness (xviii. 35). Here, too, of
course, the greatness of the guilt is not to be measured quan
titatively; it depends upon the greatness of the motive
(xii. 41, 42, xi. 22, 24), and of the ability (Luke xii. 47, 48),

§ 33. THE RETURN OF THE MESSIAH, AND THE JUDGMENT. 147
which the individual had to avoid the sin and do the will of
God. Here, too, the punishment can be, at last, only one
and the same, viz. exclusion from the completed kingdom of
God (Matt. viii. 12, xxii. 13, xxiv. 40, 41, xxv. 12),* to
which every one is condemned who cannot be acknowledged
as righteous in the day of judgment (xii. 36, 37). When, in
this passage, the final decision is made dependent upon men's
words, it is plain from the context that words, whose import
ance is so 'often overlooked, are regarded as the specific expres
sion of the disposition (vv. 3 3-35, cf. v. 2 2). The fundamental
disposition, however, which is demanded of the disciple, is the
striving after the kingdom of God and His righteousness
(§ 26). It is not a deficiency in respect of any particular
individual works which makes justification impossible and
condemnation necessary, but the absence of the tokens of
genuine discipleship, apostasy from the Messiah in its many
forms (§ 30, c); it is only because the Messiah recognises, in
the deeds of brotherly love, the attitude which men assume
towards His person, that these are decisive in the judgment
(xxv. 31—46). He who has not striven after the kingdom of
God as a true disciple of Jesus cannot reach that kingdom.

§ 33. The Return of the Messiah, and the Judgment.
According to the earliest tradition, Jesus has represented
His return as an event which was to be looked for during the
current generation, although the point of time within that period
remained indeterminable, (b) As foretokens of His return
He has named the grievous throes of the time in general, and
the judgment which was to fall upon Israel in particular.
(c) With His return, however, there commences the destruction
of the world, which sweeps away the impenitent world ; from
* This does not make it impossible to regard present evils as a punishment,
just as the future bestowal of rewards does not exclude a recompense in this pre
sent world (Mark x. 30). This is taken for granted in Matt. ix. 2, where the
removal of the punishment follows expressly upon the removal of the guilt ; but
from this very fact it is plain that this punishment was not a final one. In
Luke xiii. 1-5, on the other hand, we are expressly warned against concluding
from the degree of the evil to the degree of the guilt ; while the threatening of
a similar punishment is only used as a motive to impel them to fulfil the
divine demand.

148 THE MESSIANIC CONSUMMATION.
this final judgment only the elect are saved, and they are then
separated from the spurious members of the Church of the
disciples. (a) As the founding of the kingdom of God demanded the
divine deed of the sending of His Messiah, so neither can its
expected consummation be brought about without a new inter
position of God, and that likewise by means of the Messiah.
Accordingly, the Messiah, who is exalted to God's right hand
(§ 19, c), must return.1 God has reserved it to Himself alone
to determine the day and the hour of this return (Mark xiii. 32).
But smce prophecy had always announced the completion of
salvation as standing in immediate connection with the com
mencement of the time of salvation, and the latter had already
come with the Messiah, the return of the Messiah which was
to bring about that completion could not but be looked for as
very near at hand. At the close of the great discourse
regarding His return Jesus says expressly, that the present
generation will yet witness the events of which He prophesies
(Matt. xxiv. 34) ; and according to Mark ix. 1 not all, it is
true, but yet at least some of His hearers, will yet see the
coming completion of the kingdom of God. The most of His
discourses, however, regarding His return, and, in particular,
the exhortations to watchfulness, indirectly assume that those
who are addressed will live to meet Him on that occasion.2
1 The attempt of W. Weiffenbach {Quae Jesu in regno coelesti dignitas sit,
Gissae 1868 ; Der Wiederkunftsgedanke Jesu, Leipzig 1873), to reduce the pro
phecy of Jesus regarding His return to the promise of His reappearance after the
resurrection, presupposes a rejection of its most essential moments which
depends upon an arbitrary criticism, and is based upon the fact that that pro
phecy appears first of all in connection with the prophecy of His death and
resurrection, a fact which proves nothing, since His removal from the earth is
the self-evident presupposition of His return. Compare against this view B.
Piinjer {die Wiederkunftsreden Jesu, Zeitschr. f. wiss. Theol. 1878, 2), who,
it is true, for his part, also finds an (unreconciled) contradiction between the
prophecy of His return and His presentiment of death, in consequence of his
denying that the death of Jesus, which was, it is alleged, only humanly neces
sary for Him, had any hearing upon His Messianic calling (cf. on the other
hand, § 22, c), and ignoring His foresight of His resurrection and exaltation.
And yet Luke xvii. 25 shows expressly, how it is His rejection by the present
generation that makes it necessary for Jesus to speak of a future day of the Son
of man (cf. my Mattliausev. p. 406).
2 This does not by any means, as is frequently asserted, stand in contradic
tion with Mark xiii. 32, for the time of the current generation presented a very
considerable margin for the determining of the day and hour. Nor do the

§ 33. THE RETURN OF THE MESSIAH, AND THE JUDGMENT. 149
This did not exclude the possibility that there might also be
an unexpected long delay (Matt. xxiv. 48, xxv. 5 ; Mark
xiii. 35= Luke xii. 38) ; but even although the judge appeared
to delay, the judgment was nevertheless soon to ..commence
(Luke xviii. 2-8). It is mere critical arbitrariness to regard
all such statements simply as a later expression of disappointed
expectations. Jesus has warned them not to be deceived by
false Messiahs (Matt. xxiv. 5), whose way, according to Mark
xiii. 2 1 f., false prophets will prepare by signs and wonders ;
He has warned them not to be led astray by premature
announcements of His return, since it will everywhere
manifest itself visibly and unmistakeably, like the lightning
which comes down from heaven (Luke xvii. 23, 24, 37 — Matt.
xxiv. 26-28); He has warned them not to take the heralds
of the end for the end itself (xxiv. 6-8). This end will come
suddenly and unexpectedly, like a thief in the night (xxiv. 43,
44, xxv. 13).
(b) Although the consummation of all things is not brought
about in the natural way of historical development, it is never
theless a condition of its commencement, that the time has
become ripe for it. As the Messiah could not appear upon
the scene until the time was fulfilled (Mark i. 15), so, accord
ing to the divinely appointed course of the historical develop
ment, certain events must have taken place before He returns ;
parables in Matt. xiii. 31-33 (which, moreover, by no means anticipate a con
version and transformation of the whole world (cf. § 14, c), an anticipation which,
according to § 28, d, and 31, a, is historically inconceivable) say anything as
to the time which must still elapse till the consummation ; they only contrast
the divinely purposed comprehensive goal of the development of the kingdom
of God with its small beginnings. For this very reason they cannot prove any
thing against the view that that goal is to be reached, not by way of a purely
historical development, but by means of a new divine deed. That Jesus, how
ever, represented His return as an event which was to be looked for during the
current generation, is proved undoubtedly by the universal and, notwithstanding
many disappointments, firmly cherished hope of the apostolic age ; and, con
sidering His attachment to Old Testament prophecy, we could not expect it to
be otherwise (see above). Those, however, who speak of an " error" on the part
of Jesus, which in that case would have to be assumed, altogether misconceive
the nature of biblical prophecy, which, so far as regards its fulfilment, always
remains dependent on the historical development. In this development, how
ever, the voluntary behaviour of man forms an essential factor, in conformity
with which the Father, who guides this development, alone determines the time
and the hour, under certain circumstances even transcending the limits origin
ally set by Himself and announced by prophecy (Mark xiii. 32).

150 THE MESSIANIC CONSUMMATION.
and from these, as its foretokens, men can then discern the
nearness of the divinely appointed moment of the consumma
tion. Upon this fundamental thought of apocalyptic prophecy
rests also the prophecy of Jesus regarding His return. As
painful pangs precede the hour of birth, so neither can the
consummation come until after grievous times have befallen
the world. Jesus had spoken of great wars between nations
and kingdoms, famine, pestilence, and earthquakes as the com
mencement of these pangs (Matt. xxiv. 6-8). Since, however,
the judgment comes at the same time as the consumma
tion of all things, it is above all necessary that the world has
first become ripe for judgment by making full the measure of
its guilt. In the historical situation of the time of Jesus
this greatest development of sin could present itself only
within the province of the nation which had rejected its
Messiah ; by their behaviour towards the messengers of Jesus
the blood-stained hierarchy had first to make full the measure
of their fathers, before the final judgment which was already
threatened them in Mark xii. 9 could fall upon them and the
nation (Matt, xxiii. 32-36). The occasion of this had to be
furnished by the appearing of false Messiahs (note a), since
these could work only in a way which would humour the
hope of a worldly Messiah. If these succeeded in leading
the people astray (xxiv. 5), then the outbreak of the Jewish
war of revolution was unavoidable. As soon, however, as, in
consequence of this, the abomination of desolation stood upon
holy soil, i.e. when the armies of the Gentiles appeared in the
land of Judea, there was no more any deliverance for the
people ; Jesus could only exhort' the believers among them to
most rapid flight (xxiv. 15—20). Then there would come
upon the God-forsaken people such a tribulation as had never
been before (ver. 21); and since, with this, the last great
judgment of God already began,3 the clay of the return must
3 That great judgments must fall upon Israel before the time of salvation
comes, had also been proclaimed often enough by the prophets. In Luke xiii.
3, 5 Jesus has also already threatened the nation, in the event of its impeni
tence, with this, the last and greatest of them all ; in the parable of the fig-tree
He has deferred it still for a short time (vv. 6-9) ; and at last, in a terror-strik
ing symbolical action, He has foretold it to the nation, which had all the appear
ance of zeal for God and His law, but which, nevertheless, when Jesus sought
the fruits of such zeal, could not produce them (Mark xi. 12-14, cf. Luke xix.

§ 33. THE RETURN OF THE MESSIAH, AND THE JUDGMENT. 151
now immediately appear (ver. 2 9) ; its coming they can as
certainly perceive from these foretokens as they can perceive
the coming of summer from the fact that the fig-tree is
becoming green (vv. 32, 33).4
(c) The day of the return, viz., is that great day of universal
judgment which is looked forward to by prophecy (rj rj/u,epa
Kpiaecc;, Matt. xi. 22, xii. 36). Accordingly, it dawns with
the appearing of the signs in heaven, which, in the prophets,
so often announce the coming of the great day of the Lord
(Matt. xxiv. 49, cf. Joel ii. 10, 30, 31, iii. 15 ; Isa. xiii. 10, 13 ;
Jer. iv. 23, 24 ; Ezek. xxxii. 7, 8 ; Hagg. ii. 6 ; Mark viii. 11 ;
for which see my Markusev. p. 270), and with which the destruc
tion of the world has inevitably come. It is this which
carries away the world which is living on in carnal security,
as the flood once carried men away in the time of Noah (Matt.
xxiv. 37—39 =Luke xvii. 26, 27),5 and makes an end at once
of everything that is sinful (xvii. 37). It is only His elect
41-44). In this judgment the blood of all the slain righteous ones was to come
upon the genuine sons of the murderers of the prophets (Matt, xxiii. 35, 36) ; in
it the temple should be destroyed, so that no stone would remain standing upon
another (Mark xiii. 2, ef. § 24 d) ; in it must naturally be destroyed also the
holy city, from which God had withdrawn His gracious presence (Matt, xxiii. 38).
But the earliest tradition did not possess any direct prophecy of the destruction
of Jerusalem.
4 It is this so very natural historical combination — a combination which mani
festly lies at the root of all later combinations, and, by its simplicity, plainly
betrays itself as the original one — which has recently been found so peculiarly
offensive as being "a Jewish apocalyptic and calculation of the future," and
which it is sought to remove from the eschatological discourse of Jesus by ascrib
ing it to a " small Jewish or Jewish-Christian apocalypse," which the evangelists
have interwoven with that discourse (cf. the different constructions of it in Weif-
fenbach and Piinjer). But it has been shown in my Matthaus- und Markusev.,
how the substance of the eschatological discourse, as it stood in the apostolic
source, can still be clearly pointed out in Mark xiii. and Matt. xxiv. , and from
this it follows, that that very combination of the return with the tribulation
which was to fall upon Judea formed its most original kernel.
5 It follows from this, that when Jesus returns, the great mass of men has not
yet by any means become disciples. It is rather the case that only a few find
the narrow way (Matt. vii. 14, xxii. 14 ; Luke xii. 32), and often those who are
most closely connected in life are separated by the judgment (Matt. xxiv. 40, 41).
In other places also men on the whole are generally contrasted with the disciples
(Matt. v. 16, 19, x. 32, 33 ; Mark i. 17), they are thought of as sinful (Matt.
xii. 31, 36 ; Mark vii. 21, viii. 33 ; Luke xiii. 4), nay, even as hostile to Christ
(Mark ix. 31) and the disciples (Matt x. 17 ; Luke vi. 22, 26). The second
discourse of the apostolic source relating to the Parousia shows how, at His
second coming, the Messiah will find men as little prepared for His judgment

152 THE MESSIANIC CONSUMMATION.
ones that Jesus causes to be gathered around Him by the
angels (Matt. xxiv. 31) from the four ends of the earth (cf.
viii. 11, 12), for the purpose of taking them to Himself, and
thus saving them from destruction (Luke xvii. 34, 35). But
since it is only the elect that are saved (§ 30), the Messianic
judgment brings also the sifting of the members of the Church
of the disciples, which, according to § 14 d, was deferred to the
end of the development, and which can also be so represented
as if the unworthy members are cast out before the commence
ment of the completion of salvation (Matt. xiii. 30, 48, xxii.
11-13)," because Jesus does not recognise them as His true
disciples (xxv. 1 0-1 2 ; Luke xiii. 2 5). And since this great
day of judgment is the day of Jehovah Himself, it is also
represented as if the testimony, which the Messiah bears
before the throne of God as to the attitude of the individuals
towards Himself, decides their fate in the judgment (Matt.
x. 32, 33).7 § 34. The Consummation of all things.
The return of the Messiah brings also the completion of the
kingdom of God, which completion is conceived of, however, not
as earthly, but as heavenly, (b) In the completed kingdom
of God there commences eternal life in the seeing of God.
as, on the occasion of His first gracious coming, He found a reception from Israel
(Luke xvii. 25 ff., for which see my Matthausev. p. 519). From this it appears
afresh, that the interpretation of the parables of Matt. xiii. 31-33, which was
rejected in footnote 2, cannot lie in the mind of Jesus.
6 It is certain that, in the apostolic source, the instructive representation in
Matt. xxv. 31-46, which the first evangelist has conceived as a description of
the judgment of the world (ver. 32), referred to this separation of the genuine
and the spurious members of the Church. For Jesus looks upon all those who
are gathered before Him as His brethren (vv. 40, 45) ; and this is conceivable
only if they were by confession His disciples. But although a separation into
two parts is expressly made here, and sentence is pronounced upon each part, it
is nevertheless certainly not the intention of this discourse to give a description
of the procedure at the judgment (since such expressions as we find in vv. 37-39,
ver. 44, would have been rendered impossible had it been intended to give such
informatiqn), but to give a vivid idea of the decisive value of brotherly love.
7 In accordance with this we can understand how, in the parables of the apo
stolic source, it can be now God Himself (Matt, xviii. 32, xx. 8, xxii. 11 ; Luke
xviii. 7), now His Messiah (Matt. xiii. 30, xxiv. 50, xxv. 12, 19), who comes in
judgment ; just as, probably even in the apostolic source (Matt. xxv. 31), even
the Son of man was to sit upon the throne as the judge of the world.

§ 34. THE CONSUMMATION OF ALL THINGS. 153
(c) From this life the damned are excluded, and therewith their
souls are delivered over to final destruction, (d) This, how
ever, is felt in hell as the most dreadful eternal misery.
(a) As appears from the connection of Mark viii. 38 and
ix. 1, the kingdom of God comes along with the returning
Messiah, and that, too, eV Bvvd/iei, which can only mean that
then the sovereignty of God attains the full development of
its power, and therefore the kingdom of God its completion.
From the very beginning the message regarding the kingdom
of God points to this completion (§ 15); it is only into the
completed kingdom of God that the elect who are gathered
around the returning Messiah can be received along with Him
(Matt. xxiv. 31; Luke xvii. 34 f, for which see § 33, c).
For only those who are found approved can at last enter into
the kingdom of God (Matt. v. 20, vii. 21, xviii. 3) or possess
it (xxv. 3 4 : KXrjpovo/j,eiv). If in this latter expression there
already lies an echo of the earliest promise which was given to
the people of Israel, the promise, viz., of the possession of the
promised land (Lev. xx. 24), in Matt. v. 5 the possession of
the land (Ps. xxxvii. 11) is expressly a symbolical expression
for the full possession of salvation, which can be conceived of
as a possession of the land of promise, i.e. of the kingdom of
God in its completion.1 That the ultimate completion of the
kingdom of God is conceived of as heavenly, follows already
from the fact that the reward, which consists in participation
in that kingdom, is conceived of as one that is deposited in
heaven (§ 32, c). No doubt, we could also think merely of
the kingdom of God which is prepared from the foundation of
the world (Matt. xxv. 34), and therefore of the kingdom of
God in the divine decree, so that its coming (Mark ix. 1)
1 Taken in its literal sense, — a sense which is also in keeping with the passage
in the Psalm, — the expression would assert that, after the extirpation of all the
godless, the pious in Israel would attain to exclusive sovereignty in Palestine,
i.e. that the kingdom of God would be realized in the forms of the national
theocracy. If this, however, were its meaning, it would not be the absolute
completion that is promised here, but such an earthly realization of the kingdom
of God in Israel as all the prophets have hoped for, but which remained depen
dent upon the behaviour of the people (cf. § 15, b, 19, 6). There is no clearer
proof of the essential faithfulness of the tradition of the eschatological discourses
of Jesus than the manner in which an earthly realization of the kingdom of God
in the forms of the national theocracy is neither distinctly promised nor cate
gorically excluded.

154 THE MESSIANIC CONSUMMATION.
would be only a descent upon the earth for its realization in
the chiliastic sense. But the hope of an earthly kingdom,
which the returning Messiah founds, is not only foreign to the
eschatological discourses of Jesus, but is even excluded by
them. For an essential requisite of such a kingdom is the
resurrection of the righteous to earthly life, whereas, in Mark
xii. 24 ff, Jesus expressly opposes the idea of such a resurrec
tion, even in the case of the patriarchs, as being a limitation
of the creative power of God.2 Moreover, Jesus has always
connected His return only with the absolute consummation of
all things (cf. Biedermann, p. 294), and never with an earthly
realization of the kingdom of God.3 If, in Matt. v. 18,
xxiv. 35, a passing away of heaven and earth is looked for
ward to, then the signs in heaven described in xxiv. 29, with
which His return commences (§ 33, c), can only be understood
literally, in which case they already involve the commence
ment of this catastrophe, so that the returning Messiah no
longer finds the earth in its present condition. What takes its
place is, indeed, nowhere said ; but if the kingdom of God is
2 On this account we may not appeal to the banquet with the patriarchs
(Matt viii. 11 = Luke xiii. 28), or to the table of the Messiah (Luke xxii. 30) ;
the use that is made of this latter idea in the parable of the supper (Luke xiv. 16
= Matt. xxii. 2) rather shows that it is only a symbolical expression of the
blessedness of the completed kingdom of God. This applies also to the new wine
which, according to Mark xiv. 25, Jesus will drink in the kingdom of God,
and which Luke (xxii. 16) correctly explains as referring to a higher fulfilment
of the Passover in the festival of completed redemption. Although Jesus does
not by any means refuse, A priori, the request for the two places of honour at
His right hand and His left (Mark x. 37), it only follows that the completed
kingdom is conceived of as an organized fellowship, in which each one finds his
position and significance according to his endowments (cf. § 32, b, footnote 3).
Similarly, in Matt. xix. 28 = Luke xxii. 30, the position of the twelve apostles
is preserved in the completed kingdom of God, inasmuch as they have the
greatest share in the dignity of the returning Messiah, just as they have been
the nearest Him during His earthly activity ; but their judging the twelve
tribes is probably only the reverse side of their being sent to the twelve tribes
(§ 31, a), which are exposed to the judgment just because of the offer of salva
tion which was made them through the apostles.
3 Even in Matt, xxiii. 39 (= Luke xiii. 35) the possibility is looked forward
to, it is true, that His nation would be prepared to greet Him on His return as
the Messiah, however improbable this appears in Luke xviii. 8. But even there
it is only promised them that, in that case, they would sec Him once more
because they would then be delivered by Him from the last judgment (Matt
xxiv. 21 f.). There is no word whatever of a restoration of the kingdom of
Israel.

§ 34. THE CONSUMMATION OF ALL THINGS. 155
perfectly realized in the new world, at least the contrast
between earth and heaven (vi. 10) is abolished in that new
world, and therefore we cannot speak any longer of a contrast
between an earthly and a heavenly completion.
(b) The idea of entering into the kingdom of God is syno
nymous with that of entering into life (cf. Matt. xix. 23, 24
with ver. 17 ; Mark ix. 47 with vv. 43, 45), just as entering
into eternal life (Matt. xxv. 46) is synonymous with 'the
possession of the kingdom of God (ver. 34). In Mark x. 17
(cf. Luke x. 25), also, the expected inheritance, which is usually
the kingdom of God (note a), is described as eternal life. If,
however, in the kingdom of God they attain eternal life, it is
already evident that the latter is not conceived of as earthly.
Jesus, accordingly, also describes the life of the risen as a life
which is similar to that of the angels, — a life which belongs to
the heavenly world, and is raised above the conditions of earthly
life (Mark xii. 25), — a life, however, which is still conceived
of as being in a corresponding corporeity, because, otherwise,
there could be no mention made of a resurrection. Like the
Scriptures generally, Jesus also knows of no real life without a
corporeity, for He argues for the resurrection from the life of
the patriarchs which is assumed from Ex. iii. 6 (ver. 26 f.).4
If, lastly, those who are made perfect see God (Matt. v. 8), it is
evident also from this, that in the completed kingdom of God
the contrast between heaven and earth is abolished, and God
makes His abode immediately in the midst of His sons
(ver. 9).
(c) It is the Messianic judgment which first awards eternal
punishment, which forms the antithesis of eternal life (Matt.
xxv. 46). In this antithesis it is indicated that this punish
ment consists in the withdrawal of eternal life, and that this
withdrawal is identical with destruction ; for the narrow way,
4 The reason why the resurrection is never mentioned elsewhere is because
Jesus hopes that the majority of the present generation will be still alive when
He returns (§ 33, a). Still, the patriarchs (Matt. viii. 11) and those who have
been slain in times of persecution (x. 21, 39) must rise, if they are to participate
in the blessedness of the completed kingdom of God. Even the deliverance of
the elect from the impending destruction of the world (§ 33, c), which neverthe
less destroys their corporeity and the conditions of their bodily life, can only be
so conceived of as that they are immediately qualified for the heavenly life by
their being clothed with a new corporeity.

156 THE MESSIANIC CONSUMMATION.
which leads to life, stands contrasted with the way which leads
to destruction (vii. 13 : dirdiXebd). This destruction is thought
of, in the first place, as physical death, and that, too, as a
violent, unnatural death, in which the judgment of God against
sin is carried out.5 The death of the body, it is true, only
separates the soul from the body, without deciding its final
fate ; for, in the first place, it only delivers the soul over to
Hades (Scheol), in which, no doubt, there is already found a
retribution, but not the final one.6 If, however, at the advent
of the great day of judgment, which concludes the develop
ment of the world, men are swept away by (bodily) death,
then they are delivered over to a fate which cannot be changed.
Destruction comes, therefore, more particularly upon the souls
which are separated from the body (in the day of judgment) ;
according to Matt. x. 28, it is not the destruction of the body,
but that of the soul, which is to be feared (cf. x. 39; Mark
viii. 36, 37). If, however, the elect are saved from this
destruction (Matt. x. 22; Mark x. 26, xiii. 20; cf. Luke
xiii. 23) by their souls receiving such a heavenly corporeity
as is suited for eternal life in the completed kingdom of God
5 The verb which lies at the root of this word denotes, in the first place, every
violent putting to death in general (Matt. xxi. 41, xxii. 7, cf. ii. 13, xxvi. 52,
xxvii. 20), or every sudden, unnatural end (Luke xiii. 3, 5 ; Mark iv. 38). Such
an end, however, is already, per se, a judgment of God, and therefore the judg
ment which is to come upon the impenitent nation can be described as a destruction
in this sense (Luke xiii. 3, 5, cf. ver. 9), more especially as Christ was probably
thinking mainly of a destruction at the hand of enemies (Matt. xxiv. 15-22).
So, too, with the judgment of the world, which is living on in carnal security, —
a judgment which is compared with the sudden perishing of men in the flood
(Luke xvii. 27, cf. ver. 29).
6 In the earliest tradition mention is made of Hades in Matt. xvi. 18, where
its gates serve as a popular description of that which is most invincible, because
the kingdom of the dead lets out no one whom it has once devoured, and in
Matt. xi. 23, where it is meant to denote that which is deepest of all, in contrast
to heaven, as that which is highest of all. It is only in the parable in Luke
xvi. 19-31 that there comes out the idea of the different fate of souls in Scheol.
The rich man and Lazarus find themselves in Hades (ver. 23), the former, how
ever, in a place of torment, where he is racked in great heat by burning thirst
(vv. 24, 28) ; while the latter rests in Abraham's bosom, and enjoys a blessedness
which makes him forget all the sorrows of earth (vv. 22 f., 25). Their abodes
are separated by an impassable gulf (ver. 26). In Luke xxiii. 43 the abode of
the pious in Hades is called Paradise ; that the thief is to meet Jesus there is the
token that he has found grace. Even in Scheol, therefore, there commences a
retribution for the soul, — a retribution, however, which does not exclude an
ultimate decision as to its final fate.

§ S4. THE CONSUMMATION OF ALL THINGS. 157
(note b), then the destruction of souls can only consist in this,
that after the advent of the final decision has deprived them
of any prospect of even a future resurrection, they remain for
ever in the incorporeal and therefore shadowy condition in
which bodily death has placed them. The continued exist
ence of the soul in this condition, which, feared even as a
transition state, involves the greatest wretchedness when
regarded as final, implies eternal punishment, ajid hence it
can be described by the same word as the separation of the
soul from the body by a violent death, because the latter, if
it befalls the soul on the day of the final decision, or is not
abolished on that day, also condemns it to eternal continuance
in death. (cl) According to a common mode of expression, those
who are excluded from the kingdom of God in its heavenly
completion, find themselves in hell (Mark ix. 47 : yeivva).7
Although this is called hell-fire (Matt. v. 22), sensuous torments
are by no means thought of ; for this would assume a resurrec
tion of the godless, whereas such a resurrection, at least of
the kind which is described in Mark xii. 2 5, is plainly looked
forward to only for the pious.8 Fire is rather only a symbol of
the divine judgment of wrath (cf. Matt. iii. 11), the terrors of
which are made vivid by this image ; for the end of sinners
is more dreadful than the most dreadful death (Matt, xviii. 6
= Luke xvii. 2). If an actual fire were to be thought of, it
would be a strange contradiction, if, on the other hand, those
7 The name of a valley lying to the south of Jerusalem, where the idolatrous
Israelites had formerly offered their children to Moloch (Jer. vii. 31 : Qj|!Tp SOJl,
cf. 2 Kings xxiii. 10), and where also the judgment of God because of this
abomination was to fall upon them (Jer. vii. 32, 33). In this form it became
the designation of the place where eternal destruction was to come upon those
who were condemned in the last judgment (Matt. x. 28), and hence this judg
ment is called h xpUis ins yi'ims (xxiii. 33, cf. ver. 15).
8 Even from Matt. v. 29, 30 and x. 28 we cannot infer that the godless will
be raised up, in order that they may suffer the punishment of hell in the body
which is restored to them. These expressions are rather sufficiently explained
by the fact that the final judgment, which is to be held at the return of the
Messiah, will fall upon the present generation even during its lifetime (§ 33, a).
No doubt, the sinners of the past ages are also to receive their final sentence in
the Messianic judgment (Matt. xi. 22, 24 = Luke x. 12, 14) ; but since their
souls are in Scheol, and it is the fate of souls which is in question at this final
decision (note c), a resurrection of these does not by any means follow

158 THE MESSIANIC CONSUMMATION.
who are excluded from the kingdom of God are cast out into
the darkness (Matt. viii. 12). But even this darkness is only
a symbol of evil and terrors, a symbol which was common in
consequence of the figurative language of the Old Testament
(cf. Job xxx. 26 ; Isa. v. 20, viii. 22, ix. 2, 1. 10). No doubt,
however, it is implied in both these images that the damned
are delivered up to a fate to whose terrors they are by no means
unsusceptible, a fate which they feel, rather, with weeping and
gnashing of teeth (Luke xiii. 28). The disembodied soul,
however, can very easily be conceived of as the subject of
this feeling, just as the demons (who, according to § 23, 6,
are incorporeal) also fear this torment (Matt. viii. 29), and
even the dead in Scheol feel woe and blessedness (footnote 6).
The destruction of the soul, accordingly, cannot be thought of
as complete annihilation ; for, in that case, it would not be
better for the damned if they had never been born (Mark
xiv. 21). Even the fire of hell does not point to such an
annihilation ; for, apart from the fact that it cannot be con
ceived of as material, the very idea of eternal fire (Matt.
xxv. 41 ; Mark ix. 43, 48) shows that it does not consume
the objects of punishment, because, if so, it would cease to
burn for them. The eternity of the punishment in hell, in
this sense, is the necessary correlate of the idea that the
decision in the Messianic judgment is a final one. In other
ways, also, it is undoubtedly a logical consequence of the
teaching of Jesus. Where there is a sin which can never be
forgiven (Matt. xii. 32, for which see § 22, h), there must
also be an eternal punishment (xxv. 46)

PART SECOND.
THE ORIGINAL- APOSTOLIC TYPE OF DOCTRINE
PREVIOUS TO THE TIME OP PAUL.

INTEODUCTION.
§ 35. The Discourses of the Acts of the Apostles.
The earliest records of apostolic preaching, from which we
become acquainted with the religious ideas and doctrines of
the original apostles, are the discourses (mainly Petrine) in
that portion of the Acts of the Apostles which treats of the his
tory of the mother Church, (b) It is only on the well-grounded
presupposition that these discourses, as well as the charac
teristics of the life of the mother Church which we find here,
are taken from a trustworthy literary source, and reported
with substantial fidelity, that we can regard them as such
records, (c) An independent representation of the biblico-theo
logical material which is thus obtained is justifiable, although
given in a different sense and to a different extent than it has
been given by Lechler.
(a) Besides the great Pentecostal sermon of the Apostle
Peter (ii. 14-36, 38—40), the Acts of the Apostles contains a
sermon of his delivered in the temple to the people (iii 12-26),
and also a missionary sermon delivered in the house of Corne
lius (x. 34-43). Since all three have the expressed purpose
of leading the hearers to believe in Jesus, they are peculiarly
fitted to make us acquainted with the sum of the earhest
apostolic preaching. But even in the shorter apologies before
the Sanhedrim (iv. 8-12, 19, 20, v. 29-32) the standpoint
159

160 ORIGINAL-APOSTOLIC TYPE OF DOCTRINE PREVIOUS TO PAUL.
of the apostles, who believed in the Messiah, in opposition to
the hierarchy, which was hostile to Him, receives a very cha
racteristic expression. Although, in the second of these, the
apostles in general are introduced as speaking, Peter, who
usually takes the lead in word and in deed, is nevertheless
naturally to be thought of as the real speaker ; and so like
wise in the prayers of the Church (i. 24, 25, iv. 24-30), in
the second of which the religious consciousness of the mother
Church, as it is coloured by the impression which the first
persecution made upon it, expresses itself very characteristi
cally. There have also to be added the discourse in which
Peter suggests the choice of a twelfth apostle to succeed Judas\
(i. 1 6- 2 2), and the transactions of the so-called apostolic council'
regarding the Gentiles (xv. 7-2 9). If up to this time Peter has
been the only speaker,, so that, taken strictly, it is mainly his
system of doctrine which is treated "of, we now hear James
also, the brother of the Lord, giving his opinion (w. 13—21).
Lastly, the Acts of the Apostles also reports a detailed apology
of the Hellenist Stephen (vii. 2-53), who does not, indeed,
belong to the circle of the original apostles, but has neverthe
less learned in this circle the opinions which he defends.
There is therefore no reason whatever for treating of this dis
course independently, as Lechler (p. 30-33) and, still more
decidedly, Messner (p. 170-175) have done. The discourse
is of special importance, inasmuch as it refers, apologetically
and polemically, to the first conflict that the preaching of the
gospel had with the national attachment to the law of the
fathers. (b) If, as the Tubingen school assumes, the Acts of the
Apostles is a writing with a tendency, a writing which inten
tionally puts into the mouth of Peter discourses which have
a Pauline colouring, and vice versa (cf. especially Zeller, die
Apostelgeschichte, Stuttgart 1854), it is only as sources for
the peculiarly modified Paulinism of the author that we can
regard any of its discourses (cf. Baur, p. 331-338). At least
it necessarily leads to critical arbitrariness, when Immer,
p. 190, declares that these discourses are, as regards their
form, compositions of the author, and then, nevertheless, con
strues from their " historical basis " the circle of ideas of the
original apostles and the mother Church (p. 177-205), in

§ 35. THE DISCOURSES OF THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. 161
which, indeed, he even includes matter which is so foreign as
the history of the early years of Jesus which is contained in
the two latest synoptic Gospels. Of course these discourses,
which the author has certainly not heard, and which, from
the nature of the case, could not well be transmitted by oral
tradition, could be only free compositions, if, in his first part,
he had really used no kind of literary sources, but had simply
related them according to oral tradition, however trustworthy.
When, however, we consider the analogy of his Gospel, which
goes back almost entirely upon written sources, this is exceed
ingly unlikely; nor is it by any means demanded by the
literary character of the book, which is besides very unequal,
since that which can really be shown to belong to Luke him
self is sufficiently explained by the fact that, as in the Gospel,
he has freely worked up his sources. We shall therefore assume
with the majority of critics, that the basis of the first part is
a narrative in which a member of the mother Church gave an
account, as an eye and ear witness, chiefly of the deeds and
discourses of Peter,1 and in fact there are not awanting nume
rous marks by means of which we can still in many places
critically distinguish Luke's redaction from the source which
he employed. Since, however, after the analogy of his Gospel,
the author has neither made a full use of the latter, nor has
used it without additions and transpositions of his own, it
would be altogether vain to attempt to restore it in its com
pleteness. It is to this source also that we owe the numerous
characteristic features of the life of the mother Church which
the first part of the Acts of the Apostles contains, and which
are even by themselves significant of its religious life, and of
the ideas which were prevalent in it. Besides these longer
discourses, there have been preserved, probably also from it,
many other authentic words of Peter (v. 3, 4, 9, viii. 20-23),
which are well entitled to be taken into account ; while others,
1 The question may be commended to the consideration of lovers of hypotheses,
whether the Gospel of Mark, which, as is well known, ends, imperfectly in a
certain sense, with xvi. 8, could not have had its second part in this narrative,
just as the Gospel of Luke, which uses Mark's, has its second part in the Acts of
the Apostles. The relation of such a special feature as we find in xii. 12-17,
which would be at least very surprising in any distant reporter, and in the
beginning of which the name of Mark appears for the first time, would give
considerable support to such an assumption.
VOL. L 1

162 ORIGINAL-APOSTOLIC TYPE OF DOCTRINE PREVIOUS TO PAUL.
such as vi. 2-4, xi. 4-18, rather awaken the suspicion that
they have been put into the mouth of the speakers by Luke
himself. But even the discourses which are taken from this
source Luke will not throughout have adopted literally, so
that here also criticism retains the right of deducting whatever
betrays itself as belonging specifically to him, whether in
expression or in peculiarity of doctrine. Considering, however,
the manner in which the author has in his Gospel reproduced
the words of Jesus from the sources which he possessed, we
may reasonably assume that these discourses are reported with
substantial fidelity.
(c) It is seldom that the discourses of the Acts of the
Apostles have received in biblical theology the consideration
which their significance deserves. Most frequently they are
considered only as secondary sources for the representation of
the doctrine of Peter (cf. Bauer, iii. p. 183 ; Schmid, ii.
p. 153 [E. Tr. 376]; Messner, p. 109), or, as by Eeuss
(i. Book 4), for the characterization of the thiologie jucUo-
cliritienne in general. Lechler is the first who has given an
independent representation of the original preaching of the
apostles which they contain (p. 15-30).2 That which makes
a separate representation of the views which these discourses
contain desirable is, apart from the circumstance that they
certainly form the earliest records of the religious ideas and
doctrines of the apostolic age, not so much this, that, compared
with the First Epistle of Peter, they contain a peculiar system
of doctrine, but rather that they bring before us a special
aspect of the preaching of the apostles, viz. its ingathering
and apologetic aspect, and allow us also to obtain a glimpse
into the religious life of the mother Church, and into the ques
tions which stirred it in the earliest age ; while that Epistle,
being addressed to Churches which, partly at least, are living
- "When, however, he excludes the transactions of the apostolic council
from his representation, because these belong to the Pauline period, we must not
overlook the fact that the independent missionary activity of Paul and his literary
activity, so far as we are acquainted with it, and therefore also the type of doc
trine which we meet in his Epistles, belong to the time after the apostolic council.
He has further tried to point out in these discourses a still undeveloped stage of
the doctrine of Peter (p. 192-194) ; but we are the less able to find this in them,
as, in our opinion, the First Epistle of Peter likewise belongs to this first period
of the doctrinal development of the original apostles.

§ 36. THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER 163
under very different circumstances, naturally exhibits another
aspect of their preaching as well as other aspects of the life of
the Christian Church. From this point of view there is still
much which biblical theology will have to take into account,
which Lechler has omitted to notice in his representation
(cf. also Gess, ii. 1-19).
§ 36. The First Epistle of Peter.
The principal source for the Petrine system of doctrine, at
least in the form of its development which belongs to the
time prior to Paul, is the first Epistle which has come down
to us in his name, and which, in that case, of course, cannot
be regarded as an echo of Pauline Epistles, (b) The peculiari
ties of the system which is contained in this source are its
Jewish-Christian character, its predominant tendency to direct
attention to Christian hope, and the directness of its attach
ment to the life and sayings of Jesus, (c) In the previous
representations of this system of doctrine these peculiarities
have not yet, in many respects, received due recognition.
(a) According to its address, the First Epistle of Peter is
written to the believers of the dispersion in Asia Minor, and
therefore to Jewish-Christian Churches. Now, since, in con
sequence of the activity of Paul which was unfolded from
Ephesus during his stay there for almost three years, the
Church in Asia Minor became an essentially Gentile- Christian
one, our Epistle, which knows only of essentially Jewish-
Christian Churches there, belongs to an earlier period. Although
it is written also to Galatian Churches, it knows nothing as
yet of their being disquieted by the question as to the validity
of the law. Its expressed purpose is hortatory ; its exhorta
tion, however, receives its colouring from the circumstances of
the young Churches, in an essentially heathen neighbourhood,
to which it is addressed. They have already experienced the
hostility of the world which was foretold by Jesus, viz. Gentile
calumniation and Jewish slander on account of the name of
Christ. It was now important to refute this slinking calum
niation by the unfolding of the Christian life of virtue in that
very condition of suffering, to show that the reproach which
the Church bore was really only the reproach of Christ. But

164 ORIGINAL-APOSTOLIC TYPE OF DOCTRINE PREVIOUS TO PAUL.
the exhortation is based throughout upon the saving facts of
Christianity. Naturally, these had already been proclaimed
to the readers, but by those who were not apostles (i. 1 2) ;
and because the strongest motive of Christian exhortation is
found in the certainty of these facts, the Epistle unites with
its hortatory aim the other aim of establishing its readers, by
means of its apostolic testimony, in the truth of the proclama
tion which had reached them (v. 12). According to what has
been said above, this proclamation is not that of Paul, which
the author neither refers to nor knows in its written docu
ments, even if Paul should have already written his Epistles
to the Thessalonians. This second aim of the Epistle, how
ever, causes it to unfold the testimony of the apostle to the
saving facts of Christianity to an extent which makes it a most
valuable record of the Petrine system of doctrine (cf. my article,
"die petrinische Frage," Stud, und Kritik. 1865, p. 619—657,
and also 1873, p. 539 ff). According to the common opinion,
it is true, the Epistle is addressed to the Pauline Churches of
Asia Minor, which were predominantly Gentile-Christian. It
is thought that numerous reminiscences even of the later of
the Epistles of Paul are found in it, and it is said to have been
composed during the last period of the life of Paul, or even
after his death. Starting with this view, we could no longer
place the doctrine of our Epistle before that of Paul, as Schmid
and Messner still doj we could regard it only as a monument
of the teaching of the original apostles as it was modified after
the appearance of Paul, and in many respects under his influ
ence ; from which point of view Lechler then tries to discover
artificial distinctions between the doctrine of our Epistle and
that of the discourses in the Acts of the Apostles (§ 35,c).
The recognition of the incorrectness of this way of regarding
our Epistle is the indispensable condition of its right use in
biblical theology.
(h) Peter is one of the apostles called by Jesus Himself,
who, without violently breaking with their past, had gradually
ripened, in personal intercourse with Jesus, to the compre
hension of the salvation which appeared in Him. As Jesus
had represented Himself as the bringer of the salvation which
was promised and expected in and for Israel, so Peter also
conceives the salvation which had appeared in Him as the

§ 36. THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER. 165
realization of that which was striven after and promised in
the Old Testament ; his view of it is still conditioned
throughout by Old Testament ideas ; and even where there
is no express occasion, as, e.g., the need of proof, he still,
throughout, usually attaches himself to the sayings and
images, the institutions and narratives of the Old Testament.
His activity as an apostle to the Jews, for which this
tendency specially qualified him, on the other hand confirms
him in it, and teaches him to see in the Church of believers
out of Israel the commencing realization of the completion of
the theocracy which was brought by Jesus. It is this which
we call his Jewish-Christian tendency. But the individuality
of the apostle also determines the peculiarity of his system.
Peter was of an impetuous disposition; his resolution promptly
.taken, we see him, in the Gospels as well as in the Acts of
the Apostles, everywhere taking the lead of the disciples both
in word and in deed; his excellences as well as his failings
had their root in this natural impetuosity of his. This
peculiarity, however, must have led him from the first to
look away, with his striving and longing, beyond the present,
to the promised future of salvation ; even during his previous
life it must have made him embrace the Messianic hopes of
his people with an ardent longing, it must have led him
rapidly to Christ ; but it must also have made it hard enough
for him to accommodate himself to the somewhat tedious way,
which the latter pointed out as the way to the goal of the
expected consummation. The transfiguration (Verklarung) of
this natural individuality begot in him the energy of Christian
hope, with which we see him conceiving the ultimate goal of
the consummation which has appeared in Christ, and in the
light of which we see him regarding the whole Christian life.
Thus he has become, in a pre-eminent sense, the apostle of
hope. Lastly, there still comes out directly in him, as a
personal disciple of Jesus, the influence which the living per
ception of the earthly life of Jesus, and, partly, individual
significant words, and, partly, His whole manner of teaching
have upon the peculiarity of his doctrine. For the very
reason that his predominantly practical nature was not
adapted for deeper, searching speculation, for analysing
reflection, or for penetrating contemplation, his statements

166 ORIGINAL- APOSTOLIC TYPE OF DOCTRINE PREVIOUS TO PAUL.
regarding Jesus and His work are still the direct expression
of the opinions which he arrived at from the manifestation of
Jesus as regarded in the light of the Old Testament and His
own teaching.
(c) Bauer (iii p. 182-266) had already given a special
representation of " the theory of Peter as to the Christian
religion." On the other hand, de Wette finds in our Epistle
a representative of the Jewish- Christian as well as of the
Hellenistic tendency (p. 203); and v. Colin regards it, indeed,
as belonging to the Palestinian type of doctrine (p. 197),
but does not give a special representation of its teaching.
Lutterbeck does not represent the Petrine type of doctrine
according to our Epistle, in which he finds almost nothing
but verbal quotations from the doctrine of Paul, so that the
representation of its doctrine would be only an anticipation
of that of Paul (p. 178). In this we haVe only an expression,
in a very characteristic way, of the necessary consequence of
the prevailing mode of regarding our Epistle (note a). Schmid
was the first to give a thorough representation of the doctrine
of Peter (ii. 154-210 [E. Tr. 374-417]), and Messner has
substantially followed him (p. 107-153). By these it is
reckoned among those types of doctrine which exhibit the
Gospel in its unity with the Old Testament, and it is stated
to be its more special peculiarity that it regards the Gospel
as the fulfilment of Old Testament promise (cf. Schmid, ii.
p. 91 [E. Tr. 335]; Messner, p. 59); yet Peter is far from
regarding the salvation which has appeared in Jesus merely
as the fulfilment of promise ; he regards it also, nay, pre
dominantly, as a pledge of the promise which is still
unfulfilled, as a ground of hope in the still approaching com
pletion of salvation.1 On the presupposition of its genuine
ness Mayerhoff (Einl. in d. petrinischen Schriften, Hamburg
1835) found in the Epistle a (natural rather than conscious)
1 "When Lechler, however, in his representation of the doctrine of Peter
(p. 173-191), sets forth "the union of suffering and glory in the case of Christ
as well as in that of the Christians " (p. 175) as the fundamental thought of our
Epistle, nothing decisive is thereby said as to the peculiarity of its method of
teaching, since he himself allows that this idea is closely connected with its
leading practical aim (p. 176) ; and the same objection applies to the statement
of Kahnis (i. p. 523) that " sanctification as the preparation for blessedness '' is
the summa of Peter's preaching

§ 36. THE FIRST EPISTLE OF TETER. 167
mediating standpoint (p. 103 ff.), and Eeuss (ii. p. 291-305
[E. Tr. ii. 262-275]) discovers an intentional combination of
doctrinal elements which belong to Paul and James respec
tively (p. 294 [E. Tr. 264]), an intentional silence regarding
the controversy as to the law, a retaining of Pauline formulae,
which, however, along with their basis (the mysticism of Paul
and his doctrine of justification), lose also their peculiar
significance, while the Jewish- Christian basis of its theology
is also very apparent (p. 307 [E. Tr. 271]). The Tubingen
school, which holds it to be spurious, regards our Epistle as
a monument of a later phase of Paulinism, either inasmuch
as it seeks to reconcile the separate tendencies by means
of a representation of the doctrine of Paul which has
received a somewhat Petrine colouring (Schwegler, ii. p. 2-29;
cf. Baur, p. 287—289), or inasmuch as it shows a standpoint
which has already got rid of these contradictions, and forms
the point of transition to Catholicism (Kostlin in his Joh.
Lehrbegriff, p. 472-481 ; Pfleiderer in his Paulinismus, p. 417—
431 [E. Tr. ii. 148-162]). On the other hand, Immer
(p. 473—488) seeks in it a reconciliation from the Jewish-
Christian standpoint, without, indeed, even making an attempt
to show this from the peculiarity of its system of doctrine.
In many respects these works have done much to assist us in
placing more cleirly in the light that which is peculiar in
the teaching of our Epistle as distinguished from those of
Paul. But if the whole foundation is made to be Pauline,
and yet the specifically Pauline stamp is effaced from every
fundamental Pauline idea (cf. e.g. Baur, p. 287), it is natural
to suspect that these fundamental Pauline ideas have, first of
all, . been interpreted into the Epistle by explaining it in
accordance with imaginary Pauline parallels. In fact it has
been shown in my "Pet. Lehrbegriff" (Berlin 1855), represented
according to the three points of view mentioned in note h,
that the series of ideas contained in our Epistle not only do
not require Paulinism for their explanation, but set forth a
much simpler and more elementary type of doctrine (cf. also
Eitschl, p. 116-120, ii. p. 317; Schenkel, § 12, 41 f.).
Following entirely the plan of that work (Peter, the apostle
of Jesus Christ — the apostle of the circumcision — the apostle
of hope), v. Oosterzee gives an exposition of the theology of

168 ORIGINAL-APOSTOLIC TYPE OF DOCTRINE PREVIOUS TO PAUL.
Peter (§ 26-29) ; while L. Morich (des heiligen Apostcls
Petrus Leben mid Lehre, Braunschweig 1874), making use of
this Epistle and the discourses in the Acts, treats, in a very
dogmatic manner, of the teaching of Peter in its " historico-
dogmatico-confessional, legal-ethical, and prophetical elements"
(p. 147-235). § 37. TJie Epistle of James.
A third source for the doctrinal system of the original
apostles in its earliest form is the Epistle of James, on the
assumption that it neither opposes the teaching of Paul, nor
even knows it. (b) Besides its general Jewish -Christian
character, the peculiarity of its system of doctrine is con
ditioned partly by its predominant legal tendency, and partly
by the immediateness of its attachment to the traditional
sayings of Jesus, (c) The system of our Epistle, which has
been generally represented with a prevailing regard to the
teaching of Paul, is still in need of an exposition which
looks away from the latter, and does full justice to its own
peculiarity. (a) Our Epistle is written by the real brother of the Lord,
by James, the son of Mary and Joseph. It was not probably
till after the resurrection of Jesus that he became a believer ;
but in consequence of the position which he assumed at the
head of the mother Church in Jerusalem after the flight of
Peter (Acts xii. 17), he gained an almost apostolic authority
in the early Church, especially in the Jewish-Christian portion
of it. His Epistle, which is addressed to the Jews of the
dispersion in general, naturally turns, since he speaks to
them as the servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ,
mainly to those among them who believed in the Messiah.
Judging, however, from the circumstances which he keeps
specially in view, these still lived in the closest intercourse
with their unbelieving fellow-countrymen. They still stood
in the fellowship of the synagogue with these in a manner
which points to the earliest times of Christianity. Belonging
to the lower orders, and, besides, being oppressed and despised
by the avaricious rich who were proud of their wealth, they
had now also to endure the whole hatred of these, as the
sectarian confessors of the condemned Nazarene. They them-

§ 37. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 169
selves, however, not free from a secret love of the world,
envied their fellow-countrymen who were in better circum
stances, and now sought to distinguish themselves in their
eyes as teachers of the truth and as preachers of repentance ;
in doing which, however, notwithstanding all their pretended
zeal for the conversion of others, they often only gave the
reins to their natural inclination. This peculiar situation
gives the exhortation of this hortatory writing its distinct
colouring. It was necessary to manifest the new faith, not
in fluent discourses, in uncharitable zeal and controversy,
but in the doing of the word which they had heard, and in
patience. It is true, a writing with so distinctly limited an
aim ought not to be regarded as the programme of a system
of doctrine; but this very situation gives occasion to the
author to state, in various ways, that which, according to
him, constitutes the nature of Christianity, in such a
characteristic manner that the peculiarities of his theology
come out clearly enough. If, indeed, we find in it an attack
upon certain misunderstandings or abuses of the teaching of
Paul, or if we make it even presuppose controversies regard
ing that teaching (cf. Eeuss, i. 488 [E. Tr. i. 423]), we are
no longer justified in treating of its teaching, with Schmid
(cf. ii. p. 98, 132 [E. Tr. 338]), as the first of the apostolic
systems of doctrine ; in that case it must rather be regarded,
with Lechler and others, as a monument of their teaching in
the form which it assumed after the appearance of Paul.
But neither the whole character of the Epistle, which con
tends, in a purely practical interest, not against errors of
doctrine, but against errors of life, nor the historical situation
of its purely Jewish -Christian readers makes a direct or
indirect reference to the teaching of Paul at all likely ; while
the correct determination of the date of our Epistle altogether
forbids it. A closer examination of the discussions, in which
it has been sought to find that reference, shows that the
author deals with ideas which are totally different from those
of Paul, and that the manner in which he takes for granted
the propositions which he employs for the support of his
practical exhortations, and proves them by means of Old
Testament examples, betrays, most naively, his complete
ignorance of the theses of Paul which appear to be so con-

170 ORIGINAL-APOSTOLIC TYPE OF DOCTRINE PREVIOUS TO PAUL.
tradictory to his, as well as of the use that Paul makes of
the same examples. (Cf. my article, " James and Paul," in
the deutsche Zeitsch. fur christi. Wissenschaft und christi.
Leben, 1854, Nos. 51, 52.) The Epistle, accordingly, also
belongs to the time prior to Paul, and at least stands next
to the First Epistle of Peter both as regards time and
contents.1 (h) Although it was not under the guidance of Jesus that
James had attained to faith, yet neither in his case had con
version to belief in the Messiah caused a break with his Old
Testament piety, a piety which was so highly prized in this
"just" one even by the unbelieving Jews. The Jewish-
Christian type is stamped upon his Epistle, as well as upon
the First Epistle of Peter ; nay, his whole manner of writing
is plainly modelled upon that of the prophets and the Proverbs
of the Old Testament. In conformity, however, with his
whole individuality, the leading tendency of his striving, even
during his previous life, had been directed, not so much to
the fulfilment of Israel's promise, as to the fulfilment of the
will of God which was revealed in the law, although, it is
true, he had never conceived this fulfilment after the manner
of the Pharisees. If he also, therefore, found in Christ the
completion of the salvation which was given to his people, he
must have beheld this completion specially in the perfect
revelation of the will of God and in the power which was
given to enable them to fulfil it perfectly. Although he also
had seen the earthly life of Jesus, yet the circumstance that
he then remained apart from the circle of the disciples hinders
the image of Jesus, in the prime of life, from having such an
influence upon his manner of teaching as it had in the case of
Peter. It is the image of the exalted Lord, who appeared to
him also (1 Cor. xv. 7), which alone floats before his believing
adoration. On the other hand, like Peter, he also often
attaches himself directly to the sayings of Jesus, only these
1 Whether it is earlier or later than the latter depends upon the view which
one forms, from the comparison of the undoubtedly parallel passages in the two
Epistles, on the question, upon which side the dependence is. For biblical
theology the result is of small importance, since, at any rate, the inner relation
ship between the discourses in the Acts of the Apostles and the First Epistle of
Peter makes it desirable not to treat of the Epistle of James among the docu
ments of this period till the third place.

§ 37. THE EPISTLE OF JAMES. 171
are drawn, not from his own independent recollection, but
from apostolic tradition.
(c) Since Luther took offence at the contradiction between
the doctrine of justification which is contained in our Epistle
and that of Paul, its teaching has frequently been thoroughly
investigated, but most generally with a too exclusive refer
ence to the controversy as to whether such a contradiction
exists, and as to whether regard is had in our Epistle
to the Pauline thesis. Even in Neander, who denies any
polemical reference to Paul, the whole exposition of the
teaching of James turns round its comparison with that of
Paul (ii. p. 858-873 [E. Tr. ii. 15-27]). Although Schmid
§ 56-59) and Messner (p. 77-98) correctly recognise the
peculiarity of our system of doctrine, according to which the
side of it which is turned towards the Old Testament attaches
itself to the law, yet, in the former, this point of view alto
gether loses its fundamental importance, inasmuch as, starting
from the doctrine of justification, he shows how not only all
its other doctrines, but even its conception of Christianity
as the perfect law is closely connected with that doctrine ;
while the latter starts, it is true, from the latter point of view,
but makes the whole of his representation culminate in the
doctrine of justification, which has by no means such a pre
dominant importance in the system of our Epistle. On the
other hand, Lechler and Eeuss, in order that they may com
pare it with the teaching of Paul, separate the doctrine of
justification altogether from their representation of the rest of
the teaching of James, which the former (p. 163-170) con
nects with the thought (which is certainly not a central one)
that the Christian life must be a whole, while, in the latter
(cf. the thiologie judio-chriticnne, cap. 8), it amounts to a
combination of Christian morality with Jewish eschatology
(p. 485 [E. Tr. 421]). Lutterbeck's opinion (ii. p. 170-176,
cf. p. 53), that our Epistle was written at the desire of Paul
to the churches of Asia Minor, for the purpose of confirming
to them the whole of his teaching, not only makes any his
torical, but also any biblico-theological comprehension of it
impossible. The Tubingen school, on the other hand, sees in
our Epistle a monument of the Ebionitic attack upon the
Pauline doctrine of justification ; an attack which, indeed,

172 ORIGINAL-APOSTOLIC TYPE OF DOCTRINE PREVIOUS TO PAUL.
according to Schwegler (i. p. 413-448), sought, in an irenical
manner, to reconcile the opposite ways of thinking upon the
soil of Jewish-Christianity ; while, according to Baur's repre
sentation (p. 277-287), the Epistle directly attacks the central
point of the teaching of Paul (cf. Schenkel, § 23 ; Immer,
p. 426-442, who, however, confines himself almost exclusively
to the fundamental ethical thoughts, and sets aside everything
which is peculiarly Christian as being of little importance in
the eyes of the author). If we would deny this, it must be
shown that Paul and the author of the Epistle of James con
nect a totally different meaning with the three leading terms
which are in question in the doctrine of justification. This
I believe I have shown in the article referred to in note a ;
and upon this is based the attempt which is made here to repre
sent the teaching of our Epistle in its peculiar connection and
without the reference to the ideas of Paul which has so often
led astray (cf. also Eitschl, p. 109-116, ii. p. 317; Gess,
ii. 19-28, and the excellent article of Beyschlag, "der
Jacobusbrief als urchristliches Geschichtsdenkmal," Stud, und
Krit. 1874, 1). That which v. Oosterzee (p. 150-152) pre
sents regarding James is very meagre. W. G. Schmidt (der
Lehrgehalt des Jacobusbrief, Leipzig 1869) forsakes the only
correct and fruitful historical conception of the Epistle, and
places it in the time after Paul ; while doing so, it is true, he
seeks to minimise the difference with Paul as far as possible,
and excludes every real theological controversy. He dis
cusses very thoroughly, first, the soteriological presuppositions,
then sin, the new birth (faith and works), justification, and
the Christian life.

§ 38. FULFILMENT OF PROPHECY IN THE EARTHLY LIFE OF JESUS. 173
SECTION I.
THE DISCOURSES OF THE ACTS OP THE APOSTLES.
CHAPTEE I.
THE PROCLAMATION OF THE MESSIAH AND THE MESSIANIC TIME.
§ 38. The Fulfilment of Prophecy in the earthly Life of Jesus.
The preaching of the apostles commences with the pro
clamation of the Messiahship of Jesus, (b) Even in His
earthly life He had been the promised prophet like Moses,
whom God Himself had accredited by wonders and signs, and
the anointed servant of God of whom the prophets had spoken.
(c) According to prophecy even His shameful end had been
foreordained by God. (d) But in the earliest preaching the
positive proof of His Messiahship, which could be deduced
from that fact, as well as the saving significance of His death,
had still to be kept in the background.
(a) Like Jesus Himself, His apostles commence, not with a
religious doctrine or an ethical demand, but with the pro
clamation of a fact. They had, indeed, been appointed by
Jesus for the express purpose of continuing His proclamation.
But if Jesus had commenced with the announcement that,
with the coming of the promised time of salvation the king
dom of God was come, and had at first only indirectly testi
fied of Himself as the Messiah, in whom it was come (§ 13),
this relation was now reversed. It is true the apostles also
proclaim that theirs are the days of which all the prophets
have spoken (iii. 24), and therefore that the Messianic time has
commenced. But since, as yet, all the salvation which that
time was to bring was by no means realized, they commence,
in the first instance, with that point in which prophecy was
already fulfilled, with the manifestation, viz., of the promised
Messiah in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. It would, of
course, have been an altogether hopeless undertaking to have
attempted to persuade the people that the Eabbi of Nazareth,

174 PROCLAMATION OF TEE MESSIAH AND THE MESSIANIC TIME.
who had lived and taught among them, and who had made
Himself famous by the cures which He had wrought, was the
promised and expected Messiah. Such a manifestation by
no means corresponded with the idea which the national
expectation had, in consequence of prophecy, formed to itself
of the Messiah. Jesus Himself, however, had never spoken
against this image of the Messiah ; nor had He ever imported
into the prevalent Messianic idea a meaning which was foreign
to it. He had only opposed their purely political conception
of Messiahship as being still too meanly apprehended, and had
reserved to the future His exaltation to full Messianic dignity.
Indeed, even the Messianic confession of the disciples could
not, during His earthly life, have the meaning that Jesus was
already, in a perfect manner, that which the name of Messiah
declares ; it rather only declared, by anticipation, that this
Jesus was destined to be the Messiah, that no other one was
to be looked for to bring about the Messianic consummation
(cf. Luke xxiv. 19, 21) than He, in whom its realization had
already commenced. In the firm assurance of an ultimate
exaltation of Jesus to full Messianic dignity they had
learned, though not without a hard struggle, to surmount
everything which, in His earthly manifestation, contradicted
their Messianic expectations. It was impossible, therefore,
that they could now expect the people to see something in
the earthly manifestation of Jesus which they had never seen
therein themselves.
(b) Nevertheless, even during His earthly life it must have
come to the light that Jesus was the organ which prophecy
had looked forward to for the bringing about of the Messianic
consummation. It was necessary, therefore, to search in pro
phecy for such features as, apart from the image of the
Messianic King, pointed to such a supreme and final organ
whereby God would reveal Himself and communicate His
salvation to the people, and to show that these were found in
Jesus. Jesus Himself, however, had represented Himself as
the last and greatest in the series of God's messengers (§ 13, c);
and, according to Messianic interpretation, nothing else was
asserted in the prophecy regarding the prophet like Moses,
whom God was one day to raise up to His people out of their
midst (Deut. xviii. 15). That the national expectation had

§ 38. FULFILMENT OF PROPHECY IN THE EARTHLY LIFE OF JESUS. 175
also kept this prophecy in view, however varying might be
the application which it gave it, is known from John i. 21,
vi. 14, vii. 40 (cf. Acts vii. 37). Peter proclaims Jesus to
be this prophet (iii. 22) ; as such He, like Moses in days of
old (vii. 36), had been accredited on God's part by mighty
works and wonders and signs which God had done by Him
in the midst of the people (ii. 22), specially by the casting
out of devils, which proved that God was with Him, i.e. that
God stood on the side of His messenger with His miraculous
help (x. 38). And as Jesus expressly traced back these last
to the Spirit of God, so Peter sees in them the proof that
Jesus of Nazareth had been anointed by God with the Holy
Ghost (x. 38). Already the earliest tradition related such an
anointing on the occasion of His baptism in the Jordan (Mark
i. 10). Prophecy, however, knew of a servant of God who was
anointed with the Spirit of God (Isa. xiii. 1, lxi. 1), through
whom God was to bring to the people the glad tidings of the
commencement of the Messianic time (Iii. 7). This joyous
message of salvation God had sent to His people through
Jesus (Acts x. 36) ; Jesus was therefore this anointed servant
of God (iv. 27, cf. iii 13, 26) ; for that irais Qeov here denotes
not the Son of God (cf. even Morich, S. 149), but the nirv 12$,
appears from iv. 25, where David is so named. Through the
anointing with the Holy Ghost this servant has become the
holy servant of God (iv. 27, 30), or the Holy One of God
Kar i^oyfjv (ii. 27 : 6 ocrto's <rov) of whom Ps. xvi. 10 spoke.
In this idea, however, of a peculiar appropriation and conse
cration to God there was involved the idea of freedom from
sinful pollution ; for, according to the view of the Old Testa
ment, nothing impure can be consecrated to God. It is true
that in the designation of Jesus as the Holy and Eighteous
One (iii. 14) there lies, in the first place, only the contrast
to the treatment as a delinquent which He received at the
hands of the authorities ; but prophecy also had characterized
the servant of God simply as the Eighteous One (Isa. liii. 11),
and since His whole life was an exhibition of this spotless
righteousness which corresponded to the will of God, they
could see in Him only the coming of the Eighteous One
(vii. 52) which the prophets had before announced (cf.
xxii. 14).

176 PROCLAMATION OF THE MESSIAH AND THE MESSIANIC TIME.
(c) Still it was certainly a violent demand that was made*
upon the people, when they were asked to believe that a
delinquent who had been condemned by the spiritual autho
rities, who had been executed by the Gentile civil power, and
who had died upon the tree (v. 30, x. 39), i.e. upon the cross,
was the Messiah. However much His life might favour this
belief, this end of His remained an apparently unsurmountable
obstacle (cncdvBaXov, cf. 1 Cor. i. 23). Although, in conse
quence of Isa. liii., even the idea of a suffering Messiah might
not be altogether unfamiliar to a profounder view of prophecy
(Luke ii. 34 f.; John i. 29), yet this was certainly not the
form in which they conceived its fulfilment to be possible.
It was necessary, therefore, to show that even this end had
been already looked forward to by prophecy. Now, however,
Jesus Himself had referred to the fact that, according to Ps.
cxviii. 22, God would make the stone which was rejected by
the builders of the theocracy, i.e. by the present hierarchical
authority, the corner-stone of the completed theocracy, i.e. the
Messiah (Mark xii. 1 0) ; and when standing before the priests,
Peter appeals to the fact that this has happened in the case
of Jesus (iv. 11). Ps. ii. 2 had already foretold a rebellion
of the princes of this world against the Lord's anointed
(iv. 25-28). Nay, the divine decree referred even to the
shameful manner in which Jesus was delivered into the hands
of His enemies by one of His disciples ; for in Ps. lxix. 2 5,
cix. 8 Peter found the fate of the betrayer already foretold
(i. 16, 20). If God, however, had by the mouth of all His
prophets foreshown the suffering of His Messiah exactly as it
had taken place (iii. 18), then that which had happened was
no judgment of God which testified against Jesus ; He had
not fallen helplessly into the hands of His enemies ; but
everything was foreordained by God's power and counsel
(iv. 28), everything had taken place in accordance with His
determinate counsel and foreknowledge (ii. 23).
(d) When once they had come, apologetically, to an under
standing regarding the death of Jesus, it could also be used
as a positive testimony to His Messiahship. For concerning
that Messianic servant of God (note b) Isaiah had prophesied
that He was to be led as a lamb to the slaughter (liii. 7, 8) ;
and the circumstance that this fate also had been fulfilled in

§ 39. THE EXALTED MESSIAH. 177
the case of Jesus (Acts viii. 34 f.) could only prove still more
decisively that He was really that servant of God. Jesus
Himself had repeatedly pointed to the fact that death and
suffering, in the manner in which they befell Him, were part
of the destiny of life which was appointed to the Messiah in
virtue of His calling (§ 16, c). But the idea of the suffering
Messiah had become far too strange to the people, at least, for
them to be able to make a greater use of this positive argu
ment. Herein is to be found also the reason why, in this
elementary proclamation, the saving significance of the death
of Jesus had still to be kept in the background, although it
was distinctly expressed in sayings of Jesus (§ 22, c) which,
as we shall see, the original apostles had understood ; for that
significance could be rightly appreciated only on the pre
supposition of the Messiahship of Jesus, which had still to be
established. It is therefore unwarrantable in Lechler (p. 19)
to deny to Peter, during this period, the knowledge of this
significance. Much rather, if the death of the Messiah took
place in consequence of a divine decree, it must also have
had its significance for the Messianic activity of Jesus (cf.
§ 22, c, footnote 3) ; and in the connection of iii. 18 f. there
lies plainly enough, for the consciousness of the speaker, the
presupposition that through the fulfilment of the prophecy
concerning the suffering of the Messiah, God has done His
part to provide for the people the Messianic forgiveness of
sins, for the appropriation of which they have now only to do
that which is required of them.
§ 39. The exalted Messiah.
The decisive proof of the Messiahship of Jesus was furnished
by His resurrection on the third day, which the apostles pro
claimed as His chosen witnesses, (b) In consequence, how
ever, of the promise of Jesus and the outpouring of the Spirit,
they could also proclaim His exaltation to the right hand of
God. (c) Through this exaltation God had invested Jesus
with the full sovereignty which was appropriate to the
Messiah, a sovereignty which, far surpassing as it did the
national expectation, now made Him appear a divine being.
(d) But not until He was sent once more from heaven could
VOL. i. M

178 PROCLAMATION OF THE MESSIAH AND THE MESSIANIC TIME.
He appear to the nation as the Messianic finisher and
judge. (a) Now, however, it was a fact that God had raised up
the slain Jesus ; and Peter does not fail to contrast this fact
repeatedly, and in the most striking manner, with His shameful
death (iii. 15, iv. 10, v. 30). Nor had He been raised up
only as all hoped to be raised up ; but, as a plain proof that
His death was different from that of other men, He had already
been raised up on the third day (x. 40). This fact is,
accordingly, the real central point of the apostolic testimony
(ii. 32, iii. 15); for it was not to the whole nation, but only
to the chosen witnesses, that God had caused the risen One
to make Himself manifest (x. 41), and whom He had thus
made the witnesses of His resurrection (i. 22). Thereby,
however, there fell, in the first place, a new light upon the
Messiahship of Jesus. In Ps. xvi. 10 David had said that
God would not allow His Holy One to see corruption, and
would not leave His soul in Hades. This David could not
have said concerning himself, seeing that he was dead and
buried, and therefore his flesh had fallen a prey to corruption.
Accordingly, in that passage he could only be speaking as a
prophet of the descendant who, according to 2 Sam. vii. 12
(cf. Ps. lxxxix. 4), was promised to him. It was of this
latter one, therefore, that it had been said beforehand that he
would not continue in death. This is the manner in which
Peter himself (ii. 25-31) justifies the application of this
passage to the resurrection of the Messiah (ver. 31 : eXaXr)o-ev
irepl Tr}? dvao-Tdaea><; tov XptcrTov).1 And now, if, according
to the testimony of the apostles, Jesus had been raised up by
God (ver. 32), this had happened because, according to this
prophecy, it was not possible that He could be holden by
1 According to this passage, therefore, the resurrection consists in this, that
the soul, which was put into Hades after its separation from the body, is again
removed from it, that the painful death-state of the (disembodied) soul is put an
end to by its being again clothed with the body. That even the flesh is not
decomposed in corruption, but, so we must assume, is immediately changed
into a substance suited to the heavenly life, is a prerogative of the Messiah, who
is raised up, not at the last day, but already on the third, i.e. before corruption
had commenced (cf. John xi. 39). Incidentally we further learn from this
passage that Peter not only takes for granted the Davidic descent of Jesus per
se, but also that this was known to all the people and universally acknowledged
(cf. § 19, a).

§ 39. THE EXALTED MESSIAH. 179
death, i.e. because He was the Messiah of whom it prophesied
(ver. 24). For in vv. 25—31 the ovk fjv BwaTov of ver. 24
is established, not by reflecting upon a vital principle which
inhered in Him because of His nature (Schmid, ii. 167, 169
[E. Tr. 387 f.]), or. upon His Messianic dignity per se (Baur,
p. 307), but by referring to the passage in the Psalm whose
Messianic application was justified.
(h) The risen One, however, had also been exalted to God's
right hand, and that, likewise, because David had already
foretold the exaltation of the Messiah to God's right hand
(ii. 33-35), as Peter shows from Ps. ex. 1 — a passage which
had been applied to the Messiah by Jesus Himself. That
this exaltation has taken place must have been a matter of
certainty to the apostles in consequence of the prophecy of
Jesus (§ 19), and, in so far, they could already bear witness
also to this fact (v. 31).2 When in v. 32, however, the fact
of the communication of the Spirit is also mentioned as a
testimony to this exaltation, this is to be understood, in
accordance with ii. 33, to mean that it is only as the One
who is exalted to God's right hand that Jesus could receive
authority to bestow the gift of the Spirit — a gift which God
had promised to give in the Messianic time, and which
believers were conscious of having received through the
mediation of Jesus.3
(c) Through His exaltation to participation in divine glory
and in the government of the world, a participation which
is denoted by sitting at God's right hand (§ 19, c), Jesus
has now first entered upon the specific Messianic dignity.
Although it was evidenced in His earthly life, as well as in
His death and resurrection, that Jesus of Nazareth was the
2 The assumption of a visible ascension to heaven, of which the earliest tradi
tion knew nothing, is no more involved in this by itself than in the aixXntplmai
of i. 22 and the umfimai us robs aipxtois of ii. 34 (which must indeed necessarily
take place, if the heaven was to receive Him who walked upon earth (iii. 21)),
even though Luke may already have so taken it.
3 It is only in ii. 33, where a specific Messianic authority is ascribed to the
exalted Jesus (cf. Matt. iii. 11), that God is called His Father, a circumstance
which is all the more significant, seeing that in these discourses He never appears
as the Father of believers. But because there is already involved in this the
idea of Christ's Sonship, and that, too, in the sense of election to the calling of
Messiah (§ 17), we must not, with Lechler (p. 18)> lay any special weight upon
the absence of the name of Son.

180 PROCLAMATION OF THE MESSIAH AND THE MESSIANIC TIME.
person foreseen by Messianic prophecy as the One through
whom God would accomplish the completion of salvation, yet
royal dominion was too essential a feature of the prophetic
picture of the Messiah, that the latter could be regarded as
perfectly fulfilled, so long as that feature was not yet realized.
Now, however, the whole house of Israel could know assuredly
that God has made the crucified Jesus Lord and Messiah
(ii. 36). It is true, the Son of David, whom God Himself
had anointed (§ 38, h), had not ascended the throne of His
father David, as the national expectation hoped ; but this was
only in order that He might exchange it for the throne of the
world, that instead of being the King of Israel He might
become the Lord of all (x. 36). It is now that He has first
become the corner-stone of the completed theocracy (iv. 11),
the Captain, to which position God has exalted Him (v. 31).
But He is designated not only the Lord of the theocracy or
of believers, but also simply the Lord (ii. 36, xi. 23, 24;
cf. o Kvptos 'Iiycrows: i. 21, iv. 33, xi. 20, xv. 11), as only
Jehovah Himself is named. For, following the example of
the LXX., here also the Old Testament name of God is
rendered in quotations by 6 Kvpios (ii. 20, 25, 34, iv. 26,
and frequently), and God is designated simply 6 icvpio? (i. 24,
iii. 19, iv. 29, cf. ii. 39). If now Jesus has become the
tcvpio? in the same comprehensive sense, then a saying, which
treats of the Kt/pio?-Jehovah, may also be applied without
more ado to the /ev/atos-Jesus, and that, too, a saying which
speaks of the invocation of God (ii. 20, 21, cf. vii. 59, 60).
The Messiah who is exalted to this KvpioTrjs must, of course,
be a divine being (cf. § 19, d), although, for the earliest pro
clamation, this conclusion gave no occasion for the considera
tion of the question, in how far such an exaltation was rooted
in the original nature of His person.
(d) If it is after His exaltation from the earth that Jesus
has first entered upon His full Messianic dignity, it follows,
of course, that His earthly life was not yet the manifestation
of the Messiah which prophecy had looked forward to, the
manifestation which was to bring about the ultimate consum
mation (§ 38, a). He must be sent once more, as He was
sent the first time (iii. 26). Without referring to the pro
phecy of Jesus, it is assumed in iii. 20 as self-evident, that a

§ 40. THE COMING OF THE MESSIANIC TIME. 181
time will come when God will send this Jesus as the Messiah
appointed for the nation (read : tov . . . Xpiardv 'Irjaovv),
when He comes forth, therefore, in conformity with prophecy,
in His full Messianic glory, to bring to the people the times
of the Messianic consummation (ver. 19). Thus, even the
Jesus who is enthroned and ruling in heaven (ver. 21) is
not yet in a perfect manner that which the Messiah is to be
to the people ; but that no other one than this Jesus will one
day come as the Messiah, and that, too, not only as the accom-
plisher, but also as the judge of the world ordained of God
(x. 42) — it is this that the proclamation of His Messiahship
is meant to prove.
§ 40. The Coming of the Messianic Time.
With the appearance of the Messiah there has commenced
the Messianic end of the times, which already bestows
essential Messianic saving blessings, (b) As a condition of
participating in these the apostolic message at once demands
and works repentance, (c) This manifests itself, first of all,
in the believing acceptance of this message, and in the recog
nition of Jesus as the Messiah, (d) As the immediate sequel,
however, of this end of the times which has already com
menced, the Messianic judgment is to be looked for, from which
only the Messiah can deliver all who call upon His name.
(a) Although the Messiah had not yet brought the com
pletion of salvation, yet there could be no doubt that with
His appearance there had commenced the Messianic time to
which all the prophets had pointed (iii. 24), as the last days
(eo-%aTai rjfiipat,, as translation of the Old Testament nnns
&QV} ; cf. Gen. xlix. 1 ; Mic. iv. 1 ; Isa. ii. 2), in which all the
decrees of Jehovah must be accomplished. In ii. 17 Peter
expressly inserts this term, techn. of Messianic prophecy
into the prophecy of Joel, whose fulfilment he there points
out, in order to show that with this fulfilment at least the
Messianic end of the times had come. If, however, that is
the case, then with it essential blessings of salvation must
also already be given. Now, as such a blessing, the prophecy
in Joel ii. 28 f. names a universal pouring out of the Spirit ;
this has taken place on the day of Pentecost (ii. 16 ff), and

182 PROCLAMATION OF THE MESSIAH AND THE MESSIANIC TIME.
is ever repeated afresh in the case of those who believe in the
Messiah (ii. 38). The Baptist had already stated that the
Messiah would baptize with the Holy Ghost (Matt. iii. 11),
and the disciples of Jesus are conscious of having received
this gift through their exalted Lord (ii. 33).1 The other essen
tially Messianic blessing of salvation (§ 22, a) is the forgive
ness of sins which was promised by all the prophets for the
Messianic time, and which, like the communication of the
Spirit, is also secured through the mediation of the Messiah
(Bi,d tov wo/iaro? avTov, x. 43) ; this can now be offered to
every one on the occasion of his entrance into His Church
(ii. 38, iii. 19, v. 31), in consequence of the authority which
was bestowed upon it by Jesus (§ 31, c). Even the miracles
of healing, in which the manifestation of Jesus proved itself
to be a revelation of Jehovah, who had come in the time of
salvation with help and blessing to His people (§ 20, d),
repeat themselves within the Church (ii. 43, v. 12, vi. 8,
viii. 6, 7, 13). Only, in order to glorify His Messiah (iv. 10),
God now works them, in answer to the prayer of the disciples
(cf. ix. 40, xxviii. 8), through the name of Jesus (iv. 30) ; i.e.,
on the occasion of miracles, the name of Jesus, which denotes
His Messianic dignity, must be called upon (iii. 6, cf. xvi. 18),
and thus it is brought out, that it is only in consequence of
the manifestation of the Messiah that this grace of God is
bestowed upon the Church. Indeed, the very name of Jesus
may be conceived of as that which works the cure (iii. 16), or
Jesus Himself may be regarded as continuing His healing
activity by the hands of His disciples (ix. 34).
1 Just as in the prophecy of Joel, the Spirit appears here also as the prin
ciple of supernatural gifts of grace (cf. § 18, a, footnote 2) ; for in the speak
ing with tongues (ii. 4, x. 46, cf. viii. 18), in prophesying (xix. 6, cf. i. 16),
and in seeing visions (vii. 55), the communication of the Spirit forthwith
reveals itself in visible and audible phenomena ; the Spirit works the wisdom
and the power with which the disciples bear witness to the truth (vi. 3, 10,
vii. 51). It is true these gifts of the Spirit are by no means regarded
merely as "wonderful phenomena," but as the equipment of the servants
of God for the work that is laid upon them (ii. 18) ; but nowhere does the
Spirit appear as the principle of the new moral life. Nor is the Spirit con
ceived of as personal, but as a gift of God (ii. 38, v. 32, viii. 20, cf. x. 45,
xi. 17) ; and when an appeal is made to v. 32 in order' to prove the contrary,
the circumstance is overlooked that there it is not the Spirit itself, but the fact
of the communication of the Spirit (cf. § 39, b) that testifies to the exaltation of
Jesus.

§ 40. THE COMING OF THE MESSIANIC TIME. 183
(h) Participation in these blessings is attached, however, to
certain conditions. As Jesus Himself was sent by God to turn
away His fellow-countrymen from their previous iniquities,
and so to make them sharers in the Messianic blessings
(iii. 26), so His apostles demand repentance (ii. 38, viii. 22)
and the consequent change in men's moral walk, and make
this the condition of their obtaining the forgiveness of sins
(iii. 19, v. 31, viii. 22). This demand is grounded, however,
not only upon the general assumption of human sinfulness,
but also, under the special circumstances of the earliest
apostolic preaching, upon the grievous sin which the people
had committed, in that, through the choice of Barabbas, they
had made themselves guilty of the denial of Jesus and sharers
in the guilt of His death (iii. 13—15). But as the proclamation
of Jesus not only demanded repentance, but also effectively
called it into existence (§ 21, c), so also the preaching of the
apostles. God has exalted Jesus to His right hand in order
that every one, who is willing to see, may now know that He was
God's chosen Messiah, and that, consequently, His death was
a grievous sin, and so may be led to repentance. If, in this
sense, God has, by the exaltation of Jesus, given the people
the strongest motive for repentance (v. 31, cf. xi. 18), then
the proclamation of His exaltation by the apostles must vigor
ously work this repentance. Through repentance those who
participate in the Messianic salvation become a fellowship of
true servants of God (iv. 29, ii. 18, cf. § 32, a), a fellowship
which walks in the fear of the Lord (ix. 31).
(c) It is only the first and most obvious evidence of this
repentance, if those who rejected the message of God which
was addressed to them through Jesus now accept the procla
mation of God's new messengers. The apostles, namely, are
the witnesses chosen of God ; they have received, through
Jesus, His command to preach unto the people (x. 41, 42) ;
and, in the execution of this command, they are obedient to
God alone (iv. 19, v. 29). As regards them, it is self-evident
that the obedience which God demands consists in this, that
men receive their message, in which a word of God Hhnself
(iv. 29) is addressed to the people, as true (cf. ii. 41, viii. 14) ;
and, accordingly, this obedience appears in v. 32 as a condi
tion of the communication of the Spirit. Standing as it does

184 PROCLAMATION OF THE MESSIAH AND THE MESSIANIC TIME.
in connection with the hearing of the word, believing, in xv. 7
(cf. ver. 9), can denote only this trustful acceptance of the
message (§ 29, c), — it can only mean that one believes him
who brings the joyous message of the name of Jesus as the
Messiah (viii. 12).3 In such a case the consequence will be,
that they now call Jesus, whom the people once rejected, their
Lord and Master, because they have known assuredly from the
apostolic message that God has made Him this (ii. 3 6). They
must call upon Jesus who is thus confessed to be the Messiah
(ver. 21) ; through this name, which they must then, naturally,
confess, they receive the forgiveness of sins (x. 43) ; for this
name's sake they must suffer dishonour and sacrifice their life
(v. 41, xv. 26, cf. § 29, b). Inasmuch, now, as the acknowledg
ment of the Messiahship of Jesus is expressed in this name,
and therewith the assurance is given that through Him all
the divine promises of salvation are fulfilled, there is no doubt
already included in this faith the confidence that, through
Him, all the Messianic blessings of salvation will be received.
In xv. 11, however, faith appears expressly as trust in the
deliverance that is to be expected, through Jesus, in the
Messianic judgment.
(d) With the pouring out of the Spirit the prophecy of Joel
immediately connected the coming of the day of Jehovah, i.e.
of the great Messianic day of judgment, amid dreadful signs
in heaven (Joel ii. 30 f.). By adopting this part also of the
prophecy (ii. 19, 20) Peter wishes to intimate explicitly that,
as the immediate sequel of the last days which have already
commenced, the Messianic day of judgment is near at hand ;
and according to § 39, t^ this is the day of the second sending
of Jesus, seeing that He comes as the Lord and Messiah who
2 As in the discourses of Jesus, so here also faith is probably not yet directly
referred to the person of Jesus ; for in x. 43 Txvrx ™v ¦xio-riimru. i\s n'wriy is
probably an addition of Luke's, which is obviously superfluous alongside of
S;i tou iyi/ixras ubnZ, and xi. 17 belongs to a discourse whose derivation from
the Petrine source is doubtful (§ 35, 6). On the other hand, h mens stands in
iii. 16, 6, just as in the discourses of Jesus (§ 29, c), for the wonder-working trust
in God, which, however, is in so far owing to the Messiah (ti V xlmZ) as only the
assurance, that the grace of God which surmounts all difficulties has appeared
in Him, could lead to such a trust in God's miraculous help. For this reason it
is really the name of Jesus which has restored soundness to the cripple, because
of the confidence which Peter places in it (It) t* tio-tu t»? ivifcxm), when, in
the name of Jesus, he commanded him to walk (iii. 16 a, cf. iv. 10).

§ 41. THE CHURCH AND THE APOSTLES. 185
has been appointed judge. The present generation of the
people, laden as it is with the most heinous sin (note b, ii. 40 :
yeved crKoXia ; cf. Deut. xxxii. 5), can naturally only look for
destruction in this judgment (viii. 20 : dircoXeta, cf. § 34, c),
unless a way of deliverance is pointed out to it. Such a
way, however, Peter has pointed out to the people (ii. 40), by
explaining the prophecy of Joel, that every one who shall call
on the name of the Lord will be saved, as referring to the
name of Jesus who has been exalted to be Lord and Messiah
(ver. 21). There is no other name given among men, whereby
men can be saved, than the name of the Messiah ; therefore it
is in Him alone, as the Lord of the completed theocracy, that
its members can find the Messianic salvation (iv. 11 f.). In
so far Jesus is exalted not only to be the Lord, but also to be
the Saviour (v. 31). As the Messiah who is ordained to be
the judge (x. 42) He has naturally also to determine who
shall be delivered from this judgment ; and, according to
xv. 11, He will, through His favour, deliver all who show, by
their calling upon Him, that they have penitently received the
message of salvation. With deliverance from destruction,
however, there is at the same time given the completed
salvation, which, according to § 34 h, consists in (eternal) life.
Accordingly, Jesus has also become the Prince of this life
(iii. 1 5 : apxyyos t»5? fw???) : as the One who has been led to
life through the resurrection, He shows to all the way of life.3

CHAPTEE II.
THE MOTHER CHURCH AND THE QUESTION OF THE GENTILES.
§ 41. The Church and the Apostles.
At the feast of Pentecost the Church was founded by the
pouring out of the Spirit and the institution of the rite of
baptism, to the reception of which participation in the forgive-
3 The inaccurate translation of kpxnyis by " author " has caused Gess to think
exclusively of the life-giving power of Jesus as shown in His miracles of healing
(ii. p. 6).

186 THE MOTHER CHURCH AND THE QUESTION OF THE GENTILES.
ncss of sins and in the gift of the Spirit is henceforth attached.
(b) The Church continued bound together by their participating
in the teaching of the apostles, by the realization of brotherly
fellowship with one another, by the rite of the breaking of
bread, and by common prayer, (c) An organization is inci
dentally given to the Church through the appointment of
overseers of the poor; the place of these is taken later by
the elders who also officially look after its other concerns ;
while the younger members of the Church, without any express
official position, attend to its outward services. (d) The
apostles devote themselves wholly and diligently to prayer
and the ministry of the word, without, however, claiming any
specific qualification or authority.
(a) Through the baptism of the Spirit at the feast of Pente
cost the exalted Christ had again borne witness of Himself to
His disciples as the One who would and could bring about the
realization of the kingdom of God upon earth ; there was
now a Church of Christ (rj itc/cX^ala simply: v. 11, viii. 1, 3)
within the Old Testament Church of God, a Church which
had been consecrated by Himself through the gift of the Spirit
to be the place of its realization. This was not a school or a
sect, which was bound together by peculiar dogmas or religious
ceremonies ; but as the Old Testament Church had been bound
together by the divinely-appointed bond of blood relationship,
so this Church was bound together by the divine gift of the
Spirit, the bestowal of which declared its members to be the
true servants of Jehovah (ii. 18), in whose midst the com
pleted theocracy with all its blessings must be realized. From
those, however, who should henceforth be gained by the
apostolic preaching, and who should wish to connect them
selves with this Church, Peter already, according to his first
Pentecostal sermon, demanded the baptism of repentance
(ii. 38 : fieTavoriaaTe teal /3aTTTiadi]Ta) etcao-Tos;), which John had
once demanded from the whole nation. By submersion the
resolution to abandon entirely the old disposition, and to begin
a new life as a new man, was to be represented and confirmed
in a symbolical act. That which was new was only this, that
the act of submersion was performed in the name of Jesus
(viii. 1 6 : ei? to ovojia tov Kvplov 'Irjcvov ; cf. ii. 38: iwl t&>
ovo/miti, x. 48 : iv tS> ovofian, which has essentially the

§ 41. THE CHURCH AND THE APOSTLES. 187
same significance).1 In this way expression was given to the
fact that this act included the recognition of Jesus as the
Lord and Messiah, a recognition which was denoted by the
name which was currently given to Him in the Church. If,
however, in this way, the two demands were fulfilled to which
participation in the saving blessings of the Messianic time
was attached (§ 40, b, c), these must also have immediately
become the portion of those who submitted to the baptism of
repentance in the name of Jesus. Accordingly Peter promises
to those, who suffer themselves to be baptized, the forgiveness
of sins and the gift of the Spirit (ii. 38).2 In the outpouring
of the Spirit, which is manifested in externally perceptible
phenomena (§ 40, a), believers had the pledge that this
promise was fulfilled (cf. xix. 5,6); and by means of it the
exalted Christ gave them the assurance that it was according
to His will and in His name that the apostles had instituted
this sign of the covenant (ef. § 31, h). Peter could therefore
describe baptism as the way which leads to the Messianic
salvation (ii. 40), inasmuch as, by its reception, they entered
into the Church, which its exalted Lord must deliver from
destruction when He returns to judgment (cf. § 40, d).s
1 Thi»t this was the original expression for the specific use of the rite of
baptism in the Christian Church, appears unquestionable from 1 Cor. i. 13, 15
(cf. x. 2). It is not impossible that the naming of Jesus, which was the expres
sion of the acknowledgment of His Messianic dignity, taken in connection with
the significance which it gained for the rite of baptism, very early left its mark
in the technical Messianic name (» Xpio-ros) being divested of its appellative
sense and joined with the name Jesus into a nomen proprium ('increvs Xpio-rls :
ii. 38, iii. 6, iv. 10, viii. 12, x. 36 — yet almost only where the point in question
is the reverential designation of the Messiah) ; yet we must note the fact, that
in these very discourses S Xpiaros still occurs frequently in its original technical
appellative sense (ii. 31, 36, iii. 18, 20, iv. 26, ix. 34, cf. v. 42, viii. 5), and that
it is therefore difficult to determine how far that expression, which is found also
in other parts of the Acts of the Apostles, already belonged to the source which
Luke employed.
2 Thus, then, the merely symbolical act of John's baptism of repentance had
become a sacrament, i.e. the vehicle of supernatural gifts of grace. Already
it is plainly a secondary feature, when Mark's Gospel ascribes even to John's
baptism the mediation of the forgiveness of sins (i. 4). The earliest tradition
(Matt. iii. 11) knows nothing of this, and expressly reserves the baptism of the
Spirit for the coming Messiah.
3 Naturally this does not forbid that the exalted Christ Himself was not
confined to this order. There is nowhere any indication that baptism was
considered necessary for those who had already become disciples of Jesus, and
had been led to repentance and faith by Himself. The first Church of the dis-

188 THE MOTHER CHURCH AND THE QUESTION OF THE GENTILES.
(b) A short description of the life of the first Church is
given in ii. 42, very probably according to the Petrine source,
since in ii. 43-47 Luke has sought to explain and supplement
it. According to this description, the Church gathered around
the teaching of the apostles (which was, indeed, only the con
tinuation of the proclamation of Jesus), just as the stedfast
following of Jesus, for the purpose of continually hearing His
teaching, was, during the lifetime of the Messiah, the sign of
enduring discipleship (§ 29, a). Moreover, even the name
fia07)Tai appears to have been retained in the circle of the
mother Church (xv. 10, cf. vi. 1, 2, ix. 36, xi. 29). It was
bound together by the bond of an inner fellowship (kolvwvIo);
within the wider brotherhood of their fellow-countrymen
(ii. 29, 37, iii. 17) it formed a closer brotherhood (i. 15,
xi. 29, xv. 1, and frequently), in which they addressed one
another as dBeXobol (cf. i. 16, vi. 3, xii. 17, xv. 7, 13), just as
Jesus had already taught His adherents to regard themselves
as brethren (§ 25, c). This brotherly fellowship found its
expression in their compassionate provision for the widows
(vi. 1), and, naturally, also for the poor in general ; for this
purpose not a few well-to-do members of the Church sold all
their possessions (iv. 3 7), without this, however, being regarded
as a duty (v. 4). Their meals were in common ; and at them
the breaking of bread of Jesus on the occasion of the last
supper was repeated in a holy memorial feast (ii. 42,
cf. § 31, b). Lastly, according to ii. 42, the fellowship of the
disciples was a fellowship for prayer (cf. i. 14, iv. 24, xii. 12),
in keeping with the circumstance that Jesus had made prayer
(which would also be heard) the privilege and duty of His
adherents (§ 20, b, 30,5). That, accordingly, the members of
the Church had their fixed and separate assemblies, in which
they were conscious of their common confession in listening
to the preaching of the apostles and in common prayer, admits
of no doubt.
(c) As Jesus has not determined anything regarding an
ciples receives the gift of the Spirit without baptism (ii. 33) ; and so, too, the
first Church of the uncircumcised (x. 44), in order that their baptism might be
occasioned by a divine an^uay (x. 47, xi. 15-17, cf. also ix. 17 f. ). The case even
occurs in which the gift of the Spirit does not immediately follow upon baptism
(viii. 16, cf. ver. 12).

§ 41. THE CHURCH AND THE APOSTLES. 189
organization of the future Church (§ 31, c), so neither have
the apostles, at first, considered such an organization to be
necessary. As, in consequence of the growth of the Church,
the administration of provision for the poor became more
arduous, and required greater care in order that abuses might
be avoided, the Church resolved, on the motion of the apostles,
who had up to this time received and administered the love-
gifts (iv. 37, v. 2), to choose seven men qualified by the
Spirit's gift of wisdom to undertake this difficult task
(vi. 1-6). These seven men (xxi. 8 : ol eirTa) are not styled
deacons, although it is a Biaicovia which they undertake
(vi. 2). Later, we find also the institute of the elders of the
synagogue imitated in the Church, in the irpeo-BvTepoi, whose
calling accordingly must have been the management of the
external affairs of the Church. Now, since there was among
these none more important and more extensive than that of
providing for the poor, and since in xi. 30 it is really the
elders, as it had previously been the apostles, who receive the
love-gifts, it would appear that, after the temporary interrup
tion of the continuity of the life of the Church (viii. 1), in
consequence of which we see one of the seven henceforth
active as an evangelist (viii. 5, 26 ff., xxi. 8), these elders
took the place and adopted the duties of the seven men, who
had been chosen only ad hoc, into their more comprehensive
official activity. Nowhere do the elders appear as a teaching-
authority; not even at the apostolic council (Lechler, p. 308),
where their activity comes out so prominently (xv. 2, 6,
22, 23, xvi. 4) probably only because the question discussed
there had, besides its religious side, an importance of the
greatest consequence for the social life of the Church. Also
in xxi. 18 ff. they consult with Paul as to measures for
maintaining peace and order in the Church (cf. ver. 22). The
younger members of the Church (v. 6, 10: ol vednepot or
veavio-Koi), without any special office, perform the external
services of the congregation, among which even the external
performance of the rite of baptism appears to be counted
(x. 48).
(d) Quite in keeping with the charge of Jesus (§31, a)
the apostles describe as their specific activity, in which they
wished not to be hindered by the management of the external

190 THE MOTHER CHURCH AND THE QUESTION OF THE GENTILE&
affairs of the Church, the Biaxovla tov Xoyov (vi. 2, 4), in
consequence of which they form the teaching authority in the
Church. With this Bia/covla tov Xoyov, so far as it is
exercised within the circle of the Church, there is probably
closely connected also the leading of the prayers of the con
gregation (vi. 4: Trpoo-evxfi), which, equally with teaching,
involves the guiding of the assembly. Although they origi
nally also look after its external affairs, yet they soon relieve
themselves of this duty, because they consider that it does
not fall within their specific province (note c) ; it is only,
therefore, as the most prominent members of the Church, and
not in virtue of their apostolic office, that they have hitherto
performed this task. Not once do we perceive them exercising
governmental authority. At their instigation the choice of
the seven men was resolved upon and carried out by the
Church (vi. 5, cf. i. 23) ; the discourses of the apostles only
prepared the way for the decision at the so-called apostolic
council ; it was come to, however, by the Church in agree
ment with them and the elders (xv. 22, 23). The unmasking
of the two deceivers, whom the punishment of God overtakes
(v. 3—10), is no act of Church discipline. If it is in the
apostles that the Holy Ghost appears deceived and put to the
proof (vv. 3, 9), this is only because it is they who have
received the gifts (ver. 2) which were entrusted to the Church,
and esteemed by it because of the Holy Ghost ; for all the
members of the Church have received the Spirit, and the
decree of the Church is a decree of the Holy Ghost (xv. 23,2 8).
If signs and wonders are done by the hands of the apostles
(ii. 43, v. 12), this gift is nevertheless by no means confined
to them (iv. 29 f., cf. vi. 8, viii. 6, 7, 13); and Peter expressly
opposes the idea that these are performed by means of any
special power inhering in them (iii. 12). Others also possess
the Spirit's gift of wisdom (vi. 3, 10), speak through the
Spirit (vi. 10, vii. 51), see visions (vii. 55), and prophesy
(xi. 27, 28: irpo^fjTai, cf. xiii 1, xv. 32, xix. 6), as indeed
the Spirit, who is bestowed upon all, is the principal of all
the gifts of grace (§ 40, a). If it is by the laying on of
the apostles' hands that the Samaritans receive the Holy
Ghost (viii. 17, 19), ver. 15 shows that this is only a symbol
signifying that it was for them that the apostles were praying

§ 42. THE CONVERSION OF THE WHOLE OF ISRAEL. 191
(cf. vi. 4) ; and in ix. 1 7 (cf. ver. 1 2) even this laying on of
hands is performed by one of the disciples with the same
effect. So in vi. 6 the laying on of hands only accompanies
the prayer with which the apostles induct into their office
the men who, on account of their fitness, had been chosen as
overseers of the poor ; in an analogous manner the prophets
and teachers of the Church at Antioch induct Barnabas and
Saul into the missionary office to which they were called
(xiii. 3), while in xiv. 23 the officers of the Church are
appointed only with prayer. If, in the last place, it is the
apostles who, according to viii. 14, appear to make provision
for the union of those recently converted with the mother
Church, it is the mother Church itself which, in an altogether
analogous case, does this by means of one of its other mem
bers (xi. 22).4

§ 42. The Conversion of the whole of Israel.
The mission of the apostles to Israel is only the resumption
of the evangelizing and converting activity of Jesus ; through
the complete conversion of Israel it is to render the return of
Jesus and, therewith, the coming of the consummation of all
things possible, (b) Accordingly, there is still granted to the
nation a season of repentance ; even the putting to death of
the Messiah is to be regarded as a sin of ignorance, and only-
final disobedience towards Him is to be regarded as the sin
of presumptuousness, for which extirpation from the nation is
appointed as punishment, (c) There remains, therefore, to
the apostles the hope that converted Israel will be the Church
4 The prominent position which Peter assumes in the Church is a result of
his peculiar qualifications, in consequence of which he throughout takes the
lead in word and in deed ; it is not a position which is officially fixed. It was
only later that they regarded it as a result of a supremacy which Jesus had
given him, and that they applied to him alone the promise of the power of the
keys (Matt. xvi. 19), inasmuch as they explained it in accordance with Isa.
xxii. 22. Alongside of him, the sons of Zebedee (see, on the one hand, xii. 2,
on the other, iii. 1, 3, 4, 11, iv. 13, 19, viii. 14), who already stood nearest to
Jesus (§ 31, a), must have been specially prominent. After Peter's imprison
ment, James, the brother of the Lord, takes his place, although we hear
nothing as to any express determination of the matter (xii. 17, xv. 13,
cf. xxi. 18).

192 THE MOTHER CHURCH AND THE QUESTION OF THE GENTILES.
of the time of the consummation, and with this hope there is
necessarily involved their firm adherence to the law of the
fathers. (d) Even the renewed threatening prophecy of
Stephen and his fearful castigatory sermon have not attacked
the holy things of Israel, nor do they yet pronounce the
divine sentence of rejection upon the nation.
(a) According to § 31, a the real commission of the
apostles is not to the Church, but to the whole nation. They
are the witnesses chosen by God, the witnesses who are
specially qualified to proclaim the resurrection, and who are
charged with the message to the people (x. 41, 42, cf. iv. 19,
v. 29). The significance of their number, twelve, as referring
to the nation of the twelve tribes, is expressly recognised in
the choice of one to fill the place vacated by Judas (i. 20).1
Through Jesus God had sent the glad tidings to the children
of Israel (x. 3 6) ; but since the realization of salvation
remained dependent upon the repentance of the nation, it had
been His first effort to lead each individual in the nation to
turn away from sin (iii. 26). This effort had been in vain;
instead of being converted, the nation had killed its Messiah.
Thereby the direct development of the Messianic work of
salvation which had been originally intended was interfered
with. The slain Messiah had been raised up by God and
exalted to heaven ; but now this very exaltation must become
to the nation the most powerful motive of repentance (v. 31, for
which see § 40, h). Accordingly, the apostles were once more
sent to the people of Israel (x. 42) with the message regarding
the Messiahship of Jesus, and with the demand of repentance.
Jesus must now remain in heaven until the times of the
general conversion of which Malachi (iv. 5 f.) had prophesied
(iii. 21). That it is of this that the diroicaTdcTTao-K irdvTwv
is to be understood is shown by Mark ix. 12, and confirmed
1 They can choose this successor of Judas only from such as have been
constant followers of Jesus (i. 21, 22) during the whole time to which their
preaching refers (x. 37-41). Between those with this qualification whom the
Church puts forward (i. 23) God Himself decides by means of the lot which is
cast after He has been called upon (i. 24-26). In accordance with the promise
of Jesus (Matt. x. 20, cf. § 21, c, footnote 1) they are specially qualified by the
Spirit to defend themselves before the Sanhedrim (iv. 8), and also otherwise
equipped for the preaching of the word (iv. 31). Yet they are far from claiming
the exclusive right of preaching (cf. vi. 10, viii. 4, 5, xi. 19, 20).

§ 42. THE CONVERSION OF THE WHOLE OF ISRAEL. 193
by the context. Not till then would the nation be prepared
for the final consummation of all things which Jesus was to
bring on the occasion of His second mission as the Messiah
appointed for them (iii. 20, cf. § 39, d). In this sense it
depends upon their repentance and conversion whether the
promised times of refreshing, i.e. the Messianic time in its
greatest perfection, can come (ver. 19). To bring about the
fulfilment of this condition is the task of the mission of the
apostles to Israel.
(b) It remains, therefore, that the Messianic salvation is
appointed for the people of Israel (ii. 39 : ifuv r\ iirayyeXla
ical toi<; t&kvoi? vfitov). They are the children of the prophets
who have promised all this salvation (iii. 24), they are the
members of the covenant which God has made with the fathers
and in which He has engaged Himself to the seed of Abra
ham (ver. 25). This may surprise us, seeing that, according
to the earliest tradition, Jesus had already announced the
rejection of the nation (§ 28, d). But as there is no prophecy
of salvation which does not remain dependent upon the be
haviour of those who are to be blessed, so there is no threatening
prophecy which cannot be averted by a penitent conversion.
Even the founding of a Church which belongs specially to
Christ within the Old Testament national Church does not
yet involve the rejection of the latter, since the former may
gradually extend itself until the two coincide. That the
rejection of the nation which was threatened by Jesus is still
suspended for a time, that it can still be averted by the
nation's repentance, this is the presupposition of the whole of
the missionary preaching of the original apostles. The Old
Testament distinguishes between sins of weakness or inad
vertence, which are committed in ignorance (Lev. iv. 2,
xxii. 14: nMK'Zi, KaT dyvotav) and which could be atoned for
by the institute of sacrifice, and such sins as, committed with
daring wickedness (Num. xv. 30 f. : non T3), were punished
with extermination from among the people (egoXodpevOrjo-erai
V tyvXV eKeivrj etc tov Xaov). Peter explicitly proclaims to
the people that even the daring slaying of the Messiah is
still to be regarded as committed /cot' dyvotav (iii. 17),
and may still be forgiven in consequence of a penitent
conversion (ver. 19). But whoever does not now listen to
VOL. I. H

194 THE MOTHER CHURCH AND THE QUESTION OF THE GENTILES.
the prophet promised by Moses, i.e. to the Messiah, over him
is pronounced, not the threatening of wrath in Deut. xviii. 1 9,
but the very formula of malediction in Num. xv. 30 (iii. 23),
i.e. he has committed the sin of which Jesus already says that
it cannot be forgiven (§ 22, b). Accordingly a time of grace
is still granted to the nation ; it is to be tried whether the
one great o-rj/jtelov, to which Jesus already pointed the multitude
when it demanded a miracle (Matt. xii. 39= Luke xi. 2 9),
cannot yet lead them to repentance (cf. v. 31).
(c) The apostles still hope that the whole of Israel will be
converted ; this hope is the soul of their missionary labours.
It is not, thereby, said that every individual will be converted
and become a believer; even the prophets had always pro
phesied that before the coming of the Messianic consumma
tion there would be a sifting, by which the unworthy members
of the nation would be excluded from participation in the
Messianic salvation. Those individuals among their fellow-
countrymen who have refused to listen to the great Mes
sianic prophet, and to attest their repentance by baptism in
His name, will be rooted out from among the people (note b),
so that ultimately there remain only believers in Israel ;
Israel, converted and believing in the Messiah, this Israel will
form the Church of the end of the times, the Church which is
ripe for the consummation (note a).2 With this hope of an
ultimate conversion of the whole of Israel in this sense there
was, however, necessarily involved their unqualified adherence
to the law of the fathers. If Israel as a nation .was to parti
cipate in the Messianic consummation, then it must also adhere
9 With this hope there is, per se, given the possibility that a realization of the
kingdom of God in the forms of the Israelitish theocracy may still take place, and
therefore that the prophecy may also be fulfilled of the glory of the kingdom of
Israel, in which the apostles, at least originally, hoped (Acts i. 6). That this
was still hoped for later in the apostolic circle, cannot be proven ; it is charac
teristic of the manner in which they taught, that the question as to the form in
which the times of refreshing will be realized (iii. 19) is not entered into more
particularly. According to the context, the a.iroxct.Ta.iirxttis of iii. 21 cannot be the
restoration of the kingdom of Israel (cf. note a), and the heavenly consummation
of the kingdom of God which Jesus promised (§ 34) can be reconciled with such
a hope only by means of chiliastic ideas, of which there is no trace at this time.
Naturally this does not forbid that here and there such hopes were cherished ;
but it also leaves the way open to the opinion that, by the slaying of the Mes
siah, the earthly consummation of the Israelitish theocracy was forfeited once
and for ever.

§ 42. THE CONVERSION OF THE WHOLE OF ISRAEL. 195
to its law ; for Israel's whole'national life rested upon this law.
Israel was a nation separated from the nations only so long as
it adhered to this law. And if those Israelites who believed
in the Messiah might have, for some reason or other, emanci
pated themselves from it, they could not have done so without
setting up such a wall of partition between themselves and
their still unbelieving fellow-countrymen as would have made
the conversion of the latter to any great extent impossible.
But no word of Jesus set His disciples free from obeying the
divine law (cf. § 24) to which they were engaged by circum
cision ; hence it cannot be surprising that the mother Church
remained faithful to the law, and, seeing that it was strict in
the performance of all its duties, even became zealous for it
in a high degree, as is still testified of it in xxi. 20 (cf. ii. 46,
iii. 1, x. 9, 14, xxii. 12).3
(d) The attitude of Stephen to the question considered in
note c is naturally to be gathered mainly, not from the accusa
tion made against him (vi. 11, 13, 14), but from his own
defence. In this, however, there appears no indication that
he regards the law and the cultus of Israel as an imperfect
revelation of God (cf. Messner, p. 174). He rather sets forth
the divine origin of circumcision (vii. 8), he delights to
describe Moses as the great typical deliverer of the nation
(w. 35—37), he makes him receive the law from the mouth
of angels, and describes it as Xoyca %mvTa (ver. 38), and as
binding upon Israel (ver. 53); and certainly the mediation
by angels is meant to guarantee rather than to question the
divine character of this law. Just as little does he pronounce
the eventual rejection of the nation (cf. Messner, p. 174). It
is true the patriarchs have already sinned against Joseph, who
was exalted by God (vii. 9, 10), and the contemporaries of
Moses have not recognised in him the deliverer sent by God
(vv. 25-28), but have denied him (ver. 35), and afterwards,
3 The question as to the conditions of participation in the Messianic salvation
did not, in the first instance, touch this matter at all. Just as certainly as no
truly pious Jew believed that because of his piety he could do without the for
giveness of sins and the communication of the Spirit which were looked for from
the Messiah, so little could this piety, per se, entitle him to membership in the
Messianic Church, which depended upon totally different conditions (cf. § 41, a),
or save him in the Messianic judgment, since this depended solely upon his
attitude towards the Messiah.

196 THE MOTHER CHURCH AND THE QUESTION OF THE GENTILES.
in disobedience to him, turned to idolatry (vv. 39-43). It
is true that, like Jesus Himself (Matt, xxiii. 31), he calls the
present generation the sons of the murderers of the prophets,
and upbraids them as being stiff-necked and uncircumcised in
heart and ears, because they resisted the Spirit of God which
spoke to them in the preachers of the Gospel, as their fathers
had resisted the Spirit which spoke in the prophets (vii.
51, 52), and did not even fulfil the law for which they were
zealous (ver. 53). But all this is still only a sharp casti-
gatory sermon for the purpose of leading them to repentance ;
and it is pure arbitrariness to assume, with Schmid (ii. p. 36
[E. Tr. 296]), that the speaker was not allowed to go on to
the conclusion of his discourse, which would have pronounced
the rejection of the nation. There certainly runs through the
whole of the discourse the thought that the divine revelation
of salvation is not confined to the temple. Abraham received
the primary divine revelation in Mesopotamia, and came later
into the promised land (vv. 2-4). His descendants had to
be in bondage for 400 years in a foreign land (ver. 6, cf.
vv. 9—3 6), and to wander forty years in the wilderness, where
the revelation of the law was given them (vv. 36, 38), just as
it was in a foreign land that God appeared to Moses himself
(vv. 29, 30). Even in the splendid days of Joshua and David,
the Israelites worshipped God in the tabernacle (vv. 44—46),
and Solomon first dared to build Him a temple ; and even
that temple was not yet, according to the word of the pro
phet (Isa. lxvi. 1, 2), the real and exclusive dwelling-place of
God (vii. 47-50). Since these remarks are meant to be an
apology with reference to the statements on account of which
he was accused, nothing is more likely than that he had
reproduced the threatening prophecy of Christ regarding the
fall of the temple ; and, quite in the spirit of Jesus (§ 24, d),
he may probably have connected with it the prospect that
with this catastrophe the system of worship, whose central
point was the temple, would also be changed. But certainly
he had not represented this as taking place so directly as the
false witnesses asserted (vi. 14), but had threatened it in the
event of the definitive obduracy of the nation, an obduracy
which was no doubt always growing more and more probable.
The whole of his discourse shows that he was conscious that

§ 43. POSITION OF THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS IN THE CHURCH. 197
he had not offended against the holy place and the law ;
although the incisive manner in which his threatening words
pointed anew to the catastrophe, which was always becoming
more and more unavoidable, reawakened in the people, for the
first time, the consciousness that, with its ultimate conse
quences, the Messianic sect threatened the national holy
things. § 43. Tlie Position of the Gentile Christians in the Church.
Although, even from the first, there was reserved for the
Gentiles an ultimate participation in the Messianic salvation,
yet the manner in which He would one day lead these to the
completed theocracy was left to God. (b) Express intimations
of God had first to convince the mother Church that it was
His will to introduce Gentiles to the fellowship of the Mes
sianic Church, even before the conversion of the whole of
Israel, (c) At the apostolic council the freedom of converted
Gentiles from the law was expressly recognised, in opposition
to the zealots, who demanded that they should pass through
Judaism, and only precautions were taken that this recognition
should not damage the mission to Israel, (d) On the other
hand, its decrees were not sufficient to secure the social and
religious fellowship of these two sections of the Christian
Church, differing entirely, as they did, as to their rule of life ;
and notwithstanding these decrees, an extreme party in the
mother Church soon reverted to their old pretensions.
(a) Peter quotes the prophecy which was given to the
patriarch (Gen. xxii. 18), according to which all the families
of the earth are to be blessed in the seed of Abraham (iii. 25).
Therewith the ultimate universal realization of the Messianic
salvation was expressed as decidedly as the presupposition,
that, before this becomes possible, the seed of Abraham must
first participate in this salvation. Accordingly, God has sent
His servant, first of all, to Israel (iii. 26), in order to effect
its conversion, and therewith to render His blessing by means
of the promised salvation possible (§ 42, a). But the promise
of salvation belongs not only to the Jews, but also to those
that are afar off (ii. 39); and according to Isa. xlix. 1, 12,
lvii. 19 these are undoubtedly the Gentiles, especially as the

198 THE MOTHER CHURCH AND THE QUESTION OF THE GENTILES.
Jews of the dispersion were numerously represented in the
audience of his Pentecostal sermon, and therefore embraced in
the vfuv. When Peter, however, with an allusion to Joel
ii. 32, says that God will call these, the manner in which He
will do this is left as indefinite by him as by Jesus (§ 28, d),
and, at all events, an actual mission to the Gentiles is not
present to his mind. According to the earliest tradition, the
apostles possessed no commission relating to such a mission
(§ 31, a) ; and such a mission was, at first, altogether impos
sible, because in the eyes of strict Israelitish piety, at least in
the Palestinian circles to which the original apostles belonged,
it was unlawful to have such an intercourse with the uncir-
cumcised (x. 28, xi. 3 ; cf. Gal. ii. 12, 14) as a mission among
them would have demanded. But even the prophetic descrip
tions of the manner in which the Gentiles would, in the
Messianic time, obtain a share in the salvation of Israel, had
never conceived of an actual mission to them. It was rather
the Gentiles who, attracted by the glory of Israel, would, of
their own accord, set out to attach themselves to the completed
theocracy (Mic. iv. 1, 2 ; Isa. ii. 2, 3, lx. 4, 5 ; Jer. iii. 17).
This completion of the theocracy, however, could be brought
about only by the conversion of Israel, upon which Jeremiah
iv. 1, 2 expressly makes the salvation of the Gentiles de
pend ; and the more the apostles had learned to recognise
the Messianic salvation as a fulness of spiritual blessings
(§ 40), so much the more did that completion remain in the
first instance independent of the political restoration which
was somehow or other to commence with it (§ 42, c).
(b) As the first indication given by God that, even before
the complete conversion of Israel, uncircumcised persons were
to be brought into the Church, there appears in the Acts of
the Apostles the conversion of the centurion Cornelius. God
had expressly shown Peter, in a vision, that he must not regard
as unclean what God declares to be clean (x. 10-16); and
the Spirit had interpreted this vision to him as meaning that
he should follow the messengers of Cornelius, who invited him
into the house of the unclean Gentile (vv. 17-20, cf. ver. 28).
When he learns there that, in obedience to the divine com
mand, Cornelius is ready to hear whatever God causes to be
spoken to him through His messenger (vv. 30-33), he recog-

§ 43. POSITION OF THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS IN THE CHURCH. 199
nises that, without respect of persons, God will have the glad
tidings proclaimed to every one who, by reason of his fear of
God and his righteousness, is susceptible to it (vv. 34, 35),
and preaches the gospel to him (xv. 7). But not until God
has shown by the pouring out of the Spirit that He makes
no difference between Gentile and Jewish believers, but has
cleansed the. hearts of the former, by the faith worked in them,
from all Gentile profanity, and thus esteems them worthy of
fellowship with the people which was consecrated to Him by
circumcision, does he allow Cornelius and his household to be
received by baptism into the Church, i.e. into the fellowship
of believing Israel, to whom the promise belongs (x. 44-48).
It was not the baptism of Gentiles, which indeed had been
performed under such circumstances that no one could contest
their right; it was the fact that Peter had gone in to the un-
circumcised, and had eaten with them, which gave offence in
Jerusalem (xi. 2, 3), and required a detailed justification. As-
to this point, however, the Hellenistic Jews, who had been
accustomed to a freer intercourse with the Gentiles, had fewer
scruples ; and so there arose in Antioch, through their activity,.
an essentially Gentile- Christian Church (xi. 20, 21), which
the mother Church frankly recognised, and received into union
with itself by the sending of Barnabas (ver. 22). It was here,
probably, that Christianity first appeared to the Gentiles, no
longer as a Jewish sect, seeing that its confessors no longer
confined themselves to the Jewish manner of living, but as an
independent religious fellowship, to which they gave the name
Xpio-Tiavol (xi. 26). In the newly converted Gentiles the
mother Church, however, could see only such as God had
brought, before the time, to participation in the Messianic
salvation, which was to be realized first of all in Israel, and
to whom, therefore, they could and must allow an exceptional
position. So long as there were only individual Gentile con
verts, who did not claim an independent significance in the
Church, believing Israel remained the real substance of the
Messianic Church (§ 42, c), to which the fulness of the Gen
tiles was to attach itself, only when once Israel as a nation
was in possession of the promise. The definitive regulation
of the relation of the Gentiles to Israel could very easily
remain postponed, till they should have been converted as a

200 THE MOTHER CHURCH AND THE QUESTION OF THE GENTILES.
whole (and no longer as individuals) to the Messiah of Israel,
whether they should then as a body receive the ordinances of
Israel, or the Messiah who was soon to return should appoint
altogether new ordinances in the completed theocracy.
(c) Not until a number of essentially Gentile-Christian
churches had arisen in consequence of the mission which was
undertaken from Antioch (Acts xiii., xiv.), did the question
present itself to the mother Church, whether they should
recognise in these Gentile churches an independent portion of
the Messianic Church. Many answered this question in the
negative, because the Messianic salvation which was destined
for Israel could be shared in by the Gentiles, only if they
attached themselves to Israel by the reception of circumcision
and the law (xv. 1, 5) ; as, indeed, this had, from olden times,
been demanded of proselytes, who wished to enjoy full citizen
ship in Israel. This demand, however, Peter, at the apostolic
council, emphatically refused; for God Himself had, by the
communication of the Spirit, declared the believing Gentiles
to be clean, and therefore on the same footing with the nation
which had been consecrated by circumcision (vv. 8, 9, cf.
note b), and they must not now demand of Him another sign,
which should declare them also free from the law, more
•especially as even the Jewish Christians hoped to be saved,
.not through their always imperfect fulfilment of the law, but
through the favour of the Messiah (vv. 10, ll).1 They like
wise learned from the communications of Barnabas and Paul
*hat even among the Gentiles God had given efficacy to His
glad tidings, and had thus called them to participate in the
Messianic salvation (ver. 12 ; cf. Gal. ii. 7, 8). This indication
•of God, however, would have remained neglected, if they had
compelled the Gentiles first of all to become Jews by the
acceptance of circumcision and the law. With this opinion
James also substantially agreed, only he regarded the Gentile
Christians, who were free from the law, not as incorporated
1 By means of the last clause expression was only given to the fact that, in
this controversy, the question was not at all as to the real ground of salvation,
which no Jew who had really become a believer sought in his observance of the
law, but as to an obligation which incorporation with the people of the promise
involved. The utterance, however, regarding the impossibility of fulfilling
the law is an expression of religious experience, and not a dogmatic thesis
borrowed from the Pauline system.

§ 43. POSITION OF THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS IN THE CHURCH. 201
with believing Israel, which was faithful to the law, but as a
new people, which Jehovah had chosen to bear His name,
alongside of the old people of God, even as Amos (ix. 11, 12)
had already foretold that the restoration of Israel (which was
now begun by the Messiah) would gain the subjection of the
Gentiles to His name (xv. 13-18). It was therefore decreed
that, apart from their manifesting their brotherly fellowship
with the mother Church by their love gifts (Gal. ii. 10),
nothing should be enjoined on the Gentile Christians (Acts
xv. 19) save that they should abstain from such things as
would have kept up the abhorrence of Judaism, as represented
in the synagogues, against the uncircumcised Christians, and
would thereby have proved an insurmountable obstacle to the
conversion of the dispersion (vv. 20, 21). Seeing, viz., that
the hope was not yet given up of a complete conversion of
Israel, and that the original apostles were unweariedly to
carry on the mission to Israel (Gal. ii. 9), precautions had to
be taken that the Jews of the dispersion should not feel them
selves separated from the Christendom, which was free from
the law, by an insuperable barrier which should make any
impression upon them impossible. These things were the
eating of flesh sacrificed to idols, of blood and things strangled,
as well as fornication (Acts xv. 20, 29).2
(d) This decree of the apostolic council, however, by no
2 It cannot be proved that the Gentile Christians were thereby placed under
the conditions under which the Israelites received the proselytes of the gate into
their social fellowship — not even when we go back to its most original form in
Lev. xvii., xviii. — (Ritschl, p. 129 ; cf. on the other hand Stud. u. Krit. 1859,
p. 137 f.) ; the resemblance to these, so far as it really exists, resulted naturally
from the similarity of the motives which prevailed here as well as there.
Further, the decree of the apostolic council was expressly issued only to those
churches which stood in a somewhat close connection with the mother Church
(xv. 23) ; for it cannot be surprising that even the Cilician churches are counted
among these, since in ver. 41, and probably already in ix. 30, the existence of
such churches is taken for granted, and these are undoubtedly conceived of as
planted from Jerusalem, seeing that the Acts of the Apostles has as yet related
nothing regarding an independent mission of Paul to the Gentiles. Acts xxi. 25
refers back only to the decree in xv. 23, and could prove, at the most, only that,
in Jerusalem, they held that the concessions which were then demanded from
Gentile Christians in the churches which were connected with the mother
Church were necessary everywhere, without the context in any way betraying
the intention of insinuating that this is the mind of Paul. If Paul had once
introduced the apostolic decree even in the churches which were planted during
his first missionary journey (xvi. 4), we have to remember that this journey was

202 THE MOTHER CHURCH AND. THE QUESTION OF THE GENTILES.
means solved all difficulties. Since it took for granted, as
unquestioned, that the Jewish Christians remained faithful to
the law of the fathers ; and since this, according to the view
of the original apostolic circles (note a), embraced also total
abstinence from all intimate intercourse, and specially from
fellowship at table with uncircumcised persons, they were
thereby prohibited from holding the more intimate social and
religious fellowship with the Gentile Christians, of which, in
particular, the common meals formed a part. They could
now esteem the Gentile Christians as such cleansed by faith
from all Gentile profanity (xv. 9, for which see note h), and
in consequence of this they could grant them fellowship at
table, as Peter did in Antioch (Gal. ii. 12). Therewith, of
course, a step was taken towards their being weaned from the
strict Israelitish rule of life, a step which could easily lead
them much farther. They could also, however, like Ttvh diro
'IaiccoBov (Gal. ii. 12), demand that, on account of the strict
custom of the fathers, the Jewish Christians must renounce
that fellowship with the Gentile Christians.3 The apostolic
decree itself had not even looked at the case of intercourse in
mixed churches; for, according to Acts xv. 21, the conces
sions of the Gentile Christians were made, not on account of
the Jewish Christians, but because of the synagogues (note c).*
undertaken at the instigation of the church of Antioch, and under the superin
tendence of Barnabas, a member of the mother Church (xiii. 2, 3, cf. ver. 7).
3 It is true we do not know whether they really acted according to the mind
of James or only alleged his authority ; but it is by no means impossible that
he adhered to this stricter interpretation of the apostolic decree, an interpreta
tion which was quite in keeping with his view of the independent existence of
the new people of God alongside of the old (note c).
1 It may be taken for granted that ver. 21 cannot possibly assign the reason
of ver. 19, and cannot, therefore, contain the thought that the claims of Moses
are already satisfied through the Jews. But just as little can it contain the
thought that in the universal diffusion of the service of the synagogue there is
expressed the claim of Moses upon the Gentiles, since the proclamation of the
law ire the synagogues can only express its obligatoriness for Jews. But neither
is the point in question as to an accommodation with respect to the Jews qud
Jews, so that a simple lix mis 'lovX could have stood here ; the point iu question
is as to an accommodation with respect to the Jewish custom which had struck
root in consequence of the Mosaic law (hence the ix ysytZv xpxxim), and which
had been kept always alive by the service of the synagogue. The idea of an
accommodation, however, is necessarily involved in this, that the clause
assigning the reason of the enactment mentions not any need or duty of the
Gentile Christians, but a constant practice of the synagogue.

§ 43. POSITION OF THE GENTILE CHRISTIANS IN THE CHURCH. 203
When now Peter, in consequence of the pressure of the
zealots, withdrew from the Gentile Christians, Paul justly
denounced as vTroKpio-is (Gal. ii. 13) this conduct which
contradicted his better conviction which had previously stood
the test, and saw in it an indirect constraint upon the Gentile
Christians, who, unless they would for their part give up
fellowship with Jewish believers, must adopt the Jewish
mode of life, i.e. become Jews, by accepting circumcision and
the law (ver. 14). The whole argument of Paul, however,
shows expressly that Peter must reject the consequence of
the conduct adopted by him, a consequence which abolished
the freedom and independence of the Gentile churches which
had been solemnly acknowledged. On the other hand, there
was not awanting a party within the mother Church which,
in spite of the apostolic decree, was always reverting to the
demand that, in order to obtain a full share in the Messianic
salvation, the Gentiles must become incorporated with the
people of the promise by circumcision and the acceptance of
the law ; and this demand was, at least, a logical consequence
of that stricter interpretation of the apostolic decree, since a
denial of social fellowship must necessarily gradually lead to
doubt as to the full fellowship in salvation of the Gentile
Christians.5 s The Tubingen school, however, has not been able to show that the original
apostles or James supported the demands of this Judaistic party. Neither
their hope of a complete conversion of Israel, nor their opinion that believing
Israelites formed the essential part of the Church compelled them to do so.
It is true, however, that it was only on the presupposition that the Jewish
mission would have a speedy and decisive success, and that the return of Christ
which was thereby conditioned (§ 42, a) would soon make an end to the whole
difficulty, that a more satisfactory solution of the question as to the social
relation of the Jewish - Christian and the Gentile - Christian sections of the
Church than that which was given by the apostolic decree could remain post
poned. This presupposition was not realized ; and, accordingly, the further
development of Christianity has soon left the standpoint of the apostolic council
behind it.

204 THE MESSIANIC CONSUMMATION IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
SECTION II.
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
CHAPTEE III.
THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE MESSIANIC CONSUMMATION IN THE
CHRISTIAN CHURCH,
§ 44. The Elect Race.
The Christian Church, in which the promised completion
of the theocracy begins to be realized, is the elect race, which
consists of believing Israelites, (b) Their election to partici
pation in the completed salvation is accomplished in baptism,
in which God makes them a holy nation by equipping them
with His Spirit, and granting them the full forgiveness of sin.
(c) All Israelites who would not obey the demand of the
message of salvation are excluded from the elect race.
(d) Wherever individual Gentiles are received into the
Church through baptism, they are joined to the elect race,
whose substance is formed by believing Israel.
(a) Since that which is considered in the First Epistle of
Peter is no longer the proclamation which lays the founda
tion, but a building up of churches which already exist (ii. 5),
the apostle does not start by proving that prophecy has been
fulfilled in Jesus, but the basis of his exhortation is the fact,
that in the Christian Church the realization has commenced
of that which was set before the theocratic nation as the
highest ideal, and which was to be realized in the Messianic
time which has now commenced. That which Jesus pro
claimed as the coming of the kingdom of God in the midst of
the disciples (§ 14), is, for the preaching of the apostle, the
completion of the theocracy in the Christian Church. Ye are
the elect race (ii. 9), Peter writes to the Christian churches
of Asia Minor. It is true they already belonged to the elect

§ 44. THE ELECT RACE. 205
nation in virtue of their descent ; x for the elect out of the
Jewish dispersion in that region (i. 1) have been chosen in
accordance with the foreknowledge of God (ver. 2 : Kara
irpoyvtocnv @eov). In the election of Israel (Deut. vii. 6, 7 ;
Isa. xliii. 20) there already lay the prevision that in this
nation the divine purpose of salvation would be fulfilled, and
in the circumstance that its realization has now commenced
in the Church of believing Israelites, only that divine fore
knowledge is confirmed. But now, the question is not as to
the election of Israel as a nation, but as to the selection of
individuals out of it, in whom the greatest salvation which is
involved in the completion of the theocracy is to be realized ;
for although this salvation is destined for Israel as a nation
in virtue of its election, it is by no means thereby guaranteed
to all the individual members of the nation (cf. § 20, c).
Already Deut. vii. 9 intimates that participation in the
salvation which is destined for the elect nation is attached
to the fulfilment of the obligations of the covenant ; and this
covenant obligation of obedience (Ex. xxiv. 7) only those
have fulfilled at the decisive moment, who, now when the
commencing realization of all salvation through the exalted
Messiah is proclaimed, have, in obedience to the will of God
(cf. § 40, c), accepted the glad tidings concerning Him (i. 14 :
TeKva vTraKorjs). Since God declares that these alone are
true Israelites, the idea of election is limited to them. It is
plain from the context of ii. 9, that only the believers in
Israel (ver. 7), those who are not disobedient to the word
1 According to the common way of looking at our Epistle (§ 36, a), ii. 9
would, of course, assert that the ideal of the theocracy, which was once to be
realized in Israel, is now realized in a fellowship consisting of those who had
previously been Gentiles. This would assume that Israel as a nation has
definitively rejected salvation, and has thereby rendered the fulfilment of the
promise in its original form absolutely impossible. But for this view there is
not to he found in our Epistle even the slenderest support, unless we arbitrarily
drag into the xx) xlmi of ii. 5, which plainly connects the stones which have
been built upon Him with the Messiah who is laid as the foundation and
corner-stone in the new house of God (vv. 4, 6), a contrast to those who,
agreeably to nature, belong to Christ, i.e. the Jewish mother Church (cf.
Klostermann, Gbtt. gel. Anz. 1869, S. 698). And yet, for the original apostolic
view, this transference of the promise to another subject would have been a
giant step, for whose justification hints would scarcely have been awanting.
Already the retaining of yitos, which points to bodily descent, much rather
shows that the elect are also related to one another by blood.

206 THE MESSIANIC CONSUMMATION IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
(ver. 8),2 belong to the elect race, in which the ideal of the
theocracy is being realized; only the believing company of
Jews in Babylon is elect together with his readers (v. 13).
(b) As, in the case of the election of Israel, the Old Testa
ment does not reflect upon an eternal divine decree of salvation,
but, at the most, goes back upon the historical relation of
Jehovah to their forefathers, so the election of believers out of
Israel to participation in the completed salvation is also con
ceived of as an historical act, which is accomplished iv dytaa/jtw
irvevfiaTO'i (i. 2). Here, undoubtedly, the act of baptism is
thought of, by means of which the individual enters into the
narrower fellowship of salvation which exists in the midst of
the people of Israel, and in which he receives the gift of the
Spirit (§ 41, a). For as it is by the anointing with the Spirit
in baptism that Jesus becomes the God-consecrated one «ar
i%°XVv (5 38, h), so God must first, by means of His Spirit,
consecrate everything which He chooses for Himself, i.e. He
must separate it from everything that is profane, and make it
fit and suitable for His purposes. Here also, accordingly (cf.
§ 18, a, 40, a), the Spirit is conceived of as the principle of
the gifts of grace, by means of which God equips His servants
and instruments for His purposes, just as He, therewith,
equipped the prophets of the old covenant, and now makes
men able to preach the gospel (i. 11, 12). The honour which
God confers upon them, in that He causes His Spirit, which
is a Spirit of glory, to rest upon them, is expressly represented
as far outweighing all the dishonour which Christians must
endure (iv. 14).3 As, however, according to Acts ii. 38, the
2 The connection with ver. 6 shows clearly that in ver. 7 faith is already con
ceived of as trust in the Messiah, who had been made by God the corner-stone
of the theocracy, and who brings about the consummation of all things as well
as the final salvation (i. 5, 7, 9, v. 9 ; cf. Acts xv. 11, for which see § 40, c).
But from i. .8 it is plain that this application of the idea is owing to the fact,
that the conviction of the truth of the evangelic message of salvation is specially
referred to the Messiah announced in it, who, although invisible, is nevertheless
confidently expected as the one who will manifest Himself at His return (ver. 7).
On the other hand, faith still appears here also (cf. § 29, c) as the trust in God
which is owing to the appearance of the Messiah (i. 21), only that, according to
the connection with vv. 15, 17, 18, it obtains a fuller significance in being
referred to the calling, the sonship, and the salvation which are secured through
Him. 3 "When Pfleiderer (p. 428 [E. Tr. ii. 159]) asserts that the Spirit is regarded
as a principle of Christian life, besides appealing to the passages which are

§ 44. THE ELECT RACE. 207
obtaining of forgiveness of sins is the design of baptism, so
here also the election which is accomplished in baptism
appears as having in view the (purifying) sprinkling with the
blood of Christ (i. 2) ; and in iii. 21 baptism is expressly
described as a washing which does not, as in the case of a
common bath, aim at the washing away of the filth which
cleaves to the flesh, but at the cleansing of the conscience
from the consciousness of guilt.4 Nothing of the profane
impurity, which the stain of guilt brings along with it, may
any longer adhere to the members of the elect race ; and also
in this sense it is baptism which first bestows upon those who
are chosen out of Israel the quality which was set before the
whole nation as an ideal (Ex. xix. 6), but which during the
old covenant had been always realized only in the case of
individuals (iii. 5 : at ayiai ywaZice<i). The elect race has
now become a holy nation (ii. 9 : eOvos dytov, cf. ver. 5).
(c) That many who belong to the nation of Israel in virtue
of their descent from the fathers will nevertheless not obtain

correctly explained above, he appeals also to i. 22, where hx ffytipxTos is
undoubtedly spurious, and also to iii. 4, where the adjectives show that what is
spoken of is a quality of man's spiritual life (cf. § 27, c).
4 Since baptism (more accurately : the baptismal water) had just been described,
from the objective side, as the antitype of the water which had once borne Noah
and his family in the ark through the flood and saved them (iii. 20 f. ; cf. Acts
ii. 40), so now, in the apposition clauses, it is more particularly described, from
the subjective side, as a submersion (fixTmirpx), in which they do not put away
(xirhlitris) the filth of the flesh, but in which they present to God the prayer for
a good conscience (Impum/ia us @tiy), which they can obtain only by means of
the forgiveness of sins which removes their consciousness of guilt, and which
then makes them certain of deliverance from the destruction to which they are
exposed only on account of the stain of guilt (cf. Gess, p. 401). That they
obtain in baptism what they pray for in it, is taken for granted as self-evident,
since it had just been shown how, by means of the suffering of the Messiah (who
is confessed and called upon in baptism), we are freed from the stain of guilt
which separates us from God (iii. 18). In consequence of his regarding the
genitive kyxFns avyiUftmais as gen. subj., Reuss (ii. 303 [E. Tr. ii. 273]) finds
here the altogether unpetrine thought, that forgiveness of sins is obtained in
baptism in consequence of a sincere promise of improvement, and thus first of all
drags into the Epistle of Peter the Jewish-Christian rationalism, which, according
to page 299 (E. Tr. 270), forms the basis of its theology. The parallelism of the
gen. obj. pvTev already makes it exegetically impossible to take xyxi. trmiH. as a
gen. subj., and also excludes the interpretation of iTtpumfcx in accordance with
late juristic usage (stipulatio), which has been revived by Pfleiderer, p. 429
(E. Tr. ii. 159), and Immer, p. 486, — an interpretation which is otherwise very
doubtful linguistically.

208 THE MESSIANIC CONSUMMATION IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH
the salvation for the realization of which this nation was
chosen, yea, that possibly only a remnant of Israel will share
in the Messianic salvation, — this the prophets have often
enough stated in their prophecies regarding the judgments
which precede the commencement of the time of the consum
mation. This prophecy is now being fulfilled. To those who
are disobedient, and therefore do not fulfil their covenant
obligation (note a), the Messiah has become the stone of offence
and stumbling, as is said in ii. 8 with an express allusion to
prophecy (Isa. viii. 14). For those, however, who refuse
obedience to the proclamation regarding the Messiah, this
stumbling is expressly appointed by God as a punishment of
their disobedience. The passage (ii. 8) does not speak of the
foreordination of individuals to unbelief (Lechler, p. 186), or
to exclusion from the kingdom of God (v. Colin, ii. 351) ; it
states that in accordance with a divine arrangement the dis
obedient are appointed to stumbling, i.e. however, not to going
astray morally, but to destructioa According to the connec
tion with ver. 9 this destruction consists in this, that they no
longer belong to the elect race, and have therefore no part in
the completion of the theocracy which is brought about by the
Messiah (ver. 6). Here also, accordingly, as in § 42, h, every
sin, even the disobedience of those who perished in the flood
(iii. 20), is regarded as a sin of ignorance (i. 14 : iv t§
dyvota).6 Only obstinate disobedience to the message of
salvation which demands its believing acceptance (ii. 8, cf.
iii. 1, iv. 17), and which is nothing else than disobedience to
the Messiah Himself, is regarded as the presumptuous sin of
godlessness (iv. 18 : o acre/3^? ical d/j.apTcoXo'i), which cannot
be forgiven, because through the Messiah the consummation
is brought about, and disobedience to Him is of a definitive
character. There has, therefore, been no alteration of the
5 As their walk in the sinful lusts is represented here as a walk which is
owing to their imperfect knowledge of the true will of God, which, after the
common Jewish manner (§ 24), his readers once thought they could satisfy by
an external fulfilling of the law, so in i. 18 it is described as a walk which is
vain and idle, i. e. not reaching its true end, viz. the blessedness of man in con
sequence of pleasing God. This, as well as the milder view of all pre-Christian
sin as an aberration which has withdrawn them from the guidance of the one
true Shepherd (ii. 25), is owing to the circumstance that, looked at from the
Christian standpoint, such sin is regarded as a pardonable sin of ignorance.

§ 44. THE ELECT RACE. 209
divine decree of election, no transference of it to another sub
ject. It is in the originally chosen nation that the theocracy
is completed ; only the unworthy descendants of the fathers
are excluded from this completion.
(d) It is, per se, very possible, that when Peter wrote to
the churches of the dispersion, individual Gentiles who had
become believers had already attached themselves to them ;
and if it were really the case that individual expressions of
the Epistle refer expressly to Gentile Christians (which I, at
least, cannot find to be the case), then we should have to con
clude that the Gentile -Christian portion of these churches
was not inconsiderable. But in such a case it would only
come out the more clearly that Peter holds the believing
Israelites to be the real stem, the substance of the Church, to
which these Gentiles have been led by God before the time
(cf. § 43, h). That even such as were not born Jews might
enter into the elect race, and participate in its promises, was
an idea which had become quite familiar to the Jewish con
sciousness through proselytism. It is true that circumcision
was demanded from the actual proselytes to Judaism; but
Peter had, according to § 43, c, acknowledged that even
Gentiles as such, i.e. without accepting circumcision, could be
incorporated by faith with God's people ; and if even born
and circumcised Israelites belonged to the elect race of the
time of the consummation only inasmuch as they had become
believers, it would certainly not have been a great step in
advance to make faith, henceforth, the sole condition of parti
cipation in the salvation and promise of Israel. But as the
apostolic decree had not thought of placing believing Gentiles
in a subordinate position to the Jewish- Christian substance of
the Church, after the analogy of the proselytes of the gate, so
no such idea can be found in our Epistle, although Eeuss
(ii. 302 [E. Tr. ii. 272]) still discovers it in consequence of his
false interpretation of the address of the Epistle. What,
indeed, was the nature of the social relation subsisting between
these Gentiles who were incorporated with the elect race and
the stem of the Church, which undoubtedly remained true to
the law, and whether this question had already arisen — as to
these matters there is no indication whatever in our Epistle.
The Jews in the far-off dispersion were scarcely accustomed
VOL. L 0

210 THE MESSIANIC CONSUMMATION IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
to so strict an observance of the law, that their social relation
to the uncircumcised members of the Church would become
such a burning question as in the immediate neighbourhood
of Palestine ; and even in the Church at Antioch the contro
versy was imported from Jerusalem (Gal. ii. 1 2).
§ 45. The Peculiar People and the Calling.
In the time of the consummation the elect race has
first truly become the people of God's possession, (b) In this
there is implied, first, that it has been called to all the salva
tion which God bestows in the Messianic time out of the
fulness of His grace, (c) Therewith, however, it has also been
called to the highest task, viz. as the true servants of God to
glorify God in the fear of God and in righteousness, and to
serve Him as priests, (d) Both points of view are united in the
idea of sonship, yet so that the latter still predominates in it.
(a) Although God has, according to Deut. vii. 6, chosen
Israel that it may be a people of His possession (n?}D D5J), yet,
as appears from Ex. xix. 5, the realization of this ideal re
mained dependent upon the obedience of the people. Faith
less Israel is no longer the people of God ; but it can become
so again, if it is converted in the Messianic time (Hos. ii. 23) ;
and since the Israel which has become believing has shown the
obedience demanded by God in the Messianic time (§ 44, a),
it can be described by Peter as the people which has been
taken to be His possession (ii. 9 : Xahs eh TrepiiroiTjcnv), the
people which has now again become the people of God (ver. 1 0).
Jehovah, however, has promised to dwell in the midst of His
people (Ex. xxix. 45 f.) ; and since, even when He was dwell
ing in the temple, He still remained separated from the people,
the prophets assign to the Messianic time the full fulfilment of
this promise also (Ezek. xxxvii. 2 7). This promise is now, how
ever, fulfilled (ii. 5) ; the Christian Church has itself become
the house of God (iv. 17), in which He dwells (cf. § 31, d)}
1 When this house of God (cixos) is called a spiritual one (ii. 5), it might be
thought that the Spirit, who brings about the consecration of Christians to God
in general (§ 44, b), qualifies the Church also to be His dwelling-place ; but it is
much more natural to think only of the contrast to the stone temple of the old
covenant. It is expressly set forth that this house of God is built up of living

§ 45. THE PECULIAR PEOPLE AND THE CALLING. 211
Under a common prophetical image (Jer. xxxi. 1 0 ; Ezek.
xxxiv. 11 f.) their readoption to be the people of God's own
possession is also so represented as if the erring sheep who
had gone astray from their shepherd have now returned to
God, their Shepherd and Overseer (ii. 25; cf. Ezek. xxxiv.
10, 16), and so form a flock of God (v. 2), over which
He, as proprietor of the flock, has set their shepherds,
and, chief among these, the Messiah (v. 2-4 ; cf. Ezek.
xxxiv. 23 f.).
(b) In the abiding gracious presence of Jehovah in the
midst of His people, as well as in the circumstance that the
owner of the flock is also their Shepherd and Overseer (note a),
it is already indicated that the peculiar people is assured of
all blessings and of protection from its God. As the people
of God it has also become, according to ii. 10, the object of
His merciful love (cf. Hos. ii. 23: norn tfc-riK iriorn). In
ii. 9 the incomparable happiness, to which the members of the
elect race are called out of the darkness of their misery, is
represented under the symbol of a marvellous light, and in
v. 10 the eternal glory of God Himself is named as the
ultimate end of their calling.2 Since God is described here
as the God of every grace, it appears that this glory, like far)
according to iii. 7, will only be the last of the graces which
Jehovah bestows upon His people in the time of salvation.3
stones, inasmuch as the individual members of the elect race attach themselves
to the Messiah.
2 Although in the Gospels mention is also made of participation in the Mes
sianic salvation as, on the one hand, the end of the calling (§ 28, a), yet the
calling itself is not conceived of here in the same manner as there, viz. as a
summons or an invitation, but rather, after the manner of the Old Testament,
as the destination which is involved in election, the destination, i. e. , to the salva
tion which is bound up with the end of election ; for it is as the elect race that
believers in Christ (v. 10) are called to salvation (ii. 9 : b/ius yiycs IxXixroy . . .
tov i/fixs xxXio-ayros).
3 The idea of x&pis cannot be adequately explained from the Old Testament.
The Hebrew "7Dn with which it is generally compared, is commonly rendered
in the LXX. by ixus, and in i. 3 this denotes the merciful love of God, which,
according to ii. 10, is again turned to the peculiar people. On the other hand,
the %iipis of the LXX. corresponds to the Hebrew jrr which denotes the good
pleasure, the favour of God. In this sense we found, in Acts xv. 11, in a dis
course of Peter, the favour of Jesus described as that through which alone we
can be delivered from destruction in the Messianic judgment (§ 40, d). In this
sense the Old Testament tiphxu* xxpn E»otvT;«» ®iov (Gen. vi. 8, xviii. 3) or Txpx

212 THE MESSIANIC CONSUMMATION IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
An essential part, however, of this grace of which the prophets
prophesied (i. 1 0) is now already offered (fepofiivr) : is being
brought) in the revelation of Jesus Christ (ver. 13), i.e. in the
evangelical proclamation which makes known the part of pro
phecy which has been fulfilled in Jesus (vv. 11, 12), and the
salvation which is therewith given; and believers have taken
their standpoint in this grace of God, which the apostle testi
fies to as true (v. 12). They appear as stewards of the mani
fold grace of God (iv. 10), by which are meant the gracious
gifts of the Spirit, with which God equips the members of the
elect race for His service (§ 44, h). And although there is
still wished for them an increase of grace (i. 2), v. 10 shows
that, with the calling given in Christ to the greatest salvation,
there is at the same time given the certainty of all further
gifts of grace, by means of which God leads them to the
salvation of the consummation. Thus as, in the teaching of
Jesus, His appearing is described as the grandest revelation
of the love of God which was expected in the Messianic time
(§20 b), so here also it appears as a revelation of the divine
favour which bestows its graces in the Messianic time.
(c) On the other side, the calling is their destination to
the fulfilment of an appointed task, such as we have already
(§ 2 8, a) found to be its aim. Christians are the true servants
of God (ii. 16, cf. § 40, b ; iv. 10 : icaXol olicovofiot, cf. § 32, a),
whose fundamental obligation is described, quite in the man
ner of the Old Testament (cf. Ps. ii. 11), as the fear of God
(ii. 1 7, cf. i. 1 7, iii. 1 5 ; Gen. xx. 11; Josh. xxii. 2 5 ; Jer.
xxxii. 40 ; Luke i. 50), which urges them to the fulfilling of
every other duty (ii. 18, iii. 2). Those who fear God, how
ever, will also, as in Acts x. 35 (6 (poBovuevos t6v ®ebv ical
ipya^ouevos BtKaioavvrjv), live unto righteousness (ii. 24), even
if they should suffer for its sake (iii. 1 4) ; they are the right-
tS 0tZ (Luke i. 30, ii. 52) appears employed metonymically, when in ii. 20 it
is said of a particular course of conduct that it is x,xpis vxpx ®iS (cf. ver. 19), an
object of God's good pleasure. It is only another metonymical application of
this idea, when %xpis denotes the gift of divine favour. In this sense all the
Messianic salvation of which the prophets have prophesied, is described as the
gift of divine favour that was appointed for the elect race of the time of the con
summation (i. 10 : ol mp) ins us vfixs x*?'T°s Tpotpmiio-xyTis), and from iv. 10 it
appears very clearly that under %xpis such a gift of divine favour is understood,
because it appears there as synonymous with %xpnrpx, and is manifold.

§ 45. THE PECULIAR PEOPLE AND THE CALLING. 213
eous (i.e. those who are well-pleasing to God, cf. § 21, «)
in the Old Testament sense, who do good and avoid evil
(iii. 12; cf. ver. 11, iv. 18).4 To this well-doing Christians
have been called (ii. 21, iii. 9) ; by the right use of their gifts
(iv. 11) as well as by the manner in which they bear the
Christian name under all their afflictions (ver. 16), they are
to glorify God and make known the glorious attributes
(dpeTal) of the God who has called them (ii. 9 ; cf. Isa.
xliii. 2 1). The highest expression of this task to which the
members of the peculiar people are called is their priestly
service. The indispensable condition of this service, a condi
tion which was awanting in the people of the old covenant,
and which was therefore realized, at least approximately, in
their representatives, the Levitical priests (Lev. xxi. 6-8), is
now fulfilled in the holiness of the people of God (§ 44, h).
In this respect, also, the ideal which was set before the people
of Israel (Ex. xix. 6), and whose realization Isa. lxi. 6 had
looked forward to in the Messianic time, can now be realized ;.
for the whole Christian Church is a holy priesthood (ii. 5), and
is also called a royal priesthood (ver. 9), because it serves
Jehovah as its king. All the privileges which, in the Old
Testament, belong to the Levitical priests alone"! (Num. xyi- &),
because only the holy one may draw near to the holy God
(Ex. xix. 22), must now pass over to the whole Christian
Church. According to iii. 18 Christ has brought us nigh to
God, has led us to Him from whom we were separated by our
4 The passage quoted in iii. 11, 12 from Ps. xxxiv. 14-16 already shows that
it is only from the Old Testament that we can derive Peter's favourite expres
sion xyxtoToiiiy (ii. 15, 20, iii. 6, 17, cf. ii. 14, iv. 19), the opposite of which
is xxxoTotiiy (iii. 17, cf. ii. 12, 14, iii. 16, iv. 15), and similar more general
expressions (iii. 13, ii. 12) for that which constitutes righteousness in the
technical sense. Ritschl also finds here an express testimony to the homo
geneity of the task of the Christian life with its Old Testament type. How
this well-doing stands related to the precepts of the Mosaic law, is nowhere
more particularly indicated. From i. 15, 16, however, it appears clearly that
the will of God in Christianity (ii. 15) cannot be essentially different from that
with which the readers were already made acquainted, during their previous
condition, by the law (iv. 2). That this, however, also leaves room for a higher
spiritual fulfilment of the ceremonial law in the sense of Christ (§ 24, d), is shown
by ii. 5, according to which there are in Christianity other priests and sacrifices
than the Levitical. Still an emancipation, in principle, from the law is nowhere
expressed, for to explain ii. 16 of such an emancipation (Schmid, ii. 201 [E. Tr.
405] ; Gess, 411) is altogether opposed to the context.

214 THE MESSIANIC CONSUMMATION IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
unholiness. According to ii. 5 it appears as the task of the
holy priesthood to offer acceptable sacrifices to God.
(d) In the Old Testament the idea of sonship is already
synonymous with that of the peculiar people (Jer. xxxi. 1, 9).
Jehovah is the God and Father of His people ; Israel is His
people and His son (cf. § 20, c). Here, too, it is taken for
granted that Christians are the children of God and call on
God as their Father (i. 14, 17), just as, in ii. 17, v. 9, they
are also regarded as a brotherhood (cf. v. 12). It is true it
does not come out directly that this is meant to express, as in
the Gospels (§ 20, h), the certainty of the fatherly love of God.
Where they are admonished against anxiety and stirred up to
trustfulness, Peter appeals to God as the Creator (cf. Acts iv.
24), who, in His faithfulness, will not withdraw His help
from His creature (iv. 19), and also to a passage in the
Psalms, which treats of divine providence (v. 7, after Ps.
Iv. 22). But here also, according to the connection of i.
14, 15, the calling to salvation in consequence of the grace
of God which is already offered (i. 13), is manifestly con
ceived of as a calling to sonship, to which the Christian,
according to ver. 17, answers, as it were, by calling on the
Father, and thereby looks upon sonship as a great blessing.
In the exhortation of ver. 17 it is plainly presupposed that
they might imagine that the fatherly love of God would
prejudice the impartiality of the judge. Undoubtedly, how
ever, the other side of the filial relationship comes out more
clearly, according to which, like the relation of a servant
(note c), with which it does not therefore stand in contradic
tion (cf. § 32, a), it involves the obligation to obedience
(i. 14 : Teicva inraicoris) which election already has in view
(ver. 2). In ver. 15, however, this obedience is made to con
sist essentially in this, that the child conforms himself to his
father, becomes like the God who has called him to sonship ;
only that in doing so it is not, as in the teaching of Jesus,
the new revelation of the love of God which is kept in view
as the rule (§ 25, a), but, on the ground of Lev. xi. 44, the Old
5 When these sacrifices are called spiritual, it might be thought that the Spirit,
who brings about the consecration of Christians to God in general (§ 44, b), also
makes their sacrifices holy ; but it is only the contrast to the animal sacrifices
of the old covenant which can be expressed in this way (cf. note a, footnote 1).

§ 46. THE NEW BIRTH AND NOURISHMENT OF THE NEW LIFE. 215
Testament revelation of the holiness of God (i. 15, 16).e
From this it appears afresh that, even through the calling to
sonship, it is only that which was already set before the people
of Israel as an ideal that is to be realized.
§ 46. The New Birth and the Nourishment of the New Life.
By means of the living word of God which is contained in
the proclamation of the gospel, Christians have been born
again to a new moral life, (b) In this new life they are able,
in obedience to the truth, to cleanse themselves more and
more from the lusts which are dangerous to the soul, (c) The
nourishment of this life, however, a nourishment which is sup
plied by the word, and is to become more and more precious
to Christians, is Christ Himself, who has given us a powerfully
working example in the whole of His behaviour, (d) In
particular, this example works the patient endurance of
afflictions, which the Christian can only regard as rich in
blessing. (a) It is, however, by God Himself that the Christian is
made able to perform the task which is laid upon him in his
calling (§ 45). Yet this does not take place, in accordance
with § 44, b, by means of the Spirit who is bestowed in
baptism; but as the proclamation of salvation by Jesus
appeared as the principle of the renewal of life (§ 21, c), and
the message of the apostles itself worked the repentance
which it demanded (§ 40, b), so here also it is the word of
the evangelical proclamation which works the new birth, i.e.
the commencement of a new (moral) life. Seeing, viz., that
the message of salvation is proclaimed in the power of the
6 The idea of the holiness of God, which is here assumed as well known from the
Old Testament (cf. Baudissin, Stud, zur semit. Religionsgesch. ii., Leipz. 1878),
does not mean God's moral perfection (cf. v. Colin, ii. 54), but His elevation
above all creaturely (ethical as well as physical) impurity ; and man can become
like God in this respect only by cleansing himself from every stain produced by
lust (ver. 14). Even in the idea of holiness, as we learned to know it in § 44, b,
there lay this more negative moment alongside of the positive one of consecra
tion to God and His service. Further, the idea of sonship is neither connected
with the being born again unto hope of i. 3, nor with the figure used in i. 23,
ii. 2. It appears also in iii. 6 in that metaphorical sense, according to which one
becomes the genuine child of any one by imitating his behaviour (cf. Matt.
xxiii. 31).

216 THE MESSIANIC CONSUMMATION IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
Holy Spirit sent down from heaven (i. 12), and everything
which is spoken by those endowed with the Spirit is to be
regarded as a word which comes from God (iv. 11 : &>? Xoyia
Qeov), that proclamation is a direct message from God (iv. 1 7 :
eiayyiXtov tov Qeov ; ii. 8, iii. 1 : 6 X0709 simply, cf. Acts iv.
29), and is, therefore, of exactly the same nature as the word
of God which was addressed in the Old Testament to the
prophets, and which was likewise suggested to them by the
Spirit.1 When Peter (i. 24) quotes a passage of Scripture
which treats of the nature of the Old Testament word of
revelation, he says (ver. 25) expressly that the proclamation
which has reached his readers (i. 12) is such a word of God.
This abiding (i.e. imperishable, cf. § 18, c) word of God is,
however, a living, i.e. a powerfully working word, by means
of which the Christians have been begotten again to a new
life (i. 23); and since that which is begotten must have the
nature of that of which it is begotten, this life is also abiding
and imperishable.2 Through this word of His God Himself,
therefore, works the new birth ; for when, in i. 3, the resurrec
tion of Christ is named as the means which He employs,
there is no doubt that, for the consciousness of the apostle,
this fact itself is meant (§ 50, b) ; but it was only through the
preaching of the gospel that that fact was made known
to his readers (i. 12). Similarly, every preservation, strength
ening, and furthering of the life of the Christian is traced
back, as in the teaching of Jesus (§ 30, h), to God (i. 5, v.
1 How objectively this word of God stood over against the prophets, appears
most clearly in i. 10-12, where it is said that, with regard to the facts which
were testified to them by the Spirit, and concerning which it was only revealed
to them that they were destined for a future race, the prophets searched and
enquired very eagerly as to the time to which this revelation referred. This
view of prophecy probably leans upon a few facts, such as Dan. ix. 2, 23 ff., xii.
11 ff. On the assumption, however, of a direct Messianic prophecy which
throughout kept in view the still far-off future time of salvation, it is unhistori-
cally extended to all the prophets.
2 Accordingly, the seed of which it is begotten is expressly described as incor
ruptible, and it is altogether erroneous to understand by it the Spirit, as Schmid
(ii. 202 [E. Tr. 406] ) does ; for, in what follows, the incorruptible seed is
expressly described as the living and abiding word of God, whose peculiarity,
which is here made prominent and established in i. 24, 25, plainly corresponds
to xiplxpros ; while the change of the prepositions is owing simply to the circum
stance that the figurative idea of a begetting from seed is turned into the literal
idea of a production through the word.

§ 46. THE NEW BIRTH AND NOURISHMENT OF THE NEW LIFE. 217
10) ; and to Him, therefore, as their faithful Overseer (ii. 25),
they are, in prayer (iv. 7, cf. iii. 7, 12), to commit their soul in
the midst of all their temptations (iv. 19). This working of
divine grace is also conceived of as effected, not indeed exclu
sively, yet pre-eminently, by means of the word. It is true
that in order to the activity of this word there is need of constant
obedience to the truth which it proclaims (i. 2 2) ; but this
obedience, to which their election points (ver. 2), exists, from
the first, in the case of the believing Israelites (§ 44, a), and
naturally follows from their new filial relationship (§ 45, d).
(b) The new life of the Christians can be best described by
its contrast to their pre-Christian life. According to i. 14
lusts are characteristic of the latter; and these lusts are
thought of as sinful, because the lusts of men as they now are s
stand in direct antagonism to the will of God (iv. 2). Under
these lusts, the fleshly, i.e. the sensual, lusts in the narrow
sense, are mainly thought of (ii. 11). It is true that, accord
ing to iv. 3, it is characteristic of the life of the Gentiles that
they surrender themselves to these fleshly lusts in riotousness
and lewdness ; but the author must remind his Jewish-
Christian readers that they, who were well acquainted with
the will of God, have nevertheless, in the time past, done this
will of the Gentiles.4 On the other hand, however, there
belong to these sinful lusts also the motions and expressions
of uncharitableness which are enumerated in ii. 1. Because
this walk in the lusts has become habitual to men in conse
quence of education, custom, and tradition, it wields a domin
ating influence over them, and makes their life servile (i. 18).
But by means of the new birth believers have been set free
from this power, and can now, in obedience to the truth,
3 Similarly, it is of men simply as men that mention is made in the discourses
of Jesus (§ 33, c, footnote 5). On the other hand, the expression xitr/ios in v. 9
appears to denote, not the unchristian world of men, but the physical world
(i. 20). In iii. 18 also all men appear as unrighteous in contrast to Christ, i.e.
as not answering to the will of God.
4 That a living in sinful lusts is not excluded by such an external fulfilling of
the law as that of his readers previously iv xyyoix (i. 14, for which see § 44, c), is
shown best of all by the polemic of Jesus against the Pharisaic fulfilling of the law
(cf. e.g. Matt, xxiii. 23-28) ; and the modern criticism, according to which Rom.
xiii. 12-14 is written to Jewish Christians, should be less confident in the asser
tion that iv. 3 is an argument that the Epistle was written to Gentile Christians
(cf. Immer, 474).

218 THE MESSIANIC CONSUMMATION IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
purify (dyvi&tv) their souls from the lusts that stain them
(i. 22) ; and thus the dyioT^ which was obtained in baptism
(cf. § 44, h) is ever being more and more realized in all their
walk (vv. 14, 15), and the good conscience which they
received in baptism (iii. 21) becomes their abiding possession
(iii. 16). In such a case, the place of the life in the lusts is
taken by the walk in the fear of God (i. 17) ; in which fear
they abstain from the fleshly lusts, because they endanger the
salvation of the soul (ii. 11), since they befog it, as it were, with
an intoxication, and so rob men of the clearness of spirit and
the sobriety without which they cannot maintain the watchful
ness already demanded by Jesus (iv. 7, v. 8, cf. § 30, b).
(c) Because it was but a short time since the Christians,
to whom Peter writes, had become Christians, and had been
born again, he calls them (ii. 2) newborn babes, whose
thriving growth depends upon their desiring pure nourish
ment. This the apostle describes in keeping with the image
as the nourishment of children (milk) ; and the adjective
Xoyacov appears to describe it as being derived from the
word, unless it is meant to point out that the expression is
merely figurative, of which use of the term there is no
example and, here, no need. Here, then, the word which
begets life is still distinguished from the nourishment which is
afforded in this word; and this nourishment itself (ii. 3) is
called Christ, of whom it is said, that, if we have once tasted
how sweet He is, we shall continually long for this nourish
ment. As a matter of fact, the purport of the proclamation
of salvation which is contained in the Gospel is nothing else
than Christ ; and the figurative language employed reminds
us strikingly of the Johannean expressions in which Christ
calls Himself the bread of life (cf. especially John vi. 35).
As during His earthly activity it had been a token of
discipleship that one came to Him (§ 29, a), so Peter also
speaks (ii. 4) of a coming to Him, by means of which the
individual becomes a living stone in the temple of God, i.e.
according to § 45, a, a true member of the Church. Here,
however, naturally, as is plain from the connection with
ver. 2 f, what is spoken of is this, that men come to Him,
in so far as He is offered in the word as the nourishment of
life, because they have learned to long for this nourishment

§ 46. THE NEW BIRTH AND NOURISHMENT OF THE NEW LIFE. 219
in consequence of the experience they have had of its quality.
This longing arises if one has acquired an affection for Him
who is proclaimed in the word — an affection which is
described, figuratively, in ii. 3, as a having tasted of His
sweetness ; in i. 8, however, without a figure, as a loving of
Him whom one has not seen personally, but of whom one has
only heard. Christ, however, who is proclaimed in the word,
can be called the nourishment of the new moral life, because,
as was once the case with His self-manifestation in His
earthly activity (§ 21, d), so now the proclamation of that
manifestation is a powerfully working example (ii. 21, iii. 18,
iv. 1, 13). The walk in Christ (iii. 16), accordingly, denotes
nothing else than the walk which moves in the sphere which
is determined by this example ; and it is to this, probably,
fhat the designation of Christians as ol iv Xpio-Tm (v. 14)
refers, without its being necessary to think of a mystical
living fellowship with Christ. From that activity of the
proclamation regarding Christ we can also explain the manner
in which all the works of Christians that are well-pleasing
to God appear brought about by Him (ii. 5, iv. II),5 although
this combination is not expressly made.
(d) Special attention, however, is drawn to this imitation
of the example of Christ, when it is said that Christians must
share in the sufferings which He had to endure in the world
(iv. 13), as He Himself had foretold to His disciples (§ 30, a),
and as they are now being accomplished in all Christians in
the world (v. 9) in consequence of a divine decree.6 It is of
5 The clause 'Six '\naou Xpur-roU in ii. 5 does not assert that the spiritual
sacrifices of Christians (§ 45, c) are rendered well-pleasing to God through
Christ ; for according to the context, in which the close of the sentence turns
back to its starting-point (Tpis o» Tpoo-ipx/ift-iyoi, ver. 4), it is meant to express
the faot that the very offering of these sacrifices is brought about by Christ,
that it is through Him that we are rendered capable of performing this priestly
act. In the same way the same clause in iv. 11 states that every right applica
tion of the gifts we have received, and by means of which we glorify God, is
brought about by Christ, that it is through Him that we are rendered capable
of this activity of the true servants of God (§ 45, c).
6 No doubt these could also be traced back to the devil, who appears in v. 8,
as in the teaching of Jesus (§ 23, a), as the adversary who endeavours to deliver
over Christians to destruction by leading them away from the faith. Also in
Acts v. 3, in an utterance of Peter, the sin, which brought death upon Ananias,
is traced back to Satan. But according to the biblical view the devil has only
so much power as God gives him. Looked at from the other side, accordingly,

220 THE MESSIANIC CONSUMMATION IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
the utmost consequence, however, that Christians bear these
sufferings as He bore them ; for in His innocent and patient
(ii. 22 f.) endurance of suffering He has, according to ver. 21,
given them an example and, as it were, traced out the foot
steps which they are now to follow ; and these footsteps (as
in Matt. xi. 28 f.) also make this following possible and
easier, so that here also the example of Christ is a powerfully
working one (note c). But because we are called to such a
following of Jesus in suffering (ii. 21), we win the good
pleasure of God by an innocent and patient endurance of
suffering (vv. 19, 20). Accordingly, suffering, which is
described in accordance with a common Old Testament image
as a glowing fire, is also full of blessing, inasmuch as it serves
to our proving (iv. 1 2) ; for as perishable gold is tried by fire
in order that its genuineness may be proved (cf. Ps. lxvi. 10';
Prov. xvii. 3 ; Mai. iii. 2, 3), so the verification of faith in
the trial of affliction appears much more precious, and gains
for us praise and glory and honour before God (i. 7, 8). If
this view of suffering proceeds from the consciousness that
the state of the Christian is a state of salvation, in which
everything, and even affliction, must become at last an
evidence of divine grace (cf. § 45, b), another view of it
reflects upon the manner in which it must become conducive
to the fulfilment of the Christian calling (§ 45, c), and there
fore full of blessing. For if Christ has suffered for the sake
of the blessed results which are connected with this suffering
of His (iii. 18-22), the Christian is also (contrary to the
natural dread of suffering) to arm himself with the same
thought, i.e. with the thought of the blessed fruit of such a
suffering ; that fruit being immediately stated to be this, that
whoever has suffered in the flesh (as a righteous person, or
for the sake of righteousness, cf. iii. 14, 17) has thereby
ceased, in principle, from sinning, in order that he may no
longer live to the lusts of men but to the will of God
(iv. 1, 2)7
suffering appears as depending upon a volition of God (iii. 17, iv. 19), whose
mighty hand lays it upon us (v. 6).
7 The attempt to explain this statement by means of Rom. vi. 7 (Baur, 290)
is substantially renewed by Sieffert, inasmuch as he also thinks of a dying to
the sinful lusts (Jahrb.f. d. Th. 1875, p. 425 ff.). But it is mere arbitrariness
to connect the idea of dying with *ais7> ; and the thought that sin has its seat

§ 47. CHRISTIAN SOCIAL LIFE. 221

§ 47. Christian Social Life.
Here, too, unfeigned enduring brotherly love, and the
meek humility which manifests itself in mutual service,
appear as the cardinal Christian virtues, (b) To the subjec
tion to human ordinances which the apostle demands for
God's sake there belong especially obedience and honour to
the authorities, (c) There belongs to it likewise the patient
endurance of the wrongs which slaves had often to suffer
innocently; and under the same point of view the apostle
places the relation of Christian wives to their still unbelieving
husbands, (d) Lastly, he demands, in general, that Christians
shall, by their behaviour, refute the calumnies of the Gentiles,
and become the means of blessing even to their enemies.
(a) Since Christians call one another brethren (v. 12), and
form a brotherhood (ii. 17, v. 9), their specific duty to the
brethren appears (ii. 17) to be the love which Christ has
called the greatest commandment (§ 25). To such an extent
does this form the central point of Christian moral life, that
in i. 22 (cf. iii. 8) brotherly love is described as the most
immediate aim of purification of heart, and its specific
characteristic is derived from the nature of the new birth.
In conformity with the general character of all Christian
virtue (iii. 15, cf. § 26, c), love must come unfeignedly from
the heart (i. 22), it must be shown without murmuring (iv. 9),
and therefore not only are such forms under which egoism
appears (ii. 1), as malice, envy, and slander, to be put away,
but also guile and hypocrisy. On the other hand, the essence
of love is described in iii. 8 as consisting in similarity of
disposition, in sympathy, and compassionateness. That, how
ever, which first of all gives it its real value is the iicTeveta
in the o-xpl is not a Petrine thought, as is already plain from the circumstance
that, in order to awaken this thought, ver. 2 must necessarily have run :
iTiiufoixis rapx'os. Sieffert shows very clearly how that, according to iii. 14,
iv. 13, suffering is still for Christians only a Txhh o-xpxi ; but the reasons why
it is this have nothing to do with dying to the sinful lusts. Neither, indeed,
does it appear why suffering in the bodily life should make sinning distasteful
(Pfleiderer, p. 423 [E. Tr. ii. 154]) ; but whoever has suffered from the enmity
of sinners (and it is this alone which is spoken of in this connection) has done
so because, even at the risk of having to suffer in the flesh, he has not yielded
to their sinful desire, but has broken once for all (note the perfect) with
sinning.

222 THE MESSIANIC CONSUMMATION IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
(i. 22) which results from the incorruptible nature of the
life that is begotten of the incorruptible word, i.e. the
lasting and enduring energy which knows no limits either in
giving or in forgiving, and which therefore, according to iv. 8
(cf. Prov. x. 12), covers a multitude of sins (cf. Matt, xviii.
21, 22). The kiss of love is a symbolical expression of this
brotherly love (v. 14 : (plXijua dyaTrris). Alongside of love,
however, there stands humility (iii. 8, v. 5 : Ta-rretvotppoavvrf),
as in the teaching of Jesus (§ 25, d). As regards God, this
consists in acquiescing patiently in His ways, and in bowing
under His mighty hand (v. 6) ; as regards our neighbour, it
consists in giving to each man the ti/jlij which belongs to him
(ii. 17, cf. iii. 7). In this passage, the rule of suum cuique
expressly forms the second cardinal duty, alongside of
brotherly love. Alongside of humility, there stands, on the
one hand, as in Matt. xi. 29, the meekness (iii. 4, 15) which
patiently bears the injustice and enmity of others, which is
not driven to violence by these wrongs, and, on the other
hand, as in Matt. xx. 25—28, the humble serving wherein
each one subordinates himself to the other (v. 5). In this
mutual serving, each one is to administer the gifts, which he
has received from God, as a steward (iv. 10), because the
word which he speaks has been given him by God, who also
lends him the strength for every service.1
(b) The more the Christians felt themselves to be the elect
race, so much the more natural was it for them to believe that
they were emancipated from the worldly ordinances of life in
which conversion found them, or at least they were the more
likely to draw suspicion and persecution upon themselves by
1 In v. 2, 3 Peter specially discusses the duties of the elders, to whom the
office of pastors over the churches (cf. § 45, a) has been committed, just as the
guidance of the whole Church has been entrusted to him as their oup.Tpitr$!mpos
(v. 1). This superintendence of the Church (the iTia-xoTuy) is also to be a
service of love, which is to be performed voluntarily and readily, not merely
from the constraint of duty, nor with a desire to obtain gain or lordship ; it is
to be performed in the humility which only seeks to give an example to others,
and thereby to urge them on to follow. Peter does not yet know of a second
ecclesiastical office in the churches to which he writes. As in the church at
Jerusalem (§ 41, c), it is those who are younger in years (ol nunpoi) who, in
accordance with their age, perform the external services of the Church without
any special official position, and are therefo're admonished to be subject to the
elders (v. 5).

§ 47. CHRISTIAN SOCIAL LIFE. 223
an uncalled-for intermeddling with these matters (iv. 1 5 : a>?
aXXoTptoeirla-KO'Koi) from their higher standpoint. These were
only human ordinances, which they could easily regard as
sinful, inasmuch as they were also corrupted by the sin which
attaches to men as men (§ 46, h). The apostle, however,
demands (ii 13) that they submit themselves to every human
ordinance (dvOpwirivq /cTtVt?), not indeed as such, but for
God's sake (Bid tov Kvpiov). This applies, now, in the first
place, to the ordinance of government. No doubt Christians,
qud Christians, are free (cf. Matt. xvii. 2 6), because, as servants
of God, they are not subject to any human authority (ii. 16 :
<»? eXevdepoi . . . &>s Qeov BovXoi). But, for that very reason,
they are not to use their freedom as a cloak of wickedness ;
they are rather to render obedience to the government by well
doing, since it also demands the doing of that which is good
and punishes the doing of that which is evil (vv. 14, 15).
Moreover, since the Christian, according to note a, is to give
to each man the honour which is his due, Peter demands also
for the king, i.e. for the Eoman emperor (ver. 1 3), the reverence
(ver. 1 7) which belongs to him ; but at the same time he does
not fail to point out, by putting side by side their duty to
God and to the king after the manner of Mark xii. 17, that
the fulfilment of the latter must not in any way prejudice the
fulfilment of the former. He does not, here, enter more
particularly into the special cases of collision that may occur,
when they must obey God rather than men (Acts iv. 19, v. 29).
(c) From the same point of view Peter also treats of the
case of slaves, inasmuch as he is speaking to Christian slaves
who still have unbelieving masters. Here also, in the name
of the fear of God, and because of their consciousness that it
is God who has placed them in this condition (ii. 19: Bid
avveiBr}cnv Qeov), he demands submission to their masters,
even when these make obedience difficult by their wickedness
(ver. 18 : ctkoXiois, cf. Acts ii. 40). If in such a case there
is many a wrong to be borne, this is only an illustration of
the general truth that Christians are called, after the example
of Christ, to gain the good pleasure of God by an innocent
and patient endurance of injustice (vv. 19, 20). A similar
case occurs where Christian women have husbands who are
still unbelievers (iii. 1). In such a case they must, after the

224 THE MESSIANIC CONSUMMATION IN THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH.
example of the holy women of the old covenant, be in sub
jection to their husbands, and, continuing in well-doing without
any fear of man, put their hope in God (vv. 5, 6). Here, also,
their chaste behaviour is to be rooted in the fear of God
(ver. 2), and their adornment is to consist, not of outward
ornaments, but of a meek and quiet spirit, since this is the
only adorning which is of value in the sight of God (vv. 3, 4).
It is only incidentally that the apostle glances at Christian
marriages, and demands of the husbands intelligent discern
ment (yvSio-iv) in their intercourse with the weaker sex, and
the due recognition of the Christian dignity of their wives
according to the rule of swum cuique, since it is only in this
way that their joint prayer, which he seems to regard as the
real crown of Christian married life, can remain unhindered
(ver. 7).
(d) Those who were not Christians were not able to under
stand the true nature of the new Christian life ; and therefore
the becoming attitude of Christians towards human ordinances
has, according to the will of God, the special aim of showing
these, that Christianity obliges and qualifies its adherents to
discharge faithfully the duties which were involved in the
natural relationships of life of which they were capable of
judging; and in this way it puts to silence the ignorance of
foolish men (ii. 15). According to ii. 12, those who were not
Christians were disposed to calumniate the Christians as evil
doers, — partly, really because of their imperfect acquaintance
with the Christians' moral life ; partly, however, also (accord
ing to iv. 4) because they felt themselves condemned by the
aversion of the Christians to the immoral life, which they had
previously led in common with them ; and now they sought,
by means of slander, to blunt the sting of this condemnation of
their conduct. Since the slanderers must be ashamed of their
slander when they look more closely at the Christians' manner
of life (iii. 1 6), the apostle still hopes that, at least when the
day of their gracious visitation has come, they will be thereby
induced to glorify God for that which He has wrought in the
Christians (ii. 12 ; cf. Matt. v. 16), and thus they will be as
good as gained to Christianity. In the same way he hopes
that the believing wives will also be able without the word to
gain their unbelieving husbands by their behaviour (iii. 1, 2).

§ 48. THE SPIRIT OF THE MESSIAH. 225
It is only necessary to take special care that Christians do not
bring upon themselves a well-deserved dishonour by their own
sin, or by a well-meant but unseasonable intermeddling with
matters with which they have no concern (note h, iv. 15).
On the other hand, they have an opportunity, in opposition
to the positive hostility of unbelievers, of practising the law of
love (§ 25, c), — not to recompense evil with evil, whether it
be an evil word or an evil deed, but to answer the wrong
which is suffered with blessing ; in ii. 2 3 they are referred to
the example of Christ, and in iii. 9 there is plainly an allusion
to the word of Christ (Matt. v. 44 = Luke vi. 28). Not only
by means of this testimony in deeds, but also by means of a
confession which is equally candid and meek, they are to be
ready to give their enemies a reason for their Christian hope-
(iii. 1 5). The apostle hopes that their bearing under affliction,.,
if they continue under it immoveably in well-doing, may still
prove a blessing even to their enemies, as had been the case -
with the suffering of Christ, though no doubt in a unique way
(vv. 16—18). So long as they live here as strangers in the •
midst of those who are not Christians (ii. 21), it behoves them
not to give these offence, but to be a blessing. It is only in
this manner that they can attain the highest goal which,
according to § 45, c, is set before them as true servants of
God, viz. to glorify God. He who suffers dishonour only
because of his Christian name (cf. iv. 14) need not be ashamed
of it, since he glorifies God by the manner in which he bears
this name (iv. 16, read: iv to) ovofiaTi tovtco).

CHAPTEE IV.
THE MESSIAH AND HIS WORK.
§ 48. The Spirit of the Messiah.
In the end of the times, Christ, who was from the beginning
foreknown in the counsel of God as the Eedeemer, has been
chosen as such and made known to men. (b) The Spirit of
God, with which He was anointed during His earthly life, has
already testified in the prophets regarding that which should
VOL. I. p

226 THE MESSIAH AND HIS WORK.
befall Him according to this decree, (c) According to His
spiritual nature, which was peculiarly potentialized by this
anointing, He who was put to death according to the flesh
could not abide in death, but had to be made alive through
the resurrection, (d) In this Spirit Christ has, lastly, during
His stay in Hades, proclaimed the message of salvation to the
spirits of the dead which were found there in prison.
(a) The completion of the theocracy has commenced in
believing Israel, because it is the Messianic time ; and it is the
Messianic time, because the Messiah has appeared. As in
§ 40, a, the end of the times (to eo-%aTov t&v %p6vav, as
translation of the prophetical E^n rnnx), which was pro
claimed by prophecy, is regarded as present, because at this
time the Messiah has been made known (i. 19, 20). Natur
ally, it is no longer necessary to prove to the believers in
Israel that Jesus of Nazareth is this Messiah ; the title
Messiah, which originally pointed to His equipment for His
.specific calling (§ 18), and therefore involves the idea of His
being the Mediator of salvation, has already passed over so
•completely to the historical person Jesus, that it has become a
nomen proprium.1 What the prophets have prophesied regard
ing the sufferings which were appointed the Messiah, and the
glories that should follow, that is now already announced in
the evangelical proclamation regarding Jesus as having taken
place (i. 11, 12). Already this view — according to which the
glory appears, not as a glory which belongs -originally to the
Messiah, but as one which was appointed Him in prophecy —
makes it little likely that Peter has reflected upon a pre-
historical existence, and, consequently, upon an originally
superhuman nature of Christ. It is true, such a pre-existence
is very frequently found in i. 20 (cf. e.g. Lutz, 349 ; Pflei-
1 The name Jesus is no longer used by Peter ; most frequently, and that, too,
specially when His earthly life is looked back to (i. 11, 19, ii. 21, iii. 16, 18,
iv. 1, 14, v. 10, 14), He is named simply Xpisris ; less frequently, and without
any perceptible difference, o Xpia-Tos (iii. 15, iv. 13, v. 1). Besides this name
there is found only the name '\mroZs Xpio-ris (i. 1, 2, 3, 7, 13, ii. 5, iii. 21, iv. 11,
cf. § 41, a), the reading Xpmiros 'iwrovs in v. 10, 14 being undoubtedly wrong.
It is self-evident that this promotion of the official name of Jesus to be a proper
name is owing to the circumstance that the person of Jesus stands before the
eyes of the Christian always and exclusively in His specific quality as the
Mediator of salvation.

S 43. THE SPIRIT OF THE MESSIAH. 227
derer, 421 [E. Tr. ii. 151]; Gess, 395 f.). But seeing that
tpavepadefc purposely refers back to et'Sore? in ver. 18, it
alludes not to the manifestation of Christ which resulted from
His appearing upon earth, and which could, no doubt, be con
trasted with His concealment in a previous state of existence,
but to the manifestation of Christ in His significance as
Messianic redeemer (ver. 18) by means of His death (ver. 19)
and exaltation (ver. 21), and this manifestation is contrasted
with the concealment of that significance in the divine decree.
For the sake of the Church of the end of the times (Bi u/ia?),
i.e. in order that it may know that it is redeemed and may
build its hope in the completion of salvation upon this faith
(ver. 21), Christ has now been manifested as that which He
will be to it, although God has already from the beginning
foreknown (¦n-poeyvcoo-fievo'i) the person Christ as the one
through whose blood redemption would be accomplished.2
This divine foreknowledge, however, no more presupposes a
contemporary existence of the person whose qualification God
foresees, than that foreknowledge which prophecy, regarded as
directly Messianic, involves throughout. In the very same
manner as He has chosen believing Israel (i. 2 : iicXeKTol . . .
icaTa rrpoyvaxriv Qeov, see § 44, a), God has, in conformity
with this foreknowledge, chosen the historical person Jesus for
His Messianic vocation (ii. 4, 6).
(b) When it is said in i. 1 1 that the Spirit of Christ, speak
ing in the prophets, testified beforehand the sufferings of
Christ, it would be much more natural to understand thereby
the Spirit of the pre-existing Christ (cf. Lechler, p. 177). It
is no objection to this view, as Beyschlag, p. 121, thinks,
that, according to the teaching of Peter, it was through His
exaltation that Jesus was first made the Messiah. For if,
notwithstanding this, the name Messiah, which has become
2 The reason why, in the antithesis, the apostle dates back this divine fore
knowledge to the first beginnings of time, i.e. to a time before the creation of the
world, and thereby expressly describes the divine decree of salvation as eternal,
is not because he purposed to point to the imperishable nature of Christ in
cpntrast with the perishable gold (Ritschl, ii. 178), but simply because of the
mention of the end of the times. That Tpoyivuo-xuy does not denote the divine
foreordination any more than the Tpoyyonris of i. 2 (cf. § 44, a) appears already
from the part, perf., which does not describe an individual act (cf. even
Pflciderer, I.e.), but the condition of knowing.

228 THE MESSIAH AND HIS WORK.
a nomen proprium, can be used, and that too with preference,
of the historical person Christ (note a), it can also be trans
ferred to the pre-existing person. But it would certainly be
surprising, if it were used in the same sentence indiscriminately
of the pre-existing (to iv avTois irvevp-a XpicrTov) and of the
historical Christ (to et? XpiaTov TradrgAaTa) ; and since the
meaning which comes out, if we hold it to refer both times to
the historical Christ, is one which is thoroughly in keeping
with the other presuppositions of the teaching of Peter, this
is the only way in which we are entitled to take it. Accord
ingly, the Spirit with which Christ was anointed at His bap
tism (§ 38, h), and which was therefore His Spirit during His
official life, was already, before He received it, active in the
prophets. This Spirit is none else than the eternal Spirit of
God, in which the decree relating to the Messianic salvation
was formed from eternity, and which could therefore testify,
in the prophets, regarding this decree, in the same way as it
afterwards qualified the Messiah Himself for its execution.
If one should call this an ideal pre-existence of Christ in the
divine Spirit or in the divine decree, there is scarcely any
objection can be taken ; but such an existence is involved
throughout in the presupposition of a direct Messianic prophecy,
from which Peter, with all the writers of the New Testament,
starts (§ 46, a, footnote 1).
(c) In iii. 18 the human person of Christ is looked at from
two different sides, the one of which is designated flesh, the other
spirit. Beyschlag, however, is mistaken when (p. 1 1 3) he sees
in these only the two factors of human nature in general;
for although, according to § 27, a, the flesh is simply the
substratum of the earthly-bodily life, yet the spirit cannot
here denote the spiritual nature of man in general, as in iv. 6.
This, per se, viz. could not in any way be the reason why He
who was put to death according to the flesh should be made
alive, i.e. be raised up ; for although it is true that the spiritual
nature of man endures, as such, after the separation of the soul
from the body, and therefore does not, in this respect, need a
quickening, yet, on the other hand, it does not per se demand
such a quickening as took place on the occasion of the resurrec
tion of Christ, it rather dispenses with it, at least, till the last
day. No doubt the irvevua in Christ corresponds to the irvevfia

§ 48. THE SPIRIT OF THE MESSIAH. 229
in every man ; but just because it was not a common human
Trvev/J.a, but one anointed, i.e. continually filled with the Spirit
of God (note b), He could not, according to the spirit, remain,
like every other man, in death, i.e. in the incorporeal condition
of Hades, but must be made alive, i.e. raised up. If, there
fore, in Acts ii. 24, the necessity of the resurrection was still
grounded only upon the circumstance that it was foretold
(§ 39, a), here it is already traced back to the unique spiritual
nature of Christ which He received when the Spirit of God,
which was bestowed upon Him, made Him the XpiaTo<;. Of
course, His resurrection was foretold only because it was
necessary for the fulfilment of His Messianic calling ; and for
the very same reason it was grounded in the Spirit, which
qualified Him for the fulfilment of this calling.3
(d) According to iii. 19 Christ has gone down to Hades
iv irvevfiari, in order to bring the message of salvation to the
spirits which were found there in prison (iv <{>vXaicf) ; cf. also
iv. 6). By these we are to understand, not the fallen angels
3 No doubt it is not directly asserted in iii. 18 that his Ttwpx as such
demanded this ^oionoisitrlxi, but only that it experienced it ; for it will always be
most natural to regard the dative as a description of the sphere and not of the
rule (cf. Sieffert, pp. 411-413) ; but since the whole passage unfolds the manner
in which the suffering of Christ has come to be so peculiarly fruitful in blessed
ness, it lies in the nature of the case, that that which happened to Him must
have been grounded in the unique Messianic quality of His person. If the
absence of the article from Tytv/txTi and o-xpxl should be urged against this view
(an argument which, seeing that the article is very frequently omitted by Peter,
appears to me somewhat hazardous, and which is already rendered very precarious
by the iv 2, which refers to Tyiv/*xm), still the only way, in which we can judge of
the statement regarding that which happened to Christ with respect to the flesh
or the spirit, is by considering whether that which is stated can apply to the
fleshly or spiritual nature of man in general. Now, just as certainly as the
tayxToihis assumes no other than the (mortal) nxp\ which is common to the human
race, so certainly does the X,"oToiuaexi, which, as has been shown above, does
not belong to the human rv.vft-x as such, point to the fact that the Tyivpox of
the Messiah must have been different from that of men in general. It is not
possible, however, that tnti/um can refer to the whole being of Christ inclusive
of His (pneumatic) corporeity, as Sieffert (p. 419) maintains ; for the subject of
the Z,oioTomh.is, which, even according to him, denotes the being raised up bodily,
cannot be the already risen one ; it can only be the Christ who lived in the
flesh, who, after He had been put to death o-xpxi, was now raised up according
to the mivfox which He had during His life in the flesh, and which was delivered
from the common fate of man by its union with the divine Tyivpx, i. e. was re-
clothed with His (heavenly, glorified) body, and thus first made alive again in
the full sense.

230 THE MESSIAH AND HIS WORK.
(Gen. vi.), as Baur thinks (p. 291), but the disembodied souls of
the dead (§ 2 7, c). The subject, however, is not the already
risen Christ (as even Schenkel, p. 221, will have it), who,
indeed, no longer existed merely iv irvevuaTi (cf. footnote 3),
but had again received a body at His resurrection ; it is rather
the slain Christ, who, like every other dead person, after the
spirit was separated from the body, still existed, in the first
place, only iv TrvevfiaTi, and could therefore also work among
the disembodied spirits (the dead, who, like Himself, existed
only iv irvevfiaTi). But while the other spirits in Scheol
lead only a shadowy existence, the spirit of Christ, which was
anointed with the Spirit of God which qualified Him for His
Messianic activity, or — what is only another expression for the
same thing — Christ in this Spirit, could carry on His Messianic
activity among the spirits in Scheol.4 As, therefore, the
Spirit, which the Messiah received during His earthly life,
was already active in the prophets previous to this time, so it
was also it that caused Him to be active among the spirits in
Hades, even after the end of Flis earthly life. From this also
it appears that, according to the doctrinal views of the apostles
at this stage, the higher nature of Christ was still conceived of
only as the Spirit of God Avhich had been bestowed upon Him,
but which was not confined in its activity to His earthly life.
§ 49. The Saving Significance of the Suffering of Christ.
Cf. Fr. Sieffert, ' ' die Heilsbedeutung des Leidens und Sterbens Christi nach
dem ersten Brief des Petrus," Jahrb.f. deutsche Theologie, 1875, 3 ; Laichinger,
"die Versbhnungslehre des ersten Petribriefs," ibid. 1877, 2.
The suffering of Christ, which was borne by Him with the
most perfect innocence and patience, was already foreseen in
4 As, on the one hand, the soul of the Messiah could not be left in Scheol
(Acts ii. 27), so, on the other hand, the spirit which constituted this soul could
not participate in the shadowy life of the human spirits in Hades, although it is
self-evident that Christ, if once He has died, must go down iv Tyiiipxm into
Scheol like every other person. The descent of Christ into Hades, considered
by itself, is accordingly regarded as an altogether self-evident fact, and the
statement of the apostle refers only to the Messianic activity of Christ which
was unfolded in consequence of it ; and this activity is mentioned as an evidence
of the blessed fruit which has resulted from His death (iii. 17, 18). There is
therefore no need to assume that the account of it was derived from a special
communication of the risen Lord to Peter (Gess, p. 408).

§ 49. SAVING SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SUFFERING OF CHRIST. 231
prophecy, (b) The peculiar aim of this suffering was to take
away from sinners the staining guilt of sin, inasmuch as, when
He died upon the cross, Christ bore the punishment which
was incurred by their sins, (c) In consequence of the last
testament of Christ, this can also be so represented as if the
Church has been sprinkled with the atoning blood of a cove
nant sacrifice, and has thereby become the true people of God
which is capable of fellowship with Him. (d) Although redemp
tion from the power of sin is also described as a consequence of
the death of Christ, yet, in the mind of the apostle, this re
demption can only be regarded as its mediate practical effect.
(a) Although it is not so much the individual fact of the death
of Christ, but, as in Acts iii. 1 8, His suffering in general which
is repeatedly set forth so emphatically (ii. 23, iii. 18, iv. 1, 13,
v. 1), and although, in particular, His exemplary behaviour
under suffering is reflected upon (ii. 21), yet herein there be
trays himself only the eye-witness, before whose eyes Christ in
His behaviour during the sorrowful closing days of His earthly
life, with all that happened in these days, still stands vividly.
According to iii. 18 He suffers as the righteous One (cf.
§ 38, &),and since a saving purpose is ascribed to Him in that
suffering, it is plain that it is conceived of as a suffering
which was undertaken voluntarily, and therefore also borne
willingly and patiently. This is implied also in the image of
the lamb, the symbol of quiet patience, which is borrowed
from Isa. liii. 7 (i. 19). When this lamb is described as
being without blemish (a/iw/xo?), the explanatory words (ical
acr7rtXo?) show that this is meant, not in the ritual sense
(Lev. i. 10), but in the sense of moral blamelessness, so that
the peculiar value of His suffering (t(,[uov alfia) can be clearly
set forth in the innocence and patience of the suffering one.
Lastly, in ii. 22, 23, there are expressly set forth, first, with
the words of Isa. liii. 9, the innocence, and then, in a para
phrase of Isa. liii. 7, the silent patience of the sufferer.
Although, accordingly, this suffering was a voluntary one, yet,
on the other side, it was already foreordained for Christ in
Messianic prophecy (i. 11, cf. § 38, c); and inasmuch as this
part of prophecy is already fulfilled (ver. 1 2), that part of the
Messianic consummation which is already realized must also
be essentially grounded in that suffering.

232 THE MESSIAH AND HIS WORK.
(b) Although the suffering of Christ is cited as an example
of the blessedness (cf. icpeiTTov : iii. 17) of a suffering which is
endured innocently, the apostle, nevertheless, asserts that
because of its peculiarly blessed fruits this suffering was of
such a unique kind that, from the nature of the case, it
cannot be repeated (ver. 18). Christ has suffered once (a-n~a%)
for sins ; these must therefore be removed by this individual
act of suffering, which is therefore already conceived of as
culminating in death. Now since it is stated to be the
design of this suffering, that He might make it possible for
believers in Israel to have the (priestly) access to God which
was necessary for the completion of the theocracy (§ 45, c),
and since, according to the context, this access was rendered
impossible by their sins, it follows that by His suffering in
death He has destroyed the guilty -stai}^ of the dBiKoi which
was caused by sin.1 How this has taken 'platee..'is already
indicated when it is said that He has simWed as the righteous
for the unrighteous;2 but it is from the leading passage, ii. 24,
1 Although Sieffert allows that the bringing of the HIikoi to God cannot be
effected without their reconciliation, he will nevertheless understand by this
itself " their being brought to the sanctifying effects of fellowship with God"
(p. 407), in order that here also he may make the effect of the death of Christ
consist in practical deliverance from the power of sin, which Pfleiderer (p. 422
[E. Tr. ii. p. 153]) will also at least include. But since Sieffert himself allows
the priestly character of the access to God which is rendered possible by the
death of Jesus (p. 408), and since a sanctifying effect (in the ethical sense) is
nowhere ascribed to this priestly act, it is already plain that that moral effect is
simply dragged in, and, besides, it would not be owing to the death of Christ,
but to the fellowship with God which is mediated through Him. And since
even the "positive consecration to God" throughout presupposes purification
(in the ritual sense), as he himself allows (p. 381), and the idea of introduction
denotes, from the nature of the case, that access is made possible, and therefore
the fulfilment of its presuppositions, it can only be this which is thought of
here as the effect of the death of Christ.
2 It is true that the idea of substitution no more lies in the preposition iTip
here than in ii. 21 (in iv. 1 tiTip tipuy is spurious) ; but the contrast, which is
made so prominent between the righteous and the unrighteous, necessarily pro
duces the idea, that the suffering which was endured in behalf of these ought
really to have been endured by the unrighteous themselves. The suffering of
Christ, however, cannot possibly be represented- here under the type of the sin-
offering (Ritschl, ii. p. 210), since nowhere in the sacrifice does a righteous
person suffer for an unrighteous one. The final clause, accordingly, by no
means contains "that which Peter has understood to be the purport of sacrifice
in general. " But if this were the case, it would follow from this very passage,
that sacrifice does not provide for the man who approaches God "protection

§ 43. SAVING SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SUFFERING OF CHRIST. 233
that it first of all becomes perfectly clear. By its language
as well as by its whole context this verse points so plainly
to Isa. liii., whose prophecy regarding the servant of God was
already (§ 38, b) conceived as Messianic, that it is only by
means of it that it can be explained. What is said, therefore,
is that Christ has borne our sins (Isa. liii. 1 2 : avTo<;
dfiapTiw; ttoXXwv dvrjvey/cev ; in Hebrew, NtfJ, TOD), i.e. how
ever, according to the constant usus loquendi of the Old
Testament (Num. xiv. 33), that He has suffered their divinely-
appointed consequences, or their punishment. When, viz., the
innocent one bears the consequences of the sins which should
have fallen upon the guilty (an idea which comes out in the rgi&v
avTos just as in the avTcov avTos of Isa. liii. 11), He bears the
alien sins themselves, as a burden laid upon Him.3 On this
account, the addition eVt to gvXov, in which, as in the Petrine
discourses of the Acts (§ 38, c), the cross is described as the
gallows tree, cannot give to dvacf>epeiv the meaning of carrying
up the sacrifice on to the altar ; it can only, in a pregnant
manner, add the thought that He bore our sins, while He was
ascending the cross, because it was there that He suffered the
specific punishment of sin.4 It is plain, therefore, that, in
consequence of Isa. liii., Peter regards this sin-bearing of
Christ in behalf of sinners as the means whereby sin has been
removed from them, and by which, therefore, the stain of guilt
has been effaced.
against the life-destroying effect of the superiority of God to the creatures " (cf. ,
on the contrary, Riehm, der Begriff der Suhne im A. T., Gotha 1876), but
that it is man's sins (Tip) xpxpnZy) that hinder this approach, and which must
therefore be rendered inoperative by sacrifice.
3 On the other hand, not only is the idea of sacrifice (cf. Lechler, p. 179)
foreign to the context of the passage in Isaiah which we are considering here,
hut the idea of sin-bearing is also foreign to the ritual of sacrifice. It is never
said of a sacrificial animal that it bears sins ; it is only of the second goat on
the great day of atonement, which was not sacrificed, but hunted away into the
wilderness, that it is said that the iniquities of the children of Israel were laid
upon his head, in order that the complete removal of the sins which were atoned
for by the sacrifice of the first goat might be symbolically represented (Lev.
xvi. 20-22).
4 Although Sieffert allows that Peter attaches himself to Isaiah in his
language, he nevertheless maintains that by his independent additions he has
given the words a totally different meaning, viz. that He carried up our sins (as
manifestations of a dominant power of sin) on to the tree, and thus, in principle,
annihilated the power of sin which is dominant in man (p. 401 ff. ; cf. Pflciderer,

234 THE MESSIAH AND HIS WORK.
(c) To what extent the words of institution of the supper
have become regulative to the apostle for the comprehension
of the saving significance of the death of Christ, appears
clearly from i. 2. It was only in the case of the sacrifice
which was offered, when the old covenant was concluded, that
a sprinkling of the people with the blood of the sacrifice took
place; and since, according to Ex. xxiv. 7, 8, the obligation
to obedience preceded the sprinkling of the blood, the allusion
to that passage is evident, because here also the et? viraicorjv
precedes the et? pavTiapuiv a't^aTo? 'Irjaov Xpto~Tov. Both
together plainly constitute the forming of such a new covenant
as Jesus had described in Mark xiv. 24 as being brought
about by His blood (§ 22, c). As God concluded the old
covenant with the children of Israel at Sinai, after they had
bound themselves to obedience, and had been cleansed by the
atoning blood of the covenant sacrifice from the stain of guilt
which separated them from God, so believers in Israel are
described here as being elect unto obedience and sprinkling
with the blood of Jesus Christ, i.e., therefore, as being chosen
to be the peculiar people of the new covenant (cf. Jer.
xxxi. 31-34), the people which is to become, by obedience,
a people of true servants of God (cf. § 44), and which is to
be cleansed, by the sprinkling of blood, from the stain of guilt
which hinders them from enjoying perfect fellowship with
God. The bloody death of Christ is, therefore, thought of
p. 422 [E. Tr. ii. 153]). But, according to his own explanation, there is nothing
in the words regarding an annihilation; and it is pure arbitrariness to say that
the idea of the power of sin, which is always calling new sins into existence, is
foisted into the r&s xpxprixs kfiSy, which undoubtedly denotes the sins which we
have committed. Since Jesus suffers death in His body in the same manner as
sinners suffer it (iv. 6), and that too in the form of an unnatural, violent death,
in which the judgment of God against sinners is most plainly revealed (§ 34, c),
the expression, that He bore sins in His body, can be explained without "there
being some relation or other between the power of sin which works in men and
the particular body of Christ" (p. 463), even if we should not grant the obvious
reminiscence of the symbolism of the breaking of bread (Mark xiv. 22), in
which the body appears as surrendered to death. Even Ritschl (ii. p. 257)
allows that the It) to li\ov makes no difference in the meaning of the expression
taken from Isaiah ; but he then likewise foists into the bearing of the sins of
others (in their consequences) the annihilation of sins in the sense of cleansing
from them (in the moral sense) ; and Laichinger even seeks to make this out by
conceiving of death itself as a disease of sin which Jesus has taken away from
us (p. 294).

§ 49. SAVING SIGNIFICANCE OF THE SUFFERING OF CHRIST. 235
here as an atoning covenant sacrifice,5 without this point of
view being placed in any relation with the quite different one
in note b, which, nevertheless, in iii. 18, comes essentially to
the same thing.
(d) The deliverance from the bondage of Egypt had already
been regarded by Stephen as typical of the salvation which
was brought through Christ (Acts vii. 35). In many ways,
Messianic prophecy had also looked forward to a deliverance
from all enemies (Jer. xv. 21, xxxi. 11 : (TIB, PN|), and such
a deliverance formed an essential element of the Messianic
expectation in the time of Christ (Luke i. 74, xxiv. 21 : ^\7rt-
%ofiev on aiiTO<; icmv 6 fieXXcov XvTpovcrdai tov 'Icrpar)X). He
Himself had called His death the ransom whereby He would
deliver the souls of men from death (§22, c). In i. 18 Peter
also speaks of such a deliverance ; but he calls the power from
which believers in Israel are redeemed (eXvTpd>6r)Te etc T97?
. . . v/jlujv dvao-Tpo(prj<:) their previous manner of life, which,
as a manner of life which was handed clown by their fathers,
had up to this time exerted an enslaving influence upon
them, which hindered them from becoming true servants of
God and children of obedience (vv. 14, 17). As the ransom,
through which this redemption is effected, Peter names the
blood of Christ, whose suffering is here, in accordance with
note a, set forth in its specific preciousness in contrast with
5 Sieffert denies that, according to Heb. ix. 22 (where undoubtedly the general
statement is meant to explain the special circumstance mentioned in 19 f. ), an
atoning significance was ascribed, in the apostolic age, to the sprinkling with
the blood of the covenant, which even Ritschl, p. 168, acknowledges. Accord
ingly, he attributes to the blood of the covenant ' ' the leading of the people
into the sanctifying living fellowship with God," and, thereby, here also (cf.
note 1) foists into the idea of the fellowship of the covenant the totally different
idea of a sanctifying living fellowship (in the ethical sense), just as he also
makes the saving effect of the death of Jesus have no reference to men's being
introduced into the former, but mixes it up with the effects of the latter
(p. 881 ff). "When, however, Pfleiderer, p. 427 [E. Tr. ii. 158], concludes from
the circumstance that Itxxo-/i stands first, that this is conceived of as a con
ditioning presupposition of the forgiveness of sins, and finds therein an evidence
that the death of Jesus has not an immediately expiatory effect, but only does
away with our sins by being a motive of our moral amendment, it is to be noted
that there is no indication of such a causal connection between the obedience and
the sprinkling of blood, while their combination and succession are sufficiently
explained by the fundamental thought of the passage, and that the vTxxoh is not
at all regarded here as an effect of the death of Christ.

236 THE MESSIAH AND HIS WORK.
that which is usually most precious, viz. gold and silver." As
to the manner in which this redemption is effected through
the blood of Christ, the passage says nothing directly;7 in
accordance with § 46, a, however, it is explained from the
circumstance that the message regarding the atoning death of
Christ has a greater influence over believers than their
previous manner of life, and constrains them to separate
themselves from sin. That this was the design of the death
of Christ is stated directly in ii. 24, where it is said that
Christ has borne our sins, in order that we, being separated
from sin, should live unto righteousness, and so be cured
of the disease of sin (cf. Isa. liii. 5). Here it becomes quite
clear that deliverance from sin (to which Schenkel, § 41, again
reduces the saving significance of the death of Christ) is only
its mediate consequence, since its immediate object is said to
0 In opposition to Ritschl (ii. p. 221), Sieffert (p. 390 ff.) has shown con
clusively, that Xurpoijy cannot here denote the general idea of setting free, but
has really the meaning of ransoming ; at the basis of Peter's statement, how
ever, there lies, not the idea of the ransom which He has paid to another, but
only the thought that God has caused our redemption to cost Himself a great
price (the surrender of His Son to a bloody death). On this account, however,
it is a priori unlikely that the preciousness of the blood of Christ should be
illustrated by comparing it with that of an unblemished lamb, since the
sacrifice is a gift to God, while the question here is as to a price which God
paid. It is, besides, rather unnatural to compare the faultlessness (ritually) of a
sacrificial animal (which, indeed, qualifies it for being a sacrifice, but does not,
per se, make it specially valuable) with the moral purity of Christ, or even to
reflect upon the fact that, like the death of the sacrificial animal, the death
of Christ was altogether undeserved (Sieff. p. 395). Neither, as is being always
maintained, the ap-upas (cf., on the contrary, note a) nor the xt/xx, which
describes the death as a violent one, and therefore as doubly dreadful (cf. foot
note 4), can prove that the apostle is alluding to a sacrifice.
7 To think of the lamb as a propitiation (v. Colin, ii. 327) is neither demanded
by Isa. liii. 7, where the lamb is regarded only as an image of quiet endurance,
and not as a propitiation, nor allowed by the meaning (which is not of a
redemptive nature) of the propitiation (Lev. xvii. 11). We might think of the
Passover lamb (Lechler, p. 178 ; Ritschl, p. 177 f.), inasmuch as it reminds us
of the typical redemption from Egypt. But since the mention of the lamb has,
according to the context, a different object (see above), this allusion does not
lie in the mind of the apostle, and besides, according to footnote 6, it will not
suit in many respects. Nor would it say anything as to the manner in which
the redemption is effected, for what is spoken of is not a "ransoming from the
death-awarding judgment of God " (Gess, p. 397). To think, lastly, of the
sin-offering which was made when the leper was declared clean, because,
according to ii. 24, we are cured of the leprosy of sin (Laichinger, p. 297), is
mere trifling.

§ 50. THE RESURRECTION AS THE GROUND OF CHRISTIAN HOPE. 237
be the bearing of our sins. From the sin, however, whose
miserable consequences Christ has had to bear upon the tree,
man cannot but feel himself to be separated for ever.8
§ 50. The Resurrection as the ground of Christian Hope.
It is through His resurrection and exaltation that Christ
has first been fully invested with the Messianic dignity and
exalted to divine glory, (h) It was thereby also that there
was first restored to the apostles their hope in the Messianic
consummation of all things, a hope which appeared to be lost
with the death of Jesus, (c) With the return of the exalted
Christ the elect must attain to the heavenly inheritance which
is appointed them, and in which they receive eternal life and
eternal glory, (d) He, however, who was exalted to be the
judge of the world, was alone able to deliver them from the
final (Messianic) judgment which was then impending.
(a) God has raised up Christ from the dead and given Him
glory (i. 21), under which there is undoubtedly meant His
exaltation to the right hand of God ; and this is conceived of
as having been brought about by means of the elevation to
heaven which was involved in the resurrection (iii. 22 : iropev-
6el<; et? ovpavov), although not by means of a visible ascension
(cf. § 39, b). Thereby it was shown that the stone which was
rejected by men (after Ps. cxviii. 22, as in § 38, c) was the
stone chosen by God, and highly honoured (ii. 4), and of
which it was said in Isa. xxviii. 16 that God would make it
the corner-stone of the completed theocracy (ii. 6, 7). God,
however, has done this by making Him our Lord (i. 3) and
* It has been attempted to explain this thought by means of the Pauline
doctrine of the living fellowship with Christ (Baumgarten-Crusius, p. 416 ;
cf. Schmid, ii. p. 178 f. [E. Tr. 391 ff.], who seeks it also in iv. 1); but that
doctrine is quite foreign both to the language and the context of our passage.
By translating the SV< of iv. 1 by "in order that," Sieffert will even find there
the thought that, by means of His suffering in the flesh, in which even in Him
sin had "the ground of its possibility," although, of course, "only in an
abstract manner," Christ has "in principle destroyed the supremacy of the
flesh, and therewith the dominion of sin" (p. 429), or that "with the flesh of
Christ the universal ground of the possibility of sin is in principle destroyed"
(p. 431), in order that he may then declare this very thought to be foreign to
the Petrine circle of ideas, and therefore borrowed from Rom. viii. 1 ff. (p. 438),
where, indeed, it is no more found than it is here.

238 THE MESSIAH AND HIS WORK.
the chief Shepherd of His flock (v. 4, cf. § 39, c). Thereby
He was also first fully manifested as the Messiah (i. 20, 21,
cf. § 48, a); and now He is also revealed as such (i. 13) in
the evangelical proclamation regarding the glories which were
already appointed to the Messiah in prophecy (i. 11, 12, cf.
§ 39, a, b), and which are now accomplished in Him.1 He
has been exalted, however, not only to be the Lord of the
theocracy, but by His elevation to the divine throne He has
been exalted also to participation in divine honour and in the
sovereignty of the world (cf. § 39, c), so that, according to
iii. 22, even the angels are now made subject unto Him.2
Accordingly He is not only called 6 icvpio<; r/fjicov, but also
simply 6 icvpios, Eke God Himself (i. 25, ii. 13, iii. 12), the
significance of which fact Beyschlag (p. 118 f.) has not
properly estimated. Here also, viz., as in § 39, c, a quotation
from ' the Old Testament (Ps. xxxiv. 8), which treats of the
«upto?-Jehovah, is applied to Him without more ado (ii. 3) ;
and likewise in iii. 15 (cf. Isa. viii. 1 3), where the explanatory
tov Xpio-Tov is expressly added, there is demanded for Him
the dyid^etv, which, like the fear of God (Matt. x. 28), forms
the opposite of all fear of man (ver. 14). Here also, there
fore, He is, in His exaltation, a divine being ; although the
doxology of iv. 1 1 cannot, in conformity with the context, be
applied to Him, as it is by Schmid, ii. p. 174 [E. Tr. 389],
and Pfleiderer, p. 421 [E. Tr. ii. 151].
(b) Looked at from the later standpoint of the apostles, the
death of Jesus could easily be perceived to be salvation-
bringing ; but at first, even for the apostles, every hope in the
Messianic consummation which was expected of Jesus seemed
1 Here also, it is true, the name Son of God is not directly given Him ; but,
just as in § 39, b, God is called His Father in a passage where He is described in
His Messianic quality as our Lord (i. 3) ; and in ver. 2 God is called Qiis Txtiip,
with express reference to the new Church of God which has been constituted
by election, and in which the theocracy is being made perfect, and this name is
probably to be understood as referring also to Jesus Christ, who is mentioned
in what follows.
2 In i. 12 the angels appear as a higher order of creatures, who, it is true, take
no active part in the Messianic work of salvation, but by their longing to look
into the saving deeds which are proclaimed make the glory and greatness of
these deeds very manifest. By His exaltation over these (and then- different
ranks are embraced in the annexed Ifyucixi xx) luyx/j.us) the universal sovereignty
of the exalted Christ is brought out, as in § 1 9, d.

§ 50. THE RESURRECTION AS THE GROUND OF CHRISTIAN HOPE. 239
to be borne to the grave along with Him (Luke xxiv. 21). It
, is the expression of the most immediate living experience, when
Peter says (i. 3) that they were begotten again unto a living
hope by the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Not till it took
place was the dead Jesus manifested with absolute certainty
as the Messiah, or exalted to full Messianic glory (note a).
Now for the first time could there open up to the apostles a
new life of hope. The risen and exalted Christ could and must
make perfect that which He who died upon the cross had
left incomplete. So i. 21 describes the genesis of Christian
hope. Through Christ the Christians have become believers
in God, i.e. according to the context: they have learned to
trust Him as the Father, who has called them to be His
children (vv. 15, 17), and has redeemed them (ver. 18).
This trust in God, however, was owing to Him, only if they
acknowledged Him to be the Messiah and were assured of
His Messiahship, in consequence of the circumstance that
God had raised Him up and given Him the glory that was
promised according to ver. 11. In this His Messianic glory
He had become the one who could with divine power bring
about the fulfilment of all the promises, so that the faith of
the Christians in the commencement of the time of salvation
must now also become hope in the consummation of it (wo-re
tt)v tticttiv iuoov ical eXnriBa eivai), which God will bring
about through the Messiah.3
(c) Christian hope attaches itself to the expected second
sending of the Messiah (cf. § 39, d). Not till then will the still
invisible Christ be revealed (i. 7, 8) in His true character and
in His full Messianic glory (iv. 13, v. 1). As this second
aTroicdXv^ri^ of the Messiah stands parallel with that which
is effected through the preaching of the Gospel (i. 1 3), so also
3 As the hope of the pious of the old covenant is a hope in God (iii. 5 :
iXtiZiiv ils &ioy), so the Christian hope, which keeps in view the completion of
salvation, is also a hope in Him (i. 21). It is God who has called them in
Christ unto eternal glory (v. 10), and has thereby translated them from the
darkness of destruction into the light of an incomparable salvation (ii. 9). It is
He who has begotten them again unto hope by the resurrection of Christ (i. 3),
and who as the God of all grace will also help them to fulfil their calling, by
guarding them in His power, as in a stronghold, unto the impending salvation
(i. 5), and by perfecting, strengthening, and establishing them by His grace
(v. 10). The completion of salvation, as well as the commencement of the time
of salvation, is His gracious gift.

240 THE MESSIAH AND HIS WORK.
the (f>avepao-i$ of Jesus as the Messianic chief Shepherd (v. 4)
stands parallel with that which has already taken place (i. 20).
With it, however, the completion of salvation can also be
looked for. And as the fulfilment of the promise which has
already taken place is thought of as a realization of the ideal
which was set before the children of Israel (chap, iii.), so the
fulfilment of all the promises which is still to be expected is
also regarded as the realization of the goal which was pro
mised to Israel. Now, however, the specific promise which
was given to the elect nation was the possession of the land of
Canaan, the icX7]povo/Aia (Lev. xx. 24; Deut. xix. 10, xx. 16), and
so even now the elect race has an inheritance surely appointed
it (i. 4 : KXr/povofiia),* which is reserved for it in heaven, and
which is therefore conceived of as heavenly, just as in the
discourses of Jesus the perfected form of the kingdom of God,
which is conceived of there also as a KXijpovofiia, appears as
heavenly (§ 34, a). In it, according to iii. 9, believing Israel
will inherit a blessing (evXoyiav /cXTjpovo/ieiv), such as was
already looked forward to in the patriarchal promise (Acts
iii. 25). Wherein this blessing consists, appears from iii. 7,
where Christian women are called joint-heirs of life (Acts
iii. 15, cf. § 40, d), because the life which is surely promised
them is already a possession which cannot be lost, although
as yet it is but an ideal possession of hope. In iv. 6 this life
is more particularly described as being such a life as God
lives (tfiv KaTa Qeov), i.e. as an eternal and blessed life. Ac
cording to v. 10, however, the characteristic expression for
this blessing is the eternal divine glory (Boga), in which the
4 The predicates, with which Peter extols this heavenly inheritance, perhaps
stand in express contrast to the inheritance which was once promised the chil
dren of Israel. It is imperishable (xtplxpros), whereas the latter was threatened
with destruction because of the sin of the people (Isa. xxiv. 3 : <pfopx iflxpmiTxi
h yn) ; it cannot be defiled (i/ilxyros), whereas the latter was often profaned by
the sin of the people (Jer. ii. 7 : ifuxyxn . . . rhv x\ypoyop.'ixy y.ou) ; it is unfad
ing (x/txpxyros), whereas the latter was exposed to the vicissitudes of blooming
and withering (Isa. xl. 6 ff.). No doubt the hope of a conversion of the whole
of Israel was still involved in the view according to which believing Israel forms
the substance of the Church (§ 44, d) ; but however such a conversion might
one day transform the external relations of the national theocracy (cf. § 42, c),
to the apostle who had conceived of the Messianic salvation in the sense of
§ 49, d the ultimate goal of Christian hope was no longer an earthly, but the
heavenly completion of the theocracy.

§ 50. THE RESURRECTION AS THE GROUND OF CHRISTIAN HOPE. 241
approved disciples will yet participate along with their glori
fied Lord (iv. 13, v. 1, 4, note a).5
(d) The Messianic consummation does not come without
the Messianic judgment; and, as in the discourses of Jesus
(§ 33, c), this appears as the antitype of the flood in the days
of Noah (iii. 20). It is true that at all times judgments of God
have fallen upon the world, when men, in conformity with
their peculiar constitution, were, by means of death, judged in
the flesh, which, by its separation from the soul, could be
dehvered up to destruction (cf. Gen. ii. 17 ; Deut. xxx. 15, 19 ;
Ps. xc. 6) ; but, their spirits being still in Hades, they are not
by means of that bodily destruction yet shut out from the
eternal, blessed life (iv. 6). Even those disobedient ones who
remained disobedient in the days of Noah, when the long-
suffering of God deferred the judgment (iii. 20), are not yet
delivered over to final destruction; for since the manifesta
tion of the Messiah there is only one sin which definitively
excludes men from salvation, viz. disobedience to the glad
tidings (iv. 1 7, for which see § 44, c). Therefore Christ has
proclaimed the message of salvation even to the spirits of
these disobedient ones in Hades (iii. 19), nay, even to all the
dead (iv. 6, see § 48, d), in order that not only the living, but
also the dead might be judged in the final Messianic judg
ment, as appears from the logical connection of iv. 5 with
ver. 6. And because their final fate is decided in accordance
with their attitude to His message, He must also be the uni
versal judge. It is true that, after the manner of the Old
Testament, God Himself is still regarded as the righteous
5 Where the word 2>2j« does not denote the recognition which one finds, in
which sense it is synonymous with t;^>) (i. 7), the idea of So£« still appears in
quite an indefinite form, as a description of the glory which originally belongs
to God alone (iv. 11). Since So£« also denotes everything which is brilliant,
everything which catches the eye (cf. Cremer, p. 163), this idea, like that of <pi»s
(ii. 9), can become a symbolical description of the greatest happiness, of perfect
blessedness. Whereas, in the synoptical discourses of Christ, (eternal) life is still
the common expression for the completion of salvation (§ 34, b), here the idea of
glory for the most part takes its place. As in these discourses, however, so neither
here is the resurrection thought of ; for the apostle still hopes to live to see the
Paronsia along with his readers. For those, however, who are already dead, it
is self-evident (as in these discourses) that it is only by means of the resurrec
tion that their souls can attain to the godlike life in the heavenly inheritance ;
for, according to the view of the New Testament, there is no real life without a
restoration of the corporeity.
VOL. I. Q

242 THE MESSIAH AND HIS WORK.
(ii. 23) judge of the world, who, without regarding His closer
relation to His children, impartially judges according to each
one's work (i. 17);6 but in iv. 5, Christ seems to be meant
as the one to whom the living and the dead will have to give
an account (cf. Acts x. 42). And because He, as the judge
of the world, has the final decision at His disposal, He can
also deliver His own in the Messianic judgment. Now, since
it is through His resurrection and the exaltation which fol
lowed that He has attained to the divine glory, in which He
alone can fill the office of judge of the world, it is said in
iii. 2 1 f. that the salvation, which baptism in His name brings
(§ 44, b), is secured through the resurrection of Jesus Christ
as the One who is exalted to God's right hand.7 This deliver
ance, however, from the end which awaits those who are
disobedient to the Gospel of God (iv. 17 f), is the Messianic
salvation ; for it is already foreknown by all the prophets, and
has been a subject of their investigation (i. 10). Looked at
from the negative side, it is the goal of Christian hope (i. 5,
cf. § 34, c, 40, d), to which all growth in the Christian life is
ultimately to lead (ii. 2) ; and as in the discourses of Christ,
" Ritschl (ii. p. 113) denies that there is a reference here to a double-sided
recompense (and therefore also of wicked works). But that we cannot exclude
such a reference follows clearly from the circumstance, that it is upon the con
sideration of the impartial nature of the judgment that the demand to pass their
time in fear is based, and thus the hope is cut off that they can remain free from
punishment because of their divine sonship. And although it is certain that in
ii. 23 "restoration to His rights " is also intended by His committing the wrong
He was enduring to the righteous judge, yet the preceding olx. nTilXu shows that
it is in the awarding of punishment that this is looked for, the very threatening
of which would forestall the judge. The appeal of Ritschl (p. 112) to the usus
loquendi of the Old Testament, in which he everywhere finds that by righteous
ness is denoted only "the consistent behaviour which is in keeping with the
salvation of believers," depends upon a conception of that usage with which I
cannot agree ; because even where righteousness does, substantially, that which
is usually ascribed to grace and faithfulness, the point of view is everywhere
that of a different judicial treatment of the pious and the godless (which neces
sarily includes a double-sided retribution, without being limited to that) in
keeping with the rule of justice (which rule, it is true, is fixed by God Him
self, and includes His promises and threatenings) ; and certainly the New Testa
ment, at least, does not confirm his view.
7 In consequence of this passage, Laichinger maintains that forgiveness of sins,
considered as an immediate effect of baptism, is traced back, not to the death,
but to the resurrection of Christ (p. 291), and that therefore the latter is con
ceived of as a mediatorial factor (p. 300) ; but this is a simple confusion of
condition and cause.

§ 51. THE APOSTLE OF HOPE. 243
so here also it appears as a salvation of souls (i. 9), which are
thereby (naturally, in a new corporeity) made partakers of
the eternal, heavenly life (iv. 6, cf. note c).
§ 51. The Apostle of Hope.
In the opinion of the apostle, hope forms the real central
point of the Christian life, (h) It appears in him in the
greatest energy, according to which the hoped-for consumma
tion already appears as immediately at hand, (c) Nay, by
perfect hope this consummation is already anticipated as if it
were present, and felt with blissful joy. (d) This hope is,
however, a living hope which influences the whole moral life,
inasmuch as the consummation of all things which is promised
as a reward becomes the strongest motive for the fulfilment
of all the conditions of its attainment.
(a) When we call Peter the apostle of hope, we mean that,
in his view of the Christian life, Christian hope assumes a
specially prominent position. It is not merely the external
occasion of our Epistle which causes him to lay such stress
upon hope ; for neither is it a letter of consolation (cf. § 3 6, a),
nor have the passages in question a specially consoling
tendency. In its peculiar characterization of the Christian
standing of the readers, the address already shows that Peter
looks at the whole of the Christian life from the viewpoint
of hope ; for it is only as being elect to participation in the
heavenly inheritance (§ 50, c), that the Christians feel them
selves to be people who, still separated from it during their
earthly life, remain only for a short time in a place to which
they are strangers (i. 1 : TTapeiriBrj/Moi) and regard this
earthly life as the time of their sojourning (ver. 17 : ¦jrapoiicla)}
The apostle also describes himself, regarded from the view
point of hope, as a partaker of the future glory of Christ
(v. 1). The new, divinely- worked life of the Christians, to
1 On this side also there appears an analogy between the situation of the
Christian Church and that of the Old Testament covenant people. As the pos
session of the land of Canaan had once been surely promised to the patriarchs
(Gen. xii. 7), and yet they had to live in the land of promise as strangers and
pilgrims (Gen. xxiii. 4), as their seed, to whom the land belonged, had also to
remain a long time in Egypt as strangers (Acts vii. 6), so Peter calls the
Christians strangers and pilgrims (ii. 11).

244 THE MESSIAH AND HIS WORK.
which they have been begotten again, he calls (i. 3) a life of
hope. That which makes the Christian wives equally honour
able with their husbands is (iii. 7) that they are joint-heirs
of life. The specific element of Christianity, regarding which
the Christian should be able to give a reason to every man
(iii. 15), is his hope and its ground in Christ, who is rightly
sanctified by their frank and open defence. Since in Chris
tianity there is only perfectly realized that which was already
realized in individual cases among the saints of the old cove
nant (§ 44, h), it is also characteristic of these that they set
their hope in God (iii. 5). If, lastly, according to i. 21, the
establishment of their faith through the exaltation of Christ
is meant to lead to their faith becoming hope (§ 50, h), it is
evident that the latter appears to the apostle as the real crown
of the Christian life.
(b) The appearance of the judge is very near at hand ;
because He is already prepared to execute judgment upon
living and dead, there is therefore, as it were, no longer any
obstacle which can delay that judgment (iv. 5). With it,
however, the Messianic salvation (from this judgment) is also
ready to be revealed (i. 5) ; and from this it is evident that
the last moment (icaipb'; ecr^aro?) of the end of the times, in
which this salvation takes place, cannot, now that this end of
the times has once commenced (i. 20, for which see § 48, a),
be much longer deferred. The end of all things is at hand
(iv. 7). The apostle perceives this from the circumstance
that, in the present troubles, the judgment of God has already
commenced (iv. 17). Just as, according to the teaching of
Jesus, the Messianic judgment brings about a separation
between the members of the Church (§ 33, c), so, according to
Peter, the judgment has begun at the house of God, i.e. in the
Church of believing Israel (§ 45, a). Such a judgment, more
over, had already been looked forward to in Old Testament
prophecy (Jer. xxv. 29 ; Ezek. ix. 6). In the testing afflictions
of the present time (§ 46, d) there is being carried out the
separation between the genuine and the spurious members of
the Church, and, therewith, also the judgment over those who
fall away during these temptations. The greater these afflic
tions already are, so much the more dreadful appears the end
of the necessarily gathering judgment, which will one day

§ 51. THE APOSTLE OF HOPE. 245
come upon the unbelievers (iv. 17). But because this testing
time, in which even the righteous is scarcely saved (iv. 18),
cannot possibly last long (cf. Mark xiii. 20), the afflictions of
the present time can only be for a little while (i. 6, v. 10).
Thus, with the greatest energy of Christian hope, the apostle
already brings the goal of the consummation very close to its
commencement. (c) Only then is hope perfect, when it is immoveably
grounded upon the grace which is already offered us in the
revelation of Christ (i. 13, cf. § 45, h), i.e. when it sees in the
salvation which we have already received (vv. 10-12) the
pledge of the impending completion of salvation (vv. 3-5), in
the joyous certainty of which no affliction of the present time
can make us waver (vv. 6-9). For this there is required a
gathering together of ourselves from all apathy and spiritless-
ness (ver. 1 3 : dva^ccad/Aevoi t<z? 6cr<f>vas ri)? Biavoias, cf. Luke
xii. 35), as well as the spiritual sobriety (vqfyovTes) which
clearly keeps in' view the end of hope and excludes all fanatical
exaltation. In such a case the Christian knows himself, even
in the present time, to be the heir of the gift of grace which
is to be hoped for in the end (iii. 7) ; the exultant joy, which
in iv. 13 is looked forward to at the end of the consummation,
so fills him even in the present time, that the momentary
sorrow, which he feels in consequence of the trying afflictions,
can finally, when respect is had to their blessed results (§ 46, d),
only serve to increase this joy (i. 6, 7). In i. 8, however, this
exultant joy is not only described as unspeakably great, but
also as glorified (BeBo^aa/xevrf), i.e. as a joy which is already
transfigured by the splendour of the future glory (§ 50, c), in
which this glory is, as it were, anticipated. With an allusion
to a saying of Christ (Matt. v. 10 f.), it is said in iii. 14 that
Christians are already blessed in their affliction. The reason
of this is assigned in iv. 14 ; the Spirit of God which, accord
ing to § 44, b, they have received in baptism, rests upon them,
just as in Matt. x. 20 there was promised to the disciples,
when they should be persecuted, a special assistance of this
Spirit (§ 21, c, footnote 1). This Spirit of God is more parti
cularly described as the Spirit of glory, and that, too (accord
ing to the connection with ver. 1 3), of the same glory in which
Christ will be revealed at His return, in order to bestow it

246 THE MESSIAH AND HIS WORK.
upon His own. Here too, therefore, Christians have already,
in the possession of this Spirit, a kind of participation in the
future glory. In this intensity of Christian hope there is
reflected the same interpenetration of present and -future, of
ideal and reality, which was already implied in the teaching
of Christ regarding the kingdom of God (§ 15, c).
(d) The hope to which the Christian is begotten again the
apostle describes in i. 3 as a living hope ; and it must be so,
since a real birth can bring forth only something living.
What is meant, however, is the active influence which hope,
if it is of the right kind, exerts over the whole moral life of
man. It is with a glance at it, accordingly, that the first
series of exhortations in the Epistle commences in i. 13, and
the second in ii. 11; it likewise appears in iv. 5 at the close
of the latter, and in iv. 7 at the beginning of the third, as the
strongest motive of the exhortation. From this we can now
also see the manner in which the message of salvation, which
is indeed the ground of this hope, must, normally, work this
new moral life (cf. § 46, a). Just as in the teaching of Jesus
(§ 32), viz., the consummation of all things appears also as the
reward which faith, when it is approved, obtains (i. 9). The
prospect of this reward, however, must ever anew urge on to
the fulfilment of the conditions without which it cannot be
attained.2 Here also the equivalence of the recompense in
which the reward is bestowed is made very prominent. This
equivalence is sometimes put as if we shall then receive what
we have surrendered here, as e.g. he who humbles himself is
exalted by God at the appointed time (v. 6 ; cf. Luke xiv. 11),
or he who suffers with Christ will yet be a partaker of His
glory (iv. 1 3) ; sometimes the analogy between the reward
and the service is already indicated in the expression em-

2 The behaviour, of which Christian hope thus appears to be the motive, is the
complete fulfilment of the task to which the Christian is called (§ 45, c, d),
although we must not, with Ritschl (ii. p. 361), distinguish, in this fulfilment,
between self-purification as the building up of a religious-moral character and right
eousness as the performance of duty. It is certain, moreover, that in i. 22, where
it is the former that is spoken of, the substance of vv. 14-17 is not re-stated ; for
here it was not the sanctification of the soul, but a quality of the walk, i. e. of
the manner of acting, which was demanded ; and according to the train of
thought, the latter by no means appears as a " condition," but rather as an effect
and consequence of perfect hope (ver. 13).

§ 51. THE APOSTLE OF HOPE. 247
ployed, as when the joy that is to be looked for at the return
of Christ is made dependent upon the cheerfulness with which
we have been partakers here of Christ's sufferings (iv. 13), or
as when, according to iii. 9, blessing can be received only
where blessing has been bestowed.3 Here, also, the reward is
nothing foreign to the service ; for it consists mainly only in this,
that the proof of faith is recognised, and it accordingly receives
praise, glory, and honour at the return of Christ (i. 7).
According to ii. 7, this honour must be conferred upon
believers also, because he who trusts in Christ cannot be put
to shame with respect to his hope of such a recognition
(ver. 6). In v. 4 it appears, figuratively, as the unfading
crown of glory which the faithful shepherds obtain. This
same passage shows, however, that the promised completion of
salvation is necessarily bound up with this recognition. No
doubt life is a gift of divine grace (iii. 7), and eternal glory is
promised the Christians in virtue of their calling (v. 10) ; but
this promised gift of grace must necessarily be adjudged as a
reward, where the conditions of its attainment are acknow
ledged to be fulfilled. It remains therefore substantially the
same, whether it is this recognition or the completion of
salvation itself which is described as the reward.
3 In what follows this truth is expressly established by a reference to Ps.
xxxiv. 12-16 (iii. 10-12). In this passage, in conformity with the peculiarity
of the Old Testament doctrine of recompense, the recompense is thought of as
taking place during the present life, inasmuch as it secures good days, in conse
quence of which they learn to love life (ver. 10). Even this moment of the
passage of the Psalm is accepted by the apostle, when he shows in iii. 13, 14
that no one can harm him who strives after that which is good, because even
suffering for righteousness' sake can only make him blessed (cf. note c).

248 CHRISTIANITY AS THE PERFECT LAW.
SECTION III.
THE EPISTLE OP JAMES.
CHAPTEE V.
CHRISTIANITY AS THE PERFECT LAW.
Cf. F. Kossing, das christliche Gesetz, Heidelberg 1S67.
§ 52. The Word of Truth.
The gift of God, which Christians have received, is the word
of truth, which contains the full revelation of the will of God,
as Christ has revealed it by His exposition of the Old Testa
ment law. (b) This word is implanted in Christians ; by
means of it they are begotten again, so that they can now
fulfil the perfect law in freedom, (c) On the other hand,
however, the import of the word is the truth which has to be
embraced by faith, the truth, viz., that Jesus is exalted to full
Messianic glory, and comes again as judge. (d) Because,
therewith, the assurance is given that the perfect law announced
by Christ can now be also perfectly fulfilled, and that the ful
filment of the law will bring about the fulfilment of all the
promises, this word has a regenerating effect.
(a) Among the good gifts, all of which come from above, from
God, James names as the chief the word of truth, by means of
which God has made the Christians what they are (i. 1 7 f). This
word has, viz., according to ver. 21, the power of bringing about
the Messianic salvation, and that because of the revelation of
the truth which it contains. Since, however, he who has wan
dered from the truth can be saved only by being brought back
again from the error of his way (v. 19, 20), it is mainly the
revelation of truth which regulates the moral life of man that
is looked at here. In what follows, the word of truth really
appears throughout as a word which is not only to be heard,
but also to be done (i. 19—23); and in ver. 25 it is even
called the perfect law. In it, therefore, there is given the
perfect revelation of the will of God. Now since the Old
Testament law already revealed the will of God, the truth

§52. THE WORD OF TRUTH. 249
which is revealed in the perfect law cannot differ essentially
from that which is already stated there. In fact, James also
quotes the great commandment of the perfect law just as it is
found in the Old Testament (ii. 8 : /caret ttjv ypacprjv ; cf. Lev.
xix. 1 8). When he says in ii. 9 that those who show par
tiality are convicted by the law as transgressors, he can be
referring only to the frequent prohibitions of •n-poo-airoXtj-^ria
in the Mosaic law (cf. e.g. Deut. xvi. 19). Lastly, in
ver. 11, two Old Testament commandments are quoted, with
out more ado, from Ex. xx., as commandments of the law
which is valid for Christians. The perfect law, accordingly,
can only be the Old Testament law in its full meaning, i.e. in
that way of looking at it in which Christ, according to § 24, b,
has taught that it is to be perfectly fulfilled. In fact, James,
just like Christ (§ 25), sets forth the love of our neighbour as
the royal, i.e. as the greatest commandment (ii. 8), and that,
too, with special emphasis laid upon the exercise of compassion
(i. 27, ii. 13, 15, 16, iii. 17). He regards the judging of
one's neighbour (iv. 11, v. 9,cf. iii. 9 f.) as unlawful, although
it is only in the law as Christ has taught it to be fulfilled that
it appears so ; with Him he absolutely forbids swearing (v. 12),
and in iv. 2, quite in the spirit of Christ's fulfilment of
the law (Matt. v. 22), he appears to regard anger as on the
same level with killing.1
(b) That which is new in Christianity, however, is not only
1 From the circumstance that it is only moral laws which are spoken of in our
Epistle, we cannot infer with Lechler, p. 165, that it is only to this portion of
the law that James ascribes an enduring validity ; rather, according to the prin
ciple of the solidarity of all the separate commandments, which is stated in
ii. 10, even the least of the ceremonial laws will have to find its fulfilment (cf.
Matt. v. 18, 19, for which see § 24, c). It is quite in keeping with this that, in
Acts xv. 21, xxi. 20, James assumes and approves of a continued observance of
the law on the part of the Jewish Christians (§ 43, d) ; and that such an observ
ance was found in the circle of his readers, follows naturally from their close social,
nay, even religious fellowship with their unbelieving fellow-countrymen (ii. 2).
When in i. 27 James describes the practice of compassion as a worship of God,
the context shows that this is meant, not in opposition to the ceremonial worship,
but to a perverted manner in which they fancied they could serve Him (i. 26) ;
and although in i. 18 he makes a figurative application of the idea of the xTxpx%
the addition mm (a certain, i.e. an xirxpxn to a certain extent) shows how far
he was from, thereby, doing prejudice to the legal obligation relating to the
xTxpxk Still it remains noteworthy that the exhortation of the author never
touches upon such duties.

250 CHRISTIANITY AS THE PERFECT LAW.
that the word of truth is given in general, but that it is im
planted in the Christians (i. 21 : X070? eacpvTos), i.e. that it
does not merely stand over against them externally, but is
written in their heart. Now in Jer. xxxi. 33 it had been
stated, as a note of the Messianic time, that God would write
His law in the people's heart, and therefore, in this implanting
of the law, there is given an essential element of the Messianic
salvation. Of course, this implanting is not so conceived of
as if thereby the objectivity of the perfect law were altogether
abolished ; rather, according to i. 21, the word of this law, with
which the Christian is continually occupied (ver. 25), must be
always anew received ; but now it finds entrance into the inner
man, which has been prepared for it by that implanting.2
When, viz., just as in Peter (§ 46, a), it is said that God has
brought forth the Christians by the word of truth (i. 18), the
meaning is, that their life has become a new one from the
very foundation, and it is through that implanting of the word
that this will have taken place. If, however, in consequence
of such a regeneration, their nature has become inwardly related
to the word which is implanted in them, they will henceforth
continually let themselves be determined by it. Accordingly,
it can be assumed in i. 25 that the searching and persistent
occupation with the perfect law (irapaKv-ty-as . . . ical irapa-
fielvas) has the fulfilment of the law as its immediate result,
just as the right wisdom, i.e. the knowledge of the will of God
which has become habitual, also immediately brings forth all
good fruits (iii. 13, 17). But since for this there was needed
the generation of a new life, it is assumed that the natural
life of man is determined by another power (viz. sin), and that
2 This implanting of the law within the inner man, which makes its fulfilment
possible, appears in our Epistle also as the wisdom coming down from above,
which brings with it compassion and all good fruits as its immediate results
(iii. 17), so that it is only from the whole of his good walk that we can recognise
the works of a wise man to be such, while it is from these works that we learn
the nature of true wisdom (ver. 13). According to the context of i. 5, this
wisdom, which God never refuses to him that asks, teaches us in every individual
case the manner in which the right disposition has to manifest itself in a perfect
way (ver. 4). We nowhere find any indication, it is true, as to the connection
between this wisdom and the implanted law ; but herein James attaches himself
to the later Old Testament doctrine of wisdom, in which there is already pre
figured a more inward knowledge of the will of God alongside of its revelation in
the written law.

§ 52. THE WORD OF TRUTH. 251
he is now set free from the dominion of this power. James,
accordingly, calls the law of the Christian the law of liberty
(i. 25, ii. 12), i.e. the law which is given to liberty, or to man
in his state of salvation, which is delivered from the dominion
of sin.3 (c) That which characterizes the Christian readers of the
Epistle qua Christians is, on the subjective side, their faith
(ii. 5). What James understands by faith we cannot, with
Schmid (ii. p. 105 [E. Tr. 344]), gather from i. 3, 6, v. 15,
in which passages, as in the Gospels (§ 29, c), w/o-Tt? simply
denotes trust in God. It is from the section ii. 14-26, where
faith is thought of as the specifically Christian faith, that we
can first discover its nature. When, by way of comparison,
the faith of the demons in the oneness of God is spoken of
here (ii. 19), it does not indeed follow that the faith of the
Christians is the same as regards its contents ; but, if the
argument of the author is to have any force whatever, it must
be identical with it as regards its nature, i.e. it must likewise
be the firm persuasion of a given truth. The faith of Abraham
likewise appears analogous with Christian faith, and, according
to ii. 23, the former is a faith in God (iriaTeveiv toj Qea>), i.e.,
as in § 29, c, 40, c, the firm persuasion that the word which
God has spoken to him is a true word which will be fulfilled.
Now, it is only through the word of truth (note a) that the
subject can have been brought under the notice of the Chris-
3 The contradictory idea of a law, which itself works its free fulfilment
(Messner, p. 79, 80), is revived by W. Schmidt, p. 63, 64, in a still more con
fused form. Neither the voluntary acceptance of the law (i.e. an acceptance
accompanied with inner consent) nor its free fulfilment (i. e. a fulfilment which is
caused, not by any external constraint, but by an inner willingness) can be indi
cated by the attribute of liberty being ascribed to the law itself. The genitive
which is connected with y'opos can only denote either the lawgiver or the person
to whom the law is given. But tyis ixiulipixs could have the former meaning,
only if the objectivity of the law were altogether abolished, so that, in conse
quence of his newly-begotten nature, the Christian spontaneously fulfilled the
will of God ; but this view is altogether foreign to James, who still speaks of a
hearing and doing of the word. For this very reason these passages cannot be
treating at all of a freedom which excludes every determination from without.
Even i. 25, where the addition assigns the reason why the continual looking into
the perfect law is alone necessary, and still more plainly ii. 12, where it is meant
to make the Christian think of his greater responsibility — these passages show
that the liberty discussed is not a liberty in opposition to the constraint of duty,
but in opposition to a state of bondage which hinders the performance of duty.

252 CHRISTIANITY AS THE PERFECT LAW.
tians, as to the truth of which their faith is exercised, and
from this it is evident, that although this word was to the
author mainly a revelation of the will of God, it nevertheless
also contained the proclamation of a truth which gave the
promise of salvation. And according to ii. 1, the object of the
specific Christian faith is really Jesus Christ, inasmuch as He
is the Lord of the Christians, and possesses divine glory.
This implies that He is exalted to the throne of God, and has
become the Messiah in the fullest sense (cf. § 50, a) ;4 as He
is also, in virtue of His divine dignity, looked for as the Mes
sianic judge of the world (v. 8, 9). The firm persuasion of
this, however, can be supported by the word of truth, only
inasmuch as it proclaims the Messiahship of Jesus.
(d) Although these two different aspects of the word of
truth are not expressly shown to be related to each other,
their inner connection is, nevertheless, self-evident. If the
perfect law is the law proclaimed by Christ (note a), then it
is binding upon Christians, only in so far as they recognise
in Him the Messiah (note c) who has come to reveal the
will of God perfectly. It is true it is nowhere said expressly
that it is only in consequence of their faith in the Messiah
that the perfect law becomes normative for Christians ; but
when the one lawgiver is spoken of in iv. 12, in the context
of which a commandment has just been quoted, which is found,
not in the Old Testament law, but in that which was pro
claimed by Christ, it certainly appears as if Christ was thought
of as this lawgiver. This is also indirectly implied in the
circumstance that, in his exhortations, the author attaches
himself so frequently to the sayings of Christ with which he
is acquainted from tradition. If, further, it is implied in the
idea of the Messiah that He is come to bring the completion

4 This is the reason why here, as in Peter (§ 48, a), the name Messiah is-
joined with the name Jesus as a nomen proprium (cf. i. 1). Here, too, the Old
Testament name of God (o xipios : i. 7, iii. 9, iv. 10, 15, v. 4, 10, 11) is trans
ferred, without more ado, to Christ (v. 7, 8), even where both are named along
side of each other, as in i. 1. As in the Old Testament the name of Jehovah
is called upon those who belong to Him (Jer. xiv. 9), so the honourable name
of Christ is called upon Christians (ii. 7) ; as the Old Testament prophets speak
in the name of the Lord, i.e. of God (ver. 10), so the Christian elders act in the
name of the Lord, i.e. of Christ (ver. 14), and in the immediate context (ver. 15)
the name i xipios seems to be used again of God.

§ 53. JUSTIFICATION. 253
of salvation, there is therewith given the strongest motive to
fulfil the will of God proclaimed by Him ; because upon this,
it is self-evident, depends their participation in the fulfilment
of all the promises which is to be brought by Him, a parti
cipation regarding which He, as the judge of the world,
decides. Now, however, that the Messiah has appeared, not
only can the greatest salvation be looked forward to ; in His
manifestation there is rather already given the commencement
of salvation ; and in note b we actually saw that the perfect
law proclaimed by Him is now implanted in believers or
written in their hearts, as had been anticipated for the Mes
sianic time. The proclamation of the Messiahship of Jesus,
therefore, implies the certainty that now the will of God is not
only perfectly revealed, but that it can also be really fulfilled ;
and it is this certainty which lends to the word of truth
(inasmuch as it contains in itself this message of salvation) the
power to beget the new life which is set free from the might
of sin, and in which the Christian can fulfil the will of God.
As in the teaching of Jesus (§ 21) and of Peter (§ 46), so
here also it is after all the message of salvation, with which
God graciously meets man, that of itself works the new life
that is pleasing to God, although it appears here mainly as
the proclamation, that the full revelation of the will of God
and the possibility of its fulfilment have been brought by the
Messiah. With this fulfilment of the divine will, however,
the kingdom of God is realized upon earth (cf. § 13, a).

§ 53. Justification.
Cf. H. "W. Weiffenbach, Exegelisch-theologische Studie, uber Jac. ii. 14-26,
Giessen 1871.
Faith must show itself to be living and operative in the
works of the fulfilling of the law, and the law cannot be fulfilled
without faith, (b) Mere faith, per se, cannot save, because
only he can be saved whom God justifies, (c) It is only,
however, in consequence of works, and not in consequence of
faith alone, that God can justify, (d) This is already shown
in the Old Testament examples of Abraham and Eahab.
(a) If the word of truth, which James, like Peter, regards

254 CHRISTIANITY AS THE PERFECT LAW.
as the specific means of grace whereby God works the salva
tion of men, is the perfect law, as well as the proclamation of
the fact that the revealer of this law has also brought about
its fulfilment and comes to adjudge rewards, then that attitude
of man to it, which is the subjective condition of salvation,
appears, on the one hand, as the doing of the perfect law, and,
on the other, as faith in that proclamation. The question
therefore arises, in what relation do these two aspects of the
condition of salvation, which are so very different, stand to one
another ? Now, however, it is self-evident that, if the strictest
obligation, the strongest motive, and the certainty of ability to
fulfil the law are given in faith (§ 52, d), it must necessarily
produce the works of the fulfilling of the law ; a faith which
has not works is dead in itself (ii. 17). It is not only that,
under certain circumstances, works are added to faith, but they
must necessarily proceed from it, if it is living. In ii. 26
James makes this evident by the illustration of the body which
is without a soul. He does not compare faith with the body,
and works with the spirit ; for such a comparison would be very
unsuitable, seeing that the spirit is the invisible and vitalizing
element, while works are neither. He rather says only that
the faith which is without works is destitute of the vital force
which must necessarily have brought forth such expressions of
life as works are, and therefore that, like • the body which is
destitute of the source of life, the spirit, it is dead. Con
versely, faith is as necessary for the performance of works,
as the performance of works for the proof of the vitality of
faith. What he says in ver. 22 of the faith of Abraham is
plainly meant to be regulative of the relation of faith and
works in general. All the obedience which Abraham had
previously shown would not have been sufficient to enable
him to perform the act of obedience involved in the sacrifice
of Isaac, had not his firm faith in the promise of God assisted
him. On the other hand, his faith was still imperfect, so long
as it had not proved itself to be living by this act of obedience
which was performed with its assistance;1 just as, according
1 As in accordance with this it is certainly incorrect to say with Baur (p. 281)
that works are what they are directly through themselves, so that faith would
merely be an accompanying moment of the religious consciousness, of which
works are the substantial form, so, on the other hand, ~W. Schmidt (p. 104, 105)

§ 53. JUSTIFICATION. 255
to i. 4, patience does not prove itself to be perfect, until it
makes its influence practically felt in the whole of a man's
behaviour. Where this proof by means of works is not found,
there faith is simply undiscernible. Conversely, however, faith
shows itself by such works as necessarily presuppose faith
(ii. 18). A faith which does not show itself in works, James
compares with a compassion which has indeed a word of
sympathy for one's neighbour, but leads to no active support
of him, and which is therefore likewise totally destitute of
vitality, of moral energy, and power (vv. 15, 16).2
(b) The question, whether faith by itself can save, is so put \
in ii. 14 that it already implies a negative answer. James is
not, therefore, opposing a false view of faith and its effects ;
but, in opposition to such a practical error as Christ opposes
in Matt. vii. 21 (cf. § 30, c), he asserts the self-evident truth,
that the faith which has not works, and which is therefore
dead, is of no avail, because it has no saving power ; just as
compassion is of no profit to the poor man, if it has only
words and no deeds (ii. 14-16). In ver. 20 this is so
expressed as if faith without works does not accomplish what
is also wrong in making faith, in its essence, receive a completion from works.
Faith cannot be made higher and more perfect by the works which it itself
brings forth ; it can only, by the bringing forth of these, exhibit its true nature
as a living (i.e. operative) faith, prove itself to be actually existing, and in so
far be made perfect by works.
2 Weiffenbach (p. 57) insists even more strongly than Baur that, in James,
faith and works do not stand in any organic relation to one another : they are two
co-ordinated "principles," working with and alongside of each other, the latter of
which, as the higher, first brings tIo-tis, which in itself is imperfect and inopera
tive, to life and perfection. He does not perceive that, if faith which has not
works is dead in itself, it follows, not that it is by means of (externally appended)
works that it first of all receives vitality, but that it is by works (which it itself
produces) that it first of all shows itself to be living (operative). It is obviously
incorrect to say that we can infer the existence of that which is to be made per
fect from the presence of that which makes it perfect (cf. the forcible reply of
Ritschl, ii. p. 358) — an inference which, according to Weiffenbach (p. 19), is
made in ver. 18 ; while he evades the decisive instance of ver. 22 only by making
it, contrary to the context, state that faith only (?) assists works to attain justi
fication (?), a statement which cannot possibly be proved by means of ver. 21,
where nothing whatever was said as yet regarding faith in its relation to justi
fication. In general, however, Weiffenbach has altogether failed to make us
able to form any idea of the imagined perfecting of faith by works, in virtue of
which, it is asserted, it first of all receives inner power and full life — a view
which is supported mainly by the allegorizing misinterpretation of the figurative
language of ver. 26.

256 CHRISTIANITY AS THE PERFECT LAW.
it should accomplish ; like capital which is lying idle, it does
not bring the interest which is expected of it, it is unprofit
able and inoperative. The predicate dpyrj, therefore, does not
denote its deficiency in respect of subjective activity, but its
deficiency in respect of objective result ; and this result is
none else than that which is striven after in every religion,
and therefore also in Christianity, viz. to make God well
pleased, and so secure to man salvation in His judgment.
The author illustrates this by reminding his readers of the
faith of the demons (who are definitively delivered over to judg
ment), which, although it is in itself a right faith («aXw?
7rotei?), is nevertheless so far from having the effect of
making these well-pleasing to God, and thereby bringing them
salvation, that it rather makes them shudder in dread of God's
judgment (ver. 19). In order, viz., to be saved, one must be
Bi/caio<; (v. 6, 16), like the pious of the Old Testament (ver. 17),
i.e. one whose behaviour corresponds with the divine will,
one who realizes Bacaiocrvvrj by the fulfilling of the perfect
law (iii. 18, cf. § 24). And naturally it is necessary that one
be Bi/cato<; in the judgment of God, and be justified by Him ;
for already in Matt. xii. 37 the opposite of this BiKaiovo-6ai
is KaTaBtKa^eaOai (§ 32, d). Conversely, only he who is
justified before God can be saved in the judgment. To the
mind of the author, these two ideas (viz. being justified and
saved) are so completely correlative, that he answers the
question, what is required for salvation (ii. 14), by stating
what it was that brought about the justification of Abraham
(ver. 2 1). In ver. 25 it is taken for granted with respect to
Eahab that she was justified ; and although this is nowhere
stated in the Old Testament, yet the author probably infers it
directly from the circumstance, that she was saved from the
judgment, which fell upon the Canaanites because of their
godlessness (Josh. vi. 25).
(c) Already in i. 22 James states that the word of truth,
through which God seeks to work the salvation of men, cannot
save their souls (ver. 21), unless it is not only heard but also
done. It is called a self-delusion, if one thinks of being
satisfied with a hearing, which, like a passing glance into a
mirror, makes only a quickly disappearing, powerless impres
sion (vv. 23, 24). It is not a mere hearer, but only a doer of

§ 53. JUSTIFICATION. 257
the word, or, more accurately, of the epyov which is demanded
in the word, that will be blessed in his doing (ver. 25).3
Now, since the blessedness (salvation) of man depends,
according to note b, upon his justification before the divine
forum, and since faith answers to hearing, just as works to
doing, it is the same question which is discussed here as in ii.
14-26. James assumes it as self-evident, that only he can
be justified by God whose conduct corresponds with the will
of God, because he does the works demanded by the law, and
is therefore really righteous. He does not oppose an idea of
justification, according to which God graciously justifies one
who is not righteous in reality ; such a possibility does not
even enter his mind.4 He comes therefore to the conclusion
that man is justified by works, and not by faith alone (ver.
24). So surely as faith is necessary for the fulfilment of the
perfect law, and is therefore the condition of salvation, so
surely, nevertheless, the declaration that one is righteous
cannot be made, until this faith has co-operated to the render
ing of obedience, and is made perfect by the works which are
effected through it (ver. 22, cf. note a). For not till then has
man become really righteous, and not till then can he be
justified by the righteous judge.
3 It is, undoubtedly, of the immediate consequence of the doing, but by no
means of a satisfaction which is felt in the doing itself, that this passage
speaks. For it is evident from i. 12 that the blessedness which is already
enjoyed in the present life consists in the certainty of future salvation; and it
is only by pointing to this result of the doing of the word, that the line of
thought is completed, which commences with ver. 21, and in which the
question considered is the condition under which the word works the (final)
salvation. 4 All the attempts to deprive "iixxiotmtxi, in James, of its forensic sense, and to
understand by it only an exhibition of righteousness (cf. Preuss in the Evang.
Kirchenztg. 1867, No. 40), or a translating into the condition of a right moral
relation towards God (cf. Hofmann, i. p. 645 ff.), founder upon the connection
between Hixxiodo-tiai and o-uimxi pointed out in note b. The doctrine, however,
of a progressive justification (cf. Hengstenberg in the Evang. Kirclienztg. 1866,
Nos. 93, 94) is foreign alike to James and Paul. The renewed attempt of W.
Schmidt (p. 103) to conceive otHixxlojo-is in the Pauline sense, according to which
it is an act of grace and includes the forgiveness of sins, has no support either in
the language or the line of thought of our Epistle, and only gives rise to the
difficulties in which the comparison of the teaching of the two New Testament
writers has got involved. It is only an apparent solution, to distinguish between
the "hixxioiins in the judgment, in James, and one that is already present, in Paul.
It is quite true that the definitive iixxluo-is, like the definitive salvation, cannot
VOL. I. R

258 CHRISTIANITY AS THE PERFECT LAW.
(d) Already in the history of the founder of the nation
James sees a confirmation of the fact that it is in consequence
of works that man is justified ; for in consequence of the
sacrifice of Isaac (Gen. xxii.), Abraham repeatedly received
from God declarations regarding his obedience (Gen. xxii. 18,
xxvi. 5), which involve his justification (ii. 21).s Now, no
doubt, it is said in Gen. xv. 6 that Abraham's faith was
reckoned unto him for righteousness ; but the author regards
this sentence of God as a prophecy, which was first fulfilled
(iirXrjpd>6r] 17 ypacpr) f\ Xeyovaa) when the faith of Abraham
really co-operated in helping him to obey, and thus fur
nished him with the righteousness on the ground of which he
was justified, and therefore called a friend of God (ver. 23).
Not till then had the reality become a reality corresponding
with that divine judgment regarding Abraham's faith ; that
judgment was now fulfilled, seeing that it was proved that in
Abraham's faith there already lay implicite the righteousness
which afterwards sprang from it, the righteousness, viz., for
which God had reckoned it. Eahab likewise was saved, and
therewith justified, in consequence of what she had clone to
take place till the judgment ; but throughout the whole of the discussions in Jas.
ii. the question considered is, under what condition does man know himself to
be already justified before God, and therefore secured against the judgment (note
particularly the present lixxioirxi, ver. 24). Among recent writers, Weiffenbach
most vigorously supports the assumption of an objective difference between
James and Paul, inasmuch as he also, without more ado, understands by lixxiutris
the justification of the sinner, and, for proof, appeals even to the usus loquendi
of the Old Testament (p. 26), although more than the half of the passages
adduced by him (Deut. xxv. 1 ; 1 Kings viii. 32 ; Isa. 1. 8 ; Ps. lxxxii. 3) speak
of the justification of righteous persons, while all the others regard the justifica
tion of unrighteous persons as an act of unrighteousness. This, therefore, only
shows how altogether self-evident it appeared when the matter was looked at in
the light of the usus loquendi of the Old Testament, that none but they who
are really righteous can be justified.
5 It is quite arbitrary to think here, with Weiffenbach, p. 31, of the promises of
blessing, in which (according to him) the justification of Abraham lies implicite.
It is the obedience, i.e. the conduct which corresponded with the will of God,
which is the righteousness. Neither in the case of Rahab can the promise which
was given her be thought of (p. 51), for this was given her before she had
saved the spies by her IxfixXuy. Further, the course of the discussion shows
that James does not seek to prove that another cannot appeal, in opposition to
him, to Gen. xv. 6, a passage which is apparently favourable to such an
opponent (Weiff. p. 101) ; it rather shows that, when he appeals to the example
of their progenitor, he means to argue ex concessis, and that a conception of Gen.
xv. 6 in the Pauline sense is altogether foreign to him.

§ 54. ELECTION. 259
the spies (ver. 25); but, according to Josh. ii. 11, this deed
also had sprung out of her faith in the God of Israel.
§ 54. Election.
Election is that act through which God makes the poor in
Israel who love Him His peculiar people, (h) He accom
plishes this act, partly by bringing them forth by means of the
word, the aim of this generation being the establishment of a
specific consecration to God ; partly by the working of faith, in
which there is given the possession of all present salvation, as
well as the assurance of its promised completion, (c) It is
peculiar that the state of salvation which is constituted by
election is not described as sonship, and is not asserted as the
ground of the manifestations of the love of God. (d) Still
more striking is the manner in which the mediation of Christ
is still kept altogether in the background when the most
important points of the life of salvation are discussed.
(a) In contrast to those who preferred the rich, unbelieving
Jew to a poor Christian brother (ii 1-4), God has, according
to ver. 5, preferred the poor, inasmuch as He has chosen them
for Himself, i.e. to be the people of His possession. The idea
of election, therefore, no longer refers to the people of Israel
as descended from the fathers ; as in § 44, a, it denotes the
act through which individuals are separated out of the mass
of Israelites, in order that the vocation of Israel may be
realized in them.1 By this election we are not at all to
think of a pre-temporal act, since ii. 5 points explicitly to an
evident fact which has been accomplished in the present
time ; but just as little are we to think of an arbitrary prefer
ence of certain individuals to others. It is rather a definite
category of Israelites which God has chosen, viz. the outwardly
poor (iTTm'XpL), those who are in a humble, oppressed condition
(i. 9 : Tarreiv6<;). No doubt this statement refers mainly to
the special individuals who made up the churches to which
James writes (cf. § 37, a); but in these individuals there is
reflected a higher divine arrangement. Already in the Old
1 In this sense election could also be very easily made to refer to individual
Gentiles who had become Christians, and who had thereby been placed on a
level with the chosen Israelites (cf. Acts xv. 14, for which see § 43, c).

260 CHRISTIANITY AS THE PERFECT LAW.
Testament the promise had often been made specially to the
poor and the miserable of the nation (D^K, DWJ, inasmuch
as it was in this class that true piety had often maintained
itself (Ps. xxxvii. 11, cxlvii. 6 ; Prov. iii. 34, xvi. 19; Isa.
xiv. 32, xxix. 19). Now, since, even in the Old Testament,
love to God was the fundamental commandment, and it was
therefore in it especially that true piety evinced itself, it is to
those who love God that it is promised in Deut. vii. 9, that
God will keep His covenant with them, i.e. that the promise
of salvation will be realized in them. Corresponding with
this, it is said here also that God has given His promise to
them that love Him (i. 12, ii. 5). And so it follows that God
has chosen for Himself the poor and the miserable of the people,
because it was among them that He found those who love Him.
(b) According to i. 18, it is by means of the new birth that
God has made the readers Christians. Now, since, according
to note a, it is also through election that they have become
what they are, it follows that the historical act through which
God has accomplished their election is their generation by the
word of truth. This is therefore also explicitly traced back
to the free will of God (BovXi]6ei<;), i.e. to His decree of
election. Just as the aim of election, in its original sense, is
the promotion of Israel to be God's peculiar people, so here it
is stated to be the aim of the new birth, that God might
make the Christians a kind of first-fruits (aTrapyfi) of His
creatures. The first-fruits, however, was that portion of the
harvest which was dedicated to God and brought as an
offering ; and therefore the figure denotes nothing else than
that which Peter calls the consecration to God of His peculiar
people (cf. § 44, h, 45, c). It is probable that this is pointed
to also in i. 4, where it is stated to be the end of the
Christian life that Christians should be TeXeioi ical oXoicXrjpoi.
The former is the expression used by the LXX., the latter
that used by Philo and Josephus, as corresponding with the
Hebrew ^^, which denotes the faultlessness of the sacrifice.
On the other hand, it is stated in ii. 5 to be the end of
election, that the Christians should be rich in faith (7rXovatov<;
iv Trlo-Tei). In faith,2 i.e. in the assurance of the salvation
2 Faith is therefore not at all the condition of election ; in this very passage,
according to note a, its condition is differently described. Rather God has

§ 54. ELECTION. 261
which has come with the Messiah, the Christian, notwith
standing all the baseness of his outward condition, possesses
a high estate which is peculiar to him, seeing that he knows
himself to be chosen to be the possession of God ; in faith he
also possesses the whole riches of salvation which is given
him in the revelation of the perfect law and in the ability to
fulfil it. And since the exalted Messiah both can and will
also carry out the work of salvation which He has begun, he
also knows himself to be already in hope the heir of the com
pletion of salvation (ii 5 : icXrjpovopos Trj? BacriXeia?), which,
naturally, does not exclude the need of his still being proved
before he can attain it, for it is only the faith which is proved
that is the sufficient condition of salvation (§ 53).
(c) One would expect that the state of salvation which is
constituted by election would, as in § 45, d, be described as
sonship. In fact God is also called iraT-qp in i. 27 and iii. 9,
but this designation is not used to denote His relation to
Christians in the specific sense. In i. 27 it rather character
izes God as the one who takes a fatherly care of widows and
orphans ; and the connection of the clauses of iii. 9 shows us
that He is so named there, because men are made after His
likeness, just as the son has the features of his father. In a
still more general sense God is called (i. 17) the Father, i.e.
the Creator of the lights of heaven (cf. Mai. ii. 10). The
Christian readers are also addressed as brethren (i. 2, 1 6, etc.),
and that too, in v. 7, in express contrast to their unbelieving
fellow-countrymen, so that it is not merely their relationship
as members of the same nation which is implied in that
name. Still, brothers and sisters are spoken of in ii. 15,
worked faith in the elect in order that He might enable them to obtain the
riches given in faith ; or rather we can regard the historical act of election as
consisting in the working of faith, as well as in regeneration by the word ; for
in the Gospels (§ 29, d) the working of faith is connected with the same divine
arrangement as election is here. Since, however, he says nothing regarding the
working of faith, we cannot answer the question, in what relation James has
placed it to the new birth. No doubt the word must have been accepted in
faith, if it is to work anything in man (Messner, p. 88) ; but this does not forbid
the word itself (in its two aspects, cf. § 52, u, c) from working not only the new
life, but also faith in that which it announces ; and although doing, and there
fore the new moral life, necessarily proceeds from (living) faith, yet this cannot
be thought of as a natural psychological process, but as an effect produced by
God by means of the word of truth which is appropriated in faith.

262 CHRISTIANITY AS THE PERFECT LAW.
iv. 11, without anything compelling us to think exclusively
of Christian brethren ; and in i. 9 the name brother does not
per se denote the believing fellow-countryman. It is the
brother of low degree (note a) who is the Christian. Neither
from this, therefore, does it appear that a specific filial relation
of Christians to God was thought of when the name of brother
was used. When God is described as the one who is rich in
pity and mercy (v. 11), this attribute is not ascribed to Him
as standing in a specific relation to Christians ; it is shown in
His conduct towards Job. It is only in iv. 6, and because of
an Old Testament quotation (Prov. iii. 34), that the %«/ot? of
God is spoken of, and that in such a manner that it denotes
the gracious recompense of God for the surrender to Himself
which He demands. When God appears (i. 5) as the one
who gives to all, who ask Him in a right manner, that which
they ask, this is promised, not, as in § 2 0, h, to Christians qua
Christians, but, according to v. 16, rather to all pious suppli
cants ; and in vv. 1 7, 1 8 it is an Old Testament example
which is referred to, as an evidence of the power of such a
prayer. It is only, therefore, that which applied to the pious
members of the old covenant, which applies to the Christian
in his state of salvation ; and here also Christianity appears
only as the full realization of that which was striven after in
the old covenant, and also, at least partially, attained.
(d) Closely connected with this is the circumstance that
the work, and specially the death of Christ, is nowhere
thought of as the mediating cause of the new state of salva
tion. In Peter, it is only through the death of Christ that
access to God is made possible (§ 49, b) ; here, if one who is
upon a wrong way simply draws near to God (which, of
course, is not possible without sorrow and self-humiliation),
God will again draw near to him with His blessing, and will
lift him up (iv. 8-10). So every one can save his neighbour
and cause his sin to be covered, i.e. forgiven, by bringing him
back from the error of his way to the truth (v. 20). For
giveness of sins appears, directly, as the consequence of a
prayer of faith, and of a sincere confession of sin, without the
mediation of Christ being thought of (v. 15, 16). God, the
giver of all good gifts (i. 17), bestows it directly. It is He
also who, according to v. 15, 16, saves the sick person from

§ 55. THE DIVINE CLAIM. 263
his distress and raises him up again in consequence of the
prayer of faith. It is only the anointing with oil, which is to
be performed upon the sick person by the elders who have
been called together, that takes place in the name of Christ,
i.e. by His command (ver. 14).3 It is in this silence regard
ing the mediation of salvation through Christ that the doctrine
of James is most strikingly distinguished from those of the
other writers of the New Testament. It is of no avail to
appeal, with W. Schmidt (p. 69), to the hortatory aim of the
Epistle, or to the needs of its readers. It must rather be
granted that it is his predominant conception of the salvation
which is given in Christ as the revelation of the perfect law
and the rendering of its fulfilment possible — a conception
which is grounded in his individual peculiarity (§ 37, b) —
which causes the author, in all other points, to look upon the
means of grace, which the pious Israelites already enjoyed, as
sufficient for the present time of salvation.

CHAPTEE VI.
THE DIVINE CLAIM AND THE DIVINE RECOMPENSE.
§ 55. The Divine Claim.
God demands that the spirit of man turn away from all
love of the world and surrender itself to Him with its whole
3 There is no indication whatever that, in v. 15, it is Christ who, by means of
His intercession with the Father, effects the healing of the sick (W. Schmidt,
p. 76) ; for the encouraging example of Elias (w. 16, 17) points simply to the
fact that God hears the prayer of faith. Schmidt's assertion can naturally find
no support from the circumstance, that it was in obedience to the command of
Christ, that they invoked the miraculous help of God upon the use of the
simplest means of healing. This primitive custom of anointing with oil — a
custom which we do not meet with again in the later time — had probably
been formed, according to Mark vi. 13, in consequence of the means of healing
which was recommended by Christ to the disciples. In performing this act,
the elders do not appear as discharging a special spiritual function, but only as
the leading members of the Church, whom they could most naturally regard as
having the power of faith, which alone can give due efficacy to the prayer which
accompanies the act of anointing with oil. For, according to v. 16, the prayer,
which brings about the forgiveness of sins as well as the healing of the sick, can
be requested also of every other member of the Church.

264 THE DIVINE CLAIM AND THE DIVINE RECOMPENSE.
love, (b) Every partition of the soul is not only a deficiency
in perfection, but also a staining of the heart, because thereby
the dutiful subjection to God is violated. (e) For this
undivided surrender to God, however, there is required also a
trust in Him which is free from doubt, and which proves itself
by enduring patience in the midst of trial, (d) A prayer
which is full of trust will always find an answer.
(a) James expresses the extent of the claim of God in
iv. 5 : God yearneth jealously for the spirit which He has
made to dwell in us.1 As a jealous yearning for the sole
possession of man is already ascribed to God in the Old
Testament, so here also He desires that the spirit, which
derives its origin from Him, should belong to Him exclusively
with all its love. Accordingly, after the manner of the Old
Testament, it is described as adultery, when one withdraws
his love from Him, in order to give it to another (iv. 4). In
the very same manner as in the discourses of Jesus (§ 26, h),
the incompatibility of love to the world and love to God is
set forth; the friendship of the world is enmity with God,
because He wishes to have exclusive possession even of the
inclination of the heart (which is purposely denoted here by
the weaker (f>iXia), and therefore looks upon everything, which
withdraws this inclination away from Him, as enmity to Him
self. In this passage (iv. 4) the world, i.e. the totality of
creaturely existence, stands opposed to God, because it seduces
man to turn his inclination to it and thereby to prejudice the
fulfilment of the claim of God. According to i. 27, there
proceeds from it a staining influence against which true religion
has to guard itself. The less one has of earthly goods, so much
the less will this influence be ; therefore it is the tttco^oI tS>
koctuo), i.e. those who are poor in respect of worldly goods, who
love God and are therefore chosen by Him (ii. 5). The rich,
on the other hand, often appear, even in the Old Testament, as
the godless (Isa. liii. 9 ; Sir. xiii. 4, xxvii. 1) ; and, notwith
standing their apparent exaltation, James speaks of their
1 Naturally, this spirit is not that which is bestowed upon Christians
(Schmid, ii. p. 115 [E. Tr. 351]), but the principle which vitalizes the body
(ii. 26). When W. Schmidt (p. 93) infers from the circumstance that it is a
communicated spirit which is spoken of, that we must not think of the natural
spirit of man, he overlooks the fact that, according to Gen. ii. 7, this also was
breathed into man (cf. § 27, c).

§ 55. THE DIVINE CLAIM. 265
abjectness (i. 10), and announces to them, inasmuch as they
seek their happiness in perishable riches, a speedy and dread
ful end (i. 11, v. 1, 2). Here, too, we hear, throughout,
echoes of the sayings of Jesus regarding the dangers of
riches. (b) The claim of God is not only an exclusive one ; it is
the innermost central point of the life of the human indi
vidual, the -^fvyfi, and therewith the icapBla, in which it has
its seat (cf. § 27), which is claimed. The soul must there
fore meet the demand that is made upon man, and be sur
rendered entirely to the Lord. From a division of the soul
between God and the world there results only an instability
of the moral walk (i. 8), which cannot satisfy the claim of the
perfect law. According to § 5 4, b, this demands the thorough
going perfection of man (i. 4, iii. 2) ; and it must demand
this, because every transgression of an individual command
ment makes man guilty, as if he had sinned against them all
(ii. 10). But Biyjrv^la is not merely a defect, it is also a
staining of the heart, from which it must be cleansed, if it is
to correspond with the aim of consecration to God which
election assigns to man (dyvlaaTe, cf. 1 Pet. i. 22, for which
see § 46, h). As the hands are polluted by sinful actions, so
the heart is polluted by the partition of the soul between
God and the world (iv. 8). Every turning of the heart to
that which is worldly is opposed to the exclusive claim of
God, and is described in iv. 6, 7 as pride, as a violation of
men's dutiful subjection to God, because true humility does
not permit man to choose the object of his inclination at his
own discretion, but obliges him to follow therein the claim of
God. Again, subjection to God, which is meant to hinder
man from loving the world, stands parallel with resistance to
the deviL As in § 23, a, he is thought of, therefore, as the
God-resisting power which is dominant in the world, the
power which gives to men's hearts their sinful bent to
worldly things, and to whose will man subjects himself, when
he allows himself to be seduced by the charm of worldly
things.2 2 As in § 23, b, there exist alongside of the devil Sxifimx, who as such are
delivered over to the unavoidable judgment (ii. 19). The wisdom which is
selfish is described, on the one hand, as of an earthly, on the other, as of a

266 THE DIVINE CLAIM AND THE DIVINE RECOMPENSE.
(c) The partition of the soul shows itself not only in the
vacillation of its love between God and the world, but also in
its vacillating between faith and doubt (i. 8). The doubter
resembles the surge of the sea which is driven and tossed by
the wind (ver. 6); true wisdom knows not doubt (iii. 17:
dBiaKpiTos) ; and the trust which God demands must be as
exclusive of all doubt (i. 6) as love to Him is exclusive of all
love of the world. As in Peter (§ 46, d), the afflictions which
befall Christians are a proving of this trust in God (ver. 3) ;
and as only he whose trust is proved can attain the com
pletion of salvation (ver. 12), they are to account the trials
which make such a proof possible as nothing but joy (ver. 2).
This proof, viz., consists in the patient enduring of the trials
of affliction (ver. 12), and it is this patience (v. 11 : viroaovri)
which, in the case of the true Christian, is worked by the
proof of his faith (i. 3). If, indeed, affliction continues, a
special strength is needed (v. 8) in order that they may be
able to show patience in fia/cpodv/j,ta (vv. 7, 10). In the
situation of his readers a chief affliction under which they
had to show patience was their external poverty, and their
consequent humble and oppressed condition. It was there
fore necessary that, in the midst of all their earthly baseness,
they should remain conscious of the high estate which they
possessed in their standing as Christians (i. 9 ; cf. § 54, b).
If one prefers the unbelieving brother, because of his better
outward circumstances, to the poor believer, he has become,
at least temporarily, wavering in his conviction of the value
of his Christian estate ; for when estimating the value of
others he has used a false standard, a standard which does
not acknowledge the consciousness of the value of the
Christian estate (ii. 4).
(d) As means of gaining the victory over these trials of
affliction there are mentioned prayer (v. 13) and the inter
cession, to which, according to vv. 14, 16, we are to invite
others. Of course, if prayer is to be heard, it must be, as
demoniac origin (iii. 15). Since the demons are delivered over to the judgment,
yi'iyyx is, according to § 34, d, the abode which is appointed to them for the
future ; and since this place is thought of here also as a hell of fire, it is said in
iii. 6 that sinful passion is kindled by hell. Hell is therefore thought of as
even already the characteristic sphere of the demoniac power, and this latter is
regarded as the active principle in sin.

§ 56. HUMAN SIN. 267
Christ already taught (§ 20, b), a prayer of faith (ver. 15),
and also, it is self-evident, the prayer of a righteous man
(ver. 16). Without prayer we cannot receive anything of
which we stand in need (iv. 2). But the prayer must not, of
course, be for ungodly objects; for such a icaicm ahelo-Qai
can receive nothing (ver. 3). Lastly, it is only by means of
prayer that we can obtain the wisdom which we need in order
that we may behave rightly under trial (i. 5) ; but, of course,
this prayer can find no answer in the case of the doubter
(vv. 6, 7). God, however, the giver of all good gifts (ver. 1 7),
gives liberally, and without upbraiding the one who prays as
a troublesome beggar (ver. 5). In iii. 9, 10 it is taken for
granted that man, who is made after the likeness of God,
glorifies God as His Father; and, according to v. 13, the
singing of praise is to be the expression of every condition of
prosperity and health.
§ 56. Human Sin.
The real root of sin is sinful lust, which is conceived of
not only as selfish, but also as sensuous, (b) Sinful lust,
however, can show itself in action only in proportion as it
succeeds in obtaining the mastery of the members of the body
as its instruments, and this is effected most easily in the case
of the tongue, which, once enlisted in the service of sin, has
the most destructive influence, (c) There is need, therefore, of
the greatest circumspection in the use of the tongue, in order
that we may not fall into anger and impure zeal, (d) True
wisdom, on the other hand, teaches us always to unite with
love the gentleness and peaceableness which alone lead to the
end aimed at, the reformation, viz., of our neighbour.
(a) Although it is the world which God has created that
gives the external occasion of sinning (§ 55, a), yet we must
not say that God tempts us to sin; for God, who is not
tempted by evil Himself, cannot instigate another to sin
(i. 13). Eather, lust is as characteristic of man in his
present condition (IBla iiriOvata) as, in Peter (§ 46, h), the
walk in the lusts was characteristic of the pre-Christian life.
In ver. 14 it is personified as a harlot who seeks to catch
men by means of her bait, ie. to instigate them to sin. If

268 THE DIVINE CLAIM AND THE DIVINE RECOMPENSE.
man's will yields to the seduction of the harlot, and has illicit
intercourse with her, the consequence is the engendering of
sin ; and if sin is not retracted by a true repentance, but is
finished by becoming the dominant power in man, it brings
forth death (ver. 15). Lust is bent, in the first place, upon
the godless enjoyment of earthly happiness, upon the Bairavav
iv Tat? rjBovais (iv. 3) ; it is therefore thought of, in the first
place, as sensuous ; and the rjBovai of ver. 1 are lusts after
the satisfaction of sensuous desire (cf. ver. 2 : eTri6vueiTe),
after a wild life of enjoyment, Tpvtpav and cnraTaXav (v. 5).
But even the proud self-confidence which forgets that man
with his plans is always dependent upon the will of God,
and which, in the consciousness of an apparently secure
possession, so easily leads to vain boastings (dXa^oveiai), is a
misuse of earthly goods, and a violation of subjection to God,
which is described in iv. 13-17 as sin. On the other hand,
the longing after earthly goods, when a neighbour has them
in greater abundance, begets strife and quarrels, wrath and
impure zeal (iv. 1, 2). The rich oppresses the poor (ii. 6),
and in sinful greed diminishes his hire (v. 4). But selfish
wisdom, i.e. the wisdom which is bent upon making the most
of one's own person (§ 27, b), also brings forth uncharitable
zeal and egoistic factiousness (iii. 14, 15), and, as a con
sequence of these, discord and all wickedness (ver. 16).
Because lust, in its sensuous as well as in its selfish bent,
has become a habitual characteristic of man (i. 14), he finds
himself in a state of bondage to it, from which he can be
freed only by the new birth (§ 52, h).
(b) The appetite for sensuous enjoyment urges men to
hostility towards others ; but it is only inasmuch as one of
the members of man becomes active in the service of such
hostility that it actually breaks out ; hence, according to iv. 1,
the rjBovai carry on their war against others in men's mem
bers; hence, according to ver. 8, the hand is stained with
sin. Accordingly, everything depends upon their so bridling
the body and its members that lust may not be able to use
them for the purpose of committing sin (iii. 2). As in i. 14,
the will of man is conceived of as confronted by the hostile
power of lust, a power with which it has to struggle, as it
were, for the use of the body and its members. It is most

§ 56. HUMAN SIN. 269
difficult of all to bridle the tongue ; nay, the author declares
(iii. 8) that although man has tamed the most different kinds
of creatures (ver. 7), yet experience shows that he cannot
tame the tongue, and that because it is so easily accessible
to the most varied impulses (vv. 9, 10), because it is an
dicaTdoTaTov icaicov. He, who is able to check sin in its
first expression in word, possesses also the moral power of
guarding against sins of deed ; and therefore it is said in
ver. 2 that he who does not fail in word could also bridle
the whole body, just as men direct the whole horse with the
reins and the whole ship with the helm (vv. 3, 4). If, on
the other hand, the tongue has once been enlisted in the
service of sin, although it is the smallest member, it can
nevertheless cause the greatest mischief. Not only does it
itself do many a wrong to one's neighbour (ver. 6 : o /tocr/io?
7% dBiiclas), which is described partly, as in ver. 5, under
the image of a fire (cf. Prov. xvi. 27 ; Ps. cxx. 4), partly, as in
ver. 8, under that of deadly poison (Ps. cxl. 3) ; but it also
stains the whole body, since the sin which has once been
allowed to reign in the province of this member drags the
other members into its service. Experience teaches how very
speedily sins of word become sins of deed ; the might of sin,
when once set free by means of the tongue, kindles like a
fire the whole life of man (ver. 6 : tov Tpo%pv tt}? yeveaew;).
(c) No doubt it is mainly the concrete circumstances of
his readers (§ 37, a) which give occasion to the author to
discuss, with such special thoroughness, the sins of speech ;
but in his estimation of these he follows, at the same time,
the sayings of Jesus (cf. Matt. v. 22, xii. 37), from which he
also borrows the commandment against oaths and judging
(§ 52, a). He warns his readers against the proselytizing
zeal which leads men to seek to be the teachers and masters
of others ; because, owing to the imminent danger of sinning
in doing so, they thereby only increase their accountability
(iii. I).1 If the other will not hear, then the more ready one
1 It is an extraordinary misunderstanding on the part of Reuss, that makes
him trace back (i. p. 488 [E. Tr. i. p. 423]) the warnings given here to a dis
inclination of the author to theological discussions, of which there is nothing
said at all. So also Immer (p. 440), who even finds it conceivable that the
sensuous lusts are named as the source of this love of controversy (iv. 1 ff.).

270 THE DIVINE CLAIM AND THE DIVINE RECOMPENSE.
is in speaking, so much the more easily is one's wrath stirred
up (i. 19). It is true, wrath, per se, is nothing evil; for the
wrath of God is an expression of His righteousness (cf. §50,^,
footnote 6) ; but the easily kindled and often unjustifiable wrath
of man does not work the righteousness which God works in
His wrath (ver. 20). In such a case he, no doubt, persuades
himself that in his wrath he is zealous for God, and serves
Him by it; while he is only giving rein to his tongue, so
that he deceives himself (ver. 26). He easily falls into an
uncharitable zeal and an egoistic factiousness, which, accord
ing to note a, are a mark of selfish wisdom. Yea, even with
his apparent zeal for the truth and against the sin of his
neighbour, there are probably mixed up impure motives, such
as chagrin at his better outward circumstances (iv. 2). James
also looks upon slander as the judging which is forbidden by
Christ (iv. 11) ; and although, according to v. 4, he knows of
a crying of the oppressed to God, which the judge hears, yet
he speaks also, in ver. 9, of an accusing murmuring against
one another, which comes under that sentence pronounced
against judging. The highest degree of this judging would be
the cursing, which he mentions in iii. 9, 10 with abhorrence.
(d) Notwithstanding all this, James by no means seeks to
hinder brotherly love from attempting to save an erring
brother; in v. 19, 20 he rather describes the beautiful result
of such an attempt. But they must first of all, with right
meekness, put away all filthiness which cleaves to their
speech and wrath in consequence of their own ican'ia, as well
as the excess of wrath to which this icaicia hurries them on
(i. 21). True wisdom, which is above everything pure
(iii. 17: dyvrj), cannot exist without the meekness (ver. 13)
and peaceableness (ver. 17 : elpijviicij) which Christ has
demanded (§ 25, c; cf. § 47, a); it is fair and lenient in its
judging of others (eVtet/c?f?), it listens to reasons, and is pliant
(evweiOfc). It alone also gains its end ; for it is only by the
peaceable, who seek to convert their neighbour while still pre
serving peace, that there is really attained that which the zealous
and contentious wisdom never attains, viz. a fruit of righteous
ness which comes to maturity in their neighbour (ver. 18).2
" As the 'bixxioaiyn @iou of i. 20 cannot be the habitus of a tlxxios before God,
which one cannot attain unto by means of uncharitable behaviour towards

§ 57. RECOMPENSE AND JUDGMENT. 271
§ 57. Recompense and Judgment.
The motive of patient endurance under trial, as well
as of the avoidance of sin, is the prospect of recompense.
(b) The recompense is an equivalent one ; but for that very
reason the merciful has to look also for a merciful judgment.
(c) The day of recompense is near at hand, because the advent
of the Messianic judge of the world is near, (d) The reward
of sin is death ; the promise, for which Christians look, is
life and the kingdom.
(a) The more Christianity is thought of as a fulfilment of
the perfect law, so much the more prominence must be given
to the doctrine of recompense (cf. § 32). In i. 12 and v.
11, those are called blessed who have patiently borne suffering,
because there awaits them such a transformation of all their
sorrow into joy as that which Job experienced at last.
The prospect of this end should strengthen them in endurance,
as the prospect of the hoped-for harvest strengthens the
husbandman (v. 7). On the other hand, James supports his
warnings by pointing to the judgment (v. 9, 12). If, viz.,
according to iv. 17, sin first really becomes sin when one
knows what is good (cf. § 32, d), the sin of the Christian who
has received the perfect law must be specially punishable ; and '
since, through the new birth, he has obtained the possibility
of fulfilling the law, and therewith the greater ability to avoid
transgressions, the judgment which he has to expect can only
be one doubly severe (ii. 12).
(h) Like Christ and Peter (§ 51, d), James Ekes to express
the equivalence of the recompense in a sententious manner.
God draws nigh to the man who draws nigh to Him (iv. 8) ;
the more God demands, so much the more does He also give
(iv. 5, 6) ; the more responsibility one takes upon oneself, so
much the heavier a judgment has one to expect (iii. 1). The
saying of Christ which promises exaltation to those who
humble themselves (Luke xiv. 11) is reproduced by James
(iv. 10), as well as by Peter. In a peculiar manner James
others, so neither can the fruit of righteousness mentioned here be the character
of one's own life which is pleasing to God, and which the sowing (manner of
acting) of the peaceable brings about, although W. Schmidt (p. 126-129) and
Ritschl (ii. p. 279) still misinterpret both passages in this sense.

272 THE DIVINE CLAIM AND THE DIVINE RECOMPENSE.
solves the difficulty which apparently arises, if the judg
ment is to correspond with the doing of man, while yet
the imperfection of all human doing must be allowed. Even
Christians all sin in many ways (iii. 2), and, as they now
need the forgiveness of sins (v. 15, 20), they will one day
need a merciful judge (ii. 13). But since, according to § 52, a,
mercifulness is characteristic of the Christian, and since,
according to the law of the equivalence of the recompense, the
merciful must obtain mercy (Matt. v. 7), the Christian can,
according to this very doctrine of recompense, count upon a
merciful judgment, which covers the still existing imperfec
tions, and in so far he can look forward to the judgment with
triumphant joyfulness (ii. 13).
(c) No doubt there is already, in a certain sense, an earthly
recompense. As by Christ (§ 32, d, footnote 4), so also by
James it is assumed that bodily sickness may be a consequence
of sin (v. 15, 16). But the real folly of the godless rich man
comes out, not in the circumstance that he has gathered
together treasures which God can, by way of punishment, take
away from him at any moment, but in this, that he has
gathered them together in the last days, i.e. in the face of the
approaching end of the world (v. 3). The miseries which will
then befall the godless are already in the act of coming upon
them (ver. 1), and will make a sudden end of all their riches
(ver. 2), which is a testimony unto them that the judgment is
now coming even upon themselves (ver. 3). Already the day of
their destruction is imminent (ver. 5 : rj/jtepa crcpayfj'i). The
reason of this is that the exalted Lord, i.e. Christ, soon
comes in judgment. His coming (ver. 7 : irapovcrla), in which
He will appear in His full Messianic dignity (so that this
coming is thought of, not as a return, but as the expected
coming of, the Messiah, cf. § 39, d), is already at hand (ver. 8).
The Messiah, who appears as the judge of the world, already
stands before the door (ver. 9). In iv. 12 also it is probably
He that is thought of as the judge, who alone can save or
condemn (cf. § 52, d).
(d) According to i. 15, sin, if it comes to maturity, brings
forth death, which is therefore, as in Peter (§ 50, d), the
punishment of sin. Here too, however, it is thought of as
sudden and violent (i. 10 f., cf. also § 34, c). The fire of the

§ 57. RECOMPENSE AND JUDGMENT. 273
judgment (§ 34, d) eats the flesh of the godless (v. 3), and
they are led to the slaughter (ver. 5). The real destruction
(iv. 12), however, to which the Messianic judgment delivers
up the godless, is not the death of the body, but the death of
the soul (v. 20) ; and, according to § 34, c, this death can only
consist in this, that, separated from the body, the soul remains
in the eternal torment of the disembodied condition. Ac
cordingly, the Messianic salvation, which Christianity has in
view from the commencement, is a deliverance of the soul
from this death and destruction. As in Peter (§ 50, c, 51, d),
the opposite of this death is the crown of life (i. 12), which
is promised to those who love God. That which in Peter is
called the icXrjpovofiia, which will one day be bestowed upon
Christians, appears here, as in the teaching of Jesus (§ 34, a),
as the kingdom which is promised to those who love God
(ii. 5). In it there can only be made perfect that which was
being already striven after in the fulfilment of the perfect
law, so that here also the future reward is nothing hetero
geneous to the present service.

VOL. L

PAET THIED.
PAULINISM.

INTEODUCTION.
§ 58. The Apostle Paul.
In consequence of his natural speculative genius, as well
as of his rabbinico-dialectic training, Paul possessed the
ability and the inclination to strike out a more sharply
defined form of teaching, and to work it out into an almost
systematic completeness, (b) If, even previous to his con
version, he had found no full satisfaction in Judaism as
conceived in the sense of Pharisaism, the peculiar manner of
that conversion must also have contributed to make Christi
anity appear to him as a dispensation of grace, which pointed
out a way of salvation which was altogether opposed to that
of the law. (c) His view of the person of Christ, as well as
of the salvation which was given in Him, must also have been
peculiarly conditioned by the circumstance that his personal
relation to Christ was brought about solely by the manifesta
tion of the exalted Lord which was granted him. (d) And
although, at his conversion, he entered unreservedly into
the believing world of the original Christian circles, he has,
nevertheless, in his activity as an apostle to the Gentiles, and
with a strong consciousness of his independence, worked out
his law-free, universalistic Gospel in an altogether peculiar
manner. (a) The reason why we have received from the apostle
Paul a much greater number of literary monuments than from
274

58. THE APOSTLE PAUL. 275
the other apostles, from which we can become acquainted
with his manner of teaching in its most different aspects, is
not only that his extensive missionary activity gave him, most
frequently, occasion to make up for the want of his personal
presence in the ever-extending circle of his churches by means
of epistolary communication, but also that he, most of all,
possessed inclination and ability for literary activity, i.e. for
a connected development of his thoughts. Whatever opinion
we may have as to the design of the Epistle to the Eomans,
we must at any rate admit that in it the development of his
teaching goes far beyond its immediate concrete occasion.
When we say that he was naturally of a speculative turn of
mind, we mean that he felt the need of ascertaining given
truths for himself; — however certain they might appear to
him per se, he must, nevertheless, be explicitly acquainted
with their reasons ; he felt the need of subsuming the par
ticular under more general points of view, and of trying to
discover the inner connection of the various moments of
truth. Besides supplying him with the art of explaining
Scripture, and of applying and interpreting it in the most
varied manner, his rabbinical education supplied him, above
all, with the dialectic art of defending his views in controver
sial discussion, of meeting objections or obviating them by an
anticipated refutation, of expressing his ideas in a sharp and
definite manner, of elucidating his statements by means of
thesis and antithesis, and, when a principle was thus estab
lished, of showing the applicability of its consequences in all
directions. It is in his writings, accordingly, that Christian
truth first appears as a compact whole, whose leading pro
positions are sharply formulated and exhibited in their
necessary connection with one another. This natural endow
ment of the apostle, however, makes it, a priori, in the highest
degree improbable that, as has been recently frequently
asserted, there should be found alongside of each other, in his
teaching, altogether heterogeneous lines of thought with no
indication of their points of transition, and unsolved antitheses
which are full of contradictions.
(IS) As a Pharisee, Paul stood upon the soil of orthodox
Judaism, yet in such a manner that he had regarded it essen-
tiaUy from its legal side, as a holy rule of life, by the most

276 PAULINISM.
punctual observance of which one could earn the salvation
promised to the fathers. He had distinguished himself by
his zeal for the Pharisaic doctrine of the law, and by his most
exact observance of it. Still, according to his own confession
(Bom. vii), he found herein no perfect satisfaction, inasmuch
as he always remained painfully conscious of the contrast
between the demand of the law and man's fulfilment. But
this very dissatisfaction drove him on to the fanatical mani
festation of his zeal for the law in the persecution of the
Christian Church, as soon as the appearance of Stephen began
to lead him to anticipate an opposition of the Church to the
legal system and the custom of the fathers. His conversion
was a sudden one. In the midst of his fanatical persecuting
zeal, instead of being punished for it, he was, by an unparal
leled gracious deed of God, vouchsafed a special manifesta
tion of Christ, which entirely changed his opinion of the
persecuted Nazarene ; he was even called to be His apostle,
and qualified for the most extensive labours in His service.
Everything which he himself had done in the service of the
law, and by means of which he had striven to earn salva
tion, had not only proved insufficient, it had plunged him ever
deeper into the most heinous sin of his life. Grace alone had
saved him. From this experience of his life there must have
spontaneously grown up the conception of Christianity as a
new dispensation of grace, which formed the antithesis of all
human doing and desert.1 If, in his opinion, the doing of the
1 It has recently been emphatically maintained that it is not by way of such
a. subjective experience of his own inability to earn salvation (an experience
which, it is true, would not be the ground of his conversion, unless there were
added his experience of divine grace), hut by a process of the theoretical con
sciousness, a dialectics of his religious thinking regarding the necessity of the
death of the Messiah upon the cross, that the genesis of the Pauline gospel of
the new way of salvation is to be explained (cf. especially Pfleiderer, p. 4-16
[E. Tr. i. 4-16]). But this assumes that, to the Pharisee Paul, the Messiah was
essentially the bringer of the Messianic righteousness, a righteousness which one
who was accursed of the law could bring, only if it was a wholly new righteous
ness, which had no longer anything to do with the law (p. 11 [E. Tr. i. 11]). In
the opinion of the Pharisees, however, the Messiah was by no means the bringer
of the Messianic righteousness (so that the salvation, which only one who fell
under the curse of the law could bring, must necessarily have been a "new
righteousness ") ; He was essentially the bringer of the national-political com
pletion of the theocracy, in which only those could participate who had become,
through the law, Hxxioi in the Pharisaic sense. And when Pfleiderer (p. 12

§ 58. THE APOSTLE PAUL. 277
law had previously been the only way by which salvation
was to be gained, there was now a totally new way. It is
not its antithesis in principle to Judaism, nor even to the law
in general, but only to the way of salvation which was pointed
out by the law, that characterizes the Pauline conception of
Christianity.2 (c) Paul had not enjoyed the personal intercourse with
Christ, by means of which the religious ideas of the original
apostles had been gradually shaped and transformed. It is
possible that he had seen Him at Jerusalem, although this
cannot be proved from 2 Cor. v. 1 6 ; it is possible that the
attack which Jesus made upon Pharisaism had prejudiced him
against the Nazarene, and made him anticipate earlier than the
other members of his sect the danger which was threatened to
the law of the fathers by His adherents ; but the impression
made by the person of Jesus during His earthly life has not
[E. Tr. i. 12] ) makes the doubt arise in the mind even of Paul the Pharisee,
whether the nation could ever become a righteous nation in the Pharisaic sense-
(and this is not so very different from the "objective conviction of the impossi
bility of the righteousness of the law " which is so sharply opposed in p. 4 f.
[E. Tr. i. 4 f.] ), nothing was more natural, looked at theoretically, than to see in
the atoning death of the Messiah the means whereby the remaining defects of
the righteousness of the law would be covered. Without such a "completion,"
however, even the righteousness of the law would not have been that which was.
sufficing before God, and therefore, even according to such a view, Gal. ii. 21
would be perfectly justified, without demanding a " substitution of the law by
means of a new scheme of salvation" (p. 5 f. [E. Tr. i. 5 f.]). For in that
case Christ would not have died in vain (Gal. ii. 21), even although the "death
of the Messiah upon the cross " had not been recognised to be the " end of the
law," or although there had been no recognition of the necessity, in principle,
of a new way of salvation. In general, however, it is doubtful whether thft
opposition, in principle, to the law and the way of salvation given in it, of
which there is still no trace at least in the Epistle to the Thessalonians, was con
ceived by Paul previous to his controversy with Judaism, however certainly it
must have been developed out of that first experience of grace.
2 The legal rule of life, fulfilled in a free spirit, had never appeared to the
original apostles as an antithesis of that which Christ had brought ; but neither
had it ever been to them the central point of their earlier life and striving, it
had never been the sole way of salvation, as to Paul the Pharisee. If, appar
ently in the sharpest opposition to him, -a James saw in Christianity the perfect
law, which, by working its fulfilment in believers, brings about salvation, yet
the law, which was loved and practised by him in the sense of the pious
psalmists of the Old Testament, had never awakened such discord in his breast
as in the case of our apostle ; and since he had never, in the Pharisaic sense,
sought the whole of his salvation in its fulfilment, the course of his life had not
led him to such a radical break with his past as it led the apostle Paul.

278 PAULINISM.
had any great influence upon him. In his disputations with
the adherents of the crucified Nazarene (Acts vi. 9), he had
naturally heard that He must die and be raised again according
to the Scripture (1 Cor. xv. 3, 4) ; and on these occasions
many details of His life may also have been spoken of. But
all the attempts to make use of the lines of thought which
were possibly excited thereby in his mind, for the purpose of
explaining the genesis of his gospel, are at variance with the
self-testimony of the apostle ; for the express aim of his account
in Gal. i. is to show that his whole attitude to Christianity
previous to the occurrence at Damascus (ver. 13 f.) excluded
the possibility of any human influence in the forming of his
gospel (w. 11, 12). The manifestation of Christ, which, for
this very reason, cannot be traced back to a psychologically
explicable vision, overtook him in the midst of his fanatical
persecuting zeal; and from that manifestation dated his con
version. In the case of the original apostles, it was the
picture of His earthly walk, in its historical outlines and
relations, it was His historical working in and for Israel that
formed the groundwork of their view of Christ. Not so, how
ever, in the case of Paul. Before his eyes stood the exalted
Christ in the splendour of divine glory, just as He had appeared
to him and changed the whole of his previous life, by con
demning it as illusion and sin. To him this heavenly Lord
was no longer mainly the Messiah of the Jews who was to
bring about the complete consummation of the theocracy ; He
was the mediator of divine grace to the sinners who had
awakened to the consciousness of their guilt. It was not by
reflecting upon a possible design of His death upon the cross
that he thus conceived of Christ ; but because He who was
living in heavenly glory had appeared to him in this character,
His death could only have been the means of the acquisition of
this grace, and was proved to be such by His resurrection and
exaltation. Moreover, He had come to him, not as a Jew, but
as a lost sinner, and had called him to be an apostle to the
Gentiles, who, like himself, were sunk in the irremediable
destruction of sin. Christianity must therefore have ap
peared to him from the first as the salvation of the whole
lost world of sinners, which was given in Christ as the
divine Lord.

§ 58. THE APOSTLE PAUL. 279
(d) It is wrong to think of the Apostle Paul as from the
first having no connection with the primitive Christian tradition.
No doubt it is but seldom that he expressly quotes sayings of
Jesus (1 Cor. vii. 10, 11, ix. 14, cf. 1 Thess. iv. 15) ; but
that many other words of Jesus were known to him is shown
by many an echo of them in his writings. Although it was
only later that he came into contact with the apostles, yet he
was by no means so cut off, from the first, from intercourse with
the Christian Church, as not to be acquainted with the religious
ideas and doctrines which were current in it. It is true he
was conscious that he had not learned from men the gospel
which he proclaimed, but had received it by divine revelation
(Gal. i. 11, 12), and the whole of his subjective assurance of
salvation rested upon this direct attestation of the divine
Spirit. But it does not follow from this that, in his exhibition
of saving truth, he did not, from the first, attach himself in
many ways to the views and forms of doctrine which were
current within the primitive Christian circles, as a member of
which he unreservedly regarded himself.3 And when the
mother Church praised God because its previous persecutor
was now proclaiming its faith (Gal. i. 23, 24), it cannot but
have been aware that he had become altogether one of its
members. Soon enough, indeed, his calling led him to devote
himself more and more exclusively to the mission to the
Gentiles ; and here the form of his teaching must naturally
have become more and more a peculiar one when compared
with that in the Jewish-Christian circles. If he was to con
vert the Gentiles as such, he must proclaim to them a gospel
which declared them free from the rule of life laid down by
the Jewish law, because the demand that they should adopt
the law would have made them Jews ; and the manner in
which his own experience had taught him to recognise
Christianity as a new way of salvation, in opposition to that
of the law (note b), qualified him for that task. In this his
activity as an apostle to the Gentiles, he must, however, have
3 Just as little does it follow that the working out of his form of doctrine was
not conditioned by his individual bent and his natural mental constitution
(note a) ; and if we attempt to trace the way in which that development was
accomplished in his spiritual life, we must assume it as self-evident, that the
propelling impulse and the leading power of this development proceeded from
the divine Spirit, which guided him into all truth.

280 PAULINISM.
learned also to present Christianity as the satisfaction of a
common human need; and as such it had met himself in
Christ (note c). § 59. Sources of Paulinism.
The discourse of Paul upon the Areopagus at Athens gives
us a picture of his earliest manner of preaching as an apostle
to the Gentiles. The Epistles to the Thessalonians, which can
still be regarded as an echo of his missionary preaching to his
readers, stand nearest that discourse, both as regards time and
matter, (b) We find the teaching of the apostle most richly
developed in the four great Epistles to the Galatians, the
Corinthians and the Eomans, but in a form which was essen
tially conditioned by his controversies with the Judaistic
party, (c) The so-called Epistles of the imprisonment belong
to a later period of the apostle's life, a period in which he met
with new oppositions ; but the change which has taken place
in his method of teaching is easily explicable from the circum
stances of the time, and the leading peculiarities of the earlier
Paulinism are still so apparent in them, that they cannot be
denied to the apostle himself, (d) The form of the Paulinism
is still more peculiar in the Pastoral Epistles, whose genuine
ness it is difficult to prove, and depends essentially upon the
results of the biblico-theological investigation.
(a) Of the real missionary preaching of the apostle we
have only insufficient monuments.1 Yet the discourse upon
the Areopagus (Acts xvii. 22-31) is probably reported with
1 The Acts of the Apostles gives us one example (xiii. 16-41) of the synagogue
sermons with which he sought to gain the Jews and proselytes. But a great
part of this discourse is plainly an imitation of that of Stephen and of the
Petrine discourses in the first part of the Acts, and is therefore scarcely derived
from the tradition of a hearer. No doubt Luke would not have put such a
discourse into the mouth of the apostle, if he, who had heard him often enough
in similar situations, had not been aware that, in his synagogue sermons, Paul
was wont, in a similar manner, to adduce the testimony of Scripture to the
Messiahship of Jesus (cf. Acts ix. 20, 22, xvii. 3). There also occurs in the
discourse much that is peculiar, and which is probably characteristic of the
manner in which Paul was wont to teach, and which may therefore be looked at
incidentally (cf. especially xiii. 29, 31, 33, 34, 39) ; still, in its present form,
the discourse cannot by any means be use,d directly as » source of knowledge
regarding the missionary preaching of Paul.

§ 59. SOURCES OF PAULINISM. 281
substantial fidelity, and gives at least a lively picture of the
manner in which Paul, in his missionary activity, was wont
to find points of contact with the consciousness of the
Gentiles, and shows also from what point he was wont to
start with his Christian sermon. Also the words which-
(xiv. 15-17) are put into the mouth of Barnabas and Paul,
but which were evidently spoken by the latter, as well as
other utterances of the apostle which Luke relates, may be
incidentally employed as illustrations of Pauline views. On
the other hand, the two Epistles to the essentially Gentile-
Christian Church at Thessalonica, which were composed during
his stay for a year and a half at Corinth (Acts xviii. 11), are
written so short a time after the planting of that Church, that
they are, in many ways and expressly, connected with his
original missionary preaching there. The circumstance that
the moral life of the Church was still manifestly unstable
compels him to enter, in an elementary manner, into its
Christian aspects ; and the excitement which eschatological
questions had caused in the Church not only shows with what
emphasis Paul had set forth this point in his missionary
preaching, but also compels him to discuss that matter still
more thoroughly. In both Epistles there are scarcely to be
found any indications of the peculiar anthropology and
Christology of the apostle, or of his doctrine of justification,
and of many other aspects of his doctrine of salvation ; and we
cannot say of all these points that there was only awanting
occasion to touch upon them. But even if this or the other
aspect of his teaching, which is here kept in the background,
was already fully developed by him, and only not yet
expressly emphasized, seeing that he was writing to a young
Gentile-Christian Church, it is still of peculiar interest to see
the shape taken by the teaching and exhortation of the
apostle in their elementary forms. It is characteristic of the
period of his life to which these Epistles belong, that as yet he
had met with no other opposition than that of the hostile,
persecuting, and slandering Judaism, whose attacks upon him
are necessarily presupposed by the apologetical and polemical
portions of the first Epistle (cf. Hilgenfeld in his Zeitschrift,
1866, p. 296, 297; Sabatier, p. 96). Hand in hand with
this there goes his own more hostile attitude to Judaism,

282 PAULINISM.
which has impressed itself especially upon his apocalyptical
ideas.2 (b) The second period of the life of the apostle is filled up
with controversies with the Judaistic party, which reasserted
in his law-free Churches the demand of the law and of cir
cumcision (§ 43, d), and denied his apostolic calling, because
he regarded it as a calling which was meant for the Gentiles
as such, and thereupon grounded the right and the duty of his
law-free preaching. Although the meaning of that demand
was not originally that the salvation which Christianity
brought was secured through the fulfilment of the law, yet
participation in that salvation was made dependent upon such
a fulfilment, inasmuch as it was it that was first to make it
possible for the Gentiles to enter into the fellowship of the
elect nation for which this salvation was appointed ; and the
apostle easily perceived how, thereby, the right view as to
the real ground of this salvation must necessarily be distorted.
The Epistle to the Galatians is the first monument of these
controversies. The demonstration of the divine origin of his
law-free universalistic gospel, and his attack upon the value
which was put upon the works of the law, become of them
selves a repeated statement and establishment of the conditions
to which the salvation of man is attached in Christianity.
The First Epistle to the Corinthians introduces us to the
concrete circumstances of a Church which was rich, but which
had also serious defects ; but, in consequence of that peculi
arity of the apostle, in accordance with which he usually
subsumes the particular under more general points of view,
and seeks to show that the demands which he makes upon
their life are based upon his teaching, almost all the points of
saving truth are incidentally discussed, and, for a special
reason, chap. xv. is devoted to a detailed exposition of the
doctrine of the resurrection. Although the Second Epistle to
the Corinthians is for the most part a personal explanation
2 The rejection of the two Epistles to the Thessalonians by Baur (cf. Paulus,
der Apostel Jesu Christi, 2d ed. Leipzig 1866, and theologische Jahrbiicher,
1865, 2) is logical, only if we once regard the manner of teaching employed in
the four great Epistles as the sole criterion of Paulinism ; it has no other good
ground. The doubts raised as to the second Epistle alone depend essentially
upon misinterpretations of its apocalyptical passage, which finds its full
explanation in the historical situation of the Epistle.

§ 59. SOURCES OF PAULINISM. 283
with his Judaistic opponents in the Church, it is none the
less rich in discussions, from which we can gather his
apprehension of the truths of salvation. The most extensive
quarry for the knowledge of his teaching is the Epistle to the
Eomans. If the leading import of his preaching is briefly
described in i. 16, 17, then the whole dogmatic part appears
to be a well-arranged carrying out of this theme ; for in i. 18-
iii. 20 there is stated the pre-Christian world's need of salva
tion, in iii. 21 -v. 21 the salvation given in Christianity, in
chaps, vi.— viii. the new life of the Christian, and in chaps.
ix— xi. the realization of salvation in Gentiles and Jews.
Even in the practical part of the Epistle (xii. 1— xv. 13) it is
not so much, in my opinion, individual concrete needs of the
Eoman Church which are entered into, as rather Christian
ethics which is sketched in outline.8 In these four Epistles,
which are regarded by every sober-minded criticism as
undoubtedly genuine, Paul has unfolded the whole riches of
his teaching in the manner in which his controversy with the
Judaistic opposition compelled him, and his individuality
enabled him, viz., by giving it a deeper foundation specula
tively, and defending it on all sides dialectically. But,
naturally, in this controversy it must have been that point of
his teaching which was especially in danger that was also
made specially prominent, that was formulated with special
dogmatic precision, and made secure by especially sharp
antitheses. No doubt, it is only in the Epistle to the
Galatians that Paul directly contends against the real heresy
of Judaism ; but even the discussions in the Epistle to the
Eomans, although their direct purpose is only to show how
Christianity is related to Judaism, nevertheless manifestly
have their origin in the spiritual results gained in these con
troversies. Even in the Epistles to the Corinthians, the
opposition to Judaism is by no means throughout the leading
moment which dominates his doctrinal statements; and when
we really make a full use of the fo.ur great Epistles, we learn
that those sides of his teaching which come specially into
3 The farewell discourse at Miletus (Acts xx. 18-35) stands next these Epistles
in point of time, and then the two apologies in Acts xxii. 3-21, xxiv. 10-21,
whose comparatively small doctrinal contents may be used incidentally for the
purpose of comparison.

284 PAULINISM.
prominence in the controversy with Judaism are far from
exhausting its riches. It is true that the point of his teach
ing which was threatened by the Judaists was grounded in
the most important experience of his life (§ 58, h), and must,
in so far, have always had a predominant significance for him ;
but when we rightly appreciate also those sides of his teach
ing which lie more remote from this central point, it appears,
even from the four great Epistles, that the form which his
teaching assumed in these controversies was by no means the
only one which was possible for him, or expressed the whole
compass of his Christian consciousness.
(c) The Epistle to the Colossians was probably written
during the imprisonment at Caasarea. Its external occasion
was the disquieting of the Churches of south-west Phrygia by
a Jewish-Christian movement, which professed to lead the
Church to a higher stage of Christian knowledge by means of
theosophic doctrines, especially regarding the higher spiritual
world, and to a higher perfection of Christian life by means
of ascetic rules. This movement did not directly proclaim
any fundamental heresy; but the apostle perceived that it
nevertheless ultimately threatened the dignity of Christ and
His work of salvation, as well as the healthiness of the
development of the Christian life (cf. Weiss, " Colosserbrief," in
Herzog's Realencyclopddic, supplementary vol. i. p. 717—723).
The thoughts which were stirred up in his mind by this
movement Paul has developed to a greater extent, and with
a more general reference to the further consequences and
dangers of this heresy, in the contemporary circular letter to
the Churches of Asia Minor, which now bears the name of the
Epistle to the Ephesians (cf. Weiss, " Epheserbrief," ibid. p.
481— 48 7).4 Separated from these by, at least, a consider
able interval of time, the Epistle to the Philippians was
written during the imprisonment at Eome. Notwithstanding
the more external occasion, and the more personal character
of this Epistle, it unfolds a great wealth of teaching and
4 The autograph letter to Philemon, which was sent along with these two
Epistles, has scarcely any special importance for the teaching of the apostle.
The apology of the apostle coutained in Acts xxvi. 2-23 stands nearest these
Epistles in point of time, but neither does it afford much doctrinal matter for
comparison.

§ 59. SOURCES OF PAULINISM. 285
admonition, and gives us the deepest glimpses, from various
sides, into the religious consciousness of the apostle. A
leading peculiarity of all the four Epistles of the imprisonment
is the dropping of the opposition to Judaism, which I cannot
find even in the Epistle to the Philippians (cf. my Philipper-
briefi 1859, p. 220 ff). After the necessity had passed away
of establishing and defending the thesis which was maintained
in opposition to Judaism, the almost dogmatizing severity of
the form of teaching which was coined in this controversy
must also have gradually disappeared. The appearance of the
new doctrine of wisdom made it necessary to develope further
those sides of his teaching, on which, also in the evangelic
truth of salvation, there are opened up the unfathomable
depths of a wisdom which satisfies every true striving after
knowledge. It is possible also that the situation of the
apostle in his inactive imprisonment gave him more occasion,
than his restless missionary life had permitted, to penetrate,
meditatively, into the ultimate reasons of the saving truth
which he had proclaimed. Lastly, the new needs of the life
of. the Church compelled him to enter more thoroughly into
the concrete relations of its moral life, and, by means of a
healthy criticism and regulation of these relations from the
standpoint of the Gospel, to oppose the fruitless asceticism to
which the Jewish- Christian theosophy was inclined.'5
(d) The genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles can be main
tained only on the assumption that, at a period of the
apostle's life with which we are otherwise unacquainted, when
he had to oppose a morbid aberration of the religious life and
striving after knowledge, whose concrete form, it is true, we
can hardly discern from his polemic, and when he had to
6 Whether this transformation of the Pauline mode of teaching was effected
by the apostle himself, or by one of his disciples, is only of subordinate interest
to biblical theology. Nevertheless, I believe we must hold by the genuineness
of the Epistles of the imprisonment, since the transformation which is to be
found in them can undoubtedly be explained by the altered circumstances of
the time which they presuppose (see above), — a circumstance which Pfleiderer
has not taken into account (p. 30, note [E. Tr. i. 30, note]), — and since the
special investigation of their biblico-theological material shows that, notwith
standing their peculiarities, the principal traits of the older Paulinism appear in
them, conceived with a clearness and a definiteness and yet handled with a
freedom, which we do not find in any of Paul's disciples, and which we could not
expect in any imitator. It is true, the doubts which specially concern the

286 PAULINISM.
make provision for the partially altered needs of the church
life, which was always developing itself more richly, but also
more and more requiring a firmer guidance, and when he had
such intercourse with his fellow-teachers as we have no other
opportunity of observing him having, his mode of teaching has
undergone a change which appears in many respects even far
more radical than that which is found in the Epistles of the
imprisonment. That Paul was set free from the Eoman
imprisonment with which we are acquainted, can neither be
proved nor denied with certain historical data ; and so these
Epistles remain the sole monuments as well as the sole evi
dence of such a later period in the life of the apostle. Such
being the circle in which criticism sees itself involved, without
being able to come to a definite conclusion, so much the more
depends upon the question, whether the manner of teaching
which is peculiar to them still shows such a connection with
that of the genuine Epistles of Paul that it can be ascribed to
the apostle. But even if, with the Eichhorn-de-Wette school
of criticism, they are to be assigned to a disciple of Paul, and
therefore show a metamorphosis of Paulinism which was
effected in the circle of his immediate disciples, under the
influence of the new dangers and needs, and in the midst of
the more matured development of the life of the Church in
the latter portion of the apostolic age, our Epistles have sub
stantially the same interest for biblical theology. It is only
if, with Baur (die sogenannten Pastor albriefe, Stuttgart and
Tiibingen, 1835) and the Tubingen school, they are to be
placed in the real Gnostic time, that, according to § 1, b, they
cease to be an object of biblical theology. Seeing, however,
that the three Epistles have a strong resemblance to each
other, the attempt which has been often made since Schleier-
Epistle to the Ephesians are not confined to this general question, but still they
do not appear to me insoluble ; nor have I been able to adopt the most recent
attempt to regard the Epistle to the Colossians as the later redaction of a genuine
Epistle of Paul (cf. Holtzmann, Kritik der Epheser=zund Colosserbriefe, Leipzig,
1872), for which Pfleiderer (p. 28 [E. Tr. i. 29]) and Immer (p. 363) have
declared themselves (cf. my review in the Jahrb. f. deutsche Theol. 1872, 4).
As our representation shows, the Epistle to the Philippians shares in the most
characteristic peculiarities of the Epistles of the imprisonment in more important
points than Pfleiderer (I.e.) will admit, so that it is in fact more logical, if one
does not credit the apostle with such a development of his mode of teaching, to
declare, with Baur, that all the Epistles of the imprisonment are spurious.

§ 60. PREVIOUS WORKS ON PAULINISM. 287
macher, to doubt their genuineness only partially, can hardly
be carried out.

§ 60. Previous Works on Paulinism.
While the earlier writers on the subject still represent the
teaching of Paul according to the customary dogmatic
categories, Usteri, Dahne, and, since Neander, the more recent
biblical theologians have attempted to arrange their repre
sentation of his doctrinal system more according to its
peculiarity. (b) The Tubingen school, starting from its
critical presuppositions, has first given prominent emphasis
to the peculiarity of the various groups of Epistles, (c) A
complete representation of Paulinism will have to do justice
to the unity as well as to the diversity observable in its
various forms.
(a) As Bauer, in his " Biblical Theology" (vol. iv.), represents
the Pauline system of doctrine, as well as that of the other
writers of the New Testament, according to the three sides
of Christology, theology, and anthropology, so G. W. Meyer
(Entwicklung des paulinischen Lehrbegriffs, Altona, 1801)
treats of his dogmatics under the categories of theology,
Christology, pneumatology, angelology, eschatology, and
anthropology, and then of his ethics as it stands related to
these six parts. So also Schrader in his " Apostle Paul "
(vol. iii., Die Lehren des Apostel Paulus, Leipzig, 1833). Cf.
also Gerhauser, Charakter der Theologie des Paulus, Landshut,
1816; Liitzelberger, Grunclzuge der paulinischen Glauhenslehre,
Niirnberg, 1839. Usteri (Entwicklung des paulinischen
Lehrbegriffs, Zurich, 1824, 6th ed., 1851) opened up the
way for a representation of his doctrine which did more
justice to its peculiarity; in the first part he treats of the
pre-Christian period, in the second of Christianity, and he
characterizes the different sections by means of special leading
Pauline ideas or mottoes taken out of his Epistles. Dahne
(Entwicklung des paulinischen Lehrbegriffs, Halle, 1835)
develops the Pauline system, even more organically, from its
leading conception, viz. justification by faith ; he first of all
exhibits man's want of a righteousness of his own, and then
the justification by grace, in its various interventions, which

288 PAULINISM.
is afforded in Christianity, just as Neander (p. 654-839
[E. Tr. i. 416 ff.]) had already anticipated him in putting
in the front the idea of Biicaiocrvvr) and its relation to the
v6/j,o<;. Since then, the most of the representations of Paulin
ism have adopted the following method: starting from the
universal need of salvation and its causes, they then exhibit
the work and person of the Mediator of salvation, the new
way of salvation, the historical realization of salvation and its
completion (cf. Schmidt, ii. p. 219-355 [E. Tr. 417-518];
Messner, p. 175-293; Lutterbeck, p. 186-238; Th. Simar,
die Theologie des heil. Paulus, Freiberg, 1864; van Oosterzee,
§ 34 to 44). Lechler deviates from the plan followed by
these writers ; but by no means happily. Starting from the
fact of the conversion of Paul, and confounding the importance
of the appearance of Christ for the apostle's life with the
importance of the doctrine concerning Him in the Pauline
system, he puts in the front the doctrine of Christ as the Son
of God (p. 33-145). Expressly denying that there is any
essential difference of doctrine in them (cf. p. 4), Eeuss
(ii. p. 3-262 [E. Tr. ii. 1-237]) represents the Pauline
theology according to all the thirteen Epistles, deriving from
Eom. iii. 21-24 an arrangement of his system of doctrine
which is substantially the same as that followed in the
previous representations. In particular, his conception of
Paulinism as a dialectic mysticism (p. 249 [E. Tr. 226])
permits very important ambiguities and misconceptions (cf.
also the excellent and thorough exposition of the leading
aspects of the Pauline doctrine in Eitschl, p. 52 to 103).
(b) Partly in the interest of proving the spuriousness of the
smaUer Pauline Epistles, partly for the purpose of assigning
them their standpoint in the historical development of the
post-apostolic age, the Tubingen school has subjected their
theological peculiarities to a more thorough examination than
had been given them in the previous representations of the
Pauline doctrine (cf. especially Schwegler in his nach-
apostolisches Zeitalter, where the Epistles of the imprisonment
are discussed in vol. ii. p. 133-135, 325-338, and the Pastoral
Epistles in p. 138-153. See also, specially for the Epistle
to the Ephesians, his article in the Theol. Jahrh. 1844, 2).
For biblical theology the results of these investigations have

§ CO. PREVIOUS WORKS ON PAULINISM. 289
already been used by Kostlin in the comparative section of
his Johanneischer Lehrbegriff (1843, p. 289-387); and for the
history of primitive Christianity by Plank and Kostlin in the
Theol. Jahrh. for 1847, 4, and 1850, 2. In his "Biblical
Theology," Baur represents the Pauline doctrine exclusively
according to the four great Epistles (p. 128-207, cf. Paulus,
der Apostel Jesu, Christi, 2d ed., Leipzig, 1867, ii. p. 123-315).
Starting, certainly in a too sweeping manner, from the assump
tion that the essence of Paulinism is the most decisive break
of the Christian consciousness with the law and the whole of
the Judaism which rested upon the Old Testament (p. 128 f.),
he, in p. 132, describes the antithesis more accurately as
consisting in this, that Christianity accomplishes that which
Judaism was not able to accomplish, viz. it provides
righteousness before God; he then, from a purely empirical,
religious-historical and anthropological point of view, carries
out the negative and positive theses which are involved in this
antithesis, so that here the religious-historical method of
regarding the apostle is more clearly separated from the really
dogmatic method than it had ever been before him. But
because he has, a priori, conceived of the doctrine of justi
fication as a too comprehensive antithesis, in principle, to
Judaism in general, he then, in order to do justice also to the
sides of Paulinism which are related to Judaism, represents
this as an abstract, general antithesis, which, in its application
to the concrete circumstances of real Efe, becomes a relative
one (p. 181 f.) ; whereby not only the nature of the leading
Pauline ideas, especially that of tticttis, but even the signifi
cance of his doctrine of justification is altogether misconceived.
From faith Baur passes over to Christology, which is followed,
somewhat loosely, by the doctrine of the sacraments and
eschatology. Attaching himself to C. Holsten (zum Evan-
gelium des Paulus und Petrus, Eostock, 1868), 0. Pfleiderer
(der Paulinismus, Leipzig, 1873 [translated, Williams &
Norgate] ; cf. his articles in Hilg.'s Zeitsch. f. wiss. Theol. 1871,
2, 4, 1872, 2) attempts, in the first place, to explain the
genesis of the peculiar Pauline gospel in the following
manner. By a dialectical process, the necessity which
irresistibly pressed itself upon him of recognising a crucified
Messiah made it also necessary for him to conceive of His
VOL. i. t

290 PAULINISM.
death upon the cross as the means for the providing of an
altogether new righteousness, and therefore as the end of the
law ; while the deep ethical act of self-denial, which he had
performed in surrendering himself to this truth, led him to the
mystical fellowship with Christ, in which the transcendental-
eschatological idea of salvation became to him the immanent-
ethical idea, and the source of the new life in the Spirit
(p. 1-27 [E. Tr. i. 1-28] ; cf, on the other hand, § 58, h). In
his exposition of the several articles of doctrine, which is
distinguished by clearness and precision as well as by the
exactness of the exegetical basis, Pfleiderer frequently attempts
to discover different lines of thought, which are either comple
mentary as being an objective-theological and a subjective-
ethical view of the same subject, or form the antinomy of the
new original type of doctrine and the remnant of Jewish
presuppositions of which he had not got rid (cf., on the
contrary, § 58, a).1 Of special importance is also the account
of the conflict between the apostle and Jewish Christianity in
its gradual development, in which, according to Pfleiderer, the
Epistles to the Eomans and the Philippians show an irenical
tendency (p. 275-323 [E. Tr. ii. 3-50]. As regards the
Epistle to the Eomans, cf. Sieffert in the Jahrh. f. deutsch.
Th. 1869, p. 250 ff).
(c) We begin with a representation, in its outlines, of the
earliest preaching of Paul as the apostle to the Gentiles, as it
is to be discovered, partly in the discourse at Athens, partly
in the Epistles to the Thessalonians (quoted simply as i. ii.).
The real doctrinal system of the apostle we also develope
1 Whereas in Baur the Epistles of the imprisonment (p. 226-277), as well as
the Pastoral Epistles (p. 338-351), appear as monuments of different phases of
Paulinism as developed in the Gnostic period, to which much is made to refer
and is thereby placed in a false light, while the Epistles to the Thessalonians
are altogether unmentioned, Pfleiderer still counts First Thessalonians, Philemon,
and Philippians among the genuine Epistles, and places the Epistle to the
Colossians (in which, according to § 59, c, he assumes a genuine Pauline
groundwork) along with the Epistle to the Hebrews and the Epistle of Barnabas
as representatives of a Paulinism which was influenced by Alexandrianism,
while the Epistle to the Ephesians (along with First Clement and First Peter)
shows it in a state of transition to Catholicism, and the Pastoral Epistles (like
the Ignatian) show the Paulinism of the Church in conflict with the heretical
Gnosis. Even the conception of Paulinism in the Acts of the Apostles finds,
at the end of the work, a special representation (p. 495-518 [E. Tr. ii. 228 ff.]).

§ CO. PREVIOUS WORKS ON PAULINISM. 291
according to the four great doctrinal and controversial Epistles.
Here, details which do not cohere with the outlines of his
earliest preaching will be incidentally discussed, and, through
out, it will be pointed out wherein they also agree. Here,
also, we must already point forward to that which is con
cordant in the Epistles of the imprisonment, without making
use of these for the real representation of the system, except
when they incidentally serve as an explanation of it. The
third section then discusses the peculiarities of the Epistles of
the imprisonment. We shall have here, in the first place, to
show, in passing, how far the earlier Paulinism is found, as to
its principal characteristics, also in them. We shall then
have to bring out those points of the doctrine of the earlier
Epistles with which the development of the later Paulinism is
connected, that we may then be able to set forth this develop
ment in its peculiar connection and in its influence upon the
separate articles of doctrine which are here specially discussed.
Lastly, the characteristic teaching of the Pastoral Epistles will
then be discussed. The representation of this in its inner
connection will naturally lead to those points where it is
connected with the earlier Paulinism. Following the same
method, Sabatier (I'apotre Paid, Strasbourg- Paris 1870) has
recently described, in a lively manner, the history of the
development of the Pauline method of teaching, which is in
his opinion, however, also a development of the apostle's
theology, and concludes with a spirited sketch of his system,
in which, starting from the person of Christ as the . principle
of the apostle's Christian consciousness, he developes it in its
psychological, historical, and metaphysical aspects. Immer
follows the same scheme. He discusses the Epistles to the
Thessalonians as monuments of undeveloped Paulinism,
although he regards the second as spurious (p. 212-224).
In his representation of the fully developed Paulinism of the
four great Epistles, he starts from the " Jewish element in the
teaching of Paul," wherein he already finds, in consequence of
the apostle's rabbinical education, a union of abstract juristic
reason and mysticism (p. 247-257), and then considers that
which is specifically Christian in his teaching (the crucified
and risen Christ, justification, the life of faith, the doctrine of
the Church, of the divine decree, and of Christian hope). The

292 THE GOSPEL AS THE WAY OF DELIVERANCE FROM JUDGMENT.
Epistles of the imprisonment, regarding whose genuineness he
has not reached a definite conclusion, he treats of as monu
ments of the Gnostic development of Paulinism (p. 357-382),
and the (spurious) Pastoral Epistles as monuments of weakened
Paulinism (p. 3 8 2-3 9 9).2

SECTION I.

THE EARLIEST PREACHING OP PAUL AS AN APOSTLE
TO THE GENTILES.
CHAPTEE I.
THE GOSPEL AS THE WAY OF DELIVERANCE FROM THE JUDGMENT.
§ 61. The Ground of Salvation.
The preaching of the apostle as a missionary to the Gentiles
is essentially a proclamation of the approaching judgment,
which He who has been appointed by God to be the judge of
the world will administer, and which should lead the Gentiles
to turn to the one true God and to Christ as the divine Lord.
(b) The glad tidings regarding the way of deliverance in this
judgment is also published by the ambassadors of Christ as a
divine call to this salvation ; but it is only in the elect that,
with divine power, it works the salvation-bringing acceptance
of the message, (c) Election is accomplished in baptism, in
which the elect are consecrated by the bestowal of the Spirit
to be God's possession, and become by faith in the truth
members of His Church, (d) The mediation of Christ, how-
2 Besides such writings as confine themselves strictly to individual loci of the
Pauline system, and which will therefore be cited in their proper place, I name
here a few which also treat of various aspects of the system. Among these are :
Ernesti, vom Ursprung der Sunde nach paidinischen Lehrgehalt, Wolfen-
biittel 1855, 1862 ; Die Ethik des Apostel Paidus, Braunschweig 1868. R.
Schmidt, die Christologie des Apostel Paulus, Guttingen 1870. A. Schumann,
der weltgeschichtliche Entwicklunqsprozess nach dem Lehrsystem des Apostel
Paidus, Crefeld 1875.

§ 61. THE GROUND OF SALVATION. 293
ever, is looked at almost exclusively in its bearing upon the
completion of salvation, while, in its bearing upon the work
of the grounding of salvation, it is still kept strikingly in the
background. (a) The discourse of the apostle upon the Areopagus,
attaching itself to what remains of the Gentile consciousness
of God, proclaims, in the first place, the one true God (Acts
xvii. 22-29). Then follows the proclamation of the approach
ing judgment of the world, supported by the fact that God
has already appointed a man who will execute this judgment,
and that He has given the strongest reason to believe in it by
raising Him up from the dead (ver. 31). Upon this message
Paul bases his demand that they repent, and this repentance
will consist in their turning away from vain idols to the living
God (cf. xiv. 1 5), and in serving Him, in view of the impend
ing judgment, according to His will as it is proclaimed by
His ambassadors. Their fate in the judgment will depend
upon their attitude to this demand ; for God is willing to
overlook the past as the time of ignorance (xvii. 3 0). It is \
in a similar manner that Luke makes the apostle usually
characterize his preaching as a missionary to the Gentiles'
(xx. 21, xxvi. 20). Its fundamental thought is, accordingly,1,
the nearness of the Messianic judgment. It was not the pro
mising, but only the threatening aspect of the Messianic
prospect of the future (cf. § 40, d, 50, d, 57, c) that could, in
the first place, be set before the Gentiles, if they were to be
startled out of their sinful life ; for them faith in the Messiah-
ship of Jesus becomes faith in Him as the judge of the world,
upon whom, then, their salvation in the judgment also depends
(xvi. 31). That his missionary preaching at Thessalonica had
not been different appears from his own retrospect of it (l,i. 9,
10). According to this, the motive which had led the Thes
salonians also to turn from idols to the service of the living
and true God was the proclamation of the coming wrath, i.e.
of the impending judgment, which must bring divine punish
ment (2, i. 8) upon all who, without knowing the true God,
walked in their lusts (1, iv. 5). They had learned that Jesus,
who was raised from the dead, was to be looked for as the
judge of the world coming from heaven, and that therefore
also He alone could deliver from the wrath of God (1, i. 10,

294 THE GOSPEL AS THE WAY OF DELIVERANCE FROM JUDGMENT.
cf. 2, i. 7 ff). Seeing that he had begun his preaching in
Thessalonica in the synagogue, where he proclaimed Jesus as
the Messiah promised by God (Acts xvii. 2, 3), Paul could
there, following the precedent of the Old Testament (§ 17, b),
call Him the Son of God (1, i. 10 ; cf. Qebs iraTijp, 2, i. 2),
or even the Christ.1 But although the idea of His glory as a
ruler was already implied for the Jewish consciousness in this
name (cf. § 39, c, 50, a, 52, c), no sufficient point of contact
would have been found in his preaching to the Gentile-
Christians for an allusion to Old Testament promise with its
picture of the king anointed by God, and therefore in it the
name Kiipio<; is always used instead.3 And although this
proclamation of the tcvpioTiyi of Christ drew political suspicion
upon the apostle in Thessalonica (Acts xvii. 6, 7), yet it is
plain from the function of judge of- the world that is assigned
to Him, that this ku/hot^? was thought of in the sense of divine
sovereignty over the world.3 It is as their divine Lord who
has been exalted to heaven, and who comes from heaven, that
Jesus can save the Gentiles in the coming judgment; for
them, accordingly, His quality as the Mediator of salvation is
summed up in this name ; and hence it is this name which is
glorified when the converted Gentiles attain, through Him,
the completion of salvation (2, i. 12).
(b) In this preaching of Paul, which shows to the Gentiles
1 Here also this name, when it stands alone (1, iii. 2 ; 2, iii. 5, and therefore
also without the article, 1, ii. 6, iv. 16), or when it is combined with the name
Jesus (cf. § 48, a, footnote 1, 52, c, footnote 4), has already become a nomen
proprium ; yet 'iwots XputTos, which is so common in Peter, never occurs with
out additions (cf. footnote 3). On the other hand, the name is found inverted
in the formula h Xpmm 'iwrou (1, ii. 14, v. 18).
2 It is significant that, apart from 1, i. 10, it is only in 1, iv. 14, where the
death and resurrection of Jesus are spoken of, that this, His historical personal
name, occurs alone. Even in 1, ii. 15, where it is meant to describe the great
ness of the sin of putting Him to death, Jesus is called the xip ios ; and through
out He is usually called o xipios h^uy (or o xipios) 'l»<rous, mostly with reference to
His quality as ruler (1, iii. 11, iv. 1, 2) or judge (1, ii. 19, iii. 13 ; 2, i. 12, i. 7,
ii. 8). Here, however, the reverential designation of Jesus is always the name
which occurs hut once, and with special emphasis, in Peter (1, i. 3) and in
James (ii. 1), viz. o xipios n^m 'Itjows Xpmr'os (1, i. 3, v. 9, 23, 28 ; 2, ii. 1, 14,
16, iii. 18), or the shorter xipios 'ltitr. Xp. (1, i. 1 ; 2, i. 1, 2, 12, iii. 12 ; only in
iii. 6 probably o xipios 'int. Xp. ).
3 While o xipios ripay is never found without the addition 'itio-oHs or 'Ixo-. Xpiaris,
the simple i xipios stands very frequently for Christ (1, i. 6, iv. 15, 16, 17 ; 2, i. 9 ;
cf. h xiyif xt/piou, 1, iv. 15 ; iv xupiu, 1, iii. 8, v. 12 ; «-im xuplu, 1, iv. 17). This

§ 61. THE GROUND OF SALVATION. 295
a way of deliverance in the coming judgment, there is addressed
to them a joyous message, which God sends to them (1, ii. 2,
8, 9 : to evayyeXiov tov Qeov, cf. 1 Pet. iv. 17), and with
which He has entrusted the apostle and his companions (ii. 4).
God Himself therefore comes graciously to the Gentile world,
which is sunk in sin, and therefore irremediably lost in the
approaching judgment. He does so in the X070? t?)? o-coTi]pla<s
(Acts xiii. 2 6), in which He causes Christ to be proclaimed to
them as the Mediator of salvation, in order that they may be
saved (1, ii. 16 : "va aco9u>aiv ; cf. 2, ii. 1 0). For it is of Christ
that the glad tidings treat (1, iii. 2 ; 2, i. 8, where tov Xpio-Tov
is to be taken as gen. obj.), and it is Christ Himself who has
sent forth the messengers whom God has esteemed worthy of
such a service (1, ii. 6 : XpiaTov aTroaToXoi), in order that
they should bear witness to the divine glory of the exalted
Christ, which Paul himself has seen (2, i. 10 : to fiapTvptov
rjfioiv). Through this message the call to salvation is now
addressed to them (2, ii. 14 : et? o refers to et? o-aTvpiav, ver. 13,
= et? to am^eo-dai), and those who have received it (1, i. 6)
know themselves as chosen by God out of the mass of the
Gentile world (ver. 4). For as, in the Gospels, the knowledge
which brings salvation is not obtained without a divine
operation (§ 29, d), so here also God is thanked that the
readers have received the message, which was addressed to
them by the apostles, as a word of God (1, ii. 13). Here also
it is the message itself, in its quality as the word of God
(1, i. 8 ; 2, iii. 1), which works upon the heart with divine
power; only, that while in Peter and James (§ 46, a, 52, b),
expression also occurs frequently (a circumstance which Gess, ii. p. 55, over
looks), after the manner of the Old Testament, as the name of God, just as in
§ 39, c, 50, a, 52, c. Thus 1, i. 8 ; 2, iii. 1 : 0 Xoyos tou xipiov = 1, ii. 13 : x'oyos
tov 8iou ; 1, v. 27 : lyopxl%u roy xipm ; 2, iii. 3, 5 (cf. ver. 4 : \y xuploi), cf. 1, v. 24 ;
2, iii. 16 : o xipios tyis ilpwvs = 1, v. 23 : o Qios t»s ilpwvs ; 2, ii. 13 : JiyxTv/aivot
vto xuplou = t. &iou, 1, i. 4. It is specially characteristic that such an Old Testa
ment expression as iipipx xvpiou (1, v. 2 ; cf. 2, ii. 2 : >i V- T°" !i"P-)i in which the
xipios- Jehovah is meant there, is transferred, without more ado, to Christ. In
such passages as 1, iii. 12, iv. 6, it can scarcely be decided with certainty whether
God or Christ is meant (an ambiguity which Hofmann, in loco, even regards as
intended), and in 2, iii. 16 it is probable that, as in Jas. v. 14, 15, o xipios is
used first of God, and immediately thereafter of Christ. On the other hand,
that in 2, i. 12 it is meant to describe Christ as our God and Lord (Hofmann) is
little likely, seeing that xipios 'ln<r. Xp. appears so often elsewhere without the
article (cf. footnote 2).

296 THE GOSPEL AS THE WAY OF DELIVERANCE FROM JUDGMENT.
in keeping with their more legal view, it is the new moral life
which it works, here it is already the commencement of the
Christian life in the reception of the word, and that, here, this
effect is already expressly traced back to the Spirit of God
which was operative in the preaching (1, i. 5). And just
because this effect does not by any means always take place
(2, iii. 2), those in whom it does take place thereby know their
election (1, i. 4). Now they know themselves as the beloved
of God (l,i. 4, cf. 2, ii. 13, iii. 5), and may call God their God
(2, i. 12, cf. 1, ii. 2) and Father (2, ii. 16, cf. 1, i. 3, iii. 11,
13). It is through His grace, which overlooks all the guilt of
the past (note a), that He has given an eternal comfort
(2, ii. 16) and perfect peace of mind (1, v. 23 ; 2, iii. 16) to
their conscience, which was terrified at the prospect of the
approaching judgment. Instead of fearing the well-deserved
punishment, they may now, in conformity with this grace of
their God, hope for the supreme glory to which God counts
them worthy of being called (2, i. 11, 12). God has not
appointed them to wrath, but that they should obtain salva
tion through Christ (1, v. 9) ; if, however, they have been
chosen unto salvation, He has also at the same time called
them to the possession of glory (2, ii. 13, 14).4
(c) As in James (§ 54, a), so here also, according to 2, ii. 13,
election is accomplished in a historical act, in which God takes
individuals out of the Gentile world to Himself (note the sig
nificant e'tXaTo) as an dTrapyr) (so we must read with Hofmann),
i.e. as a first-fruits, which is taken out of the province of the
profane life of the world, and which henceforth belongs to Him,
and which, as such, naturally cannot but be saved from the
" In 2, ii. 14, as well as in 1, iv. 7, the calling already appears, as in the fully-
developed Pauline system, to be the divine act of grace through which God
effectually calls the elect to faith, and thereby to participation in the fellowship
of salvation. But although the S xxXwy ipoxs of 1, v. 24 can be taken, as in Gal.
v. 8, without any reference to time, yet in 1, ii. 12 xx\iiv appears, according to
the context, to he the calling activity of God which is continued in the apostolic
exhortation ; and in 2, i. 11 xXvo-is can be understood only of the calling to the
completion of salvation. The idea, therefore, is not yet conceived in the full tech
nical definiteness which it received later ; but even here it is distinguished from
the Old Testament idea of Peter (§ 45, b, note 2) in this, that it denotes a divine
transaction which comes into visibility as distinguished from the inner-divine
act of election ; and here also the idea of a mere summons or invitation (cf.
§ 28, a) is already far remote.

§ 61. THE GROUND OF SALVATION. 297
destruction which is approaching the sinful world (et? o-cott}-
pidv). He does this, however, iv dyiacrfiu) vrvev/xaTos, i.e. by
bestowing upon them, through His Spirit, the necessary con
secration. As in 1 Pet. i. 2 (cf. § 44, h), it is only baptism
that can be thought of ; in it believers receive the Spirit, which
puts them into the condition of being consecrated to God ; for
without the Spirit nothing is fitted to become God's possession.
In 1, iv. 7, also, where this act is already described as the
/cXf)ai<; (cf. footnote 4), Paul reminds them that they were called,
not on the ground of their Gentile uncleanness, but in an act
which consecrated them to God.6 Seeing that it is a condition
which the Spirit is to establish that is spoken of here, we can
not naturally think of deliverance from the guilt of sin ; but
since nothing can be consecrated to God, which is stained with
guilt, and therefore unclean, it is self-evident that the conse
cration by the Spirit in baptism makes him, who receives it,
also assured of complete forgiveness of sin (§ 41, a, 44, h).
Now, however, it is only believers that receive baptism, and
hence the subjective moment of faith is named alongside of
the objective moment of consecration by the Spirit (2, ii. 13).
This faith, it is true, is also a work of God ; for, according
to 1, ii. 13, its existence is owing to the circumstance that
God has caused the elect to receive the message, that reached
them, as a word of God (cf. the correlation of eBk^aaOe . . .
iv vp.iv Tot? iTtaTevovo-iv), and therefore to embrace it with
unlimited trust.0 But although it is, in so far, not possessed
by every one (2, iii. 2), yet the operation of God which begets
it is by no means thought of as an operation that constrains
5 Still Christians are nowhere called xyioi in our Epistles ; for in 1, v. 27
UyUis is spurious, and in 1, iii. 13 ; 2, i. 10 the holy ones are the angels. The
symbolical idea of the xTxp%vi, however, is only a figurative expression for this
predicate of xyiorns.
6 Faith, accordingly, is the firm conviction of the truth which forms the
import of the proclamation (2, ii. 12 : tio-tiviiv tj? xXnhix, opposed to Tio-niuv tu
•d,ii"Su, ver. 11 ; 2, ii. 13 : tiottis xXnfaixs ; cf. 2, i. 10 : itivtivQii to f&xpripiov hp.&v),
whether that import be the proclamation of the one true God (tUtis Tpls to\
Qiiy : 1, i. 8), or the message regarding Jesus as the one who has been exalted
through the resurrection to be the judge and Saviour (Tio-Ttiopciv oti 'lyitr. xTiSxyiv
xx)xyio-Tti : 1, iv. 14). In consequence, of this faith, Christians, who are through
out characterized as believers (1, i. 7, ii. 10; 2, i. 10 ; cf. A t'iittis if-uy : 1, iii. 2, 5,
6, 7, 10), are no longer in the darkness of ignorance ; they are children of light,
inasmuch as they are enlightened by the truth which they have received
(1, v. 4, 5).

298 THE GOSPEL AS THE WAY OF DELIVERANCE FROM JUDGMENT.
the will of man ; for the refusal to receive the word according
to the will of God is, as in § 44, c, described as a disobedience
which is worthy of punishment (2, i. 8), and is traced back to
an unsusceptibihty to the love of the truth, which is rooted
in pleasure in unrighteousness (2, ii. 11, 12). Hence faith
can also be regarded as the first and most necessary service
(to epyov t?)? 7rtcrTe&j?, 1, i. 3),7 a service in which, as in the
performance of every other duty, we must be more and more
strengthened and made perfect (1, iii. 2 : irapaKaXecrai vwep
Trj<; 7r«7Te&>? vfiwv ; ver. 1 0 : aaTapriaai t<z vo-TeprgjiaTa t»j?
¦7rt'o-Te&>? vuSiv). Those whom God has taken to be His pos
session in consecration by the Spirit and in faith in the truth
(2, ii. 13) now form His i/acXwo-ia (1, ii. 14; 2, i. 4).
(d) From > this it is evident that his preaching as an apostle to
the Gentiles is from the first a message of grace, a message which
not only promises a salvation which is altogether undeserved,
but which also itself works in the obedient that which is most
necessary for the attainment of that salvation. But however
decidedly the salvation which is to be brought through the
exalted Christ (1, v. 9) forms the central point of this message
of salvation (note a), yet the mediation of Christ in the
grounding of the Christian's state of salvation is still kept
strikingly in the background. Only once is it mentioned,
and in a very general way, that Christ died for us in order
to procure salvation (1, v. 10) ; there is no more particular
discussion whatever of the saving significance of His death.
Although forgiveness of sins is certainly given to Christians
with their consecration to God (cf. note c), it is not traced
back to Christ ; the divine sonship of Christians is not
grounded upon their justification. It is only because all the
hope of Christians ultimately rests in the fatherly love of
God (note b), and in the sovereignty of Christ as the Mediator
of salvation (note a), that Paul grounds his salutation upon
these (1, i. 1 ; 2, i. 1 : iv Qea> iraTpl k. icvp. 'I. Xp.), and
begins, in his second Epistle, to derive from both the %apt?
Kal elprjvrj which he beseeches for his readers (ver. 2 ; cf.
ver. 12 : tcard t. j(dpiv t. Qeov rgxwv ical icvp. 'I. Xp., and
7 The reference of this ipyoy to love (cf. Reuss, ii. p. 184 [E. Tr. ii. 167] ) is ren
dered impossible by the uyxT» which stands alongside of it. On the other hand,
the 'ipyoy t'kttius of 2, i. 11 appears to stand for every doing which faith involves.

§ 62. THE DEMANDS OF THE GOSPEL. 299
ii. 16); just as his readers are also commended to the
guidance of the grace of Christ (1, v. 28 ; 2, iii. 18), in whose
name the completion of their salvation is founded (2, i. 12).
It is both that direct the way of the apostle (1, iii. 11) upon
which he seeks to help his readers to the perfecting of their faith.
It cannot certainly be thought that, when the apostle wrote our
Epistles, he had not yet worked out, even in its outlines, that
aspect of his doctrine of salvation which treats of the ground
ing of salvation through Christ. But it is also certainly not
accidental, that in his earliest preaching as an apostle to the
Gentiles this aspect is so completely in the background. As
the exalted Lord had appeared to himself as the sole Saviour
and Mediator of divine grace (§ 58, e), so he preaches Him
to the Gentiles, in order to lead them to the way of deliver
ance in the approaching judgment. The fuller knowledge
which he had received, and which he will receive more and
more richly, regarding the interpositions which this revelation
of grace presupposes, is reserved for the more thorough instruc
tion of believers. His initiatory missionary preaching did not
require it ; nor could it communicate it, seeing that its pre
suppositions were still awanting in the case of his hearers.
§ 62. The Demands of the Gospel.
The normal development of the life of salvation is con
ditioned by the preservation of the condition of being
consecrated to God which is established in the believer, a
condition which excludes the vicious life of the Gentiles, and
includes the fulfilment of the will of God, as it is proclaimed
by the apostle by command of Christ, (b) The central point
of its demands is, in addition to faith, love to the brethren,
as weU as to all men, and hope, which manifests itself in
patience and stedfastness. (c) For the fulfilment of these
demands, however, God, in answer to their prayer, lends the
needed strength, by making the apostobc exhortation efficacious.
(d) The Holy Spirit also appears already as the God-given prin
ciple of the new life, as well as of inspiration and prophecy.
(a) In order that they may be led to salvation, Christians
have been translated by God Himself into the condition of
being consecrated to Him (§ 61, c) ; and yet, seeing that

300 THE GOSPEL AS THE WAY OF DELIVERANCE FROM JUDGMENT.
they live in the midst of the sinful world, there is always,
manifestly, the danger that they be defiled anew with sin.
This very fact implies that an ever progressive sanctification,
by means of which they are always anew laying aside that
which is not in keeping with their condition as being con
secrated to God, is the will of God regarding them (1, iv. 3),
and that they must therefore guard themselves against the
lusts and sins of the Gentiles, and specially against unchastity
and avarice (vv. 3, 6), as well as against every form of evil
(v. 22) which defiles men (cf. § 45, d, footnote 6) and makes
them unworthy of their condition of belonging to God. For
the final attainment of salvation, therefore, it is necessary
that man be preserved blameless in the state of holiness
(a/ieytt7TT0? ev dyiacrvvg : 1, iii. 13), and that, too, in the
judgment of God (euirpoadev tov Qeov), and that thus the
condition of being consecrated to God be more and more com
pletely realized in him (v. 23 : dyidaat £/ta? oXoTeXeis), by
body, soul, and spirit being preserved blameless.1 In the
first passage the divine claim is, exactly as in Christ's
teaching and in that of the original apostles (§ 26, c, 47, a,
55, b), expressly made upon the heart (o-Trjplgai igiSiv Ta?
icapBlas a/xe/i7TTou?, cf. 2, ii. 17, iii. 5), because it is God who
proveth the hearts (1, ii. 4), so that every manner of good
pleasure in goodness (2, i. 11, in opposition to evBo/celv iv t$
dBifcla, 2, ii. 12) is demanded of Christians. For the Gentiles,
however, it is necessary that they should learn what the
divinely willed goodness is, in which they are to have delight,
and our Epistles show no trace that the apostle has referred
them for that knowledge to the Old Testament law. The
revelation of the will of God which is appointed for them is
given in Christ Jesus (1, v. 18), and that, too, not in any law
which Jesus has given during His earthly life (as in § 52, a),
but inasmuch as His ambassadors are authorized by Him to
1 In this popular description of man according to all the sides of his nature,
especially seeing it is Christians that are spoken of, who are distinguished from
other men by the possession of the Spirit of God (§ 61, c), we certainly must not,
with Dahne (p. 61), Usteri (p. 415), and Neander (p. 677 [E. Tr. i. 421]), seek
a trichotomy. How far this passage is from being regulative of the fully
developed Pauline anthropology appears already from the circumstance that its
most important idea, that of the o-xpi,, does not occur at all in our Epistles
<cf. Pfleiderer, p. 67, note [E. Tr. i. 66 f. note 2]).

§ 02. THE DEMANDS OF THE GOSPEL. SOI
give them precepts, the observance of which He demands
as their divine Lord (1, iv. 2 : irapayyeXias eSoo/cafiev v/xiv
Bid tov Kvpiov 'Iqcrov). According to ver. 3, the import of
these precepts is nothing else than the will of God (cf. iv. 1 :
to ttgj? Set irepiiraTelv /cat dpecriceiv tgj Qea>; ii. 12 : to irepi-
•TraTelv a^t'tu? tov Qeov tov koXovvto';). These precepts,
accordingly, Paul gives them in the name, i.e. by the com
mand, of the Lord Jesus Christ (2, iii. 6), whether they refer
to their Christian moral life in general, or to individual
special relationships (2, iii. 4, 10 ; 1, iv. 11) ; his exhortation
rests in the Lord Jesus, who has given him the necessary
authority (1, iv. 1 ; 2, iii. 12), and what they have therefore
received from Him (1, iv. 1 ; 2, iii. 6), that they are bound to
observe in obedience to his word (2, ii. 15, iii. 14). Thus
even the preaching of the apostle has a legal side, according
to which it seeks to regulate the Christian moral life of the
converted Gentiles.
(b) As in the teaching of Christ and of the original
apostles (§ 25, 47, a, 52, a), love appears the central point
of all the apostle's precepts to such an extent, that even their
preservation in holiness is made dependent upon its perfection
(1, iii. 12, 13). Alongside of faith, which must also be more
and more established and perfected (1, iii. 2, 10 ; cf. § 61, c),
it is love which characterizes the gratifying continuance
(1, i. 3, iii. 6) and the healthy growth of the Christian life
(2, i. 3). If the question is as to the weapons with which
Christians must be equipped as children of the day, which has
dawned upon them with the light of the Gospel, in order that
they may maintain the watchfulness and the sobriety (1, v. 5 ff.)
which secure them against the impure motions of sinful
inclinations (cf. § 30, b, 46, b), the apostle names, along with
the faith which appropriates the enlightening truth of the
Gospel, the love which fulfils the fundamental commandment
of the Gospel (ver. 8). This love is, in the first place, love of
Christians to one another, or brotherly love (1, iv. 9, 10; cf. 2,
i. 3); for, as in the teaching of Jesus and in Peter (§ 25,
47, a, 52, a; cf. also § 41, b), Christians are brethren
(1, iv. 6, v. 26, 27 ; 2, iii. 6, 15), who are at peace with one
another, assist one another (1, v. 13 f), and pray for one another
(1, v. 25; 2, iii. 1). But the love of Christians extends not

302 THE GOSPEL AS THE WAY OF DELIVERANCE FROM JUDGMENT.
only to one another, but also to all men (1, iii. 12); for,
following the example of the divine love (2, iii. 5 ; cf. § 25, a, c)
which they have experienced, they do not render even unto
their enemy evil for evil (l,v. 15).2 In addition to faith and
love, hope of salvation in the approaching judgment of the
world (v. 8), or in Christ, through whom they have to look
for this salvation (i. 3), appears to be characteristic of
Christians as distinguished from the Gentiles, who have no
hope (1, iv. 13). Because Christians have in this good hope
an eternal comfort (2, ii. 16), with which they can also
encourage the fainthearted (1, v. 14), the apostle can exhort
them to rejoice alway (ver. 16), notwithstanding all the
afflictions which they suffer and must suffer (iii. 3, 4 ; cf.
Acts xiv. 22), and can point them to the joy with which, as
imitators of him and the Lord, they once received the Gospel
in much affliction (1, i. 6); because of it he can also sum up
all his wishes for them in that of a peace of soul that cannot
be shaken (2, iii. 16). This joy which arises from hope will
show itself in the patience (1, i. 3) which endures affliction
after the example of Christ (2, iii. 5),3 and which is already
demanded by Christ and the original apostles (§ 30, a, 46, d,
55, c). With this patience there is then connected faithful
ness under the persecutions and afflictions which they have
to endure for the sake of the kingdom of God (2, i. 4, 5) ;
the Christian does not allow himself to be moved in these
afflictions, although the devil attempts to seduce him by
them (1, iii. 3, 5 ; cf. § 46, d, note 6) ; he maintains the
standpoint which he has taken as a Christian (2, ii. 15:
aTrjiceTe) ; he remains stedfast by Christ (1, iii. 8 : o-Tij/ceTe iv
Kvpim). Thus this demand also ultimately refers to the
maintenance of their faith.
2 When Paul commands Christians to lead a quiet life of labour (1, iv. 11 ;
2, iii. 12), the reason is partly that they may give no offence to their Gentile
neighbours (1, iv. 12) ; a point of view which, according to § 47, d, Peter also
maintains so emphatically. The exhortation to esteem their superiors highly
(1, v. 12, 13) reminds us of § 47, a, footnote 1.
3 Here Ritschl (ii. p. 99, note 4) thinks of their resting their assurance of
salvation upon the love of God and Christ's fidelity to His calling ; but, apart
from the change of meaning which this interpretation gives to vTo/toyri, it is
opposed by the circumstance that, according to the connection with ver. 4, the
point in question in his wish is the fulfilment of his confidence that they will
do what he has commanded them.

§ 6.'. THE DEMANDS OF THE GOSPEL. 303
(c) These demands, however, which are made upon the
Gentiles who have become believers, are by no means thought
of as if they were thereby thrown upon their own resources.
Just as, following the precedent of Christ and the original
apostles (§ 30, b, 46, a, 55, d), he urges them to pray, with
thanksgiving, for themselves (1, v. 17, 18) as well as for one
another (1, v. 25 ; 2, iii. 1), a practice in which he himself
gives them an example (1, i. 2 ; 2, i. 11), so he thanks God
for every progress which his readers have made in the
Christian life (1, i. 2, iii. 9 ; 2, i. 3), and thereby traces it
back to the working of divine grace. Nor is the assistance
of divine grace ever entreated in vain. Upon the faithfulness
of God as the one that calls them there is grounded the
assurance that He will also lead the Christian to the salvation
which He has made him hope for (1, v. 24), by strengthening
(o-Tvpl^eiv, as in 1 Pet. v. 10 ; cf. § 46, a) him for the fulfil
ment of the necessary conditions, and guarding him from the
evil one (2, iii. 3), or by helping him to attain to the com
pletion of his sanctification (1, v. 23). It is God who teaches
him to show brotherly love (1, iv. 9 : OeoBiBaicToi earre et? to
dyairdv dXXrfXovi), and directs his heart unto love and
patience (2, iii. 5). He does this, however, by continuing
His calling activity through the exhortation of the apostles
(1, ii. 11, 12 ; cf. § 61, b, note 4), inasmuch as their word,
which has been received as a word of God, is now also pro
ducing a further effect in them that believe (ver. 13; cf. iii. 2).
So also, of course, the encouragement and strengthening, which
the Christian needs for the unhindered development of his
Christian life, can be wished from Christ and God at the same
time (2, ii. 16, 17, cf. 1, iii. 11). Nevertheless, the doctrine
of the living fellowship with Christ, upon which the new life
of the Christian rests in the later Pauline system, is still
altogether awanting in our Epistles. No doubt the formula
(iv XpiaTm or ev icvpia) which was coined later for this idea
already appears here ; but it may be reasonably doubted
whether it already has its specific meaning.4
4 Certainly this is not the case where the Church is described as being founded
in Christ (1, ii. 14). In an altogether similar manner, however, dead Christians
are called ol vixpo) iy Xpio-Tx (1, iv. 16), and the Christian overseers Tpoi'o-Txpciyoi
ti/xay Iv xupicf (1, v. 12). Although we could take the TiToiSiyxi sv xvploj of 2, iii. 4

304 THE GOSPEL AS THE WAY OF DELIVERANCE FROM JUDGMENT.
(d) On the other hand, the characteristically developed
Pauline doctrine of the working out of the new life in the
Christian already appears at another point. In 1, iv. 8 God is
described as the one who is continually bestowing His Holy
Spirit upon Christians (read : BiBovto) ; and the reason why
He is so described is, that it may be brought out how doubly
inexcusable it is in one to despise the will of God, which is
proclaimed by the apostle, and according to which Christians
should more and more sanctify themselves (note a). This
Spirit must therefore be conceived of as a spirit which urges
men to sanctification from within, as the word of the apostle
urges them from without ; and, in keeping with this, sanctifi
cation, which is traced back in 2, ii. 13 to the Spirit, must also
be already the effectual commencement of a new life. To
what an extent, however, the Spirit is conceived of as the
divinely-given principle of the new life, appears from 1, i. 6,
where the joy of the Christian under affliction is described as
the work of the Spirit (however, cf. § 51, c). As in the
original apostolic teaching (§ 40, a, footnote 1, 44, h, 46, a;
cf. § 18, a, footnote 2), it also appears as that which lends to
the apostolic preaching its divine power and efficacy (1, i. 5),
and as the principle of the gifts of grace, especially of pro
phecy (v. 19, 20). Yet there is always need of proving that
which is spoken under spiritual influence (ver. 21), because a
lying spirit, sent by the devil, can also inspire man and
deceive the Church (2, ii. 2). From the former significance
of the Spirit we perceive how it is that God Himself is con
ceived of as qualifying man for the fulfilment of His demands,
while from the latter we perceive how the apostolic preaching
and exhortation can, as the word of God, accomplish its
by itself in the sense of the more fully developed Pauline doctrine, yet the con
text of this passage, as well as the Txpp-no-io%urlxi \y &tu of 1, ii. 2, shows that we
are to think there of his confidence having its ground in God, just as we think
here of God being the ground of Christian boldness. The o-rhxuy h xvply of
1, iii. 8 corresponds most of all to the later use of the formula ; but, according
to note b, it can also be regarded as meaning stedfast adherence to Christ. On
the whole, the use of the formula in our Epistles corresponds rather to that
which we observed iu Peter (cf. 1 Pet. v. 14 ; see § 46, c) ; and it is natural to
conjecture that we have to do here with a common Christian mode of expression,
which denoted, in the first place, only the Christian state as such, and upon
which Peter and, later, Paul and John, in a more fully developed manner, have
stamped a peculiar meaning in their respective systems of doctrine.

§ 63. THE PAULINE APOCALYPSE. 305
specific working in the commencement (§ 61, b) as well as in
the development of the life of salvation (note c).
§ 63. The Pauline Apocalypse.
Cf. Schneckenburger, "zur Lehre vom Antichrist,'' in the Jahrbucher fur
deutsche Theologie, 1859, 3. Weiss, " Apocalyptische Studien, 2 " (Stud. u.
Krit. 1869, 1).
While the Gentiles, it is true, often remained disobedient
to the Gospel and persecuted its followers, still it was only
unbelieving Judaism that had as yet shown itself to be the
real seat of radical hostility to Christ, (b) This hostility of
Judaism to the Gospel must now increase until it comes to be
a total apostasy from God and His law. (c) Not till then
could there issue forth from it the pseudo-Messiah, who, with
blasphemous arrogance, and equipped with Satanic powers, will
seduce the world to believe in his lies, (d) The Eoman
government, it is true, still stood as an obstacle in the way of
the pseudo-Messianic revolution ; but when once, the Eoman
power being overthrown, Antichrist has attained full dominion,
then the true Messiah must also come to make an end of His
adversary, and even the present generation is to witness this
catastrophe. (a) Paul also starts from the fundamental thought of
apocalyptic prophecy (cf. § 33, b), that, while the close of the
development of the world is brought about by a supernatural
interposition of God, yet the moment of this catastrophe is
conditioned by the development of the world itself, and
especially by mankind having made full the measure of its
guilt, and having thus become ripe for judgment. Hence the
great day of the Lord, which brings at once the consummation
and the judgment, cannot come until evil has reached its
fullest development (2, ii. 2, 3). The only question is, where
in the historical situation of the apostle could such a develop
ment be looked for. That the Gentiles were exposed to the
judgment of God on account of their ignorance of the true
God, and their dissolute, vicious life, was the presupposition
of the whole missionary preaching of the apostle (§ 61, a).
That their liability to punishment was increased, if they dis
obeyed the summons to believe in the Gospel (2, i. 8), that
VOL. i. u

306 THE GOSPEL AS THE WAY OF DELIVERANCE FROM JUDGMENT.
they were exposed to the righteous judgment of God, if they
persecuted and afflicted their fellow-countrymen who had
become believers (vv. 4-6), was self-evident; and ever since
the commencement of the preaching of the Gospel in Thessa
lonica (1, i. 6) they had in many ways made themselves par
takers of such guilt (ii. 14, iii. 3, 4). Nevertheless, the
apostle, in his activity, had never met with a fundamental
opposition from the Gentiles. The evil and unreasonable
people, who everywhere stood in his way (aToiroi ical irovrjpol
dvOpcoTToi), to be delivered from whom was, in his opinion, the
condition of an unhindered activity of the word of God (2, iii.
1, 2), and by whom Satan had already often hindered him (1,
ii. 18), were the fanatical Jews. They had for the most part
remained disobedient to the Gospel (2, i. 8), they had perse
cuted him from the commencement of his missionary activity
(Acts ix. 23, 24, 29, xiii. 8, 45), they had everywhere stirred
up the heathen populace against him (xiii. 50, xiv. 2, 5, 19,
xvii. 5, 13), and had shown themselves his deadly enemies
(xviii. 6, cf. 1, iii. 7). It was against their evil calumnies and
slanders that he had to defend himself, in the first Epistle,
before the young Christian Church, which they sought, by
these means, to turn away from their teacher (cf. § 59, a).
Therefore the whole wrath of the apostle breaks out against
the unbelieving Jews in the middle of that apologetic section
(1, ii. 14-16). As they had once slain the prophets, so they
have put to death the Lord Himself (cf. Matt, xxiii. 30-34 =
Luke xi. 47-49) ; as they have persecuted the Churches in
Judea, so they persecute the apostle and his companions ; as
they please not God, so they are contrary to all men, inasmuch
as they seek to hinder the mission to the Gentiles, and,
thereby, their salvation through the preaching of the Gospel.
It is as if they wished to make full the measure of their sins
(Matt, xxiii. 32), although the wrath of God is already
resting upon them (efdaae) in the highest degree (et? t&o?).
They are therefore the real opponents of Christ and His
Gospel; it is in them that the antichristian principle re
veals itself. It is in conscious opposition to the Mediator
and finisher of salvation that the sin, which He has come to
destroy, must reach its climax.
(b) In 2, ii. 3, Paul describes the impending apostasy as

§ 63. THE PAULINE APOCALYPSE. 307
the point which the development of evil must reach ; for
under all circumstances the sin of the apostate is more heinous
than the sin of him who has not yet known and served the
true God. For this very reason there cannot be any word
whatever of an apostasy within the province of heathendom ;
that which is spoken of can only be the apostasy of the nation,
which, as contrasted with the Gentiles, is the worshipper and
servant of the one God. If we could assume that Paul had
really thought of the apostasy which is foretold by Daniel
(Hofmann in loco), then it would be perfectly clear that it is
only an apostasy within the province of Judaism that can be
thought of; for the direct transference of that which is pro
phesied of the Old Testament people of God to the New
Testament Church is not indicated by anything in the sphere
of thought of our Epistle ; nor is there the slightest indication
in the Epistle itself that Paul expects an apostasy in the
Church, while the whole of the description in vv. 3-12
plainly speaks rather of events which take place outside of it,
and which affect it only in so far as they ultimately bring about
the coming of Christ. Now, in what foUows, this diroaTaala
is characterized by dvofiia ; and hence it is as impossible to
seek the latter as the former upon the soil of heathendom,
which, besides, cannot really be accused of a rejection, in prin
ciple, of the law (dvop,la) as the culmination of its sin, seeing
that it does not possess the divine vo/j,o<; in the specific sense.
Now since, according to 2, ii. 7, the still hidden nature of
this highest form of the development of sin (to jjuvaT-^piov- t?j?
dvofilas) is already working, and since, according to note a, it
was only within the province of Judaism that the apostle had
met sin as an antichristian principle, it is only in the hostile
opposition of Judaism to the mission to the Gentiles that he
can have seen the first motions of that mysterious power,
which was one day to reveal itself in the coming apostasy.
If Judaism proceeded upon this path, it could not but come,
ultimately, to a complete apostasy from the God whom it had
hitherto worshipped, but whose Gospel it had rejected, and
whose ambassadors it had persecuted. Then, however, that
would be revealed, which still appeared concealed, viz. that, in
its deepest essence, the nature of this Judaism, which was
zealous for the law of God, was hostility to Him and His will ;

308 THE GOSPEL AS THE WAY OF DELIVERANCE FROM JUDGMENT.
it would be revealed that it was, in principle, dvofila, as the
apostle, not without a fearful irony, describes the essence of
full-grown hostility to Christ. While the original apostles still
hoped to see the consummation of all things coming with the
conversion of the whole of Israel (§ 42), the apostle to the Gen
tiles, who was persecuted by Jewish fanaticism, and who had,
as a Jew, persecuted Christianity himself, conceived the final
catastrophe as dependent upon the completion of the obduracy
of unbelieving Judaism. Although this view is conditioned by
the circumstances of the time, it is, nevertheless, also charac
teristic of this period of extreme tension between him and his
Jewish past.1 As to the rest, Paul and the original apostles
agree in this, that the definitive decision of the Jewish nation
with regard to the message of salvation is the condition of the
commencement of the end, although it is still hoped by the
apostles of the circumcision that that decision will turn out
to be different from that expected by the apostle to the
Gentiles. (c) As in Daniel, so here also, the highest potentiation of
sin is ultimately concentrated in one person, who is described
as the man of sin, the son of perdition (2, ii. 3), the adversary
(ver. 4), and simply as 6 avofios (ver. 8). By this person
some have thought, erroneously, of a Eoman emperor,2 and
have attempted to explain the description of this adversary
(ver. 4) by means of their apotheoses. But the man of sin
who raises himself out of the apostasy of Judaism, and in
whom its dvofita, which is still operative in secret, comes to
its fullest revelation, can only be a Jew himself, and that, too,
the pseudo-Messiah (cf. Sabatier, p. 104). Christ had already
1 For this very reason it need not surprise us if, in Rom. xi., Paul has already
given up this view ; and yet this is the only argument which is always being still
used against this, the only possible explanation. Gess, indeed (ii. p. 61), also
objects that Paul could not have imagined that the Jewish nation would reject
the law ; but even according to the representation given above, he is as far from
meaning that, as he is from crediting it, according to note d, in ver. 7, with
the overthrow of the xsri^v ; for it is not the appearing, but only the full
revelation of the uyopos in his antichristian character that follows upon that
overthrow (ver. 8). By the mte^w, Gess himself thinks, with Hofmann, of the
angel in Daniel, who is allied with the Prince of Israel, and ' ' comes forth from
the midst" in due time (p. 67 f.).
- In particular, the attempt of Baur to explain the passage, on the assump
tion of the spuriousness of our Epistle, as referring to the first appearance of a

§ 63. THE PAULINE APOCALYPSE. 309
warned against false Messiahs (§ 33, a), and enmity to the
true Messiah could not but ultimately come to a head in their
setting up a lying imitation in opposition to Him. Since
God Himself came to His people in the true Messiah (Luke i.
17, 76), the behaviour of the pseudo-Messiah could only
be described as a blasphemous usurpation of divine honour
and worship (cf. Mark xiv. 64). The description in 2, ii. 4,
which leans upon Dan. xi. 3 6 ff, states that, even when looked
at from the standpoint of the Gentiles, he will appear as a
blasphemer against the majesty of God, inasmuch as he exalts
himself above everything which is called God, and above
every object of divine worship, and, finally, to show his divine
dignity, sets himself down in the temple of God (at Jeru
salem). Even from this it is plain that it is only a Jewish
pseudo-Messiah that can be thought of, since this presupposes
that he regards the temple at Jerusalem as the dwelling-place
of God. The apotheosis of self, which apparently is not in
keeping with the Jewish image of the Messiah (cf. also Acts
xii. 21, 22), is easily explicable from the circumstance that
here it is meant to characterize the blasphemous assumption
of the Messianic dignity, in its inmost essence, as an apostasy
of Judaism from God and His law (dvofita). This pseudo-
Messiah is, however, also the false prophet. Christ had
already spoken of false prophets, who would, with lying
wonders, tempt men to believe in the false Messiahs (Mark
xiii. 21, 22; cf. § 33, a); and the Jewish jugglery of his-
time, which Paul had also occasionally come into contact with
(Acts xiii. 6—11; cf. viii 9, 10), suggested to him the idea.
that this form of the manifestation of evil would also come to
false Nero (cf. Theolog. Jahrb. 1855, 2), is altogether mistaken ; for the warn
ing of the apostle does not presuppose that they had too hastily taken any one-
for the Antichrist ; it rather presupposes the very opposite, viz. that they
appeared to have forgotten what events had still to precede the return of Christ
(2, ii. 3). Hofmann's opinion is that it refers to the reappearance of Antiochus
Epiphanes from the supermundane world ; but for this opinion I can find no
reason whatever either in the echoes of the words of Daniel, or in the parallelism
with the returning Christ, and, least of all, in the xToxxxiTTio-lxi which is
asserted of him, since the latter merely refers to the highest personification of
evil, a personification which comes to the light in a historical person, and is
described by S xy(p. t. xpcxpr., S xyo/tos. Cf., against this opinion, also Gess, who
himself thinks only of a false prophet of Gentile- Christian libertinism (ii. p.
64-67), whose followers are meant in ii. 7, and himself in ver. 3.

310 THE GOSPEL AS THE WAY OF DELIVERANCE FROM JUDGMENT.
a head in the pseudo-Messiah himself, and that he would in
this way imitate the true Messiah with His divine miracles.
The avop,os, who for this very reason cannot be thought of as
a Eoman emperor, will perform lying wonders by the power
of Satan (2, ii. 9), in order thereby to seduce those, who have
not received the truth, to believe a lie, and so become ripe for
the approaching judgment of God (vv. 10-12).
(d) The pseudo- Messiah could only be thought of as the hero
of the Jewish revolution, whose outbreak Christ, according to
§ 33, b, already foresaw. He must proclaim the Messianic
kingdom in the sense of fleshly Judaism, and win the dominion
of the world for the elect nation, in order that he might then
extend his work of temptation over the whole world. It is
true there still stood in his way a great obstacle, viz. the
Eoman world-power and its civil government. As this had
already repeatedly protected the apostle against the attacks
and accusations of the Jews, and of the populace which was
roused to fanaticism by them (Acts xvii. 5-9, xviii. 12—16,
cf. also xvi. 37—39), so he saw in it (2, ii. 6 : to /caTe%ov), or
in its representative, the Eoman emperor (ver. 7 : 6 tcaTe^mv),
the dam which still stood in the way of the advance of
Jewish anti-Christianity, and which was to remain standing in
its way till the time appointed (ver. 7) for its revelation (ver. 8).
Not until the Jewish revolution had, under its Messiah, who
was equipped with Satanic, and therefore with superhuman
powers, overthrown this rampart, did nothing more stand in
the way of the full unfolding and dominion of the anti-
Christian principle ; not until then had the world become ripe
for the judgment of Christ who was coming from heaven.
"The coming of Christ (rvapovo-ia, 1, ii. 19, iii. 13, iv. 15, v.
23 ; 2, ii. 1, as in James, § 57, c) necessarily takes place, when
once the development of sin in Antichrist has reached the
highest point. The coming of Antichrist, which is purposely
denoted by the same word, seeing that it is the Satanic
counterfeit of the expected coming of the true Messiah to
complete the kingdom of God (2, ii. 9), is the immediate
occasion of the latter. The judgment can be no longer
delayed, when once the measure of guilt has become full ; the
coming of Christ must destroy His counterfeit. For that
purpose there is no need of a special battle ; He slays him

§ 64. THE PAROUSIA AND THE COMPLETION OF SALVATION. 311
with the breath of His mouth (cf. Isa. xi. 4), and annihilates
him by the mere appearance of His coming (2, ii. 8). No
doubt the day of this final catastrophe remains uncertain,
because it comes like a thief in the night (1, v. 2, cf. Matt.
xxiv., 43) ; but as Jesus held out the prospect of His return
even during the current generation (§ 33, a), so Paul also
hopes to witness the day of the coming along with the
majority of the Church, since he identifies those who are still
Eving with him, on the whole, with the ¦irepCXenrofj^voi
(1, iv. 15, 17).3 The excitement of men's minds in Thessa
lonica, an excitement which had almost reached the point of
fanaticism, and which it was only with difficulty that he could
suppress (1, v. 1—3 ; 2, ii. 2, iii. 6—15), shows sufficiently with
what emphasis Paul had proclaimed the nearness of the return
of Christ. § 6 4. The Parousia and the Completion of Salvation.
Christ comes down from heaven in divine glory and accom
panied by angels, as He Himself has prophesied, (b) The day
of the Parousia is the day of the Lord, when the divine judg
ment of wrath brings eternal destruction upon all the godless.
(c) Those Christians who have died, however, will, after being
raised up, be gathered together along with the survivors to
the coming Lord, (d) Then commences their enduring life in
His fellowship and in the glory of the heavenly kingdom of
God. (a) In § 6 3 we have already repeatedly met with echoes of
Jesus' words of prophecy, and although it is only in 1, iv. 15
3 The attempts to get4 rid of this clear state of the case by means of exegesis
(cf. Holemann, Neue Bibelstudien, Leipzig 1858-1866 ; and, against him,
Theolog. Literaturblatt, 1858, No. 45) are always supporting themselves with
the argument that Paul could not assume that no more of them would die before
the Parousia. But this assumption is not implied even in the right conception
of his words ; for even according to it they are not at all meant to answer the
question, who will witness the Parousia ; they only assert with respect to the
present generation, as contrasted with those that have fallen asleep, what he has
to say regarding those who will see it. Whoever, therefore, of the present
generation dies (possibly even himself), will then be one of the xm/wiivris ; but
without the presupposition that he and the majority of the Church would not
die, Paul could never, by means of the Ji/tsTs, have applied to himself and his
contemporaries that which he has to say of the « ZfiyTis.

312 THE GOSPEL AS THE WAY OF DELIVERANCE FROM JUDGMENT.
that he expressly appeals to a word of the Lord, the description
which Paul gives of the return of Christ is plainly based
upon His discourse regarding His Parousia. Quite in the
spirit of the prophecy of Christ he taught the Thessalonians
to look for the Son of God from heaven (1, i. 10 ; cf. iv. 16 :
KaraBrjcreTai air ovpavov; 2, i. 7), and in 1, iv. 17 it is
assumed that He comes in the clouds of heaven (Mark xiv.
62). The glory of His might in which He is then glorified
(2, i. 9, 10) is none other than the glory of His Father (Mark
viii 38 ; cf. Matt. xxiv. 30), in which He is to appear on the
occasion of His return ; and seeing that, although the Jesus
who is exalted to be Kvpios already possesses this glory (2, ii.
14), it is then that it is to be first revealed, the Parousia is
called the diroicdXvtyK; tov Kvpiov 'Ivaov (i. 7; cf. § 50, c). In
this divine glory He is, as in the prophecy of Christ (§19, d),
the Lord of the angels ; these accompany Him as the executors
of His decrees (2, i. 7), and are called His holy ones (1, iii. 13;
2, i. 10, after Dan. iv. 10). According to 1, iv. 16, the
return takes place upon a word of command given by God,
while an archangel calls together the angels to form the
retinue of Christ, and the trump of God (cf. Matt. xxiv. 31)
announces to the whole world the coming of the great day of
the Lord.
(b) That the day of the return is the day of judgment, is
already evident from this, that the wishes of the apostle for
the completion of the sanctification of his readers are every
where expressed in view of the Parousia (1, iii. 13, v. 23 ; cf.
ii. 19). From the connection of 2, ii. 1, 2, however, it is clear
that the Old Testament designation of the great Messianic day
of judgment (fj rj/iepa tov Kvpiov: Joel ii. 30, 31 ; Acts ii. 19,
20 ; cf. § 40, d) is transferred to it (cf. also 1, v. 2 ; ver. 4:
rj r}uepa ; 2, i. 10 : r\ tfuepa i/ceivrj). The annihilation of Anti
christ (§ 63, d) is nothing else than the first act of this
judgment. Christ appears that day in flaming fire (2, i. 8 :
ev Trvpl <f>Xoyo<;), i.e. in the symbol of the divine judgment of
wrath (1, i. 10, v. 9 ; cf. § 34, d), as the one who takes ven
geance (e/cSt/co?) upon the godlessness and wickedness of the
Gentiles (2, i. 8 ; cf. 1, iv. 6), upon their careless and secure
worldly life (1, v. 3 ; cf. Matt. xxiv. 37-39 ; see § 33, c), as
well as upon their unbelief (2, i. 8, ii. 1 2) and hostility to the

§ 64. THE PAROUSIA AND THE COMPLETION OF SALVATION. 313
Gospel (2, i. 6). As the judge of the world He brings an
eternal destruction upon all the godless (2, i. 9 : oXedpov
alcoviov ; cf. 1, v. 3), a destruction which is also called dird>Xeia
(2, ii. 3, 10), as in the discourses of Christ and in James
(§ 34, c, 57, d). Once it is described, in general, as dXtijrK,
in order to set forth, in the same manner as we found in the
teaching of Christ and the original apostles (§ 32, d, 51, d,
57, b), the equivalence of the righteous recompense of God in
the very expression (2, i. 6, 7).1
(c) According to § 6 2, a, it is to those who are found blame
less at His coming that Christ brings salvation from this
destruction which is threatened in the judgment (1, iii. 13,
v. 23). It is plain that, in his first missionaiy preaching,
Paul had, no more than Christ and the original apostles
(§ 34, b, 50, c, footnote 5), spoken expressly of the fate
of the dead, seeing that he still hoped to live to -see the
Parousia along with all the faithful (§ 63, d). Hence the
first cases of death in the young Church at Thessalonica had
given rise to the apprehension (1, iv. 13) that the dead would
either not at all be partakers of this salvation, or not in the
same manner as the survivors, but that the latter would rather
have some advantage over the former. Now Paul refers them,
1 Since the double-sided recompense which Christ is to bring to the ixifatns
as well as to the tXifiopciyoi is expressly described as that which is Vixxioy Txpx %iZ,
the righteous judgment of God (ver. 5) must consist in this same double-sided
equivalent recompense, a recompense which brings to the former the txi-^is
which they have brought upon others, and to the latter relief from that which
they suffer. It is in vain that, in opposition to this, Ritschl (ii. p. 113 f.)
seeks to maintain his false conception of the idea of lixtutcmv (cf. § 50, d, foot
note 6) ; for not only through the prominence given to this equivalence in ver. 6,
but also directly in ver. 8 f., the fate of the ixlfioyris in this judgment is described
as a punishment and not as " a means for the completion of the salvation of the
Pxifiouiyoi ; " and, indeed, this consummation is thought of as an exaltation into
the kingdom of God, and therefore as altogether independent of that punishment.
The xvins which is promised them as a recompense is not even described as a
deliverance from those that afflict them. For the very reason, however, that, as
Ritschl remarks in note 7, their reception into the kingdom of God itself is not
thought of as a recompense (and therefore not as a judicial act), the righteous
ness of the divine judgment cannot come into consideration at all as "the
consistent behaviour which guarantees the completion of salvation to the pious ; "
and that the recompense of the Ixlfioyns is mentioned first, "although the
interest of the pious is, primarily, in their own fate," only shows how, in the
mind of the apostle, it is the recompense of punishment that is mainly implied
in the idea of the hxxlx xplo-is.

314 THE GOSPEL AS THE WAY OF DELIVERANCE FROM JUDGMENT.
in ver. 15, to the word of Christ, according to which alt His
elect will be gathered together around Him at His return
(Matt. xxiv. 31 ; cf. § 33, c). To this end the Christians who
are dead will then rise first (ver. 16). The irpwTov is by no
means meant to contrast this resurrection with a second
general resurrection, which would be separated from the first
by a thousand years' reign. It rather appears from the con
text that what is to be made prominent by it is only, that, by
this resurrection, the dead will be placed on a level with the
survivors, before the hour of blessedness has struck for the
latter, and that therefore these can in no wise precede the
former (ver. 15). Then the survivors, along with the dead who
have been thus raised up, will be caught up in the clouds and
borne into the air, in order to meet the Lord who is descending
from heaven (ver. 17). Nothing, however, is indicated as
yet as to the manner in which their earthly bodies are made
capable of such an emancipation from the limits of the earthly
life. Thus, then, there is effected that gathering together of
the elect unto Christ (2, ii. 1 : ¦qfi&v iTriavvayooyr] eV ainov),
with which their salvation from the world, which is delivered
up to destruction, as well as their greatest blessedness,
commences. (d) The life, which the saved attain to according to the
preaching of the original apostles (§ 50, c, 57, d; cf. § 34, h),
is here more particularly described as an enduring (irdvTOTe)
life in fellowship with the Lord (1, iv. 17). So certainly as
we beEeve that Jesus has risen again from the dead, will God
through this Jesus, who has risen again, and who has thereby
been exalted to be the Mediator of salvation, one day bring
with Him those who are fallen asleep (ver. 14). From this
it naturally follows that they will then find themselves in a
condition which is analogous to that of the exalted Christ.
Where God will bring them is not said. But as it is by no
means indicated that Jesus leaves His heavenly dwelling-
place at the Parousia, in order to receive dominion in an
earthly kingdom, ver. 17 can only be understood to mean
that they will be brought to meet the Lord, not for the pur
pose of fetching Him down to earth, but to be led home by
Him. And since the dead and the Eving are one day to live
together with Him (v. 10), the former, however, being raised

§ 06. HUMAN AND DIVINE RIGHTEOUSNESS. 315
up by a resurrection which is of the same nature as that of
Christ (iv. 14), and therefore not to an earthly, but to a
heavenly life, every thought of an earthly reign of Christ is
excluded ; here too, rather, the completed kingdom of God, to
which believers are caEed (1, ii. 12 ; 2, i. 5), is plainly conceived
of as a heavenly kingdom such as Christ had held out the pro
spect of (§ 34, a; cf. the BaaiXeia of James, § 57, d, and the
icXi)povo/j.ia of Peter, § 50, c). It is there also, accordingly,
that they attain to participation in the divine glory (1, ii. 12),
or in the glory of the exalted Christ (2, ii. 14), as in Peter.
It by no means follows, however, that Paul has here already
worked out the idea of So^a, which he had received from the
original apostolic preaching (cf. § 50, c, note 5), in the more
definite manner in which this is done in his later system.

SECTION II.

THE DOCTRINAL SYSTEM OF THE FOUR GREAT DOCTRINAL
AND CONTROVERSIAL EPISTLES.
CHAPTEE II.
UNIVERSAL SINFULNESS.
§ 65. Hitman and Divine Righteousness.
From his Pharisaic past Paul had already brought with
him the view, according to which everything depends in
religion upon the realization of righteousness, (b) Eighteous-
ness, however, is that condition of man in which he corre
sponds with the rule of the- truth or of the will of God, which
is revealed in the law. (c) The righteousness of God consists
in this, that, without respect of persons, He judges and recom
penses man according to his doing, (d) The summum honum,
which He bestows wherever righteousness has been realized,
is the life which has no end.

316 UNIVERSAL SINFULNESS.
(a) That it was through the exalted Christ alone that
salvation was to be obtained in the judgment, and that this
salvation was assured to him ever since God had, in a
wonderful manner, converted him to believe in His Son, — this
was the saving fact from which the development of the
Christian consciousness of Paul, as well as his preaching of
the gospel, started. But since we saw that, in his earliest
preaching to the Gentile Christians, the question as to the
manner, in which such a salvation through Christ had become
possible and necessary, was still kept altogether in the back
ground (§ 61, d), it is only gradually that, in the development
of his consciousness, the need of a complete answer to this
question will have made itself felt; and since the form of
teaching, which he has coined in this respect, is manifestly
conditioned by his opposition to the Judaistic movement, it is
very natural to assume that it was in his conflicts with that
movement that Paul first gave his teaching its characteristic
shape. Now it is true that even the Judaistic movement did
not deny that it was through Christ that salvation was
brought; but by making participation in that salvation
dependent, for the Gentiles, upon their incorporation with the
people of the promise, an incorporation which had to be
purchased by the acceptance of circumcision and the law, it
was always giving fresh support to the idea that salvation was
somehow or other also brought about by a human perform
ance, while Paul had from the first received and proclaimed it
as a gift of free divine grace. In order to put an end for
ever to such an aberration, the question had to be thoroughly
discussed, upon what the salvation and destruction of man in
the judgment really depended; for, from the answer that was
given to this question, it must then further appear, whether
the condition of eternal salvation is to be satisfied or not by
a human performance, and whether the manner in which
Christ has satisfied it still leaves room for any human per
formance whatever. If, in his earliest preaching as an apostle
to the Gentiles, Paul could simply count upon their conscience
bearing him testimony, when he assumed the lost condition of
aU men in view of the approaching judgment, he must now
enter more particularly into the question, how such a
wretched condition has been brought about, and why it is

§ 65. HUMAN AND DIVINE RIGHTEOUSNESS. 317
that man cannot himself perform that which is necessary for
his salvation. If he could formerly simply assume that it was
through the Christ, the proclamation of whom in the gospel
was to lead the Gentiles to the way of deliverance, that salva
tion must also be grounded, it must now be more particularly
shown, in how far salvation was grounded through Him in
such a manner as was sufficient and excluded all other means,
and also how thereby that was effected which men could not
effect for themselves. The idea, however, around which the
whole of this further development of the Pauline theology turns,
is the idea of righteousness ; it is in it, therefore, that that
fundamental condition of salvation must lie.1 Yet Paul has
by no means formed this idea himself. Even the polemic
which Jesus made upon the Pharisaic mode of interpreting
Scripture (Matt. v. 20) shows that they gave special attention
to the question of righteousness. Paul had brought this idea
with him from his Pharisaic past ; even as a Pharisee he had
busied himself specially with the question, how man could
attain to righteousness ; and, to him, this had not been a
question of the school, but a question of life. To him the
idea of righteousness was no idea formed by reflection, it was
the received expression for that which his deepest religious
need desired. As soon, therefore, as he once reflected more
particularly upon the grounding of salvation in Christ, the only
question for him to consider could only be, why man does not
possess and cannot attain to righteousness of himself, and in how
far it is to be attained through Christ and through Him alone.
1 Certainly we cannot say with Baur (p. 132) that Paul has defined the nature
of religion by means of this term, in order that he may be able to subsume
Judaism and Christianity under a higher idea, and so contrast them with one
another. It is true, however, that this term denotes for him the highest
religious-ethical ideal, the realization of which every religion must ultimately
strive after, because it is only in consequence of its realization that man knows
himself to be standing in that right relation to God which guarantees his salva
tion. According to the context of 1 Cor. vii. 19, there is no doubt that the
primary meaning of the verse is only, that that which is of importance is not
the possession or want of circumcision per se, but only that each one fulfils the
commandment of God, according as it bids him continue in the concrete relation
ships of his life circumcised or uncircumcised (vv. 17, 18) ; but inasmuch as
circumcision and uncircumcision are so often, for the apostle, expressions for the
two pre-Christian religions, he could not state the proposition so generally, if
the thought were foreign to him, that the aim of every religion is ultimately the
fulfilling of the diviue will, i.e., however, the realizing of righteousness.

318 UNIVERSAL SINFULNESS.
(b) Paul nowhere explains the meaning of the term
righteousness ; he assumes it as known and granted. It is
altogether vain, however, to seek to explain it by means of
the classical meaning of the word Bucaioo-vvt], as even Schmid
does (ii. p. 241 [E. Tr. p. 430]); the origin of the idea is
rather to be sought in the Old Testament. There P"JJf or n^V
denotes, first of aE in the physical sense, that which is
straight, normal. In Lev. xix. 36, pnv ^K», ?Vl vnx are
right balances and weights ; in Ps. xxiii. 3, PTC v|VP are
right, straight paths; and in Joel ii. 23, God gives the rain
i"1!?"!??, i-e. according to a normal measure. Applied to that
which is moral, the word denotes the normal character of
moral conduct. Looked at from the religious point of view,
however, the rule of moral conduct is not the nature of man
himself or his relation to other men, but the nature or will of
God and man's relation to Him. He alone is righteous, who
is righteous in the judgment of God (Bom. ii. 13 : oY/eato?
irapd Qem ; cf. 2 Thess. i. 6 : Bltcaiov Trapd Qea>). Eighteous-
ness, therefore, is not an individual virtue, in accordance with
which we give, in word and deed, to each man that which is
his due; it is the quality or condition of man in which he
corresponds with the rule of the divine will.2 So Deut. vi. 2 5
already explains the meaning of the term njJiy j so we found
it in the teaching of Jesus (§ 24, a), in Peter and James
(§ 45, c, 53, h). But while here the pious men of the Old
Testament are throughout called BUaioi, without its being
thereby assumed that their religious-ethical life was of an
absolutely normal character, Paul, who had already learned in
his Pharisaic past to seek the essence of salvation-bringing
righteousness in the most painful fulfiEing of 'the divine will,
has given the term a more precise dogmatic meaning, and,
with the term so defined, has then raised the question as to
the way of obtaining salvation. If, however, the question is
as to the absolutely perfect fulfilment of the divine will,
then the knowledge of it, or the truth, is of primary import-
2 In Rom. vi. 13 the antithesis of "bixxioeim is xSixlx ; and although this word,
along with others from the same root, is also used of unrighteousness in the
narrower sense (Gal. iv. 12 ; 1 Cor. vi. 7, 8 ; 2 Cor. xii. 13, vii. 2), it usually
stands, in the comprehensive sense, for the opposite of that normal condition
(1 Cor. xiii. 6, vi. 1, 9 ; Rom. i. 18, 29, ii. 8 ; cf. 2 Thess. ii. 10, 12).

§ 65. HUMAN AND DIVINE RIGHTEOUSNESS. 319
ance.3 Now, however, the Jews possess a copied representa
tion (fi6pcpcoai<;) of the truth in the Old Testament law (Eom.
ii. 20) with its ordinances (ii. 26, viii. 4), inasmuch as it
teaches them to know the normative will of God, and to
prove thereby the difference between good and evil (ii. 1 8 ;
cf. xii. 2). Accordingly, the truth which is revealed in the
law states, in conformity with the divine will, what is good
and evil, in order that, in consequence of its demand, the
former may be done.4 In the estimation of him who had
been a Pharisee, and who looked speciaEy at the legal side
of the Old Testament revelation, righteousness was to be
attained only by the doing of the good which is described in
the law as the will of God, just as, in his opinion, even the
remnant of morality, which is to be found in heathendom, is
a iroieiv Ta tov vofxov (Eom. ii. 14). It is by no means
3 The truth in the absolute sense is that which we really know of God and
divine things in consequence of revelation, and therefore in an authentic
manner. Thus, in Rom. i. 25, h xXhhtx tou @iou stands for the true nature of
God as known in consequence of the revelation of nature (cf. i. 18 : « xxUux
simply) ; and in 2 Thess. ii. 10, 12, 13, Gal. v. 7, 2 Cor. iv. 2, vi. 7, n xxMux
is the substance of the divine will relating to salvation as revealed in the Gospel
(cf. Gal. ii. 5, 14 : k xxM. rou ilxyy.xiou). Elsewhere h xXriiux likewise denotes
the agreement of a matter of fact with a statement or a judgment (2 Cor. xii. 6,
vii. 14 ; Rom. ix. 1 ; cf. Rom. ii. 2), corresponding with the adjective xXnhy'os
(1 Thess. i. 9), or, conversely, the agreement of a human statement with the
matter of fact, i.e. subjective truthfulness (1 Cor. v. 8 ; 2 Cor. vii. 14, xi. 10 ;
Rom. iii. 7, xv. 8), corresponding with the adjective ikiHs (2 Cor. vi. 8 ; Rom.
iii. 4). If now, to the apostle, the principal matter in religion is not any
theoretical knowledge of the divine nature, but the knowledge of the divine will,
inasmuch as its fulfilment produces righteousness, then, to him, the leading
import of all truth will be the substance of this divine will, and thus the truth
can be thought of as an ethical principle, as the rule of righteousness. In this
sense iTuSiiy tji xXnklx, stands opposed to Tiiho-lxi t£ xiixia. (in the com
prehensive sense, Rom. ii. 8 ; cf. 1 Cor. xiii. 6), and in 2 Cor. xiii. 8 it is the
truth which is realized by to xxXoy Toi(iy (ver. 7 = tou7v xxxoy ,k»Sw).
4 This more general description of that which makes up the contents of right
eousness is found by no means unfrequently. Paul speaks of the doing of that
which is good (n xyxi'oy, Gal. vi. 10 ; 2 Cor. v. 10 ; Rom. ii. 10, vii. 19, ix. 11,
xiii. 3 ; cf. Rom. xii. 9, 21 ; 1 Thess. v. 15) or honourable (to xxxiy, Gal. vi. 9 ;
2 Cor. xiii. 7 ; Rom. vii. 18, 21 ; cf. Gal. iv. 18; 2 Cor. viii. 21; Rom. xii. 17;
1 Thess. v. 21 ; 2 Thess. iii. 13), and of ipyx xyxli. (2 Cor. ix. 8 ; Rom. ii. 7, xiii. 3 ;
2 Thess. ii. 17). On the other hand, cf. the analogous expressions : tpxuXoy
Tpxro-uy (Rom. ix. 11) or ™ Toynpiy (Rom. xii. 9 ; cf. Gal. i. 4 ; 1 Thess. v. 22),
t»- xxxh woiuy (2 Cor. v. 10, xiii. 7 ; Rom. ii. 9, iii. 8, vii. 19, xiii. 4, 10 ; cf.
1 Cor. x. 6, xiii. 5 ; Rom. xii. 17, 21, xiv. 20, xvi. 19 ; 1 Thess. v. 15), 'ipym
xxxoy (Rom. xiii. 3).

320 UNIVERSAL SINFULNESS.
implied in this that righteousness is conceived of only as an
external performance as distinguished from the disposition
(cf. Eeuss, ii. p. 22 [E. Tr. ii. p. 18]) — a perversity which lay,
no doubt, in the practice, but by no means in the principle
of Pharisaism; but it is implied that it is looked at as a
righteousness which is to be realized by a human performance,
and to be attained by a definite course of conduct.
(c) It is only in Eom. iii. 5 that, for reasons which lie in
the context, the term Bucaioavvr] is so applied by Paul to God
that, as in the case of man, it denotes the normal behaviour
in general.5 But even here it by no means denotes " the
consistency of God's way of acting " in abstracto, and still less
in its one-sided reference to the men who are appointed to
salvation (Eitschl, ii. p. 115) ; it denotes the character of His
behaviour as corresponding with the rule set up by Himself.
Since this, however, is really self-evident, the righteousness of
God is usually spoken of only in reference to the fact that,
in His judgment of men, and in His behaviour towards them,
He binds Himself to the rule of justice which He has set up
(cf. § 50, d, footnote 6), i.e. it is thought of almost exclusively
as judicial, as is also most frequently the case in the Old
Testament (Ps. vii. 11, ix. 4; Jer. xi. 20; cf. Ps. xcvii. 2,
Ixxxix. 14). He wiE judge the world in righteousness (Acts
xvii. 31). It is not because " He visits the unrighteous also
with His wrath, instead of leading all men to salvation by
His righteousness" (Eitschl, ii. p. 115), but because the un
righteousness of men only contributes to the establishing of
the righteousness of God, and is thus in keeping with the
5 In Rom. iii. 4, viz., the point in question is that, by keeping His word even
though men are unfaithful, God proves Himself to be true (cf. ver. 7 : h xxMux
tov 6iov), while every one who maintains that the unfaithfulness of men could
do away with the faithfulness of God is made a liar. In this case, therefore,
¦ the unfaithfulness of men only contributes to the manifesting of the faithful
ness of God under the severest test ; and since, in ver. 5, the former is looked
at under the general point of view of xb'ixix, the latter is, by way of contrast,
called "hmxioo-iyvi, because truthfulness, or the keeping of his word, is, in the case
of man, a part of his moral normal behaviour. Here, however, the transference
of this idea to God was natural in consequence of the circumstance that, in the
passage quoted in ver. 4 (Ps. Ii. 4), God was, with a daring anthropomorphism,
represented, as it were, as an accused person who is found innocent (righteous)
in the judgment, and therefore comes forth from it as a conqueror. Even
here, on the other hand, %ixxio<riyn and tIitis are by no means treated as
synonyms, as Ritschl (ii. p. 115) maintains.

§ 65. HUMAN AND DIVINE RIGHTEOUSNESS. 321
highest rule set up by Himself, according to which every
thing which men do is to serve His purposes, that the
question arises in Eom. iii. 5, whether it is not unrighteous
in God to visit them with the wrath which falls upon those
who oppose His purposes. Nor is it upon the assumption that
" the wrath of God is required for the judgment of the world "
that Paul bases the negation of this question ; but on the
assumption that only the righteous one can judge the world,
and that it is acknowledged that God will do so, he, in
ver. 6, a priori, strikes down every doubt as to the righteous
ness of God. It would be a contradiction if, in giving judg
ment, the judge were not bound by the same rule by which
He has, as lawgiver, bound man. For this there is required,
first, negatively, that He has no respect of persons (cf. Lev.
xix. 15), i.e. takes no account of any condition of the person
who is to be judged, that does not stand in connection with
the subject of the judgment (Gal. ii. 6 : Trpoaanrov @eo?
dvOpdnrov ov XafiBdvei ; cf. Eom. ii. 11; Col. iii. 2 5 ; Eph.
vi. 9) ; positively, that His judgment is icaTa dXr\Qeiav (Eom.
ii. 2), i.e. in conformity with the real matter of fact, and the
real matter of fact of righteousness is constituted by the
perfect fulfilment of the divine will.6 The righteousness of
God will therefore show itself in this, that He bears Himself
in one way towards him who is found Biicaiot; according to
this criterion, and in another way towards the aSt/co? ; it is ex
pressly described as the essence of the divine BiKatoicpiala (ver. 5),
that He renders to every man according to his works (ver. 6)7
6 God can therefore take no account of the circumstance that man bears
himself as a friend of the divine will by his xplyuy ; He can take notice only of
what man does (Rom. ii. 1, 2). Not the hearers of the law are righteous in the
judgment of God, but the doers of the law will be justified (ver. 13). Here it
is plain from the parallelism that IixxioZi (= pvnyn, Ex. xxiii. 7) stands sensu
forensi (cf. Rom. iii. 4 after Ps. Ii. 4) for the judgment of God, whereby He
declares one to be Vixxios, as in Matt. xii. 37 and in James (§ 53, 6). The con
demnation pronounced by God stands opposed to this justification (xxrxxpifi.x,
Rom. v. 16, 18, viii. 1 ; xxTxxp'miy, 1 Cor. xi. 32 ; xxTxxpmi;, 2 Cor. iii. 9) ; for
this condemnation xpipx, which stands literally sensu medio (Rom. v. 16), is
also often used (Gal. v. 10 ; 1 Cor. xi. 29, 34 ; Rom. ii. 2, 3, iii. 8, xiii. 2 ; cf.
xplyuy, sensu medio : 1 Cor. v. 13 ; Rom. ii. 16, iii. 6 ; more frequently sensu
malo: 1 Cor. xi. 31, 32 ; Rom. ii. 3, 12, iii. 7 ; 2 Thess. ii. 12).
, 7 In consequence of his conception of the idea of righteousness, Ritschl (ii.
p. 115) make3 the righteousness of God refer here also to the completion of the
VOL. I. x

322 UNIVERSAL SINFULNESS.
Where this is not the case, as in the history considered
in ix. 10-13, the doubt arises: is there not un-right-
eousness with God (ver. 14). Wherever sins are passed by
unpunished, and therefore it appears as if God does not
deal with the sinner in such a manner as corresponds with
his behaviour, a demonstration of His righteousness is required
(iii. 25). Even in the passage quoted in Eom. ix. 27 (Isa.
x. 22) righteousness is that which determines His behaviour
towards sinners (cf. also 2 Thess. i. 6, 7, for which see § 64, 5,
footnote 1). For the very reason, therefore, that the righteous
ness of God recognises and deals with human righteousness
as such, as well as with human unrighteousness, the salvation
of man depends upon his attaining to Bi/caiocrvvr) (note a).
(d) What the salvation is which man has to expect from
God as the one who is moved by His righteousness to a
corresponding behaviour, appears from this, that not only in
quotations from the Old Testament (Eom. ix. 26, xiv. 11),
but also elsewhere (2 Cor. iii. 3, vi. 16 ; 1 Thess. i. 19), the
true God is called the living God. Life is so great a blessing,
because it is participation in a good which is essential to
God. Even in the Old Testament it is the greatest good ;
in Deut. xxx. 19 it appears expressly as the sum-total of all
the blessing which is to be expected from God, and therefore
as the consequence of the doing of His commandments (Lev.
xviii. 5, cf. Gal. iii. 12 ; Eom. x. 5) or of righteousness (Hab.
ii. 4; Prov. xi. 19).8 In order, therefore, that this greatest
blessing may be attained, there must be the realization of
righteousness. It is true the bestowal of life upon the
righteous is nowhere expressly traced back by Paul to the
righteousness of God (yet cf. Eom. ii. 7 with ver. 5 f.) ; but
this is only in keeping with the fact that, as we shall see, the
salvation of the righteous, and regards His wrath against the unrighteous as a
means to that end. This idea, however, is simply dragged in ; for according to
the exposition that follows, ver. 6 points to the double-sided recompense.
8 That righteousness and life are still correlative terms to the apostle, appears
from Rom. v. 17, 21, and is very evident in Gal. iii. 21, according to which
that which is in a position to give life must also be able to work righteous
ness, as well as in Rom. v. 18, according to which the sentence of justification,
which declares one to be righteous, is described as pertaining to life (Sixxlao-is
%,uris). Accordingly, even the law, the fulfilment of which works righteousness,
was given unto life (vii. 10).

§ 66. THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF A RIGHTEOUSNESS OF OUR OWN. 323
righteousness of man is never actually realized by himself,
and that therefore Efe is never awarded by a simple judg
ment of divine righteousness ; its bestowal is rendered possible
only by an interposition of divine grace. If now, in the Old
Testament, this life is conceived of primarily as earthly (it
being, of course, self-evident that long life is a blessing only
when it is connected with weEbeing and happiness (Deut.
v. 33, xxx. 20), without this being implied in the word), it
appears in Paul in the pregnant sense as a life which has no
end, even where it is not expressly called eternal, as in Gal.
vi. 8, Eom. ii. 7, v. 21, vi. 22, 23. How this Efe is realized
notwithstanding the fact that death reigns in humanity, we
shall see later. In this sense life or eternal life had already
been called the greatest blessing in the discourses of Jesus as
weU as in Peter and James (cf. § 64, d). On the other hand,
there is no need whatever, for this line of thought, that the idea
should be transformed into that of spiritual life, an idea which
has its place, in Paul, in a totally different connection.
§ 66. Tlie Impossibility of a Righteousness of our own.
To the Christian consciousness it is, & priori, a matter of
certainty, that the possibility of man's attaining to righteous
ness by himself has never been and never can become an
actuaEty. (b) This, it is true, is not owing to the fact that
the works of the law as such are not in a position to work
righteousness; it is owing to the fact that, according to
experience and Scripture, every one's fulfilment of the law is
imperfect, '(c) The deeper reason of this is the dominion of
sin in man, a dominion which manifests itself in the passive
condition into which lusts have put him, and in his
inability to do the good which he acknowledges and wills.
(d) On account of this sin, however, he is exposed to the
divine judgment of wrath, which brings upon him the death
which is followed by no life, or destruction.
(a) If the doers of the law are accounted righteous, or are
righteous in the judgment of God (Eom. ii. 13), there is
given, even to pre-Christian humanity, the, possibEity of
men's realizing righteousness by themselves, and thus of
attaining to salvation: for in the law of Moses God has revealed

324 UNIVERSAL SINFULNESS.
His will to the children of Israel (ver. 18), and He has
written the work of the law in the hearts of the Gentiles
(ver. 15). As such a righteousness would be brought about
by the fulfilling of the law, it would be owing to the law (x. 5 :
% Bt/caiocrvvr) r) iic tov vofiov), inasmuch as the law, as the
revelation of the divine will, has made it possible ; it would,
however, be also one's own (ver. 3 : rj IB la Bitcaioavvrf), inas
much as it is a righteousness which has been earned by man
by bis fulfilment of the divine will (cf. Phil. iii. 9). Such a
fulfilling of the law man could boast of before God, he could
set it before Him as his merit. If Abraham has really been
justified in consequence of works which he has done, and by
which he has fulfilled the will of God, then he has something
of which he can glory (Eom. iv. 2). The apostle is so con
vinced that this is the necessary consequence of that hypo
thetical premiss, that he argues from it as to the admissibility
of that premiss. Because, viz., looking at the matter from
the Christian standpoint, he is, ti priori, convinced that no
man (and therefore not even Abraham) has or can have any
thing of which he can glory before God (aXX.' ov 7r/3o? Qeov,
scil. Kav%r]ua %et), neither can Abraham have been justified
by works. The line of thought is the same, when, in iii. 28
(read ovv), Paul deduces his thesis, that man is justified with
out works of the law, from the fact that the glorying of man
would not be excluded by the legal way of obtaining salvation
(ver. 27). The reason, however, why the apostle assumes it
as self-evident that the realization of righteousness, and there
fore the attaining of salvation, cannot be connected with a
glorying of man, is that, to him, Christianity is a dispensa
tion of grace (§ 58, b), and divine grace excludes all human
merit and glorying (iv. 4).1 In accordance with this it must
1 The whole manifestation of Christ, and especially His death, by means of
which the grace of God is brought to us, would have been purposeless, if
righteousness could have been actually realized in that way which was possible
in itself. In that case it would only have been necessary to point each one to
this way. If it is by the law that righteousness is brought about, then Christ
has died in vain (Sapixy), i.e. without reason, unnecessarily (Gal. ii. 21) ; the
same end could have been reached in another way. If we are justified on the
ground of the law (ev y>^»), i.e. by its fulfilment, the bond is broken which
connects us with Christ (xxTnpyvfaTt xto tov Xpurrov) considered as the ground
of our salvation ; there likewise ceases our connection with divine grace (tks
X«-piros \\it'wxti, Gal. v. 4) ; in that case it has nothing more to do to us, since,

§ 66. THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF A RIGHTEOUSNESS OF OUR OWN. 325
be a matter of certainty to the Christian consciousness, that
no man is declared to be righteous in God's sight on the
ground of the law (Gal. iii. 11), i.e. that no man will ever
be justified before God on account of works of the law (Eom.
iii. 20).
(o) The impossibility of becoming righteous by means of
works of the law can, however, also be proved by facts. This
impossibility, indeed, is by no means owing to the circum
stance that works of the law are in themselves an imperfect
fulfilment of the divine will, as if by its fulfilment were under
stood only an external performance of all manner of prescrip
tions from sensuous motives, as even Neander (p. 660 ff.
[E. Tr. i. 418 ff.]) and Usteri (p. 57 ff.) think (cf. on the
other hand, Pfleiderer, p. 78 [E. Tr. i. 77]). Nowhere does
Paul distinguish between the doing of the law, which, accord
ing to Eom. ii. 13, can of itself justify, and the works of the
law, by which no one is justified (iii. 20). If the law were
not the perfect revelation of the divine will (which, however,
it is according to § 65, b), then only a completion of the law,
and not a new way of salvation, would be given in Christianity.
Paul, however, who was well aware that the law demands the
love of our neighbour (xiii. 10) and forbids wicked lusts (vii.
7), cannot have understood by the demands of the law a sum
of external rules.2 The works of the law, per se, could there
fore easily justify, if they only existed ; and they should do
so, for the law was given unto life (vii. 10) ; but, as a matter
of fact, they never exist to such an extent that they could alone
secure the righteousness of man.3 Paul starts from the fact of
according to His righteousness, God already declares the doer of the law to be
righteous. 2 It is also altogether arbitrary to understand by the 'ipyx per se, or by the miuy
and Tpxa-o-iiy which the law demands, mere external performances. Among the
%fyx t*s o-xpxis (Gal. v. 19), which are described in ver. 21 as a, Tpxo-o-uy, there
are counted also such dispositions as 'ixfy"> &*-<'*< Ovp'S, Ipihlx tptiyos (cf. 2 Cor.
xi. 15), and, conversely, even the preaching of the gospel (1 Cor. iii. 13-15, xv.
58, xvi. 10) and every truly Christian mode of living (Gal. vi. 4 ; 2 Cor. ix. 8)
are 'ipyx ; yea,' Paul even speaks, in 1 Thess. i. 3, of an ipyoy tUtiois.
3 Paul asserts the solidarity of all the individual commandments of the law as
decidedly as Jesus (§ 24, c) and James (ii. 10). Whoever once submits himself
to the law by the acceptance of circumcision, thereby comes under the obligation
of keeping the whole law (Gal. v. 3) ; and the law pronounces its curse upon
every one who does not keep all its commandments (iii. 10, after Deut.
xxvii. 26).

326 UNIVERSAL SINFULNESS.
experience, that no one has kept all the commandments ; for all
have sinned (Eom. v. 12), all fall short of the glory which God
bestows when He declares one to be righteous (iii. 23), and
stand under the curse of the law which excludes the blessing
of Abraham (Gal. iii. 9, 10).4 The moral corruption of
heathendom, as Paul describes it in Eom. i., required no proof ;
but even the Jews, notwithstanding all their apparent zeal for
the law, nevertheless fail to keep it (ii. 1, 2), and that, too,
not because their fulfilment is an external one and proceeds
from impure motives, but because, in their doing, they trans
gress the simplest commandments, such as the sixth and
seventh (vv. 21, 22), and by this transgression dishonour the
law of God, whose honour demands the keeping of His com
mandments (ver. 23). What experience teaches, Scripture
confirms. In a series of Old Testament passages (Eom. iii.
* Ritschl (ii. p. 306, 311), indeed, maintains very emphatically that the actual
non-fulfilment of the law, or the impossibility of fulfilling it, was not, for the
apostle, the real ground of the impossibility of justification by the works of the
law and of the appointment of a new way of justification. But from the argu
mentation in Gal. iii. 11, 12, to which he appeals, it only follows that the
thoroughgoing non-fulfilment of the law, which can never be proved empiri
cally, is, a priori, a matter of certainty to the apostle, because of the incompati
bility of faith as the condition of salvation, which is borne witness to in prophecy,
with the condition of doing which is stipulated in the law. Pfleiderer (p. 78
[E. Tr. i. 77] ) is right in distinguishing this logical ground from that real
ground ; but we cannot even say that the latter was for Paul "only secondary
and derived, " since he felt the need of seeking to discover an actual proof of that
of which he was, & priori, assured (note a). Above all, however, that assertion
of Ritschl's rests upon the altogether untenable presupposition that the discus
sions in Rom. ii. 6-13 were only an argumentum e concessis, which was meant
to refute the Pharisaic assumption of a double-sided recompense of reward and
punishment (p. 152, 155). The Pauline thesis, that, according to the original
appointment of God, man could and should be justified by works of the law only
in consequence of a righteous recompense, rests no doubt upon his conception of
the Old Testament, which, according to § 58, b, looks one-sidedly at its legal side
(cf. Ritschl, p. 305, 308) ; but its force is by no means weakened, as Ritschl (p.
314) thinks, by the circumstance that, according to it (under the empirical
circumstances), a>universal punishment would be necessary. Paul rather finds
in that very circumstance a proof of that of which he was convinced, d priori,
viz. of the necessity of a new way of justification. For this very reason, neither
is there in Rom. ii. 6-13 any " antinomy " with liis doctrine of the impossibility
of the fulfilling of the law ; for the imagined "ordinary moral and specially
Jewish legal view," from which this passage is written according to Pfleiderer
(p. 79 [E. Tr. i. 78] ), is, according to the apostle, only the expression of that
original appointment of God, which was hindered from attaining its purpose by
the coming in of human sin.

§ 06. THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF A RIGHTEOUSNESS OF OUR OWN. 327
10-18) Paul finds a description of the universal sinfulness of
man ; for in ver. 1 9 he declares expbcitly that, according to
the intention of Scripture, the Jews should apply these passages
also to themselves ;5 and, according to Gal. iii. 22, the Scrip
ture has shut up everything under sin, by declaring that all
men, with all that they do, are equally sinful. This very fact is
likewise the presupposition of the preaching of Jesus (§21, a),
as well as of the original apostles, only that for Paul, with
his idea of Bucaiocrvvrj (§ 65, h), it involves also the impossi
bility of the realization of righteousness on the part of man.
If it belongs to the idea of righteousness that the religious-
ethical life be absolutely normal, then every experience teaches
that no man is St/cato?.
(c) This experience, however, to which there is no excep
tion, must have a deeper reason. This Paul finds in the
circumstance that man is dominated by a power which hinders
him from fulfilling the law, and therefore from realizing
righteousness. This is the power of d/iapTta. Whoever
makes himself a servant of sin has thereby freed himself from
righteousness (Eom. vi. 20) and made his members weapons
of dBiKia (ver. 13), by means of which, therefore, there is
realized, not the divinely-purposed Biicaioavvrj, but dBiicia.e
So long as man stands under the control of this power of sin
(Eom. iii. 9, cf. Gal. iii. 22), so long as it has an absolute
5 With altogether untenable exegetical reasons, Ritschl (ii. p. 315 f.) denies
that this verse refers to what precedes it. He does so, in order to find in it the
thought that the law (in the narrower sense) has only the design of making the
whole world liable to punishment, so that it could not, in the judgment of
Christians, be looked at as the original way of attaining to righteousness. But
this statement regarding the design of the law has no connection whatever with
the preceding discussion ; and even it would by no means prove that it was only
hypothetically or dialectically (for the purpose of refuting it) that Paul had pre
viously asserted the significance of the law as the measure for the double
recompense (cf. footnote 4). For it would still be meant only from the empirical
point of view, and would therefore by no means exclude the possibility that,
supposing the law were fulfilled, it would award life to7s h yi/ap, just as it now
delivers them over to the judgment.
6 When the thought of Rom. vi. 13 is resumed in ver. 19, sin is described
according to its essence, partly as moral pollution (cf. i. 24), partly as an express
negation of the divine will (xyou-lx ; cf. 2 Cor. vi. 14, where it is opposed to
"Sixxioo-im), wherefore the development of sin reaches its climax in the revelation
of the xyopoos (2 Thess. ii. 8, cf. § 63, c). The individual manifestations in which
sin is realized (i^xpTixi : Gal. i. 4 ; 1 Cor. xv. 3, 17 ; Rom. vii. 5 ; cf. 1 Thess.
ii. 16; Col. i. 14; Eph. ii. 1; xp.xpTr,fixrx : 1 Cor. vi. 18; Rom. iii. 25) are

328 UNIVERSAL SINFULNESS.
dominion over him (Eom. v. 21 : BaaiXevei) and makes him
its weak slave (vi. 17, 20), he cannot realize the righteousness,
the opposite of which it is the endeavour of the power of sin
to realize. The original apostles already teach that he is
dominated by this power (§ 46, b, 52, h), only Paul has with
greater psychological precision analyzed the manner in which
man comes to be conscious of this state of bondage. The
power of sin, which is in man, is apparently dead, until it
gives the first indication of its vitality by exciting evE lust in
him (vii. 8).7 Lust is neither sin itself, since it is by sin that
it is produced, nor is it the only form in which sin appears ;
but it is that form in which the nature of sin as a power
which dominates man comes out most distinctly. For lust
obtains the mastery of man and puts him into a passive
condition, it begets the 7ru#o? eVi#u/t/a? (1 Thess. iv. 5 ; cf.
Eom. i. 26: Trady aTtyat'a?), the TraQrifxaTa (GaL v. 24:
Trad/gj-ara ical iiridv/^lai ; Eom. vii. 5 : nvadrgjiaTa TOiV
dp.apTioov). Through this passive condition, into which lust
puts him, man becomes conscious of the power of sin, which
dwells in him (Eom. vii. 17, 20), as a power which is distinct
from his ego, and which is able to stir up in him something
which he does not recognise as his own, in opposition to
which he feels himself, not free, but dependent, not active,
but passive. Of his own accord he would not do that which
called transgressions (iv. 15 : o! . . . ovx io-Tiy yo/tos, o'vTi Txpx^xo-is ; cf. Gal. ii. 18 ;
Rom. ii. 25, 27) when there is a reference to the law which forbids it (Gal. iii.
19 ; Rom. ii. 23), or to an express commandment of God (v. 14). But sin
remains punishable even when it cannot be accounted a transgression on the
ground of a positive commandment forbidding it (Rom. v. 13, 14, cf. ii. 12).
The expression TxpxTTu/ix also denotes primarily the transgression of a positive
commandment (Rom. v. 15, 17, 18, 20, xi. 11, 12) ; but it stands also for sins
in general (Gal. vi. 1 ; 2 Cor. v. 19 ; Rom. iv. 25, v. 16 ; cf. Col. ii. 13 ; Eph.
i. 7, ii. 1, 5).
7 By lusts (intvpclxi) Paul, like Peter and James (§ 46, b, 56, a), understands,
not the natural appetites of the body, because in empirical humanity these no
longer appear as such, but the sinful, godless inclinations (Rom. i. 24), whether
these be of a sensuous or of a spiritual nature. He purposely quotes the Old
Testament commandment against sinful lust (Ex. xx. 17 ; Deut. v. 21) in such
a manner, that it is not any definite objects of lust, but the iTilvpoiiy as such that
he calls forbidden (vii. 7). In his sense every lust is a product of sin (ver. 8),
which compels us to obey the lusts of the body (vi. 12) ; every natural appetite
may be perverted by sin into an ItiSv/iIx (xiii. 14). Such passages as 1 Thess.
ii. 17 and Phil. i. 23 have naturally nothing to do with this technical use of the
word iTilvpolx.

§ CO. THE IMPOSSIBILITY OF A RIGHTEOUSNESS OF OUR OWN. 329
is evil, as soon as he has learned from the divine law to know
that which is good ; and now, seeing that, along with the law,
he must condemn his own unlawful deeds, he consents to the
law that it is good (vii. 16). As it is only in that which is
good that the law has pleasure, so he delights with the law in
that which is good (ver. 22), he would do good (ver. 21).
But this volition remains inoperative, it never comes to per
formance (ver. 1 8). He does not do the good which he would,
but the evil which he would not (vv. 15, 19). This
incomprehensible self-contradiction (ver. 15 : o xaTepydfruai,
ov yiyva>crica>) is solved only by the assumption that a foreign
power dwells in man (vv. 17, 20), viz. the power of sin.
This always makes evil so present to him who would do good,
that he first of all lays hold of the former, and must do so
(ver. 21). In the conflict between sin and the better volition,
the former always remains victorious, and brings man, as to
his better ego, into captivity under its law, so that he must
serve it (vii. 23, 25), and feels himself as sold into slavery to
it (ver. 14). What the apostle thus states to be his own expe
rience, he can also regard as the universal experience of man.
If the sin which exists in man always attains supremacy
even where, in consequence of the revelation of the law, and
of such a very high estimation of it as was found in him
as a Pharisee, there exists the knowledge and the willing of
that which is good, it must exercise this dominion everywhere,
and only the more absolutely wherever this knowledge or
willing of that which is good is obscured or awanting.
(d) In consequence of this subjection to sin, which hinders
them from realizing righteousness, men are exposed to the
judgment of God (Eom. iii. 19, 20), who demands BiKaioavvrj,
and must therefore, in His righteousness, punish its absence,
just as He recognises its presence by His judgment and
behaviour (§ 65, c). This execution of justice God has
reserved to Himself (Eom. xii. 19, after Deut. xxxii. 35); it
is the necessary expression of His wrath (xiii. 4 : eicBiico'i et?
6pyr;v) against sin ; and they are to give place to this wrath
by not anticipating it in avenging themselves. The law
works this wrath, inasmuch as it gives man's sin the character
of a transgression of its express commandment (iv. 15); it is
revealed, however, against all dSiicia (i. 18), even where sin

330 UNIVERSAL SINFULNESS.
is not accounted irapaBaaK (v. 13, 14), because committed by
such as had no positive law which condemns sin as punishable
(ii. 12). The judgment of God, from which the evil-doer is
not to imagine that he will escape (ii. 3), is nothing else than
an expression, on the day of wrath and of the revelation of
the righteous judgment of God, of the divine wrath which he
has heaped up for himself by his transgression of the law
(vv. 5, 8).8 As in the original apostolic preaching (§ 50, d,
57, d), so also in Paul, physical death expressly appears,
according to the Old Testament view, as the punishment
appointed for sin (vi. 21, 23, vii. 5, viii. 10) in consequence
of the judicial ordinance of God (Bucatooaa, i. 32).9 No doubt,
however, death as distinguished from life in the pregnant
sense (§65, d) can be thought of only as a death to which
there is' no termination (by means of the resurrection), which
s Although it is in the day when God judges the world as the righteous One,
that this wrath will, as it were, discharge itself upon the sinner (Rom. iii. 5, 6,
v. 9, ix. 22), yet preliminary revelations of it are not excluded (i. 18). The
attempt of Ritschl (ii. p. 142 ff.) here, as well as in 1 Thess. ii. 16 (where the
allusion to Zeph. i. 18, even if it were not incapable of being proved, is far
from being sufficient to preserve "the eschatological meaning of the divine
wrath "in the " judgment in the present time"), to conceive of the revelation
of wrath as eschatological, by regarding ii. 5 as a resumption of i. 18, breaks
down on the impossibility of taking together i. 32— ii. 4 (p. 145), since the
xplyoins tsv 'iTipoy of ii. 1 cannot possibly be identical with the iTiyy'oyns of i. 32,
who even o-vyiv%oxouiriy to~s Tpxmrovm (cf. also xiii. 4, where the authorities as
the servants of God are ministers of the divine wrath in their execution of
justice). It is altogether unjustifiable to make the salvation of believers from
the judgment of wrath (Rom. v. 9 ; cf. 1 Thess. v. 9) refer to their preservation
from ' ' the refusal of obedience to the grace of God " (p. 150 f. ), for this salvation
is expressly based, at least in Rom. v., upon their justification, i.e. upon their
absolution from the pre-Christian sins which would have drawn this wrath
upon them. It is a matter of indifference whether we regard the wrath in Rom.
iv. 15 eschatologically (although this idea is very remote) or not ; at any rate,
it is implied that the transgression of the law already calls forth this wrath,
and there is no justification whatever for the assertion that this thought
"belongs to the pre-Christian standpoint " (p. 151).
9 It is pure arbitrariness to think here of anything else than physical death,
and to drag in, as Schmid (ii. p. 253 [E. Tr. 437 f.]) and Lechler (p. 98) still do,
the idea of spiritual death, an idea which, like that of spiritual life, belongs to
a totally different line of thought ; or to assume, with Usteri (p. 35), that without
sin death would only not have stood in any connection with the evils which we
feel to be the consequence of sin, and would not itself have appeared as an evil
(cf. Pfleiderer, p. 81 [E. Tr. i. 80]) ; for what 1 Cor. xv. 56 asserts is not that
sin gives its bitterness to death, but that sin, which has death as its conse
quence, gives it the sting with which it slays man (cf. Jas. i. 15).

§ 67. THE TRANSGRESSION OF ADAM AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 331
no new Efe follows (cf. § 34, c), and which therefore endures
etemaEy like that life (Eom. vni. 13). In this sense death
is the fate of the diroXXvp,evoi (2 Cor. ii. 15, 16), and this
dTroXXvo-Gai (cf. 1 Cor. i. 18, viii. 11, xv. 18 ; 2 Cor. iv. 3, 9)
is identical with being judged (Eom. ii. 12), where that
expression stands sensu malo. According to Eom. ix. 22, the
cricevrj opyrjs are appointed to dirmXeia, and hence this term,
which here, as in § 34, c, denotes primarily a violent death
(1 Cor. x. 9, 10), appears as an expression for the definitive
destruction, to which man is delivered over in the judgment
(cf. also Phil. i. 28, iii. 19), being used interchangeably with
the synonymous expression : cpdopd (Gal. vi. 8 ; cf. 1 Cor.
iii. 17); cf. § 64, h.
§ 6 7. The Transgression of Adam and its Consequences.
Cf. A. Dietzsch, Adam und Christus, Bonn 1871.
It is a fact that, in the present age, mankind is determined
by a godless power, and bears in itself the character of sinful
ness, (b) Paul traces back this fact to the transgression of
their common ancestor, (c) In consequence of the fact that
death was appointed the punishment on the occasion of his
sin, it has also become the universal punishment of all sinners.
(d) It may also be assumed with the greatest probability that
Paul has traced back the pernicious influence of Adam upon
his race to the blood relationship which is brought about
by procreation.
(a) That which each individual is taught afresh by his
own experience is naturally true also of humanity as a whole,
or the koo-uos (2 Cor. i. 12 ; Eom. i. 8).1 Because it serves
sin, the whole world is exposed to the judgment of God
(1 Cor. iv. 13, vi. 2, xi. 32; Eom. iii. 6, 19), and needs
reconciliation with Him (2 Cor. v. 19 ; Eom. xi. 12, 15). Its
spirit is opposed to the spirit of God (1 Cor. ii. 12), its
wisdom is godless (1 Cor. i. 20, 21, 27, 28, iii. 19), its sorrow
1 It is seldom that S xio-poos stands in Paul for the universe in general (1 Cor.
iv. 9, viii. 4, xiv. 10 ; Rom. i. 20), or for the sum-total of all earthly things
(Gal. vi. 14 ; 1 Cor. iii. 22, vii. 33, 34 ; Rom. iv. 13), as in Peter and James
(§ 46, b, footnote 3, 55, a). Inasmuch as the present world ends with the
expiry of the present aeon of the world, it is also called i xispios oZtos (1 Cor.
vii. 31).

332 UNIVERSAL SINFULNESS.
leads to death (2 Cor. vii. 10). In the term o K00710?, which
has become a term, techn., there is therefore expressed the idea
of the sinfulness of the human world as known by experience.
No doubt it is not humanity as such which is thought of
when this term is used, but only humanity inasmuch as it
belongs to the almv ovtos, i.e., in accordance with the
terminology of later Judaism, the pre-Messianic age of the
world (ffln D?iyn), an age whose character is sinful (Eom.
xii. 2 ; cf. Gal. i. 4 : irovijpo^), and whose wisdom is ungodly
(1 Cor. i. 20, ii. 6, 8, iii. 18). Inasmuch as the sinful human
world belongs to this aeon of the world, it is also called
o /eoV/to? oSto? (1 Cor. iii. 19, v. 10). The world, however,
which is in the service of sin, stands, as in § 23, a, 55, b,
under the dominion of Satan ; he is therefore called the god
of this age (2 Cor. iv. 4), and will yet equip the perfected
manifestation of the man of sin, or of lawlessness, with his
wonder-working powers (2 Thess. ii. 9). It is his spirit
which, as it were, animates and moves the /cocr/xo? (1 Cor.
ii. 12), and impresses upon it its sinful, ungodly character.2
It is by no means meant, however, that the universality of
sinfulness is hereby explained ; this is never traced back to
the circumstance that it is the power of Satan which moves
every individual to commit sin. Eather, just as certainly as
the transgression of our first parents is, notwithstanding the
temptation of Satan, conceived of, in the manner of the Old
Testament, as a free deed and moral guilt, so certainly is the
universal sinfulness of humanity not the consequence but the
ground of its having fallen under the dominion of Satan.
Only because it serves sin does humanity become the kingdom
of Satan. Now, however, since Paul cannot possibly abide
by the mere fact of the dominion of sin in the koo-/ao?, he
must take another way of explaining it.
(b) To the apostle humanity is not merely the sum-total
of all the separate human individuals, it is rather an organic
human race. This is of such importance in his mind that, in
2 He is also apparently already conceived of as the tempter of our first parents.
With an evident allusion to the narrative of the fall (Gen. iii.), it is said in
2 Cor. xi. 3 that the serpent beguiled Eve by his craftiness, and there is
scarcely any doubt that, with the current Jewish theology (Sapient, ii. 24), the
serpent is conceived of here as an organ of the devil, who thus led the first
human beings to their disastrous transgression.

§ 67. THE TRANSGRESSION OF ADAM AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 333
his elementary preaching as a missionary to the Gentiles, he
connects with the proclamation of the one God also the
proclamation of the descent of the nations from one (Acts
xvii. 26). The universal condition of servitude to sin, which
is found throughout the whole human family, can therefore
be traced back only to that which constitutes the unity of
the race, viz. to its connection with its ancestor. In Eom.
v. 12 it is said expressly that sin has entered into the human
world through one man (i.e. Adam, according to ver. 14) ; and
since we have already met it there as a dominant power, this
position of authority which it has in the human world will
also have been brought about through the first man.3 With
this assertion the assumption is absolutely incompatible, that
the principle of sin, which was immanent in man from the
beginning, only first appeared in actuality in the transgression
of Adam (Baur, p. 138, 191; Holsten, p. 413, 418), and
that Paul, accordingly, knows nothing of a fall of Adam. If
the latter assumption is already excluded by the undoubted
allusion to the Old Testament narrative of the fall (cf. also
2 Cor. xi. 3), of which we are expressly reminded by Adam's
transgression being traced back to a irapaicor) (Eom. v. 19),
so is also the former by the elaep^eadai et? tov icoo-fiov. At
least it should have been said that the irapdBaai^ has come
into the world through Adam, or, more accurately, that in
Adam, or with his transgression, sin has become actual (cf. also
E. Schmidt, p. 43; Dietzsch, p. 76, 77). It is, however, said
expressly that through him, and that, too, according to what
follows, through his irapdirTcofia (vv. 15, 17, 18), sin has
come into the world as a principle (or as a dominant power),
3 That in a passage, which is so important doctrinally, I xlo-pos is to be taken
in its technical sense (note a) is, a priori, very probable ; it is, however, made
undoubted by the circumstance that, in the second clause of the verse, us to»
x'otr/ioy is resumed by ils tx>txs xytpuTovs. No tautology arises from this view,
as Dietzsch (p. 88) thinks. Rather, when one understands it of the physical
world, the sphere of earthly human existence (which o xinrpjoos per se by no
means signifies), the expression becomes quite meaningless ; for it is self-evident
that if sin insinuated itself into this earthly world, it could do so, first of all,
only at one spot (and that, too, according to the nature of the case, only into
one man), whereas the very nerve of the thought lies in this, that through one
man sin and death have entered into the multiplicity of the xio-pos, and that,
too, into all its individual members, as is immediately more particularly
explained.

334 UNIVERSAL SINFULNESS.
and has therefore become operative, in the first place, in him
self, and then in the human race which is organically connected
with him. In consequence of this assertion, accordingly, it can
be assumed in what follows that all (without exception) have
sinned. To think that he means that all have sinned in
Adam as their forefather (cf. Philippi and Meyer in loco) is
perfectly arbitrary, if once it is admitted that the catholic-
traditional reference of i(f>' w to Adam (in quo) is altogether
mistaken ; for the aorist, which simply represents the fact that
all have sinned as a completed fact (in consequence of that
very elo-r[XQev), by no means compels us to think of something
which has taken place in and with the individual trans
gression of Adam. Hence neither can v. 19 be understood
as meaning that, in the judgment of God, the sin of the fore
father was imputed to all; it can only be understood as
meaning that through the disobedience of the one the many
(i.e. as a matter of fact, all the members of the human race)
were made sinners (icaTeo-Td6r)o-av). As appears already from
the Bid t?5? irapaKor\<i, which takes the place of the irapd-
TTTcofia, which has been used hitherto, simply because of the
foUowing Bid t% viraicoris, the expression is conditioned by
the antithesis, and keeps in view the fact that it was because
the sin, which came into the human world with Adam's
transgression, had become the dominating power in aE, and
had therefore occasioned aE to sin, that they came to stand as
sinners before Him, who pronounces His tcaTaicpifia upon all.
(c) According to Gen. ii. 1 7, the transgression of Adam was
one for which death had been expressly appointed the punish
ment. Naturally, we have to think of physical death, in which
the soul is severed from the body, and the latter falls a prey
to corruption. Accordingly, death has also come into the world
through the sin which came into it with Adam's transgression ;
and so, i.e. in consequence of this causal connection which has
been once established between death and sin, death has passed
unto all men, because (icp' a> = eVt tovto> oti) all have sinned,
and now their sin has drawn death upon aE (Eom. v. 12).4
4 Following Hofmann, Dietzsch (p. 48) and Pfleiderer (p. 39 [E. Tr. i. 39])
make ollras mean simply that death has reached all men through one man. But
if death has come into the human world (in the sense of footnote 3) through one
man, it is self-evident that its passing unto all the individuals of that human

§ 07. THE TRANSGRESSION OF ADAM AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 335
Thus by the transgression of one the many died (ver. 15, cf.
ver. 17), because of one the judgment of God against their sin
(to Kplfia) has become condemnation (/caTa/cpiua, ver. 16, cf.
ver. 18). Here we have therefore the plain explanation of
what is meant, when it is said in 1 Cor. xv. 21, 22 that
death has come through one man, or that it is owing to him
(or rather, more particularly, to their vital connection with him)
that all die. It is vain to appeal against the assumption, that
death in the Old Testament sense is conceived of as a punish
ment of sin (§ 66, d), to the fact that Adam was mortal in
world could only be also brought about by him, and the Si' his xytpuTov is so far
from being more strongly emphasized than the Si* t*s xpxpTlxs, that it is rather
only the latter that is spoken of in connection with the coming in of death, it
being of course self-evident from what was already stated that the sin of the one
man is meant. This being the case, however, o'irus can only point back to the
fact that, on the occasion of this first sin, death was appointed to be its punish
ment ; and in plain agreement with this is the prominence which is expressly
given to the circumstance that the passing of death unto all men had its ground
in the sinning of all. Yet it must not be overlooked that this sinning of all is
not something accidental or independent of the transgression of Adam : accord
ing to the first hemistich, when rightly understood, it is caused by it, so that in
the *a»«s Hpxproy there is only expressed directly, and without exception, that
which was already indirectly implied in the ii xpxpTlx ilo-nXky sis Toy xoo-poy. It
should not at least be urged against this interpretation, which is the simplest, and
does most justice to the words, that in this way of looking at the origin of the
dominion of sin and death in humanity, the dogmatizing casuistic question as
to the death of children, who are still incapable of sinning, is left out of account,
while Hofmann's interpretation of i<p' a, which is adopted by Dietzsch (apart
altogether from its very doubtful grammatical justification), amounts only to
the statement, which is altogether meaningless in this connection, that, the
dominion of death being already established, aU sinned. Pfleiderer also adheres
correctly to the interpretation of i<p' $ as causal ; in consequence, however, of
his wrong interpretation of oStois, he maintains that there is now a double reason
assigned for death passing unto all, viz. the sin of Adam and the sin of all, and
that this is explicable only on the assumption that the sin of Adam was, as such,
already the sin of all (p. 40 [E. Tr. i. 39 f.] ), which amounts to the false opinion,
refuted in note b, that all have sinned in Adam. It is in vain that he appeals
to w. 13, 14 ; for it is not shown there that 'the death of all could not be
grounded in the personal culpability of the individuals (p. 42 [E. Tr. i. 41] ) ;
it is shown, rather, that their death was grounded, not in the capital nature
(which was not yet fixed by any law) of their sins, but only in the causal con
nection between death and sin, which was established once and for ever on the
occasion of Adam's sin (see above). For since Paul also knows of a law in the
conscience (Rom. ii. 14 f.), the sins which were committed previous to the
Mosaic law (which, according to ver. 14, is alone spoken of here) cannot be
thought of as "objectively innocent " (cf. Wendt, p. 197 f.). Paul does not
know of a "pre-legal condition," which would exclude even that law, and at
least such a condition is not spoken of here.

336 UNIVERSAL SINFULNESS.
virtue of his original condition (1 Cor. xv. 47 : eV 7J7? xp'iicos),
which even Genesis (iii. 19, cf. ii. 7) teaches. Even there the
consequence of sin consists in this, not that Adam became
mortal, but that he actually died, that man who was created
mortal in himself did not attain to the gift of -immortality,
which was appointed him (iii. 22), and which would have trans
figured his earthly corporeity into the heavenly without its
being destroyed in death. As we shaE see (cf. already § 64, c),
Paul also knows of a way whereby man, without passing
through death, can come from this earthly corporeity, which,
indeed, cannot attain to the heavenly kingdom of God (1 Cor.
xv. 50), to an incorruptible one. But in consequence of the
condemnation which was pronounced against Adam's sin, this
way to (eternal) life is denied to the sinful human race. Ever
since, death has become unavoidable for all men ; not, how
ever, because the corporeity which is derived from Adam is,
by a necessity of nature, exposed to death, but because the
same original sin, which brought about the appointment of
death as the punishment of sin, at the same time caused sin
to enter into the world, in consequence of which all sinned,
and thereby became worthy of death. That it is really only
in consequence of the edict of punishment which was issued
on the occasion of the first fall into sin, that death has become
its permanent punishment, the apostle proves from the cir
cumstance that, although between the transgression of Adam
and the Mosaic law, which declared sin to be a transgression
worthy of death, no deed of man could really be counted as
sin in this sense, death was nevertheless universal, and
befell even those who had not, like Adam (and the trans
gressors of the Mosaic law), transgressed a commandment
which was connected with the threatening of death (Eom.
v. 13, 14).
(d) Paul does not express himself directly as to the manner
in which he conceives that the influence of Adam upon his
whole race (note h), which produces universal sinfulness, is
brought about. But since it is only by the process of procrea
tion that Adam stands in a living connection with the whole
race, this being also the reason why it is he that is named
throughout Eom. v., although it was really Eve that sinned
first, it is in the highest degree probable that, like Philo (de

§ 67. THE TRANSGRESSION OF ADAM AND ITS CONSEQUENCES. 337
vita Mos. iii. p. 675), he has conceived of that influence as
being brought about by sexual procreation.8 This depends,
however, as in § 27, a, upon the fleshly union of the two
sexes (Eph. v. 21, after Gen. ii. 24), which, when accom
plished outside of the marriage union (as a divine ordinance),
in -Kopveia (1 Cor. vi. 16), defiles the flesh (2 Cor. vii. 1).
In it, therefore, there is begotten, primarily, the flesh (cf. Heb.
xii. 9 ; John iii. 6), as the material substance of the bodily
organism,6 a substance which was formed, in the case of
the first man, out of the dust of the earth (1 Cor. xv. 47,
after Gen. ii. 7), and therefore the relationship which is
brought about by procreation is a fleshly one (Eom. ix. 3 :
crvyyevei<; KaTa crdp/ca ; xi. 14 : f) crapl; fiov ; cf. Phil. iii. 4, 5).
More particularly, however, the substance of the earthly cor
poreity (which cannot attain to the heavenly kingdom of God)
is described as flesh and blood (1 Cor. xv. 50 ; cf. Eph. vi. 12) ;
and, according to the Old Testament view, it is in the blood
that the soul has its seat (cf. § 27, h). Now, since, in the
procreation of a Eving man it is naturally living flesh, i.e.
flesh possessed of a soul,7 which is begotten, the soul is
5 Eph. ii. 3 has nothing whatever to do with our question ; there tpivu cannot
possibly refer to the bodily origin, but only to the natural development (Rom.
ii. 14).
6 The substance of the animal organism is also flesh (Gen. ii. 19), only
different in kind from that of the human organism (1 Cor. xv. 39). In this
sense Paul speaks of the fleshly tables of the heart as a bodily organ (2 Cor. iii. 3),
and of circumcision as being accomplished in the flesh (Gal. vi. 12, 13 ; Rom.
ii. 28 ; cf. Col. ii. 13 ; Eph. ii. 11). Since bodily sickness affects primarily the
material substance of the bodily organism, he speaks of the xo-iiyux tUs o-xpx'os
(Gal. iv. 13, 14), of the ox'oXo-fy t? o-xpxl (2 Cor. xii. 7), of the oXilpos tyis o-xpx'os
(1 Cor. v. 5). The mortality of the o-Z/xx (Rom. viii. 11) is owing to the cir
cumstance that the o-xpl is mortal (2 Cor. iv. 11, where e» r? ^xt? o-xpx) n/xuy
resumes the h ™ o-apixTi fipZy of ver. 10), the o-Zpx tyis o-xpx'os (Col. i. 22), or the
trxpl itself (Eph. ii. 15), suffers death. The life of the body is nourished by
homogeneous substances (to. o-xpxixx) being added to its material substance
(1 Cor. ix. 11 ; Rom. xv. 27) ; loving the body forms the antithesis of hating
the flesh (Eph. v. 28, 29). The flesh constitutes that in man which is percep
tible to the outward senses (Col. ii. 1, 5 ; cf. John viii. 15) ; it is only in this
earthly life, however, that it forms the substance of the bodily organism ; hence
h o-xpx) ?> (Gal. ii. 20 ; 2 Cor. x. 3 ; cf. Phil. i. 22) stands where only the
present corporeity is thought of. In all this there is nothing which deviates
from the common New Testament idea of the o-xpl (cf. § 27, a).
7 In Paul, also, just as in § 27, b, the soul is the bearer of the bodily life. It
is it that is aimed at when one seeks to kill a man (Rom. xi. 3, after 1 Kings
xix. 10) ; it is threatened by death (Rom. xvi. 4 ; cf. Phil. ii. 30) ; it is it that
VOL. I. Y

338 UNIVERSAL SINFULNESS.
evidently conceived of as being also begotten.8 If, therefore,
the sin which has become, through Adam's transgression, the
dominating power, first of all in himself, has passed over to
all his descendants, it can have done so with the <rdp%, only
because it had its seat in the adp^ and the yjrvxv, or because
man's crdpi;, which is possessed of a soul, was one which was
dominated and corrupted by it. In fact, however, it is said
in Eom. vii. 1 8 that in the (empirical) cdp% there dwelleth no
good thing ; and since this statement is meant to assign the
reason why Paul traces back that contradictory doing of that
which is evil on the part of the man, who wills that which is
good, to the sin which dwells in him (vv. 15-17, for which
see § 66, c), it is thereby indirectly stated that this sin, which
dwells in him, is that very evil which dwells in his flesh.
And if, according to 1 Cor. ii. 14, the psychical man is as
unsusceptible to the Spirit of God as, according to Eom.
vii. 14, the carnal man is, nay, if, according to the connection
with 1 Cor. iii. 1—3, ¦tyv%nco<; is there also merely a synonym
for aapKim'i, it is clear that, according to Paul, sin has its
seat in the flesh, which is possessed of a soul, and is trans
mitted from Adam to his descendants along with this flesh
which is corrupted by it.9 How this, however, is to be under
stood, can only appear from a more particular consideration of
the Pauline anthropology, so far as it is peculiarly deve
loped from the Old Testament primitive-Christian basis.
one sacrifices with one's life (1 Thess. ii. 8) ; hence it is upon it that Paul calls
the Lord of life and death as a witness (2 Cor. i. 23). Exactly in the same
manner as in § 27, it forms the central point of the life of the individual (cf. the
Old Testament B>S3"^3, Rom. ii. 9, xiii. 1, and the ix -fyvxns of Col. iii. 23,
Eph. vi. 6), so that one delivers oneself up for the soul (the ego) of others (2 Cor.
xii. 15 ; cf. the /xix -tyvxy and cip-^vx" °f Phil. i. 27, ii. 2). Through it as the
subject of every sensuous perception, the flesh, which is possessed of a soul, also
becomes capable of feeling, and therefore of suffering (txl-^is tZ o-xpx!, 1 Cor.
vii. 28 ; cf. Col. i. 24).
8 While the first man, who was formed out of the dust of the earth, became a
¦fyvxn Z,Zo-x by the inbreathing of the divine breath of life (1 Cor. xv. 45, after
Gen. ii. 7), every descendant of Adam becomes a living soul by procreation ; for
the earthly corporeity, with which each one is born, is one that is formed out of
a substance of flesh (cf. 2 Cor. iii. 3), as well as one whose nature is determined
from the very first by the -4>uxn ('apx -tyvxixiy, 1 Cor. xv. 44). As the same
flesh and blood, so also, so to speak, the same soul essence is propagated through
the human race.
0 Just as little as the aZ^x -tyvx'x'ov of 1 Cor. xv. 44 can be a body " which

§ 68. THE PAULINE ANTHROPOLOGY. 339

§ 68. The Pauline Anthropology.
Cf. Tholuck, " fiber ^f?als Quelle der Siinde" (Studienund Kritiken, 1855, 3);
Krumm, de notionibus psychologicis paulinis, 1858 ; Holsten, dicBedeutung des
Wortes axpl im Lehrbegriff des Paulus, 1855 (reprinted in Holsten, zum Evan-
gelium des Patdus und Petrus, iv., Rostock 1868) ; H. Liidemann, die Anthro
pologic des Apostel Paulus, Kiel 1872 ; Ecklund, o-i.pl voc. quid apud P. Ap.
signified, Lundae 1872.
Paul has neither thought of the material substance of the
body as being evE in itself, nor of sensuality as the principle
of all sin. (h) By flesh he rather denotes man according to
his natural being, in so far as it is originally specifically dis
tinguished from God, and made hostile to Him by the sin
which dweEs in it. (c) Paul knows also of a side of man
which is godlike ; but in opposition to the power of sin in
the flesh this remains powerless, and is unable to determine
man's practical behaviour, (d) Because, on this account, this
better ego of man never asserts itself externally, Paul calls it
the inner man as distinguished from the dominion of sin,
which alone manifests itself in the body and its members.
(a) It has recently been frequently asserted that the
Pauline anthropology has altogether forsaken the soE of the
Old Testament view, and has passed over to the dualistic
view of the world of HeEenistic philosophy. It is true that
if Baur ascribes to the apostle the opinion that the material
body, with the appetites and faculties that dwell in it, forms
the real substantial being of man, which as such could only
be opposed to the divine (p. 143 f.), Holsten has avoided
this evident confusion of cru>(ia and adp%, and describes the
adpi; (which is possessed of a soul) as the living material
substance of man, which stands in an absolute antithesis to
God, and is the principle of all evE (p. 396, 398). Since
this, however, is plainly at variance with the fact that the
coming in of sin into humanity is traced back to the trans-
envelopes an earthly ^i/x« " fWendt, p. 130), since, when this o-Z/tx o-Ttlpsrxi,
i.e. is placed in the grave, the soul has already severed itself from the body, so
little is the ^vx'xis xykmTos of ii. 14 a man " who possesses in his ^u^ii merely
the organ of purely human knowledge " (p. 128), for the TyiZpox in the antithesis
does not denote the " organ of religious knowledge," but the divine principle of
revelation, whose activity is hindered by the condition of man which is deter
mined by his ^"X^-

340 UNIVERSAL SINFULNESS.
gression of Adam (§ 67, h), Pfleiderer has assumed that this
dualistic view, according to which the material crdp% is itself
an anti-spiritual causality and the principle of sin, which is
therefore derived from the nature of man, and more par
ticularly from the material of his corporeity, is held by Paul
along with the other, which traces it back to the sin of Adam
(p. 46, 61 f. [E. Tr. i. 46, 60 ff] ; cf. Lipsius, p. 334).1 But
apart from the improbability of such an unsolved antinomy in
Paul, this opinion is already refuted by the fact that (as
Pfleiderer himself allows, p. 48 [E. Tr. i. 48]), according to
Eom. vii. 18, the flesh is not itself sin, i.e. in Paul, who
always thinks of sin as a^i_j3pj3rjitive_p_ower, the principle of
sin ; but sin only dwells in it. If sin, however, is rooted in
the material substance of the body, inasmuch as the nature of
the flesh is evil in itself, then, previous to the transformation
of this its substantial basis (1 Cor. xv. 44), the body could
not belong to the Lord (vi. 13, 15), be God's temple (ver. 19),
be a sacrifice well-pleasing to God (Eom. xii. 1), or serve
righteousness with its members (vi. 13, 19), as Wendt
(p. 109) has conclusively shown.2 Stripped of its philoso
phical form, this view would only amount to this, that the
crap!; is the sensuous nature (Usteri, p. 410 ; cf. Dahne,
p. 64), i.e. the totality of the appetites which are rooted in
the bodily organism or in its material substance. If, now, the
1 In another way Liidemann assumes in Paul two radically different lines of
thought, which move upon contrary anthropological bases. Expression is given
to the first of these in Rom. i.-iv., and to the second in Rom. v. -viii., the
latter resting entirely upon the Hellenistic dualistic view, the former upon that
of the Old Testament. But (according to Liidemann, p. 206) these two lines of
thought are found in Paul, only because, in chaps, i.-iv., "he purposely places
himself upon the standpoint of the Jewish-legal consciousness. " Although, on
the other hand, Biedermann also regards sin as a necessary outcome of the
fleshly nature, which was from the beginning implanted by God in man, in its
resistance to the influence of his spirit, he sees therein no dualism, but only
a moment employed by the decree of God for the purpose of revealing His love
as pure grace (p. 200) ; and he is so far from finding therein a contradiction with
the narrative of the fall, that he sees the genesis of sin represented in accordance
with it even in Rom. vii. 7, refusing, indeed, to entertain any thought of an
original sin.
11 On this account Holsten has been at last obliged to come to the conclusion
that 2 Cor. vii. 1 is un-Pauline (p. 387). If the o-ip\ is, according to its nature,
the principle and source of every sinful defilement, it cannot, of course, be the
object of such defilement ; and since Paul undoubtedly speaks of a defilement of
the flesh, the tip\ is not conceived of as being sinful in itself.

§ 68. THE PAULINE ANTHROPOLOGY. 341
flesh, as such, is a principle which is opposed to God, these
are sinful in themselves, and the sanctification of the body
could consist only in the mortification of all sensuous appetites
and impulses, in which, however, it does not, as a matter of
fact, consist according to Paul. At the most, therefore, sin
could dwell in the material o-dp%, only in so far as the prepon
derance of the sensuous appetites and impulses over the
spiritual nature of man, which ought to have the supremacy,
is the ground-form and principle of all sin. In reality it is to
this that E. Schmidt comes, when, holding firmly by the
physical meaning of crdp^, he ultimately declares that the
materiality of the human nature is the source and ground of
every individual sinful action, not in itself, but only in so
far as, in its present condition, there belongs to it the
significance of an operative principle of life (p. 44). But
even this cannot be made good in the case of Paul. Among
the works of the flesh (Gal. v. 19-21) there are named by no>
means only such sins as owe their origin to the sensuous-.
nature, but also sins of uncharitableness ; the false irpovoia-
t->5? crapicos begets not only revelling and unchastity, but alsa
strife and jealousy (Eom. xiii. 13, 14), and in Gal. v. 13 love-
forms the antithesis of the licentious freedom of the flesh.
Because of their jealousy and strife the Corinthians are-
aapKiKoi (1 Cor. iii. 3). Not only a (pp6vvp.a (Eom. viii. 7),.
but even the restlessness of a fear and an anxiety, whicb
was by no means of a sensuous nature (2 Cor. vii. 5), is
attributed to the o-dp%, and 2 Cor. i. 12 speaks of a aocj>la
aapKi^ (cf. 1 Cor. i. 26 ; 2 Cor. i. 17).3 If it follows from
3 To this R. Schmidt (p. 25) replies that it is not necessarily logically implied
in a view which finds the empirical ground of sin in general in the material
corporeity, that it must be possible to trace back every individual sin with the
same directness to this ground (cf. also Pfleiderer, p. 55 [E. Tr. i. 54 f.]). But
here purely spiritual sins are directly traced back to the <rxp\, and are expressly
called works of the flesh. As Schmidt (p. 23 f.) has been altogether unsuccess
ful in explaining the idea of a o-oif Ix o-xpxixii from his presuppositions, so Pfleiderer
(p. 52 [E. Tr. i. 52]) evidently explains it in a manner which is contrary to
the sense of the words, understanding by it a wisdom which keeps to the outside,
to the surface of sensuous appearance (cf. on the other hand, Wendt, p. 168 f.).
If "the natural will that is directed towards the finite natural life of the
individual, as it shows itself sometimes as sensual, sometimes as selfish," is the
principle of all sin (Pfleiderer p. 56 [E. Tr. i. 56]), then the ci.pl, conceived of
as the animated material of the body, cannot be any longer itself the objective
principle of sin (p. 59 [E. Tr. i. 59]) ; for it will contradict not only "modern

342 UNIVERSAL SINFULNESS.
this that the idea of the trdp%, where it is conceived of as
the seat of sin, is by no means resolved into that of sensuous-
ness, then it is altogether out of keeping also with the
Pauline view of sin, to see in sensuality the principle of all
sin. He to whom the essence of moral renewal consists in
man's ceasing to live unto himself (2 Cor. v. 1 5 ; Eom. xiv. 7),
and to whom the highest form in which sin appears is the sin
which consists in the pride of blasphemous arrogance (2 Thess.
ii. 4, for which see § 63, c), cannot have sought the real
essence of sin in sensuality.
(b) In order that we may correctly understand the sense in
which Paul describes the crap!; of (living) man as the seat of
sin, we must above all remember that, when it is so spoken of,
it is thought of in perfect unity with the ^rv^g (cf. § 67, d),
and that therefore its materiality, as such, cannot come into
account at all here ; for in the i]rv^ as the vital principle of
the flesh (a vital principle which, according to § 27, c, endures
even after its separation from the crap!;, which has fallen a
prey to death) there is already involved at least an immaterial
element. It is also indubitable that, according to Gen. ii. 7
.(1 Cor. xv. 45), this vital principle is conceived of as originally
¦ derived from God, and therefore not as standing in an original
opposition to Him. But man is distinguished from God and
the higher spiritual beings by this very fact that, in his case,
the divine principle of life has entered into the flesh ; his
corporealness accordingly constitutes his specific characteristic
in distinction from the divine nature, and therefore man,
according to his natural being, can be described by adp^.
Already in the Old Testament human nature in its specific
¦distinction from the divine is frequently called flesh. Flesh
forms the antithesis of God (Ps. Ivi. 4 ; Jer. xvii. 5), of His
word (Isa. xl. 6-8 ; Deut. v. 26), or Spirit (Isa. xxxi. 3 ; Job
xxxiv. 14, 15).4 Here that which constitutes this antithesis is
psychology," but also every natural view "to regard the animated matter of the
body itself as the subject of this natural will " (p. 57 [E. Tr. i. 56]).
4 The Old Testament "l^"-'? (§ 27, a) occurs also in Paul ; but also only
where human nature is to be put expressly in contrast with God, as in Gal. ii. 16,
1 Cor. i. 29, Rom. iii. 20, where the human striving after righteousness and
glory is judged of from the standpoint of that which is righteous and praise
worthy before God. Similarly o-xpl xx) xT/xx (cf. § 67, d) in Gal. i. 16 excludes the
conferring with men instead of with God, from whom, according to ver. 15, the

§ 68. THE PAULINE ANTHROPOLOGY. 343
neither the finitude and perishableness nor the weakness and
vanity of human nature, but primarily its natural basis which
is given in the flesh. In many passages where flesh in the
literal sense is undoubtedly spoken of, this contrast dominates
the expression. Thus in Eom. ix. 8 the Teuva t?j? crapKo^ are
children begotten according to the flesh, in contrast, however,
with those who are begotten, not on the ground of the order of
nature, but in virtue of the divine promise (cf. Gal. iv. 23,29);
so in Eom. i. 3, ix. 5 icaTa adpica denotes the bodily descent
of Christ, but in contrast with His higher nature, which does
not depend upon this descent ; so in 1 Cor. x. 1 8 the 'IcrpagX
KaTa adpica stands in contrast with the 'IcrpagX tov Qeov,
which is not constituted by bodily descent (Gal. vi. 16) ; so in
Gal. ii. 20 (cf. Phil. i. 2' 2) the ^gv iv crap/ci stands in contrast
with a higher life, which is of divine origin. Since this
latter, however, is expressly described as a living of Christ in
him, the original meaning of o-dpt; already passes over here
altogether into the designation of that which is characteristic
of the earthly man as such. And so it comes about that flesh
is the expression for the natural human being in its specific
distinction from God, even where there is no allusion to the
original physical meaning of the word.6 That the fleshly,
revelation of His Son had come to the apostle (cf. Matt. xvi. 17 ; see § 27, 6).
It is quite true that the formula srSira <rxp\ denotes man in the concrete and not
the abstraction human nature (R. Schmidt, p. 18) ; but man is described accord
ing to this side of his being, only because it is in it that there lies his specific
distinction from the divine nature. I also regard it as incorrect to speak of
different " meanings " of the word o-ipl in Paul ; but since (§ 67, d), even in Paul,
o-xpl often denotes only the material substratum of the o-Zpox, the use of the word
in the sense considered above can only be described as a peculiar "amplification"
of the term. I purposely avoid, however, making it refer to the ' ' nature of man
as a creature," which Wendt prefers, because this nature belongs also to the higher
spiritual beings, who are not <rxp\.
5 No doubt the xxvxxtlxi xxrx o-xpxx of 2 Cor. xi. 18 includes the pride of the
Jews in their genuine Israelitish descent (ver. 22) ; but it also refers to all the
advantages which man has acquired in a natural way (ver. 23 ; cf. Phil. iii. 3 ff. ).
In 2 Cor. v. 16 the iWvixi xxrx o-ipxx denotes the knowing of man according to
what he is by nature, in contrast with his divinely-produced new life in Christ,
even where there is no thought whatever of bodily descent or condition. In Rom.
iv. 1 and Gal. iii. 3 the xxrx o-xpxx and o-xpxi denote exclusively that which is
attained by natural human activity, in contrast with that which is produced by
the grace or the Spirit of God ; and in 2 Cor. x. 3, 4 they denote the striving
with merely human weapons instead of with the divine powers, by means of
which alone man attains the victory. In this sense a o-oflx o-xpxixti can be spoken

344 UNIVERSAL SINFULNESS.
however, simply denotes the naturally human as such, appears
most clearly from 1 Cor. iii. 3, where the craptciKov elvai is
first more particularly defined by icaTa dvdpcoirov irepiiraTeiv,
and then, in ver. 4, its place is even taken by dvQpwrrov elvat,
(read dvQpwiroi eWe; cf. Eom. vi. 19, where adpt; and
dvOpdoirivov are likewise synonymous terms). This turn which
is given to the idea of crdp^, in which there is no reflection at
all upon the original physical sense of the word, is thoroughly
characteristic of Paulinism. It is certainly altogether wrong
to say on this account, that, in the technical sense of the
Pauline system, crap!; is human nature in its state of estrange
ment from the divine life (Neander, p. 664 [E. Tr. i. 422]),
or the sinful propensity in general (Schmid, ii. p. 2 6 9 [E. Tr.
p. 448]). The adp% in this sense is as little sinful in itself
as the crap!; in the physical sense (note a). For that, in con
sequence of his natural basis, man lives, with consciousness
and free self-determination, a life which is in a peculiar
manner relatively independent, and suited to his earthly cir
cumstances and needs, can only be the wiE of God, who made
man a living soul (Gen. ii. 7), and therewith implanted in him
the principle of individuality (§ 67, d, footnote 7). If, now,
according to the Pauline view, sin dwells in this crap!;, this
can only mean that the idiosyncrasy of the human nature,
which is the consequence of man's natural basis, has become
and becomes an occasion to him to assert this individuality of
his in opposition to the divine will, and so to determine him
self in a manner contrary to God. This has happened first of
all in the transgression of Adam, and if, through him, sin has
entered into the whole human world, there has certainly
thereby taken place a radical change of the nature of the
o-dp!;, as transmitted by him to all his descendents (§ 67, b, c).s
Now, in consequence of the fact that from Adam onwards sin
dwells and reigns in it, the crap!; of empirical humanity7 has
of (2 Cor. i. 12, 17 ; cf. 1 Cor. i. 26) in contrast with divine grace. As contrasted
in the same manner with the power and the Spirit of God this wisdom is called
cotplx x-ytpoiTuy or xytpuTm (1 Cor. ii. 5, 13, cf. footnote 3).
6 When Pfleiderer (p. 61 [E. Tr. i. 61]) can find nothing at all of this in Paul,
the only reason is that he refuses to carry out the obvious combination between
Rom. v. 12 and the Pauline statements regarding the o-ip g, and rather allows such
a sharp dialectician to be satisfied with an unsolved antinomy.
7 To this Schmidt (p. 16) objects that the quite general character of such

§ 68. THE PAULINE ANTHROPOLOGY. 345
become sinful, i.e. the original distinctiveness and relative
independence of the natural human being in relation to
the divine have been perverted into a self-willed opposition.
Now, man Tg aapici serves the law of sin (vii. 2 5) ; and if
the law of God is unable to work its own fulfilment (viii. 3),
the reason is that in this respect it was weak through the
flesh (gcrdevei Bid t^s cra/sKo?), by whose resistance, led as it
was by the power of sin which dominates it, the strength
of the law was broken. For since sin is the God-opposing
principle, the adpt; which is dominated by it cannot subject
itself to the law of God, and because it cannot do so, the
object of its endeavours (to <ppovg/Mi tj}? crapic6<;) must be
that which is hostile to God (in contrast with that which is
well-pleasing to Him, and which forms the import of the law,
viii. 7 : e'^^pa et? Qeov). Accordingly, they that are in the
flesh, and are therefore under the dominion of sin, cannot
please God (vE 5, viii. 8) ; the £gv (or irepiiraTelv, 2 Cor. x. 2 ;
Eom. viii. 4) icaTa adpica must rather bring death (viii. 12,1 3).
The works of the crap!; are sinful (Gal. v. 19 ; cf. ver. 13) ; it
stands in positive opposition to the divine irvevua (Gal. v. 1 7,
vi. 8). Wherever his naturalness still constitutes the whole
being of man, so that he is adpfcivos (and therefore sold under
the sin which rules in the o-dp!;), he stands in unsolvable con
tradiction with the spiritual law of God (Eom. vii. 14), and is un
susceptible to the spiritual as such (1 Cor. iii. 1, read aapicivoK).8
formulae (without the article) as xxrx oxpxx Tipm., h o-xp. iTvxi, which in them
selves already imply moral blame, excludes such a modification, and that
therefore (if our conception of the idea is correct) they would denote human
nature in general, and not a human nature which is modified so or so. This
objection, however, loses all its significance, as soon as we remember that Paul
does not philosophize over o-xp g and xpoxprlx in themselves, but discusses, in its
ultimate grounds, the fact of the dominion of sin within empirical humanity.
This dominion being really a matter of fact, there is only one o-xpl which is
dominated and corrupted by sin, and Paul can therefore very easily speak of the
nature of o-ipl in general, and yet be thinking all the time only of the o-xpl as it
is constituted in empirical humanity. But because he does this, I cannot accept
th» distinction of Wendt. According to him, the Pauline o-ipl is, on account of
its creaturely weakness, incapable of knowing the divine and of fulfilling the
law but eiTS and sins, only if it attempts to know the divine and to fulfil the will
of God with its own strength (p. 200 f. ). This view seems to me to obtrude upon
the apostle reflections which are foreign to him, and in many ways to forsake
the right point of view.
8 Against this view of the Pauline doctrine of o-xpl Pfleiderer (p. 57 f. [E. Tr.

346 UNIVERSAL SINFULNESS.
(c) If the apostle, speaking in Eom. vii. 18 of the seat of
sin in his ego, defines this seat expressly as the o-dp%, then
there must also be in this ego a certain antithesis to the crap!; ;
and in ver. 25 it becomes perfectly clear that the're is still
another side of the human being, which, as essentially related
to God, is from the first distinguished from that fleshly nature,
and is therefore not the domain of sin in the same sense
as that. Now, since it is only in the flesh as possessed of a
soul (note h) that Paul sees the specific nature of man as
distinguished from the divine,' to which it has entered into
a hostile antithesis through the dominion of sin in it, he
cannot think of the tyv)(f) (which, according to § 67, d, is,
in empirical humanity, no longer a direct breath from God,
but is propagated in its sinful corruption by means of procrea
tion, and is therefore completely entangled in this antithesis ;
cf. 1 Cor. iv. 14) as the bearer of this higher godlike life, and
this is the reason why -urin^ noiuhere occurs in him in this the
sense which is common to all the other writers of the New
Testament (§ 27, c). But neither could he use the term
irvevwa for it ; for in the Old Testament sense, according to
which the Trvev/xa, as the spirit of life from God, made man a
living soul, the irvevjxa is really nothing else than the -uVir^?;.9
In the sense, however, in which, in Paul, and first in him
i. 57 f.]) has only objected that in that case it would be impossible in Rom.
vii. 18 to distinguish between the ego and the flesh, although this passage is
discussed in detail in note c in substantial agreement with his own excellent
exposition (p. 63 f.), and that those passages would also remain unexplained, in
which the o-xp g is connected with the o-Z/tx and the pAxn. These passages, however,
are all discussed thoroughly in note d ; and here already it appears that, accord
ing to our view, the flesh in the narrower sense always remains the basis of the
flesh in the wider sense. When it is denied that sin has its seat in the o-ipl as
the material substance of the corporeal nature, because the statements regarding
this subject demand a wider meaning, it is by no means denied that, after it has
once entered into the whole natural human being, it dwells also in the body,
which with its members is an essential part of that being.
9 Naturally this sense also is not foreign to the apostle. It is because of it
that human nature can be described in a popular manner as the synthesis of
flesh and spirit (Mark xiv. 38) or of body and soul (Matt. x. 28). Paul adopts
this popular usus loquendi (which Wendt, p. 121, is certainly wrong in declaring
to be peculiar to him ; cf. § 27, c), when he contrasts his presence in the spirit
with his absence in the body in 1 Cor. v. 3, as with his absence in the flesh in
Col. ii. 5. In all the other passages, which are usually cited for this use of the
term, their religious reference compels us to think of the new spiritual life of
Christians (§ 86, b). It is different with 1 Cor. ii. 11. Here Paul illustrates

§ 63. THE PAULINE ANTHROPOLOGY. 34V
(cf. § 62, d), the Spirit from God or the Holy Spirit is the
principle of a new holy life in the Christian, it is self-evident
that the natural man cannot possess the irvev/jia ; and it is in
this sense alone that Paul speaks of the irvevua, when he
speaks didactically. As that amplification of the idea of the
animated crap!; is conditioned by his deepening of the doctrine
of sin, which he follows up to its ultimate sources and describes
in its whole power over the natural man, whom it makes abso
lutely incapable of doing that which is good, so this narrow
ing of the idea of the irvedfia is conditioned by his more
precise conception of the doctrine of the divine origin of the
new moral life in man, for which he must reserve the term
7TveviJ.a in the specific sense. And inasmuch as the former
doctrine is only the necessary complement of the latter, it is
evident that it is his doctrine of salvation, with its antithesis
of sin and grace followed up to its ultimate grounds, that has
called forth in Paul this peculiar remodelling of the anthropology
of the New Testament. In vii. 25, accordingly, Paul describes
the other side of the natural man, which is opposed to the
o-dp!;, as the voD?.10 In the Gentiles this vovs is the organ of
the knowledge of good and evil, a knowledge which is lost
only when the vov<; is corrupted (Eom. i. 28 ; cf. Eph. iv. 17),
as well as the organ by means of which they know God in
consequence of His creation (ver. 20) ; it is its vorgiaTa that
the fact that the Spirit of God knows the deep things of God (with all the decrees
of salvation which are hidden in them), and is therefore able to reveal them, by
stating that no man knows the nature of man (with all that is hidden in its depths)
except the spirit which is in him. Here, therefore, where that comparison made
it necessary to use the term TyiUftx, the spirit is the principle of human self-
consciousness, and as such has no direct connection whatever with the distinc
tion between a side of the natural man which is related to God and another
which is alienated from Him. How far it is from following from this passage
that all spiritual life in man is as such already conceived of also as the higher,
godlike side of his being, appears most clearly from the fact that, in this very
connection, the xyhoiTos -^vxix'os, who has at least a self-consciousness, and there
fore also a Tyivptx in this sense, is described as incapable of receiving that which
comes from the Spirit of God (ver. 14).
10 This term never stands as a synonym for Tyivpix, for the peculiar expression in
1 Cor. ii. 16 (yoZs Xpio-rov) is simply determined by the language of the preceding
quotation (Isa. xl. 13 ; cf. Rom. xi. 34). Nay, in 1 Cor. xiv. 14, 15 (cf. ver. 19)
the yovs even appears expressly contrasted with the Tyiipcx of the Christian. Here
also it would be well, when considering the meaning of the term yovs, to look
away, in the first instance, from those passages where it is the yovs in the believer
that is spoken of (cf. § S6, b).

348 UNIVERSAL SINFULNESS.
can also be opened to the knowledge of the Gospel or shut
against it (2 Cor. iii. 14, iv. 4). The vov<s is therefore, as
contrasted with that which is bodily, unquestionably something
spiritual in man, and that too, primarily, a theoretical faculty ;
but it is not spirit in the specific sense. As contrasted with
his fleshly nature, it is a godlike element in man ; for it knows
the divine and the good, and, by the tribute of delight which
it must pay it, recognises it as its law (Eom. vii. 22, 23, 25) ;
but it is not, like the nvev^a of the Christians, a holy divine
power. This explains why it is that, when in conflict with
the crdp!;, it remains absolutely powerless, so that it can be
corrupted by the sin which dominates in the crap!; (i. 28), and
therefore likewise needs to be renewed (xii. 2). To this
Pauline term there would answer best of all our " conscious
ness " (sometimes even " sense "), in so far as it is conceived
of not merely as a theoretical faculty, but is also capable of a
practical though ineffectual impulse. In this consciousness
man knows God, and feels himself bound to do His will
(BovXevei vofim Qeov, Eom. vii. 25); but now that, in conse
quence of sin, his natural being has once entered into a hostile
opposition to God, this consciousness is no longer able to
determine his behaviour, but is itself dimmed and perverted.11
(d) Seeing that in Paul, as well as in § 27, d, the heart is
conceived of as the central organ in man, in which all spiritual
life has its seat,12 it is only in it that the vov<; also can be
11 The circumstance that in Rom. vii., where he expressly treats of the being
of the natural man, Paul purposely avoids using the expression Tyivpx, shows
unmistakeably that he reserves Tyivpix in its (for him) specific sense (and there
fore apart from the popular use of the term considered in footnote 9) for the
nature of man as re-created in Christianity, and therefore that he does not dis
tinguish between o-ipl an<l Tyivptx as the two sides of the natural man, although
it is still attempted to prove this by means of passages which relate only to
Christians (cf. Reuss, ii. p. 27 [E. Tr. ii. p. 23] ; Beyschlag, p. 205 ; R. Schmidt,
p. 29-31). This is also recognised by Pfleiderer, who energetically maintains
the godlike nature of the yovs against Holsten (p. 62 [E. Tr. i. 62]) ; and when
he still speaks also of a natural -ryivpix as the subject of the human personal life
(p. 66 ff. [E. Tr. i. 65 ff.]), whose relation to the yovs must then necessarily
cause him difficulty, this is in consequence of his making a number of passages
(besides those considered in footnote 9) refer to the natural man, which speak
only (cf. § 86, b, footnote 4) of the new spiritual life of the Christian (not, of
course, of the objective Spirit of God in the Christian).
12 The heart is conceived of primarily as a bodily organ of flesh in the physi
cal sense (2 Cor. iii. 3), as a part of the o-TXiyxm (2 Cor. vi. 12, vii. 15 ; cf.

&

§ 68. THE PAULINE ANTHROPOLOGY. 349
found. According to Eom. i. 21, the heart is the seat of the
original knowledge of God which is obtained by means of the
wO? (ver. 20) ; according to ii. 15, it is the seat of the ori
ginal moral consciousness which is likewise obtained in the
same way. The connection of 2 Cor. iii. 14, 15 (cf. Phil.
iv. 7), moreover, shows clearly that the vorgiaTa of the vow
themselves have their seat in the heart. Now, however, every
thing which has its seat in this inner man is, from the nature
of the case, hidden.13 Thus there arises the idea of the inner,
and therefore hidden man, and of the outer and visible man,
an idea which there is therefore no need whatever to explain
by means of contemporary philosophical notions. The manner
in which Paul (Eom. vii. 22, 23) identifies the fou? and the
ecrco dvOpcoTTos is peculiar, and in keeping with the fact that
the former has its seat in the heart (cf. Eph. iii. 16, 17). This
seems to favour the view that the crdp!;, which is opposed to
the vov'i in vii. 25, belongs altogether to the outward bodily
life. But since even the (fleshly) lusts dwell in the heart
(footnote 12), and therefore, in this respect, belong likewise
to the inward man, while, conversely, the heart is primarily a
Col. iii. 12 ; Philem. 7, 12, 20 ; Phil. i. 8, ii. 1). It is the seat of all emotions
and feelings, of sadness and anxiety (2 Cor. ii. 4 ; Rom. ix. 2 ; cf. 2 Thess.
ii. 17), as well as of delight and joy (Rom. x. 1 ; Acts xiv. 7), of peace and
consolation (Col. ii. 2, iii. 15, iv. 8 ; Eph. vi. 22 ; Phil. iv. 7), and above all,
of love (2 Cor. vi. 11, vii. 3 ; cf. 1 Thess. ii. 17 ; 2 Thess. iii. 5 ; Phil. i. 7).
To the heart belong also the determinations of the will (1 Cor. iv. 5 : fiovXx) rZy
xxpStZv ; vii. 37 : xixpixiv iv tJj xxpSlx ; cf. 2 Cor. ix. 7). It is in the heart that
zeal for that which is good has its seat (2 Cor. viii. 16) ; temptation addresses
itself to the heart (Rom. xvi. 18) ; the heart needs strengthening in holiness
(1 Thess. iii. 13) ; penitence and impenitence are traced back to the xxpo*lx (Rom.
ii. 5, 9). The heart is also the seat of consciousness (2 Cor. iii. 2), of thought
(Rom. x. 6, 8 : iItuv h tj? xxpYix ; cf. Col. iii. 16 ; Eph. v. 19), and of knowledge
(1 Cor. ii. 9 ; cf. Eph. i. 18, iv. 18). It appears already from this that xxpSlx
may have the most varied import. On the one hand, the heart is the seat of
the fleshly lusts (Rom. i. 24) ; on the other, it is into the heart that the Spirit
is shed (Gal. iv. 6 ; 2 Cor. i. 22, iii. 3 ; Rom. v. 5) ; it is in the heart that
Christian enlightenment takes place (2 Cor. iv. 6) ; it is in it that faith dwells
(Rom. x. 9, 10 ; cf. Eph. iii. 17).
13 That which is in the heart of man is the genuinely true (Rom. vi. 17 :
vTxxduy ix xxpllxs), in contrast with every pretended (2 Cor. v. 1 2 : Tpao-uTip . . .
xxpYix) or constrained (2 Cor. ix. 7 : pw ix Xins n *l xvxyxns) appearance (cf. Col.
iii. 22 ; Eph. vi. 5) ; on that account, however, it is also that which is concealed
from man (1 Cor. xiv. 25 : tx xpvTrx Tm xxpSixs ; cf. iv. 5 and Rom. ii. 29, where
TipiTopth xxpYixs stands parallel with Iv rZ xpvTrZ 'Uvo'xTos), and known only to
God, the searcher of hearts (Rom. viii. 27 ; 1 Thess. ii. 4 ; cf. § 62, a).

350 UNIVERSAL SINFULNESS.
bodily organ, the ideas, outer and bodily, or inward and
spiritual, by no means answer to one another. The ground
of that identification must therefore be a different one. Since,
viz., the vow is, according to note c, powerless in opposition
to the o~dp!;, and is always overcome by the sin which dwells
in the latter, the better ego of man which is hidden in the
vow never comes to the light. That which manifests itself is
always only the dominion of sin which determines the whole
life of man which is outwardly visible. The organs, however,
by means of which that which is in man becomes outwardly
visible, are the members of the body. While, therefore, the
conflict of the vow against sin remains altogether confined to
the inward man, the dominating power of sin becomes visible
in the members (Eom. vii. 23 : BXeirco eTepov vofiov iv Tot?
pj,eXecriv fiov), when the iraQrgiaTa tcov duapTiwv (vii. 5) are
operative in them, and they therefore enter into the service of
sin (vi. 13). Therefore the cra>g.a always appears as a body
which is ruled by sin (Eom. vi. 6 : crtofia tj?? dfiapTias ; 14 cf.
vii. 24), and the lusts of the body are sinful, inasmuch, viz.,
as sin rules in it and corrupts the natural appetites (vi. 12,
viii. 13). It is expressions of this kind that have given
support to the erroneous opinion that Paul conceives of sin as
dwelling in the body and its members, whereas it is only the
dominion of sin which manifests itself in them, because the
vow, in which, according to note c, there lies the only reaction
against this dominion, belongs altogether to the inward hidden
life of man, and because of its powerlessness never determines
his outer life in a manner which comes into visibility (cf.
Wendt, p. 209 f.). Sin can make the vow powerless, and
thereby confine it to the sphere of the hidden inward life,
14 This is the only relation which the genitive can express, viz. that the body
belongs to the sin which dominates it in man's natural condition. For, in Paul,
ifuipria does not denote the quality of sinfulness, but the power of sin as an
operative principle (cf. § 66, c), and therefore the genitive cannot be a gen.
qualitatis, any more than in the quite parallel o-Z/tx t»u SxviTov roirov (vii. 24).
So o xvhx-Tos Tris xpoxprlxs (2 Thess. ii. 3) is not the sinful man, but the man who
has altogether fallen a prey to sin, the man in whom it has reached its highest
development (§ 63, c). On this account the o-xpl xpoxpTixs of Rom. viii. 3 cannot
denote a o-ipl whose nature is sinful (cf. even Schmidt, p. 101), but a o-ipl which
is dwelt in and dominated by sin, such as Paul assumes it to be according to
note b. Hence the sinful passions are called in Rom. vii. 5, not txH^xtx
apcxprlxs, but tx TxQnpoXTX roiv uy-xfTiojy.

§ 09. THE APOSTASY OF HEATHENDOM. 351
whereas it positively dominates the o-dp^, and incites it to a
godless behaviour, which becomes visible through the organs
of the body.15

CHAPTEE III,
HEATHENDOM AND JUDAISM.
§ 69. The Apostasy of Heathendom.
The Gentiles have originally had a knowledge of God,
which rests upon His revelation in nature, and likewise a
consciousness of the divine demand and the culpabiUty of
its transgression, so that they are with justice exposed to
divine retribution, (b) This original knowledge of the truth,
however, has been lost to heathendom, because it has practi
cally turned away from God. (c) The consequence of this
was an imaginary wisdom, which is, nevertheless, foolishness
before God, and which culminated in the punishable sin of
idolatry or the deification of the creature, (d) The further
consequence was an unlimited seK-surrender to the natural
lusts, a seE-surrender which culminated in the unnatural sen
sual vices and the complete blunting of the moral consciousness.
(a) It is characteristic of the apostle Paul not merely to
regard such questions as that relating to the origin and extent
of universal sinfulness from the anthropological point of view,
and to discuss them in theoretical generality, but also to look
at them from the concrete religious-historical point of view.
Such being the case, however, he had to enter more particularly
into the great religious-historical antithesis, which divided the
pre-Christian world, and to him as the apostle to the Gentiles
15 The contrast appears somewhat different in 2 Cor. iv. 16. The outward
man is the body, which, on account of its substantial basis, the favrri o-ipl
(ver. 11), is gradually decaying ("Stxiphipirxi) in consequence of the troubles of
the earthly life, while the inward man is renewed day by day. Here it is plainly
the inward life of the Christian as a Christian which is meant ; and this is natu
rally not identical with the inward life of the natural man. But from the fact
that the ifra (or rather Uuihv) xvlpuTos is not identical here with the yovs, it does
not really follow that this is not the case also in Rom. vii., as Schmidt (p. 39)
maintains.

352 HEATHENDOM AND JUDAISM.
the question was specially natural : how has heathendom
come into the irremediable condition in which it is actually
found ? Although it was self-evident to the Jewish conscious
ness that the Gentiles, or as Paul, following the leading repre
sentatives of heathendom, often calls them, the Greeks (Gal.
iii. 28 ; 1 Cor. i. 22-24, x. 32, xii. 13 ; Eom. i. 16, ii. 9, 10,
iE. 9, x. 12), are sinners (cf. Gal. ii. 15), and destitute of
righteousness, yet the question may arise, whether they are
not at least excusable (Eom. i. 20) and therefore free from
punishment ? If the Gentiles do not know God (Gal. iv. 8 ;
cf. 1 Thess. iv. 5), then it seems as if the fulfilment of the
divine will could not be demanded of them. Still we saw in
§ 64, & that the judgment of God faEs upon those who do not
know Him (2 Thess. i. 8). Paul, viz., starts from the assump
tion that the Gentiles have originally had the knowledge of
God (Eom. i. 21 : yvovTe<; tov Qe6v), and that, too, in conse
quence of a revelation of Him, which has manifested unto
them that which was knowable by them (to yvcoo-Tov tov Qeov),
that which they from their own standpoint should have known
of His nature (ver. 19).1 God had therefore done His part to
lead them to the knowledge of Him, so that they might be
without excuse if they, nevertheless, did not attain to it
(ver. 20). It is true the Gentiles had not also the positive
Mosaic law; in this sense they are dvog.01 (1 Cor. ix. 21), they
sin dvofia^ (Eom. ii. 12). But the very fact that they have,
nevertheless, individual virtues, through which they, from
natural inclination (abvaei), and without the impulse of a posi
tive law, fulfil individual requirements of this law (cf. ii.
26, 27), shows that they are a law unto themselves (ver. 14),
1 Ever since the creation of the world He has manifested unto them by His
works His eternal power and the fulness of His divine attributes (hi'orns, Rom.
i. 20). He has borne witness of Himself to them by His good deeds, in that He
gave them from heaven rain and fruitful seasons, and filled their hearts with
food and gladness (Acts xiv. 17), and distributed the nations over the earth,
and gave them firmly appointed bounds of time and space for their dominion
(xvii. 26). In doing this, no doubt, their ill-doing was taken into account.
Through their wisdom they should have known God in His wisdom (1 Cor. i. 21),
they should have sought Him, who cannot, of course, be felt after and therefore
found by means of the senses (Acts xvii. 27) ; and the organ which was given
them for that purpose was the vevs (Rom. i. 20 : vooipivx ; cf. § 68, c), by means
of which the invisible attributes of God (r'x xipxrx auToD) could be perceived
spiritually (xx(opxrxi).

§ 69. THE APOSTASY OF HEATHENDOM. 353
and that the work which is commanded by the positive law
is written in their heart as a work which is demanded by God.
This is the moral consciousness which is originally implanted
in men ; its presence is testified to by the conscience (con-
scientia consequens), which teaches them to judge, according to
it, of the character of their own and other men's actions
(ver. 15). The Gentiles, however, have also the conscious
ness that they that do t<z jxg icadgicovTa are worthy of death,
and are therefore liable to punishment (i. 32). When he says
this, Paul may possibly be thinking of the myths of the
Gentiles regarding Hades, or of the judgments in which God
revealed even to them His wrath against sin (i. 1 8). Accord
ingly, the fundamental law of divine retribution applies
to them as well as to the Jews (ii. 9, 10). By patience
in well-doing they also could strive after glory and honour
before God, and consequently after incorruption, and thus
attain eternal life (ver. 7) ; but they could also, by dis
obedience to the truth which had been revealed to them,
obey unrighteousness (ver. 8), and, in consequence of this,
could be delivered up by the wrath of God to destruction,
even without the rule of the positive law (dvoficos : ii. 12; cf.
§ 66, d).
(b) The Gentiles have not cherished the germ of truth
which was given them in their original knowledge of God
(cf. § 65, footnote 3) ; they did not count it worth the trouble
to possess the knowledge of God (Eom. i. 28 : tov Qeov e\eiv
iv iiriyvdio-ei) ; they have rather hindered it in its development
(tcaTe^eiv), and the hindrance, by means of which that know
ledge of the truth was, as it were, smothered, was their (prac
tical) godlessness and unrighteousness (ver. 18). How Paul
conceives of this appears plainly from ver. 21. They have
neither glorified nor thanked God, so far as they knew Him
in virtue of His original revelation. The Bo^d^eiv would have
been the practical recognition of His Bvvu/j,i<; and Oeirngt;
(ver. 20), the ev-yapia-Telv the practical recognition of His
goodness and kindnesses (Acts xiv. 17). They have refused
Him both, and this was the fall of heathendom. It is not in
consequence of an intellectual error, but in consequence of a
practical aberration, that they have lost their original know
ledge of God.
III. z

354 HEATHENDOM AND JUDAISM.
(c) In consequence of this practical turning away from God
the Gentiles have now lost the highest object of their thought,
and have accordingly turned their thoughts to that which is
vain and empty (Eom. i. 2 1 : ifiaTaicodgcrav iv rot? BiaXoyto-ftoi';
avToiv ; cf. the fiaTatoTg? tov voos of Eph. iv. 1 7), until the
organ (found, according to § 68, d, in the heart) for the know
ledge of the divine, unaccustomed to its appointed activity,
becomes at last incapable of it (g acrvveTO'; aiiT&v icapBia), and
being thus deprived of the light of the truth is delivered up
to darkness (Eom. i. 21 : icricoT iadg ; ii. 19: ol iv aricoTei;
2 Cor. vi. 14 ; Eph. iv. 18, v. 8 ; 1 Thess. v. 4, 5). With this
loss of the truth which is communicated by divine revelation
there commences, it is true, a conceit in their self-devised wis
dom (Eom. i. 22 : <pdcricovTe<; elvai aoaboi) ; but this self-conceit
only stamps them as fools (i/jicopdvOrjaav), since this wisdom is
foolishness in the judgment of God (1 Cor. iii. 19). For the
thoughts of this wisdom, which knows not God in His wisdom
(i. 21 ; cf. ii. 8), are only vain (iii. 20, after Ps. xciv. 11), and
God has known how to expose it in its foolishness and vanity
(i. 20). The climax of the foolishness, however, into which
heathendom thus fell is, idolatry. For there is no greater
folly than for one to change the B6%a of the incorruptible God
into a o/jboioofia of an image of a man or a beast (Eom. i. 23).
Here, therefore, Paul is not thinking of the coarse fetichism
which looks upon the idol itself as the deity ; but he rightly
infers from their idolatry that heathendom regards the deity
as a being who is similar to that which is represented in the
images of men or beasts, and who could therefore be represented
by these2 (Acts xvii. 29). Thereby, however, they have at
least exchanged the correctly known true nature of God (cf.
2 The more recent treatises regarding the Pauline idea of the o/ioioiptx, which
have been occasioned by Rom. viii. 3 (cf. Overbeck and Zeller in Hilgenfeld's
Zeitschrift, 1869, 2 ; 1870, 3), have not yet done full justice to this passage.
As Zeller correctly shows (p. 302), a Sptoiapcx is originally something which is
similarly made, then a thing which is similar to another. Thus in Rom. v. 14
the sin, which it is said none previous to the law committed/is undoubtedly one
which is similar to the Txpifixo-is of Adam, in so far as, like that, it was to be
thought of as a transgression of a positive commandment ; so, in Rom. vi. 5, an
occurrence which is similar to the death and resurrection of Christ is called their
ifioloi/xx. Here, however, the apostle cannot have been thinking that, although
the Gentiles look upon these images as idols, they are still really nothing else
than images of men and beasts (Overbeck, p. 206, 208) ; nor yet that they are not

§ 69. THE APOSTASY OF HEATHENDOM. 355
§ 65, h, footnote 3) for one that passes for it in a lying man
ner, and passing by the Creator, they have worshipped a
created being (Eom. i. 25), for it is only such a being that can
find its ouoiw/ia in these images. The inmost essence of
heathenism is therefore the worship of nature, the deification
of the creature ; and this is not only folly, but also deep degra
dation. Such divine beings as it represents to itself (eiBcoXa :
1 Thess. i. 9) do not even exist (1 Cor. viii. 4, x. 19); they
are at least not divine beings at all, but a lie (Eom. i. 25).
In contrast with the true living God they are vanities (fiaTaia :
Acts xiv. 15; cf. Jer. viii. 19), speechless idols that cannot
give any answer when they are called upon ; they cannot
reveal themselves like the living God (1 Cor. xii. 2 ; cf. Hab.
ii. 18). Accordingly, this folly of idolatry is a sin which is
self-caused, and therefore punishable (v. 10, vi. 9).
(d) On the practical side, the consequence of that turning
away from God (note b) was an ever deeper sinking into
godlessness (Eom. i. 18; cf. iv. 5, v. 6), the fundamental
disobedience (xi. 30) which no longer strives after righteous
ness (ix. 30), which imagines itself to be altogether emanci
pated from the law of God (2 Cor. vi. 14 : dvofita), and walks
in dBiKta (1 Cor. vi. 1). If man, however, no longer knows
any rule standing over him, he falls a prey to the natural
appetites, to the lusts of the flesh (Eom. i. 24), which in this
very emancipation of theirs from the divine will become
sinful, and specially to unchastity and covetousness (1 Cor.
v. 10), which are regarded here also as the cardinal vices of
the Gentiles (cf. § 62, a). But even thereby man does not
attain that which he hopes to attain ; instead of gaining the
imagined boundless freedom, he becomes a slave to his
images of definite men and beasts, but images fashioned in accordance with the
type of the human or animal form (Zeller, p. 304). These ideas cannot have
been present to the apostle's mind, because it was of no importance to charac
terize these images ; that which was of importance was to characterise the idea
of God, which was implied in their representing their gods in them, and for
which they accordingly changed the idea of an incorruptible God and His Sog«.
Now, however, the image is undoubtedly the opcolufcx of that which is repre
sented in the most literal sense, and therefore, conversely, that which is repre
sented is also a Ipolupix of the image. If, now, the idols are images of men and
beasts, then the idea of the deity, which they express, must be such as to make
the deity appear, like the men and beasts that are represented, a opaiaipx of
these images, and therefore similar to those men and beasts.

356 HEATHENDOM AND JUDAISM.
passions (irdQg: Eom. i. 26; cf. 1 Thess. iv. 5), which
reduce him to a condition of utter passivity (§ 66, c). Paul
regards the unnatural sensual vices as the culmination of the
sensual life of the Gentiles (Eom. i. 24, 26, 27); in the age
when heathenism was declining, these had really attained a
horrible diffusion. This was, however, in fact a necessary
development; not only because many immoral myths and
rites of heathenism palliated and stirred up sensuality, but
chiefly because it lies in the nature of sensual lust that, easily
blunted by the usual means of enjoyment, it is always seeking
for new stimulants, and thus finds an unnatural satisfaction.
When this takes place, their surrender of themselves to nature
has degenerated into a perversion of nature, in which, how
ever, there comes to the light only that perversion of the
natural order, which lies in man's surrendering himself to the
natural appetites, instead of governing them according to the
will of God. At last, however, heathendom loses altogether
the moral consciousness which was originally implanted in it.
They do that which is unbecoming even when looked at from
their own standpoint (rd /j,g icaOr/KovTa : vv. 28-31); not
only do they do so themselves against their better knowledge
and conscience, but they even approve of it in others (ver.
3 2), although man is usually only too ready to find fault with
the wickedness of others, even when he excuses his own.
When the apostle calls this total blunting of the moral con
sciousness (cf. Eph. iv. 19) a z>ou? a8o/a/to? (Eom. i. 28), it is
natural to suppose that he has thought not merely of a
reprobate mind, but also of such a mind as no longer proves
and distinguishes between good and evil (Eom. xii. 2, ii. 18).3
In point of fact we find even in the cultured Gentile writers
of that time open apologies for paederasty, vindictiveness,
and other vices, and at any rate the moral indifference of the
great mass (Eom. ix. 30 : edvg Ttt p,g BidiicovTa Bucaiocrvvgv)
bears witness to such a blunting of the moral consciousness.1
3 No doubt the word iYoxi/zos is derived from "iix'^h and means that which
is rejected (1 Cor. ix. 27) ; but it could easily occur to the apostle to connect it
with Yxifii^uy, especially as he seems to intend a play upon ISoxlpixo-xv.
* It must be remembered that, throughout, the apostle is describing heathen
dom on the whole, as it had become in consequence of its natural development.
In Rom. ii. 14, 26, 27, he expressly presupposes that cases actually occur in
which the Gentiles do that which the law demands, and observe its ordinances.

§ 70. HEATHENDOM AND THE DIVINE TRAINING. 357

§ 70. Heathendom and the Divine Training.
Within the province of heathendom God suffers humanity
to walk in its own ways, in order that it may be made
manifest where the natural development of humanity leads to.
(b) In this development heathendom appears primarily only
under the point of view of youthful immaturity, and of the
state of bondage which that involves, (c) But in this con
dition it falls a prey to the powers of darkness, which it
worships, and by which it is determined to a godless
behaviour, (d) And thus there is brought about that dread
ful depravity of heathendom, in which the divine judgment of
wrath against its original apostasy punishes sin by means
of sin. («) When Paul says in the Acts of the Apostles that God
suffered all the nations to walk in their own ways (Acts
xiv. 16), this permission stands in contrast with His saving
interposition in the history of the Jewish nation. But
althoup-h God leaves the other nations to their natural
development, which is always leading them to a worse and
worse corruption, He by no means needs to despair of
realizing His purposes of salvation even in them. That per
mission may rather involve the pedagogic purpose of causing
heathendom to experience what it would come to with its
own powers as the necessary consequence of the direction
which it has once taken. If it turned out that sin led it
into a more irremediable corruption, then abhorrence of the
sin which was thus known in its deepest essence must be
thereby aroused, and they must be made to feel their need of
salvation. That which the apostle (Eom. vii. 13) says
regarding those who were under the law, that by the further
ing of its development sin should manifest itself in its true
nature, undoubtedly applies in this respect also to heathen
dom ; and this thought plainly lies in the background of the
But according to § 66, b, these individual exceptions cannot annul the judg
ment regarding the whole of their moral behaviour even in the case of the
individual persons, not to speak of that pronounced regarding heathendom on
the whole since it is not in virtue of the nature of heathenism, but in spite of
it, that these exceptional virtuous deeds have been performed.

358 HEATHENDOM AND JUDAISM.
whole description of the sinful development of heathendom
(Eom. i.). But Paul has certainly by no means always
looked at this development of heathendom from this pedagogic
point of view.
(b) When Paul regards the seduction of the Gentile
Christians of Galatia to Jewish legalism as a relapse to the
dcrOevg ical TTTcoyd o-Toiyela (Gal. iv. 9), he thereby looks at
their previous condition, not from the point of view of an
apostasy which was worthy of punishment (§ 69), but from
that of such an imperfection as corresponded with the stiE
immature childhood of humanity. Looked at from this point
of view, heathenism is a religion for beginners, a religion in
which humanity (6 noo-uos) has begun to learn the elements,
the A B C, as it were, of religious knowledge and behaviour
(o-Tof%eia) ; and these elements are, naturaEy, still meagre,
and cannot work (dcrdevfj ical -WTco-^d) that which man
demands of religion.1 The Gentiles are thereby regarded as
vrjTnoi, whose immaturity did not yet admit of any higher
instruction, just as the Jews probably usuaEy regarded them
as vij7rioi in contrast with themselves (Eom. ii. 20). Now,
since man, while he is a child, has still more or less of the
position of a BovXos (Gal. iv. 1), with this immaturity of theirs
there corresponded also the state of servitude which this
religion for beginners involved, viz. their BovXeveiv. Because
1 We must adhere to this explanation of the o-toixux (or o-toix- tov x'oo-ptov,
iv. 3), because the connection in which the idea appears for the first time
unambiguously leads us to think of the immature youthful age, to which only
such rudiments (cf. Heb. v. 12) are intelligible. To make these expressions
refer to the stars (a reference which can possibly be justified by the usus
loquendi, only, in order to avoid misunderstanding, it would require a tou o'vpxvov)
is equally unsuitable in its application to heathenism, which Paul does not
know and regard merely as a worship of the stars, as in its application to
Judaism, whose "dependence upon the powers of heaven" is brought out only
in an extremely artificial manner. If we were to make them refer to the
material elements of the world (cf. 2 Pet. iii. 10, 12), that which is character
istic in the expression would not lie at all in the rx vmxux, but in the genitive
tov xio-ptov (which is, nevertheless, altogether awanting in ver. 9), by which we
should have to think specially of the world in its present condition (and, there
fore, of that which is expressly called b xbupcos ovtos in 1 Cor. vii. 31) ; and, at any
rate, it would be a very forced and vague expression for a system of outward
ordinances. The combination of both these interpretations (Pfleiderer, p. 71
[E. Tr. i. 70]), however, is altogether unexegetical ; and the assertion that,
grammatically, the genitive can only denote the whole which is made up of the
elements, is already refuted by Heb. v. 12.

§ 7 . HEATHENDOM AND THE DIVINE TRAINING. 359
they did not know God, i.e. the true God, they had to serve
gods who are in reality no gods, whose dominion — a dominion
to which they had no claim — brought them therefore into a
condition of abject slavery (ver. 8). And because they did
not know the true will of God, they had to be satisfied, in a
servile manner, with the ordinances of a false religion (ver. 9),
which, naturally, could not gain for them the good pleasure of
God. It was, indeed, the time of ignorance, which God,
according to Acts xvii. 30, is willing to overlook. It does not
follow, of course, from this expression, that this ignorance
(ver. 2 3) is excusable ; nay, the proclamation that it is over
looked would have had no meaning, unless it could also have
been looked upon as blamable.2 But in the view of the
Epistle to the Galatians the religious ignorance of heathendom
undoubtedly seems to be traced back to a blameless imma
turity, while its corrupt religious practices are traced back to a
state of bondage which corresponds with this condition. The
natural course of development, to which God gave up the
Gentiles (Acts xiv. 16), appears to be still regarded here as
such that the infantile condition of humanity did not yet
admit of a higher knowledge and fulfilment of the divine will.
Hence the positive godlessness and moral degradation of their
life are not yet urged.
(c) On the other hand, the view of the apostle is essen-
tiaEy different even in the Epistles to the Corinthians.
Although the false gods, whom heathendom serves, are already
conceived of as actual beings in Gal. iv. 8, — only they are
not, according to their (demoniac) nature, that for which the
Gentiles take them, and cannot claim the service which the
Gentiles in their ignorance slavishly render them (note h), —
' Pfleiderer (p. 514 [E. Tr. ii. 248]) appears to me to overlook this when he
represents this ignorance as altogether blameless ; but even if this were meant,
it would only be in keeping with the standpoint of a missionary address, if Paul
does not reflect upon the question whether this ignorance is blamable or not. It is
incorrect, moreover, to say that heathenism is described here, in an un-Pauline
manner, as a "tentative groping of men after the God who is near them ;" for
xvii. 27 f. speaks only of that which should have happened, but which has not
happened. At least the view of the Epistle to the Galatians, in which, more
over, the VovXiiuv of the Gentiles by no means appears as a bondage which was
"ordained by God," but only as something which was in keeping with their
childhood, stands much further removed from that of the Epistle to the Romans
than does that of Acts xvii., which certainly cannot be called un-Pauline.

360 HEATHENDOM AND JUDAISM.
yet it is in 1 Cor. xii. 2 that heathendom first appears quite
plainly under the dominion of a foreign power, which drives
them without will and understanding to the dumb idols, and
thus becomes the occasion of their degrading idolatry (§ 69, c).
Here, however, it becomes quite clear that it is actual, and,
that, too, superhuman beings, which are worshipped in the
idols ; and adopting an idea of later Judaism (cf. the LXX.
Deut. xxxii. 1 7 ; Ps. xcvi. 5 ; Baruch iv. 7), Paul calls them
demons (x. 20). In the sense in which even the Old Testa
ment speaks of many gods and lords (cf. Deut. x. 17), these
may be called deities (1 Cor. viii. 5), and indeed even Paul
himself incidentally calls the devil the dew tov alcovo<; tovtov
(2 Cor. iv. 4) ; but to the Christians (1 Cor. viii. 6) they are
only Xeyop,evoi Qeoi (ver. 5) ; there are no deities in the sense
of the Gentiles, there are no such idols as they imagine
(viii. 4, x. 19). As in the Gospels (§ 23, h), these demons
are undoubtedly thought of as the servants and organs of
Satan, so that it is very specially through them probably that
the devil has dominion over heathendom. At least, among
the characteristic features of heathenism mentioned in 2 Cor.
vi. 14-16, Belial (= 7^73), or the devil, is named (ver. 15)
after dvo/xta and otcoto?, and before the eiBcoXa. The connec
tion of heathendom with the demoniac kingdom is thought of
as very real; for according to 1 Cor. x. 20, 21, Paul assumes
that the heathen sacrificial feasts, participation in which was
therefore forbidden to the Christians, brings men into a real
(and, naturally, polluting) fellowship with the demons, to whom
that which is partaken of there is dedicated as a sacrifice, just
as the Christian supper brings them into fellowship with
Christ. It is plainly, therefore, the demoniac powers which
have drawn heathendom into their godless (2 Cor. vi. 14,
dvofjtia) and polluting sinful condition (ver. 17: dicddapTov;
cf. the TrveufiaTa dicdQapTa of the Gospels, § 23, b). Here,
accordingly, heathendom in its condition of childish immaturity
and bondage has fallen a prey to the powers of darkness,
whom it must now serve in a religious as well as in a moral
sense. (d) It is in the Epistle to the Eomans, however, that Paul
first looks away from that natural immaturity (note b) as well
as from this influence of supernatural powers (note c), and

§ 70. HEATHENDOM AND THE DIVINE TRAINING. 361
places himself entirely upon the ethical standpoint, according
to which even heathendom could be given up to the powers
of darkness, only because it had turned away from the living
God and had surrendered itself to sin (cf. § 67, a). It is
here, therefore, that we first meet with the idea of an original
fall of heathendom and of its sad consequences, consisting in
au ever deeper intellectual and moral declension. But that
which is peculiar is, that Paul even regards this process of
development (described in § 69) as one that was ordained by
God. In Eom. i. 18—32 he looks at it from the point of view
of a judgment, in which there is revealed the wrath of God
against the original apostasy of heathendom. It is quite in
keeping with the fundamental law of divine retribution,
according to which guilt demands an equivalent punishment
(§ 64, b), if God punishes sin by sin, by causing the sinner to
sink deeper and deeper into sin through the process of the deve
lopment of sin which He has ordained. Thus sinners must
receive in their own persons (eV eavTols) the equivalent reward
(avTi/jticrdiav) of the error of their apostasy from God, which
was necessary (t)v eBet) according to divine appointment (Eom.
i. 27). God accordingly gives them up to the uncleanness of
the unnatural sensual vices (vv. 24, 26) ; these are, on the one
hand, the necessary consequence of their idolatry and of their
life in the lusts (§ 69, d) ; on the other hand, they are their
righteous punishment through the dishonour which they bring
with them. But this sinking into darkness and folly (§ 69, c)
is already characterized by the passives in vv. 21, 22 as a
judgment of God, although it is also the natural consequence
of their original turning away from Him. How exactly, how
ever, that punishment corresponds with their guilt, the apostle
indicates even in the expressions which he employs. They
who have taken away God's honour (ver. 23) must dishonour
themselves (vv. 24, 26) ; they who have changed (txergXXa^av :
ver. 25) the natural order of things in the deification of the crea
ture, must now also change (g.eTrfXXa^av : ver. 26) the moral
order ; and corresponding with the circumstance that (/cadcos)
they ovk iBoKip,acrav to possess the knowledge of God, God gave
them up et? dBoKt/Jtov vow (ver. 28, for which see § 69, ^foot
note 3). Thus Paul has sought to penetrate deeper and deeper
into the natural development of heathendom as left to itself ;

362 HEATHENDOM AND JUDAISM.
and even here, where its more and more dreadful religious-
moral declension appears as an effect of the divine judgment
of wrath, he comes back again to that starting-point, according
to which there is revealed in the very fact, that God left the
Gentiles to themselves (note a), the rule of a divine training,
which guided the development of humanity. If the time of
their childish immaturity and servitude caused them to fall
away to the powers of darkness, or brought them into a state
of moral decay, which delivers them up to the righteous judg
ment of God's wrath, this could only excite in them the
longing for a time, when the saving grace of God would raise
them up to a higher stage of development, in which the
imperfection of the lower stage, with its sad consequences,
would be overcome. And in this longing there already lay
the anticipation that the prophecy of a better future hovers
even over the irremediable misery of heathendom.
§ 71. Judaism and its Law.
Cf. B. Duhm, Pauli ap. de Judaeorum religione judicia, Gotting. 1873 ;
A. Zahn, das Gesetz Gottes nach der Lehre und Erfahrung des Apostel Paidus,
Halle 1876.
Among all the nations the Jewish, in virtue of its descent
from the patriarchs, stood in a special relation to God as His
possession and His child, (h) In consequence of this, it pos
sessed in its sacred writings the revelation of God regarding
His nature, and also a written law, which placed before its
eyes the will of God in immoveable objectivity, (c) This law
was given through Moses, and was written down by him in
the Pentateuch ; but the whole of the Old Testament Scrip
tures was also a revelation of the divine will, (d) Neverthe
less even the Jews did not fulfil the law, and were, equally
with the Gentiles, exposed to the judgment.
(a) Although, as regards the need of salvation, the Jews, or
the circumcision, as Paul often caEs them in accordance with
their characteristic sign (Gal. ii. 7—9, v. 6, vi. 15 ; Eom.
iii. 30, iv. 12, xv. 8), stand altogether on the same level with
heathendom (§ 66, h), it is not at all meant to be denied that
in many respects they have some advantage over the latter
(Eom. iii. 2 : ttoXv icaTa irdvTa Tpbtrov) ; it only follows that

§ 71. JUDAISM AND ITS LAW. 363
they do not have an advantage in every respect (ov irdvTcw), viz.
not as regards universal sinfulness (ver. 9). The enumeration
of their advantages, however, reaches its climax (ix. 5) in the
descent from the fathers, from the last of whom the Jews
derive the theocratic title of Israelites (ver. 4). Upon this
descent, as well as upon this name, Paul lays stress even for
himself (Eom. xi. 1 ; 2 Cor. xi. 22 ; cf. Phil. iii. 5). What
is the significance of this descent, whose sign is circumcision
(Eom. iv. 12), and therefore, also, what is the significance of
this latter, which is expressly acknowledged in ii. 25 to be
advantageous, appears from xi. 16. According to the prin
ciple that the branches are holy if the root is holy, their
consecration to God passes over from the fathers to their
descendants ; in the former the latter are elected, quite in the
Old Testament sense (cf. § 44, a), to be God's possession, and
as His possession they are the elected object of His love
(ver. 28 : icaTa Tgv i/cXoygv dya-rrrjTol Bid tow iraTepas). The
people of Israel is His people (xi. 1, 2, xv. 10, after Deut.
xxxii. 43), He causes His glory to dwell among them (ix. 4 :
g Boga), and they can glory in Him as their God (ii. 17).
This special relationship of love, in which the people stands
to its God, is described, however, after the manner of the
Old Testament (cf. § 1 7, h), as a filial relationship (ix. 4 :
6 vtodecria) ; the seed of Abraham are the Tmva Qeov, as
appears clearly from the connection of ix. 7, 8, where Te/cva
'ABpad/j, and Teicva Qeov are interchanged as synonymous
expressions. It is plain, also, from vv. 25, 26, that the ideas
of being God's people, of being beloved of God, and of being
His sons, are synonymous ideas.
(b) In consequence of this advantage, which the Jewish
nation has over aE nations, it is entrusted with the oracles of
God (Ta Xoyia tov Qeov: Eom. iii. 2), i.e. with the divine
revelations, which are contained in its sacred books. Although
Paul never expressly asserts that the Jews possessed in the
Old Testament Scriptures a revelation regarding the nature of
God, which was more intelligible and richer than that which
the GentEes originaEy had (§69, a), yet, for him, this is self-
evident. From this it also foEows that a representation of
the Pauline system cannot give any peculiar doctrine of God ;
as to the nature of God, Paul wiE only teach that which the

364 HEATHENDOM AND JUDAISM.
Old Testament teaches, and what the Jews could also Lave
known from it.1 No doubt we must remember that even the
Jewish scribes did not know God in His wisdom as it un
folded itself in the Old Testament, because the wisdom with
which they investigated the Old Testament was a perverted
wisdom (1 Cor. i. 20, 21), like that of sinful humanity in
general (cf. § 67, a). Now, since, for the securing of righteous
ness and salvation (cf. § 65, b), a revelation of the divine
will is specially important, the revelation which God has given
to His people could not be without this. In the law the
Jews possessed a copied representation of the truth, from
which they learned to know the will of God and to prove the
difference between good and evil (Eom. ii. 18, 20). In the
mind of the apostle this possession of the law is so characteristic
of them that he calls them ol iv vo/jloj (Eom. iii. 19 ; cf. ii. 12),
and ol inrb vofjtov (1 Cor. ix. 20 ; cf. Gal. iv. 5). Even the
Jews were conscious of this as a great advantage, they gloried
in it (Eom. ii. 23), on the ground of it they assumed the
place of teachers (vv. 19, 20) and judges of the Gentiles
(vv. 1, 3). Although the Gentiles also possessed a law in a
certain sense (§ 69, a), yet, according to Eom. ii. 27 (cf. 2 Cor.
iii. 6), it was a substantial advantage that the Jews possessed
it in a fixed written form, so that they could hear it read in the
synagogues (ver. 13), and could be instructed out of it (ver. 18).
Thereby the law stood over against them in fixed objectivity, so
that the consciousness of the difference between good and evil
could not be extinguished in them as in the Gentiles (§ 69, d).
(c) The basis of this law is the Mosaic legislation, which
has first proclaimed again the will of God, connected with
a definite threatening of punishment (Eom. v. 14). Among
the special advantages of Israel, Paul counts (ix. 4) the
solemn act of the giving of the law (fj vog,o8eaia), in
which the law which was written on tables of stone (2 Cor.
iii. 3, 7; cf. Ex. xxxi. 18) was promulgated at Sinai.
1 When he is speaking of any divine attribute he repeatedly appeals to the
Old Testament. Thus for God's truthfulness he appeals to Ps. Ii. 4 (Rom.
iii. 4), for His free mercy to Ex. xxxiii. 19, ix. 16, Isa. xiv. 9, 10 (Rom.
ix. 15, 17, 20), for His unsearchable wisdom to Isa. xl. 13 (1 Cor. ii. 16 ; Rom.
xi. 34), for His unmerited grace to Job xii. 2 (Rom. xi. 35), for His righteous
judgment to Deut. xxxii. 35 (Rom. xii. 19), and for its universality to Isa.
xiv. 23 (Rom. xiv. 11).

§ 71. JUDAISM AND ITS LAW. 365
Following a rabbinical tradition, which is already found in the
LXX. (Deut. xxxiii. 2) and in Josephus (Antiq. xv. 5. 3), and
to which Stephen already refers in his discourse (Acts vii. 53,
cf. ver. 38), he assumes that the people received these tables
of the law at the hand of Moses, it is true (iv xetPl pecriTov),
but through the intermediation of angels (Gal. iii. 1 9 :
BiaTayeh Bi dyyeXcov). In saying this, however, there is no
intention of denying its divine origin.2 Moses appears also in
Eom. v. 14 (cf. ver. 20) as the giver of the law; from him
comes the written Thora, as it is still read in the Pentateuch
(2 Cor. iii. 15); even the prescription in Deut. xxv. 4 is
represented as being written in the law of Moses (1 Cor. ix. 9 ;
cf. Eom. x. 5, according to which Moses has written Lev.
xviii. 5 ; ver. 19, according to which he has written Deut.
xxxii. 21). This law of Moses (Eom. vii. 7; cf. Ex. xx. 17)
is now the law of God (vii. 22, 25, viii. 3, 7), it springs from
His Spirit (vii. 14), and is holy as He is holy (ver. 12). This
applies to the law in its whole extent.3 Among the
advantages of the Jewish nation Paul expressly counts the
nirT1 "ri33 (fj Boga : Eom. ix. 4), which, according to a rabbinical
idea supported by Lev. xvi. 2, continually hovered over the
ark of the covenant, and therefore made the temple the real
place of revelation, just as he also regards the altar of burnt-
offering (1 Cor. x. 18, after Ex. xx. 24) as the place of
2 Klopper (Zeitschrift fur wissensch. Theol. 1870, 1, p. 94) has recently
attempted to prove that Paul derives the law, so far as it regulates circumcision
along with all the other specifically national (Levitical) ordinances, from the co
operation of subordinate angelic powers (Gal. iii. 19), in order to indicate the
changeable and temporary nature of this fleshly side of the law. But it is alto
gether wrong to say that, in the polemical argumentation of the apostle, it is this
side which comes under consideration, for the law, as to the impossibility of fulfil
ling which the question is raised in the context of that verse, is the spiritual law,
which could only serve to the increase of Txpxf,idus because of the sinful nature
of man (cf. § 72, b). According to Ritschl, Paul in Gal. iii. regards even the
Mosaic, law in general (so far as it sets up a legal regulation of mutual perform
ances between man and God, which has no religious character (?)) as an (ungodly)
institution of the lower angelic powers (ii. p. 309 f.), to which he makes even the
o-toixux tov xio-poov refer (p. 249), because, according to him, Paul judges of the
law according to the predominant impression made by its ceremonial command
ments, while, in the Epistle to the Romans, he looks at it differently in
accordance with the impression made by its ethical elements (p. 251).
3 No more than Jesus or any of the original apostles (§ 24, c, 52, a) doe
Paul make any distinction between the ethical and the ritual part of the law
(cf. Pfleiderer, p. 70 [E. Tr. i. 69] ) ; and the assumption that he did not reckon

366 HEATHENDOM AND JUDAISM.
God's gracious presence, whereby the IsraeEte is made partaker
of the blessings of the latter. From this it is evident that
it was quite in the sense of the Old Testament and of Judaism
that he regarded the Old Testament regulations relating to
worship ; and he even counts among these advantages (Eom.
ix. 4) the Jewish XaTpeia, from which it naturally foEows
that he looked upon the ritual part of the law, which gave the
prescriptions regarding this XaTpeia, as a part which was
given by God, and rich in blessing for the nation of Israel.
Although it cannot be directly proved, yet it may be taken
for granted, that, when Paul speaks simply of the law, he
thinks not only of the Mosaic legislation, but also of aE the
commandments of God, as they are contained in the Old
Testament, and therefore also of the development of the law
by the prophets. As the Pentateuch is caEed 6 vo/aos, not
only where its legislative portion, but also where its historical
(1 Cor. xiv. 34; Eom. iii. 31) or prophetic (iii. 21) portion is
considered, and yet only where there appears from the history
or the prophecy the wiE of God, which regulates the new way
of justification for men (Eom. iii. 21, 31) or the right
behaviour of men (1 Cor. xiv. 34), so, conversely, the whole
of the Old Testament is caEed 6 vo/jtos, even where it is
passages out of the Psalms and prophets that are considered
(1 Cor. xiv. 21 ; Eom. iii. 19), but also only because it
reveals the will of God in all its parts.
(d) In regard also to the Jews, Scripture (Eom. iii. 9-19)
as weE as experience (ii. 1—3, 21—24) teaches that they do not
keep the law, and that they are therefore, along with the Gentiles,
exposed to the judgment of God (iii. 19 ; cf. § 66, V). It is
the latter as a part of divine revelation, or even of the law of Moses (cf. Holsten,
p. 21, 22), cannot, naturally, be proved from the circumstance that, in [his
disquisitions relating to the ethical condition of pre-Christian or Christian
humanity, it is only the former that is spoken of. Naturally, that which he
says of the relation of the Christian to the law cannot come under consideration
here at all. When, however, the apostle (Rom. ii. 28, 29) sets before the Jew
that, in order to receive praise from God, he must be circumcised not only in the
flesh but also in the heart, he says nothing else than that which the law also
demands (Deut. x. 16) ; and when he describes this circumcision as one that is
not grounded in the letter of the law, but accomplished in the Spirit of God, he
likewise says only that which Deut. xxx, 6 says, viz. that this circumcision is
accomplished by God Himself (through His Spirit) in all them that obediently
turn to Him with their whole heart (ver. 2).

§ 72. THE LAW AND THE PROMISE. 367
not hereby meant to assert that their sinfulness was not of a
different nature from that of the Gentiles (Gal. ii. 15) ; nay,
Paul allows that they have a zeal for God (Eom. x. 2) and a
striving after righteousness (ix. 31, x. 3). But since even
their fulfilment of the law was imperfect, it could not secure
to them justification. If they were perfectly satisfied with
their possession of the law (ii. 1 7 : iiravairavg vou<e> ; cf.
ver. 13), or with the zeal for it which they showed in their
judging of others (vv. 1-3), they forgot that the Gentiles also
possessed a law in a certain sense (vv. 14, 15), and that God,
because of His impartiality in the judgment, can inquire only
as to the doing of His will (vv. 2, 6 ; cf. § 65, c). Even so
great a blessing as circumcision, which secured to them, in
another respect, advantages which were indisputable and
could not be lost (note a), could be of no assistance to them
in this respect, seeing that God, in accordance with His
impartiality in the judgment, cannot judge in accordance with
this personal advantage, but only, in the case of the circum
cised as weE as of the uncircumcised, in accordance with the
fulfilment or transgression of the law (ii. 25, 26), and can
bestow the praise of the righteous, not upon him who calls
himself a Jew outwardly (ver. 17), but only upon him who,
by the circumcision of the heart which is demanded in the
law (note c, footnote 3), proves himself to be a genuine Jew
in the eyes of the Searcher of hearts (vv. 28, 29). Nay,
since the Jew has in the written law and in circumcision a
double impulse to fulfil the law, the virtues of the Gentiles can
only condemn him in the judgment (ver. 27); judgment will
be pronounced against his wickedness first (ver. 9 : 'IovBaiov
7rp5>Tov), because his very law passes sentence upon him
(ver. 12 : oaoi iv vop,tp rgjiapTov, Bid vofiov icpidgaovTai). If,
finally, they appeal to the previous gracious dealings of God
towards Israel, they only show that they misunderstand and
despise His forbearance and long-suffering, which are leading
them to repentance (ii. 4 ; cf. ix. 22), and by their hardness of
heart and impenitence increase their guilt (ver. 5).
§ 72. The Law and the Promise.
Seeing that sin dwells also in the Jews, the law could not

368 HEATHENDOM AND JUDAISM.
secure its fulfilment among them, it could only solicit sin to
transgress it, and so bring upon them judgment and death.
(6) Accordingly, the design of the law could only be to reveal
the sin, which was brought by it to maturity, in all its
destructive power, and thereby to awaken in them the longing
after redemption, (c) That being the case, however, the law
can only be a temporary institute, an institute which shows
that for the Jews also the time of youthful immaturity and
bondage must be followed by a time, which opens up the
prospect of a higher end of the divine training, (d) This end
was already indicated to the Israelites in the promise which
was given to the fathers, a promise which could not be
attached through the law to new conditions that could not
be fulfilled, and which cannot therefore be lost to them.
(a) Under the given circumstances, i.e. on the presupposi
tion that sin dwells in humanity ever since Adam's fall
(§ 67), the apparently so glaring contradiction between that
which the Jews have received in the law and the result of
their religious-moral development was not accidental but
necessary. That the written law stood over against the Jew
in fixed objectivity (§ 71, h), is expressly regarded in Eom. ii.
27 as an advantage of the Jews as contrasted with heathen
dom with its natural moral consciousness (ver. 15), — an
advantage which should have led the Jew to fulfil the law, —
and even in 2 Cor. iii. 3, 6 it only stands in contrast with the
operation of the irvevg,a in Christianity. That which made
the law weak, so that it could not work its fulfilment, was
not therefore this its rigid objectivity, nor any defect what
ever in the law, which in itself is icaX6<; (Eom. vii. 16);
according to viii. 3 it was rather the power of the flesh which
was opposed to it, or rather, the power of sin which dwells in
the flesh (§ 68, b). Just because the law was spiritual
(Trvev/jiaTiicos), issuing from the Spirit of God and having His
character (ayios, cf. vii. 12), it could not but meet with a
radical opposition from man, who had fallen away altogether
to the flesh (o~dpicivo<;), and therewith to the dominion of sin
(ver. 14). Nay, Paul had found in his own experience, and
held it to be the general experience of all who are under the
law, that the commandment forbidding concupiscence does not
suppress it, but only stirs it up (vv. 7, 8), that the very inter-

§ 72. THE LAW AND THE PROMISE. 369
position of the positive law makes an end of the relatively
innocent condition of moral ignorance, by awakening (vv. 8, 9)
the power of sin which is slumbering in man (§ 66, c). This
power, viz., receives occasion through the commandment, to hold
up that which is forbidden before man's eyes as a good that is
worth striving after, and to tempt him by means of this deceit
to lust after it, and therefore to transgress the commandment
(ver. 11, cf. ver. 8). Naturally, this is not owing to the law,
which cannot possibly be sinful (ver. 7), which is rather holy
and righteous and brings blessing to man (ver. 12); it is
owing to the sin which dwells in his flesh (ver. 13). Seeing
that man's nature is fleshly, the effect of the law can only be
that sinful passions are thereby stirred up (ver. 5), and that
the sin which dwells in him receives the power to lead him to
transgress the law (1 Cor. xv. 5 6 : g Bvvafiis t?)? d/j,apTia<i 6
j/o/to?). So long, therefore, as man stands under the dominion
of the law, the dominion of sin over him cannot be broken
(Eom. vi. 14; Gal. iii. 23 ; cf. ver. 22). If sin, however, has
once seduced man to transgress the law, the law now works
the wrath of God, inasmuch as it demands the execution of
the punishment which was threatened by it to the sinner
(Eom. iv. 15, for which see § 66, d), and so pronounces its
curse upon man (Gal. iii. 10). Since the law, however,
expressly stipulates that death shall be the punishment of sin
(Deut. xxx. 19 ; cf. ver. 15), the letter of the law pronounces
sentence of death upon man (2 Cor. iii. 6 : to ypd/j,g.a
diroKTeivei) ; the Biaicovia of Moses is a Biaicovia OavaTov
and KaTaKpicrew; (vv. 7, 9).
(b) Seeing that the law was given when the sinful develop
ment of humanity, which dates from Adam, was already in
progress, and therefore the effect of it which we have just
described must have been foreseen by God and taken into
account, it could not have been given for the purpose of
commencing a new epoch and of leading humanity by the
fulfilment of the wiE of God which is revealed in it to the
righteousness, which it has lost ever since Adam's fall. Its
desio-n can only rather have been that which has been actually
realized; it has come in besides (Trapeio-gXdev), i.e., it has
entered into the development of humanity, not as an epoch-
making, but as a relatively secondary moment, which was
vol. i. 2 a

370 HEATHENDOM AND JUDAISM.
only to bring to maturity the development which had once
begun, by increasing transgression (Eom. v. 20). In the same
sense it is said in Gal. iii. 19, that it was added (to the
promise) because of transgressions (i.e. in order to increase
them), for according to the context it is altogether inadmis
sible to find herein the thought, that the law was intended to
check transgressions (cf. Messner, p. 222 ; Eeuss, ii. p. 49
[E. Tr. ii. 43]), apart altogether from the circumstance that,
according to note a, it had not actually fulfilled this design.1
The same divine training, which purposely left heathendom to
itself, in order that the development of the sinful tendency
which it had once adopted might come to maturity (§ 70, a),
reached the same end within the province of Judaism by the
interposition of the law. According to Eom. vii. 13 sin
should manifest itself as that which it is (Jva cpavf) duapTia,
scil. g djiapTia), yea, it should do this by being compelled to
show itself altogether in its true character, to set forth aE its
consequences, and so come to maturity (Jva yevgTai icaff
virepBoXgv dfiapTcoXw g dfiapTia). This it did, however, by
1 The more particular information, which this passage gives regarding the
manner in which the law was promulgated, is no doubt intended to support this
statement regarding its design, although it certainly does not represent the law as
a mediator between promise and fulfilment (Holsten, p. 307). That being the
case, it cannot, of course, like Acts vii. (cf. § 42, d), set forth a special glory of
the law ; for although it is certainly not the intention of the apostle to deny the
divine origin of the law (or of a portion of it ; cf. § 71, c, footnote 3), he yet plainly
sees in the circumstance that it was ordained through angels an indication of its
transitory design (Tpoo-ir'itn, xpx>s ov), for it is always only with reference to
passing earthly designs that the service of the angels is engaged, whereas the
personal conferring of the promise by God Himself (vv. 17, 18) already secures
its abiding significance. According to Ex. xx. 19, on the other hand, the
agency of a mediator on the occasion of the giving of the law can only indicate
that, because of their sinful uncleanness, the people were not in a position to
receive the law directly from God or His holy angels. In the fact, however, that
the law was given to a sinful people, there was already implied, for the apostle,
the certainty that it could not have been given in order to be fulfilled, but only
in order to be transgressed (Txpxf,io-ioiv x^F"), just as the result has also shown
that it has only increased transgressions (note a). In accordance with this,
ver. 20, which has been so much disputed, is to be understood as simply mean
ing that, in general, it is not an individual, but a number of individuals, which
are accustomed to make use of a mediator in order to have dealings with another.
Since God, however, is one, Moses can only have been the mediator of the
people ; seeing that, when dealing with God, they required a mediator because
of their sinfulness, he received the law in their stead. In the interpretation of
this passage the view is gradually finding acceptance, that, when the unity of God

§ 72. THE LAW AND THE PROMISE. 371
its receiving occasion through the law to solicit man to
transgress it, and so to put him into the condition which Paul
represents as death (in the metaphorical sense), as the loss
of the true life which consists in the condition of relative
innocence (vv. 9, 10, 24). The law demands righteousness,
and will originally, along with it, give life (§ 65, d). In
consequence, however, of the presence of sin, which is
operative in man, it has worked (although with the fore
knowledge of God, and not without His wEl) the very
opposite of that which it was meant to work (ver. 10), inas
much as it has now brought upon man spiritual death as well
as (according to note a) death as the punishment of sin.
Accordingly, it is evident that, for man, sin has turned this
great good into its opposite (ver. 13). When man, however,
has thus once experienced the whole destructive power of sin
(iii. 20),3 there spontaneously arises from him the cry of
anguish for deEverance out of this state of death into which
it has brought him (vii. 24), and through the awakening of
this longing for salvation the law becomes the iraiBaycoyw
et? Xpio-Tov (Gal. iii. 24).s
is set forth, the point in question cannot be as to the contrast with the duality
of the parties to be brought together (an explanation which is still given by
Immer, p. 282 f., but which would necessarily demand b us), but as to the con
trast with a multiplicity. This, however, cannot possibly be the multiplicity of
the angels, as is now-a-days being frequently assumed (cf. Vogel in the Stud, und
Krit. 1865, 3 ; Klbpper, ut supra; Ritschl, ii. p. 247). If that were the case,
the pio-'ms could only be a messenger or agent, and the syllogism of the apostle
(the general validity of whose major premiss is not altogether unquestionable
even according to our interpretation) would be altogether untenable, as Klbpper
himself (p. 106) really admits, for, according to the view of the Old Testament,
God, in ordinary cases, always makes use of such mediators for the purpose of com
municating His messages to man. Moreover, the thought that, when such an
intermediate agent is employed, we cannot be certain that we have received the
true and clear expression of the intention of the one who gave him authority
(Klbpper, p. 108), is certainly far from the mind of the apostle.
2 Sin cannot reveal its real nature more clearly than by showing that, for
man, it turns the blessing into a curse. It is not only because the law leads
man to have an experience of his own of the evil lusts which are thereby stirred
up (Rom. vii. 7), nor only because it convinces all men of their own sinfulness,
by discovering the contradiction between their conduct and the will of God
(iii. 19), but also inasmuch as it is with respect to it that sin reveals itself in its
most destructive consequences, that the law works the knowledge of sin (iii. 20 :
oix vb/xov iTtyyoio-ts xpoxprtxs).
3 If according to iii. 23, the law stands as a warder {$.$povpovp.i$x vto vbft.ov)
before the prison, in which sin with its dominion keeps us confined (read

372 HEATHENDOM AND JUDAISM.
(c) From the pedagogic Paul justly deduces the transitory
character of the law. If the goal is reached to which the
pedagogue is to lead, then his activity ceases of itself (Gal.
iii. 25 : oinceri vtto iraiBaycoyov iap,ev). With the coming in
of faith or of Christ as the object of faith there is involved
the end of the law (Eom. x. 4), because God now no longer
justifies on the ground of the works of the law, but on the
ground of faith. The law is a icaTapyovuevov (2 Cor. iii. 11),
not, however, because it has failed in its purpose with respect
to the sin of man, but because it was originally given only
for a temporary purpose, after the attaining of which its
significance naturally ceases. Even Moses was well aware
of the Te'Ao? tov icaTapyovuevov, although he had still reasons
for concealing this from the people (2 Cor. iii. 1 3) ;4 for the
law was originally only added to the promise until an
appointed time (Gal. iii. 1 9 : aypvi ov), which has come in
with the appearing of Christ and faith in Him. With this
way of looking at the subject there is naturally connected the
point of view, under which Paul regards the divine education
of heathendom in § 70. If the law is only meant for a
definite epoch of the development of humanity, it also belongs
to the aoQevg ical tttco^o. aToi^eia tov koct/u,ov (iv. 3, 9), to
avyxXubptivoi. Cf. ver. 22 : o-wixXuo-iv . . . vzo xpcuprixv), or if, without a figure, it
is continually promoting the dominion of sin in man (cf. Rom. vi. 14) by ever
and anon stirring him up to transgress it (Gal. iii. 19), in order that (according
to the connection with vv. 21, 22) he may not by the fulfilling of the law attain
that which he should attain first of all ix tio-tius, and if from this the pedagogic
character of the law is deduced (aim), the law can be called a pedagogue, only
in so far as it brings men to Christ, by continually convincing them of their
inability to attain to righteousness by themselves and by their own doing, and
leads them to seek justification by the way of faith in Him, and not by the way
of the works of the law. Pfleiderer (p. 86 [E. Tr. i. 85] ) finds, especially in
Gal. iii., an objective-theological mode ot viewing this matter, as distinguished
from the subjective-anthropological point of view in Rom. vii. (see above) ; but
the latter is only the explanation of the former, for the comprehension of which
it is absolutely necessary, and is already indicated in Gal. iii. 19.
4 That Moses had, for pedagogic reasons (probably even by command of the
angels, whose mediator he was, according to Klbpper ; cf. footnote 1), given to
the whole law, and that, too, abidingly, the nimbus of divine inviolability,
which rests upon the Levitico-theocratio commandments of the Pentateuch,
and still conceals its transitory character even from the Jews of the present
day (Klbpper, p. 115), can by no means be proved, for the fact, that even in the
present day a veil lies upon the reading of the Old Testament, is mentioned
expressly in ver. 14 as an evidence of the obduracy of the people.

§ 72. THE LAW AND THE PROMISE. 373
the elementary rudiments of religion, which were aloue
adapted to the immature condition of humanity which was
characteristic of that epoch, not, however, because of its
natural character (cf. Baur, p. 171), but because of its merely
preparatory significance (note b). So long as the child is
still in the condition of the vijirio-;, he stands under guardians
and stewards (ver. 2). This applies also to the Jews (ver. 3).
But because man, while in the condition of immature child
hood, has still more or less of the position of a BovXos (ver. 1),
under the law he finds himself in the condition of bondage
(ver. 3 : BeBovXa/j,evoi), the law is a £1/70? BovXela? (v. 1), the
covenant of the law, presignified by the son of Abraham by
the handmaid, determines to bondage (Gal. iv. 22-24 ; cf.
Eom. viii. 15). Of course, it is only so long as sinful man
opposes the law that it appears to him as a servile yoke.
While, however, the effect and design of the law usually
appear conditioned by the sin which is present in man, this
bondage appears here as a consequence of a still imperfect
stage of development, which points away beyond itself and
opens up the prospect of a better future, which will commence
at the term appointed by the father for the declaration of the
majority of his child (Gal. iv. 2 : g li-poOecr/jtia tov iraTpos).
(d) While, however, heathendom could only look out with
anticipative longing towards such a better future, the Jews
possessed the definite promise of it, a promise which God was
bound to fulfil for His truth's sake (Eom. xv. 8 : virep
dXg8eia<; Qeov et? to BeBaiwaai to? iirayyeXla1; t&v
•naTepcov), seeing that He has solemnly ratified it in the
covenants which He entered into with the patriarchs (ix. 4 :
at BiaOgKai . . . ical ai iwayyeXiai ; cf. Eph. ii. 12). These
promises are the most essential import of the oracles of God
(to; Xoyia tov Qeov), to be entrusted with which is the leading
advantage of the Jews or the circumcision (Eom. iii. 1, 2).
According to iv. 13, however, the import of the promise which
was given to Abraham and his seed is the icXgpov6/j.ov ainov
elvai kco-/j,ov.5 Now, God has granted this Messianic posses-
r' In consequence of the relation in which his blessing appears often put to all
the nations of the earth (Gen. xviii. 18, xxii. 18), the possession of the land of
Canaan, which was primarily promised to Abraham (xv. 7, xvii. 8), is widened
into the idea of the possession of the world, and this is realized in the promised

374 HEATHENDOM AND JUDAISM.
sion of salvation (g KXgpovog,ia ; cf. § 34, a, 50, c) to Abraham
by promise, as a gift (Gal. iii. 1 8 : /ce%dpio-Tai), not as a
reward for a definite performance, but on the ground of the
righteousness of faith (Eom. iv. 13), of which circumcision
was the seal (ver. 11), and therefore icaTa ydpiv (ver. 16).
From this it follows, however, that it is altogether independent
of the law. Seeing it had long beforehand been rendered
valid (ratified) by the forming of the covenants, the testament,
by which God had bound Himself to fulfil this promise to
Abraham's descendants, could not be rendered invalid by the
law which was given 430 years later (Gal. iii. 17). This,
however, would have happened, if the attaining of the
icXgpovofiia had then been made dependent upon the fulfilling
of the law ; for in that case it would not have been attained
on the ground of a gracious promise, as it was granted to
Abraham, but on the ground of a legal performance (ver. 18).
The law would have been against the promises, it would have
abrogated them (ver. 21). Nay, if the Messianic /cXgpovo/ula
were to be attained on the ground of the law (et ol iic vouov
kXgpov6g,oi), i.e. so that it would be dependent and remain
dependent upon the fulfilling of the law, the promise would
be altogether done away with (Eom. iv. 1 4) ; for seeing that
sin reigns in man, the law necessarily calls forth transgression
of the law and thereby the wrath of God (ver. 15; cf. note a).
Wrath, however, excludes the manifestation of grace which
the fulfilbng of the promise would involve ; God could no
longer fulfil the promise to the objects of His wrath, as the
connection of the thought in Gal. iii. 10 with that in ver. 9
also presupposes (cf. § 66, b). It was given, however, icaTa
Xapiv, in order that it might not be dependent upon a con
dition that could not be fulfilled, and therefore be always
uncertain, but that it might be firm and sure (Eom. iv. 16:
Messianic kingdom. This comes out still more clearly in the other explanation
which Paul gives in Gal. iii. 16 to the patriarchal prophecy. According to this
explanation to o-Tippox is not a collective term for the descendants of Abraham,
but a designation of the Christ who was descended from the fathers (Rom.
ix. 5). It is to Him, therefore, as the Lord of the Messianic kingdom, that the
promise of the possession of the world specially refers (Gal. iii. 19). With the
Messianic kingdom, however, every Messianic blessing is directly promised to
the seed of Abraham (in the collective sense), or through his seed (in the
personal sense).

§ 73. THE PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURE. 375
BeBaiav ; cf. xv. 8 : BeBaiwcrai), in order that it might
remain inalienable to the seed of Abraham. Accordingly the
law could only have been given, till the seed should come,
to whom the promise was (primarily) given (Gal. iii. 19),
and in order to secure the fulfilment of the promise in the
only way which was in keeping with its character (by means
of the righteousness of faith, and therefore icaTa x^Ptv)-
From this, however, it foEows, that while the advantage,
which was given to Israel by its law, could be turned into its
opposite by the sin which was present in it (note h), the
advantage, which it possessed in the promise of the Messianic
salvation in virtue of its descent Eom the fathers, was an
advantage which it could not lose.0 If that is the case, how
ever, the fulfilment of the promise, and therefore the attain
ment of the Messianic salvation, had to be brought about in a
way which was quite new and altogether independent of the
law. Here, then, we stand upon the boundary line of the
pre-Christian age, and there is opened up the prospect of
the new era of grace and salvation.

CHAPTEE IV.
PROPHECY AND FULFILMENT.
§ 73. The Prophecy of Scripture.
Inasmuch as Scripture refers to the Messianic salvation and
its reaEzation, its significance belongs exclusively to those who
c The unfaithfulness of the people in keeping the divine revelation, which
certainly included also obligations for them, could not possibly do away with
the faithfulness of God (Rom. iii. 3 ; cf. § 65, c) ; in order to be true, He
must keep His word, even though the people by their unrighteousness made
this, so to speak, difficult for Him (vv. 4, 5). For His truth's sake Christ had
to become a minister of the circumcision, and so secure to the descendants of
the fathers the possession of the Messianic salvation, in order that the promises
given to the fathers might not be made of none effect, but might he confirmed
as true by their fulfilment (xv. 8 ; cf. 2 Cor. i. 20) ; because of these promises
the salvation which is proclaimed in the Gospel is for the Jews first (Rom. i. 16).
For the gracious gifts of God, and specially the calling to the Messianic salva
tion, which He has given to that people, can neither be repented of nor be
taken back by Him (xi. 29).

376 PROPHECY AND FULFILMENT.
receive that salvation, and therefore to the Christian present.
(b) The divine decrees which are disclosed in this present, as
well as the events which are closely connected with them, are
directly foretold in Scripture, even in detail, (c) In many
respects, however, the Christian present is also typically
presignified in the history and institutions of the Old Testa
ment, (d) It is often only by means of an allegorical inter
pretation that this prophetic sense of the history and
institutions of the Old Testament can be brought out,
especially where the literal sense shows itself to be inad
missible. (a) The promise which was given to the fathers, and
belongs inalienably to the nation which is descended from
them, accompanies, as prophecy, the- nation of Israel through
its whole history, and is therefore also an essential part of its
Holy Scriptures. Nay, the whole of Scripture (o z/o/^o? ical
ol TrpocprjTat : Eom. iii. 21), which appears from one side as a
revelation of the divine will (6 i/d/to?; § 71, c), can also be
thought of, from the other side, as prophetic. If, however, it
is only for the Jews that the law has its significance (iii. 19),
— and even for them this significance is only transitory
(§ 72, c), — it is for the future generations, which should see
its fulfilment, that Scripture considered as prophecy first has
its real significance (cf. 1 Pet. i. 12, for which see § 46, a,
footnote 1). This necessary consequence of the conception of
prophecy as directly Messianic, Paul has drawn as well as
Peter. The import of God's message of salvation, which the
apostle proclaims, God has promised afore by His prophets in
the Holy Scriptures (Eom. i. 2). But as even here the
prophetic activity is looked at exclusively from that side,
according to which its organs have put down their prophecies
in the writings which were appointed for the future, so it
follows from xvi. 26 that the specific significance of these
writings is such that it could only be meant for that future.
There, viz., it is said, that in the Christian present the
mystery of salvation is made known through the Scriptures of
the prophets, inasmuch as, by means of the proof, that that
which is now proclaimed was already foretold by the prophets,
the basis was laid for the knowledge, that it is really the
divine decree which was formed long ago, which the apostles

§ 73. THE PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURE. 377
preach. Thus the participation of the Gentiles in Abraham's
salvation, which was indicated in Gen. xii. 3, was preached
beforehand as glad tidings by the Scripture; it (i.e. God, who
speaks in it) foresaw the future justification of the Gentiles by
faith (Gal. iii. 8). Nay, that which was thus witnessed by the
law and the prophets was by no means yet manifested by this
witness to their own age, which could not yet regard it and
understand it in the light of its fulfilment (Eom. iii. 21; cf.
Eph. iii. 5) ; it was first manifested in the day of salvation by
means of the gospel (i. 17). Accordingly, the significance of
that which was written beforehand does not belong to the
time in which it was written ; it was written for our instruc
tion (Eom. xv. 4) and admonition (1 Cor. x. II).1
(b) The extent to which Paul found the import of the
Messianic message of salvation directly preached beforehand
in Scripture, appears from his incidental allusions to Old
Testament prophecy. Christ has died and risen again accord
ing to the Scriptures (1 Cor. xv. 3, 4) ; the reproaches that
fell upon Him are foretold in Ps. lxix. 9 (Eom. xv. 3), the
dominion which was given Him in Ps. viii. 6 (1 Cor. xv. 27).
Where he has found the promise of the Spirit (Gal. iii. 14 ;
cf. Eph. i. 13), the apostle does not say. The doctrine of the
righteousness of faith is witnessed by the law and the prophets
(Eom. iii. 21; cf. Gal. iii. 1 1 ; Eom. i. 1 7, after Hab. ii. 4 ;
Eom. iv. 6—8, after Ps. xxxii. 1, 2) ; in particular, witness is
borne to faith as the condition of salvation in Isa. xxviii. 16
(Eom. x. 11), and as the source of the preaching of the
gospel in Ps. cxvi. 10 (2 Cor. iv. 13). The universality of
the preaching of salvation Paul finds in Ps. xix. 4 (Eom. x. 18);
the destruction of human wisdom by the foolishness of preach
ing in Isa. xxix. 14 (1 Cor. i. 19); the calling of the Gentiles
in Hos. ii. 23, i. 10 (Eom. ix. 25, 26); Deut. xxxii. 21;
Isa. lxv. 1 (Eom. x. 19, 20) ; Ps. xviii. 49 ; Deut. xxxii. 43 ;
1 Even the practical demands that are made upon the behaviour of men, which
are contained in these prophecies of the divine decrees, are meant for the instruc
tion of those who see their fulfilment. Thus, such a prophecy as Isa. xlix. 8
refers to men's behaviour in the Christian present (2 Cor. vi. 2 ; cf. Eph. v. 14) ;
and like every other statement regarding the will of God (cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 34),
even the Mosaic law itself can be regarded as prophetic, and as having a direct
bearing upon the regulation of Christian circumstances (1 Cor. ix. 9, 10 : V hfuts
lypiipz).

378 PROPHECY AND FULFILMENT.
Ps. cxvii. 1 ; Isa. xi. 10 (Eom. xv. 9-12); Isa. Iii. 15 (Eom.
xv. 21); and in a certain sense even in the promise to the
patriarchs (Gal. iii. 8 ; Eom. iv. 18). The unbelief of the
Jews he sees foretold in Isa. liii. 1, lxv. 2 (Eom. x. 16, 21);
the offence which, they take at Christ in Isa. viii. 14, xxviii. 16
(Eom. ix. 33); their obduracy in Isa. xxix. 10, vi. 9, 10 ;
Deut. xxix. 4; Ps. lxix. 22, 23 (Eom. xi. 8-10); their partial
rejection in Isa. x. 22, 23, i. 9 (Eom. ix. 27-29); their final
salvation in Isa. Ex. 20; Jer. xxxi. 33, 34 (Eom. xi. 26,
27). That the Christian Church is the temple of God, he
finds in Lev. xxvi. 11, 12; Isa. Iii. 11; Jer. xxxi. 9;
2 Sam. vii. 14 (2 Cor. vi. 16-18); the bestowal of the gifts of
grace he finds in Ps. lxviii. 18 (Eph. iv. 8-10) ; and even the
special gift of speaking with tongues in Isa. xxviii. 11, 12
(1 Cor. xiv. 21). The continual persecution of Christians is
foretold in Ps. xEv. 22 (Eom. viii. 26); the final overthrow of
death in Isa. xxv. 8 ; Hos. xiii. 14 (1 Cor. xv. 54, 55).
(c) Scripture is prophetic not only in its expressions, but
also in its typical history. In consequence of the divine
guiding of history, the events of the Messianic time were
represented as to their nature and significance in earlier
historical events. Thus, according to Eom. v. 14, Adam is a
type of the future (second) Adam, inasmuch as in him it is
shown how an influence extends from one to the whole race.
So the IsraeEtes of the Mosaic time, with their experiences of
salvation as well as with the judgments of God which befell
them, are tvitoi gg.d)v (1 Cor. x. 6) ; what happened to them
happened to them typically (tvitikw), i.e. so that we might
learn what we have to experience and shall experience, if we
conduct ourselves similarly (ver. 11). NaturaEy, he always
keeps in view the committing of this history to writing ; it
was by this means that it could first receive this significance
for the future (note a). What Scripture relates regarding the
justification of Abraham is not only written in order to
describe his justification (St avTov), but also to instruct us as
to the manner of our own (Eom. iv. 23, 24; cf. iii. 31).
Moreover, the boundary line between this way of looking at
the history as a type and the simple borrowing of Elustrative
examples out of it is a fluctuating one. When the comfort,
which God gave to Elias (Eom. xi. 2-4), is made to apply to

§ 73. THE PROPHECY OF SCRIPTURE. 379
the present (ver. 5), when the procedure of God when He
elected Isaac or Jacob (ix. 6-13), or when He hardened
Pharaoh's heart (ver. 17), illustrates His present bearing,
these are, primarily, only historical examples, which, however,
could have been equally well regarded as types.2 That Paul
looked at the institutions of the Old Testament also from
this point of view cannot be directly proved. When, however,
Christ is represented as a iXaaTgpiov (Eom. iii. 25) and as'
a paschal lamb (1 Cor. v. 7 ; cf. Eph. v. 2), when the sacrificial
system in general (Eom. xii. 1, xv. 16) and the rite of the feast
of Passover in particular (1 Cor. v. 7, 8) are given an applica
tion to Christian circumstances (cf. Col. ii. 11 ; Phil. ii. 17,
iii. 3, iv. 18), when the Church is called the true temple of
God (1 Cor. iii. 16 ; 2 Cor. vi. 16), when an appointment of
the law relating to the priests is used as an illustration of an
ordinance of God in the Christian Church (1 Cor. ix. 13), and
the Jewish sacrificial meal appears as an analogon of the
Christian supper (1 Cor. x. 18), there lies at the basis of all
these allusions the presupposition that these institutions
which were appointed by God have a typical character as
weE as the events which were under His guidance, from
which, however, it does not by any means follow that this
part of the law does not also have its significance as law
(of. § 71, c).3
(d) In consequence of his rabbinical training, Paul was also
acquainted with the allegorizing way of interpreting the Old
Testament, and made use of it. According to it the narra
tives of the Old Testament have, without prejudice to their
historical character, also another meaning than that which the
words express, inasmuch as the Spirit, who suggested these
words, meant to prophesy something future with them, and it
2 Jesus already regards the fate of Jonah as a type of His fate (Matt. xii. 40),
and the flood as a type of the last judgment (xxiv. 37-39 ; cf. 1 Pet. iii. 20, 21).
On the other hand, Sarah, in Peter (1 Pet. iii. 6), and Job and Elias, in James
(v. 11, 17), are simply biblical examples. A similar usage is found already in
the discourses of Christ (Matt. xi. 21-24, xii. 41, 42).
3 As the history does not cease to be history in consequence of its being
typical, so neither does the law cease to be a revelation of the will of God for
the time of the law, although it is also recognised to be a prophecy of future
events or of demands that God is to make in the future, as we have already seen
in the teaching of Jesus and the original apostles (cf. § 24, d, 45, c, footnote 4,
52, a, footnote 1).

380 PROPHECY AND FULFILMENT.
is the business of the interpreter to discover this meaning by
a deeper comprehension of Scripture (Gal. iv. 24 : d Tivd iaTiv
dXXgyopovfieva). Thus the two sons of Abraham by the maid
and the free woman are an allegory of Judaism enslaved by
the law and of Christianity free from the law (iv. 22-31).
Here, therefore, a fact of the past is a prophetic type of a fact
of the Messianic present ; it is not so, however, per se, but in
consequence of the fathoming of its deeper meaning. In a
similar manner Paul explains the story of the shining coun
tenance of Moses, and of the veil with which he concealed it
(Ex. xxxiv.), allegorically, so as to make it refer to the transi
tory glory of the law and to the circumstance that this its
transitory character was hidden from the unbelieving Jews
(2 Cor. iii. 13-16 ; cf. ver. 7). So the hidden allegorical
meaning (to uvo-Tgpiov) of Gen. ii. 24 refers to Christ and
His Church (Eph. v. 32). In a similar manner Paul can now
also explain legal precepts aEegorically, as when, e.g., he makes
the precept in Deut. xxv. 4 refer to the right of the preachers
of the Gospel to be maintained by the Church (1 Cor. ix. 10).
In this case, however, he justifies his explanation by expressly
excluding the literal meaning as being absolutely inadmissible
(ver. 9 : p,g to3v Bocov g-eXei toj Qea>) ; his religious apprecia
tion of the Old Testament cannot bear that one of its appoint
ments could have in view the well-being of animals and not
that of man.

§ 74. The Use of the Old Testament.
For the most part Paul introduces his quotations simply
as words of Scripture, and it is Isaiah, the Psalms, ~and the
Pentateuch that he chiefly uses, (b) Although he betrays an
acquaintance with the original text, his quotations are, for the
most part, given according to the Septuagint, in many places
very freely, and often changed to suit his argument, (c) In
the use that he makes of the passages of Scripture he pays
no attention to their historical references or to their connection ;
it is only their language that he takes into account, (d) In
doing so, however, the boundary line between literal quota
tion and the homiletical use of Scripture is a fluctuating one.
(a) Paul quotes Scripture very frequently. It is in our

§ 74. THE USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 381
four Epistles, however, that by far the most of his quotations are
found ; and of these Epistles it was those to the Eomans and
the Galatians whose aim most of all directly demanded them.
In the Epistles to the purely Gentile-Christian Churches of
Thessalonica, Philippi, and Colosse, there are no quotations at
all.1 The apostle usually introduces them with a yeypainai,
which is found about thirty times, or with the similar formula
g ypacpg Xeyei (Gal. iv. 30 ; Eom. iv. 3, ix. 17, x. 11, xi. 2 ; cf.
2 Cor. iv. 13 : icaTa to yey pa/x/^iv ov ; 1 Cor. xv. 54 : o X070?
6 yey pafifievos ; cf. Eom. ix. 9, iv. 18: icaTa to elpgfiivov).2
It is only in 1 Cor. ix. 9 (iv tS> Mcovaeca vofup), xiv. 21
(eV toj vo/jta, cf. Eom. vii. 7), and in Eom. xi. 2 (iv 'HXia) that
indications are found as to the place of Scripture in which
the quotation in question stands (cf. Mark xii. 26 : ovk ave-
yvcoTe iv Tg BiBXca Mcovcreo)<; eVt tov BaTov, and Acts i. 20 :
yeypanTai iv BiBXa tyaXfiwv ; vii. 42 : yeypavTai iv BiBXa>
t&v irpofygTiov). It is seldom that Paul introduces the writers
as speaking (Eom. iv. 6, xi. 9 : David in the Psalms whose title
bears his name ; x. 5, 1 9 : Moses in passages out of Leviticus
and Deuteronomy; ix. 27, 29, x. 16, 20, xv. 12: Isaiah).8
It is very seldom that God appears in him as the one that
1 We shall treat here also of the few quotations in the Epistle to the Ephesians,
just as we have already taken notice of them in § 73. For the sake of compari
son we shall also remark here upon the use of Scripture in the types of doctrine
which we have already discussed.
2 The earliest tradition makes Jesus introduce His quotations with this
yiypxTTxi (Matt. iv. 4, 7, 10, xi. 10 ; Mark vii. 6, ix. 12, 13, xi. 17, xiv. 21, 27 ;
Luke x. 26) ; it is found in Peter (i. 16), and in the discourses of the Acts (i. 20,
vii. 42, xv. 15), although Scripture is also appealed to in another way (Mark
xii. 10 : olio's T7iv ypxtpkv Tximy xyiyyoin ; cf. Matt. xii. 3, 5 ; 1 Pet. ii. 6 : Tipii%u
iv ypxQy ; Jas. ii. 23 : h ypxtyn vt xiyovo-x ; cf. iv, 5, 6, ii. 8 : xxrx ryv ypxipwv).
In Peter and James it is only in these five passages that quotation-formulae are
found. 3 Similarly the earliest tradition makes Christ trace back passages of the law
to Moses (Mark vii. 10 ; cf. xii. 9 : T&uvns 'iypx-^iv vfuv), and a prophecy to Isaiah
(Mark vii. 6), and in Mark xii. 36 f. the whole argument of Christ (cf. § 19, a)
rests upon the circumstance that, according to the title, it is David that speaks
in Ps. ex. 1 (h tZ Tvii/iXTi tZ xylcp). Similarly, in his discourse in Acts ii. 25-28,
34, 35, Peter starts expressly from the Davidic authorship of the passages
quoted (cf. § 39, a, b) ; in Acts iv. 25 a Psalm is even treated of as Davidic
whose title does not assign it to him. In Acts ii. 16, vii. 48, xiii. 40, passages
from the prophets are merely described as such, without the naming of the
prophet ; on the other hand, in Mark i. 2, Luke iv. 17, Acts viii. 28, 30,
xxviii. 25, Isaiah is named ; through him, according to the last of these passages,
the Holy Ghost spake.

382 PROPHECY AND FULFILMENT.
speaks (2 Cor. vi. 2, 16, 17; Eom. ix. 15, 25: iv 'flcrgi),
and that, too, only where the point in question is as to an
express utterance of God4 (cf. Acts iv. 25 : o Bid o-TOfiaTos
AavlB elircov; xiii. 47). By far the most of his quotations are
from Isaiah and the Psalms ; next in order comes the Penta
teuch, speciaEy Genesis and Deuteronomy. Individual quota
tions are found also from the other prophets, and one from
Job (1 Cor. iii. 19; cf. Eom. xi. 35); here and there a few
sayings out of the book of Proverbs are used without being
expressly quoted (2 Cor. ix. 7 ; Eom. xii. 1 7, 2 0). The case
is exactly the same in the Epistle of Peter and in the dis
courses of the Acts.
(b) As it is substantially in the form of the text of the
Septuagint that the earliest tradition of the discourses of Jesus
and the apostles puts into their mouths the quotations from
the Old Testament that are made by them,5 so it is mainly
that text which Paul also uses, even in cases where the Greek
text varies essentially from the Hebrew (Gal. iii. 1 3 ; Eom.
ii. 24, Ei. 4, iv. 3, ix. 27-29, xi. 9, 10, 26, 27, xv. 10, 12, 21 ;
1 Cor. i. 19, vi. 16; Eph. v. 31, vi. 2); yet here and there
there already appears in him an independent knowledge and
1 This is also the case in Gal. iii. 16, where ad synesin b @ibs is only to
be supplied ; and it is probable that Paul looked in the same way upon the
quotations in 1 Cor. vi. 16, Eph. iv. 8, v. 14, which are introduced only with
tpyio-l or xiyu. In Rom. xv. 10, on the other hand, it is certainly h ypxtp-i that is
to be supplied.
5 Cf. Matt. iv. 4, 7, 10, ix. 13 ; Mark vii. 6, x. 7, xii. 10, 11 ; Acts i. 20,
ii. 17-21, 25-28, 34, 35, iii. 22, 25, iv. 25 f., vii. 42 f., 48-50, xv. 15-18. The
only exception, viz. in Matt. xi. 10, where it is apparently the original text that
is gone back upon, is explained by the circumstance that the iti$x'i-$itxi of the
LXX. did not at all suit the use that is made of the saying. In the case of Mark
xiv. 27 it is certainly doubtful whether the author had before him a Septuagint
text which agreed with the language of his quotation ; but at any rate his devia
tion from it goes back, not upon the original text, but upon the application of
the prophecy in the mouth of Jesus, an application which was in keeping with
that original (ef. my Marcusev. p. 41, 454). All the other quotations in Luke
are also given freely according to the LXX. : Luke iii. 4-6, iv. 18, 19, xxii. 37 ;
Acts viii. 32, 33, xiii. 33-35, 41, 47, xxviii. 26, 27. In James (cf. ii. 23, iv. 6)
and Peter (cf. i. 16, ii. 6, 22, iii. 10-12, iv. 18, v. 5) also, it is only the Sep
tuagint text that shows itself in the actual quotations. On the other hand, it is
worthy of note that in 1 Pet. ii. 7 f., where two single, apparently often used
expressions out of Isa. viii. 14 are connected with the words of Ps. cxviii. 22,
the former are nearer to the original text than to the Septuagint. That is the
case also with the allusion to Prov. x. 12 in 1 Pet. iv. 8.

§ 7-1. THE USE OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 383
use of the original (cf. 1 Cor. iii. 19, xiv. 21, xv. 54 f. ; Eom.
ix. 17: iggyeipd ere; xii. 19; Eph. iv. 8), as we might
naturally expect from his rabbinical training.15 In his quota
tions Paul uses great freedom. As, according to note a, the
particular writings from which the several quotations are taken
are seldom reflected upon, so totally different passages of
Scripture are often freely combined with one another (1 Cor.
xv. 54, 55 ; 2 Cor. vi. 16-18 ; Eom. iii. 10-18, ix. 25, 26,
xi. 26, 27), or completely mixed up together (Eom. ix. 33,
xi. 8). But elsewhere also the quotation is often a very free
one ¦? and there are found not only great abbreviations (1 Cor.
i. 31), or insignificant changes of expression (2 Cor. vi. 16;
Eom. xiv. 11), but also changes (Gal. iv. 30: t?}? iXev6epa<;;
1 Cor. iii. 2 0 : t5>v crocf>a>v ; Eph. iv. 8 : ecWe) and additions
(1 Cor. xv. 45 : 7Tjocoto? . . . 'ABdp,; Eom. x. 11 : 7rS?), which
are of great importance for the apostle's application of the
passages.8 (c) Closely connected with the manner in which the pas
sages of Scripture are considered only as such, and not as indi
vidual utterances of definite writers (note a), and are therefore
taken out of their connection and freely combined (note b), is
the circumstance that their explanation attaches itself simply
to the words. Herein Paul follows the exegetical method of
his time. Accordingly, what is said in the original of a
K Kautzsch comes to somewhat different results (de veteris testamenti locis a
Paulo apostolo allegatis, Lipsiae 1869). Apart from the quotations from Job,
the translation of which seems to have been unknown to the apostle, Paul
(according to Kautzsch) has nowhere purposely forsaken the LXX. , although in
a few passages the original as well as the translation appears to have been preseat
to his mind. But this exceedingly careful and acceptable work may, neverthe
less, have underestimated the occasions on which the apostle has regard to the
original. 7 In 1 Cor. ii. 9 there is probably a confusion of an apocryphal passage with
one from Isaiah, which had only a few verbal similarities ; in Eph. v. 14, on the
other hand, Isa. Ix. 1 seems really to be meant, and only to be rendered with an
exegetical explanation. "Whether 1 Cor. xv. 55 is intended as a quotation or as
a free use of Hos. xiii. 14 remains doubtful.
8 We find the same' already in the discourses of Christ, where different passages
are mixed up together (Mark xi. 17 ; cf. also 1 Pet. ii. 7, 9), in Matt. xi. 10 and
Mark xiv. 27, where the Old Testament passages are changed freely to suit their
Messianic interpretation, and in the discourses of the Acts (cf. the significant
changes in Acts ii. 17, for which see § 40, a ; in iii. 23, for which see § 42, b ;
and in i. 20 : x'vrov).

384 PROPHECY AND FULFILMENT.
definite time can be generalized (Eom. iii. 10-18), or what is
said there of definite persons or circumstances of the past can
be made to refer to persons and circumstances of the present
(Eom. viii. 36, x. 19-21, xi. 9, 10, 26). What was meant
of Gentiles can be applied to Jews (Eom. ii. 24), and vice
versa (Eom. ix. 25 f.) ; Paul can even, as occasion requires,
take to cnrepfia, now as collective, and now as personal (Gal.
iii. 16 ; Eom. iv. 13, for which see § 72, d, footnote 5); in
2 Cor. viii. 15 he can give Ex. xvi. 18 an application which
suits its language, without considering that, according to their
original allusion, these words refer to the gathering of manna,
and therefore do not at all admit of the application which he
gives them. He does not inquire as to the original meaning
of Old Testament expressions; he takes them in the sense
which he is accustomed to give to similar expressions, even in
the case of such terms as ttio-tk, icvpio<;, evayyeXi^ecrOai (Eom.
i. 17, ix. 33, x. 13, 15), or he gives them a metaphorical
interpretation (Eom. iv. 17, 18). Accordingly, it is often
the most accidental verbal resemblances with which his appli
cation is connected (1 Cor. xiv. 21 ; Eph. iv. 8). At the
basis of this practice, however, there lies the presupposition
that, on one side, the whole of Scripture prophesies of the
Messiah and the events of the Messianic time (§ 73, a), so
that everything which simply admits of being applied to these
circumstances is interpreted in this sense, and that too as a
direct prophecy. Thus in Ps. lxix. 9 the Messiah Himself is
conceived of as speaking (Eom. xv. 3), and Joel ii. 32 is
applied by him, as well as by Peter (Acts ii. 21), to the
Messiah (Eom. x. 13). Even passages which, like these, are
undoubtedly Messianic in the wider sense, appear as having
a reference to the person of Jesus, which is originally foreign
to them (Eom. ix. 33 ; cf. 1 Pet. ii. 6).9
(d) From these actual quotations of Scripture we must
distinguish those cases in which the apostle avails himself
of well-known sacred words of Scripture for the purpose of
9 In the same way the earliest tradition already makes Jesus give the Old
Testament a Messianic interpretation (Matt. xi. 10 ; Mark xii. 10, 11, 36,
xiv. 27), and develope a deeper meaning out of its words (Mark xii. 26) ; according
to the Acts of the Apostles, Peter makes David speak, not only with reference
to the person of Jesus (ii. 25-28), but also regarding the traitor (i, 20, cf. ver. 16).

§ 75. THE TIME OF GRACE. 385
clothing his own thoughts, as, e.g., in 1 Cor. v. 13, x. 22, 26 ;
Eom. xi. 34, 35, xii. 20; Eph. i. 22, iv. 26. This way of
using Scripture is also found already in the discourses of
Jesus (Matt. x. 35 ; Mark iv. 12), and in the Epistle of Peter
it is the most common. In such cases acquaintance with the
scriptural words in question is for the most part taken for
granted, and the allusion appears intentional ; yet it is a
peculiarity of the Epistle of Peter, that even where the line
of thought demands that they should be recognised and taken
to be words of Scripture (as in i. 24), there is no express
quotation formula. There is no example of this to be found
in Paul ; he even inserts his icadax; yeypairTai where the
words are only used as a clothing of his own thought (1 Cor.
i. 3 1). In such a case, naturally, it is by no means surprising
if the words of Scripture appear without any reference to theii-
original meaning as determined by the context (Eom. x. 18),
and if they are altered with very great freedom as each
occasion requires (x. 6-8; cf. 1 Cor. xv. 55, for which see
footnote 7). Since this, however, is done also in the case of
actual quotations (notes h, c), and even the presence or absence
of a quotation formula is not absolutely decisive, it is often
impossible to decide with full certainty which of these uses of
Scripture we have before us.

§ 75. The Time of Grace.
The time, which God had appointed for the fulfilment and
revelation of His hidden decree of salvation, has commenced
in the Christian present, (b) The new epoch of the world
which commences with this present is characterized by the
sovereignty of grace, which is diametrically opposed to sin
and the law, as well as to all human work and merit, (c) Grace
is neither conceived of as a divine attribute, nor as a gift of
divine favour, but as the spontaneously operative principle,
from which the whole of man's salvation proceeds, (d) The
activity of this new principle of salvation, however, is brought
about by Christ, or rests in Him, in whom every promise
becomes fulfilment.
(a) It appears from prophecy that the salvation which is
VOL. I. 2 B

386 PROPHECY AND FULFILMENT.
being reahzed in the present was long ago resolved upon by
God, and depended upon a decree of His wisdom, which was
formed by Him (gv irpod>piaev 6 0eo?) from aE eternity (wpb
tcov aiojvcov), and hidden (aocpia . . . aTro/ceicpvfiuevg), a p,vcr-
Tgpiov (1 Cor. ii. 7), i.e. absolutely unknowable by human
knowledge of itself, and such it remained, even after prophecy,
until its fulfilment (Eom. xvi. 25 : uvcrTgpiov xpovois alawlois
o-eo-iygfjiivov). Even prophecy has not broken this silence
(cf. Eph. iii. 5) ; for it was for the present that prophecy was
first appointed (§ 73, a), and therefore it was by the present
alone that it could be understood in the light of its fulfilment.
Now, however, that mystery (Eph. iii. 3), or the individual
mysteries which are contained in it, such as the complete con
version of Israel (Eom. xi. 25), the resurrection and trans
formation of believers (1 Cor. xv. 51), are revealed by God
(xiii. 2) and preached by His stewards (iv. 1). According to
Eom. xvi. 26, however, the revelation of this mystery had
already begun (<pavepco0evTo<;) before the apostles, supporting
their proclamation with the word of prophecy (cf. § 73, a),
made it known (yvcopiaOevTo^) — it had begun when the sal
vation which was resolved upon was actually realized. This
happened with the sending of the Son, when the TrXgpcoua
tov xpovov came (Gal iv. 4 ; cf. Eph. i. 9, 10). This expres
sion presupposes that a definite measure of time had to be
filled up before the moment appointed for the execution of
that decree appeared. If pre-Christian humanity is conceived
of as being in a state of youthful immaturity and nonage
(§ 70, b, 72, c), then the moment must come which the Father
has appointed for the declaration that it has attained its
majority (Gal. iv. 2 : -TrpoOeapiia tov iraTpo^). It is this
moment, of which it is said in 1 Cor. x. 11, that the ends of
the past ages are come upon the generation which is Eving in
the present (to TeXg tcov almvcov), inasmuch as each of these
ages has, in its own way, served to prepare for this moment
of maturity, which forms the close of the whole of the pre
vious development of the world. That this time, in which
the world was ripe for the accomplishment of the decree of
salvation, i.e. the Messianic time, has come, is only the Pauline
expression for the proclamation of Jesus, that the time is
fulfilled, and that the promised kingdom of God has come

§ 75. THE TIME OF GRACE. 387
(Mark i. 15 ; cf. § 13, a), or for that of the original apostles,
that the Messianic time of the end has commenced (§ 40, a),
that the completion of the theocracy, in which God bestows
His graces (§ 45, b), has begun. Only, in the case of the
apostle to the Gentiles, the coming of salvation no longer
appears merely under the point of view of a fulfilment of
the promise of Israel, but, since heathendom and Judaism
are looked at in the same manner from the point of view
of the divine training, which prepares humanity for the
coming of salvation, it appears also as the historical epoch,
which concludes the whole development of the human
race. (b) In the previous age of the world the principle which
dominated the development of humanity was the sin, which
had come into the world through Adam's transgression (§ 67,
a, b) ; the principle which rules in the new age is the grace
of God (Eom. v. 21). The dominion of sin was owing to the
dominion of the law (§ 72, a) ; hence grace forms the anti
thesis of the law (vi. 14 : ovk c'cttb hirb vojiov aXXd vtto
Xapiv). The law, which attaches salvation to the fulfilment
of its demands, and grace, which works salvation itself, exclude
one another (Gal. ii. 21, v. 4, for which see § 66, a; cf. Eom.
iv. 16). The law demands works, which man performs;
grace, by undertaking to provide salvation, excludes all human
activity; works and grace are diametrically opposed to one
another (Eom. xi. 6 ; cf. Eph. ii. 8, 9). Human doing acquires
merit ; grace, however, is not deserved, but presented gratis
(Eom. iii. 2 4 : Bcapedv) ; grace and merit are also diametrically
opposed (iv. 4). Grace is given (1 Cor. i. 4) and received
(2 Cor. vi. 1 ; Eom. i. 5) ; in it we stand (Eom. v. 2) and walk
(2 Cor. i. 12) ; it is the new standpoint upon which the new
time is placed. In all the introductions to his Epistles Paul
wishes it for his readers as the ground of Christian salvation
(Gal. i. 3 ; 1 Cor. i. 3 ; 2 Cor. i. 2 ; Eom. i. 7 ; cf. 1 Thess.
i. 1 ; 2 Thess. i. 2 ; Eph. i. 2 ; Phil. i. 2 ; Col. i. 2 ; Philem. 3) ;
it is through it that men are called (Gal. i. 1 5) and justified
(Eom. iii. 24) ; it is upon it that Christian hope is based
(2 Thess. ii. 16). The Christian is what he is through the
grace of God (1 Cor. xv. 10). Thus, in conformity with the
fundamental experience which made him a Christian (§ 58, b),

388 PROPHECY AND FULFILMENT.
the Christian time is characterized by the apostle as the time
of grace. (c) Grace is not conceived of as a passive divine attribute
or disposition, it is not the divine 1DH (LXX.: e'Xeo?). It is
to the mercy of God (eAeo?), which certainly cannot be
accounted for by any behaviour of man, but depends solely
upon the compassion felt by God when He beholds man's
need (Eom. ix. 15, 16), that the salvation presented to the
Gentiles is specially traced back (xv. 9 ; cf. ix. 23, xi. 31, 32),
inasmuch as God was not bound to them by any promise oi
salvation as He was to the Jews. Nor is grace the love of
God (dyaTrg), although the death of Christ, upon which the
new dispensation of grace rests, can also be regarded as a
proof of that love (Eom. v. 8) ; for it is within the dispensa
tion of grace that this love is first restored to man (cf. v. 2—5,
where the love of God is shed abroad in the hearts of those
who stand in grace, and 2 Cor. xiii. 14, where the love of
God comes after grace ; cf. Eph. ii. 4). Nor is grace the
goodness of God which shows itself in the conferring of
benefits (Eom. ii. 4, xi. 22: xpgo-TOTgs ; cf. Eph. ii. 7).
When a particular grace which is given to individuals is
spoken of (Gal. ii. 9 ; 1 Cor. i. 4, iii. 10; 2 Cor. viii. 1 ;
Eom. i. 5, xii. 3, xv. 15 ; cf. Eph. iii. 2, 8, iv. 7), it might
seem as if (as in Peter, § 45, h) %a/at? denoted a gift of divine
favour ; but elsewhere the papier uaTa are expressly dis
tinguished from the %a/st?, in consequence of which they are
given (Eom. xii. 6 : ^apio-p-aTa Kara T^y %a/3tf t^j/ BoOelaav
gplv Bidcpopa ; cf. 1 Cor. i. 4, 7), and in Eom. v. 1 5 the idea
of the ^dpio-fia (which, opposed as it is to the TrapaTTTwaa of
Adam, can only be a gift of grace given by Christ) in the first
hemistich is expressly explained in the second by g Bcoped iv
%dpiTi 'Igaov Xpicnov (cf. ver. 17: g %«/)i? ical g Bcoped, and
2 Cor. ix. 14 f., where the unspeakable gift is the proof of the
exceeding grace). Grace is rather, according to note h, con
ceived of as a sovereign power, as an operative principle; it
is the divine favour thought of in its activity, which for that
very reason excludes all human activity ; it is the expression
for the exclusive divine causality of salvation (2 Cor. v. 1 8 :
tu irdvTa iic tov Qeov ; cf. 1 Cor. i. 3 0, and the analogous
e'£ avrov, used of the first creation : 1 Cor. viii. 6 ; Eom.

&

§ 75. THE TIME OF GRACE. 389
xi. 36). As already in the Epistles to the Thessalonians
(§ 61, d), the grace of God is the operative principle of salva
tion in Christianity.1
(J) As it is through the grace of God that the Christian is
what he is (note h), so he also owes it to Christ (1 Cor.
viii. 6 : gfieh Bi avrov) ; everything for which he has to thank
God has been brought about by Christ (1 Cor. xv. 57 : %dpi<i
toj Qea> Bid 'Igaov XpiaTov; cf. Eom. i. 8, vii. 25, xvi. 27;
Col. iii. 17). It is through His instrumentality that the new
principle of salvation exercises its dominion (Eom. v. 21 :
g ^<z/3t? BaaiXevei . . . Bid 'Igaov XpiaTov) ; it is through Him
that we obtain grace or access to it (Eom. i. 5, v. 2), recon
ciliation (2 Cor. v. 18; Eom. v. 1 1 ; cf. Col. i. 2 0), peace
with God (Eom. v. 1 ; cf. 2 Cor. iii. 4 ; Eph. E 18), salvation
(Eom. v. 9 ; 1 Thess. v. 9), life and resurrection (1 Cor.
xv. 21, 57; Eom. v. 17). The expression iv XpiaTa>, when
it stands in an objective sense, is only another expression for
this mediation of salvation through Christ : it rests in Him,
is grounded in Him. It is in Christ that grace is given us
(1 Cor. i. 4 ; cf. Eph. i. 6, ii. 7) ; in Him rest reconciliation
(2 Cor. v. 19), redemption (Eom. iii. 24; cf. Eph. i. 7),
justification (Gal. ii. 17; 2 Cor. v. 21 ; cf. Eph. iv. 32), the
love of God (Eom. viii. 39), and eternal life (vi. 23). In
Him aE the promises of God are fulfilled (2 Cor. i. 19, 20),
and the blessing of Abraham comes upon us (Gal. iii. 14) ;
the new time of grace (note b) is therefore the promised
Messianic time (note a). Accordingly, just as in § 61, d, in
the introductions of the Epistles (note h) grace is derived
from God as its ultimate author and from Christ as its
Mediator, and in the concluding benediction the grace of
Christ, i.e. His enduring gracious activity (2 Cor. xii. 9), can
even be wished for alone to the readers, to accompany them
continually (Gal. vi. 18 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 23; Eom. xvi. 20, 24;
cf. Phil. iv. 23; 1 Thess. v. 28; 2 Thess. iii. 18; Philem.
25: fieO' vp,cov), in order to be the means of securing to
1 In those passages where x£pn seems to be equivalent to xxpio-px, it therefore
denotes a definite effect of grace (cf. 2 Cor. i. 15, ix. 8), an individual mani
festation of favour, just as in 1 Cor. xvi. 3, 2 Cor. viii. 4, 7, 19 (cf. Eph.
iv. 29) it stands for a manifestation of love on the part of man. Occasionally
xxpis stands also for a definite manifestation of favour, which Christ has given
us in His incarnation (2 Cor. viii. 9) or in His death (Gal. i. 6 ; Rom. v. 15).

390 CHRISTOLOGY.
them enduringly the love of God and the feEowship of the
Spirit (2 Cor. xiii. 14), wherewith is represented the sum of
all the blessings of salvation, which the new time brings.

CHAPTEE V.
CHRISTOLOGY.
Cf. Rabiger, de christologia Paulina, Breslau, 1852 ; Hilgenfeld, " Bern, fiber
den paulin. Christus," Zeitschrift f. wiss. Theologie, 1871, 2.
§ 76. The Lord of Glory.
The specific title of the Mediator of salvation, whom the
apostle preaches and the Christians confess, is the name of
their Lord. (b) At the same time, however, this name
describes Him as the sovereign of the world, to whom belong
divine honour and worship, (c) Notwithstanding this divine
dignity, in the sovereignty, which He has received for the
purpose of executing His mediatorial office, Christ remains
dependent upon the counsel and wiE of God. (d) As the
exalted Lord He is the image of God, inasmuch as the super
mundane radiant light of the divine glory forms the substance
of His glorified corporeity, which has become altogether an
organ of the Spirit.
(a) If Christianity is the revelation of the grace of God in
Christ, then the preaching of the apostle must state, in the
first place, who this Christ is who is represented as the
Mediator of the perfect revelation of God ; for, as shown in
§ 61, a, the name Christ has aEeady become also in Paul
simply a proper name.1 Now, however, it was not till this
1 The simple name Jesus occurs only in a few places (Gal. vi. 17 ; 1 Cor.
xii. 3 ; 2 Cor. iv. 5, 11, 14, xi. 4 ; Rom. viii. 11, x. 9, and other five times,
where the text is doubtful), and for the most part only where the historical
manifestation of Jesus is expressly referred to ; while the simple Xpio-rbs occurs
very frequently as a pure nomen proprium, forty times with, about a. hundred
times without the article. As in the Epistles to the Thessalonians, the com
pound name ('lno-ovs Xpio-ns) stands alone comparatively seldom, viz. twenty-two
times, and here too the codices often vary, inasmuch as they omit one or other
of the two. As in these Epistles, this name is found inverted, without various
readings, most frequently in the formula iv xfio-rZ 'iwov (some twenty times ;

§ 76. THE LORD OF GLORY. 391
Christ had appeared to the apostle as the Lord who had been
raised up by God and exalted to heaven, that He became, to
him, the Mediator of salvation (1 Cor. ix. 1, xv. 8; cf. § 58, c).
For him, therefore, the peculiar dignity of Christ is summed
up in the title Kvpiov. He himself describes the sum of his
preaching as consisting in this, that he preaches Jesus Christ
as the icvpios (2 Cor. iv. 5) ; and inasmuch as his preaching
is always gaining new confessors of Christ, it ministers to the
glorifying of His name (Eom. i. 5). The specific confession,
therefore, of the Christian Church declares that Jesus is the
icvpio<; (1 Cor. xii. 3 ; Eom. x. 9 ; cf. Phil. ii. 11; Col. ii. 6).
In this title is summed up all that Christ is to it ; and hence
the reverential designation of Christ as the Mediator of salva
tion is : 'Igaow XpiaTw 6 icvpios gfiwv (1 Cor. i. 9 ; Eom.
i. 4, v. 21, vii. 25), or, as in the Epistles to the Thessalonians,
still more frequently inverted (some nineteen times) : 6 tcvpios
¦fgiwv 'Igaow X/jio-to?.2 Here, accordingly, we find a con
firmation of that which we already saw there, viz., that in the
apostolic preaching to the Gentiles the Old Testament con
ception of the Messiah, of which the moment of sovereignty
is an essential element, has passed over into that of the
icvpios. As, in the preaching of the original apostles, Jesus is
acknowledged to be the Mediator of the expected completion
of salvation, because He has proved Himself to be the
promised and expected Messiah, so He can be acknowledged
by Paul and the Gentile Christians to be the Mediator of the
grace of God which has been revealed and is operative in
cf. 1 Cor. xv. 31 ; Rom. vi. 23, viii. 39 : h Xpio-rZ 'iwtov tZ xvpla riptZv), which
is connected with the formula iv Xpio-rZ, which also occurs about twenty times.
Occasionally, there already occurs also Xpidrbs 'i»o-ovs, without any various
reading in Gal. iv. 14, and also in other passages with preponderating authority
(Gal. ii. 16, v. 24 ; 2 Cor. iv. 5 ; Rom. vi. 3, xv. 5) ; cf. § 61, a, footnote 1.
2 As in the Epistles to the Thessalonians (§ 61, a, footnote 2), Christ is also
called simply the Lord, almost as often, and without any perceptible difference,
xipios (some thirty-seven times, seventeen of these : h xvplo/), as S xipios (some
thirty-four times). Here, too, alongside of these fuller formulae, there appear
the shorter xipios 'l^o-ovs Xpto-Tos (1 Cor. i. 3 ; 2 Cor. i. 2 ; Rom. i. 7) and b xipios
'iwrovs Xpio-Tos (2 Cor. xiii. 14 ; Rom. xiii. 14), generally, however, only in the
addresses, and for the most part with the various reading S xipios 'iwrovs, which
can be regarded as fully established only in 1 Cor. xvi. 23 ; 2 Cor. i. 14, xi. 31 ;
Rom. xiv. 14. Neither does b xipios iipoZv ever occur here by itself ; and only
once do we find b xipios hpZv 'l-no-ovs (1 Cor. v. 4 ; cf. lyo-ovs b xipios '/ipxZv ; 1 Cor.
ix. 1 ; Rom. iv. 24) and b xipios b/tZy Xptarbs, Rom. xvi. 18.

392 CHRISTOLOGY.
Christianity, only if He is confessed as the heavenly Lord of
the Church. To belong to Him as Lord, is the characteristic
mark of all Christians (Eom. xiv. 8 ; cf. 1 Cor. iii. 23), since,
in order to obtain this sovereignty, He has died and become
alive again (ver. 9 ; cf. 2 Cor. v. 1 5). His command is
decisive for them (Gal. vi. 2; 1 Cor. vii. 10, 12, 25, ix.
14, 21), from Him is derived all authority in the Church
(1 Cor. v. 4; 2 Cor. x. 8, xiii. 10), He Himself is also
expected as their judge (2 Cor. v. 10).
(6) With regard, however, to the sovereign relationship of
Christ which the Church acknowledges, the question is by
no means only respecting a supreme authority in religious
matters. For it is not to the prophet that appeared in Israel
that Paul pointed the Gentile Christians, but to the Christ
exalted to heaven, as He had appeared to himself as the
Mediator of divine grace. Accordingly, the name 6 icvpios
describes Him as the divine sovereign of the world (Eom.
x. 12 : icvpio<; irdvTcov, cf. 1 Cor. xv. 27) sitting at the right
hand of God (Eom. viii. 34), to whom is given the possession
of the world which was promised to the seed of Abraham (Gal.
iii. 16 ; cf. § 72, d, footnote 5). Like Peter (§ 39, c, 50, a),
Paul also, without any explanation, applies to Christ passages
in the Old Testament which treat of the «vpio?-Jehovah
(1 Cor. ii. 16, x. 22 ; Eom. x. 13),3 and, as we have already
found in the Epistles to the Thessalonians (§ 61, a), designates
Him the Lord (Eom. xiv. 6-9) in a connection where God
has just been designated 6 icvpio<; (ver. 4 : read 6 icvpio<;).
Paul, moreover, draws the full consequences of this designa
tion of Christ. At His return, the exalted Messiah appears
with such full divine omniscience as is possessed only by the
Searcher of hearts (1 Cor. iv. 5) ; either He as the Kvpios
(2 Cor. xii. 8) or His /cupto?-name (1 Cor. i. 2) is called upon
(cf. Phil. ii. 10) ; and Eom. x. 12, 13, where the passage Joel
iii. 5 is applied to Him, shows plainly that this is to be
understood in the sense of divine worship. It is clear that,
3 He also follows the usus loquendi of the Septuagint (in which xipios is the
translation of the Old Testament name of God), both in his actual quotations
and also where he adopts Old Testament words (1 Cor. i. 31, iii. 20, x. 26,
xiv. 21 ; 2 Cor. vi. 17, 18, x. 17 ; Rom. iv. 8,ix. 28, 29, x. 16, xi. 3, 34, xii. 19,
xiv. 11, xv. 11), and in the same sense he uses xipios when speaking of God
(1 Cor. iii. 5, iv. 19, vii. 17, x. 9 [read : ™» xiput], xvi. 7 ; Rom. xiv. 4).

§ 76. THE LORD OF GLORY. 393
according to this, the completion of the human as such does
not afford the adequate expression for the essence of the
(exalted) Christ, as E. Schmidt (p. 158) still maintains.4 For
it is not His sovereignty as the Mediator of salvation that
exalts Him for believers to a " godlike dignity ; " but as,
already in the preaching of the original apostles, it is after He
is exalted to the right hand of God that Christ has first
attained His Messianic sovereignty (i.e. His sovereignty as the
Mediator of salvation) in the full sense, so, also for Paul, the
certainty of His divine dignity is the presupposition of His
being the Mediator of salvation, in which office the ultimate
question at least is as to salvation, by the power of God, in
the last judgment (Eom. x. 1 3), a salvation which can lie only
in the power of one who is the divine sovereign of the world
in the most comprehensive sense. Accordingly it cannot be
surprising if in ix. 5 Christ is extolled as 0eo? eVt irdvTcov.
Certainly this is the only passage in our Epistles where there
occurs this designation of Christ and a doxology is applied
to Him; but the explanation which is most natural, and
most in conformity with the language and the context, is
nevertheless that which makes it refer to Christ and not to
God.6 (c) Since it is through His being raised up by God (2 Cor.
xiii. 4; Eom. iv. 24, 25) that Christ has first attained His
4 It is in vain that Schmidt (in loc.) seeks to limit the contrast in which the
mediation of Christ stands, in Gal. i. 1, 12, with all human mediation to this,
that, because Christ is the pure and absolute organ of God, therefore everything
which is accomplished by Him is also something done by God Himself. The
invocation of Christ, however, is grounded, not upon His historical position as
Redeemer, in virtue of which He is for faith the completed revelation and the
representative of God, but upon the dignity which He has attained through His
exaltation. From the circumstance that the participation of Christ in the divine
sovereignty of the world comes into consideration, only when it is the work of
salvation which is discussed, Schmidt infers that it was far from the mind of the
apostle to think of the natural course of the world, when it does not stand in an
express relation to the kingdom of God, as being determined by Christ (p. 127 f. ) ;
but Paul has nowhere reflected at all upon a divine " government of the world,"
which would not have salvation in view ; and, in fact, no action of that govern
ment is conceivable which would not minister to His ultimate purposes of
salvation. 5 While Baur (p. 194) and Beyschlag (p. 210) still adhere to the false inter
pretation which makes the doxology refer to God, H. Schultz (Jahrb. fur d.
Theol. 1868, 3) has recently thoroughly established the right interpretation,

394 CHRISTOLOGY.
exaltation, since it is by God that everything is first made
subject to Him (1 Cor. xv. 27, after Ps. viii. 6), and He is
always only the Mediator of a salvation whose ultimate
ground, according to § 75, rests in God, it is self-evident that,
notwithstanding His divine dignity, He is, in His saving
activity, in the last analysis, only the executor of the divine
will. Although, in regard to the realization of salvation, He
is co-ordinated with the Father (cf. the introductions of the
Epistles, § 75, b), or with the Father and the Spirit (1 Cor.
xii. 4-6 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 14), this by no means forbids that,
through His mediation of it, He simply serves the Father, who
has resolved upon it and pointed out the way by which it
was to be attained. As we belong to Christ and must serve
Him with everything which we are and have, so He belongs
to God (1 Cor. iii. 23); as the husband is set over the wife
as her head, so is God over Christ (xi. 3). Certainly the
meaning of these passages cannot possibly be that He " is the
Lord of the world only inasmuch as He is the perfect instru
ment of the Father" (Pfleid. p. 135 [E. Tr. i. 135]) ; probably
the meaning is that the dignity of Christ, which is brought
about by His exaltation, ultimately only ministers to the
divine purposes. From this we can also understand in what
sense Jesus Christ is distinguished, in viii. 6, as the one Lord,
from the Father as the one God (cf. xii. 5, 6 ; Eph. iv. 5, 6).
Already it appears from ver. 5 that @eo? and xvpio^ are
essentially synonymous terms (and, according to note b, that
distinction is not observed strictly ; God, rather, is also called
icvpios, and Christ, @eo?), and that both are meant as designa
tions of divine beings (since the very question which is dis
cussed in the context is, whether the superhuman beings who
are worshipped by the Gentiles are to be described as divine) ;
hence it follows that no distinction is to be hereby indicated
in the position of dignity occupied by them as regards the
world. Christ is rather the icvpios in the specific sense, only
because God has transferred to Him, until the completion of
which W. Grimm, as well as E. Harmsen (Zeitschrift fur wiss. Theol. 1869, 3,
1872, 4), has in vain sought to dispute. On the other hand, the altogether
unnatural separation of Bibs from S Ssrl Tivruv by Gess (p. 208) is owing to the
circumstance that he regards 0ibs as a description of the essence of Christ,
whereas the addition clearly enough leads us to think of His position of power
and dignity.

§ 76. THE LORD OF GLORY. 395
the work of salvation, the arrangement, superintendence, and
execution of all the measures, which are necessary for the
realizing of the salvation which has been procured by Him,
i.e., however, has made Him the Lord, in whom the Christians
see the Mediator of their salvation (note a). This, however,
does not forbid that it is only with free acquiescence in the
Father's counsel and will that Christ exercises this sovereignty.
For this very reason the Son at last gives back His sovereignty
to the Father (xv. 24), and ultimately subjects Himself to
Him who had put aE things under Him (ver. 28). But it
by no means foEows from this, that, after the final surrender
of His sovereignty (as the Mediator of salvation),6 He enters
into the same position with respect to God, which henceforth
belongs to the creature in a manner no longer brought about
by Him (E. Schmidt, p. 139; Pfleiderer, p. 270 [E. Tr.
i. 273 f.]). It is certainly a mistake to appeal with Gess
(p. 1 3 0), against this view, to an enduring " cosmical govern
ment," seeing that, apart from the work of salvation, Paul
nowhere reflects upon such a government (cf. footnote 4).
But if the subjection of Himself to the Father has no other
aim than to bring about the completion of the sovereignty of
God (ver. 28 : 'iva g 6 Qew to irdvTa iv irdaiv), then that
subjection of Himself can only be the expression for this, that
the final surrender of the sovereignty to the Father (ver. 24),
i.e., the cessation of His function as the Mediator of salvation,
which has then attained its aim, takes place in dependence
upon the divine will, in the same way as He had received His
KvpioTg'i (as the Mediator of salvation) from that will, and had
" It is only a dialectical self-deception on the part of Schmidt that makes him
say, p. 138, that, if the cessation of the sovereignty of Christ is represented as a
surrender of the kingdom to the Father, then that sovereignty cannot be thought
of as that which He had as the Mediator of salvation, since this ceases altogether
in the end, and the Father and the Son do not merely change their roles. That
Christ has exercised His sovereignty for the purpose of accomplishing the work
of salvation, is certainly not mentioned in 1 Cor. xv. 24 ; but for that very
reason a surrender simply of the sovereignty can be spoken of here, although it
is self-evident that, in the completed kingdom, the Father no longer exercises
it as mediatorial, as Christ had done during His activity with a view to the
bringing about of this kingdom. So certainly as Paul cannot have thought
that, previous to this surrender, God had divested Himself entirely of His
sovereign activity, so certainly that sovereignty of Christ, and therefore His
xopibms in general, can have been thought of only as mediatorial in the sense
developed above.

396 CHRISTOLOGY.
exercised it in accordance therewith. Thereby His divine
dignity as regards the world, which has been led by Him to
salvation, cannot be affected in any way, since the mediatorial
sovereignty which is now ceasing was not its cause, but its
consequence (note h). To speculate as to the manner in which
this shows itself henceforward, or as to how it stands related
to the government of God in His completed kingdom, is very
far remote from the mind of the apostle.
(d) The Christology of the apostle starts from the fact that
Jesus is the exalted Lord : as such, however, He had appeared
to him in the radiant light of the divine glory, which there
fore belongs to Christ as the exalted Lord (1 Cor. ii. 8 : icvpios
T97? 8o£t7?; cf. 2 Thess. ii. 14). This Bb%a, which belongs
originally to the one true God (Eom. i. 23, v. 2), Paul beheld
in the face of Christ (2 Cor. iv. 6 ; cf. iii. 18) ; and therefore
he now proclaims the Gospel of the glory of Christ, who, for
the very reason that, in His exaltation, He has this Bb%a, is the
image of God (2 Cor. iv. 4 : eliccov tov 0eoD),7 as appears from
the significance that is given to the relative clause by the con
text (cf. Pfleiderer, p. 135 [E. Tr. i. 135]). It is now, how
ever, characteristic of the Pauline Christology, that the apostle
has transformed this idea of the divine Bbga, which Jesus also
claims for Himself when He returns (§ 19, d), and which the
original apostles ascribe to the exalted Christ (§ 50, a, 52, c),
into an altogether concrete notion. He conceives of this
Bb%a, in which God has already made Himself visible to the
people of the old covenant (Eom. ix. 4, for which see
§ 71, c), as a heavenly radiant light proceeding from a super
mundane substance of light, which forms to him the antithesis
of every earthly materiality. Out of it are formed the bodies
of the iirovpdvioi, whose Bb%a is accordingly of a totally
different nature from the glory of all earthly bodies (1 Cor.
xv. 40), and even from the radiance of the light- giving
7 It appears from the whole context, that this is said only of Christ as the
exalted Lord, and not of the pre-existent Christ (cf. even Biedermann, p. 236) ;
and just as little can the xipios rm °"olris of 1 Cor. ii. 8 be referred, with Baur
(p. 188) and Gess (p. 123), to Christ apart from His exaltation, although the use
of this expression, where it is His crucifixion upon earth that is spoken of, is
meant to awaken the thought, that the crucified One could and should have been
recognised as the One whose original essence corresponded with that which He
has now become.

§ 76. THE LORD OF GLORY. 397
heavenly bodies (ver. 41).8 Such a glorified corporeity Christ
bears, now that in consequence of His exaltation He has
become an inhabitant of heaven (ver. 48; cf. Phil. iii. 21);
and this same B6%a believers wiE yet bear (Eom. v. 2 ; cf.
2 Thess. ii. 14) when they are conformed to His image
(1 Cor. xv. 49 ; Eom. viii. 29 ; cf. 2 Cor. iii. 18). This idea,
however, becomes specially significant in consequence of the
relation in which it is placed to the idea of the irvevp-a. That
glorified corporeity, a corporeity which is, as it were, woven out
of a heavenly radiant light, is also described in 1 Cor. xv. 44
as pneumatic; and from 2 Cor. iii. 18 it also appears that it
is to Christ as the Kvpio<; TrvevnaTos that this Bbga belongs,
which passes over from Him to bebevers. The essence of the
Spirit, however, is not on that account conceived of under the
idea of a luminous substance, as, after Baur (p. 1 8 7), especially
Holsten (p. 387) and Pfleiderer (p. 200 f. [E. Tr. i. 200 f.])
assume (cf., on the other hand, Wendt, p. 141-145) ; but as
that supermundane B6%a belongs originally to God, who is
raised far above aE earthly materiality (@eo? dcf>8apTo<; : Eom.
i. 23), as the organ of His revelation, so it also belongs only
to a corporeity which has no longer anything of this earthly
materiality, but is altogether under the influence of the higher
vital principle of the irvevfia, and has altogether become an
organ of the Spirit (acop-a irvevptaTiicbv : 1 Cor. xv. 44). For
this very reason this glorified corporeity no longer forms any
antithesis to the Spirit; out of that supermundane light-
substance the Spirit forms for itself a corporeity which is alto
gether in keeping with it, and which does not conceal but
" From this comparison it appears indubitable how Paul has conceived of that
Soga (cf. also 2 Cor. iii. 7, where the radiance upon the face of Moses is so
described). From this technical significance of the word S»g« in Paul we must
carefully distinguish the meaning given to it, when it is used in the sense of the
common doctrinal language of the New Testament to denote the fulness of the
divine glory in general, or His sovereign majesty in particular (1 Cor. xi. 7 ;
Rom. vi. 4, ix. 23 ; cf. 2 Thess. i. 9). This is only an application, by way of
metonymy, of the root idea, according to which Sogos is honour, glory, praise
(Rom. ii. 7, 10, iii. 7, iv. 20, xi. 36, xv. 7, xvi. 27, and frequently), that which
is praised and praisworthy being itself called by that name ; whereas the mean
ing which is discussed in the text proceeds from the root idea of that which
appears, catches the eye, or sparkles (cf. § 50, c, footnote 5), only that Paul
adheres to the literal meaning of radiance. For that, in 1 Cor. xv. 40 f., he
takes Iblx only in the sense of "appearance," "aspect" (Wendt, p. 98 ff.), a
sense in which it never appears elsewhere, is at least certainly very unlikely.

398 CHRISTOLOGY.
reveals its nature, for, according to vv. 42, 43, the incorrup-
tion and fulness of power, which belong to the Spirit, as well
as the heavenly Boga, come to the light in the resurrection
body. In the resurrection, through which Christ received
this pneumatic body of Eght (cf. E. Schmidt, p. 108, 112),
He has therefore become altogether 7rvevp,a (ver. 45 : d
ecr^aTo? 'ABdp, scil. iyeveTO et? wev/ia ^coottoiovv), and there
fore it can be said in 2 Cor. iii. 1 7 : o icvpios to Trvevp,d iaTiv.
Thus, although Christ, as the man raised from the dead, bears
a corporeity, yet in His heavenly exaltation He no longer
finds in it any barrier to the divine activity which is in
keeping with His divine dignity, and in which He is engaged.
§ 77. The Son of God.
The name, Son of God, is given also by Paul to Christ as
the promised Messiah, (o) Inasmuch as it was through the
resurrection that He first attained to His Messianic sovereignty,
it was thereby that He was first invested with the full dignity
of Sonship. (c) The name, Son of God, however, represents
Christ as the elect object of divine love, (d) From this point
of view the divine glory, which He received on the occasion
of His entering upon the full Messianic sovereignty, is only
the inheritance which the Father has given Him.
(a) Although, according to § 76, the Christology of Paul
takes a different starting-point from that of the original
apostles, it is nevertheless self-evident that it knows itself to
be in thorough agreement with the Messianic idea which was
dominant in the latter. Because Paul had seen Jesus as
the Lord, who was exalted to divine dignity, in the radiant
light of the divine glory, He was no longer, to him, the
pseudo-Messiah who had been condemned by the Sanhedrim;
He was the true Messiah who had been promised to his
people, and whom he had also looked for. Although the
name, Christ, which has aEeady become a nomen proprium, no
longer denotes His Messianic calEng, it is nevertheless still
plainly used in 2 Cor. i. 21 (d BeBaicov gp,a$ et? XpiaTov ical
Xpio-as) with a play upon its appellative sense, and probably
also in Eom. ix. 5 (cf. Eph. i. 12, ii. 12). This Messiah, who
had appeared in conformity with the promise, is now also in

§ 77. THE SON OF GOD. 399
Paul, as in the Old Testament, the Son of God (cf. 1 Thess.
i. 10). He is so in Eom. i. 3, where the import of the
Gospel, which God has promised afore by His prophets in the
Holy Scriptures (ver. 2), is characterized by irepl tov vlov
avTov (cf. ver. 9 : to evayyeXiov tov vlov avTov, where the
genitive is to be taken objectively : de filio) ; the Son spoken
of here can only be the Messiah promised in these Scriptures,
who is also immediately thereafter described, in agreement
with that prophecy, as having been born of the seed of David.
So also in 2 Cor. i. 19, where He who is preached by Paul,
and in whom all the promises of God are fulfilled (ver. 20),
is called the Son of God, and in Gal. i. 16, where Paul
characterizes his conversion to faith in Jesus, whom he had
previously persecuted in the Churches which believed Him to
be the Messiah, as a revelation of the Son of God in him.
(h) If Jesus is conceived of in the Old Testament sense as
the Son of God called to be the Messiah, then His exaltation
to the divine dignity, which is lent Him in order that He may
execute His office as the Mediator of the (Messianic) salvation,
can only be traced back to this filial relationship. In conse
quence of the resurrection from the dead, He, of whom the
Gospel treats, has first been constituted the Son of God in
power (Eom. i. 4). To take opiaOek, either directly or
indirectly, in the sense of a mere declaration (cf. even Gess,
p. 204), is contrary to the usus loquendi; it denotes the
divine determination, which, just because it is divine, is imme
diately realized (cf. also Pfleid. p. 199 [E. Tr. 128 f.]). It is
therefore through the exaltation, which commenced with His
resurrection, that Christ is now also first actually invested
with the dignity of Sonship ; He has, as it were, become in an
operative manner (eV Bwdpei) what He was previously only
according to His essence, just as in Ps. ii. 7, 8, from which
the name of Son is derived, he who is made the Son of God
is now also invested with full sovereignty over the world.
Here we have still simply the original apostolic view (§ 39, c,
5 0, a), according to which it was through the resurrection that
Christ was first made the Messiah and, therewith, the Son of
God in the full sense, inasmuch as it was thereby that the
moment of sovereignty, which was so essential to the Messianic
idea, was first realized in Him. Quite in keeping with this

400 CHRISTOLOGY.
view, according to which it is through the resurrection that
Christ first enters into the fuE position of the Son, an interpre
tation of Ps. ii. 7 is put into the mouth of the apostle in Acts
xiii. 33, according to which the begetting of the Messiah
to be the Son is made to refer to the resurrection. That
in Eom. i. 4, also, the question is as to His installation into
the position of sovereign, which E. Schmidt (p. 121) denies,
the apposition 'I. Xp. tov icvpiov gficov shows unanswerably.
In 1 Cor. xv. 28, also, it is the Son, to whom God has made
everything subject, and the Father, to whom He surrenders
His sovereignty (ver. 24) ; and in 1 Cor. viii. 6 Christ, as the
Lord, and therefore in His position as the Messianic sovereign,
stands over against God as the Father, whereby that Lord is
characterized as the Son of God (cf. Gal. i. 3 ; 1 Thess. i. 1 ;
2 Thess. i. 2). As in the original apostles God is called the
Father of Christ in connections where it is His quality as
the Messianic sovereign that comes into consideration (§ 39, b,
footnote 3 ; § 50, a, footnote 1), so also in Paul God is called
the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Cor. i. 3, xi. 31 ; Eom.
xv. 6 ; cf. Col. i. 3, iii. 17 ; Eph. i. 3, v. 20 ; Phil. ii. 11),
or the name of Father stands with reference to His resurrec
tion, through which He was exalted to this sovereignty (Gal.
i. 1 ; Eom. vi. 4).
(c) For Paul also the name, Son of God, is by no means a
mere title of the Messiah ; it rather denotes, as in the Old
Testament and in the discourses of Jesus (§ 17, c), a specific
personal relation to God, in consequence of which He has
received the Messianic sovereignty (note b). He is the Son
of God as the elect object of divine love (cf. Col. i. 13 ; Eph.
i. 6). When the proof of love, which God has given us by
the death of Christ (Eom. v. 8), is more particularly described
as consisting in this, that He has reconciled us by the death
of His Son (ver. 10), it is already indicated that the death
of Him, who, as being His Son, was the highest object of
His love, was for Him a specially great sacrifice. Similarly,
the extraordinary nature of the measure, which God took for
the salvation of men, is made evident by its being said that
He has sent His own Son (viii. 3 : tov iavTov vlov). In
ver. 32, however, it is said expressly that He spared not His
own Son (tou IBiov vlov), and so gave men the greatest proof

§ 77. THE SON OF GOD. 401
of His love by sacrificing His dearest for them. Looked at
from this point of view, the passages where He who has raised
up Christ is called the Father (Gal. i. 1 ; Eom. vi. 4, for
which see note b), also receive another significance, inasmuch
as herein also the love of the Father to the Son was shown.1
(d) As from the calling of the Son to the Messianic voca
tion there follows the exaltation of Christ to divine dignity
and sovereignty (note h), so there is given in the personal
relation to the Father, -which the name of Son denotes, a
special reason for Christ's attaining to participation in the
divine glory in the sense of § 76, d. It is characteristic of
our apostle, when considering the idea of sonship, to reflect
especially upon the hopes which the child may cherish in
virtue of his right of inheritance. In consequence of the love
of the Father, who has constituted the son His heir, the son
has the assurance that he will one day share in his Father's
possessions (Gal. iv. 7 : et vio<; . . . ical KXgpov6pio<i), and that
which is true of the sons of God is naturally true also of the
1 It appears from the consideration of all these passages, in which the idea of
the Son occurs, that none of them furnishes even the least occasion to take it in
the sense of a metaphysical peculiarity of essence (Pfleid. p. 130 [E. Tr. i. 129]).
Only we must not mix up this question with the totally heterogeneous one,
whether Paul has attributed to this Son of God an eternal existence or a meta
physical consuhstantiality of nature with God ; because even though this latter
question is answered in the affirmative, it is self-evident that it by no means
follows that this is expressed by the idea of the Son. Here also (cf. § 17, 6),
therefore, the only question to be considered is, what is the tert. comp. in this
transference of the human filial relationship to the relation of Christ to God ?
Of an eternal generation of the Son, which Gess (p. 97, 211) thinks he can simply
"take for granted," Paul, however, speaks as little in his Epistles as of the
supernatural conception of Jesus (Hofmann, i. p. 116), so that this cannot be
that tert. comp. And when R. Schmidt (p. 123) applies the idea of the Son to
Christ in the metaphorical sense of a similarity of nature with God, according to
which it is meant to denote the likeness to God of the person who has become a
perfected spiritual being (a view which is substantially that also of Biedermann,
p. 36, and Pfleiderer, etc.), the h ivvipu and the context of Rom. i. 4 (cf. note 6)
oppose this interpretation most decisively. It is only by means of the Old Tes
tament conception of the idea of the Son that we escape the difficulty, which lies
for every other conception in the circumstance, that believers also become sons
of God, and therefore appear put on a level with Him (and that too without
there being any hint, in Paul, of a distinction) in regard to that very designation
which, according to the common assumption, is meant to express the uniqueness
of the origin or nature of Christ. No more than in the case of the theocratic
king does this view forbid Him, through whom God bestows His fatherly love
upon all others, from being the object of this love in the specific sense.
VOL. L 2 C

402 CHRISTOLOGY.
Son, whose Spirit it is that, according to ver. 6, makes all the
others certain of their sonship. In Eom. viii. 17, it is
expressly said that the icXgpovbp,oi Qeov are at the same time
avy/cXgpovbfioi XpiaTov; Christ, therefore, as the Son of God
and the elect object of His love, has taken possession of the
heritage of the Father ; and the context ('iva . . . avvBo^aa-
Ocoptev) teaches that this heritage consisted in the heavenly Bb%a,
which the Son has received after His exaltation. In this
respect also, therefore, it is since His- resurrection that He has
first entered into the fuE right of the Son (Eom. i. 4), and
the many brethren, among whom He is the first-born (cf. Acts
xiii. 33, for which see note b), are, on that very account, con
formed to the image of the Son of God (Eom. viii. 29), when
they also attain to the heavenly Bo^a (ver. 30). Lastly, it is
because this glory is His portion as the Son, that the future
participation of believers in the glory of Christ is, in 1 Cor.
i. 9, expressly called g tcoivavia tov vlov (Qeov). The highest
possession of the Father, His heavenly Boga, the Son had to
inherit, like aE the other children of God after Him.2

§ 78. Christ in the Flesh.
Paul mentions only those points in the historical life of
Christ, which are important to him doctrinally : His extraction,
the institution of the supper, His death and resurrection, (h) In
particular, the manner in which he speaks of the sinlessness of
the life of Christ, and of its character as a pattern and example,
shows that he does not start from a direct perception of this
life, (c) In consequence of His human extraction Christ pos-
2 From the circumstance that Christ and believers are put on the same level
as regards participation in the divine Volx (which, according to § 76, d, is cer
tainly the form in which a perfected pneumatic being manifests itself), we must
by no means argue, with R. Schmidt, for a conception of the Pauline Christology,
which makes Him no more than a perfected human being ; for, seeing that in
Paul the idea of Volx is strictly limited, the inheritance which was first bestowed
upon Christ as the Son, in order that He might then be the means of conferring
it upon the other sons of God, is far from expressing the whole of that which
has been given to Him in His exaltation. Above all, however, it becomes clear
here that Christ is not called the Son of God because He has become consub-
stantial with God through the reception of this Volx, but that He has received it
as an inheritance because He was the Son, and therefore that the idea of sonship
cannot express the similarity of His nature to that of God (cf. footnote 1).

§ 7S. CHRIST IN THE FLESH. 403
sessed, on the one side, human flesh with its weakness and
susceptibility to death, only that it was not under the dominion
of sin. (d) On the other side, there was in Him originally
a higher divine principle, the Spirit of holiness ; but it was
through the resurrection that this Spirit was first set free so
as to become the sole constitutive principle of His being.
(a) Paul did not, like the original apostles, look up from
the picture of the earthly life of Jesus, which they themselves
had seen, to the divine glory of the exalted Lord; he looked
back from the radiant light of this glory, in which Christ had
appeared to him, to His earthly life ; and whatever he may
have seen or heard of that earthly Efe, it was not it that
determined his idea of Christ (cf. § 58, c).1 In his Epistles
there is no trace of any details whatever which do not stand
in the closest connection with his doctrine of Christ and His
work. That Christ was descended from Abraham and the
fathers (Gal. iii. 16 ; Eom. ix. 5), and, in particular, that He
was of the seed of David (Eom. i. 3 ; cf. Acts xiii. 23), — as
to these points he possessed historical information (§ 19, a,
39, a, footnote 1); but as he mentions the latter circum
stance for the purpose of proving that the purport of his
gospel, i.e. Christ,*. was promised beforehand in the prophetic
writings, which prophesied that the Messiah would be of the
family of David (§ 77, a), so he uses the former for the
purpose of justifying the application to Him of the prophecy
given to the patriarchs. For the death of Christ and His
resurrection on the third day, which form the basis of his
preaching regarding Him (iv TrpwTois), he appeals to tradition
(1 Cor. xv. 3, 4; cf. ver. 11), as well as to the individual
appearances of Christ to the original apostles and the first
disciples (vv. 5-7).2 He knew that, at the feast of Passover
(v. 7), Jesus was crucified by the Jewish and Gentile rulers
(ii. 8 ; Gal. ii. 20, iii. 13, v. 11, vi. 12, 14; 1 Cor. i. 13, 17,
1 Paret (Jahrbiicher fur deutsche Theologie, 1858, 1) has justly called atten
tion to the fact, that although, as Paul was conscious (Gal. i. 16), his idea of
Christ was derived from inspiration, it was by no means impossible that he
should also have received information regarding Christ from tradition ; but he
has certainly exaggerated the extent of that which Paul proclaimed in detail
out of the life of Jesus in bis first preaching.
2 That he does not distinguish these from the appearance which was granted
to himself (ver. 8), shows clearly that he thinks of Christ as being immediately

404 CHRISTOLOGY.
18, 23, ii. 2, 8; Eom. vi. 6); but that he had told his
Churches all the details of the death of Christ, cannot be
concluded, with Paret (p. 13), from Gal. iii. 1. It is true he
speaks of the sufferings of Christ (2 Cor. i. 5, 7 ; cf. Phil.
iii. 10 ; Col. i. 24) ; but the fact that he pictures these to his
readers by means of a reference to Ps. lxix. 9 (Eom. xv. 3),
shows how far the details of these sufferings were from
standing directly and vividly before his eyes. That he knows
that, on the night when He was betrayed into the hands of
His enemies, Christ instituted the supper (1 Cor. xi. 23-25),
only shows that he found the custom of breaking bread and
consecrating the cup already existing in the Church, and
inquired into its origin. And he only mentions the story in
order that he may attach to it doctrines regarding the signi
ficance of this meal; and these doctrines he himself traces
back to a higher origin (ver. 23).
(b) In the preaching of the original apostles it is plainly
in consequence of the direct impression made upon them by
the life and the suffering of Jesus, that His sinlessness and
the character of His life as a pattern and example are brought
into prominence (§ 38, b, 49, a). In the case of Paul it is
otherwise. Only once is His sinlessness set forth in a dog
matic manner (2 Cor. v. 21 : tov pg yvovTa dpiapTlav) ; and
Paul has scarcely ever felt the need of proving it historically,
since it is self-evident in the case of the Messiah, who is
exalted to heaven, and who had, by His death, redeemed the
world from sin. Only in 2 Cor. x. 1 are the meekness and
gentleness of Christ mentioned, and that quite generally. If,
according to 1 Cor. xi. 1, Paul, in his unselfish striving after
the salvation of others, is imitating Christ, it is sufficient to
think of the proof of love which Christ has given us in His
death (2 Cor. v. 14; Gal. ii. 20 ; cf. Eom. viii. 35), just as
in 1 Thess. i. 6 he also points to the exemplary joy of Christ
in His suffering. Instead, however, of picturing that unselfish
exalted to heavenly glory by means of the resurrection, and that he does not
think of any special intermediate condition between the resurrection and the
exaltation to heaven. That he repeatedly lays stress upon the burial of Christ
(1 Cor. xv. 4 ; Rom. vi. 4 ; cf. Acts xiii. 29 ; Col. ii. 12), is closely connected
with the circumstance, that this guarantees the reality of His death as well as
that of His resurrection, and is therefore equally important for both the great
saving facts of his system.

§ 78. CHRIST IN THE FLESH. 405
surrender of Christ to suffering by any special feature of His
life, he appeals to a passage in the Book of Psalms (Eom.
xv. 3 ; cf. note a). It is still more significant, however, that,
in order to set up the sacrificing love of Christ as a pattern,
he contrasts His pre-temporal state of existence with His
earthly life (2 Cor. viii. 9, for which see § 79, c; cf. Phil.
ii. 5 ff). Whether Paul has considered how this sinlessness
of Christ during His earthly life is compatible with his
doctrine of the power of sin having, through Adam's trans
gression, obtained dominion in the whole human race, cannot
be ascertained. If he has conceived of this influence of Adam
upon his whole race as owing to sexual procreation (§ 6 7, d),
then nothing is more obvious here than the exclusion of the
male factor by a direct creative act of God in the case of the
only sinless one. But since Paul says that Christ was born of
a woman (Gal. iv. 4), without hinting as to anything uncommon
in the occasion of His birth, since he even makes Him be born
of the seed of David (Eom. i. 3),3 and since we must not assume
without more ado that the tradition which is found in our later
Gospels of a miraculous conception of Jesus had ever reached
him, we do not know whither he has drawn this consequence-
which was certainly almost indispensable to his system.
3 That Paul herewith denies a supernatural conception of Jesus (Pfleiderer^
p. 152 [E. Tr. i. 151]), is certainly to say too much ; for even for the conscious
ness of the evangelists, who relate the miracle of the supernatural conception, the
latter did not exclude the extraction of Christ from the fathers (cf. even
R. Schmidt, p. 143). If now Paul had not simply adopted his statement.
regarding the descent of Jesus from the seed of David from tradition, which was
altogether unacquainted, at least in wide circles, with the events that took place
at His birth, and therefore thought of that descent in the common sense, but
had also reflected upon its compatibility with a supernatural conception, it is,
of course, self-evident that such a conception was possible only if Christ was born
of a woman (Gal. iv. 4) who belonged to the seed of David, i.e. according to Rom.
iv. 1 3, to the family which was descended, bodily, from David. And even allowing
that we had no other indication that Mary was descended from David (which I,
for my part, would be disposed to deny), that does not hinder Paul or the
evangelists from having in this way reconciled to themselves the traditional
descent of Jesus from the family of David with His (presupposed or traditional)
supernatural conception. Whether Paul, however, has thought at all upon this
question, can no more be determined than whether he has drawn that dogmatical
consequence. In his view of Christ as the second Adam there is certainly not
yet involved the assumption of a new creative act on the occasion of His con
ception for it is not permissible to carry out this typical parallel beyond the
tertium comparationis which is clearly stated by himself (cf. § 79, a).

400 CHRISTOLOGY.
(c) If we inquire as to the idea which Paul has formed to
himself of the person of Christ during His earthly life, it
appears from Eom. i. 3, ix. 5, that in Him as well as in all
men, he regarded the adp% as only one side of His being. If
Christ is descended icaTa adpica from the fathers, and, more
particularly, from the seed of David, it follows that, with the
adp%, His whole being was not yet exhausted. In both
passages, however, the antithesis makes it absolutely impos
sible to think that the adp!; means only the body of Christ
(Eom. vii. 4), or even only His corporeity as possessed of a
soul.4 It is rather the whole natural human being of Christ
that is meant (§ 68, b), as distinguished from a higher divine
element, which was in Him (i. 4), or from the divine dignity
which He now possesses (ix. 5).5 Now, in all men the adp!;
is the seat of sin, and under the dominion of dfxapTia ; not,
however, because the adp!; is sinful in itself, but because, with
the transgression of Adam, sin has come into the world, and
has made the human adp!; sinful (§ 68, h). Although, accord
ingly, the adp!; of Christ is not a adp% dp,apTia<;, which it
cannot be, if He did not know sin (2 Cor. v. 21), He is,
nevertheless, man in the full sense (dvOpco-jros : 1 Cor. xv. 21;
Eom. v. 15 ; cf. Acts xvii. 31), only such as man was, before
sin began to dwell and reign in him. This gives us the full
explanation of the statement in Eom. viii. 3, that God sent
His Son iv b/MoiwpiaTi aapicbs ayita/jTta.?. This cannot mean
4 The strange question, whether Paul has ascribed a human soul to Christ, is
neither to be answered in the negative with Zeller (Theol. Jahrb. 1842, 1), nor,
with R. Schmidt (p. 156), passed by as incapable of being decided. It is owing
to a total misconception of the Pauline anthropology, according to which the
o-ipl in the living man cannot be thought of otherwise than as possessed of a soul
(cf. § 67, d), and is therefore to be answered in the affirmative. A question can
only arise as to the manner in which Paul has conceived to himself the origin of
the soul of Christ, whether by natural propagation, or, as in the case of the first
man, by a new creative act of God ; but this question is plainly closely con
nected with the unanswerable question as to his view of the conception of Jesus
(footnote 3).
5 This appears, in particular, also from 2 Cor. v. 16, where the knowing Christ
xxrx o-xpxx certainly means more than the knowledge of His bodily nature, and
denotes the estimating of Christ according to His whole manifestation upon
earth as a man, for it stands parallel with the statement that the apostle will no
longer know any one according to what he is in his natural-human character
(xxrx aipxx), but only according to what he is in his new life which belongs to
Christ (ver. 15).

§ 78. CHRIST IN THE FLESH. 407
that Jesus had the adpt dp.apTias, and therefore sin itself
although in Him it did not become irapdBaai<; (cf. Holsten,
p. 41), nor does the expression conceal an unsolved antinomy,
which leads to Docetism (cf. Baur, p. 191; Pfleiderer, p. 155
[E. Tr. i. 154]). Christ really possessed the human adp!;, as
is immediately presupposed in the iv Tg aapici, which can
only refer to His adp% ; but because His adp% was not a adp!;
dp,apTia<;, it was only similar to it, i.e. to the adp!; as it is
constituted in empirical humanity, without anything being
thereby awanting to it, which belongs to the essence of the adp\
as such (cf. even Biedermann, p. 239).6 Still it possessed the
whole dadeveia of the human adp!; (2 Cor. xiii. 4 : iaTavpmdg
e|? daOevelai), in particular its susceptibility to death, so that
death could obtain power over Him (Eom. vi. 9).
6 The recent treatises on this passage have only helped to establish the
common conception of it. The very confident assertion of Overbeck (in loco,
1869, 2 ; cf. also Pfleiderer, p. 153 f. [E. Tr. i. 152 f.]), that e>»*V« can only
denote the homogeneity of the flesh of Christ with sinful flesh, and that it is
pure arbitrariness to make the moment of dissimilarity, which even according to
him lies in the idea of b/toloipx, refer to the condition of the o-ipl which is
indicated by the genitive, Zeller (ibid. 1870, S) has already sufficiently weakened
in favour of the current view (cf. § 69, c, footnote 2). If we ask, why then
Paul did not simply write iv o-xpxl, it is clear that that condition of the
empirical o-ipl could not but have been expressly mentioned in a connection
where the very question considered was the reference of the sending of Jesus to
the sin which reigns in it, inasmuch as it was only upon the domain which had
up to this time been its own that this sin could be conquered (cf. Wendt, p. 190).
As the misinterpretation of that expression, however, is only possible when we
understand by the o-ipl xpxprixs a o-ipl which is sinful in its essence (and this no
more agrees with the Pauline anthropology than with a correct explanation of
the expression ; cf. § 68, d, footnote 14), so it leads also to the denial of the
sinlessness of Christ, which is absolutely indispensable in this very passage,
according to which it is through the sending of Him that the conquest of sin was
to be effected, and sufficiently guaranteed by 2 Cor. v. 21. The misinterpreta
tion of this latter passage by Holsten, who makes it refer to the sinlessness of
Christ in His premundane state of existence, R. Schmidt (p. 99) has completely
refuted ; and a want of knowledge of the sin which dwelt in His flesh, although
it did not manifest itself in Txpxf>io-us, would not only have been no advantage
of Christ, for it was found in the whole of humanity previous to the time of
Moses (Rom. v. 13, 14), but would have been only a great lack of self-knowledge.
Pfleiderer (in loc.) has reverted to Baur's assumption of an unsolved antinomy ;
but this antinomy they first make themselves by imposing upon the apostle an
anthropology which is at least incompatible with his Christology, the assump
tion viz., of a sinful constitution of the o-ipl. Such an assumption is, of course,
superfluous, if, with Schenkel, we explain the pt.n yvbvrx L/xxpr. to mean that
Christ "did. no sin knowingly, and therefore remained sinless in the subjective
sense" (p. 246) !

408 CHRISTOLOGY.
(d) When Paul describes the irvevp.a dytcoavvgs as the
other side of the being of Christ (Eom. i. 4), he thereby
attaches himself to the original apostolic view, according to
which Jesus was anointed with the Holy Spirit (§ 38, h,
48, h). The expression -irvevp-a dyiov he probably avoids
purposely, in order to distinguish the Spirit, which was
originally in Christ, from that which is communicated
through Him, and he describes this Spirit — not as one which
is the source of holiness for its possessor (E. Schmidt, p. 107),
but — as one whose quality is dyicoavvg (gen. qual.), because in
this way there comes out more clearly than in the term dyiot
the property of His being, which qualified Christ for the
exaltation which is here asserted of Him (§ 77, h). More
essential is the distinction that this Spirit does not appear as
one which Christ has first received (on the occasion of His
baptism) ; but that Paul appears to regard it as a constitutive
factor of His being. If, in the natural man, the higher side
of human nature is the vow, which is distinguished from the
irvevp-a (§ 68, c), and which remains powerless in opposition
to the might of sin, in Christ its place is from the first taken
by the essentially divine element of the irvevp,a, which there
fore hindered sin from being able to obtain the mastery of
His adp!; (note c).7 Christ is not on this account, however,
the pneumatic man from the very first (cf. Baur, p. 191);
even in Him rather this higher divine element of His being
and the natural human crap!; still form a relative antithesis
(Eom. i. 3, 4). This antithesis, however, can and must be
done away with, and this is effected through the resurrection.
That Jesus was raised up in virtue of the irvevpia which
dwelt in Him, Peter also teaches (§ 48, c); but Paul draws
the further consequence of this doctrine. It is through the
resurrection that the ea^aTo^ 'ABdp, has first become et?
irvevpta £cooiroiovv (1 Cor. xv. 45, for which see § 76, d) ; it
7 In 1 Cor. ii. 16 the yovs Xpio-nv is spoken of ; but we have already seen
(§ 68, c) that here the expression is simply conditioned by the preceding quota
tion (Isa. xl. 13 : rls iyvoi «ou» xvplov). In Him the orvivpox, which all men first
receive through Him, is originally present. This significant christological view
of the apostle is altogether ignored when, in consequence of a wrong conception
of the Pauline anthropology, we see in this Tvivpox only the principle of life
which belongs to all men, and which makes them beings in the image of God
(cf. Beyschlag, p. 211, 231).

o

§ 79. THE HEAVENLY ORIGIN. 409
is through it that that relative antithesis between the adpg
and the irvevpia, which was still also in Him, has been done
away with, and His whole being, including His corporeity,
has become pneumatic (ver. 46). Now first, therefore, can
He become also for other men the author of the resurrection
(vv. 20-23), and of an exclusively pneumatic state of
existence (ver. 44) — of course, however, not till after that
second event also has taken place, for which that original
pneumatic property of His being qualified Him, and which
was realized in consequence of His resurrection, His elevation,
viz., to the full dignity of divine sonship (cf. § 77, b).
§ 79. The Heavenly Origin.
As the second Adam, who has by His resurrection secured
the pneumatic or heavenly corporeity to the human race,
Christ Himself must have been of heavenly origin, (h) The
assumption of such an origin depends also upon an inference
from the dignity of the exalted Christ to an original divine
state of existence of the Son, from which He had come into
the earthly life, (c) In consequence of a similar inference
from the office of Christ as the Mediator of salvation in His
historical life, Paul ascribes to Him in His prehistorical state
of existence the mediation of God's creative activity, and of
the manifestations of His grace to Israel, (d) In His exalta
tion, however, Christ has, according to Paul, received more
than He possessed before His incarnation.
(a) Christ is the antitype of Adam (Eom. v. 14 : 6 p,i\Xcov
'ABdp,), because His influence extends to the whole human
race in the same manner as that of Adam.1 As sin and
death came into the world through the latter, so righteous-

1 It is often wrongly represented that, for Paul, the name of the second
Adam was the most expressive designation of the nature of Christ (compare, e.g.,
Beyschlag, p. 223, 225, and against him R. Schmidt, p. 92). It is only the
significance of Christ and Christianity for the whole human race, a significance
which comes out so strongly in the teaching of Paul, that this expression
primarily characterizes (cf. § 58, c, d). In Rom. v. 14 the tertium comparationis
of the comparison which is made there between type and antitype is expressly
stated, and we must not go beyond it to further inferences regarding the origin
(cf. § 78, b, footnote 3) or the nature of Christ. Cf. Pfleiderer, p. 142 [E. Tr.
i. 141 f.].

410 CHRISTOLOGY.
ness and life have come into it through the former. The
same tertium comparationis lies at the root of the parallel
between Adam and Christ in 1 Cor. xv. 45, 47, only that,
in conformity with the whole contexts the second Adam
(6 eo-yaTo? 'ABdp, or d BevTepos av9pa>Tro<;, inasmuch as all
men who are homogeneous with the first Adam are counted
only as one) appears here as the one from whom the
pneumatic corporeity of completed humanity is derived, just
as the psychical corporeity of earthly humanity, to which
Christ also once belonged, is derived from the first Adam in
consequence of the manner in which he was formed out of
the dust of the earth, and received a soul through the divine
breath of life. Already it follows from this that what is
spoken of here cannot be the origin of the human personality
of Christ (Kubel, p. 221), but only the risen Christ, as is
now-a-days being more and more generally acknowledged
(cf. E. Schmidt, p." 116 ; Pfleiderer, p. 132 f. [E. Tr. i. 132 f.]).
In this sense, therefore, Christ has become the last Adam,
only after He has by death laid aside the fleshly or psychical
corporeity, which was borne also by Him upon earth, and has
in the resurrection altogether become the irvevpia ^cootvoiovv,
only after His corporeity also has been transformed into the
pneumatic (cf. § 76, d, 78, d). Now in this passage it is
said expressly that the second man was e'£ ovpavov (the
d tcvpios of ver. 47 is to be struck out),2 and this allusion to
- R. Schmidt strives in vain to prove that this refers only to the substantial
essence of the Risen One, from which His heavenly corporeity, according to
him, received its nature (p. 113-117) ; but only Schenkel, who is bold enough
to deny to Paul any doctrine of the pre-existence of Christ, has coincided with
him (p. 257). For if the substantial nature of the first man (so far as concerns
his corporeity) is accounted for by his origin from the earth (ix yns x°"<-°s), the
substantial nature of the second man (as to His corporeity) cannot be explained
from the heavenly origin of the substance of this corporeity, but only from the
origin of the person who has first received such a corporeity, and has thus
become the means of securing it to humanity. The apparent incongruity,
that the first Adam becomes the author of the psychical corporeity at the com
mencement of his life, while the second is not so until His resurrection, is
sufficiently accounted for by the circumstance that in this connection the point
in question is solely as to the bodily condition of risen humanity, the author
and mediator of which can therefore be also only a risen man (the xTxpx* rZv
xixoipm/xivoiv of 1 Cor. xv. 20-22) as its second Adam. On the other hand, the
reference of ver. 47 to the Parousia, which is renewed by Gess, p. 127 f.,
requires arbitrary additions.

§ 79. THE HEAVENLY ORIGIN. 411
His heavenly origin can only involve the thought that He,
who has been the means of securing to humanity a corporeity
which is in keeping with its heavenly completion, must Him
self have been an inhabitant of heaven according to His
original nature (e'£ ovpavov). Certainly He has not brought
this corporeity with Him from heaven,3 but has Himself first
received it on the occasion of His exaltation to heaven after
the resurrection. Such an exaltation has never been bestowed
upon the men who are derived from the earth, who have an
earthly nature, and have been begotten by the first Adam
and his descendants ; nor could it have been attainable by
Him, for He was Ekewise descended from Adam Kara adpica,
and shared primarily in his bodily condition, if He had not
also had another higher origin.4 If, however, the statement
of the apostle, which meets us here for the first time, regarding
the heavenly origin of Christ depends upon this consideration,
he will have attained to the knowledge of His original being
through an inference from that which He has become in His
heavenly exaltation. Of course, the point in question here is
not as to a logical operation, but as to the knowledge which
3 Pfleiderer, who (p. 133 [E. Tr. i. p. 133]) gives substantially the same
explanation of our passage, deviates from our view in this, that he concludes
from it that the man who is of heavenly origin must have already pre-existed
there as " a pneumatic man" (p. 140 [E. Tr. 139]) ; while Biedermann (p. 236)
finds in this pre-existence of the "human" image of God the real nerve of the
original Christology of Paul. But ver. 46 is directly opposed to this view ;
there it is stated, with express reference to the distinction between the pneumatic
and the psychical corporeity, to be a universal law, that not to orsivpoxTixby, but
to -tpvxixbv is that which is first. That being the case, however, Christ cannot
have pre-existed in a pneumatic corporeity, and, since a corporeity is an
essential part of man, not even as man (cf. Schmidt, p. 118). The assertion,
that the point in question here is as to the historical realization of the
TvivpoxTixbv in humanity, is of no avail ; for precisely as the second man, Christ
certainly belongs to humanity, and in the mind of the apostle His premundane
life was as concrete a reality as His earthly. As certainly, therefore, as it was
the same subject that was derived from heaven, and, as o*iinpos xvhuTos, has
become the beginner of risen humanity, so certainly it has not pre-existed "in
the same form of existence ; " for, according to ver. 45, it was in the resurrec
tion that Christ first obtained the pneumatic corporeity which made Him the
Tviipox Z,oiotoiovv, and that, too, as the inheritance of the Son of God (§ 77, d) ;
He did not, however, merely receive it back again, or return to His original
form of existence, which Pfleiderer (p. 159 [E. Tr. i. 158]) can once more only
explain on the assumption of an unsolved antinomy.
4 Upon this passage is based the assumption in which many now believe they
have found the real key to the Pauline Christology (cf. Baur, p. 191 ; Beyschlag,

412 CHRISTOLOGY.
sprang out of the depth of His consciousness of man's need of
redemption, and which matured under the guidance of the
Spirit, the knowledge, viz., that He, who has first attained the
heavenly goal of humanity, and who was alone qualified and
appointed to lead it thither, must have been of a higher
origin than it.
(b) According to § 77, d, the divine glory which was
bestowed upon Christ in His pneumatic corporeity, and which
He received at His exaltation, was only the inheritance which
originally belonged to Him alone as the Son of God. If now
the claim that He alone had upon this inheritance depended
upon His higher nature (note a), it foEows that as the Son of
God He is of heavenly origin. This, however, appears clearly
from Gal. iv. 4, where He is said to have been sent forth by
the Father as the Son, in order that He might be the means
of securing sonship to all others.5 If His being born of a
woman and His being placed under the law are here set
forth as a special divine measure, although the yiveaOai i/c
yvvaiKo<; is, per se, self-evident for every man, and the yiveadat
p. 225 ; Holsten, p. 71 ff. ; Hilgenfeld, p. 189). In consequence of the explana
tion which Philo gives to the double account of the creation of man in Genesis,
Paul, it is alleged, has seen in Christ the heavenly original man or the type of
humanity. Naturally this combination is closely connected with the assumption
of a pre-existence of Christ as ' ' the pneumatic man " (cf. footnote 3) ; but even
such a decided defender of the latter assumption as Pfleiderer has declared him
self energetically against the former (p. 141 ff. [E. Tr. i. 140 ff.]). In fact, one
cannot comprehend how the last Adam has grown out of that first-created
Adam, and how that idea of the heavenly man has so completely got rid of the
character of the Platonic ideal world (a character which hovers between ideality
and reality), from which it is adopted by Philo, and has solidified itself into the
full reality of a person that is identical with the historical Christ. The thought
of the Logos of Philo, whom earlier writers discovered in the Pauline Christ
(cf. Usteri, p. 331 ; Dahne, p. 114 ff.), is still more foreign to the Pauline circle
of ideas. For the a priori assumption of such an intermediate being there is
not found in him even the slightest point of contact.
5 This, of course, does not follow from the idea of the sending per se, which
could equally well denote that He was entrusted with a calling, nor from the
compound ilxTio-TuXiv, which can only be artificially made to refer to a separa
tion of Himself from the Son on the part of the Father ; it undoubtedly follows,
however, from the participial clauses, which make it impossible to doubt, that
the sending is conceived of here as coeval with His entering upon the earthly
life (cf. R. Schmidt, p. 144 ; Pfleiderer, p. 136 f. [E. Tr. i. 136 f.]). See also
Gess, p. 95 f., against Hofmann, who makes the passage refer to the super
natural conception, by means of which (according to him) Christ became the
Son.

§ 79. THE HEAVENLY ORIGIN. 413
virb vbptov for every Jew, it follows that the existence of the
Son was not conditioned by His human birth, but that He
already existed in a condition from which He could be sent
forth, and that He then stood in a filial relationship to God,
which in itself excluded the elvai virb vbp,ov, just as according
to ver. 5 the reception of the vtoOeaia includes, for Christians,
the cessation of that elvai inrb voptov. It is equally clear in
Eom. vEi. 3, where God's sending His Son iv bp,oicop,dTi,
aapKw dpiapTias is regarded as an extraordinary measure
occasioned by special circumstances, that with the etvat iv t§
aapxi, which began for Christ as for every man with His
being born of a woman, He entered into a condition which
was not in keeping with His original filial relationship, and
that therefore that 7re/ii|ra? cannot be understood of His
historical appearing upon the scene, but only of a sending
which made Him exchange His original state of existence for
one which was of a totally different nature. Both passages,
therefore, show that in the mind of the apostle there is con
nected with this very position of Christ as the Son the idea
of a different kind of existence, which Christ has left for the
purpose of carrying out the divine decree of salvation, in
order to enter into the earthly-human state of existence.
From this, however, it does not by any means follow, that an
eternal existence of Christ or a metaphysical origin out of
God was implied in the mere idea of the Son of God (cf.
§ 77, c, footnote 1). If, according to Eom. i. 4, it is in
consequence of the resurrection that Christ has first been
invested with the full dignity of the Son, this does not
(according to § 77, h) by any means depend upon a reflection
upon the nature of divine sonship, which, indeed, aE others
obtain also through Him ; it depends upon this, that it was
only in His unique position of dignity that He could fulfil
the vocation of the Son of God who was caEed to be the
Messiah. But here also (just as in note a) it was for the
religious consciousness of the apostle a natural inference, that
the elevation to such divine dignity was only possible in the
case of Him whose origin and nature qualified Him for an
exaltation which far transcended all the bounds of human
perfection and aE the limits of created beings. The specific
divine irvevfua dyitocrvvgs, which belonged to Him alone of all

414 CHRISTOLOGY.
men as the higher element of His being, and in virtue of
which He could also be invested with the full dignity of the
Son (§ 78, d), already gave intimation of such an one. The
Son of God, however, who had found His completion in
participation in the divine dignity and sovereignty of the
world, could have been from the beginning no human created
being, but must have been from aE eternity the object of
divine love.6
(c) Beyschlag has attempted to show that Paul has ascribed
to the pre-existent Christ only an ideal existence (although in
the realistic sense), that according to him Christ has pre
existed, not as a personality, but as the principle of a person
ality (cf. especially p. 243). In Paul, however, there is not
found any hint whatever of this.7 As, according to note b,
0 According to Pfleiderer (p. 136 [E. Tr. i. 136]), that which had become in
time through the exaltation of Christ demanded a deeper ground in the time
less existence of the heavenly world, in order to stand fast to the Christian
consciousness as an absolute certainty and necessity, and thus arose the doctrine
of His pre-existence. But the heavenly exaltation of Christ was a fact which
was borne witness of to the apostle by the manifestation of the exalted One, a
fact which demanded no further ground, and which, at least, could certainly
not find such a ground in a self-made theorem. Biedermann (p. 236) derives
the idea of Christ's pre-existence from the fact that the Son must anticipate the
Old Testament theocracy, which negatively prepared the way for His coming ;
but he has not shown how this line of thought, which for us demands only an
ideal pre-existence in the divine decree, demanded for Paul a hypostatic pre-
existence. On the other hand, Hofmann traces back the Pauline doctrine of
the pre-existence to such sayings of Christ as John xvi. 28, which were
altogether foreign to the earliest tradition, at least as known to us ; but Gess
has already shown (p. 365 f.) that this stands in plain contradiction with Gal.
i. 16. Gess himself derives it from u, revelation which disclosed to him the
depth of the Old Testament promise of the Messiah (p. 369) ; but Paul has
certainly never hinted at such a source, while the manner in which he asserts
Christ's heavenly origin on the very occasion of his making mention of the
second man, and takes it for granted when he mentions the earthly manifesta
tion of the Son, gives us an adequate idea of the way in which the divine
revelation regarding the deepest essence of the Son to which he appeals has
come to him.
7 There is no evidence given that it was the view of Paul that " the actual
personality first arises through the implanting of the principle of a jiersonality
in the o-ipl" (cf. the excellent remarks of Pfleiderer, p. 137, note [E. Tr. i.
136]), and this assertion is already refuted by his angelology, the conception
of which, as developed by Beyschlag (p. 244-246), would lead to a break of the
apostle with the Jewish view of the world which cannot be pointed out any
where. Sabatier, also (p. 290), regards the question as unanswerable, whether
Paul has conceived of the pre-existence of Christ as an ideal or a personal one,

§ 79. THE HEAVENLY ORIGIN. 415
the Son of God is the subject who was sent from heaven, and
who was therefore already in heaven, so it is Christ Himself,
whom it would be an absurdity to bring down from heaven,
because He has already come down (Eom. x. 6). In 2 Cor.
viii. 9 it is represented as a manifestation of the grace of
Christ (tov icvpiov gptcov 'Igaov XpiaTov), that He, who was
rich there, for our sakes became poor; it is therefore the
same subject, who once had the riches of the heavenly life,
and, out of love to men and for the sake of their salvation,
chose instead the poverty of the earthly life.8 In 1 Cor. viii. 6,
also, Jesus Christ is the one Lord, through whom to irdvTa
are, just as Christians are what they are through Him as
the Mediator of salvation.9 From this passage, however, it
is plain that the statement regarding the mediatorial office of
and asserts that in the mind of the apostle the prehistorical activity of Christ
melts into that of the Divine Spirit.
8 This interpretation of the passage does not, as Baur (p. 193) thinks, depend
upon our translation of ittZxivo-s, which is, moreover, thoroughly justifiable
grammatically, and necessarily demanded by its correspondence with the Im
TXovrno-nTi as well as by the intended stirring up of the Corinthians to sacrifice
their possessions, for it remains substantially the same even though ittojxivo-i
is made to refer to the fact of the earthly life of Christ ; but it depends upon
this, that the reference to the outward poverty of His earthly life, in which He
renounced every claim upon sensuous goods and earthly honours (cf. Beyschlag,
p. 237), or even to the lowest stage of human misery, the bearing of the cross
(Schenkel, p. 249), is absolutely excluded by the final clause. For, since the
riches can be understood here only of the heavenly glory to which the office of
Christ as the Mediator of salvation during His earthly existence leads men, so
in the antithesis also we can think only of the riches of His previous heavenly
existence, which He gave up for their sakes (cf. R. Schmidt, p. 144 ; Pfleiderer,
p. 138 f. [E. Tr. i. 137 f.]).
9 Baur (p. 193) regards it as impossible that the xvfyuTos 11 o'vpxvov can be con
ceived of as the creator of the world, and therefore, by means of the altogether
unsuitable comparison with 2 Cor. v. 18, limits the tx txvtx here also to the
work of redemption (cf. Schenkel, p. 259) ; the work of redemption, however,
is absolutely excluded by the appended xx) fipcus V xmov as well as by the
parallel Ig ov tx txvtx ; and it only follows that Paul does not think of the pre-
existent Christ as the typical man. Pfleiderer (p. 145, note [E. Tr. i. 144])
is of opinion that these two predicates are quite compatible for a dogmatic
thinker like the apostle ; but it would require first to be shown, that for an Old
Testament consciousness, which throughout connected the notion of creaturely
existence with the idea of man, it was possible to think of a man as the means
whereby the world was created, while, conversely, the elevation of a man to a
position of divine dignity must have led to the recognition that such a, subject
nad originally been of a higher nature, and therefore that his humanity could
not have been his original form of existence (cf. note o).

416 CHRISTOLOGY.
Christ on the occasion of the creation of the world depends
upon the same kind of an inference as the statements regard
ing the heavenly existence of Christ in general. If the
Mediator of salvation is once recognised to be a pre-existent
being, then in that premundane existence of His He can only
have had a mediatorial position with respect to the creative
activity of God which is analogous to that which He had in
His earthly existence with respect to God's gracious activity.
Even Pfleiderer (p. 144 [E. Tr. i. 143 f.]) acknowledges that
this statement is not derived, a priori, from a speculation
regarding an intermediate being, by means of whom God had
to bring about His activity with respect to the world, and
with whom the manifestation of the historical Christ was in
some way or other identified, but, a posteriori, from the trans
ference of the specific significance of Christ in His historical
life to His prehistorical existence. Therein there is, of course,
already involved the germ of the knowledge, that even the
creative activity of God did not stand out of relation to the
goal of the world which was to be realized through Christ (cf.
§ 103, a). And although, in 1 Cor. x. 9, the reading tov
XpiaTov must yield to tov icvpiov, for which there is more
authority, and which, according to the context, refers to God,
yet it is said in ver. 4 that the water-giving rock, which,
according to Eabbinic tradition, accompanied the Israelites in
their march through the wilderness, was Christ. Paul does
not, as Baur (p. 193) and Schenkel (p. 260) think, make this
rock refer typically to Christ, in which case he must have
said iaTiv; but, starting from the presupposition that the
gracious leading of Israel was a type of the Christian's ex
periences of salvation (§ 73, c), he concludes from the fact that
the latter were brought about through the historical Christ
that the former also was owing to Him in His prehistorical
existence ; an idea which there is no need of supposing that
he borrowed from the apocryphal doctrine of wisdom, as
Kostlin (Stud, und Krit. 1866, p. 760) still asserts. If in
Peter it was stiE the pre-existent Spirit of the Messiah that
worked in the prophets (§ 48, h), here it is the pre-existent
Son of God Himself who brought about the revelation of God
to Israel as weE as the creation of the world. This is the
advance of the Pauline Christology.

§ 79. THE HEAVENLY ORIGIN. 417
(d) Although it is, accordingly, certainly true, that it is
from the view of the exalted Christ and His significance as
the Mediator of salvation that Paul has advanced to the state
ments regarding His premundane existence and His mediatorial
position therein, yet it by no means follows that the doctrine
of the pre-existence has only a secondary significance for his
Christology, as is very emphatically asserted by E. Schmidt
(p. 157, 159 ; cf. also Pfleiderer, p. 270 f. [E. Tr. i. 273 f.]).
In that doctrine there is reflected (though still in a direct
manner) the consciousness of the eternal ground of salvation,
and it is in it that the consciousness of the divine greatness of
the Mediator of salvation is first established in such a manner
that it cannot be shaken. Paul has, indeed, no more reflected
upon the manner in which the incarnation of an already pre
existing eternal being is to be represented, than upon the
origin of His earthly life (cf. § 78, b), which in His case was
coeval with the giving up of His heavenly life. Only it is
certain, that the idea of the assumption of a human nature to be
united with the divine is as foreign to the apostle as the idea of
the pre-existing heavenly man (cf. footnote 3), an idea which
does not in any way further the solution of that problem.10
Eegarding the apostle's idea of the mode of existence of the
Son of God in His premundane state of being only so much is
certain, that he has conceived of it as pneumatic in analogy with
the divine, and hence, also, as sharing in the divine Sofa in the
sense of § 76, d. Only it is self-evident, that no more than
God Himself can He be conceived of in a aoop,a t?j? Boggs, for the
10 The manner in which this solution is being now-a-days sought in that idea,
leads altogether astray. Holsten makes the ideal man Xpitrrbs, who pre-existed
in the heavenly body of light, unite Himself with the earthly man Jesus
(p. 76, 423), and, in support of his view, even appeals to the combination of the
natne'Ioo-oiis Xpio-rbs, which is common-to the whole New Testament. Altogether
misconceiving the Pauline anthropology, Hilgenfeld attributes to the apostle a
pre-existence of souls, which he finds by means of a very artificial exegesis in
Rom. vii. 9, 10, and on the ground of which he seeks to comprehend the incar
nation of the pre-existing ideal man (p. 790). Pfleiderer (p. 152 [E. Tr. i. 151] ),
indeed, is of opinion, that the transformation of the psychical body into the
pneumatic at the resurrection furnishes an analogy for the transformation of the
pneumatic corporeity of the heavenly man into the psychical ; but since Christ
was born of a woman (Gal. iv. 4), His psychical corporeity has not originated
by means of a " miraculous metamorphosis," but has been formed in a natural
way in His mother's womb, the question as to the manner of His conception
being left altogether undecided.
roL. i. 2d

418 CHRISTOLOGY.
awpa (in its earthly-lowly as well as in its heavenly-glorified
condition) is one of the conditions of human (or, according to
1 Cor. xv. 40, of all created) existence, into which Christ first
entered by His being born of a woman (cf. note h). In so far
it was no mere return to His pneumatic form of existence,
when by the resurrection Christ iyevero et? irvevp,a ^cooirotovv
(1 Cor. xv. 45), since this presupposes that the ¦jrvevpta now
transformed even His human body into the aiop,a t??? Bo^gi,
in which He remains henceforth the head of completed
humanity. On the other hand, even the divine dignity, to
which Christ has attained through His exaltation, nowhere
appears in Paul as one which He already possessed, and to
which He has merely returned after His resurrection. Only
the prerequisite for it was given in His heavenly origin and
His eternal essence, as that authenticated itself in the Trvevfia
dyia>avvg<; (note b) ; but still His mediatorial office in the crea
tion of the world and in the history of salvation (note c) by
no means appears as lying on a level with the participation in
the divine glory and sovereignty of the world, to which the
Son who is seated at God's right hand has attained. But
although He has received this position of dignity as regards
the world for the purpose of carrying out His work of salva
tion, we have nevertheless already seen (§ 76, c) that it by
no means ceases with the completion of the latter, and this is
now confirmed to us afresh by the fact, that a position of
dignity which was in keeping with the original nature of the
Son cannot be confined to the duration of His activity in a
special vocation. As the divine eternal existence of Christ
in His pre-existence did not forbid His relation to God from
being regarded as that of a Son with the subordination which
is naturally involved in it, so the eventual subordination of
the Son to the Father (1 Cor. xv. 28) by no means excludes
the divine dignity of the exalted Christ. For our christo
logical consideration there now comes in, of course, the problem,
how we have to conceive of this relation of the divine Son to
the Father in His absolute sovereignty over all, apart from
His position with respect to the work of redemption, as well
as previous to the creation of the world and apart from His
mediatorial position in that work. But Paul has not con
sidered this problem, and it remains altogether vain to attempt

§ 80. THE SAVING SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 419
to extract from him statements regarding an immanent trinity ;
in saying which, the question, whether the teaching of the
Church has with justice advanced to that doctrine, is naturally
in no way prejudiced.

CHAPTEE V I.
REDEMPTION AND JUSTIFICATION.
§ 80. The Saving Significance of the Death of Christ.
Cf. Tischendorf, doctrina Pauli apostoli de vi mortis Christi satisfactoria,
Leipzig, 1837 ; A. Schweizer, Stud. u. Krit. 1858, 3.
Christ has become the Mediator of salvation by means of
His death, inasmuch as it was an appointment of divine
grace, to which He submitted Himself in free obedience to
God and in free love to men. (b) He has, viz., suffered death
in behalf of humanity, in order to deliver it from the conse
quences of sin, i.e. from death, and in so doing He has endured
it vicariously for all. (c) Since God has appointed His blood
to be the means of propitiation, He has ransomed men from
their guilt, (d) By means of His death the world is recon
ciled with God, who can now no longer condemn those who
accept the message regarding it.
(a) If we ask, whereby it is that, in His manifestation
upon earth, Christ has become the Mediator of salvation, there
is only one answer that can be given according to the PauEne
view, viz., by His death. Hence this death forms the real
central-point of his preaching (1 Cor. i. 17, 18 : d Ad<yo? 6
tov aTavpov) ; he preaches Christ as crucified (Gal. im 1 ;
1 Cor. ii. 2 ; cf. Phil iii. 1 8). To him as well as to his
fellow-countrymen this death had once been the greatest
obstacle to his believing in the Messiahship of Jesus (Gal.
v. 11, vi. 12 ; 1 Cor. i. 23); nor was it after he had first
established for himself the compatibility of this death with
faith in the Messiah (Baur, p. 130) that he attained to this
faith ; it was rather after he had been led by the manifestation
of Christ to the immediate assurance of His Messiahship, that
he had to recognise that His death upon the cross was also

420 REDEMPTION AND JUSTIFICATION.
embraced in the decree relating to the Messianic salvation.1
Now, since, in consequence of his own experience, Christianity
was, to him, a dispensation of grace, which provided salvation
for the lost world of sinners (§ 58, b, c), the death of Him
who in His exaltation promised to bring the completion of
all the promised salvation, must have been the specific appoint
ment of the grace of God, whereby the basis of this salvation
was laid. Of course this presupposes that His death was
different from that of all other men. Since, however, it is
only because all have sinned that death reigns over all the
descendants of Adam (Eom. v. 1 2), Christ, who knew not sin,
was by no means rendered subject to the dominion of death
in consequence, simply, of His belonging by birth to the
human race. No doubt the weakness of His flesh made Him
susceptible to death (§ 78, c), and He could not, with this
flesh, have been exalted to His heavenly glory ; but from this
it no more follows in His case than in the case of the first
man (cf. § 67, c), that He had to pass through death in order
to attain to the heavenly life ; indeed, even the believers, who
live to see the Parousia, enter into His glory without dying.
It is only in this way that we can understand how the deliver
ing up of the Son to death (Eom. viii. 3 2 : irapeBcoicev ; cf.
iv. 25),— a surrender which, because prophesied in Scripture
(1 Cor. xv. 3), was owing to a special decree of God, — can
be regarded as a proof of God's love (cf. also Eom. v. 8) ;
even for the incarnate Son of God death was by no means a
necessity of nature, not to speak of the shameful and painful
death upon the cross (aTavpo<;), when His blood was shed (cf.
footnote 9). Neither, looked at from the other side, was
death ordained for Christ in such a sense, that He had to
suffer it as a fate appointed Him by God. It was an act of
1 Even for the original apostles this was an inevitable conclusion (cf. § 38, d,
49, and the discourses of Jesus, § 22, c). Accordingly, it is a radical error in
Baur's representation, that, according to it, Paul has, as it were, first discovered
this significance of the death of Christ, and has then, in consequence of this
discovery, recognised the imperfection of the Old Testament dispensation (p. 130).
Among the articles which he has delivered as he received them by tradition,
Paul counts his proclamation that Christ died for our sins according to the
Scriptures (1 Cor. xv. 3) ; he was therefore conscious of being in full agreement
with the preaching of the original apostles, when he declared that the death of
Jesus was an essential moment of the decree of salvation which was prophesied
in the Old Testament, and gave it a special reference to the sin of men.

§ 80. THE SAVING SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 421
free obedience, an act in which He submitted Himself to the
Father's purpose ; and hence this act of obedience, upon
which the obtaining of salvation for men depended, is con
trasted with the transgression of Adam, with which destruc
tion has come upon men (Eom. v. 1 9 ; cf. Phil. ii. 8). He
gave Himself according to the will of God (Gal. i. 4) ; but
since the design of this self-sacrifice was men's salvation, it is
also a proof of His love to men (Gal. ii. 2 0 : tov dyairgaavTw
pie ical -rrapaBovTos eavTov ; 2 Cor. v. 14, 15 ; cf. Eph. v. 2, 25).
(b) Whether the death of Christ is regarded as a sacrifice
of love on the part of God or on the part of Christ (note a),
it took place in behalf of men (virep gp.uv:2 1 Cor. xi. 24;
2 Cor. v. 15 ; cf. 1 Thess. v. 10). How this is to be under
stood appears from Eom. v. 8, according to which Christ has
died for us, inasmuch as we were sinners (d/j,apTa>Xa>v ovtcov
gpicbv ; cf. ver. 6 : virep daeBwv), or on account of our sins
(Eom. iv. 25: Bid to irapaiTTojpaTa gptcov ; Gal. i. 4 : irepl
tcov dpiapTicov gp,a>v ; 1 Cor. xv. 3 : virep t5>v dpiapTicov gpicbv).
Now, since the evil which sin has brought upon men is death
(§ 66, d), the death of Christ, which was suffered for the
salvation of men, and also because of sin, can only have had
the design of removing from them the miserable consequences
of sin, i.e. the punishment of sin, which consists in death.3 If
He, however, who did not per se need to die the death (note a),
dies, in order to free sinners from death, His death is a
vicarious one. Paul has first formulated in a strict dogmatic
manner the idea of substitution without any reference to the
Old Testament prophecy of the sin-bearing of the servant of
God (like Peter, § 49, h), and connected it with the working
2 That the primary meaning of this Strip is only that the death of Christ was
suffered on men's account, in their behalf, is evident from the circumstance that,
in an altogether parallel passage (1 Cor. viii. 11), the vTip ov of Rom. xiv. 15 is
supplied by V ov. Even in 2 Cor. v. 21 there is not only no necessity to take it
as equivalent to xvrl, as Pfleiderer does (p. 102 [E. Tr. i. 101]), but this sense is
not even suitable, for, seeing that we were actually sinners, God did not need first
of all to make us such.
3 The only statement on the subject in the Epistles to the Thessalonians says
nothing more specific than this regarding the saving significance of the death of
Christ (1, v. 10 ; cf. § 61, d) ; for if it is the design of the death which He
suffered for us that we should live with Him, then with that death of His the
death, which excludes the sinner from the highest salvation which is given in
eternal life (§ 65, d), is removed from the latter.

422 REDEMPTION AND JUSTIFICATION.

out of our righteousness. God has made Him, who did not
know sin, to be sin in our behalf, has looked upon Him and
treated Him as if He were a sinner, in order that we might
become the righteousness of God in Him, i.e., that, on the
ground of that which happened to Him, we could be looked
upon and treated as such as God declares to be righteous
(2 Cor. v. 21). Here it is expressly asserted that the treat
ment of the sinless One as a sinner was the means whereby
the treatment of sinners as sinless was rendered possible, and
so the new righteousness, upon which the salvation of man
depended, was wrought out.4 The specific fate of the sinner,
however, is death, and therefore the apostle accounts for the
constraining power, which the love of Christ has over us (ver.
14), by the judgment that, if one has died for aE, then all have
died (ver. 15). Accordingly, the death of Christ, which was
suffered for the salvation of men, stands vicariously for the
death of all, His being treated as a sinner makes it possible
that they should be treated as righteous, so that they need no
longer die the death which He has died in their stead, and it
is in this supreme act of kindness which He has shown them
that the constraining power of His love towards them lies.8
-* Holsten understands this passage as meaning that, by causing Him to appear
in the o-ipl, which is sinful in its essence, God made Him who was sinless in His
premundane existence to be actually sin (cf. § 78, c, footnote 6) ; but against this
view R. Schmidt (p. 100) has satisfactorily proved that the subjective negation
already shows that the antithesis of the sinlessness of Christ, which is noted as
being present to the consciousness of God, cannot be the working of anything
actual, but only an ideal act, and that it is only in this sense that the xpcxprlxv
Toiiiv answers to the tixxioo-ivn yiv'urlxi, which likewise denotes no actual trans
formation of our subjective condition, but only the imputation of an ideal
character which contradicts the actual reality (cf. also Pfleiderer, p. 101 [E. Tr.
i. 100]). He himself, however, understands this ideal equalization of Jesus with
a sinner (p. 59) to mean that, in the attribute of a o-i.pl x/xxprixs, which is com
municated to it, the impersonal outward side of His being mediatorially
represents the principle of sin itself, and that the consequent connection of
Jesus with sin is dissolved by the death of His material body (p. 63) ; but here
the principal matter, the reference, viz., to the o-ipl, and the doing away of sin,
which commences with its destruction (which is not even mentioned here !), is
simply dragged in. Although Ritschl appears to have given- up the explanation
of xpixprixv which makes it refer to the " sin- offering," he nevertheless (ii. p. 174f.)
declares that the sacrificial idea is the necessary presupposition of this statement ;
but the statement itself, at least, does not furnish the slightest support to this view.
6 That what is spoken of here cannot he the ethical dying with Christ, appears
from the fact that this is by no means the consequence of the death of Christ
in itself, but of the fellowship of His death, which is involved in the living

§ SO. THE SAVING SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 423
If we start from this strictly dogmatic passage, we have no
right whatever to assume that the Pauline idea of substitution
depends upon the presupposition of an abiding claim of the
law, which must first be discharged by the death of Christ,
in order to make room for the new dispensation of grace
(Pfleiderer, p. 103 ff. [E. Tr. i. 102 ff.]), and even to limit this
effect of it to the Jews (Schenkel, p. 229). For death was
not first ordained by the law, but has been ever since Adam
the punishment of sin (Eom. v. 1 2 ; cf. § 67, c), and a sub
stitution of the innocent for the guilty is altogether foreign to
the law. Nor, when interpreted according to the context, is
the design of the peculiar statement of substitution in Gal.
iii. 13 to show that the law has demanded it, but to show
that the way of salvation, which was already presignified for
the Gentiles in the history of Abraham (vv. 8, 9), is confirmed.
For if those who stood under the law were so far from attain
ing salvation by means of it, that they rather drew upon
themselves its curse (vv. 10-12; cf. § 66, b), from which they
could only be freed by Christ's becoming a curse in their
behalf, it was certainly only in Him that the blessing of
Abraham could become the portion of the Gentiles, and so
Jews and Gentiles receive the promise through faith in Him
(vv. 13, 14). In this line of thought the painful and shame
ful death which Christ suffered on the cross, in order that
sinners might not die the death, is represented as the curse
fellowship with Him, the basis of which is laid in baptism (cf. § 84), nor by any
means the consequence of His death for all, since only believers enter into living
fellowship with Christ, whereas His death has certainly taken place for all, and
in itself stands for the death of all, whether or not they appropriate the salvation
which is thereby provided. The second half of the verse gives no support to the
ethical interpretation, but plainly the contrary ; for the no longer living to
ourselves (which is identical with that ethical dying) is here connected with the
death of Christ as a demand, and is therefore not already in itself a consequenco
of it. A distinction is evidently made between that which His mediatorial
death has provided for us, and that to which it constrains us, for the very judg
ment of the apostle regarding the greatness of that deed of kindness and the
duty which grows out of it for us keeps him within the bounds of a behaviour
which is in keeping with the love of Christ, which was shown in that death
(cf. also Pfleiderer, p. 110 [E. Tr. i. 109 f.]). Still less can it be implied in ver. 15,
that the dying of Christ has brought to the light the fact that all are forfeited to
death (Gess, p. 135 f.), which is simply contrary to the meaning of the words.
Schenkel, however, imports the thought of the ethical appropriation of the
death of Christ even into ver. 21 (p. 247).

424 REDEMPTION AND JUSTIFICATION".
which was pronounced by the law against its transgressors
(ver. 10; cf. Deut. xxvii. 26), and which now rests upon
Him who is hanging upon the cross (ver. 13; cf. Deut.
xxi 23).6 The passage, accordingly, does not assert that the
curse pronounced by the law must necessarily have been
carried out, even though upon one who was innocent, but
that it was Christ who, by His suffering such a death as the
curse of the law decrees against its transgressors, has redeemed
the latter from it. Hence it is as vain to seek to extract a
theory as to the reason why Christ had to die, in order to
redeem us from death, from this passage as from that in the
Epistle to the Corinthians ; they both only state the fact, that
the death of Christ, which was suffered in behalf of sinners,
redeemed them from death, the specific punishment of sin,
and was in so far vicarious.
(c) When the freedom from the curse of the law is
represented as a redemption from it in Gal. iii. 13, the death
of Christ, by means of which this freedom was secured, or His
assumption of the curse of the law, is conceived of as the price
which was paid for this redemption, and similarly it is said in
1 Cor. vi. 20, vii. 23 that we have been bought with an
actual redemption-price (ring)? In i. 30 also Christ appears
6 Ritschl (ii. p. 245) urges, with Hofmann, that it is not said iTixxripxros vorb
@iov, and therefore that it is not a curse of God which is spoken of ; but this
argument stands or falls with his erroneous view, that the law meant here is only
an ordinance of angels (§ 71, c, footnote 2). Apart from that, the curse which
the law of God decrees, is self-evidently a curse of God ; and it is not our passage,
but only Hofmann himself, that speaks of that which men did to Him as a
carrying out of the curse of the law which He did not deserve. If Christ has
become a curse according to the will of God (note a), in order to redeem us from
this curse, then the passage says, only in a form which is conditioned by the
context, exactly the same as 2 Cor. v. 21, that God has treated the sinless One
as a sinner, in order that He need not treat sinners as such. On the other hand,
even here R. Schmidt (p. 83) altogether arbitrarily substitutes the sin for the
sinner : sin was condemned in the flesh of Christ, being done away with in the
destruction of His flesh.
7 According to the context the question here, it is true, is as to something
acquired by God, whose possession believers have become ; but this also was
only possible if they were redeemed from the guilt which stained them and made
them altogether unfit to become His possession. There is no reason whatever to
desist, with Ritschl (ii. p. 253 f.), from explaining this expression by means of
Gal. iii. 13, for the curse of the law is also only a concrete expression for the
guilt of its transgressors. If, however, in these passages it remains doubtful
who has paid this price, the active \l-nybpxo-iv in the passage in Galatians shows

§ 80. THE SAVING SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 425
as the author of our redemption, the underlying thought
being that guilt holds man captive (in prison, as it were),
until he is absolved from it by the forgiveness of sins (cf. Eph.
i. 7; Col. i. 14). For if the redemption which is found in
Christ is the means whereby justification by grace was
rendered possible (Eom. iii. 24), it must be thought of as
a redemption from the state of guilt, for it is the guilt which
rests upon the sinner that hinders his justification.8 Now it
is in this passage that Paul states more particularly in how far
this redemption from the state of guilt rests in Christ. In
ver. 25, viz., it is said that God has openly set Him forth in
His blood as a means of propitiation (IXaaTgpiov) through
faith. Here too, accordingly, just as in Gal. iii. 13, His
death, and that, too, the violent bloody death, which He
suffered on the cross, is thought of as the redemption-price,
only that it has first acquired the efficacy of such a price from
the circumstance that God has bestowed upon it the signifi
cance of a means of propitiation.9 Although even here Paul
that Christ is thought of as the one, who has done so by His surrendering
Himself to death (in which He became a curse) ; and thus it is evident that the
point in question there is not merely "as to the equivalence of Christ's suffering
of the curse with that which was remitted to the Jews," but as to a performance
of Christ which was full of value in itself, and which can be regarded as a
redemption-price. The ilxyopiX,uv is thought of in a totally different manner in
Gal. iv. 5, where, however, it is not His death that is the means. On the
other hand, Gal. i. 4 amounts substantially to the same thing (although
without the image of a redemption-price) ; there it is stated to be the design
of the death of Christ, that He might deliver us (iW il'tXvrxi fi/txs) out of the
present age, which is evil in its character (67, a), and therefore exposed to the
judgment of God. Nothing is said here as to a moral effect of the death of
Christ (Schenkel, p. 230). He, who has got rid of his guilt, no longer belongs to
this age, and is no longer exposed to its destruction.
8 Ritschl (ii. p. 221) maintains erroneously that, in consequence of the usus
loquendi of the Old Testament, Paul must have taken xvoXirponris in the sense
of "settino- free," without any reference to the idea of a redemption-price, which
lies originaUy in the word ; for the only passage in which xToXvrpovv occurs in
the Old Testament (Ex. xxi. 8) plainly presupposes such a price. That it is
also found in him in that wider sense proves nothing, for in such cases a
crenitive stands along with it (Rom. viii. 23 ; Eph. i. 14). On the other hand,
the xToXirpuo-is follows Vxxioo-vm and xyixo-ptbs in 1 Cor. i. 30, only because both
these do not exclude the possibility of man's ever anew incurring fresh guilt,
and the definitive redemption from the state of guilt, which Christ has secured
by means of His death, takes place first in the final judgment (cf. Eph. iv. 30).
9 The explanation of ixxo-rnpiov as referring to the mercy-seat (Ex. xxv. 17 ff. ;
Heb. ix. 5), according to which Christ is regarded as the bearer of God's

426 REDEMPTION AND JUSTIFICATION.
does not seem to intend to directly represent the death of
Christ as a propitiatory sacrifice,10 yet it is self-evident that
he has formed the idea of a means of propitiation after the
analogy of the means of propitiation which was current in the
Old Testament cultus. Now, however, the point in question
in the Old Testament institution for propitiation is as to an
arrangement of grace, according to which God has given His
people the blood of animals as a means of propitiation (Lev.
gracious presence, and the sprinkling of which with His blood in the manner
appointed for the sacrifice of the great day of atonement becomes efficacious for
the forgiveness of the sins of the Church (Ritschl, ii. p. 171 ff. ), breaks down
upon the circumstance, that, as the name of a concrete instrument and without
the article, Ixxo-rripiov cannot have "the value of a special idea," and that in
this sense it could not be made operative through faith. In general, how
ever, the allusion to that particular legal custom, an allusion which occurs
nowhere else, and was, therefore, certainly unfamiliar to the readers, would
have been far too vaguely expressed, especially as the designation of the death
of Christ as xlpox, a designation which, apart from the references to the supper
(1 Cor. x. 16, xi. 27), is found only in v. 9 in a connection which by no means
makes it natural to think that there is a reference to a sacrifice (cf. Col. i. 20 ;
Eph. i. 7, ii. 13), is very far from necessarily indicating His quality as a
sacrifice, as Ritschl (p. 162) maintains, but only characterizes His death as a
violent one, although this certainly does not depend upon His having "bled to
death" (cf. e.g. Matt, xxiii. 30, 35, xxvii. 4, 24, 25; Acts v. 28, xx. 28;
Heb. xii. 4).
10 Else he would not have chosen this word, which is not the common word in
the LXX. for the propitiatory sacrifices. From this, however, we only see that
Paul has not worked out his idea of the saving significance of the death of Christ
by transferring to Christian circumstances the sacrificial institute of the Old
Testament, which is altogether insufficient for the purpose that he has in view
(cf. footnote 11), but by considering man's need of salvation in its relation to
the demand of divine righteousness. Neither the xpoxprlxv of 2 Cor. v. 21
( Ritschl, Jahrb. 1863, 2, p. 249), nor the Tip) xpixprixs of Rom. viii. 3 (Hilgenfeld,
Zeitschrift, 1871, 2, p. 186), denotes the sacrifice for sin. If Christ is
represented in 1 Cor. v. 7 as our paschal lamb, the occasion was furnished by
the circumstance that He was put to death at the feast of Passover, but it does
not appear from the context that a saving significance of the death of Christ is
grounded upon this designation, and the ' ' fundamental conception of this
primitive Semitic ver sacrum" (Pfleiderer, p. 98 [E. Tr. i. 97]) is naturally no
more regulative for Paul than that of a covenant sacrifice supplied by Schenkel
(p. 244) in his sense. Nay, although Paul quotes the words used at the institu
tion of the supper in 1 Cor. xi. 25, he has, nevertheless, nowhere independently
employed the idea of the blood of the covenant contained in them, as Peter has
done (§ 49, c). The idea of a new covenant, which is a covenant of forgiveness,
appears in him only in Rom. xi. 27 in an Old Testament quotation from Jer.
xxxi. 33, 34. "Where he speaks independently of a new covenant, it is the
covenant of the Spirit (2 Cor. iii. 6 : xxivli o~ixl-lixn) in contrast with the covenant
of the law (ver. 14 : TxXaii JWiuji). So also in Gal. iv. 24,

§ 80. THE SAVING SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 427
xvii. 11), in order that, notwithstanding their ever recurring
sins, they may be able to maintain their covenant fellowship
with Him.11 God has, therefore, likewise appointed the blood
which was shed in the death of Christ to be the means of
propitiation, which makes atonement for the sins of men, and
therefore renders their redemption from the state of guilt
possible. This He did in order to show His righteousness ;
and Paul himself explains this by stating that He had hitherto
aEowed the sins which were committed in His forbearance to
pass by unpunished, and therefore it might seem as if He
had desisted from deaEng with sinners in conformity with
their doing, and was no more St'/cato?. Indeed, it was a matter
of fact that the Jews misinterpreted this dvo%g of God as if
they could make themselves sure of salvation notwithstanding
their transgression of the law (Eom. ii. 4). Now, however,
there were two ways in which His righteousness could be
shown. According to the original rule of His righteousness,
He must, of course, have delivered over aE sinners to the
death which they deserved; in that case no salvation and no
11 Where Paul speaks of the destruction to which man was forfeited on
account of his transgression of the law, he never thinks of this means of escape.
The reason of this is to be found, not in the circumstance that he regarded the
precepts relating to sacrifices rather as a demand of human performances (Riehm,
Lehrb. d. Hebraerbr. p. 228), or as a typical prophecy of a perfect atonement,
but simply in this, that the sacrifices were only for sins of ignorance, whereas,
in consequence of his deep sense of the corruption, and the irremediable
condition of the natural man, Paul plainly regards all sin as sin which is
worthy of death (§ 66, d), for which there was no propitiatory sacrifice even in
the old covenant, against which statement Rom. i. 21, 22, vii. 7-11 (cf. Ritschl,
ii. p. 243) can prove nothing, because in the context of these very passages the
capital nature of the sin is asserted most distinctly (i. 32, viii. 2). Therein also
lies the impossibility of finding the meaning of sacrifice in this, that the souls
which were forfeited to the punitive justice of God were atoned for by the substi
tutionary offering up of an animal soul, or made free from the liability to be
punished by the vicarious death of the sacrificial animal (cf. even Pfleiderer, p.
96 f. [E. Tr. i. 95 f.]) ; for within the dispensation of the law there was no
sacrifice which could make atonement for one who was forfeited to death, and
deliver him from the liability to be punished. On the other hand, it is a no less
serious misunderstanding of the Old Testament idea of propitiation which lies
at the basis of the subject we are now considering, when R. Schmidt (p. 89)
finds the atoning moment in this, that in the flesh of His Son God actually
pronounced the condemnation of sin itself, and abolished it as a power which
objectively dominates humanity, for nowhere in the biblical sphere of thought
does the extirpation of the principle of sin appear as a means of propitiation for
sin that has been committed.

428 REDEMPTION AND JUSTIFICATION.
righteousness would be worked out. Now, however, God
wiEed to show His righteousness in the present time of salva
tion (iv tw vvv icaipa>) in such a manner that He might be at
once righteous and yet able to justify the believer (iii. 26).
Accordingly, in the blood of Christ He set forth to the world
a means of propitiation through faith.12 Wherefore it pleased
Him to appoint this means of propitiation, — our passage no
more reflects upon this question than the Old Testament
reflects upon the question, wherefore God appointed the blood
of animals to be the means of propitiation. Yet it is worthy
of note that, in v. 19, Paul represents the death of Christ,
inasmuch as it is the means for securing the justification of the
sinner, as an act of obedience, and also points to the value of
the self-surrender of Christ to death by the idea of a redemp
tion-price, which he combines with the idea of the means of
propitiation, an idea which is originally of a totally different
kind, and not so explained in the law (iii. 24 f).
(d) The significance of the death of Christ with respect to
the world is ultimately summed up, for Paul, in the idea of
reconciliation. So long as the wrath of God rests upon man,
man is, as it were, at enmity with Him, His e'^/sd? (Eom. v. 10),
because continually threatened with His punitive judgment.13
12 There is not only no reason to explain the term lixxtoo-vvn here, with Ritschl
(ii. p. 117), so as to make it mean the consistent behaviour of God with a view
to the salvation of believers, but this explanation is even excluded, partly by its
being contrasted with the previous Tipuns of sins, which cannot be set over
against their forgiveness (p. 216 f. ), but only over against their punishment or
cancelling by a means of propitiation, partly by the express distinction between
the Vixxios and VxxiZv, which is done away with by that misinterpretation of
the lixxioo-ivn. On the other hand, Ritschl is perfectly right in refusing to
it here the meaning of punitive righteousness. For the appointment of a means
of propitiation is the very opposite of an execution of the punishment ; and as
in the Old Testament institution for propitiation an execution of the punishment
deserved by the sinner in the person of the sacrificial animal was never thought
of, so neither here are we to conceive that God has shown His righteousness by
executing the punishment demanded by the law in the person of Christ. He
evinced His righteousness, however, by the setting forth of the means of pro
pitiation, inasmuch as He showed that sin could no longer remain unpunished,
unless it was done away with by a means of propitiation appointed by Himself.
Schenkel (p. 226) thinks that God " exercises grace in the spirit of true
righteousness (?)," and so returns substantially to the view of Ritschl, notwith-
' standing his correct translation of Ixxo-rjpiov (p. 265 f. )
13 Accordingly, this enmity is not the hostile disposition of man towards God
(Baur, p. 157). According to Rom. viii. 7 the <ppbv*pix t»s o-xpxbs ixfyx is @ibv ;

§ 80. THE SAVING SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 429
But since this enmity of God is only directed against man
as a sinner, it naturally does not exclude grace, which
seeks to remove the cause of this enmity, and thereby to
render reconciliation possible. This, however, God has
done by reconciling the world to Himself in Christ (2 Cor.
v. 19 ; cf. ver. 18, from which it follows that iv XpiaToj — Bid
XpiaTov in the sense of § 75, d) ; nay, the initiative must
have proceeded from Him, since men could not of themselves
have done away with the guilt of sin, which made them
enemies of God. In this matter men are purely passive, they
are reconciled to God (2 Cor. v. 20 : icaTaXXdygTe t5> Qea>),
they receive the reconciliation (Eom. v. 11) which the Gospel
proclaims (2 Cor. v. 1 9 : d A070? t?}? icaTaXXaygs ; cf. ver. 1 8 :
g Biaicovia Tgs tcaTaXXaygs), and that, too, through the death
of His Son (Eom. v. 10 ; cf. Col. i. 21, 22; Eph. ii. 16).14
Above all, however, it is to be noted that, in the principal
passage which treats of reconciliation, the saving value of the
death of Christ is not limited to the Church, as Eitschl
(p. 215, 230) maintains, but is expressly extended to the
world as such. In consequence of the death of Christ, or
rather in consequence of the obedience of Christ which was
but, since tpp'owipox denotes the object that is striven after, ixfy" *s here, as an
abstr. pro concr., the sum- total of what is hostile to God as contrasted with that
which is pleasing to Him (§ 68, 6), and not a hostile disposition towards God.
Such a passage as Col. i. 21, where tj7 Sixvolx expressly stands along with Ixtpol,
can naturally prove nothing against this assertion ; on the other hand, Ritschl
(ii. p. 228 f.) has in vain disputed the force of the evidence given by Rom. xi. 28
for the objective meaning of 'ixha > f°r there the two halves of the verse are
really quite parallel, since the Jews are, in conformity with his gospel (which
proclaims their temporary exclusion from salvation), the object of the enmity of
God for the sake of the Gentiles (who would otherwise not have attained to
salvation), just as, in conformity with their election (which guarantees salvation
to them), they remain the object of His love for the fathers' sake (to whom God
would, otherwise, not have kept the promise that was given to their seed).
14 From this it is already evident that the reconciliation cannot consist in this,
that man gives up his hostile disposition towards God (Baur, p. 157 ; Ritschl,
ii. p. 227), not even on the one side (Reuss, ii. p. 176 [E. Tr. ii. 160]). The
reconciliation is not something mutual, as if man gives up his enmity and God
consequently gives up His bpyJi (Biedermann, p. 245); by not reckoning unto
them their trespasses (2 Cor. v. 19), God gives up His enmity to men, which is,
as it were, forced upon Him by the sin which rouses His wrath ; it is He alone
that changes His hostile disposition into a gracious one, after He has treated the
sinless One as a sinner in behalf of sinners (ver. 21), which Schenkel (p. 267), not
withstanding His recognition of the objectivity of the ixfy* and the xxrxXXxyri,
yet knows how to twist round again into an " eminent proof of divine grace."

430 REDEMPTION AND JUSTIFICATION.
shown therein, and which has, therefore, a significance with
respect to the world similar to that of the faE of Adam, God
has assumed a different attitude to it, inasmuch as now no
one is any longer forfeited to death on account of his sin,
since the death of Christ stands for the death of aE (2 Cor.
v. 15 ; cf. note b), save only those who reject the message
regarding the reconciliation. As a matter of fact, indeed, only,
those accordingly receive the icaTaXXayg (Eom. v. 11), who in
faith in that significance of the death of Christ comply with
the summons of the glad tidings, for it is to faith that God
has attached the significance of His death as a means of
propitiation (iii. 25). They have now peace with God (v. 1),
seeing that they are no longer the objects of His enmity, but
are reconciled to Him, and therefore know themselves to be
saved from His wrath (vv. 9, 10 ; cf. the excellent exposition
of Pfleiderer, p. 99 [E. Tr. i. 97 f.]). God can no longer
condemn them before the judgment, because Christ who died
for them, and who is exalted by the resurrection to His right
hand, intercedes for them, by continually asserting before God
and in their behalf the propitiation which was rendered by
His death (viii. 34). Now the antithesis of condemnation is
justification. If the former is rendered impossible by the
blood of Christ, the latter is rendered possible by it (v. 9 :
Bi/caico6evTe<: iv toj a'ip,aTi avTov) ; the righteousness, which
could not be provided by the law, is provided by the death of
Christ (Gal. ii. 21). Not, however, directly; for, according to
Eom. v. 16, 18, the gift which Christ has made us with the
demonstration of favour furnished in His death (ver. 15), is
not directly salvation-bringing, but first becomes so through
God's justifying judgment (Biicalwp.a), which determines to
whom righteousness is to be' imputed on the ground of the
death of Christ. But Biicaioavvg is already rendered possible,
and therefore objectively worked out in the death of Christ ;
and accordingly that death is the starting-point of the salvation
which is given in Christianity (note a).
§ 81. The Death and Resurrection of Christ.
The annihilation, in principle, of the power of sin is not
traced back by Paul to the death of Christ, but to His sinless

§ 81. THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 431
life, (h) No doubt the new life of Christians, a life which is
devoted to Christ alone, is also a consequence of His deatli
and resurrection, not, however, in the dogmatic sense of a
saving effect, but in the practical hortatory sense of a demand
which is grounded upon these, (c) On the other hand, the
death of Christ is the exclusive means of the working out of
salvation, (d) The resurrection of Christ is only the proof
of His Messiahship, and, in particular, of that saving sig
nificance of His death which has made Him the Mediator of
salvation. (a) Baur has recently sought the saving significance of the
death of Christ also in this, that in it the adp!; was destroyed,
and therewith the right and sovereignty of sin, which is essen
tially identical with it, were extinguished (p. 161). This
view has been first carried out consequently by Holsten
(p. 440 ff.) and Pfleiderer (p. 117 [E. Tr. i. 116]), seeing
that they conceive of the adp!; in itself, and therefore also in
Christ, as the principle of sin (cf., on the other hand, § 68, 78).1
The main support of this view is Eom. viii. 3, a passage which
.certainly speaks of an annihilation, in principle, of the power
of sin ; for when this annihilation is represented here as a
condemning of sin (icaTeicpivev Tgv dp,apTiav), the expression is
chosen with an allusion to the KaTaicpip.a in ver. 1. Sin,
which always drew a KaTaicpip,a upon men by the dominion
which it had over them, has now received a icaTdicpip,a itself,
by being robbed of its power and dominion. The expression
was so much the more suitable, as it could not be said of God
that He has conquered sin ; He has only condemned it to be
1 After he has reduced the apostle's conception of the death of Christ as a pro
pitiatory sacrifice to a mere concession to the legal standpoint (p. 105 f. [E. Tr.
i. 104 f.]), it is in this that Pfleiderer finds his real view regarding the signifi
cance of that death. So also Biedermann, who makes the apostle's use of the
Old Testament idea of sacrifice a merely secondary matter (p. 244). R. Schmidt
has first attempted, with great ingenuity, to carry this out as the only view
(cf. § 80, footnotes 4, 6, 11), although he controverts its anthropological and
christological presuppositions (which even Biedermann does not recognise), and
thereby makes it altogether incomprehensible. That it is incomprehensible even
when carried out most consequently, Wendt (p. 185 ff.) has conclusively shown.
In reality, Pfleiderer (p. 115-118 [E. Tr. i. 114 f.]) also acknowledges this ;
only he seeks the solution of its difficulties in the psychological genesis of this
idea which he regards as the dogmatic formalization and externalization of a
fact of religious experience (viz. the dying with Christ) which is of psychological
origin (p. 113 [E. Tr. i. 112]).

432 REDEMPTION AND JUSTIFICATION.
conquered by Christ. This conquest, however, is not at all
traced back in our passage to the death of Christ, but to the
sending of the Son iv 6p,oid>p,aTi aapicw dp,apTia<; ; for that it
is His death alone that emphasis is Usually laid upon, when the
point in question is as to the removal of the guilt of sin, does
not prove that it must be thought of here also, where what is
spoken of is the removal of its power? That the point in
question now is as to a removal of this dominion by the
annihilation of the adp!; as such—ioT: this assertion an appeal
is made to the eV Tg aapici. But in a connection, where the
participation of Christ in the human adpg has been explicitly
and purposely set forth, that which is said regarding the con
demnation of sin iv Tg aapici in consequence of His having
been sent can refer only to His adpt;. For, inasmuch as
Christ had appeared in the same flesh, which had hitherto
made it impossible to the law to work its fulfilment, seeing
that it was, empirically, everywhere under the dominion of sin,
He could fight out the battle with sin ev Tg aapici, i.e., upon
the domain which had up to this time belonged to it alone ;
and inasmuch as sin did not succeed in obtaining the mastery
of His adp!;, it was overcome and therefore condemned to
powerlessness. Of course the dominion of sin was thereby
broken only at one point within the human race ; it was
broken, however, at the decisive point, in the earthly (fleshly)
life of the Mediator of salvation.3 That this took place in the
death of Jesus, E. Schmidt (p. 56) and Pfleiderer (p. 114 f.
[E. Tr. i. 113 f.]) think they can prove also by means of
2 The only argument adduced by Pfleiderer (p. 116 f. [E. Tr. i. 115 f.]) in
support of this view is, that xxrixpiviv denotes an individual judicial act, which
he then, without more ado, takes to be a "judicial execution" or capital
punishment. But does xxrxxplvuv ever denote " to execute " ? And can that
which God did, when He sent His Son, of whom He knew that He would con
quer sin, not be represented as an individual act, in which He condemned sin
to he overcome ? This is far from being " dragged in in an altogether arbitrary
manner ; " for, according to the context, that which was impossible to the law
was just the conquest of sin. That, according to our explanation of the
passage, the o-ipl in iv rn o-xpxl is not taken in another sense than in hi rns
o-xpxbs and trxpxls xptxprlxs, is shown in the text. That what is spoken of in
this passage, however, is not " the judgment of God against sin which was
due to us according to the law," and which Christ bore (Kiibel, p. 278), ought
now-a-days to be generally acknowledged.
3 This, of course, we must not take, as if the new life of believers (a life
which is delivered from the power of sin) were conceived of as a fellowship

§ 81. THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 433
Eom. vi. 1 0, because what is spoken of there is His dying to
sin, which must be taken as analogous with ours. But apart
from the fact that even they are not able to bring out a full
analogy, since in Christ's case there was required the death
of the body, which is not at all the case with us, neither
Schmidt nor Pfleiderer assumes a real connection of Jesus
with sin ; for, according to the former, the adp!; of Christ was
only ideally made a adp!; dp.apTia<; ; and, according to the
latter, Christ, notwithstanding His sinful adp!;, did not know
sin. Accordingly, the real connection with sin, which was dis
solved in the case of Christ by His death, can only have been
that of suffering, inasmuch as even over Him, who had no sin,
sin ruled in death (v. 2 1), when He took it upon Himself in
the stead of sinners. Lastly, the explanation of direOavev in
2 Cor. v. 15, as referring to a dying, which is analogous with
our dying to sin (E. Schmidt, p. 55), presupposes the misinter
pretation of this passage which is refuted in § 80, footnote 5.
(6) It might rather seem from two other passages, as if the
death of Christ were directly connected with the new life of
believers. When, however, it is stated in 2 Cor. v. 15 to
have been the design of the death of Christ, who died for us
in order that we might not die (§ 80, b), that we should
henceforth no longer Eve unto ourselves, but unto Him who
died for us, the connection with ver. 14 (g dydirg tov XpiaTov
avve'yei gp,d<;) already shows that the intermediate thought is
the thankfulness, to which this evidence of the love of Christ
obliges us, and therefore that the point in question here is
not as to a necessary consequence of His death, but as to a
with this typical earthly life of Jesus, a view which Schmidt rightly rejects as
involving a contradiction with other clear statements of the apostle (p. 51),
since it is by participating in the Spirit of the exalted Christ that believers first
share in that victory of His over sin. But, on that account, to find here with
Gess (p. 183), that "sin was condemned in the flesh, because, through the
dying of Christ, there was brought about the pouring out of the Spirit," drags
in altogether foreign thoughts. Nor can that victory over sin be yet called
mediatorial in the literal sense ; and, accordingly, as Schmidt urges so sharply
with perfect justice, it is not the whole earthly (sinless) life of Christ, or His
obedientia activa, but only His death, that is conceived of by Paul as the ground
of salvation (p. 90). For even although this, as contrasted with the TxpxTTuipox
of Adam, were regarded as the %ixx'wptx (Rom. v. 18), His obedience unto death
(vTxxori : ver. 19) is, nevertheless, not thought of in connection with the obedi
ence of His whole life, but only as the obedient carrying out of the arrangement
appointed by God for the salvation of men (cf. g 80, a).
VOL. I. 2 E

434 REDEMPTION AND JUSTIFICATION.
demand which results from it for us (cf. Pfleiderer, p. Ill
[E. Tr. i. 110], who only, in an unjustifiable manner, already
mixes up with this thought that of fellowship with the death
of Christ). When, further, He, unto whom we are henceforth
to live, is represented not only as the one who died for us,
but also as the one who rose again, this was required in order
to set forth that He has become alive again by means of the
resurrection ; for it is only as a living one that we could serve
Him and belong to Him (Eom. vii. 4). This appears still more
plainly in xiv. 9, where it is said that Christ died and became
alive (read : e^gaev) in order that He might be Lord (icvpievag)
over the dead and the living, which, according to ver. 8, is as
much as to say, that they belong to Him, are serviceable to
Him in their Eving and dying. Here the purely formal cor
respondence between death and resurrection on the one hand,
as weE as that between the dead and the living on the other,
shows that the point in question is not as to a dogmatic state
ment regarding the significance of the death or the resurrection,
but that it is merely intended to point out that the Christ,
who has entered into His KvpioTg? (§ 76, a) by means of His
death and resurrection, can now claim the adherence and
service of Christians. Although this life which is devoted to
Christ is the antithesis of the former life which was dominated
by sin, yet it is only represented as a demand which follows
from the death and resurrection, not as a saving effect of the
death of Christ (cf. Col. i. 22 ; Eph. v. 26 ; Acts xx. 28). So
we have already found it in Peter (§ 49, d).
(c) The effect of the death of Christ which is described in
§ 80 is, accordingly, its only one ; but this effect is also owing
to it alone. It is only the death of Christ that brings about
the redemption of man from the guilt of sin, and therefore
forms the basis of His work as the Mediator of salvation. It
is altogether erroneous to co-ordinate the resurrection with the
death of Christ as the second fundamental saving fact (cf. e.g.
Eeuss, ii p. 82 [E. Tr. ii. 73]); His resurrection has not,
like His death, a significance as being the means of procuring
salvation, more especiaEy as it is not a work of Christ, but a
work of God, which He has wrought upon Christ (§ 77, b, c),
and in which a subjective acquiescence on the part of the
Mediator of salvation in the divine saving purpose is by no

§ 81. THE DEATH AND RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 435
means necessary or even conceivable, as in the case of His
surrendering Himself to death (§ 80, a). One cannot even
say that a salvation-grounding value belongs to the resurrec
tion, inasmuch as it is indissolubly connected with the death
of Christ (cf. E. Schmidt, p. 90 ; Gess, p. 186 ff; Kiibel,
p. 285 f.). This view is commonly supported by means of
Eom. vi., where Paul developes the doctrine of the fellowship
of believers with the death and resurrection of Christ. But
in this doctrine the point in question is not as to an objective
effect of the death of Christ in the work of the grounding of
salvation, but as to a consequence of baptism and a resulting
subjective relation of the believer to the death and resurrection
of Christ, as Eitschl (ii. p. 224) and Pfleiderer (p. 122 [E. Tr.
i. 121]) both acknowledge. The passage does not speak of
the death of Christ, but of a 6p,oiwp,a tov davaTov avTov
(ver. 5), i.e. a (subjective) occurrence which is similar to the
death of Christ, although it is brought about by means of the
living (spiritual) fellowship with the dead and risen Christ
which is grounded in baptism (cf. § 84). This, however,
applies also to the resurrection, which must naturally be men
tioned in this connection, because it is only with the dead and
risen Christ that one can stand in living (spiritual) fellowship.
But neither does it come under consideration here according
to its objective significance, since the point in question is only
as to a ofiolcopa Tg<; dvaaTaaecw of Christ ; and, in general,
what is spoken of is not the grounding of salvation, but the
consequence for the subjective life of the individual of the
appropriated salvation. A significance of the resurrection as
a ground of salvation could be spoken of, only in so far as it
is the presupposition of our resurrection. But this significance
of it refers, not to the procuring, but to the completion of
salvation, and therefore belongs to the province of the doctrine
of hope. Even in that doctrine, however, as we shall see, the
resurrection of believers is not the immediate effect of the
resurrection of Christ in the same sense as the providing of
an atonement, which renders redemption and reconciliation
possible, is the immediate effect of the vicarious death of
Christ (cf. § 97).
(d) Notwithstanding that the resurrection by no means
stands on the same footing with the death of Christ in the

436 REDEMPTION AND JUSTIFICATION.
work of procuring salvation, it is nevertheless, according to
1 Cor. xv. 3 f, one of the principal articles of the evangelical
tradition. In the elementary preaching of Paul as an apostle
to the Gentiles it was already mentioned as that which should
lead them to believe in Jesus as the Messiah (Acts xvii. 31 ;
cf. § 61, a), and, according to 1 Cor. xv. 11, the faith of
Christians rests upon the proclamation of His resurrection ; for
by means of the resurrection He is exalted to His Messianic
sovereignty at God's right hand (Eom. viii. 34, i. 4),4 in con
sequence of which sovereignty He has first become for the
Christians the Mediator of salvation (§ 76, a). This function
of His as the Mediator of the Messianic salvation is grounded,
however, solely upon His death. For Paul, accordingly, the
specific significance of the resurrection must be this, that it
proves that the death of Christ was not the death of a sinner,
who must have remained in death, if he was forfeited to it on
account of his own sin, but the vicarious death of the sinless
Mediator of salvation who is exalted to Messianic sovereignty,
and which is therefore the ground of our redemption and
reconciliation. If Christ has not risen, our faith is vain, we
are yet in our sins (1 Cor. xv. 17); if that were the case,
there would be no reason to assume that His death was not
the death of a sinner, but that of the Eedeemer, by means of
which the guilt of our sin is taken away from us. Here also,
accordingly, we see that it was from the certainty of the
exaltation of Christ to Messianic sovereignty, an exaltation
which was brought about by the resurrection, that Paul has
attained to faith in the saving significance of His death, and
not conversely (cf. § 80, a). Accordingly, the assurance that
God cannot condemn us is owing, primarily, it is true, to the
death of Christ, but still more to His resurrection and exalta
tion to God's right hand (Eom. viii. 34), inasmuch as these
first prove that His death was the death of the Mediator of
salvation, who has redeemed us from condemnation (§ 8 0, d).
Hence the righteousness which is of faith bids us, not first of
all seek to bring up Christ from the dead, but beEeve that
4 According to § 77, b, this passage does not, indeed, say that He was proved
to be the Son of God by the resurrection ; but seeing that since it He is installed
into the full position of Son, He can now be perceived by all to be the Messianic
Son of God.

§ 82. JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 437
God has raised Him up, and therefore made Him Lord and
the Mediator of salvation (x. 7, 9). It is in iv. 25 that the
apostle gives the clearest expression to this relation of the
death and the resurrection, according to which the former is
the means of procuring salvation, the latter the means of
appropriating it. Christ was delivered up (to death) for our
trespasses, and was raised for our justification. The objective
atonement was accomplished by means of the death of Christ ;
but the appropriation of it in justification is only possible, if
we believe in this saving significance of His death, and we
can attain to faith in that, only if it is sealed by means of the
resurrection (cf. Phil. iii. 10).5 This consideration of itself
leads us over to the doctrine of justification.
§ 82. Justification by Faith.
Cf. Lipsius, die paulinische Bechtfertigungslehre, Leipzig, 1853.
The new righteousness which the Gospel proclaims is a
gift of God, who justifies man by grace, by not imputing to
him his sins on the ground of the redemption wrought out
by Christ, (h) As the condition, however, under which alone
He can justify the sinner, God demands faith, inasmuch as
He counts this as righteousness, as is already typicaEy pre-
signified in the history of Abraham, (c) The faith, which is
the condition of justification, is the very antithesis of all the
works demanded by the law ; it is no human performance,
but rather the renunciation of all our own doing, absolute
reliance upon God who justifies, or upon Christ as the
Mediator of salvation, (d) Faith, however, as the specific
5 Every attempt to make justification directly dependent upon the resurrection
(as distinguished from the death, upon which it is expressly based in v. 9) leads
to a misunderstanding of that doctrine, according to which it is based, in an
altogether un-Pauline manner, somehow or other upon the principle of a new
life, a principle which is given in the resurrection of Christ, or is made to refer
to men's entrance into a new condition of life, which is no longer conditioned
by the flesh. Gess (pp. 189, 192) draws this consequence in the most naive
manner, while R. Schmidt (p. 75) seeks in vain to avoid it. Compare, on the
other hand, Pfleiderer (p. 120 [E. Tr. i. 119]) and Ritschl (ii. p. 159), who in
particular shows how forgiveness of sins and justification, which are explicitly
identified in iv. 6-8, cannot possibly be really distinguished here. Schenkel
(p. 269), however, simply asserts that it is senseless to translate lixxiaw with
"justification" !

438 REDEMPTION AND JUSTIFICATION.
mark of the Christian, is also often the confident conviction
of the truth of the Gospel as regards what it proclaims with
reference to salvation.
(a) Since man could not attain to the righteousness, upon
which his salvation wholly depends, by means of the way
that had hitherto been pointed out (§ 66), if the grace of
God was to redeem humanity it had to appoint a new
arrangement, according to which righteousness is attained
(Eom. ix. 31: vopLos Biicaioavvgs) ; only then could the
preaching of the Gospel be a Biaicovia Biicaioavvg<;, whereas
that of Moses had been a Biaicovia icaTaicplaea><;, or had
become so in consequence of sin (2 Cor. iii. 9). If, now, the
way upon which righteousness was previously to be attained
was that of earning it by our own doing, there was only
one other way, righteousness must be given freely (Eom.
iii. 24: Bcopedv), and received as a gift (v. 17: g Bcoped t?j?
Bucaioavvgs). That being the case, it was no longer a
righteousness of our own, and which we had earned ourselves,
but a righteousness which is God's, because He alone bestows
it (BiKaioavvg Qeov, x. 3) ; and such a righteousness is now
proclaimed in the Gospel (i. 17) as being brought about by
means of the death of Christ (2 Cor. v. 21). If the righteous
ness which was earned by ourselves was brought about by
means of the law, which makes known to men the will of
God, which they had to fulfil in order to become righteous
(Eom. x. 5), the righteousness of God is manifested apart
from the law (iE 21), unless we should call the new rule,
according to which righteousness is now attained in con
formity with the wiE of God, a vop,o<; BiKaioavvg<i (ix. 31).1
1 In a certain sense, it is true, righteousness is always brought about by
means of God ; for even the righteousness which is acquired by means of the
law first obtains its salvation-bringing significance for men when God acknow
ledges it, and declares that men are righteous, or justifies them on the ground
of it (§ 65, c). If, accordingly, it sometimes seems as if the o'ixxiovv (1 Cor.
vi. 11 ; Rom. viii. 30, 33) or the hxxluo-is (Rom. iv. 25, v. 18) is found only
in the case of Christians, the reason is that, as a matter of fact, there is no
self-acquired righteousness. If there were such a righteousness, one could be
justified even without Christ ; justification would be a simple act of diving
righteousness. The gift of righteousness, accordingly, does not consist in this,
that God justifies at all, but that He justifies by grace (Rom. iii. 24 : Vxxioipoivoi
tapixy t>i x'vtov x*t'T') > f°r grace forms an absolute antithesis to all human
doing and desert (Rom. xi. 6, iv. 4, for which see g 75, b).

§ 82. JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 439
Now, since the fulfilling of the law of itself puts man into
the condition in which God must justify him in conformity
with His righteousness, while the righteousness that is pre
sented excludes every doing of man, the new rule, according
to which righteousness is attained, can consist only in this,
that God justifies, not the doer of the law, who would be
already righteous in himself, but the godless, who is never
theless not righteous in reality (Bi/catoi tov daeBg, iv. 5).
That, therefore, which is frequently represented in the Old
Testament as the mark of an unrighteous judge, viz., that he
justifies the ungodly (Isa. v. 23; Prov. xvii 15; cf. Ex.
xxiii. 7), God does, not, however, out of partiality, but out of
grace (iii. 24). Now, since it is in consequence of sin that
man becomes unrighteous, God can justify him who is not
righteous in himself only by not reckoning unto him his sin
(2 Cor. v. 1 9 ; cf. 1 Cor. xiii. 5 : \_g dydirg] ov Xoyi&Tai to
icaicov), or by forgiving him his sin (Eom. iv. 7 ; cf. Acts
xEi. 38 f). Expressed positively, this means that God reckons
unto him the righteousness, which he does not possess in
himself, as if he possessed it (ver. 11). In Ps. xxxii. 1 f,
where David calls him blessed to whom the Lord pardons
and does not reckon sin (vv. 7, 8), Paul, accordingly, finds a
celebration of the blessedness of him to whom the Lord
reckons righteousness without the works which actually bring
forth righteousness (ver. 6). Whom God thus justifies no one
can any more accuse ; for He has therewith declared that
He will not reckon the sins on account of which one could
have been accused. This non-reckoning of sin, however, is
rendered possible by the propitiation provided by Christ in
His death, a propitiation which has redeemed man from the
guilt of sin, and reconciled him with God (§ 80). In so far
our righteousness or justification rests in Christ (Gal. ii. 17;
1 Cor. vi. 11 ; 2 Cor. v. 21), He is the author of it (1 Cor.
i. 30), through Him we have access to justifying grace (Eom.
v. 2). Through the obedience (shown in His death) of the
one the many have been constituted righteous (ver. 1 9) ; not,
indeed, directly, but inasmuch as God by His justifying
judgment (Bi/caicop,a, ver. 16; cf. § 8 0, d) has, on the ground
of this act of obedience, effected the justification of men
(ver. 18 : Bt efd? Bncaid>p,aTo<: . . . et? BiKaiwaiv). While

440 REDEMPTION AND JUSTIFICATION.
Pfleiderer (p. 166 ff. [E. Tr. i. 165 ff]) and Eitschl (p. 318 ff.)
maintain this declaratory idea of justification in its strict
objectivity, justification is again being confused from various
sides with making righteous (cf. Biedermann, p. 277; Kiibel,
p. 405), and thereby the most characteristic Pauline doctrine
is misconceived in its central point.
(b) Since the justification of the sinner still depends upon
a particular justifying judgment of God, every sinner is not
justified, God reserves it to Himself to appoint a condition
under which He justifies the sinner. This condition is faith.
His righteousness is revealed only unto believers (Eom. iii. 22:
et? 7rdvTa<; ical iirl irdvTas tow 7riaTevovTa<; ; cf. x. 4 : toj
irtaTevovTi) ; every one who believes is justified (Acts xiii. 39).
Accordingly, man is justified by faith (Eom. iii. 2 8 : iriaTei ;
ver. 30: Bid iriaTews), the righteousness of God is Bid iriaTeco^
(ver. 22 ; cf. Phil. iii. 9), as is also the atoning significance of
the death of Christ (ver. 25), upon which it depends. To
speak more accurately, faith is the condition of justification,
Biicaioavvg (ix. 30, x. 6), the Biicaiovv of God (Gal. iii. 8 ;
Eom. iE 30; cf. ver. 2 6), or the BiicaiovaOai, of man (Gal. ii.
16, iii. 24; Eom. v. 1) is derived from faith (iic iriaTecoi), is
attained upon the occasion of faith, the new righteousness is a
righteousness which is of faith (iv. 11, 13 : g Biicaioavvg t»??
7rt'o-Te&j? ; cf. x. 10 : iriaTeveTai et? Biicaioavvgv). Accordingly,
the act of justification can also be so described as that faith
is reckoned by God as righteousness (iv. 5, 24).2 This is a
pure act of divine grace ; for whatever faith may be, it is by
no means righteousness in the original sense (in the sense of
the fulfilling of the law), and God, accordingly, out of grace
reckons something for righteousness which is not righteous
ness in itself, and on the ground of which He did not there
fore need to justify.3 This act of divine grace, however, is
2 On the other hand, the idea that God reckons the righteousness of Christ
unto man is not Pauline ; it is not contained even in Rom. v. 19 (cf. Ritschl,
ii. p. 322 f.). For the right idea of the reckoning of faith, cf. Rom. ii. 26,
according to which God, under certain circumstances, reckons uncircumcision
for circumcision, or ix. 8, He reckons the rixvx Wxyyixixs alone as a o-Tipptx.
3 Naturally this does not exclude the possibility that, as Paul conceives of
faith (note c), it really involves a restoration in principle of the right religious
relation of man to God, a restoration which guarantees a fulfilment of his
religious-moral task, and is therefore the deepest germ of the full hxxioo-ivn. But

§ 82. JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 441
accomplished immediately and at once, as soon as the con
dition demanded by Him, viz. faith, is given ; it is not a
gradual process in which there could be stages, or something
to be hoped for in the future ; believers are justified (1 Cor.
vi. 11 ; Eom. v. 1, 9).4 This procedure of God in the matter
of justification is by no means an absolutely new one. It is
not only borne witness to prophetically in Scripture, it has
already found its typical precedent in the history of Abraham
(§ 73, b, c). Hence Paul is convinced that by his doctrine
of justification he is really establishing the authority of the
Thora, by maintaining the same kind of justification as
appears in it as the original one (Eom. iii. 31). According
to Gen. xv. 6 Abraham believed, and this faith of his was
reckoned unto him for righteousness (Gal. iii. 6 ; Eom. iv. 3).5
Paul certainly does not reflect upon this ; he regards the reckoning of faith
as a pure act of grace ; and he must do so, because he does not make the real
"hixxioo-ivri develope itself from faith by means of a psychological process, but
makes it be brought about by means of a new act of divine grace, which is
connected throughout with faith, and also demands it as an indispensable
condition (cf. § 84, b).
4 Since it is in the judgment, indeed, that the definitive decision as to the
fate of man takes place, and this depends upon his being justified, the "Sixxloio-is,
as well as the xToXirpuns (§ 80, c, footnote 8), could easily be conceived of as
taking place in the. judgment ; but in Gal. v. 5 (iXTis lixxioaivns) the genitive
can also denote the righteousness which is of faith, which has already been
obtained, and to which hope (i.e. the hoped-for completion of salvation which
is promised to the righteous) belongs, and this explanation is demanded by the
connection with what goes before. When Ritschl (ii. p. 280 f.) concludes from
the connection with ver. 6 that the point in question is as to the divine
recognition of the active righteousness of their life, for which Christians hope,
he seems to me to do away with the argumentative force of ver. 5 in relation
to ver. 4 for a recognition of the iixxioo-it>i brought about by means of the
" peculiar power of faith " would no longer be an act of grace in the Pauline
sense (cf. § 86, d).
6 We have seen how James explains this saying in the sense of his doctrine of
justification (§ 53, d) ; for Paul it directly contains, as to its language, the
formula which expresses his doctrine of justification. Something was already
reckoned unto Abraham for righteousness, which was not really such (Rom.
iv. 9, 22, 23), as even James could not conceal from himself. But while he,
therefore, conceived of that word of Scripture as a prophecy, which was first
fulfilled when the faith of Abraham was really perfected into righteousness,
Paul finds in it the proof that the promise, which was given unto Abraham on
the ground of this righteousness (ver. 13), was given xxtx x«-t" (ver. 16), for
justification already appears here, not as an act of divine righteousness, as
James regards it, but as an act of grace. In the history of Abraham, therefore,
the economy of grace which is characteristic of Christianity is typically pre-
signified (ver. 24).

442 REDEMPTION AND JUSTIFICATION.
Further, this typical paraEel already shows plainly that it is not
the Church (Eitschl, ii. p. 160, 214) but the individual that
Paul thinks of as the object of justification, which Eitschl seeks
in vain to dispute in opposition to the clear Bucaiwv tov e'/e
iriaTecw of iii. 26. So certainly as the saving effect of the
death of Christ is throughout made to refer to the world as a
whole, or at least to the totality of believers (cf. § 80, d), so
certainly is justification the individual appropriation of this
saving effect, an appropriation which depends upon the sub
jective condition of faith (cf. Pfleiderer, p. 184 [E. Tr. i. 183]).
(c) In order to obtain a correct notion of the Pauline idea
of faith, we must start from the fact, that the righteousness
which is of faith forms the antithesis of the righteousness
which is of the law (Gal. iii. 11 ; Eom. x. 5, 6), that law and
faith are mutually exclusive opposites (Gal. iii. 23, 25, v. 4, 5 ;
Eom. iv. 13, 14). In this antithesis, however, the law comes
into consideration, inasmuch as it demands a doing (x. 5) ; the
real antithesis of faith is this iroielv demanded by the law (Gal.
iii. 12), or the works of the law (iii. 2, 5 ; Eom. ix. 32 ; cf. Eph.
ii. 8, 9).6 He, who is justified iriaTei, is justified xa>PL<! epymv
vbpov (Eom. iii. 28) ; for the ipya%bp.evos receives the reward
6 How fundamentally and with what logical precision Paul regards this
antithesis appears especially from Gal. ii. 16, if we do not, as is usual, assume
that there is here a grammatical incorrectness and a tautological fulness of
words. Paul speaks hypothetically of a being justified by works of the law,
which is brought about by means of faith in Christ, inasmuch as faith renders
possible a fulfilling of the law which the natural man could not perform. In
this sense James could speak of the believer being justified by works of the
law (cf. § 53). But if it was thereby granted that faith was indispensable to
justification, and if the Christian was certain that even his fulfilling of the law,
which was brought about by its means, always remained an imperfect one, this
must of itself have led him to ground his justification exclusively upon faith in
opposition to the works of the law. Since we knew that no man is justified by
works of the law, unless this should take place by means of faith in Christ,
even we (although we were not sinners of the Gentiles, who, it is self-evident,
could have no righteousness of the law, but Jews, who could seek for it with
the fulfilling of the law) have turned ourselves to faith in Christ Jesus (whom
we, indeed, could not do without as the Mediator of salvation, i.e. as the one
who works the right fulfilling of the law), in order that we might be justified
upon occasion of faith in Him, and not upon occasion of works of the law,
because no flesh will ever be perfectly justified by these. If we cannot be
justified by works of the law alone, we must allow that these do not in the last
analysis help us to become righteous ; and if we cannot become righteous without
faith in the Mediator of salvation, faith is ultimately the decisive condition of
justification, and, accordingly, excludes every other condition of salvation.

§ 82. JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 443
(here, justification) in consequence of his merit, while the
beEever is justified, according to note a, by grace (iv. 4).7 It is
not, however, hereby asserted that, instead of the many works
of the law, God now demands only one work, viz. faith, so that
even this faith would be again ultimately only a doing, and
would faE under the category of the epya (Baur, p. 180).
Thereby the real nerve of the Pauline doctrine of justification
is cut through ; for the meaning of these antitheses, which set
forth the Pauline idea most precisely, is, that faith as such is
the antithesis of the works of the law. But neither, by these
works, must we think again of any outward performances,
over against which there stands the demand of faith as a
demand of the disposition (cf. § 66, h) ; faith rather forms the
antithesis of all doing by means of human strength, of all
fulfiEing of the law, which God once demanded, and since His
demand in the law by no means referred to outward perform
ances, but likewise to the disposition, faith also excludes every
disposition demanded in the law. It is no kind of human
performance, by means of which man could procure or deserve
anything of himself, or attain to any glory (iii. 27); it is
rather the antithesis of all human performances, it is a renun
ciation of all our own doing and acquiring, a reliance upon
something else, a trust (cf. the excellent exposition by Pfleiderer,
p. 166 [E. Tr. i. 165]). Thus, in iv. 5, the iriaTevav iirl
tov BiKaiovvTa tov daeBg stands over against the ipya£6p,evo<;,
the exclusive trust in Him who reckons righteousness to
the ungodly, i.e., to him who can least of all claim it, over
against our own working with a view to the acquisition of
righteousness; and in ver. 4 absolute trust in divine grace
stands over against trust in our own merit. It is in this
absolute trust that there lies the identity of justifying faith
with that of Abraham.8 Abraham trusted in the divine
7 No doubt a vbpcos tio-tius is spoken of also in Rom. iii. 27 ; but, like vbpoos
lixxiooivns (Rom. ix. 31 ; cf. note a), this only denotes the norm, according to
which faith instead of works, which here again form its antithesis, is made the
condition of justification. Inasmuch as God appoints this new condition of
salvation, He must, naturally, demand its fulfilment ; we must subject ourselves
to the new rule of the righteousness of God (Rom. x. 3), which is connected, not
with works, but with faith.
8 Since Christian faith is plainly thought of in Gal. iii. 23 as first coming in
with the new era of salvation, Paul has by no means directly identified the faith

444 REDEMPTION AND JUSTIFICATION.
promise under circumstances, under which it contradicted all
human expectation (Eom. iv. 18 : Trap iXiriBa iir iXiriBi
iiriaTevaev et? to yeveaOai avTov iraTepa iroXXcov idva>v), and
did not allow himself to be perplexed in his trust by these
circumstances (vv. 19, 20). The faith of Christians is a
similar absolute trust ; and, accordingly, it is characterized in
ver. 24 as a trust in Him who has raised up Christ (cf. Col.
ii. 12), in so far, however, as is more particularly explained
in ver. 25, as this raising up is only the seal put upon the
redeeming death, in which our justification is grounded
(§81, d). Now, since justification is brought about by means
of the atoning work of Christ (note a), faith can equaEy well
be described as a faith which is grounded upon Christ
(iriaTeveiv et? XpiaTov : Eom. x. 14 ; cf. Col. ii. 5 ; Phil. i. 29 ;
Acts xx. 21, xxvi. 18), or as a faith which rests in Christ
(iriaTK iv XpiaTco : Gal. iii. 26; cf. Col. i. 4; Eph. i. 15) ;
or, lastly, even as a trust in Christ (ir'taTis 'Igaov XpiaTov :
Eom. iii. 22, 26 ; Gal. ii. 16, iii. 22 ; cf. Eph. iii. 12 ; Phil.
iii. 9).9 This trust is evinced by their calling upon His name
(1 Cor. i. 2) as the Mediator of salvation (Eom. x. 14); and
hence this calling can also be represented as a condition of
salvation (vv. 12, 13, where this iiri/cuXeiadai takes up the
iriaTeveiv of ver. II).10
of Abraham with Christian faith. It is only according to its formal nature, not
according to its material object, that it is the same.
'¦> Among these passages we should also have to reckon Gal. ii. 20, where
Christ is represented as the Son of God, who has loved us and given Himself
for us, if we had not to read : tov @iov xx) Xpio-rov, which appears so much the
more suitable, as the grace of God and the death of Christ are spoken of
immediately thereafter (ver. 21), and therefore saving faith can very easily be
represented as a trust which is grounded upon both. It is only in Rom.
ix. 33, x. 11, in a quotation from Isa. xxviii. 16 (LXX.), that Tio-niuv W xvtZ
occurs. 10 At the root of the technical term tIo-tis, as it is found in Paul in connection
with his doctrine of justification, there lies the meaning, trust. So we found it
already in Peter (§ 44, a, footnote 2), but, while there this trust was essentially
in the future completion of salvation, here it is in the salvation which is already
given in the present time in Christ ; and while there faith was still, quite in the
Old Testament sense, an act of obedience towards God, Paul has conceived of it
in its antithesis to all human doing, and has thereby made it the expression of
his doctrine of grace, which forms the sharpest antithesis to the Old Testament
way of salvation. This fundamental meaning of the word is often found in
Paul, even where it occurs outside of the connection of his doctrine of justifica
tion. Thus, it stands in 1 Cor. xiii. 7 for the trust with which love, far from

§ 82. JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 445
(d) We have already seen in the discourses of Jesus how
the fundamental idea of trusting, which lies in iriaTeveiv, can
be made to refer specially to the trust which we show one,
when we receive his word as true (§ 29, c), and how, in the
original apostolic type of doctrine, iriaTeveiv therefore denoted
the trustful acceptance of a message, the confident assurance
of the truth of its import (§ 40, c, 52, c). It was exclusively
in this sense that we found irlaTi<; in the Epistles to the
Thessalonians (§ 61, c). From this it appears, that it was
along with his doctrine of justification that Paul first conceived
the technical meaning, which faith receives in connection with
that doctrine (note c). It may, however, be & priori assumed
that he has not given up that other meaning of 7rio-Tt?;n nay,
we may say that, wherever faith is spoken of outside of the
connection of the doctrine of justification, it is the prevalent
meaning. So, e.g., when what is spoken of is the Christians
mistrust and suspicion, always believes the best with respect to one's neighbour.
This same meaning also lies at the root of the use of the word in Rom. xiv. 1, 2,
22, 23. There it denotes trust in the possession of salvation which is given in
Christ. In proportion to the strength or weakness of faith in this sense, one
will believe his possession of salvation hardly or easily exposed to danger, and
will therefore with little or much anxiety and painfulness avoid and perform
many things, in order that he may not lose it. Rom. xii. 3, 6, according to
which the measure of faith conditions the bestowal of the various gifts, probably
proceeds from the same idea of faith, inasmuch as this faith can be conceived of
as having different degrees, not only of energy, but also of receptivity. Lastly,
in 1 Cor. xii. 9, xiii. 2, faith is the gift of the trust in God which works miracles,
just as in § 29, c, 40, c, footnote 2, 52, c, and in 2 Cor. iv. 13 it is the Spirit's
gift of the joyous trust in God from which the fearless proclamation of the Gospel
proceeds. u Thus, in 1 Cor. xi. 18 no-riiuv undoubtedly denotes the conviction of the
truth of a (non-religious) fact, in Rom. x. 16 (in a quotation from Isa. liii. 1)
the trustful acceptance of the message of the Gospel (tis 'itIo-tivo-iv tj> ixori t>/xZv ;
cf. vv. 14, 17 : ti'o-tis XI ixoris), in x. 8, 9 the confident assurance of the actuality
of the resurrection (tio-t., oti b 0ibs xvrbv riyupiv ix vixpZv ; cf. 1 Thess. v. 14),
and in vi. 8 the confident assurance of the necessary consequence with which the
auZfiv Xpiti-rZ follows the xTodxvuv trvv XpitrrZ (Tio-Tivopi.iv, on x.r.X.). The anti
thesis of the %ix t'io-tiojs to "Six iiiovs in 2 Cor. v. 7 is probably to be traced back
also to this same meaning, inasmuch as the point in question here is as to the
firm conviction of the real life of Christ in His exaltation, although He is still
invisible to us. It is different in Gal. iii. 2, 5, where xxoh tIo-tiws denotes the
preaching of faith in the specific sense, as the antithesis of the ipyx vbpoov shows,
a circumstance which Baur, p. 154, has overlooked. It is probably also of faith
in the specific sense that the t'io-tis tou ivxyyixlov of Phil. i. 27 is to be under
stood, inasmuch as the question here is as to the purport of the message of
salvation, which is the salvation given in Christ.

446 REDEMPTION AND JUSTIFICATION.
having become believers (Gal. ii. 16 ;12 1 Cor. iii. 5, xv. 2, 1 1 ;
Eom. xiii. 11), when they are represented as believers and
contrasted with the unbelieving (1 Cor. xiv. 24, vii. 14;
2 Cor. vi. 14, 15; cf. Eph. i. 13, 19), when their faith is
spoken of simply as that which makes them Christians (Gal.
i. 23, vi. 10 ; 1 Cor. ii. 5 ; 2 Cor. i. 24, viii. 7 ; Eom. i. 8,
xi. 20; cf. Eph. iv. 5 ; Phil. ii. 1 7). In all these passages
faith is the firm conviction of the truth of the purport of the
Gospel, which conviction, however, is based upon the trust
with which one regards God as the author of this message.
In the very same manner as in the Epistles to the Thessa
lonians, faith in this sense (1 Cor. i. 21 ; Eom. i. 16), or the
consequent confession of the KvpioTg<; of Jesus (1 Cor. xii. 3),
is made the condition of salvation (Eom. x. 9). Now, since
God demands and has the right to demand that we receive
His message of salvation, a iiraicog iriaTecc; in this sense can
be spoken of (Eom. i. 5, xvi. 26 ; cf. vi. 17, xvi. 19 ; 2 Cor.
x. 5 : viraKog XpiaTov) ; obedience towards the Gospel (Eom.
x. 16= iriaTeveiv Tg dicog ; cf. Gal. v. 7 ; 2 Cor. ix. 13;
2 Thess. i. 8) consists in this, that one receives it trustfuEy
and is firmly convinced of the truth of its purport. Now, of
course, the purport of this message is the salvation which is
given in Christ, and the new rule of justification which is
based upon that salvation, and in which alone we are to put
our trust ; accordingly, the trustful acceptance of the Gospel
cannot be conceived of at all without trust in the salva
tion proclaimed in it, nor can the firm conviction of its
truth be at all conceived of without firm reliance upon this
salvation.13 Eom. i. 17 shows best of all the passing over of
this idea of faith into that of the doctrine of justification ; there
it is said that, on the ground of faith, the righteousness of God
is revealed in the Gospel in order to awaken faith (e'/c iriaTeax;
12 In this passage iTio-nio-xpiv (we have attained to faith) is even connected
with us Xpio-Tov, as in note c (cf. the t'io-tis iv Xp. of Col. i. 4, Eph. i. 15, and the
similar connection with tio-to's in Col. i. 2 ; Eph. i. 1).
13 Even Abraham's faith was primarily a Tio-Tiiuv rZ @iZ (Gal. iii. 6 ; Rom.
iv. 3, 17), a trust in God, in accordance with which he received the word of the
promise as true, which presupposed the full conviction that God could also fulfil
it (Rom. iv. 21) ; and from this trust there was then developed that unlimited
trust in the divine promise (note b) which is the type of justifying faith (cf. also
Gal. iii. 9, where Abraham is called tict'os in the specific sense).

§ 83. SONSHIP. 447
et? iriaTiv). For the faith, on the ground of which the Gospel
reveals the new righteousness, is the firm conviction of its
divine truth, while the faith, which is awakened by its revela
tion, is the saving trust, on the ground of which one is justified
(cf. the immediately following: St'/cato? e'« iriaTecw). For
Paul, accordingly, there was no difficulty in using the term in
the sense we have just developed, and immediately thereafter
in the technical sense discussed in note c (Gal. ii. 16 ; 1 Cor.
xv. 11, cf. vv. 14, 17; Eom. x. 6, 10, 14, cf. vv. 8, 9, 14).
Nay, it is often difficult to determine, and was probably not
always consciously determined by the apostle himself, whether,
when the faith of Christians is spoken of, it is the idea of
trust or that of conviction that lies at the root of the state
ment, for a growth, a strengthening, etc., can be asserted of the
latter as well as of the former (1 Cor. xvi. 13 ; 2 Cor. x. 15,
xiii 5 ; Eom. i. 12 ; cf. Col. i. 23, ii. 7 ; Eph. iv. 13, vi. 23).1*
§ 83. Sonship.
By means of justification God has manifested His love to
the believer in a manner which makes him certain of it for
all time coming ; he has entered into the relation of sonship
to God. (b) The possession of all salvation, which is given
therewith, works in the believer the inner peace of soul and
the joy which no sorrow can any longer destroy, (c) The
inner assurance, however, of this new state of salvation only
God Himself can give to the beEever by means of His Spirit.
(d) On the other hand, it is altogether un-Pauline to see the
essence of sonship first in the possession of this Spirit, and in
the new life of believers, which is grounded by means of it.
(a) If man has entered into the state of peace with God
by means of the justification which is accomplished on the
14 It must be decidedly denied that in Paul tIo-tis and mtmuw ever have a
signification, which may not be traced back to one or other of these two ideas,
as Baur (p. 154) and Reuss (ii. p. 99-106 [E. Tr. ii. 85 ff.]) assume, and, in
particular, that they have the objective meaning of doctrine of faith. Naturally,
we do not at all take into account the passages in which tIo-tis means faithful
ness (Gal. v. 22 ; Rom. iii. 3), tio-t'os faithful, said of God (1 Cor. i. 9, x. 13 ;
2 Cor. i. 18 ; cf. 1 Thess. v. 24 ; 2 Thess. iii. 3) or of men (1 Cor. iv. 2, 17 ; cf.
Col. i. 7, iv. 7, 9 ; Eph. vi. 21), and Ticmvio-Sxi n (Gal. ii. 7 ; 1 Cor. ix. 17 ; Rom.
iii. 2 ; cf. 1 Thess. ii. 4) to be entrusted with something.

448 REDEMPTION AND JUSTIFICATION.
ground of the atoning death of Christ (Eom. v. 1), he can now
be certain of the love of God as far as regards the objective
matter of fact (ver. 5). God, who has given him the greatest
proof of His love in the delivering up of His Son at a time
when he was still His enemy on account of his sin, can now,
when He is reconciled to him, and has justified him, no longer
be angry with him for all time to come (vv. 6-9), but can
only show him His love more and more richly (ver. 10), so
that, as the Israelites had once done (cf. ii. 17), he can glory
in Him as his God (ver. 1 1 : Kav^copievoi iv tco Qeco ; 1 Cor.
i. 4, vi. 11; Eom. i. 8 : 6 ©ed? p,ov ; cf. Phil. i. 3, iv. 19;
1 Thess. ii. 2 ; 2 Thess. i. 1 2). The same proof (Eom.
viii. 32) leads to the same result, that nothing can any longer
separate the Christian from the love of God, which is bestowed
upon him in Christ Jesus (ver. 38 f). The Christian is
beloved of God (Eom. i. 7 : dyairgrol tov Qeov ; 2 Cor.
xiii. 1 3 : g dydirg tov Qeov ; cf. Col. iii. 1 2 and 1 Thess. i. 4,
for which see § 61, b), and on the part of man the trust
which we can have through Christ towards God corresponds
to this love (2 Cor. iii. 4; cf. Eph. iii. 12). Like the rela
tion of love, in which Israel stood to God (§ 7l, a), and like
Christ's relation of love to Him (§77, c), this new relation to
God is represented as the relation of a son ; Paul himself
makes the prophecy, according to which God will be the
Father of His people, and its members shall be His sons and
daughters, refer to the Christian Church (2 Cor. vi. 18; cf.
ver. 16), just as, according to Eom. ix. 26, those who are called
the "children of God" are His people. That which Christ
proclaims as being given directly with the coming of the king
dom of God (§ 20, b ; cf. also in Peter, § 45, d) appears here
as being brought about in its completion by means of the
Pauline doctrine of salvation. As in this doctrine salvation
is first brought about through the judicial act of justification
(§ 82), so the new state of salvation, into which that act trans
lates the justified, is also represented as depending upon a
juridical act, viz. upon adoption (vlodeaia : Eph. i. 5), by means
of which man is put into a relation to God which is opposed
to his previous servile relation (§ 70, h, 72, c). As man
becomes righteous through God's declaration, so he is received
as a child through His declaration. Here too, of course, the

§ 83. SONSHIP. 449
juridical element is only the form, materially each is an act of
grace. Man is no more in himself a child of God than he is
righteous in himself; it is a deed of His grace through which
God adopts him as His child ; but, nevertheless, it is to the
apostle a legally valid relation, into which man is translated
by means of this adoption, inasmuch as it becomes the basis
of his future participation in the rights of a child.1 Believers,
indeed, already possess a part of these rights of children. As
sons of God they can call upon Him as their Father with a
childlike trust, which excludes aE fear (Gal. iv. 6 ; Eom. viii.
15; cf. Eph. ii. 18).3
(6) The sum of all the blessings which the believer has
received through grace in his new filial relationship, the apostle
describes, in the usual salutation with which he commences
his Epistles, according to a common Christian usus loquendi, as
elpgvg, and therefore this is derived throughout from God our
Father.3 Peculiar to the apostle, however, is the richer import
1 Although, accordingly, adoption, like justification, takes place immediately
in consequence of faith (Gal. iii. 26), yet it appears in Rom. viii. 23 as some
thing which believers have still to wait for, seeing that, like Christ Himself
(i. 4, for which see § 77, 6), it is not till after their earthly life that they enter
into the full rights of children, and therewith into that position in which their
sonship is perfectly revealed (viii. 19). It is on this account probably that the
prophecy in 2 Cor. vi. 18 is still counted among the promises which Christians
have (vii. 1).
2 Paul, moreover, calls God our Father comparatively less frequently than in
the Epistles to the Thessalonians (§ 61, 6), viz., only in the salutations with
which he commences his Epistles (Gal. i. 4 ; 1 Cor. i. 3 ; 2 Cor. i. 2 ; Rom. i. 7 ;
cf. Col. i. 2 ; Eph. i. 2 ; Phil. i. 2). Here, too, Christians are addressed (cf. § 62, b)
and described as brethren ; but although Rom. viii. 29 shows that this designa
tion is based upon their divine sonship, yet it is for the most part only used in
order to lay emphasis upon their obligation to love one another (1 Cor. vi. 5 f., 8,
viii. 11 ff. ; Rom. xiv. 10, 13, 15, 21).
3 The Old Testament DW literally denotes a state of wellbeing which is free
from trouble, strife, and danger, and satisfied in itself. So ilpfon occurs also in
Paul, in contrast with the 6x7^is which is threatened the ungodly (Rom. ii. 10 ;
cf. with ver. 9), as that which first gives to the life which is promised in ver. 7
its full value (cf. viii. 6 : ?<*» xx) ilpmn), in contrast with outer or inner danger
(xvi. 20, xv. 33, compared with ver. 31 ; cf. 1 Thess. v. 3), and it also stands
lor the harmony which excludes all strife and discord (1 Cor. vii. 15, xiv. 33,
xvi. 11 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 11 ; Rom. xiv. 19 ; cf. 1 Thess. v. 13 ; Col. iii. 15 ; Eph.
ii. 14-17 iv. 3). But already in the prophecy in Isa. Iii. 7, upin denotes the
import of the Messianic glad tidings (Rom. x. 15 ; cf. Eph. vi. 15 : to ilxyyiXav
¦ns ilpnvns). So the Jewish salutation (iipim SpoTv : Luke x. 5 ; Mark v. 34 ; John
xx. 19 21 26 ; Jas. ii. 16) could also be retained in a higher sense in Chris
tianity (1 Pet. v. 14 ; 3 John 15 ; Er)h. vi. 23), or, as in Paul, be combined with
VOL. I. 2 F

450 REDEMPTION AND JUSTIFICATION.
which this term has received in the connection of his system,
as well as the manner in which he gives it a subjective turn.
In the latter case it stands for the inner feeling of this well-
being, for the inner satisfaction which this possession of salva
tion begets, and which the Christian accordingly possesses in
faith (Gal. v. 22 ; Eom. xv. 13 ; cf. Phil. iv. 7, 9 ; 1 Thess.
v. 23; 2 Thess. iii. 16). The common assumption that, in
Paul, elpgvg denotes peace with God, cannot be proved by
means of Eom. v. 1, where the addition irpw tov Qeov gives
it that meaning. Peace with God is the ground of this inner
peace of soul, not that itself. In this sense elpgvg, along with
Biicaioavvg, characterizes the Christian's new state of salvation
(Eom. xiv. 17). Along with these there stands here, as in
Gal. v. 22, Eom. xv. 13, joy (%apd) ; it is self-evident that
this is to be found wherever, along with every inner dis
quietude, there also ceases to be any good reason for pain and
sorrow, and accordingly it appears also in 2 Cor. i. 24 as given
immediately with faith (cf. Phil. i. 25). Outward afflictions
cannot do away with this joy (2 Cor. vi. 1 0, viii. 2 ; cf. 1 Thess.
i. 6), and therefore the apostle repeatedly stirs up the Chris
tians to it (2 Cor. xiii. 11 ; Eom. xii. 12 ; cf. Phil. iii. l,iv. 4 ;
1 Thess. v. 16).
(c) In itself adoption is an altogether objective transaction,
a pure act of God, which can first receive its significance for
our consciousness, when the inner assurance of it is worked
in us. This, however, can only take place by God Himself
giving us the Spirit of vlodeaia (Eom. viii. 1 5), which testifies
to us that we are God's children (ver. 16), by teaching us to
call upon the Father with childlike confidence (Gal. iv. 6 ;
cf. Eph. ii. 18). Through this Spirit the love of God has
been shed abroad in our hearts (Eom. v. 5), i.e., has become
an object of our consciousness, and this assurance of the love
of God is identical with the consciousness of adoption. The
fruit of the Spirit is, accordingly, also the joy and the peace,
which we found in note h to be the consequence of the
the wishing of grace (cf. 1 Pet. i. 2 ; 2 Pet. i. 2 ; Apoc. i. 4), or mercy (Gal.
vi. 16 ; cf. Jude 2), or both (1 Tim. i. 2 ; 2 Tim. i. 2 ; 2 John 3). Here we
have undoubtedly to do with a general Christian terminology. This would be
still more evident if what Otto (Jahrbiicher fur deutsche Theologie, 1867, 4) seeks
to prove should turn out to be correct, that these formulae of blessing are
Christianized transformations of the Aaronitic blessing (Num. vi. 24-26).

§ 83. SONSHIP. 451
new state of salvation (Gal. v. 22), and which can naturally
only be found when we have become certain of our state of
grace. The peace is a peace of God (Phil. iv. 7 ; cf. ver. 9 ;
1 Thess. v. 23), which God gives (through His Spirit), and
the joy is a joy in the Holy Ghost (Eom. xiv. 17, xv. 13 ; cf.
1 Thess. i. 6). This Spirit, in which God has, as it were, put
His seal upon our assurance of salvation, is itself the earnest
of all the completion of salvation which is still to be looked
for (2 Cor. i. 22, v. 5 : dppaBcov; Eom. viii. 23 : dirapyr) ;
cf. Eph. i 13, iv. 30); through it we expect the salvation,
which we have to hope for in consequence of the righteous
ness which has been presented to us iic irlaTecw (Gal. v. 5,
for which see § 82, h, footnote 4). From this it is already
evident that the objective act of grace performed by God
in justification cannot be thought of at all without another
corresponding act, which makes a direct impression upon the
subjective life of the individual, and which consists in the
communication of the Spirit, for the objective salvation
remains worthless for the individual if unaccompanied by the
subjective assurance of it.4 The Biaicovia t^? Biicaioavvg<;
must also be a Biaicovia tov irvevp.aTO'i (2 Cor. iii. 8, 9). The
other side of the Pauline doctrine of salvation attaches itself
to this second gracious act of God, which, equally with the
first, is naturally brought about objectively through Christ
and subjectively through faith (Gal. in. 2, 5, 14).
(d) It is of the utmost importance for the comprehension
of the PauEne doctrine of salvation to distinguish the act of
God's grace, through which man is justified and translated
into the new filial relation, very precisely from the second
act of grace, which consists in the communication of the
Spirit and its saving operations, although the first of these
4 Not as if his justification remained a merely ideal one, which first becomes
a truly real lixxiovo-Sxi through the operation of the Spirit, as Baur (p. 175)
thinks. Justification is altogether complete on God's part, and is nowhere
made dependent upon the operation of the Spirit and the actual Vxxioo-ivn which
is brought about by means of it, a view which would break up the whole of the
apostle's doctrine of justification as rightly understood. Only the subjective
assurance of justification and its consequences is given us through the Spirit ;
but this assurance is not required for the perfection of the process of justification
as such, as Baur thinks, but only for the completion of the salvation which is
intended for man, and which commences with justification.

452 REDEMPTION AND JUSTIFICATION.
is the certification of our state of grace. This distinction,
however, is immediately obliterated if, in keeping with the
misconception of the sonship of Christ considered in § 77, c,
footnote 1, we see the sonship of believers essentially, or at
least partly (Biedermann, p. 276; Kiibel, p. 406), based in
the possession of the Spirit, and in the pneumatic godlike life
of Christians which that implies. Gal. iv. 6 decides against
this view as clearly as possible. Because we are already
actually sons of God (note the expressly emphasized e'cre),
God has sent the Spirit of His Son into our hearts. This
second act of God is purposely described in its perfect objec
tivity, and even in the expression employed, as quite ana
logous with the sending of the Son (ver. 4), which has brought
about our adoption (ver. 5). What the Son possessed had also
to be bestowed upon the sons of God. If, however, the Spirit
comes, in order to make believers certain of their adoption
(ver. 6), the latter must already be accompEshed, it cannot be
owing to the communication of the Spirit. According to the
context, Eom. viii. 14 also merely asserts that the believer
recognises his filial relationship by the effects of the Spirit.
This recognition, it is true, depends upon the fact that, because
the child resembles the father, he who is led by the Spirit of
God must also be His child, i.e., it depends upon the meta
phorical idea of sonship, which we found in the discourses of
Jesus (§ 21, c, footnote 1). But it by no means follows from
this that this likeness makes the child a child, and therefore
that man is made a child of God by the operation of the
Spirit (cf. Eitschl, ii. p. 353). Eather, he does not receive
the Spirit, which makes him like God, untE after God has
adopted him as His child, although it is naturally by the
possession of this Spirit itself, which is a Spirit of the Son,
and teaches him to cry, Abba, Father (Gal. iv. 6), and by its
effects (Eom. viii 14) that he recognises his filial relation
ship.5 In viii. 16 both are expressly put alongside of each
6 The earlier interpretation of the passage in Galatians, which simply inverts
the order of the thoughts, even Beyschlag (p. 223) no longer ventures to main
tain ; on the other hand, he assumes that Paul represents different acts of God as
vloho-ix, and for this assertion appeals particularly to Rom. viii. 14, where Immer
(p. 208) also finds a representation which is the very opposite of that in Gala
tians (cf. the correct view in Pfleiderer, p. 188 [E. Tr. i. 187]). The orvivpox
vloho-lxs (ver. 15), however, cannot grammatically denote the Spirit, which works

§ 84. BAPTISM. 453
other as a double testimony to our sonship. For Paul it is
of decisive importance that the gracious acceptance of us as
His children on the part of God, of which we are made assured
through the Spirit, is the indispensable presupposition of every
further successful operation of the Spirit in us, just as, in the
teaching of Jesus, it is only the members of the kingdom, who
call upon God as their Father, that can become , children of
God in the sense of moral likeness to Him (§ 21, c).6
CHAPTEE VII.
THE NEW LIFE.
§ 84. Baptism.
Baptism into the name of Christ, which presupposes faith
in Him, and binds the believer to belong to Him exclusively,
the vloko-lx (R. Schmidt, p. 122), but only the Spirit, which belongs to the con
dition of sonship. For that vloko-lx, which, it is true, primarily denotes the act
of adoption, here stands metonymically for the condition of sonship which is
brought about by means of that act, appears indubitable from the parallel iovXilx
(cf. also Gal. iv. 5, Rom. ix. 4, where the reference to the act of adoption is
altogether inapplicable). Schmidt (p. 121) appeals further to Gal. iii. 27, to
show that the filial relationship is first constituted by incorporation with Christ ;
but this is owing to a misconception of the context, in which the apostle by
no means seeks to prove that in Christ they are all sons of God, but that through
faith in Christ they have become sons of God, who have to look for the inherit
ance, i.e., the completed possession of salvation (ver. 29). Since believers
(ver. 26) as such have been baptized and incorporated with Christ (ver. 27), so
that they have now become one with Christ (ver. 28), they belong to the seed of
Abraham, to whom, according to ver. 16, the promise of the xXnpoyopolx was given
(ver. 29). The common misinterpretation of the passage overlooks the fact that,
according to the context, in which the question is throughout as to the condi
tion of the obtaining of the promised completion of salvation, the establishment
of ver. 26 can lie, not in ver. 27 alone, but only in vv. 27-29, which even
Pfleiderer (p. 198 [E. Tr. i. 198]) does not perceive.
6 R. Schmidt (p. 122) attempts to reconcile his distortion of the idea of son-
ship with the objective conception of it in Paul, which is also admitted by him,
by means of the assertion that the objective filial relationship first attains to sub
jective reality (instead of : to consciousness) in the possession of the Spirit ; but
this is the same error as when Baur maintains that the process of justification first
becomes perfect through the operation of the Spirit (cf. footnote 4). And here
also we see how this error immediately leads to a misconception of justification,
upon which adoption depends. For, as already shown, this by no means con
sists in this, that God regards believers, on the ground of their being incor
porated with Christ, who is the Spirit, as already ideally iv Tviipoxn ovns, and
therefore as Vixxioi, as Schmidt represents it.

454 THE NEW LIFE.
can be regarded primarily as a washing away of the stain of
guilt ; in it, however, the Holy Spirit of God, which is the
principle of the new life in the believer, is also bestowed.
(6) Through this Spirit, which is the Spirit of Christ, the
believer enters into a Eving fellowship with Christ, in virtue
of which Christ lives in him and he in Christ, (c) In this
living feEowship with the Christ who died and rose again,
the believer dies as to his old nature and begins a new life.
(d) Thus in baptism there is accomplished in him a new
creation, through which holiness and righteousness are, in
principle, realized in him.
(a) In the Pauline Churches, as well as in the mother
Church (§ 41, a), reception into the Christian Church took
place through baptism into the name of Christ (1 Cor.
i. 13-16). Baptism therefore presupposes faith in Him as
the one whom the Christian Church designates with the name
of their Lord (§76, a),1 and also binds to an adherence to Him
(ver. 12), which excludes every dependence upon any other
(cf. iii. 2 3 : v/iet? XpiaTov), inasmuch as He has acquired a
claim upon their devotion by the saving deed of His self-
surrender on the cross (§81, b). Now, seeing that the death
of Christ has rendered forgiveness of sin possible, baptism
can be regarded (as in Peter, § 44, h ; cf. already § 41, a) as
a washing away of the stain of guilt (1 Cor. vi. 11 : direXov-
aaaQe; cf. Acts xxii. 16; Eph. v. 26). Inasmuch as he
who has attained to faith confesses it by the reception of
baptism, he receives in the latter the symbolical pledge of the
forgiveness of sins or the justification which is conditioned by
faith (§ 82, a). But, according to § 21, h, the original symbol
ism of the rite of baptism pointed to the complete putting
away of the previous disposition and the renewal of the whole
mind and life. From this point the apostle has worked out
his peculiar doctrine of baptism.2 Here too, indeed, he
1 Because this faith always involves at the same time a trust in Him as the
Mediator of salvation (ver. 13 : UrxvpuSn vTip SptZv • cf. § 82, d), the apostle
speaks in 1 Cor. x. 2 of the Israelites having been baptized into Moses, inas
much as, in consequence of the grace they experienced at the Red Sea, they
learned to trust in him as the divinely sent saviour (Ex. xiv. 31).
2 In Rom. vi. Paul will show that his doctrine of justification by no means
leads to a moral lethargy, which suffers an iTipiXvuv rri ipxprix (ver. 1), but that
the person who is justified has rather died, iii principle, to sin (ver. 2) ; and iu

§ 84. BAPTISM. 455
attaches himself to the original apostoEc idea, according to
which Christian baptism is the Messianic baptism of the
Spirit (cf. § 41, a, 44, 6). The communication of the Spirit,
which first makes the believer assured of his justification, and
must therefore be directly connected with the bestowal of
forgiveness of sins in baptism (§ 83, e), takes place also
according to him in baptism, in which we are baptized with
one Spirit (eV ivi irvevpiaTi, after the original form of the rite
of baptism) into one body (1 Cor. xii. 13), which is immediately
afterwards represented in another way as a having been made to
drink of one Spirit. And, indeed, it is the Holy Spirit which is
then poured out into the heart (Eom. v. 5 ; cf. 1 Cor. vi. 19 ;
2 Cor. vi. 6, xiii. 14; Eom. ix. 1, xiv. 17, xv. 13, 16, 19),
or, what is, according to 1 Cor. xii. 3, identical therewith, the
Spirit of God (1 Cor. iii. 16, vi. 11, vii. 40; 2 Cor. iii. 3;j
Eom. viii. 11, 14). But it is altogether peculiar to our
apostle, that this Spirit is now the principle of a new life in
the Christian, as we already found in the Epistles to the
Thessalonians (§ 62, d).s The children of God know their
sonship by this, that they are led by the Spirit of God (Eom.
viii. 14 ; cf. § 83, d), and this ayeaQai irvevp,aTi (Gal. v. 18)
order to prove this, he now goes back, not upon the act of justification itself,
which the context would have made most natural, but upon baptism (ver. 3).
From this, therefore, it follows, first, that according to him the new life of the
Christian is not developed through a. psychological process from the conscious
ness of justification (cf. the excellent exposition by Ritschl, ii. p. 339, 354 f. ),
and, secondly, that in baptism the point in question is not merely as to a
symbolical certification of justification, but that something else must also be
given with it, whereby a renewal, in principle, is accomplished in man.
3 As in the preaching of the original apostles (§ 40, a, footnote 1 ; cf. § 62, d),
the Spirit is, naturally, also the principle of the gifts of grace, with which God
equips believers for His service in the Church (1 Cor. xii. 4), wherefore these
are also called Tviupoxnxi (1 Cor. xii. 1, xiv. 1 ; cf. ver. 37). It is closely con
nected with the idea, according to which this Spirit works the assurance of
salvation in the believer, that no one (on the ground of that assurance) can
confess Jesus as Lord (and Mediator of salvation), il p.* iv Tviipoxn xyim (1 Cor.
xii. 3). But, elsewhere also, everything which is required for the continuance
or furtherance of the Christian life is something worked by the Spirit, a
¦rvivpoxTixbv (1 Cor. ix. 11 ; cf. ii. 13 ; Rom. i. 11, xv. 27). The significance of
this peculiar conception of the Tvivpox as an immanent religious-moral principle
of life Pfleiderer especially has set forth in a very able manner (p. 20 f., 200
[E. Tr. i. 20 f., 199]), although he too narrowly represents the conception of
the Messianic Tvivptx, which is found elsewhere in the New Testament, as
ecstatic-apocalyptic.

456 THE NEW LIFE.
expressly denotes that this Spirit is the moving principle of
their life. The norm - giving power (vbp,os) of this Spirit
has made them free from the norm-giving power (vbfios) of
sin (Eom. viii. 2), and the new condition of the life of the
Christian is an effect of the Spirit (vii. 6 : tcaivoTg? irvev-
/ttaTo? ; cf. Gal. v. 25: t,wp,ev irvevp,aTi). All Christian
virtues are fruits of the Spirit (Gal. v. 2 2 f.) ; love is owing
to the Spirit (Eom. xv. 30); the Spirit is a irvevp,a irpaorgTo*;
(Gal. vi. 1 ; 1 Cor. iv. 21). It is through an operation of this
Spirit, therefore, that there is brought about that perfect
renewal, which was indicated in the symbolism of the rite of
baptism by the disappearing and emerging of the person
baptized.4 (b) Like every gracious operation, the communication of
the Spirit is naturally brought about by Christ as the exalted
Lord, who is therefore also called icvpio<; irvevp,aTo^ in 2 Cor.
iii 18. The Church is an epistle, which Christ has composed,
inasmuch as He has written it with the Spirit of the living
God upon the tables of the hearts (iii. 3). Yea, the Spirit of
4 Here the Spirit is throughout evidently conceived of as a divine energy (cf.
2 Cor. vi. 7), from which there goes forth a definite power (cf. Eph. iii. 20 with
ver. 16), just as 'Sivx/us specifically belongs to everything that is tviu/ixtixov
(1 Cor. xv. 43 f.). Paul speaks of the demonstration which the Spirit of God
gives by means of the power that goes forth specifically from it (1 Cor. ii. 4 ;
cf. 1 Thess. i. 5), or even of the "Sivxpois Tyiipoxros xyiou (Rom. xv. 13, 19). And
like every divine gift, it is an energy derived from God (1 Cor. ii. 12 : rb tv. rb
ix rov &iov), which God gives (2 Cor. i. 22, v. 5 ; Rom. v. 5 ; cf. 1 Thess. iv. 8 ;
Eph. i. 17) and supplies (Gal. iii. 5), which Christians receive (Gal. iii. 2, 14 ;
2 Cor. xi. 4 ; Rom. viii. 15) and possess (1 Cor. vi. 19. Cf. Sabatier, p. 293).
Accordingly, the Spirit cannot possibly be conceived of as an independent
personality, as Hahn still maintains (p. 118 ; cf. also Immer, p. 298 f.). When
the communication of the Spirit is represented, for a rhetorical purpose (cf.
§ 83, d), as a sending altogether analogous with that of the Son (Gal. iv. 6 ;
cf. ver. 4), when the Spirit is represented as dwelling (i.e. having its abiding
place of abode) in us (Rom. viii. 9, 11), when the Spirit, which urges us to pray
and groan and is still to be distinguished as an altogether objectively operative
power in us from our subjective spiritual life which is brought about by it,
itself appears as crying Abba in us (Gal. iv. 6) and as successfully interceding
for us with its groaning (Rom. viii. 26 f. ), as Christ elsewhere intercedes for us
(Rom. viii. 34), it is only by means of an altogether unhermeneutical forcing of
the expression that its personality can be deduced from these statements. Still
less does this follow from the circumstance that, in 1 Cor. ii. 10, a searching of
the deep things of God is ascribed to it, for in what follows this is expressly
explained by the analogy of man's s^l^consciousness (cf. § 68, c, footnote 9), so
that the Spirit really appears as the principle of the self-consciousness of God

§ 84. BAPTISM. 457
God, which is communicated to Christians in baptism, is,
according to the change of the expressions in Eom. viii. 9,
none other than the Spirit of Christ (Gal. iv. 6 ; 1 Cor. ii. 16;
2 Cor. iii. 17; cf. Phil, i 1 9), and, seeing that the exalted
Christ has altogether become irvevpa (1 Cor. xv. 45 ; 2 Cor.
iii. 17: o Kvpiot to irvevp,d iaTiv),6 the statements : irvevp,a
XpiaTov eyeiv and XpiaTw iv gplv in Eom. viii. 9, 10 seem
altogether synonymous ; Christ is in man through His Spirit,
or as the Spirit that maketh alive Himself, just as God also
Himself in His Spirit dwells in man (1 Cor. iii 16). We
recognise the true Christian by Christ being in Him (2 Cor.
xiii. 5). Paul confesses of himself that he no longer lives,
but Christ lives in him (Gal. ii. 20; cf. Col. iii. 11; Eph.
iii. 17; Phil, i 8, 21). A man does not become a true
Christian until Christ is formed in him, like the embryo in
its mother's womb (Gal. iv. 19); as husband and wife become
one flesh (1 Cor. vi 16), so in this most intimate Eving
fellowship Christ and the beEever become one spirit (ver. 17),
because His Spirit becomes our spirit. This Eving fellowship
(ver. 11). If that which is said of it as such be, nevertheless, applied to the
Spirit which is communicated to us, then in this energy which goes forth from
Him God Himself mast be conceived of as present and operative with His self-
consciousness, and in iii. 16 it is undoubtedly God Himself that makes His
abode in us through His Spirit. Accordingly, the activity in the distribution
of the gifts of grace can be traced back to the willing of the Spirit (xii. 11: xxlus
lioixirxi), although in ver. 6 f. it is evidently God Himself that works them in
due measure. The spiritual energy that goes forth from God, and is meant to
work upon the knowing and willing of man, cannot but naturally be thought
of as knowing and willing ; but as in ii. 11 the divine self-consciousness is the
ground of this knowing, so here the divine gracious wiU is the ground of this
willing, while the knowing and willing of a subject distinct from God are
nowhere thought of. And although the Holy Ghost is named in 2 Cor. xiii. 141
along with God and Christ as a third independent subject (cf. Eph. ii. 18, 22,
iv. 4-6), yet here the very idea of *¦ participation in it (cf. Phil. ii. 1) points as
plainly as possible to a real possession. Cf. Pfleiderer, p. 201 f. [E. Tr. i.
200 f.], who, however, assumes a certain wavering between real existence and
personification. 5 From the manner in which the Spirit that is communicated to Christians is .
now represented as » Spirit of God, and now as a Spirit of Christ, i.e. as a
divine spiritual energy that belongs to both in the same manner, it also un
doubtedly follows that, unless we drag in modes of thinking altogether foreign
to the apostle for the purpose of explaining this, the Spirit cannot be thought
of as personal. Such an identification, however, of Christ and the Tviipox, as
occurs in 2 Cor. iii. 17, is quite inconceivable on the assumption that Paul
reflected upon an immanent trinity (cf. Schmidt, p. 152).

458 THE NEW LIFE.
with Christ commences in baptism, when His Spirit is com
municated to us, so that the condition of belonging to Christ,
which is established in baptism (1 Cor. i 12 f.; cf. note a),
is, according to Eom. viii. 9, recognised by the having of His
Spirit.6 For this fellowship of life with Christ, Paul, however,
has now coined another form of expression. As he, who has
the Spirit of God, is now in the vital element of this Spirit
(viii 9), so every one, who has the Spirit of Christ or Christ
in himself, is now also in Him. In this fellowship of life
with Christ (eV XpiaTco 'Igaov) the Spirit unfolds its activity
which frees us from the power of sin (viii. 2 ; cf. note a), as
appears plainly from the connection with the toi? iv XpiaTcp
'Igaov in ver. I.7 For this idea the form of the rite of
6 Although Pfleiderer (p. 203 [E. Tr. i. 203]) will not deny that Paul has also
accepted the traditional doctrine of the reception of the Spirit in baptism, yet
he does not attach to it any central significance for the Pauline doctrine of
salvation, and expressly denies (p. 198 f. [E. Tr. i. 198 f.]) that the reception
of the Spirit is the ground of the fellowship with Christ, because not a syllable
is spoken regarding the tviv/ix in Rom. vi. The reason of this, however, is to
be found simply in the plan of the Epistle to the Romans, according to which
the new principle of the Tvw/ix, which overcomes the o-ipl, is considered first of
aU in chap, viii., after it has been shown in chap. vii. that the inability of the
law to realize the righteousness of life has had its ground in the o-ipl. If
baptism (as the externally accomplished entrance into the union of faith with
Christ) were to the apostle only "the ground of recognition" of the existing
fellowship with Christ, of which faith is the real ground, it would remain
incomprehensible, why he starts in Rom. vi. , not from faith, but from baptism
(cf. footnote 2), and "not a single syllable is uttered" regarding orlo-ns in the
whole chapter. For Paul "the fellowship with Christ of which faith is the
ground " cannot possibly be " the logical prius of the reception of the Spirit of
sonship," for, according to 2 Cor. iii. 17, 1 Cor. vi. 17, Rom. viii. 9, 10, the
existence of Christ in man cannot be even conceived of without an existence of
the Spirit of Christ in him, but is rather brought about only by the existence
of the Spirit in him. So certainly, however, as the latter is conceived of as the
existence and operation of an objective divine power in man, so certainly the
former cannot be regarded, with Pfleiderer (p. 185 f. [E. Tr. i. 184 f.]), as the
merely subjective apprehension of the principle of reconciliation which is beheld
in the person of the Mediator of salvation.
7 This condition of being in Christ, accordingly, does not merely denote an
outward union with Him, as the « iv tZ vipo/ (Rom. iii. 19 ; cf. ii. 12) repre
sents the condition within the law ; it denotes the condition of being in
corporated with Christ which is involved in the commencement of the Christian
life (1 Cor. i. 30 i Spit's io-rl iv Xpio-TZ ; 2 Cor. xii. 2 : xvQpoiTos iv Xp. ; Rom.
xvi. 7 ; «' too iptov yiybvxo-iv iv Xp. ; cf. ver. 11). In this living fellowship with
Christ the distinctions of the pre-Christian life are no longer valid (Gal. v. 6) ;
in it Christians are what they are, rich (1 Cor. i. 5), wise (iv. 10), under
certain circumstances even weak (2 Cor. xiii. 4). In this new relation Timothy

§ 84. BAPTISM. 459
baptism offered the apostle another express point of contact.
In Eom. vi. 3 he plainly takes the formula BairTi^eadai et?
XpiaTov, not in its original sense of a being baptized unto
Christ (= et? Svop-a Xpiarov ; cf. note a), but, in conformity
with the strict meaning of et?, in the sense of a being baptized
into Him, whereby one is put into a real feEowship of life
with Him. As many as have been baptized into Christ have
put on Christ (Gal. iii. 27). As one is in a garment, which
one has put on, so the consequence of their having put on
Christ is that they are now in Him (ver. 2 8 : irdvTe? vpiels
et? eo-Te iv XpiaTcp 'Igaov). Here, too, the condition of
belonging to Christ which is established in baptism (ver. 29 :
et Be v/tet? XpiaTov) appears as synonymous with this state
of being in Christ (cf. also the ol tov XpiaTov of 1 Cor.
xv. 23, referring to the iv XpiaTcp of ver. 22); and if it is
said of baptism in xii. 13: iv ivi irvevp,aTi ^(u.et? irdvTe? et?
ev acopia iBaivTiadgp,ev, yet Christians have attained to this
unity of the body by their being all in the same manner
iv XpiaTcp (Eom. xii. 5 : ol 7ro\Xot ev acoptd iapiev iv XpiaTcp).6
And as baptism presupposes faith, so the communication of
the Spirit, which puts men into the living fellowship with
Christ, is expressly made dependent upon faith. It is only on
occasion of the message of faith (accepted and obeyed in the
faith, which it demands) that the Christian has received the
is his child (1 Cor. iv. 17), others are his fellow-workers (Rom. xvi. 3, 9).
Although Paul has therefore first put a deeper significance in the sense of his
peculiar theology into a formula which had originally a more general meaning
(cf. § 62, c, footnote 4), yet that original meaning is occasionally found also in
him. In the same connection Christians are represented as approved and
eminent in Christ (Rom. xvi. 10, 13), and in 1 Cor. iv. 15 (hxv povplovs
Txio'xyojyovs %xyiTi 'iv Xpio-rZ), xi. 11, the expression iv Xpio-rZ seems simply to
denote the Christian state as such. The formula ixxXwlxi iv Xpio-rZ (Gal. i. 22 ;
cf. 1 Thess. ii. 14) also still occurs.
8 Here, accordingly, it is absolutely impossible to deny that the condition of
being in Christ is established by means of baptism, and when Pfleiderer (p. 198
[E. Tr. i. 198]) seeks to prove from Gal. iii. 26 f. that baptism is nothing
different from faith, this is owing to the false conception of the argument of
this passage considered in § 83, d, footnote 5. Although it might seem in
2 Cor. i. 21 as if the condition of being in Christ, which is enduringly secured
through the frifrxwuv ils Xpicrbv, is the presupposition of the anointing with the
Spirit, yet it is only the intended play upon the appellative meaning of the
Xpio-Tos (cf. § 77, a) that is the reason why the communication of the Spirit,
which, as a matter of fact, is the presupposition of any one's being in Christ, is
here mentioned last.

460 THE NEW LIFE,
Spirit with its gifts (Gal. iii 2, 5) ; it is only through faith that
he receives the promised Spirit (ttjv iirayyeXiav tov irvevfiaTo*;,
ver. 14). From this it is self-evident that the so widely pre
valent idea that the fellowship of life with Christ belongs to the
essence of faith (cf. e.g. Lechler, p. 1 1 5 ; Messner, p. 2 6 5 ; Eeuss,
ii. p. 102 f. [E. Tr. ii. 89 f.]; Baur, p. 176 f.) is not Pauline.9
Faith is the presupposition of this union with Christ ; but this
union itself can never be brought about by an attitude of
man, but only by Christ Himself entering into this feEowship
of life with him through the communication of His Spirit.
By means of that imaginary deeper and richer conception of
the idea of faith it is generally sought to obtain the point of
contact for the origin of the new Efe, which undoubtedly
proceeds from the fellowship of life with Christ,10 while the
circumstance is overlooked that therewith the nerve of the
Pauline doctrine of grace is injured. The new life of the
9 It is in vain that an appeal is made in opposition to the so evident connec
tion of the Pauline system and in favour of the common view to 2 Cor. xiii. 5,
where it is only in appearance that the io-rl iv t?, tIo-tu and the 'Itio-ovs Xpio-rbs iv
Spay are synonymous expressions, whereas in reality the question as to the
former can be decided only by observing whether the latter is found, and the
latter is, therefore, the necessary consequence of the former. Nor can Gal.
ii. 20 be adduced in support of that view ; for there the Z$ iv ipoo) Xpio-rbs by no
means stands parallel with the %Z h ti'o-tu ; that which is still in him of his
own life during his life in the flesh, which is now, however, altogether a Zfiv h
tIo-tu, is rather set over against the new life of the apostle, which Christ, who
lives in him (through His Spirit), alone lives, so that the tIo-tis is really named
as that which belongs to himself in contrast with that which is not at all his own,
but simply Christ's. Although Pfleiderer (p. 169 [E. Tr. i. 168]) has disputed
this very energetically, yet he has only opposed general considerations to the
undoubted exegetical matter of fact ; for that, notwithstanding the o-wurrxipoiptxi
and Z,Z Hi olxin iyu, a life which belongs to the apostle himself is spoken of in
the second half of the verse, appears from the antithetical S Vi vZv t,Z h tj? o-xpxl.
And when he appeals to Gal. ii. 17 and 2 Cor. v. 21, in order to prove that
justifying faith and fellowship with Christ are identical (p. 186 [E. Tr. i.
185 f.]), he overlooks the fact that, in a connection where it is the state of
being objectively justified that is spoken of, the iv Xpio-rZ can only denote that
the objective ground of this state is found in Christ in the sense of § 75, d (cf.
Rom. v. 9 ; 1 Cor. vi. 11).
10 Thereby the Pauline idea of faith is altered ; for what is characteristic of
that idea is this, that it is purely religious trust in divine grace, apart altogether,
in principle, from every moral action. His doctrine of justification is also
altered ; for in that case it is no longer really an act of grace, seeing that it does
not take place contrary to fact, but corresponds with a fact that is recognised by
God, even although as yet it exists only in germ. This objection, however,
does not at all apply to Pfleiderer, who will have even this incorporation with

§ 84. BAPTISM. 461
Christian does not develope itself from faith (any more than
from justification ; cf. note a, footnote 2) by means of a purely
psychological process, whereby some human factor or other
would still be demanded for its origin ; but as justification is
a pure act of divine grace, so the communication of a new
principle of life is a second act of divine grace, to which the
doctrine of justification itself already pointed us as one that
was absolutely necessary (§ 83, c).11
(c) To the Christian, Christ is primarily necessarily the one
that died ; for as such He is to him the Mediator of salvation
(§ 80, a). If, therefore, the Christian feels himself in a real
fellowship with this Christ, he has been crucified with Him
(Gal. ii. 20 ; cf. vi. 14; Eom. vi 6),12 and has died with Him
(ver. 8 ; cf. Gal. ii 20). Baptism, which has translated him
into this fellowship (note h), is, accordingly, not only a being
baptized into Him (BairTi&adai et? XpiaTov), but, in parti-
Christ in faith regarded, not as a moral disposition or as a surrender to the new
direction of life represented in Christ, but as the purely religious act of laying
hold of Christ as the Mediator of reconciliation (p. 186 [E. Tr. i. 185]). But it
is so much the more inadmissible in him to take up the fellowship with Christ,
in which Christ is at any rate the determining element, and therefore meets
receptive faith with His gifts, into the idea of faith itself (p. 168 [E. Tr. i. 167] ).
Nor can I perceive how the correct distinction of these moments should ' ' trans
form them into a dead juxtaposition of scholastic doctrines ; " for the only point
in question is this, whether, according to the Pauline view, the initiative in that
living fellowship proceeds from Christ or from the believing subject, whether, in
that fellowship, Christ is conceived of as a living person or merely as a spiritual
principle (of reconciliation). The fact that this living fellowship is brought
about by His Spirit (cf. footnote 6) decides for the first of these alternatives,
and is also the reason why I avoid the misleading designation of it as mystical
(§ 149, d, footnote 12), although I will not deny that, owing to this intervention
of the Spirit not being always present to his consciousness, many Pauline state
ments already receive a mystical colouring.
11 For the idea that faith as such is the operative principle of the new life,
no evidence is furnished even by the only passage which is being continually
adduced in its support, because it speaks of faith, which is operative through
love (Gal. v. 6 : tIo-tis Si' xyxTns ivipyovpiivn). But we need only refer to Gal.
v. 22 and Rom. xv. 30, according to which love is a fruit and effect of the Spirit,
in order to see that this activity of faith is conceived of as owing to the fact that
each believer as such receives the Spirit ; and even here that is implied in the
context, inasmuch as what is spoken of is the faith of those who are iv Xpio-rZ
'Iwov, and in whom, therefore, the Spirit of Christ is operative. Even Pfleiderer
acknowledges (p. 219 [E. Tr. i. 220]) that faith is spoken of here only in so far
as it makes us one Spirit with Christ.
12 It is only in appearance that it seems, according to Gal. v. 24 (ol tov Xpio-roZ
io-rxipoio-xv rv\v oipxx), as if man accomplishes this mortification himself ; he is

462 THE NEW LIFE.
cular, a being baptized into His death (Bdiniapa et? tov
QdvaTov avTov) ; and as the certainty of the death of Christ is
sealed by His burial (§ 78, a, footnote 2), so the submersion
of the person who is being baptized is, as it were, a being
buried, by means of which the fact that he has died with
Christ is also sealed (Eom. vi. 4 ; cf. Col. ii. 1 2). Thus Paul
now first altogether reaches that symbolical idea of the rite of
baptism, according to which it represents pieTavoia (note a) ;
for the dying with Christ, which is symbolically sealed in it,
is a dying of the old man, a destroying of the body (in so far
as it was previously a body ruled by sin, ver. 6), whereby
man dies unto sin (vv. 2, 11), is made free from its dominion
(vv. 6, 18, 22), and therefore puts away his whole previous
disposition and direction of life. But this naturally involves
the positive renewal of these ; and this renewal is also now
accomplished by this, that in baptism man is put into real
fellowship with Christ. If we have become united with Him
(avp,cf)VToi yeyovapiev), i.e. have entered into a real fellowship
with Him, by this likeness of His death, i.e., by this death of
His being copied in our inner life, this fellowship must also
show itself in respect of the resurrection (ver. 5), which
immediately followed the death of Christ, and without which
He would not have been the Mediator of our salvation (§ 81, d).
It can only be owing to accident that the term avveyeipeaQai
(Col. ii. 12, iii. 1 ; Eph. ii. 6) does not occur in our Epistles,
and that the obvious analogy of this resurrection with the rising
up out of the grave of the baptismal water is not drawn. In
substance it is implied in the statements, that, according to a
logical necessity, living with Christ follows upon dying with
Him (Eom. vi. 8), and that the end of being buried with Him
in baptism is newness of life (ver. 4), which henceforth does not
belong to sin, to which we have died, but to God (vv. 11, 13).
This life, however, is a living in fellowship with Christ (ver. 1 1 :
£S>v t«? tco Qeco iv XpiaTcp 'Igaov), who also as the risen One
lives altogether unto God (ver. 10). We can live in Christ,
self-active in it only inasmuch as he comes voluntarily to baptism, in which this
mortification is performed upon him by his being translated into fellowship with
Christ, just as the $xtt1Z,i?Ixi itself is also performed upon him, although only
with his free will. Moreover, this passage also shows that that o-rxvpovy takes
place, in baptism, in which one becomes an adherent of Christ (to? Xpio-rov ; cf.
1 Cor. i. 12, 13, for which see note a).

§ 84. BAPTISM. 463
however, only if He lives in us ; and therefore it appears in
Gal. ii. 20 as the consequence of our being crucified with
Christ, that He Eves in us, His spiritual holy life takes the
place of our natural sinful life, by His receiving us into the
fellowship of His resurrection life. Accordingly, that which
is salvation-bringing in this dying and rising up again with
Christ in baptism does not consist in the saving efficacy of His
death and resurrection being thereby appropriated by us
(which takes place only through faith), but it consists in this,
that it realizes the feEowship of life with the exalted Christ, in
which there are simultaneously given the annihilation of our
natural sinful life and the commencement of a new God-
pleasing life.13
(d) If in the communication of the Spirit in baptism
(note a) the believer experiences a dying and a resurrection
(note c) through his being translated into the fellowship of
life with Christ (note c), then nothing less has happened to
him than a new creation (cf. the new birth by means of the
word in Peter and James, § 46, a, 52, h). If any one is in
Christ, he is a new creation (an epyov tov Qeov, Eom. xiv. 2 0) ;
the old has passed away ; behold, everything has become new
(2 Cor. v. 17; cf. Eph. ii. 1 0). It appears also from the
connection of Gal. vi. 14, 15 that with the aravpcoOgvai tu>
13 From this it now becomes quite clear that, in this particular doctrine, the
death and resurrection of Christ are looked at only as events, which His life in
His state of exaltation presupposes, and not in their saving significance, as R.
Schmidt attempts to show (cf. § 81, c), and that, accordingly, we cannot con
clude from the circumstance, that the dying with Christ is a dying unto sin,
that the death of Christ must also be taken in some sense or other as a dying
unto sin (cf. § 80, b, footnote 5). Pfleiderer (p. 196 [E. Tr. i. 196]) regards the
living with Christ as being primarily eschatological, so that here the apostle
transforms the physical life beyond the grave into an ethical life on this side
of it- but this view rests upon the erroneous presupposition that the io-bpoifx
of Rom. vi. 5 must be a temporal future, although, according to the context, it
is necessarily a logical one (cf. the conclusive exposition by Ritschl, ii. p. 324),
and that in ver. 8 it must be a future object of our believing expectation that is
named, whereas what is expressed is only the conviction of the necessity with
which the living with Christ must follow the dying with Him. For the only
point upon which stress is laid in the context is that, in baptism, we become
assured of the beginning, in principle, of a new life. No more does 2 Cor. iv. 10
speak of the life of Christ being made manifest in our resurrection (p. 205 [E. Tr.
i. 205]) ; as ver. 11 shows, what it states is, that, in rescuing us from the danger
of death the life of Christ who was rescued from death becomes operative in us
(in virtue of our fellowship of life with Him. Cf. § 86, c, footnote 8).

464 THE NEW LIFE.
Koa/Mw the Christian has become a new creation. And as in
James the end of the new birth was the "consecration of
Christians to God (§ 54, h), and as in Peter Christians have
by baptism become the holy people of God's possession
(§ 45, a, c), so in Paul also aE baptized Christians are ayioi
(1 Cor. i 2, vi. 1, 2, xiv. 33, xvi 1, 15 ; 2 Cor. i 1, viii. 4,
ix. 1, 12, xiii. 12 ; Eom. i 7, viii. 27, xii 13, xv. 25, 26, 31,
xvi. 2, 15);14 for they belong neither to any other man
(1 Cor. vii. 23), nor to themselves, but to God alone, who
has bought them (vi. 19, 20 ; cf. § 80, c), and thereby made
them His exclusive possession.15 This consecration of Chris
tians to God is now, however, specially traced back by Paul
\ to the Holy Ghost, which they have received in baptism. As
those whose body God has made the temple of His Spirit,
Christians belong not to themselves, but to God (ver. 19); as
those in whom the Spirit of God dweEs (iii. 16), they are
ayiot (ver. 17 ; cf. Eph. ii. 21 f.).16 Through the Spirit, how
ever, the quality, which is necessary in order that they may
14 Everything is holy which originates with God in the narrower sense (Rom.
i. 2 : ypxipx) iyixi ; vii. 12 : vbpoos xyios ; v. 5 : Tvivpox clyiov ; cf. Luke i. 72 :
iixiiixit xylx ; 2 Tim. i. 9 : xXwis xylx), or, following the usus loquendi of the
Old Testament (Ex. xiii. 2 ; cf. Luke ii. 23), has been specially devoted to Him
as His possession (Rom. xi. 16 : xTxpxn ; xii. 1 : ImIx ; 1 Cor. iii. 17 : vxbs rov
Biov ; cf. Eph. ii. 21). From this use of xyios we must distinguish the use of
xyvbs with its derivatives ; it stands exclusively for moral purity (2 Cor. vii. 11 ;
cf. Phil. iv. 8) and sincerity (Phil. i. 17 ; cf. Jas. iii. 17), particularly when
used with respect to the sexes (2 Cor. xi. 2, vi. 6 ; cf. 1 Pet. iii. 2). It is
usually different in Peter (§ 46, 6) and James (§ 55, 6).
15 This consecration to God on the part of those who belong to Him is con
ceived of as so real that the unbelieving husband becomes xyios through his
fellowship with the believing wife, and the unbaptized child through its fellow.
ship with its Christian parents (vii. 14). According to the principle that that
which is holy sanctifies everything which belongs to it (Matt, xxiii. 17, 19 ;
Rom. xi. 16), this consecration to God extends even to everything which
belongs to Christians as Christians ; hence the Christian kiss of love (1 Pet.
v. 14) is represented as a iplxypox xym (1 Cor. xvi. 20 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 12 ; Rom.
xvi. 16 ; cf. 1 Thess. v. 26).
16 Similarly the earliest tradition already made Jesus be anointed or conse
crated to be the Messiah by the communication of the Spirit in baptism (§ 18, a,
38, b; cf. 2 Cor. i. 21, for which see § 77, a), and Peter made the holiness of
the members of the completed theocracy he brought about by the consecration
of the Spirit in baptism (§ 44, 6), although the Spirit was not yet regarded as
the principle of the new life. According to Paul, on the other hand, the Spirit,
which leads Christians to become like to their Father (Rom. viii. 14 ; cf. § 83, d),
is already given with the state of belonging to God which is constituted in
adoption (§ 83, a).

§ 84. BAPTISM. '465
truly belong to God, is in principle worked in them, inasmuch
as it bestows its own dyiorg^ upon those who possess it. The
irpoafopd evirpoaBeKTO*;, which is offered up to God in the
Gentile churches, is gyiaapievg iv irvevpiaTi dyia> (Eom.
xv. 16; cf. 1 Cor. vi. 11: gyidaOgTe . . . iv Ttvevpam Qeov,
for which see Eitschl, ii. p. 3 3 1 f. ; 2 Thess. ii. 13: dyiaap,w
irvevpiaTos) ; Christians are d"C,vp.oi, i.e. purged of aE the leaven
of their sinful nature (1 Cor. v. 7). Only in consequence of
the Spirit, which works this consecration to God, being con
ceived of by Paul as the positive principle of the new life
(note a), the idea of holiness receives in him the positive
import of a moral perfection, such as belongs to this new
life.17 Inasmuch, now, as the setting up of true consecration
to God or holiness is already in the Old Testament the
highest end, which the wiE of God revealed in the law aims
at (Lev. xi 44), dyiaap,6<; forms the antithesis of dvop.ia
(Eom. vi. 19); in it there is realized the normal condition of
man, Biicaioavvg, which is in keeping with the will of God.
He who has died unto sin in baptism is freed from the dominion
of sin, and therewith made a bond-servant to righteousness or
to God Himself (vv. 18, 22), an expression which Paul, indeed,
expressly excuses in ver. 19, inasmuch as this servitude, in
which man can only reaEze the will of God, is true freedom ;
he has been made really righteous, seeing that, in his dying
with Christ, his ego has been set free from the sin that
enslaved it, and so hindered it from attaining to actual
Biicaioavvg (ver. 7: d diroBavmv BeBiKaiwTai diro tt?? dp,apTtas).
For them that are in Christ there is therefore now no (note
the emphatic position of the oiBev) condemnation (viii. 1),
because they are not only justified in faith, but have also, in
the feEowship of life with Christ, been made free from the
17 Since the communication of the Spirit brings about the fellowship of life with
Christ (note 6), sanctification can also be traced back to the latter. Christians
form a Church which belongs to God (ixxXwlx eiov), inasmuch as they are
hyixo-px'ivoi it XpmZ 'Itio-ov (1 Cor. i. 2 ; cf. Phil. i. 1) ; Christ Himself (like the
Holy Ghost) can be represented as the author of their xyixo-pbs (1 Cor. i. 30).
And since the grounding of the fellowship of life with Christ, as well as the
communication of the Spirit, which has brought it about, has taken place in
baptism, the xyixo-pos of Christians dates also from it (1 Thess. iv. 7; cf. § 61, c),
¦just as in 1 Cor. vi. 11 the iyixo-hn is immediately connected with the
uTiXoio-xo-k which is accomplished in baptism (note a).
VOL. L 2 G

466 THE NEW LIFE.
sin whose dominion would ever anew bring upon them a
condemnation of God. The real aim of the dispensation of
grace which is found in Christianity was to work out the
righteousness of man; God, however, works it out in two
ways, by justification, viz., and the new creation, and there
fore also by two different modes. It is of decisive importance
for the comprehension of the Pauline system not to mix up
those two divine saving deeds (cf. § 83, d), and therefore also
these two results of them (cf. Eitschl, ii. p. 368).18 For both,
however, faith is the condition. So certainly as every one
that believes and is justified on the ground of his faith
allows himself to be baptized, so certainly does he experience
also the baptism of the Spirit, which puts him in principle
into the state of holiness, and therewith into that of actual
righteousness. But whereas justification is an individual,
completed act, sanctification, from the nature of the case, can
only take place by a commencement being made in principle
of a new life, a commencement which is both capable of
development and requires it. The manner in which Paul
puts the Lord's Supper alongside of baptism, in which that
commencement is made, already points to the necessity of
such a development, which requires a continual support in
keeping with its divinely made commencement.
18 As justification does not presuppose holiness, which is nothing else than
lixxioo-ivn really restored, so neither is the latter the necessary consequence of
the former, a consequence which would in some manner or other spontaneously
develope itself from it in *¦ psychological way (cf. note a, footnote 2). If in
1 Cor. i. 30 xymo-pobs Mlows ^ixxioo-ivn, by which we are certainly not, with
Ritschl (ii. p. 285), to understand active righteousness, hyixo-fan stands before
iSixxiihri in vi. 11 (cf. Eph. ii. 15, 16). And although this diversity is con
ditioned both times by the context, yet it could not be found if these two
gracious deeds of God stood in a causal nexus. Accordingly, xyixo-pobs is by no
means omitted after "iixx'mo-is in Rom. viii. 30 ; for the former does not follow
from or after the latter, but takes place at the same time with it. Pfleiderer
(p. 210 f. [E. Tr. i. 211 f.]) shows in an excellent manner that the ideal
righteousness which is of faith, and the real righteousness which is brought
about by the Tviipox must be strictly distinguished from one another, and that
they necessarily mutually demand each other ; only he should not have found a
wavering between the two ideas in Rom. vi. , for there it is only active righteous
ness that is spoken of (ef. Ritschl, ii. p. 283).

§ 85. THE LORD'S SUPPER. 467
§ 85. The Lord's Supper.
If the ground of the new life of the Christian is laid in
baptism, the Lord's Supper serves to its further nourishment.
(6) From Paul we have the earliest tradition regarding the in
stitution of the supper ; for his statements regarding its signi
ficance he appeals to a revelation received from Christ, (c) By
our partaking of His body which was slain for us, and of His
blood which was shed for us, the Lord's Supper strengthens
the Eving feEowship with the Christ who died for us, the ground
of which is laid in baptism, (d) Even those who partake un
worthily receive the body and blood of the Lord, but they make
themselves guilty of these, for which they are punished.
(a) In 1 Cor. x. 1-4 Paul gives us an undoubted right to
put together baptism and the Lord's Supper as the means of
grace, which serve to the grounding and nourishment of the
higher life in the Christian. He there represents Israel's
experiences of grace in the wilderness as types of the
experiences of grace, which Christians have had (§ 73, c),
and, indeed, expressly describes the passage through the Eed
Sea as a baptism (vv. 1, 2, for which see § 84, a, footnote 1).
As that baptism in principle brought about the deliverance of
Israel, so Christian baptism is to be looked upon antitypically
as the fundamental experience of grace, which Christians
have had. When, now, the manna and the water that issued
from the rock are regarded as a spiritual food and a spiritual
drink (vv. 3, 4), it is clear that they are regarded as types of
the Lord's Supper, and that, as these gifts supported redeemed
Israel during its journey through the wilderness, so it is to be
regarded as the Church's means of spiritual nourishment.1 It
1 From this we also perceive why the doctrine of the supper can be introduced
at this place into the representation of the Pauline system of doctrine. When
it is treated of in the doctrine of the Church (cf. e.g. v. Oosterzee, § 41 ;
Pfleiderer, p. 236 ff. [E. Tr. i. 238 ff.]; Immer, p. 329), it is presupposed that
the sacraments have a constitutive significance for the nature of the Church, for
which assumption there is but little support to be found in Paul (cf. § 92, a,
footnote 3). Moreover, Paul has certainly not transferred to the supper a,
traditional notion of Jewish theology regarding the manna and the water from
the rock (Ruckert, p. 215 f.), but, as is undoubtedly the case when he looks
upon the passage through the Red Sea as a baptism, has worked out the typical
view of these experiences of salvation on the part of Israel in conformity with
his idea of the nature and meaning of the supper.

468 THE NEW LIFE.
is altogether impossible that the irvevp,anicbv can merely
denote that bread, drink, and rock are to be taken alle-
gorically (Baur, p. 201), for that pneumatic rock was Christ
(cf. § 79, c), and not only according to the interpretation of
the apostle ; but it can hardly represent that nourishment as
supersensuous (Eiickert, p. 213), or as brought forth by a
supernatural operation of God (v. Hofmann in loco). It was
a nourishment for the body ; but because, as manna, it came
from heaven, or, as water from the rock, was furnished by
Christ, it derived a spiritual nature from this its origin, and
therefore had also a spiritual effect, inasmuch as it strengthened
the faith of the Israelites (cf. also E. Schmidt, p. 147). For
his conception of the supper, however, we can primarily con
clude from this only in general, that Paul here also ascribed a
pneumatic effect to the physical eating and drinking.
(6) The Lord's Supper is a icvpiaicbv Belirvov, a meal
originating with the Lord, instituted by Him (1 Cor. xi. 20),
at which He Himself is the host, for His cup and His table
are spoken of in x. 21 (cf. xi. 27). When Paul appeals in
xi. 23 to a communication which had been made to him
personaEy (note the emphatic position of the iyco) by the
Lord, this cannot refer to the tradition regarding the institu
tion of the supper, which had been delivered by the original
apostles to all in the same manner ; it can only refer to the
intimations given in what follows as to the design of this
institution, and the consequent demands that are made upon
those who celebrate it, especially as these demands alone form
the real moment that gives ground (yap) for his censure
(ver. 22). He has the history of the institution of the supper
directly or indirectly out of the tradition of the original
apostles (§ 78, a). That being the case, we have here at
least the earliest form of this tradition, a circumstance which
Eiickert (p. 209), Immer (p. 329), and others overlook; for
even the tradition contained in Mark's Gospel (xiv. 22—24)
is only a report at second hand, and one that is much later.2
2 Besides, the most important deviation in Mark xiv. 24 is so plainly owing
to conformation with the words used at the giving of the bread (ver. 22), and
with the words employed when the Old Testament covenant was concluded, to
which they allude (Ex. xxiv. 8), that the greater brevity and clearness cannot
decide in its favour.

§ 85. THE LORD'S SUPPER. 469
This does not make it impossible that Paul, to whom not the
exact language, but only the essential import of the words of
institution was important, by way of explanation represented
the body as the body which was given (in its death) for our
salvation (1 Cor. xi. 24 : to virep vpttov), and the covenant
which was established by means of the blood as the new
covenant (ver. 25). He has likewise added the express
demand to repeat the breaking of bread and the consecration
of the cup with the accompaniment of the words of explanation
spoken by Christ (vv. 24, 25), a demand which those who
first partook of the supper did not think of and did not
require (§ 31, b), deriving it from the intimation given him
by the Lord regarding the design and meaning of this institu
tion. Paul also lays a particular stress upon the symbolical
act of the breaking of the bread (cf. xi. 24), and upon the
blessing of the cup (x. 1 6), without there being implied in the
latter a consecratio transcending the original institution, as
Eiickert thinks (p. 220), since the evXoyia is certainly to be
thought of as consisting in the prayer of thanksgiving (xi. 2 5 :
waavrco<; ical to iroTgpiov scil. eXaBev evyapiaTgaa*;, after
vv. 23, 24), which in the Church probably referred to the
reconciliation which was accomplished by means of the blood
of Christ.3 (c) The essential significance of the Lord's Supper is, that
it brings into a real fellowship with Christ, and therefore
supports and strengthens (although from a peculiar side) the
fellowship which is established in baptism, and which is the
"round of the new life. Since the mention made of the
Lord's Supper (1 Cor. x. 16, 17) is meant to show that
the sacrificial meal of the heathen brings into a real
(naturally polluting) fellowship with the demons (ver. 20,
for which see § 70, c), just as the Jewish sacrificial meal
3 As it by no means follows from the symbolism which lies in the action
that it is only as symbols that bread and wine have a meaning, since that
action itself expressly serves to the comprehension of that which is partaken of
in the supper, so neither does it follow from the xvipwo-is, which is aimed at by
the repetition of the words of explanation, that the whole design of the celebra
tion lies in it, for, according to ver. 26, that xvipono-is is attained by the pro
clamation of the death of Jesus, which is continually repeated in the recitation
of the words of institution, and only then follows the partaking of the supper,
which has, according to note a, a pneumatic effect.

470 THE NEW LIFE.
brings into a real (naturaEy blessed) fellowship with the
altar, the place of divine blessing (ver. 18, for which see
§ 71, c), Paul can only have thought of the pneumatic effect
of the Lord's Supper (note a) as a union with Christ which is
equally real.4 In conformity, however, with the meaning
which Christ Himself had given to the bread and the wine in
the supper, to him the real fellowship with Christ, which the
supper specifically brings about, is owing to the participation
(icoivasvla) in His body and in His blood, which is produced,
according to ver. 16, by the broken bread and the consecrated
cup.5 By this body we cannot, indeed, think of the glorified
body of Christ (Eiickert, p. 226), for the symbolism of
breaking, as well as the explanation, to virep vpicov, which is
expressly added in xi. 24, points undoubtedly to the body of
Christ that was put to death for us (Eom. vii. 4). Similarly,
the blood of Christ can neither be merely an expression for
the reconciliation which it provided (Eeuss, ii. p. 192 [E. Tr.
n. 174], and probably also Pfleiderer, p. 238 [E. Tr.
i 240 f.]), and in which the believer participates directly
in faith (Eom. iii. 25), nor His glorified blood (Eiickert,
p. 224; Gess. p. 112 f.), which would be to the apostle a
* According to the idea which is peculiar to him, such a union had been
brought about through the communication of the Spirit (as a new principle of
life) in baptism (§ 84, 6), and therefore he could also have conceived of the
Lord's Supper as a continual drinking of this Spirit (cf. 1 Thess. iv. 8, for
which see § 62, d). But this idea is not at all in keeping with the symbolism
of the supper as set forth also by him (note 6), and leaves the one half of it,
which is very specially set forth in 1 Cor. x. 17, xi. 29, altogether out of
account, so that the explanation of xii. 13 (cf. § 84, a) as referring to the supper
cannot be carried out.
5 The participation in His body cannot possibly merely denote that they
belong to the Church (cf. Baur, p. 201 ; Reuss, ii. p. 192 [E. Tr. ii. 174]), for
ver. 17, which establishes the previous statement, expressly adduces the union
of the many into an organic unity, which is brought about by the one bread, as
an evidence that the broken bread is not common bread, the partaking of which
in common by no means produces such a unity, but is such a bread as brings
about participation in a third person, who can become a bond of such >• unitv
(cf. Gess, p. 110 f.). If now, according to Rom. xii. 4, this third person is
Christ Himself, then here it is the body of Christ that is received in the supper.
For I cannot perceive how the fellowship of Christians with one another, which
is manifested in their fellowship at table, should prove that the eating of the
sacramental bread is an act of uniting with Christ (Pfleiderer, p. 238 [E. Tr.
i. 241]), for this fellowship at table is as such by no means necessarily of a
religious nature, and can by no means "have its real ground only in Christ."

§ 85. THE LORD'S SUPPER. 471
contradictio in adjecto (1 Cor. xv. 50) ; it can only be the
blood that was shed in the violent death which Christ
suffered for us (cf. § 80, c, footnote 9), and to which it is
owing, according to xi. 25, that the sacramental cup is a
symbol of the new covenant, inasmuch as this covenant of
grace and forgiveness was rendered possible by the blood of
Christ (contained in the cup). As to the manner in which
Christ can make us partake of His body that was given up to
death for us, and of His blood that was then shed, Paul has
certainly not speculated ; he confined himself to the words of
institution, and, although to him the bread was a symbol of
the body, and the (red) wine a symbol of the blood, yet he
found in these words the certification that that which they
symbolized is reaEy supplied in the supper as spiritual food
(note a). How he could conceive, however, that the fellow
ship with Christ was brought about by partaking of the
supper, appears from this, that this fellowship wa3 to him
essentially a fellowship with the Christ who had been put to
death (§ 84, c). If, now, it is because of the saving signifi
cance of the death of Christ (cf. the to virep vp,cov of xi. 24)
that this fellowship comes into consideration in the supper,
it is once more evident that the fellowship which was already
grounded in baptism cannot refer to this significance of it,
and that the matter in question here is rather as to an
establishing of fellowship with Christ from a new side, which
can only have in view a nourishing and strengthening of faith
in Him as the Mediator of salvation.
(d) In Corinth abuses had crept in in connection with the
celebration of the love feasts, with which they were wont to
connect the celebration of the breaking of bread instituted by
the Lord (§ 41, h). The rich separated themselves from the
poor and revelled in the abundance they had brought with
them (1 Cor. xi. 21, 22); the desecration of the meal, which
thus became a profane feast, made a real celebration of the
Lord's Supper impossible (ver. 20). If one partook of the
bread or6 the cup of the Lord in this mood, one did so
unworthily, and became guilty (evoxos) of the body and blood
c The « has no difficulty whatever, for Paul will set forth that it is an
unworthy partaking, whether one has in view the partaking of the bread or the
cup. Moreover, that the separate mention made of the blood was only owing to

472 THE NEW LIFE.
of the Lord which were thereby profaned (ver. 2 7), i.e., became,
as it were, bound to render satisfaction to them. Even the
unworthy partaker has therefore partaken of the body and
blood of the Lord ; but he has sinned against them, because
he has not discriminated the body in which he has participated
through the supper, i.e., has not appreciated it in its significance
as bringing a blessing (ver. 29). No doubt one could sin
against sacred symbols, without that being present to which
they point (cf. Pfleiderer, p. 239 [E. Tr. i 242]); but if that
were meant here, it would have to be said that the unworthy
partaker has sinned against the bread, inasmuch as he has not
discriminated it, i.e., appreciated it in its symbolical meaning.
By this sin man brings upon himself a judgment of God
(ver. 29 : Kpipta eavTco iadiei ical irivei), which can naturally
be thought of only as penal (cf. ver. 34), just as Paul saw
in the numerous cases of sickness and death, which had at
that time befallen the Church, a divine punishment of that
profanation of the sacred meal (ver. 30). Accordingly, he
demands earnest self-examination before partaking of the
supper (ver. 28), in order that they should become, not worse
by the misuse of this means of grace, but better by the right
use of it (et? to icpeiaaov, ovk et? to gaaov ; cf. ver. 1 7), by
being strengthened and furthered by it in their faith in the
atoning efficacy of the death of Christ (note c). How this is
required for a healthy development of the Christian life, we
shall have to show forthwith in what follows.
§ 86. The Process of the Development of the New Life.
The more the Spirit that is bestowed in baptism becomes the
determining rule of the whole of the Christian Efe, so much the
more the antagonistic power of the flesh and of sin is broken,
and righteousness and holiness are realized in man. (h) Thus
there originates in him a new spiritual life, which Paul does
not regard merely as a remodeEing of the natural life, and
which must always remain under the influence of the Spirit
bestowed upon us. (c) The feEowship of life with Christ
this symbolism, and not an indication that there was a second gift in addition
to that of the body which was slain for us, appears clearly from the circumstance
that in x. 17, xi. 29 mention is made of the latter alone.

I 86. THE PROCESS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW LIFE. 473
which is grounded in baptism must now likewise realize itself
more and more completely, and in particular it must show
itself in participation in the sufferings of Christ, (d) Although
the Christian is and remains responsible for the normal course
of this process, yet it is from first to last a work of divine
grace, which, of course, throughout presupposes faith.
(a) If the divine Spirit bestowed in baptism has become
the impelling power of a new life (which it was appointed to
be, according to § 84, a), the Christian becomes a irvevp,aTiKw,
one who is determined by the Spirit in his whole being and
character (1 Cor. ii. 15, iii 1), one who does, what he does,
iv irvevpaTi (Gal. vi. 1), because he moves throughout only
in the vital element of this vrvevpia ; this iv irvevpiaTi dyia
characterizes his speaking and confessing (1 Cor. xii 3), his
praying and his joy (Eom. viii. 15, xiv. 17). His whole walk
is determined by the rule of the irvevfia, which leads him to
strive only after that which is of the Spirit (viii 4, 5) ; fervent
in the Spirit, he suffers himself to be led by it to the fulfilling
of every duty (xii. 11). But although the walking according
to the rule of the Spirit (2 Cor. xii. 1 8 : irvevptaTi irepiiraTeiv)
is something altogether self-evident, seeing that it is possessed
of an impeEing divine energy, yet we must always be stirred
up afresh to such a walk (Gal. v. 1 6, 2 5). For although from
the ideal standpoint every believer has died with Christ, and
the adp!;, i.e., the whole natural being in him along with the
sin, which dwells therein, is mortified (§ 84, c), yet it is mani
fest in the concrete reality of the Christian Efe that it is still
alive. Looked at from the empirical standpoint, the annihila
tion in principle of its dominion by no means prevents it from
continuaEy endeavouring to regain it, and the Christian life,
accordingly, appears to be a continual conflict between these
two principles, each of which seeks to hinder the Christian
from obeying the other (ver. 1 7).1 According as the Christian
1 Here we have by no means simply a theoretical proposition regarding the
antithesis of these two principles (R. Schmidt, p. 31), but, seeing that the
exhortation to a, Christian Church is supported by it, a statement regarding
the concrete condition of the Christian life, which is nevertheless a condition
totally different from that of the natural life. For whereas in the latter the
o-ipl has an uncontested and unconquerable dominion in man, there is now in
the Christian a new principle of life, in virtue of which he can overcome the o-ipl
(cf. Pfleiderer, p. 225 [E. Tr. i. 226]). Here, however, we only see once more,

474 THE NEW LIFE.
surrenders himself to the determining influence of the one or
the other, he will Ta tjj? aapicw j>povelv, KaTa adpica irepi
iraTeiv or KaTa irvevfia (Eom. viii. 4, 5), wiE fulfil the lusts
of the flesh (Gal. v. 16), and therefore sow unto the flesh or
unto the Spirit (vi. 8). If he still walks after the manner of
the natural man, he is still aapiciicw (1 Cor. iii. 3).2 The
apostle must therefore continually remind us that we owe no
thanks to the flesh, and are therefore under no obligation to
KaTa adpica %gv (Eom. viii. 12); but it is evident from the
parallelism, that the negation of the KaTa adpKa £gv is identical
with our surrendering ourselves to the activity of the Spirit,
which overcomes the dominion of sin in us (ver. 1 3 : irvevpiaTi
Ta? irpd^eii tov awp,aTo<; BavaTovv). Sin, it is true, with its
dominion is accordingly thrust back mainly upon the outer
sphere of the sensuous corporeity, but for that very reason
Christians must still be admonished not to let sin reign in
their body, so that they should obey the lusts of the body
(Eom. vi. 12), — not to put their members at the disposal of
sin (ver. 13). In those, however, who walk after the Spirit
and not after the flesh, the requirement of the law is, in fact,
realized (Eom. viii. 4), and therewith the quality of the Efe
which is well-pleasing to God is, in fact, restored (BiKaioavvg :
viii. 10 ; cf. 2 Cor. vi. 14, ix. 10 ; Eph. iv. 24, v. 9 ; Phil i 11).
Their members enter into the service of righteousness (as
weapons of righteousness in the service of God : vi. 1 3), so
that sanctification is now brought about in them (ver. 19 :
et? dyiaaptov), to the furthering of which every fruit of their
servitude to God (§ 84, d) must minister (ver. 22). From the
that the ci.pl was by no means destroyed once and for ever (Baur, p. 161) and
robbed of all its power over believers in the death of Christ (cf. § 81, a).
2 In 1 Cor. iii. 1 the apostle represents even the t«V;o< It Xpio-rZ, who never
theless still have the Spirit, because without it they could not be It Xpio-rZ
(§ 84, 6), as still cipxivoi (or -^vxixol, ii. 14), just as he represents the man who
is altogether natural in Rom. vii. 14, because the old nature still forms, as it
were, their whole being, and the Spirit has as yet but an insignificant, vanishing
activity in them. But even where the Spirit has gradually obtained a greater
dominion, relapses may still take place. That which is begun in the Spirit may
be perfected in the flesh (Gal. iii. 3), the natural and necessary Tplvoia tJs trxpxbs
may be such that the lusts of the flesh are thereby restored to sovereignty (Rom.
xiii. 13 f.) ; Christian freedom, if it is misused, may give occasion to the flesh to
regain dominion (Gal. v. 13). Because of this weakness of the flesh (Rom.
vi. 19), the apostle represents this very dominion as the real servitude (ver. 18 ;
cf. § 84, d).

§ -86. THE PROCESS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW LIFE. 475
fact that the process of sanctification is furthered by the
practice of righteousness in subjection to God (cf. Eitschl, ii.
p. 284), it is evident that in the putting to death of the
machinations of the body (viii. 13) the point in question is
not as to a negative asceticism, which consists in the morti
fication of its natural needs and functions (cf. against Holsten,
p. 443, the exceEent statements by Biedermann, p. 280 ;
Pfleiderer, p. 215 [E. Tr. i 217]; Eitschl, p. 286), but as
to the cleansing from every sinful defilement,3 in which the
dyicoavvg (cf. § 78, d) is made perfect (2 Cor. vii. 1), as to a
walking in godlike holiness (iv dyioTgTi Qeov) and sincerity
(i 12). Paul sees the sanctification of the body in a positive
surrender to the service of God (1 Cor. vii. 34), whereby the
body becomes a sacrifice weE-pleasing to Him (Eom. xE 1),
so that the completion of sanctification leads to the restoration
of the condition of being perfectly well -pleasing to Him
(BiKaioavvg ; cf. § 84, d).
(b) Since the vou? (or eaco avdpanro?) is already in the
natural man a godlike element (§ 86, c, d), it is natural so to
conceive of the Christian process of renewal, whereby the Kaivg
/cTt'o-t?, which is in principle constituted in baptism (§ 84, d),
is being more and more completely realized, as that the vow
is restored by the divine energy of the irvevpia to its true
(pneumatic and therefore energetic) nature (Eom. xii. 2 ; 2 Cor.
iv. 16 ; cf. Eph. iv. 23 ; Col. iii. 10), is strengthened to resist
the adp% (Eph. iii. 16), and so the new spiritual life is begotten
in us, which Paul represents as to irvevfia g/Atov.* But in
many passages, at least, the vow (like the adp!;, according
3 Although Christians have in principle become x^vpooi (§ 84, d), yet the old
leaven of the sinful nature must be continually purged out (1 Cor. v. 7), nay, it
is only because they are the former that they can do the latter. Not until the
power of sin is in principle broken can the principle of freedom from sin be
progressively realized in them (Rom. vi. 13, 14).
* Even according to this view these passages should by no means be used,
with R. Schmidt (p. 32-34) and Wendt (p. 120 ff), to prove that Paul takes
Tvivpox in the common anthropological sense. In such passages as 1 Cor.
xvi. 18, 2 Cor. vii. 13, nay, even in 2 Cor. ii. 13, the apostle is by no means
speaking of conditions and moods of the natural life of the spirit, but of such
as belong to the persons in question simply within the province of their Chris
tian life as such (cf. also Gal. vi. 18 ; Phil. iv. 23 ; Philem. 25). That this is
specially the case in 1 Cor. v. 4 and Rom. i. 9, one may assert without thinking
of "a snecial spirit belonging to his office." On the other hand, in such
passao-es as 2 Cor. xii. 18 and Rom. xii. 11, or in the Tt-vptx Tpxirnros of 1 Cor.

476 THE NEW LIFE.
to note a) is also conceived of as continuing to exist in the
Christian as the sphere of purely human judgments and
opinions (1 Cor. i 10; Eom. xiv. 5 ; cf. 2 Thess. ii. 2), in
contrast with the knowledge and certainty in matters relat
ing to salvation which are brought about by the Spirit, or as
the sphere of the intelligently reflecting consciousness in con
trast with the higher inspiration or the immediate religious
experience which are brought about by the Spirit (1 Cor.
xiv. 14-16, 19; cf. ver. 2 ; Phil iv. 7). Nor is there per se
any difficulty in thinking of the spiritual life of the Christian,
which is begotten by the objective Spirit of God, and which is
unique both as to its import and its functions, as an essentially
new one, alongside of which the natural spiritual life, purified
and strengthened by the Spirit, discharges its functions, which rj
are in many respects full of value even for the religious life.5'
As the vow with its vogptaTa can be corrupted again (1 Cor.
xi. 3 ; cf. Phil iv. 7), and must therefore be continually
brought afresh into captivity to the obedience of Christ (x. 5),
so long as during the empirical course of the Christian life
sin is ever reasserting its influence, so the new pneumatic life
can also be stained again by sin, and consequently be exposed
to corruption. There is, accordingly, no difficulty whatever
in speaking of a sanctifying, a cleansing and preserving of it
(1 Cor. vii. 34; 2 Cor. vii. 1 ; cf. 1 Thess. v. 23), and in
representing its salvation under certain circumstances as still
problematical (1 Cor. v. 5). But from this it is evident that
iv. 21 and Gal. vi. 1, it is the objective Spirit of God that is spoken of (cf. §
68, c, footnote 11).
5 Inasmuch as the o-vviiStio-is, which is throughout active as such in the Chris
tian (1 Cor. viii. 7, 10, 12, x. 25-29 ; 2 Cor. i. 12, iv. 2, v. 11 ; Rom. xiii. 5),
also appertains to the natural life of the spirit (Rom. ii. 15), it follows that that
natural spiritual life is continued in the Christian, only the conscience now likewise
performs its functions in the element of life furnished by the mivftx (Rom. ix. 1).
In Rom. xii. 2 also the special function of the vovs is thought of, according to which
it distinguishes good and evil, and is therefore the original subject of the moral
consciousness (cf. § 68, c) ; and since it is as such corrupted by sin in the natural
man (Rom. i. 28), it must be renewed in the Christian, in order that he may
always find the right form for the transformation of his walk which is well-
pleasing to God. In 2 Cor. iv. 16, however, it is not the natural man, but the
inner life in general of the Christian that is thought of ; because of the elements
of the old nature that are ever reintroducing themselves, it must be renewed
day by day, i.e., it must be restored to the nature which was given it in prin
ciple in baptism (cf. § 68, d, footnote 11).

§ 86. THE PROCESS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW LIFE. 477
the objective Holy Spirit bestowed upon the Christian by no
means passes over into this subjective new life of the spirit ;
even after it has brought forth a new spiritual life in the
Christian, it rather continues to carry on its sanctifying influ
ence as a divine energy, which is distinguished in full objec
tivity from that spiritual life, and is operative in it (§ 84, a).
And although, in accordance with the parallel passage (Eom.
viii. 1 5), we could take the crying of the Spirit in us (Gal.
iv. 6) to be that which is brought about in us by the Spirit,
or which proceeds from us iv irvevp-aTi (cf. note a), yet Paul
expressly distinguishes (Eom. viE 16) between our spirit, i.e.]
the new spiritual life which is brought about by the irvevp,a
vioQealas, to which this childlike trust specifically belongs,
and the Spirit itself, which leads us, according to ver. 14, and
thereby also gives us from another side the assurance of our
divine sonship (§ 83, d, 84, a). He likewise distinguishes
(vv. 26, 27) between us, who do not know what we ought
to pray for under the given circumstances, and the Spirit, that
comes to the assistance of our weakness and intercedes for us
with its unutterable groaning, which God nevertheless under
stands, because it intercedes for the saints according to His
wiE (cf. Eph. iv. 30).G
(c) If through the communication of the Spirit in baptism
the Christian has been put into a fellowship of life with Christ

6 As soon as, with R. Schmidt (p. 35), we take the to Tvivpox iptZv of Rom.
viii. 16 to be the inner life of man in general, in contrast with the Tviipox vioho-'ms,
there results a direct contradiction with the Pauline doctrine of the vloho-lx, if
the former already in itself bears witness to us of our divine sonship. In
ver. 26, however, it is evident a longing is spoken of, which is brought about
by the objective Spirit of God, a longing of which we ourselves are not clearly
conscious, and which, therefore, does not enter into our subjective spiritual life,
but is conceived of as a groaning of that Spirit of God itself in us. Pfleiderer
(p. 214 [E. Tr. i. 215]) declares this distinction to be a scholastic abstraction ;
he himself, nevertheless, allows that, in the process of the continually progres
sive union of the divine and human spirits, both substances are still different in
a certain respect, and are related to one another as the active and giving to the
passive and receptive. This is exactly what is meant with that distinction,
wherein Paul has only given the most precise expression to the truth that the
whole of the new life in us is continually and exclusively an effect of divine
grace, a truth which is not adequately stated, when Biedermann (p. 278) says :
what is now in the ego (viz., after it has become real spirit by the operation of
God's Spirit) is, when looked at as to its ground, God's Spirit ; when looked at
as to its subjective reality, its own spirit.

478 THE NEW LIFE.
(§ 84, h), the new life, which is therewith constituted in prin
ciple, can be realized only by that living feEowship being
now also continually and completely realized in the further
life of man. Although the believer has put on Christ in
baptism (Gal. iii. 27), he must nevertheless be ever exhorted
anew to put on Christ (Eom. xiii 14). He is still a vgirios
iv XpiaTcp (1 Cor. iii. 1), and he can become a full-grown
man in Christ (cf. Col. i 28) only by gradually learning to
perform all the functions of his life in Christ, by all his ways
becoming dSot iv XpiaTcp (1 Cor. iv. 17).7 This living fellow
ship with Christ, however, shows itself in its progressive
realization, not only by the overcoming of the whole of one's
old life, but also by this, that, as the believer has died and risen
again with Christ (§ 84, c), so he now also suffers with Him
(Eom. viii. 17). In the constant danger of death, which Paul
represents in 1 Cor. xv. 31 as a continual dying, he is ever
bearing about in his body the dying of Jesus (veKpcoaii : 2 Cor.
iv. 10), which is expressly represented in ver. 11 as a con
tinual et? QdvaTov trapaBiBoaOai Bid 'Igaovv. The sufferings
which befeE Christ must also be shared in by him in an
abundant measure (2 Cor. i 5 ; cf. Phil. iii. 10 ; Col. i 24);
and in the scars, which he bears as the consequence of the
maltreatment he had received, the apostle sees the marks
(aTiyptaTa) that show that he belongs to Christ (Gal. vi. 17).8
7 When that is the case they ground their conviction (Rom. xiv. 14) and con
fidence (Gal. v. 10) on the fellowship of life with Christ, speak in Christ (2 Cor.
ii. 17, xii. 19 ; Rom. ix. 1), labour in Him (Rom. xvi. 12 ; cf. 1 Cor. iv. 15 .
iyivvTjo-x vpoxs iv Xpto-Tw ; 1 Cor. ix. 1, 2 : to 'ipyoy poou irrri iv xvpiai), love One
another (Rom. xvi. 8 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 24), receive one another (Rom. xvi. 2), greet
one another (Rom. xvi. 22 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 19), marry one another (1 Cor. vii. 39),
and at last fall asleep in Christ (1 Cor. xv. 18). For this reason also the charac
ter of Christ as an example, upon which such stress is laid in the preaching of
the original apostles, is kept so much in the background in Paul (§ 78, b) ; that
which was striven after there by the imitating of His example is attained in a
fuller and deeper sense by the realizing of this fellowship of life with Him. In
2 Cor. iii. 18 the place of His example is taken even by the image of the exalted
Christ in the perfected glory of His Spirit, in the beholding of which the believer
is transformed into the same image, because this exalted Lord is the Lord of the
Spirit, and bestows it upon him, in order by means of it to produce in him mean
while a pneumatic likeness, till He can make this likeness complete even to His
pneumatic bodily form.
8 In the turn given to it here this view has the most affinity with the parti
cipation in the sufferings of Christ, which Peter demands (§ 46, d) ; but even
here it is evident that what appears there rather as a following of His example,

§ 86. THE PROCESS OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW LIFE. 479
As in § 62 h, the specific characteristic of such suffering as
appertains to fellowship with Christ is the patience (2 Cor.
vi. 4, xii. 12 ; Eom. viii. 25 : viropiovg) with which it is borne
(xii. 12). In the beEever tribulation worketh patience (v. 3),
which for its part works the probation of the Christian (ver. 4).
Here, accordingly, it is not that the Christian should become
patient, but in the fellowship of life with Christ patience is
being continually worked in him. It is the God, from whom
all patience and comfort come (Eom. xv. 5 ; cf. 2 Cor. i. 4,
vii. 6), and that too through Christ (i 5), who works patience
(cf. Col. i. 11) by means of the comfort which His word con
tained in the Holy Scriptures bestows (Eom. xv. 4), or
by means of the comfort which he enables the apostle to
bestow in consequence of the consolation he had himself
received (2 Cor. i 5, 6). Hence the apostle can stir up
Christians to rejoice even under all the afflictions of the pre
sent (2 Cor. iv. 17, vi. 4; Eom. viii. 18; cf. § 83, b). For
this, it is true, there is required a special strength (1 Cor.
xvi. 1 6 : dvBpi^eade, KpaTaiovade), but this God is able to give
(Eom. xvi. 2 5) ; for such a strengthening (aTgpi^eadai) is a
consequence of the imparting of every spiritual gift (i 11),
and this imparting he cannot lack who stands in the fellow
ship of Christ and His Spirit.
(d) In all the exhortations, which we have met in so many
forms in this paragraph, the apostle is labouring at the
edifying of the Christian man, as he represents the furthering
of the Christian life in the normal process of its development
with a figurative term, of the figurativeness of which he is
himself scarcely any longer conscious (2 Cor. xii. 19 :
o'lKoBopcg), and he binds Christians to assist one another in this
work (1 Cor. xiv. ; Eom. xiv. 19, xv. 2), seeing that they are,
or at least must be, able to exhort and admonish one another
is apprehended more deeply here as the necessary consequence of the self -mani
festation of the fellowship of life with Christ. Here there is also found another
kind of daily dying with Him. As Christ has become alive again through the
power of God (2 Cor. xiii. 4), so in the deliverances, which the apostle experiences
through the same power of God, the life of Christ becomes manifest in his body
(2 Cor. iv. 10, 11 ; cf. i. 9, 10, vi. 9). In the Epistles to the Thessalonians
Paul already lays great stress upon the necessity of suffering for the Christian
life, without its being already traced back there, as it is here, to its deepest
ground (§ 62, 6).

480 THE NEW LIFE.
(Gal. vi. 1 ; Eom. xv. 14).9 Such exhortation presupposes
throughout that that process is not accomplished, as it were,
by a necessity of nature, but demands a definite attitude of
man, to whose free will it is addressed. And yet it is only
the popular form of the exhortation, which does not in each
concrete individual case keep in view the more precise means,
whereby alone the desired result is to be reached, that makes
it seem as if man himself could do aught in order to attain to
it. If faith is the sole condition of the divine act of grace
which makes the beginning of the new life (§ 84, h), then it
alone can be also the condition of every furthering of that life.
Accordingly, the ultimate aim of every exhortation can only
be to strengthen faith, i.e., absolute trust in divine grace,
which can and will do everything itself in man ; its ultimate
aim can only be to lead man to give up his own working and
willing, and allow grace to work in him (cf. Phil, ii 12, 13),
because it is in this way alone that he becomes susceptible
to the operation of grace, which God or Christ is carrying on
by His Spirit in them, with whom He has entered into a
living fellowship through the communication of the Spirit.10
The apostle, accordingly, calls upon his readers to try them
selves whether they are in the faith, and whether in
consequence of it Christ is working in them (2 Cor. xiii. 5 ;
cf. § 84, o, footnote 9), in order that they may not be found
unapproved, or to stand fast in the faith (1 Cor. xvi. 13 ; cf.
9 It is needful to exhort them, now to perform that which the Christian life in
general demands, now to guard themselves against false security, in order that
they may not fall (1 Cor. x. 12), or to awake out of sleep, i.e. from all moral
lethargy (Rom. xiii. 11), and to remain watchful (1 Cor. xvi. 13 ; cf. Col. iv. 2,
and already § 62, 6), now, if they have fallen into sin, to let themselves be led
by real sorrow on account of it to repentance, which alone makes salvation
possible (2 Cor. vii. 10, xii. 21).
10 That which Christians are able to do in order to escape from the death into
which the walking after the flesh brings them, they accomplish only through
the Spirit, which has been given them (Rom. viii. 13), or through Christ
(viii. 37) in virtue of their fellowship of life with Him (cf. Phil. iv. 13), in which
alone they can glory in having accomplished anything whatever (1 Cor. xv. 31 ;
Rom. xv. 17). The reason why the Christian looks also for the completion of
salvation only on the ground of his faith, and not on the ground of any activity
whatever, is because he knows that in the fellowship of life with Christ the
faith is alone of importance, which is able to work in it, but also only through
it, everything (Gal. v. 5, 6 ; cf. § 82, b, footnote 4, § 84, 5, footnote 11) which
the law demands and which human activity would fain accomplish by itself.

§ 87. FREEDOM FROM THE LAW. 481
2 Cor. i. 24), and makes their definitive salvation dependent
upon their holding fast by the proclamation of the Gospel
which they received in faith (1 Cor. xv. 2), or upon their
continuing in the goodness of God, which they have laid hold
of in faith, threatening them otherwise with being cut off
from participation in salvation (Eom. xi. 20-22 ; cf. Col.
i 23). One has received the grace of God in vain (2 Cor.
vi. 1), has fallen away from it again, as soon as one seeks
salvation in another way than through faith (Gal. v. 5 ;
cf. ver. 2), which must therefore be continually strengthened
afresh in the Lord's Supper (§ 85, c). Throughout the whole
course of his Christian life, the Christian is directed to the
grace of God. That which applies to his work as an apostle
applies, essentially, to every activity of the Christian ; it is
not he that does what he does, but the grace of God does it in
operative helping fellowship with him (1 Cor. xv. 1 0 : g %«/3i?
tov Qeov avv ip,oi). Only in the power of diviue grace,
which makes him capable of it, can the Christian walk as he
ought to walk (2 Cor. i. 12).11
§ 87. Freedom from the Law.
In order to attain to the filial relationship, Christians have
been redeemed by Christ from the bondage of the law, in the
place of which the Spirit urges them from within to fulfil the
wiE of God, after they have died with Christ unto the law.
(b) The whole of the rule of life laid down by the Mosaic law
remains, it is true, as binding upon those who had been Jews,
as it is absolutely of no binding force upon the Gentiles ; but
11 Paul regards the liberality of the Churches as a grace of God (2 Cor. viii. 1,
ix. 14), which He has lent them (cf. viii. 5 : S/« hx^xros @iov), as a, fruit of
righteousness (ix. 10), which His grace causes to increase (ver. 8). For everything
which he finds praiseworthy in the condition of his churches, he gives God
thanks (1 Cor. i. 4 ; Rom. i. 8, vi. 17 ; cf. 2 Cor. viii. 16), and in his salutations
and prayers looks for everything, which he desires for their prosperous develop
ment, from Him (2 Cor. xiii. 7, 9 ; Rom. xv. 5, 13), as in the Epistles to the
Thessalonians (§ 62, c). Accordingly, God is called the God of patience and
hope (Rom. xv. 5, 13), of peace (xv. 33, xvi. 20 ; cf. 1 Thess. v. 23 ; Phil.
iv. 9) and love (2 Cor. xiii. 11). He refers them to Him with their prayer
(Rom. xii. 12 ; cf. 1 Thess. v. 17 ; Col. iv. 2 ; Eph. iii. 20, vi. 18 ; Phil. iv. 6),
which is only the expression of faith, which alone will and can receive that
which is wrought by divine grace.
VOL. I. 2 H

482 THE NEW LIFE.
it is fulfilled in Christian freedom, and under certain circum
stances must yield to higher duties, (c) The Spirit teaches
Christians what they have to do according to the wiE of
Christ; but Paul furthers the knowledge of that will by
pointing them to his own example and that of the maturer
Christians, as well as to the word and example of Christ, and
by his own precepts, (d) Above all, the revelation of God
contained in the Old Testament, and even in the Mosaic law,
as well as the experience of salvation they have had in Christ
with its binding character, remains regulative of the know
ledge of the divine will.
(a) According to § 72, c, the condition under the law was
in keeping with the immature childhood of humanity, during
which it had still to be kept in a state of servile dependence
(Gal. iv. 1—3). If, therefore, a real filial relationship was to
be brought about (§ 83, a), there must first be deliverance
from this bondage. Accordingly, this deliverance has already
taken place through the appearing of Christ. When the time
appointed by the Father (ver. 2) for the declaration of their
majority had come, God sent His Son, who, by voluntarily
subjecting Himself to the law, redeemed those who stood
under the law from this bondage, in order to make them
capable of receiving the adoption (vv. 4, 5).1 Thus Christ
has set us free from the law (v. 1) for the freedom unto
which we were called (ver. 13), for the old covenant pre-
1 Here too, therefore, there was required a substitution similar to that which
took place when they were redeemed from the curse of the law (§ 80, b), although
Paul no more reflects here than there upon the question, how Christ's obedience
to the law could have the effect of releasing us from it. He confines himself to
the fact of which he was certain d priori, that with the sonship brought
through Christ the bondage of the law has ceased, and that, if Christ, who as
the Son of God did not stand under the law (§ 79, b), was nevertheless made
subject to it during His earthly life (as a Jew), this could only have a vicarious
significance, in the same manner as the death as a sinner of Him who was
sinless. In this sense we can and must, according to the Pauline view, speak
of a vicarious fulfilling of the law (or obedientia activa) on the part of Christ,
which R. Schmidt (p. 78) in vain disputes ; but this fulfilment refers solely to
the validity of the Mosaic law, and that, too, for Jews and Gentiles, for the law
given primarily to Israel as an expression of the will of God would have been
binding also upon all the Gentiles, if it had not been abrogated through Christ.
Rom. x. 4 cannot be taken into consideration here, because what is spoken of in
it is only that with Christ the law has ceased to be the means of attaining unto
righteousness and life.

§ 87. FREEDOM FROM THE LAW. 483
signified by Hagar bears unto bondage (iv. 24), but Christians,
as children of the Jerusalem that is above (ver. 26), are
presignified by the son of the free woman (vv. 22, 31), who,
Eke them, was born on the ground of promise (vv. 23, 28).
Of course, it is in His state of exaltation, in which He, become
altogether irvevp,a Himself, bestows His Spirit upon believers,
that Christ can first make the abrogation of the law for them
that believe in Him operative. For him who turns to the
exalted Lord, there falls the veil which hitherto concealed the
transitory significance of the law. For, on turning to Him,
he receives the Spirit, and where the Spirit of the Lord is,
there is liberty (2 Cor. iE 16, 17). Those who are led by
the Spirit are, viz., no longer under the law (Gal. v. 18) ; for
what the law with its requirement strove after, and yet could
not reach (Eom. viii. 3), that the Spirit really attains to,
inasmuch as at its instigation the requirement of the law
(to BiKaicopia tov vop.ov) is fulfilled in them who walk KaTa
irvevpua (ver. 4; cf. § 86, a). The power of the Spirit, which
is operative within man, has taken the place of the law,
which is outwardly fixed in the letter (ii. 29: ypdp.p,a).
Accordingly, the new covenant, which dissolves the covenant
of bondage, is a covenant of the Spirit in contrast with
the covenant of the letter (2 Cor. iii. 6) ; through our
redemption from the law the old condition of the letter has
given place to the new condition of the Spirit (Eom. vii. 6).2
But although the will of God revealed in the law has thus
first reaEy obtained the guarantee of its fulfilment, the apostle
nevertheless raises the question, how the emancipation of the
individual from the law is to be legally justified. He starts
from the fact that death looses the bond of every legal obliga
tion (ver. 1), taking as an example the marriage bond (vv. 2, 3).
5 Freedom from the law is, accordingly, not a licence to sin (Rom. vi. 15) ; we
were freed from the law, not that we might hand over the sovereignty to the
flesh (Gal. v. 13), but that we might henceforth live unto God (ii. 19 ; Rom.
vii. 4), and fulfil His will, only no longer on the ground of the outer require
ment of the law, but at the inner instigation of the Spirit. Materially, nothing
else is to be aimed at by means of the latter than by the former ; for the love,
which the Spirit works (§ 84, a), is the fulfilling of the law (Gal. v. 13, 14 ;
Rom. xiii. 8-10). Here also, however, it is evident that, in the dispensation of
grace characteristic of Christianity, actual righteousness no less than justification
is brought about in a way which is altogether new and totally different from that
of the Old Testament.

484 THE NEW LIFE.
Although man in his pre-Christian condition stood under the
dominion of the law, the old man has, according to § 84, c,
died with Christ, the Christian ego is an altogether new sub
ject, which is no longer bound by the obligations of the old
ego, but can rather choose for itself a new Lord. This, how
ever, will self-evidently be none other than Christ, through
whose death he has been made dead to the law (ver. 4), after
he has entered into real fellowship of life with Him ; for to
reduce this thought to that of xiv. 8 f. (Gess, p. 176), is out
of keeping with the whole context. As being dead we have
been discharged from the law, in whose power we were hitherto
held (ver. 6 ; cf. Col. ii. 20) ; and since this dying is brought
about by the fellowship of life with Him, we have freedom
from the law iv XpiaTcp 'Igaov (Gal. ii. 4). Similarly, accord
ing to Gal. ii. 20, the consequence of his having been crucified
with Christ is that the Christian has through the law died
unto the law, in order to live henceforth unto God (ver. 19),
only that here the death of that old ego is represented as a
death to which it was condemned by the law itself.
(b) For Paul the doctrine of the freedom of Christians from
the law had the special interest of being a hindrance to the
extreme Judaistic party in their efforts to compel the Gentile
Churches planted by him to be circumcised (Gal. ii. 3, 4 ; cf.
1 Cor. vii. 18), and to adopt the whole of the Jewish rule of
life (Gal. ii. 14 : lovBat&iv), in which efforts the underlying
thought was continually insinuating itself that salvation was
earned by such a fulfilling of the law.3 On the other hand,
even Paul firmly maintains that every one who has once
been circumcised is also bound to fulfil the whole law (Gal.
v. 3), and it was only from this point of view that it could
3 According to § 43, c, the original apostles had expressly recognised this
freedom of the Gentile Churches, and the reservation attached to that recogni
tion by them out of regard to the Jews of the dispersion had no fundamental
importance, and was, as we saw, by no means laid upon Paul in his independent
activity as a missionary to the Gentiles. It is, however, an erroneous though
very common opinion, that Paul differed from the original apostles in this, that,
while they believed that the Jewish Christians were still bound to observe the
rule of life laid down in the Mosaic law (§ 43, d), he discharged these too from
it ; the only difference was this, that, on the presupposition of the abrogation in
principle of the law (note a), an abrogation which the original apostles certainly
did not acknowledge (cf. Pfleiderer, p. 283 [E. Tr. ii. 9]), he had to assign a
reason for that obligation which was different from theirs.

§ 87. FREEDOM FROM THE LAW. 485
have an interest for him to enjoin that he who had been
circumcised should not give up his circumcision (1 Cor. vii. 18),
but should fulfil the will of God as a circumcised person, i.e.,
in the rule of life that was implied in circumcision (ver. 19).
It is true that as this fulfilling of the law is by no means in
his eyes the ground of his salvation, so neither is it demanded
in his case by the law as such, for the law has lost its binding
power in the case of all Christians ; the obligation to this
fulfilment rests rather simply upon the general Christian
principle, that every one should remain in the station in
which the calling has reached him (vv. 17, 20). The Jewish
Christians were also free from the law ; but the Spirit of God
led them to accommodate themselves voluntarily to the rule
of life which the circumstance that they were circumcised
rendered necessary, and which their past made them recognise
as the special requirement of God with respect to their walk.4
In mixed churches, of course, Paul will have required that
the Jewish Christians should grant unlimited brotherly fellow
ship to the Gentile Christians, and therefore that, where the
custom of the fathers came into conflict with their duty as
Christian brethren, the former must unconditionally yield to
the latter ; and here his fundamental position with respect to
the law made such a wavering as we found in Peter (§ 43, d)
impossible to him, and at once solved all the difficulties
which the mother Church had found it so hard to surmount.
If the observance of the law on the part of the Jewish
Christians no longer rested upon the binding character of the
* Pfleiderer (p. 298 [E. Tr. ii. 25]) looks upon this as an extraordinary notion,
because this principle (according to him) refers only to the different stations in
social life and not to the Jewish legal rule of life ; but the very fact that Paul
adduces the commandment, not to give up their circumcision, as the first illustra
tion of that principle, proves the contrary, and shows, besides, that the ground
of that commandment is not that this sign "was perfectly indifferent," because,
if that were the case, that commandment would have been very unnecessary.
According to Acts xx. 6, xxiv. 11 (probably also xviii. 21), Paul himself also
keeps the Jewish feasts, and according to xviii. 18 and xxi. 26 takes Jewish vows
upon himself. With greater impartiality than the most of critics, Pfleiderer him
self has granted that these facts are historical (p. 508 f. [E. Tr. ii. 242 f.]) ; and in
fact, according to what is said above, Paul could very easily have represented
himself as tov »o>ov QvXio-o-uv (xxi. 24), and have shown that it was a slander that
he taught the Jews of the dispersion not to circumcise their children and not to
walk after the laws of Moses (xxi. 21), which Pfleiderer also admits, although
for a different reason (p. 510 [E. Tr. ii. 244]).

486 THE NEW LIFE.
law in itself, but upon the principle which is valid for all the
natural relationships of life, that one should not arbitrarily
shun the duties, which these relationships involve in accord
ance with the divine ordinance which is discoverable also in
them, then it is self-evident that this principle found its limit
in the higher duties of Christian social life, among the chief
of which was that brotherly fellowship. Moreover, if that
requirement, according to which no one should arbitrarily
break the social bond that united him with his previous
religious society (ver. 18), had plainly the end in view of
fitting him for activity among his religious associates (cf.
§ 42, c), then, conversely, it must have been specially a duty
for the apostle, who, although a Jew, was to work among the
Gentiles, to live a>? dvop,o<; for the sake of the Gentiles (1 Cor.
ix. 21; cf. Gal. iv. 1 2). Wherever, on the other hand, he
had to come into contact with Jews, there, although like all
Christians no longer in principle under the law, he had never
theless to feel himself bound to live &>? 'lonSato? for the sake
of the Jews (ver. 20).- If, accordingly, he circumcises the
son of a Jewish mother on account of the Jews (Acts xvi. 3),
this is not at variance with his principles (cf. even Pfleiderer,
p. 508 [E. Tr. ii. 242]), and Gal. v. 11 appears to me
undoubtedly to involve an allusion to such an occurrence,
according to which he himself under certain circumstances
(cf. Acts xxi. 21) demanded the circumcision, which he had
not permitted for fundamental reasons in the case of believers
from among the Gentiles (Gal. ii. 3-5).6 It was not, therefore,
the letter of the law in itself, but the consideration of that which
the duty involved in his calling demanded in the concrete cir
cumstances, under which he had to work, that was regulative of
the manner in which he foEowed that general Christian principle.
5 "With the exception, naturally, that they should abstain from Topviix, Paul,
on the other hand, has not introduced into the Gentile Churches planted inde
pendently by himself the restrictions imposed by the apostolic council (§ 43, c),
because he no longer hoped for a conversion of the whole of Israel (before the
coming in of the fulness of the Gentiles), and had therefore no longer any
reason to limit the freedom of the Gentile Churches out of regard to the syna
gogue, which remained obdurate as a whole. When he demands that, because
of their weaker fellow-Christians, they should impose certain restrictions upon
themselves in regard to the use of flesh offered to idols (cf. § 93), as well as in
respect of other adiaphora, that is something totally different.

§ 87. FREEDOM FROM THE LAW. 487
(c) If the Spirit instead of the law impels Christians to do
that which is good (note a), then it must also provide that
they know what is good. It is true the natural man also
possesses in his vow a moral consciousness, but seeing that
that is in many respects dimmed and corrupted by sin, the
vow must also be renewed (by the Spirit), in order that it
may again prove in every case what the will of God is (Eom.
xii. 2, for which see § 86, b, footnote 5 ; cf. Eph. v. 10 ; Phil.
i 10). Thus the apostle counted upon the growth of a Chris
tian custom, to which he repeatedly expressly refers (1 Cor.
xi. 16, xiv. 33), because it must be normative for the indi
viduals, whose moral consciousness was not yet sufficiently
clarified and established. In the same interest he appeals to
his own example (Gal. iv. 12 ; 1 Cor. iv. 16, 17, xi. 1 ; cf.
Phil. iii. 17, iv. 9), not as if he would thereby assert that his
own life was an absolute pattern, but because in the life of
every Christian who is already somewhat mature there is
visibly represented what the form of life is which the Spirit
demands and works. Accordingly, he also goes back in 1 Cor.
xi. 1 (cf. Eph. v. 2) from his own example to the absolute
example of Christ, by the imitation of which his own first
becomes normative; yet we saw in § 78, o, and § 86, c, foot
note 7, for what reasons the example of Christ is on the
whole kept in the background by him. Now, as a vop,o<; tov
Trvevp,aTo<; is spoken of in Eom. viii. 2, inasmuch as the Spirit
is the normative power in the life of the Christian, this law
can also be called the vop,o<; XpiaTov, inasmuch as that Spirit
is the Spirit of Christ and therefore makes known His will,
which the Christian is bound to obey (§ 76, a), and in this
sense Paul calls himself an evvop.os XpiaTov (1 Cor. ix. 21 ;
cf. Eom. xii. 11 : tu> Kvpicp BovXevovTe<; ; xvi. 18 ; 2 Cor. v. 9 :
cj)iXoTip.ovp,e0a . . . evdpeaToi avTcp elvai). It is possible that
in Gal. vi. 2, where he is considering the law of love, Paul
thinks also of the sayings of Christ bearing upon that subject,
and with which he was certainly acquainted from tradition
(v. 14; Eom. xiii. 8, 9 ; cf. § 25); yet it is only in 1 Cor.
vii. 10, ix. 14, that he appeals to enactments of Christ, and
that, too, rather with regard to outward circumstances of Efe.
As in the Epistles to the Thessalonians (§ 62, a), he claims
the rio-ht as His apostle to make enactments in the name of

488 THE NEW LIFE.
Christ (v. 4), and repeatedly appeals to the precepts which he
had given to the Churches (vii. 1 7 : ovtcw iv Tat? iKicXgaiais
irdaais BiaTaaaoptai ; cf. xi. 34, xvi. 1, xi. 2 : Ka0cb<s irapiBcoKa
vpTiv Ta? irapaBoaeis. Cf. Phil, ii 12).
(d) There is no doubt that the Old Testament was read
in the assemblies of the Gentile-Christian Churches for the
purpose of worshipping God.6 This was so much the more
necessary, as, according to § 73, a, everything in Scripture had
been written for the instruction and admonition of Christians
(1 Cor. x. 11; Eom. xv. 4). This, however, does not apply
merely to the passages which, because they refer directly to
the Messianic time, give precepts for men's behaviour in that
time (2 Cor. vi. 2 ; cf. Eph. v. 14). For as a revelation of
God (§ 71, b) Scripture in all its parts must make known His
will, and must in so far even now still instruct Christians
as to that will.7 But Scripture, which on one side has a
thoroughly legal character (§71, c), is not thereby revived as
law, but an admonition, of the value of which the Christian
consciousness is in itself convinced, is supported by its being
also shown from Scripture that it is in keeping with the will
of God revealed there (cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 34: Ka0a><; koX 6 vopios
Xeyei) ; and naturally this is particularly the case, where even
the law in the narrower sense is used in a similar manner.8
Of course, if the Christian stood from the very beginning
under the exclusive dominion of the Spirit, he would no more
6 It is true that in his Epistles to the purely Gentile-Christian Churches the
apostle appeals to Scripture only where, as in Galatia, it was used by the Jewish-
Christian agitation in a manner which made the statement of its right meaning
necessary (Gal. iv. 21). Yet the manner in which those agitators attached
themselves to Scripture as an authority that was valid also for these Churches,
shows that it was regarded as such an authority also in the Gentile Churches.
That being the case, however, it is self-evident that they must also have been
made acquainted with Scripture (cf. Rom. vii. 1).
' Thus it already appears from the historical part of the Thora (Gen. iii. 16),
that God requires the subjection of the wife to her husband (1 Cor. xiv. 34), and
an exhortation to benevolence (2 Cor. ix. 9 ; cf. Ps. cxii. 9) or a warning against
self-glorification (1 Cor. i. 31 ; 2 Cor. x. 17 ; cf. Jer. ix. 23) can be incidentally
supported by statements of the Psalms or prophets.
8 This does not only happen where, by means of an allegorical interpretation
of a requirement of the law, an express reference to the circumstances of the
Messianic time is vindicated (1 Cor. ix. 9, 10, for which see § 73, a, footnote 1, d),
or where, on the presupposition of a typical character of the institutions of the
Old Testament (§ 73, c), it is asserted that Christians also must bring a sacrifice

§ 87. FREEDOM FROM THE LAW. 489
stand in need of being referred in this way to the revelation
of the will of God in the Old Testament Scriptures than he
would require to be exhorted by the apostle ; the Spirit would
enlighten him sufficiently as to that which is the will of God,
as well as impel him to fulfil it. Seeing, however, that in
the empirical reality of the Christian life the influence of the
Spirit upon the individual is by no means throughout the
same and unhindered (§ 86, a), the knowledge as to that which
is the will of God must in many ways be first brought to him
by means of the Scriptures of the Old Testament, as well as
in the ways indicated in note c. For this knowledge there is
required, indeed, not so much a special doctrine of duties, as
rather a reference to the whole character of the Christian
moral life, and this is seen most clearly in the revelation of
God in Christ. Accordingly, the motives which Paul uses in
his exhortations are in many ways drawn directly from his
doctrine of salvation.9 In doing so it is of course presupposed,
as in the apostolic exhortation itself (cf. § 86), that the Christian
finds himself in the state of salvation and has experienced in
himself the saving deeds of God, to which the apostle appeals,
as it is also only in that case that he can be assured of the
gracious assistance of God, which enables him to accomplish
that which his experiences of salvation lay him under an
obligation to perform. This assurance, however, is grounded
upon the consciousness of his divine election and calling.
to God (Rom. xii. 1), and, after the ritual of the feast of Passover, put away the
leaven and live It x^ipcois (1 Cor. v. 7, 8), or that the ordinances of the law
relating to the priests apply to the circumstances of the Christian Church
(ix. 13). In Gal. v. 14 the requirement of Christian love (ver. 13) is rather
supported by its being said that the whole law is fulfilled in the commandment
of love to one's neighbours (Lev. xix. 18), and in Rom. xiii. 8-10 this is expressly
pointed out in an enumeration of the several commandments of the decalogue
(ver. 9). Cf. Eph. vi. 2.
9 It is with an allusion to the mercy of God, which demands our thanks, that
Paul passes over, in Rom. xii. 1, from the doctrinal statement of the salvation
given in Christ to practical exhortation. How he sets forth the obligation that
is implied for us in the manifestation of love given by Christ in His death, we
saw in § 81, b ; in Rom. xv. 30 and 1 Cor. i. 10 the common Lord and His name
which they all call upon are the motives of his exhortation. When he warns
against fornication, he points to God, whom we should glorify for our redemp
tion (1 Cor. vi. 20), to the Spirit, whose temple He has made our body (ver. 19),
and to the fellowship of life with Christ (vv. 15-17), with which the living in
fellowship with harlots is incompatible.

MORRISON AND GIBB, EDINBURGH
PRINTERS TO HER MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

THE NINTH SERIES OF CUNNINGHAM LECTURES.

Just published, in demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d.,
THE DOCTRINE

OF

THE HOLY SPIRIT.
BY
GEOEGE SMEATON, D.D.,
PROFESSOR OF EXEGITICAL THEOLOGY, NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH ;
AUTHOR OF ' OUR LORD'S ' AND THE ' APOSTLES' DOCTRINE OF THE ATONEMENT.'

CONTENTS. FIRST DIVISION.
The Doctrine of the Trinity — Introductory Dissertation, briefly setting
forth the Biblical Testimony in the Old and New Testament.
SECOND DIVISION.
Lecture I. — The Personality and Procession of the Holy Spirit.
Lecture II. — The Work of the Spirit in the Anointing of Christ.
Lecture III. — The Work of the Spirit in connection with Eevelation and
Inspiration.
Lecture IV. — The Spirit's Regenerating Work on the Individual.
Lecture V. — On the Spirit of Holiness,
Lecture VI. — The Work of the Holy Spirit in the Church.
THIRD DIVISION.
Historical Survey of the Doctrine of the Holy Spirit from the Apostolic
Age.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

In Two Volumes, demy 8vo, price 21.s.,
COMMENTARY ON ST. PAUL'S EPISTLE
TO THE ROMANS.
By FRIEDRICH ADOLPH PHILIPPI.
Translated from the Third Improved and Enlarged Edition.
* A serviceable addition to the Foreign Theological Library.' — Academy.
' A commentary not only ample for its critical stores, but also valuable for its sober
exegesis.' — John Bull. In Two Volumes, demy Svo, price 21s.,
HISTORY OF THE REFORMATION

GERMANY AND SWITZERLAND CHIEFLY.
By Dr. K R HAGENBACH.
Translated from the Fourth Revised Edition of the German.
' Dr. Hagenbaeh has produced the best history of the Reformation hitherto written.' —
British Quarterly Review.
1 The work before us will have a distinct sphere of usefulness open to it, and be
welcome to English readers.' — Church Quarterly Review.
Just published, in demy 8vo, price 9s.,
THE TRUTH OF SCRIPTURE,
IN CONNECTION WITH
3HU&riatt0it, Inspiration, ano tfje Canon.
By Rev. Professor GIVEN, Magee College.
' This, the latest work upon the subject, is eminently fitted to prove of service to
inquirers. The statements of truth are clear and well defined.' — Daily Review.
'A really able treatise on the much assailed, but fundamental themes of human inquiry
mentioned in the title. The discussion is searching, thorough, and completely up to
date.' — General Baptist Magazine.
WORKS OF JOHN CALVIN.
Institutes of the Christian Religion, 3 vols.
Tracts on the Reformation, 3 vols.
Commentary on Genesis, 2 vols.
Harmony of the Last Four Books of the
Pentateuch. 4 vols.
Commentary on Joshua, 1 vol.
„ on the Psalms, 5 vols.
,, on Isaiah, 4 vols.
„ on Jeremiah and Lamentations, 5 vols.
„ on Ezekiel, 2 vols.
„ on Daniel, 2 vols.
„ on Hosea, 1 vol.
,, on Joel, Amos, and Obadiah, 1 vol.
„ on Jonah, Micah, and Nabura, 1 vol.
„ on Habakkuk, Zephaniah, and Haggai,
1 vol.

Commentary on Zeohariah and Malachi,
lvol.
•Harmony of the Synoptical Evangelists,
3 vols.
Commentary on John's Gospel, 2 vols.
„ on Acts of the Apostles, 2 vols.
„ oq Romans, 1 voL
„ on Corinthians, 2 vols.
,, on Galatians and Ephesians, 1 vol.
„ on Philippians, Colossians, and Thes
salonians, 1 vol.
„ on Timothy, Titus, and PhilemoD,
1 vol.
„ on Hebrews, 1 vol.
„ on Peter, John, James, and Jude, 1 vol.

A Selection of Six Volumes (or more at the same proportion) for 21s., with the exception
of the Institutes, 3 vols. ; Psalms, vol. 5 ; Habakkuk, and Corinthians, 2 vols.
Any separate Volume (with the above exceptions), 6s.
The Letters, edited by Dr. Bonnet, 2 vols., 10s. 6d.
The Institutes, 2 vols., translated, 14s.
The Institutes, in Latin, Tholuek's Edition, 2 vols., (Subscription price) 14s.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Just published, in demy Svo, price 8s. 6rf.,
SYNTAX OF THE HEBREW LANGUAGE
OF THE OLD TESTAMENT.
By HEINRICH EWALD.
Uransslatefc from t^e CigJjtlj ffiertnan Coition
By JAMES KENNEDY, B.D.
' The work stands unique as regards a patient investigation of facts, written with a
profound analysis of the laws of thought, of which language is the reflection. Another
striking feature of the work is the regularly progressive order which pervades the
whole. The Author proceeds by a natural gradation from the simplest elements to the
most complex forms.' — British Quarterly Review.
1 To more advanced students of Hebrew the translation of Ewald's Syntax will be a
great boon. . . . We hope the translation will do much to advance the higher, more
thorough study of Hebrew.' — Watchman.
'It is well known that Ewald was the first to exhibit the Hebrew Syntax in a
philosophical form, and his Grammar is the most important of his numerous works.' —
Athenaeum. ' The book is the product of genuine work, and will fill a gap in our theological
literature.' — Daily Review.
Recently published, in demy Svo, Fifth Edition, price 7s. 6d.,
AN INTRODUCTORY HEBREW GRAMMAR;
OTttl) iProgrcsijSibc Crsrcteta in Stalling antf TOriting.
By A. B. DAVIDSON, M.A., LL.D.,
Professor of Hebrew, etc., in the New College, Edinburgh.
In One large Svo Volume, Ninth English Edition, price 15s.,
A TREATISE ON THE
GRAMMAR OF NEW TESTAMENT GREEK,
fj^arirrir as % §asis at |Uto fetanwni feasts.
Translated from the German of Dr. G. B. WINER.
With large additions and full Indices. Third Edition. Edited by Rev. W.
F. Moulton, D.D., one of the New Testament Translation Revisers.
' This series is one of great importance to the biblical scholar ; and, as regards its
general execution, it leaves little or nothing to be desired.' — Edinburgh Review.
KEIL AND DELITZSCH'S
INTRODUCTION TO AND COMMENTARIES
ON THE OLD TESTAMENT.
In 27 Volumes, demy Svo.
11 /T-PSSRS CLARK have resolved to offer complete sets of this work at the Original
-M- Subscription Price of £7, 2s. Od. Single volumes may be had, price 10s. 6d.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

Just published, in crown 8vo, price is. 6d.,
THE WORLD OF PRAYER;
®tc, Iprajur in relation ta ^tTBonsl ^diQian.
By Bishop MONRAD.
SEransIatefc from tfje jFourtfj ©erman fE&itfon.
'English readers are greatly indebted to Mr. Banks for his translation of this work:
he has rendered available to them a book of devotional reading which admirably com
bines the truest Christian mysticism with the soundest and healthiest practical teaching.'
— London Quarterly Review.
' One of the richest devotional books that we have read.' — Primitive Methodist Magazine.
' An excellent manual on prayer in its relation to spiritual life and character.' — British
and Foreign Evangelical Review.
Just published, in demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d.,
HISTORY OF THE
PASSION AND RESURRECTION OF OUR LORD,
Consiirmb in t\z ifigjjl of lltobxrn Criticism.
By Dr. F. L. STEINMEYER,
PROFESSOR OP THEOLOGY, BERLIN.
' Our readers will find this work a most valuable and suggestive help for their thoughts
and teaching during Passion-tide and Easter.' — English Churchman.
' Dr. Steinmeyer's work will well repay earnest study.' — Weekly Review.
Just published, in demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d,,
THE FIRST EPISTLE OF ST. JOHN.
%, Contribution ta §iMkaI Cjreolojgn,
By ERICH HAUPT.
' The Author has rendered the Church a good service by his work. Whoever accom
panies him on the path of his well-grounded researches, will find he has made good
speed in the understanding of the apostolic epistles.' — Evangelische Kirchen-Zeitung.
'We recommend it especially to the use of ministers, and are sure that they will find in
it such scientific penetration, and far deeper and more suggestive preparation for sermons
and Bible lectures, than in the expositions which are written specially for ministers for
homiletical use.' — Neue Evangelische Kirchen-Zeitung.
In crown 8vo, price 5s.,
MESSIANIC PROPHECY:
$ts drirjin, Historical Character, anir gjUIatiorc ta
Ifcto Testament Jfnlfilntmt.
Translated from the German (with the Approbation of the Author) of
De. EDWARD RIEHM.
' Undoubtedly original and suggestive, and deserving careful consideration.' — Literary
Churchman. 'Its intrinsic excellence makes it a valuable contribution to our biblical literature.' —
British and Foreign Evangelical Review.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

In Two Volumes, demy Svo, price 21s.,
GROWTH OF the SPIRIT of CHRISTIANITY,
FKOM THE FIRST CENTURY TO THE DAWN OF
THE LUTHERAN ERA.
BY THE
REV. GEORGE MATHESON, M.A., D.D.,
AUTHOR OF ' AIDS TO THE STUDY OF GERMAN THEOLOGY.
¦ Fresh, vigorous, learned, and eminently thoughtful.' — Contemporary Review.
' This work is a contribution of real value to the popular study of Church History.' —
Pall Matt Gazette.
' The work of a very able and pious and cultured thinker.' — Church Quarterly Review.

BY THE SAME AUTHOR.
In crown 8vo, Third Edition, price 4s. 6rf.,
AIDS TO THE STUDY OF GERMAN THEOLOGY.
{ A "work of much labour and learning, giving in a small compass an intelligent review
of a very large subject.' — Spectator.
Just published, in Two Volumes, demy Svo, price 12s. each,
A HISTORY of the COUNCILS OF the CHURCH
TO A.D. 429.
iFront tije ©riginal IBocumenta.
TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN OF
C. J. HEFELE, D.D., Bishop of Rottenbtjrg.
1 This careful translation of Hefele's Councils.' — Dr. Pusey.
' A thorough and fair compendium, put in the most accessible and intelligent form.' —
Guardian. ' A work of profound erudition, and written in a most candid spirit. The book will be
a standard work on the subject.' — Spectator.
' The most learned historian of the Councils.' — Pere Gratry.
' We cordially commend Hefele's Councils to the English student.' — John Bull.
Just published, in demy 8vo, price 12s.,
THE SCRIPTURAL DOCTRINE OF SACRIFICE,
Including Inquiries Into the Origin of Sacrifice, the Jewish Ritual, the
Atonement, and the Lord's Supper.
By ALFRED CAVE, B.A.,
PRINCIPAL OF, AND PROFESSOR OF PHILOSOPHY, ETC., HACKNEY COLLEGE, LONDON.
' We have nothing but praise for its clearness, its method, its thoroughness, and its
tolerance. We most warmly commend Dr. Cave's book to the study of the clergy, who
will find it full of snggestiveness and instruction.' — English Churchman.
' A thoroughly able and erudite book, from almost every page of which something
may be learned. The Author's method is exact and logical, the style perspicuous and
forcible — sometimes, indeed, almost epigrammatic ; and, as a careful attempt to ascertain
the teaching of the Scripture on an important subject, it cannot fail to be interesting
even to those whom it does not convince.' — Watchman.

6 T. and T. Clark's Publications.
Just published, in crown 8vo, price 2s. 6d.,
THE WORK OF THE HOLY SPIRIT IN MAN.
31 is courses,
BY PASTOR G. TOPHEL,
GENEVA,
'These pages are replete with clear, mellow, tender, beautiful, elevating thoughts,
eminently instructive to inquiring minds, and such as the devout must delight con
templatively and prayerfully to linger upon.' — Baptist Magazine.
' An admirable book on a subject of the deepest importance. We do not remember a
work on this theme that is more impressive, or seems more fitted for general usefulness.'
— British Messenger.  ^__
Just published, in crown 8vo, price 4s. 6d.,
OLD TESTAMENT HISTORY OF
REDEMPTION.
BY PROFESSOR DELITZSCH.
TRANSLATED FROM MANUSCRIPT NOTES
By Professor S. I. CURTISS.
Extract from ^rtfact:
' This manual of Old Testament History is one of Professor Delitzsch's four courses of
University Lectures on Biblical Theology. As such it has never been published in Ger
many. ... I have found these Lectures so stimulating and helpful in my own study of
the Old Testament, that I venture to offer my rendering of tbem to the public'
Just published, in crown 8vo, price 4s. 6d.,
THE CHRIST.
Seben Hectares,
BY ERNEST NAVILLE,
AUTHOR OF ' THE PROBLEM OF EVIL,' ETC.
Translated by the Rev. T. J. DES PRE S.
1 The work is distinguished by great breadth of view and religious sympathies, and
is written in an interesting and agreeable style.' — Scotsman.
' They are masterly productions.' — Methodist Recorder.
' We look upon these Lectures as a valuable contribution to Christology ; and to young
ministers and others interested in the grand and exhaustive subject, they will be found
to be highly stimulating and helpful.' — Litera-i-y World.
'We know very few books which we had rather put into the hands of a thoughtful
reading young man.' — Wesleyan Methodist Magazine.
WORKS BY THE LATE WILLIAM CUNNINGHAM, D.D.,
PRINCIPAL AND PROFESSOR OF CHURCH HISTORY, NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH.
Complete in Four Volumes 8vo, Price £2, 2s.
In Two Volumes, demy 8vo, price 21s., Second Edition,
HISTORICAL THEOLOGY:
A REVIEW OP THE PRINCIPAL DOCTRINAL DISCUSSIONS IN THE
CHRISTIAN CHURCH SINCE THE APOSTOLIC AGE.
In demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d., Second Edition,
THE REFORMERS AND THE THEOLOGY
OF THE REFORMATION,

In One Volume, demy 8vo, price 10s. 6d.,
DISCUSSIONS ON CHURCH PRINCIPLES
POPISH, ERASTIAN, AND PRESBYTERIAN.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08844 7918