Wm":m$m<

fflm&M WW!

5B8

shs

«!,«¦;¦!¦;:

l'V«

mm

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

THE ANTI-PELAGIAN WORKS OF
ST. AUGUSTINE.
Translated bt PETER HOLMES, D.D., F.R.A.S.,
DOMESTIC CHAPLAIN TO THE RIGHT HON. THE COUNTESS OF EOTHES.
In Three Volumes 8vo (Vol. 3 in preparation).
'It is a privilege of genius to be adapted to the future as well as to the present. This
is finely exemplified in the Christian genius of the Bishop of Hippo.' — Record.
' No man can understand the history of doctrine without understanding the works of
St. Augustine, and especially his writings against Pelagianism. We are therefore happy
to see that these are to be published in our own language.' — Bibliotheca Sacra.
Extremely well translated, with scholarly ability and with excellent taste.' — Union

' No uninspired treatise on the subject of sin and grace is better fitted to bring to view
the true issues, the seed-truths, and the largest wealth of suggestive thought on this
subject, than these great treatises.' — Princeton Review.

LECTURES & TRACTATES ON THE GOSPEL
ACCORDING TO ST. JOHN.
Translated by Rev. JOHN GIBB and Rev. JAMES INNES.
In Two Volumes.
' Of great and perpetual interest.' — Guardian.
' Beautifully printed and got up ; the translation is careful, accurate, and readable.' —
Church Bells.
'In reading this Commentary we are reminded of the frequency with which the sayings
of St. Augustine have been repeated by moderii interpreters of the Bible.' — Bibliotheca
Sacra. 'We regard the Lectures as a capital illustration of the principles laid down in the
treatise on "Christian Doctrine." They display the real greatness of the author's mind,
his profound spiritual insight, his vast knowledge of human nature on all its sides, and
his rare power of moulding the minds of others after the pattern of his own ; it is both
refreshing and re-invigorating to come thus into contact with him.' — Baptist Magazine.

THE CONFESSIONS OF ST. AUGUSTINE.
An entirely new Translation.
With copious Notes, Historical and Explanatory, by
Rev. J. G. PILKINGTON, M.A.,.
Vicak of St. Mark's, Dalston.
In One Volume.

T. and T. Clark's Publications.

LANG E'S
COMMENTARIES ON THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENTS.
Edited by Dr. PHILIP SCHAFF.
There are now ready (in imperial 8vo, double columns), price 21s. per
Volume, OLD TESTAMENT, Eleven Volumes: -
COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF GENESIS, in One Volume,
EXODUS AND LEVITICUS. One Volume.
COMMENTARY ON JOSHUA, JUDGES, AND RUTH, in One
Volume.
COMMENTARY ON THE BOOKS OF KINGS, in One Volume.
COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF JOB.
COMMENTARY ON THE PSALMS, in One Volume.
COMMENTARY ON PROVERBS, ECCLESIASTES, AND
THE SONG OF SOLOMON, in One Volume.
COMMENTARY ON JEREMIAH AND LAMENTATIONS,
in One Volume.
EZEKIEL AND DANIEL. One Volume. [Shorty.]
CHRONICLES, EZRA, NEHEMIAH, and ESTHER. One
Volume. [Shortly.']
COMMENTARY ON MINOR PROPHETS, in One Volume.
The other Books of the Old Testament are in active preparation.
NEW TESTAMENT (now complete), Ten Volumes:
COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF ST. MATTHEW.
COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPELS OF ST. MARK and ST.
LUKE.
COMMENTARY ON THE GOSPEL OF ST. JOHN.
COMMENTARY ON THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES.
COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE OF ST. PAUL TO THE
ROMANS
COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL TO THE
CORINTHIANS.
COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLES OF ST. PAUL TO THE
GALATIANS, EPHESIANS, PHILIPPIANS, and COLOSSIANS.
COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLES TO THE THESSA
LONIANS, TIMOTHY, TITUS, PHILEMON, and HEBREWS.
COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLES OF JAMES, PETER,
JOHN, and JUDE.
COMMENTARY ON THE BOOK OF REVELATION.
1 Lange's comprehensive and elaborate " Bibel werk." . . . We hail its publication as a
valuable addition to the stores of our Biblical literature.' — Edinburgh Review.
The price to Subscribers to the Foreign Theological Library, St. Augustine's
Works, and Meyer's Commentary on the New Testament, or to Purchasers
of Complete Sets of the Commentary (so far as published), will be
FIFTEEN SHILLINGS FEB VOLUME.
Dr. Lange's Commentary on the Gospels and Acts (without Dr. Schaff's
Notes) is also published in the Foreign Theological Library, in Nine Volumes
demy 8vo, and may be had in that form if desired. (For particulars, see List
of Foreign Theological Library.)

CLARK'S

FOKEIGN

IDEOLOGICAL LIBRARY.

FOURTH SERIES.
VOL. XXVII.

gcbmiU'S JSibltcal Cijeologn of tlje $tt» CtitanunL

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

PBINTED BY MUEEAY AND GIBB,
FOE
T. & T. CLARK, EDINBURGH.
LONDON, .... HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO.
DUBLIN, .... JOHN ROBERTSON AND CO.
NEW YORK, . . . SCEIBNEE, WELFOED, AND AEMSTEONO.

c

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY

OF

THE NEW TESTAMENT.

BY

CHRISTIAN FRIEDRICH SCHMID, D.D.,
LATE PROFESSOR OF THEOLOGY, TOBINGEN,

TRANSLATED FROM THE FOURTH GERMAN EDITION, EDITED BY
0. WEIZlCKER, D.D.,
BY
G. H. VE NAB LES.

SECOND EDITION.

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

CONTENTS.

INTRODUCTION,

« .

PAGE 1

FIRST PART.

The Messianic Age,

15

FIRST DIVISION.
The Life of Jesus, .......
I. The Early History of Jesus, .....
II. Christ's Preparation for, and Entrance upon, His Public
Ministry, .......
III. The Public Career of Jesus, .....
IV. The Conclusion of His earthly Ministry,

2525395181

SECOND DIVISION.

The Teaching of Jesus, ......

90

I. The Glorification of the Father in the Son,

93

God the Father, . . . . •

93

The Son, ...•••

107

The Spirit, ...•••

145

Father, Son, and Spirit, ....

161

II. The Redemption of Man, ....

170

III. The Kingdom of God, .....

242

VI CONTENTS.

SECOND PART.
PAGE
The Apostolic Age, ....... 270
FIRST DIVISION.
The Life of the Apostles, ...... 273
I. The Apostolic Life, ...... 274
II. The Development of the Apostolical Community, . . 291
III. The Commencement of Outward Action in the Apostolic Com
munity, . . . . . . . 316
SECOND DIVISION.
The Teaching of the Apostles, ..... 323
I. The First Fundamental Form of the various Apostolical Systems
of Teaching ; or, Christianity considered in its Unity with the
Old Testament.
1. The Apostolical Teaching of James, . . . 338
2. The Apostolical Teaching of Peter, . . .374
II. The Second Form of Apostolical Teaching ; or, Christianity in
its Distinction from the Old Testament.
1. Apostolical Teaching according to Paul, . . 4] 7
2. The Apostolical Teaching of John, . . . 5ig

BIBLICAL THEOLOGY

OF

THE NEW TESTAMENT.

INTBODUCTION.
§ 1. New Testament Theology.
j|UR subject is the Christian religion as we find it dis
tinctly laid down in the New Testament Scriptures.
Hence it follows that it treats only of such parts of
the Bible as relate to the Christian religion; and
especially, that opinions, either non-religious or non-Christian, —
those peculiar to the Jews for instance, — which are occasionally
mentioned, concern us here only so far as they tend to throw
light upon Christianity. We are bound, moreover, in the treat
ment of our subject, to adhere closely t'o the stamp set upon
Christianity in the New Testament in opposition to more modern
theories, except where these may help to elucidate the former.
Our science embraces the New Testament dogmas and morality,
consequently the whole of Christianity as contained in the New
Testament. We claim for it the title of an historical exposition,
as it at once accepts the Christianity of the New Testament as a
matter of fact, and as such seeks to investigate it and to set forth
its gradual development. The term Biblical Theology, however,
is hardly precise enough, because it does not sufficiently dis
tinguish between our science 'and either exegesis or systematic
theology. But if for the name adopted we were to substitute
Biblical Dogmatics, then on the one hand a confusion might
readily arise between our science and systematic theology, and
on the other hand the term is too narrow, because our subject is
not confined, to mere dogma. As regards its relation to other
branches of theology, our science must be looked upon as only a
A

2 INTRODUCTION. [§ 1-
part of biblical theology generally ; for biblical theology deals with
both the Old and New Testament, and therefore sets forth religion
as laid down in the whole Bible. But on account of the great dis
tinction, both external and internal, between these two essentially
different stages of development and forms of biblical religion, it
is more convenient to keep them separate; and the more so, as
every attempt to discuss them together sets their real divergence
in a clearer light. Our subject .stands, therefore, in a close rela
tion to exegesis, both being concerned with the investigation of
the Scriptures. Its aim is to reproduce the thoughts therein ex
pressed, taking the statements of Scripture as its basis. But. the
exegetical function which it performs is of the highest and most
advanced kind. Por exposition is at its lowest stage when it
deduces a doctrine from the interpretation of an isolated precept :
it is a stage more advanced when it ascertains the sense and pur
port of whole books and sections ; or, out of several doctrinal
passages which treat of the same subject, by comparison and
looking at them as a whole, developes the precise ideas and
dogmas which they contain. The third arid highest stage is
reached when it ascertains the ideas and doctrines conveyed by
a whole body of didactic discourses and passages, by taking a
comprehensive view of its different portions in their relation to
each other. It is not, however, contented with isolated ideas and
propositions, but taking an aggregate of doctrinal ideas and dogmas,
it presents both their unity and their variety in a life-like doc
trinal whole, which at the same time exhibits the systems of
thought as distinguished by their organic gradation. This is pre
cisely the province of biblical theology, and is the point to which
exegetic theology, if conscious of its vocation, is always tending,
and the result in which it is summed up. The relation in which
our science stands to systematic theology is somewhat different.
Biblical theology has been frequently understood to mean nothing
else than a certain kind of positive divinity, which, without re
gard to ecclesiastical interpretations, is founded mainly upon the
New Testament alone. But although its aim certainly is a
systematic summary of its subject-matter, yet it is essentially
distinct from the above-mentioned dogmatics by reason of its
historical character. It is still further removed from ecclesias
tical, speculative, or descriptive dogmatic. It is nevertheless
allied to dogmatic and all systematic theology, in so far as this

§ 1.] NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY. 3
is based upon New Testament Christianity and presupposes the
question, What it is.
The historical character of our science connects it with his
torical theology generally ; but it is not identical with church
history, because the' subject of the latter is the founding of the
church, and the establishment of rules for its guidance in all time
to come.Although the absolute interest of our science depends upon
its place in the organism, so to speak, of the theological sciences,
yet by the circumstances and wants of the age, it is peculiarly
enhanced both in an historico-critical and a dogmatic point of
view. If the living development of Christianity is to be com
prehended, above all things it is necessary for the living germ to
be clearly perceived ; and to this end an historical investigation
of primitive Christianity is needfuL The greater the difficulty
which, through the inquiries of criticism, surrounds this task, the
more important does it become to represent faithfully the scope
of the original records, and especially of the doctrinal systems
founded upon them ; for by so doing we shall obtain the firmest
grasp even of the critical questions involved in the New Testa
ment. Take for example the question of the gospel narratives.
Attention has of late been chiefly directed, especially by Strauss,
to the external historical purport of the gospels, and the confiict
on this point has lasted for many years. It will, therefore, be
well to throw additional light upon the critical question from the
side of the doctrinal element contained in the gospels, and by
giving the greatest prominence to this element, to carry on the
discussion with more calmness and candour than have hitherto
marked it. A careful development of our Lord's teaching will
enable us to form a judgment as to the relation between the
Synoptists and St. John as regards His doctrines, be the differ
ence small or great between them. We shall also be able to
compare the teaching ascribed by the evangelists to Jesus, with
that contained in the other books of the New Testament known
to us as apostolical. The result will, moreover, help us to solve
the question, whether the doctrine of Jesus, as transmitted to us
by the evangelists, really bears the same relation to the apos
tolical doctrine of the other New Testament writers as the foun
dation does to a finished building ; or whether no such distinction
is shown, and it is therefore possible thut what the evangelists

4 INTRODUCTION. [§ 1.
ascribe to Jesus Himself as His own teaching, is in truth nothing
but the doctrine of the apostles. We shall arrive at some
noteworthy results on both these questions. With regard to
the latter, it will be shown that what is handed down to . us
as the teaching of Jesus is in fact of a nature calculated to
serve as the foundation of all other doctrine ; and that the apos
tolical teaching in the rest of the New Testament writings is
obviously the offshoot and development of this. In the didactic
discourses of Jesus we have the pregnant germ and kernel, the
root, and the simple yet solid groundwork : in the apostolical
doctrine, as presented in the other New Testament scriptures,
we have the shoots and branches, the plant developed from
the germ, the finished building resting on that simple but firm
foundation. The precepts of our Lord in the gospels claim our
acceptance as original, pregnant, and bearing the first impres
sion of the mould in which they were cast ; and the apostolical
doctrine appears to be no less living and life-giving, — both being
in accordance, the latter with the circumstances of its further
development, the former with the personal details of our Lord's
life on earth. But as touching the relation between John and
the Synoptists, it will be seen, unless we allow ourselves to be
misled by mere form, how, notwithstanding all differences, essen
tial unity underlies them ; and that the form itself, even in its
manifold diversity, furnishes the key to its own solution.
Modern criticism has recognised only four of St. Paul's epistles
as genuine, chiefly on the ground that the later epistles do not
agree in doctrine with the earlier. New Testament theology will
therefore analyze and compare the doctrine of the earlier and
later epistles on the points of alleged disagreement. Conse
quently, this part of New Testament theology will be found to aid
us materially in deciding upon the genuineness of the later
epistles. The two epistles of St. Peter have been also attacked
and represented as an imitation of St. Paul, by which the later
followers of St. Peter were to be persuaded that the teaching of the
two apostles was identical. We shall presently inquire whether
the doctrines of these epistles, especially of the first, are only an
aggregate of Pauline and Judaistic elements, or whether, on the
contrary, an independent system of doctrine is not contained in
them. In like manner the doctrinal statements in the epistle of
St. James are of great importance.

§ 1.] NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY. 5
The interest of our science with regard to systematic theology
is, however, peculiarly enhanced by the need of a higher use of
Scripture, which need has shown itself generally in the develop
ment of systematic theology, and especially in the increased culti
vation of its ideal and speculative elements. Systematic theology
has, indeed, at times made very light of referring its views to Holy
Scripture, especially to our Lord's teaching in the New Testament.
Por, on the one hand, it has been thought justifiable to take for
granted a general acknowledgment of the identity between what
is commonly understood as theological system with the New
Testament in general, and Christ's precepts in particular ; and, on
the other, it has sometimes been regarded as of little moment
whether this agreement was acknowledged or not, and whether,
therefore, the truths which systematic theology asserted were
known to be drawn from other than scriptural sources. The re
sult of this has been, that the exegetical function of systematic
theology was often very unsatisfactorily performed. The same
may also be said of most methods of treatment even in modern
times, especially those which deal with the subject from its
speculative side, in which theology is taught as a speculative
system supported merely by a few quotations from Scripture.
¦But even where attention was paid to the exegetical function of
systematic theology, the difficulty to be encountered is propor
tionately greater ; for so many things had to be taken into account,
and. the subject-matter was so varied and intricate, that it often
appeared necessary to limit the exegetical function as much as
possible, in order that the scientific statement might not be too
much drawn out.
Nothing is gained, however, for systematic theology by such
treatment. In its very nature it stands essentially related to
Christianity as laid down in the New Testament Scriptures, it
must draw its material from this source, and, whatever scientific
form it may assume, prove the identity of its doctrine with
biblical Christianity. In this alone is presented the divine
revelation, — Christianity itself, indeed, in its original depth and
purity, attested by authentic documents and with the demonstra
tion of the Spirit and of power. No treatment, therefore, can be
satisfactory, there can be no true reform and remodelling of
systematic theology, which is not based upon Holy Scripture, not
on the mere letter, but the spirit which is contained in it. If

6 INTRODUCTION. E§ 1-
systematic theology be compelled to own that it has forsaken
this source, it may on that very account be doubted whether what
it teaches deserves the name of Christianity at all. And for this
very reason the necessity has become more plainly apparent that
the exegetical function of systematic theology should be duly pre
pared on exegetical ground. This exegetical treatment of the Old
and New Testament Scriptures, especially the latter, and therein
chiefly of our Lord's own precepts, if- shaped so as to constitute
it a preparation for the exegetical function of systematic theology,
is not limited to isolated exegesis or to mere biblical commentary,
but really extends to the development of entire biblical systems
of thought as they lie before us in the New Testament ; first in
the teaching of Jesus in His- discourses, and then of the different
apostles in ' the epistles or other apostolical writings. These
systems of thought are to be so investigated that in the first
place the individual ideas and precepts contained in all allied
writings and statements may be separately examined, and their
organic connection brought out by a comprehensive view. But
even this is not enough. It is important also to ascertain the
mutual relation of these several systems of thought as one of
essential agreement, no less than of a certain difference ; for by
so doing the characteristic peculiarities of their authors are suc
cessively brought to view. In this way truths and ideas them
selves identical are found to be exhibited under various aspects,
in different combinations with other truths, and under different
modes of arrangement. It is exactly this which gives such a
many-sided vitality to the Christianity of the New Testament, and
by which such a large measure of fruitfulness is ensured. But
systematic theology cannot, of course, undertake inquiries of this
nature, which belong to exegesis, and furnish a theme for its
highest point — the biblical theology of the Old and New Testa
ment. New Testament theology, in dealing with the various
New Testament Scriptures, enables them to be used as a single
record of divine revelation. It sets forth the different systems of
thought in their unity and manifold variety, and shows us how
their total result presents a united record of the divine word ;
not, however, a unity devoid of difference, but rather the harmony
of difference, — that is to say, a unity which preserves its harmony
through the organic interlacing of differences, and is itself rich in
the detail of its component parts. Consequently, where this

§ 1.] NEW TESTAMENT THEOLOGY. 7
function of New Testament theology is first in operation, the way
is opened for that use of Holy Scripture which has become a
necessity to systematic theology.
But in order that our science may prove competent to its
task and maintain its high interest, it must adhere closely to the
historical method involved in our very notion of it as distin
guished from any dogmatic treatment. This latter was for a long
time its usual mode of treatment. Men proceeded on the idea
of Scripture being a divine book, the work of the Holy Spirit, a
codex of divine revelation possessing a strict character of unity ;
whence it followed that biblical theology was necessarily treated
dogmatically and not historically. Now, although Christian
theology must undoubtedly admit a dogmatic conception of Holy
Scripture, yet this forms only one side of it. The other side is
that the Scriptures are composed by men under certain historical
conditions : they must therefore be regarded as affected by the
time of their appearance, and, consequently, not as possessing
absolute unity, but a unity subject to a variety in historical
development. It is a mistake to suppose that these two sides
contradict each other : so far from it, one idea clpsely followed
up will lead to the other. The dogmatic idea can, .however, only
be the gainer by our adopting here the purely historical mode of
treatment, and treating the Scriptures like any other book whose
purport is to be ascertained by a critical and exegetical process.
The historical method, however, must not of course keep merely
to the idea of what is actually recorded. History is the unfold
ing of life, in which a unity is broken up into details, and thus
represents a certain regular course of events. It will thus be the
provmce of New Testament theology to trace out the organic con
nection of New Testament teaching. And further, inasmuch as
all history gains by the comparison of other facts analogous to
its own subject-matter, this branch of inquiry must not here be
lost sight of, and we shall have specially to deal with the parallels
afforded by the Old Testament. Nor must reference to the re^
ligious idea be neglected, without, however, disturbing the his
torical point of view, and thereby allowing the distinctive method
of our science to be transformed either into speculative inference
or dogmatic treatment. Its system must descend to even minute
division and classifications of the subject-matter itself, and of the
combination of parts which is inherent in its historical character.

8 INTRODUCTION. [§ 2.
But a merely external juxtaposition of the parts is as much for
bidden as would be their fusion into one indiscriminate mass.
For the very reason that Christianity itself is our subject, there
can be no question as to the impropriety of treating- it from an
outwardly historical point of view, in which persons or writings
are merely taken as a basis of division, and dealt with accordingly.
It is not individualities but the life in them with which we are
concerned ; not Holy Scripture per se, but the religion contained
in it. Our subject must be treated and regarded as an historical
phenomenon, as indeed it shows itself to be. Apologetic, polemic,
and other tendencies may of themselves claim a place in the
treatment of the subject ; but their only right use is as accessories,
not impairing the force of the historical procedure.
§ 2. New Testament Christianity.
The writings of the New Testament are what we regard as the/
historical sources from which our knowledge of primitive Chris
tianity is derived. In our system, although Christianity is con
sidered as a religion which is historically presented to us, it will
not be followed throughout the whole course of its historical
development, but only so far as it is presented in the writings of
the New Testament. For the New Testament is to us the com
plex of the most ancient memorials of Christianity, wherein it
appears in its earliest form. What these New Testament. Scrip
tures consist of must here be taken for granted as the result of our
introductory inquiry : only we must bear in mind, that it is almost
impossible to arrive at any conclusion on this point which can be
regarded as of universal validity. Perhaps only the first four
of the Pauline epistles can be accepted as unquestioned in their
authenticity. Therefore all that we are entitled to demand, is the
acknowledgment of the New Testament Scriptures* as the oldest
memorials of the Christian religion. At any rate, they present it
with a fulness and power of thought, which favours the supposi
tion that they proceed from the most gifted amongst the ancient
witnesses of Christianity. Ready as some are to place them as
late as the second century, the question still remains, where are
the men to whom we can ascribe the genius requisite to produce
them ? Are the writings of the apostolical fathers calculated in
any way to invite us to adopt the above-named supposition ?
But even if we widen the limits for their origin so as to reach

§ 2.] NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIANITY. 9
the middle of the second century, yet they still remain the oldest
monuments which have come down to us. On the other hand,
if no more than those four Pauline epistles were unquestionably
genuine, we should still have in them an ample test for deciding
the question of what is or is not apostolic doctrine. Indeed, so
sufficient would this little be, that we could gladly make it our
groundwork in the investigation of primitive Christianity.
As a new rehgion, Christianity appears in contrast to all earlier
ones, according to the words with regard to the " fulness of time"
(GaL iv. 4; Eph. L 10). According to the latter of these pas
sages, Christ gathers together in one all which was before con
fused in a scattered and manifold variety. That Christianity
stands in a positive connection with the Old Testament, needs no
special proof : the individual doctrinal systems show that it is,
and in what sense it is, everywhere regarded as the fulfilment of
the Old Testament. On the other hand, its relation to Gentile
religions seems at. first sight to be only that of contradiction, as
when Christ (Matt, vi 7, 8, 32) contrasts the Christian praying
with that of the heathen as based upon an entirely different con
ception of God, or when He forbids religious community with the
heathen (Matt, xviii 17). His view of the Samaritan religion
also includes a like judgment upon heathenism (Matt. xv. 24).
No less does this opposition express itself in apostolical dicta,
such as Eph. ii. 3, GaL iv. 8 (cf. 1 Pet. iv. 3), and also in the
apostolical discourses in the Acts of the Apostles, which speak of
the darkness (xxvi 18) of the times of ignorance (xvii 30), or,
less strongly, of the "own ways" (xiv. 16) of the heathen
But as on the other side, also, Christianity everywhere is con
trasted with the state of childhood (GaL iv. 3, 9 ; CoL ii 8), the
curse (Gal. iii 13, cf. 2 Cor. iii 9), and the letter which "killeth"
(2 Cor. iii .6 sq.) of legal religion, it must equally be borne in
mind that the heathen no less than the Jews are regarded as re
ceptive of salvation (Matt, xxviii 19 ; Luke xxiv. 47 ; CoL i 23 ;
GaL ii 7-9 ; Rom. xi 13 ; Eph. iii 1). Jesus not only acknow
ledges the same (Matt. xv. 28, cf. 24; Luke vii 9), but He also
announces the future participation of the heathen as a great fact
(Matt, viii 10 sq. ; John x. 16). The apostolical view also is
early brought out in the fact, that the heathen were not obliged
to be first admitted through Judaism (Acts xv. 6-11, x. 44-48).
And this capability of salvation on their part was very soon

1 0 INTRODUCTION. C§ 2.
established as an historical fact. From this position of suscep
tibility thus much at least follows as the view taken in the New
Testament, that the underlying religious element is not absolutely
destroyed by the influence of heathenism, and consequently that
something besides unmixed error may be found in it. Now comes
the question, whether this element is consciously recognised in
the New Testament. We find Jesus Himself in actual contact
with those heathens only who received miraculous help from Him.
And it is only on the supposition that the Greeks (John xii. 2 0 sq.)
were really heathen who took part in the feast after the manner
of proselytes of the gate, that contact of a more general nature
can be said to have taken place. But since He refers them to
the future, it follows that, as regards any conscious recognition
on His part, it was merely with a view to the future that He
put His religion within their reach. The Apostle Paul, however,
pronounces more closely as to the above-named positive relation,
discovering real points of union with the heathen, and on that
account confessing himself able to conform to some of their usages
(1 Cor. ix. 19-22). In the Epistle to the Romans he depicts the
natural, religious, and moral disposition of the heathen, and in the
Areopagus at Athens alludes to this disposition and to their guesses
after truth, — quoting, indeed, the utterance of one of their own
poets, by the confession contained in which the tendency of his
apostolic discourse is suggested. He addresses himself to their
conscience (Rom. ii.), and therefore refers them in the Areopagus
to the future judgment. But with all this, Christianity remains
throughout the New Testament the only true and perfect religion
(John viii 32, xvii 14, 17 ; 1 John i 2 ; Gal. iii 1; 2 John 1 ;
Eph. i 13; CoL i 5, 6; 2 Thess. ii 10 sq; 1 Pet. ii 6), standing
everywhere in contrast to "weak and beggarly elements" (a-TOi'xfla,
GaL iv. 9; Col. ii 8, 20), amongst which the Old Testament religion
itself is included.
Christianity, although a system of doctrine, is never confined
to mere doctrine. It is only in its low forms that religion pre
sents itself in symbol and myth as a bare expression of feeling
and imagination. Even the Old Testament is of a much more
didactic character than the heathen religions ; and still more so
Christianity, a special attribute of which is producing and mould
ing into shape a connected and intelligible system. Still the
gospel message itself is a sufficient proof that every later scho-

§ 2.1 NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIANITY. 1 1
lastic and rationalistic view which could find in it nothing but
doctrine, takes a one-sided view of the question. The word is
from beginning to end the explanation of a fact, — of the fact that
the kingdom of God is come near, and that the Saviour has
appeared, — that He has perfected His work, and poured out His
Spirit upon all who believe in Him. Nothing, therefore, could
be further from the truth than the rationalistic distinction between
the religion of Jesus and His religious teaching. Jesus HimseK
teaches, but His whole rich store of precept is nothing else than the
announcement of Himself as the manifested Christ. Everything
besides is merely preparation for, or explanation and application
of, that one statement. In St. John's Gospel it is clear that all the
teaching relates to the Person of Jesus ; but in the other three also
this Person is the centre and groundwork of the whole new religion:
Him we must confess (Matt. x. 32), and suffer for His sake (Matt.
v. 11). Here also we have, as the real essence of Christianity, a
fact on which all the teaching is based, the history of an actual life.
The whole body of apostolic doctrine has reference to the same
fact, especially to the turning-point of the life of Jesus. To this,
however, is added a further historical basis, the communication of
the Holy Spirit, and the life of the community of believers in
Jesus which is founded thereon. These two leading facts, then,
are the groundwork and hypothesis on which all development of
apostolic doctrine must rest. If we take them away, the New
Testament teaching is without either foundation or vital power, a
plant decaying of itself. The simple view of the New Testament
Scriptures leads us to the same result. They are partly histori
cal, partly doctrinal writings. The historical writings have been
admitted into the canon because Christians regard as the very
source of their- belief the historical appearance of the Messiah of
Nazareth, and the advent and development of the life proceeding
from Him, and depending on the communication of His Spirit.
As a first consequence of this fact, Christianity presents itself on
one side as a system of doctrine, and on the other as an estab
lished community. The teaching is an essential element, because
some announcement of the fact is necessary. The teaching of
Jesus is the statement of His self-consciousness, and in like
manner the apostolic doctrine expresses the consciousness of the
life gradually developing itself in the community.
The historical life which constitutes Christianity appears in the

12 INTRODUCTION. C§ 2.
New Testament as life from God. The life of Jesus depends
upon His being in the Father, and the Father in Him ; the ful
ness of the Godhead dwelling in Him bodily, and streaming
forth from Him. The life of believers owes its existence to God,
and depends upon a birth from the Spirit, the awakening of men
through the word of truth. Hence the word which contains the
announcement of this historical life is itself endowed with a
divine life-giving power (cf. Rom. i 16), and is the power of
God and the wisdom of God (1 Cor. i 24). As life from God, it
is the living manifestation of God, and indeed the one perfecting
manifestation which redeems mankind (John vi 45-47 ; Matt.
xi 25-27). The doctrine and fellowship which are developed
from it, are therefore divine teaching and a divinely established
fellowship, the foregoing fact remaining equally the source of
both. Such is the general aspect of Christianity in the New
Testament. It thus finds its parallel in the Old Testament, where
also fact rather than doctrine takes the foremost place. This fact
is the old preparatory covenant between God and man, — at first,
indeed, limited to one family, and afterwards to one nation. Old
Testament theology has, therefore, to represent this revelation of
the covenant first in patriarchal times, and then in the national
development, as Mosaism, Prophetism, and lastly Judaism. Both
Testaments rest on a common foundation of the divine revelation,
the first with particular limits in kind and degree, the second
with the character of universal religion.
The fundamental fact which when received into human con
sciousness is also the fundamental doctrine of Christianity, is
the life which proceeds from God, or, God manifested for the
salvation of mankind. The treatment of this falls naturally
under two heads : (1st) the appearance of this life, immediately
followed by (2d) the commencement of its great work for man's
salvation ; — or, firstly, its manifestation in Jesus Christ ; and,
secondly, the foundation of the primitive apostolic church. Thus
we have two periods, the Messianic and the apostolic, which are
distinct both as to time and character. The first comprehends
the days of the Son of man (Luke xvii. 22 ; John viii 56 ; Heb.
v. 7; Matt. ix. 15; Mark ii 19 ; Luke v. 34), and its subject
is Jesus Christ come in the flesh (1 John iv. 2), and the mani
festation of God in Him (John xvii 6 ; Matt, xi 2 7). The
apostolic period, which is established through the Spirit (Acts i

! 2.] NEW TESTAMENT CHRISTIANITY. 13
8 ; John xiv. 26 ; Matt. x. 20), embraces the time of the apostles'
testimony (Acts i 2 1), and carries on the representation of the
revelation as having for its object to make known and glorify the
Father and the Son in and through the Spirit (John xv. and xvi).
But i inasmuch as Jesus spoke of the communication of this, Spirit
only under the form of a promise, John remarks (vii. 39) that the
Holy Ghost was not yet given (cf. Luke xxiv. 49 ; Acts i 8). Thus
the New Testament itself distinctly recognises two periods of the
revelation it unfolds. At first the divine life is contained exclu
sively in the person of Jesus and streams forth from Him alone ;
subsequently it appears as an independent life in all believers.
Some persons, indeed, have despaired of being able to carry out the
above-named distinction, and therefore represent everything as
apostolic doctrine, because a line cannot be clearly drawn between
the latter and the historical purport of Christ's teaching and
appearance.1 But the apostolic church itself was conscious of
possessing a true conception of Jesus. This she has presented in
the gospels ; and New Testament theology must accept it from
her, although still permitted to investigate its historical truth.
But neither has its general credibility been seriously shaken
hitherto, nor will it ever be possible to give a really historical
representation of the origines ot Christianity without adhering to
this distinction.
The very nature of Christianity requires that it should in
every age first appear as life in an historical form ; then, and not
till then, as doctrine. Every period will thus be divided into an
historical and a didactic portion. The former of these, however,
will not be an enumeration of every isolated fact ; for this would
not suffice us. .What we require is New Testament Christianity
as such, that is to say, the characteristics of the divinely human
life of Jesus, and of the inspired lives of those who believe in
Him. It is not a question of outward events, which are only
taken into account so far as they are manifestations of this peculiar
life. Hence arises the selection of the facts and the mode of
their representation. In treating of the Messianic period, we do
not therefore propose to give a biography of Jesus, but to trace
in the details of His history the unity of the divine life in Him.
We shall, therefore, notice in the first place those facts only in
which this divine life is manifested ; but where many facts reveal
1 So Matthai, and more recently Hahn.

14 INTRODUCTION. [§ 2.
only one side of it, they may be grouped together under one head,
so that, instead of treating the miracles and discourses of Jesus
separately, our subject would be His effectual working in both
combined. Similarly, in the apostolic period, we are concerned not
so much with the persons of the apostles as with the new life in
the apostolic church, and consequently with the statement of those
facts which are calculated to throw light upon the nature of the
new life of the Spirit. We must also at this point endeavour
to draw out the spirit from the history before us. A mode of
treatment might be devised by which the historical and doctrinal
elements might be exhibited in a form of internal unity ; but
since this unity is not directly represented in the New Testament
itself, there would be danger of treating the subject rather from a
dogmatical than from an historical point of view. It will there
fore be better to take the historical element by itself, which can
be done the more briefly, inasmuch as it is concerned only with
traits of character.

FIRST PART.

Hp5
-..i! G4L-

THE MESSIANIC AGE.
§ 3. Introduction. — Our Sources of Knowledge.
HE direct sources of information for the Messianic
period of New Testament Christianity, are the four
canonical gospels and some few passages of the other
New Testament Scriptures.
Inasmuch as light is thrown upon the contents of these prin
cipal sources in more than one way through comparison, partly
with the apostolic period of New Testament Christianity, partly
with the oldest non-biblical accounts of the Messianic period, we
are also indirectly concerned with the consideration of certain
collateral and subsidiary sources. These are of three kinds :
(1.) Those writings of the New Testament which relate to the
apostolic period ; (2.) Records of the times of Jesus not comprised
in the canon, especially the Jewish history of that period; and
(3.) Traditional accounts of His life. Among these sources, that
matter is of the greatest importance which we -have at our com
mand in respect to the Jewish history of the period, whether in
classical writers or in the known Jewish authors of the time ;
whilst other writings of obscurer origin, whether Jewish or mixed,
as the Pseudepigrapha of the Old Testament, are of more doubtful
credibility. Less importance attaches to the special extra-biblical
sources for the life of Jesus. This is due partly to their scanti
ness, — a defect which attaches not only to the few traces of a
knowledge of the person of Jesus to be found in the classics, but
even to the traditional fragments which have been handed down
amongst Christians ; partly also to the manifest distortion of his
torical truth which appears, for instance, in the apocryphal
gospels, and in the traditions based upon them.
The canon contains four gospels, in accordance with the system
which everywhere runs through it of giving a plurality of writ-
16

16 THE MESSIANIC AGE. tPART I.
ings, which set forth the genius of primitive Christianity, and
respectively throw light upon and supplement one another. They
are not biographies, for they give the life of Jesus only with a
view of proving His Messianic character. Consequently they aim
at producing a true, but not a complete, picture, by a systematic
grouping of characteristic features ; and thus they combine some
thing of a dogmatic with their historical character. This shows
itself most in John and Matthew (but compare the beginning of
Luke with the end of John). They may, therefore, one and all
be said to represent the public life of Jesus from His baptism
onwards, not offering reflections upon the facts related, but only
putting them together in such a way as to exhibit the true cha
racter of the Messianic life. The Hellenistic language is at the
same time common to them all The Synoptists, however, are
distinguished from John by describing our Lord's 'ministry in
Galilee only, extending their account subsequently to Persea and.
the final scene at Jerusalem. John, on the other hand, repre
sents the appearances of Jesus in Judea and Galilee alternately.
"In John the discourses are more central, in the Synoptists less
so. From the sixth chapter onwards John gives for the most
part the direct testimony of Jesus Himself as to His person and
His work ; the others abound more in such discourses as stand
in preparative reference to this. The Sermon on the Mount is of
this kind : it introduces us to the moral spirit of the kingdom of
God, and so far cannot be said to be entirely uncentral in its
character, yet its precepts do not aim at directly representing that
spiritual kingdom, the righteousness of which it describes, as the
kingdom to be founded, ruled, and perfected by Him, Jesus Christ.
Intimations to this effect are not wanting, but they appear more
in the background. Of discourses of this kind the synoptic
gospels contain also, for instance, certain collections of parables
(Matt. xiii. ; Luke viii., xiv. ff.). But inasmuch as the synoptic
gospels also are not wanting in elements of doctrine, which are
entirely of the nature of central truths, because they treat directly
of the Messiah's person, or of the relation of Jesus of Nazareth to
His work, they too favour the conviction that with due regard to
time and circumstance our Lord always incorporated both kinds of
doctrinal elements in His discourses. And although those re
corded by John appear to bear more immediate reference to Jesus
as the Christ, the Son of God, the a-mrr/p tov koo-/iov, this exactly

J 3.] OUR SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE. 17
falls in with the whole scheme of this gospel, which from begin
ning to end aims at representing the divine manifestation of the
Logos made flesh in the person of Jesus of Nazareth. But this
does not occasion any deficiency of matter, which, although quite
characteristic of John, yet shows the most decided points of con
tact with elements of doctrine found in the synoptic evangelists ;
and this statement will be fully borne out in the following pages.
In John, again, there is more precision of historical structure ; for
not only does he give the progress of events in exact chrono
logical order, but he shows also their development from the very
first towards the final catastrophe, in the gradually increasing
hostility to Jesus, of which, as well as of its consequences, He
Himself is represented as fully conscious. In short, John's stand
point is more universal in its character ; that of the synoptics more
national. This distinction, however, is not absolute: even the
author of the fourth gospel plainly shows himself to belong to the
Jewish nationality. Amongst the Synoptists Matthew shows the
most regard to events, and often attends more to facts than to
their chronological order. Luke shows that he has combined
fragments collected from external sources, but at the same time
deals with our Saviour's youth as a systematic and beautiful
whole. If Matthew writes for the Jewish Christians, Luke on
the other hand writes from the Pauline standpoint for the use of
Gentile converts. Mark is distinguished by little else than his
brevity. Although we no longer possess the original of Matthew's
Gospel, which, according to the unanimous tradition of Christian
antiquity, was written in the Aramaic language, yet the Greek
text has been always unhesitatingly acknowledged to be identical
with the gospel written by Matthew, and there is no sufficient
ground for not regarding it as a genuine translation of that
Aramaic original It may be easily supposed that this original
was at an early period altered by the Jewish Christian sects, and
thus lost in its integrity, on which account the translation in which
alone it was accessible acquired all , the more value. The quota
tions from the Old Testament in many cases do not correspond
either with the LXX. or with the Hebrew text, and in this very
probably follow the Aramaic gospel, which no doubt even in
quotations paid regard to the interpretations of a passage which
prevailed in the current paraphrases of the day. The statement
B

t;

1 8 THE MESSIANIC AGE. [PART I.
that we have nothing more of Matthew's own than a collection of
discourses, does not seem probable from the testimony adduced on
the subject. The objections, however, which have been made
to the historical part of the gospel admit of a different explana
tion. The didactic element is certainly the strongest, and a
preference is shown by its author for the combination of more
numerous or longer discourses. When, therefore, he condenses
the historical element into a few leading features, this is suffi
ciently explained by the predominant direction of his mind, and by
the design of bringing prominently forward the conception of the
Messiahship of Jesus, which was the guiding principle in his
selection of topics. The other Synoptists are, like him, silent as
to the earlier period of Christ's ministry in Jerusalem, although
allusions to it are to be found both in Matthew (xxiii. 3 7) and in
Luke (xiii. 34); cf. also Luke x. 38 ff. This has been already
accounted for in a general way by the structural feature visible
in them all, whereby we are led on, from the preparation and
consecration of Jesus, through the characteristic events of His
public ministry to the closing scene. Now, as it is certain that
Matthew afforded a type for the other gospels, his late call also
affords a point of explanation (Matt. ix. 9) ; and, further, the cir
cumstance that without doubt Jesus was not accompanied by the
whole number of His disciples on all His journeys even to Jeru
salem (cf. John vii., and the sending forth of the disciples, Matt.
x. ; also Luke x.). Now, if Matthew was either partially or
wholly absent at the festival visits, this sufficiently accounts for
his only mentioning what occurred in Galilee and Persea. No
doubt he had, as an apostle, delivered the purport of his gospel
by word of mouth many times before he committed it to writing.
In this way, then, the narration of his own experience naturally
fell into its present shape, and this was passed on as a type from
him to th'e others.
The Gospel of JMark, although it displays less originality than
the others, yet contains enough that is peculiar to itself, partly
in particular narratives, partly in the independent treatment of
individual circumstances, to show that it cannot have been en
tirely formed from the Gospels of Luke and Matthew, although
it may have been partially derived from them. But other sources
besides must have been at his command. And individual traits
such as the statement of events at Gethsemane,,in which he alone

§ 3.] OUR SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE. 1 9
has the address to Simon, are best explained by adhering to the
tradition of his connection with Peter. The deficiency of earlier
history in his gospel may be accounted for in the same way.
This is strange even if his work were original, but incomprehen
sible if the other gospels lay before him, unless we suppose that
he was guided by the recollection of the method adopted by
Peter in his didactic discourses, as we know them from the Acts
of the Apostles.
In Luke, the parabolic element specially prevails, and he has,
besides, many narrations in which the didactic and historical
elements are combined. His history of the resurrection is par
ticularly copious, as well as the account, peculiar to himself, in
the ninth chapter, of a circuitous journey to Jerusalem. This
gospel has a strong historical testimony in its favour, in its early
misuse by Marcion, and also in its connection with the Acts of
the Apostles, which are evidently written in part by an eye
witness. And if Luke was really for any considerable period
the companion of the Apostle Paul, this would account for his
being able to make personal investigation in Palestine of the
events related in the gospeL
As regards our fourth gospel, the testimony of Christian anti
quity bearing partly on the gospel itself, and partly on the first
of the epistles connected with it, and also its internal distinc
tive features, authenticate it as the genuine work of the Apostle
John sufficiently to overcome the doubts even of modem criticism.
As internal evidence in its favour, may be mentioned not only
individual traits, which betray an eye-witness's exact knowledge of
facts, but, above all, the historical unity of the whole, in which a
development so much in accordance with facts is revealed. Its
universality of scope, and freedom from national limitations, have in
particular been thought suspicious ; but this arises only from the
fact of their having been exaggerated and represented from a one
sided point of view. Moreover, it depicts the Jewish surround
ings of Jesus both as a whole and in detail with sharply defined
Jewish characteristics. John relates only a smaller number of
characteristically selected miracles, but these well represent the
whole miraculous agency of Jesus. The evangelist shows himself
to have a thorough insight into the latter as a whole, and gives
to it the importance due to it amongst the causes of Jesus'
success. Thus, for example, in Jerusalem (ii. 23, viii. 30 ff);

20 THE MESSIANIC AGE. [PART I.
and also in Galilee ; for the activity . in that place is plainly
enough put forward (iv. 45, vi. 1-15, cf. 66). That the con
ception found of Jesus Himself is not a really different one in
the Synoptists and in John, has to be shown by the setting forth
of the teaching so as to form one single conception of Him de
rived from both sources. Again, the general course of our Lord's
career is not differently represented in the two accounts ; — at
least, any one must have greatly prejudged the question who
could venture to maintain that, according to the Synoptists, there
were no drawbacks to the success of our Lord's ministry, even up
to the time of the final catastrophe ; and likewise that John's
conception of the character of Jesus is stiff, lifeless, and unvary
ing. In conclusion, we must remark that the evangelist knew
how to distinguish the discourses and doctrine of Jesus from
his own ideas. We are in a position to show that it is quite
possible to exhibit separately the Apostle John's system of doc
trine, and that of Jesus as set forth in this gospel ; albeit a cer
tain colouring in the rendering of the discourses may belong to
the narrator. The gospels generally give the grandest picture of
a divinely-human personality, whose superhuman claims are yet
comprised in all their ethical greatness, and pervade the whole
mass of the narrative. To have produced such a picture far
exceeds the power of a mere narrator. But, in John's Gospel
especially, the discourses of Jesus are drawn so much out of the
inmost depths of this life itself, that there can be no difficulty in
deciding whether to acknowledge their authenticity or to ascribe
them to an author of the second century. Not even to an
apostle could we venture to attribute them. -
To speak, in the next place, of the different ways in which
these writings have been understood, The allegorical interpreta
tion sprang up on a field foreign to Christianity ; it was soon con
tinued in the Church only in the form of edifying application,
and, subsisted in this way for a long time side by side with the
historical mode of interpretation, and on the same basis. It was
reserved for the last century to resuscitate the revolting hypo
thesis of a deceptive design brought forward by the exasperated
and desperate enemies of Christianity ; but this soon succumbed
to the verdict of public opinion. On the other side, the so-called
natural explanation was involved in difficulties which soon made
it impossible, . Thus nothing remained for those who would not

§ 3.] OUR SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE. 21
acknowledge the historical truth of the gospels, but the assumption
that they were traditions which had their origin in the inventive
and poetizing spirit of the people. And this view was adopted
more eagerly in proportion to the interest taken in the traditions
of antiquity. But it is, moreover, .on external grounds impossible
that tradition should have been able to substitute a mass of fictions
for genuine historical records in the Church. For, as the most
unsuspected apostolical testimony in the epistolary portions of
the New Testament show, the life of Jesus was never left to be
attested by tradition of this kind ; but, being at first in the hands of
the apostles themselves, was handed down from them by means of a
well-ordered ecclesiastical ministry. The more impossible it became
on historical grounds to regard the whole existence and life of
Jesus as a myth, the more inducements there were for endeavour
ing to assume signs of a mythical element in the narratives them
selves. These signs, however, are not restricted to the universal
criteria of historical truth ; but those which possess most force and
widest application are always deduced from a view of nature and
history, which excludes miracles, or from a lower view of the per
son of Jesus, which is opposed to everything that tends to glorify
Him, and consequently bases the history on nothing better than
dogmatic hypothesis. But what tells most decisively against the
mythical view, is the fact which cannot be got over, that the origin
of these myths does not admit of a sufficient explanation, either on
a retrospective or prospective view of the history. For, as regards
the first, the Christian Messiah was, notwithstanding the basis laid
for Him in the ground of the Old Testament, an entirely different
person from him whom the Jews expected ; and, as for the second,
the original Christian conception, from which Jesus is said to have
sprung, is based simply on history. The characteristic of this
conception plainly is, that it has its origin in a redeeming life.
And the fact of the redemption of mankind, which lay from the
beginning in the Christian consciousness, does not consist in the
existence of the idea, but in the reality of the life sought for.
Without "this, Christianity would sink to the level of ante-Chris
tian religions; it would be, like them, an endless seeking after
truth, instead of wearing as its distinctive characteristic that it
has found it in Christ.
Apart from the external evidence in their favour, which lies
in the Style and recognition of the gospel writings themselves

22 THE MESSIANIC AGE. [PART I.
and is referred to in biblical introduction, the decisive ground
for their acceptance as real history lies in the existence of the
apostolic church, and in its inner growth and incorporation with
the life of Jesus. This apostolical church, however, offers us
direct as well as indirect proofs. In the apostolic letters, as
didactic and hortatory epistles addressed to already existing
communities, we cannot, of course, expect to find any description
of the life of Jesus ; but the principal facts of His life are con
stantly referred to as historically known and certain. Cf. on the
subject of His life and parentage, 2 Cor. viii. 9 ; Phil ii 7 ;
Rom. i 3, cf. ix. 5 ; 2 Tim. ii 8 ; Gal. iv. 4 ; — on His suffer
ings, death, and resurrection, 1 Cor. ii. 8 ; 1 Cor. xv. 3, 4 ; Rom.
vi. 9, 10 ; — on His dignity and sinlessness and His work, Rom.
viii 3, 4; 2 Cor. xiii. 4; Rom. viii. 17, 34, xiv. 9, 10, cf. ii.
6, 16 ; 2 Cor. v. 21 ; Rom. iv. 25, v. 11 ff.; 1 Cor. xv. 45 ;
1 Cor. viii 6 ; 2 Cor. iv. 4 ; Rom. viii. 9 ff. Upon this rests
the whole Pauline Christology. Now Paul was certainly not an
eye-witness, and his evangelical announcement was quite an
original one (Gal. i.) ; but yet he was in communication with eye
witnesses of the facts (GaL ii), and must have collected from
them information about what had happened. We see, for in
stance, how, with regard to the Last Supper, he appeals to some
definite information on the subject (1 Cor. xi.) ; and, in speaking
of the resurrection, to the minutely detailed external testimony on
which it rests (1 Cor. xv.). He is also careful, where precepts of
life are concerned (1 Cor. vii.), to distinguish between matters
actually determined by Jesus, and his own or any other opinions
respecting them. Thus we find both requisites, — that he rests
upon history, and that he deals with it in the most conscientious
manner. Equally strong testimony to the same principal facts
is borne by the Apostle John, who, in his first epistle, speaks of
himself in the most positive terms as an eye-witness ; and the
evidence of Peter (1 Epist.) and of James is of the same kind.
So also, outside the canon of Scripture, the unvarying tradition of
the ancient church speaks of a firmly rooted and abiding conviction
on this subject. The very silence of Josephus is a testimony for
the life of Jesus ; for1, had he been able to disprove the validity of
the Christian statement, he would certainly have done so. The con
clusion is irresistible, that the existence of the Christian church
and of the idea on which it rests is a fact which can be explained

§ 3.] OUR SOURCES OF KNOWLEDGE. 23
in no other way than by the extraordinary personality and history
which are claimed for it. It is contrary to all historical analogy
that a number of obscure individuals should have been the authors
of. these world-transforming ideas, except under the genuine guid
ance of a master spirit. And without doubt it would have far
exceeded the capability of such narrators, and still more of the
disciples in general, to work out by their own unaided powers
the conception of such a personality ; and herein exactly lies its
historical probability, or, indeed, truth.
All objections to the miraculous element in the appearance of
Jesus are easily removed, if we look at the grand inner harmony
of the picture of His life which is presented to us. It is a per
fect human personality which meets us there. Where it tran
scends the limits of mere humanity, it still exhibits amidst all
its personal power a discretion so meek and lowly, that we are
compelled either to regard Him as a fanatic or an impostor ; or,
failing to reconcile either of these suppositions with His human
character, to acknowledge that He was neither one nor the other,
but that His supernatural claim rests in the inmost depths of
His consciousness, and was therefore a true one. Understood
in this way, this absolutely unique personality agrees with the
historically unique character of Christianity. But, notwithstand
ing its miraculous nature, it also forms a part of an organized
system, which has its roots in the whole period of revelation
antecedent to the appearance of Jesus, and, in its subsequent
effects, buds, blossoms, and bears fruit. Indeed, it has been
thought to be a characteristic of the myth, that the fact shows
itself as the highest development of an historically antecedent
idea. But why should not God -carry out the purposes for which
He has so prepared the way ? The effects are, however, quite
homogeneous to the miraculous beginning. The more firmly,
therefore, the main fact is established, the greater right we have
to demand that the first question asked by an impartial inquirer
should be, What has taken place? and then, How is it to be
accounted for ? Also, that characteristics should not be pre
supposed of everything which has taken place which run counter
to the very character of the facts, and make them antecedently
impossible, because a certain philosophical view looks upon
every miracle as impossible. But the rejection of all that is
miraculous cannot constitute itself the law of historical inquiry.

24 THE MESSIANIC AGE. [PART I.
The true critic will hold fast to the' main historical facts and all
that is necessarily involved in them ; and, in the next place, he
will apply to the accounts in question the test of their internal
agreement. These accounts exhibit some points of difference.
But this is the case with the most notorious facts of profane
history, without any one dreaming of its being necessary on that
account to call in question the facts themselves. Many difficul
ties, arising from this varied mode of presentation, vanish of
themselves as soon as the task of forming a judgment is simply
set about with an honest purpose. So far as some of these state
ments bear a peculiar stamp, the fact is explained by the copious
ness of form and expression assumed by the grandeur of our
Lord's personality. On the other hand, we see in the above-cited
example of the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. vii.), how conscientiously,
in apostolic times, the authentic discourses of Jesus were selected
and handed down. With this agrees the careful transmission of
the discourses in Matthew ; and even in John it can be shown
how well he distinguishes the discourses of Jesus and their type
of doctrine from his own. The subjective nature of the repre
sentation takes nothing from its historical character. It is itself
only an indirect proof of the powerful influence which was at
work But, where the same circumstances are differently re
ported, the critic has to decide whether the facts are really
identical or not, only he must do this on historical, not on
philosophical grounds. No theory of inspiration can prevent our
acknowledging the existence of such elements of uncertainty.
The method of biblical theology is of necessity purely historical,
and hence the manner alone in which the Scripture expresses
itself can here be considered. And here the general possibility
must be admitted, that even a decided theory of divine inspiration
may be compatible with the admission of individual elements not
strictly authentic, provided only that the transmission of that
which regards the nature of Christianity lies under no suspicion.

DIV. L §4.] THE LIFE OF JESUS. 25

FIRST DIVISION.

THE LIFE OF JESUS
§ 4. Nature of the Subject.
Christianity in the Messianic period is essentially bound up
with the person of Jesus of Nazareth ; and herein a distinction
must be drawn between His historical appearance and the didactic
expression of the Messianic consciousness in the teaching of Jesus.
Now, all that is aimed at here being to describe the essential
features of Christianity during this period, our sketch will certainly
embrace the whole life of Jesus, but not in its details. Hence it
is clearly not a biography of Jesus, — a subject, however, which has
possessed a copious literature of its own since the last quarter of the
18 th century. The essential facts are what we are most concerned
with, and these are the turning-points in our Lord's history, as His
birth related by two, His death, resurrection, and glorification
by all four, evangelists ; and also a compendium of historical
details, so far as they display the nature of the Messianic person.
It is not necessary, for instance, to describe every individual
miracle, but only in general our Lord's activity in works of that
kind, and its characteristic features as an essential phase of His
historical manifestation.
The early history of Jesus must also form a part of our pre
sent plan ; and it will be necessary to investigate the question, in
which sense the birth and youth of Jesus form essential parts of
His personal manifestation.

I. THE EARLY HISTORY OF JESUS.
I 5. A General View of the Above.
The accounts of Jesus' early years, compared with those of His
public life, stand in a different relation to the gospel preaching of

26 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I.
the apostles and their coadjutors. For only the later events could
form the topic of a discourse intended to make proselytes. It
was the public life only which could found a new faith ; other
things could do no more than contribute to its support. And it
was of importance before unbelievers that the facts should be
attested by contemporary evidence. On this account Mark and
John begin with the public life, and even in the Acts, John's
baptism is adhered to as "the starting-point of the apostolic testi
mony (Acts i 21, 22, x. 36-41, 37, 39, xiii. 24); and for the
same reason also the feast of the Epiphany is prior in historical
importance to that of Christmas. But/ as the interest a believer
takes in the subject is different from that of an unbeliever, it be
comes necessary to trace the life of Jesus to its source ; and this
requirement had to be satisfied in the gospels written for the
church. A more general Christian interest than that exhibited
in St. Matthew must be presupposed in the man to whom Luke's
Gospel is addressed. The evangelist himself evidently possessed
the extensive scheme and comprehensive grasp of the true his
torian ; and his aim had in view the whole province of the attain
able. Although this might have been possible by fictitious
narrative, either intentional and conscious, or unintentional and
mythical, yet authentic traditions and liistorical investigation
would be equally available for the same purpose ; and these were -
accessible to the apostles and their contemporaries, who had our
Lord's mother living amongst them (Acts i. 14, cf. John xix. 26,
2 7). The objection that even the family of Jesus had no belief
in Him (John vii. ; Mark iii.) cannot be maintained. In the
expression of doubt concerning Him recorded by Mark (iii. 21)
Mary herself took no part ; and it is quite in the nature of things
that she should prefer to ponder in her own thoughtful spirit over
the earlier events, rather than make them known prematurely even
to her nearest relatives. In the case of our Lord's brethren, the
proverb about the prophet in his own country was certainly ful
filled to the letter ; yet they also believed after the resurrection.
Whether the accounts relating to this period are to be re-1
garded as trustworthy, obviously depends upon the genuineness
of the opening chapters of Matthew and Luke.
(a) The genuineness of the first two chapters of Matthew has
been often attacked and defended since the last quarter of the last
century, The external reasons against them founded on the nature

DIV. I. § 5.] GENERAL VIEW OF HIS EARLY HISTORY. 27
of the manuscripts will not bear investigation. The use of the
chapters in question amongst the fathers extends as far back as
Justin, who, in his dialogue with Trypho, quotes as from Matthew
the Old Testament passages therein referred to, and manifestly
makes free use of him himself. Celsus, on the other hand, as we
learn from Origen, disputed the genuineness of these accounts.
They make good their claim, however, to be regarded as original
portions of ( Matthew's Gospel, not only by their language, which
might be laid to the account of the Greek translators, but also by
their whole general mode of expression. The Ebionites and the
Gnostics alike rejected them on dogmatic grounds. For these
dogmas made them necessarily averse not only to the history of
our Lord's birth, but also to the genealogy (in which, ver. 16,
Mary is mentioned), and to the story of the magi ; for, according
to the Ebionites, who held that Jesus first became the Messiah at
His baptism, His star could not have shown itself so early.
(b) Against the genuineness of the first two chapters of Luke
only Marcion can be adduced, but his criticism proves nothing at
all. The only inference which can be drawn from the Jewish
vein of thought which runs through them, is that Luke met with
some earlier sources of information, which he regarded as com
pletely trustworthy.
It only remains, therefore, to apply the principles of internal
criticism to the narrative itself, and that chiefly on the formal
ground of the relation which the two accounts bear to each other,
and their discrepancies or incompatibility. Both accounts are
.undeniably of a fragmentary character. The only circumstances
they possess in common are the proof of our Lord's descent from
David (but dealt with in different ways), the account of His super
natural generation, and of His birth at Bethlehem. Matthew's
narrative, however, is given from Joseph's standpoint, Luke's from
that of Mary; and the two are therefore quite independent of
each other. Matthew's object is to demonstrate the Messianic
character of Jesus from His earliest youth by means of the history
of the magi, and of His rescue from the consequent peril of His
life, no less than by the genealogy and proof of His supernatural
birth/ He is satisfied when he has attained this object, which he
clearly indicates by referring back to the Messianic prophecies
themselves. Luke has essentially the same object in view, re
tracing as he does the connection between Jesus and John the

28 ' THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I.
Baptist to its source, adding some scenes from the childhood of
the former, which had impressed themselves deeply on the mother's
heart. Now, the fragmentary character of such a history of his
youth almost necessitates that one statement should deviate from
the other even to the extent of appearing to contradict it. But
there is no real discrepancy. For we can easily suppose that the
presentation in the Temple may have taken place before the ar
rival of the magi. The statement at first sight opposed to this
(Luke ii. 39) is merely the form in which the evangelist passes
on to his main subject, the events which took place at Nazareth.
The return to Nazareth, by a journey of several days, imme
diately after the presentation, is not in itself very probable ; but
the presentation must by no means be regarded on that account
as having taken place after the flight into Egypt. The fragment
ary character, therefore, of these notices' explains the difficulty of
the return to Nazareth appearing, according to Luke's account, to
follow upon the presentation, whereas it took place, as Matthew
relates, from out of Egypt ; and also the appearance, according to
St. Matthew, of Bethlehem having been their earlier abode. But
we must also notice that Joseph, from whose standpoint Matthew
proceeds, certainly belonged to Bethlehem, even though he may
have had no house there. (As to the double pedigree, see below.)
Thus much, at least, is proved by the existence of two accounts,
that there was not originally any one of sole and undisputed
authority, — a fact perfectly consistent with the credibility of the
various existing narrations, of which each of the two evangelists
has handed down a portion in internal agreement with the other,
Matthew giving greater prominence to its retrospective bearing on
the Old Testament, Luke to matters of more purely historical
interest. Thus the chief objection to the accounts, entertained even by
biographers of Jesus who otherwise admit the historical character of
the individual, — which, too, has afforded such facilities for attacks
like that of Strauss, — lies entirely in the tenor of the accounts them
selves. People demur to the supernatural occurrences which are
related, not considering that the same objection, if valid, attaches
to the whole life no less than to the early childhood of Jesus : the
one is not more full of wonders than the other. If the truth of
the former be admitted, — of the noble and harmonious picture of
the life of Jesus as it is presented in the gospels, with every re-

DIV. I. § 6.] HIS DESCENT AND BIRTH. 29
quisite not only for leading captive but also for completely satis
fying the human soul, the only picture which is at all adequate to
the true idea of Christianity and its world-wide importance and
activity, — then must we allow that the early history in Matthew
ancf Luke fully corresponds to the harmonious whole. It is entirely
owing to this miraculous manifestation that the higher life has
attained even its present degree of development in human nature.
And it is a sufficient answer to the speculation which finds this
miracle impossible, to point to the course of history developed
during the last two thousand years as the superstructure resting
on that foundation.
It must, indeed, be allowed that these accounts occupy a dif
ferent position to that of the apostolic testimony to our Lord's
later life. For, as regards these earlier events, the apostles were
not eye but ear witnesses. We have, therefore, only two accounts
of this history, and there is but little which is related in both.
This circumstance, however, does not affect their credibility.
| 6. Bescent and Birth of Jesus.
The principal fact of the conception is unequivocally and
unanimously indicated by both evangelists. Matthew implies it
(i 16) by the omission of the form iyevvrjae in the genealogy,
and verse 18 leaves no doubt on the point. The preposition
etc excludes every other explanation, as, for instance, in conformity
with the Holy Ghost, i.e. with foregoing prophecy, or in a manner
well pleasing to the Holy Ghost, approved of God, and not
criminal in the eyes of man. In addition to this, however, all
such interpretations are excluded by the historical connection in re
gard to the behaviour of Joseph. A natural conception by another
man, — a crime, according to national ideas, worthy of death, —
does not agree with either of the above-mentioned explanations.
The sense is therefore clear. It is a conception brought about
without man's participation by the creative power of God. And
precisely the same fact is undeniably asserted by St. Luke also.
The negative side of it is expressed by Mary (i. 34), and the
positive by the angel (i. 35). The &yiov (neuter, because it is
the yet impersonal fcetus) will be the Son of God, in the same
immediate creative sense as Adam (iii. 38) ; so that here also we
are referred to the creative power of God, to the exclusion of
any masculine human agency.

30 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I
The foremost objection urged against these accounts is, that
they are internally contradictory. Although the details follow one
another easily and conformably to fact, — viz. the announcement to
Mary, Mary's visit to Elisabeth, the announcement to Joseph, and
our Saviour's birth, — still a contradiction is supposed to lie in the
fact, that the second angelic message followed as a simple repeti
tion, without reference to the first, and with no blame for disbelief
in the earlier one, and that between Mary and Joseph themselves
no explanation had taken place. Now, there could have been no
such reference or blame if Joseph were unaware of the earlier
angelic message. But if he knew of it, the mere agreement be
tween the two messages would doubtless have at once removed
all uncertainty from his mind. And yet the very naturalness of
the doubt, in the face of the unprecedented nature of the fact,
would have removed all cause for blame. Besides which, it is
uncertain whether Mary had thus early communicated it to him.
But, in our ignorance whether she had in the interval any oppor
tunities of confidential intercourse with him on the subject, or was
not rather obliged to leave it in higher hands, we must pronounce
her too free from blame. Thus no blame attaches in any case to
either, and the accounts are natural and consistent.
But the event itself has of late been impugned on physico-
theological grounds, — the attack being directed (1) physiologically
against the circumstance of the miracle ; (2) theologically against
the purpose of it. As regards the latter, others have adopted
Schleiermacher's view, that the exclusion of the merely paternal
participation would not have sufficed to secure perfect sinlessness
in the new life, which end, however, might have been attained by
the mere purification of both sources of parentage alike. But
this view quite overlooks the main point involved, namely, the
exclusion of the sensual act of generation, which exclusion would
entirely alter the maternal participation (cf. John i. 13). Thus,
then, the fact appears quite adequate to the object in view • and,
this object being parallel to that of creation itself, it is difficult to
understand why a creative ""act, setting aside the laws of nature,
could not possibly have been performed, those laws being them
selves established only by the act and purpose of creation.
A further objection against the supernatural conception is of an
Lristorico-exegetical character, and is founded partly on the silence
of the rest of the New Testament on this point, partly on doctrines

DIV. I. § 6.] niS DESCENT AND BIRTH. 31
and facts held to be opposed to it. (a) The evangelists Matthew
and Luke, it is said, make no further allusion to it. But this was
unnecessary, since they had already given such decided promi
nence to the fact. And when the expressions parents and father
occur (Luke ii. 41, 48), we must surely assume that they are
used in the sense required by the immediately preceding narra
tive. In the same way the fact of the Davidical genealogies
running through Joseph is a proof that' the evangelists at least
did not regard these genealogies as contradicting the conception.
Again, to suppose that Jesus Himself, in the face of depreciatory
expressions as to His descent, should have referred to the mode
of His origin, is nothing less than absurd ; for this would only
have exposed Him to fresh obloquy. He did all that could pos
sibly be required in bearing witness to Himself simply as the Son
of His heavenly Father, in the only true sense of that expression.
(b) Allowing that the epistolary portion of the New Testament
does not mention the fact (not even Rom. i 3 ; Gal. iv. 4 ; Heb.
vii. 3), the omission is of no importance. For it was not neces
sary to put this truth prominently forward in founding Chris
tianity, but it was much more to the purpose of the apostles'
teaching first to plant a faith in the higher nature of Jesus, from
which faith the admission of the fact in question would neces
sarily follow, (c) But it has also been said that John's view of
the incarnation, and of the indwelling of a divine hypostasis in
Jesus, contradicts the conception by the Holy Ghost. So far from
contradicting, his doctrine even requires it ; for how could the
result have been brought about without such a conception ? This
argument becomes irresistible when supported by the statement in
John's Gospel, that what is born of the flesh is flesh, (d) Nor is
it of any importance that Mark also, in his abridgment, passes over
this fact unmentioned.
To the untenableness of the above-named objections, must be
added the difficulty of assigning a mythical origin to the narrative.
The facts brought forward to connect it with Old Testament ideas
are of an entirely different nature. Something beyond a differ
ence in degree must surely exist between distinguished men bom
of aged parents, and also the term son of God as applied to kings
and heroes on the one hand, and to Him who owed His origin to
no human father on the other. It is not only probable, from the
scantiness of our information, but, from Justin's Dialogue with

32 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I.
Trypho, it is certain, that Isa. vii. was not interpreted messiani-
cally by the Jews. We must also bear in mind that the truth in
question was most violently attacked by the Ebionites ; and that the
LXX. has been blamed for its translation irapOevos in this passage.
But if the Jewish line of reference is closed against us, still less
can the origin we are contending for be explained by an appeal
to heathen analogies of sons of gods and various incarnations,
all resting on entirely different hypotheses, apart from the ex
trinsic improbability of the idea as regards a narrative which
belongs to the Hebraistic elements of St. Luke. This much alone
is evident from these analogies, that the premonitory tendency of
subjective religion is towards a reunion of the divine and human,
which finds its completion in the divine origin and person of
Christ. The Christian doctrine of a regeneration by the Spirit,
the whole tenor of which being so entirely different, cannot have
given occasion to the narrative. And still less can it be referred
to an over-estimate of the unmarried life ; for the gospels presup
pose that a real marriage between Mary and Joseph was after
wards consummated. Thus the mythical view is refuted by its
internal impossibility.
On the other hand, it may be assumed that the whole course of
New Testament development, which leads on from facts to ideas
and doctrines, will not prove to have belied itself. Even the
conferring of the name of Jesus is, if not a convincing, yet a
supporting proof, of the historical nature of the occurrence. The
significance of the fact, — and that it has significance is evident from
the "therefore" (Bio) of Luke i 35, — lies in its being the starting-
point of a new life for mankind, a life of pure humanity. The
proportions of the synoptic view have not yet reached the point
of the incarnation, nor is absolute sinlessness as yet asserted any
more than in the case of Adam. But, by the exclusion of the
generative act from the origin, a higher degree of purity was at
all events secured for the offspring. The personality, which was
thus spared from being interwoven with the continuity of our
sinful nature, adopted from it so much only as was homogeneous
to its divine origin, and consequently bears within itself a purity
and power resulting from the divine consciousness, enabling
it to become a new starting-point for humanity. This is the
synoptical idea, answering to the Pauline comparison of Christ
with Adam, and to his apprehension of Him as the Lord from

DIV. I. § 6.] HIS DESCENT AND BIRTa 33
heaven (1 Cor. xv. 47), and as the life-giving Spirit (xv. 45, cf.
Rom. v. 12 ff).
The reverse of the generation without paternity is the descent
from the race of David. Matthew and Luke give genealogies
which aim at proving Jesus to have been descended from David,
as in the character of the Messiah He must have been, and also
from Abraham as the first recipient of the theocratic promise. But
whilst Matthew confines himself to this, Luke goes back to Adam.
By connecting Jesus with the first man, he also places Him in
historical connection with all mankind, thus proving himself to be
a universalist of the Pauline school
The genealogy of Matthew traces the descent from David
through Solomon and famihar royal names ; that of Luke, on the
other hand, by a series of obscure names through Nathan. The
latter has therefore been believed to be a genealogy of Mary, — an-
opinion the more readily embraced, because it appeared to har
monize better with the story of the conception. An old tradition
also speaks of the descent of Mary from David. This explanation,
however, does not harmonize with the words in Luke iii. 23,
whether Heli be regarded as father-in-law or grandfather. Further,
it appears to result from Luke ii. 4 and i 27 that the evangelist
ascribed a descent from David to Joseph only ; and, lastly, the
genealogy of the mother would, according to Jewish ideas, have
had no weight at all. For this very reason, the union of the con
ception with the genealogy, even if regarded as Joseph's, would
be in no way opposed to Jewish views of legitimate descent.
Nor do the two genealogies, even if they both refer to Joseph,
exclude each other. Their existence side by side may be explained
either by a marriage of two half-brothers, or more simply by
assuming that one gives the natural, the second the legal descent
through adoption. If we choose the latter supposition, the
marriage of Mary as an heiress into the line of David would at
any rate help to explain the old tradition of her descent from him.
All that has been proved hitherto is that such a mode of recon
ciling the genealogies is not improbable. Other difficulties re
main behind, such as the double mention of Zorobabel, and the
omission of the three kings. But the genealogy may still be
credible as a whole in spite of these difficulties, especially those of
them which arise from the abridgments not unusual in such cases.
Everything combines to prove that the descent of Jesus from
C

34 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I.
David was not questioned by His contemporaries (cf. Matt. ix. 27,
xii. 2\.l, xx. 30 f. [Mark x. 47 ; Luke xviii. 35 ff.], xxi. 9;
[Acts ii. 30 ; Rom. i 3, ix. 5 ; 2 Tim. ii. 8 ; Rev. v. 5, xxii 16]) ;
nor is His own testimony (Matt. xxii. 41-46) in any way opposed
to it. The importance attaching to this feature serves also to
explain His acknowledgment as the Messiah ; and the fact being
once admitted, it became a matter of the deepest moment on
historical grounds to trace out and compile the genealogies.
In accordance with a prevailing idea founded on Micah v. 1,
Bethlehem was the place of Jesus' birth. This is only mentioned
incidentally by Matthew (ch. ii. 1) ; but Luke states in detail, that
Joseph and Mary left Nazareth, their usual abode, and for the pur
poses of the census travelled to Bethlehem, where the birth took
place. The supposition that Nazareth was their earlier dwelling-
place is not contradicted by Matthew (ii. 22, 23) ; for it might very
well have been a question with them at that time (having the child- >
Messiah committed to their care), whether it would not be better
for them to live at Bethlehem on account of its near neighbourhood
to the sanctuary, and in order to avoid the associations connected
with Nazareth. That this is not more plainly expressed is due
to the fragmentary nature of the account.
But Luke enters more minutely into particulars, mentioning a
Homan census as the occasion of what followed. Now, it has
been thought improbable that either of them, and especially Mary,
should have gone to the place of their ancestry for such a pur
pose. Yet recent investigations have shown that among the
Romans every one was assessed at the place where he was a
municipal freeman ; and, moreover, according to later enactments,
women of independent fortune were liable to taxation. It is not,
however, stated that Mary was obliged to appear : she might have
followed so as to avoid being left behind without protection, and
exposed to slanderous reports at Nazareth. The question now
arises, whether at this time, under the government of, Herod, a
Roman census could have taken place. This is affirmed by the
fact that Augustus left behind him a complete rationarium and
breviarium of the whole empire, which could be based only on a
census ; that he availed himself of the opportunity to assume'
universal proconsular power ; and that on another occasion excep
tions are cited to the universality of such a census, which prove
universality to have been the rule.

DIV. I. § 7.] FIRST COMING INTO PUBLIC NOTICE, AND EARLY LIFE. 35
We are here met by the difficulty that Quirinius (Luke ii. 2)
was not proconsul at this time, and that under him undoubtedly a
well-known census did take place (mentioned in Acts v. as well as by
Josephus), which, however, occurred twelve years later. To avoid
the necessity of altering the text, a distinction has been drawn
between the planning or beginning of the census, and its actual
carrying out or completion ; or Quirinius is not considered as pro
consul, but only as commissary. But a better expedient than
either is to understand irpmrri as a comparative, this usage occur
ring both in Hellenistic and classical Greek. But even then the
expression would be ambiguous. Thus much, however, is certain,
that Luke, who was very exact in his dates, cannot have mistaken
the taxation twelve years later mentioned by himself, and that
even a chronological inaccuracy in this respect could not upset
the entire fact.1
It need occasion no surprise that Bethlehem is not mentioned
elsewhere in the gospels as our Lord's birthplace. If the con
temporaries of Jesus took offence at His being a Nazarene (cf.
John vii. 41), the most obvious way of convincing them of His
Messiahship would have been to maintain against them the
erroneousness of their supposition ; but it was much more to His
purpose to do this in a different manner. On John i 46 it is to
be observed, that Philip might perhaps not have been aware of
the birth in Bethlehem. And, moreover, had prominence been
given to this fact in the gospels, critics would no doubt have
inferred from it premeditation and untruthfulness.
§ 7. First coming into public Notice, and early Life.
Luke relates how the wondrous birth was made known to
*%ome shepherds of Bethlehem by a revelation of angels, and sub-
. sequently, at the presentation in the temple, to two very aged
persons by a, spiritual impulse from within. Matthew tells of
the appearance of an unusual star, under the influence of which
some eastern magi, having arrived at the conviction of the birth
of the Messiah, came to do homage to Him.
According to Luke, the announcement was made to the shep
herds of Bethlehem in the field by a vision of angels (first, ii. 9,
10, of one; then, 13, 14, of many). The angelic appearance can
1 [On this vexed and intricate question the treatise of A. W. Zumpt, recently
republished in a more complete form, Bhould by all means be consulted.— Tb.]

36 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I.
excite no surprise in those who are at all conversant with the
spirit of the Scriptures. The world of spirits is represented
throughout the New Testament as forming with mankind the one
family of God (Eph. i 10, [iii. 15 ;]¦ Col. i 20 ; Luke xv. 10 ;
John i 52). In the present case, the appearance of angels fulfils
its loftiest aim, first in the shepherds, whose Messianic faith is
proved by their conduct ; next in the parents of Jesus, to whom
they impart it ; and lastly in the whole Christian Church which
takes part in it. All the circumstances are in harmony with the
whole life of Jesus ; and there are no grounds for a mythical
hypothesis founded on such inadequate analogies as are afforded
by divine appearances to shepherds, and the glorification attend
ing the birth of some great men.
The second announcement is connected with the religious acts
which were commanded, partly with reference to the mother,
partly to the child (Lev. xii. 2-8 ; Ex. xiii. 2 ; Num. xviii 15).
The child, brought by His mother with this object to Jerusalem,
two miles from Bethlehem, was there recognised by Simeon, a
very aged man living in constant expectation of the Messiah
(whom some without any ground have wished to identify with
the father of Gamaliel), and also by an aged prophetess called
Anna. No merely natural explanation of this incident will
suffice. The whole is brought about by the stirring of the divine
Spirit. Susceptibility to impression meets by divine arrange
ment with a fulfilment, which in the narrative is described as
miraculous, by everything being directly traced back to the work
ing of the Holy Spirit. Simeon speaks as one deeply imbued with
Messianic aspirations under the Old Testament dispensation ; and
the manner in which the widow is introduced is full of historic
truth, without a trace of mere embellishment and display. J(P
were a disparagement of individual religious need to misjudge
the divine purpose, on account of its limitation to these indi-'
viduals. Neither the parallel between this scene and that of
John's circumcision, nor the desire of glorifying both, will at all
explain how the account can have originated in a myth. So far
from this, each event bears a construction of its own.
The third announcement differs from the two preceding in
referring to heathen, — certain Persian priests and astrologers, for
this without doubt the magi were, — who, having had their atten
tion aroused -by some celestial phenomenon, inquire after the

DIV. I. J 7.] FIRST COMING INTO PUBLIC NOTICE, AND EARLY LIFE. 37
Messiah in Jerusalem, are directed to Bethlehem, and there find
Him. Messianic hopes had spread from Israel over the whole
eastern world. Here they became connected with astrology.
These men were led either by an astrological conjecture, or by
some extraordinary phenomenon in the heavens ; most probably
the latter, for there is nothing surprising in the connection of
such an appearance with the birth of Jesus. Thus the hopeful
forebodings of men in widely different spheres received their fulfil
ment (Mic. v. 2), and were brought home to expectant hearts. The
natural and supernatural react upon each other in every part of this
occurrence. What the magi experienced in Jerusalem, and what
led them thence to Bethlehem, has a perfectly natural appearance.
Again, the danger and delivery of the young child, which
followed these events, form a narrative perfectly consistent in
itself, and bearing the stamp of unvarnished history. Certainly
some passages from the Old Testament are applied to it by a
forced interpretation. This can only be due to the impression
made by the facts on the public mind having called forth this
interpretation. Here also the supernatural element steps in, but
always in harmony with the natural course, as in the dreams
which always further the progress of events. The history, too,
harmonizes in a singular degree with the well-known cruel and
cowardly character of Herod. His calculations, resting on the
guileless nature of the magi, and guarding against the possibility
of arousing any suspicion in their minds, were perfectly accurate,
'and must have succeeded but for the divine interposition.
Josephus relates nothing of this, as, upon principle, he says
nothing about Jesus. Tradition has, indeed, often associated
scenes of danger with the early history of great men ; but this
%is no reason why all extraordinary destinies should be untrue.
There is nothing in the Old Testament on which such a myth
can rest. The whole narrative is so simple and free from all
the exaggeration of tradition, that it even gives no intimation of
the full signification of the principal event.
The history of the magi is followed by the settled residence
of Jesus at Nazareth during His youth. Matthew derives His
appellation of Nazarene (ii 23) from a passage in prophecy, pro
bably referring in his own mind to Isaiah xi., where the Messiah
appears as a tender branch [TO (netser)] springing out of an old
and mutilated stem. Jesus dwelling in the dim obscurity of

38 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I.
Nazareth thus appears to the evangelist, who is guided rather by
deeper associations of a general prophetic character than by the
wording of any particular passage, but still retains the formula
of quotation (Sia r&v irpo^T&v). We see, moreover, by his
application of Hos. xi. 1, and Jer. xxxi. 15, that he has also
in mind a deeper connection and the typical analogy of the
sacred history.
Luke mentions the gradual and undisturbed development of
the boy, for which the retirement of Nazareth was exactly suited.
Some excitement from without may be necessary to the develop
ment of a nature even the most original ; but the more original
a nature is, the better the commonest conditions will suffice.
These are here supplied in a pious family life, in the national
traditions, and, above all, in the grand revelations of Holy Scrip
ture to which the youthful Jesus had access.
It was perfectly natural for Him to visit the temple in His
twelfth year, at which age children were considered old enough
to do so ; and while there He mixes with the doctors, according to
the usual custom of the disciples of the rabbis. In all this, as well
as in a moderately wealthy rabbi taking an interest in the child, or
even inviting Him to his house, there is nothing at variance with
the spirit and customs of the time. The case of Samuel presents
only a very general resemblance to this. A peculiar conscious
ness is shown in the reply of Jesus to His mother, especially on
account of the antithetical tone of these words ; but He expresses
nothing more than perception of a deeply-seated unity with God.
Whether the Messianic idea was as yet joined with this in His self-
consciousness, is of course uncertain ; but that idea is so simple
and genuinely human in its universality, that it is difficult to see
how it could be absolutely incompatible with the self-conscious
ness of a child. The narrative is also a voucher for the absence of
all special means of cultivation in His earlier years. Even if the
term rabbi was subsequently applied to Him from the very com
mencement of His public life, this proves nothing as to any
special education, for any one setting up as a teacher might be so
called. TkicTiov also may mean carpenter's son, but no objection
can be founded upon His having shared Joseph's occupation.
Nothing can be more unhistorical than to picture Him in connec
tion with any particular sect.

DIV. I. § 8.] MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST. 39

II. CHRIST'S PREPARATION FOR, AND ENTRANCE
UPON, HIS PUBLIC MINISTRY.
§ 8. Ministry of the Baptist.
The gospel history was regarded by the evangelists as begin
ning with that of John the Baptist : this was also the view taken
by Jesus Himself (Luke xvi. 1 6, etc.), and the evangelists there
fore gave it an early and prominent place in their accounts (Matt.
lit 1-12 ; Luke iii. 1-20 ; Mark i 1-8). Even John has in
effect adopted the same plan, by commencing with the Baptist's
testimony of Jesus (John i 1 9-3 7) ; and his later history is inter
woven with the gospel narrative (Matt. xi. 1 ff., xiv. 1 ff. ; John
iii. 23 ff). The sources are copious enough; and we have, in
addition, the testimony of Josephus for it (Ant. 18). Luke only
gives also John's early history, the extraordinary events of which
are less to be wondered at, if looked upon as showing the divine
arrangement, by their suitability both to tihe existing circum
stances and also to the prophecies of the Messiah's forerunner.
The early history of John is, besides, so interwoven with that of
Jesus, that the two must stand or fall together. The gospels
understand his appearance not as something accidental, but as
a high, necessity attested by Old Testament prophecy. Isaiah
(xl. 3) and Malachi (iii. 1,23) had both predicted the forerunner ;
and, according to the latter, the expectation of Elias' coming had
grown into a popular belief (Matt. xvii. 10 ; John i 21). Jesus
Himself declares this prophecy to have found its fulfilment in
John (Matt. xi. 14, xvii. 12). Before the appearance of the
Messiah, the fiery spirit and incorruptible judicial severity of
Elias were to recall the people and their leaders to the true mean
ing and spirit of the old law, and the moral side of the Messianic
expectation was thus to be introduced. Such was John's voca
tion (Matt. xvii. 11), not arbitrarily assumed, but delegated to
him expressly from above (Luke iii. 2 ; John i. 33).
The whole scope of John's preaching was in harmony with this
design. By the requirement of repentance, he announced the
near approach of the kingdom of God, and also its moral cha
racter ; showing his insight into the nature and divine economy
of this kingdom, by declaring that it did not depend upon descent
from Abraham, but upon a moral and religious conversion. In

4Q THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I.
the universal requirement of repentance he taught the universality
of sin, and accordingly depicted the Messiah as the all-searching
Judge ; but he applied himself also to the various forms of sin, —
to the most deeply seated corruption as well as to the special
modes of individual wrong-doing. The Baptist, too, stood forth
as the personal embodiment of repentance, and thus strengthened
the effect of his exhortations.
His chief course of action was the combination of symbolical
baptism with his preaching. The direct and indirect objects of
this baptism were, respectively, repentance and the forgiveness of
sins. At the same time it pointed to the Messiah ; but, not being
effectual for securing the Messianic salvation, merely having been a
baptism of water in contradistinction to the baptism of the Spirit,
only a symbolical character can attach to it. It was a divine
summons to repentance with reference to belief in the Messiah ;
and as a personal acknowledgment of the need of redemption,
confession of sins was joined with it. If we ask on what grounds
the choice of this symbol for the Baptist rested, Jesus Himself
(Matt, xxi 25) points in a sufficiently marked manner to the
prophet's divine authorization. But this does not supersede the
want of an occasion connecting the rite with some external cir
cumstance. It was long thought that such a link had been dis
covered in the Jewish custom of baptizing proselytes ; but more
careful researches have shown that the existence of this custom
cannot be traced back further than the .destruction of Jerusalem.1
Nor would such an origin accord with the intention of John's
baptism, which did not involve the idea of admission into a new
community. The most probable explanation is, that it . was a
prophetico-symbolical act, such as we find recorded of prophets in
the Old Testament, and connected with a prophetical type of the
prior dispensation. The idea of a moral purification was associated
with the Messianic times, and this was expressly represented under
the form of cleansing with water (cf. Ezek. xxxvi. 25, [xxxvii. 23 ;]
1 [This assertion can hardly be maintained. The hostility felt by the Jews
to Christianity renders it highly improbable that, after the promulgation of the
new faith, the Jews should have adopted so distinctively Christian a rite.
There is good reason to believe that this simple and natural custom, so prevalent
among all the religions of antiquity, was really in use from the captivity, if not
as some think, long before. Cf. Bengel, das Alte der Jtid. Proselytentaufe
Tubingen, 1814.— Tr.] '

DIV. I. § 8.] MINISTRY OF THE BAPTIST. 41
[Jer. xxxi 31-34;] [Joel iii. 1 ;] Zech. xiii. 1, [xii. 10]). John
embodied this type in the symbolical act of his baptism.
The Messiah, whom John regarded as too high above himself
to receive at his hands a service which was too menial even for a
disciple to render to his master, is thus depicted by him in rela
tion to His work : (a) As the spiritual Renewer who was to bap
tize with the Spirit and with fire. The idea of the spiritual
baptism was arrived at, by combining the two Old Testament
views of the outpouring of the divine Spirit on these times, on
the one hand, and with the personal endowment of the Messiah,
on the other. (6) A second characteristic of this work is the
judgment of the Messiah. This is directly contained only in the
synoptic accounts of the Baptist's discourses ; yet in John, too,
whose narrative, (in part) more copious and therefore more ex
posed to critical doubt, must always be compared, the same idea
is to be found in the exclusion (iii. 36) from life of whosoever
does not believe on Him. (c) A third mark follows, occurring only
in John, viz. the Messiah's ministry in purifying from sin (John
i. 29). The older interpretation here referred to the typical
paschal lamb and a sin-offering ; to which view it may fairly be
objected, that the lamb was not an offering of that kind, although
the name of atonement cannot be entirely excluded from it.
Against the obscurity of this interpretation must be set the clearness
which will result if we find therein an allusion to Isaiah liii. The
only question, then, is whether cupeiv means to take away merely,
or involves also the notion of personal suffering : both which views
are in themselves possible. But even in the first case, the taking
away would still, according to Isaiah's imagery, be effected by an
act of endurance ; so that in any case the whole expression con
tains the idea of a purification from sin through suffering, since
a third explanation, that of bearing suffering (ap-aprla), is impos
sible. This idea, however, John must have already arrived at
through his own baptisms, the very intention of which was to
prepare the way by repentance for the forgiveness of sins, which
was to be attained only through the Messiah. And even if John
afterwards entertained any doubt as to the character of Jesus,
nothing more is implied than his inability to account for the
delay, in the Messiah's work. For a proper idea as to Jesus had
certainly not become familiar to the people ; and the disciples of
John, and even of Jesus, might not have attained to- it.

42 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I.
As to the person of Jesus, we have some express declarations
of the Baptist in John's Gospel. The first of these occurs at
i. 27 and 30, where His pre-existence is declared certainly in
•n-p&Tos, and probably in epvrrpotrdev also ; for the latter can
scarcely be interpreted to mean no more than pre-eminence, the
succeeding clause with on being merely explanatory. The
material for this view of the Baptist is to be found in the 7 th
chapter of Daniel, and also in the 5 th of Micah, which at least
admits of such an interpretation ; and, finally, in the many passages
where the coming of the Messiah is represented as the complete
manifestation of Deity, which might easily result in the recogni
tion of a deeper relation between His person and God Himself.
Here, then, we have merely a recapitulation in its more spiritual
features of what was foreshadowed in the Old Testament, and
one which first explains to us John's depreciation of himself as
compared with Jesus, as recorded by the synoptic evangelists.
Another passage (John iii. 32-36) presents greater difficulty, be
cause it is an open question whether the evangelist or the Baptist
is speaking. The former view appears to be favoured by the
fact, that from the 3 2d verse onwards the personal mode of ex
pression is not adopted ; that the paragraph contains some expres
sions (as avcoOev ep^o/ievo?) which elsewhere occur from the lips
of Jesus ; and lastly, that the thoughts contained from ver. 32&
would not be expected from the Baptist at this juncture. On the
other hand, the mention of the Spirit (ver. 34), and of the wrath of
God (ver. 36), does not harmonize so well with the evangelist's
range of thought, as with that of the Baptist from his purely pro
phetical point of view. The opinions expressed are, doubtless, mainly
those of the Baptist, possibly with some colouring of the evan
gelist's own views, but in all essential points true to their original.
Preaching of this kind, enforced by the whole bearing of the
man breathing the spirit of ancient prophecy, and standing out
in sharp opposition to the manners of the age, produced a great
popular excitement quite sufficient to account for the deputation
of the Sanhedrim mentioned by the evangelist (John i. 19).
But although John could not fail to draw down upon him the
public notice of the governing body, his views, especially his
apprehension of the Messiah, were not yet so decidedly developed
as to allow them to take in at first sight the distance which really
lay between the Baptist's sphere of thought and their own. The

DIV. L § 9.] PERSONAL RELATION OF THE BAPTIST TO JESUS. 43
impression he made, however, although it procured him some
real enemies (Matt, xxi 24 ff. ; Luke vii. 30), led also, as is
specially mentioned by Luke (iii. 15), to some genuine feeling of
expectation. It is true, indeed, that there were many — the Phari
sees especially — who took no part in it (Matt. xxi. 24 ff.) ; and
even his own disciples, whom he had under special instruction
(John i. 35, iii. 25 ff. ; Matt. ix. 14 ; Luke xi 1), could not in
all cases reach his standpoint, and were on that very account
unable for a time to accept Jesus as the Messiah (Matt. xi. 2 ff. ;
Acts xix. 1 ff.), — yet the more thoughtful amongst them found
no difficulty afterwards in becoming disciples of Jesus (John i.
35 ff). And in the fact of many of the inhabitants of Perea going
forth of their own accord to meet Him (John x. 40 ff), we see
an afterworking of the first lively impression made by John's
preaching. How John gradually moved out of Perea into Herod's
dominion, rebuked his sins, and hereupon was first detained
prisoner with a certain amount of liberty, and then sacrificed by
Herod, is known from the gospels, and corroborated by Josephus,
since the reason he gives for Herod's conduct, — viz. that the
king feared the influence of the Baptist upon the people,— is a
natural complement of the other. It was through this influence
that the censor of morals would first be thought dangerous.
§ 9. Personal Relation of the Baptist to Jesus.
Jesus and the Baptist were contemporary ; and the statements
in Luke as to the appearance of both in public quite harmonize
with what we know about the time of the birth of each. The
difference of a year or less in their entrance upon public life is
quite sufficient to account for all that was done by John before
the appearance of Jesus. Their work was still for a time con
temporaneous ; and if in Matthew and Mark John the Baptist
appears to have been thrown into prison before Jesus began His
work in Galilee, this must be understood of His second sojourn
there, which is later than that recorded in John ii. The relation
ship of their mothers allows us to suppose that they were per
sonally known to each other ; but whether any closer intimacy
existed between them is uncertain, and John's Nazarite vows
make rather against such a supposition. At the baptism, it is
shown (Matt. iii. 13-15) that John knew Jesus even on the
side of His spiritual and moral personality ; but an insight into

44 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I.
our Lord's Messianic vocation, or at least the divine certainty on
the point, was not opened to him until after that event, and in
this sense he had not before known Him (John i. 33). Their
first meeting, as well as their subsequent conduct, claims for
both of them a completely independent and self-reliant position.
Each follows his own divinely appointed calling. Jesus was no
disciple of John ; nothing was concerted between them ; and John
still pursued his own course, even after his meeting with our Lord. ¦
The fourth gospel alone relates that John expressly bore wit
ness to Jesus as the Messiah in familiar intercourse with his own
disciples (John i 29 ff). That the Synoptists do not mention
this is sufficiently explained by their plan : in them the history
of the Baptist is made to precede the public appearance of Jesus,
whilst in the fourth gospel it is from the very first interwoven
with the texture of the narrative. Notwithstanding that testi
mony, the Baptist did not attach himself to Jesus ; so long as
men had to be prepared for the coming of the Messiah, his
special vocation also continued. He remained a prophet, although
gifted with the clearest prophetical view of the immediately
pending fulfilment ; and, consistently with his pure moral cha
racter, he readily subordinated himself to the higher and freer
spirit. But as soon as John came to regard his imprisonment as
the divinely appointed limit to his mission, he expected the
immediate public appearance of the Messiah, and the rapid de
velopment of powerful attestations of His work. And when
appearances seemed rather to belie this expectation, the dark
stillness of his dungeon called up doubts in the prophet's mind,
and he sent to demand from Jesus Himself the solution of the
difficulty ; but at the same time that he put the question, bore
witness that his confidence was not yet extinct (Matt. xi. 2 ff.).
As John bore witness to Jesus, so did Jesus testify of him
before the people and His disciples as His forerunner and the
promised Elias (Matt. xi. 11 ff., xvii. 11-13). In the first
passage He declares him to be, if not the greatest prophet, at
least surpassed by none, but yet inferior to any member of the
heavenly kingdom: this expression, however, does not exclude
John from all knowledge of Jesus and the gospel. It is plain that
our Lord presupposes John's divine calling, since He (Matt. xxi.
25-27) refers the chiefs of the people to it. In John v. 33 He
appeals from the Jews to John's witness, but not as to his

DIV. I. § 10.] THE BAPTISM OF JESUS. 45
highest testimony. It is evident that He does not rest upon this
alone, His consciousness having a different basis ; but He attaches
importance to it solely on the Jews' account. And this is no
leas in accordance with the position of the forerunner as an in
tegral member of the history of Jesus, than it is consistent with
the independence of both.
This historical conception of the gospels is best attested by the
fact of its essential correspondence with the Old and New Testa
ment dispensations, as well as with the historical relations. The
appearance of Jesus would, but for this, be an accidental and
isolated fact, and that of the Baptist alone both obscure and pur
poseless. Christianity was based upon, and predicted in, the Old
Testament ; and their intimate connection was stamped at the very
beginning of the gospel by the appearance of a great restorer of the
law. This is according to nature, and thus God works in history.
§ 1 0. The Baptism of Jesus.
Matt. iii. 13-17 ; Mark i. 9-11 ; Luke iii. 21, 22 ; John i.
31-34. The fact is related only by the synoptic evangelists.
because John's narrative begins at a later period, but he also
plainly alludes to it. The fact of Jesus having submitted to
this baptism loses all its obscurity and its apparent opposition to
His Messianic consciousness, if we rightly understand how His
will was kept in subordination to the divine preparation for the
development of His life, and also regard the rite itself as something
different from a baptism of repentance. This baptism was rather a
divinely ordered preparation for the introduction of the Messiah's
kingdom, and therefore subjectively a declaration of willingness to
take part in it. This declaration it was both possible and necessary
for Jesus to take part in. Herein He fulfils all righteousness
(hiKatoawrj), although He was of course exempted from the confes
sion of repentance. And here we have the explanation of John's
scruples, who indeed expected Him at His preparatory baptism,
but failed to penetrate the reason of His participation in it. But
it was nothing less than our Lord's Messianic consciousness that
brought Him. to the Baptist, whereby He saw clearly that the time
and manner of His public manifestation were not left to His own
choice. He therefore resigned His will entirely to the Father's
keeping, and thus submitted to baptism as much for His own sake
as for the effect of His example upon the multitude.

46 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I.
With this baptism, however, is closely connected a miraculous
phenomenon, the opening of heaven, the descent of the Spirit on
Jesus in the form of a dove, and the testifying voice from on
high. Matthew and Mark describe this as a vision seen by
Jesus ; John gives it as the experience of the Baptist, his object
being to relate the testimony of the latter which resulted from it
rather than to record the fact itself. But none of the accounts
exclude the further manifestation which might be shared by the
people. Luke represents the occurrence for the most part in a
purely objective manner. That a miraculous event is in question
cannot be doubted. Some have thought this miracle opposed to
educated conceptions of God and heaven. But, inasmuch as the
evangelist John, whose idea of God is of the purest kind, has not
taken offence at it, the whole need not necessarily be regarded
merely as an inward vision, against which idea the accounts
speak pretty clearly. We must, however, regard the vision as of
a symbolical character, in which case there is nothing repugnant
either in the heaven cleft as it were with dazzling brightness, or
in the form of the emblematic dove, or in the voice from heaven.
But although presumptions derived from the Old Testament can
not fail to be applied to the occurrence and its consequences,
they are totally inadequate to account for a poetical origin of the
narrative. Least of all can this be explained by the wish of
Judaizing Christians to make out that Jesus then first became the
Messiah. In the Ebionite account of the matter, as we know it
through the fathers, the Bible narrative has been evidently trans
formed and dressed up to further the peculiar dogmas of that sect.
Jesus did not arrive at His Messianic consciousness through
His baptism and its attendant miracle. If He always possessed
this, its development was identical with that of His personal self-
consciousness, as is evident , from the occurrence in His twelfth
year. The natural bringing about of that development lay in His
intimate acquaintance with the divine word on the one side, and
with the human race and its need of redemption on the other.
For the Baptist himself, and through him for the people also, the
baptismal miracle was the unveiling of the Messianic person of
Jesus, and consequently the culminating point of John's baptism,
as well as the decisive turning-point for the beginning of the
Messianic kingdom. It was also the sign by which Jesus would
recognise the commencement of His Messianic activity: it was

DIV. I. § 11.] THE TEMPTATION OF JESUS. 47
for Him the word of the Father pointing out His path, — of the
Father who reserved to Himself to determine the epochs of His
kingdom (Mark xiii. 32 ; Acts i 7). But with this was doubt
less also connected an inner operation, a change in our Lord's
consciousness. The anointing with the Holy Ghost is only a
general expression for this. He had the Messianic consciousness :
He knew Himself to be sinless and in unity with God in a way
which distinguished Him from all other men. But there might
be something still wanting to the activity of His Messianic con
sciousness. This is the perception of the explicit existence of His
Messianic power. The Word made flesh may easily be conceived
apart from His stepping forth thus into public life and action.
And with this something new springs up within Him ; and just as
external, no less than internal, causes contribute to every kind of
natural development, so in this case also divine influence from
without must needs be exerted, through which His latent Messiah-
ship was roused into activity. In this public manifestation it
assumes the decidedly prophetic form ; and the descent upon Jesus
of the Spirit of prophecy constitutes this stage in the development
of the God-man's personality.
« §11. The Temptation of Jesus.
There is an internal connection, independent of mere sequence,
between the baptism of Jesus and His temptation (Matt. iv. 1 ff. ;
Mark i 12 f. ; Luke iv. 1 ff.) ; for it is the Spirit which came
upon Him on the former occasion that leads Him into the wilder
ness. Ere He makes His public appearance, He must first be
inwardly proved to be the active Messiah. The temptation thus
belongs to His Messianic position. But this act of temporary
seclusion may be explained equally well on psychological grounds.
After the consecration, a season of earnest contemplation must
precede the Messianic activity He has now assumed. With this
is connected fasting, as a help to contemplation and undisturbed
communion with God. That it is a partial fast appears from a
comparison of several passages, such as Matt. xi. 18, cf. iii. 4;
Luke vii. 33 ; Acts xxvii. 33. The solitude brings home to Him
the position in which He stands as the Messiah, alone, and desti
tute of all human aid. Hence the features of Mark's account
(i 13). Here there is nothing accidental, but everything is
brought about in accordance with a higher divine necessity. But

48 THE LIFE OF JESUS.. [PART I.
the evangelists are consciously giving a history of what really
occurred. Thus they represent it, and assign it its proper place
in relation to their whole statement. By them, at all events, it
was regarded as a fact. John's account does not begin until
after all this had occurred.
But although the evangelists represent what they are relating
as a real event, it still remains an open question whether it was
an external or an internal one. This much, at any rate, is cer
tain, that on the latter supposition the subjective origin of the
temptation must be ascribed to Satan, since it cannot possibly be
supposed to have arisen in the person of Jestis. We must abso
lutely reject the view that it was a mere inward operation, a
mere conflict of opposing thoughts in the growing mind of Jesus
Himself. The assumption of a dream is equally unsupported in
the text. The theory of a vision wrought by Satan has more pro
bability, and even finds some support in the narrative, because an
external manifestation of the person of Satan is unprecedented
elsewhere in the sacred history, and because the change of loca
lities in the temptation may be thought to present difficulty if
regarded as an actual occurrence. This, indeed, applies particu
larly to the exhibition of all the kingdoms of the world in a
moment of time, which can hardly be regarded as a literal fact,
unless we suppose a vision to have added completeness to it.
The fact of Jesus being led by the Spirit into the wilderness has
also been interpreted in the same way. We are not, however,
tied down to this view in either case, particularly as at other times
Jesus Himself comes into supernatural contact with the spirit-
world, as was the case at the transfiguration and in Gethsemane ;
and also that Satan, if he exists, must also be capable of becom
ing visible. The possibility still remains that, in the intention of
the evangelists, the event may have rested not on any outward and
material perception, but on an internal view, of such a kind, how
ever, as not to interfere with the objective reality of the temptation.
The acts of the temptation itself are three. The tempter
assails Jesus in the threefold tendency of the universally prevail
ing impulses in human nature — the love of life, the desire for
honour, and the thirst for rule and acquisition. The temptation
has accordingly for its objects ungodly enjoyment, the tempting
of God, and self-seeking in its most perfect form ; and so far is
a moral trial universally applicable to human nature. The first

DIV. I. § 11.] THE TEMPTATION OF JESUS. 49
temptation was connected with a real need, and was intended to cause
Jesus to forsake His earthly vocation of suffering. The object of
the second was to induce Him to allow Himself to be singled out
as the object of God's special care in a danger of His own seeking.
The resources of individual temptation being exhausted, it re
mained only to present to Him all the splendour of world-wide
dominion ; but here, too, Satan must needs manifest himself in
his true character, by exacting divine homage. Jesus repelled
him with the fundamental principle on which the Old and New
Testament alike rest. Step by step had He unmasked the evil
designs of the tempter, and at length opposed him with indigna
tion. Two points may be observed in the twofold character of
the temptation. In the first place, Jesus remained free from all
evil inclination within, and was only accessible to temptation
from without. He was, too, throughout conscious of its complete
opposition to the divine order of things. Added to this, the fact
that neither His understanding nor His will for a moment faltered,
sufficiently proves the incorruptibility of His nature. Moreover,
upon this discomfiture of the tempter a threefold principle is
stamped, which we see running through the whole .of our Lord's
Messianic life : (1) never to employ the power which He possessed
in that character for His own advantage ; (2) never arbitrarily to
challenge extraordinary divine assistance ; and (3) never to make
the least concession to the kingdom of darkness for the sake of
attaining what seemed to be the most brilliant result.
The unhistorical view of the temptation explains it partly as a
parable, and partly as a myth. The first view is not only unsup
ported by the narrative itself, but all analogy forbids us to believe
that without a figure Jesus would introduce His own person in
a parable. Nor is it much easier to admit that limitation of the
historical sense, according to which Jesus related parabolically a
real inward occurrence which was historically misunderstood by
His disciples ; for this would be to regard Jesus as the author of
such misapprehension, as He Himself on other occasions speaks of
Satan objectively and didactically. It was, however, the reluctance
tp the embodiment of Satan which gave rise to this expedient.
But in the distinctive teaching of Jesus this reluctance finds no
support, and cannot therefore impel us to the mythical view which
is derived from it. The explanation of the narrative as a myth
involves considerable difficulties resting on external points. The
D

50 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I.
occasion and purpose of the forty days spent by Moses and Elias
in the wilderness were both different ; and the fact of this num
ber being of old customary among the people, only shows that as
a round number it might easily be applied to the narrative of this
event. But not only is the Satanic temptation of the Messiah,
which is the leading idea, without parallel in the Old Testament
and the Jewish consciousness, but there are also certain indica
tions that in the latter it would have been inadmissible. For, on
the one hand, they conceived too highly of the Messiah ; and, on
the other, they regarded Him only as the outward .conqueror of
Satanic power, and that not, in a mere ethical conflict. Neither
can the purport of the individual temptations be derived from the
Old Testament parallel of the temptation of the peqple in the
wilderness, the second and third temptations especially ; but, in
the case of the first also, the similarity is only apparent, inas
much as with Jesus the fact of hunger is merely incidental, the
temptation essentially turning upon the working of miracles. The
historical truth of the narrative is further confirmed by the com
plete harmony between the conduct of Jesus and the general
scope of His teaching ; which harmony rivets the whole upon
HimseK. This conclusion is confirmed if we inquire where the
myth, if such it be, can have originated. Not certainly in a
circle biassed by Jewish prejudice ; for the views presented by the
tempter lay closer to the sentiment of that people than the ethical
ideal of the Messiah emanating from Jesus Himself. Conse
quently the myth could have proceeded from no other source
than a narrow apostolical circle ; and here again such a violation
of historical truth is inconceivable. Doubtless Jesus Himself
imparted the history, hardly not till after the resurrection, as has
been supposed, but on such occasions as Matt. xvi. 21 ff. As it
¦ is a fragmentary statement, He may perhaps have chosen from
the temptations to which He had been exposed, the three in
which the leading principles of His Messianic working were em
bodied. The event itself possesses both a dogmatic and an historico-
dogmatic significance. With respect to the first, it proclaims in
Jesus His true but sinless humanity, and the also purely divine
and no less purely human character of His work. The suscepti
bility to temptation is a point in the progressive development of
His life, at which its whole spiritual capacity must be gradually

DIV. I. § 12.] HIS PLAN. 51
absorbed in His divine life. Over against Him stands the world
and sin concentrated in the person of Satan, who here comes in
as the tempter -of the second Adam, as he had once before done
at the fall of the first, striving in both cases to frustrate the work
of God, truth and righteousness in mankind.
Historico-dogmatieally the narrative indicates the time at which
the idea of the Messianic work, which Jesus was now on the point
of realizing, assumed within Him the form of a completed moral
fact. And thus the baptism and the temptation (the consecration
of the Messiah, the proving of the Messiah) may be regarded
together as the starting-point and type of His public life just then
commencing. In the one case, we have the manifestation of the
Son's divinity in the person of Jesus, and His complete subjection
to the Father; in the other, the most determined opposition to the
spirit of the world, set forth in action by His persistence in the
divine wilL And thus both accounts become not heterogeneous,
but homogeneous elements in the evangelical history ; and their
omission by St. John (apart from their being excluded by the late
commencement of his history) need cause no surprise, if we con
sider the decided way in which he gives expression to the con
sciousness possessed by Jesus, of the active opposition of Satan to
His person and His work (John xiv. 30).

III. THE PUBLIC CAREER OF JESUS.
§ 12. Jesus' Plan.
In applying the word " plan" to the course which Jesus pur
sued, we must be careful to avoid the notion of anything arbi-*
trarily fabricated, or generally resulting from His own inward
reflection. The ministry of Jesus was fhe unfolding of His per
sonality ; but, by His grasping in the requisite manner that which
was inherent in Him, it assumed in Him the shape of definite
thought, and the work before Him became a decided resolution.
Using the word " plan" with the above limitation, we shall avoid
the error of applying it to any abstraction such as the kingdom of
truth and virtue, but .shall take it as referring to the definite
position in which the self-consciousness of Jesus stood to man
kind of a certain race and at a particular time. The develop
ment and guidance for thousands of years, firstly of the Israelitish

52 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I.
people, and indirectly of the whole human race, prepared the way
for His work His plan was therefore of a Messianic character.
He has Himself declared as much by His connection with John
the Baptist, by declaring Himself as the Messiah before the people
(Matt. xxi. 15, 16), before individuals (John iv. 26, ix. 37, x. 25),
and before the tribunal of judgment (John xviii. 3 7 ; Matt. xxvi.
64), as well as by the result of these declarations in the acknow
ledgment of the disciples after His death.
The only point of difficulty here is, to determine how soon He
declared Himself as the Messiah (cf. § 30). In consequence, as
is asserted, of John differing from the Synoptists, as well as the
supposed uncertainty of their statements, it has been inferred that
Jesus did not until a late period fully comprehend HimseK as the
Messiah (Matt, xvi); that He was at first, perhaps, only a disciple
of the Baptist, and then only timidly and gradually appropriated
the Messianic idea to HimseK, forbidding, and being alarmed at,
its expression on the part of others. In this way also have been
explained the different views into which popular opinion diverged
concerning Him, the more decided declarations of His character
having been transferred, as is supposed, to an earlier period by
mistake. But the hypothesis is erroneous, both that the declara
tions of Jesti-!| as recorded by St. John, and also that the demean
our of men towards Him, were from the beginning fixed and
invariable. What at first brought disciples to Him was merely
the testimony of the Baptist ; and then undoubtedly the powerful
impression produced by His own person, which nevertheless He
confirmed in those who came to Him, not by any actual testimony
to His Messiahship, but only by hinting at the incomparable
height of His majesty (John i 51), of which they were soon to
have other and different proofs. Appeals of this kind, however,
were only made to individuals peculiarly susceptible of them.
He comported HimseK differently before a mixed multitude. He
performed miracles in Galilee, but did not declare HimseK to be
the Messiah ; and similarly at Jerusalem He gave the sign of the
cleansing of the 'temple, but what He said of His own person was
still veiled in darkness ; and, indeed, it is expressly stated that He
did not confide in them, because He knew what was in them
(John ii. 24). He behaved differently in Samaria (ch. iv.), where
He was again met by a more open susceptibility, and the Jewish
idea of a political Messiah did not confront Him. But to the

DIV. I. §12.] HIS PLAN. 53
Jews in Galilee and Judea He always speaks with the greatest
reserve as to the Messianic idea. In the 9 th chapter we see
Him after the miracle of feeding withdraw Himself from the
excited multitude. He certainly speaks of the sublimity of His
person and mission, but at the same time keeps the Messianic
idea in the background, and clothes His discourse in an intentional
obscurity. Everything, including the mention of His death, points
to the idea of a spiritual aim, and is, in short, rather repellent to
the general multitude. The same reserve already shown to
Nicodemus, Jesus expressly manifests on principle in dealing with
questions and appeals on the subject of His Messiahship, both
from His own disciples (John vii. 2 and sq), and from the people
(x. 24, and cf. vii. 40). This procedure formed part of His plan.
In Galilee He necessarily shunned the danger of fostering the
idea of a political Messiah, and of bringing on in Jerusalem a
premature catastrophe ; and the conduct of the disciples (Matt.
xvi.) is quite in accordance with that of their Master in this re
spect. Peter's confession was no fresh rising light, but the con
centration of all the rays which had hitherto shone upon them ;
and was brought about by Jesus as a conscious confirmation of
their faith against the shifting opinions of i the multitude. If
public opinion still continued to fluctuate concerning Him, this is
accounted for not by any uncertainty in His own conduct, but
simply by the fact that the people expected quite a different
Messiah, — not a prophet going about the country teaching and
working miracles, but one who would seize the reins of government.
From all this we may conclude that Jesus, in unveiling His
Messianic dignity, observed that wisdom without which His plan
could not (humanly speaking) have succeeded. Nowhere, how
ever, from the very first does He decline to acknowledge His
Messiahship, but rather admits it on every occasion (Matt. viii.
10-13, 29-32, ix. 18-26, 27-29, xii. 23 f.). From the very
first He gives Himself out as the Messiah, most decidedly in the
sermon on the Mount, and in the discourse about John (Matt. xi.
12 ff); but at the same time the confession of Him must grow out
of the contemplation of His deeds, for no otherwise could it rest
upon its true inward foundation. Even when He forbade the
blazing abroad of isolated deeds, no inward uncertainty is implied,
but, on the contrary, the most decisive seK-consciousness which
employs wise reserve as circumstances may require, either to

54 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART l
prevent a momentary success only injurious to the true aim of
His ministry, or to lead those whom He healed to commune with
their own hearts, whenever loud rejoicing might have made any
deeper influence within them impossible. This intention is most
plainly seen in the prohibition which followed His Transfiguration.
Thus, then, everything leads us to the conclusion that, although
Jesus from the first apprehended His work as Messianic, He was
yet most carefully on His guard against allowing it to fall in
with the Messianic ideas of the time, and thus to cloud the purity
of His intentions. The more decidedly we can trace this pur
pose, and the perfect discretion and self-denial which it gave rise
to, so much the more certain is it that from the very first He was
at full accord with HimseK on the point.
The very opposition in which He thus placed HimseK excludes
the idea of any purely political scheme on His part, such as some,
violating all history both of the gospel and the world, would have
wished to ascribe to Him. The whole spirit of His IKe-teaching
and ministry, no less than of His suffering and death, is against it.
There is no trace of political manoeuvre of any kind : the choice
of His apostles and disciples was clearly opposed to the idea.
His last entrance into Jerusalem was not, indeed, a purely acci
dental circumstance, but intentionally pre-arranged, but yet is of
an entirely symbolical and prophetic character. He thus essayed
the last solemn impression of His person upon the people, but
with no political design, since He entered only to work as a
prophet by word and deed in the city and in the temple. But
it has been said that although Jesus did not Himself wish to
precipitate the catastrophe — the restoration of the throne of
David — by external violence, He yet expected it to be brought
about by divine arrangement through the interposition of
angels and higher powers. But the dominion which Jesus ex
pected (Matt. xix. 28 ; Luke xxii. 30) was a renewal of the
world, called by Matthew •n-aXvyyevecria, which comprehends the
resurrection, into the alcov p,e\\cop, in which, according to Luke
(xx. 35, 36), men shall be as angels. This surely is no political
expectation. Moreover (Matt. xxvi. 53), Jesus does not say that
He expects angels, but just the contrary. He could ask for them,
but then the Scripture would not be fulfilled (Matt. xvi. 2 7, xxiv.
30, 31, xxv. 31). The expected angelic appearances themselves
are far from having anything in common with the aims of worldly

DIV.I. §12.] HIS PLAN. 55
policy; and these are absolutely excluded by the fact that He
looks for the inauguration of His kingdom at a time when His
own suffering and death are presupposed (Luke xvii. 25 ; Matt.
xvi. 27, 28, 21, xxiv., xxv., xxvi. 1 ff). It is this expectation
also which forbids our limiting His plan to a moral, and conse
quently external, regeneration of His nation ; and the testimony
we possess to the universality of this renewal, no less than the
decided expectation of the fall of the Jewish nation, are equally
opposed to any such limitation. An attempt has been made to
vindicate the political side of Jesus' plan, by assuming that in
this respect His life is divisible into two periods. According to
this view, His original purpose was to found a theocratic kingdom
by spiritual means ; but this object He afterwards relinquished.
Above all, a great contrast is pointed out between the cheerful,
and the melancholy frame of mind which characterized the earlier
and later portions of His life respectively. The contrast between
earlier cheerfulness and later melancholy is not very well defined;
compare only Matt. xi. 25-30, and also 20-24. And how
clearly, according to Matthew (ch. xiii.), He represented the diverse
effects of His word and everything connected with it even at an
early period ; and in the sermon on the Mount He foretold the
persecution of His disciples ; and in the conversation with Nico
demus He spoke of His death (cf. § 13, 1). Hence these ideas
fall by their own weakness, since, as regards the assumption on
which they rest, no trace of the existence of such periods is to be
found in the evangelists.
What Jesus had in view was, therefore, the foundation of
God's kingdom as identical with the work of redemption (cf. § 39).
In the sermon on the Mount, this kingdom was represented as
the kernel and substance of His work, and is so far ethical in its
character. And. K this idea is not placed so prominently in the
foreground "in the discourses chosen by John, it is nevertheless
borne ample witness to as a central idea in the conversation with
Nicodemus and in the answer to Pilate. His aim was a spiritual
and universal kingdom, as the consideration of His teaching on
the subject must show. And the cases of the centurion and of
the Samaritan woman go to prove that His only reason for limit
ing His own operations, and, at first, those of the disciples, to the
Jewish nation, was to gain a firm foothold and starting-point for
His entire scheme ; but that He turned to the Gentile world

56 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART L
wherever it could be done without hindrance to His higher aims.
His commission to preach to the whole world is quite consistent
with the fact that His disciples, even after His death, only gradu
ally learned to fulfil it. Their prejudice was merely that the
Gentile world, in order to have a share in God's kingdom, must
allow themselves to be admitted into the theocratic union. This
theocratic union prescribed in the old covenant He HimseK did
not as yet desire to dissolve, but rather to fulfiL He does not,
therefore, set HimseK in revolutionary opposition to it ; indeed,
keeps the law in His own person, seeing that the old covenant
remains in force until superseded by the new, which it could not
be until after His death. His task was from the national form to
develope the eternal purport of the Jewish law; and His own
general expressions as to the object of His life identify it partly
with the spiritual deliverance of the sinner, partly with the estab
lishment of God's kingdom. Both are united by the doctrine that
repentance or moral renewal is the condition of participation in
the kingdom of God. Thus it is represented in the Synoptists ;
and according to this, Jesus collects believers around Him, and
urges them to union with HimseK. He seeks to awaken them to
a sense of their moral need, and attaches HimseK most closely to
those who give the clearest tokens of it. His person appears still
more in the foreground in John?s Gospel, because His actions are
there represented rather in their life-giving than in their saving
aspect, and He is thus their positive Gentral-point. The fact of
His person and its manifestation being the most important inci
dents in the scheme, proves the significance of the proposition
that we must not attempt to take an abstract view of it. Not
only must we hold firmly to its historical foundation, but also
to the identity of Jesus' work with His historical appearance as
that of the divine life in mankind. The universal and essential
spirituality of His plan, taken in connection with its entire de
pendence on His person, gives it a perfectly unique character. No
founder of a new religion, no lawgiver, no philosopher, has ever
appeared with such an entirely universal aim, for none could ever
believe that he could redeem mankind. History abounds with
great projects of great men ; but the idea of the redemption of a
world, as it was realized in Him, stands absolutely alone : it could
only have proceeded from one whose nature was exalted far
above humanity.

DIV. I. § 13.] EXECUTION OF THE PLAN. 57
§ 1 3. Execution of the Plan.
In speaking of the difficulties of this plan, it must be borne in
mind that Jesus was Himself perfectly aware of them, and also
that the word is in its strict sense inapplicable, since the so-called
difficulties were included in the necessity of the divine scheme,
and belonged to the scope and tenor of the plan itseK. Having
the deepest insight into human nature, He could not be deceived
as to the kind of reception which awaited Him. But deeper still
lay the knowledge of His intent to redeem the world. He there
fore sets Himself and His mission in direct antagonism to it, and
regards the defeat of its opposition as His peculiar task. His view
of this opposition was, however, most comprehensive. According
to the parables in Matt, xiii., He foresaw not only that His word
would meet with a very unequal reception in the field of the
world, but also that the mass even of those who received it would
retain its heterogeneous character, and that no separation of
true believers before the judgment was advisable. He foresaw,
too, that the progress of His work, where it made any, would be
slow and gradual ; and, in accordance with these prospects, He
early prophesied His own death, and predicted to His disciples
the hatred of the world ; as, for instance, in the sermon on the
Mount, and in the charge He gave to His disciples (Matt. x.).
Thus He invited those who would follow Him to take up their
cross and deny themselves (Matt. xvi. 24, cf. Luke xii. 50 ff,
xxi. 16,17; John xv. 19, 20, etc.). With the clearest conscious
ness He sees consummated in Himself and in His work, the same
opposition which the old covenant also had to encounter in the
world (Matt. v. 12 ; Luke xiii. 34; Matt. xxii. 29, 32 ff).
Jesus' plan could only be carried into effect by the framer of
it being also the divine Redeemer and one with the Father, as
represented by the evangelists ; and then the plan is merely the
revelation, and its execution the development, of His own being.
And so it appears throughout the gospel history. Thus He invites
(Matt. xi. 25-30) the weary and heavy-laden to Himself, but refers
.to the fact that the Father has committed all things into His
hands, and that He knows Him. So also in John xvii. Hence the
discourses which relate to the development and completion of the
kingdom of God refer also to His second coming, because the
completion of His work is identical with the gradual unveiling of

58 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART L
His person. The more inseparable His work is from His person,
the less ground there is for the assertion that He relied upon the
ethical force of what He did, which force would continue to operate
without the influence of His Life and name. On the contrary, He
Kved in the conviction of the abiding continuance of His name.
The hypothesis that Jesus was connected with, or at the head
of, a secret society, carries with it its own overthrow. For no
traces of such a society are to be found in Palestine, with the
exception of the Essenes (and with them Christianity has nothing
in common as regards its origin), a sect characterized by an ideal
and reformatory character. But whereas the fundamental prin
ciple among6t the Essenes was obedience, not to the Levitical law,
but to an ascetic rule peculiar to themselves, the spirit of freedom,
which is the very essence of Christianity, finds no explanation
amongst them. There is another important difference between
Christianity and the Essenes, the latter, as it appears, excluding
any idea of a Messiah. And besides this, the supposition of a
secret society finds no support in the gospel history. The conduct
of Jesus is throughout entirely open. The fact that He frequently
sought solitude, and that Nicodemus came to Him by night, may
be otherwise explained. His every step was soon watched and
scanned with hostile intent ; yet there is no trace of any secret
system of instruction or discourse. Matt. x. 2 7 treats of the un
veiling of what had up to that time been hidden (cf. also ch. xiii.).
In John xviii 20, He refers to the publicity of His office as
our instructor ; and He draws the attention of His disciples to
this (Matt. x. 26, 27 (cf. v. 14-16); Luke xii. 3). In accord
ance with this, too, they lived and acted after His death.
Thus, then, His ministry consisted in His prophetic life and in
His death, which was thereafter to be accomplished.

IV. EXTERNAL VIEW OF HIS PUBLIC MINISTRY.
§ 14. Choice and Education of the Bisciples.
The synoptic accounts represent the public ministry of Jesus to
have begun after the temptation, and almost immediately upon
the imprisonment of John the Baptist, when Jesus withdrew into
Galilee (Matt. iv. 12). This was no doubt His second visit

DIV. I. §14.] CHOICE AND EDUCATION OF THE DISCIPLES. 59
thither, preceding a short stay in Galilee, during which the miracle
at Cana occurred, as well as a sojourn at Jerusalem, when He
purified the temple, and in Judea generally, where His disciples
met with John ; all these incidents being related by the fourth
evangelist. The synoptic statement mentions only one visit of
Jesus to Jerusalem, at the last passover; whereas, according to
John, He was often there. This is explained by supposing that
Matthew's scheme was the groundwork for the others (cf. § 3).
The latter, however, was called to the apostleship later than others
(ix. 9, cf. iv. 22), and he, as well as the others, record a temporary
absence of the disciples (Matt. x. ; Mark vi. 7-13). Jesus might
weU have repaired to Jerusalem at such a time accompanied by a
select few ; and this is rendered more probable by comparing Luke
ix. 1 2 with John vi., according to which the miracle of feeding
was preceded by a temporary absence of the disciples, as well as
by a sojourn of Jesus in Jerusalem. The Synoptists, and Matthew
especially, only follow the chronological order so far as to make
the end develope itseK from a certain point (Matt, xvi.), the earlier
discourses as preparatory to this being clearly distinguished from
the later. Distinctly marked chronological periods are found in
John only, who mentions altogether three passovers (ii. 13, vi. 4,
and xi. 55 [xii. 1 ff.]). The feast mentioned at v. 1 is certainly
not a passover ; and from this results a period of two years and
a few months, in which Jesus' public ministry is comprehended.
Jesus spent the greater part of this time in Galilee, a half-heathen
district, which He no doubt chose on account of the powerful race
who dwelt there, and because the- inhabitants being less exposed
to pharisaic influences, He was safer there from insidious attacks.
On the other hand, the disaffection which prevailed there de
manded greater caution in unveiling His Messianic purposes. It
is hardly necessary to take into account the short sojourns in
Samaria (John iv.), and in Syrophenicia (Matt. xv.). Herein
Jesus acted on the principle pronounced in Matt. x. 5. A longer
time, on the whole, is allotted to Judea and Jerusalem; for, although
we cannot determine certainly how long He stayed there after the
first passover, it appears, from a hint in His conversation with the
Samaritan woman, to have been late in the autumn when He re
turned into Galilee. Some part of the second year, before the
third passover, was spent in Perea (Matt. xix. ; Mark x. ; John x.
40-42) ; and in the interval Jesus attended several feasts at

60 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I.
Jerusalem, of which John mentions that of tabernacles (vii), and
of the dedication (x.) in the winter. Add to this the time of His
sojourn at Jerusalem during the unknown feast, and at least a
year remains for the duration of His active IKe in Galilee. This
also explains the partial view of Christian antiquity derived from
the synoptic account, that the whole of Jesus' public ministry lasted
only one year, thus excluding the times of His attendance at the
feasts. There are, however, some traces even in the Synoptists of
an earlier sojourn in Jerusalem, before the final one (see § 3).
Although Jesus selected Capernaum especially as the scene of
His ministry, yet He also passed through Galilee in various
directions, and made use of the institutions of the synagogue
for giving lectures on the Sabbath. But, not limiting HimseK to
this, He taught in the open air, on the sea-shore, from a moun
tain, etc. Add to these His operations in Jerusalem, where at
the feast He met with His countrymen coming from foreign
countries (the "EXKr)ve<s, for instance, at the last passover), and
could thus extend the sphere of His labours without abandoning
the Jews as the primary objects of His mission. The general cha
racter of His ministry was the prophetic declaration of the divine
will and counsel distinctly interpreted and forcibly applied. He
came to announce the divine decree for the establishment of a new
and different theocracy. For this very reason, it was not a ques
tion of raising the Jewish people at any fixed date above the
position they had attained, or to help them over a difficult crisis
in their history. His object was to complete what had been in
preparation during the whole of the foregoing dispensation, and,
by breaking through its husk of exclusiveness, to help into full and
universal development the now well-matured germ which lay as a
kernel within it. The form, therefore, of His preaching was not
that ol isolated oracular utterances, but of a comprehensive de
velopment of doctrine. The task of all other prophets was merely
to announce, but Jesus was in a higher sense a divine instrument,
in that He had in the fullest measure to bring about and complete
the divine decree. Thus is explained the exertion of His mira
culous powers, in which He bore witness to His own person, and
at the same time to the nature of the divine kingdom as consisting
essentially in a redemption, not only from sin, but also from the
evil of sin ; and, moreover, confirmed the complete certainty of the
realization of that kingdom. Herein His own person appeared

DIV. I. § 14.] CHOICE AND EDUCATION OF THE DISCIPLES. 61
generally as the central figure ; and He consequently invited faith
in HimseK, and made all promises depend upon that faith.
The older prophets, such as Elias, and the rabbis of His own
time, afforded Jesus a precedent for coUecting a band of disciples
round Him ; and this was necessary to ensure the continued and
everlasting operation of His personality after the close of His
short public career. The calling of the disciples as a whole (cf.
John i, Matt, iv., ix. 9, and parallel passages), and of individuals,
was not completed at one time, but gradually (John i, cf. Matt.
iv.). Having been stirred up by Him, they still continued to live
in their own country, and were not always in His company until
the time indicated in the synoptic account. Their number had
symbolical reference to the twelve tribes. Luke (ch. xi.) mentions
seventy other disciples, and this number, too, has a similar mean
ing. It might represent either (according to Jewish notions) the
seventy peoples of the earth, and thus prefiguring the non- Jewish
associates of God's kingdom (cf. John x. 16); or, which is still
more likely, the seventy elders of Moses, and the number of the
members of the Sanhedrim. The number and its symbolism is
at any rate supported by that of the twelve, as well as by the
internal probability of a larger circle of disciples, and their in
creased number immediately after the resurrection. All this
corroborates Luke's account. What foresight Jesus showed in
selecting His disciples we see from His rejection of an applicant
(Matt. viii. 19 and ||). Peter He salutes at once as the Rock-man,
Nathanael as the genuine Israelite, with a notice in the latter
case (John i. 49) that He had previously observed him. His
words in the naming of Peter, and call of the two brethren, to be
fishers of men, were intended to fix the moment indelibly in their
minds. His work in them thus began with the call itseK. He1
chose them not merely to teach, but to educate them in the
peculiar sense which the greatness of His person involved. They
were certainly distinguished by instruction in many things which
He either wholly withheld from the multitude, or imparted to
them in a different manner. But the chief point was their constant
familiar intercourse with Himself, and the lasting influence of His
person in the contemplation of His life up to the final catastrophe
of His death, followed by His resurrection and ascension, whereby,
through the co-operation of His Spirit, they were themselves en
lightened and perfected. They must not,however,be regarded merely

62 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PARTI.
as individuals, but as members of a confederacy founded by Jesus ;
and upon this confederacy the Church — the society of believers
in Jesus — was founded. They had to testify of Him (John xv.
27), and to labour in His name (Mark iii. 14 ; Matt. xvi. 18, 19,
xviii. 18 ; John xx. 21-23). He therefore sent them forth, even
in His lifetime, to make trial of their strength (Mark vi. 30 ff.,
and ||), and often put them to the proof (John vi. ; Mark ix. 38,
39, cf. Luke ix. 49). With regard to Judas Iscariot, we cannot
suppose that Jesus was deceived in him, or that he was a traitor
at the time of his calling. In his fall, as Hase observes, we still
recognise the ruins of apostolic greatness. His downfall shows a
powerful nature ; and he had within him the groundwork of an
apostle's character. But this groundwdrk must needs be de
veloped to its perfection or ruin by his intercourse with Jesus.
It was no more an act of cruelty in Christ to place him in this
path, than it is in God when nations or individuals are placed in
positions which lead to an unhappy moral issue. The confidence
which became his ruin ought to have been his greatest moral
preservative. That the natural disposition in Judas developed
itself in opposition to Christ, is one of the mysteries of the divine
free agency which it befits no man to caU in question. Jesus
was sensible of the disposition which Judas exhibited in his fall.
§ 15. Jesus as a Teacher.
The purport of Jesus' teaching will be seen as we go on. Its
fundamental characteristic is the testimony which it bore to Him
seK, with which everything else is inwardly connected. If He
speaks of God, He does so with the clear consciousness that no
man knows the Father but the Son, and he to whom the Son will
reveal Him (Matt. xi. 27), and that no one has seen the Father
but the Son (John vi. 46). In giving instruction, therefore, about
the Father, He at the same time imparts knowledge about the
Son, — that is to say, about HimseK. So also, when He bears
direct witness to Himself, He proceeds to speak of the Father
and again reverts to HimseK, as if He wished, so to speak, to
exhaust the subject. God is the Father, so far as He has, and
sends into the world, the only begotten Son, that whosoever be
lieves on Him may have life ; also Jesus specifies His own work,
that He had come to seek and to save that which was lost. And
this leads us to observe that He cannot treat even of the world

DIV. I. § 15.] JESUS AS A TEACHER. 63
in His teaching, without also pointing out its relation, not only
to God, but essentially to His own person, since it is only through
Him that the world has and can have life. He alone has power
over all flesh to confer life eternal. Mankind is, as it were,
wedded to Him. He is the bridegroom who has the power to lead
home His bride. He cannot, therefore, speak even of the earlier
divine economy among men, without returning to HimseK as the
one in whom aU else finds its aim and end. He is the heir of
the vineyard planted of old by God among mankind. He came
not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfil, — to bring
about their essential realization ; in which, however, their original
purpose is lost sight of in the higher potency now conferred upon
them. Just as little can He speak of the perfection in store for the
human race without distinct reference to His own person, since
it is through Him alone that man's destiny can be fulfilled and
consummated. He is the head and finisher of God's kingdom
amongst men. Thus we observe that His teaching is throughout
the unveiling and attestation of His own work and of His own
person. The most connected and- fullest of the discourses of
Jesus are preserved to us in John's Gospel. Those recorded by
the Synoptists are generally thought much simpler ; indeed, the
commentators of the last seventy years appear to have found little
enough in them. But they present peculiar difficulty, in the fact
that, by reason of their apparent clearness and simplicity, their
more hidden depth and copiousness may easily be overlooked.
Moreover, the discourses of Jesus are so broken up into detached
portions, that it becomes more difficult to ascertain their general
scope, many of them consisting of single sentences and isolated
precepts, whilst those of greater extent are still no more than brief
statements of doctrine on separate subjects. There are, indeed,
discourses of a more connected character to be found in John,
Matthew, and Luke, of which the sermon on the Mount (Matt.
v.-vii.) and the farewell addresses (John xiii-xvi.) are the most
noteworthy examples. Besides these may be mentioned groups
of parables (Matt. xiii. ; Luke viii, xv., xvi., etc.), and the elements
of more solid doctrinal teaching which belong to our Lord's last
visit at Jerusalem; especiaUy also the eschatological discourses
as we have them in the Synoptists (Matt, xxiv., xxv. ; Luke xvii.
20 ff.), together with the parables referring to the kingdom of
God (Matt, xx.) ; lastly, other copious statements (e.g. Matt, xviii.)

64 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART L
which bear upon the relation of beKevers to each other in the
Christian community. With aU this, however, we do not meet
with a complete whole in the gospels; and the characteristic
peculiarity of the didactic matter in the Synoptists on one side,
and in John on the other, increases the difficulty. Nor are the
difficulties lessened, if, without endeavouring to bring the Lord's
teaching into a kind of whole according to some seK-devised
scheme, we thoroughly examine the teaching itseK, and investigate
what the individual lines of thought may be, and how they may
have been arranged in the consciousness of our Lord Himself.
As regards the last point, we cannot of course represent that con
sciousness as it was in itself, but can represent His thoughts only
so far as His own testimony extends, wherein He arranged them
according to their comparative importance in connection with each
other. The three fundamental ideas on which He rests are these :
(1) the glorification of the Father in the Son ; (2) the redemption
of mankind through the Son ; and (3) the establishment of the
kingdom of God thereby. However various, therefore, the doctrinal /
statements of Jesus may appear, especially on. a comparison of
John with the Synoptists, their purport has constant reference to
the above principles, and the germ of it may be traced even in
the primary and summary announcement, " Repent ye, for the
kingdom of heaven is at hand." The idea of the kingdom pre
dominates in the Synoptists, but that of the seK-revelation is not
wanting (Matt. xi. 2 7) ; nor is the idea of redemption, which is
treated of partly in parables and partly in simple testimony to His
connection with the world of sinners (Matt. xx. 28, xxvi. 28, etc.).
In John's Gospel, on the contrary, the first idea — that of glorifica
tion and the seK-testimony of Jesus — takes a prominent position.
In speaking, however, of His person, He could not but speak also
of man's need of redemption ; nor is the idea of the kingdom ex
cluded (John iii.).
The more Jesus identified HimseK with His teaching, the less
susceptible would the people be to it, or, at aU events, the more
diversified would be their power of receiving it. Hence, in pro
portion to the distance between HimseK and them, greater im
portance would attach to the form of His teaching as the medium
of communication between His spirit and their capacity, by which
form He bridged over the guK between them. Hence the neces
sity of mamfold forms, and such as did not at first allow His

DIV. I. g 15] JESUS AS A TEACHER. 65
immeasurable fulness to show itseK, in which lay His perfect
capacity for the task before Him. He was clearly conscious of
His task of being a perfect teacher of God's kingdom, . and of
bringing out old things and new from His treasure (Matt. xiii.
52), and also of the entirely new import of His doctrine (Matt.
ix. 16, 17 ; Mark ii. 21, 22 ; Luke v. 36-39).
In this consciousness He developes according to circumstances
that plenitude of forms with which we see Him inexhaustibly
supplied, and incessantly labours to bring home to His hearers
the same truths in an endless variety of sha*pes, according to their
several needs. His aim throughout was not merely to teach, in
the narrow sense of the word, but to inform, awaken, enlighten, and
emancipate soul and spirit, according to His own saying, that whoso-
. ever heareth and keepeth His words shall know the truth, and the
truth shall make him free (John viii. 32). It is only by a reli
gious appropriation of Him, which imparts spiritual life to men in
general, that the object of His teaching is fulfilled. On that very
account, however, He was obliged to select such a form of teach
ing as would lead not merely to a reception and recollection of
His matter, but also to an internal appropriation and considera
tion of it in the mind and heart. And K this suitableness of
teaching is called, compromise, condescension to prevailing modes
of thought, accommodatio, twy/eai-a/Satrw, olicovop.ia, we shall not
oppose it ; although we cannot, of course, admit such a compro
mise as would involve the sacrifice of conformity to His own
, consciousness and to objective truth, without wronging His cha
racter in an unhistorical way. The" adaptation in Jesus' teaching
is partly in the form, His statements being shaped according to
the wants of His hearers, and partly, as regards its purport, in its
negative character. This negative side is shown by not always
directly attacking certain errors and prejudices in those who are
addressed, but, instead of this, seeking gently to transform them
(especially haK truths, such as the Messianic ideas prevalent in
His time), and raise up some positive notions in their stead.
But His teaching is never positive in the sense of appropriating
the erroneous ideas of His hearers, and thereby abandoning the
truth. On the contrary, He acknowledged that His mission was
to bear witness of the truth, and acted accordingly even with the
whole world against Him.
In His public life He spoke and acted with the full, conscious-
E

66 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I.
ness that He would incur the world's hatred and forfeit His life.
The impression which His words produced upon the people quite
accords with this earnestness ; for they were thoroughly moved
and struck by the power of His preaching, so unlike the studied
and scholastic manner of the scribes (Matt. vii. 28, xiii. 54, 55,
xxii. 33 ; John vii. 46, vi. 68 f), and broke out sometimes into
warm admiration.
I The first of His modes of teaching was the apophthegm or
gnome, in detached self-contained sentences, which present some
point exciting peculiar interest, and thereby impress themselves
firmly on the mind and memory. These gnomes appear some
times singly, sometimes in connection with' each other, forming a
series, as in the Sermon on the Mount. At other times the sen
tence bears a subjective stamp, i.e. has reference either to the
Speaker or hearers, and in the latter case assumes the form of an
address. Even where the gnomic character is less constant, as,
for example, in the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus always reverts
to it, and utters some isolated truths in the gnomic form in order
to give pungency and force to His discourse. The expression
is sometimes of an actual, sometimes of a figurative character;
indeed, the gnomic diction is fond of an admixture of figurative
language. The figure was intended to bring home to the hearer
an idea previously, either wholly or in part, closed to him. It
does not exhaust the subject, but introduces to it, and enables the
hearer to perceive it at least on one or more sides. He thus
extracts from the analogy with the empirical subject as much of the
ideal truth as he is at the time capable of receiving, intellectually ¦.
and morally. The gnome or sentence, through the figure con
tained in it, grows into the parable.
The parable is the most perfect biblical form of figurative re
presentation, and is frequently only a further developed figure, so
that the boundary line cannot be distinctly drawn The parable
is based on an allegory ; but this allegory is developed in the
form of a narration. IlapafioXr) first signifies comparison (Luke
v. 36, vi. 39 ; Matt. xv. 15 ; Luke iv. 23, xiv. 7 ; Mark iii. 23),
and then the proper parabolic narrative (Matt. xiii. 3, 10, 18, 24,
31, 34, 36, 53, xxi. 33, xxii. 1 ; Luke xv. 3, xviii. 9, xx. 9).
In John's Gospel the word does not occur, but only irapoi^ia
(x. 6, xvi. 25), for allegorical as opposed to direct representation,
which contains a comparison, but no narrative ; as, for instance,

DIV. I. § 15.] JESUS AS A TEACHER. 67
the good shepherd, the door of the sheepfold, and the true vine.
(Compare the Old Testament bvfo, Judg. ix. 7 ff. ; 2 Sam. xii.
1 ff. ; 2 Kings xiv. 9 ; Isa. v. 1 ff . ; also Ezek. xvii 1 ff, and
especially ver. 2). Parables are distinguished from fables, not only
by their religious and moral aim, and their loftier conception, but
also by the fact of there being always a verisimilitude about the
fictitious dress in which they are clothed : the circumstances are
always such as supposably might happen, which is not invariably
the case with fables. The parable, therefore, moves by preference
in the world of men. Where the animal world is introduced at
all, the comparison only expresses its relation to the rational being.
The love of God towards morally lost and erring men is represented
in the shepherd's conduct towards his lost sheep ; but the sheep
itself takes no active part in the development. The same thing
is represented with greater force as the conduct of a human
father towards his erring son, who, in this case, is himseK con
verted. When, too, the parable rises to the spirit-world, the
position of man (as Lazarus) is the chief subject. The aim of
the parable is nearly the same as that of the simple figure. By
means of the analogy between the sensible and the supersensuous,
the nature of the latter is made discernible; and the parable
works both by veiling and unveiling. It veils, in order that the
fuU brightness of the idea may not dazzle and confuse the weak
eyes of the beholder ; in which case, unless he were roused to
appropriate reflection, his unsusceptible nature might receive no
benefit. On the other hand, the veil is so transparent, that even
K the idea itseK is not exposed to view, its light penetrates the
eye (Matt. xiii. 13). For these reasons Jesus does not explain
His parables before the people (Matt. xiii. 11-15), but only to
the disciples, who being more susceptible might be able to grasp
the truth (Luke viii 1 0) ; but even in their case the parable was
requisite in order to suggest the truth to them. It is the idea
of God's kingdom which Jesus seeks especially to represent in
parables, that being the one which had for ages flitted before His
people's eyes under a vague and inadequate form, and to the
spiritual apprehension of which it was needful now to raise and
educate them. The parables of Jesus are sufficiently numerous to
furnish a general, although an inadequate idea of His doctrine.
Allied to the parable, but yet somewhat different in form, is the
illustrative narrative, such as the story of the good Samaritan,

68 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I.
and that of the Pharisee and publican. Here both the vehicle of
instruction and what is to be learned from it are homogeneous :
the subject is exemplified in a concrete case, and the example
thrown into an historical form. Narratives of this class are thus
distinct from parables.
Another form of teaching, adopted by Jesus, is the historico-
didactic, in which, without the employment of a material veil,
the idea is based on some special matter of fact, — a situation in
which one or more persons stand in the presence of Jesus, in a
way quite consistent with His usual peripatetic mode of teaching.
A general truth is set forth in its application to a concrete case.
What it may thus lose in comprehensiveness it gains in perspicuity.
AUowing itseK to be separated from the concrete, the richest
portion of its contents is first reached when the doctrinal idea
on which it is based is brought to light ; but a union with the
concrete form was, and still is, the way of leading hearers
unpractised in the concentration of general ideas into a train of
thoughtful meditation. These narrations are, therefore, weighty
and rich for practical use. Nor are they less serviceable in the
scientific investigation of the doctrine of Jesus. We have nume
rous examples of interesting occasional discourses of this kind,
in the shape either of answers to questions from the disciples,
replies to His enemies, or exhortations which accompanied His
miracles. When addressed, as in the case of the rich young man
(Matt. xix. 16 ff), He is not satisfied with giving merely the neces
sary reply to the question, but adds some instructive conversation ;
and even where the questioner had withdrawn, He does not let
the occasion go by unimproved to His disciples (Matt. xix. 23 ff. ;
Luke xvii. 20, cf. 22-27). Frequently the discussion assumes
a colloquial form.
Besides its different forms, we have to notice also the progres
sive development of His doctrine. Teaching as He did while
journeying, as opportunity offered, or according to the wants
and capacity, sometimes of the people and sometimes of indi
viduals, He was compelled to shape His teaching according to
this course of life. When He appeared in public, He found
HimseK standing in a peculiar relation to His nation, which
relation offered both facilities and hindrances to His activity,
both being caused by the whole preparation for His appearance
lying in the Old Testament dispensation, and particularly in pro-

DIV. I. §15.] JESUS AS A TEACHER. 69
phecy. The whole of the Old Testament, with its laws and
doctrines, might to a certain extent be presupposed ; and He based
His teaching entirely on the religious idea as we find it exhibited
in the old covenant. But here great diversities arose in His
mode of dealing with different individuals, according as their
character had been formed by the Old Testament economy or not,
and had shown itself susceptible or otherwise of its influence.
There were, on the one hand, the mourners and poor in spirit,
who were weary and heavy laden under the yoke of the law, and
quietly waiting for the consolation of Israel. There were, on the
other hand, the rich and wise of this world, who felt not their
need of anything He had to offer. There were others, too, whose
hearts, already hardened by seK-righteousness, were not suscep
tible of His influence. We see, therefore, how many different
modes of address He was obliged to employ. Great difficulties
were, moreover, thrown in His way by the political conceptions of
the Messiah which prevailed amongst the people; for He was
thereby prevented from simply announcing HimseK as the Mes
siah to those who were morally unsusceptible. They would have
entirely misunderstood Him, and rendered His efficiency impos
sible ; so that He was obliged, in dealing with them, rather to veil
than unveil His Messianic character, and at the same time to
make use of His position, in order to rouse them to a spiritual
conception of the Messiah's kingdom, and then to come forward
and bear witness to Himself as the appointed founder of that
kingdom. Add to this the difference in cultivation and know
ledge between the scribes and the lower orders, and we can
readily understand in how many different ways He was obliged
to propound His doctrine, and how nicely to regulate its progress.
His consciousness of this is displayed in one of His latest dis
courses, in which He spoke of the many things He had to say to
His disciples which He could then only express in figures (John
xvi. 12, 25). His opening announcement was the same as that
of John the Baptist. Then, according to the synoptic account, He
unfolded what was requisite for participation in God's kingdom
(Matt, v.-vii). The discourses then pass on more definitely to
the objective nature of the divine kingdom (Matt, xiii.), and then
successively to the apostolic calling (Matt, x.), and to the general
community of believers, with the introduction here and there of
detached utterances on the relation of His person to the kingdom

70 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I.
(Matt, xi.), and especially to John the Baptist. But after this
He adopted a more open and decided course, as the time of His
sufferings drew near. When the reaction against Him set in, the
declaration of His Messiahship became necessary, addressed to
those who had been gradually prepared to receive it, in order to
call forth a decided consciousness of this idea ; at the same time
He also announced His passion. All this was gradually done up
to His entry into Jerusalem and the solemn disclosures of His
last hours ; and thus, what had so long been in preparation was
brought to light and came to maturity in the hearts of His
disciples. From John's Gospel, likewise, we may gather Jesus'
conduct both in Galilee and Jerusalem. After the close of His
first year's ministry, we read that He brought about the crisis by
that "hard saying" (John vi. 60). Without expressly declaring
HimseK as the Messiah before the masses, by referring directly
to His own person as the true spiritual food, He causes some to
desert Him, and others to confess that He had the words of
eternal life. He acted with similar reserve in Jerusalem (John
ii), matters of deeper import being reserved for individuals
(John iii.). In the fifth chapter He more fully describes the
nature of His work as one in co-operation with God, but still
without directly asserting His Messiahship. In chaps, vii. to ix.
we read of the same reserve ; and in chap. x. He hints at His
death. Here, too, the references to this become more explicit
and decided as the end drew near. His farewell discourses
contain the clearest and most public declarations, divulging as
they do His essential community with believers and His promise
of the Paraclete. All the accounts, therefore, agree as to this
gradual progress.
From all this, it is evident that what He aimed at in His
hearers was not a mere retentive grasp of the subject and ex
ternal certainty, but an inner and heartfelt conviction. He is,
therefore, continually building up something new on well-known
foundations (Matt. xiii. 52), linking together the Old Testament
and personal experience to the religious consciousness of His
hearers. The rationalist assertion, that He builds upon the light
of reason, may be admitted with the reservation, that in the only
passage which speaks expressly of man's spiritual eye (Matt. vi.
22, 23), the possibility of its becoming darkened is presupposed.
But, in addition to this allusive and derivative mode of teaching,

DIV. I. § 16.] THE ACTIONS OF JESUS. 71
independent statements of doctrine are not wanting. He asserts
the reality of truth, in appealing to the infallibility of His words
and to His divine origin (John viii. 26, xii. 44 ff, iii. 11 ff),
as weU as to the testimony of His mighty works, by which, with
out prejudice to His higher authority, men might be awakened to
a living perception of His real nature (John v. 36, viii 18, etc.).
Belief, therefore, is only possible in the man who is willing to do
God's will (John vii. 17, vi. 37, viii. 42 ff. ; also Matt. xi. 25 ;
Luke x. 21, 22). Hence the powerful impression which His
teaching produced (Matt. vii. 28, 29, xiii 54 ff, xxii. 33 ; John
vii 46, vi 68, 69), an impression depending not so much on
the matter and form of His discourses, as on the aggregate influ
ences of the teacher's personality, to which they bore such power
ful testimony. § 16. The Actions of Jesus.
The teaching of Jesus is the manifestation of His personality.
This is both a moral act and the exhibition of that personality
in the matter taught, both aim and form showing forth in Him
the indissoluble unity of love and wisdom. His truth depends
on His being one with the Father, and His love to men is shown
by the presentation of this truth in the manner most suitable to
their needs. Thus His teaching becomes a moral act of self-
denial and dependence on the Father, no less than of love replete
with wisdom. Likewise, also, His whole course of action appears
to be the result of His unity with the Father ; His spirit finds
constant satisfaction in doing His Father's will (John iv. 34) ;
and He thus lives for the world, and enters into it without be
longing to it or relinquishing that unity. These main features
constitute His character. It cannot be done justice to by a mere
catalogus virtutum, still less by attempting to give characteristic
importance to some particular quality. His character consists
entirely in the harmony of His being, which is put to the test by
His IKe, in which He ever remained without spot or blemish.
The full comprehension He displayed of the world, both of
nature and of man, is the first testimony to this character. His
appreciation of nature is shown by the liveliness of His imagery. »»
In His sight all human splendour vanishes before the beauty
which clothes the lily of the field ; rain and sunshine are to Him
the emblems of God's impartial beneficence. No creatures are too

72 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I.
insignificant for His notice ; and in them He recognises the Father's
care, and they have His sympathy. In the approaching harvest
He sees the image of a higher truth ; in the seed cast into the
ground, the figure of God's quickening power. Nature, and the
whole mystery of its organic life, is to Him the work and the
reflection of God. Nature, therefore, does not draw Him away
from the Father ; but a deeper insight into it tends always to His
manifestation, and' it is therefore a helper in His teaching of
divine truth. While living in it, He ruled it. He was not over
powered by its delights, but they were spiritualized by Him. As
with the life of nature, so of men He enters fully into the latter,
but especially in its relation to nature : the sower sowing his
seed (Matt, xiii.) ; the gardener patiently waiting for fruit (Luke
xiii.) ; the solicitude of the vinedresser (John xv.) in cleansing
the plant with a view to greater fruitfulness. Grasping all these
things in their living sense, He makes them types of divine truth.
In like manner God's action towards men is reflected in their
treatment ot animals (Luke xv.). How tenderly, too, and with
what discernment He takes in aH purely human relations ! What
a view of the child-world He opens to us, giving Himself up not
merely to sentient delight in their presence, but recognising their
relation to the kingdom of God ! No fuller conception of the
parental and filial relation can be imagined than that portrayed
in the parable of the prodigal son. Observe, too, how woman's
life at its most critical moment is exalted by Him into a type of
the highest kind (John xvi. 21). Numberless like traces of the
view He took of the outer world show us how completely every
side of human life, its sinful aspect alone excepted, found its
counterpart in His own, in order that He might raise the world
unto HimseK.
In the same way, too, His actions show how He took a part
in all the relations of life so far as His vocation allowed, and
with what seK-sacrifice He gave HimseK up to them, yet without
being injured and entangled by them, or contracting defilement
from what was sinful in them. This we find especially in His
family life and human friendships. Born of a woman, He be
longed to a distinct family circle, His attachment to which is
evinced by His long continuance in it; and the bond of filial
love remains unbroken all through His public life, even to His
cross, in the agonies of which He fulfils the last duty of a loving

DIV. I. § 16.J THE ACTIONS OF JESUS. 73
son. But still He is fully independent of His mother, putting
her, as early as the marriage at Cana, in the subordinate position
which was fitting for her, looking at His Messianic work At
Capernaum, likewise, He does not allow His teaching to be in
terrupted by the relations who would call Him away from it, but,
against the human relationship, He asserts the still higher claims
of the spiritual community He had already shown the same
independence in the occurrence which took place in His twelfth
year. But He never on this account renounced His mother and
His brethren, although it was with difficulty that they attained
belief in Him (John vii 5). How He was bound by the ties of
friendship we see beautifully exemplified in His relation to the
narrower and wider circle of His disciples, and also to the women
who accompanied Him even to the cross ; but yet no words
of love in the human sense could ever divert Him from His
vocation (Matt, xvi 22, 23). The same unerring perception is
observable throughout every side of His public life, whether in
relation to the people, His hereditary religion, or the public
authorities. He continued a true son of His nation, and never
lost sight of its privileges and destiny, or forgot that salvation is
of the Jews, and that He was sent unto the lost sheep of the
house of Israel He put forth all His powers to save His nation
from the ruin which He saw advancing with rapid strides, and
which called forth His lament over Jerusalem. But national
prejudices had no power over Him, and in no way troubled the
freedom of His spirit. He in no way shared the national hatred
against Gentiles and Samaritans, but, on the contrary, rejoiced
whenever He found faith amongst them, and remained unshaken
in the consciousness that His work lay amongst mankind at large.
Nevertheless, having been made subject to the law by circumcision,
He remains true to it. He takes part in the national worship, is
a diligent frequenter of the feasts, paying the temple tribute,
although on higher grounds exempt from it (Matt. xvii.. 24 ff.) ;
and thus consistently carries out the principle laid down at His
baptism by John (Matt, iii 15). In the Sermon on the Mount,
and on other occasions, the real meaning of the commandments of
the law is contrasted with the Jewish interpretation. Likewise,
with regard to sabbatical observance, He did not impair it, but
remained perfectly true to the actual commandment of the Old
Testament ; but He expressed the real spirit of it in the axiom

74 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I.
that the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath.
Again, He took a still wider view of the whole of the divine
economy, in the dictum that God can only be rightly worshipped
in spirit and in truth. But, as the origin of such worship is from
within, through the spirit in its fulness breaking through the
narrowing barriers of form, it was possible for Him to abide by
the old religious constitution of His nation without sacrificing
either the freedom or the purity of the spirit within Him. On
the contrary, He raised the law by His observance of it, as is
shown by its subsequent effect. The relation in which He
stood to the theocracy followed as a natural result. He was
equally strict in His obedience as a subject to the heathen autho
rities, never allowing Himself to be carried away by the rebellious
tendencies of His nation (Luke xiii. 1-3), but always regarding
the refusal of obedience as a positive crime. No doubt He
regarded the Roman dominion as a judgment upon His nation,
but one from which nothing less than an inward renewal and
conversion could set them free. His answer as to the tribute-
money was twofold in its tendency, implying both that the
Roman rule did not abolish the Jewish theocracy, and that both
were united in His spiritual conception of the latter. His object
was not to resist the secular authority, but rather to work under
its protection. His dutiful behaviour as a subject is proved also
in His examination before the tribunal. He did not resist His
apprehension, merely declaring the injustice of treating Him as
a murderer caught in the act, by arresting Him at night, and
without any ascertained grounds of suspicion. He acknowledges
Pilate's authority over Him, but at the same time maintains His
own dignified position, by saying that the governor could have
no power over Him unless it were given him from above ; nor
can Jesus be induced by any consideration to conceal the truth
(John xviii. 28 ff). In like manner He did not hesitate to
unmask Herod's hypocrisy, who would have persuaded Him to
avoid the Galilean territory, and to oppose to it His own decided
self-consciousness on the subject of what was due to His higher
calling (Luke xiii 31 ff). He appealed before the Sanhedrim to
His public working as the best answer to His accusers ; and
neither the scourger who smote Him, nor the high priest who
permitted it, could disturb His dignified equanimity. He dis
played here exactly the same spirit as that in which He had

DIV. I. § 16.] THE ACTIONS OF JESUS. 75
never allowed Himself to be intimidated or hindered in His work,
although He gave no just ground for complaint, and in His wisdom
knew how to avoid the snares laid for Him. Thus, in every
position and relation, He is always consistent as one who lives in
the world, but at the same time rules it.
The all-sidedness of- His character, however, is seen especially
in His private intercourse with individuals. Being, as He is,
an example for all, — to the full-grown a picture of the highest
maturity, to youth the image of true childish simplicity, — His
heart is always open to all according to their needs. Think on
His loving regard for the rich young man, and, in general, that
tender sympathy for sinners, the union of wisdom and love, which
made Him single out for notice those who by others, and by the
Pharisees especially, were despised and shunned. But wherever
He met with obduracy, hatred of the truth, and hypocrisy, not
withstanding His love and humility, He showed earnest severity
in dealing with them. There was no sensuous softness in His
love, for it was founded upon a true conception of mankind,
which it was His task to realize. Thus everything in Him was
rounded off into the fair proportions of a perfect character ;
humility and greatness, clemency and zeal, were mingled in the
harmony resulting from the abnegation of self, and the ever wake
ful consciousness of His unity with God. He is as sensitive as
any other man to the natural feelings of hunger and bodily
fatigue. His sense of honour is as keen and easily wounded, and
His common sympathies are as quickly roused ; but the divine
consciousness always keeps pace with every external influence.
Nevertheless, He rises superior to every bodily want (Matt, iv.),
and is never hindered by this cause in His high calling (John iv.).
He is, indeed, capable of being roused to anger (Mark iii. 5), not,
however, in the shape of excited personal feeling, but of a holy
and painful indignation at man's resistance to salvation. Hence
arise stern reproofs, as in the case of the Pharisees and of the sin
against the Holy Ghost, and sometimes acts of righteous severity,
as the purification of the temple. We see also, under another
aspect, how the consciousness of unity with God asserted its
superiority over any outward affections on two circumstances of
His passion : the agony of His soul in Gethsemane, intensified
even to bodily results, and His forsaken feeling on the cross,
which found expression in the words of a psalm On both occa-

76 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I.
sions God still remains His Father or His God ; there is a change
in the tone, but not in the direction of His will. Amidst the
extreme horrors of His situation, when His human nature is over
borne by bodily anguish and the scorn of men, the blessed feeling
of being one with the Father is for a time, indeed, interrupted
and superseded by the oppressive sense of need and desertion.
But the bond, nevertheless, remains unbroken. He is still certain
that the will of the Father, who appears to have forsaken Him, is
good, and that He must fulfil it. This affords us most ample
proof that His personality, although stirred to its very depths,
was still perpetually under the guidance of His divine conscious
ness ; and thus we gain a complete delineation of that character
in which wisdom and love are one.
§ 1 7. The Miracles of Jesus.
The gospels inform us that Jesus, during His public career,
performed a number of miraculous deeds, partly influencing
nature, but more especially mankind in their manifold sufferings,
both bodily and psychico-bodily. The first of these miracles was,
according to John (ii. 11), that at Cana in Galilee. They are
all marked by the characteristic expressions repara (nsiD, subjects
for astonishment) (John iv. 48) and Swa/tet? (rriliaji, Matt. xiii.
58), which give, the one negatively, the other positively, a clear
idea of the causality as supernatural They are also called, with
regard to their object, <rr)p,eia (rriK, John ii. 23), because they bear
in themselves the indications of a peculiar relation to the inner
counsels of God's kingdom. The first and third of these expres
sions frequently occur together; all three are found in Acts ii. 22.
The Old Testament gives the idea of something new which God
performs (Jer. xxxi. 31 ; Num. xvi. 30) ; and the New Testament
has a similar idea of an occurrence, the cause and aim of which
is to be sought, not in the general uniformity of nature, but in
the higher power of God. With this agrees also the Jewish view,
expressed with less distinctness by Nicodemus (John iii. 2), and
again at the healing of the man born blind. Now there can be
no doubt that the . evangelists generally regarded these actions as
miraculous. They accepted and related them as the working of
a higher divine power inherent in Jesus. John relates only six
of the most important ; but this does not prove either that he
did not regard other occurrences as miraculous, or that he attached

DIV. I. § 17.] THE MIRACLES OF JESUS. 77
less weight to miracles in general. On the contrary, his careful
selection shows what significance he ascribed to them in the self-
mamfestation of Jesus. Nor can any aversion to the miraculous
be justly imputed to Mark, either from the fact of his ascribing
to Jesus an intermediate kind of agency in two of His miraculous
cures (ix. 21, vii. 33), or because, in the case of the barren fig-
tree, the curse did not instantaneously take effect (Mark xi. 20).
Mark gives miracles enough which admit of no doubt whatever
as to their real nature (vi 56), their characteristic features being
plainly discernible in the copiousness of his narrative ; and his
•connection with Peter sufficiently explains his silence as to Peter's
attempt when Jesus walked upon the sea. Such individual
peculiarities merely prove the candour of the evangelists, who
not only refrain from giving a miraculous colouring to anything,
but conceal no feature which may appear to prejudice a miracle.
All of them record those discourses of Jesus in which He appeals
to His miracles. When Jesus forbids their publication, He has
some special object in view, either to prevent any difficulty being
thrown in the way of the healed person's lawful cleansing through
the prejudice of the priests, or his being drawn away from the
deeper meditation which would lead to belief ; and such appears
to have been the view taken by contemporaries. Even the
enemies of Jesus did not deny the wonderful facts : they only
raise the most absurd objections against their character (Matt. xii.
24), and in their malice try to avoid the conviction they are cal
culated to produce (Matt, xvi 1-4; Mark viii 11, 12). The
facts themselves are admitted even in the words of mockery
beneath the cross (Matt, xxvii. 42). The people, however, might
look upon the miracles as signs of the Messiah, and render
necessary the warning of Jesus not to rest in them to the neglect
of what was more important. The historical fidelity of the gospel
narratives is confirmed, moreover, not only by actual results,
but by the miraculous power of Jesus continuing to operate
during the lives of the apostles, as recorded by eye and ear
witnesses beyond the sphere of the gospel history, as by the
Apostle Paul (1 Cor. xii).
The miracles of Jesus have been subject to a long probation of
exegesis and criticism which seeks to set aside their miraculous
character. The most unfortunate of these attempts was the
purely exegetical, according to which no miracle was intended in

78 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I.
the text ; but even this has been of use in causing the rejection
of much which was previously regarded on insufficient grounds as
miraculous. In other cases, where the opposition assumed a
more favourable aspect, the miraculous element in the narrative
has received confirmation from the treatment it has undergone ;
as, for example, the incidents of the stater in the fish's mouth,
and of Jesus walking upon the sea. The natural explanation,
and the procedure which would destroy the credibility of miracles
by regarding them as myths, embrace a wider field ; but these
attempts, like the others, only serve to put Jesus' miracles in a
clearer light. The natural explanation finds no support at all in
the accounts themselves ; for when it is said on one occasion that
Jesus could not perform mighty works (Matt. xiii. 58), His in
ability is no more than unwillingness, occasioned by the unbelief
of others (cf. Mark iii. 5), and merely proves that His miracles
always had a positive aim. His cures being generally performed
singly, whilst multitudes remained in His immediate neighbour
hood uncured, does not in any way disprove the existence of an
universal miraculous power, but only shows that the latter was
not exerted except with definite and exalted ends, and under cer
tain presupposed conditions. The accounts of His occasional use
of external means, such as laying on of hands and the like, do
not go beyond the employment of signs and symbols, a course
abundantly justified where Jesus was dealing with a deaf and
dumb man (Mark vii. 31), to whom He could not otherwise
make Himself intelligible. The idea of any curative agency
being attached to such means cannot be entertained ; but these
symbols prove that Jesus wished also to work simultaneously
upon the minds of men. Again, no inference can be drawn as to
His employment of external means from the accusation that He
profaned the Sabbath in His cures, because the same accusation
would equally attach to the mere exorcism common amongst the
Jews of His time (Matt. xii. 10; Luke xiii. 10, xiv. 2; John
v. 16, ix. 6, cf. 16). The natural explanation, in its assump
tion of the mediation of physical causes, meets with no support
at all in the history itseK, which simply contradicts it. And it is
equally unavailing for the disparagement of the miracles,' by assert
ing that the death of those raised to life was only apparent, etc. ;'
for the existence of some hidden machinery in the background
must always be assumed. This is, however, simply impossible in

DIV. I. § 17.] THE MIRACLES OF JESUS. 79
miracles performed at a distance, as that of the healing of the
nobleman's son, and also in the raising of the dead. Psycho
logical influence also is excluded from miracles of this class, and
equally so from those performed on natural objects, such as the
loaves multiplied, the stilling of the storm, the changing of water
into wine, and those cures in which the disease does not stand in
any immediate relation to the spiritual life. Apart from this,
the power of the will over the animal life does not, so far as is
known, attain to such results.
The mythical has never been able to shake itseK entirely free
from the natural explanation ; as, for instance, where it is dis
posed to allow the healing of demoniacs to pass for the mental
superiority of Jesus over madmen, and to deny the fact altogether
only where this evasion is not possible. The real ground of this
view is a philosophical one, that miracles are per se inconceivable.
This almost puts an end to criticism on individual miracles as to
the character, magical or moral, to be assigned to them, as that
the power of Jesus was exerted unconsciously (although, on the
contrary, He was well aware of power going out from Him, and '
it most assuredly was not done involuntarily, as Jesus recognised
the faith of the individual healed, although unacquainted with his
person) ; or that His curse on the fig-tree was useless (which,
however, receives sufficient warrant as a prophetico-symbolic act) ;
or, again, that He caused the demons of Gadara to go into the
herd of swine (when even the owners of the swine did not impute
to Him that He had guided the demons, but only begged Him
to withdraw in order to prevent the repetition of a similar occur
rence). The Old Testament expectations and precedents fail to
explain the origin of the histories of miraculous events as myths,
as the fulfilment far surpasses these expectations. But, in the
face of such expectations, how could the actual faith in the
Messiahship of Jesus be explained, unless they found their fulfil
ment in the actual performance of the miracles ? It is true,
indeed, that apostolical letters written to existing communities,
founded on the facts of the life of Jesus, and necessarily conversant
with them, make no mention of these occurrences ; also the mis
sionary discourses (e.g. those in Acts ii. 22, x. 38, 39) ; but this is
explained if we reflect that, at that time, the miraculous power of
Jesus was still at work. The resurrection of Jesus, that greatest
of miracles, is, however, sufficiently attested in these documents.

80 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I.
Everything seems to show that the miracles of Jesus can be
accurately understood only in connection with His personality.
A miracle within the created world is, in a -certain sense, always
relative : creation alone is absolute. But, in this case, the creative
power operates within the already existing world, and only pro
duces in the latter something relatively new, founded on and in
connection with it. Hence analogies to the miraculous are ever to
be found in the course of nature ; and so far there is truth in the
philosophical hypothesis, which contends against the absolute
miracle. It errs, however, first, in inquiring what can be effected
in creation by given forces and laws, instead of asking what
can be effected in the complex working of these by the accession
of divine creative power ; next, in regarding the knowledge of
those laws as settled, which it is not. Jesus' miracles were not
intended merely to meet the wants of men, nor did they result
from His prophetic character, but from that of the Messiah, in
whom man and God are united. They were an emanation from
His personality, and were indeed natural to it. Miracles form a
part of the self-revelation of His person, who, though He did not
owe His lKe to the world, yet came into it and submitted to the
conditions of its actual existence (John xiv. 10, 11, xv. 24). On
this account they are the revelation to us of His power, no less
than of His wisdom and love ; and His unparalleled relation to
God, as well as to the world, may be seen in them as clearly as in
His teaching and other public acts. In working miracles, He fulfils
the will of God (John x. 32, v. 26, xi. 41, 42, x. 37) ; and they
are done in the power of God (Matt. xii. 28 ; Luke xi. 20 ; John
v. 26). But this power and will of God are exactly identical
with His own (John xiv. 6, xi. 25). Miracles are o-r/pela of His
person, and therein of the divine kingdom about to be established.
Jesus demands to be believed for His very works' sake, but
equally requires that the belief should not stop there (cf. S 32) ;
and for this reason He refuses to perform any miracle merely for
the display of His power (Matt. xii. 38). And in His miracles,
no less than in His teaching, He presupposes susceptibility and
faith. On the other hand, as the person of Jesus appeared in
this existing world, His miracles also are not wholly unconnected
with nature, and are built upon existing objects. Natural analogies
are not to be absolutely rejected, as He Himself pointed- out in the
outward acts which accompanied His miracles. But they have

DIV. I. § 18.] THE SUFFERINGS AND DEATH OF JESUS. 81
also in relation to HimseK a purely human side, as manifestations
of the love which is at one with wisdom ; they are icaXa, epya
(John. x. 32 f.), in which His moral character is revealed. In
them, too, we see His perfect entry into the whole domain of
human life and suffering, particularly as He always connects suf
fering with sin and the consciousness of guilt (Matt. ix. 1-8).
His love is shown therein as embracing the perfecting cure of all
human suffering. But the object common to all miracles, which
is also the highest aim of all His love and wisdom, is never lost
sight of, viz. to lead on to faith in Himself, and (Matt. xii. 28) to
pave the way for the establishment of the divine kingdom, whose
completion is looked forward to as the perfect deliverance from
sin and its consequences.

IV. THE CONCLUSION OF HIS LIFE.
§ 18. The Sufferings and Beath of Jesus.
The fact of Jesus resigning HimseK to death proves that the
end of His public activity was attained, the gradual development
of which is set before us in the gospel history. But it had now
reached the point at which no further results of importance were
attainable without the aid of the final catastrophe of His earthly
life. The impression He had already made was so great that it
could now propagate itseK. His form was so indelibly stamped on
hearts susceptible of its impress, that the possession of it was for
ever secured to mankind : He could not expect to win over the
people in a body, even by a longer period of activity. But the
impression made on the susceptible might be enhanced ; and even
upon the mass of the nation and the less impressible, yet one
more great sensation might be attempted, by means of the im
pending catastrophe and the acts which . preceded it and deter
mined its character. The progress even of the disciples themselves
was limited by the progress of His career. A boundary seemed
to be drawn, beyond which their comprehension could not pass,
so long as His bodily presence gave any support to their material
hopes. What could lie effected from without had been done;
but their higher inspiration could only be attained after, and by
means of, the change which His death wrought in His person
F

82 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART L
Distinct predictions of His passion are not the only instances of
Jesus' prescience (cf. John xiii 1 9, xvi. 1 ff), and can only be ob
jected to on a philosophical hypothesis which refuses to recognise
the unity of His spirit with God. Moreover, the application of
features derived from the Old Testament cannot cause us any
scruple, so long as we allow that no sound exegesis of the prin
cipal passage (Isa. liii.) could regard the servant of God apart
from the Messianic idea. But how He expressly foretold His
death, and how this death was specially sealed by the institution
of the Lord's Supper, and how strongly He dwelt throughout upon
the necessity of His passion, belongs more particularly to the
statement of His teaching.
Although Jesus submitted to death of His own free will (John
x. 18), it was nevertheless brought about by the historical de
velopment of His life, and by the hostile disposition towards Him
which was excited by the testimony He bore to HimseK as the
Messiah. Cautious, guarded, and gradual as the statement of His
claims at first was, He could not fail ere long to incur the bitter
hostility of the leading men, seeing that He neither fulfilled their
expectations nor promoted their interests. If He succeeded, their
rule was at an end. They consequently forbade the people,
under pain of the curse, to acknowledge Him as the Messiah ;
and the growth of their hatred kept pace with the development
of His doctrine (John vii 7, 10). They soon attempted to
seize and put Him to death, and He reproached them with their
murderous intention; but no one for a time ventured (vii. 30),
or was able to lay hands on Him (x. 39). He left them and
avoided the snares, which had, however, so impressed His dis
ciples that they were surprised when He again desired to go to
Jerusalem. He goes to Bethany, and the raising of Lazarus fol
lows. This determines the resolution of the Sanhedrim ; for they
now feared a popular demonstration in His favour, followed by a
rebellion, which would involve the people and themselves in one
common ruin. Thus political fear is added to personal dislike
and party feeling. Yet Jesus withdraws only for a moment, and
then makes His public entry into Jerusalem. The public rejoic
ing rouses the suspicion of His enemies, Jerusalem being filled
with strangers at the festival, who were not under their control
They determined, therefore, to seize His person, but to pro
ceed against Him with secrecy, — a resolution which was changed

DIV. I. § 18.] THE SUFFERINGS AND DEATH OF JESUS. 83
by the offer of Judas, who entered into negotiations with them.
The statement (John xiii. 2) that Satan entered into Judas after
the Last Supper is not inconsistent with the fact that he had
already closed with them ; for, immediately before the deed, a
resolution still remained to be taken which would make the whole
irrevocable. Jesus' conduct sufficiently proved that He had no
intention of employing the people against the rulers, since, after
His triumphal entry, He continued to work merely in His usual
manner. At the same time, they were provoked at the greater
power and freedom of the invectives which He launched against
them during that week ; and His discourse on the last evening
hastened the accomplishment of Judas' purpose. The symbolical
signification of the Passover made death welcome to Jesus at that
season (the Talmud itself recognises the expectation of the re
demption of Israel taking place during that feast). But it was of
the utmost consequence to Him not to be slain secretly, since it
was only by a public death that full effect could be given to His
resurrection. On the other hand, the members of the Sanhedrim
thought that His public execution, especially if brought about by
the heathen authorities, would put an end once for all to the
belief in His Messiahship.
The question now remains, how far Jesus was morally justified ,
in thus going to meet His death. It is true, indeed, that He only ^
allowed His enemies to carry out their resolves, but then He took
no pains to avoid, and even challenged the issue. The moral
necessity of His death may not be too lightly asserted without
acknowledging the conditions which it necessarily involves. If
Jesus was no more than a prophet and teacher of the truth, His death
would certainly possess great moral significance as a confirmation
and example ; but He would not in that case have been justified
in seeking it. He might have avoided it, and would have been
bound to do so ; for thus His work might have been prolonged in
Galilee, if not in Jerusalem. The heathen world, moreover, lay
open to Him, and such a spirit as His could have found a sphere
of action anywhere. The question assumes a different aspect,
supposing His death to have been a divine necessity imposed by
the peculiar nature of His vocation. Our view must not, how
ever, be limited to any single divine revelation to Him on this
point ; for His destination as the Messiah throws light on the
whole subject. In this His action was limited to His own people,

84 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I
and directed to its central point ; and He had to present Himself
to the nation as their Messiah, and uphold His claims at whatever
cost, unless He were willing to abandon the destiny marked out
for Him in the divine counsels. And here comes in the hypo
thesis of His real Messianic personality wherein He was one with
God. In this way only can we understand how death was in
cluded in the original plan of His life, and particularly why His
death was brought about at the exact time and in the exact way
in which it was, through a forcible declaration of His person,
and of His intention to establish a kingdom in His own sense of.
the word. The value of Jesus' death is not diminished by the
fact of the resurrection also being in His consciousness bound up
with it. The death does not become less real on that account ;
for Jesus does not resume His former mortal condition, but death
still continues to be the suspension of bodily IKe, and the passing
of the soul into a supernatural state. Gethsemane proves that
Jesus did not gain the conviction of the moral justification and
divine necessity of His death without a struggle. He sought the
well-known spot in order to give HimseK up entirely to inter
course with the Father. Here He became fully sensible of the
decisiveness of the step He was about to take. This is, however,
no isolated instance of this frame of mind. He had abeady,
Luke xii 50, expressed His apprehension of the impending
catastrophe, and again, John xii 27, 28, a few days before His
death. These earlier examples bear witness to the reality of the
feeling which reached its climax in Gethsemane. That was the
precise moment when this frame of mind could not but declare
itseK in the strongest manner. The strength of His anticipation,
at the moment when His sufferings approached, proves only His
complete consciousness of the step He was taking. He had,
perhaps, ere this turned His glance at the whole of His work,
and ideally looked on it as completed. When uttering His high-
priestly prayer, He had already felt HimseK to be the great
High Priest and Mediator, between God and man. But now the
decisive step for the completion of that work is closely impending.
Here He stands in Gethsemane as the sacrifice about to devote itself
to the altar. Uniting in His person the two offices of victim and
priest, He must needs combine both ideas in the alternating frame
of His own mind. Now it was in Gethsemane that He mentally
performed the sacrifice. Here, therefore, He pictured to HimseK

DIV. I. § 18.] THE SUFFERINGS AND DEATH OF JESUS. 85
all that was before Him ; His thoughts do not cling to the pre
sent moment, but embrace the whole task that He had taken
upon HimseK. Having gained the mastery in the struggle of this
moment, He became tranquil, and maintained His self-possession
under the most trying circumstances. This is shown in His
sublimity and dignity when face to face with every injustice, in
the gentleness which distinguished degrees of offence, in the re
signation which acknowledged all as the dispensation of God, and,
above all, in the love which, under the heaviest load of personal
suffering, still showed itseK susceptible of that of others, and made
it the object of special consideration. In fine, this struggle
evinces His full consciousness of the step He was about to take ;
but as everything was concentrated in this one moment, the feel
ing thus produced well-nigh subdued Him, and filled His soul
with a horror which He could only master by prayer. For in all
great suffering the moment immediately preceding its commence
ment is always the most torturing to the human mind; when
in the midst of the anguish, the soul is in a manner elevated.
Such anguish He experienced, yet without ever harbouring a doubt
of God, or losing sight of Him as the proper object of His con
sciousness. It is not only death, however, which He goes forth to
meet, the fear of which He overcomes ; He also has to experience
the power of sin concentrated against Him. The deeply felt in
justice of His death is present to His soul, and the curse which
the guilt of it will bring upon His people ; indeed, in the very
midst of His agonies, He is more acutely sensible of the baneful
power of sin over mankind (Matt, xxvi 41 ; Luke xxiii. 34) than
of His own suffering. But to Him, the sinless One, the death
itself which He was about to encounter is something unnatural,
and hence His anguish at having to undergo the extreme penalty
of sin.It belongs to the province of biography to describe the rapid
succession of events inwardly prepared for and decided on by
Him, but which was precipitated by His enemies in their haste to
secure the result without interrupting the feast. As to the fact
that Jesus really died, historical testimony is unanimous. Had
He not died, His whole life and teaching would have been de
prived of its final truth. His teaching shows how He HimseK
looked upon His death as the manifestation of His person and of
His work, in the perfection of seK-sacrifice and the complete

86 THF, LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I.
adoption of humanity through His fully sharing in the sense of
sin by His personal experience of its worst evil.
§ 19. Resurrection and Ascension of Jesus.
The accounts of the several appearances of the risen Jesus are
not at variance with each other, for they are only fragments which
evidently stand alone, and were selected with a plan aDd a pur
pose. Matthew, for instance, thought it sufficient to relate the
first appearance immediately consequent on the fact, and the last
in Galilee which was also of essential importance. Nor does the
change of scene present any difficulty. The disciples might very
weU stay at Jerusalem until the conclusion of the feast, although
Jesus had bidden them go into Galilee ; and after their sojourn
there, they could easily have returned to Jerusalem on the ap
proach of the season of Pentecost, and receive His command to
await there the outpouring or the Spirit. The narrative of the
first appearance is,1 however, common to all four evangelists.
Now it is not possible to assume either an apparent death and a
successful-awaking from it brought about by divine providence, or
so extravagant a plan as that Jesus aUowed HimseK to be crucified
in order to give colour to an assumed resurrection. Moreover, the
supposition of a deception, wrought by the apostles, is an unworthy
one, and that they could have been self-deceived is impossible ; so
that there remains only the possibility of a mythical explanation
for those who are entirely determined to evade the historical one.
But how could the myth arise ? According to the gospels, the
disciples had, before the fact, no belief which could give rise
to such a hope, but were, on the contrary, in a dejected frame of
mind in consequence of the death of Jesus ; and this is exactly
what the history would have led us to.expect. The great revolution
in their frame of mind can only be accounted for by the supposi
tion of some extraordinary occurrence. And a vision can in no
way suffice for this. The Apostle Paul, in enumerating amongst
other appearances in proof of the resurrection, the one which he
had himseK experienced, in no way sanctions the supposition that
he regarded them all as visionary, but only shows that he looked
upon his own also as objective. The purport and aim of his
statement presuppose the characteristics of objective appearances ;
for five hundred men do not at the same moment experience a
merely subjective one. Unless, therefore, special aversion to

DIV. I. § 19.] RESURRECTION AND ASCENSION OF JESUS. 87
miracles is raised into the highest law of investigation, it is im
possible to avoid presupposing just such an extraordinary fact as
is presented in the gospel history of the resurrection.
The appearances of the risen One are recorded in such a way
as to show that they are neither to be regarded as visionary nor
as the appearances of one again returning to a permanent con
tinuance of an earthly life. His soul had really left His body,
according to the New Testament doctrine (1 Pet. iii 18, 19), and
the resurrection restored the bond of union between them ; but
the question remains, whether the result was a re-establishment of
mere bodily life under its former conditions, or, on the contrary,
that a glorification xtook place to a new and immortal life. The
phenomena recorded in John xx. 20-27, Luke xxiv. 39-43, Acts
x. 41 (John xxi.) have indeed been appealed to in support of
the former supposition ; but what they go to prove is no more
than the fact of real bodily appearance as opposed to an in
corporeal or visionary apparition, without excluding a glorified
corporeality. The latter supposition, on the other hand, seems to
gain confirmation from other features, such as the descriptions of
His coming and going (John xx. 26, xxi. 1, (pavepouaOat), and
the designation of His going as a "vanishing" (Luke xxiv. 31).
With this also agree the pains He took to convince the disciples
of the reality of His body, and also the expression a^jielov^tv
_His__resurrection (John j£x_30_)JL And even K the real state of
the case cannot^beexactly made out, the evangelists, at all events,
represent the resurrection as a renewal of life, from which the idea
of a second death was excluded. This view assumes a more
definite form in the apostolic teaching, according to which the
resurrection of Jesus runs completely parallel with our own, — the
latter being, however, a glorification (1 Cor. xv. ; Rom. viii. ; Col. i;
2 Cor. iv. ; Rev. i). For this reason the ascension is associated
with the resurrection, and, indeed, indirectly with the crucifixion
itseK (1 Pet. i 21 ; Eph. i 20, ii. 6 ; Rom. viii. 34 ; Acts ii. 32, 33,
v. 31 ; [Rom. i 4, xiv. 9 ; PhiL ii. 9]). And although the two
events are so distinguished that the ' appearance of Jesus cannot
be described as a mere descent again from heaven to earth, yet a
combined view of all the circumstances seems to favour the
opinion that a gradual glorification began at the resurrection, but
was not completed until the ascension. It is in the nature of the
case that we should not be able to picture to ourselves any exact

88 THE LIFE OF JESUS. [PART I
view of this process. His previous intimations testify that the
resurrection of Jesus formed an essential part of His work. He
Himself makes early allusion to it in speaking of the rebuilding of
the temple (John ii. 1 9-22); and although in the temple, which was
to be destroyed through the obstinacy of the Jews, there may be
some reference to the destruction of the material building, still the
words mainly refer to the new temple of His risen body. The
discourse about the sign of the prophet Jonah belongs to the same
subject. But, besides these allegorical allusions, we have also
distinct announcements in connection with the notification of His
suffering (Matt, xvi., xvii ||). There is also the discourse before
His apprehension (Matt, xxvi 32); and on another occasion the
time is incidentally mentioned (Matt. xvii. 9). Compare also
what is related by John (x. 1 7, 1 8), with which agrees the dis
course about the quickening power of the flesh and blood of Jesus
(John vi). The fareweU discourses also (John xiv.-xvi.) do not
merely refer to a spiritual coming again, but as clearly (e.g. John xvi.
22) to an outward and visible reappearance. It cannot be said that,
these intimations being presupposed, the unbelief of the disciples
is unintelligible ; for the matter was still beyond their comprehen
sion. Nor is the ethical character of His death impaired by it :
it is still a real death, as certainly as that of Christians who
believe in His and their resurrection. The use He made of His
predicted reappearance was not to renew His connection with the
multitude, which would have disturbed the quiet course of His
work, but with believers, for the purpose of giving them new
and final charges and promises, and especially to explain to them
His sufferings, so as at once to transfer them to a higher stand
point. Thus the closer significance of the fact itseK was, on the
one hand, to set His death in its true light, and to justify Him in
it, and, on the other, to prove His life to be superior to death,
which life He in His power is able to impart to others.
The credibility of the ascension depends upon the foregoing
fact of the resurrection. Existing conceptions of the Messiah
afforded no groundwork for the construction of a myth on this
subject. The Jews pictured to themselves a Messiah who would
remain on earth. The ascension is in full harmony with the
Christian idea, and consistently closes the life of the risen Saviour ;
but these are the grounds for a fact, and not for a myth, so soon
as the reality of the resurrection is admitted. Such an occurrence,

DIV. I. §19.] RESURRECTION AND ASCENSION OF JESUS. 89
indeed, must have induced the disciples to wait in full assurance
of faith for the outpouring of the Spirit, and no longer to hope
for the immediate return of Jesus. The conscientious narrative
of Luke is sufficient authority for this event. But although the
objective fact is not mentioned in apostolical literature, yet the
dogmatically important result of the fact, the " sitting at the right
hand of God," is frequently spoken of throughout the New Testa
ment; sometimes, indeed, in expressions (such as Acts ii. 32,
Eph. iv. 8-10, 1 Tim. iii. 16) which point to the event itseK.
Although the evangelists Matthew and John do not expressly
mention it, they have handed down to us discourses in which the
higher fact is attested (John vi 62, xx. 17, the fareweU discourses,
and Matt, xxviii 16-20). It is this higher fact, the entrance
into the invisible world without death, that naturally completes the
glorification begun at the resurrection. The external and sym
bolical occurrence, the elevation and concealment of Jesus within
the cloud, was only intended to signify to the disciples that their
position was now definitely settled, and that henceforth they were
to regard their Master as belonging to the invisible world. Death
was vanquished at the resurrection ; in the ascension, the incom
plete perfection of the corporeal element is subordinated. If
Jesus overcame death in the biblical sense, His victory must
necessarily be followed by this transformation into a glorified state.
And hence the ascension is not only the assurance and foreshadow
ing to us of our heavenly life (Col. iii 1—4 ; cf. 1 John iii. 2 ;
Acts iii. 26), but also the fact on which depends our belief in the
future change of our mortal lKe, which, according to the apostle's
teaching, is in store for us.

90 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. EPART L

SECOND DIVISION.

THE TEACHING OF JESUS.
§ 20. Summary.
The teaching of Jesus is presented to us as the declaration of the
salvation involved in His appearance, and more in detail — ¦
(1) Of the glorification of the Father in the Son.
(2) Of the redemption of mankind through the Son
(3) Of the kingdom of God in which both the glorification and
the redemption find their accomplishment.
Amidst an the varieties of form and manner, a unity of pur
pose is plainly evident in our Lord's teaching, which makes it
possible to draw up a regular statement wherein the various
doctrinal elements may be traced back to the fundamental idea
which forms the internal unity of the teaching, and from which .
their organic completeness is derived. But this course has not
unKormly been adopted ; for, in presenting our Lord's teaching
from the historical and exegetical point of view, men have allowed
themselves, especially in biblical theology, to bring both biblical
teaching in general, and this branch of it in particular, into con
formity with certain current dogmatical formulae.
The characteristic title eiayyekiop, the message of salvation, by
which He HimseK distinguished His teaching, enables us to dis
cern without difficulty the thread of unity which runs through it.
He applies this name in its absolute sense to His teaching (Mark
i 14, xiii 10 ; Matt, xxvi 13) ; it is this which He proclaims
and which is announced by the apostles in His name (Mark xvi. 1 5 ;
Matt. xxvi. 13). It is to a salvation now within view that His
message refers (Mark i 1 5). The time is fulfilled, and the king
dom of God is at hand. It is therefore the gospel of the king
dom of God, and is so caUed by the evangelists themselves (Mark
i 14; Matthew passim). The subjects of the Lord's teaching
are accordingly named by Him the mysteries of the kingdom ;

DIV. II. §20.] SUMMARY. 91
doctrines previously hidden from mankind, but at length by
divine revelation made known to them (Matt, xiii 11 ; Luke
viii 10). Accordingly, it is not only, in general terms, salva
tion which had been brought to light, but, in particular, God's
kingdom as destined to be established and forthwith perfected
through the revealed Messiah, that is pointed out as the subject
of the Lord's teaching (Luke iv. 43). Here, too, He declares that
it belongs to His office and ministry to preach the gospel of the
kingdom in the other cities also, for that to that purpose He was
sent. In exact agreement with this, the Lord includes in the
task assigned to Him the work of making known the name of the
Father, revealing and declaring Him (John xvii 4, 6, cf. i 17,
18). Agreeably with this, it appears also from what He says,
Matt. xi. 27, that the essential relation subsisting between the
Father and the Son necessitates that the knowledge of the Father
should be imparted only through the Son. Hence, to reveal
and declare Him formed a part of the task committed to Him
by the Father. This, therefore, is one side of the gospel of the
kingdom of God — to reveal the nature and name of the Father, to
make Him known and to glorify Him through the Son amongst
men first. The other side of it, namely, Jesus' relation to man
kind, is indicated in other expressions. The Lord specifies His
task as that of saving and blessing, that is, in short, redeeming
the lost, and rescuing mankind from the corruption of sin (Matt.
xviii. 11, xx. 28 ; Luke xix. 10).. This is the amdfjvat for
men through the Son of God (John, iii 16, 17), or the salva
tion, the o-asTqpla, for aU mankind, which, so far as the acorrjp rod
k6o-/j,ov appears in it (John iv. 42), was to proceed from the
Jewish nation (John iv. 22). In this amdrjvai of mankind lies the
life (&rf) of which those who have fallen into the ruin of sin are
made partakers through Christ. Thus the Lord Himself charac
terizes the scope and purpose of His own teaching. We have
also the plainest references to the purport of His teaching and
the aim of His work, of which, indeed, His teaching forms an
essential portion; this work, too, being of necessity the chief subject
of His teaching. By His own expressions, His teaching is pointed
out to us as the gospei and we are led on to the two aspects of
it, His relation to the Father and to man, through which the
whole relationship between God and man has received its peculiar
form. We are thus clearly shown our Lord's express percep-

92 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
tion of unity in His own teaching. He is assured of, and defines
the nature of, His teaching as being gospel, as in truth a message
that the kingdom of God has now appeared as an accomplished
fact, in which He knows is involved both the glorification of the
Father and the redemption of mankind through Himself. Being,
then, in the first place, assured of the unity of our Lord's teaching
by its gospel character, we have the divisions of its organization
in the above-named points. We have purposely so arranged these
divisions that the kingdom of God is taken last, and regarded as
the result of the other two acts, the glorification of the Father,
and the redemption of the world. The conception of the kingdom
of God is obviously the more complex and pregnant, and. includes
the conceptions both of God and man, definitely presupposing the
relation of each to the other. This third point might indeed have
been put first,, but then there would have been no gradation, and
we should have had to anticipate. In one respect, certainly, it
would have been desirable to give this priority to the doctrine of
the kingdom of God, because we could then have begun with the
teaching connected with it, to which our Lord Himself gave
priority in the preparative attitude which He first assumed. But
it is easy to see that this was a <rvyieaTd/3acri<s on His part. It
was the wisdom of His teaching which adopted this course, out of
regard for the subjective need of His hearers ; but also, in these
very discourses which He delivered in the earliest days of His
ministry, the subject of the kingdom of God was not exhausted,
other points being reserved for His later discourses upon the
course of its development.
We therefore believe that we shall best penetrate into the inner
essence of the teaching of Jesus, K, amongst its three main points,
we give the last place to that of the kingdom of God, as the one in
which both the others converge. ' But we see at once the organic
connection which subsists between them : each leads to the others ;
and neither, without the others, can be perfectly developed. The
glorification of the Father in the Son and in the Spirit leads of
itseK to the subject of redemption with which the former is in
separably connected, so soon as we consider it in its relation to
mankind ; and hence the second supplements the first, and both
together find their issue in the kingdom of God, in the first place
amongst men.
It must, however, be observed that we are not concerned with

DIV. II. § 21.] GOD THE FATHER. 93
isolated and abstract, ideas either of God or man. As regards
the former, we exclude even the universal conception of God, but
are concerned with Him as Father in the precise Christian defini
tion of the term. And viewing Him as glorified in the Son, we
are brought into direct contact with a living act, and God is com
prehended in the living activity of His manifestation and glory,
into the circle of which man also, notwithstanding his sin, is
admitted, and his redemption thereby accomplished. In the
same way man must be regarded, not per se, but in immediate
relation to God, and therefore in the quality in which he must
be considered in a religious point of view; in the ethico-reli
gious side of his character corresponding to his relation to God,
not, therefore, merely as a sinner, but as the object of the divine
act of redemption, and standing consequently in a determinate
relation not only to the Father, but also to the Son as Mediator
between God and man. With a like disregard for any abstract
notion of the world, we look upon it from an ethico-religious
point of view in its relation to God, and as the destined seat of
His kingdom. And herein it must be considered not only in
its relation to God in general, but essentially to the only-
begotten Son of God, who, as the Mediator between God and the
world, is called by the Apostle Paul the first-born of all creatures.
Our treatment of the teaching of Jesus will therefore differ
materially from that of others whose method is founded upon the
more or less usual canons of dogmatism. And we may indulge
the hope that, after having first clearly enunciated the funda
mental principles of Christ's teaching common to the synoptical
and St. John's accounts, it may be possible to arrive sooner at an
order of arrangement corresponding to the intention and character
of that teaching.

I. THE GLORIFICATION OF THE FATHER IN
THE SON.
§ 21. God the Father.
The teaching as to the Father, with which we begin, is set forth
in our Lord's discourses only so far as it stands in essential relation
to that of the Son, or of the children of God, and is therefore

94 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
opposed in limine to an abstract idea of God. There are, indeed,
certain of His discourses in which no direct reference is made to
the Son, as (in the first three evangelists) in the Sermon on the
Mount, and (in John) the conversation with the Samaritan woman
(iv. 21, 24). But even in these such a reference is made in
directly; for in the Sermon on the Mount, in referring to the
kingdom of God, Jesus represents Himself as its Founder and
Lord (cf. Matt. v. 17 ff, and vii. 21 ff.) ; and, in conversing with
the woman, He refers to the salvation which was to come by the
Messiah, and points out that the time for praying to God in the
Spirit had arrived (cf. vers. 10, 14, 26), because salvation had
already appeared in Him. Other discourses, however, make it
plain how essentially that reference is contained in His teaching;
and we are therefore fully justified in understanding what He
taught of God as relating to the Father. Our Lord HimseK so
understood and regarded it, as, for instance, in the important dis
course of Matt, xi 25-27.
No further proof is needed that our Lord's discourses do not
contain any complete development of the doctrine of God's being
and attributes. This is explained by the fact that His teaching
was not systematic, but that He selected sometimes one topic of
discourse, sometimes another, and adapted it to His hearers' wants,
presupposing always the religious faith of the Old Testament, but
elevating even this to a higher stage by the revelations of His
teaching. In the Old Testament faith is implied the belief in the
living, intelligent, and holy God, the Creator and Lord of the
world, on whom it absolutely depends, — a belief opposed not only
to polytheism, but also to dualism (cf. in the latter respect, Isa.
xiv. 5-7) ; the belief, too, in a moral relation of man to God, and
especially in a divine plan of salvation, which, embracing the
whole human race, finds its first realization in the people of Israel
(cf. Gen xii 3, xxviii 14 ; Isa. xiii 1, 4, 6, xlix. 6, lx. 3 ; Mic. iv.
2). Without attempting here to discuss further the substance of
the Old Testament faith, it will suffice to direct attention to a few
important particulars in which our age not unfrequently goes too
far in stating and passing judgment upon the religious belief of the
Old Testament. Thus, with regard to the so-called moral attributes
of God in the conception of Him founded on the Old Testament,
the characteristics of a jealous and just God are brought forward too
prominently, although in the Old Testament that of mercy is as

DIV. II. § 21.] GOD THE FATHER. 95
essentially and prominently asserted, nay, even more so than the
others (cf. as principal passages, Ex. xxxiv. 6, 7 ; Ps. lxxxvi. 5,
15, ciii 8-18, cxiv. 7-10; Joel ii. 13; Jonah iv. 2, 10, 11).
In addition to this, the relation of God to man in the Old Testa
ment is wont to be represented as if in the old belief He were
conceived as standing opposed to, and at an infinite distance from,
mankind. This is, at least, a great exaggeration ; for, although
the opinion opposed to this is a speciality of Christianity, stand
ing out conspicuously in the doctrine of the incarnation, and of
the Spirit indwelling in believers ; yet not only is the doctrine of
God's omnipresence put forward with sufficient liveliness and force,
so that the world appears entirely dependefit on the presence of
God, but also as regards the spiritual nature and inner life of
man, the Old Testament undoubtedly recognises the Spirit of God
working in him. The Old Testament also clearly recognised that
the Spirit of God should first rest in full measure on the Messiah
(Isa. xi. 2), and be then revealed and poured out in His seven
fold activity upon all flesh, upon all mankind (cf. Joel iii 1, 2,
and later Isa. xliv. 3; Ezek xxxvi. 26, 27, cf. xi. 19, xxxix.
29, also Isa. liv. 13; Jer. xxxi. 33; [John vi 45]). Accord
ing to this, the truth that God is not merely and absolutely
external to man is decidedly recognised in the Old Testament,
which, however, holds most firmly to the distinction of God from
the world, as of the Creator from the creature, the Holy One from
sinners, and is well aware of the fact that the revelation and seK-
communication of God to men is not yet complete, but that
another phase of the intercourse between them is still impending.^
It also clearly understands that in the belief in a God who has
not left Himself without witness amongst men is contained also
the belief of a moral relation between God and man, at first
gradually developed, approaching completion in the Messianic
times, and to be consummated hereafter. From what has been
said, it will be easy to understand how much is implied in the
statement that our Lord presupposed the Old Testament belief,
and what a deep foundation was already laid for a living system
of divine teaching; also that in a certain measure only one
essential step was wanting to at once transform the faith in God
of the Old Testament into that of the, New, and thereby to fulfil
Moses and the prophets. This result was brought about in our
Lord's teaching apparently by the most simple means, but in a

96 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
manner most richly productive of fruit, and bearing in itseK the
germ of infinite development. The aim of His teaching as to the
nature of God being to quicken men's belief in Him as a living
and personal God, and consequently as standing in a moral rela
tion to the world and to man, the two points to which He gives
greatest prominence, and by means of which He completes the
Old Testament conception of the divine being, are, that God is a
Spirit, and that- God is the Father. These two definitions are not
expressed in this way in the old covenant, but, coming from our
Lord's lips, they elevate the Old Testament conception of the
( divine being to its New Testament potency : they stand in an
inner connection with each other, and from them proceeds all
that is contained in the testimony of Jesus concerning the divine
attributes. We begin with the definition that God is a Spirit, because the
second and fuller one, that God is the Father, to a certain extent
presupposes the other. This conception is pronounced in a dis
course preserved by St. John, and is addressed to the Samaritan
woman and not to the Old Testament believers, just as K the
latter, already entertaining this view to some extent, had less
need of the idea as a new definition of doctrine. The spiritual
nature of God had been more and more revealed under the Old
Testament dispensation, and now the idea needed only to be
brought out in a definite shape. The definitions of the Old
Testament conception of God most nearly connected with this
part of the subject are the following : (a) First, the conception of
God as nirp; the One who exists, who is and will be, as the God
who appeared to Moses, explained this name (Ex. iii. 13-16, cf.
Isa. xliv. 6 ; Rev. 1 4). Hence it signifies the simply existent
One, co-extensive with HimseK, and eternal ; and the name clearly
contains the root of to le. (I) Next comes the definition pf God
as the living God (Deut. v. 23 ; Isa. xxxvii. 4, 17 ; Jer. xxiii. 36),
which also occurs in the New Testament (Matt. xvi. 1 6), and in the
mouth of our Lord Himself (o £<5i/ iraTrjp, John vi 5 7), in contra
distinction to the lifeless, inert, and inoperative idols ; the living
and the true God, who gives effectual proof of this character, and
manKests HimseK to, and in favour of, His worshippers. These
are the elements for the conception (c) of God as a Spirit, which
Jesus briefly pronounces Him to be (John iv. 24). As soon as
the Samaritan woman recognised Him as a prophet, she pro-

DIV. II. § 21.] GOD THE FATHER. 97
pounded her leading religious question, seeking to know where men
ought to worship, in Jerusalem or on the mountain of Samaria ?
The time will- come, the Lord says, when men will worship God
neither in the one nor the other place exclusively. The Sama
ritans, indeed, know not what they worship : they are wanting
in the just apprehension of the object of their adoration, which
the Jews possess, because salvation comes from them (ver. 22) ;
and hence the Jewish people is the soil prepared by God from
which the divine salvation is to issue. What has taken place by
God's ordinance and guidance within the Jewish people is not,
however, the limit of the change ; but the hour is coming, nay,
already come, when the true worshippers will worship the Father
in spirit and in truth ; for the Father seeks such to worship Him,
and knows also how to prepare them for Himself, viz. by realizing
the awTTjpla (ver 22), which has its starting-point in the Jewish
people. For (and now comes the reason for it) God is a Spirit
(ver. 24) ; and those who worship Him must worship Him in
spirit and in truth. The predicate irvevpLa stands first for the
sake of emphasis, and not as a Hebraism. The word is elsewhere
used in contradistinction to what is corporeal (Luke xxiv. 39),
a contrast being implied in this passage to anything subject to
conditions of space. • Were God in any wise comprehensible by
any limits of space, His worship also would be confined within
the same bounds ; but as any such local limitation and deter
mination are excluded by our Lord (ver. 21), it follows that the
essential worship aimed at by the Father is raised above the
possibility of being circumscribed by any such limitations. God
as a Spirit is elevated not only above every local, but above every
material condition and limitation, being in HimseK the most per
fect form of IKe, as the intelligent and Holy One who can only be
approached in spirit and in truth. And in virtue of the Divine
Spirit and the truth thus inwardly imparted, man is enabled to
draw near in spirit to God with worship and adoration. Upon
this idea of God as a Spirit rests also another which our Lord
sets forth, that this God has life originally in Himself (John
v. 26), and is therefore the fountain of aU life (vers. 26 and 21),
and incessantly in operation (John v. 1 7). He is the one true
God (John xvii. 3), whom to know is everlasting IKe ; He is the
IKe to that extent that none can truly know Him without them
selves becoming participators in the divine Hfe. He is therefore

98 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I
the £eSv and ^woirotaiv. Through this conception of God as a
Spirit, everything else which Jesus taught concerning Him, for
the production of a living faith, — which, too, is true even from an
Old Testament point of view, — is placed in a peculiar light. The
idea already implied in the Old Testament now more expressly
culminates in the conception of a Spirit ; for the same God who
is a Spirit is also the Author of the world. And indeed because He
is in Himself the absolutely perfect, self-conscious, holy, and active
life, He is also the unconditionally free and gracious Author of the
world. The dependence of the world on God appears not merely
from the address to Him (Matt. xi. 25 ; Luke x. 21) as Lord of
heaven and earth, but is pointed out as of universal extent, rest
ing upon the fact of creation (Kara^oXrj tov /coaftov, John xvii.
24), and embracing, therefore, even the minutest objects. We see
this in the discourses in which our Lord requires unconditional
confidence in God (Matt. vi. 25-34), especially from the apostles
in their calling (Luke xii. 4-7, cf. Matt. x. 28-31), and where He
encourages to prayer (Matt. vii. 7-11, vi. 10-13 ; Luke xi. 1-8).
It is further evident that God, on whom the world is absolutely
dependent, is also represented in the teaching of Jesus as the
absolutely good, since this dependence is put forward as a sufficient
ground for unlimited confidence. Jesus also expressly teaches that
God is perfect ; as being the prototype of aU moral perfection, and
especially of all love (Matt. v. 48). God is verily the only good
(There is none good but one, that is God, Matt. xix. 1 7 ; Luke
xviii. 19), and is therefore the trustworthy Giver of all good
gKts (Matt. vii. 9-11). In this absolute sense He alone is good,
both in Himself and by communication to others ; for the very
conception of God as a Spirit implies that He is a self-compre^
hending and self-existent life, the holy and intelligent source
of activity, but withal that His life and being is not limited to
Himself, but is self-imparting. All this is, indeed, involved in
the idea of the Spirit and the life, as these words are used abso
lutely of the Divine Being.
But on this very account our Lord's teaching does not stop
here. The method He adopts is to assert the idea of Spirit only
when He desires to draw some important inference from it ; at
other times, the leading idea on which He has formed the con
ception He would convey of God is of a different nature,— that of
the Father. Hence the passages in which we recognise God as a

DIV. II. § 21.] GOD THE FATHER. 99
Spirit, — who is the perfect IKe in His relation to the world, — are
exactly those in which our Lord does not merely caU Him God
and Spirit, but represents Him as Father ; as, for instance, where
He mentions His perfection (Matt. v. 48), and where He points
to Him as the trustworthy Giver of good gifts (Matt. vii. 9-11).
But we shaU see hereafter how these two ideas — that God is a
Spirit, and God is a Father — stand in an inner connection with
each other. The opinion that Christ employed the term ©eo?
more in the presence of the Jews, and trar^p to His disciples, is
untenable; for we cannot regard the Sermon on the Mount, in
which He chiefly used the latter term, as addressed exclusively
to His disciples.
By this second leading definition of God as the Father, Christ
complemented and perfected the Old Testament conception ; for
even this idea is not an entirely new one, but finds its counter
part in the Old Testament.
The living God, who reveals Himself to His own, is the God
of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob (Ex. iii. 6 ; Matt, xxii 32 ; cf.
Heb. xi. 1 7 ff), the God of Israel, the Holy One of Israel. He
avers HimseK to be the absolutely existing and Uving One, and
as standing in a peculiar covenant relation to the people of Israel,
and first to their forefathers, who were speciaUy called to the
blessing, and therein to be the starting-point of a plan of sal
vation for mankind. But in the same way as Jesus briefly sums
up the notion of the absolute and self-existent in the term Spirit,
so He does that of the God of Abraham, etc., as Father, as in the
expression " My Father and your Father" (John xx. 1 7). He ap
peals no more to the relation in which God stood to the nation and
their forefathers, but takes His stand simply on what God is in Him,
and for Him, and what therein He wiU be for aU mankind. Here,
too, the teaching of the Old Testament is brought to a climax in the
idea of Jesus. The idea of Father, as occurring in the Old Testament,
has in later times been erroneously referred to God as the Creator
and beneficent Sustainer of mankind ; and MaL ii. 10 is speciaUy
appealed to in proof of this. The idea of God as the Father of all
is said to be found here ; but in this passage, according to the
context, those who are said to have God as a common Father are
only the members of the people of Israel, as we see from the end
of the verse. Consequently, although we read, "Hath not one
God created us 1 " we must suppose that it is only the general

100 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PARTI.
idea of the Creator, modified by the special relation subsisting
between Jehovah and the Israelites. This is confirmed by the
remaining passages, in which God is spoken of as the Father in
reference to the theocratic people, so far as it was chosen, con
stituted, and educated by God (Deut. xxxii. 6, and cf. generally
the whole book as to God's fatherly guidance ; also Isa. lxiii. 1 6,
lxiv. 8, cf. 9-11 ; Jer. xxxi. 9, cf. iii. 19, where the people is
caUed Jehovah's son ; Ex. iv. 22 ; Jer. xxxi. 20 ; Hos. xi. 1 ;
Deut. i 31, viii. 5.) Moreover, the name of Father is appUed to
Jehovah not only in reference to the people as a whole, but also to
individual members of it (Mai. ii. 10 ; Isa. lxiii. 16) ; and they
are caUed His sons and daughters (Deut. xxxii 1 9 ; Isa. i 2, 4,
lxiii. 8 ; Deut. xiv. 1). In any case, however, it is clear that
God is not in the Old Testament caUed Father as Creator and
Sustainer of merely animal IKe, — a physical notion which obtains
more in the domain of heathenism (Zexxs Trwrr^p avhpwv tb dewv re),
— but .in so far as He stands in a pecuKar relation to one portion
of mankind, and in a special covenant and closer spiritual com
munion with them. The idea is, in short, that of a spiritual and
moral relationship. It cannot, therefore, be said that the idea of
God is comprehended within narrow Hmits, because He is spoken
of as Father of the Israelites only, but rather that it is taken in a
higher sense ; and, moreover, His people represent no more than
the starting-point from which the paternal relationship should- be
extended to aU the nations of the earth.
Jesus Himself determined the signification of the title of
Father, by employing it in a double reference4 jpartly to His own
person, and partly to other men : in the former case most emi
nently in a unique, in the latter, in a wider and derivative sense.
But in both it is not merely the Originator of natural life who
is spoken of, but the Author and Prototype, as the Sustainer,
Guardian, and Perfecter, of spiritual Hfe, but in such a way as,
whUst giving this the foremost place, not to exclude the other.
In the former sense, the expression 6 irar^p p.ov often occurs, as,
for example, Matt. xi. 27 ; John ii. 16, v. 17 ; and in the latter
at Matt. vi. 4, 6, 8 ; and we also meet with m-aT^p vp.wv (Matt. vi.
8, 15, x. 20, 29, xxiii 9 ; Luke vi. 36, xn. 30, 32), the Father
of the righteous (Matt. xin. 43); and the expression " Our Father"
is put into the mouth of beHevers (Matt. vi. 9). In the second
reference we frequently find the addition eV tok ovpavoi<s, or o

DIV. II. § 21.] GOD THE FATHER. 101
ovpdvm (Matt. v. 16, 45, 48, vi. 1, 9, 14, 26, 32, vii. 11 ; Mark
xi. 25), or e'f ovpavov (Luke xi. 13). But in the first reference
also the same addition occurs, in order to prevent aU mistake
(Matt. vii. 21, x. 32, xn. 50, xvi. 17, xviii. 10); and it originates
in the predominant view of the Old Testament that God dweUs
in heaven, raised far above every human and earthly condition
(Ps. cxv. 3). Hence also the rabbis, in speaking of God as the
Father, call Him the heavenly, — no doubt to distinguish Him from
earthly fathers (cf. Matt. vii. 11). As regards the proper signi
fication of the title, it is generally to be understood in reference
to men, that God is caUed their Father not merely as the Author
of their natural Hfe. It is also strange that, when God is called
Father in the Bible, this is not done with respect to nature and
irrational beings, but to men and angeHc spirits. It foUows,
therefore, that God must be understood as the Author of a Hfe
resembling His own. Nor must it be overlooked that, as has been
already shown in the Old Testament, this conception of Father is
not extended to all men. Thus, since the title is not appHed to
Him in the Old Testament in virtue of His relation to all man
kind, the reflection comes in that, because men are alienated from
God by sin and become moraUy unlike and indeed opposed to
Him, the name of Father belongs to God only in reference to
those with whom He stands in peculiar covenant-relation. The
names of Father and chUd are used in the sense of spiritual and
moral relationship. Thus (Matt. v. 45) men are chUdren of their
heavenly Father K they are like Him in spiritual and moral respects,
inwardly pervaded by the same spiritual Hfe, especiaUy by the
same love as it exists in Him ; and if they distinguish them
selves thereby from sinners, in whom the sinful Hfe prevaUs
(compare also John viii. 39 ff). The Jews are not children of
Abraham, although his bodily airepfia (ver. 37) ; they do not re
semble him in their actions (ver. 40), but are in that respect rather
children of the devU (ver. 44); and hence the connection of spiritual
relationship is impHed in the sonship of Abraham (cf., also the
viol tov irovijpov, Matt. xiii. 38, and the appHcation of the term
vlbs 'Afipaap, to Zacchaeus, Luke xix. 9). Also, in His powerful
closing discourse against the Pharisees, our Lord speaks in the
same way (Matt, xxiii. 31, 32 ; cf. Luke xi. 47) of spiritual son-
ship in opposition to the forefathers who persecuted the prophets.
But as above mentioned (John viii.), they are not Abraham's seed ;

102 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PARTI.
in consequence of their doings, they prove also that they are
not the chUdren of God (John viii. 42, 47 ; cf. also the elvai etc
tov SiafioXov, ver. 44, with elvai e« tov Qeov, ver. 47 ; also the
parable of the good seed and of the tares of the field). We see
plainly from this, that the spiritual relationship denoted in the
names of Father and child is such as to include on one side the
causality of determinate spiritual Hfe. God is Father, and man
His chUd, not merely through the giving and receiving of natural
life, — even if it be one endowed with reason, — but so far as God,
on the basis of this, life, sets HimseK in a relation of spiritual
community with man, cherishes and perfects him as standing in
moral and spiritual relations with Himself. Thus, then, God as
Father is love exhibited in action, the loving Author of the
inner life spirituaUy and moraUy alHed to Himself ; and, as the
Author, so also the Sustainer of it, -who cherishes and brings it to
perfection. This appears in our Lord's words (Matt. vii. 9-11 ;
Luke xi. 11-13), where the idea of paternal love akeady ex
hibited in sinful humanity is enhanced by appHcation to a God
who is absolutely good and perfect. So, too (Matt. xvUi 14;
Luke xv. 2 ff. ; cf. Matt. xix. 26, xviu. 23), the idea of the divine
paternal love is developed as the consummation of pastoral fideHty
in man (ver. 23). See also what we read in St. John (iii. 16,
xvii. 2) of the love of God. In this spiritual and moral fatherly
relation lie the two essential points of the Christian conception of
God, which are, on the one side, His absolute elevation above the
world and men, in contradistinction from whom He is the Almighty
and the Holy One ; and, on the other, the most intimate communion
between their life and Mis, proceeding from the original relationship
of creation, and from the free seK-imparting love of God. These
two elements combined complete the Christian conception of God ;
and their union is established by Christ HimseK, through the
simple conception of the Father.
But although the Father is the originator and founder of a
spiritual and moral communion between HimseK and the Hfe of
which He is the Author, yet the relation is not confined to the
men whose Father in this sense God is, nor even to superhuman
beings, such as the angels, to whom the expression viol tov Qeov
is undoubtedly applied by our Lord (Luke xx. 36), as if to point
out the higher super-terrestrial condition which men may hope
to attain after death, but it attains perfection in its appHcation to

DIV. II. § 21.] GOD THE FATHER. 103
the Son, whose Father God is in the highest sense of the word
(cf. Matt. xi. 2 7 *). He is, as our Lord says, " My God and your
God," "My Father and your Father" (John xx. 17); and how
sonship of men with God proceeds from that of Jesus is seen in
John xvii. 26, xiv. 6-13.
He therefore speaks of God chiefly as His Father, both ac
cording to the synoptic evangelists and St. John ; and this is so
common in our Lord's discourses, that, besides what has been
akeady said, no other passages need be adduced in proof of it.
But there are also certain utterances in which the idea of God as
Father, in relation to the Son, is more distinctly brought out,
mostly in St. John ch. v. (cf. xiv.-xvii), where Christ takes
advantage of the charge brought against Him of profaning the
Sabbath by His miracles, to enter more thoroughly into the sub
ject of His relation to the Father. He works, He says, because
and as the Father works, and expresses Himself in such a way as
to show the Jews that He was speaking of God as His Father in
the precise sense of the word, making Himself, as they expressed
it, equal with God (ver. 18); so that our Lord was induced to
enter into a closer explanation of the relation subsisting between
Himself and the Father. This relation can only be completely
ascertained by a consideration of the idea of the Son also ; and
to this belongs the truth that the Father has Hfe in HimseK
(ver. 26) absolutely as the sole cause. The Son, too, has life in
Himself, but as imparted by the Father : the Father has given to
the Son to have Hfe in HimseK. Hence, also, it is the Father
who imparts the life, and grants it to the Son in so comprehen
sive a sense, that the Son HimseK also can then quicken whom
He wiU (ver. 21), and can, moreover, do aU that the Father does
by virtue of this fulness of life and the knowledge which accom
panies it (vers. 19-21). On this account a relation of love sub
sists between the Son and the Father, and, on the other hand,
the Father loves the Son (ver. 19, x. 17, xvii. 24, 26). This
communion, originating in the Father, is one both of knowledge
1 This might have been taken as the starting-point of the inquiry, because
the relation of God to men is brought about by that in which He stands
absolutely as Father to the Son. But as our Lord Himself adopts the other
method, proceeding from the lower to the higher sense of the term, and teach
ing men to know God in the first place as the F,ather of those who are called
into His kingdom, the same plan has beeD followed here.

104 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PARTI.
and of action, as set forth in vers. 19 and 20, o/Wa>? voiel and
irdvTa heiicvvcnv avrw. The community of knowledge is empha-
ticaUy asserted (Matt. xi. 25-27 ; Luke x. 21, 22), and rests upon
the community of life and being (cf. John xiv. 7). For other
passages, cf. John xvii. 1, 21, 24, 25 ; Matt. x. 32, 33, xvi 17,
27, xxv. 34, xx. 23, where Christ speaks of God as His Father
in the higher sense ; for God is Father in the most special sense
of the word as regards the Son ; and by that very fact brings
about His relation as Father to the chUdren of God amongst
mankind and in the higher world. Thus God's love for the Son
from aU eternity passes over to those who beHeve on Him (John
xvn. 2 6, cf. also xvi. 2 7) ; and the same idea runs through the
whole connection of His teaching. God is pre-eminently Father
of the Son, to whom He has given to have life in Himself and to
quicken whomsoever He will, and also fuU power over aU flesh,
to give Hfe to those whom the Father has given Him (John
xvii. 2). But on that account God is also the Father of those
who beHeve on the Son, and are thereby chUdren of God. And
thus is God, in the fullest and richest sense, the Author of Hfe ;
and the Hfe which He gives is a divine life, and, indeed, a spiri
tual communion with HimseK in love. And this is exactly the
point where we see that the two leading ideas — of God as a
Father, and God as a Spirit — formed by our Lord, and in which
His teaching of God culminates, stand in close internal connec
tion with each other. He taught men to know God as irvev/ia,
as being the absolute and perfect Hfe, self-comprehensive in com
plete seK-consciousness and spontaneous activity, and imparting
Himself to others ; the notion of this self-communication and
thoroughly permeating influence being contained in the idea of
the Spirit, whence also the inference as to the worship of God is
immediately deduced (John iv. 24). But God as Father is Hke^
wise the inteUigent and spiritual Author of Hfe. The idea inter
mediate to those of Father and Spirit is that God is love, the
highest conception of personaHty. The idea of Father includes
that of love, and the latter is presupposed in that of the Spirit.
And it is observable that the apostle, who alone has recorded the
apophthegm " God is love" (1 John iv. 8), the truth contained
in which Hes at the foundation of aU our Lord's teaching, is the
same who has also alone preserved to us Jesus' utterance irvevfia
6 ©eos. In virtue of this love, God communicates Hfe, and

DIV. II. § 21.] GOD THE FATHER. 105
founds a spiritual feUowship of life and love between HimseK
and rational creatures as His chUdren. The conclusion as to
God's worship, which Christ draws (John iv. 22-24) from the con
ception of Him as Spirit, is also derived elsewhere from the idea
of Father (Matt, vi 3-8), where the subject of discourse is the
purity of piety in almsgiving and prayer, with a hint at the
omniscience of God as Father.
From this conception of the Divine Being as God and Father,
proceeds the more special teaching of Jesus as to the divine
attributes ; and this idea forms the basis of aU the predicates
He appHes to the Father in His manifold discourses. He is the
one true God (6 (iovo<; dXrjOivo?, John xvn. 3 ; cf. v. 44, vn. 28 ;
Mark xn. 29), the knowledge of whom is eternal life ; who is
in His own person so absolutely the IKe eternal that no one
can know Him without attaining that Hfe. The knowledge of
Him is an appropriation of the divine IKe, and unattainable
without it ; for He who originaUy possesses the life in HimseK
is the source whence it is imparted to others (John v. 21, 26,
Hi. 15, 16, vi. 32, 33).
He is, as a Spirit, omniscient with reference partly to the Son,
whom He alone knows (Matt. xi. 27), and partly to the world
(Matt. vi. 8, 32, cf. x. 30). This is also confirmed by the divine
prophecy which Jesus presupposes and accepts in His teaching.
He is almighty, so that all things are possible to Him (Matt.
xix. 26; Luke xvin. 27; Mark xiv. 36), especiaUy the raising
of the dead to spiritual and physical Hfe (John v. 21). He is,
consequently, greater than aU (John x. 29), so that everything is
dependent on and ordered by Him (Matt. x. 29, 30), and espe
ciaUy possesses fuU power over men, both in this Hfe and the
next (Luke xii. 4, 5) ; being, moreover, in a state of constant
activity, so that no distinction between this and a state of rest
can find place with Him (John v. 1 7).
God is Hkewise omnipresent (Matt. vi. 4, 6, 18), and also eternal
(John xvii 5, 24). He is not limited by the temporal conditions of
the world, but, as its Founder and Creator, originally superior to it.
This Hving incomprehensible God is holy (John xvn. 11), in
contradistinction from the world and sin, since He is not only
untainted by, but in His own nature safe and free from, it ; holy,
therefore, not merely in a negative but in a positive sense, and
imparting hoHness to others.

106 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
He alone, therefore, is good (Matt. xix. 17; Luke xvni 19),
and the trustworthy giver of aU good gifts (Matt, vii 9-11).
He alone, too, is true (dXrjO^), — John viii 26, cf. vers. 14-18, ver.
32, and perhaps also John vii 28 (dXrjOivos), — revealing Himself
as He is, and therefore also bearing witness to the truth. He is
fuU of love towards the world (John iii 1 6), and therefore benign
to aU creatures who are in need, even to the irrational creation
(Matt. vi. 26, 28-30), but especiaUy to mankind as standing in
a higher position, insomuch that it is enough for men, with re
gard to their wants, to be assured that God their Father knows of
them. And this holds good, not only of bodUy wants, which are
here spoken of (as also in Matt. v. 45), and for which aU men
indiscriminately, without reference to their moral conduct, are
supplied with what is necessary for the prolongation of their
natural Hfe, as a foundation for the superstructure of a higher
state of existence. It refers also, generaUy, to everything which
can be the subject of desire, demand, or prayer, in so far as it is
a good gKt, and in the highest degree to spiritual wants, and to
the highest gift of aU, the Holy Ghost Himself (Luke xi. 13),
and to the kingdom of God (Luke xii. 31, 32), to the possession
of which aU other good things shaU be added (Matt, vi 33).
So far, then, as the needy are suffering and miserable, this
benevolent God is the Merciful One (Luke vi. 36) ; so far as they
are sinners, He is gracious, — that is, ready to blot out the sins of
those who yield themselves to His counsel of grace (Matt, xviii.
23-27, 32,33 [eXeelv — a-TrXayxyio-drjvai]; Luke xvin. 13; Matt.
xviii 12-14; Luke xv. 11-32, cf. 4-10). Thus God ap
proaches sinners in fatherly love, with forgiveness and benefits,
deHverance and protection from evU (Matt, vi 12-14), leading sin
ners from death and sin to Hfe and righteousness (Luke xviii 14),
as the great God to whose power and pity nothing is impossible
(Mark x. 27; Luke xvin. 27); so that entrance into the king
dom of God, which is impossible to the sinner as such, becomes
both possible and actual through God's power and grace (Matt.
xix. 23, 26 ; cf. Mark x. 23). On the other hand, He is patient
and long-suffering, i.e. sparing even the yet unconverted sinner so
as to aUow room for his conversion; long-suffering enough to
grant to each according to his need sufficient time for repentance
(Luke xin. 6-9).
But, inasmuch as the holy, true, and benevolent God regards

DIV. II. §22.] THE SON. 107
and treats aU rational beings with reference to the conduct which
may be justly imputed to them, He is the Righteous (oY/eato?,
John xvn. 25). This term is not synonymous with ayio?
(ver. 11), since the latter attribute, taken in connection with its
context, places God in opposition to sin : being free from, and
untainted "by sin, He repels it from Him, and is perfectly safe
from its attacks. In the former passage, on the contrary, BIkuuk;
points to the distinction between the k6o-/ao<; and the Redeemer
with those who believe on Him, and accordingly lays down a
different line of conduct on God's part towards these two parties ;
so that it exactly designates the divine attribute by which He
regards and treats His subjects according to the behaviour which
may justly be imputed to them, — an attribute of the divine being
which by no means invalidates the others. To the province of
the divine righteousness belongs the question of God's judgments
(John v. 22, 27, 29), especiaUy when He is represented, on the
one hand, as jealous, angry, and condemnatory, in respect of the
despisers of His kindness and forbearance and generaUy of His
wUl (Matt. xvin. 34, 35, xxii 11-13, xxm. 12, xxv. 26-29,
41-46 ; cf. Luke xiv. 21, xii 46), but, on the other hand, as
recompensing and compensating the good (Matt. v. 11, 12, vi 4,
6, 18, xxv. 21, 29, 34) ; where, however, it must not be over
looked that in so requiting the good, His freedom of action is
quite unrestrained (Matt. xx. 13-15). It is, then, this Hving and
illimitable, holy, loving, and righteous God in whom wisdom
dweUs (Luke xi. 49 ; Matt, xi 19). In all these attributes He
proves HimseK to be the perfect One (Matt. v. 45), perfect on
every side, internaUy in Himself and externaUy in His works,
and therefore the prototype of aU moral perfection, and especially
of all love ; but in this perfection always manKesting HimseK to
be God, the Spirit and Father.
This doctrine of the Father is the foundation on which aU else
is buUt up, the root from which springs the whole stem and tree of
our Lord's teaching, Hmited at first to the doctrine of the glorification
of the Father in the Son, but embracing afterwards its whole extent.
§ 22. The Son.
In S 21 we recognised the rehgious doctrines of the Old
Testament as being essential and fundamental hypotheses in our
Lord's teaching ; and. although the New Testament element comes

108 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PARTI.
in more largely here, stiU the idea is rooted in the Old Testa
ment. The relation subsisting absolutely between the Father and
the Son now first comes prominently into the foreground. The
teaching of the Lord on this point is direct self-testimony, the
revelation by HimseK of His own self-consciousness, and the
attestation of this consciousness ; and to this testimony is due
the whole peculiarity of our Lord's teaching and of the rehgious
doctrines contained in the New Testament. The peculiar and
unique sense in which God is absolutely the Father here first
shows itself.
In the Old Testament it was in the first place the theocratic nation
which was regarded as the son of God, Israel as the first-born son
(Ex. iv. 22 ; Jer. xxxi 9-20) ; then the members of this people
as sons and daughters, or children of this God ; and thirdly, as a
son in the most eminent sense, the earthly representative of the
people, the chief minister of the covenant, and at the same time
God's deputy amongst the people, the theocratic king. And now
this relation culminates in the future Anointed One, in the abso
lute sense of that term.
Jesus points Himself out as the Son simply, where, in the con
text, the reference appHes to the Father (Matt. xi. 27; John v. 19).
But in its deeper sense He graduaUy unfolds the doctrine of His
Sonship, at first preparing His countrymen, and then leading on
into its depths those who were capable of embracing it. On one
occasion, at Jerusalem, He asserts His dignity before a mixed
multitude ; but this did not occur in the eariier days of His
ministry. To this method belong also the titles Son of Man and
Son of God, which, both in the Synoptists and in John, He is re
presented as using, which are indissolubly united, and mutually
complete each other.
The name Son of man, vlos tov avOpanrov, is found most fre
quently in the Synoptists, and almost exclusively in the mouth of
Jesus HimseK. The Son of man appears as a man among men, and
is described as having neither property nor home (Matt. vin. 20 ;
Luke ix. 58); He eats and drinks (Matt xi. 19; Luke vii. 34); He
can forgive sins (Matt. ix. 6; Mark n. 10; Luke v. 24); He is Lord
of the Sabbath (Matt, xii 8; Mark ii. 28; Luke vi 5); He is the
sower of the parable (Matt. xiu. 37, 41); He is come to save
(Matt, xviii. 11 ; Luke xix. 10), and to minister (Matt. xx. 28;
Mark x. 45). The disciples are desired to say for whom they

DIV. II. §22.] THE SON. 109
take Him (Matt. xvi. 13). Sin against Him is not without for
giveness (Matt. xii. 32; Luke xii. 10); the sign of Jonas is fulfiUed
in Him (Matt. xii. 40 ; Luke xi. 30). He must fulfil the pre
ordained and predicted destiny of His Hfe (Matt. xxvi. 44) ; must
suffer, be rejected, betrayed by the kiss of a Judas (Luke xxii. 48),
and deHvered up into the hands of sinners, Ul-treated and cruci
fied (Luke xxiv. 7 ; Mark vin. 31 ; Luke ix. 22 ; [Matt, xvi 21 ;]
Matt, xvii 12; Mark ix. 12; Matt, xvn 22 f . ; Mark ix. 31;
Luke ix. 44 ; Matt. xx. 18 f. ; Mark x. 33 f. ; Luke xvin. 31 ff. ;
Matt. xxvi. 2; Matt, xxvi 24; Mark xiv. 21 ; Luke xxn. 22;
Matt. xxvi. 45 ; Mark xiv. 41 ; Luke xxn. 48) ; but He wUl rise
again (Matt. xvii. 9 ; Mark ix. 9 ; Matt. xvn. 23 ; Mark ix. 31 ;
Matt. xx. 19 ; Mark x. 34; Luke xviii. 33) ; and a great future
with the Father, and a return in glory for the establishment of
His kingdom and for judgment, is in store for Him (Matt. x. 23,
xvi. 27 f. ; Mark vin. 38 ; Luke ix 26 ; Matt. xix. 28, xxiv. 27 ;
Luke xvn. 22, 24; Matt. xxiv. 30 f.; Mark xin. 26; Luke
xxi. 27 f. ; Matt. xxiv. 37, 39 ; Luke xvii 26, 30 ; Matt. xxiv. 44 ;
Luke xii. 40, 21, 36; Matt. xxv. 31; Matt. xxvi. 64; Luke
xxii. 69). Men wUl be persecuted for His sake (Luke vi. 22 ; cf.
Matt. v. 10); He wUl be ashamed of those who are ashamed of
Him (Mark vin. 38; Luke ix. 26); but He will; on the other
hand, confess those who confess Him (Luke xii. 8 ; cf. Matt. x. 32);'
and they wUl desire Him (Luke xvn. 22, 24, 25). The question
is also asked, whether He shaU find faith on the earth ? (Luke
xviii 8.) In John's Gospel, also, the expression is reaUy used, K
not so frequently and variously as in the Synoptists (cf. John
i 52, in. 13, 14, v. 27). For other examples of the expression
in John, see vi 27, 53, 62, viii 28, xii 23, 34, xiii. 31.
We see from the foregoing how manifold the use of this ex
pression is, and also that there is evidently a purpose in it. It is
at any rate characteristic, that it hardly ever occurs beyond the
limits of the gospel histories. We find it only once directly used
from the Hps of the dying Stephen (Acts vn. 5 6). He had known
our Lord during His Hfe on earth, and at the moment of being
stoned he beheld Him in a vision, and naturaUy employed the
expression which our Lord had in His time so frequently em
ployed. The expression is used in another way in Rev. i 13,
xiv. 14, with manifest reference to Dan. vn. 13.
We have next to inquire as to the meaning of the expression

110 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART L
HteraUy ; and, apart from aU historical reference, it means nothing
but man, in the same sense as viol twv avdpamwv (Mark Hi. 28),
chUdren of men. In the Old Testament we find the expression
frequently in Ezekiel (e.g. xl. 4, xliv. 5), in the mouth of the
prophet's angeHc conductor, to distinguish himself as the super
human spirit, and for the purpose of awakening a feeling of de
pendence on God and His messenger. But why then does Jesus
thus caU HimseK a chUd of man ?
RationaHsm has pronounced o via? r. a. to mean the man here,
according to the manner of the Orientals, who avoid the term /,
and are desirous to put themselves into connection with the person
they are addressing, as " thy servant," " thine handmaid," etc. It
makes strongly against this interpretation that the pronoun o5to?
is never added to the expression, often as it is supposed to occur
in this sense ; and its so frequent use becomes simply incom
prehensible. Passages such as Matt. xvi. 13 would, on this sup
position, become unmeaning ; but, so far from this being the case, ,
the expression clearly has reference, wherever it occurs, to the
pecuHarity of the person of Jesus. The ideal explanation must
therefore go stUl further, and aUow that Christ called HimseK
the Son of man, in order to signify the special peculiarity of His
I personaHty, and to specKy Himself in this important respect, in a
way which was weU adapted, by its deHcate and quiet intimation,
to shape itseK into some more fuU and comprehensive conception
of the idea. Just the same may be said of the expression /Sa<n-
Xela tov Qeov, which He found in use, and could employ without
exciting too great a sensation. For He made use of it in such a
way that it was possible for Him, by graduaUy drawing out the
notion He wished to impart, to bring it nearer home to the people,
and thereby to ennoble and spiritualize their conception of the
Messianic kingdom, before He openly stepped forth before the
world with the declaration that He was Himself the Messiah, the
ruler of this kingdom. But this gives rise to the question, whether
we are justified in adhering to the merely literal explanation of
the expression, or whether it was not rather used historicaUy as a
designation of the Messiah? Many assume that Jesus wished
thereby to make Himself known as the Messiah pointed out by
Daniel (ch. vii 13). The great authority attributed at that time
to the prophet Daniel on the subject of Messianic prophecy, as
weU as the fact that the later Jews called the Messiah with re-

DIV. II. §22.] THE SON. Ill
feretfce to this passage the Son of clouds, is appealed to in support
of this opinion. Schleiermacher, on the other hand, speaks of it
as a strange conceit ; and certainly it cannqt be proved that the
expression was in current use at the time of Jesus as a designation
of the Messiah (John xii. 34 ; cf. Matt, xvi 13). Again, it is not
consistent with the character of Jesus merely to borrow an oft-recur
ring expression, without at the same time intentionally giving to it,
though adopted from some other source, an original and character
istic signification. And, lastly, the purport of the passages in which
He makes use of this expression obHges us at all events to go beyond
the bare aUusion to Daniel, and to connect the purport of these
utterances with the verbal sense of the designation. But although
we give due weight to these considerations, it would surely be going
too far to deny, with Schleiermacher, that the expression 6 wo; tov
dvOpdnrov was in no way historicaUy suggested by that passage of
Daniel. For instance, there can be no doubt that in our Lord's
own utterances respecting His person He makes definite aUusion
to that passage (Matt. xxiv. 30 ; cf. Mark xni 26 ; Luke xxi.
27, 36 ; in close connection with Matt. xxvi. 64, cf. Mark xiv.
62 ; Luke xxn. 69). In these passages He says, as in Dan. vii.
13, that the Son of man shaU come in or upon the clouds of
heaven ; wherein we have this twofold assertion about the coming
king, that He is like a Son of man, and that He comes in the
clouds of heaven. Our Lord here evidently intends His hearers
to recall to mind that passage of Daniel, and also to regard Him
self , as there indicated. Thus it is certainly most probable that this
passage induced Jesus to choose the name 6 uw? tov avdpdnrov for
HimseK ; and this opinion is strengthened by the fact that the
book of Enoch also has the expression Son of man. And by
means of this passage great advantage accrued from His use of the
expression, that His feUow-countrymen" would, on closer examina
tion, be led to discover in it a designation of His person as the
Messiah, and be thus graduaUy initiated into the deeper and higher
sense of the Messianic idea, without the risk of popular excitement
which would have been incurred by an explicit declaration of His
Messiahship. But in order to exhaust its meaning, we must con
nect the literal and ideal with the historical explanation, by adding
to the historical sense the signification of the expression itself.
Jesus uses this expression emphatically to denote Himself to be
"' a man ;" in Grotius' view, to describe His lowliness, in Herder's

112 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PARTI.
opinion, to represent HimseK as the ideal man. Thus much at
least is certain, that in the idea of man both views are combined,
— lowliness and weakness in relation to some higher being, dignity
and elevation as compared with a less exalted creature. In the
Old Testament we have the two beautifuUy united in Ps. vin. 5,
where the nature and position of men are so remarkably stated as
to become the type for the Messianic personaHty in the New
Testament (cf. Heb. H. 6-8). It is indeed strange that the
passage just quoted is not (as weU as that in Daniel) usuaUy
taken into account in explaining the expression Son of man
With regard to the use of the vldi tov dvOpmrrov in our Lord's
mouth, Schleiermacher justly says that He could not have appHed it
to HimseK without the consciousness of His own complete partici
pation in human nature ; and, further, that the special appro
priation of it would have been unmeaning except He had some
ground for it which others could not claim, in giving to it some
pregnant sense indicating a marked distinction between Himself
and other men.
What kind of a distinction, then, is this ? It is said, and truly,
that our Lord was a man in the most distinguished sense of the
word ; but this distinction points to something else, viz. that He
was not merely a man, but more than a man, in virtue of the union
of a superhuman with His human nature, the former of which
became man in Him in the highest sense of the word. Two points
are, therefore, always implied in the expression Son of man, viz.
that, although veritably the Son of man, He was at the same time
something much higher stUl, and on the other side, that, exalted as
He was, in the strict sense of the word He was stUl a man — a mau
in aU human lowliness, and yet in the highest perfection An
antithesis is hinted at in the expression Son of man ; and this is
easUy accounted for K we remember that He quite as frequently
calls HimseK the Son of God.
This pregnantly comprehensive conception of the Son of man,
brought home to us by what has been said above, wiU be further
verified by examination of the particular passages in which it occurs.
The synoptic passages. — The contrast above mentioned shows
itseK most distinctly in Matt. xvi. 13-16 (cf. Mark viii, Luke
ix). " Whom do men say that I the Son of man am ? " was the
question addressed by our Lord to His disciples. The opinions
entertained of Him by others having been mentioned, our Lord

DIV. II. §22.] THE SON. 113
comes forward with the question, " Whom say ye that lam?" to
which they reply, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Hving
God;" this being the sum of what they had learned and experienced ;
in their intercourse with Jesus. Here then the vlb<s tov dvOpcoirov
and the vios tow Qeov are shown to be united in the same person ;
and in ver. 27, where we read that " the Son of man" wiU come in
the glory " of His Father," the two persons are simUarly identified.
For the juxtaposition proves that the Son of man has God for His
Father, and in such a way that the glory of God is also His own,
and that in which He wUl hereafter come and manifest Himself.
This general view is entirely confirmed by the remaining passages.
The Son of man appears as a man amongst men, resembHng
other men in His manner of Hfe (Matt, xi 19 ; Luke vn. 34),
descending, indeed, stUl lower, and fulfilling, as prophesied, a hard
lot in Hfe, with no possessions or resting-place on earth (Matt.
vin. 20 ; Luke ix. 58). He treads the path of suffering and
death, and is given over into the hands of sinners, betrayed by
the kiss of Judas, maltreated, crucified, and slain by wicked men
(cf. Matt, xx 18, and other passages quoted at p. 109 above).
He accompHshes His work on earth, and indeed forgives sins,
but stiU whUst in all human lowliness (Matt. ix. 6 and ||). He
is Lord even of the Sabbath, but stUl in earthly lowliness (Matt.
xn. 8 and ||). He is a sower come to sow good seed amongst man
kind (Matt. xin. 37); to seek and to save the lost (Matt. xvHi. 11 ; '
Luke xix. 1 0), being not ashamed to interest HimseK for them,
but HimseK ministering to mankind by the sacrifice of His Hfe
(Matt. xx. 28 ; Mark x. 45). And because He appears in such
lowliness, He finds faith in few hearts only (Luke xvHi. 8, vi. 22,
ix. 26 ; Mark vin. 38), nay, excites opposition so easUy that a
man may be guUty of blasphemy against Him without committing
an unpardonable sin (Matt. xii. 32 ; Luke xii. 20). But in spite
of this insignificance, as the Son of man He wUl not only rise
from the dead on the third day (Matt. xvii. 9), but also reappear
one day in His glorious kingdom to judge the world, and wUl ac
knowledge or deny men, not only before the angels of God, but
also before the Father (Mark vin. 38 ; Luke ix. 26 ; Luke xn. 8 ff. ;
[Matt. x. 32 ;] cf. Luke vi. 22, xvn. 22), and wiU reign supreme
on the throne of His glory (Matt. xix. 28).
With this element of our Lord's teaching agrees also the histo
rical representation given by the Synoptists of the Messianic Hfe
H

114 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
of Jesus. They represent Him as the Son of man born of a
human mother (Matthew and Luke, and Gal. iv. 4), and fulfiUing a
human destiny ; but withal as borne witness to both by the voice
of the Father as His Son at His baptism and transfiguration, and
also by His own self-testimony and His resurrection and ascension.
There is, in the first place, a man, but one in whom the glory of
the Son of God breaks forth amidst the obscurity of His human
lowliness. The very course, indeed, of His earthly Hfe is to reveal
this Hfe as in truth that of the Son of God,
The passages in John Hkewise point to the union of the two con
trasting elements in the unity of the person of Jesus. Although
we must not stop short there, we may therefore weU adopt what
Neander says in his Life of Jesus, that " He thus caUs HimseK, as
one who, partaking of humanity, has worked out such great results
for human nature, through which results our nature is- glorified,
who also most eminently answers to the ideal of man, and realizes
the prototype of humanity." In proof of this, he refers (besides
Matt. xn. 8) to John i 52, Hi. 13, v. 27,vi 53. In our view, the
essential point is the perfect union of the Son of man and Son of
God in the person of Jesus. We base our view on John in. 13 :
" No man hath ascended up to heaven (in relation first to know
ledge, ver. 1 1) but He who came down from heaven, even the Son
of man, who is in heaven," that is to say, the originaUy super
human one who became man, but in whose earthly Hfe a heavenly
Hfe co-exists; who therefore holds communion with the angels,
and partakes of their services (i 52). Having come from heaven
to earth, He is possessed also of divine knowledge, and bears wit
ness on earth to heavenly truths (vers. 3, 11, 12), being Hfted up,
indeed, as the divinely-appointed sign, — aU-powerful to heal the
serpent's bite (ver. 14); but to Him, at the same time, aU judgment
is committed by the Father, (v. 27). He it is who, as the one
sealed by the Father, (vi. 27), and as the bread of life which
comes down from heaven (vers. 32-38), is able to give men the food
which endureth even unto eternal life. He is man as none other,
who in His flesh and blood has rendered incarnate the divine,
making the purely human element a form of manifestation for the
divine, whom man must take into himself and aUow to pervade
his being; who, therefore, offered His flesh and blood for their
abiding use (ver. 53). He wiU at the last be exalted again into
heaven (vi. 62) ; certainly through suffering and the cross (vin. 28,

DIV.IL §22.] THE SON. 115
xn. 32, 34), by which, however, He wiU be most gloriously mani
fested. And the historical representation of the Hfe of Jesus, as
given by St. John, agrees with this. In his prologue, in describing
Him whom he desires to bear witness to as the Messiah, he repre
sents Him as the Word who was in the beginning with God, who
was HimseK God, and became flesh. He is thus represented from
the very first as the Son of God. His divine nature is put in
the foremost place; and the Baptist, with whose testimony the
historical account opens, bears direct witness to Him as the Son
of God, by virtue of the manifestation which took place at His
baptism (i 34 [33]). This Son of God is at the same time the
Son of man ; and in the latter name is clearly set forth by St. John
the perfect union of the two distinct elements. This difference,
however, is to be noticed, that whereas in the Synoptists the account
of the Son of man takes the foremost place, He being shown in His
Messianic Hfe to be also the Son of God, St. John, on the contrary,
gives the precedence to the idea of the Son of God, manifested
indeed as a man throughout the whole course of His Hfe, although
the beams of His glory as the only-begotten of the Father are
continuaUy breaking through. Both representations, however,
agree in giving the Messianic Hfe as the Hfe of Him in whom
exists the perfect union of the Son of man and Son of God.
The second, but less common, title of distinction, is Son of God,
6 vto? rov Qeov or utos Qeov ; or, stUl more frequently, Son only,
yet always in reference to God the Father, and therefore equiva
lent to God's Son (Matt. xi. 27, cf. Luke x. 22 ; Mark xni. 32 ;
Matt, xxviii. 19 ; John v. 19-23, 26, vi 40, compared with
44 ; viii 36, cf. 38), whence also He oftener caUs God irarrjp
than ©eos. And, besides the utterances in which the Lord styles
HimseK merely Son, but with reference to God the Father, the
name Son of God expressly occurs (John in. 16, 17, 18), where,
too, He is caUed 6 uios 6 fiovoyewjs. There verses, indeed, are some
times regarded, even by commentators who accept the gospel as
genuine and authentic, not as the words of Jesus, but as added
by the evangeHst, possibly with reference to 1 John iv. 9 ; but
no proof of this is adduced. But, on a closer consideration of the
whole paragraph (John in. 16-21), it appears to be a perfectly
appropriate continuation and conclusion of the conversation with
Nicodemus, who (after ver. 11) offered no further interpeUation, as
in the earlier part of the interview, but after our Lord's reproof

116 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART L
(ver. 10), as weU as throughout the profound explanations which
foUowed (vers. 11-15), was so riveted as to become a willing
disciple, and acknowledged his Master as a Teacher come from
God (ver. 2 ; cf. further John v. 23, ix. 35, cf. 37, x 36, xi. 4, cf.
37). The name v/o? ©eoO can, however, only be perfectly under
stood by combining the historical and ideal conceptions of it
Evidently, however, the New Testament has regard to the Old
Testament foundation for this idea of God's Son. In the Old
Testament the expression is used in a theocratic sense. Israel is
the first-born son of God, and the chosen amongst the nations of
the earth, even him of whom it is said in Hos. xi. 1, " Out of
Egypt have I caUed my son;" and hence individual members
of this nation are chUdren of the covenant of God. And as the
name servant of Jehovah is appHed to Israel and pious IsraeHtes
generaUy, and then transferred to pre-eminent individuals, instru
ments of God's wUl, so are the distinguished representatives of
God's people in an especial sense sons of God, but always with a
higher reference in the background to the anointed and theocratic
King, the Messiah, in whom the idea would culminate. Thus we
find the Son of God, in the theocratic sense, as the ground-work of
the Messianic promises and hopes of David (2 Sam. vii 12-16,
especjaUy ver. 14; Ps. Ixxxix. 28 (27), and with the whole con
text, Vers. 20-28, also Ps. H. 7). In the psalm last quoted the
conception of a theocratic king is further worked out, and has
from very early times been understood of the Messiah, especially
the 7th verse, which St. Paul (Acts xiii 33) quotes as referring
to the resurrection of Christ (cf. Rom. i 4). In the idea of Son
of God is involved that of a peculiar simUarity to, and feUowship
with Him, and therein a special position both as regards God and
also His people, to whom He was the representative of God, as of
the highest theocratic King ; and, on the other hand, He is also
a representative of God's people, whose attributes as the sons of
God culminate in that kingly capacity. The same idea, however, ,
was stiU further worked out in the prophets through the gradual
multipHcation of attributes ascribed to the Messiah. And thus it
is evident how the passage above quoted might form the basis for
a much fuller elaboration of the conception of the Son of God.
Now, supposing this idea to have been already brought forward
in the Old Testament, it is very probable that Jesus, in assuming
the name, had reference to it; and the more so if.it can be

DIV. II. -§22.] THE SON. 117
credibly shown that the name was in use amongst our Lord's
contemporaries without reference to His perfecting of the idea.
We do actuaUy find it in use, at aU events, amongst those about
the person of Jesus ; but the question arises, how far the employ
ment of it was owing to His influence ? Yet as regards the dis
ciples, the expression is used (John i 50) by Nathanael, when he
had hardly come into contact with Jesus at all (cf. vers. 42 and 46).
Here it is evidently employed, in the first place,, in a theocratic
sense, but with an upward tendency, which already indicates
something more than other kings of Israel. We find the ex
pression also in the mouth of Peter (Matt. xvi. 1 6), and Hkewise
of Martha (John xi. 27); in both cases, no doubt, on occasions
where the influence of Jesus may be presupposed. But the con
nection of the words, " Thou art the Christ, the Son of the Hving
God," makes it likely that it is the designation of the Messiah as
such, and indicates that the use of the word here is connected
with and rests upon the theocratic idea of the Old Testament ;
yet we must aUow that from the Hps of these two persons it is
the utterance of an impression upon their minds of the person of
Jesus, which had carried them beyond the merely theocratic idea.
More decisive is the passage in which the high priest, at the ex
amination which he instituted into the Messianic claims of Jesus,
made use of the same title (Matt, xxvi 63 ; cf. Luke xxii.
67-71 ; Mark xiv. 61). It may be here assumed that the high
priest wished to express the common traditionary notion of the
Messiah ; and in the same way, too, we find it employed by the
common people (Matt. xxvn. 40). It is also expressed by the
demons (Matt, vni 29), and by Satan himself as the tempter (Matt.
iv. 3). Now it has been weU said, by Olshausen for instance,
that in aU these utterances the expression vto? tov Qeov contains
a close definition of the Messianic idea, which would set forth in
Jesus the nature of the Father; and that those who caUed Him
by this name either acknowledged in Him the Messiah manifesting
the nature of the Father, or because they blamed Him for de
claring HimseK in that character. The disciples first applied the
name to Him after, in their intercourse with Him, the nature of
the Son was made known to them by revelation of God the Father,
whilst they immediately recognised Him as the Messiah. The
utterance of the high priest refers to Jesus' own declarations;
and the words of the possessed are intended to express that even

118 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART L
the demoniacal power recognised the true nature of Jesus. Apart
from the last, which may be regarded as a pecuHar case, we may
notice, firstly, that the tempter's words (Matt, iv.) distinctly refer
to the heavenly voice which pointed out Jesus at His baptism as
the Son of God, in whom the Father was weU pleased (iii. 17);
so that from that time forward the Lord walked the earth as the
Son of God, who had been testified to from heaven. And as re
gards the declarations of the disciples, aU of them at least could
not be derived from more intimate knowledge of His person,
because Nathanael caUs Him by that name at their first interview.
And, whUst it cannot be shown that the high priest did not
employ the term vlb<; tov Qeov as explanatory of 6 Xpio-Tos, it is
certain that the Sanhedrim (Luke xxii. 70, cf. 66) looked upon
them as identical. There can, on the other hand, be no doubt
that Jesus did not limit Himself to the theocratic idea, but rather
ascribed to HimseK, as the vw? tov Qeov, such attributes and such
a relation to the Father, that the title, although based historicaUy
on the theocratic idea, acquired a much higher significance. This
idea was perfected by our Lord in His own teaching. What is
commonly caUed the physical idea found no place in our Lord's
use of the words (Luke i 35, cf. Hi. 38), but rather what is com
monly regarded as the metaphysical.
Strauss has remarked, that whUst in the Synoptists the high
priest regards the idea of the Son of God as so closely bound up
with that of the Messiah, that he unites the two expressions
(Matt, xxvi 63), the Jews, in St. John's Gospel, attached so
much higher a meaning to the former, that they patiently bore
with Jesus' claim to be the Messiah (x 25), but took up stones
to cast at Him as soon as He began to represent HimseK as the
Son of God. In His defence, however, our Lord seems to ignore
the theocratic, and merely to notice the metaphysical signification
But in the latter respect the matter, in fact, stands differently. A
difference exists to this extent only, that, according to the incidents
and speeches selected by the fourth evangeHst, Jesus was mainly
concerned, even before the visit at the time of His last passover,
with the people of Jerusalem, scribes, lawyers, members of the
Sanhedrim, and party leaders, and therefore rarely Hmited Him
self to popular representations, but early entered upon the leading
point He had in view. Hence the opposition He here met with
was on different grounds from that which He encountered (ac-

DIV. II. §22.] THE SON. 119
cording to the Synoptists) in dealing with the people of GalUee
and Perea. , These facts explain both the difference observable
in His own declarations, and also the pecuHar nature of the
controversy in which He was engaged. If, then, amongst the
circumstances speciaUy dealt with by St. John, there occur more
declarations respecting the person and work of Jesus, — and K
our Lord, in the presence of (to Him) less congenial subjects,
enters upon a testimony as to the higher elements of His nature,
— it is not to be wondered at that He should meet with contra
diction. Thus it was not merely the expression Son of God, but
the sum-total of the higher attributes which He laid claim to as
standing in an unique connection with the Father, which excited
opposition. Thus in the passage (John x. 34-36) which has often
been appealed to from the rationaHstic side in order to prove
that Jesus HimseK pronounced agamst the higher idea of the wto?
tow Qeov, — an opinion which has as Httle foundation as the remark
of Strauss. For, in replying to the Jews who wished to stone
TTim as a blasphemer of God because He made Himself equal to
God (ver. 33), our Lord objected (ver. 34) that the Old Testa
ment law, which punished blasphemy with stoning, gave them no
right to consider Him guUty of the offence, since in the Old Tes
tament itseK men " to whom the word of God came " (ver. 35)
are caUed gods (vers. 34, 35 ; cf. Ps. lxxxn. 6) ; much less, then,
could He be held to be a blasphemer against God for calling
HimseK merely wto? tov Qeov, as one who was consecrated by the
Father and sent into the world (ver. 36). Here, therefore, Strauss
alleges that Jesus ignores the theocratic, and appeals exclusively
to the figurative use of the expression, in the passage where it is
said to magisterial persons, Ye are gods. But Strauss' remark is
incorrect. Jesus does not certainly appeal to the expression wio? '
rod Qeov as it is appHed in the Old Testament to a theocratic
instrument, but He appeals to the theocratic use of the word
0eo? itseK, which is more to the purpose of His defence. The
Jews accuse Him of making HimseK God, and He had to defend
HimseK agamst this, and not for having caUed Himself the Son
of God. The means He adopted to refute this charge were much
more appropriate than would have been a mere appeal to the
theocratic use of the expression wjos tov Qeov in the Old Testa
ment. At the same time He thus intimates that He never in
reality laid claim to the predicate ©eos, but only to the vib<; tov

120 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PARTI,
Qeov, and that He is justified in so doing as the one whom the
Father sanctified and sent into the world. But even then He
appeals to a theocratic use of the words, and goes upon a theo
cratic idea of the Son of God. For the word fjyUure (cf. ia<f>pd-
yicre, John vi. 2 7) points to 6 ayios tov Qeov [John vi. 6 9 ; Luke
iv. 34 (ix. 20)], the Holy One of God dedicated and anointed
by Him. Compare also the similar expressions 6 ar/ioi 7rai? gov,
Acts iv. 2 7, 3 0 ; 6 aym in a pregnant sense, Rev. Hi. 7 ; and
also ol ayioi avQpwrroi tov Qeov} the prophets who spake as they
were borne along and inspired by the Spirit of God (2 Pet. i 21).
In saying, therefore, that He is the one consecrated by the Father
and sent into the world, He does not confine HimseK exclusively
to the metaphysical idea, but makes a declaration which is based
on the theocratic use of the words wto? tov Qeov, which is so dealt
with as to admit of being infinitely enhanced, since the relation
of Him who is anointed and sent into the world is closely defined.-
But the statement is not based on the metaphysical idea of the
eternal generation, but on the theocratic idea ; and our Lord's
object is merely to show that the Jews had no right to apply to
Him the penal law against blasphemy.
Nor is ' Strauss correct in saying, that in John's Gospel it is
only persons weU disposed who use the expression vlbs tov Qeov
in its Messianic sense, whUst His enemies ignore this signification
Nor, again, can it be said of the latter, that they had regard only
to the metaphysical signification. What they set themselves
against was His making HimseK equal with God, which they
infer not from that name, but from the accompanying predicates.
From our Lord's Hps, therefore, the expression certainly pro
ceeds from the theocratic idea, but at the same time rises far
above it, when, together with the designation, He appHes to Him
self the essential predicates of His person. This is also clear
from the synoptic discourses, where He calls HimseK wto? (Matt.
xi 27), and ascribes to Himself exclusively, as the Son, adequate
knowledge of the Father, and conversely to the Father of the Son ;
so that it is only through a revelation of the Son that the parti
cipation of others in the true knowledge is possible. Again, He
says that everything is committed to Him by the Father, and the
same stiU more expressly (Matt. xxviH. 18), where the form of
baptism is instituted as weU in His own name as in the Father's.
1 There are, however, different readings here. — Te.

DIV. II. §22.] THE SON. 121
In both these passages it is quite evident that He propounds a
much higher idea than the theocratic, — rather the theocratic and
ideal, or, as others maintain, the Davidical, combined. We see
this also in Matt. xxn. 45. After the scribes of aU parties had,
with a more or less hostile purpose, pHed Him with aU sorts of
questions, He rejoins with the question, " What think ye of the
Messiah? whose son is he?" (ver. 42 ff)' They are ready with
the answer, " Bavid's." But He objects, " How, then, does David
caU Him Lord ?" (Ps. ex. 1 ff.) He does not deny the truth of
their answer, " David's son ;" but He denies that it affords an
exhaustive answer to the question, whose son the Messiah is.
He calls Himself not merely Son of man, but Son of God, and is
the Son of David only in the sense of being at the same time the
Son of God. He thereby gives to the thoughts of His questioners
a much higher direction than that of the theocratic idea. They
could not answer Him. He is, however, the Son as weU as the
Lord of David, and wished to point out to them that this was in
those days exactly the right problem for their consideration. In
this way He directed them to the truth, that their traditionary
conception of the Messiah's person was insufficient when compared
with the utterances of Old Testament prophecy. Had they placed
themselves on this standpoint, they could no longer have taken
offence at the exalted statements which He made about Himself.
Remarkable amongst the synoptic declarations is another,
although it touches on theocratic ground, viz. the parable of the
vineyard (Matt. xxi. 37-39). Here the vineyard is the theocracy,
and the husbandmen are the chiefs of the theocratic people. The
Lord of the vineyard sent His servants the prophets from time to
time to receive the fruits of the vineyard. The husbandmen re
fused, wishing to keep the produce for themselves ; and, managing
the vineyard for their own profit, allowed the people to derive
only temporal advantage from it, depriving them altogether of
those spiritual fruits which the Lord of the vineyard had in view.
Thereupon the Lord sent unto them His Son, saying, They wUl
reverence Him. But the husbandmen, seeing the Son, said, This is
the heir; let us kUl him and seize on his inheritance (ver. 38).
This they did to their own destruction ; so that the stone they had
rejected was marvellously made, by the Lord Himself, the corner
stone of the new building of the kingdom of God. Here, although
He is the heir, He far exceeds the merely theocratic idea of heir-

122 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PARTI.
ship, and is raised to such a height, that there is evidently no
longer a merely quantitative, but also a quaHtative, difference
between servant and Son.
But we see, in the attributes He claims and the declarations
which He makes of HimseK, in what way the teaching of Jesus,
as to His person, overstepped the bounds of the theocratic idea
of God's Son. This remark refers chiefly, but not exclusively,
to the doctrinal discourses of St. John's GospeL We have here
to notice the declarations made by Jesus as to the nature of His
being and ministry, and at the same time to bear in mind that
what He here says is the expression of His inmost self-conscious
ness, and a direct testimony to HimseK.
As to the nature of His being, He declares, in the first place
(John v. 26), that He possesses in HimseK the divine fulness of
Hfe, imparted, indeed, by the Father, but yet proper to Himself
[cf. vi. 53 (1 John Hi. 15, v. 10) ; Matt. xiii. 21]. This expres
sion, although it does not exclude the fact of communication by
the Father, yet points to the fact of the divine fulness of life
having become His own. In virtue of this, He claims for Him
seK the power of working, so to speak, in an outward direction
(cf. John v. 21), imparting true Hfe, both spiritual and corporeal,
and raising men from death to everlasting Hfe through the
spiritual quickening and glorification of the bodily Hfe in the
future resurrection (vers. 28, 29). This Hfe is not anything ex
ternal to the proper Hfe of the Son and distinct from His being,
but it is one with Him, just as the £»»? of the Father [ver. 26,
(cf. 1 John v. 20 ; John i 3)]; it is the vital force by means of
which He both exists and works. Now the world, too, derives
its Hfe from God ; but Jesus, in ascribing to HimseK such ful
ness of life as can impart everlasting Hfe to mankind, undoubtedly
claims divine Hfe of a kind which belongs to no earthly being.
In virtue of this it is that He ascribes to HimseK not merely a
temporal and earthly existence, but also a divine and heavenly
being, on which the former is based. Thus, for example, in John
Hi 13 (vi 46). Although He has entered upon and is engaged
in an earthly existence, yet, by reason of His origin from above,
He stUl has an existence with and in God, which is plainly
pointed out as an enduring one by the word &v as distinct from
Karafia? (cf. vni 58). This higher and lasting existence on
which His earthly IKe is based, distinguishes our Lord as being

DIV. II. §22.] THE SON. 123
one with the Father [John x. 30, cf. 31-33 (xvii 22)], as in
the words, " I and the Father are one," which made the Jews
again attempt to stone Him, considering it a blasphemy, because
He avQpwiro'i a>v made HimseK God. He made the declaration
in -order to establish what went before, that He would give
eternal Hfe to the sheep which heard His voice and foUowed
Him, and in such sort that they should never be lost, and that
no man could take them out of His hand, because the Father,
who gave them to Him, was greater than He; but yet that,
being one with the Father, the Father's almighty power was also
His. A moral unity with the Father might here first suggest
itseK, since this would suffice to convince Him that, as the
Almighty God was in His favour, His sheep could not be snatched
away. But He apprehends this presupposed moral unity with
the Father in so pregnant a sense, that He ascribes to Himself
(as we shaU see later) an absolute oneness of being with Him,
and therein also a sinless wUl ; whence the idea of moral rises
into that of essential unity. And, besides this, if we put together
the facts that He said " I give them Hfe," and then appealed to
the Father's almighty power, declaring, in proof of the first state
ment, " I and my Father are one," it seems clear that the unity
spoken of is one of energy, and of divine, IK e-giving power. He also
prays (John xvii.) not merely for a moral, but for an inner and
essential unity of beHevers with Himself ; and even in that case
the unity of His being with the Father supphed the groundwork for
the moral community of faith buUt upon it. Thus, in general,
He indicates His higher being as an essential unity of Hfe with
the Father in such a way that there is a reciprocation of being
between them, an existence on His part in the Father, and on
the Father's in Him (x. 38, xiv. 10, 11, cf. xiv. 20, xvii. 21-23),
in which, however, the Father and Son remain distinguishable.
There is no merging of the Father in the Son, or vice versa. He
is stiU in the Father. Each, therefore, exists by HimseK, but
exists in inseparable unity with the other. And therefore it is
that the Lord says also that He is never alone, but the' Father is
always with Him (vni. 29, xvi. 32), — that is, the Hfe and power
of the Father which manifests itself in and through Him.
Hence He maintains sometimes that there is a community of
possession between His person and the Father, and sometimes
that the Father is seen in Him. Both result naturaUy from

124 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PARTI.
what had preceded, but are also declared by the Lord. The first
is contained in the statement, that aU which the Father has is
His, and what He has is the Father's (John xvn. 10, cf. 7 and
xvi. 15), — a statement, the fundamental idea of which had ak-eady
been ascribed to the Lord in the synoptical discourses, where He
says that aU things are committed to Him by the Father (Matt.
xi. 27, xxviH. 18; cf. John xni 3, Hi 35). It is not possible,
indeed, for the Father to suffer loss in His divine being by im
parting it to the Son. He stiU retains it ; and this leads back
to the same thought with which we started, viz. that the Father
imparted of His own original divine Hfe, and verUy gave it to
the Son to have Hfe in HimseK (John v. 26); the result of which
must be added, that in Him, the Son, the Father is made mani
fest (John xiv. 7-9). To the surprising request of PhUip, " Lord,
show us the Father," the Lord replies, " So long a time have I
been with you, and yet you know me not ! He who has seen me
has seen the Father [cf. viii 19 (55)]. If you knew me, you
would know the Father also." If Jesus is so one with the
Father, that He is in the Father and the Father also in Him, it
foUows necessarUy that the Father is seen in Him. He is the
image of the Father ; but we see, from the practical inference
which He HimseK draws, in how essentiaUy real a sense He
intends the premises to be understood.
In the next place, Jesus attributes to Himself both a higher
origin and an approaching exalted glorification. The higher origin
is designated under various formulae.
With no mention of His physical birth, He ascribes to Him
seK this higher origin in the words (John vni 2 3) etc t&v dvto
elp,l, from that which is above, equivalent to the negative ex
pression " I am not of this world," and in contrast to etc t&v
kutco, which means this world. And it is not merely the higher
origin which is here indicated, but also the disposition of mind
corresponding to it (cf. xvii 16). StiU that origin is impHed as
the basis of the divinely-formed disposition, and He points to it
in the word virdya (viii. 21, 22) ; for the "going away" refers
back to His origin from which He proceeded (cf. Hi. 31). He
who comes from above is above aU ; he who comes from the
earth is of the earth and speaks of the earth. This view of
viii. 23 is confirmed by other utterances, such as e« tow ©eou
t&XQov (viii 42), iraph tov iraTpoi (xvi 28, cf. 27 and xvii 8),

DIV. II. §22.] ' THE SON. 125
or cmj-o tow Qeov (xvi. 3 0, xin. 3, cf. Hi. 2) ; in connection with
which the Lord also states that the Father has sent Him (diro-
areXXeiv, John v. 38, vii. 29, xx. 21,.xvH 3, etc.; Matt, x 40 ;
Luke xi 16 ; ire/Mireiv, John xiii 20, vii 28, v. 23, 24, etc.). To
the same effect also eXtfXvdev ev tw bvo/xaTi tov' 7raTod? p,ov [v. 43
(vii. 29)], by order of and in the strength of the Father ; and simi
larly o K«Ta/3as Ik t. ovp. (in. 13, vi. 58, 33, and 50) ; and these
expressions are aU the more significant, since our Lord sometimes
adds to them that He, as being sent by the Father, returns to
Him again (John xin. 3, xvi. 28). From a rationaHstic point of
view, indeed, some have understood, in a lower sense, the passages
which speak of Jesus being sent by the Father as containing only
the idea of a special vocation by providence. But this interpre
tation can appear possible only to those who take a superficial
view, and consider these passages apart from the other high attri
butes which the Lord ascribes to HimseK ; although even thus so
low a view does not accord with the expressions themselves. AU
men have a vocation pointed out by God; and thus every one may
be said to be sent, and proceed from God, and to be destined to
return to Him. Had our Lord meant to say this, He could not
have described it as a special superiority, or founded thereon a
claim for man's beHef in Him, etc. His proceeding from the
Father and coming into the world must therefore be understood
in its higher sense, indeed, as pointing to a previous pre-existent
life which He had independently of His earthly state of being,
and with which He entered upon the natural conditions of His
IKe on earth. In connection with the second point, He also
ascribes to HimseK an approaching glorified existence with the
Father, which answers exactly to the pecuHar divine being and
nature residing in Him (John xvn. 5, 24). In His prayer, the
Lord desires His glorification with the Father as something based
upon His pre-existent glory (ver. 5), and on His caUing as the
Redeemer conferred upon Him by the Father (vers. 2, 24) ; also,
"Again I leave the world and go to the Father" (xvi. 28). In the
Synoptists also we meet with (Matt. xxiv. 30, xxv. 31 ff, xxvi.
64, etc.) intimations of His return to heaven, which presuppose
the previous exaltation of His person. Moreover, the divine
presence of the glorified Christ amongst His own people is spoken
of as " where two or three are gathered together in my name,
there am I in the midst of them" (Matt, xxviii. 20, cf. xviii. 20).

126 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
These words receive a pregnant signification by comparing the
rabbinical saying (to which Schleiermacher1 has drawn attention),
that K one or a few are considering the law, there is the Shechinah
near, and the divine presence is with them. Thus, then, the
Lord ascribes to HimseK a divine being which Hes at the founda
tion of His earthly conditioned existence, and, in harmony with
this, claims for HimseK, although appearing on the earth, some
higher origin, proceeding not from earthly humanity, but from the
heavenly Father ; and to this He adds an approaching state of
divine glorification.
Having been thus led on to the teaching of Jesus as to His
existence before the world was, we proceed to consider more closely
the utterances bearing upon it. In John xvH. 5, 24, He speaks
of the glory which He, as the object of the Father's absolute love
from everlasting, had with Him before the world was. Now, as
such a state of existence is not included in the scheme of the
world, its foundation cannot rest upon any creative act of God,
but presupposes another mode of imparting divine Hfe, no other
than that by which the Father gave it to Him in order that He
might have it in HimseK (John v. 26). This we must admit as
soon as we comprehend His pre-existence as a real existence
before the world was, as we are authorized, nay, obliged to do in
considering the declarations of our Lord which refer to it (John
vi. 62, vin. 58). Some would indeed understand in all these
passages nothing but an ideal pre-existence in God's predeter
mination ; but without a forced interpretation this is impossible
as regards xvH. 5, 24, viii 58, and is quite out of the question in
vi. 62. If the expression (xvn. 5), "Glorify me with the glory
which I had with Thee before the world was," suggests a real
possession of divine glory before the existence of the world, rather
than its ideal in the predetermination and eternal counsel of God,
stiU more stringent are the words (ver. 24), " I wUl that they
also whom Thou hast given me may be with me where I am, that
they may behold my glory which Thou hast given me, for Thou
lovedst me before the foundation of the world." To refer this
love of the Father to a merely foreordained love, which was only
to be reahzed in the future, is indeed a very far-fetched interpre
tation ; for in this sense every Christian is an object of the divine
1 On the Godhead of Christ according to the synoptic evangelists, Stud, and
Krit. 1829, ii.

DIV. II. §22.] THE SON. 127
everlasting love (cf. Eph. i. 4 ; 2 Tim. i 9). So also John vin.
58, where the Lord solemnly declares, "Before Abraham was, I
am," — eym elpul, not r\v, because to Him His being was not past, but
ever present. This answer is of great force against the objection
of the Jews, who represented it as something absurd that He
had seen Abraham or Abraham Him, K He speaks (ver. 58) of a
real existence, saying, " My being extends beyond Abraham."
Whereas the reply would have been very feeble K He had only
meant, Before Abraham was, I was destined to be : I had an
existence in the predetermination of God ; or, in other words, the
divine counsel to send the Messiah is older than Abraham. The
Jews, at any rate, did not so understand it, seeing that they wished
to stone the Lord on the charge of blasphemy (ver. 59). StUl
more decisive, however, is vi. 62, where, upon the astonishment
of the Jews at His declaring it necessary for a man to eat His
flesh and drink His blood in order to have Hfe in Him, the Lord
says, " Doth this offend you ? What, and K ye shaU see the Son
of man ascend up where He was before ? " As much as to say,
"WUl you not find this statement also offensive?" Here He
appeals for what He had said and for its sober truth to His
approaching departure to His Father (cf. Hi. 13), or, as in
His parting discourse, to the fact that, as He proceeded from
the Father and came into the world, so also He would leave the
world and return to His Father. But as the dvafialveiv denotes
something real, so also must the 6Vow fjv to irpoTepov be mani
festly a reaHty
The objections against this interpretation do not pretend to prove
anything; and K it be estabHshed f or vi 62 and viii 58, we are
surely justified in it as regards ch. xvii Upon this it has been
said that the Sotja (ver. 5) is evidently identical with the Sogd&iv
of ver. 1, and that the idea is defined by the corresponding one
of the glorification of the Father, according to which it could refer
only to glorification through the spread of His teaching. But
yet the train of thought from vers. 1 to 5 shows us that the Son
becomes glorious in a different way from the Father. The latter
consists in a true acknowledgment of the Father, whereas in the
former case the glorification of the Son's person is with Him (-irapd
aeavrm). Compare also vers. 1 and 24, where the Lord appeals
to His having possessed the glory before with the Father; and
the completion of His work on earth by the mission of the Para-

128 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
clete is made dependent on His glorification with the Father
(xvi. 5, 7, 14 ff), being, in fact, the effect of the latter.
Again, it is said that the Boga of ver. 5 is the same as that of
ver. 22 ; but in ver. 22 a real imparting of IKe is the matter in
question (xvii 3, vi. 47, xi. 26), though it is one gradually real
ized (cf. vers. 20-23), and not yet complete. He might therefore
speak of a perfect communication of the Sofa, K He had in view
the Hving unity of beHevers in the midst of the world, based upon
feUowship with Him ; but yet this imparting of Hfe must be re
garded as a future participation in that Sofja (ver.1 24) of His,
into which He wUl again fully enter. And hereby that which
. He has and is abides in its original and essential independence,
whilst in the case of others it is communicated to them, and is
received from and dependent on Him.
Furthermore, Schleiermacher has raised an objection on the
comparison of John xvn. 5 and v. 19, 20, to the effect that the
Lord's sayings are not of such a nature as to nulHfy the fact of
His human existence ; so that Jesus should have had in His tem
poral consciousness the remembrance of a separate divine existence
indweUing in Him before He became man. But the passage (v.
19, 20) which maintains a dependence of the action of the Son
upon the Father is in no way opposed to the admission of a pre
existent personaHty which by no means does away with that
dependence ; and the contrary position is the more untenable, in
proportion as we take the terms showing and seeing there em
ployed in the real sense which they require. There are, however,
some dogmatic difficulties which Schleiermacher considers to
stand in the way of the interpretation which asserts a real pre
existence. But this is because he does not distinguish between
our Lord's remembrance and knowledge of His separate divine
existence, and therefore sees in the remembrance of it the anni-
hUation of the temporal consciousness. Now, although we too
might be unable to assume any such remembrance on the part of
Him who had become man, yet we can very weU imagine a
knowledge of His pre-existence imparted to Him in that knowledge
of the Father of which He is the sole possessor (Matt. xi. 27),
and together with which a knowledge of the eternal being of the
Son is also imparted. The same thing is shown also in those
utterances of Jesus which refer to His action, as weU.as in those
which relate to the nature of His being. AU. flows from the

DIV. II. §22.] THE SON. 129
one fundamental idea on which we have proceeded. Both points
are coincident : the nature of His being determines that of His
action, and the latter presupposes the former.
The general character of His course of action is therein pro
nounced to be divine, partly by its nature and partly by its effect,
without, however, the human element being in consequence ex
cluded. The first point is stated in our Lord's declaration, that as the
Father works, so also doth the Son ; that what the Father does,
the Son also does in like manner ; and hence, that the latter does
nothing of Himself, apart, that is, from God, and consequently
nothing in a merely human way, but only what is shown and im
parted to Him by the Father (John v. 17, 19, 20, cf. 21-30;
vui. 28). Here also the fifth chapter, on which so much has been
aKeady said in the former section, again comes under consideration.
The Lord healed on the Sabbath, and thereby incurred persecution
from the Jews (ver. 1 6). He defends Himself by referring to what
God HimseK does, and uses the words (ver. 1 7), " My Father
worketh hitherto, and I work" The Jews were displeased at
this, on the ground of His calHng God in a peculiar sense His
Father, and thus making HimseK equal with God ; whereupon
the Lord entered more fuUy into the subject of His relation to
the Father, and chiefly as regarded His ministry (ver. 19 ff). The
Son can do nothing of HimseK; but what He sees the Father do,
that He does in a simUar manner. The Father in His love to
the Son shows Him aU that He HimseK does, and enables Him
to do the same (vers. 20, 22) ; and then foUows the reason, viz.
that He has given to the Son to have Hfe in Himself. The whole
action of the Son is thus exactly Hke that of the1 Father, and con
ferred by Him upon the Son, but in such wise that the Son is
not merely the vehicle of the Father's action, but possesses pre
eminently the fulness of divine life in Himself; and so far His
action is spontaneous, — only it is in perfect union with the Father,
and in virtue of the transmission of Hfe from Him to the Son,
and of the perfect unity of the Son's Hfe with Him. Thus we
see, both that the action of the Son is His own and the words He
speaks His own, and yet that the doctrine is the Father's, and
that the works which He does, He does not of Himself. And so
the Father speaks and acts in Him, but yet so that He is stiU a free
agent, and not merely a dependent medium of communication.
I

130 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PARTI,
As regards the operation of His ministry it is declared by the
Lord to be divine, in that it possessed a life-giving and judging
power. Man, as a creature, is unable either to give Hfe or exercise
judgment. Both are divine works ; and it is the entrance of the
divine Hfe, Hght, strength, and truth into the world which is
able to effect them. The Hfe which enters is negative in relation
to the world and sin, and consequently separates sin and the
sinner from what belongs to God, that is, from divine purity
and holiness : light and darkness are divided. On the other
hand, life is also given in a positive sense, and is to be under
stood as partly spiritual, partly corporeal, involving as it does the
glorification of beHevers in both ways. We see both sides of the
subject in John v. 21-30. The Father has handed over all
judgment to the Son (vers. 22, 27), and with it also the power of
quickening whom He wUl (vers. 21, 25, 28, 29). The positive
action, that of giving Hfe (cf. vi. 40 ff), is very often mentioned or
discussed by St. John. But that the human side of this action is
not lost sight of, appears not only from the fact that the Lord
generaUy represents Himself as man and Son of man, but from
His pointing Himself out (v. 27) as the Son of man, and ex
pressly saying that the Father committed the power of judgment
to Him because He is the Son of man. To this He adds (ch. vi.),
that He is the One come down from heaven, who in that very
capacity gives life to the world, and especially in so far as He
bestows His flesh and blood for that purpose. The fuller exegesis
of this passage belongs to the doctrine of redemption ; but the
observation finds place here, that the characteristic action of the
Son, in which He stands so entirely and without paraUel alone, is
conditional upon the union of the Son of God and Son of man.
The end for which He came down from heaven was to give life
unto the world ; and He executes judgment expressly because He
is become the Son of man ; and the words and works to which
He appeals are those of Him who has thus been made man.
Let us now, in accordance with the general characteristic of His
ministry look at the different branches of it, one of which He
speaks of as belonging to His earthly life, and the other as kept
in reserve till the time of His glorification. To the first belongs
the department of His knowledge and teaching. He often speaks
of His teaching, and goes a step further back to His knowledge
of what He taught. The purport of His teaching was, as He

DIV. II. §22.] THE SON. 131
said, to mamfest the name of the Father (John xvn. 6), the
knowledge of whom He points out as belonging exclusively to
HimseK: No man knoweth the Father, save the Son, and he
to whom the Son wiU reveal Him (Matt. xi. 27; Luke x. 22).
At the same time He adds, that no man has ever seen the Father
(John vi. 46) except Himself, who is from the Father : this agrees
with the declaration in Matthew. No man besides HimseK has
adequate knowledge of the Father, that is, the perfect know
ledge which is peculiarly His own. But as He knows the Father,
so He knows the world also ; except that there is no expression
as yet of a knowledge embracing aU detaUs of the temporal de
velopment. Still, it is easUy seen that in the gospels a peculiarly
far-reaching knowledge in this direction also is ascribed to Him ;
and narratives showing this are given, especially by St. John, with
special reference to His penetrating insight into the character of
the men with whom He has to do. Thus He did not confide
in those (John n. 24, 25) who first had a growing faith in Him,
because He knew them aU, and needed not that any one should
testify to Him of man, for He knew what was in man : of which
we have an example in His conversation with Nicodemus. StiU
more remarkable is His statement (Mark xin. 32) that no man
knew the day and hour of His future coming, not even the angels
in heaven, yea, not even the Son of man, but the Father only.
He is here speaking in the humUiation of His earthly life, and
the words refer exclusively to the exact time, not to the fact as
such, but to something which regards the details of temporal
development which depend upon the free play of moral personal
agencies as a factor of the history.
In strict accordance with this testimony to the knowledge of
Jesus is the witness He bears to the teaching side of His action.
He does not speak or teach' anything merely of HimseK, but as an
emanation from the power and wiU of the Father, which are also
His (John v. 30, viii. 28, xiv. 10, xn. 49, xvii 16-18, xvii 8).
We are, therefore, required to accept His utterances as divine
(vin. 47 (43), xvn. 7, 8, xiv. 24, xii. 48-50) ; and, in particular,
we must believe Him as the One who is from the Father, and
has seen the Father, in matters which far transcend the limits of
human experience (vi. 46 (62), iii. 13). Whoever, therefore,
refuses to believe Him, rejects the Father's word and authority
(Luke x. 16; John xiv. 24), and is thereby already judged

132 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
(John xii. 48, 49, v. 38, 42-44, viii. 41 ff); and, on the other
hand, the believer believes not Him but the Father (xn. 44, v. 24,
xui. 2 0). And he who is resolved to do the wUl of His heavenly '
Father wUl come to the knowledge of His teaching, whether it be
of God or propounded merely on His own authority (John vn. 17,
cf. vin. 42). He also speaks in the same way of His
Messianic deeds under the title epya as distinct from teaching
(Xoyos), among which deeds the working of miracles is especially
included; which, He says, are works of the Father (John x 37,
38). In His works, as works of the Father, they must and will
know that the Father is in Him and He in the Father, and con
sequently that there subsists a reciprocal unity of Hfe between
them, since the Father speaks and acts through Him (John xiv.
10, 11, v. 19, 20). In the last passage, also, the works are
named, in the sense of His Messianic action, as the giving of hfe
by means of His Sonship and of His having come down from
heaven. He is the heavenly bread which gives Hfe to the world, ';
imparting Hfe through His working, but with a reference here
also to His person SimUarly, in the Synoptists, the Lord speaks
of His miracles as belonging to His Messianic working, pointing
to them, in connection with His message of salvation to the poor
who need redemption, as the sign that He and no other is the
expected One referred to in prophecy (Matt, xi 3-5). Besides
this, He declares expressly that He performs these works in the
strength of God (Matt, xii 28), with immediate reference to the
casting out of devUs, saying, " If I by the Spirit of God cast out
devils, the kingdom of God is come unto you ;" that is to say, is
aHeady a reaUy present existence, — the victorious power, of God
ruHng in your midst, and hence the kingdom of God itseK. In
the paraUel place of Luke (xi 20) we have the addition ev Bax-
TvXm Qeoi, with the power, the finger of God. His deeds are
the operations of divine power. In harmony also with the fore
going is what Jesus declares as to His
Moral conduct. He is not only conscious that no man can
charge Him with sin (John viii. 46), but also that He does at all
times what is pleasing to the Father who sent Him ; and that,
consequently, the Father never leaves Him alone without the sup
port of His quickening presence and companionship, but is always
with Him (ver. 29). Hence His actions are always in accordance
with the Father's wiU, and are done in the Father's power.

DIV. II. § 22.] THE SON. 133
Hence also His consciousness of His continual and uninterrupted
agreement with the Father's wiU, and of the Father's constant
approbation of His actions, which results partly from His confidence
{ver. 46) that no man can convince Him of sin, and partly from
His consciousness, which He expresses in the words (iv. 34),
" My meat is to do the wiU of Him that sent me, and to finish
His work." This was when, on the return of the disciples with
provisions from the Samaritan town, He had said, " I have meat
to eat that ye know not of," meaning that He had an inner
spiritual nourishment, which consisted in doing the divine wUl,
and performing the work committed to Him by the Father. The
moral character of His course of action is that which suppHes
this inner nourishment and brings with it, as the fulfilment of
the divine wiU and the conscious expression of the uninterrupted
harmony subsisting between HimseK and the Father, the quicken
ing force of inward satisfaction and contentment. The simple
expression of this inner contentment, in the retrospect of His work
on earth then drawing to a close, is found in the high-priestly
prayer of John xvn. 4-6. In the synoptic accounts, it is of the
greatest importance to observe, in the general representation of
His life, the consciousness which He everywhere shows of His
unity with the divine wiU, and also, in particular, the declaration
in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt. v. 17-20), that He was come
not to destroy the law and the prophets, but to fulfil; understanding
thereby not merely teaching but doing in a practical sense ; for
He who (ver. 1 9) fulfils and teaches the c6mmandment shaU be
called great in the kingdom of heaven. And as in this discourse
He claims to be not merely a member of the heavenly kingdom,
but also the Lord of it, for whose sake the members must be willing
to suffer (ver. 1 1), we see how absolutely and completely He under
stands the task He imposes on HimseK of fulfilling the law and
the prophets. Hence His displeasure when the rich young man
(Matt, xix) addresses Him as Good Master, seeking nothing in
Him but a good Teacher : " Why caUest thou me good ? no man
is good but God alone." Not that He found fault with' the
appHcation of the word good to HimseK, but with the supposition
that, taking Him for a man, the speaker applied the term to Him
in a pretentious manner, in the sense of pharisaical righteousness.
And so He points out in what foUows that a man can no more
enter into the kingdom of heaven by his own strength than a

134 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
camel can go through the eye of a needle, but that what is
impossible with men is possible with God.
It is remarkable, also, that our Lord speaks of His death as an
essential part of His ministry on earth, and with such particulars
as point decisively to the higher position of His whole person.
He puts His death in connection with His resurrection, both in
the general announcement by the Synoptists and John of His
suffering and death, and stUl more expressly where He teaches
(John x. 1 7, 1 8) that He has power to lay down His life and
power to take it again, seeing that death for Him is no necessity
of nature, both because He is the holy and sinless One, who must
needs be free from both sin and death, and also because He pos
sesses divine eternal Hfe in Himself. The Father loves Him for
the very fact that He lays down His life, — a purpose which pro
ceeds from His spontaneous love to God and man. His death;
therefore, is an offer of quickening spiritual food, a sacrifice of
Himself to God for His people, that they also may be sanctified :
in the truth (John xvn. 19), a death for the forgiveness of sins
(cf. Matt. xx. 28; John iii. 14, cf. 15). These are aU passages
which wiU demand our attention in treating of the doctrine of
redemption, but which are noticed here because they show how
the higher idea of His personality enters also into the declarations
concerning His death. To the same effect is what the Lord says
of His action in His exalted and glorified state, wherein He pro
mises to make His dwelling, in the unity of the Father, with
beHevers (John xiv. 23, cf. 21), and to grant them the blessed aid
of His perpetual presence (Matt, xxvni 20, xvin. 20). Further, -;
He attributes to Himself the sending of the Holy Ghpst for the
comfort of beHevers, the communication of the Spirit, the granting
of His people's prayers (John xiv. 13, 14), the awakening of
the dead (John v. 21, 24 ff, vi. 39, 54), and lastly the judg
ment (John v. 22, 27, cf. 30 ; Matt. xxv. 31 ff, cf. xxiv. 30, 31).
Thus the ministry of Jesus is entirely superhuman, although in a
human form, proceeding from the divine fulness of Hfe residing in
Him, both when ascribed to Him in His low estate, and much
more when spoken of as belonging to His state of approaching
divine glorification. It is, moreover, an action which includes the
victory over sin, whether regarded in its power of judging or of
imparting Hfe. In proportion, then, as He asserts this of Himself,
and points out sin as universal amongst mankind, the more does

DIV. II. §22.] THE SON. 135
He raise Himself above the level of the world, not being at aU
implicated in the entanglement of sin, but, on the contrary, van
quishing it partly by judging and partly by forgiving, and bring
ing about its destruction by destroying the death which it entails.
The course of His ministry is briefly indicated in this contrast
with, and victory over sin, by which His person is characterized
as absolutely exalted above mankind. This character is given to
it in virtue of the higher existence which Jesus attributes to Him
self, and on which His temporal life is based.
What idea, then, of the person of Jesus, considered on its
higher side, do we gain from the representation of it up to this
point ? That, on the one hand, as appearing on earth in tem
poral life, He was man, who, as His history shows, fulfiUed the
whole measure of human destiny from birth even to the grave ;
on the other, He was a divine Being who had appeared in a human
form, in whom the divine fulness of life dwelt, being imparted
to Him as the Son, and therefore distinguishable from the divine
nature, the Father who imparted it, so that it formed in Jesus per
sonally a centre of life, and was further communicated from Him
to others. And as He is the medium through which this divine
action receives its outward direction, He is also the object of
divine love, the one in whom God is well pleased ; and this,
indeed, in His pre-existence also, without regard to His temporal
manKestation in the world.
But now comes the question, in what light, according to His
own utterances, we have to regard His person before He came into
the world ? The leading topic of His discourses is the One who
has appeared ; and when He calls Himself the Son of God, it only
applies to the whole person of the manifested One. The pre
existent personality is never caUed Son, nor does He ever expressly
separate the two sides of His being, in order to limit a certain
predicate to one. Hence in some discourses He ascribes to Him
self certain high attributes which include glorification. But His
utterances as to His pre-existence can be naturally explained only
on the hypothesis that He attributes to HimseK a personal existence
before the world was, distinguishable from the Father's personality
(John xvii. 5); for He has been glorified with the Father, and has
been the object of His love (ver. 24), but still in the same identity
of nature with Him as subsequently existed in the manifested Christ.
This pre-existent personality is the centre of divine Hfe, whence,

136 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
from the very first, it was communicated to the world, and whence,
under the Old Testament dispensation, a principle of beneficial
agency was diffused over mankind (John vin. 56-58). It con
tained in itself also the power of becoming man, or, as He Himself
says (John xvi. 28), of coming into the world.
This idea of the actual pre-existence, flowing as their only natural
interpretation from His own utterances, is perfectly consistent
with what the apostles, John as weU as Paul, have deduced from
His teaching.
John, where he speaks in his own name, and is not merely
transmitting an historical account of our Lord's sayings, enters
into the subject of His existence previous to His earthly mani
festation. In the first epistle (i 2) he points Him out as the
eternal Hfe which was with the Father from the beginning, and in
process of time appeared to men, beginning with the apostles.
This leads us back to John v. 26. But stUl more striking is the
prologue of the gospel Jesus Christ (John i 1 7), who was made
flesh (ver. 14), and is the source of grace and truth to mankind,
is the Word who was in the beginning with God, who HimseK was
God, yet in a distinct personality. He is the Word through
whom are aU things, and in whom the principle of life for the
world and mankind is contained (vers. 3, 4). He it is through
whom aU divine Hght and life come to the world and mankind ;
but this fulness of light and IKe is in Him personaUy, and indeed
from the beginning. He it is, then, through whom, under the Old
Testament dispensation, the powers of Hght and IKe were conveyed
to mankind (vers. 9, 10) ; through whom, as made flesh (ver. 14),
God reveals Himself as full of grace and truth ; who is therefore,
as He HimseK says (xiv. 6), the truth and the life, the resurrection
and the Hfe. It appears from this that St. John understood our
Lord's sayings throughout as referring to a real pre-existence.
The manner in which St. Paul closely defined the idea of the
person of the Son of God corresponds to this. He is defined
as the one who has been made manKest, crdpg yevofievos, Kara
crdpica, and therein as the Son of God by virtue of the -rrvevpji
dyiwo-vvn*; which resides in Him as the adp%. Then, too, the
Lord Himself is the Spirit (2 Cor. iii. 17) ; and Christ is not of
the earth, like the first man, but is the Lord from heaven (1 Cor.
xv. 47), and therefore of a heavenly nature (ver. 48), essentiaUy
raised above the first created man, and intended as a second

DIV. II. §22.] THE SON. 137
archetype (so to speak) of human nature. And this Lord from
heaven is the image of the invisible God (2 Cor. iv. 4), the first
born of every creature (CoL i. 1 5 ; Heb. i 2 ff.), in the sense
that in Him, and to Him, and for Him aU things are created and
continue. In Him dwells all the fulness of the Godhead in
bodily impress (Col. ii. 9) ; and thus, too, He is, moreover, the
first-born from the dead (1 Cor. xv. 20). Now this more fuUy
evolved apostoHc doctrine is no more than the development of
our Lord's own sayings, — the idea of the image of God, for
example, being plainly contained in those recorded by St. John.
And the apostles' teaching can be fuUy understood only if that of
Jesus Himself is presupposed. The Son, in His higher nature, is
accordingly Hke the Father and in unity with Him. The sum-
total, therefore, of the impressions made upon the apostles' minds
by their intercourse with Jesus, which they carried with them
into their vocation, is no other than that in virtue of which they
worship Him as the Lord, bow the knee before Him, and call
upon His name (Rom. x 13, cf. 12 and 9). In considering this,
we shall find no difficulty in passages where Jesus undoubtedly
subordinates Himself to the Father, first by caUing Himself the
Son, and pointing out that aU things are committed to Him by the
Father ; then by praying to the Father, and even stating expressly,
" My Father is greater than I" (John xiv. 28). For all these are
the declarations of Him who became man, and came into the world;
who is not only the Son of God, but in the unity of the same
person both Son of God and Son of man. He is the express image
of the Father, as St. Paul says most distinctly, and the Epistle to
the Hebrews (i 3) emphaticaUy asserts. This is the view main
tained throughout the New Testament. The facts of communica
tion and unity of being are co-existent: the idea of communication
does not constitute a separate being.
We have so far proceeded on the two ideas, Son of man
and Son of God. By His own statements in John and the
Synoptists, Jesus is both these in one personality : both are
so intimately bound together, that the one idea presupposes and
furthers the other. In this one personality He has flesh and
blood, and a perfect corporeal nature, as is shown by the passages
which treat of His death and of the Lord's Supper (Matt. xxvi.
26, 28 ; Mark xiv. 22 f. ; Luke xxu. 19, 20). But He has also
a soul i^vyf]) which He gives up at His death (Matt. xx. 28 ;

138 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I
John x. 15, 17, [xv. 13]), of which soul He speaks without re
ference to the dissolution of His earthly Hfe (John xn. 27). From
this we see how erroneous the view is which has been maintained
in modern times, that in John the Xoyov stands in place of the
human soul ; for if He became crdp^, the idea of the -ty-vyf) is
included ; hence the complete spiritual life subject to a tripartite
division (1 Thess. v. 23). He ascribes to Himself a heart (Matt.
xi 2 9) as the centre of His personaHty, or of His humility, as the
fundamental feeHng of His moral IKe, and seated in its inmost
recesses. At His death He commends His spirit into the Father's
hands, which proves that in Him the spirit is united with flesh
and blood ; yet this organic connection is everywhere brought
about by means of a ifrv%>i.
We have hitherto combined the utterances of Jesus without re
ference to the different narratives in which they occur. Now comes
the question whether those of the Synoptists do not in fact appear
so different in kind from those of John as to require to be dealt
with separately. There can be no doubt that most of the sayings
of Jesus about His person in general, and especiaUy of those which
predicate of it the highest attributes, and on which, consequently,
the high conception of it is based, belong to St. John's Gospel.
What the Synoptists transmit to us of the discourses of Jesus
is both less pregnant and more limited in extent, and there are
but few passages in comparison with those recorded by St. John ;
but yet everything essential contained in the more copious record
is either comprised, or by impHcation vouched for. In the Synop
tists, too, Jesus speaks of being sent by God (Matt. x. 40 ; Luke
ix. 48 ; Mark ix. 37), and also, indeed, of some pecuHar pre
eminence in His person, which makes it impossible to apply the
expression in nothing but the lower sense (vide supra). Our Lord
asserts, moreover, that He does His miracles in the power of God
(Matt. xii. 28 r Luke xi.'20), driving out the devU because He is
the stronger (Luke xi. 22 ; Matt. xii. 29 ; Mark iii. 27), and for a
proof that the kingdom of God is already come in and with Him.
He maintains that it is He alone who possesses an adequate know
ledge of God (Luke x. 22), and that to Him everything is de
livered by the Father (Matt. xi. 27 ; Luke x. 22), even all power
in heaven and earth (Matt, xxviii 18) ; that He is effectually pre
sent with His people, even to the end of the world (ver. 20), as the
Shechinah (vide supra) (xvHi 20). Again, He wiU send to His

DIV. II. §22.] THE SON. 139
disciples the power from on high, promised of the Father (Luke
xxiv. 49; [Acts i 4, 5]), that they may be baptized with the Holy
Ghost, — an operation which the Baptist (in St. John's Gospel also)
referred to Christ. Furthermore, the Lord declares that He wiU
at the right moment endue His disciples with power and wisdom
to answer for themselves. And this brings us to the same point,
since it is precisely the Spirit of the Father who wUl speak in
and through them (Luke xxi 14, 15 ; Matt. x. 19, 20; Mark
xui. 11). To Him, again, is judgment over aU men committed
(cf. Matt. xxv. 31, xxiv. 30 seq, and xvi. 27, vn. 21-23) ; He
wiU be raised to tlie right hand of the majesty of God in heaven
(Matt. xxvi. 64), and wUl come again (Matt. xxiv. 29-31, 37,
39) ; the angels are His, and subject to Him (Matt. xin. 41, cf.
49, xvi 27, xxv. 31, cf. Eph. i 21, 22). He regards Himself on
earth as the One who fulfils the law and the prophets, and who
forgives sins in the name of the Father, so as to be able to do
away with the consequences of sin (Matt, ix 4-7), and as the
One who sheds His blood for its forgiveness (Matt. xxvi. 28).
He also claims to be the One who imparts the Spirit, exercises
judgment, and, having aU power in heaven and earth given unto
Him, perfects His kingdom in glory.
Strauss is so far right in acknowledging (i 483) that the
Synoptists also ascribe to Jesus, both for the present and
future, the highest human dignity, and also the most exalted
relation to the Godhead. But he does not go far enough ;
for what Jesus claims to HimseK surpasses aU human measure.
And even in the Synoptists He is represented as the One
who ransoms from sin, and fulfils the two undoubtedly divine
operations of judgment and redemption. There is, indeed, this
important difference, that the Synoptists record no assertions of
the pre-existence; but this decides nothing, since they undoubtedly
report sayings in which our Lord's unity of being with God is
unmistakeably involved. We have also in the Synoptists a rich
store of sayings concerning His glorification, announced as being
close at hand ; and these are by no means lower in character than
those on the same subject recorded by St. John. The same, too,
may be said as to the functions which He ascribes to HimseK as the
glorified One. He is declared to be the Judge of aU the world, of
all nations, not merely in the later discourses (Matt. xvi. 27, etc.),
but even in the Sermon on the Mount (vii 21-23). Let us

140 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART L
now consider what, from the point of view taken both in the Old
Testament, and in the Old and New together, is involved in the
idea of a judge of the moral worth of mankind, in which an
absolutely infaUible decision is included, referring not only to the
most secret acts of commission or omission, but also to the inner
most grounds of the heart. From the bibHcal standpoint, Christ
cannot be a judge without truly divine quaHties, such as omni
science, hoHness, righteousness, and omnipotence to carry His
sentences into effect. And how earnestly other attributes are
intended, which are ascribed to Jesus in the Synoptists, may be
inferred from the fact that not only everything is given over to
Him, but also aU eljov&la in heaven and earth is delegated to Him
by the Father (Matt, xxviii 18, cf. xi. 27 ; Luke x. 22), as He
also says to the high priest, " Hereafter ye shaU see the Son of
man sitting on the right hand of power," that is, as it is else
where expressed by the apostles, at the right hand of God (cf. also
Mark xvi. 19). In this expression the first verse of Ps. ex is
appHed to Christ, and that in His relation to God the Father;
and consequently no less than fuU participation in the divine Lord
ship, just as in the divine action and blessedness, is ascribed to
Him, with the effect that aU enemies of His cause and person, who
are necessarUy also the enemies of God, shaU be finaUy overcome,
as is further set forth dogmaticaUy by St. Paul (1 Cor. xv. 24-28),
resting on our Lord's own assertion (Matt, xxvi 64). It is,, how
ever, not only to His position of future glory and exaltation that
these predicates apply, for it was before His exaltation that our Lord
used the expressions of Matt, xxvin. 18 ; and even during His
humiliation He spoke the words of Matt, xi 27 (cf. Luke x. 22),
wherein reference is made to His knowledge. Now this is one of
the most forcible utterances of Jesus respecting His person ; for
although His knowledge only is mentioned, yet whatever appHes
to it is appHcable also to the capabUity and action of His whole
Hfe and personaHty to which His knowledge must of necessity be
conformable. In this passage He sets forth the unity in know
ledge subsisting between Himself and the Father, saying ex
pressly that no one but HimseK knows the Father, and no one
knows the Son save the Father ; therefore His relation to the
Father is here said to be of that kind which results in perfect
unity of knowledge. We must not, therefore, be surprised at our
Lord in one place grouping HimseK, as the Son, with the Father

DIV. II. §22.] THE SON. 141
and the Spirit, in order to declare that the apostles were to
baptize in the name of aU three persons (Matt, xxvni 19), almost
as if it were one ovopa. There is the less cause for wonder, when
we recoUect that He says in the synoptical gospels that He wUl
bestow upon His own the Spirit, the strength from on high pro
mised by the Father, giving power and wisdom to speak aright ;
and that thus they wiU be baptized with the Holy Ghost. AU
these assertions and statements of our Lord's self-testimony show,
however, how untenable the position is, that in the synoptical
accounts Jesus appears merely as a man endowed with the Divine
Spirit. We find a pecuHar harmony between the Synoptists and
John's Gospel, K we compare the accounts of the trial before the
Sanhedrim with that of the hostility directed against Jesus, accord
ing to John x 31-33. Here the Jews wished to stone Him, not
because He declared Himself to be the Messiah, but because He
. claimed to be one with the Father ; and the ground of His con
demnation in His trial was not merely that He claimed to be the
Messiah, but that He did so in the high sense which was unusual
with the Jews, which, in the high priest's opinion, involved the
crime of blasphemy against God. So Httle, therefore, do the synoptic
sayings about the person of Jesus detract from His dignity, that
they lead to nothing less than the essential unity in Hfe, knowledge,
and power which He has with the Father, being at the same time
made very man. The sayings about His pre-existence recorded
by John add a retrospective glance at Jesus yet unmanKested, as
He existed before the foundation of the world, distinct from the
Father, yet one with Him.
But this rich and profound line of teaching is entered upon in
the Old Testament ; for a study of the latter shows that it con
tains certain expressions which refer to the Messiah as the Son
of God, and lead further, even in those early days, than to the
mere historico-theocratic idea of the Messianic King. And this
explains how the whole apostoHc view could so readily accept the
testimony borne by Jesus to His higher nature, and how it became
at once the common property of the evangeHcal accounts.
In aU the passages of the Old Testament which bear upon the
subject, the most important point to be observed is how the
Messiah is represented as the divine instrument to aU ; that in
and through Him the very covenant-God Jehovah reveals Him
seK and works for the good of men. Hence we at least see that

142 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART. I.
the Messiah must be an instrument which in no way intercepts
or obscures the effectual operation of God, but acts as His most
perfect medium of communication. And this is the conception
of the Messiah on which the view taken of Him in the New Testa
ment is based, wherein He is represented to be of a Hke nature
with God the Father, and as possessing unity of life and being
with Him as His most perfect counterpart. This general notion
becomes more defined in the New Testament, and is expressed in
complete fulness.
The view on which the synoptical selection of the sayings of
Jesus is based, might attain its result even apart from the definite
doctrine of the pre-existence, simply by means of its connection
with the Old Testament. God Himself appears in the Messiah,
who is so far the icvptos. He is thus represented historicaUy
chiefly by Matthew and Luke. They begin with the supernatural
conception. The personal Hfe of Jesus of Nazareth does not pro
ceed from man, not, at least, like that of aU other men, but a
new source of life is brought about in the almighty quickening
power of God. The holy thing so born wiU therefore (Luke
i 35) be caUed the Son of God. And Jesus of Nazareth, who in
this way made His entrance into the world of men, grows up in
creasing in wisdom with age, and in favour with God and man.
At His baptism, to which He submitted in common with every
other IsraeHte who believed in the approach of the Messianic
kingdom, He was pointed out by the divine voice as the Son of
God in whom the Father is well pleased, and at the same time
completely endowed with the fulness of the Divine Spirit, — the
last point being as clearly enunciated by St. John (i 33),
although the latter takes an entirely different starting-point in his
gospel He starts from the higher, the Synoptics from the lower,
standpoint ; but the person thus borne witness to as the Messiah
reveals in the midst of His human lowliness His divine endowment
and glory, both in His words and actions, and also in His whole
personality, as a prophet mighty in deed and word before God
and all people, as His apostles testified in the time of His abase
ment between His death and resurrection. The testimony which
He bore to Himself attains a high point in Matt. xi. and John xvii.;
and, after His resurrection, He declares Himself to be the One to
whom all power is given in heaven and in earth, who wUl remain
with His own unto the end, and who now sends them forth to

DIV. II. § 23.] GLORIFICATION OF THE FATHER IN THE SON. 143
baptize all nations. His life on earth is a manifestation in lowH-
ness of the Lord from heaven, untU, through His suffering, death,
and resurrection, He shaU have revealed Himself to His people,
and won recognition as the Son co-equal in being with the Father.
The conclusion of St. Luke's Gospel is in effect the same. He
ends with the ascension ; whilst St. John represents as the cul
minating point, in the life of Jesus His acknowledgment as his
Lord and God by the most unbelieving of His disciples (John
xx. 28), who is mentioned here only because he is brought to this
acknowledgment later than he should have been.
§ 23. The Glorification of the Father in the Son.
This proposition results from the foreg6ing conclusions ; and
only on account of its importance in the conception of God, and
in the teaching of Jesus in general, deserves to be separately
considered. Christ HimseK asserts it, chiefly in St. John's
Gospel ; but the synoptical utterances also bear witness to the
doctrine involved in it. Those recorded by St. John express,
first, a unity of being and likeness between the Father and the
Son, and then a glorifying of the one through the other (xvn. 1, 5,
xiii. 31 seq). At the moment when, at the Last Supper, the
traitor Judas, plainly recognised by Jesus and pointed out to
his feUow- disciples, had left the company with which he was
unfit to associate, the Lord says, vvv eSogdo-dr], k.t.X., " Now is the
Son of man glorified, and God is glorified in Him ;" and adds, " If
God be glorified in Him, God shaU also glorify Him in Himself,
and shall straightway glorify Him." Here there is spoken of,
A glorification of the Son consequent upon His sufferings, which,
in His glance at the traitor now hastening to the fulfilment of
his infamous purpose, He regards as an already accomplished fact.
The last train of circumstances is set in motion which wiU unin
terruptedly work out its own completion ; and the Son of man
wiU thus be glorified, and glorified by God. He is glorified,
because it is the highest exertion of His moral action which con
fers glory upon Him, partly of itself and partly through its effects
on all mankind. And herein is included the further glorification
of the Son in heaven, since the Father glorifies Him in union
with Himself by receiving Him into glory (xvii. 1, 5).
We have also a glorification of the Father in the Son. God is
glorified Iv ai™, not merely through the Son but in Him, that is,

144 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PARTI.
in His person. In this is the Father glorified, since He has im
parted the fulness of divine Hfe to the Son in such a way that
it is recognised in Him, and the Father is seen in Him. It is not
merely revealed to men through Him or through His teaching
and His deeds (xii 45, vin. 19, xiv. 9), but in Him, so that He
is the Father's most perfect image and organ. SimUarly in ch,
xvii. .1-6 both propositions are contained, — first, that the Son has
glorified the Father by accomplishing the work given Him to do
on earth, which has for its object the imparting of eternal Hfe to
previously carnal man (ver. 4, cf. 2), through the revelation of the
name of God to men, whom the Father has delivered over and
bestowed upon the Son (ver. 6) ; in the next place, in virtue of
this glorification of the Father by the Son, the prayer of the
latter asks that the Father would also glorify the Son (ver. 1),
that the Father's glory may be perfected (cf. ver. 26). Hence
all that is in the person of the Father and is performed in and
through it by virtue of the unity of the Son's life with His, has
for its end the glorification of the Father, His manifestation to
the world, and the promotion of His honour therein. Although
this result is not directly deducible from our Lord's own teaching,
except in St. John's Gospel, yet it is confirmed in the Synoptists,
especiaUy by St. Matthew (xi. 27) and St. Luke (x. 22) (cf. John
vi. 46). If the Son alone has perfect knowledge of the Father,
and can communicate it to whom He wUl (as conversely the
Father imparts true knowledge of the Son, Matt. xvi. 16), so is
the Father also glorified in the Son, in whom alone He is revealed.
For the revelation of Himself, as in truth the Father of Jesus
Christ, as an effectual revelation which at once imparts a Hving
knowledge to those who are thenceforth no longer carnal but
spiritual, inasmuch as they belong to Christ (John xvn. 6), — such '
a revelation is at the same time a. glorification of the Father, re-
veaHng Him, as it does, in His entire perfection so as to receive
honour and worship from those to whom He is revealed. Thus
the foregoing passage serves to testify to the credibUity of the
Johannean utterances of Christ. Nor, indeed, is the manifesta
tion of the Father in the Son completed by the close of Christ's
visible sojourn on earth ; on the contrary, He decidedly points to
His work as a continuous one (John xvii. 26) ; for the words, "I
have declared unto them Thy name and will declare it," spoken
primarily of the disciples, have a further reference to aU who,

DIV. II. §24.] THE SPIRIT. 145
through their word, should beHeve on Him (ver. 20). In both
series of the gospel narrative He gives intimation of His second
coming, and connects with it the future completion of His work.
This second coming, however, finds a nearer fulfilment in the
sending of His Spirit, and the consequent indweUing of HimseK
and the Father in the hearts of beHevers (John xiv. 23, 26).
After the withdrawal of His visible presence, the Spirit, as His
substitute, was to glorify Him (John xvi. 14) ; and as in other
cases, so here also the glorification of the Son would redound to
the Father's honour. He points out, therefore, most decidedly that
as He is the manifester and glorifier of the Father, this work is
a progressive one, and wUl find its completion only in the future,
being completed by the promised effusion of the Spirit upon His
people (see below).
Thus the characteristic idea of God as Father and Spirit is
again prominently brought forward. He is Father because He
puts forth extraneously to HimseK a Hfe aUied to His own, and
thus reveals and glorifies Himself; Spirit, because His is the
most perfect Hfe, which, however, does not end in His own being,
but imparts itseK essentiaUy to others. This, however, is more
closely defined in the idea of the Son. But the doctrine is not yet
exhausted ; for the Son Himself speaks of His glorification through
the Spirit, and, in asserting the glorification of the Father in Him,
must needs add to His teaching the doctrine of the Holy Ghost.
§ 24. The Spirit.
We must have already seen, in the teaching as to the Father,
that the Old Testament contained a doctrine of the Spirit of God.
He is caUed D'rfo* nn, nyr nr\, and in two places (Ps. H. 11,
and Isa. lxiii. 10) Spirit of HoHness; and in the Apocrypha
irvevpa aytov (Wisdom i 5, ix. 17). This Spirit of God, pos
sessing Hfe in Himself, is the divine principle of activity every
where at work in the world (Ps. exxxix. 7). At first in external
nature (Gen. i 2 ; Ps. civ. 30, and xxxiH. 6), as Kthe quickening
breath of God (Gen. H. 7 ; Job xxxiii 4), as the breath of His
mouth or lips (Isa. xi. 4) ; and then also as existing in a human
person (Job xxxn. 8), as the inspiring principle of courage, reso
lution, and warHke deeds (Judg. xi. 29, xin. 25 ; 1 Sam. xi 6),
of bodily strength (Judg. xiv. 6), and also of holy skill in
art (Ex xxxi. 3-5, xxxv. 31-35); of administrative talent in a
E

146 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
ruler (1 Sam. xvi. 1 3), of wisdom and acuteness (Job xxxu. 8 ;
Isa. xi. 2), and of moral purity (Ps. H. 13; Isa. lxiii. 10).
Especially is this Spirit the active principle in prophecy (Num.
xxiv. 2, 3 ; 1 Sam. xix. 20-23), but even in the theocratic
people working only in isolated and individual cases, — Moses
himself feeling this limitation (Num. xi. 29, cf. 14, 16, 17, and
25-28); but so much the more needful was it that He should
rest in superabundant fulness upon the Messiah (Isa. xi. 2,
lxi 1 [cf. Luke iv. 18]; Isa. xHi. 1 [cf. Matt. xii. 18]), and
should in His times be poured out in rich measure upon all
flesh (Joel Hi. 1, 2), upon every age, sex, and condition (Isa. xliv.
3 ; Ezekxxxvi. 26, 27, cf. xi. 19, and xxxix. 29 ; Zech. xn. 10).
And what appears in earHer times merely as the subject of prayer
and longing in an individual (Ps. Ii 10), that God would create
in him a new heart, and implant new strength of spirit, — a bold
thought, indeed ; a prayer rich in prophetic fulness, and so far in
advance of the times in which he lived as to be conceivable only
in a man of such deeply characteristic spirituaHty as David, to
whom the psalm is attributed, — this becomes the very object of
the Messianic promise, viz. that God wiU, by implanting His
Spirit in them, give a new heart to those who are in membership
with His people (Ezek. xxxvi. 26, 27). Here, then, the New
Testament steps in, and firstly, in our Lord's own teaching and
promises, completes the Old Testament doctrine of the Spirit,
Jesus imprinting upon it a characteristic stamp, which is per
petuated by the teaching of the apostles. The existence of the
Spirit of God in the Messiah HimseK is taught also in the New
Testament, but without asserting that the Holy Ghost, the
Spirit of God, constituted the higher nature in Christ in the same
way as He had previously worked in the world of nature and of
man. Already had John the Baptist pointed Him out as the One
on whom the Spirit of God rests continuaUy (John i 33, cf. iii
34), in contrast to a merely temporary influence, as in the case of
the prophets, — by which fact the Messiah was in a position de
cidedly superior to theirs. The Baptist also completes the Old
Testament idea, by declaring that in the Messiah God has given
His Spirit without measure (John iii. 34), and that it is He who
shaU baptize with the Holy Ghost (John i 33 ; cf. Matt. Hi. 11 ;
Mark i. 8 ; Luke Hi. 16). No doubt, in prophecy, too, the Spirit
of God is said to rest upon the Messiah, and Isa. xi. 2 may be

DIV. II. §24.] THE SPIRIT. 147
interpreted to the effect that this is the case in fuU measure,
although the latter point is rather left to be inferred. But it is
nowhere said in the Old Testament that the outpouring of the
Holy Spirit, which was to ensue in the Messianic times, should
result immediately from the Messiah ; and thus the conception of
Him in the prophetic writings and in the Old Testament generaUy
is carried to a higher point. It might appear, from this declaration
of the Baptist, that he regarded the possession of the Spirit as con
stituting the higher element in the person of the Messiah ; but
we must remember that be also asserts His pre-existence (John i
30, cf. 15), and thereby showed his complete grasp of the Messianic
prophecies up to their culminating point. Thus the law of suc
cession in prophecy extends from the Old Testament down to this
last prophet, John the Baptist, the immediate forerunner of the
Messiah. Like the prophets of the old dispensation, he takes
up the prophetic teaching of the Old Testament at the point where
it had left off, embodies it in his own testimony, and carries it
forward to more complete development. We find the doctrine of
the existence of the Spirit of God in the Messiah stiU further
developed in the discourses of Jesus HimseK, where, however,
the peculiarity of His person is by no means made to consist in
the possession of the Spirit. For when (Luke iv. 21) the Lord
says that the prophecy of Isaiah (lxi 1) is fulfiUed in Him (the
words being put into the mouth of the Messiah, " The Spirit of
the Lord is upon me," etc.), or when (Matt, xii 28) He says that
He casts out the devil in the Spirit of God, in this possession of,
and working by, the Spirit, the higher nature of Christ's person
is not expressed, His utterances on this point (vide supra) being
quite of a different character.
AU the more decidedly, however, is it the teaching of Jesus
that He, the Son, imparts the Spirit, and that from Him, and by
means, indeed, of His glorification, the Spirit is poured out upon
beHevers. And this brings us to the teaching of Jesus HimseK
concerning the Spirit.
When speaking of Him, He uses the expressions irvevpa, or
to irvevpa (John iii. 5, 6, 8), irvevpa Qeov (Matt. xii. 28 ; cf.
Luke xi. 20, ev haicTiikm), or irvevpa tov iraTpbs vp&v (Matt, x
20), to irvevpa to ayiov (Matt. xii. 32 ; Mark iii. 29 ; cf. Matt.
xxvni. 19 ; Acts i 8), or irvevpa ayiov (Luke xi 13), or, lastly,
to irvevpa Trj<i dXri6ela<; (John xiv. 17, xvi. 13 [cf. 7 ff], xv. 26).

148 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
And in the last passage the Spirit is called 6 irapdicXr)To<}, the
succourer of the apostles, inasmuch as, in. the place of the visible
presence of their Master, Christ, the Holy Ghost was to be sent
them speciaUy as the Spirit of truth, to be a constantly abiding
principle within them (John xv. 26, or xiv. 26, cf. 16).
In proceeding, in the first place, to consider closely the Johannean
discourses of Jesus on this subject, we find two chief sections in
which the Spirit of God is directly spoken of. First, in the con
versation with Nicodemus, in which the working of the Spirit is
named in connection with aU who have an interest in the divine
kingdom, we read that without being born of the Spirit no man
can see the kingdom of God, or enter into it (John Hi. 3-10).
And, besides this, the Spirit is spoken of, but only in a figure, as
the Hving water (ch. iv.) ; and again, at the Feast of Tabernacles
(vii. 37, 38), " If any man thirst, let him come unto me and
drink," together with the evangelist's interpretation (ver. 39).
We next have our Lord's fareweU discourses. These comprise
both His teaching and His promises concerning the Holy Ghost,
with especial reference to the apostles themselves, in furthering
the object He here mainly has in view, viz. to prepare and
fortify their minds for the approaching departure. And herein
Hes the sgist of the whole matter ; because the outpouring of the
Spirit and His agency in Christ's people was to be Hi the future
the immediate consequence of Christ's glorification
Now the teaching of Jesus on this subject is essentiaUy two
fold. It is concerned partly with the relation of the Spirit to
Christ, in so far as the former is sent by the glorified Christ, and
partly with the effect of the Holy Ghost, but this also Hi connec
tion with Christ's work
The Spirit is sent by the glorified Christ. Our Loid asserts
that He sends Him from the Father (John xv. 26) : "But when
the irapdicXr)To<i is come, whom I wiU send unto you from the.
Father, even the Spirit of truth, who proceedeth from the Father,
He shaU testify of me;" cf. xvi 7 : "If I depart, I wiU send Him
unto you." Christ also imparts Him, as we see at xx. 22. The
sending of the Spirit, through the Son, from the Father, is brought
about in the foUowing mode : — He prays the Father to impart the
Spirit to the disciples, and the Father bestows Him upon them
(John xiv. 16, 17); wherefore the Lord says also in another
place that the Father wUl send the Spirit in His name (xiv. 26).

DIV. II. §24.] THE SPIRIT. 149
The Spirit proceeds from the Father (xv. 26), and, apart from any
notion of outgoing, exists primordiaUy in Him. But now we
learn that He is from the Son. The Father sends Him in the
Son's name, for His sake, and because the Son desires it for His
purpose ; because, indeed, the work of the Son, and consequently
the glorification of the Father in Him, cannot otherwise be per
fected. AU may be summed up in the words, for Christ 's sake.
It is brought about through Christ, as is clear from John xx. 22.
The risen Christ, breathing upon His disciples, says to them,
Receive ye the Holy Ghost. This must be regarded as something
more than a mere promise, but yet not as standing in the place of
the pentecostal effusion related in Acts H. The former event rests
on its own historical testimony, and is quite consistent with the
latter, K we consider that the imparting of the Spirit is not in
itseK an absolutely momentary act. For, as the disciples become
reaUy receptive, through the resurrection of Christ and their sub
sequent intercourse with Him, and as the glorification of Christ
begun at the resurrection is completed in the ascension, so we
may beHeve that the imparting of the Spirit was begun and com
pleted at these two periods respectively1 And thus it is in fact
represented by the joint testimony of St. John's Gospel and the
Acts, regarded as complementary to each other.
This sending of the Spirit is made conditional on the glorifi
cation of Jesus ; for K Christ does not depart, the Spirit wiU not
come. This going away includes Christ's exit from this Hfe,
and His departure to the Father, and consequently His death
and glorification (xiv. 28). The imparting of the Spirit is made
conditional on both these events, as weU on the side of the dis
ciples as on that of Christ HimseK.
On the side of the disciples ; because, so long as the Lord con
tinued to go in and out amongst them, they would be too closely
chained by the ascendency of His personal presence, and receptive (
only with regard to Him, being unable to attain that seK-de-
pendence which was the very object for which the Spirit was
imparted. . Now His gift of the Spirit and the withdrawal of the
Lord's sensible presence must either be simultaneous, or the latter
must occur first; and even the relative separation between our
1 Stier (Words of the Apostles) looks upon the action recorded (John xx. 22)
as symbolical of the arrival of the promised Spirit, just as the Lord's Supper
was instituted before His body was broken, or His blood shed.— Tk.

150 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
Lord and the disciples, which ensued at His death and lasted
so short a time, was an important step towards rendering possible
the imparting of the Spirit. For through His death they had be
come to a certain extent detached from His sensible presence,
and awoke to a new perception of ij; after His resurrection, kept
up as before by oral communication and the Hke. But this, in
the later period, was strictly determinate in duration, and inter
rupted by considerable intervals between one appearance and
another- During these intervals they had time to work out for
themselves the results of what they had heard and seen, being at
the same time, by the catastrophe in which they had taken part,
detached more or less from dependence on their Lord's sensible
presence. Consequently He could, as the Risen One, say even
then in an inchoative sense, Xd0ere irvevpa ayiov (John xx 22).
But on the side of Christ, no less than on that of the disciples,
the imparting of the Spirit was conditional on Christ's death and
glorification. In His lowliness, indeed, He already possessed the
Spirit without measure who had come down and remained upon
Him ; but yet, whUe His humUiation lasted, the Spirit was not,
strictly speaking, communicable on His part. It was not until
His temporal and lowly personaHty subject as it was to the con
ditions of flesh and blood, was put off by His death, and until
through the resurrection, and still more through the ascension,
His manhood had been fuUy glorified, spiritualized* and Ulu-
minated, that His promise of imparting the Spirit could be ful-
fiUed. Nothing less than the glorified Son in perfect unity with
the Father could impart the Spirit; and even He could obtain
this highest of aU gifts from the Father for mankind whom He
had redeemed, and impart it to them in the Father's name, only
as having become through His passion the one Mediator and In
tercessor, the High Priest and Saviour, received up into glory.
In aU these respects it may be seen how deeply grounded the con
dition was which He named as indispensable to the imparting of
the Spirit : His departure from earth and going to the Father was
inevitably presupposed. (It is, however, clear even from this how
the Risen One (John xx 22) could at once begin upon His work
of imparting the Spirit.)
Consequently this bestowal of the Spirit is essentially bound up
with the indwelling of Christ in unity vnth tlie Father in the
disciples who beHeve on Him, love Him, and keep His word ;

DIV. II. § 24.] THE SPIRIT. 151
for such an indweUing was promised by our Lord Himself (John
xiv. 23, cf. 21 and 26). And this exactly confirms what has
been said as to the bestowal of the Spirit being dependent on
Christ's glorification.
With regard to the effect of the Holy Ghost sent by the glorified
Christ, Jesus expresses Himself (in St. John) first, generaUy, with
reference to men as individuals and then- relation to the kingdom
of God, and then, particularly, with reference on one side to His
disciples and the apostles, and on the other to the world.
(a) The general effect of the Holy Ghost on individual men in
relation to the kingdom of God is the new birth of (e«) the Spirit
(John Hi. 3-8). Immediately on being greeted by Nicodemus
as a teacher come from God, Jesus, without aUowing him to
speak further, receives him with the definite assurance (ver. 3)
that a new birth is the necessary condition of admittance into
God's kingdom. Nicodemus' purpose had been to draw from
Jesus a more expHcit declaration concerning His mission, and the
relation in which He stood to the Messianic kingdom ; but our
Lord repHes in a manner calculated to lay hold of Nicodemus'
mind, and to convince him that the question is not a theoretical
one, but concerns that which he, Nicodemus, has to do ; and that,
moreover, the divine Teacher wiU not submit to be catechised, but
that, on the contrary, the master in Israel must come to Him for
instruction To the strange question of Nicodemus (ver. 4) Jesus
returns the same answer somewhat differently expressed (vers. 5-8).
"AvmOev, from above, may be understood in the sense of again
or anew (cf. irdXiv dvcoOev, Gal iv. 9). If it is regarded as
equivalent to e/e Qeov (cf. i 13), the words e/e irvevpaTos would
naturaUy foUow as a direct explanation ; but it is equaUy appro
priate (vers. 5, 6, 7) to the other sense of the word. In either case
the operation of the Spirit is here pointed out as an entire change
and renewal This does not proceed from man, who, being by his
natural birth carnal, receives new Hfe from the Spirit of God, in
somuch as to become spiritual, and thereby homogeneous to God's
kingdom, and able as it were to see it (IBeiv, ver. 5), and to par
take of it. This operation, although incomprehensible to man, be
cause not an object of arbitrary voHtion, is not the less thoroughly
assured to Him (ver. 8). Jesus designates the operation of man's
salvation by the general term faoiroteiv (v. 21), as a bestowal of
eternal life. And here, too, in Hke manner, He indicates the

152 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
operation which, emanating from Him, is to be carried on through
the Spirit in naturaUy carnal man, for the purpose of making him
a participant in the kingdom of God, by the name of a new birth
(yevvwdrjvai avwOev). This is essentiaUy the reception of a new
life, wherein we are as entirely passive as at our real birth. The
new birth, as an operation of the Spirit, is both a cleansing from
sin, and also the entrance into being of a new moral personaHty.
This answers to the signification of irvevp,a as the quickening
principle, and is characteristic of the teaching of Jesus concern
ing God. Various operations of the Divine Spirit are spoken of
in the Old Testament as then taking place, but not this particular
one. That God wiU impart His Spirit, and therewith a new heart,
to men in the Messianic times, is certainly a subject of prophecy.
Here, however, we have the culminating point of the operation of
the SpH-it in individuals. The Holy Ghost, as proceeding from
Christ glorified, spiritualizes the carnal nature of mankind, con
ferring upon them a real personal existence in the Spirit. Hence
forth we find the idea of a second birth attainable by Christianity
running through the apostles' teaching, and not only of frequent
occurrence in the first Epistle of St. John, but also in the writings
of the two other apostoHc gtvXoi (Gal. H.), James (i. 17, 18) and
Peter (1 Epist. i 23, cf. H. 2). St. Paul, on the other hand, more
frequently employs the image of the resurrection and that of a new
creature, only once (Tit. Hi. 5) speaking of the iraXiyyeveala in
baptism (Xovrpbv ira,Xtyyeveo~la<i).
But in a peculiar manner the Lord speaks speciaUy of the Spirit
in reference to the apostles as the first witnesses and confidential
instruments of His work and kingdom ; and in this connection
expressly mentions in one place His direct operation upon the
disciples, and then upon the world, before which they stand up as
witnesses of Christ, which also is to beHeve on Him through
their word (John xvii. 20).
Of the efect upon the apostles. To them the Spkit was to come
as Trapd/cXr/TO'}, which is rendered by Luther and the Eng. ver.
as Comforter. But although irapaicaXelv sometimes means to
console, etc., yet irapaKX^Tov, being a passive form, is not so pro
perly an admonisher and consoler, but rather the one caUed to
assist, the advocatus, counsel, or intercessor, first in a legal sense,
and then transferred to other relations. (In that sense it has also
passed into the rabbinical diction) The Lord is the disciples' help

DIV. II. § 24.] THE SPIRIT. 153
and counsel after the removal of His visible presence from among
them ; the Spirit was to be His substitute with the disciples,
and is therefore caUed a\\o? irapdicXriTos. He was not, however,
to confront them in outward and visible presence like Christ
HimseK, but to be in them, without ever withdrawing His presence,
as constantly as Christ had been in former days visibly standing
at their side (John xiv. 1 7). The Spirit abides with them ek
tov alSiva, and hence dwells in them permanently, and thereby
becomes their guiding principle. And if it is asked what special
effect the SpHit is to produce in them, we find the Lord declaring
that special regard was to be paid to their impending duty as
witnesses of Christ. In the character of an indweUing principle,
the Holy Ghost was to work as the Spirit of truth, irvevpa t^s
aXtjOelai (John xiv. 17, xvi 13, xv. 26). They are to receive Him
from the Father, in answer to the Son's prayer, as an abiding and
indwelling principle, and in such a way that they may discern
(xiv. 17) and be conscious of His presence (which the world
cannot be). They wUl recognise Him as the Spirit of truth,
inasmuch as He wUl actively manifest HimseK as a principle
pervading them, and constantly abiding with them ; they wUl be
conscious of Him, and He wUl lead them into aU truth (et? irdaav
Tf)v dXrjdeiav 6Brfyeiv)j and so prove HimseK to be the Spirit of
truth. He wiU not speak of HimseK, but of that which' concerns
the Father and the Son (xvi 14), and wiU impart divine know
ledge, especially to the apostles, of what relates to the future de
velopment of His kingdom (xvi 13), — both, however, with a view
to the glorification of Christ (xvi 14). He HimseK asserts that
by the communication of the Spirit (xiv. 16 sq, 20) the apostles
wiU know that Christ is in the Father, and they in Christ, and
He in them. The Spirit of truth was therefore to lead the
apostles into the essential knowledge of the truth concerning the
person of Christ, so far as He is in the Father and the Father in
Him, and, in the next place, of that which concerned this com
munity with Christ, so far as they are in Him and He in them.
Consequently a mutual community of Hfe takes place between
them and Christ; and hence that which the SpHit imparts to
them of the knowledge of the truth must also be a witness of
Christ. And this is the true value of the expression, " He (the
irapaKX7}To<s) shaU testify of me " (xv. 26), and " shaU glorify me "
(xvi 14). But what the SpHit imparts is, on the one hand, the

154 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I,
remembrance of Christ s own teaching (xiv. 26): " He shaU teach
you aU things, and bring aU things to your remembrance whatso
ever I have said unto you;" and this in order to rescue His
words from obHvion, and fix them for ever in theH memory. On
the other hand, the Spirit also imparts knowledge of the truth ;
because, in addition to His office of reminding the disciples, He has
also to teach them. And this teaching, in so far as the Spirit
"shaU receive of Christ and show it unto you" (xvi. 14, 15)/ will
be based upon a development of Christ's direct teaching, where
not actuaUy consisting in recalHng His words to mind. The col
lective teaching of the Spirit has therefore the two characteristics
of being founded on the teaching of Jesus, and of glorifying Him
as the Christ. Its first object, however, is to fit the disciples for
their apostoHc caUing as the trusted witnesses and authorized
organs of Christ (cf. xv. 26, 27, and xx 22, 23); and this
stands (see above) Hi connection with the indweUing of Himself
and of the Father which Christ promised (xiv. 23, 24 [26]),
and as an effect of the SpHit, with the fact that the disciples in
that day shaU ask nothing more of Him (xvi 23), but shaU pray
in the name of Jesus and find their requests granted. One other
passage remains to be considered, in which the reception of the
Spirit is placed in evident relation to the vocation of the apostles,
— not, however, so much in then character of disciples as in that
of authorized and accredited organs of Christ (John xx 22, 23).
Here He adds to His inchoative bestowal of the Holy Ghost,
" Whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them," etc.
The opposite of remitting is retaining, by which the guUt and
punishment of sin is asserted to be unremitted and unforgiven.
The apostles could not by then own power forgive sins. For
giveness is a divine act, which could, however, be accomplished ,
through the apostles in vHtue of a divine commission With this
commission they were now entrusted, — that of announcing to men
on divine authority that then sins were forgiven or unforgiven.
But in order to give vaHdity to then sentence, the Holy Ghost
was needed, that they might know and judge rightly of the
inward condition and moral state of heart of the individuals with
whom they had to do, and upon this ground either to grant or
withhold the announcement of divine pardon. And this was not
merely an inteUectual endowment; because moral aptitude, a pure
heart, and a sanctified wUl, no less than intellectual capacity, are

DIV. II. §24.] THE SPIRIT. 155
requisite for a right judgment of a man's moral state, to arrive at
the truth and justly to enunciate the same. The authority given
to Peter (Matt, xvi 19), and extended to the other disciples
(Matt, xviii 18), is expressed in simUar terms, but is of somewhat
wider compass than this. For, although binding and loosing refer
to the retention and remission of sins, and does not mean (as
Lutz says) the act of binding to or loosing from the community,
yet it is not Hmited to this, but, as that which is bound is also
forbidden, and that which is loosed is aUowed, extends also to the
laying down of ordinances and decrees in the Lord's church, with
this difference, that the authorization is not in St. Matthew ex
pressly connected with the imparting of the Holy Ghost.
But all these utterances of the Lord, concerning the operations
of the Holy Ghost upon the disciples, must no doubt be taken in
connection with their special apostolical calling. In these men the
Spirit was to bring about not only this second bHth, or commu
nity of Hfe with the Redeemer, whereby human powers Hi general
are enHsted Hi the service of Christ and His kingdom, and man's
carnal nature becomes spiritual, but, in particular, such an inner
fulness of light and Hfe as should place them Hi the position of
apostoHcal witnesses for Christ, His chosen instruments and de
puties in founding and guiding His church. Hence the apostles
themselves, amongst the manffold gifts and vocations imparted
and created by the Holy Ghost, always give the foremost place
to the apostolical gift (1 Cor. xH. 28 ; Eph. iv. 11). But these
gifts, even regarded in theH special character, are not conferred on
one person only, — the apostoHcal gfft, for example, being bestowed
on aU the apostles ; and shnUarly, in the new bHth, aU partici
pate, and, so far as it transplants men into the community of IKe
with Christ, is identical in aU. Thus the Holy Ghost is the one
divine power of Hfe which animates aU beHevers, and, trans
planting them into a state of Hfe-feUowship with then head, at
the same time binds them aU one to another in mutual love
(John xHi. 34, xv. 12, 17). So far, and so far only, the Holy
Ghost is undoubtedly the SpHit common to Christians. His
operation is, however, by no means confined to beHevers, but
extends also
To the world. The Holy Ghost, when He came, was also to
make the world His object. As the Paraclete sent to the dis
ciples, abiding in and working out from them, He was to " reprove

156 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
the. world" (eXey)(eiv (John xvi. 8-11) = convict, convince of,
involving the idea of blame). This is the leading, or rather the
characteristic, feature as regards the world, that the world, as such,
stands in opposition to God, neither knowing nor loving Him, and
in consequence neither knowing nor loving, but rather hating the
Son likewise (John xvi. 2, 3). Now, when the SpHit makes
this world the subject of His influence, His first and enduring
operation must be to convince the world of error on its own part,
and of right on the part of Christ and of God. Accordingly, the
Lord says that the SpHit, when He is come to the disciples, will
convince the world TrejOt dpapTias, BiKaioo-vvi)?, Kpt<rew$, And,
first of aU, with regard to the two subjects, dpaprla and Bucaiotrvvq
(vers. 9, 1 0). The word oti is expHcative and expositivein both
verses, explaining the sin that they beHeve not on Him ; and the
rendering because amounts to nearly the same thing. Here we
see what are the subjects of the sin and of the righteousness;
respectively. The former is the world itself, which does not
believe in Christ ; the latter is Christ, who is HimseK the right
eousness, and is going to the Father, departing out of the visible
world into the Hivisible. On the side of the world is sin, the sin
of unbeHef in Christ, by which sin the world rejected Him ; and
the first thing for the SpHit to effect is to convince the world of its
sin committed through want of beHef in Christ. And the world's
incapacity with regard to the truth is not declared to be merely
of the nature of sin, but that it is itseK sin. Opposed to this sin
stands righteousness, the righteousness of Christ. The words on
virdym show that the divine speaker Himself is the subject of
whom the SpHit wiU convince the world, firstly and chiefly that
He is righteous (Bi/caio?, 1 John H. 1), and is the person He de
clared Himself to be in this world, whom no one, as He Himself
said, could convince of sin or untruth (John viH. 46) ; and as
such being sanctioned and justified by the Father HimseK, not
only by His death and resurrection, but also by His departure to >
the Father. He is justified (1 Tim. Hi. 16), and beHevers are
made partakers of His justification. Hence, however, arises the
thHd point, of which the SpHit wiU convince the world, viz. the
judgment passed upon the prince of this world. The prince of
this world is judged ; and he must needs be not only continually
kept separate from it, but at the last judgment finaUy rejected.
But his cause is already lost (cf. John Hi. 18), because Christ, the

DIV. II. §24.] THE SPIRIT. 157
Biicaios, is exalted to the Father, and whoever faUs to attain
righteousness in feUowship with Him must faU under the aplais,
which is aHeady passing and yet to pass upon the prince of this
world. The world, then, has the choice proposed to it, whether
to remain as it is, or to aUow itseK to be convinced by the work
ing of the Spirit, and so to attain to the BiKaioavvr). But the only
way of salvation for it is to press onward to righteousness, through '
conviction of sin and of Christ's righteousness, and so to escape
the Kpi'o-i?. The world, as such, is unable either even to see or
know the SpHit ; it requires to be awakened and convinced by
Him before it can receive Him as a gKt. On this effective
ministry of the SpHit is founded our Lord's confident expectation
that the world wiU, at least partiaUy, come to believe on Him as
the One sent by the Father (John xvH. 21). Thus the teaching
of Jesus concerning the relation of the SpHit both to the Father
and to Christ, and His operation upon the disciples and upon the
world, forms a connected whole, although the utterances them
selves do not externaUy amount to this.
Looking now from the Johannean to the synoptical sayings of
Jesus, we see,
In reference to the operation of the Holy Spirit in general, that
in Him are centred all the good gifts which the Father wiU give
to those who ask Him (Luke xi. 13 ; cf. Matt. vH 11). Add to
this our Lord's answer to the question, "Who, then, can be saved?"
asked by His disciples in their perplexity at what He had said
about the young man who went away from Him sorrowful His
answer was, as He fixed His eyes upon them, " With man this is
impossible, but with God all things are possible." Here we see
that God the Father works in us, by the bestowal of His Spirit,
the power of entering into the kingdom of God, the o-a>8rjvai ;
also, that salvation depends as essentially on the Holy Ghost as
on the Father and the Son, is evident from the form of baptism
(Matt, xxviii. 19).
In special reference to the disciples, the Lord promises that He
wiU send them from on high the strength promised by the Father
(Luke xxiv. 49), or that they shaU receive the strength of the
Holy SpHit shed upon them, in order to become thereby His
witnesses (Acts i 8, cf. 5). In His instructions to the apostles
(Matt. x. 20; Luke xH. 12), the Lord had already told them to
take no care how or in what words they should defend them-

158 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
selves, should it become necessary to do so, for that it is not
they who would speak, but theH Father's SpHit in them ; adding
later (Luke xxi 15), that He wiU at the right moment give them
o-Top,a and <ro<pla, to speak in theH own defence.
As regards the operation of the Spirit upon the world, what St.
John says of the eXey%eiv of the irvevp,a is supplemented by the
sayings of Jesus about the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost
(Matt. xii. 32 ; Mark Hi. 29 ; Luke xii. 10). Our Lord is here
speaking of such an exhibition of the Spirit's agency as wiU com
pel His recognition by the world on which it is exercised. The
world wUl, however, knowingly and willingly blaspheme Him, and
thus oppose His operations, especiaUy hindering them in the case
of others. The SpHit appears here purely as a divine being;
whereas the Son of man, although the Son of God also, appears
constantly under a human form, in which blasphemy agamst Him
may be susceptible of forgiveness. In the SpHit the Father and
the Son are at the same time made manifest to men, and there
with is bestowed a witness in theH inmost heart, a special expe
rience not as yet found necessary so long as man was in personal
intercourse with the Son. This involves a declaration of the fact
that the SpHit, although no less truly of a divine nature, is dis
tinct from the Father and the Son.
It is easily seen how, on this subject, the synoptical discourses
supplement, or at least give a joint testimony with those recorded, by
St. John. In the latter respect, they bear undoubted evidence that
the Lord reaUy promised the Holy Ghost, and brought to Hght the
pecuHar agency He was about to assume Hi relation to the apostles
and the world. And as regards the relation of the Spirit to Christ
and to the Father, we see that, although the Johannean discourses
are more explicit as to the communication of the SpHit, and the
special conditions under which He was to be imparted, yet that the
Synoptists also bear witness that our Lord must have spoken to
much the same effect. On the one hand, He says less expHcitly,
" You wiU receive the power of the Spirit," or, " It is your
Father's Spirit who speaks in you;" and, on the other, with greater
precision, that the Father wiU give the Holy Ghost to those who
ask Him (Luke xi. 13); and further, that He wiU send down
upon the disciples the strength from on high promised by the
Father, and wiU endow them with wisdom to speak in their own
defence. Thus the synoptical utterances are in close and signi-

DIV. II. §24.] THE SPIRIT. 159
Scant connection with the Johannean, although the latter surpass
the former in the expHcitness of individual statements.
What, then, is the result arrived at by comparing both sides
of the gospel teaching on the subject of the Holy Ghost ? The
question arises, whether and in what degree the objective existence
and the personality of the Holy Ghost is deducible from it?
As regards the first point, there can be no doubt that, in the
teaching of Jesus, the Holy Ghost is represented as an objective
Spirit in respect to man, and is defined as operative and indweUing
in human subjects, — the disciples, for instance, — but in no other
way than as stUl being the Spirit of the Father, in whom men are
made partakers through the intervention of Jesus Christ. He
exists in and by Himself with the Father ; from the Father He
proceeds, and by, the intervention of the Son is imparted and sent
(John xv. 26, xvi. 14, 15). Whether He proceeds from the
Father or from the Son (John xvi 7, xv. 26), we may readUy
perceive that He is regarded in the passages quoted as existing
not merely in man, but also objectively as a divine existence.
The same is evident K we compare John vii. 39, where the sub
ject is not the existence of the SpHit generaUy, nor His operation
under the Old Testament dispensation, but only His communica
tion to Christian beHevers. The objective existence of the Holy
Ghost is clear from Matt. xxviH. 19, where baptism is enjoined
in the name of all three Persons. This ovopa tov dylov irvev-
paTO<s represents Him in His objective existence. But this leads
us to the second question,
Whether the Lord's discourses do not lead further to the per
sonality of the Holy Ghost ? There can be no doubt that the turn
of expression, both in the discourses in St. John and elsewhere, is
such as would be used in speaking of a person. The Father, says
Jesus, sends the SpHit in my name (John xiv. 16), as He Himself
is come in the Father's name (v. 43). The Spirit is the irapd-
kXtjtov, who, as the substitute of Christ, was, we know, to be the
helper and guide of the apostles (xv. 26, xiv. 16). This is ex
pressed just as if a person was spoken of; and, moreover, where to
irvevpa ayiov is the subject, we find the masculine pronoun e/ceivo<i
used (xvi. 13, 14, and xiv. 26), always, indeed, referring to irapd-
kXt)to<;, even when that word is not close to it, but still show
ing that to irvevpa ayiov, as an independent subject, is intended
by the speaker (xiv. 26, cf. 16). In the Synoptists, too, we must

1G0 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
remember that it says (Matt, x 20), "It is the SpHit of your
Father which speaketh in you," — He, therefore, being the speaking
subject. But here arises the question, whether this mode of re
presentation is intended as more than a personKying form ; and
Hi some of the discourses there might be a just reason and aim
for such a rhetorical personKying, especiaUy in our Lord's farewell
discourses, where His object was to comfort the disciples, and
emphaticaUy point out to them the community of IKe subsisting J
between Himself and the Father, in which they were for the
future to find aU the Ulumination and strength which then posi
tion required. It would be in harmony with this object to speak
of the Holy Ghost as a person, although not in a Hteral sense,
and to use the word irapdteXriTos with distinct reference to that
object. But since this result might have been equaUy weU at
tained by pointing the disciples to HimseK as the Christ shortly
to be glorified for ever, who would not leave them orphans, but
would come again and bestow His Spirit upon them, for what
purpose, it might be asked, need the SpHit have been personified ?
for our Lord's object would be perfectly effected by the indwell
ing of the Son and of the Father (xiv. 21, 23, cf. 18). Why,
then, add the temptation to such a misunderstanding ? A hint of
the Spirit's personaHty is traceable also in the paralleHsm pointed
out (John Hi.) to the natural phenomena of wind, to irvevpa oirov
BeXei irvei (ver. 8), implying that the SpHit too nas a w^ (°£ 1 Cor.
xii. 11). Add to this, Hi our Lord's speeches there is .nothing
against the Spirit's personaHty. As regards the general biblical
representation, the fact has been appealed to, that the Holy Ghost
is described as something which may be poured out. This is no
doubt correct, although it does not occur in the discourses of Jesus '
Himself. Yet in Jesus' words we read of being endued with power
from on " high" (Luke xxiv. 49) as the reception of the Holy
Ghost, or rather of His power (Acts i 8). That which is received,
however, and wherewith men are endued is power, but it is the
power of the " Spirit which is to come upon you." This HnpHes
the independence of the SpHit. He Himself comes, and His
power is imparted in the way spoken of. The figure of outpour
ing may be simUarly regarded. The power of the Holy Ghost is
poured out, and the symbol of this is the Hving water, refreshing
and Hfe-giving ; and in this symbol only does the mention of
drHiking, overflowing, and becoming a fountain of Hving water

DIV. II. § 25.] FATHER, SON, AND SPIRIT. 161
occur. In short, nothing of any weight can be cited from the
.discourses of Jesus against the personaHty of the Holy Ghost ; and
the words (John xvi. 14, 15), "He shaU receive of mine and
show it unto you," need not raise a doubt. For if we infer that,
because the Spirit wiU glorify Christ by taking of what belongs
to Him, the former is nothing of Himself, this proves too much,
since Christ also says that everything which the Father has is
His (xvi. 15, xvii. 10), and vice versa. And as our Lord clearly
does not in those words in any way intend to deny His own
special personality and independence in reference to the Father,
neither can the words above quoted of the SpHit be adduced
against His individuality, but as expressing the unity of being and
close reciprocity of vital action subsisting between the Father,
Himself, and the Spirit. In other parts of the New Testament,
where the Spirit is spoken of in the fullest detaU, attributes
appear in which He is described as a personal subject (1 'Cor.
xn. II).1 Lastly, there is the analogy between the doctrine con
cerning the Son and the Spirit, viz. that as the Son is sent by the
Father, so is the Spirit sent by the Father, in the name and
through the intervention of the Son. And, inasmuch as in the
Johannean discourses the pre-existence of the Son is expressly
asserted, it is quite in harmony if we assume as predicates concern
ing the Spirit, that He not only possesses generally an objective
existence, but also a distinct individual personality. And the
formula of baptism (Matt, xxviii. 19) gives pecuHar weight to
this analogy, where the words ovopa tov iraTpb<;, k.t.X., lead us
to the same point, the name of the Holy Ghost pointing to the
personal existence of the SpHit, which is indeed the culminating
point of the teaching of Jesus and of the New Testament concern
ing Him. The subject, however, is not yet exhausted ; but we
now pass on to a further result, which must be separately dealt
with. § 25. Father, Son, and Spirit.
Here we have at last a perfect conception of God. In the
name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, He is represented to
us entirely according to Christ's teaching. Hence the synoptical
1 Peter's words addressed to Ananias and Sapphira (Acts v. 3, 4, 9) distinctly
speak of a lying to and a temptation of a personality. In ver. 3 the Holy Ghost
is made equivalent to God. — Tk. L

162 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
passage (Matt, xxviii 19) forms the cHmax in the representation
of the risen Christ, and herein the evangeHst puts the finishing
stroke to his narrative of the Messianic life. Here, after reveal
ing HimseK to the eleven on the mountain He had before pointed
out to them, the risen Christ uttered those memorable words :
" AU power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. Go ye
therefore, and teach aU nations, baptizing them in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them
to observe aU things whatever I have commanded you ; and lo, I
am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." This is
evidently the climax of the evangelical history, the completion of
our Lord's testimony to HimseK, wherein He asserts the glorifica
tion of His personality with reference to His divine authority, and
confers upon the disciples their peculiar apostoHcal commission,
with the promise conformable to it. No wonder that His whole
teaching is concentrated on this point, and indeed in connection
with the injunction of baptism on the apostles. Thus a beautiful
consistency is given to the whole.
Yet the historical character of this passage has been strongly called
in question (as by TeUer and De Wette). It has been said (1)
that St. Mark knows nothing of it (cf. xvi. 16) ; but we know
that many things are related more copiously by one evangelist,
and more briefly by another, and that the latter part of St.
Mark's Gospel is evidently condensed. There does not, therefore,
seem to be much weight in the objection. It is said (2) that such
a reflective summary of the threefold view of God might have
occurred to the apostles (2 Cor. xiii. 14), but hardly in Christ's
teaching, and, even with the former, hardly as a subject of con
fession. But what St. Matthew gives is neither of these, but
simply the complete expression of the nature of God mamfested
in the gospel to point out the signification of baptism. Considered
from this point of view, this statement might quite well occur ;
indeed, it is in a manner necessary. This was exactly the right
point for its introduction ; nor could the Lord have used such a
complete expression at any earlier time than this, when the dis
ciples not only did not stumble at it, but were approaching the
state in which they could take in its fuU meaning. Not untU they
had seen and recognised their risen Lord in His elevation, and re
volved in their minds the great fact of the resurrection, then, but
not earlier, were they capable of receiving such a declaration

DIV. II. § 25.] FATHER, SON, AND SPIRIT. 163
A further objection is derived from the comparison of the bap
tismal formula with the account given in the Acts of the Apostles.
It is doubted whether in the Acts baptism reaUy took place in
the name of the Father, Son, and SpHit ; and it is concluded
from Acts vHi. 16, that any reference to baptism in the name of
the Holy Ghost is wanting in the apostoHcal times, at least on
some occasions. The Samaritans who had been converted by
PhUip are being there spoken of, a considerable number of whom,
and amongst them Simon Magus, had been baptized. And when
the tidings reached Jerusalem, Peter and John were sent down,
and prayed with the new converts, in order that they might re
ceive the Holy Ghost ; for He had not yet faUen upon them, only
they were baptized in the name of Jesus. But a man may be
baptized in the Holy Ghost without His having faUen upon the
baptized person (Acts viH. 16) ; and the stress is here laid upon
the fact of their mere baptism, not upon theH having received
baptism exclusively in the name of Jesus, which is not at aU im-
pHed in the passage. They had been baptized without having
received the Spirit ; and the expression " in the name of Jesus"
may weU have been an abbreviation, by no means implying that
the act was not performed in the name of the Father, Son, and
Spirit. It must not be assumed that PhiHp the deacon baptized
differently from the apostles, — an assumption which must be made
K this baptism administered by him Hi the name of Jesus had no
reference to the name of the Holy Ghost. Indeed, from Acts xix.
2-5, the contrary might as easUy be maintained. Paul asked
some disciples whom he met at Ephesus whether they received
the Holy Ghost after they beHeved. Their reply was, " We have
not so much as heard whether there be any Holy Ghost ; " where
upon Paul asks again, " Unto what then were ye baptized ? " and
they said, " Unto John's baptism." Here it is very obvious to
conclude that, since Paul presupposes they must, if baptized
rightly, have heard somewhat of the Holy Ghost, baptism was
performed also in the name of that person. We may thus con
clude that it cannot be proved from the Acts of the Apostles that
baptism was in the earliest ages of Christianity performed with
out reference to the Holy Ghost. (3) It is said that the scruples
which the apostles at first felt about baptizing the heathen are
not consistent with our Lord's command to visit and baptize aU
nations But these scruples, whether on the part of the apostles

164 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PARTI.
(Acts x), or of the Christians at Jerusalem (xi. 1-3), had no re
gard to the general question of baptizing the heathen, or teaching
them the Christian reHgion, but only to the point whether they
were to receive baptism without having been first admitted into
the Old Testament covenant by circumcision. The apostles might,
from their then existing standpoint, easily cherish this scruple,
without at aU forgetting the general injunction to baptize. From
this, therefore, no conclusion can be drawn against the genuineness
of the injunction as recorded by St. Matthew ; and, according to
the eariiest historical testimony, apart from the New Testament
(Justin Martyr, for instance), baptism was administered in the
prescribed form.
If, from what has been said, we do not hesitate to regard the
command to baptize as of like credibility with the other recorded
utterances of Jesus, it remains only to consider its signification.
In order to make disciples of aU nations, the apostles were com
manded to baptize them in the name of the Father, Son, and
Holy Ghost, to teach them, and to observe aU things which the
Lord has commanded. Therefore the consecration resulting from
the act of immersion is to be conferred upon them in that name.
The relation of the act of baptizing to God and Christ being
often expressed by a preposition with ovopa, we often find fiair-
ti&iv in connection with that word (cf. DB9 MD in proselyte bap
tism, see Bindseil in UUm. and Umbr. Stud, und Krit. 1832), —
for example, iirl t& (Acts H. 38), to indicate the aim and condi
tion of the act ; ev to> (x. 48), showing that the act of baptism i
is rooted and rests in the name ; and lastly (in the formula
itself), eh to ovopa, to express the general reference of the act of
consecration to the name of God.
The name of God is pronounced over men and laid upon them
(see Num. vi. 2 7), firstly, in a biblical view, in order to secure a
blessing, God being therein present for their salvation (so Justin,
Apol. 1 61). The use of the name of God is therefere an act of
consecration, in which the name is pronounced over the baptized
person with a view to his blessing and salvation, that God may
be present with His mercy and may bring him salvation.
But the name is also used in invocation, worship, and confes
sion, wherein the beHever expresses and avaUs himseK of this
presence of God HimseK. Baptism is administered in God's
name in this twofold sense, that God is henceforward present to

DIV. II. § 25.] FATHER, SON, AND SPIRIT. 165
the baptized person as his salvation, and may be invoked by him ;
and the word ovopa indicates the name of God in this connection
in its threefold appHcation. Lutz, indeed, says (Bibl. Bog.
p. 333) that the juxtaposition of the names is no proof of then
equaHty, — that the Son remains subordinated to God, the latter
bestowing glory, the former receiving it, but stUl as the One con
ceived, consecrated, and sent forth from God. Divinity, he adds,
belongs to the Son, in so far as He, in His spHit, wiU, and work,
is inseparably bound up with God, and is undoubtedly, in His
character as Son, God's representative in human nature without
obscuring Him. The Holy Ghost he represents as the divine
power, working effectually in human nature for Hght and sancti
fication, and possessing divinity but not personaHty. This, how
ever, is not a faithful interpretation of the sense, and there are
substantial reasons against it.
Supposing Jesus to be conscious of His pre-existence, the re
quirements of His being are not satisfied by His representation of
God in human nature ; for in HimseU and in this pre-existence
He already stands in a relation of unity to God, and of distinc
tion from Him as the Father. Nor, as we have already shown,
is the SpHit merely the mamfestation of a divine power.
Although the juxtaposition of the subject does not of itself
necessarUy imply equaHty yet the uniform relation of baptism
to aU three names does so. Each of them is a divine ground of
salvation, since for this there can be no other than a divine
ground ; and it is difficult to see why the Spirit, K He were
nothing but the power of God, should be so expressly mentioned,
especiaUy in addressing those who were accustomed to the Old
Testament usage in the name of God.
The doctrine of the Son's pre-existence and of the distinct per
sonaHty of the SpHit is supplemented by the administration of
baptism in their name as weU as in that of the Father. Although
the matter dHectly Hi question is only the foundation of salva
tion in the Son and Hi the SpHit, stiU indirectly some Hght is
thrown upon the nature of both. The Son, we know, has Hfe in
HimseK : how then wUl it be with the SpHit ? At all events,
the difference does not involve absolute inequaHty, since the
equaHty of causal relation in which, in baptism, each stands to
salvation imparts a unity even in their difference ; and it is just
this interlacing of their relations which gives fulness and Hfe to

166 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
the conception of the Christian's God, and in the highest degree
of Jesus HimseK. Thus it is a synoptical passage which throws
new Hght Hi a deeper connection upon the nature of the Son and
SpHit, our knowledge of which is derived chiefly from the utter
ances recorded by St. John.
Some passages Hi the fareweU discourses in St. John's Gospel
serve as Ulustrations of this subject (John xiv. 16, 17, cf. 20, 21,
26), — "I wUl pray the Father, and He shaU give you another
Paraclete, that He may abide with you for ever." It is the
Father who, in answer to the prayer of the Son, gives the Spirit
as a continual help abiding in the disciples. And through this
Spirit the disciples wiU know that Christ is in the Father, and
that there exists between them and Christ a mutual feUowship
of life. So also, in ver. 26, the Father sends the Spirit in the
Son's name ; the Son is the efficient cause of this mission ; the
SpHit glorifies Christ, and carries His work to stiU further results.
In John xv. 26 the three are similarly placed together: the
Spirit goes forth, and Christ sends Him from the Father. Again
(xvi 7-1 5) the SpHit who is sent as Paraclete glorifies Christ, for
what He imparts is of Christ.
From these passages we learn the unity of the three ; for in
none of them is there any overstepping from the GodHke into the
likeness of a creature. AU three are the active principle of divine
salvation just as in the baptismal formula, the latter being no
more than the consequent setting forth of the fundamental idea
herein contained. In this way the testimony on each side con
firms that on the other. But the distinction, no less than the
unity of the three, takes a prominent and characteristic place in
the Johannean discourses in which the agency of the divine per
sons is spoken of. In the formula of baptism, it is only indi
cated by theH juxtaposition as the ground of salvation, whUst
the Johannean passages express it more in detaU by a statement
of theH action. In theH juxtaposition, it is a matter of course
that the Father holds the foremost place, for the Son Himself
points to Him as the one from whom He has received power to
have Hfe in HimseK (John v. 26 ; cf. CoL ii. 9). The SpHit is
He whom the Son had without measure ; and because He had
Him in such totaHty as God-man, where it must have taken
place through moral intervention, we see the Spirit actuaUy
descend upon Him at His baptism. AU communication of the

DIV. II. § 25.] FATHER, SON, AND SPIRIT. 167
SpHit is immediately bound up with the glorification of the Son
He proceeds, indeed, from the Father, but only through the Son's
intervention. And hence it foUows that the SpHit, no less than
the Father and the Son, is a perfect divine being. God is a
spHit (John iv. 24). The Lord is a spHit (2 Cor. iii. 17); and the
Spirit, when He is named on His own account, is no other than
the one here named. When any divine Hfe is to be implanted,
it is done through the influence, or rather indweUing, of this
SpHit. This, however, always stands in connection with the in-
• dwelling of Christ and of the Father HimseK in believers (John
xiv. 23), — a proof how they belong to each other, and how we
with all three always remain in the same circle of the one divine
being. So it is also in the conversation with Nicodemus (John
Hi) : the Spirit, as something truly divine, is the principle of the
second birth (vers. 3-8), and as such is again distinguished from
the Father and Son (cf. ver. 16).
Now this is just the pecuHarity which we find unexampled in
the whole world. The unity of being, combined with a threefold
personaHty, is the divine fulness of Hfe and perfection of person
aHty, which in its richness and Hfe defines the Christian idea of
God. But certainly, in our present state of knowledge, seeing as
we do " in a glass darkly" (ev alviypan), it remains veUed from
us in an obscurity which we strive in vain to penetrate. And
so the Lord says, no man hath ever seen God except the Son.
And yet the apostles clearly attest the fundamental conception of
His nature (2 Cor. xiu. 13; cf. 1 Cor. xii. 4-6 ; 1 Pet. i 2 ;
Rev. i 4-6). The dogma of a triune God, Father, Son, and
SpHit, is indispensable as the foundation, or, some would say, as
the hypothesis, for the Christian doctrine of salvation ; and Christ
HimseK led the apostles to believe in it, without thinking it
necessary to enter into detaUed explanations of the inner being
of God in this threefold relation.
It is an interesting question, why the nature of the Holy Ghost,
in particular, is veiled in such obscurity. The darkness which
envelopes the Triad refers especially to two points: first, the
unity of the three, which, as an equaHty, is single in its character ;
and, secondly, the aspect under which, in this Triad, the mani
festation of the Lord in the world is to be regarded, — as concerns
the Son, in so far as He is at the same time Son of God and Son
of man ; so that obscurity rests not only on the Trinitarian re-

168 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
lation of the Son to the Father and to the Spirit, but also on the
connection of the pre-existing Christ with the man Jesus. Yet
this manKestation among mankind of the one who existed before
the foundation ol the world is weU known to us, because it has
become matter of history, and not only lay hidden in Christ's
self-consciousness after His appearance, but also declared itseK in
His testimony. The case of the SpHit is somewhat different, in
whom, likewise, God works and dweUs in the world ; although
the SpHit had not (Hi our Lord's time) adequately asserted His
manifestation as a person in the same way as the pre-existent
Christ had done by His appearance as the God-man. The latter,
indeed, possessed the Spirit without measure, but not the SpHit
in the Trinitarian sense; and, consequently, at the point then
reached in the course of divine revelation the Spirit was not
adequately manifested as the Spirit; and therefore, so far, the
personaHty of the SpHit is not so plainly evident as that of the
Son in His pre-existence. He is, indeed, promised by Christ, and
essentiaUy delineated in the promise itself, which, however, has been
fiUed only up to a certain point, but is not yet complete. The
community of Christ is not yet complete ; the union of the whole
spiritual world with Christ its Head is not yet in reality fully
accompHshed. There is a stage stUl before us in the course of
divine revelation (as may be inferred from our Lord's own
teaching) at which the Spirit wiU be for the first time revealed in
His fulness, and at which, consequently, His personal Hfe and
being wiU be set in evidence before us. UntU then, however,
man's knowledge of the Triad • has not yet reached its highest
attainable limits, even though we suppose that man can never
perfectly penetrate its depths. But this assumption itseK may not
be altogether admissible, if, at least, we base our view on the
words, "We shaU know, even as we are known," — which is a
sufficient reason, in reference to the culminating point of our
Lord's teaching about the nature of God as Father, Son, and
SpHit, to induce us to continue to pursue our investigations
with aU reverence and humility. Thus some passages remain,
which appear to stand in relation to this teaching, which have not
been investigated as much as might be possible. In reference to
the stUl future manifestation of the Spirit, we cannot but re
member how the Church is called the Bride of the Lord (Rev.
xxH. 17), and what is said of a revelation of the whole iroXv-

DIV. II. § 25] FATHER, SON, AND SPIRIT. 169
irot/ciXos <ro(pca (Eph. Hi 10), and the irdca iraTpia in heaven
and earth (Eph. Hi. 15), — a future manifestation of the Spirit,
of which a hint, but no more, is given in 1 Cor. xii.
From this point, where we see how much modesty and re
verence are needed for the comprehension of the subject, it is
interesting to turn back once more to the Old Testament, and to
inquHe how far this culmination of the New Testament conception
of God is there pre-signified or stated. Now, in the ancient
theology of our Church, it was thought, as a matter of course, that
the doctrine of the Trinity was to be found in the old covenant;
but certainly the exegetical proofs adduced are insufficient to prove
the idea. These proofs are mainly either the passages in which
the plural form of the name of God is used with a singular verb,
and vice versa, or those which show a pluraHty in the divine attri
butes, — such as the thrice Holy of Isaiah, and others to the same
effect. It must not, however, be overlooked that traces exist in
the Old Testament of a tendency towards that fuUer development
of doctrine on this subject which is found in the New Testament
teaching, especiaUy in that of our Lord. Thus it is important to
observe the prominent position given to the angel of Jehovah, the
angel of the Lord icaT e^o^v, partly to distinguish Him from
the lower angels, and partly to identify Him with Jehovah, with
God Himself. This angel of God appears in Gen. xvi. 10, 11,
cf. 13, xxi. 17 seq, xxH. 1 seq. (11), xxxi. 11 seq. (xxxii. 25);
Ex. xiv. 19, xxiU. 20 seq, xxxH. 34, and some later passages.
His attributes have also been compared (Isa. lxHi. 9). The angel
of the Lord, or of the covenant, appears in the later prophets
(MaL Hi 1), and then also in relation to the Messianic expectation
(cf. Dan. x), Zech. i.-vi. So much the more remarkable is it that
Daniel himself represents as a Son of man Him who was to have
everlasting dominion over aU nations (vHi. 13, 14). The wielder
of divine sovereignty is here represented as comHig from heaven ;
and this forms the Hnk between this passage and others in the
later prophets, where the angel of the covenant is bound up with
the hope of the Messiah. Here, however, He appears as the Son
of manj in which character the wielder of the divine sovereignty is
now represented, instead of, as heretofore, in that of an angel of
Jehovah ; and thus may we imagine the course of development to
be. The appearances of the angel were merely momentary ; and
his words and deeds were looked upon as those of the Lord Him-

170 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
seK This, which is the first mention of His becoming man,
forms an element in the development of Trinitarian doctrine, and
the germinating point in the Old Testament with which the
teaching of Jesus is connected ; it is the angel of the Lord who, as
the substratum of Messianic expectation in the prophets, brings at
length into view the Lord HimseK personaUy present amongst men.
A second Old Testament element is that, of the divine wisdom.
This assumed a position of ever-growing importance amongst the
divine attributes tiU it approached the form of an hypostasis.
FinaUy, we have to notice the manner in which God's word and
God's SpHit were displayed as modes of revealing the Godhead
(Ps. xxxiii. 6). In each of these terms there is a gradual unfolding
of doctrine, in which, little by little, the idea assumes a definite
shape, resulting at last in the fuUy developed doctrine of the
Trinity, — the Word of God having at length, by successive steps,
become the Aoyos in the prologue of St. John's Gospel (cf. Heb.
iv. 1 2). In the Aoyov, Word and Wisdom aHke find theH highest
expression (since Xoyov = reason as weU as word), and hence be
come merged into one. Therein Wisdom and the creative Word
are united. The New Testament teaching concerning the SpHit
is, however, nothing more than the completion of the primitive
doctrine of the Old concerning the breath of His mouth.

II. THE REDEMPTION OF MAN.
§ 26. Introductory Summary.
That the teaching of Jesus concerning the glorification of the
Father in the Son stands in a definite relation to sinful man, is
clear from John xvii 4, where He says that He has glorified the
Father on earth, and consequently amongst men; and this, in
fact, through the completion of His work by revelation of the
Father. As He goes on to say (xv. 8) that the Father is
honoured and glorified by the fact of His disciples existing and
abiding in Him, that they may bring forth fruit, so He regards
His own glorification, not merely as a glorification in or with God,
but in His own people also, to be effected by the Holy Ghost
dwelling in them (John xvi 14). It rests upon men being'
drawn to Him and taking part in His glory, and therefore upon

DIV. II. § 27.] OBJECT OF REDEMPTION— MAN. 171
the authority conferred on Him, to give eternal Hfe to aU those
whom the Father has given Him, whereby both Father and Son
are honoured (v. 23) ; these being, indeed, given Him out of the
world (e/e tow icbo-pov, xvH 6). His own are stUl in the world,
and exposed to its dangers ; but they are sent into it only that
through their word others also may beHeve on Him (xvii. 11,. 14,
18). There is, therefore, a glorification of the Father through the
Son in the #607105, in the midst of sinful humanity, in those
who have emerged from its entanglements.
Thus the glorification becomes identified with redemption, and
this whole operation of Jesus in the world is pointed out as a de
liverance from sin and rescue from destruction (Hi. 16, 17), or as
a communication of everlasting life (John' v. 24, x. 28, vi. 39,
[47-58]), which name He then appropriates to HimseK (xi. 25,
xiv. 6). The same idea is involved in various figurative ex
pressions, such as the Water of Life (iv. 14, vH 37), the Bread of
Life (vi. 48), the Light (viii 12, ix. 5, xH. 46), the-Way (xiv. 6),
and the Good Shepherd (x. 11); and it is also found in the
Synoptists, where we read of man coming to the Father through
Jesus only (Matt. xi. 2 7), of His revealing HimseK to babes, of
His setting free the weary and heavy laden from theH burden, of
His giving His Hfe a ransom for them (Matt. xx. 28, xxvi. 28)>
of His having come to save the lost (Matt. xvHi. 11, [xv. 24,
x. 6 ;] Luke 15), and of His being the Physician of the spHitually
sick (Matt. ix. 12, 13; Luke xix 1 0, etc.).
§ 2 7. The Object of Redemption — Man.
The teaching of Jesus embraces both sides of man's nature,
his1 dignity, and also his need of redemption ; but in His discourses
the latter predominates. This is consistent both with His own
vocation as a Redeemer, and with the actual condition of man
kind, to the consciousness of which they must be aroused so that
He might be recognised in that capacity. It was impossible to
develope the first point properly unless the second were first placed
in a clear Hght. The great Tesults which our Lord purposed in
the world could be reahzed only by indHect means, as, first of
aU, the power proceeding from Him must operate negatively for
the counteraction of sin and its ruin. He could not, therefore,
in His teaching, simply set forth the dignity of mam and address
HimseK to it alone, but He must needs proceed on the closest

172 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PARTI.
discrimination between good and evU, between what was agree
able and what was opposed to the divine nature, between Hfe and
death. Herein He could connect His teaching closely with the
Old Testament, Hi which man is regarded mainly from the same
side, although there are passages in which the other view prevails.
For the Old Testament begins with the primitive dignity of man ;
and, without its being expressly stated afterwards, this side of
man's nature is kept in the foreground, as of one elevated and
distinguished by God above the whole earthly creation, as, e.g., in
the 8 th Psalm ; and in every other place where sin is treated of,
the other side also is more or less taken into consideration. And
it is particularly characteristic of the bibHcal mode of view, that
it never gives man up, so to speak; but, amidst aU the ruin and
decay, which it distinctly regards, it points at a divine plan of
salvation for faUen man. However much, therefore, men may
appear, according to the Old Testament, to foUow theH seK-chosen
way, they are, nevertheless, under the guidance of a divine plan
of salvation, which historicaUy draws the descendants of Abraham
and Jacob first within its influence, but yet, from the very first,
aims at including aU the famiHes of the earth. Thus in Holy
Scripture, in spite of its clear view of ruin as the consequence of
sin in mankind, there is also a much more comforting perception
of the latter Hi virtue of the divine plan controUing it ; the idea
of the divine salvation is ever more and more developed, whereby
also a higher conception of man and human nature is gradually
produced. Mankind is looked upon as in need of redemption,
and yet as caUed to a pecuHar fellowship with God. And so
also with the didactic discourses of Jesus HimseK. The more
prominently the community with God to which men are called is
brought forward in the New Testament, so much the more is the
dignity pecuHar to man indirectly enforced, and in some passages
also with evident design.
The doctrine of human dignity, as the first side of anthropology,
occurs directly in those only of our Lord's discourses which we
may caU preparatory, because they do not lead us to the central
point of His teaching. The same doctrine may, however, be traced
indirectly in the other discourses also, seeing that even in redemption
itseK the exaltation of man's nature and destiny is plainly HnpHed.
The Lord expresses HimseK negatively about the dignity of
man, compared with the lower creatures, in those discourses where

DIV. II. § 27.] OBJECT OF REDEMPTION— MAN. 173
He wishes to represent works of human love as a duty, in order
to show that He was right in healing the sick on the Sabbath
(Luke xui 15 seq; Matt. xH 11 seq). Other speeches also
may come under consideration, in which Jesus seeks to raise
men's minds to a Hving trust Hi God, as opposed to a low state
of earthly sensuaHty (Matt. vi. 30 ; Luke xH 28); and in like
manner also to steel them against fear of men and dread of suffer
ing (Matt, x 31). In these discourses He refers to the lower
creatures, which are so bounteously and strictly cared for by God,
Hi contrast to the higher dignity of man, who in God has a
heavenly Father (Matt, vi 26 ; Luke xH. 24).
The positive aspect of the dignity of man is implied in his pecu
liar relation to God, this relation resulting from the idea of God
as a Father. God is the originator in man of a Hfe which is the
counterpart of His own, and has created him for a personal
feUowship with HimseK. Man can become the chUd of God in a
deeper sense, as is expressed, in contrast to the heathen view
(Luke xH. 30), Hi the exhortation to confidence in God. Man is
caUed on to seek the kingdom of God, a blessing on which every
other good thing depends (Matt. vi. 33 ; Luke xH. 31, 32),
which, too, God as his Father is willing to give him. This relation
of man to the Father becomes most evident, through the doctrine
that the Son, although the Son of God and one with the Father,
is nevertheless the Son of man, and most frequently describes
HimseK as such. Hence results the speciaUy Christian idea of
human nature as admitting of a personal union with the God
head, and in this very union fulfilling, indeed, the complete idea
of humanity, and also, even apart from this union, as being at
aU events susceptible of intimate feUowship with God. This
latter idea is the aim of the whole of that portion of God's
economy which depends on the appearance of the Son of man,
and is also only the reverse side of the idea of God as a Father.
God reveals Himself Hi man and is glorified in him, and man is
glorified in God. On account of the sinfulness in man, this does
not take place through any development of his own nature, but
because humanity (as beHeving in the Son) finds in the Son of
God and man the guarantee of this glorification This is evident
in the preparative didactic discourses of Jesus, e.g. in the Sermon
on the Mount, in which, without any distinct reference to the
Redeemer, the dignity of man is very forcibly brought forward,

174 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART L
not only generaUy as regards his destination Hi the kingdom of
God (Matt. v. 3), but also speciaUy in the requisition to be per
fect as God is perfect (Matt. v. 48). As a plain result therefrom,
full trust in God is inculcated, especiaUy Hi reference to earthly
necessities ; when so high a spiritual destination is in question,
and is made attainable by God's fatherly hand, the satisfaction of
these lower needs must be a subordinate matter, to be committed
to this Father in aU quiet submission. Man is not created for
the earth, but for heaven, where his treasure is to be.
Some of the references to the dignity of man, which are pro
minently brought forward by Jesus, are as foUows : —
He attributes to man a personal life which is superior to all
external force, and cannot even be destroyed by the death of the body,
yet is entirely dependent on God (Matt, x 28 ; Luke xii. 4, 5;
in which passages God and not the devil is to be understood as
the object of right fear).1 In addition to this recognition, we have,
further, the distinction between a&pa and "tyvyf), and the continu
ance of man after death, both of the spiritual and also the bodily
element (Matt, x 28). Also, wherever the redemption of man is
spoken of, the twofold element is always taken into account, the
far) being understood as the §»^ of the spHit and of the corporeal
part ; and hence the resurrection is usuaUy mentioned at the same
time (John v. 24, 28, 29, vi. 39 f., 44, 54, xi. 25 ; cf. Luke xiv.
14, xx. 35, 36). In virtue of this higher being, superior to aU
external power and indestructible by death, man does not belong
to the earth alone, but also has to do with an invisible order of things,
into which he wiU some day be transferred (Luke xH 20, 21;
Matt. vi. 19-21 ; cf. Luke xii. 33, 34). Jesus assumes a relation
existing between man and an invisible spirit-world, which is
described by Him as partly hostile and partly friendly to man
(Matt. xiH. 39, xvHi 10 ; Luke xv. 10 ; John viH. 44) ; also, as
regards HimseK, this world of spirits takes both a friendly
(John i 52) and also a hostUe aspect (Matt. iv. 1-11).
Again, as regards the soul of man, Jesus recognises in man a
spiritual eye (Matt. vi. 22, 23 ; cf. Luke xi. 34-36), by means of
which he receives and possesses Hght in respect to his relation to
God. Just as the possession and enjoyment of material Hght
depend entirely on the state of the bodily eye, so the possession
of spHitual Hght on the state of the spHitual eye. If the bodily
1 Other commentators affirm the contrary idea. — Tr.

DIV. II. § 27.] OBJECT OF REDEMPTION — MAN. 175
eye is healthful, the whole body possesses light ; in the contrary
case, it is in entire darkness. If the spiritual eye is healthful,
then the entire man enjoys the higher spiritual Hght of which
he is in need. But aU depends on this inward light not being
darkened (Luke xi. 35). If it shines clearly, the man, far from
possessing this Hght for himself alone, will perhaps become a
bright luminary to those in darkness around him (cf. Matt. v.
14 ff). Rationalism has attributed great importance to these
passages, and from them has sought to infer the existence of
an active principle of reHgious perception in man himself, and
consequently the faculty of independent religious thought and
examination. But it is the mere receptibility which is here
spoken of, which is of course not merely passive (pure passiveness
cannot exist where living dynamic powers are at work). As light
must come to the eye from without, — thus, with regard to the
spiritual eye, Jesus speaks here in harmony with His teaching as
to the mamfestation of the Son through the Father (Matt. xi. 27,
xvi. 17), — and as the bodily eye must be susceptible of the Hght
of the sun ; so must the spHitual eye possess something of divine
light in order to perceive the light from above, but yet only to
perceive it. This receptibiHty becomes spontaneity when the
water which He gives to men to drink becomes in them a weU of
Hving water (John iv. 14). At the same time, Jesus supposes
the case that this spHitual eye may be perverted, so that the man
is deprived of Hght (Luke xi. 34).1 He requires His disciples to
ponder on divine things (Matt. xi. 15, xHi. 14). They are to take
heed how they hear (Mark iv. 24), and especially to form right
eous judgments (John vii. 24), and therefore to examine and
discern the signs of the times (Luke xii. 56, 57). To him, how
ever, who conscientiously makes use of the spiritual insight afforded
him, He promises continual inward growth (Matt. xiii. 1 2 ; Mark
iv. 25 ; Luke viii. 18 ; John viii. 31, 32). He speciaUy attributes
to man a, power of knowing tlie divine will, — a power which is to be
in him the groundwork of his faith. He makes this faith de
pendent on man's inclination to do the will of God (John vn. 17);
but this, apart from the teaching of the Lord Himself, presupposes
as existing in us a knowledge of the divine will about us. He
also presupposes that the man who is inclined to do the divine
wiU wUl be able to make His teaching the subject of his medita-
1 See page 70.

176 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PARTI.
tion and examination. But this very incHnation is not considered
by Him as a mere affaH of human power ; for every one who is
susceptible of the Lord's teaching is of God (John viii. 47) ; his
works are done in God (John Hi. 21) ; he is drawn by the Father
(John vi 44) ; and his power is given him by the Father (John
vi. 65). In fuU harmony with this, when Peter, in the name of
the disciples, confessed his faith Hi Jesus as the Son of God, He says
to him (Matt, xvi 1 7), " Flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto
thee," — which expression is used by way of synecdoche, as the chief
elements of the human body for the whole of the material Hfe or
the entire human nature, but still always contrasted with the spHi
tual element (Gal. i 16, cf. 15 ; cf. 1 Cor. xv. 50). This contrast is
forcibly expressed in Matt. xxvi. 41, and we thence recognise the
fundamental view of the Lord as to the. nature and condition of man.
So long as this contrariety exists between the flesh and the
spHit, it prevents man from thoroughly attaining to that higher
form of Hfe which is recognised as the divine. There is thus
manKested in man a contrariety in his tendencies of Hfe, which
contrariety is not firmly rooted and aboriginal, but is testified to
by experience, and depends on the isolation of <rdp% and irvevpa,
which strive one against the other instead of being united, that is,
instead of the adpl; being pervaded and Uluminated by the irvevpa.
Thus, in Christ, as the Son of man, there existed both aap% and
also irvevpa, but not as forming a contrast to one another : in
us, however, this contrast fuUy exists. When the <ifvyf\ is made
to describe the two together as a kind of middle term, it is some
times understood as referring to the lower and sometimes to the
higher Hfe (Matt, xvi 25 ; Mark vHi 35 ; Luke ix. 24, xvH. 33 ;
John xH. 25). It is clear from these passages that the soul has
both a lower and a higher sphere of life, and that whosoever is
willing to surrender it in this lower sphere wiU save it in the
higher, and wiU consequently actuaUy gain it. It is, therefore, a
conscious individuality in a twofold sphere of life. The lower
aspect of the soul or its relation to material life is speciaUy brought
forward in Luke xii. 19, 20, the higher aspect in Matt, xvi 26,
Luke ix 24 ; here, therefore, it is said that it will be saved, that
is, for its higher destination. The tendency of the soul depends
on the right element prevaiHng, and on its being actually animated
by the irvevpa as the higher principle of life, by which alone it
becomes inclined for higher blessings. But if the soul has

DIV. II. §27.] OBJECT OF REDEMPTION— MAN. 177
thoroughly entered the o-dp%, as carnaHty, its spirituality is de
stroyed, and it needs a new bHth (Luke xvii. 33). If it is %S>aa, it
is because the vital spHit has been breathed into it by the Creator
(1 Cor. xv. 45), and it must be saved by being renewed, through
Christ, by the Holy Ghost. Taking man in himself as a subject
of accountableness, and as leading a IKe amenable to responsibUity, .
the central focus and source-point of spiritual life in him is de
scribed by Jesus by the word KapBla. It is the representation of
the moral personality, and therefore the origin of aU moral defile
ment (Matt. xv. 18). It forms the Owo-avpos, in which the man
receives everything which is an object to him as K into the focus
of his inner Hfe where he makes it his spiritual property, and
whence, as such, he again brings it forth (Luke vi. 45 ; Matt. xH.
35 ; Luke xxi. 34); but hence, anything which is reaUy to be
received by him into his personal Hfe must be adopted into the
heart, in order there to be assimilated to his individuaHty (Luke
vHi. 1 5). Man, therefore, can actuaUy produce that which is good,
only when it proceeds from the heart (Matt. xv. 8 ff); his worship,
ff it is to be genuine, must come from the heart. Therefore, as
the heart is, so is' the man (Matt. xH 35). The moral tendency
is decided in the heart. In it a man is pure (Matt. v. 8), or the
reverse (Matt. xv. 18) when the heart is overcharged with the
excesses and cares of earth (Luke xxi. 34). From aU this the fun
damental conception becomes clear, resulting as it does from the
two chief passages, Matt, xxvi 41, and John Hi. 6. The more the
quickening element of the irvevpa is present in the ^rvxfi, the
greater is the incHnation to that which is good. So far, however, as
the ylrvxv has its existence in the a&pa, it certainly quickens the
<rap\-, but at the same time its independent influence is done
away with, and, desiring to rule instead of being ruled by the spHit,
it faUs entirely into the power of the crap^. This is the contrast
which is pointed out Hi Matt, xxvi 41. In the disciples, however,
the irvevpu, together with the aap% , was stiU an active influence ;
yet even they, according to John Hi 6, were flesh. Not that tke
rational soul was wanting Hi the natural man, but the aap^ was
pre-eminent in him. He is endowed with the irvevpa, but he is
not irvevpa : this he can only be, that is, it can only become the
active principle of his personal Hfe, through the regeneration of
the spHit.
Thus it is clear that, in the teaching of the Lord, those pas-

178 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PARTI.
sages which in one aspect appear to deal with men as merely
human beings, yet in another point of view lead us beyond the
innate powers of man. As sin is deeply rooted in man, wherever
man's dignity and destination are spoken of, the fact of the exist
ence of sin in man's nature is also taken into account. We are
thus led to another part of our subject, —
The teaching of Jesus as to tlie sins of men. The Old Testa
ment expresses a consciousness of the dignity of man, which, from
the very beginning, is derived from an idea of his similitude to
the divine image, and is expressed in different ways by the idea
of a covenant of God with man, made with individuals at first,
but afterwards extending over the whole world ; but, on the other
hand, it also announces a deep consciousness of sin. Both ideas
are the necessary result of the ethical character of the Old Testa
ment religion, in" contrast to the merely aesthetic features of the
natural religion of the heathen. This mode of perception is,
therefore, not peculiar to either one book or one period only, but,
on the contrary, pervades the whole. At the very commence
ment of the Old Testament history, we have a moral faU of man,
in which the entire development of the race became, on the one
hand, a development of sin, but, on the other, through God's in
fluence, a course of guidance following out a plan of salvation.
In conformity with this, the Old Testament distinctly expresses
the fact of the universality of sin and its persistence in the world
(Gen. vi. 5, 11-13, vHi. 21; 1 Kings viii. 46; Ps. cxliii 2;
Job iv. 17-19 ; Prov. xx. 9). Passages Hke these give the result
of the moral experience at particular periods ; but the whole
economy of the Old Testament tended generaUy to lead men to
the acknowledgment of sin, especiaUy by means of the law. In
Gen. viii. 21, Ps. Ii. 7, lviU. 4, Isa. xlviii 8, it is stated how
deeply this sin is rooted, so that it is most difficult, or indeed im
possible, to avoid it. Sin is not only existing in fact, but as an
habitual presence in man. Towards the conclusion of prophecy
(Ezek. xxxvi. 26, 27), the perception breaks forth that God must
give a new heart if the people are to observe the hitherto neglected
law and to live in the covenant; and this consciousness existed
during the Babylonian captivity. Thus deep was the perception
of sin in the Old Testament. Its nature was, however, recognised
as disobedience to and rebellion from God, and as bringing with it
the guUt which was implied by the idea of the law. The worship,

DIV. Ii § 27.] OBJECT OF REDEMPTION — MAN. 179
with all its institutions, pointed to the necessity of an atonement
for sin. Prophecy revealed the whole course of the divine guid
ance, which dHectly tended to a development of moral conscious
ness. These were the elements which, together with the actual
perception of it, must have revealed its nature.
Although the teaching of Jesus, on the one hand, attributes to
man a dignity above the whole earthly creation, which dignity He
grounds on the susceptibility of man for a communion with God,
on the other hand, it recognises man as sinful, and, indeed, so very'
sinful, that only through God's grace can he be freed from the cor
ruption of sin, and attain his destined end, which is eternal life.
The # teaching of Jesus as to sin is usuaUy very insufficiently
treated of in bibHcal theology ; and yet, by a somewhat more
complete investigation, it wiU prove to be very abundant and'
profound, containing, indeed, the perfect germ of the apostoHcal
development of the same subject. Jesus, if it is permissible so
to speak, treated the matter less ex professo, than by connection
with other things as occasion offered. The subject may be arranged
under the two heads of the nature and the universality of sin.
(a) The general idea of the nature of sin is that of antagonism
to God in mind and action. Hence it is called tj dvopid (Matt.
vii. 23, xiii. 41), dvopia without the article (Matt. xxHi. 28), and
also dpapTia, and indeed rj dpaprla as a generic idea (John
viii. 34, xvi. 8), or likewise as existing in particular men (John
viH 21), and also as a designation of individual sins, without
the article (Matt. xii. 31). Avopla being antagonism to the
law, dpaprla is faUing in its aim and deviations from its rule ;
hence dpapTiai is used for individual deviations (Luke xi. 4 ;
Matt. ix. 2, 5 f. ; John vHi 24, xx. 23 ; frequently in the phrase
dxbievai Ta? dpapTias). Another expression used for individual
sins is irapairTwpaTa, individual transgressions of the divine law
(Matt. vi. 14 f. ; Mark xi. 25 f.) ; lastly, b$eiXr)paTa (Matt. vi.
12), debts, inasmuch as sin generally and every separate sin is a
debt as regards man, in vHtue of which he is punishable, and an
obligation is laid upon him to satisfy and discharge God's wiU.
Sin, therefore, is represented under the figure of a debt, which, if
it is not forgiven, must be paid in full (Matt. v. 26, xvHi 23-35).
Man as a sinner, he in whom sin habituaUy dweUs, is dpaprioXov
(Luke v. 32; Matt. ix. 13), in contrast to BiKaiov; or, inasmuch
as he persistently commits sin, he is caUed 6 epyatypevov t^i>

180 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
dvoplav (Matt. vH. 23). The idea of sin in the teaching of Jesus
is in harmony with this phraseology and His interpretations
thereof. It is opposition to the vopov in thought, word, and
action, and thus an opposition to God's will The condition of
sin is, therefore, foUowing the Old Testament view, a condition
of aHenation from God. Jesus has depicted it Hi its two principal
developments Hi the eloquent and profound parable of the prodigal
son (Luke xv. 1 1 ff). In the first place, sin is manifested only in
the younger son, — an aHenation from God, increasing co-equaUy
with a desHe for a false independence, — and he himself comprises
the whole of his earlier Hfe in his confession. But subsequently
an opposition to the wiU of his father is shown in the elder son
also, although outwardly he had remained with him. Because
sin is aHenation from God, its chief point consists in want of faith
in Christ ; for in the New Testament God has revealed Himself
and drawn near to man in Christ. Thus the statement (John
xvi 8) that the Holy Ghost wUl convict the world of sin is based
on the unbelief of the world Hi Christ. In this all antagonism
to God is concentrated, and becomes positive in its hatred to God.
The negative view, that man does not serve God, but only the
world and his own self, is but a mere superficial appearance. If
man serves the world, he must in fact hate God, for God and the
world are essentiaUy opposed. In this, however, God is under
stood in a general point of view, as is the case for the most part
in the Sermon on the Mount, and apart from His special revela
tion in Christ. In John xv. 23, 24, the two ideas are combined.
The antagonism to God which is impHed in the nature of sin
is also carnality or the flesh (John Hi. 6). This finds its moving
cause and seat in the o-dpi;, the latter forming the contrast to the
irvevp-a. From the flesh arise those desires which are dHected
towards the things of this lower Hfe, — eiri6vp,lai (Mark iv. 19 ;
Luke vHi 14), referring to the interests of this world and the
deceptive aUurements of earthly pleasures, by which the heart is
clogged and drawn down. He who devotes himself to these is
alienated from God, and he who is alienated from God devotes
himseK to these. The seK-surrender is consummated in the two
tendencies of the nature opposed to God : first, the repugnance to
higher and better things, and the renunciation of them ; next, the
actual opposition or enmity to God. These two characteristics
are the cause of sin being described as devilish (John vin 44,

DIV. II. § 27.] OBJECT OF REDEMPTION — MAN. 181
40 f.), also as lies and hatred. Hence result the two funda
mental forms of sin, the open and the concealed alienation from
God, as exemplified by Jesus Hi the two sons Hi His parable of
the prodigal son, and as was shown by the contrast between
pubHcans and sinners on the one hand, and Pharisees on the other.
The teaching of Jesus, therefore, intensifies the Old Testament
conception of sin only so far as it brings forward more distinctly
its positive nature, and, because the revelation of God was then
consummated, considers that sin is completed in opposition to
this revelation, consequently in a want of faith in Christ, and,
lastly, in the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.
It is, besides, pecuHar to Jesus' teaching, that He with pecuHar
emphasis, in both classes of sin, recognises sin in its internal cha
racter, — that sin defiles a man from within, and is in the first
place something inward, which is rooted in and native to the
inmost recesses of the personality (Matt. xv. 11, 15-20). It is
thus represented in the Sermon on the Mount, and subsequently
Hi the discourse against the Pharisees. Wrath forms the inward
element in the infraction of the command, Thou shalt not kill.
The inward sin is so much the main point, that, compared with
it, the greatness or smallness of the outward deed is scarcely a
matter of importance. For this very reason words become so
significant as a disclosure of the inward feeHngs (Matt. xii. 24),
and of the whole character, according to which the fruit of the life
is shaped (Matt. xH. 33, 35, under the figure of a fruit-tree and a
treasure). Hence an organic, lively view of human morality is most
decidedly brought forward, in contrast to any mechanical and life
less view which would make individual action a matter of opinion.
Even in the Old Testament system the principle was recognised,
that every man must be judged according to his heart; but Christ,
in opposition to aU pharisaical deteriorations of this principle,
inculcated it anew, and consistently imbued with it the whole of
His teaching.
With the inward character of sin its guilt and liability to
punishment are closely connected. For the more strictly sin is
understood as being of an inward nature, the more it comprehends
the individual causaHty, and places the man in a position of lia-
bUity ; as an arbitrary infringement of the relation of obligation
to God's wiU, it brings about the necessity for satisfaction. The
guUt is manifested by sin degrading the man : first, it deprives

182 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
him of his original dignity, which is based on his relation to God
(Matt. xv. 11), then of the dignity of his sonship in God's house
(Luke xv. 18, 19), and the feUowship with Christ, and with God
in Him (Matt. x. 37, 38). This self-degradation, as guUt includes
also the HabiHty to punishment, evo%ov — the " being in danger "
(Matt. v. 22). Hence an account is requHed of the sinner (Luke
xvi 2), especiaUy in the day of judgment (Matt. xii. 36). He
must give satisfaction (Matt, xviii. 25-35). Both guilt and
HabiHty to punishment are, however, subject to a graduated modi
fication, as also is sin itseK (Luke xii. 47 ; John xv. 22, ix. 41).
Man is, indeed, guilty even where he is deficient in knowledge ;
but where knowledge exists, the guilt thereby becomes greater.
With sin evil is inseparably bound up. In a world in which aU
life, aU good things, and the entire ordering of affairs are from
God, the effect of sin (as antagonism to God) must necessarUy be
that a complete dissolution of life (which is from God) should
ensue. Light and Hfe, which are from Him, must dwindle away
in proportion to the presence of sin. Consequently it is in evil
that the unworthiness and antagonism to God, which are inherent
in sin, are chiefly manifested ; and the condition of sin is death,
darkness, and a lost state (John xii. 46, Hi. 19, viH. 12 ; cf. Luke
xxH. 53). Beath is to be understood, in the first place, not in a
merely physical sense, but as a general process of dissolution : it
is usually represented as of a more comparative and partial cha
racter. These partial phenomena are confronted by the idea of
death in all its fulness and absoluteness ; but the former are ,
part of a process which is always tending to this completion,
unless some other dHection is given by means of new light and
new Hfe. This comprehensive idea of death is especiaUy charac
teristic of the discourses in St. John's Gospel; cf. ch. v. 21
with the antithesis of the ^cooiroieiv as the work of the Son.
The veiepol are to be understood here as referring to both ideas.
The pr) dirodaveiv, as the deliverance from death, is therefore a fact
now opposing itself to the process of 'death which is already com
menced ; cf. vi. 50, xi. 26. But we find this fuU idea of death in
the synoptical passages also, as in the language describing the
condition of the prodigal son in his alienation from God (Luke
xv. 32). The mention of "the dead" in Matt. viii. 22, Luke
vi 60, is also thus to be understood. The physically dead are
to be buried by the spirituaUy dead, who are good for nothing

DIV. II. § 27.] OBJECT OF REDEMPTION — MAN. 183
else ; but he who is destined for the kingdom of God is to preach
it. The being lost, or perishing, is an idea of the same character
(Luke xix. 10; cf. John iii. 1 6) ; for it forms the contrast to far)
almviov, as also does diroiXeia (Matt. vii. 13). In this idea the
view presupposed in the Old Testament is also included, that
bodily death is the result of sin, and on this account a deHver-
ance from sin is also essentiaUy a deliverance from death, and a
raising from the dead is also understood. Christ is for us not
only the life generally, but also speciaUy the resurrection (John
xi. 25, 26, vi. 39 f, 44, 54). This idea pervades the whole of
His history and teaching. Material death is only one item in
^the process of the dissolution of life by means of sin. As the
link between God and the sinner is loosed, so also is the connec
tion with personal life loosed by alienation from its true source.
As we have already seen with regard to the inward nature of
sin, it is peculiar to the teaching of Jesus that sin is not to be
understood as merely actual evU-doing. It is, on the contrary, a
condition, an habitual bent or proneness, which is merely brought
to light in actual sin. This is implied in the comparison of man
to a good or bad tree (Matt. xii. 33-35 ; Luke vi. 43 ; Matt.
vii. 17, 18). Jesus had addressed to the Pharisees words full of
warning, and He explains them by showing that neither word nor
deed is to be taken by itself, but always in relation to the con
text and circumstances ; wherefore also a single word may dis
close a deep abyss of sin. Sin, as a condition, is also set forth
by the comparison of the sinner to a sick man, who needs the
physician (Matt, ix 12). Jesus also speaks as to the relation
between the proneness and actual sin itself (John viii. 34). Every
sin, in that it proceeds from the proneness, strengthens the latter
and increases it. It is not merely an action, it becomes a power
which masters the man and holds him in its fetters : the outward
operation of the eiriOvpla increases its power. This power is pre
supposed by the Lord when He speaks of HimseK as a deHverer,
and says that He would, set free. He goes back to the original
root of the matter in John iii. 6, in which He states the existence
of a carnal, i.e. a sinful condition, which is caused by the natural
birth. Consequently the propensity of man to sin is given to him
in his natural birth, as if in his very nature, — a doctrine which is
much developed by the Apostle Paul. In every place, however,
even where it is not expressly set forth in a didactic mode, this
t

184 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I
natural condition is presupposed as one needing deHverance. But
even here there is a Hmitation. There is, indeed, a sin (Matt,
xH 31) which cannot be forgiven This, however, leads us back
to the idea that perfected sin is the opposition to redemption on
the part of unbelief: sin severs itseK from the redeeming opera
tion of God. The Lord's warning refers, in the first place, to the
utterance by which the Pharisees had sought to do away with
the powerful impression made on the bystanders at the casting
out of devUs. In their language they had not yet committed
this sin, but they were on the road which would lead them to this
bewUdering pinnacle of wickedness. The language, therefore, must
neither be arbitrarily extended in its application, nor yet be limited
to this single action ; for both word and action stand in organic
connection with the state of the heart, which is thereby revealed
(vers. 31, 32, 33, 35), and for this very reason an account must
be given for every word. The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is
ranked so much above that against the Son, because the latter sin,
looking at the manifold historical misapprehensions which might
be possible as to any particular subject, may be comparatively
excusable ; whUst the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, which
can only ensue after the latter has inwardly manifested Himself,
is the most conscious of all sins (and reaUy satanic), — it is the
exact opposite to the sin for the perpetrators of which the Lord
prayed upon the cross. The Lord does not say whether it had
been committed by men, yet in the development of the teach
ing of the New Testament we come to points where it can
scarcely be considered as not actually existing. It is also else
where expressed how sin is perfected through consciousness and
perseverance (Matt. xi. 20-24). Of this kind, too, are aU the
lamentations of Jesus as to the unbelief of His contemporaries,
especially of the chief men of the people (John xvi. 8, xv. 22).
The blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is to be considered as the
very ciUmina'ting point of unbelief in the Father and in Him
(Matt. xii. 31 ; Luke xii. 10 ; Mark iii. 28).
The universality of sin naturaUy results from the fact that the
proneness to it, which constitutes its essence, forms a part of
human nature. In the Old Testament the universaHty of sin
was recognised in the confession that we need a new heart ; and
in the New Testament teaching, especially in that of Jesus, the
doctrine is stiU more developed in connection with the truth of

DIV. II. § 27.] OBJECT OF REDEMPTION— MAN. 185
the redemption. It is brought forward most forcibly in John Hi.
3-8, where it is said comprehensively that except he be born
again, no one can enter the kingdom of God.
In this respect the two explanatory conversations, with
Nicodemus in John Hi., and with the rich young man in Matt.
xix, are most significant. In both conversations Jesus enters
into the question as to what was to be done in order to enter
into the kingdom of God, or to attain eternal Hfe. In both cases
He gives essentiaUy the same answer, — to one a direct, and to the
other an indHect reply, according to the individuality of each man.
With the cHcumspect but confident Nicodemus, He had to adopt
a similar but somewhat different course from that which He
foUowed with the youthful rashness of the earnest and enthusi
astic young man, who, even in early IKe, was a ruler of the
synagogue. Urged by an honourable impulse to desHe that which
was good, and not content to rest satisfied with the ordinary
measure of righteousness, he had come to the Lord to learn surely
and perfectly from Him, as the " good Master," what he should do
to inherit eternal Hfe. The one is quite certain that he cannot
faU in possessing eternal Hfe; the other, that he wUl be able to do
everything necessary for its attainment. With both, the upshot
of the matter was, to lead them to a true knowledge of IKe, and,
by means of moral humiliation, to make them wiUing to submit
themselves to the Lord's guidance, and so to foUow the right path.
For this reason the conversation with both was shaped so as to
lead them to a confession of sin, and especiaUy to make them
conscious of its universaHty; for both considered themselves to
be men who, in a moral point of view, formed exceptions to the
general rule, or, at least, were among the best of all Jesus was
therefore compeUed to speak quite generally. No one is good
but God alone ; and when doing good is the matter in question,
TeHance can be placed on but one thing alone. That which is
impossible with man is possible with God, and through Him
(Matt. xix. 26 ; Mark x 27 ; Luke xvHi 27). The young man
was in the wrong path when he looked upon Jesus as a human
teacher, and yet addressed Him as the " good Master." No man is
good — every one must first become so ; and this can only be done
through the power and grace of God. This is the real application
of the discourse, which consequently says much the same as the
Lord's elucidation to Nicodemus. And the general proposition

186 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
forms the groundwork for the special test of seK-knowledge which
Jesus (Matt. xix. 21) appHes to the rich young man.
But this proposition of the universaHty of sin may also be
inferred from the Lord's teaching on other occasions, especiaUy
where He speaks of His work. On the one hand, He describes
His work as intended for all men (John xvH. 2, Hi 16; Matt.
xni 38) ; on the other, He says that He had come to save
that which was lost. In His eyes, therefore, all must be lost, with
out special help ; and the only requisite for partaking in , the
benefits of His work is, that men should confess themselves to be
sick, or sinners. But, in respect to this decided assertion and
thorough presupposition of the universal necessity for redemption,
it must not be overlooked that Jesus, just as the entire Old and
New Testaments, makes a moral distinction, without regard, indeed,
to the redemption : there are both righteous and wicked. This is
shown by a retrospect of the Old Testament history, by a glance,
indeed, at the heathen world, when Jesus lovingly seeks (Matt.
xii. 42) to humiliate the Jewish assumption of righteousness by
honourable mention of heathen examples, drawn from the Old
Testament history. He even refers back to the primitive records,
in speaking of the righteous Abel (Matt. xxiH. 3 5).
§ 28. The Object of Redemption — the World, in its connection with
the Prince of this World.
From the figure of the bad tree, which threw out branches in
every dHection, and might be rich in fruit, it may be inferred
that Jesus regarded sin as not merely consisting in individual
actions, but as an organic unity in every individual ; but, before
aU acts of sin, the proneness thereto exists in man as etc aapxbv
yeyevvq pevov. In a simUar way He considers the sin of indi
viduals as not separated from that of the remainder of mankind,
but by no means in the sense that each one wiU not have to give'
an account for himself. On the contrary, in every individual his
whole moral conduct remains the object of his personal responsi-
biHty (Matt. xii. 36, 37). But, on the other hand, sin is a state
of life common to aU, owing to the identity of human nature
in aU, inasmuch as they are born of the flesh (John Hi. 6).
In consequence of their natural birth they are flesh, and so
far not susceptible of the spHitual kingdom of God. This com
munity of sinful life is therefore entailed on the natural deriva-

J1IV. II. § 28.] OBJECT OF REDEMPTION — THE WORLD. 187
tion But this social community in sin is also assisted by the
mutual influence of men on one another. In the world " it must
needs be that offences come" (Matt, xviii. 7). This is said
under the supposition that sin actuaUy and necessarUy exists in
the world ; and it necessarUy results that a man by sinning must
afford to others an occasion and an incitement to sin. Thus an
exceHent beginning in good things may be hindered and even
destroyed (Matt. xvHi. 6) ; and on this account human society
is sometimes to be lamented over and sometimes is culpable
(oval), inasmuch as this growing influence of sin is bound up with
guUt and corruption. But the individual man is also to be
lamented over K he give occasion of offence, as, by the exercise
of this influence, his guUt and HabUity to punishment are in
creased (ver. 6), and he himself must always tend to become
worse. Every one, therefore, is enjoined both to exercise the
utmost strictness in the subjugation of his own sinful desires
(vers. 8, 9), and also to use the greatest care in the case of those
who might readUy take offence (ver. 10; Mark ix 42; Luke
xvii. 1, 2; cf. Matt. v. 29, 30). By means of this independent
mutual influence, that which is good may be also effectively
propagated ; but, looking at the universaHty of sin, it becomes a
question whence the requisite good should come (Mark ix. 50;
Luke xiv. 34 ; Matt. v. 13). The salt has, Hi fact, become useless,
and has lost its power. Unless some entirely different organic
system is communicated from without, or rather from above, no
deHverance from sin can proceed from this community of Hfe,
taken by itseK. There is, on the contrary, a constant circulation
of sin, first Mndling and then consummating its wicked propensities.
This community of Hfe is styled by our Lord the world
(noo-pov). The idea occurs sometimes in a narrower signification,
and sometimes in a wider one, and is therefore found with
various closer definitions. In the first place, the Koapov is the
universe ' ( John xvH. 5, 24), where the creation is spoken of as
the founding of the world ; Hkewise also, perhaps, in Matt. xvi.
26, "For what is a man profited, K he shaU gain the whole
world, and lose his own soul ? " Next, it is the world of men, —
humanity in its whole extent (Matt, xiii 38; John iii. 16;
Mark xiv. 9, xvi. 15); then a stUl closer definition, the earthly
order of things being speciaUy brought forward (John xvi. 21, 28,
as to the birth of the Son of man and of men generaUy) ; also,

188 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
referring to the men Hving upon earth, tov Koo-pov tovtov (John
ix. 39). It is also the world of men, as subject to the earthly
order of things in contrast with God, inasmuch as in it, and
also Hi creation generaUy, sin prevails (Matt. xvHi. 7, v. 14;
John vH. 7, xiv. 17, 22, xvi. 20, 33, xvH 9, 16, 25, xn 47,
vi. 33, xH. 31, cf. xvi 11, xiv. 30). This smful world thus
forms a contrast to those who foUow God — devout beHevers-^1
inasmuch as they are chosen out of the world (John xv. 19),
and are not of it (John xv. 19, xvH. 14, 16). The Koapov is
the whole body of those Hving Hi sin upon the earth, without
being restricted to those cases Hi which sin has increased into a
power approaching enormity. This estabHshed condition must be
broken through if it is to be in any way overcome.
In considering the sinful community of living as a whole, Jesus
does not overlook its diversity, resulting from differences of ages,
nationaHties, and individuals. This is evident from the way in
which, in a moral point of view, He judges men with whom He
was not in immediate contact, as Hi Matt. xHi, where He distin
guishes four classes of conduct in respect 'of God's word, or Matt.
xxi. 31, where He awards the kingdom of heaven to the publicans
in preference to the Pharisees. He also recognises the diversities
of nationalities, by pointing out the sin of the GentUes (Matt, vi
32) to be a misunderstanding of God and a surrender to the
world. The Lord speciaUy pointed to the national feehng of the
Jews, their self-exaltation in the consciousness of the divine law
and the theocratic guidance, combined with theH opposition
thereto, as the sin of His Jewish contemporaries, " of this yeved"
(Matt. xii. 38-45, xvi. 1-4). The people, as a body, were at
that time perverted and unfaithful to then covenant God ; they
were refractory agamst God and His revealed will However
stringent might be the summons of divine mercy, they were
chUdishly self-wUled (Matt. xi. 15-19). The synoptical gospels
are rich in expressions of this kind ; but there are some of a
simUar character in John (v. 37-47, vHi 37). Amid this general
and comprehensive perception of the moral feelings of His con
temporaries, we find Jesus especiaUy characterizing the pharisaical
spirit as hypocrisy (Matt. vi. 5, xv., and xxiH. ; Luke xvni 9 ;
cf. John x. 8).
In carrying the idea of sin beyond the bounds of humanity, and
assuming a supernatural being to stand in causative relation to

DIV. II. § 28.] OBJECT OF REDEMPTION — THE WORLD. 189
human sin, the teaching of Jesus is not absolutely new as con
trasted with the Old Covenant. The Mosaic record of the faU
(Gen. Hi.) evidently points to sin which preceded that of man.
Human sin does not appear as of a primitive character, but as
induced by sin in another quarter. Satan, therefore, presents
himseK, but not as yet in the same direct way as subsequently
(Job i 6-12, H 1-7) ; also as a hostile spirit (Zech. Hi. 1, 2).
We likewise find destroying angels and demons mentioned as
being the objects of heathen worship (Deut. xxxii. 17 ; Lev. xvH.
7 ; Ps. cvi 3 7). The general idea of the possibUity of a sinful
development of the spHit-world had long existed (Job iv. 18, xv.
14). The progress of these ideas is, however, but gradual, because,
before all things, it was requisite to keep the people free from
any danger of idolatry, and devoted to the one God. The nearer
the work of redemption approached maturity, the more necessary
it became that the world of evU should be unveUed ; and this
was the case from the Babylonian captivity down to the time of
Christ, in which latter period darkness itseK came into open
conflict with the Hght. A sHnUar development of this kind is also
prophesied during the second appearance of the Lord. It is thus
evident how superficial that view is which attributes this progress
of ideas to the influence of foreign nations.
Jesus therefore presupposes the belief in Satan as a thing long
familiar to His contemporaries, not, indeed, as an erroneous notion,
but as something actuaUy true. In Matt. xiH. 19, 38, and per
haps also in ch. vi 1 3, He caUs him 6 irovnpov. This appeUa-
tion alternates with that of Haravav (Mark iv. 1 5) and BidfioXov
(Luke vHi. 12 ; Matt. xHi. 39), also i^pov (the enemy of God)
(Luke x. 19). Of simUar signification is the proper name BeeX-
ZefiovX (or rather BeeX%eftovfi)= dominus stercoris, the remodelled
name of the god of the Philistines, which the Jews ascribed to
Satan (Matt. xH. 24, 27 ; Mark Hi 22 ; Luke xi. 15, 18 ; Matt.
x. 25). The designation 6 apywv tov Koapov tovtov (John xH.
31, xiv. 30, xvi. 11) is also characteristic; cf. the deov tov
aluvov tovtov (2 Cor. iv. 4). The Lord describes Satan as the
originator and the father of human sin, — as a being standing Hi a
primitive and causative relation to it. Thus most pregnantly,
John vHi. 44. In opposition to the Jews, who had so pertina
ciously decided against Him that they sought to kiU Him, He
says that theH animosity agamst Him did not proceed from a

190 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I
feeling that His works and teaching were not of a righteous kind,
but because they were in manKest moral antagonism to then God
(ver 40). That God was not their Father, as they said (ver. 42),
else would they love Him (Jesus), for He had proceeded forth
from God, and had come into the world. But so far were they
from loving Him, that they were unable to understand His speech,
and could not endure it (ver. 43). Therefore God was not their
Father; but He would tell them, judging by theH mode of thought
and action, who then father was. He thus points out to them
to whom they have apostatized, and from whom then apostasy
derives its origin. He then brings forward two elements in the
BidfioXov, that He was a murderer and a liar, and abode not in
the truth, and that consequently now there is no truth in him, he
himself being a Har and the father of Hes (it is by no means
implied by this that he was originally wicked, but, on the con
trary, that the highest created spHit has not the truth absolutdy -.
in himself, but must abide or maintain himseK Hi it ; from which
it plainly foUows that he feU away to lies through his own
agency). He has alienated himself from the truth which is of God,
and has opposed himself to it, and thereby also to Hfe, which is
also of God. He is therefore a propagator of BdvaTov, the disso
lution of IKe, destruction or death, and this, indeed, from the
beginning — air dpyfiv. This beginning does not apply to his life,
but to the commencement of the history of man (cf. Matt. xix. 8).
It is a matter of doubt whether the faU of man or Cain's deed is
here aUuded to. Even K, as Hi 1 John Hi. 1 2, the latter is in
tended (the Lord doubtless mentioned murder on account of the
murderous plot of the Jews against Him), the deeper sense
appHes to the faU of Adam, and the advent of death among the
race of man ; so that the causative connection with human sin is
therein implied. Cain's fratricide was only the immediate con
tinuation of the first sin, and in him was manifested one element
of Satan's agency, just as in the fall another was exhibited, viz.
deceit and fraud, which opened the path for sin.
In this causative relation to human sin Satan appears (Matt.
xui 19, 38, 39) Hi the two parables, one as to the fourfold sowing
in the arable field, and the other as to the enemy who sowed tares
among the wheat. In the first, it is Satan who took away the
scattered seed out of the hearts of one section of men, so that
they could not retain the divine word from which the divine life

DIV. II. § 28.] OBJECT OF REDEMPTION — THE WORLD. 191
was to spring up in them, and consequently could not be saved ;
in the other parable, the tares denote wicked men who persistently
oppose the divine word. Here also, as before, in the explanation,
and not in the parable itself, He refers the moral opposition to
the, influence of Satan, who, as the enemy, sowed the tares ; the
latter are the wiol tow irovqpov. Satan's agency extends even to
the (3aa-iXeia tov Qeov, for these viol tov irovrjpov exist in such
intimate community of life with the children of the kingdom, that
they cannot be rooted out without endangering the latter also.
It speciaUy, therefore, foUows from this, that the causative agency
of Satan in promoting sin exists simultaneously with the operation
of the divine word and the divine plan of salvation. This is a
speaking testimony agamst the oft-expressed rationaHstic view,
that the Lord asserted that satanic agency came to an end with
His appearance. This influence is, however, not invincible. It
can be withstood by moral means, as is evident from Luke xxii.
31 (cf. vers. 32 and 46). Jesus particularly reminds His disciples
that, just at that decisive epoch, at the end of their discipleship,
and looking forward to His own death, they would be exposed to
speciaUy powerful influence on the part of Satan. He subsequently
declares that this time of temptation is already entered on.
It Hkewise foUows from the teaching of Jesus, that Satan has a
kingdom, a wide-spreading sphere of action, — a kingdom, indeed,
diversified with gradations of ranks and members, in which he
rules (Matt. xii. 24-26, 45); he has his angels (Matt. xxv. 41).
As the ruler of this kingdom, he is the dpywv tov Koo-pov tovtov,
inasmuch as the world Hes Hi wickedness and under the curse of
sin, by virtue of the universaHty of the latter. Mankind thus
forms a part of the kingdom of Satan in the fast-entwined com-
pHcation of sin and corruption Because the Son entered into
this world in order to release it from this entanglement, He has
to deal as a combatant with Satan and his kingdom; and the
personal contest is brought before us in the history of the tempta
tion (Matt. iv.). This history does not, indeed, immediately
belong to the teaching of the Lord, but it is, at all events, in-
dHectly referred to in His statements. Matt. xvi. 23 is an echo
of this temptation. In John xiv. 30 He alludes to His victory
and in John vi. 70 to His conflict (cf. Luke xxii. 3, 53). The
whole world of men, banded against Jesus, form a part of the
power of darkness ; Hut for this very reason the prince of this

192 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART. I.
world is judged and condemned by His work (John xvi. 11).
But, notwithstanding this decision, a continuous course of opposi
tion to the work of Christ pervades the whole realization of
redemption (Matt. xHi ; Luke xxH.).
Another peculiar element of satanic agency must, however, be
aUuded to. Jesus does not go so far as to afford us any instruc
tion on this . subject, but stiU He so often spoke as to a certain
physical and psychical influence of Satan which to some extent
overstepped the immediately visible, and placed this subject in so
practical a relation to the kingdom of God which He announced,
that it must necessarUy be considered as forming a part of His
teaching. It was a weU-known fact that, at the time of our
Lord, the Jewish people attributed certain bodUy and mental
sufferings to the influence of demons : this was the so-called
possession by devils. The Saip,ovi%6pevoi were not those morally
subdued by Satan (as to whom the Lord expresses Himself
quite differently, Luke xxii. 3 ; John xHi 2), but those who were
suffering both in body and mind (Luke vHi 27), who had a
irvevpa Baip,. dicaQdpTov (Luke iv. 3 3, vi. 1 8). A woman also is
spoken of who had a irvevp,a dadevelav, a spirit which caused
the infirmity (Luke xiH. 11, cf. 16). Some of them were caUed
lunatics (Matt iv. 24, xvH. 15), their malady being supposed to
have some connection with the changes of the moon. The
EvangeHst John, who does not relate any heaHng of demoniacs,
was famiHar with the Baipoviov e^iv (cf. vH. 20, vHi. 48-52,
x. 20). It is related of Jesus that He healed many possessed
with devUs. Sometimes it is told but briefly (Matt. iv. 24;
Mark i 34; Matt. vHi. 16; Mark i 39, Hi 11, 12; Luke
vi. 18), sometimes with detaUed descriptions and representations
of the facts. We are also told that Jesus communicated to His
disciples the power to cast out devUs (Mark Hi. 1 5 ; Luke ix. 1),
and that they henceforth did it (Mark vi 13; Luke x. 17);
although in one case the attempt of the disciples was in vain,
whereupon the Lord, recognising then unbeHef as the cause of
theH faUure, with one word accompHshed the cure (cf. Matt, xvii
14-21). On this occasion, and also in several other cases, He
expressly explains HimseK on this subject (Matt. xH. 43-45),
comparing the only temporary cure of a demoniac with the mental
indecision of His contemporaries, who, in spite of the most urgent
caUs, maintained as a body the utmost indifference towards the

DIV. II. § 28.] OBJECT OF REDEMPTION — THE WORLD. 193
Lord, and the might of God's impending kingdom. This explana
tion, in conjunction with the commission and power of healing
conferred on the disciples, renders it perfectly clear how earnestly
the Lord desired that His disciples should beHeve that these, evils
were to be attributed to Satanic influences. The mode, too, in
which He (and aU Holy Scripture with Him) understands sin,
and defines the relation of Satan and his kingdom to sin, and,
further, the relation of sin to evU, and to the disturbance and
dissolution of Hfe (death in its most diversified sense), completely
correspond with the Lord's teaching as to the connection of these
maladies, partly with sin and evU generaUy, and partly with
Satan. The physical sufferings which principaUy showed them
selves in these men were sometimes spasms and convulsions
(Mark i 23, 26 ; Luke iv. 33, 35), especiaUy epilepsy (Matt.
xvii. 14), sometimes dumbness (Luke xi. 14 ; Matt. ix. 32), or
both dumbness and blindness together (Matt. xii. 22), and some
times, at least once, paralytic deformity (Luke xHi. 11). In
several cases manifest mental disturbances were combined with
these physical sufferings. In the instance of the man afflicted
with spasms and convulsions there was an interruption of seff-
consciousness ; and in the Gadarene demoniac the malady had
generaUy the appearance of raving insanity (Matt. via. 28 ;
cf. Mark v. 1 ; Luke viii. 26-39). Whether mental disturbances
were combined with the physical malady Hi other cases is not
evident from the accounts given, although it is probable, because
the declaration of the demoniacal influence may thus be most
readUy understood. Both Greeks and Romans shared these ideas
(epUepsy was the morbus sacer). The statements of Hippocrates
also agree with this, in which he speaks of the connection between
epUepsy and mental aberration as a pecuHar species of HnbecUity.
The very varied kinds of Baipovitypevoi were thus outwardly
indicated. The Lord, however, everywhere speaks in essentiaUy
the same way as to the invisible cause. RationaHsm seeks to
attribute these utterances to a giving way on the part of Jesus to
prevalent ideas. But any accommodation to erroneous opinions,
any positive yielding to them which would amount to an approval
and confirmation of them, is, in the view of any impartial person,
a tendency very far removed from the character of our Lord, as
manKested in His mode of action. In everything He desired to
point out the path, and not to foUow others ; and Hi every case,
N

194 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PARTI.
when truth and falsehood were in question, He was wont to ex
press Himself frankly, even when most in opposition to the
mightiest among the people, — always, however, with that didactic
wisdom which befitted the Man and the Son of God, but always,
too, with the veracity which put aside everything which favoured
error and falsehood. Although here and there, in the wisdom of
His teaching, He seemed to shun controversy, yet this was always
so done that the error and delusion which were the matters in
question were on His part always fuUy exposed, although per
haps at first in an indirect mode. It was very different in respect
to the ideas we are considering. He did nothing to put an end
to the existence of the doctrine derived from the Old Testament
as to Satan, the Satanic kingdom, etc., as e.g. He must necessarily
have done (if it were erroneous) in the case recorded in Matt.
xvii 14. Against this view not even a single inference which
can stand its ground can be derived from the whole of His
teaching as to God and man, sin and grace. Not only, however,
has He said nothing whatever against these ideas, but, on the
contrary, which, too, is the main point, He has so spoken and
taught, that we must admit them among the body of His teaching,
especiaUy the theory of this physical and psychical influence of
demons. He expressly stated that the casting out of devils was
a conquest of Satan by One stronger than he (Matt, xii 22 ff. ;
Mark Hi. 23 ff.; Luke xi 21 ff), and that it was as it were an actual
proof that, with the arrival of this stronger One, the kingdom of God
had come into the kingdom in which the strong one had before
ruled. He speaks simUarly (Luke xHi. 1 0-1 7) of the loosing of
the bonds of Satan as an action arising from His humane love.
It is evident here, just as in the conferring of the power of healing
on His disciples, that He connects this destruction of Satan's
work with His own work of redemption, and Satan himseK, as the
prince of this world, with man's sin and need of redemption.
In this very teaching man's complete need of redemption fuUy
presents itseK. Man can only be set free by the power and
grace of God. The Scriptures do not say that Satan is included
in the sphere of redemption ; on the contrary, the Lord speaks of
an everlasting fire prepared for him and his dyyeXoiv (Matt. xxv.
41). No scheme of redemption for these faUen creatures is any
where spoken of; but we may perceive an enormous extent of
long-sufferance exercised towards them during the whole course

DIV. II. § 29.] SUBJECT OF REDEMPTION — REDEEMING POWER. 195
of man's history. At the last judgment Satan's trial will
come to an end, but it is not anywhere stated that the work of
redemption avails for him. There is, on the contrary, afforded
us, even as regards men, a glance into the abyss of sin, by which
we see that sin may attain to such a pitch that for it there is no
forgiveness either in this or the future almv. At this point man's
sin is aUied to Satan's not merely in its similarity, but in its
essence. This constitutes the lapse into the sin against the Holy
Ghost (Matt. xH. 31, 32).
§ 29. Tlie Subject of Redemption — Redeeming Power.
From the doctrine of the universality of sin in mankind, we have,
in the first place, only the negative result, that redeeming power does
not exist in man. As regards the positive side, we perceive that
the Lord points out God generally, and especiaUy God's love as the
redeeming principle ; but in doing this He always represents
Himself, the Son of God, as the real Redeemer, by whose inter
position redemption is completed. He refers the redemption to
God generally, first in synoptical passages, especiaUy in parables,
in which redemption is represented as being founded on God,
God's wUl, and particularly God's pity (Matt, xviii. 12-14).
It is not the wiU of God that any one should be lost ; just as a
good shepherd, if but one of his hundred sheep be lost, wiU not
suffer it to go astray. On the contrary, he makes this lost one
the exclusive object of his care and trouble, the successful result
of which is his greatest joy. Thus it is not the wiU of the
heavenly Father that one of these Httle ones should perish : cf.
ver. 10, in reference to the chUdren vers. 1, 2. Likewise in the
parable of the creditor (Matt. xvHi. 27 ff), and in the concluding
sentence of the account of the rich young man (Matt. xix. 26).
In these and several other passages, it is therefore God to whom
the deHverance from the corruption of sin and man's introduction
into the kingdom of God are simply and generally attributed.
But although in these passages the merciful God is represented
as the general principle of redemption, the more definite idea is
not excluded, which presents itself in other utterances, as in the
parables in which Jesus points out His own interposition (cf.
Matt. xxn. 2 ff. ; Luke xx 9-18; Matt. xxv. 1-13, as to the
marriage-feast, the vineyard, and the virgins). So also in the
passages in St. John's Gospel (ch. vi. 38-40, iv. 34), which

196 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
attribute redemption to the wUl of the Father, but stUl with
essential reference to the interposition of the Son, — the only-
begotten Son being generaUy represented as the direct and original
object of the love of the Father, this beatifying love being trans
mitted from the Son to beHevers, and diffused among them (John
iii. 16, xiv. 23, xvH. 26, v. 20). In harmony with this is
the heavenly approbation manifested at Jesus' baptism and glori
fication (Matt. Hi 17, xvn 5). His teaching as to the wfll of
the Father being the groundwork of the redemption which is
effected through the Son, foUows also from a comparison of the
evBoKla in the above-named passages and Hi Matt. xi. 26, with
the 6eXr)pa in ch. xvHi 14.
According to the united statements of the evangeHsts, Jesus
expressly declares Himself to be the Redeemer, the entire purport of
theH narratives affording the proof that He looked upon His
own person as the centre round which everything moved, and
on which everything depended. In the three first evangelists, in
whom the idea of God's kingdom prevails, He places His own
person in essential relation to this kingdom; and, as the nature
of the former is represented as being distinctly stamped by His
miracles, its importance is made evident by the requHement of
faith in Him as the condition of this mHaculous help. In John,
where the positive idea of redemption, and particularly that of
the far) prevaUs, the Lord describes HimseK as the Life and the
Giver of it.
The utterances in which Jesus designates Himself as the
Messiah will be further considered in § 30. We wiU here
mention some passages from the synoptical discourses, in which
the idea of the redemption speciaUy presents itseK. Among
these is Matt. ix. 12, 13, in which Jesus says that He was the
physician for the spirituaUy sick, and that He had come to call
sinners to repentance ; also (Luke xix 1 0 ; Matt. xvHi. 1 1 ;
Luke v. 32) that He had come to seek and to save that which
was lost. Likewise (Matt. xx. 28) that He had not come to
be ministered unto, but to minister, — indeed, to give His life as
a ransom, as the price for the deHverance of many from sin and
its corruption. He therefore sheds His blood for the remission of
sins, in which is afforded the most important idea of redemption.
In Luke xxiv. 46, 47, He it is in whose name alone repentance
and remission of sins can and must be preached to aU nations.

DIV. II. § 29.] SUBJECT OF REDEMPTION— REDEEMING POWER. 19 7
In Matt. xi. 28 He it is who gives comfort and rest to aU the
spHituaUy distressed and miserable, if, indeed, they take upon
them His yoke ; and, inasmuch as He is the Son to whom the
Father has committed everything, no one can know the Father
but he to whom the Son has revealed Him (ver. 27). True
spiritual communion with the Father, comfort and rest to the
soul, are aU therefore brought about through the Son, to whom
(Matt, xxviii 18-20) is given aU power in heaven and earth for
the salvation of men. Thus forcibly, in the synoptical discourses,
does Jesus declare that it is He through whom the redemption of
man is effected; and this representation of HimseK, and the
proof of it, appear in the synoptical gospels as the aim of the
Lord in His discourses, and as the work which He describes as
committed to Him. The case is the same Hi the Gospel of St.
John, which contains many pregnant declarations as to the aim
and end of His appearance upon earth, and as to His work.
Thus, in John Hi. 16, 17, it is the aim and end of His mission
(on which the entry into the kingdom of God depends) to save
from the corruption of sin, and to communicate the far) alwviov
through faith in Him. It is through faith in Him that man hath
passed from death unto Hfe. In ch. vi, with respect to the aim
of His appearance, He represents Himself as the bread of life
which had' come down from heaven, and as the Giver of eternal
Hfe (ver. 27) ; and that, consequently, at the last day, the resurrec
tion should be given through faith in Him, who had come down
from heaven, and had afforded His flesh and blood for the
salvation and Hfe of the world (ver. 51-58). According t<
John vin. 12, He is the Light of the world, which affords
quickening Hght to aU that beHeve in Him : it is He alone who
can rightly set free from sin (vers. 31-37), through faith in Him
who is without sin (vers. 45, 46). According to ch. x., He is the
good Shepherd who gives true Hfe and the fulness thereof to the
sheep which hear His voice (ver. 10), and for this purpose
voluntarUy lays down His life. In ch. xi. He is Himself the
Resurrection and the LKe, and he that beHeveth on Him is
superior to death (vers. 25, 26). According to ch. xii. 24, 32,
the Son of man, in order to bring forth much fruit, and to draw
aU men to HimseK, must fall like a corn of wheat to the earth.
In ch. xiv. 6, He it is through whom alone man cometh to the
Father. He hath overcome the world; on which account His

198' THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PARTI.
disciples may be of good cheer (xvi. 33); and His going away
brings about the sending of the Holy Ghost (xvi. 7). He has
the power (xvii. 2, 3, 6) to give eternal Hfe to aU men. He
manifests to them God's name, Hi order that God's love may pass
from Him (the Son) to them, and that they through Him may
obtain a share in His everlasting glory.
From aU these expressions, both in the Gospel of St. John and
also in the synoptical discourses, it may be plainly inferred that
it is not merely the pitying love of God and the divine counsel in
general which is pointed out by Jesus as the groundwork of the
redemption, but also and especiaUy His own person, in which
dweUs the fulness of divine Hfe, and the complete divine power
for the communication of this Hfe to men ; also as being the per
son through whom redemption is effected, and with whom men
must have communion in faith, in order to have a share of this
redemption, as is shown by the comparison to a vine and its
branches. Salvation proceeds from God, but it is bound up in the
person of Jesus, through whom it is effected and proffered. Thus
the Old Testament idea of salvation assumes a pecuHar shape, to
which, indeed, it already tended in the contents of the Old Testa
ment, inasmuch as aU prophecy points out some personality on
which salvation is to be based. This, then, also was the im
pression made by the person of Jesus, His teaching, and His
intercourse with men, both on His disciples and all those round
Him. Thus, indeed, they express themselves (John vi. 68, 69;
cf. Matt. xvi. 16, also Acts iv. 11, 12). We find a simUar impres
sion made on the Samaritans (John iv. 42), and Hkewise on Mary
and Martha (John xi. 27).
We must now pass on to the consideration of the several ele
ments of the teaching as to redeeming power.
§ 30. The Subject of Redemption — The Relation of the Redeemer to
the Old Testament Bispensation.
It is so evident that Jesus recognised in His work a relation to
the Old Testament, that it needs no proof. The fact has not,
indeed, been denied, but has been explained from a rationaHstic
point of view as an accommodation to circumstances. But the
accounts of the evangeHsts show that it was done with perfect
earnestness. It was also done, not merely in the presence of
the people and the scribes, but also before His apostles (Matt.

DIV. II. § 30.] RELATION OF THE REDEEMER TO 0. T. DISPENSATION. 199
xxvi. 24, 31; Luke xxii. 37, xxiv. 44), indeed, even in prayer
(John xvH. 12). There was in Him a fundamental idea which
pervaded His whole consciousness. He knew that His appearance
was necessarUy predicted and prepared for in the Old Testament ;
and therefore in the various predictions, and also in the whole
progress of the Old Testament dispensation of revelation, and the
development of the theocratic people, He found a prophecy as to
His person and work, and a clearing of the way for His appear
ance. He also recognised a necessity in His Hfe and appearance,
which was based on, and revealed by, this prophecy and pre
paration. The mam question, therefore, is, how He defined His relation
to the Old Covenant when He testifies as to Himself. This, Hi
general, appears clearly enough from the main fact, that He de
clared Himself to be the Messiah ; and, connected with this, that
during the period of His teaching He confined His ministry
within the limits of the theocratic people. On this point He
made a forcible declaration in the case of the Canaanitish woman
(Matt. xv. 24; Mark vH. 27). He recognised it as a moral
necessity, so long as He abode upon earth, that He should not
deprive His nation of any part of His ministry ; and finding Him
seK at that moment on the heathen frontier, He desired to make
known to His disciples and others that He did not intend to
transfer His ministry to others, and thus act contrary to His
special Messianic destination. He also distinctly declares Himself
to be the Messiah, by accepting the acknowledgment of His dis
ciples to this effect. Thus in John i 3 5 ff, where we are told that
the disciples, one by one, made up theH minds about Him; also in
Matt. xvi. 13 ff, when, at the conclusion of His first year of teaching,
Peter uttered this confession in the name of all the apostles. He
by no means repeUed the salutation of the people when they wel
comed Him as the Messiah (Matt. xxi. 15, 16). He had, indeed,
called it forth by the prophetico-symboHcal form of His entry
into Jerusalem. To the Baptist's disciples He confessed Himself
to be " He that should come " (Matt. xi. 5). To individuals He
expressly declared Himself to be the Messiah (e.g. John iv. 26,
ix 37, x. 25), and likewise before the highest tribunal in a solemn
emphatic asseveration (Matt. xxvi. 64). He made this claim on
the latter occasion, although He knew that it would bring about
His death. Even K we did not possess aU these utterances of

200 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I,
Jesus, we should have sufficient evidence in the fact, that after
His death His disciples maintained and preached that He was
the Messiah.
It has been a matter of controversy how soon the Lord
announced HimseK to be the Messiah (cf. § 12). Strauss says:
" Jesus, having been at first a disciple of the Baptist, after the
imprisonment of the latter only took the same position as the
Baptist in the Messianic kingdom, although in a more Hberal
spHit. It was but graduaUy that He elevated Himself to the idea
of being Himself the Messiah ; and whenever this notion was ex
pressed by others, He was terrified to hear others utter what He
Himself scarcely ventured to suppose." Truly this would have
been but a • sorry hero to remodel the moral world ! And yet it
is a fact, that a revolution in mankind dates from the appearance
of Jesus. That a person from whom a new era for humanity was
to proceed should be represented as thus timid and wavering, is
an idea which carries with it its own refutation. The exegetical
arguments also do not stand theH ground. It is said that in the
Gospel of St. John only the declarations of Christ concerning
HimseK, and the opinions of His adherents concerning Him,
maintain their consistency, and that in the synoptical books there
are vaciUations and relapses. But even in John, Jesus mamfests
HimseK sometimes openly and sometimes more reservedly. Only
compare, for example, ch. H. 4 with the conversation with Nico
demus (ch. Hi.) and the statements in ch. xi. 24 ff. (cf. 8 12).
On the other hand, the Sermon on the Mount, quite at the com
mencement of the synoptical accounts, what is it but a wisely
calculated and yet unmistakeable Messianic discourse (cf. particu
larly the emphasis laid on His own person in ch. v. 1 1, vH. 21-24)?
Moreover, His further ministry, His prescriptions to His disciples,
His teaching, and His miracles, are not all these the very things
which He Himseff characterized as Messianic (Matt. xi. 5) ? It
is, besides, said that the fact of His graduaUy growing conscious
ness may be inferred from His forbidding (even in the synoptical
gospels) the divulging of His name as the Messiah (Mark vHi 30;
Matt. xvi. 20 ; Mark ix. 9 ; Matt. xvii. 9 ; Luke ix. 21), and
from His appearing to speak of the Messiah as of some other per
son than HimseH (Matt, x 23, xHi. 37, xvi. 27, ch. xxiv.). But
even in the synoptical gospels He never repels any acknowledg
ment of His Messiahship (Matt. vHi. 10-13, ix. 18-26). He is

DIV. II. § 30.] RELATION OF THE REDEEMER TO 0. T. DISPENSATION. 201
also zealous against any attacks on His personal dignity as a
divine ambassador and worker of mHacles (Matt. xH. 24-27).
Perhaps, however, He was desirous that He should be recognised
by His works as weU as by His direct statements ; and this is a
wish which betrays no vacUlation, but is fuUy justifiable. Every
where, however, He deals with His claim to the title of the
Messiah with that didactic wisdom which was due to the subject,
and Hi each particular case acts according to the nature and sus-
ceptibiHty of those with whom He had to do. He was compeUed
to act thus, so as not to impede the successful result of His
testimony as to HimseK. He was also obHged to modffy the
prevaUing ideas as to a Messiah, and, in conjunction with this, to.
speak of His own person, sometimes openly, sometimes more
reservedly ; but there is, in reaHty, no shadow of a proof that He
ever spoke of the Messiah as a third person.
As the Messiah and FulfiHer of the new covenant, it is Jesus
in whom the old covenant attains its accompHshment. As such,
He recognises most eminently the divine character of the Old
Testament dispensation (John iv. 22). Salvation, which is here
considered as something future, is "of the Jews" through the
revelation afforded them, and has its source-point in that people,
owing to the knowledge of the true God which they possessed.
The divine character of this dispensation is thus acknowledged.
He fixes a Hmit to this dispensation in John the Baptist (Matt.
xi 12 ; Luke xvi. 16). He ascribes divine authority to the scrip
tures of the Old Testament, to which He often appeals ; in virtue
of which authority both beHef and obedience are due to them
from men, and through the whole course of the history these
scriptures " must be fulfiUed." He speaks of them, using various
terms which were current among the Jews, such as ypa<pr) and
ypatpal (John x. 35, v. 39 ; Matt. xxvi. 54), and vopov (John x 34).
In other places the Pentateuch is understood by this latter ex
pression (Matt. xH. 5) ; or Moses and the prophets (Luke xvi. 31) ;
or even the law and the prophets (Matt. v. 17, vH. 12, xxii. 40,
cf. xi. 13 ; Luke xvi. 16) ; or the scriptures of the prophets (Matt.
xxvi. 56 ; Luke xvHi. 31, tA yey pappeva Bid twv irpo^nrSsv).
The complex of the Old Testament books contains elements of
two kinds, — Moses and the prophets, or the law and prophecy. In
the Sermon on the Mount, He enters into the relation in which He
stood to these two elements of the dispensation (Matt. v. 1 7-1 9),

202 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
and ascribes especiaUy to the law a divine origin, and then-
fore inviolable stability : not the least of the commandments was
to be set aside (cf. Luke xvi. 17). He therefore elsewhere ap
peals to the divine law of the old covenant (Matt. xv. 3 -6). In
Matt. xxii. 35-40 He distinguishes the two greatest command
ments, — the love of God, and of your neighbour ; and the ques
tion as to what must be done to inherit eternal life is referred by
Him to the commandments of the law (Luke x. 26 ff). He goes
further than this, and interprets the law, referring it, as with the
rich young man (Matt. xix. 1 6 ff ), to the innermost grounds of the
heart, and thus showing how He fulfilled it. On the other hand,
the law is also contained in the prophets, especiaUy an inculcation
of its spHit. Hence, Hi Matt. vH. 1 2, Jesus brings forward the love
of one's neighbour as the purport not only of the law, but of the
prophets also, — that is, their moral purport. The second element
is prophecy. The Lord says even of Moses that he had written
of Him (John v. 45-47). This prophecy is recognised by Him
as divine, and therefore authentic; and He lays it down as an
axiom that the Scripture must be fulfiUed (Matt. xxvi. 54, xvi.
21 ; Luke xxiv. 46 ; John xHi 18, xvH. 12). Hence the expres
sion Bei or eBei : it must be done, because only thus can the divine
prediction and ordinance be reaHzed (Luke xxii. 37). The Scrip
tures cannot be broken (John x. 35), because it is the revelation
of the divine counsel.
In Moses and the prophets (Matt. v. 18, 19; Luke xvi 29),
there is, therefore, the absolute rule of IKe for IsraeHtes and man.
The Lord also appeals to the historical records of the Old Testa
ment, and thus recognises their authority (Matt. xH. 3, 4, 42;
Luke iv. 25-27 ; John Hi. 14). But He especiaUy declares that
the Scriptures testify of Him, and must be fulfilled in Him (John
v. 39). Of this kind are aU the passages in the synoptical
gospels in which He refers prophecies to His own life, or, as a
proof of His Messiahship, brings forward Messianic features in
prophecy which are realized in His Hfe (Matt. xi. 4 ; cf. Is. xxxv.
5, lxi 1).
He expressly lays down His relation to the Old Testament, —
that it was His personal destination to fulfil the Old Testament dis
pensation (Matt. v. 17); as in Matt. xxi. 38, He is the hen of
the vineyard, to whom it wUl revert. In this idea of fulfilment
in Christ's person the two aspects of His relation to the Old

DIV. II. § 30.] RELATION OF THE REDEEMER TO 0. T. DISPENSATION. 203
Testament — the accomplishment of the Old Testament dispen
sation, and its cessation Hi its temporal form — are most unequi-
vocaUy contained.
In the first place, that through Him the essential purport and
aim of this dispensation must attain accomplishment : in this, the
whole contents of the Scriptures and the institutions of the old
covenant are comprehended. Because He is caUed to this charge
of positive fulfilment, He therefore declares so forcibly and decidedly
that the very least of its commandments may not be broken (Matt.
v. 18, 19 ; cf. Luke xvi 17). But He does not imply that every
thing is to remain just as it is, but that nothing in it is without
its true import and its high-abiding aim ; and in this sense it
remains, in that it is fulfiUed. The irXr)p&o-at must not be limited
to the teaching, — teaching and doing being both impHed. The
people must of course attain to a knowledge of the divine wiU,
but the execution of that wiU by the Lord's people forms also a
part of the fulfilment.
In this irXripmo-ai the cessation of the Old Testament dispensa
tion is also involved, that is, as regards its temporal economy, or
everything Hi it which was merely preparatory, and only the
means to an end. That this foUows from the irXr/pwo-ai is shown
by a multitude of the Lord's utterances both in John and the
synoptical gospels. Among them is that (Matt. xH. 8 ; cf. Mark
H. 28 ; Luke vi. 5) Hi which he asserts that the Son of man is
Lord also of the Sabbath. His claim with, regard to the Sabbath
must apply to the whole temporal economy of the Old Testament.
Thus, in Matt. xxvi. 28, He declares His blood to be that of a
new covenant, and that His death, in that it brings about the
remission of sins, is the condition of the new covenant between
God and man, which is to take the place of the old covenant con
cluded on Sinai (cf. Heb. vH. 11, viii. 6-8). That which is re
corded in Ex. xxiv. 8 was now done with higher potency, and
the prophecy in Jer. xxxi. 31-34 is fulfiUed. In announcing the
reaHzation of the new covenant, He also announces the rejection of
the Israelitish people as the national object of theocracy : cf. the
conclusion of the parable of the husbandmen (Matt. xxi. 38, 43,
44; Mark xH. 10; Luke xx. 18). This rejection is the conse
quence of the denial and slaying of the son and heH of the
theocracy, who was the Lord of God's kingdom now appearing
upon earth, which was no longer to have, Hke the' old covenant, a

204 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
special national groundwork in the Jewish people, but was to be
given to aU men, who shaU find one common unity Hi the kingdom
of heaven (Luke xiH. 29; Matt. viH. 11). In conformity with
this, the Lord predicts a destruction of the temple (Matt. xxiv. 1 ff.;
Mark xiH. 1 ff. ; Luke xxi. 5, 6). With this temple the Mosaic
worship, especiaUy as a sacrificial service, was bound up, and with
it the national existence, and particularly Jerusalem,. was to be
subverted (Luke xxi. 20). The people were to be scattered "until
the times of the GentUes be fulfiUed." This is their weU-merited
sentence (Luke xxi. 23, 24, xix. 41—44; Matt. xxiv.).
The Lord speaks in a Hke manner in John ix 21, 23, 24
On the advent of the true worship, the service of God in Jerusalem
wiU cease. This cessation is therefore a progress to the end
desired by God. In John x 16 Jesus speaks of other sheep
which are not of this fold, and of the future, when there shall be
one flock and one Shepherd. Here, therefore, there is an antici
pation of the formation of a people and kingdom of God which
are not to be confined to merely national Hmits. Hitherto the
temple had formed, as a centre, the connecting band for God's
people ; henceforth theH point of union was to be Hi Christ.
The passage, John ii. 19, one of the earHest utterances of the
Lord, at the time of His first Messianic visit to Jerusalem at the
time of the feast, is also of a simUar nature.
§ 31. The Subject of Redemption — The Person and Circumstances of
the Redeemer.
That portion of the utterances of Jesus which belong to this
subject have been aHeady spoken of when considering the
teaching as to the Son. In this general idea we have only to
distinguish the distinct and direct reference of person and cHcum-
stances to the work of redemption.
With regard to this point, we must not forget that He never
speaks of the redemption as something apart from Himseff, but
always as the very operation of His person, and as standing in
inseparable relation to it, and its cHcumstances and course of
action. Thus everything in Him, both the divine element of
His nature and His coming from the Father, and also the element
of His human lowHness on earth, and His condescension even to
death, are placed in relation to His work. The simplest and
most general expression for this idea is, that God sent Him for

DIV. II. § 32.]' AGENCY OF THE REDEEMER IN GENERAL. 205
the accompHshment of this work, as in the very sending the
divinely human character of His person is implied. That He
possesses the Hfe of the Father, and also gives it ; that the com
munion of beHevers with the Father is included in that of the
Father with the Son; that theH future glory is a partaking in
His glory ; that His knowledge of the Father and heavenly things
constitutes the perfection of His teaching ; His death and His
resurrection, — aU these facts are but more detaUed expressions
of this oneness of His work and His person. Sometimes He
presents more prominently the divine, and sometimes the human,
aspect of His person ; but that they are joint attributes is shown
by the attestations of His eminence, such as the judging in
Johnv. 22 ff, being so emphaticaUy brought into connection with
His humanity.
There are, in the first place, two main points which we note,
although the first only occurs in the discourses in John's Gospel,
namely, His pre-existence (cf. § 22) and the divinely human state.
The latter is divided into an earthly and heavenly existence.
Into the former has He come (John xvH. 4, 11). The deep
humUiation of His sufferings and death are clearly brought
forward by Him as special conditions of His Hfe (Matt, xvii), and
likewise His resurrection. The heavenly condition which was to
foUow is sometimes distinctly announced by Jesus as going to the
Father and being with Him (John vi 61, xvi 5), and sometimes
is made known by the promise of His return and His presence
with beHevers. By this latter intHnation the reference of this
heavenly condition to the work of salvation is made clear; as
respects the earthly condition, it is seK-evident ; and even of His
pre-existence He has intimated this same relation in His remark
able words, that Abraham had rejoiced to see His day, and had
seen it and was glad (John viii .56 ff). Thus the cHcumstances
of His person in their various vicissitudes form the ground
work of His redeeming action.
§ 32. The Subject of Redemption — The Agency of the Redeemer in
general, and especially His Life and Teaching on Earth.
Jesus comprehends the whole of His agency on earth as the
accomplishment of a work committed to Him by God (John
xvii 4, iv. 34), a work that originated in God's wUl, and is
completed in the divine power, — completed, indeed, by Christ, to

206 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
whom as the Redeemer it is committed; not that it is accom
plished by Him as a work aHen to Himself, but as one belonging'
to His person, and in which He is well pleased. Neither, on the
other hand, is it on this account alien also to the Father, but
tends to His glorification (John xvH. 4). This one epyov, in
which His agency is comprised, must be distinguished from the
epya in the plural, or various works or mHacles of Jesus. In
other places He describes His work as a whole by expressions
such as, "that He was sent" (John iii. 16; Matt. xv. 24), or,
"that He had come" (Matt. v. 17, xviii. 11, ix. 13, xx. 28;
Luke xix. 1 0) ; and of this His work,- of His Messianic agency,
His teaching and Hving on earth form the chief part.
In the first place, His teaching. When the Baptist sent to
ask Jesus whether He were "He that should come," Jesus
brought forward as a sign of His Messianic work various kinds
of miracles ; but, together with these, He mentions as an equally
essential element that the gospel is preached to the irrarxpi,
referrmg to Isa. lxi 1. Jesus likewise considers the revelation of
the Father to be a special work of the Son (Matt. xi. 27;
cf. Luke x. 22). Therefore the communication of the message of
salvation, and the revelation of the Father, form essential elements
of His Messianic teaching. In the parable of the sower, whose
seed faUs in various soUs (Luke viii. 5 ; Mark iv. 3 ; Matt. xiii. 3),
He explains that the seed is the word of the kingdom of God
now appearing (Matt. xiH. 19), or the word of God merely (Luke
viH 1 1 ; Mark iv. 14). To scatter this seed is essentiaUy the
business of the Son of man. We must, besides, take into con
sideration the passages in which the Lord attaches a deep impor
tance to His teaching; as in Luke viii 21, where those who hear
the word and do it are styled His mother and His brethren ; or
in Matt. x. 24, xxHi 10, 8, in which He caUs HimseK the
Master or Teacher of His disciples, He being absolutely the
only master. In John xvii. 6-8, we see that revealing, that is,
teaching the name of the Father, entirely and especiaUy forms a
part of Christ's work. His word is a sure and certain testimony
as to earthly and heavenly things (John Hi. 11, 12), depending
upon an adequate knowledge of the Father attained to by Him
alone (John vi. 45, 46). His word is divine doctrine, and
recognisable as such by him who is wiUing to do the wiU of the
Father (John vH. 16, 17). Whoever continued in His word

DIV. II. § 32.] AGENCY OF THE REDEEMER IN GENERAL. 207
should know the truth, which sets free from the bondage of sin,
as divine truth which deHvers from death (John viii. 32, cf. xH.
47, 50). Prophecy also forms a part of the teaching of Christ,
in that it is nothing else but the statement of the divine counsel
of salvation as it was to be realized in the future.
The extent to which the Lord describes His teaching as an
element of His redeeming action is in part made clear by the
utterances we have just considered. His teaching is a message
of salvation to mankind that needed it (Matt. xi. 5 ; Mark i 15);
it is God's word (John xvii. 6, 8, xiv. 20) communicated to Him
by the Father, in order thereby to bring about eternal Hfe (John
xii. 49) ; it is the word which is the spirit and the Hfe (John
vi. 63), or briefly, is the truth which sets free from sin and death
(John viH. 32, 34-36), and confers a true knowledge both of the
Father and of the Son (John xvH. 6, 8). It has, therefore, the
power of purifying men (John xv. 3), and of communicating
eternal IKe (John xvii. 3). His words retain an everlasting value,
although heaven and earth may pass away, and are therefore in
tended to be a common good for aU nations (Mark xiH. 10).
Thus the teaching of Jesus is a representation of Himself and
of His consciousness, of that, namely, which was communicated
to Him by the Father, which He Himself perceived and under
stood (John vi 45, 46), and what He HimseK is (xvii. 8). This
representation of HimseK is at the same time a representation of
the Father (xvH. 6, xiv. 7-9, xii 45), because the Son is one
with the Father (xiv. 1 0). As a representation of seK, it is also
a communication of HimseK, a communication of that which
exists in His consciousness, so that abiding in His word is an
abiding in Him (John xv. 7, xiv. 22). The action of His teach
ing is therefore unique in its kind : it is not concluded with His
earthly instructions, but is carried on, in the first place, by the
agency of the Holy Ghost, who shall guide into aU truth (John
xvi. 13). The SpHit carries forward the teaching of Jesus, by
supplying the deficiencies which existed owing to the unbeHef of
the disciples, and by perfecting the teaching of Jesus out of Jesus
Himself, and not from any alien source (cf. § 24). He also
recognised another continuation of the action of His teaching in
the ministry of His apostles, to whom this Spirit is promised as
the substitute for His presence among them, who also, in virtue
of theH personal intercourse with Him, were to testify of Him

208 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. TPART I.
(John xv. 27), and through whom the gospel was to be brought
to aU nations (Matt. xxviH. 20).
But with His work is also associated His life, inasmuch as it
was a representation of His entire personality in His earthly life
as regarded men, and of its influence on them, therefore His
entire course of action, so far as this can be distinguished
from His teaching. AU this the Lord considers as belonging
to His work, in the first place, in the passages in which He
represents HimseK as the image of His Father (John xii 45,
xiv. 7-10). Jesus is so much the image of the Father, that
whosoever knows Him knows the Father also. The seeing, bpav,
Oecopeiv, in these passages must not, indeed, be limited to the
mere sight of the person of Jesus ; stiU less, when He says that
He is to be known in order to know the Father, can we refer
this merely to the effect of His teaching. But we must take the
language as comprehensively as it is intended, — that the know
ledge of His person (of which, indeed, the outward perception
forms a part, although this is but a feeble commencement of the
knowledge of Him) is, in virtue of the consubstantiaHty of the
two, likewise a knowledge of the Father.
But in the redeeming action of His life is also included His
whole course of action : He always does the wUl of the Father
(John vHi 29), and therefore no one can convince Him of sin
(vin. 46). This is also proved by the passages in which He
represents His sentiments and way of acting as a model to His
disciples, which they are to imitate and foUow (John xHi 14-17,
34 ; Matt, xvi 24), principaUy Hi His love and His renunciation
of the world (cf. Matt, x 38). The idea of the yoke (Matt, xi 39)
which His disciples are to take upon themselves, is also of a
simUar nature in its teaching and type. His epya, especiaUy His
miracles (John xv. 24, ix 3-5), constitute special points Hi His
redeeming action. Jesus appeals to these mHacles as elements
of His Messianic functions, and as vouchers for His dignity.
He therefore declares that, although He had a just claim that
men should beHeve His word (John xiv. 11), yet K this claim
were resisted, His works were of that nature that on theH account
beUef could not be refused. In some cases, indeed, in the course
of His teaching, He appears to speak differently as to His
miracles, and points out that it is more worthy to believe in
Him when no miracles are done by Him, complaining that He

DIV. II. § 33.] SUFFERINGS AND DEATH OF THE REDEEMER. 209
was only believed in so far as people were as K compeUed to
beHeve by seeing the mHacles which He did (John iv. 48). But
the right way of understanding this language may be inferred from
John xiv. 11, that, apart from His mHacles, there were adequate
grounds for believing in Him contained in His teaching and
entHe personality ; in this, however, there is no intimation that
His mHacles, in their nature and aim, were not to be, in fact,
means of exciting and confirming faith in Him. Likewise, in the
accounts in the synoptical gospels, He sometimes forbids the
publication of certain mHacles done by Him (as Mark vii 3 6) ;
but the reason for this is not that He did not wish His mHacles
to be seen by the people, but that in some cases He thought it
desHable, either that His own person should remain unmolested,
or that those healed should be in undisturbed quiet, so as to retain
the impression made upon them. The mHacles were in general
weU fitted, and indeed intended, to bring into view the indivi
dual distinction of His person They were the corroboration of
His personaHty, which was unique Hi its nature, and of the
relation to the Father which was pecuHar to Him. In their
ethical aspect, too, they were proofs of the wisdom and love which
befitted this personaHty.
He brings forward another pecuHar element of His redeeming
action in the voluntary humiliation of His life on earth, which
found its consummation Hi His death. He regards as speciaUy
worthy of remark in His moral procedure, both His self-denial and
self-sacrifice of the lower life in order to attain a higher, and also
His ministering and devoted love to men. In this, His earthly
Hfe is for the most part shown to be a position of lowliness, His
mHacles manifesting His exaltation. In one sense this lowly
aspect of His Hfe is represented as a pattern (Matt. xvi. 23-26,
cf. 21; John xH. 24, 25; Matt. xx. 26-28; John xv. 12, 13);
but in another and superior sense it is an element of His redeem
ing action which we are now about to consider.
§ 33. The Subject of Redemption — the Sufferings and Beath of the
Redeemer.
It clearly foUows from the predictions made by Jesus as to His
sufferings and death, as recorded both in John and the synoptical
books, that He considered His sufferings and death, as elements of^
His work. In St. John's Gospel the intimations as to His sufferings
0

210 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
and death are found in the first period of His pubHc Hfe, and
are continued through the whole course of it. From the com
mencement onwards these intimations are veUed under typical de
lineations, as was indeed necessary, for He would otherwise have
anticipated the historical development in an unsuitable way. He
could at first speak of the subject under a veUed form only, the result
of which would be that, by continued reflection and a comparison
with the progressive historical development of His Hfe, His hearers
would be led to the reaUy intended sense of His words. The
disciples, indeed, perceived this after their eyes had been opened
by the whole course of His appearance on earth : cf. John H. 19, 22,
where, together with His death, the resurrection is also hinted at
in a veiled form. There is also the passage (John Hi. 14, 15)
in which we have the figure of the approaching Hfting up of the
Son of man, as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wUderness :
cf. ch. viH. 28. The words in John vi. 51 ff. are in somewhat
plainer terms, but yet in their whole connection are veUed from
the immediate hearers. The ideas are more openly expressed in
ch. x 11, 15-18, and also ch. xH. 7, 24. The valedictory dis
courses as to His departure to the Father immediately foUow, —
that they (His disciples) should see Him no more, and that they
should mourn, but that afterwards they should again see Him,
and He should see them (cf. xiH.-xvH.) ; finaUy, we have the
account of the sufferings and death.
In the synoptical evangelists, the intimations as to His ap
proaching death do not commence tUl later in the history, except
those given in GaHlee. The earHest of theni, however, is again a
figurative one, which leads us to think that this typical mode of
speaking of the matter is characteristic of the earHer period of His
life. This is the mention of the sign of the prophet Jonah (Matt.
xH. 39 f, xvi. 4; Luke xi. 29 f.) : although in Luke the refer
ence to the personal fortunes of Jonah is not brought prominently
forward, yet this second element in the type is not excluded, but
is, on the contrary, intimated in the earai in ver. 30. Next
foUow the predictions of His death, which were addressed to the
apostles: (1) Matt. xvi. 21; Mark viH. 31; Luke ix. 22 : (2)
Matt. xvn. 22, 23; Mark ix. 31; Luke ix. 44: (3) Matt. xx.
18, 19 ; Mark x 33 ff. ; Luke xviH. 31-34: (4) Matt. xxvi. 2;
after which the account of His sufferings commences. The words
are opportunely introduced (Mark xiv. 8 ; cf. John xii. 7) which

DIV. II. § 33.] SUFFERINGS AND DEATH OF THE REDEEMER. 211
the Lord spoke to Mary at Bethany. All these predictions of
His death show that He looked upon His death and sufferings as
essentiaUy belonging to the divine work committed to Him, and
to the divine order of His Hfe : cf. § 1 8. It is, besides, clear, both
from these and also from other passages, to how great an extent
His sufferings and death formed an essential part of His redeeming
action. The utterances of the Lord on the point are, in part, of a
more general purport ; but some of them lead to the special doctrine
of a relation of the death of Christ to the work of redemption.
Even the former, taken in connection with the others, lead us
further than would at first sight appear.
Jesus looked upon His death as, in the first place, constituting
the condition for a bringing forth of much fruit, just as the corn of
wheat must faU into the ground and die ere it can produce much
fruit. (John xH. 24). To this He annexes a reflection simUar to
that Hi Matt. xvi. 21, where, with His first prediction of His death
to the disciples, He connects the warning that, without a self-
renunciation and seK-surrender of this kind, no one can be a true
disciple. His death is the condition necessary for the production
of much fruit among mankind, and, indeed, in a wide sphere, and
without distinction of nations ; for He says it in reference to " cer
tain Greeks" (John xH. 2 0). His death is, too, a necessary condition
of His glorification as the Son of man (ver. 23). He enters with
complete resignation upon the bitterness of this death, which He
duly feels (ver. 27), and on it bases the certainty that the prince
of this world wiU be overthrown (ver. 31). He, however, will
draw aU men unto Him (ver. 32). In other passages, as John x.
1 5, in the figurative language as to the Good Shepherd, it is not
only said of the latter that He had come in order that His sheep
should have Hfe and sufficiency of pasture, but also that He
gives His life for the sheep which have been committed to His
guidance : He lays down His Hfe in order to deliver them from
death when the woK spoUs, rends, and scatters the sheep (ver.
12). This sacrifice of His Hfe, which as it was consequent on
His vocation as a Good Shepherd in contrast to a hireHng (vers.
11, 12), depended on His free wiU. But Jesus' surrender of His
life was also so bound up in the wiU of God, that God loves
Him on account of this willing readiness to lay down His Hfe
(ver. 17) ; but with this surrender of His Hfe is to be joined the
taking it again. He thus considers the sacrifice of His Hfe as a

212 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART 1.
death not only for the advantage generally oj His people, but also
in the place of His people, inasmuch as, through His death, His
people are to be saved from death and perdition. FinaUy in
Matt. xx. 28, He considers the life to be surrendered by Him, in
seK-sacrificing, ministering love as a Xvrpov, a ransom for many:
cf. 1 Tim. H. 6 ; 1 Pet. i 18, 19 ; Heb. ix. 12. This naturaUy
calls to mind the passage (Matt. xvi. 26) Hi which the question
is asked as to what a man wiU give to win again the soul which
is under sentence for guUt. That which man does not possess is
given by Christ, who is come to serve him by giving His life in
man's behalf. He therefore says, after His resurrection (Luke
xxiv. 26, 27), "Ought not Christ to have suffered these things
and to enter into His glory?" His sufferings and resurrection are
made (Luke xxiv. 46, 47) the necessary condition, according to
the divine ordinance, for perdvoia and acj>eo-iv dpapTi&v being
preached to the world. The death of Christ is therefore the con
dition for the remission of sins, and its preaching among all nations;
and the ransom is the Hfe of Christ offered up for many, who
through sin and guUt have become subject to the divine justice,
whose souls, therefore, are answerable to God and to His punish
ment. This is more closely defined in particular passages, the
death of Christ being sometimes described objectively as a giving
away of Christ to God for men, and sometimes as a communication
of His sacrificially offered life for the subjective appropriation of
men. In the former case it is more of a propitiatory, in the latter,
of a redeeming character.
Among the utterances which represent His death in the propi
tiatory aspect, the chief statements in the synoptical books are the
words used at the institution of the Lord's Supper. They are found
in all three evangeHsts ; and the relation of the death of Christ to
the work of salvation is speciaUy stated in them. For this very
relation is intended to be represented by the Lord's Supper. The
words used at this institution are divided into two parts : first, with
respect to the bread and the body of Christ ; and next, as to the
wine and the blood of Christ. For the first, cf. Matt, xxvi 26 ;
Mark xiv. 22 ; Luke xxii 19. The two first evangelists only
say, towto Igti to aSp,d piov ; Luke adds, to virep vpwv BiBo-
pevov ; and Paul's account, which agrees most with that of Luke,
gives (1 Cor. xi.) /cXoopevov, the body which in His death was
given and broken for His disciples, — an idea which is identical

vW. II. § 33.] SUFFERINGS AND DEATH OF THE REDEEMER. 213
with the sense of the general utterances of the Lord as to His
death, that it was for the salvation of men (the BiBopevov and
KXwpevov are not to be referred to the bread, or, at least, not to
the bread alone, but to Jesus' body ; but yet there is also con
veyed an allusion to the breaking and division of the bread, by
which His body is represented). In the second ¦ portion of the
words of institution, there are certain special references. The
Lord designates His blood (1) as " the blood of the new testa
ment ;" (2) in Matthew and Mark, as " shed for many ;" in Luke,
" for you ;" and in Matthew is added, " for the remission of sins."
In the words in Matthew and Mark, tovto Iotiv to alpa, to
t?)? Kaivrjv B'iadr)iar)V, reference is made to the blood of the old
covenant which was established with Moses and the people of
Israel, and was consecrated by the sacrificial blood (Ex. xxiv. 8 ;
Heb. ix. 20). The blood of the covenant is the blood by which the
covenant (here, therefore, the nev) covenant) is formaUy concluded
and consecrated. The more exact meaning must be inferred from
the idea of the new covenant. This had been aHeady spoken of Hi
the Old Testament, Hi Jer. xxxi. 31 ff, a passage which is referred
to in Heb. vHi 8-12 and x 16-18. From these passages the new
covenant is to be thus constituted : (1) that the law of God is to
be stamped on man's heart, instead of the Mosaical law, which had
always been an external matter for them, which did not essen-
tiaUy and completely pervade their minds ; (2) that God should
forgive them aU theH sins ; not merely this or that individual sin,
but aU their sins, perfectly. There is therefore understood by
this a covenant of more complete alliance and forgiveness, and this
is to be concluded and consecrated by the death of Jesus Christ,
and in virtue thereof.
In Matthew and Mark, it follows, next, that the blood of Jesus
Christ was shed for many (in Matthew it is added, "for the re
mission of sins ") — irepl iroXXuiv, for the sake of many. In Mark,
however, there is another reading, virep ; but even then, K inter
preted according to the irepl, it would be in behalf of many.1 So
also in Luke xxii. 20, virep vpwv enyyvopevov ; only this is said
of the iroirjpiov, which perfectly agrees with the reference to the
alpa in the other synoptical books. But this can only be affirmed
1 This different reading, iwip, is found also in St. Matthew, Cod. Bezse ; and
should, without doubt, take the place of the mp) of the textus receptus in St.
Mark, where some MSS. and versions add ti; <x(pi<riv a.[tapTtai> hvtuu. — Tr.

214 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
of the iroT-qpiov or its contents so far as the latter is considered a
sign of the alp,a. The blood is shed for the sake of many This
caUs to mind the sacrificial blood which was shed Hi the consecra
tion of the Mosaical covenant, and sprinkled over the people.
This blood has a reference to the forgiveness of sins, as Matthew
expressly states, although this reference, even without this express
statement, would hold good. For the Mosaic sacrifice was offered
for many, as atoning for the sins of many ; and so must the blood
of Christ be looked upon here as the blood of a sacrifice atoning
for the sins of many. Endeavour has indeed been made to lay
a stress upon the idea, that it was a ratifying and not a sacrificial
offering. But when a covenant is completed between God and -
man, the matter in question must be the reconcUiation of God
with man, who is alienated from God by sin, and, especiaUy in a
bibHcal view, guUty in His sight. The new covenant, as shown
above, especiaUy includes this complete forgiveness. If, now, this
new covenant is brought about by the blood of Christ, who gave
HimseK up to death for us, then in the death, of Christ is also
involved the bringing about of the forgiveness of sins. This is the
exposition of the nature and aim of the shedding of Christ's blood
which best corresponds to the whole context. Thus, in these words
of institution, so far as they relate to the blood of Christ, the death
of Jesus is represented as the reconciliation of men with God, and
as thus bringing about the forgiveness of sins; and this is con
nected with the view of the Old Testament as to the atoning
sacrifice and the shedding of blood thereto belonging, of which it
is said Hi Lev. xvH, " The Hfe of the flesh is Hi the blood, which I
have given to you for an atonement."
In the Gospel of St. John we have first to consider the two
utterances of Jesus, which were given, one at the beginning, and
one at the end, of His ministry (John Hi 14, 15, xvH 19). The
first, being given so early in His ministry, is veUed under a figure.
After the Lord had converted Nicodemus into a willing hearer,
and thus found opportunity, He begins to give the latter some
intimations as to His person and His work, and the aim of His
mission (John Hi. 1 1 ff). In the first place, to the effect that He was
to be beheved as one that bore witness of what He had seen ; as
one that had come down from heaven; who in the midst of earthly
things was stUl heavenly. He then adds, that " as Moses Hfted
up the serpent in the wUderness, even so must the Son of man

DIV. II. § 33.] SUFFERINGS AND DEATH OF THE REDEEMER. 215
be lifted up" (ver. 14). Here, too, He avaUs HimseK of an
analogy derived from the old covenant, Hi order to express some
thing about HimseK and His death ; and by this simUe the
matter is more veUed than the aUusion, in, the introductory words
to the Lord's Supper, to the old covenant consecrated with blood.
But there are preponderating arguments for the idea that the
Lord spoke here of His own deatk This reference has, indeed,
been entirely denied ; but the analogy afforded by two other
utterances of the Lord and the purport of the -present passage
itseK are opposed to this view. In two passages the Lord de
scribes the vyfrovv tov vlov tov 6v8p. as something which should
happen to Him in the future; and Hi these we cannot (as is
desired) attribute to the words the signification and recognition of
spiritual exaltation (John xH. 32, viii. 28). Jesus probably used
the Aramaic word ^lpf, to hang up, as a kind of execution (cf. Esth.
vH 10, ix. 13)j equivalent to crucifixion. But even K He used
another verb (as in Num. xxi. 8, 9, ,DJ"PJ? D^), stiU the -explana
tion is preferable which does not exclude the reference to the
death of Jesus. Apart, however, from these paraUel passages, the
purport of the utterance itself leads us to the same conclusion.
The " lifting up " of Jesus is compared to that of the serpent in
the wUderness ;' but this latter elevation could not have been
intended to bring about a recognition of its eminence, but, on the
contrary, to point to the conquered and annihilated state either of
the serpent or of its effects, — to express that the spHitual serpent
is rendered harmless, and as K put away. In the crucifixion,
Jesus is the figure of crucified, and thus destroyed sin ; but by sin
and, as implied in the type of the serpent, its first originator
being thus destroyed, He in whom this takes place is represented
as the conqueror, and truly as He who is Hfted up.
In the second utterance of the Lord which we have to consider
(John xvii. 1 9), is contained, in the first place, a prayer for His
immediate disciples ; for His future disciples are not the subjects
of intercession untU ver. 20. The Lord had prayed that the
Father should not take them out of the world, but would
preserve them from the evU, and sanctify them through the
truth, — " Thy word is truth." He then , adds, that He sanctifies
HimseK for their sakes, that they also might be sanctified through
the truth. This His dyid^eiv is the provisional condition for theH
sanctification through the truth Hi ver. 19 ; therefore it must

216 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
refer back to the same word in ver. 17, for He adopts it into His
prayer only as the condition for the essential sanctification of the
disciples. Now these words cannot mean that He had sanctified
and consecrated HimseK as theH predecessor, or for His Messianic
office. In this case the verb must have been in the aorist or
perfect. In vers. 4, 6, He thus speaks of what He had aHeady
done ; indeed, He now considers Himself as no longer being in
the world, so much does He count Himself at the end of His
life, being on the point of going out to meet His death. The
present tense points to that which alone remained for Him
to do, that is, to His death. The dyid^eiv in ver. 19 must
therefore refer to His death as a moral action on His part, done
in obedience to the Father, and in love to His people. 'AyidQiv,
in Matt. xxiH. 17, 19, is to dedicate to God. This verb is also
used for that which God does in Him (John x 36): God has
sanctified Him and sent Him into the world ; He is therefore
also the dyidfav (Heb. ii. 11) by whom His people become
dyia$pevoi. It therefore means : (1.) To dedicate as an offering,
for a gKt to God (Lev. xxH. 2, 3 ; cf. Deut. xv. 19). Thence
it is said of an offering acceptable to God, " that it is sanctified "
(Rom. xv. 1 6). Paul figuratively describes the converted Gentiles
as an offering dedicated to God. (2.) To clear from sin, to atone
for and sanctify (Ex. xxix. 36) both the altar and men (Ezek.
xHv. 19). - Therefore this word occurs in the LXX. (Ex xxix
36) for 123; and for the Christian community (Eph. v. 26),
that Christ might sanctify and cleanse it; also for Christians
as dyiatfpevoi (Heb. H. 11, x 10; Acts xx. 32 ; 1 Cor. i 2).
According to this, the signification in the passage we are con
sidering may be held to be, I sanctify myself for them, — that is,
I dedicate myseK to God as an offermg for them, so that they by
this offering may be reconcUed with God, and themselves also
sanctified, which can indeed be done by means of the divine
word only (ver. 17). As the effect of the self-surrender of
Christ the Son as an offering to the Father for His own people,
they wiU be essentiaUy sanctified in truth, not only because this
seK-surrender is the means for the communication of the Holy
SpHit, but also, in harmony with the teaching of the New
Testament generaUy, according to which aU sanctification is con-
ditionary on the atonement, through the forgiveness of sins and
justification : cf. 1 Peter H 24. Thus this passage in St. John

DIV. II. § 33.] SUFFERINGS AND DEATH OF THE REDEEMER. 217
leads us back again to the introductory words to the Lord's
Supper, only that here the essential sanctification of beHevers
is expressly connected with the self-devotion of Christ as an
offering (cf. 1 John ii. 2, iv. 10 ; Rom. viii. 12 ; Eph. v. 1).
Thus these two passages set forth the two main points, the
subjection of sin and the consecration to God, as the results of
the death of Jesus ; they are, too, Hi essential harmony with the
synoptical passages.
AU the passages we have hitherto considered have exhibited
the death of Christ in its : atoning aspect as regards God and
man. There are, however/in St. John, some utterances peculiar to
him, in which (an idea only implied in the previous texts) His
life offered up in His death is represented as being communicated
to men for their subjective appropriation. It is thus in John vi.
51-58. In reference to the feeding of five thousand people with
five loaves, which had taken place the previous day, the Lord
had caUed Himself the bread which had come down from heaven,
and would give Hfe to the world. He then, towards the end of
His discourse,. enters speciaUy upon the subject (vers. 51—58), by
saying that the bread which He would give them was His flesh,
which He would give for the Hfe of the world. When His
Jewish hearers, striving among themselves, asked how this man
could give them His flesh to eat ? the Lord continued, by saying
that His flesh and, blood were indeed meat and drink (ver. 55),
and that whosoever eateth and drinketh them hath eternal Hfe,
and should be raised up at the last day, — that he dwelleth in
Christ, and Christ in him. The question is as to the reference
implied in the word o-dptj. On this point the first thing to be
considered is, that the usage of the language per se permits the
dHect reference to death ; for, when the linguistic use of the word
crdpl; is appealed to as denoting the bodily life as in a living
state, it is forgotten that, although o-dpl; denotes the life, it is the
earthly mortal life (cf. 2 Cor. iv. 11). Thus the apostles often
mention the crapf of Jesus when His death is in question (Eph.
ii 14, 15; CoL i 20, 21 ; 1 Peter iii. 18). It depends, how
ever, also on this point whether, in. the passage John vi. 51, the
words fy eyca Baoaco are genuine. If so, this is also in favour of
the direct reference to the death of Jesus (Luke xxii. 19; Gal.
i. 4, H. 20). The omission of these words has the advantage, in
opposition to the Recepta, as the most ancient Codices B, D, etc.,

218 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
the Itala, and Origen, do not give them. Notwithstanding this,
the fuUer reading is very ancient; Origen, in some other pas
sages, and Clement giving it. It may be said, too, in its favour,
that the words, on account of the - repetition, might readily he
omitted in copying or citation. On the other hand, the shorter
reading is the lectio difficilior, and the fuUer one has more of the
nature of a gloss. Thus Lachmann also has left it out of the
text. In this shorter redaction, of course, we lose an argument .-
in favour of the reference of this verse to the death of Jesus. '
But, apart from the fact that the propriety of the omission is not
yet proved, the other words stUl remain, and are in a high degree -,
favourable to this reference. In the second place, we have to look
to the connection first with what foUows, and then with what
precedes. The former is appealed to against our view. It is said
that in verse 53 the Lord entirely drops the idea of death; that
the formulae in vers. 53 and 56 have a symboHcal meaning,
which is distinctly explained Hi ver. 56 as the community of
being with the Hving Redeemer ; indeed, that . K the Lord was
speaking here as to His death, it would amount to a summons to
the Jews to kUl Him, which would be a most mamfest incon
sistency. But these opinions are very rashly given. Jesus does
not summon them to kUl Him, or else He must have said that
His earthly Hfe was to be resolved into flesh and blood ; but He
only requHes that His flesh and blood should be partaken of, and
be made use of, and that He HimseK should be appropriated
when He had at some future time entered upon death. Even
if we aUow that ver. 53 f. has a symboHcal reference, it does not
foUow, from the above-named reasons, that this may not apply to
the death of Jesus ; for else He would never have been able to
speak of His death before unbeHevers, and least of aU before His
enemies, without its being a summons to them to kUl Him. On
the contrary, after, in ver. 51, He had said that He would give
them His flesh, He goes on to explain this by the words that His
flesh must be eaten, and His blood must be drunk ; thus, by an
intimation of the violent shedding of His blood in death, giving
an answer to the question (ver. 52) in what way He could give
His flesh to be eaten. For He so separates the flesh and the
blood, that we must distinguish these expressions from the other
usage of the language in which the two words are combined in
one expression to designate the living personality. He speaks,

DIV. II. § 33.] SUFFERINGS AND DEATH OF THE REDEEMER. 219
therefore, clearly of flesh and blood as of a resolved unity, and
consequently of Hfe given up to death. This is in no way
altered by ver. 57, in which, concluding His development of the
subject, He reverts to the starting-point as given in the first half
of ver. 51, — the second half of ver. 51 and vers. 53-56 giving
the special development which is included in the general expres
sion. We now come to the connection of our passage with the
matter which precedes it. The Jews, who demanded of Jesus
some outward sign, after the manner of Moses, Hi order that they
might beHeve in Him (vers. 30, 31), are told by the Lord that
Moses did not give the true bread from heaven, but that it was
His Father who gives it to them ; and when they showed them
selves desHous of obtaining it, He adds, that He was this bread
(vers. 32-35) ; that He gives the Hfe which overcomes death, and
that by this effect His Hfe was distinguished from the Mosaic
bread from heaven. Now comes the question, Is the death of
Christ plainly intended as the intrumental cause of this, and how
far is it intended ? Is the general idea to be thus expressed :
My IKe given up to death must be spHituaUy appropriated by
man, in order that he may be spHituaUy nourished thereby ? or
does the Lord desHe to say more ? Did He take the pains to
deHver a discourse, occasioning so much misunderstanding, solely
to express the above-named simple idea ? This must seem
strange, as the misunderstanding might have been so easUy
avoided, if, in passing on to His Hfe-giving death, He had
omitted the figure of eating and drinking. The idea would
be retained that His death was something which man must
appropriate to himseK, which was proffered to him in faith
in order to nourish his spHitual Hfe. The choice of a figure
so especially likely to give offence to the IsraeHtes is, however,
completely explained if He had some more widely extending
aim, — K, Ha fact, He desHed to intimate not only that 'His Hfe,
when given up to death, would be spirituaUy communicated as
a glorifying principle, but also as a divinely incarnate power,
which would quicken and glorify corporeaUy as weU as spiritu
aUy. With this ver. 55 is also quite in harmony. But this
one verse is not sufficient to prove this explanation as the only
necessary one. Both views, therefore, remain exegeticaUy pos
sible. Connected with this is the question as to the reference
to the Lord's Supper. It cannot, however, be said that this

220 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PARTI.
chapter plainly and directly treats of this, as, even apart from it,
it conveys a truth ; yet it is to be supposed that the two are in
relation, and that the Lord may have spoken these words with
an anticipatory reference to the Lord's Supper which was to be
instituted by Him. The signification of the body and blood of
Christ in the Lord's Supper can, indeed, be never brought to any
conclusion by purely exegetical means, but by dogmatical refer
ence to the whole doctrine of the person and work of Christ;
and, besides this, the passages recording the institution must he
taken in connection with everything else on the point which is
contained Hi the New Testament. As regards the passage we are
considering, this much is estabHshed, — that the death of Christ is
spoken of by Him under the aspect of a sacrificial death, and
that John xvH. 19 can be satisfactorUy explained in this way
only. The sacrifice was, in the Old Testament, a thing offered
to God ; but, through this offering, it was also a dedicated object
to be communicated to men who had a share in the sacrifice.
The sacrificial idea in these two aspects was completed in the
death of Christ. Christ, being dedicated as a sacrifice, is also
that which is communicated to men as meat and drink, by which
they may be nourished and quickened.
§ 34. The Subject of Redemption — The Agency of the Redeemer
in His Supernatural Position — Conclusion.
In the synoptical discourses, the Lord speaks of a perpdvd
presence with His people as of something which is efficacious and
beneficial (Matt, xviii 20, xxvHi 20); for which reason the
unanimous prayer of those who are assembled in His name shall
not faU Hi being granted (Matt, xviii 1 9) ; and this is a result of
the fact that to Him aU power is given both in heaven and earth.
But this perpetual presence does not exclude a coming of the Lord,
a new form of His presence and agency on earth. Therefore He
speaks of a coming of this kind, or a coming again in His super
natural condition, as being a peculiar manifestation to mankind,
a coming in His kingdom (cf. § 22). There are, accordingly,
mamfold kinds of the agency of the supernatural Christ upon
earth, following the course of development of His kingdom. In
Matt, xvi 27, 28, He refers to the above-mentioned special
coming ; in this, there is a definition of the time : There be some
which shall not taste of death. This is His return as Lord and

DIV. II. § 34.] THE REDEEMER IN HIS SUPERNATURAL POSITION. 221
King of His kingdom on earth, in the clouds of heaven for judg
ment. The former class of these utterances are explained more
in detaU in the Gospel of St. John, the others in connection with
the teaching as to the kingdom of God.
In the farewell discourses in St. John it is clearly and pro
minently set forth, that Jesus' going away to His Father, and
His glorification with Him, is the foundation of a peculiar agency.
This is described generaUy by Him as advantageous to His dis
ciples (John xvi. 7, xiv. 12, 38, xii. 32), in order to free them
from sorrow, and to induce them to be joyful (although in ch. xii.
32 it is mentioned in connection with the Hfting up upon the
cross). He therefore attributes to Himself a pecuHar action Hi
a supernatural state in the foUowing respects : (1.) As intercessor
with the Father for His disciples (ch. xiv. 16). Thus He, in His
glorified state, brings about the gracious action of the Father for
the benefit of men, so that the Father does everything for the
sake of the Son (ch. xvi. 23, 24). The sending of the SpHit
especiaUy forms a part of this intercession. On the other hand,
He says that they have no need of this intercession (ch. xvi 26,
27); that they wiU themselves pray, because they love God, — not
absolutely, but only in Christ. By vHtue of His caUing faith into
existence, there aHeady exists a feUowship of beHevers with God ;
but this does not exclude an intercession on the part of Christ
with a view to the communication of the SpHit, and a continu
ance of His interposition generaUy. The Father fulfils the prayers
made by Christ's people in His name (ch. xvi 23, 24), and it is
done for the sake of Christ. The "I wiU" in ch. xvH 24 is not
merely the wUl exercised on earth, but the continuous wiU for
the weKare and redemption of His people which procures the
action of the Father in behalf of beHevers. (2.) Christ, however,
does more than act as a mediator: He Himself, when glorified,
operates for the welfare of men, at the termination as weU as during
the course of His earthly Hfe. He draws aU men unto Him
(John xH 32), so that there should be one fold and one Shepherd
(x. 16). He goes into this subject more in detaU Hi His farewell
discourses in and after the Last Supper, before He was taken
prisoner, in which He insists that the parting which was then
impending was no separation, and that His disciples wiU remain
Hi communion with Him. He then points out, as a result foUow
ing from His going away, that He Himself wiU send them the

222 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PARTI.
SpHit. Before, He had said that He would pray the Father for
this; now, He says that He wiU Himself send Him (ch. xv. 26,
xvi. 7). He wiU care for theH weKare by fulfiUing the prayers
which are made to God in His name (ch. xiv. 13 f .) : He Himself
wiU do what they ask These two things are, however, not to he
looked upon as the agency of Christ operating at a distance ; on
the contrary, they are connected with His being present on the
earth, and for this very reason they form a coming to His people
(ch. xiv. 18): "I wUl not leave you comfortless ; I wUl come to
you." Although to the world I may be invisible, yet ye shaU see
me : for I Hve, although I am away from you ; and, in virtue of
this higher Hfe, ye shaU see me divinely present. These discourses
point to the spiritual coming of Christ as the main point ; but at
the same time a reference to the appearance of the risen Christ
is not excluded. It is involved in this coming of Christ that He
and the communion with Him would be then first rightly mani
fested (ch xvi. 16—19, xiv. 19-21) : indeed, by His so coming
and manKesting HimseK spHituaUy, He, in virtue of His oneness
with the Father, thus deals with His abiding with His people
(ch. xiv. 23) ; but only with those who love Him and keep His
words. But the supernatural action of Jesus is not confined to bene
ficial operations proceeding from Him within alcbv oiitov : He also
ascribes to HimseK Hi His glorified state another beneficial work,
— namely, the resurrection of the dead (in distinction from the
communication of true Hfe, far) alcoviov), and, indeed, ev eo-%aif
r)pepa (John v. 28, vi. 39, 40, 44, 54). It is limited as such to
the faithful, in distinction from whom the <pavXa irpd%avrev have
the dvaaTaaiv Kplaecov, which is likewise His action, aU judgment
being committed to Him (ch. v. 22). As an agency of Christ
for the completion of salvation is herein supposed, it is described
as a coming, a return of Christ, irdXiv ep%op,ai (John xiv. 3) ¦} "I
wiU receive you unto myseK," which, according to xvH 24 and
xH 32, is to be distinguished from the coming to His disciples,
which we have aHeady considered. This coming to receive His
people into the heavenly glory is also understood in ch. xxi. 22
(cf. 1 John ii. 28, iv. 17). This completion of salvation is
effected by Jesus, not merely as a matter extraneous to Himself,
but Hi that He, who has IKe in HimseK, is the resurrection and
1 The term ¦zapovaia, does not occur in John's Gospel. — Tr.

DIV. II. § 34.] THE REDEEMER IN HIS SUPERNATURAL POSITION. 223
the Hfe, — that is, is the principle of aU IHe, even of that which
overcomes death; and the fuU beatification of His people is conse
quently nothing but the fuU reception into His essence.
We must remark, that Jesus has not expressly represented His
work under the type of the threefold office ; but as in certain utter
ances He has applied to Himself the designation of prophet or king,
and has indirectly described Himself as one who offered Himself
in a priestly way, He has thus in His discourses implanted the
fruitful germ for the further development of this doctrine.
As far as the people were concerned, the name of a prophet
might be the more readily appHed to Himself by Jesus, since the
nature of His ministry during His public career presented a
simUarity to the Old Testament prophetical functions, to an ex
tent which was surprising to the people themselves (cf. § 15).
Thus the people themselves caUed Him a prophet (Matt. xi. 11 ;
Luke vH. 16 ; John vi. 14, iv. 19), the idea of the Messiah being
included in that of a prophet. We nevertheless find that Jesus did
not usuaUy apply this name to HimseK, because He was unwilling
to give an opportunity for placing Him on a Hke footing with the
Old Testament prophets ; indeed, He said of John that he was
more than a prophet, because he did not predict the appearance
of the Messiah as something future, but preached it as that which
had aHeady taken place (Matt. xi. 9). Thus, as regards Himself,
He must even more have had the idea that He was not so much
a prophet as the fulfiUer of prophecy, as He who had come to
fulfil both the law and the prophets (Matt. v. 1 7), and came into
the vineyard, not as the servant of the lord, but as the heir of the
whole theocratical preparation. We have, however, an expression
in which Jesus classes Himself in general among the prophets.
We must, nevertheless, aUow that the words have somewhat of a
proverbial character, and might possibly be used in a case where,
strictly speaking, a prophet was not in question (Matt, xiii 57 ;
Mark vi. 4 ; Luke iv. 24). We see, however, from Luke iv. 25,
26, that Jesus in this passage compares HimseK to the ancient
prophets, and Hence even His disciples acknowledged Him as
such (Luke xxiv. 19). The substance of the enunciation of the
prophetical office is impHed in His whole teaching in connection
with His miracles and predictions, and His typical Hfe. He con
tinues this office in His exalted state by means of the Spirit
whom He sends (John xiv. 26). So far as the Lord made known

224 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I
in God's name the divine wiU as the willing of salvation, and
executed it in God's good time, and in conformity with His
arrangement, He was a prophet ; but so far as He completes the
whole work of salvation, as He who was determined to be the
real bringer about of it, He is, indeed, far above aU prophesying.
The case is the same with the priesthood. Jesus nowhere calls
HimseK a priest ; but, in the sense in which He is caUed a high
priest in Heb. H. 1 7, iv. 1 4, He represents His ministry, especially
His sufferings and death, as expiatory, — this being implied in John
xvH 19. In tins He is at the same time both priest and sacrifice ;
and His priesthood culminates as the priesthood of Him who
offers HimseK as the holy and sinless One, as the gfft altogether
weU-pleasing to the Father, and thus sanctifies Himself for His
people, so that they may be sanctified in the truth. The same
thing is HnpHed in Matt. xx. 28. His Hfe is a Xvrpov, as it also
was an atoning sacrifice for the sinner, in which the general idea
of substitution is conveyed, although not the specificaUy juridical
idea. The introductory words to the Lord's Supper (Matt, xxvi
28) also belong to this idea of the priesthood, inasmuch as the
blood shed for the forgiveness of sins bears a reference to the
shedding of blood in the sacrifice.
The idea and title of king is, on the other hand, expressly ap-
pHed to HimseK by Jesus. It is quite openly conveyed in the
parabolic representation of His judicial kingly action as the
Messiah (Matt. xxv. 34). He also directly names Himself a king
in answer to PUate's question (John xvHi. 3 7), and as the accused,
in the midst of His deepest humUiation, reveals His kingly emi
nence, — certainly though, as a king whose kingdom is not of earth
but of heaven. With this, too, must be classed aU that He does
in founding, maintaining, and guiding a community, to which the
promise is given that the gates of heU shaU not prevaU against
it: the choice of His disciples (John xv. 16, 19, vi. 70), the
infinite power of drawing men unto Him which He exercises, and
the dispositions for His Church (John xv. 1 2 ; Matt, x 5 ff., xviii.
15-20, xxviH. 19, 20).
The teaching of Jesus, therefore, contains the germ of the later
doctrine of the threefold office, the root of which is found hi the
Old Testament.

DIV. II. § 35.] OPERATION OF REDEEMING POWER — IN GENERAL. 225
§ 35. The Teaching as to the Operation of Redeeming Power — In
general.
It was to be expected that Jesus would describe His redeeming
action under two different aspects, the operation, even during His
Hfe, being a twofold one ; hence He contrasts the two (John Hi.
16-19). Here, indeed, it is expressly said that He had not come
to judge the world ; but, as some men loved darkness rather than
Hght, and proved it to Him effectively by their moral actions, He
it is who must judge them. Justice must be done on sin ; and
this takes place either through a sentence of condemnation on the
individual ; or, by the latter resigning himseK to redemption, sin
is judged, and, its HabiHty to punishment being recognised by
him, is thrust out. This judgment is sometimes considered by
Jesus as a future matter, sometimes (especiaUy in John) more as
belonging to the present time ; but the idea is not excluded, that
the judgment now commencing may be concluded at a future time
(John v. 29 ; cf. Mark xvi 16 ; Matt. xxv. 31, 32, 46). In
John xH. 31, xvi 11, it is declared that the prince of this world —
apywv tov Koapiov toijtov — shaU be judged and cast out. The
judgment on the world is, in fact, constituted by Satan (its chief in
its separation from God) being driven out by power from his
position as apxav. In ck xH 31 this is, indeed, described as a
matter belonging to the present time, but so described that it is not
spoken of as taking place at that very moment, but as an event
to be expected. Thus, towards the end of His fareweU discourse
(John xvi. 1 1), the Lord says that when the Comforter is come,
He wiU judge the world, irepl dpapTiav, Siicatoo-vvnv, and Kplaecov,
— the latter, because the prince of this world is judged. The fact,
in the first place, depends on the Hfe, death, resurrection, and
glorification of Christ.
In these events is involved the judgment which befaUs Satan ;
and, according to John xiv. 30, it befaUs him exactly so far as he
has nothing Hi Jesus, the Son of God and Saviour of the world.
Although Jesus had entered into the sinful world and had Hved
the life of man, yet in the final catastrophe of His Hfe aU claim
on Him is cut off. In this victory the world is Hkewise over
come, so that the disciples can no longer fear it (John xvi 33).
Through this judgment, however, the world and its prince are
excluded from aU communion with Christ, and the separation
P

226 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I,
expressed in John Hi. 18, 19, is fulfiUed, which is of course not
completely carried out until the coming judgment, but yet only
under the condition of its successive reaHzation Hi the course of
the world's development. These utterances in St. John's Gospel
must be compared with Luke x 18, 19 : in this passage is shown
the judgment which wUl come upon this enemy. It is a victory
over him, but is based upon a moral and judicial relation (cf.
Matt. xH. 28, 29). The kingdom of God is that which subdues
the power of the wicked, in Satan and Hi aU those who persist in
sin. The destruction of those wonderful operations of Satanic
agency among men, which are so much spoken of in the Synoptists,
forms an especial effect of this victory.
But the aim of the Lord, as far as the world is concerned, is a
twofold one, KaraicpiBrpiai and <rto9r)vai (Luke vHi 12; Mark
xvi. 16 ; John Hi. 17, v. 34, xvi. 9, cf. 11, xvH. 2, vi 40, 47).
The being saved is a salvation in order to live ; cf. far) atmvwv
or far) (Matt, vii 14 ; Luke x. 28 ; Matt. xviH. 8, 9 ; Luke xviii
18), and dvatyjv (Luke xv. 24, 32). This idea was subsequently
current among the apostles under the name aminpia, which,
however, is also used by the Lord (John iv. 22 ; Luke xix 9 ; cf.
Matt, xviii 11 ; Luke i 77). Life is the essence of salvation.
It had been aHeady so considered in the Old Testament, Hi which
it was looked upon as the result of the fulfilment of the law
(Lev. xvHi 5; GaL Hi. 11, 12; Luke x 28; cf. Hab. n. 4).
This usage of the word life, as implying a condition of salvation
and an internal and external harmony with and friendly relation
to God, has been appropriated by Jesus in order to describe that
Hfe which, by His means, faUs to the share of beHevers. The
contrast to it is the New Testament idea that sin and its cpr-
ruption are death (cf. John vi 50, 51, xi 25, 26). It is called
far) ald>viov, because, although originating in temporal IKe, yet, as
springing from God, it outlasts it. In the Synoptists, as " eternal
life," it is looked upon as a future matter (Luke xvHi 18), al-.
though there are some passages which refer it. to the present;
time, such as Luke xv. 24, 32, or in ix. 60, where believers are
taken to be living, in contrast to the spHituaUy dead. In St. John
also, although more stress is laid on its appHcation to the present
time, yet its completion is altogether looked upon as a future
matter (John xiv. 19, 20). This Hfe, therefore, faUs to the lot of
beHevers (so that they have it ev eavrolv, John vi. 53) through^

DIV. II. § 35.] OPERATION OF REDEEMING POWER — IN GENERAL. 227
Christ, because He hath the fulness of Hfe in Him (John xiv. 6),
and hath overcome death (xi 25), on account of which He caUs
HimseK the dvda-Taa-iv.
For this very reason He closely connects His own life with
that of the believers in Him (John xiv. 19) ; and thus this sub
jective idea of Hfe merges into the more objective aspect of the
community of Hfe with Christ. Thus, eminently, in John it is a
"being Hi Christ and Christ in us" (John xiv. 20), and therefore
a coming of Christ to us and an abiding with us (John xvii 23,
xiv. 23, xv. 4, 7), Hi which, without detracting from the indi
viduality of the two, the most intimate unity of Hfe exists (cf. John
xiv. 23, 21). This communion with Christ is not merely a moral
oneness of sentiment, for it does not consist merely in love to Him
and keeping His commandments, nor merely in being loved by
Christ and enjoying His love; according to John xiv. 21, 23, all
these things are distinguished by the Lord from the promise that
He would eome to His people and make His abode with them (cf.
vers. 28, 19, 20). It is more analogous to the oneness of Christ
with the Father (cf. ch. xvH. 11, 23). For this very reason it is
not a mere oneness of sentiment which is in question, but they
are in Christ and in the Father (ver. 21). It depends on the
communication of the Spirit ; and aU that He conveys is given by
the Father (ch. xiv. 16, 17, 26). It is consequently a participa
tion in the life of Christ, and La the innermost power of life, which
in beHevers is the same as Hi Christ, being communicated from
Him to them. Communion with Christ includes the enjoyment
of the love of Christ (ch. xv. 9), under the condition that we abide
in His love by foUowing His commandments and His example
(vers. 9, 10). Hence it also includes the perfect joy of Christ
(ver. 11) : it is the joy which He HimseK has and gives. FinaUy,
we may also gather that communion with Christ is also com
munion with the Father and with the Spirit, as results from the
oneness of the Father with the Son and with the SpHit.
The communion with Christ is thus represented to us in our
Lord's utterances in St. John's GospeL In the Synoptists we
have passages which come very near, and are aUied to these, but
none that are identicaL We find in them, at aU events, the pro
mise of a divine and efficacious presence of Jesus among His
people (Matt. xvHi 20, xxvHi. 20); and figuratively (Matt. xii.
46-50, especiaUy vers. 49 and 50; cf Mark Hi 31-35; Luke

228 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I,
viii. 19-21), with those who keep His word, Jesus stands in the
relation of an intimate communion, of spHit, similar to the natural
affinity with a mother, brother, or sister. He assures this peculiar
affinity with Him to those who fulfil the wiU of His Father.
Connected with this, too, is the coming of men to Christ (Matt.
xi. 28), to which He invites aU those who are weary and heavy-
laden. In Luke vi. 47 (cf. John v. 40, vi. 35, 37, 44) we have
the movement of the individual towards Christ represented as a
union with Him ; and in Matt. xi. 28 (cf. vers. 29, 30) the coming::
is in the sense of the union with Him, which subordinates the
subject to Him, thereby procuring rest.
The previous matter we have considered contains the general
points which are reaHzed in a certain special order of salvation: this
includes (1) the calling, (2) the commencement of salvation, (3) its
progress and completion. The order of salvation generaUy is not
mentioned expressly in the utterances of the Lord, although the
Lord speaks of the way in which men are to walk, and the gate
into which they are to enter (Matt. vH. 13, 14). Indeed, He
describes Himself as the way, and the only way, by which man
cometh to the Father (John xiv. 6). These three distinct effects
of His mission may, however, be gathered readUy enough from
His discourses. They may be found combined and expressly
distinguished Hi John vi 44 : the " drawing" forms a part of the
calling, and this is followed by the coming as the commencement,
and the resurrection as the completion of salvation
§ 36. Tlie Teaching as to the Operation of Redeeming Power — The
Calling.
The calling is the requisite condition, without which no one
can attain salvation and Hfe. The Lord, in speaking of it, uses
the expression KaXeiv (Matt. ix. 13; Mark H. 17; Luke v. 32),
to eall to repentance. On this point, however, we must speciaUy
consider the three parables which speak of the calling and its
results. In them, by the two figures of the wedding-feast and the
vineyard, the kingdom of God is represented to us in its twofold
aspect, as a good to be enjoyed, and also as a sphere of work and,
duty (Matt, xxii 2-14; Luke xiv. 16-23; Matt. xx. 1-16).
Added to this, we may discern other figurative modes of ex
pressing this idea, such as the gathering together His people as a
hen gathers her chickens (Matt, xxiii 37; Luke xiii 34); the

DIV. II. 1 36.] THE CALLING. 229
seeking after that which is lost (Luke xv. 4, 8 ; Matt. xvHi
11-14). There is also a peculiar expression used Hi Matt.
xxviH. 19, padrjTevetv, to make into disciples. The idea impHed
in these expressions is that of a divine act, sometimes of God
the Father (as distinguished from the Son), who, through His
servants, causes an invitation to be given (Matt. xxH. 2, 3) ;
sometimes it is Christ HimseK who is the caller (Matt, ix 13,
and paraUel passages) during His earthly career, by means of the
prophetic office which devolved upon Him in His humUiation.
Thus He especiaUy calls the apostles, though Hi this it may be
said that God, as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is the
caUer by means of Christ's words. But God the Father can
also caU in a dHect way : the " drawing " and " giving " Hi John
vi. 37, 39, 44, 65, are in connection with this.
The act of calling is both internal and external : external as the
historical knowledge of Christ and His work, of the historical
Christ. It is, in the first place, a calling through the word. In
John xvH. 20 the Lord says that He prays for aU who, through
the word, beHeve on Him. Thus, in the above-named parables,
the word is set forth as the word of invitation to men Hence the
great importance of the word in the representation of its effects
(Matt. xin. 19-23), and the charge to the disciples to preach it
(Matt. xxviH. 19 ; Mark xvi. 15). But the word of calling
reaches the consciousness of individuals under certain circum
stances, which modify its impression. The influence of these
belongs to the caUing as much as the sending of the word and
its instruments. Of this kind are the cHcumstances which sur
rounded the prodigal son, and induced him to come to himseff
(Luke xvi. 14—17). These cHcumstances are an element of the
external calling, which, however, is thus rendered internal. Many
of the utterances of Jesus are so generally framed, that they may
be referred to both aspects of the caUing, although Hi the first
place they suggest the internal side; thus John vi. 44 f, 65.
The being taught by God is the internal caU, by which the Father
gives a man to the Son, or causes him to come to Him. This
drawing is an act of the Father; but in John xH. 32 the Son
says that He HimseH possesses equaUy with the Father this
power of attraction, within reach of which we must come in order
to be among those that are called. It takes effect through the
word and the whole situation of the person acted on, and is

230 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
essentiaUy an internal bias, only that by it the matter is not yet
decided. The calling assumes, indeed, different degrees, as shown in Luke
xiv. 16—23, where the stringency culminates in ver. 23; but
even here it is a cogent caU, and not force, which is spoken of.
But, notwithstanding these degrees, the caUing is, on the one
hand, always impressively intended, as in the two parables, and in
that of the vineyard, and, on the other, never of a compulsory
character, and is therefore subject to the reply of man, as in the
parable of the vineyard.
The calling is a general one, and according to the nature of
redeeming mercy, which consists in assisting from motives of
love those that are lost (Matt. xvni. 11—14; cf. Matt, ix 13;
Luke v. 32, according to which, Christ caUs sinners). Therefore
the love of God working in Him embraces the entire Koo-poi
(John Hi 16). The caUing, consequently, appHes to aU nations
without distinction, — to the GentUes equaUy with the Jews (Matt.
xxviH 1 9 ; Mark xvi. 1 5) ; cf. the assurance as to the participation
of the GentUes in the kingdom of God (Matt. viii. 11, xxiv. 14,
xxvi. 1 3 ; John x. 1 6). Other passages, which appear to Hmit the
caUing and to exclude the GentUes, are only intended to express
that the Lord had to limit His personal ministry as Messiah to
the theocratic people first of all (Matt. xv. 24, generaUy vers,
21-28 ; Mark vii. 24-30 ; Matt. x. 5-7 ; Luke x. 2). But the
caUing deals with individuals in succession. This idea Hi its
general character is expressed in Matt. xx. 2—1 6. The succession
itself is set forth in Luke xiv. 16-23, especiaUy in vers. 16, 17,
21, 23. The first are those who have had among them since
ancient times a system of national guidance : to them first the
caU came, because in them the requisite conditions of recognition
and acceptance were inherent ; when they rejected the invitation,
the succession goes on to those who are inferior in claim.
In respect to those who accept the call, the caUing is to he
considered as a choosing. This choosing, as God's act, is only once
mentioned, and then, indeed, quite generaUy (Mark xiH. 20); in
which, however, it is to be assumed that the ideal eternal act of
God is meant, the temporal effect of which is the calling, — just
as the choosing Hi the apostoHcal teaching, especiaUy Hi Paul, is
not the temporal icaXeiv, by which those accepting the caU are
actuaUy severed from the complex of the Koapov. We are speci-

DIV. II. § 87.] THE COMMENCEMENT OF SALVATION. 231
ally pointed to this everlasting act in Matt. xxv. 34, in which it
is said that for those who are blessed of the Father the fiaaiXeia
is fjroipao-pevn from the foundation of the world. " The elect "
are often spoken of (Luke xvHi. 7 ; Matt. xxiv. 22, 24, 31 ;
Mark xiH. 20, 22 ; cf. Ps. cv. 43 ; Isa. lxv. 22 ; Rom. viH. 33 ;
CoL iH. 12). By these, however, are always meant those who
are caUed and reaUy accept the caU (Matt. xxH. 14), inwardly
apprehending the word (Luke viH. 15 ; Matt. xiii. 23) ; but those,
especiaUy, who are distinguished and first among them. For
even among those who accept the caU, there is, according to
Matt. xx. 16, a distinction of degrees. When, therefore, a man
accepts the caU, everything that he is, becomes, has, and receives,
is to be referred to the eternal act of God : it has been prepared
by the Father (Matt. xx. 23, xxv. 34).
§ 37. Tlie Teaching as to the Operation of Redeeming Power — The
Commencement of Salvation.
The general idea of an alteration of the mind or spiritual being
is treated of didacticaUy by the Lord in the Gospel of John only.
The principal passage is that concerning regeneration (John iii
3-8), by which may be placed the more general utterance, John
v. 21, as to the faoiroielv. In both passages salvation is treated
of under the idea of Hfe : Hi the former, of regeneration and an
entry into Hfe ; in the latter, as the quickening of those who are
dead. For the Lord, by comprehending salvation in the idea of
Hfe, places the whole of His positive agency in making alive. This
is foUowed in ver. 22 by the mention of the judgment which these
incur who do not beHeve, and therefore wUl not receive Hfe Hke
those who accept the word (ver. 24). The passing from death
unto Hfe is represented in John Hi. 3-8 under the figure of a new
birth. In this, not only is Hfe opposed to death, but the new Hfe
is compared with the old in respect to its quality, life with Hfe.
Even in John v. something: of a similar character is indeed im-
pHed in the idea of far) alooviov as contrasted with transitory Hfe.
This birth is a birth of the SpHit, — more accurately, of water and
the SpHit (John Hi. 5), — just as e'/e Qeov (John i 13 ; 1 John iv. 7,
v. i 4). The Divine Spirit is the breath of Hfe, corresponding to
the incorruptible seed from which, according to 1 Pet. i 23, the
new Hfe springs. Some have looked upon this twofold origin
(water and the SpHit) as an ev Bid Bvolv ; or it has been thought

232 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PARTI
that the irvevp,a was to be understood HteraUy, and the vBmp
symboHcaUy But why is the water symboHcaUy added ? The
idea of purification is not sufficient to explain this satisfactorily.
Or it is said that regeneration may be compared with the arising
of a new existence (1 Pet. i 23) ; and as in Tit. Hi. 5 the water
or the washing of regeneration may be taken in reference to
baptism, so here the water is to be understood according to the
analogy of the account of the creation (Gen. i. 1-3), regeneration
being caUed a new creation in 2 Cor. v. 17. The water would
then be the element to be formed, the Spirit the forming element'
But creation is not a matter in question here. The comparison
with 1 Pet. i 23, and also the figure itself, point rather to natural
generation ; the latter results ix aapicbv ical a'CpaTov (cf. John i.
1 3) ; with the latter the Lord now contrasts a twofold expression
for the cause of the spiritual generation, in which the vBcop forms
the antithesis to the alpa, the purifying to the contaminating
element. In this, too, there is a hint conveyed that the Spirit
causes a new Hfe in an aHeady existing subject, and that this is
possible only by the latter being purified ; so that the SpHit acts
not only with a quickening power, which is inherent in Him, but
also with a purifying effect, as shown by the addition of water.
In both respects the freshly flowing and purifying water in
baptism is a symbol of the Spirit. In this passage the Lord
aUudes quite evidently to baptism, although not at present to
the baptism instituted by Him. But He might indeed refer
to its precursor, the baptism of John. John the Baptist is in
deed spoken of in this chapter. He was stiU exercising his
prophetic ministry, and in Jerusalem it was not out of place
to speak of him. Jesus might weU hope that this aUusion
would be understood by Nicodemus, and that He could thus
lead him to aU that He HimseK intended. In this, therefore,
we have the second reason for the conjunction of the vBcop with
the irvevpa. This new birth expresses an entire change in a
spiritual respect, an entirely new vital power being infused by the
Spirit ; in it the true life is implanted, not, indeed, by man, but by
God as the only author. The alteration itseK is, however, accom
panied by pangs, as is indeed HnpHed in the figure. The two
ideas of regeneration and of passing from death unto Hfe are,
however, retained by the apostles, and further developed by them.
In the Synoptists we find no utterances on the point which are

DIV. II. §37.] THE COMMENCEMENT OF SALVATION. 233
entirely identical with those in St. John. There are, however,
some which are closely aUied, and seem to aUude to the two ideas
expressed Hi the fourth gospeL In them, also, the state of the
sinner is looked upon as a state of death (Luke ix. 60); and
in Luke xv. 24, 32, it is said of the prodigal son that he had
been dead and was aHve again. Likewise the language in Matt.
xviii. 3, Mark x 14, and Matt, xix 14, corresponds with the
idea of regeneration. By this a conversion and becoming like little
children are laid down as a necessary condition for entering into
the kingdom of God. In these passages a mighty change, at aU
events, is impHed,; — indeed, the becoming a new man. Everything
belonging to the former development of the man is to be given
up, and a new development must be begun, and the man must
thus assume the receptive character of a chUd. Yet this idea
does not go so far as regeneration. The above-named change refers
only to. the moment of chUdhood, consequently to the beginning
of the natural Hfe; but regeneration, as the beginning of an
entirely new Hfe, goes much further. Added to this, the alteration
is removed entirely from any human causaHty and is transferred to
the divine agency. The synoptical view is, however, supplemented
by another passage, Matt. xix. 26, in which the entry into God's
kingdom, which, under certain circumstances, seemed impossible
to men, is declared to be possible to the divine omnipotence. But
this is not dHectly appHed to the conversion to a chUd-like state,
as in regeneration, — the possibiHty of a return to this state through
divine grace being only presupposed. The same idea is, however,
expressed in Matt. v. 6, where the satisfaction of those who hunger
and thHst after righteousness is represented as being the divine gift.
The commencement of salvation is both a change of mind and
also a reversion of the relation towards God. The idea of the
commencement of salvation being that of an entry into life, the
caU of God is becqme a quickening, regenerating influence. The
change Hi the spiritual being of man, which is HnpHed therein, is
contained in the figure of the new bHth. But the alteration in the
relation to God is conveyed by the idea of being sought and
found by God or Christ (Matt. xviH. 12-14 ; Luke xv. 4 ff, xix.
10), of being exalted, of not coming into judgment, and of the
forgiveness of sins. These two points are dealt with by the Lord
in the most various ways, — not scholasticaUy, but freely touched
upon, although always consistently with the fundamental idea.

234 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
They are, for instance, comprehended in the figure of the strait
gate and the narrow way (Matt. vH 13 ; Luke xiii 24), which
denotes the entry into the way of salvation, or the way of life,
but at the same time describes it as a change of mind.
The new Hfe of man in itself, the change of mind and conver
sion, or the altered feehng and conduct Hi a moral respect, is
styled by our Lord peravoeiv (Matt. iv. 17; Mark i 1 5 ; Luke
xv. 7, 10), eirio-Tpefyeiv (Luke xxH. 32), a-Tpatprjvai (Matt, xviii
3), p,eTapAXea8ai (Matt. xxi. 29). This disposition of mind has
two elements which everywhere recur, repentance and believing, as
the negative and positive poles of this new Hfe.
The first element of this double condition of the heart, or two
fold feehng, repentance, is very characteristicaUy and copiously
laid down in the beginning of the Sermon on the Mount, in the
Beatitudes (Matt. v. 3), with which should be compared Matt, xi
28. The Lord declares the blessedness of the poor in spirit who
are conscious of theH poverty, and invites the weary and heavy-
laden to come unto Him. Repentance, therefore, is seK-humilia-
tion. It is, besides, depicted in its inward disposition as a lively
consciousness of personal sin, and a candid repentance for the
same (Luke xv. 17, 21, 28), in which also the need for deHver
ance is expressed as a Hvely longing for God's succour. For him
who has not done his Father's wiU, there is no other way to be
saved but a conversion of this kind (Matt, xxi 28 ff). As re
gards the discourses in St. John, it is, Hi general, a pecuHarity in
them that they bring more prominently forward the positive idea,
and represent regeneration as a positive act. There is, however,
no deficiency in the ideas belonging to the subject. Thus, for
instance, the idea of the Bityav (John vii 37; cf. Matt. v. 6).
Also, in John Hi 20, 21, he that perseveres in sin is indeed
worthy of the eXey)(6^vai, but he avoids it ; but others who do
not persevere Hi theH sin do not avoid it, and, on the contrary,
place themselves in the Hght, and aUow themselves to be en-
Hghtened by it, and thus suffer the iXey^Br)vai ; as Paul says, " If
we judge ourselves, we shaU not be judged" (1 Cor. xi. 31). Re
pentance being, in the first place, the opposition to sin and the
turning away from it, it is also the giving up of the sinful Hfe
in order to attain one of an opposite character ; consequently the
surrender of the lower Hfe in order to gain the soul (Matt, x 39,
xvi 25; Luke xvii 33; John xH 25). The confession of sin

DIV II. § 37.] THE COMMENCEMENT OF SALVATION. 235
also belongs to it (Luke xv. 21) ; also the firm rejection of darling
sins Hi which a man has lived (John v. 14 ; Matt. v. 29), and a
complete renunciation of them, added to every possible restitution
of any wrong done (Luke xix 8), and a ready assumption of the
difficult duty of seK-denial.
The peTavoeiv is placed by the Lord in connection with the
iriareveiv ; but the believing consists Hi the coming to Christ of
him that is drawn by God (John vi 44, cf. 64), and, on coming
to Christ, Ha being accepted by Him (John vi 3 7). Thus it is
a work to which man is summoned by God (John vi 29), a draw
ing near to Christ (Matt, xi 28), a self-resignation to Him, and,
consequently, a laying hold of Him with confidence. This agrees
with the signification of itio-tiv, which is equivalent to trust, con
fidence, which fundamental meaning not only corresponds with
j'Dsn, but is also corroborated by the prevailing mode of construc
tion in the utterances of the Lord, with the dative (John v. 24 ;
Matt, xxi 25) ; with eirl = to rely on anything (Luke xxiv, 25) ;
with eV (Mark i 15), because belief as confidence has found a
resting-point ; with elv (John Hi 15, vi 29, 35, vH 38, ix 35 ;
Matt. xvHi 6). The noun irio-nv itseK does not occur so fre
quently in the gospels as in the epistles ; but, where it does occur,
it is made equivalent to trust, — that is, Hi Christ (Luke xvHi 8,
xxii. 32, vin. 48, vii. 50; Matt, viii 10, ix. 2 ; Mark iv. 40). None
of the other derivations have more in then favour ; least of aU
those which go on the idea of the signification of honesty of con
viction; or those which take the meaning to be a believing to be
true. But it cannot be denied that there are passages in which
this meaning appears to prevaU : it is so in the construction with
the accusative (toOto, John xi. 26), or with on (John ix 18, viH.
24, xi 27, 42, xiH 19, etc.). In these passages prominence is
given to a special point Hi faith, as the tendency of the entire man
and of the heart towards God or Christ. This point is the strong
impression of a matter being true. Olshausen explains faith, as
occurring in the gospels, to be the susceptibility of reception of the
power proceeding from Christ. But faith must not be Hmited to
this : the reception itseK being also an attribute of it, the mere
susceptibUity does not go far enough. Where the itio-tiv exists,
there is an actual acceptance of Christ. But, of course, according
to the connection, it may be perhaps only incipient and partial.
Other expressions for the idea of faith may be found in the utter-

236 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I
ances of the Lord, especially in John. The sheep Hear His voice
(John x 27, cf. vers. 26, 16, 4, 3, and viH. 43, as a contrast). The
idea of following (John x. 27) HnpHes something further; but the
hearing and perceiving the voice of Christ form a part of faith;
so also yivwatceiv (John xvH. 3). The idea of faith certainly ap
pears in the evangeHsts to be to some extent a flexible one. It
has various grades ; and is sometimes incipient, and sometimes
progressive and conclusive, according to the persons with whom
the Lord had to deal. Sometimes, indeed, faith appears as a
graduaUy suscipient principle of this kind, even in regard to
various divine powers and gifts, as the gift of bodUy healing
(Luke vHi 48, xvH 19; Matt. viH. 13; John iv. 50). But as
aU bodUy suffering is only the result of sin, and bodUy healing
is only an offshoot of the spirituaUy redeeming agency, and an
anticipation of the future redemption from aU evU, faith also
is, indeed, the necessary condition for experiencing the benefits of
this divine power. But it refers essentially to the spirituaUy re
deeming power of Christ (this being expressly stated in Luke vii
50), and therefore to salvation generaUy, and to eternal Hfe (John
Hi 15, vi. 40), and to its future consummation in the dvaaraaiv
(John xi. 25, 26).
Thus repentance on the one hand, and faith on the other, or,
combined in one idea, penitent faith, appears to be the condition
necessary for salvation, and the characteristic of the new hfe.
And, in this sense, the gate spoken of in Matt. vH. 13, 14, is at
the same time both the condition and the Hfe itseK, because in this
change of mind the new spHitual IKe is subjectively supposed.
But, Hi another aspect, this new life is also a change in ike
relation to God. GuUt, and the HabUity to punishment, and the
pressure of sin, no longer weigh heavUy on the new man : his sins
are forgiven ; he is justified. The usual phrase for this relation is
the &<peaiv t&v dpapncov (Matt. xxvi. 28 ; Luke xxiv. 47), an
expression derived from the Old Testament (cf. Mark i 4 ; Luke
i 77) ; d<bievai to? apapriav (Matt. ix. 2, 5, 6 ; Luke vH. 47-49,
xi. 4; John xx. 23) ; . . . dpapTiav (Matt. xn. 31. 32) ; id b<peiXr)paTa
(Matt. vi. 12) ; dtp. Ta irapairTwpaTa (Matt. vi. 14, 15) ; d<p. nvi
(Luke xxiH. 34, xii. 10; Matt, xviii. 21, 35); and cupeaiv alone
(Mark Hi. 29 ; cf. Heb. ix 22). These expressions refer to the
abolition of the relation to God which is brought about by sin,
and, in the first place, to its direct negative. It is the abrogation

DIV. II. § 37.] THE COMMENCEMENT OF SALVATION. 237
of the relation of guUt before God, especially of the consciousness
of guUt and HabUity to punishment in God's sight. Under this
aspect it may be compared with the parable of the great debtor
(Matt, xvin 23 ff; cf. Luke vii. 41, 42). The positive element
in the idea is the restoration of a harmonious relation to God, as
befits a righteous man or a child of God; cf. BucaiovaBai (Luke
xviii 14,, cf. ver. 13). It is worthy of remark that it is Luke who
retains this expression, — the companion of the apostle who so
speciaUy uses the expression, and has developed the idea. Always
in the New Testament, and almost always Hi the Old Testament,
Biicawvv is equivalent to declaring to be righteous, and treating any
one as such. Aiicaiovv eavrbv (Luke xvi. 15), to justify oneseK, to
hold oneseK to be righteous, is an unwarrantable seK-exaltation,
which is an abomination before God ; but lowering oneseK Hi a
free acknowledgment of guUt and corruption, humUiating oneseK,
and beseeching , God for His forgiving mercy, these things con
stitute the way of elevating the sinner who is worthy of con
demnation in God's sight, — that is, the way of freeing him from
his sin But the positive side, the transposition into the relation
of a chUd of God, is presented in the parable of the lost son, in
which the result of forgiveness is fuUy depicted (Luke xv. 20—24).
Therefore the restoration into the position of a chUd, which position
has been lost by sin, is, like justification, an expression for the
positive element in the matter. Other descriptions of this also
occur, such as the finding of that which is lost, although there is
reaUy something more involved in this, namely, the idea of being
renewed and sanctified. The idea of the forgiveness of sins is
less frequently brought forward in St. John, because he chiefly
specifies those utterances in which redemption is described in its
positive element (thus John xvH. 13); so also the having eternal
life, and not being lost (John Hi. 18, 16, v. 24), and other things
of a figurative nature, as the thirsting no more (John iv. 14). The
negative view is not, however, entirely wanting ; on the contrary,
we have the remission of sins expressly mentioned in John xx.
23, — mentioned, indeed, as a part of the apostoHcal commission,
and therefore brought, forward in a very important way.
To the inquiry as to what the Lord lays down as the condition
required for the remissison of sins and justification, the answer
must be faith based on repentance. This is decidedly the case in
the Synoptists, and also in John. The praying pubHcan went

238 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART L
down to his house justified (Luke xviH. 14); and this is attributed
by the Lord to his frame of mind, which was contrasted with the
seK-righteousness of the Pharisee, and the latter's sanctity and
accompanying contempt for others. This frame of mind consisted
in a penitent disposition, and a trusting apprehension of God's
mercy, joined to a desHe of salvation. We must also speciaUy
class with this the frame of mind of the prodigal son when he
returned to his father. In addition to these parables, which con
tain the general idea, but are without any reference to the person
and work of Christ, we have also more definite statements, in
which the latter are included, as the Lord's treatment of Zacchseus
(Luke xix. 1—1 0), and, more decidedly stUl, His words in reference
to the woman that was a sinner (Luke vii. 37 ff., 50). We find
in her, in addition to faith accompanied by bitter sorrow for sin,
the intimate adhesion of the heart to the Redeemer. This is con
trasted with the feeHngs of Simon the Pharisee, of whom it is
shown, in ch. vii 39-47, that he imagined himseK to be very
(superior to the sinful woman, and manifested evident zeal for the
law of God, but also that he was less susceptible of salvation than
¦the woman, because he was deficient in a deep recognition of sin
and desire for redemption, and, consequently, in attachment to the
person of the Lord. Lastly, we find the same feeHng Hi the thief
who was crucified with Christ, who, with deep confession of his
sins, turns in faith to Jesus. Again, it is worthy of remark that
aU these passages occur in Luke, the companion of Paul. We
may perceive from this, that to him these narratives appeared
speciaUy characteristic, and hence His selection of them assumes
a particular significance. Utterances of this kind are not, how
ever, wanting Hi the other Synoptists : cf. the passage Matt, ix
11-13, and the paraUels, in which the dpaprrnXol are those who
feel themselves to be such, the BUaioi being the viroicpivbpevoi
kavTovv; cf. also ch. xxi 28-32, in which the seK-righteous
Pharisees are contrasted with sinners who finally attain to the
way ot repentance, so as to do God's wiU ; also, ch. xxH 11-14,
where the wedding garment represents penitent faith, just as the
Lord elsewhere accurately expresses it, that man is to be poor in
spHit, and to hunger and thHst in spHit (Matt. v. 3, 6) ; also that,
as weary and heavy-laden, he must come to the Lord (Matt, xi
28-30). From this point of view, also, must we understand the
state of mind of the paralytic person (Matt, ix 2). John also

DIV. IL § 37.] THE COMMENCEMENT OF SALVATION. 239
gives passages in which this stipulation is brought forward : thus
ch. Hi. 15, v. 24, ch. vi., and also ch. ix., Hi which faith is ex
pressly mentioned or denoted ; cf. other passages in which this is
not so plainly done (cf. vi 37, iv. 14). Whoever aUows himself
to be drawn by the Father to the Son, and beHeves on Him, does
not come into judgment, and has everlasting Hfe ; that is, he ob
tains forgiveness of sins and justification. Thus, in the didactic
discourses in St. John's Gospel, we find the same conditions for
salvation : it is either repentance combined with faith, or faith
combined with repentance.
There is also no need for perplexity, when we find the Lord
laying down as a condition for the forgiveness of sins, sometimes
love to Him, as in the case of the sinful woman (Luke vii. 47) ;
sometimes a readiness to forgive our fellow-men, as in the Lord's
Prayer (Matt, vi 12) and similar expressions (Mark xi. 25, 26) ;
or compassion towards them (Matt. v. 7). Sometimes on these
occasions it is not the very first commencement of forgiveness
of sins which is in question, — for how could any true love exist
ere forgiveness had been generally obtained ? StUl less is it the
first beginning of love to Christ ; but it is in part beHevers who
are spoken of, who must exercise this readiness to forgive if they
are to remain in possession of the mercy shown them. Sometimes,
however, it refers to that love to Christ and compassion to men
which aHeady exists and must exist in the various stages of re
pentance, and in this respect constitutes an obHgation necessary
for the forgiveness of sins ; as in the spHitual poverty of those to
whom the kingdom of God is promised (Matt. v. 3), and also in
the humility therein implied, must also be contained the incHnation
to gentleness and pity.
Just as Httle need it cause us any difficulty, when we find the
Lord requHing, as a requisite for salvation, that we should do
the wiU of His Father and foUow His word (Matt. vH 21). This
stipulation is contrasted with the merely external, although zealous
confession of Christ as the Lord (vers. 21, 22), which is combined
with a perseverance in sin; it is also contrasted with the not
following His words (ver. 26). AU that is comprehended Hi this
wiU of God as regards the sinner, must, however, be deduced
from other utterances of the Lord, especiaUy the commencement of
the Sermon on the Mount. According to this, it is not any action
done in his own power which is to procure a man salvation ; for

240 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I
it is the poor in spirit, he who hungers and thirsts after righteous
ness, who, by means outside himself, by God's power, is to he
satisfied therewith. Hence the only doing intended is that which
is contained Hi penitent faith.
Thus the condition requisite for the forgiveness of sins and
justification is identical and simultaneous with the state which
constitutes the new spHitual Hfe. The two are mutuaUy involved,
and are one and the same thing. The joint idea is that of
righteousness (Matt. v. 6, 20, vi. 33 ; John xvi. 8, 10). From a
comparison of these passages, we may conclude that righteousness
is an object of human desHe, which can only be satisfied by a
gift from above, through the divine power, and not through any
power of man himseK. It is, therefore, the first object of the
striving which is directed towards the entry into the kingdom of
God ; for in and with the latter it is given. This righteousness^ :
which originaUy is peculiar to Christ (cf. 1 John ii 1, 2), is that
which becomes ours by our community with Him. And conse
quently the righteousness of the Christian, from the beginning on
wards, is essentially a state of justification ; but for this very reason
it is not a presumptive but an actual righteousness, — one which
avaUs before God, and, in spite of aU closely clinging sin, meets
with no condemnation
§ 38. The Teaching as to the Operation of Redeeming Power — The
Progress and Completion of Salvation.
Progress in a life of faith is, Hi the first place, a progress in
love to God and to Christ, and for their sakes to the brethren. For
as soon as faith reHnquishes its receptive capacity, and stands out
in independence, it must assume the character of love, and, indeed,
of self-denying love. For as faith is manifested only in love, so
can repentance only become active by seK-deniaL Thus Jesus
speaks as to this love (Matt, x 37 f. ; cf. Luke xiv. 26).
Repentance itseK being a turning away from sin, seK-denial must
apply especiaUy to everything sinful and also to everything which
is an object of desHe, and must foUow the example of Jesus
(John xii 26; Matt. xx. 26-28; John xiii. 12-17). In this
strict sense the Lord adopts the requHement of love to God
before everything, — a requHement which had been aHeady re
cognised in Deuteronomy as the purport of the old covenant
(Matt. xxH 36 ff). In this sense He inculcates love to Himself

DIV. II. § 38.] PROGRESS AND COMPLETION OF SALVATION. 241
as obedience to His commandments (John xiv. 15), and gives a
special prominence to mutual love among beHevers (John xv. 12).
This foUowing of Jesus, with a renunciation of everything opposed
to Him, is developed by Him Hi several discourses, with more
special detaU in the Synoptists. This is especiaUy the righteous
ness which is better than that of the scribes and Pharisees
(Matt. v. 20), — a righteousness in spirit and in truth, Hi which
the commandments are inwardly fulfiUed (cL v. 21 ff). He de-
velopes it further in ch. vi., Hi reference to works of beneficence
and charity (vers. 2-4) ; to praying (vers. 5-1 5) ; the exercise of
,seK-denial (vers. 16-18); the whole direction of the human
energy towards some eternal heavenly treasure, so that the whole
heart has its existence in the future (vers. 19-23), without being
divided in its aim (vers. 24-34). When a man is in this frame of
mind, he judges himseK and not his brethren (Matt, vii 1—5) ; deals
wisely with the sacred things entrusted to him, doing nothing
without prayer (vers. 6-11); and in his treatment of his neighbour
foUows the tenor of aU the Old Testament precepts (ver. 1 2). This
is the course to the narrow way (Matt. vH. 13 f.), in which we must,
indeed, be cautious against offences (ver. 15), but shaU become
rich in fruit (vers. 1 7, 1 8), and shall see that the fabric of our
salvation is founded on a rock (vers. 24, 25). But the whole of
this progress in the Hfe of faith presupposes the existence of the
wropovr), the persistence in the new Hfe (Luke viH. 15, cf. 13, 14).
The other aspect in the progress in the Hfe of faith is the
development of blessedness Hi God (John xvi. 22, xv. 11), and in
prayer (John xvi. 24). The joy which Christ has and gives,
abides in beHevers and becomes perfected in them : they remain
in the love of Christ and the enjoyment of the same (John xvH.
13, 26) ; also Hi His peace, owing to the victory over the tribula
tion which is occasioned by the world (John xvi. 33). He can,
therefore, offer to them rest and refreshment (Matt. xi. 28, 29),
can pronounce them blessed (Matt. v. 3 ff), and can caU upon
them to rejoice because their names are written in heaven (Luke
x. 20). But the outward effects are not so much the subject of
their joy as the fact that they are the special objects of the divine
choice ; and this guarantees the existence of humility Hi this joy.
It is the peace of the kingdom of God which sets them free from
aU the cares of the world, so that aU external matters appear to
be a secondary consideration (Luke xH. 31).
Q

242 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
The completion of salvation is placed, by the Lord, not in the
present world, but in a supernatural heavenly future (Luke
xx. 35). This position, ev toiv ovpavoiv (Matt. v. 12), in aubv
eiceivov, is looked upon by Him as the true Hfe (Matt, xviii. 8,
cf. vH. 13 ; John v. 29). It is an existence Hi the Father's
house, in which His sacred presence is manKested, where there
are many mansions (John xiv. 2) ; in the everlasting habitations
(Luke xvi. 9), where the great and true riches wiU be first com
mitted unto men as then own, in contrast to the good things of
this lower IKe as trifling things and the mammon of unrighteous
ness (Luke xvi. 10-12). It is a being where Christ is (John,
xH. 26, xiv. 3, 4) ; a participation in the glory of the glorified
Redeemer (John xvH. 24). As the far) of believers generally, ,
which is communicated to them by Christ, is the far) of Christ,
so wiU the perfected far) be nothing but the real participation in
the perfected far) of the glorified Christ. The spHitual Hfe com
municated to beHevers by Christ proves itseK to be far) amviov
by the victory over death (John xi. 25, 26, v. 24-29, x 28-30).
Our Lord does not so much point out death as the transition to
this state (although death brings with it a mighty change), as
rather, (1.) The resurrection at the last day. This is the ami and
end of salvation (John vi. 40, 44), as the resurrection of life
(John v. 29 ; Luke xx 35, 36). Those who are thought worthy
to become partakers in that alcov, through the resurrection from
the dead, cannot die any more : they are like the angels and the
Son of God (Luke xx. 36 ; Matt. xxH. 30). This is the resur
rection of the just (Luke xiv. 14). (2.) And also His advent for
judgment (Matt. xxiv. 30).
But by our arrival at this point, and by our consideration of
the progress and completion of salvation, we are naturaUy led to
Christ's doctrine and teaching as to the kingdom of God.

III.— THE KINGDOM OF GOD.
§ 39. Idea of the Bivine Kingdom.
The source of this idea in the Old Testament dispensation is a
covenant made by God with man, from which was developed the
idea of a theocracy, of a people or house of God (Num. xH 7), of

DIV. II. § 39.] IDEA OF THE DIVINE KINGDOM. 243
a kingdom of kings and priests (Ex. xix. 6 ; applied Hi an ideal
sense to Christians in 1 Pet. ii. 9), indeed of a theocracy under a
monarchical form. Then foUows the conception of an ideaUy real
theocratic kingdom of the Messiah (cf. Isa. H. 1-4 ; Mic. iv. 1 ff. ;
Isa. xi. 12 ; - Jer. xxin. 5-8, xxxi. 3 1 ff, xxxii. 3 7 ff, xxxiii.
7 ff. ; Ezek xxxiv. 23 ff., xxxvii. 24 ff.) ; until the express term,
the kingdom to be set up by God, appears (Dan. ii. 44), Hi
contrast to the universal human kingdom, as that which is to
exist under the rule of the Messiah as the Son of man,— the
kingdom of the saints (ver. 22). Lastly, in the Apocrypha
(Wisdom x 10) the BaaiXela tov Qeov is brought forward. " In
addition to these prophetical passages, we have various theo-
cratical or royal psalms, in which also the idea of the theocratic
kingship and kingdom is expressed.
The Lord found the idea thus existing in His time (Luke i 3 2
ff, xrv^JJ) ; Mark xi. 1 0), certainly not always in the shape in**
which it is presented in the Old Testament ; but, by applying it
in the first place to those who were waiting for salvation, 'He was
able to presuppose purer notions of it than those that were pre
valent. The Baptist also, at his appearance, speaks of a kingdom
of heaven (Matt. Hi. 2). As an idea which was not only a fertUe
one, but also, on the other hand, both plastic and ductUe, the
Lord went on to make it the groundwork of His teaching, in order,
as occasion was thereby offered, to be the better able to speak of
the Messianic order of things, and thus to refer to His own per
son, — in this way introducing and preparing for His ministry.
He speaks of it especiaUy in the synoptical passages, and, indeed,
takes it as the chief purport of His teaching, describing the an
nouncement of it as the duty of His mission (Luke iv. 43 ; cf.
Matt, x 7 ; Luke x. 9,_JL1). In St. John, also, the Lord speaks
of the kingdom of God (ch. Hi. 3, 5) in His conversation with
Nicodemus, in which it is evident that, although in this gospel
the Lord brings more prominently forward the subjective element
in the new order of things, the corresponding objective idea of
the kingdom is jointly entertained, indeed, as the fundamental
idea which embraces both regeneration and the new life. The
Lord also speaks of it in His trial before Pilate (John xviii. 33,
36, 37), in which He refers the whole of His pecuHar attitude
to the idea of the kingdom.
This kingdom of God, in the teaching of Jesus, has been very

244 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
variously understood. (1.) As the kingdom of Christ, to be ex- -
pected in the future, in which He would solemnly return to judg
ment, and the last judgment would prove Him to be the Lord
over quick and dead, — (a) without HimseK having been able to
fix the epoch of this kingdom ; or, (b) with the definition of time,
that this kingdom should become visible on earth, and should
commence simultaneously with the destruction of Jerusalem. In
regard to this, some have declared the utterances relating to the
subject to be an accommodation to cHcumstances ; others have
referred them to Jewish expectations, which even Jesus enter
tained, and in regard to which He was deceived. (2.) Going to
the opposite extreme, the kingdom of God has been also under-''
stood as being merely the Church of Christ on earth ; and it has
been thought that aU the utterances relating to His coming again
were to be interpreted figuratively as referring to the spread of
Christianity. (3.) By an union of these two views, the kingdom '
of God is understood to be both present and future, — the dominion
of the exalted Christ, which consists partly in the influence over
the minds of men exercised by the word, partly in the guidance
of the external destinies of the Church, partly in the rewards and
punishments at the last judgment. In it, too, is perhaps recog
nised the kingdom of grace, the temporal institutions of religion,
the kingdom of glory, and the future acts of judgment ; adding,
too, the idea that Jesus was only in error Hi fixing too close a
proximity for His judgment.
We must distinguish the pure definitions of the time from the
utterances as to the nature of the kingdom of God. With respect
to the former, in several utterances, Jesus keeps to the general
proposition that "the kingdom of God is at hand" (Matt. iv. 17;
Mark i 14, 15 ; Luke iv. 43). The same occurs in the dnections
to the disciples as to the purport of their first preaching (Matt.
x 7). This is the expression of the most general character, the
ffyyine not saying precisely whether an actual present or only a
quite closely impending time is meant. In other passages, however,
the time is more accurately indicated; for He describes the king
dom of God (a) as already begun at the then present time (Matt,
xu. 28; Luke xi. 20, 21). The starting-point of this kingdom is
the appearance of John the Baptist (Matt. xi. 12 ; Luke xvi. 16):
up to his time the Old Testament dispensation (6 vopov koi
oi irpo(pf)Tai) lasted. By Jesus, Hi Matt, xi 11, contrasting the

DIV. II. § 39.] IDEA OF THE DIVINE KINGDOM. 245
Baptist with the members of the kingdom of God, it may be per
ceived that the real commencement of this kingdom is connected
with His person. It coincides with His appearance, because in
it the kingly operation of His olivine power of attraction com
mences, (b) But Jesus also describes it as future in the formula
of His prayer (Matt. vi. 1 0), and also in other passages of a more
prophetical character (Matt. xvi. 28 ; Mark ix. 1 ; Luke ix. 27,
xvH. 24-30, xxi. 31 ; Matt. xxv. 1, 34 ; Mark xiv. 25 ; Luke xxH
29, 30). In these varied representations of the time of God's
kingdom an intimation is conveyed as to its nature. It is in its
nature, on the one hand, something simply existing and eternal,
and, on the other, something temporal, developing itself through
various conditions. In Luke xvH. 21 the Lord evidently looks
upon it as plainly existing. Whosoever has a share in it has it
actuaUy, and is in it ; he stands in this eternal order of things ;
just as Jesus says in John, that a man through regeneration enters
into it (John Hi 3, 5). The figures of the costly pearl and the
treasure hid in a field (Matt. xiH.) also point to something which
has existed from everlasting ; for it is contained Hi the idea and
wiU of God; it is pre-designed therein (Matt. xxv. 34), and has
been prepared from the foundation of the world. In its appear
ance it takes the other aspect, and is developed in it (Mark iv.
26—29). It is /Hke seed which a man casts into the earth, and,
whUe he sleeps, the seed springs up, and the earth brings forth
first the blade, then the ear, after that the fuU corn in the ear.
But according to the practical idea of it, the kingdom of God
in the teaching of the Lord is a divine order of things, which is
reahzed through Christ the Redeemer, as one developing itseK from
within. That it is a divine order of things, is clear from the de
claration that it was not of this world (John xviH. 33—36) ; that
the disciples do not belong to the world (John xv. 1 9) ; that he
only who is of God hears His word (John viH. 47) ; it is in the
world, but not of the world and sinful (John xvii. 15-21). It is,
therefore, a disposition of divine origin and of a divine nature.
Being reahzed through Christ, it is His kingdom (Luke xxH. 30 ;
Matt. xvi. 18, xHi. 41) ; and the unveUing of it is the revelation
of Christ (Luke xvH 22-24, 30). It depends upon His scatter
ing the seed (Matt. xiH. 37) ; it suffers, is rejected, and wUl come
again (Matt. xvi. 24-28). The contrast to it is formed by the
world, apostate as it is from God (John xvi 33), and ruled over

246 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I
by Satan (John xii. 31, xiv. 30, xvi. 11). The outward develop
ment of the new disposition of things is from within. It proceeds
from a pecuHar inner life of the spirit, which is produced in man
by the Holy Ghost, as faith in Christ (John Hi 3 ff.) ; as the child
like mind, which is unassuming and susceptible to divine things
(Matt. xvHi. 3, 4 ; Luke xvHi. 1 7), depending on repentance
(Matt. iv. 17); as a poverty of spHit which is conscious of its own
insufficiency (Matt. v. 3), with a most heartfelt and honest desire
after righteousness ; as self-denying love to Christ and the brethren
(Matt. x. 3 7, xx 2 0-2 8). But this spHitual life does not retain
an exclusively internal character. It shows itself in outward
action, by which aU the relations of IKe, and aU objects of the wiU
and procedure, are more and more shaped and transformed into a
new order of things, according to the rule of this spHitual life
(Matt. xiH. 31 f, 33). This development of the kingdom of God
from within is opposed to the view of an outward reaHzation
which is not based on any spHitual Hfe. This merely material
view is resisted by the Lord in the case of the Jews, especiaUy
in Luke xvH 20, 21. The evrbv may be taken here as equivalent
to within, as in Ps. cHi 1, in the LXX. ; or also as among you, as
Xenoph. Anab. vi. 1, 5, inside the phalanx. The second inter
pretation is to be preferred, because the Lord is speaking to
Pharisees, to whom He could not very weU say that the kingdom
was inwardly in them. But even thus the word retains an in
timation of the internal character and spirituaHty of the kingdom
Together with this stress laid on its invisible nature, the Lord
also depicts (in ver. 24) this same kingdom as appearing visibly.
The kingdom of God is also the communion of spirits founded
by Christ. The idea of the BaaiXeia HnpHes that the divine
system of Hfe tends to a community of spirits. By the kingly
wiU of God they are united in a common Hfe in inward affinity.
As the kingdom of God on earth, it is, Hi the first place, a
fellowship of men. This is clearly conveyed in the generaUy
figurative delineations of Jesus. Thus, in the parable of the
field (Matt. xHi 24 f., 37 f., cf. 47-50); of the sitting down
together in common (Matt. viH. 11, 12, cf. xxvi. 29; Luke
xxii. 29, 30); of the great marriage feast (Matt. xxii. 2-14;
Luke xiv. 15-24); of the wise and foolish vHgins (Matt. xxv.
1-13); of the labourers in the vineyard (Matt, xx 1-16) ; and
the like (Matt, xxi 33, 44 ; Mark xii. 1-12; Luke xx 9-19).

DIV. II. § 39.] IDEA OF THE DIVINE KINGDOM. 247
All of these figures express a feUowship united for the possession
of a common good, or to exercise some common action.
It also embraces humanity as a whole, without limitation to
any particular part thereof, in contrast to the choice of the
Jewish people. The gospel wUl be preached to the whole
world (Matt. xiH. 38, 'The field is the world;' xxiv. 14, xxvi.
13, xxvHi 19). They shaU come both from the east and from
the west (Matt. viH. 11, 12; Luke xHi. 28, 29). Jesus has
other sheep (John x. 16); He invites them from the highways
and hedges (Luke xiv. 21; Matt. xxii. 10). The result of the
actions of the wicked Husbandmen (Matt. xxi. 33, 34; cf. John
Hi 16, 17, vin. 12, ix. 5, xi. 9, xvi. 8, xvii 21). We must not
overlook the fact, that the Lord everywhere clearly says that a
great portion of the Jews would not obtain a share Hi the king
dom, because they had not accepted the caU ; and that He ex
pressly declares that the Jewish nation should cease to be the
subjects of the kingdom of God (Matt. xxi. 33 f). Because this
nation first withstood God's ambassadors, and then despised and
rejected them, and subsequently slew the Son ; and because the
rejected stone must be the headstone of the corner; therefore
another people is brought in (Luke xx. 17, 18 ; cf. Tit. H. 14), —
not a distinct historical nation, but an ideal people, the whole
body of those who are regenerated in the faith in Christ. With
this must be compared the words of the Lord as to the judgment
on the people (Matt. xxiv. 23 ; Luke xvii. 37, xxi. 5, 6, 20, 24) :
the Jewish commonwealth is the carcase left to the eagles, — the
caput mortuum, as if ripe for judgment.
Just as it embraces humanity without any distinction of
nation, so it also comprises heaven and earth, and likewise the
coining periods of the world, both before and after the judgment.
The Old Testament idea (except in Daniel, especiaUy ch. xii 2,
13) Hmited the kingdom to the present Hfe, just as many Chris
tians look upon God's kingdom as being supernatural, and con
fined to the world to come. The teaching of the Lord is opposed
to both these limitations. According to Matt. xii. 28, xi. 12,
Luke xvH. 20, 21, the kingdom exists on earth, and aU nations
on the earth shaU receive it (Matt. xiH 31, 33, viii 11, 12,
xxiv. 14). But its prototype is the kingdom of God in heaven
(Matt. vi. 10, v. 10, 12, vi, 33): there Christ is, and the com
munion with Him is everlasting, death not being a destroyer of

248 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART L
it (John xii. 26, xvii 22-24). It likewise embraces all the periods
of man's history, from Christ onwards, both before and after the
judgment (Matt, xi 11, 12, iv. 17; Luke xvii. 20; Matt, xxviii.
20); also aU generations of men, early or late (Matt. xx. 1-16,
xxv. 34 ff). Hence it is often represented by Christ as future.
Precisely because it embraces aU generations of men and all
times, yet, on the other hand, although everlasting in its essence, it
is placed in relation to its actual appearance, in the sense that it
is subject to a general temporal development, which has its pre
scribed epochs and culminating point. This gradual development,
is produced by the actual entry of God's kingdom into time and
among mankind : it is thus become man-Hke. The history of
man is also the history of God's kingdom. Mankind is, indeed;
neither the sole nor the primitive factor of God's kingdom.-
Christ constitutes this ; but He HimseK is the Hving principle of
the successive developments of this kingdom, by communicating
His Hfe to this communion of spirits and order of things, or by
reveaHng Himself (Luke xvH. 30). Consequently the stages of
development of the kingdom of God are the stages and various
modes of His irapovaia ; and in the consummation of this is pro
duced the culminating point of its development, the Kplo-iv is
completed, the distinction between the heavenly and earthly king
dom of God is removed, and the iraXiyyevecria, the regeneration
of the world (Matt. xix. 28), has appeared. There are, therefore,
two chief periods of God's kingdomj which are separated by the
epoch of judgment. The Lord describes them as alwvev, and the
present one as 6 alwv ovtov, and the other as the almv peXXav
(Matt. xH. 32) ; or o icaipbv oiitov, and o ciuhv 6 epxppevov (Mark x.
30) ; or o alav ovtov, and o eiubv etcelvov (Luke xx. 34, 35). The
epoch which forms the point of division between the two periods
may be perceived from Matt. xxiv. 3 ff, xxviH. 20, xiH. 40, 49.
By it the characters of the two periods, are described. FHst, the
mixture of good and evil, — the existence together of the kingdom
of God and the world. During this period, it is the task of God's
kingdom to pervade the icoo-pov, and to win over those who belong
to it (Matt. xiH. 33). Then comes the existence by itseK of
God's kingdom in its purity and perfection (Matt, xin 40-43),
when " the righteous shaU shine forth like the sun in the kingdom
of their Father" (ver. 43). ' '
But this selfsame kingdom of God, which among men is thus

DIV. II. § 39.] IDEA OF THE DIVINE KINGDOM. 249
subject to a gradual development, extends beyond the world of men,
to the angels, who are also comprehended in it. The teaching
of the Lord presupposes the existence of angels, as spirits which
are immortal, and without material bodies distinguished by sex
(Matt. xxH. 30) ; they are raised above the earthly human con
dition by theH inteUigence (Matt. xxiv. 36 ; Mark xiH. 32), and
by their holiness and blessedness (Matt, xviii. 10 ; Luke xv. 10).
They had been aHeady known under the old covenant ; but their
position is now more clearly defined by theH relation to the Son
of God. Jesus speaks of these spHits Hi various connections,
when He treats of His own person, or of a blessed immortaHty.
His mention of them is interwoven with the reHgious truths
which He propounded. When He met the disciples whom He
had first caUed (John i 52), He declares to them that they wiU
hereafter see the heaven open, and the angels of God ascending
and descending on the Son^of man. They would therefore here
after become conscious that heaven was open as regarded Christ,
— open in the midst of His earthly IKe for spiritual intercourse,
and for the reception of heavenly power and heavenly ministry
The Son of man also appears as the object, to minister to whom
the angel-world is sent. He is theH Head, — at first, indeed, during
the period of His lowliness, and limited by it, — but they are His
angels (Matt, xvi 27, xiH. 41, xxiv. 31 ; cf. Mark xiii. 32).
These spHits are, however, placed by the Lord in a moral relation
to man They always behold the face of their Father in heaven
(Matt. xvHi. 10). They rejoice over a converted sinner (Luke
xv. 10). This moral relation is doubtless to be understood in
nearly the same way as in Heb. i 14 ; it is an intercourse
between angels and mankind for the furtherance of some moral
aim Hi men. We must, for this very reason, assume that the
Lord looked upon angels as members of God's kingdom. They
are His instruments in it, — His instruments in the consummation
of this kingdom by His appearance ; His instruments in the great
work of redeeming and blessing mankind ; His instruments, too,
in the Hfe of the Lord Himself, at His birth, His resurrection and
ascension, and also on the occasion of His temptation (Matt. iv.
11), and at Gethsemane (Luke xxH. 43), — in every case in har
mony with the position which they fill in His teaching. But, as
morally intelUgent beings, they cannot be mere instruments, and
must also have a personal aim ; they must therefore be members

250 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
of God's kingdom, but with tins distinction from us, that we are
subjects of redemption, which, as regards the angels, we have no
right to assume. The prayer taught by our Lord, that God's
wUl may be done on earth as in heaven, must be referred to the
agency of angels (Matt. vi. 10). Owing to the angels, therefore,
the kingdom of God already exists in its truth and reaHty entirely
setting aside its continuance on earth. Hence the Lord never
says that it takes its rise on earth, but that it comes to us (Matt.
vi. 10), and is at hand (Matt. iv. 17).
§ 40. The Bevelopment of the Kingdom of God upon Earth — The
Church and its Inherent Means of Grace.
We have to confine our remarks to the kingdom of God on
earth among men, for only as to this does the Lord give us any
further details. As to its connection with the heavenly kingdom,
He affords us some few intimations ; but with regard to this
heavenly kingdom itseK, as it at present exists, we have no
teaching at aK It may be said that the Church is not in any
respect identical with the kingdom of God ; but yet the actual
kingdom of God on earth coincides with the Church. Wherever
Christ is at work, there is the kingdom of God. He, however,
works only where His word works, and this takes place where the
Church is ; or inversely, wherever this takes place, in some way
or other the Church wUl exist.
The Lord expressly speaks of His community upon earth by
the term e/aeXr]o-ia (Matt. xvi. 18, xvHi 17). In the former
passage, indeed, He understands thereby His community on
earth generaUy in its identity with the kingdom of God (of.
ver. 19, BaaiXela tSxv ovpavuv), so far as it is on earth, but
without any local or temporal restrictions, the Church of Christ
in its universal character. But in the second passage He points
to some local community, the community of beHevers in some
particular place (according to the connection with vers. 15 and
16). We therefore have the word i/cKXr/ata in its twofold
meaning, as it is also found in Paul's writings. De Wette has
indeed looked upon this designation of Christ's community as an
anachronism which did not proceed from Jesus HimseK. But
there can be no doubt that He viewed the beHevers in Him as
forming an outward community, both on account of the institu
tion of Baptism, and likewise because the inward or spHitual

DIV. II. § 40.] THE CHURCH AND ITS INHERENT MEANS OF GRACE. 251
'community which He desHed to found for His disciples must
necessarUy lead to an outward feUowship. But the expression
conveying this idea was readUy furnished Him by the mother
tongue. The question was here as to the three words ??!?,
rng, and ""}?*?, the last of which, from its derivation, is closely
allied to eicicXno-ia. The theocratical popular assembly, the con
gregation of the people, especiaUy the assemblage of the people
at the feasts, and next, in a narrower sphere, the local congrega
tional gatherings, which for five centuries before Christ had come
together in the synagogues, were aU facts so closely bearing on
the matter, that it cannot be conceived why the Lord should
not have been led to express the idea of a Church. The three
Hebrew terms designating the congregation of the people, which
are rendered in the LXX. by the word e/cicXr)o-ia, naturaUy form
the groundwork of the conception (although o-waycoyr) certainly
occurs in the New Testament). In the discourses Hi St. Matthew
in which the idea occurs, there is, however, nothing which justi
fies our doubting theH originality. The discourses Hi St. John do
not contain the. idea, although it is used in the 3d Epistle of St.
John for the assembly of the community. Yet, on the other
hand, the discourses in St. John contain, very decidedly, a general
idea of the association -of beHevers, which also is manKested out
wardly (cf. ch. x. 16, ch. xUi-xvii).
The most general characteristics which constitute the identity of
the Church with the Bao-iXela tov Qeov need no very diffuse dis
cussion. The fellowship of believers with Christ has been before
treated of. The spiritual and internal fellowship of believers
naturaUy foUows. The Lord unites faith in Him with love
towards the brethren. He makes this love a icaivr) evroXr) (John
xiH 34), as a commandment peculiar to Himself (ch. xv. 12), —
"that ye love one another as I have loved you." It is the
characteristic mark of His disciples, in contrast to the hatred
of the world (ch. xv. 17), in reference to which this love was
to be their comfort and compensation. Therefore the apostles
and aU believers were to be inwardly one (John xvii. 21), in
virtue of their communion with Christ and the Father ; and this
very union was to be a cause that the world should believe that
Christ was sent by the Father (John xvii. 21). This inward
union necessarily leads to an outward fellowship, — aU inner life
striving for an outward manifestation, — as, in the community of

252 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
the apostles during Jesus' stay on earth, was represented by the
figure of an outward feUowship of believers ; and, as He Himself
distinctly intimated, both by His directions and promises to His
apostles (Matt. xvi. 19, xvHi 18, 19 ; John xx. 23 ; Matt, xxviii
19, 20; Mark xvi 15), and also by the institution of Baptism
and the Lord's Supper, that an external feUowship among them
was the object of His aim and His anticipation. With this we
must class the decided summons to them to acknowledge their
beHef in Him before men (Matt, x 32, 33; Luke xH. 8, 9;
cf. Matt. xH. 30), as, of course, the whole existence of an outward
community of faith, and, so far, of the kingdom of God, depended
on this confession. By this, too, may be explained the great im
portance which Jesus attributes to this confession before men
as a fundamentaUy essential requisition Pertaining to this
subject, also, is the presupposition of an external union for the
purposes of prayer (Matt. xviH. 19, 20), and the dHection (John
xiH 12 f.) to serve one another mutuaUy, in humble, seK-denying
love, for which the washing of the apostles' feet is to be taken as a
pattern. Added to this is the exhortation, that whosoever would
be great in the kingdom of God should seek pre-eminence only in
an active and self-sacrificing willingness of service (Matt. xx.
25-28); that His cause should bring about a dissolution of
previous relations, even the most intimate (Matt. x. 34 ff, cf.
ver. 17), and bitter persecution (Mark. xHi 9-13 ; John xv. 18,
xvi 1-4) ; but that this, on the other hand, partly originates and
partly presupposes fresh connections and a firm union therein.
Lastly, the special instructions in the case of one believer being
injured by another (Matt. xviH 15), where the existence of an
external community is expressly decided. Added to this, we
have the parabolic delineations of the kingdom of God on earth,
in which it appears as a feUowship of men. This community,
therefore, as one developing itseK from within, depends on the
communication of the life of Christ, and is founded, maintained,
and guided by Him. He thus speaks of the building of His
Church (Matt. xvi. 18), which He desires to found on the rock
Peter. He promises to His people His quickening and guiding
presence until the end of the world (Matt. xxvHi. 20). All
authority, as weU as aU power, is to be attributed by His pre-:
sence to even the smaUest gathering of His people in His name
(Matt. xviH 20) ; and, indeed, in every individual beHever He will

DIV. II. §40.] THE CHURCH AND ITS INHERENT MEANS OF GRACE. 253
make His abode (John xiv. 23). To His people He wUl com
municate the Holy SpHit of truth (John xvi. 7, cf. xv. 26), so
that He wiU always abide in them (John xiv. 16, 17), and wUl
fulfil aU the prayers made by beHevers in His name (John xiv. 1 3,
xv. 7, xvi. 23). As being founded and guided by Him, the Church
has an immovable existence (Matt. xvi. 1 8), and the gates of death
shaU not prevaU against it, cf. Job xxxviii 1 7. Hades in this
passage may be compared to the Sheol in Sol Song. viH. 6; 7 : it
is the destroying idea, the powers opposed to divine Hfe, which
are supposed to be combined in a strong castle, as K in a king's
palace (Luke xi. 21, 22), which stands in hostUe opposition to
God's temple. The buUding of the Church founded by Christ upon
a rock is, on the contrary, of sure and firm continuance. In the
idea of Christ's Church, these are the general characteristics which
constitute its identity with the conception of God's kingdom.
Christ s word, Baptism, and the Lord's Supper appear as the
special signs of the pecuHarity of the Church, or, as the ground
work of God's kingdom upon earth.
The word of Christ is the authentic testimony of God's Son
(John Hi. 11) ; the word of God (John xH 48-50, xiv. 10, vn.
16, xvn 6); the truth which sanctifies and sets free from sin
(John vin. 3 1 f, xvH. 1 7), It is the spHit and the Hfe (John
vi 63), the Hfe-giving seed from which sprung the new spHitual
hfe of men, and from which subsequently the Church of Christ
grows up, although this seed does not always faU in good ground
(Matt. xin. 3, 9 ; c£ the parallel passages). By this word is faith
brought about (John xvH. 20, v. 24); and by this word wiU
unbeHevers be judged at the last day (John xH 48). Whosoever
hears the word and acts according to it, is brought thereby into a
spiritual relation and spHitual communion with Christ, and is a
partaker in His salvation (Luke viii. 21, xi 28.) Whosoever
abides Hi it and keeps its commandments, bis prayers wiU be
heard as being in feUowship with Christ, and he wUl receive the
SpHit of truth (John xv. 7, 14, 15-17). Thus the word of
Christ is essentially the first groundwork of His Church, or of the
community of beHevers on earth. Men possess it only through
Christ. But it is not the fuU and complete groundwork, for Bap
tism and the Lord's Supper foUow, and are closely connected with it.
With regard to Baptism, only a few utterances are recorded :
the command to baptize (Matt. xxvHi 19; Mark xvi. 16), and

254 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
the passage John Hi. 5, which must be interpreted as an allu-
sion to baptism; to this must be added the statement that the
Lord caused His disciples to baptize (John iv. 1, 2). The com
mand to baptize, which connects together the two ideas of baptism,
and teaching or making men into disciples, for this very reason
shows that, in addition to the word, baptism is also the way to
Jesus. This idea is also clearly implied in Mark xvi. 16. Like
wise also, in John iii. 5, the participation in the kingdom of God
is conditional on a bHth, not only of the Spirit, but also of water.
From this passage it is clear that the Spirit, as the regenerating '.
principle, receives an elementary groundwork by His union with
the water, by which also the negative side of purification from the
world, and the positive side of entry into a new Hfe, are com
prehended. With respect to the question as to infant baptism,
this cannot be directly proved from the words of the Lord. His
language about little chUdren (Matt. xix. 13 ff., xvHi 3) proves, -
indeed, that individuals of this tender age were not to be ex
cluded from Him, and that it was the susceptible and confiding
mind of chUdhood which rendered men susceptible of the word :
of God and the influence of Christ. On the one hand, however,
we know not whether the chUdren were of altogether tender
years ; and although we may also say that no eariier point can
indeed be fixed at which an absolute non-susceptibUity could
commence, yet, on the other hand, it is only Christ's blessing <
which is in question ;\and, if we consider the combination of the
word and baptism whic^h exists in the command to baptize (Matt.
xxvHi. 1 9), and tljte promise (Mark xvi. 1 6), we must see that
baptism of infants' exists, at aU events, in some different sense
than in the case pf adults.
With regard to the Lord's Supper, the only passages we have
to consider in the Synoptists are the narratives of its institution
(Matt. xxvi. ; Mark xiv. ; Luke xxii. ; cf. 1 Cor. xi). In John,
we have the momentous utterances of our Lord, as to eating the
flesh and drinking the blood of Christ, contained in John vi.
The institution took place at the last passover feast, whilst
Jesus was at the table with the disciples ; but it was neverthe
less a matter to be speciaUy distinguished from the passover
meal. This latter point is clear, even in Matthew and Mark,
although we are only told that the distribution of the bread took
place while they were eating. This cannot be taken as the

DIV. II. §40.] THE CHURCH AND ITS INHERENT MEANS OF GRACE. 255
prceteritum, in favour of which view an appeal has vainly been
made to Matt. xiv. 21. But it can only mean whUe they were
sitting at table, and must not be referred to the time whilst they
were engaged in eating the passover meal. Even were this the
case, Jesus' action would be distinguished from the passover meal
itself; because Jesus, even according to Matthew and Mark,
accompanied the distribution of the bread and wine with a special
command, and also speciaUy invited them thereto. The distinc
tion appears even more decidedly in Luke and Paul, by whom the
delivery of the cup is said to have taken place after supper.
This addition is evidently intended to distinguish the cup from
that which was drunk from at the solemnization of the passover
meal, the latter only introducing the former.
The meaning of the action is, at all events, chiefly that of a
memorial rite. Although this may be gathered from the signifi
cance which Jesus attaches to the matter, it is completely placed
beyond doubt by the accounts in Luke and Paul, which teU us
that Jesus, in deHvering the bread and cup (Paul), said, " This do
in remembrance of me," — an addition which certainly did not
proceed from the subsequent rite, but, just on account of its
actual existence, might have been the more readily omitted in
Matthew and Mark, as John, in his selection of narratives, passed
over the account of the institution as a point which was weU
known through the solemnity itseK. Besides, the reference in
the Synoptists to drinking it new with them in His Father's king
dom, renders it generaUy probable that the Lord, as Paul says,
intended a memorial rite, which was to be repeated untU the time
of His appearance. More closely considered, however, the Lord's
Supper is an action of the HveHest remembrance of Christ, as
sacrificed for us, as the Redeemer who died to reconcile us with God.
But the main question now is, In what relation do the bread
and wine stand to the body and blood of the Lord ? This essen
tiaUy depends on the interpretation of the words tovto eo-Ti k.t.X.
The assertion should never have been made, that, according to
these words, only the symbolical, or only the material view could
be adopted. Both views are possible, whatever the words may
have meant in the Aramaic. 'Eo-tiv may mean ' signifies,' or / is,'
and even John vi. is not compulsory on the point. In John vi.
the idea is expressed, which, in the Lord's Supper, is developed
into a rite. But the verses 51-58 may bear a twofold mean-

256 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
ing : either a mere beHeving appropriation of the offered up
humanity of Christ, or an enjoyment (resulting from faith) of the
humanity of Christ offered up in His atoning death, but glorified
in heaven ; or, on the other hand, that this humanity was (ac
cording to the material view) presented Hi the Lord's Supper in
the elements of bread and wine. But ver. 55 is not decisively
in favour of this latter view ; for the dXr)8&v retains all its due
force, even K nothing but a spiritual nourishment Hi the narrower
sense is here intended. Therefore, even according to this pas
sage, the symboHcal view is stUl permissible. Taking as our
basis, therefore, the words used in the Histitution, and the passage
Hi St. John's Gospel, both views are exegetically tenable. In the
symbolical view, according to which the material elements, the
bread and wine, are the symbols of Christ's body given for us in
His death, and of His blood shed for us, but are only this, the
outward partaking of the two elements is only a symbolical
action, — an act of spHitual enjoyment, — in which we eat and drink
the outward elements in lively faith, and thus inwardly appro
priate to ourselves Christ's body that was offered, and Christ's
blood that was shed for us (at least the spHitual fruit thereof),
and thereby receive a strengthening of our communion of life
with the Redeemer who died, rose again, and was glorified for us.
Thus the symboHcal view extends far beyond a bare ZwingHan-
ism, and looks upon the matter in a way which is not unworthy
of the important moment. But yet this view certainly faUs to
grasp a special peculiarity of the Lord's Supper, and of that which
it affords, and is very far from representing aU that is contained
in the act, according to the material interpretation. But this
latter is Hkewise, at least, very feasible. This (toCto) bread is
my body; this cup (or what is contained in it) is my blood.
The principal objection which has been brought forward to this,
from an historico-grammatical standpoint, is, that at the time of
the Histitution the disciples could not have taken the words in
this sense, because the Lord HimseK was stiU present with them.
But this cannot be considered as decisive. Many utterances of
our Lord were not rightly understood by the disciples until a
subsequent period, when they had received the Spirit of truth,
and were enabled to survey the whole course of His appearance
in aU its important connection (John H. 22, xx. 9). And even
K we are compeUed to assume that the first Lord's Supper, at its

DIV. II. § 40.] THE CHURCH AND ITS INHERENT MEANS OF GRACE. 257
institution, was not quite identical Hi its character with aU sub
sequent celebrations, this need not cause us any difficulty ; for
our present solemnization of it is, indeed, subject to another
change, when the feUowship of the Lord with beHevers shaU have
assumed another form, and He wiU drink it new with them in
the kingdom of His Father (Matt. xxvi. 29). Only, it must be
confessed, that no stringent necessity is presented to us for con
sidering the material interpretation as the only correct one, and
excluding entirely the symboHc view. We have hitherto spoken
only of the exegetical interpretation of the words used in the
Histitution of the Lord's Supper, taken by themselves. It is quite
a different matter with regard to the question whether, by a con
sideration of the personaHty and the work of Christ, we may not
be led beyond this purely exegetical result. On this point Paul's
language in 1 Cor. x, the words of Jesus in John vi. as to the
eating and drinking of His flesh and blood, and the dependence
of salvation and Hfe on the participation in these, and especiaUy
His reference to His exaltation and heavenly glorification as an
explanation of the "hard saying" (John vi. 60-63), and, on the
other hand, the apostle's representation of Christ as the Paschal
Lamb, and, consequently, the whole system of types with which
the Lord's Supper is thus connected, are aU matters of the highest
degree of importance. John the evangeHst evidently looks upon
the crucified Christ as the Paschal Lamb (John xix. 36), quoting
the Lord's words to Moses, " A bone of him shaU not be broken "
(cf. Ex. xn. 46), and applying them to Christ's sufferings on the
cross. In 1 Cor. v. 7 Paul expressly says that we have a Paschal
Lamb in Christ. If the Christ who died for us is to be considered
as a type of the paschal lamb, we are thereby led to a real and
material comprehension of the body and blood of Christ in the
Lord's Supper. If we carry back our thoughts to the transaction
itself, we find Jesus with His disciples just as they were engaged
in the solemnization of the passover meal, — that significant feast
which had preceded the deliverance of the people out of their
Egyptian bondage, as a solemn appropriation of the atonement
which preserved the people from the destroying angel, so that
they participated in the divine deHverance from their position of
bondage. From this feast, Jesus passes on to an action in which
He describes his body as that given to death, and His blood as
the blood of the new covenant. What can seem more feasible,
K

258 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
than that with the new covenant a new covenant-feast should be
founded ? And, as in the old covenant the lamb which had been
slain in the sanctuary as an expiation was subsequently eaten,
so now the body and blood of Christ, which in the new covenant
had been offered up as an atonement, was similarly an object of
participation in the solemn feast of this covenant. How much
to the purpose it seem? to understand this participation as a
substantial one ! Certainly not materiaUy (cf. John vi.), but with
a view to the fact that He who gave HimseK up to death was on
the point of meeting with a heavenly glorification, and in a posi
tion to offer to His people His glorified humanity Thus, He
who was offered as an atonement for us, is also He who is offered
for the nourishment of our life. But if this is not to be taken
in a merely spiritual light, but Hi the comprehensive sense in
which the Scriptures generaUy, especiaUy the New Testament,
understand the idea of Hfe, and in which sense it everywhere-
appears in the writings of St. John, the above-mentioned view of
the Lord's Supper is brought very closely home to us. The
question is, as Christ is our Redeemer, having offered up His
body and blood in death for us, is He not also the focus of hfe,
by which is communicated both spHitual Hfe, and also the hfe
which glorifies our corporeal element, and communicated; indeed,
in that very form which He sanctified and bequeathed to us in
the Lord's Supper ? In this, everything essentiaUy depends on
the idea formed as to the person of Christ, and not merely on the
exegetical result of the words used at the institution. For this
very reason, at the age of the Reformation, the controversy was
not merely an exegetical, but rather a dogmatical one, dealing
with the idea and nature of the person of Christ. The words of
the Lord, that He was " the green tree " of humanity, may also
embrace the substantial view of the Lord's Supper. Christ is the
green tree of life, — the tree which once grew in paradise, — the
fruit of which would have preserved men from death, and led
them to spiritual glorification, even of their corporeal element.
This source of Hfe has again sprung up among mankind in the
person of the Redeemer. It is His flesh and blood, and in His
flesh and blood it is communicated ; but so communicated, that, as
pointed out in John vi. 63, it is the spHit which maketh aHve. For
this very reason, His death must be understood in connection.
with His ascension, exaltation, and heavenly glorification. At aU

DIV. II. §41.] NATURE OF THE CHURCH IN THIS WORLD. 259
events, the Lord's Supper is a highly important groundwork of
the Christian Church, and is given to beHevers for the strengthen
ing of theH faith, and as a continuous quickening and confirma
tion of a spiritual communion of love.
These, then, are the means of grace which form the groundwork
of the Church as the community of beHevers or of God's kingdom,
but only in this alcov, for which reason also they are subject to
change. The Church wiU continue in a future alcov, but not in the
same shape. But, evidently, baptism and the Lord's Supper can
only remain entirely the same so long as the material elements
are entirely the same. Nevertheless, these means of grace are the
inexhaustible and pregnant groundwork of Christ's Church on earth.
§ 41. The Bevelopment of the Kingdom of God upon Earth — The
Nature of the Church in this World.
In the first place, we find even aHeady existing Hi the Church
of our Lord, faith, love, and a knowledge of the true God and
Redeemer (John xvH 3), a perseverance in keeping to the word
and commandments of Christ (firopovr), John xiv. 21-24, xv. 10),
and, as a result of this, a production of much fruit from the
seed of God's word (Matt. xiH. 33 ; John. xv. 5, cf. 16), a foUow-
ing of Christ (John xH. 26 ; Matt, x 38), a fearless confession of
the Lord (Matt, x 32, cf. vers. 26-31), and a testimony of Him
(John xv. 27; Acts i 8), prayer in the name of Christ (John
xiv. 13, xv. 7, 16, xvi. 23; cf. Luke xi. 9-11; Mark xi. 23,
24), union for prayer and action in His name (Matt. xviH. 20),
the joy and peace of Christ (John xiv. 27, xv. 11, xvi. 22, 24,
33). Only in this aliav aU these attributes are incomplete, the
need for repentance continually remaining (Matt. vi. 12), and for
divine preservation from temptation, as weU as for personal watch
fulness (Luke xxi. 34-36; Matt. xxvi. 41). The purification
(John xv. 2) and the' sanctification of beHevers is also required
(John xvH. 17); for, although they are born of the Spirit (John Hi),
yet the influence of the adp% and its weakness is not removed.
In the apostolic sphere, Peter is a striking example of this weak
ness : like him, we also often need re-conversion (Luke xxH.
31-34, cf. 61, 62). This leads us to the second part of our
subject. This is the juxtaposition of the Church and the world, the
oto>o? (John xvii. 11-16, xv. 18 ff; Matt. xvHi 7). BeHevers

260 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [JPABT I. .
are not of the world, but in it; and from the world offences
come ; the world, too, is the field on which the seed is sowed
(Matt. xHi 38). The word of Christ implants faith. The re
prehending conviction of the Holy Ghost wiU lead the world to
faith and righteousness, that it may escape the judgment prepared
for the prince of this world (John xvi. 8-11). But beHevers
ever need to be kept from the world, and to this end our Lord
prays to the Father (John xvii. 15). Among the children of the
kingdom, the bad seed is sown by the wicked one, as the enemy
of God and His kingdom, so that the chUdren of God and the
chUdren of the wicked one must Hve together both locaUy and
temporaUy (Matt. xHi 24, 30, 37-43). This parable has a two
fold meaning : not only that the co-existence of Christians and
non-Christians affords a constant occasion for moral conflict, but
also, and chiefly, that the children of the wicked one grow up
among Christians who confess the Lord ; and not as the mere re
mains of the pre-Christian period, but, on the contrary, they spring
up in the midst of the Church itseK. On this close juxtaposition,
is based a twofold feature in the Church of aloav ofrrov : (1) The
mingling of genuine and non-genuine members; (2) distinctive
grades Hi the members of the Church who are not to be considered
as non-genuine.
The Church, therefore, embraces within itself certain non-
genuine members. Not even aU those who caU upon the name
of the Lord are members of His kingdom (Matt. vH 21), but only
those who do the wiU of His Father. In addition to this, the
Church finds its temptations and enemies among its own body :
for none of its members are innate in it; on the contrary, those
who are born within its sphere must be brought into a state of
genuine membership in the Christian Hfe by means of regeneration*.
by water and the SpHit. The Church, therefore, is continuously
affected by this mixture in its members ; and even Hi the narrow
circle of the twelve apostles, chosen by the Lord HimseH, — the
prototype of the Church, — in this alcov aU were attacked, and none
remained untouched by temptation (Luke xxH. 31, 32), and one
was a devU (John vi. 70, cf. xvH. 12). Notwithstanding the
scandal in the Church arising therefrom, the Lord teaches Hi the
parables Hi Matt. xHi, of the tares in the field and the fisherman's
net, that this mixture of good and evU was both presupposed
and tolerated by Him. Indeed, He speaks of His desire that His

DIV. II. § 41.] NATURE OF THE CHURCH IN THIS WORLD. 261
people should not form an opinion in the matter, for men are not
possessed of any infaUible power of judgment ; and besides this,
those who now belong to the world may, sooner or later, by the
efficacy of the word and means of grace, be brought into the
community of Christ. This mixture of good and evU was not,
therefore, to be outwardly dealt with ; but the Church was to
increase more and more through the power of the SpHit inwardly
working in it, and Hi Hke measure those who belonged to the
world were to be won from it. But a division is surely im
pending. It wUl not, however, be the work of man, but of the
divine judgment. A comparative capabUity of recognising the
genuine members of the Church is not thus denied ; and, that the
''genuineness of God's kingdom as a whole cannot cease, is guaranteed
to us by the word and other means of grace, and the promise of
the Lord that He HimseK wUl be ever present with His Church.
The distinction of degrees among the genuine members of the
Church appears chiefly in some being eminent for activity and
taking the lead, and in others being recipients of theH ministry
and guidance. Thus, in the very earliest times, in the sphere
of the disciples themselves, we find our Lord recognising Peter
as being fit to guide the others (John i 42 ; Matt, xvi 18,
19 ; Luke xxH. 32 ; John xxi. 15). The apostles themselves, on
the other hand, as a body, stand in the position of guides and
teachers to other beHevers (Acts i. 8; John xv. 27, xvH. 20;
Matt. xxvHi 19 ; Mark xvi. 15 ; John xx. 21-23). They were,
too, to be His witnesses to the people. But from Matt. x. 40-42
we see that stiU other distinctions arose : He distinguishes here
between apostles, prophets, righteous men, and disciples. The latter
is, perhaps, the most general designation, and marks the lowest
stage among beHevers. The disciples are aU who received in
struction in common from Him, and came to Him with a readiness
to learn of Him (cf. Matt. xi. 29, 30). These disciples become
righteous men, who have actuaUy attained to the Bucaiocrvvr) Qeov.
The righteous man may become a prophet, provided with the
gift of the Holy 'SpHit, viz. the specific irpofyryrela ; and with this
might the diroo-ToXr) be finaUy united. The apostle combined in
his own person the attributes of disciple, righteous man, prophet,
and apostle. We have also the distinction between the adults
in grace and the Httle ones, that is, the weak and young (Matt.
xviH. 5, 6), and the erring, who need to be dHected right, and to

262 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
be helped according to the principle of love which seeks for and
saves them (Matt. xviH. 11-14); which, indeed, does not foster
the sin, but promotes its confession, with a view of saving and not
of destroying. If one brother has injured another, the latter
should in confidence represent it to him (Matt. .xviH. 15, 16;
Luke xvH. 3, 4), and should forgive him as often as he repents
(Matt. xviH. 21, 22) ; but, of course, only on condition of his re
pentance, as without this he could not be said to have won over
his brother. But if the offender wiU not listen to the private
representation, one or two other brethren are to be caUed as
witnesses (cf. Deut. xix. 1 5) ; and K this was of no avaU, the
matter was to be brought before the local community (Matt, xviii.
1 7). Throughout all these stages the offender is to be dealt with
entirely according to the principles of redeeming love. But this
love has its limit : it is not the part of the Church to foster the
sin. If, therefore, the offender decHnes to Hsten to the Church,
he must cease to belong to it ; and, as far as he is concerned, the
bond of brotherhood is loosed (Matt. xviH. 1 7).
The general charge of guiding the community and preaching
the word leads to other duties and charges, — that of praying in
the name of the Church, and of announcing to individuals the
forgiveness of sins. The former charge was committed to them
(Matt. xviH. 19), and the words Of the apostles in Acts vi. 4 are
fuUy in harmony with it. For the second charge, the authority
is given them in John xx. 23, and Matt. xvi. 19, xviii 18.
But everything which the apostles and other individuals do of an
authoritative character is to be done, not in a spHit of temporal
dominion, but in the spirit of Christ's rule, and of a seK-sacrificing, :
beneficent, and, in aU its superiority, ministering love. Hence
our Lord's earnest injunction against desiring to be among the
chiefs in God's kingdom (Luke xxii. 24 ff. ; Matt. xxiH. 8-11,
xviH. 1-4).
§ 42. The Bevelopment of the Kingdom of God upon Earth — The
Course of Bevelopment of the Church on Earth.
Just as, under the Old Testament dispensation, a divine prophecy
was given in respect to the gradual development and final shape
of the divine kingdom, so Jesus also predicted the future course
of God's kingdom, — sometimes, indeed, only in single features, in
depicting which He pointed to the future universal spread of the

DIV. II. §42.] DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHURCH ON EARTH. 263
gospel and its acceptance by aU nations (Matt. viH. 11, 12, xxvi.
13; John xvH. 23, x. 16, xii. 31 f.), sometimes in more con
nected language, both in didactic statements and Hi parables.
Among the discourses on the point, we have particularly Luke
xvn.. 20 ff, and then, just before His death, the comprehensive
discourse in Matt. xxiv. f., Mark xin., Luke xxi. 5 ff. It is
possible that Matthew, here as elsewhere, combined Hi one suit
able connection various utterances of Jesus which were spoken at
different times. The parables bearing on the point were also
dehvered in the last period of Jesus' Hfe, as that of the tenants of
the vineyard (Matt. xxi. 33), of the marriage feast (Matt. xxii.
2-14), of the talents (Matt. xxv. 14-30; cf. Luke xix. 12-27),
of the bridegroom coming (Matt. xxv. 1-12).
The chief epochs brought forward are the first and last periods,
which are inwardly aUied with one another, and the interval lying
between these two points.
The first epoch is the destruction of the Jewish state and
church. Thus was the national basis overthrown on which
the Old Testament dispensation was founded, and on account of
which the kingdom of God could make its appearance in this
nation only (John iv. 22 ; Matt. x. 5 f. -; Luke ix. 1 ff, x. 1 ff).
The Lord HimseK Hmits His personal ministry to Israel (Matt.
xv. 24) ; and in Israel does the Church first grow up, although it
is destined to embrace aU nations. If Israel as a body had
faUen in with the counsel of God, the Church would have ex
tended itseK from them as a centre, and have spread simply and
constantly among aU nations. The grain of mustard-seed would
graduaUy have grown up into a tree, in the branches of which
aU nations would have lodged. But the opposition of the Jews
necessitated another course of development, — a mighty severance of
a portion of this nation, a judgment upon it, and a breach between
God's kingdom and the nation as a nation. The Lord declared
this most distinctly, as Hi the forcible parable (Matt, xxi 33, 34)
of the tenants of the vineyard, and in that of the marriage feast
(ch. xxH 1-14; cf. Luke xiv. 16-27). The Lord speaks stiU
more plainly in the prediction of the destruction of Jerusalem
(Matt. xxiv. f), in the week of passion, on the Mount of OHves.
In aU three gospels the account begins Hi a similar way, with the
declaration of the approaching coniplete destruction of the temple.
Then foUows the question, when these things shaU be ? Jesus'

264 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
answer relates chiefly to the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt. xxiv.
5-28 ; Mark xiH. 5-23 ; Luke xxi 8-24). In St. John we do
not find this prediction, although perhaps the words in ch. H 19
may be considered as an intimation of it ; perhaps, too, and even
more decidedly, the statement as to the cessation of divine service
on Mount Sion (ch. iv. 2 1). AU that He predicted took place,
and no one could have foreseen it from a merely human stand
point. This event has truly become an epoch in the development
of. the Church. From that time forwards the divine judgment) on
the Old Testament economy was manHestly placed beyond doubt,
and the independence of the Christian Church was likewise ren
dered certain. This destruction of the external nation was not to
be identical with the founding of the Church. The Christian com
munity must first exist, in order that it may draw to itseK aU the
sound elements in the organism of the Old Testament theocracy.
As the latter is now a carcase, therefore the eagles are gathered
together (Matt. xxiv. 28). Moreover, its destruction frees the
Church from aU kind of persecution and restriction on the part of
the Jews ; and, helping to free it from Judaistic elements, proves
it to be an emanation of divine power for aU times and peoples.
This epoch bears, therefore, a twofold character, as a judgment
and a deHverance. And this is what it has in common with the
last epoch. The colouring of the representation is therefore some
what similar in both. On the old theocracy a /cpiaiv had come ;
and, as regarded the Christian Church, a simUar judgment was
impending in the o-vvreXeia k.t.X.
But in the interval between these two epochs Hes the period of
the spread of Christianity among all nations. With this is con
nected His exhortation to a proper use of the talents entrusted to
us, and to a patient waiting for Him (Luke xvii. 22). Not only
had He enjoined on His apostles this propagation of the gospel
(Matt. xxviH. 20), and sufficiently proved the universal nature of
God's kingdom, but He also brings it forward as a prediction in
connection with His prophecy as to the last days (Matt. xxiv. 14 ;
Mark xHi 10). There are utterances on this point also in
St. John : not only the words to the Samaritan woman (ch. iv. 23),
but also in the passage as to other sheep which Jesus has, and the
one flock under one Shepherd (ch. x. 1 6). In His parables the
Lord alludes in various ways to the caUing of the heathen, as in
that in which the people are said to be invited from the highways

DIV. II. §42.] DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHURCH ON EARTH. - 265
and hedges to come to the feast (Matt, xxii 9 ff. ; Luke xiv. 2 3),
after those that were bidden had refused to come ; and also in the
parable of the labourers in the vineyard, and their increase from
hour to hour (Matt. xx. 1). He is the Bridegroom for whom His
people are to wait and watch, ready both for the joyful feast and
for His service. But the progress of God's kingdom on earth is,
in the first place, left to the exertion of man ; for the Lord Him
self charged the apostles with the first propagation of His king
dom And in the parable (Mark iv. 26—29) He interferes only at
the beginning and end, Hi the sowing and reaping, the interven
ing development itseK (ver. 28) taking place without Him : the
growing corn, the Church, is left to itseK (avropaTrf). This course
of development goes, therefore, through manifold phases, con
ditional on the zeal or indolence of Christ's disciples in every
age, — depending, indeed, on the whole history of mankind. This
period, therefore, may be far more protracted than seemed Hkely
at the beginning, when the consummation of the first epoch was
alone looked to. The Lord has, however, fixed no time for it.
The last epoch must, nevertheless, surely come to pass before.
This last epoch is the a-vvreXeia tov al&vov, the entire cessation
of the present temporal period. In the parables (Matt. xiH.), it is
pointed out as the final severance of the world from God's king
dom. In it, also, there again appears a pecuHar agency of the
Lord (Mark iv. 29). This epoch is also spoken of as the day of
judgment (Matt. vH. 22, xxiv. 37 ff.) ; as the last day (John vi.
39, 44, 54) ; and as the decisive hour (John v. 28). At all
events, the Lord also speaks of this end of the world in His great
discourse (Matt. xxiv. £), though whether the TeXo? (ver. 6) appHes
to it is doubtful; but, at any rate, the section (vers. 29-31)
refers to this event (cf. Mark xiii 24-27; Luke xxi. 25-27).
In this, the answer is given to the second part of the question on
which the discourse is based. In earHer times, indeed, endeavours
have been made to apply even this section to the destruction of
Jerusalem. But this view is opposed by the fact that, with the
evdeiov Hi ver. 29, something new evidently begins ; and also, that
this view cannot explain the words referring to the changes in the
heavenly bodies, except in a very forced way. The view, how
ever, that this section is intended to refer to the awreXeia t.
al&v., but that Jesus deceived HimseK not only in drawing a
parallel between the events of the first and last epoch, but also in

266 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I,
uniting them with one another as almost contemporary, is contra
dicted by the fact that He presupposes the spread of the gospel
.over the whole earth as taking place before this final end; and
also, that He represented this diffusion as taking place within one
generation of men, which would be quite contrary to His general
sober view of history. Indeed, His expressions immediately
afterwards, as to the HnpossibiHty of any time being fixed for this
o-vvreXeia tov al&vov, cannot easUy be reconcUed with the above-
named view. The Lord expressly says, in Matt. xxv. 1-13, that
He would come later than was expected ; and that, therefore, the
servant would say, "My Lord delayeth His coming" (xpovlfo,
Matt. xxiv. 48 ; Luke xii. 45) ; that He would come perd iroXvv
Xpbvov (Matt. xxv. 19). He here distinctly expresses the late
ness of the end to be expected ; and in several parables He also
represents the calling of men into His kingdom, and also its
spread and accomplishment, as something which would take place
very graduaUy, and as a long course of development. It is there
fore impossible that He could have desHed to state that the end
of the world would foUow immediately after the destruction of
Jerusalem. With regard to this, therefore, a choice of two things
appears to be presented to us. Either it is assumed that the
word evBetov is not correctly reported, — but this is always the last
resource of the exegetist, — or, the section beginning ver. 29 is
not directly referred to the last epoch. After the Lord, in a
gradual development of the course of events, and after warning
His disciples against delusions, had shown forth the faU of the
Jewish nation, then is said to foUow the overthrow of heathenism
and the gradual spread of God's kingdom (ver. 31), with the
promise (ver. 34) that, until that time arrived, the nation should
not cease to exist (Dorner). There is, of course, no doubt that
yeved may be referred to the nation, and by no means (Strauss)
must sigmfy the then existing generation. But, on the other
hand, this last meaning of yeved is possible, and even probable ;
but only the beginning of all these things (the predicted events,
as the signs in the fig-tree, which show the approach of summer,
but not its complete arrival) must be placed in the time of this
generation. On the other hand, the interpretation of ver. 29 as
depicting the overthrow of heathenism, especiaUy of the worship
of the stars, is altogether too artificial. Others get over the
difficulty by recognising in vers. 29-31 the judgment on the then

DIV. II. §42.] DEVELOPMENT OF THE CHURCH ON EARTH. 267
existing world, the Roman empHe (anpeiov, in ver. 30, is the
cross of Constantine), vers. 30 and 31 representing the first
mighty spread of the gospel, and the gathering together of the
Church on earth, in which the Lord Himself would appear to
come. If we amplify this into a figure of the mighty changes
which were brought about by Christianity in aU relations, we
should have an explanation at aU events possible. But even
then, both ver. 29, and also vers. 30 and 31, which appear most
fittingly as a description of the final judgment, do not retain theH
fuU force.
Supposing now that the evBiiov in ver. 29 is taken in its
proper meaning, and not as an equivalent to suddenly (which is
evidently impossible), and that vers. 29-31 are interpreted in
the most natural way as referring to the latest future, stUl an
explanation may be found of this conjunction of events by assign
ing it to the nature of prophecy, which, in a far-reaching, prospec
tive delineation, can depict distant objects as close at hand, and,
in spite of a preparatory interval, can comprehend in one glance,
even as regards time, events which are ideally allied. The
difficulty is not to be denied ; but it need not be considered
strange, K considered as belonging to the province of prophecy.
At aU events, the fact remains that the Lord most decidedly
states that the time of this avvreXeia cannot be fixed ; and this
the apostles also have maintained.
The whole course of this development, as regards its chief
epochs, is conditional on the advent of the Lord, and the judgment
coming on the earth. The irapovcria of Christ is spoken of in
Matt. xxiv. (vers. 27 and 39) and Luke xvH. (vers. 24, 30). It
wiU be as a lightning flash, which lights up the whole horizon.
This coming of the Lord affects, however, the first as weU as the
last epoch of God's kingdom. ,
In St. John, the Lord speaks much of a certain inward coming
(ch. xiv. 18, 23, xvi. 17, 19); of His coming through the com
munication of the Spirit, which is, at the same time, a coming of
the Father to believers. In ch. xvi. 22 is included also the
appearance of the Risen One. The passage, ch. xxi. 22, 23,
appears to refer to a more outward appearance. John also, in
his first Epistle, speaks of an outward coming. In the Synop
tists we find very various utterances of Jesus as to His coming.
Sometimes He represents it as very near (M^tt^_23i_xyi_28_;y

268 THE TEACHING OF JESUS. [PART I.
Luke ix. 27 ; Matt. xxvi. 24), dirdpTi, hereafter they shaU see
Him, consequently, He wUl come ; or, ere the present generation
shaU have passed away. We also find them without any time
being fixed (Matt. xxiv. 38, 39 ; Luke xix. 12-15). Or it is an
unexpected coming (Matt. xxiv. 43-46) ; later, perhaps, than was
expected (Matt. xxv. 1-13, cf. xxiv. 48; Luke xH. 45). Also,
His coming is delayed; and Hi Matt. xxv. 19 it is expressly
defined as a coming after a long time. The time is described as
indetermHiate (Matt. xxiv. 36 ; Mark xiH. 32 ; Acts i 7). We
thus have this coming described sometimes as close at hand,
sometimes distant, sometimes as determinate, and sometimes as
^determinate. From aU this we may gather that it is not one
single fact which is Hi question, but something comprehensive
and continuous. Thus, in the Synoptists, who appear to speak
more of fixed times, we find the statement that He wiU always.
be with His people. In John, on the other hand, in whom the
idea of a spHitual coming prevaUs, His appearance in the resur
rection is also brought forward. His constant presence must
therefore be distinguished from the special moments of His extra
ordinary manffestations, in which, indeed, the former is outwardly
produced. They form a irapovaia of Christ ; and on them the
development of the Church, or kingdom of God, is dependent.
With the irapovaia a continuous judgment is united. The
Lord speaks of the judgment as one that is present (John v. 24,
Hi 18, 19, xH. 31, xvi. 11) ; as one that is future (John v. 29);
likewise Hi the Synoptists (Matt. xvi. 27, x. 32, and the paraUel
passages). The nature of the judgment is a severance of those
who have assimUated themselves to the gospel from those who
have opposed it. Hence the first epoch of the destruction of
Jerusalem is a judgment, and, as a judgment, precedes the whole
of the further course of development. The gospel is always the
touchstone, by the decision of which men are divided. But
stiU there remains a residue of the non-susceptible. The final
judgment, therefore, foUows at the end of time Hi the awreXeia
tov alwvov. | 43. The Kingdom of God in the World to come.
The judgment in the Church of Christ is distinguished from
the universal judgment, and is thus represented in the parables
of the ten vHgins and of the talents. This former judgment

DIV. II. §43.] THE KINGDOM OF GOD IN THE WORLD TO COME. 269
has to deal with faithful conduct in Christ's kingdom. By this
completion of judgment the iraXiyyeveala is also brought about,
which coincides with the commencement of the alwv peXXwv.
This relates to the whole world (Matt. xix. 28), and is therefore
a regeneration of the world in general, and consequently a renova
tion of nature in the sense of Rom. viH. For the faithful, in
particular, it is also the dvdaTaaiv farjv (Luke xiv. 14), the
shining forth of the righteous (Matt. xiH. 43) ; and this is a
glorification of the body and not of the spHit only (Matt. xxH.
23-33). The Lord shows that this is based on the quickening
power of the divine omnipotence ; and that it is a glorification
in which aU sexual union ceases, is distinctly expressed. The
existence of the righteous wUl be Hke that of the angels : they
are viol Qeov ; and there is far) alcoviov Hi the fuU sense of the
word. It has been maintained, that Hi St. John's Gospel Jesus
teaches only of a continuous and not of a final conclusive
judgment. But in John v. 29 the latter is clearly spoken of
(cf. 1 John iv. 17). The general characteristic of the judgment
as a separation of good and bad is common to aU the discourses
of Jesus. Beyond the last judgment, we have no trace afforded
us in Jesus' words whereby we might pursue the subject further
than is expressed above.

&

SECOND PART.

THE APOSTOLIC AGE.
S 44. Introduction. — Our Sources of Information.
HE more we endeavour to obtain an insight into
apostoHcal Christianity as an organic and Hving
whole, both Hi its original shape and its historical
development, the more important shaU we find
those monuments of the apostoHc spHit which owed their
origin to the apostles themselves (Paul, John, Peter, and James).
But, even apart from their origin, the contents of the apostoHcal
writings prove them to be the richest and the most profound in
the New Testament canon. Certain writings, which do not pro
ceed from apostles, are also to be considered as chief sources
of information; for in them, too, we are able to gather an
historical acquaintance with apostoHcal Christianity. Among
these we reckon the Antilegomena both of the ancient Church
and also of our modern criticism. As, for example, the Epistle
to the Hebrews, which, K not written by Paul himself, was
certainly composed in the apostoHcal Church, and in the spirit
thereof : this gives a pecuHar view of the development of the
Church, forming in its teaching an evident transition between
that of Paul and John. The Epistle of St. James is also a very
characteristic monument of this age, and its historical value is
acknowledged, in spite of any doubt as to the person of its
author. The Book of Revelation, also, although it may not be
acknowledged as the work of the Apostle John, must at aU events
be considered as a very ancient writing of the apostoHcal Church,
and speciaUy noteworthy in an historical point of view. The
Epistle of St. Jude, and the second and third Epistles of St.
John, are not so important ; but nevertheless they also serve to
complete the whole representation of the apostolic age. Even
the second Epistle of. St. Peter, which is so unfavourably looked
270

PART II. § 44.] THE APOSTOLIC AGE. 271
upon by modern criticism, is shown by its doctrinal purport to
be of an essentiaUy apostoHc character. If we thus admit into
our consideration the AntUegomena of the ancient Church, still
less are we entitled to exclude the books objected to in modern
criticism. We shaU, therefore, take as our immediate sources
of information the whole of the books of the New Testament,
although we may recognise some gradation in their historical
importance. . In the Acts of the Apostles we have an historical work
i belonging to the New Testament, which takes as its aim a
history, although not a complete one, of this age. For this
reason, it must form a very rich and dHect source of informa
tion for us. The book begins with the ascension of Jesus, and
concludes with the second year of St. Paul's imprisonment at
Rome. It has been customary to divide it into two parts, the
first of which (ch. i-xH.) related the spread of Christianity
among the Jews, the second (ch. xiH.-_/wi.) described the same
event as respects the GentUes,— Peter being the chief personage
in the first part, and Paul in the second. But a threefold divi
sion seems rather to commend itself, which foUows the stages of
development of the Christian community : (1) ch. i-vH ; (2) ch.
vin.-12 ; (3) ch. xiii.-fin. In any case, the last section appears
as the culminating point of the whole history, and therefore that
from which the aim of the book is to be gathered. The whole
narrative has in view to supply a divine vindication for the
ministry of the apostle to the GentUes ; and this Pauline spHit
is so decided, that the agreement between it and the PauHne
epistles affords the best refutation of the objection that the
Acts of the Apostles has not given the correct historical delinea
tion of St. Paul. Very ancient testimony ascribes to St. Luke
this book as weU as the gospel. This thoroughly agrees with the
tendency of the work, Luke having been, according to Col. iv. 14,
PhUem. 24, a companion of the Apostle Paul, and is, besides,
described as a GentUe Christian. There can be no doubt that
the Acts of the Apostles forms a direct source of information as
to the historical Hfe of that time, and is also a valuable monu
ment of the ruHng tendency of the spHit pecuHar to this time ;
this fact, however, does not do away with the fideHty of the
narrative as to individual persons, their Hves and saymgs, as
may be shown by a comparison with their own writings.

272 THE APOSTOLIC AGE. [PART II.
AU other sources beyond those contained Hi the New Testa
ment can only claim a very indirect value : the greater part are
of service merely Hi aUowing inferences to be drawn from them
or in confirming the dHect data which we have at our command,
throwing Hght upon the latter, and pointing out their connection.
The heathen and Jewish accounts are the furthest removed from
our purpose. The apocryphal epistles and Acts of the Apostles
render us Httle more than a negative service, theH imitative
character making the true picture of those times stand out in a
brighter Hght. The writings of the apostoHcal fathers, some of
whom were contemporary with the apostles, are of somewhat
more importance, although these works were not composed until
after the apostles' departure. The first Epistle of Clement of
Rome to the Corinthians takes the lead among these, perhaps also
that of Polycarp to the PhUippians. But even these, at the most,
only approach the historical shape of the apostoHcal times, and
can serve merely for elucidation and corroboration.

DIV. I. §45.] THE LIFE OF THE APOSTLES. 273

FIRST DIVISION.

THE LIFE OF THE APOSTLES.
§ 45. A Consideration of the Subject.
The apostoHcal Hfe weU deserves to be separately treated of in
Bibhcal Theology, and cannot properly be dealt with as a mere
introduction to the apostoHcal system of doctrine, — by a few brief
historical notices as to theH persons and circumstances. For the
apostoHcal Hfe is the fulfiUed fact of the promise of a higher com
munication of the SpHit, and of the new Hfe both in thought and
action which was thereby produced, on which the characteristic
development of Christianity in this period was based. But, even
in this part, a limit is set to this historical statement, by the fact
that aU we have to deal with are certain characteristic historical
features and the interpretation of them, and, consequently, not a
real history, but merely a selection of facts, the survey of which
may enable a satisfactory idea to be formed. Added to this, we
must not forget that the significance of the facts is not so great
here as in the first part, in which the question was as to the
events on which Christianity is altogether based. In this second
period, therefore, we shaU be able to treat this historical part with
more brevity.
The apostolic Hfe was devoted to a gradual course of education,
in which the apostles took the lead of the rest. Its develop
ment consisted chiefly in a process of separation from the Hmits
of the Jewish nationaHty, » and the conflicts connected there
with. These form the centre-point of their history because in
them the historical character and vocation of Christianity opens
for itseK a path. Thus, the actions of the Apostle Paul bearing
on these points, and the preparatory events that preceded them,
must constitute the centre of our statement. Previously, however,
we must notice the first beginnings of the apostoHc Hfe generaUy,
and, as these exhibit their origin in the free, world-renewing
agency of the divine Spirit, we shall naturaUy proceed to con-
S

274 THE LIFE OF THE APOSTLES'. [PART IL
sider those features in which the nature of this agency is dis
played. FinaUy, we must cast a glance at the external action
of the apostoHcal community, both in its outwardly directed
struggles, and also in its pecuHar stamp in prescribed forms, —
which two points, inasmuch as they generaUy presuppose the
internal historical development, wUl most suitably form a con
clusion. We shaU thus keep to the three sections : the apostolic
Hfe ; the development of the apostoHc community ; and its external
action. In the first, we have to represent the commencement and
the nature of the Hfe ; Hi the second, the stages of development
before Paul, and the work of this apostle ; lastly, Hi the third,
the contest between the Church and the world, and the pecuHar
forms of association of the former.

I. THE APOSTOLIC LIFE.
§ 46. The Commencement of the New Life.
The commencement of this Hfe was, indeed, previously prepared
for. But, according to our New Testament records, the feast of
Pentecost was decidedly the opening point of the independent
standing forth of a special Christian Hfe, let the outward events
be considered . how they may. From the statements of our
evangeHsts, it is evident that this Hfe was connected in a certain
sense with the exaltation of Jesus, and that, in particular, the
resurrection became the cause of > the pecuHar confirmation and
elucidation of the faith. This may be gathered from the narra
tives in the gospels of Jesus' appearances after the resurrection,
and of His words on these occasions, and the effects of both.
Faith in the resurrection itseK and its necessity, and Hkewise in
the necessity of His sufferings and death (cf. the teaching of Jesus,
Luke xxiv.), was aHeady to some extent a clearing up of their idea
as to the Messiahship. Their faith and their whole Hfe would thus
necessarUy acqune a degree of independence, by meahs of which
they would less and less need a visible intercourse with Jesus.
His appearances, therefore, occurred only at intervals from time
to time, until they ceased Hi a way which implanted in the
disciples the fuU consciousness that their Lord now belonged to
the invisible order of things, and that, notwithstanding His

DIV. I. § 46.] COMMENCEMENT OF THE NEW LIFE. 275
heavenly glorification, He was not removed away from them, but
that, on the contrary, He was now for the first time truly present
with them, i.e. unrestrictedly in a divine way. Thus did their
faith obtain that joyful strength and confidence, in which they
became self-dependent (Luke xxiv. 52, 53 ; Mark xvi. 20 ; Acts
i 11-14). The characteristic of this Hfe is the consciousness of
the feUowship with the Exalted One vouchsafed to every indi
vidual. They then, stUl as a matter of an internal character,
proceeded to fiU up the number of the twelve apostles (Acts i
15 ff). But yet this Hfe remained shut up, as it were, in the
midst of the beHevers, without developing into any outward
action. They only closely gathered together among themselves
in faith and prayer, and in their mutual waiting in the virep&ov
devoted to meditation and devotion (ver. 13). They certainly had
received the promise of a communication of the SpHit which was
to take place in Jerusalem (Luke xxiv. 49 ; Acts i. 4, 5) ; their
position, therefore, was one of expectation. But this waiting was,
as we perceive, a preparative development. For this very reason,
the commission given the disciples, united with the symbolical
act of breathing on them (John xx. 2 1 f.), and the communication
of the Spirit on the day of Pentecost, fit most suitably into one
another. A communication, indeed, took place on the former
occasion, but it had not yet reached the culminating point which
was the requisite for their standing out pubHcly as apostles, and
for an independent, church-founding efficacy. The feast of Pen
tecost on this account constituted an epoch; but this had also
been prepared for. AU these things form a gradual course of
progress, which depended on the firm conviction of His resurrec
tion and His ascension, and, by purification of theH faith in Him,
and the certainty of standing Hi dynamic feUowship with Him
who now belonged to a supernatural life, led them on to the
acceptation of their charge as pubHc and active witnesses.
The time of the commencement of the new life is, therefore, the
feast of Pentecost. According to the statement of the Acts of
the Apostles, the apostles, without any preceding personal pre
paration or calculation, found themselves on that significant day
suddenly urged on to a pubHc testimony that Jesus was the
Messiah. The moving cause was an external and extraordinary
event, which was in fuU harmony with the significance both of
the day and also of the first public testimony of Jesus. It was

276 THE LIFE OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
the very day of the feast itself. For this interpretation of the
words iv too avp,irXnpovaBai is grammaticaUy correct (although the
•other explanation of the approach of the feast is also phUologically J
possible), and, internaHy, from the cHcumstances and the view
¦evidently taken by the narrator, is the only one admissible.
This great event now ensued, in the first place, externally.
After Jesus had assembled His disciples privately in GaHlee, He
had commanded them to wait Hi Jerusalem ; they might there
fore on this day have expected some special occurrence. At all
events, they were assembled, according to custom, not Hi the
temple, but in a private buUding, into which, however, others
entered who did not belong to the body of disciples (Acts ii. 5 ff.,
13). Then suddenly ensued the external extraordinary pheno
mena. There came from heaven a noise as of a mighty rushing
wind, and it filled the whole house where they were assembled.
This was addressed to the hearing. But there were also visible
flames of fire in the shape of tongues, which sat upon each of
them, and they began to speak in other tongues, as the Spirit
gave them utterance. But other men also witnessed these
phenomena.1 These were pious Jews from the Biaairopd, who
dwelt scattered abroad among various GentUe nations, but, if
possible, were partakers in the feast at Jerusalem, and especially
desHed to resort thither in theH old age to spend there the
evening of theH Hves, and there also to find a grave. The
KaToiicovvTev (Acts H. 5) cannot be understood to mean fixed
inhabitants, but they might be visitors to the feast. As regarded
the acceptance of Christianity the HeUenistic Jews always showed
themselves more susceptible than those of Palestine ; thus even
now, the former appear to have taken a pecuHar interest in the
infant Church. The noise of the rushing wind might have been
audible outside the house to many in the now crowded city, At
aU events, a special occurrence was soon observable. The multi
tude crowded to the house, and found the apostles in a new
and pecuHar position, fuU of the Spirit, and speaking in inspired
language, — each, indeed, hearing them speak Hi his own tongue
(BiaXiKTm). This is not a peculiarity of accent, or a subjective
1 Does not the narrative lead us to infer that only believers were present in
the house at the time the phenomena took place ? The noise of the wind appears
to have attracted many others, and amongst them some of the devout Jews men
tioned in ver. 5. — Tr.

DIV. I. § 46.] COMMENCEMENT OF THE NEW LIFE. 277
mode of expression or style, or anything of the like, but a dialect
or language. This is proved by the astonishment (vers. 9-11)
of these foreigners from Asia (especiaUy Asia Minor, also Arabia)
and Africa (Egypt, and the region round Cyrene), and also from
Rome, Crete, etc. There were certainly others there who did not
understand any of the languages, and could not therefore share in
the effects of the inspHation, grasping nothing but the outward
signs ; these made it a subject of mockery.
The internal fact connected with this event is the impletion
with the Holy Ghost, as a gKt communicated to aU present with
out distinction (not merely to the apostles), by which is intimated
its destination for all men, without distinction of nation, sex,
position, or age. This universaHty can at first be reaUy and
practicaUy shown only in the community of beHevers then present ;
but the idea conveys its ultimate application to aU men. The
wind and the tongues of fire are the natural symbols of the
communication of the Spirit (cf. John iii. 8 ; Matt. iii. 11). The
fire gives the idea of purity, and the agitated air that of the life-
giving principle. But the Spirit is also symboHzed in the subject
by the inspired speaking in unknown tongues, as He who breaks
down the partitions which divide humanity. If we add the
organic connection of the fact with the time and place, — its taking
place in the metropoHs of God's Messianic kingdom, and on the
anniversary of the divine constitution of the theocratic nation, —
aU these things represent to us the fuU significance of the event
which then actuaUy constituted the new and Messianic com
munity. For this reason has the apostoHc Church so weU pre
served the memory of this day. An extraordinary fact was
necessary to caU forth the power of its action ; a retrospective
view of this action brought to mind the sure basis which was laid
down by the overpowering fact. Deeply and clearly was it im
pressed upon the apostles, that from henceforth they felt within
them a new life, which manifested itself in a special power, both
of lucidity of perception and of zeal in action, just as the Apostle
Paul describes the commencement of his apostleship (Gal. i 15 ff),
when a new Hght broke in upon his night and darkness, so that
he could not do otherwise than testify for Christ.
The importance of the fact is in Ml harmony with the im
mediate result, as shown in the first pubHc discourse of Peter
(Acts ii. 14-36). He testifies to the inward divine impulse

278 THE LIFE OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
which actuated them, and attributes this communication of the
SpHit to Jesus as its true cause. He represents it as a proof
of the exaltation of the crucified One, who thus bore witness that
He was the Messiah, and that He was to be recognised as such
by the whole house of Israel. The result of the discourse was
the conversion and baptism of a large number of the hearers, — so
great was the impression made by the first apostolical preaching.
Difficulties have been met with in the comprehension of this
event, arising partly from its inherent character, and partly from
a comparison with a similar phenomenon of speaking with tongues
in the apostolical community (1 Cor. xH. and xiv.).
The credibility of the narrative itself has been contradicted,
partly on account of its form and historical connection, and partly
on account of the miraculous nature of the event.
It was thought that traces might be discerned in the form of
the narrative that it did not proceed from an eye-witness. Of
course the locaHty is not described exactly (ver. 2), and Hkewise
the approach of the ¦ foreigners, — in the first place, of the pious
HeUenists (ver. 5). The erepoi, on the other hand (ver. 13), are
certainly introduced with only a brief description; but it is
evident who they were from the contrast impHed to the HeUenists
mentioned in ver. 5, and also from their character. As far as re
gards everything else, aU is clear and connected. The narrative
makes no claim to have been composed by an eye-witness, and
there is, therefore, the less reason that any want of precision
should invaHdate its credibUity The style of the narrative, in
vers. 6-1 2, has also been considered too poetical or rhetorical to
be historicaUy faithful. But although the language, in harmony
with the festal character of the event, rises to a somewhat higher
tone, stiU it does not bear the stamp of any intentional composition
and modification with this view. Certainly, in the enumeration
of the various nations, every individual name does not perhaps
lay claim to have originaUy shared Hi the event ; but this would
not render the account unhistorical. If the names had been
artificiaUy fabricated and put together, those provinces would
surely not have been named, the languages of which differ only
as regards dialect. For the very reason that the event was one
of a character to form an epoch, it is very probable that the author
of the Acts of the Apostles, having met with some of the old
Palestine Christians who had been Hi union with the Church at

DIV. I. § 46.] COMMENCEMENT OF THE NEW LIFE. 279
Jerusalem from the very beginning, had been able to acquHe an
exact knowledge of the facts of the event, so as subsequently to
describe it. A fact of the kind described is, however, a necessity
for us, K it is only to enable us to explain the active ministry of
the apostles.
This event, in its mHaculous aspect, has excited the same
objections as the whole history of Jesus Himself ; and hence arise
the attempts to pronounce it to be either an historical or ideal
myth. The former of these ideas was brought about, it is said,
by referring the "speaking with tongues" in the Pentecostal
miracle to the same phenomenon in the Corinthian Church, which,
by a mythical growth, was graduaUy converted into a speaking
Hi foreign tongues. According to the other view, the narrative
was an arbitrary copy of the miracle of the Sinaitic lawgiving,
as described in Jewish tradition; and the event was a symbol of
Christian universaHsm. But, as regards the latter view, in the
first place, it cannot be proved that this tradition was known, or
even framed, in the days of the primitive apostoHc community.
It has been thought, with regard to the description in the Mid-
rashim, according to which the word which proceeded from Sinai
was divided into seventy tongues, although uttered in only one
voice, and was heard by seventy nations, each Hi its, mother
tongue, that traces of it might evidently be found in Philo. But
the passages in question, on closer consideration, say nothing
which could lead us to infer any allusion to an utterance in vari
ous tongues, or to an extension of the Sinaitic lawgiving beyond
the Hmits of the Jewish nation. The view taken appears to be
more of a spHitual character. Neither can the passage in Heb.
ii. 2-4 lead to any such connection of ideas ; for the pepiapol
irvevpaTov dylov are nothing but the distribution of the gifts of
the Spirit. But, even supposing that the tradition extended so
far back, stUl the question arises, whether the narrative we are
considering can be a copy of it. Of course, it cannot be said
that the account is wanting in certain universaHstic ideas, which
are not to be presupposed at such an early time in the district of
Palestine, Hi which the narrative doubtless originated. But this
idea requHes much limitation; for, notwithstanding the many
difficulties the universaHstic idea had to grapple with (cf. Acts
x. and xi.), there are very early traces of its development (cf.
Acts vi-vHi). UniversaHsm is certainly evident in the nana-

280 THE LIFE OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
tive, and it is indeed difficult not to see it, only it is not in the
Jewish shape ; and , this it is which renders its derivation from
the above-named Jewish tradition an impossible idea. According
to this tradition, a voice was to be expected from heaven, which
would be understood by different men in theH mother tongues,
Instead of this, we have in our narrative the apostles speaking
humanly in these tongues. There is no trace in it of the con
ception of a unity of language, as a contrast to the confusion of
tongues at Babel, to which the Jewish idea appears to have
tended. The external becomes an internal matter ; and we see
the variety of form removed only in the oneness of the Spirit.
And in this we stand on original Christian ground; and the
character of the narrative certifies to its originaHty If we also
add the facts, that the first apostoHcal preaching was linked on
to this event, and that all the turning-points of the first days of
Christianity depended upon a matter of fact which personaUy
affected individuals, and elevated them to a higher stage of
Christian Hfe and thought, we shaU find therein an - important
guarantee for the occurrence itself, which is thus presented as a
matter of the highest probabUity in an historical point of view.
The view that our narrative is an historical myth, that is,
originated by means of an amplification of the speaking with tongues,
mentioned in the Epistle to the Corinthians, leads us to the
second class of difficulties in the comprehension of the event,
which arise from a comparison with the above-named allied
phenomenon. That a speaking with tongues existed in the
apostoHcal Church as a gift of the Holy Ghost, is placed beyond
aU doubt by chaps, xii. and xiv. of the first Epistle to the
Corinthians. It there says, yXioaaaiv XaXeiv (ch. xH. 30, xiv. 5,
6, 18, 23, 39), and also yXmaar) XaXeiv (ch. xiv. 2, 4, 27), and
yXmaaav eyetv (ch. xiv. 26). The words yXcoaaaiv XaXeiv occur
also in Acts x. 46 and xix. 6, more completely expressed by
erepaiv yXataaaiv in ch. ii. 4, and icaivaiv yXwaaaiv Hi Mark xvi.
1 7. But the " speaking with tongues " in the Corinthian Church
was — thus much, at least, is certain — not a speaking in unknown
or foreign tongues. This latter view was one to which men were
misled, in perhaps very early times, by the paraUel in Acts n.
According to 1 Cor. xiv. 13-15, 18 (cf. Acts x. 46), it was a
praising of God, something that existed between God and the
devotionaHst alone (ver. 28), and was uninteUigible to, and

DIV. I. § 46.] COMMENCEMENT OF THE NEW LIFE. 281
unprofitable for the hearers, unless it Was interpreted (ch. xiv.
2-6). It is compared to the uncertain note of an instrument,
which is not recognised so as to be understood (ch. xiv. 7 f, 10 f.).
To unbelievers it might appear as madness (ver. 23). But it was
edifying, by means of interpretation, either by some other (ver.
27), or by the speaker himself (ver. 13). But this interpretation
depended on a pecuHar gfft of the SpHit (ch. xH. 10, 30). The
internal state of one speaking with tongues was a state of life in
the irvevpa, and not in the vovv ; consequently, in the spirit in
its directly inward character, unmodified by reflection, or any
relation to the world without (ch. xiv. 14 f, 19). But it was
not a state involving a loss of consciousness ; for the speaker was
himseK edified. And with the gift of tongues that of interpreta
tion might be united, although not always and necessarUy. Added
to this, the apostle gives precepts in respect to this state, which
precepts would have had no sense if referring to an unconscious
position. It is, therefore, a state of impletion with the irvevpa,
so that the spHit, pervaded by a sense of the mighty deeds of the
divine grace in Christ, is affected in the element of its most in
ward character, and gives utterance to the fulness and life of its
internal feeHng and perception, using a mode of expression which,
without interpretation, would be uninteUigible to others. It
must have been something quite subjective and individual, but
not to an extent which prevented the sense and signification of
it frpm being interpreted by means of another gift. Between the
speaker with tongues and the interpreter a pecuHar relation was
brought about through the Spirit. The external aspect of the
matter has given rise to the most varied suppositions. Thus
much, at least, is in the first place certain, that there was in
Corinth no speaking in foreign tongues ; for, as before mentioned,
the apostle compares the " speaking with tongues " to a speaking
in a foreign language (1 Cor. xiv. 10, 11); and two identical
things cannot be compared. Added to this, he looks upon the
" speaking with tongues " as a thing absolutely uninteUigible per
se. Nevertheless, aU the interpretations turn upon either a
speaking in foreign tongues acquired by learning, or upon a
mHacle of tongues, consisting either in the speaking itself or in
the hearing. It has been thought to be an imperfect speaking
and stammering, — a speaking merely with the tongue in inarticu
late sounds ; but these ideas are wholly without proof. Others

282 THE LIFE OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
have thought that it was an obsolete or highly poetical style of
phraseology, or language expressed in unusual and strange words,
perhaps derived from different dialects, or merely language dis
tinguished by its inspiration. TXSsaaa may perhaps occur for a
single unusual expression in this sense, but we have no authentic
proof of its use for an entire statement, even apart from the New
Testament use of the language. We are, therefore, as regards the
explanation of the word, left to the two significations, tongue and
language. Unquestionably the word yX&aaa, in the apostle's
mode of expression, often has the signification of tongue; thus,
1 Cor. xiv. 21, cf. xHi. 1 (as, on the other hand, in the account
in Acts H., the audible phenomenon is in evident relation to the
symbol which was visible, namely, to the tongues of fire). But
K it cannot be thought to be a stammering with the tongue with
out sense, because only the irvevp,a and the vovv, the contemplation
in the spirit and the reflection of the understanding, are contrasted
with one another, we shaU have to adhere to the fundamental
meaning of the word, and shall then have to look upon the more
complete expression in Acts H. 4 and Mark xvi. 1 7 as the original
phrase. It has been objected to this, that Paul is perhaps to be
looked upon as the older author. But the latter might easUy
avaU himseK of the abbreviated expression, using it Hi a matter of
daUy Hfe ; whilst the later author, as an historian, would be, on
the contrary, induced to go back to the fuU original expression.
The original sense, therefore, of the expression doubtless was
(corresponding with the passage Mark xvi. 17), that the SpHit
which worked in the disciples created in them a new form of
language. And we must doubtless look upon the Corinthian
speaking with tongues as being of such a kind that he who
spake formed for himseK a language of his own, and that each
had one pecuHar to himseK. Hence we can form a judgment as
to the relation existing between the speaking with tongues on
the day of Pentecost and the Corinthian phenomenon. Certainly
there is no doubt that the two phenomena actuaUy coincide in a
fundamental character common to both. In both aHke the
speaking with tongues took place in (prnvaiv which were unintel-
Hgible to the common hearer ; in both alike, too, it appeared as
the effect of the divine irvevpa. The unknown tongue in the
Acts of the Apostles was, however, that of some historicaUy
existing system of language ; but this was not the case in

DIV. I. § 46.] COMMENCEMENT OF THE NEW LIFE. 283
Corintk But this difference does not do away with the
characteristic common to both, that it was a miraculous phe
nomenon of an essentiaUy new character. The phenomenon in
Corinth must be classed among the number of mHaculous,
spiritual gffta quite suited to the character of Christianity,
which everywhere presents itseK as a new epoch of spiritual
life. Analogies to it may be found in various kinds of religious
ecstasies, especiaUy within Christianity itself. According to the
testimony of Irenaeus, this phenomenon extended into the his
tory of the second century, appearing with special power among
the Montanists. SimUar phenomena have existed even Hi the
later days of the Christian Church down to our own century,
' especiaUy among certain of the EngHsh sects. The gKt of
the Corinthian community stood, however, on higher ground,
especiaUy in being combined with the power of interpretation.
Although, from the purport of 1 Cor. xiv., we must look upon
the usual form of speaking with tongues as a speaking Hi an
altogether new and pecuHar language, and, apart from its inter
pretation, absolutely uninteUigible ; stUl, Ha 1 Cor. xiv. 18, the
existence of a quantitative distinction in this gKt is intimated.
And thus a transition might weU take place into a speaking in
a reaUy strange tongue, which was perhaps only a momentary
phenomenon. Looking at the internal precedent of the Pente
costal event, we might justly expect some such pecuHar expres
sion of this gift of the SpHit, which subsequently became the
criterion of the communication of the SpHit (cf. Acts x. 46, xi.
15-18; perhaps also viH. 15-19) ; and in this pecuHar expres
sion it was not the outer aim, but the symboHcal meaning which
was to be looked for. Thus this particular phenomenon, being
only a pecuHar stamp of the gKt of the SpHit, affords an explana
tion of the name which is common . to both. It also explains
why the author of the Acts of the Apostles, who must have
been so ready to compare the phenomenon of which he must
have been aware with the fact which he had to relate, was led to
indicate so exactly, and to bring forward' so prominently, the
specific character of the event he described. The argument
drawn from this agamst the historical nature of the occurrence
is thus done away with. Its origin can hardly be looked for in
the aHeady existing idea of universaHsm, unless cause and effect
are confounded ; and, by the importance of it, the great commence-

284 THE LIFE OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
ment of the public standing-forth of the apostles is most easUy
rendered historicaUy inteUigible.
§ 47. The Characteristics of the New Life.
The spiritual Hfe which, after a foundation of this kind on the
feast of Pentecost, we find existing Hi the apostoHc community,
and, owing to the communication of the SpHit, not limited to the
apostles only, but extending to aU beHevers (cf. Acts H. 1, 4, and
i 14, 15), was, in the first place, independent in its nature, — a
life which, by means of the Spirit, passed from Christ to His
people. This we bring forward as a bibHco-historical, and not
as a dogmatical proposition. It was independent, as being free
from aU human subordination, and unconstrained by the guidance
of any human person, or by the authority of any human law of
the latter, and as taking its rise solely in the hearts and minds of
these believers. That this life was originated by the Holy Ghost
through Christ, they themselves were fuUy conscious, and thus
expressed themselves. This was the case with Peter at the feast
of Pentecost (Acts H. 33, cf. 38), and also in his referring the
healing of the lame man to the power of Christ communicated to
them through the Holy Ghost (Acts Hi 15, 16, iv. 10); cf. also
the declaration before -the Sanhedrim (Acts v. 30-33). Paul
also expresses the same idea, ch. xxH. and xxvi ; and we find it
everywhere laid down in the apostoHc epistles.
This origin is also vouched for by the nature of the new Ufe,
and the proofs afforded by its outward actions. It has the stamp
of the very Hfe of Jesus, as a life in God ; the stamp, too, of the
most decided seK-denial and contempt of the world, and of a
practical seK-surrender to God. It is in itself a faith in Jesus as
the Christ, sure and firm as a rock, and a certain hope Hi Him
and the victory of His cause. It is a Hfe of fervent and self-
sacrificing brotherly love, on which the firmest feUowship is based
(Acts ii. and iv.). AU this is accompanied by a clear display of
the SpHit, who unmistakeably shone forth, at least in certain in
dividuals, as Hi many of the apostles. A Paul was a partaker,
although in a higher measure, of the gKt of tongues, and had his
solemn ecstasies (2 Cor. xii.); and yet in practical life he was a clear
sighted man, capable of a vigorous and comprehensive activity.
In his teaching, too, he so combined the sagacity of a rabbi of
the school of Gamaliel with the spirit of the Christian, that he

DIV. I. § 47.] CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NEW LIFE. 285
has bequeathed to us the most cultivated and dialecticaUy sus
tained system of apostoHc doctrine. How far removed from aU
idle fanaticism, how entirely practical and circumspect, is the
whole tendency of the apostoHc Hfe generaUy ! There arose in
the apostles and believers of that time a new conception of the
promised salvation, and of the entry into the same by means of a
new creation and a new bHtH They now understand the person
of the Redeemer in conformity with the extraordinary turn which
His Hfe had taken in consequence of His . resurrection and ascen
sion before theH eyes. But aU these ideas, which were now
formed in them, could not have been attained to, unless at the
same time theH moral Hfe had been elevated to a higher degree
of power. The Jew of Palestine, in whose idea God and man
were so far asunder, who looked upon any confusion in the
distinction between them as only idolatry, now rose to a con
templation of the unity of the divine and the human as it existed .
Hi Jesus. The individualities of the apostles appear to have been
subject to peculiar transformations. We find this to be the case,
ff we compare the pubHc appearance and conduct of the apostles
Hi theH present position with then previous condition: Hi the
case of Paul, with the period before his conversion ; and, as regards
Peter, John, and James, with the time of their intercourse with
the Lord. The characteristic distinctions Hi the nationalities of
the disciples Hkewise appear done away with in the community
of their mutual faitk Some more mighty distinction had super
seded the great divisions of masses of men in ancient times.
The inflexible spHit of the Jews, and the pride of the Roman
people, which, as opposed in deadly hatred, approached a war
of annihUation, were broken down by the rock-melting flash
of the Spirit. The unprecedented idea, that Jews and GentUes
were to be brethren, without the GentUes becoming Jews, found
its fulfilment Hi the PauHne community. This universaHsm of
¦Christianity approved itseK by its power of attraction to aU exist
ing forms of civUisation. The Jews were aUied to it both by their
ethical monotheism, and also by theH hopes of a theocratical
Messiah And although their inflexible monotheism, as weU as
the material colouring of their hopes and the nature of their
sects, kept many from Christianity, stiU aU those remained open
to it who waited for the salvation of Israel. Even among the
heathen, sufficient points of connection were not wanting. It

286 THE LIFE OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
approved itself especiaUy to the faciHty of reception, and the
increased and deeper susceptibUity in cases where the civUisations
of Palestine and Greece were united, as in Paul, or even in John,
if we take account of the latter's long subsequent sojourn at
Ephesus. In the same way, aU the external social relations are
altered in theH character ; as we see in the epistles, the ideas of
the apostles as to marriage and famUy ties at once assume an
entirely Christian form. Monogamy becomes the Christian rule ;
and the most decided step is thus taken to shape the relations of
the female sex in due harmony with its true human dignity,
without going to the other extreme. The subordination of
chUdren, as laid down in the Mosaic law and the civU law of
the Roman empHe, is strictly maintained ; but even this relation
is softened down and transformed by the definition that the
obedience is to be " in the Lord " (Eph. vi. 1). The chUdren are
become joint-possessors with then parents of the gKt of salva
tion. But the power of the new spHit influences stiU further the
customs of civU life. The partition-waU between the freeman
and the slave is broken down: the latter is no longer a possession.
Numbers of slaves become, within a few years, free partakers in
Christ. The master and his slave are brethren, and yet they still
remain, one a ruler and one a servant (1 Cor. vH. 21 ff), but
both in brotherly love. The relations of the rich and poor, high
and low, follow the same rule. The " crux " of political wisdom is
surmounted ; the problem is solved, in a spirituaUy moral sense,
by the antithesis, that he that is of low degree is to glory in his
exaltation, and he that is high Hi his lowliness (Isa. i 9, 10).
Political Hfe, too, begins to assume a new shape, by means of the
axiom that power is of God, and that on this account obedience
results, not from fear alone, but from the effects of conscience.
The relation to the powers that be, is therefore elevated out of
the sphere of law into a religious and moral connection.
AU these things, however, which belong to the general character
of the Christian Hfe, are manifest in the apostoHc period in a way
that is pecuHar, but at the same time quite Hi harmony with the
commencement of Christian Hfe. The first appearance and outward
indications and development of the Hfe in this period show us
this Hfe as the foundation of the Church. We meet with a pecu
Har freshness of Hfe manKested, on the one hand, both in feeHng
and action, and, on the other, in the teaching ; and this proves

DIV. I. § 47.] CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NEW LIFE. 287
the originality of this Hfe, based as it was partly on a direct per
sonal intercourse with Christ, and partly on the communication of
the Holy SpHit, and existing in men and communities who had
hitherto Hved Hi an essentiaUy different element, either Jewish or
' heathen, — Hi whom, therefore, the contrast of the spHit proceeding
from Jesus Christ must have appeared with peculiar force. The
intensity of the powers thus communicated, apart from the special
characteristics of the gffts to be subsequently mentioned, is ex
pressed Hi the fulness of the yapiapaTa generaUy, in which a
distinction between the miraculous and the non-mHaculous can
scarcely be carried out. Some of these feU to the lot of aU
beHevers, the manKestation of them certifying visibly to the pos
session of the irvevpa (cf. Acts x. 46, viH. 15-19, xi. 15-18);
some, however, were only granted to individuals (cf. 1 Cor. xH. and
xiv.). From these chapters we may gather that we ought to look
upon them as sanctified, amplified, and renovated natural gKts,
and that the SpHit always laid hold of some point of connection
in the personaHty of the beHever. Hence arose the great diversity
of the various gKts which appear to have prevaUed in different
communities. A twofold phenomenon is, however, connected
with the pecuHar and original power of the apostoHc IKe : first, a
certain ecstatic state, in which the spHitual Hfe manifests itself
in its direct inwardness at certain times, in certain persons and
communities, of which class was the speaking with tongues ; next,
the mHaculous element which we meet with Hi the apostoHc
period. MHacles took place as regarded the apostles themselves,
such as the release, Acts v. 19, agamst which it cannot be brought
as an objection, that in the trial which foUowed no accusation
was laid against them as to the escape, as Hi the narrative that
matter only which was essential for the Christian cause was
summarily given. There were also numerous mHacles done by
the apostles themselves, some of which, it is expressly related,
were wrought in the name of Jesus. There were, too, mHaculous
powers which are described as gKts of the Holy SpHit (Acts Hi.
6, 16, iv. 9, 10, :ii 43, v. 12, 16, vi. 8, viii. 6-13, ix. 2 ff,
xv. 12, xxviH. 8, 9). In addition to these texts, we have testi
mony as to these mHaculous deeds and powers in the epistles of
St. Paul (2 Cor. xH. 12; 1 Cor. xii 28, cf. ix. 10; Rom. xv.
18, 19). By these passages, the mHaculous character of the
apostoHc period is generaUy confirmed ; and these mHaculous deeds

288 THE LIFE OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
and powers are described in their internal connection with the
communication of the Spirit, and therefore as integral elements of
the apostoHcal Hfe. These mHacles are not, however, pecuHar to
the apostoHcal age. We hear of them in the second and thud
centuries, but of less frequent occurrence (cf. Justin Martyr and
Origen) ; and this is in conformity with the gradual disappearance
of the communication of the SpHit. In the centuries which .
foUowed we find the number of miraculous occurrences again
increasing ; and this may be justly ascribed by criticism to a defi
ciency in that soberness which characterized the apostolical period,
without aUowHig the inference that throughout these centuries
mHaculous events could not have taken place Hi the Christian hfe.
We may gather from the New Testament that, as regards the
new Christian Hfe, the apostles stood in the same position as
other beHevers. Both had received the Holy SpHit as a common
bond of union (Acts xv. 8) ; and the general character of its out
pouring was proved by the teaching and life of those who were
not apostles. Thus, in Stephen (Acts vi, vii), also in Barnabas
in the Church of Antioch (Acts xi. 22-26, xHi 1), and subse
quently ApoUos Hi Corinth (Acts xviii. 24-28 ; cf. 1 Cor. Hi.
5, 6). Indeed, they were not apostles who were the first, after
the persecution of the Christians at the time of Stephen, to preach
the gospel to those who were not Jews (Acts vHi 4, v. 25, 26,
40) ; and we find apostolical authority at Jerusalem ascribed to
James, the brother of the Lord, who probably was not an apostle.
But, on the other hand, the apostles had a pre-eminence, Hi virtue
of Jesus' special charge to them of preaching the gospel and
founding the Church, and the authorization vouchsafed to them
for this purpose. In conformity with this, they looked upon the
office of teaching as theH peculiar charge, for the sake of which
they withdrew from the external business of the community
(Acts vi. 4) ; and, with this pecuHar charge, praying for the com
munity was" indissolubly united. They stand in the first rank
of those endowed with the SpHit (cf. 1 Cor. xii. 28 ; Eph. iv. 11).
With the office of instruction and the duty of prayer was also
joined the ordering of certain regulations, in carrying out which
the community also took a part (cf. Acts vi. 2-6). It was the
apostles who took the lead in the development of the Christian
life ; and in them the Christian life chiefly showed its independent
character, as something which exercised a special power of attrac- -

DIV. I. § 47.] CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NEW LIFE. 289
tion over others. The names of the apostles and theH authority
constitute the foundation on which the canon is based ; the whole
of the Church which followed them were conscious of resting on
this apostoHcal foundation; and this is in entire harmony with
the position which Jesus gave to the apostles. But by this pre
eminence of the apostles any eminent endowment of another was
by no means precluded. The Spirit that existed in them was
the same as that in aU the believers generally. It was no natural
prerogative of the apostles ; but the Lord had poured it out on all,
and destined it for aU. Therefore, although we may not look
upon them as equal to the rest as regards their actual position,
stUl it is difficult to lay down any absolute distinction. In a
case where the apostleship which resulted from the intercourse
with Jesus did not suffice to caU forth some particular step of
development in the Church, we find a man entrusted with a pecu
liar apostoHc charge who had previously not been an apostle, and,
indeed, was not a Christian. Thus, in the sphere of the new IKe,
neither the counsel of man, nor human calculation and power, but
the Lord Himself and His Spirit, remained the guiding principle.
It was, moreover, necessary that the SpHit of Christ should
stamp its nature on the apostles. He approved Himself to them
as the SpHit which remodeUed and transformed every individu
ality. This transformation, although not entirely obHterating the
individuaHty, is that which produced the organic Hfe which
they possessed in common ; and we can foUow out the traces of
it in the Hfe of these men as far as it is known to us. In aU
this, however, the Spirit remains independent of any human
arbitrariness or calculation, " blowing where it HstetL" We
may speciaUy notice this in the call of the Apostle Paul,
when, through the influence of the Spirit, a new instrument
was obtained, who in the hour of need stood forth with fuU
apostoHc power.' It is just on this occasion, when He exercises
so free a rule, that He comes before us in aU His complete
objectivity as the SpHit of the Hving Redeemer, glorified in
\ heaven It is not merely the Hving Jesus who guides the
Church in the historical recoUection and idea of beHevers, but
it is the glorified Lord who rules in and over it, who in the
propagation of Christianity, apart from human activity, contends
for His own cause among mankind themselves. Thus He calls
a Paul, and enlightens him with His light, so that he can stand
T

290 THE LIFE OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
at the head of the Church ; but this is not done without the
co-operation of beHevers, and the addition of the knowledge
existing Hi the world as to the historical appearance of the
Redeemer. This knowledge, Paul, even as a persecutor, pos
sessed perhaps to some extent, and was therefore able to grasp
the signification of the word which came to him from above ;
and the Church was brought near to him in the person of
Ananias. Thus, even here, the historical connection was not
quite done away with ; although this interposition falls quite
into the background as compared with the principal cause, the
Lord and His Spirit. And this very Spirit proves itself, by the
Hfe and work of the apostles, to have been the Holy Spirit.
There are the most speaking proofs of this. The victory of
Christianity which is introduced into the world is the victory
of truth ; and this victory is brought about by the agency of
the first instruments, — an agency opposed to the spHit of the
world. In the apostoHcal age we see the operation of these
instruments, which, although not free from human weakness,
were nevertheless devoted to the Lord, and active in His spHit.
The self-denial which the Lord laid down as the first law is
manifested in them, and theH ministry becomes a ministry in
love and wisdom. The fruits thereof are, however, for the
Church, the substance of apostoHcal Christianity, which is for
aU time the authentic rule for that which is truly Christian, and
its firm foundation for aU futurity ; and this we have to consider
as the work of the apostles.
This spirit was thus pre-eminently manKest in the four most
prominent personages in the period we are considering, James,
Peter, Paul, and John, the pUlars of the apostoHcal Church;
although Paul was not originaUy an apostle, and with regard to
James, it is at least doubtful whether in the narrower sense he
belonged to the apostoHc cHcle. But he was one of the most
distinguished ministers and leaders of the Church of Jerusalem,
as he is described in the Acts of the Apostles (ch. xv. 13, xH. 17,
xxi. 18) and by Paul (Gal. i 19, H. 9, 12). And although he
might not have been actuaUy an apostle, we must ascribe to
him (as to Paul, although in consequence of another kind of
guidance) apostolic authority, and must class him among the
four most important men of this period. Peter, on the contrary,
¦ihad worked from the very begHming in Jerusalem with undis-

DIV. I. § 48.] FIRST STAGES OF CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP. 291
puted apostoHcal authority, and had founded the Church there ;
and although in the course of time he appears to have there
given place to James, he began more than any to propagate
Christianity far and wide. John, although, in accordance with
his contemplative tendency, not so externaUy active, was never
theless (Gal. H. 9) one of the chiefs of the ancient Church, and
subsequently, at least after the destruction of Jerusalem, worked
in Asia Minor, especially in Ephesus, surviving all the apostles,
and Hving to the end of the century. The position and activity
of St. Paul wUl be shown by the review of the course of develop
ment of the apostoHc Church. These four men are those prin-
cipaUy brought before us as the chief agents, not only of the
actual guidance of the Church, but also of the apostoHcal teach
ing, in which the Christianity of this time is stamped almost as
vividly and evidently as in the Hfe itseK.

II. THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE APOSTOLICAL
COMMUNITY.
S 48. The First Stages of Christian Fellowship.
¦ The communication of the Spirit was also the foundation of a
community, because there was a number of men to whom one and
the same life was given. And the more powerfully this was
manifest at the very commencement, the more decidedly it was
distinguished from any worldly wisdom, and the more forcible
was the power of attraction by which individuals were linked
together. We therefore see that, even Hi the apostoHcal period,
from the beginning onwards, there was but slight preparation for
this community : everything seemed to proceed from the Hiternal
nnpulse of the SpHit, and to be of organic growth. The Church
seemed to be a tree Hi the very sense in which Jesus had used
the figure : it grew through the inward intensity of the power in
herent in its seed. The community is outwardly manifested as a
feUowship in an inward and outward life, both in a rehgious and
civff point of view ; and this is developed with strength sufficient
to frame itseK into a form, at first in the simplest way, and not
according to any prescribed plan, but just as occasion seemed to
require. We learn this from the statements in the Acts as to

292 THE LIFE OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
the earhest Hfe of the Church at Jerusalem (cf. Acts ii. 42 ff, iv.
3 2 ff, v. 1 2 ff, v. 42) : " And the multitude of them that beheved
were of one heart and one soul." But the internal bond of union
was also outwardly manKested, for they often assembled together
in the temple, in Solomon's porch, and also in private houses,
where they especiaUy united in common meals, and, as it appears,
celebrated together the feast in memory of Jesus. Added to this
was their joint care for their poor ; in short, from the very com
mencement onwards, the infant Church bore the distmct stamp of
a IKe in common. It was of considerable importance that from
the first a local centre-point was provided for this community,
which was essentiaUy helped by the concentration thereby caused.
This place was Jerusalem. Here the apostles were at first
gathered together, which was a matter of great importance in the
development of the Christian teaching ; for, by the combination of
theH testimony, and in consequence of then mutual influence on
one another, a more distmct type was formed for the preaching of
the gospel, each individual making good his special deficiencies.
Thus the pureness of the Christian spHit, both in respect to
doctrine and in a moral point of view, was best preserved. But
Jerusalem was also the best fitted place for an increase in dis
ciples. This city was not only the centre of the Jewish nation,
but also exercised a considerable power of attraction for those who
were not Jews. Thus everything combined to render successful
the efforts of the energies which were united in it. But the
infant Church was, by a gradual course of development, to break
through the veU by which it had been concealed, and to some
extent sheltered, in Jerusalem, and was by degrees to attain an
independent position, no longer subordinate to the Jewish nation-
aHty This course of development exhibits three stages, which
we can distinguish Hi the accounts Hi the Acts. A fourth stage
may, in addition, be perceived Hi the later books of the New
Testament, especiaUy those of John ; but it is only with respect
to the three first that we possess any detaUed historical knowledge.
The first stage of development embraces the earliest days of the
Church at Jerusalem down to the persecution in which Stephen
was a sacrifice ; and the Christian community was from the first
introduced entirely into the Jewish nationaHty The Church
founded by the apostles at Jerusalem was constituted chiefly of
actual Jews ; even the HeUenists, who, as we find from Acts vi,

DIV. I. § 48.] FIRST STAGES OF CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP. 293
belonged to it at the beginning, were stUl Jews of the Biaairopd.
The disciples resulting from Jesus' own ministry, who Hved
scattered about in GalUee and Perea, were Jews. Indeed, the
Jewish nationaUty was the natural starting-point of the Christian
Church. This was in Ml harmony with the deep connection
existing between the old and new covenants. Jesus was the
expected Messiah. He HimseK had sprung from the Jews, and
in Him was the primeval promise to be fulfiUed, that from this
nation should proceed a salvation for aU mankind. Therefore,
from the very first, in the proselytizing discourses of the apostles,
so great a stress is laid on the point that salvation belonged to
the Jews (Acts Hi. 25 f., etc.). But this identification was a
hmited one, and was conditional on the susceptibUity of this nation
\ for the perfected salvation Where this was wanting, a contrast
immediately arose, and became evident in the belief of the
Christians. The latter had hoped for the promised Messianic
salvation, and beHeved that it had appeared in Jesus as the
Messiah. They thus naturaUy stood opposed to those who did not
share in this beHef, and indeed denied it. And this opposition
must have been aU the more distinctly felt, as this denial pro
ceeded from the mass of the people and theH chiefs. The earHest
apostoHc discourses refer, therefore, to this fact (Acts H. 23,
Hi. 14 f.) ; and the wider the guK existing between the beHevers
Hi Jesus and the rest of the Jews, the more natural became the
requHement of a change of mind and conversion on the part of
unbelievers who were to become fitted for salvation (Acts H. 38,
Hi. 19). In this very respect, — that is, as regards the develop
ment of this contrast, — the original concentration at Jerusalem of
the Hfe of the community becomes a matter of great importance.
In this place the might of the nation, with aU the reminiscences of
past hostiHties and the present enmity, was ever present before
the eyes of the first Christians. Here, too, the sense of the con
trast would tend to consoHdate the peculiar Christian conscious
ness, and became a guarantee that the latter would not become
duUed and die away.
The non-susceptibiHty of the Jewish character as regards the
gospel, was, however, speciaUy stamped upon the various sects of
the period. With these the Christian community would first have to
come in conflict : it thus encountered the Sadducees and Pharisees.
The opposition between Sadduceism and Christianity must have

294 THE LIFE OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
first become manKest. Even the first apostoHc discourses opposed
this sect, by closely connecting the gospel with the Old Testament
prophecies, and showing that the latter were fulfiHed in the former
(Acts ii, Hi, v.). Again, the fact on which Christian faith
was founded was the corroboration of Jesus by His resurrection.
The apostolic testimony of this fact and its appHcation were
dHectly opposed to the Sadducean doctrine of the absolute mor-
taHty of man. If we also consider that, as GamaHel's example
shows (who certainly spoke, in the first place, from motives of
worldly wisdom, but yet must have been convinced that the
Christian teaching was not opposed to God), many of the non-
Sadducean Jews, especiaUy those of the Pharisaical party, enter
tained more friendly feeHngs towards Christianity, — indeed, Hi the
course of time, showed an inclination for it (cf. Acts xv. 5), — we
may be able to explain the growing aversion of the Sadducees to
the new faith. From the value which they attached to the behef
in a resurrection, the Pharisees must have been attracted by the
preaching of a Risen One. Many of them, indeed, must certainly
have been also attracted by the moral earnestness of Christianity ;
for the members of this sect were not aU hypocrites, and many of
them were certainly real zealots for the law. And, on the con
trary, this moral character of the Church and its teaching was the
very thing to repel the Sadducees. From aU this, we need hardly
wonder when we Tead (Acts iv. 1, v. 17) that the Sadducean
party took a chief share in the first hostUe movement made
against the community, that is, against Peter and John, Hi con
sequence of the mHacle wrought by the latter (Acts iii. and iv.).
The fact that the high-priestly family belonged at that time to the
Sadducean party is confirmed by Josephus. We meet with an
echo of this division and of the original state of things at a later
date in the Hfe of the Apostle Paul (Acts xxiH. 6—9), when the
latter, taken prisoner in Jerusalem, obtained his Hberty for the
moment by prudently avaUHig himseK of the disunion existing
between the Pharisees and Sadducees.
But an opposition to the Pharisaical element was soon to de-
velope itself in the apostoHcal community, — an opposition which
was destined to have much further-reaching consequences. The
Christians stiU kept up their relation with the temple, and often
assembled there. The friends of legal piety must have felt pleased
with their conduct. Nevertheless, the time soon came when the

DIV. I. § 48.] FIRST STAGES OF CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP. 295
distinction between the freedom of the Christian spHit and the
trammels of the law made itself felt, and Christians became
conscious of the incongruity of the legal worship, and still more
of the adherence to tradition. This, as may naturally be sup
posed, took place first among the HeUenists. These were from
the very first both the most inclined, and the best qualified, to
grasp and give prominence to the cosmopolitan element in
Christianity. We find the HeUenist and Hebrew Christians
first contrasted in Acts vi, on the occasion of a dispute between
the two parties. According to ch. vi. 1, the number of the
disciples had considerably increased, and it had graduaUy become
a difficult matter to carry out the reHef of the poor without
certain special social forms. The HeUenists thought they were
neglected ; and their dissatisfaction induced the apostles (aHeady
sufficiently occupied in teaching) to propose the institution of
a diaconate. Among the seven men selected for this office,
on whom the apostles laid their hands, there were certainly
several HeUenists, as Nicolas, a proselyte of Antioch (ver. 5) ;
in fact, aU the seven have Greek names. At theH head stands
Stephen, a man fuU of grace and power, and probably himself an
HeUenist. He entered into a discussion with the school of the
Alexandrians, Cyrenians, and Libertines. Stirred up by his
manKest superiority to them, and also, as it appears, by his anti-
Pharisaical tendencies, these men make an accusation against
Stephen (Acts vi 11-14), which, from the description of those
who partook in it, and from its whole character, points to a
Pharisaical impulse, and no mere Sadducean origin. For they
accused him of blasphemy against Moses, God, the temple, and
the law, and especiaUy of maintaining that Jesus of Nazareth
would destroy the temple and change the Mosaic institutions.
Stephen deHvers a public testimony for the Lord before the
Sanhedrim, a discourse which we have in Acts vH. It is for the
most part of historical purport, briefly surveying the whole
history of the nation, with a partly apologetic and partly polemic
aim. The apologetic element, however, gives way before the
controversial in the ardent, inspHed, and doubtless youthful
orator. He comprehends the whole purport of his historical
statement in his bitter reproach against the nation (vers. 51-53)
on account of theH unbeHef and stubbornness against God.
But the conclusion of the discourse can only be a matter of

296 THE LIFE OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
conjecture, as Stephen was not aUowed to finish it. This
occurrence, and the accusation itseK, are in fuU harmony with
the then existing position of things, The witnesses were false,
but, notwithstanding their misrepresentations, the words laid to
his charge may have been genuine. Stephen himseK does not
deny them. But even in this case, aU he had said had been
previously brought forward by Jesus HimseK, and must have
been remembered in the community (cf. Matt, xxiv., xxvi. 61 ;
John H. 19, iv. 22-26, as to the end of the temple). This
attitude on the part of Jesus is, beyond aU doubt, historical;
for the fact of the hostiHty of the rulers of the people against
Him, so Hrefragably attested by His death upon the cross, would
be otherwise uninteUigible. Besides, a Jewish-Christian record,
like Matthew's Gospel, would assuredly never have adopted such
words, unless compelled thereto by the force of historical truth.
Under these circumstances, Jesus' words must have Hved Hi the
memory of some of the members of the community ; and there
is considerable internal probabUity that such a one as Stephen
would fuUy adopt them, if, from his discourse, and the intima
tions given about him, we may be permitted to fancy him as an
ardent young HeUenist. And his opponents, among them Cili-
cians such as Paul, as inflexible zealots for the law, doubtless
discovered in the doctrine of salvation in Christ an antagonism
to the law. The way, too, in which Stephen spoke is internaUy
and historicaUy probable. His discourse is unfettered in its
character, and spoken in a spirit of excitement, indeed of high
inspHation ; not artificiaUy framed, but flowing from a vivid
consciousness of the circumstances. The aim and purport are
both decidedly anti-Pharisaical, but nevertheless the statement
is closely connected with Jewish tradition, just as the double-
sided position in the then existing state of the Jewish- Christian .
community would lead us to expect. Stephen's discourse, by
its animated tone, is sharply distinguished from the mUd lan
guage of Peter at the feast of Pentecost, who almost seemed to
look upon the hostUity to the Lord as something past, and to
presuppose some alteration of mind ; also from the deference
with which the apostles defended themselves in chs. iv. and v.,
which rendered it easy for Gamaliel to speak in theH favour,
although in a very indifferent way. It is distinguished, too, from
the calmer mode in which Paul in ch. xHi developes a simUar

DIV. I. § 48.] FIRST STAGES OF CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP. 297
line of thought. In Stephen's discourse, everything bears a
character of individuality, and is adapted to the exigency of
the moment. For this very reason, and because this moment
was and became so important a one, it is easily conceivable that
both the purport and tone of this discourse should be retained
in memory for Christian record. This occurrence became an
epoch. The consciousness of the opposition existing between
the Christian faith and the institutions of Judaism was now
openly expressed ; and the death of its first martyr indelibly im
pressed this turn of events on the memory of the Church. The
persecution which ensued, and appeared to shake its very founda
tions, could only have assisted in its further development.
This event was the means of bringing on in the Christian
community a second stage of development, which opened the path
for essential progress, although it was, in the first place, only a
stage of transition. The Church now finds among its members
those who are not Jews, and attains the knowledge that GentUes
are also caUed to be partakers in Christ's salvation, without, in
deed, being previously circumcised, i.e. becoming Jews. This
was a decided step in advance towards the complete independence
of the Christian Church. But the first steps in this direction
were taken with but a dormant consciousness of their high im
portance, and without any preliminary human reflection. The
recognition of the GentUes was graduaUy developed from the facts
of the Hfe itself. At the time of Stephen's death the persecu
tion arose (Acts viii. 1), and a Hght opened on the mass of the
people, showing the great conflict of principle which was in ques
tion, although theH zeal was perhaps first directed against those
who expressed themselves as Stephen did. But the more he was
honoured (ch. viH. 2), and the more his principles were embraced,
the more their hostiHty was increased, in the exercise of which
Saul of Tarsus is mentioned as peculiarly active. Under these
cHcumstances, the Christians are for the most part scattered over
the surrounding regions ; but the apostles themselves stUl remain
in Jerusalem. The irdvTev in ch. viH. 1 is not to be taken Hi a
strictly numerical sense, but that the body of the community, as
a whole, was scattered. Among those that were scattered, there
were, however, many who possessed the abUity of preaching the
gospel, and, in conformity with the general tendency of the spHit
in the Church, felt HnpeUed to bear witness of theH faith ; for the

298 THE LIFE OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
consciousness of beHevers was already thus far strengthened and
matured. Some stiU remained in the land of Judea (ch. viH. 1),
and by these the beHevers dwelling here and there in these
regions were comforted and increased. Those who went farther,
to Phenice, Cyprus, and Antioch, confined their preaching, we are
told, to the Jews in the Biaairopd (Acts xi. 19). But the decisive
step took place in Samaria. It was PhUip, one of the seven
deacons of the Church of Jerusalem (ch. vi. 5), subsequently caUed
an evangelist (ch. xxi. 8), who came to Samaria, and preached
and baptized in a city there with much success. Although the
Lord had commanded the apostles to teach aU nations, it re
mained for a long time an undecided point with them in what
sense this was to be done. They might weU imagine that the
transition would be brought about through cHcumcision, and by
means of proselytes. But now an example was afforded which
led to further results. Jesus Himself had aHeady found in
Samaria a receptive ministerial field (John iv.), and this was now
the case with PhUip (Acts viH. 5 ff). When the apostles re
ceived the news of this event, they sent Peter and John from
Jerusalem as delegates, in answer to whose prayers those who
were baptized received the Holy Ghost. After this, the apostles'-
themselves preached the gospel in Samaria (cf. viii. 17, 25). But
the Samaritans were a people aUied to the Jews in race, and had
originaUy been partakers in the caU. At aU events, PhUip and
these apostles did not join Hi the national feud then existing.
TheH intercourse with Jesus had freed them from this ; and their
conduct is a corroboration of the narrative in John iv. But still,
in aU this, the caUing of the actual GentUes was not openly1 pro
claimed ; but this, too, was now done. It first took place (pro
bably) in the case of the eunuch in the service of Candace, queen
of the Ethiopians, whom PhUip met with Hi the way (Acts vin
26-40). This baptism was brought about, as the author of the
Acts of the Apostles purposely records, by the interposition of an
angeL The foUowing, however, is a stUl more certain instance :
Among the fugitives who were scattered far and wide, there were
at least a few (Acts xi. 2 0, cf. 1 9) who turned to those who were
not Jews, and that in AntiocH These preachers were probably
HeUenists, who, from the entire course of theH Hfe and education,
could not feel so much alienation as regarded the GentUes. Their
labours met with extraordinary success. But ere this took place,

DIV. I. § 48.] FIRST STAGES OF CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP. 299
or, at least, ere it became known at Jerusalem, a more decided
step was taken, even in the apostoHc sphere of operations. If it
had not been for this intervening incident, the formation of a
Christian community from among the Gentiles might have stirred
up a division in the Church, and a double Christianity, a Jewish
and a Gentile section, might have arisen. But this rupture was
prevented by the control of the Lord of the Church HimseK, and
His Spirit. Thus it was so ordained that the apostles themselves
were HnpeUed to admit GentUes into the Christian community.
Peter had undertaken a journey to visit the churches in Judea,
Samaria, etc., and for some time had made Joppa his centre of
operations (Acts ix.). The persecution had subsided, and the
Christian community began again to enjoy quiet (Acts ix. 31).
During this period, it happened that a Roman centurion who was
stationed at Caesarea, the seat of the proconsulate, received direc
tions in a vision to send to Peter. Cornelius is described as a
man distinguished by bis genuine piety. That he was only a
"proselyte of the gate," may be gathered from the whole narra
tive, and from the conduct of Peter, who expressly contrasts him
and his company with the Jews. The Jews, also, who- accom
panied Peter, spoke and acted in a simUar sense (cf. Acts x. 28,
45, xi. 1-3, 18). The message reached Peter when.he was en
gaged in prayer, and had been overcome by a vision, in which he
was summoned to eat LeviticaUy unclean beasts, and had his
doubts pacified by a voice, which bade him to consider as clean
that which God had cleansed. Peter obeyed the call, and, having
preached the gospel to CorneHus and his house, saw them un
equivocally endowed with the Spirit ; so that aU that remained
for the apostle to do was to complete God's work by external
baptism. Thus Peter himself relates it in his subsequent self-
vindication at Jerusalem (Acts xi. 5 ff). By his words, too, the
apostolic body is pacified, and acknowledges the facts in aU their
mighty results (Acts xi. 18). We are entirely without warrant in
throwing any historical doubt on this event, because Paul was the
. first to assert the great principle of the acceptance of the Gentiles,
and not Peter, who, indeed, went so far as to oppose the former
apostle. All we gather from the Epistle to the Galatians is,
that Paul distinctively looked upon the apostleship to the Gentiles
as his settled caU, and not that he performed the first overt act
in this direction. Peter, also, did not act from his own internal

300 THE LIFE OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
impulse, but only in consequence of an irresistible divine guid
ance. His subsequent vacUlating behaviour by no means proves
that he could not have had the power to follow such a guidance.
Also his conduct at Antioch does not prove that he merely yielded
to Paul for a season, without any personal conviction. Peter
yielded to the power of facts ; and his being able to deny the
conviction which compeUed him does not prove that he never
had it. There is a more trivial objection, that the reproach in
Acts xi. 3 does not go so far as the facts would warrant ; but
they are aU indHectly implied therein. At aU events, the whole
event had a peculiarly characteristic result as regards Chris
tianity and the apostoHc period. In it is shown how the Lord
Himself, and His SpHit, opened out a. path for the gospel, inde
pendently of any human wisdom or judgment ; it is shown, too,
that Christianity is Hfe, and from this life aU doctrine is de
veloped ; also that, in the most decisive moments of the aposto
Hcal period, the SpHit speciaUy watched over and elevated the
Church, widening and enlightening the knowledge of the apostles,
who submitted themselves to the Spirit, thus confirming and
assuring the unity of the Christian Church. The Church at
Jerusalem having thus arrived at a due consciousness of these
important circumstances, it was also in a position to see in its
proper light the conversion of the uncircumcised GentUes hi
Antioch, and, with inward sympathy, to render thanks to the
Lord. Thus it took place according to Acts xi. 19-26. They
sent Barnabas to Antioch (ver. 22), who beheld the state of
things with joy, and made common cause with the other labourers
in the conversion of the GentUes. Immediately proceeding to
Tarsus in CUicia, he brought from thence Paul (who had been in
the meantime converted), and introduced him into the freshly-
opened field of labour at Antioch. Christianity, in fact, flourished
here to such an extent, that from hence the name of " Christian "
was spread over the earth. AU these occurrences, as they are
related in the Acts of the Apostles, carry with them, that is, in
the connection ol the course of events, their own warranty of
trutL There are no grounds for doubting the fact of the early
existence of the GentUe Church of Antioch ; but this existence is
scarcely expHcable, except by such a course of development as we
have described. The cause of an universal Christianity was not,
however, yet triumphant. We soon see a reaction arising ; and

DIV. I. § 49.] SHAPING OF THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY. 301
much was yet wanting ere a feeHng of heartfelt brotherhood could
be added to, and infused into the external acceptance of the
GentUes, — ere the newly-opened and mighty mission-caU affected
the whole body of the community. For this purpose a fresh in
strument was necessary. But, without some such preparation
as we have described, the ministry of Paul could scarcely be
imagined ; for it would have had to grapple with insurmountable
difficulties. The history which follows, and the new and impor
tant stages of development described, constitute a guarantee of the
truth of the previous events. Added to this, it would have been
perhaps impossible, at a time when the memory of the facts was
comparatively fresh, for the author of the Acts of the Apostles to
have devised and circulated a distorted representation of the
truth. § 49. Shaping of the Christian Community by the Apostle Paul.
The thHd stage of development of the apostolical community is
manifested by the conduct of the Christian Church, in acting
decidedly on the consciousness they had arrived at of the joint-
caU of the Gentiles, and in endeavouring to maintain and
develope then unity and independence by softening down and
levelling the contrasts which resulted. The solver of this problem
was the Apostle Paul.
In the apostoHc body, as hitherto constituted, there was an
evident deficiency. None of the existing apostles were weU
adapted for thoroughly carrying out the conflict with the
peculiarities and legality of Judaism. Among those who were
styled by Paul (Gal. i. and H) as pUlars of the Church, there
was, in the first place, James, who was surnamed " The Just,"
because he pre-eminently stamped Christian piety with the Old
Testament form. Peter, too, although he submitted to the divine
revelation and guidance, did not as yet possess sufficient resolution
to be the champion in guiding the Church with indomitable
energy to the newly acquired aim. John, who foUows next,
appears generaUy, in the history of the apostoHc Church, to have
interfered but Httle in the way of action, and, owing to his com
parative youth and the prevailing character of his nature, was
unfit to fight successfully the battle of the Church. The Apostle
Matthias brought no fresh element into the apostolic body : the
choice of man was not sufficient for this. So the Lord chose

302 THE LIFE OF THE APOSTLES. [PART IL
another instrument, who, labouring with the other apostles in a
long course of development, brought the work to its desHed end.
We first have to consider the mode in which Paul was caUed, and
then how the further development came to pass through his
ministry. When Stephen, the first champion against the Pharisaical spirit
of Judaism, was stoned to death by his own nation, Saul was
present, and took a special pleasure in his end (Acts vH. 58-
vHi. 1). But the sacrifice bore its fruit ; and out of the ashes of
Stephen grew up the spirit of a Paul. He who helped to slay
the martyr was God's chosen instrument in fulfilling the great
task which that martyr had scarcely anticipated. As to the
mode and story of his conversion, the apostle himself is the first
witness, and the account in the Acts must be compared with his
statements. In this the Epistle to the Galatians is of primary
importance. Paul begins with the declaration that his apostle-
ship was not of men, or conferred by man, not even, indeed,
through human interposition ; hence the gospel preached by him
was not of men (Gal. i 1, 11), being neither received from nor
taught by men, but solely through the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Paul, having originaUy been an unbeHever and most zealous per
secutor of the Church, because an adherent to the traditions of
his fathers (ver. 13 ff), it pleased God to reveal His Son in his
inmost being (ev epol, ver. 16), that he might preach Him among
the heathen. An diroiidXvtyiv therefore preceded, and this alone
made him an apostle, and enHghtened him as to the gospeL
Moreover, he had not been in any way dependent on the apostles
(vers. 17, 18) ; for not until three years after did he visit Peter
at Jerusalem, and abode there fifteen days. To the churches
in Judea he was personaUy unknown, but they praised God for
his conversion and ministry ; and the apostles gave to him the
right hand of feUowship. This is the sense in which he maintains
that his conversion was through Christ alone. Between his
Jewish and his Christian Hfe there was no interval. He de
scribes the suddenness of his conversion as a light breaking forth
in him (cf. 1 Cor. ix. 1 ; 2 Cor. iv. 6). The emphatic corrobora
tion of his apostoHc authority is that he himseK also had seen
Christ. As his rivals laid great stress on the visions and revela
tions which had been afforded them, he, too, is compeUed, although
reluctantly, to mention those he had received (1 Cor. ix. ; 2 Cor.

DIV. I. § 49.] SHAPING OF THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY. 303
xii.). His intention in this is most evident from 1 Cor. xv. 8.
He there enumerates the witnesses of Jesus' resurrection, and
amongst them names himseK. According to 1 Cor. ix. 1, he had
seen the risen and glorified Jesus, and this was the revelation
(Gal. i 16) by which he suddenly received Hght Hi his inmost
being, and became entirely changed. With respect to the detaUs
of the event, the Acts of the Apostles supplements the apostle's
statement, by relating it (ch. ix. 1-22) in connection with aU that
resulted from the persecution which broke out after Stephen's
death. After the death of the martyr, Paul put in action his
persecuting zeal, and, when on his way to Damascus with an
authority from the high priest to imprison the Christians in that
city, he was suddenly shone upon by a heavenly Hght, and heard
the caU of the Lord. Being blinded, he fasted and prayed for
three days, untU in a vision he was dHected to Ananias, a
Christian of Damascus, who in the same way had received
dHections as to PauL The latter, being restored to sight by
Ananias, was introduced into the Church, in which, to the
astonishment of aU, he appeared as a teacher. This narrative
entirely agrees with the way in which the apostle himseK de
scribes his conversion, as being effected suddenly by the Lord
HimseK through His appearance and inward enHghtening. In
fuU conformity with the custom of ancient historians, and because,
perhaps, it seemed necessary to impress deeply the fact on its
readers, the Acts of the Apostles makes Paul relate this event
on two occasions. The differences Hi the narrative are easUy
reconcUed. The apostle's companions saw no person, but per
ceived the Hght ; and Paul alone heard the articulate voice, and
what it said. And by aU the other differences, — the account of
the further visions (ch. xxH), and the non-mention of Ananias
(ch. xxvi), — the essential character of the facts remains unaltered.
The variations are, indeed, insignificant, and are readUy explained
by the Hitentional omission of some detaUs, and the prominence
given to others, just as the exigency of the moment suggested to
the apostle. Thus, his intercourse with the legaUy pious Ananias,
and his vision in the temple, are told to the people in Jerusalem
(cf. 2 Cor. xH. 9). His caU to the apostleship was simultaneous
with his conversion; for, apart from his subsequent vision in the
temple, he felt himself immediately provided with the gift of the
apostoHc spirit. This he was conscious of, as a gift of a knowledge

304 THE LIFE OF THE APOSTLES. [PARr II
of Jesus as the Redeemer (Gal. i and ii), which was independent
of other men, and based on the enlightenment and revelation of
Christ. He felt it, too, to be the gift of an independent energy
of efficiency for Christ's cause, complete in the power of Christ,
and united with the outpouring of the Holy SpHit (1 Cor. xv.
10, cf. 9 ; 2 Cor. xii. ; cf. Gal. H. 8 ; Eph. Hi. 2-9). There
was vouchsafed to him an independent conviction of the truth of
Jesus' resurrection (1 Cor. xv.). On the one hand, he exalts the
gift of the apostolic function as the first and highest among the
gifts of the Spirit (1 Cor. xH. 28 ; Eph. iv. 11), and, on the other,
he asserts the equality of his apostoHc dignity with that of the
other apostles ; indeed, he describes himseK as one who had
laboured more than aU of them. We may gather from this the
specific sense in which he ascribes to himseK this office and its
gifts. Thus, therefore, a new instrument had been prepared in
the sphere of the Christian Church. Ere, however, we consider
Paul's ministry, we must endeavour to get an insight into the
course of development of his knowledge. It has been a subject
of question whether the actual substance of his Christian know
ledge, as it appears in his epistles, was attained by him graduaUy
in the course of the struggle, or whether it was taught him by
other Christians. We must negative both ideas. As regards the
latter, the question would arise, whether, at the time of Paul's
conversion, there were generaUy any Christians who had arrived
at a clear perception of the actual point in the comprehension of
the gospel to which the former had attained. The conversion of
CorneHus, and of the GentUes at Antioch, appears to have been
a subsequent event. It is, too, very improbable that such un
fettered ideas existed among any of the Christians at Damascus.
That they were not generaUy current, is proved by the instances
of Peter and the other apostles. There is no trace ot Paul having
come in contact with the men at Antioch. We find in him,
besides, from the very first, a clear and developed consciousness ot
that which had been previously done in this respect without his co
operation, but, at the same time, done under extraordinary cHcum
stances, and without any prevailing conviction. The principle
exhibited itseU in him with aU the power of originaHty, and Hi a
decisive course of action. His own testimony (GaL i and H.) is
conclusive on this point. His gospel, as he there caUs it, is the
expression of his own individual perception, being characteristic-

DIV. L § 49.] SHAPING OF THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY. 305
any distinguished from the doctrinal type of the rest of the
apostles, in that he regarded Christianity chiefly in its contrast to
the Old Testament reHgion, and, Hi vHtue of this contrast, asserted
it to be a new way of salvation for aU men. His own testimony,
therefore, proves the originaHty of his standpoint. We are thus
led on to the question, whether he himself only graduaUy framed
his views ; but he himjself derives the individuality of his teaching
from the revelation which, according to GaL i 16, was made to
him at a certain time, clearly at the commencement of his con
version, at which time his pecuHar views were certainly originated.
Light had broken Hi upon him ; but the connection of detaUed
points was a matter of gradual development, and, from the founda
tion laid, the whole scheme of doctrine grew out into organic Hfe.
This does not exclude the fact of other revelations (GaL H 2 ;
2 Cor. xii. 1, cf. 7), aU of which, however, bore some special
import. The essential root of the matter was nevertheless planted
at the first beginning.
AU the points which might be supposed needful for such a ,
sudden and thorough transformation existed in his character, and
these were perfected by the mode of his conversion. One Hnk
of union may perhaps be found in his HeUenistic education ; and
the Alexandrine-Jewish theology might also have helped as a
subordinate element. The main feature in Paul, his strict Phari
saism, developing as it did into red-hot fanaticism, must at aU
events put an end to certain rationaHstic explanations as to the
gradual effect of early impressions and the mUder views derived
from a GamaHel ; but yet, in this very Pharisaism, joined to the
conscientiousness of his zeal and the force of his character, is
found the great subjective force which explains so entire and
sudden a transformation in his views and life. To this, however,
must be added the objective impulse of the most potent agency
employed Hi his conversion, when, being actuaUy engaged in the
work of persecution, he was at once convinced of the fact of the
resurrection of Jesus, partly by a material and perceptible pheno
menon, and partly by inward enHghtening.
The pecuHar course of his conversion and caUing is, moreover,
the prime mover in the special character of his ministry, and the
principles which guided him Hi it. The sharper the line of dis
tinction between his two states of mind, — the law, and faith inl
Jesus, — and the shorter the interval ot time that divided them/
V

306 THE LIFE OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
the more forcibly must the contrast between them have struck
him. They stand opposed as night and day (2 Cor. iv. 6 ; Rom.
xHi. 12 ; 1 Thess. v. 5), and were henceforth contrasted in his
mind like death and Hfe. To the rest of the apostles, too, Chris
tianity seemed to be a new IKe, but yet distinguished only to a
certain extent from their former views. But to Paul this dis
tinction became a perfect contrariety. Thus was formed his
conception of Christianity, which may be divided into two
propositions : (1.) That salvation is to be found only in the
gospel in Jesus Christ, and not in the law ; in faith alone, and
not in works of the law — for Paul's condition under the law now
seemed to him to be a state of darkness and death. He was,
therefore, the more decided that the law, even at its best, could
not avaU to lead to righteousness in God's sight and to true hfe,
much less to a knowledge of sin and its misery ; and that the
very aim and signification of Christ and His redemption was that
which the law could not satisfactorUy effect. Compare the whole
purport of the Epistles to the Galatians, Romans, and PhiHppians.
The life, the depth of perception, and the fervour with which, in
Rom. vii, Paul describes the whole position — the striving and
wrestlings, and yet the impotence — of one under the law, warrant
us in beHeving that he there gives his own personal experience ;
and we are also shown how much the fundamental principle of
his teaching was bound up with the actual nature of his conver
sion. (2.) The second proposition, connected with the first, is
that aU participation in the salvation in Christ is granted by
grace, so that it is intended for the GentUes no less than for the
Jews. This was a simple conclusion from the former proposition,
and must have been speciaUy impressed upon the apostle's mind
by his own experience. He had been a persecutor, and his own
conversion must have been an evident proof to him of the un
deserved grace of the God who called him, apart from any claim
on his part (1 Tim. i. 13-16); therein was rooted his view of
the complete freedom of this grace (1 Cor. i 26-29 ; Tit. Hi. 5 f. ;
Rom. ix. 10). But this was also the groundwork of his view as
to the caUing of the Gentiles. To his mind, any idea of his pre
eminence over the Gentiles was psychologicaUy impossible: aU
distinction between them disappeared in the strong feeHng of
man's common sinfulness (Rom. iii 5 ; Gal. Hi 22). AU that
Saul the Pharisee had deemed to be high advantage and honour

DIV. I. § 49.] SHAPING OF THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY. 307
was now as nothing Hi PauVs eyes (Phil. iH. 4-7). His whole
view was based upon the consciousness afforded him in his con
version ; and from this sprang his whole line of teaching as to
sin and grace.
His actual ministry was in entire harmony with the peculiar
principle of his way of looking at the gospel. He preached the
gospel to the GentUes, so that communities were formed of
Gentile Christians, which were to be endowed with aU the privi
leges of theH Jewish brethren, — he himseK, indeed, chiefly con
sidering himself to be the apostle of the GentUes. We are not
able to foUow out accurately the traces of his ministry during the
earhest years after his conversion. According to the Epistle to
the Galatians, he first abode in Arabia, and thence returning to
Damascus, visited Jerusalem about three years after, where, how
ever, he made but a short sojourn. The Acts of the Apostles
omits the stay in Arabia, relating only that after many days,
ifpepai luavai (Acts ix. 23), Paul was threatened in Damascus by
the Jews (2 Cor. xi. 52), and that the journey to Jerusalem im
mediately foUowed. It has been thought strange, but incorrectly
so, that the Acts of the Apostles is entirely sUent as to the
sojourn in Arabia. Looking at the decided and active character
of Paul, it is certainly improbable that this interval was employed
in mere meditation and the formation of his views. But he
himseK does not speak of any active ministry or its results. If,
therefore, Luke was unacquainted with the detaUs, he might very
naturaUy in his brief narration include this period in the sojourn
at Damascus ; for his aim simply was to show, in the face of
the Jewish enmity against Paul, that the latter did not separate
himseK from the ancient community with any hostile feeHngs.
Paul on the other hand, having a different end in view, might,
by the mention of this sojourn and the interval of time it in
volves, bring prominently forward his independence of the other
apostles. There is no unhistorical discrepancy between the Acts
and the Epistle to the Galatians, in the fact that the former
represents Paul as preaching the gospel not only to the GentUes
but to the Jews also, and, indeed, always to the Jews first ; also
that, when among heathen nations and in their cities, he always
first visited the Jews' synagogue, and there first spoke to the
Gentiles who might frequent it. Indeed, this Hne of conduct
appears from his epistles to have been a principle with him ; for

308 THE LIFE OF THE APOSTLES. [PART IL
in his idea the gospel was intended for aU men, but yet first
and chiefly for the Jews, inasmuch as the latter possessed the
promise, and by it were prepared for the gospel (cf. Rom. i 16,
and chs. ix., xi.). The GentUes, as the wUd twig, must be grafted
on to the exceUent oHve-tree of the theocratic nation ; and Israel's
existing stubbornness does not do away with theH original calL
Thus, his words in Rom. xv. are in entire harmony with the
fundamental ideas contained in the Epistle to the Romans. Be
sides, with respect to the relation to the law, he lays it down as
his principle to be " aU things to aU men" (1 Cor. ix. 20 f. ),
in which, on the one hand, an accommodation to the Jewish
customs is expressed, and, on the other, a free Hne of conduct in
independence of the law. Both are contained in his two-sided
view of the relation of the old covenant to the gospel ; the latter
being, on the one hand, identical with the former, on the other,
something essentiaUy new. If a stress be laid on one side only,
not only may a contradiction result between the Acts and the
PauHne epistles, but even between individual portions of the
latter. But let both sides be comprehended together, as Paul
himseK laid them down, and they wUl be found to harmonize
readUy in his Hfe, in his independence and brotherly relationship
to the ancient community. In Jerusalem, Barnabas now com
menced his intercourse with Paul ; but the animosity of the Jews
against the apostate aUowing him no lengthened sojourn there,
the brethren sent him by Caesarea to Tarsus. Here, in his CUician
home, he doubtless founded GentUe churches (cf. Acts xv. 23, 41);
for Barnabas appears to aHeady know of him as a teacher of the
GentUes, as he fetches him thence to Antioch. Here, in the city
which was now the metropoHs of GentUe Christianity, that which
Jerusalem had been during the earHer stages of development, —
where, too, the GentUes first appHed the world-renowned name
Xptariavoi to those who had before caUed themselves paBnrdv,
dBeX<f>ovv, or iriaTevovTav, but had received from the Jews the
contemptuous designation of Nazarene, — here, in Antioch, Paul
worked with Barnabas for a whole year, and henceforth becomes
the hero of the history of the apostoHcal Church. He next
undertook, with Barnabas, a journey (mentioned Acts xi 30)
to Jerusalem, to convey the contribution sent thither during the
time of famine. After this one year's ministry foUow his great
mission-journeys into Gentile countries, three journeys being

DIV. I. § 49.] SHAPING OF THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY. 309
enumerated. According to Acts xHi, Paul set out upon the
first of these from Antioch in company with Barnabas and John
Mark (who, however, returned to Jerusalem from Pamphylia).
They journeyed through Seleucia, Cyprus, Paphos, Antioch in
Pisidia, Iconium, Lystra, and Derbe ; thence through Lystra, etc.,
back to Antioch, where he again remained quiet some time (?).
In the meantime, the important controversies arose which led him
to Jerusalem (Acts xv.), whence with SUas and Judas he again
returned to AntiocH Soon after (cH xv. 3 6), he started thence
on his second long journey with SUas to Lystra, and, with Timothy
accompanying him, to Troas, when Luke also appears to have
traveUed with him, and so on to Europe, through Samothracia to
PhUippi and Thessalonica. Paul's companions remaining here,
he went on to Athens and Corinth, whence, after a year and a
haKs sojourn, he again returned through Ephesus and Syria to
Jerusalem. Not long after, he commenced his thHd great mission-
journey to Galatia, Phrygia, and Ephesus. At the latter place,
where he remained two years, he wrote his first Epistle to the
Corinthians. He then travelled into Macedonia and Greece,
where he abode three months, and then through Macedonia and
PhUippi to Troas, Mitylene, Tyre, and Jerusalem at the time of
the feast. In Jerusalem he was made a prisoner, and was
detained for two years at Caesarea, and afterwards at Rome, at
least for a length of time sufficient to realize the wish he had
expressed in his Epistle to the Romans Hi reference to the
Church there. At this point his history in the Acts of the
Apostles comes to a close.
Paul's ministry was thus the means of estabhshing Christianity
in Syria and Asia Minor, in Greece, and as far as IUyria, — indeed,
in the world-renowned city of Rome itseK. And it was so estab
lished that, especiaUy in the cities, the centres of intercourse for
a whole province, mother churches were founded. But yet aU
this was only the external aspect of his vocation. Whilst the
gospel was being carried to the Gentiles, his efforts tended to
maintain the inward unity of the Church, — the Hving bond of
union between the Gentile and Jewish communities, — so that no
irreconcUable opposition should be estabHshed between them, but
that Christianity should be developed in aU its peculiarity and
unity. In this, too, Paul took the lead of aU the others, although
he had the most distinguished of the apostles as his feUow-

310 THE LIFE OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
workers. It was pre-eminently his great task to bring together
the universal and historical character of Christianity in a Hving
unity. For this the chief requisite was that the metropoHs of
Gentile Christianity, which was forming in Antioch, should be
placed in connection with the mother Church at Jerusalem. Paul
assisted in this object, by promoting the contributions of the Gen
tUe Christians to the poor brethren in Jerusalem (Acts xi. 27),
— a measure which he subsequently treated as a regular practice
(Gal. ii. 10 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 1 ff. ; 2 Cor. viH., and ix. 12). This was
not only a question of outward support, but also of a Unking to
gether of the churches, and of a feUowship in faith. The great
contrariety in rehgious views, which was now developed, is noticed
Hi the Pauline epistles, especiaUy that to the Galatians ; and the
author of the Acts of the Apostles, however much his aim was to
represent the unity of PauHne and Jewish Christianity, in no way
bHnks the fact. On the contrary, he shows how, in Antioch,
under the influence of the Church of Jerusalem, this contrariety
broke out into open controversy, so that it was to be feared that,
between the two churches, something Hke hostUity might arise.
The important fact that the originators of the Gentile Church at
Antioch came from Jerusalem, constituted an indissoluble bond
of union, which was of essential support to Paul. But the more
strictly disposed Jewish Christians at Jerusalem had merely
acknowledged this Church as a fact, and were, indeed, only led
by facts to this bare acknowledgment. They now saw this fad
growing up into gigantic proportions, and yet theH inward scruples
were not overcome nor even sUenced, and they were compeUed to
fear that they should see the old mother Church surpassed by this
GentUe community A reaction then necessarUy set in, which
was headed by zealots, some of whom were vehement and some
anxious as to the result. The fit moment seemed to have arrived
for coming to a thorough understanding, and thus obviating any
schism. Events now foUowed in quick succession Certain
Christians came from Judea to Antioch, and required that, the
GentUe Christians should be cHcumcised, as a condition of sal
vation (Acts xv. 1). These were men who had been Pharisees,
and now, as Christians, desHed to retain aU the Pharisaical prin
ciples as to the law. Paul and Barnabas most decidedly opposed
these views. Nothing of the kind had been hitherto expected
from the GentUes ; and now the requisition did not proceed either

DIV. I. § 49.] SHAPING OF THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY. 311
from the apostles themselves, or from the mass of Jewish Christians
generaUy, but from a certain extreme party among them. This
entirely agrees with the designation which Paul appHes to these
people (GaL H. 4, Bid tovv irapeiad/CTovv ifrevBaBeXfovv) ; and aU
that he says Hi this passage is in fuU harmony with the Acts of
the Apostles. But the matter in question, now that it was openly
brought forward, needed a thorough settlement, so that the pUlars
of the Church, acknowledged as such on both sides, might come
to an understanding with Paul and Barnabas as to the negation
of this Pharisaico-Christian principle. It was therefore resolved
in Antioch to send delegates to Jerusalem with this end in view.
This conclusion may have been mainly brought about by Paul's
airoKaXvyjnv (mentioned Gal. H), and the consequent modification
of his opinions. Of that which took place in Jerusalem we have
a double account, in Acts xv. 6-29 and Gal H. 1-10 ; for it may
be assumed as settled that Paul's two journeys to Jerusalem are
identical. Whether the fourteen years be reckoned from his first
visit to Jerusalem or from the date of his conversion, in either
case he had exercised his GentUe apostleship more than ten
years when this question arose. According to the Acts, after
Paul and his companions had met with a kindly reception from
the apostles who were there, and the elders of the Church, there
first ensued a communication on the part of the delegates as to
the great things God had wrought by them. But even at this
first meeting (Acts xv. 4), which was distmct from the subsequent
pubHc assembly, and was of a more private character, certain
Pharisaical Christians expressed the same opinions which had
been propounded in Antioch. This led to the caUing of a formal
public assembly of the heads of the Church (ver. 6, oi diroaToXoi
ml ol irpeaBvrepoi avvr)yBr)aav). The historian does not conceal
from us that this meeting from the first was a stormy one, and
contrary opinions were rudely opposed to one another. But
Peter's speech was of a concUiatory character, and first of aU led
the zealots to feel that it was through the dispensation of God, as
they indeed knew, that the gospel had proved so effectual to the
GentUes and that the latter had become beHevers, the testimony
of the gKt of the Holy Spirit confirming God's wUl as to their
acceptance. He reverted also to the standpoint which the Church
at Jerusalem had taken with regard to the conversion of the
GentUes, even before the agency of the Apostle Paul This had,

312 THE LIFE OF THE APOSTLES. [PART IL
at aU events, the effect of tranquiUizing and enKghtening the con
fusion of the controversy, so that the historical account given by
Paul and Barnabas was calmly listened to. The decision itself
was brought on by James, who in all points enjoyed the highest
authority among the Jewish Christian party (GaL ii. 12), on
account of his Hving Hi strict conformity to the law. He, naming
Peter by his Hebrew name Simeon, in the first place pointed to
the prophecies of the old covenant, which speak of the adoption
of the GentUes into the theocracy ; but, for the decision of the
matter itself, makes a concUiatory proposal, that the fulfilment of
the statutory law of the Old Testament should not be imposed
upon the Jewish Christians, and that salvation should not be
made dependent on this, but on the grace of God in Christ, and
faith in Him alone. But in order to facUitate the feUowship of
the Jewish and GentUe Christians in daUy Hfe, the latter must
take a step to meet the former. It was difficult for the Jews to
look upon a GentUe as pure, and especiaUy a Gentile Christian,
unless he renounced everything which belonged to or even caUed
to mind the worship of idols, as both GentUes and Jews were
very apt to bring along with them into Christianity much that
was connected with then former Hfe. The GentUe Christians
were therefore to keep the so-caUed Noachian commandments,
which, indeed, were considered to be addressed to aU nations, and
to abstain from poUutions of idols, things strangled, and blood,
and also from iropvela. It has seemed rather a difficult question
how the latter point comes to be mentioned in this connection.
But it must be understood here as referring to customs which had
become estabHshed among heathen nations ; so that, on going over
to Christianity, the fuU idea of chastity was not entertained, as, for
thousands of years, this sensual pleasure had been looked upon not
merely as an adiaphoron, but even as something praiseworthy, and
to a certain extent connected with worship. The Jewish law had
a far higher idea of chastity, which, however, did not attain to
the dignity and purity of the Christian view. In any case, the
matter in question here was a certain participation in idolatrous
worship, and the customs connected therewitH This proposal
was no doubt a very wise one. It held fast to the principles of
the gospel, and, without burdening the conscience, facUitated the
outward feUowship between the two parties, thus opening out the
way for their inward blending. Paul, too, need feel no scruple

DIV. I. § 49.] SHAPING OF THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY. 313
Hi accepting the proposition; for the iropvela was of course
entirely opposed to the Christian standpoint, and the other matters
were no real hindrance to the GentUe Christians. He himseK
looked upon it as a bounden duty to show every indulgence to
his weaker feUow-Christians (Rom. xiv. 13; 1 Cor. x. 23 ff.) ;
and as to eating of meat offered to idols, he expresses himseK
very decisively (1 Cor. viH. and x.).
After this proposal was resolved upon, a letter to the same
effect was written to the Church of Antioch ; and the whole com
munity rejoiced at this solution of the matter. Paul's account in
the Epistle to the Galatians is in entire harmony with this narra
tive. He, indeed, does not mention the public assembly and con
sultation, but he relates how he and Barnabas came to Jerusalem
about this question, and that there the fundamental truth of his
persuasion of the gospel was not attacked, but that, on the con
trary, the chief apostles gave to them the right hand of feUow
ship ; also, that cHcumcision and the observance of the Mosaic
law was not required from the GentUe Christians ; and that his
caU to be an apostle to the GentUes was recognised as a settled
matter in full brotherly union. The fact of Paul's being attacked
by false brethren, and nevertheless acknowledged by the most
distinguished apostles, was, as regarded his teaching, the most
striking confirmation of his apostoHc independence. This, there
fore, was what he had to lay the stress upon in his account ; and
in the epistle might naturaUy content himseK with stating no
more than bore upon the relation which was brought about in his
private negotiation with the apostles, and the result of it, which
foUowed in the pubHc assembly. Luke, on the other hand, was
bound to narrate the convention of the apostles, and, as an his
torian, to give an accurate account of the course of development
of the Church generaUy. And although he does not touch upon
the promise of contributions for the poor Jewish Christians
(Gal ii. 10), stiU in other places he makes quite sufficient men
tion of this part of Paul's ministry. Neither does the subsequent
conduct of Peter at Antioch (Gal. H. 11) at aU mUitate with the
way in which he is made to appear on this occasion by the Acts
of the Apostles. For although he does not appear there to have
acted according to his former principles, stUl Paul clearly enough
expresses that it was not because he held a different opinion.
On the contrary, his conduct seems to have been an accommoda-

314 THE LIFE OF THE APOSTLES. [PART IL
tion of principle to the strict Jews, which Paul characterizes by
the strong terms viroaTeXXeiv and virbicpiaiv, as being in opposi
tion to Peter's own convictions, — a line of conduct in which he
must have perceived the great injustice he was committing against
the GentUe Christians and the truth of the gospel itself, which;
too, was all the more dangerous, as by his example others, as
Barnabas, were led away. In Paul's address to Peter (GaL ii
14—16), he evidently treats the latter as one who had previously
held different views ; and on this account Peter could not answer
him. But, notwithstanding the apostles' decree, and its acceptance at
Antioch, and also the fact that Paul on every occasion exhorted
to this course of action (Acts xvi. 4 ; Rom. xiv. ; 1 Cor. vin. and
x.), the contest assuredly was not yet concluded. Thus, indeed,
it is represented in the Acts of the Apostles. When Paul, years
after, again came to Jerusalem (Acts xxi), we see how great the
division stiU was between the Gentile and Jewish Christians. It
was not now desHed that the former should observe the law ; but
the question had reached a new stage, and the Jewish Christians
thought that Paul outwardly taught the latter that they were
no longer to keep it. This, however, was insufferable to them ;
for the law, to the Jews of that time, stiU continued a matter of
conscience ; and, consequently, the excitement was stiU great in
the Jewish community. The reaction would be aU the more
likely to break out again ; because, looking at the great increase
of the Church, even among the Jews (Acts xxi. 20), there were
certainly many only superficially affected by Christianity, who
had only outwardly changed the hope of the expected Messiah
for faith in the Messiahship of Jesus, and therefore might readfly
be led away by the spirit of Pharisaical zeaL But even in the
churches which Paul himself founded he must have seen that the
same seed was sown ; indeed, in the Galatian Church, the reaction
of these kukoI epydrai was enabled to make head so powerfuUy,
that they also desHed that the GentUe Christians should be cir
cumcised. In Corinth, too, his apostoHcal authority was attacked
on this point, and he was compelled to vindicate it in his epistles.
In Rome itseK, he had to oppose the view that salvation resulted
from the righteousness of the law. The same appearances are
evident at PhUippi The Jewish Christians were certain to be
again stirred up, so long as they lived together amid the holy

DIV. I. § 49. ., SHAPING OF THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY. 31 5
places with the Jews themselves, who looked upon Paul as a
blasphemer of the law. Only the destruction of the city and the
doing away of the temple could overcome this opposition. And
yet, through aU this, Paul did not waver, either in his great prin
ciples of gospel freedom, or in the noble mildness and amicable
toleration of" his conduct, condescending to their weakness when
ever it was possible (Acts xxi. 26). Like a rock in a tempest,
he stood amid the fermenting elements, certain of his victory.
Thus far we are led by the records of the New Testament
history of the apostoHcal period. In the rest of the Hterature of
the New Testament, especiaUy the writings of John, we get but a
glimpse of a fourth stage of development in the Christian com
munity. But it is certain that we are thereby transferred to a
standpoint, in which the contest appears to have ceased, and the
opposition between the Jewish and GentUe Christians to have
been obviated. We here find the fact acknowledged as an undis
puted certainty, that the law only came by Moses, and that grace
and truth came by Jesus Christ ; that the old covenant was, in
deed, a divine preparation, but that Christianity was something
essentiaUy new. As the Epistle to the Hebrews so constantly
refers to the Old Testament form of worship, we might have ex
pected to find some hint that aU this worship had come to an
end. The fact that no such hint exists has been made use of to
prove that this epistle was composed before the destruction of
Jerusalem. But the fact of this event having preceded, may just
as weU have suggested to the author to show that, although the
law and its substance no longer existed, they were nevertheless
fulfilled in Christianity. Among the Antilegomena of the New
Testament, the second Epistle of St. Peter must, in aU critical
probabUity be placed in this later period ; and in it, too, we find
the reconcUiation of this opposition presupposed as a matter of
fact, and, indeed, expressly mentioned (2 Pet. Hi 15 f). If we
add to these considerations, that the tragical issue of the second
Jewish war under Hadrian, which destroyed the remnant of the
Jewish nation, must have also tended to depress the Jewish
element in the Christian Church, we shaU completely make good
the idea that the Christian community became more and more
Independent of the Jewish nationality.

316 THE LIFE OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.

III.— THE COMMENCEMENT OF OUTWARD ACTION IN
THE APOSTOLIC COMMUNITY.
§50. The Conflict of the Apostolic Church with the World.
The essence of Judaism consisted in a one-sided absorption in
the law ; and therefore it chiefly exhibited itseK, on the one
hand, in the haughty, self-righteous limitation of God's grace to
the Jewish people to the exclusion of aU other nations, and, on
the other hand, in a slavish clinging to the letter of the law,
and a stedfast adherence to all its legal statutes. And now, in
dHect opposition to aU this, Christianity presented itself as a life
common to aU, which depended upon Christ as a freer and
more Hving SpHit, designed for aU people and aU times. In the
spirit of Christianity the divine as weU as the human part of
the old covenant was acknowledged, for that spirit asserted
itseK as the fulfilment of the law and the prophets, in con
formity with the example of Jesus Himself. How severe a
conflict the Christian community had, on this account, to wage
against the reaction of Judaism, the steps of their development,
and, stUl more, the ministry of the Apostle Paul, have aHeady
shown. If we look stiU deeper into the elements with which
Christianity had to contend, we shaU find the practical Judaistic
school must be separated from those of a more contemplative and
theosophic kind. The practical school maintains itseK on its
summit of Pharisaism, and declares itself in the demand that
the GentUe Christians should be cHcumcised, and should fulfil
the Mosaic laws. This demand was not compHed with; but
this very failure, and the fact of the ministry of Paul making so
powerful an impression on the heathen, provoked those zealots
yet more, as we have aHeady seen in the Galatian transactions,
it being there shown that they even led away the GentUe Chris
tians with them in theH delusion. Those in Corinth appear to
have acted more liberally. There the Judaistic part of the com
munity divided itself into two parties, ol tov Kr)<f>a and ol tov
XpiaTov, — which last boasted, as it appears, of a closer and more
direct union with the Lord. This was perhaps on account of then
holding to James. The chief thing we know about them is only
their indirect opposition to the PauHne principles, through then
disputing the apostolic authority of Paul, as compared, at least,

DIV. I. § 50.] CONFLICT OF APOSTOLIC CHURCH WITH THE WORLD. 317
with that of the older apostles. They must have acted simUarly
at PhUippi, where the apostle contrasted with them his own
Jewish pretensions (iii. 2 ff.) ; at the same time he there had
reason to attack theH moral character. Such men had crept in,
too, at Rome, according to Rom. xvi. 17-20, where the stock of
the community, without doubt, were Jewish Christians, and
mndly Judaistic in character. We cannot conclude from the
contents of the Epistle to the Romans that cHcumcision was no
longer a matter Hi question, or go so far as to say it is not
even mentioned (cf. ch. iv.). Neither can we conclude from chs.
ix.-xi. that the Judaistic party had here generally set them
selves against all conversions from the GentUes. These chapters
are easUy interpreted, if we look upon the apostle as merely
obviating the Judaistic scruples that, owing to the actual non-
acceptance of the gospel by so many of the Jews, the Old Testa
ment promises to the people were not fulfiUed, — which amounted
to a doubt as to the Messianic character of the gospel But
certainly the Epistle to the Romans exhibits a pecuHar modi
fication of the practical Judaistic school in ch. xiv., where the
apostle distinguishes between the weak and the strong in the
community, and points those out as the weak who make dis
tinctions in their food, only eating vegetables, and even abstain
ing from wine (ver. 21). In the same way also they held to the
setting apart of days. James already represented an ascetico-
Judaistic school in Jerusalem. This school might assert itseK
with feeble timidity within the Hmits of Christianity; but it
might also combine with a theosophical and more universal view,
so that we find it very clearly distinguished from the merely
practical Judaism opposed by St. Paul in Col. ii. 16 f. These
Judaists were indeed ascetic, but not merely in the legal sense.
They shared more in the spirit of the Essenes, but at the same
time they displayed a superstitious reverence for superior spirits,
which leads to a connection with that theosophy pervading the
East, of which Essenism itself was only an offspring. AU these
forms of Jewish teaching, Christianity had to overcome. In this
process of enlightenment, all that remained of the Old Testament
was the ethical monotheism in the form of the divine manffesta-
tion, and the reference to an historical and preparative develop -
ment. /
But the spirit of the heathen world also opposed Christia/

318 THE LIFE OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
The essence of heathenism was an absorption in nature, mingled
partly with a materiaUstic unbelief and superstition, and partly
with a blunted moraHty and a seK-chosen worship. This un-
beHef had graduaUy given way to the necessity of Theism, but
with it there arose at the same time a materialistic superstition;
whilst the need felt of some elevation above mere nature had led
to an ever-extending system of magic, which, arising chiefly in
the East, especiaUy in Chaldea and Egypt, found its way even
into the very centre of the Roman empire. This heathen magic,
also, Christianity now encountered on its course of extension, and
had to overcome. Of this conflict, implied as it is in the nature
of the case, the apostoHc history gives us examples — that of the
magician Simon (Acts viH. 9-1 1) ; that of Elymas (ch. xih.
8-13) ; and, further, in ch. xix. 19 f. Magic had also mingled1
itseK with Judaism generaUy, as Josephus relates, in the form of
exorcism, and also in other shapes. The yovrev in 2 Tim. iii. 13
can only be regarded as deceivers generaUy, but, from the context,
they are without doubt deceivers in this specific signification
How, on the other hand, idolatry and deep immorality were con
nected with this heathen materialism, Paul himself has shown
(Rom. i, cf. 1 Cor. vi. 9-11; Eph. iv. 17-19). Even where
Christianity had taken root in heathen Hfe, these immoraHties
were sure always to be appearing at least in the form of tempta
tions, though not invincible temptations. If, also, in heathen
territory a custom of any evU nature had become firmly estab
lished, Christianity was not, at least at its commencement, in a
position at once to overturn the whole custom, especiaUy as the
converted heathen stUl continued to live in a state of relation to
the unconverted, and convenience stiU exercised great power over
them. The apostles themselves did not even require that the
Christians should cut themselves off from social intercourse with
unbeHevers ; for Paul supposes the case of their being invited by
them to idolatrous feasts, as well as to other meals, to which, in
general, he raises no objection (1 Cor. x. 27 ff). But it now can
easily be understood how the apostles had sometimes to fight
against the remnants of heathen usages, as is shown by the
grievous lapses dealt with in 1 Cor. v., vi, and the mention of
iropvela (Acts xv. 20), and by the general and special admoni
tions (Eph. iv. 17 ff, v. 3 ff. ; Rom. xiii. 11 ff. ; 1 Cor. x. 14 ff. ;
1 Thess. iv. 4 ff. ; 1 Pet. iv. 1 ff). We see the tendency to faU

DIV. L § 51.] CONSTITUTIONAL FORM OF APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 319
back into heathen Hbertinism especiaUy attacked in the first
Epistle of John, ch. iH, cf. v. 21, in the second Epistle of Peter,
Hi the Epistle of Jude, and in the Revelation of St. John H. 14 f,
xx. 3, 4. Antinomian tendencies could, by misrepresenting it,
link themselves on to the Pauline idealism. And as the Judaistic
zeal affected here and there even GentUe Christians, so reversely
we see converted Jewish zealots tainted with this Hbertinism
(cf. Phil. iii. 18 f . ; Rom. xvi 18; Tit. i 10-16). In other
respects, perhaps, HeUenism and heathenism presented to Chris
tianity some important points on which it would lay hold, not
only because the necessity of belief in a living world-creating
God had been awakened even among them, but also because the
very universaHty of the gospel, meeting the progress of HeUenic
civUisation, and of the national spHit of Rome, made that true in
a higher sense which rehgious syncretism was aHeady striving
after. But Christianity stiU had before it the gigantic task of
overcoming the spirit of the old times, and, through the free and
living SpHit from God, estabHshing a new world-transforming
principle. It is therefore easUy seen how, at all times, but most
especiaUy when it drew new nations into its sphere, it had a
tremendous conflict to undergo Hi that ferment, out of which
the heterogeneous elements of spiritual Hfe were to be gradually
separated. § 51. The Constitutional Form of the Apostolic Church.
In the fulfilment of its great task, it was necessary to the
Christian community to mould itseK into an organic unity by
appropriate outward forms. It is not our aim here to investigate
fuUy the history of the constitutional form of the Christian
society as we find it in the New Testament, and must Hmit our
selves to pointing out the principal features of the development.
Christianity, Hke every powerful society, spontaneously evolved
the forms of its arrangements, at the same time making use of
what historicaUy preceded it. And in the latter point it gave
the preference to the system of synagogue-teaching, as the most
appropriate basis of an organism with a mutual rehgious aim, and
for the purpose of divine worship. But while, on one hand, it
now moulded itself into established forms and prescribed functions,
seasons, and duties, yet in no way was the free scope of the spirit
of Christianity lost through these dispositions. We have to dis-

320 THE LIFE OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
tinguish two steps in the history of this development. We meet
with the first at the time of the foundation of the community
at Jerusalem, and the second at the commencement of its foreign §
extension The happy foundation of the Christian community
was owing to the fact, that Christianity could at once attain to
a high point of confederate organization, finding as it did the
necessary period of tranquiUity It may almost be said to have
been organized, from the very commencement, by the Lord Him
seK marking out the twelve as His apostles from the number of
the disciples whom He had instructed. Around these the com
munity gathered itself. They were its natural heads ; and when
the foreign operations began, theH number was sufficient to aUow
of enough being left at home for the work at Jerusalem. In
these earliest times, we find united worship to be the first want
and the first tie of the community (Acts H. 42, 46, 47) ; and,
besides, their Hfe was in many ways passed in feUowship,— in
common meals, for instance, combined with the breaking of bread.
Indeed, the society was one in outward appearance so closely
united, that at the first glance it appears to be represented as
possessing absolute community of property. But we may con
clude from the story of Ananias and Sapphira, and particularly
from the expressions Peter uses in accusing them, that it was
only a mutual aUiance for coming forward to help aU the needy.
In spirit they acknowledged aU things as common to aU (iv. 32),
but in practice they always adhered to the individual donation
of very noble, but partial and entirely free-wiU offerings. We
see this corroborated in the aim of the diaconate, and in certain
signs which we may observe in the subsequent period, as in ch
xH 12, where a house is mentioned as being the private property
of the mother of Mark, which, however, she allowed the community
to use for then common needs. At the same time, we see the
first beginnings of increasing distinctions in the life of the com
munity, which founded themselves on a natural and customary
basis. The veanepoi, veaviaicoi (Acts v. 6-10), rendered service
amongst them in outward things. Soon after this, as the com
munity grew, there arose a need for more fixed regulations. The
care of the poor, to which the apostles, occupied as they were
with the ministry, could no longer devote themselves, requHed
persons appointed expressly for it ; so they chose the deacons for
this office (Acts vi.). As the Spirit created the community, the

DIV. I. § 51.] CONSTITUTIONAL FORM OF APOSTOLIC CHURCH. 321
outward needs led to further outward organization, but always
with the retention of the spirit of Christian Hberty. The apostles
were, and always remained, the heads of the community, appointed
by the Lord HimseK; but nevertheless the Christians, by their
further organization, were not shut out from spontaneous action.
We see this in the election of the deacons (Acts vi. 2, 3) ; and
even in the completion of the apostoHc circle (ch. i 12-26) the
rest of the community took their part. A second step in the
formation of the outer IKe of the Church arises with the further
spread of Christianity. Besides the deacons, male and female, we
now find irpeaBvrepoi graduaUy set up, overseers of the com
munity, who were more and more needed, as the apostles, by the
multiplying and distance of the churches, were less able to fulfil
these duties alone. We have no account of the origin of this
office, but it must have grown out of the need for it at a very
early time, and, doubtless, foUowed the form of synagogue rule.
The apostles, as the heads appointed by the Lord HimseH, Ordained
teachers and overseers wherever they had founded a church, and
in that way provided for its continuance. The irpeaBvrepoi are
also caUed eirianoiroi ; and we find no trace in the New Testament
of a difference being at that time made between them, or that the
eiriaicoiroi had become heads over the irpeaBvTepoi.
But there was always combined with these fixed forms free
spiritual action, as we may particularly notice in the Apostle Paul's
expressions as to spiritual gifts (1 Cor. xii, xiv.). The apostles
remained undisputedly the first, but, alongside with them, the gKts
of the SpHit were aUowed to work freely in the community
(1 Cor. xH 23-31). First of aU, there were the gifts of the
word in a twofold form, in the instruction of the BiBdaKdXoi, and
the dHect outpouring of inspiration from the irpo<j>rjTai, to whose
working that more individual and seK- edifying utterance the
yXaaaaiv XaXeiv is aUied. The speakers with tongues were not
false teachers (cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 18); but disorders occurred in the
speaking with tongues, connected with the confusion of parties,
against which the apostle speaks. These gifts came into exercise
in the assembly for divine worship, where not only one, but
many Hi succession, spoke. There were other gKts besides, which
belonged to the outward dHection of the community (1 Cor. xii.
28), the KvBepvqaeiv, the avTiX^eiv, as ministers to the poor,
nurses to the sick; and gKts of extraordinary capabUity to
x

322 THE LIFE OF. THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
remedy the evils of common life, the Bwdpxiv, especiaUy the
¦^apiapara lapdrtov, — aU had reference to the IKe of unity which
they led, and were to be carried out in love. It was the task
of Christian wisdom to take care that each of these sides, the
established administration, and the free spHitual action, should
maintain its due right ; and we see in the apostoHc time that
both grew together in proportion with the Hving spirit of the
Church. Later, we see them graduaUy separate. EstabHshed
forms exhibited themselves more and more strongly, until at last
a whole system of hierarchy was founded. On the other hand,
freedom of spirit, in its one-sidedness, diverged into Montanism,
in which they set value only on direct gKts. But the apostohc
time is characterized by this harmonious concord as the earliest
stage of the development

DIV. II. § 52.] TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. 323

SECOND DIVISION.

THE TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES.
§ 52. The Apostolic Teaching in general, considered in its Unity —
its Unity in Character and Source.
We must regard the apostoHc teachmg as a teaching which has
Hfe in itseK. The apostles and apostolic teachers include them-
. selves in a participation in the new Hfe Hi Christ, and teach,
as their whole testimony shows, as those who stand established
themselves Hi the Hving truth. Only in this way can the New
Testament teaching be rightly comprehended. The fuU proof of
this must be in the whole statement of their doctrine. But, even
from a single preliminary reference, we may find, Hi a writing
where the Christian doctrines are very little unfolded, how the
author considers himself, and aU who have a share with him Hi
: Christianity, as those who are spirituaUy begotten of God through
the word of truth (Jas. i 18), — through that same word of truth
which he proclaims, and which (ver. 2 1) should be received with
out opposition, " in meekness, as the ingrafted word which is able
to save their souls." To him also who inwardly receives the
truth here taught, his soul being thereby made free, it becomes a
source of IKe in him, springing from God HimseK. This same
principle is common to aU the apostolic writings (cf. 1 Pet. i 3,
23, 25; 1 John i. 3; 1 Cor. ix. 27). On this account the
doctrine of these writings is not communicated as the individual
self-made doctrine of the apostles and apostolic writers, stiU less
as extraneous teaching derived from without, or an aggregate of
heterogeneous matter. But the Christian Hfe, as marked out
in the doctrine, is from God ; so that the doctrine itseK is also
the word of God, the power through which God caUs this new
life into existence (Jas. i 18), the power of God unto redemp
tion and unto salvation (Rom. i 16 ; Jas. i 21). The apostles,
in communicating this word, communicate it as that which has

324 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II,
aHeady confirmed in them this Hfe-giving and emancipating power,
and give the strong and Hving testimony ot then own experi
ence " in demonstration of the SpHit and of power" (1 Cor. H. 4 ;
Heb. ii. 3, 4). Thus the setting forth of Christian truth in these
New Testament writings so shapes itseK that, though testimony
is given of the truth of that which is promulgated, the real con
vincing power of the demonstration rests on harmony, presup
posed and sometimes intimated, between it and the experience-
of the reader, so that the true demonstration of the Spirit and of
power is Hmited, — that is, it comes only to those readers who are
being led in the Hfe-giving way of Christian truth. ,
The apostoHc doctrine has, according to the New Testament
writings, a common origin. In the first place, one which is his
torical, — the apostles' experimental knowledge of the appearance
and teaching of Jesus Christ. What the apostles taught in their
vocation is dHectly derived from that which Jesus Himself
taught ; but His personaHty and His history, as far as they were
witnesses of it, were no less rich sources of knowledge for them.
TheH intercourse with the Lord Himself in various circum
stances, and also the principal facts of His history, were as much
calculated as His word to afford them light on that which must
be the main subject of theH teachmg — the person and the work
of Jesus Christ. But aU He said to them on these points took
very Httle hold of them before they had been witnesses of His
whole history, untU He was taken out of their sight. That
which they witnessed was the moral school through which they
were brought to a right comprehension of the person and work of
Christ ; and therein lay their preparation for those special gifts
of the Spirit which came upon them after the Lord's ascension.
We see in the apostoHc teaching that a reference to the personal
appearance and to the words of the Lord was essential to the
apostles (John i 1 6, 1 8 ; 1 John i 1-3). They regarded them
selves as witnesses of Christ, of His life and of His sufferings
(1 Pet. v. 1 ; Heb, i 1, H. 3). When the word of truth is glorified
as the divine regenerator and deHverer (Jas. i. 18, 21), that which
was spoken by Christ Himself is necessarUy understood to form
a part of if, and, indeed, regarded as the substance of the whole.
It is true that one of the apostoHc writers, — one, indeed, who
stands pre-eminently the first in the copiousness of his teaching,
— was not a personal disciple of Jesus ; but he also refers con-

DIV. II. §52.] ITS UNITY IN CHARACTER AND SOURCE. 325
stantly to the historicaUy attested bodUy presence of Jesus Christ,
and appeals to the historical events of the Lord's Hfe as much
from the experimental knowledge which feU to his share (1 Cor.
xv. 8, cf. 11, ix. 1) as from the historical testimony of others,
which was at his command, and was set forth by him with the
greatest care (1 Cor. xv. 3-7).
But when the apostles allow us a glimpse into the source of
then knowledge, we find that they do not confine themselves to
their experimental acquaintance with the person and teaching of
Jesus, but that they also appeal to that SpHit of Christ promised
them in the fareweU discourses recorded by John (xiv.-xvii), and
subsequently imparted (Acts H.) to them ; in which SpHit they
claim to have the dHect well-spring of their teaching, and their
warrant and authority for it. That this second inner source of
knowledge is to be placed by the side of the historical, is expressly
declared by Peter in the sermon on the day of Pentecost (Acts ii,
also in 1 Pet. i 12) ; and the same shows itself if we compare
1 John i 1 ff. with H. 2 7 ; and we find the greatest stress laid on
it by St. Paul (1 Cor. ii). Here he declares part of the purport
of his doctrine to be divine wisdom, — the decree of redemption
which God ordained before the world and accompHshed in due
time, which man's wisdom could not have devised (vers. 7, 9).
The other part, the setting forth of this inner meaning, was spoken
by him in words, he tells us, not those which man's wisdom
teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth, as supereminently
spiritual, coming from God, and only to be estimated and compre
hended through the influence of the Holy Ghost (vers. 13-16).
Paul lays all the more stress on this calling, the Spirit of Jesus
Christ being pre-eminently to Mm the Spirit of revelation, through
his not having passed through the apostolic school. He declares,
therefore, most emphatically, that he received the gospel which
he preached neither from man nor through man (Gal. i 11, 12),
but that God had revealed His Son to him in his soul when He
called him out of darkness into Hght (2 Cor. iv. 6).
No one can rightly comprehend the apostoHc teaching who does
not regard it in this light, and recognise each and every apostoHc
doctrine as issuing from this standpoint of spiritual, not human,
invention and accomplishment.

326 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
S 53. Tlie Apostolical Teaching in general, considered in its
Unity — Its Unity in Purport.
The unity of the apostoHc doctrine is owing to this, that the
teaching of aU the apostles, as far as it is historicaUy declared to
us in the New Testament, has for its common subject the divine
salvation and Hfe in Jesus Christ ; and therefore treats, (1) of the
person of Jesus Christ as the Lord ; (2) of the salvation and hfe
of which He is the Author, contrasted with the destruction brought
by sin into the world ; and hence (a) of the fulfilment of the old
covenant contained in this salvation ; (b) of participation in the
same by faith in Jesus Christ through a new bHth from God;
(c) of the feUowship of this faith Hi love ; (d) of the completion of
this salvation through the final revelation of Jesus Christ.
The structure of this teaching rests on the broad and deep
foundation of the religious outlook upon the world, which is found
already rooted in the writings of the Old Testament, and, in its
New Testament potency and reaHzation, spreads itseK over the
whole surface of the New Testament writings. And therein lies
the essential harmony of the apostolic teaching with that of Jesus,
notwithstanding a noticeable difference between them, caused by
the advancing development of the work of Christ, and the variety
in theH subject, purpose, and circumstances. If we examine the
drift of those writings of St. Paul and St. John in which their
teaching is most developed, we shall find St. John's principal
subject is life in Jesus Christ ; on the one side (objectively), that
Christ is the Life (1 John i 1 ff), on the other (subjectively), that
man's life consists in feUowship with Christ (1 John v. 12).
This Hfe stands in contrast to the death which is the portion of
those men who, being out of Christ, Have their fellowship with
the world (iH. 14, v. 4). The same groundwork of thought runs
also through the Pauline writings, only that there, so far as it is
taken subjectively, Hfe is very often expressed by the negative
terms salvation (amTvpia) or redemption (Rom. i 16, x. 10, 13;
1 Cor. i 21). Peter also speaks of a acoTvpla as the goal of
faith, although now aHeady, through a living hope, life in a
new form and after a new standard belongs to the Christian
(1 Pet. i 3-12). We find the same idea in Jas. i 21, 25, H. 14.
Therefore, according to all these apostoHc writings, Christianity
is the religion of salvation through Jesus Christ. Thus these

DIV. II. § 53.] ITS UNITY IN PURPORT. 327
writings treat of the person of Christ as of the Lord, the Author
of salvation, on whom man depends for it. This is declared often
ex professo, and often it comes in casually ; and, even when the
real subject of the teaching is rather salvation and life in them
selves, the person of Jesus Christ is at least briefly recognised as
that of the Lord. Thus we find in the Epistle of James, " our
Lord" (i 1), " the Lord of glory" (ii 1), who cometh as Judge
(v. 7-9). If this only amounts to a minimum of Christology
(with which the Epistle of Jude may be compared, who in ver. 4
refers to Jesus Christ, the only Lord God, and' our Lord), we find
this subject more richly unfolded by Peter, by Paul, by the author
of the Epistle to the Hebrews, and by John.
Sometimes the doctrine of salvation and Hfe in themselves
may be very amply handled in comparison with the doctrine of
the person of Christ, and vice versa ; yet, owing to the practical
.tendency of the New Testament writings, where the first point
is the one most dUated upon, the second cannot be dismissed so
briefly as the first point is in the Epistles of James and Jude.
Questions on the foundation and nature of salvation are ever
closely connected; therefore Acts iv. 11, 12, may be considered
the theme of the apostolic teaching. In studying this, four points
come out prominently.
; Firstly, what the apostles had to announce has reference to a
foregone divine economy under the old covenant; and it was
not going out of the way to put the apostolic /cripvypa in relation
with this old covenant. This relation is pointed out in the fact
that the salvatibn and Hfe established in Christ are the fulfilment
of the old covenant. Therein is included both the inner union of
the gospel with the old covenant, and also the superiority of the
new covenant over the old, so that the new gives more than
the old, — the viroaraaiv t£>v irpaypdnov, not only the aicia (Heb.
xi. 1, cf. x. 1). Notwithstanding his slight development of doc
trine, James brings forward the connection between Christianity
and the Old Testament. Christianity, as the word of truth which
is planted in us, is caUed vopov TeXeiov 6 t?js eXevBepiav (1 25,
cf. i 18-21), or simply vopov iXevBeplav (ii. 12). As the old
covenant is a law, so also is the new; but the latter does not
appear only as a higher form of the old, but as something
which did not exist before, for the old covenant was not a law
¦of Hberty. Though he may have appealed to the Old Testament

328 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
when he describes love as the royal law (H. 8, 11, 12), and may
show a predilection for Old Testament deeds and persons, yet he
recognised as inseparable both sides of the relation between the
two Testaments, just as the James of the Acts of the Apostles
refers to the prophets in order to prove what is permitted under
the new covenant (Acts xv. 15). We find the same thing Hi
the more developed statements of Peter, not only in his earhest
apostoHcal discourses, in which, before the Jews, he was compeUed
to give his preaching a certain relation to the Old Testament, and
speciaUy to represent it as a fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy,
but also in the doctrinal statement which is given in 1 Pet. i.
10-12, H. 5-10. That which the apostles preach is the fulfil
ment of prophecy, and aU that the people of God were in the Old
Testament — the house of God and the chosen race — is and wiU
be, in the fuU sense of the word, reaHzed in Christians (cf. 2 Pet.
i 19 ff). No one can doubt that the more developed doctrinal
systems teach that the gospel surpassed the old covenant (John
i 17 ; 1 John i 2 ; GaL ii. 21, Hi. 21 ; 2 Cor. Hi.). Also the
later Pauline and the pastoral epistles express the same idea
(Eph. H. 18 ; Col. ii 16 f.; Tit. i 2). But however decidedly
this side of the question is set forth, no less so do we also find
the assertion of a real connection between the two forms of reh
gion. According to Paul, Christ and His salvation is prophesied-
and promised in the prophets (Rom. i 2 f.) .; true righteousness,
that avaUs before, and comes from, God, is not, indeed, produced
by the law, but it is " witnessed by the law and by the prophets "
(Rom. Hi. 21). The law itseK is a iraiBaymybv elv Xpiarov (GaL
iii 24), and is, therefore, by having the new covenant as its aim,
in internal connection with it. The whole course of treatment Hi
John's Gospel tends to show that the old covenant was fulfiUed in
Christ's appearance (John. i. 46) ; hence the pervading reference
to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, which is in part general,
and partly in respect to particular historical features which are
displayed in Jesus Christ. Indeed, even the characteristic utter
ance (John i 17) cannot be otherwise understood than that this
" grace and truth " stand in an inner connection with the law,
the people of Israel being designated in ver. 11 the 'IBioi of the
X070?. The Epistle to the Hebrews aims at showing forth both
the unity of, and also the characteristic difference between, the
two covenants, so that fuU salvation and the complete and per-

DIV. II. § 53.] ITS UNITY IN PURPORT. 329
feet agent of salvation is first given in the new covenant. We
thus find a characteristic mean, which is preserved throughout the
apostoHc teaching, between a doctrinal exposition which would
remove all connection between the old and new covenants, and
one which would identify the two.
However much the apostolical statements may assimUate the
Christian life to the Old Testament form of piety, and however
much this Christian Hfe may be set forth in its peculiar character,
still the apostolic teaching always declares that man can participate
in salvation only by faith in Jesus Christ, by means of a new birth
proceeding from God. As regards Paul's and John's writings, we
need no special proof on this point; cf. for example, Rom. i
16 f; John xx. 31; 1 John v. 11. Even in Peter we find
faith declared to be that on which salvation depends ; and it is
shown to be the Christian's duty to beHeve in Christ even without
seeing Him (1 Pet. i 5-9). This faith also involves a faith Hi
God the Father (1 Pet. i 21) ; and Christians, as true members of
God's famUy, are styled believers (H. 7-1 0). James takes faith as
his subject throughout his whole epistle ; but he demands the
verification of faith. This faith is a faith in Jesus Christ the
Lord of glory (H. 1) ; and the question is, whether and how far
this faith can save a man (H. 14-26). There is no doubt but
that a participation in the salvation and Hfe of Christ depends
upon faith, faith being effectual and perfected in works (ii. 22) ;
but stiU the point is discussed as to the relation between faith
and works. The apostles, likewise, all agree that a participation
in salvation is brought about by faith as a new life from God, or
that faith is brought about by a new birth from God ; and that,
consequently, a new principle of Hfe has penetrated the personal
hfe of the Christian, by his entering by faith into a feUowship
with Jesus Christ (cf. 1 John iH. 9 ; Gal. Hi. 21-28, vi. 15 ;
Rom. vi. 11; Tit. Hi. 5 ; 1 Pet. i. 3, 22, 23, ii. 2 ff. ; Jas. i
18). Consequently that which brings salvation is neither a
merely historical faith in Jesus of Nazareth, nor moral works of
man in themselves, nor a new IKe from God without the feUow
ship with Jesus Christ, the latter depending on faith.
AU the apostoHcal writings set forth the fellowship of believers
in love, and this is done with a certain necessity ; for K, in faith
in Christ, the new principle of Hfe becomes an actual new IKe,
an essentially new bond of union is formed between all believers,

330 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
the bond of community Hi love, which is rooted in this new
Hfe. For this reason, therefore, and also on material grounds,
the apostles were compeUed to lay a stress on this feUowship;
For the more this new Hfe severed beHevers from the rest of the
world, the more necessary was it in every point of view to found
a positive community based on the fellowship in the new Hfe.
This point is most copiously dwelt on in Paul's writings, the idea
of this feUowship being in them more exactly developed as a
Church. The organic, mutual connection of beHevers is often
described by the figure of a body or a temple. John has laid
down with the utmost emphasis that this community is to be
framed in love. And in Peter, also, this doctrine is significantly
set forth (1 Pet. H. 4-10), for both the inward disposition and
the outward arrangement of this feUowship are made the sub
jects of his teaching (1 Pet. i 22, Hi. 8 ff, iv. 8 ff, v. 1 ff.).
James also gives a prominent place to the idea of, the feUowship
of believers Hi love, and desHes that every outward distinction
should be done away with in the unity of the new Hfe (Jas. i 9,
H, v. 1 ff.) — taking notice, however, of certain divisions into
ranks among the members of the Christian community (Jas. v.
14, iii. 1). The Epistle to the Hebrews also recognises the
importance of this feUowship in love. This is evident from-ch.
xiH. 1 ff, and also ch. xii. 1 ff, 22-24, where this feUowship in
its highest sense, as embracing both heaven' and earth, is plainly
set forth. From ch. x. 25 and ch. xHi. we may observe how, in
the narrower sense of our earthly lowHness, this fellowship is
honoured. AU the didactic writings of the apostles speak of the consum
mation of salvation by the perfected manifestation of Jesus Christ.
However forcibly the state of salvation may be represented as
actual and characteristicaUy penetrating into worldly Hfe, it
nevertheless always appears to be only of an inchoative nature
while on earth, so that its consummation forms a subject of hope.
No one can lay a greater stress than John on the present reahty
of the divine Hfe in Christ, and yet he forcibly declares that
its perfection is only a subject of hope (1 John iii. 2 £). The
iXirlv assumes the same position in Paul (Rom. viH. 24,
v. 1 f., etc.). This consummation of salvation depends on the
perfected manifestation, or on the irapovaia of Christ (1 John
ii 28, cf. 18, Hi. 2 ; 1 Cor. i 7, xv. 23 ; 1 Thess. iv. 15 ff;

DIV. II. § 53.] ITS UNITY IN PURPORT. 331
2 Thess. i.. 3 ff. ; 1 Pet. i. 7, 13, iv. 13, cf. v. 1, 4, 10 ; Jas.
y. 7, 9, i 12, ii. 5).
These essential points of unity in the apostolic writings depend
on a religious view of the world, which was rooted in the Scrip
tures of the Old Testament, and, in its New Testament form,
forms the basis of the Scriptures of the latter. The main features
of this view are as foUows: — The world is absolutely created,
maintained, ruled, and supported by God. God manifests Him
self in the world, and is active Hi the world, but is Himself abso
lutely exalted above it. He is holy (Jas. i 13), and the sole
source of life ; hence He is good, and giveth liberally (Jas. i 5) ;
He is also love (1 John iv. 8). But the world is at enmity with God
(Jas. iv. 4), and in sin, which plainly is not from God (Jas.
i. 13), but proceeds from the world. The world is therefore un
clean, and contaminates those who are in contact with it (Jas.
i 27) ; it is subject to death (Jas. i 15), and is perishable and
transitory (Jas. i 10 f. ; 1 Pet. i 24). But, in the midst of
this perishable world, the attributes of which are shared by iraaa
aap% (1 Pet. i 24), God is active, as the Father who has begotten
mankind anew, as the first-fruits of His creatures (Jas. i 18),
and communicates a Hfe from incorruptible seed, by means of the
word of truth (1 Pet. i 23-25). Thus God, by means of His
absolute hoHness and goodness, establishes in this world His ever
lasting kingdom (1 Cor. iv. 20, vi 9 f . ; Rom. v. 21, xiv. 17;
1 Pet. H 9 f, etc.). It wiU be subsequently shown that aU the
writings of the New Testament are based upon the main features
of this bibHcal view of the world, which, however, is very vari
ously developed. They are,- indeed, so much a matter presupposed,
that the apostolical teaching, in its more simple form, does not
dweU upon these points with a view of giving any special instruc
tion on them. The doctrines of Christian salvation grow out
organicaUy therefore, from a very wide field. And it may readily
be seen that, where the main points of such a rehgious view of
the world were acknowledged, it only required the entry of the
Saviour into the world, to enable the living plant of apostoHcal
teaching to shoot forth on such, fruitful soil
Both in the main doctrines, and also in the religious view of
the world, the teaching of the apostles agrees with that of Jesus ; for
aU the main points of the former are found in the didactic dis
courses recorded by the evangeHsts, and the view of the world is

332 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
essentiaUy the same in botL But stiU there is a difference
between them, particularly in consequence of the continuous de
velopment of Christ's work. As His work was graduaUy accom
plished, it is unmistakeable that, in the course of the Hfe of Jesus
Himself, there is a gradual advance in His testimony as to Him
seK. This is especially the case with the testimony as to His
atoning death, and the communication of the Spirit. Not until
after the conclusion of Christ's earthly appearance was His testi
mony developed into a whole ; and not until after the work of
Jesus had received its last confirmation, by the pouring out of the
Spirit from Him as a heavenly glorified Redeemer, could the
beHevers in Him enter fuUy into the feUowship of His life, and
have a clear and distinct consciousness of it. But the more the
personality of the Lord was unique in its kind, the more unique
also His mode of teaching. His richness of forms could be at
the command of Him alone ; and this richness was needed to ex-.
press the infinite purport of His consciousness, according to the
susceptibility of His hearers. But the personaHty of the Lord
also involved the utmost concentration in His comprehensive
view. Hence, in aU His many-sidedness of expression, there is
no analysis, no mere conceptions, no use of subtleties ; aU is con
crete and intuitive. This form of teaching could not pass on to
the apostles ; they were compeUed to adopt a more conceptional"
and argumentative Hne of teaching; and hence the individual
differences which aU the Ulumination by the Divine SpHit faUed
to remove. But there are other points which cause a distinction between
the teaching of Christ and that of the apostles, namely, the differ
ence in aim, Hi the men addressed, and in the cHcumstances
generaUy. The apostles often found tiiemselves confronted with
communities in whom conviction might be presupposed ; but they
also had to do with Gentiles of very varied national culture.
GeneraUy speaking, the people to whom the apostles wrote were
of different kinds ; and therefore the aim differed in each indivi
dual epistle, varying according to the manifold modifications of
temporal and local cHcumstances. AU these things were other
wise in the didactic expositions of our Lord ; for, although He
never was in a position to foUow a purely objective course of
teaching, being always actuated by a distinct purpose in respect
to men, time, or cHcumstances, stiU His teaching, on account of

DIV. II. §54.] DIFFERENCES THEREIN— GENERALLY. 333
its limitation to the Jews, was throughout different from that of
the apostles. And yet, if the teaching of the Lord is compared
with that of His disciples, there is more cause for wonder at the
harmony than at the difference between them.
§ 54. The Apostolic Teaching in general, considered with respect
to the Bifferences therein — The Bifferences generally.
Proceeding even on the dogmatic idea of inspiration, we can
not be surprised that the personalities of the apostles caused differ
ences in theH teaching. For, in those inspHed or Uluminated by
the Spirit of God, the pecuHarity of individualism is not removed,
although purified and transformed. StiU less could any external
rule, or a mere concert among the apostles themselves, fetter the
freedom of the Hving spirit. The more manifold the opposition
to Christianity, and the more numerous the needs which its first
preaching had to meet, the greater the necessity for a variety in
their unity. As it was of the highest importance for the Church
that the historical appearance of the Saviour should be recorded
by several authors and not merely by one, so is it also a feature
in the New Testament canon, intended for aU times, that the
apostolical teaching should be- set forth by various men, aU
equaUy fitted both by calHng and position. The more surely the
destination of the gospel was universal in its aim, the more suit
able to this aim was a didactic system which proceeded from
various points of view, and, from the very beginning, was calcu
lated to meet various needs, being subject to a variety of personal
colouring. If, in the original apostoHc teaching, this manffold
variety had not existed, there would have been a danger of a one
sided view being taken, which might have hindered an energetic
development of Christian doctrine, not merely for the eariiest
period, but even for aU time to come. Thus, then, the differences
in the apostolical teaching are of that kind that they do not
refer merely to detaUs, but extend to the whole of the doctrine,
so, however, that they all keep within a certain mean, which was
no less original than weU adapted to preserve the whole teaching
from degeneration
But, although these differences do not refer merely to detaUs,
neither is the aggregate of apostoHc teaching composed of hetero
geneous elements without any mutual characteristics, nor are
these elements so simUar, that only a few detaUs are variously

334 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART IL
framed, so that the whole presents no diversified points of view.
In seeking for the grounds of difference in the apostolical teachmg,
we must look for them within Christianity, and in the circle of the
apostles themselves ; and, on the other hand, the mean to which the
apostoHcal teaching kept is both original and conservative. It is
original, because, having made itself manKest among the apostles
in the apostoHc age, at unquestionable historical dates, it was not
the result of a long course of ferment and disunion, by which
a middle view would perhaps be arrived at. With regard to this,
however, we must of course exercise an impartial interpretation.
This original apostoHcal mean is also essentiaUy conservative ; for,
so long as it was maintained, the teaching was preserved from those
extremes which existed among the Ebionites, the Marcionites, and
the school of the Gnostics generaUy. Thus the various statements
of apostolical doctrine form links Hi a weU-connected chain, and
tend to confirm one another as a multipHcity of witnesses and
testimony for the one great system of apostoHc truth.
§55. The Apostolical Teaching in general, considered with respect
to the Bifferences therein — The Particular Fundamental Forms.
In considering the actuating power which, being involved in
Christianity itseK, produces these differences in the development
of Christian teaching, we must necessarUy regard this power as
being that special element of Christian truth and the centre-point"
of Christian teaching, namely, the doctrine of Christ's appearance
as the fulfilment of the old covenant. The further development,
both of the teaching as to Christ, and also of that as to salvation,
were dependent on the way in which their relation to the old
covenant was looked at. The idea of fulfilment involves two points
—the connection between the two covenants, and the former being
surpassed by the latter. The extreme view, in which only one
or the other of these two points were maintained, did not exist
within the apostolic circle. In the latter, the difference was a
quantitative one ; and from a greater stress being laid on one or
the other point, arose the two fundamental forms of apostolical
teaching, which therefore are distinct in their character, but yet
such as would avoid any rupture in the apostoHcal Church.
The first fundamental form of teaching lays a greater stress on
the unity of Christianity with the old covenant. In this two points
are involved — the law, and prophecy : the first, as the divine

DIV. II. § 55.] DIFFERENCES THEREIN— FUNDAMENTAL FORMS. 335
wUl actuaUy conveyed ; and the second, pointing to the future as
a Hving, continuous development of the provisional divine counseL
Hence arises a twofold type of this fundamental form: James
taking as his principle that the Old Testament is to be taken as
law, and that the gospel is therefore a perfected and fulfiUed law ;
on the other hand, we find that Peter represents the gospel as
the fulfilment of Old Testament promise and prophecy although
the idea of the fulfilment of the Old Testament law in Christ is
not disregarded. The two views are manifestly not accidental,
because they pervade the whole of their didactic expositions,
and are involved Hi the essence of the subject. In the first
type, Christian life appears as if freed from sin ; and from this
standpoint, therefore, we must expect a thoroughly practical expo
sition of doctrine. Christianity is the fact by which the law is
fulfiUed. In the second type, which is connected with prophecy,
this practical side is not wanting, — for the prophets teach a future
outpouring of the SpHit on aU flesh, which is tested by a practical
life in the SpHit, — but the fulfilment of prophecy wiU not rightly
make itself apparent until the prophecy of Christ is represented as
t, actuaUy fulfiUed. The appearance of Christ is therefore com-
|; prehended in all its completeness; and Christological dogma is
brought forward, in the first place, as the teaching as to the
historical appearance of the Saviour. As Hi this the practical
hfe of the Christian is presented, both the types of this first
fundamental form of apostolical teaching represent Christianity
as it is presented in Christ's appearance.
The second fundamental form of teaching has also developed
a twofold type, only the relation between them is of a different
kind. Christianity, as distinguished from the old covenant, is the
main view of this line of teaching. It cannot, therefore, adhere
to the forms of the old covenant, but must be carried out by a
positive development of the pecuHarity of tiie new covenant.
This peculiarity is redeeming grace in Christ ; therefore the teach
ing as to Christ, which in the first fundamental form was more
taken for granted, is now dwelt upon. Within the field thus
traced out, Paul, in the first place, keeps to the contrast presented
by the Old Testament law, and lays down the main proposition,
that Christianity is not a law, but the gospel of the grace of God.
But although the negative side of his teaching, viz. that man
cannot be saved by the law, is, in the first place, based on his

336 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
teachmg as to sin, stUl the positive side, that grace redeems;
must proceed on Christological ground, and the doctrine of the
redeeming agency of Christ must be carefuUy developed. In the
Pauline epistles, there are, however, ever increasing indications
of a movement towards the Christological side. The Apostle
John represents the gospel chiefly as distinguished from the old
covenant, inasmuch as it is neither law nor prophecy, but is
something more than these, comprehending aU primitive elements
in the person of Christ. John has not to contend, like Paul, for
the acknowledgment of this distinction, but appears to be in the
quiet possession of it (cf. John i 17). The distinction between
that which existed arid that which had been, is connected with
the person of the Mediator, through whom the law, and also
grace and truth, have entered' into human life. The only-
begotten Son alone hath seen God and declared Him to us (John
i 18). John can, without hindrance, carry out that to which
his Hidividuality appears to urge him, and make his teaching as
to the person of Christ both his commencing point and chief
subject; but Paul is compelled to argue on the anthropological
side. Also, Hi the last period of the apostoHcal age, a one-sided
idealism made its appearance, especiaUy as regarded the person of
Christ, manifesting itself also, as it appears, in an antinomian
tendency (cf. 1 John Hi.) : against this view John's writings
evidently desire to contend. In the form of contemplation, he
surveys the unity of the ideal and the real, of the idea and the
fact : he proceeds on the fundamental view that that which from
the beginning had been hidden Hi the Father, the faf) alasviov,
has become the subject of the most complete historical experi
ence, first of aU to the apostles (1 John i 1 ff.). John's exposi
tion ol the subject is intuitive ; that is, the elements are not
arranged and explained, and the truth is not brought to bear by
means of any dialectical line of argument. In his statement of
doctrine, we meet with grand and comprehensive ideas forming
the main facts of the pecuHar Christian consciousness, and
resting on the mam facts of the gospel.
As our result, we have, then, the apostoHcal teaching of the
New Testament Hi two fundamental shapes, each of which is
represented by a twofold type. In each case, both the internal
connection and also the internal differences are clear. This
result, therefore, is well adapted to confirm the idea that we have

DIV. II. § 55.] DIFFERENCES THEREIN— FUNDAMENTAL FORMS. 337
correctly hit upon the point in respect to which the various forms
of apostolical teachmg have been organically framed. It also
appears that the remainder of the New Testament writings, the
historical as weU as the didactic books, follow respectively these
four forms of teaching, so far as regards their didactic Christian
character. To the first fundamental form of teaching belong the
Gospels of Matthew and Mark ; and we shall have occasion to
compare James' line of teaching with the Gospel of Matthew,
although the latter also appears to point to the Petrine system.
The Gospel of Mark must be compared with the doctrinal form of
Peter. In comparing the Epistle of James with that of Jude, we
shaU find that the latter forms a transition to the Petrine system.
With the Epistle of Jude we must, however, also compare the
second Epistle of Peter, for the satisfaction of the critical question,
whether, when considered from the standpoint of New Testament
theology, this epistle is Hnked on to the Petrine system or not.
As regards the second fundamental form of teaching, we shaU have
to compare the PauHne , system with the historical books written
by Luke, and, among the didactic writings, with the Epistle to the
Hebrews, which, Hke Paul, places in the foreground the redeeming
agency of Christ, and strives and contends to prove the superi
ority of Christianity over the old covenant, but yet at the same
time takes a decided step in advance in the development of the
Christological dogma, and points so plainly to the doctrine of the
Logos, that it forms a transition to the system followed by John.
This latter Hne of teaching, which we shall have to represent as
it is laid down in the first Epistle of John and his Gospel, in
the latter, chiefly according to the portions in winch the evange
list speaks in his own name, must be compared with the Book of
Eevelation, with a view to the question of its origin when con
sidered in relation to the other writings of John.

338 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
L THE FIRST FUNDAMENTAL FORM OF THE VARIOUS
APOSTOLICAL SYSTEMS OF TEACHING;
OR, CHRISTIANITY CONSIDERED IN ITS UNITY WITH THE OLD
TESTAMENT.
I. THE APOSTOLICAL TEACHING OF JAMES.
§ 56. His Epistle.
The author of this epistle styles himseK the servant of God and
of the Lord Jesus Christ ; a designation which might, of course,
indicate an apostle, but yet expresses some wider idea, and gives
us cause to conclude that the name of James was well known in
his time as that of a man of distinction in the Church. This
James addressed a circular epistle to the twelve tribes which are
scattered abroad. It is to be understood as a matter of course,
that the author has Christians in view as those who represented
the Jewish nation in his eyes, consequently the Jewish Christians
of all tribes scattered among the nations outside Palestine.
Perhaps, however, both Jewish and Gentile Christians are meant,
who Hved dispersed in every direction.
This circular epistle has been handed down to us in our
canon, although it is placed among the dvriXeyopeva. On the
other hand, its antiquity was acknowledged without question in
the ancient Church, as, according to Eusebius, ancient authors
already appealed to it as an authority. It was evidently
made use of by Clemens Romanus (Ep. I. ad Cor. c. x.), and
portions of the Pastor of Hermas are unmistakeably based upon
passages of James' Epistle. We must, therefore, if we would
deny that the latter was composed in the apostolic ages, very
considerably reduce the antiquity of these writings, or most un
naturally assume that they were aU derived from some common
source. Added to this, the epistle has been quoted by some
of the most eminent fathers of the Church asi the work of the
Apostle James, and was received into the canon of the most
ancient Syrian translation of the New Testament, and was there
fore esteemed as canonical in the Church which was closely
connected with the Christian community at Jerusalem and with
James. On the other hand, this epistle certainly appears to
presuppose other New Testament data. It has been supposed

DIV. II. §56.] JAMES— HIS EPISTLE. 339
that elements of the PauHne epistles, as those to the Galatians
and Romans, also of the Epistle to the Hebrews1 and the first of
Peter, have been alluded to or made use of in the Epistle of
James. Now on this point caution must certainly be used.
From the nature of the contents of the epistle, it cannot be
asserted that eyerything in it was derived from general Chris
tian and Old Testament ideas without any reference to Paul ;
but it might be that it referred to some of the weU-known
PauHne dicta or mode of teaching, such as Abraham's justifica
tion by faith, of which, as Paul's teaching, many at that time
must have been aware, who were unacquainted with the epistles
either to the Galatians or Romans. But even if the analogy
with certain PauHne passages should lead us to beHeve that
these epistles had been made use of, at the most the result
would be, as indicated, indeed, by other cHcumstances, that the
Epistle of James was written not long before the destruction of
Jerusalem. There is no evident proof that in this epistle we
have the most ancient writing of the apostolic age (Schnecken-
burger). We find also in the epistle evidence of a degeneracy in
Christian communities, and, in addition, the presupposition of a
somewhat long 'existence of Jewish-Christian churches outside
Palestine. Christians were in danger, owing to their trials, of
becoming unfaithful to their beHef (ch. i 2 ff, 12), and of giving
'¦ themselves up to a dead faith, in contrast to one which mani
fested itself by works (ch. i 22 f. H.). Love had grown cold,
and in connection with this there was a pressing forward to
become teachers in the Church (ch. iii. If); a spirit of litigious-
ness had arisen, and a Hfe entirely conformed to the world
(ch. iv., v.), combined with a want of love and a violation of
true brotherly affection, by a preference given to the rich and
distinguished, forgetting that the main and essential point does
not depend on externals, but on the new Hfe begotten by God
•through His quickening word (ch. i 18). At the same time, the
Church, — which, although called awaywyr) (ch. ii. 2), is not to be
understood as the Jewish synagogue, in which these Christians
were stiU in the habit of assembling with the Jews, but as the
Church named after it, — was organized by its elders. All these
indications point to a not very early period in the apostolic age ;
but, on the other hand, not to a post-apostolic time, for circum
stances of this kind were certainly features of the Christian

340 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
community in the apostolic age (1 Cor. i and ii. ; Col H. 1 ;
1 Cor. xi. 21, vi. 2 ff, etc.).
This epistle is doubtless intended to claim as its author that
James who was for a long period at the head of the Church of
Jerusalem (Acts xii. 17, xv. 13 ff, xxi. 18), and was reckoned
by Paul as one of the pillars of the Church (Gal. H. 9), being
styled the brother of the Lord (Gal. i 19). The position of this
James with regard to Paul can be best understood from the lan
guage of Paul himseK (Gal. H. 1-14), in a passage which modern
criticism has made an unwarrantable use of, by founding on it the
theory of an irremediable dissension between the apostles. Who
ever reads this passage just as it stands, wUl see that in it James
acknowledges the independent apostolical authority of Paul, pro
fesses himseK to be a minister of the gospel in brotherly fellow
ship with him, requHing, indeed, no alteration in his teaching,
and plainly not desiring that the GentUe Christians should be
bound to keep the Mosaical law. In Acts xv. we find James
taking up a similar position ; and, in respect to the question
discussed in the Church at Jerusalem as to the relation to be
observed between the Gentile Christians and the law, he gives a
decision quite in the same spirit as that which we observe in
Gal. H. Both Hi the Epistle to the Galatians, and also in the
Acts of the Apostles, his attitude on these points appears that of
an apostolic man who comprehended Christianity essentiaUy in
its harmony with the old covenant. But for this very reason,
although he was an apostle of the Jewish Christians, and the
head of the mother Church of Jerusalem, his attitude towards
Paul was quite different from that of the Ebionite party, which
was altogether hostUely inclined towards the Gentile apostle.
The irapelaaKToi ->JrevBaBeX(bol must have unrighteously made their
way, not merely into the Gentile Christian Church of Antioch,
but also into the Christian community generaUy ; for in Gal i
Paul regards the Galatian heretics as desiring to pervert the*
Galatians from the grace of Jesus Christ into another gospel,
and expresses a curse against them. Although, in Gal. ii 12,
those who came from Jerusalem are caUed oi dirb 'Ia/aofiov, it
does not foUow that they were sent by James with an improper
purpose. Of course, they looked upon James as their chief.
But how often do we see disciples going further than their
master? Is it not, however, possible that James had a full

DIV. II. §56] JAMES— HIS EPISTLE. 341
conviction that salvation depended solely on a beHeving ap
prehension of Jesus Christ ? If it were otherwise, how could
he have given to Paul the right hand of feUowship ? It may
perhaps be assumed that James, more than Peter, considered it
proper to observe the law as a matter of theocratical piety
From Hegesippus, whose account of James shows a colouring of
Ebionite party feeHng, and from Josephus, we learn that James
was surnamed the Just on account of his strictly moral and legal
life, and that he suffered martyrdom shortly before the destruc
tion of Jerusalem.
The personaHty of James, as previously depicted, harmonizes
to a high degree with the purport and form of this epistle ; and
the arguments brought forward against its genuineness, which
are derived from its contents, setting aside any external evidence,
can be readUy refuted. EspeciaUy that (1) the epistle is wanting
Hi any individuaHty ; and (2) that the dogmatic matter points
to a later date of composition As to the first point, this epistle
cannot be said to be wanting Hi aU individuaHty, and least of
aU in those features which characterized the highly esteemed
James. Only read what has been said of this epistle by Herder1
and Kern,2 two unprejudiced and thorough students of it. The
pecuHar power of the book is, indeed, surprising to many readers,;
also the urging on to action, and the practical tendency which
does not speciaUy dwell upon dogma ; whilst, added to this, the
nature of Christianity in its practical tendency is beautifuUy and
accurately set forth as the one power which can impart a new
life from God to men, and thus save theH souls. The style is
sententious and gnome-like, with beautiful and simple imagery
derived from nature. If we compare with this epistle any of
the edifying works which we possess of the second century, how
pecuHar and forcible does the former appear ! With regard to
the second point, that the dogmatic character points to a later
age, it is said (Schwegler) that the form of Ebionitism is here so
mUd that the epistle cannot belong to the apostoHcal age. But
certainly K a zealous Ebionite is expected to be found, a mistake
is made as to the author. It has been added that no distinct
inducing cause for this epistle can anywhere be recognised, and
that the epistolary form must be mere fiction. But its aim is
1 Die Briefe zu-eier Bruder des Herrn in unsrem Canon.
* Commentar zum Brief Jacobi.

342 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART H.
in fact clear, namely, to strive against a barren Christianity, \
which admitted of a worldly life of pleasure, and useless dissen- }
sions, especiaUy also doctrinal dissensions. As regards the
external evidence, the state of the case is exaggerated K it is
asserted that there is complete sUence as to this epistle during
the first two centuries. And Credner has very justly drawn
attention to the point, that the uncertainty whether James the
brother of the Lord was an apostle or not, had exercised some
influence over the conduct of the ancient Church with respect to
James' Epistle.
The question, Whether James was an apostle or not ? is a diffi
cult one to decide. Some of the ancient testimony is in favour of
the affirmative view, and some in favour of the negative. The
usual opinion distinguishes James who was at the head of the
Church in Jerusalem, and was the author of the epistle we are
considering, who also is said to have died a violent death before
the destruction of Jerusalem, from the Apostle James, the son of
Alphseus ; so that the former was, indeed, the brother of the Lord,
but not an apostle. In modern times his apostolic dignity has
been vindicated by Wieseler and others ; but yet on various
grounds his idea is improbable. As regards, first of all, the high
estimation Hi which James was held, this belonged to a later
period of the apostolical age, at a time when the apostles as a body
no longer lived in Jerusalem, and when the somewhat late conver
sion of James (cf. John vii. 3—5) was no longer fresh in memory,
so that his high authority is easUy explicable. Added to this,
there is no doubt that the attributes of James, even if he were not
an apostle, might have obtained for him in the course of time great
authority amongst the Jewish Christians. In the first place, he
must have been for a considerable time, in daUy intercourse with
Jesus (John ii. 1 2, vii. 3, 4). If we assume that James was in
duced to become a believer by the appearance of the Risen One,
we may look upon him as identical with the James mentioned
1 Cor. xv. 7, or not. At aU events, the brethren of Jesus are ex
pressly named among the faithful after the ascension (Acts i 14),
whilst before they had been unbelievers (John vii. 5). The Lord
Himself, too, after His resurrection, appears to have sent to His
brethren (" Go teU my brethren," Matt. xxviH. 10 ; John xx. 17,
— an expression which is chosen so as not to be Hmited to the
disciples). The Judaistic opponents of Paul do not appear to

DIV. II. § 56.1 JAMES — HIS EPISTLE. 343
have requHed more than these points as the requisites for, the
apostleship (1 Cor. ix. 1) ; and no more could be needed for the
highest personal authority. If James thus became a believer, the
^importance of his earUer intercourse with the Lord would thus
increase in the eyes of other Christians, especiaUy of the later
converted ; and, looking at the material tendency of Judaism, the
bodily relationship must have had the effect of elevating him
above all non-apostles, and perhaps over the apostles themselves.
In addition, we must consider the mental, and especiaUy the
moral, personality of this James. According to all the traces to
be found of him in history, his was an exceedingly moral, power
ful, energetic character. He was a man perfect in aU things
(Jas. i 4) ; and at the same time his piety was chiefly exercised
in the Old Testament form, — a tendency which produced him high
reputation among the Jewish people. This reacted on the Chris
tian Church, which stUl shared in the temple-worship, and, under
the guidance of such a person, obtained much approval among the
yet unconverted Jews who assembled in Jerusalem for the feasts.
All this seems to announce an apostle-like authority ; but it
cannot be proved that the Jewish Christians claimed in thesi
apostolical dignity for James. Paul mentions his name before
even Peter and John ; but this priority may arise from the fact
that with the Judaizing Christians in Galatia the name of James
may, in fact, have had the greatest weight. Certainly in the
Acts of the Apostles James is not mentioned as the Lord's
brother ; two apostles named James being mentioned, one of
whom was beheaded at an early date, and of the other no details
are subsequently given. But if the Acts of the Apostles was
chiefly calculated for Jewish Christians, they must have been so
weU acquainted with the person of their James that any further
description of him was not needed. The passage Gal. i 1 9 can
be very easily explained without making out " James the Lord's
brother" to be an apostle. The supposition, that in the passages
GaL 119 and H. 9 two persons are meant, is mamfestly erroneous.
Whether James were an apostle or not, Paul expressly says that
in the apostolical time he was looked upon as one of the pillars of
the Church. His doctrinal statements in our canon are therefore,
at aU events, of high interest. James represents, also, a pecuHar
tendency which had its determined position in the organic develop
ment of apostoHcal teaching, and historicaUy coincided, without

344 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
doubt, with the position taken by the afore-mentioned James in
Jerusalem. § 5 7. The Teaching of James — The Fundamental Principle.
James proceeds upon a subjective view of Christianity, and
makes this the real subject of his statement, only referring to the
objective side occasionaUy, with the aim of more closely defining
or further developing the former. This view coincides with the
practical aim of the epistle, and is caused by the entire bent of
the author's mind, and consequently, also, by the mode in which.
he comprehended objective Christianity, and defined the idea of
God and Christ. The appropriated Christian life is the province
to which he devotes himseK, and this is made the subject of his
epistle. Subjective Christianity is represented by James, in the
first place, as, faith (ck i 3, 6—8, H. 1, 5, 14-26, v. 15).
As regards the nature of faith, it is in its inner form a con
fidence devoid of doubt (ch. i 6), " nothing wavering" (ver. 6),
excluding all weakness and double-mindedness (ver. 8). Faith
embraces in itself a moral unity and stedfastness, being attained
by means of trials. Faith is therefore essentiaUy practical, so that
it cannot be really possessed unless it is manifested in action (ch.
ii. 1 ff). It is not merely a beHeving knowledge, — for devUs also
believe in the one God, but their belief is coupled with a guilty
consciousness (H 19), — but it is a living faith which manifests
itseK (i. 3). It cannot, therefore, be separated from works with
out becoming in itself something dead (ii. 1 7, 2 6), being, on the
contrary, an active principle and impulsive power in men. The
object of this faith is, first, the one God (ii. 19), the Creator and
Lord of the world and men, who are only induced by foUy and
sin to forget their dependence on Him (iv. 13-17) " who is able
to save and to destroy," the Kvpiov, conformably to the Old Testa
ment njiT (i. 7, cf. 5, 12, iv. 15, v. 10, 11 ; on the contrary, in
v. 14, 15, Christ may be understood). He is also called Kvpiov
aa/3aa>B (v. 4), and Qeov ical irarrfp (i 27, Hi 9), as the fatherly
Creator. But the faith is also in Jesus Christ, and in Him most
decisively as the exalted and glorified Lord (i. 1, ii. 1, v. 7, 8).
This faith is, indeed, not set forth in detaU, the only point to
which prominence is given being that of the irapovaia (v. 7, 8),
in which Jesus the Kvpiov wiU appear as Judge. However
simple these features may be, it is, nevertheless, sufficiently sig-

DIV. II. § 5?.] JAMES — THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE. 345
nificant that Jesus is throughout designated as Kvpiov, and that
this Kvpiov Jesus is named in juxtaposition with God (i 1), — a
significance which is strengthened by the addition ttjv Bo^nv, since
Bo%a is the specific expression for the divine glory. The attribute
icpiTrjv also alternates between Him (v. 9) and God (iv. 1 2). The
Christology is not carried further in this epistle. Jesus is re
presented as the Judge ; but His office as Redeemer, and the facts
of His IKe, on which this office is based, are not mentioned ;
therefore the practical faith is taken for the most part as a mono
theistic faith in God.
The relation of faith to justification (H 14-26) forms the cul
minating point of the didactic element of the epistle. In this
section, justification is designated by the word BticaiovaBai (vers.
21, 24, 25), used by Paul, and also by Jesus HimseK (Luke xvHi.
14). This, however, is the only place in which James employs
the word, and it has somewhat the appearance as if he had bor
rowed it from other sources, especially as he is here evidently
endeavouring to set aside some view of the relation of faith to
justification which he did not consider to be the correct one.
The idea of justification is (in James) contained in awaai (ii. 14)
as the general designation of salvation (i 21), and is explained
(ii. 23) by Xoyl^eaBai elv Bi/caioavvnv and <f>iXov Qeov /cXrjBfjvai.
In this, 'James, like Paul (Rom. iv. 3), has referred to Gen. xv. 6,
and understands the meaning of justification to be to declare right
eous, to treat as righteous, and place in a friendly relation to God.
In this epistle justification is said to be conditional, not on
faith alone, but on works (ii. 21, 24, 25; cf. Heb. xi. 17, 31).
But when James says e'f epya>v, irlanv is not excluded. The works
are those of faith, not works simply as such. He merely opposes
the delusion that justification was conditional on bare faith which
is without works, and therefore dead (ver. 26). The epya, then,
are not works of the law, — that is, not works performed without
faith in Christ, and merely as a fulfilment of the Old Testament
law ; and the whole development of the subject shows that James
is speaking of works by which faith may manifest its vitaHty and
activity, — but they are fruits of, and not identical with faith,
although he says that no real faith can be without works. A
man cannot show faith without works, but, where works exist,
faith may be proved by them. A merely theoretical beHef with
out works is the faith of devils, not of Christians (ver. 19), — a

346 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
dead and empty faith (vers. 17, 20, 26). Whoever depends on a
faith of this kind is an avBpwirov icevov (ver. 20). Whilst James
attributes a real and Christian character to that faith only which
is efficacious, and therefore practical, he will acknowledge no
works as Christian and justifying before God but those in which
faith is shown (ver. 18), and is perfected (ver. 22). We must
not forget that, in the Epistle of James, faith is referred to Jesus
Christ in a more general and indefinite way than by St. Paul,
the death of Christ and His atoning power not being mentioned
by the former. The works which James commends are the fruits
of faith, but not identical with it ; and justification is therefore,
in his epistle, made conditional on works effected by virtue
of faith, and not on faith in itself. Paul, on the other hand,
makes justification dependent on faith alone. Nevertheless the
difference between them might be thought much greater than it
reaUy is. James and Paul entirely agree in a negative assertion,
which is, indeed, of a twofold nature. (1) As regards the legal.
standpoint of the Old Testament as maintained by the Judaists,
both say that justification is not dependent on the works of the law.
Paul developes this proposition polemicaUy ; and although James
does not actually bring it forward, the sense of it is involved in
his teaching. And also, (2) as regards a merely theoretical
Christianity, both agree in a principle which is in the first place
negative, that justification is not made conditional on a dead
faith. This is the point which James argues polemicaUy, and
Paul most decidedly opposes in intention, when he desires "a
faith which worketh by love " (Gal. v. 6). But in positive doc
trine there is a difference between Paul and James ; so that it
might be said that faith, so long as it is without works, does
justify, according to Paul, and does not justify, according to James.
But, looking at James' statements, this sharp line of distinction is
not quite a correct one. The deepest ground of difference between
them of course is, that James looks upon faith without works as
dead, and that Paul most fuUy recognises the vitaHty of faith in
itseK, before even it has produced works, — that it may be and is a
principle of life so far as it embraces Christ, and exactly so far a
condition of justification, apart from the fact whether it has been
developed in works. John also agrees with this PauHne doctrine,
most distinctly stating that faith in itself is the victory which
overcometh the world (1 John v. 4). Paul and John decidedly

DIV. II. § 57.] JAMES — THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE. 347
go back to the first principle of faith, and regard it in this position,
whflst James looks first to the Christian Hfe as it is shown forth,
in which, faith, on its appearance, immediately has operated in
some way or to some extent, and is actively engaged. James,
therefore, says that faith without works is dead, as the body with
out the soul. But this very comparison should remind us of the
necessity of not misunderstanding James. He certainly did not
intend that works were the soul and faith the body. Does he not
always revert to faith when he wants to point out what should
be done or left undone (e.g. ch. ii. 1 ff, i 3, iv. 7, 8) ? He must,
therefore, by no means be understood as meaning to imply that
God would by works only recognise the genuineness of faith ;
for to Him, the Omniscient, the true nature of faith must be
plainly evident ere it has had time to show itself in works. If,
therefore, James had been asked whether a faith, in itseK Hving,
can justify the subject, although no time were allowed for this
faith to prove itseK by works, he certainly could not have denied
it ; for his view of faith and regeneration tends to this, although
he has no occasion to give further development to the idea of
faith. He had not to do with readers who in penitence recog
nised theH guUt and moral impotence (this he desires for them,
iv. 9, 10), but with those who contented themselves with, and
boasted in, a merely theoretical, historical faith ; and, being de
void of love, and despisers of poor and lowly brethren (ii. 1 ff),
presumed to be teachers and scribes. For this reason he caUs
theH attention to the useless nature of a dead faith. Another
reason why he cannot be considered to ascribe any justifying
power to works per se may be gathered from his teaching as
to the forgiveness of sins. In the words iroXXd yap irraiopev
diravrev (Hi. 2) he acknowledges that works even of faith are
but imperfect ; also that true Christians need the forgiveness of
sins (v. 15, 16, 20); and the sins of those who have sinned to
a certain extent may be forgiven on the condition of repentance
and beHeving prayer, in the first place, the intercession of others.
The judgment which they are to expect is one of mercy (ii. 13).
AU this is, however, impHed Hi the expression Xoyi&aBai elv
BiicaioavvTjv (H. 23): man, although a sinner, wUl be looked on and
treated by God as righteous. According, therefore, to James, man
is blessed in his actions (i 25) ; but these are actions of faith.
Christianity, objectively considered, appears to James as the

348 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
law, and indeed the perfect law of Hberty (i 25, H. 12). We
have now to inquHe into the idea of this law, and its connection
with the subjective view of Christianity.
The law of liberty is the divine word, the Xoyov, which is
spoken of Hi ck i 22, 23, which was to be received by his
readers with meekness (ver. 21). It is the word which has the
power of salvation, Bvvdpevov amaai rdv i]rvxav, caUed Hi ver. 18
the word of truth. As a law, it is to him the divine rule of
human conduct. From this point of view, he represents the
Xoyov (i 22-25) as a word which man must obey in action, hi
contrast to the mere hearing (vers. 23, 24), which produces no
abiding change in conduct; and, inasmuch as the divine word
prescribes the conduct of man, it is a vbp,ov. Thus, therefore,
James here understands Christianity in its practical signification
as laying down a rule for the wiU and independent conduct of
man. But, whUe thus making it a paraUel to the Old Testament
reHgion, he also attributes to it certain distinguishing pecuHarities.
It is, in his view, the perfect law, the vopiov TeXeiov, and the vopov
rrjv eXevBeplav. James elsewhere uses the word reXeiov in the
province of morahty (i 4, Hi 2), applying it always to something
entire and complete. Christianity is the law of Hberty, in that,
through a spiritual and moral bHth, it frees from sin (i 25).
This is in fuU harmony with the utterance of Jesus, that the word
of truth sets free from the bondage of sin, and that He, the Son,
as that word, would set men free (John viii. 32-36). Whosoever
looks with desHe into this divine word, it wiU become to him the
law which wUl free him from aU his natural disposition (i. 25),
from all the ensnaring power of eiriBvplai (cf. vers. 14, 1 5). Who
ever feels this inward impulse wiU be a iroir)Tr)v epyov (i 25),
and it wiU be to him an internal, and no mere external, rule and
power, in virtue of which he wiU act wUHngly and without com
pulsion (cf. Rom. vHi, 1 Cor. Hi, where this aspect of Christianity
is emphaticaUy developed by Paul). The Rabbis have a saying,
that whoever takes upon himseK the yoke of the law is free from
the yoke of the world. The way, however, in which James fol
lows the words of Jesus renders it probable that he had His
teaching in view. He thus became conscious that God, who is
in HimseK holy, who Hi Hberal and ungrudging love is the im
parting source of aU good and perfect gKts (i 5), moraUy begets
men to a new Hfe through the word of truth, which is no longer

DIV. II. § 57.] JAMES — THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE. 349
a dead letter as regards men, but is internal, eptpvTov (i 21), and
by the spirituaUy creative power of grace is changed into a
spHitual Hfe. This conception of the practical tendency of Chris
tianity may find an explanation in James' personal character and
course of Hfe ; for James was not converted in the same way as
Paul, and had not suddenly turned with all the fire of his energy
from one side to the other. He had, on the contrary, become a
pUlar of the Church by a continued development of quiet power ;
and in him the transition from the old to the new covenant took
place perhaps almost insensibly, Hi the contemplation of the
mighty proofs of Christ's efficacy. This idea of the freedom of
Christianity has been explained by Paul, chiefly in reference to
the point that a freedom from the statutory laws of Mosaism is
therein involved (Gal. v. 1 ff, iv. 1 ff. ; Rom. vH. 1 ff). The
question now arises, whether James foUowed out the idea to this
consequence. This much, at least, is certain, that in his view
salvation (i. 21) is dependent on the renewal through God's grace
(i. 18), and that the fulfilment of the Old Testament law is not
set forth by him as the service which is pure and unblemished in
the judgment of a fatherly God, and consequently weU-pleasing to
Him ; but the service which He commands is the fulfilment of the
law of love and of inward purity (i 27), which keeps itself un
spotted from the world. He therefore describes the law of love,
of love of one's neighbour, as the royal law (H. 8), in the same
spirit Hi which Jesus (Matt, xxii.) answered the question as to
the greatest commandment. Thus he certainly did not consider
the statutory law of Moses as a condition of salvation, nor is
there any sign whatever that he required his readers to observe
it. But, whether his teaching went so far as to imply in this
eXevBepla a freedom from any obligation as regards the ceremonial
element of the law of Moses, we cannot say with certainty, taking
into consideration both his idea of eXevBepla and also the fact
that he nowhere mentions the statutory law. It might, of course,
have been the case that his readers were already zealous in fol
lowing the law, and that James intended, by his silence on the
point, merely to lead them to recognise that the true nature of
Christian piety consisted in a deeper morahty, and not in this
external observance (i 26 f.). At aU events, however, it is cer
tain that James by no means looked upon the observance of the
statutory law as essential to salvation. If this had been the case,

350 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
he must have spoken of it, especially in the face of the large
number of Pauline Christians with whom the Jewish Christians
came in contact ; and it would have been a matter of conscience
to say that the observance of the general moral law was not
sufficient, instead of merely reminding his readers of the moral
commandments of the decalogue (H. 10 f). But stiU it remains
an open question, whether he did not look upon the continuous
observance of the Mosaic usages as an obHgation laid on the
Jewish Christians, not, indeed, as a condition for salvation, but as
a means of showing their aUiance with the people of the old
covenant, and of aUuring them to faith in Jesus. Quite in har
mony with the above are the accounts in the Epistle to the
Galatians and the Acts of the Apostles, in which James is re
presented as not desiring to subject the Gentile Christians to
cHcumcision, but as, perhaps, expecting that the Jewish converts
should observe the law. According to this, the same moral
freedom was, of course, to be planted in the sinner by the word of
truth ; by means of which freedom the sinner not only henceforth
fulfils the divine wiU, but has no obligation laid on him to observe
the statutory law as necessary to his salvation, although he may
obey it from motives of piety and loyalty. James would have
pronounced this freedom of the Gentile Christians in the same
sense as Paul might accommodate himseK to the observance of
the law.
This view of objective Christianity agrees entirely with that of
the subjective side taken in this epistle. If salvation depends
on faith which manifests itseK in action, Christianity must be a
power directing this action ; and, on the other hand, if Christi
anity is a law, its operation must be the activity of faith.
Christianity is called a law in other parts of the New Testament.
We will only mention the ivToXi) (1 John H. 7, 8, Hi. 22-24),
and the vopov iriareaiv (Rom. iii. 2 7), and the vopov tov irvevparov
Tt)v farjv iv Xpiarw ,Ir)aov (Rom. viii. 2) ; but this idea is not
placed in the foreground as by James.
James also shapes his idea of God principally in its practical
aspect. In his view, God is not only the Lord, — a conception
which includes the perfect, independence of the Deity and the
perfect dependence of man, — but he also speciaUy displays His
moral attributes, partly as inherent, as the absolutely Holy One,
partly as transitive, as the God imparting Himself in absolute

DIV. II. §57.] JAMES — THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE. 351
love. He is the One Lawgiver, not merely in the Old Testament,
but also in Christianity ; and also the one Judge ; for He not only
lays down a rule of conduct, but also Himself administers this
rule. He it is, too, who is able not only to destroy, but also to
deliver and save (iv. 12, i 21); for He is both God and Father
(i. 27), the fatherly-minded Creator, in whose image man is made
(iii. 9). He is "very pitiful, and of tender mercy" (v. 11), and
is in Himself holy and unchangeably good. In Him there is no
variableness or shadow of turning (i 17), and from Him every
good and perfect gift proceeds. He "cannot be tempted with
evil, neither tempteth He any man" (i 13), but stands opposed,
indeed, to all sin. He is specially represented as begetting
Christians with the word of truth as first-fruits of His creatures
(i. 18), and choosing them, not only to be rich in faith, but also
to receive the kingdom and crown of life (ii. 5, i 12). This
practical idea of God corresponds exactly with the conception of
Christianity as the perfect law of liberty ; and the fact of the
author turning his attention more to works, the reaHzation of
the moral rule, than to faith, the principle of moral conduct, will
naturally explain the predilection shown in this epistle for
applying the idea of the law to Christianity, and that of the
Lawgiver and Judge to God. But as James adopts this mode of
defining the idea of God, it may appear strange that his epistle
does not specially set forth the bringing about of God's communi
cation of Himself through Christ, and in the Holy Spirit. It is
readily seen how indispensable the person of Christ is in our
epistle, and how highly it is placed by the author. It must be
Christ who effects the new birth through the word of truth ; but
how this is effected is not clearly stated. And even the opera
tion of this engendering by means of the Holy Spirit is not
expressly mentioned. We only notice that those are to be con
sidered as Christians in whom the Holy Spirit dwells (iv. 5;
cf. Isa. lxiii. 7-11).
The doctrines of Christ and the Holy Ghost are therefore
treated by James only as an hypothesis on which he himself
affords no developed teaching, and from which he but seldom
derives any practical motives. Thus the dogmatical development
is thrown into the background as compared with the practical.
The motives for his exhortations which are chosen by James,
are of a specially Christian character. Thus he derives them from

352 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
Christ and from the Divine Spirit. Whoever beUeves in Jesus
Christ, the Lord of glory, must love aU the brethren equaUy for
Christ's sake. In the midst of partiality and respect for persons
this faith cannot be reaUy possessed. On the closely impending
appearance of Christ as the Judge (v. 7-9) James grounds his
exhortation that Christians should be patient, and in this wait
ing hope should stabHsh themselves, and not to grudge one
agamst another. Whether the words to TeXov Kvpiov (v. 11)
refer to Christ is doubtful. He also derives his motives from
the Christian salvation. Thus he appeals to everlasting salvation
and a participation in the kingdom as promised for the future
(i. 12, ii. 5). But, even setting aside aU reference to the future,
he grounds his motives on the high dignity of Christians, in order
both to fortify believers under affliction (i 9), and also to move
them to love towards poor brethren (H. 5). He also appeals to
the BiKaioavvr) and its requisite condition (i 2 0, iii. 1 8) ; and, as
regards objective Christianity, we know that he takes it as a law
of liberty, and founds special exhortations thereon. From aU this,
we may gather that James entertained the ideas which were
pecuHar to Christianity, although he does not widely develope
them. They He in the depths of his consciousness, and aU that
is wanting is theH express and detailed statement. In other
places, however, and, indeed, exactly where James goes into
wider explanations, he derives his motives from general religious
and moral ideas, such as were entertained under the Old Testa
ment dispensation. Thus he takes as motives the physical
dependence of man on God (iv. 13 f), God as Judge (iv. 12),
and the impending judgment (v. 1— 6) ; also the true idea of the
worship of God (i 27), the Old Testament command of love to
one's neighbour (ii. 8), the innate nature of man as in the image
of God (Hi. 9), and the nature of the irrational creation (iH. 3,
11, 12). From the Old Testament, also, as instances of patience,
he takes the prophets and Job (v. 10), and EHas as an instance
of effectual prayer (v. 1 7).
§ 58. The Teaching of James — Particular Boctrines.
The teaching of James as to sin is distinguished by its deep
earnestness, just as might be expected from the practical tendency
of his epistle.
In his view, sin is individual in worldHness and opposition to

DIV. II. §58.] JAMES— PARTICULAR DOCTRINES. 353
God (iv. 4, 5). Sin — that which is to be abhorred in man — is
e)(6pa tov Qeov, and exists wherever there is love to the world.
It forms, therefore, a positive contrariety to God, and is absolutely
incompatible with the love of God as the absolutely good. This
hostiHty to God and worldliness is sin, and may exist either as
a desire or in overt action. The desires which strive in men
inwardly, either against one another, or with the better emotions
of the mind, which partly originate and partly find theH instru
ments in man's members (iv. 1, 3 ; cf. Rom. vii. 23, vi. 13), and
from the inward contest of which the incHnation to conflict and
quarreUing is outwardly shown (iv. 1), — these are desHes in which
a pleasure is taken, being assented to, nourished, and cherished
by the human will, and are aHeady so far actual sin They
annihUate the whole Christian Hfe, and are based upon an
inward enmity towards God (iv. 4). So long as man seeks to
combine the love of the world with that of God, nothing but
enmity to God wiU be attained to ; and from these desires
proceed sinful actions, as weU as sinful omissions (iv. 1 7). These
rjBoval are therefore distinguished from the iiriBvpla (i 1 5), which
appears only as a tempter from which sin proceeds, but is not
yet in itseK sin. Sin has its origin in man himself : God tempts
not to evU. And for this idea James appeals, not only to the
holiness of God, but also to the psychological origin of sin. The
activity of the free wiU is here represented under the image of an
act of generation. Sin is the mutual production of the aUuring
desHe and the assenting wilL James' doctrine of the individual
man being the free causaHty of sin, is a correct expression of the
moral consciousness in man, and must be combined with the
relation of dependence in which, in some respect, even sin
stands towards God. The New Testament, so far, agrees with
James' theory, as in the former the personal guUt of the
sinner is everywhere acknowledged and prominently set forth.
But it is, also, elsewhere in the New Testament acknow
ledged (Rom. ix. 17-19) that sin is dependent on God, — that is,
it is included Hi His counsel and plan for the world ; and that
sin is common to the whole of mankind is clearly shown by Paul
(Rom. v. 12 ff). The more forcibly this aspect of sin is premised
in other parts of the New Testament, the more important is it
that James has so prominently displayed the other. It must
not, however, be forgotten that, in the section where James does
z

354 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II,
this (i 13-15), dpapTia is actual sin, and he speaks of no other
sin. All this is fully consistent with the character of James'
teachmg. Looking as he does upon Christianity as the law of
liberty, sin is, Hi his view, the transgression of the- law, conse
quently actual sin Understanding and acknowledging the Chris
tian Hfe as a practical matter, sin is to him also of a practical
nature. Faith justifies when it is perfected in works, and sin is
first produced when the iiriBvpla fructifies, and inwardly or
outwardly is consummated. James does not here go back to
the principle, but looks upon sin as the actual transgression of
the perfect law. He does not, however, say that the IBia
eiridvpia (i 14) is something entirely without guUt: it draws
and aUures the will It may be readily seen that it appears to
him as a tempting serpent, although he does not so express it.
How deeply men, in James' view, are entangled in sin, and how
closely he approaches the idea of evU propensity, is clearly evident
from his statement that men are in need of redemption (i 21,
ii. 14, v. 20), and that they must be born again through the
word of truth, so as to belong to the first-fruits of God's creatures
(i. 18), although originaUy created in God's image (Hi. 9), from
which original condition, even in man's present state, a certain
pecuHar dignity accrues.
Another point in his teaching as to sin is, that it brings with it
death or ruin (i 15, v. 20). Qdvarov is the evil which is gene
rally united with sin, bodily death being included in the idea.
This is understood by James to be, in the first place, only the
consequence of actual sin (i 15). This ruin is connected with
the guilt ,which accompanies every sin ; and each individual sin
makes a man guilty as regards the whole law (ii. 10). The idea
of guilt is necessarUy foUowed by that of judgment (ii. 12, 13,
iv. 12, v. 12), which James so forcibly sets forth and unites with
Christ's irapovaia (v. 9). It is the law by which judgment is
broughjt about (ii 1 2) ; the one Lawgiver is also the one Judge
(iv. 12) ; and the sins of men cry to God, i.e. they provoke God's
judgment. Christ being considered as the Judge, throws a re
markable light, on the one hand, on the author's idea of the per
son of Christ, which he thus cannot but regard as in the closest
union with God ; and, on the other, on his teaching as to the
perfect law of liberty, which is identical with the redeeming word
of truth springing from Christ. Christ, therefore, is to be looked

DIV. II. § 58.] JAMES— PARTICULAR DOCTRINES. 355
upon also as the giver of the perfect law of liberty, so far as He
is regarded in unity with God.
, The idea of the common participation in sin is not, indeed, un
folded by James ; but he warns the whole body of his readers
against sin, and gives prominence to the fact that "in many
things we offend all " (iii. 2). Individuals, too, are exhorted to
confess their sins one to another, and mutuaUy to pray for one
another (v. 16). This presupposes that, as the helping out of
sin is an action common to all, so also the faUing into sin, and
the progress in it, by mutual temptation, seduction, and aggrava
tion, is a guilt participated in by all That James reaUy assumed
¦ this, is shown by his warning against sins of the tongue (iii. 2 ff).
The idea of the icoapov (iii. 6, i 27, iv. 4, H. 5) includes the
common participation in sin. For, as nature attains to any moral
relation only through its connection with the world of men, this
xoo-pov must be looked upon as representing mankind as standing
in hostile contrariety to God. But it is not in mankind only
that James recognises sin, but in the BidBoXov also (iv. 7), and in
the Baipbvia (ii. 19), who believe, indeed, that there is one God,
but manifest their alienation from God by trembHng at Him.
The devU is also represented here as tempting man to sin j for
men are required to resist him (iv. 7). All resistance to the
devil is made conditional on unreserved submission to God, who
giveth grace to the humble (iv. 6).
The transition from sin to a state of salvation is but briefly
touched upon in this epistle. When the sinner, in the <biXta tov
xoo-pov, has become an e^Bpbv tov Qeoi (iv. 4), he cannot attain
to salvation, except by turning to -the dHectly opposite principle
to that he has hitherto paid aUegiance to. This is the iiriarpoiprj,
in which even a fellow-man can assist (v. 20). The man must
ewiarpecbeaBai ix irXdvnv 6Bov avrov (ver. 19), and receive from
God meekly, and without opposition, the engrafted word, which is
able to save his soul (i 21). This conversion is a self-humilia
tion before God (iv. 6 f.), a drawing nigh to God (ver. 8), so that
the hands of the sinner are cleansed, and the heart which for
merly belonged to the world, or was divided between the world
and God, becomes purified. This, however, takes for granted
that man feels himself miserable ; and this consciousness of the
personal misery of sin will then be accompanied with mourning
and heaviness (ver. 9). This self-humUiation is the condition

356 . TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [I'ART II. .
requisite for the exaltation proceeding from God's grace (ver. 10).
Although James looks upon his readers as Christians, he requires
this penitence from them ; for among them he supposes an entire
class living in worldly lusts and arrogance, and in enmity towards
their God (iv. 4).
In James' teaching as to salvation, we shaU distinguish its
general nature, and the side which he speciaUy sets forth.
The general idea of salvation is understood by James, in har
mony with the whole of the New Testament, both negatively as
redemption^ and positively as new life. In the first place, it ap
pears negatively as redemption (H. 14), and, indeed, a&aai to?
¦yfrvxdv iic Bavdrov (i 21, v. 20). Therein is contained, (1) the
forgiveness of sins (v. 15, 20); (2) conversion from sin (v. 19),
or, laying aside aU moral impurity (i 21); and, (3) the deHver
ance from the judgment of God (H. 13 £). The positive idea of
salvation is comprehended by James in that of spiritual exaltation
(i 9). This is a work of the Lord. Objectively considered, it is
X"-piv (iv. 6), and includes the new bHth proceeding from God
(i 18). It might appear strange that this new birth is not
speciaUy ascribed to the interposition of the xlivine Spirit ; but it
is, in fact, expressly described as an act of God, and it was of
practical moment that the intervention of the word of truth should
be prominently set forth. It might further appear that, accord
ing to this epistle, man had to make the commencement in this
spiritual process of the new birth : 'Eyylaare tw Qew ical iyyiet
v\uv (iv. 8). But God, from whom every good gift springs, is
He from whom the word of truth comes. God caUs through the
word ; and those who are caUed accept it, and thus experience
His Hberating and redeeming power. Now, this word must cer
tainly be received ; and we must so far draw nigh to God, in order
to experience the benefits of the divine word. The new Hfe
which is commenced in this birth is the faith in Jesus Christ
completing itseK in works, as a Hfe which is pure and opposed to
all selfishness and love of the world. Whoever has this life is
justified before God (ii. 21-25), and this justification is an im
putation of righteousness (ver. 23), since a new Hfe succeeds the
old Hfe of sin, not by the work or deserving of man, but as God's
gift. He who is thus justified is even in this world " blessed in
his deed" (i 25), especially in the patient endurance of tempta
tion (i 12). AU earthly lowliness vanishes before this spiritual

DIV. II. § 58.] JAMES — PARTICULAR DOCTRINES. 357
exaltation (i 9), aU poverty before this spiritual wealth (H. 5).
But this salvation goes far beyond the present world, and, in the
future, receives fuU consummation as far) in the widest sense (i
12), which is at once Hfe, and a crown of honour, and a glorious
reward ; it is also a BaaiXela (ii. 5 ; cf. 1 Cor. vi 9 ; Rom. viii.
17; GaL iv. 7). We may assume, perhaps, that this BaaiXela,
which God has promised to those who love Him, and have thus
proved their faith, is intended by James to be connected with the
Lord's irapovaia, since both in cH v. ¦ 7, and also in i 1 2, he is
exhorting to patience.
From the fundamental idea which pervades the whole epistle,
we may readily perceive which aspect of salvation James had
_ chiefly in view, viz. a state of salvation as practical, energetic
Christian life. He devotes his epistle to the exposition of this
' side of the question. His sole reason for this certainly was not
because he considered it the most important, but also for the sake
of his readers' necessities. He represents the Christian Hfe, on
the one hand, as fulfilment of the law and the service of God ;
on the other, as wisdom. The Christian life is fulfilment of the
law (H 10), namely, the performance of the perfect law of Hberty
(i. 22-25), just as sin is the transgression of the same (ii. 9, 11).
In harmony with this, genuine faith is made perfect in works
(ii. 22). This doing the divine work is the true service of God
(i. 26 £), which consists partly in keeping oneself unspotted from
the world, and partly in fulfilHng the law, and especiaUy the
"royal law" of love (ii. 8), disinterestedly and impartially (ii.
2 ff.). Any merely external service of God, which is not united
with a complete observance of the law and strict moral self-com
mand, and is not proved by a practical exercise of brotherly love
and unspotted purity from the world, is nothing but seK-deceit
(i. 26). In both respects, the Christian life is Bucaioavvv, which
is chiefly understood as a Christian shaping of our social relations,
*— a man becoming righteous by works of faith (ii. 24, 21). The
other aspect of the Christian Hfe is wisdom (i 5, iii. 13-17), as
a gift of God which comes from above, and therefore presupposes
and has in itseK moral purity, and, especially in relation to feUow-
men, is exhibited by aU the social virtues. From James repre
senting the practical Christian life in these two chief aspects, it
might appear that he only taught the Old Testament idea of
piety ; but in truth this is not the case. In the first place, we

358 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
must note that the fulfilment of the law and wisdom are set forth
by James in the very purest shape. The wisdom which he
speaks of is neither an earthly and merely intellectual, nor a
selfish wisdom, but a heavenly, and in itself pure (iii. 1 7), being
a fruit of faith (i 5 f). And in representing the Christian life
as the fulfilment of the law, the law, as he understands it, is not
a multitude of commands and prohibitions, but a living unity
(ii. 10-12), depending on the unity of the Lawgiver and Judge
(ii. 11, iv. 12). Thus the fulfilment of the law is nothing but
a living obedience to God and to His holy will (i 13, 17); and
all the moral requirements which are laid down as necessary for
man's salvation are summed up in love to God (i. 12,. ii. 5). All
this is certainly common to the Old Testament (Deut. vi. 5 ; Lev.
xix. 18) ; but it is also the spiritual kernel of the law, the spi
ritual climax of the Old Testament, as it was set forth by the
Lord Himself (Matt. xxii. 34-40), which James has propounded.
The idea of God's service is in a similar position (cf. Mic. vi
6-8 ; Jer. vii. 21 ; Isa. i 10-17 ; Matt. v. 23 f, xv. 3-9). But
James goes further than the Old Testament, in representing the
whole Christian life as bound up with faith, and as something
perfect proceeding from faith, — a new life proceeding from God (i
18,2 1). The whole Christian life is here set forth as God's pro
duction, brought about by the word of truth, consequently through
the gospeL By this, in virtue of the gracious wiU of God, men
are newly begotten as first-fruits of His creatures. As the Old
Testament nation was the first-born of God, so now Christians have
attained to this dignity. Doubtless, in the Old Testament, too,
intimations were given of a new man and a new heart ; but what
was then a promise, this is now recognised by James as fulfilled.
In his view, aU righteousness is before God an imputation of the
same (H. 23), and has its warranty only in God's judgment and
approbation, but is thus accepted by Him even when not devoid of
error and sin (iii. 2, v. 1 5). From an open and willing compre
hension of the word, united with self-knowledge, as of a man be
holding his face in the mirror of this word, proceeds a continuous
course of action. But this action comes from faith, and the com
prehension of the word takes place in faith. The essential portion
of this word is therefore Christ, as the subject of this faith. The
development of Christian life resting, then, on this foundation, the
decided character, the unity and purity of the moral Hfe, stand out

DIV. II. §68] JAMES— PARTICULAR DOCTRINES. 359
^prominently as the love of God Hi absolute contrariety to the
world (iv. 4, 8). Christian moraHty is acknowledged in aU its
..unconditional character. It claims the whole man, and aU his
commissions and omissions, that aU in him should be Hi har
mony with the inner principle (Hi 11 f., i 4). As the negative
side of the moral life, we have the denial of seK and of the world
(i. 27), of wrath (ver. 19), of bitter envy and strife (Hi. 16), and
of inward selfish lusts (iv. 1-3). From aU these must Christians
keep themselves, as weU as from, unbridled talking (iii 1--10),
and from language which loses sight of reverence and religious
-dependence (iv. 14 f.) ; also from aU unbrotherly censuring (iv.
11 f), and aU deaHngs with the lusts of the world and injustice
(v. 1-6, iv. 1-3). Opposed to this stands the positive side, the
perfection of humUity partly general, as the acknowledgment of
dependence on the almighty God (iv. 13-15), and partly as self-
humiliation before the Lord as sinners (iv. 8-10) ; added to this,
meekness (Hi 13), a yielding temper, gentleness, and peaceable-
ness (ver. 2 7) ; also impartial love, especiaUy towards the lowly
(i. 27, H. 1, 3), and patience (v. 10 f, i 12). The Hfe of the
Christian community, which, is speciaUy considered, is founded in
the impartial love which springs from faith, and is openly mani
fested towards others. James mentions the assembHes of Christians
by the name of avvayayr) (ii. 2 ; cf. Heb. x. 25), and always
speaks of brethren even where he is not addressing his readers.
This brotherly fellowship has a certain organization: there are
elders of the iKicXtjaia (v. 14). In this social Hfe James pre
supposes prayer, . which is, in his view, generaUy essential to
Christian life (i 5-8, iv. 2, 3), and is the dHect expression of
faith as a confident, undoubting asking (i 6 f). This prayer
was, moreover, to be used in the community as an intercession, as
for the sick, to whom the elders of the Church were to be caUed.
Bodily deHverance and recovery are promised as the result of
beHeving prayer and anointing with oU in the name of the Lord ;
in close connection with which follows the forgiveness of any
special sins which may have stood in a pecuHar relation to the
state of sickness (v. 14 f. ; cf. 1 Cor. xi. 30). For this reason,
the intercessory prayer is to be combined with a mutual con
fession of sins (ver. 16). James also appeals to the efficacy of
the earnest prayer of a righteous man, as shown in the instance
of the prophet EUas (ver. 17 f.). Among the moral points upon

360 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
which James lays special stress, is the warning against an oath
(v. 12). James requires entire abstinence from oaths generaUy
without any Hmitation, and thus keeps to the words of the Lord.
He forbids them as something which may expose men to con
demnation, and demands that the simple statement should be the
pure truth. Thus an oath is unnecessary when a Christian has
to do only with his feUows.
§59. The Teaching of James — The Character of his System.
According to James, Christianity is principally an energetic
moral Hfe, which has its principle in the word of truth, by
which the Christian is newly begotten by God. In this point,
and in the relation to faith in Jesus Christ, the pecuHarity of
Christianity is decidedly acknowledged. But, as the mode in
which this salvation is founded on and brought about by Christ
and in the Holy Spirit is not further developed in his epistle,
his representation of Christianity seems to be aUied to the ideas
which are common both to the later and the old covenant.
Added to this, the author represents the word of truth, to which
he ascribes the liberating power, as a law, with the purpose of
drawing a parallel between the two covenants. If this pecu
Harity be not duly considered, James' teaching certainly appears
very deficient. Thus it has been said in modern days, that
James' Christianity is nothing but an improved law, with the
addition of the command of love, the prohibition from an oath,
etc., united with the promise of salvation, but that the chief
contents of the Mosaical law were stUl required (cf. Kostlin's
Johanneischen Lehrbegriff). But James' idea of the vopov reXewv
is far from being thus exhausted. It also involves that aU that
he enjoins is attained to in man by the new birth through the
word of truth : whereby it is this word which saves the soul ; it
is the law of Hberty which sets free. Prophecy shows that man
needed this, and that it was to be expected in the days of the
Messiah (Ezek. xxxvi. 26 f. ; Jer. xxxi 31-34). James recognised
this, and laid such stress upon it, that he makes the whole hfe
of the Christian dependent upon it (H. 10-12). We may judge
from this how Httle right we have to look upon the epistle as
simply an Ebionite production, or as bearing the stamp of an
Ebionite tendency, purposely accommodating itseK outwardly
only to the PauHne doctrines. The view that works and faith

DIV. IL § 59.] JAMES— CHARACTER OF HIS SYSTEM. 361
are merely placed side by side is not a just one. We have, we
trust, succeeded in showing the organic unity of the two ideas,
and this is the best answer to such criticisms. Undoubtedly
James has not enlarged upon the person and work ot Christ ;
but we must take into account the relation which exists between
the subjective and objective conceptions of salvation, which
mutuaUy supplement one another. From the subjective we
must infer the objective side ; and from the teaching as to sal
vation, that of the person of Christ. James' recognition, that
salvation was a new Hfe coming from God, and brought about
by the Christian word of truth, involves the conclusion that he
looked upon Christ as something greater than the noblest in
struments in the Old Testament theocracy. EUas was usuaUy
ranked second only to Moses ; but James speaks of him. as of
a man like ourselves. Christ, on the contrary, he caUs the Lord
of glory, and in i 1 names Him in the same breath with God.
' Although in God he recognises the one Lawgiver and Judge, he
nevertheless represents Christ as the Judge whose irapovaia is
close at hand. It has been thought that, in v. 6, in the "just
one " Christ is intended to be meant ; but, from the context, it is
the injury of poor Christians which is referred to. As James
represents salvation as a new life, he must, at all events, have
regarded in Christ something essentiaUy new, and have looked
upon Him as the intervener to convey this divine power to men.
But the point which is not at all brought forward is the atoning
function of the Redeemer. This fact, however, bears a certain
connection with the practical standpoint of our epistle.
This treatment of Christian doctrine is intelligible, in the first
place, looking at the very nature of Christianity ; for, on one side,
it is the fulfilment of the old covenant, and practical Christian
life has one element in which it closely approaches the practical
piety of the Old Testament beHevers. But there is this dis
tinction, that this life does not take its rise on legal ground as
such, but from something to which James gives an analogous
designation — vopov TeXeiov ttjs eXevBeplav. In the New Testa
ment, we find representations of Christian Hfe from the lips of
the Lord Himself, which give great prominence to this side. It
is, therefore, in itself permissible; and it seems aU'the more
natural that James should have taken this view, if we consider
his historical cHcumstances. It was probable, from the nature

362 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
of the caU, that this view, which set forth the continuity of
Christianity with the old covenant, should be the first to make
its appearance, and that this should take place in the Jewish
Christian community at Jerusalem ; and, from the personal
history of James, it was equaUy probable that he should be
the very man who would propound this view. Probability
seems in favour of the author of this epistle not having been
an apostle, but a natural brother of the Lord. In Mark vi. 3
four brothers of the Lord are named, and, being mentioned in
connection with their mother, could not weU be merely cousins.
These brethren, according to John vii. 3—1 0, did not believe in
theH brother during His earthly life. They were outwardly very
near to Jesus ; but this outward nearness became a mental waU
of partition between them and the brother who was inwardly so
specially exalted above them. James, used from his "chUdhood
to a faithful and strict piety, followed a moral and rehgious
course pecuHar to himself. Doubtless he was often stirred up by
the sight of the brother, who must have appeared to him as a
wonder, but yet he failed to recognise that which His mother
from the very first saw in Him. Thus he developed into an
earnest, and, from an Old Testament point of view, pious .
character, but, in the first place, outside Jesus' sphere of spiritual
Hfe. But the more candid and honest his character, the more
candid and honest was his righteousness ; and when, with his
brethren, by means of Christ's resurrection, he was led to faith
in Him as the glorified Messiah, the more he held this Bucaioavvi)
as the essential matter. Now, perhaps, he experienced that in
this faith he first became free, and was, as it were, begotten of
God, but that it was no rude contrast to his previous state, in
which, more or less unconsciously, he had derived somewhat
from the fulness of Jesus Christ. Thus it seemed to him that
aU he had Hi Christ was to be looked upon only as the perfect
ing of what he had before. James, therefore, forms that middle
term between the apostoHc cHcle and the Jewish nation, which
we have described as so providential in its character. He might
thus live in Jerusalem, not only as the acknowledged head of the
Jewish Christian community, but also, on account of his zeal for
the law, as a man highly esteemed among the Jews themselves.
As a man standing in this position, and with a view of making
peace, at a time when Paul was in captivity or had ended his

DIV. II. § 60.] COMPARISON OF JAMES WITH ST. MATTHEW. 363
course, and party hatred had begun to fire up so vehemently, he
felt called on to interpose with an epistle of this kind, and once
more to throw the weight of his authority and his convictions
into the scale in favour of peace. Especially was he caUed on
now, in the face of the doctrinal and practical errors, the com
mencement of which we find described in the first Epistle to
the Corinthians, which, however, had now reached a far wider
development. Error appears aHeady to have taken that turn
which attributes to God the origin of sin ; and degeneracy
hesitated not to maintain that indifference of life was com
patible with an outward confession of faith. But James could
not have come forward as he has done in this epistle, if he had
been an extreme party man; but, as the pillar of the Church,
who (according to the Epistle to the Galatians) held out to
Paul the hand of brotherhood, and (according to the Acts) was
enabled to take a position far above aU party feeHng, the course
he adopted was fuUy open to him. The fact that doubt was
thrown upon the canonicity of his epistle so early, and for so
long a time, is explained, even looking at the authority which
he held in his own sphere, by the opinion which led to nothing
but the writings of apostles, or those works which had been
subject to apostolic examination, being received into the canon.
In conclusion, we cannot faU to see how characteristic, histori
caUy important, and providentiaUy arranged, the position of
James was, and how much it is a subject of thanksgiving that
we possess this evangeHcal testimony from his hand.
§ 60. Comparison of James' System of Boctrine with the Gospel of
St. Matthew.
The comparison of an apostoHc didactic work of this kind with
one of the gospels has a twofold interest. In the first place, to
show how the apostle connects his teaching with that of Jesus
HimseK, and to what extent it is derived from that source ; and,
on the other hand, how far his doctrines are reflected in the
historical views of the evangeHst.
The Epistle of James coincides even with John's Gospel Hi the
fundamental view of Christianity as the word of truth, which sets
free, and is common to aU (Jas. i 18, 25 ; John viii 31 ff.) ;
and this is an element in which he reaUy goes beyond the sphere
of the synoptical discourses. There are fewer points of coincidence

364 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
with the Gospel of St. Mark, the latter giving special prominence
to the historical matter. The same remark appHes to Luke's
Gospel, Hi which the matter is chosen with a view to Paul's con
test against the Judaizing party; although we cannot be surprised
at finding frequent coincidences with James' Epistle in the copious
discourses, especiaUy those of an ethical character, which this
gospel contains. With Matthew, on the contrary, James agrees
not only in numerous separate passages, which appear to be but
the echo of those discourses of Jesus which bear reference to the
moral Hfe in God's kingdom, but also in that great body of pre
cepts which Matthew gives as a grand whole (chs. v.— vii), the
Sermon on the Mount, which in its whole spirit may be looked
upon as the model of James' Epistle. James' fundamental view
of objective Christianity as the perfect law of liberty is based on
Matt. v. 17-19, the theme of the whole discourse, the fulfilment
of the law and the prophets. Both James and Matthew follow
out the idea of the fulfilment of prophecy only so far as it is in
volved in the fulfilment of the law. As James recognises the
new law as the only essential one, without, however, entirely
setting aside the old law, so also, in the Sermon on the Mount,
we find that fulfilment of the law in sense and spirit is advocated
which goes beyond its mere actual form, although stUl preserving
it. In connection with the objective view of Christianity, we find
James' idea of God- the same as that which meets us in the Sermon
on the Mount, as the holy and the perfect One (Matt. v. 48), the
Founder of the law (Matt. v. 17-19), the Judge who can both save
and destroy (vers. 22-30); as He who, fuU of love, gives every
good and perfect gift (vers. 45, vH. 9-11), especially the Holy Spirit,
to them that ask Him (cf. Luke xi. 13 ; Jas. i 17 ; Matt. vii.
7-11 ; Jas. i 5-7). Matthew and James both speciaUy designate
God as Father ; the former representing Christ as Him for whose
sake His disciples wiU have to suffer (Matt. v. 1 1), as the Lord
(Matt. vH. 21 f), and as the Judge (Matt. vH 22 f.), whUst James
also recognises Him as the Lord and Judge. The Sermon on the
Mount presupposes rather than displays the Messiahship of Jesus ;
and this feature, too, we find in James' treatment. As regards
the fundamental view of subjective Christianity, in the Sermon
on the Mount it is brought before us as Biicaioavvi) Qeov, as it
avails and appears in God's sight (Matt. vi. 33), with which man
must be fiUed from above (v. 6), which, however, must be better

DIV. II. § 60.] COMPARISON OF JAMES WITH ST. MATTHEW. 365
than that of the scribes and Pharisees (v. 20). James Hkewise
sets forth Christianity as righteousness ; and, as the Sermon on
the Mount understands this righteousness to be a doing of the
divine wiU (Matt. vH. 21), or of the law (Matt. v. 19), in contrast
to the mere saying, " Lord, Lord ! " so also James lays a stress
on faith being perfected in works, — for faith may be recognised
through works, as a tree by its fruits (Matt, vii 16-20). And as
the Sermon on the Mount represents love to one's neighbour as
the essence of the law and the prophets (Matt. vH. 12), so James
declares it to be the royal law (H. 8). We now have to consider
the separate items of doctrine which are presented to us both in
James' Epistles and the Sermon on the Mount. Sin appears as the
ipyd^eaBai dvopiav, or as actual sin (Matt. vH. 23 ; cf. Jas. i 15,
H. 9). But this actual sin is involved not merely in the overt
act, but also in thought and word (Matt. v. 22, 28 ; Jas. i 19,
20, 26, ch. Hi). The transition to a state of salvation is con
stituted by repentance as a humbHng of the heart before God, as
an earnest longing for righteousness, by which the need of re
demption is acknowledged in aU its depth, and as an honest desire
for that which is good (Matt. v. 3, 4, 6, 8 ; Jas. iv. 8 ff). The
aim and end of the Christian is the kingdom of God (Matt. vi.
33 ; Jas. H 5). James' teaching as to the spHitual bHth of the
Christian finds no complete model Hi the Sermon on the Mount
(cf. John Hi 3) ; but we must take into consideration what the
Lord says of the chUdren of God (Matt. v. 9, 45) and of the
chUdren of the kingdom (xHi 28). If, however, we go closely
into the details of the Epistle of St. James, it is surprising how
great a similarity to the Sermon on the Mount pervades the whole
of it. Among these points of similarity (also coinciding with
other utterances in the Synoptists) are — the joy in temptation
(Jas. i 2 ; Matt. v. 12) ; prayer for wisdom (Jas. i 5 ; Matt. vH
7, 11 ; Luke xxi. 14 f.) ; God's Hberal and loving giving (Jas.
i. 5 ; Matt. vH. 11) ; the necessity of faith in prayer (Jas. i 6 f . ;
Matt. xxi. 22) ; the warning against wrath (Jas. i 19 f. ; Matt.
v. 22) ; the commendation of gentleness (Jas. i 21, iii 13 ; Matt.
v. 4) ; the earnest injunction to be doers of the divine word (Jas.
i. 22 ; Matt. vH. 24, 26) ; the taming of the tongue (Jas. i 26 ;
Matt. v. 22) ; the utterance, that the poor are heirs of the king
dom (Jas. ii 5 ; Matt. v. 3 ; Luke vi 20) ; the royal law of love
(Jas. ii 8 ; Matt. vH 12, xxii 36 ff.) ; mercy in connection with

366 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
God's judgment (Jas. ii. 13 ; Matt. v. 7. 9, 13, xxv. 34 ff), and
the judgment on the unmerciful (Jas. H. 13 ; Matt, vii 2) ; the
tree and its fruits (Jas. iii. 1 2 ; Matt. vii. 1 6) ; the importance of
peaceableness (Jas. iii. 18 ; Matt. v. 9) ; a true prayer being heard
(expressed negatively, Jas. iv. 3 ; positively, Matt, vii 8) ; the
friendship of the world is enmity to God (Jas. iv. 4 ; Matt. vi.
24) ; self-humiHation (Jas. iv. 6, 10 ; Matt, xxiii. 12, xviii. 4) ;
the purification of the heart (Jas. iv. 8 ; Matt. v. 8) ; mourning
for sin (Jas. iv. 9 ; Matt. v. 4 ; Luke vi. 2 5) ; judgment of brethren
(Jas. iv. 11 f . ; Matt, vii 1 ff.) ; dependence on God (Jas. iv.
13-16; Matt, vi 25); the perishableness of earthly treasures
(Jas. v. 2 ff. ; Matt. vi. 1 9 f. ; Luke xii. 19 ff.) ; the unresisting
spirit of the righteous (Jas. v. 6 ; Matt. v. 3 9 ff.) ; the expecta-*
tion of our Lord's second appearing (Jas. v. 7-9 ; Matt, vii
21-23; xvi. 27, chs. xxiv. and xxv.); the persecution of the
prophets (Jas. v. 10 ; Matt. v. 12) ; and the warning agamst
oaths (Jas. v. 12 ; Matt. v. 34 ff). The form, also, of James'
Epistle bears an evident similarity to the Sermon on the Mount
in its sententious language and figurative style, espeeially in the
abundance Of images derived from nature and mankind. Not
withstanding aU this, we would not desire to place James' Epistle
on an equal level with the Sermon on the Mount, which latter,
both in form and purport, testifies to its origin from the Lord Him
self. It is more profound, more many-sided in its utterances, and
more perspicacious. It is also more comprehensive in its theme.
But it must, notwithstanding, be clear to every one that a brother
of the Lord, who was perhaps one of the hearers of the Sermon
on the Mount, and was much with Him, might weU entertain such
views and employ such a mode of statement.
But whatever points of alHance there may be between James*
Epistle and Matthew's Gospel, we must not lose sight of the fact
that the discourses of Jesus in the latter go far beyond the epistle,
and are not limited to the elements of doctrine. Matthew has
recorded other discourses, from which it is very plain what part
of the law was to cease and vanish away owing to its completion
in Christ. The Sermon on the Mount says nothing expressly as
to this ; for it was requisite first to throw light upon the positive
building of the law. Another point disregarded by James is H>
timated in the Sermon on the Mount — the alteration and defacing
of the law by the interpretations and applications of the scribes,

DIV. II. §60] COMPARISON OF JAMES WITH ST. MATTHEW. 367
which we find decidedly and directly opposed in subsequent dis
courses. If we consider the more Hberal interpretations of the
law given by our Lord in the discourses recorded by Matthew,
also, that God's or Christ's kingdom is intended for all men (xxvi.
13, xxviii. 19, viii. 11), that Israelis rejected as the theocratic
nation (xxi. 43 f., viii. 12), and the destruction of the temple is
intimated (xxiv. 1), we may recognise that, although, according to
Matthew's Gospel, the substance of the Old Testament is fulfilled,
the temporary and local forms of its law are abolished. FulfiUed
prophecy, which is not enlarged upon in the Sermon on the Mount,
is widely developed in the rest of the gospel ; and we find many
passages in Matthew which refer to the fulfilment of Old Testa
ment prophecy in the person and work of Christ. The evidence
of this wiU be found, on examination, to pervade the whole gospel.
Added to this, Matthew possesses many historical and didactic
elements which tend to form a copious Christology ; and, as re
gards the person of Christ, records aU the weightiest facts which
form a part of our Lord's Messianic life, and also the very im
portant discourses in which Jesus enlarges on the peculiarity of
His person (xi. 27, xxvi. 64, xxii. 41-45, xxi. 37). Other dis
courses refer to Christ's work. He is the Judge of all nations
(xxv. 31 ff, xvi. 27, vii. 22 f.), who will return in glory (xxiv.
19-xxv. 46), as king (xv. 34, 40). But He is also the Redeemer
who is come to save that which is lost (xviii. 11, ix. 11-14), and
He it is who atones through His blood (xxvi. 28,) and baptizes
with the Holy Ghost and with fire. Although it is a question how
far Matthew was personally acquainted with all the events and
sayings which he records in his history, there can be little doubt
that, K he had written a didactic epistle, he would have entered
more largely than James into the Christological element. But,
on the other hand, from the mere non-occurrence of certain matter
in a didactic epistle, we are scarcely ever justified in inferring
either a want of knowledge or disapprobation of this matter on the
part of the author. Notwithstanding aU this, there is stUl a great
similarity between the two works in question. There is, indeed,
a causal connection between them ; for James evidently formed
his views to some extent from the Sermon on the Mount, and
simUar discourses of the Lord. Both, too, have fundamentaUy
one and the same tendency; for, although Matthew enters so
copiously and profoundly into the whole Messianic appearance of

368 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART
the Lord, nevertheless his standpoint is the unity of Christianity
and the old covenant, or the fulfilment of the latter. In harmony
with this is the fact, that the gospel was chiefly intended for
Christians of the Jewish nation. This comparison may thus
serve as a hint to us, how Httle we are justified in Hmiting this
tendency to the person of James, although he may appear as its
most distinguished representative.
§ 61. Comparison of James' System of Boctrine with the
Epistle of Jude.
Looking at the discussions of the last ten years, we may- con
sider the result of modern criticism as favourable to the genuine
ness of Jude's Epistle. Most of those, in particular, who have
held the second Epistle of Peter to be not genuine, have formed a
different opinion as to that of Jude. The author describes him
seK as the brother of James, doubtless of the best known and
most distinguished of the name, therefore the brother of the Lord
(Matt. xiH. 55). Credner dates the epistle about the year 80,
when Simon was bishop of Jerusalem, and under him heresies
had secretly crept in which were subsequently outwardly de
veloped (cf. Eusebius, iv. 22 ; iii. 32). We may judge from
Eusebius (iii. 20) that Jude was not Hving at the time of
Domitian. The epistle is not addressed to the Christians of any •
particular place, but to aU beHevers generaUy who had remained
true and faithful; but yet the author may have sent it to one or
more churches. After the death of James, Jude, his younger
brother, was doubtless one of the most distinguished Christians in
the Church of Palestine, and had every right to come forward
with warnings against the heresies which, were creeping in. The
heresies are pointed out in a description which is interwoven
with the warning intimation of judgment which forms the chief
purport of the epistle. TheH two chief features are named in
ver. 4, and further enlarged upon in vers. 8-13, 16, cf. ver. 18 f.
They are first described as dreamers defiHng the flesh, despising
dominion, and blaspheming dignities. In aU things open to their
perception they corrupt themselves ; but what they do not know,
that they blaspheme. We cannot weU interpret Bol-ai (ver. 8) as
earthly authorities, for ovk o'lBaai would then seem too forcible.
Referring to ver. 9, we must apply it to the higher powers of the
invisible world. This, too, must be the meaning of the abstractum

DIV. II. § 61.] COMPARISON OF JAMES WITH JUDE. 369
KvpioTTjv, — firstly, the p,6vov Beairornv ical Kvpiov (ver. 4), and then
the lower Kvpiornrev of the invisible world. They would acknow
ledge nothing above themselves, and blasphemed what others
reverenced; and this bold egotism turned into gross carnaHty
Jude describes these degenerate Christians most characteristicaUy
in very forcible natural imagery (vers. 12, 13). Vers. 16, 18,
and 19 are also characteristic. Wv%iicol completely describes the
coarsely sensual Hbertinism, which degenerated into a denial of
the Spirit and the whole spirit-world ; for, towards the end of the
apostoHc age, this lawlessness and Hbertinism made their appear
ance in the grossest forms, partly in and partly outside the Gnos
ticism which was then arising, and was common ground both for
the above-named errors and also the opposite extreme of exag-
• gerated asceticism (cf. Col. ii. 1 6 ff). Jude describes this antichris
tian libertinism as aHeady Hi existence ; but from his grasping its
nature so profoundly, and depicting it so truly, we have a repre
sentation of its general character appHcable to aU ages. And the
epistle has, so far, a certain prophetic character, and bears some
analogy to the apocalyptic statement. Jude, however, intimates
that aU were not Hrecoverably lost who Had in any way shared in
this libertinism ; for he summons those who remained faithful to
receive some with compassion, and to save others with fear (ver.
22). The latter are already caught by the fire of judgment, but
stiU they may be plucked out. These words, and those that foUow,
indicate very decided and powerful measures. The external belong
ings of these people, the garment spotted with the flesh, is to be
abominated, lest the community should be defiled by outward fel
lowship with them (cf. 1 Cor. v. 6). This epistle is, at aU events, a
production of great original power, and also an instructive paraUel
to the standpoint which is represented by James' Epistle.
On examining the didactic and hortatory elements of Jude's
Epistle, we notice, —
(a) That all the essential points of Christian consciousness are
therein touched upon. The object of aU the teachmg and exhorta
tion is r) koivt) acorr)pia (ver. 3). This salvation is, on the one
hand, future (vers. 21, 24), the object of beHeving expectation
and "looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal
life" (ver. 21); and included with this is the presentation before
the presence of the divine glory (ver. 24), which is to take place in
the future. But salvation is also represented as present. Christians
2 A

370 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
are sanctified (loved, in another reading) by God the Father, and
preserved in Christ; and on them mercy, peace, and love are
multipHed now, and not in a spiritual future. It is a grace
which has been already received (ver. 4), but on the right use of
which salvation depends. We may notice (vers. 3, 20) how
great a stress is laid on faith, that the faith received should be
held fast, indeed built up upon and striven for. Faith certainly
appears here in its objective signification ; but the word of God,
once dehvered to the saints, is to be vitaUy believed (ver. 3), so
that the edifice of spiritual Hfe is to be buUt thereon (ver. 20), —
faith thus appearing a subjective condition of salvation. Added
to this, the denial of the Lord Jesus Christ forms the direct
opposite to the state of a true Christian (ver. 4) ; and in every
stage of the divine economy of grace, in the old covenant as in
the new, unbelief was the object of God's displeasure and
judgment (ver. 5). But salvation, as it is reaHzed both in the
present and future, includes man's presentation as faultless before
the divine glory (ver. 24), that is, that he wiU be regarded and
treated by God as faultless (justification) ; also, that man is in
wardly purified or sanctified (loved), and preserved in feUowship
with. Christ (ver. 1). This preservation is spontaneous on the
Christian's part, but presupposes that beHevers have been thought
worthy of God's love, have experienced it, and have maintained,
lived, and walked in this belief. Jude's Epistle, therefore, evi
dently embraces both sides of the idea of salvation — justification,
and the state of renewal or sanctification.
But not only salvation, but also the cause of salvation, is
touched upon in our epistle, and is ascribed to the grace of God,
— that is, His free love in receiving sinners (ver. 4) ; being thus
referred to the one God as our Saviour (ver. 25). But although
the final cause of salvation is thus so surely ascribed to God the
Father, the intervening agency is as decidedly acknowledged as
resting in Jesus Christ, and also in the Holy Ghost. Those who
are caUed and sanctified by God the Father, and preserved in
Jesus Christ, are the true Christians (ver. 1) ; and in ver. 25 the
wish of the doxology, viz. the glorification of God, is expressly
alluded to as brought about by Jesus Clnist. our Lord.1 Jesus
1 This is not so in the English version, which follows the text, recept ; but
the best mss., including the Alexandrine, Vatican, and Ephrsemi, add, after the
word Saviour, lid 'Iwrov Xpiarov tow Kvpiov iipiZv. — T/R.

DIV. II. § 61.] COMPARISON OF JAMES WITH JUDE. 371
Christ is therefore caUed (ver. 4) o povov Beairbrriv ical Kvpiov
r/p&v, the denial of whom is the greatest contrariety to the idea
ot a Christian.1 He is caUed Ruler in reference to His ruhng
agency extending over the whole world, and Lord, because we
are dependent upon Him for our salvation, — Kvpiov being the usual
translation of nvr pointing to God in His revealed capacity, which
was perfected in*1 Christ's redeeming work. Certainly the parallel
passage (2 Pet. ii. 1) adds the words " that bought them," which
refer to the death of Christ ; but in Jude no express reference of
this kind can be found. In ver. 1 7 the apostolical teaching is
referred back to Jesus Christ. The apostles are His apostles, and
their words appear as an authority for us. In addition to the
divine intervening agency of Christ, we have also to remark that
of the Holy SpHit. Although in vers. 1 and 25 the intervening
agency of Christ in the divine grace is alone spoken of, yet in
ver. 20 that of the Holy Ghost also appears, so that in that
passage the threefold causaHty of salvation is comprehended. The
subjective Christian Hfe, as self-edification in prayer, is here evi
dently brought into connection with the Holy Ghost, and is a Hfe
in feUowship with Him. In these points aU the elements of the
Christian consciousness are comprised, although in a didactic point
of view they are not so amply developed as even in James' Epistle.
The main idea in Jude's Epistle, and also the motive for his
exhortations, is the divine judgment, to which must be added his
strictures on those who are Hable to it. A paraUel to this is to
be found in 2 Pet. ii, where degenerate Christians are simUarly
• depicted and threatened with judgment, only they are described
as arising in the future (2 Pet. H. 1-3), whUst in Jude they appear
as already existing (ver. 4). Jude writes about these degenerate
Christians of his time to those who have remained firm members
of Christ's Church, first warning them to be mindful of the divine
judgment which the former wiU surely meet with (with which a
description of these ungodly men is combined, vers. 5-19), and then
adding an exhortation to the faithful that they should keep them
selves in the love of God, etc., and yet help the ungodly as far
as possible (vers. 20-23). This judgment is proved by examples
drawn from the Old Testament; and the author, in following
this course, instead of deriving the idea of judgment from the
1 The English version follows the text, recept, and adds Qtov after faanaTw,
which is omitted by the best MSS; — Tb.

372 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
internal nature of Christianity, shows how moderate he is in
developing the didactic purport of the latter. In 2 Pet. H. we
find adduced as examples, the angels who had sinned, the flood,
and Sodom and Gomorrha; and Jude's Epistle takes the same
ground, although independently. The aUusion to the judgment
on the people of Israel (ver. 5) is peculiar to Jude's Epistle. Jude
has to show that even Christians, in spite of *he divine grace
which has been preached to them, obtained for and assigned to
them, wUl not remain unpunished if sinful apostasy intervene.
He therefore appeals tff the manifested mercy of the old covenant.
The words to Bevrepov tovv p-r) iriaTevaavrav dirooXeaev are usuaUy
appHed to the unbeHeving portion of the people, or to the whole
generation which was not permitted to enter the promised land.
Another interpretation would render the reading 'Iwaovv instead
of Kvpiov in some degree expHcable. If the Epistle of Jude was
written after the destruction of Jerusalem, it would seem curious
that he does not mention this particular judgment. Now, if to
Bevrepov be referred to this second destruction, it would be an act
of the incarnate Christ, and the subject would be chosen in re
ference to the Verbum finitum. On this point cf. Acts vi. 14
But verse 5 can easily be considered as applying only to the
IsraeHtes in the wilderness. The second example is the judgment
on the angels, which, however, is only as yet begun (ver. 6). The
subject may be here the same as in ver. 5, but then the reading
'Ivaovv would be aU the more improbable. The sinful faU of
angels generally might be understood here; but stiU the words
diroXiirbvTav to iBiov oiKrjTijpiov would appear somewhat strange,
and Satan's not being mentioned, who is elsewhere speciaUy
distinguished, might cause surprise. But it thus becomes the
more probable that a. particular class of fallen angels is meant.
This idea is strengthened by ver. 7, in which it is said that the
Sodomites had acted simUarly. According to this, the sin of these
angels consisted in forsaking the sphere of the spirit-world and
intermingling unbecomingly in that of the flesh. The final
judgment is not yet passed upon them, but they are even now
compeUed to remain in a prison of darkness instead of a habita
tion of Hght ; even as Sodom and Gomorrha, which sinned in Hke
manner, are set forth as an example, and as suffering the vengeance
of eternal fire. It cannot be readily shown that these cities had
previously shared in any peculiar exercise of God's grace; the

DIV. II. § 61.] COMPARISON OF JAMES WITH JUDE. 373
judgment on them is therefore added because theH sin resembled
the faU of the angels. 'Eiciropveveiv is a iropveveiv which trans
gresses aU bounds ; erepav is not only forbidden flesh generaUy,
— that which is not the p-la adp% of those united in matrimony, —
but is also speciaUy erepa adptj, as in the case when the human race
degrades itseK to bestiaHty The seK-degradation of the angels
to the adp% dvBpwirivr) was something akin to this. From Gen.
vi. 2-4, it is presupposed both here and Hi Jewish tradition — for
instance, in the Book of Enoch — that events of this kind occurred
Hi the higher spHit-world. A closer deHneation of these degenerate
men foUows the examples of judgment, Hi the course of which
deHneation three other instances are aUuded to (ver. 1 1), — the way
of Cam (absence of love), the erring of Balaam (misuse of divine
gifts), and the rebeUion of Korah (forcible resistance to God's
wUl and institutions). This judgment is now further Ulustrated
by the prophecy of Enoch, which is found in the book of
that name which has been discovered. The question arises
whether this prophecy is derived from ancient times as the
fundamental fact on which the whole Book of Enoch is based,
or whether it is quoted from the apocryphal book itself. Of
course there is nothing in Jude's Epistle which can confirm the
other contents of the Book of Enoch. There was, however, an
ancient tradition that Enoch had warned his contemporaries of
the divine judgment. The mention of the archangel Michael,
whose modesty Jude contrasts with the shameless and arrogant
fiXaafapeiv of aU Bofjai on the part of false Christians, refers
to another Jewish tradition, which appears to be set forth in the
apocryphal Ascensio Mosis mentioned by Origen, although an
aUusion to it is perhaps contained in Deut. xxxiv. 5, 6. This
passage, at aU events, hints at something extraordinary having
taken place as regards the body of Moses. That which the Lord
did upon Sinai was not done without the intervention of angels
(Gal. iH. 19; Acts vH. 53; Heb. H. 2); it is therefore likely
that the events connected with the body of Moses took place
through the same intervention. Satan, as the beginner of sin
and prince of this world, has also to icpdrov tov Bavdrov (Heb. ii.
14) ; and it therefore forms a part of the sentence on account of
sin, that the body of the sinner is liable to corruption. To this
rule, which was to be broken through by Christ, exceptions to a
certain extent appear to have existed, namely, in Moses and EUas,

374 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
whom we find in a supernaturally glorified state on the occasion
of our Lord's transfiguration. The words which are quoted Jude
9, occur Hi Zech. Hi 2 in another connection. This passage, at
aU events, points to the fact that aU judgment proceeds from the
Lord, and that the higher spHits refer only to His judgment and
power. This teaching as to judgment is a continuation and completion
of James' view of Christianity as the perfect law of Hberty..
Whoever does not respond to the practical requHements of Chris
tianity has, according to James, no part either in justification or
salvation. Christianity makes/ certain demands, but affords to
men the Hfe through which these demands may be satisfied ; and
where this life does not exist, there is no true Christianity. Who
ever rejects Christianity, the perfect and beatifying law, becomes
liable, according to Jude, to the heaviest judgment, and is twice
dead and rooted out. This is the ethico-practical standpoint
which is also laid down Hi James' Epistle. But as the Epistle
of Jude contends against the libertinism (traces of which we find
in 1 John and Rev. ii. 3), he has to denounce the denial and
rejection of the one Ruler and Lord, Jesus Christ. We see from
this that didactic and theoretical errors are in question here,
and not merely practical corruption. These errors cannot be
obviated, except by a development of Christian doctrine as to the
person of Christ. Jude, therefore, goes beyond both his own
standpoint and that of James' Epistk. AU the Christological
doctrines which are presupposed in these two epistles were laid
down elsewhere and in comparatively much earUer times, viz. by
Peter, one of the three men who were considered as piUars of
the ChurcH II. THE APOSTOLICAL TEACHING OF PETER.
§ 62. Our Authorities for the Petrine Boctrinal System.
The first Epistle of Peter, which was classed by the ancient
Church among the Homologoumena, must, from the results of
modern criticism, be considered as genuine. Schwegler bases his
opinion of its non-genuineness on the idea that the apostoHc age
was entirely divided into the PauHne and Petrine parties, and
that it was not untU a later age that the need was felt of uniting
the two; and that, in consequence, works of a reconcUia'tory

DIV. II. § 62.] PETER— AUTHORITIES FOR DOCTRINAL SYSTEM. 375
character were fathered upon the representatives of the opposite
opinions. But this hypothesis of the cHcumstances of the apos
toHc age, and the relations of its chief men, is, as we have seen,
an erroneous one. And these, relations, as we find them set forth
in GaL H. and the Acts of the Apostles, actuaUy explain those
characteristics from which special arguments are derived against
this epistle. It certainly contains matter which reminds us of
passages in the Epistles to the Ephesians and Colossians ; and it
certainly also testifies that that is the true grace of God in which
its readers stand (ch. v. 12); but from this it cannot be justly
inferred that this epistle is a forged work, in which an attempt is
made to harmonize the Petrine with the PauHne doctrine, and to
make Peter testify to the PauHne community that in Paul's
teaching they possess the true gospel The fact of Peter (ad
dressing readers who had received an epistle from Paul) referring
to any such epistle, — the fact of an apostle writing to a mixed
community, exhorting them to persist in the true grace, and thus
working in Harmony with another apostle, — these things are not
contrary to historical probabiHty; and it is in entire harmony
with the events related in Gal. H. that the apostles should thus
agree Hi Asia Minor, where they both saw and feared enemies of
apostoHcal doctrine common to each. We read in Col. iv. 1 0 that
Paul sent Mark, a former companion of Peter, to the churches
of Asia Minor. This leaves aU the less cause for surprise that,
in consequence of Mark's mission, Peter should have taken the
step which he did, perhaps being urged on to it by Paul, through
Mark's agency. Why, moreover, should he not notice certain
epistles of Paul, which had been sent shortly before to Ephesus
and some other churches ? This would certainly be more in har
mony with the apostoHc spHit than the hypothesis of modern
criticism, that nothing but schism, wrangling, and controversy
existed among the apostles, and that the judicious idea of recon
ciling the PauHne and Petrine doctrines did not arise untU the
second century. It is, however, our task to show that the first
Epistle of Peter sets forth a Hne of doctrine characteristic of
Peter, and does not contain the Pauline teachmg in its Ml
peculiarity. With the second Epistle of Peter the case is different. Even in
the ancient Church it was looked upon as an dvTiXeybpevov, and
in modern times many have maintained its non-genuineness. It

376 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
appears to represent itseK with design as a production of Peter,
and, with similar design, to clearly state its pacificatory purpose.
Added to this, we must take into account certain ideas of an
Alexandrine tone, and the apparent dependence on the Epistle of
Jude. Looking at aU these points, we cannot, in the province of
New Testament theology, treat both these epistles in a similar
way. But the inducement to consider and compare the doctrinal
purport of the second epistle is the more considerable, owing to
the latter being so exceUent Hi many respects and quite worthy
of the canon.
In addition to the epistles, we have to consider Peter's dis
courses, as recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, chiefly in its first
part, when the mother Church 'at Jerusalem was the scene of the
apostoHc ministry. In those early days Peter was the spokesman
of the apostoHc community ; and these discourses form, therefore,
a part of the historical monuments of the apostolical Church.
They are contained in the passages, Acts i 16-22, H. 14-39,
Hi 12-26, iv. 8-18, v. 29-32, viii 20-23, x. 34-43, xi. 5-18,
xv. 7-1 1. These discourses form, of course, only secondary sources,
being found in a book of the New Testament which is not pro
perly of a didactic character. Without doubt they are not HteraUy
reported, but they nevertheless serve as an interesting ground of
comparison with the first Epistle of Peter, and the more so, as
we cannot faU to recognise a pecuHar fideHty Hi the record, both
to the spHit and method of the apostle.
The first epistle is addressed* to the Christians" in Asia Minor,
who are designated as the elect strangers in the Biaairopd (i. 1,
2), a usual term appHed to the scattered Jews ; but from ch, ii.
10 we may gather that the GentUe Christians are also included.
These are depicted by Peter as grafted on to the ancient people
of God. To these Christians generaUy the apostle writes from
afar, from the neighbourhood of Babylon, with the view of con
firming their convictions that they are living in God's true com
munity, and thus to guide them aright amid aU the ferment of,
that time. The epistle was written at a date when Christians
were subject to persecution (cf. iv. 15, 16).
§ 63. Character and Arrangement of the Petrine System.
In the first place, Christianity is the fulfilment of Old Testa
ment prophecy. The chief passage showing this is 1 Pet. i.

DIV II. § 63.] PETER — CHARACTER AND ARRANGEMENT OF SYSTEM. 377
10-12. The preamble of Peter's Epistle is an ascription of praise
to God for the salvation in Christ, which is a regeneration unto a
hvely hope, the end of which is the awrnpla -^v^wi/. This
crurrjpla (or %a/w, as depending on the divine grace, and faUing
to the lot of the Christian, ver. 10), and also the sufferings and
consequent glorification of Christ, on which the salvation rests
(ver. 1 1), were the subjects of Old Testament prophecy, just as
the fulfilment of the latter is the subject of the gospel teaching
(ver. 12) ; consequently this fulfilment is exactly that which is
given in Christianity. But the end and aim of prophecy is
reached only in those who share in its fulfilment, and are enabled
to compare both together, and to acknowledge, with fuU convic
tion, that fulfilment in its true light. The culminating point of
this is the salvation which wiU be revealed in the last time in
the impending and complete manffestation of Christ, to TeXov Trjv
irlaremv (vers. 5, 7, 9, 13). To this hope we are now begotten
again through the resurrection of Christ (ver. 3). By means of
this regeneration, there is a salvation reserved in heaven, which
is the subject of our Hvely hope, although at present it is but
faith and hope amid many kinds of afflictions. But an abiding
in this hope wiU lead to the complete manifestation of God, which
is impending ; and it is just this salvation, Hi its completion and
whole extent, which is the subject of Old Testament prophecy
(ver. 10).
In full harmony with aU this are Peter's discourses in the Acts
of the Apostles ; for in them not only the details, which form
the purport of Christianity, are referred back to Old Testament
prophecy, but the whole scope of salvation is looked upon as the
fulfilment of prophecy (Acts iH. 18-25). The whole of pro
phecy relates to the restitution of aU things ; and this is the aim
and end of the entire work of redemption, which, having begun
with the earthly appearance of Christ, is to be completed at His
second appearance, which the apostle makes the culminating point
of his epistle.
As a coroUary to the preceding, it must be noticed that Peter
regards Christians as those in whom the idea of the theocratic
. people — that which had been predicated of the Old Testament
nation — is reaHzed (1 Pet. ii 5, 9 f, iv. 17). They are the yivov
kXeicTov (H 9, foUowing Isa. xHH. 21), those chosen from aU men
to be dedicated to God, the BaaiXeiov lepaTevpa (cf. Ex. xix. 6),

378 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
an eBvov dyiov ; also a Xabv et? irepiiroir/aiv (MaL iii. 1 7), appHed
to the GentUe Christians in the sense of Hos. H. 23. They are
buUt up on the rejected corner-stone, and are the oIkov irvev-
paTiKov (ii. 5), bringing spHitual offerings, acceptable through the
mediation of Christ. For these reasons they are, in an ideal
sense, strangers scattered abroad, as Hving Hi the midst of an un
christian world. They are, in truth, that which the members of
the theocracy under the old covenant were to have been
This conception of Christianity corresponds with the way in
which Peter lays down its chief doctrines, and especiaUy that of
the person and work of Christ, which are throughout declared to
have been testified to in Old Testament prophecy. In connection
with this, we find the various phases of Christ's appearance pur
posely brought forward with reference to prophecy. Peter, how
ever, chiefly keeps to the historical appearance of Christ, and
does not so closely enter into the nature on which it was based,
because in the former the tokens which mark the fulfilment of
prophecy are principally found.
This view of Christianity, as the fulfilment of Old Testament
prophecy, corresponds also with the personal character of Peter,
so far as it is known to us. Through his intercourse with Jesus,
Peter had been graduaUy elevated from the Old Testament stand
point to that of the New, and he had Hved so much Hi the con
templation of Christ's historical manKestation, that he could hardly
faU to lay a stress upon it. In the next place, his destiny as an
apostle was to stand at the head of the twelve, and to be the first
to testify for Christ, and also to found the early Church in the
midst of the Jewish nation. , Amongst this nation must Jesus be
preached as the Messiah, Hi whom Old Testament prophecy is
fulfiUed, and preached with all the candour, power, and confidence
by which Peter had been aHeady distinguished. We must also
notice that, as a native of Palestine, Peter was unacquainted with
the Greek culture, and, being unaccustomed to associate with
GentUes, although the participation of heathen nations in the
Messianic salvation was, by means of prophecy, an idea present
to his mind (Acts H 39, Hi 25), yet theH caU, without cHcum-
cision and observance of the law, was a thing not clear to him,
until he was led thereto by fresh facts (Act x., xi.). But, after
the dHections which were imparted to him from above, he speedily
and completely adopted these views, and, in the face of the strictly

DIV. II. §63.] PETER— CHARACTER AND ARRANGEMENT OF SYSTEM.. 379
Jewish members of the Church at Jerusalem, spoke the words
contained in Acts xi. 1—1 7, which led to his audience giving
glory to God (ver. 18). But, inasmuch as Peter had not pre
viously entertained these views, we perceive that, during his sub
sequent apostoHcal ministry, his personal feelings led him to regard
the gospel mainly in the aspect of its unity with the old covenant,
and as the fulfilment of prophecy.
But in these views Of the gospel Peter did not fail in under
standing the pecuHar nature of Christianity, but (like James)
acknowledges the Hberating power which distinguishes it from
the Old Testament law, and points to the distinction between
Christianity and prophecy, as weU as to their unity. This dis
tinction consisted, (1) in the idea of the fulfilment of prophecy.
That which was a matter of fact in Christianity was not yet
reahzed under the old covenant ; indeed, even the presignification
by the Holy Spirit through the prophets was only in part clear
to them, and was in other parts the subject of seeking and inquiry
(1 Pet. i 10 f.), both as to the date of the fulfilment, and also as
to the " manner of the time " (ver. 1 1), that is, the historical
shaping of that which was to occur. There is, therefore, a great
distinction between the prophets of the old and the beHevers of
the new covenant, both in point of knowledge, and also, and
chiefly, in respect to the possession of the salvation which exists
only in the new covenant (cf. Matt. xHi 1 7, xi. 11; Rom. i 2 f,
16, Hi 21 ; 1 Cor. H. 7 ; 2 Cor. i 20 ; Col i 26 f. ; Eph. Hi. 9).
(2) Peter points out that not only salvation in general is the
subject of prophecy (1 Pet. i 10), but also the personal Redeemer
as the author or agent of salvation, specKying, indeed, the essential
points of His historical appearance (ver. 11) ; and there thus results
a further great distinction between prophecy and its fulfilment,
for in the latter the personal appearance of the Saviour is included.
Peter, therefore, in his representation of Christianity, sets forth a
Christology as the chief subject of Christian teaching, — that is, a
teaching both of the person and work of Christ in His historical
appearance : how these were in both respects predicted in Old
Testament prophecy, but actuaUy appeared in Christianity ; and
also of the revelation which began with His visible life (1 Pet.
i. 20), and wUl be gloriously perfected in the future (i 7, 13,
iv. 13; cf. Acts Hi 20, 21).
Peter so far agrees with James, he also being inclined to re-

380 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
present the Christian ethical life as a IKe proceeding from a divine
birth (1 Pet. i 3, 23-25); but the former apostle differs from
the latter, not only in scarcely ever referring to the law, or, at the
most, in interweaving its commands with the development of
special Christian motives (cf. i 16 ff.), but also in giving pro
minence more expressly to the bringing about of this new life
through Christ (i 3), especiaUy through His personal appearance.
Peter represents Christianity as the fulfilment of prophecy; but
James does not mention it, although he speaks of the ea%dTav
fjpepav (v. 3), and quotes the prophets as models of patience
(v. 10).
Peter, in regarding Christianity as fulfiUed prophecy, deyelopes
a line of teaching referring partly to salvation, partly to its
causality. Our taking so comprehensively general a view of the
causality of salvation might appear to be an abstraction very
foreign to Peter's ideas. But in the beginning of the epistle he
styles the Christians " elect strangers." This impHes that they
are in possession of salvation. According to ver. 2, they are elect
to salvation, and partakers of the same in virtue of the irpbyvwaiv
Qeov, the dyiaapbv irvevparov, and the pavriapbv aiparov 'Irjaov
Xpiarov. These three points together evidently form here the
causaHty of salvation, and are intended to describe it exhaustively.
Peter feels inwardly compeUed, not only to describe salvation,
but to represent its entire causaHty ; therefore in his very saluta
tion he brings forward these three points. Consequently our
saying that the whole epistle may be divided "into the two above-
named chief elements is no self-devised scheme, but an arrange
ment forced upon us by the epistle itself. This division also
distinguishes Peter from James; and we have in Peter's Epistle
a completion of doctrine and progress in its development. This
twofold character pervades, too, the whole epistle. The teachmg as
to salvation is often interwoven with the doctrine of its causality.
Thus in hortatory passages, which refer in the first place to salva
tion, the author of the epistle often reverts to the causality of
salvation, generally to Christ and to historical points in His work
of redemption. The practical aim ot Peter's Epistle is the cause
of his proceeding from the subjective side ; and it does not follow
from this that the latter takes the lead in his Hne of thought.
On the contrary, we may conclude that the objective side actually
prevaUs in it, from the fact that, in his representation of salvation,

DIV. II. § 64.] PETER — PERSON OF CHRIST AS AUTHOR OF SALVATION. 381
and exhortations to its appropriation, he everywhere reverts to its
causaHty; whereby also the circumstance is explained that in
every section of his epistle he again adverts to the Christology.
In the' discourses of Peter in the Acts, the preaching of Christ,
the Lord and Redeemer, most decidedly takes the foremost place.
§ 64. Peter's Teaching as to the Cause of Salvation — Of the Person
of Christ as the Author of Salvation.
In his teaching as to the person of Christ, Peter proceeds upon
the idea of Christ's historical appearance, for in this alone was
prophecy fulfiUed. He therefore. speaks of Him as 'Iwaovv Xpiarov
or o Kvpiov r)pa>v 'I. X. (1 Pet. i 3). But he also caUs HHn
Xpiarov alone, inasmuch as He has suffered (iv. 1, Hi. 1 8). Cer
tainly, though, this is done under pecuHar cHcumstances, which
should call our attention to the passages relating to them ; cf. i
11, 19, 20. Peter speaks in but a few passages of Christ before
His appearance. Once he designates Him as one " fore-ordained
before the foundation of the world" (i 19, 20). This act of
Christ's fore-ordination to be the Messiah is independent of the
world, and based only on the eternal counsel of God. His appear
ance is a necessary item in the history. Not only does Peter
describe Christian salvation as the subject of prophecy, but he
also intimates a relation to Christ in the Spirit of God which
actuated that prophecy (1 Pet. i. 1 1). The irvevpa Xpiarov here
is neither the inspiration of the Messiah, for irvevpa is an active
principle which "reveals" and "testifies," nor the Spirit t which
prophesied of Christ, because the use of Xpiarov as genitivus
objecti in this oft-occurring expression would be very unusual;
but this genitive must be interpreted (as Rom. vHi 9 ; cf. GaL
iv. 6) simUarly to the term irvevpa Qeov (1 Pet. iv. 11), conse
quently as the Spirit which Christ has and gives. Hence result
essentially but two interpretations : (1) The Spirit of God, which
subsequently in the times of ' fulfilment was in the revealed Christ,
and proceeded from the glorified Christ; (2) The Spirit which
always, and in the Old Testament days, was in Christ and pro
ceeded from Him. In the first case, we do not go further than
Christ after He had appeared; and His existence before His
appearance is only ideal and supposed, as in i 20, and the
relation of Christ to prophecy is also only ideal. In the second
caso, the Christ not yet appeared is a real existence, and His

382 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
relation to the SpHit of prophecy is a real one. It cannot be said
that the first explanation is an impossible one. By it Christ would
not be reaUy pre-existent ; but the divine principle of life which
existed Hi the manKested Christ was operative even before His
appearance. It was not yet contained in His personaHty, being
the eternal Spirit of God apart from Christ's person, but yet the
same SpHit which subsequently dwelt in it. The second inter
pretation is certainly easier in a philological point of view, and
in one respect involves nothing improbable. The idea of pre
existence was taught not only by John, but also by Paul (1 Cor.
x. 4 ; Col. i 1 6 ff), and the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
(i. 2 f). Jesus also asserted it in His utterances as to HimseK.
It cannot, therefore, appear strange that Peter, looking as he did
upon Christ as being fore-ordained by God before the foundation of
the world for a future temporal appearance, should have represented
Him as pre-existent with God before this manifestation. One
difficulty presents itself, — that in the New Testament the out
pouring of the SpHit of Christ is fixed to take place at the* time
of the fulfilment and not before, indeed after the date of Christ's
exaltation. Peter Himself designated the risen Christ as 'one
anointed with the Holy Ghost, and in Acts ii 32 f. declared
that it was the Risen and Exalted One who had received the Holy
Ghost to shed it forth upon men Here, however, he would be
made to say of the Christ not yet manifested, that His Spirit had
operated in the prophets. We must therefore, at aU events, so
understand the idea of this relation of the outpouring of His
SpHit, that the SpHit of Christ HimseK prepared in the prophets
that which He completed Hi beHevers ; Hi which case it would be
realiter the SpHit of the pre-existent Christ. Certainly, if Peter
looked upon the pre-existence as ideal, the irvevpa Xpiarov would
thus not be identical with the irvevpa which exists Hi beHeving
Christians. Objectively, indeed, it is the same SpHit of God, but
He did not exist in the prophets in the same way as in beHeving
Christians. In Christians He is indweUing ; but He only came
upon the prophets at times for the purpose of theH irpotyiyrevew,
and, therefore, in His operation only looked forward to and aimed
at Christ," who, as not yet manifested, could not as yet be the
basis of the SpHit's agency. From this passage, therefore, we
cannot with certainty attribute to Peter the teaching of a real
pre-existence. In any case, however, Peter has relegated Christ

DIV. II. § 64.] PETER— PERSON OF CHRIST AS AUTHOR OF SALVATION. 383
out of and beyond any mere temporal contingency. In both the
passages quoted, he views Christ before His appearance as one
chosen and ordained by God from aU eternity, and K not as reaUy
pre-existent, at aU events as one whose appearance was preceded
by an agency of the divine Spirit, which belonged to Him to so
great an extent that this Spirit is caUed " the SpHit of Christ."
In other passages, however, it is always the manifested Christ
of whom Peter speaks. He was manifested eV iaxdrcov twv
Xpbvcov (1 Pet. i 20; cf. Acts H 17, Hi. 24; Heb. i 2; GaL
iv. 4 ; 1 Tim. Hi: 16), i.e. in the last times, when that is fulfiUed to
which the times preceding only tended ; (pavepwBfyai is, therefore,
not to be understood here of the future glorious manifestation, as
in v. 4. But if Christ's historical appearance in the earthly
temporal Hfe is to be viewed as a being made manifest, an intima
tion is thereby given that something entered with Him into this
earthly life which previously had not been manifest. In this
passage, tpavepaBevrov stands face to face with irpoeyvaapevov, and
would so far retain its sense, even in the consideration of an ideal
pre-existence, i.e. the pre-ordination in the counsel of God. But
irpoeyvaapevov is not calculated to negative the real pre-existence,
for the word Xpiarov involves a destination which even Hi the
real pre-existence is not yet reaHzed, and can only be in virtue of
the <t>avepa>8t]vai.
In the person of the manKested Christ, Peter distinguishes adp%
and irvevpa (1 Pet. iH. 18), although his conception of Christ's
nature is always subordinate to that of the conditions attending
it. In John and Paul, the adp% of Christ is His human nature
(John i. 14; 1 John iv. 2 ; Rom. i 3, 4, cf. ix. 5). In Peter,
the idea is here not so definitely expressed, and the connection
does. not suffice for this. But as it is the adp% by means of which
Christ suffers death, we must understand by it merely the earthly
and material corporeaHty ; cf. the paraUel between adp% and a&pa
in respect to His sufferings Hi ch. iv. 1, H. 24. What, then, is
Peter's idea as to the irvevpa here contrasted with the adp%i.
With respect to this contrast, we must by no means premise that
only the adp!;, on the one hand, and on the other the irvevpa,
were present in Christ. The two can never exist together without
the intervention of the -^rvyf) ; and the death of the adp% is always
its separation from its -^vyf)- Peter entirely recognised this idea
of the fvxv Hi man (1 Pet. i 9), and in Christ (Acts H. 27) ;

384 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
but the irvevp,a itself is not to be taken one-sidedly, either as
merely human, nor as purely divine, and, in connection with this,
faoiroirjBfjvai (ver. 18), neither as merely remaining alive (of the
human spirit), nor as being resuscitated (through the power of
the divine Spirit). As regards the latter idea, the resurrection is
not spoken of tiU ver. 2 1 ; but if the resurrection was meant here,
we must assume that between vers. 18 and 21 the period before
the resurrection is again dealt with, whereby the train of thought
would be altogether confused. According to this, the exclusive
reference to the Spirit of God is done away with, and also, in
truth, the explanation which only discovers various conditions
in the two ideas, and not definitions of His nature. Neither can
the faoiroir)6r)vai be understood as mere remaining alive (of the
human spirit), for this would be nothing pecuHar to Christ and
happening distinctively to Him. Besides, the evident intention is
to announce the appearance of something which did not before
exist'. Thus the irvevpa is, doubtless, not merely human ; but it
is a principle which was in Christ Hi a peculiar way, of a quicken
ing nature, as the irvevpa in His divine nature generaUy is. In
consequence of His death, this principle is set free and unfettered
from the material bodily nature, and, assuming its fuU privUege,
developes in Him the far], which was in Him in aU fulness. By
this {ev m, ver. 19) He went to the place where the spirits are kept
in the (pvXaicr), and there developed a course of action worthy of
Him (cf. Acts H. 24, iii. 15). It is here Christ's spiritual nature :
generaUy, but exercising a function which points to a peculiar
dignity and eminence, and to a more than human potency of the
irvevpa. With regard to the human element in the person of
Jesus, we must mention that Peter (Acts H. 3 0 f .) speaks of Him
as a descendant of David according to prophecy, as in the Synop
tists and Rom. i 3.
To this person of the manifested Christ, even during His
earthly Hfe; certain pre-eminent pecuHarities are ascribed by
Peter. In the latter's discourses in the Acts, we find mentioned
not only His Messianic dignity, but also His Messianic power,
with which God had anointed Him (Acts x. 38 f, iv. 27, cf.
ii. 22). Christ is also called the dpxvyov rfjv faijv, the Prince of
Life (Acts Hi 15, v. 31), not as the originator of spiritual hfe
alone, but, on account of the reference to the healing of the man
born lame, of bodily Hfe also. It is also implied that He is not

DIV. II. § 64.] PETER — PERSON OF CHRIST AS AUTHOR OF SALVATION. 385
only the Author of Hfe, but also possesses it in His nature : cf.
Acts H. 24, where the internal necessity of His resurrection is
stated. This, again, throws a fresh light on the faoiroirjBelv tw
irvevpan (1 Pet. Hi. 18), showing that the irvevpa in Him pos
sessed this power of Hfe. Quite in harmony with this is the
pecuHar distinction which is given Hi the epistle to the resurrection.
Christians are described as " begotten again " by the resurrection
of Christ (i 3) ; the deliverance from sin is brought about by it
(i 2 1), in a way corresponding to the idea of the Prince of Hfe.
Peter's Epistle also sets forth with special emphasis another
side of Christ's peculiar dignity, namely, His sinlessness (i 1 9,
ii. 22 f, Hi. 18 ; cf. Acts Hi 14), Hi reference, indeed, both to its
internal relation to the atonement through Him, and to its cha
racter as a moral type. In the epistle (i 19) He is styled, in re
ference to Isa. HH. 7, and in aUusion to the fitness therein HnpHed
to be an atoning sacrifice, a " lamb without blemish and without
spot" (apapov and aairtXov). In ch. H. 22, 23, the reference to
Isa. HH. is altogether Hteral, and the typical example (ver. 21) is
joined to the reference to the sufferings of the atonement (ver. 24);
so also in ch. Hi. 18, where He is merely styled "the just," in
contrast to aU men as sinners.
Peter comprehends the condition of Christ's person (1 Pet. ill)
Hi a twofold view, — the sufferings, and the stages of glorification
which were to foUow.
By so essentiaUy asserting these two main circumstances, the
apostle shows that, in the sufferings and death of Christ, he saw
nothing incompatible with His sublimity ; on the contrary, that he
recognised Hi them a certain spiritual and moral grandeur. Also,
in his mention of Christ's sinlessness, he notices chiefly His con
duct Hi His sufferings. In 1 Pet. H. 22, i 19, H. 24, Acts v. 30,
x. 39, the mode of death is pointed out (iirl gvXov), because this
very kind of death is caUed in the law bearing the curse of sin
(GaL Hi. 13). The sufferings of Christ are Hkewise mentioned in
other passages (1 Pet. i 11, Hi, 18, iv. 1, 13, v. 1), and in several
passages in the Acts ; also " the blood of Christ " is named in
1 Pet. i. 2, 19. These sufferings are expressly described as
undeserved (1 Pet. i 19, iH. 18 ; Acts iH. 14), and also as fore
ordained by God and predicted by the prophets (Acts Hi 1 7 f. ;
1 Pet. i 11, H. 22-25).
Quite as prominently as His sufferings, Peter also sets forth
2B

386 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART IL
the resurrection of Christ (i 3, iH. 21), and says, indeed, that
God " raised Him up " (i 2 1). In Peter's discourses, the testi
mony of the resurrection of Christ always forms a chief subject,
that event being also described as predicted by the prophets (i 11 ;
Acts H 24-32, with express reference to Ps. xvi. 3 ff, a passage
in which Paul also discovers a prophetic aUusion to Christ's resur
rection: cf. Acts xHi 35-37; 1 Cor. xv. 4; John xx. 9). The
resurrection, therefore, in vHtue of Old Testament prophecy, is an
essential stage in the Messianic IKe ; but Peter also looks upon
it as causatively connected with the special exaltation of Christ
(Acts ii. 24, Hi 15). This idea is not expressly brought forward
in the epistle, but quite corresponds with the general view taken
therein, especiaUy with the passage 1 Pet. iH. 18. The stress
which Peter laid on the resurrection is quite clear, apart from the
dogmatic and ethical use he makes of it, from the fact that Peter
represents it as the special task of the apostles to be witnesses of
Christ's resurrection (Acts i 22 ; 1 Pet. v. 1).
The ascension of Jesus Christ is a removal to the heavens,
to a celestial and glorified Hfe, in which He is ev Befya tov Qeov
(1 Pet. Hi. 22 ; cf. Acts Hi. 21, H. 33). This expression denotes,
in a figure, that Jesus placed HimseK in heaven on the right of
the divine throne, the centre-point of divine Hfe and power (cf.
Heb. xH. 2, viii. 1, i 3), and, according to 1 Kings H. 19 and
Matt. xx. 21, signifies a participation Hi the divine honour and
dominion (cf. irdvTtov icvpiov, Acts x. 36, ii. 36). By the words
iropevBelv elv ovpavov (1 Pet. iH. 22) the ascension would appear
to be intimated. Yet the words themselves do not compel us
to seek an express reference to the external, perceptible fact, as
the same term was used by Peter for the entry into the kingdom
of the dead. There is no greater certainty Hi the dveXrj^Br) (Acts
i 22). The fact itself being presupposed, the idea is very natural
that Peter selected these words with aUusion to the fact, but the
words themselves wUl not avaU as an historical proof. The pas
sage Acts H. 34-36 is of a simUar character, where, from ver. 34,
we may see that it is intended to be intimated that Christ dvefii),
elv tovv ovpavovv.
His glorious manifestation for the completion of His work is a
condition of Christ which wiU be revealed only in the future
(1 Pet. i 7, 13, v. 4 ; Acts Hi. 20 f.).
The conditions of Christ which we have hitherto considered,

DIV. II. § 64.] PETER— PERSON OF CHRIST AS AUTHOR OF SALVATION. 387
relating to His past, present, and future, are everywhere laid down
in the other parts of the New Testament as essential phases in
the IKe and manifestation of Jesus Christ ; but there is one cH-
cumstance which we find clearly and indubitably brought forward
by Peter only.
This is the presence of Christ in the kingdom of the dead (1 Pet.
in. 1 9, iv. 6). It is remarkable that the most complete description
of the Messianicconditions is supplied by Peter, who more especiaUy
made it his business to represent the Messianic life, appearance, and
ministry as the fulfilment of divine prophecy. He speaks not only
of a presence of Christ in the kingdom of the dead, but also of
some ministry executed there. The interpretation of this pas- 1
sage has been so much discussed and treated of, that it admits of I
little K any doubt. The passage speaks of something which took
place after Christ's death in the flesh. Being in possession of
the fuU energy of life, and only as a irvevpa set free from the
adp%, He went and preached, not in heU, where the condemned
are under judgment, but Hi Hades, which also has its pains for the
wicked (Luke xvi. 23), although not the place either for those
condemned or those acquitted and justified in the final judgment.
The realm of the dead is, therefore, here intended to mean the
region and condition of the departed on whom judgment is im
pending, who, however, vary much in theH moral quaHties.
Here are those who neither believed Hi nor compHed with God's
threats and warnings with regard to the punishment of the Flood
(cf. Jude 15, 2 Pet. ii. 9). Hvevpara are departed spirits, who
are elsewhere caUed "tyvyal (cf. Rev. vi. 9 ; Heb. xH. 23 ; Rev.
xxii 6 ; Luke xxiv. 37, 39). $vXaia) is, Hi the Syrian transla
tion, expressed by Sheol. In Rev. xx. 7 this is the place in
which Satan is bound for a thousand years, ere the final judg
ment is passed upon him. It is, therefore, in this worst case the
locaHty of an intermediate condition before the last judgment.
Thus, then, Christ after His death entered the realm of the dead,
namely, among the unrighteous, unbelieving, and disobedient, who
had been subject to the divine punishment of the Flood.
It is essentiaUy a part of the idea of human death that the soul
set free from the body goes to Hades ; and thus the resurrection is
¦nothing more than leaving the place. Christ's pecuHar power of
life had to be put to the test in the entry to Hades. His soul
could not be given up to its power, neither could His flesh see

388 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
corruption (Acts ii. 2 7). By the putting off the flesh, the irvevpa
developed the fuU measure of its divine power of Hfe, and Hi this
power was capable of action. In this doctrine, the reahty of the
death of Jesus is expressed as opposed to any apparent death, and
also the exaltedness of Christ over the conditio mere humana, in
that He came not under the power of Hades, but, in the divine
power of the fulness of life, trod under foot the realm of the dead,
not being able to be held by it.
FinaUy, as regards Peter's general impression as to the person of
Christ as a whole, however few may be bis direct statements as to
the nature of His person, the general view of this apostle embraces
some remarkable expressions as to His dignity. We do not, in
deed, once find the name vie? Qeov either Hi the first Epistle or
in the discourses of Peter. In the latter, however, we have the
expression 7rat? Qeov (Acts Hi. 13, 26, iv. 27, 30); but these
words ought most probably to be translated servant of God in
the Old Testament theocratical sense (cf. Matt. xH. 18; Luke i
54 ; Acts iv. 25). In fuU harmony with this is Peter's foUowing
Isa. HH. in his description of the sufferings of Christ (1 Pet. H
2 1—2 5) ; also, in his first discourses in reference to the utterances
as to the servant of God, his applying the term irdiv Qeov to Jesus
quite corresponds with the endeavour to connect Him with Old
Testament prophecy. But as we have, both in the discourses of
Peter, and also in his epistle, the strongest testimony for the Bo%a
of Christ, we may weU assume that the idea of the vlov Qeov as
appHed to Christ was quite famiHar to him, looking even at the
passages Hi the gospels Hi which he is introduced as speaking as
an apostle (John vi. 68 f. ; Matt. xvi. 16). It is therefore quite
in order that in 1 Pet. i 3 we find the matter put in another
way, namely, God being styled the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.
If God in a pre-eminent sense is the Father of Jesus Christ, and
He who has newly begotten us, so that, for Christ's sake and
through Christ, He is in a peculiar sense our Father, Christ is also
in a pecuHar sense the Son of God, so that we, in consequence of
His Sonship and faith in Him, are also chUdren of God. In
harmony with this, Peter describes God's Spirit the Spirit of
Christ (1 Pet. i 11), and also lays down a threefold causality of
salvation (i 2). The decisive indication of the dignity may, how
ever, be found in certain passages which express the practical be
haviour of beHevers towards Christ then Lord. In the first place,

DIV. II. § 65.] PETER — MINISTRY OF CHRIST AS AUTHOR OF SALVATION. 389
the doxology (ch. iv. 11), which the most natural construction must
apply to Christ, is the same as that appHed to God (ch. v. 11).
Another passage of the kind is 1 Pet. iH. 15, a citation from Isa.
vin. 13, where it is appHed to God ; but Peter makes Christ the
subject, for it is acknowledged by the critics that it should be
read Kvpiov Xpiarov}
Thus the relation of beHevers to Christ is one of religious
worship and praise. This is exactly the impression which the
Christians had of Jesus Christ from the very beginning, and on
account of which they styled Him Lord. The view of the person
of Christ pervading this epistle is confirmed by the way in which
Peter speaks of the resurrection and exaltation of Christ (dpxvybv
irjv fay?, Acts Hi. 15); for irdvrcov Kvpiov (Acts x. 36) is per
haps to be taken as mascuHne, as it is used by Peter in his first
address to those who were born GentUes. Cf. also Kvpiov ical
Xpiarov, Acts ii. 36.
§ 65. Peter's Teaching as to the Cause of Salvation — Of the
Ministry of Christ as the Author of Salvation.
The ministry of Jesus is comprehended by Peter in the word
Xpiarov, which is either united with 'Inaovv or appHed to Him
without any further name. Therein is implied the whole vocation
of Jesus (Acts ii. 36). The aim and end of His ministry is the
amvpta of men (Acts iv. 12 ; 1 Pet. i 9 £). In other passages,
Peter caUs Him dpxvybv rrjv farjv (Acts iii. 1 5) ; dpxvYov ical
aarrrjp (Acts v. 31) ; iroipjrp) ical iiriaicoirov tyvx&v (1 Pet. H. 25) ;
and dpxiiroiprjv (1 Pet. v. 4). Christ is, besides, the stone rejected
by men, but made by God the chief corner-stone, which is the
Hving foundation of God's house, the holy people -of God, and on
which depends the royal and priestly dignity which is possessed
by beHevers, who have it only through Christ (1 Pet. H. 4-10;
cf. Acts iv. 11 ; Matt. xxi. 42, 44). Elsewhere the royal and
' priestly dignity is not expressly attributed to Christ, but the pre
dicates seem to intimate them. The detaUs of Christ's ministry
are connected with the various conditions of His person.
FHst, the ministry of Christ in His earthly condition.
The teaching agency of Christ is not speciaUy set forth in Peter's
1 The English Translation, following the text, recept, has adopted the other
¦reading, Kvpiov Is riu Giov; but Xpiarov is the reading of all the MSS. of
highest authority. — Tr.

390 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
Epistle, because he does not here, ex professo, attempt to represent
all the points of His earthly appearance. On the other hand, in
the Acts, Hi Peter's speech to Cornelius the activity of the Lord
as a public teacher is made duly prominent (Acts x. 36-38).
We do not understand tov Xoyov as an ace. dbsolut., but as
governed by KaraXapBdvopai, in ver. 34. At aU events, the sense
is, that Jesus Christ was God's instrument for preaching peace, —
peace with God, and mutual peace among men (cf. Eph. H. 14).
Jesus' mHaculous agency is also brought forward (ver. 38) as a
result of His Messianic anointing, and as a beneficent course of
action, overcoming by God's power the works of Satan ; by which
action it was manifest that God was with Him. This passage
shows us what value Peter laid on the teaching of Christ ; and we
may also gather the same conclusion from the stress which he lays
in the epistle on the word of Christ, the word of God, and on the
gospel as teaching (1 Pet. i 23, 25, H. 2, 8, iH. 19, iv. 6), — this-
gospel being indeed the truth which Christians have to obey (1 Pet.
i 22), and also God's word, which exists for ever in distinction
from everything carnal (ver. 24 f). It also contains such a power
of life Hi itseK, that it generates in man a new Hfe (ver. 23), being
corroborated by its being the pr)pa Kvpiov (ver. 2 5), and is preached
in " the Holy Ghost sent down from heaven" (ver. 1 2).
Peter very decidedly sets forth the fact of Christ being a model
for us. We have aHeady seen that he premised His sinlessness ;
but we may also notice that in some passages, especiaUy 1 Pet.
H. 21-23, this sinlessness is linked on to His typical character.
Also, in 1 Pet. Hi. 1 8, Christ is looked upon as a pattern, again, in
a simUar connection. Thus the historical Hfe of Christ on earth is
represented as a pattern especiaUy in its sufferings, and as a pattern
in peculiar reference to truth, patience, and love of one's enemies.
This leads us on to the ministry of Christ in His sufferings and
death. The frequent mention of these events proves what a stress
Peter laid upon them. We may also gather this from the cHcum-
stance that Peter expressly styles himself " a witness of His
sufferings,'' and also from the way in which he sets forth the
significance of the sufferings and death of Christ. He appeals to
them in every chapter, partly in reference to sanctification, and
partly to the patient endurance of undeserved sufferings. A con
sideration of the detaUs leads us to a twofold power of the suffer
ings and death of Christ. (1) The atoning and expiatory power.

DIV. II. § 65.] PETER — MINISTRY OF CHRIST AS AUTHOR OF SALVATION. 391
This is pointed out by the passages which describe the death of
Christ as a death "for sinners" (iii. 18), or "for us" (iv. 1), or
" for you" (ii. 21).1 In these passages we have every inducement
to prefer the interpretation of virep as in the stead of, — in the first
quoted, because the contrast of the BUaiov virep dBlicccv is evidently
intended, and is brought prominently forward if this interpretation
be adopted. Peter elsewhere sets forth the same idea ; for in
ch. iv. 1, by the addition o iraBcov iv aapici ireiravrai apapriav,
he presupposes that, because Christ has suffered, beHevers also
have suffered. We can therefore only assume that virep r)pwv
means in our stead; cf. 2 Cor. v. 14. And in ch. ii 21 we must
also understand it in the same way, because the same idea, that
Christ bore the punishment for our sins, is indubitably expressed,
not indeed in the same verse, but in ver. 24, Hi the same con
nection. In ch. ii. 24, Hi the mention ol His sinlessness, in
nocence, and submissive patience (Isa. HH. 9), it is expressly
said that Christ bore our sins upon the cross ; that He was raised
up on the tree, laden with our sins, with the effect that these our
sins were put away upon the cross when His body was slain. In
the word 'iva a purpose is indicated which leads us stiU further,
namely, (2) to the morally purifying power of the sufferings and
death of Christ, most closely united with theH atoning power.
Peter so deals with the two, that the atoning power is clearly laid
down, and the purifying efficacy is derived from it (ch. H. 24) :
\ airoyevea&ai = to be absent, to go away, to die, and stands here in
contrast to %Pjv. The death of Christ is to produce the effect in
us of being dead to sin and alive to righteousness. We are not
only to be free from punishment, but dead to sin as regards our
behaviour Hi respect to it. We may compare with this passage,
ch. Hi. 18, 'iva fjpdv irpoaaydyy rat Qew. Ilpoadyeiv is doubtless
used for gifts and offerings which are presented to God ; but
being here applied to men, we may compare Eph. H. 18, Hi. 12.
In the first place, an action on the part of Christ is predicated
which extends beyond His death. We'are brought to God through
the Mediator who died for us, inasmuch as He did not remain
in death, but is quickened by the Spirit. We are brought to God,
(a) by Christ presenting us to God as those whose sins have been
atoned for through His death, and therefore freed from the guUt
1 The English Translation adopts the reading virep qfiZii ; but iftau is that of
the Cod. Vat., Alexand., Ephrsem., and Sin.— Tr.

392 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
of sin ; (5) as not only free from guUt, but also moraUy renewed
and quickened (ch. ii. 24), made moraUy whole, and now aHve
always to righteousness and purified. But aU this is nothing
but the result of Christ having suffered for sin in our stead.
SimUarly in ch. iv. 1, the beHever is he who has suffered in
Christ, and naturaUy by virtue of his faith, is consciously certain
and mindful of it ; and this has the psychologico-moral effect of
operating a cessation of sinning in him.
In other passages the purifying power of Christ 's death is brought-
forward by itself, and the atoning power is only intimated by the
mode of expression as something presupposed (ch. i 2, 18, 19).
The exhortation to a holy fear before God (ver. 1 7) is based by
the apostle, not only on his reminding them of the father-like
God on whom Christians caU, but also (ver. 18 f.) on the re
demption through Christ. Avrpovv is equivalent to releasing by
a ransom (diroXvrpovv, Col. i 14; e£cvyopd£eiv, Gal. Hi. 13);
dvaarpofyr) is the whole moral conduct, which is styled vain and
empty, because it is both superficial and without continuance, and
also inoperative, — that is, deficient in the effect intended. Fol
lowing the passage in Isa. HH. 7, aUusion to which may be so often
detected in Peter's Epistle, Christ is a Lamb, — a term which had
been appHed to Christ by John the Baptist, and Hkewise by
PhUip (Acts vHi 32), and Hi many passages of the Apocalypse.
As aU beasts for sacrifice must be without blemish and spot,
Christ, as the offered One, is here described as apwpov ml
aairCXov (cf. Heb. ix. 14). It is clear, from the words uplp
aXpari, that His death is spoken of. The effect of the shedding
of this blood is now described as the ransoming of beHevers from
theH vain conversation. The moraUy purifying power of the
death of Christ is, in the first place, pointed out ; but its sacrificial
action is also aUuded to, — the blood of the victim, as the seat of
Hfe, being that which is determined by God as the ransom and
expiation (Lev. xvH. 11, 14). The setting free from the "vain
conversation" presupposes ;the atonement. The passage, ch. i. 2,
et? viraKor)v ical pavriapbv a'lparov 'Ir/aov Xpiarov, is to be
similarly explained. According to the ritual of the Old Testa
ment (Ex. xxiv. 6-8 ; Lev. xvi. 14-19 ; Heb. ix. 13 ff, 19), part
of the blood of the victim was sprinkled on the holy things, — an
usage which was based upon the idea that, by the sins of the
nation and individuals, the divine sanctuary itseK was contami-

DIV. II. § 65.] PETER— MINISTRY OF CHRIST AS AUTHOR OF SALVATION. 393
nated, and that the pure sacrificial blood thus purified it (Heb.
ix. 21, 23). A part of the blood was also sprinkled on the con
gregation (Heb. x. 22), so that those stained by sin are cleansed.
Not only is their guilt covered, but the impurity of sin itself, so
far. as it adheres to them, is removed. Christians are the "elect
according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sancti
fication of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the blood
of Christ," so that through the power of the atoning death of
Christ they are moraUy purified. But the continuous process
of moral purification presupposes an action which extends beyond
the death of Christ (ver. 21 £).
In Peter's discourses in the Acts of the Apostles, the sufferings
of Christ are not so speciaUy entered into, because, perhaps, it
was more judicious to enlarge upon the proposition, (1) that the
sufferings and death of Christ depended on an eternal, divine
counsel (Acts H. 23, iv. 28) ; and that (2) it was therefore a sub
ject of divine prophecy (Acts Hi. 1 7 f.).
The agency of Christ in the realm of the dead consists, according
to 1 Pet. iii. 19, iv. 6, Hi the preaching of the salvation which
is based upon the person of Christ, and especiaUy on His death
for men. Neither Noah nor the apostolic circle, but Christ,
forms the subject to iiajpvtjev ; and it is Hkewise quite clear to
whom this preaching applied, — to the spirits iv cpvXaKTJ, the
veicpoiv, not indeed Hi their Hfetime, but in Hades. The question
now arises, whether it was the dead in general, or only a portion
of them ? In ch. iv. 6 no article is prefixed to veicpoiv ; but this
is no proof against the universality of the expression. From ch.
iii. 19 f., it is at aU events certain that Christ preached to the
unbeheving contemporaries -of Noah. But the apostle has doubt
less mentioned this class by way of example, because they ap
peared to him as pecuHarly guUty (not as pecuHarly excusable,
because they might have been seduced by wicked spHits). They
are described as a generation which, in spite of long-suffering and
all God's threatenings (ch. iii. 20), persevered in their unbeHef.
This is Hi conformity with the description of them (Gen. vi.
11-13), and with the extraordinary character of the punishment
that foUowed (1 Pet. iii. 20). The Jews looked upon the generatio
diluvii as most wicked, and ascribed to them no share in the Mes
sianic salvation. This generation, therefore, is brought forward
with the view of confirming the idea that it is better for man to

394 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II
suffer innocently (ver. 1 7). This generation, suffering on account
of theH evU deeds, certainly forms a contrast with the undeserved
sufferings of Christ. Another reason which led Peter to speak' of
them is, that he desired to place the punishment of the Flood
in juxtaposition with the holy floor), of baptism (ver. 20 f.). If,
however, salvation was preached to this generation, this preach
ing must have avaUed for others who were less guUty It is
the class on whom the first judgment feU, the type of the judg
ment which is to come. The question now arises, what aim, in
Peter's idea, this preaching in the realm of the dead had in view ?
In ch. Hi. 19 iicijpvgev is simply specified; but, because nothing
more is added, we must here presuppose the aim expressed else
where. This is confirmed in ch. iv. 6. There can be no doubt
that the proposition iva icpiBwai p,ev Kara dvBpdnrovv aapici in
volves difficulties in the interpretation. One explanation is that
icpiBaiai is only grammatically, but not logicaUy dependent on Iva
. . . tcpiBevrev, so that it would mean, "that they, being humanly
judged in the flesh, may yet live according to the spirit." Never
theless the construction is difficult which makes icpiBwai lose aU
its logical reference to iva, and also the circumstance that the
proposition thus loses its reference to Christ's future judgment,
and merely retains that to the judgment which had already taken
place in the flesh, although ver. 6 appears to stand in imme
diate connection with ver. 5, Hi which the account to be given
before the Judge of quick and dead is spoken of. The second
explanation endeavours to lessen this difficulty. It aUows to
KpiBwai a logical relation to 'iva, and understands icpiBrpiai not as
to be condemned and punished, but as to be judged, as in ver. 5.
"ZapKi is thus referred to the earthly Hfe : " so that they, as aU
men, may be judged in respect to then earthly Hfe, but Hve
according to God in the spirit." This idea of adp% is, of course,
not without difficulty, because it affords no precise contrast to the
irvevpa, although it is, at aU events, to be preferred to the im
possible conception of adp% as the propensity to sin. EspeciaUy,
however, the judgment must not be looked upon as one purely
future, and not yet begun ; in any case, corruption and the im
prisonment Hi Hades form a part of it. We must accept it in aU
its fulness, as beginning Hi the earthly Hfe, being increased in
death, and arriving at a complete consummation in the general
judgment. Those in the realm of the dead, to whom the preach-

DIV. II. § 65.] PETER — MINISTRY OF CHRIST AS AUTHOR OF SALVATION. 395
ing of salvation came, had been subject to a judgment, but it
had not yet come to an end. Yet they were iv cbvXaicfj, and
were kept for the final judgment ; but this latter might turn to
their advantage. This is evidently the sense of this passage,
according to which the completion of judgment on them is teleo-
logicaUy included in the divine counsel of salvation, and for their
benefit. Thus aapg and irvevpa appear to point to a contrast
between different spheres of life : cf. 1 Cor. v. 5. It must be, at
aU events, beyond doubt that the divine purpose in preaching in
the realm of the dead was a beneficial one, and that they to
whose lot it feU were intended to attain true life, in conformity
with God's counsel and preparation. But whether this divine
purpose of aU preaching of the gospel was actuaUy attained in the
case of these dead men, and of aU of them, is truly another
question. This doctrine gives to the appearance of Christ an en
tirely universal reference to humanity, not merely to contemporaries
and those coming after, but also to those gone before. And this
reference appHes not only to the judgment on quick and dead, but
also to the preaching of salvation, so that those departed before
the appearance of Christ do not meet with a final decision of their
lot without having the salvation in Christ previously offered them.
The way is thus smoothed for the recognition of the idea that the
world of men after Christ — those, at least, who have not been
brought into outward contact with any temporal preaching of sal
vation — may become the subjects of a similar course of action
after their deaths. The whole account of Christ's agency in
the realm of the dead is not, however, exhausted in the state
ment of Peter, which, with the exception of Acts ii. 27, 31, has
but one (if any) paraUel in the New Testament, viz. the mention
of the /caraxBovioi (PhU. ii. 1 0) ; for the passage Eph. iv. 9 must
be understood of His humUiation in Hfe. Not only is salvation
preached in the invisible world, but the power of darkness is
there essentiaUy broken down. We may compare, on this point,
Col. ii. 15, which must be looked at in connection with Peter's
statement. The latter, however, does not mention this further result.
We now come to Christ's agency in His exalted condition.
That Christ's agency may be imagined as continuous in His
glorified state, foUows from Peter's image in describing Him as
being at the right hand of God (ck Hi. 22) ; for this denotes His
participation in the divine glory, not only Hi the divine blessed-

396 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II
ness, but also in the divine agency, which embraces the whole
world, and employs the highest powers as its instruments. Again,
Peter speciaUy attributes to the exalted Christ the communication
of the Holy Spirit to the apostles and other beHevers (Acts H. 33),
which presupposes that He had received from the Father that
which He promised to His disciples, and also that He had per-
sonaUy appropriated it. In 1 Pet. i. 12 it is only generaUy
stated that the Holy Ghost had been sent from heaven on the
apostles ; but in ver. 1 1 the Spirit which wrought in the prophets
is caUed the " SpHit of Christ." How much more must the author
have looked upon the Spirit which came on the apostles and be
Hevers as the SpHit which Christ had and gave ! These passages,
and those in the Acts, mutuaUy supplement one another. Christ,
as the apx^ybv Tr)v favv, is so eminently in possession of the fuU
power of divine life, that He approves HimseK to men as He who
gives Hfe. Exalted to the heavens, He sheds forth in the power
of His name not only the virtue of bodUy IKe, such as mHacu
lous healings, soundness, etc. (Acts Hi. 16), under the condition of
faith, but, in consequence of His resurrection, men are spHituaUy
quickened by regeneration to a Hving hope (1 Pet. i 3), and,
through Christ's resurrection and ascension, baptism receives its
cleansing power. By Him alone can man be saved (Acts iv. 12).
FinaUy, the exalted Christ is the continual Shepherd and Bishop
of souls (1 Pet. H. 2 5), and the living corner-stone on which God's
spiritual house is built (ch. H. 4-1 0 ; Acts iv. 1 1 f), by the agency
of His word which brings about the divine power of Christ's salva
tion, — the word of truth (1 Pet. i 2 2), the word of Hfe (ver. 24).
But this continued agency of the exalted Christ, having as its
aim the salvation of men, finds at last its culminating point in
which aU is perfected. This is the full manifestation of the exalted
Christ, the diroicdXv^riv 'Irjaov Xpiarov (1 Pet. i 7, 13), or the
(pavepcoBrjvai (ch. v. 4). The course of development of Christians
and men generally, and also of Christ's kingdom, wUl be once for
aU closed in the last judgment which is to be passed on aU mankhid,
the quick and the dead (Acts x. 42 ; 1 Pet. iv. 5). As Christ
preached the gospel in the realm of the dead, so wiU He also
judge the dead as weU as the living. This perfected manifesta
tion of Christ brings to believers the consummation of their salva
tion, the perfect aarr/pia, as the reXov rrjv iriarewv (ch. i 9).
Although, therefore, Peter's view of Christianity is that of

DIV. II. § 66.] PETER— GOD THE FATHER, AND HOLY SPIRIT. 397
fulfiUed prophecy the reaHzation of this prophecy is not yet a
complete one ; but yet, that which is stUl impending, the icaipol
dva^v^ecov, or the diro/caTaaTaaiv irdvrcov, &v iXaXqaev 6 Qeov (Acts
iii. 19, 21), is not the effect of any new principle, but the opera
tion of Christ Himself, who, since His exaltation, has worked, and
is stiU working among men. We must, however, not faU to re
mark that, although the judgment is expressly referred to Christ,
stUl in 1 Pet. i 17 God the Father is looked upon as the Judge.
We also notice this Hi James ahd Hi other more developed systems
of doctrine. Christ, in His unity with God the Father, must be
here understood.
§ 66. Peter's Teaching as to the Cause of Salvation — Of God the
Father, and the Holy Spirit.
The bibHcal doctrine of God is modified in certain important
points by the doctrine of salvation and of Christ, and the more so
the greater the development which is given to the pecuHar detaUs
of Christianity. We see this in Peter's teaching as to God.
Peter, of course, puts forward a theory as to God generaUy.
God is the Creator of man (1 Pet. iv. 19), to whom "as to a
faithful Creator," who maintains His creative love, those who
suffer according to His wiU may commit theH souls. He is,
therefore, the God who careth for us (ch. v. 7), on whom we must
cast aU our care (cf. Ps. Iv. 22 in LXX.). He is also the Judge
who judges HnpartiaUy every man's work (ch. i 17). He is the
Almighty, under whose powerful hand we have to humble our
selves (ch. v. 6) ; the Omniscient, who knoweth the heart (Acts
xv. 8) ; the Holy, who has pleasure in the righteous, but is dis
pleased with the wicked (1 Pet. Hi 12), and desires that men
should be holy as He is holy (ch. i 15 £). But even in these
passages a reference to the person and work of Christ is not
entirely wanting. God is styled " the faithful Creator" in respect
to the house of God, the community of beHevers who suffer for
Christ's sake (ch. iv. 17). He is the Almighty God who cares for
Christians, gives grace to the humble, and raises them up in His
own good time ; He is the Judge on whom Christians, for Christ's
sake, caU as Father (ch. i 17); the Holy One, who has caUed
Christians to salvation (ch. 1 15); the Searcher of hearts, who
communicated the Holy Spirit both to GentUes and Jews who
•beheved in Christ (Acts xv. 8).

398 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART. II.
, These references are, however, rendered much more significant
by the way in which Peter, in numerous passages, expressly sets
forth the relation of God to the person and work of Christ. This
relation Peter makes partly objective and partly subjective in its nature.
Objectively, God is a God of " abundant mercy" (ch. i 3), the "God
of aU grace" (ch. v. 10). God is also the Father of Jesus Christ
(ch. i 3), and therefore, generaUy, the Father (ch. 1 2) of those
elect from everlasting. It is He who has fore-ordained Christ
from aU eternity (ch. i 20), and has raised up and exalted Him
(ver. 21), making Him the chief corner-stone Hi Zion (ii. 4, 6),
— i.e. the foundation of a new theocratic edifice. God is, further,
through Christ, the Father of beHevers (ch. 1 1 7), who hath before
chosen them (ch. i 2) and caUed them (ch. i 1 5, ii. 9) to an eternal
glory in Christ (ch. v. 1 0), begetting them again to a Hvely hope
through Christ's resurrection (ch. i 3). He it is who perfects,
strengthens, and estabHshes believers (ch. v. 10), and by His
power they are preserved unto salvation (ch. i 5). It is God
who is to be glorified in Christ through aU ages (ch. iv. 11),
Thus God is placed in essential relation to Christ, to believers,
and to Christ's work. But God's relation to Christ and His work
must also be considered in its subjective aspect. Through Christ
we have faith in God, who has raised up and glorified Christ, so
that God is the subject of our confidence and hope (ch. i 21);
and it was the aim of His atoning death to bring us to God
(ck iii. 18).
Peter's teaching as to the Holy Spirit is of a simUar character
in its reference to Christ. He caUs Him the irvevpa dyiov
(1 Pet. i 12 ; Acts v. 3), irvevpa Qeov (1 Pet. iv. 14), and also
irvevpa Xpiarov (1 Pet. i 11). The expression irvevpa icvpiov
(Acts v. 9) is not to be understood as referring to Christ. In a
few passages the word irvevpa is used without quaHfication. From
Acts v. 4, 3, 9, we see that this Spirit is one with God. Ananias,
in lying to the Holy Ghost, had Hed to God. From 1 Pet. i. 2 it
is clear that the Spirit works in men that which is desHed by
God. But this Spirit of God is placed in essential relation to the
person and work of Christ. His communication to men is brought
about by the glorified Christ (Acts H. 33), not only to the apostles
as the first preachers of the gospel (1 Pet. i 12), but also to all
believers in Christ (Acts H. 38, x. 47, xi. 15, xv. 8 f), so that He
"rests" upon these believers (1 Pet. iv. 14), and, remaining in

DIV. II. §66.] PETER — GOD THE FATHER, AND HOLY SPIRIT. 399
union with them, is the principle of their sanctification and purifi
cation (ch. i 2, 22), and raises them superior to the world (ch.
iv. 14), being evU spoken of by the latter, but glorified by be
Hevers. Although reproached for the name of Christ, they are
blessed, because the Spirit rests upon them. This Spirit is so
eminently the Spirit of Christ, that He is so caUed by Peter, as
operating in the Old Testament prophets (ch. i 11). The com
munity of beHevers is styled olicov tov Qeov (ch. iv. 17), and olicov
irvevpaTiKov (ch. H. 5). ^,
Peter also expressly defines the divine causality of salvation as
being of a threefold character. This he does, indeed, Hi one passage,
combining the three together (ch. i 2), — the Father, the Spirit,
and Jesus Christ. The Father is God ; the Spirit, however, in
which we are sanctified, is here merely a divine principle ; and
Christ, whose the SpHit is, and through whom it is shed forth
upon beHevers, is the Christ whose Father is God, and through
whom God receives His fuU glorification (ch. iv. 11). In ch.
i. 2 it is expressed that the irpoyvaaiv of God is reahzed only in
the Holy SpHit, and has its aim Hi the continuous purification
through Christ. This combination made by an apostle, especiaUy
by Peter, need cause no surprise, as Christ's command to baptize
(Matt. xxviH. 19) presents a simUar combination as the great
foundation of Christian doctrine.
We may notice in James, that his teaching as to God is Httle
influenced by his Christology. It must, of course, be the case
that, in any representation of doctrine which gives the essential
detaUs of Christianity, the idea of God must be of an essentiaUy
Christian character. We have found this to be so ; for even in
James the idea of God the Father is of one who communicates
Himself without reserve to man with His perfect gifts, and re
generates them anew through the word of truth ; but at this very
general Christian modification of the conception of God, James
stops short. Peter, on the contrary, gives a special development
to the entire scope of the Christian idea of God. Through his
position as the first preacher of the gospel and the founder of the
Church, and also by his previous proximity to our Lord, he was
led to preach Christ as the Son of the Hving God (Matt. xvi. 16),
who had the words of eternal Hfe (John vi. 68). Peter, there
fore, has taught abundantly about Christ ; and as, in his inter
course with Him, a new Hght had broken upon him as to God the

400 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
Father of Christ, he does not faU to set forth the relation of
Christ to the Father, of the Father to Christ, of Christ to the
SpHit, and of the Spirit to Christ, but copiously enlarges upon them,
as was practically required. As regards the subjective relation of
God to Christ, Peter teaches that we attain faith in God through
Christ, and that we become united to God also through Christ ;
and in these propositions we recognise a fundamental point in
the more developed doctrine of God, as shown in the New Testa
ment. We see, therefore, that Peter's Christology agrees essen
tially with that of Paul and James, and that the former has
adopted as copiously as any one the Messianic appearance of
Jesus Christ (not merely in his first preaching, but also in his
epistles, Hi which he addresses long existing churches), so that
these facts of Jesus Christ's appearance are worked up into one
with the teaching as to God. But we also have to remark that
the Petrine Christology chiefly dweUs in the manifested Christ,
including the actual glorification of Christ, as beginning in the
realm of the dead, and continued and completed in the resurrec
tion and exaltation. Peter's Christological teachmg as to Christ
before His earthly manifestation, is, on the other hand, more
Hmited ; but we may notice what dHection his teaching would
take on that head if he had entered on the point, for his practical
impression of the person of Christ is that of His adoration. What
is said of Christ's ministry is in harmony with this. The action,
the principle, and the causaHty which operated in Christ, were of
no creature-Hke character. The unique nature of Christ, as re
gards the whole world and aU mankind, is brought forward ; but
a fuU development as to the nature of the person of Christ, as
based on the actual detaUs of His appearance and mamfestation,
is not given by Peter, although an approach to the more developed
ideas of Paul and John may be noticed in his teaching.
§ 67. Peter's Teaching as to Salvation.
Sin itself, as causing the need for salvation, is not ¦ separately
dealt with by Peter ; but, in his desire to set forth salvation to
his readers, and to exhort them to accept and hold fast to it, he
speaks of the need for salvation, and the sin which by it is to be
put away and cleansed. Peter's teaching as to sin does not,
therefore, present much that is pecuHar, and his idea of it is
derived from the Old Testament. We find, nevertheless, Hi his

DIV. II. § 67.] PETER — TEACHING AS TO SALVATION. 401
incidental treatment of sin, an unmistakeable many-sidedness,
although the final root of sin is not, ex professo, gone back to.
Sin, subjectively considered, as individual sin, is caUed dpapria,
and also as sin generaUy (ch. iv. 1) ; and single sins, external or
internal, are styled in the plural dpaprlai (ch. ii. 24, iii. 18,
iv. 8). This sin is, in the first place, very distinctly denoted as
inward sin. Sinful desires are iiriBvplai (ch. i 14), and in their
mamfold forms dvBpcoircov iiriBvplai (ch. iv. 2), in contrast to the
pure and holy wiU of God, who desHes that we shaU be holy too
(ch. i. 15 f.). Thus the iiriBvpiai are selfish and worldly, and are
in part aapiciical iiriBvplai, in which expression the adp% is not
to be taken in the PauHne sense, but, as always in Peter, in a
corporeal sense. Hence the " fleshly lusts " (ch. H. 1 1) which
war against the soul (yjrvxv), in opposition to aU that is higher
and more honourable in man (for ¦tyvxh is a general idea, which
embraces both the higher and lower life of the soul; here the
higher side is intended, cf. Jas. iv. 1). Sin becomes outward in
the dvaaTpo<j>r), and tends to "vain conversation" (ch. i 18).
This " conversation " is also caUed the dvBpwircov eiriBvplaiv
Biwaai, or iropeveaBai iv daeXyelaiv, etc. (ch. iv. 2). Peter men
tions various branches of sin, — some grossly sensual excesses,
which are attributed to the pre-Christian state of those who were
once heathen (iv. 3), and other manifold sins against our feUow-
men (ch. iv. 15, H. 1, Hi 9 f.). The general expression is, how
ever, Kaicd iroielv (ch. Hi. 12) ; and, Hi harmony with this, icaiiia
(ch. ii. 1), which is probably to be understood, not as a special
kind, but as the idea of a species of sin. Hence, those who give
the dominion to sin in theH inner and outer IKe are caUed
icaicoiroiol (ch. H. 12, 14), also daeBeiv ical dpaprcuXoi (cL iv. 18).
Peter's point of view tends, therefore, to a coUective Hfe of sin.
This view results from the bibHcal, and especiaUy the New Testa
ment standpoint, sin being placed in juxtaposition with the divine
wiU and the reaction of the divine Hfe and grace. Thus all
that is sinful faUs into one category. Mankind generaUy, in the
eyes of the gracious God, needs His grace ; and salvation in the
same way as sin is looked upon as common to alL We have
aHeady seen that Peter's representation of Christ's manKestation
appHed it to past generations, as weU as to those present and to
come. And in his epistle, addressing readers most of whom had
previously been heathen, and also in the Acts of the Apostles,
20

402 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART IL
speaking to a population which, although Hving in the midst of
Judaism, needed redemption, he looked upon sin and the need
for salvation as common to aU, so that "the vain conversation"
(1 Pet. i 18) is described as irarpoirapdBoTov. They were as ff
" sheep going astray " without a shepherd (ch. ii. 25), which, in
the prophet's sense, means that every sinner foUowed his own
course. But as " every man's own way " leads far from the way
of salvation, so aU these " ways " were intertwined together. As
heathens, these Christians had wrought to BeXrjpa twv iBvwv (ch.
iv. 3), which are sensual excesses, which in ver. 3 are mentioned
by name, in conjunction with the abominable idolatry which
stands in opposition to aU that is right. It is an dvdxvaiv rfjv
dacoTiav, which certainly stands in total contrast to the Christian
life (ver. 4). This is the heathen form of fellowship in sin,
which, however, in another aspect, is caUed dyvoia (cL i 14), as
contrasted with the knowledge of the truth existing under the
gospel The pre-Christian state of the Jews is also described as
dyvoia (Acts iii. 1 7), inasmuch as they were deficient in the evan
gelical knowledge of Christ and His salvation. Peter speciaUy
speaks of one of the forms of sinful community of Hving as
shown in the direiBeiv, irpoaKoirreiv t& Xoytp, when the gospel is
preached (1 Pet. ii. 7, iv. 17). This want of faith is dHectly
influenced by Satan (ch. v. 8), who, as dvTiBiicov to beHevers,
"> walketh about as a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour."
Consequently not only those who have not yet become Christians
are kept back from faith in the preaching of the word, but those
who have aHeady become beHevers are, where it is possible, made
a prey, not only by means of craft (as of the serpent), but also by
means of dread of the persecutions which Christians have to
suffer in the world (ch. v. 9). The " world " is meant as a com
prehensive expression for the community of sinful Hvers. To the
icbapov is opposed r) dBeXtpoTrnv fjpwv, the feUowship of Christians,
which, however, outwardly exists in connection with the world.
Sin objectively considered, that is, as regards God, is a relation
of opposition to the divine will (1 Pet. iv. 2) ; on which account
sin, being an accountable action on man's part, leads to punish
ment from God (ver. 17), namely, the judgment which must
begin at God's house, inasmuch as sin is not altogether extirpated
even there, but must devolve in its fuUest measure on the im
penitent sinner (ver. 18). From the extraordinary stress which

o

DIV. II. § 67.] PETER— TEACHING AS TO SALVATION. 403
Peter, in his teaching as to salvation, lays on the atoning death
of Christ, we may see how prominently this HabUity to punish
ment, which depends on the accountabUity for sin, is brought
'forward in his epistle. But, although sin is imputable and
unbiassed opposition to the wiU of the holy and just God (ch. i
16 f), and therefore brings down God's judgment, it is not on
this account independent of the divine will: it cannot frustrate
God's counsel, but indirectly finds a place in it ; so that those
who give themselves up to sin, against their better knowledge
and conscience, are destined to find in the gospel preached to
them, and the Lord HimseK, a " stone of stumbling" and " rock
of offence" (ch. H. 7).
Peter's teaching as to sin agrees essentially with that of James,
inasmuch as the latter confines himself to actual sin ; but James
more brings forward the inner aspect of it and the sinful desires,
whilst in Peter the community of sinful living is more prominently
displayed in its relation to God. On the other hand, we must
take a prospective glance at Paul's teaching, who goes an actual
step further, and refers sinful desHes to the propensity from
which they aU flow, and traces back the sin, which Peter caUs
irarpoirapaBoTov, to its connection with the first man. With
regard to the first point, however, Peter gives a hint (1 Pet. i.
22-24). Regeneration is here referred to a need inherent in
man, who is adpg, and therefore without stabiHty. That which
is to abide in man, and is therefore of true value before God,
cannot proceed from humanity alone. A divine principle must
intervene, and regeneration is conditional on the word of God.
We cannot faU to detect a difference between the discourses of
Peter and his first Epistle, in respect to the appropriation of, or
conditions for, salvation. In his discourses, Peter had to do with
men to whom salvation was then first preached, and he was con-
.sequently compelled to summon them to fulfil the first conditions
of that salvation. In the epistle, however, although these con
ditions might be aUuded to, they were not brought forward ex
professo, or so fully laid down. In the Acts of the Apostles,
Peter brings forward, as the conditions of salvation, repentance,
faith, and baptism; in the first place, repentance and baptism
(Acts ii. 38). Baptism is the outward proof or confirmation of
repentance ; and in the latter, as in the baptismal act spirituaUy
i embraced, faith in Jesus Christ as the Redeemer from sin is also

404 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
included. In other passages, pLeravoelv alone is brought forward,
baptism being presupposed, and iiriaTpe<beiv (moral conversion) and
d<peaiv dpaprimv united with it (Acts iH. 19, 26, v. 31). Faith
alone is specified (Acts x. 43, xi. 17, xv. 9, 11), — that is, faith
in Jesus Christ. But, that a fundamental change of mind was
combined with it, may be gathered from ch. xv. 9 (purifying the
heart) ; and that it was accompanied by baptism is also clear from
Acts x. In Peter's first Epistle the first entry into a state of
salvation is not so dHectly dealt with ; but faith is throughout
asserted to be the subjective condition for salvation, — faith in
Jesus Christ (ch. i. 5-9, H. 6-8), and, through Him, in God the
Father (ch. i 21). In this Peter comprehends the whole of the
conditions for salvation, making this faith not merely the com
mencement of aU salvation, but also the continued requisite for
our future consummation (ch. i 5, 9), and therefore the ground
work of the whole Christian life (ver. 7). It need not, therefore,
be a cause for surprise that perdvoia is not spoken of in the
epistle, for everything is included in faith. But baptism is
expressly mentioned (ch. iii. 21). In the Acts it is caUed
baptism Hi the name of Jesus Christ, and is connected with the
forgiveness of sins and the reception of the Holy Ghost. Conse
quently through baptism the penitent and believing catechumen
received negatively forgiveness of- sins, and the Holy Ghost
positively; in which are contained both the consciousness of
divine mercy, and also the power for aU that is good. The
passage in the epistle quoted above forms a part of the remark
able section in which the apostle traces the progress of the Lord,
from His sufferings to His seat on the right hand of God, and
also connects the saving through baptism with the judgment of
the flood. The flood is described as a baptism, of which Christian
baptism is the antitype. But the water of the flood was not that
which saved. Noah and his family were saved by means of the
ark, the water being the conditio sine qua non, without which this
saving could- not have taken place. The saving through the
water of the flood is a baptism, just as the passage through the
Red Sea, according to Paul (1 Cor. x. 2). The passage of Noah
and his famUy through the water was a saving dedication of
them, both as a sign of the divine favour, and also as an obligatory
engagement to the divine service. Peter compares these two
baptisms, inasmuch as the baptismal act is a spiritual and not a

DIV. II. §67.] PETER— TEACHING AS TO SALVATION. 405
bodUy purification The positive contrast to bodUy purification
is expressed by Peter in the aweiBrjaemv dyaB-P/V eireptornpa elv
Qeov. The flesh is contrasted with the "good conscience," the
aapicbv dirbBeaiv pvirov with the eirepmrqpa elv Qeov. Ai dvaard-
aewv 'Ivaov Xpiarov must be referred to the whole proposition.
We must here go back to ch. i 21. By the belief Hi Christ's
resurrection our faith and our hope rest on God ; for, through the
resurrection, and the atoning death of Christ which preceded it,
we are raised and entitled to a confident trust in God, and by
means of baptism we appropriate to ourselves the effects of the
quickening power of the risen and ascended Christ. From what
has gone before, Peter's idea of baptism is that of an efficacious
agency in the work of redemption, and that, indeed, in a twofold
relation, which includes the avvelBijaiv dyaBr), — a conscience pure
from reproach and the consciousness of guilt, but, from this very
reason, a conscience which is sincere and determined to what is
right. Peter, in setting forth baptism and faith as the conditions of
salvation, gives no intimation ' whatever Hi his epistle that an
obedience to the Mosaical law is to be looked upon as forming any
portion of the conditions necessary to salvation. On the contrary,
everything is made to rest on faith in Christ and baptism ; and
Christians are described as eXevBepoi (ch. H. 16, cf. i 17), — a
predicate which seems to point to freedom from the Mosaical law,
especiaUy with the warning added. In the Acts of the Apostles
Peter decidedly expresses his opinion against the observance of
the Mosaical law as being a condition requisite for salvation.
Salvation, as appropriated by man, is looked upon by Peter as
partly individual, partly general.
Salvation, individually considered, is the subjective forgiveness of
sin, acbeaiv apapriav. In the discourses in the Acts, this is pro
mised to those who are not as yet beHevers under the conditions
which have been already stated (Acts ii. 38, v. 31, x. 43). It is
a removal of the guilt of sin, and also of the consciousness of guilt.
In Acts iii. 19 this is called i£aXei(pBfjvai rdv apapriav. In the
epistle, the forgiveness of sins is throughout presupposed wher
ever the atoning death of Christ is mentioned as applied to the
readers, i.e. as the impulse for a death to sin (1 Pet. ii. 24, iii. 18,
iv. 1). The passage ch. iv. 8 is interpreted by many, that who
ever has brotherly love or charity is thereby also in possession

406 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
of the forgiveness of sins, however numerous they may be ; but
the meaning might also be, that this love covers and hides the
sins of feUow-men. Certainly the presence of forgiving love indi
rectly presupposes that we have ourselves experienced forgiveness
on the part of God. The subjective consideration of salvation
points out also a new moral life in it. This is based on being
divinely born again by means of the divine word (i 23, H. 2, 1, 3).
The author of this new birth is God (ch. i 3), in virtue of His
redeeming mercy. More elosely considered, this regeneration is
effected by the divine irvevpa (ch. i 2). The IKe of him that is
born again is, according to ch. H. 2, a weak one, which must be
developed and strengthened. If this progress is the work of the
Holy SpHit (ch. i 22), He must also be the author of the begin
ning. The SpHit is also to be understood by the seed, the airopd
a<f>BapTov (ver. 23). The word of God is therefore the intervening
agent ; and the " seed " is something different from this, which can
be nothing else than the divine SpHit. The word of God is
described as Hying and abiding (cf. ver. 2 5), and, foUowing Isa. xL
6-8, in contrast to the fraUty of man and aU natural productions.
This word is not, indeed, the Xoyov Qeov of John, but the word
preached by the apostles (ver. 25). It receives the attributes
living and abiding, inasmuch as it is gospel truth and the word of
salvation (vers. 22, 25, 12) ; also because it is not only the word
of God, but also has Christ as its subject (cf. 1 Cor. i 24), and
hence the SpHit proceeding from Christ is efficacious in it. But'
we do not identify Christ with the prjpa. This regeneration is,
according to Peter, an dyiaapbv irvevparov (ch. i 2). This, how
ever, does not include merely the regeneration effected, but also
a continuous and growing new moral Hfe (ch. i 22, ii 1 1). This
development of the Hfe implanted in the new birth is also a con
tinuous purification of the soul (ch. i 22), a putting away of aU
wickedness (cL H. 1, cf. iv. 2), in love to the brethren (ch. i 22),
and in obedience to Christian truth, — an obedience which, taken
precisely, is nothing but an obedience to Christ Himself (ch. i 2),
the risen Christ, and hence to His word as the word of God
(ch. i 23, 25), which is to be looked upon as the fitting and
pure spiritual nourishment for those who are born again (ch. H. 2).
By accepting and obeying this word, Christians prove themselves
to be obedient children of God (ch. i 14), not " fashioning theH
Hves according to theH former lusts," but according to the nature

DIV. II. § 67.] PETER— TEACHING AS TO SALVATION. 407
and wiU of the holy God. Purification is conditional on the con
tinual working power of the atoning death of Christ, with whose
blood Christians are sprinkled (ch. i 2, 18 f., H. 24, iv. 1), and
on the Holy Spirit (ch. 1 2, 22), who rests on Christians as a
Spirit of glory and power (ch. iv. 14), as a higher principle, which
raises them above the world. ' In virtue of this Hfe, Christians
wUl abstain from fleshly lusts (ch. ii. 11, iv. 2-4), and be sober
and watch unto prayer (ch. iv. 7), keeping themselves ready, both
for a vigorous resistance to the temptations caused by the devil, as
they then existed in the persecutions of Christians (ch. v. 8), and
also for the manHestation of Jesus Christ. Christians, then, wiU be
submissive, patient, and confident under theH undeserved sufferings
for the sake of the gospel (ch. iv. 12-16, 19, Hi. 14—17, ii.
19-21), committing their souls to a faithful Creator (cL iv. 19).
Lastly, they wiU be full of love to their feUow-men and feUow-
Christians (cH Hi 8-11, i 22, ii. 17, iv. 8-11). Under these
conditions the spHitual growth of Christians goes on (cH H. 2 ) ;
they are perfected, strengthened, and estabHshed (ch. v. 10).
Peter lays down, in numerous isolated passages, that this new Hfe
is to show itself in social relations, in the State (ch. H. 13 £), in
domestic Hfe (ch. iii 1 ff.), and in masters and servants (cH H. 18).
Thus wiU beHevers be preserved for a future salvation (ch. i 5).
This hope of completed salvation (cH i 3, 13, 21, Hi. 15, iv. 13),
and this salvation itseK, forms the thHd point in the teaching as
to its appropriation. In the beginning of the epistle (ch. i 5, 9),
the new Hfe is essentiaUy and speciaUy placed in relation to the
impending completion of salvation, the amrripia tyvx&v (ch. i
4-9, iv. 13, v. 4, 10). This is the "end of faith" (ch. 1 9),
the "inheritance preserved in heaven" for Christians (ver. 4),
the "exceeding joy" (ch. iv. 13), the unfading crown of glory
(ch. v. 4), the eternal divine glory (ch. v. 10). This salvation is
imperishable (ch. i 4, v. 10), Ml of honour (ch. v. 4, i 7 f), a
glorious state, prepared by God (ch. v. 10), but also a gKt of
grace. Peter also considers this state of salvation in its objective
aspect. It is a condition which is continuaUy based on God.
Christians are iicXeKTol (ch. i 2, H. 9). Their salvation, therefore,
depends upon a divine election, which does not belong to time,
but is according to the irpoyvaaiv Qeov irarpbv (ch. i 2), which, Hi
reference to the person of the Redeemer, is to be considered as

408 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART. II.
existing before the , foundation of the world. This election is
brought to bear by the caUing (ver. 15) out of darkness into light
(ch. H. 9). He who is thus called is also "begotten again"
(ch. i 3). Regeneration and continuous purification take place
through the SpHit (ver. 2) and the word of truth (ver. 2 2) ; and
by the power of God Christians are kept unto salvation (ver. 5),
and are completely strengthened (ch. v. 10). But Peter also
refers aU appropriated salvation to Christ, — to the atonement and
purification through His blood (ch. i 2, 18 f, ii. 24,iv. 1) ; to the
word of Christ, to which obedience is rendered (ch. i 2, 1 1) ; to
the resurrection of Christ (ch. i 3, 11, Hi. 11), and His exaltation
to the right hand of God (ver. 22) ; to the completed manffestation
of Christ (ch. i 7, 13, v. 4) as the Judge (ch. iv. 5).
This appropriated salvation is not merely individual Hi its
nature, but on it is based the Christian fellowship (ch. ii. 4-10,
i 22, H 1, iv. 8-11, v. 1-5). It has its objective cause in Christ,
the founder of a new life in common, fore-ordained by God, but
rejected by men, — the living corner-stone of a spHitual buUd
ing (cH H. 4, 6). The subjective condition is therefore, primarily,
the feUowship with Christ as the founder of this community of
life (ch. H. 4), in faith in Him (vers. 6, 7). Out of then former
error and wandering, Christians have been led to Christ, the
" Shepherd and Bishop of their souls " (ch. H. 2 5), being no longer
wanderers, but united to Christ's flock The corner-stone is the
foundation of a weU-built edifice. Every one who connects him
seK with it is buUt into it as a Hving stone, in brotherly love
(cH i 22, H. 1, 17, iH. 8, iv. 8), and also in the conscientious
appHcation of aU the gifts of grace bestowed upon individuals for
mutual salvation and the glorification of God through Christ
(ck iv. 10). Herein is Hkewise and speciaUy Hicluded the
unselfish and wiUing ministry of the chiefs and teachers of the
community, as examples to the flock (ch. v. 1-4), and also the
ready subordination of the other members to these as elders, to
whom honour and obedience are due (ch. v. 5). Any aspHation
after " filthy lucre " is especiaUy excluded (ver. 2) ; also any con
strained ministry, as if a man were compelled to it against his
inward feeHngs. The expression iicKXinaia is not to be found in
Peter's Epistle.
In taking a retrospective glance at Peter's teaching as to
salvation, we find the subjective Christian Hfe represented as a

DIV. II. § 67.] PETER — TEACHING AS TO SALVATION. 409
life of faith, hope, and love. When it is said that Paul is the
apostle of faith, John of love, and Peter of hope, nothing really
decisive is thus laid down. Peter certainly sets forth hope with
special emphasis, but he bases it on faith, and combines it with love.
In comparing Peter's teaching as to salvation with that of
James, it is evident that the profound and numerous references of
salvation to the Christology, and also the comprehensive relation
of the same to God the Father, the Spirit, and Christ, are to be
sought for in vain in James. Also Peter's view of salvation as a
new moral life, and as a hope of salvation, or as the completed
salvation itself, is in part different from the way in which James
sets forth the same subject, although neither of these points is
altogether wanting. (1.) The future salvation is made by Peter
the subject of hope, and the more prominently from his taking
the latter as his starting-point in the consideration of salvation
(ch. i 3), and in his exhortations to a Christian Hfe, takes it in
part as his basis (ch. i. 13 f.). The hope of salvation is not
placed so much in the foreground by James, although he makes
salvation the end of the promise and the heHship of the BaaiXela
(ch. i 12, H. 5), consequently also the subject of hope, in which
those that are suffering take comfort (ch. i 12), and those of low
degree attain dignity (ch. H. 5, i 10). (2.) Both by James and
Peter the new moral life is decidedly set forth ; also the new
birth is mentioned by both apostles, although James places it in
no very close relation to the new moral Hfe, whUst Peter expressly
bases the latter on the new birth, and characterizes it as an
unfolding of the divine power of life implanted by the new birth,
and of the germ then ingrafted. This is a step in advance in the
development of doctrine. Peter also goes further, by placing the
new moral life in a closer relation to the person of Christ, namely,
as love to Him being invisible (ch. i 8) ; as obedience to Him
(ch i 2) ; as following His example (ch. H. 21-23, iii. 17, 18) ;
as the result of His atoning death and His resurrection (ch. ii.
24, iv. 1, 2, i 2, 3, 18-21). James, indeed, derives good works
fx'om faith, and impartial brotherly love from faith in the Lord
Jesus Christ ; but the manifold relations of the new Hfe to Christ
which Peter displays are wanting in James' Epistle. (3.) Lastly
James mentions forgiveness ot sins and justification, — ideas, the
first ol which is certainly met with in Peter's discourses recorded
• in the Acts, but is not expHcitly set forth in the epistle (except

410 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART IL
so far as ch. iv. 8 may be thought to refer to it) ; the second,
however, is never dHectly named by Peter. The atonement
through the sufferings and death of Christ, that is, through His
blood, is so prominently displayed by Peter, that this idea seems
to pervade the whole of his epistle ; but neither the atonement as
Christ's action, nor Christ's sufferings and death, are mentioned
by James. Also the feUowship in salvation is briefly, though in
structively, set forth by Peter, evidently with a purpose, though he
does not name the iK/cXijala. Thus we see that Peter's teaching
as to salvation goes further than that of James.
Peter agrees with Paul in respect to the doctrine of salvation,
— (1) in deriving subjective salvation from the dead and risen
Christ, and in a further reference of the same to God ; (2) in the
distinction between regeneration and sanctification, and Hi the
basing of the latter on the former ; (3) in deriving the atone
ment from the vicarious sufferings and death of Christ ; (4) in
aUuding to the blessedness of heaven, and in setting forth the
hope of the same ; (5) in making faith the principal condition
for aU salvation ; (6) in the description of Christian feUowship ;
— but aU these doctrines, on account of the greater extent of his
writings, are usuaUy more copiously developed by Paul. Paul
deals differently with the subject of the forgiveness of sins and
justification, by taking man's need of redemption as his base, and
enlarging on the inability of the law to free men from sin, and
the satisfaction of every need by Christ as the Atoner, under the
condition of faith in Him. This mode of treatment involves a
much more amplified teachmg, both as to salvation and sin, than
that of Peter.
§ 6 8. Review of the System and Position of the Apostle Peter.
Peter's system presents essentiaUy aU that we have found in
James' Epistle; but we also notice an ample Christology, which is
based on the historical appearance of Christ, and an internal union
of this causaHty of salvation with salvation itself. But we also
notice the point at which Peter stops. We do not find any
didactic explanation as to Christ being the dpxvybv rfjv far)v and
the acorrip. Peter gives an impression of the person ot Christ,
which must be accounted as a characteristic of Christianity gene
raUy, — Christ is the object of divine worship (ch. iv. 11, cf. v. 11).
But Peter, Hke James, does not enter into the question, "Why

DIV. II. § 68.] PETER— REVIEW OF HIS SYSTEM AND POSITION. 411
Christ should come?" and "Why He should have so come?"
Peter, nevertheless, sets forth essentiaUy that Christ's appearance
is the fulfilment of prophecy ; and that this appearance is not only
necessary because it was predicted, but also, and expressly, because
it is grounded on the everlasting divine counsel. Both in Peter,
and also in James, the appearance of Christ wiU appear, to an
attentive reader, subjectively necessary, in virtue of man's need
of redemption, although this idea, the matter not being contro-
versiaUy treated, is not expressly defined. The Petrine teaching,
therefore, falls short of the more developed apostoHc doctrine.
(1.) That, in reference to the causaHty of salvation, the person of
Christ is not developed in detail (2.) That, in the doctrine of
sin as the need for redemption, the principle of sin in man, which
is the groundwork of aU actual sin, is set forth and developed
by Paul ex professo, whilst by Peter it is rather presupposed.
(3.) That the doctrine of salvation is not, ex professo, represented
in its full distinction from that which was presented under the
Old Testament dispensation. These points are of so weighty a
nature, that it is Hnpossible to aUow that the first Epistle of
Peter is whoUy and solely Pauline, — an idea which, Hi modern
times, is rashly asserted. It is not a mere case of some points
omitted, but the standpoint is essentiaUy different. In this
epistle the apostle does not go so far as, ex professo, to set forth
and develope the distinction between the Christian and Old Testa
ment reHgions. Also, the opinion that the first Epistle of Peter
contains aU of the PauHne system which had passed into the
Church, is not tenable. For in this case, as it is stUl presup
posed that an important difference existed between Peter and
Paul, it is inexpHcable why this epistle should have been from
the very first accepted as, Petrine.
The teaching of the first Epistle of Peter agrees completely
with the historical position of the Apostle Peter. To him the
task feU of being the first to bear testimony to Christ's appear
ance, and of founding the Christian community. For this purpose
a teaching like that of James would not have been fitted. The
testimony of Christ's personal appearance must first be accepted,
and on the standpoint of the old covenant it must be shown that
the prophecy of the latter was fulfiUed in Jesus Christ ; and then
only could the pecuHar framework of Christianity find a place.
The Church at Jerusalem was at first , the metropoHs of Jewish

412 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
Christianity, whUst that of the Gentile converts was formed at
Antioch ; but if we regard its foundation, we must look upon the
former as the mother Church of the whole of Christendom. It
was not Peter's desHe to establish a national Church among the
Jews. It was therefore soon necessary for him to come in contact
with the GentUes (Acts x.) ; and we find him assuming a position
more adapted to the GentUe Christians than that of James. His
teaching is of the same character. The person of Christ as the
Lord and Prince of Hfe is placed Hi relation to the whole of man
kind in its simultaneous and successive totaHty ; but yet the dis
tinction between Christianity and the old covenant is not expressly
set forth, the former being chiefly considered as the fulfilment of
Old Testament prophecy.
§ 69. Comparison of the Petrine System with the Gospels of
Matthew and Mark.
In our comparison of James' system of doctrine with the Gospel
of Matthew, we have seen that the purport of the former's epistle
is essentiaUy aUied to the Sermon on the Mount ; but we also
recognised that another side of the question is displayed by
Matthew, namely, the fulfilment of prophecy in Christ and His
work. We are thus led beyond James' sphere of teaching into
that of Peter. The appearance of the Messiah, as set forth in the
Petrine system, caUs to mind Matthew's handHng of the subject,
and more especiaUy in the mode in which that appearance is re
ferred back to prophecy, without, indeed, entering into any detaUs
as to the inner nature of the person of Christ, although a very high
idea of the latter may be gathered from certain expressions.
The Gospel of Mark, however, corresponds in some respects
stiU more closely to the Petrine system of teaching. Of the his
torical appearance and person of Christ Peter says nothing, but
that He had been chosen by God from aU eternity, and that He
was therefore the subject of prophecy Matthew gives an account
of the supernatural birth of Jesus ; but Mark commences with the
Messianic appearance of the Lord, and the announcement of Him
by the Baptist as His prophetic harbinger. The beginning of the
Messianic work of salvation is the public appearance of the Lord,
and Peter (Acts i 21 f.) thus describes the extent of the apos
tolic testimony. Mark, therefore, gives no account of the person
of Christ which goes back beyond His baptism by John On the

DIV. II. §70.] PETER — HIS DOCTRINE COMPARED WITH 2d EPISTLE. 413
other hand, He follows out the Messianic progress up to the
exaltation of Christ to heaven (Mark xvi. 19), — a fact which
Matthew has not received into his gospel. But Peter also foUows
out the Messianic course to this point (1 Pet. Hi. 22). Also
Christ's deep humUiation in His sufferings and death, which are
^prominently displayed by Peter, is historicaUy set forth by Mark
as an atonement for men, the Lord's words corroborating the
same. In this, too, Mark's customary brevity assumes a wonder
ful ampHfication.
§ 70. Comparison of Peter's System of Boctrine with the Second
Epistle of Peter.
The standpoint Hi this epistle is, generaUy speaking, the same
as Peter's generaUy, — Christianity being looked upon as the ful
filment of Old Testament prophecy (cH i 1 9-2 1 ; cf. 1 Pet. i
10-12). The author of this epistle, who. describes himself as hav
ing aHeady addressed these readers to whom he again writes, well
knowing that the putting off of his earthly tabernacle is at hand,
as had been shown him by the Lord Jesus Christ, appeals to his
own experience of the power and presence pf the Lord, as an eye
witness of His glory and majesty (ch. i 1 6), mentioning the fact
of the glorification of Christ, and the heavenly voice accompanying
it (Matt. xvH. 5). He further says (ver. 19) that, in vHtue of
this experience, we have in the words of prophecy something even
the more sure. Christians, therefore, through the historical Hfe
ot Christ and the apostoHcal testimony as to it, have Hi the words
of the Old Testament a confirmed prophecy, in taking heed of
which they do weU, as of a Hght shining Hi darkness untU the
day-star arise in then hearts in Christ's kingdom. Because pro-
• phecy is of divine and not of human origin, and has proceeded
from the Holy Ghost (ver. 21), its interpretation is not to be the
private work of man (ver. 20); but to "the holy men of God,
who spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," are con
trasted false prophets under both the old and new covenants. In
this epistle, however, they are spoken of as future, whilst Jude
depicts them as aHeady existing, and aUudes to the judgment
impending on them. Therefore the readers are to take warning,
and to be mindful of Old Testament prophecy and the apostolic
words (ch. Hi 1 ff), not desponding if Christ's coming were de
layed. Thus the second Epistle of Peter also looks upon Chris-

414 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
tianity as the fulfilment of Old Testament prophecy, without any
detaUed distinction between the old and new covenants being
closely entered into.
With regard to the particular doctrines expressed in this
epistle, abundant motives are derived from the Christology and
the doctrine of salvation, both of which also exercise an influ
ence on the mode in which the idea of God is dealt with. v
The epistle makes copious mention of the person of Christ. He
is everywhere Jesus Christ, through whom all salvation is to fall
to the lot of man. He is amrrip (ch. i 1), Kvpiov fjpSsv (ch. i 2,
8, 16), Kvpiov ical awrrfp (ch. ii. 20, iH. 18). His exaltation
and His power are spoken of, in reference, indeed, to His earthly
IKe and His peyaXeioTvv (ch. i 1 6 f). He has an " everlasting
kingdom" (ver. 11), and His future appearance and the judgment
which He wiU hold are speciaUy set forth (ch. iii. 4—13). The ex
pressions used are irapovaia (ver. 4) and i)pepa Kvpiov (ver. 10).
This appearance is to be distinguished from the irapovaia men
tioned in ch. i 1 6 (His presence during His life on earth) ; in
ch. Hi. 12 it is more distinctly defined as the irapovaia rrjv tov
Qeov r)pepav. This Christ is so exalted, that to Him the divine
doxology is ascribed (ch. Hi. 1 8, where there is no possibUity of
doubt that avra refers to Christ). Indeed, there is one passage in
this epistle (ch. i 1), where, according to grammar, it must be de
cided that Christ is caUed God, if the grammatical position of the
article be correct. But we have no right to assume this ; for in
ver. 2 Qeov and 'Irjaovv are again placed in juxtaposition, and in
other places the position of the article is not quite exact. Never
theless, the way in which Christ is spoken of sufficiently shows
that He is altogether looked upon as a subject of veneration and
worship. But this epistle does not go into the question of the
pre-existent Christ and His relation to God. So far the Christo
logy is simHar to that in the first epistle, although one difference
may be recognised. In the second epistle the glorification on the
Mount is mentioned (ck i 1 8) as an anticipation of the heavenly
glorification. On the other hand, the second epistle takes no
special notice of the sufferings and death of Christ ; only in ch.
ii. 1 there is an aUusion to the atonement (rbv dyopdaavra avrovv
BeairoTrjv). The teaching as to salvation pervades the whole epistle. Salva
tion is designated as rd irpbv farjv ical eiaeBeiav (ch. i 3). But

DIV. II. §70.] PETER— HIS DOCTRINE COMPARED WITH 2d EPISTLE. 415
the most pregnant expression among many in the New Testament
is, that Christians are Beiav icoivcovol cbvaecov (ch. i 4). We are
thus led back to Jesus' conversation with Nicodemus recorded by
John. We also learn that everything is given to us by His
divine power (ver. 3). Salvation also comprises purification from
former sins (ch. i 9), which presupposes forgiveness, and includes
justification, and is also the perfecting for the entry into Christ's
everlasting kingdom (ver. 11), to which an entry shall be "abun
dantly ministered." This salvation depends on the divine power,
and on the Biicaioavvr) of God and our Saviour Jesus Christ (ch.
i. 1). Amaioavvr) is the righteous conduct ot God in His covenant-
relation, presupposing the atonement and the new covenant. This
salvation has an objective and a subjective condition. The former
is the kXijaiv /cat itcXoyr) r)pa>v (ch. i 10, 3). It is God who,
after He has chosen men, caUs them to this salvation ; but this
caUing and election must be made sure by man (ver. 10) by
certain subjective conditions. Among these faith is named (ch.
i. 1), where the faith is probably primarily objective, although a
subjective faith is also presupposed. In ver. 5 faith appears as
the root of aU Christian Hfe ; and in this faith man is to show
iorth vHtue and the whole system of spontaneous morality, which
cannot exist except it is rooted in faith. From this proceeds
knowledge, out of which grow the further branches of the Chris
tian dpeTfj, both negative and positive, first in reference to the
subject's relation to God, and then to his relation to the brethren.
laith, therefore, is made the root of the appropriation rf salvation.
But hi this epistle eiriyvaaiv (also yvwaiv) is speciaUy named, and
faith faUs somewhat into the background. The knowledge of God
is mentioned (ch. i 3), and of Jesus the Lord (ver. 2) ; also the
knowledge of Jesus Christ our Lord (ver. 8, H. 20, cf. i 5, 6, Hi.
1 8). In this connection yvwaiv is not merely a partial theoretical
knowledge. But in the first epistle we do not find this prominence
given to yvmaiv and iirlyvaaiv. A twofold point, also, which was
set forth in the first epistle, holds Hi the second a subordinate
position, the atonement (doubtless hinted at Hi cL i 8, H. 1, but
only presupposed) and regeneration. On the other hand (because
the irapovaia and future judgment are so fuUy entered into), the
idea of the renewal of the world is included in that of salvation
(ch. Hi. 10-13), Hi which the world wiU become one "in which
dweUeth righteousness" (ver. 13).

416 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
The teaching as to the person of Christ and as to salvation
reverts back to the teaching as to God, because God is considered
as the origin' of aU salvation. God is our God (ch. i 1), and God
the Father in reference to Jesus Christ (ver. 1 7), who has so caiUed
us that in His calling His glory and virtue chiefly appear. In con
nection with Christ's second appearance, God's judgment is brought
forward (ch. Hi. 12), and the renewal as weU as the creation and
destruction of the world " by the word of God" (vers. 5-7). The
mention of the Holy SpHit in this epistle is confined to the Spirit
which moved in the holy men of God, the prophets, without
naming the intervention of Christ. The Holy Spirit is not
spoken of in His relation to faithful believers, — a subject copiously
dwelt upon in the first epistle. Salvation is, however, described
as a participation in the divine nature.
GeneraUy speaking, therefore, the didactic purport of this epistle
assumes the same standpoint as that of the first epistle, and of
Peter's discourses in the Acts. In points of detaU a difference is
perceptible ; and to some extent an Alexandrine colouring is evi
dent, owing to which it may be said to occupy a middle position
between the Petrine and Johannean systems. Criticism, therefore,
must direct its investigation to the point whether and how far
these differences may be explained by the diversity of the date,
the cHcumstances, the position of the readers, the inducement for
writing, and the aim, or if another author must necessarUy be
assumed. It is, however, beyond doubt that the didactic purport
of the epistle is exceUent to a high degree, — a fact which must
render any prudent criticism aU the more cHcumspect.
§ 71. Conclusion to be drawn from this Section.
The result of our previous considerations must be that the
doctrinal ideas which form the first fundamental shape of the
apostoHc teaching are an actual organic doctrinal system, and that,
within theH prescribed Hmits, nothing is omitted Hi setting forth
the characteristic nature of Christianity. But, in speaking of an
" organic doctrinal system," we do not intend that the schemes
of teaching so far developed form a complete system of Christian
doctrine, only that every scheme of teaching is an organic whole,
with an internal unity and arrangement, in opposition to the
view that there is nothing in each but a mere aggregate of
doctrinal opinions and assertions. However much the systems of

DIV. II. § 72.] PAUL— OUR SOURCES OF INFORMATION. 417
James and Peter may be looked upon as incomplete representa
tions of Christian doctrine, each nevertheless constitutes a whole,
in which a i andamental view of Christianity is set forth to which
every separate element of doctrine is suitable. Taking this as
the indisputable result of our previous considerations, a very
favourable light is thus thrown on the personaHty of the authors,
who had appropriated Christianity simply as a Hving organic
whole.

II. THE SECOND FORM OF APOSTOLIC TEACHING;
OR, CHRISTIANITY IN ITS DISTINCTION FROM THE OLD TESTAMENT.
I. APOSTOLIC TEACHING ACCORDING TO PAUL.
§ 72. Our Sources of Information as to PauVs Teaching.
From these sources we must exclude the Epistle to the Hebrews,
which does not bear the apostle's name at the commencement, and,
generaUy, is deficient in the style peculiar to the apostle. Its
author, also, nowhere gives any intimation of being the Apostle
Paul, but, on the contrary, appears to describe himseK Hi ch.
n 3 as a disciple of the apostles. The opinion as to its PauHne
origin met, therefore, with much opposition even Hi ancient times.
Whether its antiquity goes back to a date before the destruction
of Jerusalem is doubtful ; but, at aU events, it is made use of by
Clement of Rome in his first Epistle to the Corinthians. The
Western Church, however, did not recognise it as Paul's. The
Alexandrian recognised the purport, but not the language, as Paul's ;
.whilst the Syrian Church received it into theH canon ; and in the
Greek Church, after the middle of the thHd century, its Pauline
origin was generally acknowledged. Eusebius is aware of the
previous doubts, and pronounces it to be Paul's, having been
translated from the Hebrew by one of the apostle's disciples ; but
he cannot appeal to any historical testimony in favour of the
latter fact. Looking at this uncertainty in ecclesiastical tradition,
criticism must base its decision on internal grounds. But the
internal grounds are not favourable to a direct PauHne authorship,
notwithstanding the pecuHar force, depth, and exceUence of the
whole contents.
2D

418 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
In excluding this epistle, we must, on the other hand, deny
that there is any sufficient reason for banishing from the number
of the genuine PauHne epistles any one of the thHteen which bear
the apostle's name. In the ancient Church aU were recognised as
PauHne without contradiction, although apostoHcal authority has
been denied them by opponents of the Apostle Paul. Modern
criticism holds as undeniably genuine the Epistle to the Galatians,
the two Epistles to the Corinthians, and that to the Romans ; and
happUy these are the very epistles which are of the highest
importance as regards theH doctrinal matter. The two last
chapters of the Epistle to the Romans have, however, been
questioned. The substance of the epistle remains unaffected by
this, but the doubts themselves have met with the most decided
opposition. The nine other epistles have aU been attacked by
modern criticism.
The Pastoral Epistles have been the most assailed, especiaUy
the first Epistle to Timothy by Schleiermacher, who pronounces
it to be a compUation from the second Epistle to Timothy and
that to Titus. Eichhorn has sought to impugn the genuineness of
aU three epistles ; and De Wette shared his doubts, looking upon
the first epistle as most decidedly a compUation. Schott holds
Luke to be their author. Credner looks upon the Epistle to Titus
as genuine, and beUeves that the second Epistle to Timothy is
based upon two genuine epistles of Paul, which had been altered
by an author who also composed the first Epistle to Timothy.
The arguments against the genuineness are mostly concerned with
the language and style, and the materials are merely of a negative
kind ; and an endeavour has been made to show that certain cH
cumstances do not harmonize with the time of Paul.
Three only of the rest of the epistles — the second to the Thes
salonians, and those to the Ephesians and Colossians — were at
tacked in early times. The genuineness of the second Epistle to
the Thessalonians has been assaUed, partly on account of its rela
tion to the first epistle, and partly on account of its teaching as
to Antichrist, by E. Chr. Schmidt and by De Wette (with the
concession that there were no reaUy adequate grounds,, and that
the contents of the epistle were exceUent) ; also by Kern (Tubing.
Zeitschr. 1839, ii), in opposition to whom Pelt and De Wette
subsequently maintained its genuineness. The Epistle to the
Ephesians has also been impugned, on account of certain features

DIV. II. § 72.] PAUL— OUR SOURCES OF INFORMATION. 419
which cause surprise both in their own nature and then relation
to the Epistle to the Colossians. Thereon De Wette has based
his doubts as to its genuineness, in which doubts Usteri agrees, in
his development of the PauHne system. De Wette is, however,
bound to confess that there are no adequate grounds for rejecting
this epistle, which has been acknowledged as genuine by the unani
mous voice of antiquity, and contains so much that is fuUy worthy
of the apostle, and could hardly have been expected from any imi
tators. AU the commentaries of modern times have maintained the
genuineness of this epistle, in opposition to De Wette, who, how
ever, in his commentary, has held fast to his opinion. The Epistle
to the Colossians has been attacked by Meyerhoff, and has found
defenders in Huther and De Wette. These three epistles, and, in
addition, the three others, have been caUed in question by criticism
in Baur's Paulus and Schwegler's Nachapostolischen Zeitalter. The
question depends on internal grounds, and, on the whole, has met
with but Httle support ; so that we are not justified in excluding
these epistles from our sources of information as to Paul's doctrinal
system. As regards the relation which these epistles bear to the Pauline
teaching, their importance depends on theH authenticity and their
richness in doctrinal matter. Happily, as before remarked, the
most important in the one point are also the most important in
the other. These four must, therefore, form the groundwork of
our consideration ; but each of the others which foUow them are
also weU fitted to add theH contribution to the sum of PauHne
teachmg. Looking at the rapid development of the Christian
Church in the earHest ages, as well as the variability of the apostle's
mind, and the energy with which he withstood any unchristian
modification of Christian doctrine, it is but natural that into the
later epistles certain doctrinal statements have found their way
which do not exist in the earlier writings. We shaU, however,
have to caU attention to the point that these later definitions of
doctrine result almost necessarUy from the earUer ones, so soon
as .there was any occasion to throw a light upon the latter from
a fresh point of view. But in aU this the apostle has not altered
his dogmatical views. Less in him than in any one are the doctrines
of Christianity an aggregate of formula; : they are, on the contrary,
an organic whole, which, in the course of time, and according
to circumstances, becomes more and more developed. We shall

420 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
therefore be compeUed to keep apart the earUer and later epistles,
caUing attention to the points where any important difference
exists between them.
This division of the epistles, according to theH date, has a
special interest as far as bibUcal theology is concerned, on account
of the course of development to be observed in the teaching con
tained Hi them.
In the first place, we have those written before the long-pro
tracted imprisonment of the apostle. The earliest are the two
Epistles to the Thessalonians written from Corinth (cf. Acts xviH
1-1 8) ; next, the Epistle to the Galatians, written most probably
from Ephesus after the apostle had visited the earHer-founded
churches (Acts xviii 23), and had sojourned two years in Ephesus
(Acts xix. 1). The first Epistle to the Corinthians was Hkewise
written from Ephesus towards the end of his stay there (1 Cor.
xvi 8—1 0 ; Acts xix. 2 1 f.). The second Epistle to the Corin
thians was written about half a year later from Macedonia, before
his three months' sojourn in Achaia (Acts xx. 3). At this time
also must be placed the Epistle to the Romans, written in Corinth
during the apostle's second visit to this city (Acts xx. 2 f. ; Rom.
xvi. 1, 23), shortly before his last journey to Syria and Jerusalem
(Rom. xv. 25 ff. ; Acts xx. 3).
Next, we have the epistles written during the apostle's imprison
ment. Paul was two years a captive in Caesarea, and spent half
a year in his journey to Rome, and at least two years in captivity
there. This imprisonment naturaUy forms an epoch in Paul's
apostoHc ministry. Even in Csesarea his friends and disciples
had access to the imprisoned apostle ; and in Rome he was per
mitted to dweU in his own hired house (although fettered and
kept by a soldier), and to receive a large number of visitors (Acts
xxviii. 3 0 f.). We have a number of epistles which must be dated
during this time ; viz. the Epistle to the Ephesians, the Colossians,
and to PhUemon, and, somewhat later, the Epistle to the PhiHppians.
These four were most probably written at Rome.
The dates of the three Pastoral Epistles cannot be fixed with
the same degree of certainty. Many place them after the apostle's
imprisonment, as the epistles assume a liberation, and then an in
terval of time, and, finaUy, a second captivity, ending with martyr
dom. Others look for the date of aU three epistles, or, at least, of
the first to Timothy and that to Titus, Hi that period of the apostle's

DIV. II. §72.] PAUL— OUR SOURCES OF INFORMATION. 421
life which is related in the Acts. At aU events, the second Epistle
to Timothy expressly claims to have been written during a cap
tivity in Rome, in a position which the apostle considers perUous.
In figuring to ourselves the motive which induced the writing
of these epistles, we find Hi most of them indications of the exist
ence of certain antagonistic views, in opposing which the apostle
is led to consider various topics.
There were certain errors as to Christ s second appearance (namely,
*that it was immediately impending) against which the apostle con-
: tended in the Church of Thessalonica. This idea was at first to
some extent local; but another line of error was more deeply
grounded, and therefore more widely spread.
This consisted of Judaizing opinions of a Pharisaical tendency.
Agamst this legal bent Paul had to contend all his life long, not
only against the zealots who operated against his teaching within
the Church itseK, but also against the unbelieving Jews who were
stirred up against Paul, because Hi his treatment of the gospel
they found the harshest opposition to theH own nationaUty These
feelings, indeed, led to his captivity. Most of the apostle's prin
cipal epistles touch upon this line of error. They vindicate both
the teaching of the apostle and also Paul's apostolic authority (the
Epistle to the Galatians; cf. also PhiL Hi. 4-6); or the Pauline
doctrine of salvation, as independent of the Mosaic law, is laid
down and developed in opposition to a legal standpoint within
Christianity itself (the Epistle to the Romans) ; or the apostoHc
authority of Paul is vindicated against more or less hostUe op
ponents (the two Epistles to the CorHithians, which, however, are
rich in other doctrinal matter). Among the epistles written to
oppose the Pharisaical legal tendency, the chief is the Epistle to
the Romans, which almost exclusively deals with the opposition to
the PauHne doctrine that salvation is independent of the law of
Moses. The rest of the epistles bring forward other points which.
are subjected to controversy and discussion.
There is another standpoint which is combated in some of the
later epistles, — a theosophical or gnostic tendency manifested in
the gradual development of the churches, which tendency asserted
itseK in Asia Minor towards the latter end of Paul's career.
We find this opposition in the Epistles to the Colossians and
Ephesians, which take a prevailing Christological standpoint, and
also in the three Pastoral Epistles, which, however, take special

422 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
notice of the then existing cHcumstances of the churches to which
they are addressed.
As regards Paul's discourses in the Acts of the Apostles, from
ch. xiH. onwards there are many noteworthy utterances recorded,
addressed to Jews, GentUes, and Christians. We may notice that
the contents of these discourses dovetaU exactly into the Pauhne
system as known from the epistles, and that especiaUy the address
to the Jews, in Acts xiH. 16—41, contains characteristic PauHne
features. Therefore there is no foundation for the assertion, that
in the Acts of the Apostles Paul speaks in the same way as
Peter, and Peter as Paul. These discourses afford no ground for
doubting their historical authenticity, for the author evidently had
fuU acquaintance with the apostle and his ministry. In com
parison with the opulence of direct testimony which we possess in
the epistles, these discourses, which come to us, so to speak, at
second hand, are of subordinate value. They are not, however,
without special interest, because, unlike the epistles, they are
mostly addressed to non-Christians. Although in them the apostle
expresses his opinions with great moderation, his fundamental
views are nevertheless made evident, not only in reference to
universaHty but also as regards salvation being independent of
the law (Acts xiii. 16-47). Also, the mode is noteworthy in
which Paul sets forth Christianity in the presence of idolaters
(Acts xiv., xvH), where the pregnant germ is contained of that
which he so beautifuUy expresses in Rom. i, H, which, too, has
been caUed bis natural theology.
§ 73. Paul's Conception of Christianity generally.
Paul recognises it as his apostoHcal task to set forth salvation
in Christ in its independence of the law. In 1 Cor. i 24 (cf. ch.
ii.) he characterizes Christianity as the power and wisdom of God,
in contrast to that which is sought after by the Jews and Greeks,
and is not found in Christianity. In this passage it is only con
trasted with that which the Jews seek, and not with the old
covenant per se. But stiU the meaning of the apostle is plain,
and is more precisely defined by other matter.
The apostle does not confine himself to the abstract idea (1 Cor.
i 18, 24, 25) of Christianity as the power of God, but more
closely defines it as the manifestation of the Bucaioavvn Qeov,
independent of the law, and resting on faith on Jesus Christ in

DIV. II. § 73.] PAUL — CONCEPTION OF CHRISTIANITY GENERALLY. 423
the case of aU, without distinction. This is the case in the
Epistle to the Romans, of which this subject is the theme. The
apostle also looks upon Christianity as the Bvvapiv Qeov unto
salvation to every one that beHeveth (Rom. i 1 6) ; and this pre
liminary corresponds with the \o7o? Bvvdpevov a&aai rdv tyvxdv
of James (Jas. i 21 ; cf. 1 Pet. i 23-25); but in this passage
universality is stated to be the characteristic of Christianity
(cf. Rom. i 16 £, Hi. 21 f.; 2 Cor. Hi. 9, v. 17-21 ; GaL H. 21).
The Bucaioavvr/ before God, and of God, is actuaUy revealed in
the gospel, which not only teaches it, but realizes it. By its
reaHzation men are made conscious of it ; so that faith is not only
.the condition requisite for the reaHzation and bringing to man's
consciousness of the Bucaioavvr), but is always the condition under
which the Bucaioavvr) is present. In Rom. iH. 21 f. that which
was the theme in ch. i 17 is manKested %«/n? vopov. Also, Hi
1 Cor. i 30 it is said that Christ is made our Bucaioavvr). In
2 Cor. Hi. 9, v. 2 1, Biicaioavvr) is mentioned chiefly as the essential
matter Hi salvation. Also, in the Epistle to the Galatians this
fundamental idea of Bucaioavvr) and Biicaia>Br)vai is displayed
(GaL H. 16, 17, 21), and they are represented as a pecuHar effect
of the death of Christ.
Christianity is also the Spirit which gives life, in contrast to the
letter which killeth (2 Cor. Hi 6-9). The apostle characterizes
the old covenant as a dead letter (ver. 6), — that is, a law external
to man, which accuses man by means of his conscience, without
urging, quickening, or ruling him, and can therefore condemn
man as opposing its rule, although unable to render him con
formable to this rule. The law is described as condemnatory,
and but temporary in its endurance. On the contrary, Paul de
scribes the new covenant (1) as giving life (ver. 6), — that is,
as a power which is not only Hving but quickening, and com
municates to man a new Hfe ; (2) as justifying and reaHzing the
Biicaioavvr) (ver. 9) ; and (3) as abiding (ver. 11 ; cf. Rom. vH 6).
In Rom. viii 2 we find a briefly expressed antithesis : Christianity
is o vopov tov irvevparov rrjv fafjv iv Xpiarat 'Ir/aov. This vopov
frees from the law of sin and death. Two vopoi are placed in
juxtaposition, under one of which sin and death had been the
ruling power ; but in the feUowship with Christ Jesus the SpHit
which gives Hfe from and in God has become the ruling power.
The law of sin and death is not dHectly the law of the Old

424 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
Testament, for the law is in itself holy ahd good (ch. vH. 12).
The law of sin and death is rather to be taken subjectively as
something inherent in man (ch. vH 23, 25). The Hfe-giving
Spirit is the SpHit of God, the objective divine Spirit, so far as
He abides in beHevers (cH vHi. 9-11), quickening them (ver. 10)
and guiding them (ver. 14). This SpHit of God is represented
by Paul as a vopov, for the sake of the contrast with, in the first
place, the vbp,ov apapriav in man, and next, with the Old Testa
ment law, which was Hi no way able to remove the power of
dpapria and Bdvarov, to which man was subject so long as he was
under the law. That which was impossible for the law has been
effected by the redemption of Christ (ver. 3). Christianity brings
with it the Hfe-giving Spirit, which is possessed by every one
beHeving Hi the gospel (Rom. vH. 6 ; Gal. iii. 2-5, iv. 6). Chris
tians are sealed Hi Christ with the Holy Spirit of promise, as the
earnest of the everlasting inheritance, which includes the complete
redemption (EpL i 1 3 f.). And it is also pecuHar to Christianity
that, by the death of Christ, Jews and Gentiles, united in one-
SpHit, have access to the Father (Eph. ii. 18). Christianity
gives this quickening Spirit, inasmuch as it is an actual mani
festation of the Bucaioavvr) Qeov (2 Cor. iii 9 ; Gal. iH 21 f); it
frees from the curse and yoke of sin (Gal. iH. 13). The two
ideas — the Biicaioavvr) Qeov and the quickening by the SpHit — are
of necessity inwardly connected. In stating that Christianity is
the power of God, Paul understands by this, that man, through
Christianity, is made a partaker of salvation by receiving the
Bucaioavvr/ Qeov and true Hfe.
The Apostle Paul also looks upon Christianity as the wisdom of
God (in the first Epistle to the Corinthians); it is the manifestation
of the all-wise divine counsel for the salvation of men (1 Cor. ii
7-1 2). For this very reason it is wise in its substance, in which
absolute and divine wisdom are revealed, and makes wise him
who believes therein, teaching him to view in the right and
divine Hght the relation of man to God, — indeed, the relation of
the entire world to God, and of God to the world, — and showing
the true way of salvation both to individuals and aU mankind.
Paul looks upon Christianity as the wisdom of God, because it
is wisdom which is sought after by the Corinthians as Greeks
(1 Cor. i 22), who could not regard Christianity as wisdom,
although, when they had actuaUy attained faith in the same, they

DIV. II. § 73.] PAUL— CONCEPTION OF CHRISTIANITY GENERALLY. 425
would in truth recognise it as the genuine wisdom of God. This
wisdom is contrasted with mere human wisdom, and is involved,
eV pvarnplw, in the divine counsel of grace, which was before
^unknown, but revealed through Christ, and is hidden from the
apxovrev tov al&vov tovtov (ch. H 8, 9), but is revealed to Chris
tians by the Spirit of God (ver. 12). Paul, however, takes this
point of view not only Hi the first Epistle to the Corinthians, but
also Hi those to the Ephesians and Colossians, Hi which the apostle
had to do with people who opposed him with the assumption of
some higher wisdom, connected, indeed, with the gnostic tendency
of thought, which, towards the end of Paul's career, was prevalent
in Asia Minor. This is why Paul so prominently and expressly
sets forth the wisdom in Christ. In Christianity are aU the hidden
things of wisdom and knowledge which were at first concealed,
but so concealed that they are revealed to beHevers (Col. H 3,
cf. ver. 8). Eph. Hi. 8-11 leads to the same idea; and in the
same way 1 Cor. H. 7-12, with special regard to God's counsel of
redemption embracing aU men, even the Gentiles ; Hkewise Rom.
xi 33-36. Christianity is the wisdom of God because it is the
power of God, because it possesses quickening and justifying power
for sinners, and because it leads men to salvation in a way which
could be devised by no man, — depending solely on the wisdom of
the eternal counsel of God.
AU that we have hitherto seen of Paul's assertions as to Chris
tianity, that it was the wisdom and power of God, is so, inas
much as Christ Himself is Qeov Bvvapiv ical Qeov ao<pla (1 Cor.
i. 24). Christ is the Hving principle of Christianity, to whom
these predicates belong (2 Cor. Hi 17 f. ; 1 Cor. xv. 45). Paul,
therefore, in describing his own conversion and enlightenment,
states that God had revealed His Son in him (Gal. i 16).
BeHevers have not merely to do with an external word, although
faith is, of course, brought about by the dicor) irlarecav (Gal. iii. 2) ;
man becomes a partaker in faith through the Hving Christ (Gal.
H 20), in whom the believer has righteousness (ver. 21). If any
man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His (Rom. viH. 9).
By the atonement of Christ .all things have become new, so that
whosoever is in Him is a new creature (2 Cor. v. 17). The
participation in Christianity includes the being conformed to the
image of Jesus Christ, so that the Christian becomes the first-born
among many brethren (Rom. vHi 29). In dweUing upon the

426 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART IL
person of Christ, there are two points which Paul chiefly sets
forth, by which we are led back to the mode of his caUing:
(1) The idea of Christ as the Son of God, by whom men are
made the children of God, doing away with the letter of the law ;
and (2) the idea of Christ as the divine principle of Hfe by whom
men are quickened anew.
Thus, in Christianity, something new is presented which was
not contained in the law (Rom. viii. 3), and was not, indeed,
comprised in the common Hfe which sprung from the first man
(Rom. v. 12 ff. ; 1 Cor. xv. 45). There exists, therefore, a contrast
between Christianity and the pre-Christian state of man, both in and
outside the law. Everything that was contained in the Old Testa
ment dispensation belongs to the oroi^eta tov icoapov (Gal. iv.
1-5 ; Col. H. 20) : the Jews, just as the GentUes, were chUdren
of wrath (Eph. ii. 3).
The further Paul enters into the distinction between Chris
tianity and the old covenant, the more clearly is represented the
connection between the two.
This positive relation is generaUy expressed by the statement
that the promises of the old covenant are fulfiUed in Christ. They
are in Him yea and amen, i.e. affirmed and represented in then
truth (2 Cor. i 20). The gospel of God is promised in the old
covenant (Rom. i 2). When, therefore, in contrasting Chris
tianity with the old covenant, Paul says that man is justified by
the gospel, %WjOt? vopov (Rom. Hi. 21), it is not to be understood
that the law had had no reference to the gospel and to that which
it gives, but that the latter can be received by the individual in
dependently of the law. But the apostle also gives more special
statements as to this positive relation existing between the gospel
and the old covenant. That which in the gospel is presented as
the main point, was in part intimated or announced in the Old
Testament, and Hi part prepared for.
This main point is in Paul the Biicaioavvr} e« irlarewv, which is
manifested through the gospel, and is witnessed by the law and
the prophets (Rom. Hi 21), consequently by the old covenant Hi
both its sides. A righteousness of faith is both generaUy acknow
ledged in it (Rom. i 17; GaL Hi. 1 1), and also pre-eminently
ascribed to Abraham as the first, and therefore most distinguished,
partaker in the covenant (Rom. iv. 3 ; GaL Hi. 6). The promise
was given to Abraham, with a glance at the future justification

DIV. II. § 73.] PAUL — CONCEPTION OF CHRISTIANITY GENERALLY. 427
of the GentUes by faith (GaL Hi. 7-9, 14-18, 29; Rom. iv.
23 £).
Also, the law had an educational aim to prepare for Christ as
the author of righteousness of faith (Gal. Hi. 19-25, iv. 1-6) ;
for the law was intended to develope in man both a conscious
ness of sin and also the need of redemption (GaL Hi. 19, 22 ;
Rom. Hi. 20, v. 20), — the law being a iraiBaywybv elv Xpiarov
(GaL iH 24) for the world, which is stiU in its nonage, and under
tutors and governors (Gal. iv. 1 f). Thus the law, because it
developes in man the consciousness of sin, is the divine ordinance
of preparation for Christ. Also, on the other hand, prophecy and
the typical prophetic history of the old covenant contained a pre-
signification of the way of salvation which would be opened
through Christ (Gal. iv. 22 ff. ; 1 Cor. x. 1 ff).
Again, Christ, and the relation of God to man which was
founded by Him, is prefigured by the statutory law as by a
shadow, i.e. the incomplete unsubstantial image of the future
(Col. H 17; cf. Heb. x. 1) ; and that which is prefigured is
reahzed by the appearance of Christ, and by His work.
Also, eternal life is promised in the old covenant (Tit. i 2).
Men wUl receive it through the truth in Christ ; and it is in this
passage the subject of hope.
Thus, that which is the main point in the new covenant is
hi the old covenant partly intimated and partly prepared for ;
and Paul may be fuUy assumed to teach the existence of a con
nection between the old covenant and the new, but by no means
that any one desmng to receive the gospel must first partake in
the old covenant.
Even in the passages we have hitherto considered, the charac
teristics of the PauHne teachmg may be discerned. Paul goes
back to the principle more than either Peter or James. He can
not, with James, limit himself to the acknowledgment that Chris-
, tianity is the perfect law of Hberty, but is compeUed to show how
Christianity produces something different from the effects of the
old law. He shows that the Old Testament law has faUed to
produce Biicaioavvr), and why this is the case ; also, that that
which was impossible for the law has been brought about through
Christ. He is therefore obUged to enlarge upon, not only the
actual sin of the Jews, but also upon the root of actual sin and
the general sinfulness of man. Thus, from Paul's standpoint, we

428 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. ' [PART II.
are led to expect from him a system of teaching as to sin much
more developed in its character than that of James and Peter.
He was also compeUed to dweU upon the positive effects of Chris
tianity in aU theH peculiarity, and therefore on the pecuHar
nature of Christ. Not only must he set forth the whole work of
Christ, and the various phases of His historical appearance, he
must also revert to the nature of Christ's person, and show that
in Him abode that very life-giving power which was wanting in
the law, and that this power of giving new Hfe resided only in
Christ. It must be evident that these opinions of Paul had an his
torical foundation (cf. § 49). Both before and after his conver
sion Paul sought for Biicaioavvr) before God. But the difference
was, that at first he sought it fruitlessly, but had now found it ;
that he had before sought it in the law, but had now found it in
faith in Jesus Christ. Paul therefore comprehended the fuU dis
tinction between the law and the gospel, which was to him
1 nothing but the practical realization of righteousness before God,
independently of the law. The doctrine as to Bucaioavvn, and
, that as to the person and work of Christ, are closely united in his
mind, — the true Biicaioavvr) being in his view the work of Christ,
achieved through the atonement and communication of the SpHit,
and founding a new epoch among mankind. This Christ was
Jesus of Nazareth, — no longer the crucified One merely, but Hving
and glorified as He had appeared to the apostle ; Christ risen and
exalted to heaven, who had died as an atonement for man, — Jesus
Christ the Lord.
How he attained this standpoint we have already seen in § 49.
The independence which he thus had is evident from the purport
of his epistles, in which he himseK expressly asserts it. He
knows not only that the purport of his teaching is divine wisdom
revealed by the Spirit (1 Cor. ii. 6-1 2), but also that it is stated,
not Hi the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but in those
which the Holy Ghost teacheth, claiming that he is irvevpariicbv,
and that he therefore has inwardly the vovv of Christ (ver. 16).
He therefore summons to a right understanding of his teaching
those persons that have the SpHit (ver. 14 f). The argumentative
and didactic development of his precepts, which is so peculiar to
Paul, does not exclude the dHect glance of the Spirit, which
embraces the whole of Christianity in one. Neither does his con-

DIV. II. § 73] PAUL — CONCEPTION OF CHRISTIANITY GENERALLY. 429
sciousness, inspHed and enlightened by the divine Spirit, shut out
a certain actual acquaintance with the historical appearance of
Christ and the word which He deHvered, and also various revela
tions which, Hi the course of time, had been made to the apostle.
As regards the former, Paul was not excluded from the sphere of
the historical communications which were current among weU-
instructed Christians, both as to Christ's person and Hfe, and also
as to His words and teaching. Paul, therefore, was conscious
that the message of salvation which he preached was entirely in
harmony with that of the other apostles (1 Cor. xv. 1 ff), especi
aUy in reference to the resurrection of Christ and the events pre
ceding it. On this point he appeals to the several appearances
of the Risen One, to which he adds the manifestation which had
been vouchsafed to himseK (ver. 8). Thus we find Paul adopting
the words of the Lord Himself, both with (1 Cor. vH. 1 0 ; 1 Thess.
v. 2; Acts xx. 351), and also without (Rom. xii 14) a dHect
reference to the Lord. Added to this, Paul makes certain com
munications in his epistles, appeaHng to words of the Lord, and
stating that the matter therein communicated had been previously
hidden, but had been made manifest to him, and was by him re
vealed (1 Thess. iv. 15; 1 Cor. xiv. 37; Rom. xi 25; 1 Cor.
xv. 51 ; GaL H 2). In this way the passage 1 Cor. xi. 23
may be best interpreted, even K we refer ch. xv. 3 to an his
torical communication. From 2 Cor. xH 1 ff. we see that Paul
was also the subject of extraordinary divine revelations (cf. Acts
xxii. 17).
AU this proves that Paul is the independent, original teacher,
in whom the pecuHar representations of Christian doctrines which
are found in his epistles had their first origin. There was, how
ever, a deep need existing in the early Church, which was satisfied
in the person of PauL He therefore found, far and near, a circle
both of individual disciples and helpers, and also of churches, who
adhered to him as the originator of theH special view of Chris
tianity. In consequence of this, Paul emphatically says, Kara to
evayyeXiov pov (Rom. H. 16, xvi. 25 ; 2 Tim. H 8) ; and that this
gospel had been communicated to him by the revelation of Jesus
Christ (Gal.-i 6 f, 12).
1 The words of the Lord quoted in the passage, Acts xx. 35, are not re
corded by any of the evangelists. — Tr.

430 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
§ 74. The Fundamental Principle and the Arrangement of the
Pauline System of Teaching.
The idea of Biicaioavvr) is found throughout Paul's writings,
although it is more prominently brought forward in some epistles
than in others, according to their aim and the motive which
prompted them. Ai/caioavvn is mostly the ruling and fundamental
idea in those epistles which contend against the Pharisaical,
Judaizing tendency. This idea is eminently the theme Hi the
dogmatical portion of the Epistle to the Romans (ch. i 17, Hi. 22,
25, cf. v. 17, 21, vi. 16, 20, vHi. 10, ix. 30 f., x. 3-6, 10, iv. 3,
5, 9, 11, 22). Next comes the Epistle to the Galatians (ch. n.
21, [16], Hi. 21, 6), in which Biicaioavvr) is the fundamental idea.
In the Epistles to the Corinthians, the passages touching on this
subject are — 1 Cor. i 30 ; 2 Cor. Hi. 9, v. 21. In the later
epistles it is brought forward in the Epistle to the PhUippians
(ch. Hi 6, 9, cf. i 11), and again as the prominent idea in the
argument agamst Judaizing false teachers ; also in the Pastoral
Epistles, especiaUy in that to Titus (ch. Hi. 5, [7]), in exactly the
same way as in the earlier epistles. The Epistles to the Ephesians
and Colossians deal with another opposing element in the Church,
and therefore the idea of Biicaioavvr) occurs but seldom, and then
in an ethical signification (Eph. iv. 24, v. 9) ; Hkewise in the
Epistles to Timothy (1 Tim. vi. 11, [i 9]). We are nevertheless
justified in representing this idea as being the fundamental one,
as this has been done by the apostle himseK in passages where
the teaching most peculiar to him is most copiously set forth.
Ancaioavvn refers to the moral relation of man to God. Ac
cording to Aristotle's etymology, the word BUaiov has a reference
to a relation subsisting between several persons, and denotes that
in this relation one subject is just in his relation to the other
subject. Looking to its meaning Hi the Bible, PTj? points in the
root to the signification, to be straight, plain, then moral truth and
goodness, but chiefly righteousness. The one great relation of man
is, in the Old Testament, his relation to God ; and from this every
other is derived. In this relation God's wUl is the rule by which
it is to be framed, and it depends on God's sure and infaUible
judgment, and not on our own opinion as to our conformity to the
divine will. So far, the reHgious relation is an essentiaUy moral
relation of dependence and feUowship, which, if it is adequately

DIV. II. §74.] PAUL— FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE AND ARRANGEMENT. 431
reahzed, is described by Bucaioavvr), and with which the theocratical
citizenship with aU its blessings corresponds. The fundamental
idea of BiKaioavvr) has this pecuHarity that it is rooted both Hi
Old Testament and New Testament ground. It is the connect
ing Hnk which joins Saul, the man of the law, and Paul, the
man of faith. In the Old Testament, the religious relation is
speciaUy defined as one of a theocratical character, the relation of
a covenant between God and the Israelites. The conformity of
the subject to this covenant is Biicaioavvr) on the part both of God
and man We find this idea transferred to Paul's system : who
soever is truly Biicaiov is Biicaiov irapd tu> 0ea> (Rom. ii. 13). The
acknowledgment of this is caUed Biicaiovv (Rom. ii. 13, iH. 26,
28, 30). And as, Hi Paul's view, the idea of Biicaioavvr) is rooted
in Old Testament ground, the vopov Qeov, and indeed the Old
Testament vopov, is the rule of Biicaioavvr), so that in BiKaioavvr)
is included both a complete fulfilment of the law — Bik. eic vopov
(GaL iH. 21), e'f epymv vopov (Rom. ix. 32) — and also the effica
cious acknowledgment on God's part of this fulfilment of the
law, and indeed as of desert or debt (Rom. iv. 4). In this case
the subject fulfils the vopov Qeov, as it is required as an ippeveiv
ev irdai toiv yeypapp,evoiv (GaL Hi. 1 0), — a fulfilment by epya rd
ev Biicaioavvr) (Tit. iii. 5 ; cf. Rom. Hi. 20, 28). On the contrary,
whosoever does not fulfil the law, and is not a iroinTrjv tov vopov
(Rom. H. 13), but is irapaBdrnv (ver. 25), — whosoever " continueth
not Hi aU things which are written in the book of the law to do
them" (Gal. Hi. 1 0), he is wanting Hi this righteousness (Rom. ii.
13, 25, 27) ; whosoever belongs to those who have sinned, oaoi
rjpaprov (Rom. ii. 12, iii. 23), is not BUaiov irapd t& QeS> (Rom.
ii. 13), but is involved in dBmla (ch. i 18, vi. 13), in dvopla
(2 Cor. vi. 14), and is subject to the just punishment of God, or
vitoBikov t$ Qeu> (Rom. Hi. 19), or v<p* apapriav, i.e. under the
power of sin (Rom. Hi. 9) ; he is burdened with the guUt of sin,
and is Hable to give satisfaction by punishment, being therefore
wro tccndpav (Gal. Hi. 10) ; he is also the subject of /caraKpiaiv
(2 Cor. iH. 9), and has on him the tcaraKpifm (Rom. viH. 1), and,
being condemned, wUl perish (Rom. H. 12). AU this expresses
the punishment which is bound up with guilt, in contrast to the
Biicaioavvr) as the attribute of him who is acknowledged by God
as righteous in relation to Him.
Man is deficient Hi this Biicaioavvr) ; and it is not possible for

432 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
hmi to be a partaker of it except by God imputing it to the
sinner, not by way of desert and merit (Rom. iv. 4), but according
to the rule of free grace, and the love which takes an interest Hi
the miserable sinner (Rom. iv. 3, 5, 9, 11, 22 ; Gal. iH. 6), con
ferring it upon him as an unmerited gift (Rom. v. 1 7), and thus
justKying him freely (Rom. Hi. 24). This takes place by vHtue
of the gospel, through faith in Jesus Christ (Rom. Hi. 22-31, ix.
30-32, x. 6 ; PhiL iii. 9).
Hence the idea of BiKaioavvr) is of a twofold nature : (1) A
man's own righteousness, depending on his own fulfilment of the
law, is BiKaioavvr) ipr), r) e/c vopov (PhiL Hi 9), IBia BiKaioavvr)
(Rom. x. 3), the righteousness which is by the law (Rom. x. 5).
The passage (GaL H. 2 1), apa Xpiarov Bmpedv dire&avev, appHes to
this righteousness. It proceeds ef epycov vbpxiv (Rom. Hi 20, ix.
3 2 ; Tit. iH. 5). On the other hand, it is, (2) The righteousness'
of faith (Rom. iv. 13, x. 6), is revealed and realized etc irlareav
and et? iriariv (Rom. i 17, Hi which passage the BiKaioavvr) Qeov
is certainly not meant as an attribute of God, — in this sense it
occurs only once, Rom. Hi. 26, — but as an attribute of man coming
from God). Subjectively considered, it is wrought by faith, and
is conferred in faith. As this righteousness does not proceed Horn
the law, it is not brought about by the seK-activity of the subject,
but through faith, and is conferred as an attribute and a gift ; not
from merit, or deservedly, but through free divine grace (EpH H. 8 ;
Rom. iv. 4 ; Tit. Hi. 5). This righteousness, therefore, is not our
own, but the BiKaioavvr) Qeov (Rom. i 1 7, Hi 2 1 f), inasmuch as
in this pregnant sense it comes from God ; and this righteousness
is brought about by only one agency, namely, faith in Christ the
Saviour (Rom. Hi. 21-26).
Where this BiKaioavvr) is genuine, there is also life ; and it may
readUy be shown that in Paul's view this idea of Hfe, or aarnpia,
is essentiaUy connected with that of BiKaioavvr), so that the one
cannot exist without the other. This is clear from various passages
(Rom. i 17, where Paul appeals to Hab. ii 4, cf. GaL Hi 11 ; Rom.
viii. 10 ; Gal. Hi. 21 ; 2 Cor. Hi 4-11 ; Rom. v. 17 f). AiKawavvn
refers to the moral relation of man to God, and exists where man
is conformed to this relation. It is, therefore, the contrast to the
position of sin ; for where sin is, there is death ; but where Bucaio
avvr) takes the place of dpapria, there must be Hfe. In the old
covenant, the subject met with his acknowledgment subjectively

DIV. II. §74.] PAUL— FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE AND ARRANGEMENT. 433
in the conscience, and objectively in the law and its promises ; in
the new covenant, subjectively also in the conscience, but a con
science guided by the SpHit (Rom. viii. 16), and objectively Hi
the divine word of this covenant. The connection between
Biicaioavvr) and far) in Paul's view is important, because the idea
.of the former does not take the lead in aU his epistles ; on the
contrary, where he is not contending with the Pharisaical Judaistic
tendency, but with the theosophical notions, the idea of life is
more prominently brought forward. Nevertheless, even in these
epistles, it may be noticed that his idea of life and salvation
always has a moral foundation. This is clearly evident in the
Epistle to the Ephesians.
PauVs fundamental idea of BiKaioavvr) has its root in the teaching
of Jesus, as it is represented chiefly in the Synoptists. The dis
courses which John has recorded make the idea of life the chief
point ; but in the didactic sphere of the Synoptists, in which we
have the discourses of our Lord, the idea of righteousness is mainly
prominent. We find this surprisingly so in the Sermon on the
Mount in Matthew. Paul's fundamental idea may be said to be
rooted in the teaching of Jesus, (1.) In the mode in which the Lord
HimseK deals with it, by both placing it Hi the foreground, and
opposing it to the prevaUing idea of a righteousness which was
merely external and depending on personal action (Matt, vi 33,
v. 20, 6 ; Luke xvHi 9). He represented righteousness as the
«hief aim of all spHitual striving, and as something which must
be received as a gift (Matt. v. 6). To the seK-righteous He showed
that man could not be justified except by means of repentance and
a longing desHe for the pardoning grace' of God (Luke xvi. 15,
xviii. 14). (2.) With this is connected the moral spirit of Jesus'
teaching generaUy. He understood the relation of men to God
as a moral one, depending upon the fact whether a man is just
before God; and He teaches of a redemption in the moral- sense
of the word, a redemption from sin and death, by which a man
cannot be just before God in his own power, but only through re
deeming grace, — a truth to which many of the anti-Pharisaical
utterances of Jesus refer, and speciaUy many of the elements of
the Gospel of Luke (cf. Luke xv.). It is therefore an incorrect
assumption that the Synoptists teach a righteousness of works.
In the same respect, the fundamental idea of BiKaioavvr) is
characteristicaUy demonstrative of the moral spirit of Paul, as
2 E

434 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
distinguished from a teaching of a merely speculative character,
and one depending on seK-righteousness. This moral spHit shows
itseK where subjective reUgiousness and salvation, as the result of
redemption, are comprehended in the main idea of life ; for every
where where this is done, by Paul or other New Testament authors,
this far) is always understood as an ethical far). But Paul de-
velopes the proposition with special clearness, that far) can exist
only where there is BiKaioavvr). He speaks of a BiKalmaiv farjv
(Rom. v. 18); and the result of the redeeming grace, which
confers the gift of BiKaioavvr), is briefly caUed by him far) (Rom.
v. 21).Henceforth the PauHne representation of Christian truth may
be divided into two sections : the former relates to the want of
BiKaioavvr) in aU men, so far as it is judged by itseK, and accord
ing to the scale of the law ; the second refers to the bringing
about of BiKaioavvr) by means of faith in Jesus Christ. In the
first part is contained the teaching about sin as the condition of
man which is opposed to BiKaioavvr) and far) ; in the second, we
have the teaching as to salvation. From this foUows instruction
as to Christ the Mediator of salvation and the BiKaioavvr) brought
about by Him, as referring both to individual believers and to the
whole body of them, and as to its completion.
§ 75. The Lack of Righteousness in all Men — The Fact of this Want.
The proof that aU men are wanting in BiKaioavvr) is carefuUy
brought forward by Paul in ch. i 18, iH. 20, of the Epistle to the
Romans, in reference, first to the Gentiles, and then to the Jews.
In regard to both, the actual condition of sin is naturaUy set forth
as a matter of experienoe. This condition is described, and it is
left to every reader to apply this description to his own moral
consciousness and his own personal Hfe. On the other hand, in
this connection there is not yet any mention made of the sinful
propensity from which aU actual sin proceeds. Actual sin is first
made evident in the conscience ; and by this question of the con
sciousness of actual sin and guUt Paul grasps his readers, in order
to convince them of the need of that BiKaioavvr) Qeov which is the
result, not of individual merit or of the law, but of faith in Christ.
The apostle was induced to afford proof as regards both Jew and
GentUe, because he wrote to Jewish Christians, or to Gentiles
converted by Jewish Christians, and also with the view of laying

DIV. II. § 75.] PAUL — LACK OF RIGHTEOUSNESS IN ALL MEN. 435
down the absoluteness of the gospel in the presence of aU other
religions, Paul bases the actually existing moral guilt of the GentUes on
two grounds : (1) The general revelation of God in His works (Rom.
i. 19 f), and the way Hi which the GentUes acted in respect
to it (ver. 21) ; (2) the law of conscience, the moral conscious
ness existing Hi every man (Rom. i 32, ii. 14 f). Paul says
that heavy guilt and HabiHty to punishment are upon these who
hinder the truth by unrighteousness (Rom. i 1 8), and among these
he places the GentUes. The universal revelation of God was
present to those men who have departed from the right knowledge
of Him (dXrjBeia) ; for His Hivisible nature (ver. 20) has, since the
creation of the world, been made perceptible to the mind (the
doparov is viewed as voovp^vov) by His work, namely, the ever-
ilasting power of God, in virtue of which He is exalted over the
¦world as its Creator and Lord, so that men are inexcusable if they
act not in conformity to this knowledge. The GentUes have not
•obeyed this knowledge, by theH deficiency in a feeHng of praise
and thanksgiving towards God. Because they faUed in faithful-
•ness to the truth which they had at their command, the knowledge
which they originaUy had departed ; their KapBia, as the centre of
.moral individuaHty, was darkened, and they became fools (ver. 22),
as a punishment for this self-darkening of the heart. To this fol
lows, further, the wickedness which results from this darkening.
God, by way of punishment, aUowed theH sins to ripen, and gave
them over to a reprobate mind, and to the lusts (vers. 24-27)
.which were foUowed by aU kinds of vices. However deep their
degradation, they had nevertheless the law of conscience (ver. 3 2),
and were not without consciousness of the heavy guUt which
they thus incurred (cf. Rom. ii 14 f), and indeed of the divine
^judgment of death which foUowed thereon (i 32). Because, in-
ideed, God had rendered the knowledge of Him possible for them
(vers. 19-23), and they, notwithstanding, had made themselves
JguUty by idolatry, they were Hable to this punishment of God.
f They, however, bear the guUt of their degradation, not only through
.'then first rejection of the knowledge of God, but also because,
•with a fuU consciousness of their HabiHty to punishment, they
:both commit sins and take a pleasure therein (ver. 22). The way
. in which Paul here proves the possibUity of the knowledge of God
to be derived from the works of creation agrees most remarkably

436 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
with the apostle's discourses recorded in the Acts, addressed to
the inhabitants of Lystra (Acts xiv. 1 5-1 7), and to the Athenians
(xvH. 24-28).
As regards the guUt of the Jews, in the Epistle to the Romans
Paul goes to work in a preparatory way, in order to deprive the
Jewish reader of any chance of evasion. He therefore lays down :
(1.) That aU those who act in the same way as the GentUes act
are worthy of punishment, especiaUy those who have condemned
the GentUes ; also, that no one who is impenitent can escape con
demnation (Rom. H. 1-11). (2.) That the possession of a positive
law makes no difference to the possessor, except that he wiU be
judged in conformity with the same ; " for not the hearers of the
law, but the doers, are justified before God" (vers. 12-16). And
now the apostle first brings forward his direct accusation agamst
the Jews (vers. 17-24). By breaking the law, the cHcumcision
becomes uncircumcision (vers. 25-29). The Jews have the pre
eminence that to them are committed the oracles of God (Rom.
iii. 1-4) ; but in respect of righteousness before God they have
no advantage, for aU are under sin (in regard to which Paul refers
to passages of the Old Testament), and in the Jews it assumes the
form of more conscious sin.
The conclusion to be derived from this course of argument is,
that all men are wanting in righteousness before God (Rom. in
9, 20). In this are involved the main points : (1.) That all men
are sinners, and consequently the universaHty of sin in and among
men (cf. ch. xi. 22, as the first result of the whole dogmatical
portion of the Epistle to the Romans ; also Gal. Hi. 2 1 ; again,
Eph. H. 3). (2.) That, in respect to God, all men stand in a relation
of guilt and liability to punishment, and are consequently, Hi de
fault of the divine favour, subject to the righteous judgment of
God, and death, the actual punishment of sin (Rom. Hi 9, 23,
v. 1 2, 2 1). The right of punishment is chiefly denoted by bpyi)
(Rom. i 18, H. 5, 8, Hi 5, ix. 22 ; Eph. ii 3, v. 6 ; 1 Thess.
v. 9, cf. i 10, H. 16), which in Rom. ii 5 is combined with
BiicaioKpiaia, the outflow of the opyrj. This expression is taken
from the human emotion stirred up against everything which
hinders and opposes the human wiU, and is transferred to God, to
describe the opposition of the divine wUl to everything which
hinders and opposes it, consequently to sin. This is both positive,
the disapprobation of sin, and also negative, as the want of the

DIV. II. §75.] PAUL— LACK OF RIGHTEOUSNESS IN ALL MEN. 437
divine favour (Rom. vin. 8, iH. 23). In virtue of His long-
suffering and patience, God indeed gives the sinner room for
repentance (Rom. H. 4, ix. 22). The sinner is, however, subject
to Bdvarov, the consequence ordained by God for sin (Rom. vi.
23, i 32, v. 12-21). It is a BiKaicopa of God "that they which
commit such things are worthy of death" (Rom. i. 32). In
Bdvarov the idea of physical death is certainly included (Rom. v.
12 ff), — the sin of the first man being referred to, and the fact
that "death reigned from Adam to Moses" being presupposed.
This is confirmed by other passages, where Paul expressly includes
bodUy death (Rom. viii 10; 1 Cor. xv. 21). But the idea of
Bdvarov is not limited to physical death (Rom. vH 10 f., 13 ;
Eph. ii. 1, 5 ; Col. ii. 13 ; Eph. v. 14) ; it is rather aU the evU
which consists in the results of sin, aU the misery of sin, both
spiritual and bodUy, which is comprehended as forming a whole
with physical death. Sin and death are everywhere correlatives
(1 Cor. xv. 56); and where sin is, there is also death, and the
reverse. So that even Christ suffered death on account of sin
(Rom vi. 10), — not His own, but that of others ; and that minors
dying are not without sin, so far as the latter exists although un
developed in them.
'¦ Certain special questions now arise as to the relation of Bdvarov
to sin. (1.) Death being bodUy, how we are to look upon its
relation to sin ? The idea has frequently been expressed, that,
according to Paul, death is only subjectively the result of sin, in
regard to the pain and fear of it. Paul certainly makes sin the
.grievous power of death (1 Cor. xv. 56) ; and also, in Heb. ii 15,
the slavish fear of death is looked upon as an element in man's
need of redemption. Qdvarov, therefore, is modified according to
the measure of dpapria. In the immature, death is not to so
great an extent combined with the sting to which Paul ascribes
to it. Certainly Paul nowhere intimates that man without sin
,would have remained free, from death and change ; but, notwith
standing this, the relation of sin to death is not merely a subjective
one, and for this view 1 Cor. xv. 47 is appealed to. But al
though from the beginning Adam's body was formed bf temporal -
matter, it can hardly be assumed that its absolute mortality is
•therein expressed ; for it is presupposed in Genesis that by means
of the fruit of the tree of Hfe tffis body might be assured against
death (Gen. Hi. 22). Paul also assumes a twofold mode of

438 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
transition from a material to a supernatural Hfe : one by physical
death ; the other by means of some sudden change of the mortal
into an immortal body in the case of those who belong to Christ, — ¦¦
a change which wiU take place at the last appearance of Christ
with His saints as regards those then Hving on the earth (1 Cor.
xv. 51 f . ; 1 Thess. iv. 17). That which wiU take place by
means of the Saviour might, K man had remained free from sin,
have been done without His intervention. If the material matter
of the human body can be kept from dissolution and be glorified,
how much more readily may it be imagined that, K man had
remained free from sin, a glorification, perhaps a gradual glorifica
tion, might take place of the psychical body into a spiritual one !
We must also assume that Paul appHes his teaching on this point
to the person or body of the risen Christ. The sense, thereforej
of the Pauline teaching is, that man, on account of sin, is subject
to the separation of soul and body by means of corruption of the
body, and that, Hi addition, this death becomes a bitter evil through
the consciousness of sin.
Another question is : (2.) Whether and to what extent Paul
includes Hi Bdvarov spiritual death in addition to and with bodily
death ? Qdvarov is the contrast to far). The latter includes power
and activity combined with inward satisfaction, consequently
blessedness, — both being Hi connection with God. Qdvarov, so
far as it belongs to the spHitual sphere, is the dHect contrary
to these predicates. It is therefore not merely a feeling of un-
blessedness (Dahne), and not merely a corruption of the spHitual
power (Usteri), but both together (Rom. vH. 10-14). Certainly, in
2 Cor. vii. 8 ff., unblessedness appears chiefly understood by the
death which the sorrow of the world brings with it ; but in other
passages a slavery to sin forms an element of Bdvarov (Rom vi
16). The whole person is ruled by the lower element of the
human nature, so that the man is sold under the power of sin,
and is a slave to it (cf. Eph. H. 1-6, iv. 17-19, 22 ; Rom. i 21 f.,
24, 28), a captive to the paraiorrjv of the vovv, the puopatveaBal
rf} Biavoia,. There is therefore a corruption of the higher powers
of man, and also a moral impotence even to do the good which
is pleasing to him (Rom. vH 14 ff.), which impotence he ex
periences in aU its pain and grief. The culmination of Bdvarov
is Hi Paul, and generaUy in the New Testament, everlasting de
struction, which, Hi Rom. H. 12, 16, is described as future, and

DJV. II. § 76.] PAUL— CAUSE OF LACK OF RIGHTEOUSNESS IN MEN. 439
appertaining to the day of judgment; in Phil, i 28 and else
where as dirwXeia (2 Thess. i 9; 1 Tim. vi. 9 ; cf. Rev. H. 11,
xxi. 8), the oXeBpov alawiov.
The general expression used by Paul for sin is dpapria, both
actual sin and also the propensity being specified by this term
(Rom. v. 12). Actual sinning, in itself, is expressed by dpap-
rdveiv (Rom. iii. 23, v. 12, 14), and by the nouns dpdprr)pa
(in. 25), irapdirrapa as a sin against a definite command or pro
hibition (Rom. iv. 25, v. 15-20 ; 2 Cor. v. 19 ; Gal. vi. 1 ; Eph.
n. 1, 5 ; Col. H 13), irapdBaaiv as the infringement of a positive
command (Rom. iv. 15, H. 23, v. 14; Gal. Hi. 19), direlBeia, dis
obedience (Rom. xi. 30, 31, 32 ; Eph. v. 6), irapaKor] (Rom. v. 19,
cf. vi. 16), dBwia (Rom. vi. 13, cf. i 18). Sin is also a doing,
iroielv, irpdrreiv (Rom. i 32, H. 1-3, 17-24), of that which is pr)
KadrjKovrov (Rom. i 28).
Sin, therefore, is in Paul's view nothing else but an internal, or
both internal and external, act of volition in contravention of the
law, and in hostile opposition towards God (Rom. vHi 7). Sin is
combmed, on the one hand, with guUt before God by virtue of
imputation, which, according to Paul, presupposes that the act of
voHtion is not only an act of man, which therefore is imputed to
him (Rom. v. 13 ; cf. PhUem. 18), but especiaUy an act which is
avoidable by him (Rom. i 18-23) ; for man is inexcusable if he
commits sin which is avoidable. This act of voHtion is also com
mitted with a consciousness of the moral law ; for the imputation
of sin does not exist except the sin be united with this conscious
ness (Rom. v. 13, iv. 15). Not only is sin united with guUt, but
also with HabiHty to punishment before God. Man as .a sinner
not only lacks the Boga Qeov, the acknowledgment and glorification
which God gives, but, through the opposition of his wiU to God,
he is also subject to the bpyr) Qeov, to the Kpiaiv Qeov, and conse
quently the effects of this judgment, to Bdvarov and oXeBpov. Thus
the sinner, who is punishable before God, God imputing sin to
him as guilt, is vitoBikov tw Qew (Rom. Hi. 19); he is subject to
God's BUr), the Kardpa is on him (Gal. iii. 13).
§ 76. The Lack of Righteousness in all Men — The Cause of this
Lack.
In the Epistle to the Romans Paul enters very essentiaUy into
the connection between human sin and the sin of the first man,

440 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
but not until he had stirred up in his readers a consciousness of
the need of salvation. In the first place, Paul appeals to the ex
perience and conscience of individuals in respect of sin. But
after stirring up his readers to consciousness of sin, and setting
forth (Rom. Hi. 21— ch. v.) the BiKaioavvr) which depends on faith
Hi Christ, he compares Christ with Adam, and so leads on to the
connection between human sin and that of the first man ; also
with the innate propensity which cannot be subdued under the
law, but is overcome by the feUowship with Christ through the
power which proceeds from Him. The other epistles only pre
suppose this Hue of teaching.
In Rom. v. 12-21 the idea is enlarged upon, and in 1 Cor.
xv. 21 f., 47-49, it is intimated that the universality of sin and
death among men stands in original connection with the sin of the
first man. In the latter passage the view of the apostle is
dHected only towards the death, and not towards the sin of man ;
and even in the former passage Paul at first brings forward death
more prominently than sin, because death can be more evidently
shown to have proceeded from the first man, than that from him
sin came upon aU men. Paul therefore commences with the
former, but thereon grounds the teaching that death, by means of
sin, has come upon and spread among mankind, and that in Christ,
and by means of BiKaioavvr), far) has presented itseK in the place
of death. The whole passage makes a comparison between Christ
and the first man in respect to the first results which flowed from
each, which result, however, in both cases extended to the whole
of mankind. PreHminarily only, the first object of comparison is
mentioned (ver. 12), and is then enlarged upon (vers. 13, 14);
then the second object is hinted at at the conclusion of ver. 14
(cf. 1 Cor. xv. 45), but not expressly stated. In vers. 15-17
Paul does not proceed to bring forward the difference which
exists between the two objects of comparison, untU finaUy, in vers.
18, 19, both are placed positively side by side. What foUows
in vers. 20, 21, concerns the relation of the law to the dominion
of sin, showing that, so far from the law having removed the con
dition of sin and death which had been established and spread
among mankind by means of the first man, it had, on the con
trary, been more fuUy developed by means of the law. Verse 12
sets forth the two main propositions with regard to sin and death,
and begins : Aid tovto, because therefore (according to what' has

DIV. II. § 76.] PAUL— CAUSE OF LACK OF RIGHTEOUSNESS IN MEN 441
gone before, vers. 9-1 1 and 1-5), we, through Jesus Christ our
Lord, who died and Hved again for us, are justified and saved,
therefore the case is the same with the origin of sin and death.
Through one man has (1) sin come into the world, and death by
sin, and (2) in this way has death combmed with sin pervaded
aU mankind.
As regards the origin of sin and death in mankind, the apostle,
taking the very commencement of man's history, finds therein neither
sin nor death. That, in the apostle's view, sin was not originaUy
in the world, is evident from Rom. i 19 ff, inasmuch as he repre
sents that a normal development of an original consciousness of
God might have been possible, and had been perverted by sin ;
but through the first man, sin, in the whole purport of its idea,
entered et? tot Koapvv as into an organic whole. Sin first entered
into the world as a supplement through one man, inasmuch as he
sinned, and not by the fact of his creation (Rom. v. 16). In
this passage this idea is incontestable (vers. 1 6-1 9) ; and even in
1 Cor. xv. 47—49 there is but a faint appearance of the contrary
view. At first only the contrast between the earthly and glorified
body is dealt with; and not merely the expression %ot«o?, but
also the contrasts -^ru^tKo? and irvevpariKov (ver. 44), refer only
to the body. And yfrvxv faaa (ver. 45) forms a complete con
trast to irvevpa faoiroiovv, without any idea of sin being included.
It may weU be imagined that the first man was not indeed a
irvevpa faoiroiovv; but yet might have been capable of a sinless
hfe. And in any case the sinlessness of Christ was something
entirely different from the innocence of the first man, which
only involved the possibility of a sinless development. Now
this first man is Adam (Rom. v. 14; 1 Cor. xv. 22, 45) ; and
through him the sin, which certainly, according to Paul, was first
excited in Eve by deceit (2 Cor. xi 3 ; 1 Tim. H. 14), came to
its full and free consummation, and was thus a sin common to
both. The actual sin of this first man was a irapdBaaiv (Rom. v.
14), — i.e. an infringement of a positive divine command or pro
hibition, — a irapdirrmpa (vers. 15, 17, 1 8), a irapaKor] (ver. 1 9).
By this act sin came into the world. It was not Hmited to a
mere momentary existence in the isolated deed of the first man,
but became an agency henceforth existing in man ; for not only
had it come into the world, elarjXBe, but had in a more definite
sense, BirjXBe. And the operation of this agency is speciaUy mani-

442 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
fest, Hi that through it death came into the world, and is indeed
placed by God Hi a moral relation with sin (Rom. vi. 23) in vHtue
of a divine Kpip-a (ver. 1 6). Death now came into the world, not
as something origmal Hi it, but as an active agency, by means of
which not only he that first sinned as dp-apri/aav direBave (ver.
14 f), — death reigned not only over this one man, but so death
united with sin passed upon all men (ver. 12). The expression
/cat outw? must be here considered. As death entered into the
world, so it also passed upon aU ; et? irdvrav BirjXBev is not iden
tical with et? rbv Koap-ov elarjXBev. Koapov represents, indeed, the
whole of humanity ; but the distinction between the two ideas is
that Koapov denotes mankind as a general idea, whUst irdvrev
dvBpairoi expresses every individual comprehended in this glance.
Sin and death had by one man entered among mankind as a
whole, but they had not yet passed upon aU the individual
members of mankind. The latter is a matter of successive de
velopment. Death has, however, passed upon or pervaded all
men, just as and after it had entered the world ; because it had
previously entered among mankind as an agency, it successively
passed upon every individual But death was originaUy caused
by the sin of the first man, and has come upon aU men, not only
because it had generaUy entered the world, but it has so passed
upon aU as it first entered, namely, by means of sin. This is
particularly expressed in the addition ifi a> irdvrev r/paprov. This
evidently speaks of the relation between sin and the general spread
of death. The question now arises, how this e^' a> is to be ex
plained. In the first, it may be taken either as a conjunction or
preposition ; and in the latter case, a subject for the relative is
to be sought for. From ancient times the former course has been
most frequently taken, and i<p' a> has been understood as = iirl
tovtco ot i = propter ea quod = because. But this interpretation is
not only scarcely justifiable in a grammatical point of view, but the
context is most decidedly against it ; for it is unmistakeable that
the universaHty of death is here intended to appear as the result
of the first sin (ver. 15), and not of the sinning of every indi
vidual. At the very most might the sin of the individual be
considered as the secondary cause of the general death which,
Hi the primary instance, had been brought in by the sin of the
first man ; and this would only tend to weaken the main idea.
Augustine was guided by a correct feeling when, Hi consequence

DIV. II. § 76.] PAUL — CAUSE OF LACK OF RIGHTEOUSNESS IN MEN. 443
of his impression of the whole passage, he sought to find a subject
to the relative i(j> &, and beheved this to be the first man, ex
plaining the words " in quo omnes peccaverunt." But from the
context it is evident that it is not intended that Adam's sin was
imputed to us. No imputation of sinful propensity is spoken of;
indeed, with regard even to actual sin, no imputation exists, except
only where a positive law exists (ver. 13). It is set forth that,
notwithstanding this, the death which proceeded from the first sin
spread universaUy over aU, those even who had not, like Adam,
infringed a positive law, — that is, the whole world between Adam
and Moses. This took place through a icplpa (judicial sentence),
which was for aU men a icaraKpipa (a condemnatory sentence)
(vers. 16, 18), — a divine judgment which so ordained it, not,
however, by imputing Adam's sin to every individual, but as a
natural result, a natural necessity proceeding from this judgment
(ver. 1 5). Those explanations which take i(f>' w as a relative, and
refer this relative to the whole of the preceding sentence, or to
Bdvarov, are therefore more in consonance with the right under
standing of the connection. But there is more probabUity in the
view that i<f> S> is to be taken as a conjunction, and to be inter
preted eVi rovrtp ware, on the understanding that aU have sinned ;
so that the actual sin of individuals is a consequence of the same
event owing to which death through Adam's sin was spread among
mankind. The sin of Adam has therefore brought on the sin of
aU other men inseparably from death. The power of sin is, how
ever, so great, that, on the one hand, where it is committed without
any positive law, it brings with it death (ver. 14), although the
sin is not properly imputable ; and, on the other hand, the moral
. law could not stop it, but, as a positive law, has only enhanced it
(ver. 26).
We are thus led to the other aspect of the question, in which
the sin of individual men is not merely and directly connected
with that of Adam, but also with a sinful propensity which, in
every individual descended from the first man, precedes all actual
sin. This doctrine is intimated in the passage we have considered
(Rom v. 12 ff), the idea being expressed, that sin through the
first man came into the world as a continuous principle. We
have, however, only the general definition, that this takes place
Hi consequence of a divine icplpa, and that it is no imputation,
properly speaking. The nature of this dominion of sin, as a pro-

444 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
pensity which precedes aU actual sin, is developed more in detail
Hi Rom. vH., where the relation of man to the law is Hi the first
place set forth, first of the natural man (ei> aapKi, ver. 5), next of
man made a partaker of the grace in Christ, who is no longer
iv aapKi but eV irvevpari (ver. 6). The former is enlarged upon
in vers. 7—2 5, the latter in ch. vin. 1-1 7. 'Apapria no longer
appears in its general idea as in ch. v. 12—21, where it signifies
both the propensity and also the actual sin ; but, as the apostle
now reverts to the root, it is sin as a power, as a propensity, from
which all actual sin is formed.
As regards the existence of this propensity, Paul says (Rom.
vH. 7) : "I had not known sin, but by the law ;" and in ver. 8 :
" Sin, takmg occasion (for its seK-development) from the law,
wrought in me irdaav iiriBvp,tav." The iiriBvp,la is therefore the
effect of dpapria. The teaching of Paul, so far, goes further than
the doctrines of sin as we found them Hi James and Peter. The
dpapria exists potentiaUy in man, but as dpapria veKpd, until
there is a consciousness of the law. Then sin becomes active ; it
revives and brings about death (ver. 10). Sin appears here as a
germ which is developed by means of the moral consciousness ;
it is a controlling power — vop.ov apapriav (ver. 23). This sinful
propensity has a continuous existence in individuals — r) oiKovaa
iv ipol dpapria (vers. 17, 20), — and is therefore an habitual pro
pensity, and (as results from our previous consideration) it dweUs
in man even before the consciousness of the moral law arises in
him. The man experiences this sinful propensity when the
moral consciousness awakens Hi him as an inclination to good,
but he finds that evU is present with him (ver. 21). As to the
entry of this propensity into mankind, nothing is said here ; but
from Rom. v. 12 we may supply the cause — through the sin of
the first man. The essential character of this propensity is
opposition to the moral law (Rom. vii 23), and to the irvevpa
(Gal. v. 17), and includes a hostUe striving against God (Rom.
vHi. 7), to whom this propensity cannot be subject. It is so
powerful in man, that so long as no higher principle than the law
is Hving and active in the subject, it does not allow the honest
wUl of man either to overcome the dominion of sin or to get rid
of the dissension in himseK. This agrees with what we read in
ch. v. The power of the sin which passed from the first man to
others is so great, that the moral law in itseK is not able to do

DIV. II. § 76.] PAUL — CAUSE OF LACK OF RIGHTEOUSNESS IN MEN. 445
away with it ; on the contrary, the positive law only increases it.
This propensity is, however, not so constituted, or so powerful,
that nothing more than it exists in the natural man. These are
the main features of Paul's teaching as to a sinful propensity.
In more closely analysing it, we have to consider its nature, its
seat, and its development.
We wUl first consider the nature and the seat of this pro
pensity The dpapria is in the adpl- of man (Rom. vH. 18, 25) ;
it dweUs in the members (Rom vH 5, 23), and therefore the
body is caUed the aS>pa tov Bavdrov tovtov (Rom. vH. 24), a&pa
apapriav (Rom. vi 6, cf. 12), acopa rrv aapKov (Col. ii 11), and
adpl; apapriav (Rom. vHi. 3), Hi contrast to a moraUy guiltless
odp%. Whosoever is ruled by this propensity is Kara adpxa
(Rom. vHi 5), iv aapxi (Rom. vHi 8, 9), rd rrjv aapKov <ppov5iv
(Rom. viii 5), Kara adpxa irepiirarStv (Rom. viH. 4), generaUy
aapKixov (1 Cor. Hi 3) or crdpKivov (Rom vii 14; 1 Cor. iii. 1).
The mind which is actuated by this propensity is (ppbvnpa rfjv
aapKov (Rom. viH. 6, 7), and the acts resulting therefrom are
epya rrjv aapxov (Gal. v. 19). This propensity is opposed to the
vopov tov voov p,ov (Rom. vH 23), to the divine law as it exists
in the consciousness of the natural man, the earn avBpmirov (Rom.
vii 22), or to the irvevpa (Rom. viii 6-9, cf. vH 14; GaL v.
16-22, vi. 8).
In Rom. vH., from ver. 7 onwards, Paul speaks of the natural
man, who is Hi possession of nothing higher than the natural and
Old Testament law. Not until ch. viH. does he speak of the man
who is renewed Hi Christ, and in Him is Hi possession of the
irvevpa. Up to that point, that is, in ch. vH. 7-25, the natural
man is the subject, so far, however, as he is under the positive
law. The adp% forms here a contrast to the vovv, which becomes
conscious of the divine law. Only in the Christian subject is the
contrast formed by to irvevpa. The latter abides only in the
beHever who is in feUowship of Hfe with Christ, and is also a
new man, and denotes in an objective sense the SpHit of God or
Christ (Rom. viH. 9, 11, 16 ; GaL iv. 6 ; 1 Cor. H. 10-12), but
in a subjective sense the human mind Hi its highest stage of
potency, but only so far as the SpHit of God dwells in and
actuates it (Rom. vHi 16, cf. xiv. 9). In other passages also,
wherever Paul ascribes the irvevpa to men, he always presupposes
that they are believers; and therefore Hi Rom. vH 7-25 he does

446 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
not mention the irvevpa, because he is there considering the pro
pensity to sin existing in the natural man as placed in antagon
ism to the vovv only. In Paul's view, vovv is the human mind,
self-conscious sometimes in a theoretical, and sometimes in a
practical dHection. It is indeed active in the regenerate (1 Cor.
xiv. 14 £), but not in beHevers alone, but Hkewise also in the
natural man, who, by means of his vovv, can become conscious of
God (Rom. i 20), and is conscious of the divine law (Rom. vH.
23) ; but, on the other hand, the darkening of this vovv is set
forth (Rom. i 21 ; 2 Cor. iv. 4 ; Eph. iv. 18), that it sinks into
a paratorriv (in contrast to dXr/Beia, Eph. iv. 17), that it becomes
dSoKipov (Rom. i 28), and a fleshly vovv (Col. H. 18), Hi which
case an dvaKalvaaiv rov vobv is necessary (Rom. xH. 2), through
the irvevpa tov vobv r)pa>v (EpH iv. 23). The dpapria, however,
dwells iv toiv peXeai, in the body and not in the vovv (Rom. vii.
23). But Paul sometimes so expresses himseK that it appears as
if he intended to identify the ^vj(jr) with the propensity. The
man who is the contrast to the spiritual man is caUed the iJri>^t/eo?
dvBpcoirov (1 Cor. ii. 14; cf. Jas. Hi 15 ; Jude 19), being ruled
by the mere yjrvxv, in distinction from the irvevpa. But the adp%
is, in the first place, the body having life, and is quickened and
animated by the yjrvxrj. Man, therefore, as a "Trvx\ fa<ra (1 Cor.
xv. 45), is the man who has a awpa yfrvxncbv (ver. 44). There
is consequently no cause for surprise at Paul, when calling the
natural man aapKiKov, also describing him as -v/rv^t/eo? ; for the
yjrvxv introduces into the ampa and the p-eXr) no new principle
whereby they cease to be adp%. On the contrary, it merely ani
mates the body, and in its Hnmediate connection with the body
must develope a moraUy unhealthy IKe. Thus the proposition
holds good, that dpapria, as a propensity, has its seat in the body
and in the members, so far as this body is an animated one, and
that no newer and higher principle enters man so long as he is
without the irvevpa.
But this proposition does not assert (1) that Paul looked upon
the bodUy element as in itseK sinful ; for, in the apostle's view,
sin entered into the world through disobedience (Rom. v. 12 ff),
whUst, from the very first, man was of course possessed of an
animal body (1 Cor. xv. 46). Neither enjoyments nor actions
are unmoral because they are corporeal ; for Paul expressly blames
as unchristian that austerity towards the body which would aim

DIV. II. § 76] PAUL — CAUSE OF LACK OF RIGHTEOUSNESS IN MEN. 447
at deadening it (CoL H. 23 ; 1 Tim. iv. 1-5). He, on the con
trary, considers every enjoyment which is permitted by the Chris
tian consciousness to be good and right (Rom. xiv. 6 ; 1 Tim. iv.
4, 5). He requires a care for the body, certainly within certain
prescribed Hmits (Rom. xiv. '6), — a care which nourishes the
powers of Hfe without exciting impure lusts ; and he also demands
that the body should be dedicated as a living sacrifice, holy and
acceptable to God (Rom. xii. 1). (2) Also it is not asserted by
the apostle that the sinful element appears to him to be merely
something corporeal in its nature, and that every sinful impulse
is derived from the body. We may notice, on the one hand,
that with the most acute knowledge of mankind and the purest
moral ideas, he recognises as sin not only the merely sensual
emotions, but also those thoughts and actions which are not
expHcable by any corporeal impulse, such as the antichristian
self-deification, which elevated itseK above aU that was sacred
(2 Thess. H. 4) ; indeed, we see that he represents such thoughts
and actions as works of the adp^ (Gal. v. 20), and derives both
the errors of the Colossian ascetics (Col H. 18), and likewise the
divisions Hi the Corinthian Church (1 Cor. iii. 3 £), from a vovv
rrjv aapKov. On the other hand, he comprehends too deeply the
contrast between good and evU to derive all sinful impulse from
the body merely, foUowing in this the New Testament generaUy
(cf. John xvii 16, 14, 6, 9 ; 1 John v. 4; Jas. i 27). It is
the contrast between God and the world which Paul chiefly sets
forth (1 Cor. i 20-28, ii. 12, Hi. 19 ; 2 Cor. vH. 10 ; cf. 1 John
ii. 15, 16). He comprises aU moral good in the love of God
(Rom. viH. 28) ; and what Christians are to renounce consists of
ungodliness and worldly lusts (Tit. ii. 12). From this contrast
results the other between the personal I and God and Christ, — a
contrast which Paul lays much stress upon, according to which
the evil consists in a man "Hving to himself" (2 Cor. v. 15 ; cf.
Rom. xiv. 7 f. ; Gal. ii. 20). It is evident that the apostle has
deeply recognised the selfish principle in sin, and has this in view
when he places the existence of sin in the adp%.
AU these points are against the idea that Paul derived the im
pulse to sin from the body alone ; and the passages, Rom. vii. 5,
23, 24, Gal. v. 19, where he appears to speak only of the sins
of the body, are no proof in its favour. There is, of course, a
whole class of sins, more or less gross in character, which take

448 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
their rise Hi bodUy impulses, as soon, namely, as the corporeal
nature enters the service of selfishness ; and the bodUy desires
have been also from the very first a certain excitement to selfish
ness. Certainly Paul says, " In my flesh dweUeth no good thing"
(Rom. vH 18) ; he also describes the law which prevaUs in his
members as a law of sin. But this he may do without Hi any
way identifying with each other the sinful and the bodily, or
considering the sinful as something merely bodUy ; because (1) it
is Hi the body that the selfish propensity which opposes the
divine wiU arises first and with peculiar power, and to the body it
most continuously clings ; (2) because this propensity generaUy
agrees with the bodUy impulse Hi being directed towards that
which most pleases the individual, and in turning away from that
which the individual does not desHe. This propensity itseK is
therefore caUed adp%, and the emotions and actions which spring
from it the epya rrjv aapKov (Gal v. 19).
Xdpt; is, first of aU, the flesh properly so called in contrast to
the bones (EpH v. 30), and to the blood (1 Cor. xv. 50 ; Eph. vi
12) ; next, by a synecdoche, it means the whole body (1 Cor. xv.
39), particularly of man (Col. H. 5 5 Eph. v. 29, cf. H. 11 ; Rom.
xiH. 14 ; 2 Cor. iv. 11, vii. 1). Hence adp% becomes further the
whole Hving being, the man, and irdaa adp% is equivalent to aU
men (Rom. Hi. 20; 1 Cor. i 29; cf. Ps. lxv. 1; Gal. i 16;
Eph. vi. 12). But the accessory idea of weakness is for the most
part joined with it (Rom. iH. 20 ; cf. Gen. vi. 3) ; and hence are
derived the other, and for the most part metaphorical, definitions
of the idea. Thus adp% means that which is outward in contrast
to that which is inward (2 Cor. v. 16, xi 18 ; PhU. Hi 3) ; also
that which is inferior in power, duration, or value, and therefore
perishable and decaying (2 Cor. x 3, 4; cf. Ps. LxxviH. 39 ; Isa.
xL 6 ; Heb. vH 16 ; 1 Pet. i 24) ; Hkewise the merely human in
contrast to the supernatural (2 Cor. x. 4 ; 1 Cor. Hi. 3 ; 2 Cor.
i 12 ; 1 Cor. i 26 ; cf. John Hi. and the comparison of adp% and
alpa, GaL i 16; Eph. vi. 12 ; Matt, xvi 17). FinaUy, it in
cludes the signification of that which is sinful, as contrasted with
moral good, existing both Hi the vovv (Rom. vH. 23, 25) and also
in the irvevpa (Rom. vHi 1-9, 12-16 ; John iH 6). Thus be
cause adpi; generaUy describes man in his inferior and transitory
side, which is foreign and opposed to God, it seems the natural
designation for the seat of the sinful propensity ; in the adpi;

1 IV. II. § 76.] PAUL — CAUSE OF LACK OF RIGHTEOUSNESS IN MEN. 449
sin shows itseK with pecuHar force and continuance, although aU
sin is not of a bodily nature.
It is in favour of this conception of Paul's idea of the adpg that
the apostle, as remarked above, appears, according to 1 Cor. ii. 1 4,
to place sin in the tyvx,r). The "ifrvxy, as the psychical principle, —
the spHitual principle in immediate connection with the body, — is
a contrast to the irvevpa in its highest potency. It is therefore
also the side peculiarly belonging to seK in the Hfe of man ; and
as the man in whom the adpi- rules is therefore yfrvxncov, it is
supposed that the nature of sin is peculiarly belonging to self, in
that it is sensuaL This idea of the sinful propensity as adpi-
further explains the connection between sin and deatH We thus
understand how death is an inherited evU, and how the principle
of dpapria through Adam's sin clings pre-eminently to the body,
and must be connected in a pecuHar way with the propagation of
life, although the latter idea is nowhere so expressly intimated
by Paul as it is Hi John iH. 6. This propensity to sin developes
(Rom. vii 14) a power which results in a complete slavery
(vers. 15-25). EvU becomes a law (vopov) for the unregenerate
man ; at the best there is but an inward although impotent incHna
tion towards the law (Rom. ii 17 ; Eph. iv. 14). Nevertheless,
by the side of this propensity the higher tendency in man always
remains, not only where the Mosaic law rules (Rom. vH), but also
where the purely natural consciousness of God (Rom. i) Tules
in us as a moral law, as among the GentUes (Rom. ii. 14), in con
formity to the relationship to God which is Hi us (Acts xvH. 28).
In both cases the vovv of the inner man is opposed to sin ; but it
goes not further than a pleasure in good and a hatred of evU.
That which is good does not pervade the man, and he remains
the slave of his propensity ; some good actions may be done (Rom.
ii 14), but good never becomes the principle of Hfe.
The development of the propensity takes place by means of the
law (Rom. vH. 7-15). So soon as man is conscious of the law,
whether a positive law or not (Rom. ii. 14 f.), the propensity is
developed in its opposition to the divine wUl contained in the
law. The dpapria in itseK previously exists in the adp%, but
only in the iiriBvpla does it become a matter of fact which can
be experienced, therefore in the face of and through the law. It
was only undeveloped, vexpd, but now has become active. It is
therefore neither kept back nor hindered by the moral law, but
2F

450 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLE& [PART IL
rather stHred up to desHe and action ; next, unblessedness developes
itseK both externally and internally, or, in other words, Bdvarov
comes (Rom. vii. 1 3). In this sense Paul speaks of the iraBrjpara
™n dpapriSsv rd Bid tov vopov (Rom. vii 5), and says that " the
strength of sin is the law" (1 Cor. xv. 56), and that "without
the law sin were dead" (Rom. vH. 8). The development of the
consciousness of the moral law increasing together with this pro
pensity, not only as an idea and conception of the law, but as
a delight in it appearing in the inner man (ver. 22), and even as
a kind of BeXeiv (vers. 15, 16, 18, 21), only the more excites a
contest between the inward man and the propensity, and renders
the man the more conscious of the unhappy result of this contest
(vers. 15-23), — the slavery to sin. For in this case the subject
(1) is conscious of his subordination to the divine law, and of his
inability to fulfil it, because his wiU is in slavery to the pro
pensity to sin, and is "sold under sin" (ver. 14) ; (2) he is con
scious of his subjection to the evU propensity, and is unable to
give himseK up to it unreservedly, because the consciousness of
the moral law warns him therefrom. Thus the individual now
stands between these two opposites, gradually becoming fuUy
conscious of his misery, and that he is unable to rescue himself
from this position ; and so, by means of the law, the highest
thing which is possessed by man at this stage, the dpapria appears
both in its whole power, and also in its detestable character and
unblessedness (Rom. vH. 13, v. 20). If the development of the
propensity is more closely considered, it is found to be partly
individual in the personal life of each, and partly foUowing the
type of a life common to all.
FHstly, the sinful propensity is developed in individuals ac
cording to the power and cHcumstances of each, — especiaUy, how
ever, according to the conscientiousness with which each appHes
the means of help which are at his command. There is thus
estabHshed a moral difference between individuals ; and even in
a merely natural sphere of action there are some better and some
worse, some comparatively righteous and conscientious, and some
wicked and unconscientious. But even among the better sort
there is not one who, by strict conscientiousness, had developed
his morality to so great an extent as might have been possible
in spite even of his sinful propensity ; and so far aU are in
excusable (Rom. i 20, H 1, 15 ff). And even in the best case,

DIV. II. § 76.] PAUL — CAUSE OF LACK OF RIGHTEOUSNESS .IN MEN. 451
where there is the most sincere zeal for the law (Rom. vii 14-25),
man cannot get over the contest between the vovv and the adp%,
between the slavish service of the law as regards the vovv and
the service of sin as regards the adp%, — there stUl remains an
impotent wiU and an overpowering propensity. The man remains
hetween the attractive power of the divine law, which works upon
the will as the vopov tov voov, and the influence of evU, which,
in spite of his BeXeiv, he cannot overcome. There is a certain
BovXeveiv vopm Qeov (ver. 25), but only as accompanied by the
actual committing of dpapria ; therefore he remains raXalircopov,
a miserable, wretched man, in need of deliverance from this
position (ver. 24).
This propensity is also developed according to the type of a
hfe which is in common. Paul here distinguishes a twofold
sphere, that of the Greeks and the Jews. Among the former
-immorality reigned, owing both to the suppression of the original
consciousness of God and moral feeHng, and also through sensual
excess ; among them, therefore, there is dyvoia in respect to that
which is divine and moral (EpH iv. 17-19 ; Rom. i. 21 ff. ; Acts
xvii. 30). They can no longer BoKipd^etv that which is moral,
and theH wisdom is darkened (Rom. i 22 ; 1 Cor. i 22). In
the Jewish community the BoKipdfav exists in consequence of
the positive law (Rom. ii. 17 f), also a knowledge of the true
God as a result of the theocratical revelation. Sin shows itself
here chiefly as an adherence to the merely outward form of the
law and theocracy, and in a mere outward observance of the posi
tive precepts without any true life. There is therefore a glaring
and offensive contrast between the moral knowledge and feeHng
and action, so that that which is looked upon as the national
glory is practically denied. Certain obstinate Jews desHe to
assert their own righteousness in opposition to the gospel (Rom.
x. 3, ix. 31, 32) ; but, with all their zeal, they faU in attaining
^salvation. All the various types of coUective Hfe of nations and
•ages are united in the one great community of mankind, arising
from the connection with the first man, which is common to aU.
This collective life of mankind is, however, divided into two
essentiaUy different divisions : the first, formed by a common con
nection with the first man apart from any transformation by
Christ, is the community of sin and death (Rom. v. 12-21 ; 1 Cor.
xv. 22); the second is mankind as transformed by Christ, — a

452 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
community of righteousness and life (Rom. v. 21 ; 1 Cor: xv. 49, 22).
In the first point of view, the community of mankind is the
icbapov, sometimes taken in its dominion over, sometimes in its
juxtaposition and contest with, the second division, and sometimes
as conquered by the latter ; therefore the term Koapov sometimes
alternates, sometimes is combined with the term aldtv ovtov (Rom.
xii. 2 ; 1 Cor. H. 6, 8), ivearwv aiwv irovr)pov (Gal. i 4), o almw
tov Koapov tovtov (Eph. H 2). The term Koapav involves the
view of the unconditional dominion of sin ; in the idea of the
aiwv, which is contrasted with another, we have its qualification
and limitation.
The passage Eph. H. 2 f. is thus to be understood. The sin
ful community of mankind is connected by Paul, as in the Holy
Scriptures generaUy, with a sphere of sin spreading over mankind,,
— a spiritual world of wickedness. Where Paul deals with sin
in connection with the doctrine of BiKaioavvr), he does not, indeed,,
speciaUy enter upon the subject of this kingdom of darkness.
On the other hand, in the Epistle to the Corinthians we find
much on this subject ; also in the Epistles to the Colossians and
Ephesians, and that to the Thessalonians.
In the first dogmatical portion of the Epistle to the Ephesians
(ch. i-Hi), Paul first considers salvation in Christ only in a
general point of view (ch. i 3-14). After an expression of thanks
(ver. 3), he brings forward the divine counsel as shown in the
choice (vers. 4-6), and the communication of the; benefits of sal
vation depending thereon He is led by the progress of his
subject to show what the power of God in Christ had done both
for his readers and Hkewise other beHevers, and, caUing attention
to their previous pre-Christian position, summons them to a com
parison between then former heathen and now Christian position
In ch. ii 2 ff. we have a brief and comprehensive description of
the entire PauHne idea of sin AU men were in a position of
death by means of sin (ver. 1) : Hi this they once walked ere
they were converted to Christ (ver. 2). Sin was the ruhng prin
ciple of their moral conduct, and (ver. 3) the lusts and desnes
springing from the sinful propensity were the element in which
they lived ; but in these lusts and desires a distinction is made
between the strivings of the adp% and of the mind. According
to this, aU would be of an individual character ; but Hi ver. 2 a
more universal type is named. The conduct of individuals is

DIV. II. § 77.] PAUL — LACK OF RIGHTEOUSNESS; DIVINE ACTION. 453
Hmited by the period of the world, consequently by the spirit of
the age — the moral state and customs of this world. This spirit of
the age has also another rule — the prince of the power of the air,
the spHitual power which rules in the air (cf. Eph. vi. 12), the
.'habitation of which is the atmosphere and not the earth (cf. § 86).
This power is a spiritual power, " which now worketh in the
chUdren of disobedience" (Eph. ii. 2), i.e. in those who in unbelief
¦oppose the gospel. Thus sin is, on the one hand, a variety of
trespasses through which man is subject to death in its manifold
Significations (ver. 1) ; and, on the other hand, it exists in a pro
pensity which is manifest in iiriBvp-laiv (ver. 3), sometimes in the
direct workings of the adp!;, sometimes in those brought about by
the mind. The individual sins not only find their cause in an
habitual propensity, but they are likewise in connection with an
universal rule — the aiwv tov Koapov tovtov, — indeed, with its
prince. By means of aU this we are rmva <f>vaei bpyf/v, for sin is
not only a position of death as regards men, but is also a position
,of unblessedness and of HabiHty to condemnation. This is the
state of men in their pre-Christian condition. As regards the
Jews, Paul adds <pvaei, i.e. in contrast to all that had been done
or had taken place from without, consequently in contrast to that
which they were through the choice of divine grace. Man,
therefore, by virtue of sin is veKpbv and a subject of the divine
punishment ; both BiKaioavvr/ and far) are wanting in him.
§ 77. The Lack of Righteousness in all Men — The Bivine Action
in reference to this Lack.
The divine opyr) (cf. the reKva bpyrjv, Eph. ii. 3) is revealed by
God (Rom. i 18), although its complete revelation appertains to
the last judgment, and is therefore bpyi) ipxppevq (1 Thess. i 1 0 ;
Eom. ii. 5, 8). But there is thus a limitation of the opyr) by
means of the divine patience and long-suffering (Rom. iii. 26,
ii 4). This is an outflow from the richness of the divine good
ness (ch. H. 4), with the intention of giving the sinner time for
[¦repentance. God's goodness is, in the first place, of a merely
negative character in respiting the punishment, so that the sins
committed before Christ are not punished (ch. Hi. 25). God, in
the first place, passes them over in virtue of His dvoxv and
paicpodvpia. "The times of this ignorance God winked at" (Acts
xvn 30), suffering aU.the Gentiles " to walk in their own ways "

454 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
(Acts xiv. 16), without interfering with any decided judgment.
Here and there, however, as is said, Rom.'i 18, the opyr) is
actuaUy revealed, as by means of the conscience (Rom. ii. 15, 16).
This respite is, however, a IHnitation of the opyr), which Hmitation,
inasmuch as it proceeds from xPVaToTTl% aims at the salvation of
men, and not merely at a postponement of judgment.
This limitation, therefore, carries with it a positive divine action
agamst sin, aiming at the salvation of man even before the
appearance of Christ. The starting-point of this divine agency
is the original revelation of God instituted at the creation (Rom.
i. 19 f.). We here find the assertion carefuUy set. forth: (1.)
That even apart from any extraordinary revelation, and in con
sequence of the circumstances in which he was placed from the
beginning, dirb Kriaemv Koap,ov, in which also the heathen were,
a right knowledge of God was possible for man, i.e. one opposed
to heathen idolatry; (2.) That this knowledge of God depended,
objectively, on God's manifesting action (ver. 1 9), and, subjectively,
not on a material view of God, but on a rational reflection on the
divine operations, of which the world is the sum, — external
nature and the nature and history of man forming elements of
them. By aU this the consciousness of God originaUy established
Hi man is awakened ; and the more he makes the contents of the
world the subject of reflection, and exercises himself in an honest
God-seeking frame of mind,, the more powerfuUy and completely
wiU this knowledge be developed (Acts xvii. 27). By a defi
ciency in these thoughts the knowledge of God is hindered and
reHgious truth is suppressed (Rom. i 18, 21). Yet, even at the
best, this knowledge was imperfect (cf. 1 Tim. vi. 16), and is
spoken of in a comparative sense, as also the statement of the
apostle that the heathen fulfil a natural moral law (Rom. n. 14).
As a substratum of the knowledge of God, nature and history are
frequently pointed at in the Old Testament, as Ps. xix., cxiv. In
the New Testament, too, there are ihtimations of the same idea
(Acts xiv. 15, 16, xvH. 24-29 ; Matt. vi. 26, 28-30).
But this original knowledge of God certainly has, by the guflt
of man, been darkened and perverted in heathenjsm, the ethico-
psychological origin of which is set forth by Paul (Rom. i 21 ff.):
of. § 75. With the presupposed original revelation of God is
connected the divine operation against sin, having as its aim the
salvation of man. This is the divine agency as affecting the

DIV. II. §77.] PAUL — LACK OF RIGHTEOUSNESS; DIVINE ACTION. 455
world, and directly embracing the whole of humanity — the opera
tion of God which maintains and rules the world, and guides
every development of humanity. ContinuaUy in spite of the
I prevalence of sin, God has not left Himself without witness as
regards men, but has graduaUy dispersed them over the earth,
and has so guided them, that, after they had more or less for
gotten Him, they might seek and find Him, who was so near to
aU, that in Him they Hved, and moved, and had their being (Acts
xvii. 25-28, xiv. 16 f.).
But God had not restricted HimseK to this general course of
operation, but assisted it by another Hne of action at first applied
to the Old Testament theocracy. By this a peculiar relation is
estabHshed between the chUdren of Abraham — those, namely,
springing from Jacob or Israel- — and God as theH covenant God.
This relation Paul highly esteems, stating it to.be a peculiar pre
eminence (Rom. iii 1 f, ix. 4 £). The nation are the children
of God (Rom. ix. 4, 5) ; to them belong the Botja (according to
some, the B6%a Qeov which dwelt in the temple, but perhaps
generaUy the glory of the theocratical nation), the covenants (the
p oft-repeated covenant), the giving of the law and the divine ser
vice involved in it, the promises combined with it, and the fathers
who stood in a close covenant relation to God. AU these advan
tages are (Rom. iii. 2) combined in one, " that unto them were
committed the oracles of God." The highest prerogative is, how
ever, that this nation forms the substratum of the redemption and
was the immediate subject of Jesus' ministry. AU these advan
tages are also hinted at in Eph. H. 1 2 ; and generally they are a
subject which the apostle several times expressly dwells upon, as
it was necessary for -him to analyse the nature of this relation
in aU respects. In the economy of the covenant relation, the
apostle distinctly distinguishes two periods, which are set forth in
Gal. Hi.
The pre-Mosaic period is the patriarchal, depending upon the
divine revelation made to the patriarch of the Israelitish people,
by which the theocratical relation was estabHshed as a relation
pecuHar to this people. This was done by the divine promise,
united with cHcumcision, as the sign and seal of the covenant
(Rom. iv. 13-21; Gal. iii 16-22; Rom. ix. 4-8 f.). In this
pre-Mosaic period the promise was the chief matter ; and its
purport was, that Abraham was the heH of the world which

45 P TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
should come to him as inheritor, and that mankind should become
the children of Abraham. Therein is placed the whole BaaiXela
tov Qeov, the Messianic kingdom. AU was to devolve upon the
seed of Abraham in the first place, and stride on Christ (Gal,
iii. 16), the Son being Hi a wider sense described as heir of aU
things (Heb. i 2). The Jews naturally interpreted the xXvpovopov
tov Koapov as a material domination of the whole world by the
Jewish nation ; but Paul interprets it spirituaUy, making Abraham
" the father of many nations," not merely materially but spiri
tuaUy, in the fuUest sense, through the salvation in Christ, which
passed on from Abraham's race to many nations under the con
dition of faith. The eiXoyla tov 'ABpadp, is, that aU the nations
of the earth were to receive a blessing which proceeded from him,
and were to rejoice in this blessing. Yet the promise is not a
one-sided one on God's part, it is an agreement (Gal iii 1 7), —
certainly in this passage in a peculiar sense as a testament, Bia-
Bi)Kr), cf. ver. 15,— also in the ordinary sense, and even in the
plural (Rom. ix; 4), the one theocratical part in the old covenant
having been concluded in more than one way, first in the patri
archal and then in the Mosaical period. Even in the patriarchal
times the promise was combined with a requisition which was sym
bolized in circumcision ; but the promise was not given on account
of cHcumcision. This is shown by Paul in Rom. iv., thereby
removing the scruple against the BiKaioavvr) eV iriaremv which
was caused to the Jewishly inclined by the spHit of theocracy,
which, depending on the law, made the divine favour consequent
on the fulfilment of its commands (Rom. x. 5 ; GaL Hi 12).
Paul shows that the original foundation of theocracy was not
the law, but the promise given to Abraham, and given not on
account of any merit of works, but from free grace ; and that he,
from whom all the theocratical pre-eminence ot Israel sprung,
received the divine favour on account of his faithful trust in
God, essentiaUy in the same way as the Christian attained to
BiKaioavvr/, namely, Bid rrjv iriaremv. Abraham's piety chiefly
consisted in his faithful trust. Three great acts of this trustful
ness have been recorded : his going out from his fatherland in
accordance with the divine summons and promise (Heb. xi. 8-10);
his faith in the promise ot a son (Heb. xi. 11) ; and, lastly, his
readiness, at the divine direction, to sacrifice this son, on whom
the promise of numerous descendants seemed to depend (Heb.

DIV. II. § 77.] PAUL— LACK OF RIGHTEOUSNESS; DIVINE ACTION. 457
xi. 17-19). God looked upon this faith as something good, as a
righteousness weU-pleasing to Him ; and therefore he is caUed
the friend of God (Jas. H. 23; Isa. xH. 8; 2 Chron. xx 7).
Abraham's faith, of course, did not relate to justifying grace, but
to the God who, from free bounty, granted to him unmerited
favour. God's blessing always presupposes God's favour; and
even in the Old Testament, as man is always looked upon as a
sinner, it involves also the divine forgiveness. Paul expressed
himself in this way about Abraham with special reference to the
Christian BiKaioavvr/ and irianv, in order to show that what he
asserted in respect to salvation in Christ held good also in Abra
ham's relation to God, namely, that it depended, not on merit,
but on God's grace and man's faith, and included both forgiveness
of sins and justification of the sinner before God. Thus does the
apostle link on the culminating point of the divine dispensation
in Christ to its historical starting-point in Abraham. Paul lays
particular stress upon the point that circumcision was not the
ground of the acquisition of a special relation to God, but that
it was, on the contrary, only the sign and pledge of the relation
hi which God on other grounds had placed Himself in respect
to Abraham and his descendants. Consequently also the first
groimdwork of the Old Testament dispensation was an act of
God's free grace — the free choice of Abraham and his race (cf.
Rom. ix. 7-13). It was so perfectly free, that all the children of
Abraham and Isaac were not included in this relation, — not on
account of any special guUt on their part, but only that the uncon
ditional freeness of divine grace might thus be fuUy evidenced.
The Mosaical period is described as the vopov (Gal. Hi. 1 7 ff), in
which the circumcision was included- The law contains a series
of special divine requisitions, certainly with a promise added, but
merely in the sense that salvation belongs only to him who fulfils
the whole law (Gal. Hi. 12 ; Rom. x. 5), whUst a curse rests upon
every one who continueth not in aU things which are written in
the law to do them (Gal. iH. 10). The character of this Old
Testament dispensation is, according to Paul, strictly divine (Rom.
ix. 4). The law. was given by God by means of angels, and pre
sented to the people' through Moses, a human mediator. That
angels ministered Hi the giving of the law is to be looked upon as
an idea generaUy adopted by the Jews (cf. Acts vH. 53), under
the notion that God was profaned by any immediate contact with

458 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
the world. This idea of God is not adopted by Paul and Chris
tianity generaUy ; but the intervention of angels in the giving of
the law is brought forward by him Hi order to intimate, taking a
standpoint conceded by the Jews, that this Histitution had at
least no pre-eminence over the institution of the promise. The
promise was given dHectly by God HimseK; the law was not
dHectly given to the IsraeHtish people. It is, however, expressly
stated in Ex. iH 2 that the angel of the Lord appeared in ' the
burning bush, but no mention of this is made in the giving
of the law. But the law was ordained not only through the
ministry of angels, but also by the hand of Moses, a human
mediator. The law was directly confided to him as the media
torial representative of the whole people (cf. Acts vH. 3 5 ; Deut.
v. 5). The law having been ordained by God, although by the
hand of a mediator, to it belongs equally with the promise, but
therefore also in necessary agreement with the promise, the - cha- '
racter and dignity of a divine institution In this two points are
involved : (1) Bivine glory and inward holiness belong to the law
(Rom. ix. 4 ; 2 Cor. Hi. 7-1 1). It was a divine revelation, and
therefore the divine splendour and fulness of Hght overspread
even Moses ; it was a divine lawgiving, and therefore a Bb%a was
its attribute. The law is therefore divinely framed, holy, just,
and true (Rom. vii. 12), of a spiritual character (ver. 14), pro
ceeding from God, and aiming at a spiritual life, — he only corre
sponding to the spirit and sense of the law who has the spHitual
cHcumcision of the heart (Rom. H. 29). But the law only pos
sesses this divine distinction in that (2) it harmonizes with, the
promise. It cannot be intended to disannul the promise (GaL
iH 17, cf. vers. 15, 21, 19, 20), for God is one. He it is who
hath given both the promise and also the law, — the God, indeed,
who is one and without contradiction in HimseK. The two
institutions must therefore harmonize with each other ; and the
promise is the much older revelation, having been given 430 years
before the law. The law was given for another purpose, twv
TrapaBdaeav x°LPlv- Its first aim was to . apply a check to sin ;
but its first result was, that this positive law is infringed. The
law therefore became the means of making man conscious of sin,
and thus of bringing it to maturity, and of completely developing
it. Thus it can be said that the law was added on account of
transgression. This, too, agrees with the inner nature of the law,

DIV. II. § 7R.] PAUL— THE RESTORATION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. 459
for the law is not able to give life (ver. 21) : if it could, then
truly righteousness would come by the law. Consequently the
promise is not annulled by the law, the intention of which was
not to found a righteousness of the law, the law being to be
considered as a iratBaywybv et? Xpiarov. The position of man,
therefore, was not essentially altered by the law. The law was
unable to free man from the power of sin and death, for it was
hindered and weakened in its effects by man's evil propensity
(Rom. viii. 2) : it could not faoiroirjaai (GaL Hi. 21). So far the
law was but a form of reHgion which was adapted for the imma
ture (GaL iv. 1-3), and appropriate to the elementary IKe of
' mankind still living Hi sin (ver. 3), and to the poor and weak
rudiments of the world (ver. 9 ; Col. ii. 20). It certainly pointed
to something higher and better, thus showing itself to be some
thing of a lower character. Thus it was the aKid ra>v peXXbvroiv
(CoL H 17), therefore intended to be temporary, until the seed of
Abraham came, to whom the promise was made (Gal. iii. 19), and
untU the time appointed by the Father (Gal iv. 2). The law is
that which is done away with and disappears (2 Cor. iii. 1 1) when
He shaU arrive for whom the promise was intended (Gal iii. 19),
when, instead of sin reigning unto death, grace through Jesus Christ
shaU appear as the ruling principle in mankind (Rom. v. 21).
Thus even in pre-Christian times there was action on God's
part aiming at the salvation of man. Only with reference to this
aim, which is pointed at by the law, has God aUowed the condi
tion of sin or admitted it into His plan for the world. He has
not prevented this condition (Acts xiv. 1 6), and has even " winked
at it" (Acts xvH. 30). He passed over the sins committed during
the pre-Christian period (Rom. iii. 25) ; but only with the inten
tion of doing away with this condition by means of the redemp
tion (Rom. xi. 32), and in the interval to make the law an agent
to prepare for the redemption (GaL Hi, 22-25). Certainly sin
would thus become more conscious and more developed, but the
consciousness of a need of redemption would be simultaneously
promoted and animated ; and, so far, sin finds a place in God's
counsel under the presupposition of redemption.
8 78. The Restoration of Righteousness.
From the last paragraph, we see that Paul, in considering the
divine agency as regards man in the guidance ot the world, has

460 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
referred it aU to redemption as its aim and end, and that he has
speciaUy set forth how, in the Old Testament dispensation, God
promised redemption (Rom. i 2), previously announced it (Gal.
Hi 8 ; Rom. iv. 23 f.), prefigured it by shadows (Col. H. 17), and
psychologicaUy prepared for it (Gal. in. 24). But the apostle is
not content with the connection estabHshed between that which
God did in Christ and what preceded it, but, reverting to the last,
teaches : (1.) That God, from eternity, in virtue of His free will of
grace, ordained the redemption of man ; His counsel being, indeed,
hidden from man (1 Cor. ii 7 ff. ; Rom. xvi. 25; Eph. Hi. 9;
Col. i 26), and made manifest but incompletely by the Old
Testament promise (Eph. iii. 5 ; Rom. xvi. 26), being first ,fuUy
revealed in its actual realization, consequently through the gospel
as the word of this fulfilment (Eph. Hi. 5 ; CoL i 26 ; Rom.
xvi 25 f . ; 1 Cor. ii. 9 f.). Hence, Hi the passages quoted, this
divine counsel is styled a pvarrjpiov or pvarr)piov tov BeXrjparov
avTov (EpH i 9). A pvarr)piov is not something which is hidden
and remains so, but, having been hidden from men, is revealed to
them by God. Just as in Rom. xi 25 one separate point in the
divine plan of salvation — the future conversion of Israel to Christ
— is styled by Paul a p-varr/piov ; and likewise the statement (1
Cor. xv. 51), " We shaU not aU sleep, but we shaU aU be changed;"
so now the whole plan of salvation is thus characterized. This
counsel of God is an eternal one (Eph. i 4) ; and although this
verse refers in the first place to the choice of individuals as par
takers in salvation, stiU, if this choice of individuals existed irpo
KaraBoXfjv Koapov, so also must have existed the p.varr)piov tou
BeXr/parov Qeov in respect to salvation generaUy. Paul, then,
desHes to intimate that redemption in Christ is not of a merely
incidental and momentary character, but that it is something
which formed an essential part of God's plan for the world.
This pvarrjpiov is made known to us icard ti)v evBoxiav airov
(Eph. i 9), which again is according to His free purpose. Both
in James and Peter we were referred back to an eternal, divine
wiU (Jas. ii. 5 ; 1 Pet. i. 2, 20); but in Paul we find a more
copious reference both of the general choice and also of the
choice of individuals to the eternal counsel of God, and this
counsel has its prescribed destination in Christ (Eph. i. 4 £).
That which God has made known to us as to the pvarr/pwv tov
BeXr/paTov avrov refers to His olnovopla tov irXrjpwuarov rmv

DIV. 11. §78.] PAUL — THE RESTORATION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. 461
Kaipu>v (ver. 10), at the date when aU the various epochs had
come to an end — ot Kaipoi — which God had settled in His eternal
wUl both as to duration and as to the events contained Hi them.
When aU these terms had run out, then Christ appeared (Gal.
iv. 4), Kaipolv IBioiv, i.e. at the date which had been ordained as
best fitting (Tit. i 3), Kara xaipov (Rom. v. 6). The divine
counsel for the redemption of man has therefore, as a counsel, a
reference to Christ, to Him who was to appear at the prescribed
date, after all the preceding periods had passed. The counsel goes,
indeed, so far as to gather together in Christ all things which are
in heaven or earth (Eph. i. 10). This counsel, then, embraces the
whole of humanity, the Gentiles no less than the Jews ; and it is
just this universality which Paul looks upon as a pvartfpiov,
which was indeed intimated Hi the old covenant, but is revealed
completely in the new covenant, in Christ and through Christ
(Eph. iH 6, 8). God is the God of the Gentiles as weU as of
the Jews (Rom. Hi. 29 f.), and Christ as the intercessor is the
Lord who is rich to all who caU upon Him (Rom. x. 12).
Having thus seen that redemption was the fulfilment of a
divine counsel of grace which existed from eternity, which fulfil
ment was developed organicaUy in the fulness of time, it natu
rally results that, (2,) The creative agency of God also bears a
reference to redemption. God's creative agency was also founded
on an eternal divine wiU, and therefore the counsels both of the
creation and the redemption of the world are connected together ;
the created world, being through sin at enmity with God and dis
united Hi itseK, is brought back to unity in Christ Jesus. This re
ference to redemption in the divine creative agency is indubitably
set forth in the later PauHne epistles, most of all in Col. i In
this epistle the argument of the. apostle is dHected against certain
tfeeosophico-Judaistic errors, according to which the salvation of
men was to be realized through the intervention of some higher
spiritual agency, involving, therefore, an improper rehgious vene
ration of angels (Col. H. 18), and combined with this an anti-sen
sual asceticism as a seK-chosen worship of God (ver. 23). These
theories, by which the due position of Christ was annuUed and
the whole nature of Christianity altered, are opposed by Paul, by
exalting the greatness of Jesus Christ as the one image of the
invisible God, and as the first-born of every creature (Col. i 15),
and entering into a detaUed exposition on the point. In his^

462 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART IL
view, the creation of the world is thus to be looked upon : that
everything was created in an inward, essential connection with
Christ (iv avrw, ver. 16), and indeed both through Christ (oV
avTov) as the instrumental and intervening cause, and also et?
airov, so that the relation of everything to Him is not merely
momentary but continuous, in order ( that everything shall be in
a continual connection with Him, and shaU assist in His glorifi
cation. The world is therefore, by the creation, placed in this
metaphysical relation to Christ ; and not only is He the uninter
rupted agent Hi the existence of the world, but He is also, accord
ing to Col. i 1 8 ff, the head of His body the Church, and through
Him everything is reconcUed and made one.
The later epistles also express the same ideas, especiaUy the
passage 1 Cor. viii. 6. God is represented here as the ultimate
supreme cause of aU things, and the one Lord Jesus Christ as
the intervening cause of everything. Some expositors understand
the latter portion of the verse as referring to a moral creation.
But the context, and the Pauline idea of the Kvpiov, are not in
favour of this interpretation. Kvpiov has not a mere reference to
redemption as the moral redemption; but as, in Paul's view, the
redemption itself is not merely a redemption from sin, but also
from its consequences, and includes a positive glorification not
only of beHeving* humanity, but also of the whole «Tt'o-t? with
which humanity is connected (Rom. viH 1 9 ff), so the Redeemer
also is so far Lord, inasmuch as redemption generally, and not
only a moral spiritual salvation, is dependent upon Him, — He'
cannot bring about redemption without being actuaUy Lord of
all. According to Paul, He is not only the Lord from heaven
(1 Cor. xv. 47), and the Lord of glory (1 Cor. ii 8), He also, as
Redeemer, subdues iraaav apx^v ical irdaav igovalav xal Bvvapiv,
i.e. all might and power which hostUely opposes God in the uni
verse (1 Cor. xv. 24-27), so that God has put aU things under
Him. As Redeemer, He has risen again, "that He might be
Lord both of the dead and living" (Rom. xiv. 9). It is then
evident that the term Kvpiov in the Pauline teaching embraces
more than Him merely who brings about moral salvation. Paul
presupposes the reaHzation of this moral salvation, but includes
the idea that He who brings it about is also the Lord over all.
In glancing at the context of the passage 1 Cor. viH. 6, we see
that the apostle's view is directed towards the whole world, with

DIV. II. § 78.] PAUL—THE RESTORATION OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. 463
its whole contents, embracing every sphere of IKe : the question
is, whether there is a plurality of Kvpioi and Beol in the world ?
And plainly it is not merely the complex of the moral creation
which is spoken of, but the complex of all things, the coUective
existence of the world. This is quite undisputed as regards the
first portion of the verse, — how can it be said that, in the second, a
worldly existence is not in question ? EssentiaUy the same idea
is expressed here as in Col. i 16, according to which passage the
creation of the world stands in relation to Christ and to the work
of redemption. Hence Christ is the Mediator of redemption, be
cause He was previously the Agent in the existence of the world.
According to our former paragraph, the principle of redemption ,
is the redeeming grace of God, which in Jesus Christ presented
itseK in the fulness of times in man's history. An essential
feature here is, that in Adam and his descendants sin was the
ruling principle, and as such producing death ; but in the period
of redemption grace is the ruling principle, and brings about
Biicaioavvr) and far) almviov instead of sin and death, through the
intervention of Jesus Christ as our Lord (cf. Rom. v. 15, iii 24;
Epk H. 8, i 7 ; Tit. H. 11). Xdpiv is God's unmerited goodness
towards His creatures, especiaUy towards sinful men. In its
more general signification it is expressed by dydirr) (Rom. v. 8 ;
Eph. ii. 4), and by x/^o-tott?? (Eph. ii. 7 ; Tit. iii. ^). The term
is most closely defined in Tit. ii. 1 1 : r) x°-Pl<! T0" ®60" V <riorr)-
piov ; cf. iii. 4 : xprjaTOTriv ko.1 (piXavBpwirla tov aarr/pov r)pa>v
Qeov. "EXeov specially denotes the divine goodness towards the
unhappy (Eph. ii. 4; Rom. xi. 31, 32). Redemption is expressed
by a&aai, awBfjvai (cf. 1 Tim. i 15; Tit. iii. 5), and hence
aarr)pia (1 Thess. v. 9). Christ, therefore, is distinctively called
cwrrjp (2 Tim. i 10 ; Tit. H 13), although in the Pastoral Epistles
God is also so caUed, as the final cause of redemption and the
Sender of Jesus Christ (1 Tim. i 1, ii 3, iv. 10; Tit. Hi. 4).
The expression diroXvrpwaiv, often used by Paul, denotes the
mode of redemption as a ransoming (Rom. Hi 24 ; Eph. i. 7). It
refers to the HabiHty to punishment, and includes the forgiveness
of sins, combining therefore the idea of acoBrjvai with the closer
definition of a acoBrjvai dirb rrjv bpyrjv (Rom. v. 9). From what
has gone before, we see that, as explained by Paul, redemption is
essentially brought about by Christ, and that all that is contained
in redemption proceeds from and is grounded Hi Him, ultimately,

464 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
however, of course in God. The PauHne teaching as to the redemp
tion is based,- therefore, upon Christ as the Redeemer, and we get
the following divisions : (1.) Jesus Christ the Redeemer, His person
and office ; (2.) Redemption itseK as the completed work of Christ ;
(3.) The reference to God in this teaching as to redemption.
§ 79. Jesus Christ the Redeemer — His Person.
In Paul's teaching as to the person of Christ in general, he
does not place the Christological element in the foreground. We
may see how strongly the anthropological element prevails in
Paul's views, by noticing how much of the Epistle to the Gala
tians is devoted to the relation between the law and the gospel,
and how little is ex professo taught as to the person of Christ (Gal.
ii. 20, iv. 1-7). This subject is more dwelt upon in the Epistle
to the Romans ; but K we consider the extent of its dogmatic
exposition, we find the passages relating to the person of Christ are
but scanty as compared with the anthropological element. The
deficiency in the Christology is nevertheless only comparative,
and does not prevent the apostle, who derives aU redemption
from Christ, from reverting in 'many instances to His person.
And by the fact that Paul always sets this forth as essentiaUy
the chief matter (cf. Rom. v. 12-21; 1 Cor. xv. ; Rom. viH 3;
Gal. iv. 1-7 ; Eph. i 9, 10, 19 ; CoL i 13-22), we are justified
in giving it the first place in our exposition of his teaching.
Paul also does not omit to adopt into his teaching the chief
points of Christ's historical appearance upon earth, including the
subsequent exaltation, and asserting for it an essential relation to
redemption as the work of Christ in a more complete and detailed
mode than Peter's. For whenever Paul derives redemption from
Christ, it is always pre-eminently, and almost always expressly,.
Jesus Christ, who died, rose again, and is exalted for us. So abso
lutely and essentiaUy does Paul combine redemption and the effects
of redemption in beHevers with the person of Christ, that he shows
the greatest predilection for "uniting it not only with the nature of
His person, but also with aU the chief phases of His appearance,
His lowliness and His exaltation, His sufferings and deatk This,
and also the fact that Paul had in view to represent the pecu
liarity of Christianity, and therefore the work of redemption in
all its distinction from the Old Testament dispensation, are the
causes why he was compeUed, more than Peter, to dwell upon the

DIV. II. § 79.] PAUL— JESUS CHRIST THE REDEEMER ; HIS PERSON. 465
inner nature of the person of Christ as distingiushed from aU
other men We have, indeed, found Peter expressing most
decisively that Christ is the only sinless One, and the Prince of
Hfe ; but he does not go beyond this in definite explanation as
to the inner nature of the person of Christ. This explanation
is exactly what we find in Paul. l He desires to represent that
it is a general need of mankind that they should be reconcUed
and redeemed, — a need, indeed, which is satisfied in Christ alone,
who is something new and higher as regards both aU the descend
ants of Adam and also the entire universe (the latter idea is
chiefly set forth in the Epistle to the Colossians). In contexts
of this kind we find the principal Christological references in
the PauHne epistles ; they are more rare when called forth by
special motives (PhiL H. 4 ff. ; 2 Cor. vHi 9 ; passages in which a
practicaUy didactic aim inspHes them).
As regards Paul's special teaching as to the nature of the per
son of Christ,- its human aspect is, in the first place, often brought
forward, and Christ is very decidedly considered as man. He is
born of woman (Gal. iv. 4) ; of the theocratic race of Israel, a
descendant of David and Abraham (Rom. ix. 3-5, i. 3 ; 2 Tim.
ii. 8 ; Gal. Hi 1 6), and therefore made under the law (Gal. iv. 4) ;
Hving Hke man upon earth, especiaUy in all human lowliness
(PhiL ii 7, 8 ; and thus the adp% in Rom. i 3 is to be taken as
an expression of the coUective existence of mankind) ; He was
crucified (1 Cor. i 23; 2 Cor. xiH. 4); was dead and buried
(1 Cor. xv. 3, 4), and rose again on the third day (1 Cor. xv. 4,
both " according to the Scriptures ") ; He was exalted to heaven
at the right hand of God (Rom. viH. 34 ; Col. Hi. 1 ; PhU. ii. 9-11;
Eph. i 20-22). These points Hi His earthly life are, however,
not mentioned merely as such, but as facts by which redemption
was brought about. Very frequently, too, even His human
nature and Hfe's history are so mentioned, that it is evident that
the apostle desHes to describe Him not as mere man, and that
humanity is ascribed to Him in a pecuHar sense. The appella
tion of man simply is very seldom applied to Christ by Paul.
Besides 1 Tim. H. 5, where the man Christ Jesus is mentioned as
the Mediator between God and men, we find in the earUer epistles
the passage 1 Cor. xv. 21, where, however, the paraUel with the
first man Adam asserts for Christ a pecuHar position as regards
the rest of mankind. Therefore in the same connection (vers.
2 G

466 / TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
45-49) there is ascribed to Him, as the eeryaTo? 'ABdp. or Bev-
repov dvBpcoirov, a very essential pre-eminence over Adam the first
man. The same relation exists in Rom. v. 15-21, where Adam
appears as the two? of Christ, both being starting-points of a col
lective Hfe among mankind. But, on the other hand, vers. 1 5-1 7
show, in addition to this simUarity a twofold difference, the con
trast presented by the two kinds of coUective IKe, one being de
struction, the other being salvation ; and also the superiority of the
effects produced by Christ. The different causes of these effects
are also set forth (sin and grace, ver. 15 ; judgment and free
gift, ver. 1 6) ; also the mode of the effect (death and salvation,
vers. 15,1 7). In aU this Christ excels His type. That a mere
moral relation is not intended here is evident from a comparison
with 1 Cor. xv. 47—49. The first man was a ijrvxr) faaa, but the.
second Adam is a irvevpa faoiroiovv (ver. 45), and therefore not
of earth, but heavenly— indeed, " the Lord from heaven " (ver. 47).
Christ is, too, eiKwv tov Qeov (2 Cor. iv. 4), so that the glory of
God was reflected or manifested in Him (ver. 6) ; in the midst
even of His humUiation, when He was crucified, He was Kvpiov
rrjv B6ljr)v (1 Cor. ii. 8). Paul, moreover, asserts the absolute
sinlessness of the person of Christ : He is 6 p,r) yvovv apapriav,
that is, He had not experience of sin as personal sin in HimseK
(2 Cor. v. 21 ; Rom. v. 18 ; PhiL H. 6). The BiKaiwpa, i.e. the
action which through its righteousness suppHes the want of
another (Rom. v. 18), is perhaps mentioned with special refer
ence to the one action of Christ's death, but so mentioned, that
this deed of obedience is considered by Paul as only the culmi
nating point of a whole Hfe lived in complete unbroken obedience
towards God (cf. PhU. H 8). The idea of sinlessness is also
involved Hi that of a sacrificial offering, which must be faultless,
and also in the consideration of Christ as the founder of a new
life, free from death ; for as death came by sin, so this IKe must
come by its contrary. The Kvpiov e'f ovpavov, who is the irvevpa
faoiroiovv, must therefore be sinless. Sinlessness seems so neces
sarUy united with Paul's idea of Christ, that it may thus be ex
plained why there are so few passages in which he expressly sets
it forth. In those passages also where Christ is not spoken of as
the first man, Paul supposes some higher element besides the
human in the person of Christ. This is speciaUy evident in Rom.
i 3, where Christ is designated the Son of God even in the lower

DIV. II. § 79.] PAUL — JESUS CHRIST THE REDEEMER; HIS PERSON. 467
element of His personaHty : tou yevopevov e/e airepparov AafilB,
Kara adpKa (cf. Rom. ix. 5 ; Gal. iv. 4).
As to the human nature of Jesus, the apostle expresses himseK
with some caution, indeed with a certain amount of restriction.
In 1 Tim. Hi. 16 it is briefly said of Him, icpavepwBr) iv aapd.
Here, however, the idea of the adp% denotes the vehicle of the
manifestation more than the nature of the person appearing. On
the other hand, the expressions in PhU. ii. 7, 8, eV opoicopari
dvBpmircov yevop.evov Kal axvpan evpeBelv wv avBpmirov, are of a
more cautious character, because He is not merely man, but His
becoming man is made a self-renunciation. Paul, however, goes
further in Rom. viii. 3 : God sent His Son, not only clad Hi adp%
generaUy, but more exactly Ha a adp^, which is in the likeness of
,adp!- apapriav, i.e. is simUar to the sin-burdened aap% of existing
humanity ; stUl it is not precisely and simply the same adp!j as
ours. And its being said that He was p,r) yvovv apapriav must
be understood as implying that He had not even the dpapria
natural to the adp% , — not only that He was without actual sin,
but also that adp% which, as we are aHeady aware, is the foun
dation of aU actual iiriBvpia and dpapria.
Another question now arises, which has been lately a subject
of discussion. If Christ, although a descendant of Adam Kara
adpKa, had not the principle of death in Him, how was it possible
for Him to die ? Baur thought that this could only be explained
by the presupposition that, however much the ideas of flesh, sin,
and death are mutuaUy conditional, yet, on the other hand, the
adpi- by itseK alone may be looked upon as mortaL But, accord
ing to Paul, Christ died only on account of sin (Rom. vi. 10).
Of course He had not the adp% which is subject to death — the
adp% apapriav, and therefore also of Bavdrov and raireivcoaecov
(PhU. iH. 2 1). He had put on the adp% only as a opoicopa aapKov
*¦' apapriav (Rom. viii 3) ; and it would therefore doubtless have
been in His power, by means of the principle of Hfe dwelling in
Him, to glorify His adp!; without dying, just as it was afterwards
glorified by His death and resurrection. His not having done
this forms an element in His self-renunciation and humiliation :
in this point, of His own free wUl He made Himself equal to us,
and by His voluntary death placed His adp% in a relation to sin
and death which Hi itself it did not intrinsicaUy possess.
We still have to discuss the idea of the adpj- in the person of

468 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
Jesus, with reference to certain opinions which have been ex
pressed on the subject. It has been thought (ZeUer, Theol. Jahrb.
i 1) that the adp!j, which is of course most usuaUy named when
the incarnation even of the higher principle is spoken of, is to
be taken in a quite exclusive sense, and that therefore a mere
human corporeaUty is to be ascribed to Christ, to the exclusion of
a human soul This idea is thought to apply to the New Tes
tament generaUy, but especiaUy to the teaching of Paul. In
opposition to this opinion, it may be said, as is in fact aUowed,
that the idea of the adp!; is of a far more comprehensive cha
racter, and is in no way limited to the mere body, but includes
human nature generaUy, expressing as it does the whole idea of
man's sinful nature. At aU events, therefore, the adp% may he
understood more comprehensively. But this comprehension be
comes almost a certainty when we notice how, Hi Paul's view,
corporeality is always considered as inseparable from the •^vjff/,
that aiop,a as awpa is also ^rv^i«OT (1 Cor. xv. 44), and that the
¦yjrvxh faaa is placed with it (ver. 45 ; cf. Rom. iH. 20). This is
so invariably the case, that the idea aapKiKov in the sense of
sinful includes in itself the idea yJrvxiKov. An appeal has
further been made to the complete harmony between this idea
of Christ's assumed humanity being mere corporeaUty and the
work of redemption. It is said that, in Paul's view, redemption
consists in the adpfj, as the principle of sin, being deprived of its
power by the death of Christ, and that the work of redemption
was, consequently, merely the laying down of the bodUy life,
But, Hi the first place, redemption includes another essential,
which leads us much further, viz. the spHitual regeneration which
is foUowed by the bodUy glorification. But even the death of
Christ in itself presupposes something further, as its redeeming
character must certainly consist in something more than the
mere putting an end to a adp!; : it must, on the contrary, be a
moral action which requHes a spiritual principle in the nature of
the incarnate One which is susceptible of obedience. His work
appears to have been an act of moral obedience of this kind
(Rom. v. 18 ff. ; PhU. H. 8). .What He must have been for this
end is expressed in the context of the latter passage in the words,
p-op<f>r)v BovXov XaBwv (ver. 7). When, hereunto, He took upon
Him the opoltopa dvBpwircov, there was certainly involved the
assumption of a ¦tyvxf) ; for only through it, could He be a BovXov,

DIV. II. v§ 79.] PAUL — JESUS CHRIST THE REDEEMER; HIS PERSON. 469
— not through the adpg alone, and also not in His higher nature,
to which the position of BovXov is altogether alien. Besides all
this, the hypothesis of His complete humanity is also involved in
the way Hi which the apostle so emphaticaUy sets forth the sin
lessness of Jesus.
We may now adduce as an element in Paul's teaching, that
in the manifested Christ there was a pre-existing divine prin
ciple, and, indeed, a personal principle which in the fulness of
time entered into humanity, and in this way assumed the opolmpa
aapmv apapriav (Rom. viH 3), and thus became like to men, yet
without sin. But being sent by God in this " Hkeness," His adp!-
was a mortal but not a sinful adpfj ; yet because it was mortal, it
was subject to the Hkes and dislikes of a mortal corporeality, and
so far led to a capabUity of temptation in Christ. But in virtue
of the fulness of divine IKe which was in Him, He subdued the
whole development of any temptation to sin, and by the special
spiritual power of Hfe in Him glorified this adp!;, although it was
the bpoicopa aapKov apapriav.
Our consideration of the PauHne conception of the human side
in Jesus has shown us that the apostle ascribes to Him, even as
man, a distinguished position as regards the rest of humanity : cf.
Eph. i 20-23, where He appears as one who appeared humanly,
but through death was exalted over aU. We now have to consider
those passages in which the apostle dweUs plainly on the super
natural side in the person of Christ. Among these are the Chris
tological passages, Col. i 15-20 and Phil. ii. 6-11. Here the
higher element takes the lead, and the lower follows. Because
this is so decidedly the case in the later epistles only, an infer
ence has been drawn that the different passages were based on a
different idea of the person of Christ. Some look upon this as
only a development of Paul's doctrine ; but others have con
sidered the two elements as irreconcUable, and that the lower
idea belongs to the earlier, and the higher idea to the later epistles ;
that- Paul's idea of Christ appears to be of the one man in whom
the SpHit of God pre-eminently worked, and that this idea became
elevated at a subsequent period to that ol divine greatness ; that
the idea of the pre-existence was not a PauHne one, and that the
later epistles in which this idea is set forth are therefore non-PauHne.
But these opinions as to the Christology of the older epistles
are not justified by the results oi exact investigation. On the

470 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
contrary, the earlier wUl be found to contain the same exalted idea
of Christ as the later epistles, although this idea is only intimated
in isolated passages, and not so purposely laid down. The pas
sage Rom. i 3 f. has been much appealed to in order to show
that Paul looked upon Christ as a man endowed with the Spirit,
and after His death divinely exalted ; but no proof of this is
afforded by the passage. Paul here distinguishes two sides in
the person of Christ, by applying to the common subject vlbv
Qeov, a denomination pecuHar to each of the two predicates, in
respect to which name the predicate is suitable. As certainly,
therefore, as the adp!j was not something merely working in
Christ, but was a constituting element of His person in His
earthly Hfe, so was the irvevpa something which formed an ele
ment of His person. The irvevpa dyimaiivqv is also something
different from what is elsewhere caUed irvevpa ayiov ; and this
particular term is purposely selected here. It must not be ex
plained as merely the principle of Hfe in its widest acceptance ;
but the irvevpa, which was an element Hi the person of Christ, is
the irvevpa of dyicoavvr) as it occurs in the LXX. — divine subli
mity, the attribute of the Pvijj (cf. the author's Tubinger Weih-
nachtsprogramm for 1834). It must not be said that Christ is
attested as the Son of God by the irvevpa dyiaavvnv, but that
Christ, inasmuch as He is the irvevpa dyicoavvrjv, has been shown
to be the Son of God by the resurrection. Thus Christ is, on
the one hand, adp% ; and, on the other, an exalted divine SpHit.
It is an important point that the Christology of the older epistles
confirm our interpretation, as they nowhere state that the irvevpa
was operative in Christ, but that Christ HimseK was the Hfe-giv
ing SpHit (1 Cor. xv. 45), — indeed, that He is to irvevpa (2 Cor.
Hi 1 7 f.). Therefore it is most decidedly the doctrinal form of
the two Epistles to the Corinthians, that Christ is the Lord = the
SpHit, or the lHe-giving Spirit. Thus Paul calls the SpHit dweU-
ing Hi believers the irvevpa Xpiarov, so that Christ HimseK dweUs .
in them (Rom. viH. 9 ; Eph. Hi. 17; Gal. H. 29). By interpret
ing Rom. i 3 f. in the above-named sense, we are consequently
quite in harmony with the older epistles generaUy. We are thus
led back to the definitions of the older epistles which we before
mentioned : Christ is the Kvpiov ef ovpavov (1 Cor. xv. 45), the
Lord of glory, the image of God, elxwv Qeov (2 Cor. iv. 4). In
addition, Christ, as pre-existent, was efficacious long before His

DIV. II. § 79.] PAUL— JESUS CHRIST THE REDEEMER ; HIS PERSON. 471
human appearance, namely, in the journey of the Israelites
through the wUderness (1 Cor. x. 4). He is, indeed, the one
Kvpiov BC o5 rd irdvra (1 Cor. viH. 6). He is the pre-exist
ing One who appeared upon earth, having been sent by God
(Rom. vin. 3 ; Gal. iv. 4). The " sending " seems to point to
,the lower idea of Christ, but we must take into account the
addition, that He came " in the Hkeness of sinful flesh." The
apostle, then, does not look upon Him as originaUy and essen
tiaUy man ; but that His human appearance was something of
a secondary nature, the adp!; being an addition to that which
Christ was before. Not only is Jesus shown to be a pre-exist
ing principle by the thus modified idea of His being sent, but He
is expressly declared to be so in 1 Cor. vHi 6, where it is said
that by Him aU things exist. He is the image of God, and is
the SpHit, the divine Hfe (certainly as an exact image) ; He is
also the principle which makes aHve, from whom aU Hfe goes
forth to the world, that is, by His agency. The nature which is
here ascribed to Christ is exactly that which He must possess in
order to be a Redeemer, so that aU Hfe, aU sanctification, and aU
making free, proceed from Him.
In turning to the Christology of the later epistles, we find that
the Epistle to the Ephesians sets forth, in the first place, only the
resurrection and ascension which foUowed the death of Christ,
and surveys His nature and dignity from the lower side as de
veloped in His history (Eph. i 20-23) ; but the epistle also con
tains a passage, ch. iv. 8—11, according to which this exaltation
of Christ after His death was preceded by a lowering, a descend
ing down to earth, which must be based on an origmal condition
of exaltation. Paul, Hi quoting Hi ver. 8, Ps. lxvUl 18, shows
that if, in the Old Testament, it was a result of the exaltation of
God that men should offer to Him gKts of homage (Ps. lxvHL 18 ;
Isa. Ix. 7), the same results foUow the ascension of Christ (1 Pet.
H 5 ; Rom. xH. 1). But these gKts of homage presuppose God's
gifts of grace to men, and Paul makes the participation of them
dependent on the ascension of Jesus ; so also Jesus HimseK
(John xvi 7, cf. vH. 37), and Peter (Acts H. 33, cf. 32). Through
this exaltation Jesus became the head of the Church (Eph. i.
22, 23) ; but this exaltation presupposes a humUiation, which
again points back to a previous condition of sublimity.
This mode of viewing the subject is very prominently brought for-

472 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
ward in the Epistles to the PKUippians and Colossians. In PhU.
H. 6—1 1, the apostle, Hi his exhortation to humble self-denial and
self-renunciation, reverts to Christ as a model. He starts from
Christ's original likeness to God, and the position and cHcum
stances corresponding to this Hkeness, and then speaks of His
appearance on earth as a self-renunciation, and also of His seH-
humiHation to death, even the death of the cross, which was
foUowed by His exaltation. It is at all events certain that the
superhuman dignity, elvai laa 0ec3, which Paul ascribes to Christ
after His death, is not something absolutely new, but that He
previously was iv popcpfj Qeov. Here, therefore, we have the
same view which we find amply set forth in the older epistles,
and especiaUy also in the Epistle to the Ephesians, — that there
was an original exaltedness, from which Christ lowered HimseK
to His earthly existence. The view taken of His higher nature
and its pre-existence is stiU more fully developed in Col. i 13-20
(cf. H. 9, iii. 1-4). In Col. i 13 the apostle commences with
the idea of Christ as the Son of God's love, and then goes on to
describe His person more closely. As regards God, He is elicmv,
i.e. He in whom the glory of God is reflected (cf. 2 Cor. iv. 4 ;
Heb. i 3 ; John xiv. 9), who, on the one hand, has in Himself
the likeness to God (PhU. H 6), and, on the other, reveals to the
world the invisible God. Both these ideas are involved in the
term " image." He is also the irpcoToroKOv irdarjv tcrlaecov, who.
is the chief heir in whom Ml power dweUs, so that everything is
by Him, — a figure which is borrowed from the civU view of the
first-born among the Hebrews as the lord over his brethren, and
is appHed to the relation of Jesus to believers first, and then to
the whole of creation. AU was created through Him, and the
higher spHits are especially mentioned under the terms Bpovot,
etc. From the consideration of His relation as KecpaXr) to the
Church, the apostle reverts to a coUective view of His person.
At the conclusion of ver. 18 he comprises all together, and
grounds this inclusion on the on in ver. 1 9, thus glancing at the
divine counsel which is set forth in ver. 19 in reference to Jesus'
person, and in ver. 20 in reference to His work, that all ful
ness dweUs in Him, and that aU things should be reconciled
through Him. According to this, Christ is in an absolute sense
the exact image of the invisible God, so that, indeed, this
predicate peculiarly appHes to Him ; and He, as regards irdaa

DIV. II. §79.] PAUL— JESUS CHRIST THE REDEEMER; HIS PERSON. 473

•

Kriaiv, is not the first among His Hke, but is the " first-born of
every creature," in the sense that aU was created by Him, — that
aU things both Hi heaven and earth were created both by and for
Him, and that by Him aU things consist.
, The cause which induced the apostle to set forth this universal
f position of Christ and His pre-existent nature was the prevalence
of the theosophical Judaistic error, which ascribed to the higher
world of spirits a position which was due only to Christ, viz. that
the feUowship of man with God was brought about by them (Col.
H 18, 19, cf. x. 15). In the older epistles, the apostle dealt
with anthropological questions, and was therefore only indHectly
led to speak of the Christology ; but now the opposition to false
doctrines induced him to enter upon the exaltedness of the person
of Jesus, and to dweU thereon Thus an advance in the Christo
logy is by no means a sign of non-Pauline matter : it is only the
detaUed setting forth of the teaching which we find laid down
essentiaUy in the germ in 1 Cor. viH. 6, 2 Cor. iv. 4. One and
the same fundamental view of this subject pervades aU the
epistles from the older to the later, — that Christ is a pre-existing
divine principle, who entered upon an earthly human life.
But now the question arises : What is Paul's view of this
higher principle in Christ as the pre-existing One? (1.) Is
this pre-existing principle of a created nature, or not 1 Plainly
not in Paul's view. If an attempt is made to show, from Col.
i, 15, that the irpeororoKov irdar)v Krlaewv is co-ordinate with the
KTiaiv, it must fail in reference to the context (vers. 16, 17),
according to which aU things were created through Him and for
Him ; and He is consequently removed out of the complex of
aU that is created. His existence, therefore, is not conditional
on the existence of the world, as is that of every other creature
on its creation ; on the contrary, He is Himself the creative
principle (St' ov~). Consequently, in the intention of the Epistle
to the Colossians, this pre-existing principle cannot itself have
the nature of a creature. This is stiU more clearly evident from
CoL H 9 : Be6rr)v is here not God, but the Godhead, the divine
nature ; and irXrjpmpa rrjv Bebrrfrov is everything that constitutes
the being of God. But the word acopariK&v, which cannot be
merely = actually, points to something creature-Hke. This Christ -
is, however, the whole Christ, and not merely the pre-existing ;
and therefore everything by which the Godhead is complete dwells

474 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
in Christ not typicaUy but acopariKcov, so that this fulness itseK
is expressed in a human a&pa. The higher element in the
historical appearance of the Redeemer is consequently irdv to
irXrjpmpa rrjv Beorrfrov, the divine nature or being. Combine
with this what is said as to the operations of Christ (CoL H. 10,
Hi 4, 11, i 20-22, 27), where He is represented as the universal
head, and element of Hfe, and we shaU readily perceive that these
are predicates which could not be asserted by Paul in the case of
any created being. We must also compare Eph. i. 6, 7, 10, 23,
iv. 1 0, where sHnUar attributes are ascribed to Christ. From the
Epistle to .the PhUippians we may no less decisively perceive that
Christ cannot have been looked upon as of a creature-like nature :
elvai laa Qew, and reHgious adoration on aU sides, even from the
highest created beings, is ascribed to Him (PhiL H. 6, 10, 11).
If, moreover, we consider Paul's opposition to everything of a
heathenish character, and his whole education in a strictly mono
theistic school, it must appear a great contradiction K he looked
upon Christ as a creature.
The older epistles, indeed, assert a dependence of Christ on
God (1 Cor. Hi. 23, xi. 3, xv. 24, 28), and this is involved Hi the
idea of the relation of a son to a father ; but, on the other hand,
these epistles give Him attributes of such a nature that it would
be impossible to assume that Paul considered Christ, Hi His pre
existent nature, to be a creature. Christ is in His nature "a
quickening SpHit" (1 Cor. xV. 45); He is indeed the Spirit (2 Cor.
Hi. 17); He dwells in beHevers as the quickening and sanctifying
SpHit (Rom. vHi 9-1 1) ; He is the Judge who revealeth even
the counsel of the heart (1 Cor. iv. 4 f. ; Rom. H. 16, xiv. 11;
2 Thess. i 7-10). He it is through whom, not only aU redemp
tion, but aU existence, which has its first origin in God, is brought
about (1 Cor. viii 6). He is the Lord of Hving and dead, to
whom Christians belong both in Hfe and death, and whom they
serve. He is indeed so far the principle of their Hfe, that they
themselves no longer Hve, but Christ in them (Rom. xiv. 7-9,
18; Gal. H. 20). Paul desHes grace and peace for his readers,
not only from God the Father, but also from the Lord Jesus
Christ (Rom. i 7) ; thanks to God are given through the agency
of Christ (Rom. i 8 ; CoL Hi. 1 7) ; and it is the aim of Hfe Hi
beHevers that the name of Christ should be glorified in them
(2 Thess. H 14; PhU. i 20). Christ is indeed so much the

DIV. II. § 79.] PAUL — JESUS CHRIST THE REDEEMER ; HIS PERSON. 475
object of religious invocation, that; it is essential to the idea of a
Christian that he should caU upon the name of Jesus Christ
(1 Cor. i 2; Rom. x. 12); and Paul himseK prays to Christ
(2 Cor. xH. 8). Indeed, the very term Kvpiov, so constantly used
as the characteristic designation ot Jesus Christ, is here of great
importance ; for in heathen usage " lord and king" was the de
signation of the highest God, and Hi the Old Testament nw is
translated by Kvpiov. If we put all these things together, it is
very plain that we may not assume that Paul looked upon Christ
Hi His pre-existing nature as a created being. When he places
Christ in juxtaposition with God the Father, when, in 2 Cor.
xiH 14, he speaks of the threefold causaHty of salvation, he in
fact sets Christ above the whole complex of the world, and thus
above humanity. It would seem that the Pauline epistles go
even further than this, and that they expressly designate Christ
as Qeov. We are thus led to another question, Whether, in Paul's
view, Christ in His higher nature is directly God ?
Some of the passages in which Christ appears to be caUed God
plainly bear this meaning only in appearance, such as Tit. i 3,
ii. 10, Hi. 4, for it is evident that the Father is here described as
acorrjp ; and some are not stringently demonstrative. With regard
to the latter, in the passage Tit. ii 13 the reference to Christ
would be probable, grammaticaUy speaking ; for the article is only
placed once, and consequently in classical usage the two ideas
would be combined. It must, however, be aUowed as possible
that the article not having been placed a second tune may be an
inaccuracy. In the passage 1 Tim. iH 16 the reading Qebv is a
doubtful one. In our opinion ov is the more probable reading, by
which it appears clearly that the Redeemer was a higher pre
existing being, who was made manH est in the adp!;. The most
important passage is Rom. ix. 5, when the connection and the
philological points are entirely favourable to the reference of Qebv
to Christ. In the first part of the verse Christ's human side is
spoken of, and it would seem quite proper that His higher nature
should foUow on to it. The other interpretation which refers
0e6? to God the Father leads to a philological difficulty If by
evXoyrjrbv a doxology be intended, and K the verb iarlv or eirj is
understood, this adjectivum verbale should, as a rule, precede the
subject (2 Cor. i 3) : it follows, however, when the verb is
actuaUy expressed (Rom. i. 25). The point is not whether, Hi

476 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
short propositions generally, and in doxologies especiaUy, the
subject can precede, but whether evXoyrjTov can come after when'
the verb is not expressed. The usage as to this point is constant
throughout the whole Greek Hterature ; and if Ps. lvHi. 1 9 be
considered as an exception, it must be confessed that, even set
ting aside the fact that the first part of this passage is not to be
interpreted as a doxology, and that, owing to the repetition of
the word, the passage is altogether a pecuHar one, an exception
of this kind (opposed to the constant usage elsewhere) is not
adapted to serve as any certain rule for the interpretation of
another passage. If, therefore, Paul elsewhere applies the name
Qebv to Christ, as is done by the author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews in ch. i 8, 9, no exact philological exegesis would
prevent our passage being explained in the same way. But we
must stUl aUow the possibUity that even in the passage in ques
tion the pecuHar turn of the construction of the passage may
have led to an exception The greater difficulty is, however,
that Paul does not elsewhere unequivocaUy make use of the word
Qebv as a predicate of Christ, and our passage therefore stands
alone. But, notwithstanding this, the idea of the pre-existing Son is
firmly established as of an essentially divine (although only in the
divine image) and personal principle.
The same points which prevent us from looking upon this
principle as creature-Hke, also compel us to assume that the
apostle considered it a truly divine principle which brings about
the original being and continuous existence of everything spring
ing from God (Col. i 16 ; 1 Cor. vHi 6), so that created beings
attain theH aim and end only in Him and through Him (Col.
i 16). This principle also, as the Lord from heaven, is the
quickening SpHit and the Spirit merely (1 Cor. xv. 45 ff. ; 2 Cor.
iii. 17 f.) ; so that, after the atonement for sinners had been
brought about by the incarnation, theH new life in the power of
the divine Spirit, and also their future bodUy glorification and the
freeing and glorification of the whole of nature, are aU brought
about by Him. In this sense is Christ the one Lord (1 Cor.
viii. 6), being originally in the form of God (PhU. ii. 6), in
whom aU the fulness of the Godhead dwells bodUy (Col. ii. 9,
cf. i 19), the image of the invisible God (CoL i 15 ; cf. 2 Cor.
iv. 4).

DIV. II. § 79.] PAUL— JESUS CHRIST THE REDEEMER; HIS PERSON. 477
But this pre-existing principle is truly divine only, as it were,
as an image, and consequently in a reflected and communicated,
and not in an originaUy independent way This is involved
Hi the expressions e'lKwv tov Qeov and also vlov Qeov (iBiov vlov,
Rom. viH. 32), and irpcororoKOv. His Hfe is not, therefore, simply
and originaUy independent, but it is so imparted that it is con
centrated in Him into an independent focus of Hfe, and from
Him spread over aU creation (Col. i 16). His position is so
eminently exalted above aU creation, that He it is Bi' ov rd
irdvra, not ef ov ; He is always the Lord, He who is operative,
but operative by intervention. His incarnation, therefore, is re
ferred back to the Father, as a sending by the Father (Rom.
viii. 3 ; Gal. iv. 4). His dominion is made over to Him by the
Father ; and when aU enemies are overcome, He wiU hand it to the
Father, aU the intervening agency of the Son having then attained
its aim (1 Cor. xv. 24-28). This idea of a principle pre-exist
ing, truly divine and not creature-Hke, but reflected, is so com
pletely Paul's idea, that by it aU his utterances find their most
satisfactory explanation. The entire PauHne Christology is
nothing but the consistent development of this idea.
But this pre-existent principle is in itself a personal one, and is
from the beginning the spirit and eiKwv tov Qeov (wherein the
personality is essentiaUy included), so that the creation of the
world, as a divine act, is not merely the idea of the elvai or Kna-
Br/vai e« Qeov, but the iv avrm (sc. vlw) or Bi avrov Kal et? avrbv
is added. The incarnation is indeed an act of seU-renunciation
(PhU. ii. 7) ; and the position of man is pop4>r) BovXov in distinc
tion from the piop(j>r) Qeov. This popcbr) Qeov is the divine shape :
it is not Hi itself the elvai laa Qew, but the mode Hi which this
elvai is outwardly set forth. But iv popcbij Qeov virdpxcov, He
thought not the elvai laa Qem to be dpiraypov, i.e. something
which only for itseK He arbitrarUy desired to retain ; but He
lowered Himself, — that is, He so far gave up the pop<pr) Qeov
in assuming the popcpr) BovXov, and now, as regards God, He
appeared as His BovXov, and, as regards men, as a aivBovXov, iv
opoimpan dvBpcoircov yevopevov (cf. Rom. vm. 3). In His whole
habitus He was found as a man, and humbled HimseK by conde
scending to a voluntarily undertaken death, indeed to the death
of a malefactor. The incarnation took place by means of an act
of free self-renunciation, which is acknowledged in the highest

478 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
degree by the Father (PhU. H. 9). From aU this it is clearly
evident that the pre-existing principle in Christ is looked upon
as a personal one.
If we glance back at the purport of the PauHne Christology
as it has been hitherto developed, we must perceive that there is,
in fact, no cause for surprise at Paul naming Christ dHectly as
God. His idea would not thus be altered ; and this interpreta
tion of Rom. ix. 5 remains, therefore, quite open to us. Adding
to this the fact that the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews
gives the predicate Qebv to Christ, and elsewhere expresses the
same idea (Heb. i 3, 8, 9), we find ourselves only a step from
John's idea, which represents irdv to irXrjptopa rrjv Beon/rov by
the expression Xbyov, Hi whom he places the creative principle,
giving Him the predicate of Qeov.
From our previous consideration, we see that there are manifold
conditions of the person of Christ: (1.) The pre-human condition
(1 Cor. x. 4; Col. i. 17; PhK H. 6); (2.) His earthly, human
condition (PhU. H. 7 £), in which He was born (Gal. iv. 4 ; Rom.
i 3), lived as a man (PhU. H. 7 f.), was crucified (1 Cor. i 22),
and died (1 Cor. xv. 3 f. ; Rom. vi. 3-6) ; (3.) His glorified con
dition (PhU. H 9-11; Eph. i 20-22, iv. 8, 18), to which be
long the resurrection (1 Cor. xv. 20, 23 ; Rom. i 4; Eph. i 20),
the sitting on the right hand of God, and the participation in the
divine government of the world and the Church (Eph. i 20-23 ;
Col. Hi. 1-3) ; also the future manHestation of Christ (1 Cor. i. 7 ;
Col. Hi 4 ; PhiL H. 20 ; 1 Thess. iv. 16 ; 2 Thess. i. 7, ii 8).
§ 80. Jesus Christ the Redeemer — His Work.
Paul, just as Peter, usuaUy presents us with the chief points
of his teaching as to the person of Christ Hi those connections
where he is led to speak of Christ's work. Both questions are
so closely and inwardly connected, that they regulate one another;
but, at the same time, it is not necessary that they should in
every case have a sHnUar importance in the grade of then de
velopment, and one can be more developed than the other.
The work of Christ is more dwelt upon by Peter, in consequence
of his copious explanation of the doctrine of atonement. With
regard, However, to Paul, the necessity which was laid upon him,
by his cHcumstances and position, of estabHshing the specific
pecuHarity of the New Testament work of salvation, led to a

DIV. II. § 80.] PAUL— JESUS CHRIST THE REDEEMER; HIS WORK. 479
more extensive development of teaching as to the person of
Christ. The aim of Christ's earthly appearance is redemption, a&aai
(1 Tim. i. 15 ; cf. Tit. Hi. 5); acorr/pla (1 Thess. v. 9); diroXv-
rpcoaiv (Rom. iH. 24; cf. 1 Cor. 1 30 ; Rom. viii. 23 ; Eph. i 14,
iv. 30; Col. i. 14; Eph. i 7). The groundwork of redemption is
the atonement for men by the death of Jesus Christ. This ground
work is, in Paul's view, not the ministry of Christ, however highly he
may think of His word (Rom. x. 14-18), especially as the "word
of reconcUiation" (2 Cor. v. 18), and as the "preaching of the
cross " (1 Cor. i 1 8). Paul nowhere dweUs upon the ministry
of Christ, and, properly speaking, never mentions it. The passage
Eph. H. 17 is the nearest approach to it, but even here ixBcbv
refers to the risen Christ. Paul himself, indeed, first became
possessed of faith and the Ulumination of his mind through the
risen Christ ; and the whole of the Christian wisdom which Paul
imparts (1 Cor. H. 6-16) depends upon its being communicated
through the Holy Spirit. He attaches great importance to the
gospel as the message of salvation ; but the groundwork of sal
vation is, in his view, the atonement, which is announced by the
gospel, the ambassadors of which the apostle and his successors
were (2 Cor. v. 20). Even the communication of the Spirit,
however essential it may seem to him, does not form the ground
work of redemption (Rom. v. 5, viH. 9, 15, 16 ; Gal. Hi 5, iv. 6;
Eph. i. 13 f., iv. 30) ; for Paul looks upon this communication as
nothing but a result of the atonement, and the effects of Christ's
exaltation (Eph. iv. 8). The groundwork of the whole work of
redemption is the atonement through the death of Jesus Christ,
as the act on which everything else depends. On this point
Paul gives many general expressions ; as, Christ died on account
of our sins (Rom. iv. 25, cf. vi. 10, rfj dpapria, i.e. in considera
tion of sin ; 1 Cor. xv. 3, virep r&v dpaprioov r)p&v) ; also, for our
sakes (St' ov, 1 Cor. viii. 11) ; and more definitely, for us (virep
f)pwv, 1 Thess. v. 10; Gal. H. 20). In other passages the virep
no longer means for our advantage only, but in our stead, He
dying as a substitute for us (2 Cor. v. 14, 15, 21 ; Rom. v. 6-8),
and giving Himself as a ransom for aU (1 Tim. H 6).
The death of Christ is therefore, when more closely considered,
a vicarious, and thus an atoning death.
That the death of Christ is looked upon as vicarious, is evident

480 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART IL
generaUy from certain passages which leave no doubt on the
point (2 Cor. v. 14, 21 ; Rom. v. 6-8). In the latter passage the
death of Christ is compared with the death of men who are
offered up to save others by their death. In 2 Cor. v., in ver. 20,
virep Xpiarov can only mean in Christ's stead;1 and so in ver. 21
it is said of Christ that God made Him sin, i.e. treated Him as a
sinner in our stead, that we in Christ might be righteous before
God. This is rendered incontestable from vers. 14 and 15 : "If
one died for aU, then aU died," so far as the effects are con
cerned. This conclusion is impossible except under the idea of a
vicarious substitution. The more exact signification of this vica
rious death becomes simple and clear, K we keep close to the
apostle's intention as represented in the ideas of iXaarrjpiov and
KaraXXayri. They are both expressions which denote the atone
ment, but there is a distinction to be observed between them.
In the passage Rom. iH. 25, 26, the death of Christ is de
scribed as a death of iXaarrjpiov. The apostle has passed on
i from the negative portion of his statement as to BiKaioavvr), to
j the positive proposition that men attain BiKaioavvr) through Christ
' (vers. 21, 22); and after again aUuding to the universaHty of
sinfulness (ver. 23), he shows that justification is the result of
diroXvrpcoaiv. Two main propositions are to be distinguished
vhere (vers. 25, 26): (1.) God has presented Christ as an iXaa-
rrjpiov through His blood; (2.) God has done this Hi order to
declare His righteousness, which, on account of the previous non-
punishment of sins before committed, needed some special exhibi
tion, as, looking at God's patience and long-suffering, His right
eousness might seem to be sHghted. Sin, therefore, has not been
punished, but also not forgiven, so that an atonement might be
accompHshed. This is involved Hi the idea of irdpeaiv (=virepiSelvi
Acts xvH. 3 0). There is thus requHed a display of His righteous
ness, for which the proper time appeared to have come. How this
takes place is expressed in the sentence bv irpoeBero . . . a'ipan.
The words iv ra avrov a'ipan are to be immediately referred to
iXaarrjpiov. 'IXaarrjpiov is used in the LXX! and Heb. ix. 5 as
the term for the lid of the ark, over which God was supposed to
be enthroned as the covenant-God, who dweUs in the midst of
His people ; but, being offended by theH sins, He can only dweU
there so far as the poUution of His throne, caused by the sins of
1 Also in Philem. 13, imlp gov can only mean " in thy stead."— (Te.)

DIV. II. § 86.] PAUL— JESUS CHRIST THE REDEEMER; HIS WORK. 481
the people, is expiated by the pure sacrificial blood. Here, how
ever, the term iXaarrjpiov is applied to Christ ; and as we do not
find any such appHcation elsewhere, probably we are not justified
in applying it Hi this passage in the above-named sense. If
adopted, we should have to imagine that Christ is the antitype
of the mercy-seat or Hd of the ark, inasmuch as in Him the
Father dwells among men, and enthrones Himself among them
as theH reconciled Father. But this symbol is nowhere else
applied to Christ, and it seems necessary that we should seek for
some other meaning of the word iXaarrjpiov. It must be taken to
denote that which is the means to iXdaKea&ai. Thus it is ex
plained in antiquity as a propitiatory sacrifice, just as xaPia"J">iP<'0V>
a thank-offering; acorr/pia, a peace-offering (Ex. xx. 24). Indeed,
in Eph. v. 2 Christ is described as Bvaia (cf. 1 Cor. v. 7), and
in John "is expressly caUed iXaapbv (1 John H. 2). By the
words iv t&5 a'ipan airov we are reminded of the sacrificial blood
shed for expiation; and thus it seems the more probable that
iXaarrjpiov should be taken as a propitiatory sacrifice. Christ
brings about the iXdaKeaBai tov Qebv toIv dpaprcoXolv, so that,
by the removal of the divine bpyrj (Rom. v. 9), which is the
principle for the BiKaioKpiaia (ii. 5), the subjects of which are
sinners, the grace of God is appHed to the latter. Christ is the
propitiatory sacrifice which brings about this appHcation of the
divine grace by His blood, that is, by means of the shedding
of His blood. The word irpoeBero expresses a reference to the
subject, which is more exactly defined in what follows : " to
declare His righteousness." According to Paul, it is God Him
self who hath ordained this death of Christ (cf. Rom. viH. 3 2, iv.
2 5 ; 2 Cor. v. 2 1), and hath set forth before aU the world Christ
by His blood as an iXaarrjpiov, inasmuch as aU agency on the part
of Christ, not only in the work of creation, but also in the work
of redemption, absolutely originates in God Himself (2 Cor. v.
18 ff; Rom. viH 3). Thus the death of Christ is the objective
¦realization of the love of God towards sinners, who had hitlierto been
alienated from God'(Rom. v. 8, cf. vi. 7 and viH 32). In Paul's
view, therefore, the death of Christ is a manifestation and pledge
of God's love, and consequently is a work of God's love.
Christ, however, inasmuch as He is iXaaTrjpiov, accomplished
something in His death which is the condition of our justification
by means of faith in Him, and on which the ransoming in Christ
2H

482 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
'Jesus depends. This it is by which the setting forth of Christ as
iXaarrjpiov by God becomes the eVSetft? of His BiKaioavvr). This
something is to some extent intimated in the word iXaaTrjpwv,
if we take it as meaning a propitiatory sacrifice ; and we may con
clude this from ver. 26, light being, indeed, clearly thrown upon
it by other passages. The propitiatory sacrifice was, under the
old covenant, the satisfaction ordained by God as the condition
requisite for the re-attainment of His mercy, which the sinner
who had incurred guUt before God had to make. Seeing that " the
wages of sin is death" (Rom. vi. 23), Christ, in bringing about
the re-attainment of God's grace, suffered death, in which He, in
perfect obedience, by shedding of His blood offered up to God
His sinless, holy Hfe. Two points must be distinguished here :
(1.) The propitiatory sacrifice is a gift weU-pleasing to God, which
He accepts, and on account of which He absolves the sinner from
his guUt and punishment. The pure Hfe offered up becomes a
ransom for the guUt-burdened Hfe of the sinner. Christ, His
blood, and His death, became the Xinpov, the price, on account of
which God would and could remit our sins. Thus the New Tes
tament, both in the discourses of our Lord and also elsewhere,
especiaUy in Paul's teaching, in many places contains the pro
position that Christ was the ransom for many for remission of
theH sins, or that He had given up His Hfe as a ransom (Matt, xx
28 ; cf. 1 Pet. i 18, 19). 'AvriXvrpov expresses stUl more
strongly the vicarious idea (1 Tim. ii 6) ; XvrpovaBat denotes
ransoming (Tit. ii. 14; cf. 1 Pet. i 18 f.) ; and thus diroXvrpcoaiv
means a redemption by which we are freed from a HabiHty under
which we were towards God (Rom. iH. 24 ; Eph. i 7). The ran
soming of the sinner takes place partly by Christ HimseK being
the ransom, and partly by the subject of the diroXvrpcoaiv being
himself in Christ by means of faith. It is also said that we are
bought (1 Cor. vi. 20, vii. 23); that God hath purchased the
Church by the blood of His Son (Acts xx. 28 ; cf. Rev. xiv. 3).
Thus Christ has offered Himself to God as a gKt and a sacrifice,
irpocpopdv Kal Bvaiav, " for a sweet-smeUing savour," — i.e. as a gift
weU-pleasing to God (Eph. v. 2). (2.) But Christ as iXaarrjpiov
has not only offered HimseH up in perfect obedience as an accept
able gKt to God, as a ransom which God accepts, and therefore
releases the sinner, but we must also take into consideration that
Christ must suffer death, in order to offer HimseK up to God by

DIV. II. § 80.] PAUL— JESUS CHRIST THE REDEEMER ; HIS WORK. 483
His blood as a sinless, holy gift. In the sacrificial victim, this
death does not appear as penal. That which is offered up to
God must be a gift, pure and weU-pleasing to Him ; but when
the sacrificial idea is applied to Christ, we obtain a peculiar modi
fication Christ is given up to death; but certainly it is not the
sinner who offers up Christ, — as, under the old covenant, the sinner
had to bring a sacrifice for the satisfaction of his HabiHty — but
God sets forth Jesus as iXaarrjpiov (Rom. Hi. 25 ; 2 Cor. v. 21 ;
Rom. viH. 3). God gives His Son up to death, and makes Him
sin instead of all of us. Consequently God has done to His Son
that which He must, in virtue of His bpyrj, have done to us sin
ners. The death which God decreed for mankind as the wages of
sin, He decreed for His Son in man's stead. "God hath not
spared His own Son" (Rom. viii. 32). The victims in the sacri
fice of atonement were slain by the offerers, and the blood offered
up by the priest : in the New Testament, it is, on the one hand,
Christ HimseK who offers Himself up, because it was His wiU,
and, on the other, it is God who has set Him forth as iXaarrjpiov,
and makes Him sin, that is, a substitute for sin (2 Cor. v. 21) ;
it is God who hath in Christ condemned sin in the flesh (Rom.
vin. 3), by giving Him up to death. Because Christ was sent in
the likeness of sinful flesh and for the sake of sin, sin being con
demned in Him, it is condemned in human flesh. The law was
not able to effectuaUy put away sin in our flesh, and to condemn
it so effectively as to overcome it ; but by the death of the Son,
sin, even in our flesh, has become conquerable. This idea is
based on the principle that sin has been condemned and punished
in Christ's flesh ; and that we may perceive this more clearly, and
accept it without reluctance, we must bring forward one more
passage, which represents the whole matter in the clearest way
(GaL Hi. 13). All that the wrath of God had decreed for sinners
• — the curse, punishment, and death — hath been imposed by God
on His Son, in order to redeem us from the curse of the law.
Here we see clearly what the results are of the surrender of the
sinless, holy Son of God. Certainly He is a gift well-pleasing to
God, an offering acceptable to Him, a ransom which He receives
in order that we may be redeemed from the curse to which we
were Hable ; but the act of Christ's surrender can only become a
gift well-pleasing to God by means of His death, by His bearing
that which was laid upon sin, the curse imposed on the sinner.

\

484 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II
Therefore Paul, Rom. viH. 3, speaks of KaraKpiveiv. The right
eousness, which is compromised and considered to be injured by
the non-punishment of human sinning during the pre-Christian
period, is now actuaUy manKested by God setting forth His Son
as iXaarrjpiov by His blood. A satisfaction is made, not by the
) punishment of the sinner, but by the condemnation of sin in Him
I who is the Mediator between God and man, by giving Himself as
an dvriXvrpov for aU (1 Tim. H 5 f.). And so far God's right
eousness is effectively shown forth, just as in the old covenant
God had ordained a way in the Levitical dispensation by means
of a propitiatory sacrifice, for the people generaUy and for each
one of its members to make atonement, and thus to satisfy the
BiKaioavvr) Qeov, — this being done preliminarily by the acceptance
of a suitable Xvrpov, untU the sufficient avriXurpov for the whole of
mankind appeared, and God thus " might be just, and the justifier
of him who believeth Hi Jesus" (Rom. Hi. 26). This death of
Christ as iXaarrjpiov is therefore a suffering, which, however, is at
the same time an action (Rom. v. 18, 19; PhiL H. 8 ; EpH v. 2 ;
1 Tim. ii. 6 ; Tit. ii. 14). His death is therefore represented
from two points of view : on the one hand, it is a suffering in
which He bore the curse of sin (Gal. Hi 13 ; 2 Cor. v. 21 ; Rom.
viii. 3) ; on the other hand, it is an action, a BiKaicopa, a viraKorj,
indeed (PhiL ii 8), the culminating point of the obedience of the
Son of God which embraced the whole of His earthly Hfe. In
both respects His death is our ransom (cf. Rom. Hi 24; Eph. i 7;
CoL i 14 ; Tit. H. 14). This our ransom was made not only
through Christ, but in Christ (Col. i 14 ; Eph. i 7), and, accord
ing to the latter passage, in His blood. The diroXvrpcoaiv is in
separable from His person, and we cannot have it without being
in the inmost fellowship with Him in faith. This leads us to the
second main point of view.
The death of Christ is a death for our KaraXXayrj, for our
reconcUiation (2 Cor. v. 18-20 ; Rom. v. 10 f. ; cf. Eph. ii 16 ;
CoL i. 21). We are reconcUed to God through the death of
Christ (Rom. v. 10) ; we have received the KaTaXXayrjv (ver. 11):;
God hath reconcUed us to HimseK by Jesus Christ (2 Cor. v. 18) ;
He was in Christ reconciling the world unto Himself (ver. 19).
KaraXXdaaeiv denotes an alteration in the relation of one person
to another, by which one (1) ceases to be an object of hostUity
as regards the other (cf. 1 Sam. xxix. 4) ; (2) and also ceases to

DIV. II. §80.] PAUL— JESUS CHRIST THE REDEEMER ; HIS WORK. 485
be himself hostile to the other (1 Cor. vn. 11). We who stood
in a relation of aHenation from God have been placed in a posi
tion of harmony with Him, so that He has shown to us, who
were His enemies, His love and mercy instead of His bpyrj
(Rom. v. 10), and has removed the hostUe feeHng in us by in-
spHing ns with a new confidence in His love and favour. We
shaU have childHke love and confidence Hi the place of aHenating
mistrust and fear of punishment or bpyrj, and also instead of the
exBpa et? Qeov. The death of Christ tends to this KaraXXayrj,
inasmuch as He is the manHestation and pledge of the divine
love ; and God reckons not theH trespasses to men (2 Cor. v. 1 9),
but has made Him who knew no sin to be sin for us (ver. 21).
Thus, in Rom. v., " God commendeth His love towards us, in
that, whUe we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (ver. 8), and,
whUe we were enemies,, we were reconcUed to God (ver. 10) ;
not, indeed, by our own power, but all comes from God> who hath
reconcUed us to HimseK through Christ We thus receive the
KaraXXayrj: it is a gift, and although something which shows
itseff in the subject, yet it is through God's grace. This KaraX
Xayrj presupposes the death of Christ as the iXaarrjpiov, — the '
former being the subjective, and the latter the objective point in,
Christ's death. Thus KaraXXayr/vat t« Qew is an effective entry
into the new relation to God, objectively grounded on Christ's
work of atonement. Christ is set forth as an iXaarrjpiov inde-
ipendentiy of our faith; but the reconcUiation avaUs only to
beHevers who are already BucaicoBevrev (Rom. v. 9). Yet the
iXaarrjpiov aims at our receiving the KaraXXayrjv by means of
faith. Therefore God is in Christ reconcUing the world unto
HimseK, by not imputing then sins unto them (2 Cor. v. 19)^;
but this only takes place where there is faith. The KaraXXayr)
is therefore the appHcation of the objective event to the beHev
ing subject ; it is objectively offered in the atonement and Hi the
word. The establishment of these is, however, the essential con
sequence of the atoning death of Christ (ver. 18 ; cf. Luke xxiv.
46 f.). We are not yet reconcUed so long as we do not aUow
ourselves to be reconcUed : KaraXXayrj only comes by means of
¦faith. It is thus laid down what we are to think about the contro
versy as to the Objective or subjective character ot the reconcUia..
tion,— that is, the question whether God is reconcUed with us, or

486 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
we with Him. At all events, we are ix&poi (Rom. v. 10 ; Col.
i 21) and dirr/XXoTpicopevoi (Col. i 21 ; Eph. iv. 18) : we must
make up our minds to reconcUiation, and must be summoned to
it (2 Cor. v. 20). But in the latter passage the passive expresses
an act to be assumed, in which we are in the first place in a
passive position. We are taken to be ix&poi, or rather as objects
of the divine wrath ; and our ceasing to be so is involved in the
KaraXXayyr)vai. It is God who tenders this reconcUiation to us.
Indeed, it is He who effects it, as proceeding from His love (Rom.
v. 8 ff. ; Eph. H. 16 ; 2 Cor. v. 18 f. ; Col. i 21 f. ; Rom. viH. 3 ;
GaL iv. 4 ; Tit. H. 1 1-1 5, cf. iH. 4-7). But this only sets aside
the view that the reconcUing impulse is outside God and His
wUl, and by no means does away with the idea of an objective
reconcUiation, by which our position is altered as regards God.
Therefore the effect of the death of Christ is, according to Paul,
objective as weU as subjective. But we must go stUl a step
further. God has intended the death of Christ not only as a sign
and pledge of His love, but also as a manffestation of His hoHness
and righteousness, and as a condition for the pardon of the sinner. .
I How the facts can be coincident, that He is both the author of
Ithe reconcUiation, and also the party reconcUed, can only be
included within this idea of the KaraXXayrj, by proceeding on
the elements which are afforded by Paul's teaching as to the
death of Christ as the iXaarrjpiov.
This atoning death of Christ is essentially connected with the
whole of His earthly life, so far as His death is represented as a
moral act of obedience (PhU. H. 8 ; Rom. v. 19), and is the death
of the sinless and holy One (2 Cor. v. 21). It thus becomes the
cuHnmating point of the obedience and of the whole Hfe of
Christ. In order to die as the atoning sacrifice for us, it must be
the very same Christ who was displayed to us in His human Hfe.
The atoning death of Jesus Christ is also most closely united
with His glorified life. His death and resurrection are so com
bined, that the resurrection becomes a condition for our justifica
tion (Rom. iv. 25 ; 2 Cor. v. 15) ; and if Christ were not risen,
we should be stiU in our sins (1 Cor. xv. 1 7). Not untU the
resurrection did the death of Christ receive the divine testimony,
that it was weU-pleasing to God, and accepted as the atoning
gift. The resurrection is also, as the entry of Christ into the
divinely glorified Hfe, the condition and principle of our faith,

DIV. II. § 80.] PAUL — JESUS CHRIST THE REDEEMER; HIS WORK 487
without which no subjective share in the fruits of the atoning
death would be possible. In consequence of His atoning death,
Christ is risen, and is thus not only represented as the Son of God
with power (Rom. i. 4), but also He lives rat Qea>, after He had
died to sin, i.e. on account of sin, for the atonement for sins
(Rom. vi. 10, cf. 9, 11). As risen (Rom. viH. 34), and sitting
on the right hand of God, He lives by the power of God (2 Cor.
xni 4). This is His farj (Rom. v. 10); and,, being exalted and
Hving, He it is who makes intercession with the Father as our
Advocate (Rom. viii. 34), — a doctrine which, in the Epistle to the
Hebrews, is closely united with that of the atoning death. It is
He also for whose sake God vouchsafes to men aU salvation
under the conditions laid down. But He Hves as our Hfe (Col.
Hi. 4), and therefore, on the one hand, lives in us (Gal. H. 20),
and we Hve with Him (Rom. vi 8 ; 2 Cor. xiH. 4), and, on the
other, He it is through whom everything which tends to salvation
comes to us. He is the Lord, through whom God's grace reigns
through righteousness unto eternal Hfe (Rom. v. 21, 10). Grace
is the principle of salvation only through Jesus Christ as our
Lord, inasmuch as He is not only caUed Lord, but also Kvpieiiei
or BaaiXevei over us ; so that henceforth dpapria Kvpievei no
longer, but X"-PK exercises a salutary rule, leading to far) alwviov
(Rom. v. 21, vi. 15-23). But Christ is this all-powerful effi
cacious Kvpiov only by transferring to a higher stage the mode
and grace of manifestation which exists in the present aiwv.
Christ, as our IKe, is now hidden in God (Col. Hi. 3). The fuU
power of His far), as our principle of Hfe, is indeed Hi God, but
not yet evident Hi the world ; but a time is coming when Christ
wUl be manifest even in this respect (Col. Hi. 4). Then, too, not
only wUl Christ be first completely manKest as our Lord, but also
divine grace, as the divine principle of salvation, wiU first com
pletely show forth its rule.
But with Christ's atoning work and death is also connected the
communication of the Holy Spirit. The apostles, indeed, teach
generaUy that to those Christians who, under the prescribed con
ditions, share in the atonement, the Holy SpHit should be given
by God, and by the Spirit the love of God should be shed into
then hearts (Rom. v. 5). This is the Spirit of Hfe, the quickening
Spirit of Christ (Rom. vHi 2), the irvevpa Xpiarov or Qeoi
which dweUs Hi beHevers (vers. 9 ff., 15 f., 26 f. ; 1 Cor. H 12).

488 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II. / /
/ /
It is God who has given us the Spirit (Rom. v. 5 ; Gal. iv. 6), /¦ /
or has given the Spirit in our hearts as an earnest of future per- j ,
fection (2 Cor. i 22, v. 5 ; Eph. i. 13 f.). He is therefore the
SpHit of the Hving God (2 Cor. Hi. 3). But, in addition to this
teachmg as to the communication of the SpHit being an act of
God generaUy, there are other expressions of the apostle which
consider it as the act of Christ. Not only do we have the SpHit
of Hfe Hi feUowship with Christ (Rom. viH. 2), but in Rom. viH 9,
2 Cor. Hi. 1 7, it is the SpHit of Christ ; so that, K we have
this Spirit of God, Christ is in us as the constant principle of.
IKe. Thus it is only a step further, when we find that, in Eph.
iv. 7-10, Christ the exalted One is represented as He who com
municates the SpHit as weU as all gifts. This Spirit is imparted
to us through Christ, inasmuch as Christ Himself is the quicken
ing principle. The apostle firmly holds that Christ became this
in His heavenly exaltation foUowing on His atoning death ; and
likewise that man has the quickening principle only in Christ
Jesus, and has the Spirit of God only as the Spirit of Christ, and
that thus only Christ dweUs in us (Rom. viii. 9 f.) ; and there
fore that aU the gKts of the Spirit are received only in connection
with Christ. Thus Paul tells the Galatians, as a fundamental
proposition, that they received the SpHit only by the preaching
of faith (GaL Hi. 2, iv. 6). This, however, is connected with the
atoning death of Christ, — objectively, because the exaltation of
Jesus Christ, through which He became our Hfe, came to pass
only Hi consequence of His atoning death ; and next, subjectively,
because this communication of the divine Spirit, as the SpHit of
Sonship (Gal. iv. 6), can only be possessed by those who, under
the prescribed conditions, are partakers in Christ's atonement,
and consequently is brought about by faith in Christ (GaL Hi.
2, 5); not by the fulfilment of the law. From aU this it is clear
that, in Paul's view, the atoning death of Christ is the groundwork
of the whole work of redemption, and is therefore set forth by
him in a pecuHar way.
The spHitual effects which, founded on the accompHsnment of
the atonement, flow from the exalted Christ, are foUowed by the
future bodUy glorification which is ascribed to Him (Phil. Hi. 21),
and is connected with the future completion of redemption gene
raUy. Christ is the first-fruits of the resurrection (1 Cor. xv. 20),
• and only in Him shaU we aU be made alive (ver. 22). In principle,

DIV. II. § 80.] PAUL— JESUS CHRIST THE REDEEMER ; HIS WORK. 489
we are already transferred to life through Him (Eph. ii. 5 f.), and
this Hfe wUl one day be manifested' in its fuU power.
In the two elements of Christ's work, in the atonement and in
the communication of the Spirit, the Old Testament dispensation
has attained the end at which it aimed, and therefore, being only a
preparative dispensation, is put away. Paul was compeUed toi
show this ex professo as regards the law. Christ is the end of the j
law (Rom. x. 4); and in this, two points are involved: (a) The\
position of man, for which the law was prescribed, has come to an '
end with Christ. This is the position which Paul, in the Epistle
to the Galatians, compares to that of a chUd, who during his
nonage, although the child of his father, is kept in bondage as a
servant, and needs the constraint and guidance suitable to his
immaturity. So long as the heir is a child, there is no difference
between him and a BovXov (Gal. iv. 1), although he has the claim
to be lord of aU : he is under an iirtrpoirov and oiKovopov until
the time appointed by the father. The spiritual iirirpoiroi and
olKovopoi are represented by the law and its commandments ; and
this position of immaturity is based upon the fleshHness of man,
on the sinful propensity to which he is subject. So long as the
dominion of the adpi; endures, the vopov has fuU power. But
this vopov to which man is subject cannot put away sin, but serves
to bring actual sin arising from the adp!; to full development
(Rom. vii. 5, 7-25). Therefore vrrb vopov elvai and vcj> apapriav
elvai are identicaL Man must sin so long as he is wo vopov :
dpapria is lord over us (Rom. vi. 14, iH. 9). But when man is
placed in the contrasted position, neither the vopov nor dpapria
any longer reigns. This relation is typified by Paul by a legal
example of the relation between a wife and her husband (Rom.
vn. 1-3) : only so long as the 'man lives is the woman bound to
him, and after his death she can marry another. But by the
death of Christ men have experienced death, and are now to be
considered as dead to the law, which has no more power over
them, they having become subjects of another. They are dead as
regards their former spiritual position, and the law has no more
claim on them, as they are set free from that to which they
were formerly Hable. Consequently the position of man for
which the law was prescribed comes to an end : the adp% no
longer rules in him, and the curse is no longer on him (Gal.
iH. 13). (b) A new and higher divine dispensation has presented

490 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
itself, — Christ a new power over man. God has sent His Son to
free us from the law, and has given us the spHit of His Son,
whereby we cry, Abba, Father ! (Gal. iv. 4 ff.), and are therefore in
fuU possession of the sonship. By the advent of this higher dis
pensation the lower one lost its right over us. When the spirit
has entered, the letter no longer has authority. Christ has died
for us, in. order henceforth, as the risen One, to be the Lord to
whom we are to bring forth fruit ; foUowing out the figure of
marriage, He has come instead of the law, and is our marriage-
lord, to whom we men are to appertain in a fruitful fellowship
(Rom. vH. 4—6). Christ has in His death annuUed aU claim of
the law upon us, and has nailed the bUl of accusation, with Him
seK, upon the cross (Col ii. 14) ; and so far the law was only a
prefiguration and a shadow of the future (ver. 17), and is van
ished away ; but in the place of the shadow the substance has
presented itseK in Christ. The "law of commandments," as
regards its external statutes, is aboHshed by the death of Christ ;
and thus the law, so far as it was a barrier between Jew and
GentUe, is broken down ; and simUarly the inward enmity
between them is done away with (Eph. ii 14—16). In its place
something higher has now come, which unites and reconcUes, but
no longer separates : in the body of Christ offered up for us we
are reconcUed with God, and in the Holy SpHit imparted to us
we have access to the Father. Thus Christ has become personaUy
our peace (ver. 14) : the two parts are united by both being in
Hke manner reconcUed with God in Christ (ver. 16, cf. 19-22).
Christ having appeared as the higher principle, the lower institu
tion is aboHshed : through Him men are raised to a higher position
for which the law was no longer fitted ; and we are thus led to the
subjective side of the BiKaioavvr/ and far) brought about by Jesus
Christ. § 81. Righteousness and Life through Jesus.
The state of salvation, with a distinct reference to Jesus as its
agent, is styled aarrjpla (Rom. i 16, x. 10, xi 11 ; PhU. H. 12 ;
2 Cor. vH. 10), the deHverance from the ruin based on sin,
briefly redemption ; therefore Christianity is pre-eminently caUed
eiayyeXiov rrjv acorr)plav (Eph. i 13 ; cf. Acts xiH. 26, xvi 17,
2 Tim. Hi. 15 ; PhU. Hi. 28). It is therefore the true salvation
on which the destination of man depends, from which he is with-

DIV. II. § 81.] PAUL— RIGHTEOUSNESS AND LIFE THROUGH JESUS. 491
drawn by sin, and to which he is led by the redeeming grace of
God ; it is therefore opposed to dirioXeia (Phil, i 28 ; 1 Cor. i 18).
We find the same idea modified in the sense of a completion of
salvation at a future period of the human existence (Rom. xHi 11 ;
PhU. i. 28 ; 2 Tim. ii. 10 ; cf. 1 Pet. i 5, 9, 10). This state of
salvation is now chiefly represented as righteousness, BiKaioavvr)
(cf. § 73), which is given by Christ, the higher principle arising
among mankind, and as the Lord from heaven, their head (cf.
Eph. i 22 f. ; Col. i 18). AiKaioavvn is partly the groundwork
and partly the essence of salvation, and is therefore the idea more
closely defining the nature of acorr)pla (Rom. i 17, cf. 16 ; also
the juxtaposition of the two ideas in Rom. x. 1 0). Salvation also
appears as life, farj (Rom. v. 17, 18,- cf. 21, vi 13). In the
Epistle to the Romans three sides of the question are displayed :
first, the being justified (Rom. Hi. 25-ch. v. fin.) ; next, the inner
IKe of the justified by means of feUowship with Christ (Rom. vi.,
vii), where the Lord is described as presented to us with power
in the place of the vopov ; and, lastly, it is this righteousness
which has in itseK Hfe, farj, as a beatifying Hfe, as sonship to
God, and its future inheritance (ch. viH.). The integral points of
redemption are more copiously set forth by Paul in 1 Cor. i 30.
Wisdom, aocpia, is placed first, because it was important to inform '<
the Corinthian Church of the relation of the gospel to true wis- j
dom. Next foUow justification and sanctification ; and lastly /
redemption, diroXvrpcoaiv, in a narrower sense than the final and
completing redemption of the world.
For the reaHzation of this salvation there are two conditions :
one, subjective on the part of man, is faith; and the other, objec
tive, is the divine grace which caUs man.
Faith, as the subjective appropriation of redemption, we have
already met with in James and Peter. But a more sharply
defined and more profound idea of it is set forth by Paul. In
his view, it is the confident grasping and holding fast of Jesus
Christ which presupposes a renunciation of one's own sufficiency,
and is an entry into the feUowship with Christ. Thus, in the
Epistle to the Romans, he has contrasted it with the works of
the law (ch. Hi. iv. v.), also Hi the Epistle to the Galatians (ch.
H. Hi.), and elsewhere. Faith, first of all, generaUy refers to
Christ or to the gospel (Rom. i 16, 17); it is the subjective
origin of the BiKaioavvr/, and is continuously that to which the

492 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
latter refers (cf. Rom. Hi. 22). The PauHne faith is not a mere
honesty of conviction, i.e. a wiUHig and doing which is in con
stant harmony with the conviction of any one : irianv has,
indeed, in some places the signification of faithfulness (Rom.
iH 3 ; 1 Tim. i 19), but in most passages this idea is not con-
tamed Hi it, but only that of confident conviction and trust. The
idea of moral conviction is involved in only one passage (Rom.
xiv. 22, 23. In Rom. iH. 22 'Irjaov Xpiarov is, not the subject,
but the object of the faith, as in Gal. H. 16, 20). Also it is not
merely a theoretical and sure beHef in the gospel, or a knowledge
of Christ, but a lively inward apprehension of them ; so that
one's spHitual and moral personality takes Christ as its central
aim, and is based on Him alone (hence iriaTeveiv elv, Rom. x. 14 ;
Gal. H 16 ; PhU. i 29 ; and iiri, Rom. iv. 5, 24; and irianv iv
Xptarw, Gal. Hi. 26, and elsewhere). But the divine- grace is
grasped and held in Christ ; therefore, in addition to the entry
into feUowship with Christ, faith also involves the renunciation
of one's own personal sufficiency, and therefore refers speciaUy to
Christ's atoning death, the iXaarrjpiov (Rom. Hi. 25). Thus, then,
it forms the most decided contrast to the righteousness through the
epya vopov, being the Hving source of love, the irianv Bi' dydirr)v
ivepyovpevrj (Gal. v. 6 ; cf. Eph. H. 1 0).
But the faith which apprehends Christ does not on this
account show any outflow of salvation from man ; it is rather
an apprehension of that by which man is first apprehended (PhU.
iH 12), of that which makes its abode in the heart itself (EpH
Hi. 1 7). We are thus led back to the requirement of the free
divine calling, the icaXelv (1 Cor. i 9; Rom. ix. 24; 2 Thess.
H 14 ; 1 Thess. iv. 7 ; cf the designation of Christians as KXryrol
at the commencement of the epistle). The caUing which leads to
faith is the result of an eternal, eclectic counsel of God, r) kut
iKXoyr)v irpbBeaiv (Rom. ix. 11). Thus men of aU kinds, even Hi
a moral point of view, are caUed ; and the caUing is therefore
purely a matter of divine pity. This Paul most surprisingly
experienced in his own person (1 Tim. i. 16, cf. 15). This
choice is the aipela&ai (2 Thess. H. 13), the result of which is
the KaXelv. The apostle has expressed the same idea in the-
word itjeXeljaTo (Eph. i 4), and in irpoyivwaicew, to foreknow
(Rom. viH. 29; cf. 1 Pet. i 20); Hkewise in irpoopi^eiv, to pre
destinate (Rom. viH. 29, 30 ; Eph. i 11, 5), and Hi irpoeroipd&v

DIV. II. § 81.] PAUL — RIGHTEOUSNESS AND LIFE THROUGH JESUS. 493
(Rom. ix. 23). In aU this the wUl of God is entirely free (Rom.
xi. 7), a pure iKXoyrj, which, according to Eph. i. 4, 5, from the
very beginning referred to Christ or to the sanctification by the
Holy Spirit, by faith in the truth of the gospel (Rom. viii. 29, 30).
Thus in Eph. i 4 the apostle expresses himself in these words :
naBmv igeXegaro rjpdv iv avrw irpo KaraBoXrjv Koapov. The pos
session of Christian salvation depends on a counsel of choice,
which is represented as an eternal act of God, as brought about
through Christ, having as its aim to sanctify us and make us
blameless chUdren of God, and also as tending to glorify the
divine grace. Aoid that these Hidividuals among so many
miUions have attained the salvation of redemption, is plainly
referred to a positive causality on God's part, to an eternal act of
His wiU. The apostle has, however, most copiously expressed
himself on this point in Rom. ix., cf. xi. 5, 7. He, refers back
justification to the divine nature and to the principles of the
divine counsel expressed in the Old Testament, and discusses the
question why the ancient people of God now for the most part
took no share in the blessings of the gospeL Here two points
had to be shown: first, that the privUege of the theocracy de
pended simply on God's unconditional grace ; and, secondly, that
it Was the fault of the IsraeHtes when they forfeited it. The
result of this twofold consideration is, that Paul's teaching and
view of the gospel do not controvert the ancient promise, — a
glance at a positive future fulfilment being added. Thus the
apostle shows that the first choice of Abraham and Isaac was
absolutely free, and appHed to the chUdren of the promise alone
(cf. Rom. -iv. and Gal. Hi. 6), and that consequently the theo
cratic promise was independent of any claim of race or merit,
and was a matter of God's free grace, in vHtue of which He con
ferred it on whom He would, i.e. to the true Israel (ver. 6).
Thus the Messianic blessings are conferred only on those to whom
He wUled to give them, to the true Israel, which in faith is like
Abraham. For it depends entirely upon His free wiU as to
whom He wUl have mercy upon (ver. 15), Le. under what condi
tions He wiU grant His grace (ver. 14). The unconditional
nature of His wUl is also proved in those who oppose Him, and
become the objects of His judgment (vers. 17, 18). But, as
(regards this absolute wUl of God, we are not to understand that
some men are unconditionaUy destined to evU and others to good.

494 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
This objection is made by the apostle, as K from the lips of a stiff-
necked Jew (ver. 19). It is repeUed, first, with a view to the
mind which inspired it, by opposing to the refractoriness involved
therein the creative power of God and the absolute dependence
of the creature on his Creator (vers. 20, 21); next, by looking
at the matter from an opposite point of view, i.e. by showing
that in aU these cases God acts according to His essential attri
butes. The main point is, that the whole of God's procedure
which is impeached is regarded by the apostle rather in the light
of long-sufferance. This, indeed, so much preponderates, that the
manifestation of wrath and power is concealed by it. Indeed,
even with the purpose of the latter an intention of mercy is
always entwined (ver. 23), so that everywhere this twofold pur
pose may be recognised. But the course of his remarks now
leads him back to his more immediate theme, so that he can
apply to the present case the idea of the freedom of the divine
choice of grace independent of any claim of right, and can support,
by Old Testament passages, the divine- prevision of the dispensa
tion, that Jews and GentUes were caUed to be partakers in Christ's
salvation, and that a portion of the Jews were excluded therefrom.
Those who are thus chosen must also necessarUy be called
(2 Thess. H. 14, 15); and after the calHng has reached them
by the preaching of the gospel, and by theH accepting it, they
thus become partakers in the Spirit. But the calling itseK is by
no means merely an external act, but takes place principaUy
through the effects of the word upon men. By it the divine wUl
is brought near to man, in order to procure for him complete sal
vation ; but it is dependent on his yielding to it by faith. Those
who are caUed can, however, oppose (Rom. x. 19-21), as is shown
by the resistance of the Jews (Rom. x. 3, ix. 30-43). There
are therefore "vessels of wrath" (Rom. ix. 22), who are not,
however, originaUy excluded from the divine goodness, but be
come so through theH opposition whUst opportunity was afforded
for theH acceptance ; and therefore, after having to the very last
despised and rejected God's goodness, they incur the divine bpyrj,
which, foUowing a psychological law founded in the moral order
of the world, completes their hardening. This reference of grace
to an absolute counsel of God does not warrant any assumption
of a purpose of destruction. This we may infer, both from the
fact that it is this very idea which the apostle (Rom. ix. 19)

DIV. II. § 82.] PAUL— SALVATION OF INDIVIDUALS; JUSTIFICATION. 495
opposes as an objection which might be made to him, and also
from his connecting the idea of hardening (ver. 22) with that of
long-suffering, thus clearly pointing to a free will on man's part,
to which a certain respite is given (cf. ver. 3 2). We have here
the same idea of the consummation of sin through God's judg
ment as is expressed in Rom. i 24, 26, 28 (cf. ver. 18-20, 21 ff.,
25, 32, H. 1, xi. 7, 8, 10 ; cf. vers. 20 and 10 with 16-21 and
2 Thess. ii. 11 ; cf. also John xii. 40, 37-39, 47-49 ; Matt. xiii.
13-16). In a dogmatical point of view, Paul suppHes no higher
scheme of union of the definitions of the universal divine counsel
of grace here placed in juxtaposition, — of human free wUl and
the divine purpose, which makes certain men to be aKevrj bpyrjv, —
all he does is to bring together and set forth these facts. But
this much is certain, that Paul does not speak of any particular
counsel which from the very first rejects men. For, apart from
the points just mentioned, nothing can be more forcible than the
way in which he sets forth that, as the Scriptures have concluded
all under sin, i.e. specified all men as sinners, so, on the other
hand, God's mercy extends to all (Rom. xi. 32, v. 18).
We now have to consider Paul's teaching as to the appropria
tion and realization of this salvation, in respect both to indivi
duals and also to the Church : in the first place, in individuals,
as justification and a new life, and next, as salvation in the latter.
§ 82. The Salvation of Individuals — Justification.
The first point in subjective redemption is, according to Paul,
justification, r) Bimlcoaiv r/p&v (Rom. iv. 25, cf. v. 18, iH. 30)
BiKaiovv, God justifying believers (Rom. iH. 26, viii. 30, 33)
BiKaiovaBai, the believer being justified (Rom. iii. 24, 28, v. 1
Gal. ii. 16, 17 ; Tit. iii. 7) ; and also the BiKaioavvr) Qeov, as a
gift received from God (Rom. v. 17 ; cf. x. S, 4, ix. 30).
The question now is as to the signification of this term. The
idea of Bucaioavvr) itseK has been previously discussed ; aU we
have now to do with is how to understand the term BiKaiovv.
Ancaiovv generally means to make right, to acknowledge, treat,
declare as right or just. In classical usage the word has two
main significations : (1) to do that which is right, in the sense of
awarding to any one his right : BiKaiovv riva, as a contrast to
dBiKelv riva ; as kukovv riva is to inflict kokov, evil, on any one,
so BiKaiovv is to do Bfcaiov, that which is just ; hence then Bimi-

496 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
ovaBai, to maintain his right, in contrast to dBiKelaBai. Cf.
Aristot. Eth. Nicom. v. 9, 11. As it is generaUy said of a judge
who pronounces rightly, that he awards to any one his right, so,
foUowing the twofold result of a decision, it may have a twofold
meaning, either of condemning and punishing, as often in the
classics, or of doing justice in a favourable sense, viz. acquitting
any one from an accusation, or acknowledging or awarding to him
his just claim. (2) It also means to consider, declare, or approve
of anything as right ; just as dgiovv.
In the Old Testament the word has the signification of pro
nouncing sentence, of judging rightly (by a judge) ; thus in the
LXX (for p™, 2 Sam. xv. 4 ; Ps. lxxxii. 3 ; Isa. i 17) ; espe
ciaUy in a good sense, that justice is done to the good cause.
Then it also means, to make righteous or good. Thus in a few
Old Testament passages, as Ps. lxxiii. 13, iBiKalcoaa rr)v KapBlav
piov. On the other hand, BiKaiovv very frequently has the signi
fication of esteeming, acknowledging, treating, and declaring as
righteous. It is thus especiaUy used for the judicial function of
acquitting, of pronouncing innocent and exempt from punishment
(Ex. xxiH. 7 ; Isa. v. 23 ; Deut. xxv. 1 ; 1 Kings viH. 32) ; also
of God as Judge ; hence ov BiKaiovaBai (Ecclus. xxHi 1 1, cf. ix.
1 2), is not to be exempt from punishment. But it has this mean
ing in the sense of daUy Hfe also, and signifies first to excuse, to
vindicate, sometimes by words (Ecclus. xHi. 22), sometimes by
actions (Jer. Hi. 11 ; Ezek xvi 51, 52). Atxaiovv Hi this sense
corresponds to the other expression which is used in the LXX.
for ic'SJ pro (Job xxxH. 2) : direcbrjvev eavrbv BUaiov, etc. (cf.
ver. 1, " He was righteous in his own eyes "). With this wider
acceptation is connected the signification, to acknowledge as right
eous, especiaUy in the passive, to be acknowledged as righteous (Ecclus.
xviH. 2 ; Job xxxiii. 2) ; and also to represent as righteous, and
actuaUy to prove it (Ecclus. xxxiv. 5).
The usage in the New Testament foUows altogether the second
of the two chief classical significations. We find BiKaiovv used
with God as the object who is acknowledged as righteous (Rom.
iii. 4 (from Ps. Ii 6) ; Luke vii. 29 : iBixalcoaav rbv Qebv Bair-
naBevrev ; ver. 3 5 : iBiicaiwBr/ r) aocbla dirb r&v reKvcov, etc. ;
cf. Matt. xi. 1 9). It is also used of Christ, who is justified by
the SpHit (1 Tim. Hi. 16). In these two cases the object is
inherently righteous, and it is merely said that He is acknow-

DIV. II. § 82.] PAUL— SALVATION OF INDIVIDUALS; JUSTIFICATION. 49 7"
ledged as righteous, [t also occurs in respect to men Thus in
the gospels man is acknowledged and dealt with as righteous
(Matt. xii. 37), in contrast to KaraBiKaaBr/vai, to be condemned;
man also pronounces and declares himseK to be righteous (Luke
x. 29 ; xvi. 15 : ivavriov tcov dvBpcoircov ; cf. 1 Cor. iv. 4) ; or it
is God who acknowledges and treats the sinner as righteous
(Luke xvHi 14 : BeBiKaicopevov ; cf. vtycaBrjaerai, ver. 14, and
iXaaBryn rw dpaprcoXw, ver.. 13). Among the apostles, except
Rev. xxH. 11, we find the expression in Paul and James only :
in the latter, in ch. H. 21, 24, 25, cf. 23 ; in Paul, in Acts xHi
39, cf. 38; 1 Cor. iv. 4, vi 11; Tit. Hi. 7; Gal. ii. 16, 17,
Hi 8, 11, 24, v. 4 ; in the Epistle to the Romans, in the first
negative section, H. 13, Hi. 20'; and in the positive section,
in. 24, 26, 28, 30, iv. 2 (cf. 3-9, 22, 25), v. 1, 9 (cf. 10, 11,
16—21) ; also in the later chapters, vi. 7, vHi 30. The noun is
BiKaicoaiv (Rom. iv. 25, v. 18). It is evident that Paul and
James always use BiKaiovv in the sense of esteeming, pronouncing,
and treating as righteous, both according to the measure of the
law (Rom. H. 13, Hi 20), and also according to grace. The latter
is the case in the Epistle to the Galatians, and also Hi the positive
section of that to the Romans. Here the justification of the
sinner before God is evidently that which is meant, — that man,
although not justified by the law, is1 esteemed and treated as
righteous by God.
In aU these passages, therefore, the fundamental meaning of
BiKaiovv is the forensic and judicial signification. In the pas
sages of the first class, that is, those which refer to a legal stand
point, we see in Rom. H. 13 that BiKaicoBrjaovrai is paraUel with
the BiKaioi irapd tw Qew (in God's judgment) in antithesis to
KpiBrjaovrai and a7roXo£)i/T<xt (ver. 12) ; also, in Rom. Hi. 30, that
ov SiKaicoBrjaerai irdaa adp% is paraUel with vitoBikov r& Qew
(ver. 19). In the passages of the second class this sense is un
mistakeably evident, both from the contrasts presented, and also
from positive explanations which more exactly define it. With
respect to the latter, it is unquestionable that the sinner, who is
liable to the divine displeasure and judgment, is described as the
subject of the BiKaiovaBai. Thus Rom. Hi. 24, cf. ver. 23, 19,
20, 9 ; also iv. 5 (daeBrjv) : hence this subject BiKaiovrai only as
a gift (Btopedv, Rom. iH. 24) ; by faith and not by works (Rom.
iii. 26, 30) ; by grace (Rom. Hi. 24) ; not by merit (Rom. iv. 4) ;
21

498 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
by means of the redemption of Christ as the atonement (Rom.
Hi 24, 25). It is, moreover, unquestionable that BiKaiovv is
explained by Paul as an imputation of righteousness — Xoyl^eaBai
BiKaioavvr/v (Rom. iv. 6, cf. v. 22) — to a subject who is not
Biicaiov in himseK (Rom. iv. 5) ; and this imputation includes,
indeed, the forgiveness of sins (Rom. iv. 6-9 ; cf. Acts xiH. 38, 39),
man thus having peace with God (Rom. v. 1), and standing in a
friendly relation with Him, being no longer His enemy, but recon
cUed to Him (Rom. v. 9, cf. x. 11). The contrast to BiKaiovv is
therefore iyKaXelv, to accuse (Rom. viH. 33). The antithesis of
BtKaicoaiv is Kardxpipa (Rom. v. 18). Whosoever is not justi
fied (Bucaiovrai) is Hable to punishment, and under the curse
(Gal. iii. 11, cf. x. 13). From aU this there can be no doubt
as to the forensic character of the word BiKaiovv as used by Paul.
The opposite interpretation, which understands BiKaiovv as
making righteous, has been brought forward by the rationaHstic
party, faith being looked upon as a faithfulness of conviction;
it has also been advanced by the supernatural, especiaUy Catholic
party, justification being blended with sanctification, and bound
up, not with faith, but with love and good works, the former
being united to the works. Not only the signification of the
word itseK, but the context everywhere, is opposed to this view.
God being He who pronounces and treats the sinner as
righteous, this justification, more closely considered, involves
(1) that sin is not imputed to the sinner as guilt (Rom. iv. 5-8 ;
Gal. iii. 11, 13 ; Acts xiii. 39, 38 ; Rom. iv. 7). This foUows
from the contrast to justification, iyKaXelv and Kardxpipa (Rom.
viH. 33, v. 18), and the words pr) Xoyitypevov rd irapairrcopara
(2 Cor. v. 19). (2) Positively, that faith is counted to the sinner
as righteousness (Rom. iv. 5 ; PhiL Hi. 9). Peace (r) elprjvr) irpbv
rbv Qebv, Rom. v. 1) is conditional on these two points, and
thus the relation between God and man is constituted so that
we have access to God (Rom. v. 2 ; cf. Eph. ii. 14). We are thus
reconcUed to God (Rom. v. 10, 11 ; 2 Cor. v. 20), and have the
assurance of the divine love to us, this love being spread abroad
in our hearts (Rom. v. 5). Enmity has departed, and we know
ourselves to be reKvoi Qeov (Rom. vHi 14-17; GaL iv. 6, 7).
Thus, too, we have the KavxdaBai iv toiv BXlifreaiv (Rom. v. 3),
and the hope which " maketh not ashamed " (Rom. v. 5) ; also
the tXirlv rrjv Bb!jr)v tov Qeov (Rom. vm. 24). The consciousness

DIV. II. § 82.] PAUL — SALVATION OF INDIVIDUALS; JUSTIFICATION. 499
both of reconcUiation and sonship being conditional on faith, is
not possible without the Holy Spirit, through whom we obtain
faith (1 Cor. xii. 3), and the Hvely consciousness of God's love to
us (Rom. v. 5), and of our being His chUdren (Rom. viH. 16).
Thus justification is nothing but the atonement rendered sub
jective and brought to consciousness.
As justification depends only on the divine word of grace, of
which we become assured by faith, all works of the law and all
ground for self-glory are excluded. Faith is in itself a renuncia
tion of one's own personal sufficiency and moral desert ; it is the
Kara Qebv Xvirr) (2 Cor. vii 10). The epya vopov are works
which are in conformity to the law, — first of aU the Old Testament
law, but also the moral law generaUy. They are therefore not
merely works of the ceremonial law, as the Catholics and the
ancient and modern RationaHsts would put it. The second chap
ter of the Epistle to the Romans shows that the question is as to
general morals ; and the expression epya vopov alternates without
any alteration in the sense with the idea of epya generaUy (cf.
Eph. H. 9 ; Rom. iv. 2 ; Tit. iii. 5 ; 2 Tim. i 9). In Rom. H. 13
the apostle expressly declares that the iroirjTal tov vopov are
righteous before God : the circumcision of the heart is of value
in God's sight (Rom. H. 28, 29). Both the Jew and the GentUe
who work good (vers. 26, 17, cf. 14) would have a place before
God (ver. 10) ; the sin of both is an infringement of the law (cH
H 12, 13, 21-24, cf. 26, 27). This is also clear from ch. iv. 4.
The expression that the law cannot justify us (GaL iii. 11, 21 ;
Rom. Hi. 21) only states the matter of fact. But the law, the
fulfilment of which would justify, is the moral law, and not a
merely ceremonial law. The antithesis of the epya is not
morality, but the grace, x^Pl<i> which is contrasted with merit
(Rom. iv. 4, Kara bcbeiXr)pa). It must have been very far from
the apostle's mind to assume that the law was something which,
working externaUy and from material motives, produced a mere
legaHty; indeed, the very contrary is plain from Rom. H. 12 ff. ;
and this is quite in harmony with the statement in Rom. vH 14.
The impotence of the law is based on the sinful nature, the adpi;
of men. And this is so much the case, that the moral law, even
when inwardly felt and wiUed, cannot justify (Rom. vH), because
there is no power of fulfilment to combine with the assenting
wUl. In the wide and general sense> which results from these

500 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [rART II.
considerations, the epya vopov are to be understood as inadequate
for the justification of man (Gal. iii. 21; Rom. H. 5-10). For
the Jews, at aU events, the works of the statutory law were
inseparably included in the law of God and its moral obHgation ;
hence, therefore, the inabUity of the epya and that of the irepiropr)
coincide. Faith begins with the knowledge of the inadequacy of
the law, and then avails itseK of the grace which makes free.
§ 83. The Salvation of Individuals — The New Life of Righteousness.
The new life, just as justification itself, is necessarUy bound up
with faith. Faith of itself is not the sufficient intervening cause
of justification. This cause is only the objective divine redemp
tion, diroXvrpwaiv, the grace of God, and the atonement which is
thereby established (Rom. iii. 24, 25), the fruits of which are'
appropriated by faith. Justification comes as a gift ; but, without
the susceptibUity of faith, this gift, presented to us through God's
grace and the mediation of Christ, would not come into our pos
session. Indeed, faith itself is represented in Rom. v. as a divine
action; and we could not have the full feeling of faith without the
Spirit of God (cf. 2 Cor. v. 14). In Paul's view, faith not Only
refers to justification, but is also the commencement of the new
life, and is so in two respects : on the one hand, it is the first
point of a continuous divine operation, and on the other, it is sub
jectively a principle developing itseK in a human Hfe. In virtue
of the justification by faith, we have entered into the actual pos
session of divine grace, with which is united the hope of future
glorification. Through this joyful certainty of justification the
Holy Ghost is shed abroad in our hearts, and thus the first
essential step is taken towards the fulfilment of aU those points
which in Rom. viii 29, 30 form a continuous and inwardly
connected series. Through faith Christ dweUs in our KapBia as
an active divine principle (Eph. iH. 17). Thus the BiKaioavvr)
Qeov, which first of aU is a divine act appHed to us, becomes a
personal possession and attribute of the individual, and leads to a
divinely effected renunciation of sin, and to the dominion of the
divine principle with which we are in fellowship. The progress
of the apostle's ideas towards the end of the fifth chapter of the
Epistle to the Romans shows how the BiKaioavvr) assumes this
subjective character ; and in the beginning of the sixth chapter
an appHcation of this is made to actual Hfe. In order to explain

DIV. II. §83.] PAUL— NEW LIFE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. -501
the nature of BiKaioavvr) up to this point from ch. Hi 23, Paul
has discussed that side of it which consists in justification, not
only in general (Rom. iH. 23-26), but with special reference both
to the conditions on which BiKaioavvr) depends, viz. faith in con
trast to the fulfilment of the law (Rom. iH. 27-iv. 24), and also
to its origin as being effected through the death and resurrection
of Christ (Rom. iv. 24-v. 11), the type of Adam the first man
(Rom. v. 12-21). Now, however, Paul dweUs upon the other
aspect of BiKaioavvr), showing that it includes an inward tendency
and power of Hfe which is entirely opposed to sin. For, says
Paul, so far from the doctrine of justification containing any
ground for continuing Hi sin, it, on the contrary directly involves
the moral necessity for a new divine Hfe (Rom. vi. 1-23), inas
much as beHevers are in feUowship with Christ, that is, with His
death and resurrection (Rom. vi 2-14), and therefore are no
longer under the law, but under grace, as the new ruling principle
which leads to far) almviov (Rom. vi. 14-23). And thus, sub
jectively considered, and under the presupposition of divine
justification, the whole nature of Hfe which is prescribed for the
Christian is now unfolded: faith is the principle of love (Gal
v. 6), and this is nothing but a reflection in the Christian him
seK of the divine love which has been assured to him in justifi
cation. Thus faith becomes on this side also the root of a new
life of actual righteousness. This new life of righteousness is,
however, now more exactly explained by Paul from a standpoint
which combines both the objective and subjective points of view,
that is, as the Hfe which is in feUowship with Christ, being rooted
in faith. The connection of this new position is set forth both in the
Epistle to the Galatians and also in that to the Romans. By
faith, Christ Himself — this is the starting-point — is the principle
which lives in believers, and brings about Hi them an organic unity
of Hfe with Him. Faith is both the requirement for justification
and also effects this fellowship with Christ. Faith, as combined
with baptism, is an appropriation of Christ (cf. Gal. H. 16-21, iii
26, 27 • PhU. Hi. 12 ; Rom. vi. 1-11). In the last-named chapter
of the Epistle to the Romans, Paul, as already remarked, passes on
from the subject of justification to that of the new Hfe in Christ.
As previously sin, now grace, reigns Bid BiKaioavvvv; and this reign
ing grace is no longer mere justification, but is actual righteous-

502 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
ness, inasmuch as we, through this grace and the unity with
Christ which is now effected, have become dead to sin, just as
Christ died on account of sin (Rom. vi. 4 ff). The almost pro
verbial sentence, that sin and the guUt of sin cease with death
(Rom. vi. 7), is appHed to the figurative death, the death of the
old man in us, which is the result of our feUowship in faith with
Christ. Not only does something take place in us which is
simUar to the death of Christ by which sin was subdued, but
this effect stands in causal connection with this His death. The
diro&avelv (Rom. vi. 8). is not an act or purpose of the human wiU,
but is an event which is brought about by the objective effect of
the death of Christ, and in the feUowship of faith is conveyed to
the subject ; it is the justification from sin as weU as the Hberation
from its power (cf. Col. H. 11, 12). The great change which
comes upon man is the irepiropr) Xpiarov, a spiritual event similar
in a higher sense to cHcumcision, — an event which is effected
by Christ, and consists in the direKBvaiv tov acoparov tjj? aapKov,
the spHitual renunciation of the body of sin, i.e. the flesh ; but
this change also leads to a new life simUar to, and dependent
on, the resurrection of Christ. This change is brought about by
faith, — a faith which is produced by God as the principle of Hfe,
just as He raised up Jesus. The connection between the death
of Christ and the death of the old man in us, and that between
His resurrection and a new Hfe in us, is therefore the same (Rom.
vi. 9 ; Col. H. 1 3, cf. Hi. 3 ; Eph. ii. 5). Now, however, the
grace of God reigns, which is equivalent to Christ reigning.
Xdpiv and Xpiarov now stand in the place of dpapria and Bdva
rov (Rom. v. 21, vi. 9 ff., 14); and His dominion is shown by
His becoming the principle of our personal Hfe (Gal. H 20 ;
2 Cor. v. 15). As Christ not only withstood sin in His own
person unto death, but also suffered death for the atonement for,
and redemption from, sin, so it is the same principle which in us
crucifies the flesh (Gal. v. 24), withstands sin (Eph. vi. 13), and
produces an obedience unto death (Rom. xiv. 4, 8 ; PhU i 21),
so that we now live to God as Christ the risen One Hves (Rom.
vi. 10, 11).
In virtue of this new Hfe in Christ, it now comes to pass that
we are free from the law. Its rule has ceased, because the posi
tion of man for which the law was prescribed is come to an end
(GaL iv. 1-7 ; Rom. vH 1-3). Hence the two comparisons of

DIV. II. § 83.] PAUL — NEW LIFE OF RIGHTEOUSNESS. 503
the law with merely temporary positions, — in one passage with
chUdhood and guardianship, in the other with a marriage dissolved
by death, and with the relative obHgation in each case. But
another cause of the freedom from the dominion of the law is,
that now a higher dispensation, instead of the power of the law,
has actuaUy presented itseK to man (Gal. iv. 4, 5). He is be
come the property of another, and, in the irvevpa, has received a
new element of Hfe (Gal. iv. 6 ; Rom. vHi 16), which is opposed
to the ypappa (2 Cor. Hi. 6 ; Rom. vH. 6), and is the element of
a new freedom (Gal. v. 1, 2). Man has thus become a Kaivr)
Knaiv (2 Cor. v. 1 7 ; Gal. vi 1 5, cf. v. 6) ; he is the icaiybv or
veov dvBpwrrov (Eph. iv. 24 ; Col. Hi 10, cf. 9).
Thus the man who has passed from the law into the Hfe of
the Spirit now actually serves righteousness with aU his powers
(Rom. vH. 6, vi. 12-14) ; he walks Hi the SpHit (Rom. viH. 4,
cf. 9). For the new man is in righteousness, and he is KnaBelv
iv BiKaioavvr) ical baibrrjTi rrjv dXr/Beiav (Eph. iv. 24) : it has
become an actual power of Hfe Hi him, as the law of the Spirit
(Rom. viH 2), as freedom (2 Cor. Hi. 17), and as chUdship (Gal.
iv. 4-7; Rom. viH. 15 f.). This new freedom is at the same
time an inward moral obHgation (Rom. vi. 18 ff.) ; and thus a
Hfe is developed, which manifests itseK outwardly in " faith, hope,
and charity" (1 Cor. xiH. 13 ; 1 Thess. i 3). In faith the Chris
tian entirely surrenders himseK to God and Christ ; in hope he
meets the termination- of this Hfe ; in charity or love this life is
proved to be a divine power, and love is caUed the greatest of
the three, because in it the new Hfe is most forcibly manKested.
This new Hfe pervades the totaHty of man's being, and a whole
organism of vHtues appertains to the nature of the new man
(Col. Hi. 12 ; Eph. iv. 24 ff. ; Gal. v. 22) : he strives for aU that
is lovely and worthy of praise (PhiL iv. 8, 9) ; Hi the spHit of
Jesus he is just in aU the human relations of Hfe (Eph. v. 22 ff. ;
Col. Hi. 18 ff; 1 Cor. vii; Rom. xiH. 1 ff. ; 1 Tim. Hi. 1 ff, v.
1 ff.) ; aU that he does is done Hi the name of Jesus (CoL Hi. 17).
The whole shape of his being is changed by the renewing of
his mind into a similarity, not to the spirit of the world, but
to the perfect wiU of God : he dedicates his body as a temple
of God and as a sacrifice weU-pleasHig to Him (1 Cor. vi. 19,
20 • Rom. xH. 1). The Apostle Paul has more than any other
applied the great principles of Christianity to the whole Hfe,

504 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II,
and has left behind him precepts for every province of Christian
ethics. In this sanctification the man continually progresses, for sin is
subdued, although not destroyed. Sin, therefore, is stUl active, so
that in this world the new Hfe is never quite consummated, but
there is need of constant watchfulness, purifying, and improve
ment (cf. Gal. v. 1 7 ; Rom. via 12 f .) ; by these it is ever more
and more perfected (2 Cor. vH. 1) and also by a continuous renewal
(2 Cor. iv. 16), which is a constant glorification (2 Cor. Hi. 18).
Another attribute of the new Hfe is peace, which it derives from
the God of peace (1 Thess. v. 2 3), who has given the witness of
our sonship through His Spirit, and thus, together with justifica
tion, has estabHshed this new Hfe (Gal iv. 6 ; Rom. vHi 15, 16).
The word regeneration occurs only once in Paul's writings (Tit.
iii 5). The fact itself is, however, most distinctly expressed in
the oft-named figure, that, having died and risen again with Christ,
we have obtained a new commencement of Hfe.
§ 84. Salvation in Individuals — Completion thereof in Christ.
According to Rom. vHi 1, K Christ is in us, there is for us no
longer a KaraKpipa (cf. ver. 2). Those in whom He is (ver. 10)
are also Kara irvevpa irepiirarovvrev (ver. 4). The body, indeed,
is subject to death on account of sin ; the spirit, however, aHeady
has far) on account of righteousness (vers. 10, 11); for the Spirit
Himself, in whom we are, is Hfe, and brings peace Hi HimseK, —
a peace which keeps both heart and mind in Christ (PhiL iv. 7).
Its positive expression is the witness of the divine Spirit to our
sonship (Rom. vHi 15, 16 ; Gal. iv. 6, 7). The feeling of son-
ship gives the power of bearing aU sufferings (Rom. viH 35, 28 ;
2 Cor. iv. 9 ff, etc.) ; in it affliction is a suffering in the sense of
the sufferings of Christ, for Christ's sake (Col. i 24) ; and all our
actions and life tend to enhance our consciousness that our justi
fication is a free gKt.
In the present tune our sonship is only a commencing one.
It is established in principle, but awaits a future consummation
(Rom. viii. 23), together with the redemption of our bodies from
aU evU. This wUl be our glorification with Him, the avv-
BogaaBrjvai, the future participation in the perfected glory of
Christ (ver. 17), or the fuU manKestation in our persons of Christ
as our Hfe (Col. Hi. 4). •

DIV. II. § 85.1 PAUL — SALVATION AS REGARDS CHURCH OF CHRIST. 505
§ 85. Salvation as regards the Church — The Church of Christ.
The idea of an organically united fellowship is represented by
Paul under the figure of the body (Rom. xii 5 ; 1 Cor. x. 1 7,
xH. 12 ff; Eph. i 23, iv. 4, v. 30 ff. ; CoL i 18, 24, H. 19);
also of the building of a temple (1 Cor. iii. 16, 17; 2 Cor. vi.
1 6 ; Eph. ii 2 0-2 2), — Christ being the Corner-stone in this case,
in the former the Head. It is a great unity, embracing and thus
removing aU national distinctions (Gal. iii. 28 ; Col. Hi 11 ; cf.
Eph. iv. 4) : aU the differences of nation, position, and race are
surmounted by the SpHit, and nothing of this kind can stand in
the way of the spread of this fellowship in all its fulness and
depth. The great barrier between the Gentiles and the theocracy
is now removed, and the new community can therefore unfold its
boundless extent (Eph. ii. 14, cf. Hi. 8 ; Col. i 6, 23 ff. ; Rom.
x. 12 ; Rom. i 16). In the figure of the organism, two points
are involved, — the aU-pervading, quickening unity of a Hfe (Eph.
iv. 4, v. 25) with the manifold gifts which work together in it,
and the individual life of the members (1 Cor. xii).
The actual position of the fellowship or Church does not, of
course, correspond to the ideal conception of it. This fact is by
no means overlooked by Paul, although he always views and
addresses the churches as a collection of those who have been
called and sanctified. He well knew that there were many non-
genuine members in the outward community of Christians, who
could not be properly elements in this feUowship (cf. 1 Cor. v.,
vi. ; Col. H. 19 ; 2 Tim. H. 19-21, etc.) ; but this fact does not
affect the continuance of the true Church, inasmuch as, being in
connection with its Lord, it can never want for real and genuine
members. Similarly, in spite of this fact, the gradual develop
ment of the Church proceeds, and being the body of Christ, pos
sesses inherently His fulness (Eph. iv. 16, iii. 19). The Church
grows uninterruptedly, and assumes to itself the entire fulness
of God's gifts. This progress takes place, of course, amid much
conflict, in which we must press forward through the present
wicked'awOT (Gal. i. 4 ; EpH ii. 2) to the aiwv which is future.
The continuance and development of the Church depends, there
fore, entirely on Christ, into community with whom men enter,
and' are established therein in virtue of the divine redemption
and caUin" (1 Cor. i. 9). This participation is therefore not of

506 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
an incidental character ; it depends on a divine preparation,
which not only sets forth as actuaUy presupposed the work of
Christ and the sacraments, but also specially ordains the parti
cipation of the individual. The participation Hi the fellowship
with Christ is, in Paul's view, conditional on an eternal act of
election, — the whole divine work of salvation depending, indeed,
on this divine purpose (cf. § 81). The calling to the participa
tion follows according to an inscrutable rule of divine wisdom, to
which rule no limits are placed (Col. i 6, 23 ; Rom. x. 12) ; and
hence by it the barrier is removed between God's pecuHar people
and other nations (Eph. H. 14 f., cf. ver. 22).
The ordinances which are presupposed and set forth by the
dispensation of the divine election are the Word, Baptism, and the
Lord's Supper. By means of baptism, elect beHevers enter into
feUowship with Him, and through the Lord's Supper are con
firmed in the same. For a right understanding of the passages
which deal with baptism, such as Rom. vi 2 ff., Gal. iH. 27 f,
Tit. Hi. 5, Eph. iv. 5, we must note that, wherever its effects and'
fuU significance are spoken of, it is evident that a baptism re
ceived in faith is presupposed ; and it is thus a putting on of
Christ, and therefore a reception of the Holy Spirit. It thus
becomes a washing of regeneration, and in it is involved the
power which unites aU in fv acopa.
Paul speaks Ha detail of the Lord's Supper in 1 Cor. x. and
xi., in order to inculcate its proper celebration. It is' called the
Belirvov Kvpiamv, the rpdirefa Kvpiov, and the elements to 7tot^-
ptov rrjv evXoylav and 6 dprov, etc. It is a repast for a thankful
and beHeving remembrance, but also becomes a communion of
the body and blood of Christ (1 Cor. x. 16). This Koivwla
might indeed be possibly of a figurative and ideal character, by
the participating beHever being stirred up to a remembrance of
Jesus and His death; but the remarks in 1 Cor. xi. 27-29
appear to be in favour of a real participation, for that which we
partake of is the acopa rov Kvpiov. The reference to the feUow
ship which we have with, one another (1 Cor. x. 17) appears,
however, to be the express consequence of this real participation
in common Hi Christ ; also in 1 Cor. xii. 1 3, where iiroriaBr/pev
appears to point to the Lord's Supper (cf. x. 2-4, with this hint
as to the spHitual food of the new covenant), the union being
described as the result of some such real participation Certainly

DIV. II. § 86.] PAUL— KINGDOM OF CHRIST AND POWER OF DARKNESS. 507
no indubitable exegetical proof can be brought forward for this
real view ; but very high probabiHty is afforded to it by the
PauHne system of thought, wherein the dead and risen Christ is
the condition for our Hfe and rules in it. Thus it is probable
that He who Hves in us, and through whom we live (Gal. H. 20),
who, too, wiU make our acopa rrjv raireivcoaecov Hke His a&pa
Trjv B6gr/v (PhiL iH. 21), should place HimseK in some such real
relation to us, — a relation which would have the effect of glorify
ing our coUective life.
§ 86. The Kingdom of Christ and the Power of Barkness.
The apostle speaks of a great whole, the Head of which is
Christ, which through Him, and especiaUy through His death, is
united Hi a living unity (Eph. i 10 ; Gal. i 20). Christ is thus
the Head of the whole spirit-world (CoL H 10, cf. i 16). There
is a great famUy of God in heaven and on earth (Eph. Hi. 15, cf.
10), which forms a kingdom of Christ as the Son of God (Col. i
13; cf. 2 Tim. iv. 1 8), and therefore a kingdom of God Himself,
the BaaiXela Qeov (1 Thess. ii. 12; cf. Rom. xiv. 1 7, where it is
represented from the subjective side).
This large view of Christ's work, as extending to the whole
universe (Eph. i 10), is the pvarrjpiov mentioned in ver. 9, — the
pvarrjpiov of the purpose which He formed of the dispensation
fitted for the fulness of times, namely, that aU, the whole uni
verse, and first of aU the created beings both in heaven and earth,
should be united in Christ. The effect of redemption, there
fore, was to be not merely the conformity of earthly Hfe to His
idea, — the union of men with God, — but also the restoration of a
harmony in the universe. The glance which, Hi Eom. vm. 1 9 ff,
seems to attribute to the irrational creation a share in the pur
chased freedom, now rises to a view of the great unity of the
heavenly and earthly world. The more exact reference of this
union to the work of redemption is set forth in Col. i 20. In
this passage we must doubtless understand the to eV rolv ovpa
voiv to mean the personal dweUers in heaven, therefore the angel-
world. This view alone corresponds with the aim of the epistle,
which endeavours to put down the exaggerated veneration for
angels, and with this view shows that even the highest finite spHits
are only co-members of the great union which was established
through Christ and His death, and therefore stand in a friendly

508 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. ' [PART II.
relation to us, but only through Him, our and then Lord. Cer
tainly the atoning work of Jesus is not directly in question here,
as that from which this union results ; for diroKaraXXdtjai cannot
be understood of the reconcUiation of men with God, — a reference
which is excluded by the preposition et? avrov. It is a reconcUia
tion, the tendency of which is to Jesus, so that it must serve His
ends, in which He also appears as the first in everything, — every
thing being not only through Him, but also for Him. Now this
reconcUation is nothing but the mutual union of the members, —
this being also explained in elpr/voiroirjaav, which must be taken
transitively. In this reconcUiation and union of men, both
among themselves and also with the higher spirit-world, is in
cluded of course then reconcUiation with God, as without this
presupposition the former would not be possible. In becoming
chUdren of God through this reconcUiation and union, they also
become one with the chUdren of Hght in heaven ; and thus this
union foUows Bia tov a'iparov tov aravpov avrov.
According to this view, Christ is the Head not only of the Church
(Col. i 1 8), but also, and in entirely the same sense, of all super
natural principalities and poweVs (Col. H. 10 ; Eph. i 21, cf. Hi.
10 ; 1 Pet. Hi. 22); wherefore all these powers cannot sever us
from Him and the love of God in Him (Rom. viii. 38, 39). This
quite corresponds with the position which, as the instrument of
creation (Col. i. 1 6), He assumes over aU these powers. ( Through
Christ there is one great family of God in heaven and on earth
(Eph. iH. 1 5). Every race in heaven and on earth has its name
from the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ ; that is, that both the
earthly and also the heavenly famUy of God are called chUdren
through Him and by Him, and are therefore one great famUy (cf.
Eph. iii. 10). In Col. i 13 the BaaiXela tou vlov rrjv dydirrjv
avrov points to this great circle, of which, by means of the re
demption, we form a part.
According to Col. i 1 3, this kingdom is opposed by the power,
of darkness, which, under Satan, prevaUs among mankind by
means of sin and death (Eph. ii. 2, vi. 11, 12). In principle, it
is already subdued by the atoning death, of Christ (Col. H. 15 ;
1 Cor. xv. 24-28) ; but because the development of His kingdom
in His Church on earth is to realize this victory, it is therefore
continuously engaged in a conflict with the power of darkness.
In CoL i 13 the i^ovaia tov aKorovv, the power of (moral)

DIV. II. §87.] PAUL — CONSUMMATION OF SALVATION. 509
darkness, is mentioned, to which we belonged, as being under
an involuntary influence. The passage in the Epistle to the
Ephesians shows how this is to be understood, and that this
influence is based on a personal and wicked ruHng wiU. In
Eph. ii. 2 the igovala is the power of the kingdom of evU, which
is doubtless to be understood as being divided into a multitude
of individual beings. Its sphere is the air, 6 drjp. Its ruler is
the dpxcov — Satan, aaravdv (Rom. xvi. 20 ; 1 Cor. v. 5, vii. 5 ;
2 Cor. H. 11, xi. 14 ; 1 Thess. H. 18 ; 2 Thess. H. 9 ; 1 Tim. i
20, v. 15); BidBoXov (Eph. vi. 11 ; 1 Tim iH. 6, 7; 2 Tim. H
26) ; o irovrjpbv (Eph. vi 16 ; 2 Thess. Hi. 3 (?)) ; 6 ireipdfav
(1 Thess. Hi. 5) ; the Bebv rov al&vov tovtov (2 Cor. iv. 4). The
addition rov irvevparov (Eph. Hi. 2) shows that no physical being
or action is to be attributed to them, this power being thus de
scribed as spHituaUy active. In Eph. vi. 11, 12, this i^ovaia is
again looked upon as a pluraHty of wicked spirits, and the addi
tion ev toiv iirovpavioiv (cf. Eph. i 3, 20, ii. 6, Hi. 19) is probably
paraUel to the dr)p in Eph. H. 2, and is consequently to be taken
in a somewhat wider sense than elsewhere.
As may be gathered from Col. H. 15, these powers were in
principle overcome by the death of Jesus. He has despoUed them, —
that is, of theH power, — and having made a show of them openly,
hath celebrated His triumph over them. This is effected by the
power of sin over man, which was in theH hands, being broken
by His atoning deatk It is unquestionable that only wicked
spirits are here spoken of; for there was no disgraceful subjection
as regarded the good spHits, who acknowledged the rule of the
glorified Christ. Notwithstanding this victory in principle, the
power of the world of wicked spHits partially continues, just as
sin itseK. The conflict, therefore, agamst this power must also
be kept up (Eph. vi. 11, 12). The passage 1 Cor. xv. 24-28
shows that this conflict is a conflict carried on by the whole
kingdom of Christ, indeed by Christ Himself, and not by the
redeemed individually ; it must therefore result in certain victory
in the end.
S 8 7. The Consummation of Salvation, both for Individuals and
the Community.
However certain may be the ultimate victory in the conflict
with the kingdom of darkness, stiU Paul has neither looked upon

510 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
the conflict as one becoming less and less sharp, nor is the vic
tory Hi his view a gradual one. The hindrance is caused by the
energetic and positive nature of sin ; for this involves the fact
that sin wiU again and again concentrate its energy, and that,
therefore, in its progress of development, the opposition wUl more
and more tend to reach its culminating point. The conflict wiU
become sharper and sharper, although the final victory is none
the less certain. This train of thought entirely makes good the
' idea that the appearance of Antichrist wiU immediately precede
the manifestation of Christ (2 Thess. ii. 1-12).
The complete manifestation of Jesus is His diroKaXvtyiv (1 Cor.
i. 7 ; 2 Thess. i 7); irapovaia (1 Cor. i 8, or r/pepa, xv. 23;
1 Thess. ii. 19, iii. 13, iv. 15, v. 23 ; 2 Thess. ii. 1, 8); iiri-
cbdveia (1 Tim. vi. 14 ; 2 Tim. iv. 1 ; Tit. ii. 13) ; cbavepovaBai
(Col. Hi. 4). The most developed teaching on this point is given
in 1 Thess. iv. 13 ff. ; and this view is in harmony with the
description in Rom. xi. 25 ff. of the crisis brought on by the
conversion of the Jewish nation.
With the cessation of the conflict and the consummation of
the kingdom, the previous form of the kingdom itself also
changes. This is the sense of the passage (1 Cor. xv. 24-28),
according to which Christ gives up His dominion. After the
removal of aU opposition to the realization of salvation, God is
all in all ; and thus the order of things ceases in which Christ
rules His kingdom with a view of subduing aU opposition. The
last enemy which is to be overcome in this contest is death, and
this is done by the resurrection. But in this passage the ques
tion is undecided, whether, in Paul's view, this victory extends
to aU those who are subject to death, and that consequently all
shall enter into the number of those who in ver. 23 are described
as ot toO Xpiarov, — whether, indeed, the expression in ver. 28 is
to be taken in the fuUest and strongest sense of the word, or with
a certain Hmitation. On the other hand, there is no doubt that
the apostle has elsewhere spoken of an eternal damnation, and so
spoken, indeed, that it cannot be understood hypotheticaUy ; for
in 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10, he threatens an exclusion from God's king
dom ; likewise in 2 Thess. i 9 stUl more categorically. It is
especiaUy improbable that the apostle intended to give any hope
of restitution to the culmination of sin mentioned in 2 Thess. H. ;
therefore aU that we can say is, that the apostle in different

DIV. II. § 87.] PAUL— CONSUMMATION OF SALVATION. 511
sections speaks from different standpoints, and that, at aU events,
in his doctrinal system we have no tenable proof of any final
general abolition of sin.
The perfecting of the bodUy life is a special element in the
consummation of Christ's kingdom (2 Cor. v. 1 ff. ; 1 Cor. xv. ;
Phil. Hi 21). The most detaUed teaching as to the general
resurrection is given by the apostle in the passage 1 Cor. xv.
Christ is the first-born from the dead (CoL i 18 ; Rom. viii. 29 ;
1 Cor. xv. 20). His resurrection is foUowed by ours (1 Cor.
'xv. 23), and every one foUows iv rw IBlcp ray pan. The resur
rection itseK, the nature of which the apostle explains in 1 Cor.
xv. 35-50, takes place at Christ's return in a twofold mode : on
the one hand, it is an actual resurrection of the dead out of cor
ruption ; and on the other, as regards the Hving, it is only a
change (1 Cor. xv. 51 ff.).
The perfected position of believers is described as Bb^a (Rom.
v. 2, viii. 18 ; Eph. i 18), — a position to which they have been
destined from eternity (Rom. viii. 29, 30). This Bb%a of be
lievers depends upon the Bb%a of Christ, and is a participation in
Christ's glory (Rom. viH. 17, 29). It is therefore caUed "the
hope of glory " (Col. i 2 7), and is based on the divine fulness as
chiefly shown Hi His grace (Eph. i. 6); hence God is caUed (Eph.
i 17) o irarr/p rr)v Bbgrjv, and the glory destined for beHevers
(Rom. v. 2) Sofa tov Qeov.
In the remarkable passage Rom. viii. 19 ff, the Apostle Paul
has expressed the idea that the glorifying effect of the consum
mation of Christ's kingdom extends to the whole of creation, even
to impersonal nature. In this passage he extols the high blessed
ness of the Christian, although, indeed, not yet completed, but
stiU subject to sufferings ; and, in the first place, refers to the
position of the creation, which seems to point to some future
glorification, just as the position of Christians. Hence the glori
fication of the Christian forms an essential element of that glori
fication which is impending over the whole creation (vers.
19-23). That Kriaiv here refers to the inanimate creation, in
distinction from men, is clear, if we consider two points : on the
one hand, that a contrast to Christians is thus estabHshed ; and
on the other, the Kriaiv is not described as a subject burdened
by sin, but only as liable to paraioTr/v — perishableness. Lin
guistic usage, the predicates, and the connection of the section,

512 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
are aU in favour of this explanation Through the wiU of the
Creator, — for the lirordgav is God, and not either man or the
devil, — nature is subject to perishableness, which Hes upon it as
a curse. But as this curse, and the. woe thereof, are bound up
with the necessity of death, which is based upon sin (vers. 22,
23), so nature itself wUl have its share in the impending glorifi
cation of the chUdren of God (ver. 21). And as the present
incompleteness and needs of nature seem to point to their future
glorification, thus the view involved in this prediction is a war
ranty for the future glorification of the chUdren of God. The
connection between this view of the present and future position
of creation, and the hope of the human Hfe of Christians, is best
shown by a comparison of this section with the passage in 2 Cor.
v. 1-8, which is so aUied to the former in its whole tone, and
testifies so fuUy to the oppression exercised by the bodUy exist
ence and the longing for a heavenly clothing.
§ 88. Reference to God of the Restoration to Righteousness.
The apostle's teaching as to the person and work of Jesus, and
his acknowledgment of God as the eternal foundation of this
salvation, are comprehended by him Hi the prayer expressed in
2 Cor. xiii. 14, which, although only combining the three principles >
of salvation, stiU traces them back to theH divine causaHty, and
comprehends them in their unity. The words in 1 Cor. xv. 28,
that God wUl finaUy be aU Hi all, have an explanatory parallel
in another passage (Eph. iv. 6), according to which God is the
Lord exalted above us aU, who worketh through aU (i.e. makes
aU His instruments) and is in us aU, thus reaHzing for us a share
in His grace and love. Thus the apostle goes back to the highest
views of salvation having its beginning in the Divine Being ; but
he does not argue from them in the abstract, but only treats them
as a presupposition belonging to the great course of redemption.
In the separate points of the work of redemption, the various
divine attributes are therefore manifested in aU their greatness
and glory. Thus God's wisdom is shown therein in aU its mani
fold character (Eph. Hi. 10) ; also His love to those alienated from
Him (Rom. v. 8), and His grace (Eph. ii. 7) ; His righteousness
as modified by love (Rom. Hi 25, 26); His omnipotence as
quickening those both bodUy and spiritually dead (Eph. i 19, 20,
ii. 5; cf Eom. iv. 17, 21, 24). AU these attributes are manifested

DIV. II. §89.] PAUL'S SYSTEM COMPARED WITH OTHER N. T. SCRIPTURES. 513
both in the purpose and plan of the whole dispensation of salva
tion, and also in the separate stages and points of its realization,
to His eternal glorification (Rom. xi. 36 ; Eph. i 12-14, Hi. 21 ;
PhiL ii. 11). '
§ 89. Comparison of the Pauline System of Boctrine with other
Scriptures of the New Testament, especially the Epistle to
the Hebrews and the Writings of Luke.
As regards the writings of Luke, we have aHeady seen in the
introduction and the historical division of this part, that the real
groundwork of the Acts of the Apostles is to be found, not only
in the aim of representing the Apostle Paul as the divinely
authorized apostle of the GentUes, but also in the idea of the
universaHty of Christianity, which was so pre-eminently set forth
by Paul The author makes the apostle himseK briefly describe
the PauHne doctrine of justification in one of his discourses
(Acts xiH. 38, 39). Besides, both Paul himseK, in 1 Cor. xii. 1 ff.
and i. 7, Gal. iH. 2-14, and also the Acts of the Apostles, simi
larly represent the communication of the Spirit and the gifts of
the SpHit as the essential signs of Christianity (Acts H. 23, cf.
16-18 ; viii. 15-17 ; x. 44-47, cf. xi. 15-18 ; xix. 1-6). Our
first part has shown that Luke's Gospel, in the narratives and
discourses which it records, sets forth the PauHne idea of justifi
cation by faith in Jesus Christ without meritorious works. With
regard to this point, we must especially caU to mind the Christo
logy. The gospel commences with the supernatural conception,
and herein a contradiction has been found to the PauHne doctrine
of the pre-existence. But this entry into Hfe exactly corresponds
with the PauHne idea of Christ as a new starting-point of
humanity, and as the quickening SpHit. The pre-existing Divine
Being must, by some such event, caU into existence a Hfe in
humanity, which is of course presupposed as susceptible of the
same. Paul himself, moreover, has described the nature of Christ
as a higher principle by the terms irvevpa faoiroiovv, irvevpa
dyicoavvr/v. Adding to this the Pauline teaching as to the adp%
apapriav, and that the sinless Christ could only appear ev bpoicopan
aapKov, we see that, through the whole sphere of his ideas, it is
put forward that Christ could not enter humanity except under
the condition of the removal of the natural continuity, just as took
place, according to the gospel, Hi the supernatural conception. It
2K

514 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
is also remarkable that the same gospel traces back the genealogy
of Jesus, not merely to Abraham, but on to Adam, and through
him to God. Thus, entirely in conformity with the Pauline teach
ing and the universality of Christianity, Christ, as the second and
higher starting-point of Christianity, is placed Hi contrast to the
first man.
The Epistle to the Hebrews foUows very closely the PauHne
system, but yet it shows a certain independent development.
Points which Paul kept more in the background are made lead
ing ideas, — a fact which gives a pecuHar character to the teach
ing, — and PauHne doctrines are decidedly placed in a different
point of view. The former is especiaUy shown in the teaching
as to Christ ; the latter in the positions given to the old and new
covenants. The Epistle to the Hebrews also turns to the Jewish
Christians with a view of bringing home to them the peculiar
nature of Christianity; but this is done in a mUder and less
polemical mode, the- fundamental idea of which is the positive
connection existing between the new and higher and the earUer
ordinance. As regards the person of Christ, the Epistle to the Hebrews
foUows the Pauline passages which are fullest on the point. It
takes Christ to be the vlbv rov Qeov in the highest sense (ch. i 1,
cf. i 5, 8, iii 6, iv. 14, v. 5, 8, vi. 6, vii. 3, 28, x. 29), the irpco-
totokov (i. 6), who not only is to be placed above angels (i. 4 ff),
but in ver. 8 is plainly caUed God, with the attribute of everlast
ing existence (i 12). For He is the diravyaapa rrjv Bbgrjv, and
the xaPaKTVP T*7? viroardaecov of God (i 3). Quite in harmony
with this, He is also the agent in the creation of the world
(i. 10, i 2); appointed by the Father heir of aU things (i 2),
and the upholder of aU things by the word of His power (i 3).
In this exalted conception of Christ the epistle entirely foUows
Paul, although there is no absolutely certain passage in which
the latter caUs Christ God. In this epistle we do not find Him
designated as Logos, although in ch. iv. 12 f. certain predicates
are laid down for the word, which might lead us to beHeve that
the Logos is essentiaUy intended, although Hi the first place only
the preached word is spoken of.
By assuming human flesh and blood in behaK of the work of
redemption (irapairXrjaicov pereaxev, ch. ii. 14, as iv bpoiwpan
aapKov dp., Rom. viH. 3 ; cf. the rjpepai ttj? aapxbv avrov, Heb.

D1V.II.§89.] PAUL'S SYSTEM COMPARED WITH OTHER N.T. SCRIPTURES. 515
v. 7), this Son, instead of the joy which was before Him, trod the
path of suffering (Heb. xii 2). In order to take on Him the
seed of Abraham (ii. 16), He became in His humiliation a Httle
lower than the angels (ii. 9), and was Hable to the infirmities and
temptations of the human life (iv. 15), even to the necessity of
death (v. 7), and was like unto us in aU things, but was without
sin (iv. 15, vH. 26). And this it was necessary for Him to be
(ii. 17), K salvation (ii. 10, v. 9), a true reconcUiation (H. 17),
and a cleansing from sin (i 3), were to be estabHshed. For we
need such a Mediator and High Priest (vH. 26, iv. 15), who both
felt with us in our infirmities, and yet was separate from sinners
and exalted above the heavens. For on account of His sufferings
is He crowned (H. 9), and for the sake of His holy obedience is
He anointed (i 9), and exalted to the right hand of God in
heaven (i .3, 13, viii. 1, xii. 2), having received the most glorious
name (i 4) ; there He awaits the completion of His dominion
(x: 1 2 f. ; cf. 1 Cor. xv. 2 5) and the day of His glorious appear
ance (ix. 28).
This Christ is therefore exalted above Moses (Hi. 1 f.), and
even over the angels (i 4 ff.) ; consequently the covenant founded
through Him is superior to the " word spoken by angels" (ii. 1 ff),
just as in Paul's view (cf. Gal. iH. 19). Paul has also set forth
the pecuHarity of the person of Christ in contrast to the old
covenant (Gal. iv. 4 ; Rom. vHi. 3) ; but with him the anthro
pological development is always in the foreground1, whUst the
Epistle to the Hebrews endeavours ' to show that Christianity, in
vHtue of His person,-stands infinitely higher than the Old Testa
ment law, the latter being utterly unable to lead to that con
summation which belongs to the new covenant. In this the
distinction between the Old Testament and New Testament high
priests and sacrifices is chiefly pointed out. Christ is the High
Priest of our profession (iii. 1), caUed thereto by God (v. 5 ;
.according to the order of Melchizedek, v. 10, vi. 20), who has
the attributes of purity and dignity fitting Him to be the High
Priest of reconcUiation (H. 17) for the good things to come
(ix. 11), and is therefore exalted to the right hand of God (viH. 1).
-Christ fulfils this high-priestly office both by His death, and also
by His action in the heavenly sanctuary above. His death is a
holy sacrifice offered in blood (ix. 14), by means of the irvevpa
alwviov. By this sacrifice He has borne the sins of many (ix. 28),

516 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
and has effected a redemption from aU the transgressions which,
under the old covenant, could have found no certain redemption
(ix. 1 5, cf. x. 2 ; ix. 9). Inasmuch as He HimseK was saved
from death (v. 7), He has subdued the power of death, that is,
the devU (H. 14 f.), and by God's grace has died for aU (H. 9).
And He has also opened the new covenant as the promise of
the eternal inheritance (ix. 15), of which He is become the
Mediator (vHi 6, ix. 15; xii. 24), the Surety (vii. 22), and Shep
herd (xHi 20). Through this one offering He has restored the
perfect forgiveness of sins, and the new way of sanctification
(x. 14-18, cf. 22-25 and viH. 10 f), in which He is also the
type and the forerunner (vi 2 0, xii. 2). But, on the other hand,
this sacrifice, which is represented under the figure of death pro
ducing a testament (ix. 15 ff.), is also become the entry into His
second high-priestly ministry, into His heavenly high-priesthood.
In His death He HimseK is once for aU made perfect (ii 10,
v. 9, vH. 27 f, ix. 26 ff), and on account of it He has entered
His heavenly priesthood (ix. 24), in which He is constantly in
God's presence for the sake of His people (vH. 24 f.), and in the
perfect sanctuary performs the most exalted ministry (vHi. 1-6,
cf. x. 21). This culminating point of the ascension1 — the entry
into glory, and the ministry therein — is so forcibly set forth,'
that the resurrection, which is only once mentioned (xHi.20),
seems placed somewhat Hi the background.
This ministry of Christ is contrasted with the imperfect insti
tutions of the old covenant. The high priests of this covenant
were themselves sinful (vii. 27 f, ix. 7), and as sacrifices offered
nothing but the blood of . beasts (v. 1 ff.) ; hence these sacrifices
had constantly to be repeated. For although certain BiKauopara
were connected with this priesthood (ix. 1), these ordinances pro
duced no cleansing of the conscience (x. 2, ix. 9), but only of
the flesh (ix. 13, cf. 10), and are therefore caUed a vopov ivroXrjv
aapKivnv (vH. 16). They want the promise of the divine oath
(vH. 20, 28),- and are therefore become obsolete (viH. 13) ; their
weakness, deficiency, and unprofitableness are evident (viH 7 ff,
vH. 18). Thus the essential purpose of the Old. Testament ordi
nances appears to be that of leading on by then own imperfec
tion to something higher (vii. 19) ; they are an virbBeuypa and
aKid of heavenly things (vm. 5). All this is in harmony with
the PauHne ideas ; but the epistle almost exclusively urges this

DIV. II. § 89.] PAUL'S SYSTEM COMPARED WITH OTHER N.T. SCRIPTURES. 517
side of the question, and does not dweU, Hke Paul, on the law
and its dialectics. In the epistle Moses is chiefly only a Bepdircov
elv papriipiov r&v XaXrjBrjaopevcov (iH. 5)- The promises to
Abraham are indeed mentioned in the Pauline mode (vi. 13,
vii. 5) ; but principaUy the author takes a survey of the entire
field of pre-Christian revelation, viewing it as one of incomplete
preparation ; the speaking of God to the fathers through the pro
phets (iroXvpep&v and iroXvrpbirmv, i 1) and the word which was
spoken by angels (H. 2), being contrasted -with the word of salva
tion through the Son (cf. iii. 1).
Through Christ and His ministry Christianity appears as
something by means of which, in the place of the previous cultus,
with its temple, altar, and priesthood, and its material sanctuaries
and feasts typifying those above, a new standpoint of quite
another kind is laid down, in which everything refers only to
that which is invisible, supramundane, heavenly, and divine.
This is the immense revolution which Christianity brings, — that
religion is no longer bound up with any such external sanctuaries,
but that, through Christ, the eternal High Priest, the hoUest of
hoHes in heaven is dHectly opened to the redeemed, so that their
Hfe, guided by this heavenly tendency is henceforth a perpetual
worship of God. This heavenly holiest of holies is contrasted
with the earthly, material sanctuary, which only portrayed the
¦former. The newer, better, and eternal BiaBrJKr) (vii. 22, viii. 6 ff,
ix. 15 ff, xii. 24, xiii. 20), resting on the great, divine oath of
promise (vii. 28), hath brought eternal salvation (v. 9, cf. xiii 20).
Having become peroxoi Xpiarov (iii. 14), or His oIkov (iii. 6, He
being the Son therein), we have attained to a heavenly calling
(Hi. 1), heavenly gifts (vi. 4), heavenly things (ix. 23). We have
the way open to us into the true holiest of hoHes (vi. 1 9) ; the
heavenly Jerusalem, the future and abiding city, lies before us
(xii. 22, xiii. 14), where the rest and the Sabbath, into which
the ancients, on account of their want of faith, could not enter
(iii. 19, iv. 1), await us (iii. 9 ff). This perfect salvation is
looked upon as close at hand (x. 35 ff.) ; through words and
signs we have the Ml confidence of hope in it' (H. 1, iii. 4, 6),
and must cling to this hope to the end (vi. 11), Hi faith (iv. 3)
and in. patience (vi. 12 ff). For this purpose believers are
endowed with the gKts of the Spirit (ii. 4, vi 4, x. 29), and with
the assistance of the divine grace (iv. 16). They are therefore

518 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
to offer then whole Hfe to God as a sacrifice weU-pleasing to
Him, through the one High Priest by whom they are placed in
dHect connection with the heavenly hoUest of hoHes (xiii. 1 5 ff).
They have the high privilege of participating in the sacrifice
offered, which was a thing not permitted to those who served the
tabernacle ; that is, they can avaU themselves of the spiritual
appropriation of Christ's sacrifice, which penetrates into the whole
Christian Hfe (ver. 10), by means of which are brought about
the promise of the law written in the heart (viH. 10 ff), the purg
ing of the conscience from dead works to serve the Hving God
(ix. 14), and an entire purification and perfect corresponding to
the heavenly character of the new covenant (cf. x. 14-18, 22-25).
The difficulty of justifying themselves, if they have not remained
faithful, corresponds with the greatness of their caUing (vi 4 ff,
ii 1 ff, x. 26, xH. 12 ff).
In its subjective appropriation faith appears as essential, and
especiaUy in its reference to the atoning death of Christ (x 22,
cf. xi. 40) ; but it is also brought home to the Jewish-Christian
reader by showing that it was faith by which, from the very
beginning, man became weU-pleasing to God (ch. xi). The idea
of faith is thus modified in a way which has called forth the
assertion that this idea has nothing in common with Paul's.
But what we read in ch. xi is' nothing but a pecuHar shaping
and application of the PauHne idea of faith, the roots of which
modification closely border on the conceptions in Rom. iv. In
the Epistle to the Hebrews, in the question of acceptance
with God, faith is made the necessary point (xi 6) ; and faith is
justifying and saving, so far as it takes a Hvely grasp on
God's heavenly promises, (xi 1, 39 f), and the irarplv is sought
(xi 14,16).
The Epistle to the Hebrews is an element of our canon which is
full of meaning, and, from the pecuHar position which it assumes,
of great value. It completes and supplements the Pauline
system, showing what might grow out of this field of doctrine.
By the conclusions which it begins to take, and its greater rest
and positiveness in the conception of the distinction between
Christianity and the old covenant, it forms an evident transition
to John's system of teaching.

DIV. II. § 90,] JOHN — AUTHORITIES FOR HIS SYSTEM OF DOCTRINE. 519

II. THE APOSTOLICAL TEACHING OF JOHN.
§ 9 0. Our Authorities for John's System of Bactrine.
Our view of the matter differs from that of those who take the
whole of John's Gospel, including the discourses of Jesus which
are recorded in it, as authorities for John's system of doctrine.
The historical portion — that is, the history and the discourses of
Jesus — belongs to the Messianic period. It has been asserted that,
if the discourses of Jesus recorded by John are compared with
the first Epistle of John, there is a pecuHar affinity between the
two, not only in tone and style, but also Hi purport, so that no
difference of doctrine between them can be affirmed. There, is,
nevertheless, a very remarkable and unmistakeable difference.
The idea of the Logos having been incarnate in Jesus of Nazareth
• is pecuHar to the fourth gospel ; but in the discourses recorded
by John this term Logos is never made to proceed from the Hps
of Jesus Himself. In other points, also, the didactic matter of
the first Epistle of. John goes further than the discourses attributed
by the apostle to Jesus. This is the case in the way in which
the epistle speaks of the death of Jesus, and of Jesus as the tXaapbv
irepl r&v dpapri&v (ch. ii. 2 ; iv. 10, cf. i 7) ; also that the blood
of Jesus cleanses from aU sin, and that He was the propitiatory
sacrifice, is not expressed by Jesus Himself Hi John's Gospel
when He speaks of His death (John Hi. vi x. xii. xvH). The
epistle speaks also of Christ's irapovaia .(ch. H. 28), which is not
mentioned in this way Hi Jesus' discourses recorded by John.
Certainly in the fareweU discourses, especiaUy ch. xvi., He speaks
of His coming again; but together with an intimation of the
resurrection a spiritual coming is there meant. The irapovaia of
the epistle is, however, a glorious coming for judgment (ch. H 28,
iv. 17), as Hi the Synoptists. Moreover, in the epistle, a fuU
confidence in the hearing of prayer is expressed, but prayer in the
name of Jesus is not mentioned. John speaks of the x/3to-/ta of
believers (1 John H. 20, 27), in vHtue of which they obtain divine
. knowledge and true consecration. Jesus says nothing of this, or
of the peculiar idea expressed in 1 John v. 6, 7. John applies
the term SidBoXov (1 John Hi 8, 10, cf. John xiH.. 2) to the
same subject whom Jesus caUs, the apx^iv rov Koapov tovtov
(John xH 31, xiv. 30, xvi 11 ; cf., however, John viH. 44). , An

520 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
accurate comparison wUl, in general, show that in the epistle the
ideas are more worked out, and that consequently the type Of
doctrine is far less developed in the discourses of Jesus than in
the apostle's writings.
As regards the gospel, we may notice that John records certain
utterances of Jesus, with the remark that they were at that time
not rightly understood by the apostles (John ii. 19-22; vii.
37-39, cf. xii. 33). He therefore clearly distinguishes the
thoughts of Jesus, from those of the apostles, and consequently
from his own personal ideas. It has been incorrectly asserted
that John has aUowed the discourses of Jesus, and also of other
persons, to merge without distinction into his own statements.
In the important passage, John Hi, an accurate consideration
wUl show that the whole train of thought, as a discourse of Jesus,
foUows quite naturaUy from the situation, and that the limits
of the discourse are weU defined. Against the Pharisaical opinion
which awaited the Messianic judgments on the Gentiles, Jesus
states that He had not come to condemn the world but to save
it (vers. 16-18); and to this foUows the idea that the love of
Hght forms an element of faith (vers. 1 9—2 1), by which idea it
was requisite for Nicodemus to be tested. It is just the same in
other analogous cases in the gospel, such as the discourse of the
Baptist (John Hi. 27-36), which keeps entirely within the Hmits
of the Baptist's ideas ; for the view of the gift of the Spirit with
out measure and of the wrath of God belongs only to the Baptist
and not to the evangelist, and what is. said about the "Son of
God" refers only to the event which took place at our Lord's
baptism. The length of these discourses is no argument against
their authenticity. .That which has remained impressed on the
apostle's memory is quite of an individual character ; and, looking
at the participation enjoyed by John in the feelings and life of
our Lord, these reminiscences must not be meted out with any
scanty measure. If in the form, tone, and style of Jesus' dis
courses we find a harmony with John's form, tone, and style, this
only goes to prove that the disciple had thoroughly adopted and
elaborated in his own mind the teaching of his Master, and can
afford no argument for throwing- doubt on the essential faithful
ness of the record, and for removing aU distinction between the
teaching of Jesus as historicaUy recorded by John and the latter's
own personal ideas. It is, however, inherent Hi the nature of the

DIV. II. § 90.] JOHN— AUTHORITIES FOR HIS SYSTEM OF DOCTRINE. 521
question that we should meet with the contrasts of light and
darkness, and of Hfe and death, both in the discourses of Jesus
and also in the writings of John. In these ideas a fundamental
view is involved, which a disciple might, indeed must, have
adopted from Jesus, which, too, is generaUy essentiaUy Christian
in its character. We are therefore everywhere justified in affirm
ing a Johannean system, which is distinguished from the teaching
of Jesus as recorded by John.
The direct sources for the Johannean system of teaching which
can be derived from the gospel, are, in the first place, the pro
logue (John i 1-18), and the short conclusion (John xx. 30 £).
Next, we have certain statements which the apostle adds on his
own account, especiaUy the interpretation of some of Jesus' utter
ances, as in ch. ii and vH, xi. 51 f., xH. 33 ; added to these, we
may compare the passage in which he concludes the account of
Jesus' pubHc ministry (John xii. 37 ff). Other passages may be
adduced, but doubtfuUy ; that in ch. ii 24 f. must in any case be
added. But in another point of view the whole gospel is of course
of value for our purpose, as pointing out the events and discourses
which appeared to the apostle to be of special importance, and
were consequently impressed upon his memory ; thus also his
often brief remarks are supplemented and made clear.
The Apocalypse must be, in the first place, radicaUy compared
with the Gospel and Epistles of John The line of thought on
which the former is based, bears at aU events a relation of
essential affinity to the latter, although unmistakeable differ-,
ences exist. Christology and eschatology are pre-eminently de
veloped in the Apocalypse, and Hi regard to both these subjects
it may be said to take a middle place between the systems of
Paul and John. In the first place, the idea of the Logos may be
found in it, but it is only applied with a special reference :
Christ, as the 7rto-To? xal dXnBivbv (Rev. xix. 11), who iv BiKaio
avvr) Kpivei ical iroXepei, is caUed 6 Xoyov rov Qeov. With these
predicates something is connected which appears to point to the
atonement: He is said. to be "clothed in a vesture dipped in
blood." ' The modern view, which looks upon the Christ of the
Apocalypse as described with an Arian or Ebionite tendency,
does not aUow due weight to various passages, especially those
where the same divine worship is paid to Christ as to the Father
(ver. 13), and Christ is caUed the A and il (xxii 13). If the-

522 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
opinion that gives a very early origin to the Apocalypse were
confirmed, it could be the more easUy explained how in many
respects it differs so remarkably from John's writings, and yet in
many comes very close to them. The copious development of the
eschatology, which goes further even than that Hi the Epistle to
the Thessalonians, cannot be taken as any certain sign of a differ
ence of doctrine. Added to this, throughout the whole book the
question occurs, how much must be placed to the account oiform,
and what relation is borne to this by the subjectivity of the
author ? The more objective in its character the prophetic glance,
the less are we permitted to place everything to the account of
the person. If we reflect on the ' character of Old Testament
prophecy, and on the groundwork based in the recesses of the
human mind, giving rise to an intuitive view which is something
different from common dreaming or meditation, we shaU indeed
acknowledge that the modification of the prophetic view is
affected by individuality, but must also recognise the objective
force as a factor therein ; and a due regard to this should guide
us and impose caution in the judgment to be passed on the pur
port of the prophecy.
§ 91. Characteristics and Arrangement of John's System of
Teaching.
John's system of doctrine belongs Hi its character to the
second fundamental form of apostoHc teaching, — that, namely,
which chiefly comprehends Christianity in its distinction from
the old covenant. In his view, the gospel is grace and truth in
Christ Jesus (John i 17, cf. 14), and is indeed contrasted with
the law given by Moses. We have therefore placed together,
face to face, grace and trutH and the law — Christ and Moses.
His standpoint is thus denoted to be Christological. The pecuHar
character of Christianity as compared with the ,Iaw is not shown
by him in its effect upon men, although this is of course implicite
involved in the idea of grace and truth, but he represents the
contrast as exhibited in the persons of the authors in an objec
tive point of view on both sides. By this view John is distin
guished from Paul, who, acting Hi a contrary way, when he most
emphaticaUy sets forth the distinction between the two cove
nants, is not Hi the habit of referring to the personaHty of Christ
as contrasted with a mere man such as Moses, but rather to the

DIV. II. § 91.] JOHN — CHARACTERISTICS AND ARRANGEMENT. 523
subjective effects of each. John's system is, on the other hand,
evidently aUied, as regards this point, to the Epistle to the
Hebrews, which, in the first place (ch. i. 1-3), shows the differ
ence between the Son and the prophets, and then, from the Old
Testament, proving Him . to be God, goes on further to base the
whole pecuHarity of Christianity on the special nature of Christ,
who was an High Priest entirely different from that of the old
covenant. The Epistle to the Hebrews thus forms a transition
to John's system. But John does not polemicaUy assert the
peculiarity of Christianity as compared with the old covenant ;
and however significantly he may set forth the contrast between
them, he appears to be in quiet possession of his views, and
therefore proceeds quite simply to state their peculiarity posi
tively, without any controversy. He takes Christ as his ground
work, and, however much he may set forth His death, he dweUs
upon His person more than upon His work When he speaks of
Christ, he regards Him less predominantly than Paul as the dead
and risen Christ. These points are estabHshed in his system, but
they are included in the person of Christ as he views it, in which
he comprises everything which concerns Him. According to
John i 14, Christ HimseK is fuU of grace and truth : it not only
comes by Him, but is in Him, because He is the Only-begotten
of the Father, and endowed with glory. Because he had beheld
this glory in Him, he wrote the gospel which most clearly of aU
represents Him as irXrjpnv p^a/atTo?. For this reason, at the be
ginning of his gospel he placed the prologue, in which, from the
very first, he fixes his glance on Christ, and, indeed, on His
divinely incarnate nature. So also in his epistle (1 John i 1-3)
he makes Christ the groundwork : everything which he announces
as Christian truth is included by him in that which his eyes had
seen and his hands had handled,— that is, in the person of Christ
Himself. And in this point of view the Apocalypse also is
genuinely Johannean, if we consider its commencement (i 4-8),
and also the messages to the churches in the three first chapters,
all of which proceed upon the person of Jesus.
From this it is clear that the distinctive character of John's
system is constituted by his assuming a theological, and not an
anthropological standpoint as Paul (with the exception of the
Epistle to the Colossians). He takes the principle of aU life as
his groundwork, and then descends to all the matters presented

524 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
to him by experience. But in his view the theological stand
point is identical with the Christological, because this very prin
ciple of Hfe is in Christ, and the Father is known through the
Son (John i 18). This standpoint is, moreover, an objective one.
The divine nature as it is in Christ is not, in the first place, con
sidered in its communication to men ; but eternal Hfe in Christ is
first regarded per se, although he also goes on to represent its com
munication to the world. Christianity could, however, be viewed
in this Hght only after Paul's great contest against the Judaistic
conception of it had been brought to a successful issue. With
.regard to Paul almost entirely confining his arguments derived
from the Christology to the Epistle to the Colossians, we may
remark > that this epistle was addressed to a district near to that
in which the ministry of John found its principal scene, and that
it was caUed forth by the commencement of a system of gnosis
which tended to alter Christianity. Similar inducements may
have brought to maturity the tendency which was rooted in
John's personal individuality.
It naturally results that the statements of this apostle, who
more than any other takes a speculative tendency, and affords
the commencement of a Christian gnosis corresponding to his
personal character and the historical relation of his writings,
bear an intuitive rather than a dialectical stamp. From the
profound tranquillity of his inner life of faith there springs forth
a conception of Christian truth, — a conception which rests on an
intuitive contemplation, and, although entering upon the form of
an idea, does not bring it out to fuU development. The truth
appears in wide, comprehensive ideas, which, however, are not
analyzed as by Paul, whose doctrine also took its rise from an
inward experience. These ideas are so very comprehensive, and
so deficient in strict division and Hmitation, that it is very diffi
cult to exhaust them as a subject. The intuitive tendency is
also a speculative one. This we can foUow out -not only where
he enters upon the field of the divine origin of things, but also
where he deals with a more practical subject, and can pursue it
up to the subjective expression of the principle ; the stress laid
upon the idea of love certainly forming an element in this.
From this exposition of its character, we see that the develop
ment of John's teaching must be based on God, and indeed
objectively — not, therefore, on the divine fellowship, but on the

DIV. II. §92.] JOHN — GOD IN CHRIST; THE WORD. 525
nature of God manKested in Christ. It wiU then treat in the
first place of Christ, and through Him of the Father and the Son.
It then goes on to speak of the world, and the relation borne by
God to the world and mankind, both as they originaUy were, and
as they have become.- Lastly, it considers the world in its fel
lowship with God through Christ, — the work and result of the
atonement. We shall therefore divide John's teaching into the
three foUowing main sections : —
God in Christ.
The World and Mankind.
The FeUowship of the World with God through Christ.
§ 92. God in Christ — The Word, the Only-begotten Son.
The idea of the Son as the incarnate divine Word is set
forth by John in the prologue to his gospel (i 1-18), with
which we must compare the brief hints expressed in the com
mencement of the first Epistle (o Xoyov rrjv farjv, 1 John i 2),
and also the Xoyov tov Qeov (Rev. xix. 13) as a mysterious name
of Christ. The idea of this Logos must, however, be derived from
the prologue to the gospeL We must of course seek to obtain
our conception of it from a dHect source, rather than from any
history of its development outside the New Testament. Some
external cause might have influenced John to make use of this
designation in describing the divine nature in Christ : he might
have found the Alexandrine idea of the Logos current in Asia
Minor, Ephesus having then an active intercourse with Alex
andria, not only of a mercantile, but also of an inteUectual
character. We are, however, by no means justified in supposing
that John appropriated this idea in the very shape in which it
prevailed Hi the Alexandrine Jewish phUosophy, but must be
forehand take the standpoint of developing out of John's con
nection of thought the modification of the idea of the Logos
which is pecuHar to him. There was a false gnosis, which was
then commencing to prevaU in Asia Minor, and, creeping into
Christianity, sought to obtain the pre-eminence and mould it
according to its own notions ; this must be looked upon, even more
than the Alexandrine idea of the Logos, as the inducing cause of
the pecuHarity of John's prologue, and the whole of his teaching
as to Christ. But, on the other hand, the basis of this pecuHarity
Hes much deeper, Hi the natural disposition of the apOstle himself,

526 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART IL
as we venture to imagine it, and also in the whole of his ten
dency to view the divine nature as the primitive existence. It
was therefore not only the expression of his own personal con
sciousness, but also a consideration for the special needs of the
times in which he lived, and the cHcumstances surrounding him,
which guided the apostle. In the prologue, he gives the result
and the quintessence of aU that, as a faithful witness of Jesus, he
had to relate as to His life and discourses ; at the same time, he
states the point of view from which they are to be regarded.
The Synoptists Matthew and Luke preface their account of
Christ's pubHc appearance with a history of His earthly origin,
and also with a human genealogy, and thus, manifest the character
pecuHar to them of keeping to the historical side of His appear
ance; John, however, on the other hand, traces back Christ's
appearance to that which is eternal and primordial, giving, as it
were, a divine genealogy. For it is this divine element in Him
which John chiefly seeks to depict and to adopt as his starting-
point. In giving our attention to the purport of this prologue, we meet
with a twofold purpose in it, — to depict the divine Word, both in
His nature and operation, and also in His human appearance. As
regards the former, we must distinguish between the relation of
the Word to God and His relation to the world. The apostle
commences, " In the beginning was the Word," iv dpxfi (ver. 1).
This dpxv is evidently something entirely different from that
named in Mark i 1, where the commencement of the gospel is
simply meant. It is also not the historical beginning in contrast
to the mere existence of the world, for the contrast to the world
does not occur until ver. 3, and then in a much mora forcible way.
These words, eV dpxv, may be best compared wjfh the JT'tf'N'13
in Gen. i 1, creation being there compared vJtjfe aU temporal
existence ; but if this expression conveys the ide Jof the transition
to a temporal state of being, John's iv dpxfi is distinguished from
it by carrying us to a period antecedent to aU this creation (cf. John
xvH. 5), and thus pointing to that which is primordial and ante-
mundane. The words irdvra iyevero (ver. 3) lead to this con
clusion. The Logos being " Hi the beginning," His relation to
God is thereby declared. He is distinguished from God, for He
is irpbv rov Qebv, with God, in feUowship with God. But this is
also a denoting of unity ; and how this unity is to be understood

DIV. II. § 92.] JOHN — GOD IN CHRIST ; THE WORD. 527
follows from the words Qebv r)v 6 Xoyov, Qebv being the predicate.
As we may and must clearly presuppose the unity of God, the
effect of these words would be, that the Logos was one with God,
in that way that He might be distinguished, but not divided from
God. Thus the words Qebv r)v 6 Xbyov do not form an antithesis
to o A.670? r)v irpbv tov Qebv, neither are they identical with it ;
they express the same idea in a more forcible and definite mode.
They are, in fact, a new predicate which sets forth the distinction
of persons Hi unity. And this unity is not to be catachresticaUy
understood ; but the more forcibly the gospel sets forth the principle
of monotheism (John xvii. 3, v. 44), the more must the Logos,
who, according to John, " was God," be considered as actuaUy one
with the divine essence. This idea contains, therefore, much
more than the words eiKcov Qeov.
We must now consider the relation of the Logos to the world.
The existence of the world is referred to Him as the agent of
creation. The word Bid conveys the idea, not of the first and
original cause, but of a causaHty bringing it about as an agent.
The apostle is not content with this general indication of the re
lation of the Logos to the world, but goes on to point out how
this relation. is to be more definitely understood, and also to add a
new element of connection. In the Logos was Hfe (ver. 4) ; and
being Hfe Hi HimseK, through Him aU things might be created, —
through Him, who, as the Hving One, might be the active cause of
a Hfe existing outside HimseK. But inasmuch as Hfe was in
Him, and went from HUn to the world, He was the source of Hfe.
The apostle expresses this Hi the words that " He was the Hght of
men" (ver. 4). The term far) conveys the idea of the general
principle of Hfe, both spHitual and bodily ; in cb&v this principle is
more strictly defined as that which enHghtens in a spHitual point
of view. But we can hardly Hmit this idea to any particular
period in man's history, and must look upon it as intended to
apply generaUy. Ver. 4, which is closely connected with ver. 3,
introduces us to the whole scope of the history of mankind.
Having made its appearance among men, this Hght became mani
fest as a sanctifying principle in the midst of a dark world. It
shineth in darkness (ver. 5), which is expressed as present, this'
• Hght being a continuous one. This exposition, extending to the
fifth verse, opens the way for that which the apostle had to state
as to the appearance of Christ during his own time. On this point

528 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
he expresses himseK in the first place but briefly, showing that this
principle of enUghtenment and sanctification had not come forth
in the Baptist ; and although the latter was " sent from God," yet
his vocation only extended to bearing witness of the Hght (vers.
6-8). Next, he again goes on to foUow out still further the opera
tion of the Logos among mankind. The first point is, that . the
Logos had been at aU times the principle of spHitual enUghtenment.
Another stage of the mamfestation is, however, intimated Hi vers.
9, 10 : the Hght came into the world, and shone in it as a true
Hght, but also as a principle which met with opposition among
men. Although He was " in the world, and the world was made
by Him," nevertheless the world, which was " His own," every
where resisted Him (vers. 1 0, 1 1) ; but in those who do not
oppose Him, His nature and His efficacy are so manKested, that
they, by faith in His name, became children of God, as if born of
God (vers. 12, 13). And now foUows the thHd stage of His
agency. Not only does the Logos produce spHitual enlightenment
among men, but He has appeared and dwelt among them, so that
they could behold His glory (ver. 14 ff). He appeared in the
world in the flesh, individuaHzed as a man. The above-named
ideas constitute the train of thought which runs through the pro
logue, and make up the predicates which are attributed to the
' Logos. The question now arises, what idea we have to form of the
Logos, according to the data laid down by John ? In solving this
question, we must avaU ourselves both of the interpretation of the
term itself, and also of the historical development of the idea.
The detaUs of the prologue shut out most of the explanations of
the idea which are derived from the word itseK. Thus we cannot
understand the Logos to mean that which is elsewhere caUed in
the Scriptures the " word of God," — that is, the truth which had
been previously hidden, but is now revealed through Christ, — -an
interpretation which has been given to it both in ancient and
modern times. For, according to the features developed in John's
prologue, the Logos is not revealed truth, but, first and foremost, the
creative principle of the world. We are also unable to look upon
o X.070? = o Xeybpevov — the promised One. The latter even would
be a forced mode of expression, and using X070? for Xeybpevos
would be stiU worse. Added to this, Christ is not anywhere ex
pressly caUed the " promised One." Moreover, the high conclusion

DIV. II. § 92.] JOHN— GOD IN CHRIST; THE WORD. 529
which John, in the prologue, derives from the creative agency of
the Logos forbids such interpretations as Lehrer's, o Xeycov rd rov
Qeov, the auctor verbi divini, the founder of Christianity. The idea
is also excluded that X.070? = 6 Xeycov = auctor doctrince, — effectus
pro ejficiente being used metaphoricaUy. The fact ot Christ being
a teacher is not set forth in the prologue, except in ver. 18 ; and
even there it is not through His word that He " declares the
Father," but by His being the incarnate Logos, and as the Logos
the principle of all creative and reveaHng divine action. But
the term itseU decidedly opposes any such interpretation : X.670?
stands everywhere, not for the speaker or the teacher, but for the
matter spoken (cf. Ps. xxxHi. 6, cxlvii. 15, 18). According to all
bibUcal usage, God is He who speaks, and ^070? is that which
is spoken by Him; in Philo, too, the absolute God is caUed
0 Xeycov or XaX&v even in His relation to the A.070?, who is named
the pr)pa rov d'iBlov. FinaUy, John's description of the nature
and agency of the Logos is just as Httle in favour of interpreting
it to mean ratio = reason or wisdom. Although these ideas may
form points in the conception of the Logos, it cannot be said of
wisdom as a divine attribute, Qebv rjv b Xoyov, neither is the de
claration of the incarnation directly compatible with either of
these explanations. Nowhere, however, in the Scriptures generaUy
does the idea of the word (A.070?, "n'J) occur for the attribute of
wisdom ; and in this passage especiaUy the relation expressed to
X^-piv and dXrjBeia (vers. 10, 16, 17) shows that the conception
of the Logos must be of a much more comprehensive nature.
According to all the predicates which are here appHed to it,
the word Logos can be nothing else but an expression for God
HimseK, considered in His creative, operative, self-revealing, and
communicating character. We are, moreover, led to the same
conclusion, if we glance at the historical course of development of
this idea, and compare it with John's conception. We have to
foUow the development ot the idea of the Logos from its basis,
rooted in the Old Testament, through the paths of apocryphal
literature down to the Alexandrine gnosis. On Old Testament
ground, the word is presented to us by the creative, operative,
and thus declaratory action of God (as He who speaks). God as
operating and seH-revealing is sometimes represented chiefly on
the side of His power (He speaks and it is done), sometimes on
the side of His wisdom. The latter is forcibly set forth in Prov.
SL

530 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES, [PART II.
viii. and Job xxviii, and in the Apocrypha in Ecclus. xxiv. The
last passage and Wisd. SoL vii. represent both the original relation
of wisdom to God, and also its operation in the world, — the latter,
indeed, as a taking up its abode among men (Bar. iii. 9, 4). The
wisdom which was among the Jewish nation is the law of God.
Moreover, in the Book of Wisdom, as an Alexandrine work, this
wisdom is not only personified, but also such attributes are
appHed to it, that in some passages it seems doubtful whether it
is not actuaUy looked upon hypostaticaUy as an emanation from
God. Furthermore, in addition to the wisdom, the power of God
is set forth*, and so set forth, that wisdom itseK is caUed iravro-
Bvvapiv (vH. 23), and also the energetic divine Word is represented
as appearing in the form of a person (Wisd. Sol. xviH. 15), — a
form which is taken from the appearance of the destroying angel
(1 Chron. xxi. 15). The way in which the UHmitable operation
of God is thus described sometimes by aocbia, and sometimes by
X.070?, rendered it but a short step to combine the two Hi the
word X070?, — a step, too, which in the linguistic domain of the
Greek language might readUy be looked for. This step is taken
in PhUo's theory. He makes the Logos the essence of the divine
power ; but both His nature and relation to the absolute God are
kept in such mystic obscurity, that it is difficult to decide whether
an hypostasis is actuaUy intended or not. The arguments which
have been brought forward in modern times in favour of the
former view can scarcely be considered as convincing. This re
mark applies to the predicate dpxdyyeXov ; for PhUo appHes the
term cvyyeXov even to the divine powers which are certainly not
hypostaticaUy viewed, and, on the other hand, calls the absolute
God Himself dpxdyyeXov, without any idea of identifying Him
with His powers. It also appHes to the expression 0 Bevrepov Qebv,
which might apply to the absolute God Himself looked upon in
another point of view.
However we may decide this question, there is in any case a
great difference between the views as to the Logos held by John
and PhUo respectively. We see this from our inability to com
pare the immanent Logos of John with the immanent Logos of
PhUo. The appearance of the Logos in Philo corresponds to His
incarnation in John ; but the independence which, according to
the former author, the Logos has, or appears to have, is already
His property, in John's view, even prior to the incarnation. In

DIV. II. § 92.] JOHN— GOD IN CHRIST; THE WORD. 531
like manner PhUo only metaphorically gives the name of Bevrepov
Qebv to the Logos ; but John calls Him Qebv in the strictest
didactic sense, not, however, supposing two hypostases as two
natures, but identifying Him with God on one side, and, on the
other, distinguishing him from God. The Logos is God, as He
whose person can be distinguished, who brought about the exist
ence and Hfe of the world. Further, instead of the physical
antithesis of light and darkness, the moral contrast is set forth by
John (John i 5) ; and in connection with this, instead of PhUo's
docetic 6'i/rt? of the divinity in the Messiah, we have in John the
actual incarnation of the Word (John i 14).
Our glance, therefore, at the historical course of development
points out to us the starting-points of this doctrine even in the
Old Testament ; but, on comparing John's idea of the Word with
the stamp of the Alexandrine doctrine of the Logos, we cannot
faU to remark the decided originaHty of the former, which, indeed,
can only be explained by an historical reference to Jesus. With
the latter order of development John's teaching has but this
point in common, that the Logos is the expression for the principle
of the essential manifestation of God ; and this historical parallel
assists in setting aside the ambiguous interpretations of the idea
which we before aUuded to. Besides this, the predicates which
are ascribed to the Logos distinguish Him so essentiaUy, that
the precise definition of the idea may be clearly gathered from
the train of thought in the prologue itseK. John plainLy iden
tifies the Word with God ; the result therefore is that the former
must be in his view something more than a divine power, and
that he must rather have considered the Logos as the sum-total
of aU divine power (cf. ver. 14). We may now take into account
the name of Logos, which is appHed Hi the Apocalypse (xix. 13)
to the self-same Person, who unites in HimseK the divine powers
— the e7TTa irvevpara (Hi. 1) — which are represented under the
symbols of the eirrd KepaTa and eirrd bcbBaXpoi (v. 6), referring
both to omnipotence and omniscience. This sum-total of the
divine power, which is identical with God Himself, can be neither
an emanated power, nor a divine substance apart from God : it is
only distinguished, but not apart from God. The Logos, in John s
idea, is God as a reflection and manKestation of Him ; but although
reflected, He is so essentiaUy God, that in Him aU the fulness of
the Godhead dwells, and nothing in it is aHen to Him. The

b

532 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
Logos constitutes the whole element of God which is manifested
in the world ; and, as the reflection of God, it is He through
whom the origin, continuance, and perfection of the world are
brought about. With this we must compare what Jesus Himself
said (John v. 26) as to His fiHal relation to the Father, — that
the Father had given to Him to have Hfe Hi HimseK, but as
imparted. The words o Xo'70? rfjv faijv (1 John i 1) must be
referred to the idea of the Logos laid down in the prologue to the
gospeL Some expositors have, indeed, understood X070S in this
passage Hi its ordinary meaning of " teaching," and have taken the
teaching as to life, with the aim of the communication of life, as the
object of that which the apostle had perceived by his senses, —
which object, however, had been pre-ordained by God from the
beginning of the world. Attempts have, indeed, been made to
explain the words r)v air dpxrjv as the commencement of the office
of the apostles as teachers ; but this view at once faUs to the
ground if we compare the parallel in the second verse, rrjv far)v
rr)v alcoviov ijnv r/v irpbv tov irarepa, etc. But the declarations
b ewpdicapev and b aKr/Koapev altogether point to a person, con
sidering that the personal appearance of Jesus always takes the
lead in John's fundamental view. The whole context from vers.
1-3 seems to show that in the X070? tj}? farjv a personal X070?
is intended, who is identical with the Son mentioned in ver. 3, of
whom alone (as the X070?) it could rightly be stated that they
had seen Him. The neuter gender being used only goes to show
that John desHed to speak somewhat generaUy and indetermi
nately in order the better to display the principle involved in
the idea. With the exception of the prologue, this is the only
passage Hi which the Logos is spoken of; for both from the
weight of external evidence, and from the context, we are unable
to consider the passage 1 John v. 7 as genuine.
In considering the further declarations which are made as to
Him who is caUed the Word by John, we find it stated that " in
Him was Hfe," indeed that He HimseK was the life; also, that
He was the light and the only-begotten Son of the Father,
endowed with glory, being one with the Father. In the prologue
(John i 4) it is said, " In Him was Hfe ; " in John's first Epistle
(1 John i 1) He is caUed o X070? tj}? farjv, and in the second
verse simply r) farj. In the first verse the two ideas are com
bined, and hence the necessity arose of giving an explanation of

DIV. II. § 92.] JOHN— GOD IN CHRIST; THE WORD. 533
both ; and according to this, the far) having been manifested, the
Logos is the subject of human experience, inasmuch as they
have seen the IKe, and preach it as that "which was with the
Father" (ver. 2). The Logos is therefore the Hfe. Life is, in
John's view, a very comprehensive idea. In its proper sense it
is an attribute of God, and a deeper meaning is involved when
the Hfe is transferred to men. In John v. 26 Jesus Himself
represents the Father as fav, having Hfe in Himself absolutely.
Nevertheless He is not directly caUed the life — a designation
which is only given to the Son. The cause for this is, that the
Son is the manKestation of the divine life, and is thus the source
of it for us. As God is the independent Hving Being, from whom
aU real existence proceeds, so is the Logos Hfe in HimseK, although
He has received it as imparted by the Father, and is the principle
of life especiaUy for mankind. AU real life — the real vital
energy, both spHitual and bodUy — is contained in that which
springs from Him. He is also called the light (John i 4, 5, 9).
The term " Hght" is, however, very generaUy made use of by John
as a designation for the divine nature (1 John i. 5-7) ; it is
also employed by Philo in the same way. God is looked upon
as Hght Hi virtue of His spHitual existence as a self-conscious
Being, who, as such, is in HimseK holy and good. The Son is
Hkewise Hght, inasmuch as He is life, which, being in itself
intelUgent and holy, communicates to the world the fulness of
inteUigent and holy Hfe. In addition to these designations of
life and light, the Logos is further spoken of as the " only-begotten
Son of the Father, fuU of grace and truth" (John i 14, 18,
cf. Hi 16, 18 ; 1 John iv. 9), the word povoyevr)v not being to
be understood as dearly-loved, but as the only one of His kind.
As the manKestation of eternal Hfe (1 John i 1-3), which com
municates itseK (John i 14-18), and leads to the Father (1 John
H 23, cf. 22, iv. 15 ; 2 John ver. 9), He has brought about the
perfect revelation and communication of God. He it is who was
from the beginning, 6 air dpxvv (1 John H. 1 3), and is the Holy
One (1 John H. 20) and the Just (1 John i 9, etc.), of whom the
Father testifies (1 John v. 9, 10, 11). But stiU we are unable
to prove that John plainly calls Him vibv as the aaapKov ; neither,
on the other hand, can we show that he would give Him, as the
Incarnate One, the title of @eo?. In the passage 1 John v. 20
the aXr/Btvbv Qebv is more probably to be understood of the Father

534 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
(cf. John xvii 3), although 'Irjaovv Xpiarov first precedes the
ovtov. Oirrov, it may be observed, does not always refer to the
subject immediately preceding (cf. 2 John 7, " This is a deceiver,"
etc.). But the Father is only understood so far as He is mani
fested in the Son, as Jesus Christ the Son of God is the principal
subject in 1 John v. 20. This passage is, however, completed, so
to speak, by .that which John says Hi his own name in his his
torical narrative, where he evidently with fuU purpose records the
exclamation of Thomas, "My Lord and my God !" (John xx. 28),
thus making it the culminating point of his gospel. The narra
tive is carried on up to the point where this truth is recognised
(cf. ver. 29). § 93. The Father and the Holy Spirit.
John does not anywhere afford us any direct teaching as to God
in general ; but wherever he speaks of God, or speciaUy of the
Father, a reference to the Son is always evident. This is the case
in the prologue to his gospel, where he was of course compeUed
first to speak of God, with whom the Logos stood in primordial
relation ; but he then confines himseK entirely to dwelling on the
attributes of the Logos, and not until this subject is exhausted
does he again revert to the Father, and even then, again with
distmct reference to the Son. We find the same pecuHarity
existing in his first Epistle ; for although, in the commencement
of the latter, the Father is mentioned (ver. 2), He is only named
in order to set forth the relation borne by the manifested life to
the eternal God. Again, when the apostle speaks of the effects
of the appearance of the Word of life, of the preaching of the Son,
and of the feUowship thus founded (ver. 3), the feUowship with
the Father is certainly mentioned, but it only amounts to a feUow
ship through the Son. It cannot be denied, that in the beginning
of the next clause we find a positive theory expressed in respect
to God, viz. that He is Hght. But stUl the aim of this teaching
is only a practical one, and is intended to show what effect should
foUow the feUowship with the God who is manKested in the
Son, as far as regards the framing of the human Hfe. In the same
way Hi cL Hi the sanctification of Christians is referred to the
purity of Christ ; and eVen Hi ver. 7 of the first chapter Christ's
mediation is brought in as something between the divine holiness
and our sanctification. Also in the further course of the epistle

DIV. II. § 95rl JOHN— THE FATHER AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 535
there are various characteristics of John's conception of God, which
are emphatically set forth, but in every case it is the Father
manifested in the Son who is the subject of his discourse, and
through this manifestation is in feUowship with us. Passages
such as that in 1 John v. 20 are of the same nature. In the
Apocalypse also, if we compare it, Christ always seems to take
the lead in the author's statement, although declarations as to
God, such as those recorded in i 4, 8, iv. 8, are not excluded.
Both in the prologue and also in the epistle the name Qebv is
that most frequently used for God (cf. John i 13, 18). In distin
guishing Him from the Son, the idea of Father is also employed
(thus irarrjp, John i 14, 18). This God is, moreover, depicted as
the true, the dXrjBivov, in contradistinction from aU worship of idols
(John v. 20, cf. John xvH. 3). No man hath seen Him (John i.
1 8 ; 1 John iv. 2 0) ; the Son of man alone has declared Him
(John i 18). As the invisible God, He is placed in contrast to
men, who form a part of that which is visible, and His spiritual
nature is thus caUed to mind (cf. Jesus' words, John iv. 24).
This idea involves, that there can be no experimental view of Him,
and that no one possesses any perfect intuitive perception of Him.
A distinction, however, must be drawn between this idea and the
passage 1 John iH. 6, where the incompatibUity between any
true knowledge of God and a continuance in sin is the matter Hi
question. In the next place, this invisible God is He who* is
eternal life, having1 in HimseK the fulness of life, and being its
original source. This Hfe is, however, also light, perfect and holy,
and unstained by sin (1 John i 5 ff). $w? is a figurative ex
pression, which may mean, generally, every kind of spHitual per
fection ; but, from the connection, the idea of holiness is here
involved. In this conception of God as life and light, not only is
the idea of God as a Spirit contained, but aU the other predicates
which John attributes to Him are to some extent based on it ;
and amongst them especially the attributes of knowing and un
derstanding everything; also, that He is the true, faithful, and
righteous God (I John iH 20). His omniscience is understood
in its ethical relation, and consequently in its strictest sense, and
naturaUy stands in contrast to the sin-troubled personal conscious
ness of man Thus the designation of light involves something
more than hoHness, and the idea is a wider one. The Father is
pure as the nature of light, but He is also the aU-wise Father :

536 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART IL
and both conceptions of Him, of His omniscience and His love,
flow in equal measure from the contemplation of His nature as
light. John also lays special emphasis on the conception of God
as love (1 John iv. 8). Throughout the whole course of the
epistle to the very end, the idea of love is dwelt upon : love is
inculcated as the sum-total of the whole of practical Christianity.
He who truly loves is bom of God, and therefore, as the culmina
tion of the line of thought, we have the idea that the nature of
God is love. This idea is, however, derived from the earthly ap
pearance of the Son, in fuU harmony with John's usual mode of
procedure (cf. also Jesus' words, John Hi. 16). The true idea of
love flows, indeed, from the seK-sacrifice of Christ. Love exists
primarily Hi God, and is shown by His sending the Son. It is
concerned with God's communication of Himself, and presupposes
the idea of Hght as of moral perfection. From this idea of God
His predicates naturaUy result, — that He is true, faithful, and just.
Firstly He is true, and in Him is trutH His whole work de
pends upon the truth that man is a sinner (1 John i 10), and
therefore God is made a liar by those who do not acknowledge
this truth, and disbeHeve the testimony which God has given
through His Son. The ideas of faithfulness and justice are com
bined in ver. 9. God is faithful as being true to His promises,
and just because, in conformity with His promise, He allots to
every one his due. For this reason, and with reference to His
promise, His faithfulness and justice involve the forgiveness . of
sins and the cleansing of the sinner. In 1 John Hi. 20 John
says that " God is greater than our heart :" the question is,
whether this is meant to apply in reference to His mercy or
His severity. In any case, however, the remark is based upon
the idea that God is omniscient. The connection with ver. 19
gives the first explanation an appearance of probabUity ;. but as
those whose hearts condemn them not, who therefore have con
fidence in God, are not mentioned until ver. 21, the probabiHty
loses much of its force. The sign whereby we may recognise
whether "we are of the truth" (ver> 19) is brotherly love. Ver.
20 might therefore form the antithesis, and say, that, K our hearts
condemn us, and testify that we have not this love, God is stUl
greater than our hearts, — that is, how much more shaU we be con
demned by Him ! (in this way of putting it, however, the second
on is not without difficulty.) God is therefore greater than our

DIV. II. § 93.] JOHN— THE FATHER AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 537
hearts, on account, in the first place, of the greater moral severity
connected with His omniscience, and next, indirectly, in con
sequence of His perfect power of forgiving sins, and of that mercy
which is in fuU harmony with His severity and holiness.
The first Epistle, as we have seen, lays a stress almost ex
clusively on the moral attributes of God which are connected with
redemption ; in the Apocalypse, on the other hand, the general
metaphysical attributes of God are more set forth, — those which
refer to His natural relation to the world. Thus He is the
eternal Being, free from aU the conditions of time (Rev. iv. 8, xi.
17), corresponding to the name of Jehovah. This attribute, ac
cording to which He tills the whole expanse of eternity, and
is consequently the Immutable One, is aUied to His designation
as Alpha and Omega (i 8, xxH. 13, xxi. 6). The idea of the
illimitable Divine Being is also involved Hi the definition 6 Qebv
6 fav (vH 2, iv. 9, 10, xv. 7); and this, at aU events, very
much resembles John's mode of expression. Added to this, the
Apocalypse displays very prominently God's power, caUing Him
the Creator of the world, and the Ruler over everything (v. 13,
xix. 6, xx. 11, xi. 15, 17), also in many passages the Kvpiov
(i. 8. iv. 8, xi. 17, xv. 3, xxii. 5, 6, xxi. 22), and the God of
heaven (xi. 13). But although this aspect of God may appear
to have the preponderance, we must not necessarUy conclude from
this that another standpoint is taken which is different from that of
John This pecuHarity of the Apocalypse may be weU accounted
for by its aim, — the representation of the gradual victory of
Christianity. This victory is based on the idea of the universal
divine rule, the effects of which are, that the dominion of Christ
over the world should graduaUy prevail Thus the predominance
of the more general side of the conception of God is not at aU out
of place. John's teaching as to the Holy Spirit, Hke his teaching as to
God generally, is not of an independentt detaUed, and complete
character; he nevertheless often speaks of the Spirit (1 John
iv. 2, v. 6), of the irvevpa rrjv dXr/Beiav (iv. 6, v. 6). He always-
looks upon the Spirit, first of all, as the Spirit communicated to
man (1 John H. 20, Hi. 24, iv. 6. 13), and aU he says on the
point shows clearly that he considers that this communication is
brought about by the Son, following the idea expressed in John
vH. 39. Therefore, with regard to this point also, he adheres to

538 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
the standpoint involved in his predominating contemplation of the
Son. § 94. The World and Mankind in their Original Relation to God.
The fundamental and decisive passage which expresses John's
views of the relation borne to God by the world as a whole, is
contained in the commencement of the prologue to his gospel
(John i 3, 4). The principle of Hfe in every respect, both
physical and spiritual, is contained in the Logos of God. John
traces back the person of the Redeemer to the earHest manKesta
tion of God in the creation ; he also refers man, the object of re
demption, to the complex of aU that was brought to pass in the
creation. The divine principle of manifestation, and the coUective
existence of the world which was brought about by the former,
stand in universal; absolute, and exclusive relation to one another.
The Logos was not, indeed, accepted by the darkness in the world,
but this rejection is a reproach to the world. It ought to have
accepted Him. This close relation involves that, in spite of aU
the moral darkness in the world, its power of receiving divine Hfe
can never be lost, on account pf the above-named absolute relation
in which the world stands to the Logos.
§ 9 5. The World in its Alienation from God.
The love of the world as opposed to God in its transitoriness and
vanity, forms the contrast to the love of God, and to eternal Hfe
(1 John H. 1 5-1 7). In this sense the love of the world which
God has created is forbidden, and the world, notwithstanding its
creation by God, forms a contrast to Him. But in so far as the
love which the world attracts is that of the world merely, and
tends to a separation from God, the world is in itself vanity, and
the love of it is blameable. For this love, then, becomes an
attachment to fleshly lusts, and that which is merely worldly is
thus opposed to God, and cannot be separated from sin.
Sin, according to 1 John iii. 4 ff, is the transgression of the
law, the opposite to BiKaioavvr/ (1 John Hi 7-10). The words
b iroi&v rr)v BiKaioavvrp> BUaibv ian (ver. 7) contain the explana
tion of the idea of dvopla (ver. 4). The transgression of the law
by sin is overtly shown in lying and unbelief, in the yjrevBov which
is mentioned in 1 John H 21 f. ; it is the opposition to God's
truth and action, showing that the truth is not in us (1 John i

DIV. II. §95.] JOHN— THE WOEUD IN ITS ALIENATION FROM GOD. 539
8). We find quite the same idea expressed of unbelief (1 John
v. 10) : he who beUeveth not God beUeveth not on Him in His
Son, and thus, by his contradiction of God's truth, shows openly
his opposition to it (cf. v. 9, also John Hi. 18). But it is also
manifested by the absence of love, which becomes hatred to one's
brother (1 John ii. 9-11, iH. 12 ff). The latter passage points
out the inward cause of the hatred which is based on aHenation
from God. According to 1 John iii. 10 (cf. 6 and iv. 6), and
likewise because nothing but love proceeds from God (1 John iv.
1 6), the want of brotherly love is, as a principle, opposed to the
righteousness which the law of God requires.
The sin of man, however, ultimately blinds him. This gives rise
to the deeply influential idea of aKoria, which fiUs such an im
portant place in the prologue to John's Gospel, its moral root and
character being most clearly expressed in 1 John H. 11 (cf. 8, 9,
1 0). Hatred results in darkness, because it bHnds the heart ; but
love keeps in the Hght, because it is aUied to God. That is to say
darkness is nothing else but alienation from God, — an idea which
may also be gathered from the passages quoted (1 John Hi. 10,
iv. 6, ii. 16). This darkness goes on to increase to an inward
condemnation (1 John Hi. 20 f.), — the self-accusation of the heart
which carries with it the divine wrath, and consequently death, —
the unhappy position which redemption does away with being
known and felt to be death, Bdvarov (1 John iii. 14, cf. v. 16 f,
where Bdvarov clearly appears to be the climax in the gradation
of sin).
This sin is, moreover, universal among mankind : it forms among
them a mode of coUective life ; and the latter, because its principle
is a false love of the world, by which it becomes organized into a
system, is called simply the world, 6 Koapov (cf. ii. 16, e'« toO
Koapov iari). It is the Koapov which does not know the disciples
(1 John Hi. 1), indeed hates them (iii. 13), from which the enemies
of Christianity take theH rise, and of which they speak (1 John
iv. 5). Man cannot free himself from it by his own power ;
without the Son he has not life, but remains in death (cf. 1 John
v. 12). If we deny or undervalue this power of sin, we shaU only
become deeper and deeper entangled in its toUs (cf. John i. 6 ff).
But this community of sin is not original among men : human
sin has a mighty antecedent in the devil, the wicked one, who is
the first beginner of sin, air dpxv* (1 JoHn iH 8). All who

540 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
commit sin are of him, and are seduced by him, — the murder of
Abel by Cain being indeed traced back to his instigation (1 John
-iii, 9-12, cf. v. 18, 19) ; for, in the expression 6 Koapov Kelrai iv
tw irovqpm, irovrjpw as the mascuHne is doubtless to be understood
as referring to the deviL Thus, with regard to this point also,
John goes back to the first and highest "principle, and for this reason
lays so emphatic a stress in his epistle on the commencement of
sin on the part of the deviL
8 96. The Fellowship of the World with God through Christ — The
Redeemer and His Work.
In the prologue to John's Gospel it is very clearly laid down
that there was a pre-Christian agency on the part of the Logos.
The Logos is generaUy the principle of Hfe and Hght for men,
and aU they possess of Hfe and Hght must be traced back to
Him ; also everything which, in the wider sphere of creation, is
founded through Him. Consequently whatever amount of Hght
and Hfe exists in the heathen world belongs to His sphere of
operation, but especiaUy and necessarUy the whole of the Old
Testament dispensation. Thus, then, the province of this dis
pensation is called rd iBia, and the members of it ot 'iBioi (John
i 11). The operation of the Logos in this province is, however,
opposed by the aKoria (ver. 5), the disposition of the world, inas^
much as the world had no knowledge of that which was divine.
The Logos, therefore, has to deal with darkness in the world
(ver. 5), and even His own would not receive Him (ver. 11).
The law given by Moses (John i. 17) must therefore be fuUy
brought within the sphere of operation of the Logos ; and this is
in perfect harmony with the way in which John, in the course of
his gospel narrative (xii. 41), speaks of Isaiah, saying that he
uttered his prophecy when he saw the glory (Bbga) of Jesus.
The Son of God who came into the world is the acorr)p of the
world (1 John iv. 14). As the Word made flesh, He united Ha
His person both the truly divine and the truly human elements,
and this is made the essence of the Christian confession in reference
to His person (1 John,iv. 2 ; 2 John 7 ; John i. 14). He is the
Son who came in the flesh, the Word who became flesh, and
made His abode among men so that they might see His glory. He
is, moreover, without sin (1 John iH. 8), the exact opposite to sin
and its representative. In that He is pure and righteous, He it is

DIV. II. § 96.] JOHN — FELLOWSHIP OF THE WORLD WITH GOD. 541
in whom human nature and human life is sanctified and glorified
so as to be a pure manifestation of God ; and for this reason so
great a stress is laid on the confession that He is come in the
flesh. But this comes to pass by His being the incarnate God,
and therefore even in the incarnation continuing to be God, as,
on the other hand, God became truly human in Him. This
phenomenon, Hi aU its grandeur, has become the subject of
human experience (John i 14; 1 John i 1-3, iv, 14), and is
confirmed to men by the testimony of the Father (1 John v.
6-11). But Christ, as the incarnate Son of God, is also the propitia
tion for us (1 John ii. 2, iv. 10), whom the Father has sent into
the world as the iXaapbv for our sins and the sins of the whole
world. He is also (1 John H. 1) our Advocate, irapaKXr/rov,
with the Father (just as Jesus Himself called the Holy Ghost
another Paraclete, who was to be substituted for HimseK) ; He it
is, too, Hi whom we have Hfe, who is sent Hi order that we may
Hve through Him (1 John iv. 9), that in Him we may have
eternal life, far) alwviov (v. 11-13, H. 25). He is aU this to us,
inasmuch as He died for us (1 John Hi. 16, i 7, v. 6 f. ; John xi.
51 f., cf. Hi. 16). John says (1 John iii. 16) that " He laid down
His life for us ;" and, from the hortatory motive which is deduced
from this fact, we may gather that this death must be looked
upon as one of a beneficial character, as being intended to save
others from death, and so far therefore as vicarious ; also, that it is
His blood (shed in His death) which has the power of purifying
from sin. The blood, together with the Spirit and water, are
mentioned as forming the medium of His efficacy. John relates
in his gospel that Caiaphas, led by the Spirit of God in virtue of
his high-priestly office, unconsciously to himseK gave utterance to
the great idea that it was necessary that one man should die for
the people. Through this death, therefore, did the clearing from
sin come to pass, and was indeed so effected, that in the idea
two points are involved, the expiation for sin, and the deHver
ance from its power and poUution, both being contained in the
word KaBapiXeiv (1 John i. 7 ff), which points on the one hand
to the Levitical expiation, and on the other, looking at the con
nection, clearly includes the idea of moral purification. Thus we
have here aU the elements of the doctrine of the atonement
throuo'h Christ and His death, in regard to which a perfect

542 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
harmony exists between John's teaching and that of Paul and
Peter. John closely adheres to the historical appearance of Christ
and His course of action therein, as being absolutely essential,
but, above aU, dweUs on the inner nature of this appearance and
ministry of the Lord ; for the latter is nothing but the outward
interposition to bring about the communication to the world of
this inner nature. If we compare this plan with that of Paul,
a snnUarity may be, noticed, inasmuch as the latter, in setting
forth the work of Christ, reverts to His personality, and urges the
point that Christ in His new nature is the quickening Spirit
(Gal. Hi. ; 2 Cor. Hi.) ; but stUl a difference may be observed be
tween Paul's and John's treatment of the subject. In Paul we
find this set forth in the midst of an anthropological explana
tion, whUst John makes it his main subject, indeed the ground
work on which the whole of his doctrinal and historical statement
is based : cf. the prologue to the gospel and 1 John i, in both of
which we find the leading place is taken by the idea that life,
farj, which is the Logos, is the principle of Hfe for the whole
world. This is not so prominently brought forward by Paul,
especiaUy in the earlier epistles, although in one passage (1 Cor.
vHi 6) he states that all things are by Jesus Christ ; but so
completely tracing back everything to this point is an idea quite
characteristic of John.
§ 97. Fellowship with Christ, and through Him with the Father —
As regards Individuals.
The birth into the new life is produced by faith : " Whosoever
beUeveth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God " (1 John v. 1),
and on this account has overcome the world (1 John v. 4, 5).
And having the witness of truth in himseK (1 John v. 10), he
has through faith obtained eternal life, the far) alcoviov (1 John
v. 1 3), — obtained it, indeed, as a present possession. Thus, there
fore, the individual enters the state of salvation through faith, the
positive side of this salvation being a new Hfe in and of God, and
the negative side the victory won over the world.
This state of salvation being thus produced by faith, includes aU
the elements of Hfe in contrast to the previous position of sin and
death. The man has become a chUd of God ; the love of God has
caUed him so, and the fact is now realized in him : he is rixvov

DIV. II. §97.] JOHN— FELLOWSHIP WITH CHRIST; INDIVIDUALS. 543
Qeov, and is permitted to have the consciousness of it (1 John
Hi. 1, 2, cf. ii. 29, v. 1, 4, and John i 13). He is thus, in the
first place, cleansed from all sin (1 John i 7) ; his sin is taken
away from him (1 John iii. 5), and he himself can and must
purify himself (1 John iii 3), being also preserved from sin
(1 John v. 18). Especially, also, his sins are forgiven (1 John
i 9, H. 12) ; likewise, on the other hand, the power is given of
doing righteousness and of being able to keep God's command
ments (1 John H. 3, iii. 7, cf. 10, v. 3), especiaUy of loving God
and the brethren " in deed and in truth" (1 John v. 1, 2, iv. 20, 21,
iH 16^18), and consequently of knowing God (1 John Hi. 6, iv. 8,
v. 20, cf. ii. 20 ; 3 John 11). John speaks much of knowing,
indeed of seeing, God ; but both are made entirely conditional on
moral conduct, especiaUy on the feeling of love. And being in
possession of the love of the Father (1 John iH. 1, i 7-10, cf.
ver. 6), a joyful, fearless confidence in God is finaUy given us
(1 John iv. 1 7, 1 8), the irapprjala in the future day of judgment,
the boldness which in the perfection of love " casteth out fear "
(ii. 28, cf. Hi. 19), and, moreover, gives us an assurance that our
prayers wUl be heard (v. 14, iii. 22). We have therefore perfect
joy (1 John i 4), and the sure hope of the consummation of sal
vation, namely the feUowship with Christ (1 John Hi. 2, 3). These
passages combine to give us the sum-total of the elements of that
life which is contrasted with the death of sin (1 John iii. 14), and
is comprised, on the one hand, in the idea of the unction of the
Spirit, to xP^af/a (1 John ii. 20, 27), in vHtue of which the
beHever is sanctified in truth and love (2 John 3), and, on the
other hand, in the idea of . fellowship with God, in virtue of
which the beHever, as being in the Son, is and abides in the
Father also, as the Father in Him (1 John H 24, i. 3, iv. 12,
v. 20). But although in this vosition of the believer the dominion of sin
is done away with, it cannot be said that every sinful emotion
and action is thereby excluded ; and man must therefore, even
when in a position of faith, retain the consolation of the propitia
tion (1 John ii 1, 2). Jesus is the Advocate for the sins into
which even beHevers may perhaps faU (cf. ch. Hi. 19): they can
not fail to be preserved through the feUowship with Christ, which
is made certain to them by the consciousness that they have
received the Spirit (1 John iii. 24). For this Spirit is the very

544 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
Spirit of Jesus, of whose fulness He has Himself imparted to us
(1 John iv. 13). BeHevers are, moreover, preserved from sin by
the power of constantly purifying themselves (1 John Hi. 3), and
of keeping themselves so that " that wicked one toucheth them
not" (1 John v. 18, Hi. 9, H. 13, 14) ; for this immunity from
the attacks of the evil one constitutes the chief victory over sin,
and the freedom from its dominion. He that is born again — -and
this is the fundamental idea of the whole matter — does not depend
merely on his own actions ; for the remnant of sin that is left
continues to exercise such power, that he is compeUed again and
again to have recourse to the Advocate, who has indeed become
the propitiation for our sins and the sins of the whole world.
If, in our consideration of John's Hne of teaching as to the
personal salvation of individuals, we compare it with Paul's doc
trine, we shaU observe that John, on the one hand, makes the
great principle of faith the first requisite in the new Hfe of men ;
also, on the other hand, that in his view this new life never
becomes a personal righteousness, but is always dependent on,
and communicated by, Christ. The elements of the PauHne doc
trine of justification are simUar in theH nature. If John had
been compeUed to answer the question, By what means men are
justified ? the only reply he could have given would have been, ,
By faitk But, at the same time, this faith is in his view nierely
the principle of the new life in good works. It does not, how
ever, enter into the Johannean sphere of thought, when he is
considering the idea of subjective atonement, to make that dis
tinction between justification and the new life which would under
stand the former to be an alteration in the relation to God, and
the latter a change in the Hfe itself, although both are brought
about by faith, and thus become one. This dialectical distinction,
which we find Hi Paul's remarks on the subject, is not made use
of by John ; it was not possible, looking at his intuitive mode of
procedure. We have in his writings a broad view of the faith by
which the world is overcome, in which view aU these aspects are
included, but only as diverse aspects of the same Hfe estabHshed
by God, and born of Him. AH the principles of the doctrine of
justification are to be found in the apostle's statement, and the
latter may justly be looked upon as fuUy agreeing to them ; but
the above-named question, as we have put it, is not plainly
adopted or answered by John. The chief point of agreement

DIV- II. § 98.] JOHN— EFFECTS OF FELLOWSHIP WITH CHRIST. 545
with Paul is, that the latter also looks upon faith as the great
principle with which the whole plan of salvation is bound up.
Paul, indeed, with regard to this subject, has stUl more grandly
elaborated his view of faith, and has displayed it in aU its
richness. § 98. Fellowship with Christ, and, through Him, with the Father
— Its Effects on the Collective Life oj Believers.
The knowledge of Christ, and feUowship with God in His
nature of Hght, are the means of producing the xoivcovta per'
dXXr/Xwv (1 John i 3, 7). Believers, because they are beHevers,
have become brethren in a higher sense of the term, in vHtue of
being joint partakers in the new birth from God (cf. 1 John
iv. 20, 21, with v. 1, 2 ; and as to the idea of dBeXcpbv generaUy,
cf. 1 John H 9, 11, Hi. 11-18, v. 16 ; 3 John 5, 10). It is
the power of love (1 John Hi. 16-18, v. 16; cf. 2 John 10 f.
and 3 John v. 10), and of a right confession of faith (1 John
ii. 23, iv. 2, cf. 3 ; 2 John 7, 9-11), which causes this feUow
ship to be both inward and outward; and thus those who are
associated together in one place join together to form a Church
(iKKXr/aia, 3 John 6, 9). The feUowship itseK is always called
Koivcovia ; and the iKKXr/aia is merely the local community, in
which meaning the word occurs in John's thHd Epistle.
This fellowship of beHevers forms, moreover, a contrast to the
world as the whole body of unbeHevers subject to death, including
also those of heterodox views, among whom false prophets and
antichrists are speciaUy mentioned' as seducers (1 John iv. 1-6,
H 18, 22, 26 ; 2 John 7). Against these it is necessary for
beHevers to be on theH guard, by trying the spHits whether they
be of God (1 John iv. 1, 2, 6), and also by strictly abstaining
from any participation in their wicked course of action (2 John
8, 10, 11, cf. 7, and 3 John 11). But, on the other hand, be
Hevers are to be of good courage in the face of these adversaries,
knowing that they have aHeady overcome them in virtue of theH
feUowship with Christ, "who is greater than he' that is in the
world " (1 John iv. 4 ; he who is in the world is the irovvpov,
1 John v. 18, 19, Hi 8-12). Being in possession of the anointing
received of God, they are entirely independent as regards the
knowledge to be derived from these seducers (1 John ii. 27, cf.
ver. 26). They need no teaching from without, having the truth
2 M

546 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
in themselves ; and for this very reason are secured against any
seduction of false doctrine. The world is so entirely opposed to
real beHevers and theH feUowship, that it may be plainly said of
it that " the world knoweth them not " (1 John Hi. 1) : they are
completely aHenated the one from the other. On this account
the chUdren of God are objects of hatred on the part of the world
(1 John iH. 13).
But the fact that seducers, false prophets, and antichrists are
all included together in the conception of the world, shows that
the latter is not to be sought for among unbelievers only, but that
it has its members even in the community itself, within which,
therefore, a contrast is brought about. And this contrast is not
merely one of false doctrine as compared with the true faith ;
but, as the latter is always combined with righteousness, and un-
beUef with sin, John, in tracing back to its origin the spHit of
the world existing within the Christian community, finds the root
of it in sin. Indeed, even among the brethren (1 John v. 16, 17),
consequently as existing within the Church, a sin is mentioned
which " is unto death." Whosoever is burdened with this sin
belongs to the world, although he may externaUy be numbered
among beHevers : he is absolutely severed from theH inward fel
lowship and entire sphere of Hfe, — so much so, indeed, that they
can no longer pray for him with a hope that their prayer wiU be
granted. The "sin unto death" is doubtless the blasphemy
against the Holy Ghost, by which the germ of divine life is radi-
caUy expeUed from the man committing it ; it is therefore a sin
which cannot be forgiven. With this we should compare the
passage in John's Gospel (ch. xH. 40), where he speaks of the
hardening of the heart as being well deserved, and as being the
cause of the persistent and invincible unbeHef of the Jews.
§ 9 9. Consummation of the Fellowship with Christ, both for
Individuals and the Church.
Because this feUowship, as it now exists at the time being, is
life with God through Christ, it is even aHeady eternal Hfe ; but
there is nevertheless a consummation of it impending in the
future (1 John Hi. 2). This wUl consist Hi a perfected assimUa-
tion to, and feUowship with, Christ : the " fuU reward " of that
which is good wUl then be reaUzed (2 John 8). The advent of
this consummation is placed in connection with the last appear-

DIV. II. § 100.] CONCLUSION. 547
ance of Christ (1 John H. 28 : orav cpavepcoBfj . . . iv rfj irapovaia, 1
aiirov), which wUl be also the day of judgment (1 John iv. 17). i
This future is therefore, as far as regards beHevers, a subject of
joyful and confident hope. John has not given us any detaUed
description of the nature and mode of this consummation ; but, in
his beUef on the point, he probably adhered to the discourses of
the Lord which he has himself handed down to us with regard
to this subject ; cf. John v. and the teaching therein contained
as to the twofold resurrection, the dvdaraaiv farjv, and the dvda-
raaiv Kptaewv.
This consummation is, however, preceded by a peculiar coursej
of development of the Christian community, before the expiration)
of which the spirit of antichrist must appear within the Church
(1 John iv. 3 ; cf. 2 John 7), and must also be overcome (cf. ver. 4).
Its appearance is looked upon as something necessary, and has.
been long recognised in that Hght. John states, indeed, that this
spHit aHeady exists in the world. This spirit of antichrist is not
the spHit of the world generaUy in contrast to the kingdom of
God ; it is rather to be considered as a distinct opposition to
Christ which makes its appearance within the Church itseK, and,j
assuming the outward show of Christianity, places itself in a posi- '
tion of the most decided resistance to true Christianity. This
spirit was even then at work in the world ; there were already
many antichrists (2 John 7). But these passages do not exclude
the idea of the concentration of the spHit of antichrist in one
distinct individuaHty, to take place at some future time (cf.
2 Thess. ii 4). § 100. Conclusion.
In the doctrinal system of John, the Hne of apostolical teach
ing comes to its conclusion Hi a development of doctrine carried
to its highest point, — a development which concentrates every
thing Hi the person of Christ, and at the same time realizes to the
greatest extent the course of instruction which aU the apostles
foUowed out in common
The various apostolical systems form an organicaUy connected
and gradually progressive cycle of doctrinal development; in
John's system the whole of Christianity is traced back to the
person of Christ, — this subject being treated with a high degree
of ampHfication. The teaching as to Christ rises, therefore, in his

548 TEACHING OF THE APOSTLES. [PART II.
method, to the most precise consciousness of His Godhead. But
even in those apostolical systems which content themselves with
a somewhat lower stage of development with regard to this
point, the germ of the doctrine which is so much more fully set
forth by John may be clearly perceived.
The elements possessed in common by aU the apostoHcal systems
of teaching were (cf. § 53) the doctrines of the person of Jesus
Christ, that He was the Lord ; and of the salvation and Hfe that
were brought about by Him in opposition to the sin and corrup
tion of the world ; and also of the consummation of this salvation
and Hfe at some future time. These doctrines are the founda
tion piUars of apostoHcal teaching ; and these are the very ideas
which, with a decided reference to the superiority of the new
covenant over the old dispensation, are fuUy realized in John's
system by the grand view which he takes of Christ as the mani
fested Word of God, and of the faith which hath overcome the
world.

INDEX.

Abraham, 339, 455 ff.
Accommodation to circumstances, or
compromise, 65, 92, 193.
Acts of the Apostles, 271, 513.
Adam, 51, 441 ff.
Alexandrinism, 525.
AUegory, 66.
Ananias, 303.
Angels, as mentioned in the history, 35,
54 ; teaching as to, 24S, 372, 458, 507,
515.
Anna, 36.
Anthropology. See Man.
Antioch, 298, 300, 308 ff.
Apocalypse. See John.
Apocrypha of the New Testament, 15,
270.
Apostles, their characteristics, vocation,
and life, 152, 273, 285, 288, 320, 332.
Apostolic epistles, 6, 270.
Apostolic council, 311.
Apostolical doctrine, 331, 334.
Apostolical fathers, 272.
Apostolic age, 270, 290.
Arabia, 307.
Ascension. See Jesus.
Ascetic school, the, 317.
Atonement, the. See Jesus' work.
Attributes, the divine. See God.
Augustine, 442.
Augustus, 34.
Baptism, 253, 404.
Baptism, infant, 254.
Baptize, command to, 161.
Barnabas, 300, 308 ff., 312 f.
Baur, 419.
Bethlehem, 34 f .
Biblical theology, its idea, 1 ; interest,
3 ; method, 7.
Biography of Jesus, 25.
Bishops, 321.
Brethren of the Lord, 342, 362.
Caiaphas, 82.
Calling of believers, 228, 494.
Candace, 298.
Capernaum, 60.

Celsus, 27.
Census at the birth of Jesus, 34 f.
Christianity, as life and doctrine, 10 ;
its spread, 264, 297 f., 309 ; its world
wide influence, 285 ; in the view of
the Apostle James, 344 ; Peter, 376 ;
Paul, 422 ; the author of the Epistle
to the Hebrews, 517.
Christian, the name of, 308.
Christmas, feast of, 26.
Christology and Christ. See Jesus.
Chronology of the life of Jesus, 59.
Church, the, 244, 259, 319, 408, 507.
Clement of Rome, 272, 338.
Community of Christians, the, 359, 408,
505, 545.
Conscience, the, 175, 401, 415.
Consummation of all things, the, 242,
265, 268, 357, 377, 407, 504, 509, 546.
Conversion, 233, 355, 404, 500 f.
Cornelius, 299.
Creation, the, 454, 461, 511, 538.
Credner, 342, 368, 418.
Damascus, 303.
Deacons, 295, 320.
Death, 182, 354, 436.
Death of Jesus. See Jesus.
Demoniac. See Possessed by Satan.
Pemons. See Satan.
Didactic stories, ,67.
Disciples of Jesus, 61.
Dogmatics, 2.
Dorner, 266.
Ebionites, the, 27, 32, 46, 341, 399.
Eichhorn, 418.
Egypt, flight of Jesus into, 37.
Election, 230, 407, 460, 463, 492.
Elias, 39, 44.
Elymas, 318.
End of the World. See Consummation,
etc.
Epiphany, feast of, 26.
Essenes, the, 58, 317, 360.
Eternity. See Consummation of all
things.
Eusebius, 338, 368, 417.

549

550

INDEX.

Evangelists, the, 3, 15-22.
EvU, 181.
Exegesis, 2.
Faith, 235, 329, 344, 356, 403, 415, 426,
491, 518, 542.
Father. See God.
False teachers in apostolical times, 363,
368, 421, 525.
Flesh or ,«.?%, 180, 353, 401, 445, 448.
Galilee, 59.
Gamaliel, 294, 296.
Genealogy of Jesus, 33.
Gentiles, reception into the Church,
298, 307, 309 f.
Gifts, apostolical, 288, 321.
Gnome, the, 66.
Gnostic school, the, 421.
God, idea of, in the Old Testament, 94-
96 ; in the New Testament, 94-98,
344, 350, 397, 512, 533.
Gospel of Jesus, the, 90.
Guilt of man. See Sin.
Heart, the. See Man.
Heathenism, origin . and guiltiness of,
435, 450 ; in contest with Christianity,
319.
Hebrews, Epistle to the, 315, 328, 417,
513.
Hegesippus, 341.
Hellenists, the, 295, 298.
Herder, 341.
Hermas, 338.
Herod the Great, 37.
Herod Antipas, 43.
Hope in man, 330, 409.
Inspiration, 24, 333.
Immortality of man, 174.
Irenaeus, 283.
Israel's overthrow and rejection, 203,
247, 263, 372, 493 f .
James, the brother of the Lord, 290,
301, 312, 337, 338, 363. 368, 409.
James, the Epistle of, 338.
Jerusalem, the Church at, 292, 295, 340,
362.
Jerusalem, sojourn of Jesus at, 60.
Jesus, the person of : His divinity, 108,
117, 137, 371, 381, 388, 469, 514, 525 ;
His pre-existence, 122, 124, 126, 139,
205, 382, 471, 473, 476, 526 ; the world
created through Him, 462, 514, 538 ;
His positions, 384, 478 ; humiliation,
221, 471 ; agency in the old dispensa
tion, 381, 470 ; manhood, 136, 514 ;
He is the Son of man, 108 ; the second
Adam, 466 ; the Spirit, 46, 148, 384,
470; soul and body, 137, 383, 468;

His birth, 29 ; childhood, 36 ; growth,
38, 46 ; chief facts of His life, 21 ;
His Messiahship, 52, 73, 199; vo
cation, 205 ; teaching, 62, 90, 206 ;
actions, 71 ; plan, 51, 54, 57, 73 ;
sinlessness, 132, 385, 469 ; divine at
testation, 131, 208, 384 ; sufferings
and death, 81, 209, 385, 390, 539;
resurrection, 86, 274, 386, 486; ascen
sion, 86, 274, 352, 386, 478 ; second
coming, 134, 221, 268, 344, 396, 510,
547.
Jesus, the work of : His threefold office,
223; ministry, 59, 207,223, 389, 479;
as a model, 390 ; His high-priestly
office, 134, 209, 392, 480, 484, 541 ;
descent into Hades, 387, 393; and
ministry in heaven, 149, 221, 395,
487.
Jewish-Christians, 292, 310, 316, 339,
350, 368, 421.
John the Baptist, 39, 146.
John, disciples of, 41.
John, the Apostle, 290, 301, 336, 519.
John, the Gospel of, 3, 19, 520.
John, the Epistle of, 519.
John, the Revelation of, 521, 531.
Joseph, 27 ff., 30.
Josephus, 22, 43, 294, 341.
Judas Iscariot, 62, 83.
Jude the brother of the Lord, and his
Epistle, 368.
Judgment, the divine, 225, 267, 352,
354, 371, 396, 414, 436, 453.
Justification, 240, 345, 406, 409, 495,
513 544.
Justin Martyr, 27, 31, 288.
Kern, 341, 418.
Kingdom of God, the, in the Old Testa
ment, 263 ; in the New Testament,
92, 110, 331, 408, 507.
Kostlin, 360.
Lachmann, 218.
Law, the, 73, 201, 316, 335, 348, 357,
366, 374, 449, 457, 499.
Libertinism among Christians, Gentile,
318, 369.
Life, divine, true, and heavenly, 97,
226, 242, 269, 326 f., 427, 432.
Longsuffering of God, 453.
Logos, the, 31, 47, 136, 170, 372, 525,
538, 540.
Lord's Supper, the, 212 ff., 254, 506.
Love, 239, 240, 251, 284, 329, 357, 407,
501, 543.
Luke, 271 f.
Luke, the Gospel of, 19, 27.
Lutz, 155, 165.
Magic, 318.

INDEX.

551

Magi, the, 36 f.
Man, teaching as to, in the Old Testa
ment, 186 ; in the New Testament,
173, 353, 401, 440, 449.
Manifestation of God in His works, 435,
454.
Marcion, 27.
Mark, the Gospel of, 18, 412.
Mary, the Virgin, 27, 30.
Matthew, the Gospel of, 18, 363, 412.
Matthias, 301.
Means of graSe, 253, 506.
Melchizedek, 224.
Messiah in Old Testament, the, 116,
141.
Meyerhoff, 419.
Michael the archangel, 373.
Miracles of Jesus, 23, 76, 206, 208 ; of
the apostles, 287.
Montanism, 283, 322.
Moses, 373, 455.
Nathanael, 61.
Nazarenes, 308.
Nazareth, 28, 34, 37.
Nicodemus, 58.
Nicolas, 295.
Noah and his sons, 393, 404.
Oaths, 360.
Offences or scandal caused, 187.
Old Testament, the. See Testament.
Olshausen, 117, 235.
Origen, 27, 218, 288, 373.
Original sin, 183, 186, 355, 401, 436,
440.
Parables, 66 f.
Paraclete, the, 148, 152.
Passion of Jesus. See Jesus.
Paul's epistles, 418.
Paul, 4, 290, 299, 302-314, 325, 335,
410, 427, 542.
Peace, 498, 504.
Pelt, 418.
Pentecost, 275.
Peter, 4, 53, 61, 290, 299, 301, 312, 335,
410.
Peter, First Epistle of, 374.
Peter, Second Epistle of, 315, 375,
413.
Pharisees, the, 293, 316, 421.
Philip, 298.
Philo, 279, 530.
Polycarp, 272.
Possession, satanic, 192.
Power of the keys, the so-called, 154.
Prayer, 359; Jesus' high-priestly prayer,
84.
Pre-existence. See Jesus.
Predestination, 228, 460.
Presbyter, 321.

rrimitive Christianity in the New Tes
tament, 9.
Prologue to John's Gospel, 526.
Prophecy, 202.
Proselytes, baptism of Jewish, 40.
Quirinius, 35.
Rationalism, 70.
Reason, 70.
Redeemer, the, and redemption, 170,
186, 195, 204, 356, 389, 453, 460, 463,
479.
Religion, Christian and non-Christian,
9.
Regeneration, 151, 231, 331, 356, 406,
542.
Repentance, 234, 356, 404, 502.
Restitution of all things, the, 269, 518.
Resurrection of Jesus. See Jesus.
Resurrection of the dead, 222, 269, 511.
Revelation, idea of New Testament, 13.
Revelations made to Paul, 429.
Righteousness, 240, 415, 423, 427, 430,
491.
Sabbath, the, 72, 129, 203.
Sacrificial idea. See Jesus' work.
Sadducees, the, 293.
Salvation, 90, 226, 326, 345, 370, 377,
414, 490.
Salvation, ordering of, 228, 407, 495.
Sanctification, 240, 356, 407, 500, 503,
543.
Satan and his kingdom, in the Old Tes
tament, 189 ; in the New Testament,
189, 225, 355, 402, 453, 508, 540.
Schleiermacher, 30, 112, 128, 418.
Schmidt, E. C, 418.
Schneckenburger, 339.
Schwegler, 341, 374, 419.
Secret society, hypothesis of Jesus form
ing a, 58.
Sermon on the Mount, the, 94, 364 ff.
Serpent in the wilderness, the, 215.
Servant of God, the (in the Old Testa
ment), 116.
SUas, 309.
Simeon, 36.
Simon Magus, 318.
Sin, in the Old Testament, 178 ; in the
New Testament, 179, 353, 400, 436,
439, 538.
Sin against the Holy Ghost, the, 158.
Sins, forgiveness of, 212, 236, 405, 498.
Sinlessness. See Jesus.
Social effects of Christianity, 286.
Son of God. See Jesus.
Son of man. See Jesus.
Sonship of man to God, 101, 233, 237,
504.
Soul. See Man.

552

INDEX.

Spirit, the Holy, in the Old Testament,
96, 145, 169 ; in the New Testament,
146, 151, 152, 155, 161, 163, 167, 351,
371, 399, 416, 424, 470, 487, 503,
537.
Star of the wise men, 37.
Stephen, 295, 302.
Strauss, 3, 28, 118, 128, 139, 200, 266.
Syncretism, GentUe, 319.
Synoptists, the, 3.
Tarsus, 308.
Teaching of Jesus and the apostles, 4,
331.
Temple. See Israel.
Temple, Jesus' youthful visit to the, 38.
Temptation of Jesus, the, 47, 191.
Testament, Old and New, 328, 335, 360,
379, 413, 424, 515.
Theosophical tendencies, 317, 421.
Timothy, 309.

Tongues, speaking with, 276, 280, 321.
Trinity, the, 161, 169, 399, 512.
Unbelief, 180.
Universality of Christianity, as taught
by Jesus, 56, 204, 264 ; as taught by
the apostles, 279, 294, 319, 333.
Usteri, 419.
WlESELER, 342.
Wisdom, 357.
Wisdom of God, the, 170, 529.
Word of God, the, 253, 260.
World, the, 187, 259, 331, 355, 454, 538,
545.
World, the renewal of the, 415.
Works, 357, 499.
Wrath of God, 436, 453.
Zeller, 468.
Zwinglius, 256.

THE END.

MURRAY AND GT*B, EDINBURGH,
TRUSTEES TO HEB MAJESTY'S STATIONERY OFFICE.

YALE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY

3 9002 08844 8478

«®:

;; It