THE 
 
 THEOLOGY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT, 
 
 A MANUAL 
 
 FOR 
 
 UNIVERSITY INSTRUCTION AND PRIVATE STUDY, 
 
 BY 
 
 J/J/VAN OOSTERZEE, 
 
 PROFESSOR IN THE UNIVERSITY OF UTRECHT, 
 
 TRANSLATED FKOM THE DUTCH, BY 
 
 GEORGE E. DAY, 
 
 PROFESSOR IN THE DIVINITY SCHOOL OF TALE COLLEGE, 
 
 Qr" THE. 
 
 UNIVERSITY I 
 
 
 NEW HAVEN: 
 
 JUDD & WHITE. 
 
 ANDOVER: WARREN F. DRAPER. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA : SMITH, ENGLISH & CO. 
 
 1871. 
 
Printed by 
 
 TUTTLE, MOREHOUSE & TAYLOB, 
 221 State St., New Haven, Conn. 
 
. it) W, X <^^yi 
 
 101794 
 

 
 
INTRODUCTORY NOTE 
 
 BY THE TRANSLATOR, 
 
 THE following manual was prepared by the author for the use of his classes in 
 the University of Utrecht, as an introduction to the comparatively new science of 
 Biblical Theology. To each section are appended a list of works which may be 
 consulted, and also ' questions for consideration " designed to stimulate arid guide 
 in further investigation. The present translation has been prepared for American 
 students in Theology, whether in the theological school or engaged in the active 
 duties of the ministry, desirous of finding in a compressed form an able historical 
 exhibition of the doctrinal teachings of our Lord and his Apostles, resting upon 
 the established results of the most recent critical and exegetical study of the 
 Scriptures, in the confident belief that they will not be disappointed. The cau- 
 tious steps with which the author proceeds in conducting his examination, his 
 frank admission of whatever the truth seems to require, and the manifest candor 
 he everywhere exhibits, impart increased force to the firm conclusions at which he 
 arrives, and will certainly render his work helpful to those whose confidence in 
 systems of dogmatic theology may have been in any way weakened. It must not 
 be forgotten, however, that, since every position taken is claimed to be supported 
 by some express or implied statement in the Xew Testament record, a constant 
 reference to each passage cited is essential to the reader^s intelligent conviction of the 
 validity of the process and the justness of the final result. On one or two points 
 American students, in common with the translator, will not probably be prepared 
 to accept the author's views, or would somewhat modify his form of statement, 
 but the Apostolic rule here applies- ' Prove all things; hold fast that which is 
 good.' 
 
 In the latter part of this work I have been happy to avail myself of the English 
 translation by Mr. M. J. Evans (London, 1870), which appeared after the larger 
 portion of the present volume had been struck off. This I have compared with 
 the original and carefully revised. The German translation, also (Barmen, 1869), 
 has been of service, although occasionally defective and erroneous. A few judi- 
 cious notes extracted by Mr. Evans from Calvin have been retained, and are inui- 
 
iy INTRODUCTORY NOTE. 
 
 cated by his initials. The table of contents has been extended so as to present a 
 comprehensive synopsis, in the hope that it will be found useful in review. For 
 the sake of convenience, the titles of the Dutch and German books cited have been 
 generally given in English, but the original language in which any one appeared 
 may be known either from the place of publication, or from the mode in which the 
 page is cited bL in the former, and S. in the latter. "Where no translation is 
 known to exist, the title is inclosed between quotation marks. 
 
 "Within a few months two valuable contributions to the English literature in this 
 department have been made, the one a translation of Schmid's Biblical Theology of 
 the New Testament, published by the Messrs. Clark of Edinburgh, and the other, Dr. 
 J. P. Thompson's Theology of Christ, which will be found well worthy of consulta* 
 
 tion and study. 
 
 G, E. D, 
 
 DIVINITY SCHOOL OF YALE COLLEGE, Aug. 1871. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 INTRODUCTION". 
 
 1. Definition of the Science, 1-6. 1. Christian Theology in general, what? 
 
 2. Biblical Theology of the New Testament, general description. 3. How 
 distinguished from Biblical Dogmatics, in character, aim, and compass? Its 
 demand from those who cultivate it. 4. Place in Theological Encyclopedia. 
 5. Importance. 
 
 2. Its History, 6-14. 1. Why given? 2. Period anterior to the Eeformation. 
 
 3. Purely historical treatment; literature. 4. Errors to be avoided. 
 
 3. Its Method, Main Divisions, and Demands, 14-18. 1. The genetic, chrono- 
 logical, and analytical method described and defended. 2. Order of study. 
 
 3. The Scientific and Christian character of this investigation. 
 
 PART L 
 
 OLD TESTAMENT FOUNDATION. 
 
 4. Mosaism, 19-25. 1. Foundation of the New Testament Theology. 2. Pre- 
 eminence of the Israelitish people, what, and how explained? 4. Source of 
 our knowledge concerning Moses. 5. How alone Mosaism can be Compre- 
 hended. 6. Its monotheistic character, reality, source, and result. 7. Its 
 Theocratic form, whence, and whence not, sprung? 8. Worship required; 
 character, form, and ceremonies. Difference between type and symbol. 
 9. Ethical tendency and character. What charge against Mosaism and how 
 answered? 10. The imperfection of Mosaism stated. 11. How preparatory 
 to Christianity? 
 
 5. Prophetism, 25-31. 1. Position and office of the prophets. 2. Source of 
 their knowledge. 3. Close connection of Prophetism with Mosaism. 4. Mes- 
 sianic prophecy described. 5. Benefit of Propheti?m to the people of Israel; 
 to the G-entile world. 6. How a preparation for the Gospel? 7. Importance 
 of its study. 
 
 6. Judaism, 31-37. 1. Why a knowledge of Judaism necessary? 2. Judaism 
 defined, and whence known. 3. Its favorable side. 4. Its unfavorable side. 
 5. The Pharisees, Sadducees, and Essenes described. 6. Combination of 
 light and shade in the religious ideas of the Jews. 7. Messianic expectations, 
 whence known and what? 
 
 7. John the Baptist, 37-39. 1. Limit of Biblical Theology in regard to him. 
 2. His position and work. 3. A distinction in respect to his testimony. 
 
 4. Source and value. 
 
 8. Result, 39. Remark of De Pressense. 
 
VI CONTENTS. 
 
 PART II. 
 
 THE THEOLOGY OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 9. General Survey, 40-44. 1. Christ as a witness to the truth, how? 2, 3. Source 
 of our knowledge in regard to his teachings. 4. Peculiar character of his 
 teachings. 5. Whence drawn? 6. Form. 7. Relation of his teachings to 
 those of the Old Testament. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS. 
 
 10. The Kingdom of God, 44-47. 1. The fundamental idea which pervades our 
 Lord's teachings. 2. Nature of this Kingdom ; six particulars. 
 
 11. s Founder, 48-51. 1. Forms of announcement of himself. 2. Phrase 
 "Son of Man;" origin and meaning. 3. Growing clearness with which He 
 spoke of his Messiahship, how explained? 4. His true humanity, how indi- 
 cated? how different from other men? 5. His superhuman dignity. 
 
 12. The Supreme Ruler, 51-55. 1. Dependence of the Son. 2. His teaching con- 
 cerning God. 3. "Father;" meaning. 4. What difference, in his teachings, 
 from the Old Testament representations? 5. Government and Providence of 
 God. 6. How God reveals himself. 7. Teachings concerning the Holy Spirit. 
 8. Comparison of our Lord's teachings with those of profane or even sacred 
 antiquity. 9. Bearing of the whole upon his superhuman dignity. 
 
 13. Its Subjects, 55-61. 1 . The holy angels ; personality and work. 2. The fallen 
 spirits, their personality and work ; demoniacal possession. 3,4. Importance, 
 nature, and constitution of man ; conscience. 5. Sinfulness of men; difference 
 between the teachings of Paul and Christ. 6. Universality of sin. 9. Origin 
 of sin. 8. Nature of sin. 9. Natural consequences of sin. 10. Its punish- 
 ment. 11. Present position of the sinner. 
 
 14. Salvation, 62-68. 1. Our Lord's view of the Old Testament. 2. His rela- 
 tion to the prophetical books. 3. To the Law. 4. His description of salva- 
 tion. 5. How given by Him to men. 6. His sufferings and death ; their end 
 and nature. 7. His continued work; his second coming, what? 
 
 15. The Way of Salvation, 68-73. 1. Calling of the Gentiles. 2. Repentance 
 and conversion. 3. Faith: its nature, object, importance. 4. Manifestatiou 
 of faith. 5. Particular fruits of faith. 6. The Church. 7. Ordinances; ob- 
 ject and end. 8. Final triumph. 
 
 16. The Consummation, 73-79. 1. Beyond the grave. 2. State of believers 
 after death; of the wicked. Promise of Christ concerning his coming. 
 3. Tokens of his coming. 4. How announced and accompanied. 5. Resur- 
 rection of the dead; extent and time. 5. The judgment. 7. The future re- 
 ward; merited? 8. In what it will consist. 9. Punishment of the wicked; 
 its duration. 10. Time of Christ's coming. 
 
CONTENTS. Vll 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 17. Introduction, 80-84. 1. Grounds for treating it separately. 2. Why a sepa- 
 rate treatment especially necessary now? 3. It is said that we are here not 
 listening to the words of Jesus, but only of John. 4. The main thought in the 
 discourses of our Lord in John. 
 
 18. The Son of God in the Flesh, 84-88. 1. The / who here speaks; difference 
 between the Synoptical Gospels and John in the mode of exhibiting the divine 
 dignity of Christ. 2. "Son of God" indicates in general what? proof. 
 3. Man only in appearance? Evidence to the contrary. 4. Sinlessness. 
 5. Claim of Messiah ship. 6. The human and divine factors. 
 
 19. The Son of God in relation to the Father, 88-92. 1. Existence of the Son of 
 God from eternity. 2. Equality with the Father. 3. Sharing hi his nature, 
 majesty, and work. 4. In what sense dependent upon the Father? 5. The 
 idea of God given by him ; how revealed? 6. Homage due to Him. 7. Re- 
 sult as to any essential difference between Himself and the Godhead. 
 
 20. The Son of God in relation to the World, 93-100. 1. When commenced? 
 2. Meaning of " the world." 3. Sin, its universality and extent. 4. Origin. 
 5. Difference between men. 6. To what to be ascribed? 7. Extent of the 
 plan of redemption. 8. How Christ becomes the light of the world ; how 
 its life. 9. How come for judgment, and in what it consists. 10. In what 
 the work of Jesus culminates. 11. Faith: nature and object. 12. Threefold 
 ground of faith. 13. Inexcusableness of unbelief. 
 
 21. The Son of God in relation to his Disciples, 100-104. 1. The "drawing'' of 
 believers, what? 2. Their union with each other; conditions. 3. Metaphors 
 expressing the communion between Him and them; indicate what three 
 things. 4. The new birth; necessity and origin. 5. Fruit of this communion 
 with Christ. 6. Continuance of this communion after his death. 7. Three- 
 fold agency of the Holy Spirit. 8. Our Lord's personal ministry in heaven. 
 
 22. The Son of God in his Future, 104-107. 1. Eternal life, how much compre- 
 hended in ? 2. Beginning and nature of the future blessedness. 3. Resur- 
 rection and judgment. 4. The second coming of Christ 5. No final restitu- 
 tion; evidence. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 HIGHER UNITY. 
 
 23. Difference and Agreement, 108-114. 1. Difference between the sayings of 
 Christ in the Synoptical Gospels and in John. 2. As to form; nature and 
 explanation. 3. Contents. 4. In regard to his own person and work. 
 5. Eschatology. 6. As to leading thoughts, found only in one. 7. Import- 
 ance of the difference observable, for three reasons. 
 
 24. Result, 114-116. 1. Connection between the teachings of our Lord, and of 
 Moses and the prophets. 2. Between His teachings and those of the Apostles. 
 
Vlll CONTENTS. 
 
 PART III. 
 
 THE THEOLOGY OF THE APOSTLES. 
 
 25. General Survey, 117-122. 1. Apostles, who here meant? 2. Historical im- - 
 portance of their testimony. 3. How far possible to regard the theology of 
 the Apostles as a whole? 4. Division of the subject and the object in view. 
 7. Helps. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 THE PETRINE THEOLOGY. 
 
 26. Preliminary Survey, 122-126. 1. With which Apostle commence, and 
 why? 2. Sources of his testimony. 3. "Where best found? 2d Epistle of 
 Peter. 4. Harmonious development of the Petrine theology. 5. Individuality . 
 of Peter in connection with his teachings. 6. Exhibited in three forms. 
 
 27. Peter an Apostle of Jesus Christ, 126-133. 1. Lays special emphasis upon 
 what? 2. His testimony in regard to (1) the theocratic dignity, (2) the moral 
 glory, (3) the superhuman greatness of Christ. 3. What fact does he make 
 most prominent? 4. The sufferings of Christ. 5. Yan Oosterzee's view of 
 his work after death. 6. His glory. 
 
 28. Peter the Apostle of the Circumcision, 133-138. 1. Salvation only through 
 Christ. 2. Universality of sin : origin, culmination, extent. 3. Extent of the 
 provision of salvation. 5. Old Testament forms of statement employed. 
 
 6. His doctrine concerning God. 7. His view of the Christian life ; universal 
 priesthood of believers. 
 
 29. Peter the Apostle of Hope, 138-142. 1. Comparison with the other Apostles. 
 2. This characteristic manifest in the discourses of Peter. 3. In his first 
 Epistle. 4. Proved from an analysis of this epistle. 5. Source of this ele- 
 ment of hope in the Petrine Theology. 6. Its value. 
 
 30. The Second Epistle of Peter, 142-147. 1. Different views in regard to its 
 genuineness. 2. Difference between the first and second epistles, what? How 
 accounted for? 3. Agreement of the writer with the first epistle as an Apostle 
 of Jesus Christ. 4. As the Apostle of the Circumcision. 5. As the Apostle 
 of Hope. 6. The two epistles differ, but do not contradict each other. 
 
 7. Result of this investigation. 
 
 31. The Kindred Types of Doctrine, 147-153. 1. Probability in advance that the 
 Petrine exhibition of the Gospel would not stand alone. 2. Resemblance to 
 Peter in the Gospel of Mark. 3. In the Gospel of Matthew. 4. In the Epistle 
 of Jude. 5. Especially in the Epistle of James ; his representation of sin ; of 
 faith and works as compared with that of Paul. His teaching in regard to 
 the essence of Christianity. General character of his epistle. 6. His teach- 
 ing compared with that of Peter in regard to the person of the Lord and the 
 Christian life ; an essential difference in one respect ; hope characterizing both 
 epistles. 
 
 32. Result and Transition, 153-154. 1. Agreement of the Petrine Theology with 
 the personal character of Peter; bearings. 2. Its relation to the epistles of 
 Paul. 3. Its position as compared with the Pauline Theology. 
 
CONTENTS. IX 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 THE PAULINE THEOLOGY. 
 
 33. Preliminary Swrvey, 155-161. 1. How, in general, described? 2. Sources 
 of our knowledge concerning it; genuineness of the Pauline epistles; order 
 of their composition ; alleged difference between them. 3. Ground-thought of 
 the doctrinal, teaching of Paul. 4. Subject-matter of the Pauline Theology, 
 character of; form of exhibition. 5. Whence known by him. 6. Value. 
 7. Literature. 8, Best manner of treating. 
 
 FIRST DIVISION". 
 MANKIND AND THE INDIVIDUAL MAN BEFORE AND OUT OF CHRIST. 
 
 34. The Heathen and Jewish World, 161-165. 1. Paul's description of mankind 
 before and out of Christ, where found? his qualifications for making it. 
 2. Heathenism, what? 3. Its source and development. 4. Consequences. 
 5. Guilt of the Jewish world. 6. Result as to the character of man. 7. Con- 
 clusion of the argument. 
 
 35. The Cause of this Condition, 165-171. 1. The question of the origin of evil. 
 2. Difference from James and Peter in regard to his use of the word "sin;" 
 its origin and consequence. 3. Anthropology of Paul : constitution of man ; 
 flesh, transgression, freedom. 4. The law, what ordinarily meant by? its aim; 
 why not able to give life? summary. 5. Death, what? 
 
 36. Its Consequences, 171-174. 1. Why a feeling of discord in the heart? 
 2. How distinguished from the conflict in the heart of the believer? Who de- 
 scribed in Rom. vii? 3. The whole creation. 4. Punishment of sin. 5. Re* 
 lation of the consciousness of misery to salvation. 
 
 SECOND DIVISION. 
 
 MANKIND AND THE INDIVIDUAL MAN THROUGH AND IN CHRIST. 
 
 37. The Plan of Salvation, 174-180. 1. God its author. 2. The Gospel a mys- 
 tery, in what sense, and how known? 3. Preparation for. 4. A result of 
 God's eternal purpose ; election founded in what; relation to faith and holi- 
 ness ; respects individuals. 5. Relation between foreknowledge and fore- 
 ordination, and calling j God's " good pleasure " not arbitrary. 6. Paul's 
 answer to objections. 7. How the doctrine is to be regarded by believers. 
 8. Its relation to the Divine perfections. 
 
 38. The Christ, 180-185. 1. Center of the Divine plan of salvation. 2. Asser- 
 tion of the Tubingen school; answered. 3. History of Christ's earthly life in 
 the writings of Paul, why so slight? 4. Humanity and preexistence of Christ. 
 5. His divinity. 6. " The man, Christ Jesus." 
 
 39. The Work of Redemption, 185-192. 1. " Righteousness of God." explanation 
 of the phrase. 2. The work of Chri-t, its various parts; which the chief? 
 
 3. The death of Christ, how represented? active and passive obedience. 
 
 4, Nature, necessity, and effect of His sacrifice. 5. Connection between the 
 propitiatory death of Christ and justification ; distinction between the design 
 
X CONTENTS. 
 
 and fruit of His death. 6. The basis of reconciliation; its author. 7. Con- 
 nection between forgiveness and sanctification. 8, 9. The resurrection of 
 Christ, its prominence; nature of. 10. Ascension, intercession, and reign of 
 Christ. 11. The exaltation of Christ, what to Himself and to his people ? 
 
 40. The Way of Salvation, 192-187. 1. Meaning of "faith" in the writings of 
 Paul. 2. Its object, result, seat 3. How produced and strengthened; the 
 Holy Spirit. 4. Relation to the new life; repentance. 5. A peculiarity of 
 the Pauline doctrinal system ; relation of faith, hope, and love. 6. Character 
 of the new life. 7. That God can treat believers, notwithstanding their im- 
 perfections, as righteous, explained. 8. Results of faith in this life; relation 
 of justification and adoption. 
 
 41. The Church, 197-203. 1. "Whence the Pauline Ecclesiology to be learned? 
 2. Meaning of " church" as used by Paul ; not identical with the Kingdom of 
 God. 3. Names and figures used to describe it. 4. Relation and meaning of 
 baptism. 5. The Lord's Supper, nature of. 6. Unity and officers and gifts 
 of the church. 7. Its character. 8. Its catholicity; slaves, women, 9. Final 
 triumph. 10. The expectations cherished. 
 
 42. The Future, 203-208. 1. The speedy advent of Christ. 2. Period. 3. Na- 
 ture. 4. Resurrection of believers ; extent and time of occurrence ; nature, 
 possibility, certainty and glory. 5. Culmination of Christ's dominion on the 
 earth. 6. The final judgment. 7. Blessedness of the righteous. 8. Future 
 misery of the unconverted ; no countenance for the ultimate salvation of all. 
 9. Final result in respect to G-od. 
 
 43. The Kindred Types of Doctrine, 208-224. 1. Paul not alone. 2. Stephen, 
 his affinity with Paul. 3. The writings of Luke. 4. Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 age and aim. 5. Its teachings concerning God. 6. Its use of the Old Testa- 
 ment. 7. And of Sacred History. 8. More particularly the sacrifices. 
 9. Imperfection and significance of sacrifice. 10. Dignity of the New above 
 the Old Dispensation, how exhibited ? Christ exalted above whom ? 11. True 
 humanity of Christ. 12. His relation to temptation. 13. "Surety of a better 
 covenant," meaning? 14. Sustained comparison illustrating the value of 
 Christ's work; value attached to the form of his death. 15. Aim of Christ's 
 sacrifice, and mode of its operation. 16. Its results in respect to Christ and 
 his people; meaning of perfection as distinguished from sanctification ; further 
 results. 17. Its enduring power. 18. The work of our Lord in heaven, 
 19. His second advent and its consequences. 20, 21. Duties arising from 
 these privileges. 22. Basis of the writer's exhortations ; true ground of hope 
 of perseverance. 23. Helps to the Christian life. 24. Difference and agree- 
 ment between the Epistle to the Hebrews and the writings of Paul, 
 
 44. Result and Transition, 224-226. 1. The teaching of Paul compared with that 
 of Peter ; difference accounted for. 2. Originality of the Pauline theology ; 
 remarks of Bonifas and A. Monod. 3. Where the fullest development of 
 Christian thought to be found, and on what principle ? 
 
CONTENTS. XI 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 THE THEOLOGY OF JOHN. 
 
 45. General Survey, 227-232. 1. Its position among the Apostolic doctrinal 
 systems; how shown? 2. Whence learned? 3. Order of his writings. 
 
 4. Peculiar character of the Johannean Theology ; how accounted for ? 
 remark of Godet. 5. The axis around which all revolves. 6. His theology 
 as contained in his Gospel and first Epistle, how described. 7. In the 
 Apocalypse. 8. Treatment of the Johannean doctrinal system. 
 
 FIRST DIVISION. 
 
 THE GOSPEL AND THE EPISTLES. 
 
 46. The World out of Christ, 232-237. 1. John's teaching concerning God. 
 2. How revealed? .3. The Logos, who and why so called? diiference between 
 the Logos of John and of Philo. 4. Dignity and work of the Logos- 
 
 5. Opposed by the world, why? Doctrine concerning Satan. 6. Sin and death- 
 
 7. The incarnation; necessity, source, preparation for; the Gentile world. 
 
 8. Two classes of men. 
 
 47. The Appearing of Christ, 237-242. 1. Preexistence and divine nature of 
 the Logos. 2. His true humanity and moral perfection. 3. The Messiah of 
 Israel and the Saviour of the world. 4. How his glory is manifested. 
 
 5. The death of Christ, how the life of the world? 6. His work after his as- 
 cension; Antichrist. 7. Result of Christ's work. 
 
 48. The Life in Christ, 242-246. 1. Faith; importance, nature, and relation to 
 knowledge. 2. Its results. 3. How it manifests itself. 4. Love. 5. Union 
 and perseverance of believers. 6. Their blessedness. 7. Why the Johannean 
 Theology is specially important in our time. 
 
 SECOND DIVISION. 
 THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 49. Diversity and Harmony, 247 -252. 1. Estimate of the Apocalypse. 2. How 
 different from the Gospel and Epistles of John. 3. How far similar. 4. Its 
 teachings concerning the person of Christ. 5. His relation to his Church. 
 
 6. Doctrine concerning God ; what peculiarity to be observed ? 7. Doctrine 
 concerning angels, man, grace, faith and works, extent of the provisions of 
 the Gospel. 8. Eschatology. 9. Result of an impartial survey of the doctrinal 
 system of the Apocalypse. 
 
 PART IV. 
 
 HIGHER UNITY. 
 
 50. Harmony of the Apostles with each other, 252-260. 1. Why the higher unity 
 of the different Apostolic systems not to be passed over in silence? 2. This 
 unity recognized by the Apostles. 3. Evident in their fundamental concep- 
 tion. What necessary to be remembered in order to comprehend the full 
 
Xll CONTENTS. 
 
 value of this agreement? 5. This agreement exhibited in their conception of 
 God. 6. Of the sinfulness of man. 7. Of Christ; alleged difference between 
 the teachings of Paul and John. 8. Of the work of redemption. 9. Of faith 
 and conversion, 10. Of eschatology. 11. Of the connection between doctrine 
 and life. 12. Theory that the epistles were written with the express purpose 
 of combating or reconciling hostile schools. 
 
 51. Harmony of the Apostles with the Lord, 260-263. 1. Harmony of the Apos- 
 tles characterized. 2. Accounted for. 3. Difference and agreement. 4. Full- 
 ness of the doctrine of the Apostles as compared with that of our Lord; how 
 related? 5. Other influences. 6. Importance of the unity between the teach- 
 ings of Christ and those of his disciples. 
 
 52. Harmony of the Lord and the Apostles with the Scriptures of the Old Testament, 
 263-265. 1. Statement. 2. Their view and use of the Old Testament, and 
 testimony concerning the way of salvation. 3. The main and dominant 
 ideas hi both parts of the Scriptures. 4. Nature of the difference between 
 the two. 5. How alone this grand harmony is to be explained. 
 
INTRODUCTION. 
 
 1. 
 
 Definition of the Science. 
 
 THE Biblical Theology of the New Testament is that part of 
 theological science, in which the teachings of the New Testa- 
 ment concerning GOD and divine things are comprehensively 
 and systematically exhibited. It is distinguished from Doctri- 
 nal Theology by its character, scope and aim, and naturally 
 falls, in Theological Encyclopedia, into the department of His- 
 torical Theology. 
 
 1. Theology is, in general, the science of God and divine 
 things ; or according to a later, though not therefore a better 
 definition, the science of religion. In its more restricted sense 
 the word signifies the science concerning God, in distinction 
 from that concerning man, sin, CHKIST, etc. (Theology, the name 
 of the locus de Deo, as distinguished from Anthropology, Hamar- 
 tology, Christology, etc.). There is no religion of any impor- 
 tance, which has not a more or less developed theology (e. g. the 
 theology of Mosaism, Islamism, Buddhism, etc.). Philosophy, 
 even, has its theology, as it has its anthropology and cosmology. 
 From this purely philosophic theology, however, Christian the- 
 ology is entirely distinct ; since the former is a product of indi- 
 vidual thought, in the light of speculation or experience, while 
 the latter, on the contrary, is derived from a special divine rev- 
 elation, the sacred record of which is the Holy Scripture. To 
 
2 Biblical Theology of the New Testament 
 
 this last, the saying of THOMAS AQUINAS is entirely applicable : 
 A Deo docetur, Deum docet, et ad Deum ducit. Comp. the article 
 Theologie by L. PELT, in HERZOG'S Real-Encycl. XV. S. 748. 
 
 2. The Biblical Theology of the New Testament treats of the 
 ideas respecting Grod and divine things recorded in the New 
 Testament. It investigates, in other words, the doctrines of the 
 New Testament, without intending thereby to maintain, that 
 the New Testament teaches a strictly completed doctrinal sys- 
 tem ; much less, that the characteristic feature of the Christian 
 revelation consists exclusively or predominantly in its doctrine. 
 But though this latter statement must be rejected, in cannot be 
 denied that the New Testament does contain an actual doctrine 
 respecting Grod and divine things. This doctrine the Biblical 
 Theology of the New Testament comprehensively surveys, ex- 
 amines its several parts in themselves and in their mutual rela- 
 tions, and presents it, so far as possible, as a composite whole in 
 the light of history. 
 
 In the broadest sense of the term, Biblical Theology embraces 
 the doctrine concerning God and divine things as found in both 
 the Old and the New Testaments. That both are intimately 
 connected is generally recognized : Novum Testamentum in Vetere 
 latet, Vetus in Novo patet (AUGUSTINE). But although an entire 
 separation is scarcely conceivable, a real distinction is possible, 
 desirable, and in a certain sense necessary, and of late years, 
 especially, has been successfully made. 
 
 3. The distinction between the Biblical Theology of the New 
 Testament, and Christian Dogmatics, which have not unfre- 
 quently been confounded, to the injury of both, is already be- 
 ginning to be clear. Both of these departments of theological 
 science possess a specific character. That of Christian Dog- 
 matics is liistoYico-philosophical ; that of the Biblical Theology 
 of the New Testament, on the other hand, is purely historical. 
 The former inquires, not only what the Christian Church in 
 general or one of its branches in particular regards as truth, but 
 predominantly what man is or is not to believe in the sphere of 
 the Christian faith. The latter, on the contrary, asks simply 
 what is presented as truth by the writers of the New Testament. 
 It has to do, from its own point of view, not with the correct- 
 ness but only with the contents of the ideas which it finds in the 
 
Aim and Compass of Biblical Theology. 3 
 
 teachings of Jesus and the Apostles. "It does not demon- 
 strate; it states. (KEUSS)."* It has, consequently, an entirely 
 different aim from that which the student of Systematic Theol- 
 ogy proposes to himself. While Doctrinal Theology seeks to 
 develop the contents of the Christian faith and to exhibit, in the 
 evidences of revelation, its firm foundation, Biblical Theology 
 has finished its task, when it has clearly shown what the New 
 Testament, in distinction from other religious books, announces 
 as truth, leaving its defence and vindication to the kindred sci- 
 ence. If, so far, its aim is humbler, its compass, on the other 
 hand, is so much the greater. If since the time of Calixtus 
 (1634), Doctrinal Theology and Ethics whether justly or not 
 need not here be decided have been separated, this separation 
 in the department of Biblical Theology is neither legitimate nor 
 desirable. A sharp line of distinction between doctrine as re- 
 lated to salvation and doctrine as related to life is entirely foreign 
 to the spirit of Jesus and the Apostles. As viewed by the 
 New Testament writers, faith and life are not merely allied, but 
 identical. Biblical Theology has, therefore, to embrace in its in- 
 vestigation, the practical no less than the theoretical side of the 
 doctrines of the New Testament. On the other hand, it cannot 
 be required to treat expressly of the life of our Lord and his 
 Apostles along with their doctrinal teaching, as has been done 
 among others by C. F. SCHMID, (in a work shortly to be men- 
 tioned). 
 
 Since the Biblical Theology of the New Testament exhibits, 
 therefore, a much more objective character than Doctrinal The- 
 ology, it is able to dispense with the help of the latter, although 
 the latter cannot do without the former. It demands from 
 those who cultivate it, not so much that they should be Chris- 
 tian philosophers, as that they be good exegetes and thorough 
 historians. For the Biblical theologian, as truly as for the in- 
 terpreter, the main question is: how read ye?f It is bet- 
 ter, therefore, to style our science Biblical Theology, than 
 Biblical Dogmatics. By the Biblical Dogmatics of the New 
 
 * The distinction of SCHENKEL, Christl Dogm. I. S. 380, is hazy and erroneous: 
 " Its aim is, not to exhibit the truth of redemption, but only (I ) the reality of the 
 Biblical history of redemption (11). 
 
 f Comp. J. I. DOEDES, Hermeneutiek voor de Schriften des N. V. Utrecht, 1866 
 bl. 8. 
 
4 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 Testament is generally understood a finished system of doctrine, 
 so far as this has been drawn from the New Testament regarded 
 as a whole. Biblical Theology, on the other hand, aims princi- 
 pally to institute a purely historical investigation concerning 
 the doctrine of each of the individual writers. Then, too, the 
 word "dogma" almost necessarily suggests something sanctioned 
 by the Church. The utterances of Jesus and the Apostles, 
 with which the Biblical Theology of the New Testament is 
 concerned, are the materials from which the doctrines of the 
 Church were subsequently derived and by which they are sup- 
 ported. 
 
 4. The character of our science, as thus described, decides 
 at once its place in the organic structure of Theological En- 
 cyclopedia, If we distinguish between exegetical, historical, 
 systematic, and practical theology, it is evident that the Biblical 
 Theology of the New Testament stands at the head of the 
 second, where it shines " as one of the foci of theological study." 
 (HAGENBACH). It thankfully accepts the absolutely indispens- 
 able aid which exegesis affords, and lends this, in turn, to the 
 other parts of historical theology, as presently also to systematic 
 and practical theology, but especially to the history of Christian 
 doctrine, of which it is at once the foundation and the starting 
 point. On the other hand it may leave the critical investigation 
 of the history of the sources from which it draws, entirely to 
 the so-called science of Introduction (Isagogics of the New Tes- 
 tament). Undoubtedly it must use the light which the latter 
 sheds, so far as is necessary and possible, as a help in its inves- 
 tigation. In respect to disputed and important questions in 
 Introduction, the student in this department may be required to 
 settle his views, and to pronounce and defend his opinion. But 
 a formal and exhaustive treatment of these questions cannot be 
 demanded of him. The ever growing extent of the subject 
 renders, in our day especially, a division of labor indispensable. 
 The ideal of this department is reached, whenever it gives a 
 clear, systematic and complete survey of the doctrines taught 
 in the New Testament, without concerning itself about what- 
 ever else is maintained by critics, whether justly or quite erro- 
 neously, concerning the origin, composition and value of these 
 books. 
 
Importance of the Study. 6 
 
 5. After what has been said, the importance of the investiga- 
 tion in which the Biblical Theology of the New Testament 
 employs itself scarcely needs to be shown. Regarded only 
 from a purely historical point of view, it deserves the attention 
 of every student of the history of mankind and of the king- 
 dom of God on earth. The intelligent Christian justly prizes 
 an accurate knowledge of the answer regarding the highest 
 questions of life, given by our Lord and his Apostles. To the 
 Christian theologian, especially, is the knowledge of the doctrine 
 of Jesus and the Apostles necessary, more than to many others. 
 As a Protestant, besides, he has an incitement to this investi- 
 gation, which the Eoman Catholic has either not at all or not 
 in the same degree. And so far is the considerably modified 
 view of the Holy Scriptures, in our day, from making this 
 study less important, that, wholly aside from tne correctness of 
 such modification, the signs of the times all the more urge its 
 unwearied prosecution. It is with reason also required of can- 
 didates for the ministry in the Church [of Holland] that for 
 two years they pursue in the University the study of Biblical 
 (in distinction from Systematic) Theology. Its special treat- 
 ment as a distinct science, although of comparatively recent 
 origin, is not only justifiable, but must be regarded as indicating 
 real progress. 
 
 Literature. On the definition and character of this science 
 compare F. F. FLECK, " on Biblical Theology as a Science of our 
 Time," in ROHK'S Prediger-BiUiothek, 1834 ; SCHMID, " on the In- 
 fluence and the Position of the Biblical Theology of the N. T. in our 
 Time," in the Tub. Zeitschrift fur Theol, 1838 ; SCHENKEL, " The 
 Task of Biblical Theology," Stud. u. Krit, 1852 ; B. WEISS, 
 " The Relation of Exegesis to Biblical Theology," in the Deutsche 
 Zeitschr., 1852 ; J. KOSTLIN, " On the Unity and Manifoldness of 
 the doctrinal teachings of the Apostles" in the Zeitschrift fur Deutsche 
 Theol, 1857 : the introduction to LANGE'S Commentary: and, best 
 of all, the article by C. J. NITZSCH, in HERZOG'S Real-Encyclo- 
 pddie, II. S. 219 ff. 
 
 Questions for Consideration. The character and psychologi- 
 cal basis of theological science in general. Why was the in- 
 vestigation of the theology of the Old and New Testament, 
 
6 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 formerly united, and afterward separated ? Criticism of some 
 other definitions of this science, more or less differing from that 
 here given. Difference of opinion concerning its place in The- 
 ological Encyclopedia. Why does not the life of Jesus and 
 the Apostles belong to its province ? A more particular ex- 
 hibition and vindication of its importance, in itself and in 
 comparison with other branches. How is the undervaluing of 
 it from several sides to be explained, and how to be met ? 
 
 2. 
 
 Its History. 
 
 As a distinct, department of theological science, the Biblical 
 Theology of the New Testament is but little older than the 
 present century. It has had a long period of preparation, but 
 has been developed within a comparatively short period to a 
 high degree, and is now in a condition of prosperity and life 
 which presents strong encouragement for its further prosecu- 
 tion. 
 
 1. It is not without reason that in the introduction to any 
 branch of scientific inquiry, some account of its history is usu- 
 ally given. In this process, too, history maintains its honorable 
 position as "the light of truth, the witness of ages, the mis- 
 tress of life." It makes us acquainted with what, in any given 
 department, has been already accomplished, and thereby, with 
 what still remains to be done. It shows how the science by de- 
 grees came to occupy an independent position, furnishes the 
 key to the explanation of its present condition, and enables us 
 consequently to go on to build upon a well-laid foundation. 
 
 2. The Biblical Theology of the New Testament has some- 
 times been justly called a "distinctively Protestant" science. 
 It is at least such in this sense, that although its germs had 
 an earlier existence, this science can be developed without hin- 
 drance only on the soil of Protestantism. The period which 
 preceded the Keformation can properly receive no higher name 
 than that of preparation. In this sense it may be said un- 
 
History of the Science. 7 
 
 dcmbtedly that the most distinguished of the early Church 
 fathers were to a greater or less degree Biblical theologians. 
 This honorable title belongs especially to the Coryphaei of the 
 Alexandrian School. To a certain degree may be regarded as 
 evidence of independent investigation in this department, the 
 work de testimoniis, usually ascribed to CYPRIAN (d. 258), as 
 also that of JUNILIUS, Bishop in Africa in the sixth century, 
 de partibus legis. That the Middle Ages were not favorable to 
 the cultivation of Biblical Theology, lay in the nature of the 
 case. The question during that period was not as a rule, " what 
 do the Scripures teach," but, "what does the Church teach.'" 
 Still, the appealing to the Scriptures against opposers was not 
 entirely neglected, and the preparation for the Eeformation 
 paved the way also for a more distinct and successful prosecu- 
 tion of Biblical Theology, especially of the New Testament. 
 The Doctores ad Biblia were expressly entrusted with its exposi- 
 tion, and the example of LUTHER shows with what zeal individ- 
 uals, at least, discharged this duty. The leading doctrinal works 
 of the Eeformers also, may be regarded as the fruit of the earn- 
 est study of the Bible, although it was pursued in no degree from 
 a historical point of view or with a purely scientific aim. It 
 was unfortunate that in the 17th century a new scholasticism 
 took the place of the old, and the line of distinction between 
 Biblical Theology and the Doctrinal Theology of the Church 
 became more and more faint. Exegesis was thrown into the 
 shade and Polemics brought into the foreground. Yet the 
 views maintained in these controversies were defended by ap- 
 pealing to the so-called dicta probantia (proof texts) which were 
 more or less fully explained. Even the endeavor to find the 
 truths of the gospel taught as clearly and distinctly as possible 
 in connection with the historical persons in the Old Testament 
 led to a species of investigation, although one quite peculiar. 
 For instance the theology of Job (1687), Jeremiah (1696), and 
 even Elizabeth (1706) was exhibited with microscopic minute- 
 ness. To an increasing degree the need was felt, along with 
 the scholastico-dogmatic method of investigation, of one which 
 should be exegetical and Biblical (though not simply historical), 
 and the helps for this were furnished from different quarters. 
 In Strasburg, SEBASTIAN SCHMIDT published his Collegium 
 
8 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 Biblicum (3d ed., 1689) ; in Holland, WITSIUS and YITEINGA 
 adopted a purely Biblical method. The reaction, also, of Pie- 
 tism against Orthodoxism had a favorable preparatory influence 
 upon this science, and during the whole of the 18th century 
 an increasing effort was manifest to break away from the 
 scholastic yoke, and to return to the simplicity of the Bible in 
 the exhibition of Christian life and doctrine. As examples of 
 this tendency may be mentioned, HEYMANN, " Essay towards a 
 Biblical Theology, in Tables "(4th ed., 1758) ; BUSCHING, Epitome 
 Theologies, e solis litteris sacris concinnatae " (1757) ; and from the 
 same hand : " Thoughts upon the nature and value of Biblico- dog- 
 matic Theology as compared with Scholastic " (1758) ; above all, 
 ZACHAEIJS, " Biblical Theology, or Inquiry into the Biblical ground 
 of the principal theological doctrines " (3 e Aufl. 5 Theile, 1786), and 
 STOKE, Doctrince Christianas e solis litt SS. repetitm Pars Theor. 
 (Stuttg. 1793 and 1807). [Translated with additions by Eev. S. 
 S. SCHMUCKEE, D.D., under the title, An Elementary Course 
 of Biblical Theology, from the work of Professors STOEE and FLATT. 
 2d ed. Andover, 1838. 8vo]. Their footsteps were followed, 
 both abroad and in our own country, by respectable Biblical 
 theologians of the Supranaturalistic direction, at the end of the 
 last and the beginning of the present century. 
 
 3. With all the value to be attached to these attempts, the 
 purely historical treatment of the Biblical Theology of the New 
 Testament is entirely a product of the more recent period, in 
 which the distinction between it and Doctrinal Theology, whether 
 ecclesiastical or philosophical, is more and more brought into 
 the foreground. The idea, that the Biblical Theology of the 
 New Testament should be treated as an independent part of 
 historical science, was first distinctly expressed on the rational- 
 istic side. This was done by GABLEE, Prof, in Altorf, in the 
 year 1787, in an academic discourse : de justo discrimine Theol. 
 Bibl. et Dogm. (afterwards incorporated into his "Lesser Theologi- 
 cal Writings " (1831), in which he strongly insists that in the 
 former of these departments the doctrinal teachings of the dif- 
 ferent writers should be objectively investigated, distinguished 
 from each other, and systematically arranged. His leading 
 thought was carried out by his colleague, G. L. BAUEE, who 
 published a "Biblical Theology of the N. T." in four volumes 
 
History and Literature. 9 
 
 (1800-1802), which was to have been followed by a fifth. The 
 latter gave to his historical inquiry an apologetic and practical 
 character, but a more independent position was taken by AM- 
 MON in his "Sketch of a pure Biblical Theology" (Erlang. 1792), 
 and his " Biblical Theology " (3 e Th. 2 Aufl. 1801 u. 1802). In 
 his view Biblical Theology is obliged merely to furnish " the 
 materials, fundamental ideas and results of the Bible, without 
 troubling itself about their connection, or combining them into an 
 artificial system." "That work," he says, "belongs exclusively 
 to the Systematic theologian, who links these results together." 
 Whether the business of the "Systematic theologian" is so 
 simple as these words would indicate, it is not necessary for us 
 here to inquire ; it is enough that AMMON has expressed the con- 
 ception of the historical character of our science. This was done 
 still more distinctly by KAYSER in his "Biblical Theology, or 
 Judaism and Christianity " (Erlang. 1813-14), but especially by 
 DEWETTE, Professor at Basle (d. 1850), who, though not so 
 much in respect to results as to method, has rendered to it the 
 most important service. He placed Biblical Dogmatics beside, 
 and in certain respects in opposition to, the doctrinal system of 
 the Lutheran Church, and distinguished in the former, better 
 than had been done before, between the ideas of Hebraism and 
 those of Judaism, and between the doctrinal teachings of Jesus 
 and those of the Apostles. He inquired first of all, not whether 
 his own views agreed with the statements of the Scriptures, but 
 what these statements are : how they had been developed out 
 of and beside each other, and in what connection they stood 
 with the particular ideas of the age in which they were first 
 expressed. Undoubtedly this work has its weaker sides also : 
 Biblical Theology is still too much Biblical Dogmatics in the 
 strictest sense of the word, and the peculiar philosophical views 
 of the author (he belonged to the school of FRIES) had alto- 
 gether too much influence upon the historical presentation. 
 Notwithstanding this, however, he took gigantic steps in the 
 right direction and laid a foundation on which others could suc- 
 cessfully build. This was done to a certain degree, though 
 in a less happy form, by BAUMGARTEN-CRUSIUS, Professor at 
 Jena, in his "Fundamental Outlines of Biblical Theology" 
 (1828), by CRAMER, "Lectures on the Biblical Theology of the 
 
10 Biblical Theology of the New Testament 
 
 New Testament" (edited by NAEBE, Leipzig, 1830,) and on a 
 much broader scale, by VAN COELLN, Professor at Breslau, 
 whose "Biblical Theology" was issued after his death in the 
 year 1836, in two volumes, by Dr. D. SCHULZ. 
 
 Meanwhile, the rationalistic or semi-rationalistic direction in 
 theology was not the only one which devoted itself with manifest 
 earnestness to the study of this branch of science. On the 
 supranaturalistic side also, it was cultivated by men of ability. 
 Within the second quarter of the present century, attention be- 
 gan to be more particularly directed to the theology of the Old 
 Testament The works on this subject by STEUDEL (1840), 
 OEHLER (1840), and especially HAVEENTCK (1848), deserve to be 
 honorably mentioned. In respect to the New Testament our sci- 
 ence owes an undeniable debt to the never to be forgotten NEAN- 
 DEK (d. 1850). In the first part of his " Life of Jesus " (1st ed. 
 1837) he gave a masterly historical sketch of the doctrinal teach- 
 ings of the Saviour, as exhibited in his parables, as previously, 
 with rare skill, in his " Planting and Training of the Apostolic 
 Church " (1st ed., 1832) he had clearly set forth the doctrinal 
 teachings of the different apostolic writers. He brought out the 
 nice shades in the peculiarity of each, but exhibited also their 
 higher unity, and endeavored especially to show "how, notwith- 
 standing all the differences between them, a profound unity in 
 essentials remains, if we do not allow ourselves to be deceived 
 by the form, and how even the form explains itself in its diver- 
 sity." The weaker sides of Neander's presentation are avoided 
 in one of the best works which we have to name, SCHMID, 
 "Biblical Theology of the New Testament" edited after his 
 death by Dr. C. WEIZACKER (1853), of which a new edition ap- 
 peared in 1864. He clearly presents in an objective form the 
 theology of the New Testament, and penetrates with uncon- 
 cealed sympathy into the depths of the organism of the different 
 doctrines, prefixing to the whole at some length an account of 
 the life of our Lord and his Apostles. If the latter feature is 
 not to be commended (comp. 1. 3), still his work is much su- 
 perior to the uncompleted " Theology of the New Testament" 
 (Leipz. 1854, Bd. I,) by Dr. G. L. HAHN. The latter treats only 
 of the fundamental ideas concerning God and the world which 
 form the common basis of the doctrinal teaching of our Lord 
 
History and Literature. 11 
 
 and his Apostles, without making a proper distinction between 
 the different types of doctrine and even tropes ; it clearly ex- 
 hibits, indeed, the unity of the above named doctrines, but 
 without paying proper attention to the difference, in the devel- 
 opment of doctrines, among the writers of the New Testament 
 In respect mor.e particularly to the theology of the Apostles we 
 mention with commendation, MESSNER, " The Doctrine of the 
 Apostles " (Berl. 1850),* a book occasionally somewhat heavy, 
 but rich in contents and composed on a good plan, and espe- 
 cially LECHLER, "The Apostolic and Post - Apostolic Age with 
 reference to Diversity and Unity in doctrine and life," which 
 was crowned by the directors of the Teyler Foundation in 1848. 
 In 1857 it was issued a second time, so much enlarged and im- 
 provedf that it may be called almost a new work. The special 
 literature of the Petrine, Pauline and Johannean theology will 
 be mentioned in its proper place. The necessity of some con- 
 siderable modifications in the treatment of the theological 
 teachings of Jesus in consequence of the criticism of STRAUSS 
 and the Tubingen School was a natural result of the spirit of 
 the age and is evident, also, from numerous examples. 
 
 Upon the whole it must not be assumed that, even where the 
 purely historical character of our science has been known and 
 maintained, the theological and philosophical views of those 
 who cultivated it, have not exercised a great influence upon the 
 mode of its treatment. How injurious has been the influence 
 of the Hegelian philosophy upon the Biblical Theology of the 
 Old Testament may be seen in the work of VATKE (1835), 
 whose a priori construction of doctrine and history was opposed 
 but not improved by BRUNO BAUER in his " Religion of the Old 
 Testament" (Berlin, 1838, 1839). 
 
 In regard to the New Testament, we should be able to com- 
 mend more highly EEUSS'S in many respects excellent Histoire 
 de la Theol Chret. du Siecle Apostol (Strasb. 1852, last ed., 
 1864), if its clearness and fulness were equalled by strict ob- 
 jectivity of statement. But in the grouping, and here and 
 
 * A Dutch translation of this work has been published, with an introduction by 
 Prof. HOEKSTRA. [An abstract of it will also be found in the Bibliotheca Sacra, 
 Oct., 1869 and Jan., 1870. TV.] 
 
 f Comp. a review by the author of this work in the Jaarbb. voor Wet. TJieol 
 (1852, Deel x. bL 561-582). 
 
12 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 there in the treatment of his material and his final judgment 
 upon it, a certain degree of sympathy with the Tubingen con- 
 struction of the early Church History cannot escape notice, and 
 still further his inquiry extends beyond the limit of the New 
 Testament, a fact not favorable to a recognition of the special 
 value of its contents. To a far greater degree does this remark 
 hold true of the work of the head of the Tubingen School, Dr. 
 R C. BAUR, "Lectures on New Testament Theology" pub- 
 lished after his death by his son (1864), in which the light and 
 dark sides of this direction appear, so to speak, in a concen- 
 trated form. The whole of the rich material of the theology 
 of the New Testament is divided by BAUR, after having sepa- 
 rately considered the doctrinal teachings of Jesus, into three 
 distinct periods. In the first he places the four epistles of 
 Paul [Komans, Galatians, I and II Corinthians], regarded by 
 him as genuine, together with the Apocalypse, and discusses 
 their importance. In the second follow : the Epistle to the He- 
 brews, the smaller Pauline Epistles (with the exception of those 
 to Timothy and Titus), with the addition of those of Peter and 
 James, the Synoptical Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. 
 In the third, finally, the doctrinal teachings of the Pastoral 
 Epistles and the writings of John, which, according to BAUR, are 
 by far the latest of the Sacred Canon. Thus the whole con- 
 ception and method rest upon a kind of Introduction and 
 Criticism, which no one, perhaps, would style impartial. Still 
 more arbitrarily and with much less ability has NOACK in his 
 "Biblical and Theological Introduction to the Old and New 
 Testaments " (Halle, 1853), attempted the reconstruction of the 
 history from the same position. From the Koman Catholic 
 side an important contribution to our science was made in Ger- 
 many by LUTTERBECK, in his "Doctrinal Teachings of the New 
 Testament, or Investigations into the age of religious transition, the 
 steps preparatory to Christianity and its earliest form (2 Thle. 
 Mainz, 1852). It is a thesaurus of materials, but the writer 
 himself has entitled it a " Handbook of the most Ancient Doc- 
 trinal and Systematic Exegesis of the New Testament," while 
 leaving wholly untouched the doctrinal teachings of our Lord 
 and, on the other hand, incorporating much which does not 
 directly pertain to the subject. 
 
History and Literature. 13 
 
 In the Netherlands, while much comparatively has been con- 
 tributed toward biblical and evangelical doctrinal theology 
 (MUNTINGHE, EGELING, HERINGA, VINKE), little has been done 
 for the scientific, and purely historical treatment of the Theology 
 of the New Testament. From the stand-point of the Groningen 
 School a number of important contributions to the knowledge 
 of the doctrinal teachings of Paul and the other Apostles were 
 published in the earlier volumes of Waarheid en Liefde. J. H. 
 SCHOLTEN, Professor in Leyden, has placed in the hands of his 
 pupils a valuable compend in his " History of Christian Theology 
 during the Period of the New Testament" (2 e uitg., Leyden, 1858), 
 in which the well known clearness and acuteness of the author 
 are as manifest as is the influence of his peculiar doctrinal 
 views. An important contribution was made to Biblical The- 
 ology by Dr. A. H. BLOM, in his work entitled " The Doctrine of 
 the Messiahs Kingdom among the first Christians, according to the 
 Acts of the Apostles " (Dortr., 1863), a treatise in which the claim 
 of rigid objectivity is not made without reason. In a popular 
 and at the same time scientific way, the writer of the present 
 work has endeavored to exhibit distinctly the " Christology of the 
 New Testament" (Eotterdam, 1857). A careful and thorough 
 " Historical and Expository Inquiry concerning Eschatology, or the 
 doctrine of Future Things according to the writings of the New Testa- 
 ment," was published by J. P. BRIET (2 DeeL, Thiel, 1857, 58). 
 4. At the close of our historical survey we see that it is in 
 no wise impossible to treat the Biblical Theology of the New 
 Testament as a distinct science, and that a new attempt to de- 
 velop and complete this science is not superfluous. It is fully 
 evident that its claims are better met the more clearly its objec- 
 tive and historical character is recognized, while on the other 
 hand a premature mingling of individual dogmatic and philo- 
 sophical opinions can only result in essential injury to it. 
 In the history of the past, men have struck by turns upon one or 
 the other of these two rocks : they have either sacrificed on the 
 one hand the undeniable diversity of the doctrinal teachings to 
 the maintenance of a conceptional unity, or, on the other, the 
 higher unity to the maintenance of a quite too strongly marked 
 diversity. The first took place, especially at an earlier period, 
 under the influence of the current dogmatism : the latter is more 
 
14 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 frequently found in our time under the influence of the criticism 
 at present in vogue. True wisdom demands that in avoiding 
 Scylla we keep clear of Charybdis. But this leads to the fol- 
 lowing Section. 
 
 Comp. on the subject of this, KEUSS, Histoire de la Theol. 
 Chret, I, pp. 13-28, and BAUR, Vorlesungen uber N. T. Theologie 
 S. 1-44 
 
 Questions for consideration. To what is it to be ascribed that 
 the Biblical Theology of the New Testament is such a compar- 
 atively recent science? "What beneficial and what injurious 
 influence has the Tubingen School had upon its development ? 
 Is it possible and necessary to keep its cultivation free from 
 the influence of a definite system of Christian philosophy ? 
 
 3. 
 
 Its Method, Main Divisions and Demands. 
 
 The method of our investigation can be no other, from the 
 nature of the case, than the genetic, chronological, and analyti- 
 cal. The main divisions of the subject are determined by the 
 peculiarity and the mutual connection of the different doctrines 
 taught in the New Testament. In order that the treatment of 
 them may correspond with their design, it must be conducted 
 in a really scientific manner and also in a genuine Christian spirit. 
 
 1. In every science, the question in respect to the method of 
 its treatment is of very great importance. The entire value of 
 a result depends upon the legitimacy of the process by which 
 it was reached. It is equally clear that the method of every 
 science is determined by its special character. As a part of 
 historical theology, our science can be subject to no other laws 
 than those which govern every historical inquiry. The method 
 must consequently be genetic, i. e., it must take into view, not 
 only the contents, but also the process of production (genesis) of 
 the different ideas. In this process historico-psychological exege- 
 sis, especially, will render good service. Next, chronological ; for 
 
Method, Divisions and Demands. 15 
 
 we find in the New Testament, a collection of writings and 
 ideas, which gradually arose, and were developed in many cases 
 under the mutual influence of one writer upon another, while 
 even the interior process of development in one and the same 
 author (Paul, for instance) was in no wise at a stand for an en- 
 tire series of years. "History is a development of life" (ScHMiD). 
 Here the well known direction " distingue tempora " is to be 
 carefully borne in mind. Finally, analytic or disjunctive. Our 
 inquiry is not at the outset concerning the doctrinal teaching 
 of the Apostolic age as a whole, but concerning that of the in- 
 dividual New Testament writings. It is true, we must strive 
 to grasp the higher unity, but this stands forth clearly only 
 when unmistakable diversity has been previously exhibited. 
 The synthesis has no value, if the analysis was not pure. 
 " It is from analysis that we seek for the light, which 
 shall illumine our path : from analysis, which teaches the 
 historian to forget himself in order not to be untrue to his sub- 
 ject, which knows how to respect the particular character of 
 each fact, each idea which it meets, which recognizes in every 
 epoch, every group, every individual even, however small, its 
 right to a place in the mirror of history, as it once had in actual 
 life." (EEUSS.) 
 
 2. The main divisions of the department on which we enter, 
 are substantially indicated by what has been already said. 
 First of all, we must distinguish between the doctrinal teachings 
 of the Lord Jesus Christ and those of the Apostolic writers, and 
 speak of the former before we take up the latter. In the first 
 named, the difference between the sayings of our Lord in the 
 three first Gospels and in the Gospel of John comes before us. 
 The present state of science demands that we study both sep- 
 arately, and listen first to the Christ of the Synoptical gospels, 
 and then of John, in order finally to inquire how the words of 
 both stand mutually related to each other. The study of the 
 doctrines of the Apostles demands a similiar separation, which is 
 in this case threefold. Peter, Paul, John, these three and in 
 this succession, give, one after the other, their testimony. 
 Around these figures others group themselves, who exhibit a 
 more or less noticeable affinity of thought with them and their 
 ideas. Thus to the Petrine theology belong the doctrinal teaeh- 
 
16 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 ings of the epistles of James and Jude, to which also must be 
 reckoned those of the gospels according to Matthew and Mark. 
 Around Paul gather successively Stehpen, his forerunner ; Luke, 
 his fellow-laborer ; and the writer of the epistle to the Hebrews, 
 of a spirit akin to his. John stands alone ; but the John of the 
 fourth gospel and the epistles on the one hand, and the John of 
 the Apocalypse on the other, are sufficiently different to justify 
 us in attending to them separately. 
 
 Within these two main divisions the materials for our inves- 
 tigation are included, but not to the exclusion of certain pre- 
 liminary considerations. We cannot understand the instructions 
 of our Lord and his Apostles, unless we are familiar, at least in 
 general, with the soil from which the plant sprung. An intro- 
 ductory chapter, therefore, must precede both of these, which 
 shall treat, not indeed of the entire theology of the Old Testa- 
 ment, but of the religion from the bosom of which Christianity 
 came ; of the expectations of which it is the realization ; and 
 finally of the condition, the ideas and the wants of the age in 
 which our Lord and his disciples appeared ; in other words, of 
 Mosaism, Prophetism, and Judaism (as distinguished from the 
 earlier Hebraism). The contents of this first part, merely pre- 
 paratory, but yet indispensable, we may best comprise under 
 the name of Old Testament foundation. Next follow, secondly, 
 the theology of Jesus Christ, and then, thirdly, that of the 
 Apostles, according to the plan indicated above. But is our 
 investigation with this completed ? Not more than is a build- 
 ing, the foundations of which are laid, and the walls carried 
 up to the required height, but which still lacks roof and gable. 
 In a fourth or last chapter, the synthesis of the now completed 
 analysis must be sought, or, in other words, the higher unity of the 
 doctrines of the Apostles with each other, and of all of them with 
 those of our Lord, must be brought out. It is thus only that the 
 Theology of the New Testament rises before us like a well con- 
 structed edifice. " Thus will the New Testament theology have 
 the task of developing the organic connection of the New Tes- 
 tament doctrine " (ScHMiD). It is only here that we can perma- 
 nently stand. And now if it is manifest, that none of the 
 leading divisions which have been indicated can be either 
 omitted, or differently placed and arranged, without the de- 
 
Method, Divisions and Demands. 17 
 
 struction of harmony, the propriety and correctness of our main 
 division will be justified. 
 
 3. The demand, that the inquiry to be instituted shall be at 
 once scientific and Christian, no one, in this general form, will 
 deny. Nevertheless a single word of explanation will not be 
 superfluous. 
 
 An investigation is scientific, when it corresponds to the de- 
 mands of science in general and is in harmony with the partic- 
 ular science which it seeks to advance. "Science is. well 
 grounded knowledge, the fruit of correct observation and phi- 
 losophical investigation " (MULDER). Theological Science,, con- 
 sequently, is well grounded and well arranged knowledge of 
 God and divine things, drawn from those sources from which 
 they can manifestly be known. In its investigation, it obtains 
 light by means of faith in God and his revelation, but this 
 faith, so far from extinguishing or fettering the spirit of inves- 
 tigation, stimulates it and give to it the most legitimate direc- 
 tion. It is a proper condition of this investigation also, that it 
 be fundamental, accurate, complete, impartial and truth-loving. 
 This impartiality, however, must not be conceived of as a de- 
 liberate denying and forgetting of all the principles from which 
 men start on other subjects (expressed by the German word 
 VorausetzungslosigTceit), for this is neither necessary nor possible. 
 It demands rather that with a candid mind and spirit, we hold 
 ourselves open to every impression, and desire nothing except 
 the truth, whether it accords with our private and cherished 
 opinions or not Such a love of the truth, which becomes no one 
 more than the student of theological science, naturally allies 
 itself with the moral earnestness which should least of all be 
 wanting in an investigation like ours. So far it can be said 
 that the true scientific spirit is not merely a direction of the 
 intellect, but of the whole mental and moral life, so that, 
 like eloquence, it may be called not simply a gift, but also a 
 virtue. 
 
 This scientific investigation will at the same time be Christian, 
 when it is commenced and prosecuted, first, from a Christian 
 point of view. It is impossible in studying the doctrinal teach- 
 ings of Jesus and the Apostles not to remember the great sig- 
 nificance of the New Testament in respect to the religious and 
 2* 
 
18 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 Christian life. The theologian who is truly Christian cannot 
 forsake his faith on entering the field of science. Neither is 
 this demanded : believing leads here, too, to better knowing, 
 as the latter in turn places us in a better condition to be- 
 lieve (1 John 5, 13). Still, we must not allow the Christian 
 and ecclesiastical points of view to become confounded. The 
 Scriptures of the New Testament are now to be exclusively 
 regarded and consulted as historical documents ; the question 
 whether they are more than this, and in what relation they 
 stand and must stand to the faith and life of the Christian, 
 belongs exclusively to the department of Christian Dogmatics, 
 and consequently remains here untouched. In the second place, 
 our inquiry must be conducted in a Christian spirit, that is, in 
 the spirit of genuine humility, which is conscious of the limita- 
 tion of our powers : of a living faith, which seeks with growing 
 earnestness, to know the mysteries of the kingdom of God : 
 and most of all, of warm love to the Gospel, which easily and 
 willingly comes into sympathy with the spirit of the sacred 
 writers, a condition indispensable to profounder knowledge. 
 Finally, our inquiry must have a Christian aim personal 
 sanctification through the knowledge of the truth, the upbuild- 
 ing of the kingdom of God around us, and thereby, above all, 
 the glory of Him to whom are all things, the sphere of science 
 not excepted. Comp. SCHENKEL, Christl Dogm n S. 61. ff., 
 NITZSCH, in HEKZOG'S Real-Encycl II. S. 225. 
 
 Questions for Consideration : The importance of method in the 
 department of theology. Criticism of some other divisions and 
 subdivisions. How far is complete impartiality in our investi- 
 gation indispensable, possible, desirable ? Is a purely historical 
 inquiry, such as is here proposed, entirely compatible with 
 the reverence which we owe to the Holy Scriptures ? 
 
PART I. 
 
 THE OLD TESTAMENT FOUNDATION. 
 
 4- 
 
 Mosaism. 
 
 Mosaism is the religious and political constitution given 
 through Moses to the people of Israel, and in consequence of 
 which it has occupied an entirely peculiar position in the history 
 of the development of the religious life of mankind. The 
 chief source of knowledge respecting it is the Canonical Script- 
 ures of the Old Testament; its foundation, a special divine 
 revelation ; its character, monotheistic ; its form, theocratic ; 
 its worship, symbolico- typical ; its tendency purely moral ; its 
 stand-point, that of external authority, but at the same time of 
 conscious preparation for higher development. 
 
 1. The theology of the New Testament rests entirely upon 
 the foundation of the Old Testament. The gospel is unintel- 
 ligible in respect to its contents and form, without a knowledge 
 of the prophetical Scriptures. These in turn point back to 
 Moses and the religion founded by him (Comp. John 4, 22 ; 
 2 Tim. 3, 15). 
 
 2. That the Israelitish people occupied an entirely peculiar 
 position in the history of religion no one will deny. In com- 
 merce and luxury it was inferior to the Phenicians, in art and 
 science to the Greeks, in valor to the Komans and others. 
 In the sphere of religion, on the other hand, we meet in Israel 
 ideas, institutions, expectations, which in this form we nowhere 
 else find ; historical figures, the counterpart of which we else- 
 where seek in vain ; and most of all, a consciousness of itself, 
 which must have been simply the fruit of unbounded arrogance 
 
20 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 or else a priceless prerogative (Dent. 4, 7; 33, 29. Ps. 89, 16; 147, 
 19. 20.) The objective and subjective eminence, on which 
 Israel stood, can be explained only from Mosaism. 
 
 3. In order to a right knowledge and judgment of Mosaism, 
 a knowledge of Moses himself is necessary. This is derived 
 partly from profane sources (Egyptian, Greek, Roman,) and 
 partly from sacred, especially the Scriptures of the Old Testa- 
 ment, and most of all the Pentateuch. Not all, however, is 
 purely Mosaic which has named itself after Moses, just as all is 
 not Christian which is connected with the name of Christ, It is 
 the important and indispensable work entrusted to thorough 
 criticism to distinguish the original Mosaic elements from what 
 was afterwards added, either in the way of development or of 
 deterioration. 
 
 4. With all which Moses has in common with the founders 
 of other ancient religions, his personal character and work re- 
 main perfectly inexplicable, if he was not the interpreter and 
 agent of a special divine revelation. The definition, possibility, 
 reality and criteria of this special revelation are presented in 
 Doctrinal Theology. Biblical Theology affirms simply the fact, 
 that Moses appeared as an extraordinary ambassador from God 
 (Num. 12, 6-8), was recognized as such by contemporaries and 
 posterity, (Deut. 34, 10-12), and also by Jesus and the Apostles 
 (Matt. 15, 3-6 ; Rom. 3, 2), and that he demonstrated the divin- 
 ity of his mission, not merely by miracles and prophecies, but 
 especially by the internal excellence of his religious teachings, 
 which it has never been possible to explain on merely natural 
 grounds. The divine revelation, however, made to Moses, had 
 its root, in turn, in an earlier revelation, the origin of which 
 goes back into remote antiquity (Ex. 2, 24. 25). It is only from 
 the stand-point of Supranaturalistic Theism that Mosaism can 
 be comprehended. 
 
 5. Mosaism bears from the beginning a strictly monotheistic 
 character. It exhibits Jehovah, not merely as the supreme, but 
 as the only God (Deut. 6, 4) beside whom, to no other creature 
 in heaven or on earth can religious worship justly be paid. 
 Although Israel became guilty of idolatry in the wilderness 
 and afterwards (Amos 5, 25-27), this crime was committed in 
 direct conflict with the the Mosaic law, which threatened it 
 with death. There is no better ground for assuming that this 
 
Mosaism. 21 
 
 monotheism gradually sprang from an earlier polytheism, than 
 for explaining it from the peculiarity of the Semitic race. 
 "That which is controlling in the history of the Jews, is not 
 race, but religion ; two distinct things, which do not mutu- 
 ally explain each other " (LA BOULAYE). Everything obliges 
 us, rather, in some form or other, to think of a personal divine 
 revelation, made to the ancestors of the nation, forgotten by 
 their posterity in Egypt, revived through Moses, and enlarged 
 in Mosaism by the addition of new elements. In consequence 
 of this revelation, Israel knows the Lord of heaven and earth, 
 the Almighty Creator of the universe, in his unity, majesty, 
 spiritual nature and spotless holiness, united with mercy and 
 faithfulness. This truth is the centre around which all re- 
 volves: "the doctrine of doctrines." The knowledge of it 
 raises Israel above all the nations of the earth, and is the un- 
 changeable pledge of national and personal prosperity. The 
 expectation of the latter, however, as a general rule, ex- 
 tends no further than this side the grave (Ex. 20, 12). Finally, 
 however much the hope of individuals even in death may have 
 clung to Him who lives eternally, life and immortality have 
 been brought to light only by the gospel (2 Tim. 1, 10). 
 
 6. The covenant which God, in accordance with his promises, 
 made to Israel through Moses as a mediator was the foundation 
 of the Theocracy. This word has come down to us from JOSE- 
 PHUS (Contra Apion. II, 16); this institution itself can neither 
 be regarded as an imitation of other forms of religion, e. g. 
 Egyptian ; nor as a natural product sprung from a narrow par. 
 ticularism ; nor as an involuntary reaction against heathenism. 
 It was the free and gracious choice of Him, who, although he is 
 Lord of the whole creation, made Israel the people of his own 
 possession. The covenant act of the theocracy, thus founded, 
 was the giving of the law on Sinai ; its seat the sanctuary : its 
 limit, not the rise of the kingly power, by which it was merely 
 modified, but the destruction of the Jewish commonwealth : its 
 culminating blessing, the appearance of Him who cast down 
 the separating wall between Israel and the nations. It is 
 only as we recognize this theocratic character, that the history of 
 Israel and the steadily progressive development of the supreme 
 majesty of God becomes credible or to a certain degree com- 
 prehensible. 
 
22 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 7. God will not only be known by Israel as the God of the 
 covenant, but also be solemnly worshiped in a way acceptable 
 to Him. This worship, prescribed through Moses, exhibits a 
 symbolico-typical character (Col. 2, 16. Ep. to the Heb.). Its 
 external forms are the visible expression of higher religious 
 ideas ; its present ceremonies at the same time a shadowing 
 forth of future persons and things (Typi personates et reales). 
 Types and symbols are by no means identical. Symbol stands 
 related to thought, as being its expression to the senses : type to 
 antitype, as the shadow to the reality. The symbol represents^ 
 the invisible; the type prefigures what is yet hidden. The 
 one and the other we see united in the principal religious act' 
 of Mosaism, as of every [ancient] religion sacrifice. It is a 
 symbol of voluntary consecration to God, and the sin-offering, 
 particularly, is a type of the complete sacrifice of the New Tes- 
 tament. " The idea of the typical is inseparable from the idea 
 of a theological development, where the present is in birth 
 with the future " (MAKTENSEN). Kules for the fuller explana- 
 tion of particulars are given in [works on] the Symbolism and 
 Types of the Old Testament. 
 
 8. Since, therefore, Mosaism is a lofty accommodation to the 
 undeveloped condition of the nation, its tendency may be 
 called purely moral. The religious and the ethical elements 
 are here most intimately blended. The spotless holinsss of the 
 King of Israel is also the highest ideal for the subject (Lev. 19, 
 2). The lively feeling of personal unholiness, the need of the 
 forgiveness of sins, the desire gratefully to glorify God, is at 
 one and the same time quickened and satisfied by the sacrificial 
 worship, and the spirit of love, mercy, and humanity is nour- 
 ished even under the extremely rigid particularism of a legis- 
 lation, which manifestly aimed, even in the minutest particu- 
 lars, to unite religion and life most intimately together. It has 
 been incorrectly held that the Mosaic economy of redemption 
 is founded only on legalism and not upon real morality, since it 
 requires merely external acts and not an internal principle. But 
 the very opening of the decalogue shows the contrary (Ex. 20, 
 2) ; however frequently Jehovah threatens, love to him always 
 stands in the foreground (Deut. 6, 5) ; and when Jesus compre- 
 hended the whole law in this one requirement, the Israelitish 
 
Mosaism. 23 
 
 conscience testified at once to the entire correctness of his in- 
 terpretation (Mark 12, 28-34). What, in itself considered, 
 might appear to be more or less inconsistent with the strictly 
 moral character of Mosaism (see e. g. Ex. 3, 21. 22 ; 1 Sam. 15, 
 3), is to be explained with an eye upon the whole, in the light 
 of the age, and in connection with the special government of 
 God. 
 
 9. It was impossible for the law, however, to effect the ful- 
 fillment of its righteous requirement in sinful man. Its stand- 
 point was that of external authority, like the relation of the 
 schoolmaster to the intractable youth in his minority (GaL 4, 
 1. 2). In Mosaism man stands toward God, not as a child to 
 his father, but as a subject to his king, or as a criminal to the 
 judge. By far the most of the commandments, consequently, 
 are of a prohibitive nature (Col. 2, 21) ; as life is connected 
 with obedience, so death is threatened to transgression (Gal. 3, 
 10). The love of God, indeed, is from the outset revealed and 
 recognized (Ex. 34, 6. 7 ; Ps. 103, 13 ; IK. 19, 11-13), but to 
 the awakened conscience it usually retires into the background 
 in the presence of his holiness and righteousness, which are 
 ever calling for new judgments. While love to Him, therefore, 
 is demanded by the law, it is not produced by it (Rom. 8, 15). 
 Mosaism contains even the promise of a renewal of the heart 
 (Deut. 30, 6), but the letter, as such, kills (2 Cor. 3, 6). In this 
 respect the spirit and force of Mosaism are strikingly symbol- 
 ized in the attitude of the people at the giving of the law (Ex. 
 20, 18-21). 
 
 10. Thus regarded, Mosaism would be not so much prepara- 
 tory to Christianity, as opposed to it, if what must by no 
 means be overlooked, a place had not been reserved in it for 
 higher development. But the same Divine revelation which 
 founded Mosaism had given a promise of its development 
 through prophetism (Deut. 18, 15-18). Mosaism exhibits a 
 particularistic coloring, but the remembrances of ancient prom- 
 ises of salvation, which it inviolably holds (Gen. 3, 15 ; 49, 10), 
 and the aspirations to which its interpreters give utterance at 
 the height of their religious development (Num. 11, 29 ; IK. 
 8, 41-48), are universal in their character. Thus it exhibits a 
 harmonious unity ; not indeed of the completed edifice, but of 
 the firm foundation on which the building was to be reared. 
 
24 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 Comp. on the Theology of the Old Testament in general the 
 works referred to in 2. On the history of Israel and the Old 
 Testament, those of HESS, KALKAR, KUKTZ, (1853, 1858). 
 [History of the Old Testament, transl. by Martin, Edinb., 1859. 3 
 vols.], EWALD, 1851-1855. [History of Israel, transl. by Mar- 
 tineau, Lond., 1858. 2 vols.] Also DA COSTA, " Lectures on the 
 Truth and Value of the Old Testament Writings,'" Amst., 1844. On 
 Moses, the Article of YAIHINGER in HERZOG'S Real-Encyclop., 
 with the literature there cited, and also the Article Aegypten by 
 LEPSIUS. On the Old Testament revelation, AUBERLIN ["Di- 
 vine Revelation "], translated into Dutch by G. Barger, Eott., 
 1862 [and into English by A. B. Paton, Edinb., 1867], TRIP, 
 " On the Theophanies of the Old Testament " in the Works of the 
 Hague Society, 1856, DILLMANN, " On the Origin of tfie Old 
 Testament Religion," Giessen, 1845. On the Theocracy, the 
 prize essay of C. Y. YAK KALKAR, (Hague Society, 1842), 
 and the Articles Konige, Volk Gottes and others in HERZOG'S 
 Real-Encycl. On the Mosaic worship, BAHR, " Symbolism of the 
 Mosaic worship," HeideL, 1837, KURTZ, " The Mosaic Sacrifice" 
 Mitau, 1842, and " On the symbolical dignity of numbers and the 
 tabernacle " in the Stud. u. Kritik. 1844. On sacrifice still more 
 particularly, the Article Opfercultus by OEHLER, in HERZOG'S 
 Real-Encycl., [and KURTZ, Sacrificial Worship of the Old Testa- 
 ment, transl. by Martin, Edinb., 1863). On the history, value 
 and rules of typology, the important article, Vorbild, by THO- 
 LUCK, in HERZOG, with the literature there cited [also FAIR- 
 BAIRN, The Typology of Scripture viewed in Connection with the 
 entire Scheme of the Divine Dispensations, 2nd ed. Phil., 1854. 
 2 vols. in one]. On the Mosaic Legislation, the well known 
 works of MICHAELIS [" Commentaries on the Laws of Moses," 
 transl. by A. Smith, Lond., 1844. 4 vols], SAALSCHUTZ, and 
 others ; also PICCARDT, de legislat. Mos. in dole morali, Traj., 
 1839, DEGrROOT, "Education of Mankind" On the germs of 
 subsequent development concealed in Mosaism, THOLUCK? 
 " The Old Testament in the New Testament," in the appendix 
 to his " Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews," UMBREIT, 
 " The Gospel in the Old Testament" in the Stud. u. Krit , 1849. 
 Comp. G. K. MEYER, " The promises to the Patriarchs" Kordhl- 
 1859. 
 
Prophetism. 25 
 
 Questions for consideration. Difference and agreement of the 
 Old and New Testaments. Survey and criticism of the different 
 views of Mosaism. Is it possible to explain the origin of Mo- 
 saism in Israel on merely natural grounds ? The hypothesis of 
 stone- worship.- -Agreement and difference between the Theoc- 
 racy and the later hierarchy. To what extent is Mosaism en- 
 tirely original? (SPENCER and WITSIUS). The different forms 
 of special revelation. The symbolical character of other an- 
 cient religions also. How is the former over-estimation, and 
 the subsequent repudiation of Typology to be explained 
 More particular exhibition of the symbolico -typical element 
 in the different kinds of sacrifices. How far may the Mosaic 
 legislation, compared with others, serve as evidence of the 
 -divine origin of Mosaism ? Mosaism and the Messianic expect- 
 ations. 
 
 6- 
 
 Prophetism. 
 
 Prophetism, in its character not less unique than the original 
 Mosaism, and to be explained neither in a rationalistic way, 
 nor as a sort of divination, was at once the support and the 
 
 fulfillment of previous revelation, and as such, an unspeakable 
 boon, not only to Israel, but also to the heathen world. It 
 paved the way for the Gospel in the New Testament, exerted 
 an important influence upon the contents and form of its 
 preaching, and beyond all reasonable doubt bore witness to its 
 exalted excellence. 
 
 1. As Moses stood, as a prophet, far above his contemporaries 
 (Num. 12, 6-8), so, after him, arose, from time to time, ex- 
 traordinary men of God. Even in the period of the Judges 
 individual prophets appeared (Judges 4, 4. 6, 8), but it was 
 properly not till the time of Samuel that the prophetic age 
 began. He appears to have been the founder of the so-called 
 schools of the prophets, which were subsequently more fully 
 developed under Elijah and Elisha. His own relation to Saul 
 
26 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 and David represents that of his successors towards later 
 kings. As defenders of the Theocracy, called by Jehovah 
 himself, they come forth from different stations and circles. 
 They stand in no respect above the law, but maintain its au- 
 thority, emphasize its spiritual interpretation, and interpret the 
 deeds and counsels of God, into which they penetrated more 
 deeply than others. Hence they bear the name of " Messengers 
 of Jehovah," "Speakers," "Seers," etc., and are in more re- 
 spects than one distinguished from the priests. They teach the 
 people to understand the signs of the times, and not unfrequently 
 utter predictions, properly so called, that is, distinct announce- 
 ments of future events, which could not possibly be discovered 
 in any natural way. If there is little reason for regarding the 
 foretelling of future events as the chief calling of the prophets, 
 impartial criticism finds quite as little ground for excluding 
 a priori from their vocation the prediction of hidden things 
 which stood in organic connection with the development of the 
 kingdom of God. The principle that the knowledge of the 
 prophets in no case transcended the natural bounds of human 
 information is in irreconcilable conflict both with the utterances 
 of their own consciousness and with facts. 
 
 2. That the Israelitish prophetism may be styled an entirely 
 unique phenomenon is evident, partly when we consider it in 
 itself and partly when we compare it with the heathen divina- 
 tion. A plant like this could blossom only on a theistic soil ; 
 prophetism can be explained only as a link in a chain of spe- 
 cial provisions of salvation. We have no choice except be- 
 tween the view of it as supernatural or unnatural. To explain 
 prophetism on rationalistic grounds is to forget that the utter- 
 ance of human feeling and the prophetic consciousness of the 
 Seer were often directly opposed to each other (1 Sam. 15, 11. 
 16, 6. 7 ; 2 Sam. 7, 3-7), and is finally to make the theocracy 
 merely a device and calculation favored by the current of 
 events. The Israelitish prophet saw more than others, because 
 God communicated more to him. Undoubtedly the capacity 
 for receiving such a communication existed in the prophets in 
 no common degree, but the source of their personal certainty 
 respecting the present and the future lay in special revelations, 
 given to them in different forms, as they were not to other men. 
 
Prophetism. 27 
 
 However untenable may be the theory of a mere magical and 
 mechanical inspiration, the fact itself of inspiration is not over- 
 thrown. Prophecy was the ripe fruit not only of a divine influ- 
 ence, but of revelation, adapted, in respect to contents and form, 
 to the individuality of the prophets and to existing circum- 
 stances, though without being susceptible of being explained 
 only from these. "History is the introduction to prophecy, 
 but not its measure " (DELITZSCH). Genuine prophecy is the 
 product of the combined activity of the Divine and the human 
 factor ; upon the foundation of what is given in the past 
 and the present, it directs its look to the mysteries of the 
 future. 
 
 3. Prophetism stands in very close connection with Mosaism. 
 It supports the prescriptions of the latter, which otherwise 
 would have been constantly forgotten (Mai. 4, 4. 5), and at 
 the same time developes its doctrinal import and adds essen- 
 tially new elements. If Mosaism declared the unity of God, 
 the prophets of Israel extol his majesty in language of in- 
 imitable sublimity, and lash with satire the folly of idolatry 
 (Is. 40 and 44). The idea of the Angel of the Covenant and 
 of the Spirit of the Lord is much more prominent in the pro- 
 phetic word than in the books of Moses (Is. 63, 9. 10). The 
 doctrine of angels, like that of demons, of which there are 
 only slight traces in Mosaism, is strongly and in many forms 
 brought out, especially by the later prophets. The expectation 
 also of the resurrection and the judgment after death, on which 
 Moses was silent, is expressly mentioned by some of them (Is. 
 25, 6-9; 26, 19 ; Ezek. 37, 1-14; Dan. 12, 2. 3). Since Mosa- 
 ism was in principle purely ethical, the propheti j word predom- 
 inantly directs attention to the spiritual nature of God's com- 
 mandments, and, in opposition to a mechanical formalism and 
 ritualism, insists upon internal consecration to God as the es- 
 sential part of the sacrificial worship (1 Sam. 15, 22 ; Is. 1, 11- 
 18 ; Micah 6, 6-8). If, finally, Mosaism was limited and na- 
 tional, the prophets took their stand on the wall of separation 
 which yet they could not remove, and proclaimed a kingdom 
 of God, which, going forth from Jerusalem, embraces all nations 
 (Is. 2, 4) ; a golden age in the future, brighter than the heathen 
 had ever dreamed of (Is. 11, 6-9). 
 
28 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 4. Messianic prophecy also, both in the more limited and in 
 the broader sense, (that relating to the person and kingdom of 
 the Messiah) may, in a certain sense, be regarded as a develop- 
 ment of Mosaism. It was a continuation of a golden chain of 
 prophecies with which the Pentateuch had already made the 
 prophets and their contemporaries familiar (see 4, 10). The 
 house of David, who, himself a prophet, was gladdened with the 
 sublimest prospect (2 Sam. 23, 1-7 ; Matt. 22, 43 ; Acts 2, 30), 
 was the point from which the highest expectations, which were 
 delineated in ever clearer lines, were made to proceed. In the 
 earliest prophets, Joel (2, 28-32), Amos (9, 11. 12), and Hosea 
 (3 ; 5), they are expressed in more general forms, but in Micah 
 (4; 5), and especially in Isaiah, the image of the eagerly 
 looked for Branch of David is depicted in stronger and stronger 
 colors (Is. 7, 14 ; 9, 1-6 ; 11, 1-10). To the description of his 
 kingly glory is joined that of his prophetic and priestly offices, 
 especially in the last chapters of Isaiah (42 ; 49 ; 50, 4-11 ; 52, 
 13 53, 12). Although the Branch of David is not forgotten 
 (53, 3), it is more especially the " Servant of the Lord " who pro- 
 claims his salvation, not only to Israel but to the Gentiles, suf- 
 fers the innocent for the guilty, and as the true, spiritual Israel 
 becomes the source of both temporal and spiritual blessings to 
 all the nations of the earth.* What was thus announced be- 
 fore the captivity, was during it guarded, repeated, and enriched 
 with new features. Upon the ruins of Jerusalem Jeremiah 
 beholds the throne of David rising in brighter splendor (23, 5. 
 6), and then presently exhibits the spiritual glory of the new 
 dispensation as compared with the old (31, 31-34). Ezekiel 
 describes the Son of David under the winning image of a cedar 
 (17, 22-24), and shepherd (34, 23), and beholds a stream of 
 living water issuing forth from the new temple (47, 1-12). 
 The world-prophet Daniel stands upon an eminence, whence in 
 the silence of night he sees the image of earthly monarchs 
 broken in pieces at his feet, and the kingdom of heaven, sym- 
 bolized in the form of a Son of Man, coming with the clouds 
 of heaven (Ch. 2 and 7). After the captivity, also, the same 
 expectation of salvation manifests itself in a great variety of 
 forms, but with an essentially similar import. Haggai (2, 7-9) 
 
 * Comp. OEHLER, der Knecht Jehovah's in Deutero (?) Jesaidh. Stuttg., 1865. 
 
Prophetism. 29 
 
 anticipates a revelation of God's kingdom even among the Gen- 
 tiles, which shall raise the glory of the second temple far above 
 that of the first. Zechariah sees the priestly and kingly dig- 
 nity united in the Branch of David, who comes in gentleness 
 to the miserable (6, 12. 13 ; 9, 9). Malachi, who sees in Him 
 the messenger of the covenant, announces also the second Elias 
 as his forerunner (3, 1 ; 4, 5). Each prophet stands upon the 
 shoulders of his predecessor ; but they all alike point to one, 
 who is the end of the law and the prophets. 
 
 5. No wonder that such a prophetism may be styled an un- 
 speakable benefit to the people of Israel It was the steadfast 
 supporter of revelation, the bulwark of religion, and, so to 
 speak, the incorruptible conscience of the theocratic state. 
 Through prophetism Israel saw at once its past history justified, 
 its present explained, and its future made sure. Hence it was 
 that the possession of prophets was regarded as a distinguished 
 privilege (Neh. 9, 30 ; Amos 2, 11), while the absence of them 
 was regarded as a national calamity (Ps. 74, 9). Even on the 
 Gentile world a marked influence was exerted by prophetism. 
 For, the life and labors of some of the prophets outside of the 
 land of promise (Elisha, Jonah, Daniel) had a direct tendency 
 to pave the way for the establishment of the kingdom of God 
 in a broader circle. To this the Greek translation of the pro- 
 phetic word especially contributed. 
 
 6. Thus prophetism, both in Israel and in the Gentile world, 
 was a preparation for the gospel of the New Testament It 
 steadily supported Monotheism, without which a more particu- 
 lar revelation of salvation was not conceivable. It aroused and 
 sharpened the sense of sin, that man might long more earnestly 
 for redemption. It kept hope alive, when hope seemed to be in 
 vain, and preached the comfort of promise instead of the terror 
 of the law. The entire personality, even, the work and the 
 fate of the most eminent prophets, were to serve as typical of 
 Him, who was to be the crown and centre of all the revelations 
 of God (Is. 61, 1 ; comp. Luke 4, 18. 19 ; Matt. 12, 40 ; 23, 37). 
 
 7. To the student of the Biblical Theology of the New Tes- 
 tament, the study of the prophetic word of the Old Testament 
 is of undeniable importance. On the contents and form of the 
 primitive preaching of the Gospel it exerted a manifest influence. 
 
30 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 The G-ospel came forth as the fulfilment of the prophetic expec- 
 tations, and appealed, in proof of its divinity, to prophetic dec- 
 larations (Luke 24, 27; Acts 17, 3 and many other passages). 
 In the mirror of these Scriptures our Lord beheld his own 
 image, and thousands have recognized him as the Christ. The 
 description, both of his person and work, in the New Testa- 
 ment finds its key in the language and the ceremonial worship 
 of the Old. Nay, with all the difference in form between the 
 prophetic and the Apostolic utterances, the influence of the 
 former upon the latter is incontestable. The Eschatology of 
 the New Testament, for example, is clothed to a great extent 
 in the garb of symbols taken from the prophetic writings, and 
 reechoes in louder tones Old Testament utterances. Neglect 
 the prophetic writings, and those of the Apostles will seem 
 partly unintelligible and partly incredible. Study the latter 
 in the light of the former and their truth and divinity will appear 
 more and more evident. That it is necessary, however, in the 
 explanation of prophecy to distinguish between its contents 
 and form, and to guard on the one hand against a realistic 
 abuse of oriental imagery and on the other against spiritualizing 
 into thin air the realities announced, scarcely needs to be said. 
 Particular rules for the interpretation of the prophetic word are 
 given in the Hermeneutics of the Old Testament. 
 
 On prophetism in general compare, in addition to the mono- 
 graphs of KNOBEL (1838), KOSTEK (1838), and EWALD (1840), 
 especially DELITZSCH " BiUico-prophetical Theology" etc., 1845; 
 best of all, the important articles of OEHLER, Prophetenthum 
 and Weissagung des A. B. in HERZOG'S Real-Encycl. XII and 
 XVII, THOLUCK, " The Prophets and their Prophecy" 1860. [Also 
 FAIRBAIRN, "Prophecy, its Nature, Functions, etc.," 1856]. On 
 the Messianic prophecies especially, the article, Messias, by 
 THOLUCK, in HERZOG, HOFFMANN, " Prophecy and Fulfillment" 
 Nordl., 1841, HENGSTENBERG-, " Christology of the Old Testament," 
 [transl. 1854-1859. 4 vols]. VAN OOSTERZEE," Christology," 
 L bl. 39-74, II. bl. 543-554. [J. PYE SMITH, Scripture Testi- 
 mony to the Messiah," 5th ed., 2 vols. 1859.] Comp. also Dus- 
 TERDIECK, de rei propheticce, in V. T. quam universes tarn Messi- 
 ance naturd ethicd. Gott., 1852. 
 
Judaism. 31 
 
 Questions for consideration. How is the gift of prophecy de- 
 scribed by the prophets themselves ? Have we good grounds 
 for trusting this expression of their consciousness? History 
 and criteria of pseudo-prophetism. The schools of the prophets. 
 The relation of the prophetic office to that of the priests and 
 kings. Organic connection and development of Messianic 
 prophecy. Keason and meaning of the disappearance of the 
 prophetic gift in Israel. Peculiarity of the prophets of the Old 
 in distinction from those of the New Testament. 
 
 Judaism. 
 
 The original Hebraism, which was taught in its purity by 
 Moses and the prophets, on passing into the later Judaism, 
 received in no sense its normal development, but sank rather 
 into a state of degeneracy and decay. Such is the view given 
 to us by a survey of the religious condition, ideas and needs of 
 the contemporaries of our Lord. With these we must be 
 acquainted in order to understand and properly appreciate the 
 import and form of the declarations of Jesus and the Apostles. 
 
 1. Although the words of our Lord and the Apostles cer- 
 tainly come into close connection with those of Moses and the 
 prophets, it is manifest, nevertheless, that this connection takes 
 place with a distinct reference to given conditions and particu- 
 lar necessities. Without remembering this, the doctrine of the 
 New Testament would be unintelligible ; hence the knowledge 
 of Judaism, not less than Hebraism, is not only desirable, but 
 necessary. 
 
 2. By Judaism is meant the particular moral and religious 
 state of the Israelites (then styled Jews) after the Babylonian 
 captivity, and whatever was necessarily connected with it. It 
 has not incorrectly been described as " the perverted restora- 
 tion of Hebraism, and the mingling of its positive constituent 
 parts with foreign mythological and metaphysical doctrines, in 
 which a speculative understanding without living enthusiasm is 
 
32 Biblical Theology of the New Testament 
 
 dominant ; a chaos, which awaits a new creation " 
 It is known, partly from Biblical sources (the latest parts of the 
 Old Testament, the Gospels, Acts, and several Epistles of the 
 New Testament, and, to a certain extent, from the Septua- 
 gint) ; partly from other writings (the Apocrypha and Pseud- 
 epigraphical books of the Old Testament, the oldest Targums, 
 the Talmud, the Jewish parts of the Sibylline books, the writ- 
 ings of Flavius Josephus, Philo, etc.). 
 
 3. The moral and religious condition of the Jews after the 
 Babylonian Captivity exhibited in more than one respect a rel- 
 atively favorable character. Idolatry had ceased, the temple was 
 rebuilt, a number of synagogues and houses of prayer had 
 been erected (Acts 15, 21), and the knowledge of the sacred 
 Scriptures, read there in regular order, was widely diffused. 
 United in a single volume, and extensively circulated through 
 the Alexandrian translation, the Old Testament was sharply 
 distinguished [in the Hebrew Canon] from the Apocryphal 
 literature, which arose at this period, and was carefully ex- 
 plained and defended by those who were devoted to Eabbinic 
 learning. The separating wall between Israel and the Gentile 
 world was visibly lowered, and a considerable number of pros- 
 elytes, both of the gate and of righteousness, attached them- 
 selves to the hitherto despised Jews. Forms were in many re- 
 spects excellent, and the heroic Maccabean age showed that the 
 old spirit had not wholly disappeared. And finally, the ex- 
 pectation of a Messiah was now much better known, more 
 widely diffused, and more highly prized than ever before. 
 
 4. But notwithstanding all this, the period in question ex- 
 hibits strong traces of senility. The religious life, in attributing 
 holiness to knowledge on the one hand and to works on the 
 other, became cramped and stunted, and exhibited a character 
 rather intellective and anxious, than pious and joyous ; trivial 
 exactness took the place of the earlier zeal. False prophets, it is 
 true, did not arise in this period, but the voice of the true 
 prophets was no longer heard. The past was appealed to, but 
 without elevating the present to the earlier eminence. Beside 
 the law, tradition came into vogue (Matt. 15, 1-14) ; along with 
 the Mosaic ideas, the influence of Alexandrian, Persian, and 
 other religious conceptions began to be visible, and while 
 
Judaism. 33 
 
 knowledge puffed up, love was forgotten. Opinions were di- 
 vided between the schools of HILLEL and SHAMMAI, and the 
 sects which arose at this period contributed to the degeneracy 
 of Judaism. 
 
 5. The Pharisees, who represented the conservative principle, 
 arose as a sect about three centuries before Christ They ex- 
 erted a great influence among the people, especially among the 
 women (Mark 12, 40), and most of the scribes were in their 
 ranks. With all their divisions among themselves, they re- 
 garded themselves as ONE, separated (pharasli), not merely as 
 Israelites from the Gentiles, but also as pious persons from the 
 sinners among their own countrymen. Their theology was a 
 complicated system of Pneumatology, Christology and Escha- 
 tology; their ethical views were characterized by formalism, 
 rigorism and casuistry ; their practice by zelotism (Matt 23, 15) 
 in the practice of religion and by revolutionary tendencies in 
 civil life, which made them dreaded opposers of the Roman 
 power. The Sadducees, who, in distinction from the Pharisees, 
 professed to be righteous (tsadhaq) unless their name be de- 
 rived from a certain Zadok stood in somewhat the same rela- 
 tion to them as the Epicureans did to the Stoics. Less nume- 
 rous, but of a higher class than their opponents, and not unfre- 
 quently agreeing with the court party (Mark 3, 6), they held, in 
 relation to the state, very conservative, in relation to religion, 
 extremely liberal, principles. 
 
 Absolutely denying any divine pre-ordination, they made the 
 doctrine of moral freedom so prominent, and threw that of 
 future retribution so entirely into the shade, that their whole 
 view of life must have been diametrically opposed to that of the 
 Pharisees. The charge, however, of gross immorality, is no 
 better supported than that of their rejecting the whole of the 
 Old Testament except the Law. It cannot be questioned, on 
 the other hand, that they denied the existence of angels, and 
 their constant hostility to the Gospel of the "Resurrection (Acts 
 4, 2 ; 23, 8,) is quite in character. The Essenes, our knowledge 
 of whom is derived, not from the New Testament, but from the 
 work of Philo, " quod omnis probus liber" and Josephus (comp. 
 also Pliny, H. N. V. 17), and who must not be confounded with 
 the Therapeutae, may be regarded as representatives of the prac- 
 3 
 
34 Biblical Tlieology of the New Testament. 
 
 tico-ascetic principle. They were, so to speak, the anchorites 
 of Israel, and were distinguished by their contempt of earthly 
 treasures, refusal to take an oath, high regard for celibacy, dis- 
 approval of animal sacrifices, and holding all their property in 
 common. The difference between them and John the Baptist, 
 and especially our Lord, is so great as to render the conjecture 
 of an original affinity of the Gospel of the kingdom with 
 Essenism entirely untenable. 
 
 Amid the mutual strifes of these sects, we find the people 
 treated with contempt and ever growing worse, (Matt. 9, 36 ; 
 comp. John 7, 49). The religious class among the people con- 
 sisted largely of the poor (mwxol, Heb. ebhyonim) in respect both 
 to earthly treasure and to much that was regarded as wisdom 
 and piety (Matt. 5, 3 ; 11, 25). To these plain and simple peo- 
 ple belonged not only the kindred of our Lord, but also the 
 larger part of his friends and followers, and even among the 
 despised Samaritans there were not wanting those of a similar 
 character (John 4, 39-42). The enmity between the latter people 
 and the Jews could only result in increased moral degeneracy. 
 
 7. The religious ideas of the Jews, developed amid such rela- 
 tions, exhibited a peculiar combination of light and shade. 
 Monotheism, with many, had practically a character rather deis- 
 tic than theistic ; religion was not so much the common worship 
 of God, as a slavish service. On some points their doctrinal 
 views were undoubtedly affected by foreign ideas. The doc- 
 trine of angels was more fully developed, (see e. g. the LXX on 
 Deut. 33, 2 ; comp. Acts 7, 53 ; Gal. 3, 19 ; Heb. 2, 2), and also 
 that of evil spirits, in connection with which exorcism became 
 prominent (Matt. 12, 27). Eschatology, also, was more fully 
 brought out, especially through Pharisaism, although in essen- 
 tials it adhered to individual prophetic declarations (Dan. 12, 
 1-3). In respect, finally, to ethics, the great principles of Mo- 
 saism were illustrated, and applied to particular cases, but were 
 frequently weakened, if not rather contradicted (Matt. 23, 16- 
 22), by a great number of prescriptions and prohibitions. Thus 
 the Jewish religion degenerated in proportion as its doctrinal 
 and ethical teachings were extended. 
 
 8. We must speak more particularly of the Messianic expecta- 
 tion during this period. The doubt whether such an expecta- 
 
Judaism. 35 
 
 tion existed (B. BAUER) must be reckoned among the curiosities 
 of theological literature. Easy, however, as it is to prove its 
 existence, it is somewhat difficult to define its precise nature. 
 Josephus was familiar with it, but for obvious reasons, is silent. 
 Philo has only a single reference to it, (de proem, p. 924, de exe- 
 crat. c. 9), and even the Old Testament Apocryphal books con- 
 tain only a few occasional hints (see e. g. 1 Mace. 2, 57 ; 4, 46 ; 
 14, 41). More may be gathered from the so-called book of 
 Enoch, written probably about a century before Christ, while the 
 fourth book of Ezra, although of later origin, is an important 
 source of information. Above all, we must consult what is 
 found in the New Testament respecting this idea. 
 
 From a comparison of various passages, it appears that the 
 Messianic expectation, although universally current, was by no 
 means uniform in import or value, and no where existed in a 
 fully developed form. The entire history of the world was di- 
 vided into two periods, the pre-Messianic and the Messianic (the 
 ai&v ofaog and 6 ^Uwv, Heb. olam hazzeh and olam habbd). The 
 former was the time of strife and misery, the latter of peace and 
 blessedness, to spring from the advent of the Messiah. The pas- 
 sage from the one to the other of these periods, is described as 
 
 the last days, (f(r}f<xrai fa^cti,, vdTeQOi xaiQol, $(T%<XTT] &qa, x. T. A.). With 
 
 this coincides the beginning of the days of the Messiah, the man- 
 ifestation of whom will be announced by sensible tokens. These 
 will consist in days of great distress (&&>?), in the appearance 
 of a special star (Matt. 2, 2), the coming of Elias or one of 
 the other prophets as the forerunner of the Lord (Mark 9, 12 ; 
 John 1, 21), and especially of a mysterious evil being (the Anti- 
 Christ, Armillus), while the establishment of his kingdom will 
 be preceded by a struggle with hostile secular powers, (Gog and 
 Magog). After all this, the Messiah will come, or rather he 
 will appear, no one will know whence. 
 
 So, at least, thought a portion of the people (John 7, 27), 
 while the Scribes expected that he would come from Bethle- 
 hem (Matt 2, 4-6). He was to be a man among and from 
 men (see JUSTIN M. Dial c. Tryph. c. 49), directly springing from 
 the family of David, and anointed with the Holy Ghost. It 
 cannot be shown that the popular belief expected a miraculous 
 
36 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 conception of the Messiah from the Holy Ghost, or that it attri- 
 buted to him a superhuman nature and dignity. There was 
 scarcely place, also, for the idea of a suffering and dying Mes- 
 siah ; on the contrary, they expected that the Christ would re- 
 main forever (John 12, 34), and would establish his kingdom 
 in Israel (Acts 1, 6). On the question, whether the ten tribes 
 would share in this salvation along with Judah and Benjamin, 
 opinions were divided. In any event, however, it was hoped 
 that the Messiah would settle all disputed questions (John 4, 
 25), reveal hidden things (John 16, 30), and especially perform 
 a number of astonishing miracles (Matt. 11, 2-6 ; John 7, 31), 
 and that, in consequence of all this, a deliverance, by some re- 
 garded as external, by others as spiritual, would come (Luke 1, 
 74. 75). At his advent he was to raise the dead, and first of all 
 the Israelites, triumph over the enmity of hell and the heathen, 
 and prepare for the world a salvation, in which the non-Israeli- 
 tish nations were also to share. The center of this work was to 
 be Jerusalem ; the purified earth, its theater ; and the restoration 
 
 of all things, its crown (nal^evsaLvi, &7TOXaT&(TT(tat,s n&vtwv). 
 
 9. The nation in which we find these ideas, stood in need of 
 higher light and life, although the need was not generally recog- 
 nized. Still less was it satisfactorily met. The desire for exter- 
 nal deliverance was far greater than for spiritual healing. Still, 
 the latter was not wholly wanting (Luke 2, 38), and might, at 
 any event, be aroused. The forerunner must, consequently, 
 precede the Lord. 
 
 Comp. on the history and sources of Judaism in general, DE 
 WETTE, "Biblical Dogmatics" 76-82, and the literature there 
 cited; GFRORER, " The Century of Redemption" 1838; LUT- 
 TERBECK, S. 99. DE PRESSENSE, History of the Three first 
 centuries, etc. On the different sects at this period, TRIG- 
 LAND, Syntagma trium scriptt. de tribus Jud. sectis. 1703 ; VAN 
 KoETSVELD, " The Pharisees, Sadducees and Herodians, s'Gra- 
 venh, 1862, and especially the articles in HERZOG. On the ex- 
 pectation of a Messiah, the article by OEHLER, in HERZOG, IX ; 
 DE PRESSENSE, Jesus Christ, his times, etc. 1844, p. 81 sqq. ; LAS- 
 SEN, '''Judaism in Palestine at the time of Christ" Freib. in Br. 
 1866, S. 391ff. Comp. VAN OOSTERZEE, " Christology of the Old 
 Testament," bl. 494 sqq. and oh the whole of the period of " the 
 
John the BaptisL 37 
 
 fulness of time," his " Life of Jesus" bl. 245, and the literature 
 there given, to which may be added an essay by KEITSMA, 
 " On i/ie religions thinking in general at the time of Jesus" Waarh. 
 in L., 1867. 
 
 Questions for consideration. Whence chiefly the difference 
 between Judaism and Hebraism? A more particular criti- 
 cism and comparison of the sources. The Jewish Apocalyptic 
 literature. The Alexandrian philosophy as related to Judaism. 
 What may be determined, with sufficient certainty, in regard 
 to the origin, character and mutual relation of the different 
 sects ? The relation between Essenism and Pythagoreanism. 
 Origin and peculiarities of the Samaritans, and their expecta- 
 tion of a Messiah. Proselytism and the Diaspora. What, 
 upon the whole, are the bright and the dark sides of the expecta- 
 tion of the Messiah at this period ? What remnants of genu- 
 ine Hebriasm may still be observed in Judaism ? 
 
 7. 
 John the Baptist. 
 
 In the mission and labors of the forerunner of our Lord, 
 Mosaism approached its consummation, Prophetism reached its 
 culmination, and Judaism received a wholesome check. 
 
 1. The Biblical Theology of the New Testament, can neither 
 dwell upon the life of the Baptist nor exhibit the nobleness of 
 his character. It contents itself, in general, with designating 
 the place which he occupies, as an indispensable link in the 
 chain of development of Christian doctrine. 
 
 2. If Moses aimed to bring men, through the law, to the 
 knowledge of sin, and then to awaken a desire for salvation, 
 the voice of the second Elias was raised for the same purpose. 
 As standing upon the shoulders of the earlier messengers of 
 God and nearest to Jesus, he deserves to be called the greatest of 
 the prophets (Luke 7, 29). He proclaimed no new revelations, 
 but firmly grasped the old, and brought them into direct con- 
 nection with a person already existing (Luke 16, 16). His 
 
38 Biblical Theology of the New Testament 
 
 entire appearing and labors are one voice: his cry is the 
 mighty finale of the prophetic symphony. But just for this 
 reason it became to Judaism a wholesome check. It struck a 
 deadly blow at all self righteousness and brought the nation to a 
 sharp but beneficent crisis. 
 
 3. The significance of the mission of John lies principally 
 in his testimony concerning the person and the work of the Mes- 
 siah. In examining the contents of this testimony, a distinction 
 must be made between the period before, and the period after, 
 the baptism of our Lord. The most unequivocal and decisive 
 utterances of John were made toward the end of his course, 
 (Acts 13, 25). 
 
 It is quite remarkable, how at first the form of his expecta- 
 tion of the Messiah was affected by that of his own work, 
 and at the same time bore a strongly marked Old Testament 
 character. Himself baptizing, he announced another, who 
 should baptize with the gifts of the Holy Spirit, a Messiah 
 who should appear not merely as a Saviour, but as a Judge 
 in Israel. He declared the insufficiency of mere descent from 
 Abraham, without, however, speaking of the calling of the 
 heathen. After this general announcement of the Messiah, 
 he began, after the baptism of our Lord in the Jordan, to 
 point Him out as the promised one. His heavenly origin (John 
 1, 15) and His atoning work, presented in the most universal 
 form (John 1, 29), he then made distinctly prominent, and in 
 his final testimony, spoke most emphatically of the incompre- 
 hensible greatness of the Christ and of the peculiar relation of 
 hi^ forerunner to Him (John 3, 27-36). 
 
 4. This testimony of the Baptist is important on account of 
 its source. It was the fruit of careful education, close study 
 of the Scriptures, special divine revelation, and the sight of 
 Jesus, in person. Its value becomes more marked when we 
 observe how much above the thoughts and wishes of his con- 
 temporaries he rises, and how superior to all is the place 
 assigned to him by our Lord (Matt. 10, 7-15; John 5, 35). 
 Still, in comparison with the doctrine of our Lord and his 
 Apostles, the testimony of John the Baptist is poor, and 
 goes, in no essential particular, beyond the Old Testament point 
 of view. 
 
Result. 39 
 
 Comp. DE Wus, '''John the Baptist, in his life and doctrines" 
 Schoonh, 1852 ; the works on the gospel history; the article by 
 GtlDEK in HERZOG, and the literature there given. 
 
 Questions for consideration. The time of the appearing of 
 John the Baptist, Luke 3, 12. Substance and value of the 
 testimony of Josephus concerning John. Connection of the 
 circumstances of the life of the Baptist with his mission. 
 His relation to the Old and New Testaments. Difference and 
 agreement of the gospel narratives concerning his Messianic 
 testimony. What is the meaning of John 1, 15. 29? of 
 Matt. 11, 3 ? The disciples of John. The abiding significance 
 of the mission of John. 
 
 & 
 
 Result 
 
 Mosaism and Prophetism contained both the germ and the 
 connecting links of the truth, the testimony to which, as 
 given by our Lord and his first disciples, is recorded in the Sa- 
 cred Scriptures of the New Testament. In Judaism we find 
 nothing from which the personal character of our Lord and the 
 contents of his gospel can be explained on merely natural 
 grounds. 
 
 " The radical opposition, existing between the two religious 
 movements is clearly seen in their definitive results. The 
 teachings of Christ issued in the Gospel ; those of the Kab- 
 bins in the Talmud. On the one side, we have a living history 
 thoroughly penetrated by a new spirit, without fixed formulas 
 and without a ritual ; on the other side, a body of entangling 
 traditions, directions for all the forms of piety carried into the 
 most trivial details." 
 
 E. DE PRESSENSE. 
 
PART II. 
 
 THE THEOLOGY OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 9. 
 General Survey. 
 
 In the present inquiry respecting the teachings of Christ, it 
 is proposed to present the substance of the instruction con- 
 cerning God and divine things given by our Lord himself dur- 
 ing his life on earth, as it is recorded especially in the four 
 canonical Gospels. In order to estimate it aright, it is necessary- 
 first of all, to state clearly the special character of this instruc- 
 .tion, its source, its form, and its relation both to the teachings 
 of the Old Testament and to those of the Apostles and their 
 associates. 
 
 1. Although our Lord Jesus Christ did not appear on earth 
 simply, or even chiefly, to make known to men a new doctrine, 
 and though he taught no doctrinal system as such, he yet came 
 into the world, as he expressly declared, to bear witness to the 
 truth (John 18, 37). This he did first, by His personal mani- 
 festation (John 14, 6-9), and secondly, by His word and the 
 light thereby shed upon God and divine things. The inquiry 
 respecting the teachings of Christ is specially concerned with 
 the latter. 
 
 2. The Biblical Theology of the New Testament treats of 
 the doctrine, or rather the teachings of our Lord concerning 
 God and divine things, to the exclusion of every other subject. 
 It presents the substance and connection of the ideas, whether 
 implied or expressed by Him, concerning God and man and 
 
Theology of Jesus Christ. 41 
 
 their relations to each other, and these as they were uttered by 
 Himself during His life on earth. Although in a certain sense 
 the word of the Prophets (1 Pet. 1, 11) and of the Apostles 
 (Luke 10, 16) may be regarded as His, yet for the present we 
 confine ourselves exclusively to what He himself spoke. 
 
 3. Something, also, concerning our Lord's instructions can be 
 learned outside of the four gospels. Tradition makes us ac- 
 quainted with a few unwritten sayings, so called. The book of 
 Acts and the Epistles also contain single contributions (Acts 
 20, 35 ; 1 John 1, 5 ; 4, 21). The four Gospels, however, must 
 ever remain the principal source ; and the Biblical Theology 
 of the New Testament is not obliged to wait for the last word 
 of critical inquiry in respect to their authority, in order to at- 
 tach the highest value to their statements respecting the in- 
 structions of our Lord. This it may do all the more confident- 
 ly, since even the critics who, for instance, question the genu- 
 ineness of the first Gospel in its present form, stop to note the 
 discourses (logia) of our Lord preserved therein as upon the 
 whole a true expression of His spirit. The fourth Gospel, 
 however, in the present state of critical inquiry, demands a 
 separate examination (comp. 3, 2). 
 
 4. In order to obtain the right point of view it is, first of all, 
 necessary to study the peculiar character of our Lord's instruc- 
 tions, as given in all the Gospels. As the whole is known from 
 its parts, so in turn the parts receive light from the correctly 
 apprehended spirit of the whole. It is not enough to say that 
 the instructions of Jesus exhibit a high religious character, for 
 this they have in common with many other religions, and the 
 history, even, of our own time shows what wretched trifling is 
 occasionally used with the word "religious." The instructions 
 of our Lord are distinguished for their distinctly soteriological 
 character ; in other words, all that He taught concerning God 
 and man, sin and grace, the present and the future life, and es- 
 pecially all which He declared concerning Himself, stands in a 
 more or less close connection with the redemption which He 
 came to reveal and bestow. It is not so much religious truth 
 in general, as specifically saving truth, which was brought to 
 light by Him. The possibility of exhibiting the instructions 
 of our Lord, with all their richness, as a whole, is given in the 
 
42 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 fact, that from first to last they are in respect to their character, 
 Gospel Luke 4, 16-22 ; comp. John 6, 68. 
 
 5. In inquiring after the source of the truths taught by our 
 Lord, the part which belongs to the natural world and to the 
 Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament must not be overlooked. 
 Still less must His maternal training. His contact in various ways 
 with the spirit of His age and its most prominent representa- 
 tives, and the painful experiences of His life be forgotten. 
 More than all else, however, the personality of Jesus was the 
 principal source of his instructions, which, for this reason, in 
 the highest sense of the word may be called His, and which, 
 from first to last, bear the stamp of the most marked original- 
 ity. The denial of this by our Lord in John 7, 16 is merely in 
 appearance. He constantly declared what He himself had seen 
 with the Father (John 12, 44-50), and proclaimed the truth be- 
 cause and as he bore it in himself. His knowledge of God and 
 man was not discursive but intuitive ; it was not derived from 
 logical propositions or the observations of particulars, but from 
 internal intuition. 
 
 6. Not only the contents, but also the form of his instruc- 
 tions was determined by the personality of our Lord. With- 
 out scholastic formalism or show of rabbinic learning (John 7, 
 15), he discoursed, as the occasion presented itself, in a form 
 entirely popular but never vulgar, and which was constantly va- 
 ried according to the nature of the subject, the aim of the 
 speaker, and the wants of the hearers. The tone of lofty au- 
 thority with which he spoke distinguished him, not only from the 
 Scribes of his day, but also from the prophets of the Old Tes- 
 tament (Matt. 5-7), and his winning words impressed even the 
 minds of those who were least susceptible (Luke 4, 22 ; John 
 7, 46). Although here and there irony is not wanting (Mark 
 7, 9 ; Luke 11, 41), the ground- tone is love, sadness, and holy 
 earnestness, and never does the discord of biting sarcasm ap- 
 pear. Both the parabolic form of speech in the three first Gos- 
 pels, and the pregnant and paradoxical form which often ap- 
 pears in the fourth, increase the impressiveness of his words. 
 Never, in short, has a more perfect harmony of subject and 
 form been seen than in the instructions of our Lord. The 
 highest truth and freedom are here combined with the highest 
 
Theology of Jesus Christ. 43 
 
 beauty a beauty, however, not sensuous in its character, but 
 moral and holy. In his hands the materials employed are 
 transmuted into gold. 
 
 7. With all this originality in respect to form and matter, 
 the instructions of our Lord were not isolated, but stood in 
 very distinct relations to what preceded and followed. They 
 constituted the golden intermediate link in a connected chain 
 of very different and yet never conflicting doctrines. The 
 words of Moses and the prophets were apprehended, presented, 
 fulfilled, and completed by Jesus in such a way, that in his hands 
 the old assumed a wholly new phase, and the new appeared to 
 be, properly, naught else than the ripe fruit of the old Even 
 when he does not directly quote the prophetic word, it is the 
 clear mirror in which he beholds himself and the kingdom of 
 God. The Apocryphal books of the Old Testament he never 
 makes use of, but discriminatingly directs the eyes of his disci- 
 ples to the Law, the Prophets and the Psalms (Luke 24, 44 ; 
 comp. Matt. 23, 35). According both to the synoptical Gos- 
 pels and the Gospel of John, his teaching stood in close con- 
 nection with that of the Old Testament. In the preaching of 
 the Apostles, on the contrary, his words were the brief, clear 
 and powerful text, and it will be seen further on, that the most 
 essential parts of their various doctrinal teachings have their 
 root in the declarations of our Lord or are really connected 
 with them. His instructions are, therefore, the light which, in 
 various shades, is reflected in theirs. We pass now to survey 
 the splendor of this light. 
 
 Comp. on the principal points referred to in this general sur- 
 vey, F. A. KRUMMACHER " on the Spirit and the Form of the 
 Gospel History" Leipz. 1805 (an old book, but still useful), WIT- 
 KOP, "Inquiry how far the personality of Jesus was the source of ^ 
 his teachings" Waarh. in Liefde, 1841; REUSS, S. 171; SCHMID, 
 S. 121 sqq. ; BAUR. S. 45-121 ; VAN OOSTERZEE, Leven van 
 Jesus, new ed. I. bl. 435 sqq. and II. bl. 343 sqq. with the lit- 
 erature there referred to ; to which may be added VAN KOETS- 
 VELD, " The Parables of the Saviour " (in Dutch) and DELITZSCH, 
 " Jesus and Hillel" The glory of the teachings of Jesus is 
 inimitably set forth in TEN KATE'S poem, De Schepping. 
 
44 Biblical Theology of the New Testament 
 
 Questions for Consideration: What theological directions in 
 earlier and later times have attached a too exclusive importance 
 to the teachings of Jesus ; which have too much ignored their 
 value? Relation in this respect between the earlier Rational- 
 ism and the modern Naturalism. What does, and what does 
 not belong to the circle of the <Uij#e, of which Jesus testifies ? 
 Different value of the dicta aygacpa. Why does the preaching 
 of Jesus bear the name of the preaching of the Gospel of the 
 kingdom ? What is there properly new in the preaching of 
 Jesus as distinguished from that of earlier men of God? The 
 typico-symbolical character of the first discourse of Jesus at 
 Nazareth, Luke 4, 16-22. What is the meaning and force of 
 John 7, 15. 16 ? Was Jesus a Rabbi ? Personality in connec- 
 tion with subjectivity, temperament and character. Compari- 
 son of the parables of Jesus with those of the Rabbins, espe- 
 cially in regard to form. Agreement and difference between 
 the doctrine of Jesus and that of Moses and the prophets. 
 Why do the apostles in the book of Acts and in the Epistles 
 appeal so seldom to our Lord's own words ? 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 THE SYNOPTICAL GOSPELS. 
 
 10. 
 The Kingdom of God. 
 
 No idea is so prominent in the instructions of the Lord, re- 
 corded in the three first Gospels, as that of the kingdom of 
 God or the kingdom of heaven, promised of old by the proph- 
 ets and expected by the contemporaries of Jesus. The Gospel 
 which he preached was a Gospel of the kingdom, and this 
 kingdom itself one of a moral and religious nature, which, un- 
 
The Kingdom of God. 45 
 
 limited in extent and eternal in duration, in its tendency to unite 
 mankind and make them holy and happy, embraces heaven and 
 earth. 
 
 1. In studying the instructions of our Lord as given in the 
 Synoptical Gospels, we must begin with the fundamental idea 
 by which they are pervaded. It is that of the kingdom of 
 God (in Mark and Luke) or of heaven (generally in Matthew), 
 also the kingdom of his Father (Matt. 26, 29), of the Father of 
 the righteous (Matt. 13, 43), or of the Son of man (Matt 16, 
 28). "The fundamental idea (says KEUSS) which reappears 
 every moment in the teachings of Jesus, is that of the king- 
 dom of God." Like John he begins from the first with this 
 idea (Mark 1, 15 ; Comp. Matt. 9, 35) and connects his preach- 
 ing with the expectation of the Old Testament (Ps. 22, 29 ; 
 Obad. 21 ; comp. also the Book of Wisdom, 10, 10). This ex- 
 pectation was so general among his contemporaries and so much 
 cherished, that neither He nor John regarded it necessary to de- 
 fine what exactly was to be understood by this term. We must 
 derive from his teachings themselves, the idea of this kingdom, 
 which is only twice spoken of by the Apostles (comp. how- 
 ever, 2 Pet. 1, 11 ; Kev. 1, 9 and Acts 1, 6), but very frequent- 
 ly in his own discourses. He announces the Gospel of the 
 kingdom as a revealed mystery (Matt 13, 11). From the dif- 
 ferent individual characters of it given, we must and may bring 
 before us the image of the whole. 
 
 2. It is clear, then, (1) that this kingdom is something new. 
 Since it was to come only in the fullness of time (Matt 4, 17), 
 it did not previously exist on earth. It is, therefore, not mere- 
 ly the continuation of the old line of things, but the beginning 
 of an order of things never hitherto seen (Luke 10, 23. 24 ; 
 comp. Matt 26, 28). (2) It is something now actually present. 
 Where He comes, it appears with Him ; it is already in the 
 midst of those who inquire when He shall appear (Luke 17, 20. 
 21). It is by no means identical with eternal blessedness ; con- 
 summated in that, it is here virtually and essentially present, 
 and although not of earth is established on earth, though not 
 with external show or noise. It is, further, (3) something spir- 
 itual; it belongs to a higher sphere of life than this visible ere- 
 
4:6 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 ation. The privileges, duties and expectations of its subjects 
 are chiefly, though not exclusively, of a spiritual nature. Its 
 history is to be directly the reverse of that of other kingdoms 
 (Mat. 20, 25-28 ; comp. Luke 22, 24-27) and the King forbids 
 all needless mingling in the sphere of civil jurisdiction (Luke 
 12, 11. 12). The idea of the kingdom of God must not even 
 be confounded with that of the Christian Church or communi- 
 ty. The Church is merely the external and inadequate form 
 of manifestation of the kingdom of Grod (Matt. 13, 24-30 ; 47 
 -50). That kingdom itself is a spiritual society, membership 
 in which is absolutely impossible without a personal change of 
 heart (Matt. 18, 3). As such a society, it is, in regard to its ex- 
 tent, (4) unlimited. Much more than even the old prophets 
 (comp. Is. 2, 2-4) our Lord rises above all narrow particular- 
 ism, and proclaimed, not only at the end but in the midst and 
 at the beginning of his course, the all-embracing character of 
 the kingdom of God (Matt. 5, 13. 14 ; 8, 11. 12). Single .ex- 
 pressions, which appear to breathe another spirit (Matt. 10, 5 ; 
 15, 23), may be explained by reference to special circumstances 
 and are far exceeded in number by others of a different char- 
 acter (Matt. 28, 19 ; Luke 24, 47 ; Acts 1, 8). No wonder that 
 the kingdom of God is (5) unending, and no more limited by 
 time than by space. While Moses and the prophets constantly 
 point to better days, Jesus knows nothing higher than the king- 
 dom which he came to found, predicts its perfect triumph (Matt, 
 24, 14 ; 26, 13), and promises to be ever with his disciples (Acts 
 28, 20). Still, that which is so distinctly destined for eternity 
 develops itself in time. The kingdom of God is accordingly 
 (6) progressive ; in accordance with its spiritual nature, advanc- 
 ing step by step, from small beginnings and with astonishing 
 success (Matt. 13, 31-33 ; Mark 4, 26-29). For this must his 
 disciples pray (Matt. 6, 9) and labor (Matt. 9, 37. 38). It is 
 also possible that it will be taken away from those who un- 
 thankfully scorn it (Matt. 21, 43). Where, however, it is sought 
 and found, it is (7) unspeakably glorious and blessed (Matt. 13, 
 4446 ; 22, 2) ; a salvation, for the loss of which nothing can 
 compensate (Luke 13, 25-30), and the obtaining of which is 
 most of all to be desired as the pledge of every other blessing 
 (Matt. 6, 33). 
 
The Kingdom of God. 47 
 
 3. Combining all these features, we see the correctness of the 
 general description, given above, of the kingdom of God. As 
 His, it stands in direct opposition to the kingdom of darkness 
 (Matt. 12, 26-28) and is properly, nothing less than the com- 
 pleted theocracy, pointed out in the Old Testament, but now 
 exempt from limitations and exalted infinitely above the ideal 
 of sacred or profane antiquity. " The kingdom of God, as the 
 kingdom of Christ, as the synthesis of the glorification of 
 God and the blessedness of the children of God, is distinctly 
 separate from all religious ideas of the future in Heathenism, Ju- 
 daism and Mohamedanism. It is founded upon the eternal cov- 
 enant of God with man, preliminarily exhibited in the Old Tes- 
 tament and fulfilled in the New " (LANGE). The main thought 
 in the teachings of Jesus is ever waiting for its full realization ; 
 still it draws nigh ; and that the kingdom of God is no vain 
 dream, the personality of its founder is the pledge. 
 
 Comp. on the idea of the kingdom of God the literature re- 
 ferred to in YAN OOSTERZEE, "Life of Jesus" I bl. 461 sqq. 
 It is singular that SCHMID, in treating of the kingdom of God, 
 should have assigned to it the third place. Much better NE- 
 ANDER, who in his Life of Jesus, draws from the parables of the 
 kingdom of God a whole "system of truths." In regard to the 
 light in which the Jewish Kabbins conceived of the kingdom of 
 God, the well known works of SCHOETTGEN and LIGHTFOOT 
 may be consulted. 
 
 Questions for consideration. What difference may be observed 
 between the preaching of John the Baptist and Jesus as re- 
 gards the kingdom of God ? Why does our Lord call it a 
 HvaT^iov, Mark 4, 11 ? Main import, aim and connection of 
 the parables, Matt. 13. Differences of shading, even in these 
 parables, in the expression of the same leading idea. What 
 is the meaning of Luke 17, 20. 21? of Matt. 11, 12. 13? Is 
 there ground for the opinion that the idea of the kingdom of 
 heaven in the teachings of our Lord gradually underwent some 
 modification ? Why is this idea not made more prominent in 
 the instructions of the Apostles ? 
 
48 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 11. 
 
 Its Founder. 
 
 The founder of the kingdom of God is, according to the un- 
 varying testimony of Jesus, none other than himself, the Christ, 
 the Son of the living God, who as such is not only true and 
 sinless man, but also of super-human nature and dignity to 
 which no creature in heaven or on earth can lay claim. 
 
 1. The kingdom of God, which the best part of the nation 
 expected (Luke 23, 59), was not merely preached by Jesus but 
 actually founded upon earth. Both in figurative and in literal 
 language he declares himself to have come to bestow what, 
 without Him, men seek for in vain. He is the Heir of the 
 vineyard (Matt. 21, 38), the Bridegroom, in honor of whom the 
 guests are invited (Matt. 22, 2), the King (Matt. 25, 34), who in 
 his sovereignty pronounces upon the weal or woe of his sub- 
 jects. He never indeed expressly says "I am the Messiah." 
 Kather, at least in the early part of his public ministry (Mark 
 1, 34), He discourages the public recognition of his Messianic 
 dignity. But still, he clearly enough indicates himself as such 
 (Matt. 11, 4, 5), pronounces blessed those who bear witness to 
 Him as the Messiah (Matt. 16, 13-17), and regards a compul- 
 sory silence in regard to this truth, as not to be thought of 
 (Luke 19, 38-40). Thus he connects himself with the Messi- 
 anic expectation of his contemporaries, and proposes to realize 
 it not in the sphere of Judaism, but of Prophetism, especially 
 of those prophets who predicted the suffering as well as the glo- 
 rified Christ (Luke 18, 31). 
 
 2. In the epithet " Son of Man " employed by our Lord of 
 himself to the exclusion of every other, this Messianic conscious- 
 ness is expressed by a peculiar phrase. It is borrowed from the 
 prophetic vision recorded in Dan. 7, 13. 14, and is an allegorical 
 mode of expressing his earthly state of humiliation. He who 
 chooses this title for himself, shows thereby that he had a 
 knowledge originally above that of man, and that among men 
 he lived in a state of temporary humiliation. Hence it was that 
 
Its Founder. 49 
 
 the name, with few exceptions (Acts 7, 56 ; Eev. 1, 13 ; 14, 14), 
 was no longer used by his disciples of their Master after He had 
 passed from his life of humiliation to that of exaltation. Ex- 
 pressions like those in Matt. 12, 8 ; 13, 41 ; 16, 28 and elsewhere 
 would sound strangely indeed, if He who uttered them had se- 
 lected the title, Son of Man, merely to describe himself " as a 
 poor child of Adam and as an object of the divine favor " 
 
 3. The question how and whereby the Messianic conscious- 
 ness was developed, belongs not so much to the Biblical 
 Theology of the New Testament, as to the Life of Jesus. The 
 first simply affirms the fact that our Lord possessed this 
 consciousness at the beginning of his ministry, and that it 
 imparted a very distinct character to his labors. " The belief 
 in his Messiahship Jesus had at an early period, after the days 
 of John " (KEIM). We misunderstand and pervert the narra- 
 tive in Matt. 16, 13-17, if we make it mean that before this 
 conversation He had never deeply felt or strongly declared his 
 Messianic dignity (CoLANi). Expressions like those in Matt. 5, 
 11. 12 ; 7, 21-23 ; 10, 32. 33. 37-42 ; 12, 6-8, candidly con- 
 sidered, decidedly prove the contrary, as do also narratives 
 like those in Luke 4, 16-22 ; 7, 18-23. The growing clear- 
 ness and strength with which our Lord, towards the end of 
 his life, spoke of his Messiahship, was not the result of the 
 process of internal development, but of the relations which 
 developed themselves in connection with the plan of his work. 
 
 4. But although he distinguishes himself from every man, 
 he is far from feeling himself united with mankind only in 
 appearance : on the contrary he lays manifest emphasis upon 
 the fact of his true humanity. He holds himself uncondi- 
 tionally subject to the rule that man is not to live by bread 
 alone (Matt. 4, 4), attributes to himself body (Luke 24, 39), soul 
 (Matt. 26, 38) and spirit (Luke 23, 46), and compares himself 
 with other men (Matt 12, 41. 42). He even bears distinct tes- 
 timony as Son of David, to this his human origin (Matt. 22, 42). 
 In one respect only, does he feel and indicate himself to be dis- 
 tinguished, as man, from other men ; in this, namely, that He, 
 the lowly one, never attributes any imperfection to himself. 
 On the contrary, he clearly distinguishes himself from those who 
 
 3 
 
50 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 are evil (Luke 11, 33), calls the obedient children of God his 
 kindred (Matt. 12, 50), and presents himself as a Physician in 
 contrast with those who are morally diseased. While he 
 repeatedly forgives sins (Matt. 9, 2) he never confesses them, 
 not even at his baptism by John (Matt. 3, 16). He knows 
 that he is subject to temptation (Matt. 16, 23 ; 26, 41 ; comp. 
 Mark 12, 15), but never in his case does this liability result in 
 falling, nor the temptation in sin. God alone he calls good 
 (Matt. 19, 17), but shows that he possesses this character him- 
 self by the very fact that he does not appropriate this title of 
 honor. 
 
 5. What has been said, thus far, does not exhaust all that 
 was embraced in the consciousness of our Lord in regard to 
 himself. As a true and holy man, he felt himself exalted above 
 every creature in heaven and on earth. Not merely above kings 
 and prophets (Matt. 13, 17) does he place himself, but above the 
 angels (Matt. 13, 41 ; 26, 54 ; Mark 13, 32), and speaks always 
 of " his," never, as associated with others, of " our " Father. In 
 the very words he uses, " is come " in speaking of himself 
 (Luke 19, 10) shines forth the consciousness of an earlier exis- 
 tence; still more strongly does the consciousness of divine 
 dignity manifest itself in the forgiving of sins (Matt. 9, 2) and 
 in many other declarations and promises, which on the lips of 
 the most godly man would sound absolutely blasphemous (see 
 e. g. Matt. 10, 32-38 ; comp. Matt. 22, 37, 38), and most clearly 
 of all in more than one parable (Matt. 21, 37 ; 22, 2 ; Luke 
 19, 12). With this consciousness, he calls himself greater than 
 the temple (Matt. 12, 6), the Wisdom of God (Luke 11, 49), the 
 Lord of David (Matt. 22, 45), ascribes to his word an unending 
 duration (Matt. 24, 35), and promises to his disciples the enjoy- 
 ment of His presence beyond the region of time and space 
 (Matt. 18, 20 ; 28, 20). Still he feels himself subordinate to 
 the Father, both in power (Matt. 20, 23 ; Acts 1, 7) and know- 
 ledge (Mark 13, 32). To Him with reverence and gratitude he 
 looks up in prayer and thanksgiving. But the relation itself be- 
 tween Him and the Father is nevertheless so entirely unique, 
 that to the finite understanding it ever remains inexplicable, 
 (Matt. 11, 27 ; comp. Luke 10, 22). He who thus speaks knows 
 and feels himself to be not merely a child of God morally, but 
 
The Supreme Ruler. 61 
 
 the Son of God in the supernatural sense of the word, of heav- 
 enly nature, and appearing on earth as the Messiah in the ful- 
 fillment of God's counsel. Not until the actual utterance of 
 these words by our Lord is arbitrarily disputed or their meaning 
 weakened, can it be maintained with the least plausibility that 
 the Christ of the Synoptical Gospels is nothing according to 
 his own declarations, but an excellent man annointed with the 
 Holy Ghost. 
 
 Comp. YAN OOSTERZEE, "Life of Jesus" I. bl. 475-477: 
 " Christology " IT. bl. 40-55, and the literature there given, to 
 which maybe added COLANI, " Jesus Christ and the Messianic 
 beliefs of his time" Paris, 1864. On the title, Son of Man, VAN 
 DER POT and TIDEMAN in the Waarh. in Liefde, 1846 and 1862. 
 On the supernatural character of our Lord, SCHNECKENBURGER 
 " On the Divinity of Christ according to the Synoptical Gospels" in 
 the Stud u. Kritih, 1829 ; JONKER, " Inquiry into the relation, 
 in which Jesus, according to the three first Gospels, was conscious of 
 standing to God." Utrecht, 1864. 
 
 Questions for consideration : Survey and criticism of the prin- 
 cipal opinions concerning the original significance and design 
 of the name, Son of man (COLANI, HOEKSTRA, etc.). 
 How far is progress to be observed, in the discourses of our 
 Lord, in regard to his Messianic dignity ? Historical and psy- 
 chological significance of the conversation at Cesarea Philippi, 
 Matt. 16, 13-17. Eelation of the terms " Messiah " and " Son 
 of God." Genuineness, meaning and force of the passage 
 Matt. 11, 27 ; Luke 10, 22. Why does not our Lord in the 
 Synoptical Gospels make more prominent his supernatural 
 nature and dignity ? 
 
 12. 
 The Supreme Ruler. 
 
 The dominion, which the Lord possesses in the Kingdom of 
 God is not self-derived, but is received from the Father. This 
 Father he proclaims as the only true God, a personal being and 
 one ever acting, who reveals himself especially through the 
 Son to mankind, and through the Holy Spirit produces every- 
 
52 Biblical Theology of the New Testament 
 
 thing truly good in men. The purity and elevation of this 
 representation of God proves that he who made it spoke only 
 the truth in the representation of himself. 
 
 1. Exalted as our Lord described himself to be, He most 
 deeply felt and fully recognized his dependence. The power 
 He possesses is given (Matt. 28, 18), and the first place in the 
 kingdom of God can no one have except him for whom the 
 Father hath prepared it (Matt. 20, 23). The Father stands 
 thus above the Son (Mark 13, 36), reveals Him in the heart 
 (Matt. 16, 17) and always hears his requests (Matt. 26, 4). On 
 the other hand, the Son desires nothing more earnestly than 
 that the will of the Father be done, (Matt. 26, 39) and reveals 
 this Father, who thus alone becomes known, (Matt. 11, 27). 
 The Lord always assumes that man may be brought, not to a 
 complete, but to a pure and sufficient knowledge of God. 
 
 2. Our Lord never gives, in the Synoptical Gospels, a logical 
 or scientific definition of the Divine Being. He silently builds 
 upon the representation of the Old Testament, the correctness of 
 which he thereby recognizes. Least of all does he undertake 
 to prove the existence of God. He sees God in everything 
 and shows him to others in every work of his hands. He 
 assumes his unity (Matt. 4, 10 ; 19, 17), and at the same time 
 his personal existence, in consequence of which He is exalted, 
 not merely as the Supreme Power, but also as the conscious 
 and independent Will, above the whole creation and above 
 every one of its parts. 
 
 3. Although our Lord frequently speaks simply of God, 
 especially in a mixed multitude (Luke 18, 7 ; comp. Matt. 
 19, 17), he generally, in addressing his disciples, calls him, 
 Father. In this, and not in the recognition of God's Sovereignty 
 (although recognized in Matt. 11, 25), lies the peculiarity of His 
 teachings respecting God. In calling God, Father, he describes 
 first of all God's special relation to Himself, and next the point 
 of view from which he would have his disciples regard the 
 Supreme Being. That He is the Father of all men, inasmuch 
 as he has created all, Jesus would certainly never have denied, 
 but in this broad sense he never uses the word. He means by 
 it not so much a natural as a moral and spiritual relation, the 
 
A*4^^ 
 
 it I**' 
 
 -7tfW J**~ ~" ' 
 
 , 
 
The Supreme Ruler. 53 
 
 direct result of which is communion with God and resemblance 
 to Him. Whatever may be the feelings of God as a Father 
 towards the lost sinner (Luke 15, 11-32, the prodigal son) the 
 name, children of God, is given only to those who in love and 
 purity exhibit the image of the Father (Matt. 5, 9. 45. 48), and 
 who as such are the opposite of the children of the wicked one 
 (Matt. 13, 38). 
 
 4. Jesus ascribes to God no other attributes than those 
 attributed to Him in the Old Testament, but while there the 
 holiness of God is made prominent, love now takes the first place 
 and is represented as the center of all God's perfections, and 
 as that in which He is proposed to man for imitation (Matt. 
 5, 48 ; Luke 6, 36). The three principal forms of love, 
 Mercy, (Luke 6, 36) Patience, (Luke 18, 7) and Grace, (v. 14) 
 are all mentioned in the teachings of our Lord. No wonder 
 that such a God is called the perfect source of every good gift 
 (Luke 11, 13). 
 
 5. The God of Jesus Christ is neither the God of Deism 
 nor of Pantheism. He never ceases to stand in immediate con- 
 nection with his creatures. He knows exactly the wants of all, 
 and is able to supply them (Matt. 6, 8 ; 19, 26), but this know- 
 ledge and power stand in the service of a government, which 
 embraces the minutest particulars (Matt. 10, 29, 30 ; 18, 14). 
 While absolutely unlimited, this government is so perfect, that 
 complained of as it may be, it can never be improved (Matt. 20, 
 13-15). While the slightest good deed is rewarded (Matt. 10, 
 41. 42) evil is punished according to the principles of the most 
 exalted rightousness (Luke 12, 47. 48), and the manifestation 
 of this righteous government of the world is also the answer to 
 the persevering prayer of faith (Luke 18, 1-8). Such prayer has 
 not only a sanctifying influence upon him who offers it, but it 
 obtains sure and abundant answers from God, and is the means 
 of relief ordained by Him in all our wants (Luke 11, 5-8), 
 though not necessary to be expressed in a multitude of words 
 (Matt 6, 6-8). 
 
 6. If God is thus described as a Father, it is because it has 
 pleased Him to reveal himself as such. This he has done and 
 does even in nature (Matt. 6, 25-34), and in the history of man- 
 kind (Matt. 19, 4-6) and of Israel (Matt. 21, 33-44), but above 
 
54 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 all in the sending of his Son (v. 87). But this revelation, al- 
 though designed for all, is believed and received only in a dis- 
 tinct state of mind and heart (Matt. 5, 8; 11, 25; 16, 17). 
 Where this exists men obtain a knowledge of God and his will 
 which is denied to the wise ones of the world (Luke 10, 1). 
 
 7. As the Father reveals himself through the Son, he pro- 
 duces what is good in man through the Holy Spirit, a gift 
 which hence is represented as including all good gifts (Matt. 7, 
 11 ; Luke 11, 13). Concerning the being and influence of the 
 Holy Spirit our Lord gives but a few intimations. He declares 
 that the Spirit dwells in Him (Matt. 12, 28) but promises him 
 also to his disciples for their support (Matt. 10, 19. 20) and even 
 to all who seek for salvation and pray for his help (Matt. 7, 11), 
 while the sin against the Holy Ghost is alone absolutely beyond 
 forgiveness (Matt 12, 32). The divine character of the Holy 
 Spirit he clearly enough affirms, in combining the name of the 
 Holy Ghost, in the rite of baptism, with the names of the Son 
 and of the Father (Matt. 28, 19). 
 
 8. From all this it is manifest, how infinitely our Lord's 
 teachings concerning the Deity, stand above those of profane 
 and even sacred antiquity. Neither in the writings of the most 
 eminent heathen philosophers, nor of Moses and the prophets, 
 do we find such a representation of God's fatherly love as in the 
 Gospel of the kingdom. In the Old Testament indeed, God is 
 called the Father of the Israelitish people (Deut. 32, 5 ; Is. 63, 
 16 ; Mai. 1, 6) ; his pity to those who fear him (Ps. 103, 13) and 
 to the unfortunate (Ps. 68, 6) is compared to the love of a fa- 
 ther toward his children. But never is this name given to him 
 in his relation to those who are not of Israel ; never also was 
 such a breadth and fulness of love ascribed to him as in the ut- 
 terances of our Lord. The image of fatherly, and especially of 
 forgiving love to those who themselves have been unforgiving, 
 we never find in such purity, outside of his instructions. More 
 magnificent descriptions of God's majesty than those which the 
 Old Testament contain, even He did not give, but deeper, more 
 spiritual and more exalted representations of the nature and feel- 
 ings of God than his we seek elsewhere in vain. Moreover his 
 teaching is so preeminently practical that we cannot speak of it 
 as a doctrine concerning God, or Theology, but only as a doc- 
 trine concerning religion and life. 
 
Its Subjects. 55 
 
 9. The representation of God given by our Lord is evidence 
 also of the truth of what he declares concerning his own super- 
 human origin and dignity (see 11, 5). To the Son alone could 
 it be given to look so deeply into the heart of the Father. 
 Neither the Semitic race, nor the beauty of the scenery about 
 Nazareth (B-ENAN), nor the instruction of any human school, 
 explains the secret of his representation of God, but solely his 
 own personality. It was not because this man had the deepest 
 religious feeling that God revealed the most in and through 
 Him, but it was because God was in Him as in no one else, that 
 his teachings concerning God could be the most elevated and 
 pure. Here too are enigmas; "it belongs to the humility and 
 the power of science to confess that there are mysteries which 
 it has not fathomed." (TiSGHENDORF). 
 
 Comp. SCHMID I, 126 ff., KEUSS, I, 237 ff. ; MEYBOOM, two 
 essays " On the Jewish and Judaeo-theocratic Theology of Jesus " 
 in Waarh. in Liefde, 1853, 1854; WITTICHEN. "The idea of 
 Grod as the Father, a Contribution to the Biblical Theology especial- 
 ly of the Synoptical Discourses of Jesus" Gott. 1865. 
 
 Questions for consideration. Agreement and difference be- 
 tween our Lord's teachings concerning God and those of the 
 Old Testament. Their superiority to those of Judaism. How 
 far is the legitimacy of natural theology recognized by Jesus. 
 In what respects does his doctrine concerning God transcend 
 that of the most distinguished philosophers of antiquity ? May 
 the personality also of the Holy Spirit be shown from the in- 
 structions of our Lord in the Synoptical Gospels ? Does his 
 doctrine concerning God have a Unitarian or Trinitarian char- 
 acter ? Criticism of the naturalistic explanations of the origin 
 of this doctrine. 
 
 13. 
 Its Subjects. 
 
 As the holy angels are servants, and the spirits of darkness 
 enemies, of the kingdom of heaven, so men likewise are called 
 to become its subjects. What our Lord teaches concerning the 
 nature and constitution of man proves that they are capable of 
 
56 Biblical Tlieology of the New Testament. 
 
 this ; what he declares concerning the sin and misery of man- 
 kind clearly shows their need of the salvation of the kingdom 
 of God. 
 
 1. Although the kingdom of God is established on earth, it 
 is far from finding its principal servants here. In the prayer 
 given by our Lord to his disciples, Matt. 6, 10, we are taught 
 that he proposes to make this earth like heaven, in men's doing 
 of God's will. He assumes that the angels stand in very dis- 
 tinct relations to this kingdom. He repeatedly describes them, 
 not as momentary personifications of blind natural forces, but 
 as personal beings, immaterial, sinless and immortal (Luke 20, 
 34-36), who form together a heavenly family, in the presence of 
 whom the Father rejoices over the salvation of the lost (Luke 
 15, 7. 10). They feel a peculiar interest in the weak and small 
 (Matt. 8, 10), stand at the side of the pious in the hour of 
 death (Luke 16, 22), and are expressly engaged in the service of 
 the Son of man both in his sufferings (Matt. 26, 54) and in the 
 manifestations of his glory (Matt. 13, 41). Exalted as they are, 
 however, in knowledge and holiness (Matt. 24, 36 ; Luke 9, 26)? 
 they stand in no other relation to the kingdom of God than that 
 of reverential servants. That they exercise a personal guardian- 
 ship over each citizen of this kingdom is not taught in Matt. 18, 
 10, nor do the words of Jesus justify any superstitious worship 
 of angels. His Angelology embraces no magical elements, like 
 the Old Testament Apocryphal books (the book of Tobit, for 
 example) but is purely religious and ethical. 
 
 2. In the same unambiguous way our Lord speaks concerning 
 the evil or fallen spirits. He never teaches an eternal principle 
 of evil, but repeatedly, a personal power, in hostility to the 
 kingdom of God. Not evil, but the Evil One, is the enemy 
 against whom he teaches his disciples to pray (Matt. 6, 12). He 
 calls him Beelzebub (Matt. 12, 27), Satan (Luke 22, 31), in gen- 
 eral the enemy (Luke 10, 19), who sows tares (Matt. 13, 39)- 
 He is properly the destroyer (Matt. 10, 28), for whom an eternal 
 destruction is waiting (Matt. 25, 41). In his deadly efforts, how- 
 ever, he is resisted by the intercessory prayer of our Lord 
 (Luke 22, 32), who beholds him, in advance, brought low (Luke 
 10, 18). But for the present he is the producer of all kinds of 
 
Its Subjects. 57 
 
 misery, and even of physical suffering (Luke 13, 16), and the 
 cause also of the mysterious disease which is ascribed to demo- 
 niacal agency (Matt. 17, 2 L). There is not a single argument to 
 show that our Lord, in these or similar utterances, accommo- 
 dated himself, against his own convictions, to the narrow spirit 
 of his time, while there is much in irreconcilable conflict with 
 such a supposition. He regards the casting out of demons as a 
 principal part of his work (Luke 13, 32), which he directly as- 
 signs to his disciples (Luke 9, 1 ; 10, 19), and beholds, on the 
 night before his death, the powers of darkness as if in closed 
 *ranks arrayed against him (Luke 22, 53). Nothing but an ar- 
 bitrary exegesis can understand this in a weaker sense than the 
 connection of the language and the spirit of that age require. 
 Yet an impartial criticism will not regard itself as discharged 
 from the duty of distinguishing between the main thought 
 expressed in such declarations, and the peculiar form in which 
 it is clothed with reference to the mode of thinking among 
 those then living (see especially Luke 11, 24-27). 
 
 3. We stand upon firmer ground, when we come to our 
 Lord's answer to the question often asked, " What is man." So 
 much we see at once, that he does not hold man and mankind 
 as of no consequence. Just the opposite appears in his atten- 
 tion to the sports of children (Matt. 11, 16. 17), his vindication 
 of their song of praise (Matt. 21, 15 ; comp. Ps. 8, 5), his ap- 
 preciation of the childlike character (Matt. 18, 3. 4). Only 
 once do we read that he was displeased and that was at the 
 turning away of children (Mark 10, 14) ; and as if in repara- 
 tion, he promises them his kingdom. It has been erroneously 
 inferred from such expressions (SCHENKEL) that redemption is 
 not necessary for all, since children, as such, are already mem- 
 bers of the kingdom of heaven. Then their mothers would 
 have no blessing [for faithfully training them] and our Lord 
 would contradict what he elsewhere affirms (e. g. Matt. 15, 19) 
 concerning the universal depravity of man. Still it is clear 
 that he recognizes in children a receptivity for his kingdom, 
 which is often sought for in vain among adults, and also, that 
 he proceeds upon an ideal of marriage (Matt. 19, 4-6) far higher 
 than that of his contemporaries. 
 
 4. Concerning the nature and constitution of man, as related 
 
58 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 to the kingdom of God, he gives the most explicit testimony. 
 Man is more than the lilies and the verdure of the field (Matt. 
 
 6, 25. 30), than sparrow or sheep (Matt. 10, 29-31 ; 12, 12), than 
 ox or ass (Luke 14, 5).* Like these he is a creature of God 
 (Matt. 19, 4), but he is far exalted above these, in being called 
 to the kingdom of God (Luke 12, 32) and capacitated to love 
 God and to be conformed to his image (Matt. 5, 48). 
 
 Our Lord distinguishes in man between body and soul, flesh 
 and spirit (Matt. 10, 28 ; 26, 41) ; it is uncertain whether he dis- 
 tinguishes also between soul and spirit. It is enough that he 
 represents the centre of human personality to be the heart,- 
 which may be not only without feeling, but without understand- 
 ing (Luke 24, 25), and from which proceed all evil thoughts 
 (Matt. 15, 19). The word, conscience, never occurs in his teach- 
 ings, but that he attached to this faculty its full value is clear 
 from his declaration concerning the inner eye of man (Matt. 6, 
 22. 23). Remarkable in this connection is the parable of the 
 field, which of itself (a^w^iTrj) bringeth forth fruit from the seed, 
 because it is soil and not rock (Mark 4, 28). There is thus re- 
 ceptivity for the divine in man, and this becomes spontaneity 
 wherever, in the use of appropriate means, everything which 
 hinders the working of the Gospel is taken away from the heart. 
 On this ground our Lord calls men to think (Matt. 11, 15 ; 13, 
 14), and to take heed what and how they hear (Mark 4, 24 ; 
 Luke 8, 18). He appeals to their natural reason and sensibili- 
 ties (Matt. 21, 31 ; Luke 11, 5-8), and exhorts them to judge 
 justly (Luke 12, 56. 57). Yet he places the disposition in man 
 above intellect (Matt. 5, 3. 8) and speaks therefore, with empha- 
 sis, of a good treasure of the heart, out of which the good must 
 proceed (Luke 6, 45). The internal worth of a man depends not 
 upon what he knows, but upon what he wills. Moreover he has 
 the tremendous power of choosing between life and death (Matt. 
 
 7, 13. 14), and with this freedom with which he is endowed is 
 connected a fearful responsibility (Matt. 23, 37). In a word, man 
 is created for something higher than this world. His soul may 
 become debased, but never extinguished (Luke 12, 4. 5 ; 16, 
 19-27), and Sadduceeism is therefore a monstrous error (Matt. 
 22, 29). The losing of life leads to the saving of it in the high- 
 
 * Comp. Tischendorf. 
 
Its Subjects. 59 
 
 est sense of the word (Matt. 10, 39 ; 16, 25), and in their personal 
 communion with the ever living God the pledge is given to the 
 pious of their everlasting existence (Matt 22, 30 ; Luke 20, 38). 
 
 5. As, on the one hand, this high rank makes man capable of 
 the salvation of the kingdom of God, so, on the other, he has 
 the greatest need of it. He is a sinner before God and misera- 
 ble in his own sight. To maintain that the Synoptical Christ 
 presents a doctrine of sin inferior in depth to that of some of 
 the Apostles is to take a very superficial view of his declara- 
 tions on this point. Paul presents sin in the light of his own 
 experience ; Christ in that of the law and of his own spotless 
 perfection. 
 
 6. The absolute universality of sin is assumed by our Lord 
 rather than expressly taught. He distinguishes, indeed, be- 
 tween the moral states of men (Matt. 5, 45 ; Luke 8, 4-15), but 
 there is no proof that he regards any man as sinless. The honest 
 and good heart (Luke 8, 15) is not one which is absolutely pure, 
 but simply upright and well disposed, and hence ready to re- 
 ceive the seed of the Word. He addresses his contemporaries 
 as those who are evil in contrast with the holy Father (Luke 11, 
 13) and regards them as sick and needing a physician (Matt. 9, 
 13). The well, whom he contrasts with them, are in his view 
 no more entitled to this name absolutely, than are the ninety 
 and nine just persons (Luke 15, 7) who need no repentance, to 
 be regarded as perfectly righteous. Even his sincere disciples 
 must constantly pray for forgiveness (Matt. 6, 12), and in con- 
 trast with the prodigal son in the parable, he exhibits one not 
 perfectly obedient, but unloving, whose self-righteousness is still 
 more repulsive than the unrighteousness of the other. No man 
 is unconditionally good (Matt. 19, 17) ; hence it is required of 
 all, without exception, that they be converted (Mark 1, 15). 
 
 7. The origin of sin is, psychologically, to be sought in the 
 heart (Matt. 15, 19), or more definitely in the weakness of the 
 flesh, which, hence, even for the disciples of the Lord, has a 
 dangerous side (Matt. 26, 41). Beyond this, it is to be traced 
 to the devil, the crafty worker of evil (Matt 13, 39), who is 
 ever seeking to lead men to ruin (Luke 22, 31). Every one 
 stands exposed to temptation, and unless he watch and pray 
 must fall into his snares. Temptation (nstgaafids) and offence 
 
60 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 are, according to this, correlative terms, and signify 
 whatever leads men to sinful deeds and makes them, in their 
 obstinate persistence in wrong doing, children of the devil (Matt. 
 13, 38). 
 
 8. The nature of sin is never expressly denned by Jesus. 
 The word fyagria always signifies in the Synoptical Grospels the 
 sinful action, never the sinful principle. That our Lord, how- 
 ever, recognizes the existence of the latter, in all its strength, is 
 plain from Matt. 15, 19 ; comp. 5, 28. The conduct in which it 
 manifests itself is in its nature unrighteousness, lawlessness 
 (ttvopila, Matt. 7, 23 ; 13, 41 ; comp. 1 John 3, 4), while its differ- 
 ent forms bear the name of transgressions (naQannb^aTa). Our 
 Lord describes in a striking way the progress of the sinful prin- 
 ciple, in the parable of the prodigal son : first, inwardly es- 
 tranged from his father ; next, outwardly separated from him, 
 and led on by a false independence from one sin to another, and 
 plunged, in consequence, into the deepest misery. 
 
 9. That sin makes man miserable, lies in the nature of the 
 case. Under its control he becomes in character a sinner 
 (tiiuocQTwttg), who, as such, stands no higher than the despised 
 publican. The unity of his inner life is lost in a sad discord 
 (Matt. 6, 24), and even his life itself is another name for death 
 (Luke 15, 24 ; comp. 9, 60). In this state the sinner, left to 
 himself, sinks into ever deeper misery. He incurs a blindness, 
 which may be pleaded in the way of excuse (Luke 23, 34), but 
 which, nevertheless, is in itself punishable. It leads to hard- 
 ness of heart in spite of the most earnest warnings (Luke 8, 8 ; 
 18, 10), and this reaches its extreme point in the obstinate enmity 
 directed even against known truth, which Christ describes as 
 the only sin which is never forgiven (Matt. 12, 31, 32). 
 
 10. No wonder, therefore, that sin is threatened with a pun- 
 ishment all the more terrible in proportion to the privi- 
 leges of the transgressor (Matt. 11, 20. 24; Luke 12, 47. 
 48). For sin necessarily involves indebtedness, the pay- 
 ment of which on the ground of law can be justly demanded, 
 but which is so entirely impossible for the guilty, that 
 nothing is left to him except to beg for forgiveness (Matt. 
 18, 28 ; Luke 7, 41 ; 12, 59 ; 18, 13). Hence forgiveness is to be 
 regarded as essentially a gracious acquittal from deserved pun- 
 
Its Subjects. 61 
 
 ishment, and where it is not bestowed, the transgressor has ev- 
 ery thing to fear. Under different forms of illustration, our Lord 
 sets forth the retributions of eternity (Mark 9, 43-50), which 
 with all their variety, will be invariably righteous (Luke 16, 
 19-25). But never does he furnish distinct ground for expect- 
 ation that these punishments will at some future time come to 
 an end. The mention of the deep gulf (Luke 16, 26), and the 
 closed door (Matt. 25, 10) justifies the fear of the contrary ; and 
 even if Matt. 12, 32 be interpreted as teaching the forgiveness of 
 some sins in the future world which cannot be done without 
 reasonable doubt the terrible judgment upon at least one sin 
 remains, in any case, in its full force. 
 
 11. Thus the sinner is in himself irretrievably lost (Luke. 19, 
 10), and yet not absolutely past recovery (Matt. 19, 25, 26). 
 The lost penny may be found, the wandering sheep be brought 
 back, but never through his own strength. The need of 
 redemption, so absolutely undeniable in itself, must be under- 
 stood and felt by the sinner (Luke 18, 14). The self- righteous- 
 ness which denies it, renders the man so much the more repro- 
 bate, and hypocrisy is just the sin against which alone the meek 
 and gentle Jesus is inexorable. 
 
 Comp. on Demonology, VAN OOSTERZEE, "Life of Jesus" II, 
 140 sqq. and the literature there cited : on the sin against the 
 Holy Ghost, ib. II. 330 sqq. : on the Anthropology and Ha- 
 martology of our'Lord in general, KEUSS I, 195 sqq. SCHMID 
 I, 230 sqq. 
 
 Questions for Consideration. The traces of Demonology in 
 Judaism. Are the declarations of Jesus concerning the king- 
 dom and the power of darkness the result of accommodation, of 
 personal error, or of practical knowledge of a mysterious real- 
 ity ? In what respect does the Anthropology of Jesus stand 
 above that of Moses and the prophets ? How far may his esti- 
 mation of childhood be reconciled with the idea of universal 
 depravity? What does Luke 15, 11-16 teach concerning the 
 history of the progress of sin ? Do the teachings of our Lord in 
 the Synoptical Gospels contain the least trace of the doctrine of 
 tiTroxax&ffTaats ? May his declaration in regard to the sin against 
 the Holy Ghost be illustrated from other passages of the Scrip- 
 tures ? 
 
62 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 Salvation. 
 
 The salvation springing from the Kingdom of God, although 
 a preparation was made for it in the Old Testament dispensa- 
 tion, to which our Lord stands in a very distinct relation, is yet, 
 through him alone revealed and manifested. It consists in the 
 personal enjoyment of temporal and spiritual blessings, begun 
 here and made complete in the future. The appearance on 
 earth, the life and labors, the atoning death, and the heavenly 
 glory of Jesus Christ have together the distinct aim to offer this 
 salvation to all. 
 
 1. In order to bring the reign of sin and misery to an end 
 forever, Christ has appeared with the Gospel of the kingdom 
 (Mark 1, 15). But although he announces the gospel as some- 
 thing relatively new, he is far from presenting even this new- 
 ness as entirely independent. We have already had occasion to 
 observe the contrary ( 9, 7) ; and here is the place to consider 
 the relation to the Old Testament, and especially to Mosaism 
 and Prophetism, of our Lord's word and work as described by 
 himself. 
 
 2. The Sacred Scriptures of Israel constitute, in his view, a 
 collection of priceless value. He constantly and exclusively 
 appeals to the declarations of the Law, the Prophets and the 
 Psalms, and gives unequivocal testimony to the entire Canon 
 of the Old Testament (Matt. 23, 35 ; Luke 24, 44). " It is writ- 
 ten," is the rule for his own faith and conduct, and the Book of 
 Deuteronomy thrice furnishes him with a weapon against the 
 kingdom of darkness (Matt. 4, 4-10). He also teaches that the 
 same rule is binding upon his contemporaries (Luke 10, 26 ; 16, 
 29-31 ; Matt. 19, 8), and regards it as not even to be thought 
 of that the Scripture should not be fulfilled (Matt. 26, 54 ; Luke 
 22, 37). The Scriptures have also a teleological significance 
 (Luke 16, 16), and his own relation to them is expressed in the 
 sentence (Matt 5, 17) " not to destroy, but to fulfill." 
 
Salvation. 63 
 
 3. It is not difficult to define the relation in which our Lord 
 places himself to the prophetic portion of the Scriptures. The 
 entire Old Dispensation he regards as one connected preparation 
 for his coming (Matt. 21, 33-37), but in the words of the proph- 
 ets, especially, he finds direct predictions of his person and 
 work (Luke 4, 18. 19 ; 18, 31), and also concerning his forerun- 
 ner (Mark 9, 13), and in passages even, where we, without his 
 explanation, should not have recognized them (e. g. Matt. 21, 
 42). He plainly interprets the prophetic word from the typico- 
 symbolical point of view, and desires his disciples to do the 
 same (Luke 24, 25-27). 
 
 4. It is not so easy to define the position which our Lord 
 takes in relation to the Law. It is obvious that he feels himself 
 inwardly elevated above its letter, and of his own free choice 
 becomes siibject to its various prescriptions (Matt. 12, 6 ; 17, 
 27). That necessity also may break the law, he by no means 
 overlooks (Mark 2, 21-28). Least of all does he pay deference 
 to human tradition, which he emphatically distinguishes from 
 the requirements of the divine law (Matt. 15, 9). These he 
 regards as binding upon himself and his disciples; still he 
 never shows that he attaches less importance to the ceremonial 
 than to the moral part of the law of Moses. (See Luke 2, 41- 
 43 ; Mark 1, 41 ; Matt. 26, 18). In no case can it be shown 
 that he allowed himself or his disciples to transgress the origi- 
 nal prescriptions of the law. In the great antitheses of the 
 Sermon on the Mount (Matt. 5, 21-44) he opposes indeed the 
 later additions to the Law, but never its original requirements. 
 He emphatically reproves the neglect of the " weightier mat- 
 ters " of the law, but enjoins also the observance of the least 
 (Matt. 23, 23). From those among his contemporaries who in- 
 wardly stand upon the foundation of law, he constantly requires . 
 obedience to it (Matt. 19, 18 ; comp. also the addition in Luke 
 6, 5, found in Cod. D. : see Tischendorf ), commands the multi- 
 tude to do whatever the Scribes bid them observe (Matt. 23, 3), 
 and expects that his disciples, for the immediate future at least, 
 will regard the law of the Sabbath (Matt. 24, 20). Thus he 
 confirms towards the end of his public life, what he said at the 
 beginning (Matt. 5, 18) of the permanent authority of the Law. 
 
 On the other hand, it is clear that Jesus regards the perma- 
 
64 Biblical Theology of the New Testament 
 
 nent union of the old and new as partly impossible and partly 
 pernicious (Matt. 9, 15-17). He foresaw and predicted a time, 
 in which the old form would be destroyed by the new spirit 
 infused by Himself. In his assured knowledge that city and 
 temple were to fall, he could not have expected that, after that 
 period, the Israelitish worship would be maintained, much less 
 that the letter of the Mosaic law would maintain an abiding 
 authority. Yet with profound wisdom he left the letter un- 
 touched, so long as the spirit, living in Himself, had not yet 
 passed into his disciples, and in the full consciousness that a 
 new covenant was to be instituted by Him (Matt. 26, 28), he 
 anticipates the highest blessing of the ancient covenant prom- 
 ise (Jer. 31, 31-34). Thus were blended, in a higher unity, 
 in the consciousness of our Lord, the fulfillment of the Law, 
 and the abrogation of its letter. Both the Law and Prophets 
 were merely to announce and prepare the salvation which he 
 came to present. 
 
 5. The nature of the salvation, assured in Him to the sub- 
 jects of this kingdom is by no means exclusively spiritual. 
 The meek are to inherit the earth, the faithful servant to have 
 extended authority and reward (Matt. 5, 6; 19, 28; 25, 21). 
 But this outward salvation comes only when the inward is 
 gained, the obtaining of which is our principal work on earth. 
 Both negatively and positively, it is exhibited by our Lord 
 in the most glorious colors. They who inherit the kingdom 
 of God, are delivered thereby from all the miseries which 
 flow from being lost ; they are forever kept (Luke 19, 10) ; 
 they have the forgiveness of sins (Luke 7, 50; 18, 14), and 
 in consequence a rest sought elsewhere in vain (Matt 11, 28). 
 The enjoyment is depicted according to the different condi- 
 tions of those for whom it is provided. To the blind it is 
 sight, to the prisoner freedom, to mourners comfort, to the 
 hungry, plenty, to the oppressed a rich reward for whatever 
 is suffered here for the sake of Christ. Still, it is not to be 
 denied that the central point of the salvation made known 
 by Christ in the Synoptical Gospels is not the present, but 
 the future life. His eye, like that of his contemporaries, is 
 fastened principally upon eternal life, and that life is con- 
 ceived of as a life beyond the grave. It will be given, at 
 
^/^ 
 
 *%^ V 
 
Salvation. 65 
 
 the coming of the Lord in his glory, to those who observe 
 the prescribed conditions, and will bring the misery of earth 
 forever to an end; while the redeemed under the New Cov- 
 enant will be made sharers in the glory already possessed by 
 the patriarchs of the Old Dispensation (Matt. 8, 11. 12). 
 
 6. The question remains, what our Lord, according to his 
 own teachings, has done, is doing, and will do to give this 
 priceless salvation to men. His coming into a world which 
 is not his home, has for its end to receive a kingdom and 
 to seek the lost (Luke 19, 10. 12). For this he went forth 
 (Mark 1, 38), especially after the lost sheep of the house of 
 Israel (Matt. 15, 24), and the whole of his public ministry is 
 consecrated to the same great aim. As a sower he passes over 
 the field (Matt. 13, 3), and styles himself the Teacher of his dis- 
 ciples (Matt. 23, 8 ; 26, 55). Even his miracles were wrought 
 to show that the kingdom was near (Matt. 12, 28), and to make 
 Himself known as the Christ (Matt. 11, 4. 5). Yet He did not 
 approve of the seeking for miracles, regarded false miracles as 
 possible, and forbade the premature report of those which He 
 performed (Matt. 8, 4 ; 16, 1-4 ; 24, 24). On the other hand, 
 He recalls his own miracles to the recollection of his disciples 
 (Mark 8, 19-21), and declares the rejection of a message sup- 
 ported by such evidence absolutely inexcusable (Matt 11, 
 20-24) a proof that the working of miracles, in his estima- 
 tion, was not such a subordinate part of his earthly work as 
 unbelief has since maintained. 
 
 7. It is, however, his suffering and death that he brings into 
 special and direct relation with the communication of salvation. 
 It will not be denied on the ground of purely historical criti- 
 cism that our Lord foretold this suffering and death. It is true 
 that, according to the unanimous accounts of the Synoptical 
 writers, there was a period in his life (Matt. 16, 21-23), in 
 which these references became more distinct and prominent; 
 but even before this, there were not wanting figurative, but 
 nevertheless explicit, intimations (Matt. 9, 15; 16, 24. 25). 
 They became constantly more clear, the nearer the earthly life 
 of Jesus approached its close (Luke 12, 49 ; 13, 33 ; comp. 
 Matt. 17, 22. 23 ; 20, 18. 19), and issued finally in the dis- 
 tinct announcement of the time and mode of his death (Matt. 
 
 5 
 
66 Biblical Theology of the New Testament 
 
 26, 2), united somewhat early (Matt. 16, 21) with that of his 
 resurrection. That the disciples absolutely failed to compre- 
 hend this (Mark 9, 9. 10) renders their subsequent forgetfulness 
 of it more intelligible. At the same time, this statement in 
 Mark shows that the prediction itself was not one subsequently 
 fabricated ex eventu. 
 
 The point of view from which our Lord regards this suffer- 
 ing and death is, from beginning to end, the same. It belongs 
 to the things of God (Matt. 16, 23) ; he must be put to death, 
 in order that the Scripture may be fulfilled (Luke 22, 37). 
 There is no more reason for thinking here of a mere moral 
 necessity (HOFSTEDE DE GROOT) than for supposing from the 
 parable of the ungrateful husbandmen (Matt. 21, 37) that God 
 really expected that they would reverence his Son (VAN 
 OOKDT). The end, for which this death was so absolutely ne- 
 cessary, is, in more than one way, expressly stated. If he 
 came to serve (Matt. 20, 28 ; Mark 9, 45), this service reaches 
 its culmination in the voluntary giving of his soul as a ransom 
 for many. Not here and there one, but many, are thereby re- 
 deemed from the ruin which otherwise had befallen them. His 
 blood is shed for many for the forgiveness of sins (Matt. 26, 28), 
 that is, in order that their sins might be forgiven. Although 
 Matthew alone records these words, there is the less reason to 
 regard this idea as unhistorical (BAUR), because, even aside 
 from this passage, the idea it contains is in substance already 
 expressed in the announcement of the blood of the new covenant 
 (comp. Ex. 24, 8). That our Lord regarded his death as a sin- 
 offering appears also from Luke 22, 37 compared with the gene- 
 ral import of the 53d chapter of Isaiah, which here distinctly 
 stands before his mind : comp. also Luke 23, 31. The question 
 repeatedly put in connection with these passages (BAUR), " wheth- 
 er more was not subsequently put into them than they originally 
 contained," may be expected from a certain well known school, 
 but then it raises the suspicion of a foregone conclusion. It is 
 certain at least that nothing can be found in the words of Jesus 
 which conflicts with his own declarations respecting the end and 
 result of his death. That in Matt 9, 2 ; 18, 35 the forgiveness of 
 sin is spoken of without reference to his death, is perfectly com- 
 prehensible at that period and in that connection. It may also 
 
Salvation. 67 
 
 be admitted that the parable of the prodigal son contains a 
 pure and glorious truth, and yet not the full truth in respect to 
 the atonement, which could not be fully revealed until at a later 
 period. In a word we must not forget that Jesus for wise 
 reasons spoke but little, comparatively, in regard to his death. 
 
 8. It is, however, far from true that the ministry of our 
 Lord in preparing salvation for the world, terminated, accord- 
 ing to his own declarations, with his death. His heavenly 
 glory, on the contrary, stands directly connected with his 
 humiliation and with the execution of his plan (Luke 24, 26). 
 Hence he calls himself king (Matt 25, 40) and does not cease 
 after his departure to stand in a personal relation to his follow- 
 ers (Matt 18, 20 ; 28, 20). That by this something more than 
 simply moral power must be understood, appears from his de- 
 claration that it is given to him also in heaven (Matt. 28, IS). 
 This power he exhibits in a constantly increasing measure, and 
 this manifestation is styled his glorious coming. It began 
 during his life on earth (Matt. 16, 23), was continued previous 
 to the death of some of the Apostles, before their eyes and 
 those of their enemies, especially at the destruction of Jerusa- 
 lem (Matt 16, 28; 26. 63. 64), and will be seen in the fullest 
 sense at the consummation of the ages, the signs of which will 
 agree with those of the destruction of Jerusalem (Matt, chap. 
 24-25). It is like the stone thrown into the water which de- 
 scribes ever widening circles, the last of which loses itself in 
 boundless space. 
 
 On the relation of our Lord to the Old Testament in general, 
 and the Mosaic Law in particular, comp. LECHLER, " The Old 
 Test, in the discourses of Jesus" Stud. u. Krit. 1854. MEYER, 
 " On the relation of Jesus and his disciples to the Mosaic law" 
 VAN KONKEL, Specimen J. C. doctrinam exhibens de V. T. libris. 
 Traj. 1860. VAN HASSELT, "The relation of Jesus to the 
 Mosaic law, according to the Synoptical Gospels." Gron. 1863. 
 (The result, however, to which the last named writer comes, 
 that "Jesus criticised the law upon the higher principle that 
 whatever was cognizable to Him in his conscience was the will 
 of God," rests evidently upon an incorrect antithesis between 
 the conscience of the individual as the higher, and the 
 (revealed !) will of God as a lower authority). Comp. KAUF- 
 
68 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 FER, de bibl. wrjc uhbviov notione, Dresd. 1838; EIET, "The doc- 
 trine of Jesus concerning eternal life, according to the four Gospels. 1 ' 1 
 Utrecht, 1864. On our Lord's predictions of his sufferings, and the 
 reasons why he spoke comparatively little concerning his death, 
 VINKE, in the publications of the Society at the Hague, 1835 ; 
 HASEET, " On the predictions of Jesus concerning his death and 
 resurrection" Berlin, 1839; EITZSCHL, "The teachings of the New 
 Testament concerning the saving power of the death of Jesus" in 
 the Jahrb. fur deutsche Theol. 1863. On the whole subject of 
 this section, see VAN OOSTEEZEE, "Life of Jesus" EEUSS, and 
 
 SCHMID. 
 
 Questions for consideration. How far does our Lord place 
 himself in the same line with the men of God in the Old Tes- 
 tament, and how far above them ? Is there any purely critical 
 ground for the supposition that his predictions concerning his 
 death and resurrection were modified ex eventu ? May it be 
 assumed that he said more concerning it than the Ofospels 
 relate ? Is it possible for all his declarations concerning his 
 "coming," to be understood in the same sense? 
 
 15. 
 
 The Way of Salvation. 
 
 Although all are called to the kingdom of God and the sal- 
 vation it offers, the sinner actually obtains salvation only in the 
 exercise of repentance, faith, and by a renewing of the heart, 
 which manifests itself in the whole direction of the life. All 
 who comply with this condition constitute together a spiritual 
 community, which, in consequence of its nature and especially 
 its character and tendency, stands high above every other and 
 is destined to spread and to continue to the end of the world. 
 
 1. Since the kingdom of God was originally destined for all 
 ( 10, 2), all, according to the teaching of our Lord, must be 
 invited to it. His own personal ministry, indeed, was confined 
 to Israel (Matt. 15, 24), and his gospel was first brought to that 
 
The Way of Salvation. 69 
 
 nation (Luke 24, 47), yet He early foresaw, willed and fur- 
 thered the falling of the wall of separation. The universal 
 character of Christianity was not first taught by Paul (the 
 Tubingen School) but by Jesus himself, as we see Him descri- 
 bed in the Synoptical Gospels. The more Israel turned away, 
 the more emphatically does He urge the calling of the Gentiles 
 (Luke 14, 16-24). Many are already called and all must be ; 
 all bear this name (the called) to whom the invitation of the 
 kingdom of God comes, whether they accept it or not. Those 
 who accept it, incalculably fewer in number, bear the name of 
 " the chosen " (Matt. 22, 14). God himself has brought them 
 to the enjoyment of this privilege (Matt. 11, 25. 26 ; 16, 17), 
 the loss of which, on the other hand, after the exhibition of his 
 love in seeking them, can be ascribed only to themselves, and is 
 their own fault. 
 
 2. Such a chosen heir of salvation, however, a man does not 
 become, except by experiencing a great change, which our 
 Lord represents as necessary for all, his disciples not excepted 
 (Matt. 18, 3). Like his forerunner, John the Baptist (Luke 3, 
 8), he regards external descent from Abraham as not sufficient 
 to constitute a citizen of the kingdom of God. He requires a 
 genuine change of mind (fisT&roia) attended by external turning 
 (InunqoyJi) to the way of life (Luke 17, 4). But while the 
 preaching of John urged principally an externally moral life 
 (Luke 3, 10-14), Jesus directed attention chiefly to the inner 
 state. The first step in conversion He points out with the most 
 striking clearness, in the parable of the prodigal son, who begins 
 .to come to himself (Luke 15, 17). In opposition to the Pharisaic 
 principle from without, inward that of Jesus is, from within, 
 outward (Luke 11, 39-41). With Him, the state of the heart 
 is not simply much, but everything (Matt. 12, 33-35). It is 
 only as this is secured, that in his estimation, external restitu- 
 tion, in a case of wrong-doing, has any significance (Luke 19, 
 8. 9). So much importance does he attach to conversion, that 
 he requires it to be always preached in immediate connection 
 with the promise of the forgiveness of sins (Luke 24, 47), because 
 while it is never the procuring or meritorious cause of the lat- 
 ter, it is nevertheless its indispensable condition. 
 
 3. With equal emphasis our Lord requires faith 
 
70 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 which is most intimately connected with conversion. He means 
 by it, not merely an intellectual assent, but a trusting accept- 
 ance of what upon good grounds must be regarded as the truth. 
 He speaks of believing John the Baptist (ajJiw, Matt. 21, 32), 
 but of faith in Himself (els ipt, Matt. 18, 6 ; Mark 9, 42), which 
 expresses a more intimate relation. The object of the faith He 
 requires is in general the Gospel (Mark 1, 15), or more compre- 
 hensively all which the prophets have spoken (Luke 24, 25), 
 and in the highest sense, God (Mark 11, 22). But, regarding 
 Himself as the centre of the gospel, he requires faith not merely 
 in his word, but also in his own person (Matt. 18, 6). On this 
 faith he makes not only the exhibition of his miraculous 
 power, (Matt. 9, 29) but citizenship in the kingdom of God, to 
 depend (Mark 16, 16). It is, in his estimation, the supreme 
 quality in the moral life of man ; the only thing, of which we 
 read that its strength or its absence led our Lord to marvel 
 (Mark 6, 5 ; Luke 7, 10). No wonder that the greatest prom- 
 ises are made to it here (Matt. 17, 20), and that He desires above 
 all to find it on the earth at his future coming (Luke 18, 8). 
 
 4. As this faith constitutes a coming to Christ (Matt. 11, 28), 
 so it manifests itself in the following him. This following is 
 impossible, however, without absolute self-denial, and if this 
 self-denial is to mean anything, it must be voluntary and daily, 
 and be habitually renewed and prosecuted (Luke 9, 23). This 
 requirement, in its form peculiar and original, aims at nothing- 
 less than the slaying of all within us that hinders our entire 
 consecration to the work of the Lord, even though it involve 
 the most painful sacrifices (Mark 9, 43-50 ; Luke 14, 26. 27). 
 Hence our Lord requires, before a man becomes his disciple, 
 thoughtful and serious consideration, (Luke 14, 28-31), but 
 after he has once taken the decisive step, He demands a conse- 
 cration and steadfast loyalty, which shall be ready to dare and 
 endure anything in order to win the great reward (Matt. 19, 29. 
 30 ; 24, 13). 
 
 5. Whoever thus comes first to, and then after Christ, hence- 
 forth follows an entirely different way from that in which he 
 formerly went. In general, the duty of working is laid upon 
 the subjects of the kingdom of (rod : they are called into the 
 service of the Lord, not for rest, but to work and win (Matt. 7, 
 
The Way of Salvation. 71 
 
 21; 21, 28; 25, 14). In this labor their watchword must be 
 conscientious fidelity, united with constant watchfulness for the 
 coming of the Lord, the time of which is unknown (Luke 12, 
 35-46). In close connection with this they are strictly charged 
 to be persevering in prayer (Matt. 26, 41 ; Luke 18, 1-8) and 
 to cultivate a holy carefulness, which a proper freedom from 
 anxiety, also, (Matt. 6, 25-34) renders possible and easy. But 
 the disposition of the children of the kingdom must especially 
 appear in their relation to each other and to all men. While 
 they are to be at peace with each other, as far as possible (Mark 
 9, 50) and even to seek their true greatness in the helpfulness of 
 ministering love (Matt. 20, 25-28), they are called to exhibit 
 love to all (Luke 10, 25-37) and even to enemies (Matt. 5, 44) 
 and to show that in this respect they are governed by another 
 spirit than that of the world or even the Old Testament (Luke 
 9, 55). It is only thus that they approach the moral perfection, 
 which is to be the end for which they strive (Matt 5, 48). 
 
 6. It is impossible that they who are governed by such a dis- 
 position, should permanently remain isolated. They constitute 
 a spiritual community, of which it cannot for a moment be 
 doubted that in spirit it is wholly of the Lord. It is true 
 that He does not expressly say that he will have a church, 
 in the sense which has since been given to that word. The 
 word itself faxtyaia) occurs but twice in the Synoptical Gos- 
 pels (Matt. 16, 18 ; 18, 17). In the latter passage it seems 
 merely to signify in general the union of his disciples (con- 
 vocata societas, Heb. qahal, also used of the synagogue) and 
 without questioning the historical basis of the former (REUSS), 
 it yet is evident that our Lord had here an ideal in his mind, 
 which was to be realized only in the future. But while thus 
 wisely leaving to the Spirit, which should afterwards guide 
 his disciples, to mould the form under which they and all 
 believers were to be united, the mutual fellowship of his sub- 
 jects manifestly lies upon the heart of their King as a matter 
 of great importance. It was certainly his purpose to prepare 
 the highest salvation not merely for a greater or less num- 
 ber, but for all his disciples. This is manifest from the parable 
 of the feast with many guests, the vineyard with different 
 laborers, the household with various servants. Accordingly he 
 
72 Biblical Theology of the Xew Testament. 
 
 does not train his disciples simply as individuals, but unites 
 them together in a small community. He prescribes also the 
 immutable principles on which they must ever be united. No 
 fasts are to be made obligatory upon them (Matt. 9, 14. 15), 
 oaths must be superfluous (Matt. 5, 33-37), united prayer is an 
 important duty (Acts 18, 18-20), and the mutual oversight of 
 love in behalf of those in error, a part of their calling (vs. 15- 
 17). Self-exaltation is steadily forbidden, together with strife 
 for preeminence (Matt. 23, 8-12), and an untiring spirit of for- 
 giveness (Matt. 18, 23-35) is required to be united with the 
 utmost carefulness in judging of others (Matt. 7, 1-6). 
 
 7. With a view to the constant union of his disciples, our 
 'Lord established two sacred ordinances, of great significance 
 for his kingdom. Through the ever renewed announcement of 
 his death, in the Lord's supper, he seeks to bind his disciples to 
 Himself and to each other. Through baptism he designs to 
 separate all believers from the Jewish and Heathen world, and 
 unite them in the confession of the Father, the Son and the 
 Holy Ghost (Matt. 28, 19;' Mark 16, 16). If it is true, as 
 Strauss maintains, that the most recent criticism of the gospels 
 is " pretty well agreed " that the formula of baptism did not 
 exist till the latest edition of the first Gospel, then the said crit- 
 icism must make haste to review such an inconsiderate conclu- 
 sion. There is no more reason to question the historical char- 
 acter of the formula of baptism, than that of the Lord's sup- 
 per, and no one, not influenced by dogmatic prepossessions, 
 would ever think of doing it. 
 
 8. The Church, thus set apart and united by the will of the 
 Lord, is to spread and to continue to the end. We have 
 already seen the fundamental law of this increasing growth 
 ( 10, 2) ; it can here be only observed, that it is to take place, 
 in accordance with the design of Jesus, through exclusively 
 spiritual agencies, and especially through the preaching of the 
 gospel (Matt. 24, 14). The triumph of his kingdom and the 
 perpetuity of his Church, notwithstanding the most violent 
 opposition (Matt. 10, 34-36 ; Luke 12, 49-51) our Lord announ- 
 ces not as merely possible or probable, but as absolutely cer- 
 tain. The ground of this certainty lies in the solid foundation 
 on which the rising divine edifice rests (Matt. 16, 18), and the 
 
The Consummation. 73 
 
 pledge given in the abiding nearness of the Saviour (Matt. 28, 
 20), who has departed to remain, but also to come again. 
 
 Comp. EEUSS I 192, SCHMID 1. 299 ff; MATTHAEI, Jesu 
 Christi doctrina de jurejurando, Hal. 1847. On faith, KOSTLIN, 
 "Faith, its nature, ground, and object," Gotha, 1859. On the 
 Christian Church, KiST, in the publication of the Teyler Theo- 
 logical Society, Deel xxx. On the Synoptical Account of the 
 institution of the Lord's supper, DOEDES, " The doctrine of the 
 Lards supper." Utrecht, 1847. 
 
 Questions for consideration. Is the idea of x^a^ as used by 
 Christ in the Synoptical Gospels, exactly the same as when 
 used by Paul ? What may be learned from Luke 15, 17 sqq. 
 in respect to the proper nature of fie-i&voia? Difference and 
 higher unity of the object of faith. The peculiar exhibition of 
 self-denial in Luke 9, 23. The relation of the subjects of the 
 kingdom of God to each other and to civil society. How far 
 may Christ, according to his own declarations, be regarded as 
 the founder of the Christian Church ? Comparison of baptism, 
 as instituted by our Lord, with the baptism of John. Form 
 and signification of the institution of the Lord's supper. 
 
 The Consummation. 
 
 The salvation of the subjects of the kingdom of God does 
 not cease at their death, but reaches its entire completion only 
 at the coming of the Lord, by which the glory of the King will 
 be revealed, and the tried fidelity of his subjects be crowned 
 with the full reward of grace. That future will be ushered in 
 by impressive tokens, accompanied with amazing changes 
 external and moral, and followed by the decisive separation 
 between the good and the bad, which will constitute an irrevo- 
 cable close of the present dispensation. 
 
 1. Certain as it is that the sincere subjects of the kingdom of 
 God are here indescribably blessed (Matt. 5, 3-10 ; Luke 10, 
 
74 Biblical Theology of t the New Testament 
 
 23. 24), it yet cannot be denied that this blessedness is contin- 
 ually disturbed or obstructed. The entrance costs effort, the 
 pursuit demands sacrifices (Matt. 13, 24; 14, 26). Hence we 
 look beyond the grave, and a very essential need would be 
 unsupplied, if our Lord had left the question, concerning the 
 consummation of the kingdom of God, unanswered. 
 
 2. Although man as such is immortal (Matt. 10, 28), yet 
 beyond this, the pious are raised after death to a state of the 
 highest blessedness. If, in a single instance, our Lord compares 
 death to sleep (Luke 8, 52), this is no proof that he conceives 
 of a sleep of the soul, properly so called. On the contrary he 
 represents the Old Testament saints as living unto God in the 
 fullest sense of the word (Luke 20, 38 ; comp. Matt. 8, 11), and 
 teaches not only that personal existence, but also self-conscious- 
 ness and memory survive the death of the body (Luke 16, 19- 
 31). The state of the departed (<%, Heb. sheol) is according 
 to Him no abode of unbroken silence and absolutely the same 
 for all (Job 3, 17-19), but the scene of a terrible contrast, 
 which takes place immediately after death. While the wicked 
 are cast into hell (Gehenna), the pious are at once carried to 
 Abraham's bosom, comforted and made blessed. The same 
 local conception lies at the foundation of the mention of ever- 
 lasting habitations (Luke 16, 9), into which those who have 
 gone before, receive their friends who have been faithful in 
 well-doing, and of the Paradise (Luke 23, 43), promised to the 
 thief on the cross. Both must indicate the state of the departed 
 and be regarded as the description of a blessedness, commencing 
 immediately after death, but not made complete until the com- 
 ing of the Lord. 
 
 The idea of the coming of the Lord (nuyovaia) is so unequiv- 
 ocally and emphatically expressed in his discourses recorded in 
 the Synoptical Gospels, that the attempt to strike out all his 
 declarations concerning it, as spurious, by a single stroke of 
 the pen (CoLANi) is not merely to the last degree arbitrary, 
 but must be called well nigh desperate. The universal ex- 
 pectation of the Apostolic age on this point is perfectly incom- 
 prehensible, if there was not the least ground for it in his own 
 declarations. It is equally incredible that the eschatological 
 discourses of our Lord were considerably modified and em- 
 
The Consummation. 75 
 
 bellished in consequence of the destruction of Jerusalem ; for 
 it was only before that event that the downfall of the Jewish 
 State and the end of the world could have been so closely 
 connected as is there done. And it must be regarded as 
 extremely venturesome to maintain that Jesus, so far as he 
 actually uttered these discourses, was simply mistaken in re- 
 gard to future events. The end has not yet come; and we 
 must seriously question whether our Lord, if he had seen in 
 the expectations of his disciples only the fruit of national 
 prejudice, would have spoken at such length and so emphatic- 
 ally on this point. Exegetical investigation must decide how 
 far and why he brings the end of the world into connection 
 with the destruction of Jerusalem. So much, however, is cer- 
 tain, that he promises, in the most emphatic manner, that, 
 after his coming in a humble form on earth, he will again 
 appear for the revelation of his glory, which will bring the 
 present order of things to an end. 
 
 3. This coming will be unexpected (Luke 12, 39. 40), but 
 not without preparation. It will be announced by tokens 
 partly of a terrifying and partly of a joyful nature. To the 
 latter belongs the universal proclamation of the gospel ; to the 
 former the appearing of false Messiahs and the delusions con- 
 nected therewith, war and pestilence, famine and earthquakes, 
 oppression, discord and moral decay (Matt. 24, 4-14) in a 
 word, the birth-pangs of the Messianic age, which the contem- 
 poraries of our Lord also looked for. 
 
 4. Next follows the appearing of the Son of Man himself, 
 announced by his sign in heaven (Matt. 24, 30) and accom- 
 panied by terrrible phenomena in the natural and moral world 
 (v. 29). The powers of heaven will be moved, the form of 
 this world be changed. We are no more authorized to under- 
 stand the words of our Lord, respecting this great event, in a 
 literal sense, than to deny their truth in the name of the results 
 of a so-called modern philosophy. The form of representation 
 evidently approximates that of the old prophets : but the great 
 thought is that the natural world and the race of man are to 
 share in the revelation of the glorious future. 
 
 5. Along with this great and decisive close, and not before, 
 is the resurrection of the dead to be expected, concerning 
 
76 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 which our Lord in the Synoptical Gospels speaks but little and 
 only in passing ; yet He represents it as a collective event, and 
 one which decides the everlasting destiny of all. His conver- 
 sation with the Sadducees (Matt 22, 23-33) has been under- 
 stood, indeed, as promising an individual resurrection immedi- 
 ately after death. But as this, in view of the ideas of that age, 
 is less probable in itself, so it appears from a careful examina- 
 tion of Luke 20, 33-38 (comp. Mark 12, 23) that He represents 
 the resurrection as belonging to a period yet in the future, 
 which will be coincident with the end of the world ; and still 
 further He speaks of the resurrection of the righteous as an 
 event to occur at one and the same time. Accordingly his 
 declarations in regard to the condition of the saved, that they 
 are like the angels (Matt. 22, 30), must be understood as dis- 
 tinctly referring to their complete blessedness after the consum- 
 mation of all things. The wish to find an idea expressed by 
 our Lord which may be more acceptable to ourselves, must not 
 be allowed to lead us away from the original meaning of his 
 words or to pervert the obvious import of his prophetic teach- 
 ing. 
 
 6. At the same time with the (second) coming of the Lord 
 the Messianic judgment is to be expected, concerning which He 
 speaks much more, in the Synoptical Gospels, than of the 
 resurrection. He never represents himself as being only a wit- 
 ness of the spectacle and still less as belonging to those sum- 
 moned to appear, but always as the future Judge, from whose 
 decision, once pronounced, no appeal to a higher tribunal can 
 be imagined. As such He will appear in heavenly majesty, 
 summon all the generations of men, pronounce sentence ac- 
 cording to the measure of love springing from faith, and 
 adjudge to each a weal or woe which will never end (Matt. 25, 
 31^6). The angels will be employed in preparing and exe- 
 cuting his sentence, especially upon his enemies (Matt. 13, 
 39-42). When this is done, the Eegeneration, i. e., the entire 
 renewal of the natural and spiritual creation, will have been 
 accomplished (Matt. 19, 28). 
 
 7. Here is the place to speak in general of the reward to be 
 given by our Lord to his faithful servants. The effort has 
 been made by turns, either to banish every idea of reward from 
 
The Consummation. 77 
 
 his words, or else to forge from his declarations a weapon 
 against the purity of his ethical teachings, but in both cases 
 with no solid foundation. Without justifying or exciting the 
 greed for reward, our Lord yet promises to those who have 
 labored or made sacrifices for Him (Matt. 19, 29,-20, 16) a real 
 reward, that is, a proportionate recompense. This reward will 
 be regulated in accordance with righteous principles, though 
 not such as prevail among men, and the prospect of it may 
 serve for encouragement in the labor of love (Matt 10, 40-42). 
 But the reward which crowns the work is not at all of merit. 
 On the contrary our Lord, while teaching that no good thing is 
 done in vain, declares with equal emphasis that the reward is 
 wholly of grace; in other words, that the laborer is never 
 entitled to demand any special reward. Luke 17, 7-10 is on 
 this point stronger than any other passage. In a single word, 
 the doctrine of reward is here announced, not from a legal, but 
 from an evangelical point of view ; the question is answered, 
 not so much what is really deserved as what is graciously pre- 
 sented. The impelling principle of obedience may be simply 
 love and duty, but the reward is held up to view in order to 
 sustain His disciples under the many things which oppress 
 them (Matt. 5, 11. 12). 
 
 8. After what has been said, it is not difficult to show 
 in what, according to the unvarying teaching of our Lord in 
 the Synoptical Gospels, the future reward is properly to con- 
 sist. First, the faithful servant will receive honor which will 
 compensate him for all earthy shame and strife. He will 
 be served by the Lord himself, crowned with the highest praise 
 and exalted to the rank for which he is capacitated. Next, he 
 will enjoy a blessedness which is depicted under the most im- 
 pressive images, and will be full and immortal. Finally, he will 
 be called to a work which will give him new opportunities to 
 become an ornament and blessing to the kingdom of God, 
 then made triumphant and complete (Luke 12, 36. 37; 19, 
 15-19 ; comp. Matt. 25, 14-30). Special glory and exaltation 
 is promised to those who, in this kingdom, have stood foremost 
 in contest ; but even the slightest labor of love will not fail of 
 a proportionate reward (Matt 10, 42 ; 19, 28). And all this 
 unmingled blessedness will be enjoyed, in union with each 
 
78 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 other, forever. Whoever correctly throws himself into the fu- 
 ture, and thus with spiritual tact distinguishes between figure 
 and fact, will think twice before he characterizes the eschatol- 
 ogy of Christ in the Synoptical Gospels, as "grossly material " 
 (KEUSS). 
 
 9. While thus, on the one hand, the children of the kingdom 
 attain to perfect blessedness, the decision in regard to the chil- 
 dren of darkness, on the other hand, has come ; as such they 
 are manifested, separated and meet a righteous retribution. It 
 may be true that the word, eternal, in itself, does not convey 
 the idea of endlessness; yet the great antithesis, with which 
 our Lord closes his teachings (Matt. 25, 46), leaves no room for 
 the supposition that at the end the ripe tares will be garnered 
 with the good grain, and thus the completed kingdom of Grod 
 will embrace all without distinction. The fearful word, like- 
 wise, concerning Judas (Matt. 26, 24) leads to an opposite con- 
 clusion, as does the terrible threatening (Matt. 18, 6) to those 
 who willfully give offence. To attempt to support the contrary 
 from the parable of the leaven (Matt. 13, 33) is wholly to lose 
 sight of the difference between the region of natural necessity 
 and that of moral freedom. And to regard such a representa- 
 tion as hard, is to forget that according to the tenor of other 
 declarations (see, for example, Luke 12, 47. 48) the law of 
 proportionateness will be steadily observed in the retributions 
 of the future world. 
 
 10. It does not admit of denial, that our Lord constantly 
 and even in his last eschatoldgical discour-es represents his 
 future coming as very near at hand. This was the natural 
 consequence of the prophetic mode of view, in which the dif- 
 ference of time and space is thrown into the background. It 
 was also practically necessary, if the exhortation to watchful- 
 ness and labor was to receive its highest impressiveness from 
 the relative nearness of a decisive future to come when not 
 expected. Yet slight hints are by no means wanting that to 
 Him the destruction of Jerusalem and the final judgment were 
 far from identical, and that the latter might be delayed longer 
 than impatient zeal expected. Notice the expressions : " imme- 
 diately after the tribulation of those days," Matt. 24, 29, "after 
 a long time," Matt. 25, 19, the assumption in Luke 12, 45, and 
 
TJie Consummation. 79 
 
 the intimation in Luke 21, 24. It is quite a question whether 
 the receptivity of the Apostles on this point admitted of a 
 more developed explanation. In any case the exact fixing of 
 the time was not, in the view of our Lord, the main thing, so 
 much as the lively exhibition of the fact of his approaching 
 manifestation. The repeated references to this fact stood di- 
 rectly connected with the consolation and sanctification of his 
 disciples, at which from first to last he principally aimed. It 
 was important, also, that they should remember the direction 
 which, according to an ancient tradition, He is said to have 
 given to them, and which is applicable to us in the investigation 
 of these and of all his words, u be ye skilled judges of coin." 
 
 On the discourses of our Lord in regard to his coming, comp. 
 the extensive literature cited in HASE'S Life of Jesus, 5 Aufl., 
 101 ; VAN OOSTEKZEE, " Life of Jesus" III, 104 sqq. On the 
 doctrine of reward, a treatise by WEISS in the Deutsche Zeit- 
 schrift for 1853. 
 
 Questions for Consideration. For what reason did our Lord 
 so closely connect the description of the last times with that of 
 the destruction of Jerusalem? In what respect does this de- 
 scription agree with the eschatology of Judaism in that age, 
 and in what does it differ? The difficulties which meet us, 
 both in the literal and the allegorical explanation of these pre- 
 dictions. Is there ground for affirming that, if Matt. 24 and 25 
 are to be regarded as genuine, Jesus was mistaken ? Can traces 
 be found, in the words of Christ in the Synoptical Gospels, of 
 the idea of a two-fold resurrection? Criticism of the objec- 
 tions made against the explanation of Matt. 25, 31-40 as a 
 description of the last judgment. The doctrine of the thou- 
 sand years' reign before the forum of Christ in the Synoptical 
 Gospels. 
 
80 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 CHAPTEE II 
 
 THE GOSPEL OF JOHN. 
 
 17. 
 Introduction. 
 
 The words of Jesus in the fourth Gospel present a character 
 so entirely peculiar that a separate treatment, especially in our 
 age, is not only desirable, but necessary. It is important in 
 conducting it to distinguish, so far as possible, between the 
 declarations of the Johannean Christ and those of the Christian 
 John. In examining the former, the theology of the New Tes- 
 tament must proceed from the leading thought by which the 
 discourses of our Lord in this Gospel are governed. 
 
 1. We cannot enter upon the examination of the teachings 
 of our Lord in the fourth Gospel without a word of introduc- 
 tion, which shall justify, at the outset, the separate position 
 given to this investigation, by pointing out the peculiar char- 
 acter of these immortal discourses. In advance of even a 
 general view of the difference between the fourth Gospel and 
 the three others, it is evident at once, that here, in listening to 
 the words of our Lord, we are moving in a new circle of ideas. 
 Not only is the theatre on which we usually meet Him differ- 
 ent, but the form of his discourses and the impression made by 
 them and even the matter itself, when compared with the Syn- 
 optical Gospels, present important points of difference. There, 
 stands in the foreground the kingdom of heaven, here, the King 
 himself; there, the human, here, the divine side of the person 
 of the Saviour ; there, the blessedness of redemption beyond, 
 here, on this side of the grave. On this account the examina- 
 tion of both at the same time is attended with peculiar diffi- 
 culty. No exhibition of the harmony of the three first Gospels 
 with the fourth is of any value, which does not proceed from 
 the unhesitating recognition of the difference between the two. 
 
The Gospel of John. 81 
 
 2. This separation, desirable in itself, is in the present state 
 of the Johannean question doubly necessary. Never were the 
 genuineness and credibility of the fourth Gospel so violently 
 assailed as now. The Biblical Theology of the New Testa- 
 ment cannot take part directly in an investigation which be- 
 longs to the department of Introduction and Criticism. But 
 collaterally it may throw some weight into the scale by inquir- 
 ing whether the teachings of our Lord recorded in the Gospel 
 of John are or are not in harmony with his other declarations. 
 If at this point, to say nothing of any other, the accounts 
 prove to be in irreconcilable contradiction, nothing remains 
 but to decide between them. If on the contrary, the difference 
 admits of being perfectly explained and reconciled, then it 
 follows that from this armory at least no weapons can be 
 brought against the fourth Gospel. 
 
 3. An important difficulty still remains, even when the genu- 
 ineness of the fourth Gospel and in general its historical 
 trust- worthiness are admitted. The question arises whether we 
 are here listening to Jesus as he actually spoke, or as John, 
 with frequently great freedom of narration, represents him as 
 speaking. The latter is maintained by many, and it cannot be 
 denied, in carefully comparing the Gospel and the Epistles of 
 John, that we often find in the Baptist, the Lord himself and 
 the Apostles the same ideas expressed in the same, or at least 
 similar, forms. Still, care must be taken not to forge a weapon 
 against the credibility of the Gospel of John from what, rightly 
 viewed, constitutes a proof of its genuineness. If John was 
 really the bosom friend of Jesus, or animated above others 
 with the spirit of the Master, it is conceivable that he should 
 gradually have entirely assimilated the language he used to 
 that of the Lord, and on the contrary absolutely incredible that 
 he should have placed words in his mouth which he well knew 
 were never spoken. Even if we admit, therefore, that he re- 
 corded with apostolic freedom under divine guidance the words 
 of THE WORD (which besides were spoken in another language), 
 they may be regarded all the more readily as the words of 
 Jesus, because it appears from various examples that between 
 the style of John and that of Jesus as found in John there is 
 a discernable, though not a great, difference. Thus, John in 
 
 6 
 
82 Biblical Theology of the New Testament 
 
 the prologue of his Gospel speaks of the Logos, but the Johan- 
 nean Christ never gives this name to himself. Our Lord des- 
 ignates himself also as the Son of Man, but the Apostle never 
 employs this title in his testimony concerning his Master. 
 Jesus calls his disciples brethren and friends ; John avoids it. 
 Jesus speaks of his kingdom and the kingdom of God ; John, 
 when speaking himself, does not mention it. The Holy Ghost 
 is described by Jesus as the Paraclete (John 14, 16. 17) ; by 
 John (2, 2) the glorified Christ himself. Jesus speaks of God 
 as a Spirit (4, 24) ; John only declares him to be light and love 
 (1, 5 ; 4, 16). Such differences, which might be easily multi- 
 plied, could not be explained, if John had without scruple 
 placed his own thoughts in the mouth of the Master. If it 
 appear doubtful here and there whether he himself speaks or 
 is reporting the discourses of the Lord (e. g. 3, 16-21 ; comp. 
 3, 31-36) the dividing line is still for the most part sufficiently 
 visible ; and even if sometimes the form of the report be partly 
 ascribed to him, the fidelity of the main contents may be suc- 
 cessfully vindicated. On these grounds we regard it as possible 
 and necessary to distinguish properly in the Gospel of John 
 between the Johannean theology and the doctrine of Christ, 
 and here to speak exclusively of the latter. 
 
 4. Here, as in the survey of the Synoptical discourses, it is 
 of prime importance to fix upon the main thought, by which 
 the discourses of our Lord in the Gospel of John are governed, 
 and allow this to shed light upon the treatment of the particu- 
 lar parts. Care, however, must be taken not to confound the 
 main idea of the Gospel itself with the main idea of the dis- 
 courses of Christ preserved for us in this Gospel. The science 
 of Introduction investigates the first by an analytic process; 
 the other is derived by Biblical Theology from the total im- 
 pression made by the words of our Lord here recorded, in dis- 
 tinction from others. And then it can hardly be denied that 
 these words in the fullest sense exhibit a Christo-centric charac- 
 ter; that is, that His own person and work constitute the great 
 centre around which all revolves. To a certain degree this 
 was also to be observed in the Synoptical Gospels, but what 
 was there only an element of the Gospel of the kingdom has 
 here obviously become the principal thing. We must conse- 
 
The Gospel of John. 83 
 
 quently begin with the inquiry, not what our Lord declared 
 concerning his kingdom in general, concerning the Father, or 
 concerning man, but what he taught concerning Himself in all 
 these and similar relations, before we are in a condition to 
 answer the question, how far these declarations can or cannot 
 be reconciled with those brought before us in the preceding 
 chapter. 
 
 In regard to the Johannean question in general, besides 
 the Introductions to the New Testament, especially those of 
 GUEKICKE and BLEEK [the latter translated into English], and 
 the excellent Commentary of GODET, 1864, 1865, compare 
 "VAN OOSTEKZEE, " The Gospel of John" Utrecht, 1867, and 
 the literature there cited ; to which may be added the impor- 
 tant work of RiGGENBACH, " The Testimonies for the Gospel of 
 John" Basle, 1866 [also FISHER, On the Supernatural Origin of 
 Christianity, 2d ed.] On the genuineness and credibility of 
 the Johannean report of the discourses of Jesus, more particu- 
 larly GODET, " Examination of the principal questions raised in 
 our day concerning the fourth Gospel" Paris, 1865. On the dif- 
 ference between the Johannean language and theology and that 
 of our Lord, the article of P. HOFSTEDE DE GEOOT in Waarh. in 
 Liefde, 1837, and G. L. PAREAU, in the same periodical, 1847. 
 The neglect of this difference has exerted an exceedingly un- 
 favorable influence upon the treatment of the theology of the 
 Johannean Christ by most of the more recent theologians. 
 Comp. farther upon that theology in general, EEUSS, SCHMID 
 and others ; also what G. W. STEMLER has written upon it in 
 Godgel Bijdr., 1866. We willingly concede to the last named 
 writer, that the teachings of Jesus in the fourth Gospel prop- 
 erly contain, as a whole, no theology, if this word be taken in 
 the sense of a strict theological system. This, however, does 
 not prevent our endeavoring to bring the extended discourses 
 of our Lord, so far as possible, into one connected whole. 
 
 Questions for Consideration. When was a beginning made in 
 investigating the teachings of Jesus in John, separately from 
 those in the Synoptical Gospels? May the distinguishing be- 
 tween the doctrine of the Johannean Christ and of the Christian 
 John be perfectly justified ? How far and on what grounds may 
 
84 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 we speak of a literal report of the discourses of our Lord by the 
 Apostle John ? The observations of the writer of the fourth 
 Gospel compared with his report of the words of the Lord. 
 Can we here properly speak of a theology ? 
 
 The Son of God in the Flesh, 
 
 The consciousness of himself expressed by our Lord in the 
 fourth Gospel is that of God's own Son, appearing as true and 
 holy man among irfen, in order to become the Messiah of Israel 
 and the Saviour of the world ; but who, even during his abode 
 on earth, does not cease to stand personally in a relation to 
 heaven entirely peculiar to himself. 
 
 1. For the right knowledge and judgment of the theology of 
 the Johannean Christ, it is first of all important to inquire 
 what consciousness of himself is properly expressed by the /, 
 who affirms such unheard of things concerning himself. This 
 question, under the influence of previous dogmatic ideas or 
 wishes, has received various answers. Whoever examines can- 
 didly and attentively, and compares what our Lord says of 
 Himself in the third person and in the first, cannot long remain 
 in -uncertainty. As the fourth Gospel begins with the divine 
 nature of our Lord, while the first and third commence with 
 his human birth, so it is with the words and discourses of 
 Jesus in this Gospel. In the Synoptical writings we ascend to 
 the revelation of his divine dignity ; in John we set out with 
 the assumption of this truth. The / who here speaks is neither 
 on the one hand merely human, nor on the other is the Messi- 
 anic consciousness of the Lord that of the Son of God con- 
 ceived of aside from all relations to mankind : it is uniformly 
 the expression of the feeling of the incarnate Son of God as 
 such. 
 
 2. That our Lord, especially in the fourth Gospel, styles 
 himself very often the Son, the Son of God, once even the 
 only begotten Son (v. 16), is admitted by all. Of what nature 
 is this relation which he has to the Father, according to his 
 
The Son of God in the Flesh. 85 
 
 own declarations, will be presently investigated. Here it is 
 enough to observe in passing, that in any case a superhuman 
 relation, a personality supermundane in its origin, is indicated 
 by the term. This is evident from the fact, not merely that 
 the Lord in the Gospel of John applies this name to no one 
 but Himself, but also that He thereby claims for himself a 
 personal existence before his coming into the world, such as 
 can be ascribed to no one else. See among other passages 
 chap. 6, 62; 8, 58; 16, 28; 17, 5. 24. The arbitrariness which 
 undertakes to expunge several of these passages as interpolated 
 is quite as unjustifiable as the violence shown to their mean- 
 ing in explaining them as teaching only an ideal (impersonal) 
 pre-existence. If men will not believe our Lord's declarations 
 in regard to his own consciousness, let them at least not muti- 
 late them by making Him say something different from what, 
 according to impartial exegetical and critical investigation, He 
 actually did say. Moreover, the same consciousness lies at the 
 basis of those words, in which He declares that he was born, 
 came, or was sent for a definite purpose (chap. 10, 10 ; 18, 37). 
 It may be also seriously doubted whether our Lord would ever 
 have allowed himself to have been greeted by one of his dis- 
 ciples as his "Lord and his God" (20, 28) if He had not had 
 the abiding consciousness of superhuman origin and dignity. 
 
 3. It is, however, far from true, that He who knew so 
 much more than man, was, in his own view, man only in 
 appearance. On the contrary, He calls himself " a man who 
 speaks the truth " (8, 40), and repeatedly employs the term Son 
 of Man (1, 52 ; 3, 14 ; 5, 27). He speaks of his coming into 
 the world (18, 37) ; shows the most tender care for his mother 
 (19, 26) ; makes express mention of his flesh and blood (6, 54) ; 
 asks a question for information (11, 34) ; and declares that his 
 soul (WTJ) is troubled. On the cross He complains of thirst 
 (19, 28), and after his resurrection constrains Thomas to lay his 
 hand in his side and note the marks of the nails (20, 27). The 
 exegesis which, after such strong testimony, styles the Johan- 
 nean Christ docetic (i. e. man only in appearance) because He 
 also declares higher things of himself, assumes, what must first 
 be proved, that it is impossible in itself to be more than man 
 and at the same time truly man. 
 
86 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 4. It is equally unquestionable that our Lord regarded him- 
 self, according to this Gospel, as perfectly pure and sinless. He 
 views and represents himself, indeed, as subject to temptation 
 (6, 15 ; 12, 27), but the prince of this world has nothing in 
 Him (14, 30). Negatively, this consciousness is manifest from 
 the question, " which of you convinceth me of sin ?" (8, 46), 
 which, if not the issue of pride or self-deception, must be the 
 expression of the objective truth; and positively, from so many 
 expressions in which He, who seeks not his own glory (7, 18), 
 bears testimony to a morally normal relation to the Father, 
 never for one moment disturbed or obscured (4, 34 ; 8, 29 ; 11, 
 9 ; 15, 9 ; 17, 4). Consequently he does not merely seek and 
 find his place among the " artists of the ideal of humanity " 
 (STRAUSS), but places himself without arrogance and yet une- 
 quivocally above all who lived before Him or who will live 
 after Him (3, 6). 
 
 5. As true and spotless man, our Lord expressly affirms that 
 he has appeared on earth in a distinct character as the Messiah 
 of Israel and the Saviour of a sinful world. His relation to 
 the world will be treated of presently. In regard to Israel, it 
 is evident that Jesus in the fourth Gospel early represents him- 
 self as the Messiah, and as such accepts homage (see 1, 52 ; 
 3, 14 ; 4, 26 and other passages), and even makes salvation 
 dependent upon the recognition or rejection of himself as such 
 (8, 24). Far from correcting the multitude, when they under- 
 stood the term, Son of Man, as meaning the Messiah (12, 34. 
 35), he obviously sanctions it; and although denying before 
 Pilate that his kingdom is to be of this world, does not deny 
 that He may be called a King. He repeatedly appeals to the 
 testimony of the Scriptures concerning Him (13, 18 ; 15, 26), 
 and, as the one, by way of distinction, Sent, presents himself 
 on the last evening of his life before his Father as spotless (17, 
 3. 4). He feels and reveals himself, consequently, in a single 
 word, as a historical person, of whom Moses wrote (5, 46), and 
 who temporarily appears upon earth for the fulfillment of a 
 distinct mission. 
 
 6. Yet, although as man He dwells in person on earth, 
 He nevertheless knows himself to be in heaven (3, 13). 
 He was there not merely before his birth ; in virtue of his 
 
The Son of God in the Flesh. 87, 
 
 higher nature He did, and does, remain there after it. What 
 he speaks He has seen and heard Himself in the most inti- 
 mate communion with the Father (8, 38 ; 12, 49. 50). He is 
 not only conscious of possessing a pre-existent life, but He 
 represents it with the modification rendered necessary by his 
 appearance in a true and holy human nature. Coming forth 
 from the Father, he returns shortly to his immediate commun- 
 ion with Him (16, 28) ; yet he ceases not, even during this 
 intermediate period, to be in the Father, to hear and to learn of 
 Him, and by Him to be loved. There is, thus, in his con- 
 sciousness, a human and a divine factor, originally distinct, 
 now blended together in an inseparable unity, in which the 
 activity of the one does not prevent that of the other. The 
 right of critical inquiry to pronounce such a consciousness to be 
 a priori inconceivable is yet to be proved. That nothing like 
 this is stated in the fourth Gospel is, to the Biblical theologian, 
 a fixed result of exegetical investigation. 
 
 Compare in general YAN OOSTERZEE, " ChristoLogy /" GESS, 
 " The Doctrine of the Person of Christ," Basle, 1866, S. 134 ff. ; 
 WEIZS ACKER, " On the Johannean testimony of Christ himself" 
 in the Jahrbiicher fur deutsche TheoL, 1857, 1862 (an exeget- 
 ical argument against the hypostatical pre-existence) ; ASTIE, 
 " Explanation of the Gospel according to St. John" Geneva, 1864 ; 
 BEISCHLAG, " Christology of the New Testament" Berlin, 1866, 
 S. 65-108. For the refutation of the rationalistic interpreta- 
 tion of the utterances of our Lord, excellent arguments are 
 found in SCHOLTEN, " The Gospel of John" Leyden, 1864. In 
 defence of the true humanity of our Lord, according to his 
 own testimony, deserves to be consulted BONIFAS, " On the 
 humanity of Jesus Christ according to the Gospel of John" in the 
 Theological Bulletin of the Revue Chretienne, 1864. 
 
 Questions for Consideration. Is the investigation of the con- 
 sciousness of the principal person in the fourth Gospel of the 
 first importance? The different phases of the modern criticism, 
 reflected in its treatment of John 6, 62; 8, 58; 17, 5; and 
 similar passages. What peculiarity appears in the discourses 
 of our Lord in the fourth Gospel concerning his Messianic dig- 
 nity ? Is not the term, Son of God, here and there used by 
 
88 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 Jesus in its pure theocratic sense (John 10, 33-38) ? Is John 
 17, 3 to be regarded as containing the words of Jesus himself? 
 
 19. 
 The Son of God in relation to the Father. 
 
 As the Son of God our Lord represents himself to have 
 always existed, and ever to remain the object of the highest 
 love of the Father, sharing in his nature, majesty and work, 
 and thus to have in the Father the ground and the aim of his 
 life, revealing his name in the most perfect manner, in virtue 
 of which He is entitled to a homage and glory such as cannot 
 without blasphemy be given to any created being. 
 
 1. Although in the fourth Grospel the appellation, Son of 
 Grod, is used in a few instances in a theocratic sense as synony- 
 mous with the word Messiah (1, ^&0 and elsewhere), yet our 
 Lord generally uses it in the metaphysical sense, to indicate 
 the relation of nature and being which exists between Him and 
 the Father, in virtue of which He, in distinction from every 
 other, is the only begotten of the Father (3, 16). The utter- 
 ances of his consciousness of himself on this point are the 
 more important, the more exalted and manifold they are. It 
 is clear at the outset, that they indicate a relation which did 
 not first begin at his human birth, but existed "before the 
 foundation of the world " (17, 5. 24). Undoubtedly, in this 
 passage, we seek in vain for our philosophical idea of eternity. 
 But it is equally certain that all beginning of existence in and 
 with time is here most expressly excluded (comp. Ps. 90, 2). 
 The being of the Son is an existence from eternity. He never 
 mentions a period, in which he was not, but was to be. And 
 what He ever was and is, He remains, even during his life on 
 earth. The actual existence of his humanity did not change 
 the essential nature of his Sonship. 
 
 2. As Son our Lord declares himself to be the object of the 
 highest love of the Father (5, 20), in consequence of which the 
 latter, as in an eternal present, shows Him all that He does. 
 

 , 
 
,, 
 
 < ' 
 
 C4x 
 
 A. 
 
The Son of God in relation to the Father. 89 
 
 This love is unchangeable, like Himself, and is returned by the 
 Son with the most intimate affection (14, 31 ; 17, 24). Though 
 thus the Father is and remains distinct from the Son, both are 
 essentially one, in consequence of a perfect vital communion ; 
 here is a unity of power, which again is not conceivable with- 
 out unity of nature and essence (10, 30).* When the Jews, on 
 the ground of expressions like this, accuse Him of making 
 himself equal with God (5, 18), he does not deny it, but pro- 
 ceeds to further illustrations (vv. 19-23), by which He explains 
 but does not weaken his previous declarations. 
 
 3. In consequence of this unity of nature and majesty, there 
 is also between the Father and the Son a unity of work. Thi^ 
 our Lord expressly affirms, in vindicating himself against the 
 charge of breaking the Sabbath (5, 17). f The divine work of 
 raising the dead and judging is distinctly committed by the 
 Father to the Son (vv. 21-29). If all life proceeds from the 
 Father (1 Sam. 2. 6 ; Deut. 32, 39), he yet awakes and presents 
 it through the Son, both in the natural and the spiritual sense 
 of the word. If God is judge (Ps. 75, 8), he yet, without the 
 the Son, judges no one and nothing. The divine attributes 
 necessary to perform such a work are claimed by our Lord 
 without any reservation. He has power over all flesh (17, 2), 
 and exhibits in all his words a knowledge far above all human 
 wisdom (12, 50 and elsewhere), and can even boldly say, 
 "Father, I will" (17, 24). 
 
 4. Nevertheless, the will of the Son never acts, a single in- 
 stant, without that of the Father. On the contrary He has in 
 the Father the ground and the aim of his life. As Son he has 
 received life from the Father, and lives through Him (5, 26 ; 
 6, 57). Because he is Son, it would be impossible to do any 
 thing of Himself, i. e., out of communion with the Father (5, 
 19), but because He, as Son, partakes of the nature of the 
 Father, He does, also, without exception what He sees the 
 Father do. As Son he thus declares himself dependent upon 
 
 * Calvin remarks on this passage: non disputat h. I, de unitate substantial; but 
 he speaks too feebly, when he adds : sed de consensu quern cum Patre habtt. That 
 here a unity of power must be conceived of, and that from this the unity of es- 
 sence results as a necessary conclusion, we have already observed in our '' Chris- 
 tology," II, 76; coinp. "Life of Jesus," II, 681. 
 
 f Quae conclusio stare non potest, nisi aequalitas personarum Patris et Filii stat- 
 uatur, ut recte Patres adversus Arianos hoc loco docuerunt. BEZA. 
 
90 Biblical Theology of the New Testament 
 
 the Father, calls Him, not only in his "human, but in his divine- 
 human nature, greater than 'Himself (14, 28), makes the seek- 
 ing not of his own, but of his Father's glory the end of his 
 striving (7, 8), while in return He expects of the Father that 
 He will maintain the glory of the Son and will magnify Him 
 (17, 1). 
 
 5. On earth the Son glorifies the Father by revealing his 
 name more perfectly than was ever done before. For this He 
 was sanctified (10, 35(), i. a, set apart before his incarnation by 
 the Father, and afterwards sealed by Him (6, 27), i. e., fur- 
 nished with the unequivocal evidence of his approval. In 
 what way He discharged this commission will appear presently. 
 This is the place to consider the idea of God which pervades 
 the discourses of the Johannean Christ. Pervades; for it is 
 manifest at once that to the question, who God is, our Lord 
 does not here give an express answer, any more than in the 
 Synoptical Gospels. The name, Father, is never an actual de- 
 scription of the Divine essence, but of the relation in which 
 God stands to Him and through Him to his disciples. And 
 even the declaration, " God is a Spirit" (4, 24), sublime as it is, 
 is only the clear, sententious expression of a truth, which under 
 the old covenant had at least been felt and declared (Ex. 33, 
 18-23). Even the mention of God as (in distinction from 
 idols) the only true God (17, 3), who has life in Himself (5, 26), 
 is an echo of what was there taught, and the attributes of the 
 Divine being, e. g., holiness, eternity and righteousness, w T hich 
 He here mentions by name (17, 11 ; 24, 25), are also else- 
 where recognized. Yet He declares with manifest emphasis, 
 when speaking of the completed work of his life (17, 6), that 
 He has revealed to man the name of the Father, and this word 
 gives to us an important hint. It indicates that in his estima- 
 tion this name (the expression of the proper nature of God) 
 was hidden, i. e., not absolutely unknown, but still not known 
 in its full glory, but is now brought to light, because He has 
 appeared, who could say without boasting: "he that hath seen 
 me, hath seen the Father " (14, 9). The Son, therefore, reveals 
 the Father not so much through the words which he speaks in 
 common with other men of God, as rather through his person, 
 the appearance of whom in the flesh is the answer to the peti- 
 
'" 
 
,^( <*" 
 
 k. 
 
 - - 
 
 
The Son of God in relation to the Father. 91 
 
 tion: "Show us the Father." As Son of God He is at the 
 same time the highest revelation of God. 
 
 6. As the highest revelation of the Father, in whose nature, 
 majesty and work He was a sharer from eternity, the Son of 
 God lays claim to a homage and honor which can be given 
 to no created being without idolatry (5, 23). The word em- 
 ployed is undoubtedly "to honor" (iipav), and not "to wor- 
 ship " (TTQCXJXVVBIV'), but the former, as the most general word, in- 
 cludes in it the latter as expressing the more special homage, 
 which cannot possibly be refused to the Son, if He be truly hon- 
 ored as (xa&dg) the Father (comp. John 20, 28). For this reason, 
 the requirement of faith in Him and in God is most intimately 
 united (14, 1) ; he expressly declares that it is impossible to 
 worship the Father and at the same time to reject the Son 
 (John 15, 23 ; 16, 3) ; and, on the other hand, He receives with 
 approbation the worship offered to Him by the man born blind 
 (9, 38). 
 
 7. After what has been said, there is no doubt in regard to 
 the question whether our Lord in the Gospel of John denies 
 every essential difference between himself and the Godhead, 
 with the exception of what is inseparable from the personal re- 
 lation between the Father and the Son. He does not speak in 
 figurative language on this point, as the Evangelist does (1, 18) 
 when he describes the Son as " in the bosom of the Father," 
 but literally and directly. He is in the Father and the Father 
 in Him. All that are the Father's are therefore his (17, 10). 
 He is from above (8, 2^), an expression used by no one else, 
 not even by John the Baptist of himself (3, 31) ; He, and He 
 alone, hath seen the Father (6, 46). He has come down from 
 heaven (6, 33. 38) ; which does not mean that He is of heavenly 
 nature and so far of heavenly origin, but the reverse of heav- 
 enly origin, and in consequence, of heavenly nature. In a word, 
 although He never calls himself God, He will not be regarded 
 as less than God, and the only difference between Him and the 
 Being on whom He at the same time calls in prayer, is finally 
 this : that the latter is the Father, and He the Son of his love 
 distinct from the Father, but yet of the same nature. It is 
 in vain to contradict this result by bringing forward single 
 passages which apparently give a weaker idea (e. g., John 10, 
 
92 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 34-36; 17, 3. 21. 22). Such passages must not be isolated, 
 but brought into connection with his other declarations. But 
 even taken singly, they do not prove what is sometimes drawn 
 from them. In 10, 34-36 in calling the attention of his hearers 
 by an elevated accommodation, from their low point of view, to 
 the fact that even theocratic persons of eminence sometimes 
 receive the name of Grod, He does not affirm that He has styled 
 himself the Son of Grod only in this figurative sense, but 
 plainly rises from the lower to the higher. In John 17, 3 the 
 Father is called the only true Grod, not to the exclusion of 
 the Son from all right to this title (see vv. 5 and 10), but in 
 distinction from the Son, because the latter here speaks in the 
 distinct character of one sent by the Father. In declaring, 
 however, that in the knowledge of Himself is eternal life, He 
 must have felt himself more than a mere creature. Least of 
 all, finally, does it follow from 17, 21. 22 that our Lord speaks 
 of a merely moral and not of a metaphysical unity between 
 Himself and the Father. The whole distinction does not per- 
 tain to this circle of ideas. He desires only that his disciples 
 be as intimately united with each other as He is with the 
 Father. This relation He regards as the model, of which he 
 would have theirs to be a copy. " Ilia unitas est ex naturd, 
 haec ex gratia, igitur illi haec similis est, non aequalis" BENGEL. 
 The empirical criticism which understands these declarations 
 of the most sublime consciousness of Himself by Jesus in no 
 weaker sense than that originally intended, but for this very 
 reason regards them as absolutely unhistorical and incredible, 
 stands always, in substance, on the low platform of the Jews 
 (John 5, 18 ; 10, 33). 
 
 Comp. YAN OOSTERZEE, " Ohristology" II. 72 sqq. ; EEUSS, 
 II. 360; SCHMID, L 160 sqq. ; FKOMMANN, " Theology of John," 
 S. 386 ff. ; an article by VAN HERWERDEN in Waarh. in L. 
 1863. 
 
 Questions for Consideration. Did the Jews misunderstand 
 our Lord, or did they not, when they maintained that He made 
 himself equal to God ? Does the Christology of Arianism find 
 any support in the declarations of the Johannean Christ ? Do 
 these expressions favor the subordination view ? What is the 
 sense of John 8, 38 ? And of chap. 17, 21-23 ? 
 
The Son of God in relation to the World. 93 
 
 20. 
 TJie Son of God in relation to the World. 
 
 The name of the Father is revealed by the Son in a world, 
 which through sin and its ruler stands under the power of dark- 
 ness, but receives new light and life from God in Christ Both 
 by his incarnation and his entire work, but especially through 
 his suffering and death, he communicates to it this light and 
 life. But in order personally to enjoy this benefit, a faith 
 of the heart is indispensable, the requirement of which rests 
 upon reasonable grounds, but which from moral causes is by 
 no means found in all. 
 
 1. The Son from all eternity stands in relation to the Father, 
 but his relation to the world commenced at a definite period. 
 In regard to this latter relation before his incarnation, our Lord 
 makes no statement in the Gospel of John. But so much the 
 more explicitly does he speak in regard to what, having once 
 appeared in the world, he proposes and does. Before, however, 
 we consider this work, it is necessary to become acquainted 
 with the theatre on which it is performed. 
 
 2. In the frequent instances in which our Lord in John's 
 Gospel speaks of "the world," the term is not always to be 
 taken in the same sense. The idea expressed by it has both a 
 physical and an ethical side. In the former sense it must be 
 understood, for instance, when He says that He has come into 
 the world and now, again, leaves it (16, 28) ; in the latter, when 
 He testifies of his disciples that they are not, even as He is 
 not, of the world (17, 14). In the first case, " world " is the 
 same as " earth," this (mundane, visible) world, as it is often 
 called by way of emphasis, as distinguished from the invisible 
 and higher world, in a word, the world of mankind (8, 12), and 
 without regard to the relation of its inhabitants to God. An 
 ethical side of the word may be observed, whenever in its con- 
 nection, it plainly designates the mass of mankind alienated from 
 God, not merely ungodly, but anti-godly. It is thus to be un- 
 derstood, for example, in John 3, 17 ; 14, 19 ; 15, 19. Since, 
 
94: Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 now, our Lord is conscious of standing not only as the heav- 
 enly one in distinction from every thing earthly, but also as 
 the holy one as opposed to the impure, and calls by the name 
 of flesh all that is born of flesh, it is no wonder that the term 
 "world " is used in an unfavorable sense. 
 
 3. In this world, further, sin (d^T/a) rules, and this sin is 
 not infirmity merely, but a dreadful power, which subjects the 
 world to itself and renders it worthy of eternal judgment (3, 
 17). The universality of sin, which is always assumed by our 
 Lord whenever He speaks of his coming to and his indispensa- 
 bleness for the world, is moreover expressly placed in the fore- 
 ground, in the discourse upon the new birth (3, 5-8). The 
 birth from the flesh, which is common to all men, is not only 
 insufficient to bring them into the kingdom of God, but makes 
 them absolutely unfit for that kingdom, unless they are born 
 again of the Spirit. Here likewise (as in Matt. 26, 41), the 
 word, flesh, in its antithesis to Spirit, has not only a physical but 
 also an ethical sense. This flesh is now, in man as he is by 
 nature, the leading and controlling power. The judging after 
 the flesh (8, 15) leads necessarily to error, and is the more fatal 
 because those blinded by this power always think they see (9, 
 41). Sin, also, when it once controls a man, renders him its 
 slave (8, 34), and this slave walks in darkness, which in the 
 uniform language of the fourth Gospel is a symbol of the deep- 
 est misery (12, 35). The sinner fails of the true light, because 
 the true life is wanting ; he lives in a state of spiritual death, 
 from which he must be waked and yet can only be, through the 
 mighty word of the Son of God (5, 24). Sin, indeed, has dif- 
 ferent degrees (19, 11), but not one at which it can be pronoun- 
 ced excusable. It reaches its culmination in the crime of the 
 rejection of Christ, in comparison with which all other guilt is 
 almost nothing (15, 22-25), and which is nothing less than the 
 dreadful manifestation of a blind hate against God (15, 23). 
 No wonder that it is punished in the most terrible manner. If 
 the Johannean Christ declines to recognize in particular calam- 
 ities the punishment of particular sins (9, 3), he yet teaches 
 in general as an unquestionable truth, that this sinful world 
 already lies under sentence of condemnation, which, if not 
 averted, will inevitably end in damnation (5, 24. 29). 
 
The San of God in relation to the World. 95 
 
 4. Whence this dominion of sin and death in the world ? Our 
 Lord speaks of the Prince of this world (o tigx"'" T. xoa^ov) as the 
 enemy of God and his kingdom. To special demoniacal pos- 
 session He does not here refer (miracles in connection with those 
 thus affected do not come into view in the fourth Gospel), but 
 the world apostate from God, appears in his view as the great 
 possessed one, which is ruled by this monarch, and which He 
 only can heal (John 12, 32 ; com p. Luke 10, 18). His life, and 
 especially his sufferings, are one single struggle against this ene- 
 my, from which He comes forth in triumph. This power is ever 
 laying snares even for his disciples (17, 15), but the hostile 
 Jews, in particular, show by their deeds that they are kindred 
 of the Devil (8, 44) who was a murderer from the beginning. 
 Our Lord here refers obviously, not to the murder of the first 
 brother (1 John 3, 12) but to the history of the fall (Gen. 3)j; 
 and to the question, whence comes sin in the Wicked One, He 
 simply answers, that he did not stand (oty eo-r^xev) in the truth, 
 because there is no truth in him. His element is not this, but 
 falsehood ; accordingly he is a liar and a murderer from the be- 
 ginning, that is, from the beginning of the history of sin in the 
 race of man. Our Lord does not say that the Devil was cre- 
 ated evil ; nor even that he may be called a fallen angel, for the 
 simple reason, that he is here speaking only of the origin of sin 
 in man, and not at all in the world of spirits. To infer from 
 this silence that He favors what is known as Dualism, that is, 
 that he conceived of the Wicked One as an eternal, independent 
 principle of evil, is to go beyond what the letter or spirit of 
 this mysterious declaration warrants. 
 
 5. But although every one who serves sin, is also a servant 
 of this kingdom of darkness, all men do not stand in exactly 
 the same relation to it. On the contrary our Lord recognizes, 
 aside from the relation in which they stand to Him, two differ- 
 ent kinds of men, those who see with the natural eye and are 
 blind, and those who are blind and yet are desirous of salva- 
 tion and would see (9, 39-41) ; those who do evil in virtue of 
 their governing principle, and those who do the truth (3, 20. 21) 
 and hear God's word, because they are of God (8, 45) and would 
 do his will (7, 17) and have inwardly heard and learned of Him 
 (6, 45). To those thus seeking light, the light needs only to be 
 
96 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 revealed, in order to be immediately recognized and followed. 
 To others, on the contrary, it is morally impossible to distin- 
 guish the truth, because in consequence of the dominion of the 
 wicked principle the receptivity for it is wanting. They can- 
 not believe (5, 40-44) and will not therefore come to Jesus ; 
 they do not belong to his sheep (10, 26). They do not love 
 Christ, because, in the moral sense of the word, the Devil, not 
 God, is their Father (8, 42). 
 
 6. The cause of this profound difference, lies, according to 
 the teachings of our Lord, neither in God, for his aim is to save 
 the world (3, 16. 17), to and for which he has sent his Son ; 
 nor in an insuperable necessity of nature ; for He never favors 
 an essentially dualistic philosophy, and it would be impossible 
 for Him to threaten unbelief with a punishment so severe as He 
 does, if it was merely fate and not guilt. How could He have 
 said, for example (15, 24) " they have no cloak for their sin," if 
 they were not personally responsible for it? It is thus in ac- 
 cordance with his spirit to ascribe to Him the conviction, which 
 we have seen that He expresses in the Synoptical Gospels, that 
 the not being willing is an act of freedom, the not being able a 
 result of the misuse of freedom, and that on the contrary when 
 faith exists in the heart, the glory of it must be ascribed to the 
 drawing of the Father (6, 44). On the precise connection be- 
 tween grace and freedom He here speaks even less expressly 
 than there ; it is enough, that He distinguishes and unites the 
 two factors. 
 
 7. In this world, thus blinded and distracted, Christ appears 
 as the highest revelation of the Father. That He appears is the 
 fruit of the love of God, who proposes to present light and life. 
 The universality of the Divine plan of redemption is so em- 
 phatically declared by our Lord (John 3, 16. 17 ; 12, 32 ; 17, 
 21) that only a sophistical interpretation in the service of an 
 arbitrary assumption can derive the contrary from his words. 
 In obedience to the will of the Father, the Lord, the living 
 bread, has come down from heaven, in order to give life to the 
 world (6, 33. 38). That this will of the Father, however, is 
 also His, is evident from this, that He is not merely sent, but 
 came forth (16, 28), so that destination and work are for Him 
 blended in a higher unity (10, 17. 18 ; 14, 31). 
 
The Son of God in relation to the World. 97 
 
 8. Christ becomes the light of the world particularly through 
 his appearance and his work on earth. But he is such also 
 through his word. He has appeared in order to bear witness to 
 religious truth (eUrj#e 18, 37), approves the calling Him mas- 
 ter, by his disciples (13, 14) and sharply brings out in the form 
 of a new commandment the chief requirement of his Gospel 
 (13, 34). As in the Synoptical Gospels, so in John, he adheres 
 as closely as possible to the Scriptures of the Old Testament, 
 which in no case can be broken (10, 35 ; 13, 18 ; 15, 25 ; comp. 
 5, 39 ; 6, 45 ; 7, 38). Yet the truth, already there announced, 
 is now first brought prominently forward, in its full light, be- 
 fore the world. It is his person, in which it concentrates itself, 
 as it were, and reveals itself to the open eye (8, 12 ; 12, 35 ; 14, 
 6). And this revelation of the truth is one with the commu- 
 nication of the life. He calls himself the Life and the Kesur- 
 rection (11, 25), not because He himself arose, but because he 
 calls forth others from the grave (comp. 5, 25. 26) "the per- 
 sonal power of both, the one who wakes and makes alive " 
 (MEYER). Life he now gives in the spiritual sense (5, 25. 
 26), and once also to all the dead (vv. 28. 29) in the natural sense. 
 
 9. This life and resurrection, however, stand connected 
 with judgment. Christ is come into the world for judgment 
 (9, 39) ; his appearance and work bring about a separation, a 
 crisis between man and man. The inner difference between the 
 direction of their lives manifests itself in their relation to Him. 
 Thus He is here in fact a judge, although he originally ap- 
 peared as a Saviour (3, 17 ; 12, 47 ; comp. 5, 45 ; 8, 11).* His 
 judgment consists in this, that the darkness is manifested as 
 darkness (3, 18), and this judgment becomes constantly more 
 manifest as his life on earth approaches its termination. In His 
 death, particularly, is the prince of this world judged (12, 31. 
 32 ; 16, 11). And once at the end of the world the great, inner 
 separation will be brought to light before all eyes (5, 27-29 ; 
 12, 48). From the nature of the case the Messianic judgment 
 extends to all, but the believer does not come into judgment 
 (3, 18 ; 5, 24), in the sense that he is here in the possession of 
 
 * On ihe genuineness of John 7, 53 8, 11, see an article by C. GRAF, in the 
 Viertel/jahrschrift fur deutsche u. engl. Theol Zur., 1866. 
 
 7 
 
98 Biblical Theology of the New Testament 
 
 eternal life, and free from the sentence of death and condemna- 
 tion. 
 
 10. A work like that of Jesus must necessarily encounter 
 opposition. It culminates in suffering and death, but even 
 these, instead of working against the design of his coming, 
 must on the contrary, according to his own explanation, fur- 
 ther it; his death will be the overcoming of the world (16, 
 33). In the fourth Gospel also we find our Lord foretelling his 
 suffering and death, first in a more indirect and figurative man- 
 ner (2, 19 ; 3, 14 ; 4, 37), afterwards, more expressly and une- 
 quivocally (8, 40 ; 10, 17. 18). Here, too, we witness the natu- 
 ral distress (12, 27) with which He anticipates the approaching 
 "hour," and at the same time his free choice, in obedience (14, 
 31) and love (15, 13) to drink the bitter cup. Here likewise, 
 this suffering is represented as connected with the distinct coun- 
 sel and will of the Father (10, 18 ; 19, 11) and as having the 
 same ground, and the same glorious design and issue, as else- 
 where. It is wholly undeserved on his part (5, 25), and is laid 
 upon Him by the wickedness of men (8, 37-40 ; 15, 20) but 
 has at the same time an efficacy to work out salvation for them. 
 He calls his flesh, which he will give for the life of the world, 
 heavenly bread (6, 51V* As the good Shepherd, He gives his 
 life, in order to snatch them from inevitable destruction (10, 
 11-13). His being lifted up on the cross has a similar design 
 with that of the brazen serpent in the wilderness (3, 14. 15). 
 To this design the fruit corresponds, not merely to his disciples 
 for whose sanctification he freely offered up himself to God as 
 a sacrifice (17, 19), but also in a wider circle; to his king- 
 dom, the dead grain of wheat lives again in other stalks (12, 
 24) ; to the world, it is judged and its prince cast out (8, 28 ; 
 12, 31); to Himself, He is glorified through suffering (17, 
 1), for he rises from the dead, as he repeatedly predicts in ex- 
 press language in the Gospel of John 10, 17 ; 2, 19 , comp. 
 Matt. 27, 63). Thus his death becomes, ic. the fullest sense, 
 not the limit, but the crown of his work. 
 
 11. The salvation brought by him, is however by no means 
 obtained by all In John also our Lord makes a participation 
 
 * The words f)v tyu 6wau we think must be retained. Comp. \Leven van Jesus 
 II, bl. 453. 
 
The Son of God in relation to the World. 99 
 
 in this salvation absolutely dependent upon faith in Him, which 
 here likewise is called a coming to the Son, and at the same 
 time a seeing Him with a spiritual eye (6, 35. 40). If the word 
 faith (niarjis) as a substantive, does not occur in his discourses in 
 John, the requirement of faith, and of that in which its essence 
 consists, may yet be easily derived from them. And although 
 the idea of holding a thing to be true is not here to be exclu- 
 ded (especially when n UTTEVEU> is construed with or* or with the 
 accusative), yet the deepest essence of faith is confidence of the 
 heart, which attaches itself most intimately to Him and receives 
 Him (13, 20). He himself is the object of faith (3, 16 and 
 elsewhere), and of such value is it in the sight of God that faith 
 alone is fundamentally required as the work preeminently ac- 
 ceptable to Him (6, 29), and justly. Christ has credentials 
 such as no one before or after Him has ever had. 
 
 12. The grounds, on which our Lord requires faith in Him, 
 and rests his heavenly dignity are three-fold. They are bor- 
 rowed from the past, the present and the future. In the past, 
 the Father has borne witness of Him (5, 33-39), partly through 
 the prophetic Scriptures, which render unbelief absolutely inex- 
 cusable, and partly through the sending of John, to whom the 
 Jews themselves had resorted. As to the present, our Lord 
 appeals partly to the testimony of his works, by which he refers 
 neither exclusively nor mainly to his miracles, but in general 
 to all the revelations of his divine glory, miracles included (5, 
 36 ; 10, 38 ; 14, 11), and partly to the inward testimony of the 
 heart and conscience, which sees in his word the deepest wants 
 satisfied (7, 17). In the future, He expected the justification of 
 his cause from the evidence given for the truth of his words by 
 their fulfillment (14, 29). His death on the cross was to serve 
 to open the eyes of even his enemies (8, 28), and the Holy 
 Spirit to plead triumphantly for his cause against the unbeliev- 
 ing world (16, 8-11). 
 
 13. Since there is, thus, sufficient ground for the faith required 
 in Christ, unbelief is inexcusable and yet not inexplicable. 
 Moral causes for this unbelief may be shown, which are over- 
 come only by higher power (6, 44). The perverted state of the 
 disposition darkens the eye of the understanding and alienates 
 from the Gospel. For the truth is a matter not for the intel- 
 
100 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 lect but for the life : he who will not do the truth, cannot see 
 it (3, 21). So little does this perverse disposition admit of ex- 
 cuse that an appeal to Moses is entirely sufficient to expose its 
 unreasonableness (5, 45-47). If He does not accuse them to 
 the Father, it is not because He might not do so ; hence the 
 cause of this evil can never be found in Him, and on the other 
 hand it is to be ascribed to Him alone that in many the strength 
 of the evil principle is subdued, for they who belong to the 
 Son have been given to Him of the Father (17, 2). 
 
 Comp. in general, VAN OOSTEEZEE, " Christology" II, bl. 89 ; 
 also KEUSS and SCHMID ; and in regard to particular points, 
 SCHMID, Doctrina de Diabolo in libris Joh. proposita, Jena, 1800 ; 
 NACHENIUS, de notione TOTS %ot? et r& %w, quce Jesus sibi 
 vindicat^ tribuenda, Amstel, 1841 ; KUTGERS, de fundamento, 
 quo Joh. auctore fidem sibi habendam niti voluerit Christus, L. B. 
 1860 ; JONKEB, " The Gospel of John," Amst, 1867. 
 
 Questions for Consideration. Do the declarations of our Lord 
 in the fourth Gospel authorize the position that He endorses 
 dualism in the sphere of morals ? Is John 8, 44 spoken of the 
 devil only or of the father of the devil (HILGENFELD) ? Do 
 the anthropological declarations of the Johannean Christ leave 
 room for the ideas of free will and guilt? How may John 3, 
 17 be reconciled with 12, 48 ? Is there sufficient ground for 
 regarding chap. 5, 28. 29 and the last words of chap. 6, 40. 54 
 and 12, 48 as genuine ? Did our Lord in chap. 3, 14. 15 (comp. 
 12, 32. 33) actually speak of his being lifted up on the cross ? 
 Has John in chap. 2, 21 and 7, 39 correctly explained the 
 words of the Master? 
 
 21. 
 
 The Son of God in his relation to his Disciples. 
 
 They who are given by the Father to the Son, and in 
 consequence of this come through the Son to the Father, are 
 brought into a vital communion with the Son and through Him 
 with one another, the peculiar character of which is known 
 only in the way of spiritual experience, and the beneficent in- 
 fluence of which manifests itself in the whole direction of their 
 
The Son of God in his relation to his Disciples. 101 
 
 inner and outer life. Through the sending of the Holy Spirit 
 after our Lord's departure from the earth, this communion is 
 modified, but in no respect terminated. 
 
 1. On the one hand it is certain, according to the teachings 
 of our Lord in John, that the Father draws to the Son (6, 44. 
 45) ; on the other that it is impossible without the Son to come 
 to the Father (14, 6). These two ideas do not exclude but mu- 
 tually supplement each other. The Divine drawing 
 which is to be distinguished from the external calling 
 
 in the Synoptical Gospels, is a psychological constraint (6, 45) 
 but not in any degree a mechanical compulsion ; so far from 
 excluding man's own agency, it rather presupposes and re- 
 quires it. 
 
 2. They who are thus brought to the Son and through Him 
 to the Father, do not by any means stand alone, but are most 
 intimately united with the Lord and with each other. Only 
 once in the Gospel of John does Jesus speak of the kingdom 
 of God (3,. 3. 5 ; comp. 18, 36. 37), but yet the idea which is 
 realized through this kingdom stands, on the last evening of his 
 life, in its full glory, before his eyes (17, 21-23). Here, too, it 
 is manifest that He will have a communion of all in whom the 
 same spiritual life exists. In respect to the external forms, per- 
 taining to the foundation and support of this communion, we 
 here find still less than in the Synoptical Gospels. A birth from 
 water and the Spirit is required (3, 5), an eating and drinking 
 of his flesh and blood is represented as absolutely necessary (6, 
 53), but farther not the least mention of baptism and the Lord's 
 Supper is made. The washing of feet (13, 14), moreover, is 
 not prescribed as a sacrament, but serves only as a model and 
 emblem. So much the stronger is the emphasis which our 
 Lord lays upon the existence of the communion which unites 
 Him with his disciples. 
 
 3. It is well known that in the fourth Gospel we have no 
 proper parables like those which so frequently occur in the 
 three first. In place of these, we here find a number of com- 
 parisons, so extended and amplified that they occasionally ap- 
 proach the form of parable (see e. g. 10, 11-16 ; 15, 1-6). As 
 the parables relate to the kingdom of God, so all these 
 
102 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 metaphors refer to the communion between Him and his 
 disciples, and bring to view in various forms, what they would 
 be without Him, what they may find in Him, and what for 
 Him they must become. He is the Bread of life (6, 48), the 
 Light of the world (8, 12), the good Shepherd (10, 11), the true 
 Vine (15, 1). In respect to all these comparisons it must be 
 observed, that they indicate not so much the value of our 
 Lord's teachings, as of his entire personality, and this especially 
 for his followers : next, that they exhibit salvation not only as 
 indispensable but as priceless, and as something which can 
 be satisfactorily known and properly appreciated only by ex- 
 perience ; and finally, that they relate to a mutual communion, 
 which, wholly gratuitous on his part (15, 16), can be preserved 
 by them only through faithful perseverance in faith and love, 
 and without which it will be necessarily broken (15, 6 ; comp. 
 17, 12). 
 
 4. This spiritual communion with the Lord is not attainable 
 without the new birth (John 3, 5-8). Just as in the Synop- 
 tical Gospels He requires an entire change of mind, so here a 
 being born of God, without which it is impossible to see the 
 kingdom of God. The necessity of this birth lies in the 
 absolute unfitness of the carnal man, i. e., man as he is by 
 nature, for a spiritual kingdom of God. Its origin is as mys- 
 terious, but also as easy to be recognized, as the agency of the 
 wind in the natural world, and its possibility is given in what 
 God has done and does through Christ to give new life to 
 mankind. 
 
 5. The communion with Christ which is thus produced 
 manifests itself in rich and glorious fruits (15, 6). Whoever is 
 his disciple, learns to understand the truth and becomes 
 through it free from sin (8, 32-36). But he becomes at the 
 same time the partaker of a life, which is different in every 
 thing from that which he formerly led. It is a life rich in joy 
 (15, 11 ; 16, 22), and at the same time in abundant fruit by 
 which God is glorified (15, 8). The noblest of these fruits is 
 mutual brotherly love, which in this form is the new com- 
 mandment of Christianity, and the unchangeable sign of the 
 disciples of the Lord (13, 34. 35), and is preeminently necessary 
 in the midst of a world, which in virtue of its character cannot 
 

 1 y v n . & :.<4* 
 
The Son of God in relation to his Disciples. 103 
 
 but hate his genuine disciples (15, 9-16). Love stands, more- 
 over, in the closest connection with their personal sanctification, 
 which constitutes the end for which our Lord gave himself to 
 death (17, 17-19), and which reveals itself preeminently in the 
 faithful observance of his commandments (15, 14) and the 
 careful imitation of the example of ministering love, which He 
 himself bequeathed to his disciples before his departure (13, 
 13-17). 
 
 6. Such a moral elevation would be unattainable, if the 
 communion with Christ were destroyed by his death. It is 
 modified indeed by his departure from earth, but by no means 
 ended. On the contrary he promises before his death the 
 Holy Spirit (14, 16. 17) and repeats this promise in a symbol- 
 ical manner, after his resurrection (20, 22). In regard to the 
 nature of the Holy Spirit, our Lord expressly distinguishes 
 Him both from Himself and from the Father (14, 16). He 
 calls Him the Spirit of truth, of the Father (15, 26), the Para- 
 clete, who remains with and in his disciples forever (14, 16). 
 In this Spirit, He himself invisibly comes to his followers, 
 although absent from them in body (14, 18). 
 
 7. The agency of the Holy Spirit is connected partly with 
 his disciples, partly with the world, and partly with Himself 
 (16, 7-15). The disciples are reminded through his influence 
 of what was before spoken ; led, in respect to present things, to 
 the knowledge of all truth ; and enlightened, so far as is ne- 
 cessary, in regard to the future of the kingdom of God. The 
 world is assured by his mission of the sin of rejecting Christ, 
 of the righteousness of his cause, and of the judgment executed 
 upon its prince (16. 8-11). He himself is thereby glorified (vs. 
 14) and manifested in his exalted dignity. But since this 
 mission and work of the Holy Spirit is impossible so long as 
 He himself remains on earth, his departure is no loss, but 
 rather a priceless gain to his disciples (14, 28 ; 16, 7). 
 
 8. This agency of the Holy Spirit takes the place indeed of 
 the earthly ministry of the Lord, but by no means excludes 
 his personal ministry in heaven. It has been sometimes incor- 
 rectly maintained, that according to the fourth Gospel the 
 reign of Christ consists only in the reign of the Spirit of truth, 
 so that we can properly speak of no farther agency or rule of 
 
104 Biblical Theology of the New Testament 
 
 the Ascended One. But the Holy Spirit is sent only at the 
 intercession of the Son (14, 16) ; He himself it is who will do 
 what his disciples ask in his name (14, 14); He sends the 
 Spirit from the Father (15, 26), and brings the sheep which 
 belong to another fold (10, 16). Such expressions would not 
 have the shadow of propriety, if He who uttered them was not 
 fully conscious that He would ever live for his disciples and 
 constantly act upon them ; it cannot however be denied that this 
 ministry is here rather presupposed than described at length. 
 The same thought also lies at the foundation of the figurative 
 representation of his going away to prepare a place for them 
 (14, 2). In the Holy Spirit He himself comes and remains 
 forever with his disciples, until He reveals himself in still 
 higher glory at the end of the world. 
 
 Comp. EEUSS, II. p. 415 ; SCHMID, II. S. 293 ff. ; TISCHEN- 
 DORF, de Christo, pane vitae, Joh. 6, 41-59, Leipz., 1839 ; YAN 
 TEUTEM, " The last night of the Lord" Eotterd., 1850; WOR- 
 NER, " The relation of the Spirit to the Son of God, exhibited 
 from the Gospel of John," Stuttg., 1862. 
 
 Questions for Consideration. What is the sense of John 6, 
 44? Whence is it that in the fourth Gospel, no parables, 
 properly so called, occur ? Does John 6, 41-59 shed any light 
 upon the Lord's Supper ? Is the washing of feet in John 
 13, 13. 14, prescribed by our Lord to his disciples as a per- 
 manent rite? In what sense is the commandment in Chap. 
 13. 34 spoken of as new ? Survey and criticism of the principal 
 explanations of the Lord's farewell promise in respect to his 
 coming and return. Connection and difference of the work of 
 the ascended Jesus and of the Paraclete, according to the Jo- 
 hannean Christ. Is there any good reason to doubt that the 
 conception of a mystical union of the glorified Jesus with his 
 disciples proceeded from Him ? What is the meaning of Chap. 
 16,26? 
 
 22. 
 The Son of God in his Future. 
 
 The eternal life, which is here a fruit of the personal, 
 abiding communion with Christ, survives the death of his 
 
The Son of God in his Future. 105 
 
 disciples and passes after that event into everlasting blessed- 
 ness. According to the Johannean Christ, likewise, we are 
 to expect a resurrection of the dead, a general judgment and 
 an irrevocable decision at the last day. 
 
 1. According to the steady representation of the fourth Gos- 
 pel, the believer in Christ has already, in this world, eternal 
 life. It consists in the right knowledge of God and Christ 
 (17, 3) and in the satisfaction of all the wants of the soul which 
 flows therefrom (6, 35). Expressions however are not want- 
 ing, which show that this eternal life is not enjoyed exclu- 
 sively here below. In passages like John 4, 14 ; 6, 27 ; 12, 25, 
 it is clear that our Lord thought also of the "beyond." Yet 
 generally in this Gospel He comprehends under eternal life all 
 that salvation, which is received at once by his disciples upon 
 their coming into communion with Him, and which stands in 
 direct opposition to being lost forever (10, 28). 
 
 2. This life is, from its very nature, absolutely indestruct- 
 ible. He who possesses it has an imperishable and blessed life 
 even before his death and still more after it. Instead of being 
 annihilated, it ripens into undisturbed blessedness beyond the 
 grave. In the Johannean Christ also, there is no trace of a 
 sleep of the soul till the morning of the resurrection. On the 
 contrary, when Martha expects her dead brother to live again 
 at the last day and not before, our Lord assures her, that the 
 believer who dies, does not thereby cease to live (11, 25. 26). 
 To the question in regard to the nature of the blessedness 
 enjoyed by his disciples on the other side of the grave, He 
 gives in reply significant hints. The higher life is guarded 
 and secured even by the sacrifice, if necessary, of the natural 
 life (12, 25). Whoever serves Him is honored of the Father, 
 shall be where He is, and in union with all the redeemed shall 
 behold his glory (12, 26 ; 17, 24). As a friend He hastens before 
 to prepare a place for his disciples in the many mansions of his 
 Father's house, and invisibly appears in the hour of death, to 
 take them forever to himself (14, 1-3). 
 
 3. The continuance of the life, however, in which death is 
 never seen (8, 51) is not the completion of blessedness. In the 
 fourth Gospel, likewise, our Lord speaks of a resurrection and 
 
106 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 a judgment at the last day (cy fox "*! ^,u%, 5, 27-29 ; 6, 39. 40. 
 44. 54 ; 12, 48) ; a resurrection absolutely universal, a judgment 
 which the Father has committed to Him and at which his own 
 word will be the standard. These hints are so brief and spo- 
 radic that it is not easy, it must be admitted, to harmonize 
 them completely with the declarations already considered. 
 But this does not authorize us either to remove them from the 
 Gospel as the interpolation of a later hand (SCHOLTEN), or, 
 to weaken the obvious sense of the words and explain them as 
 referring to a merely spiritual resurrection or a merely indi- 
 vidual judgment ; and all the less, since our Lord repeatedly 
 promises in one and the same breath the having eternal life 
 and the resurrection at the last day (6, 40. 54), so that in his 
 estimation the one does not exclude the other, but on the con- 
 trary the second is the crown of the first. The question, how 
 a resurrection of those who are already partakers of eternal 
 life can be spoken of, since they are in fact spiritually raised, 
 admits of no difficulty if we only distinguish between the spir- 
 itual reviving, and the resurrection of the dead body, which, 
 according to the constant teaching of our Lord, will not take 
 place till his final coming. 
 
 4. Although in John He certainly in general represents his 
 coming as spiritual, yet once at least (21, 22) He speaks of it in 
 a way, which renders it difficult to understand his final appear- 
 ance in any other sense than that in which his return is con- 
 stantly spoken of in the Synoptical Gospels a proof that, 
 even in the matter of eschatology, the discrepancy, so often 
 alleged, between the declaration of the Synoptical and the 
 Johannean Christ is not absolute, but relative. The vivid 
 imagery of the former is sought for in vain in the fourth Gos- 
 pel, but not the leading thought which governs all. 
 
 5. The Johannean Christ, also, teaches no restitution of all 
 things in the sense which has been at a later period attached to 
 this word. When he promises that, lifted up on the cross, he 
 will draw all men to himself (12, 32), there is no ground for 
 conceiving of such an irresistible force as finally to secure the 
 necessary salvation of absolutely all. The prince of this world 
 is judged (12, 31), which no more means to be annihilated than 
 to be saved, but cast out, so that he is henceforth powerless to 
 
The Son of God in his Future. 107 
 
 destroy the harmony of the completed kingdom of God. The 
 unbeliever dies in his sins (8, 24) and no further prospect of 
 life is ever opened to him. Under one Shepherd all are to be 
 gathered into one fold (10, 16), but only all of the sheep, who 
 willingly hear his voice of love. The resurrection of life 
 stands in irreconcilable opposition to that of damnation (5, 
 28. 29), and although no Hades or Gehenna is spoken of in the 
 fourth Gospel, it is difficult to suppose that in the mind of the 
 speaker or writer the miserable ones who will rise to condem- 
 nation are to be found anywhere but there. 
 
 Comp. KEUSS II, p. 453 sqq. ; SCHMID I, S. 321 ff. ; MOL- 
 STER, in the periodical, Bijdr. tot bevord. van Bvfb. uitlegk, 
 Deel III, bl. 287 sqq. On John 5, 28. 29 and kindred pas- 
 sages, SCHOLTEN, Jaarb. voor wetensch. Theologie, Deel VIII, bL 
 341 sqq. 
 
 Questions for Consideration: The connection between eternal 
 life and knowledge, the loss of life and the saving of life, tem- 
 poral death and spiritual life. The idea of 6<i*aTo$ in the fourth 
 Gospel. Is there reason to conceive of the xgiais here men- 
 tioned as exclusively taking place on this side the grave? 
 Connection and difference of the two ideas eternal life, and 
 resurrection at the last day. Does the Johannean Christ teach 
 us to expect a total annihilation, or an endless punishment of 
 the obstinate sinner ? 
 
108 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 
 HIGHEE UNITY. 
 
 23. 
 
 Difference and Agreement 
 
 The difference between the declarations of the Synoptical 
 and the Johannean Christ is throughout not of such a nature 
 that the impartial investigator can regard either the one or the 
 other series as only genuine and credible. On the contrary, 
 after careful comparison, the higher agreement on almost every 
 point is evident, and the relatively great difference not only 
 admits of full explanation, but is 'even to be regarded in more 
 than one respect as exceedingly important. 
 
 1. The distinction, in consequence of which the teachings of 
 the Johannean Christ required a separate treatment ( 17, 1), is 
 entirely justified by the issue. It is evident at every turn 
 that the language of our Lord in the fourth Gospel is wholly 
 different from what he spoke in the three first. But it does 
 not absolutely follow from this, that in John we are listening 
 to an entirely different Christ from the one in the earlier Gos- 
 pels. This would be the case only if we should find Him 
 denying in the one record what he had affirmed in the other, 
 or vice versa. But at every turn it is plain that here is no dif- 
 ference like that between yea and nay, but rather like that 
 between more and less, and it is absolutely impossible to refute 
 the sayings of the Synoptical Christ by appealing to those of 
 the Christ in the Gospel of John, whenever at least both are 
 properly considered in the light of history. The difference is 
 reduced to its true proportions in the remark of GODET : "In 
 respect to the religious side of the contrast, it is remarkable 
 that the conscience of the Church has never been embarrassed, 
 and that it is only the learned who have declared it to be in- 
 
Difference and Agreement. 109 
 
 capable of solution. This fact proves in any case that for the 
 believing and pious heart the Jesus of the Synoptical Gospels 
 never has been and never will be any other than that of John. 
 The difference, therefore, does not reach the depths of the re- 
 ligious and moral life."* The justness of this remark will 
 appear, whenever we consider the form, and much more when 
 we take into view the import of the words of our Lord in 
 John, as compared with what we find in the Synoptical Gos- 
 pels. In both respects the difference is great, but still it is 
 merely relative and susceptible of a full explanation. 
 
 2. In regard to the form, the great similarity between the 
 language of John himself and of Jesus as given by John 
 (comp. 17, 3) may be explained, partly by the strong spiritual 
 affinity between the Master, and the pupil who had formed -his 
 style upon the language of his teacher ; partly by the Apos- 
 tolic freedom with which, under higher guidance, he penned 
 the discourses of the Lord. The absence of parables in the 
 fourth Gospel becomes less surprising, when we observe that 
 we here meet the Lord for the most part not standing in oppo- 
 sition to the Galilean crowd, but to the Jews of Jerusalem, 
 and further that the metaphors (naqoipiai) here employed are so 
 much extended that they now and then approach the form of 
 of the parable. Besides, the metaphors and parables are both 
 taken from the natural world and from daily life, and the posi- 
 tion that the Johannean Christ " borrowed absolutely nothing 
 from the natural world " is, to say the least, entirely destitute 
 of proof. Moreover, the pithy, pregnant and apparently para- 
 doxical, which here frequently characterize his words, are by 
 no means wanting also in the Synoptical Gospels. Misunder- 
 standing of his utterances, which here also gives occasion to 
 further explanation, is likewise met with in the three first Gos- 
 pels (see, e. g., Matt 16, 6. 7 ; 19, 10. 11 ; comp. 22, 45). The 
 greater uniformity in the discourses of our Lord in John re- 
 sults from the more rigid plan on which the Gospel is con- 
 structed, in consequence of which the writer was naturally led 
 to a more limited selection from the rich material at hand 
 (comp. 20, 31 ; 21, 25). In part, at least, these discourses are 
 not less occasional and various than those in the other Gospels ; 
 
 * See his Examen des princip. Quest, etc., p. 48. 
 
110 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 and that the Jewish (or, rather, Israelitish) character is by no 
 means discarded by the exalted Speaker, we learn, partly from 
 the letter (4, 22 ; 5, 45. 46 ; 7, 37. 38), and still more from the 
 spirit and tendency of his never to be forgotten utterances. 
 
 3. In regard to the contents, it is absolutely without proof 
 that the idea of God from which Jesus proceeds in the fourth 
 Gospel is essentially different from that presented by Him in 
 the Synoptical writings. In botn He distinctly represents God 
 to his disciples as His and their Father, and recognizes as chil- 
 dren of God those only who morally exhibit his image and 
 character (Matt. 5, 9 ; comp. John 8, 42). In both he repre- 
 sents this God, also, as having a fatherly compassion toward the 
 sinner (John 3, 16 ; comp. Matt. 18, 10-14), and man, as unable 
 to save himself, but yet ever capable of salvation through 
 higher power. In both He promises and prepares this salvation 
 in a kingdom of God, which although designed for all, comes 
 first to Israel, and for which, in the midst of this nation espe- 
 cially, preparation is carefully made through the Old Testament 
 dispensation. The relation, also, of that kingdom to the king- 
 dom of darkness, and the character of the latter, are in both the 
 same (Luke 10, 18 ; comp. John 12, 31) ; and, finally, our Lord 
 always remains like himself in the exhibition which he makes 
 of the way to become a member of his kingdom (comp., e. g., 
 Matt. 5, 6 ; 7, 21 ; 11, 28 ; 18, 3 with John 6, 35 ; 7, 37 ; 13, 
 14, 17). 
 
 4. A comparison of what is testified by the Synoptical and 
 Johannean Christ concerning his own person and work leads to 
 the same conclusion. The former possesses, also, a superhu- 
 man character and dignity (11, 5), while the latter calls and 
 shows himself man in the full sense of the word ( 18, 3). As 
 such, according to both accounts, He manifests higher knowl- 
 edge, but no unlimited omniscience (comp. Mark 11, 13 with 
 John 11, 14); spotless purity, united, however, with human 
 susceptibility to temptation (Matt. 16, 23 ; comp. John 6, 15 ; 
 12, 28) ; in a word, Divine majesty, but in the humble form of 
 a servant (Luke 22, 27 ; comp. John 13, 14). Coming as a 
 teacher (Matt. 23, 8 ; comp. John 18. 14), he preaches in Jeru- 
 salem and in Galilee one and the same Gospel, and appeals to 
 the same credentials in support of his authority. Both here 
 
Difference and Agreement 111 
 
 and there we find him ascribing to his miracles a very essential 
 and yet not supreme confirmation of his Divine mission, and 
 condemning the unbelief which rejects him, as absolutely inex- 
 cusable (Matt. 11, 20-24; comp. John 7, 24). Not his own 
 honor, but that of the Father (Mark 5, 19 ; comp. John 7, 18) 
 and the salvation of all the lost (Luke 10, 19 ; comp. John 6, 
 37) is the chief end at which he aims. Living and teaching 
 for this, for this also, according to the will and counsel of God 
 (Matt. 26, 54 ; comp. John 10, 17. 18), He will suffer and die. 
 His suffering and death is, on the one side, a lot to which, 
 although not without deep feeling, He obediently submits 
 (Matt. 26, 38 ; comp. John 12, 27. 28), and on the other, an 
 act which, with the highest freedom, He performs (John 14, 31 ; 
 comp. Matt. 26, 46). In regard to the causes, ends and results 
 of this suffering and death, the Johannean Christ teaches in 
 substance nothing but what the Synoptical Christ had already 
 declared ( 14, 7 ; comp. 20, 6). The little, also, that he says 
 in the fourth Gospel concerning his resurrection, cannot, with- 
 out great violence, be explained otherwise than as referring to 
 a bodily rising from the dead, and in that, as well as in the 
 Synoptical Gospels, his abiding personal relation to his disci- 
 ples, even after his departure from earth, is most explicitly 
 promised (11, 5 ; comp. 21, 8). 
 
 5. The greatest difference appears undoubtedly in the sphere 
 of eschatology. But even where the difference is at once man- 
 ifest, the relative harmony in the background is not sought for 
 in vain. In neither account is it denied that the pious live and 
 are blessed immediately after death (Luke 16, 23 ; 20, 38 ; comp. 
 John 11, 25) ; while in both, a bodily resurrection at the last 
 day, is assumed or promised, even of those, who are already 
 possessors, here, of the higher life ( 16, 5 ; comp. 22. 3). On 
 the mountain in Galilee (Matt 7, 21-23 ; comp. 25, 31 sqq.) 
 and at the feast in Jerusalem (John 5, 24-29) our Lord announ- 
 ces himself as the future Judge, exalted above every creature, 
 but at the same time conscious of his absolute dependence upon 
 the Father (Matt. 24, 36 ; comp. John 14, 28). According to 
 both accounts, he promises the same future salvation (Luke 12, 
 37 ; comp. John 12, 26) to be gained by each of his disciples 
 in the same way of self-denial and suffering (Matt 16, 25 ; 
 
112 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 comp. John 12, 25). In neither does he give to the unconvert- 
 ed sinner a prospect either of final annihilation or of the dimi- 
 nution or termination of the future punishment. His coming, 
 in the one account, generally but not exclusively represented 
 under physical imagery, in the other more spiritually, stands 
 forth as the glorious consummation of all things. 
 
 6. There are undoubtedly particular leading thoughts in the 
 teachings of our Lord found sometimes only in John and some- 
 times exclusively in the Synoptical Gospels. Could it be other- 
 wise, when neither of the Evangelists aimed, in this respect, at 
 systematic unity and still less at completeness ? Yet the addi- 
 tions of John are merely the supplement and crown of what 
 the other Evangelists had penned ; and in respect to what he has 
 omitted, it must never be forgotten that there was no need of 
 repeating what he might presume to be sufficiently well known 
 from their writings. Many a peculiarity of the teachings of 
 our Lord in the Gospel of John is quite satisfactorily explained 
 by its historical connection. When, for example, He calls the 
 law of love "a new commandment" (John 13, 34), while else- 
 where it is represented as old and well known (Matt. 22, 39), it 
 is because our Lord in the first instance is speaking not of uni- 
 versal love to our neighbor, but of Christian brotherly love, 
 which his disciples, in imitating his example, are ever to exer- 
 cise. If Jesus speaks of prayer in his name only in John (16, 
 23), he does so only in his parting discourse on the last evening 
 of his life, which is not recorded by the other Evangelists. If, 
 on the other hand, the idea of the forgiveness of sins stands 
 here almost entirely in the background (comp. however John 
 20, 23), the historical connection, in which our Lord speaks con- 
 cerning it in the Synoptical Gospels, does not occur in John, 
 although the exhibition of the love of God even towards the 
 guilty and those deserving of punishment, is here made with 
 certainly no less impressiveness. Our Lord unquestionably 
 speaks at greater length in John than in the other Gospels, con- 
 cerning the promise and the work of the Holy Spirit, but in 
 both accounts he promises the Holy Spirit to his disciples, as 
 well before as after his death (John 20, 22 ; comp. Luke 24, 
 49), and the help which they are encouraged to expect bears in 
 both fundamentally the same character (John 14 16 ; comp. 
 
Agreement ana Difference. 113 
 
 Matt. 10, 19. 20). Thus at every turn is manifest anew the 
 truth of the remark : " the profound discourses, which St. John 
 reports, are the development of the energetic and concise words, 
 which the three first Evangelists took by preference " (DE 
 PRESSENSE). Or, in the language of another critic, whose con- 
 victions have forced him to abandon the Tubingen school to 
 which he once belonged, " the record of the discourses of Jesus 
 in the three first Gospels requires to be filled out by the dis- 
 courses in John" (A. KITSCHL). 
 
 7. While the undeniable difference between the doctrine of 
 the Synoptical and the Johannean Christ is neither absolute nor 
 incapable of explanation, it is for more than one reason impor- 
 tant. It is an undesigned, but incontestable proof of the un- 
 searchable riches of Christ (Eph. 3, 8), which could be wholly 
 exhausted by none of the Evangelists. It confirms moreover 
 the credibility of the writers, who even if they were not unac- 
 quainted with each other's productions, worked each from his 
 own point of view, with equal independence and accuracy. It 
 places in our hands, finally, the key to the phenomenon, that 
 from the simple doctrine of Jesus, with all its depth, such a 
 rich variety of Apostolic doctrines could proceed. Because the 
 teaching of our Lord was so many-sided, it was capable of 
 being the starting point of more than one announcement, in 
 which now one and then another side of the Gospel could be 
 made prominent, and still the preacher not be untrue to the 
 spirit or the aim of the Master. The ground before us is pro- 
 ductive enough to bear various plants which reach different 
 degrees of height, but obviously belong to the same class and 
 bear similar fruits. 
 
 Comp. BORGER, de constanti et aequdbili J. 0. indole, H. C. 
 1816; VAN OOSTERZEE, " Christology" II. bL 113-121, "Life 
 of Jesus" I. bl. 147, and " The Gospel of John," bl. 57-112; 
 DE PRESSENS^, Jesus Christ, l>is time, etc. pp. 291-306; DE 
 KOUGEMONT, " Christ and his witnesses" Par. 1856, I. p. 137 
 sqq. ; GODET, " Commentary " II. p. 750-770 ; BEISCHLAG, in 
 the work already cited, S. 65 ff., where it is correctly observed : 
 " All the principal topics of the discourses in John occur also 
 in the Synoptical Gospels, only in scattered and partially lost 
 traces. As certainly, however, as Christ must have exhibited 
 8 
 
114: Biblical Theology of the New Testament 
 
 them with unspeakably more richness than they are given in 
 the Synoptical Gospels, so certainly in this respect does the 
 comparison of the Synoptical Gospels and John always in the 
 end confirm anew the authenticity of the latter." 
 
 Questions for Consideration. In what respects is the doctrine 
 of the Synoptical Christ illustrated and confirmed by that of 
 the Johannean ? In what consists the difference and the agree- 
 ment between the naga^o^ in the Synoptical Gospels and the 
 nayoi/uia in John? Is the appellation, Son of man, used by 
 Jesus in both, in the same sense ? How is it to be accounted 
 for, that our Lord in the fourth Gospel speaks so much earlier 
 than in the three first, of his Messianic dignity, his death and 
 his resurrection ? On what points is He silent in John, on which 
 He speaks more or less fully in the Synoptical Gospels, and 
 what inference may be drawn from this ? Criticism of the dif- 
 ferent views and explanations (LANGE, GODET) of the peculiar- 
 ity of the utterances of Jesus which are found only in John. 
 Exhibition of the harmony of our Lord's declarations, reported 
 by John and the Synoptical writers, in the history of the suf- 
 ferings, death, and resurrection of Jesus. Importance of the 
 result gained, in the department of the Christian evidences. 
 The careful comparison of the didactic import of the Synopti- 
 cal and Johannean Gospels steadily demanded from the Bibli- 
 cal Theologian of the present day, and a field in which many a 
 weed is to be rooted out, but also much precious fruit to be 
 gathered. 
 
 24 
 
 Result. 
 
 In their harmonious diversity the teachings of our Lord, as 
 recorded by the four Evangelists, are on the one hand the ex- 
 planation, extension and fulfillment of the word of God, spo- 
 ken by Moses and the Prophets ; on the other, the foundation 
 and the point of departure of a series of Apostolic testimonies 
 concerning the way of salvation, which in turn under various 
 forms, contain, interpret and strengthen His. 
 
Agreement and Difference. 115 
 
 1. At the close of this our second division, we naturally look 
 back to the Old Testament foundations laid in the first The 
 impression made by the study of the teachings of our Lord, 
 whether we listen to them in the Synoptical Gospels or in John, 
 can hardly be better expressed than in a reverential Amen to 
 the declaration in the Sermon on the Mount: "I am not come 
 to destroy the law, or the prophets, but to fulfill " (Matt. 5, 17). 
 If the contrast between the Old and the New Testament is un- 
 deniable, the connection between the words of our Lord and 
 those of Moses is, if possible, still more striking. In the first 
 place, we here receive an explanation of many a mysterious 
 word in the Old Testament, the great significance of which is 
 not to be denied by any one who regards the Lord in the light 
 in which, according to all the Evangelists, he has so often pre- 
 sented himself. In the next place, we find the instructions of 
 earlier times on the most important points of faith and prac- 
 tice, so far amplified and filled out, that to many questions there 
 merely propounded, the most satisfactory answer is here given. 
 And finally, we meet, as in the deeds and the experiences of 
 Jesus, so also in his words, a fulfillment of the earlier promises 
 and expectations, which does not possibly admit of explana- 
 tion from a purely natural and accidental course of events. 
 Thus the words of THE WORD, in some respects, never before 
 heard, are in another sense merely a loud echo of the strongest 
 prophetic utterances, and the Old Testament vindicates its 
 honorable title of "a great prophecy a type of Him, who was 
 to come and has come" (DE WETTE). 
 
 2. Because the teachings of our Lord constitute a vital unity, 
 they are characterized by anything rather than a dead uniform- 
 ity. It might therefore be expected a priori that the words of 
 the Apostles would be something more than a mechanical repe- 
 tition of his testimony, and a posteriori it will appear that we 
 have here before our eyes nothing less than a new (but not for 
 eign) world of thought. "In the didactic discourses of Jesus, 
 we have the pregnant germ and kernel, the root, the simple 
 but firm foundation ; in the Apostolic teaching, as found in the 
 other New Testament writings, we have the buds and branches, 
 the plants sprung from the germ ; we have the completed build- 
 ing, which rests upon that simple but firm foundation. The 
 
116 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 Apostolic doctrine is vital and energetic ; the discourses of our 
 Lord in the Grospel original, pregnant, clearly exhibit the 
 stamp of their primitive form ; the Apostolic doctrine is suited 
 as much to its more fully developed relations, as the didactic 
 discourses of our Lord corresponding to the relations of his 
 personal life" (SCHMID). Our investigation from this point 
 will be a steady proof of the truth of the above remark. 
 
 Comp. VAN OoSTERZEE, " Christology " I. 33, sqq. and II. bl. 
 130, sqq.; LTJTTERBECK, II S. 121 ff. ; SCHMID, II. S. 7; 
 BAUB, S. 122-126. 
 
 Questions for Consideration. How far are the declarations of 
 Jesus himself confirmed by the results of our investigation con- 
 cerning his relation to the Old Testament? Jesus as an ex- 
 pounder of the words of Moses and the Prophets. The inter- 
 pretation of the Scriptures by Jesus, and later hermeneutics. 
 What is there properly new in the Gospel of the kingdom in 
 the Synoptical writers and in the testimony of the Johannean 
 Christ concerning himself? What in respect to the doctrine 
 concerning faith ? What in that concerning morals and prac- 
 tice ? Does the teaching of Jesus stand in one and the same 
 relation to that of all the Apostles and their associates ? Trans- 
 ition to the treatment of the Theology of the Apostles. 
 
PART III. 
 
 THE THEOLOGY OF THE APOSTLES. 
 
 25. 
 General Survey. 
 
 The study of the Theology of the Apostles extends, so far 
 as we can speak of it, to the doctrinal system of all those men 
 whose testimony concerning the Lord Jesus Christ is recorded 
 in the New Testament, and is to us, on historical grounds, of 
 inexpressible value. In the study of this testimony, likewise, 
 we must not overlook either the undeniable diversity or the 
 higher unity of the different witnesses, and in conducting the 
 investigation we must observe a methodical order, and ascend 
 from the simplest to the more composite and developed doc- 
 trines. 
 
 1. In the strict sense of the word the name of Apostles can 
 be given only to the twelve, who were called by the Lord him- 
 self to the Apostolate (Luke 6, 13) and to whom, on the death 
 of Judas, Matthias was added (Acts 1, 26). Yet along with 
 these Paul also claims this title of honor (Gal. 1, 1), which is 
 given, moreover, to the associates and friends of our Lord's 
 first witnesses (Acts 14, 14; Gal. 1, 19) and once even to Jesus 
 himself (Heb. 3, 1). We follow this example the more readily 
 since the larger number of the Apostles properly so-called 
 have left us nothing in writing. We investigate here, there- 
 fore, the doctrinal teachings of all the writers of the New Tes- 
 tament, and only of these. Those of a spirit akin to theirs, 
 whose writings are not received into the sacred Canon, are not 
 included therefore in the sphere of our inquiry. 
 
 2. The distinction between the Theology of Jesus Christ and 
 that of the Apostles is the fruit of a better conception of the 
 
118 Biblical Theology of the New Testament 
 
 inspiration of the sacred writers. On the theory of a mechan- 
 ical inspiration, it was quite a matter of indifference, whether 
 a passage of Scripture occurred in the Old or the New Testa- 
 ment or whether it proceeded from the Lord himself or from 
 one of his witnesses : it was enough that it stood in the Bible. 
 A more historical view of the Scriptures has prepared the way 
 for a juster distinction, and one unquestionably in the spirit of 
 our Lord of and his Apostles. 
 
 3. The question concerning the binding authority of the 
 Apostolic testimony in regard to Christian faith and life be- 
 longs not to the region of historical but of systematic Theology. 
 But even on the ground of the former, it is easy to see that the 
 word of witnesses like these, who stood nearest of all to Christ, 
 cannot be too closely studied (comp. John 19, 35 ; Acts 1, 21 ; 
 2 Pet. 1, 16). It may be admitted that some of the Apostles 
 were not, by nature, highly endowed or extraordinary men. 
 But the priority of their testimony, reflecting, as it does, the 
 first impression made upon receptive minds, insures to them a 
 position entirely peculiar; and certainly we do injustice to 
 their writings, if we regard them as only partially successful 
 attempts to express Christian truths as well as they could, but 
 presently giving place to other and in part better statements 
 and additions (REUSS). The stream is certainly purest close to 
 the source and when the question is in respect to the witnesses 
 of historical and religious facts, the illiterate man even, who 
 has fairly received the first impression, takes precedence of the 
 more cultivated, who subsequently philosophizes, with ability, 
 perhaps, but at the distance of centuries. Still the Apostolic 
 testimony concerning Christ cannot be unconditionally placed 
 on the same line with his own. There is here a difference 
 similar to that between the entire Messianic and Apostolic 
 period. Their words must be tested by that of the Master, 
 not vice versa. But although to this degree below his, their 
 teachings stand far above those of subsequent writers. What 
 a difference between the Christian literature of even the second 
 century and that of the first ! 
 
 4. The source, from which the knowledge of the theology of 
 the Apostles is drawn, is the Scripture of the New Testament 
 " What further we know from other reports can in any case be 
 
The Theology of the Apostles. 119 
 
 introduced only subordinately " (MESSNER). In regard to the 
 relation in which our investigation stands to the New Testament 
 Introduction, we have already spoken ( 1, 4). The Biblical 
 theologian who defends the supra-naturalistic view is not called 
 to consider doubts in respect to the trustworthiness of the New 
 Testament records until they give evidence of a better origin 
 than the partisanship of a narrow naturalistic criticism. On 
 the other hand he must not hold back the light which the inves- 
 tigation of the didactic contents of the New Testament books 
 may help to shed upon their genuineness. 
 
 5. The question, how far it is possible to regard the theology 
 of the Apostles, drawn from these sources, as one whole, cannot 
 be answered without some preliminary remarks. It is known 
 that the doctrine of the Apostles is transmitted to us in a num- 
 ber of types of doctrine (ivnot didux^s) but never in a strictly 
 connected system. When we speak of theology, therefore, we 
 mean only " the sum of single doctrinal statements united in a 
 congruous and systematic whole " (FROMMANN). Such a theol- 
 ogy may be constructed with the greater ease, the larger the 
 number of statements in the writings of an Apostle which 
 express his doctrinal views. No one would think, for example, 
 of placing on the same level, in this respect, the writings of 
 James or Jude with those of Paul. The unity, moreover, of 
 the Apostolic doctrine is anything but mere uniformity, and it 
 must be reckoned among the merits of the modern Supranatu- 
 ralism that it has had an eye and heart for the rich variegation 
 of thoughts found in the different New Testament writers. 
 But still this variegation does not justify the position "that in 
 fact there was very little unity of doctrinal belief among the 
 Apostles " (PiERSON), as if they furnish us with various limbs 
 but no body, mere loose stones, too various in size and form 
 for one building. Nothing, certainly, is easier than to set a 
 number of isolated Apostolic declarations in apparent opposition 
 to each other, and then to speak of the conflicting views of the 
 New Testament writers.* But such an anatomical criticism 
 which shows how to separate, but not how to combine, and in 
 its exclusive attention to every particular tree, fails to take into 
 
 * As is done, for instance, by PIEBSON, Oorsprong der mod Rigting, 1862, pp. 
 144, 145. 
 
120 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 account the whole forest, has shown itself in numerous instances 
 as weak as it is one-sided ; and the motto, divide et impera, may 
 more fitly be inscribed upon the banner of the opponents of 
 Christianity than it can be over the school of the theology of 
 faith. What might a priori be expected, admits of being ex- 
 egetically and historically justified : there is among the Apos- 
 tolic writers a diversity of gifts, but a unity of spirit; they 
 differ in respect to their starting point, method and depth, but 
 agree in their belief, principles and expectations ; their coloring 
 is different, but not the original light ; they vary in tone, but 
 the harmony is rather improved than injured thereby. The 
 Jewish-Christian theology of one author does not stand in irre- 
 concilable antagonism to that of another with a more Hellen- 
 istic coloring, and the progress of investigation continually 
 shows harmony to exist even where it was once denied or per- 
 haps wholly overlooked. The lines of Gothe are more true 
 than he himself was aware of : 
 
 " Vom Himmel sterbend Jesus bracht 
 Des Evangeliums ewige Schrift, 
 Den Jiingeni las er sie Tag und Nacht; 
 Bin gottlich Wort, es wirkt und trifft. 
 
 Er stieg zuriick, nahm's wieder mit, 
 Sie aber batten's gut gefuhlt, 
 Und Jeder schrieb so Schritt fur Scbritt, 
 Wie er's in seinem Sinn behielt. 
 
 Yerschieden : Es hat nichts zu bedeuten. 
 Sie batten nicht gleiche Fahigkeiten ; 
 Doob damit konnen sicb die Christen 
 Bis zu dem jiingsten Tage fristen." 
 
 6. The main division of our subject has been already in- 
 dicated ( 3, 2) and must be justified by the entire progress of 
 the investigation. In respect to its execution, what we have to 
 do is neither to criticise nor to defend, but simply to give a 
 correct objective exhibition of the doctrinal teachings of the 
 Apostolic writers. This, however, must be done in the spirit 
 of the writers themselves, and with careful attention to the 
 peculiarity, leading thought and particular method of each. 
 Instead, therefore, of placing the doctrinal teachings of the 
 several writers in the same frame (e. g., Theology, Anthropol- 
 ogy, Christology, Eschatology), the classification and analysis 
 
The Theology of the Apostles. 121 
 
 of the ideas of Paul for instance must proceed quite differently 
 from those of John and Peter. It is impossible to understand a 
 witness for the truth, unless we distinctly recognize his point 
 of view and fundamental conception. It is also important to 
 notice, in respect to each particular doctrine, the genetic and 
 psychological development of the thoughts of the writers, 
 and thus also, so far as is necessary and possible, the chrono- 
 logical succession of his writings. Here, likewise, a sharp dis- 
 tinction between the dogmatic and ethical side of their teach- 
 ings would be needless and injurious. Every doctrine, there- 
 fore, must first be considered in its several parts and as a whole, 
 before we can promise ourselves the results we desire from the 
 comparison of all. 
 
 7. In regard to the helps for this part of our inquiry and the 
 spirit in which it should be prosecuted, we may refer to what 
 has already been said (2, 3 ; 3, 3). It will not be superfluous, 
 however, to repeat the remark, that no one who studies the 
 doctrine of the Apostles from a point of view in irreconcilable 
 opposition to their own, can either understand or appreciate 
 their testimony. The writings of the Apostles can be under- 
 stood only in the light of the same Spirit, by whom they were 
 originally inspired. 
 
 Comp. on the Theology of the Apostles in general, in addi- 
 tion to the works already mentioned ( 2, 3), MATTHAEI, " The 
 Religious Faith of the Apostles of Jesus, in its Contents, Origin, 
 and Value," 2 Bde. Gott., 1826; DE PRESSENSE, History of 
 the three first centuries of the Christian Church : also, by the same 
 author, " The Critical School and the Apostles" Paris, 1866, 
 (against Kenan); and especially BONIFAS, "Essay on the Unity 
 of the Teachings of the Apostles," Paris, 1866. On the unity of 
 the Apostolic teachings, SCHLEIERMACHER, " Hermeneutics " 
 (Lucke's ed.), S. 82 ; SCHAFF, History of the Ancient Church, 
 New York, I. pp. 81-84 
 
 Questions for consideration. Origin, meaning and various 
 uses of the word, Apostle. Meaning of Luke 10, 16, comp. 
 John 20, 21. What may be gathered from the literature of 
 the post-Apostolic age in regard to the teaching of the Apos- 
 tles? Which Apostolic doctrinal system appears, even on a 
 9 
 
122 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 preliminary view, to be the deepest, fullest and richest ? What 
 is necessary in order to penetrate as deeply as possible into an 
 Apostolic doctrinal system ? Character of the Apostolic teach- 
 ing compared with the most ancient patristic literature. 
 
 CHAPTEK I. 
 
 THE PETKINE THEOLOGY. 
 
 26. 
 Preliminary Survey. 
 
 The priority of the treatment of the Petrine theology is 
 justified both by the special place which this Apostle occupies 
 in the history of the first century of Christianity and by the 
 peculiar character of his doctrinal teaching itself. Itself drawn 
 from the purest sources, it is best learned from the first general 
 epistle of Peter, compared with the Acts of the Apostles, 
 although one or two of the epistles of Paul furnish important 
 hints in regard to it The second epistle of Peter, in this in- 
 quiry, is neither to be silently passed by, nor to be placed 
 unconditionally on a level with the first, but must be separately 
 studied and compared. The entire doctrinal teachings of this 
 Apostle contained in the New Testament, exhibit the spectacle 
 of a harmonious development and the marks of a strongly ex- 
 pressed, but sanctified individuality. 
 
 1. It is not arbitrary to begin our inquiry with the Petrine 
 Theology. In ascending ( 25) from the most simple to the 
 more composite and developed forms of doctrinal statement, 
 we can in no case commence with Paul or John. Neither can 
 we assign the first place to James (SCHMID), because his title to 
 the name of Apostle, strictly so called, is more than doubtful, 
 and his epistle bears an almost exclusively practical character. 
 
The Petrine Theology. 123 
 
 Moreover Peter, as compared with James, much more strongly 
 influenced the entire spirit of the Apostolic age. It was Peter 
 who exerted an influence upon the earliest statement of the 
 gospel, which is wholly unrecognized in the late romantic re- 
 construction of the history of the Apostles (RENAN). Even 
 Paul subsequently built only upon the foundation laid by 
 Cephas in the Jewish and Grentile world. If Rome has exalted 
 him in a one-sided manner, it is ultra-Protestant injustice to 
 overlook the special importance of his person and writings. 
 In unison with Matthew, Mark, James and Jude he has fur- 
 nished us with the purest expression of the original faith of the 
 churches in Palestine. 
 
 2. The source from which the Apostolic writers drew their 
 testimony in regard to the gospel was the same in all, but in 
 each of them more or less modified. All were enlightened by 
 the Holy Spirit, which led them into the sanctuary of truth, 
 but all did not reach the same height of development and of 
 spiritual life. Guided by this Spirit, Peter spoke distinctly as 
 an eye-witness of the works and sufferings of the Lord (Acts 
 5, 32 ; 1 Pet. 5, 1). At the same time he quoted more than 
 some others from the Old Testament, which, after the day of 
 Pentecost, he evidently understood better than ever before. 
 He also appeals to special revelation made to himself (Acts 10, 
 28 ; comp. 2 Pet 1, 14). Above all, the ripe experience of his 
 Christian life gives to his testimony a peculiar character and an 
 indisputable value. 
 
 3. On a superficial view it might seem that, among the orig- 
 inal documents from which our knowledge of the doctrinal 
 teachings of Peter is to be drawn, the Acts of the Apostles must 
 occupy the highest place. But even with the fullest recognition 
 of the credibility of the latter, it is self-evident that a writing 
 of the Apostle himself is more important for the end which 
 we have in view than two or three of his discourses recorded 
 by another after the lapse of years. On this ground we give 
 the precedence among the sources from which we can learn his 
 Theology, to the first epistle of Peter, since its genuineness is 
 beyond all reasonable doubt, and since, moreover, it exhibits 
 such an entirely subjective character. By the side of this, how- 
 ever, we place the Acts of the Apostles, and follow this authority 
 
124 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 with the greater confidence the more we observe, as we con- 
 stantly do, that the Peter whom we here meet agrees in so 
 many particulars with the author of the first epistle which 
 bears his name. Compare especially Acts 2, 14-38 ; 3, 12-26 ; 
 4, 9-12; 5, 29-32; 10, 34-43; 11, 4-17; 12, 11; 15, 7-11. 
 The Apostle Paul likewise has furnished important help towards 
 a just knowledge of the direction and views of Peter. Not to 
 speak of the similarity between several Pauline and Petrine 
 propositions (exaggerated by the Tubingen school) we have only 
 to think of 1 Cor. 1, 12 ; 9, 5 ; 15, 5 and of the statement in 
 Gal. 2, 7-9 that Peter was an Apostle of the circumcision, one 
 of the pillars of the Church, etc. 
 
 In respect to the second epistle, the modest assertion (LoMAN) 
 "that no scholar can now be found who ventures to defend the 
 genuineness of this epistle," is only an exposure of the pecul- 
 iarity of a certain school which restricts the recognized " free- 
 dom of speech " to its own members. Various voices have been 
 raised in the present century in vindication of its early contested 
 genuineness. But even those who agree with these defenders 
 are willing to admit that the difficulties brought forward in 
 respect to this epistle are by no means imaginary. As the case 
 now stands, it is neither advisable to pass it by in silence, nor 
 without reservation, to place it on the same level with the first. 
 If the former course betrays prejudice, the latter is unscientific ; 
 to exclude it would be premature, but to make a distinction is 
 a duty. The difficulties in respect to this epistle, in their 
 whole extent, must be left to the science of Introduction ; the 
 Theology of the New Testament has fulfilled its task whenever 
 it has developed the theology of this epistle and compared it, in 
 every point, with that of the first. 
 
 4. The Petrine Theology, as gathered from these different 
 sources, exhibits the charming spectacle of a harmonious devel- 
 opment. Even to the Apostles of the Lord and especially to 
 our Apostle, life was constant progress. During a period of 
 about thirty years the expression of the religious iaith of Peter 
 became constantly fuller, stronger and clearer. Never do we 
 find him contradicting himself and needing to make a retraction, 
 but everywhere making progress, which reminds us of the 
 passage in Prov. 4, 18. 19. In Christology, for instance, from 
 
The Petrine Theology. 125 
 
 Acts 2, 22 to 2 Pet. 3, 18 assuming the genuineness of the latter 
 epistle there is a glorious climax. The facts of the gospel, 
 presented with emphasis in his earliest discourses, are also 
 occasionally stated in a doctrinal form in all their force in his 
 first epistle. Exhortations made by him in the beginning, we 
 find him repeating towards the end, not in a feebler but in a 
 stronger tone. Throughout, the literal fulfillment of the promise 
 of the Lord, John 16, 13, is evident, while the comparison of the 
 Apostle's testimony with itself at various periods in his life is, 
 moreover, an incidental argument in favor ol the credibility of 
 his declarations. 
 
 5. No less manifest are the traces of a strongly expressed but 
 sanctified individuality in the doctrinal teachings of this Apostle. 
 In the Gospel History he stands, as is well known, prominently 
 in the foreground, and has a mental physiognomy not easily to 
 be confounded with that of any other. Peter is the impulsive 
 disciple, the man of feeling, whose thinking is not in abstract 
 forms, but who prefers to deal with the concrete, and uniformly 
 lives " in the sphere of the immediate." Of such a man it is 
 not to be expected that he will write much, argue at Jength, or 
 exhibit all sides of the same idea. He will more easily move in 
 a circle of historical than of speculative ideas, follow others 
 without difficulty in the order and form of thought, and in some 
 respects be inferior to more distinguished associates. We actu- 
 ally find all this to a certain degree in the discourses and epistles 
 of Peter ; even after his conversion, he is one of those " unlearned 
 and ignorant men " (Acts 4, 13) by whom the form of the moral 
 world has been changed. His testimony is exactly what we 
 should expect from Simon Peter from what *ve know of his his- 
 tory. But this sharply-cut individuality is aglow with the fire 
 of a zeal and a love which alone could enable him thus to testify. 
 
 6. We become somewhat further acquainted with this indi- 
 viduality through the important address, with which Peter, 
 before the day of Pentecost, but yet initially moved by the 
 Holy Spirit (John 20, 22) introduced the election of Matthias 
 (Acts 1, 15-22). He at once exhibits the consciousness of his 
 calling, in common with all the Apostles, to be a witness of the 
 Lord Jesus, and especially of his resurrection (vs. 22), In this 
 brief address he repeatedly appeals to the prophetic Scriptures 
 
126 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 (vv. 16. 20), and thus shows also that he takes a purely Israel - 
 itish point of view. Finally, he is the man who, as early as 
 possible, surveys and cares for the future (vs. 22), as if from the 
 first he would vindicate his right to the honorable title of the 
 Apostle of hope. As the principal thought of a symphony is 
 intimated in its overture, so in these traits of the Apostle we 
 learn in advance how he will exhibit himself in his subsequent 
 speaking and writing. Simon Peter comes before us success- 
 ively as an Apostle of Jesus Christ ; as an Apostle of the cir- 
 cumcision ; as the Apostle of hope. 
 
 Comp. on the personality of Peter and his Theology in gen- 
 eral, an article by LANGE in HERZOG'S Real-Encyc. ; the com- 
 mentaries of HUTHER (in Meyer), WIESINGER (in Olshausen), 
 BESSER, FRONMULLER (in Lange), on the epistles of Peter ; but 
 especially WEISS, " The Petrine Theology." Berl. 1855, and the 
 literature there given, and also KOCH, de Petri theologia, per di- 
 versos vitce quam egit periodos, sensim explicata. L. B. 1854. On 
 the first epistle more particularly, YAN TEUTEM, " Survey of the 
 first epistle of Peter" Ley den, 1861. On the genuineness of the 
 second, VAN OOSTERZEE, " Christology of the New Testament" 
 bl. 162-176, and WEISS, "On the Petrine question" in the 
 Stud. u. Krit, 1865 and 1866, who inclines strongly in its favor. 
 
 Questions for consideration. The personality and character of 
 Peter as they are known to us aside from his own words and 
 writings.' The importance of his work in the doctrinal devel- 
 opment of the Apostolic age. Contents and value of later 
 accounts concerning his doctrine (the Clementines). The true 
 idea of development in its application to the Apostolic theology. 
 How far can the personality of Peter be regarded as a source 
 of his doctrine? Is the proposal of Peter, Acts 1, 16-22, to be 
 condemned, excused, or commended ? 
 
 27. 
 Peter, an Apostle of Jesus Christ 
 
 As an Apostle of Jesus Christ, Peter, with increasing clear- 
 ness, bears testimony in speech and by writing, to the unparal- 
 leled dignity and greatness of the Lord. The great facts of his 
 
Peter, an Apostle of Jesus Christ. 127 
 
 earthly and heavenly life he places emphatically in the fore- 
 ground ; even those which in the discourses and writings of the 
 other Apostles are not at all or scarcely mentioned. The 
 doctrinal statement and practical application of these facts he 
 unites also to an increasing degree with their historical 
 exhibition. 
 
 1. In the treatment of the Petrine theology it is most con- 
 venient to start from what Peter has in common with all the 
 Apostles, and from this to proceed to what is peculiar to him. 
 Like all the others he is a witness (1*6$$) of Christ, although he 
 is the only one who calls himself so (1 Pet. 5, 1), and it may be 
 observed that the text of the testimony which he bears as such 
 is to be found in his own words, Acts 4, 12. But the appear- 
 ance of Christ, infinitely glorious and sublime, is not viewed by 
 all of them from the same point. Of Peter it can very distinctly 
 be said that he lays special emphasis upon its historical character. 
 Without entering into deep abstract considerations in regard to 
 the nature of the Lord, he exhibits His person at once in the 
 light of history, and makes Him, so to speak, live on in his 
 announcement. 
 
 2. Already on the day of Pentecost he commences with the 
 exhibition of Jesus as the Nazarene living among his contem- 
 poraries, a man approved (proved) of God himself, by mighty 
 works and miracles universally known (Acts 2, 22). He thus 
 commences by placing him upon a level with the most eminent 
 messengers of God, but only to exalt Him directly above them 
 all as Him whom God has made both Lord and especially Christ 
 (vs. 36). The great evidence of this position is found in his 
 resurrection and in the outpouring of the Holy Spirit, while his 
 death on the cross is by no means passed over in silence, but is 
 charged upon the Jews as a crime. By reason of this his Mes- 
 sianic dignity, the historical fact of our Lord's descent from 
 David has for Peter special significance (2, 33). As promised to 
 the fathers, He is called God's holy one (2, 27), the prophet (3, 
 22), God's holy child Jesus (mrfc, 3, 13. 26 ; 4, 27) ; a name not 
 synonymous indeed with the more usual term, Son (i5t<5?) of God, 
 which does not occur in Peter, but yet far above the title of 
 servant (tfouAo?), which the Apostles are accustomed to give to 
 
128 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 themselves, and borrowed from the prophetic representation of 
 the perfect " servant of Jehovah." 
 
 Along with this theocratic dignity, Peter strongly exhibits 
 the moral greatness and glory of the Lord. Christ is to him 
 the Holy and Righteous One (Acts 3, 13. 14), of whose murder 
 the whole nation is guilty. This is the impression made by the 
 whole appearance of Christ upon the man, who once, with the 
 confession of his own impurity, fell down at his feet (Luke 5, 8). 
 Particularly in view of the sufferings of the Lord had he gazed 
 with wonder upon his perfect sinlessness (1 Pet. 1 , 19 ; 2, 22. 23), 
 as manifested especially in his self-control and untiring gentle- 
 ness. Hence, also, it was that he exhibits not merely this suffer- 
 ing, as do all the others, as atoning, but also very expressly as 
 an example (2, 21). 
 
 Nothing, however, is farther from the thought of the Apostle 
 than that the Lord was only the best and greatest of men. In 
 the historical appearance of Christ he shows us the marks of 
 superhuman greatness. On the day of Pentecost, even, it was 
 declared (Acts 2, 33), with evident reference to the words of 
 Jesus himself, that He had "received of the Father" the 
 promise of the Holy Ghost, and although his relation to the 
 Father was not for the moment more particularly explained, it 
 was set prominently forth in the first sermon to the Gentiles, 
 that God was with Him in an entirely special sense. Still more 
 strongly does this higher Christological element come out in the 
 first epistle. The trinitarian distinction in 1 Pet. 1, 2 would 
 have been as inappropriate as the joyful announcement of God 
 as the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (vs. 3), if the Lord in 
 the Apostle's view was a mere man clothed with Messianic 
 glory. The mention, also, of the Spirit of Christ, as previously 
 present in the prophets (1, 11), would at least sound strange, if 
 Peter had only wished to remark that the Spirit which animated 
 the prophets was the same with which Christ was afterwards 
 filled. The expression assumes rather an existence and a work 
 in earlier times, and this assumption is strengthened still further, 
 when we hear that the Lamb of God, although foreordained 
 before the foundation of the world, was manifest in these last 
 times (1, 20), which would scarcely have any meaning, if He 
 had not previously existed. If to this we add that several 
 
j Peter, an Apostle of Jesus Christ 129 
 
 Old Testament declarations in respect to God are transferred 
 without limitation to Christ (comp. 2, 3 with Ps. 34, 9 ; 3, 15 
 with Is. 8, 13), and that according to the most simple explana- 
 tion Jesus Christ in 4, 11 is the subject of a solemn doxology, 
 it is clear that th6 testimony of Peter in regard to the super- 
 human character of the Lord, although comparatively limited, 
 is by no means ambiguous or unimportant. 
 
 3. Still it must be admitted that not so much the metaphysical 
 as the historical side of the subject stands, with him, in the fore- 
 ground, and if we now inquire on what fact the Apostle lays 
 the chief emphasis, we must first of all speak of the Lord's res- 
 urrection. In all his addresses recorded by Luke, it is warmly 
 maintained ; what Peter desires every Apostle to be (Acts 1, 22), 
 he is emphatically himself a witness of the resurrection To 
 him the Lord is the Prince of life (3, 15), especially as the Risen 
 One, and it is to him a perfectly absurd thought, that He did 
 not rise (2, 24). He firmly declares this in the presence of the 
 Jewish council (4, 10), and far from fearing the objection that 
 the Risen One did not show himself to all the people, he even 
 mentions this fact, but sets against it his own eating and drink- 
 ing and that of his fellow-witnesses with Jesus after his resur- 
 rection. In the beginning of his first epistle (1, 1-3) he unites 
 the mention of the blessing of regeneration directly with that of 
 the resurrection : a fact which admits of a full explanation the 
 instant we remember what the joyful news of the resurrection 
 was to the fallen Peter himself (Luke 24, 34). As he himself 
 was thereby born again to a new life, so hope now first became 
 through the resurrection a living, powerful hope. The resur- 
 rection and glorification of Christ stands in immediate connection 
 with faith and hope in God (1, 21), and even baptism exerts 
 only through this resurrection a saving power upon its recipient 
 (3, 21). Since thus a risen Christ is to Peter most emphatically 
 the Christ, it will not surprise us that he describes Him once in 
 strong oriental imagery as "the living stone" (2, 4). 
 
 4. The principal fact of this marvelous history is, however, 
 not the only one to which our Apostle directs the attention of 
 his hearers and readers. While. declaring that God has raised 
 up his perfect servant (3, 26), he does not fail to state what is 
 found in the writings of no other Apostle that God anointed 
 
130 Biblical Theology of the ^ew Testament. 
 
 Him with the Holy Ghost and with power (Acts 10, 38). He 
 refers probably to what occurred at the baptism of the Master 
 (comp. Is. 42, 1 ; 61, 1), and does not forget to mention repeat- 
 edly his miracles (Acts 2, 22 ; 10, 38), including the healing of 
 those possessed, while he magnifies the entire public life of the 
 Lord as a constant series of benevolent deeds (Acts 10, 38). He 
 manifestly cannot keep silent as to what he has seen and heard 
 (Acts 4, 20). Especially when speaking of the suffering and 
 death of Jesus, it is manifest at every step that he was an eye- 
 witness. While in the Acts of the Apostles, standing in the 
 presence of enemies, he regards it as a terrible crime of the Jews 
 (yet not without palliation, see Acts 3, 17; comp. Luke 23, 34), 
 he exhibits it in his epistle, speaking to Christians, as a revela- 
 tion of the greatness of Christ, and as the source of the most glo- 
 rious benefits. He often speaks of the cross as the tree or wood 
 (r!> Uo*>, Acts 5, 30 ; 10, 39 ; 1 Pet. 2, 24, perhaps referring to 
 Deut. 21, 13), but what took place there and this was to Peter 
 himself certainly the first ray of light in the darkness occurred 
 according to the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of Grod 
 (Acts 2, 23). With this testimony in regard to the suffering of 
 Christ (1 Pet. 5, 1), we have incidentally also particular features 
 of the affecting history (Acts 3, 13. 14; 1 Pet. 2, 22. 23); the 
 manner in which he mentions these too, clearly shows that he 
 regarded this suffering in the light of the prophetic Scriptures, 
 especially of Is. 53. Thus to him the offence of the cross ceased. 
 Christ the righteous (comp. Is. 53, 11) had suffered for sins 
 (1 Pet. 3, 18), and not only so, but in distinction from the sacri- 
 fices which must be often slain, had suffered once for all, and 
 that not merely to give the most illustrious example, but 
 thereby to take away sin (1 Pet 2, 21-24). He suffered, hence, 
 for (jW^) the unrighteous ; and although the expression in itself 
 does not express the idea of substitution, it is plain that Peter 
 thinks of a suffering (1 Pet. 3, 18 ; 2, 24) by which others are 
 delivered from sufferings which they deserve, or, in other words, 
 of a vicarious endurance of punishment (comp. Lam. 5, 7). In 
 consequence of this suffering, the followers of Christ are healed 
 ransomed with this price of blood from their former vain con- 
 versation, with the distinct aim that they should die unto sin, 
 and live unto righteousness. First redeemed from the guilt and 
 
Peter, an Apostle of Jesus Christ. 131 
 
 penalty of sin, they are now redeemed from its dominion 
 (1 Pet. 2, 24).* 
 
 5. Having once suffered for sin, Christ is thenceforth in no 
 relation to sins ; he who has suffered in the flesh (1 Pet 4, 1) 
 frees himself from the relation to sin and the world. No 
 wonder that He who is dead according to the flesh is thereby 
 made alive after the Spirit (i. e. what pertains to the Spirit). 
 Death breaks the bonds which held the higher life in shackles, 
 and introduces Him to a perfectly unfettered and blessed 
 activity. It is this active work of the departed Spirit of the 
 Lord, to which Peter repeatedly bears witness (1 Pet. 3, 19-21 ; 
 4, 6 ; comp. Acts 2, 31). Our plan will not allow us to state or 
 discuss the various opinions held in all ages in regard to these 
 enigmatical declarations. Enough, that we reject as entirely 
 arbitrary the view that a work of the Spirit of the Lord by the 
 mouth of Noah is spoken of, and also the opinion (Baur) that 
 the spirits here referred to are the fallen angels (2 Pet. 2, 4). 
 The Apostle manifestly speaks of a work of the spirit of the 
 Lord himself, between his being made alive after the Spirit and 
 his ascension into heaven (1 Pet. 19 and 22), by which the 
 gospel of reconciliation was announced to the dead and particu- 
 larly to the unhappy dead, one generation of whom is expressly 
 named. Whether or not this work was limited to that one 
 generation ; in what form He executed it ; what was its result 
 to all these questions the Apostle gives no answer. His only 
 aim, plainly, is to show that Christ, who died for sin, did not 
 remain inactive even after death, and thus to set in a clearer 
 light the broad extent of the salvation revealed in Him. He 
 even mentions this mysterious fact, not as something concealed 
 and only communicated to him by revelation, but in passing, as 
 a matter known to his readers equally with the death and resur- 
 rection of the Lord. It may thus be called a peculiar constitu- 
 ent part of the Gospel of Peter. 
 
 6. The suffering and death of Christ, which terminated with 
 this work of his separate spirit, prepares the way for a glory, 
 which not less than the suffering which preceded, is the deserved 
 
 * 1 Pet. 4, 1 does not here come into view, since the words, for *, are not found 
 in the best MSS. Neither does 1 Pet. 1, 2 directly, at least if it is true, what 
 we assume with WEISS and others, that the blood of Christ, with which believers 
 are sprinkled, is here distinctly conceived of as the blood of the covenant. 
 
132 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 object of the interest of angels (1 Pet. 1, 12). In the mind of 
 Peter, as with our Lord himself (Luke 24, 26), His suffering 
 and glory are most intimately connected. The latter has been 
 already manifested in the resurrection, which Peter expressly 
 represents as having taken place on the third day (Acts 10, 40), 
 and therefore as a fact relating to the body, clearly different 
 from the glorification of the Lord in heaven (1 Pet. 3, 21. 22). 
 Of this exaltation, wrought by the right hand of God (Acts 
 2, 33), our Apostle professes to have been a witness, no less 
 than of the resurrection which preceded it (Acts 5, 31. 32) ; it 
 must therefore, according to his account, be regarded as a visible 
 occurrence. From what he states also of its glory and results 
 (1 Pet. 3, 22), it is absolutely clear that he could not have had 
 in mind only a spiritual dominion in a figurative sense. The 
 glorified Christ, also, continues to be personally active in the 
 promotion of the highest interests of his followers. He is and 
 remains the shepherd and overseer of their souls (1 Pet. 2, 25) ; 
 although invisible, he is still the object of their constant love 
 and joy (1 Pet. 1, 8), through whom alone their spiritual sacri- 
 fices can be acceptable to God (1 Pet. 2, 5). 
 
 7. Even if we go no farther, it is perfectly clear that the 
 Christology of Peter, if not very ample, is still silent on no side 
 of the person and the work of the Lord, and hence displays just 
 the characteristics which, even taking into account only his first 
 brief epistle, might be expected from an individuality like his. 
 His entire representation entitles him to the honorable title of a 
 witness and Apostle of Jesus Christ, while it shows also that he 
 was a disciple of the Baptist (John 1, 85-42). This last remark 
 leads us to consider another characteristic of the Apostle. 
 
 Comp., in addition to the works mentioned in the preceding 
 section, " The Servant of the Lord," by C. J. NITZSCH in the 
 Stud. u. Krit, 1828. On 1 Pet. 3, 19-21 ; 4, 6, VAN OOSTER- 
 ZEE, " Cliristology" II. 196-202 ; also MEYER'S Comm. A valu- 
 able history of the interpretation of this passage will be found 
 in WEISS, " The Pelrine Theology" S. 216-227, and an essay by 
 HOLWERDA, in the Nieuwe Jaarbb. "VI. [Also by Kev. Thomas 
 H. Skinner, D.D., on " Christ preaching to the Spirits in Prison," 
 in the Bib. Repository, 2d series, vol. ix ; and John Brown, 
 D.D., on 1 Pet. 3, 18-21, in the Bib. Sacra, IV. pp. 709-744.] 
 
Peter, the Apostle of the Circumcision. 133 
 
 Questions for consideration. What is the meaning of Acts 
 4, 12 ? Explanation of the fact, that in the first discourses of 
 Peter more prominence is given to the resurrection than to the 
 death of our Lord. The Petrine representation of the appear- 
 ance of Christ in the spirit-world compared with that in the 
 Gospel of Nicodemus. Supposed source and permanent value 
 of this account. What peculiar significance is attached in 
 1 Pet. 1, 21 ; 3, 21, to the resurrection of the Lord ? Does 
 Peter also give intimations respecting the -kind of relation 
 between the glorified Lord and his followers ? 
 
 28. 
 Peter, the Apostle of the Circumcision. 
 
 Although Peter, as an Apostle of Jesus Christ, announces 
 the salvation in Him as absolutely indispensable and entirely 
 open to all, yet both the contents and the form of his teaching 
 justly entitle him to the name of Apostle of the Circumcision 
 (Gal. 2, 7), which must not, however, be taken in a one-sided 
 particularistic sense. 
 
 1. That the salvation in Christ is for all indispensable, is 
 made prominent and emphatic by Peter (Acts 4, 12). The 
 name of Christ, so warmly mentioned especially in his first dis- 
 courses (Acts 2, 38 ; 3, 6. 16 ; 4, 10. 12 ; comp. Luke 24, 47), 
 is with him in the fullest sense the banner of salvation. A 
 contrary view has erroneously been supposed to be given in the 
 friendly words (Acts 10, 34. 35) addressed by him to Cornelius. 
 He by no means affirms in those words that men who fear God 
 are without distinction acceptable (&?xr6?) to God and saved 
 without Christ, but only that they are to be received into the 
 kingdom of God and thus to be saved. Were it otherwise, 
 why preaching and baptism for the whole heathen household ? 
 "Not indifferentism in regard to religions, but indifference, 
 (impartially) in regard to the acceptance of nations is here af- 
 firmed" (BENGEL). 
 
 2. This absolute indispensableness is the logical result of the 
 universality of sin. In itself the doctrine of sin is but little 
 developed in Peter. Of its origin he does not speak expressly. 
 While Paul ascends to its source, Peter points to the turbid 
 
134 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 stream. The sin of the Jewish people culminates before his 
 sight in the rejection of the Messiah (Acts 2, 36). That of the 
 heathen is the fruit of ignorance, which blinded them in their 
 condition before the coming of Christ (1 Pet. 1, 14). While the 
 carnal desires are in themselves sinful (4, 2), their manifestation 
 in many a perverse form is especially in diametrical opposition 
 to the will of God, and leads him who professes the gospel back 
 to his former heathen position (4, 3-4). Even the Christian is 
 still in constant danger of sinning (5, 8), and will not be saved 
 without great difficulty (4, 18). In accordance with all this, 
 there is both for Jews and Gentiles but one way of salvation 
 the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ and without the burdensome 
 yoke of the works of the law (Acts 15, 10. 11). 
 
 3. What is necessary for all, all may obtain. On the day of 
 Pentecost he proclaims the salvation in Christ as provided for 
 all men. Grace is preached to the greatest sinners among the 
 Jews, and allusion is not obscurely made to the calling of the 
 Gentiles (Acts 2, 39). If the thought of Peter at first was that 
 the latter must be brought over the bridge of Judaism to the 
 kingdom of God, after the revelation recorded in Acts 10 we 
 see in his conception this limitation falling away. He even lays 
 manifest emphasis upon the fact that God has broken down the 
 wall of separation, by bestowing the Holy Spirit upon Jews and 
 Gentiles alike, and purifying the hearts of both through faith. 
 There is thus no ground for charging Peter with a narrow par- 
 ticularism, which drove him to see in the Jews, if not exclusively 
 yet chiefly, the heirs of the kingdom of God. The remarkable 
 declaration, Acts 3, 26, that God had sent his son Jesus first to 
 the Jews (comp, John 4, 22), is a proof to the contrary. 
 
 4. The conditions, also, of participation in the salvation in 
 Christ, are according to Peter extremely simple. In his dis- 
 course to the unbelieving Jews, we hear him, entirely in the 
 spirit of the Baptist and of the Messiah, repeatedly exhort to 
 repentance (Acts 2, 38 ; 3, 19). In this conversion is included 
 faith, which in his preaching to Cornelius he presents as the 
 chief requirement (Acts 10, 47), and which manifests itself by 
 the willing submission to the rite of baptism, with which the 
 reception of the forgiveness of sins and the gift of the Holy 
 Spirit is connected (Acts 2, 38) still not in such a way as if 
 
Peter, the Apostle of the Circumcision. 135 
 
 the water in baptism had in itself a supernatural efficacy. Only 
 to that baptism is value ascribed, which is united with the prom- 
 ise to keep a good conscience before God (1 Pet 3, 21). Such a 
 baptism saves, as the water of the flood saved the family of Noah 
 in the ark, and those who. submit to it begin even here to be 
 partakers of the salvation (CTO>TJ%>/) in Christ. No one because of 
 his earlier state, has any preeminence above another, for Christ 
 is Lord of all (Acts 10, 36), and the Holy Spirit raises all who 
 believe to the same freedom and equality (15, 8. 9). 
 
 5. Yet, purely Christian as all this is, the form in which the 
 Apostle clothes these thoughts and still more their contents, 
 present him to us as the Apostle of the Circumcision. Both in 
 the book of Acts and in the Epistles, we see in him a man 
 wholly penetrated with the spirit of the Old Testament and 
 preferring to use its language. No part of the New Testament 
 contains more citations from the Old Testament, or more refer- 
 ences to it, than the first epistle of Peter. In the discourse on 
 the day of Pentecost we hear him maintaining the resurrection 
 and ascension of the Lord by appealing to the 16th and the 
 110th Psalm. In Acts 3, he exhibits him as the "Prophet," 
 and in Acts 4, as the " stone " referred to in the Psalms. He 
 summons all the prophets from Samuel onwards (Acts 3, 24) as 
 witnesses ; the whole of Christianity is to him the fulfillment of 
 prophecy. It was revealed to the prophets that the things 
 which they announced were not for themselves but for believers 
 in Christ (1 Pet. 1, 12), and the Apostle who attests this has him- 
 self sat at their feet. With their own words, although not always 
 mentioning them by name, he affirms and defends his position 
 (see, e. g. 1 Pet 1, 24. 25 comp. with Is. 40, 6-8 ; 2, 3 comp. 
 with Ps. 34, 9 ; 3, 10-12 comp. with Ps. 34, 13-17 ; 4, 18 comp. 
 with Prov. 11, 31 ; 5, 7 comp. with Ps. 55, 23). The chief 
 requirement of the law (1, 16) and the promise of salvation in 
 prophecy (2, 6) are expressly quoted, and prominent persons in 
 the history of the Old Testament, Noah, for instance, with his 
 household, Sarah in relation to Abraham, and even the holy 
 women of antiquity in general are exhibited as examples to 
 believers (3, 5. 6. 20. 21). They who walk according to these 
 examples, are distinguished with Old Testament titles of honor 
 elsewhere applied to Israel. They are styled " elect " (1, 2), " a 
 
136 Biblical Theology of the New Testament 
 
 royal priesthood " (2, 9), and constitute together " the house of 
 God " (4, 17). The word church or congregation (txxfyata) does 
 not here occur; but we find the terms "people of God" (2, 9. 
 10), and "flock of the Lord" (5, 2. 3), which are so often 
 applied to Israel in the Prophets and Psalms, and invested, 
 undoubtedly, in the mind of Peter with a special dignity (comp. 
 John 21, 15-17). The Old Testament idea of election (comp. 
 Deut. 7, 6) constantly appears in his discourses and epistles. 
 So firmly, indeed, does our Apostle regard every thing from a 
 teleological point of view, that he reverently recognizes the ful- 
 fillment of God's counsel, when the disobedient stumble at the 
 word of his grace (2, 8). 
 
 6. In the doctrine concerning God, also, from which Peter 
 sets out, the key-note is that of the Old Testament. It is un- 
 questionably the privilege of Christians that they are entitled 
 to call on God as their Father (1, 17) it seems as if at this point 
 the beginning of the Lord's prayer passed through his mind 
 but the Father passes sentence also as Judge, without respect 
 of persons. He is the faithful Creator (4, 19), and next to this 
 attribute of faithfulness, so much extolled at all times by the 
 prophets of Israel, his power, holiness, omniscience and right- 
 eousness are especially made prominent The Christ, the Son of 
 God, is also here viewed less from the metaphysical than from 
 the theocratic side, and if Peter is the only Apostle who calls 
 him a lamb (d^s), this too is borrowed from Isaiah (53, 7). 
 The Holy Spirit, finally, is undoubtedly mentioned by Peter 
 (Acts 5, 3. 4), but, as in the Old Testament, the doctrine of the 
 Spirit is here but comparatively little developed. 
 
 7. The view of the Christian life, predominant in the utter- 
 ances of our Apostle, exhibits essentially the same character. 
 The fear of God, accompanied by works of righteousness, is that 
 on which he especially insists (2, 17 ; comp. Acts 10, 35). The 
 name of children (1, 14) and even of little children (2, 2) is 
 given indeed to the redeemed Israel also was addressed under 
 the old dispensation by the same tender appellation but still 
 they ever are and remain servants of God (dovloi, 2, 16), and are 
 called to walk in fear (1, 17). Believing and obeying are with 
 Peter correlative terms (1, 2 ; 2, 7), and not filial love so much 
 as filial awe is the key-note of the spiritual life here described. 
 
Peter, the Apostle of the Circumcision. 137 
 
 Although the yoke of the law is broken (Acts 15, 10), its 
 requirements still remain the rule for the life and conduct of 
 the disciples of the Lord (1 Pet. 3, 8-15). Thus serving God 
 together, they discharge the duty which under the old dispen- 
 sation was assigned to a particular tribe. It may be affirmed 
 that the doctrine of the universal priesthood of believers (2, 
 4-9) is preeminently Petrine. In none of the other epistles, at 
 least, and only in the Apocalypse, 1, 5. 6 ; 5, 8-10, is it so em- 
 phatically declared. But even this idea is essentially of Old 
 Testament origin, and not less the description of Christians as 
 strangers and pilgrims (2, 11 ; comp. Ps. 119, 19 and other 
 passages). Peculiarities like these are the more worthy of 
 notice, if it is true that the first readers of this epistle of Peter 
 were principally Jews, though by no means exclusively so, as 
 is plain from the form of address in 1, 14 ; 2, 10 ; 4, 3. 4. Even 
 those who had previously been in the darkness of heathenism 
 are here addressed as fully sharing in the blessing of Israel, 
 and now also called with them to the realization of the ideal of 
 the ancient theocracy. 
 
 8. What has been observed concerning the Old Testament 
 coloring of the Petrine Theology defines its character, but does 
 not diminish its importance. Both propositions are true, viz : 
 the New Testament is the fulfilling, and the opposite, of the Old 
 Testament. Paul emphasizes the latter, Peter the former. It 
 was just by reason of this peculiarity that he was the better 
 fitted to bring the Gospel to Israel, and as Israel itself was a 
 people of expectation in the fullest sense of the word, so its 
 first Apostle was also the Apostle of hope. 
 
 Comp. WEISS, I c. S. 98-197 and the literature there cited ; to 
 which may be added VAN TEUTEM, bl. 31 sqq., FKONMULLER, 
 " The Petrine Theology," 4 of the introduction. 
 
 Questions for consideration. What is the meaning of Acts 2, 
 40i ? In what relation does Peter represent himself and his 
 fellow believers as standing to the old dispensation, Acts 15, 
 7-11? How may this be reconciled with Gal. 2, 11-13? 
 What does Peter teach concerning baptism ? What concerning 
 the calling of the Gentiles ? What place does the idea of pre- 
 destination occupy in the theology of Peter? What accord- 
 
138 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 ance and what difference is to be observed between the way in 
 which the Old Testament is employed by him and by our Lord ? 
 
 29. 
 Peter, the Apostle of Hope. 
 
 Both the discourses and the first epistle of Peter exhibit him 
 to us as especially the Apostle of hope, in the sense that the 
 expectation of the coming of the Lord governs his whole repre- 
 sentation of Christian truth, and not less his whole exhibition 
 of the Christian life. As this peculiarity of his may be fully 
 explained by his individuality, it gives us also the key to the 
 explanation of his course of thought and the measure for esti- 
 mating the value of his theology. 
 
 1. The name, Apostle of hope, refers by no means to a 
 characteristic which belongs exclusively to Peter, but only to 
 a peculiarity which appears in his theology more strongly than 
 in that of others. In none of the Apostles do we find the 
 mention and praise of Christian hope (ttnig) wanting, but the 
 Petrine theology is especially characterized by it. Christian 
 hope constitutes not merely the end, but the center of all his 
 teachings. The Gospel, which from one side is the brightest 
 fulfillment, is in his view from the other the most glorious 
 promise. He speaks of it constantly, and is ever returning 
 to it with warm affection. Whether we fix our attention upon 
 his discourses or upon his first epistle, it is always the expecta- 
 tion of the future which imparts glow and life to his whole pre- 
 sentation. 
 
 2. In the very beginning of his discourse on the day of 
 Pentecost, Peter points out, in the light of the prophecy of 
 Joel, not merely what is now imparted, but also what is to be 
 expected in the future (Acts 2, 16-21); and although his 
 discourse is addressed exclusively to the house of Israel, he 
 cannot omit to direct his eye towards all "that are afar off" 
 (Acts 2, 39). In his next discourse he insists upon conversion 
 (3, 19-21), that thus the times of refreshing may come, though 
 the coming again of Christ, who has now indeed temporarily 
 
Peter, ike Apostle of Hope. 139 
 
 ascended to heaven, but is ready to establish his kingdom in 
 Israel and to restore all things. The address also to Cornelius 
 hastens, as it were, to announce Christ as the ordained judge of 
 the quick and the dead (10, 42), and even in the brief address 
 at the Apostolic Council in Jerusalem, the expectation is evi- 
 dent of a salvation in part still future (15, 11). 
 
 3. Still more marked is this peculiarity in the first epistle of 
 Peter. He begins with a doxology (1, 3), which reminds 
 us at once of that in Paul's epistle to the Ephesians. But 
 while the latter (Eph. 1, 3) emphasizes in general the spiritual 
 blessings in Christ, Peter renders thanks above all for the 
 blessing of being begotten again to a living hope, through the 
 resurrection of the Lord. No special reason for the mention 
 of this particular blessing can be assigned, except that it lies 
 very near to his heart. The object of hope, the heavenly 
 inheritance, is set forth in a series of elevated expressions, kin- 
 dred to each other, and yet expressing different ideas. It is 
 " incorruptible," because it belongs to the sphere of eternal 
 things; u undefiled," as not subject to defilement through sin; 
 it "passeth not away," is not only enduring, but ever equally 
 glorious. This eternal, holy and glorious inheritance is per- 
 fectly secured to believers ; it is reserved for them, and they 
 are kept unto the salvation which is already about to be 
 revealed (vs. 5). The present suffering (vs. 6) will be brief 
 (comp. John 16, 16), and will increase their blessedness (vs. 7). 
 Their joy in believing is even now full of glory (vs. 8) ; it is 
 present where its object is, and whence they look for the end of 
 their faith, the salvation of their souls (vs. 9). The Christian 
 life is, therefore, a perfect hoping for grace (1, 13). That not 
 only their faith, but also their hope might be in God, Christ 
 rose and was glorified (1, 21). With the single remark that 
 they hoped in God (3, 5) is the character of the pious women 
 in the Old Testament described. Accordingly it is of the hope 
 that is in them, that believers must always be ready to give a 
 reason (3, 15). The time which we live in the flesh is short, 
 and Christ is soon to pronounce judgment (4, 37). The final 
 judgment upon the Church has already begun (4, 17), and 
 therefore that upon the world will not be expected in vain. 
 So far as the Apostle himself is concerned, there is to him 
 
140 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 nothing more desirable, next to being called a witness of the 
 sufferings of Christ, than to be styled a partaker of the coming 
 glory (5, 1). The exhibition of the future reward constitutes 
 the ground of his strongest exhortation (vs. 4), and the Chris- 
 tian call to eternal glory, after brief suffering, is the theme of 
 his doxology (vs. 10). All this is, without doubt, entirely in 
 the spirit of the Lord (comp. Luke 24, 26) ; but it is also the 
 expression and fruit of the felt personal need of the light of 
 the future to shine upon the darkness of the present. The 
 expectation of this glory is, as it were, the axis around which 
 all the teachings of the Apostle revolve. There is not an inti- 
 mation that he anticipates a protracted struggle for the members 
 of the Christian Church ; their Head is already on the point of 
 coming. The condition of believers after death, the resurrection 
 of the righteous, the endless retribution of the wicked, these 
 are not at all or scarcely touched. Above all this, the Apostle 
 directs them to look to the glorious end, the personal coming of 
 the Lord. 
 
 4. In proof of the correctness of the above description, we 
 give an analysis of the first epistle of Peter, in accordance with 
 the point of view just taken. First he speaks in exalted lan- 
 guage of the glory of hope (1, 3-12) and that in regard to its 
 firm basis (vs. 3-5), its joy fulness (vs. 6-9), and its exalted nature 
 (vs. 10-12). Next he rapidly proceeds, in the most earnest 
 manner, to commend and strengthen the life of hope. A gene* 
 ral exhortation to hope fully for grace (vs. 13) may be regarded 
 as the fertile text, the result of all that precedes, and at the same 
 time the theme of all the exhortations and consolations which 
 now follow. They are (a) partly of a more general kind (1, 14- 
 2, 10), so far as they call believers without distinction to personal 
 holiness (1, 14-21), mutual love (1, 22-2, 3), and the common 
 glorifying of (rod and the Saviour (2, 4-10). Partly also (b) 
 they have a more definite bearing (2, 11-5, 6) so far as they re- 
 late either to believers in the world and in society (2, 11-4, 6) 
 whether as subjects, servants, married persons, or members of 
 the suffering and struggling Church as a whole, or to the mutual 
 relations of believers (4, 7-5, 5) as called to live for one another 
 (4, 7-11), to suffer together (vs. 12-16), and to be subject to each 
 other (5, 1-5). In conclusion (c), all is once more summed up 
 
Peter, the Apostle of Hope. 141 
 
 in the general exhortation to be humble towards God (5, 6. 7), 
 watchful of themselves (vs. 8), sympathizing to those about them 
 (vs. 9), and hopeful of the future (vs. 10, 11). But among all 
 these exhortations there is scarcely one which does not, either 
 directly or indirectly, stand connected with the first and general 
 one (1, 13) : " hope fully for the grace that is brought unto you 
 in the revelation of Jesus Christ." 
 
 5. The element of hope in the Petrine Theology is equally 
 explicable and undeniable. It springs from the individuality 
 of the Apostle, whose first epistle may be styled "a portrait in 
 letters." Even as an Apostle of Jesus Christ ( 27) Peter is an 
 Apostle of hope ; his expectation is founded upon the words of 
 the Master himself (Matt. 19, 28-30). As the Apostle also of 
 the circumcision ( 28) he must be the same ; the predictions of 
 the prophets were only partially fulfilled in the first and humble 
 coming of Christ. "Peter is a man formed in the school of the 
 Old Testament, but who has learned the new things in all their 
 richness and in all their grandeur" (BoNiFAS). But he is, 
 above all, the Apostle of hope, because he is Simon Peter, and 
 not John or Thomas ; the impulsive, sanguine man, in whom 
 the earlier search and striving for a better future, is tempered, 
 but not destroyed. " Gratia non tollil, sed sanat naturam." 
 The more the new man now and then still felt the influence of 
 the old (Gral. 2, 11), so much the more earnestly must he have 
 longed after salvation. 
 
 6. The value of the Petrine Theology is not lessened by the 
 observation, that the hope of the Apostle has not been fulfilled 
 in the form in which it is here cherished and experienced. 
 The day of our Lord's coming, not definitely made known by 
 Him, was and remained a matter of individual expectation, in 
 respect to which only the time itself could shed the true light. 
 If Peter shared in the views of the entire apostolic age on 
 thie point, still the great event itself, expected by him, remains 
 the object of expectation of all succeeding ages, and the hope 
 lauded by him continues to be an inexhaustible fountain of 
 comfort and sanctification. So attractive in various respects is 
 the account of this hope given in his writings, that the question 
 can hardly be passed over, whether he has not expressed him- 
 self still further at a later time respecting it. This question 
 
142 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 naturally directs our attention to the second epistle which 
 bears the name of Peter. 
 
 Comp. WEISS, I c. S. 25 ff. ; MAYEKHOFF " Historwo-critical 
 Introduction to the Petrine writings" Hamb., 1835. [LlLLlE, On 
 the Epistles of Peter, New York, 1869.] 
 
 Questions for consideration. Whence the general expectation 
 of the apostolic age concerning a speedy coming of the Lord, 
 in which Peter also shnred? What connection is there between 
 his Eschatology and that of the Synoptical Christ ? What 
 does he mean in Acts 3, 21 by ctnoxaKiaraais nbviwv and what 
 does he expect from it? What, according to him, are the 
 signs of the coming of the Lord ? What does he teach con- 
 cerning the rewards and punishments of the world to come ? 
 
 30. 
 The Second Epistle of Peter. 
 
 Although very serious objections are brought against the 
 Apostolic origin of the second epistle attributed to Peter, yet 
 the theology which it teaches bears, with all its peculiarity, an 
 undeniably Petrine character. Indeed, this epistle exhibits 
 traces of the individuality of Peter, as an Apostle of Jesus 
 Christ, an Apostle of the circumcision, and the Apostle of 
 hope, to such an extent, that its contents, in themselves con- 
 sidered, are much more strongly in favor of its genuineness 
 than against it. 
 
 1. The doubts in regard to the genuineness of the second 
 epistle of Peter, date from the earliest centuries of the Christian 
 era. Irenasus, Tertullian, Cyprian and others are acquainted 
 with only one epistle of Peter; Origen and Eusebius doubt 
 the genuineness of the second, and it is not found in the most 
 ancient Syriac version. Even Erasmus and Calvin speak 
 doubtfully or unfavorably, and in our time the majority of 
 critics decidedly question its genuineness. On the other hand 
 it has found defenders, even in our age, in Hag, Flatt, Kern, 
 
The Second Epistle of Peter. 143 
 
 Heidenreich, Windischmann, Dietlein, Thiersch, Guericke, 
 Fronmiiller, Steinfass, and others, and Weiss and Briickner 
 are manifestly inclined to recognize it, so that the science of 
 Introduction cannot regard the question as settled. The The- 
 ology of the New Testament can only examine its theology 
 and inquire how far it exhibits or does not exhibit a Petrine 
 character. 
 
 2. Undoubtedly a difference may be observed here and there 
 between the doctrinal and ethical contents of the second and 
 the first epistles. Much stronger emphasis is laid in the for- 
 mer upon the knowledge (e^v^aig) of the gospel ; many ideas 
 expressed in the first epistle are here not at all or scarcely 
 touched upon ; and throughout, the resemblance to the epistle 
 of Jude is greater than is found between any other two writers 
 of the New Testament. Yet these and other peculiarities may 
 be accounted for, at least to a certain degree, partly from the 
 different wants of the readers, partly from the special aim of 
 the writer, and in part, finally, from the individuality of Peter 
 himself. In no case do they impair the thoroughly Petrine 
 coloring of this epistle, which is admitted even by those who 
 dispute its genuineness, however otherwise it may be explained. 
 It often occurs, and not unfrequently in a surprising manner, 
 that, as LUTTERBECK expresses it, " the second epistle of Peter 
 teaches apparently the opposite, but in fact the same thing, as 
 the first epistle." 
 
 3. The writer of this second epistle, also, speaks as an 
 Apostle of Jesus Christ in the full sense of the word. Just as 
 in the first, the historical Christ is distinctly the central point 
 of his entire teaching, without express mention, beyond this, of 
 the pre-existence of the Lord. He is the Saviour (3, 2), and 
 the principal benefit which believers owe to Him consists in 
 being cleansed from their former sins (i, 9 ; comp. 1 Pet 1, 2). 
 He has redeemed them (2, 1 ; comp. 1 Pet. 1, 18), and does not 
 cease, even after his departure from earth, to stand in the 
 closest relation to them (1, 14 ; comp. 1 Pet. 2, 25). Of the 
 glory which he now enjoys, the writer has already seen a re- 
 flection on the mount of transfiguration (1, 16-18) : a particular 
 fact in the life of our Lord, which is not mentioned in any 
 other of the New Testament epistles, just as another event, not 
 
144 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 less mysterious, is mentioned only in the first epistle of Peter 
 (1 Pet. 3, 19-21). No wonder that Christ stands before the eye 
 of the writer in the glory of a truly Divine dignity. What was 
 assumed or indicated is here distinctly declared. In addition 
 to the name of Saviour, our Lord is styled God in the begin- 
 ning of the epistle (1, 1), and the doxology addressed to Him at 
 the end (3, 18), sets the seal to this appellation. In a word, the 
 lines of thought, commencing in the book of Acts and in the 
 first epistle of Peter, we here find methodically extended. 
 
 4. We find no less harmony, whenever, with the second 
 epistle in our hands, we think of Peter as the Apostle of the 
 Circumcision, as he is exhibited in the first. The Old Testa- 
 ment coloring, there observable, is here constantly appearing 
 anew, both in regard to the clothing and the substance of the 
 ideas. In the forefront stands the righteousness of God (1, 1), 
 and almost immediately (vs. 10) the election (^xAoyrj) of believ- 
 ers is brought to view as being their peculiar privilege. 
 The same high estimate of the prophetic word, with an exhibi- 
 tion of its divine origin similar to that given in the first epistle 
 (1, 10-12), here comes into view (1, 19-21). In a single in- 
 stance, as in the first epistle, the Old Testament is expressly 
 cited (2, 22) ; but the number of passages is much larger, in 
 which there is an allusion to its historical import, or its style 
 even is unconsciously adopted. Here also mention is made of 
 the age of Noah (2, 5), and of Abraham (vv. 6 if.) ; this time, 
 however, in accordance with the special aim of the epistle, 
 with reference not to the obedient Sarah, but to the God-fearing 
 Lot (2, 7-9). Here, moreover, is a repeated and pertinent use 
 of what might be regarded as known from the Old Testament 
 Scriptures (2, 13-16; comp. Num. 22, 16-34; 2, 22; comp. 
 Prov. 26, 11 ; 3, 5 ; comp. Gen. 1, 2 ; 3, 7 ; comp. Gen. 9, 11 ; 
 3, 8 ; comp. Ps. 90, 4 ; 3, 12 ; comp. Is. 65, 17). He also adds 
 the mention of the last day as the day of God (3, 10), entirely 
 in the spirit of the old prophets. The New Testament is here 
 also, from the beginning to the end, the completion and crown, 
 never the opposite, of the Old. 
 
 5. The second epistle to one who listens with an attentive 
 ear, reveals also the Apostle of hope. At the very outset, the 
 writer directs the attention of his reader to the divine promises 
 
The Second Epistle of Peter. 145 
 
 (1, 4) and urges them to make progress in holiness by referring 
 especially to the future (vs. 11). The "putting off the taber- 
 nacle " (1, 14) recalls to mind the figure of "pilgrimage" in 
 the first epistle (2, 11). Most of all, however, is attention here 
 to be directed to the extended digression (3, 3-15) to the de- 
 struction of the present order of things with its great conse- 
 quences, which would almost justify us in calling it an abridged 
 Apocalypse. The difference from the first epistle in respect to 
 eschatology is merely relative and by no means incapable of 
 explanation. If some time had elapsed between the composi- 
 tion of the two epistles, it might and must have become mani- 
 fest to the Apostle, that the earnestly desired future might be 
 delayed somewhat longer than he had originally expected. 
 This delay he could be the less insensible to, because it was 
 abused by scoffers, against whose seductions he here arms be- 
 lievers, while in the first epistle he comforts them under suffer- 
 ing by referring to the glory to come. Here, however, as there, 
 his look is directed, with longing, to the end, and the exhorta- 
 tion not merely to watch, but also to hasten (anovd^ei^) to 
 the day of God, exhibited a Petrine character,* as does the 
 strong urging to holiness with which the life of hope is also 
 here brought into direct connection. And in regard, finally, to 
 the main import of the expectations here disclosed, it must be 
 observed that they attach themselves entirely to the promise of 
 the prophets and the declarations of our Lord himself. The 
 untenableness of a doctrinal view in the light of a later age is 
 no proof that Peter might not have embraced and expressed it 
 6. It must be admitted that differences of more or less im- 
 portance are. opposed to the accordance pointed out; but differ- 
 ences of thought or clothing in two different writings prove 
 nothing in themselves against the identity of the author, and 
 least of all when this author exhibits an individuality like that 
 of Simon Peter. It is enough, that on not a single point of 
 importance do the two epistles contradict each other, and cer- 
 tainly the appearance of contradiction would be most carefully 
 avoided by an impostor, abusing the name of Peter. There is at 
 
 * This [genuine Petrine] word occurs thrico in our epistle, and only seven times 
 in both the epistles of Peter. Would an impostor, seeking to write in the style of 
 the Apostle, have paid regard to such slight psychological peculiarities? 
 
146 . Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 least no greater difference between the first and second epistles, 
 which bear the name of Peter, than between some writings of 
 John and Paul, the genuineness of which no candid man doubts. 
 
 7. Other internal difficulties, derived from the difference in 
 style between the first and second epistles ; from the relation of 
 the latter to the Grospel history, the epistles of Paul, the general 
 epistle of Jude, and to the budding Gnosticism of the age ; or 
 from the mysterious import of some of the expressions which 
 here occur, lie without the bounds of our investigation. Strictly 
 confining ourselves to the doctrinal statements, we feel obliged 
 to declare as the result of this investigation, that the second 
 epistle contains absolutely nothing that forbids us to think of 
 Simon Peter as the writer, and not a little on the contrary which 
 justifies the belief in its Petrine origin. We find ourselves, 
 consequently, reduced to the simple alternative, either that 
 Peter himself wrote the epistle, or that an unknown writer, in 
 order to accomplish his particular ends, evidently strove to be 
 taken for our Apostle, and with this design imitated his style 
 and his ideas as accurately as possible. Whether a literary 
 fiction of this kind admits of being so easily accepted, as is 
 maintained on some sides, and whether in that case it would be 
 consonant with the moral character of the writer as exhibited 
 to us in this epistle, is a question, the answer to which does not 
 belong to this place. Had the second epistle of Peter appeared 
 as an anonymous production, it is quite possible that the inner 
 criticism would have raised the supposition, in the view of 
 many, to a very high degree of probability, that this writing 
 proceeded from none other than the Apostle Peter. 
 
 Comp. on the doctrinal teachings of the second epistle of Pe- 
 ter in connection with its genuineness, in addition to MESSNER, 
 I c. S. 54-70, VAN OOSTERZEE, u Christology of the New Testa- 
 ment" bl. 162-176, and the literature there given ; to which may 
 be added FKONMULLER, I c. S. 68 sqq. ; STEINFASS, " The Second 
 Epistle of St. Peter" Rostock, 1863, and WEISS, u On- the Petrine 
 Question" in the Stud. u. Krit, 1865 and 1866. On the spread 
 of particular writings under the names of Apostles, in the early 
 ages of Christianity, THIEKSCH, " Essay towards a restoration of 
 the historical point of view" etc., ErL, 1845, S. 338 sqq. ; NIER- 
 MELTEB, " The Criticism of the Tubingen School," 1848, bl. 36-47. 
 
The Kindred Types of Doctrine. 147 
 
 Questions for consideration. Who have contested the genuine- 
 ness of the second epistle of Peter on the ground especially of 
 its doctrinal teachings? What peculiarities do the doctrinal 
 and ethical contents of our epistle exhibit, as compared with 
 the first ? How far may these peculiarities be explained from 
 the particular design of the composition and from the individu- 
 ality of the author? The relation of this epistle to that of 
 Jude and those of Paul ? The eschatology of this epistle com- 
 pared with the expectations of profane antiquity, and the pro- 
 phetic scriptures of the Old Testament. The second epistle of 
 Peter, the crown of his whole Apostolic testimony, and his 
 testament to the Church and the world. 
 
 31. 
 The Kindred Types of Doctrine. 
 
 The Petrine exhibition of the Gospel stands by no means 
 alone among the writings of the New Testament. Without 
 violence to the peculiarity of each writer, it agrees in a remark- 
 able manner with what is either assumed or expressed in the 
 Gospels according to Matthew and Mark, and especially in the 
 general Epistles of James and Jude. 
 
 1. We have already observed the many-sided peculiarity of 
 the Petrine representation of the Gospel. To this type attached 
 itself undoubtedly the faith of the Jewish Christians, who found 
 in Peter both their guide and their representative. In view, how- 
 ever, of the high position which Peter occupied in the history of 
 the Apostolic age, it may be reasonably assumed in advance 
 that among the sacred writers themselves there would be by no 
 means wanting men of kindred spirit. This conjecture passes 
 into certainty when we look at various parts of the New Testa- 
 ment, in which either the spirit of our Apostle manifestly ap- 
 pears, or ideas are expressed which more or less resemble his. 
 
 2. This is preeminently the case with the Gospel according 
 to Mark, in the contents and composition of which, Peter, ac- 
 cording to tradition, exerted an influence, the nature and extent 
 of which cannot here be more exactly determined. The more 
 
148 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 philosophical character exhibited in the Gospel according to 
 John is here wanting, as it is in the discourses and epistles of 
 our Apostle. The second Gospel begins at once with the bap- 
 tism of John, to end with the resurrection and ascension of 
 Jesus, and moves therefore exactly within the circle marked 
 out by Peter himself for a witness of the Lord (Acts 1, 21. 22). 
 It exhibits the traits of character distinctly exhibited by Jesus, 
 as possessing which Peter loved to represent him, and the per- 
 sonal remembrance of which were to him of the greatest value. 
 The dramatic force of the representation, the varying tone, and 
 the rapidity of transition in the narrative, involuntarily remind 
 us of the witness of the Lord, with whom in his discourses and 
 writings we have just become acquainted. 
 
 3. Something of the same kind may also be observed in re- 
 gard to Matthew. Whatever we may think of the perplexing 
 questions of Introduction which this Gospel presents to us, it 
 cannot be doubted that it exhibits a purely Palestinian char- 
 acter, and that so far the writer may be said to have a spirit 
 akin to Peter much more than to Paul or John. The evident 
 aim of the first Gospel to exhibit Jesus as the promised Messiah, 
 in the light of the prophetic Scriptures, is entirely in the spirit 
 of our Apostle. As in his preaching of Christ, in Acts 10, 38, 
 he attaches special importance to the miracles of the Lord, so 
 here we find a whole series of them brought' together (Matt, 
 chapters 8 and 9). Matthew, like Peter, announces the Lord as 
 Israel's Messiah, and also like the latter, without excluding the 
 heathen. No where, finally, are the eschatological discourses 
 of the Lord, which to the Apostle of hope possessed such a 
 priceless value, given so fully and in such order as in the first 
 Gospel. 
 
 4. Still less is it to be denied that Jude, the brother of James, 
 so far as he is known to us from his epistle, stands on the same 
 platform with Peter. Whatever conclusion we may come to as 
 to his person, and the relation of this Epistle to the Second 
 Epistle of Peter, the mode of conception peculiar to Peter is 
 also unmistakably present here. As a witness of Jesus Christ, 
 Jude also, although in few words, manifestly enough places the 
 Lord in the foreground. For Him Christians are preserved (vs. 
 1") ; He is the only Kuler and Lord (vs. 4), for whose compassion 
 
The Kindred Types of Doctrine. 149 
 
 unto everlasting life they wait (vs. 21), and through whom God 
 is to be glorified in the Church (vs. 25. On all these passages, 
 consult TISCHENDORF). Thus, Jude builds as with all the 
 apostles, so preeminently Peter upon one and the same found- 
 ation ; although, like Peter, he rather presupposes and intimates, 
 than actually declares, the Divine nature and dignity of the 
 Redeemer. The Old Testament coloring also belongs to his 
 teaching, in common with that of Peter. Like Peter, he makes 
 abundant use of sacred history, as that of Sodom (vs. 7), of 
 Moses (vs. 9), Balaam (vs. 11), and Enoch (vs. 14). He seems 
 also, in regard to this last, to have drawn upon an apocryphal 
 writing, which he accepts as authoritative. The hope of the 
 future is also brought into great prominence in this short epistle, 
 even though having regard to untruth and unrighteousness 
 it is especially contemplated on its terrible side. Like Peter 
 (1 Pet. 1, 5), Jude finally lays especial stress upon the preserva- 
 tion of believers unto everlasting life (vs. 1, 21. 24). 
 
 5. Especially, however, must we here mention the Epistle of 
 James, which fills, indeed, no large place, but, nevertheless, a 
 highly important one, in the first development of Christian 
 doctrine. The doctrine of this witness of the Lord contains 
 also besides that which it has in common with that of Peter 
 much that is peculiar to itself, especially as regards the exhibi- 
 tion of the person and work of the Lord. The actual name of 
 Jesus Christ is here only twice mentioned (1, 1 ; 2, 1), although 
 in several other places it may at least be questioned whether it 
 is not alluded to (2, 7 ; 5, 6. 7. 8. 14). On the great historic 
 facts in the life and saving work of Christ he preserves an en- 
 tire silence. The high-priestly work of our Lord also falls into 
 the background ; even His royal glory is spoken of only in 
 passing (2, 1); but louder than elsewhere we here catch the 
 faithful echo of His prophetic word. Many an exhortation of 
 the Epistle of James is, as it were, an echo of the Sermon on 
 the Mount, (e. g., 3, 11. 12 ; 4, 4 ; 5, 12), and proves how deeply 
 the author was penetrated with the spirit of his glorified 
 Brother. In the conception of God, it is principally the moral 
 attributes of God upon which stress is laid ; even His un- 
 changeableness is not only a characteristic, but a virtue, (1, 13- 
 17). Not less peculiar is the conception here found in relation 
 
150 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 to sin on the one hand, and grace on the other. James lays 
 great stress upon the fact that man was created originally after 
 God's image (3, 9 ; comp. Gen. 9, 6) ; but none the less does he 
 expressly affirm that sin is absolutely universal (3, 2), and, 
 above all, that in every case it is man's own fault (1, 13-18). 
 That he does not ignore the demoniacal origin of moral evil is 
 clear (2, 19 ; 3, 15 ; 4, 7) ; but the arising of sin within the man 
 at a particular moment he describes especially on its psycholog- 
 ical side (1, 14. 15), as also in the word, sin (efym^T/a), he thinks 
 rather of the sinful act than of the sinful principle (with him 
 <*TU#U ( /). On that account, he rather combats specific sins, 
 e. g., those of the tongue (3, 112), or of the rich against the 
 poor (5, 1-6), than (as, for instance, Paul, in Eom. 7,) probes to 
 its depths the discord within the sinful heart. But as this sin 
 brings forth death, in the widest sense of the word (1, 15 ; 5, 20), 
 grace is revealed it is true in its forgiving (5, 15), but espe- 
 cially in its sanctifying and new creating (1, 18) power. Grace 
 is received through faith, but only through such a faith as is 
 proved genuine by works (2, 14-26). The peculiar sense in 
 which the words justification^ faith, and works are used by James 
 as compared with Paul, serves as a clear proof that his object is 
 not to wage war against the ideas themselves which are found 
 in the writings of that Apostle, but to place a bridle upon the 
 one-sided Paulinism which showed itself in his vicinity. One 
 must certainly share Luther's antipathy for this "epistle of 
 straw," before asserting with him that "the Holy Ghost allowed 
 Sanct James to stumble a little." James, no less than Paul, 
 recognizes a faith which is nothing less than a firm confidence 
 of the heart (1, 6-8) ; but it is here not so much an opposition 
 of sin and grace as of knowing and doing (comp. John 13, 17), 
 which dominates his whole mode of thinking. 
 
 In regard, moreover, to his particular view of the essence of 
 Christianity, it is presented unquestionably in its purely reli- 
 gious and especially its ethical side. We see how, in this 
 short epistle, he exhorts repeatedly to prayer, even for others 
 (1, 5 ; 4, 2. 3 ; 5, 13-18) ; an exercise of the Christian life, to 
 which is assured, according to James, not merely a psycholog- 
 ical influence, but also a direct answer (1, 5-8; 5, 14-18). 
 He brings, as a rule, the commandments of the second table 
 
The Kindred Types of Doctrine. 151 
 
 into greater prominence than those of the first ; and we may 
 saj that the text and ground-tone of all his exhortations is 
 contained in a single sentence (1, 19) ; just as 1 Pet. 1. 13 is 
 the basis of all the exhortations which follow. Moral beauty 
 is that at which James, above all, aims (rete/o?, 1, 4. 25 ; 3, 2), 
 and Christianity is the great means of bringing man to this 
 perfection, and thus raising him to the highest rank (1, 18). 
 In self-denial and love to one's neighbor consists especially 
 the true religion here commended (1, 27). The Gospel itself 
 is, according to his view, a perfect law of liberty, whose pre- 
 cepts are all inseparably connected, and governed by the great 
 principle of love (2, 8-13). The whole Epistle of James bears, 
 consequently, rather a practical than a dogmatic character, and 
 contains (partly in highly poetic language) a moral teaching 
 which attaches itself partly to the utterances of the Lord, partly 
 to the precepts of the Book of Proverbs, and partly, also 
 what is nowhere else met with in the writings of the New 
 Testament to those of the son of Sirach. It is the task of 
 Biblical Introduction to find the key to this and other pecu- 
 liarities of this beautiful Epistle, in the individuality of the 
 writer, in the circumstances of his readers, and in the peculiar 
 aim of his writing. The Biblical Theology of the New Testa- 
 ment can only show that here, within a small compass, is laid 
 up a rare wealth of original, deeply Christian thoughts, which 
 show indeed the unquestionable independence of the writer, 
 but also his spiritual affinity with Peter. 
 
 6. In a Christological aspect, it is less rich than that of Peter, 
 and even than that of Jude ; but the fundamental conception of 
 the person of the Lord belongs to the same circle of thoughts, 
 and the Christian life, as it is here and there described, shows an 
 unmistakable relationship. The express mention of regenera- 
 tion through the word (1, 18 ; comp. 1 Pet. 1, 23), the powerful 
 exhortation to moral perfection (3, 1 ; comp. 1 Pet. 1, 15), the 
 magnifying of Christian joy, even under the severest trials, yea, 
 on account of them (1, 2-4 ; comp. 1 Pet. 1, 6-9 ; 4, 14), and 
 not less of compassion and love, in connection with the future 
 judgment (2, 13 ; 5, 20; comp. 1 Pet. 4, 8), is common to both. 
 We may say that the twofold tendency of the two Epistles of 
 Peter, consolation and exhortation, is, in the Epistle of James, 
 
152 Biblical Theology of the New Testament 
 
 blended in one. The Old Testament character, also, of the 
 Epistles of Peter will not be sought in vain in the Epistle of 
 James. Entirety in the spirit of the ancient prophets is, for 
 example, the mention of the jealousy (4, 6) of God : also the 
 appellation Jehovah Sabaoth (5, 4), which is found only here in 
 the New Testament, is in this respect noteworthy. "James 
 conceives of the old under new forms" (NEANDER). Only in 
 one respect is there an essential difference : Peter conceives of 
 the Gospel as, above all, the fulfilment of prophecy ; James, on 
 the other hand, as the fulfilment of the law. Finally, as 
 regards the hope which characterizes both epistles, the more 
 calm and practical James, though he has not the longing desire 
 of the ardent Peter, has this however, in common with him, 
 that he also constantly directs the eye from the present to the 
 future, and employs the approaching coming of the Lord, as a 
 powerful motive to a Christian spirit (5, 7. 8). His eye also is 
 fixed upon the crown of life (1, 12 ; comp. 1 Pet. 5, 4), which 
 is promised to the faithful warrior, but he has also regard to the 
 just retribution prepared for the oppressor of the poor brother 
 (5, 1-6). We must divorce expressions like these last entirely 
 from their connection, and regard them with very prejudiced 
 eyes, to find here no higher conception than that of quite a 
 flat specimen of Ebionitism (REUSS). 
 
 Compare, in addition to SCHMID, REUSS, and MESSNER, on 
 this subject, especially LANGE, Commentary, Introcl. to Epp. of 
 James and Jude ; DE PRESSENSE, Early Years of Christianity, 
 pp. 207-219 ; BONIFAS, 1. c. pp. 27 and following ; STIER, " The 
 Epistle of Jude, the brother of the Lord, r Berl. 1850. 
 
 Questions for consideration. Origin and extent of the Petrine 
 element in the Second Gospel. Peter and Matthew. The re- 
 lation between the Epistle of Jude and the Second Epistle of 
 Peter in regard to their doctrinal contents. How is the use 
 of an apocryphal writing in the Epistle of Jude to be explained, 
 and what judgment are we to form as to its citation ? Connec- 
 tion between the Epistle of James and the Synoptical Gospels. 
 Influence of Solomon, and Jesus the son of Sirach, upon the 
 contents and form of this Epistle. The peculiarity of its rep- 
 resentation of faith and works. "What is the sense of James 1, 
 27 ? The doctrine of the oath in James in connection with 
 
Result and Transition. 153 
 
 that in the Sermon on the Mount. Does James write polemi- 
 cally? Are there to be found in his Epistle traces also of 
 Ebionitish ideas ? How are the opposite judgments concerning 
 this epistle in earlier and later times to be explained ? 
 
 32. 
 Result and Transition. 
 
 The contents and form of the Petrine system of doctrines 
 correspond entirely to that which was to be expected of our 
 Apostle as elsewhere known to us, and bear the unmistakable 
 stamp of a rich originality. Although it is not to be denied 
 that between the ideas especially which are to be found in the 
 Apostle's first epistle and several epistles of Paul, there is a 
 certain affinity, yet the Petrine theology is by no means a 
 feeble copy of the Pauline, but preserves alongside the other 
 its independent character ; always, however, in such a sense that, 
 in the riches and depth of its doctrinal development, it stands 
 not above, but below the Paulina 
 
 1. In summing up at the end of this section, the total im- 
 pression received, we find a confirmation in many respects of 
 what we have previously ( 25) said, concerning the agreement 
 of the Petrine system of doctrine with what we have learnt 
 from other sources as to the individuality of this Apostle. 
 This agreement, rightly understood and used, affords an unex- 
 ceptionable contribution to the defence of the historic character 
 of the discourses, and the genuineness of the epistles ascribed to 
 Peter. But, at the same time, a glance at the kindred systems 
 of doctrine has convinced us of the great influence which the 
 Gospel of Peter exerted within his immediate circle, and conse- 
 quently, also, so far as it can be inferred therefrom, of the power 
 of his personality. His Gospel also forms an organic whole, 
 and by no means a mere aggregate of incoherent thoughts. 
 
 2. It is true we find in several of the epistles of Paul, es- 
 pecially in those to the Romans and Ephesians, expressions by 
 which we are quite involuntarily reminded of the first epistle 
 of Peter. (Comp. e. g., 1 Pet 1, 3, sqq. with Eph. 1, 3 ; 1 Peter 
 
 10 
 
154 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 1, 6-9 with Eom. 5, 3-5 ; 1 Peter 2, 6-7 with Eom. 9, 33.) The 
 investigation as to the causes of this remarkable phenomenon 
 belongs to the department of Introduction. But little as this 
 phenomenon on which so much has been said, justifies the 
 assertion of the Tubingen school that the first epistle of Peter 
 may be styled only an apology for Paulinism, palmed off by an 
 unknown adherent of Paul upon the Petrine Christians, still less 
 does it in any way affect the originality of the Petrine conception 
 of the Grospel, even in the (highly improbable) case that this 
 agreement must be explained by the use made, on the part of 
 Peter, of the Pauline epistles. In Peter we find not the echo of 
 another, but an independent, clear, and powerful voice of his own. 
 
 3. By this, however, we do not intend to say that the Petrine 
 system of doctrines comes up to, or towers above, the Pauline 
 in riches, depth, and power. The contrary will soon be mani- 
 fest from a survey of the latter. Fundamental thoughts of the 
 Gospel of Paul, as, for example, the doctrine of justification 
 through faith, are not found in this form in Peter. Truths and 
 duties, of which both remind us, are treated by Paul more 
 deeply and in a more many-sided way than by Peter, whose 
 literary remains are also much smaller than those of his fellow 
 Apostle. For one Petrine idea which is not touched by Paul, 
 there stand probably ten Pauline ones which are passed over in 
 silence by Peter. But much which is more fully explained by 
 Paul has been already hinted at by Peter ; and so far we may 
 truly say, "Peter belongs to the same school with James, but 
 he has passed the point of view of the School of the Law, and 
 presents to us already, the point of view of Paul" (BoNlFAs). 
 The best proof of the justice of this remark will be the treat- 
 ment, in the following chapter, of the Pauline theology. 
 
 Comp. WEISS, 1. c. S. 375 ff. ; MESSNER, I c. S. 55 ; BAUB, 
 I c. S. 217-297. 
 
 Questions for consideration. In what respect do single ex- 
 pressions of James and Peter correspond in subject-matter and 
 form with those of Paul ? Can we fairly maintain that the 
 epistles of James and Peter show a determined attempt at 
 reconciliation between Paulinism and Judaism ? To what ex- 
 tent does the Petrine theology, regarded as a whole, rise above 
 the Ebionitism of the Apostolic age ? 
 
The Pauline Theology. 155 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE PAULINE THEOLOGY. 
 
 33. 
 
 Preliminary Survey. 
 
 The Pauline doctrinal system embraces the rich contents of 
 all that which the Apostle Paul himself has called his Gospel, 
 so far as this is known to us from the Scriptures of the New 
 Testament, and especially from his own epistles. The intro- 
 ductory survey will delineate roughly the leading thought, the 
 character, the source, the value, and the history of the Pauline 
 theology, in order at the close to give an answer to the question, 
 how its treatment is to be conducted. 
 
 1. A much richer field than is to be found in the Petrine 
 theology opens itself to us in the Pauline. As the former 
 makes us acquainted with the Gospel which was proclaimed to 
 the Jewish Christians, so this more especially makes known to 
 us the glad tidings which Paul proclaimed in the Gentile world. 
 With all that the doctrine of the Apostle of the Gentiles has 
 in common with that of a Peter or a John, there is manifested, 
 at the same time, so much that is peculiar to himself, that Paul 
 was fully justified in speaking as he does of his Gospel (Eom. 
 2, 16, and elsewhere). 
 
 2. The Gospel of Paul is made known to us, not indeed ex- 
 clusively, but yet principally in the Scriptures of the New 
 Testament. Besides the Second Epistle of Peter, (3, 15. 16) 
 the Book of Acts (13, 16-41 ; 14, 15-17 ; 16, 31 ; 17, 3, 16-31 ; 
 20, 18-35 ; 22, 3-21 ; 23, 6 ; 24, 14-25 ; 26, 6-23 ; 28, 17-28) 
 makes us especially acquainted with the main contents of this 
 Gospel. But, above all, it is the thirteen Epistles which have 
 come down to us under his name, which some more, others 
 less afford us highly important materials for the prosecution 
 of this investigation. 
 
156 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 The question, on what ground we ascribe all these epistles 
 to Paul, belongs to the province of Criticism and Introduction. 
 In this place the assurance must be accepted that, in our esti- 
 mation, the genuineness of the whole thirteen is certainly to be 
 acknowledged, although we admit that this genuineness, in the 
 case of some, can be more satisfactorily defended than in the 
 case of others. Of the authenticity of the greater part, a power- 
 ful defence has been quite recently put forth ; of others, the 
 authenticity has never, on scientific grounds, been disputed. 
 We adopt, in this respect, without reserve the stand-point 
 which, until within the last few years, was accepted by almost 
 all theologians, whether of a more conservative or more advan- 
 ced school, both within our own country and beyond it ; and 
 we continue to hold it, not because the new is unknown to us, 
 but because, in our view, uncritical and arbitrary speculation 
 constantly usurps the place of thorough and impartial science. 
 While, for this reason, we do not entirely except from our 
 examination any one of the Pauline epistles, they must natu- 
 rally at least in regard to the most important points be con- 
 sulted in that order in which they were probably written. 
 During a period of about twelve years, which lay between the 
 composition of the earliest and the latest epistle, the spiritual 
 development of Paul was certainly not stationary. These 
 epistles are probably to be arranged in the following manner : 
 1. The two to the Thessalonians ; 2. The Epistle to the Gala- 
 tians ; 3. The two Epistles to the Corinthians ; 4. The Epis- 
 tle to the Romans; 5. Those to the Ephesians, Colossians, 
 Philemon, and Philippians ; 6. The Pastoral Epistles. 
 
 It cannot by any means be shown that another Gospel is to be 
 read in those epistles the genuineness of which has been denied, 
 or held suspected, by critics of the Old or New Tubingen 
 school, than in the four which the first-named have magnani- 
 mously left to us. It is on this account not necessary on every 
 point to consult these four before listening to the testimony of 
 either of the others. On disputed points, however, of special 
 importance, we cannot, at the present time, entirely neglect this 
 distinction. Besides this, also, an especial value in regard to 
 specific subjects is to be attached to particular epistles above 
 others : e. g., for soteriology, to the Epistles to the Romans and 
 
The Pauline Theology. 157 
 
 Galatians ; for ecclesiology, to that to the Ephesians ; for escha- 
 tology, to those to the Corinthians, &c. 
 
 3. In order to become at home in the Pauline theology, it is 
 of importance to discover the ground-thought which, to a cer- 
 tain extent, shapes the doctrinal teaching of this Apostle. It 
 is the doctrine of justification through faith which, more than 
 anything else, according to Paul, makes the Gospel to be God's 
 power unto salvation (Rom. 1, 16-17). Not only in the epis- 
 tles to the Romans and Galatians, but also in that to the Philip- 
 pians (3, 4r-ll), this truth is expressed, evidently as a favorite 
 one, and in a form, which links it at once with the language of 
 the Old Testament (Gen. 15, 6) and with the teaching of the 
 Lord Himself (Luke 18, 14), a form also especially familiar and 
 attractive to the Jewish Christians. The utter impossibility of 
 justification on the ground of the works of law, and the com- 
 pleteness of the justification by grace in Christ, this is the main 
 thought which Paul is never weary of expressing in manifold 
 forms, and applying to every variety of necessities and condi- 
 tions. 
 
 4. By this main thought of the Pauline theology, the pecu- 
 liar character of the form and subject-matter is at the same 
 time determined. The character of the subject-matter is in 
 general soteriological ; salvation in Christ is here, as far as 
 possible, presented for contemplation on all sides, while the 
 great antithesis of sin and grace is ever anew placed in the 
 foreground. Still more decidedly this doctrine may be said to 
 bear an anthropological character. Paul does not, like Peter, 
 take his point of departure in the prophetic Scriptures, or, like 
 John, in the person of the Saviour, but in Man, with his deep- 
 est wants, as they are awakened by the law, but can be satisfied 
 only by the Gospel. And this satisfaction, according to the 
 genuine universalism of the Apostle, is designed and attainable, 
 not merely for some, but for all. The fact that Christianity is 
 the religion for the world, although ignored by none of his 
 fellow-witnesses, is yet declared by none more powerfully than 
 by him (comp. Acts 13, 38. 39 ; Rom. 3, 21-24). The form also 
 in which all this is expressed by him, is in the highest degree 
 striking and appropriate ; for in point of form the whole Paul- 
 ine theology is decidedly antithetical. Law and Gospel, works 
 
158 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 and faith, flesh, and spirit, death and life, condemnation and 
 justification, form an impressive series of powerful antitheses. 
 The key to this peculiar character of his whole doctrinal 
 system, both as to subject-matter and to form, is to be found in 
 the experience of the Apostle's own life. 
 
 5. The source of the Pauline theology was partly, but not 
 entirely, the same as that of his fellow-witnesses. From 2 Cor. 
 5, 16 (xutrd <7<iox, after a fleshly standard), it would seem that he 
 had not personally known Christ ; certainly he had not (like 
 the Twelve) held converse with Him and received instruction 
 from Him. He himself says that he received not his Gospel of 
 man, or by man, and points to special revelation from Jesus 
 Christ as the source of his teaching (Gal. 1, 1-17). The revela- 
 tion granted to him at and after his conversion was subsequently 
 continued from time to time in regard to particular points 
 (1 Cor. 7, 25 ; Bph. 3, 3 ; 1 Thess. 4, 15). The Christian tradi- 
 tion also was, from the nature of the case, known to him (1 Cor. 
 
 11, 23 naqilnfiov). The revelation of God in nature, history 
 and conscience, had been attentively observed by him (Kom. 
 I. u) ; and even his education by Gamaliel (Acts 22, 3), had 
 not been by any means without influence on his subsequent 
 mode of thinking. Accurately acquainted with the Old Testa- 
 ment, and the peculiar mode of interpreting Scripture prevalent 
 in his day (comp. Gal. 4, 24), and even not unacquainted with 
 Greek literature (e. g., Acts 17, 28 ; Tit. 1, 12 ; 1 Cor. 15, 33), 
 he could perceive the truth more clearly than many others, and 
 express it with greater force. All this, however, would not 
 have made Paul to be Paul, had not the gift of the Holy Ghost 
 been bestowed upon him in rich measure (1 Cor. 2, 13 ; 7, 40 ; 
 
 12, 7), through which the mystery of the Gospel was revealed 
 to him in immediate connection with his own inner need and 
 his own life-experience. Consequently, we may say that the 
 sanctified personality of Paul or, traced back to its first 
 beginning, his conversion is the key to his whole doctrine. 
 The theology of Paul was, in the deepest and richest sense of 
 the word, the theology of experience. 
 
 6. The value of the Pauline theology has been sometimes 
 ignored, sometimes over-estimated ; the latter, in the case of 
 the Tubingen school, which has discovered in Paul the father 
 
The Pauline Theology. 159 
 
 of Christian universalism ; the former by the vulgar Rational- 
 ism, in placing the zealot of Tarsus far beneath, yea, in opposi- 
 tion to the Eabbi of Nazareth, a position to which the "modern 
 theology " is in danger of sinking, whenever its idle attempt to 
 make Paul the apologist of its liberality and negation turns out 
 to be hopeless. Avoiding both extremes, it is certain that 
 the Pauline theology is of the highest value, partly in itself, 
 in that it contains a many-sided, profound, faithful, and power- 
 ful presentation of the Gospel ; partly in comparison with that 
 of others, whom he either surpasses (Peter and James), or for 
 whom in turn he prepares the way (John) ; partly, finally, on 
 account of the great influence which the testimony of Paul has 
 exerted in the course of ages, and still continues to exert 
 Though he was not the founder of Christianity (1 Cor. 1, 13), 
 he has been the founder of the Grentile Church, and the spirit- 
 ual father of millions (1 Cor. 4, 15). Augustine and Luther 
 sat at his feet ; his spirit lives again in Protestantism, and even 
 the little which the criticism of the present day allows to be 
 genuinely Pauline, is sufficient to exhibit the follv of the 
 naturalistic unbelief which decks itself with the name of Chris- 
 tianity. 
 
 7. It is on this account gratifying that the history of the 
 scientific treatment of the Pauline theology, although dating 
 only from the beginning of this century, is by no means insig- 
 nificant. Without saying anything in this place of the earlier 
 and less successful attempts, we draw attention to the merito- 
 rious work of L. USTEKI, Paulin. Lehrbegr., sixth edition, 1851. 
 Himself a pupil of Schleiermacher of whom, by the talent 
 displayed in this work, he shows himself a worthy successor 
 he has penetrated more deeply than any of his predecessors 
 into the spirit of the Apostle. Deserving also of attention is 
 the examination of the Pauline theology in the second part of 
 NEANDER'S History of the Planting and Training of the Christian 
 Church, and that of F. C. BAUR in his Paulus, Stuttgard, 1845, 
 S. 505-670. The writings of DAHNE (1835) and LUTZELBER- 
 GER (1839), on the Doctrinal System of Paul, will not bear 
 comparison with the three just named. At the same time, 
 besides what is contained in the writings, so frequently cited, 
 of SCHMID, MESSNER, and BEUSS, more or less of attention has 
 
160 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 been devoted to the matter and manner of Paul's teaching, in 
 the treatment of the history of the Apostolic age by LECHLEK, 
 SCHAFF, DE PRESSENSE, RITZSCHL (second edition), and others. 
 Among our Dutch theologians, Dr. I. DA COSTA'S Paulus (2 
 parts, Leiden, 1846, 1847) is especially worthy of mention. 
 The theologians, also, of the Groningen school, in the first vol- 
 umes of Waarheid in Liefde (1837 and following), with differ- 
 ent writers of the Leyden and Utrecht schools, have made 
 contributions to the understanding of single parts of the Pauline 
 system, of which we shall presently speak. 
 
 8. After a glance at so many examples partly warning, 
 partly encouraging the question as to the best manner of 
 dealing with the Pauline doctrinal system cannot be difficult to 
 answer. The ground-thought of the Apostle's teaching already 
 mentioned, determines at the same time the course of our 
 investigation, which naturally attaches itself to his own state- 
 ment, Rom. 3, 21. 22. We must especially have regard to the 
 Apostle's distinction of the time before Christ and after Christ, 
 and must necessarily occupy ourselves for a much longer period 
 with the latter than with the former. We inquire, consequently, 
 first what he testifies of humanity and the individual man, 
 out of Christ, and then what he testifies of both in and through 
 Christ. When, after taking into account, as far as possible or 
 necessary, the chronological succession of his teachings, we 
 have examined them in relation to one another, and have 
 brought them into a compact whole, we shall as at the end of 
 the previous division of our subject proceed to examine the 
 kindred cycles of doctrine. 
 
 Compare on Paul and the Pauline theology in general, be- 
 sides the oft-named works of SCHMID, REUSS, MESSNER, BAUK, 
 and others, the consultation of which, even without constant 
 reiteration, is tacitly recommended for all the following sections, 
 especially the article Paulus, by LANGE, in HERZOG, as also the 
 General Introduction to his Commentary on the Epistle to the 
 Romans. Also A. MONOD, St. Paul, Five Discourses; Cony- 
 beare and Howson, Life and Letters of St. Paul; SYMAR, "the 
 Theology of St. Paul exhibited," Freib. im. Br. 1864. (R.C.); 
 HAUSRATH, " Paul the Apostle of Jesus; TRIP, " Paul according 
 to the Acts of the Apostles" Leid. 1866. On the genuineness 
 
The Pauline Theology. 161 
 
 of the Thirteen Epistles, SCHOLTEN, "Introduction to the N. T." 
 Leid. 1856. On the Gospel of Paul, a Latin Dissertatio of J. 
 VAN LOENEN, Gron., 1863. 
 
 Questions for consideration. What does Paul mean by his 
 Gospel, Rom'. 2, 16; 16, 25; 2 Tim. 2, 8? What knowledge 
 of Paulinism, beyond that derived from the New Testament, 
 can we draw from the early Christian literature ? Is the Paul 
 of the Acts and of the Epistles the same ? What is the sense 
 of 2 Cor. 5, 16? What of Gal. 1, 16? What of 1 Cor. 11, 23? 
 To what extent was Paul experimental ? In what relation does 
 Paul place himself to his fellow Apostles ? How is the great 
 influence of the Pauline theology to be explained? General 
 survey and criticism of some other divisions and modes of 
 treatment of the subject. 
 
 FIRST DIVISION. 
 MANKIND AND THE INDIVIDUAL MAN, BEFOEE AND OUT OF CHRIST. 
 
 34. 
 The Heathen and Jewish World. 
 
 According to the teaching of Paul, the whole heathen world 
 lies sunk in a condition of godlessness and immorality which 
 can neither be extenuated nor excused, and which must, there- 
 fore fear and endure God's righteous judgment. Although the 
 Jewish world was originally irradiated by purer light, it stands 
 in a moral respect so little above the other, that it also deserves 
 the same judgment. Since both, consequently, are under sin, 
 the whole world is guilty before God, and absolutely unable 
 to justify itself in His sight. 
 
 1. Although the misery of the individual man and of the 
 race before and out of Christ is either presupposed or actually 
 expressed by all the Apostles, yet no one has given so full a 
 description of this condition as the Apostle Paul. His exten- 
 
162 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 sive knowledge of the world and of men, combined with the 
 personal experience of his life, qualified him for this work ; 
 and his object to prove that the Gospel was absolutely indis- 
 pensable could scarcely be better attained. The locus classicus 
 on this point is Rom. 1, 18-3, 20, with which must especially 
 be compared Acts 15, 15-17 ; 17, 24-29. 
 
 2. Heathenism is, in the view of the Apostle, by no means 
 merely a lower stage of the religious life, but in its origin and 
 growth the consequence of a most melancholy defection from 
 God ; for the heathen had the capacity for recognizing God, and 
 even to a certain extent have actually recognized Him (Rom. 1, 
 18-21). He revealed himself to them, not only through the 
 works of nature, but also in the original light of conscience 
 (Rom. 2, 14, 15 ; comp. Acts 14, 17). In consequence of this, 
 they possessed some natural acquaintance with God, and were 
 conscious of that which God demands (Rom. 1, 32). Notwith- 
 standing all his degradation, man was, in the ^ words of one of 
 their own poets, of Divine descent, and felt, as such, an obscure 
 but powerful impulse to seek Him in whom the true foundation 
 of his being lay (Acts 17, 27. 28). The Apostle does justice 
 to the aesthetical worth of heathenism, as well as its religious 
 aspiration (Acts 17, 22. 23) ; but beneath this transparent robe 
 he sees a corruption whose depth, with firm hand, he probes 
 and lays bare. 
 
 3. Heathenism, which prides itself upon its wisdom, is the 
 fruit of a darkened understanding ; and this blinding of the 
 understanding has its source in a heart estranged from God 
 (Rom. 1, 21 ; Eph. 4, 18). The estrangement of the heart first 
 became manifest in the inexcusable neglect of Him. It refused 
 to praise and glorify God, and through unrighteousness forci- 
 bly restrained the operation of the truth (Rom. 1, 18, xcnx VT *s 
 xty tiMfleiav.) Having thus gone out of the way, men began to 
 contend about the truth which the darkened eye could no lon- 
 ger clearly see, and attained to the climax of folly, which in 
 turn was made manifest in the most terrible transgression. In 
 the estimation of Paul, the highly-lauded heathenism is nothing 
 but a deification of nature (Rom. 1, 21-25) ; the perversion of 
 creatures into objects of idolatrous worship, i. e., the theoretical 
 and practical denial of God ; godlessness in the garb of religion. 
 
The Heathen and Jewish World. 163 
 
 4. Sin necessarily brings with it its own punishment : man 
 who has lost God, loses also himself. Immorality is a natural 
 consequence of ungodliness ; but a consequence which has its 
 ground in God's holy will, and is, therefore, a revelation of 
 His righteous judgment (Rom. 1, 18). Impure desire, which 
 even manifests itself in an unnatural form, first becomes asso- 
 ciated with idolatry ; and the sinful passion combines with 
 animosity and hatred towards all that which opposes the grati- 
 fication of unbridled sensuality and selfishness (Rom. 1, 25-31). 
 Thus is sin punished by sin ; and this punishment is the more 
 appropriate, not only because the sin is practiced in spite of 
 better knowledge, but also a fine pyschological trait, although 
 a terrible one because at the same time there is united with 
 this an unconcealed pleasure in those who do the same (Rom. 1, 
 32). 
 
 5. On a superficial observation, it might appear as though 
 Judaism stood, in a religious and moral aspect, far above 
 heathenism. It had, in reality, inestimable privileges and ad- 
 vantages. God had allowed the Gentiles to walk in their own 
 ways, in that He conferred upon them no extraordinary reve- 
 lation, while, on the other hand, this was granted to Israel 
 (Acts 14, 16 ; Rom. 3, 2). But so much the less might the Jew 
 exalt himself above the Gentile, since he, notwithstanding, 
 became guilty of the same sins (Rom. 2, 1). It is true, his 
 perverseness shows itself in another form : according to Paul, 
 not so much voluptuousness as pride is the ruling sin of the 
 Jews self-conceit and harshness (Rom. 2, 17, sqq.), united with 
 an obdurate impenitence in presence of the judgments of God 
 (Rom. 2, 4. 5). But so far from this modified form of sin de- 
 serving a lesser punishment, the Jewish transgressor has, on 
 the other hand, to expect especial tribulation and anguish, 
 because he has sinned not only like the heathen against a 
 natural law, but against a positive command (Rom. 2, 9-12). 
 Outward circumcision avails nothing: conscientious Gentiles 
 deserve the preference over unconscientious Jews (Rom. 2, 25- 
 29). Thus, these last have not the slightest advantage in a 
 moral respect, although they are privileged in a theocratic 
 sense, and Paul expresses it with the same inflexible severity 
 as John the Baptist and Jesus himself all pharisaic pride must 
 
164: Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 be humbled. After having powerfully repelled the possible 
 objection that upon such a supposition the whole value of cir- 
 cumcision vanishes (Rom. 3, 1-8), he appeals for the justice ol 
 this his judgment (Rom. 3, 9-19), to their own law (Rom. 3, 19), 
 i. e., to words of the whole Old Testament, especially regarded 
 in its moral aspect. The description there given of the wicked- 
 ness of the enemies of God, applies not less to the Jews than 
 to the Gentiles ; and since these two represent the totality of 
 the sinful world, it is easy to infer his judgment upon the 
 melancholy condition of the same. 
 
 6. It is, then, manifest that all are " under sin" (Rom. 3, 9), 
 i e., not merely sinners, but governed by the power of sin. 
 The absolute universality of sin is, according to Paul, a fact 
 proved successively by Scripture, by experience, and by con- 
 sciousness ; and had he foreseen the objection that his represen- 
 tation of the then Jewish and Gentile world, even supposing it 
 to be a purely accurate one, proves nothing in regard to other 
 individuals living at a later period, he would assuredly have 
 answered that human nature remains the same in all ages. He 
 directs the eye to the mass, as it divides itself in this way into 
 two only apparently dissimilar halves, but thereby expresses at 
 the same time his judgment upon the individuals themselves 
 (comp. Rom. 3, 23; 5, 12; 11, 32). Result: "All the world 
 is guilty before God," i. e., subject to the curse with which the 
 law visits transgression (Rom. 3, 19 ; Gal. 3, 13). 
 
 7. Therefore, also, it follows that no flesh can be justified 
 by works of law. In this inevitable conclusion (Rom. 3, 20), 
 is pronounced the righteous judgment of God upon the whole 
 Jewish and Gentile world. How heavily this judgment presses 
 upon it, we shall hereafter see. For the present, we are con- 
 cerned, first of all, with the question, What is the cause of 
 such a lamentable condition ? 
 
 Compare, for the explaining and confirming of Paul's judg- 
 ment on the heathen and Jewish world, in addition to the 
 well-known writings of THOLUCK, SEPP, DE PKESSENSE, and 
 others, our " Life of Jesus" 2nd ed. I. bl. 265, and following. 
 On Paul's representation of the misery of mankind without 
 Christ, and of the period before Christ, two essays in Wdarh. en 
 L. 1837. On Paul's Natural Theology, HEBAKT, " The Natural 
 Theology of the Apostle Paul,' 11 Nurnberg, 1860. 
 
The Cause of this Condition. 165 
 
 Questions for consideration. Does Paul's, judgment upon 
 heathenism, Acts 17, 16 and following, perfectly agree with 
 his judgment in Rom. 1, 18 and following? Value of his 
 judgment upon Judaism. What is the sense of Rom. 2, 14 
 15 ? What logical force has the argument, Kom. 3, 9-20 ? 
 
 35. 
 The Cause of this Condition. 
 
 The cause of this condition lies in the moral corruption of 
 man, which, arising from the disobedience of our first parents, 
 infects his whole nature, manifests itself in various degrees and 
 forms, and being by the law not simply bridled, but also 
 nourished necessarily leads to death as the wages of sin. 
 
 1. The question, Whence moral evil ? was not only the life- 
 question of the Gnosticism of the second century, but also a 
 main question of the Christian gnosis of the first century. 
 Paul also furnishes an answer to it, and there is no reason to 
 see in this answer merely an impure fragment of his former 
 Jewish theology. Hardly would the Apostle have adopted into 
 his Christian doctrinal system what he had learned from the 
 Old Testament, had he not, enlightened by the spirit of truth, 
 regarded it as the true solution of the point in question. With 
 full confidence, we will now direct our attention as well to his 
 historical as to his psychological explanation of the origin of 
 sin. 
 
 2. Sin (AfiaQria) is not with Paul, as with James and Peter, a 
 sinful act, but a culpable principle, a power, which at a given 
 time began to rule in the world. Sin " by one man entered 
 into the world" (Rom. 5, 12). What is suggested by this word 
 (eiariWe) is confirmed by other texts. More fully than any of 
 his predecessors does Paul express himself as to the origin of a 
 kingdom of darkness, of personal evil spirits, divided into dif- 
 ferent classes (Eph. 6, 12), fallen apparently through pride 
 (1 Tim. 8, 6), and who, constantly active in the idolatrous 
 heathen world (1 Cor. 10, 20), show themselves most hostile 
 to the kingdom of Christ and his servants (2 Cor. 2, 10. 11). 
 
166 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 That lie regards Satan as the author of the Fall, is not, 
 indeed, directly stated, but is in the highest degree probable 
 (2 Cor. 11, 3. 14 ; comp. John 8, 44 ; also Book of Wisdom 2, 
 23. 24). He does not, however, enlarge upon this point, be- 
 cause he has not to do with the metaphysical, but with the 
 historical origin of sin. He contemplates the world of men 
 (xdapos) as a unity, and declares that into it sin entered by one 
 man, Adam, (not Eve, as has been inferred from 1 Tim. 2, 14). 
 He means thereby not merely that Adam was the first sinner, 
 whose example is directly followed by all, but as becomes 
 evident from the contrast between Adam and Christ that 
 between this first act of transgression and the sin which after- 
 wards reigned, there exists a definite connection. In what 
 this connection consists is indicated by what immediately fol- 
 lows : " Death by sin, and so death passed through to all men, 
 for that (<V <*>) all have sinned;" and that not only in Adam, 
 but also in themselves, as is manifest from the fact that death is 
 universal, even among those who have not, like Adam, broken 
 a positive command (Rom. 5, 13. 14). Still more clearly does 
 the Apostle point out the true connection when he says (vs. 19) 
 that, " through one man's transgression many were made (con- 
 stituted) sinners," in other words have become sinners. If, in 
 addition to this, we follow out the hint he gives us in his asser- 
 tion, that the Jews as well as the Grentiles were by nature 
 (qouo-et, indole sua, Bph. 2, 3), children of wrath, and in his 
 more general statement, that death came through a man (8S 
 d*'%d7rov), (1 Cor. 15, 21), we have a perfect right to maintain 
 that, according to Paul, human nature has become corrupt in 
 consequence of its descent from, and its connection with, the 
 first transgressor ; and that death is by no means the conse- 
 quence of the original organization of our nature, but penalty, 
 the wages of sin (Eom. 6, 23). 
 
 Paul evidently implies, therefore, that the first man was 
 originally neither sinful nor mortal. This is not in any way 
 opposed by the fact that he elsewhere speaks of the first man 
 as earthy (1 Cor. 15, 45-47), for earthy (xoixbg) is not the same 
 as evil It is, moreover, scarcely to be supposed that Paul re- 
 garded matter (My) as the origin of sin, which would necessarily 
 lead to the execrable conception of God as the cause of sin (Rom. 
 
The Cause of this Condition. 167 
 
 3, 8). He speaks, on the contrary, of the original image of God 
 in man (Eph. 4, 23-24 ; Colos. 3, 9-10), and designates knowl- 
 edge and holiness as lineaments thereof. While the first man, 
 as such, was, indeed, a material being, there was involved in 
 this the possibility only, not the necessity, of dying. That the 
 possibility became a reality, is the especial consequence of sin. 
 Sin and death are with Paul correlative ideas. 
 
 3. Since, then, sin has infected human nature, it lies in the 
 nature of the case that it has denied the whole man. In order 
 rightly to apprehend the Apostle's conception of the psycholog- 
 ical origin and the compass of sin in man, we must understand 
 his anthropology. Paul is a trichotomist that is, he distin- 
 guishes body, soul, and spirit This is shown with especial 
 clearness in his prayer for the Thessalonians (1 Thes. 5, 23). 
 Even to the man who is unregenerate, the Apostle ascribes in 
 distinction from the soul (VVXTJ), a spirit (nvevna) ; which, how- 
 ever, must be entirely renewed (Eph. 4, 23). To the spirit there 
 is opposed, in the natural man, as a ruling power, the trd^, i. e., 
 the flesh by no means equivalent to body, a&fia the proper 
 seat of sin (Rom. 7, 17. 18). By the word flesh, we are not to 
 understand the dominion of the senses in that case, contrary to 
 the assertion of Paul (1 Tim. 4, 8), bodily discipline (asceticism) 
 would be the best way to perfection, and it would be absolutely 
 inexplicable how precisely the most spiritual of all sins, pride 
 and want of affection, could be reckoned among the works of 
 the flesh (Gal. 5. 20; Colos. 2, 18-23) but (in the ethical sense 
 of the word) the unsanctified human nature, as it opposes itself 
 in a hostile manner to God, and all that is of God.* As the 
 sinful man stands, through his spirit, in relationship with God, 
 so does he, through his flesh, stand in relationship with the visi- 
 ble world, which offers to the desire of the flesh (intdvpioi) a thou- 
 sand attractive but forbidden objects. Life according to the 
 flesh is consequently of necessity not a life of love, but of selfish- 
 ness (2 Cor. 5, 15), the poisonous root, out of which grow of 
 themselves, as it were, two opposite branches, the sins of pride 
 and of sensuality. 
 
 Sin, as a principle (sinfulness) manifests itself in the act of 
 
 * Zapf is not smj/za, but = orw/za + ifn>xij, in opposition to irvevpa. On this ac- 
 count, also, the same thing is in the main implied by oapxiKoc and IJWXIKOC u 
 
168 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 disobedience in the doing of what is not becoming. This Paul 
 indicates by different words na^dnTM/na naQ&favig, Ttagaxo^ &nsi- 
 deux, tidixia. Out of the heart, the central point of the person- 
 ality, proceeds this evil power, darkening the understanding, 
 and misusing, like a tyrant, the different members of the body 
 as so many weapons (Ma) wherewith to wage its shameful war- 
 fare against God and that which is good (Rom. 6, 13). If man 
 yields to it, he becomes, in his whole inner and outer life, en- 
 tirely under the dominion of the flesh sold under sin. Hence 
 the expressions, "to be in the flesh," u to live after the flesh," 
 "to mind the things of the flesh," as indicating this melancholy 
 condition. Without doubt, Paul concedes to the sinful man 
 the power of free self-determination, inasmuch as voluntarily, 
 even arbitrarily, he sins against God (Rom. 1, 28) ; how could 
 man otherwise be held guilty and worthy of punishment 
 (Rom. 2, 1)? Yea, even the heathen has in his conscience a 
 lawgiver and an inflexible judge (Rom. 2, 15) ; and in this very- 
 conscience does the gospel seek and find in every man its secret 
 point of contact (2 Cor. 4, 2 ; 5, lib). But in the sinner, under- 
 standing and conscience are both defiled (Tit. 1, 15) ; and where 
 his heart has become insensible, he has given himself up entirely 
 to the service of unrighteousness (Eph. 4, 19). In such a con- 
 dition, it is impossible to speak of the moral freedom of the sin- 
 ner ; sin is, in Paul's eyes, no infirmity, but a fatal power, which 
 in spite of all protests of the reason and conscience, bears 
 away the victory over the natural man. It may rise so high 
 as not merely to blind, but harden the man, and even to cause 
 him to find a natural pleasure in moral evil as such (Rom. 1, 
 32 ; Eph. 4, 19). 
 
 4. After what has been said, we cannot be surprised that the 
 Apostle declares the mind of the flesh to be enmity against God 
 and His law (Rom. 8, 7). So much the more natural, however ? 
 is the question, in what relation, according to his view, the law 
 stands to sin. When Paul mentions the law (6 v6[ios), he or- 
 dinarily means the Mosaic law, in its whole compass of moral 
 and ceremonial commands, as the rule of life ordained by God. 
 The law is by no means something sinful in itself, much less the 
 cause of evil. It is true, indeed, as a general fact, that no sin is 
 possible without law, but then, law is possible without sin. The 
 
The Cause of this Condition. 169 
 
 law is, in its contents and aim, holy, and just, and good (Rom. 
 7, 12 ; Gal. 3, 12). It was given " because of the transgressions," 
 (Gal. 3, 19), i. e., in order to restrain them it was added to the 
 promise ; it was like a stern disciplinarian, who brings unruly 
 boys under control by holding over them the rod (Gal. 3, 24. 25). 
 To this extent it exerts, after its own manner, a healthful reaction 
 against the power of sin, and teaches man to recognize it as 
 sin, i. e., as the cause of guilt and punishment (Rom. 3, 20; 7, 
 7). But in spite of this, its excellent aim, the operation even 
 of the best law can, for the sinful man, be only fraught with 
 destruction. Without the law sin is dead (Rom. 7, 8), but 
 through the commandment it revives. The law awakens in the 
 sinner the slumbering desire after that which is evil, and calls 
 forth on his part resistance against its own imperative require- 
 ments. Thus it becomes the power of sin (1 Cor. 15, 56) a 
 power which not only reveals sin, but also constantly increases 
 it ; yea, even was with this last aim appointed by God himself, 
 inasmuch as He willed that, through the increase of sin, the 
 need of redemption should be more deeply felt, and the revela- 
 tion of His grace so much the more highly prized. The law, 
 however, produces only wrath (Rom. 4, 15) ; the transgression 
 of it incurs necessarily the manifestation of His displeasure, 
 and thereby brings the transgressor into a condition of slavish 
 fear, which excludes all love, and renders the estrangement only 
 greater (Rom. 8, 15). On this account, also, no law is able to 
 give life to the sinner (Gal. 3, 21), that is to say, to give him the 
 true life of the spirit, which would enable him to fulfill God's 
 will out of love. By works of the law. therefore, i. e., works 
 which the sinful man performs from the stand-point of law, can 
 no flesh be justified before God (Rom. 3, 20). To him who 
 fulfills the law, life is promised ; he who transgresses it has 
 thereby forfeited his life ; restoration to God's favor and friend- 
 ship by the fulfilling of the law is so impossible that all who 
 proceed on this principle must, on the contrary, expect the 
 curse (Gal. 3, 10). 
 
 In a word, the Mosaic law had regarded from a Christian 
 stand-point only a temporary and provisional worth. There 
 
 * On the distinction between vopos and 6 vouof as used by Paul, see VAN HEN 
 GEL on Rom. 2, 12. [Also, WINER, New Test, Grammar, 19.] 
 
 11 
 
170 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 was a time when all mankind objectively (Rom. 5, 13), and 
 Paul subjectively (Rom. 7, 9), lived without the law. A time 
 arrives for the Christian, in which he no longer stands under 
 the law as a controlling and condemning power (Rom. 6, 15). 
 But until this time has come, sin and misery are only increased 
 by the law. It can hold forth the ideal before the sinner's eye, 
 but can never render the attainment thereof possible. 
 
 5. Thus sin brings death, just because it is wrought in op- 
 position to the command of the law. Necessarily it is now 
 imputed (Rom. 5, 13), as well on this side as on the other side 
 of the grave. The sinner comes short of the glory (<%) of God, 
 i. e., of the honor which he would have had with Gk>d, had he 
 not sinned and become exposed to the righteous judgment 
 which concentrates itself in death (Rom. 6, 21 ; comp. Gen. 2, 
 17). The Pauline idea of death is not easily denned in all its 
 fullness. It is evident at a glance that we are not justified in 
 restricting it to physical death alone, nor in entirely rejecting 
 this idea. In every case the idea of spiritual death is also in- 
 cluded (Eph. 2, 1. 5 ; Colas. 2, 13 ; Eph. 5, 14) ; and we can- 
 not overlook the fact that death is, in the full sense the wages 
 of sin, inasmuch as it ends in irretrievable perdition (andteux). 
 That Paul had also this latter in his mind, is clear from the 
 antithesis of death and the gracious gift of eternal life (Rom. 
 6, 23). In the idea of death there is united, consequently, that 
 of the greatest spiritual, temporal and everlasting wretchedness ; 
 and in the language of the Apostle, now this, now the other 
 side of his subject comes into prominence. Spiritual death 
 leads to temporal, and this passes over into eternal death 
 (2 Cor. 7, 10). 
 
 Comp., on the principal points herein treated of, especially 
 ERNESTI, " Of the origin of sin according to the doctrinal system of 
 Paul," 2 Thle., Gott, 1863-64; TIJSSEN, Diss. Theol Pauli, 
 Anthropologiam exhibens, Gron., 1847. On the law, HAMEKSTEK, 
 Diss. Theol. de lege e Pauli Ap. sententid, Gron., 1838; RITZSCHL, 
 " The Rise of the ancient Catholic Church" 2 Aufl. 1857, S. 
 63-76. 
 
 Questions for consideration. By what peculiarities is the 
 demonology of Paul distinguished ? What significance for his 
 
Its Consequences. 171 
 
 doctrine concerning man has the history of the Fall ? The 
 trichotomy of man in the writings of Paul. Paul's doctrine of 
 the conscience. What is the sense of Gal. 2, 19? What of 
 1 Tim. 1, 8-10, as compared with the view taken of the law in 
 the Epistles to the Komans and Galatians ? Is, in Paul's teach- 
 ing, even natural death to be regarded as a positive punishment 
 of sin ? 
 
 36. 
 
 Its Consequences. 
 
 Subject to the power of sin and death, man is reduced to a 
 state of woful discord, the traces of which are apparent even in 
 the natural world and the consciousness of which, when it is 
 once awakened, cannot but render him unspeakably wretched. 
 In the feeling of this wretchedness is given, nevertheless, at the 
 same time, the point at which inner receptiveness for the bless- 
 ings of salvation begins. 
 
 1. However sad the condition into which sin has brought 
 man ( 35), it would be less unendurable if the man were 
 entirely sunk in the sinner. This, however, according to the 
 teaching of our Apostle, is certainly not the case ; the original 
 nature of man has been corrupted, indeed, by sin, but by no 
 means annihilated. In consequence thereof, there naturally 
 arises within the sinful heart a feeling of discord, which ren- 
 ders impossible the enjoyment of inward peace. 
 
 2. The Pauline representation of discord in the sinful heart 
 must be distinguished from that which he says of the conflict 
 in the heart of the believer (Gal. 5, 17). Even in the Christian, 
 flesh and spirit do not cease to war against each other ; but in 
 the man who is yet oat of Christ, while the spirit (16 nvev^a) is 
 present, it is as a part of his nature which is slavishly bound ; 
 he is by nature fleshly, and sold under sin (Rom. 7, 14). 
 When he begins, like Paul himself before his conversion, to 
 come through the law to self-knowledge and a knowledge of 
 his proper destiny, the law of his mind begins to struggle with 
 the law in his members. There is seen now the discord be- 
 
172 Biblical Theology of the New Testament 
 
 tween the sinful nature and the awakened conscience ; but. the 
 fruitless conflict ever ends in a painful defeat, and the com- 
 batant remains an enigma to himself, unless his weakness is 
 transformed into strength through another power than that of 
 the law.* 
 
 3. Not in the microcosm of the human heart alone, but also 
 in the macrocosm of the world, is reflected, in the view of the 
 Apostle, the same element of discord. The whole creation 
 that is, all animate and inanimate nature is unwillingly and 
 in consequence of sin, subjected, through the will of God, to 
 vanity, and awaits with longing expectation a redemption and 
 glorifying which it shall receive only when the sighing of those 
 who have the first fruits of the Spirit is heard, and the glory of 
 the children of Grod shall have been made complete and man- 
 ifest. Nature suffers with humanity, since its destiny is most 
 intimately bound up with that of humanity : both look for the 
 same thing redemption. 
 
 4. Sinful man cannot be redeemed by the laying aside of the 
 body of death, for death itself is a punishment which leads to 
 greater misery ( 35, 5). Paul speaks of a flaming fire, in 
 which vengeance is taken on those who know not (rod, and 
 
 * We meet here one of the most difficult, but, at the same time, one of the most 
 important, passages in the Pauline Epistles Eom. 7, 7-24. The exposition de- 
 termined by dogmatic prepossession which was current for centuries, would per- 
 haps have afforded less room for difference of views, had not these two questions 
 been unceasingly confounded : " Of whom is the Apostle here speaking?" and 
 " To whom is his striking description always more or less applicable ?" That to 
 the latter question the answer was given " To every believer," will surprise no one 
 who is no stranger to the domain of spiritual life. But from this it by no means 
 follows that Paul is actually describing the life of the believer. Against this 
 supposition is (1) the connection and entire aim of his reasoning; (2) the fact that 
 he describes a conflict not of the TTvevpa, but of the vovg (the inward man) which 
 pertains also to the unregenerate as against the flesh; and (3) his description in 
 ver. 14 is not consistent with the idea of Christian freedom as presented in 8, 2 ; 6, 
 17, 18, and Gal. 5, 24. He is manifestly describing his former state in the light 
 of his present condition, and the present in which he speaks is partly to be ex- 
 plained by the vividness of his description, partly by the fact that the after-pains 
 of this melancholy condition were still perceptible, inasmuch as perfect redemption 
 was not yet enjoyed. In Rom. 7, it is neither the mere natural man who is de- 
 scribed, nor the Christian in his normal state ; but the sinner under the law, who is 
 beginning to awake and strive after better things, the object of the gratia pr&- 
 parans et p?-ceveniens. Paul's words will recall the words of many an earnest- 
 minded heathen : e. g., the ' Video meliora, proboque" &c. 
 
Its Consequences. 173 
 
 reject the Gospel of the suffering of punishment, even ever- 
 lasting destruction, in banishment from the presence of the 
 Lord and from the glory of His power (2 Thess. 1, 9). Else- 
 where, also, it appears that he represents this judgment under 
 figures like those of his contemporaries. Nowhere is there found 
 even a single hint that he looks for any diminution or removal 
 of this punishment. He proclaims, indeed, diverse heavy judg- 
 ments, which are determined in degree by the greater or lesser 
 amount of light by which the transgressor was surrounded ; 
 but even the heathen do not escape unpunished, when they sin 
 against the light of conscience (Kom. 2, 9-12). On the part of 
 man, also, nothing is to be reaped from sowing to the flesh 
 except corruption (cpOoQti. Gal. 6, 8). Before rejecting this 
 teaching of the Apostle concerning a last judgment as an unim- 
 portant remnant of his former rabbinical learning, we shall do 
 well to ask whether the Apostle here in any way proceeds be- 
 yond that which is warranted by the word of the Lord himself 
 and the figurative language of the Old Testament prophetical 
 books. 
 
 5. Man, who is conscious of such a division within himself, 
 and looks forward to such a judgment, must necessarily feel 
 himself unspeakably miserable. Nevertheless, that which is 
 his deepest source of suffering becomes, on the other hand, his 
 happiness : the sinner precisely at the time when he feels him- 
 self irretrievably lost, and inasmuch as he does so feel himself 
 can be saved. The consciousness of his own misery (Rom. 
 7, 23-25) is at the same time the inner point of contact for the 
 work of redemption. Herein is the fallen man distinguished 
 from the fallen angel, whom Paul never otherwise represents 
 than as taking pleasure in corrupting, and as given up to ever- 
 lasting perdition. If, however, the salvation of the sinner, 
 which is in this way psychologically possible, is to become an 
 actual fact, it must proceed from God himself. 
 
 On Rom. 7, 7-24, see the Prize Essays of FOCKENS and 
 BERGSMA crowned by the Hague Society (1832) and especially 
 the Commentaries of THOLUCK and LANGE. On Rom. 8, 
 19-23, our " Christol. of the N. T.," bl. 300-311, and LANGE. The 
 whole Pauline conception of the depth of this wretchedness has, 
 perhaps, after AUGUSTINE and LUTHER, been better understood 
 
174 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 by no one than by BLAISE PASCAL. See the Dissertation on 
 this subject by Dr. WIJNMALEN, Utr. 1865. 
 
 Questions for consideration. What opinion are we to form as 
 to the person who is introduced as speaking in Eom. 7, 7-24 ? 
 Summary and criticism of the most important expositions of 
 Kom. 8, 19-23. Harmony and criticism of the whole doctrine 
 of man's misery as contained in Paul and in Augustine. Its 
 permanent truth and value. 
 
 SECOND DIVISION. 
 MANKIND AND THE INDIVIDUAL MAN THKOUGH AND IN CHKIST. 
 
 37. 
 The Plan of Salvation. 
 
 The righteousness of God, which, on account of sin is want- 
 ing both to Jew and Gentile, is promised and presented to 
 the sinner in a way very different from that of his own merit. 
 The Gospel of the New Testament proclaims the mystery of a 
 Divine plan of salvation, which, formed before the foundation 
 of the world, was shadowed forth throughout the whole prepar- 
 atory economy of the Old Testament, and revealed in the 
 fulness of time ; which embraces the Jewish and Gentile world, 
 heaven and earth, and in its gradual development shows forth, 
 with a lustre before unknown, the majesty and glory of God. 
 
 1. What could proceed from God alone has actually been 
 bestowed by God. With Paul it is a certain fact that God in 
 Christ has done that which to the law was impossible (Eom. 
 8, 3. 4). If it is impossible that God should be the efficient 
 cause of moral evil (Kom. 3, 8)> so it is equally certain that He 
 is the cause of all that is spiritually good (1 Cor. 1, 30). 
 Therefore, also, God, in the whole fullness of His being, is called 
 
The Plan of Salvation 175 
 
 the Saviour (1 Tim. 1, 1 ; 2, 3 ; au>i%, a truly Pauline char- 
 acteristic in the Pastoral Epistles), whose love to sinners a 
 love, however, which had been entirely forfeited by them 
 bears the character of grace, and bestows upon them that which 
 reason, left to itself, is not able even to comprehend (1 Cor. 2, 9). 
 
 2. The Gospel of this grace is consequently, in the view 
 of our Apostle, something absolutely new not the continua- 
 tion of the old order, but its direct opposite. It is the joyful 
 message of the sinner's justification before God through faith 
 in Christ, and, as such, a revealed secret (nvaifyiov). For the 
 word mystery has, in the usage of our Apostle, a sense entirely 
 different from that in which it was employed at a later period. 
 It signifies a matter which was before unknown, but has how 
 come to light, and on this account ceases to be hidden, although, 
 even after it has been made known to men, it retains its obscure 
 and mysterious side (Kom. 11, 33). "Understanding in the 
 mystery" is obtained only through revelation (Eph. 3, 3. 4) 
 a peculiar supernatural act of God, which is indicated by Paul 
 in different words dm>x<ttvy*?, gw^om?, etc. in using which, 
 however, it cannot be shown that he sharply distinguishes 
 between them in order to express in each case a different idea 
 of revelation. What, on the other hand, is still concealed in 
 the future, remains till then a mystery, which from the nature 
 of the case, can be believed only on the word of him who 
 declares it (1 Cor. 15, 51). Although Paul enumerates several 
 such mysteries, all of which fall within the domain of Chris- 
 tian knowledge (1 Cor. 13, 2 ; 14, 2), yet preeminently the 
 Gospel is with him the one great mystery of Christ (Eph. 6, 19 ; 
 Col. 4, 3), which exhibits a character by no means speculative, 
 but, on the contrary, one especially practical (1 Tim. 3, 16). 
 
 3. That which is new did not on this account come in with- 
 out preparation. The New Testament is essentially contained 
 in the Old, and is witnessed by the law which is replaced by it, 
 and by the prophets, of whom it is a glorious fulfillment 
 (Kom. 3, 21. 22). No Apostle has shown a deeper insight into 
 the whole course of the world's history than Paul. His philo- 
 sophic eye sees in the whole pre-Christian period one long age 
 of preparation which was brought to completion only in the 
 coming of Christ (Gal. 4, 4). He is the end of the law (Rom. 
 
176 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 10, 4), the goal to which its whole economy tended ; and while, 
 before his appearing, God allowed the Gentiles, in a certain 
 sense, to walk in their own ways (Acts 14, 16), yet the most 
 privileged nation under the old covenant resembled a child 
 who has not yet come to full age (Gal. 4, 1, and following). 
 On this account, he could regard an abandoning of Christianity 
 only as a relapse into an earlier stage which had been already 
 left behind (Gal. 4, 9), and must look upon the obstinate un- 
 belief of the Jews (2 Cor. 3, 14 ; 4, 4), as a fruit of the most 
 lamentable blindness. The Gospel, which is of a spiritual 
 nature, cannot possibly be understood by the psychical man as 
 such, for it must be spiritually judged of (1 Cor. 2, 14). And 
 no wonder, since it makes acquainted with God's purpose of 
 saving sinners in former ages hidden from men a purpose 
 which has been formed and carried into execution in accordance 
 with his own plan. 
 
 4. The salvation proclaimed in the Gospel is nothing else 
 than the carrying out in time of that which God had determined 
 within himself from all eternity. Even in his earliest writings, 
 Paul shows that he regards those who believe in Christ as 
 elect of God (1 Thes. 1, 4; 2 Thes. 2, 13), in whom the ideal 
 of ancient Israel is most beautifully realized (Gal. 6, 16). Es- 
 pecially in the Epistles to the Komans and Ephesians (Rom. 
 9-11 ; Eph. 1, 4, sqq.) does this idea come prominently into 
 the foreground. The Apostle speaks of a Divine plan of salva- 
 tion the center of which is Christ, and its end the bright reve- 
 lation of God's glorious perfection (Born. 11, 36). This plan 
 was no more originated in consequence of sin than it can be 
 permanently frustrated by the power of sin. It is eternal as 
 God, and is founded not on any excellence of man himself, 
 but in God's adorable and unchangeable good pleasure: not 
 because believers are holy, but in order that they may become 
 so, has God chosen them (Eph. 1, 4,) ; and this their faith is 
 not the cause, but only the sign of their election unto salva- 
 tion. Without doubt, Paul recognizes a Divine calling and 
 election to a participation in the blessings of (outward) Chris- 
 tianity ; yet he nowhere makes an essential difference between 
 this and the calling and election to everlasting salvation. He 
 could not, indeed, make this distinction, since those to whom 
 
The Plan of Salvation. 177 
 
 lie explains this mystery were, as a rule, Christian believers. 
 Without doubt, he speaks of the choice of the Gentiles in 
 their totality (Rom. 9-11), as opposed to the national rejection 
 of the Jews ; but nowhere is there to be found a single proof 
 that he entertains any other view than that of personal election 
 to salvation with regard to the individuals of whom this total- 
 ity is composed (^ ixloyJ\). The contrary is manifest from the 
 way in which he views the history of Jacob, Esau, and Pha- 
 raoh and in which he consoles believers, and urges them to 
 the work of sanctification, by reminding them of their personal 
 predestination. "All this is singularly clear, and certainly 
 it will not be with exegstical_arguments that the system which 
 the Augustines, the Calvins, the Gomars have built up upon 
 these premises can henceforth be combated" (REUSS). 
 
 5. The Divine plan of salvation is in itself one and indivisi- 
 ble, but is for the individual only gradually realized. God 
 has known His own from eternity in love (rr^puKrtj), and on 
 this account has foreordained them (nqotyivev) to be conformed 
 to the image of His Son. Only on dogmatic grounds can one 
 desire to draw a sharp line of distinction between these two 
 terms : in an impartial examination of the Pauline system of 
 thought, they flow, as it were, the one into the other. " Wil- 
 lingly will we let pass this distinction, which in fact only con- 
 ceals without revealing anything" (SCHLEIERMACHEE). Both 
 belong to the sphere of eternity ; in time, on the other hand, 
 is the calling (xfoja^) with which the personal safe-conduct 
 of the believer to the blessedness designed for him begins. 
 The Apostle, in employing this term, conceives of no mere 
 outward call, but one which is, at the same time, inwardly 
 understood and accepted. Wherever there is a calling in the 
 Pauline sense of the word, there, at the same time, is the germ 
 of faith and of conversion ; and herein lies the logical ground 
 for the called being spoken of as those who are here justified 
 and hereafter glorified. That they are, however, the one and 
 the other, they owe exclusively to the absolute good pleasure 
 of God (etidoxta TOV fo^uaTog), which is inseparably one with his 
 moral perfection, and consequently partakes in no degree what 
 ever of an arbitrary character (Eph. 1, 5-11). 
 
178 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 6. Such a doctrine would appear harsh, considered apart 
 from all connection with the sovereign omnipotence of God on 
 the one hand, and the absolute reprobation due to sin on the 
 other hand. But it is precisely to this connection that the 
 Apostle draws attention, when (Rom. 9-11) he discusses from 
 the apologetic stand-point the exclusion of the Jews from the 
 blessings of the kingdom of God, as opposed to the reception 
 of the Gentiles. While he gives expression to his heart-felt 
 sorrow for the fate of his nation, he shows (a) that Israel's re- 
 jection (9, 6-13) does not conflict with the unchangeableness of 
 God, since the promises of salvation in the Old Testament are 
 ever made to the true, i. e., the believing Israel; and just as 
 little (b) with the righteousness of God (9, 14-29), since God 
 is indebted to no one, and, as Lord, has the sovereign disposal 
 of every creature; still less (c) with His holiness, since this 
 rejection is only the just punishment of Israel's unbelief (9, 
 30 10, 21) ; least of all (d) with His truth, compassion, and 
 grace, since Israel's fall becomes salvation to the Gentiles ; and, 
 more than this, is to be followed by its own restoration (Rom. 
 11). He does not, indeed, in this manner, remove all objec- 
 tions; but, nevertheless, by a constant reference on the one 
 hand to the pregnant texts and examples of the Old Testament, 
 and on the other hand to the exalted majesty of God, he redu- 
 ces to silence obdurate gainsaying. His object is manifestly 
 to establish the doctrine of God's free grace, not so much 
 against all working and striving on our part, as against all 
 self-righteousness and all human merit. 
 
 7. Belief in God's unalterable decree is for Paul no object 
 of abstract reasoning. " Paul is not here a philosopher, who 
 is deducing scientifically the formulas of metaphysics ; he is an 
 advocate who is pleading the cause of God" (BONIFAS). Far 
 from commending an d priori searching into this revealed 
 mystery, he rather teaches believers, standing, as it were, at the 
 end of their journey, to look back upon that which God has 
 destined for them in Christ ; that by meditating thereon, both 
 the fruitfulness and the joy of their faith may be increased. 
 While acknowledging that, .even by the manifestation and 
 punishment of obdurate unbelief, God's eternal counsel is ful- 
 filled, he regards this unbelief itself as a fault, for which men 
 
The Plan of Salvation. 179 
 
 are personally responsible. As it is impossible to mistake the 
 plain sense of Komans 9, so also is it unjustifiable to separate 
 this chapter arbitrarily from the tenth and eleventh. The true 
 synthesis of the apparently irreconcilable antinomy between 
 the Divine predestination and human freedom is not stated 
 even by Paul. It suffices him to lay upon the second member 
 no less stress than upon the first not merely to bewail the 
 unbelief of Israel as a sad fact, but as a great sin and to 
 await from the future the solution of a problem which is for 
 unbelief a stone of stumbling, but is already for faith an occa- 
 sion for deepest adoration. 
 
 8. This it must be in the widest sense of the word, since 
 (rod's plan of salvation extends not to this world alone; but to 
 the whole creation. The great thought of God to unite all 
 things under one head has reference not only to men, but also 
 to angels not only to earth, but also to heaven (Eph. 1, 10 ; 
 Colos. 1, 20). If we meditate somewhat deeply upon this 
 Divine purpose, it manifests to us God's adorable wisdom (Eph. 
 3, 912), but, above all, the inexhaustible riches of His grace, 
 and along with these His adorable foreknowledge (Eom. 11, 
 33-36), in a light in which they could not otherwise be seen, 
 and which calls forth from the Apostle a strain of exultation 
 (Rom. 8, 31-39), of which even Erasmus, full of admiration, 
 exclaimed: " Quid unquam Cicero dixit grandiloquentiusf 1 No 
 wonder the eloquence of Cicero had never such material to 
 dispose of; and not talent, but the heart, guided the pen of 
 Paul. 
 
 Compare the Academical Dissertations of VAN STAVEREN, 
 de Evang. Naturd, Gron. 1839; VAN GESSELER, deprcepar. Jud. 
 et Q-eniil. ad Relig. Chr. accip., Gron. 1839 ; BOELES, de Mysteriis 
 in Eel. Chr., Gron. 1843 ; VAN BELL, de Patefact. Christ, indok, 
 Lugd. Batav. 1849. And, above all, the dissertation of LAMP- 
 ING, (Diss.) Pauli de prcedeet. Doctrinam exponens, Traj. 1860. 
 Also the work of G. W. KRUMMACHER, " The Doctrine of Elec- 
 tion " (Exposition of Rom. 9, 11), Duisburg, 1856. [Compare 
 also the Commentaries of Ellicott on Galatians and Ephesians ; 
 and Goodwin's Exposition of various passages of the Epistle to 
 the Ephesians. 2 vols. (reprinted), Edin. 1861.] 
 
180 Biblical Theology of ike New Testament. 
 
 Questions for consideration. What is with Paul the proper 
 essence of the Gospel ? What does he teach in Col. 2, 16, 17 ? 
 The Gospel a revealed mystery. The way of life under the 
 old covenant, Kom. 4. The psychological ground for Paul's 
 doctrine of predestination. Its relation to the Pauline univers- 
 alism. Connection and difference of the Pauline doctrine with 
 that of Augustine and Calvin. Does Paul teach reprobation as 
 unconditionally as he proclaims predestination to everlasting 
 life ? To what extent has the Apostle succeeded in removing 
 the objection that God is made the author of sin? Does Paul's 
 doctrine of predestination contain no necessary premises to that 
 of the restoration of all things ? Argument of Kom. 8, 28-30. 
 Sense, beauty, and power of Rom. 8, 31-39. The doxology, 
 Eom. 11, 33-36. 
 
 38. 
 The Christ. 
 
 The Divine plan of salvation has for its centre Christ, the 
 Son of God, the Saviour of sinners, who appeared on earth in 
 human flesh, that, as the second Adam, He might be the spirit- 
 ual head of the new humanity. Relatively little does Paul com- 
 municate concerning the Lord's earthly history ; but every 
 conception of His person in which He is regarded either as man 
 only in appearance, or as a mere man, is expressly condemned 
 by the doctrine of the Apostle. 
 
 1. It belongs to the excellencies of the Pauline theology, that 
 he ever considers the plan of salvation in connection with Him 
 in whom it has been realized. Christ is for him the centre, not 
 merely of the Gospel, but of the whole history of the world. 
 Although in his teaching he throughout takes his departure 
 from man ( 33. 4), he yet rises unceasingly to Him in whom 
 the ideal of mankind is realized ; and while he manifestly lays 
 greater stress upon his testimony concerning the work of the 
 Lord than upon that concerning His person, he has yet ex- 
 pressed himself regarding the latter in a manner which leaves 
 no room for doubt as to what he really thinks on this subject. 
 
The Christ. 181 
 
 2. The Tubingen school has asserted that the Christology of 
 the latest letters preserved under the name of Paul exhibits a 
 different character from that of the four whose genuineness it 
 acknowledges. In itself, this would occasion no difficulty ; cer- 
 tainly not if we believe that the Holy Ghost was leading the 
 Apostle, in giving this part of his testimony also, from light to 
 light, from strength to strength. If those' epistles in which we 
 find his loftiest Christological thoughts, e. g., those to the Colos- 
 sians and Philippians, were composed in the time of, and partly 
 with reference to, the earliest Gnostic errors, nothing prevents 
 us from supposing that precisely this error urged the Apostle 
 so much the more powerfully to declare the truth. The case 
 would certainly be different if anything were asserted in the 
 later epistles which was denied in the earlier, or the converse. 
 How little this is really the case is evident from the fact, that 
 the points of departure and commencement for the lines of 
 thought which run through his latest writings are constantly to 
 be discovered in his earliest. 
 
 3. That Paul relates but little of the words, deeds, and events 
 of the Lord's earthly life, strikes us at once, from a glance at 
 his writings. With the exception of a single saying (Acts 20, 
 35) he never appeals to the words of the Master, and even of 
 the history of His life he mentions only a few particulars. The 
 attempt has been made on apologetic grounds to gather a life of 
 Jesus out of the writings of Paul ; but the harvest has been 
 only scanty. The First Epistle of Peter alone contains more 
 reminiscences, e. g., of the history of our Lord's sufferings, 
 than all the Epistles of Paul. The cause is to be sought in the 
 fact that Paul had no personal intercourse with the Lord, and 
 attaches to this privilege, the want of which had been so richly 
 compensated in his experience, but a subordinate value (2 Cor. 
 5, 16). Not the teaching and suffering, but the risen and glori- 
 fied Christ, is here above all brought into the foreground ; he 
 has less to do with Jesus in himself than with Jesus as the 
 Christ. With the proclamation of this truth he comes forward 
 immediately after his conversion (Acts 9, 20, where Jesus is to be 
 read instead of Christ, and Son of God must be understood as a 
 title of the Messiah). He defends it, in presence of Jew and 
 Gentile, by an appeal to the Holy Scriptures (Acts 17, 3 ; 18, 5) ; 
 
182 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 and though he repeatedly lays stress upon the circumstances 
 that the Lord sprang from David's seed (Eom. 1, 3 ; 2 Tim. 2, 
 8), this is doubtless because His princely descent was an ab- 
 solutely necessary condition of His Messiahship. 
 
 4. There is no ground for supposing that Paul doubted in 
 any respect the true humanity of the Lord. He describes Him 
 as being born of a woman (Gal. 4, 4), partaker of the weakness 
 of our nature (2 Cor. 13, 4), and sets His mind and feelings as 
 an example before the eyes of His followers (Phil. 2, 5). But 
 just as little can we doubt that Paul saw in the Lord one who 
 was more than man ; and that not merely in the middle or at the 
 close of his Apostolic labors, but at their very beginning. He 
 had, indeed, beheld the persecuted Nazarene in more than 
 earthly glory (Acts 26, 13, sqq.), and at once acknowledged that 
 He whom the Jews had crucified was none less than the 
 Lord of Glory himself (1 Cor. 2, 8). Does this mean simply 
 that He is now living in glory ? Even the peculiar manner in 
 which Paul speaks of the human nature in Christ, leads to the 
 supposition that such an explanation is too weak. He calls 
 Him, indeed, the second man, but the one who is " from heaven, " 
 (1 Cor. 15, 47, according to the shorter reading) and declares 
 that God sent his Son "in the likeness of sinful flesh" (Eom. 
 8, 3), which would, at least, sound strange, if this Son had 
 claimed no personal pre-existence, and had not very clearly 
 distinguished himself from sinful flesh. That this latter also is 
 the view of the Apostle is increasingly clear, when we hear him 
 designate Christ as the image of God, in whose countenance the 
 glory of God is seen (2 Cor. 4, 4-6) ; God's own beloved Son 
 (Rom. 8, 32 ; compare Eph. 1, 6), as such beyond doubt, de- 
 clared (proclaimed) with power by the resurrection from the 
 dead (Eom. 1, 4) ; proclaimed, but by no means constituted, the 
 Son of God thereby. How else were it possible that He was 
 already working under the old covenant (1 Cor. 10, 4. 9), yea, 
 as the Apostle plainly teaches, was rich with God even before 
 His voluntary incarnation (2 Cor. 8, 9) ? Certainly he distin- 
 guishes the Son from the Father, and places Him in regard to 
 the Father in a relation of definite dependence (1 Cor. 3, 23 ; 
 11, 3 ; Eph. 1, 17) ; but, nevertheless, he does not hesitate a 
 moment to speak of Him as the mediate cause through which 
 
The Christ. 183 
 
 all, without exception, has been called into existence (1 Cor. 8, 
 6), tacitly to apply to Him that which in the Old Testament is 
 spoken of God (Kom. 10, 13), and to exalt Him for only thus 
 can we at least read or understand the words, Kom. 9, 5 as 
 God, above all blessed for ever. 
 
 5. We regard it as a hopeless undertaking, in presence of 
 such expressions of the Apostle's mind, to persist in the asser- 
 tion that the Christ of the four universally acknowledged epis- 
 tles is nothing but the heavenly man (BAUK). Even the con- 
 nection into which His name is brought with that of God the 
 Father on the one hand, and of the Holy Spirit on the other^ 
 leads us to a higher conception ; and the metaphysical element 
 of the Pauline Christology becomes still more evident when we 
 direct our attention to his later utterances, and observe in them, 
 instead of conflicting ideas, the fairest harmony and develop- 
 ment. This is seen to be the case in the locus classicus of the 
 Epistle to the Philippians (Phil. 2, 5-11), where he represents 
 the Son of God first in his pre-mundane existence, then in his 
 earthly humiliation, and finally in his heavenly glory ; and de- 
 scribes the incarnation as a voluntary laying aside of this orig- 
 inal form of God in which He might have continued to live and 
 reign. We think, however, especially of the sublime words in 
 the Epistle to the Colossians (Colos. 1, 15-20), in which the 
 Apostle places the Son of God's love in a relation, on the one 
 hand to the Father, on the other to the world, and again to the 
 kingdom of God, which would be absolutely inconceivable, 
 unless in Him the fullness of the Godhead (Colos. 2, 9) dwelt 
 bodily as in a holy temple. Only on the assumption that this 
 latter was really the Apostle's idea, can we understand the appel- 
 lation which he gives to the Lord as an unbiassed exegesis 
 seems to require us to understand his words of " our great 
 God and Saviour," (Tit. 2, 13), and the doxology addressed to 
 Him at the close of his Apostolic course (2 Tim. 4, 18 &), which 
 he, the strict monotheist, would, without doubt, have been the 
 first to condemn as a sinful deification of the creature, had not 
 Christ, according to his conviction, possessed a nature and dig- 
 nity which raises Him above all created beings. 
 
 6. And yet, however certain and important all this may be, 
 it does not explain the entirely unique position which Christ 
 
184 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 occupies in the Pauline scheme of doctrine. Not as a super- 
 natural manifestation or Divine person itself, but as man, the 
 man by way of excellence precisely because He is from 
 heaven is the Lord all things to Paul, not only for his faith 
 and life, but also for his thinking. It is more than an accident 
 that he speaks of the mediator between (rod and man with so 
 great emphasis as the man Christ Jesus (1 Tim. 2, 5) ; the 
 whole work of redemption had been to Paul entirely inconceiv- 
 able were this man human only in appearance. The philo- 
 sophic spirit of the Apostle manifests its striving after unity 
 notably in the fact, that in the history of mankind he repeat- 
 edly discovers a point of unity, and as from the first Adam he 
 sees sin and death, so from the second he sees redemption and 
 life proceed (Kom. 5, 12-21 ; 1 Cor. 15, 21-22). He contrasts 
 Christ with Adam, as the higher with the lower, as the spiritual 
 with the merely natural principle of life (1 Cor. 15, 45-47). 
 Because he was perfectly Divine, He could be perfectly human, 
 and, in so far as humanity enters into a personal union with 
 Him, at the same time, the Creator of a new principle of life. 
 On this account Paul attaches so great a value to the absolute 
 purity and sinlessness of the Lord (2 Cor. 5, 21 ; Phil. 2, 8 ; 
 comp. Kom. 8, 3 ; 15, 3). There lies in this also the ground 
 for the supposition, that if Paul does not mention the super- 
 natural conception and holy birth of the Lord, he yet cannot 
 have denied or doubted it. In connection with his doctrine of 
 sin, it is also inconceivable that, according to his view, the sec- 
 ond Adam came less immediately than the first, through a 
 miraculous intervention of Divine power. As the faultless 
 head of a new humanity, Christ has for Paul the highest, yea, 
 an everlasting importance. And here we reach the point at 
 which we can understand the peculiarity of his own Soteri- 
 ology. 
 
 Comp. our " Christology of the N. T.," bl. 214-250; BEY- 
 SCHLAG, "For the Pauline Christology" in the Studien und 
 Kritiken, 1860, S. 431 ff; " Christology of the N. I 7 .," S 
 201-256; KOLTOFF, Vita Jesu Ghristi a Paulo Apost adum- 
 brata (1842) : KABIGER, Comment, de Christol. Paulina contra 
 Baurium, Bresl. 1852. On Philip. 2, 6-8, the Commentaries of 
 MEYER, [ALFORD, and ELLICOTT]. On Colos. 1, 15-20 see 
 
The Work of Redemption. 185 
 
 the Dissert, of S. HOFMEIJER, de n$uioi6*<*, Traject. 1856, and 
 of J. CRAMER, de Arianismo, Traj. 1858. 
 
 Questions for consideration. Connection between the Pauline 
 Christology and the doctrine of predestination. Nature and 
 importance of that which Paul communicates regarding the his- 
 tory of the Lord. Exposition and defence of the most import- 
 ant texts here referred to. Critical review of the texts in 
 which, according to the ordinary reading and exposition, the 
 title of Qe6g is given to the Lord. Harmony and difference be- 
 tween the first and the second Adam, according to Paul. 
 
 39. 
 The Work of Redemption. 
 
 The whole earthly and heavenly life of Christ especially 
 His voluntary self-surrender to the death of the Cross, and His 
 glorious resurrection on the third day has the definite aim of 
 redeeming mankind from the guilt and dominion of sin, and 
 thereby restoring to man the salvation he has lost through the 
 disobedience of the first Adam. At the same time, the waj* 
 which the Gospel opens to this goal is diametrically opposed to 
 that which the law presented : the justification of the sinner 
 herein proclaimed is a justification only through faith. 
 
 1. The soteriology of Paul is not only richer than his Chris- 
 tology, but it bears, besides this, a highly peculiar character. 
 This peculiarity is manifest even in the first Apostolic mis- 
 sionary address of his with which we are acquainted (Acts 13, 
 38. 39). The Pauline doctrine of redemption is, above all 
 things, a doctrine of justification (comp. 33, 3), a doctrine 
 which he presents with evident preference ; in the Epistle to the 
 Romans more thetically (i. e. by way of statement), in the 
 Epistle to the Galatians more polemically, and which he once 
 even (Rom. 1, 16. 17) announces as the essential doctrine of 
 the Gospel. By the term " righteousness of God " (dixaioaivij 
 Seov) Paul understands in this connection no attribute of God, 
 but a state before Him ; a righteousness conferred by God through 
 
 12 
 
186 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 grace in the way of imputation upon the sinner, whom God 
 regards and treats as just ; and which is consequently diamet- 
 rically opposed to any self-righteousness before God, which the 
 sinner seeks to establish by the most exact fulfillment of the 
 demands of the law (Bom. 10, 3 ; Phil. 3, 9). With his eye 
 fixed upon the distinction once conferred upon Abraham (Gen. 
 15, 6), the true Israelite especially the Pharisee knew no 
 higher blessing than that of being righteous (p" 1 ^) before God. 
 Paul himself had formerly sought this in the way of works 
 (Phil. 3, 4-8), but had recognized the folly of this attempt, and 
 had acknowledged the highest value of the Gospel precisely in 
 the fact that it opens up an entirely different way to the de- 
 sired goal. He mentions, it is true, and glories in, other bless- 
 ings conferred by God in Christ (1 Cor. 1, 30), but nevertheless 
 justification occupies the highest place (Rom. 10, 4) in his es- 
 timation. In Christ the sinner, who regards personal participa- 
 tion in the favor of God as the highest of all the blessings of 
 salvation, finds that which he elsewhere seeks in vain. 
 
 2. If we ask the Apostle what Christ has done and is yet do- 
 ing to this end, we find that even the Lord's coming in the 
 flesh is regarded by him as connected with the condemnation of 
 sin, but thereby also with the restoration of the sinner (Rom. 8, 
 3. 4 ; 1 Tim. 1, 15). He likewise directs us to His precepts 
 and example as the rule of the new life (Gal. 6, 2 ; Phil. 2, 5). 
 But, above all, he presents, as of supreme importance, the death 
 of Christ and His resurrection from the grave ; two events be- 
 tween which he sees the closest connection (Rom. 4, 25). This 
 is the truth which he first proclaims to the Corinthian Church, 
 and of which he has afterwards to remind them (1 Cor. 15, 3. 4). 
 Hence, gathering into a single sentence the burden of all his 
 preaching, he points to Jesus Christ the crucified (1 Cor. 1, 23 ; 
 2, 2 ; Gal. 6, 14). Yet he does not attach any less value to the 
 life of the Lord in glory than to His life in His humiliation. 
 Let us see how he insists on the connection of both with the 
 work of salvation. 
 
 3. That Christ truly died is no where proved by Paul, be- 
 cause it was not, like his resurrection from the dead, doubted. 
 But so much the greater stress does he lay upon the fact that 
 He must suffer (Acts 26, 23) ; and far from finding therein only 
 
The Work of Redemption. 187 
 
 a mysterious lot, lie presents the Lord's giving of himself up 
 for the suffering of death rather as an act of high moral signifi- 
 cance ; an act, however, in no degree arbitrary, much less 
 separated from the whole life which preceded it. The later 
 theological distinction between the active and passive obedience 
 of Christ, is least of all to be justified by an appeal to our 
 Apostle. The whole life of the Lord is with him one act of 
 obedience, which finds its point of culmination in the death on 
 the cross (Phil. 2, 8). He was not merely delivered (Rom. 4, 
 25), but gave himself up (Gal. 1, 4 ; 2, 20), according to the 
 will and counsel of the Father ; moved thereto by a love which 
 passeth all understanding (Eph. 3, 19), and which, gloriously 
 displayed towards the unworthy, bears the character of grace 
 (2 Cor. 8, 9). Because the Lord's death is such a moral act, it 
 is a sacrifice which could be only well pleasing to God (Eph. 
 5, 2). On account of this perfect harmony of both, the Apostle 
 could elsewhere say, God spared not His own Son, but de- 
 livered Him up for us all (Rom. 8, 32). 
 
 4. As to the true nature of this sacrifice, Paul does not leave 
 us long in uncertainty, when he writes that God set forth the 
 Saviour as a propitiatory sacrifice (ttuaifaiov, Rom. 3, 25) 
 through faith in His blood. For the same reason, he calls 
 Christ in His death the Passover of Christians (1 Cor. 5, 7) ; 
 for the Paschal Lamb also was originally a sin-offering. Mani- 
 festly he implies that by the self-sacrifice of Christ was really 
 effected that which was symbolically represented by the Mosaic 
 ritual (Colos. 2, 17). Such a covering of guilt before the eye of 
 God was necessary on God's side for the manifestation (evdetgig) 
 of His righteousness, on account of the temporary passing over 
 of sins formerly committed (Rom. 3, 25) ; and indispensable for 
 man, in order to procure for him that blessedness which he had 
 forfeited through his sins. There is, consequently, according 
 to Paul, a direct connection between the Lord's self-surrender, 
 and the sins of the world (Rom. 4, 25). Not merely by means 
 of sinners, but on behalf of sinners (1 Cor. 15, 3), did Christ 
 die ; and the consequence which this act at once brings with it 
 is, that these sinners, on their entering into communion with 
 Him, no longer need to die for their sins. Death is the punish- 
 ment of sin, and from this revelation of wrath they are deliv- 
 
188 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 ered in Christ Through his blood we have redemption 
 (dTroAtfrpuo-tg), and this is concentrated in the forgiveness of sins, 
 because in forgiveness is already contained (in principle) every 
 other blessing. 
 
 5. The extent of this blessedness will be treated of hereafter 
 ( 40). Here the remark may suffice, that the righteousness 
 (diKuioavvt]) before God which is the portion of the believer, is a 
 fruit of justification (dixatoaig), and this, in turn, is the fruit of 
 the shed blood of atonement. No wonder that the price at 
 which such a salvation was obtained is called by the Apostle 
 great (1 Cor. 6, 20) ; a statement which is only apparently in 
 conflict with another statement, namely, that we are saved by 
 grace. The former has reference to the immediate ground ; the 
 latter to the source and primary cause of the benefit. If we 
 ask the Apostle as to the connection between the propitiatory 
 death of the Lord and the justification of the sinner, he replies 
 that the righteousness in which the sinner may now glory is an 
 imputed righteousness, that of the righteous and holy Christ. 
 By virtue of the law of the most intimate vital communion, all 
 which is ours becomes His, and all which is His becomes ours. 
 He is treated as personal sin (2 Cor. 5, 21), in order that sinners 
 may in Him be regarded and treated as righteous. He bears 
 on the cross the curse of the law, in order that He may redeem 
 us therefrom (Gal 3, 13). Paul, then, doubtless, conceives of 
 the Lord as dying not merely for the benefit of, but actually 
 instead of- but of whom? In general he mentions "ungodly 
 ones " (Rom. 5, 6), without any restriction [of race or people], 
 affirms that God will have all to be saved, and glories in Christ 
 as the Mediator a word which is found only in Paul, and 
 in the Epistle to the Hebrews between God and men (1 Tim. 
 2, 4. 5). But especially is it Christians who know that One 
 has died for them all, in consequence of which they now all live 
 (Rom. 8, 32 ; 2 Cor. 5, 15). There is no contradiction between 
 the one statement and the other, if we simply observe a just 
 distinction between the design and the fruit of the Lord's 
 propitiatory death. Where this fruit is enjoyed, there the self- 
 surrender of the Son of God is at the same time regarded as the 
 highest revelation of a love which saves the sinner by the self 
 same act by which it righteously condemns the sin. The idea 
 
The Work of Redemption. 189 
 
 of a conflict between God's righteousness and grace is of later 
 origin by some centuries, than the writings of Paul. 
 
 6. The expiation of sin (lW?ifo*') is the basis of the reconcil- 
 iation (xamUuyij) between the sinner and his holy Creator. In 
 this latter sense, also, the atonement proceeds from God, who 
 on this account is called not only "the Justifier " (Kom. 8, 33, 
 6 5txtwj>) but also " the Reconciler " (2 Cor. 5, 19, xaTaUdaawy) ; 
 who has in Christ reconciled the whole world (x6auos) to him- 
 self; yea, has brought about a reconciliation in divided humanity 
 (Eph. 2, 14-16), and has thus restored peace between heaven 
 and earth (Colos. 1, 20). For the enmity existed not on the 
 part of God, but only on the part of men (Rom. 5, 10 ; 8, 7), 
 and is now, by the manifestation of the highest love, van- 
 quished and slain on the Cross (Eph. 2, 14-16). Thus, by 
 the death of the Lord, the broken bond is restored between 
 man and his God, as well as between Jew and Gentile, and the 
 power of ^darkness vanquished and led in open triumph (Colos. 
 2, 14, 15) ; while, on the other hand, all believers are, through 
 the love of Christ, united in one holy communion (Eph. 5, 
 25-27). 
 
 7. The community whose guilt is thus covered, is at the 
 same time in Christ delivered .from the dominion of sin ; the 
 forgiveness of sin, the great aim of His death, becoming thus 
 the means to a higher aim the sanctification of all His people. 
 In the Apostle's conception, the one is inseparably connected 
 with the other. On the one hand, it is certain that Christians, 
 on account of the death of Christ, no longer need to die for 
 their sins ; on the other hand, that they have, with Him, died 
 to sin (2 Cor. 5, 14, Greek text). The communion of faith be- 
 tween the Lord and them, symbolised in baptism, is so close 
 that because He has died to sin they may be regarded as being, 
 with Him, dead to sin (Rom. 6, 3-11). The cruel tyrant, 
 whose wages they here once received (in Him), has, in conse- 
 quence thereof, lost all right to them, and all claim upon them. 
 They are henceforth to regard themselves as dead to sin, that they 
 may live exclusively to God. The death of Christ is not only 
 the life of His people, but also the crucifixion of their old man. 
 Their spiritual unity with Him, in other words, renders it im- 
 possible for them any longer to serve sin; through faith in 
 
190 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 Him, its dominion is, in principle, destroyed. That this is in- 
 deed the ultimate aim of the Lord's death we are reminded by 
 the Apostle in various ways in his epistles from the earliest to 
 the latest. (See, for example. 1 Thess. 5, 10 ; (ral. 1, 4; 2, 20; 
 2 Cor. 5, 15; 1 Cor. 6, 20; Rom. 8, 4 ; Eph. 5, 2; Colos. 1, 
 22 ; Titus 2, 14). Not only to individuals, but to the whole 
 community, does this gracious purpose extend (Eph. 5, 25-27). 
 And it can and will be so much the more certainly accom- 
 plished, as Christ is not merely the Dead but also the Eisen 
 Christ. 
 
 8. Far from separating for a moment the Lord's death from 
 His new life, Paul rather brings both facts into such close 
 connection, that we might almost doubt which of them, in his 
 estimation, holds the first place. It is at least certain that with 
 him the resurrection is not of less soteriological importance than 
 the death of our Lord on the Cross ; yea, that in a certain sense 
 he gives the preeminence to the former (Rom. 4, 2 ; 5, 10 ; 
 8, 34). No wonder, since the resurrection is, on the one hand, 
 the pledge of the certainty and perfection of the completed 
 atonement ; on the other hand, the fountain, the type, and the 
 power of the new life of those who are spiritually one with the 
 risen Christ. 
 
 9. We cannot feel surprised that Paul, not less than Peter 
 ( 27), places in the foreground (Acts 13, 30 ; 17, 3. 31 ; 23, 6 ; 
 2 Tim. 2, 8, and many other passages) the resurrection of the 
 Lord ; yea, with warmth defends it (1 Cor. 15, 4-8). In his case 
 likewise the new life sprang from the sight of the Risen One, 
 and to him the whole Gospel stood or fell with the recognition 
 of this indisputable fact (1 Cor. 15, 14-20. Yet we must not 
 overlook what has indeed been arbitrarily denied that he 
 everywhere regards this resurrection very definitely as a restora- 
 tion of the body to life, and a return from the grave. Of what 
 significance if this is not to be firmly held is his declaration 
 [to the Corinthians] that the Lord was buried, that He rose 
 again the third day, and appeared unto His disciples? Be- 
 tween the continuance of a purely spiritual existence which He 
 has in common with all the dead, and " our justification " (Rom. 
 4, 25), no rational connection is conceivable. Besides, only a 
 real, i. e., bodily resurrection, could be a prophecy of the future 
 
The Work of Redemption. 191 
 
 bodily resurrection of believers (Rom. 8, 11 ; 1 Cor. 15, 21-23 ; 
 Phil. 3, 21). 
 
 10. Through the resurrection, the Lord, after a previous 
 humiliation, passed into a state of glory in which, with no 
 further suffering, he can evermore live unto God (i-om. 6, 
 10). Only twice does the Apostle mention the circumstance of 
 the visible ascension of the Lord (1 Tim. 3, 16; Eph. 4, 7-10); 
 in the latter of these (as it would seem), in contrast with his 
 descent into the region of the dead, which we found also 
 referred to by Peter ( 27). So much the more emphatically 
 does he dwell upon the work of the Redeemer in heaven, 
 which, not less than His earthly life, is consecrated to the salva- 
 tion of His people. Exalted to the right hand of the Father, 
 He not only intercedes for them (Rom. 8, 34) ; but also hears 
 and answers them, when they on their part call upon Him (1 Cor. 
 1, 2 ; 2 Cor. 12, 8. 9 ; comp. Acts 23, 11). He reigns not only 
 through the moral power of the truth, but immediately and 
 personally in the Church ; and is, at the same time, head over 
 all for the Church, to make all subject to His power (Eph. 1, 
 20-23), and to fill all things with His life-giving energy (Eph. 
 4, 10). He is excepted from this dominion, from whom it pro- 
 ceeded, to whom it will one day return (1 Cor. 15, 24-28), and 
 in whose glorification it must of necessity end (Phil. 2, 9-11). 
 
 11. The exaltation of Christ is consequently for himself the 
 reward of His perfect obedience, but for all His people the 
 fountain of salvation. Reconciled to (rod through His death, 
 they are saved by His life, yea, themselves live in consequence 
 of the power which unceasingly flows forth and passes over from 
 the head to the members (Rom. 5, 10 ; Eph. 1, 22. 23). Thus it 
 is clear that the saving work of Christ on earth and in heaven 
 is, according to the view of Paul, an inseparable whole (1 Tim. 
 3, 16), and that through the obedience, thus crowned, of the 
 second Adam, the disobedience of the first is more than repaired 
 (Rom. 5, 18-21). His righteousness becomes theirs; but only 
 in so far as through faith they have become personally one 
 with Him. As opposed to an impossible justification by works 
 of law, there is brought in a perfect justification by grace, 
 through faith alone, not at all for the sake of faith (Rom. 3, 28). 
 The doctrine of the Apostle concerning the nature and fruits of 
 this faith, we shall presently proceed to investigate. 
 
192 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 Comp. VAN OOSTERZEE " Christology" II. bl. 251-287 ; for 
 particular points, TISCHENDORF, Doctrina Pauli, Ap. de m 
 mortis Chr. satisfactorid, Lips. 1837; LIPSIUS, " The Pauline Doc- 
 trine of Justification" Leipz. 1853 ; RAUWENHOFF, Dissertatio de 
 loco Paulino qui est de Jinndaei, Lugd. Bat. 1852 ; BOK, Dis- 
 quisitio exhib. Pauli. Ap. doct. de TTJ \4nolvx^(je^ Amstel. 1856 ; 
 BONJSTARD, de la Resurrection de Christ dans la Theol. de St. Paul, 
 Strasb. 1862. 
 
 Questions for consideration. Is development and progress to 
 be observed in the Apostle's teaching concerning the work of 
 redemption? What is the sense of 1 Cor. 1, 30 ? What is sug- 
 gested by 1 Cor. 1, 13 & (compare Col. 1, 24) as to the signifi- 
 cance of the Lord's death upon the Cross? Investigation of the 
 most important soteriological utterances. Wherein lies, accord- 
 ing to Paul, the connection between the atoning and the sancti- 
 fying efficacy of the death of the Lord? In what relation do 
 the death and resurrection of Christ stand to the death and 
 resurrection of his people ? In what sense is Christ called " the 
 first fruits of them that are fallen asleep," 1 Cor. 15, 20 ? What 
 is the teaching of Eph. 4, 8-10? What of Phil. 2, 9-11, as 
 compared with 1 Cor. 15, 24-28 ? The contrast drawn in Rom. 
 10, 4-10. 
 
 40. 
 The Way of Salvation. 
 
 The faith which thus justifies the sinner before God, consists 
 in a confiding surrender of one's self to Christ, and an enduring 
 communion with Him. It is a faith whose seat is the heart, 
 whose author is (rod, whose manifestation is the new life, and 
 whose priceless fruit is restoration to God's favor and friend- 
 ship, with all its blessed consequences, even on this side the 
 grave. 
 
 1. That faith alone opens the way to salvation, is so emphat- 
 ically declared (Acts 16, 31 ; Rom. 10, 10) by Paul, that no doubt 
 as to his view is possible. An express definition of this faith, 
 
The Way of Salvation. 193 
 
 however, (such, for example, as in Heb. 11, 1) he has nowhere 
 given, and we must, therefore, gather his conception of faith 
 from scattered intimations. If we do this, we discover at once 
 that with Paul faith is opposed, not to knowledge, but on the 
 one hand to sight (2 Cor. 5, 7), on the other to doubt (Rom. 4, 
 20). Faith is consequently, with Paul, a firm assurance or con- 
 viction concerning things which, being either invisible or yet 
 future, fall without the sphere of natural perception, and, con- 
 sequently, cannot be proved thereby. 
 
 2. This faith, inasmuch as it justifies the sinner, has for its 
 object, in the widest sense, God (Rom. 4. 3-5. 24) and His 
 promise more definitely the Gospel (Phil. 1, 27 ; 2 Thes. 2, 13), 
 and the saving truth therein revealed; but constantly, and 
 above all, Him who is the great center of this Gospel (Acts 16, 
 31). Even where the Apostle speaks of the faith of Jesus 
 Christ as the Christian's vocation (Gal. 2, 16. 20 ; Eph. 3, 12 ; 
 Rom. 3, 26), he has before his mind no other faith than that 
 which is directed to Him as its object, and which enters into the 
 closest union with Him. Through this faith, further, is estab- 
 lished a living communion with Christ, in which we, so to speak, 
 die with Him and rise to newness of life (Rom. 6, 6 ; Gal. 2, 20). 
 This faith surrenders itself unconditionally and confidingly to 
 the Lord, and in turn receives from Him grace and strength 
 (2 Cor. 12, 9). Without doubt there is in this faith also an 
 intellectual element, which recognizes the death and resurrection 
 of the Lord as indisputable facts (1 Thess. 4, 14) ; but these 
 facts, and above all, Himself, it apprehends with the heart (Rom. 
 10, 10). The heart is the proper seat of saving faith, which, 
 preceded by an acquaintance with the Gospel, itself leads to a 
 clear and certain knowledge of the things which are freely 
 given of God in Christ (1 Cor. 2, 13 ; Colos. 1, 9. 10 ; Phil. 1, 9 ; 
 2 Tim. 1, 12). 
 
 3. The question how this grace arises and grows in man, 
 Paul answers by pointing out that it is God who brings sinners 
 to Christ (Colos. 1, 12. 13). He calls it on this account a faith of 
 God's operation (Colos. 2, 12. 13), and designates it a Divine gift 
 of grace (Phil. 1, 29). Without doubt faith comes by hearing 
 (Rom. 10, 14-17), but no planting and no watering can avail 
 unless God give the increase (1 Cor. 3, 5-7). The strengthen- 
 
194 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 ing of the faith is therefore bestowed as a heavenly gift (Eph. 3, 
 16 ; 2 Thess. 1, 2), and the honor of spiritual growth to be ren- 
 dered exclusively to God (2 Thess. 1, 3). Where God has medi- 
 ately wrought this faith, there is received, as the fruit of believ- 
 ing, the Holy Ghost (Eph. 1, 13 ; Gal. 3, 5), who dwells not only 
 in the whole Church (1 Cor. 3, 16), but also in each of its mem- 
 bers individually (I Cor. 6, 19), and unites them most intimately 
 with God in Christ. This Spirit is at the same time Himself a 
 Spirit of faith (2 Cor. 4, 13) : every special measure or every 
 special gift of this faith which manifests itself in the Church is 
 His work (1 Cor. 12, 9 ; Gal. 5, 22) ; and on that account His 
 abiding communion (2 Cor. 13, 14) is for all Christians the 
 blessing most to be desired. 
 
 4. The possession of this spirit becomes manifest by the fruits 
 thereof (Gal. 5, 22), and the new life is the development of the 
 faith thus born. Less than perhaps might have been expected, 
 does the Apostle speak in an especial manner of repentance. 
 Without doubt he proclaims it to Jew and Gentile (Acts 26, 20), 
 and teaches that it is necessary even for Christians after falling 
 anew into sin (2 Cor. 7, 10) ; while for unbelievers it is, accord- 
 ing to his view, absolutely indispensable, in order to come to 
 the knowledge of the truth (2 Tim. 2, 25). In general, however, 
 he is speaking to believers, as being now in truth converted 
 (1 Thess. 1, 9), and therefore combines in one the demand for 
 repentance and faith (Acts 20, 21). No wonder that man, 
 through faith, is brought into an entirely new condition of life 
 (2 Cor. 5, 17), which gradually developes itself (2 Cor. 3, 18), 
 and attains its goal only when all that is old has passed away, 
 and the perfection set before the believer is attained (Eph. 4, 
 14. 15). 
 
 5. It belongs to the peculiarities of the Pauline doctrinal 
 system that he describes the manifestation of the new life 
 trichotomically, as a life in faith, hope, and love ; and holds up 
 this last as the greatest of the three (1 Cor. 13, 13 ; compare 
 1 Thess. 1, 3 ; 5, 8). Faith, originally the gift of God as well as 
 the act of man, becomes now a life and state in which the new 
 man continually moves (2 Cor. 4, 18 ; 5, 7), yea, a principle 
 which, in its most universal form, gives its true value to every ac- 
 tion (Rom. 14, 23). In its highest development it knows itself, 
 
The Way of Salvation. 195 
 
 even here on earth, sure of the love of God in Christ for time and 
 for eternity, and thus is naturally one with that hope which is 
 the peculiar privilege of the Christian (Gal. 5, 5 ; Eph. 2, 12). 
 As faith has reference to that which is invisible, so does hope 
 especially have regard to those things which are yet future, 
 things which it sees not, but patiently expects (Rom. 8, 24. 25). 
 Its foundation is the promise, its crown the fulfillment, its goal 
 perfect redemption at the approaching coming of the Lord (Rom. 
 8, 19-23). Since this hope is well-founded and sure (Rom. 5, 5 ; 
 2 Cor. 5, 5), the Christian may rejoice in the midst of the great- 
 est tribulation (Rom. 12, 12). What an eminently important 
 place hope occupies in the doctrine of Paul, is evident from 
 such passages as, e. g., Colos. 1, 27 ; Tit. 1, 2 ; 2 Tim. 2, 10. Yet, 
 above hope and faith rises, in his estimation, love, the crown, the 
 first of all the fruits of the Spirit (Gal. 5, 22), the natural con- 
 sequence of faith (Gal. 5, 6), which, without it, is destitute of 
 all value (1 Cor. 13, 2). Universal love, also, and love of one's 
 enemies, is emphatically commended (Rom. 12, 17-21 ; 13, 8- 
 10) ; but, above all, the mutual love of believers is the object 
 of his highest praise (1 Cor. 13, 13), since it is to be valued 
 more highly than all gifts, yea, is the brief summing up, in a 
 word, of all perfection (Colos. 3, 14). 
 
 6. In the new life, which in this manner reveals itself in a 
 threefold form, there is by no means wanting a higher unity. 
 It bears throughout the character of a thank-offering (Rom. 12, 
 1), whose final aim is the glorifying of God (1 Cor. 10, 31 ; Colos. 
 3, 17), and whose daily effort is increasing progress towards 
 perfection (Phil. 3, 12-14). It is, on the one hand, a life of 
 liberty ; on the other, of voluntary service (Rom. 8, 21 ; Gal. 5, 
 13) a life which is no longer under the law, but precisely 
 through which the ideal of the law is most beautifully realized 
 (Rom. 3, 31 ; 8, 2-4), a life of constant conflict undoubtedly 
 (Gal. 5, 17), but of a conflict with weapons to which at last the 
 victory is assured (Eph. 6, 10-18) a life, it is true, still in the 
 flesh, but one which is more and more penetrated by the Spirit ; 
 not one of perfect holiness, but of the ever-continued work of 
 sanctification ; a school of exercise, and an arena, which Paul 
 loves to represent under the image of the Grecian contests 
 (1 Cor. 9, 24-27 ; 2 Tim. 4, 6-8). The imperfection of this 
 
196 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 condition, however, detracts in no respects from its worth. In 
 Christ believers are here already in principle perfect (Colos. 2, 10), 
 and are in fact known and loved of God (1 Cor. 8, 3) ; yet this 
 takes place not as though their sanctification, present or in pros- 
 pect, were the ground, far less the meritorious cause, of their 
 acceptance. The ground of their acceptance lies not within but 
 outside of them, and grace remains the fountain of all. That 
 God, however, notwithstanding their imperfection, and his in- 
 violable holiness, can look upon them and treat them in Christ 
 as righteous, is to be explained only by the fact that the justi- 
 fying faith, which unites them to Christ, is, at the same time, 
 the living principle of renewal and sanctification, which sooner 
 or later must come to full development. Paul teaches justifi- 
 cation just as little on the ground of, as apart from, personal 
 sanctification. 
 
 7. Even in the present life this living faith becomes the source 
 of a blessedness which is represented by Paul under manifold 
 forms. The justified sinner has peace with God, rejoices in 
 tribulation, and cherishes an unfailing hope for eternity ; so 
 that he is rendered perfectly secure in regard to the past, the 
 present, and the future (Bom. 5, 1-5). Justification (<5tx/wcrt?) 
 in the sense of Paul involves not merely, negatively, the notion 
 of the cancelling of guilt, and of acquittal from punishment ; 
 but also, positively, the notion of perfect restoration to God's 
 favor and friendship is intimately bound up with this idea 
 (Rom. 4, 3-5). [The justification of sinners embraces, conse- 
 quently, the twofold idea of pardon and acceptance, Eph. 1, 
 5-7 ; Acts 26, 18.] On this account the idea of justification is 
 closely connected with another, that of adoption as God's chil- 
 dren (viodealu), which is here constantly represented as the pecul- 
 iar privilege of believers. As the conception of a judicial act 
 (in declaring the sinner righteous) underlies the idea of justifi- 
 cation, so also it constitutes the basis in the adoption of him 
 who was originally a servant, to the rank and rights of a child, 
 by which an end is for ever put to all slavish service and fear. 
 Yet here, also, the juridical idea has at the same time its ethical 
 side. As the justified man necessarily lives in righteousness, 
 so the adopted children are at the same time followers of God, 
 who, above all things, in love manifest the Father's image in 
 
The Church. 197 
 
 themselves, resemble Him in spirit (Eph. 5, 1. 2) and thereby 
 become inwardly fitted to become his heirs (Rom 8, 17). This 
 Divine adoption, however, is a blessing which is perfectly re- 
 alized only in the future, when redemption (^noUr^uig) shall be 
 enjoyed in its whole fulness. 
 
 Comp. ENGELS, G-eloofstroem, 1835 ; VERWEY, " What God 
 works in us through Jesus Christ, according to Paul" W. in L. 
 1839 ; BERLAGE, Disq. de form. Paul. Ulan? '/. x$. signification , 
 Lugd. Bat 1856 ; WERNTNK, u Exeg. Stud, on ntaiig and Hw- 
 Tetew in the New Testament" Rott. 1858 ; COOPS, " Explanation 
 of the words, Justify and Justification," Rott. 1861. 
 
 Questions for consideration. What is the sense of 2 Cor. 5, 7 ? 
 Explanation of the different formulas nivng 'Iqaov Xg., ^'/^aw 
 Xg., eig Xy., &c. The nature of faith as it is seen in the life of 
 Paul himself, Gal. 2, 19-21. Is the Holy Spirit, according to 
 Paul, the author, or the fruit of faith ? Life after the spirit, in 
 contradistinction from life after the flesh. The Christian armor, 
 Eph. 6, 10-18. What peculiarity has the doctrine of Paul in 
 regard to vlodeata ? The full compass of the idea of the anokv- 
 
 * 41. 
 
 The Church. 
 
 All, who thus believe, form together a spiritual body, the 
 members of which are by baptism most closely united to the 
 Lord and to each other ; and, through the Lord's Supper, con- 
 tinually strengthen their fellowship with Him and with each 
 other. With all its diversity, this communion of believers is 
 one; notwithstanding all imperfection, holy; in spite of all 
 temporary barriers, destined to receive all nations into its bosom ; 
 and amidst all conflict, assured at last of the victory in Him 
 whose glorious revelation it expects with ardent longing. 
 
 1. Until now we have, under the guidance of the Apostle, 
 contemplated the individual man in fellowship with Christ In 
 order, however, to estimate at its true value salvation in Him, 
 
198 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 we must direct our attention to the union of all those who enjoy 
 the same; in other words, must become more intimately 
 acquainted with the Pauline Ecclesiology. It is especially the 
 Epistles to the Corinthians and that to the Ephesians which 
 here render us important service. But others, also, especially 
 the pastoral Epistles, contain important hints. 
 
 2. The church or congregation of the Lord (the two are iden- 
 tical in the language of Paul) is by no means the same as the 
 kingdom of (rod and of Christ. This latter is a perfectly spir- 
 itual society, whose ideal will be fully realized only in the 
 future (1 Cor. 6, 10 ; 15, 50 ; Eph. 5, 5) ; the former is the 
 union of those who here on earth are already, through faith and 
 love, members of that kingdom. When Paul speaks of the 
 church (xx^cr/), he means either the Christian assembly which 
 is gathered at a particular place (1 Cor. 14, 19. 35 ; comp. also 
 the txxhqaia XUT oixo//), or the union of confessors of the Lord in 
 a town or province, (1 Thess. 1, 1), or the totality of all believ- 
 ers (Eph. 1, 22). With his presentation of this last we have 
 especially to do. 
 
 3. The high position assigned to the church by Paul, is evi- 
 dent from the names by which he designates it, and from the 
 figures under which he describes it. It is for him the church of 
 G-od (Acts 20, 28), of Christ (Eph. 5, 25-27), the dwelling- 
 place of the Holy Ghost (1 Cor. 3, 16). In the first case it is 
 compared by preference to a cultivated field (1 Cor. 3, 9), in 
 the second to a body (Eph. 1, 23), in the third to a temple ; 
 although the different images here and there run into each other 
 (Eph. 2, 20 ; 4, 16). This last especially is his favorite com- 
 parison (1 Cor. 3, 9-17). God is the master builder, Christ the 
 foundation ; doctrines of very different degrees of value are the 
 different materials of which it is built up, and the household of 
 Grod are believers, as those who have been received into God's 
 family (Eph. 2, 19-22). If on one occasion the Apostles and 
 prophets of the New Testament are also called the foundation 
 of the building, (Eph. 2, 20), this is only because they proclaim 
 Christ, who is the living center. In Him the building of God 
 stands immovably firm, even though within its walls are in- 
 cluded objects of the most diverse value (2 Tim. 2, 19. 20). 
 With no less fitness is set forth the diversity along with the 
 
The Church. 199 
 
 higher unity in the church, under the figure of a body. The 
 former is undeniable, but necessary ; the latter is founded in 
 the relation of all to the same Christ. As He may be called, 
 in relation to all mankind, the second Adam ; so for the whole 
 Church is He the living, governing, and protecting Head. 
 
 4. Into this church the entrance is through baptism,* the ini- 
 tiatory rite of the New Testament, as circumcision was of the 
 Old, (Colos. 2, 11. 12). As Israel, in passing through the Bed 
 Sea, was brought into the closest relationship to Moses, so are 
 believers by baptism brought into the closest relationship to 
 Christ, especially as the dead and risen one. They are called to 
 confess his name, and to. be together one spiritual body. No- 
 where, indeed, does the Apostle ascribe to baptism in itself a 
 magical power [i. e., without any just proportion between cause 
 and effect], but to such an extent a mystical power, that it is truly 
 a bath of regeneration and renewing (Tit. 3, 5),f where as was 
 the case, as a rule, with those baptized in the Apostolic age it 
 is believingly desired and received. Baptism is just as little a 
 mere symbol, as it is an immediate source of blessing ; it is, how- 
 ever, the mediate cause of spiritual purification, only because it 
 is received in connection with faith.J Infant baptism is, in 
 Paul's Epistles, just as little forbidden as enjoined ; he, however, 
 lays evident stress upon the fact that there is but one baptism, 
 as there is but one saving faith (Eph. 4, 5). 
 
 5. As upon baptism, so also upon the Lord's Supper, more 
 light is shed by Paul, especially in the First Epistle to the Corin- 
 thians, 11 and 12, than by any other Apostle. His account of 
 
 * [Debemus in baptismo agnoscere spirituals lavacrum ; debemus illic testimo- 
 nium remissionis peccatorum et renovationis nostrae pignus amplecti ; sic tamen 
 relinquere et Christo et Spiritui sancto suum honorem, ut nulla pars salutis ad sig- 
 nura transferatur. Calvin, in 1 Pet. 3, 21. M. J. E.] 
 
 f [The washing of baptism introduces typically to the new state of the believer 
 (compare Matt. 19, 28), while the "renewing of the Holy Ghost" is the efficient 
 cause of the new life. M. J. E.] 
 
 \ [Spiritus Dei est qui nos regenerat, facitque novas creaturas ; sed quia invisi- 
 bilis et occulta est ejus gratia, visibile in baptismo ejus symbolum conspicitur. 
 Calvin, in Tit. 3, 5. M. J. E.] 
 
 [Compare, however, the words of Calvin : Quodsi communi generis human! 
 sorte eximuntur fidelium liberi ut Domino segregentur, cur eos a signo arceamus ? 
 si Dominus in Ecclesiam suam eos verbo admittit, cur signum illis negabimus? 
 Calvin, in 1 Cor. 7, 14. M. J. E.] 
 
200 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 the institution of the Supper (1 Cor. 11, 23-26), is the oldest 
 which has come down to us, and is the more important since he 
 received the knowledge thereof directly though mediately 
 from the Lord (d/ro TOO Kvyiov). The Lord's Supper is to him 
 evidently a breaking of bread for the commemoration of the 
 Lord's atoning death, a commemoration ordained by Himself, 
 and to be observed, after earnest self-examination, and in a wor- 
 thy manner, by His church unto the end of the ages (1 Cor. 
 11, 26-29). But no less is it to him, through the symbols of 
 the Lord's body and blood, a feast of the most intimate com- 
 munion with the Lord and all His people, (1 Cor. 10, 16, 17). 
 It is worthy of notice that Baptism and the Supper are at least 
 once mentioned by him in one breath, and placed upon a level 
 (1 Cor. 12, 13 ; comp. 10, 2-4) ; though naturally the combining 
 of the two under a single sacramental idea is of later origin. 
 
 6. The church, which is thus purified [symbolically] by Bap- 
 tism, and by the Supper more closely united to its head, remains 
 one (Eph. 4, 1-6), notwithstanding all diversity of gifts, pow- 
 ers, and operations, which manifest themselves in the midst of 
 it (1 Cor. 12, 4-6). While Paul, in regard to the universal 
 priesthood of believers (1 Pet. 2, 9) throws out only hints, (as, 
 for instance, in Rom. 12, 1), he is much more explicit than Peter, 
 where he is called to give directions as to the inner organism of 
 church life (Rom. 12, 4-6; Eph. 4, 11 ; the Pastoral Epistles). 
 The Divine origin of the different officers (1 Cor. 12, 28 ; Eph. 
 4, 11 ; Acts 20, 28) is to him as fully established as the calling 
 of each member of the church to employ the gifts received for 
 its edification (1 Cor. 14, 26). To this latter end must all be 
 made subservient ; even the relative value of the diiferent 
 Charismata is very distinctly made to depend thereupon (1 Cor. 
 14, 39). A sharp line of distinction between the ordinary and 
 extraordinary gifts of the Spirit is nowhere drawn by the 
 Apostle ; but he calls upon all to strive, in the way of love, after 
 the possession of the highest and best (1 Cor. 13). The factious 
 man in the church, on the other hand, falls under the Apostle's 
 severe rebuke (Tit 3, 10. 11), less even on account of his hete- 
 rodoxy than on account of his egoistic party machinations. 
 
 7. While the church is thus one, it is, at the same time, called 
 to holiness, and it corresponds really to the ideal, so far as 
 
The Church. 201 
 
 it deserves the name of a living church. On this account the 
 highest distinctive titles of ancient Israel are bestowed upon it 
 as a whole, holy, elect, beloved, etc. There is nowhere made 
 in the doctrinal teaching of Paul, a prevailing distinction 
 between the outward and the true church, although he by no 
 means overlooks the distinction between nominal Christianity 
 and living faith (Rom. 9, 5 ; 1 Cor. 4, 20 ; 2 Tim. 2, 19. 20). 
 As a rule, he seeks and finds the power of darkness, not within 
 the church, but outside of it (Colos. 1, 13) ; and precisely on 
 this account rebukes, with the greatest severity, by word and 
 deed, every manifestation of impurity within it (1 Cor. 5, 1, sqq.), 
 while he regards it as beneath the dignity of believers to bring 
 their mutual differences before the forum of an unholy world 
 (1 Cor. 6, 1-3). All impurity belongs, as a rule, to that past 
 with which they have no more to do (1 Cor. 6, 10-11) ; in prin- 
 ciple the church is already perfect, by virtue of its inner one- 
 ness with Christ (Colos. 2, 10), and in reality is destined ever- 
 more to become so (Eph. 5, 25-27). 
 
 8. United and holy, the church is, also, as regarded and 
 viewed by Paul, in the highest sense catholic. The middle wall 
 of partition is fallen away ; out of the spiritual blending of the 
 different nations, races, and ranks, arises now the true people of 
 Christ (Eph. 2, 14-16 ; Colos. 3, 11 ; Tit. 2, 14). Paul will not, 
 however, in a revolutionary spirit, assail the institutions of social 
 life, much less with one blow overthrow the whole order of the 
 social community (1 Cor. 7, 20). His own treatment of Onesi- 
 mus, no less than his directions for servants, wives, and children, 
 proves the very contrary (Eph. 5, and 6 ; Colos. 3 ; 1 Tim. 6). 
 From woman her subordinate place is not taken away (1 Cor. 
 11, 7), but, on the contrary, the duty of subjection is enforced 
 by a humbling reference to the history of the fall (1 Tim. 2, 14) ; 
 yet, nevertheless, her spiritual emancipation also is proclaimed 
 in the Gospel of Paul (Gal. 3, 28), for the ground-tone of this 
 is liberty a Gospel liberty (Gal. 4, 9) which binds itself by no 
 narrow forms, and bows only before the highest law of love 
 (1 Cor. 8-10; Roin. 14). On this account it is adapted to the 
 case of all, as it is also destined to be brought to all (Rom. 10, 
 14-17,) and was also, even in the beginning, brought to them 
 without restriction of person (Col. 1, 23). 
 
 13 
 
202 The Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 9. The final triumph of such a kingdom of God cannot rea- 
 sonably be doubted The Church itself serves as a pillar and 
 ground of Christian truth, because it confesses and preserves it 
 (1 Tim. 3, 15). In the midst of all conflict, there is, therefore, 
 assured to it a continual growth, a glorious completion of the 
 edifice, but upon the foundation which was laid once for all 
 (Eph. 2, 22 ; 4, 15. 16). Absolute completeness of the kingdom 
 of God before the coming of Christ, Paul does not indeed seem 
 to promise ; yea, there is no ground for maintaining that he 
 looked for the realization of the ideal in 1 Cor. 13, 9-12 in the 
 world. But yet he sees the fullness (the pre-determined totality 
 of the nations) of the Gentile world soon about to enter into the 
 kingdom of God, and in consequence thereof all Israel, as a 
 nation, converted and saved (Rom. 11, 25. 26). Especially 
 from this last event does the Apostle expect, in the spiritual 
 sense of the word, a new life from the dead (Rom. 11, 15). 
 " The conversion of the whole human race in the world will ac- 
 company the conversion of Israel " (BENGEL.) 
 
 10. The prospect of so great events can, from the nature of 
 the case, awaken only lofty expectations. Hope occupies in 
 the Pauline theology, a place not much inferior to that which 
 it occupies in the Petrine. The cherishing of the desire for the 
 appearing of Christ, is a prevailing characteristic of the Chris- 
 tian life (2 Tim. 4, 8). Consciously or unconsciously, all is 
 looking for redemption (Rom. 8, 19-23 ; 2 Cor. 5, 2-4), and 
 this redemption will not always, yea, will not even much longer, 
 have to be waited for (Rom. 13, 11). 
 
 Comp. PAKEATJ, " The Doctrine of Paul concerning the Nature 
 of Christ's Church," W. in L. 1842 ; DOEDES, " The Doctrine of the 
 Lord's Supper" Utr., 1847, bl. 47 ff ; -HALLEY, On the Sacra- 
 ments, London, 1844, 51. LECHLER, I c., S. 120 ff ; also the 
 articles on Baptism and>the Lord's Supper in HERZOG. 
 
 Questions for consideration. The txxlrjalm xr' ol*6v in the Pau- 
 line Epistles. Whence the fuller development of the idea of 
 the Church in the Pauline than in the Petrine theology? 
 Sense, truth, and beauty of the illustration in 1 Cor. 3, 9-17, 
 comp. Eph. 2, 19-22 ; 2 Tim. 2, 19. The unity of the Church, 
 1 Cor. 12, 26. The teaching of Eph. 4, 5, as compared with 1 
 
The Future. 203 
 
 Cor. 12, 13. Peculiar character and diverse value of the va- 
 rious charismata. Union of liberty and order in the Pauline 
 ideal of the Church. Pauline teaching with regard to Baptism 
 and the Supper, compared with that of the Synoptical Gospels. 
 The earnest of the future completion of the kingdom of 
 God. 
 
 42. 
 
 The Future. 
 
 The plan of salvation is to be fully realized at the return of the 
 Lord, an event which Paul, with the whole Apostolic Church, 
 looked for as near at hand, and which though by no means 
 without previous warning will at last occur unexpectedly. 
 The resurrection of the dead, the final judgment, and the anni- 
 hilation of every power which sets itself against Christ, are 
 associated with this great event ; in consequence of which the 
 perfected kingdom of Christ finally passes over into the ever- 
 lasting kingdom of God. 
 
 1. Like Peter ( 27) and all his fellow Apostles, Paul cher- 
 ishes the living hope of the speedy advent of the Lord. 
 Nowhere does he reckon himself among those who shall be 
 raised at the last day ; repeatedly, on the contrary, he expresses 
 himself as cherishing the expectation of being himself among 
 the number of those who shall remain alive at the coming of 
 the Lord (1 Thess. 4, 15 ; 1 Cor. 15, 51. 52). In his later epis- 
 tles, also, the idea is expressed, more obscurely however, that 
 something of the kind is possible (2 Cor. 5, 4; Phil. 3, 11); 
 although the more his earthly activity hastens to its close, the 
 more does he become familiar with the thought of dying before 
 that hour (Phil. 1, 21-23 ; 2 Tim. 4, 6-8). 
 
 2. However near the Lord's return may be, its precise period 
 can not be exactly determined. Unexpectedly (1 Thess. 5, 2), 
 but not without warning, it comes : the Man of Sin precedes 
 the coming of the Son of Man. Remarkably enough, the most 
 full teaching concerning the Antichrist is found in one of the 
 oldest of all the epistles of our Apostle (2 Thess. 2, 1-12) ; 
 
204 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 another proof how deeply this idea was rooted not only in the 
 teaching of the Lord (Matt. 24, 23-24); but also in the theology 
 of the Old Testament, and the whole cycle of thought of the 
 Apostolic age which was therewith so closely connected. The 
 obscurity of the Apostle's teaching upon this point arises es- 
 pecially from the fact that he is manifestly alluding to circum- 
 stances and phenomena in social and civil life, which were much 
 better known to his contemporaries than to later readers. But 
 ever do we find expressed in this mysterious form the thought 
 no less profound than rational, that the highest concentration of 
 the kingdom of darkness, and that an individual one, will pre- 
 cede the manifestation of the kingdom of light, and that the last 
 mighty effort of the former immediately borders on its deepest 
 humiliation. 
 
 3. This humiliation takes place at the last coming, which the 
 Apostle evidently conceives of as a visible Christophany, which 
 to some extent resembles the glorious Theophany at the giving 
 of the law on Horeb. Christ comes, in a glorified form (Phil. 
 
 3, 20. 21) from heaven, whither He has ascended (1 Thess. 1,10; 
 
 4, 16 ; 2 Thess. 1, 7). That He comes, in order henceforth to 
 dwell and reign upon earth, Paul does not say. He expects 
 rather that the believers who remain alive until the advent 
 will be caught up into the air to meet the coming King of the 
 kingdom of God, in order thus to be ever with Him. Whether 
 on earth or in heaven remains undecided ; perhaps we should 
 best express the mind of the Apostle if we should venture on 
 the supposition that, with the eye directed to this future, the 
 boundary-line between the two will be found to vanish. But 
 from 1 Cor. 6, 2. 3, it seems to follow that he conceived of be- 
 lievers as taking an active part in the final judgment, the exe- 
 cution of which is now to be accomplished. 
 
 4. At this coming, proclaimed with majesty (1 Thess. 4, 16 ; 
 comp. 1 Cor. 15, 52), all who have fallen asleep in Christ shall 
 be at once raised, and those yet living so changed that, without 
 dying, all that is mortal in them shall be, so to speak, swallowed 
 up of life (2 Cor. 5, 4). This is the first resurrection (1 Cor. 
 15, 23 ; 1 Thess. 4, 16), of which mention is made by Jesus, as 
 also by the Apostle John (Luke 14, 14 ; Kev. 20, 5). It takes 
 place at the end of the age, and is therefore preceded by a 
 
The Future. 205 
 
 separate state immediately after death. Since the Apostle so 
 soon expects the Lord's coming, it is easy to see why he does 
 not more fully describe this condition ; he looks beyond it to 
 the end. Only thus much can be said with certainty, that he 
 conceives of this state by no means as a state of lifeless uncon- 
 sciousness, but as a state of liberation, of repose, and of desira- 
 ble happiness (Phil. 1, 21-23), and cherishes the assurance that 
 neither death nor life can separate him from God in Christ 
 (1 Thes. 5, 10 ; Rom. 8, 38. 39 ; 14, 7-9). 
 
 With this separated spirit the risen body is united at the 
 coming of Christ. By the resurrection of the dead, the Apostle 
 no more understands, merely the immortality of the spirit, than 
 he does a material restoration of the flesh : to the opposite of this 
 latter view he even gives emphatic expression (1 Cor. 6, 13 ; 15, 
 50). He conceives of the restoration of the whole man, in con- 
 sequence of which the liberated spirit receives a heavenly 
 body (2 Cor. 5, 1), which, essentially identical with the earthly, 
 is yet furnished with quite different properties (1 Cor. 15, 42- 
 44). The possibility of this resurrection, founded on God's 
 omnipotence, Paul finds symbolized in the kingdom of nature 
 (1 Cor. 15, 36-41). Its certainty is established in his view, ob- 
 jectively by the resurrection of Christ (1 Thess. 4, 14 ; 1 Cor. 6, 
 14), and subjectively by the testimony of the Holy Ghost 
 (Rom. 8, 10 ; 2 Cor. 5, 5). Its glory appears when we contem- 
 plate the infinite difference between the present earthly and the 
 future heavenly condition (1 Cor. 15, 45-49 ; comp. Phil 3, 21). 
 
 5. The end of the present dispensation is, at the same time, 
 the manifestation and culmination of the dominion of Christ on 
 earth (1 Cor. 15, 24. 25). All foes are annihilated, Antichrist 
 included (2 Thes. 2, 8) ; last of all death (1 Cor. 15, 26), which 
 hitherto had still preserved considerable power. Here we must, 
 as it would seem, place the general resurrection both of the 
 just and the unjust, which Paul also on one occasion (Acts 24, 
 15) refers to. But certainly the great final judgment now takes 
 place, which Paul everywhere and always inseparably connects 
 with the coining of the Lord. 
 
 6. The final judgment takes place on a prophetic day of 
 righteous retribution upon the obstinate rejectors of the Lord 
 (2 Thess. 1, 7-10 ; Rom. 2, 5). The last judgment, absolutely 
 
206 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 universal (2 Cor. 5, 10), takes cognizance of good and evil 
 deeds, and is pronounced according to the most equitable 
 standard (Rom. 2, 6-10). God judges the world by Christ 
 (Acts 17, 31 ; 2 Tim. 4, 1), at whose coming every secret thing 
 shall be brought to light (1 Cor. 4, 5). Nowhere does Paul 
 teach a final pronouncing of our destiny immediately after 
 death : the day of the Lord's coming is the day of full retribu- 
 tion (Eom. 2, 16), and not before this day will the future glory 
 of believers be manifest in its full splendor (Rom. 8, 23 ; Colos. 
 3, 3. 4). 
 
 7. Highly blessed is the lot which on that day awaits the 
 redeemed of Christ. It is, on the one hand, a perfect deliver- 
 ance from all that oppresses, especially from the body of death 
 (Rom. 8, 2. 23) ; on the other hand, a knowing (1 Cor. 13, 12), 
 beholding (2 Cor. 5, 7), enjoying (1 Thes. 4, 17) Christ and a 
 triumphant reigning with Him (2 Tim. 2, 12) of which we 
 can here form but a very imperfect conception (Rom. 8, 18 ; 2 
 Cor. 4, 17). No other Apostle describes the blessedness of the 
 future so often as a personal participation in the triumph and 
 dominion of Christ (2 Cor. 4, 10 ; Rom. 5, 17) a phenomenon 
 which admits of a perfect explanation psychologically, but at 
 the same time an expectation which is based (Matt. 19, 28) on 
 nothing less than the word of the Lord himself. Without 
 doubt, according to the conception of Paul, this future blessed- 
 ness and glory has its variously modified degrees (1 Cor. 15, 
 40-44 ; 2 Cor. 9, 6) ; but all the children of God will be, in 
 their measure, His heirs, and joint-heirs with Christ (Rom. 8, 
 16, 17). 
 
 8. On the future misery of the unconverted sinner he speaks 
 less in detail, but expresses himself with equal definiteness. It 
 concentrates itself in his view, in banishment from the presence 
 (face) of the Lord and in the experience of His terrible dis- 
 pleasure (2 Thess. 1, 8-9 ; Rom. 2, 9-12), without any pros- 
 pect of diminution or removal of the punishment. The doc- 
 trine of the ultimate salvation of all finds only a seeming 
 countenance in Paul. Guided by the sound of the words, 
 merely, we might perhaps find apparent support for this doctrine 
 in certain isolated expressions of the Apostle ; but even in such 
 cases, every one who decides impartially will admit, that obscure 
 
The Future. 207 
 
 or vague hints must be interpreted by the light of distinct asser- 
 tions, and not the converse. The second Adam gives life, in- 
 deed, to all, but under a moral condition which is not complied 
 with by all (1 Cor. 15, 22) ; the universal homage rendered 
 finally to Christ (Phil. 2, 10) may be in part a forced homage ; 
 and if God is one day to be all in all (1 Cor. 15, 28) the connec- 
 tion of the words forbid us to refer this to any but those who 
 have already become subjects of the kingdom of God. Mercy, 
 shown toward the Gentile and Jewish (Rom. 11, 32) world in 
 their totality, can be exercised even when single individuals 
 perish ; and the reconciliation of heaven and earth (Eph. 1, 
 10 ; Colos. 1, 20) is accomplished, even though obstinate oppo- 
 sers (2 Thess. 2) are not converted and saved. Enough, that, 
 according to the conception of the Apostle, no single hostile 
 power will be able permanently to make a stand against the 
 kingdom of God in its triumph, and that thus every discordant 
 note will be wholly swallowed up in the song of redemption. 
 " The problem here set before us is, so to conceive of the tindteiu, 
 that God's being all in all may yet be in the wider sense pos- 
 sible, and so to explain this latter, that the idea of fatileta shall 
 remain unchanged " (KLING). 
 
 9. When the kingdom of Christ is completed, the kingly 
 office of the Son has accomplished its special purpose (1 Cor. 
 15, 27) ; and although all things continue to retain their 
 separate existence, they end for and in God, in the undivided 
 fullness of His being (1 Cor. 15, 28 ; comp. Rom. 11, 36). Upon 
 Paul's conception of the nature of God, full light arises only 
 when we stand at the end of his doctrinal development ; and 
 from all we have learnt at his mouth concerning the diverse ac- 
 tivity and reciprocal relationship of the Father, the Son, and the 
 Holy Ghost, it is clear that this conception of God bears no 
 traces of dry deistical, far less of a superficial Unitarian charac- 
 ter. The Trinity of the Divine Being already hinted at by the 
 Apostle Peter (1 Pet. 1, 2), comes with him ever anew into 
 the foreground (1 Cor. 12, 4-6 ; 2 Cor. 13, 14), and however 
 little he is given to abstract speculations, it is manifest that he 
 not only ascribes to the Son of God a truly Divine nature and 
 dignity ( 38. 4, 5), but also ascribes (1 Cor. 2, 10; 12, 11) to 
 the Holy Spirit a self-consciouness and freedom of action which 
 
208 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 necessarily leads to the idea of a personal existence. Both to the 
 Son of God and to the Holy Spirit, as distinguished from the 
 Father, he ascribes an activity which is conceivable only 
 when the divinity of their nature is recognized and acknowl- 
 edged. Yet it is especially the glory of God the Father, which 
 is the final goal of all that He accomplishes, through the Son 
 and Holy Spirit, for the salvation of the sinner (1 Cor. 8, 6 ; 
 Rom. 11, 33-36). u In majorem Dei gloriam " is the highest 
 watchword of the Pauline theology, more than of any other. 
 
 Comp. our " Christology" II, 289 sqq. with the literature there 
 cited ; BRIET, " Eschatolgy" II, 198, sqq. On the Antichrist, 2 
 Thess. 2, CHANTEPIE DE LA SAUSSAYE, " Bibk Studies" I, 65; 
 EINCK, " Th.e Doctrine of the Antichrist" Elberf. 1867 ; HOELE- 
 MANN " The position of St. Paul on the Question of the Time of 
 Christ's Return" in his Neue Bibelstud., Leipzig, 1866. 
 
 Questions for consideration. Nature, basis, and value of Paul's 
 teaching concerning the time of the second coming. What is 
 to be understood by the &v6<) T. du., 2 Thess. 2, 3, and what by 
 TO xare'/o/', 21, 8 ? Have the ideas of the Apostle concerning 
 resurrection, judgment, &c., been always the same, or is a 
 modification and development to be observed in them? Ex- 
 planation of 2 Cor. 5, 1-4, as compared with 1 Cor. 15, 51-54. 
 What difference is there, according to the teaching of Paul, in 
 the condition of departed believers before and after the second 
 coming of the Lord ? Does Paul distinguish between a first 
 and second resurrection ? Doctrine of the ApoJcatastasis in the 
 Pauline theology. Connection of the whole Pauline theology 
 with his conception of the nature of God. 
 
 43. 
 The Kindred Types of Doctrine. 
 
 However full and original the Pauline conception of Chris- 
 tianity may be, it stands by no means alone. Its prelude is 
 found in the address of Stephen, its fundamental tone in the 
 writings of Luke, its echo in the Epistle to the Hebrews ; and 
 in such a manner that this last, on the one hand, faithfully reflects 
 
The Kindred Types of Doctrine. 209 
 
 the spirit of the great Apostle of the Gentiles, and is on the 
 other hand, an independent link in the chain of the earliest 
 development of Christian doctrine. 
 
 1. In the days of the Old Testament, the founder of Mosaism 
 ( 4) stood, in a certain sense, alone upon his intellectual and 
 religious height. Paul, however the Moses of the New Testa- 
 ment has friends and spiritual kinsmen, who, each in his own 
 manner, proclaim the great principles of Paulinism, although 
 without attaining to the height of the great Apostle of the Gen- 
 tiles. One only do we find among them all who speaks with 
 such force and dignity that many have often thought they dis- 
 cerned in his voice that of Paul himself. Nevertheless, the 
 others must not be passed by without explanation. 
 
 2. Like other great men, Paul also had his forerunner. We 
 find him in Stephen, with whom we become acquainted, Acts 6 
 and 7. The leading thought of Paulinism even if not fully ex- 
 pressed, and much less developed, was yet distinctly indicated 
 by him. This is equally evident from the accusation brought 
 against him (Acts 6, 14), and from single points in his defence, 
 in which we find a sharp antagonism against the same obstinate 
 Judaism-, against which Paul afterwards so powerfully pleaded. 
 In Stephen we see a first effort, as yet feeble, for the emancipa- 
 tion of the youthful Church from the fetters which afterwards 
 cramped her ; he had an anticipation of that which Paul clearly 
 perceived. In him, also, is apparent that higher intellectual 
 aspiration by which Paul is so greatly distinguished from Peter 
 and those of kindred spirit. His hour of death, finally, made 
 an impression upon the raging Saul, which the latter, even as 
 Paul, never forgot (Acts 22, 20). 
 
 3. The Third Gospel and the Book of Acts, which we ascribe, 
 without any hesitation, to Luke, exhibit also a Pauline char- 
 acter. Let any one, for instance, observe the comprehensive 
 spirit which they breathe (see, for example, Luke 3, 38 ; Acts 
 8, 35-37; comp. 1, 8) the contents and form of many words 
 and deeds of the Lord, which Luke records with manifest pref- 
 erence, and which, in a certain respect, anticipate the Gospel 
 of Paul (Luke 7, 50 ; Chap. 15 ; 17, 7-10 ; 18, 14 ; comp. Acts 13, 
 38-39) ; the similarity of their accounts of the institution of 
 
210 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 the Lord's Supper, of the appearance of the Lord which was 
 granted to Peter, and other characteristics which furnish indu- 
 bitable proof that both these writings proceed from the imme- 
 diate circle in which the Apostle moved. 
 
 4. The most manifold traces of Paulinism are, however, to 
 be found in the Epistle to the Hebrews ; which has been not 
 inaptly termed " a jewel of the Christian canon," and which, 
 even in itself, but especially in its relation to the fundamental 
 ideas of Paul, is worthy of the most careful attention. It is 
 of course not in place here to enter upon the great number of 
 questions of introduction which this epistle, or rather treatise, 
 has called forth. In our judgment, it was written between the 
 years 60 and 70, for Jewish Christians dwelling in Palestine 
 not in the Diaspora with the distinct purpose of pointing 
 out to them how much more excellent is the new covenant than 
 the old, and thereby arming them against the danger of falling 
 back into Judaism. The main thought the theme is given 
 in Heb. 8, 8-13 ; (comp. Jer. 31, 31-34), and the way in which 
 this is developed is so surprising, that it will well reward us to 
 survey somewhat in detail, the doctrinal peculiarities of this 
 writer. To the old covenant he gives a high place, but the 
 new dispensation he places much higher, and dwells most em- 
 phatically upon the vocation of those for whom the former has 
 been abrogated, and the latter established in its place. 
 
 5. How highly the Old Testament is prized by this author, 
 is at once evident, from the point of view in which he regards it 
 from the beginning. It is the fruit of special revelations of 
 God (Heb. 1, 1), which He has granted " at sundry times and 
 in divers manners." The writer's conception of God, also, 
 agrees in its main features with that of the Old Testament. 
 Without doubt, he views Him as the God of peace (Heb. 13, 20), 
 who reveals His grace in a wondrous manner in the death of His 
 Son (Heb. 2, 9) ; yet this side of the Divine nature does not 
 here come distinctly into the foreground. With the doubtful 
 exception of 12, 7, the name of Father is only once given to 
 God (Heb. 12, 9), and then in a sense which reminds us of a 
 particular Old Testament declaration (Num. 16, 22). He ap- 
 pears here rather as judge of all, whose judgment upon apos 
 tate sinners is terrible (Heb. 12, 23-29, comp. Heb. 10, 26-31), 
 
The Kindred Types of Doctrine. 211 
 
 but whose reward of the well doing required by Him is equally 
 certain (Heb. 7, 9. 10 ; 11, 6. 26). His grace is not passed over in 
 silence (Heb. 4, 16 ; 12, 15) ; but the terrors of the Lord, much 
 more than His grace, form the lever and incentive to action. 
 On the other hand, manifest emphasis is laid upon the omnipo- 
 tence and faithfulness of God, the Creator of all things out of 
 nothing (Heb. 11, 3), who also doeth wonders (Heb. 2, 4), and 
 can swear by no one higher (Heb. 6, 13) than himself; the living 
 God (Heb. 9, 14 ; 12, 22), as opposed to lifeless idols ; in a 
 word the Lord (Heb. 8, 2) just as Christ was before (7, 14) 
 extolled as our Lord on whom all things are absolutely de- 
 pendent (Heb. 6, 3). His glory is that of a Divine hypostasis 
 (self-existent being), reflecting itself in the Son (Heb. 1, 3), and 
 communicating itself by the Holy Ghost, who is here, however, 
 regarded rather as a gift than as a giver (Heb. 2, 4; 6, 4; 10, 
 29). The Trinitarian distinction in the nature of the Godhead 
 is not here so unequivocally brought out as in the theology of 
 Paul or even of Peter. At least, the indication of the [dis- 
 tinct] personality of the Holy Spirit, which has been supposed 
 to be present in 3, 7 ; 9, 8 ; 10, 15, is more or less doubtful 
 (comp. the use of Tr^oitfw/', Gal. 3, 8). 
 
 6. Since such a God has already revealed himself in the Old 
 Testament, it is no wonder that our author prizes very highly 
 the record of this revelation, especially in its prophetic charac- 
 ter. He so often introduces Old Testament citations, that his 
 writing in this respect occupies the same place among the Epis- 
 tles which the Gospel of Matthew does among the Gospels. Here 
 and there, no less than Peter, he expresses his own ideas in Old 
 Testament words, without directly citing them as such (Heb. 12, 
 12 ; 13, 6). It is, indeed, the Holy Ghost himself who is intro- 
 duced as speaking in Holy Writ : the expressions Scriplure and 
 Word of Q-od here cover precisely the same ideas (Heb. 3, 7 ; 
 10, 15). And it is not only the Hebrew original but also the 
 Alexandrine translation which in view of the writer is invested 
 with high authority. More closely than any other Apostolic 
 writer he follows the version of the Seventy ; so far, indeed, as 
 to adopt from them even an erroneous rendering the transla- 
 tion of oznayim by a^a (10, 5). With a slight exception (10, 
 30) he confines himself to this version even in the form of his 
 
212 Biblical Theology of the New Testament 
 
 argumentation (Heb. 9, 16. 17) ; at the same time he regards 
 rather the spirit than the letter of the words, which he of- 
 ten cites from memory. The whole of the Old Testament 
 is to him one constant reference to the Messiah, whom, by 
 virtue of his peculiar system of hermeneutics, he finds, where 
 more modern exegesis would possibly not even seek Him. 
 From his typico-symbolic stand-point he understands without 
 difficulty of the Messiah even that which primarily was cer- 
 tainly not spoken definitely of Him (see, for instance, Heb. 2, 
 13b; comp. Isaiah 8, 17). 
 
 7. To the narratives, likewise, of the Old Testament he 
 attaches an especial value, because he sees in them not only 
 the record of memorable facts, but also suggestive types of 
 higher things. Thus, Joshua (Heb. /$), as also Melchisedec 
 (Heb. 7), is to him a type, i, e. a prophetic symbol of the per- 
 son and work of the Eedeemer. On the one hand, he warns 
 against unbelief and disobedience by pointing to the example 
 of the people of Israel (Heb. 4, 1. 2) and of Esau (Heb. 12, 16. 
 17) ; on the other hand, he exhorts to perseverance in the 
 Christian race, by pointing to the ancient saints as preemi- 
 nently patterns for believers (Heb. 11). He lays great stress 
 upon the spiritual unity of believers of the old covenant and 
 those of the new (Heb. 11, 39. 40) ; and since precisely this 
 element of faith is to him the highest manifestation of the 
 religious life, he accords also to Kahab, Samson, and others, a 
 place of honor which, measured simply by a moral standard, 
 they would possibly not have deserved. In his high estimate 
 of believers under the old covenant, and in the use he makes 
 of sacred history, he agrees in a remarkable manner with Paul 
 and Peter (Rom. 4; 1 Cor. 10; 1 Peter 3). Like the latter, 
 also, he mentions with commendation the example of Sarah 
 (Heb. 11, 11). 
 
 8. In the religious history of Israel, it is especially the sacred 
 rites, more particularly the sacrifices, on which the writer of the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews dwells with manifest preference. The 
 Divine origin of the sacrificial ritual is here constantly assumed 
 (Heb. 11,4; comp. Heb. 5, 4) ; and even prayer and alms are 
 regarded from the point of view of sacrifice (5, 7 ; 13, 16). 
 Not all kinds of sacrifice, however, are here dealt with ; the 
 
The Kindred Types of Doctrine. 21 
 
 author directs his attention especially to propitiatory sacrifices 
 and sacrifices for sin between which he makes no further dis- 
 tinction as well as to those by which the old covenant was 
 once inaugurated (Heb. 10, 19-21). He attaches great signifi- 
 cance to the sacrifice on the great day of Atonement (Heb. 10, 
 1 ; 13, 11) ; as, moreover to whatever concerns the different acts 
 of the sacred ritual, as the shedding of the blood and the bear- 
 ing of it for sprinkling into the innermost sanctuary (9, 22-24). 
 The sanctuary itself, is for him a feeble image of the higher 
 heavenly reality (8, 5), and the high priest who enters therein, 
 performs a symbolical action which stands in immediate connec- 
 tion with the pacification of the conscience burdened on account 
 of guilt. 
 
 9. Nevertheless, however great the value of all this which 
 is evidently described by the writer of the epistle con amore, 
 and, as it were, from his own observation it was, and remain- 
 ed, far from sufficient. It is true the law was proclaimed 
 through the ministration of angels (Heb. 2, 2 ; comp. Gal. 3, 
 19 ; Acts 7, 53), but it contains only the shadow, not the sub- 
 stance, of things from its stand-point yet future (Heb. 10, 1). 
 Sacrifice, also, can never sanctify (rek-twrm*) him who presents 
 it : that is to say, through this the moral goal, for which it is 
 required and offered, is never attained. It is, moreover, offered 
 by priests who, themselves subject to sin and death, continually 
 succeed each other (Heb. 7, 23. 27). It was, besides, only of 
 temporary effect, and must, for this reason, ever be renewed 
 (Heb. 9, 25 ; 10, 1-4. Above all, it procured forgiveness only 
 for sins committed through ignorance, and could produce only 
 Levitical, no higher (moral) purity (Heb. 9, 13. 14). It was 
 able, therefore, to preserve the transgressor in communion with 
 the theocratic nation, but could not possibly restore the broken 
 communion between God and the sinner (Heb. 10, 4). Thus, 
 it had its highest significance, not as an adequate means of 
 atonement, but as a prophetic symbol : the whole order of Old 
 Testament worship is designed to point to that better thing 
 which is yet future (Heb. 9, 8). No wonder that the old cove- 
 nant was from the beginning destined to be only of transitory 
 duration (Heb. 8, 13; 10, 9). It was, indeed, relatively firm 
 (Heb. 2, 2), but not immovable (Heb. 12, 27). On the con- 
 
214 BMcal Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 trary, even the prophets had proclaimed a new covenant, an 
 immovable kingdom (Heb. 8, 8-13 : 12, 26, sqq.), and naturally, 
 he who remained at the stand-point of the law, or returned to 
 it, came thereby into conflict with the word and spirit of this 
 old covenant itself. This latter has fulfilled its destiny and 
 attained its ideal in the new ; and Christians are consequently 
 the true Israel. The relation in which this true Israel stands 
 to the Church of Gentile Christians is passed over in silence in 
 this epistle. The object of the writer is only to convince Jew- 
 ish Christians that return to a worship which they had forsaken 
 would be simply an exchange of the greater for the immeas- 
 urably less. 
 
 10. The dignity of the new above the old dispensation is 
 also manifest from the exalted nature of the person who foun- 
 ded the new covenant. It belongs to the peculiarities of our 
 epistle that this writer, still more than Paul (Rom. 5, 12-21), 
 makes use of comparison in order to present before his reader 
 the glory of Christ. He exalts Him (a) far above all saints of 
 the old covenant (Heb. 12, 2) ; (b) above the high priest, who 
 was weak, sinful, aad mortal (Heb. 5, 1-3; 7, 23); (c) above 
 the mediator of the old covenant, with whom he stands related 
 as the son to the bond-servant of the house (Heb. 3, 1-6) ; (d) 
 even above the angels, the mediators through whom Moses had 
 received the law (Heb. 1 and 2). As such, He has a more dis- 
 tinguished name than they that of Son and Lord, performs a 
 higher work than the angels, and must also receive from them 
 the homage of adoration (Heb. 1, 4. sqq). He is even refer- 
 ring to a very significant declaration in the Psalms (Heb. 1, 8) 
 here styled God, and regarded as the mediate cause of creation ; 
 the ground of the continued existence of all things, the reflec- 
 tion of the glory of God (Heb. 1, 3). " God finds himself again, 
 and reflects himself in the Son as in His other I" (THOLUCK). 
 That from such a Christological stand-point the personal pre- 
 existence of the Son is understood, even though it be indicated 
 but in a passing way (Heb. 9, 26), is self-evident 
 
 11. With equal strength our author affirms the true human- 
 ity of the Lord, so that his Christology even bears a distinct 
 anti-Docetic character, not less than, for example, that of Luke's 
 Gospel. Among the testimonies for this glorious truth we 
 
The Kindred Types of Doctrine. 215 
 
 must not reckon Heb. 2, 16, since nothing more is there said 
 than that He takes up the case, not of angels, but of Abraham's 
 children. But of so much greater weight is the explicit state- 
 ment that He became partaker of the flesh and blood of the 
 children of men (Heb. 2, 14, nuQunlrjaiwg, prorsus), a declaration 
 which was early used by the Church Fathers as a weapon 
 against the Docetae. Equally remarkable, from this point of 
 view, is the mention of the days of the flesh, of the strong 
 crying and tears of the Lord (Heb. 5, 7), and of His descent 
 from Judah (Heb. 7, 14). Far from being regarded as of no 
 importance, the fact of the Son's being truly man is here 
 brought into immediate connection with the work of redemp- 
 tion itself. He can relieve man's misery only by personally 
 sharing it (Heb. 2, 16-18) ; and consequently, only by virtue 
 of a unity of nature, can raise his brethren to his own holiness 
 and blessedness, and give to them the highest example and 
 pattern (Heb. 2, 11 ; 12, 2). 
 
 12. As true man, nevertheless, the Lord was absolutely not 
 raised above temptation to sin. In no single epistle of the 
 New Testament is His liability to temptation more unequivo- 
 cally expressed than here (Heb. 4, 15). The sufferings of 
 Jesus were, on this account, of great importance, not only for 
 mankind but also for Himself. Suffering was the great means 
 by which He himself was made perfect, and completely fitted 
 for His exalted position ; yea, by which He became the ideal 
 of humanity (Heb. 2, 5-9 ; comp. Ps. 8, 4. 5). Kemarkable, 
 again, from this point of view is the special value the writer 
 attaches to that which took place in Gethsemane (Heb. 5, 7-9). 
 Of course he does not imply that the Sufferer was raised from 
 unholiness to holiness, but only that through temptation He 
 was raised to the highest possible degree of perfection. Even 
 the recognition of such a faith in God as that through which 
 alone He could stand at the head of a bright succession of 
 heroes in the faith (Heb. 12, 2), proves of itself how much he 
 was in earnest as to the true and holy humanity of the Lord. 
 Manifestly, he seeks to bring Him as closely into contact with 
 humanity as this can take place without prejudice to the un- 
 conditional acknowledgment of his Godhead. 
 
 13. The dignity of the Lord's person stands, according to our 
 Epistle, in immediate connection with His work. Precisely as 
 
216 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 Son of God was He able to be not merely the highest revela- 
 tion of God (Heb. 1,1), but also the founder of a new and bet- 
 ter covenant. Of this better covenant He became the surety 
 (Heb. 7, 22), i. e., security that it shall certainly be fulfilled. 
 The original word (577 uoc) does not mean that He answers to 
 God for the making good of our obligations, but that He an- 
 swers to us for the fulfillment of God's promises : not of the 
 payment of a debt is the question here, but explicitly of the 
 founding of a covenant. No one but he who is led away by 
 the sound of the words, can here find occasion to speak of the 
 u surety " sufferings of Christ. It is simply said that in the 
 person of Christ is given to us also the pledge of the firmness of 
 the covenanted promises. In support of this assertion, the eye 
 is directed much less to the prophetic and kingly offices of the 
 Lord than to the high-priestly functions which He had already 
 discharged on earth and now continues in heaven. 
 
 14. The value of the work of the Lord on earth as high- 
 priest of His people, is shown in the form of a sustained com- 
 parison between the sacrifice presented by Him and the sin- 
 offerings of the Old Testament. It has, first of all, a more 
 exalted character than these. If there the blood of bulls 
 and of goats was presented, here it is the priest who offers him- 
 self by a moral act of most unconditional obedience. Even the 
 coming of the Lord into the world is the fruit and sign of this 
 obedience (Heb. 10, 5), which attains its glorious culmination 
 in His voluntary death upon the Cross (Heb. 5, 8. 9). To the 
 form in which this death was endured, our author attaches, in 
 itself, no special value. It seems as though, in order as long as 
 possible to spare his Jewish readers the terrible word, he men- 
 tions the cross only in passing, and towards the end (Heb. 12, 2) 
 of his epistle, and would reconcile them to the thought of 
 Golgotha by the suggestive allusion to the Lord's having there 
 symbolically suffered without the gate (Heb. 13, 12). There is 
 less stress here laid upon bodily suffering than upon the blood- 
 shedding (ttfyiarex^ua/a) regarded as a personal act ; less upon 
 passive suffering than upon the tasting, proving, experiencing 
 of death in all its bitterness (Heb. 2, 10). This death is not 
 simply a lot but an act, as little arbitrary on the part of the 
 Lord as of the Father. On the contrary, this act bears a charac- 
 
The Kindred Types of Doctrine. 217 
 
 ter perfectly worthy of God ; in the ordaining of it according to 
 His holy will, there were motives which in the highest degree 
 became Him who ordained it (Heb. 2, 10. 17; 10, 10). Therein 
 the grace of Grod became manifest (Heb. 2, 10) ; and in conse- 
 quence thereof Christ becomes not merely the pledge, but also 
 the mediate cause of salvation (Heb. 5, 9). 
 
 15. This sacrifice has, moreover, a higher aim than all which 
 preceded it It was not, like those, in part presented for the 
 offerer's own sins (Heb. 7, 27), but exclusively on behalf of 
 others. The innocent and voluntarily shed blood becomes a 
 ransom (/Ur^ov), by which an everlasting redemption (teiyuats) is 
 not only symbolized, but actually brought in. As a sacrifice, 
 Christ takes away (dvc^^*, Heb. 9, 28) sins, in which state- 
 ment is implied -that He has first taken them upon himself: the 
 taking away (oter) is a consequence of taking them upon him- 
 self (porter), in the sense of making expiation for them, as the 
 sacrificial victim symbolically did for the sins of the offerer 
 (comp. Isaiah 53, 5). This is especially manifest where the 
 writer says (Heb. 9, 15) that the death of the Mediator was 
 necessary for the forgiveness of sins which were committed 
 under the first covenant but were not yet expiated ; and he 
 thus ascribes to the sacrifice of the Lord a so-called retro-active 
 effect (Heb. 9, 26). Such an operation of this sacrifice were ab- 
 solutely inconceivable if anything less than an objective expia- 
 tion had here taken place. In order to bring this about, the 
 blood-shedding of Christ was indispensable ; but even this 
 would not have been able to effect its object, had it not been, at 
 the same time, the highest moral act of unconditional obedience. 
 For this offering He was qualified by the eternal Spirit which 
 was in Him (Heb. 9, 14), and in this sacrifice He is accepted as 
 representing His people who, now spiritually united to Him, 
 are well pleasing to the Father (Heb. 2, 11). For each of them 
 (vnty navrds, Heb. 2, 9) has He tasted death on their behalf, in 
 the sense that they are now delivered from this punishment of 
 sin. But precisely on this account there remains for the man 
 who obstinately despises Him, no propitiatory sacrifice more 
 (Heb. 10, 26). In any case, the Levitical sacrifice is for ever 
 abolished, and Christ cannot be offered a second time. 
 
 16. But so, also, does this sacrifice produce richer fruit than 
 all which have preceded it. The Lord himself was thereby 
 
 14 
 
218 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 rendered inwardly perfect, and led up by this path to glory. 
 At the same time He thus became meet to be a Saviour for 
 His people, because by virtue of innermost sympathy, He 
 entered wholly, so to speak, into their condition (Heb. 2, 16-18). 
 As concerns them, our author expresses their privilege in a 
 peculiar manner when he says they are, by this one offering, for 
 ever made perfect (Heb. 10, 14). It is not easy perfectly to de- 
 line the whole meaning of this word (celeiwaig). Thus much 
 is at once clear, that it must be understood not in a purely sub- 
 jective, but in an objective sense, and must be clearly distin- 
 guished from the sanctification of believers. Christians are 
 sanctified (&yia^Evoi) as being separated from the world and con- 
 secrated to God through the holy Christ, who sanctifies them 
 (6 <fytdujj' Heb. 2, 1L). But, as such, they are already perfect, 
 i. e., they have become in principle all that they should be. 
 The reteivjaig includes consequently the Pauline justification 
 (dixaiwuig) and likewise redemption (faolvTquuig) it is the restora- 
 tion of the normal condition of man before God, with all that 
 follows therefrom. They who share in this salvation are thus 
 assured of the purging (xaduQwtws, Heb. 1, 3) of their sins a 
 word by which their perfect deliverance not merely from the do- 
 minion, but, above all, from the guilt of sin is indicated. Thus 
 brought into a state of peace and freed from an evil conscience, 
 they can now serve God without fear of death ; the more so, since 
 the devil, who had the power of death, has been morally de- 
 stroyed (Heb. 2, 14) by the death of Christ Yea, even suffering 
 need no more trouble them ; it is no longer a punishment but a 
 chastening, a sign of God's fatherly good-pleasure (Heb. 12 r 
 5-11). To the throne of grace they may draw near with con- 
 fidence (Heb. 4, 16), as children led unto glory (Heb. 2, 10), 
 i. e., now made partakers of the perfection which they already 
 in principle possess, and placed in a position corresponding 
 thereto. 
 
 17. No wonder that a sacrifice through which so much bless- 
 ing is obtained, has a so much more enduring power than all 
 others ; and also, in contrast with these, needs never more 
 (Heb. 7, 24-27) to be repeated. In the new covenant every- 
 thing is eternal (Heb. 9, 12), and the kingdom of God an 
 immovable kingdom (Heb. 12, 28). It has been wrongly 
 
The Kindred Types of Doctrine. 219 
 
 inferred from the references in Heb. 6, 4-6 ; 9, 15 ; 10, 26, that 
 the writer teaches only forgiveness of those sins which were 
 committed before conversion. Like the person (Heb. 13, 8), so 
 also the work of Christ (Heb. 9, 12) has in his eye an ever-abid- 
 ing worth ; and precisely the warning against one sin which is 
 never to be forgiven, presupposes that for lesser transgressions, 
 which are the fruit of remaining weakness, no similar judgment 
 is to be apprehended. The less so because the work of me- 
 diation, once accomplished on earth, is unceasingly continued 
 in heaven. 
 
 18. The heavenly work of the Lord began with His glorifica- 
 tion in heaven, to which, on account of its symbolic importance, 
 the highest value is attached in this epistle. Manifestly, the 
 ascension is here regarded as a fact accomplished once for all 
 
 , Heb. 9, 12). Heaven itself is a definite locality (kv 
 is, Heb. 1, 3 ; 8, 1) with which the innermost sanctuary of 
 Israel's temple could in some sense be compared ; or rather the 
 heavenly things themselves are invisible realities, of which the 
 earthly are only a resembling shadow. Into this heaven Christ 
 is entered to present His own sacrificial blood before the pres- 
 ence of God (Heb. 9, 24-26) ; and Christians see the entrance 
 thither opened through Him, since by His death the interven- 
 ing veil has been, as it were, removed from before their steps 
 (Heb. 10, 19). The work which the Lord there accomplishes 
 on their behalf is indeed a priestly, but, at the same time, a 
 truly kingly one (Heb. 7, 25 ; 9, 24 ; 10, 13). He represents 
 them by intercession and sacrifice ; but is, at the same time 
 like a second Melchesidec (Heb. 7) the priest-king, who is 
 clothed not merely with the highest honor, but also with the 
 highest power for the vanquishing of his foes (Heb. 10, 13), and 
 for the perfecting of the salvation of his friends (Heb. 9, 28). 
 
 19. This vanquishing, and this completion of salvation be- 
 come manifest at the impending Advent of the Lord. He is 
 then seen a second time, without henceforth standing in any 
 relation to sin, which He has here put away (9, 28). The cer- 
 tainty that this coming cannot be long delayed, gives an 
 increased importance to the exhortation to patient endurance 
 (Heb. 3, 6. 14 ; 10, 36. 37). Then will take place the judgment 
 (according to 9, 27, after death no doubt, but on that account 
 
220 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 immediately after) which, in accordance with the Old Testament 
 standpoint of this Epistle, is constantly ascribed to God him- 
 self (Heb. 12, 23 ; 13, 4), without express mention of Christ. 
 The resurrection of the dead is here >nly incidentally referred 
 to (Heb. 11, 18. 19), and is not more fully treated of. It 
 belonged, indeed, to the first principles (Heb. 6, 2), sufficiently 
 well known, and regarded, in all probability, in the same light 
 by this writer as by his fellow- witnesses. Eternal judgment, 
 however, is here distinctly described as a terrible retribution 
 upon faithless professors of Christ (Heb. 6, 8 ; 10, 26, sqq.) ; 
 whilst the future blessedness of the faithful is represented as 
 personal participation in the eternal Sabbath-rest of God (Heb. 
 4, 9-11). Nevertheless, the eye of faith is not directed exclu- 
 sively to a yet distant future. The children of the new cove- 
 nant are already brought into the closest relation with a 
 perfected society in heaven (12, 18-24), to which belong the 
 saints who have fallen asleep under the old covenant, but who 
 only now, in communion with believers of the new, perfectly 
 attain to their heavenly destination (Heb. 11, 39. 40). Yet a 
 last shock is expected by the writer, in the destruction of the 
 earthly economy, which like the first dispensation, must pass 
 away. Then, however, he sees the coming and remaining of 
 those things which are immovable (Heb. 12, 26-28). 
 
 20. From the possession of such great privileges, arise natu- 
 rally manifold duties. Like the Epistle to the Romans, that to 
 the Hebrews has, after the theoretical, a practical and hortatory 
 (Heb. 10, 19 ; 13, 21) division. The conception of the Christian 
 life as a life of faith, of hope, and of love, clearly underlies the 
 teaching of this Epistle (Heb. 6, 10-12 ; 10, 22-24). A power- 
 ful incentive to active faith is found in 11, 140 ; to patient 
 hope, in 12, 1-13 ; to holy love, in 12, 14-13, 21. 
 
 21. The author's idea of faith is as pure as it is susceptible 
 of application to all believers of the old and of the new cove- 
 nant. The great object of this faith is God (Heb. 6, 1), whom 
 he regards as faithful (Heb. 10, 23), and beholds with the eye 
 of the spirit (Heb. 11, 27). In this, his faith, the believer has 
 assurance, even in regard to those things invisible and as yet 
 future (Heb. 11, 1) ; and, at the same time, he has confidence 
 to draw near to Him from whom he is no longer estranged 
 
The Kindred Types of Doctrine. 221 
 
 (Heb. 4, 15 ; 10, 19-22) by trembling fear. Without this faith 
 it is absolutely impossible to enter into communion with God, 
 and to become well pleasing to Him ; but precisely on this 
 account is it also urgently necessary, not merely to persevere, 
 but also to abound therein (Heb. 3, 6 ; 10, 22). As now faith 
 is assured of the reality of invisible things, so hope looks for- 
 ward to the personal possession of the same in the future. To 
 such an extent is this of importance, that the Christian confes- 
 sion may be called a confession of hope (Heb. 10, 23).* Entirely 
 in the spirit of Paul, is it here also, presented as a great object 
 of glorying (Heb. 3, 6 ; comp. Heb. 10, 35), and as a motive 
 for patient endurance, and also for steadfast perseverance (Heb. 
 
 12, 1). Through suffering is this hope purified, but by no 
 means destroyed ; and this suffering itself is a chastening which 
 comes from God, is imposed in love, ministers to higher aims, 
 and ends in glory (Heb. 12, 4-11). The love, finally, which is 
 here commanded, extends to all (Heb. 12, 14 ; comp. Kom. 12, 
 18), and especially to the brethren (Heb. 13, 1), and of these 
 again, most of all, the unfortunate and necessitous (Heb. 13, 2. 
 3). Even when the author is commending love, his words 
 have an entirely Old Testament coloring (Heb. 13, 2 ; comp. 
 Gen. 18, 1). Beneficence and compassion are regarded as 
 sacrifices: the confession of the name of God as the sacri- 
 fice of praise (Heb. 13, 15. 16 ; comp. Rom. 12, 1). From 
 this love arises the exercise of all the duties of godliness, and 
 particularly those of brotherly exhortation and intercession 
 (Heb. 10, 22-24 ; 13, 18), of modesty and contentment (Heb. 
 
 13, 4-6 ; comp. Heb. 12, 16), those of obedience towards deserv- 
 ing leaders, and, finally, that of remembering those who are 
 fallen asleep (Heb. 13, 7. 17). 
 
 22. The exhortations with which the author urges to the 
 fulfillment of these duties are, in general, based upon the 
 magnitude of the blessings received (/'%*" %xt* ev , let us have 
 gratitude, Heb. 12, 28) ; more especially upon the glorious 
 fruits of fidelity, and the terrible punishment of unfaithfulness 
 (Heb. 6, 4-10). Such an unfaithfulness he regards as possible 
 even where a very high degree of Christian knowledge and 
 
 * [According to the reading of the best MSS., including the Alexandrine 
 and the Sinaitic.] 
 
222 Biblical Theology of the Neiv Testament. 
 
 experience lias been attained ; although it cannot be shown 
 that he looks upon those for whom this possibility has become 
 a reality, as being originally true and living Christians. It is 
 remarkable that in the classical text in his Epistle, which treats 
 on this matter (Heb. 6, 4-6; Luther calls it "a hard knot"), 
 neither their faith, their hope, nor their love is mentioned. 
 Nevertheless, even for the most advanced, constant admonition 
 is necessary (Heb. 10, 32) ; and not in themselves, but in God's 
 faithfulness, have believers to seek the final ground of their 
 rest and hope (Heb. 6, 10. 11 ; 10, 36-39). 
 
 23. Keference to suitable helps, by means of which such a 
 Christian life is nourished, is also not wanting in the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews. In general, grace is mentioned as that by which 
 the heart is strengthened (Heb. 13, 9) ; while the means of 
 grace, also, are not passed over in silence. Only once does the 
 author allude to the rite of baptism (Heb. 10, 22), and 011 an- 
 other occassion he indirectly alludes to the Lord's Supper 
 (Heb. 13, 10). Especially is it recommended to believers, as a 
 powerful means of help, to look back, on the one hand, upon 
 their own former condition and life's experience (Heb. 10, 32, 
 sqq.); on the other hand, and above all, upon the example of 
 so many ancient heroes of the faith, who, as a cloud of wit- 
 nesses, surround them in the Christian course. But though 
 looking upon them, they have need especially to fix their eye 
 upon their great Leader (Heb. 12, 1. 2), and to watch lest they 
 fall from their former height (Heb. 12, 15). 
 
 24. From this brief survey of its doctrinal teachings, it is 
 manifest that the Epistle to the Hebrews may be called "a faith- 
 ful reflection of the spirit of the great Apostle of the Gentiles." 
 Without doubt, there is between the writer's mode of concep- 
 tion and that of Paul, a difference by no means insignificant. 
 The Pauline doctrine of justification by faith, of spiritual com- 
 munion with Christ, and of the universal destination of Chris- 
 tianity, is here not so much as glanced at ; the resurrection of 
 the Lord receives only once a passing mention (Heb. 13, 20), 
 and the whole relation of Christianity to the old dispensa 
 tion is presented in some measure differently from the manner 
 in which it is represented by the Apostle of liberty. The 
 whole conception of the doctrine of sin, above all, appears, in 
 
The Kindred Types of Doctrine. 223 
 
 Paul's teaching, to be much deeper. On the other hand, how- 
 ever, it is at once manifest that the author more than proba- 
 bly a richly-gifted disciple of the Pauline school contradicts 
 his master in no single respect, but rather attaches himself to 
 the Apostle's doctrinal development, and in his own manner 
 develops, apologetically, the main idea which Paul, in his 
 Epistle to the Galatians, had developed polemically. If the 
 conception of Christ as the second Adam is not found here, 
 yet the truly human, together with the truly Divine nature in 
 Him, is certainly no less insisted on in this Epistle. If with 
 Paul the suffering Christ is more especially a sacrificial victim, 
 while here He is at once priest and victim, the one conception 
 satisfactorily complements the other. Without doubt, faith is 
 here more especially regarded in its relation to God, while in 
 Paul it is more especially regarded in its relation to Christ ; 
 but, in either case, faith properly has reference to the great 
 Divine promises of salvation, whose living center is Christ. In 
 no case can it be shown that in our Epistle a radically Judaistic 
 and a radically Pauline conception stand in irreconcilable antag- 
 onism (BAUR). Many an essential difference is to be explained 
 by the entirely exceptional condition of the reader and the 
 definite aim of the writer ; and, upon a sustained comparison 
 with Paul, we believe that just as little is a harsh dissonance as 
 an impersonal echo to be observed here. 
 
 On the Paulinism of Luke, see our u Life of Jesus," I, 91. 
 On the doctrinal ideas of the Epistle to the Hebrews in general, 
 as well as in relation to Paul, our "Christol of the N. T." 316- 
 359 ; VAN DER HAM, Diss. Theol. (1847) ; [DALE, Sermons on the 
 Epistle to the Hebrews'] ; but, best of all, the excellent monograph 
 of RIEHM. " The Doctrinal System of the Epistle to the Hebrews, 
 exhibited," &c., in 2 parts, Ludwigsb., 1858, 1859. On the 
 Christology of this Epistle, a Latin Programme, by MOLL, 
 Halle, 1854, 1855. On the difficult place, Chap. 9, 14, the Diss. 
 Theol. of BOON MESCH, Lugd. Bat, 1825. On Chap. 11, the 
 Diss. Theol. of HUET, Lugd. Bat, 1824. On the whole Epistle, 
 the Bijbelstudien of D. CHANTEPIE DE LA SAUSSAYE, 3 parts, 
 Leyden, 1860. See also VAN KOETSVELD, " The Apostolic Gos- 
 pel," the Hague, 1865. Also the two appendices of Tholuck to 
 his excellent Commentary on this Epistle. 
 
224 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 Questions for consideration. To what extent is the discourse 
 of Stephen an anticipation of the Pauline position? What 
 Pauline elements have the writings of Luke, above those of 
 Matthew and Mark ? In what relation does the investigation 
 of the doctrinal teachings of the Epistle to the Hebrews stand 
 to the inquiry in regard to its author ? His doctrine of God 
 and His revelation. Of man and of sin. Of the person and 
 work of the Eedeemer. Of the diversity and the connection 
 of the Old and New Testament. Christ, as compared with 
 Melchisedec, Moses, and Aaron. The Epistle to the Hebrews 
 compared with the standpoint of the Jewish- Alexandrine 
 theology of this period. 
 
 Result and Transition. 
 
 Notwithstanding all the diversity of gifts and of other pecu- 
 liarities between Peter and Paul and their fellow-witnesses, the 
 unity of spirit between both is so manifest, that the latter, no 
 less than the former, deserves the name of a Pillar among the 
 Apostles (Gal. 2, 9). The Pauline development of doctrine, as 
 a whole, stands far above even the Petrine, just as the develop 
 ment of Christianity itself in the Gentile world stands above 
 the original Judaeo-Christianism. As the doctrinal system of 
 Paul is the rich fulfillment of the promise given in the Petrine, 
 so in turn it constitutes a preparation and transition to the pro- 
 found theology of John. 
 
 1. If we look back from the now completed Pauline circle 
 of ideas to the earlier considered Petrine ones, nothing strikes 
 us more forcibly than the greater breadth of the former as 
 compared with the latter. It is still more surprising to observe 
 that the independence of the Apostle's testimony, which fully 
 entitled him to speak of his gospel, leads him in no single 
 essential point into contradiction with the earlier testimony of 
 his fellow-apostles. On the contrary, it is manifest that the 
 right hand of fellowship which three of them extended to Paul 
 and Barnabas (Gal. 2, 9), was the symbol of a living and, pre- 
 
Result and Transition. 225 
 
 cisely for this reason, anything but monotonous unity. The 
 essential difference can be so satisfactorily explained partly 
 from the dissimilarity of the individuals, partly from that 
 of the field of labor and of aim in the different witnesses 
 that it serves much more for the establishment than for 
 the undermining of the Apostolic testimony. Nothing brings 
 out more forcibly the superficial character (notwithstanding all 
 its show of profundity) of the modern -romantic reconstruction 
 of the Apostolic age, than an impartial study of the different 
 Apostolic types of doctrine in the light of isagogics and psy- 
 chology. 
 
 2. The higher harmony of the Pauline with the Petrine 
 doctrine of system detracts nothing from the rich originality of 
 the former. It is the first strikingly successful attempt of an 
 able and philosophic thinker, enlightened by a higher spirit, to 
 reduce to a higher unity the infinite riches of truth and life 
 revealed in the Gospel. "Never had Christian truth been 
 expressed with so much richness and depth ; never had it taken 
 a form so systematic and so rigorous. It is a totality of facts 
 and ideas in which everything is bound together and interlaced, 
 and in which the infinite diversity of details reduces itself 
 without difficulty to the unity of a central and fruitful thought, 
 which is, as it were, the corner-stone of the whole edifice. We 
 recognize in this powerful dialectic a spirit nourished by severe 
 studies, and singularly trained to all the exercises of thought 
 Thus, the teaching of Paul marks an incontestable progress 
 beyond that of James and of Peter " (BONIFAS). The Pauline 
 catholicity stands related to the theology of Judseo-Christianism, 
 as the spirit of the reformation of the sixteenth century to the 
 ecclesiastical piety of the Middle Ages. Yea, truly, "Paul 
 would have been the prince of philosophers if he had not been 
 the greatest of the Apostles " (A. MONOD). 
 
 3. Yet the highest conceivable development of the Christian 
 process of thought is to be found no more in Paul than in 
 Peter. The deepest insight into the mystery of godliness is to 
 be obtained not simply in the way of acute logical demonstra- 
 tion, but chiefly in the way of spiritual contemplation. In 
 Peter, it is the voice of memory and experience that speaks ; 
 in Paul, there is united with this last the power of Christian 
 
226 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 thought, which, when necessary, can also wield the weapons of 
 a fine dialectic ; but it is John alone who, with a piercing eagle - 
 eye, penetrates into the deepest depths. The theology of Paul 
 develops itself in a series of most remarkable antitheses ; but 
 the complete reconciliation of these antitheses, of which it 
 speaks, is fully given only from the standpoint of John. 
 Apparently, the difference between the latter and Paul is much 
 greater than between Paul and Peter. The Epistle to the 
 Hebrews especially, seems to present one almost continual 
 contrast to the ideas of John. Yet the development of the 
 latter will show us that many a Pauline element here first 
 attains to its full development, and that not a little which is 
 testified by Peter and confirmed by Paul, is, if possible, by the 
 Patriarch of the Apostles, developed fr-om a yet higher point 
 of view, and yet more profoundly conceived of. 
 
 Compare, in addition to works mention at end of 33, the 
 treatise of THOLUCK in his " Miscellaneous Writings" II, 272- 
 329 : as also that of Paret, " Paul and Jesus" in the Jahrbb. 
 fur Deutsche TheoL, 1858. 
 
 Questions for consideration. The alleged conflict of principles 
 between Paul and his fellow-apostles tried before their own 
 tribunal, Gal. 2. Compare with Acts 15. Comparative view 
 of the Petrine and the Pauline theology in their main points. 
 Is there ground for ascribing, with Baur, to the Epistle to 
 the Hebrews a reconciliatory tendency, with the view of har- 
 monizing Paulinism with the ideas of the Kevelation of John. 
 
General Survey. 227 
 
 
 CHAPTEK III. 
 
 THE THEOLOGY OF JOHN. 
 
 45. 
 General Survey. 
 
 The doctrinal teaching of John, the Apostle of Love, oc- 
 cupies not merely the last, but also the highest place in the 
 series of Apostolic testimonies, and to this extent sets the 
 crown upon that which Paul, the Apostle of Faith, and Peter, 
 the Apostle of Hope, had already placed in a clear light. It 
 is learned from the Apostle's own utterances, recorded partly 
 in his Gospel and Epistles, partly in the Apocalypse, which 
 we shall proceed to examine each singly, and in this order. 
 In all he proceeds from Christ as a center, and reveals in his 
 unmistakable individuality, on the one hand, an apologetic 
 and mystical, and, on the other hand, an Israelitish-prophetic 
 character. 
 
 1. As in the natural, so also in the spiritual domain, that 
 which is noblest comes most slowly to perfection. Peter and 
 Paul had already given their written testimony, and left the 
 scene of their earthly activity, before the testimony of John 
 was heard. It is the fruit of personal recollection, refined by 
 inner contemplation, before which the past reproduced itself 
 and the mystery of the future, in consequence of renewed 
 revelation, was directly revealed. No wonder that the Church 
 in all ages has attached the highest value to the testimony of 
 the bosom friend of the Lord, the most long-lived and pro- 
 found of all the apostles. While the Petrine theology bears 
 a Jewish-Christian, the Pauline a Gentile-Christian character, 
 we here find the whole opposition between the Gospel on the 
 one hand, and Judaism and heathenism on the other, thrown 
 into the shade, and Christianity regarded, in the fullest sense 
 of the word, as the absolute religion. Thus, the highest point 
 
228 Biblical Tlieology of the New Testament. 
 
 of view is attained ; and, at the same time, the future develop 
 ment of Church and theology is sketched in broad outlines. 
 The Petrine type is made prominent in the Boman Catholic, 
 the Pauline in the Protestant development of Church and 
 doctrine ; the Johannean theology seems emphatically destined 
 to become the theology of the future. 
 
 2. The doctrinal ideas of John we learn, more than in the 
 case of Paul and Peter, exclusively from his own writings. 
 Among these, the authenticity of the Apocalypse, even in the 
 judgment of the Tubingen school, stands incontestably firm, 
 while that of the Gospel and the First Epistle begins to come 
 forth victoriously from the fiery ordeal of the latest attack. 
 That also of the Second and Third Epistles, although of quite 
 subordinate importance for our purpose, can be satisfactorily 
 defended. Illustrious names show that it is possible to be a 
 truly scientific theologian and yet to regard as authentic all the 
 writings which bear the name of John ; while, on the contrary, 
 it is becoming more and more evident that the Presbyter John, 
 to whom in contra-distinction from the Apostle, a part of these 
 writings has been ascribed, is a rather doubtful, perhaps an im- 
 aginary person. 
 
 3. The order in which the Johannean writings are to be 
 examined is determined by the verdict of criticism as to the 
 time of their composition. To us it is certain that the Apoc- 
 alypse was written, not under Nero, but under Domitian, and 
 therefore, after the Grospel and the Epistles. " The Johannean 
 writings form a trilogy ; the Gospel basis, the organic confor- 
 mation, the final and eternal future of the Church : Christ who 
 was, who is, and who is to come : the Gospel, the Epistles, 
 and the Apocalyp'se " (LANGE). In the contemplation of the 
 Gospel as a source of knowledge for the Johannean doctrine, 
 we must by no means take into account the utterances of the 
 Johannean Christ, but exclusively those in which the Evan- 
 gelist himself appears as witness or defender. These are 
 John 1, 1-18 ; 2, 21. 22 ; 3, 16-21 (?) ; 3, 31-36 (?) ; 6, 64-71 ; 
 7, 39 ; 11, 51. 52; 12, 14-16; 12, 33. 37-43; 13, 1-3 ; 19, 28. 
 35-37 ; 20, 30. 31 ; 21, 25. (Compare 17, 3.) 
 
 4. Scarcely do we, in the light of these utterances, take the 
 first step in the domain of the Johannean theology, when it 
 
General Survey. 229 
 
 becomes apparent that it bears, both in respect to contents and 
 form, a highly peculiar character. John stands entirely alone, 
 without any of his fellow-witnesses having exerted on him any 
 appreciable influence, such, for instance, as Paul did on the 
 writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews, or Peter upon Mark. 
 His theology, as we learn it especially from Gospel and Epistle, 
 bears the character less of a definite doctrinal development than 
 of an animated testimony. Not dialectics, but intuition ; not 
 the intellect, but the feelings ; not the future, with its lofty 
 expectations, but the present, with its priceless blessings, are 
 ever prominent in the didactic writings of John. In only a 
 single instance is the contrast between Law and Gospel pointed 
 out, which occupies so important a place in Paul ; with John 
 the Gospel stands not only in diametrical opposition to the law, 
 but also immeasurably above it. The cause of this pheno- 
 menon it is not dimcult to discover. John probably never 
 occupied a standpoint so strictly legal as James, for example ; 
 much less did he experience such a sudden transition from dark- 
 ness to light as Paul. As the sun causes the blossom to unfold, 
 so the meeting with Christ and the continued contemplation 
 of Him (John 1, 40) had awakened his spiritual life with silent 
 but mighty power ; and of this inner life, his doctrine, so far as 
 we can speak of a doctrine in connection with him, is at once 
 the expression and the key. No Apostle has expressed more 
 profound ideas with less profusion of language. The vocabu- 
 lary of John is comparatively poor, but the value of his ex- 
 periences far surpasses that of their verbal exponent. "The 
 author resembles a great lord who never pays except in large 
 coins" (GODET). The inscription on Herder's monument at 
 Weimar "Light, love, life" embodies also the fundamental 
 idea of John's theology; but who has ever yet perfectly 
 fathomed this in the spirit of the Apostle ? This is the more 
 dimcult, since the different ideas are here much less distinctly 
 separated than, in Paul, for example, and unconsciously flow 
 into each other. The Johannean theology is less developed in 
 breadth than in depth and height. Light and life, faith and 
 knowledge, sin and falsehood, truth and holiness are, with 
 John, so intimately connected, that here, if anywhere, an 
 entire separation of the doctrine of faith and of morals is 
 absolutely impossible. 
 
230 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 5. As the Pauline theology bears an anthropological ( 23, 4), 
 so does the Johannean bear an especially Christological character. 
 Without doubt, the Apostle proceeds in his doctrine from God, 
 but only as He is known in Christ. Upon the person of Christ, 
 more even than upon His work, is manifest stress laid; the 
 world, sin, the Church, the future, all are viewed in the light of 
 the historic manifestation of Christ. As in James, the opposi- 
 tion between knowing and doing, and in Paul, between sin and 
 grace, so, in John, the contrast between darkness and death out 
 of Christ, and light and life through Christ, is the axis around 
 which all revolves. The historic manifestation of the incarnate 
 Word is affirmed in the Gospel and Epistle, the future revela- 
 tion of the glorified Son of man in the Apocalypse, with a 
 power and an emphasis which cannot be surpassed. 
 
 (3. In the Gospel and Epistle this testimony bears a distinctly 
 apologetic, and at the same time, an exalted mystical character. 
 Without its being necessary to ascribe to the Fourth Gospel a 
 directly polemical tendency (design) opposed to particular per- 
 sons or schools, we may yet infer (John 20, 31) that the aim of 
 the Evangelist was to strengthen the faith of his readers, 
 especially at a time in which so many doubtful phenomena 
 were appearing. Now and then, the apologetical becomes di- 
 rectly polemical (1 John 4, 2. 3 ; 2 John 9-11), but even where 
 he combats error, it is not by means of acute reasoning, but by 
 a powerful witnessing of that which he himself has passed 
 through, and has, in a spiritual manner, experienced. Often 
 he loses himself, as it were, in the contemplation of a past or 
 a future, which to him has become present ; so that it can be 
 said with truth of his theology, " It is not a product of specu- 
 lation, but of contemplation ; it is a theology essentially mysti- 
 cal, which requires but a limited number of ideas, and a theory 
 altogether simple for the edification of the life which it would 
 make to issue from the bottom of the soul" (KEiiss). 
 
 7. In the Apocalypse, on the other hand, the Apostolic testi- 
 mony takes a high prophetic flight, but without any sacrifice of 
 its original Israelitish character. On the contrary, it is manifest 
 that the seer is intimately familiar with the visions of the Old 
 Testament, especially those of Ezekiel and Daniel, and that 
 even the most fully developed of the Apostles at the end of his 
 
General Survey. 231 
 
 course, had by no means torn himself from the theocratic-na- 
 tional ground in which he had once been rooted. He who re- 
 gards it as absolutely impossible that one and the same John 
 should have written the Gospel and the Apocalypse, has not 
 duly considered either the wealth of his individuality, or the 
 considerable period of time which had elapsed between the com- 
 position of the one writing and that of the other, or the great 
 difference of their contents, aim and character. A continued 
 investigation leads rather to the conclusion that only an Evan- 
 gelist like this could have written the Apocalypse, and only an 
 Apocalyptist like this could have written the Gospel 
 
 8. After what has been said, we cannot greatly wonder that 
 the attempts at the treatment of the Johannean doctrinal system 
 have been made in very different ways, and have not always 
 proved successful. Especial reference is due to the work of 
 REUSS (I c. II, p. 336), which has developed this whole type of 
 doctrine out of 1 John 4, 9, as compared with John 3, 16 (which 
 latter passage, however, contains none of John's own words). 
 We believe we shall remain most true to the historico-Christo- 
 logical character of the Johannean theology, if, in the examina- 
 tion of the Gospel and Epistle, we give especial attention to the 
 Apostle's representation of the world, out of Christ, the appear- 
 ing of Christ, and the life in Christ. In the docfrinal system of 
 the Apocalypse, the doctrine of the Lord's coming is, from the 
 nature of the case, the one which demands the greatest at- 
 tention. 
 
 Comp. on John and his theology, the Art of EBRARD in HER- 
 ZOG-'S R. E. VI. In defence of the genuineness of the Gospel 
 and the Apocalypse, the prize treatise of NIERMEIJER, Hague 
 Society XIII, (1852), and the "Introduction to the N. T." by 
 SCHOLTEN, Leiden, 1856. On the priority of the date of the 
 Apocalypse over the Gospel, our " Christology of the N. T." bl. 
 366-379, and an article by GODET in the Revue Chret. of 1865, 
 p. 239-249 of the Bulletin Theol 
 
 On the doctrinal type of John, the frequently-cited writings 
 of SCHMID, MESSNER, REUSS, LECHLER, DE PRESSENSE, and 
 others ; above all on this subject, the work of B. WEISS, " The 
 Doctrinal System of John, investigated in its Fundamental Fea- 
 tures" Berl., 1862. It is to be regretted that the most of 
 
232 Biblical Theology of the New Testament 
 
 these writers understand by the Johannean theology, the the- 
 ology of the Fourth Gospel, i. e., of the Johannean Christ. 
 Comp. also DA COSTA, " The Apostle John and his Writings" 
 Amst, 1854, bl. 103, sqq. 
 
 Questions for consideration. Importance of the Johannean 
 theology beside and above every other. The key thereto in the 
 history of the Apostle's life and growth. Closer examination, 
 comparison, and estimate of its sources. The peculiar character 
 of the Johannean theology, as compared with the Petrine on the 
 one hand and the Pauline on the other. History of the course 
 and manner of its special treatment. Why has the treatment 
 of the Johannean doctrinal system been, as a rule, less suc- 
 cessful than that of others ? In its examination, according to 
 both sources, what is above all to be avoided, and what regard- 
 ed? Truth and significance of the u volat avis sine meta" etc. 
 
 FIKST DIVISION, 
 
 
 
 THE GOSPEL AND THE EPISTLES. 
 
 46.^ 
 The World out of Christ 
 
 The invisible God, according to the testimony of John, re- 
 veals himself to the world only in and through the Logos, who 
 from the beginning was partaker of his nature and majesty, the 
 mediate cause of creation, the light and the life of men. The 
 world, however, misled and controlled by its Prince, loves dark- 
 ness rather than light, and is on this account, subject to the do- 
 minion of sin and death. Nevertheless, there are those of a bet- 
 ter mind who are inwardly susceptible of the highest revelation 
 of God in the Logos, which has been of old, especially in Israel, 
 announced and prepared for. 
 
The World out of Christ 233 
 
 1. In our survey of John's teaching, nothing strikes us so 
 immediately as the loftiness of the Apostle's conception of God. 
 God is to him the True One (1 John 5, 20), in opposition to all 
 vain idols ; Light (1 John 1, 5), the sum of all moral perfection, 
 which again concentrates itself in Love (1 John 4, 8. 16), the 
 fountain head of everlasting Life (1 John 5, 20). And of this 
 God he speaks as the Father (1 John 2, 13 ; 3, 1), without doubt 
 in the conciousness of his filial relation to Him, but at the 
 same time, with evident reference to the mystery of the Divine 
 Being, revealed only in the Son. 
 
 2. For God is not only invisible (1 John 1, 18), but also is 
 known only so far as He reveals himself ; and the center of this 
 revelation is the Son, so that even the Theophany of the Old 
 Testament was in reality a Christophany (John 12, 41). God's 
 revelation in Christ is consequently with John the source of his 
 knowledge and conception of God. The general revelation of 
 God in nature and conscience, of which Paul speaks, he does 
 not mention in this form ; in his view, all that can be known of 
 God concentrates itself in the Logos. 
 
 3. The Logos is identical in the Johannean system with the 
 Son (John 1, 14; comp. 1, 18), and the reason why he desig- 
 nates the Son exclusively in this manner is to be sought in the 
 peculiar character of the Gnosis of his days. The Johannean 
 idea of the Logos has its basis substantially in the Old Testa- 
 ment ; its form, however, is to be explained by the Alexandrine 
 philosophy of his time. The difference, however, between his 
 doctrine of the Logos and that of Philo is much too great to 
 allow the former to be regarded simply as a feeble imitation of 
 the latter. " The antithesis is absolute ; for that which is to 
 St. John a truth of the first moment, would have been to the 
 Jew of Alexandria a horrible blasphemy. Between Philo's sys- 
 tem and the Gospel, the same difference is found as between the 
 Therapeutae, taciturn and attenuated hermits, and the first Chris- 
 tians, conquerers of the world by their missions and their mar- 
 tyrdoms" (DE PRESSENSE). Rightly regarded, John says noth- 
 ing of the Logos but what is elsewhere in the New Testament 
 testified of the Son of God. Only he says this in another man- 
 ner ; and what he says, can be supported either by the letter or 
 the spirit of the Lord's utterances, communicated either by him 
 or by the other Evangelists. 
 
 15 
 
234 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 4. The Logos, according to the teaching of John, is partaker 
 of the nature and majesty of God, hypostatically preexisting 
 with Him in the beginning of all things, and is the mediate 
 cause of the creation of all existence out of Himself (John 1, 
 3). John recognizes no eternal matter which owes to the Logos 
 only its present form ; but proclaims an eternal Word of God 
 whereby all things have been brought into being, and in which 
 God has, so to speak, expressed himself. All light and life in 
 the world of men, whether it be natural or moral, has proceeded 
 from Him as its centre ; and the whole history of the world 
 before Christ may be regarded as foreshadowing the conflict of 
 this light against the darkness in humanity. 
 
 5. For the Kosmos, from the nature of the case, makes to the 
 Logos an obstinate resistance, not because it is composed of 
 matter (JU/), but because it is controlled by the power of sin. 
 It lies in evil (1 John 5, 19), as the element in which it natu- 
 rally moves. At its head stands, as the enemy of God, the 
 devil, a personal evil spirit. While there is no further refer- 
 ence either to angelology or demonology in the teaching of 
 John, Satanology, on the other hand, occupies an essential 
 place in the Apostle's doctrinal system. Satan has sinned from 
 the beginning, i. e., as long as there has been sin (1 John 3, 8, 
 an do^Tfc, not $v &Qxf t .) He prompted the first fratricide (1 John 3, 
 12), and put the betrayal into the heart of Judas (John 13, 2). 
 Thus he accomplishes his own work, and has his own children, 
 as opposed to the children of God. Men have evil from him, 
 he has it of himself, because he is by nature evil. How he 
 became so, John does not say, but just as little that he always 
 was so. This last he could not say, without at once contradict- 
 ing the idea of God and the conception of the world, given 
 both by the Old Testament and by Jesus himself. 
 
 6. Such being the origin of sin, it displays inevitably the 
 same character as he in whom its power is concentrated. The 
 Johannean doctrine of sin is less developed than the Pauline, 
 but is not less true and profound. Sin is to him, in its deepest 
 ground, lawlessness, and therefore moral wrong (1 John 1, 9 ; 
 3, 4) ; sin and falsehood are with John as inseparably connected 
 as truth and holiness ; and while life is not conceivable without 
 love, the power of evil manifests itself expressly in hatred 
 
The World out of Christ 235 
 
 against one's brother (1 John 3, 12), and in the love of a world 
 alienated from God (1 John 2, 15-17). In consequence of this, 
 the sinner remains necessarily in darkness, for as in love is life, 
 so hatred resembles death. The conception of death, also, like 
 that of the world, is with John a thoroughly ethical one, indica- 
 tive of a condition of spiritual separation from God which nat- 
 urally leads to physical death, and attains its terrible point of 
 culmination in an absolutely unpardonable sin (1 John 5, 16). 
 So great is the power of sin, that even in the Christian it can 
 be by no means regarded as annihilated (1 John 1, 8-10), so that 
 he stands in need of constantly renewed forgiveness (1 John 2, 
 2), although absolute freedom from sinning remains the require- 
 ment and the ideal of every Christian life (1 John 3, 4r-10). 
 
 7. This universal sinfulness of the world renders necessary a 
 more especial revelation of the truth and grace of God, in addi- 
 tion to the general one of the Logos before his incarnation. This 
 revelation proceeds entirely from the love of God, which is man- 
 ifested in a lustre unknown before, in the sending and giving 
 up of the Son (1 John 4, 9. 10). This, however, took place by 
 no means without preparation being made for his coming ; even 
 before his incarnation the Logos stood in a more especial rela- 
 tion to Israel as his own, although by far the greater part reject- 
 ed Him (John 1, 11. 12). The prophetic Scripture had pro- 
 claimed Him (John 2, 17 ; 19, 36. 37), and especially the labors 
 of the Baptist had prepared the way for his appearance (John 
 1, 6. sqq). Of a preparation for his coming in the Gentile 
 world, John does not directly speak ; he indicates, however, that 
 all light even there has proceeded from the Logos (John 1, 4. 
 5. 9), and that there were by no means wanting those who were 
 accessible to the light and life which proceeded from Him 
 (John 11, 52). 
 
 8. For according to the teaching of John, mankind, quite 
 apart from its relation to the historic manifestation of Christ, is 
 divided into two originally different classes. On the one hand 
 are children of the devil and of darkness, for whom faith on 
 this account is morally impossible (comp. also 2 Thess. 3, 2), 
 and in whose unbelief the Apostle adores the fulfillment of the 
 secret counsel of God (John 12, 40). On the other hand, how- 
 ever, are also the better minded, the children of God even 
 
236 Biblical Theology of the New Testament 
 
 beyond the confines of Judaism (John 11, 52), light-natures, 
 who hear the Gospel because they are of God (1 John 4, 6), 
 and feel themselves drawn to Him. Here the law of affinity 
 applies : that which is like is attracted, that which is unlike is 
 repelled. Where, consequently, the light arises, the friend of 
 light will seek, recognize, and prize it; while, on the other 
 hand, the child of darkness hates and resists it. That, how- 
 ever, this essential difference stands in no kind of connection 
 with moral freedom and responsibility, so that unbelief, traced 
 to its ultimate source, were a misfortune rather than a fault, is 
 by John nowhere taught. On the contrary, he evidently 
 regards this unbelief as something entirely inexcusable, and 
 sees in the highest manifestation of the truth at the same time a 
 manifestation of grace and life, of which all stand in need, and 
 which also is designed and provided for all, (John 1, 14-18 ; 1 
 John 2, 2). 
 
 Comp. in general on John's idea of God, the treatise of 
 PAEEAU in Waarh. in L., 1844. On the doctrine of the Logos, 
 our " Christology of the N. T." bl. 380 sqq., the different com- 
 mentaries on this passage, and the work of BUCHER, " The 
 Apostle Johfris Doctrine of ike Logos" Schaffh., 1856 ; an arti- 
 cle by WEIZ ACKER in the Deutsche Zeitschrift, 1862 ; PHILIPPI, 
 " The introduction to the Gospel of John " and especially, as oppo- 
 sed to the interpretation of BEYSCHLA&, the important mono- 
 graph of SCHULZE, " Of the Son of Man and of the Logos, a con- 
 tribution to Bibl. Christol." Gotha, 1867. On his conception of 
 the two different kinds of men, as opposed to the Gnosticizing 
 view of HILGENFELD and others, WEISS, " The Theology of 
 John," S. 128-138. 
 
 Questions for consideration. The peculiarity of the Johan- 
 nean conception of God. Why not appeal to the authority of 
 1 John 5, 7 ? What can be deduced from John's teaching as to 
 the mutual relation of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost ? 
 Are there found, elsewhere also in the New Testament, traces 
 of the doctrine of the Logos ? The sense of John 1, 1-18, 
 compare 1 John 1, 1-3. Connection of the Johannean doctrine 
 of the Logos with the canonical and apocryphal writings of the 
 Old Testament on the one hand, and the Alexandrine philoso- 
 
The Appearing of Christ. 237 
 
 phy on the other. The idea of xoa/uog in relation to that of the 
 Logos. Was John a Dualist? What is taught in John 12, 
 40 ? How is John 13, 2, to be read ? What is the sense of 1 
 John 5, 16? The difference between the Johannean Anthro- 
 pology and that of the later Gnosticism. 
 
 47. 
 The Appearing of Christ 
 
 The Logos became incarnate in Jesus Christ, who is true and 
 holy man, but, at the same time, the Son of God in the super- 
 natural sense of the word, the Messiah of Israel, the Saviour of 
 the world. His whole manifestation and work, both before and 
 after His death, is a continued revelation and communication of 
 truth and life, whereby the world must either be saved, or 
 even now and here be righteously condemned. 
 
 1. The appearance of Christ on earth is, according to the con- 
 ception of John, by no means the merely becoming visible of a 
 heavenly being, hitherto invisible, but a real assumption of 
 human nature by Him who had not hitherto possessed it, and 
 who becomes man while remaining Logos. Even before His 
 incarnation, this Logos was the Son (John 1, 14, 18; comp. 1 
 John 4, 14), whose intimate relation to the Father is indicated 
 by the Evangelist in a figure derived from his own experience 
 (John 13, 23). A's such, He has been from the beginning (1 
 John 1, 1 ; 2, 14), and is manifested upon His coming into the 
 world (1 John 3, 5). In speaking also of His coming in the 
 flesh (1 John 4, 2. 3), and of His being sent by the Father (1 
 John 4, 14), the idea of a personal preexistence underlies the 
 statement So closely is He united to the Father, that it is 
 sometimes doubtful of which John is speaking (see, for exam- 
 ple, 1 John 2, 29 ; 3, 2. 3). In the single epistle in which the 
 expression Jesus Christ does not occur, His name is referred to 
 in a highly significant manner (3 John 7) ; and, only so far as 
 God is known in Christ, is He, as the True One, contrasted 
 with false Gods (1 John 5, 20). In vain is it sought to weaken 
 
238 Biblical Theology of the New Testament 
 
 the force of these expressions by insisting on the absence of 
 the article usually found before the name of God (John 1, 1), 
 and which, from the first, is given to the Logos. The judg- 
 ment of the ancient Church, which conferred upon John, as 
 the proclaimer of the Divine nature of the Logos, the name of 
 The Theologian* has been perfectly justified. 
 
 2. There is no single reason for understanding the well- 
 known formula, " The Word was made flesh" (John 1, 14), of 
 anything else than the assumption of the whole true human 
 nature in all its fullness. Without doubt, John also maintains 
 the reality of the human body of the Lord (John 19, 28. 34. 
 35) ; but with equal emphasis does he ascribe to Him a human 
 soul (v^) and a human spirit (nvevuot), with its activities and 
 emotions (John 13, 21, nvev^a; 1 John 3, 16, V v ;rl). A deny- 
 ing that Jesus Christ is truly come in the flesh (this is some- 
 thing more than to appear in a human body) is, in his eye, anti- 
 christian (1 John, 4, 2. 3 ; 2 John 7). Not in a merely fleet- 
 ing manner has the Logos revealed himself; He has tabernacled 
 (taxfywaev) for a while in a truly human nature (John 1, 14), 
 and His body was, as it were, the temple of a higher being 
 (2 John, 21 ; comp. Colos. 2, 9). Of a miraculous beginning of 
 life, such as Matthew and Luke relate, no express mention, 
 indeed, is made by John ; but it is tacitly assumed (postulated) 
 by him in his whole system of Christology, and once is appar- 
 ently even alluded to (John 1, 13), although but indirectly. 
 In no case, however, can the incarnation of the Logos be 
 regarded as the annihilation, but rather as the peculiar revela- 
 tion, of his superhuman glory. That in such a personality the 
 liability to temptation (John 6, 15), co-existing with the entire 
 absence of actual sin, is conceivable, is, from the stand-point of 
 John, self-evident. He, therefore, emphatically terms the Lord 
 the Holy One, the Righteous (1 John 2, 1. 20 ; 3, 3. 5), and 
 recognizes in Him no sin, not even the least (1 John 3, 5). But 
 with this negative result he is'not content ; on the contrary, he 
 sees realized in Him the ideal of the highest moral perfection 
 possible on earth (1 John 2, 6 ; 4, 17), as revealed, above all, 
 in a love which is combined with the most exalted conscious- 
 ness of His relation to the Father (John 13, 1-3). 
 
 * That is, one who makes prominent the divinity of the Logos. See the title of 
 the Apocalypse. D. 
 
The Appearing of Christ. 239 
 
 3. That the incarnate Word is the Messiah of Israel, is 
 brought less prominently forward in John than in Paul or 
 Peter. No wonder ; the wall of separation between Israel and 
 the Gentile world had, in his view, already fallen ; consequently, 
 also, Old Testament expressions, like Zion, city of God, heav- 
 enly Jerusalem, seed of Abraham, &c., do not occur in his wri- 
 tings. Nevertheless, he also presents the Lord as the one prom- 
 ised to the fathers, in whom the Scriptures are fulfilled ; yea, 
 affirms the recognition of Jesus as the Christ to be indispensa- 
 ble to salvation (John 20, 31), and a sign of the being begot- 
 ten of God (1 John 5, 1). With evident preference, however, 
 he dwells upon the universal design in the manifestation of 
 Christ, which had already been indicated by the Baptist, (John 
 1, 29), and had been so emphatically expressed (John 6, 33) by 
 the Lord himself. To the question, what then is, properly, the 
 great aim of this whole manifestation and work ? with his Gos- 
 pel and Epistles in our hands, we answer : negatively, the taking 
 away of sin and the destroying of all the works of the devil, 
 (1 John 3, 5, 8) ; positively, the revealing of the truth and the 
 giving of life (John 1, 16-18 ; 1 John 4, 9. 10). 
 
 4. The Father is interpreted (^e^aaTo, John 1, 18) by and 
 in the Son of his love. Without doubt, John is here thinking 
 of the instruction (1 John 1, 5) of the Lord, but, above all, of 
 the whole personality of Him in whom the Truth and the Life 
 shone forth in unspeakable lustre. A high degree of signifi- 
 cance, on this account, have, in his estimation, the miraculous 
 deeds of the Lord, as the beamings forth of His glory (John 2, 
 11). He sees, however, this glory revealed less in single in- 
 stances of unwonted glory (the Transfiguration, the institution 
 of the Supper, the Ascension, &c.), which he rather passes over 
 in silence, than in the resistless whole of the historical manifes- 
 tation of the Christ (John 1, 14 ; 1 John 1, 1-3). 
 
 5. While the sending of the Son of God into the world had 
 as its end the giving of the true life (1 John 4, 9), this end is 
 especially attained by the death of the Lord. It is remarkable 
 that, while John otherwise passes over the Old Testament sac- 
 rifices in silence, he nevertheless presents the death of the Lord 
 in the definite character of a sin-offering, by which the guilt 
 of sin is covered (1 John 2, 2). In the death of the Lord he 
 
240 Biblical Theology of ike New Testament. 
 
 sees not only the fulfillment of God's counsel, in consequence 
 of which the true Paschal lamb is slain on Golgotha (John 19, 
 36) ; not merely the manifestation of the highest love of the 
 Lord, which justly calls for imitation (1 John 3, 16) ; but the 
 means absolutely necessary for the expiation of the sins of the 
 world (1 John 2, 2). Not merely purification from the domin- 
 ion of sin, but also from its guilt and curse, he brings into 
 immediate connection with Christ's blood (1 John 1, 7), and 
 comprehends in the proclamation of the forgiveness of sins the 
 main import of the Gospel message (1 John 2, 12). He repre- 
 sents the Christ as come (1 John 5, 6), i. e., as revealed in his 
 exalted character, not merely by the water of baptism, but also 
 by the blood of the Cross, whereby the forgiveness of sins is 
 not merely symbolized but actually realized. At the same 
 time, according to his profound observation (John 11, 52), the re- 
 ceptive Gentiles are gathered together into one communion with 
 the redeemed of Israel. No wonder that he regards a death 
 whereby so great salvation is brought in, as the life of the world. 
 6. This saving work of the Lord is continued, even after 
 His death. Through the Holy Spirit He ceases not to com- 
 municate himself to believers (1 John 2, 27 ; 3, 24), but, at the 
 same time, He himself remains the Paraclete of his people as 
 often as they have sinned anew (John 2, 2). Thus, there exists 
 between Him and them a constant communion of life and of 
 spirit ; and He will one day come again to perfect the blessed- 
 ness thus begun. Without doubt, the expectations of John in 
 regard to the future are much less highly colored than those of 
 Peter or Paul. The Old Testament imagery here, in a great 
 measure, disappears ; the blessedness of the future is already, es- 
 sentially, enjoyed at present. This is a consequence of the ex- 
 alted mystical character of the Johannean theology, but we have 
 no right to assert that his expectations are essentially different 
 from those of his Christian contemporaries. He also speaks of 
 a last hour (1 John 2, 18) a day of the revelation of Christ 
 and of judgment (1 John 2, 28 ; 4, 17) in which that which is 
 secret is revealed, and the end of redemption is attained. He 
 also regards the Antichrist as the forerunner of the final judg- 
 ment, although as distinguished from Paul (2 Thess. 2) he 
 discovers the signs of the last apostasy not so much in lawless- 
 
The Appearing of Christ. 241 
 
 ness as in the denial of the truth. We find no single reason for 
 finding here nothing but "forms derived from an earlier me- 
 chanical view of the world, which show that John had not yet 
 entirely risen above his former Judaism " (SCHOLTEN). 
 
 7. The result of this work of the incarnate Logos in the 
 midst of the world cannot be other than decisive for the world 
 itself. The appearing of Christ brings about a separation (xQiai?) 
 between those who have the Son and those who have Him not 
 (1 John 5, 11. 12) ; or rather, the difference, already present but 
 unseen is, in consequence of His coming and His work, brought 
 to light. Thus, the Christ becomes necessarily a Judge, even 
 where He would be a Saviour ; and whosoever rejects Him abides 
 in that death in which he already by nature was, and from 
 which he can escape only in communion with Christ (1 John 3, 
 14). According to John, it is absolutely impossible not to 
 have the Son and yet to have the Father (1 John 2, 23 ; 2 John 
 vs. 9) ; to be unchristian, and yet to be religious. And just as 
 little does he open any prospect in the future to the obstinate 
 rejecter of Christ; on the contrary, he anticipates a very- 
 different issue of the world's history from that which absolute 
 Monism pictures to itself. It can hardly be supposed that he 
 looked for a conversion of Antichrist: it is rather his over- 
 throw and destruction which he must regard as conceivable 
 (comp. 1 John 2, 15-17). In this domain, also, the Apocalypse 
 will afford us suggestions which we shall seek in vain in the 
 Grospel and Epistles ; but those already examined prove suffi- 
 ciently that he finds no less difference essentially between belief 
 and unbelief than between light and darkness. With what holy 
 indignation he is filled against those who reject the doctrine of 
 Christ is, at least once, emphatically expressed (2 John 7, 9-11) ; 
 although, even in speaking of the unbelief of his contempora- 
 ries, next to the tone of deep indignation, that of great melan- 
 choly and intense grief makes itself heard (John 1, 11. 12 ; 12, 
 37-43). Where, however, he is called to speak of the blessed- 
 ness connected with life in Christ, he speaks of nothing lower 
 than u grace for grace " (John 1, 16). 
 
 Compare, on the true humanity of the Johannean Christ, 
 BEYSCHLAG, I c., S. 141 ff. On the Divine nature in Him, 
 according to the testimony of our Apostle, (JESS., " The Doc- 
 
242 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 trine of the Person of Christ," Basel, 1856, S. 99-115. On the 
 Johannean Soteriology, LECHLER, I c., S. 219 ff. On the Jo- 
 hannean Christ, our " Apologetical Prelections" IV; [LiDDON's 
 Bampton Lecture, on the Divinity of Christ.~\ 
 
 Questions for consideration. What is the sense of 1 John 5, 
 20 ? Why is John silent as to the Lord's miraculous birth ? 
 Is there ground for the assertion that the Johannean Christol- 
 ogy contains Docetic elements? What Divine characteristics 
 appear especially in the Johannean image of Christ? What 
 peculiarities are displayed in the Johannean Soteriology as com- 
 pared with the Pauline ? What connection does the Apostle 
 observe between the work of the exalted Christ and that of the 
 Holy Ghost (John 7, 39) ? The Johannean description of Anti- 
 christ The singleness of John's love. The brief summary of 
 the Gospel of John, in chap. 1, 16. 
 
 48. 
 The Life in Christ 
 
 Where the highest revelation of God in the incarnate Word 
 is believingly contemplated, and thus is truly acknowledged, 
 this faith becomes the source of a life in communion with 
 Christ, and, through Him, in filial relationship towards God, 
 which manifests itself by a walk in light and love, and clearly 
 distinguishes all who possess it from the world, and inwardly 
 unites them to each other. Through this, its spiritual princi- 
 ple of life, the preservation and victory of the Church of the 
 Lord is assured ; its glory and blessedness, however, are fully 
 revealed only in the day of the coming of Christ. 
 
 1. Although in the Johannean doctrinal system the demand 
 for faith is not so constantly brought into the foreground as in 
 that of Paul, yet faith in Christ is here also spoken of as the 
 chief commandment of the Gospel, and the great means for 
 overcoming the world (1 John 3, 23 ; 5, 4-5). It consists in 
 the sincere acknowledgment of Him in His whole unique dig- 
 nity (mffTstew o, x. T. I., John 20, 31) and is the sign of a 
 
The Life in Christ. 243 
 
 genuine birth from God (1 John 5, 1), whose testimony it un- 
 hesitatingly accepts (1 John 5, 9). As, from the nature of the 
 case, it is preceded by knowledge (1 John 4, 16), so, in turn, it 
 leads to a constantly increasing knowledge of spiritual things, 
 which again contributes to an ever stronger faith (1 John 5, 13). 
 Believing and knowing stand, therefore, in John so little op- 
 posed to each other, that the upright believer is, on the con- 
 trary, the true Gnosticus. " The true faith is in John a 
 recognizing, experiencing faith ; the true knowledge a believing 
 knowledge " (LucKE). Accordingly the Christian has an inward 
 assurance of the truth and life in Christ, which does not admit 
 of any, the least, doubt, and even seeks no further support be- 
 yond itself (1 John 5, 10-12). 
 
 2. The believing contemplation and recognition of Christ is 
 the source of a life which is the embodiment of the highest pos- 
 sible blessedness. It exists in consequence of an inward 
 change as an abiding inner principle (1 John 3, 14, 15) so that 
 it is enjoyed even on this side the grave. But, at the same 
 time, this gift is a promise which awaits its complete fulfillment 
 (1 John 2, 25), and an ideal for the future of the believer (John 
 20, 31). This life is found exclusively in personal communion 
 with Christ, so that to have Christ and to have life signify 
 fundamentally the same thing (1 John 5, 12). At the same 
 time, it brings the Christian into a personal relationship towards 
 God, the blessedness of which surpasses every other kind of 
 happiness (1 John 3, 1). With John, also, sonship with God is 
 the highest privilege of the believer, though between his con- 
 ception of it and that of Paul ( 40, 7), the distinction must not 
 be overlooked that John regards this privilege almost exclu- 
 sively from its ethical side, and especially directs the eye to 
 the inner kinship of spirit between the children and the Father. 
 With both John and Paul, perfect confidence before God is the 
 fruit of this filial relationship ; and the assurance of the answer- 
 ing of prayer even for others also, is, from this stand-point, 
 fully warranted (1 John 3, 22 ; 4, 17, 18 ; 5, 14, 15 ; comp. 
 Kom. 8, 15, 16; Gal. 4, 6). 
 
 3. The new life of the children of God reveals itself by a 
 walking in the light and in love, without which personal com- 
 munion between man and the spotlessly Holy One is out of the 
 
244 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 question (1 John 1, 5-7). While it is, however, morally incon- 
 ceivable that one should know God and not keep his com- 
 mandments, these commandments for his people are not griev- 
 ous (1 John 2, 3-11 ; comp. 1 John 5, 3.) It is remarkable how 
 John, who elsewhere is raised so high above the legal stand- 
 point, lays such evident stress upon the doctrine and the 
 commandment of Christ ; assuredly, according to his view, also, 
 the new life requires a constant rule and bond. To love 
 towards God and Christ he never directly exhorts ; he assumes 
 that it is, in principle, present in believers, but urges them so 
 much the more strongly, precisely on this account, to mani- 
 fest it in love towards the brethren, since the one must stand 
 or fall with the other (1 John 4, 20. 21). The love of the 
 brethren once by the Lord termed a new commandment 
 (John 13, 34) he, at the close of the first Christian century, 
 can speak of as an old one (1 John 2, 7) ; but with ever increas- 
 ing power he insists on its being cherished by believers, after 
 their Lord's own example (1 John 3, 16-18). 
 
 4. This active love is identical with personal sanctification 
 a sanctification which is nothing less than the final aim of the 
 whole work of redemption (1 John 2, 1). It displays itself in 
 a manful struggle against evil, in the renouncing of the vain 
 love of the world (1 John 2, 14-16), and in a willing fulfillment 
 of all that is well-pleasing to God (1 John 3, 22). With this 
 state of mind, boldness before God stands in such immediate 
 connection that it is impossible to possess the latter where the 
 former is wanting, and there can certainly be no answer to 
 prayer while the conscience inwardly condemns (1 John 3, 20. 
 21). One must have read John in a strange way to be able to 
 assert that a conception in which so much of moral earnestness 
 and tenderness of conscience is expressed, could, even in any 
 degree, conflict with the doctrine of free and unconditional 
 grace (comp. 1 John 1, 7 ; 2, 1. 2). 
 
 5. Those who thus walk in light and love stand by no means 
 alone, but, on the contrary, enter thereby, into the closest rela- 
 tionship towards each other. The exhibition of the Christian 
 life as a life of the most intimate communion, first of all with 
 Christ, but then, also, in Him with God and with fellow-believers, 
 is genuinely Johannean (1 John 1, 3). His whole First Epistle 
 
Life in Christ. 245 
 
 is a manifest echo of the Master's parting prayer (John 17, 20. 
 21). To him, Christians are as such, brethren; and if he 
 addresses them as children, this has its ground in his age and 
 in his relation to them. Only on a single occasion (3 John 6. 
 9. 10) does he speak of the Church (txxlrjata) elsewhere ordin- 
 arily of the mutual fellowship (xowuvia) of believers one with 
 another, of which the peculiar mark is the pure confession of 
 the Father and the Son. Those who fall away from this com- 
 munion show thereby that they never truly belonged to it 
 (1 John 2, 19). Those who belong to it present a compact 
 unity to the world, which hates and misjudges them (John 3, 
 1. 10), but will not easily seduce them, because they possess in 
 the Spirit of Truth, which is given to them, an infallible test 
 by which to distinguish truth from error (1 John 2, 20. 27). It 
 is thus absolutely impossible that the true believer should fall 
 for ever under the power of sin (1 John 3, 9). The truth 
 remains with the Church for evermore ; because the Spirit of 
 truth (2 John 2) who is so much more powerful than the spirit 
 of this world is given to it (1 John 4, 4). 
 
 6. The more perfect the Christian communion, the more full 
 also is the joy (1 John 1, 4). While constant warning against 
 sin and error is necessary (2 John 8), the abiding in that which 
 they have heard of Christ has the sure promise of a happiness 
 which cannot be lost (1 John 2, 24. 25). In principle already 
 a sharer in that which is best, the Christian has yet to expect 
 something higher. That in the Johannean doctrinal system 
 there is nowhere a place for Christian hope (KosTLiN), is an 
 assertion which is in itself improbable, and is, moreover, con- 
 tradicted in more than one passage in his First Epistle. He, 
 like his fellow-disciples, sees the darkness (1 John 2, 8), yea, 
 the whole world (1 John 2, 17), pass away, because he lives in 
 the expectation of the day of the coming of Christ The 
 many Antichrists whom he beholds are to him precursors of 
 one, and, at the same time, heralds of the last hour (1 John 2, 
 18). While, then, all passes away, the Christian abides eter- 
 nally (1 John 2, 17), has full confidence (1 John 2, 28 ; 4, 17), 
 beholds God and becomes thus like Him (oftows), (1 John 3, 2), 
 yet always in such a way that the personal distinction between 
 the Creator and the creature is preserved. The life in Christ, 
 
246 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 commenced in the believing view of the Logos (John 1, 14), 
 ends in the future beholding of the Father, and thus in the com- 
 pletion of that communion with God already begun on earth. 
 As to that which the Christian has to look for between death 
 and the coming of the Lord, John is silent. 
 
 7. A high value attaches itself to the Johannean doctrines 
 as we have thus far surveyed them, as being, even when com- 
 pared with the greater wealth of the Pauline ideas, the most 
 profound in the whole New Testament, the crown of the Apos- 
 tolic testimony, and the manifest echo of the Lord's own words. 
 They are of special importance in our time, as opposed to the 
 arbitrary separation between religion and Christianity, ideas 
 and facts, doctrines and duties. Christologically, no doctrinal 
 system surpasses that of the Gospel and Epistles of John ; and 
 what is wanting therein in regard to eschatology is satisfacto- 
 rily complemented by the Apocalypse. 
 
 Comp. the treatise of OEHLER, "Faith and Regeneration, in 
 their unity according to the Johannean Theology" in the Tub. 
 Theol. Quartalschr. 1838, S. 599-622 ; LUTTERBECK, I c., II. 
 S. 290. The Commentaries of DUSTERDIECK, and also of 
 BRAUNE, in Lange's series. [GRAHAM, The Spirit of Love : a 
 practical and exegetical commentary on the First Epistle of 
 John, London, 1857 ; CANDLISH, Exposition of the First Epistle 
 ofJohn.~] 
 
 Questions for consideration. What is the connection, accord- 
 ing to John, between faith and the being born of God (t* rov 
 6eov) ? In what manner does he connect faith and knowledge ? 
 What is, according to John, the last and firmest ground of 
 faith ? In what relation does he place our love to God to the 
 love of God toward us (1 John 4, 19) ? What similarity and 
 what difference is there between his doctrine of the fellowship 
 of believers and that of Paul ? On what ground does he look 
 for the preservation and victory of the kingdom of God? 
 What is the sense and force of 1 John 3, 1-3 ? 
 
Diversity and Harmony. 247 
 
 SECOND DIVISION. 
 
 THE APOCALYPSE. 
 
 49. 
 Diversity and Harmony. 
 
 The difference between the doctrinal system of the Apoca- 
 lypse and that of the Gospel and the Epistles is, without doubt, 
 important, but yet of such a kind as to be on the one hand easily 
 accounted for, and on the other hand greatly outweighed by 
 many striking agreements. For a just appreciation of the doc- 
 trines of the Apocalypse, it is not necessary to bring into the 
 foreground a definite view of the signification and design of 
 the prophetic visions there recorded. Even with the greatest 
 difference as to the interpretation and value of this book of 
 the future, it can be shown, in spite of much opposition, 
 that with all that it contains of a peculiar or enigmatical char- 
 ter, it reflects as to its main contents in a louder echo the testi- 
 mony of the Apostles and Prophets, and so far forms a worthy 
 close to the canon of the New Testament. 
 
 1. It is not easy to form a just estimate of the Apocalypse. 
 Like other books of the New Testament, this also has passed 
 through a period of over-estimation, and then of neglect, which 
 has been succeeded in recent times by a truer appreciation. We 
 thankfully recognize the light which from different sides, has 
 been shed on this mysterious region, but at the same time re- 
 member that we are not called in this place to seek the key to 
 the enigma of the Apocalypse, but only to dev elope the doc- 
 trinal system of the book. 
 
 2. The first impression which the Apocalypse makes, as com- 
 pared with the Gospels and the Epistles of John, is certainly 
 that of the widest diversity. John the Evangelist stands in 
 many respects nearer to Peter and Paul than to the writer of the 
 Apocalypse. The series of contrasts between the John of the 
 Apocalypse and the John of the Gospel, may be continued 
 
248 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 almost without end. Between the contents of the two writings, 
 the difference is not less than between their language and style. 
 They equally differ in their relation to the Scriptures of the 
 Old Testament. We cannot, therefore, be surprised that the 
 composition of these two writings by the same person is doubt- 
 ed even by those who do not merit the reproach of adopting an 
 arbitrary criticism. 
 
 3. Yet it is not too much to maintain, as has been repeatedly 
 done in recent times, that there is scarcely a single book of the 
 New Testament for the authenticity of which stronger proofs can 
 be adduced than for that of the Apocalypse. Even the most 
 negative school has defended its Johannean origin. In spite of 
 sharp contrasts in regard to contents, style, and mode of thought 
 between the two writings, there are not wanting remarkable in- 
 stances of agreement ; confirming both the identity of author- 
 ship, and the time of composition of the Apocalypse as not be- 
 fore but after that of the Gospel and the Epistles ( 45. 3). If 
 we consider that in the one the calm historian (ev y<rf), in the 
 other the ecstatic prophet (&v nvetfiau) is before us ; that there 
 the spontaneity, here the receptivity of the Apostle is especially 
 prominent ; that the revelation granted him from above attached 
 itself to that of the Old Testament, and that the main lines of 
 thought, begun in Gospel or Epistle, are carried through to the 
 Apocalypse (not the reverse), it is manifest that here also the 
 opposition is to be found upon the surface, the harmony in the 
 depths. 
 
 4. In the Apocalypse, also, the person of the Lord, the 
 Christ as He comes in His kingdom, is the center of the whole. 
 Not less than Gospel and Epistle is homage rendered to His 
 true humanity. He is of Judah and David (Rev. 5, 5 ; 22, 16) ; 
 the child of the Old Testament Church (Rev. 12, 1-5) ; was 
 truly dead, and is yet seen in heaven with the tokens of His 
 having been slain (Rev. 1, 18 ; 5, 6). But He is at the same 
 time partaker of the natnre and majesty of God, and ascribes 
 to himself Divine names and attributes (Rev. 1, 11. 18 ; 2, 13. 
 23). It is true He has received everything of the Father (Rev. 
 1, 1 ; 2, 28 ; 3, 12), and into the glorification of this Father is 
 resolved also the homage presented to him (Rev. 5, '13. 14). 
 But yet directly to Himself is the incense of adoration offered 
 (Rev. 5, 8) ; sovereignly does He dispose of the angels as Lord 
 
Diversity and Harmony. 249 
 
 and Euler (Kev. 22, 16), and as The Word of God (Rev. 19, 13), 
 
 He bears a name, the deep significance of which is already known 
 to us from the fourth Gospel In the presence of such facts 
 some amount of courage is necessary to hold (with BAUR) that 
 the Christology of the Apocalypse does not rise essentially above 
 the Ebionite standpoint. The impartial student will agree with 
 one of the critics of the most advanced school (EEUSS) : u We 
 must admit without hesitation, that Christ in the Apocalypse is 
 exalted to the level of God." 
 
 5. It is nevertheless not so much in relation to the Father as to 
 his Church, that the Lord is here presented, and presented es- 
 pecially in His royal character and dignity. It is true, He appears 
 here also as the witness of the truth (Rev. 1, 5), whose command- 
 ments challenge obedience (Rev. 22, 14), and His atoning work is 
 referred to in a spirit like that in Epistle and Gospel (Rev. 1, 
 5 ; 5, 8. 9 ; 7, 14). Not as the Lion, but above all as the Lamb 
 &gviov\ is the homage of heaven rendered to Him ; and even 
 where He is angry He does not deny this his character (Rev. 
 6, 16). He reveals himself as the priest-king (Rev. 1, 9-20), 
 who unceasingly loves his Church (Rev. 1, 5), and watches 
 over its highest concerns (Rev. 3, 19. 20). But in this his 
 kingly character, He is clothed, not merely with the highest 
 honor, but also with the most unlimited omnipotence (Rev. ii 
 and iii), and exercises this not only in relation to the Church, 
 but also in relation to the world which He subdues and creates 
 anew according to the counsel of the Father, of which the book 
 is placed in his hands (Rev. 5, 1-7). 
 
 6. In the idea of God as presented in the Apocalypse, this 
 peculiarity is to be observed, that while in the Gospel and the 
 Epistles the moral attributes of the Divine nature are brought 
 into greater prominence, here it is the natural attributes which 
 are brought into the foreground ; a natural consequence as 
 well of the contents of the book as of its manifest connec- 
 tion with the prophecy of the Old Testament God's omnipo- 
 tence, infinity and immutability, are here especially exhib- 
 ited. He is the God of the holy prophets, of the Apostles 
 of the Lamb, and of the twelve tribes of Israel (Rev. 7, 5 ; 22, 
 16) ; the God who makes all things new (Rev. 21, 5 ; comp. Is. 
 65, 17), and establishes his dwelling among men (Rev. 21, 3 ; 
 comp. Ez. 36). Of seven spirits before His throne, mention is 
 
 16 
 
250 Biblical Theology of the New Testament 
 
 also made (Eev. 4, 5), as symbolical of the manifold character 
 of the gifts of the Holy Ghost ; while even in the beginning of 
 the Apocalypse a trace of the distinction in the Trinity appears 
 (Eev. 1, 4-6), without, however, being made with dogmatic 
 sharpness, any more than in the Gospel and Epistles. 
 
 7. As regards the creature, the Apocalypse is as rich in point 
 of angelology (see, for example, Eev. 16, 5), as Gospel and 
 Epistle are poor in this respect ; at the same time, the render- 
 ing of religious homage to these higher beings is here not less 
 strongly deprecated than by the Apostle Paul himself (Eev. 22, 
 8, 9 ; comp. Col. 2, 18). The anthropology, on the other hand, 
 is entirely the same. The world lies in wickedness, and ripens 
 for the judgment of God ; and this too, in consequence of Sa- 
 tanic influence (Eev. 12, 9. 10). The grace proclaimed here 
 Eev. 1, 4 ; 22, 21), as in the Gospel (John 1, 14. 16. 17), is that 
 which alone saves ; and the faith, which manifests itself in the 
 keeping of the commandments, is the first duty of the sinner 
 (Eev. 14, 12 ; 22, 17 ; l<*u$M duoe&v). Works do not precede, 
 but follow believing (Eev. 14, 13) ; and perseverance, even in 
 the midst of the severest trials, is the proper fruit of faith (Eev. 
 13, 10). The blessedness thus experienced is here, as in the 
 fourth Gospel, presented under the image of satisfaction and re- 
 freshment (Eev. 7, 17 ; 21, 6), attainable for all without excep- 
 tion ; and those who partake of it are spoken of as redeemed 
 unto God out of all nations (Eev. 7, 9). We find in the Apoca- 
 lypse not even the slightest polemic against the Pauline catho- 
 licity, and just as little the giving of direct or indirect encour- 
 agement to Jewish particularism (comp. Eev. 14, 6 ; 22, 2). 
 The preeminence which is here, in single passages, conceded to 
 Israel, is on the one hand only a relative preeminence, and on 
 the other entirely in the spirit of the Lord (John 4, 22), and of 
 the great Apostle of the Gentiles (Eom. 9, 1-5 ; Gal. 6, 16). 
 
 8. The eschatology of the Apocalypse is that part of its doc- 
 trinal system, which is by far the most fully developed. It is 
 true there is here by no means wanting the idea of a prepara- 
 tory and spiritual coming of the Lord (Eev. 2, 5 ; 3, 20) ; but 
 yet the visible coming in the clouds of heaven is far more 
 distinctly proclaimed (Eev. 1, 7 ; 14, 14 sqq.). While the de- 
 parted even now consciously live (Eev. 6, 9. 10), and while the 
 blessedness of the God-fearing dead is already begun, the final 
 
Diversity and Harmony. 25 1 
 
 decision for the seen and unseen world is made only at the 
 glorious coming of the Lord It is not easy accurately to de- 
 lineate the prospect here opened before us : " The figurative 
 character of the Revelation renders it frequently impossible to 
 arrange with dogmatic precision, underlying thoughts" (BAUR). 
 But thus much at least is certain, that John regards this coming 
 as nigh at hand (Rev. 3, 11 ; 22, 10), as in point of time undeter- 
 minable (Rev. 3, 3 ; 16, 15), as glorious and decisive (Rev. 19, 11 
 -16). Its preludes are with him essentially the same as those 
 mentioned by the Lord in his eschatological address in Matt. 24, 
 and are presented under the figures of three successions of seals, 
 trumpets, and vials of wrath symbols of the judicial visit- 
 ations of God ever increasing, frequently interrupted only by 
 short intervals, but which are constantly responded to by an ob- 
 durate impenitence on the part of man. They prepare the way 
 for the coming Antichrist (Rev. 13, 1 ; com p. Dan. 7, 8), the 
 Beast, with the two confederates, Satan and false prophecy ; at 
 the same time he is supported by the hostile world-power, which 
 is presented under the image of an impure woman sitting upon 
 the beast The conflict of this world-power against the kingdom 
 of God hastens the approaching decision, the fall of Babylon, 
 the millennial kingdom, and the first resurrection (Rev. 20, 1- 
 6). After this comes the last conflict against the repressed but 
 by no means annihilated world-power, which is followed by the 
 resurrection of all the dead, the general judgment (Rev. 20, 
 7-15), and the final renewing of heaven and earth (Chaps. 21 
 and 22), after which even the eye of a John sees nothing save 
 an endless blessedness of God's people, and an endless punish- 
 ment of the enemies of his kingdom (Rev. 14, 11 : 20, 10). 
 Manifestly, the prophet looks for an enduring period of pros- 
 perity and of peace for the long-oppressed kingdom of God, to 
 be interrupted only once by a final conflict, and to shine forth 
 after its last perfect triumph in undimmed brightness in heaven 
 and earth. But even here we meet with glimpses of a future, 
 of which a distant prospect has been before opened to us (Luke 
 14, 14 ; 1 Thess. 4, 16 ; 1 Cor. 15, 23), but which has been 
 hitherto much less fully delineated. 
 
 9. An impartial survey of the doctrinal system of the Apoca- 
 lypse shows, on the one hand, how many earlier or later objec- 
 tions to the book rest on misunderstanding or prejudice, and on 
 
252 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 the other hand, how the prospect here opened by no means 
 stands alone in Holy Scripture, but is, as it were, the crown 
 of that stem whose foliage is spread before our eyes in the 
 prophetic and Apostolic writings of the Old and the ISTew Tes- 
 tament As streams lose themselves in the ocean, so all the ex- 
 pectations of blessedness opened to us in Scripture unite in the 
 Apocalyptic perspective; and it is to the latest book of the 
 New Testament that the investigation as to the higher unity 
 of the different doctrinal systems attaches itself easily, and, as 
 it were, without any effort. 
 
 Compare, on the Apocalypse in general, the " Introduction " of 
 LUCKE ; the article of EBRARD, in HERZOG'S R. E. VI. ; and 
 the Commentaries, especially LANGE, (Introd. to Commentary on 
 John), and the Dissertation of W. H. KRIJT, cum de Apocal. libro, 
 turn de septem quce illo continenter Epistolis, Traj. 1861. On 
 the Chris tology and Eschatology of this book, our " Christol. of 
 the N. T." bl. 416-466, where all here merely touched upon is 
 more fully developed. On Chiliasm, more especially the Arti- 
 cle of SEMISCH in HERZOG'S R E., and the work of EINCK 
 (against HENESTENBERG), " The Scriptural Basis of the Doctrine 
 of a Thousand Years' Kingdom" Elberf. 1866. 
 
 Questions for consideration. Extent of the doctrinal difference 
 between Gospel and Apocalypse. Is there in reality a higher 
 unity ? The Apocalyptic book the complement and develop- 
 ment, by no means the antipode of John's Gospel. The tes- 
 timonies of the exalted Christ concerning himself in the Apoc- 
 alypse. Criticism of the Tubingen view as to the doctrinal 
 standpoint of the Apocalypse, especially as regards Christology 
 and Particularism. The doctrine of John as regards Chiliasm. 
 The distinction between the first and second resurrections. 
 The indication of the last conflict, compare Ezek. 38. Must 
 we regard the two last chapters of the Apocalypse as a descrip- 
 tion of the finally perfected blessedness of heaven, or as a fur- 
 ther delineation of the condition on earth during the millenni- 
 um (compare 22, 5) ? What is the sense of Eev. 22, 2 (com- 
 pare 21, 24)? Is, in the Apocalyspe, not even the slightest 
 prospect opened of the " restoration of all things?" Force and 
 beauty of the conclusion of the Apocalypse. 
 
PART IV. 
 
 HIGHEK UNITY. 
 
 50. 
 Harmony of the Apostles with each other. 
 
 With all its diversity of contents and form, the doctrinal 
 teaching of the different Apostles is by no means unconnected, 
 much less mutually conflicting. Not simply in the fundamental 
 conception, but also in the presentation of the principal sub- 
 jects, and even in a number of unimportant matters, there is to 
 be observed an unsought and unequivocal agreement between 
 them. Upon no single vital question does the answer of the 
 one contradict that of the other ; and in regard to the way of 
 salvation, it is evident at a glance that each of them exhibits 
 the Gospel in a manner different from the others, while none of 
 them teaches another Gospel. 
 
 1. At the close of our investigation, the higher unity of the 
 different Apostolic systems cannot be passed over in silence. 
 And this not simply because the thoughtful mind seeks unity 
 in diversity, but also on account of the practical importance of 
 the subject. If it could be shown that the teachings of the dif- 
 ferent Apostles as compared with each other, present only an 
 agglomeration of very different opinions, without higher unity 
 (membra disjecta), not only would the highest stamp of truth be 
 wanting, but the doctrinal use of the New Testament writings, 
 would be considerably modified. If it is shown, on the other 
 hand, that we have the right to speak of an "organically con- 
 nected and gradually progressive cycle of doctrinal develop- 
 ment" (SCHMID), and to assert that the germs of the higher 
 forms of teaching are already contained in the relatively lower 
 
254 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 forms, the conclusion as to the truth and value of the Apostolic 
 testimony is manifest. We can, however, only throw out hints 
 on this important subject. Our design is not to treat of Bibli- 
 cal Dogmatics, but simply to furnish an introduction to the 
 study of the theology of the New Testament writings (compare 
 1, 3 ; 3, 2). 
 
 2. It is probable in advance, that a many-sided harmony be- 
 tween the doctrines of the different Apostles would exist. 
 Doctrine has always its root in spiritual life ; and however di- 
 verse this individuality may be, all are partakers together of the 
 same life. They themselves, therefore, do not conceive of either 
 one as opposing his testimony to that of the others. One, on 
 the contrary, acknowledges the grace which has been granted to 
 another, even where there is a difference of opinion upon a 
 particular point (Gal. 2, 7. 8). Peter testifies in favor of his 
 fellow- workers and of the Epistles of Paul (1 Peter 5, 12 ; 2 
 Peter 3, 15. 16) ; and the same Paul who speaks so emphatically 
 of his Gospel declares expressly (1 Cor. 15, 11) that the sub- 
 stance of that which was declared by him, was no other than 
 that which was proclaimed by his fellow-Apostles. 
 
 8. Above all, in the fundamental conception with which the 
 Apostles start, the harmony is not to be denied. They all re- 
 gard man as sinful and guilty before God ; recognize the Christ 
 promised of old, in Jesus, in whom they all see the only Sa- 
 viour of lost sinners ; and represent faith in Him, united with 
 true conversion, as the only means of salvation. According to 
 the teaching of all, they who thus believe form a circle, mani- 
 festly distinguished from the unbelieving world, and looking in 
 the midst of all conflict, for a glorious future as near at hand. 
 All finally assume or declare, that after the Gospel of the king- 
 dom, no higher revelation of truth and grace is to be looked 
 for ; and see in the grace of God the source, in Christ the cen- 
 ter, and in the Holy Ghost the power of their spiritual life. 
 
 4 An equally perfect harmony in regard to each particular 
 article of doctrine would, however, be exceedingly unnatural. 
 In his type of doctrine and tropes, each Apostle has so much pe- 
 culiar to himself, that we can only speak of a relative harmony, 
 however great the unity in things essential. In order, how- 
 ever, to comprehend the full value of this real agreement, it 
 
Harmony of the Apostles with each othw. 255 
 
 must, above all, not be forgotten, that not one of the Apostolic 
 writers thought of furnishing a compact system of truths or 
 duties ; that their doctrine, even in regard to things most im- 
 portant, was, as a rule, presented only incidentally and as occa- 
 sion demanded ; that, moreover, the silence of one or more in 
 regard to any part of the truth is by no means the same as a 
 questioning or ignoring of the same ; that a conceiving of the 
 truth from a particular point of view, is by no means a nega- 
 tion in principle of another point of view ; and that, in a word, 
 no cycle of ideas is here so systematically complete as to leave 
 no room for the admission of other ideas, sprung from another, 
 but kindred cycle of thought. If we add to this, that the 
 Apostles, as a rule, wrote independently of each other, every 
 point of agreement which manifests itself, must be regarded as 
 doubly remarkable. From a few single instances we will en- 
 deavor to show that this harmony is indeed " unsought and 
 unequivocal. 7 ' 
 
 5. The conception of God in the writings of Peter and 
 James, and the Epistle to the Hebrews, manifests much more of 
 the Old Testament coloring than, for instance, in the Gospel 
 and first Epistle of John. Yet, in the first-named, the concep- 
 tion of God, as given in the Gospels, is by no means wanting ; 
 while the Apocalypse, on the other hand, presents descriptions 
 of the majesty of God which may be compared with the grand- 
 est in the Old Testament. The Trinitarian distinction made 
 especially by Paul, is also found in Peter, and even in John is 
 not sought in vain (1 Peter 1, 2 ; Kev. 1, 4-6). 
 
 6. The doctrine of man and of sin has been most fully treated 
 by Paul, and the connection between the sinfulness of man- 
 kind and the fall of Adam has been exclusively set forth by 
 him. Yet there is not even probable ground for the supposi- 
 tion that either of the other Apostles favored an opposite opin- 
 ion. According to all, sin is disobedience and transgression of 
 the law ; according to all, it is furthered by Satanic influence, 
 and leads to temporal and everlasting destruction. While 
 Paul fixes the eye more on the sinful principle, James regards 
 rather the sinful act ; it is clear, however, that the latter also 
 regards sinful desire as anything but a matter of indifference ; 
 while by all, without exception, the new birth of the indi- 
 
256 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 vidu&l is represented as the indispensable condition of entering 
 into the kingdom of God. 
 
 7. In respect to the doctrine concerning Christ, it has been 
 often said, and reiterated, that two ways of regarding the 
 person of the Lord are found in the New Testament. Accord- 
 ing to one view, He was a mere man ; according to the other, 
 presented particularly by Paul and John, He was infinitely 
 more than man. An attentive comparison of the doctrinal 
 teachings of the different Apostles will make manifest the injus- 
 tice of this assertion. In the estimation of none of the Apostles 
 is the Lord either a mere man, or man only in appearance ; ac- 
 cording to the teaching of all, He bears a name and claims a 
 homage which, without idolatry, cannot be rendered to any 
 creature. The doctrine of the Logos is to be found exclusively 
 in John ; but what does he testify of the Logos which has not 
 been already affirmed by Paul of the Son of God? And 
 what do both teach which has not, at least in substance, been 
 indicated from the standpoint of Peter ? No Apostle thinks of 
 presenting a by any means complete enumeration of the mira- 
 cles of our Lord's life ; but the miraculous beginning of life, 
 related by Matthew and Luke, is so evidently pre-supposed 
 in the Pauline and Johannean doctrinal system, that it is im- 
 possible to speak of a denial or ignoring of this wondrous 
 event from this standpoint. Paul and Peter harmonize in the 
 most beautiful manner with the Apocalypse in the high value 
 attached in the latter to the Lord's resurrection from the grave ; 
 and, if the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in accordance 
 with his whole figurative style, lays the chief stress upon the 
 Lord's ascension, he gives, at least upon one occasion, a clear 
 testimony to the value of his resurrection (Heb. 13, 20. 21). 
 And if, further, the historic fact of this ascension is mentioned 
 only by a part of the witnesses, all agree, nevertheless, in the 
 fact that the Glorified One stands in continued personal relation 
 to His Church on earth, and soon will come again as Judge. 
 
 8. In what the Apostles testify in regard to the work of 
 redemption, we find also a higher agreement. In respect to the 
 three-fold office of Christ, it is not to be denied that James lays 
 by far the greatest stress upon His prophetic word. But he 
 represents the Teacher as also the Lord of Glory, (James 2, 1), 
 
Harmony of the Apostles with each other. 257 
 
 and it is inconceivable that he, who certainly was not less than 
 the other Apostles penetrated by the spirit of the Old Testament^ 
 should have overlooked the atoning power of the Lord's death. 
 The redeeming and sanctifying power of the death of Jesus 
 is spoken off with equal fervor by Peter, Paul and John ; and, 
 even in the song of the Lamb, in the Apocalypse, is heard no 
 other undertone than that which is present in the whole Apos- 
 tolic proclamation. If, in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the 
 moral value of our Lord's obedience is insisted on, while, in 
 the Epistles of Paul, it is rather the bearing of penal evil, 
 properly so called, on the part of the suffering Christ, upon 
 which the emphasis is laid ; the one conception is the comple- 
 ment of the other, and nothing which is asserted on this side 
 is therefore on that side ignored. Entirely peculiar to Peter 
 is the mention of the Lord's appearing, after His death, in the 
 spirit-world ; yet there are not wanting, as it would appear, 
 traces of this thought also in the Pauline doctrine (Eph. 4, 9). 
 If Paul traces back more clearly than any other, personal 
 participation in the salvation which is in Christ to the sove- 
 reign purpose of Grod, he meets nowhere less contradiction in 
 this respect than in Peter and John (1 Pet. 1, 2 ; 2, 9 ; Kev. 13, 
 7. 8). According to all, salvation is completed only through 
 the kingly dominion of Christ, which is described by none as a 
 purely moral sway, but by all as a personal reign, and by most, 
 as at the same time a priestly as well as kingly rule, redound- 
 ing to the salvation of His redeemed ones, and destined to 
 triumph over all opposition. 
 
 9. The demand for faith and conversion is, in the preaching 
 of all the Apostles, one and the same, and if the latter is, 
 in the epistles, comparatively seldom mentioned, it is simply 
 because these epistles are addressed, as a rule, to those who are 
 already true believers. The idea and the life of faith are most 
 fully presented by the Apostle Paul; along with this, the 
 representation in the Epistle to the Hebrews may be naturally 
 placed, and when the innermost life of the communion of faith 
 is to be described, John does not fall below Paul. The con- 
 nection between faith and justification is certainly somewhat 
 differently indicated by Paul from what it is by James (comp. 
 31, 5). "With Paul, faith, because it is justifying faith, is 
 
258 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 the scarce of good works ; with James, faith, because it is the 
 source of good works, and in them shows itself living and 
 active, is justifying faith " (KEEN). From this it does not, 
 however, follow that one is in conflict with the other, much 
 less that it is impossible to find between both conceptions, 
 which regard the matter from different sides, a higher unity. 
 With no Apostle is sanctification the meritorious ground of 
 justification ; with all, is it the sign of a filial relationship 
 towards God, of which each speaks as being of supreme 
 importance. 
 
 10. Upon a superficial observation it might appear as though 
 the Apostles differed considerably in their eschatology ; and 
 even as though Paul did not always remain consistent with 
 himself in this respect. More accurate examination, however, 
 leads to a result more favorable, and shows that the more 
 realistic conception of Paul differs from the more spiritual one 
 of John not in substance and fundamental conception, but 
 only in measure and degree. According to all the Apostles 
 who express themselves particularly on this point, the blessed- 
 ness of believers, beginning to be enjoyed immediately after 
 death, is completed only at the second coming of the Lord ; 
 this coming will be an unexpected, personal, glorious one, and 
 be followed by an absolutely universal and endless reward. 
 All look for a resurrection of the body, yet not until the end 
 of the ages ; all expect a world-judgment, held by the same 
 Judge and determined by the same standard. The amazing 
 prospect opened in the Apocalypse is not without a point of 
 connection with what has been previously spoken ( 49, 8) ; 
 the judgments there predicted, are indeed terrible and yet not 
 exhibited in conflict with that which Peter and Paul especially 
 lead us to expect in "the last troublous times." 
 
 11. If in anything all the Apostles agree, it is in the intimate 
 connection between doctrine and life which we find in them all. 
 It is true, this is especially seen in John ( 44, 4), who signifi- 
 cantly speaks of " doing the truth ;" (1 John 1, 6) but the re- 
 mark applies in a greater or less degree to all. "In the Chris- 
 tianity of the Apostles, doctrine is transformed into morals and 
 morals lead back in turn to doctrine. Christian morality is 
 distinctively Christian doctrine applied to the life : it is the su- 
 
Harmony of the Apostles with each other. 259 
 
 pernatural in conduct corresponding to the supernatural in the 
 faith : it is the extraordinary in human life evoked by the extra- 
 ordinary dispensations of the love of God, miracles of grace 
 producing miracles of charity " (BONIFAS). " And just in this is 
 manifested the practical unity of the Apostolic doctrine, even 
 when it has proceeded from very different points. James, for 
 example, does not stand in exactly the same relation to the 
 law as Paul ; nevertheless, we are surprised in the former by 
 the remark that the Gospel is the perfect law of liberty (James 
 1, 25) ; while the latter describes the Gospel as the law (Kom. 
 8, 2) of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus ; and both, the one 
 in the name of liberty, the other of authority, describe the 
 same life as peculiar, as the grace which has been received is 
 unmerited and inestimable. In the conception of John, the 
 central point falls within the present life ; in that of Peter, 
 within the future. Yet the latter points to a joy of hope even 
 here, which supports amidst all sufferings (1 Peter 1, 8) ; and 
 the former glories in the hope of a future, in comparison with 
 which the present is nothing (1 John 3, 2). The Pauline 
 trilogy u faith, hope, love" is not precisely co-extensive with 
 the Johannean "light, love, life;" and yet a parallel may 
 easily be drawn between them, and in both the differently 
 modified fruit springs from the same soil. 
 
 12. The copiousness of the material precludes even the 
 endeavor after completeness. The instances given are pre- 
 sented, not with the view of rendering further investigation 
 unnecessary, but of stimulating to it. At every new step it 
 appears more and more clear, that the whole conception of the 
 Apostolic Epistles as having been written with the distinct 
 purpose (Tendenzschrifteri) of combating or reconciling hostile 
 schools, belongs not to the domain of history, but of romance. 
 
 The subject of this section is passed over in silence by 
 SCHMID, REUSS, SCHOLTEN, and others. It is treated of, on 
 the other hand, by MESSNER, I c., p. 383-421 ; LECHLER, I c., 
 p. 232-271 ; BONIFAS, I c., p. 201-282 ; KOSTLIN in the treatise 
 before referred to (1) A remarkable demonstration of the 
 harmony of the Apostolic writers in regard to the death of the 
 Lord is that of Dr. J. TIDEMAN, Theol. Studien, Amst 1863, 
 bl. 79-126. 
 
260 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 Questions for consideration. The true conception of the har- 
 mony of the Apostolic doctrine. Fuller comparison of the 
 doctrine of Paul with that of James, Peter, John. Comparison 
 of the doctrine of John with that of his predecessors. What 
 value is to be attached to presentations of doctrine which are 
 made by only one, or some, of the Apostles ? Historico-crit- 
 ical significance of the result obtained. 
 
 51. 
 Harmony of the Apostles ivith the Lord. 
 
 The remarkable unity of the Apostolic teaching rests his- 
 torico-psychologically on their personal and vital communion 
 with Him who called them, formed them, and by one Spirit 
 led them into all truth. Their doctrine contains the spiritual 
 and normal development of the fruitful germ found in his utter- 
 ances, and stands related to His as the stream to the fountain. 
 His doctrine is unquestionably developed in theirs in a many- 
 sided manner ; the influence also of many circumstances within 
 and without their own minds, upon the contents and form of 
 their preaching, is by no means to be underrated. But with all 
 this development, the original fundamental character remains ; 
 with all this difference, the higher unity may be recognized ; 
 and no single instance occurs in which, in accepting .their 
 word, it is necessary to reject that of the Master, or vice versa. 
 
 1. The harmony which is found in so many diverse persons, 
 and in so many writings independent of each other in origin, and 
 separated by so many years, is a phenomenon so remarkable, 
 that we find no counterpart to it in the history of mankind and 
 of religion. The question as to the cause of this phenomenon 
 is answered by pointing to the person and work of the Lord ; 
 and this answer is at the same time, a reverential homage to 
 Him who makes such disciples, and unites them in such a 
 manner. 
 
 2. The doctrine which is to awaken life can only be born of 
 life. Thus the Apostolic teaching has its root in the communion 
 
Harmony of the Apostles with the Lord. 261 
 
 of all with Him who called them to be His witnesses, and bap- 
 tized them with the Holy Ghost. So strong is the impression of 
 His appearing that they cannot possibly cease to speak of it (Acts 
 4, 20) ; so mighty does His Spirit operate in their hearts that 
 they receive, with varying clearness and depth, essentially the 
 same impression of His person and work, and independently 
 reproduce it. The Spirit leads them forward in the path of 
 a divinely proposed development, but at the same time back to 
 the words of the Lord himself (John 16, 15). 
 
 3. All the Apostles do not stand in the same relation to the 
 person and work of the Lord. The difference is at once manifest 
 in this respect between Paul and his fellow-witnesses; but even 
 these latter are stars of different magnitude^, placed at different 
 distances from the central sun. James attaches himself more 
 to the moral, John to the mystical side of the Lord's teaching ; 
 and, while John evidently penetrates most deeply into the spirit 
 of the Master's own testimony, we find again in Peter the living 
 reminiscence not so mnch of His words as of His deeds and 
 sufferings. With Paul it is less the teaching, suffering, or 
 dying Christ, than the glorified one, with whom he feels himself 
 most intimately united, and who, by continued revelation, gives 
 him to see ever new light (comp. 35, 5 ; 38, 3). But yet 
 the answer of all to the question as to the last ground of their 
 testimony would have been a unanimous reference of the in- 
 quirer to the word, first of the Old Testament, but then, above 
 all, of the Lord, and to the teaching of the Holy Spirit, by 
 which they were led gradually to the full knowledge of the 
 whole truth. 
 
 4. That the doctrine of the Apostles, especially of Paul and 
 John, is more full than that of the Lord, it is scarcely necessary 
 to observe. It by no means follows from this, however, that it 
 equals, or surpasses, His doctrine in power. On the contrary, 
 it can be shown that the Apostolic testimony concerning salva- 
 tion contains nothing which has not been in substance indicated 
 at least by Him, if not actually expressed. It lay in the na- 
 ture of the case, that the full truth concerning the exalted dig- 
 nity of His person, the power of His death, and the brightness 
 of His glorification, could only be displayed after the close of 
 His earthly manifestation. So much the more remarkable is it, 
 
262 Biblical Theology of the New Testament 
 
 that no Apostle expresses anything respecting it which cannot 
 be justified by an appeal either to the letter or the spirit of the 
 Lord's own words. As the oak is contained in the acorn, so 
 does the Apostolic doctrine of the Atonement lie in words like 
 Matt 20, 28 ; 26, 28 ; and their whole eschatology in Matth. 
 Chh. 24 and 25. What in His word had for wise reasons, not 
 yet been expressed (John 16, 12), His Spirit gave them later to 
 understand; and in what this Spirit testifies, His own word, 
 again, is inwardly revealed and explained. 
 
 5. Without doubt, the Apostolic teaching includes more than 
 the expansion and development of the doctrine proclaimed by 
 Jesus. The stream which widens in its progress from the foun- 
 tain head, and hastens forward in its course with increasing 
 depth and breadth, receives into its bosom other tributaries. 
 The individuality of the Apostles, their greater or less degree 
 of culture in the school of Scripture and of science, the influ- 
 ence of current thought, of circumstances, and of personal ex- 
 periences, all these are factors which must be taken into account 
 in answering the question, how the doctrine of the Apostles has, 
 in point of contents and form, become what it is. But yet, after 
 making allowance for all this, the preponderating influence of 
 the Lord's own word and Spirit upon their testimony is not 
 overshadowed, but only more fully defined, and all the beams, 
 divergent in direction, varying in color and intensity, radiate 
 unceasingly from the same center. 
 
 6. The harmony between the doctrine of Jesus and the 
 Apostles (neither dead uniformity nor irreconcilable antago- 
 nism) is not only a striking proof of the justice of the words, 
 "He that heareth you, heareth me" (Luke 10, 16); but is also 
 in our day of great importance, in opposition to the one- 
 sidedness of those who would oppose the testimony of the one 
 to that of the other, and would compel us to choose between 
 the religion of the amiable Rabbi, and the wisdom of a few 
 well-meaning but narrow-minded zealots, who stand infinitely 
 beneath him. Where the alternative so manifestly rests upon 
 a fiction, a decision may be spared without loss. The inner 
 unity of the Apostolic testimony with that of the Master is a 
 fact which cannot be denied ; and this fact is of no small signifi- 
 cance both for Christian faith and Christian science. It proves 
 
Harmony of the Lord and the Apostles with the Scriptures. 263 
 
 that the Christian church has not without reason conceded to 
 the doctrine of the Apostles an entirely unique position, above 
 that of all others, and not without good cause, ever afresh re- 
 turns to it. " Only the whole (body) is also the sound (body), 
 and each of the Apostolic doctrinal systems is given to Chris- 
 tianity as a pattern, and for its improvement" (LECHLER), 
 namely, in its connection with the living totality. 
 
 Comp. on the inner unity of the Apostolic doctrine, SCHAFF, 
 I c., I. p. 640 ff. ; our " Christology of the N. 71," bL 447-480. 
 On the wisdom of Jesus, in the training of his Apostles, our 
 " Life of Jesus " II., bL 213, and the literature there cited. 
 
 Questions for consideration. Connection between the doctrine 
 and life, between the progressive enlightenment of the Apostles 
 and their increasing holiness. Sense, force, and fulfillment of 
 the promise, John 16, 12-15. The greater or lesser differences 
 between the doctrine of the disciples and that of the Master. 
 The Apostolic testimony the expression of a sanctified individ- 
 uality. The harmony of the disciples with the Lord, in its 
 historical, doctrinal, and practical significance. 
 
 52. 
 
 Harmony of the Lord and the Apostles with the Scriptures of the 
 
 Old Testament. 
 
 As the teaching of the Apostles has its root in that of Jesus, 
 so the teaching both of Jesus and the Apostles is rooted in the 
 Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament, which are regarded by 
 all from essentially the same point of view. Between the 
 theology of the Scriptures of the Old Testament and that of 
 the New the distinction is undoubtedly as great as it is impor- 
 tant ; but, at the same time, aside from the difference of persons 
 and times, the higher unity in regard to the way of salvation 
 is unmistakable, and both one organic whole, the result of more 
 than human wisdom. 
 
 1. The contemplation of the theology of the Apostles (Part 
 III.) leads us back not merely to that of the Lord (Part IL), 
 
264 Biblical Theology of the New Testament. 
 
 but also to the Old Testament foundation on which the doctri- 
 nal structure of both rests. What was said at the outset as to 
 the way and manner in which the way was prepared for the 
 Gospel of the kingdom by Mosaism, Prophetism, and Judaism 
 ( 4^6), becomes now at the close of our examination not only 
 illustrated but confirmed, and furnishes us at the same time 
 with the last key to the phenomenon observed in 50, 51. 
 
 2. In deriving the unity between the teacning of the Lord 
 and that of the Apostles from the relation of both to the Scrip- 
 tures of the Old Testament, we do not mean by any 'means to 
 assert that these Scriptures were by all explained and cited in 
 the same way. The use of Scripture by the Evangelists and 
 Apostles of the New Testament is different, and affords in its 
 peculiarity important material for comparative criticism. Still 
 the Apostles in their view of Scripture agree so entirely not 
 only with each other but with the Lord, that their testimony 
 concerning the way of salvation may be styled in a certain re- 
 spect only the continuation, exposition, and confirmation of the 
 word of Moses and the prophets. According to all, the Scrip- 
 ture of the Old Testament is the documentary record of a spe- 
 cial and Divine revelation of redemption ; the Messianic expec- 
 tation, therein recorded, the expression of the deepest want of 
 man ; and the way of salvation now fully revealed that which 
 was already indicated initially under the Old Covenant. Allu- 
 sion or appeal to the prophetic word occupies also in the dis- 
 course of all a more or less important place, and neither the 
 Apostle of Hebraistic nor of Hellenistic culture severs the bond 
 which unites his whole conception of the way of salvation with 
 that of earlier ages. 
 
 3. In order to fathom, in its whole extent, the influence of the 
 Old Testament upon the teaching of the Lord and His Apostles, 
 it is not sufficient to consider single peculiarities (for instance, 
 the connection of the theory of sacrifices with the evangelical 
 doctrine of the atonement), but we must rise to the main and 
 dominant ideas which are constantly prominent in both parts of 
 the Scriptures. For the common basis of ideas, e. g., of life and 
 death, sin and grace, light and darkness, calling and election, 
 sonship and inheritance, righteousness and truth, which we find 
 not less in the teaching of Christ in the Synoptical Gospels 
 
Harmony of the Lord and the Apostles with the Scriptures. 265 
 
 than in the fourth Gospel, in Peter and James not less than in 
 Paul and John, lies in the sacred Scriptures of the Old Testa- 
 ment. In the Scriptures of the New Testament they are un- 
 doubtedly developed, completed, and applied as never before ; 
 but in order to understand the original sense, one must ever 
 trace them back to the pre-Christian period. Even John (see, 
 for example, John 19, 24. 36. 37), has no more outgrown his 
 reverence for ancient prophecy than Peter ; and Paul, for whom 
 the old had passed away, shows, with manifest predilection for 
 Old Testament examples, that Abraham and David were justi- 
 fied by a method essentially the same as believers of the New 
 Testament (Kom. ch. 4). The whole Epistle to the Hebrews 
 especially is one continued proof that Christianity is the realiza- 
 tion of the highest aspirations of Hebraism and Judaism ; and 
 it is impossible to leave the Apocalypse without observing how 
 the circle of Scripture at the end manifestly returns to its point 
 of commencement. 
 
 4. No proof of the harmony between the Old Testament and 
 the New is of any value unless it proceeds from the uncon- 
 ditional acknowledgment of the diversity which exists between 
 them. The " concordabit Scriptura " is inconceivable, unless the 
 "distingue tempora^ has obtained its due observance. On the 
 other hand, however, every view is one-sided which has regard 
 only to the difference, without discovering beneath and beyond 
 this the higher unity. " Not the contents but the form, not 
 the certainty but the distinctness ; it is this in which the pro- 
 phetic and Apostolic testimonies of salvation differ from each 
 other. The whole theology of the New Testament is in its 
 deepest foundation an Israelite theology." 
 
 5. A harmony between such different men and writings, 
 separated from each other by centuries, such as we here be- 
 hold, appears inexplicable, unless we assume that the funda- 
 mental thought, of which the Old Testament may be termed 
 the announcement, and the New the fulfilment, is the fruit 
 of a special Divine revelation of salvation, gradually made 
 known by its interpreters in such a way that later revelations 
 did not contradict the earlier ones, but rather explained and com- 
 pleted them. The inner unity of Scripture is the great pi'oof that 
 we have here to do with something very different from sporadic 
 
 17 
 
266 Biblical Theology of the New Testament 
 
 remains of Jewish and Christian literature. A, whole, like 
 this, is not the product of human reflection and research, but is 
 the gradually developed fruit of a higher guidance. And the 
 now completed structure of the theology of the New Testament 
 Scriptures, both in itself, and in its connection with that of the 
 Old Testament, deserves to bear the inscription, " He who hath 
 built all this is God." The fuller amplification and practical 
 application of this thought does not belong, however, to the 
 purely historic domain, the limit of which is here reached. 
 
 Comp. FOCKENS, " The Holy Scriptures of the Old Testament 
 according to Jesus and his Apostles" Amst. 1848 ; SEPP, " The 
 Doctrine of the New Testament concerning the Holy Scriptures of 
 the Old Testament" Amst. 1849; P. MOUNIER, "Disq. de locisnon- 
 nullis Evang. in quibus V. T. libri a Jesu laudanter" Amst. 1856 ; 
 the literature cited, in 14, 8 ; our " Christol" I, bl. 37 and fol- 
 lowing ; II, bl. 480-485. 
 
 Questions for consideration. Comparison of the different ways 
 in which the Scriptures of the Old Testament are used and ex- 
 plained by the writers of the New. History of the exaggera- 
 tion and denial by theologians, of the higher unity of the Old 
 and New Testaments. -Apologetic value of the result obtained. 
 The theology of the New Testament Scriptures in its signifi- 
 cance and value above every other, 
 
CORRIGENDA. 
 
 The reader is requested to correct the following errata : 
 
 Page 46, 
 
 from bottom, line 14, for 
 
 Acts read Matt. 
 
 " 50, 
 
 " top, 
 
 1, 
 
 33 
 
 32. 
 
 " 52, 
 
 u i 
 
 " 9 " 
 
 36 
 
 21. 
 
 u u 
 
 u t 
 
 10! " 
 
 54 
 
 53. 
 
 ' 56, 
 
 i u 15) u 
 
 8 
 
 18. 
 
 i u 
 
 u i 
 
 1 17, " 
 
 54 
 
 53. 
 
 ; 57, 
 
 ic i ii 18 ' it 
 
 27 
 
 26. 
 
 
 u i 
 
 ' 24, 
 
 15 
 
 16. 
 
 I II 
 
 tt i 
 
 u it u 
 
 5 
 
 2. 
 
 II II 
 
 " bottom, " 9, for 
 
 ' would have 
 
 no blessing,' read * 
 
 have asked, not for a blessing, but for a crown.' 
 
 60, 
 
 from bottom, line 13, for 
 
 8, 18; 8, 10 
 
 read 8, 8. 10. 18. 
 
 " 63, 
 
 " top, 
 
 It 17) II 
 
 21 
 
 u 23. 
 
 II U 
 
 n i 
 
 " 23, " 
 
 41 
 
 " 44. 
 
 II 11 
 
 u t ii 33j u 
 
 5 
 
 " 4. 
 
 " 64, 
 
 it i 
 
 ' 21, " 
 
 6 
 
 " 5. 
 
 " 72, 
 
 t i 
 
 ' 6, " 
 
 Acts 18, 18 
 
 " Matt. 18, 19. 
 
 ' 91, 
 
 1 bottom, 
 
 13, " 
 
 24 
 
 " 23. 
 
 . 94, 
 
 ' * 
 
 ' 12, " 
 
 24 
 
 " 25. 
 
 ' 95, 
 
 ' ' 
 
 * 3, " 
 
 45 
 
 " 47. 
 
 1 100, 
 
 ' top, 
 
 2, " 
 
 21 
 
 " 20. 
 
 1 102, 
 
 ' bottom, 
 
 11, 
 
 6 
 
 " 5. 
 
 ' 103, 
 
 " top, 
 
 1, " 
 
 9-16 
 
 " 18 sqq. 
 
 1 110, 
 
 " bottom 
 
 15, 
 
 14, 17 
 
 " 14. 17. 
 
 I II 
 
 u ii 
 
 3, 
 
 14 
 
 " 13. 14. 
 
 " 111, 
 
 " top, 
 
 6, " 
 
 10, 19 
 
 " 19, 10. 
 
 " 131, 
 
 u it 
 
 20, " 
 
 1 Pet. 19 
 
 " 1 Pet. 3, 19 
 
 " 136, 
 
 n u t 
 
 i 4; u 
 
 Lord 
 
 God. 
 
 should