UNIW SUY or 
 
 CALitORNU 
 
 SAH DIEGO 
 
 Ex Itbrts 
 
 WILLIAM PIERCY 
 * 
 
 The Great House, Burford
 
 0f % 
 
 THEOLOGICAL TRANSLATION FUND. 
 
 it is important tliat the "best results of recent theological 
 investigations on the Continent, conducted without reference to 
 doctrinal considerations, and with the sole purpose of arriving at 
 truth, should be placed within the reach of English readers, it is 
 proposed to collect, by Subscriptions and Donations, a Fund 
 which shall be employed for the promotion of this object. A 
 good deal has been already effected in the way of translating 
 foreign theological literature, a series of works from the pens of 
 Hengstenberg, Haevernick, Delitzsch, Keil, and others of the 
 same school, having of late years been published in English; 
 but as the names of the authors just mentioned will at once 
 suggest to those who are conversant with the subject the 
 tendency of these works is for the most part conservative. It 
 is a theological literature of a more independent character, less 
 biassed by dogmatical prepossessions, a literature which is repre- 
 sented by such works as those of Ewald, Hupfeld, F. C. Baur, 
 Zeller, Eothe, Keim, Schrader, Hausrath, Noldeke, Pfleiderer, 
 &c., in Germany, and by those of Kuenen, Scholten, and others, 
 in Holland, that it is desirable to render accessible to English 
 readers who are not familiar with the languages of the Continent. 
 The demand for works of this description is not as yet so widely 
 extended among either the clergy or the laity of Great Britain 
 as to render it practicable for publishers to bring them out in 
 any considerable numbers at their own risk. And for this reason
 
 the publication of treatises of this description can only be secured 
 by obtaining the co-operation of the friends of free and unbiassed 
 theological inquiry. 
 
 It is hoped that at least such a number of Subscribers of One 
 Guinea Annually may be obtained as may render it practicable 
 for the Publishers, as soon as the scheme is fairly set on foot, to 
 bring out every year three 8vo volumes, which each Subscriber 
 of the above amount would be entitled to receive gratis. But 
 as it will be necessary to obtain, and to remunerate, the services 
 of a responsible Editor, and in general, if not invariably, to pay 
 the translators, it would conduce materially to the speedy suc- 
 cess of the design, if free donations were also made to the Fund ; 
 or if contributors were to subscribe for more than one copy of 
 the works to be published. 
 
 If you approve of this scheme, you are requested to commu- 
 nicate with Messrs. Williams and Norgate, 14, Henrietta Street, 
 Covent Garden, London, and to state whether you are willing to 
 subscribe ; and if you are disposed to assist further, what would 
 be the amount of your donation, or the number of additional 
 copies of the publications which you would take. 
 
 We are, your obedient servants, 
 
 JOHN TULLOCH, H. J. S. SMITH, 
 
 H. B. WILSON, H. SIDGWICK, 
 
 B. JOWETT, JAMES HEYWOOD, 
 
 A. P. STANLEY, C. KEGAN PAUL, 
 
 W. G. CLARK, J. ALLANSON PICTON, 
 
 8. DAVIDSON, ROBT. WALLACE, 
 
 JAMES MARTINEAU, LEWIS CAMPBELL, 
 
 JOHN CAIRO, RUSSELL MARTINEAU, 
 
 EDWARD CAIRO, T. K. CHEYNE, 
 
 JAMES DONALDSON, J. MUIR. 
 
 The number of Subscribers is as yet far from that required to 
 cover the cost of the undertaking. But it is hoped that a con- 
 siderable accession will accrue as soon as the progress of the 
 scheme is further advanced.
 
 A Committee selected from the signataries of the original 
 Prospectus agreed upon the works to commence the series. Of 
 these, the following are published : 
 
 Publications of the First Year (1873), 1. Is. : 
 
 REIM (Tn.), HISTORY OF JESUS OF NAZARA. Considered hi its 
 connection with the National Life of Israel, and related in 
 detail. Second Edition, re-translated by Arthur Ransom. 
 VoL I. Introduction ; Survey of Sources ; Sacred and Political 
 Groundwork; Religious Groundwork. 
 
 BAUR (F. C.), PAUL, THE APOSTLE OF JESUS CHRIST, his Life 
 and AVork, his Epistles and Doctrine. A Contribution to a 
 Critical History of Primitive Christianity. Second Edition, by 
 Rev. Allan Menzies. Yol. I. 
 
 KUENEN (A.), THE RELIGION OF ISRAEL TO THE FALL OF THE 
 JEWISH STATE. Translated by A. H. May. Yol. I. 
 
 Publications of the Second Year (1874), 1. Is. : 
 
 KUENEN'S RELIGION OF ISRAEL. Yol. II. Translated by A. H. 
 May. 
 
 BAUR'S PAUL ; the second and concluding volume. Translated by 
 the Rev. Allan Menzies ; and, 
 
 BLEEK'S LECTURES ON THE APOCALYPSE. Edited by the Rev. Dr. 
 S. Davidson. 
 
 Publications of the Third Year (1875), 1. Is. : 
 KUENEN'S RELIGION OF ISRAEL ; the third and concluding volume. 
 
 EWALD'S COMMENTARY ON THE PROPHETS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. 
 Translated by the Rev. J. Frederick Smith. Vol. I. General 
 Introduction; Yoel, Amos, Hosea and Zakharya 9 11. 
 
 ZELLER, THE ACTS OF THE APOSTLES CRITICALLY EXAMINED. To 
 which is prefixed, Overbeck's Introduction from De Wette's 
 Handbook, translated by Joseph Dare, B.A. (hi 2 vols.). Vol. I. 
 
 Publications of the Fourth Year (1876), 1. Is. : 
 ZELLER'S ACTS OF THE APOSTLES. Yol. II. and last. 
 
 KEIM'S HISTORY OF JESUS OF NAZARA. Vol. II. Translated by 
 the Rev. E. M. Geldart. The Sacred Youth ; Self -Recognition ; 
 Decision. 
 
 EWALD'S PROPHETS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT. Vol. II. Isaiah, 
 Obadya, Micha. 
 
 * # * TJie price of each Volume, purchased separately, is 10s. 6d. ; 
 \ls. 6d. post free to America.
 
 Beyond these, the following Works are in the hands of Trans- 
 lators, and will be included in the next years' Subscriptions : 
 
 BAUR'S FIRST THREE CENTURIES OP THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH. 
 PFLEIDERER'S PAULINISMUS. Translated by E. Peters, Esq. 
 
 The Third Volume of KEIM'S HISTORY OP JESUS, translated by 
 A. Eansom. 
 
 HAUSRATH'S HISTORY OP THE NEW TESTAMENT TIMES. Trans- 
 lated by the Eev. C. J. Poynting. 
 
 The following Volumes of EWALD'S PROPHETS, translated by the 
 Kev. J. Frederick Smith. 
 
 A SHORT PROTESTANT COMMENTARY ON THE NEW TESTAMENT ; 
 including Introductions to the Books, by Lipsius, Holsten, 
 Lang, Pfleiderer, Holtzmann, Hilgenfeld, and others. 
 
 As a means of increasing the number of Subscribers, it has 
 been suggested to us that many of the present supporters will 
 probably be able to furnish us with lists of persons of liberal 
 thought, to whom we would send the Prospectus. We shall 
 thankfully receive such lists. 
 
 WILLIAMS & NOEGATE. 
 
 14, HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, 
 LONDON, W.C. 
 
 NOTICE to SUBSOHBEBS in the UNITED STATES of AMEBJOA, 
 
 By the regulations of the International Postal Union, the 
 Publishers will be able to send a copy of each year's Volumes 
 by Post free for 1. 4s., which can be remitted by Post-Office 
 Order on London from any Post Office in the United States.
 
 ^ <&tmtribat\tm to % 
 
 HISTORY OF PRIMITIVE CHRISTIAN 
 THEOLOGY. 
 
 BY 
 
 OTTO PFLEIDEEEE, 
 
 DOCTOE AND PROFESSOR OP THEOLOGY AT JENA, BTC. 
 
 TRANSLATED BY EDWARD PETERS, 
 
 LATE OF THE MADKAS CIVIL SERVICE. 
 
 VOL. I. 
 
 EXPOSITION OF PAUL'S DOCTRINE. 
 
 WILLIAMS AND NORGATE, 
 
 14, HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON; 
 AND 20, SOUTH FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGH. 
 
 1877.
 
 LONDON : 
 
 PRINTED BY 0. ORF.EN AND SON, 
 178, STRAND.
 
 PREFACE. 
 
 THIS work is intended as a contribution to the history of the 
 primitive Christian theology, a portion of the history of early 
 Christian dogma, not a biography of Paul, nor a critical intro- 
 duction to Pauline literature, which forms the principal subject- 
 matter of Baur's " Paul." The criticism of the Epistles is 
 throughout presupposed, and is only treated of here where it is 
 affected by questions of dogma. And the critical consideration 
 of the Acts of the Apostles cannot, on this plan, be made the 
 starting-point, but must be introduced at the conclusion ; since 
 this document can in nowise serve as the source of the Pauline 
 theology, but rather as a test of the correctness of the view taken 
 of the development of Pauline doctrine after the time of Paul. 
 
 Much has been done in late years to elucidate Pauline theo- 
 logy, especially by the able investigations of Dr. Holsten, which 
 have been of the greatest assistance to me in this work, and 
 indeed first set me upon it. It was his brilliant idea of starting 
 from Paul's conversion and the psychological presuppositions 
 and inferences connected with it, in order to grasp the kernel of 
 his gospel in its peculiarity, that suggested to me the task of 
 endeavouring to understand how, from this nucleus of Paul's 
 faith in Christ, on the one hand, and the presuppositions of his 
 Jewish theology, on the other, the Pauline doctrine as a whole
 
 IV PREFACE. 
 
 came into existence ; and what is the particular significance of 
 each portion. The solution of this problem has been attempted 
 in the first Part of the present work. The second Part then 
 traces, by the same genetic method, the gradual transformation 
 of the original Pauline doctrine through the changing influence 
 of new theoretical and practical factors, until it was resolved 
 into the common consciousness of the Roman Catholic Church. 
 In this way I have attempted to write a portion of the history 
 of early Christian dogma, as I think the history of dogma should 
 always be treated not as a herbarium of dead forms, but as the 
 history of the development of living religious ideas, in their 
 birth, growth and change, as the creations of real religious life, 
 acted upon by the surrounding world and acting on it in its 
 turn. 
 
 It is evident that this is not so easy a task as the simple 
 disinterment of the several doctrines of an Apostle or of an 
 early Christian literature. It has seldom been attempted, 
 still less has it been anywhere satisfactorily accomplished. 
 Nay, it almost appears to me that the main direction of the 
 scientific exegesis of the day (and that without distinction of 
 the lines taken by different parties) rather tends from than 
 towards this goal. If an attempt was made some time ago 
 to transfer the representations of the Bible into too imme- 
 diate proximity to modern thought, by which means they were 
 changed in a rationalistic sense and stripped of their histori- 
 cal significance, there is now great danger of falling into the 
 other extreme, by confining these representations, taken just as 
 they stand, to their literal historical sense, and never inquiring 
 how it comes to pass, if there is nothing more in them than thus 
 meets the eye, that the writers of the Bible so often lighted on 
 ideas strangely attractive to us, and whether the religious im-
 
 PREFACE. V 
 
 pulse that prompted them may not, perhaps, be a religious idea 
 natural to the religious spirit, and therefore still living in our 
 own time. This external mode of treatment may, no doubt, be 
 advantageously used as a help to ascertain the exact meaning of 
 single passages, and has been so used in many instances of late ; 
 but by such means the understanding of the religious world of 
 thought as a whole cannot be promoted, nor can the object of 
 all Biblical theology be thus attained; for this, after all, can 
 only be to unlock the treasures of the Bible, and make them 
 fruitful for the religious life of the present. Whither we should 
 ultimately be led by this one-sided formalism in Biblical theology, 
 has just been strikingly shown by the astonishing announcement 
 of a hypercritical theologian, who roundly declares that Scientific 
 Theology and the Christian Church are irreconcilable opponents, 
 for whom the only possible modus vivendi is for each to ignore 
 the other ! As if Christianity, that power which has been so 
 eminently a maker of history, had to shun the light of history ! 
 As if Theology, the self-consciousness of the Christian Church, 
 could ever tear itself away from its own soul ! No ; it can be no 
 sound theology which leads to such a fatal end, but rather its 
 morbid ossification in a scholasticism (no matter whether it be 
 orthodox or critical) which forgets the spirit in the letter, the 
 matter in the form, and the reality and permanence of the 
 spiritual idea in the contingency and transitoriness of the his- 
 torical clothing. To such a poor and narrow view, whose 
 admitted unfruitfulness betrays its abortive nature, the words of 
 Mephistopheles are still applicable : 
 
 " He who'd know and describe some living thing, 
 First drives out the soul that dwells therein : 
 With the severed parts before him spread, 
 He lacks but the spirit-bond that's fled."
 
 VI PREFACE. 
 
 In opposing to this scholastic direction of the study of the 
 Bible at the present day, the genetic development of doctrine 
 from the religious impulse as the fundamental requisite for a 
 really scientific Biblical Theology, I am aware that I am likely 
 enough to be assailed with the old reproach of " constructing ;" 
 but I must here candidly confess that this always moves me 
 with a slight sense of the ridiculous, for it too forcibly reminds 
 me of the fable of the fox and the sour grapes. It cannot be 
 denied that one is more liable to make mistakes in what the 
 literalists call " constructing " (which is in fact nothing but the 
 genetic method of synthesis common to every true scientific pro- 
 duction), than in the common empirical description of something 
 that is given ; but does it follow from the difficulty of solving a 
 problem, that one can or ought to evade it ? It may be pleasant 
 to do so, but whether it is particularly reasonable is another 
 question. With regard, then, to this particular work, I am quite 
 aware that many parts of it will be found to contain error, and 
 require correction ; nevertheless, I entertain the firm conviction, 
 and will venture boldly to express it, that the method here 
 pursued is the right one, and the only way in which the science 
 of Biblical Theology can be advanced to a satisfactory position.
 
 CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 INTRODUCTION ... ... 1 
 
 PART L 
 STATEMENT OF THE DOCTKINE OF PAUL. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 SIN AND THE LAW ..... 35 
 
 Sin as the Principle of the Pre-Christian or Natural 
 
 Man ....... 36 
 
 The Flesh ...... 47 
 
 The Law. ...... 68 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 REDEMPTION BY THE DEATH OF CHRIST . . . 91 
 
 The Death of Christ as a Sacrifice for Sin . . 92 
 
 The Death of Christ as Liberation from the Power of Sin 109 
 The Eesurrection of Christ . . . . 118 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 THE PERSON OP JESUS CHRIST . . . . .123 
 
 The Son of David and the Son of God . . 125 
 
 Christ in Heaven . . . . .131 
 
 The Appearance of Christ in the Flesh . . 146 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH . . . . .160 
 
 Faith ...... 161 
 
 Justification . . . . . .171 
 
 Sonship ...... 186
 
 vili CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 LIVING IN THE SPIRIT . . . . . . . 192 
 
 The Beginning of the New Life . . . 192 
 
 The Development of the New Life Sanctification . 215 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY .... 229 
 
 Gifts and Offices in the Community . . . 230 
 
 The Lord's Supper . . . . . . 238 
 
 The Calling of the Community according to the Election 
 
 of Favour . . " :. . . . . 244 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 THE COMPLETION OF THE WORK OF SALVATION . . 259 
 
 The Second Coming of Christ \.\ . . . .259 
 
 The End of the World 271
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 V 
 
 How are we to conceive the genesis of the Pauline doctrine ? 
 From what root did it spring ? It is more necessary that such 
 questions should be answered with regard to this than to any 
 other doctrine contained in the New Testament. For not only 
 was Paul no immediate disciple of Jesus, but he did not even 
 derive his peculiar teaching from the Apostles who were disci- 
 ples. The Apostle himself has a most lively consciousness of 
 this peculiarity and independence of his gospel ; he repeatedly 
 brings it strongly forward, especially against his Judaizing adver- 
 saries. 1 And the truth of this assertion of his is plainly enough 
 attested by the actual facts. For in reality we find but few 
 traces of acquaintance with the particulars of the life or teaching 
 of Jesus in Paul's enunciation of his doctrine; only the most 
 prominent events of the institution of the Lord's Supper, the 
 death of Christ, and his appearance after the resurrection, 2 were 
 received by him from without as historical data ; his death, no 
 doubt, together with the dogmatic justification of it, that it was 
 a death for our sins, according to the Scriptures; this was a 
 
 1 Cf. Gal. i. 11 f. with i. 6, ertpov tvayy.: ii. 2, 7, rb tvayy. rijc cucpofSvarias' Rom. 
 ii. 16, T& tvayyeXiov pov : Rom. xvi. 25 ; 2 Cor.' iv. 3, T& tiiayy. ;/*wv : 2 Cor. xi. 4, 
 tvayy. 'irtpov, SX\ov 'Iqaovv ov OVK licijpva/j'. 
 
 8 The Lord's Supper, 1 Cor. xi. 23. Christ's death and appearance, 1 Cor. 
 xv. 3 f. Again, 1 Cor. ix. 14 is most likely an allusion to Luke x. 7, and 1 Cor. 
 vii. 10 probably refers to Matt. v. 32. Whether, and to what extent, the eschato- 
 logical description in 1 Thess. iv. is to be directly referred to the words of Jesus (cf. 
 Matt, xxiv.) it is difficult to determine, because the genuineness of that speech of 
 Jesus' is as doubtful on the one hand, as it is certain on the other that those eschato- 
 logical views were common to the whole community of early Christians.
 
 2 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 matter of course, because the disciples could never speak of the 
 death of Jesus the Messiah without at once giving to this awk- 
 ward-looking fact the aspect of an expiation, by showing that the 
 Scripture itself declared (e.g. Is. liii.) that the Messiah was to 
 die for the sins of mankind. But then how thoroughly original 
 was the system of doctrine that grew up under the hands of Paul 
 from those few elements of historical tradition ! How widely 
 did it deviate, in the view of Christ which was its basis, and the 
 scheme of Christian doctrine and life raised thereon, from all 
 that had hitherto been the established faith and practice of the 
 Jewish Christian community ! Well might the Apostle speak of 
 " his gospel" in contradistinction to the " other" gospel which the 
 Judaizers sought to introduce in Corinth and Galatia; and so 
 great appeared to him the antagonism of the two systems, that 
 he saw in the latter quite another Christ than the one whom he 
 preached, a fleshly Christ whom he knew not ; while his Christ 
 was in like manner concealed from them, because they had not 
 that light shining in the heart to manifest the glory of Christ as 
 the image of God which had been imparted to him through the 
 revelation of Christ himself. 1 
 
 Now whence came this doctrinal system of the Apostle Paul, 
 with its deviation from that of the more ancient type ? He him- 
 self gives us this short and plain answer : " I was taught it by 
 the revelation of Jesus Christ" (Gal. i. 12) ; which he then pro- 
 ceeds to explain more fully, and to corroborate by the historical 
 narrative of his conversion and the events that followed it, laying 
 special emphasis on his intentional retirement from Jerusalem 
 for the first three years, and further on the fact that on his first 
 visit he met none of the Apostles except Peter and James. This 
 last circumstantial and solemnly asseverated narrative serves to 
 corroborate the negative assertion, " I neither received nor was 
 taught of man the gospel which I preached." And in the same 
 connection with the historical narrative of his conversion, the 
 
 1 Cf. 2 Cor. xi. 4 with v. 16 and iv. 36.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 3 
 
 positive assertion, " I have received it through revelation of 
 Jesus Christ," is also taken up again and illustrated in the sen- 
 tence, " As it pleased God to reveal his Son in me, that I might 
 preach him among the heathen." It is to be noted here how his 
 calling to be an Apostle of the heathen is placed in such close 
 and marked connection with the revelation of the Son of God at 
 his conversion, that an intimate relation between them is neces- 
 sarily suggested to our minds. The peculiar character of the 
 revelation of Christ made to him must, one would think, have 
 consisted precisely in this, that the right and duty of the mission 
 to the heathen followed with logical necessity from it. But the 
 right and duty of the mission to the heathen, as Paul first, and 
 for a long time alone, understood and practised it, was nothing 
 but the clear and simple practical consequence of the fundamen- 
 tal idea that in the Christian community the law peculiar to the 
 Jews was abrogated. From this conviction followed immediately 
 the consequence that the heathen had an equal right with the 
 Jews to Christian salvation, and therefore that the gospel was 
 to be imparted to them, not merely incidentally, but by express 
 appointment ; as, on the contrary, the opposite conviction of the 
 permanent validity of the Jewish law involved the practical 
 consequence of confining the mission of the gospel to Israel, as 
 is clearly proved by the example of the original Apostles. If, 
 then, the revelation of Christ made to Paul at his conversion 
 contained within itself, as its immediate consequence, the task 
 of converting the heathen, we may thence plainly see that Paul's 
 faith in Christ, as regards its distinguishing characteristics, 
 namely, its antinomianism and universality, really dated from 
 his conversion, and had the same root with it. 
 
 And here the science of history has to face the problem of 
 seeking for such a psychological explanation of the conversion 
 of Paul as may contain at the same time the germ of his peculiar 
 doctrine. As we have here to deal with inward processes of the 
 religious spirit, of which we have no immediate knowledge, it is 
 self-evident that scientific investigation can never arrive at exact 
 
 B2
 
 4 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 demonstrative knowledge, but only at hypotheses. In fact, hypo- 
 theses have constantly been set up about the psychological con- 
 ditions which preceded Paul's conversion; only these were of 
 little value so long as there was no canon by means of which 
 their probability could be tested. But we have now found one, 
 in that we require the psychological antecedents of the conver- 
 sion to exhibit at the same time the root of his peculiar gospel. 
 For by this means we obviously obtain this canon, that the 
 hypothetical attempts to explain the conversion of Paul acquire 
 probability (which is all that science can here aspire to) in pro- 
 portion as they are capable of explaining at the same time the 
 genesis of the Pauline gospel with reference to its distinguishing 
 characteristics. 
 
 Tested by this canon, the assumption which used to be gene- 
 rally accepted, and is to this day the most popular one regarding 
 the psychological antecedents of the conversion of Paul, is de- 
 cidedly unsatisfactory. Even before his conversion, it is said, 1 
 Paul had deeply felt the inadequacy of the righteousness of the 
 law, the impossibility of man's attaining to the complete fulfil- 
 ment of the law : herein was contained not- only the negative 
 preparation for his conversion, but also the germ of his later 
 antithesis of the righteousness of faith and the righteousness of 
 the law. But let us reflect for a moment on the vast difference 
 / between the subjective feeling of one's own imperfect righteous- 
 ness according to the law, and the objective conviction that such 
 righteousness is altogether impossible. A Jew might be pene- 
 trated with the most lively feeling that he fell far short of the 
 requirements of the holy will of God revealed in the law ; but he 
 could by no possibility from this premise arrive at the conclusion 
 that the law, this undoubted revelation of God, was absolutely 
 incapable of placing a man in a state of righteousness before 
 God, and was not intended for that purpose, consequently, that 
 it was not the right way of salvation. He would undoubtedly 
 
 1 See, for instance, Beyschlag, TLeol. St. and Er., 1864, p. 249 f.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 5 
 
 be much more inclined to seek the cause of the subjective want 
 of righteousness in himself, in the insufficiency of his past efforts 
 to attain to higher morality, than in the imperfection of what 
 was fixed in his mind a priori as the absolute truth of God. 
 And even if, from his own and other men's experience, he had 
 arrived at the conviction that man, as we find him, could never 
 remain quite free from guilt before the law, which guilt would 
 require an expiation, and that a full and perfect one, like the 
 expiatory sacrifices of the Old Testament, he might certainly be 
 led by this conviction to regard the expiatory death of Christ as 
 a necessary completion of the law, but never as an abrogation of 
 it, and a substitution in its place of an entirely new scheme of 
 salvation. 
 
 This and no other must have been the view taken of the matter 
 by the Jewish Ghristians ; they also believed that the law alone 
 was not sufficient for the Messianic salvation, otherwise there 
 could have been no inducement for them to become believers in 
 Christ instead of remaining Jews ; they saw also in the death of 
 the Messiah on the cross the means of expiation ordained by 
 God, which was to cancel the guilt of sin in God's people more 
 powerfully than the expiatory sacrifices of the Old Testament, 
 and so fill up what was defective in their righteousness before 
 the law. But so far from concluding hence that this new expia- 
 tory institution was opposed to the old institution of the law and 
 abrogated it, and that faith in Christ was now to take, the place of 
 works of the law, the Jewish Christians saw rather, in this con- 
 sequence deduced by Paul, a downright falsification of the word 
 of God, by which Christ was changed into a promoter of sin 
 rather than of righteousness (Gal. ii. 17 : for details see ch. viii.). 
 The cancelling of guilt through the expiatory death of the Mes- 
 siah was to them rather the "restitutio in integrum" whereby 
 the law for the first time properly attained to its rights, whereby 
 consequently its authority was not only not to be abrogated, but 
 was for the first time to be properly established ; according to 
 them, therefore, the true believer in Christ could not only not
 
 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 become an avo/tos and a/iaprwAds, as the heathen were, but he 
 must, on the contrary, even more than before, and more than the 
 unbelieving Jews, be a ^AWTT)S vd/*ov (Acts xxi. 20, pvpiaSfs lurlv 
 
 lovSdtKOV TWV TTCTTtO-TCVKOTCOV, KCU 7T(XVTS f^AwTCU TOV VO/XOV t'7ra/3>(OV<riV. 
 
 Cf. James " the Just"). 
 
 Now to this illogical combination of the works of the law and 
 faith in Christ, which contained no principle, Paul opposed his 
 sharply defined and logical alternative of either the one or the 
 other (Gal. ii. 21, v. 4; Rom. xi. 6); and this fundamental dif- 
 ference presupposes also a different point of departure for his 
 dogmatic views. This cannot be sought in the feeling of the 
 imperfection of his own righteousness before the law, for this was 
 shared more or less by the Jewish Christians, who, however, 
 could only infer from it the half-truth of the completion of the law 
 by Christ. And it is important to observe that in the principal 
 dogmatic passages in which Paul treats of the relativity of the 
 efficacy of the law and its abrogation in Christ, he does not 
 ground these doctrines on the inadequacy of the natural works 
 of the law. It would be vain to argue from Gal. iii. and iv., and 
 Rom. iv. and v., that it was on this ground that he based his 
 degradation of the law. One would certainly have thought this 
 the simplest and most obvious ground ; but in fact he proves his 
 thesis by somewhat far-fetched and not always very forcible 
 exegetical arguments, which, one may very plainly see, are 
 calculated only to give an external support to that which the 
 Apostle has other and internal grounds for believing. 
 
 But he himself leaves us in no doubt whatever as to what was 
 the conclusive ground of his whole doctrine regarding the law. 
 He speaks it out boldly in Gal. ii. 21 : Sia vofiov SiKaiocrvvr], 
 apa X/HO-TOS Swpeav aTTfOavev the death of Christ would have 
 been barren and aimless, if the law were to remain, after it as 
 before, the way of righteousness. Now, as we cannot conceive 
 the death of the Messiah on the cross to have beem aimless, it 
 must have been designed by God as the essential means of Mes- 
 sianic righteousness and the Messianic salvation connected with
 
 INTRODUCTION. 7 
 
 it ; but if the death of Christ upon the cross is once admitted to 
 be the means of righteousness ordained by God, it follows by 
 reasoning back from this conclusion, that the law is no longer 
 this means ; the death of the Messiah on the cross thus becomes the 
 end of the law. No doubt the death of Christ was to the Juda- 
 izing Christian too an expiatory means of cancelling guilt, but 
 yet it was to him in nowise the essential means of establishing 
 the entire and positive righteousness of the Messianic people ; 
 on the contrary, righteousness was in his eyes still an essentially 
 human achievement, the conformity of the actions of man with 
 the will of God contained in the law ; and he regarded the can- 
 celling of guilt granted by God through the expiatory death of 
 Christ as a mere completion of this human performance, and of 
 quite secondary importance. In the system of the Jewish Chris- 
 tians, then, this death had by no means a central significance, 
 with consequences affecting the principle of the law. In the 
 eyes of Paul, on the contrary, the crucifixion of Christ occupied 
 from the first the central place ; he called his gospel the " preach- 
 ing of the cross," 1 Cor. i. 18 ; he preached " Christ crucified, 
 unto the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks foolishness," 
 i, 23 ; he knows and glories in nothing save Jesus Christ the cru- 
 cified, ii. 2, Gal. vi. 14. But the crucifixion of Christ, thus placed 
 in the centre of his religious contemplation, had necessarily 
 quite other consequences for him than for the Jewish Christians 
 it became the lever with which he lifted the law out of its 
 difficulties. As an institution of divine grace, the expiatory 
 death was the means of creating a completely new righteousness, 
 which is no longer in any respect a human achievement, but 
 solely and entirely a gift of God, which is not obtained by 
 works of the law, but by faith in the new divine scheme of 
 salvation by the death and resurrection of Christ. Thus the 
 peculiar gospel of Paul was the development of the central idea 
 of the expiatory death of Christ. 
 
 The problem which presented itself to us, as stated above, 
 was to find a common source in which an explanation might be
 
 8 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 found, both of the psychological process of the conversion of 
 Paul, and of the genesis of his peculiar gospel. The question, 
 therefore, now is, whether we can conceive the idea of the cruci- 
 fied Messiah to be also the starting-point of the psychological 
 process which prepared the conversion. Let us consider the 
 position of Paul the Pharisee with regard to the announcement 
 of a crucified Messiah. History confirms Paul's testimony that 
 the cross of Christ was a chief offence to the Jews. And this is 
 also exactly what we should expect. For in this idea was con- 
 tained beyond doubt the negation of all that a Jew regarded as 
 most sacred in the hopes and aspirations connected with his 
 national theocracy. Further, as the Pharisees were the most 
 vehement representatives of this side of Judaism, it was very 
 natural that the offence of the cross of Christ should have been 
 repugnant to them above all others, and that they should there- 
 fore most violently have hated and persecuted the proclaimers 
 of it. 1 They had here to do, not with some merely theoretical 
 
 1 The statement of Beyschlag (ut supra, p. 245 f.), that the chief point of dispute 
 between the Pharisees and Christians lay in the question of the true righteousness, is 
 erroneous. Righteousness was never the highest or ultimate end to the Pharisees, but 
 only the means for the advent of the Messiah's kingdom as they understood it ; nor 
 was it the deeper morality of Jesus that most repelled them ; indeed, this had many 
 points of contact with that of the better Pharisees, such as Hillel. But the real stum- 
 bling-block was, that Jesus assumed to be the Messiah, and yet was the opposite of 
 that which they expected and wished the Messiah to be. This is proved by their ques- 
 tions as to his authority (as Messiah), their requiring a sign (of the Messiah), their 
 tempting him with a penny (which turned entirely on the popular expectation of a 
 Messiah in opposition to the Roman sovereignty). That this opposition to the Messiah- 
 ship of Jesus must have become much more violent after the crucifixion is obvious. 
 This death itself must have appeared to the Pharisees to be a judgment of God upon 
 Jesus the false Messiah, and the preaching by his disciples of the Messiahship of him 
 who had been crucified, must have appeared to them only so much the more criminal. 
 But their assertion that he who had been crucified was risen, must have seemed a 
 gross deception, worse than the first, because the truth of this assertion must have 
 changed the judgmnt of God against Jesus into a judgment against his murderers. 
 Everything, therefore, must have turned on the question, Was he who was crucified after 
 all the Messiah, proved to be such by the resurrection which followed ? This burning 
 question, in which dogma and fact were in immediate contact, was the turning-point 
 of the whole attack on the one side, and of the defence on the other this, and by no 
 means the purely theoretical question of true righteousness. In addition to this, let 
 us reflect whether it is psychologically conceivable, and not rather contradictory in 
 itself, that Paul should so violently have persecuted the Christians on account of their
 
 INTRODUCTION. 9 
 
 question of dispute, but with absolute right and absolute wrong, 
 with the divine sanction or rejection of the whole of their inner 
 life and its aspirations. For, according to outward appearances, 
 the crucifixion of Jesus had been a judgment of God against his 
 pretension to be the Messiah, consequently a judgment of God 
 in justification of the Pharisees who had rejected such a Messiah 
 as Jesus had been. According to the assertion of the disciples, 
 on the contrary, that God had raised from the dead that Jesus 
 whom the Jews had crucified, and by this stupendous miracle 
 acknowledged his Messiahship and established him in his Mes- 
 sianic kingdom, the Pharisees, by taking part in the death of 
 Jesus, had incurred the guilt of the greatest sin it was possible 
 to commit against God, and the curse had recoiled from Jesus 
 upon the head of his murderers. Thus the question of the 
 Messiahship of Jesus grew into a question of life or death for 
 the Pharisees; no wonder, then, that so zealous a Pharisee as 
 Paul should not be able to rest, but should see in the persecu- 
 tion of the disciples a sacred duty. But it was this very perse- 
 cution that brought him into closer contact with the Chris.tians. 
 He would be certain to fight against them, not only with external 
 force, but also with those weapons of argument which he was 
 ever ready to employ. In this way he must of necessity have 
 listened to the proofs brought forward by the Christians in their 
 defence. Foremost among these would be the appeal to the 
 appearance of him who had been crucified, in which the disciples 
 
 doctrine of a better righteousness, while he was at the same time (according to 
 Beyschlag's own statement) penetrated with the deepest feeling of the inadequacy of 
 the righteousness of the law. How is this possible ? Would not this consciousness 
 of the weakness of his position have restrained him from the first from attacking those 
 who held out the prospect of a better righteousness, and inclined him rather in favour 
 of the Christian doctrine than against it ? Thus the violence of his persecuting zeal 
 proves that the turning-point of the contest was a very different question, one, 
 namely, in which Paul, in consistency with his whole past life as a Pharisee, must 
 have regarded his own side as absolutely and unconditionally in the right, and his 
 adversaries as not only theoretically in the wrong, but as deceivers hateful in God's 
 sight. Precisely such a question was that of the significance of the crucifixion of Jesus. 
 Was it the penal death of a criminal, or the expiatory death of a Messiah ? The set- 
 tlement of this question depended, for Paul, on the truth of the resurrection.
 
 10 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 could see nothing but a proof of the miraculous raising to life 
 again of the crucified Jesus by the almighty power of God. But, 
 in the next place, they would try to prove from the Scriptures 
 that suffering and death was in no way inconsistent with the 
 Messiahship ; nay, rather, that according to the prediction of the 
 prophets, notably Isaiah, ch. liii., the Messiah must have suffered, 
 partly for the purpose of his own glorification, partly as a pro- 
 pitiation for the sins of the people. This last idea was clearly 
 enough contained in the words of the prophet, "The chastisement 
 that gave us peace lay upon him, and with his stripes we are 
 healed;" it was moreover symbolically foreshadowed in the 
 expiatory sacrifices and the Passover of the Jewish worship; 
 and the application of this idea of sacrifice to the blood of Christ 
 as the (paschal) "lamb slain" (Eev. v. 6, 12, xiii. 8, &c.), had 
 become familiar to the Christian community through the insti- 
 tution of the Lord's Supper. They would not, therefore, have 
 omitted to make use of it on this occasion, in their defence of 
 the crucified Messiah. At all events, it is certain that Paul had 
 heard this scriptural proof from the disciples; for among the few 
 things which he had received from external tradition he expressly 
 mentions this, "that Jesus died for our sins according to the 
 Scriptures" (1 Cor. xv. 3). 
 
 Now what had Paul the Pharisee to oppose to this two-fold 
 defence grounded on the appearance of him who had been raised 
 from the dead, and on the proofs from Scripture ? He could 
 neither deny the possibility of the one nor the cogency of the 
 other, in the abstract : not the former, because the resurrection 
 was one of the dogmas of the Pharisees ; nor the latter, because 
 that proof from Scripture agreed so well with the fundamental 
 principles of the typical exegesis of his school, that it could not 
 have failed to impress him. But the less he was able to combat 
 the arguments of the Christians objectively, the more powerfully 
 would the subjective feeling of the Jew and the Pharisee rise 
 against the idea that Jesus the crucified should turn out to be 
 the promised Messiah ! he on whom the curse of the law lighted
 
 INTRODUCTION. 11 
 
 through his ignominious death (Gal. iii. 13) be the bringer of 
 the Messianic salvation, consequently also of the Messianic 
 righteousness ! That could not possibly be a righteousness 
 according to the law, which was brought by one who was 
 accursed by the law ; it could only be an entirely new righteous- 
 ness, without any relation to the law (\<apl<s vo/xov). Thus just 
 that which was the pride of a Pharisee, to be righteous accord- 
 ing to the law, would become wholly worthless on the supposi- 
 tion of a Messiah who had been subject to the curse of the law. 
 All the prejudices and prerogatives of the Jews which depended 
 on the law would come to naught, the whole religious world of 
 the Jews must vanish under such a Messiah and give place to a 
 new one ! So the contradiction between a crucified Messiah and 
 the sentiments of the Jewish nation would have been intensified 
 for the subjective consciousness of Paul the Pharisee, in propor- 
 tion as he was the less able to meet the arguments of the Chris- 
 tians with counter arguments. Whilst the religious interest of 
 the immediate disciples of Jesus, from the moment of their 
 Master's death, lay in extenuating as far as possible the para- 
 doxical nature of this catastrophe and reconciling it to a Jewish 
 consciousness, in order to assist themselves and others as quickly 
 and easily as possible to get over the " offence of the cross," the 
 interest of Paul the Pharisee, on the contrary, lay in thinking 
 out to its extreme limits the contradiction between the crucified 
 Messiah and the presuppositions of the Jews ; for the more 
 decided was this contradiction, the more he felt himself justified 
 in the hatred to Christ which he evinced by his acts as well as 
 his convictions. We may thus quite naturally explain how 
 Paul, even before he became a Christian, realized much more 
 distinctly than any of the elder disciples before him the essen- 
 tial incompatibility of faith in the crucified and the old religion 
 of the law ; it was simply the old hatred of the Pharisee for the 
 suffering Messiah that enabled him to see so clearly all that was 
 involved in the new faith in the crucified one. 
 
 But, it may be asked, will not the conversion itself be all the
 
 12 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 more inexplicable under the circumstances here supposed ? If 
 we turn our attention to two other points, perhaps we shall see 
 that it is not. The first point is this : however paradoxical to 
 the consciousness of a Jew and mortifying to the pride of a 
 Pharisee might be the idea of a new righteousness, brought 
 about, without any relation to the law, by the expiatory death of 
 the Messiah, yet in one respect it exactly satisfied one of the 
 Pharisaic postulates. The Pharisees believed in the immediate 
 approach of the Messianic salvation ; but it postulated for its 
 actual coming a righteous people. Xow as the people were not 
 righteous in point of fact, nor was there any prospect of their 
 ever becoming so in the Pharisaic sense, here was evidently an 
 unsolved antinomy. What if perchance the Messianic righteous- 
 ness, which the Pharisee postulated as a condition of the Mes- 
 siah's kingdom, were not to be understood in the ordinary sense 
 of the fulfilment of the law by man, but was really a gift of God, 
 which might be procured through this very means, now newly 
 proclaimed, of salvation by the expiatory death of the Messiah ? 
 In this way the antinomy, which was eternally insoluble, accord- 
 ing to the judgment of man, in the old way of the law, was solved 
 in the simplest way by an ordinance of God, and henceforth 
 nothing would stand in the way of the reception of the Messianic 
 salvation on the part of sinful man ; he had only, sinful as he 
 was, to believe and to lay hold of this free gift of righteous- 
 ness, and he would be already in possession of the salvation 
 itself. When once a reflection of this kind had impressed itself 
 on the mind of Paul the Pharisee (and it was certainly not far 
 to seek for such a keen intellect as his), it would be a heavy 
 weight in the scale in favour of the persecuted faith. But to 
 this was added the second point to which we have referred. The 
 alleged objective fact of the resurrection was opposed to the sub- 
 jective conviction of Paul as a difficulty which to a tender con- 
 science must ever have become more alarming. That nothing 
 was to be said against the possibility of such a miracle in the 
 abstract from the Pharisaic point of view, has been already
 
 INTRODUCTION, 13 
 
 observed ; but the Pharisee would of course at the commence- 
 ment have violently protested against its truth in this concrete 
 instance ; it could not be true, for in that case he who had been 
 crucified and was by the law accursed would have been declared 
 to be the Messiah by God himself. Consequently the disciples, 
 who professed to have seen Jesus after he had risen, lied in 
 making this assertion, as he must have been compelled to think 
 from his point of view ; for according to the psychology of that 
 time there was no middle term between the objective truth of 
 the resurrection and conscious deception. But was this possible ? 
 Did the Christians who allowed themselves to be put to death 
 for their faith look like liars ? Is it likely that the dying Ste- 
 phen, who, when in the hands of his murderers, saw the heavens 
 open and him who had risen sitting on the right hand of God, 
 would have conveyed the impression of his being a hypocrite ? 
 On the contrary, it is certain that the truth-loving spirit of Paul 
 could not, on witnessing this and many similar scenes, have 
 resisted the impression that the conviction of the Christians, 
 that the crucified Jesus had risen from the dead, was genuine ' 
 and unalterable. What had he then to oppose to such a convic- 
 tion of a decisive objective fact ? Nothing but subjective feel- 
 ing ; and that is a bad state of things for a truth-loving spirit, 
 doubly fatal when, on the ground of such subjective feeling, one 
 has to act, to persecute, and to put to death ! This we may con- 
 clude to have been Paul's state of mind on his way to Damascus, 
 on his way to a renewed persecution of the believers in Christ, 
 all the while uncertain on the fundamental question, whether 
 after all this were not the true faith, and whether the crucified 
 one whom he was persecuting were not the ardently longed-for 
 Messiah. On the one hand, we can hear the passionate " No ! it 
 cannot be that the crucified Jesus was declared by the resurrec- 
 tion to be the Messiah ; for a crucified Messiah would put an 
 end to the law, whose curse would lie on him;" on the other 
 hand, and this would ever be growing louder, " Yes ! but it can 
 be, for it agrees with the Scripture, and the truthfulness of the
 
 14 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 first witnesses of it is being placed beyond a doubt by the joyful 
 death of the believers." 
 
 That is a situation which it was simply impossible for a sensi- 
 tive spirit to endure long. It would press with irresistible 
 urgency for a solution ; what this solution would be, must 
 depend in every case on individual character. In the present 
 instance, that the objective truth of the Christian idea should 
 prevail over the subjective prejudices and antagonistic feelings 
 of the Pharisee, is exactly what we should expect in a character 
 like that of Paul ; but that the decision arrived at within his 
 mind should take the form of a sensuous experience, quite agrees 
 with what happened on similar occasions in his life, and we 
 must therefore in all of them alike seek the cause in his peculiar 
 temperament. We need only here call to mind the numerous 
 revelations and visions related to us by the Apostle himself, and 
 in the Acts of the Apostles, to see that the analogy they present 
 to the incident on the road to Damascus is so complete as to 
 leave no doubt of the essential similarity of the psychological 
 phenomenon in every instance. The accompanying external 
 circumstances agree with the description given by Paul of 
 another vision (2 Cor. xii), for instance, the falling down, the 
 ecstatic seeing and hearing (in which he knows not whether he 
 is in the body or out of the body, and we therefore see that the 
 ordinary control of the organs of sense by self-consciousness is 
 suspended), and the great weakness and paralytic affection that 
 followed. Nor is this all ; but it is especially to be observed in 
 every instance, that at a momentous crisis the decisive resolu- 
 tion, after previous strong inward excitement, assumes the form 
 of external revelation ; see Gal. ii. 2 ; Acts xvi. 9. The fact that 
 this form is different in the different cases at one time hearing a 
 voice, at another seeing and hearing, then being carried into 
 heaven, and again the appearance of a being from heaven is so 
 little to be wondered at, that the truth is, it could not be other- 
 wise from the nature of such visions. The very thing that moves 
 the feelings presents itself to the ecstatic consciousness as an
 
 INTRODUCTION. 15 
 
 object of sensuous perception ; that which had previously lain 
 buried in the depths of the consciousness comes forth without a 
 mental effort into the view of the imagination, and connects 
 itself with real affections of the nerves of sense, in consequence 
 of which the appearance of external objectivity and corporeal 
 reality presents itself to him who sees the vision. It can only 
 be asked, therefore, whether the image of Christ, glorified and 
 raised to heaven, could already have been an object of conscious- 
 ness to Paul before his conversion ; and after careful reflection 
 upon the situation, we shall be so far from denying the possi- 
 bility of it, that we shall be forced to the conclusion that it 
 must have been the case. How could he have heard the perse- 
 cuted Christians, the dying Stephen for instance, speak of their 
 Master as glorified and raised to heaven, without reproducing on 
 his side this mental image ? That he did not of course attribute 
 any truth to it at first, does not affect the question ; for the con- 
 tent of a representation remains, as is well known, precisely 
 the same, whether I attribute or deny existence to it in my judg- 
 ment. Now that Paul would not merely have taken momenta- 
 rily into his consciousness the representation of him who had 
 risen from the dead, but that it must again and again have 
 occurred to him as the very point on which the decision de- 
 pended in the mental struggles which preceded his conversion, 
 follows of necessity from the way in which we have supposed 
 the conversion to have been psychologically brought about. The 
 whole question turned on whether the crucified Jesus was really, 
 as his disciples said, declared by the resurrection to be the Mes- 
 siah, and his death thus proved to be the expiatory death of the 
 Messiah, and a new means of salvation ; or whether he had 
 remained among the dead, and was therefore no Messiah, his 
 death no expiatory sacrifice, but the death of a malefactor. The 
 decision depended on Paul's being able or unable to convince 
 himself of the truth of the alleged resurrection ; and are we to 
 believe that this cardinal point did not fill and excite the very 
 depths of his consciousness ? How could he have turned over
 
 1 6 IN TROD UCTION. 
 
 and over in his mind the debateable possibility of the resurrec- 
 tion, without forming an image of the risen one ? But when he 
 had once formed this image, if it were only mentally to reject it 
 at first, nothing is more natural than that the decisive turn of 
 his convictions should clothe itself in the form of the sudden 
 appearance before him, as an objective reality, and in the over- 
 powering brightness of heavenly majesty, of that image of the 
 risen Jesus, which he had so vehemently struggled against, and 
 each time more vainly endeavoured to reject. Upon this the 
 struggle was decided, every doubt was vanquished ; and Paul 
 the persecutor had attained to the same certainty founded on 
 experience as the first disciples, that the crucified one was the 
 Messiah. But then he was the Messiah, not only, as they said, 
 in spite of the cross, but precisely because of the cross ; his cruci- 
 fixion was the turning-point of his work as Messiah, the end of 
 the old, the beginning of a new covenant, an offence to the Jews, 
 and to the Greeks foolishness, but the power of God and the 
 wisdom of God to those who are called, both Jews and Gentiles, 
 to believe in him (1 Cor. i. 23 f.). 
 
 Looked at in this way, the conversion of Paul was certainly at 
 the commencement an intellectual process, a dialectical struggle 
 of religious thought, as it could not but be where he had to deal 
 with the truth or falsehood of objective ideas, and with convic- 
 tions relating to dogma bound up with history. And we cannot 
 fail to see unmistakable traces of this theoretical point of 
 departure in his system of doctrine ; his scheme of faith cer- 
 tainly always has for basis the intellectual element of a judg- 
 ment as to truth of conviction, and in the structure raised thereon 
 the objective truths of the resurrection and the expiatory death 
 of Christ stand first. And yet this is but one side. The ques- 
 tion with which he had to deal at the time of his conversion was 
 undoubtedly no merely intellectual one, concerned only with 
 the apprehension of knowledge by the understanding, but it 
 comprehended the highest interests of the religious feelings. 
 The whole religious world in which Paul the Pharisee lived, in
 
 INTRODUCTION. 17 
 
 which he had taken root with all the fibres of his soul, with his 
 thought, feelings and will, his whole being as it had existed up 
 to that day was at stake if the faith in Christ prevailed. The 
 process of his conversion, therefore, was anything but a cold 
 calculation of thought ; it was, on the contrary, the deeply moral 
 act of obedience of a tender conscience to the higher truth which 
 irresistibly forced itself upon him (hence faith is to him a 
 wraKoiJ), an act of splendid self-denial, the giving up of the old 
 man and his whole religious world to death, so that henceforth 
 he should not " glory," nay, he should not live, save in Christ 
 the crucified. This is in truth the key-note of which we may 
 hear the sound in all the Apostle's letters, in which he is con- 
 stantly depicting his personal relation to the cross of Christ ; it 
 is never a mere relation of objective theory, but always, at the 
 same time and essentially, the relation of the subjective union 
 of the inmost feelings with the crucified, a mystic communion 
 with the death on the cross and with the life of Christ risen. 
 With his death upon the cross; for by placing there all that 
 had hitherto been his pride, giving himself to Christ for his own 
 by faith, and seeking in his cross his only " glory," the world is 
 crucified to him, and he to the world (Gal. vi. 14) ; by letting 
 go all that had hitherto made his religious life, especially the 
 law, he is crucified with Christ (Gal. ii. 19); and that is true not 
 only of him, but of all who are Christ's, for " as one died for all, 
 so are all dead " (2 Cor. v. 14). But as Christ is not only dead, 
 but also risen, to live henceforth unto God (Rom. vi. 10), so faith 
 is likewise not only communion with the death, but also with 
 the new life of Christ. In the passing away of the old, every- 
 thing has at the same time become new (2 Cor. v. 17) ; in the 
 crucifixion of the old man with Christ, a new creature has come 
 into being (ibid, and Gal. vi. 15). And that new life consists 
 primarily in this, that those for whom Christ died are to show 
 their gratitude for this by living henceforth for Christ, and 
 devoting their lives to him and his interests, or, as he himself 
 did, to God (2 Cor. v. 15 ; Gal. ii. 19 ; Rom. xiv. 8). And 
 
 c
 
 1 8 IN TROD UCTION. 
 
 further, the life of Christians is not only devoted to Christ, but 
 consists also in communion with him ; it is a o-vfiv, fjv apa <rvv 
 XpurrQ, a Koivowa Xpiorov (1 Thess. v. 10 ; Eom. vi. 4 8 ; 1 Cor. 
 i. 9 ; 2 Cor. xiii. 4) ; nay, this communion is in its nature so 
 intimate, that the Apostle loves to describe it as a mutual 
 indwelling, as the being and living of the man ev X/aio-rw, and of 
 Christ ev fj.oi (Gal. ii. 20), so that the man's own life is com- 
 pletely absorbed and taken up into the life of Christ in him 
 (e/ioi TO f)v Xp6o~ros, Phil. i. 21). 
 
 But now, out of this idea of the mystical communion of the 
 faithful with Christ, which again was but a consequence of the . 
 conversion, of this painful dying and becoming a new creature, 
 there grows a second branch of the doctrinal system of Paul, 
 which became as important for its positive formation and further 
 construction, as the consequence of the expiatory death was 
 decisive in forming the negative part of the Pauline Gospel in 
 opposition to the Jews or the Jewish Christians. The life of 
 the risen Jesus, with which the faithful enter into communion, 
 belongs to that heavenly world on the other side of the grave, 
 whose element is not earthly substance, not the weak, transitory 
 and unclean <ra/>, but the higher substance of the Trvevp-a, to 
 which belong life and strength, incorruptibility and purity, and 
 which shines forth as radiant light (S6ga). As Christ himself, 
 through his resurrection, has entered into the sphere of pure 
 spirit, he has absolutely become spirit (2 Cor. iii. 18); which, 
 however, does not exclude the o-w/ia irvevnariKov or a-ayta TT}S 
 So^s (Phil. iii. 21), in which we are told he actually ap- 
 peared to Paul himself. But Christ does not only become a 
 living spirit himself, he is also a life-giving principle, Trvevfja 
 (woTTotow (1 Cor. xv. 45), to those who unite themselves to him 
 in faith. And this primarily in the transcendent-physical or 
 eschatological sense of the " eternal heavenly life," though 
 secondarily in the most comprehensive sense of the word " life." 
 It is in the former sense that, just as we bear, as natural men, 
 the image of the first earthly Adam, so shall we, as Christians,
 
 INTRODUCTION. 19 
 
 bear the image of the second heavenly Adam (1 Cor. xv. 49) ; as 
 in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive (ib. ver. 22) ; 
 or, as we have grown into oneness with Christ through imita- 
 tion of his death (in baptism), so shall we also through the 
 imitation of his resurrection ; if we have died with Christ, so we 
 believe that we shall live with him (Kom. vi. 5 8). In all 
 these passages, the immediate sense of the word " live " is 
 primarily eschatological. Only it inevitably followed from the 
 way in which this whole view originated, that the transcendent 
 eschatological idea became of necessity an immanent ethical one. 
 For as our future participation in his resurrection-life depends 
 on our having died with him in baptism, and on our being 
 ev XpurT(f in believing, consequently on our present mystical 
 communion with Christ, so our participation in his Trvev/^a-life 
 cannot be only future, but must also be already present. Hence 
 at the very moment when we entered into mystical communion 
 with Christ (when we, through evSva-ao-Oai Xpia-rbv, became 
 fv Xpio-ry ovres), that is to say, at our baptism, we must have 
 received at the same instant the 7rvev//,a of Christ, as an immediate 
 commencement and earnest of our future complete conformity 
 with his 7rvev/za-life. Thus baptism, as the moment of evSvo-ao-dai 
 rbv Xpia-rov, is at the same time the beginning of a KCUVOTTJS farjs, 
 namely, of the far) ev Trvev/j-an (Gal. iii. 27; Eom. vi. 4, vii. 6), 
 which is essentially identical with the fay didwos and eVovpdi/ios 
 of the risen Jesus and of our own resurrection as it were, the 
 present inward anticipation of the future heavenly state, under 
 the veil of the earthly corporeality of the <rd/>. 
 
 We have here a turn of Christian thought which has bearings 
 of immeasurable importance. Whilst the direction of the primi- 
 tive Christian consciousness was predominantly, one may almost 
 say exclusively, eschatological, and the life of a Christian on 
 earth appeared for this reason to be still an expectation, not yet 
 a completion, the old that perishes, not the new that endures 
 (diwj> OUTOS, not diwv /ze'XXu)!/), Paul makes the " newness of life " 
 to begin not with that completion on the other side of the grave, 
 
 c2
 
 20 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 but with the life of faith on earth of the Messiah's community. 
 And this change in the time of its commencement immediately 
 leads to a transformation of the idea itself ; the Messianic far), 
 by commencing at once in the life of faith on earth, is stripped 
 of its one-sided, supernatural, apocalyptic character, and becomes 
 the new life of Christians in the truly spiritual, in the ethical 
 sense of the word, the renewal of the vovs, the self that thinks, 
 feels and wills. Not, indeed, that the eschatological sense of 
 the Christian fay is eliminated ; on the contrary, in the chief 
 passages bearing on the point, this forms, as has been already 
 remarked, so essential an element, that no unbiassed commen- 
 tator can avoid regarding it as the primitive sense, which under- 
 lies the whole development. But it is just the development by 
 Paul of the immanent ethical out of the transcendent eschato- 
 logical idea that was so original and so fruitful for Christian 
 dogma j 1 and for this we are ultimately indebted to that deeply 
 religious mysticism of faith, by which Paul knew himself to be 
 already one with " the Son of God who loved him and gave him- 
 self for him." 
 
 As the idea of the Messianic fay was changed when regarded 
 from the standpoint of Pauline mysticism, so likewise was that 
 of the Messianic irvevfja. That man obtained the Messianic 
 TTvev/ia in baptism, was taught by Paul in accordance with the 
 universal opinion of primitive Christianity. But by this Trvev/ia 
 was understood a " donum superadditum" peculiar to the Mes- 
 sianic time, which manifested itself as a purely supernatural 
 
 1 If we add to the foregoing consideration, that the other fundamental idea upon 
 which Paul's system of salvation rested namely, justification also originated in the 
 eschatological representation of the Messianic judgment, and if we remember further 
 that precisely in the same manner the decisive words in the Gospel message of Jesus 
 himself, " The kingdom of heaven is among you," sprang from the simple anticipation 
 of the future and external kingdom of the Messiah, in the present and internal con- 
 sciousness of the community, we thus come by a purely empirical method on the 
 traces of one of the deepest laws of development of the history of religion namely, 
 that the religious spirit loves to conceal its deepest mysteries and its most fruitful 
 germs in the calyx of richly coloured apocalyptic imagery, in order that they may 
 grow and gain strength under the protection of that covering, until they are capable of 
 flourishing alone and defying both storm and cold by tbeir own strength.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 21 
 
 force by extraordinary miracles. Now with Paul, this notion, 
 again, of the wonder-working spirit is by no means eliminated 
 (cf. 1 Cor. xii.), but it is stripped of its one-sided supernatu- 
 ral character, and completed on the truly spiritual, ethical side. 
 The Messianic wm^a. thus no longer remains as something 
 which transcends humanity, and only works upon men in an 
 extraordinary and abrupt manner, but it enters into the Christian 
 himself, and becomes his own ever- working principle of life, the 
 principle of the KCUVOS avOpwiros. This Messianic 7rveu/*a is here 
 no other than the share of man in that 7rveG/*a which Christ 
 himself has as the essence of his life. Now as the faithful have 
 their life in Christ, and the life of Christ in themselves, so also 
 will the irvcvfjLa of Christ fuse itself with the Trvev/m of the 
 Christian into the essence of one Kcuvq KTWTIS. In fact, in many 
 passages all distinction between the Trvevpa of Christ and that 
 of the Christian is done away with, whereas in others these two 
 are again opposed to each other as active and passive principle. 
 It is clear in any case, that by means of this new doctrine of the 
 Christian 7rvev/m which proceeded from the mysticism of Paul, 
 the foundation is laid for the immanent ethical view of Chris- 
 tianity. 
 
 Paul himself had already drawn a direct inference from this 
 doctrine of the Trvev^a, and used it for the foundation of Christian 
 morality. This point was all the more important on account of 
 the ease with which the Pauline doctrine of the abrogation of 
 the law by grace could be misunderstood in an immoral and 
 libertine sense, and was in fact so misunderstood both by friends 
 and enemies. Paul refuted this apparent consequence of his 
 doctrine concerning the law, by the true consequence of his 
 doctrine of the Trveufia. As the Christian has entered by baptism 
 into community with the crucified and risen Christ, so is the 
 old man, whose principle was the ordpg, crucified with Christ, and 
 a new man, whose principle of life is the Trvev/xa, has risen. 
 Now since the irvtvpa is the pure element of the heavenly
 
 22 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 world, that which proceeds from it in the sphere of morality can 
 only be good, and the Christian has only to give himself up to 
 the natural desire of this spirit which dwells in him, in order 
 to do good ; good is therefore the truly natural for him, so far as 
 he has the spirit. If, on the contrary, he does evil, then he 
 follows the lusts of the flesh, the impure nature of which can 
 only hring forth evil fruit in the sphere of morality, as the pure 
 nature of the spirit brings forth only good fruit (Gal. v. 19 23). 
 But as this sinful flesh was only the principle of the old man 
 who died with Christ, it has no further claim on the new man 
 who lives with Christ ; it cannot and dare not have the mastery 
 over him ; he cannot and dare not any longer be under an obli- 
 gation to compliance with it (Eom. viii. 12, vi. 14). Thus evil 
 is for the Christian as such that which is contrary to his nature ; 
 the power and domination of sin is necessarily abrogated for the 
 Christian, together with the law that was its provocation. The 
 requirement, therefore, to keep from evil and to do good, is for 
 the Christian the self-evident consequence of his new nature ; 
 lie has only to exhibit in action that which he already is in fact, a 
 spiritual man. (" If we live in the spirit, let us also walk in 
 the spirit ! Walk in the spirit, and ye shall not fulfil the lusts 
 of the flesh." Gal. v. 25, 15). 
 
 Thus the Apostle made his doctrine of Trvtvpa. the principle of 
 an entirely new ethical system, which completely overcomes as 
 well the mere constraint of a slavish obedience to law, as the 
 mere license of a lawless freedom (that is to say, the Jewish as 
 well as the heathen morality), and elevates them to a freedom 
 which is a law to itself, and to a law which first makes man 
 truly free. " The law of the spirit of life in Christ hath made 
 me free from the law of sin and death. Where the spirit of the 
 Lord is, there is freedom" (Eom. viii. 2 ; 2 Cor. iii. 17). This 
 new ethical principle is no less a landmark in the history of 
 morality, than justification by faith is in the history of religion. 
 And how close is the connection between them is shown by
 
 INTRODUCTION. 23 
 
 the whole course of our exposition, inasmuch as it is precisely 
 the mysticism of Paul's faith in Christ which has led to his 
 doctrine of the irvtvpa., and hence to the new ethical principle. 
 
 But now it is in exact accordance with the Apostle's method 
 of dogmatizing to fix the connection between the ethical conse- 
 quence and its religious foundation also in an immediate and 
 objective fashion, without reference to the subjective psycho- 
 logical process by which it is brought about. That which com- 
 pletes itself in the belief in the crucified one, by means of an 
 inward moral process, namely, the dying of the old man or of 
 the flesh, as the principle of life which rules the natural man, is 
 connected by the Apostle with the crucifixion of Christ, as if it 
 had actually happened here, once for all, as an objective fact ; 
 Christ himself has through his death died to sin (is placed out of 
 all relation to it) ; sin (thought of as an objective power) has 
 been put to death on the cross (Rom. vi. 10, viii. 3). The death 
 of Christ now obtains, therefore, a new significance ; it is not 
 merely an expiatory death for cancelling guilt and bringing 
 ideal imputed righteousness, but it is also the destruction of the 
 o-dpg, or of the real principle of sin ; it is therefore not only a 
 means of reconciliation, but also of the real moral renovation of 
 humanity not only of their justification, but also of their sanc- 
 tification. This is undoubtedly a most important extension of 
 Paul's doctrine of the redeeming death of Christ ; for by this 
 means the moral element of the Christian idea of redemption is 
 brought into the most immediate connection with its religious 
 element (reconciliation), and represented as equally essential. 
 Only we must not understand by this that the moral side of 
 Paul's doctrine of redemption is the chief thing, and the true 
 spiritual essence of his dogma. The proposition that the bodily 
 death of Christ has destroyed the power of sin, is, when ex- 
 pressed in this unqualified manner, just as unspiritual and 
 incomplete as the other, that he has cancelled the guilt of sin by 
 taking the place of the sinner. Both propositions require in 
 equal measure to be qualified by Paul's fundamental idea of the
 
 24 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 mystical communion of the believer with Christ, by which his 
 death is no longer an isolated historical event apprehended by 
 the senses, but a manifestation and a visible type of the Chris- 
 tian principle of salvation, and is only a cause of salvation just 
 so far as faith perceives and lays hold, in it, of the true spiritual 
 principle of salvation. Thus regarded, the death of Christ is 
 expiatory, because faith perceives in it the reconciling love of 
 God (2 Cor. v. 19 ; Eom. v. 8, viii. 32) ; and it is a conquest of 
 the power of sin, because faith from that reconciliation draws at 
 the same time the power of moral renovation. But the reconci- 
 liation still remains in the Apostle's mind, from the beginning to 
 the end, 'the foundation and the main element of his scheme of 
 redemption ; nor ought this to appear strange to any one who 
 reflects that Christianity is in the first place and above all things 
 a religion, and only in the second place a system of morality. 
 However, there is no need to depend on this train of thought, 
 grounded on the philosophy of religion, since Paul's writings 
 themselves speak plainly enough. The doctrine of the expiatory 
 death of Christ pervades in perfectly equal proportions all the 
 letters of Paul, and is everywhere the point on which hinge his 
 doctrines of righteousness before God and of the abrogation of 
 the law ; nay, more, on this turns his dominant religious tone of 
 trusting, grateful love. The doctrine of the destruction of the 
 flesh and of sin by the death of Christ, on the contrary, appears 
 for the first time in Eom. xvi. 8, and precisely stated only in the 
 two verses, vi. 10 and viii. 3. Its roots, indeed, pervade all the 
 other letters, and are to be found in all those passages in which 
 the Apostle describes the entering into the possession of Christ 
 by faith, and baptism as dying with Christ, as a crucifying of 
 the world and of self, of the flesh with its lusts ; thus especially 
 in GaL ii. 19, vi. 14, v. 24; 2 Cor. v. 14 f. But in these pas- 
 sages, this "crucifying of the flesh" still appears as what it 
 really is, as an ethical process in a subject who feels his coming 
 to believe as a dying and being born again (just as Paul felt his 
 conversion). And the " progress " made in Kom. vi. viii. con-
 
 INTRODUCTION. 25 
 
 sists accordingly in nothing else than in a more definite dogmatic 
 fixing, but at the same time also an externalizing of that ruling 
 idea of Paul's system of faith, which is so far from being incon- 
 sistent with justifying faith in the atoning death of Christ, that, 
 on the contrary, the latter is precisely that out of which it 
 sprang. - And so we find in the last letter of Paul, Phil. iii. 9 f., 
 justification through faith, and the mystic communion with 
 Christ in faith, woven together in indissoluble unity. 
 
 Moreover, the doctrine contained in the Epistle to the Romans, 
 of the mortification of the flesh through the death of Christ, is 
 closely connected with the fact that the ethical conception of o-dpg 
 is in this very passage (ch. vi. viii.) for the first time employed by 
 the Apostle for a dogmatic purpose. He had, indeed, previously 
 introduced it in Gal. v., but there only for the purpose of moral 
 exhortation. That Paul, neither in the Epistle to the Galatians 
 nor in Rom. i. v., used this conception for the basis of his 
 fundamental doctrine of the impossibility of righteousness ac- 
 cording to the law, is an unmistakable proof that it did not 
 at that time form part of the foundation of his system (as is 
 generally stated). But without doubt this moral conception of 
 <rdpg first came into his mind as an analogy and consequence of 
 the corresponding conception of irvf.vp.0.. We saw above how the 
 original transcendent-physical conception of irvtvpa acquired an 
 ethical application under the influence of Paul's mystic faith. 
 From this it was no violent transition to give a corresponding 
 ethical application to the physical conception of <rdpg, forming in 
 the Hebraic scheme the standing antithesis to the transcendent- 
 physical conception of Trvfvfia at least where it is opposed to 
 irvfvfjLa in the sphere of ethics : for elsewhere the o-dpg is to 
 Paul simply the weak and transient element of the earthly 
 existence of created beings. In brief, then, the actual (morally 
 intensified) dualism of a-dp and irvevp.a is not an element of 
 the philosophical anthropology of Paul, nor a presupposition of 
 his dogmatic teaching, but a secondary product of his Christian 
 speculation ; it is the psychological reflex, of his dogmatical anti-
 
 26 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 thesis of sin and favour. 1 The case is precisely the same with 
 the so-called " dualism" of John. This is the reason why in 
 both cases the application of philosophical categories, or refer- 
 ence to the metaphysical dualism of philosophical systems, is 
 decidedly inadmissible, and produces nothing but error and 
 confusion. 
 
 The antithesis of sin and favour, which dominates Paul's 
 thinking, first presented itself to us under the religious cate- 
 gories of law and righteousness by faith ; and, secondly, in the 
 sphere of ethical psychology under the categories of flesh and 
 spirit. Finally, it acquires its most pregnant and comprehen- 
 sive expression in the contrast of the historical types Adam and 
 Christ, or the first and second Adam. Viewed by the Apostle 
 from the height of his Christian philosophy of history, the 
 development of humanity divides itself into two periods of 
 opposite religious aiid moral character. The first period, which 
 dates from and is represented by the first Adam, was under 
 the dominion of sin, the flesh, death, and the law (as taskmaster 
 of those under the bondage of sin, and a provocation to the 
 sinful action of the flesh). Adam, therefore, represents the 
 principle of sin, of death, and of bondage. Christ, on the con- 
 trary, was the second Adam, because he was the founder of a new 
 religious and moral development of humanity, which is no 
 longer under the law, but under favour ; no longer under the 
 dominion of the flesh, but under that of the spirit ; no longer in 
 a state of bondage, but of sonship to God ; no longer subject to 
 death, but in possession of (eternal) life. But in both instances 
 Paul sees in the founder of a race the personification of the 
 type of the race, or of its ruling principle. Thus Christ, as the 
 founder of a humanity in the condition of sonship to God, becomes 
 in his eyes the personified principle of divine sonship, the abso- 
 lute ideal of the very Son of God. But in consequence of this 
 
 1 The translator has ventured to substitute for the technical term " grace," in 
 which the original notion is almost entirely obscured by theological accretions, the 
 word " favour," by which that notion is always expressed in ordinary English.
 
 INTRODUCTION. 27 
 
 identification of the historical person with the absolute principle, 
 the former is snatched from the limit of the finite, his course is 
 transferred to heaven and eternity ; Christ becomes the pre- 
 existing heavenly man who is sent hither from heaven in the 
 fulness of time, to take upon him our sinful flesh, by the death 
 of which he is to cancel the guilt and power of sin, but by his 
 resurrection to become a quickening spirit to humanity, that we 
 also through the communion of his spirit may be changed into 
 spiritual men and children of God, after the image of the " first- 
 born among many brethren." 
 
 Thus Paul's Christology comprehends the fundamental ideas 
 of his gospel, and reflects it truly in strict accordance with its 
 origin ; for his Christology, like his whole doctrinal system, 
 is neither derived from tradition, nor the result of abstract 
 speculation or extraneous philosophic dicta, but is derived from 
 reflection on the blessings of salvation granted in the death and 
 resurrection of Christ, as these presented themselves to the 
 faith of Paul as facts of his inward experience. Paul was con- 
 scious of having himself become a new man through faith in 
 him who was crucified and raised from the dead, of having pain- 
 fully worked his way out of the bondage of the flesh and of the 
 law into the freedom of the spirit of sonship : this consciousness, 
 when he extended it to the whole company of believers, natu- 
 rally led him to apply to the cause of this change the concep- 
 tion of " the second Adam," of the " life-giving Spirit," of " the 
 first-born Son of God," the "prototype of the spiritual or hea- 
 venly man" (1 Cor. xv. ; Rom. viii. 29). Thus we have before 
 us the first dogmatic Christology, i.e. a doctrine about Christ 
 which is in reality an exposition of the Christian consciousness 
 of the community in the form of declarations respecting the 
 person of its Founder. As a free (speculative) expression of the 
 Christian idea, it has an ideal height and breadth which constitute 
 it the common point of departure for all further Christian specu- 
 lation ; but the uniting of the idea with the historical person of 
 the Founder, and especially with his greatest moral act, the sacrifice
 
 28 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 of his death upon the cross, adds to the ideal thought the real 
 power of religious pathos and of heartfelt sympathy ; and in so 
 doing creates that mysticism of feeling, which we find every- 
 where in the history of religion to be the most genuine and 
 fruitful source of religious life and thought. Indeed, this mys- 
 ticism leads directly to speculation ; for while the pious subject 
 through sympathy feels himself as one with his object, the limits 
 of individual life and the separation of individual from indi- 
 vidual are by this act done away, the particular is elevated to 
 the universal, and thus that is accomplished in the immediate 
 form of feeling which speculation does in the mediated form 
 of thought.* Thus, the deepest speculations of Paul concerning 
 a second Adam, the spiritual man, &c., do in fact issue only 
 from the depth of his religious feeling. This should be taken 
 more into account than has commonly been done in recent 
 treatises, 1 which, ever looking only on the dialectical side of 
 Paul's character, are on the point of turning him into a hair- 
 splitting schoolman, of whom it is impossible to conceive how 
 he became the great Apostle of the Gentiles, who knew how to 
 bring into captivity every thought to the obedience, of Christ 
 (2 Cor. x. 5). 
 
 It remains, in conclusion, to raise the question, whether Paul's 
 system of doctrine, as it has here been sketched, can be set forth 
 at all as a completed whole, or whether it passed through changes 
 and developments by which our statement must be modified. 
 Now the answer to this question depends of course essentially 
 on the critical judgment respecting the genuineness or spurious- 
 ness of certain letters which have come down to us under the 
 
 1 The only decided exception in this respect is the treatise of Reuss, Histoire de 
 la Theol. Chret. au Siecle Apostolique, which indeed requires to be supplemented 
 again on the other side, as it gives less than its just weight to the Judaiziug form of 
 Paul's dogmatic teaching. 
 
 * The reader who is not familiar with the technical terms of German philosophy 
 will derive much enlightenment as to the meaning of these and some of the other un- 
 English terms, which it has been impossible altogether to exclude from this transla- 
 tion, by consulting the Vocabulary given in the Prolegomena to Mr. Wallace's Hegel. 
 (The Logic of Hegel, &c., with Prolegomena, by William Wallace. Oxford, 1874.)
 
 INTRODUCTION. 29 
 
 name of Paul. Since the thorough investigation of critical 
 questions does not fall within the plan of this work (for criti- 
 cism concerns us here only in so far as it is affected by the 
 dogmatic teaching which will occupy us in the course of the 
 book), I can here only briefly express my critical views for the 
 information of the reader. 
 
 In addition, then, to the four undisputed Epistles, I hold to be 
 genuine the first to the Thessalonians, the Epistle to Philemon, 
 and that to the Philippians ; as unqualifiedly spurious, that to the 
 Ephesians and the three pastoral Epistles; as spurious until 
 qualifications, the second to the Thessalonians, and that to the 
 Colossians. In these two, and especially in the last, it appears 
 to me as impossible to conceive that they are genuine in every 
 part as that they are in every part spurious ; and since this is so, 
 scarcely any other conclusion remains for us than the view ela- 
 borated by Holtzmann in the most recent work on the Epistle 
 to the Colossians and the Ephesians, that the Epistle to the Colos- 
 sians which we have is founded on a genuine letter of Paul re- 
 touched by a later hand. But I cannot agree with Holtzmann in 
 thinking that the hand is that of the author of the Epistle to the 
 Ephesians. I rather hold it to be that of an Alexandrian follower 
 of Paul holding similar views with the writer of the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews. As regards the separation of the genuine from the 
 spurious parts, whilst fully recognizing the ability displayed in 
 Holtzmann's attempt, I am yet on several points unable to agree 
 with him, and have no confidence in my ability to make an exact 
 separation and a complete reconstruction of the original letter. 
 But since in any case the peculiarities of the letter proceed from 
 the later hand, its real use is as a monument of a development of 
 Paul's doctrine after the time of Paul. With the Epistle to the 
 Hebrews and that to Barnabas, it marks the first phase of this 
 development, determined chiefly by Alexandrian influence. The 
 second phase of it is mainly represented by the Epistle to the 
 Ephesians, the tendency of which towards church union has 
 already been foreshadowed in the first Epistle of Clement and
 
 30 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 the first of Peter. The third phase represented by the pastoral 
 and pseudo-Ignatian letters, exhibits Paul's doctrine after it had 
 passed over into the faith of the universal (catholic) Church. 
 Lastly, we shall have to show from the Acts of the Apostles, 
 how the original system of Paul and its historical struggles were 
 reflected in a subdued light in the system as catholicized. 
 
 Part II. of this book will be occupied with these phases of 
 Paul's doctrine after the time of Paul. But the original system, 
 as it is to be extracted from the genuine letters forms the subject 
 of Part I. In these there occur, it is true, differences of such a 
 kind as show an advance in the dogmatic thought of the Apostle ; 
 but this consists here, not in a transformation, but simply in a 
 more precise development and articulation of the dogma. Hence 
 there is no good reason, in my opinion, for arranging the exposi- 
 tion of the whole in phases of development following each other 
 in order of time ; on the contrary, nothing but _ an exposition of 
 the entire system as one will correspond to the essential unity of 
 the fundamental views undeniably presented to us in the original 
 letters. Due notice will, however, be taken, in every instance 
 in which they occur, of shades of difference in the earlier and 
 later letters. In considering these we must not fail to observe 
 that local circumstances had their share in producing these differ- 
 ences. Thus we find in the first Epistle to the Thessalonians 
 no mention of the doctrine of justification, and this doctrine is 
 also thrown very much into the background in the Epistles to 
 the Corinthians ; in both cases doubtless for the same obvious 
 reason, that there was no need to explain the doctrine of justifi- 
 cation to a purely Gentile community in that precise form into 
 which it was thrown by the categories of Jewish thought ; 
 though the nucleus of this doctrine, namely, the idea of the 
 favour of God through Christ, is by no means absent from these 
 letters. It is more reasonable to suppose that the absence 
 of the notion of <rdp in 1 Thessalonians is an indication that 
 this conception in its precise dualistic significance was not 
 worked out by Paul till a later period, since the opportunity of
 
 INTRODUCTION. 31 
 
 applying it was not wanting in the Epistle to the Thessalonians. 
 But as regards the Epistle to the Philippians, my conviction is 
 that it is no further removed from that to the Eomans, with 
 reference both to questions of dogma and relations of party, than 
 this latter is from the Epistle to the Galatians ; whereas we find 
 in it no trace of any of the peculiar characteristics of the Epis- 
 tles to the Colossians and Ephesians. I therefore consider the 
 grouping together of these three Epistles under a common title, 
 which has now become the fashion in both the opposing camps 1 
 of New Testament theology, to be a decided error, and I believe 
 that they will soon be again separated. If we examine each 
 of these letters attentively by itself, we find, in the first place, 
 that no one of them has the same general purpose as either 
 of the others, so that they ought at all events to be expounded 
 separately and not together; and, secondly, that the Epistles 
 to the Colosssians and the Ephesians are closely related, and 
 that both of them deviate widely from the original doctrine of 
 Paul, but that the Epistle to the Philippians, on the contrary, has 
 as little in common with these two as it has much in common 
 with the older and undoubtedly original letters; and that its 
 peculiar character exactly corresponds with the personality of 
 Paul in general, and in particular with his personal relations to 
 
 1 The defenders of the genuineness of these three letters (Weiss, JR. Schmidt, 
 Sabatier), who nevertheless separate them from the older letters and present them 
 all three together, under the heading "Letters of the Imprisonment," are in the 
 awkward position of being bound to explain how it happened that the Apostle during 
 his imprisonment suddenly entered on a new method of teaching. Could the short 
 interval that elapsed between the composition of the letter to the Romans and his 
 imprisonment, have sufficed to account for so radical a difference between that letter 
 and those to the Coloeeians and Ephesians ? And even on this most improbable 
 supposition, how can it, in the next place, be explained that the supposed last of the 
 three "Letters of the Imprisonment," the Epistle to the Philippians, is precisely the 
 one which exhibits the least of these radical changes in the Apostle's dogma, or rather 
 does not show them at all, but again closely resembles the Epistle to the Romans ? 
 Are we here again to suppose a retrogression in the dogmatic thought of Paul ? Surely 
 we cannot imagine the Apostle Paul to have been so exceedingly changeable ! (See 
 the apt remarks of ffoltzmann, ut supra, p. 230). Until these difficulties, which tell 
 strongly against the half -critical view of "The Letters of the Imprisonment, "are more 
 satisfactorily solved than they have hitherto been, the assertion of Weiss (Neutest. 
 Theol., 2nd. ed. p. 203, foot-note) that the "Letters of the Imprisonment" must 
 stand or fall together will remain an assertion and nothing more.
 
 32 INTRODUCTION. 
 
 this community at the time of its composition, while it would 
 be exceedingly difficult to account for exactly this individual 
 colouring in any other writer. 1 
 
 Finally, with regard to the exposition of Paul's original system, 
 the question may be asked, whether the genetic process, as it 
 has been briefly sketched in this Introduction, should not have 
 been made the foundation. The special object of this book, 
 namely, to delineate the organic process of development of the 
 Christian dogma in its commencement in Paul, might seem to 
 require this. But the carrying out of this principle would, in 
 the first place, have led us into far too much repetition ; and, 
 secondly, it would have made it much more difficult to survey 
 the foundation of the several dogmas by Paul. For this reason 
 I have preferred first to give in the form of an introductory 
 sketch the organic development of Paul's thought as deduced 
 from its single root, but in the remainder of the work to arrange 
 my materials. pretty much under the usual heads, while at the 
 same time I have striven to have regard as much as possible to 
 the position of each dogma in the progressive teaching of Paul. 
 As the result, therefore, of a kind of compromise between these 
 two considerations, the following order was adopted : Sin and 
 the Law, Eedemption through the Death of Christ, the Person 
 of Christ, Justification through Faith, Spiritual Life, Commu- 
 nion in Christ, the Completion of Salvation. The transition to 
 the further history of the development and transformation of 
 Paul's system must be made by setting forth the original relation 
 between it and the tendencies of Jewish thought, in the course 
 of which it will be necessary to describe the relations of parties, 
 as they appear in various forms in the Epistles to the Galatians, 
 to the Corinthians, and to the Romans and Philippians. 
 
 1 On the authorship of the Philippians, cf. Hilgenfeld's essays in the Z. f. w. Th., 
 1871, Part. iii. p. 309 f., and 1873, Part ii. p. 178 f . : on 1 Thess., cf. the same 
 Review for 1862, Part iii., and 1866, Part iii. It is to be hoped that some competent 
 hand will soon give us a handbook of early Christian literature, or introduction to the 
 New Testament, containing the established results of modern criticism well sifted. 
 This is a want much felt in works like the present, which, though not directly critical, 
 must presuppose criticism, and therefore need standard critical works to refer to.
 
 fart Jfirei. 
 
 STATEMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF PAUL.
 
 CHAPTEE I. 
 
 SIN AND THE LAW. 
 
 IN making the doctrine of sin the point from which we start 
 in our statement of his doctrinal system, we are following the 
 systematic logical order observed by the Apostle himself in the 
 Epistle to the Eomans, where he (Eom. i. 18 iii. 20) prepares 
 the way for his thesis of righteousness by faith, and supports it 
 negatively by proving the actual universality of sin, loth among 
 Jews and Gentiles. An appeal like this to actual experience 
 forms a most suitable point of departure for an exposition which 
 was to bring home the peculiar teaching of the Apostle to the 
 consciousness of the reader by connecting it with universally 
 admitted truths of experience. But an inductive proof of this 
 kind drawn from experience could neither in itself, nor for the dog- 
 matic consciousness of the Apostle, be the underlying and funda- 
 mental principle of the wholly original idea of righteousness by 
 faith ; and for this simple reason, that such an inductive judgment 
 of complete universality, drawn from the frequency of a pheno- 
 menon, only produces an impression of relative truth, or proba- 
 bility, not the absolute certainty of a dogmatic principle. In 
 this instance especially, the facts of experience on which the 
 proof rests consist from the nature of the case of gross acts of sin 
 which are at once suggested by the survey of general states of 
 morality, and are certainly also indicative of the average charac- 
 ter of a mass, of a people, of a generation, and the like, but which 
 are far from justifying the inference of a similar corruption in 
 
 D 2
 
 36 SIN AND TEE LAW, 
 
 every individual. On the contrary, the same experience which 
 proves the average moral corruption of the mass, nevertheless 
 always exhibits individual exceptions, or at all events the greatest 
 differences in degree of better and worse, facts which in them- 
 selves may perfectly well be used as negative instances against 
 the inductive inference of the universality of sin, and have in 
 fact often been so used. Thus much at all events is clear, that 
 a proof from experience, as adduced in Eom. i. 18 iii. 20, to 
 show the universality of sin, can only have a supporting force for 
 a theory which has been already established without this proof, 
 and rests on a much deeper foundation. 
 
 This theory is discussed by Paul principally in two other 
 passages (Eom. v. 12 f. and vii.), both times in connection with, 
 or on the occasion of, a dogmatic explanation of the relation of 
 the saving work of Christ to the law, or to the old pre-Christian 
 economy ; from which it is perfectly clear that the real ground 
 and point of support for the dogmatic theory of sin was found 
 by the Apostle in his doctrine of redemption. 
 
 ' 
 
 SIN AS THE PRINCIPLE OF THE PRE-CHRISTIAN OR NATURAL 
 
 MAN. 
 
 The well-known passage which is the authority on this sub- 
 ject, Eom. v. 12 21, can only be rightly understood by starting 
 from the point of view that the Apostle is not seeking here to 
 establish a doctrine of sin, but rather to support his doctrine of 
 justification, by fitting it into a glorious frame-work of history 
 viewed in the light of the philosophy of religion. The paradox- 
 ical notion of an objective, righteousness (granted by God to man, 
 without regard to the subjective nature of his life, and solely for 
 Christ's sake), which is supported in detail in iii. 21 f., is now 
 in conclusion to be made acceptable, and stripped of its appa- 
 rently extraordinary and arbitrary character, by a parallel drawn 
 from the philosophy of religion. Its counterpart or anti-type, 
 corresponding exactly in form, though opposite in content,, is
 
 SIN THE PRINCIPLE OF THE PRE-CHRISTIAN MAN. 37 
 
 found in an equally objective dominion of sin and death, decreed 
 against all through Adam without regard to the subjective nature 
 of their lives. That this is the intention of the parallel which 
 opens with the word wWe/a at ver. 12, becomes clear from vers. 
 18, 19, 21, in which the comparison of Adam and Christ, which 
 had been interrupted by the insertion of the points of difference 
 in vers. 15 17, is earned out in the formal resemblance of the 
 effects they produced. The theme of the preceding section is, 
 that through the obedience of one, namely Christ, many (faithful) 
 have righteousness imputed to them (are enabled to stand in the 
 position of righteous men), or that the favour of God, through the 
 mediation of Jesus Christ, exercises a dominion to eternal life 
 by means of righteousness. This had before (i. 17) been given 
 out as the main theme of the letter, and this he here means in 
 conclusion (for ch. vi. passes on to other thoughts) to recapitulate, 
 and at the same time to confirm it by the parallel with sin. 
 
 It is of importance for the right understanding of ver. 12, with 
 which the comparison commences, that the object of it, as shown 
 in ver. 21, which concludes it, should be clearly perceived. Here 
 we see, placed in opposition to one another, the dominion of sin, 
 which it exercises through death (being proved to be the power 
 which causes the death of man), and the dominion of grace Try 
 means of righteousness unto eternal life : eternal life is the final 
 object wrought out by the dominion of grace, but righteousness 
 is the intermediate cause of this end, and the immediate effect of 
 grace. The chief force of the entire chain of thought lies in the 
 fact of righteousness being the immediate proof of grace, in which 
 the sovereign power of grace first manifests itself. This relation 
 of righteousness to life corresponds with that of sin to death on 
 the other side of the parallel. The main point here is, that sin 
 exercises a sovereign dominion, to which all are subject through 
 
 Adam's One act Of sin (t/Jao-i'Aevcrev 17 ap-aprta, ver. 21 ; a.fJ.apT(i)Xot 
 
 Kareo-ra^ryo-av 01 TroAAoi, ver. 19). And sin possesses this sovereign 
 power in consequence of a divine act of justice (Kpip.o., KaraKptfia, 
 vers. 16, 18), as, on the other hand, righteousness and life have
 
 38 SIN AND THE LA W. 
 
 as their ultimate cause a divine act of grace (xa/ncr/xa). And as 
 in the one case life appears as the final object of grace, attained 
 by means of righteousness as the intermediate cause, so in the 
 other death is exhibited as the final effect of Kpip.a, and the im- 
 mediate effect of d/ia/>Tta, which precisely herein manifests its 
 despotic power. Now although the subject of the preceding 
 verses (14 17) is only the dominion of death in consequence of 
 Adam's sin, we can see plainly from vers. 19 and 21 that the 
 main point throughout this section is not this, but the dominion 
 of sin, which is related to the dominion of death as the real caitse 
 to the external working and manifestation. But just because 
 the dominion of sin is manifested by the dominion of death, the 
 latter, as that which is immediately given in experience, serves 
 as the ground of our knowledge of the former ; and the dominion 
 of death as the ground of our knowledge must necessarily go 
 first in the logical argument ; it being, however, always presup- 
 posed that as death in general has sin as its real cause, so like- 
 wise the dominion of death from the time of Adam has as its 
 real cause the dominion of sin which proceeded from the sin of 
 Adam. 
 
 If we proceed, bearing in mind these conclusions drawn from 
 the context, and especially from the end of the section, to vers. 
 12 14, which directly concern us here, it is abundantly clear 
 that 17 apapTia (ver. 12) does not indicate a single act of sin, but 
 sin as a universal thing, which can be the subject of predicates, 
 Slich as /3a<riXfveiv (ver. 21), Kvptevetv (vi. 14), iirtdvfj,Lav Karepyd^fa-dat 
 
 (vii. 8), which is condemned (viii. 3), under which man is sold 
 (vii. 14), from which (or from the binding law of which) the Chris- 
 tian is freed (vi. 22, viii. 2) ; briefly, therefore, it is sin as a univer- 
 sal power, an objective principle, which, distinct from each man, and 
 so from all men altogether, is a cause of effects in them, namely, 
 on the one hand of sinful desires and actions (vii. 8 f.), on the 
 other hand of their suffering death as the reAo?, the oi/'wvia -njs 
 apapTias (vi. 21, 23). Of sin in this objective sense it is said, 
 that it " entered into the world" (the complex of created existence)
 
 SIN THE PRINCIPLE OF THE PRE-CHRISTIAN MAN. 39 
 
 " by one man" (namely, by the sin of Adam, Trapd/Sao-is 'A.8dp, ver. 
 14) ; that to this consequently it owes not only the beginning 
 of its appearance, but also of its existence, for previously to that 
 event it had not come into being at all. "And through sin came 
 death" death also being thought of as an objective power which 
 can be said to reign (vers. 14, 17) ; not, however, to reign in the 
 sense that it was co-ordinate with sin as a sovereign ruler, but 
 as its coming into the world was only a consequence of the entry 
 of sin, so it serves only as the means by which sin exercises 
 and manifests its dominion. "And so death reached all men, 
 inasmuch as all have sinned." OU'TWS, that is to say, in con- 
 sequence of what has just been said, namely, in consequence of 
 death having once come into the world with and by the sin of 
 one man, it now reached every individual man; the dominion 
 of death, having once entered as an objective power into the 
 world, extended itself immediately over the whole mass of man- 
 kind, was absolutely universal, therefore no longer conditioned 
 and called out by the particular act of each individual for him- 
 self; but by having once entered into the world through one 
 man, Adam, it was (OUTWS) at once established as the power which 
 had dominion over all. 
 
 But now death altogether is only a consequence and visible 
 manifestation of sin ; accordingly, its SicXOeiv eis Travras must also 
 be a consequence of sin, being shared by all. This is expressed 
 by the words e< w jravre? rjnoprov. But the difficulty here lies 
 in the juxtaposition of two apparently contradictory reasons 
 assigned for the universal dominion of death ; on the one hand, 
 the one transgression of one man Adam (OU'TCOS), and on the other 
 hand, the transgression of all (for both Lexicon and Grammar 
 require that ripaprov should be understood of committing sin, and 
 the aorist shows the verb to refer to a definite historical action). 
 But in this hard and unqualified juxtaposition of these two dif- 
 ferent reasons is contained doubtless an indication that it was 
 the Apostle's intention that they should be regarded, not as two 
 different things, but as one and the same ; that, consequently, the
 
 40 SIN AND THE LA W. 
 
 transgression of Adam at once and as such was also the transgres- 
 sion of all. Of course it is only possible to view the matter 
 thus by supposing that, through a certain moral or mystic iden- 
 tity with Adam as the representative head of the race, all were 
 made partakers of his act. Such an identification of what is 
 done or suffered by a number of individuals with that which is 
 done by their head, who is, as it were, their personified unity, 
 is a mode of thinking by no means unusual with Paul, as will 
 be seen by a glance at the two parallel passages, 2 Cor. v. 14, d 
 
 eis vTrep irdvTwv aTTfOavfv, apa, iravrfs a7r$avov, and 1 Cor. XV. 22, 
 wcnrep ev T< ASa^u, Travrts aTro^v^crKovtriv, OUTWS tv ry Xpicrra) Travres 
 
 a>o7nH?ycrovTcu. Moreover, the sense just given to the sentence, 
 </>' <u, &c., is required to maintain the coherence of the passage 
 (for the thread of the argument would be severed by any other 
 interpretation), and also by the words which immediately pre- 
 cede and follow it: by those that precede; for if we were to 
 understand the word ^/xaprov to refer to the personal transgres- 
 sions of each individual for himself, then this would plainly be 
 the cause of their being doomed to die ; but this would be in 
 direct contradiction to the last sentence, according to which 
 death, on the contrary, so, that is in consequence of that one act 
 of Adam, passed directly to all. The thought contained in the 
 chief sentence cannot, however, be nullified by the relative sen- 
 tence joined to it, but can only be more accurately determined : 
 since, therefore, the chief sentence has declared the dominion of 
 death over all to be the immediate consequence of the act of 
 Adam, the relative sentence cannot in contradiction to this make 
 out the dominion of death over individuals to be caused by their 
 personal transgressions, nor even to be brought about indirectly 
 by this means ; but it may well define more accurately the idea 
 contained in the principal sentence, of an immediate causal con- 
 nection of the sin of Adam with the death of all men, by the 
 intermediate thought that not only the objective dominion of 
 death over all, but also no less truly, and indeed as its logical 
 antecedent (hence '</>' <), the objective dominion of sin over all
 
 SIN THE PRINCIPLE OF THE PRE-CHRISTIAN MAN. 41 
 
 had its origin in the sin of Adam. The relative sentence cannot 
 be intended to give a new cause which would destroy the force 
 of the immediate causal connection between the sin of Adam 
 and the suffering of all affirmed in the chief sentence ; it can 
 only assign for the doom of death pronounced on all a cause 
 which is already implicitly contained in that causal connection, 
 and therefore simply forms an element in this relation of caus- 
 ality. The word ^aprov is certainly ambiguous in itself; it 
 might, if it stood alone, be also understood to refer to the per- 
 sonal acts of sin of individuals, and apart from the context this 
 would be no doubt the more obvious meaning. But the ambi- 
 guity which is perhaps still to be found in ver. 12, is completely 
 removed by the reasoning contained in the following verses: 
 " For until the law, sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed 
 (that is, as personal guilt and liability to punishment) where 
 there is no law ; nevertheless, death reigned from Adam to Moses, 
 even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's 
 transgression, who is a type of him that was to come." It is the 
 object of these sentences to explain how far the death of all is a 
 punishment for the sinning of all, or in what sense the latter is 
 to be understood as the real cause of the universal dominion of 
 death. It is declared that this cause is not to be sought in the 
 personal culpability of individuals, as is proved by a two-fold 
 evidence of fact : on the one hand, the personal sin of individuals 
 could not be reckoned against them as personal guilt (by God) 
 during the period from Adam to Moses, while there was as yet 
 no law ; therefore they could not be subject to the dominion of 
 death in consequence of sins committed at that time, which were 
 not guilty and mortal transgressions like that of Adam ; and yet, 
 on the other hand, it is the fact that they were one and all sub- 
 ject to the universal dominion of death. Consequently this domi- 
 nion of death cannot (at least during that period of history, and 
 therefore not in general and for all) be caused by the personal cul- 
 pability of individuals themselves; accordingly as it is a fixed
 
 42 SIN AND TEE LA W. 
 
 axiom that it must in some way be caused by sin it can only 
 be caused by that (impersonal) sin of the mass which was included 
 in the sin of the one man Adam. And this was precisely the idea 
 contained in ver. 12 which had to be proved. 
 
 This theory certainly has something in it very alien to the 
 modern tone of moral reflection. We should, however, be more 
 reconciled to it if we considered, in the first place, that Paul is 
 by no means its inventor, but that he took it from the Jewish 
 theology, and only adapted it to his Christian system; and, 
 secondly, that in spite of its harshness it has for intelligent 
 thought a deeply speculative idea as its basis. That death 
 (that is, of the body) came into the world and became the 
 universal inheritance of mankind in consequence of the first sin, 
 was the universal doctrine of the Jews : for instance, it is said, 
 "Wisd. ii. 24, that when God had made man for immortality, 
 death came into the world through the envy of the devil ; and 
 Ecclesiasticus xxv. 24, " Of the woman came the beginning of 
 sin, and through her we all die." Other passages are adduced 
 from Jewish theology by Eeiche in his commentary on this 
 passage ; especially worthy of notice is that in which the 
 death of the righteous is expressly referred to the sentence pro- 
 nounced on the first man, to which they are subject in spite 
 of personal freedom from guilt, which is precisely the idea ex- 
 pressed in vers. 13 and 14. But since there is also another 
 fundamental notion, "Non est mors sine peccato neque casti- 
 gatio sine iniquitate," the contradiction of these two views can 
 only be reconciled by regarding the first sin, which was the 
 cause of the death of all, to be at the same time the sin of all ; 
 and accordingly it is said further, " Eodem peccato, quo peccavit 
 primus homo, peccavit totus mundus, quoniam hie erat totus 
 mundus," or " priino homine peccante cuncta corrupta sunt, 
 nee in statum pristinum restituentur ante Messia3 adventum ;" 
 and the cause of this is elsewhere stated to be, that the first 
 man " dux erat mundi et .radix onmis posteritatis" (see the
 
 SIN THE PRINCIPLE OF THE PRE-CHRISTIAN MAN. 43 
 
 quotations adduced by Keiche, Commentary on the Epistle to 
 the Eomans, Vol. I. pp. 368 370). We have here unmistakably 
 the same idea that is expressed in Rom. v. 12. 
 
 If we now examine the dogmatic theory which is contained in 
 these passages, two things are equally certain that it is not 
 the Church's doctrine of original sin, and that it is not the 
 rationalistic theory of the merely personal sin of the individual. 
 The latter is the direct opposite of what we think we have 
 proved to be the only possible sense of the passage; but on 
 the other hand the passage, strictly taken, says nothing of a 
 transmission by "inheritance" or otherwise of the sin of Adam 
 to the rest. If the sin of Adam was at the same time the 
 sin of all (the act of the race), there is no more need of a 
 transmission of sin from him to the rest, brought about by the 
 intervention of the individual members of the race ; but the 
 whole mass was placed in the position of sinners immediately 
 by his act that is, they were placed in that relation to God 
 which is determined by sin, in consequence of which sin is now 
 the ruling power over all without any personal co-operation on 
 the part of the subject, nay without any reference whatever to 
 the subjective constitution of individual men. 
 
 The relation of mankind to God was fixed once for all by the 
 single act of Adam as the head and moral representative of the race, 
 as that of sinners who are under sentence which is pronounced 
 against them in the form of the dominion of death. We must not 
 lose sight of the objectivity of this dogmatic conception of sin, as 
 no mere subjective moral condition, but an objective religious 
 relation between God and man, which appears on the part of God 
 as Kptfj.a, and on the part of man makes itself felt as da.va.roi. For 
 this is of the utmost importance for the right understanding of 
 the entire dogmatic system of Paul, and especially of the doc- 
 trine of justification. When so regarded, the idea that the rela- 
 tion of the whole of mankind to God has been fixed by that one 
 act of Adam, and that all have fallen together under sentence, 
 has an appearance of great harshness from a moral point of view.
 
 44 SIN AND THE LA IV. 
 
 But this point of view is here (as everywhere in the writings of 
 Paul) too narrow, and fails to do justice to the philosophical 
 spirit which the Apostle brings to bear on religion. The one 
 act of the first man is obviously not his mere personal, indi- 
 vidually limited act, but, in the view of the Apostle, at tJie same 
 time that of the race. It is consequently by no means he who 
 happened to be the first man, selected by chance from among the 
 rest, but man in general, man as man, who has placed himself in 
 the relation of a sinner to God. This at bottom means that the 
 relation of man to God is, a priori, previously to all contingent 
 individual action, therefore from the beginning and of necessity, 
 that of alienation and contradiction. This contradiction mani- 
 fests itself, and we become conscious of it, as a standing under 
 the wrath of God, and experiencing this wrath in the doom of 
 death, and it must have so manifested itself in order that at last 
 
 7roAA<> fj.ct.XXov YI x**/ 315 Ka ' *? 8d)pea ev ~xa.pi/ri TTJ TOV Jvos dvdpioTrov 
 'Irjarov Xpicrrou cis TOUS TroAAovs eTre/no-crewev. According to this 
 
 deeper apprehension of the Apostle's idea, the one man Adam 
 is only the personification of the principle of the natural man, 
 and his act is therefore the manifestation of this principle, the 
 commencement of the /BaanXevfiv of a-jupria. and of flavaros, and 
 yet at the same time a necessary moment in the divine scheme 
 of salvation as the condition of the /WtAevetv of x/^s. Of course 
 it is not meant that the Apostle became conscious of this thought 
 in its pure speculative form, but it would naturally assume in 
 his mind the form of the traditional Jewish notion of a. first sin, 
 and a judicial sentence of condemnation passed on mankind in con- 
 sequence. It was only under this form and from it that he 
 developed the deep idea of a universal and purely objective sin, 
 which as a religious relation once given, as the principle of the 
 natural man, not dependent on individual moral conduct, but 
 the root of it, manifests itself in particular acts of sin. But that 
 this principle also preceded the first act of sin committed by 
 Adam, as it precedes the personal sins of all other men, is not 
 to be found directly expressed in the passage we are consider-
 
 SIN THE PRINCIPLE OF THE PRE-CHRISTIAN MAN. 45 
 
 ing, 1 and indeed is inconsistent with the obvious sense of the 
 words and the context. For, in the first place, the words, 17 a^aprta 
 elo-yjXdev eis TOV KOO-/JOJ/, undoubtedly imply the entrance of some- 
 thing new, which consequently did not previously exist at all ; 
 and, in the next place, Adam's act of sin, in order to form a 
 parallel with Christ's act of righteousness, must really have the 
 significance of a causal act. We must in both these cases bear 
 in mind that it is Paul's way to conceive the precise historical 
 moment in which a new general principle is originally manifested 
 as the operative cause of that principle. Thus the death of Christ 
 is, in the dogmatic conception of the Apostle, not merely the 
 manifestation of the new principle of the reconciliation, but the 
 operative cause of it ; and in the same way he conceives the 
 sin of Adam, the antithesis in the history of the world to the 
 death of Christ, as not simply the first manifestation of the 
 principle of natural sinfulness, but its efficient cause. The 
 universality of the consequences is then in both cases connected 
 with the individual cause by the conception of a judicial act, 
 in the one case a sentence of favour, in the other a sentence of 
 condemnation; and this is in both instances nothing but the 
 complement of that method of conception according to which 
 the general principle was embodied in an individual causal act. 
 These two conceptions, therefore, are inseparable, and both equally 
 belong to the form of the dogma, and neither is to be explained 
 away from the literal sense of the passage. It is quite out of 
 place, therefore, to introduce here the doctrine of the <rapg as the 
 natural principle of sin, for this passage expressly exhibits the 
 principle of sin, not as natural, but as of historical origin? It 
 can only cause confusion to apply here a psychological mode of 
 
 1 With reference to this point, Ernesti ("v. Ursprung der Siinde," &c., Vol. I. 
 p. 135 f.) must be allowed to be in the right. 
 
 8 This is opposed to the view of Ludemann, "Anthropologie des Ap. Paulus," 
 p. 86 f. His explanation of this passage shows itself to be wrong by its want of 
 clearness and consistency ; and this is the consequence of his arbitrarily introducing 
 the notions of <rapg and irvtvpa as the foundation of Paul's doctrine, which notions 
 belong to another sphere of thought.
 
 46 SIN AND THE LAW, 
 
 treatment which is quite alien to this passage, whose point of 
 view is purely that of objective dogma, or of the philosophy 
 of religion, and by no means that of subjective psychology or 
 ethics. Equally unjustifiable is it, on the other hand, on the 
 authority of this passage, which enunciates a historical beginning 
 of the principle of sin, to interpret the doctrine of <rdpg to mean 
 that the human o-apg became the principle of sin at a particular 
 point of time, and was not in itself that principle. On the 
 contrary, we have no more right to think of the o-dpg in con- 
 nection with Eom. v. 12 f. (where not one syllable referring to 
 it is to be found), than we have in Eom. vii. to think of the fall 
 of Adam as the cause of the sinfulness of the o-dpg. An unbiassed 
 exegesis will rather leave both views side by side, and will not 
 be put out by the fact that as they stand they are certainly 
 inconsistent. In Philo, too, we find the two contradictory doc- 
 trines propounded with equal naivete* : (1) the Jewish theological 
 doctrine of the historical origin of sin in the fall of Adam, and 
 (2) the Platonic philosophical doctrine of the defilement of the 
 soul by the gross material body to which it is bound. But if 
 we are compelled to confess that there is a formal contradiction 
 between Eom. v. 12 f., and Paul's doctrine of the sinful o-dpg, 
 we are all the more justified in penetrating through the obvious 
 form of the doctrine in Eom. v. 12 f., to the speculative idea 
 embodied in it, which is so plainly suggested by the actual 
 words of Paul where he identifies the act of Adam with the 
 common act of all. So soon as we grasp the thought that it 
 was not in truth the first man as an individual who was the 
 subject of the fall, but man as man, we see the historical 
 beginning to be merely the form which expresses the univer- 
 sality of the principle which has no beginning ; and thus the 
 substantial agreement of the passage with the line of thought in 
 Eom. vii. is placed beyond doubt. 
 
 From the moment when Paul had established the idea of sin 
 as an objective reality, corresponding with an objective righteous- 
 ness, consequently a state of sin previous to any act of sin, he
 
 THE FLESH. 47 
 
 must have felt that this result of theological speculation needed 
 also to be exhibited anthropologically in the nature of man; 
 and the more so, since with regard to favour (grace) also he did 
 not remain satisfied with the purely objective "righteousness 
 before God," but worked out the subjective "life in the spirit" 
 as the complement of this. When he had once descended in 
 this way into the sphere of ethical anthropology, the same 
 antithesis, sin and favour, which had hitherto been apprehended 
 theologically under the form of a condemning and a justifying 
 sentence of God, had now to be represented anthropologically 
 under the form of Flesh and Spirit. 
 
 THE FLESH. 
 
 Ch. vii. of the Epistle to the Eomans commences (1 13) by 
 expanding into fuller detail the theme of ch. vi., that man is 
 freed from the dominion of the lusts of the flesh by faith in the 
 crucified one ; and this idea is here supported by a very peculiar 
 turn of thought. The bond between man and the law is dissolved 
 by the death of Christ, and consequently also that between man 
 and the lusts of the flesh, which worked in his members by 
 means of the law. But since the point of this argument depends 
 upon the law and the energy of the sinful lusts being indissolu- 
 bly bound together, so that the one stands and falls with the 
 other, it might appear to follow that the law itself is sin (ver. 7). 
 The Apostle rejects this conclusion. He adheres, indeed, to the 
 premise, and expands it : the law is the means by which the 
 energy of sinful lust acts, because by its commandment it gives 
 the occasion which causes the revival and activity of that sin 
 which was till then dead. But he goes on to show that the 
 cause of the law so working as to occasion sin is not to be 
 sought in the law itself, for it is, on the contrary, holy, just and 
 good, but in the nature of man, which is such that the law calls 
 forth in him the opposite of that which was really intended (vers.
 
 48 SIN AND THE LA W. 
 
 13, 14). This brings the Apostle to speak more particularly of 
 the dominion of sin in man, that is, in his "flesh" 
 
 When it is said (ver. 18), " I know that in me, that is in my 
 flesh, dwelleth no good thing," and this negative statement is 
 afterwards supplemented by the positive assertion, that the evil 
 which I will not, and yet do, is not really wrought by myself, 
 but by the sin which dwelleth in me (ver. 20) ; and when the 
 words "in me" are more definitely determined (ver. 23) as "in 
 my members," two things are made perfectly clear: first, that tlie 
 flesh is not itself sin, for sin dwells in the flesh, which is therefore 
 the abode of sin, and not sin itself; secondly, that the flesh is not 
 the entire man, for the contrary is most distinctly affirmed when 
 the flesh is stated to be the abode of sin, but man's real self to 
 be on the side of the good, of the law ; it is not I myself who do 
 the evil, but sin which dwells in me ; and this expression, " in 
 me," is carefully restricted to the narrower notion, " in my flesh, 
 in my members," it being evidently implied that sin is not the 
 only thing that dwells in me, and " the flesh" is not the only 
 thing which constitutes my nature ; but that looking at me in 
 another relation, something also good after all a delight in the 
 law of God has place in me, namely, in my " inner man," or in 
 my vovs. This, turned into a positive statement, amounts to say- 
 ing that the flesh is that side of man which forms the opposite to 
 the " inner man," and which has tliis in common with the mem- 
 bers of a man that it is the abode of sin. How can we under- 
 stand this otherwise than that the flesh is materially identical 
 with the, members, that is with the "body, as the outer man ? This 
 obvious conclusion is fully established by the fact, that in the 
 same context throughout ch. vi. viii. the expressions, <rdpg and 
 
 TOV Oavdrov, vii. 24 ; <no/xa rfjs a/j-apTias, vi. 6 ; and (rdp 
 'as, viii. 3; also, a-dpg and 0-oyta as synonymes in viii. 13), 
 are constantly interchanged: the only possible explanation is, 
 that the body of man and the flesh are materially identical. At 
 the same time, it would be carrying this deduction too far to 
 assert that these two notions are absolutely identical, and equi-
 
 THE FLESH. 49 
 
 valent in form as well as content. Against this view it has 
 been with good reason urged that certain expressions have been 
 applied to the body which are not applicable to the flesh as the 
 seat of sin. For instance, in 1 Cor. vi. 13 20, where Paul is 
 insisting on the sacredness of the body as an argument against 
 the sensuality of the Corinthians, he says that it belongs to the 
 Lord, it is a member of Christ, the temple of the Holy Ghost, 
 wherefore we should glorify God in our body as well as in our 
 spirit. 1 ''Cor. xv. 35 50 is especially instructive on this point ; 
 here it is said expressly that flesh and blood cannot, inasmuch 
 as they are corruptible, inherit the kingdom of God. Therefore 
 the earthly or natural body, which consists of flesh and blood, 
 and is sown in corruption, must perish, because it is not the body 
 that shall be. But the body of the resurrection is composed of 
 different material, that is to say, not earthly but heavenly, not 
 psychical but spiritual, not corruptible but incorruptible and 
 glorious ; there are these bodies of flesh and blood, of earthly, 
 corruptible matter, as well as bodies of spiritual, heavenly, incor- 
 ruptible matter. This brings the relation between the two ideas, 
 o-w/za and o-dpg, into perfect clearness. The o-dpg is the material 
 of the (earthly) body, but the body is the organized form in which 
 this matter exists as a concrete earthly individual. It is now plain 
 how far these two conceptions can be interchanged, and in what 
 sense they are, notwithstanding, different. So far as the body 
 has for its material substance the flesh, the earthly, corruptible 
 matter, which is opposed to the heavenly and spiritual, so far 
 can it share the predicates of the flesh, and be designated as the 
 body of death and of sin ; but so far as it is, on the other hand, 
 the organ of an ego whose true function is to be governed not 
 by the flesh but by the spirit, and which as Christian actually is 
 determined by the spirit (of God), so far the body can and should 
 be an instrument and temple of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 That the jiesli is the material substance of the body, and thus in 
 general what is understood by (living) matter, is in so many pas- 
 sages the most obvious, not to say the only possible sense, that 
 
 I
 
 50 SIN AND THE LA W. 
 
 this meaning could never have been overlooked or disputed, were 
 it not that the moral meaning of the word has constantly been 
 taken erroneously for the point of departure. In the first place, 
 there are the numerous passages in which Paul expresses pro- 
 cesses, states, relations of the body and bodily life, by the 
 adjective "fleshly," or by the substantive with a preposition. 
 For instance, " that circumcision which is outward in the flesh" 
 (Eom. ii. 28) ; the union of the sexes is a union in " one flesh" 
 (1 Cor. vi. 16) ; birth and blood-relationship is Kara a-dpKa. (Eom. 
 i. 3, ix. 3, 5); the unbelieving Jews are, through their mere 
 bodily relationship to Abraham, while unlike him in spirit, only 
 TfKva a-apKos (Rom. ix. 8) ; and similarly Ishmael, who was begot- 
 ten by the mere bodily powers of Abraham, is a son Kara <rdpKa 
 yewrjOcis ; while Isaac, on the contrary, the child miraculously 
 born in consequence of God's promise, is born Kara Trvfv/JM (Gal. 
 iv. 29). Then, further, a condition of bodily sickness is called an 
 
 da-deveia T^S cra/aKos (Gal. iv. 13 f.), o'KoAoi/' ry cra/3Kt (2 Cor. xii. 7) J 
 
 the mortality of the body depends on the fact that the flesh is 
 mortal, must from its nature fall a prey to corruption ((f>0opd, 
 1 Cor. xv. 50; comp. 2 Cor. iv. 10 f. and Rom. viii. 11); and, 
 finally, bodily life is expressed by f}v or TrepnraTeiv Iv a-apKi (Gal. 
 ii. 20 ; Phil. i. 23 ; 2 Cor. x. 3), which is carefully to be distin- 
 guished from eti/cu ev o-apKi in a moral sense (Rom. viii. 8 f.), which 
 
 is equivalent to rjv Kara crdpKa, or <rapKU<bv emu. 
 
 But, further, the living matter which constitutes the substance 
 of the earthly lody is only a part of the universal matter which 
 forms the substance of the earthly world, and by means of which 
 the whole earthly world, as well as the earthly body, has the 
 character of being visible to the senses, and therefore also weak, 
 transient, and perishable (for the connection of the ideas " visible" 
 and "temporal," see 2 Cor. iv. 18, fa /^AeTi-o/Aeva irpoa-Kaipa, TO. 8e 
 pr) pXeTTofjifva cuwvia). Thus the notion of o-dpg obtains a wider 
 extension to everything " worldly," in so far as this, as sensuous 
 and transient phenomenal being, is in opposition (though not in 
 contradiction) to the real supersensuous and eternal divine or
 
 THE FLESH. 51 
 
 heavenly being, a widening of the notion, which, although rest- 
 ing wholly on the primary non-moral meaning of materiality, 
 yet trenches closely upon the moral and dualistic meaning of the 
 word. In this sense earthly goods are called o-apKtKd, because 
 they belong to the realm of the sensuous and transient worldly 
 life, in opposition to the higher goods of the spiritual life (Eom. 
 xv. 27; 1 Cor. ix. 11). In this sense masters in relation to 
 slaves are called 01 Kara. a-dpi<a Kvpiot (Col. iii. 22), because this 
 social relation affects only the outer worldly life, not the relation 
 of Christian brotherhood. When Paul, according to the practice 
 of his adversaries, will boast Kara, a-dpita (2 Cor. xi. 18), his boast- 
 ing refers especially to his bodily descent from Israel (ver. 22), 
 though not to this alone, but also to the other distinctions which 
 mark a legitimate Apostle (xii. 12), all of which, however, belong 
 to the sphere of external sensuous things. When he asks the 
 Galatians whether, after they had begun in the spirit, they will 
 now leave off "in the flesh" (Gal. iii. 3), he is thinking, as is 
 shown especially by iv. 9 11, compared with v. 1 f., of the 
 threatened falling back of the community from the freedom of 
 the gospel which they had already won, into the slavish ceremo- 
 nial of the heathen and Jewish worship, which hinged entirely 
 upon the sensuous (O-TOIXCM* TOV noo-pov, iv. 3). In like manner 
 
 he throws in the teeth of his Judaizing adversaries that their 
 pretended piety moved in the sphere of the a-dpg, inasmuch as 
 they gloried in outward sensuous rites, in circumcision for in- 
 stance, which, just because it is an external rite, can have no 
 value for the spiritual relation of man to God. Again, when the 
 Apostle assures the Corinthians (2 Cor. x. 3 f.) that he does not 
 strive Kara <rdpKa, and that his weapons are not fleshly, the con- 
 text, together with ver. 1, vii. 10, and xi. 6, shows very plainly 
 that he means by this expression such arguments as would im- 
 press a mind which looks at the exterior, is influenced mainly by 
 that which it sees through the eyes, and is liable to be deceived 
 by the sensuous appearance of things ; such weapons are not at 
 his command, for, as is well known, neither his person nor his 
 
 E2
 
 52 SIN AND THE LAW. 
 
 speech was impressive ; on the contrary, his appearance conveyed 
 the impression of do-Ofvcia, of <f>6(3os and T/JO/AOS, and his preaching 
 had nothing in it of the persuasive power of man's wisdom 
 (1 Cor. ii. 3 and 4), and was on this very account foolish in 
 the eyes of those who were fleshly or worldly-wise (L 20, 26) ; 
 but nevertheless, on the other hand, it was wisdom in the eyes 
 of the perfect, namely, the wisdom of God in secret, hidden until 
 that time, but now revealed by the spirit of God (ii. 6 f.). This 
 last antithesis alone is sufficient to show that here too we have 
 to do with the primary meaning of the word ; a wisdom is fleshly 
 that keeps to the outside, to the surface of sensuous appearance, 
 while the preaching of the Apostle deals with the hidden secrets 
 in which the depths of the Godhead are disclosed. Finally, this 
 is established by the special application of what has before been 
 said to the concrete case of the Corinthians (1 Cor. iii.). When 
 the Apostle in this passage calls his readers " fleshly" (" carnal"), 
 and " babes," because in their party spirit they gloried in men 
 (iii. 21), that is to say, prided themselves upon the authority of 
 this or that man, as if it alone were valid, instead of placing 
 themselves upon the one foundation, Christ, and judging all 
 authorities thereby, in whatsoever esteem they might be held 
 by men, it is clear that in this case also the reproach of being 
 "fleshly" refers to the fact of the Corinthians determining the 
 greater or less authority of their different teachers and party 
 leaders by the consideration of their external advantages or 
 deficiencies, and thus forming a hasty judgment based on mere 
 appearance, with which the divine and true judgment did not 
 coincide, the result of which accordingly was but empty vanity 
 and self-glorification (iii. 21 ; compare iv. 3 7). 
 
 In all these passages we have as yet no ground for going 
 beyond the common Hebraic notion of o-dpg, according to which 
 it signifies material substance, which is void indeed of the spirit, 
 but not contrary to it, which is certainly weak and perishable, 
 and so far unclean, but not positively evil. And as the Old 
 Testament also called men in general "flesh," and attached to
 
 TEE FLESH. 53 
 
 this expression the idea of human weakness and nothingness, 
 but not of positive wickedness, so Paul knows the word in this 
 sense, and repeatedly uses it so (Eom. iii. 20 ; 1 Cor. i. 29 ; 
 Gal. ii. 16, and i. 16 : o-dpg KCU di/za, equivalent to fallible, weak 
 men). Only one cannot but see that it was naturally the next 
 step, to raise the uncleanness and perishableness of the flesh, 
 in consequence of which it cannot attain to the kingdom of 
 God (1 Cor. xv. 50), to actual sinfulness, since both these notions 
 coincide in expressing something displeasing to God, and con- 
 trary to the essential holiness of his nature. In fact, this step 
 in advance had already been made in many passages of the Old 
 Testament, in which the sinfulness of man is referred to his 
 fleshly origin and his fleshly nature (cf. Ps. li. 7, ciii. 10, with 
 14 f. ; Is. xlviii. 8, and especially numerous passages in Job, iv. 
 17 f, xv. 14 f., xxv. 4 6). But Paul must have been the more 
 ready to take this step of advancing the physical uncleanness 
 and perishableness of the o-dpg to moral sinfulness, since the 
 Messianic Trvevpa had for him, as we know, grown out of a prin- 
 ciple of transcendent physical life into a principle of morally 
 good life. When it is no longer the mere imperishableness and 
 strength of a heavenly substance that is connected with the idea 
 of Trvcv/ia, but a morally good spontaneity, its opposite, o-dpg can 
 no longer be a mere earthly perishable substance, but a moral 
 spontaneity must also belong to it, which can of course only be 
 the opposite to that of irveiyxa, and therefore wicked. Thus out 
 of o-dpg as merely spiritless substance grows a causality opposed 
 to the spirit, out of its merely passive mortality an active 
 tendency towards death, or working of death (TO 
 
 crap/cos 6a.va.ros, Kom. viii. 6 ; TO. TraOrj[j.a.Ta TWV apapTiiav e 
 
 ev TOIS fj.e\f(riv i^/ztov ets TO KapTro<f>opi}<Ta.i T< 6ava.r(f, Kom. Vli. 5 1 ). 
 
 But when the o-dpg has once grown out of a mere spiritless sub- 
 stance into an agency opposed to the spirit, its peculiar activity 
 can of course only consist in an i-jnOv^lv Kara irvtvparos, and the 
 
 1 Liidemann baa aptly commented on this passage in his " Faulin. Anthropologie," 
 p. 30 f.
 
 54 SIN AND THE LAW. 
 
 product of this, its natural activity in the individual, can only 
 be individual (.tn.6vp.iai and ep-ya of a sinful kind. Tlius from 
 the opposition of physically different substances, as set forth in 
 1 Cor. xv., results tlie dualism 1 of antagonistic moral principles. 
 Gal. V. 17: 17 <rdp firiOvp.i Vara rov Trvcu/xaTO?, TO 8e Trvev/xa Kara 
 T>Js arapKos, TOLVTO. Se dAA^Aois dvTiKeirai, i'va p,r) a av deXr/re, TO.VTO. 
 
 iroirjTf. How entirely both these principles are thought to be 
 objective, is shown by the concluding sentence ; they stand over 
 man, who is as it were placed between them as the object of 
 their mutual antagonism, so that when he follows either one of 
 them, he always experiences an opposition from the other. 
 
 It is clear what kind of fruit ,we get from the flesh so con- 
 stituted, when its anti-spiritual ri0v/Aeu/ gains the victory and 
 transforms itself into action; nothing but gross sins, first of 
 sensuality, but afterwards also the more spiritual sins of idolatry 
 and witchcraft, and the manifold forms of selfishness (vers. 19 
 21). That sins of selfishness too proceed from the flesh, has 
 proved a stumbling-block, and has given rise to the opinion that 
 it is necessary to give to the word flesh as used by Paul a strange 
 sense, which is entirely alien to the primary meaning of the 
 word. 2 Only we must bear in mind that when once the material 
 o-dpg has been conceived as an agency opposed to the spirit, it 
 may easily become the principle of sin in general, and thus of 
 every individual sin, without its following that the form of 
 manifestation of each individual sin must be determined by this 
 
 1 It is the merit of Holsten to have been the first to work out energetically the 
 dnalistic idea of the Pauline vapZ, first of all in a remarkable treatise on this idea, 
 published 1855, and afterwards in a work which I have often quoted, "Zura Evange- 
 Hum des Paul us und Petrus, Altes und Neues." Agreeing with him as I do in the 
 main, I cannot always follow him in details, and in the inferences which he draws. 
 
 8 Thus Schmid, in his "Neutest. Theol.," II. 268, makes out that the <rap is 
 proneness to sin in general; and /. Mutter, in his "Lehre von der Siinde," says 
 that the <rap| is the love of the world ! These explanations, which simply set aside 
 the primary meaning of the word, are exegetical caprices which are refuted by the 
 whole of the preceding observations ; we will only refer by way of example to the 
 monstrous absurdity of such an expression as, "In me, that is in my proneness to 
 sin, or in my love of the world, dwells no good thing." A careful exegesis should 
 avoid imputing to the Apostle such unmeaning tautology as this.
 
 THE FLESH. 55 
 
 materiality, and so can only be sensuous. The form of the 
 individual sins which result from the principle of <rdp is rather 
 determined in each case by the organ which is seized by the 
 impulse of the sinful principle, and becomes subservient to it. 
 If this organ is the body (which has been shown to be by no 
 means identical with "flesh"), then the sins which proceed from 
 the flesh will be of a sensual kind ; but if it is the soul or spiritual 
 faculty, the reason (vous), or the heart (/capSm), the sins also will 
 belong to the thinking and feeling spirit, and so be of a spiritual 
 nature, like those of selfishness and irreligion. 1 This is a point 
 of cardinal importance for the right understanding of Paul's 
 anthropology. Since matter, which the " flesh" everywhere and 
 always is, has been changed from a mere spiritless substance 
 into a principle opposed to spirit, its activity henceforth is not 
 limited to its immediate sphere, namely, the sinful body, but 
 extends over the entire man, so that he now becomes a o-a/a/aKos 
 avOpwiros, i.e. one who not only has the o-dpg for his physical 
 substance or basis that would be <ra/>/avos but who has adopted 
 the anti-spiritual t-n-iOvfjifiv, which is the peculiarity of the crdpg, 
 as the law of his life, whose entire personal life is enslaved 
 under the directing influence of an anti-spiritual principle. Ac- 
 cordingly the o-apKiKos av0pw7ros is by no means merely the 
 sensuous or sensuously-minded man, but he who in his entire 
 personal life, that is in every relation, is guided in opposition to 
 the spirit and to God ; but man is this by nature just because 
 he is o-ap/avos, i.e. because he has fleshly matter for his sub- 
 stance : 2 from his being physically flesh (Wp/avov cTva'i), it inevi- 
 tably follows that morally he is fleshly (arapKinbv efvat), that is to 
 say, in sinful opposition to the spirit. This relation of the two 
 conceptions is made quite clear by Kom. vii. 14, 6 vo/zos Trve^/icm/cos 
 
 rrtv, tya> Se (ra/sxtvos ei/u, Trerr/Da/xei/os VTTO rrjv afj-apriav, that is to 
 
 say, the law is in its substance spirit, I am in my substance 
 flesh, whence it follows inevitably that in the actual moral con- 
 stitution of my life also, I cannot be in harmony with the law, 
 
 1 Compare Liidemann, ut supra, p. 72 f. * Compare Holsten, p. 397.
 
 56 SIN AND THE LA W. 
 
 but must be in contradiction to it ; or that I am sold as a bond- 
 man to the anti-spiritual principle of sin, and given over to its 
 dominion. In precisely the same way, cra/s/avos in 1 Cot. iii. 1 3 
 is primarily the physical antithesis to Trvev/tartKos, and denotes 
 the Corinthians as persons who (like every other natural man) 
 have flesh as their substance, and so as in the first instance 
 unspiritual, babes (VT/TTIOI, ib.). But here also this being flesh is 
 taken immediately to involve being fleshly ; (ver. 3) ert yap 
 a-apKLKoi rre : for from the existence of <?/>, t^Aos an ^ 8ix<Htao-ui 
 among them, it is to be seen that in them the flesh, or the sub- 
 stance of their natural man, still continues to be the guiding 
 principle of their personal character. 
 
 From all this it follows very plainly that the ri0i>/xiv rfjs 
 0-apKos has not more in common with that which we call 
 " sensual inclination," or " sensuality," than with selfishness or the 
 self-seeking particular will of the natural self. Nay, we may 
 with strict truth say that the peculiar anti-spiritual activity of 
 the substance of flesh, its ri0iytetv, is at bottom no other than 
 the natural will that is directed towards the finite natural life of 
 the individual, as it shows itself sometimes as sensual, sometimes 
 as selfish ; only while modern psychology takes the individual 
 soul or spirit which animates this material corporeality as the 
 subject of this natural will, Paul takes the animated matter of 
 the body itself, a distinction which has its origin in the differ- 
 ence between two ways of regarding the universe, jbut has no 
 important bearing on the practical side of the question, with 
 which we have here to do. But it is probable that the misin- 
 terpretation of the word o-dpg is a consequence of overlooking 
 this difference between our anthropology and that of Paul. I 
 refer to those who take the word in its specific Pauline sense to 
 mean, not matter in active opposition to spirit, but the passivity 
 of spirit as against matter, or such a direction of life by spirit 
 as allows itself to be determined by matter. 1 This view cannot 
 
 1 Thus Ernesti, "Vom Ursprung der Siinde nach Paulin. Lehrgehalt," II. 52 f. ; also 
 R. Schmidt, "Paulin. Christologie," p. 43 f. ; likewise JSiedermann, " Dogmatik," 207.
 
 THE FLESH. 57 
 
 be reconciled with an impartial consideration of Paul's state- 
 ments. Expressions Such as Kara. <rdpKa emu, Or irfpiirartiv, 
 would on such an interpretation be astounding pleonasms; it 
 would scarcely be possible to speak of exidvudv, or (fipov^^a. -Hjs 
 o-a/axos, since the state of allowing oneself to be determined by 
 matter could not be the subject of such predicates. 1 Any 
 attempt to disarm this objection by substituting for this passive 
 state, or this kind of direction of life, the nature of man so far 
 as it is found in this condition, the natural human being deter- 
 mined by sense or by the world, 2 would only increase the diffi- 
 culty on the other side. For how could Paul in that case draw 
 so marked a distinction between the self and the flesh as the 
 real abode of sin, as he does in Rom. vii. 18 ? How could the 
 iv rrj o-apKt JJ.QV of this verse be replaced by lv TOIS /xeAeo-tv p>v in 
 ver. 23, if he understood by it the whole human being as it is by 
 nature ? The vovs, though it also belongs to the whole human 
 being, is here exactly opposed to the /*eArj, as the opposite to the 
 abode of sin, as the abode of the law of God. How could he, 
 moreover, connect the o-w/xa rov Oa.va.rov with <rdpg, as requiring 
 deliverance, if o-dpg were not just the material of this body, if it 
 were in fact something entirely different from it, namely, the whole 
 nature of man ? How could he in this case describe, in viii. 13, 
 the living no longer after the flesh as a mortifying of the 7r/oaeis 
 TOV o-w/xaros ? All these passages become clear, without any forced 
 interpretation, only when we allow to a-dpg in every instance its 
 primary meaning which is also the most natural one of matter. 
 The main reason why this, which is the simplest and the only 
 satisfactory view, meets, notwithstanding, with such constant 
 opposition from so many quarters, is probably to be sought in 
 its undeniable consequence, that sin, if the animated matter of 
 the body is its principle, appears unavoidable, and humanity 
 tainted with sin by nature and of necessity. We can certainly 
 escape from this difficulty by maintaining that it is not matter 
 
 1 Compare on this point Liidemann, at supra, p. 58 f. 
 
 So Weist, "Neutest. Theol.," 2nd ed., p. 244 f . : cf. Rittchl, "Entstehung der 
 altkath. Kirche," 2nd ed., p. 70.
 
 58 SIN AND TEE LAW. 
 
 as it is in itself that is the ground of sin, but only self-surrender 
 to it, or empirical human nature so far as the spirit in it allows 
 itself to be dominated by materiality. Only this is so far from 
 being the meaning of Paul, that it is exactly the opposite of it. 
 For it is precisely the object of Eom. vii. to explain the moral 
 constitution of the empirical nature of man from the flesh, from 
 the vo/xos ev TOIS p,eXfariv, from the apapria which was already 
 latent and potentially present in our members, before any com- 
 mandment existed, and which is only called into life by the 
 commandment. If, then, the o-dpg itself were nothing but just 
 this condition of man's nature which was to be explained, then 
 the whole of this wonderfully subtle and brilliant deduction 
 would in truth be nothing but the most wretched argument in a 
 circle ! People would give anything to explain away the idea 
 of an impersonal principle of sin contained in the nature of man, 
 that precedes every manifestation of sin, and is the ultimate 
 cause which infallibly produces it ; and yet this is just the pith 
 of the whole passage. For according to the 7th and following 
 verses, sin is already in man, even before the law comes to him 
 and brings it to his consciousness. Sin, then, by no means origi- 
 nates in the ego allowing itself, with consciousness and will, to 
 be determined by that which is material, but rooted in the being 
 of this conscious sinner lies as ultimate cause an unconscious 
 apapTia. in the form of a purely objective power, which as uncon- 
 scious may be called "dead," because it does not make itself 
 sensible to the conscience as sin. But this dead, i.e. latent sin, 
 which is potentially present, is roused to life (dve^o-ev, ver. 9) by 
 occasion of the law, which forbids the hitherto innocent desire, 
 i.e. it now comes into consciousness as sin, and awakes the feel- 
 ing of personal guilt and liability to death (eyo> Se diredavov). 
 And thus becoming conscious, the ego first distinguishes itself 
 ideally from the sin that dwells in it, and from the flesh as its 
 principle and abode, and is now further able really to separate 
 itself, with its personal wishes, its sympathy and antipathy, from 
 this element of its nature which is opposed to the law, and apply 
 itself to the law of God, though of course it can do this only in
 
 THE FLESH. 59 
 
 inward reactions, which lack the power of actually overcoming 
 the law of sin in the members. So completely, then, is the o-dpg 
 an independent, objective principle of sin, that it was not only 
 sinful in itself from the beginning, as yet without the willing or 
 the wishing of the ego, as the subject of the eirtdvfjLeiv which was 
 by its nature opposed to the law, but it afterwards proceeds still 
 further, in spite of the better knowing and wishing of the ego, and 
 in open contest with it, to work out its anti-spiritual activity in 
 real acts of sin which it constrains the resisting but powerless 
 ego to commit. 
 
 As a " dead" sin is here spoken of which is roused to life by 
 " occasion" of the commandment, and then first exhibits itself in 
 desires opposed to the law as that which it already was in itself 
 
 innocently (t'va ylv^rai Ko.6' VTrepfBoXrjv apx/DTtoAos r/ d/ia/DTia Sia TIJS 
 
 fVToXfj<> } ver. 13), so, on the other hand, the potentiality of sin, 
 which was restrained at least outwardly by the bridle of the law, 
 may also find in a false freedom the " occasion" of its release ; 
 
 COmp. Gal. V. 13, povov fir) rr/v \ev6eptav ei's dfopfjirjv Ty a-apKi, 1.6. 
 
 the Christian freedom from the law ought not to serve as a soli- 
 citing occasion to the flesh whereby its hitherto bridled eViflv/xeiv 
 would be released and given over to a life of gross sin. Although 
 the point of view here is very different from that of Eom. vii. 8 f., 
 inasmuch as the question is not here, as in the latter passage, 
 about the first inward awakening of the potentiality of sin and 
 of the consciousness of guilt, but about the breaking out of the 
 inward potentiality into the actual life of sin, yet the presuppo- 
 sition (with which alone we are here concerned) is in both cases 
 the same, namely, that the basis of all actual sin is a natural 
 potentiality of sin, which may be called indifferently ap-apria. or 
 o-dp (it is called the former in Rom. vii. 7, 8 ; the latter in 
 
 Gal. V. 13), because it consists in that eirtOvpfiv Kara TOU Tri/ev/xaros, 
 
 which is essentially peculiar to the o-dpg, and owing to which the 
 o-dp is from the first in itself, and by a necessity of its nature, 
 sinful and sin-working. 
 
 Thus our conception of the <rdp of Paul receives confirmation
 
 60 SIN AND THE LA W. 
 
 at all points, over and above the advantage it has on the score of 
 simplicity, inasmuch as it never loses sight of the original mean- 
 ing of the word, about which there can of course be no doubt. 
 The difference between such expressions as, e.g., t$v or 
 tv a-dpKL, Gal. ii. 20, Phil. i. 22, 2 Cor. x. 3, and eiVcu ev 
 Eom. viii. 8 f, seems to us to be only that between different 
 moments or elements of the same idea : in both cases Iv a-dpKt 
 means "in the material element;" only in the former instance, as 
 this forms the substance of the earthly body, it is equivalent to 
 " in the earthly life of the body ;" but in the latter case, since it 
 constitutes the agency which is opposed to the spirit, it is equi- 
 valent to " in the sovereignty of the principle of sin." In every 
 individual case the context must decide which of these two 
 moments is to be thought of: in many passages, however, the 
 moral is fused almost inseparably with the physical meaning, in 
 so far at least as the negative element of unspirituality and 
 vanity attaches to the latter, as in those passages of the Corin- 
 thians where the writer speaks of " fleshly wisdom," and of the 
 party-seeking Corinthians being fleshly. 
 
 In the notion of <rdpg thus defined we now have again the 
 objective guiltiness of man previously to any subjective will 
 and deed on his part, as it has already been presented to us in 
 Eom. v. 12. In both cases, sin appears as something original, 
 objective, presupposed as a necessary antecedent of the individual 
 will But the difference between that passage and the doctrine 
 of <rdp is, that in the former the origin of this general principle 
 is found historically in the first sin of Adam, in the latter psy- 
 chologically in the nature of man, in the material of his cor- 
 poreality. It has often been thought that this discrepancy in 
 the ground assigned in these two parts of the New Testament 
 for the empirical sinfulness of man could be reconciled by 
 regarding the constitution of the flesh, according to which it is 
 the principle of sin, as the consequence of Adam's sin, so that 
 before this historical fall the nature of man had been quite 
 different, and therefore that his flesh had undergone in conse-
 
 THE FLESH. 61 
 
 quence of this act a complete change of its nature. Only in 
 Paul himself we find not the slightest trace of such an astound- 
 ing doctrine. On the one hand, he speaks indeed of the fall, 
 but without connecting it with a change in the nature of man ; 
 on the contrary, the consequence of it was only the Divine judg- 
 ment by which all men were objectively set down as sinners, i.e. 
 placed towards God in the relation of sinners, and therefore, as 
 objects of the Divine anger, liable to the penalty of death. On 
 the other hand, Paul traces sin to the constitution of man's 
 nature, his being flesh ; but he not only speaks not a syllable 
 that would indicate that any past historical change had accom- 
 panied this, but, on the contrary, he plainly excludes such a 
 supposition ; l he speaks, Gal. v. 17, of the antagonism of the 
 flesh to the spirit in terms of such wide universality, as neces- 
 sarily to convey the impression that it attaches to these two 
 substances by their very nature, and so from the beginning and 
 without exception ; nay, in the very passage (1 Cor. xv. 45 47) 
 in which he speaks expressly of the first Adam in his relation 
 to the second, or to Christ, and consequently could hardly have 
 avoided putting the original better nature of Adam prominently 
 forward, he is so far from doing this, that he lays the strongest 
 possible stress on the opposition of the two : the first Adam is 
 XOIKOS l/c yfjs, a mere ^v^r) uio-a, not like the second TrvetyzariKos ; 
 with his nature, which consists of flesh and blood, he attains not 
 to the kingdom of heaven. Now here, although we must regard 
 these expressions as referring primarily to the physical consti- 
 tution of the flesh as a corruptible and impure substance, yet 
 we must not forget that to Paul the unspiritual passive material 
 is at the same time the active material which is opposed to the 
 
 1 Compare Usteri, "Paulin. Lehrbegriff" (6th edition), p. 28. "There appears 
 to he no allusion in the writings of Paul to a change in the moral nature of man, or 
 of his bodily constitution in consequence of the fall, i.e. of the first actual sin of 
 Adam ; on the contrary, be makes the first Adam (1 Cor. xv.) x"'*6f and \f/vxtKog 
 from the beginning, which he certainly would not wish to bo understood of hit) mtture 
 after the fall and not before it." We must allow Usteri to be right here, although 
 we consider him to have failed in hia attempt to reconcile this view with Horn. v. 12.
 
 62 SIN AND THE LAW. 
 
 spirit. If, then, the o-dpg is by its nature and from the beginning 
 the principle of sin, the question of the origin of sin certainly 
 brings us face to face with an antinomy, 1 the deeper solution of 
 which (indicated above, p. 46) does not further concern an exe- 
 getical statement. We will only remark here, that the Church's 
 doctrine of original sin resulting from a change in man's nature 
 through the historical fall of Adam, rests on a combination of 
 Paul's two modes of representation, but cannot be justified either 
 by the letter or the spirit of the doctrine of Paul. 
 
 Certain as it is, however, that Paul regards man as essentially 
 sinful through his fleshly nature, it is as clearly not his view that 
 he is merely sinful, that no better power forms a part of his 
 nature. 2 On the contrary, in the all -important passage from 
 which we started, Rom vii., the crdpg is mentioned as one part of 
 the whole man, and an essentially different part, the lo-w avfy>o>7ros, 
 or vous, is distinguished from it. This conception corresponds 
 generally to our " reason," so far as we understand by this both 
 the theoretical and practical faculty of thought. Novs is not, like 
 7rvcv/ia, substance, but faculty, the formal capacity of the ego to 
 exert itself in thinking and willing ; in its most universal form, 
 it is simply consciousness or self-consciousness (in this merely 
 formal sense, e.g., in 1 Cor. xiv. 14 f., equivalent to consciously 
 reflecting activity of thought). The vous, as formal capacity of 
 the spirit, can take up into itself contents of opposite nature, 
 drawn either from the divine spirit or from the flesh and the 
 world ; in the latter case, it becomes itself a vovs TTJS o-ap/cos 
 (Col. ii. 18), vous avor/ros d8oKi/ios (Gal. iii. 1 ; Eom. i. 28), and 
 as such needs renewal in the strength of the spirit of God 
 (Rom. xii 2), by which it then becomes a voOs X/HOTOV, a percep- 
 
 1 And so we may venture to say that the two parties in this controversy (Ernesti, 
 Weiss, on one side, and on the other, Baur, Holsten, Usteri, Liidemann) are both 
 equally right and equally wrong. 
 
 * This and what follows is in opposition to Holsten, who (ut supra, p. 403 f.), erro- 
 neously identifying the odp with the whole man (whereas it really constitutes only the 
 t<o avOpwTToc), makes this latter to be "in its substantial essence a/topr(a" a deci- 
 dedly un-Pauline, Manichean exaggeration.
 
 THE FLESH. 63 
 
 tive reason filled and enlightened by the spirit of Christ, a Chris- 
 tian reason, such as is attained by Christians (1 Cor. ii. 16). 
 Yet we must not suppose that the vovs is according to Paul a 
 mere empty form of the spirit, indifferently related to each and 
 every content ; on the contrary, the v6p.o<s Oeov dwells within it, 
 and that not merely as an object of consciousness, but as its own 
 immanent impulse towards goodness (vo/xos TOV voos //.ov, Rom. vii. 
 23), which wars against the inclination to sin which is in the 
 members, and that with such success that the ego, at least accord- 
 ing to the inner man, turns in harmony and sympathy towards 
 the law of God, though its external activity still remains captive 
 under the ban of the law of sin in the members. It is only 
 because man possesses in his vovs a not inactive element akin to 
 the divine, that it is possible for him under the influence of the 
 law to free himself entirely from the flesh (with whose sin-work- 
 ing substance the ego in the first stage of its growth is indistin- 
 guishably fused), and to arrive, through the consciousness of the 
 discord between his outward action and his inner better will, at 
 the feeling of the need of deliverance, as is so strikingly expressed 
 in Eom. vii. 24. 
 
 It is this divine element contained in the vou? which manifests 
 itself even in the heathen as knowledge of God (Rom. i. 20), and 
 as law of conscience (ii. 14 f.). The moral consciousness, as pos- 
 sessed and obeyed even by the heathen, proves that men have 
 the essential contents of the law written in their hearts, and that 
 not as a dead, theoretical knowledge of good and evil, but (as is 
 indicated by the reference to the specific organ, "the heart") as 
 a force working through desire and feeling, which both gives the 
 impulse to action (lav <wm TO. TOV vofjiov iroty), and also makes 
 itself felt as a guiding authority in the testimony of conscience 
 
 to itself (a-vfifiaprvpovcn]^ T^S (rweiSTycreeDS KCU /Tai> aAA.?/A.a>v TU)I> 
 
 Aoyior/iwv KaT-rj-yopovvrtov). And the divine relationship of the 
 vovs is revealed in the natural knowledge of God, no less than in 
 the moral consciousness ; for it is no other than the activity of 
 the vovs, the vow, by means of which the Godhead, which cannot
 
 64 SIN AND THE LAW. 
 
 be perceived by the senses, becomes through its works an object 
 of intuition to the inner sense ; it is through an intellectual 
 intuition that the reason recognizes God in the creation (TO. 
 
 dopara. avrov (XTTO KTiVews Kooytov TOIS Troiiy/icwri voovp.eva Ko.0opa.rai, 
 i. 20). The undeniable conclusion from all this is, that in fol- 
 lowing Paul we must not venture to regard man so one-sidedly 
 as a creature of flesh as to forget that he still has within himself, 
 united to his sinful flesh, namely, in his reason and conscience, 
 a higher divine capacity, a natural element of deliverance (i.e. 
 an element in the preparation for his Christian redemption). In 
 this well-weighed estimate of man's moral and religious nature, 
 Paul is as far removed from the Pelagian over-estimation as from 
 Augustine's depreciation of man. 1 
 
 A question here occurs incidentally, which does not belong 
 directly to Paul's doctrine of sin, but is only indirectly connected 
 with it, since it does not refer to the specific Christian anthropo- 
 logy of the Apostle, but to the general views which he held in 
 common with the Jews. It is the question whether, together with 
 the o-dpg, a Trveu/ta belongs to the natural man, and in what sense. 
 An affirmative answer must unhesitatingly be given to the first 
 part of the question, on the authority of several quite unequivo- 
 cal passages. The Apostle speaks expressly of the irvevpa dvOpuTrov 
 in opposition to the irvev^a Oeov, in 1 Cor. ii. 11, where the context 
 distinctly excludes the notion of the irvev^a aytov of the Chris- 
 tian, since he is dealing with a proposition of the most general 
 psychological truth. Similarly, in 1 Cor. v. 4, vi. 20, vii. 34, 
 2 Cor. vii 1, the TrveGpi is simply the psychological opposite to 
 the a-wfjM, and indicates the immaterial personality, or the inner 
 man, in opposition to his material appearance in the body. This 
 view is also supported by 2 Cor. ii. 12, vii. 13, and 1 Cor. xvi. 18 ; 
 ..for although it is the spirit of the Apostle which is here spoken 
 
 '. J Compare the following striking judgment of JSaur's : " To allow that not only the 
 trar>f,, but also the voug, belongs to human nature, and that the activity of the vovr 
 tends to the good, even to the extent that the Apostle admits, is to hold a view essen- 
 jtially different from that of Augustine" (Neutest. TheoL, p. 148).
 
 THE FLESH. 65 
 
 of, and this might therefore be the Christian spirit, yet the con- 
 text clearly points to the natural human spirit ; for he ascribes 
 to it such states of feeling (avaTrauo-ts and aveo-ts) as can be pre- 
 dicated much better of the human spirit, weak and liable to 
 suffering as it is, than of the divine spirit, the active principle of 
 strength and consolation. Lastly, Rom. viii. 16 unmistakably 
 shows that Paul further distinguishes the human from the divine 
 spirit in the Christian, as the receiving from the giving subject. 
 
 But the more important question is, What is the meaning of 
 this natural Trvevfj-a in the anthropology of Paul ? Has it a higher 
 dignity, essentially related to the Christian Trve^/m, or not ? We 
 may obtain some significant indications on this point from the 
 passages to which we have already referred. The human spirit 
 is there distinguished specifically, as requiring consolation and 
 rest, from the divine spirit, which is essentially strength, not 
 capable of suffering. But the human spirit may evidently be 
 defiled, and may therefore require purification from all pollution 
 
 (2 Cor. vii. 1, Kadapi<T(t)[J.v eavrovs aTro Travros f^oXvcrfJiOv (rap/cos KCU 
 
 irvev/j.a.Tos) ; it may be an object of Christian solicitude to be holy 
 both in body and in spirit (1 Cor. vii. 34), which presupposes 
 that this spirit, namely, the natural, might also be not holy. 
 It is in entire accordance with this view that the Apostle, in 
 1 Thess. v. 23, wishes for his readers, that the God of peace may 
 sanctify them wholly, and that so both their spirit, soul, and 
 body may be preserved blameless : this presupposes, again, that 
 this spirit, namely, the natural spirit, is still in need of sancti- 
 fication through the divine influence, and would not otherwise be 
 preserved uninjured, nay, would more probably be lost. It is no 
 
 less evident from 1 Cor. V. 5, iva TO irvevfj.a o-fadjj tv T?f rjfJ-tpy TOU 
 
 Kvptov 'Irjo-ov Xpto-Tov, that there is a possibility of this natural 
 Trvevpa not being saved, or being lost. All these passages agree in 
 yielding to us the two-fold result, that the natural Trvev/xa is 
 indeed subject to the possibility of suffering, of defilement, and 
 of perdition, and yet that this possibility by no means must 
 necessarily come to actuality; but, on the contrary, that its 
 
 F
 
 66 SIN AND THE LAW. 
 
 weakness can and should be helped, its defilement prevented, 
 and its ruin guarded against, by the strength of the Christian 
 Trvcv/xa. According to this, the natural spirit is just as essentially 
 distinguished from the specific Christian irvcvp-a which cannot be 
 exposed to all these affections, as from the anti-spiritual <rdpg 
 which must perish by <j>6opa, because its most characteristic ten- 
 dencyis towards 6a.va.Tos (cf. supra, p. 53). 1 Thus the natural Trvevpa 
 stands indifferently midway between those two opposing princi- 
 ples, as the neutral substratum of personal life, which forms the 
 ground on which those two principles operate. It has no more 
 in common with the supernatural Messianic irvevp-a which is 
 imparted in baptism, than the universal divine spirit of life, which 
 according to the Old Testament view animates all creatures and 
 especially man, has with the supernatural spirit of revelation 
 which comes from time to time upon the prophets. As that 
 spirit of life of the Old Testament is essentially identical with 
 the soul (since this simply represents the individualization of 
 that universal substance), so also in the language of the New 
 Testament, from which Paul makes in this case no exception, 
 the (natural) Trvevpa. is in fact no other than the r/^x?? (the way 
 in which the two expressions are put side by side in Luke i. 46 f., 
 is quite enough to show their essential identity). 2 This is no 
 doubt the reason why Paul, when .speaking of the natural man 
 in his moral and religious aspect, so constantly avoids using 
 the word irvevpa, and only speaks of r/^x^ or vdpg on the one 
 
 1 Compare Liidemann, ut supra, pp. 43, 48 . Baur had already written in the 
 same strain, ut supra, p. 147 : "Although Paul also speaks of a human -n-vtv^a, yet 
 this has no significance in connection with his peculiar notion of TrvfD/ia." Also 
 Holsten, p. 391, who, however, draws erroneous consequences as to the meaning of 
 the word vowf. 
 
 a Compare Weiss, Neutest. Theol. (2nd edit.), p. 245 f. Even 1 Thess. v. 23 
 appears to me to furnish no argument against this view ; for just as in Luke i. 46 f. 
 the two conceptions are placed one beside the other in a popular rhetorical fashion 
 without being really different, so may Paul, when he wishes to emphasize the com- 
 pleteness of man's being, bring together the different expressions of popular phrase- 
 ology, without any intention of teaching thereby a philosophical trichotomy, of which 
 we certainly find no trace elsewhere, and shall scarcely, I think, find any in Hebrew 
 thought.
 
 THE FLESH. 67 
 
 hand, and on the other hand of the vovs. The natural man has 
 none of the -n-vfvfjM, as Paul understands it in his specific Chris- 
 tian psychology, which forms the dualistic antithesis to the o-a/o: 
 in marked contrast to this Trvev/io, faoiroiovv, he is mere <^>vx^ fwo-a, 
 a mere physical principle of life, which as such is no autonomous 
 power opposed to the o-dpg, but, though not exactly identical 
 with it, is only the powerless substratum for its ruling force. 
 The higher, godlike side of man, as distinguished from the cra/>, 
 is therefore not his Trvtvpa but his vovs, in which we have already 
 recognized the godlike spiritual faculty of reason in the widest 
 sense of the word, which however is only related to the Christian 
 irvevfjui as the receptive capacity to the effective principle of 
 redemption. The inquiry regarding the relation of the vovs to 
 the Christian Trvevpa cannot be earned out in detail until we 
 arrive at a later stage of our work (Ch. v.), as we cannot till then 
 enter upon the peculiar Christian psychology of the Apostle. 
 The only further question that need be here raised is, how is it 
 possible to suppose a godlike spiritual capacity, like the vovs, 
 to exist in men, if the substratum of it, the subject of the 
 personal life, is only such an indifferent Trvev/^a as has just been 
 described ? We certainly cannot expect to obtain a solution of 
 this question from Paul, to whose mind pure anthropological 
 questions of this kind were evidently quite alien, and who, 
 therefore, in this case simply followed the popular unreflective 
 mode of viewing the matter which he found current ; and our 
 exegesis must accordingly confine itself to indicating this diffi- 
 culty, which is one only from our point of view. 1 
 
 1 According to our mode of thinking, it appears to me that logical consistency re- 
 quires that we adopt one of the two following conclusions : either, looking to the Tvivfia 
 of the natural man, which is indifferent and alien to the moral essence of God, we must 
 deny to him every godlike element, so that his VOVQ too would be a merely indifferent 
 form of consciousness ; or, looking to the godlike element, which according to Paul 
 is present in the m/V, we must allow that the substance of personality also which 
 shows itself in vov<;, the human irvtvprt, is something related in its essence to the 
 itvtvfun 9foi5, and therefore at least the potentiality of the Christian TrvfVfia, so that 
 this latter is the actuality of the natural irvkv^a. The former consequence has been 
 deduced by Holsten, but with the result, as we have shown above, of placing himself 
 
 F2
 
 68 SIX AND TEE LA W. 
 
 THE LAW. 
 
 By the expression 6 vo'/ws, Paul always understands primarily 
 the positive Mosaic law, and that in its undivided entirety. Although, 
 the idea starting from this point so enlarges itself in his mind, 
 that he recognizes also in the natural moral consciousness a law 
 written in the heart, 1 yet 6 vd^os, without any further qualifi- 
 cation, is always the specific term for the positive Mosaic law, 
 so much so that expressions like 01 ev T vd/^ (Rom. iii. 29, ii. 12), 
 01 VTTO vo'/iov (1 Cor. ix. 20), are precisely synonymous with 
 'lovScuoi (Rom. iii. 19, ix. ; 1 Cor. ix. 20). Moreover, Paul's view 
 of what is comprehended under this conception is the same 
 as that of all Jews, or Jewish Christians ; it denotes primarily 
 the whole of the positive ordinances contained in the Old Tes- 
 
 in open contradiction to Paul's doctrine of VOVQ, and grossly exaggerating his doctrine 
 of sin. Impressed with this fact, I followed the second course in my article on 
 "The Uvevfia of Paul" in the " Hilgenfeld'sche Zeitschrift" (1871, Vol. II.), and 
 this I still believe to be more in accordance with the meaning and spirit of Pauline 
 speculation than the former, which is followed by Holsten. But I willingly grant that 
 the way in which I there tried, starting from the VOVQ, to prove that the natural 
 Trvivpa is also a potentiality of a divine Christian Trvtvpa, is not in harmony with 
 the immediate form of the Pauline doctrine, and is altogether more in accordance 
 with modern than with ancient modes of thought. I wish to explain, therefore, that 
 the essay referred to is a dogmatic attempt to solve, by means of categories of modern 
 thought, the difficulty which exegesis has simply to point out and to leave alone. 
 Moreover, I may remark that the article expressly professes to be "an exegetic and 
 dogmatic study:" its error, therefore, consisted solely in not making a sufficiently 
 clear distinction between the dogmatic and the exegetical parts. 
 
 1 This law written in the heart must by no means be confounded with the Christian 
 law of the spirit. Nor is it the meaning of Paul to ascribe to it on account of its 
 inwardness an advantage over the external Mosaic law (comp. Rom. iii. 2 with ix. 4). 
 That inwardness is obviously very far from that in which the law has become the proper 
 content of the will, the subjective determination of the will which constitutes the 
 Christian law of the spirit, but, "from the pre-christian point of view, the law, 
 even where it appears as something inward, exhibits itself as the command of a foreign 
 higher voice, a holy power which man must recognize in opposition to his corrupt 
 will ; it remains, therefore, a letter that kills, whether it exhibits itself as the 
 command of an external or internal revelation of Grod." So Neander well says, 
 Gesch. d. Pfl. d. Chr. Kr., p. 568 ; and to the same purport, Usteri, Paul. Lehrb., 
 p. 36; and Weiss, Neut. Theol., p. 259: "It was an essential advantage that the 
 Jews possessed the law fixed in writing ; it stood before them by this means in anas- 
 Bailable objectivity."
 
 THE LA W. G9 
 
 lament, without any distinction between the ethical and ritual 
 portions ; then, further, the whole of the Old Testament as a 
 divine revelation, without regard to the particular contents 
 referred to in each single case; for even passages from the 
 Psalms or Prophets are quoted as declarations of the law 
 (Eom iii. 19 ; 1 Cor. xiv. 21) ; and especially the whole of the 
 historical part of the Old Testament is included under the i/o/tos 
 (Gal. iv. 21 ; Rom. iii. 21, 31, which passages can only be ex- 
 plained as introducing the proofs from the Old Testament 
 history which follow). 1 We must absolutely reject the distinc- 
 tion between the ethical and the ritual part of the law, in the 
 sense that Paul did not consider the latter as belonging to the 
 revealed law of Moses, but only perhaps to the TrarpiKal TrapaSoo-eis. 2 
 The free position which Paul everywhere assumes with regard 
 to the ritual law also from the standpoint of the gospel freedom 
 from the law, is far from being a proof that he ignored the former 
 as a divine and Mosaic revelation; on the contrary, the pro- 
 fusion of theological dialectic with which he tries to convince 
 the Judaizing Galatians of the invalidity of precisely this cere- 
 monial law as well as of the other (circumcision, laws regarding 
 food, ii. 12, the keeping of days, iv. 10), is the clearest proof 
 how completely he held the ritual to stand or fall with the 
 general body of the law. If it had been in his eyes something 
 which did not at all belong to the law proper, he could have 
 made his treatment of the matter far easier to himself ; for he 
 could in that case have simply drawn the line of demarcation 
 between the real and the imaginary law, instead of between the 
 law and the promise. Moreover, he mentions (Rom. ix. 4) among 
 
 1 The interpretation, often favoured elsewhere, which connects the above passages 
 with the ethical law of the Christian spirit (Rom. viii.), would interrupt the simple 
 course of the argument in Horn. iii. 21 by an unmeaning digression. 
 
 9 Of. , for example,' Hulsten, ut supra, p. 401 ; and, on the other hand, for the true 
 view of the unity of the vo/iof, cf. Usteri, Paul. Lehrbegriff, p. 34 f. ; Neander, 
 11 Qeschichte der Pflanzung der Christlicheu Eirche, (lurch die Apostel," pp. 507, 569 ; 
 Lip/sias, "Paulin. Rechtfertigungslehre," p. 54 ; Ritachl, Altkathol. Kirche, p. 73 ; 
 Weiss, Neutest. Theol., p. 259 f.
 
 70 SIN AND THE LAW. 
 
 the advantages granted by God to the Jews, between the revealed 
 vofjioOea-Lo. and the likewise revealed rayyA.iat, the Xarpeia, the 
 service of God, consequently the ceremonial law, which was 
 something revealed to the Jew by God, and accordingly belonged 
 to the positive divine law as much as any other part of it. 
 
 If it be asked how the Apostle could in that case have said of 
 the law in general and without qualification, that it was irvev- 
 /xcm/cos, when the external ritual law also belonged to it, the 
 answer is, that the law was to the Apostle, simply in conse- 
 quence of its immediately divine origin, something transcending 
 the realm of earth, and therefore belonging to that of spirit ; 
 consequently that it had also a spiritual character through this 
 origin, quite independently of its particular content ; because it 
 is in its entire positive shape a revelation of the spiritual will 
 of God, therefore it is also with regard to its entire contents 
 something spiritual that is to say, in the sense that in every part 
 of the law there must be spiritual contents and an essentially 
 deeper meaning. This allegorical mode of thought, which was 
 common in Paul's time, did not make it impossible for the im- 
 mediate form to be unspiritual, purely external. So far as this 
 alone were reflected on, the essence of the law might even be 
 represented as a service of the worldly (external and sensuous) 
 elements, and placed on the same level as the heathen worship. 1 
 Although, then, the Mosaic law is spiritual as regards its origin 
 and essential contents, yet it establishes, so far as its outward 
 form is concerned, a "weak and beggarly" sensuous worship for 
 
 1 Gal. iv. 3 9, aroi^Cia. rov JCO<T/*OV, can grammatically mean nothing but the 
 primary materials of the world, the elements cognizable by the senses, since the geni- 
 tive joined to oroixiia must denote the whole which is composed of the aToi\iia. 
 By these sensuous elements we must understand partly the earthly materials used in 
 worship, such as sacrifices and offerings of food, partly sidereal powers (the signs of 
 the zodiac, which used to be shortly designated as uroixiia), which determined the 
 seasons, and consequently the feast days (ver. 10) ; both these meanings are applicable 
 to arotxfla also in Col. ii. 20. Compare ver. 16 (possibly also in ver. 8). This, 
 the oldest, interpretation has been again of late rightly maintained, in preference to 
 " the rudimentary condition of non-Christian humanity," by Neander and Hilgenfeld, 
 with whom Saur, Lipsius, Holtten, and R. Schmidt agree.
 
 THE LAW. 71 
 
 beginners (vrp-ioi), who could not yet bear anything higher that 
 is to say, the spiritual service in its pure and adequate form of 
 presentation. Thus it is not between one part of the law and 
 the other, the ethical and the ritual, that the Apostle distin- 
 guishes, but, if he distinguishes at all, it is only between the 
 spiritual content of the whole undivided law and its literal 
 form (ypd/j.fj.a, 2 Cor. iii.). And though the latter, taken ly itself, 
 was to him something worldly or fleshly (proiytia. rov Koo-pov, 
 GaL iv. 3, or o-dpg, iii. 3 and vi. 12), yet this distinction, after 
 all, is ordinarily kept in the background, because, according to 
 the habit of allegorizing sanctioned by tradition, the form, that 
 which was literal and external, appeared as the vehicle of the 
 deeper spiritual content, with no independent value of its own. 
 Thus, for example, in 1 Cor. ix. 9, the command, " Thou shalt 
 not muzzle the ox that treadeth out the corn," is, without hesi- 
 tation, not merely applied as an illustration, but interpreted 
 actually to mean that the gospel workmen were worthy of their 
 hire ; and in Gal. iv. 24, the account of Sarah and Hagar is 
 interpreted as relating to the law and the gospel. 
 
 Now we might certainly suppose that, by logically carrying 
 out this typical allegorical interpretation, Paul could have esta- 
 blished the abrogation of the ceremonial law, on which the 
 contest with the Judaizers primarily turned, more simply and 
 more mildly than by his harsh and artificial method of exhibit- 
 ing the law (still regarded as divinely revealed) in a purely 
 negative relation to the scheme of salvation. And in fact we 
 find that Paul's system, as it appears tinged by Alexandrian 
 thought in the Epistles to the Hebrews and the Epistle of 
 Barnabas, has followed that course, and that with the marked 
 approval of the ancient Church, to which this mode of conceiv- 
 ing the relation between the law and the gospel was much more 
 familiar than Paul's own mode. But it is easy to understand 
 how Paul himself did not yet take this course, and could not 
 well have taken it. For we must bear in mind that the Jewish 
 school, to which the allegorical interpretation in Paul's time was
 
 72 SIN AND THE LAW. 
 
 familiar, were far from abrogating the validity of the literal sense 
 of their historical Scriptures, or those which related to the law, 
 by ascribing to them a spiritual meaning ; on the contrary, the 
 spiritual deepening of the sense would have had the effect of 
 contributing to the predominance of the law, and therefore to 
 the confirmation of its validity as a whole, including its literal 
 sense ; this spiritual content and the literal form of his revealed 
 scripture were far too intimately united in the mind of a Jew for 
 him to think of a separation of the two, and the abrogation of 
 the latter, as even possible. How, then, could Paul have hoped 
 to attain his object by this method ? How could he prove to 
 the Judaizers the abrogation of the ceremonial law by spiritual 
 allegorizing, when they thought to glorify and confirm the whole 
 law including its ceremonial portion by this very means ? But 
 Paul's own habits of thought made it impossible for him to think 
 of doing so, for he himself had by no means arrived by the road 
 of such allegorizing speculation at the consciousness of the non- 
 validity of the law for believers in Christ, but by the very dif- 
 ferent way of the knowledge of the cross of Christ. In this he 
 saw the radical breach between the old covenant of works of the 
 law and the new one of righteousness by faith accomplished in 
 fact ; and to labour for the practical recognition of this breach 
 was the work of his life ; the relation between law and faith must 
 therefore of necessity have presented itself to him in theory also 
 as a purely exclusive and negative relation ; and hence a problem 
 of no slight difficulty had to be faced, namely, to reconcile this 
 their negative relation with the origin of both in the revelation 
 of the one God. Most of the Apostle's dialectical dissertations 
 on the law are attempts to solve this problem. 
 
 Until, then, the abrogation of the Mosaic law for the Christian 
 community had been declared as a principle, and partly also in 
 fact established, by the active energy of Paul, no one could think 
 of finding a positive typical relation also between the law and 
 the gospel, by systematically carrying out that allegorizing of 
 the law and the history of the Old Testament which was then
 
 THE LAW. 73 
 
 in vogue and had already been used incidentally by Paul him- 
 self, and thus making the breach less abrupt, and less oppressive 
 to the consciousness of the Jews who believed in the revelation 
 of the law. 
 
 We have hitherto seen the Apostle Paul in complete harmony 
 with the Jewish consciousness as to the apprehension of the 
 essence (notion and origin) of the law. So much the more diffi- 
 cult must have been his position when he now, proceeding from 
 this common ground, set forth the purpose of the law in diame- 
 trical opposition to the conviction of the Jews and Jewish Chris- 
 tians. And this conviction rested on the very ground of that 
 common presupposition with more apparent logical correctness 
 than that of Paul, who was compelled to employ artificial dia- 
 lectic in order to prove the logical correctness of his thesis, which 
 really rested on the knowledge of the cross of Christ. For whereas 
 the Jews and Jewish Christians believed that the law, as given 
 by God, being holy, just, and good in its nature, had also as its 
 object to make man just, good, and pleasing to God, Paul set 
 against this, first, the antithesis, " By works of the law is no flesh 
 righteous before God ;" and, secondly, the thesis, " The law came 
 in (between promise and fulfilment, or between sin and redemp- 
 tion) on account of sin ;" that is to say, first, that sin might be 
 known ; secondly, that it might be increased and filled up. 
 
 As to the ground on which the first proposition rests, we 
 must distinguish between the reason or the ground of our know- 
 ledge and the real ground or cause of the fact itself. The former 
 is taken from the Christian consciousness of the significance of 
 Christ's death on the cross in the Divine scheme of revelation, 
 and is therefore only convincing to the consciousness of one who 
 already believes in Christ ; the real ground, on the other hand, is 
 the fleshliness of human nature, which stands a priori in contra- 
 diction to the spiritual contents of the law. 
 
 Although the latter is the more objective, yet, just in the chief 
 passages in which he deals with the proof of the abrogation of 
 the law, Paul has made no use of it, but has drawn his proofs in
 
 74 SIN AND THE LA W. 
 
 a very artificial manner from the Scripture ; a very noteworthy 
 fact, which indicates to us that the Apostle did not arrive by the 
 method of psychological speculation at his original view of the 
 purpose of the Mosaic law, and also that his no less original doc- 
 trine of the o-dpg is derived not from the presuppositions but 
 from the consequences of his doctrine of salvation ; for on this 
 supposition alone can we explain the fact that the decisive proofs 
 of the doctrine of salvation are set forth independently of the 
 o-dpg doctrine. The Apostle's doctrine of salvation was immedi- 
 ately dependent, in its negative as well as its positive aspect, on 
 the significance of the cross of Christ. This is shown by the 
 fact that the Apostle thus clearly expresses the decisive ground 
 of his own conviction. "If righteousness came by the law, then 
 did Christ die in vain ;" and to the same purport, " If a law 
 had been given that could make alive, then would righteousness 
 indeed come by the law/' and not from the faith in the crucified ; 
 the death on the cross would have been aimless and fruitless. 
 According to these passages (Gal. ii. 21, iii. 21), the process of 
 the Apostle's thought is simply the following : it is impossible 
 that the death of Jesus as the Messiah upon the cross can be 
 regarded as an event allowed by God to happen by chance, 
 without reason or purpose; but its purpose can have been no 
 other than to produce true righteousness : now if the death of 
 Christ (i. e. faith in it) be the means of effecting this purpose, 
 then the significance hitherto attributed to the law, of serving 
 as the means of righteousness, is by that very fact denied ; for 
 of these two means, the death of Christ and the law of Moses, 
 which have as little to do with one another as believing and 
 doing (iii. 10 12), it is only possible that either one or the other 
 can be the right means to the end : now if this means be, as 
 it indubitably is to the Christian, the death of Christ, then it 
 cannot also be the law, the saving efficacy of which, as a means 
 to righteousness, is absolutely excluded by that of the death of 
 Christ. The way in which the Apostle thought out dogmatically 
 in detail this connection between reason and consequent, does
 
 THE LA W. 75 
 
 not belong to this part of our inquiry, but to the doctrine of 
 redemption and justification : here we have only to establish the 
 fact, that the logical ground for his peculiar view as to the pur- 
 pose of the law, is to be sought in the root of his Christian 
 consciousness, in his faith in the crucified. 
 
 But now the real ground of the impossibility of righteousness 
 by the law, lies not in the law as such ; this, on the contrary, is 
 holy, just, and good ; nay, it is, although completely void of the 
 strength of the irvtvp-a. o>o7roio{!v, still Trvev/zariKo? (at least as 
 regards its essential content, though here the fact is certainly 
 left out of sight that it belongs also to the realm of the worldly 
 and fleshly with respect to its form as y/xx/^a). The ground of 
 the fact that the law, although 7rvev//,aTiKos, does not attain to 
 faoTToifjo-ai, lies in the nature of man, in his being sold under sin, 
 in his being fleshly. Because the natural man as o-a/o/avos (see 
 above) is under the dominion of the material principle, the o-a/o, 
 the spiritual will of God and his revelation finds in the law only 
 a formal point of connection with the voCs of man and his ideal 
 power of willing ; but in actual life the claims of the spiritual 
 principle which is external to him are overborne by the real 
 energy of the principle of the flesh which dominates him from 
 within : this does not subject itself to the law, and indeed cannot 
 do so, because it is contrary to its nature, whose characteristic it 
 
 IS, tiri6vfj.f.w /cara Trvcv/iaros, and also Kara vo/iov (Rom. viii. 7 and 
 
 Gal. v. 17). But if we ask further, why the law has not the 
 power to conquer the flesh, and to bring its own spiritual content 
 to the actuality of action in spite of it, Paul's answer would be, 
 Because the material substance of the flesh can be conquered only 
 by the opposite and equally real substance of the spirit when it 
 enters man as a real life-giving power ; the law cannot (woTrotfa-ai 
 (Gal. iii. 21), because it is not itself a wvcv/xa fwoTroiow, a sub- 
 stantial power of life and real animating principle, not an out- 
 pouring of the divine essence, which (like the Trvev/za) would 
 produce even in man a divine and spiritual vitality, but a mere 
 expression of the divine will, which, as against the real substance
 
 76 SIN AND THE LA W. 
 
 of that flesh which is opposed to God, is something unreal and 
 without strength. 
 
 Now, for us, with our modes of thought, the outcome of this 
 certainly is, that the law, precisely on account of its externality, 
 cannot produce true righteousness, the inward goodness of the 
 will itself, because, as an abstract command, as a mere impera- 
 tive, it always stands over against the concrete will, and accord- 
 ingly cannot animate it inwardly, cannot turn it to inward unity 
 with the good, but at most can move it to outward subjection in 
 external acts (<f/>ya TOV vo/iou), which leave its self-willed desires 
 (the tTnOvfjifiv Kara rov Trvev/iaros) unbroken. It comes to the 
 same thing, then, whether we say that the impossibility of righ- 
 teousness by the law lies in the flesh, or that it lies in the 
 externality 1 of the law, inasmuch as both express the opposition 
 between the subjective will and the objective command, between 
 the natural self-will and the divine determination of man, an 
 opposition which cannot be overcome by starting from one of 
 the two opposing parts, because their existence is involved in 
 this very opposition, but only from an entirely new standpoint 
 and from an entirely new principle. But however certain it is 
 that we have here the characteristic idea and the great and 
 enduring truth of Paul's doctrine of the impossibility of righ- 
 teousness by law, yet we cannot but acknowledge that the 
 immediate form in which this doctrine is presented by him is 
 determined by the peculiar realistic Jewish view of flesh and 
 spirit. The psychological deduction, therefore, given above, 
 though quite consistent with his idea, does not correspond with 
 
 1 Only we must be careful not to understand by this externality merely the positive 
 form of the Mosaic law, but rather that characteristic which belongs to the law as 
 suck, and therefore also to the law of conscience, namely, that of standing as an objec- 
 tive power over against, i.e. in opposition to the will, so far and so long as it is purely 
 Bubjective. This characteristic, which lies in the nature of this ethical relation, al- 
 though it is strikingly exemplified in the positive law of Moses, is yet by no means 
 exclusively peculiar to it. Consequently what Paul says of that law has its enduring 
 significance wherever the standpoint is that of law, recurring constantly, as this stand- 
 point does, in the spiritual development of humanity, so that it may even at times 
 become the predominant type of the whole of Christianity.
 
 THE LA W. 77 
 
 the way in which he sets it immediately before us. He nowhere 1 
 refers the impotence of the law to its externality, but always 
 simply to the resistance of the o-dpg. Even in 2 Cor. iii., the 
 law is called a " letter that killeth," not with reference to the 
 psychological relation between command and will, but simply 
 because it announces to the sinner in a fixed judicial form 
 (-ypa.fj.pa) the judgment of death (/caro-K^cm) as a penal statute 
 of positive validity. And with regard to the epya voyuov, his 
 meaning is not that they are insufficient for righteousness before 
 God, because the external law demands merely external epya, so 
 that the law might be satisfied by those cpya (external " legality" 
 prompted by a sensuous motive), but not God, who sees the 
 heart, and who is satisfied only by true " morality." That is a 
 modern turn of thought 2 which is quite alien to the direct sense 
 of Paul's doctrine. But the l^ya vo/xov cannot make righteous, 
 first, because in that case righteousness by faith according to the 
 promise would be done away this is the logical and for Paul 
 the decisive ground and, secondly, because man as flesh can by 
 no means be truly subject to the law of God, since the <jipovfiv of 
 the flesh is by nature \0pa. eis 6e6v, so that consequently the 
 actual fulfilment of the vo/xos TOV Ocov, or actually perfect epya TOV 
 vo/xov, are absolutely impossible. But it is evident how com- 
 pletely this real ground is a merely secondary and derivative 
 inferential one in the eyes of Paul, from his speaking, when 
 righteousness by faith has recurred to his mind, quite frankly of 
 TTOI^TCU TOU vofjiov, of epja and fpyd^(r6ai TO dyadov, for which every 
 man will receive from the Judge the due recompence (Rom. ii. 
 
 1 This is in opposition to the view of Neandcr, ut supra, p. 508 f., and p. 578 f., 
 to that of Usteri, p. 55 f., Lipsius, p. 65 f., who introduce the modern psychological 
 mode of thought too directly into that of Paul. 
 
 * According to this mode of thought, the whole weight of the unsatisfactory nature 
 of the tpy TOV vo/xov would fall upon the Mosaic law, as if this were satisfied with 
 mere external tpyn. But this presupposition, incorrect in itself, was very alien to the 
 mind of the Apostle, who saw in the law a holy and good revelation of the spiritual 
 will of God. And so Baur's criticism also of the conception of the tpya rov vopov 
 does not apply to the actual doctrine of Paul, but only to the rationalizing interpreta- 
 tions of it (<tur, N. Test. TheoL, p. 179).
 
 78 SIN AND THE LA IV. 
 
 6 13). To interpret these expressions, tpya, TTOITJT^S vopov, simply 
 of faith, as the only work which is of value in the eyes of God, 
 is a makeshift which may be very convenient to relieve the 
 embarrassment of Protestant commentators, but is utterly unsa- 
 tisfactory ; for fpyd^eo-Oai and 7rrTuav, /zr#os and x"/ 315 ? are > i Q 
 iv. 4 f., placed in opposition so as mutually to exclude one ano- 
 ther. Nor is the attempt to consider those fpya as the fruit of 
 faith in any way justified by the context. If we look at the 
 matter impartially, from a historical standpoint, this antinomy 
 (for we have one here and frequently elsewhere in the writings 
 of Paul) can only be explained by supposing that in Eom. ii. 
 Paul adopts the standpoint of ordinary morality, and especially 
 of the Jewish law, from which standpoint the impossibility of 
 works of the law and a reward for them did not strike him. 1 If 
 he had arrived by means of psychology at his specific doctrine 
 of the law, it would scarcely have been possible for him to take 
 the view expressed in Eom. ii. ; but we can well understand that 
 it everywhere occurred to him again where the logical premises 
 of his altered doctrine of law (the doctrine of grace) were absent 
 from his thoughts, if we suppose the real logical, i.e. psycholo- 
 gical, ground of his new doctrine of law to be contained in his 
 Christian doctrine of redemption. Thus our view of the inner 
 genesis of the system of Paul is again corroborated on this point. 
 But now, if the law is so weakened by the resistance of the 
 flesh (Rom. viii. 3) that it can never produce actual righteousness 
 in man, has it not then been given by God utterly without a 
 
 1 Compare Saur, N. Test. Theol., p. 181 : "Paul speaks in Rom. ii. 6 f. of works 
 as the rule of divine justice, without any embarrassment, as if the possibility of a colli- 
 sion with his doctrine of faith had never occurred to him. It does not occur to him 
 because his doctrine of justification refers throughout only to the relation of Christian- 
 ity to Judaism, an opposition which, when thought of in the abstract, has to do with, 
 general principles, but, as soon as it is applied to the concrete relations of actual life, 
 becomes of itself a mere relative opposition." What is true in this is, that the doc- 
 trine of the insufficiency of tpya is founded upon their antithesis to justification by 
 faith, and that this abstract opposition of pya and iriariQ allows of and even requires 
 a higher synthesis, which indeed it has found in the writings of Paul himself, in his 
 doctrine of living in the spirit.
 
 THE LAW. 79 
 
 purpose ? No ; it undoubtedly has a purpose, only this is prima- 
 rily the exact opposite of that which is generally supposed. It 
 has been given, not for the sake of righteousness, but, on the 
 contrary, for the sake of sin, r<av irapa(3d<rfd>v x"*-P lv > Gal. iii. 19. 1 
 And this in a double sense ; for sin, which as yet is in man un- 
 consciously, must be brought into consciousness as what it is ; but 
 also at the same time the latent power of sin must be incited to 
 manifest and develope itself completely by fuller utterance in deeds. 
 Sin, indeed, was already present in the world before the law 
 was given by Moses, and is also present in the individual man 
 before he becomes aware of the command (Eom. v. 13, vii. 7) ; 
 that is to say, in an objective manner, in the ungodly and anti- 
 spiritual tendency of the fleshly principle which dominates him. 
 But in this merely objective existence of sin, the subjective con- 
 sciousness that this sinful condition or action ought not to be, is 
 still wanting ; the imputing of sin as personal guilt is therefore 
 still wanting, and consequently the feeling of guilt, in which the 
 ego for the first time feels the sting of its contradiction with 
 itself and with God. And so far this condition of relative inno- 
 cence, when evil is only present objectively, and does not come 
 to the subjective consciousness, and so is not willed as the true 
 act of the ego, nor burdened with the painful feeling of guilt, 
 may be designated in a certain sense as a state of " being alive," 
 
 1 To give to these words the interpretation, "to guard against transgressions," is a 
 gross misapprehension. In the first place, the language itself does not allow of it, for 
 \apiv always implies furtherance, and not hindrance. Then, again, it contradicts the 
 whole of the context, which is intended to prove neither more nor less than this very 
 point of the inability of the law to procure righteousness or to guard against sin. 
 Moreover, it contradicts the plain words of the Apostle in Horn. v. 20 and vii. 13, 
 which remove all doubt that he looked upon the increasing of sin and the multiplying 
 of transgressions, instead of the opposite of this, as the primary object of the law. 
 Besides, it is part of Paul's notion of 7rcfpa/3a<ric that, as a positive transgression of a 
 command, it presupposes the existence of the law ; therefore the law could not have 
 been given in the first instance in consequence of the irapa/Saffftc, for the purpose of 
 restraining them. Comp. Usteri, p. 64 (who, moreover, like Baur, places the purpose 
 too one-sidedly in the consciousness of sin). The right view is given by Weiss, ut supra, 
 p. 263 ; Lipsius, ut supra, p. 75 ; Ritachl, ut supra, p. 73 ; Hausrath, Neutest. Zt 
 II. 473 : also the commentaries of Meyer and Hilgenfeld: De Wette and Ruckirt 
 take a different view.
 
 80 SIN AND THE LAW. 
 
 of unchecked feeling of life, because a state of undisturbed inner" 
 harmony (Kom. vii. 9). Though death, the necessity that the 
 body should die (v. 14), was already dominant during this 
 period, yet it also still lacked its painful sting (1 Cor. xv. 56), 
 so long as the feeling of guilt was absent ; for it was felt only 
 as the natural lot of man, and not as a penalty inflicted in 
 consequence of sin, and so could not disturb the harmonious 
 feeling of life in the state of relative innocence which preceded 
 the law. But this state can only last in man and in each 
 individual so long as sin "is dead" in him (that is to say, for 
 his consciousness, consciousness of sin being not yet awakened) ; 
 it immediately ceases, therefore, when the law, with its com- 
 mand, p.ri fTTiOvprjo-fis, confronts the man innocently dominated 
 by the tTnOvpia rrj<s <rapKos. The immediate result is, that sin, 
 which was before dead, "revives;" that is, in the first place, it 
 comes to consciousness as that which it is, as contradiction to 
 the (expressed) will of God, or as transgression of the (positive) 
 command ; thereby also it ceases to be unimputable ; it is now 
 imputed as the true conscious guiltiness of the ego. (Hence 
 " without the law no Trapd/3acri<s, no eAAoyer0cu ;" both come only 
 in consequence of the py f-mOv^a-f^ ; cf. iv. 15, v. 13, vii. 7 9). 
 The previous state of inward harmony and of undisturbed feeling 
 of life is at once disturbed by this awakening of the feeling of 
 guilt, and in its place comes the feeling of discord in one's self 
 and with God, which is felt as the damning wrath of God, and 
 destroys the joyous feeling of life (hence, eyo> dirWavov, vii. 10. 
 The law, KaTepydfarai opyyv 6a.vo.TOV, iv. 15, vii. 13). 
 
 Now inasmuch as the death of the body acquires its pain and 
 sting as the punishment of sin, by the entering in of this figura- 
 tive death, or of the misery of the feeling of guilt wrought by 
 the law, it may be said of the law, as in Eom. v. 13, without 
 contradiction, that it gives to sin the power by which it becomes 
 the sting of death, or briefly, that the letter of the law "killeth" 
 (1 Cor. xv. 56 ; 2 Cor. iii. 6). The revival of sin by occasion of 
 the commandment, however, does not consist in this process of
 
 THE LAW. 81 
 
 consciousness alone; the actual increase of its manifestation is 
 inseparably connected with it. For indwelling sin, the sinful 
 inclination of the flesh, takes occasion from the commandment 
 falsely to represent that which is forbidden as a good worth 
 striving for, and by this "guile" to excite what was before inno- 
 cent desire, so that now all kinds of concupiscence begin to be 
 awakened, and these incited still further by the goad of the 
 command become wilful lusts, and for the first time acquire the 
 energy (vii. 5, 8) to master and enslave the will, so that the law 
 only calls forth more abundantly the transgressions which it 
 ought to prevent. Thus the law is the incitement which pro- 
 vokes the sin latent in man to put forth its whole energy, the 
 result of which is, that sin appears as sin ; nay, more, as " ex- 
 ceeding sinful," and hence, at the same time, its consequences, 
 its having death as its fruit, become more and more sensible 
 (vers. 5, 13). 
 
 Now according to the Apostle all this is not only the effect 
 which the law produces in our experience, but the divine pur- 
 pose of it. What was distinctively new, so thoroughly paradox- 
 ical and so deeply wounding to the Jewish consciousness, was 
 precisely this doctrine that the law, this revelation of the holy 
 will of God, should have, not merely as its contingent effect, but 
 as its direct purpose, the increase of sin and the working of 
 wrath, instead of the prevention of sin and the working of righ- 
 teousness. But to the Apostle this was emphatically a cardinal 
 point. By exhibiting the law as a means of sin, the bond that 
 connected it in the consciousness of the Jew, and even of the 
 Jewish Christian, with the end of salvation as a means or con- 
 dition, was completely sundered ; the law was utterly severed 
 from its positive causal connection with salvation (whether as 
 sole or as auxiliary cause), and thus ceased to have any positive 
 significance and validity for the time of the accomplishment of 
 salvation. 
 
 But how could the law have only a temporary validity, and 
 yet be a revelation of the eternal will of God ? And how 
 
 G
 
 82 SIN AND THE LAW. 
 
 it be a revelation of the holy will of God, if it had as its 
 purpose the increase of sin ? The Apostle solved these obvious 
 questions by proving that what he stated to be the proximate 
 purpose of the law, was again a negative preparatory (not posi- 
 tive causal) means to the final end of salvation willed by God, 
 to redemption by Christ. Exchided from its positive causal 
 connection with the scheme of salvation, the law might yet be 
 incorporated as a negative moment in the process of salvation, 
 and so remain, if not in immediate yet in indirect relation to 
 the Divine purpose of salvation, which was identical and con- 
 sistent with itself through all the various stages of the process. 
 This, then, is * the position which the Apostle assigns to the law 
 with reference to the scheme of salvation it comes in between sin 
 and redemption, as an intermediate purpose directed to the latter 
 (Rom. v. 20). But in support of this theory, the result of dog- 
 matic reflection on the relation of the law and the gospel (to a 
 certain extent speculatively constructed out of the Christian 
 consciousness), he required also a supplementary exegetical proof. 
 This he found in the relation in time between the first revela- 
 tion to Abraham of the will of God regarding salvation, and the 
 revelation of the law through Moses. 
 
 To Abraham, as is set forth in Rom. iv., Gal. iii., was given the 
 promise of the inheritance, the foundation of the scheme of sal- 
 vation, as a promise of favour (grace), that is to say, in the sense 
 that it was to be a free gift of the favour of God. Only after- 
 wards was the law added to the promise of favour which had 
 already been made 430 years before. Now if the object of this 
 law had been, that the obtaining of the inheritance should be 
 conditioned by the doing of the law, then the inheritance would 
 have been the wages of service, and no longer a gift of favour, 
 for the wages of serviceable deeds is a debt and not a gift of 
 favour. In this case, then, a previous utterance of the will of 
 God sanctioned by an oath the promise of the inheritance as 
 a gift of favour would be so essentially changed in its origi- 
 nal meaning by the "supplementary ordinance"
 
 THE LAW. 83 
 
 Gal. iii. 15) of a condition on the fulfilment of which depended 
 the attainment of that which was promised, that it would be 
 as good as abrogated (dOerei, ibid.). Now if such a supple- 
 mentary alteration or abrogation of an expression of the will, 
 sanctioned by an oath, is not permissible even among men, 
 how much less is it conceivable that the oath of God to Abra- 
 ham which was solemnly confirmed with reference to Christ, 
 should be again abrogated by the later coming in of the law, i.e. 
 altered in its essential original meaning as a promise of a gift of 
 favour ! Accordingly, the only view that remains open to us is, 
 that the law which came in after the promise must have had 
 a purpose of such a nature as to prepare and establish the ful- 
 filment of the promise in its original sense. But the obtaining 
 of the inheritance as a gift of favour would be established by 
 proving that every other way of obtaining it was impossible. 
 This is exactly what was done by the law ; it had by no means 
 to release men from the bondage of sin, from their imprisonment 
 in the dungeon of sin, and to lead them to righteousness, but, 
 on the contrary, to keep guard over them in this imprisonment, 
 so that they should not in any way seek to deliver themselves ; 
 it was to keep them for ever mindful of their bondage in the 
 slavery of sin, so that they might seek to attain salvation by no 
 other way than by the way of faith which was ordained by God, 
 and which alone corresponded to the sense of the promise. 
 Thus the law is the jailer who keeps guard over men shut up 
 in the prison of sin, in order that they may accept the fulfil- 
 ment of the promise of favour as such, in faith, and not strive 
 to obtain it by works ; in another figure, the law is the school- 
 master who keeps the boy under restraint, until the time when 
 he will be capable of attaining, by the road of faith which is 
 ordained by'God, the right of sonship which belongs to him. 
 
 This is the meaning of the passage, Gal. iii. 22 24. There 
 is no question here of the restraining or bridling of the sinful 
 lusts, any more than in ver. 19. The expression, o-wfuXtta-fv 
 
 >') ypa</n; TO. Trai/ra vrro d/ia/may, Can, according to the Context, iliul
 
 84 SIN AND THE LAW. 
 
 according to the very similar parallel passage, Eom. xi. 32, have 
 no other meaning than that God has (according to the testimony 
 of Scripture) given all men as prisoners under the dominion of 
 sin; and in this imprisonment they are guarded by the law, 
 inasmuch as it never allows them to escape from the conscious - 
 ness of their impotence by which they are fettered. 1 But the same 
 thought is also expressed in the other figure of the TrcuSaywyos : 
 in this character the law, by the constraint of discipline, presents 
 the consciousness of the right of sonship from arising until the 
 goal is reached, at which the promise of the vloO eo-ia has attained 
 fulfilment ; with this the submission to restraint and the yoke of 
 service imposed by the schoolmaster came to an end, and was 
 superseded by the right of sonship (vers. 25, 26). Accordingly 
 this conception of the law as a schoolmaster does not, any more 
 than the other figure, directly point to the awakening of the 
 desire of salvation as a positive preparation for the redemption ; 
 the obvious thought is only that of a "bondage which forbids the 
 striving after salvation in one's own might, by any other than 
 the pre-ordained way of faith, in order that the fulfilment of 
 the promise should be imparted to all simply as the result of 
 faith (ex Triorews, ver. 22), and that so a part (the Jews) should not 
 seek to obtain the promise by the private road of epyde<rOcu KO.T 
 
 o<eiA.?7/Aa, instead of Kara, ^apiv. 
 
 The law, according 'to this explanation, is only the negative 
 means, which is to cut off at once and render impossible any 
 other way than that of faith. But as to the means by which 
 faith itself comes into existence, the passage in question con- 
 tains no direct intimation. It is true that the negation with 
 which we have been dealing contains also indirectly the affir- 
 mation that the law, in bringing to consciousness the impossi- 
 bility of a subjective self-won righteousness, calls forth the 
 
 1 The right explanation, in the main, is given by Meyer and Hilgenfeld, Comm. ; 
 Lipsiut, p. 79 f. ; Weiss, p. 264 ; listen (not without some vacillation), p. 65 f. Holsten 
 truly remarks that it is not quite correct to say that the awakening of the need of 
 redemption hy the law is to be found directly in the passage under review, p. 316.; 
 and JJuutratli, ut supra, p. 474, follows him.
 
 THE LA W. 85 
 
 desire for the means of salvation ordained by God himself. 
 In this sense, the complement of our text on its psychological 
 side is found in that passage, Horn, vii., where the struggle 
 between the law and the flesh forces from the writer the cry, 
 "0 wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from this 
 body of death ?" Here again, then, in the case of the law, 
 as before in the case of sin, we have the same two modes 
 of viewing the matter, the objective theological and the sub- 
 jective anthropological, at times running parallel to each other, 
 and at times indistinguishably intertwined. According to the 
 former, the several moments of the development of man, or the 
 history of religion, sin (Adam), promise (Abraham), law (Moses), 
 redemption (Christ), are fused together only in the objective 
 unity of the Divine counsel, the fulness of whose wisdom is 
 unfolded precisely in the manifoldness and relative opposition 
 of the ways to the one goal (Eom. xi. 33 in connection with 
 32). But according to the latter, these moments proceed as 
 phases of an immanent process of the spirit of man and of 
 humanity, the one preparing for the other, the one bringing 
 itself about by means of the other. 1 The former determines the 
 course of the discussion in Rom. xi. and Rom. v. 12 21, and 
 especially in Gal. iii. ; the second is found in Rom. vii., and 
 with a somewhat different turn in Gal. iv., inasmuch as tha 
 figure of the schoolmastership of the law in this passage leads 
 to the thought of a childish stage in the development of 
 humanity, which precedes the freedom of sonship as a natural 
 preparatory step, in which the bondage of the law appears, not 
 as a positive institution of the Divine counsel with a view to the 
 revelation of favour, but as the natural consequence of the imma- 
 turity of man in his first stage of development. Yet here, again, 
 the end of the period of tutelage is conditioned, not by the occur- 
 rence of natural maturity, but by Divine predetermination (71730- 
 0ecr/ua, ver. 2) ; and, conversely, in Rom. xi. the succession of the 
 
 1 Compare on this the similar observations of llolstcn, ut supra, p. 317, note, and 
 p. 419.
 
 86 SIN AND THE LAW. 
 
 moments of the history of religion, determined by the Divine 
 counsel, is again brought about psychologically by means of the 
 belief and unbelief of the Jews or Gentiles. Thus the objective 
 and subjective modes of viewing the scheme of revelation, i.e. 
 the religious development of humanity, easily run into one 
 another, as is natural, since they are in fact only two sides of 
 the same process, which is at once divine and human. 
 
 Finally, we may ask whether and to what extent Paul has 
 attained his object, of reconciling his peculiar doctrine of the law 
 with the belief in its immediately divine origin, and making it 
 acceptable to the believers in revelation, to the Jews and Jewish 
 Christians, who took their stand on the ground of the theocratic 
 history of the Bible. And here, while we cannot but admire the 
 keen intellect of the Apostle, who sought to render possible what 
 was impossible, to incorporate the ideal truth of the new and 
 deep views of the world and of history with the letter of the 
 historical religion of Israel, we must at the same time in fair- 
 ness allow that the Jews and Jewish Christians were really in 
 the right, from the positive standpoint of the letter and of his- 
 tory. However deep and true, from the standpoint of Chris- 
 tian speculation, that relation is which the Apostle established 
 between the law and the salvation willed by God, and however 
 masterly each step of the reasoning by which he seeks to prove 
 this relation, in Eom. iv. and Gal. iii., by the position of the 
 law relatively to the promise, yet it is not to be denied that 
 all this was altogether alien from the historical intention of the 
 giving of the law, and is wholly without ground in the letter of 
 the law. It is simply self-evident to the mind of any one who 
 takes his stand on the historical ground of the Old Testament, 
 that the law was not given with the object of increasing sin by 
 its non-fulfilment, but in order to be fulfilled, and by this means 
 to lead to righteousness. It could never occur to one in that 
 position that this purpose of the law stood in any way in con- 
 tradiction to the promise made to Abraham, as Paul argued ; it 
 would, on the contrary, appear self-evident that God, in the
 
 THE LAW. 87 
 
 covenant which he made with Abraham, only gave the promise 
 of blessing for the seed of Abraham on the understanding (no 
 matter whether expressed or not) that the seed of Abraham 
 should devote itself on its part to obedience to the Divine will, 
 and therefore to the fulfilment of the law which was to follow : 
 with this, therefore, as the conditio sine qua non, the fulfilment 
 of the promise to Abraham would appear to him to be inse- 
 parably connected ; how else could it be a covenant, if perform- 
 ance on the one part did not correspond to performance on the 
 other ? And although the ' law, which was the obligation of 
 Israel to do its part corresponding to the promise, certainly fol- 
 lowed 430 years after the promise, yet the covenant obligation 
 on the part of Abraham was at once entered upon by the accept- 
 ance of circumcision, from the first, as the seal of the covenant ; 
 and accordingly the promise was from the beginning attached 
 to a performance on the part of man as its indispensable conditio 
 sine qua non ; and thus the law by no means came in between 
 promise and fulfilment as something foreign to them both, but 
 is the necessary complement of the promise ; and the doing of 
 the law is not the mere temporary, but the permanent and still 
 valid condition of the fulfilment of the promise. Against such 
 obvious objections of his Judaistic opposers, Paul might assert 
 that the promise of God to Abraham was established beforehand 
 with reference to Christ (TrpoKeKvpw/tev^v cis XptcrTov, Gal. iii. 17, 
 comp. 16), inasmuch as the exact words of the oath, TW o-n-eppaTi 
 (and in an oath the exact words must be taken), could only apply 
 to one man, Christ. But, in the first place, this kind of proof, if 
 not inadmissible, could certainly not be convincing even for that 
 age ; and, secondly, even on the assumption that this proof was 
 valid, the conclusion which Paul drew from it was more than his 
 opponents would allow. For they could always say, even sup- 
 posing that in the promise to Abraham reference was made to 
 its fulfilment in Jesus Christ, this would not exclude their con- 
 ceiving the fulfilment of the promise in Jesus Christ as attached 
 from the beginning to the fulfilment of the covenant-obligation
 
 88 SIN AND THE LA W. 
 
 of obedience to the law, as the corresponding performance on 
 the part of the children of Abraham. The argument urged by 
 Paul against this was, that in that case the fulfilment of the 
 promise would no longer be Ka.ro. x<*-P LV > but far d^a'A^/xa, as 
 /ZMT00S for the tpyd^ea-Oat of man (Eom. iv. 2 4, 13 16, xi. 6 ; 
 Gal. iii. 18). But on what ground was he really justified in 
 making this exclusive disjunction of these two ideas ? What if 
 the Jewish Christians had a conception of Christian salvation 
 to which that dilemma was in no way applicable ; which, on the 
 contrary, included within itself Ipydfao-Oat and /iur0os on the one 
 hand, and Triorevav and \/ l s on the other, as two mutually com- 
 plementary moments, in which conception, therefore, righteous- 
 ness and life were both gifts of Christ, and also consequences of 
 man's own act? To this Paul had only one answer, but that 
 
 the weighty one, apa Xpicrros Supeav aTTfdavfv ! 
 
 It is quite clear that the Jewish Christians were right from 
 the historical exegetical point of view, but that Paul was right 
 dogmatically ; the former had on their side the literal interpre- 
 tation, judging by which the world would pronounce them to be 
 in the right ; the latter had only the divine right of the higher 
 idea, which must always submit to be regarded by the men of 
 the letter as a falsification of the word of God and an invention 
 of individual caprice (2 Cor. iv. 2, 5) ; and that for the simple 
 reason, that the truth of the higher idea must ever remain unin- 
 telligible, in spite of the best intentions, to those who cannot 
 free themselves from the bondage of the letter ; how much more 
 so to those whose clearness of vision is darkened by malignant 
 prejudice and suspicion, and the self-conceit of infallible autho- 
 rity ! (ibid. vers. 3, 4). But the position of Paul was all the 
 more difficult, because he also fully shared the assumption of 
 his opponents, the irrefragable authority of the letter as the 
 immediately revealed word of God. Consequently he could not 
 have recourse to the modern historical point of view, of an 
 advance from a lower to a higher stage of the development of 
 the spirit of man, according to which the earlier stage, for all its
 
 THE LAW. 89 
 
 relative truth, evidently loses its authority in presence of the 
 higher stage. It is true that he does in many passages show a 
 tendency towards this point of view, especially in Gal. iv. ; only 
 the strictly supernatural groundwork of his thought does not 
 allow this to become a ruling principle; even though he at 
 times considers the law as TTTWX" *<" ao-6evyj cnoi^ - TOU K 007*0 v, 
 yet it still remains in his eyes the immediate literal expression 
 of the holy and eternal will of God. In this difficulty Paul had 
 recourse to that method which has at all times assisted thinkers 
 who have been fettered by supernatural presuppositions to fill 
 up the gulf between the old and the new ; he has thrust back 
 the new into the place of the old nay, behind it as the oldest of 
 all. The evangelical principle of faith was the ruling principle 
 in the foundation of the scheme of salvation long before the 
 giving of the law by Moses, namely, in the promise to Abraham, 
 and a means of salvation was even then contemplated, such as 
 was manifested in Christ, as a revelation of righteousness through 
 God by faith without the works of the law. As this could not 
 of course be demonstrated by the letter of the Old Testament, 
 he was obliged to have recourse to the traditional allegwizing, 
 the " spiritual interpretation of Scripture," by means of which a 
 mind which formally believes in the letter, but has substan- 
 tially advanced beyond it, has been able, from the time of Philo 
 to our own age, to conceal from itself the inward contradiction, 
 and by a gentle violence to force the opposing letter to bend to 
 the power of the higher idea. 
 
 For our modes of thought of course an exegetical method of 
 this kind has no authority, and its arguments carry no conviction. 
 That the singular T o-n-eppaTt must refer to Christ (Gal. iii. 16); 
 that the driving out of Hagar with her son Ishmael, in favour of 
 Sarah and Isaac, means the abrogation of the covenant of the 
 law in favour of the gospel freedom of sonship (Gal. iv. 21 31) ; 
 that the dissolution of the marriage bond by the death of the 
 husband represents the dissolution of the covenant of the law 
 by the mystical death of the body of Christ (Rom. vii. 7) ; that
 
 90 SIN AND THE LAW. 
 
 the transitory luminous appearance in the face of Moses had 
 indicated to Moses himself that the law was a merely tem- 
 porary institution, and that he had veiled his face from the 
 Israelites in order to veil from them the knowledge of this fact 
 (2 Cor. ili. 7 13), all this appears to us to be quite arbitrary 
 subjective interpretation, without any objective power of con- 
 viction, and we cannot blame the Jewish Christians if they did 
 not feel in the least degree refuted by such arguments, but, on 
 the contrary, rather confirmed in their view of what they regarded 
 as Paul's boundless caprice. Completely justified, however, as 
 the Jewish Christians might be, from their positive historical 
 standpoint, in urging this objection against Paul, and especially 
 against his exegetical mode of arguing, yet when viewed from the 
 higher ideal historical standpoint, the objection is very weak. 
 For we must bear in mind that, in the first place, allegorizing was 
 at that time the established method of all really independent 
 and intelligent study of the Scriptures ; and, in the next place, 
 that the allegorizing of a Paul, compared with that of a Philo or 
 of the Eabbis, stands infinitely higher, because with him the 
 caprice, after all, lay only in the form, while the substance, which 
 he invested with authority by means of this arbitrary method, 
 consisted of operative ideas full of the deepest objective truth, 
 and was not the mere play of a subjective fancy ; and, finally, that 
 it is true of all times (including our own) that there is no other 
 means of reconciling faith which is, still formally steadfast to 
 the unconditional truth of the old letter, with the ideal convic- 
 tion which has in substance advanced beyond it, than this very 
 "artifice of the idea" by means of which the religious spirit 
 veils its new developments from itself, until the fruit has grown 
 strong enough to dispense with the protecting shell of the old, 
 and allow it to fall off.
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 REDEMPTION BY THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 
 
 WE have seen how Paul regards man as a prisoner in a two- 
 fold sense : first, inasmuch as he is under the law as his task- 
 master and jailer, which holds him fast in the fetters and the 
 curse of the consciousness of guilt, reveals to him the wrath of 
 God, and is consequently for him the letter that killeth, or 
 delivers over to death; and, secondly, inasmuch as he is sold 
 under sin itself as the power dwelling in his flesh, subjected as 
 a slave, without a will of his own, to its dominating desires. 
 Now with this two-fold imprisonment the Apostle connects 
 redemption by Christ that is to say, by his death. For it is 
 impossible to doubt that in his eyes the death of Jesus, the 
 Messiah, is not merely the principal, but the exclusive means of 
 salvation. We have already seen (Introduction, p. 7) how the 
 whole of his gospel is comprised in the " word of the cross," in 
 the knowledge and preaching of Christ Jesus as " the crucified." 
 We shall see more fully later on how far salvation could for 
 Paul be based, KO.T e^o^v, precisely on this death, as an external 
 fact by itself, and quite apart from the life 1 of Jesus, which 
 
 1 Bom. v. 19, Sia rijc inraKoije rov ivof, furnishes no argument against this, for 
 we must understand by this expression, not the whole obedience of the life of Jesus, 
 but his one act of obedience (Sucaiwpa, ver. 18), in opposition to Adam's one act of 
 disobedience (irapcnrroifia, ver. 17). The words here made use of are evidently to be 
 explained by their opposite. The view so much favoured in modern times that it was 
 only as the culminating point of his moral life that the death of Jesus had this high 
 significance for Paul, is part and parcel of the rationalizing misinterpretation of the 
 whole of Paul's doctrine of redemption.
 
 92 REDEMPTION BY THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 
 
 preceded it Corresponding to the two-fold imprisonment from 
 which the death of Jesus redeemed mankind, the idea of this 
 redemption has also two separate sides to be distinguished. The 
 first signification (both in origin and importance) of the redeem- 
 ing death of Christ is connected with the sentence of guilt, by 
 which man, as the object of the wrath of God, was placed under 
 tlie curse of tJie law, subjected to death as the punishment of sin. 
 Man is ransomed from this disastrous state of punishment in 
 that the demand for his punishment is satisfied by the death of 
 Christ as a vicarious expiatory sacrifice. Through this ransom 
 the death of Christ is the cause of the appeasing of the wrath of 
 God, or of the manifestation of his love, and thus it is a purely 
 objective act of God on Christ in our behalf, for the purpose of our 
 rescue. But, at the same time, the death of Christ frees us from 
 the power of sin which dwells in the flesh, for this principle of 
 sin is destroyed, first in Christ himself, and then in us through 
 our mystical communion with him. From this point of view the 
 death of Christ as a mortification of the fiesh is the commence- 
 ment of a subjective ethical process, which goes on and completes 
 itself in us. Here also then, in order to do justice to all Paul's 
 utterances, we must distinguish between the same two essen- 
 tially different points of view as in the doctrine of sin, namely, 
 the objective tlieological and the subjective anthropological. Accord- 
 ing to the former, the death of Christ is the principle of a new 
 religious relation of humanity ; according to the latter, it is the 
 principle of a new moral behaviour. 
 
 THE DEATH OF CHRIST AS AN EXPIATORY SACRIFICE. 
 
 We must unquestionably take as our starting-point that 
 passage in which Paul, in the course of the systematic develop- 
 ment of his doctrine, first expressly discusses the Christian 
 principle of " the righteousness of God," and traces it back to its 
 objective ground, in the redemption by means of Christ (Rom.
 
 THE DBA TH OF CHRIST AS AN EXPIA TOR Y SA CRIFICE. 93 
 
 iii. 24 26). After having shown in the preceding part of the 
 letter that righteousness is not in fact attained by means of 
 human action through fulfilment of the law, the Apostle now 
 shows how it must proceed from the favour of God and come to 
 man as a gift, and has been wrought out by God himself through 
 the scheme which is completed in the death of Christ. This 
 scheme is described by the Apostle in the following unmistak- 
 able language : " God has set forth Jesus Christ as a propitiation 
 through faith (as a propitiatory sacrifice which becomes subjec- 
 tively operative through faith), by means of his blood (by the 
 shedding of his blood, i. e. by a violent death, as a bloody 
 sacrifice ; and that) for the purpose of declaring his (God's) 
 righteousness, (which was necessary) because of the remission (the 
 overlooking, leaving unpunished) of sins that are past, (which 
 remission was only possible) through the forbearance of God; for 
 the purpose (lie resumes) of declaring his righteousness at this 
 time, (and, further, this proof of his righteousness was given in 
 tins way, namely, in the expiatory death of Christ instead of the 
 death of all men, with the two-fold intention) that He might be 
 (seen to be) just Himself, and (at the same time) the justificr of 
 him (who takes the determining principle of his religious life) 
 from faith in Jesus (an intensive expression for the believer)." 
 
 Let us now expand the thoughts contained or indirectly pre- 
 supposed in this passage. Sin during the period which preceded 
 Christ was not only not prevented, but was in fact increased by 
 the law ; nor had the particular manifestations of the wrath of 
 God against sin availed to suppress it; on the contrary, they 
 had still further aggravated it (compare i. 24 f.), and could not, 
 therefore, be regarded as an adequate punishment of human 
 guilt, such as should prove God a just Judge. Consequently, 
 the relation of God to sin on the whole, in spite of all 
 particular instances of punishment, was essentially that of 
 forbearance and remission, of indulgent non-observance. But 
 in this way the Divine justice which demanded punishment
 
 94 REDEMPTION BY THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 
 
 was not satisfied ; it had no adequate proof by facts, and might, 
 therefore, appear to have no existence. This required a tan- 
 gible proof that avenging justice, although hitherto (relatively) 
 latent, nevertheless really existed. This proof could only be 
 given by filling up the measure of punishment, that is to say 
 since death is the wages of sin by a bloody penal death. 
 Were this to be accomplished, however, in the person of the 
 guilty, the justice of God would indeed be shown, but not his 
 favour. God would appear as just or righteous Himself, but not 
 as also justifying the unrighteous. In order to attain, therefore, 
 this two-fold end, in order so to demonstrate the justice which 
 required punishment, that favour should at the same time be 
 shown, God, instead of inflicting the full penalty of death, as 
 his avenging justice required, on all who had deserved it, 
 inflicted it on one who had not deserved it; and thus set forth 
 this one in his blood that was shed, as the victim who suffered 
 (vicariously) the punishment due to others, and so expiated their 
 guilt; and this He did in his own interest (irpoedero in the 
 middle voice), in order to cause the recognition of his own 
 justice, which recognition had been endangered by the previous 
 impunity of sin; though, of course, at the same time in the 
 interest of men, who found themselves by this means redeemed 
 (ransomed dTroAvrpwo-ts, from Xvrpov) from guilt, or from the 
 avenging justice of God, which hung over them like the sword of 
 Damocles, requiring the exaction of the penalty. 
 
 It cannot be denied that this explanation is equally in accord- 
 ance with grammar and logic; nor that it is strikingly in 
 harmony with the presuppositions of the Jewish idea of God 
 and sacrificial ritual. As regards the "justice of God," which is 
 proved by the death of Christ, nothing else is to be understood 
 by it than the justice which judges that is to say, which 
 punishes; this is clearly shown by the context, according to 
 which the proof of justice appeared to be necessary "on account 
 of the previous overlooking" that is to say, impunity of sin, in
 
 THE DEA TH OF CHRIST AS AN EXPIA TOR Y SA ORIFICE. 9 5 
 
 connection with which it is evident that only the justice which 
 punishes could be called in question. Moreover, this view 1 is 
 the only one which accords simply and naturally with Jewish 
 notions, according to which justice consists in the exact requital 
 of actions, and consequently the punishing of every instance of 
 guilt ; but in whose person the guilt was punished, whether in 
 that of the guilty person himself, or vicariously in that of 
 another, was of no immediate concern; all that was required 
 was that the penalty should be inflicted, and the punishment of 
 even the third and fourth generation for the sins of their fathers 
 was quite conceivable. The Jewish mind was especially fami- 
 liarized by the rite of sacrifice with the idea of an expiation of 
 guilt by a vicarious atonement. But we are plainly directed to 
 this train of thought by the use of the word iXaa-r^piov in the 
 text. The primary meaning of the word is certainly only "means 
 of propitiation," but in connection with iv T<3 at/mri and 
 TrpotdfTo, according to which it was a means of propitiation set 
 forth through the shedding of blood, the means of propitiation 
 can only be thought of in the concrete as a " propitiatory sacri- 
 fice." But the Hebrew consciousness 2 (like that of the ancient 
 
 1 Among the different interpretations which have been suggested in modern times, 
 that of Hofmann has found much favour, namely, the "consistency of God," which 
 agrees with that of Ritschl, who says, "God has proved his justice in Christ, in thtit 
 He has acted according to his essential nature in justifying the believer, and yet 
 having no communion with sinners without an atonement" (Altkath. K., p. 86). But 
 we must remark that Paul always refers the justification of believers by God solely to 
 the Divine favour, and not to the justice of God, which, on the contrary, requires the 
 punishment of the sinner. RitschVs view evidently arises from his confounding the 
 divine quality of righteousness or justice with the righteousness which proceeds from 
 God as a gift conferred by his favour; but these are two entirely different ideas, both 
 as to their origin and meaning. The interpretation which Lipsius has given to the 
 text in his work, "Paulin. Rechtfertigungslehre," may be passed over, as he has 
 himself abandoned it. 
 
 [The English language has two different words, "justice" and "righteousness," to 
 express these two ideas, while the German "Gerechtigheit," like the Greek Siicaioffvvt), 
 covers both ; but "justification" of course means "Baking righteous." Trans.] 
 
 2 The idea of expiatory sacrifice, as expressed in Lev. xvii. 11, is, that the (shed) 
 blood of the sacrifice, by means of the soul or life contained therein, is to "serve as a 
 covering" for the souls of those who bring it. This does not mean that the uiiholinesd
 
 96 REDEMPTION BY THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 
 
 world in general) associated with this idea the thought of vica- 
 riously giving up a living thing to death, in order to redeem by 
 this means another life which had been forfeited to the Deity ; 
 the wrath of the Deity, aroused by sin, demands expiation by 
 death; the life of the guilty person himself is first of all forfeited 
 to this demand; but this forfeited life may be rescued, if another 
 is given up in its place to the death demanded by the wrath of 
 God. This is only so far " vicarious punishment," that one life, 
 which had incurred the penalty of death, is set free through the 
 vicarious suffering of death by another, without this other one, 
 who suffers death vicariously for him who is worthy of death, 
 suffering this penalty on his part also as a punishment; the penal 
 character of the expiatory suffering ceases through the vicarious 
 quittance of the penalty. We should therefore be going beyond 
 the biblical idea of expiatory sacrifice if we were to imagine 
 Christ to be a personal object of punishment inflicted by the 
 wrath of God. He only experienced in himself, in his person, 
 the suffering which the guilty had incurred as a punishment due 
 to themselves, the infliction of which was demanded by the 
 Divine wrath; but as an innocent person who only suffers 
 vicariously, he experienced suffering, not as a punishment, but 
 only as externally allotted to him. According to biblical ideas, 
 therefore, there is no such thing as a " vicarious punishment of 
 
 of the man is to be screened from the sight of God, by placing between them the holy ( !) 
 life of a beast (this would be a strange notion !), but that the souls which ha^e 
 become liable to punishment through sin, and subject to the avenging justice of God, 
 are covered, i. e. protected and rescued from the wrath of God, which would otherwise 
 strike them, inasmuch as his claim to a life which has become forfeited to Him, is 
 satisfied by the substitution of the life of the beast. This meaning of the Hebrew 
 word is made very clear by one of its derivatives, which signifies "redemption through 
 a substitute tendered for the real debtor, rajisom," Xvrpov. Compare Ex. xxi. 30 ; 
 Num. xxxv. 31 ; and Is. xliii. 3, which is quite conclusive: "I have given Egypt Gush 
 and Sheba, \vrpov avrl oov." For how could these unclean Gentile nations serve as a 
 "covering" for Israel in the sense'of screening their uncleanness from the holy eyes of 
 God ? But they might well serve as a vicarious substitute or ransom, by which Israel 
 is redeemed from the curse of Gotfs avenging justice, under which he would otherwise 
 have irrecoverably fallen, inasmuch as the Divine wrath, which demands the punish- 
 ment that is due, now finds the satisfaction of its claims in those heathen nations 
 which are substituted for Israel itself.
 
 THE DEA TH OF CHRIST AS AN EXPIA TOR Y SACRIFICE. 97 
 
 Christ," inasmuch as vicarious suffering is the negation of 
 punishment, is expiation instead of punishment. 
 
 It will be conclusively proved by other passages that Paul 
 applied this idea of propitiatory sacrifice, which is found in the 
 Old Testament, to the death of Christ ; or rather that he adopted 
 this view, which had already been enunciated by Jesus himself 
 (Matt. xx. 28), and which was prevalent in the primitive com- 
 munity (compare dpvtov r<ay/zei/ov in the Apocalypse). In this 
 sense alone must we understand Paul when he says, 1 Cor. vi. 20 
 and vii. 23, rj-yopdo-OyTc TI/*?/?, " Ye are bought with a price," which 
 God, as it were, allowed it to cost Him, by giving up his Son for 
 your redemption, and which Christ has paid by his vicariously 
 given life, in order to rescue those who were otherwise lost, and 
 thereby at the same time to win them as a possession for God. 
 The same idea is still more distinctly contained in 1 Cor. v. 7, TO 
 Trao-^a i^uait/ vrrep rj/j.wv Tv6r] X/Hcrros : if Christ was sacrificed for 
 us as our Passover, then this sacrificial death was an expiatory 
 sacrifice ; for vicarious atonement is undeniably the fundamental 
 conception of this primitive rite, the Semitic " ver sacrum," in 
 which the first-born, who was devoted to God, was released by 
 the vicarious sacrifice of a lamb, and his exemption thereby pur- 
 chased (" exemption" is the meaning of the Hebrew, " release" 
 of the Arabic name of this rite). 
 
 Essentially similar is the thought contained in Eom. v. 8 1 0, 
 in spite of the apparent contradiction that the death of Christ 
 is in iii. 24 f. stated to be a proof of the justice of God, but in 
 this passage a proof of his love. It is in reality both of these 
 in both passages : that death follows sin as a punishment, is a 
 proof of his justice, but that Christ undergoes the penalty instead 
 of the guilty, is a proof of the love of God, who has ordained 
 this scheme which reconciles his justice with his love, of his 
 own free will (rrj avrov \dpiri, iii. 24). The words im-ep ^wi>, 
 which occur here and are repeated in many other passages, 
 signify primarily indeed simply " for our good ;" but the con- 
 necting thought, both in this and the other passages, is that of a 
 
 H
 
 98 REDEMPTION BY THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 
 
 vicarious act (compare especially 2 Cor. v. 21). This is also 
 indicated by the effect of the death of Christ as described in 
 ver. 9 f. ; this consists in two things first, in the already com- 
 pleted fact that we f^$pol ov-res KaTTjAAay^/iey T$ #< Sid TOW 
 6a.va.Tov TOV viov avroG; and, secondly, in the hope which is founded 
 
 On this, that we <r<a6i]a-6fJLtOa Si avrov (X7TO TT/S opyfjs, that is at the 
 
 last judgment. As this hope is derived from the completed fact, 
 the future hoped for must be the completion or the definite con- 
 firmation of the same work of salvation, which as past is ex- 
 pressed by f^Opol ovres KdTTjAAay^ev T$ $ew : KaTaAAayfJveu TO> 
 0($ must therefore contain a declaration about our position with 
 regard to God, or concerning our faith which is dependent on 
 God, just as this is evidently contained in d-w^eo-flcu OTTO -njs opyTjs. 
 But in that case, KaraAAayryvcu TW 0ea> cannot express a change in 
 our voluntary behaviour towards God, our disposition and moral 
 attitude towards Him, for that would be of course dependent 
 upon ourselves, and not, like o-wr#ai euro TT}S opyfjs, upon Him ; 
 no conclusion could therefore be drawn from the former to the 
 latter, and least of all the conclusion clearly drawn with so 
 much confidence in ver. 10, from the greater to the less. Because 
 we had changed our hostile feeling towards God, it would by no 
 means follow with certainty that God also would from that 
 time have given up his anger against us, and that we should be 
 saved from its disastrous consequences; the merely subjective 
 wish to be henceforth at peace with God would not suffice to 
 justify the objective certainty that God also on his part was 
 at peace with us. But the future salvation from the wrath of 
 God might be hoped for with all the more certainty, on the 
 supposition that the greater thing had already been done by 
 God ; that we, while as sinners we were objects of his wrath, had 
 nevertheless been reconciled to Him by the death of his Son, 
 which had been ordained by Himself, as the palpable proof that 
 his love towards us far outweighed his anger. Accordingly, KaraA- 
 \ayrjvai is a change of our relation to God proceeding from God 
 himself, not a change of our behaviour towards God proceeding
 
 THE DEA TH OF CHRIST AS AN EXPIA TOR Y SA ORIFICE. 99 
 
 from us ; and exOpol OVTCS therefore does not denote 1 an active 
 enmity on our part against God, but our passive condition under 
 the curse of the Divine anger. In this sense alone is the text 
 consistent with itself, and with Kom. iii. 25, and 2 Cor. v. 18 ; 
 it declares that the death of Christ was a pooof to us of the 
 Divine love, inasmuch as by it we have become reconciled to 
 God, instead of being hated by Him, and so the anger of God 
 which oppressed us is removed from us in short, the death 
 of Christ was a conciliation of God's anger, ordained by his 
 love. 
 
 The same thing is said in Gal. iii. 13. That which is ex- 
 pressed in the previous passage as " propitiating the enmity of 
 God," is here called " redemption from the curse of the law." The 
 law is the expression of the Divine will, therefore the curse of 
 the law is the expression of the wrathful will of God, of his 
 avenging justice. From this curse which oppressed us, Christ 
 has " redeemed us ly being made a curse for us," that is, by giving 
 himself up as a ransom to the death which the Divine wrath 
 demanded. The abstract expression Ka.Ta.pa. is probably not 
 applied here merely in recollection of the words used in the 
 passage quoted from the Old Testament, but also because it 
 really expresses the thought more accurately than any other: 
 Christ was not personally accursed, but only came to stand in 
 the place of such an one before God, inasmuch as he suffered 
 the accursed death as a vicarious expiatory sacrifice, and by this 
 ransom redeemed our life, which as cursed was forfeit to our 
 
 1 This follows necessarily from a right understanding of the meaning of Kara\- 
 Xctyjjvai. If we understand this to refer to the doing away with the anger of God 
 against sinful humanity, and J%0|0ot OVTIQ, nevertheless, to refer to our hostile attitude 
 towards God, there is certainly a "want of clearness of thought" (Ruckeit), only it 
 is not the Apostle who betrays it. Jtitschlia more consistent, who (Altkath. K., p. 87) 
 not only understands t^Opci in an active sense of "the sin of mankind in its quality 
 of enmity against God," but also denies that it has any reference to an expiation of the 
 wrath of God, because Paul always connects the wrath of God with the diro\\vnevot, 
 but in no case with the (TUO/*EVOI, who on the contrary, so far as their former con- 
 dition as sinners is concerned, are only put under favour. And yet Paul says 
 aiiiOtioofifOa atro rfjc V'y'lc > *f we require to be saved from the wrath of God, then 
 we must surely at one time have lain under it. 
 
 ii 2
 
 100 REDEMPTION BY THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 
 
 -wrathful God. Thus this passage also agrees exactly with the 
 ancient notion of expiatory sacrifice. 1 
 
 The same may be said finally of 2 Cor. v. 21 : " God hath made 
 him to be sin for us, who knew no sin (by personal experience), that 
 we miylii become the rigliteousness of God in him." Here also we 
 have the abstract word d/xa^Tia, as in Gal. iii. 13, Ka.ra.pa., not with- 
 out good reason for Christ was not personally sinful ; the rela- 
 tive sentence expressly denies it ; but he was put in the objec- 
 tive relation of the sinful world towards God, 2 so that, although 
 really in his own person not sinful, yet he passed ideally for a 
 sinner in God's regard and dealing, was esteemed as such; 
 exactly in the same way as we, conversely, by reason of what was 
 done to him, come to stand towards God in the objective rela- 
 tion of the righteous, to pass ideally in the regard and the 
 dealing of God as righteous, although we are not so really in our 
 own persons, but, on the contrary, are sinners. We have here 
 neither more nor less than an exchange between Christ and ULS, 
 he takes from us the part of sinners, we receive from him that 
 of the righteous ; sin and righteousness appear on both sides as 
 purely objective characters, separable from the person, and trans- 
 ferable, of mere ideal validity in themselves, but involving very 
 real consequences on the one hand death, on the other hand 
 life. This is a mode of looking at the matter which will not so 
 much surprise us after what we have seen in chap. i. of the 
 
 1 The dogmatic objections urged by Al. Schweizer (Stud, und Krit. 1858, p. 436 f.) 
 can have no weight against these simple facts that exegesis yields. Not that they are 
 therefore groundless : we shall in a later portion of this work bring forward the 
 very same considerations ; only they ought not to be introduced directly into the 
 exegesis. 
 
 * The interpretation of this passage given by Holsten, ut supra, p. 437, and accepted 
 by Haiisrath, that God placed him, who in his previous existence was absolutely 
 sinless, in a condition of being really affected with sin, by sending him into sinful flesh, 
 is wrong, first, because in the whole context there is no reference to Christ becoming 
 man, but throughout, ami therefore also in ver. 21, only to his death; and, secondly, 
 on account of the analogy with our Sucatoavvr} Oiov, by which, according to Paul's use 
 of the word, and according to the context (compare especially ver. 19, pi} \oyt^fifvoq 
 aiirZiv), imputed, ideal righteousness alone can be understood ; consequently that 
 which corresponds to it, the afiapria of Christ, must also be only imputed and ideal.
 
 THE DEATH OF CHRIST AS AN EXPIATORY SACRIFICE. 101 
 
 objectivity of Paul's notion of sin, and what we shall have to 
 say of the objectivity of his notion of righteousness in chap. iv. ; 
 although it must appear in the highest degree perplexing to a 
 mind accustomed to think of morality as subjective. 
 
 One can hardly help further giving to tm-fp fipuv in this passage 
 the meaning, " in our stead," especially as the words wrep X/HO-TOV, 
 which occur twice previously, can scarcely be rendered other- 
 wise than in Christ's stead; vn-ep is thus precisely equivalent 
 to dvri. This makes it still less possible to suppose that the 
 text refers to a deliverance from the power of sin ; not only do 
 the analogies drawn from other passages which we have men- 
 tioned point rather to exemption from guilt, but ver. 19 does 
 the same, when taken in connection with the passage we are 
 here discussing, inasmuch as the reconciliation with God, com- 
 pleted by God in (that is by means of) Christ, is here further elu- 
 cidated by the words, firj A.oyio/Aevos CHJTOIS TO. TrapaTTTWyuara avrcuv. 
 This reconciliation, therefore, does not consist in the fact that 
 sin is no longer operative in man, but in the fact that it is no 
 longer imputed to him by God as guilt which deserves dam- 
 nation, that consequently man is no longer on its account an 
 object of the Divine anger. And in this way the whole passage 
 contains the thought, which fully agrees with all that has gone 
 before, that the redemption of mankind from guilt is brought 
 about by Christ's vicariously suffering the penalty which man 
 had incurred through sin, and that this exchange of parts be- 
 tween the guiltless and the guilty has been ordained by God 
 himself from love to us. 
 
 And here one cannot avoid asking the question, what necessity 
 was there that this incurred penalty should be suffered at all, 
 when the Divine willingness to show favour already existed 
 before this expiation, and indeed was necessary in order to 
 render it possible ? What need was there that the love of God 
 to sinners should attain its realization in this round-about way ? 
 Since it was God himself who ordained the reconciliation of the 
 sinful world, how could this same God, who so abounded in love,
 
 102 . REDEMPTION BY THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 
 
 be on the other hand one who required an expiation, whose 
 avenging wrath must be satisfied, before his love could show 
 itself as such ? This question it is, probably, which has con- 
 sciously or unconsciously hovered before the mind of commen- 
 tators with a confusing influence, and hindered an impartial 
 apprehension of the simple grammatical meaning of the passages 
 we have quoted (which may be classed amongst the most misin- 
 terpreted texts of the Bible). Nor can it be denied that this 
 question involves no small difficulty, and that not merely when 
 regarded from a modern point of view, or one otherwise alien to 
 that of Paul, but quite as much so when we start from Paul's 
 own position. It may indeed be said that the real answer to 
 the question just propounded is perfectly simple and obvious. 
 Eedemption from the curse of the law by a vicarious endurance 
 of it was necessary, because the law, this irrevocable expression 
 of the holy will of God, had once for all assigned death as the 
 punishment of sin. Simple and lucid, however, as this conclu- 
 sion may appear, and completely satisfactory as it may be to 
 ecclesiastical and orthodox commentators, yet it has no slight 
 obstacle to encounter in the presuppositions of Paul himself. 
 Let us only recollect for a moment what this very Apostle has 
 taught about the law, its meaning and its purpose in the Divine 
 economy. The law is to him, as we have seen, by no means 
 a thing that is valid, unconditionally and eternally, and there- 
 fore also in reference to Christ, but it has only come in as a 
 temporary intermediate purpose, between promise and fulfilment, 
 in order to increase sin, and to awaken mankind, who were 
 all enslaved and impotent under its bondage, to faith. Now 
 how can this law, which from the beginning was only destined 
 to a mere temporary dominion, as a means subservient to 
 Christ, raise against Christ, its originally predestined Lord, after 
 he had appeared, such a claim as could only be satisfied by his 
 bloody expiatory death ? Is not a claim which was originally 
 established only for a certain period of time, extinguished of 
 itself at the expiration of this period, without the necessity of
 
 THE DEA TH OF CHRIST AS AN EXPIA TOR Y SACRIFICE. 103 
 
 any other release ? And this question remains with equal force if 
 we turn from the law to the Divine justice which reveals itself in 
 the law. How is it possible that its claims for the punishment of 
 sin should be unconditional, and valid with regard to Christ, when 
 it was God himself whose sentence had subjected all to sin, with 
 the distinct purpose of showing mercy on all through favour ? 
 (Gal. iii. 22 ; Rom. ii. 32). If the avenging justice were from 
 the beginning ancillary to the will to save, as a subordinate 
 moment, in the same way as the law is an ancillary moment or 
 temporaiy stage in the scheme of salvation, can it (the avenging 
 justice) in that case make so unconditional a claim to satisfac- 
 tion, that without it the will to show favour can in no way be 
 realized ? If this were so, would not that which should only be 
 a moment, be raised into an independent and co-ordinate, if not 
 a predominant, factor? All these questions undeniably bear 
 hard upon the Pauline system, and add to the difficulty of under- 
 standing it. But that only binds us the more, as scientific 
 expositors, impartially to establish this inconsistency in Paul's 
 system and to make its origin intelligible. In fact, the contra- 
 diction to which we have drawn attention, is very simply ex- 
 plained by the genesis of the system, and is a most instructive 
 point, giving us a deep insight into the structure of the dogmatic 
 thought of Paul. 
 
 For thus much is clear if Paul's notion of the law, its insuffi- 
 ciency in a religious point of view, and its merely temporary 
 significance, had been his original view, from which he started 
 and on which his system was founded, then he could by no 
 possibility have conceded that the claims of the law, which he 
 ranked so low, could only be satisfied by the accursed death 
 of the Messiah, as a vicarious expiatory sacrifice ; but the law 
 would have been for him (as it was in the eyes of John) a lower 
 preparatory stage, which disappeared of itself on the manifesta- 
 tion of favour and truth in Christ; and the death of Christ 
 would have had no relation whatever to the extinct claims and
 
 104 REDEMPTION BY THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 
 
 threats of the law. But in fact it is just the reverse in the case 
 of Paul. The law was from first to last to him, as much as to 
 every Jew, the unconditional decree of the Divine will, and its 
 validity was unlimited. Its abrogation by the death of Christ, 
 which opened a new way of salvation, could therefore only take 
 place in such a way that the claims of the law should at the 
 same time be recognized and satisfied, and thus an adjustment 
 or compromise should be established between the new principle 
 of favour and the legal principle of justice, such as we found in 
 the expiatory death of Christ. Proceeding from this point, the 
 abrogation of the law by the expiatory death of Christ being 
 now established, he came upon the further task which awaited 
 him to reconcile this conditional and temporarily limited soli- 
 dity of the law with the unity and unchangeableness of God. 
 We have seen how Paul did this, by deducing from the tempo- 
 rary establishment of the law between promise and fulfilment, 
 the inference that it had also in the Divine intention from 
 the beginning only the character of a conditional intermediate 
 purpose, not that of an absolute final end. Thus Paul, starting 
 from his initial hypothesis of the indestructible validity of the 
 law, and still influenced by it in his view of the death on the 
 cross as an expiatory sacrifice, was ultimately driven, by the 
 logical consequences of the doctrine of the cross itself, to a 
 conclusion regarding the law which completely destroyed his 
 hypothesis. This striking discord between the . conclusion 
 reached through manifold dialectic arguments and the original 
 premise (regarding the law), might easily be concealed from the 
 mind of its author the experience of all times furnishes similar 
 examples : on the other hand, it was probably the main reason 
 that the system of Paul could not be taken up by others without 
 undergoing a change, nor be retained in its original sense in the 
 Christian community, and least of all by those who accepted its 
 essential conclusions. Inasmuch as these took their stand at 
 once on the conquest and degradation of the law, to which Paul
 
 TITE LEA TH OF CHRIST AS AN EXPIA TOR Y SACRIFICE. 105 
 
 could only have attained after a violent conflict with the 
 they had no longer any ground for regarding the work of Christ, 
 after Paul's manner, as an escape from the demands of the law, a 
 redemption from the curse of the law, a manifestation of the 
 avenging justice of God, and the like. In their eyes, therefore, 
 the ethical significance of the appearance of Christ, and espe- 
 cially of his death (which significance was not overlooked indeed 
 by Paul, but held a secondary place in his thoughts), must have 
 occupied the foreground and formed the cardinal point of their 
 system and of their preaching. This was the simple and in- 
 evitable consequence of the direction already taken by Paul 
 himself in his new doctrine of the law ; but with Paul the new 
 doctrine of the law, which resulted from his doctrine of redemp- 
 tion, produced no reflex influence on the form of the doctrine of 
 redemption itself, and it is this which has given to the dogmatic 
 teaching of Paul its peculiar character, which combines and 
 blends together the Jewish form and the Christian idea. Paul's 
 doctrine of redemption was thus the way of overcoming the religion 
 of the lay, still put in legal forms, a compromise betiveen grace and 
 the law, in terms derived wholly from the law. 
 
 By this historical mode of considering our subject, we shall 
 arrive at the solution of another question, which has ever been 
 much vexed by dogmatic writers, although it is remarkable that 
 it was never raised by Paul, because it lay quite out of his path, 
 in the psychological genesis of his system, and it is this : How 
 far was the death of the one victim, Jesus, an expiation satisfac- 
 tory to the justice of God for the sin of humanity, or an equiva- 
 lent ransom in place of the death of all? It is commonly thought 
 that the ground of the absolute sufficiency of the death of Christ 
 as an expiation is to be found in 2 Cor. v. 21, where it is stated 
 that it was the death of one who was personally sinless. But 
 certain as it is that personal sinlessness forms the conditio sine 
 qua non of the possibility of vicarious expiation, it is no less 
 certain that it does not follow hence that this could be a suffi- 
 cient ground for the unconditional expiatory value of one death
 
 106 REDEMPTION BY THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 
 
 in the place of all. Om undeserved death is obviously in reality 
 only the equivalent for one deserved death, but not for the death 
 of the countless numbers who have deserved it. Nor does the 
 passage quoted say that it is ; in the words, rov /XT; y vovra. 
 afjapriav, it only states the condition on which alone the expres- 
 sion apapTiav eVofyo-e could have been applicable on which 
 alone, therefore, a vicarious suffering could take place; but it 
 says nothing to show what it was that gave to this its absolute 
 expiating power. In the other passages that have been quoted, 
 it is simply stated that redemption has taken place through 
 Jesus Christ, through the death of the Son of God, that Christ 
 has redeemed us, without a word of explanation to indicate what 
 gave this expiatory value to the death of Christ. That there is 
 no reference in the mention of the " Son of God" to a divine 
 nature, the partaking of which has made this one death sufficient 
 (according to the views of Anselm and Luther), is self- evident, 
 for a divine nature of that kind was utterly alien to Paul's 
 Christology, as we shall presently see. The fact from which we 
 must start rather is, that Paul prefers to speak of the death or 
 cross of Christ, i. e. the Messiah. And this reminds us of the 
 source from which this whole theory has sprung. The death of 
 the Messiah on the cross would in itself be an inconceivable 
 contradiction, if it had not been ordained by God as the means 
 of producing the Messianic righteousness by the expiation of 
 guilt : for this reason, that is for no real reason, but for consis- 
 tency's sake only, it is to be regarded as the absolute means of 
 expiation. We have only to realize in our minds this psycho- 
 logical account of the doctrine of the expiatory death of Christ, 
 in order to understand clearly how it might well happen that 
 the question of the possibility of such a vicarious satisfaction 
 never arrested Paul's attention, any more than that of its 
 necessity. 
 
 Let us now abstract from that which we must regard as the 
 Jewish and legal form of Paul's doctrine of the atonement, and 
 there still remains, as the ideal religious substance of his
 
 THE DEA TH OF CHRIST AS AN EXPIA TOR Y SACRIFICE. 107 
 
 thought, the contemplation of the reconciling love of God, which 
 raises man out of the discordant relation to God in which he 
 finds himself by nature, and places him in the unity of fellow- 
 ship with God in love (Rom. iii. 24, x*/ 31 * 5 v - 8, dycm? TOV Otov 
 
 eis rjp.ais ', 2 Cor. V. 19, 0os 17 v ev X/3i<rTU>, Kooyxov KaraAAacro-wv 
 !auT(p J Rom. viii. 31 f., 6 0os inrep i^/iwv, os ye TOU iSiov vlov OVK 
 (euraTO d\X' inrep TravTCoi/ TrapeSw/cev aurov), and which can Only be 
 
 met on the part of man by a grateful confidence, and believing 
 acceptance of God's willingness to show favour. As it is no less 
 certain that this, which is the core of the Pauline doctrine of 
 reconciliation, contains the fundamental idea of genuine evan- 
 gelical piety, than that its form is derived from genuine Jewish 
 thought, we can easily understand from this antagonism why 
 Christian piety at one time accounts this doctrine a treasure, 
 and at another time finds it a rock of offence. But there is 
 another point which is hereby rendered intelligible. This 
 variance between the Christian idea and the Jewish form places 
 in God himself an opposition between reconciling love and 
 wrath which is irreconcilable because it insists on punishment, 
 an opposition of motives which dogmatic thought has striven in 
 vain to harmonize, because it is in fact only to be explained by 
 its psychological genesis. In such cases the religious imagina- 
 tion has recourse to the simple expedient of separating the 
 opposing motives, and attributing them to different subjects as 
 influenced by them and representing them, and then regarding 
 the reconciliation of them as the action of these opposite 
 characters. And so it has happened here. The love of God, the 
 motive of the work of reconciliation, naturally found its repre- 
 sentative in him who gave himself up in self-sacrifice as a willing 
 organ of its counsel of grace, that is to say, in Christ, the his- 
 torical Mediator of reconciliation. But the wrath, which through 
 its inexorable demand of punishment made a vicarious expia- 
 tion necessary for the work of reconciliation, found its repre- 
 sentative in that form in which the religious consciousness 
 of the Jewish nation had long ago personified the avenging
 
 103 REDEMPTION BY THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 
 
 justice of God, namely, the devil Love and wrath, whose work- 
 ing together in God, like the diagonal of two opposing forces, 
 produced the atonement by means of vicarious expiation, were 
 thus respectively attributed by the religious imagination to 
 Christ and the Devil; and consequently the atonement itself 
 naturally became a dramatic action, struggle, or judicial process, 
 between these two representatives of opposing motives in God. 
 Naively as this idea was at a later period worked out, and 
 widely as it departed from the elementary form given to it by 
 Paul, yet no one who is familiar with the character and processes 
 of religious imagination will see anything else in this than a 
 perfectly natural, nay necessary, development of Paul's doctrine 
 of reconciliation, with its antagonism of love and anger in God, 
 of the Christian and the Jewish idea of God. In the original 
 system of Paul, it is true that this substantiating, in the person 
 of the devil, of that wrath which requires expiation, is not yet 
 completed ; although the personification of the curse of the law, 
 from whose claims the sinful world must " be redeemed," or of 
 the dominion of the law from which we are released, being 
 " accounted righteous through the death of Christ," approaches 
 very closely to this substantiation, and prepares the way for it. 
 But in the earliest form of Pauline doctrine, immediately subse- 
 quent to the time of Paul himself, namely, in the Epistles to the 
 Colossians and Hebrews, we already find the death of Christ 
 brought into relation with the Devil and the Satanic kingdom 
 (Heb. ii. 14; Col. ii. 15; compare Chap. ix. of this work). On the 
 other hand, it was more obvious to envisage the reconciling love of 
 God in him who brought about the reconciliation as a human act of 
 love, and to return it to Him with grateful responsive love. Here, 
 in this kindly element, the doctrine of the atonement has from 
 the first thrown off the hard dogmatic husk, and has become a 
 growing germ of pure and simple piety. This was the case in an 
 extraordinary degree with Paul himself; through all his dog- 
 matic reasoning on the knowledge of the cross of Christ, the 
 dominant mood is grateful love to him who loved him and gave
 
 LIBERATION FROM THE DOMINION OF SIN. 109 
 
 himself for him. And it is the intensity of this simple and 
 morally true feeling which became in Paul the root of a new 
 and most significant mode of regarding the death of Christ. 
 
 THE DEATH OF CHRIST AS LIBEKATION FROM THE DOMINION 
 
 OF SIN. 
 
 This view has not, as would appear from some of the later 
 commentaries, sprung from scholastic reflection on the relation 
 of the death of Christ to the nature of the flesh. The theological 
 idea of the destruction of sin in the death of Christ is, on the 
 contrary, the last dogmatic precipitate from a religious expe- 
 rience, the source of which lies in the simplest characteristic of 
 Christian piety, in the thankful giving up of the heart to the 
 Mediator who has given himself up for us, in the consciousness 
 of the duty of entirely devoting our whole life to him, to whose 
 act of love we owe our higher life of union with God. Gal. ii. 19 f. 
 and 2 Cor. v. 14 f. are the passages which afford us a glimpse of 
 the psychological genesis of this train of thought, of the religious 
 birth-place of that mystical union with Christ, in which Chris- 
 tian piety in the mind of Paul discovered the power of sanctifl- 
 cation, of the new moral life and freedom from the servitude of 
 sin, at the same time with the blessedness of reconciliation. 
 " If one died for all," says this passage in Corinthians, " then are 
 you all dead ; and in truth he died for all, in order that they 
 who live might henceforth not live for themselves, but for him 
 who died for them and has risen. Therefore, if any one is in 
 Christ, then is he a new creature ; the old has passed away ; 
 behold, all has become new." This passage starts unmistakably 
 from that view of the death of Christ which we have hitherto 
 been considering, viz., as a vicarious suffering for us (and it thus 
 agrees with the passage above mentioned, v. 19 21), but it no 
 less plainly goes further, and gives to Christ's dying for us 
 an application which makes it a (moral) dying of all with
 
 110 REDEMPTION BY THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 
 
 Christ. 1 But this turn of thought is brought about simply by the 
 subjective reaction which the objective fact of a death endured 
 for us was calculated to produce in our sense of gratitude ; if we 
 owe our rescued life to Christ who has rescued us by his vica- 
 rious death, then this rescued life can no longer be held by us 
 at our own disposal, but it must belong to him to whom we owe 
 it ; but as such it is no longer the old life, which consisted in 
 our living only for ourselves, but it has become an entirely new 
 life, as belonging to Christ and devoted to him, namely, a life 
 bound up in communion with Christ (4v XpurT$), kept within 
 certain limits by his love, of which he gave proof by deed in 
 dying for us (ver. 14, -fj dydirrj TOV X/ato-rov crwex" ^"s) > accord- 
 ingly, if we compare this new life of obligation to Christ and 
 through him with our former life of selfish freedom from obli- 
 gation, or of obligation to the law, we cannot but come to the 
 conclusion that we who are in possession of the love of Christ 
 are altogether on our side also dead with Christ (as to our former 
 life) ; his death therefore was at the same time our death. Thus 
 
 1 We may certainly call this also a vicarious relation, only in another sense ; 
 thus Baur, N. T. Theol., p. 159, and in Hilgenfeld 1 * Ztschr. f. w. Th. 1859, p. 241 : 
 " It is possible to take the place of another in two different senses ; first, in such a 
 way that he whose place another takes does not do that which another does for him ; 
 secondly, so that he whose place another takes likewise makes that which this other 
 does for him into his own act. We may call the first the real, the second the ideal 
 vicarious act ; in the former, one person stands only externally beside another person ; 
 in the latter, each is not merely beside and outside the other, but each is in a spiritual, 
 inward fashion in the other." And p. 243 : " The idea of this passage (2 Cor. v. 14 f.) 
 is that of a union of Christ with us, brought about by the principle of love, by means 
 of which that which he has done for us is the same thing as if we ourselves had done 
 it ; as he identifies himself with us in his death, and has set himself in our place as 
 dying for us, so must we also think of ourselves as in his place, and regard ourselves as 
 dead with him. This unity as a being in each other, in which one lives in the other, 
 in which we are crucified with Christ because he has been crucified for us, we live in 
 him because he lives in us (Gal. ii. 20), is the true Pauline notion of vicarious action." 
 This latter passage says too much. For the original notion of vicarious action, and 
 that which alone corresponds to the dogmatic theory of expiation, is rather that which 
 Baur in the passage quoted above calls the "real," or which might also have been 
 called the legal notion. But the text we have quoted certainly shows how easy it was_ 
 for this "real" to pass over into the "ideal," the legal into the mystical notion, and 
 how decided from the very beginning was the tendency of PauFt own mind to gravi- 
 tate in the latter direction.
 
 LIBERATION FROM THE DOMINION OF SIN. Ill 
 
 regarded, therefore, the death of Christ is seen to be the common 
 death of all who believe in Christ, by which they cease to exist 
 according to their " old man," and begin the life of a new man. 
 But the Apostle himself tells us in the plainest language whence 
 this view sprang ; it is founded on reflection upon a fact of 
 inward experience the fact, namely, that he whom Christ's love, 
 as shown in deeds, has rescued, has become devoted to Christ, and 
 
 therebya new man (rj d-ydirrj TovX/Dtcrrou <rwex ^A"*?* Kpivavras TOVTO, 
 
 on et efs, &c.). We find precisely the same idea in Gal. ii 19 f. 
 Here also the being crucified with Christ, through which Christ 
 becomes the principle of life in man instead of the old self, is 
 traced back to the inward fact of "belief in the Son of God, who 
 loved me and gave himself for me" an explanatory sentence, 
 which plainly enough describes this belief as precisely that 
 frame of mind which is presupposed in the passage from the 
 Corinthians above referred to, namely, that of grateful obliga- 
 tion and self-devotion. In this passage also, it is the sense of 
 being bound up with Christ in the feeling of a grateful return of 
 his love, which makes the faithful partakers in the death of 
 Christ, or makes this death to be the common death of all 
 
 believers. Gal. Vl. 14, Si ov f/J.ol KOCT/J.OS eoTavptoTcu /caycu T(> Koayzy, 
 
 will be seen to point to the same view, although the emotional 
 process which engendered the idea cannot so directly be traced 
 here as in the two passages last mentioned ; yet even here there 
 is an intimation of it in the word Kavx^a-Oat, which is an expres- 
 sion of joyfully exalted feeling. Gal. v. 24 declares further (ot TOU 
 X/aio-Tou rrjv o-dpKo. eon-au/owo-av), that the mortification of the flesh 
 of the old man is already accomplished in principle in those 
 who belong to Christ's family, and this by the very fact of their 
 having entered that family through faith and baptism: but that 
 the killing of the flesh in a purely objective sense, apart from 
 this subjective act, has been once for all accomplished by the 
 death of Christ, is not only not stated in this passage, but is a 
 notion that is expressly excluded by the use of the active verb, 
 v, according to which the killing of the flesh is referred
 
 112 REDEMPTION BY THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 
 
 to the personal act of each individual in becoming a Christian, 
 and consequently depends again on self-devotion to Christ. 
 
 Thus we see that, according to these earlier letters', the death of 
 Christ effects the putting away of our old man and the begin- 
 ning of a new moral life, in no other way than by the psycho- 
 logical means of our grateful devotion to him who died for us. 
 But the teaching of the Epistle to the Eomans goes further 
 by connecting this effect directly, overlooking the psychological 
 means by which it was attained, with the bodily death of Christ. 
 This, however, is an advance, not so much (as has strangely 
 enough been generally thought in later times) in the dogmatic 
 deepening of the knowledge of the death of Christ, as in the 
 dogmatic formalization, and at the same time externalization, of 
 a fact of religious experience, which is in itself purely inward 
 and of psychological origin. 1 It is probable that the motive for 
 this is to be found in the fact that, considering the immoral con- 
 sequences that might be deduced from the doctrine of favour, 
 the Apostle was most anxious to prove that for Christians to 
 remain in sin was a logical impossibility, by reason of an actual 
 objective breach with sin. With this aim he recurs in Eom. vi. 
 first of all to Christian baptism unto the crucified, in which 
 the believer, by his mystical communion with Christ, had made 
 the death of Christ his own death, so that he himself was also 
 crucified as to his old man. The train of thought connected 
 
 1 By overlooking this, and making a conception like that of Rom. viii. 3, the direct 
 source of Paul's doctrine of salvation (as, e.g., R. Schmidt does in his "Paulin. Cbris- 
 tologie"), the theological dogma is cut off from its roots in the religious consciousness, 
 and nothing remains but a dry scholastic theory ; in which form one cannot conceive 
 how it can ever have produced any impression on the religious mind. Reuss also 
 (Histoire de la Theol. Chret. &c. II. 165 f.) holds the mystic doctrine of redemption 
 based on Rom. vi. viii. for the only one, and rejects that of vicarious atonement in 
 face of the historical facts ; but at any rate he traces back this, which he supposes to 
 be the sole doctrine, to its true source in the mystic faith of Paul. To see in this a 
 " hazy mysticism," which " leaves an utterly unreasoned residuum in the very heart 
 of Paul's view" (R. Schmidt, ut supra, p. 63, note; cf. Weiss, Neut. Theol., p. 205, 
 2nd. ed.), is an utter mistake ; so much so that the truth is rather the very opposite ; 
 it is just the would-be scientific attempt to ignore the mystic faith of Paul, in which 
 the dogmas most peculiarly his own all have their root, that makes these dogmas an 
 " utterly unreasoned " and utterly unreasonable scholasticism.
 
 LIBERATION FROM THE DOMINION OF SIN. 113 
 
 with this idea had not yet been worked out in the passages 
 before quoted from the Epistle to the Galatians and the second 
 to the Corinthians. But now the Apostle endeavours to ground 
 this " being dead to sin," given for the believer as an ethical 
 fact in baptism, upon a deeper, and as it were a still more objec- 
 tive fact ; thus that which in the baptism to the death of Christ 
 (therefore generally in the union with Christ through faith) was 
 accomplished in the individual as a spiritual fact, namely, the 
 dying to sin, or the death of the old man of sin, now comes to 
 be represented as a fact accomplished externally, and to the 
 senses, in that very death of Christ : the purely sensuous fact of 
 the violent putting to death of the fleshly body of Christ becomes 
 in his eyes not only a symbol, but an essentially homogeneous 
 type and beginning of the putting to death of the old man in 
 
 US : o yap aTTfdave, rrj dyua/DTi^i aTTfOavtv e<a7ra OUTCO Kai tyxets 
 Aoyiecr$ eavrovs VCK/OOUS //.ev ry a[j.apTiy. a)i/Tas Se, &C. (ver. 10 f.). 
 
 We must not fail to note here that the relation of these two 
 sentences in the logical argument, as they were used by the 
 Apostle for his hortatory purpose, proves absolutely nothing as 
 to the succession of these thoughts in their psychological genesis ; 
 in the latter, their relation to each other is precisely reversed ; 
 just as they who have been baptized unto Christ have to regard 
 themselves as dead to sin, just so, and for that same reason, we 
 have to regard Christ as one who himself also died to sin in his 
 own (bodily) death : proceeding from the former thought, which 
 was given as the immediate principle of Christian consciousness, 
 the Apostle was led on to the latter conception simply by that 
 habit of thought which connects a spiritual principle with a 
 fact of sense, and envisages it as immediately given in that fact ; 
 only on the ground that the principle is made one with the 
 external fact, is it possible and necessary that the practical 
 consequence included in the principle be deduced as a moral 
 demand from the fact (OUTW KCU fyms Xoyifra-Qt, &c.). 
 
 This conception of the death of Christ can only be under- 
 stood by means of this its psychological Genesis ; in itself it is 
 
 I
 
 114 REDEMPTION BY TEE DEATH OF CHRIST. 
 
 anything but simple, and presents the greatest difficulties ; for, 
 if one thinks of it, there is but very little, if any, real homo- 
 geneity between the physical extinction of the bodily life of 
 Christ on the cross and the ethical annihilation of the old man in 
 devotion to Christ. An allegorical analogy is the utmost that 
 is suggested here, according to our mode of thought ; but this is 
 by no means all that the Apostle means ; he affirms a thoroughly 
 real parity between the two proceedings, and so in particular a 
 perfectly real dying of Christ to sin that is to say, ceasing from 
 all relation to it ; for the whole force of his argument depends 
 entirely on this parity, and accordingly he makes the dying of 
 Christ to sin to be directly and inseparably connected with his 
 actual death. 1 But now how can it be said of Christ, the sinless 
 (2 Cor. v. 21), that he has really died to sin, ceased through his 
 dying to have any relation to it ? For does not this suppose 
 that he previously stood in relation to it, partook of it, in the 
 same way as we partake of it according to our old man ? Here, 
 however, the Pauline notion of the o-apg intervenes as a medium 
 through which alone the comparison of the death of Christ with 
 the death of the old man in the Christian becomes possible in 
 thought. In the passage we are considering it is true that this 
 notion is still in the background, from which fact it may be con- 
 cluded that this doctrine of the death of Christ has not grown 
 out of the doctrine of the o-dpg ; but it comes into prominence 
 in chap, viii., where the whole argument, which commences in 
 chap, vi., is now brought to a pregnant dogmatic conclusion. 
 
 The Apostle had in the previous chapter described how in the 
 natural man the law, in spite of its holiness, and in spite of the 
 consent of the ego itself, was impotent, could not guard against 
 concupiscence, nay, could only increase it, on account of the 
 
 1 Consequently Meyer's interpretation, " that Christ died to the power of sin, so 
 that he had henceforth no more to suffer from it (namely, human sin)," is quite op- 
 posed to the context, for it entirely does away with the comparison between airotiavtiv 
 -g a/Mtpri'a in the case of Christ and in that of Christians. The translation given by 
 Schmid (Neutest. Tlieol., 80), "for our sin" (dativus incommodi), is of course gram- 
 matically inadmissible.
 
 LIBERATION FROM THE DOMINION OF SIN. 115 
 
 greater power of sin which dwelt in the flesh. This state of 
 inward conflict had forced from him the despairing question, 
 " Wretched man that I am, who will deliver me from this body 
 of death ?" The Christian answer to this is contained in viii. 3, 
 " That which was impossible to the law, because it was weakened by 
 the flesh, tJiat has God done, after He had sent his Son in the form 
 of sinful flesh (in a shape or form of existence taken from the 
 element of sinful flesh and belonging to it), and for sin He con- 
 demned sin in the flesh." KarlKpive, if we look at the immediate 
 context and at chap, vii., with which this passage is also con- 
 nected, can have no other meaning than the above ; it cannot 
 mean, " He set forth sin as deserving damnation," for the law 
 has in truth already done this sufficiently ; neither can it mean, 
 " He cancelled sin by the atonement," for that could never be 
 regarded as the intention of the law ; it was not for the accom- 
 plishment of this that the law was too weak through the flesh, 
 but it was too weak to break the power of sin, to destroy its 
 dominion over man. This, therefore, the doing away with the 
 power of sin, was that which God did in Christ; but how ? The 
 expression /careKpive (referring back to Karax/n^a, ver. 1) prima- 
 rily indicates a judicial act ; accordingly the destruction of the 
 power of sin must be regarded as an " actual sentence of con- 
 demnation " or judicial execution; sin was "condemned " in the 
 flesh. Now in what other way can this " condemnation of sin 
 in the flesh," accomplished by God in Christ, have taken effect 
 than through the bloody death of Jesus ? 
 
 The other favourite interpretation is, that God deprived sin of 
 its ruling power by sending his Son in the flesh that is to say, 
 by means of the whole sinless existence of Jesus on the earth, 
 inasmuch as he (morally) overcame sin in the course of his life 
 in the flesh. 1 But this interpretation comes into collision, in the 
 first place, with KareKptve, which implies a destruction by a single 
 judicial act, not a moral overcoming, extending through a whole 
 
 1 So Weiss, ut supra, p. 308; Ritschl, Altkath. Kirche, p. 85; Jtcuss, Histoire, 
 &c., II. p. 80 f. ; Meyer, in his commentary on this passage. 
 
 I 2
 
 116 REDEMPTION BY THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 
 
 life ; and besides, God would not properly be the subject of this 
 predicate in the latter sense, but Christ. 1 But, in the second 
 place, this interpretation contradicts the view which the Apostle 
 consistently maintains through every other part of his writ- 
 ings ; for he never grounds the work of salvation on the life of 
 Jesus, but always on his death (compare the beginning of this 
 chapter). Finally, it does not accord with the expression h rtf 
 o-apKi, to which, as every one must admit, the same meaning 
 must be given as to the o-dp, which twice precedes it in the 
 same verse. Now it is proposed to translate the word in each of 
 these instances by the general notion, " human nature." But the 
 word <rdpg nowhere has this meaning at all (see Chap, i.), and 
 here especially it is plainly shown in the two former instances 
 to mean the principle of sin in man, both by the expressly added 
 explanation, o-dpg dpapTias, and by the assertion that the o-dp 
 makes the law impotent. It would be a most unwarrantable 
 caprice, therefore, to substitute, when the word occurs for the 
 third time, the indefinite notion of human nature. If, then, for 
 all these reasons, that sense is inadmissible, our interpretation is 
 established namely, that God has condemned sin in the flesh 
 by the death, and not by the life, of Christ ; that is to say, in 
 the sense that by putting to a bloody death the body of Jesus, which 
 consisted of flesh, sin, which had its abode in the flesh, was put to 
 death with it? But it could only be killed with the body, if it 
 were actually within it; therefore the o-dpg of Jesus, in order 
 that it might be killed as the principle of sin, or that sin might 
 
 1 The combination, "God has condemned sin to subjugation through Christ" 
 (Weiss), is quite arbitrarily introduced, and is inconsistent with the emphatic position 
 of 6 Owe, which makes it plain that a direct causal act of God for the destruction of 
 the power of sin is intended. 
 
 s Up to this point we are in accord with Usteri, Baur, R. Schmidt. The inference 
 that inevitably follows, as it appears to me, from these premises, was first drawn by 
 ffolsten (p. 436), who is followed by Overbeck, Hausrath, Liidemann, and others ; 
 on the other hand, Baur has suggested, but left unanswered, the question, "How this 
 right of afiapria over the <rap can be done away with in the erap of Christ, if the 
 adpK of Christ were not itself a oap aftapTiagT' a question to the solution of which 
 R. Schmidt's attempt (p. 100 f.) appears to me to contribute nothing.
 
 LIBERATION FROM THE DOMINION OF SIN. 117 
 
 be killed in it, must in truth have been the same principle of sin 
 as the o-a.p in general from its very nature is, and must really 
 have had the same sin dwelling in it. We shall see from the 
 exposition of Pauline Christology in the next chapter, that this 
 is really implied by the passage, " God sent his Son in the form 
 of sinful flesh." At present we shall only add, that the force and 
 meaning of the whole of the context of this passage is destroyed 
 if this interpretation be rejected. The question was, How can we 
 wretched men obtain deliverance from this body of death, this 
 body in whose members sin, which causes death, dwells, because 
 its substance is that of sinful flesh? The answer is, God has 
 already executed judgment on sin in the flesh of his Son, whom 
 He has sent for that very purpose in the form of sinful flesh. 
 Now, if our deliverance from sinful flesh is to be completed, it is 
 here manifestly presupposed that that which has had judgment 
 executed upon it in the death of Christ was identical with that 
 from which we are to be delivered; consequently that it was 
 precisely the general human substance of flesh, with the quality 
 of sinfulness which is inseparably attached to it, that was de- 
 stroyed by the death of Christ. The idea that that death was in 
 itself, and directly, the destruction of the principle of sin for all, 
 depends entirely upon the identity of the a-dpg which was made 
 into the body of Christ with our own an idea certainly in which 
 great difficulty is involved, since the destruction of the flesh in 
 the person of Christ has quite a different meaning from its de- 
 struction in Christians : in the former case, it is the flesh as the 
 natural material of the body; in the latter, the flesh as the moral 
 principle of sin; and thus the subject is the same in both cases, 
 but it is regarded from two widely different points of view. In 
 reality, then, this intermediate idea of the <rdpg only gives 
 apparent help towards the removal of this great difficulty, 
 namely, that, as we have already remarked, the bodily death of 
 Christ is in the course of this argument made absolutely iden- 
 tical with the ethical dying of the old man in Christians. We 
 shall, however, find the solution of this difficulty in the psycho-
 
 118 REDEMPTION BY THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 
 
 logical genesis of the dogmatic idea, in that immediate or un- 
 reasoned mystic faith, which feels that in devotion to the 
 crucified " the old has passed away, and all has become new." 
 On this basis of immediate religious emotion the dogmatic 
 difficulties of the theory of expiation, as well as of the destruc- 
 tion of the flesh, are resolved, and, at the same time, these two 
 coalesce into unity; it is one and the same revelation of the 
 love of God in Christ which becomes, to the believer who grate- 
 fully gives himself up to it, at once the peace of reconciliation 
 and the strength of the new life. 
 
 THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 
 
 The resurrection of Christ presents itself to the Apostle's 
 mind, not as a new and special source of salvation, but as the 
 inseparable reverse side to Christ's death. And accordingly he 
 takes it up from different points of view, corresponding to the 
 different modes in which the whole work of salvation may be 
 regarded. 
 
 In the first place, the rising from the dead of the crucified 
 Jesus, as delivered to him. by the tradition of the Christian 
 community and confirmed by his own visions, is the ground of 
 his belief in the death of Jesus as a Messianic death of expia- 
 tion ; the rising from the dead had to his mind the force of a 
 divine announcement that the crucified was the Messiah. This 
 accords so entirely with the nature of the thing, with the course 
 of thought which pervades the apologetic writings of the primi- 
 tive Church, and with Paul's own account of his conversion, that 
 it scarcely needs to be confirmed by the express words of the 
 Apostle. He says (1 Cor. xv. 17), " If Christ be not risen, then 
 is your faith void ; ye are yet in your sins ;" that is to say, the 
 faith that his death serves to redeem us from our sins would in 
 that case be groundless and worthless. Inasmuch as the resur- 
 rection of Christ is, according to this passage, not indeed the
 
 THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 119 
 
 means of redemption, but the ground of the belief in the re- 
 deeming power of the death of Christ, Paul's Christian faith in 
 redemption may be accurately designated as faith in the resur- 
 rection of Christ from the dead (Eom. x. 9); not because this 
 formed the real substance of his believing consciousness this 
 must rather be sought in the religious idea of the doctrine of the 
 atonement but because it formed for him the logical ground 
 of the possibility of believing in the crucified, 1 as from the 
 Jewish point of view is quite natural. The same line of thought 
 serves to explain Eom. iv. 25, "Christ was given over (to death) 
 for our transgressions, and raised again for our justification" i. e. 
 the objective expiation of our transgressions is completed by the 
 death of Christ ; but as this expiatory means can only lead to 
 the justification of individuals through faith (Eom. iii. 25, 
 IXacrrrjpLov Sio. TTJS TrtVrews), and faith can only come into existence 
 on the ground of the resurrection, therefore the resurrection was 
 the necessary means for the justifying work of salvation per- 
 formed by the expiation through his death, and was consequently 
 the intermediate cause of subjective justification, while his death 
 was the direct cause of the objective cancelling of sins. Accord- 
 ingly we have here also, not two co-ordinate causes of salvation, 
 each with its separate effect, but one and the same effect of 
 salvation, which has in the death of Christ its real cause, and in 
 his resurrection the logical ground of the possibility of its sub- 
 jective appropriation by faith. 3 
 
 1 This distinction ought to be borne in mind in deciding the question of the perma- 
 nent dogmatic significance of belief in the resurrection, more than it usually is by 
 apologetic writers of the present day, who represent the inseparability of belief in the 
 resurrection from belief in Christ self-evident as this is from the Jewish point of 
 view as an unconditional and permanent postulate of Christian faith. This is a very 
 superficial and short-sighted way of dealing with the question, and one which ends in 
 very serious injury to their own position. It is one of the most painful signs of the 
 times, that in such matters simple as they really are a calm and clear insight is 
 rendered impossible by the prejudices of ecclesiastical party spirit. A great part of 
 the blame is undoubtedly due to clerical journals like the "Neue Evangelische," which 
 immediately drag every question of objective science into the arena of their ecclesias- 
 tical party warfare, to the discredit alike of science and of the Church. 
 
 3 This explanation is supported by most of the commentators. The other, which 
 refers Sucaiuoic to sanctification (according to Catholic commentators, and recently
 
 120 REDEMPTION BY THE DEATH OF CHRIST. 
 
 Still Paul regards the resurrection of Christ, not merely as this 
 indirect means of becoming a believer, and therefore of the sub- 
 jective appropriation of salvation, but also as a direct element of 
 the work of salvation itself, namely, as the exaltation of the 
 crucified as the Lord of the Christian community. Phil. ii. 9, 
 "For this (i. e. as a reward for his obedience unto death) lias God 
 also exalted him, and given him a name that is above every name, 
 that at the name of Jesus every knee should tend, of those who are 
 of heaven, and those who are of earth, and those wlw are under the 
 earth, and every tongue shoidd confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to 
 the honour of God the Father" But this exaltation simply coin- 
 cides in the mind of the Apostle with the raising from the dead, 
 as he never mentions the ascension, but rather understands the 
 Lordship of Christ always as the immediate consequence of his 
 resurrection. Thus Eom. xiv. 9, " Therefore has Christ died and 
 risen again, and become alive, that he might be Lord both of the 
 dead and of the living." To the two-fold state of abasement and 
 exaltation correspond the two classes of his subjects, the dead 
 and the living : and as the latter are again divided into earthly 
 and heavenly, the triple realm of Christ's dominion comes out 
 more clearly as described in the passage quoted above from the 
 Philippians, which is so far from going beyond the sphere of 
 Paul's ideas, that it only expresses more accurately the sense of 
 Eom. xiv. 9. Now as we saw above that the dying of Christ for 
 all transformed itself in the Apostle's mind into a dying of all 
 with and in Christ, in the same way and in connection with this 
 idea the resurrection of Christ as Lord over all becomes a rising 
 of all with and in Christ, their life for him or in his service 
 becomes a life in mystical communion with him or in his spirit. 
 As Christ at his resurrection passed over into a new state of 
 existence as contrasted with his life on earth that of pure spirit 
 so a new life begins for the believer with his entrance into the 
 
 again R. Schmidt, ut supra, p. 74, "Entrance upon a new state of life no longer con- 
 ditioned by the flesh"), is inconsistent with Paul's use of the word Ci/catWtf, which in 
 Rom. iv., if anywhere, means imputed justification, and nothing else.
 
 THE RESURRECTION OF CHRIST. 121 
 
 possession of Christ at baptism ; he becomes a new creature who 
 has the same spirit which forms the life of the exalted Christ, 
 as the determining principle of his life; he therefore obtains a 
 personal share in the life of Christ risen, which thus becomes 
 the common life of the Christian community, which is the 
 mystical body of Christ. Thus the resurrection of Christ has no 
 longer for the religious intelligence the significance of a merely 
 single external and individual event, but becomes the beginning 
 of a continuous creative process in the community, and of the 
 working of that life-giving principle which the community has 
 in common with Christ, the Trvefyxa fao-n-oLovv. From this point of 
 view it is no longer a question of the mere holding of the truth 
 of an external fact as a miraculous exertion of the power of God, 
 
 but of the pl^actical -yvwvat T?)V 8vva.fj.iv T^S avcurracrews CLVTOV, 
 Phil. iii. 10 ; of the (rvveyepOfjvai Sia, rijs Trio-reus, Col. ii. 12 ; of 
 the o-v[j,<f>vTov' yevecrdat TW o/ioiw/mri -rrjs avacrTacrews, Eom. vi. 5 ; 
 in short, of the Teal o~vrjv aura), ^wvras rip $ea> ev X/Dicrry ITJCTOU, 
 
 ib. vers. 8, 11. The details of this subject belong to the doctrine of 
 the Trvevfia, chap. v. : we will only observe here in general terms 
 how completely the exalted Christ coincides in the religious con- 
 sciousness of the Apostle with the Trvevpa Xpurrov sent by God ; 
 for the only function which he ascribes to the latter during the 
 whole interval until the coming again of Christ, intercession ivith 
 tJie Father for the faithful (Rom. viii. 34), is ascribed in the same 
 Epistle (ver. 26), and in precisely similar terms, to the Holy 
 Spirit; but neither the sending of the Spirit nor the organization 
 of the community by the distribution of offices and gifts is ever 
 referred by Paul to the exalted Christ, but only to God himself 
 (it is otherwise with the later author of the Epistle to the 
 Ephesians). 
 
 Finally, the Apostle constantly brings the resurrection of Christ 
 into the closest connection with that of Christians; partly in the 
 sense that the certain warrant of our hope, or the ground which 
 religion supplies for our belief in our own resurrection, lies in 
 the raising of Christ, as an effect of the Divine favour which
 
 122 REDEMPTION BY THE DEATH OF CHEIST. 
 
 sealed the work of redemption ; but partly also in the sense that 
 we have the spirit of Christ's life, and therewith the real opera- 
 tive principle of our own resurrection, dwelling in us through 
 the mystical communion with the risen Christ. As a matter of 
 history external to us, the resurrection of Christ is the ground of 
 faith: through the communion of faith with him who has risen, 
 it is the real ground of our own resurrection, or of the completion 
 of the work of salvation, of our eternal life. But these two points 
 of view so completely interpenetrate each other, that they cannot 
 "be sharply separated : compare Eom. viii. 11, vi. 8 ; 1 Cor. xv. 
 1322; 2 Cor. iv. 1014 The further discussion of this 
 subject will be resumed in the chapter on the completion of the 
 work of salvation.
 
 CHAPTEE III. 
 
 THE PEESON OP JESUS CHEIST. 
 
 IT is now becoming generally acknowledged that the teaching 
 of Paul regarding Christ is not founded on a historical know- 
 ledge of the details of the life of Jesus. This is proved in part 
 indirectly by the silence of the Apostle in cases where the recol- 
 lection of the life of the historical Jesus would most naturally 
 have been suggested by the context ; partly by his direct decla- 
 rations regarding the nature and the origin of his idea of Christ. 
 "With respect to the first, the way in which the Apostle im- 
 presses on his readers the self-sacrificing love of their neighbour 
 by the example of Christ is significant : of the many instances 
 which might have been drawn from the public ministrations 
 of Jesus to enforce this, not one occurs to him, but he calls to 
 mind either Christ's having suffered death, in general terms 
 (2 Cor. v. 14), or, when he would exhibit it in greater detail, he 
 refers not to historical circumstances, but to a passage of the 
 Psalms, which he interprets as a typical foreshowing of the 
 fate of the Christians and of Christ (Rom. xv. 3) ; or, finally, he 
 takes as the example of self-sacrificing love the act of becoming 
 man, in which he who existed before the worlds " became poor for 
 your sakes," or " emptied himself," tavrov eKfvoxre (2 Cor. viii. 9 ; 
 Phil. ii. 7). It is more than probable that one who had so far 
 to seek for an example of self-sacrificing love, had no precise 
 information regarding the circumstances of the historical life of 
 Jesus which lay much nearer to hand.
 
 124 THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 This view is confirmed by the direct declarations of the Apos- 
 tle. When he says in Gal. i. 11 f., that he had received his 
 gospel, not from man, but by revelation from Jesus Christ, his 
 meaning is primarily, that the peculiar way in which he under- 
 stood and proclaimed the message of Christ did not depend upon 
 the authority of man, but on the direct authority of God. Now 
 although this does not directly exclude the possibility of any infor- 
 mation regarding the historical Jesus conveyed in the way of 
 ordinary experience, yet it certainly implies so much as this, that 
 whatever information of that kind might have reached him was 
 not of essential import for his religious intuition of the person- 
 ality of Christ. For in this case alone could he so distinctly 
 aver that the authority of the community, highly regarded as 
 it was, had contributed nothing to that perception of evan- 
 gelical truth which he derived from a revelation of God (ii. 6). 
 And when he writes to the Corinthians that he determined to 
 know nothing among them but Jesus Christ " and him as the cru- 
 cified" (1 Cor. ii. 2), does he not plainly say, that for his dogmatic 
 teaching concerning Christ, the one fact of the death of Jesus 
 on the cross, apart from all the other circumstances of his his- 
 torical appearance and life on earth, was all that he regarded ? 
 But this dogmatic indifference to the historical life of Jesus 
 really presupposes a lack of historical knowledge of that life, and 
 was only possible at all on this ground. An attempt has cer- 
 tainly been made to prove the contrary from 2 Cor. v. 16 ; but 
 it happens that this passage, in the first place, affirms once more 
 that Paul had acquired his present Christian perception of Christ 
 quite independently of any previous knowledge whatever of the 
 historical Jesus; so far, therefore, it is at all events a confir- 
 mation of the essential point with which we are here concerned, 
 namely, that the dogmatic teaching of Paul regarding Christ did 
 not depend on historical knowledge of Jesus. But, further, it 
 could hardly be inferred from this passage that he ever had 
 such knowledge at all, for the abstract hypothetical sentence, 
 v, &c., by no means necessarily refers in the con-
 
 THE SON OF DAVID AND TEE SON OF GOD. 125 
 
 crete to Paul himself, but in all probability (for more details on 
 this point, see below, Chap, viii.) only to his opponents. We 
 have no reason, then, beforehand to expect in the teaching of 
 Paul as to Christ anything else than &,free Christian speculation 
 regarding the contents of the Christian consciousness, which ex- 
 presses the essence of the Christian principle of salvation in the 
 form of declarations regarding the person of Jesus. 
 
 THE SON OF DAVID AND THE SON OP GOD. 
 
 The ideas which form the groundwork of Paul's Christology 
 are indicated by the pregnant sentences with which he opens 
 the exposition of his doctrine in the Epistle to the Eomans, i. 3 f. 
 He designates as the substance of the gospel of God which had 
 been announced beforehand by the prophets in the Holy Scrip- 
 tures, " his (God's) Son, who (on the one hand) was born of the 
 seed of David as regards his flesh, and who (on the other hand) 
 was destined (or instituted) to be the Son of Gfod with power as 
 regards the spirit of holiness, after his resurrection from the dead 
 (then putting both these sides together), Jesus Christ, our Lord." 
 Thus much at least is clear in this passage the redeemer, who is 
 the object of the message of salvation, is indicated at first in 
 general terms as the Son of God, who was announced beforehand 
 by the prophets in the Holy Scriptures, i.e. as the Messiah. His 
 readers could have understood the idea here conveyed to them 
 (before further details were added) in no other sense, and in 
 this sense they were also meant to understand it; for in the 
 mind of Paul himself the saving power of the name of Jesus the 
 crucified was simply contained in his Messiahship (attested by 
 his rising from the dead). But, taken in this sense, the idea had 
 many meanings, and was to a certain extent indefinite ; for the 
 word "Messiah" indicates primarily nothing more than a mission, 
 vocation, and dignity in the Divine economy of salvation, with- 
 out any statement as to the nature of the personality, or the 
 function of its distinctive dignity. For this reason the general
 
 126 THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 description at first put forth required a more particular specifi- 
 cation, which, together with the statement of the essential pecu- 
 liarity of the person, should at the same time contain the ground 
 of his mission as Messiah, and should thus add the material 
 characteristics to that indefinite and formal title. Now the 
 Apostle states this more precise definition in a very skilful 
 manner, giving to the general notion put forth in a formal sense 
 a two-fold foundation and a two-fold meaning ; one is, that side 
 of the Messiah's personality which was in the eyes of the Jewish 
 Christians the essential, but in the eyes of Paul the subordinate 
 side ; the other is, that which to the Jewish Christians was an 
 accident, but to Paul the substance. On the one hand, Jesus was 
 the promised son of David; this Judaistic material definition of 
 the divine sonship of Jesus is not denied by Paul, but put 
 forth as held in common by him with his Judaistic readers : but 
 that which was in the eyes of the latter the whole, or at least 
 the essential part, of that idea, is to Paul only one element in it, 
 and in fact only the external and unessential element KO.TO. 
 o-dpKa. It is only in the flesh, only in its physical external 
 aspect, that the person of Jesus has that advantage of the sonship 
 of David which is regarded by the Judaizers as the chief thing ; 
 which is as good as saying that this does not exhaust the 
 Messianic divine sonship. On the contrary, he goes on to say, 
 the true essence of it consists in the spiritual inner side of the 
 personality of the Messiah, in so far as this has as its character- 
 istic the spirit of holiness. The expression, Kara. Trvevpa dyioKrw^s, 
 is purposely chosen ; Kara rrvev/za by itself only forms the oppo- 
 sition to Kara trap/cot as (anthropologically) indicating the 
 immaterial inner side of the personality, opposed to the material 
 outward side of the body ; but the addition of the qualitative 
 genitive dywixrw^s shows that the spiritual inner side of this per- 
 sonality has a spiritual nature specifically distinct from ordi- 
 nary human nature, namely, a holy nature, in no degree influenced 
 by the sinful principle of the flesh, and that it is just this that 
 forms the essential ground of the divine sonship. If we con-
 
 THE SON OF DAVID AND THE SON OF GOD. 127 
 
 sider this carefully, we shall find that it involves a quite essential 
 difference between the definition of Paul and that of the Jewish 
 Christians. According to the latter, the anointing with the Holy 
 Spirit was communicated to the son of David by baptism (for 
 the supernatural begetting was not suggested till after the time 
 of Paul), and as a specific endowment of his Messianic office 
 with divine strength, according to the analogy of institution to 
 the prophetic office, by which the personality, which was in 
 itself purely human, was gifted with strength for its divine 
 functions. According to Paul, on the contrary, the spirit of 
 holiness is that which originally constitutes the person of the 
 Messiah (not something which afterwards comes to it from 
 without), the principle which forms the person, consequently 
 the very essence of the personality of the Messiah, and not a mere 
 accident of it. Only thus is it possible, even according to the 
 presuppositions of the Pauline anthropology, that the personality 
 of the Messiah should be really sinless, i.e. only if from the 
 very first it not merely possessed a spiritual capacity (vo(5s), 
 which is powerless in presence of the fleshly substance, but was 
 in its own substance spirit of God's spirit, holy spirit ; but if 
 it were this from the very beginning, then a difference is at 
 once expressed between this and every ordinary human person, 
 which extends beyond the realm of ethics into that of meta- 
 physics. The commencement of the essential spiritual being 
 of this person presupposes an existence of this spiritual essence 
 before that commencement, a pre-existence of the spirit which 
 constitutes the person. Although this presupposition, which is 
 proved by other passages, is not expressly dwelt on in the 
 passage we are considering, because its point of view is taken 
 from the historical Christ (with reference to his exaltation), yet 
 it is so far from being excluded by the statements here made, 
 that it rather forms the background which completes and explains 
 the whole passage; though of course what the writer is here 
 directly concerned with is what followed rather than what pre- 
 ceded the life of Christ on earth.
 
 128 THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 The divine sonship attaches to the earthly person of the 
 Redeemer in its spiritual inner aspect indeed from the very 
 beginning, inasmuch as it has the spirit of holiness as its con- 
 stituting principle, but not yet in complete actuality, since it 
 does not yet attach to it in its outward aspect as manifested on 
 earth; for being the son of David evidently did not exclude 
 debasement and weakness according to the flesh. It is probably 
 this physical element only in the notion of o-dpg that we have to 
 bear in mind here, since on it alone rests the opposition of the 
 earthly existence to that of Christ risen again eV Swdpei. But 
 such a state of contradiction between the inner and outer is 
 inadequate to the complete notion of the divine sonship, which 
 requires not only an inward holy essence, but also an outward 
 existence ev Swd^ei. The discrepancy is only resolved in the 
 resurrection, in which the holy spiritual essence obtains a corre- 
 sponding heavenly spiritual body, and thus the entire person, 
 inward and outward, spirit and body (now no longer "flesh") 
 begins now to lead a life of pure spirituality, to which the full 
 declaration of his power as " Lord" over all externally corre- 
 sponds. This passage, therefore, does not say of the person of 
 the Redeemer simply that he was the son of God as regards the 
 spirit of holiness, because that notion was not as yet, during his 
 existence in the flesh, completely realized; but it says more 
 accurately that, as regards the spirit of holiness (in virtue of 
 which he was already from the first potentially the son of God) 
 he was instituted (or destined) to be son of God in power from 
 the time of his resurrection from the dead ; that is to say, that what 
 he already was from the beginning in himself, but in inward 
 fashion only, and not in outward manifestation, that he became 
 in the complete actuality of an existence in power, no longer 
 hampered by any weakness of the flesh, from the time of his 
 resurrection, which clothed his pure spiritual inward part with a 
 corresponding body formed of a supernatural substance. Thus the 
 resurrection of the Redeemer was his actual institution into the 
 full possession of the divine sonship, inasmuch as this required not
 
 THE SON OF DAVID AND THE SON OF GOD. 129 
 
 only a holy spiritual existence inwardly, but also outwardly an 
 existence in power and heavenly Lordship ; but that inner side 
 was nevertheless from the beginning the real ground of that 
 divine sonship, which was, as it were, still latent and immanent, 
 until it was externally realized after his resurrection. Accord- 
 ingly we must not weaken the force of the word o/Dio-flevros by 
 supposing that it merely indicates a proof or evidence for the 
 perception and recognition of men; opifav nowhere has this 
 meaning, but it is always an actual making of something, by the 
 intervention of an act of the will, whether the effect of this act 
 takes place at once, or not until some future time : in the former 
 case it is equivalent to instituting, in the latter equivalent to 
 destining to something ; either of these meanings is equally appli- 
 cable in this passage, and both, in fact, result in the same sense ; 
 yet inasmuch as in any case the effect of the act of the Divine 
 will with regard to the person of the Redeemer is connected with 
 the moment of the resurrection, the latter forms the intermediate 
 cause (and not only the logical ground of perception) of the 
 realization of a divine sonship. But we must be equally on our 
 guard against so far exaggerating, on the other hand, the force of 
 opua-OfvTos avacrrao-tws, as to understand by this expression, 
 that the person of Jesus was in no sense, that is to say not even 
 inwardly, during his life on earth, the son of God, and that this 
 idea refers only to the external establishment of the power of 
 Christ when exalted to his heavenly Lordship. If it were so, 
 the passage would certainly stand in glaring and unintelligi- 
 ble contradiction to the clearest passages in other parts of the 
 Apostle's writings, as we shall shortly see, in which the divine 
 sonship indicates a characteristic of the person of Jesus inherent 
 in it from its (pre-existent) origin, and therefore a metaphysical 
 characteristic of its essence, and not merely the establishment 
 of his theocratic power. But this limitation of the meaning of 
 the divine sonship is not only contradicted by these other pas- 
 sages, but also by the words Kara Trvevyza aytwo-vvTjs in the passage 
 before us; for these words plainly declare that the (external) 
 
 K
 
 130 THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 institution of the Redeemer into the full possession of the divine 
 sonship from the time of the resurrection, had its real ground in 
 a principle of divine sonship which already inwardly existed 
 before this time, namely, in the spirit of holiness, which, accord- 
 ing to what has been stated above, we must conceive in no 
 merely ethical sense, but as a spiritual entity, which was actual 
 from the beginning in the sense of pre-existent. The decisive 
 words opurOevros Swa/zei, therefore, can only be rightly under- 
 stood, if each of the more definitive expressions, Kara TTV. ay. and 
 eg avao-rao-cws, be allowed its due force, the former as indicating 
 the inner real ground, the latter as a statement of the external 
 means to the complete realization of the divine sonship ; or, in 
 other words, the one exhibiting the essential and original prin- 
 ciple of the divine sonship, which consituted the pre-existent 
 personality of Christ, the other the beginning in time of its out- 
 ward manifestation. 1 
 
 Since, according to the foregoing view, the Pauline Christ is 
 in his essence spirit, to which essence his existence in the supra- 
 mundane sphere alone completely corresponds, the more precise 
 consideration of this Christology must, in accordance with the 
 Apostle's view, start from the heavenly condition of Christ, on 
 the one hand as the exalted one, and on the other hand as 
 existing before the world, and pass from this to his earthly 
 life. 
 
 1 The explanation of this passage here given is essentially the same as that of 
 Weiss, p. 291 ; R. Schmidt, pp. 119, 157. Baur, p. 189, still adheres to the older 
 rendering of opurOevroc =" proved." Holsten, p. 426, and note on p. 181, thinks 
 that the passage contains essentially the Christology of the Jewish Christians (though 
 with traces of that of Paul), and consequently finds a contradiction between this and 
 the other teaching of Paul, and a concession to the ideas of the Jewish Christian 
 reader. This is, however, a very hazardous supposition, and, as I think has been 
 shown, one that is by no means demanded by the passage. Meyer's exposition here 
 has a dogmatical bias ; he too understands opiaQ'tvroQ t avcterr., contrary to the 
 meaning of the words, as the logical ground of knowledge, instead of the actual insti- 
 tution : lastly, it is an utter mistake to suppose that the Trvevfia ay. is the human 
 irvev^tn as containing the holy Logos which became flesh in him, and that so the "spirit 
 full of holiness " = filled with the holy God or Logos !
 
 CHRIST IN HEAVEN. 131 
 
 CHRIST IN HEAVEN. 
 
 That the Apostle held the true nature of Christ to be not 
 realized until his exaltation by means of the resurrection, is 
 proved especially by the important passage, 1 Cor. xv. 45 f. 
 For there can be no doubt that ver. 45 at least does not refer to 
 the mode of Christ's existence in the world or before the world, 
 but to that condition of the exalted Christ which began with the 
 resurrection. This interpretation is supported above all by the 
 context, for in it the nature of the body which is raised is dis- 
 cussed, and in the very preceding verse the spiritual body of the 
 future life is contrasted with the " natural " (i. e. animated) body 
 of the present earthly life. This qualitative difference between 
 the present and the future body is here referred to their respec- 
 tive authors and originators. Our body in this life is animated 
 by a soul, because it is of the same essence with that of Adam, 
 the father of the race, who was made (at the creation) a living 
 soul only ; but our future body will be a spiritual one, because 
 it will be of the same essence with that of Christ (not of course 
 the earthly Christ, but Christ glorified by the resurrection), who 
 was made a quickening spirit. The word eyevero, which is under- 
 stood in the second clause, must necessarily refer to the point of 
 time at which the genus of the spiritual body, or the body which 
 was raised, came into actual existence, as the eyevero of the first 
 clause relates to the point of time at which the genus of the 
 human animated body came into existence; and as the latter 
 was the creative act of God, by which Adam became a living 
 soul, so the former was God's act of raising from the dead, by 
 which Christ was endowed with a spiritual body, and thereby 
 placed in a position to become for humanity also a life-giving 
 principle, the originator of the heavenly humanity. This render- 
 ing (and no other) explains how it can be said in ver. 46 that the 
 " natural" was the earlier, and the spiritual the later ; both refer 
 to the mode of the existence of the body of men (in this life 
 
 K 2
 
 132 THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 after the manner of Adam, in the future life after the manner of 
 the risen Christ) ; whereas, if the reference were to the being of 
 Christ in itself or in its pre-existence, we should require the 
 contrary statement, that the spiritual (the pattern of humanity) 
 was before the natural (earthly humanity). This qualitative 
 difference between natural and spiritual humanity is, however, 
 referred in ver. 47 to their different origin; the former is earthy 
 (fleshly), because derived from the earth, the latter is spiritual, 
 because derived from heaven. As Adam, and men descended 
 from Adam, could only become living souls because they had 
 their origin in the unspiritual, un-godlike essence of earthy 
 matter, so was the last Adam qualified to become a quickening 
 spirit for humanity because he had his origin in the sphere of 
 the spiritual divine life, in heaven. Here, however, we cannot 
 avoid thinking of the origin of the person of Christ from a 
 heavenly pre-existence ; for as e ovpavov in this verse is given 
 as the ground of the second Adam having become spirit (ex y^s 
 supplying the ground of the first Adam being earthy or natural), 
 so it cannot refer to that condition of the exalted one of which 
 the resurrection was the ground, but must refer to a heavenly 
 condition which preceded the resurrection, and consequently his 
 whole earthly life, therefore to the condition of the heavenly 
 pre-existence. Christ was enabled by his resurrection to become 
 the second Adam, and the originator of a spiritual humanity, 
 because he had always in himself been so, because he did not 
 owe his origin to merely natural humanity, but brought from 
 heaven and put into it the quickening spiritual principle which 
 had hitherto been wanting to it ; in short, because he was essen- 
 tially and originally (and not only from the time of his resurrec- 
 tion) a heavenly man. This shows how exactly this passage 
 agrees with that which was before mentioned (Rom. i. 3 f.), and 
 completes it, inasmuch as here also the realization of the Trvev^a 
 fao-n-oiovv is, on the one hand, connected with the moment in 
 time of the resurrection (e'yevero, ver. 45) ; while, on the other 
 hand, this becoming in time is referred to a being before all time
 
 CHRIST IN HEAVEN. 133 
 
 as its real ground (e ovpavov, ver. 47). l The peculiarity of Paul's 
 Christology consists precisely in the holding together of these 
 two points of view. At the same time, the passage before us 
 shows that it is from the conception of the exalted one that he 
 starts, and that pre-existence is a secondary idea, to which he is 
 led on by the need of finding in a timeless being the ground of 
 the existence in time. 
 
 This is confirmed by Eom. viii. 29 : God predestinated his 
 elect to become <rtyx/i.o/3<oi>s rrj? ei/coi/os TOV vlov avTov, eis TO eivat 
 avrov irpuTOTOKov ev n-oAAois d8eA<o?s. This being conformed to 
 the image of the Son of God, to which Christians are predesti- 
 nated, must be the same as that which is indicated in the next 
 verse by the word 8oaav as the final end of the divine act of 
 favour, that is, the being glorified in the heavenly state of exist- 
 ence ; and similarly, according to ver. 23, the vio0eo-ia which is 
 still to be waited for, will come with the aTroAvr/awo-ts TOV o-w/xaro? 
 r}/nwi/ that is to say, with the putting off of the fleshly and 
 putting on of the heavenly body, or with the resurrection. With 
 this is connected also the divine purpose, that Christ should 
 become " the first-born among many brethren." As Christians 
 attain to the vioOea-ia (in the absolute sense which is not yet 
 realized here) through their resurrection, so they become by this 
 means later-born brothers of the first-born; thus Christ is the 
 first-born Son of God, as having gone before to lead the way for 
 the others in the resurrection from the dead; as d-Trap^r) rwv 
 KfKOLfj.yjfj.evwv, 1 Cor. XV. 20; as TT/DWTOTOKOS K rutv vfKpwv, Col. i. 18. 
 
 1 Compare Weiss, p. 293. His exposition entirely agrees with that which has been 
 given here, with one exception : he conceives the words 6 StvTtpog dvOptiiTrot; t 
 ovpavov to indicate that the second man as to his origin is from heaven, but not also 
 that he had already been there as such. (man). This he considers an arbitrary assump- 
 tion, while it appears to me to be an inevitable inference : on this subject more will 
 be said hereafter. Therefore R. Schmidt (ut supra, p. 116 f.) appears to me to argue 
 more consistently than Weiss when he declares that there is no reference at all in 
 ver. 47 to the origin of the person of Christ from a heavenly pre-existence ; but Weiss 
 agrees with me in showing that this is contradicted by the context. I agree, again, with 
 both these commentators that this passage contains no reference to Philo's doctrine of 
 ideal humanity, which likewise cannot be inferred from my view of ver. 47, but, on 
 the contrary, is quite alien to the entire context of the passage : of this more below.
 
 134 THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 Thus in him also the completion of the vio-njsjs connected with 
 his resurrection, in the same way as for the Christians the com- 
 pletion of their vio0eo-t'a follows upon their resurrection. But, as 
 in the case of the latter, at least the airap^ ^vev/xaros, and indeed 
 Trvf.vii.aTos vlo0rias, is already in them during their earthly life of 
 faith (ver. 23 compared with 15), so also Christ by no means 
 became by his resurrection for the first time vtos Oeov ; he was 
 always so in himself (Kara Trvefyxa ayiwo-wrjs) ; but only by his 
 resurrection did he become the operative principle by which 
 men are converted into children of God, and thus the first-born 
 among many brethren. 
 
 That the exalted Christ is the pattern for Christians to copy, 
 and at the same time the operative principle of their formation 
 after that pattern, is also said in 2 Cor. iii. 18: "We are changed 
 to the same image from (his) glory to (our) glory (since it comes 
 to us from him), as might well be expected from the Lord, who 
 is spirit." The most pregnant expression for this essence of the 
 exalted one, in himself and in his relation to the community, is 
 to be found in ver. 17, 6 KU/JIOS TO Trvevpa eo-riv; his Lordship 
 depends on his being spirit, which is also the very essence of his 
 soiiship. Because he is exalted by his resurrection above all 
 earthly limitation and weakness, and instituted into the pure 
 
 ideal existence Of an dv$/3(07ros Trvev/iariKos or 7rov/3avios, of a vtos 
 
 Ocov 6v Svvdp.ci, so by the same means he has obtained the dignity 
 and dominion of a Kvpios over the Christian community, and 
 under God over the whole creation. Although his Kiyuo-nys 
 extends primarily over the community, whose head he is, yet 
 all other creatures, both those in heaven and those on the earth, 
 and those under the earth, must do him homage (Phil. ii. 10 f.) ; 
 for we know that all things must work together for good to the 
 community of them that love God (Rom. viii. 28), and the hope 
 and the longing of the whole creation is to obtain a part in the 
 freedom of the glorified children of God (ib. ver. 21). 1 Cor. x. 26 
 may also be quoted in support of what has been said, in which 
 passage, although TOV Kvpiov is a translation of the Jehovah of
 
 CHRIST IN HEAVEN. 135 
 
 the Old Testament, yet it is without doubt applied here to 
 Christ. This connection of ideas is exhibited in 1 Cor. iii. 22 f., 
 iravra vp.u>v ecrri, v/^et? Sk X/DrToG, X/aio-ros 8e 6cov. 
 
 But the exalted one is the pattern of tJie community only 
 because he is at the same time, as pure TrveG/ia, the perfect image 
 of God; and he is Lord of the world only inasmuch as he is the 
 perfectly obedient instrument of the Father. As the faithful are 
 changed into the image of Christ by the reflection of his 86a on 
 their TT/JOO-WTTOV (2 Cor. iii. 18), so Christ is ei/cwv rov Oeov because 
 the 8oa rov dcov appears on his irpoa-wirov (iv. 4, 6). Because 
 the brilliant light which is everywhere the manifestation of the 
 TTvevfia, (2 Cor. iii. 8, and above), and forms a special attribute of 
 the majesty of God, belongs to Christ the exalted one, the 
 essence of God himself, so far as it is capable of manifestation, 
 is revealed and made visible in him, and the knowledge of 
 Christ obtained by means of the gospel thus becomes at the 
 same time knowledge of God. But this being the very image of 
 God is so far from being equal to Him, that, on the contrary, 
 Christ's Lordship over the community and the world implies his 
 unconditional subordination to God. As we are Christ's, so 
 Christ is God's (1 Cor. iii. 23) ; as he is head of the community, 
 so God is K<j>a\r) Xpia-rov (xi. 3). By God he is exalted to be 
 Lord, to the honour of God he exercises his Lordship, and into 
 God's hands he gives it back at last (Phil. ii. 9, 11 ; 1 Cor. 
 xv. 24, 28). 
 
 Thus Christ as the exalted is, in the eyes of the Apostle, 
 essentially the Lord who is spirit, spiritual or heavenly man, 
 and as such the pattern of Christian humanity ; at the same 
 time, the very image and Son of God, spirit of his spirit, and 
 light of his light ; finally, Lord and head of the community, in 
 the service of God the Father. But certain as it is that this 
 picture of Christ was originally taken from the conception of 
 the risen and exalted one, it is no less certain that it did not 
 remain thus confined. The picture of the exalted one threw back 
 its rejection, not upon the earthly existence (which was rather,
 
 136 THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 as existence in the flesh, externally the exact opposite to the 
 condition of the exalted one, being a condition of humiliation 
 and weakness), but rather into the blank vacuity of his timeless 
 existence in supra-mundane regions before his appearance in 
 time ; that which ivas brought into being at a certain point of time 
 by the exaltation required, in order to become fixed in the, Christian 
 consciousness as unconditional, certainty and necessity, a deeper 
 foundation in the timeless being of the heavenly world, in pre- 
 existence. There ought never to have been any doubt that this 
 was Paul's teaching, for it is contained, sometimes directly, 
 sometimes indirectly, in various passages of every one of the 
 Epistles. 
 
 When it is said in Eom. viii. 3, Gal. iv. 4, " God sent his Son 
 in the likeness of sinful flesh, born of a woman and placed under 
 the law," the explanatory words indubitably prove that the 
 writer is here speaking, not of the sending of the earthly Jesus 
 in the discharge of his office, but of the sending forth of a being 
 who up to that time had not been an earthly man, but who, in 
 consequence of this sending, took upon him the form of sinful 
 flesh by being born of a woman, and was placed under the law, 
 and who therefore pre-existed up to that time in a state of 
 fleshless or spiritual being, and of lawless or son-like relation to 
 God. What can be meant by these explanations, which would 
 have been quite superfluous if applied to an ordinary man and 
 a Jew, if they do not here refer to a subject regarding whom the 
 statement of them would not be superfluous to a subject, there- 
 fore, who had pre-existed in another form of being before he 
 was born? It is, however, a real subject, a concrete personality, 
 which enters upon these different conditions, and not a mere 
 abstract principle which is only real in the Divine thought, 
 without subsistency of its own. 1 For how could it be said of a 
 
 1 This view is opposed to BeysMag, Christologie des N. T. (p. 243) ; he thinks 
 "the heavenly man as pre-existent could only be a second person by the side of the 
 Father, a personality independent of God the Father, if Paul ascribed to him in his 
 pre-existence all that belongs to a real man, therefore irvtvfia and oap% ( !), and a 
 development of life dependent on both these ; but this would be so absurd a concep-
 
 CHRIST IN HEAVEN. 137 
 
 principle, that it was sent in sinful flesh, and born of a woman, 
 and placed under the law? Was it the principle of spiritual 
 quickening which was made subject to the laws of material 
 being and growth (and if so, of course also to the law of death) ? 
 Or was the principle of divine sonship and of freedom subjected 
 to the restraint and curse of the law ? These are evidently pre- 
 dicates which cannot possibly be affirmed of an ideal principle, 
 but only of an empirical subject who is limited by individuality. 
 The two passages which declare the appearance of Christ on 
 earth to have been his own act and deed, by which he gave up 
 a higher existence which had preceded it, point to the same con- 
 clusion, 2 Cor. viii. 9 and Phil. ii. 6. (Of the latter more will 
 be said hereafter.) The former treats of Christ's work of favour, 
 " That he who was rich, became poor for your sakes, that you might 
 be made rich by his poverty." It is impossible to refer this to the 
 self-denial of the historical Jesus; the aorist eVrwxevo-e alone would 
 show this, for it denotes an act done once for all, the ceasing 
 of the condition indicated by TrAow-ios w v, and cannot refer to 
 
 tion, that no one would ascribe it to the Apostle, even if it were not expressly 
 excluded by the statement that the Son of God took upon him trap? at the time of his 
 earthly birth. Now if Paul conceived the pre-existent to be a heavenly man, and if 
 he could not have conceived the heavenly man to be a real man, then the only alterna- 
 tive is, that he conceived him to be an ideal man." Of course this ideal man must 
 have been a real thought of God, in whom God thought Himself as an alter ego; 
 "only it must be understood that this mental reality by no means yields us an indepen- 
 dent personality over against God (for where is there any basis for its existence for 
 itself independently of God ?), but simply the real principle of one, by the implanting 
 of which in the odp% the real personality first comes into being." So says Beyschlag. 
 That no personal subsistency is possible without matter (ffap) is a very bold philoso- 
 phical thought of the most modern stamp, for the inquiry into the correctness of 
 which this is no place; but how in the world comes a "believing" commentator to 
 make so modern a dictum of philosophy into a canon of his biblical exegesis? And to 
 think of quietly ascribing it to Paul, as if he had never spoken of aai^nra iwovodvia 
 and Trvfi'fjiaTiKa, and of the incompatibility of this very adp with the kingdom of 
 God, of his future !/e;/o";<Tat iic TOV awfiaroc, and even of an earlier momentary tlvai 
 X^ptf TOV ffw/xaroe (xii. 3) ! The fact is, that nothing could be more utterly at 
 variance with Paul's mode of thinking and that of his whole age, than to attribute to 
 . him the notion that personal subsistency depends on fleshly existence. And especially 
 with reference to the Christology, it is precisely that identity of the principle and the 
 concrete person, so confidently denied by Beyschktg, which is the salient point of the 
 dogma of Paul, and of all its further development.
 
 138 THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 a state which continues contemporaneously with TrXovo-ios am 
 This TrAovo-ios, again, is evidently to be taken in the same sense 
 as iva fyieis TT^ovT^arrjTf : now since the latter undoubtedly refers 
 to the heavenly dignity which is to be attained by means of 
 Christ, so also the corresponding expression, tne being rich of 
 Christ, which is opposed to his becoming poor, relates to the 
 possession of the heavenly dignity which he gave up by enter- 
 ing into the form of flesh. This is the only interpretation which 
 makes the passage agree with its context, without doing violence 
 to either ; for it is plain that the Corinthians were not meant to 
 lay to heart the absence of needs to be satisfied, or virtuous 
 poverty, but the duty of self-sacrificing love is to be impressed 
 upon them by the example of Christ, and thus it is not Christ's 
 natural condition of poverty which is to be exhibited here, but a 
 voluntary act of becoming poor, or of offering up a possession 
 which he had before held ; but this can only be understood with 
 reference to the giving up of the pre-mundane dignity. 1 
 
 This passage contains at the same time an indication of the 
 manner in which the Apostle may have represented to himself 
 the condition of Christ in his pre-existence, viz., as a being rich, 
 that is to say in heavenly dignity, in that Soa which is the 
 attribute of Divine Majesty, and the final end to which the elect 
 children of God are destined (Rom. viii. 30). As the exalted 
 Christ, by means of the possession of this 8oa, is said to be etjccw 
 TOV Qeov (2 Cor. iv. 4, 6), so it is perfectly intelligible that the 
 pre-existent Christ also, with reference to this form of appear- 
 ance in the image of God, is described as Iv t*.op(f>rj Oeov virapx^v 
 (Phil. ii. 6). This by no means implies that he himself was 
 also God (0<ros 6 Xdyos) ; on the contrary, the Pauline notion 
 of being in the image of God, as we have already seen, dis- 
 tinctly includes within itself that of being the pattern of hu- 
 
 1 Kostlln takes a different view, Johann. Lehrbegr., p. 310 ; he translates, "though 
 he was rich (in spiritual treasures), he became (at the same time materially) poor." 
 The right view will be found in Rdbiger, de Christol. Paulina, p. 38 f. Weiss, 
 Neutest. Theol., p. 296; R. Schmidt, Paulin. Christol., p. 144; and Meyer's Com- 
 mentary.
 
 CHRIST IN HEAVEN. 139 
 
 inanity. 1 Paul certainly sees the actual pattern of Christians 
 rather in the exalted than in the mundane or the pre-mundane 
 Christ, but only for this reason, that for him the pattern is not 
 a mere passive ideal, but an operative principle, a pattern which 
 forms the copy of itself, and Christ became such for the Chris- 
 tian community for the first time at his exaltation (see above). 
 But as certainly as he who became at his resurrection the 
 "first-born" among the sons of God, was yet for that very 
 reason in himself from the beginning the son of God, and as 
 such was sent here from heaven (Gal. iv. 4, comp. Rom. viii. 29), so 
 certainly may he who at his resurrection became a " heavenly 
 man" and the pattern of heavenly humanity, for that reason 
 also have been in himself from the beginning a heavenly man, 
 and as such have come here from heaven. And this is exactly 
 what the Apostle says in the plain words, o Seirnr/oos avfywTros 
 ' ovpavov, 1 Cor. xv. 47. For it has already been shown that 
 these words must be referred to the heavenly origin of the 
 person of Christ ; but if this be the case, then we cannot without 
 violence reject the idea that this human person who had his 
 origin from heaven, had also pre-existed in heaven as man, that 
 is to say, as " spiritual man" as the same subject, and in the 
 same form of existence, as that in which he continues to live 
 again in heaven as the exalted one; so that the' pre-existent 
 may be indicated by the same name as the post-existent o Sevrtpos 
 avOpwiros, 6 Kvpios 'I^croGs Xpio-ros (1 Cor. viii. 6). The attempt to 
 avoid this by supposing that Christ is only called the second 
 man from heaven inasmuch as in coming down from heaven he 
 took upon him human nature as an additional element to the 
 
 1 Compare Phil. iii. 20 f. " Christ will change our body of humiliation into one 
 made like to the body of his glory." What else can we understand by this aiopa rtjc 
 Joi}C aiirov than that very fiopfa) Oeov in which the exalted one as well as the pre- 
 existent was clothed ? But in that case this ^op<j>i) Oeov also contains nothing which 
 lies outside of the notion of the IIK<I>V TOV vlov 9tov, Rom. viii . 29, or that of the 
 StvTcpof dvOpwnos % oi'pavov, whose image we shall all one day bear (1 Cor. xv. 
 4749).
 
 140 THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 divine nature which he had before, is evidently unsatisfactory; 1 
 for in that case the subject "man" would not be that which 
 came from heaven, but only that which came from the earth 
 and was united to that which came from heaven ; the difference 
 between that which derived its origin 4/c yjjs and that which 
 came ovpavov, would in that case relate not to the first and 
 second man, but to man on the one hand (to Adam as well as 
 to the humanity of Christ), and on the other hand to God ; but 
 this would give to the whole passage an entirely different mean- 
 ing from the only one which the words of this verse and the whole 
 context admit of. We abide, then, by the conclusion that Paul 
 conceived Christ as a spiritual man not less in his pre-existence 
 than in his post-existence. And the way in which he came 
 so to conceive him becomes quite plain to us if we look at the 
 source whence the whole idea of the pre-existence is derived ; 
 it is the reflection back into the past of the mental image under 
 which the exalted and glorified Christ was presented to the 
 imagination of Paul and the whole Christian community as now 
 living in heaven. 
 
 The explanation of these doctrines, then, does not require us 
 to drag in fragments of Jewish and Alexandrine philosophy, such 
 as that of the "heavenly ideal man" or "Adam Cadmon." If it 
 cannot be denied that this idea has a certain relation or simi- 
 larity to that of the Pauline doctrine regarding Christ, it can as 
 
 1 Rabiger appears to understand the passage in this sense, ut supra, p. 34 f. The 
 whole of his argument, not only here, but throughout what is in parts a very careful 
 and instructive investigation of Pauline Christology, is infected by the fundamental 
 error of applying categories which are wholly alien to the dogmatic thought of Paul. 
 Where does Paul speak of " divine nature," or " human nature " ? He speaks of 
 spirit and of flesh, of the son of God, the image and form of God, of the form of the 
 flesh and of man, of the first and second Adam, the earthy man that is of the earth, 
 and the heavenly man that is of heaven ; but of all these conceptions, which are quite 
 consistent with each other, not one coincides with the later categories of " divine and 
 human nature." This argument holds good also against Grimm, who finds the divine 
 nature of the pre-existent taught in Phil. ii. 6 11 (Z. f. v. Th., 1873, p. 51), 
 because 0og and aj/0pouroe form a direct opposition. But the opposition is rather 
 formed by /lop^/y 9tov and bpoiui/jia avOpwjrwi/, denoting not the essential nature, but 
 the form.
 
 CHRIST IN HEAVEN. 141 
 
 little be proved that the latter was in any way influenced by it. 1 
 The passages which are commonly relied upon for this purpose 
 really say nothing to the point. 1 Cor. xv. 45 must, as we have 
 seen, be referred to the resurrection, by which Christ became a 
 quickening spirit and the originator of a new humanity, not to a 
 primitive coming into existence, of which Paul never speaks at 
 all ; besides, Christ is here called the " last Adam," the " second 
 man," whereas, according to the Jewish theory of the " heavenly 
 Adam," he ought, on the contrary, to be the first (" Cadmon"). 
 If we look into the matter more closely, we shall see that the 
 meaning and origin of this description of Christ is in Paul's 
 mind something very different from that philosophic notion. It 
 is the historical significance of Christ as the originator of a new 
 spiritual development of humanity, in which righteousness and 
 life bear rule instead of sin and death, and the determining prin- 
 ciple of which is no longer the natural and sensuous, but the 
 divine and spiritual. The significance of Christ as the originator 
 of this new spiritual humanity is pregnantly expressed by the 
 name of the " second" or " last Adam." The name, therefore, 
 does not denote an essential characteristic of his personality; 
 neither in 1 Cor. xv. 45, nor in Eom. v. 14, is this directly 
 contained, though it is indirectly implied certainly, inasmuch 
 as the principle of generation of the new humanity appears 
 personified in its originator. But because this new humanity 
 owes its realization to the historical Christ, to his death and 
 resurrection, therefore the name taken from this historical fact 
 belongs primarily to the historical Eedeemer, not to the pre- 
 existent. It was not until the origin of the historical Eedeemer 
 had been ante-dated and thrown back to a period previous to 
 his beginning in time, that, in consequence of the identity 
 of the two subjects, the designation of the historical was ex- 
 tended also to the pre-existent Christ, so that 6 
 
 1 In this I agree with Weiss (p. 294) and R. Schmidt (p. 118), in opposition to most 
 of the later commentators (Beyschlag, Hilgenfeld, Hausrath, Uoltzmann, Ilolttcn, and 
 others).
 
 142 THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 came to be also the designation of him who came e ovpavov, and 
 so of him who was ev ovpavQ (ver. 47) ; just as the purely 
 human name 'ITJO-OVS is also without hesitation transferred to 
 the pre-existent by whom, under God, all things were created 
 (1 Cor. viii. 6). As it is impossible that a being intermediate 
 between God and the creation, derived from Philonic speculation, 
 should have been endowed with the name of a historical human 
 individual, so it is equally impossible that the name of a " second 
 man" or "last Adam," which can only be explained by the his- 
 torical consideration of Christ, should have any meaning when 
 applied to the ideal man of Philonic speculation. On this ground 
 alone we will venture to believe that this designation of Christ 
 by Paul was an original product of his own Christian speculation. 
 It is still possible that he may have combined this independently 
 formed conception, in a supplementary way at least, with that 
 of the ideal man of the Jewish schools of Alexandria. Only no 
 distinct indications of his doing so are forthcoming. Apart from 
 the fact that in this tenet of Alexandrine philosophy there is 
 no suggestion of the entrance of the ideal man into historical 
 actuality, and thus the very essence of the Pauline Christology 
 is wanting, there are no points of contact of any definite kind 
 between the pre-historical Christ and the ideal man of the 
 Alexandrine philosophy. While Paul, extending the designation 
 of the historical Christ to the pre-existent, thinks of this latter 
 also as discharging the office of Mediator of the divine reve- 
 lation, no agency of this kind is anywhere ascribed to the ideal 
 man of Philo. The part of Mediator is here, on the contrary, 
 assumed by the Logos. This notion and only this could there- 
 fore suggest itself to Christian speculation as a help towards the 
 fixing of the Christological idea in a philosophical form. After 
 the time of Paul, this soon happened ; but Paul himself draws 
 his Christian ideas from the originality of his own Christian 
 spirit, not from the dicta of an alien philosophy. It is certain, 
 at least, that the proof of the foreign origin of his ideas has still 
 to be found.
 
 CHRIST IN HEAVEN. 143 
 
 It remains that we notice those passages in which Paul 
 ascribes mediative functions to the pre-existent Christ. The 
 operations of Christ did not commence, according to Paul, when 
 he was sent in the flesh; but the Son of God who was destined 
 to fulfil the purpose of the Divine decree of salvation, was, 
 before the time of his appearing on earth, the Mediator and in- 
 strument of the divine revelation to Israel. Of this an indica- 
 tion, though certainly a somewhat obscure one, is to be found in 
 1 Cor. x. 4 : the Israelites drank in the desert from a spiritual 
 rock which followed them, "but this rock Mas Christ." The 
 explanation that the rock only represented Christ is inadmissible, 
 for in that case rri and not fy must have been used ; and, more- 
 over, by the epithet "spiritual" both rock and water are declared 
 to be objective supersensuous realities, so that we cannot think 
 of a natural rock, to which a typical significance could only be 
 applied by the subjective contemplation of it. We cannot doubt 
 the meaning of the Apostle here to be, that the proofs of the 
 Divine favour were conveyed to Israel by the pre-existent 
 Christ (who as spirit was united to no definite form of flesh) ; 
 but it is useless to ask how this was effected. 
 
 But the part of Mediator was ascribed to the pre-existing 
 Christ, not only in the historical revealing of salvation, but also 
 in the creation of the world itself. This is distinctly stated in 
 1 Cor. viii. 6 : " We have one God, the Father, from whom all is, 
 and we (are created) for Him, and one Lord Jesus Christ, through 
 whom all is, and we through him." The words Si ov TO, travra. cannot 
 be limited to the sphere of redemption, because they must have 
 the same meaning in the second clause as in the first, where this 
 limitation would be very forced ; and because, moreover, through 
 the addition of KCU 17/^15 Si avrov, the sphere of Christian redemp- 
 tion is represented as a particular and a narrower one within 
 the general sphere of creation (TO. TTO.VTO), from which it follows 
 that the latter is applied to the world in the metaphysical sense. 
 But this juxtaposition certainly shows at the same time that the 
 idea of Christ's agency in the creation of the world did not grow
 
 THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 out of metaphysical speculation in the Apostle's mind, but was 
 simply an extension of the mediatorial position held by Christ 
 as the Eedeemer in the scheme of salvation. For the Christian 
 consciousness, Christ is the one Lord over all, to whom all 
 things, even the powers of the invisible world (gods and lords 
 of the heathen, ib. ver. 5), are subject ; and this religious convic- 
 tion (the same as that which is expressed in other words in 
 Kom. viii. 37 39) finds its expression in the theological doc- 
 trine of the agency of Christ in the creation of the world. 
 This contains also the inference, which was self-evident to the 
 Apostle, but is only too often overlooked by commentators, that 
 the instrument of creation is precisely the same subject as the 
 instrument of redemption, namely, " the one Lord Jesus Christ" 
 the self-same personality of Christ which, as it appeared in the 
 flesh, was Jesus the son of David, the historical Eedeemer, and 
 who again through his resurrection became a pure spiritual 
 man, and the son of God with power. By the application here 
 of the two predicates, 6t' ov TO. Trdvra and 8t' ov ^efe, thus 
 directly and in equal measure to the one subject, Jesus Christ 
 (the two-fold name also here deserves attention), any separation 
 between the pre-existent son and agent of God in the creation, 
 and the historical redeemer and mediator of the atonement, is 
 distinctly precluded. It is just the identity of the person which, 
 for the dogmatic conception, forms the thread on which to string 
 the various predicates and bind them together into a single 
 picture of the salvation ; although the unity of this picture must 
 of necessity part asunder again for intelligent thought, since the 
 predicates which it presents together are in themselves quite 
 heterogeneous, that is to say partly ideal, relating to the abso- 
 lute principle of salvation, partly empirical and capable of being 
 directly predicated only of the historical Mediator of salvation. 1 
 
 1 It is clear from the above analysis of this passage that Weist and Baur are both 
 mistaken in presupposing the incompatibility of the two predicates, heavenly man and 
 instrument of creation, and consequently eliminating the former (Weiss) or the latter 
 (Baur) from Paul's conception of the pre-existent Christ. It is only necessary to pay
 
 CHRIST IN HEAVEN, 145 
 
 If we compare the passage just noticed with the Christological 
 declarations of the Epistle to the Colossians, i. 15 19, we shall 
 find that the difference is not so great as it has been often repre- 
 sented. In the latter, Christ is called the " first-born before 
 every creature," through whom all things in heaven and on the 
 earth, visible and invisible, especially all the powers of the in- 
 visible (spirit) world were created ; but this is just the meaning 
 of 1 Cor. viii. 6 ; and even the pointing out of the spirit world 
 especially as a sphere created by Christ, and entirely subordi- 
 nated to him, has a certain analogy to the passage in the Corinth- 
 ians, inasmuch as in the latter, by the connection between 
 verses 5 and 6, the unique position of Christ as the instrument 
 of creation is asserted with special reference to the 0e<u Kai 
 Kvpioi of the heathen, and so to the realm of demons. In 
 other points, however, the passage in the Colossians certainly 
 goes beyond that in the Corinthians ; the world, according to 
 the former, has not only been created by the agency of Christ, 
 but " in him and for him" which seems to imply that Christ 
 was the world's centre, the point from which the powers and 
 the development of the world originated, and to which they 
 return as their end. But this is not agreeable to Paul's older 
 doctrine, for only of God himself does he say avrov KCU 81 
 avTov Kai i's avrov TO. TTO.VTO. (Rom. xi. 36) ; even the Lordship of 
 Christ is not, according to him, an end in itself, but is to serve to 
 the S6ga of God, which is exclusively the final end of the universe 
 (ib., Phil. ii. 11) ; nay, it is at a future time to be given back 
 again to the Father, in order that God may be TO. Trdvra tv ira<ri. 
 
 The expression ets avrov (Xpia-Tov) TO. iravra CKTIO-TCU in the Colos- 
 sians can hardly be reconciled with this strict assertion of mono- 
 theism by the unconditional subordination of Christ to the 
 Father. But verse 19 in particular diverges most decidedly 
 from the Pauline Christology. The expression irav rd TrA^w/ta 
 is, according to the parallel passage, ii. 9, the fulness of the God- 
 attention to the psychological genesis of the whole conception, in order to be convinced 
 that those predicates are quite compatible with each other for such a mind as Paul's. 
 
 L
 
 146 THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 head, the concentration of all the powers which constitute the 
 Divine nature. Paul never says that these dwell in Christ, not 
 even in Phil, ii 6, where the pop^r] 0eou refers only to the form 
 of his appearance, the crw/to, rrjs So^s (see above) ; but that this 
 fulness of the Godhead should have taken up its abode in the 
 earthly Christ (for so we must understand Col. i. 19, on account 
 of its connection with ver. 20), is directly contradictory to that 
 which we shall shortly see to have been the older Pauline view 
 of Christ's becoming man. And since in the very last letter of 
 Paul, namely, that to the Philippians, the view of the earthly 
 life of Christ as a condition of emptiness and humiliation is 
 insisted upon with the greatest distinctness, we cannot here 
 have recourse to the conclusion that Paul himself developed and 
 expanded his Christology in the direction of John's teaching. 
 Now if we are unwilling to pronounce the Epistle to the Colos- 
 sians altogether spurious, there appears to be scarcely any other 
 way out of the difficulty than to suppose that this, as well as 
 other passages of this Epistle, was tampered with at a later 
 period. We shall therefore recur to this at a future time. 
 
 THE APPEARING OF CHRIST IN THE FLESH. 
 
 As the pre-existence of Christ was in the mind of the Apostle 
 only a secondary conception, being but the reflection of his 
 intuition of the exalted one, and assumed as a background for 
 that intuition, we cannot wonder that he teaches us so little, in 
 any definite shape, regarding the passage from it to the earthly 
 life of Christ. All that we can lay hold of consists of a few 
 indications only. According to Eom. viii. 3, Gal. iv. 4, it is 
 God who, after the completion of the time (of preparation), sent 
 his son in the form of sinful flesh, which was done by means of 
 his being born of a woman. According to 2 Cor. viii. 9 and 
 Phil. ii. 7, it is Christ himself who becomes poor, empties him- 
 self of his possessions, in order to descend from the condition of
 
 THE APPEARING OF CHRIST IN THE FLESH. 147 
 
 being rich, of possessing a heavenly Lordship, of being in the 
 form of God, to a condition of poverty, and humiliation, and of 
 existence in the visible shape of man, and the form of a servant. 
 These two passages contain essentially the same idea, only it is 
 more expanded in that from the Philippians; and both alike 
 were written with a hortatory object (not in the interest of 
 transcendental Gnostic speculation); in one, the Apostle im- 
 presses on the Corinthians the duty of self-sacrificing love, by 
 the example of Christ, who became poor for our sakes ; in the 
 other, he impresses on the Philippians the duty of humility and 
 self-forgetfulness, which seeks not its own, but that of others; 
 and as an example of this humble, self-forgetting disposition, 1 
 he holds up to them the example of Christ, "who, being in the 
 foi'm of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God, but 
 emptied himself in taking on him, the form of a servant, tliat is to 
 say, he was born in the likeness of men, and was found in the con- 
 dition of an (ordinary) man" It has been already remarked on 
 the words h p-op<f>y Otov vTrdp^v, that they mean nothing else 
 than the CIKWV and Soa 0eou. The only difficulty is in the words 
 
 ov\ apTra.yfj.ov ^yrya-aro TO eivai icra $<J>. It is the first canon of all 
 
 sound criticism that a passage must be explained first of all by 
 itself and the context, and then by the views contained in other 
 parts of the author's writings ; and only when both these re- 
 sources have failed, by external references and allusions. Let 
 us set aside, therefore, all explanations of these words drawn 
 from foreign theories, whether from Gnosticism or from the Old 
 Testament history of the fall, 2 and endeavour to explain them 
 
 1 Hinsch, in his article entitled " Untersuchungen zum Philipperbrief " (Z. f. w. 
 Th., 1873, p. 77), makes the groundless assertion that the view taken in this 
 passage of Christ's becoming man is un-Pauline, because it is made to " appear 
 as a voluntary resolve on the part of Christ, the primary object of which was a 
 purely personal one." And yet the sole aim of the whole passage is to recommend 
 unselfishness, the not TU iavrSiv aicoTriiv, by the example of Christ, who in the free 
 (but not therefore arbitrary) act of becoming man, gave the greatest example of unself- 
 ishness. It is not easy to understand how any one can find anything un-Pauline in 
 this view, which is exactly that of 2 Cor. viii. 9. 
 
 * The former, as is well known, is the explanation of Baur, the latter that of 
 Erntsti. I consider it needless to attempt a fuller refutation of either of these, for, 
 
 L2
 
 148 THE PEttSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 from the context alone. They are opposed to eKe 
 that is, to the self-sacrificing mode of action, of which Christ is 
 held up as an example ; accordingly, apiraynov ^y^o-aro TO e?vai 
 io-a Oe<p, if Christ had done it, would have fallen under the cate- 
 gory of TO eauTwv IKOOTOV a-Koirf.iv ', it would have been an act of 
 selfish arrogation (opposed to Tairftvo<f>po<rvvr] and TO. frepov <TKOTTf.lv, 
 vers. 3, 4). But this is just the obvious meaning of the words 
 dpira.yij.ov fiyrj<raro : l they express in a figurative manner the dis- 
 position and mode of action of one who in selfish arrogance only 
 TO lavTov o-KOTrei; for it is of the essence of robbing and the 
 robber not to trouble oneself about the welfare of any one else, 
 but with inconsiderate selfishness to seek one's own advantage. 
 "What Christ might have striven after in this selfish, grasping 
 manner, if he had wished it, is expressed by the words TO tTvai 
 uro Ot$; they must therefore indicate something beyond and 
 
 according to my principles, the ground of such attempts at explanation vanishes as 
 soon as it is shown that the passage can be explained from itself. Compare Rabirjer, 
 ut supra, pp. 7785 ; Hilyenfeld, Z. f. w. Th., 1871, 194 f. ; Grimm, ib., 1873, 45; 
 Schmidt, p. 176. 
 
 1 The literal translation of the words is rapinam, i. e. rapiendum putavit, did 
 not consider the being equal with God a thing to be seized by an act of robbery ; but 
 the expression apirayfibv iifnaaro is used instead of ijpiraat, in order to show that 
 the essential point here is the mode of thinking, the disposition, of which Christ gave 
 an example. The objection that ap7ray/iO is not equivalent to tipirayfia, that which 
 is robbed, but to apirafciv, robbing, would, if it were valid, alter the literal transla- 
 tion, but not the general sense of the passage. In that case, the being equal with God 
 would be not the object of the robbery, but the means to it, which Christ possessed in 
 virtue of his poppti Btov ; and thus TO taa 9t<f dvai would come to have the same 
 meaning as iv ^ofxpy Qiov vira^dv. The object of the robbery would then be the 
 sovereignty on earth, the recognition by men of the dignity of the Messianic kingship. 
 The sense would be as follows : Christ would not, as he might have done had ha 
 chosen, use the power, which he possessed in an equal degree with God, as a means of 
 usurping a position which was destined for him indeed, but which, according to the 
 intention of God, he was to attain by the path of humiliation and of suffering. I 
 formerly adopted this explanation of Meyer's (see the article on Pauline Christology in 
 Hilgenfelcfs Z. f. w. Th., 1871, p. 620 f.), principally on the supposed ground that 
 Jp7ray/<oc could only be taken as equivalent to actio rapiendi, not to res rapienda. 
 But the possibility of taking ap7ray/*oc as equivalent to upirayfua is established beyond 
 doubt by many analogies (compare Grimm on this subject, Z. f. w. Th., 1873, 
 p. 38 f. ) ; and thus the necessity of this explanation disappears. But I have come to 
 regard it as highly improbable, especially because Paul, after what he has said else- 
 where, can hardly have ascribed to Christ an actual ilvai \aa Oty.
 
 THE APPEARING OF CHRIST IN THE FLESH. 149 
 
 above that which he had already had, the p.op<t>r) Oeov ; and this 
 can only be the dignity of supreme Lordship and equality with 
 God, the absolute, perfect sovereign Majesty, which belongs to 
 God alone, and to no other, not even to the Son who was the 
 very image of Him as regards the form in which he appeared. 
 If this is so, these words contain an indirect confirmation of that 
 distinct subordination which we have repeatedly remarked as 
 a pervading feature of the genuine Pauline Christology. The 
 sense therefore is, that the heavenly Christ was so far from 
 wishing to usurp like a robber, that is to say, in selfish arro- 
 gance, the dignity of supreme Lordship and equal sovereignity 
 with God, that he, on the contrary, never thought of doing so, 
 but did the opposite to this he emptied himself (instead of 
 coveting that which was greater and higher) of that which he 
 (justly) possessed (namely, of the fj.op4>rj 0eou), and by so doing 
 proved his self-forgetting humility, in laying aside the form of 
 God, and taking upon him the form of man, i. e. of a servant. 
 The transition, then, from the pre-existence to the life on earth 
 consisted negatively in giving up the form of God (exevcocrtv 
 cavTov), and positively in taking upon him the " form of a ser- 
 vant ; " this is the general expression for the condition of abase- 
 ment on which Christ entered ; it indicates the contrast between 
 the 86a of the free Son of God, which he had given up, and the 
 lowliness of the earthly appearance which he had assumed, 
 which was so far from according with the nature of a Son of 
 God. But the means by which this transition was accomplished 
 are stated by the following passage : h 6/ioiw/zan dvOpuiruv 
 yfvofj,(vo<i, " being born in the likeness (outward form) of men," 
 which was proved by the fact that he henceforth " was found in 
 fashion as a man " (as every other ordinary man). The words h 
 ofj.onap.aTi dvdpunrov yevo/ieyos have the same meaning as is ex- 
 pressed in Gal. iv. 4 by yevopfvov K ywcuKos, and in Eom. viii. 3, 
 by ir(fj.\f/a< cv ofj.otwfj.aTi o-apKos d/Aa/aria?. For the outward form 
 (ofjLoi<afj,a) of man, the external fashion (o-x^) which marks an 
 earthly man, is, according to the general Pauline view of things,
 
 150 THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 no other than the o-oyia TT)S o-ap/co?, the material or earthly corpo- 
 rality of the avOpayiros X'KOS CK yr)<s, which is opposed to the 
 spiritual corporality (the o-w/xa irvevfj-ariKov or -njs 80^575, 1 Cor. 
 xv. 44 ; Phil. iii. 2 1). 1 The passage of the Philippians, therefore, 
 does not, any more than the other two, contain the doctrine of the 
 Docetists in the strictly dogmatical sense ; it does not mean to 
 say that Christ's appearance as man was a mere empty shadow ; 
 on the contrary, it consisted, according to this passage also, of a 
 real human body of earthly o-dp ; only this fleshly corporality 
 was in the case of Christ merely the form in which he appeared, 
 only the element which constituted the outer side (the crx^a, 
 the !w avfyxoTTos), not the essential and dominating principle of 
 the entire personality ; for this, as well after as before its appear- 
 ing in the flesh, was wvevfj-a. 
 
 Hence it is plain that the Son of God who appeared in the 
 flesh, or the historic Jesus, is precisely the same personality as 
 that of the Son of God in heaven who was to be sent. A per- 
 sonality did not come into being for the first time by means of 
 the " sending " (the sending would in that case be really equiva- 
 lent to calling into life or creation) ; nor was the heavenly per- 
 son of Christ the spirit thereby united to the earthly person of 
 Jesus the son of David, in such a way that the historical person 
 of Jesus the Messiah came into existence by their union. 2 We 
 
 1 This interpretation essentially agrees with that of Weiss, p. 426, and R. Schmidt, 
 pp. 163 179. And I especially endorse the opinion of the latter that we " certainly 
 are not justified in describing the expressions made use of in the Epistle to the Philip- 
 pians as impossible from the genuine standpoint of the Apostle, or as essentially going 
 beyond the substance of the declaration in 2 Cor. viii. 9." But in that case I do not 
 understand why this declaration of the Epistle to the Philippians, which is essentially 
 identical with the genuine Pauline Christology, is separated from that declaration and 
 joined to that of the Epistle to the Colossians, regarding which Schmidt himself allows, 
 that "here the conceptions of Paul have certainly undergone a further development" 
 (p. 197). And how does this rightly observed relation between the dogmatic Christo- 
 logy of these two Epistles a ice with the hypothesis, supported (though not very 
 decidedly) by Schmidt, of the genuineness of the Epistle to the Colossians, which, if 
 genuine, must be older than that to the Philippians ? 
 
 s The former is the view of Seyschlag, which has already been mentioned ; the 
 latter the opinion of Hohten (ut supra, p. 423), which is also thrown out as a con- 
 jecture by Meyerhoff (Epistle to the Colossians, p. 66).
 
 THE APPEARING OF CHRIST IN THE FLESH. 151 
 
 have, on the contrary, already proved from 1 Cor. viii. 6 that the 
 pre-existent, who is designated by the full name of the historical 
 " Jesus Christ," must also be identical with the latter as to his 
 entire personality, and is consequently neither a merely virtual 
 personality, nor merely one half of the historical two-fold person 
 Jesus Christ. Moreover, in Eom. i. 3 f., it is the one person of 
 the vios 0eou that is, not split into two personalities, but only 
 regarded under the two aspects, which are to be distinguished in 
 it as in every human person, namely, flesh and spirit. The 
 identity of the subject being thus complete, it is only the/o?*m of 
 existence which can have been changed by means of the sending, 
 the o-w/itt Tijs era/DKos took the place of the o-w/xa TT}S Sorjs. The 
 question how this took place is inadmissible, because it is one 
 on which Paul never reflected, and because it would be impos- 
 sible to answer it a priori. At best we may perhaps, without 
 going beyond the range of the Apostle's conceptions, find an 
 analogy in the change of the earthly body into the resurrection 
 body. As in this case TO <j>6a.prov KCU dv^Tov is laid aside, and 
 d(f)0apa-ia and dOava<ria is put on, so the converse, takes place on 
 the entrance of the pre-existent into the flesh ; we have in both 
 cases a miraculous metamorphosis, which evades any intelligible 
 analysis. It is, however, further to be remarked that the body 
 of flesh assumed by Christ was produced, according to Paul, by 
 natural procreation ; for not only does he nowhere allude to a 
 supernatural conception, but he denies it indirectly by calling 
 him the son of David according to the flesh, which clearly pre- 
 supposes the natural paternity of Joseph the son of David. 
 Besides, a supernatural conception of Jesus would possess no 
 interest for him, because the higher nature of Christ did not 
 depend in his estimation upon a miraculous birth, but was the 
 result of his heavenly pre-existeiice, by which it was established 
 on a much surer basis ; for a person consisting essentially of 
 heavenly spirit stands on a far higher level than an essentially 
 earthly person only called into life by the causal act of God's 
 creative spirit. The latter view did not appear among the Jew-
 
 152 THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 ish Christians until after the time of Paul, and no doubt as a 
 means of avoiding an application of Paul's doctrine concerning 
 Christ which at that time was thought to be dangerous. The 
 " being made man " therefore, according to the view of Paul, is 
 the assumption of an earthly human body of flesh by the heavenly 
 human person of the pre-existing Son of God, Jesus Christ. And 
 here all those questions which have formed the subject of dog- 
 matizing in a later age, regarding the way in which the " divine 
 and human nature " were united, lie quite out of the range of 
 vision ; nay, the question which lay nearest to hand, and which 
 as a matter of history really gave the impulse to the develop- 
 ment of the Christological doctrine, namely, whether Jesus Christ 
 had a human soul, has no possible answer from the standpoint 
 of the Pauline Christology. We cannot escape from this anti- 
 nomy; on the one hand, it is to the pre-existent spiritual essence, 
 the principle of life which constituted the ego, that the person- 
 ality attaches, and a second principle of life which came into 
 being for the first time at the birth of Christ, an earthly human 
 soul, could not co-exist by the side of this without destroying the 
 unity of the personal life j 1 on the other hand, the a-dpg which 
 Christ took upon him could not be dead matter, but must as 
 organized body have already been endowed with a soul. 
 
 Lastly, the question of the sinlessness of Christ is very closely 
 connected with the above. Here too we ultimately encounter 
 an insoluble antinomy. By means of the irvcvpa dyiwo-w^s, which 
 constituted his personality (Eom. i. 4), Christ was free from per- 
 sonal sin ; not merely from sinful actions, but from any personal 
 inward experience whatsoever of sin as his own ; he was d/zapriav 
 fjirj -yi/ovs, 2 Cor. v. 21. Notwithstanding this, he partook, accord- 
 ing to the flesh, or according to his eo> avOpwrros, of the universal 
 human principle of sin, for he had as the material of his body the 
 same o-apg d/*a/3Ttas as all other men. This is still disputed, no 
 doubt, by most of the commentators, who explain the decisive 
 passage in Rom. viii. 3, ei> o/xoiw/xari o-a/sKos d/ia/artas, as if it 
 
 1 Compare Zeller, iiber Neatest. Christologie, in Theol. Jahrb. 1842, Pt. 1.
 
 THE APPEARING OF CHRIST IN THE FLESH. 153 
 
 meant that Christ appeared only in a " likeness of sinful flesh," 
 that is to say, in a body which resembled indeed the body of 
 'other men so far as it consisted of flesh, but was unlike them in 
 this respect, that his flesh was not like that of all others, sinful 
 flesh, the abode and principle of that (.iriOv^iv which is sinful 
 because contrary to the spirit. But this is evidently a misinter- 
 pretation of the passage, which involves two errors, a mistrans- 
 lation of the word 6/xotuyta, and an inadmissible separation of the 
 two ideas, o-ap and apapTias. As regards the first, it is beyond 
 question that if the words had merely been V 6fj.onap.aTt o-apKos, 
 no one would have hesitated to translate them simply "in 
 fleshly shape," that is to say, in a shape or form of appearance 
 which was the same as that of all human flesh, and in fact con- 
 sisted of flesh. Similarly, ev o/ioiayta-ri dvOpuTruv in Phil. ii. 7 
 means that shape or form of appearance which belongs to all 
 men, and does not indicate merely some kind of resemblance 
 (which would be the doctrine of the Docetists pure and simple), 
 but the complete identity of his appearance with that of other 
 men. Moreover, o/Mu'w/ua always, 1 when used abstractly, de- 
 notes sameness, or the relation of positive congruity, and pre- 
 cisely not the incongruity of the things compared ; and where 
 it is concrete, it denotes the appearance, shape, image, form, in 
 which a being becomes apprehensible by the senses. How is it 
 possible, then, that in this passage the word should suddenly 
 come to mean precisely the want of identity between the <rdpg of 
 Christ and the ordinary a-apg u/iaprias ? Here as elsewhere it 
 must necessarily mean either " sameness " (abstract), or, which 
 seems to me simpler, "shape" (concrete); and in that case o-apxos 
 d/ia/DTias denotes the material of which the human form of Christ, 
 like that of other men, consists. But that both these notions are 
 inseparably connected, that the d/xapria is not a mere accidental 
 
 1 Compare my article in ffilgenfel<Ts Zeitschr., 1871, p. 523 f . ; and Overbeck in 
 the same periodical, 1869, p. 200 f. ; and especially Ilohten, who previously (in his 
 treatise on the meaning of the word 2ap) gave with decisive reasons the right inter- 
 pretation of the passage we are considering. JIautrath and Liidemann huve also 
 adopted hia explanation.
 
 154 THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 quality of the <rdpg, but an essential one, one therefore without 
 which it would no longer be actual but only apparent a-dpg, has 
 been already shown in treating of the Pauline anthropology 
 (Chap. i.). Lastly, we must remember that, according to the 
 whole context of this passage, and of Eom. vi. viii., the pre- 
 sence of apapria. in the <rdp of Christ is so strictly a logical pos- 
 tulate, that the denial of it destroys the whole argument of this 
 portion of the Epistle, and cuts away the foundation of Paul's 
 peculiar doctrine of the doing away with the power of sin in the 
 flesh through the death of Christ (see the preceding Chapter). 
 Accordingly we may regard it as a well-established fact that, 
 according to Paul, the flesh of Christ, like that of other men, was 
 sinful flesh, the abode and the principle of that sinful eVtflv/ita, 
 which consequently could in principle be destroyed in his death. 
 But the firiOvfiia of the a-dpg was not in the case of "the Pauline 
 Christ, as in ordinary men, that of his personal ego ; for his ego 
 was, as we have seen, not merely ^ux*) C"" a which is subject to 
 the determination of the a-dp, but it was Trvev/^a dyiaxruv^s, to 
 which all fleshly f-n-tdvfjiflv is entirely alien. Because Christ was 
 
 not av0/DW7ros ^UX'KOS, but from the beginning av#pa>7ros Trvev/xariKos, 
 
 not (K y?Js x oi '*os, but e ovpavov, therefore he continued, in 
 
 Spite of his crdp a/xaprias, to be personally One ap-apriav /J.-T] yvous. 
 
 Only it must be admitted that to our minds the insoluble 
 question presents itself, What are we in that case to think of as 
 the subject of the afj-apria of the flesh, of Christ, if it was not his 
 ego, his soul, as that to which his indivisible personality attaches ? 
 Or how can the a-dpg pure and simple, entirely separated from 
 the personal principle of life, to which it serves as an organ, 
 have dpapTia ? Or how can a concrete ego exist in a fleshly life, 
 without feeling it as its own life, at least so far as to experience 
 its eiridvfjLfiv as its own ? And this leads us further back to the 
 question, How is it possible at all that a personal spirit could, as 
 such, have a bodily birth, in such a way that the individual be- 
 gotten and born as a man should be the same concrete subject 
 which subsisted before as pure spirit, and that the individual
 
 THE APPEARING OF CHRIST IN THE FLESH. 155 
 
 body should thus be, not the basis of an individual spirit now in 
 process of development, but the mere wrappage of a spirit which 
 was already full-formed from the beginning, and is only infused 
 into it from without ? 
 
 It is easy to see that the inconceivability of these ideas to our 
 modern psychology has tempted certain commentators to get rid 
 of the difficulty by giving up the identity of the earthly and the 
 pre-existent subject, making the latter an impersonal principle, 
 and allowing the personality of the historical Jesus to begin 
 with his birth in time. Although this, as we have seen, is not 
 justifiable as an exposition, yet it is without doubt correct as a 
 suggestion of what we have to regard as the idea of the Pauline 
 doctrine of Christ; only when once we begin to separate the 
 idea from the figurate conception in which it is presented, we 
 should go through with it to the end, instead of halting half-way, 
 as most of these commentators do. The difficulties of the Paul- 
 ine Christology (in which the whole Christology of the Church 
 of after ages was already contained, as it were, in a nut-shell) 
 may certainly be traced back to the fact that it asserts an ideal 
 timeless principle to be immediately identical with an empirical 
 individual born in time. That Paul went altogether beyond the 
 empirical individuality of the man Jesus, and made an absolute 
 spiritual principle the main point of his Christology, constituted 
 the peculiarity and the originality of his doctrine of Christ, by 
 which, scarcely less than by his doctrine of the law and faith, 
 he broke through the limits of the Judaistic conception of Chris- 
 tianity, and secured for it its absolute spiritual character. For 
 this ideal principle of the personality of Christ was to him, as 
 we have seen, nothing else than the spiritual man, the perfect 
 image of God and the pattern of man, the picture of the Son of 
 God, to the realization of which men, as potential children of 
 God, were from eternity destined, and the realization of which in 
 humanity began in principle in the historic Jesus Christ, as the 
 " first-born among many brethren" (Rom. viii. 29). This is that 
 Son of God, whom God revealed in him (Paul) that he should
 
 156 THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 preach him among the Gentiles (Gal. i. 16) ; whose glory as the 
 image of God is recognized when God allows the light of the 
 gospel to shed its enlightening rays on our hearts (2 Cor. iv. 
 4 6) ; into whose likeness we ourselves are changed, in that we 
 become spirit of his spirit (2 Cor. iii. 18); nay, who himself lives 
 in us, who are spiritual men, and is the life of our spirit (Rom. 
 viii. 10; Phil. i. 21 ; Gal. ii. 20); whom to know in ever fuller 
 practical knowledge, to lay hold of, and to be found in him, is 
 the Christian's highest desire (Phil. iii. 8 f.). In short, this ideal 
 principle of the Sonship of God, the eternal Son of God, the Lord, 
 who is the spirit, forms the absolute object of faith for Paul, with 
 which his subjective spiritual life (for the very reason that it is 
 an absolute spiritual object) could unite itself in complete mysti- 
 cal communion. Thus this higher Christology is essentially part 
 and parcel of the mystical depth and ideal power of the Pauline 
 faith. But this is only one side. The other side consists in the 
 fact that this ideal principle was so regarded by the Apostle that 
 in his eyes it is always immediately identical with the empirical 
 person of the historic Eedeemer, Jesus of Nazareth. In him, 
 especially in his death, he saw the historical cause of his own 
 redemption, the source of his own spirit of adoption ; on him, 
 therefore, were concentrated all his feelings of grateful love and 
 piety (Gal. ii. 20 ; 2 Cor. v. 14). By this means it happened, 
 and it was almost inevitable that it should happen, that the 
 historical instrument of salvation became himself the absolute 
 object of salvation ; the intermediate cause of the consciousness 
 of adoption became the absolute principle (operative ideal) of the 
 adoption as children of God ; and thus the absolute religious idea 
 was fused together with the individual appearance of him who 
 embodied and prepared the way for it, into the absolute and yet 
 at the same time individually determined and visible ideal. And 
 this combination was no less rich in results than it was unavoid- 
 able ; the historical individual element, which culminated in the 
 act of love on the cross, gave to the image of Christ, as it pre- 
 sented itself to the community he founded, its living and pal-
 
 THE APPEARING OF CHRIST IN THE FLESH. 157 
 
 pable features, its heart-moving warmth, its power to lay hold of 
 and to captivate the affections ; but that this heart-stirring pic- 
 ture should become the abstract of the absolute truth, the bodily 
 manifestation of the fulness of the Godhead, the unconditioned 
 source of all religious and moral satisfaction, in a word, that it 
 should become the absolute object of salvation and ground of 
 belief of the community, was only rendered possible by the 
 raising of the individual and temporal into the ideal and eternal, 
 by the identification of the historical person with the absolute 
 principle of the Sonship of God. As this identification sprang 
 necessarily from the religious spirit of Paul, so it will evermore 
 be indispensable to the religious life of the community ; for this 
 life requires in an equal degree the presence of both these 
 moments or aspects in the object of faith, (1) unlimited spiritual 
 ideality, and (2) envisagement in a definite individual form that 
 appeals to the feelings. And in the immediate intuition or un- 
 reasoned perception of practical faith and public worship, these 
 two moments always harmonize perfectly well, and the more 
 easily, the less the immediacy of religious feeling and vision is 
 interfered with by reflection, whether of the orthodox, apologetic 
 kind, or of the rationalistic school which seeks to explain every- 
 thing. For it is certain that as soon as thought begins to reflect 
 more precisely and accurately on the several features of this pic- 
 ture of Christ, which originated, as we have seen, by the fusion 
 of empirical individual elements with others that were ideal and 
 absolute, it cannot fail to perceive the heterogeneity of these 
 elements, and the impossibility of their co-existence in one and 
 the same subject. Then the understanding usually attempts to 
 repress either one side or the other, in order to avoid logical con- 
 tradiction. But all these attempts to reason out the matter, made 
 from the standpoint of reflection, are foiled by the fundamental 
 presupposition on which the whole rests, and so urge thought 
 further and further on, until the solution of the riddle is found 
 in the genesis of the whole doctrine concerning Christ. 
 
 With this clue, all the several points of this Christology be-
 
 158 THE PERSON OF JESUS CHRIST. 
 
 come easily intelligible. If the historical Redeemer be once 
 identified with the idea of the man who is the very image of 
 God and the representative of adoption as children of God, 
 which realizes itself indeed in time, but is in itself timeless, then 
 that concrete personality must partake of the eternal nature of 
 this idea, must therefore have had a timeless existence in supra- 
 mundane regions before it existed historically on the earth, or, 
 in other words, must have been pre-existent, and have come 
 down from heaven upon the earth. And as that idea could only 
 realize itself in the historial life of humanity, but yet dwelt in 
 human nature from the very beginning as a real potency, and as 
 the operative ground of its humanity, so also must the concrete 
 substantiation of that idea, namely Christ, have been not only 
 the historical instrument of the new spiritual creation, but also 
 the primordial instrument of the creation of the natural world. 
 Further, if the historical Christ is only the appearing in time of 
 that pre-existing ideal, then it is perfectly self-evident that abso- 
 lute sinlessness belongs to him, for this plainly attaches to the 
 notion of the ideal ; accordingly the doctrine of the sinlessness of 
 Christ is a simple consequence of Christological dogma, and for 
 this very reason belongs to the domain of dogma, and not of his- 
 tory. But here it has already become apparent that the hetero- 
 geneous elements out of which the Christology has grown up, 
 cannot coalesce to form the real unity of a person ; absolute sin- 
 lessness belongs to Christ as the substantiated ideal of the spiri- 
 tual man, and to Christ as the empirical man living in the flesh 
 belongs the sinfulness which is inseparable from the essence of 
 all flesh. These are simply two contradictory predicates which 
 cannot be affirmed of one and the same subject. 
 
 There is yet another point on which the want of cohesion 
 between the two elements of the Christology is strikingly 
 displayed at the very outset of Paul's doctrinal system. So 
 long as the historical Jesus was regarded as the point of 
 departure, his resurrection appeared as the transition into his 
 pure spiritual existence, consequently as the realization of the
 
 THE APPEARING OF CHRIST IN THE FLESH. 159 
 
 essence of a Son of God and pattern of manhood ; and therefore 
 Paul not only repeatedly connects the divine Sonship of Christ 
 with his resurrection, hut also in most instances holds up the 
 risen one as the pattern for Christians (comp. Rom. vi. 4, 10 f. ; 
 2 Cor. 4, 10 f. ; Col. 3, 1 f.). On the other hand, so long as the 
 historical Jesus is regarded as the appearing of the eternal pre- 
 existent Christ, there is no longer any need that he should 
 become, through the resurrection, ^hat which he had already 
 been before he appeared in the flesh ; from this point of view 
 therefore the resurrection could no longer be regarded (as is the 
 case however in Rom. i. 4) as his institution into the full pos- 
 session of the divine Sonship, but as a simple return to that Soa 
 of the Son of God which he had long possessed, and only tempo- 
 rarily laid aside. This is the necessary consequence of the doc- 
 trine of the pre-existence, a consequence which we see already 
 distinctly drawn even in the Christology of John. In Paul, who 
 has not yet drawn this consequence, we find the dogma concern- 
 ing Christ in that stage of its evolution where the higher Chris- 
 tology is already, in the substantiation of an eternal Son of God, 
 in process of developing itself out of the historical view, but does 
 not yet react upon the latter. The historical and the ideal 
 element are joined indeed for the first time in the Christology of 
 Paul, but as yet so little wrought together that their want of co- 
 hesion is still everywhere apparent.
 
 CHAPTEK IV. 
 
 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 SINCE Paul looks upon the object of salvation as indivisibly 
 concentred in Christ, the appropriation of salvation also becomes 
 for him a single act of faith, namely, the giving up of the heart 
 to Christ, by which the salvation given in him is acquired com- 
 plete in all its elements. Now in so far as Christ is above all 
 things the Mediator of reconciliation, faith in him becomes, first 
 of all, appropriation of the reconciling love of God ; it justifies 
 the sinner, and places him in the condition of a child of God, in 
 which he is no longer an object of the anger of God (avenging 
 justice), but of his love. But since Christ, as the Son of God, is 
 at the same time the image of the holy God, and himself the 
 holy irvevpa, faith in him places the believer at the same time in 
 the communion of his holy Tri/cu/xa-life, and is thus consequently, 
 in the man who was hitherto fleshly, the cause of a new life 
 in the spirit, in which the pattern of the Son of God really 
 exhibits itself, as in a copy, as a new moral personal life. Thus 
 faith is the single root, as well of the change of the objective 
 relation of man to God, in justification and adoption, as of the 
 renewal of the subjective personal life of man, in sanctification ; 
 but faith, not as an abstract human act, or a subjective human 
 disposition, but as a laying hold of Christ, as the act of uniting 
 the human heart with the favourable will of God revealed in* 
 Christ.
 
 FAITH. 161 
 
 FAITH. 
 
 Paul has nowhere expressly explained the notion of faith . 
 and without doubt for this reason, that the original sense in 
 which he uses the words irio-Teveiv, TTIO-TIS, was in no way peculiar, 
 but the sense in which they were ordinarily understood. 1 Cor. 
 
 XI. 18, /cat jJLepos n TTicrTCuo) : Rom. vi. 8, Triorevo/iev on Kal o-vrj- 
 : X. 9, lav TTicrrewgs fv ry KapSia crov, on 6 0eos OLVTOV tjyeipev 
 
 -wtfrjo-y : in these passages, TTIO-TCIXIV evidently means 
 nothing more than believing, in the sense of regarding as true, 
 being persuaded of something, and that on grounds which are not 
 of a logically binding nature ; for if they were, the conviction 
 would no longer be belief or faith, but simply knowledge. In 
 this sense " faith " is used especially of such conviction as does 
 not depend on sensuous perception, and is even the direct oppo- 
 site of ocular demonstration, or ordinary experience by means of 
 
 the senses. 2 Cor. V. 7, oia Trio-Tews yap TrepnraTOVfJifv, ov Sia eiSou?, 
 
 which means that our life in the body is absence from the Lord, 
 because he does not manifest his life in the realm of visible 
 appearance and actuality, but only in the region of faith (not in 
 the realm of the real, but in that of the ideal). 1 Similarly in 
 Rom. iv. 18, it is related to the honour of Abraham, that he Trap' 
 tXTriSa. fTr f\Tri8i eVi'o-Tcwev, that he doubted not the promise of 
 God, in spite of all experience to the contrary, but gave glory 
 to God, and was strong in faith, and had the firm assurance 
 (7r\r)po(t>opr)dei<s') that God was able to do that which He had pro- 
 mised, however impossible it appeared in the light of previous 
 experience. According to these passages, Paul's faith, like that 
 of the Epistle to the Hebrews (xi. 1), is a being convinced of 
 something beyond the senses, without or even against the evi- 
 
 1 This interpretation is the only one which corresponds with the context, and gives 
 throughout the true meaning of the words. Ov Tr^nrarovfitv i& ci<?ot>c indicates the 
 very want that still affects our life in the body, and makes it an &>j/?j> airo TOV 
 Kvpiov, and is closely connected with the wish iKSn^rjaai IK rov ffdiparoc. This is 
 overlooked by those who would understand Sid eiSovs to mean, under the principle of 
 mere outward show, the deceitful world of appearances. 
 
 M
 
 162 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 dence of sensuous experience. Only, the idea of Paul contains 
 something more than this general sense ; the passage last quoted 
 shows that it has its true object in God, or more particularly in 
 his revelation of salvation, whether by way of promise or of 
 saving act. The faith of Abraham, according to Eom. iv. 3, con- 
 sisted in this, that he eVto-rcvore T$ 0e, i. e. put faith in God, had 
 confidence that He could and would make good his word; and 
 thus far, as an act of confidence in God, it was a Sovvat 86gav 6ea> 
 (ver. 20). Whenever we " believe a man about anything," the 
 ground of our conviction lies in our confidence in our authority, 
 and this is an ethical act of personal respect and heartfelt trust 
 in the truthfulness of another. Just so, according to the authori- 
 tative passage, Rom. iv., religious faith is holding for true without 
 logical ground, but on the ethical ground of trust in God and con- 
 fidence in God's truth, power, and honour, which implies the 
 due feeling of reverence towards God, the "giving Him the 
 glory," and therefore the key-note of religion. The expression, 
 irio-Tfvfiv ets, or rl 0eov, Rom. x. 14, iv. 5, 24, has essentially 
 the same sense as this Tricn-eveiv 0ew ; it means to have confidence 
 (i e. take confidence) in reference to God, or, in other words, to 
 believe in God. 
 
 Now the specific Christian or justifying faith is identical with 
 this religious faith according to its psychological form, and analo- 
 gous to it with regard to its object, as Paul unmistakably teaches 
 in Rom. iv. As the faith of Abraham was an undoubting as- 
 surance in the promise of God, which was contradictory to 
 appearances, so Christian faith is a " trust in relation to God, who 
 raised Christ from the dead," and " who justifies the ungodly," 
 Rom. iv. 24, v. ; that is to say, in the first place, a trustful hold- 
 ing it to be true that God raised Christ from the dead, and thus 
 wrought a miraculous manifestation of his favourable will, ana- 
 logous to that event the future happening of which was the 
 object of Abraham's assurance ; secondly, a trustful acceptance 
 of the fact that the favourable will of God, evidenced by that 
 miraculous act, will henceforth be fulfilled in every sinner who
 
 FAITH. 163 
 
 believes in the equally paradoxical act of justifying the un- 
 godly. 
 
 These perfectly plain passages show beyond a possibility of 
 doubt wherein, according to Paul, the Trwrrts Xpivrov, or Trurreveiv 
 eis Xpurrov, consists. It is faith in Christ in the sense of trust- 
 ing in the favourable will of God revealed in Christ, in the righ- 
 teousness that comes from God through the mediation of Christ 
 (Eom. iii. 22 26; Gal. ii. 16 f.). Christ is certainly not the 
 object of faith in the same sense as God ; it is not he in whom 
 faith or trust is placed, to whose personality this trust attaches, 
 for Paul nowhere speaks of a irurrtvuv Xpio-T$ as he does of a 
 iriarrfvciv Ocu. But he is the object of faith so far, that in him, 
 especially in his death and resurrection, the favourable will of 
 God, which is the real object of religious trust, has been re- 
 vealed. He is the object of faith only so far as he (that is to 
 say, his death and resurrection) supports and is instrumental in 
 producing the specific Christian faith in God (namely, the trust 
 in the historically revealed favourable will of God). Now, in so 
 far as this faith in Christ refers, in the first instance, to matters 
 of history (the death and resurrection of Christ), it is undeniably 
 a theoretical act of holding for true, a being convinced of the 
 reality of the resurrection of Christ, upon which depended, in 
 the mind of Paul, the significance of the death of Jesus as a 
 Messianic expiatory sacrifice, and consequently the truth of the 
 favourable will of God. This is not only an obvious inference 
 from the whole Pauline doctrine of redemption, but Paul himself 
 says, with the greatest emphasis, that the belief in the miracu- 
 lous resurrection as a historical fact, was for him an integral 
 part of his notion of faith: "If Christ be not risen from the dead, 
 your faith is vain ; ye are yet in your sins," 1 Cor. xv. 17; "If 
 thou believest in thine heart that God raised Jesus from the 
 dead, thou shalt be saved," Eom. x. 9. In order rightly to under- 
 stand the peculiar stress thus laid by Paul on the resurrection of 
 Christ as the specific object of Christian faith, we must re- 
 member that Paul's own faith in Christ had no other starting- 
 
 M 2
 
 164 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 point than the, assurance by means of the vision that the cruci- 
 fied one was alive. This was not the case with the immediate 
 disciples of Jesus, whose faith had proceeded from trust in the 
 personality of their Master ; nor, with the theological school of 
 John, in whose eyes the resurrection was only one of the nume- 
 rous manifestations in which the existence of the Logos in Jesus 
 was outwardly attested; the faith of this school could not, there- 
 fore, be referred to that single fact, but to the divine sonship of 
 Jesus in general (John xx. 31). But the last-mentioned passage 
 (Eom. x. 9 f.) shows that with Paul also the faith of the Chris- 
 tian does not simply take the resurrection of Christ as a mere 
 external event of history, and therefore is not merely a theo- 
 retical act of holding something for true KapSiy. Trio-reverou, eov 
 TricrTcuo-ys (v rrj KapStp a-ov. If it is the heart, the seat of the life 
 of feeling, in which and with which we must believe, then faith 
 itself is evidently also a matter of feeling, a specific state of the 
 emotional nature, as " trusting" is, in the sense developed above; 
 and if the confession that Christ is the " Lord " be the outward 
 counterpart of this faith of the heart (ibid, lav 6/*oAoy^crgs h r$ 
 a-TOfiari, o-ov Kvpiov 'I^crow), then faith must be the inward recogni- 
 tion of Christ as the Lord, therefore a subjection of the will to 
 the dominion of Christ. Consequently faith may be described 
 also as an act of obedience, ibid. v. 16, wra/couetv TW erayyeAi^, as 
 
 equivalent to Trwrreveiv : and VCr. 3, iTroray/Jj/ai TTJ 8iKaiocrvvY) TOV 
 
 Ofov, as the opposite of ryv i&iav SiKatoa-vvrjv fyreiv: also 2 Cor. 
 x. 5, WTO.}) XPUTTOV, under which all human ratiocination that 
 contradicts the evangelical knowledge of God (here especially 
 the dialectic of the Judaizers) is to be brought into captivity. 
 The expression wraKorj TTIO-TCWS in Eom. i. 5, has precisely the 
 same meaning, where TTIO-TCWS is not the genitive of the subject, 
 but of the object, and denotes the principle of Christian faith, to 
 which the Gentiles were to become subject by the preaching of 
 Paul. But this " becoming subject to the principle of faith " is 
 plainly only another name for "becoming believers," and accord- 
 ingly TTio-Tfueiv here also denotes waKo?), an act of obedience. But
 
 FAITH. 165 
 
 in what sense is the Pauline faith called " obedience " ? Not in 
 some such sense as a morally good disposition, intention, and 
 endeavour to perform the will of God, or the fulfilling of the law 
 in principle. This would entirely pervert the Pauline notion of 
 justifying faith, although not only modern theologians, but (as 
 we shall presently see) even the earliest followers of Paul, have 
 given this moral application to the notion. But the Pauline 
 faith is an act of obedience exclusively in a religious sense, 
 namely, as an act of self-determination, that consists in renounc- 
 ing everything of our own, so far as it could stand in opposition 
 to the favourable will of God towards us, or form a ground of 
 self-glorification, whether in the shape of natural advantages, or 
 moral acts or claims, or even inherited opinions and prejudices 
 flattering to our self-love, and giving ourselves up wholly to the 
 favourable will of God. Thus it constitutes the opposite to rrjv 
 
 iSiav SiKaio<rvvr)v j^Teiv (Rom. X. 3), Or Iv crapKl Trerroi^evai (Phil. 
 
 iii. 4), and is therefore identical with the truly humble spirit 
 which wishes to have nothing and be nothing of itself, but, on 
 the contrary, to receive everything from God, and which will 
 rather consider all its own advantages as damage and loss, in 
 order to obtain instead of them Christ, and consequently the 
 righteousness which is of God (Phil. iii. 7 f.). In this absolute 
 surrender of the whole man to God, faith is certainly the most 
 complete fulfilment of the will of God, but, be it well under- 
 stood, not (in the first instance) of that will which demands the 
 fulfilment of the law, but of the will which bestows favour, of 
 that will which has substituted for the old economy of law, with 
 its demands and performances, the new economy of grace with 
 its gift of favour, and now requires nothing from men with 
 respect to this new religious principle but the behaviour which 
 corresponds to it a trustful acceptance of the gift of favour 
 offered by God. This is something specifically different from a 
 morally good disposition, from willing the good in principle in 
 the moral life, for its aim is not doing at all, but receiving, not 
 the moral perfection either of the person himself or of the world,
 
 166 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 but religious satisfaction the setting of the human heart in the 
 right relation to God, and the blessing to be expected therefrom ; 
 it is, in short, the key-note of all religious feeling, not that dis- 
 position which forms the basis of the moral will. This must be 
 carefully borne in mind in order to the right understanding of 
 Paul's idea of justification. 
 
 What Paul says about the origin of faith quite agrees with 
 the above. Owing to the historical nature of the object of faith, 
 faith can only come e a/covjs, Rom. x. 17, from hearing the 
 announcement of the gospel. It is so far dependent on being 
 handed dovm by men (TTWS a/cow-wo-i x w P Krjpvo-o-ovTos; ibid. ver. 14) ; 
 just as the Apostle himself in preaching the gospel first of all 
 delivered what he himself had received (from men) the facts 
 of the death, burial, resurrection and appearances of Christ 
 (1 Cor. xv. 3 f.). Nay, regarded from this point of view, faith 
 implies also a certain confidence in the truthfulness and trust- 
 worthiness of the men who handed down the gospel, as the 
 "witnesses of God," who were set down as "false witnesses" 
 through lack of faith in their testimony (ibid. ver. 15). Notwith- 
 standing this, however, faith is by no means grounded on the 
 word of men, any more than what is historical forms, as such, 
 the chief part of its object; but as this is only the temporal 
 form in which the favourable will of God to man attains its 
 outward manifestation, so that which produces faith is not the 
 human word of historical announcement, but the word of God 
 finding expression through this means. The Aoyos d/co^s is to 
 be accepted, not as the Aoyos avdpuiruv, but Ka0ws earn/ d\r)6u<s, as 
 Aoyos 6eov, 1 Thess. ii. 13. In particular, the Aoyos rov (rravpov 
 preached by Paul is to the Jews an offence, and to the Greeks 
 foolishness, but to the called (who are destined to faith and 
 salvation by the counsel of God, and actually called to this 
 by the preaching of the gospel) it is Oeov Swa/us *cu Ofov 
 <ro<f>ia, 1 Cor. i. 18 24. The preaching of Paul does not consist 
 in persuasive words of man's wisdom, but in demonstration of 
 the spirit and of power. Therefore the faith of the Corinthians
 
 FAITH. 167 
 
 rests not Iv <ro<ip avOpuTruv dAA' v Swdfj-et Oeov (ii. 4 f.) And if 
 we ask how far the word preached shows itself as the power of 
 God, Eom. i. 16 f. leaves us in no doubt on this head; it is 
 because in it the righteousness which is of God is revealed as a 
 consequence of faith for the purpose of faith (of awakening faith) ; 
 that is to say, because it shows to man, who stands under the 
 wrath of God, the only possible way of attaining to righteous- 
 ness before God, and thereby to being made a partaker of salva- 
 tion (o-wnj/oia, ver. 16). It is God himself who has committed to 
 us the word of reconciliation, and who calls to men through 
 the mouth of his ambassadors, " Be reconciled with God !" 
 (2 Cor. v. 19 f.). It is as this message of assured reconciliation, 
 of the offered righteousness of God, that the gospel of Christ the 
 crucified is the power of God, on which that faith depends which 
 awakens faith or human trust in the God who so reveals Himself. 
 Thus it is once more made clear to us how justifying faith does 
 not merely consist of a belief in the truth of miraculous events 
 narrated by man, which could only be brought about by the 
 convincing force of human testimony and by the art of human 
 persuasion ; but whereas that forms only the external husk, the 
 real kernel of faith is the trustful surrender of the heart to the 
 favourable will of God, as it presents itself to us in the word of 
 reconciliation. 
 
 Now if faith is, as above, trust awakened in the human heart 
 by the offer of favour contained in the gospel, it immediately 
 becomes a bond which connects God and man; in that trust 
 there is directly involved a grateful love, which places man in 
 a community of life with God and Christ. As the giving up of 
 the heart to the love of God and Christ, it is not merely the 
 acceptance of the message of salvation, but the being incorporated 
 with the object of salvation itself in a mystical unity of love and of 
 life. Pauline faith has in this attained to that mystical depth, 
 by which, as a complete and central appropriation of the object 
 of salvation, it was capable of becoming the complete and exclu-
 
 168 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 sive subjective means of salvation 1 (irurrci SiKatovo-Oat 
 which Luther rightly renders " by faith alone"). This mystical 
 notion of faith is expressly contained in Gal. ii. 20, a passage no 
 less clear than profound. Here y h e/xot Xpio-ros is parallel to 
 iv Trwrm <3 TQ rov vlov TOV deov, TOV ayaTn/cravros p-e Kal TrapaSovros 
 eavrov wrep ep>v, and both expressions denote the same real com- 
 munity of the Christian's life with the divine principle of sal- 
 vation, the immanence of the latter in the human personal life. 
 'Ev Trio-Tel & is not opposed to 3 eV e/zoi X/HO-TOS, as if the former 
 were merely the condition of the latter and presupposed by it 2 
 this is an abstract separation between man and the object of 
 'salvation, which is most decidedly excluded by the words $ 
 Se OVKCTI eyw and XprT<J> crvvfcrTav/jw/xm in this very passage. 
 On the contrary, the only distinction between the two clauses 
 is, that the one denotes the condition of the Christian with 
 reference to its objective (immanent) principle, the other with 
 reference to the subjective psychological means by which it is 
 brought about. And this passage is especially instructive for 
 this very reason, that it allows us to see the inner point of unity 
 between faith in the sense of trustful acceptance, and the deep 
 mystical notion of faith. This unity lies in the grateful love 
 which is absolutely inseparable from entire trust ; and we can 
 now understand why Paul, above all others, arrived at this deep 
 notion of faith. The reason was, that to him the object of salva- 
 tion didnot consist of a mere external good for example, an object 
 of hope like the coming of the Messiah's kingdom but was directly 
 presented to him in the person and in the loving act of the 
 Mediator of reconciliation ; consequently the faith that had this 
 
 1 See the beautiful exposition of the Pauline notion of faith in iedermann, 
 Dogmatik, 279. 
 
 9 Contrary to the view of Weiss, p. 329. The misunderstanding of this mystical 
 moment in the Pauline notion of faith is the cause of a defect which is painfully felt 
 in Weiss's exposition of the doctrines of Paul, in spite of the appositeness of par- 
 ticular parts of it ; the truly organic interdependence of the various moments of the 
 Apostle's religious speculation, and the living movement by which they are developed 
 out of one another, is turned into a dead juxtaposition of scholastic doctrines.
 
 FAITH. 169 
 
 for its object was able to attain to a depth that was quite be- 
 yond the reach of the Judaized faith of a James. Man attaches 
 himself in loving trust to Christ as his Lord, and thereby 
 becomes one spirit with him. (1 Cor. vi. 17, o xoAAw/xevos TW 
 Kvpttp fv 7rvfvfj.d eWiv.) Christ, the personified revelation of the 
 Divine favour, then becomes the ruling principle of the personal 
 life of man, which is thus completely taken up into Christ's 
 saving work as into its own vital element. (Phil. i. 21, C/MK 
 yap TO {fiv X/310-Tos.) Since faith is the recognition of Christ 
 as the Lord, it introduces us into his family, and thereby at 
 once into mystical union with him; for "to be Christ's," and 
 "to have the spirit of Christ in one's self," are inseparable 
 (Horn. vili. 9, ct TIS irvf.vp.0. Xpto-Tou OVK c'x t > OUTOS OVK eortv CUJTOV). 
 Nay, so little is true faith possible without the indwelling of 
 Christ in the believer, that the latter is expressly stated by 
 the Apostle to be the criterion of the former (2 Cor. xiii. 5, 
 the certainty of being in the faith depends on the percep- 
 tion that Christ is in you; compare Eom. viii. 9). Here it 
 is made perfectly clear that faith is, as regards man, the form, 
 which if it is not to be empty form, i.e. unreal appearance, 
 must have the object of salvation, not outside of itself as a 
 mere object of knowledge, but in itself as a living principle. 
 This mystical notion of faith is also a remarkable characteristic 
 of the Epistle to the Philippians : becoming a believer is here 
 represented (iii. 12) as a "being laid hold of by Christ," as 
 striving "to win Christ;" being a believer as "being found 
 in Christ," as practical " knowledge of Christ," and more defi- 
 nitely knowledge of " both the power of his resurrection and the 
 fellowship of his sufferings by being made conformable to his 
 death" (ibid. vers. 9, 10). Faith is, according to this, a practical 
 acquaintance with Christ, which completes itself by personal 
 appropriation; a being made conscious of what the saving 
 power of the resurrection and the death of Christ really means, 
 which can only take place in the mystical communion with the 
 sufferings of Christ, and being made conformable to his death.
 
 170 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 In short, justifying faith (compare ver. 9) is here the subjective 
 taking into our inmost self of the principle of salvation in all 
 its moments, as exhibited to us by way of example in (the 
 historical) Christ. 
 
 But when Paul had once come to make faith a laying hold of 
 and expropriating the principle of salvation for our own principle 
 of life, he had come very near to the final step of apprehending 
 it as the development of this principle in the whole course of the 
 life of salvation. This is certainly an enlargement of the notion, 
 and it must be distinguished from the original idea of justifying 
 faith. For in this wider sense faith is no longer a merely 
 passive attitude, but a spontaneous active power. Inasmuch as it 
 
 has for its Own Contents the Tri/eO/za aytov, irvevp,a X/3i<rro{;, Trveu/za 
 
 fwoTToiow, it must necessarily exhibit itself as a living impulse 
 and power of good in every phase of personal life, in feeling, in 
 moral conduct, and in the perception of truth, both religious 
 and moral. It is by means of faith that God fills us> with all 
 manner of joy and peace (Eom. xv. 13). Faith it is which proves 
 its active power by (brotherly) love (Gal. v. 6). Faith gives 
 steadfastness to our convictions, at once religious and moral, as 
 to what is morally permissible, and the conviction of Christian 
 freedom in things indifferent, which is grounded in faith, may 
 therefore itself be designated as n-wrrts, and the want of this 
 inward freedom as ao-fleveiv ry T^O-TCI (Eom. xiv. 1, 22 f.). 
 
 The fuller discussion of this subject belongs to the next 
 Chapter, where the same states will present themselves to us as 
 the effect of the spirit ; which only shows that " faith," in this 
 wider sense, denotes the same Christian principle of life as 
 " spirit," only the former from a subjective, the latter from an 
 objective, point of view. 1 
 
 1 Baur, N. Tie. Theol., p. 175, appositely remarks in connection with this subject, 
 " TTiorif is indeed the necessary presupposition of Trvevfin, inasmuch as irvtvfia is 
 obtained i' dico/jc iriartuQ, but is at bottom related to it only as form to matter, 
 and in irvtv/ia alone comes to be the living actuality of the .Christian consciousness 
 filled with its positive content." And again, p. 176, "What is said of spirit, may 
 also be said of faith."
 
 JUSTIFICATION. 171 
 
 It is consistent with this view, that faith according to Paul 
 admits of degrees, and of increase and decrease. Christian self- 
 esteem is to be measured, eKeurT({> o>s o 0eo9 e/xepure fj-erpov Trio-Tews 
 
 (Rom. xii. 3). As in the passage before quoted an do-Oevew ry 
 TTMTTCI (certainly in distinct relation to the perception of faith) 
 was spoken of, so also there is an unusual strength of faith, a 
 heroic degree of it, which is capable of the most extraordinary 
 actions (this is what we are to understand by the x^P 10 '^ - of 
 Tj-icrris, 1 Cor. xii. 9, and by faith which can remove mountains, 
 xiii. 2). Faith, being this Christian life which is susceptible of 
 different degrees, can also grow (cf. 2 Cor. x. 15, ai^avo^e^s -HJs 
 Trio-Tews V/AWV). And because the possibility of its diminution is 
 not excluded, there is an ever-recurring need of admonition to 
 the faithful, a-r^Kere ry Trio-ret (1 Cor. xvi. 13), which with such 
 expressions as avS/3teor0e, Kparatova-Of, evidently relates to the 
 strengthening of the whole religious and moral life, and not 
 merely to holding fast the assurance of justifying favour. All 
 these applications of 7rrr6s go beyond the original notion of 
 justifying faith, though they are essentially connected with it, 
 and naturally flow out of it. Their one root is the trustful sur- 
 render of the heart to Christ as the mediator of reconcilation, 
 as the principle and the pattern of divine sonship. Hence pro- 
 ceed, on the one hand directly, the being placed in the condition 
 of children of God by justification and adoption ; and, on the 
 other hand indirectly, the subjective quickening by the spirit of 
 sonship, the "living in the Spirit." Since these are only two 
 moments which are comprehended in their unity in the central 
 mystery of faith, faith may be regarded equally well as the con- 
 dition of justification and (from another point of view, of course) 
 as living in the Spirit. 
 
 JUSTIFICATION. 
 
 For the meaning of the word 8u<aiovv, we must not refer to the 
 classics, but only to its use in the Septuagint and in the New
 
 172 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 Testament, especially in the Epistles of Paul themselves. In 
 the Septuagint, the word is applied to judicial acquittal and 
 declaration of innocence; e.g. Exod. xxxiii.. 7, ov SiK<uoxreis TOV 
 
 dcrfftrj fvfKfv Sw/acov : Deut. XXV. 1, eav Si/ccuaxraxri TOV SIKCUOV xat 
 
 KarayvuKTi TOV ao-e/3oGs : and also to judgment other than judicial, 
 in the sense of recognizing as just or righteous ; e. g. Ecclesias- 
 
 ticus xviii. 2, Kvpios /AOVOS SiKcuto^o-eTcu : Job xxxiii. 32, el f'uri 
 <roi Aoyoi, dTTOKpiOrjTi JJ,OL, 6e\(a yap SiKaiwOrjvai ere. ESiKcuw^T/ rj 
 
 o-o</ua, Matt. xi. 19, has the same meaning; and SeSiKcuwpevos, 
 Luke xviii 14, is used in the Pauline sense. Now that Paul 
 uses the word, as it is used in all these passages, to mean a judg- 
 ment of acquittal, is shown in the first place by the opposition 
 in which it stands to kyKa.Xf.lv = to accuse judicially, in Eom. 
 viii. 33, and to KaraKpi^a = condemnation, in Eom v. 18. That 
 it denotes & judicial act is further shown unmistakably by Rom. 
 
 iii. 4, OTTWS 8iKai<aOrj<; kv TOIS Aoyois croi>, KCU vtKTJo-ys tv TO> Kpivf(rOai 
 
 o-e. It is evident that there can be no question here about any 
 kind of " making righteous," because God is the subject ; the 
 point of the quotation is the recognition of the righteousness of 
 God in a sort of judicial proceeding between Him and the sinner. 
 In Eom. ii. 13, ot Troi^rai TOU VO//.GV Si/caiw^^o-ovrai is opposed to 
 ocrot ijftaprov, 810. vopov KpiOtfa-ovrai in ver. 12 ; as the latter is a 
 judicial condemnation, the former is a judicial acquittal, where 
 every idea of " making righteous " is excluded ; for the doers of 
 the law have no need at all to be made righteous, for they are so 
 already as doers ; the recognition of their righteousness is the 
 only thing that has any meaning here. The fact that in this 
 instance judgment of acquittal follows as the consequence of a 
 corresponding real character on the part of the person justified, 
 certainly establishes a difference in the circumstances of this 
 and the Christian Si/ccuouv, but not a difference in the meaning 
 of the word itself. 
 
 In addition to these indirect proofs, we have also a direct one, 
 in the explanation, both in positive and negative terms, which 
 Paul himself gives of his notion of SIKCUOUV. In Eom. iv. 2 f., he
 
 JUSTIFICA TION. 173 
 
 explains SIKCUOUI/ by Aoyte<r#ai SiKatocrvvrjv, or TTWTTIV eis 
 negatively /) Xoyifro-Oai a/xa/m'av. But Aoyieo-0<u always denotes 
 an ideal act of judging, considering, regarding, not a real act of 
 making into something ; and therefore Aoy. SIKCUOO-WJJV means to 
 ascribe, or give credit for righteousness to some one in an act of 
 judgment, negatively not to ascribe sin, to regard it as not there ; 
 
 \oyi((rda.i TTMTTIV eis iKaio(rvvi}v means to take COUUt of faith, SO 
 
 as to attribute righteousness ; or to ascribe righteousness on the 
 ground of faith, because faith is there. Now whether this be an 
 analytic judgment, which simply recognizes the righteousness 
 which is there, or a synthetic judgment, which corresponds to a 
 righteousness which is not yet in existence, is certainly not indi- 
 cated by the word XoyifrvOai, but the context clearly shows that 
 the latter only is meant. In ver. 5, God is said to be SIKCUWV TOV 
 ao-e/3iy that is, one who declares him righteous who in himself is 
 not so, but the opposite, namely, an do-e/3??s ; consequently this 
 SIKO.IOVV or Aoyieo-0<u 8iKaioa-vvijv is not recognizing righteousness 
 that is there, but ascribing righteousness that is not there to the 
 man who is in fact godless. The same is very distinctly implied 
 
 in the antithesis of Xoyi^tvdai Kar o^ei'A^a, and Aoy. Kara xapiv. 
 
 To him who went about with works, sought his strength, his 
 praise at the hand of God in works, wished to be regarded as 
 righteous on account of his works, his wages (supposing that he 
 were right, and that it were possible to make such a claim) 
 would be due as a debt that is, he would be treated according 
 to his deserts, as that which he really is, and on which he could 
 found claims of recognition ; he would thus be declared righ- 
 teous, and treated as such, on the ground of his being actiially 
 righteous. But the antithesis requires that the Aoytr0at /caret 
 \a.piv TW pr) fpyaofj.fv<a TrurrevovTi 8e be a judgment which ascribes 
 righteousness, not on the ground of the man's being correspond- 
 ingly righteous, but on a presupposition of the opposite namely, 
 his being godless ; a judgment, therefore, the ground of which is 
 not in the man at all, not in his real character, or his moral 
 worth and merit, but exclusively in the favour of God, which is
 
 174 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 thus a Scapfa xa/HTos. The whole point of Paul's doctrine of jus- 
 tification its moral paradox and its religious idealism lies pre- 
 cisely in this ideality of the judgment of justification ; in its 
 being grounded, not on any real moral character of the man, but 
 only on God, on his favouring will and his ordinance of favour. 
 This imputed <c righteousness" is the very opposite of that which 
 is the usual meaning of the term, and which to the Jew in par- 
 ticular was its sole meaning, namely, a subjective moral condi- 
 tion of conformity with the will of God expressed in his laws. 
 It denotes an objective religious principle the right relation 
 between God and man, which, restored by God himself, presents 
 itself to the religious consciousness of man as something objec- 
 tively given, as a new revelation of God, and which when it is 
 subjectively appropriated, but not before, proves itself to be also 
 a morally renovating principle. It is this objectivity of the 
 notion of righteousness that was the specifically new element in 
 the teaching of Paul, and his chief weapon against the Judaistic 
 party : to misunderstand this is to displace the foundation of the 
 whole gospel of Paul. 
 
 The Apostle has framed some peculiar expressions for the 
 righteousness imputed to man through justification, which 
 clearly indicate what the new idea is. He calls it the SiKaioa-vvrj 
 
 6eov Or K Oeov, and SIKCUOO-W?? Sia TrurTtcos "Xpurrov, Rom. i. 17, 
 
 iii. 22, x. 3 ; 2 Cor. v. 21 ; Phil. iii. 9. It is impossible to under- 
 stand by this a quality or power of God ; in that case it could 
 not also be called SIKCUOO-W?? c deov, nor would it be conditioned 
 and brought about by the TTCO-TIS Xpio-rov ; least of all could it be 
 said that we men arrive at SIKCUOO-W^ dcov in Christ (2 Cor. 
 v. 21); this passage, taken together with e/c deov and Sia mo-reus 
 in the texts quoted above, forces us to think of a gift which 
 comes from God, and which is to be received on the part of man 
 by faith; compare Eom. .v. 17, Sopfa. T^S SIKCUOO-VI/TJS. But neither 
 is it possible to understand by it a quality of man, a moral con- 
 dition or moral power in him ; for the expression, " righteous- 
 ness of God," would be far too unusual and misleading a term to
 
 JUSTIFICATION. 175 
 
 apply to the human quality of being righteous ; moreover, the 
 predicate aTroKaXwrrerai, i. 17, would be inapplicable; for a human 
 quality may doubtless be caused by God, but certainly not 
 "revealed;" and further, the revelation of Si/ccuoo-wrj Otov is here 
 opposed to that of opyrj Beov (ver. 18), which in any case is an 
 objective power exercised on man, that can indeed be subjec- 
 tively felt by him, but has not its seat within him. The other 
 
 expression, ry SiKcuocrwy TOV 6eov o^x VTrerayTjcrai/, X. 3, also COm- 
 
 pels us to think of an objective power, and not a subjective 
 quality in man, for a man may take up and form in himself a 
 quality, but cannot "subject" himself to it. Now if by the 
 StKaioo-vvr) 6eov of Paul we can understand neither a quality of 
 God nor a quality of man, because it appears at one time as 
 something which comes to man, and at another time as some- 
 thing which stands over him, and is established by God for him, 
 then there is nothing left for us but to understand it as the true 
 relation between God and man, ivhich, being ordained by God, pre- 
 sents itself to the consciousness of man as a new religious principle, 
 as a new regulator of his religious behaviour, and to which man 
 has to submit himself, by allovjing his attitude towards God to be 
 determined by this divinely ordained principle. Thus it is called 
 SiKaioo-vvrj 6(ov or K 6fov, because that true relation cannot be 
 established by man, but only by the favour of God, by means of 
 the institution of redemption (8iKaiov/j.fvoi Swpeav -nf avroi" ^dpin 
 
 8ia rgs airoArT/DOKmos T^S V Xprr(J5 'Irjvov, Rom. iii. 24) ; but the 
 
 But. deov is received by man Sta TrtVrews Xpia-rov, because faith 
 alone, as WCIKOT) Xpicn-ou or evayyeAtov, submits itself to the 
 favourable will of God, as it is revealed in Christ, and enters 
 into the ordained relation of reconciliation, of peace with God. 
 By this subjection of himself to the principle of favour ordained 
 by God, the believer comes to stand in the true relation to God 
 (St/ccuos KaTcurra^o-eTcu, v. 19); the favourable will accomplishes 
 itself upon him, in declaring him to be righteous in consequence 
 
 of his believing (SiKcuoirrcu IK TTI'OTCWS Or TTMTTIS A.oy ifeTcu is 
 
 ; he counts henceforth in the judgment of God as a
 
 176 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 righteous man that is, as a man who stands towards God as 
 he Ought (SiKcuoi/rat evawriov 6cov Or Trapa T 0ew, Rom. iii. 20 ; 
 
 Gal. iii. 11); and this new relation to God, thus entered upon 
 and ratified, then reflects itself upon the subjective consciousness 
 in the feeling of peace, of unbroken harmony with God (8t/cao- 
 ovv eipTjvrjv I^O/ACV, V. 1). The objectivity of the SIKCUOO-VKJ; 
 is in no way disproved by 2 Cor. v. 21, but, on the con- 
 trary, receives fresh confirmation. For here the thought, that it 
 is in Christ we attain to the Sixcuoo-ui/r? 0eou, is the correlative to 
 Christ's having been made d/xa/arta for us by God : now it is in- 
 disputable that the latter can only be meant in an ideal sense, 
 that God has regarded Christ as a sinner, and treated him as 
 such (made him the object of his avenging justice); therefore 
 the former must be understood in a corresponding sense, that 
 God regards us in Christ (by virtue of our belonging to Christ 
 through faith in him) as righteous, and treats us accordingly, 
 although we are as far from being so in reality, as Christ was 
 from being a sinner. And this imputative notion of SIKGUOO-W?? 
 Oeov is required by the connection with the preceding passage, 
 for the expression is paraphrased in ver. 19 by ^ Aoyio/zevos 
 CLVTOIS ra irapaTTTcafjMTa. aurwv. Accordingly, the " righteousness of 
 God in Christ " is that condition of freedom from guilt which is 
 brought about by not reckoning sin as condemning guilt, or by 
 judicial justification. The objective nature of righteousness and 
 sin, according to Paul, could not be more strikingly expressed 
 than it is in this passage, where both appear as types of 
 character, or parts which can be separated and transferred to 
 other persons and exchanged one for the other. 
 
 This analogy of imputed righteousness with imputed sin 
 brings us to a passage of great importance in its bearing upon 
 this doctrine a passage in which sin and righteousness are con- 
 ceived as types characteristic of the race of natural and Christian 
 humanity, represented, in connection with the history of the 
 entire world, by Adam and Christ. Rom. v. 12 21 concludes 
 that section of the Epistle which begins at i. 17, and which de-
 
 JUSTIFICATION. 177 
 
 velops the SiKatoa-uv-i] Ofov, which is there stated as the theme for 
 discussion. The objectivity of this righteousness is finally corro- 
 borated here by the parallel that is drawn between it and the 
 similarly objective sin of Adamitic humanity. We have already 
 (in the first part of Chap, i.) discussed the introduction, and one 
 member of the parallel (especially vers. 12 14). Here we have 
 to do with the further carrying out of the comparison with re- 
 gard to points of difference and of identity, vers. 15 19. First 
 of all, vers. 15-T-17, the difference between the two members of 
 the parallel (the relation of sinful humanity to Adam, and of 
 justified humanity to Christ) is set forth in greater detail, in 
 order to prepare the way for carrying out the positive analogy, 
 which is the real object of the whole parallel. This difference is 
 partly qualitative and partly quantitative. As to the qualitative 
 from Adam judgment went forth to condemnation, from Christ 
 the gift of favour to justification (i<pip.a. is Ko.Ta.Kpip.0. -^dpio-fj-a, 
 ts StKoiwpx, ver. 16); in the former case, the irapdirTtapa. or the 
 Tra.pa.Kori of one issued in the death of many, the dominion of 
 death over the race; in the latter case, the Sutatwpa or the viraKo-f) 
 of one issued in the dominion of many in life (ver. 17); and as 
 to the quantitative difference in the former case, condemnation 
 extended from one over all, simply without their personal co- 
 operation (incurring guilt); but in the latter case, the gift of 
 favour unto justification extended from one to all (" all," that is 
 to say, according to the intention of God), not only without their 
 personal co-operation (deserving it), but, on the contrary, under 
 presupposition of ("in spite of") many transgressions (* -n-oXXwv 
 7rapaTTT<afj,dr(av, ver. 16), on which account the gift appears as not 
 only personally undeserved, but indeed, in consideration of the 
 personal unworthiness of the recipients, as too great, so that 
 there is an "excess" of favour beyond the justice that judges (17 
 
 Swpfa (v ^dpLTi fTTfpicrtTfva-f eis TOVS TroAAov?, Ver. 15, and irfpuro-eia 
 njs x^/aiTos, ver. 17). But besides this qualitative and quantita- 
 tive dissimilarity of the two members, the positive analogy, which 
 forms the principal subject of discussion here, consists of the 
 
 N
 
 178 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 similar relation of the respective races to their progenitor. In one 
 member of the parallel, as in the other, the fate of the whole 
 multitude without regard to individual differences between the 
 several persons is entirely determined by the act of the one 
 progenitor, which forms the ground of a divine judgment on the 
 whole multitude which depends on him, whereby they are 
 placed, in the one case, in a state of sin and of death, and in the 
 other, of righteousness and life. The religious status of these 
 two races is fixed immediately e evos ets Travras, consequently 
 without personal co-operation (of guilt or merit), in the one 
 case as that of sin, in the other of righteousness (d/*a/3To>Aoi 
 
 KareKpiOrjo-av StKouot KaTacrra #770-0 VTOU ot TroAAot, Ver. 19). The 
 
 tertium comparationis, therefore, lies in the pure objectivity of 
 the religious status, both of natural (Adamitic) and of Christian 
 humanity. Neither sin and the dominion of death in the case of 
 the former, nor righteousness and life in the case of the latter, is 
 in any way caused by individuals ; both, on the contrary, have 
 their origin in the Divine will, which displays itself as wrathful 
 will in a judicial sentence of condemnation, and as favourable 
 will in a judicial sentence of justification, passed upon the 
 whole; the occasion of which sentence is the act of the pro- 
 genitor of the race, the misdoing of Adam, and the righteous 
 doing of Christ. But in this pure objectivity, neither sin nor 
 righteousness can be thought of as personal behaviour or a moral 
 quality, which would necessarily imply free action on the part of 
 the individuals ; both indicate the general relation in which the 
 race (without individual freedom) finds itself placed towards 
 God, the principle ordained by God himself, which determines 
 the religious character of the race, and by which the religious 
 consciousness of the individual is conditioned a priori. 
 
 As, then, the sin of natural humanity and the dominion of 
 death, which is inseparable from it, do not depend on the free 
 act of the individuals, since they are, on the contrary, fixed as 
 the character of the race previously to any act of the individuals 
 (which character is seen in the act of the race performed by its
 
 JUSTIFICATION. 179 
 
 representative, Adam), so likewise righteousness and life do not 
 depend on the free act of the individuals, but are given to the 
 whole collectively, as a divine gift of favour in Christ, and are 
 acquired as an actual possession by those who accept this gift of 
 
 righteousness (TTJV Trepicra-fiav T^S \dpiTOS KOU TV)S Stopeas rrjs SIKO.IO- 
 
 <rw?7s Aa/x/2avovT<-9, ver. 17). The subjective effect of this, then, is 
 a sovereign possession of life (/fao-iAevo-ovo-tv lv fay as an evident 
 contrast to the preceding 6 tfavaros c/?a<rt Aevo-e : instead of involun- 
 tary subjection to the sovereign dominion of death, we have here 
 the sovereign possession of life). It is only with reference to this 
 its subjective effect in the possession and regal enjoyment of eternal 
 life (far] cuomos, ver. 21), that justification is called in ver. 18 a 
 SiKeuWis CUT;?, and by no means in the sense of making the life 
 righteous by a moral renovation, which would neither correspond 
 with the immediate antithesis Kara/c/Dt/ia, nor be consistent with 
 the context and the line of thought of this entire section of the 
 Epistle, in which, as we have said, the development of the idea 
 of the SiKtuoo-wrj 0eov, propounded in i. 17 as the theme, is 
 brought to its crowning point. The fundamental thought of this 
 section is comprised in the dogmatic notions of the imputed 
 sin of Adam and the imputed righteousness of Christ; although 
 these words are not actually used by the Apostle, yet the sense 
 of his expression, ' evos eis Travras, certainly amounts to this. 
 
 What this idea of imputed (ideal, objective) righteousness is, 
 may be shown indirectly by the consideration that Paul makes 
 a very marked distinction between it and moral renovation or 
 " sanctifi cation " (dyiaoyxos). For instance, in 1 Cor. i. 30, Christ 
 
 is made for US cro<m, BiKaioo-vvrj re Kal dytaoyios KCU a7roA.VT/>a)crts. 
 
 Here dyiaoytos denotes the renovating and purifying influence of 
 Christ upon our moral life, or the fact that the real condition of 
 our life is in process of approximation to the moral goal of 
 ayioxrvvrj ; consequently SIKCUOO-W^ cannot likewise denote this 
 moral side, but must refer to what is presupposed as necessary 
 to the moral process, the state of justification, the relation of a 
 man to God as one who is reconciled, from which the process 
 
 N 2
 
 180 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 of sanctification follows, and attains to its end in the final 
 diroXvrpwo-ts, which is the object of Christian hope. We find 
 precisely the same distinction in Rom. vi. 19: Tra/xxo-TT/o-are TO, 
 fif\r) v/iwv SovXa ry SiKaiocrvvy eis aytacrfiov. The members are to 
 
 be placed at the service of righteousness, as the present condition 
 of Christians that is to say, so used as beseems the state of 
 favour in which the justified stand ; but the end here aimed at 
 is moral perfection, to which Christians are gradually to attain 
 in the moral process of life, i. e. sanctification. And in ver 16, 
 eis SIKCUOO-WJ/V is not to be understood as equivalent to ei's 
 ayia.o-fj.6v, for the moral character is expressed by SovXov eTvat 
 vTraKOTJs ; but eis 8iKaioorvvr)v is the counterpart to eis ddvarov in 
 the other clause, and refers therefore to the final result of the 
 moral process justification at the final judgment ; so it retains 
 here also its judicial sense, though with a different meaning from 
 that of the justification which constitutes the commencement of 
 the state of favour. 1 Cor. vi. 11 also agrees with this distinc- 
 tion of justification and sanctification: ravrd (gross sinners) rives 
 
 ijre* aAAa d.Tr(Xov<TacrOe, aAAa rjyida-OrjTe, aAAa f8iKaiiaOr)T. The 
 
 order in which the ideas succeed each other here is certainly 
 different from that of 1 Cor. i. 30 ; but this does not justify a 
 different interpretation of their meaning, because this change in 
 the order is quite accounted for by the immediate occasion of 
 this passage : in contrast to the former grossly sinful life of the 
 Corinthians, it was very natural to present the sanctifying effect 
 of their becoming Christians both in negative terms, d-n-cXovo-ao-Oe, 
 and positive, r)yid<r6r)Tf ; the former denoting purification from 
 their former state of sin (in baptism), the latter the beginning 
 of a new direction of their life that was holy in principle (deter- 
 mined by the spirit of holiness); and e'SiKaiw^Tc is added, not as 
 if it were the consequence of sanctification, which would be con- 
 trary to all analogy, but because it was a necessary part of the 
 full statement of the effects of God's favour. 
 
 From the judicial sense of the word Si/ccuow, from the objec- 
 tivity of the SiKaioo-uvrj Qeov, and from the decided distinction
 
 JUSTIFICA TION. 181 
 
 between justification and "sanctification, it follows that we must 
 necessarily understand by Pauline justification, not a continuous 
 process in man, but an act of God, performed once for all. And 
 this logical conclusion is also confirmed by all the passages which 
 refer to the subject, the bearing of Rom. v. and vi. upon this 
 point being especially significant. It is upon the consciousness 
 of being justified, as an established fact, that peace, hope, and 
 the joyful certainty of salvation rest (SiKcuwtfevTes ovv flp-^vrjv 
 
 xapiTi rT?7/ca/v, Kav^(a/j,eda r' eA.7riSt, vers. 1, 2 ; 
 vvv (Tto^crd/Ae^a a?ro rrys o/oyrjs, V6r. 9 ', KaTaAAayevTes 
 a, V6r. 10 ', Kav^w//,vot ev detp Sia X/HCTTOU, Si ou vvv T>)v 
 
 e\d(3ofj.v, ver. 11). The possession of favour, of 
 which justification is the ground, is not the less an established 
 fact because it still leaves room for the hope of future glory, as 
 well as for the possibility of the favour of God being again lost ; 
 if justification itself is only a crtad^vat ry eXiriSi (Eom. viii. 24), 
 because the final o-<o#?yo-eor0e diro rrjs 6pyf}<s l is until the end an 
 object of hope (v. 9 f.), yet it is nevertheless a being completely 
 raised out of the state of sin under the law, and being placed 
 in the state of righteousness under the favour of God (vi. 14 f.). 
 And for the very reason that this being under favour is for the 
 Christian presupposed as an established fact, the moral ivarning 
 may be attached to it, to yield himself in his active life also to 
 the service of righteousness and of God's favour, to put into ope- 
 ration and to preserve the objective established relation of the righ- 
 teousness of faith, in the subjective progressive righteousness of life. 
 The latter is a process, but the movement which constitutes it 
 could never take place without the existence of the former. In 
 the real moral condition of every one, relativity in each one of 
 its moments is unavoidable ; but a relative state of being justi- 
 
 in Rom. vi. 16, ec Siicaio<ri>vT}v (opp. c Gavarov), and Gal. v. 5, 
 l\m$a liKcuotruvijc aireKSt\(>ntQa, refers to this final awOt'iaiffOai, or the definitive 
 sentence to be expected at the final judgment, unless perhaps in the latter passage 
 i\wiSa denotes the hoped-for fruit of (present) SIKUIOOVVTI that is to say, the eternal 
 blessedness which follows from being justified.
 
 182 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 fied, a standing partly under favour, which would consequently 
 also be a standing partly under the curse of the law, is an im- 
 possibility. Consequently, the " process of justification " which 
 presupposes this relativity of successive states of being justified 
 is an utter absurdity. 
 
 If, notwithstanding its absurdity, many commentators have 
 fallen into this error, the cause of this is to be found in the fact 
 that they have considered justification to be dependent on the 
 subjective operation of the Spirit in man, or on faith, as being 
 already the real salvation life, or at least the active power of it, 
 instead of only the passive act of appropriating salvation. The 
 salvation life is of course a process, and therefore if justification 
 in its Pauline sense were dependent upon it, then justification 
 also could only be conceived as coming to be, as " the result at 
 any moment of the stage of Christian development attained at 
 that moment." 1 
 
 But Pauline justification has its ground, as we have seen, not 
 in man at all, in no corresponding righteousness or good moral 
 character, and so forth, but it is groundless as far as man is con- 
 cerned (Supeav SiKaiovpcvoi), and has its ground in the favour of 
 God, its intermediate cause in the redemption work of Christ 
 (ry avrov -^dpiTi Sia T^S aTroAvT/Ddxmos TOV ev X/Drr<f> 'Irjcrov, Kom. 
 
 iii. 24). Moreover, faith is, with regard to justification, no- 
 thing more than receptivity (opyavov A^TTTIKOV), by no means the 
 efficient cause of it. This we have already recognized as the 
 fundamental idea of the classical passage, Kom. v. 12 19, 
 namely, that as sin came upon all men from Adam, so righ- 
 teousness came from Christ on all, without their personal act or 
 deed, only under the condition in the later case that they 
 
 1 Lipsius, Paulin. Rechtfertigungslehre, p. 47. The author has, however, long 
 "since given up the view he has there developed, of which fact I was ignorant when 
 writing the article on Paulin. Rechtfertigung (Zeitschr. f. wis. Theol. 1872, II.). But 
 the view which is here combated has many other defenders. Even Baur has shared 
 it (cf. N. Tie. Theol. p. 175): "The whole process of justification is only completed in 
 the irvtvfia which fulfils iriffriq ; the highest expression for Paul's idea of justification 
 is the vo/xoc TOV Trvtvparoc rt/f taijc," &c.
 
 JUSTIFICATION. 183 
 
 Aa/M/?avotxri, i.e. under the condition of faith. But 
 faith does not make the SiKaioarvvrjv 0eov in that case it would 
 be again an iSta SiKauocrvvr), of which it is precisely the opposite 
 but it " subjects itself in obedience " to the righteousness in- 
 stituted by God in Christ, and offered in the gospel. This is 
 established from the time of the expiatory death of Christ, as an 
 objective principle for mankind in general; so soon, therefore, as 
 the individual accepts this new principle in faith, it becomes 
 valid for him he is justified. So far, then, is justification from 
 being a process which advances gradually with the life of faith, 
 that it would be much more in accordance with the Apostle's 
 meaning to regard it as the act of God, concluded once for all in 
 the expiatory death of Christ, and preceding the faith of each 
 individual. 1 It must, however, be confessed that this view does 
 not exactly correspond with Paul's way of representing it, for he 
 makes justification an act which repeats itself in the case of each 
 individual believer, as is very plainly shown by the expressions, 
 ofs fj,e\\L A.oyiecr0ai TOIS Triarrei' overt v (Rom. IV. 24), and SiKaiot 
 KaTcurra^o-ovTcu ol TroAAot (v. 19), according to which justification 
 is not already actually completed for all immediately in the 
 death of Christ, but only the possibility of it is given for all, 
 while its realization depends in each instance on the individual, 
 and is therefore at the present time still future for the greater 
 number. 
 
 This latter conception, however, certainly approaches very 
 nearly to the truth, inasmuch as Paul's justification is nothing 
 else than the individual application of the Christian principle of 
 reconciling favour, the revelation of which has been made objec- 
 
 1 So Ritschl, Altkath. Kirche, p. 93 : "Justification is an act performed once for 
 all, and is not capable of repetition ; this judgment of God is completed in the death 
 of Christ for the whole of the faithful collectively, and not in any other act, for each 
 individual as such. But the new birth by the Holy Spirit, the consequence of justifi- 
 cation, is essentially a predicate of the individual, and of all as individuals." P. 92 : 
 "The certainty of the individual believer regarding the new birth by the Holy Spirit 
 is direct; the individual has not the certainty of justification directly, but only by 
 arguing back from his new birth to his belonging to the multitude who are declared 
 righteous in the obedience of Christ. "
 
 184 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 tively in the reconciling death of Christ, and the appropriation 
 of it subjectively in the act of faith. Now if this reconciling 
 death clothed itself, in the mind of the Apostle, in the form of a 
 vicarious punishment, it is quite in accordance with this view 
 that the individual appropriation of the reconciliation should 
 present itself to him again in the form of a judicial ad of God 
 an act of " acquittal, declaration of righteousness, and adoption." 
 This form, closely connected as it is with the Jewish mode of 
 thought, is precisely that in which the Christian consciousness of 
 reconciliation assures itself of its being set free from its former con- 
 dition under sin and the law. It is true that the same idea had 
 already been more simply expressed in the discourses of Jesus, 
 especially in the parables showing the love of God to sinners, 
 but here the whole apparatus of dogmatic argument was want- 
 ing, by means of which, in the case of Paul, the Christian con- 
 sciousness of adoption had to be accommodated to the standpoint 
 of the Jewish law. For Paul makes the reconciling favour of God 
 clothe itself in the categories of a judicial act which is really 
 the exact opposite of it ; and this makes the obvious paradox 
 of his doctrine, culminating in the conception of a God who Swccuos 
 (Sv StKcuwv ea-Ti rov da-f/Sr). 1 But this paradoxical form was the 
 very best that could have been adopted, in order sharply to 
 mark out for the religious imagination the central Christian idea 
 of the free initiative of the Divine favour, and to guard it in its 
 undimmished ideality against the attempt, which is ever apt to 
 be made from the standpoint of moral reflection, to represent the 
 Divine favour as conditioned by human morality, and so to take 
 away the unconditional Divine initiative which belongs to its 
 essence. It is precisely this which found the most pregnant 
 expression in the conception of a transcendent and completed 
 act of pronouncing righteous prior to all moral renovation ; and 
 therefore this conception always presents itself to the Christian 
 
 1 Of. Biedermann, Dogm, 290: "Paul has retained this expression precisely in 
 order to indicate in the most striking manner that the standpoint of the law is raised 
 to the higher standpoint of favour."
 
 JUSTIFICATION. 185 
 
 consciousness, whenever it apprehends itself in its fundamental 
 opposition to the standpoint of the law, as the palladium of the 
 full assurance of salvation ; the Christian wishes to possess re- 
 conciliation with God, not as something which is always coming 
 into being, and which is relative, but as an already existing, ac- 
 complished fact; and can therefore only conceive it as grounded 
 on something which is necessarily presupposed by the life of 
 salvation which is always in process. And, in truth, the Chris- 
 tian principle of reconciliation, as proceeding historically from 
 Christ, was something purely objective, preceding all moral life 
 on the part of the subject a priori as its ground, and not depen- 
 dent on it as a consequence, and also not in any way to be 
 caused by faith, but merely to be appropriated, by being received 
 into the heart. Consequently, justifying faith, in the eyes of 
 Paul, is not a good moral disposition, but apart from the con- 
 sideration of any moral state the religious act of acceptance of 
 that Christian principle of reconciliation. And it is a quite un- 
 essential difference, affecting only the form in which the matter 
 is represented, whether that principle appears as the saving truth 
 announced in the gospel of Christ in which case justifying faith 
 is the trustful acceptance of this truth (assensus et fiducia) ; or 
 whether it is identified with the person of the Mediator of recon- 
 ciliation, and envisaged directly in him in which case justify- 
 ing faith is a laying hold of Christ, and being included in a 
 mystical communion with him (unio mystica) ; though even then 
 it is not to be regarded directly as a moral disposition, but as a 
 willing acceptance of the object of salvation, for a personal pos- 
 session, as an act of VTTUKO^ in the religious sense. 1 On this latter 
 
 1 Even the mystical notion of faith, then, does not directly contain, as Weiss de- 
 clares (p. 329), "the moral moment of giving one's self up to the new direction of life 
 represented in Christ;" faith is directly nothing more than the surrender of ourselves 
 to Christ as the reconciler, or to the reconciling favour of God revealed in him, and 
 only as this is faith justifying ; but this certainly contains also the point of attachment 
 for the development of the new life, because Christ is not only the reconciler, but also 
 the irvivfia ^utoiroiovv. The passages quoted above which speak of "justification in 
 Christ" tell decisively against Weiss' t view of justifying faith : compare what ha
 
 186 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH, 
 
 view of justifying faith are founded the expressions 
 
 cv Xpwrry (Gal. ii. 17), tva. tvpfOta ev auToJ l^wv rrjv e/c Otov 
 SiKaiofrvvrjv (Phil. iii. 9, cf. x. 12). These passages plainly forbid 
 us so to separate justifying faith from the mystic faith which 
 binds us to Christ, as to make the latter only the consequence of 
 the justification which had preceded it; but faith is justifying 
 precisely because it apprehends Christ as the reconciler that is 
 to say, apprehends the principle of reconciliation envisaged in 
 Christ, by which means this latter is transformed into the sub- 
 jective state of being reconciled, freed from the curse of the law 
 a transformation which presents itself to the imagination as a 
 divine act of favour to the sinner who believes in Christ. 
 
 SONSHIP. 
 
 The new religious condition in which man sees himself placed 
 by justification is the status of sonship. It also is still, in the 
 first instance, an objective religious idea, and denotes the new 
 relation of the justified man to God, not yet the new moral life. 
 This is evident from the mere fact that it rests on the divine act 
 of vlo9e<ria, i. e. adoption, taking into sonship, which, like that of 
 Sucaiuxris, with which it is in fact entirely identical, is a judicial 
 act in foro Dei. The act of showing favour, in which God ex- 
 tends his favour to the sinner, is justification, inasmuch as the 
 sinner is acquitted of the guilt of sin, and adoption, inasmuch as 
 he is placed in the new relation to God, and is no longer an ob- 
 ject of the divine anger, but of divine love. Now three moments 
 go to make up this condition of sonship two as immediate con- 
 sequences of the vtoOfo-ia, in which the new relation of man to 
 
 been said above, p. 169. It is quite in the Pauline spirit that Al. Schweizer re- 
 peatedly insists that it is merely a difference in the mode of expression whether salva- 
 tion be described in the sense of a thing, as redeeming favour, or in that of a person, 
 as Christ, since both mean nothing else than the religion of redemption offered in the 
 gospel of Christ. Cf. Glaubenslehre, III. 183, 212, &c.
 
 SONSHIP, 187 
 
 God at once displays itself, and one as the future right of a son. 
 The former are, being freed from the law, and being endowed ivith 
 the spirit of sonship, and the latter is the future inheritance; and 
 we find them so mentioned together in the passage which is the 
 chief authority on this subject, Gal. iv. 5 7. Because the 
 vioOfo-ia is fully realized in the KX.rjpovofj.ta, but the latter consists 
 essentially in the future <rvv8oao-drjvai Xpio-ry, in the final glori- 
 fication which is an object of hope, therefore the vio6fo-ia itself 
 may be described as an object of hope and expectation : Rom. 
 
 viii. 23, vioOfviav d.7rfi<S)(6fJ,VOi rrjv a.TroX.vrpwo'iv TOV crco/xaTos cf. 
 ver. 17, el TCKVOL, Kal KX.rjpov6p.oi p.ev Oeov, o-vyKXrjpov6p,oi 8f Xpicrrou, 
 fiTrep <rv/X7racr^o/xi/, t'va Kal o~Vf8o^ao-6wfJ.V. This future hope IS 
 
 meanwhile guaranteed to us by the pledge of the spirit of the 
 son of God which belongs to the state of sonship, and which is given 
 to us at the present time, which we have received by virtue of 
 our adoption, and which, in the subjective consciousness of son- 
 ship, attests to us the fact that we are sons (Gal. iv. 6, 6' 8 ea-re 
 
 vioi, f^aTreoreiXfv 6 0eos TO irvevfj-a TOV viov avrov eis TO.S /capSias 
 vp.(av t Kpaov Af3/3a 6 irarrjp ', Rom. viii. 15 f., eXa/?TC irvev/J-a 
 ev j) Kpa.fofj.fv A.(3/3ai 6 irarrip' avro TO Trvfvfj,a (rvfjifj-aprvpet 
 rffj.wv, on to-jj.lv reKva Qeov). The spirit bestowed on 
 Christians is here called irvevfj-a. vloQeo-ias, not as if it were the 
 cause by which sonship is effected this would contradict the 
 declaration of Gal. iv. 6, 6Vi n-e vioi, e'^aTrecrreiAev, &c. but because 
 it belongs to those who through faith in the Son of God have 
 become children of God (Gal. iii. 26), as the new principle of life 
 which alone accords with their new status, and that so essen- 
 tially and inalienably, that the existence of this spirit as the 
 impelling force of the subjective life may be considered as the 
 certain criterion of the objective truth of the state of sonship 
 
 (o(roi Trvev/xaTi 6tov ayovTcu, ovroi curiv viol 0eov, Rom. viii. 14). Of 
 
 this spirit more will have to be said in the next Chapter ; but 
 here we have still to deal with the point, which occupies the 
 first place in the notion of sonship, because it characterizes this
 
 188 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 state negatively by its opposition in principle to the former one, 
 viz. the freeing f ram the law. 
 
 In GaL iv. 5, the immediate purpose of the sending of the Son 
 
 of God 13 thus indicated: JW TOVS VTTO vdyuov e^ayo/Dacry, fva rrjv 
 viodf<riav a7roAa/3<o/tev, and the Consequence of this, w'(rre OVKCTI ei 
 SovAos, aAA' vios. The coming in of sonship thus presupposes 
 exemption from the law that is to say, as is proved by the 
 context, from the demands of the law, which by their external 
 training had exercised a guardianship over humanity (that is, the 
 people of Israel) while in its minority. The validity of these 
 demands of the law was from the beginning established only for 
 a certain period of time, namely, <XX/M T^S irpo Bfa-p-i as TOV TTCIT/DOS 
 (ver. 2). Its abrogation, moreover, like that of the curse of the 
 law (iii. 13), required a vicarious submission to it by the Son of 
 God, who although he was really, as a son, free from the SovAeta 
 TWV <rroixi>v TOV /coayiov, was nevertheless put under the law, in 
 order that he might, by voluntarily satisfying its claims, redeem 
 those who till then were under the law. Hereby alone was given 
 the possibility of the coming in of the period of sonship or of 
 faith. Inasmuch as we now, by faith in the Son of God, become 
 likewise sons of God (iii. 26), we enter by this very means upon 
 the enjoyment of the right of adult sons to freedom from govern- 
 ors, tutors, and guardians, under whom of course only minors 
 are placed, who as such are in the position of servants. Having 
 thus become sons through faith, we are no longer SoGAoi, no 
 longer ScSovAw/ieVot VTTO TO. o-Toi^eia TOV KOCT/XOV, under the law, so 
 far as it has to do with externals, as with the course of the 
 heavenly bodies which constitutes years, months, and days. And 
 because in this epoch of full age and of freedom, ushered in by 
 faith in the Son of God, both those who were formerly Jews are 
 freed from their legal worship (iv. 3 and 5), and those who were 
 formerly Gentiles are freed from their nature- worship (vers. 8 
 and 9), and thus the limit which hitherto separated these two 
 sections is done away with in their common Christian freedom,
 
 SONS HIP. 189 
 
 therefore it is now said that within the Christian community OVK 
 
 fvi 'lovSatos ovSf EAA^v, OVK cvi SouAos ovSe fXevOepos Travrts yap 
 
 v/xcis tfs to-T fv X/3rr<J> 'Irjvov, iii. 28. This equality and unity 
 of all believers on Christ in the freedom from the law which 
 belongs to them as sons, is a main point of the Apostle's teach- 
 ing, which is in an incomprehensible manner overlooked by 
 those who would limit Paul's cardinal dogma of Christian free- 
 dom from the law to Gentile converts. Those who had till then 
 been Gentiles had not evidently to be redeemed from that law 
 to which Christ became subject that is to say, the Mosaic law ; 
 therefore verses 4, 5, like iii. 25, OVKCTI wro TrcuSayuyov eoytev, can 
 only refer to those who were formerly Jews. In v. 1, /*?) TraAiv 
 fvyw SovAeias fv^arOf, the word TraAiv most probably implies that 
 among the persons addressed there were some who had been 
 formerly Jews, although the contents of the next verse have 
 reference immediately to Gentile Christians. In chapter iv. 
 21 31, the Apostle compares Christians as born after the spirit, 
 with Isaac, who was born, in consequence of the miraculous pro- 
 mise, the free son of a free mother; and, on the other hand, those 
 who are under the law, with the unfree son of the bondwoman 
 Hagar, born in the ordinary course of nature, who is thrust out 
 by the son of the free woman, because the son of a servant can- 
 not inherit with the son of a free woman. " So then we are not 
 children of the bondwoman, but of the free." "We" who are free 
 from the law can only mean the whole body of Christians ; for 
 if it meant only the Gentile converts, then it is clear that the 
 Jewish Christians, together with the Jews, would be among "the 
 children of the servant/' who had lost the inheritance! A similar 
 allegorical proof of the abrogation of the law in Christianity is 
 found in 2 Cor. iii. The evanescent brightness on the face of 
 Moses indicated the merely temporary significance of the law ; 
 in order that the children of Israel might not perceive this, 
 Moses veiled his face, and this veil still lies upon the Old Testa- 
 ment, so that its true sense, its destination, namely, to be done
 
 190 JUSTIFICATION BY FAITH. 
 
 away with in Christ, remains concealed ; but by turning to 
 Christ, this veil is removed " where the spirit of the Lord is, 
 there is freedom." It is precisely for the Jew that this argument, 
 like the foregoing one, would have significance ; for it proceeds 
 from his standpoint, and deduces the transient validity of the 
 law from the law itself ; it is the Jew, and no other, who by his 
 conversion to Christ is to learn to recognize the fact which has 
 hitherto been hidden from him, that the law is only a letter 
 which kills, and therefore has an evanescent brightness, but the 
 spirit of Christ is living and makes men free. In Bom. vii. 1 7, 
 the abrogation of the law is deduced from the (certainly very 
 lame) analogy of marriage, from the bonds of which, by the 
 death of one party, the other becomes free. In the same way, 
 those who were formerly bound to the law have become free 
 from these bonds, by having themselves died to the law by their 
 communion with Christ who was put to death, so that they can 
 give themselves to a new lord and master, "in order that we 
 may now serve in newness of the spirit, and not in the oldness 
 of the letter." And the Apostle says this expressly to those 
 "who know the law" (ver. 1) that is, to Jewish Christians. To 
 all this must be added what the Apostle says of himself, that he, 
 through the law, was dead to the law, and crucified with Christ, 
 by whose cross the world was crucified to him, and he to the 
 world (all connection with the position and the opinions which 
 he formerly held as a Jew was severed) ; that he no longer 
 preached circumcision, and had to suffer persecution on that 
 account ; that he had become to those without the law as one 
 without the law ; and then again (on the very ground, observe, 
 of being in principle outside the law), to those under the law as 
 one under the law (compare Gal. ii 19, vi. 14, v. 11 ; 1 Cor. 
 ix. 21); and if all this be put together, there cannot remain the 
 shadow of a doubt that the Apostle Paul absolutely and com- 
 pletely denies in principle that the Mosaic law has any validity 
 or binding force whatsoever within the Christian community.
 
 SON SHIP. . 191 
 
 This dogmatic principle is all that we have to do with here; how 
 far it was modified in practice by moral considerations of love 
 and prudence will be discussed later on. In any case, the abro- 
 gation of the law was to him a main point of Christian know- 
 ledge (1 Cor. viii. 1 7 ; 2 Cor. iii. 4, 6), and to his adversaries 
 the chief offence in his preaching of the crucified (Gal. v. 11).
 
 CHAPTEE V. 
 
 LIVING IN THE SPIRIT. 
 
 THE antinomianism of Paul's doctrine of faith has laid it open 
 to misunderstanding and misinterpretation both by friends and 
 foes, as if the believer in Christ were, according to Paul, relieved 
 from all the demands of morality and could indulge in sin with- 
 out any restraint, as his caprice might dictate. The necessity of 
 refuting this false inference induces the Apostle to show how the 
 principle of a real renovation of life, of cleansing from sin, is 
 involved in that very union of the believer with Christ which 
 makes him a free child of God; how the inward law of the spirit 
 of Christ now takes the place of the outward law which has 
 been done away an inward law which no longer enslaves, but 
 makes us for the first time really free, and brings to actual ac- 
 complishment that which the outward law could only demand. 
 
 THE BEGINNING OF THE NEW LIFE. 
 
 In Eom. vi. 1, the Apostle meets the objection May the be- 
 liever then remain in sin, that the favour of God may be all the 
 more powerfully manifested? by the emphatic denial, p? 
 yevoLTol and goes on to give the following grounds for the re- 
 futation of a fundamentally erroneous inference: "How shall 
 we that are dead to sin wish to live in it? Or do you not know 
 that all of us who have been baptized to Jesus Christ, have been
 
 THE BEGINNING OF THE NEW LIFE. 193 
 
 baptized to his death ? We have therefore been buried with 
 him, through baptism to his death, in order that as Christ was 
 raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, so we also 
 should live a new life; for if we have grown one with him 
 by copying his death, we shall also grow one with him by 
 copying his resurrection; being assured of this, that our old man 
 was crucified with him, in order that the body of sin might be 
 done away, so that we might no more (be obliged to) be the 
 slaves of sin ; for one who is dead is lawfully freed from (the 
 sovereignty of) sin. But if we have been crucified with Christ, 
 then we believe that we shall also live with him ; knowing that 
 Christ having been raised from the dead, dies no more, death 
 has no power over him. For in his death he died to sin once 
 for all, but in his life he lives to God. So do you also consider 
 yourselves to be dead to sin, but alive to God in Christ Jesus 
 our Lord." The Apostle therefore regards baptism as an enter- 
 ing into communion with Christ as one who died and rose again, 
 by which means his death and resurrection become ours also, 
 that is to say, repeat themselves in us in a supersensuous, but 
 none the less real way. 
 
 How this happens with regard to the death of Christ, cannot 
 be doubtful. Inasmuch as participation in him by baptism is 
 assumed to be an accomplished fact, this " dying with him " 
 must consist in a spiritual process, namely, in that process by 
 which a man becomes a Christian, one who belongs to Christ 
 and his community. As Christ put himself out of all relation 
 and connection with sinful flesh by the death of his body (TQ 
 apapTiy. aTrWavev), so man, by entering through baptism into that 
 state in which he belongs to the crucified one, withdraws from 
 the connection of his life with flesh and the world, which had 
 existed up to that time ; the world is crucified to him, and he 
 to it (Gal. vi. 14) ; that is to say, its life and being, its possessions 
 and opinions, have no more power over him, and his life, wealth, 
 and honour have nothing more to do with its domain, which is 
 that of the vain and external. But besides this, the still closer 
 
 o
 
 194 LIVING IN THE SPIRIT. 
 
 connection of the self with its own flesh is by this means done 
 away with in principle ; " those who belong to Christ have (by 
 the very act of entering into this state, that is, in baptism) 
 crucified their flesh, with all its passions and desires" (Gal. v. 24), 
 i. e. they have taken away its free activity and sinful energy, 
 have reduced the principle which hitherto ruled them into a 
 state of powerlessness, like that of a person who is crucified, and 
 given it up to the process of gradual extinction. The intended 
 result of this crucifixion of the old man is the doing away with 
 the body of sin (i. e. the body in so far as it consists of the o-apg 
 afiaprias, and is therefore the abode of sin), in order that we 
 should no longer be the slaves of sin; in brief, therefore, the 
 real liberation from the dominating power of sin (Rom. vi. 6). 
 
 We must remember that this Karapyeia-Oai of the <rQ>p.a. d/Aaprtas is 
 
 only connected with the o-vo-rav/Dw^vai which occurs in baptism 
 as its intended consequence, and does not absolutely coincide 
 with it. This indicates that the dying of the old man is a 
 process that goes on continually, and which has in the act of 
 baptism only made a beginning in principle (though certainly a 
 decisive beginning), just as the death of the body is induced by 
 the act of crucifixion, but not in that instant accomplished. But 
 in principle certainly the old man is dead in him who is baptized ; 
 he has experienced in his own person the accomplished fact of the 
 death of Christ, by surrendering himself in faith to Christ, and 
 becoming a member of Christ (baptism) according to the canon, 
 " if one has died for all, then are you all dead ; " that is to say, 
 the death of that one becomes a common principle for the whole 
 body of those who have the enjoyment of him by appropriating 
 him to themselves in faith, and their life is henceforth guided 
 by the determining influence of this principle, so that they now 
 only know and feel and will themselves as dead to their former 
 principle of life. 
 
 But it is a less simple matter to answer the other question, 
 how far the new life of the risen Christ repeats itself in that of 
 the Christian. According to the analogy of " dying with him,"
 
 THE BEGINNING OF THE NEW LIFE. 195 
 
 the idea of the spiritual or ethical living with Christ is so 
 obvious, that the greater number of commentators up to the 
 present day see nothing but this in the passage before us. But 
 this is decidedly incorrect. Since in ver. 5 aAAa KCU T^S 
 
 avacrracrecos (a-6/j.eOa 18 opposed to <n5/z<vTOi yeyova/xev rep ofJ.oiu>/j.aTi 
 
 rov Oavdrov, the change of tense clearly proves that this copying 
 of the resurrection of Christ does not simply correspond in time 
 with that of his death, i. e. with the moment of baptism as the 
 beginning to be a Christian ; if we would give its due force to 
 the future as distinguished from the past tense which has gone 
 before, we must apply the words only to the resurrection after 
 this life, which is still future. But this is fully established 
 beyond the possibility of doubt by ver. 8, ei direddvop-fv a-vv 
 
 X/3KTTW TTiO-TeVOfJLfV OTl KCU CTV^CTO/iev OLVT(p ', hCTC tllC COmmUmOn 
 
 with the life of him who has risen again is presented to us not 
 merely as something future, but as also an object of our believ- 
 ing trustfulness, therefore of our hope and expectation, the 
 realizing of which will be by no means dependent on our own 
 action, but will be effected in us or presented to us by God ; 
 this is the only sense of Trto-rcvo/iev which accords with the use of 
 the word elsewhere. But in that case we must not understand 
 o~vi)<rofi.ev to refer to our present new moral life ; that would of 
 course depend on our own moral activity during the present 
 time, and therefore could in no way be an object of believing 
 trustfulness ; it refers, on the contrary, to the communion of life 
 with their risen Lord which believers are to hope for on the 
 other side of the grave. Only, certain as this is, it is equally 
 undeniable, on the other hand, that in ver. 4, tva KCU ^/ms tv 
 
 KaivorrjTi (0775 Trepnrar-ijcrwfJ-ev, and in VCr. 11, \oyifco-df eavrovs {WI/TOS 
 
 T<J> 6eu> ev Xpt,<rr<p 'lyo-ov, can only be understood of the present 
 new moral life of Christians, of which the context of these 
 passages mainly treats. If we observe, however, that this new 
 moral life of the present is put forward as something intended 
 and required (u/a . . . irepnraT^a-wfj.ev, and Aoyi'fwfle), but the eschato- 
 logical living with Christ as something to be believed, we may 
 
 o 2
 
 196 LIVING IN THE SPIRIT. 
 
 find the key to the difficulty. The Apostle evidently under- 
 stands the living with the risen Christ, which is the result of 
 communion with his death, first of all in the actual sense of the 
 eschatological life of the resurrection; it is an object of faith to 
 him as such; but this object of dogmatic hope forthwith changes 
 into a determining principle of the ethical life of the present, 
 which latter, by the very fact of its being dominated by that 
 principle, becomes itself a new life, and so in truth the pre- 
 sent anticipated beginning of that future life. The eschatological 
 living with Christ changes itself, therefore, in the mind of the 
 Apostle into the ethical new life of the Christian present; the 
 KCUVOTTJS 0175 remains no longer a mere object of hope, but 
 becomes the rule and the element of the spontaneous activity 
 of life. Given Paul's mystic faith, this could not be otherwise. 
 The Christian has already inwardly experienced in baptism the 
 death of his Master, and entered into communion, in the bonds 
 of faith, with him who died in order that he might be Lord over 
 all, and that they who live might no longer live to themselves, 
 but for him who died and rose again for them (Rom. xiv. 9 ; 
 2 Cor. v. 15). This "living no more to themselves, but living 
 to Christ and God," which is required by the death of Christ, 
 and implied in the communion with his death in baptism, is 
 therefore already in fact the beginning of a new life, which shares 
 with the resurrection-life of Christ the specific character of being 
 devoted to God, and therefore can no longer be specifically dis- 
 tinguished (as to its essential inward quality) from the real 
 future resurrection-life of the Christian. But we must remem- 
 ber, as having an important bearing on the Apostle's whole 
 tone of thought, including his ethical views, that the iruntvoiKv 
 on o-u^o-o/xev, i. e. the certain faith in the eschatological living 
 with Christ, is still the foundation on which the ethical reflection 
 first rears itself; so that the latter is not something which merely 
 ought to be, but has from the commencement its ground in that 
 which is, to faith (if not also to sight), already established in 
 existence. The believer knows himself to be already one with
 
 THE BEGINNING OF THE NEW LIFE. 197 
 
 Christ, and therefore in the ideal possession of eternal life (the 
 idea of Bom. v. 1 11), whence the duty of living a new life 
 follows, for him, as a simple logical consequence. The moral 
 " newness of life " is now no other than the self-evident external 
 activity of that which is, to the religious mind, a good already 
 existing by faith, the ideal possession of " life " in the absolute 
 sense. The moral consciousness is here no longer entangled in 
 the abstract standpoint of the law, but reposes on the conscious- 
 ness of reconciliation, of absolute inward peace and satisfaction. 
 Baptism is therefore, according to the passage before us, the 
 beginning of the new life, inasmuch as it places man in a mysti- 
 cal connection with Christ, by virtue of which he knows that his 
 old life is dead with Christ, and that the new life of Christ is 
 appropriated by himself, not only as an object of hope, but also 
 as a present inward possession. On man's entering by baptism 
 into that state in which he belongs to Christ, the bodily dying 
 and rising again of Christ accomplishes itself in him, as a virtual 
 act of his soul, as liberation from that sphere of life in the flesh 
 and the world in which he has hitherto lived, and entrance 
 into the sphere of Christ's life, which henceforth completely 
 envelops him, as in a garment (X/ncn-ov cvSvo-aarOc, Gal. iii. 27), 
 which becomes the element in which he lives and moves, so 
 that he is ev X/oicmj). This formula is Paul's specific and most 
 significant expression for being a Christian, and is applied to 
 particular relations, states, and actions, so far as they are con- 
 nected with Christianity, and denote something that belongs 
 to the Christian life. Thus "churches in Christ" (Gal. i. 22) 
 are simply equivalent to Christian churches ; " dead, asleep in 
 Christ" (1 Cor. xv. IS; I Thess. iv. 16) to dead Christians; 
 "fathers, brothers, fellow-workers in Christ" (1 Cor. iv. 15; 
 Col. i. 2 ; Rom. xvi. 3) indicate that these are not the natural 
 and ordinary relations as usually understood, but that they 
 belong to the sphere of Christian life ; the Apostle's fetters at 
 Eome " are manifest in Christ," that is, as fetters which he had 
 to bear, not for an ordinary offence, but as a Christian and for
 
 198 LIVING IN THE SPIRIT. 
 
 being a Christian (Phil. i. 13); "ways in Christ" (1 Cor. iv. 17) 
 are Christian modes of behaviour with special reference to lead- 
 ing the life of the Christian community ; and in particular the 
 several spiritual conditions, gifts, and powers which are peculiar 
 to the Christian, are presented in their special Christian charac- 
 ter by the expression eV X/3wrr<j> ; for instance, life (Rom. viii. 2), 
 God's love or favour (Rom. viii. 39 ; 1 Cor. i. 4 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 24), 
 glory, comfort, and hope (Rom. xv. 17; Phil. ii. 1, 19, iii. 3), 
 freedom (Gal. ii. 4), holiness and perfection (1 Cor. i. 2 ; PhiL 
 i. 1 4, 21 ; Col. i. 28), wisdom, and also infancy, that is unripe- 
 ness of understanding (1 Cor. iii. 1, iv. 10). 
 
 But the gist of this formula ev X/HO-T^ is nothing else than 
 Paul's mystic faith, in which the believer gives up himself, his 
 own life to Christ, and possesses the life of Christ in himself: 
 he in Christ, and Christ in him; he dead with Christ, and 
 Christ become his life, these are inseparable and convertible 
 ideas, expressing one and the same relation of unity between 
 man and the divine object of salvation; and this relation of 
 unity is nothing else than faith itself. In fact, it is impossible 
 to point out any difference between Paul's mystical notion of 
 faith as collected above (p. 169 f.), and that which we find here 
 as the communion of life with Christ brought about by baptism. 
 And this view is supported by the connection between vers. 26 
 and 27 of Gal. iii.; that all who are baptized to Christ have put 
 on Christ, is made the ground of the assertion that all believers 
 in Christ, as such, by means of this faith of theirs, are sons of 
 God. According to this, to have put on Christ, and to have 
 become a son of God, are one and the same thing. Now as the 
 latter is simply brought about by means of faith (ver. 26), bap- 
 tism, which is the means of bringing about the former (ver. 27), 
 cannot be anything specifically different from faith, and must 
 therefore be related to faith, as the phenomenal form to the 
 spiritual substance ; and for the very reason that baptism is the 
 externally completed entrance into the connection with Christ 
 by faith, it may be considered as the ground of recognition of
 
 THE BEGINNING OF THE NEW LIFE. 199 
 
 that existing communion with Christ, the real ground of which 
 is faith. If we add to this, that the sonship of God, which 
 depends on the union with Christ by faith (Scot TTMTTCWS Iv Xpurry, 
 ver. 26), is, according to iv. 6, the condition of receiving the spirit 
 of the Son, it follows plainly enough that receiving the spirit is 
 not the ground of communion with Christ, but, on the contrary, 
 communion with Christ, of which faith is the ground, is the 
 logical prius of the receipt of the spirit of sonship. This is at 
 all events in perfect accord with the remarkable fact (which 
 has however remained generally unnoticed) that in Bom. vi., 
 although the new life of the baptized in their communion with 
 Christ is spoken of from the beginning to the end of the chapter, 
 this is nowhere grounded on the reception of the spirit; nay, 
 not a single syllable is uttered about wvev/j-a at all ! How is it 
 possible to explain this on the supposition of that which is 
 ordinarily taken for granted, that the communion of life with 
 Christ depends upon the reception of the spirit in baptism, and 
 consequently this (and not faith) is the root of the mystical 
 doctrine of Paul ? We shall therefore be justified in considering 
 this assumption, general as it is, to be incorrect, and in seeing in 
 the remarkable fact just noticed a decisive confirmation of that 
 which we have already found as the result of our analysis of 
 Paul's notion of faith; namely, that the mystical element of 
 Paulinism depends immediately and exclusively on his notion 
 of faith. Because faith was actually to Paul that deep and full 
 act of the devotion of the whole heart which he describes in 
 Gal. ii. 20, therefore, and for that reason only, was he in this act 
 conscious of mystical union with the absolute object of salvation. 
 But when he wishes to remind his Christian readers of the fact 
 of their communion with Christ (whether as the ground of their 
 Christian freedom and equality, Gal. iii. 27 f., or as a motive for 
 their Christian moral life, Kom. vi.), he naturally called to mind 
 that external tangible and visible act in which the inmost 
 heart's act of faith was concluded and sealed the act of baptism. 
 In this mystically deepened notion of faith, the most special
 
 200 LIVING IN THE SPIRIT. 
 
 peculiarity of Paul, there was contained further the possibility 
 and the incentive to deepen and modify a doctrine which was 
 not originally peculiar to Paul, but was traditional in the primi- 
 tive Church, the doctrine of the Messianic Trvtvpa. which the 
 Christian receives by virtue of his baptism (Acts ii. 38). The 
 Christian community understood by this Messianic 7rvev/xa 
 nothing essentially different from the Old Testament prophetic 
 spirit of revelation, the general communication of which had 
 been already promised in Joel as a characteristic of the last 
 time. This spirit is represented as a supersensuous substance 
 of the higher divine world which comes upon man (by being 
 poured out), and produces in him supernatural gifts and mira- 
 culous effects, such as seeing visions, speaking with tongues, 
 and powers of healing (cf. Acts ii. 16 19, x. 46, xix. 6). Now 
 Paul also starts from this same conception, as when he also 
 alleges these miraculous gifts and powers as essential evidences 
 and characteristics of the Christian 7rvev/m (1 Cor. 12; Gal. iii. 5). 
 Only this is no longer, for him, the only nor the essential func- 
 tion of the Christian Trvevpa ; on the contrary, the principal thing 
 appears to him to be this, that the divine irv^v^a becomes in the 
 Christian the constantly operating principle of his whole life of 
 faith, which manifests itself not only in prophesying, but in all 
 kinds of Christian knowledge; not only in working miracles, 
 but in every Christian duty; above all, in that which is the 
 foundation of all goodness, in love. In short, the TrvaS/ia is 
 changed, in the mind of Paul, from an abstract, supernatural, 
 ecstatic, Apocalyptic principle, to an immanent, religious, moral 
 principle of the life of renovated humanity, to the nature of the 
 KCUVT) KTtorts. By this means Christianity was established as a 
 new historical principle in independence of the Jewish religion, 
 and at the same time a bridge was constructed from the ecstatic 
 phenomena of the enthusiasm of the primitive Church, to a 
 constant historical development of the Christian community. 
 
 How then did Paul arrive at this view of Trveu/za, which made 
 an epoch for the whole course of Christian speculation? It
 
 THE BEGINNING OF THE NEW LIFE. 201 
 
 might be supposed (and it appears to be the ordinary assump- 
 tion) that Paul had from the beginning a peculiar notion, a 
 deeper and more spiritual one, of irvevfj.a. But this is not the 
 case. Even the Pauline Trvev/io, is in itself a transcendent physi- 
 cal essence, a supersensuous kind of matter, which is the oppo- 
 site of the earthly sensuous materiality of the a-6p. As the 
 latter is the weak, perishable, impure, relatively sinful element 
 of the world, of that existence which is not divine, and is there- 
 fore excluded from the kingdom of God, so the Trvefyia is the 
 strong, enduring, pure, and holy element of the divine existence, 
 of heaven, and therefore has also the power to make alive, and 
 to purify or make holy (comp. especially the contrast drawn in 
 1 Cor. xv. 42 50). It can therefore only relatively be called 
 immaterial, in so far as it is not earthly and sensuous materiality^ 
 but heavenly, supersensuous matter ; hence its close affinity to 
 that which was considered by the ancient world as the most 
 subtle earthly material, the air, of which the etymology of the 
 word TTvevfjia itself reminds us, and light, the brightness of which 
 (8oa) is to be regarded as the permanent form of appearance of 
 the Trvevpa. It is a material notion that the n-i/eu/xa was poured 
 out into the heart like water (Rom. v. 5), that it streamed in 
 like a ray of light (2 Cor. iv. 6), even changed the bodies of those 
 in whom it dwelt into brightness (2 Cor. iii. 18), nay, that it 
 could itself, like o-dp, become material for bodies (o-wju,ara, equiva- 
 lent to forms with limbs) ; for Paul represents the bodies of the 
 risen as such o-w/iara Trveu/jariKa, consisting of the heavenly light- 
 substance of different degrees of brightness (1 Cor. xv. 40 f.). 
 Now this supersensuous substance originally belongs to God, 
 and then to Christ the Son of God, in such wise that it consti- 
 tutes their divine essence (he was in the form of God), and is 
 presented in a concrete form in them ; but it does not form a 
 separate personality in each of them. It is true that the spirit 
 more often appears as an acting subject with consciousness and 
 will ; he dispenses his gifts as he will (1 Cor. xii. 7), searches 
 the depths of the Godhead (ii. 10), intercedes for us with God
 
 202 LIVING IN THE SPIRIT. 
 
 (Kom. viii. 26), and bears witness with our spirit (v. 16). But 
 if it be granted that this personification is something more than 
 a mere mode of speech, that it is an essential part of the Apostle's 
 conception, yet this is still far from being a distinct idea of a 
 separate personality of God and of Christ. In the personifica- 
 tion of the spirit in 1 Cor. xii. 11, it is still God (see ver. 6) who 
 does everything ; and the spirit who searches the depths of the 
 Godhead, in 1 Cor. ii 10, is still only the ego of God, which dis- 
 tinguishes itself from itself, that is to say, is self-conscious ; in 
 Eom. viii. 16, 26, the indwelling spirit of God, or of Christ, is 
 not distinguished from the indwelling Christ himself (comp. 
 vers. 9 and 10) ; in 2 Cor. xiii. 13, it is true that the KOIVWVM rov 
 
 ayuov TTvevp-aTOS is put by the side of X"/ 315 XjtnoTOu and dydir-q 
 
 Oeov, but not as if these were three independent, co-ordinate 
 moments, of which each had an independent personal cause; but 
 they are related to each other as cause (dydirrj Oeov), means (X^/EHS 
 X/OICTTOU), and effect (/coivwvia r. ay. TTvev/iaros) ; for thus the mani- 
 festation of the favour of Christ, proceeding from the love of 
 God, arrives at its subjective conclusion. If we add to this 
 the expressions, the spirit is sent by God (Gal. iv. 6), is given 
 (Eom. v. 5), administered (Gal. iii. 5), received by man from 
 God (Gal. iii. 2; 1 Cor. ii. 12), and possessed as one's own 
 (1 Cor. vi. 19 ; Eom. viii. 9), we cannot fail to see in the texts 
 thus brought together a wavering between the notion of the 
 spirit being a thing and being a person, which plainly shows 
 that the latter notion is not fixed. The divine irvev/xa exists 
 as concrete substance (excepting in God himself) only in the 
 exalted Christ, for 6 Kvpios TO Trvevfid rriv (2 Cor. iii. 17). 
 
 In all these terms, so far as they relate to the nature of the 
 irvfvfia itself, nothing is as yet implied which is peculiar to Paul. 
 But the connecting link is already contained in the last-named 
 point, according to which the -rrvfvfjM does not belong to the 
 Messiah as a mere donum superadditum, as an endowment of 
 his office (as it was still regarded in fact by the Jewish Chris- 
 tians), but substantially constitutes the person of the exalted
 
 THE BEGINNING OF THE NEW LIFE. 203 
 
 Christ (as it also does that of the earthly Christ, at least as 
 regards its inner side ; comp. p. 128). From this point, that 
 fundamental view of Paul which regarded faith and baptism as 
 a real union with the crucified and risen Christ, formed the 
 transition to the peculiar Pauline doctrine of the irvevfja, as we 
 have seen it expanded in Eom. vi. If the faith which completes 
 itself in baptism is a giving up of the man to the dead and risen 
 Christ, so that he belongs to him, and has inward communion 
 of life with him, and if this risen Christ is in his substance 
 heavenly Trvevpa, then it is a plain inference, that the Christian 
 consequently, by faith and baptism, becomes a partaker of that 
 heavenly 7rvev/xa; and as this Trvevpa is now in Christ the principle 
 of life which forms his person, so must it necessarily become 
 also in the Christian, who KoAAw//,evos T< Kvpiw eV Tn/eu/ia IO-TIV 
 (1 Cor. vi. 17), a constantly immanent principle of the new per- 
 sonal life, of the KCUVOS av#/>w7ros. Accordingly we have to explain 
 the peculiar Pauline doctrine of jrvev/j-a by the flowing together 
 of two streams of thought on the one hand the traditional 
 doctrine that we receive in baptism the (miracle-working) Mes- 
 sianic irvevfjM, and on the other hand the oi*iginal Pauline doctrine 
 of faith as the heart's act of trusting, loving union with Christ 
 the reconciler and the holy Son of God, /carol irvtvp.a dytwo-i'vijs ; 
 hence it was that the dogmatic form, the fixed idea, and also the 
 deep religious moral content, were derived, which soon widened 
 into a river of speculation ; here also was the source of the inner- 
 most affections and most personal life of Paul. How much 
 more congenial to the Apostle's mind the latter of these views 
 was, and how much more essential he thought it than the first, 
 may be inferred from the fact, that he places the reception of 
 the spirit in direct connection with believing three times (Gal. 
 iii. 2, 5, and 14), but with baptism only once, and that indirectly 
 
 (1 Cor. xii. 13, ev kvl irvev^an ij/ieis S fv crw/xa e/Jarrrwr^T^tv) : OH 
 
 the ground of this fact we are quite justified in assuming that 
 Paul for his part had accepted the traditional doctrine of the 
 reception of the spirit at baptism ; but we must be on our guard
 
 204 LIVING IN THE SPIRIT. 
 
 against allowing to this point so central an importance in Paul's 
 doctrine of salvation as is generally given to it, by setting bap- 
 tism as a communication of the spirit, by the side of justifying 
 faith as a second principle of salvation. If this had been the 
 Apostle's opinion he must have declared it, and therefore must 
 have distinctly made the reception of the spirit depend on 
 baptism, as justification and sonship were dependent on faith. 
 Instead of this, however, he connects on the one hand with 
 faith the reception of the spirit and sonship in an equal degree, 
 and on the other hand in an equal degree baptism and faith with 
 the mystic communion with Christ. What, then, really becomes 
 of that specific significance of baptism, which is generally attri- 
 buted to it at the present day ? 
 
 What has just been said will receive further confirmation if 
 we now turn our attention to the changes which are produced in 
 man by the divine 7rveG/m. The most general effect of the Trveu/xa 
 appears to be farj. As the attribute of living essentially belongs 
 to it, so its effect is essentially o>o7roiiv, in the most comprehen- 
 sive absolute sense of the word, as comprising within itself dif- 
 ferent moments. Among these, however, the transcendent phy- 
 sical or eschatological idea of " life " occupies undoubtedly the 
 first place in the Apostle's mind. Thus in the important passage 
 where he is speaking of Christ himself, he is said to have become 
 (in the resurrection) a Trveu/xa ^WOTTOIOW, 1 Cor. xv. 45. This 
 fwoTi-oietv, according to the context of the whole chapter, can only 
 refer to Christians being put in possession, through Christ, of 
 imperishable heavenly life, and being raised from the death 
 which they must die as children of Adam, to the new (eternal) 
 life, bearing the image of him who is risen (that is to say, his 
 glorified spiritual body). In this sense it is said in the same 
 passage " As in Adam (in unity of race with the originator of 
 natural humanity) all die, so in Christ (in the unity of faith 
 with the originator of a new humanity) all are made alive" 
 (ver. 22). Similarly, in an eschatological sense, yet so that 
 the ethical sense is already apparent in it, we understand the
 
 THE BEGINNING OF THE NEW LIFE. 205 
 
 instructive passage, 2 Cor. iv. 10 v. 5. The Apostle says of 
 himself, that he always bears about with him in his body the 
 
 dying of the Lord JeSUS, Iva. KOL rj fay TOV 'Irjtrov ev T<p (TOJ/AaTt r)p.tv 
 
 <f>avepwOrj. Now, according to the context, we can understand by 
 this veK/xoo-is 'Irja-ov nothing else than the constant wearing out 
 of his bodily life by external causes and bodily sickness (ver. 7, 
 
 CHTTpaKiva. a-Kfvr), and ver. 16, 6 w ^wv avOpfuiros 8ia.<})@fip(Tai), 
 
 which he both endures for the sake of Jesus, and as a repeated 
 setting forth of the suffering of Jesus. But what is the <ave- 
 pwdijvai of the (07) 'I-qa-ov fv T crw/ian TJ/XWV ? According to the 
 context it appears to me that it must be one of two things ; 
 either, with reference to ver. 16, it must mean the renewal of the 
 av#/3o>7ros, which is parallel to the wearing out of the ew 
 s, or, with reference to ver. 14, the rising from the dead 
 with Jesus. By the latter, one cannot in any case, without an 
 exercise of the most arbitrary caprice, understand anything but 
 the eschatological resurrection, since the whole tenor of the 
 passage from ver. 17 is purely eschatological. If we should take 
 ver. 10 to refer to the renewal of the lo-w avOpwn-os by the life- 
 giving power of Christ, then we should have to understand 
 <f>avpti>df)vai 4v T<3 o-w/wm as being manifested, that is being ope- 
 rative in the bodily life, during the earthly existence of the 
 Apostle; but as this application of the passage appears less 
 natural than the other to be manifested upon our body, so that 
 this is itself the object to which the ^aj/e/awo-is of the far) 'Irja-ov 
 refers we must understand this latter to refer to ver. 14 in 
 preference to ver. 16, and accordingly to signify the manifes- 
 tation of the resurrection-life of Christ in the rising of the 
 Apostle's own body from the dead. Nor need the substitution 
 of a-apid for o-uyidTi in ver. 11 perplex us ; for although the <rdpg 
 itself certainly cannot rise again, yet the power of the resurrec- 
 tion can be so manifested upon the fleshly substance of the body, 
 as to change it into the new substance of the resurrection body 
 (cf. Phil. iii. 21, /Aerao-x^/wiTio-ei). But although, according to this 
 interpretation, we must refer the words primarily to the escha-
 
 206 LIVING IN THE SPIRIT. 
 
 tological life, yet we shall find again in this very passage clear 
 indications that in the Apostle's mind this farj, although its 
 <f>avep(a<ri<i still has the first place in his thought, has notwith- 
 standing an inward reality at the present time, namely, in the 
 avaKaivwcrts of the fcruOfv avfy>a>7ros already effected by the spirit 
 of Christ, while the wearing out of the 2w ai/0pw7ros is going on, 
 and by means of it. To this end has God, in the spirit which 
 he has given us, imparted to us already a real earnest (dppafiuv) 
 of the heavenly life, nay, a preparatory beginning of it (6 /care/oya- 
 
 s cis avro TOUTO, 0eos, 6 KCU 8ovs r^iv TOV dppa/Swva TOV 
 
 s, v. 5). Here we look right into the laboratory of the 
 Apostle's religious thought: he knows that the life of Christ 
 will one day be manifested in him as that which it is, that is to 
 say, as absolute life whose perfection extends to the body ; this 
 certainty he has by virtue of his possession of the spirit, which 
 inwardly guarantees it to him (by the witness of his sonship to 
 God, Eom. viii. 16) ; but in this inward certainty, guaranteed by 
 the spirit, of the life which he will one day possess, he already 
 at the present moment lives the preparatory commencement of 
 that life in the constant renewal of his inner man, in the true 
 spiritual, religious, and moral process of his life of faith. From 
 this we shall be able to understand how, in other passages, the 
 two ideas of the fay, the eschatological and the ethical, inter- 
 penetrate one another. Thus in Eom. viii., when it is said of 
 
 Christ (ver. 10), TO /xev o-to/za vtKpbv 6V d/iaprtav, TO 8f Tri/cu/xa far) Sia 
 
 8iKa.iocrvvY)v, the vfKpov of the first clause must, on account of the 
 parallelism, TO. Ov^ra. o-w/zaTa II/AWI/, ver. 11, be understood to refer 
 to bodily death, and that in the sense that the body is forfeited 
 to death on account of sin (as the wages of sin), and is so far as 
 good as dead already, in which case the far) predicated of the 
 spirit must also, in order to correspond with this physical notion 
 of death, be understood in a physical sense, of enduring, eternal 
 life. Moreover, if we understood this in an ethical sense, we 
 should have a tautology in 8ia SIKCUOO-W^V, which does not mean 
 for the purpose of righteousness, but, corresponding with 6V
 
 THE BEGINNING OF THE NEW LIFE. 207 
 
 , on account of, or in consequence of, the righteousness 
 which belongs to him. Finally, from the fact that the spirit of 
 the Christian is life, the inference is drawn that his body also 
 will be endowed with life (ver. 11); this physical ^woTroi^o-et also 
 presupposes, in ver. 10, the physical notion of the ^. Now it 
 is not said in the verse before us that the spirit will at some 
 future time be or have life, but that it is so now. This verse, 
 therefore, directly presents to us the significant thought, that the 
 o>r) atwi/io? is already present in the life of Christians on this 
 side of the grave, as an immediate inward possession of the 
 spirit. But in what should this immanent fay cuwi/ios, regarded 
 in a psychological sense, consist, if not in a new ethical qua- 
 lity of the personal life? Thus the physical or eschatological 
 notion of life, by taking its commencement as an attribute of 
 the Christian spirit in the present time, immediately changes 
 itself into the ethical notion of life, which latter is also to be 
 found in the context of the passage before us, ver. 2, Trvfv^a -njs 
 
 o>7S ev X/DICTTOJ, and ver. 6, <j)p6vrjfj.a Trveu/xaros 0077 KOL flpyjvt]. In 
 
 the latter case, the connection with elp-qvr) points to the ethical 
 notion of the life which is united with God and pleasing to Him; 
 yet here also we may think of the eternal life as the final object 
 (reAos, cf. vi. 22) which is aimed at by the striving of the spirit. 
 We have already found just the same interchange of eschato- 
 logical and ethical life in Rom. vi. 4 11. Lastly, there are not 
 wanting passages in which both these sides are held together in 
 inseparable unity, and so the idea of fatf has its absolute signifi- 
 cance; this will be the case in every instance where on/ simply 
 indicates Christian salvation in general, as in the expressions, 
 Xdyos WT}S = the gospel of life = salvation in Christ (Phil. ii. 16), 
 
 TO irvevfj.a {"woTroiei (2 Cor. iii. 6), IOT) e/c vfKpdv (Rom. xi. 15). 
 
 Having thus seen how a present ethical life arises in the 
 Apostle's mind out of the notion of a future physical life, we 
 have now to develop in its several moments the inward working 
 of the irvfvua in the Christian. In general terms, it is a new
 
 208 LIVING IN THE SPIRIT. 
 
 personal life, a KCUV?) KTMTIS, an ayfyxoTros TrvevfiaTixos, who has the 
 TTvev/ia as his element, his guide, his moving principle, just as the 
 
 TraAcuos av$/30>7ros has the <rdp (ev irvevpaTL, Kara Trvev/m eTvai, 
 
 TTveu/zart ayr0ai). To go into further detail, there are different 
 moments of the personal life, which we can also distinguish in 
 the writings of Paul the feeling heart, the thinking and willing 
 (acting) reason, which have their part in the new life of the Trvcv/za. 
 In the heart, the centre of the personal life, the immediate con- 
 sciousness, the love of God is poured out by the holy spirit, 
 so that it becomes the object of the subjective inner being and 
 the personal experience of the reconciliation it has received, 
 consequently a ground of joyfully elated self-consciousness, of 
 "glorying." The favour of God is now no longer merely an 
 objective relation of God to man, but it becomes a subjective 
 possession of man, a condition of peace with God, in which 
 he feels himself placed (Eom. v. 1 5). Peace and joy in the 
 holy spirit are therefore the key-note in the kingdom of God 
 (Rom. xiv. 17). It is indeed a joy, the strength of which reposes 
 essentially on hope (Rom. v. 2, viii. 24, xv. 13), because its 
 object still belongs essentially to the future (the <avepwo-is rrjs 
 WT)S 'Iijo-ov) ; nay, it not only does not exclude OXtyeis, but it is 
 not raised beyond o-revdfav, the sighing expectation of final and 
 complete aTroAurpwo-is. But notwithstanding all do-0evaa which 
 is still unavoidable, the divine Trvcv/j,a gives to ours the consoling 
 evidence that we are children of God, and its unexpressed sigh- 
 ing and longing, which is concealed in the heart and never 
 comes into the clear consciousness of man, comes before God 
 and intercedes with Him who is acquainted with the heart 
 (viii 26 f.). In the category of these o-revay/xol aAaAr/rot, or 
 workings of the Tn/ev/xa which belong only to the life of uncon- 
 scious feeling, falls also that yXwa-a-y XaXtiv which the Apostle, 
 
 1 Cor. xiv. 13 f., Opposes as a irpo<rfvx^a-6ai T< Trveu/iOTi to the 
 
 Trpoa-ev^crdai r<J> voi, because in the former the vovs is a.Ka.piro<s ; it 
 is a mere activity of the divine Trvtu/m which dwells in the heart,
 
 THE BEGINNING OF THE NEW LIFE. 209 
 
 while the personal self-consciousness is at rest (according to our 
 psychology, an ecstatic state in which the life of feeling acts 
 independently, its excessive excitement dispensing with the 
 forms of conscious thought). 
 
 But the Trvev/j.a proceeding from the heart, where its light first 
 went up (2 Cor. iv. 6), takes possession also of the vov<s, the 
 thinking and willing activity of the reason, and effects here also 
 an dva/ccuWris (Horn. xii. 2), to the end that we may learn 
 to prove what the will of God is. The higher perception, of 
 which the vovs is rendered capable by the Trvefyia, is according to 
 this passage (and likewise Col. i. 9 f.) the moral power of 
 judging of good and evil, of distinguishing that which is pleas- 
 ing to God from that which is to be avoided. But especially 
 the spirit causes the perception of the divinely purposed salva- 
 tion, reveals that secret wisdom of God which the rulers of this 
 world have not perceived, and which the natural man cannot 
 possibly perceive, because he is without the divine irvevpa, which 
 alone knows divine things, because it searches the deep things 
 of God. It is this 7rvcG/*a, however, which Christians have 
 received, iva elSa>/j.v TO, im-b TOV Ofov ^apta-Oevra ^Tv : it therefore 
 produces a conscious insight into the blessings of salvation pro- 
 vided by God (1 Cor. ii. 7 12). The spiritual man has pre- 
 cisely the voCs of Christ, that is to say, he finds himself in pos- 
 session of the perception of absolute truth, which perception is 
 no longer excluded by any limit from the deep things of God. 
 This is of course only true at first in principle ; in the concrete 
 the Christian also has yiyvwo-Kciv c juepovs only, so long as he 
 walks in faith and not by sight ; he only sees the truth at first, 
 Si' eo-oirrpov eV aiviyp.a.Ti, in the reflection of a miiTor, and in many 
 ways veiled (1 Cor. xiii. 12); but in principle he has notwith- 
 standing the entire truth, since the perception of the glory of 
 Christ, as the very image of God, is lighted up in him, and this 
 light is reflected upon him with " open face," so that he is 
 changed more and more into the same image (2 Cor. iii. 18 
 iv. 6). This Christian perception is thus one which advances in 
 
 p
 
 210 LIVING IN THE SPIRIT. 
 
 proportion as the assimilation with the object of perception 
 advances ; it is always conditioned by the practical religious 
 experience. 
 
 For this reason the renewal of the theoretical and that of the 
 practical activity of the reason are inseparably connected toge- 
 ther. If previously the 6e\(iv of the good were the highest to 
 which the vovs could attain, which good it could not bring to 
 Karepy dfra-Oai., because the ego was sold as a slave under the 
 dominion of sin, it has now become free from the determining, 
 power (vo/xos) of sin and death, by the higher power (VO/AOS) of 
 the spirit of life in Christ ; sin will no more have the rule over 
 him; he is no longer bound to the flesh as a debtor, to live 
 according to its guidance (Rom. viii. 2, xii. 6, 14). Now the 
 moral will of the spiritual man also enters, with this state of 
 things, into a relation to the law directly opposed to that in 
 which he stood before. He was then under the law, but at the 
 same time so little in accord with the law (with the holy will of 
 God revealed in the law), that, on the contrary, it was precisely 
 by means of the law that the -n-aG^ara TWV d/Aa/onwv became 
 operative in his fleshly members, so as to produce fruit unto 
 death (vii. 5) ; now he is no longer under the law, but under the 
 favour of God, yet, for this very reason, in the possession of the 
 spirit of sonship which corresponds with the state of favour, by 
 means of which he is endued with the power and the will to 
 bring to actual accomplishment the SiKcuw/m TOV vo/iov, that is, 
 the moral contents of the law in love, which is the fulfilling of 
 all law (Eom. vi. 14, viii. 4; Gal. v. 14). On the one hand, 
 we have in combination bondage to the law and sin; on the 
 other hand, freedom from the law under the favour of God, and 
 the fulfilment of the substance of the law through the spirit of 
 love. It is important to observe this, because the whole reason- 
 ing of the Apostle in Eom. vi. 14 f. rests upon the fact, that in 
 his mind " to be under the favour of God " is the same thing x 
 
 1 Not as if this implied that the idea of %aptf suddenly became entirely different ; 
 it is the same as in vi. 1, and this again with that of iii. 24 v. 21, and remains
 
 THE BEGINNING OF THE NEW LIFE. 211 
 
 as " to be led by the spirit," since both are in an equal degree 
 the exact opposite of "being under the law;" comp. Bom. 
 vi. 14 with Gal. v. 18. By this morally renovating Trvefya the 
 SiKaioarvvT) which the law could never effect is really produced ; 
 real righteousness, or the new moral character of life which 
 is brought about by the spirit, is added to ideal righteousness, or 
 the right harmonious relation to God, in which the faithful, by 
 virtue of his mere trust in the favourable will of God revealed 
 in the death of Christ, had already been enabled to stand. In 
 the former sense we should understand Su<aioa-vvr) in Bom. 
 viii. 10 with reference to the whole context, especially ver. 4 ; 
 and in Bom. vi. 16 20 we can hardly fail to see a wavering 
 between the ideal and real notion of SIKCUOCTW??. At first, indeed, 
 we must take ry SiKaioo-vvy SovXuOfjvai in the same sense as two 
 X/HV eTvat, namely, as the state of the justified man, conformably 
 to which the conduct of his life is to shape itself; but as irvevpaTt 
 ayeo-Oat is included in the notion of VTTO \<ipiv cTvai, and thus 
 Xa/ois itself obtains, in addition to the significance of a religious 
 principle, that of a moral agent, so also the notion of SiKaiocrvvrj in 
 this chapter expands itself, until the moral sense of righteous- 
 ness of life, which is the effect of the morally renovating favour 
 of God, is added as a further moment to the specific Pauline 
 sense of the righteousness by faith, which is the effect of God's 
 reconciling favour. But the former is only added to the latter, 
 it is not put in its place, not at least in such a way as to annul 
 the whole of the former doctrine of the righteousness of faith, 
 and to substitute for it an entirely new doctrine of moral righ- 
 teousness. 1 The real righteousness of the irvevp-a and the ideal 
 righteousness of faith are, on the contrary, connected with each 
 other as a new relation to God and a new moral vitality, of 
 
 dominant throughout ; only the new religious relation is here completed on its moral 
 side, by being indicated as the necessary ground of new moral vitality, of cacvori;c <"i/ff 
 (ver. 4). 
 
 1 I can only consider this opinion of Lildcmann's (ut supra, p. 165 f. and 208 215) 
 as an extraordinary mistake, the refutation of which may be found in the former 
 part of this work (Chap. ii. iv. v.). 
 
 p 2
 
 212 LIVING IN THE SPIRIT. 
 
 which neither can take the place of the other, but which are 
 necessarily in need of each other to make up the whole, but in 
 such a way that the religious idea always remains as the founda- 
 tion, and (both to the Apostle and to the religious view of all 
 time) the chief thing. However, the Apostle also makes much 
 less use of the idea of righteousness for the moral renovation of 
 life than he does of holiness. 
 
 But this idea also obtains in the writings of Paul a deepened 
 meaning, corresponding with that of irvevpa. The word oytos, on 
 the ground of its usage in the Old Testament, denotes primarily 
 in the writings of Paul also the being devoted to God, belong- 
 ing to God, standing in relation to Him. Everything is holy in 
 this sense which rests on divine revelation (ypa^al ay tat, Rom. 
 i. 2; vo/xos, evToXrj ay., vii. 12), or which is connected with divine 
 
 Worship (vao? TOV Oeov aytos eori, 1 Cor. iii. 17; Ova- to. ay., Eom. 
 
 xii. 1). So Israel also as a whole, as a theocratic community, 
 is compared to a holy root and to holy leaven; and the indi- 
 vidual members of this people, inasmuch as they have grown as 
 branches from the root, have the predicates which belong to the 
 whole expressly applied to them. And as in Israel the indi- 
 vidual members participate in the holiness of the community of 
 the Hebrew nation, so the same thing is true of the Christian 
 community, so that the natural connection with it which is 
 effected by the relation of man and wife, parent and child, 
 extends the holiness which belongs to the Christian part to the 
 other part which is not Christian; the non-Christian husband 
 -or wife is made holy by the Christian wife or husband, the non- 
 Christian child by the Christian parents (I Cor. vii. 14). In 
 this purely objective sense, which rests on the Old Testament 
 view, we must in the first instance take the standing predicate 
 of the Christians, ayiot ; they are this simply on the ground of 
 their being called to the fellowship of the Christian community 
 (cf. K\r)Tol aytot, Eom. i. 7 ; 1 Cor. i. 2). But in this union with 
 the body of Christ, the Christian, we must remember, also 
 receives the spirit of Christ, the Trvcvpa ayiov, which, as we have
 
 THE BEGINNING OF THE NEW LIFE. 213 
 
 seen, becomes in him the principle of a new personal life. In 
 this respect the Christian is now holy, not only on account of 
 his belonging to the chosen Messianic community, but essen- 
 tially on account of his subjective possession of the principle of 
 holiness, the holy spirit. Christians are ayiot in the Apostle's 
 
 eyes, not only as the /cA^roi KCU f7riKa.Xovii.fvoi TO 6Vo/*a TOV Kiyuov 
 (as belonging to the community which calls itself by the name 
 of Christ), but essentially as the ^yicur/xevoi cV XpurrQ 'lyo-ov 
 (1 Cor. i. 2), that is to say, as those whose life has become holy 
 in principle by its communion with Christ. Thus the converted 
 Gentiles are called a sacrifice, ^yiaoy/,v>7 ev Trvev/xart ayi<p (Rom. 
 xv. 16), and the Corinthians are reminded, Ye were once gross 
 
 sinners, but now dTTfXova-ao-df, i^ytacr^TC tv TrvfvfJ,a.Ti TOV Ofov T//XWV, 
 
 in which words the union of the two predicates, and the oppo- 
 sition in which they are placed to the previous life of sin, shows 
 that this ^yido-OrjTf denotes not merely devotion of themselves as 
 belonging to God, but moral purification and sanctification in 
 principle, or, in short, the presence of the TrveC/^a in Christians as 
 the principle of holiness. 
 
 Before we proceed to consider the development of this princi- 
 ple in the process of sanctification, or in the Christian moral 
 life, which belongs to this part of our subject, we must answer 
 the question, how this new Christian irvfvfj.a is related to the 
 natural irvfvp.a. of man, which was described in Chap. i. as 
 occupying the middle point of indifference between the opposing 
 principles of n-vevpi (in the higher sense) and o-dpg, and consti- 
 tuting the neutral substratum of the personal life. We have to 
 consider, with reference to this point, statements of the Apostle 
 which are of two different kinds; in the one, he implies that 
 the Christian Trvev/xo. and the natural human irvtv/M co-exist and 
 work upon one another; in the other, he makes no difference 
 between them. Of the first kind, the most important are to 
 be found in the following passages: Eom. viii. 16, ai-ro TO irvevpa. 
 (p TrvevfjMTi fj,ov, OTI ((r/j.(v TfKva 6fov : and ver. 26, Tt 
 
 OVK oiSa/xev, aAA' auTo TO Trvcv/xa vrrfpfVTi>y\a.vi
 
 214 LIVING IN THE SPIRIT. 
 
 orevay/iois aAaAiyrois : ix. 1, o~iyi/ia/3Tty>oixr>7S fioi TT}S 
 
 fj-ov h TrvevpaTi ayi<j>. To this class belong also the passages 
 which speak of conditions of the 7ri/eu/*a of the Christian which 
 cannot be said to be conditions of the indwelling spirit of God, 
 which is itself strength, and life, and holiness ; such are comfort, 
 and peace of mind (2 Cor. ii 12, vii. 13 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 18), or defile- 
 ment (2 Cor. vii. 1), or sanctification, and keeping pure (1 Cor. 
 vii 34; 1 Thess. v. 23), or, lastly, rescuing from destruction 
 (1 Cor. v. 5). These passages presuppose that even in the Chris- 
 tian who possesses the TTVCV/WI ayiov, there is still a human -rrvevfjM 
 different from it, which is capable of suffering, and of defilement, 
 and of perishing, and is in need of the inworking of the divine 
 TrveO/wi, in order to be freed or protected from all these, and 
 which is thus related to the divine rrvev/Aa as the receiving 
 to the giving subject (see above, Chap. i. p. 65). But by 
 the side of these passages there are also others to be found 
 which do not assume or even admit of any distinction between 
 the divine and human Trveu/xa in the Christian. So in Rom. 
 viii. 10, TO irvevfjLa o>r) Sta StKaioo-vvrjv, where we are compelled by 
 the antithesis TO O-W/AO, veKpov 5V ufMapriav to refer the words to 
 the individual 7rv{!/>ta of the Christian, which, however, can only 
 be " life " by virtue of its unity with that of God, as is stated in 
 vers. 9 and 11, with regard to 7rvv//.a Oeov and Xpio-rou ; further, 
 
 in 1 Cor. xiv. 14 f., TO Trvcu/xa fj.ov Trpoo-fv^erai, and irpoa-vofJ,a.L TO> 
 
 Trvev/iaTi, it is the Trvfvfia. of the Apostle himself which prays in 
 him, or with which he prays (in speaking with tongues) ; but 
 this -n-vevfJM can nevertheless be only the supernatural principle 
 of the x^'oT^Ta bestowed by God, for speaking with tongues is 
 one of these. To. this class, again, belong those passages in which 
 the Tri/ev/xa is connected with human virtues as their subject, 
 Such as 2 Cor. IV. 13, TO awo irvevpa rfjs TriVrews : 1 Cor. iv. 21, 
 and Gal. vi. 1, TTveu/ia 7r/3aoT7;TOS : Rom. XV. 30, dyd-trr) TOV irvfVfiaTos'. 
 
 1 Thess. i. 6, x a /<* Tvei'/xaTos ayiov : and especially 2 Cor. vi. 6, 
 
 ev ayioYrjTi, fv yvwrei, fv fJLa.Kpodvp.iy, iv Xprjo-TOTTjTi, ev irvf.vp.a.T<. ayi'<j>, 
 
 iv dydiry, &c. In all these passages it is certainly much easier
 
 THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW LIFE. 215 
 
 to understand the -n-vevfia simply as the subject of these virtues, 
 than (according to the common interpretation) to separate it 
 from the Christian subject, and make it the cause of the virtues 
 named in connection with it. Especially in the passage last 
 quoted, ev Trvevfj-an ayty, in the midst of the other Christian 
 virtues, must necessarily denote another spiritual condition of 
 the Christian, namely, his being filled with the holy spirit of 
 God (cf. ^OVTCS TO> TrvevfjLa,Ti, Eom. xii. 11). In all these and 
 similar passages, the separation between Trvevpa ayiov as being 
 objective, and the subjective Christian spirit, is not exegetical 
 exactness, but rather scholastic abstraction, which certainly 
 perverts the meaning of the Apostle. This we shall find, on the 
 contrary, to be, that the divine Trvev/JM and the natural human 
 coalesce in the Christian into the unity of a new subject, a 
 or Ti-vevpiTiKos dvfy>a>7ros (they unite therefore in substance, 
 comp. 1 Cor. vi. 17), but yet in such a way that this union 
 is not absolutely complete from the beginning, but always pro- 
 gressing merely, and therefore always in part not existing; conse- 
 quently both substances are always in another sense distinct, 
 and related to each other as that which is active and giving, 
 to that which is passive and receiving. It is this very process 
 of the union of the divine and the human spirit, constantly 
 advancing towards the unity of a personality in the image of 
 God, which is ever becoming more complete, that we have now 
 to consider further. 
 
 THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW LIFE; SANCTIFICATION. 
 
 By virtue of man's having obtained for his own, in his union 
 with Christ by faith, a new principle of life, the irvcvua ayiov, the 
 possibility is given to him, and with it the moral necessity, 
 of framing his own life so as to be pleasing to God and to 
 resemble Him; in short, to be a holy life. There is, it is true, no 
 physically compulsory necessity in this principle, but its realiza-
 
 216 LIVING IN THE SPIRIT. 
 
 tion takes place only through the free self-determination of man 
 to allow himself to be directed by the spirit which dwells in 
 him. Because, by virtue of his being a Christian, he lives in the 
 spirit, so he ought, and has the power, spontaneously to walk in 
 the spirit as his actual element, or according to the spirit as 
 his actual guide (Gal. V. 25, el w/v irvf.vpa.Ti., trv^vpan KCU 
 (TTOi^w/iev : Rom. viii. 4, i'va TO Sixaiw/ia TOV vo/xov TrXyptoOy tv 
 fjfj.iv TOIS firj Kara crdpKa TrcpnraTovcriv aAAa Kara 7n/ev//,a). Never- 
 theless, the Apostle regards the progress of the new life as by 
 no means the spontaneous action of man ; but as its beginning 
 depended on a close union of man with Christ, in faith and 
 baptism, so also does its progress consist in the divine human 
 process of the ever more complete realizing of the Christian 
 principle of salvation, according to all its moments, in the 
 spiritual life of man; salvation is likewise continually said to 
 grounded in God (1 Thess. v. 23), wrought out by human free- 
 dom (2 Cor. vii. 1), and both together (Phil. ii. 12, 13). 
 
 Now, to pursue the matter further into detail, sanctification 
 consists in the carrying on of the same two-sided process, of 
 dying and rising again with Christ, which has already begun in 
 baptism. The Christian has already, in giving himself up to 
 Christ as his own, crucified his flesh, with its passions and 
 desires ; henceforth he is to mortify continually the 7r/oaeis TOV 
 
 (Gal. V. 24, f<TTa.vp<a<rav ; cf. Rom. viii. 13, i OavaTovre 
 
 ; he has put on Christ in baptism, now he is to put him 
 on continually by walking honestly as in the day (Gal. iii. 27 
 with Rom. xiii. 14) ; he is already in Christ, apprehended by 
 Christ, now he is to lay hold of him more and more, to change 
 himself into his image, and let Christ be formed within him 
 (Phil. iii. 12; 2 Cor. iii. 18; Gal. iv. 19); the old has already 
 passed away in him, and all has become new, but now he is to 
 transform himself continually by the renewal of his mind, by 
 the daily renewal of the inward man (2 Cor. v. 17, compared with 
 Rom. xii. 2, and 2 Cor. iv. 16). The latter passages may guard 
 us from misunderstanding the former ; the da.va.rovv ras irpagus
 
 THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW LIFE. 217 
 
 TOV <rw/zaTos does not mean a sensuous mortification of the body 
 and its natural needs and functions, not an ascetic self-castiga- 
 tion; that would be far from according with the free spiritual 
 apprehension of these externalities, which is repeatedly ex- 
 pressed in other passages by the Apostle (comp. especially 
 Rom. xiv. 13 23, 1 Cor. vi. 12); but it points to such a 
 restraint being put upon the fleshly externalizations of life (the 
 7ri0v/u'cu and iraB^ara, which peculiarly belong to the flesh, 
 as constituting the body), that they shall not be able to gain the 
 mastery over the self-conscious spiritual ego ; cf. 1 Cor. ix. 27, 
 > TO (rw/xa KCU SouAaywyw, /i^irws aAAois Kij/ov^as auros 
 yevw/icu, With which, however, the eAeuflepos wv CK TTCIVTWV 
 
 (ver. 19) is perfectly consistent. In the same way, in vi. 12, 
 the consciousness of the most complete autonomy is closely 
 united with the principle of the strongest self-control (n-avra pu 
 
 eecmv, dAA OVK yw f.^ovfria.Q-Oi^a'op.a.i VTTO TIVOS). This warfare 18 
 
 not directed against the body as such, but only against the body 
 as it consists of a-dpg, and allows the eiriOvpfiv of the latter, 
 which is contrary to the spirit, to prevail in it ; the body itself, 
 however, is, notwithstanding this, according to its true desti- 
 nation, a temple of the holy spirit (1 Cor. vi. 19 f), and God can 
 and ought to be glorified in it ; it ought to be holy (vii. 34), and 
 its members instruments of righteousness (Eom. vi. 13, 19). 
 Thus Paul thoroughly recognizes a positive relation of the body 
 to the holy spirit, as the aim of sanctification ; but as sanctifi- 
 cation (frequently in the case of the Gentiles with whom the 
 Apostle has to deal in his Epistles) starts from a condition in 
 which the body, as a matter of fact, behaves in just the contrary 
 manner, and is only an organ of the anti-spiritual flesh, it is 
 easy to understand why, in treating of sanctification, Paul gives, 
 as he certainly does, so much more weight to the negative side 
 of the question regarding the body. 1 
 
 The Apostle accounts the <rvproxrxetv (Rom. viii. 17), i. e. 
 
 1 Compare with the above, the apposite remarks of Biedtrmamn, Dogmatik, 292. 
 Holsten, ut supra, p. 443, takes a different view.
 
 218 LIVING IN THE SPIRIT. 
 
 bearing the sufferings which the Christian encounters in his 
 calling as a Christian, therefore for the sake of Christ and in 
 imitation of him, or generally in his Christian life, as an essen- 
 tial part of the negative side of sanctification, or of dying with 
 Christ. He describes his being in constant danger of death for 
 the sake of Jesus (det Trapa8i.86fj.fOa eis OO.VO.TOV Sia 'Irjo-ovv, 2 Cor. 
 iv. 11) as a carrying about in his body of the putting to death of 
 Jesus (vK/30)o-ts 'Ljo-ov), the purpose of which was that the life of 
 Jesus also might be manifested in his body (ib. ver. 10, cf. ver. 14) 
 in the day of the resurrection. The Apostle thus regards his 
 sufferings as a copied repetition of the sufferings of Christ, which 
 is essential in order to the completion of the transformation into 
 the image of Christ. As in him suffering was a putting to death 
 of the outward part of man (I^v-ov), and at the same time a con- 
 demnation of sin in the flesh (Kom. viii. 3), an diroOaveiv rrj 
 afj-apria, in order to live henceforth to God (vi. 10), so the suffer- 
 ings of the Christian serve to wear away the fleshly outward 
 man, in order that the inward man may be daily more renewed, 
 and made capable of reflecting in that day, in a corresponding 
 form of appearance, the exceeding 8oa of Christ (2 Cor. iv. 16 f., 
 v. 1 f., iii. 18). In this certainty he says, "As the sufferings of 
 Christ abound in us, so our consolation also aboundeth by 
 Christ" (2 Cor. i. 5. In Phil, iii 10, the end of faith is the 
 knowledge of the power of Christ's resurrection, but also and 
 in fact as the condition of this knowledge " the fellowship of 
 his sufferings, in being made conformable unto his death "). 
 
 To this negative side of sanctification, which thus consists in 
 the mortification of the flesh, and in the patient endurance of 
 sufferings, is related the positive side, as in Christ the resurrec- 
 tion life is related to suffering and dying. As the risen one has 
 become a perfect spirit (2 Cor. iii. 17), so sanctification, in its 
 positive side, is a life Iv KCUVOT^TI irvf.-vp.a.Tos, or briefly v Trvev/iart, 
 where the irvtvpa. is imagined as the dement, in which the sub- 
 jective life essentially reposes, in which it has its fulness and 
 its power ; or it is said to be TrepiTrareiv Trvru/wirt, Kara
 
 THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW LIFE. 219 
 
 where the irvtvpa is imagined as the rule by which the free self- 
 determination guides itself, as the law (Eom. viii. 2, 6 v6fj.cs rov 
 TTvev/iaros TTJS w?}s v X/H(rr<p) by which the life is ruled in the 
 individual. And further, as the life of the risen one is a tfv r<J> 
 6f(f (Eom. vi. 10), so also is sanctification a tfjv T(J> &&$ V X/HO-TW 
 
 'I^(rov, a irapurrdvai eavrov T(j> #ey, and SovXiaOfjvai T< 6((j) (ib. vers. 
 
 11, 13, 22). That Christ, who is bound up in a mystical union with 
 the believer (the indwelling spirit of Christ), is the animating 
 power, and that the will of God is the highest and final end of 
 the life of sanctification, is expressed by the peculiar but signifi- 
 cant figure, that the Christian, freed from his former wedded lord 
 (the law), has become the spouse of the risen Christ, in order 
 that he may, in this new marriage-bond, become fruitful for 
 
 God (Kafyiro^oprja-ai 6t(, Eom. vii. 4). 
 
 What this fruit of the spirit in us should be is said in Gal. 
 v. 22 f.; it is Christian virtue, displayed in its numerous mani- 
 festations, as love, joy, peace, long-suffering, righteousness, good- 
 ness, fidelity, gentleness, temperance. Whilst joy, and perhaps 
 also peace (if it be not here equivalent to a peaceful disposition), 
 express the religious key-note of the Christian, and temperance 
 expresses the virtue of self-command with reference to his own 
 sensuous nature, all the others relate to his right conduct towards 
 his neighbour, and are modifications of the fundamental social 
 virtue of the Christian, love, which is therefore placed before all 
 the others. It is regarded by the Apostle as at once the highest 
 gift of the spirit (1 Cor. xiii.), and the complete fulfilling of the 
 law, that is to say, in its moral essence (SiKcuw/ia TOV vopov, Eom. 
 viii. 4), which after the Mosaic law has been stripped of its 
 worldly sensuous element is materially identical with the law 
 of Christ, so that love may be said to be the 7rA.?fca>/xa vopov, as 
 well with regard to the Old Testament law (Eom. xiii. 8 10 ; 
 Gal. v. 14), as with regard to the law of Christ (Gal. vi 2). 
 Because it is itself the fulfilling of the law, the law is no longer 
 against it (GaL v. 23), has neither to demand anything of it, nor
 
 220 LIVING IN THE SPIRIT. 
 
 to condemn it, has lost its significance as a written law with 
 respect to it, and thus that freedom from the law which was 
 already contained as an ideal right in the vio0e<ria, and guaran- 
 teed objectively by the death of Christ (see above), has become 
 real in love. At the same time, however, love is precisely that 
 which does not, indeed, outwardly fetter, but inwardly 
 constrains our freedom, and puts it at the service of our 
 neighbour (Gal. v. 13), as it is itself a being bound by the 
 love of Christ; 2 Cor. v. 14, 17 ayaTn? X/DWTTOV towards us 
 which he displayed in dying for us o-wexei ^as, i. e. keeps us 
 within bounds, bridles and rules our conduct towards others, by 
 means of gratitude to him, which admits no more of self-seeking. 
 A practical example of this is seen in 1 Cor. viii. 11 and Kom. 
 xiv. 15, viz., the loving regard for the weak brother for whom 
 Christ died. Christian brotherly love is thus only the natural 
 reflection and imitation of the love of Christ and of God which 
 we have made our own by faith (2 Cor. viii. 9 ; Eom. xv. 2 f.). 
 For this very reason, it cannot but happen that faith, saturated 
 with such contents, should exercise its power outwardly by love; 
 in faith itself, the love of God to us which we accept changes 
 itself into active love for our neighbour; TTIO-TIS is 8t dyaTnj? 
 evepyovpfvy, Gal. v. 6. Love, therefore, is not added to faith from 
 without to complete it, but it has in faith (which makes us of 
 one mind with Christ, or has the spirit of Christ for its concrete 
 contents) its organic germ, which, if only faith itself remain 
 alive, necessarily expands into the moral energy of love. For 
 faith, as the giving up of the heart to God, makes us free from 
 the ungodlike will of the flesh and of our own selves, and there- 
 fore also from the law, which is only valid against the carnal 
 mind ; but this it does only by placing our own freedom in de- 
 pendence on God ; but in this free bondage to God is to be 
 found the source of that power whicli binds man to man in 
 freedom, namely, love ; in faith the Christian is avo/*os, eA.ev#e/oos 
 wv K jravrwv, in love he is Ivvo/tos X/H(TT<j>, irao-w tavrov SovAcixras
 
 TEE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW LIFE. 221 
 
 (1 Cor. ix. 19 f.). 1 Moreover, as the inwardly binding law of 
 freedom, love may, under certain circumstances, demand an ex- 
 ternal limitation of the use of Christian freedom, an abstinence 
 from that which is in itself permissible; for instance, where it 
 is required by regard for weak brethren, whose faith is not yet 
 strong enough to be free from the letter of statutes, and whose 
 consciences might therefore be shocked by the free practice of 
 stronger brethren (Horn. xiv. 13 f.; 1 Cor. viii. 9). Yet, on the 
 other hand, even this loving regard for those who are not free 
 must not go so far as to injure the right of freedom and the truth 
 of the gospel (Gal. v. 112, ii. 35, 1121) ; it must, there- 
 fore, extend only to really indifferent matters, and the Apostle 
 himself certainly seems to have held, concerning the limits of 
 this extension, at one time a stricter, and at another time a more 
 tolerant, opinion (cf. below, Chap, viii.); and it must be practised 
 only with reference to those who are really weak, whose con- 
 sciences, not being free, require loving consideration and tole- 
 rance on the part of the stronger, but who have no desire to 
 acquire for themselves any right to rule in such matters (Eom. 
 xv. 1); whilst against those who wish to rule, to set themselves 
 up as masters over the faith of others, and to make their own 
 narrowness a slavish yoke to limit the Christian freedom of the 
 community, the exclusive right of Christ to sovereignty is to be 
 energetically maintained, as he is the only Lord and Judge of the 
 conscience, whose dominion is incompatible with any yoke what- 
 ever of bondage to men (Rom. xiv. 3 12; Gal. ii. v. 1 ; 1 Cor. 
 vii 23). 
 
 In this way, then, in his religious principle of faith, the Apos- 
 tle has at the same time indicated the immanent principle of a 
 Christian morality which is neither without law, nor has to seek 
 its law outside of itself, beyond the Christian sphere, in that 
 of Judaism, but which bears its law essentially within itself, 
 namely, in the religious principle of Christianity, which lies at 
 
 1 Luther gives the most beautiful and truly Pauline exposition of this thought in 
 his treatise "Von der Freiheit eilies Christenmenschen."
 
 222 LIVING IN THE SPIRIT. 
 
 the root of it. If we are by faith in Christ set free from the 
 schoolmaster of the external law, which was a law of bondage, 
 then we have attained a new law in the love of Christ (i. e. love 
 for Christ), namely, " the law of the spirit of life in Christ," 
 which no longer stands externally over against us, as an enslav- 
 ing and condemning letter, but which works in us real freedom, 
 strength to live the new life. This freedom from the external 
 (Mosaic) law, which had become to justifying faith an ideal 
 right belonging to sonship, now attains its completion in the 
 truly freeing and animating power of the spirit of life given by 
 Christ, which frees us from the law of sin and of death by work- 
 ing in us love, which is the fulfilling of the law, and the realiza- 
 tion of the SiKcuw/ia TOV vofiov (Eom. viii. 2 4). And inasmuch 
 as the ideal relation of sonship first begins to work subjectively 
 in this real state of freedom, sonship is so inseparably connected 
 with the existence of the spirit, that from the fact of the spirit 
 working in a man it may be concluded that he is a child of God 
 (Eom. viii. 14). 
 
 In this way the Pauline opposition of faith to law and works 
 now attains its essential completion. Faith is not opposed to 
 every law, but only to that law which cannot give life, because, 
 being external, it has its insuperable limit in the fleshly nature 
 (e-xiOviK.iv) of man (comp. Gal. iii. 21 with Eom. viii. 3, 7), there- 
 fore to the Mosaic letter of the law (and to every law which, like 
 that of Moses, opposes to the will of man the rigid " thou shalt " 
 as a foreign will; and this is indeed the case with law in 
 general, if we look to the bottom of it, from the standpoint of 
 the natural man). But faith is not opposed. to the new G'hristian 
 law, which consists in the impulse of the holy spirit, and which 
 accordingly no longer merely commands, but at the same tune 
 gives life, i. e. pleasure in and strength for the accomplishment : 
 the Apostle calls this, according to its true nature, " a law of 
 the spirit of life in Christ," and, according to its origin, " the law 
 of Christ" (Eom. viii. 2 ; Gal. vi. 2). Now this law is certainly 
 valid also for the Christian ; but the true moral essence of the
 
 THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW LIFE. 223 
 
 old (Mosaic) law, its SIKCUW/WI, is not only contained in it, but is 
 for the first time brought into full validity and effectiveness 
 (Eom. viii. 4, xiii. 8 10). So far it is certainly correct to say 
 that Paul in his doctrine of faith (that is to say, faith filled with 
 the Tri/eu/xa and working by love) does not overthrow the law, but 
 sets it up; only we must not introduce this thought into the 
 words of Kom. iii. 31, where it would very abruptly and unneces- 
 sarily interrupt the development of the doctrine of justification ; 
 these words, on the contrary, form the transition to the Scrip- 
 ture proof of the doctrine of justification which follows, and 
 therefore 6 j/o/xos in that passage can mean nothing else than the 
 Old Testament revelation in general, and especially that which 
 was made to Abraham. From this point of view we shall also 
 be able to understand the striking passage which appears to 
 form a contradiction to Gal. v. 6, namely, 1 Cor. vii. 19, " circum- 
 cision is nothing, and the foreskin is nothing," dXXa rr/pr^o-ts TUV 
 cvroXwv Oeov. Here also both Judaism and Heathenism are alike 
 said to be nothing, in comparison of the new religious moral life 
 of the Christian; but whilst in Gal. v. 6 the latter is appre- 
 hended in its ground and in its manifestation as TTICTTIS Si aya^s 
 cvepyovp.evr), here the moral manifestation alone is brought for- 
 ward, and that in a form which was certainly the usual mode 
 of expression for Jewish morality, or for righteousness in the 
 Jewish legal sense. Nevertheless, that this cannot be meant 
 here is clear, because circumcision above all things belonged to 
 the 1-17/3*70-15 fvroXwv in the Jewish sense; and as this integral 
 part of the Jewish keeping of the law is here said to be nothing, 
 it is self-evident that by evroXai here is meant the law, not in its 
 Mosiac form, but only in its universal moral essence, abstracted 
 from the positive Jewish law, that is to say, the moral law as it 
 is comprehended in love. It is also self-evident that the 
 Apostle demands from the Christian moral fruit, not only in 
 virtues (Gal. v. 22), but also in the actual practice of them, that 
 is to say briefly, in works ; it would certainly be a mistake to 
 suppose that the Apostle meant an abstract piety which should
 
 224 LIVING IN THE SPIRIT. 
 
 not attain to moral action. He expressly demands of the Gala- 
 
 tians fpyafafJLfOa TO aya.6bv TT/DOS Travras, fJ-dXtcrTa 8e TT/DOS rovs oiKfiovs 
 
 TTJS TTwrTctos : and not to be weary in doing good is, according to 
 him, the condition of the future harvest, is therefore virtually 
 that which he before called sowing to the spirit (Gal. vi. 8 10). 
 Again, he wishes for the Corinthians that the favour of God may 
 come abundantly upon them, in order that they themselves may 
 act abundantly in every good work (7rao-av x<*-P iV Tepo-aeijo-ai 's 
 
 v/tas iva irfpur&evrjTf cts Trav fpyov dyaOov, 2 Cor. ix. 8), and the 
 proportion of the harvest will be conditioned by the sparing or 
 abundant proportions of this sowing (ver. 6). This leads us to a 
 further point connected with this subject. 
 
 The "walking in the spirit," according to the sense of the new 
 Christian morality which has just been developed, is not only 
 the necessary (i. e. infallible and obligatory) fruit of accepted 
 salvation, but it is also the indispensable means and condition 
 of the perfecting of salvation, the final orwr^/aia. This is ex- 
 pressed by the Apostle by many different turns of thought, 
 which, however, are perfectly consistent with each other. He 
 says to the Philippians in plain words (ii. 12), pera <f>6/Bov Kal 
 rpo/xou TT)V eavrwv croiTrjpiav Karfpydfea-Of, they are to work out 
 their final salvation by their moral action, and that with fear 
 and trembling,. on account of the constant possibility of falling 
 back through moral slothfulness, and after all losing their salva- 
 tion. But he immediately adds the ground on the presupposi- 
 tion of which alone that Karepyd^a-daL is really possible, and 
 therefore also becomes a duty, 6 #eos ydp lo-riv 6 hfpytav ev vfj.lv 
 Kal TO 6fXfiv Kal TO 6vepyf.lv: it is the willingness and the power to 
 perform morally good works, effected by God, by imparting the 
 Trvfvfia ayiov, on the ground of which we are put in a position to 
 work out our salvation for ourselves, namely, by giving activity 
 to that principle in the particular acts of moral life. This 
 exactly agrees with what the Apostle acknowledges of himself 
 
 (iii. 12), O^X OTl 77877 f Xa/3oV 77 77877 TT\fl(DfJ.ai, SlWKW 8f, ft Kal 
 
 VTTO rov X/JICTTOU ITJO-OU : certain
 
 THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEIV LIFE. 225 
 
 as he is of being apprehended by Christ, of having found in him 
 the righteousness of God (ver. 9), he is still so far from thinking 
 that he has already attained completely or finally to the purpose 
 for which he was destined by God, to which he is called, that, on 
 the contrary, the favour which he has obtained is only so much 
 the stronger motive never to be satisfied with the degree of 
 moral perfection that he has at any time attained, but to strive 
 and advance ever further forward after the still unattained end 
 of absolute perfection. Nay, he says in fine irony to the Philip- 
 pians, those who are now perfect should likewise be of this mind 
 (ver. 15); that is to say, those who consider themselves perfect, 
 pattern Christians, should prove themselves to be so by striving 
 most zealously after that real perfection which was not yet 
 reached. The same thought is also to be found in the figure 
 of the race for the prize of victory in 1 Cor. ix. 24 27. If 
 deprivations were imposed, for the sake of a perishable crown, 
 upon those who contended in the Corinthian games, much more 
 should the Christian impose struggles and self-denial upon him- 
 self for the sake of the imperishable crown (everlasting o-wr^pta), 
 as he himself, the Apostle, subdued his body by severe disci- 
 pline, so that he might not, while preaching to others, be cast 
 away himself. This evidently presupposes, as being ever present 
 (at least in abstract], the possibility of losing the favour of God 
 in consequence of the flesh recovering its mastery. Accordingly, 
 the certainty of justification which is attached to salvation must 
 not be conceived so abstractly as to exclude the moment of sub- 
 jective freedom, with its possible vacillations and backslidings. 
 The modest hypothetical expressions, therefore, in Phil. iii. 11, 
 eiTTws KaravTija-d), and 12, et KOU /caraAa/Jw, are by no means to be 
 regarded as affording any ground for doubting the genuineness 
 of this Epistle ; on the contrary, they only prove (like the whole 
 of the passage in connection with them) that the most sober 
 consciousness of his distance from the moral ideal was perfectly 
 consistent with the most joyful faith in the favour of justifica- 
 tion which he had experienced (ver. 8 f); and this very insepa- 
 
 Q
 
 226 LIVISG IN THE SPIRIT. 
 
 rable connection of the religious realism of ' a complete and 
 satisfied consciousness of salvation, with the idealism which 
 looks forward, and struggles, and is still only hoping for salva- 
 tion, and ever striving after the goal of perfection, is most 
 characteristic of the evangelical ethics of Paul. But for the 
 very reason that this moral struggle has as its presupposition 
 and its root the religious existence of man as justified and 
 endowed with the spirit, the consequence of that struggle, the 
 goal of Christian hope, appears not merely as an external recom- 
 pence, or a purely supernatural fulfilling of a promise, as was the 
 case in the Jewish, and more or less also in the Jewish-Christian 
 view, but it appears as the natural fruit, in which the develop- 
 ment of the Christian spirit attains to maturity. Accordingly, 
 the moral action of the Christian is called a sowing to the spirit, 
 which will produce the harvest of eternal life from the spirit 
 (Gal. vi. 8) ; the existence of the (holy) spirit in man is therefore 
 the presupposition for both, for the sowing and for the harvest, 
 for the moral action, and for the eternal blessedness ; but be- 
 tween this fruit and the seed-plot in which it is potentially 
 contained, must intervene the moral action of man, by which 
 the forces latent in the spirit are let loose and put in operation, 
 made powerful to impel and to produce fruit that is to say, if 
 this action is ev irvevpaTi and Kara Trvevfj.a, has spirit for its element 
 and its rule. But because action of an opposite kind, sowing to 
 the flesh, which reaps the harvest of destruction, is also a possi- 
 bility for the Christian, he has need of the earnest warning, /^ 
 
 e, $eos ov p.vKTrjpifcTa.1, o yap eav (nrfipy avOpwTros, TOVTO 
 
 (ver. 7). It is only the unconditioned dominion of sin 
 in the flesh which has ceased in the Christian by virtue of his 
 paving received the spirit (a^apria. ov Kvpievo-et, Rom. vi. 14), but 
 the impossibility of allowing himself to be led by the flesh is not 
 thereby established (the non posse non peccare has ceased, but he 
 has not arrived at the non posse peccare, but only at the posse non 
 peccare). Christians are no longer debtors to the flesh, so that 
 they must live according to it, but yet the two-fold possibility
 
 THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW LIFE. 227 
 
 Still remains, el Kara a-dpKO. ffire, fJLfXXere a.TroOvrj<rKiv, el 8e Trvevfiart 
 Tas 7r/3aeis TOU arw/mros Oavarovrf, tya-eo-Oe (Rom. Vlii. 12 f.). 
 
 If we are thus to understand the Christian life as a process of 
 organic growth, which has the life of the spirit proceeding from 
 God as its principle, and again as its end, then we have already 
 an answer to the question, how far Christian salvation is to the 
 Apostle a future object of hope, and how far it is a present posses- 
 sion of faith. For we find this two-fold way of regarding it in 
 all the different ideas which represent Christian salvation to 
 the mind of the Apostle ; above all, in that most general idea 
 of a-oirrjpia, o-wr0cu, which comprises the others within itself. 
 The Apostle says, vvv ^e/ja wnqpias (2 Cor. vi. 2), from the fall 
 of the Jews a-wr^pta. has sprung up for the Gentiles (Kom. xi. 11, 
 comp. 15, KaraAAayr) /cocr/iou); Christians are the o-w^o^evoi (1 Cor. 
 i 18), for eo-w^/Aev TT/ eXx-iSi (Rom. viii. 24); but the other way 
 of looking at it still preponderates, according to which the salva- 
 tion already anticipated as a fact by the hoping consciousness is 
 nevertheless only realized in the future o-co0ijcro/0a a?ro rrjs 
 
 opyr}<; (Rom. V. 9, &C.), oxo-n/ptav Karepyd^ecrde, cis irepuroirjcriv 
 <ra>T77/3tas (Phil. ii. 12 ; 1 TheSS. V. 9), eyyvrepov i^uwv 17 (rwrypia 
 
 (Rom. xiii. 11). Similarly, we are already indeed children of 
 God by faith, and, on the ground of our being so, have received 
 the spirit of sonship (Gal. iii. 26, iv. 6) ; but yet we are still in 
 
 this temporal life viodea-iav a7rc/c8e^o/ievoi, rrjv a.iroXvrp(a<Ttv TOU 
 
 r)p.wv (Rom. viii. 23). As children we are also heirs, 
 (Rom. viii. 17 ; Gal. iii. 29), and that of all the pro- 
 mises which from the beginning belonged to the people of God 
 as the seed of Abraham first of all, therefore, of the promise of 
 the holy spirit (Gal. iii. 14) ; but, on the other hand, our 
 vopeiv is also a future one, consisting in future o-wSoga 
 conditioned by present o-u/uTao-xv, or in the future possession of 
 the a<riA.'a Oeov (1 Cor. vi. 9 f., xv. 50; Gal. v. 21). If, in the 
 passage last named, the kingdom of God appears as the Messiah's 
 kingdom, which began with his coming, it is again, on the other 
 hand, a present and inward one, and consists in righteousness, 
 
 Q2
 
 228 LIVING IN THE SPIRIT. 
 
 peace, and joy in the holy spirit (Kom. xiv. 17; comp. 1 Cor. 
 iv. 20). We have seen that the same two sides were contained 
 in the idea of farj (above, p. 205 f.). What is peculiar to Paul is 
 not this two-fold view of Christian salvation, but the fact that 
 the two sides are fused together again by him into a higher 
 unity, namely, in the Trveu/xa, which, for all its transcendence, is 
 nevertheless also present and immanent, and, for all its imma- 
 nence, is yet at the same time transcendent and future. As 
 salvation is already set forth ideally as present in justification, 
 so also it is set forth really in the possession of the ajrapx^] 
 Trvev/iaTos, in which we have a pledge and seal of our future 
 redemption on which our hope may support itself (2 Cor. i. 22, 
 v. 5, dppa(3tav TOU Trvei'/xaros). In this way Paul's doctrine stands 
 half-way between the transcendent idea of salvation which 
 preponderates in Jewish Christianity, and the immanent idea of 
 it which preponderates in the theology of John, and forms the 
 transition from one to the other.
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 THE CHEISTIAN COMMUNITY, 
 
 THE first form of Christendom as the association of believers 
 is the separate communities which were formed here and there 
 in different towns. These separate communities, according to the 
 analogy of the political assemblies of the people of the Greek 
 towns, were called eK/cA^o-icu, Gal. i. 2, 22 ; 1 Cor. xvi. 1, 19, and 
 many other passages. But this name was further extended to 
 the collective body of Christians, and these, although they never 
 appeared as an external community or assembly, were called the 
 (KKX.r)<ria TOV Oeov, that is, the commonwealth of God (1 Cor. x. 32 ; 
 Gal. i. 13). 
 
 The nature of this community is only indicated by figurative 
 comparisons, as Jesus only described the nature of the kingdom 
 of heaven in parables. It is called in 1 Cor. iii. 9, a fidd of God, 
 in which the Apostle plants, another waters, God grants the 
 increase ; or a building of God, of which the Apostle lays the 
 foundation, another continues the building (ibid. vers. 10 f.). 
 And indeed this foundation is Jesus Christ ; it is laid once for 
 all, for the whole Church, by God, and in each individual case is 
 laid anew by the preaching of the Apostle, in founding every 
 community. The advancement of the Christian life of the indi- 
 vidual community, like that of the individual Christian, is there- 
 fore, in connection with this figure, naturally called edification or 
 building up (1 Cor. xiv. 4, 12, 26, &c.). More particularly, this 
 building is called a temple of God, because it is the abode of his
 
 230 THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY. 
 
 holy spirit, which, as we have seen in the last chapter, dwells 
 in the Christian. And this predicate is affirmed both of the 
 whole community as such and also of the individuals in it ; 
 which indeed forms the specific difference between the Christian 
 and the Old Testament community (cf. 1 Cor. iii. 16 f. and 
 vi 19). If the figure of a building, the foundation of which is 
 Christ, shows the stability of the community in its entire de- 
 pendence on the historical Redeemer, its own immanent vitality, 
 in consequence of the possession of Christ's spirit of life, is more 
 prominently displayed by the figure of the " body of Christ." As 
 oneness and manifoldness are inseparably connected and inter- 
 penetrate each other in the body, so Christians are one with 
 each other through their communion of life with Christ in the 
 holy spirit, or through the one spirit which fills them and the 
 one Lord to whom they belong (1 Cor. xii. 4 f.); but this unity is 
 no uniformity, but a unity of manifold hearts, each of which, 
 through its special peculiarity, serves the whole in a special 
 way. 
 
 We shall have first to consider this manifoldness of gifts and 
 offices in the community ; then to fix our attention on its one- 
 ness, as it exhibits itself externally in the love-feast of the com- 
 munity ; and lastly, to see how this comes into existence by a 
 selection from Gentiles and Jews, the difference between whom 
 is merged in the higher union of the Christian community, 
 
 THE GIFTS AND OFFICES IN THE COMMUNITY. 
 
 The one spirit reveals itself in different powers or capacities, 
 which, inasmuch as they are always bestowed by the favour of 
 God on the individual as a special distinguishing possession, are 
 called gifts of favour, xa/o^ara, but inasmuch as they are at the 
 same time for the use of the whole, qualify and call to a perform- 
 ance of service to the community (Sio/covta). Every individual 
 endowment within the community includes also within itself an
 
 THE GIFTS AND OFFICES IN THE COMMUNITY. 231 
 
 individual task in the service of the community, therefore a call 
 to office ; but every office depends solely on the special qualifica- 
 tion of the individual by extraordinary endowment of the holy 
 spirit. The distinction between official and unofficial gifts is 
 therefore evidently a false one ; for all gifts are in the first place 
 individual, depend only on the disposal of the free will of God, 
 but all at the same time form the ground of a capacity, and 
 therefore of an obligation, to perform a public service, to take 
 some office in the community. There were as yet, in the primi- 
 tive community, no other offices than these which depended on 
 individual endowments of the spirit, the rights and duties of 
 which were simply consequences of personal power and capacity. 
 
 Among the gifts which are often enumerated by the Apostle 
 (especiaUy 1 Cor. xii. 81 0, 28, 29, xiv. 6, 26 ; Eom. xii. 68), 
 but never in systematic order and completeness, we may most 
 suitably distinguish those which relate to the advancement of 
 the life of the community in general, and those which relate 
 especially to the edification of the community by the worship of 
 God. The former again divide themselves into those which 
 belong to the service of the community (in the narrower sense of 
 the word StaKovia), and those which belong to the guidance of it. 
 
 The SiaKovta, in general, consisted in taking a careful and 
 helpful interest in the members of the community (avTiA-^eis, 
 1 Cor. xii. 28) in all their spiritual and bodily anxieties and 
 necessities, and particularly in giving spiritual comfort (irapa,- 
 KO.XUV, Horn. xii. 8) to those who were troubled in mind, impart- 
 ing to the poor the necessary gifts (o ^eraSiSous, ibid.), sympa- 
 thizing with the unhappy (tAeoii/, ibid.), especially tending the 
 sick, and finally in healing diseases by the miraculous power of 
 faith. With the last named are connected the TTIO-TIS, the x<fy"0y* 
 
 v, and the fvepy-^iMara Svva^cwv of 1 Cor. xii. 9 f. By this 
 
 we are not, of course, to understand simply believing, 
 which is clearly not an individual gift of favour serviceable to 
 the community, but the root of the very existence of the com- 
 munity. We must therefore understand by it, faith under a
 
 232 THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY. 
 
 special form of activity ; and if we take into account its connec- 
 tion with what follows, ^apia-p.a.ra. ia.p,a.T(av and evepyrifJ-ara SvW/ztcov, 
 
 we cannot conceive of it otherwise than as a special power of 
 trusting faith in God, an enthusiasm or heroism of faith. Such 
 faith may be able to accomplish extraordinary acts for the wel- 
 fare of the community, such especially as healing the sick. Such 
 miraculous cures were effected at that time, as at all times, 1 by 
 means of the psychological fact, that strong faith inspires strong 
 faith, and this has a reviving and strengthening effect on the 
 physical organism of the sick (at least in certain diseases). It 
 is harder to say what we are to understand by the somewhat 
 vague expression, evepy^ara 8wa.fjt.ewv. Perhaps we must take it 
 to refer chiefly to the .driving out of devils. 
 
 We have next to consider in connection with the 8ta/covta, the 
 guidance of the community, Kv(3epvr)(ri<i (1 Cor. xii. 28), to which 
 Tr/Doib-Tcyievos in Rom. xii. 8, although it may more generally be 
 understood of every office of authority, mainly refers ; also in 
 Phil. i. 1, firia-KOTTOL KCU SLO.KOVOI is precisely the same juxtaposition 
 of leaders (overseers) and servants, excepting that we have here to 
 think in anticipation of offices which were only established at a 
 later period. This is clearly proved by the plural OTIO-KOTTOI, which 
 can denote nothing but what is meant in 1 Thess. v. 12 by Trpoia-Ta.- 
 pevoi, and in other passages by Trpeo-flvTepoi, namely, those who, by 
 virtue of a special endowment qualifying them for it, took upon 
 themselves the task of tVio-KOTreu/ and KvfBepvav in all the affairs of 
 the community. As, according to the nature of things, both these 
 forms of activity, the service and the guidance of the community, 
 are nearly related to each other, so we may see from 1 Cor. xvt 15 f. 
 
 1 It is undeniable that cures by means of prayer, wrought by persons who have 
 special powers of inspiring confidence, occur not unfrequently even at the present day 
 (a notable instance is that of the Suabian pastor Blumhardt in Boll). We are by no 
 means justified in thinking that there is anything in such phenomena different from 
 the Swa/Atif iandrdtv in the Bible, unless we proceed on the extraordinary assump- 
 tion of Protestant dogmatism, that the privilege of miracles was confined to the ancient 
 period of the Biblical records, and that these were something supernatural in the 
 strongest sense of the word. But these suppositions are dogmatic postulates which 
 both history aud experience entirely contradict.
 
 THE GIFTS AND OFFICES IN THE COMMUNITY. 233 
 
 how both of them did actually often, or perhaps always, in the 
 communities established by Paul, fall into the same hands. The 
 Apostle here exhorts the Christian community to submit them- 
 selves to the family of Stephanas, whose relatives had devoted 
 themselves to the service of the saints (Christians), as well as to 
 every one who co-operated with them, and worked (for the com- 
 munity). We here get a view of the first beginning of church 
 government as it is coming into existence. The right to claim 
 submission from the other members of the community rests 
 simply and solely on the fact that one or more persons have 
 devoted themselves to the service of the community, and have 
 carefully and laboriously attended to the needs of their fellow- 
 christians. Not only do we find no mention in the Epistles with 
 which we are here dealing of a regular office of leadership, with 
 which an individual had in any way been formally entrusted by 
 the Apostle, but this passage in the Corinthians unmistakably 
 contradicts this supposition by the words eVa^av eawovs, which 
 could not have been used if they had been appointed by the 
 Apostle ; besides, in this case the duty of the community to sub- 
 mit themselves to the household of Stephanas would have been 
 made to rest simply on the authority of the Apostle, by virtue of 
 which they had been appointed to their post of dignity ; whereas 
 here, on the contrary, it is evidently looked upon as a grateful 
 return for their having voluntarily devoted themselves to the 
 service of the saints (observe the expression, /ecu fyms, you also 
 corresponding with that which they do for you). Moreover, it 
 would be very extraordinary and incomprehensible, if the Apostle 
 had really appointed leaders in his communities, that he should 
 never make them responsible for the disorders which occurred in 
 the communities of Corinth and Galatia ; and still more so, that 
 in the excommunicating and receiving again of the sinner at 
 Corinth, he very emphatically speaks of the community acting 
 with him, the Apostle, but never mentions a leader of the com- 
 munity, whom he would certainly in this case have had prima- 
 rily to deal with as the official representative of the community ;
 
 234 THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY. 
 
 on the contrary, he represents the matter as if the exclusion and 
 interruption of communion with the brotherhood had been left 
 entirely in the hands of its individual members. For when it is 
 said in 2 Cor. ii. 6, " this punishment which has come upon the 
 sinner from the greater number is enough," it is clear that this 
 refers not to a presbytery of the community as an official court, 
 but only to the greater number of the members of the commu- 
 nity, which (probably as belonging to the party of Paul) had 
 obeyed the command of the Apostle (1 Cor. v.), and had broken 
 off their intercourse with the incestuous person, while others 
 (probably the anti-Pauline party) had opposed the formal ex- 
 communication. Nothing could show more clearly than this how 
 entirely a fixed organization was wanting to the Pauline com- 
 munities, and accordingly how everything was completely de- 
 pendent on the personal, influence of a man who impressed others 
 by his capacity, and who had distinguished himself by serving 
 the community. Thus also in the Epistle to the Philippians the 
 community is exhorted indeed to concord and unselfish humility 
 towards each other (ii. 2 5), but not to submission under the 
 fTTia-KOTroi, which would certainly have been the case if the later 
 conception of office had been already current (compare the 
 pseudo-Ignatian letters). And in 1 Thess. v. 12 f., grateful 
 recognition is demanded for those who work as overseers of the 
 community, but expressly only in the sense that they should 
 " be esteemed so much the higher in love " for the sake of their 
 work of love. The relation of the community to their leaders is 
 thus still entirely that of free, moral, high esteem and respect, 
 and not that of official, hierarchical subjection. This is also 
 shown by the exhortation to the correction of the disorderly, 
 being addressed in the same passage (ver. 14) simply to all the 
 members of the community (dSeA^ot, ver. 12), according to which 
 the discipline of the church is here also, as in the Corinthian 
 community, the business of the whole community, and not that 
 of a privileged office or class. 
 
 Let us turn now to the x<v>ur/*a<ra, which relate to the edifica-
 
 THE GIFTS AND OFFICES IN THE COMMUNITY. 235 
 tion of the community by the worship of God, including Aoyos 
 
 cro<ia?, and Aoyos yvwcrecos, OT SiSa^, cwroKaAvi/'is Or 7rpo</>rjTta, yevrj 
 yAaxrcrwv and epfj.-rjvfia yAuxrcrwv Or SiaK/Dwris 7rvv/xaTwv. At the 
 
 head of these stand the " speech of wisdom " and the " speech of 
 knowledge," both of which are comprised in the more general 
 notion of ScSax^ (this word is therefore wanting in 1 Cor. viii. 12, 
 A. <ro</>. and A. yvwcr. being substituted for it, as conversely it is 
 substituted for these two in xiv. 26; on the other hand, in 
 xiv. 6, (v yvwor and h SiSa^y correspond with each other, and 
 are synonymous, as do also v a.iroKa.Xv\j/e<, and v irpo<f>r}Teia). 
 Both o-o^i'a and yvwo-ts refer to the knowledge of Christian salva- 
 tion, but with this difference, that <ro<J>{a denotes the elementary 
 consciousness of faith, the knowledge of elementary Christian 
 truths in the simplest and most direct form of actual fact, with- 
 out any insight into the How and the Why. Preaching of this kind, 
 therefore, does not possess the convincing power of proofs derived 
 from human wisdom, but that of the direct proof of the spirit, 
 the divine power of which manifests itself to the heart (1 Cor. 
 ii. 1 50). On the other hand, yvoxrts is the deeper knowledge 
 which is not directly given with faith, and which therefore 
 cannot come to all in an equal degree (cf. 1 Cor. viii. 7, OVK V 
 Trao-tv 17 yvwo-ts). Its objects are the /wmj/na (xiii. 2), which 
 consist partly of questions regarding the eschatology (xv. 51), 
 partly of those important questions about the right of Christian 
 freedom, of which 1 Cor. viii. expressly treats. But these are 
 connected with the more general question of the relation of the 
 Christian to the Jewish law, and this again with the significance 
 which attaches to the crucifixion of Christ, with reference to the 
 law, and in general with the apprehension of the person and the 
 work of Christ in the divine scheme of salvation. It is therefore 
 mainly in relation to these points that we shall have to consider 
 the Pauline gnosis. The ability to not merely understand these 
 deeper and more difficult questions, but also to impart this 
 knowledge to the community in learned discourses for their 
 edification, is a gracious gift of the spirit in a much higher
 
 236 THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY. 
 
 degree than the plain " speech of wisdom," which only discourses 
 in an edifying way about the elementary truths of the gospel, 
 without giving any explanation of the deeper secrets of faith. 
 
 Further, d-n-oKaXvif/is is to be taken with irpo<j>r)Tcia, wherefore 
 the latter only is mentioned in 1 Cor. xii. 10, and only the 
 former in xiv. 26, but in xiv. 6 the two correspond with each 
 other as cause and manifestation. They consist in revelations 
 regarding the future of the community, on which the conscious- 
 ness of believers was intensely occupied, as we know, in the 
 primitive church. Between the historical facts proclaimed by 
 the Apostle and the prophetic picture of the completion of salva- 
 tion, the remaining doctrines revolved as round a fixed centre, 
 for they only represented, as it were, the series of connecting 
 links between the beginning and the conclusion ; hence we have 
 in juxtaposition in 1 Cor. xii. 28 and 29, "first apostles, secondly 
 prophets, thirdly teachers." But as practical exhortation, com- 
 fort, and encouragement for the present Christian life, would 
 most naturally have been connected with the prophetic hopes of 
 the future, so we shall have to understand by -n-po(f>rjTfvfiv, in its 
 wider sense, all those addresses to the community, the purpose 
 of which was not so much to instruct them on questions of faith, 
 as, by pointing to what ought to happen and would happen, to 
 awaken an enthusiasm of faith, and animate them with the life 
 of faith. This practical character of the Trpo^rjrevfiv, by which it 
 comes most directly home to the hearts of the hearers, whether 
 in smiting them down or raising them up, we may see most 
 plainly in 1 Cor. xiv. 24. And it is quite in accordance with 
 this view, that it is just this practical, edifying Trpo^reveiv which 
 stands in the closest connection with that xa/Dioyza which belongs 
 to the sphere of the excited emotional life, the speaking with 
 tongues. 
 
 The yAwo-crg or yAoxro-ats AaXefv, a highly valued and very 
 frequent x < *P ia 'l J - a in the primitive church, but which so early as 
 the second century had ceased to be any longer known by experi- 
 ence, was, according to the description in 1 Cor. xiv., a mono-
 
 THE GIFTS AND OFFICES IN THE COMMUNITY. 237 
 
 logue uttered by a person in an ecstatic state, unintelligible to 
 ordinary hearers, and therefore requiring interpretation before it 
 could edify the community, for whom it was wholly unfruitful 
 without this interpretation, but edifying for the speaker himself 
 edifying, as we may suppose, in that sense in which the expres- 
 sion of a lively emotion is always a necessity and an enjoyment 
 to him who feels it. The ecstatic character of this mode of 
 speaking is indicated by its taking place, according to ver. 14 f., 
 only in the spirit, without the intervention of the vows, i. e. 
 (cf. above, Chap, i.) of the understanding consciousness, there- 
 fore in the living energy of immediate feeling, in consequence 
 of which the speaker probably produced the impression of his 
 being unconscious, not master of himself, possessed by a power 
 that was not his own, and only acting with his tongue as the 
 instrument of the unconscious spirit, not with the self-conscious 
 ego. That which was uttered in this manner appears to have 
 been of different kinds, for the Apostle speaks of ytvrj yAwo-o-wv : 
 perhaps at one time mere inarticulate sounds (cf. ver. 9, /) 
 cv<nj/jLov Xoyov), at another time unconnected exclamations of a 
 hymn-like character, which might have a certain resemblance to 
 a psalm (hymnus), but without yielding any determinate sense, 
 so that the community, although it might perceive that what 
 the speaker with tongues expressed was the praise of God, was 
 not enabled to join in it, or to say the responsory amen to it 
 (ver. 16). It is easy to understand that such a thing was so far 
 from being able to act in an edifying way upon those present, 
 that it produced, on the contrary, an uneasy impression of con- 
 fusion of mind, or of madness, and at all events disturbed the 
 order of the meeting assembled for the purpose of worship, and 
 gave to bystanders occasion for mockery and blasphemy, rather 
 than for conversion (ver. 23 f.). The Apostle therefore, without 
 undervaluing this gift, in the possession of which, on the con- 
 trary, he gloried, while giving thanks to God for it, yet, in 
 in the interest of the community, desires that they should only 
 speak with tongues in the assembly when the speaker himself
 
 238 THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY. 
 
 or some other person was in a position to translate that which 
 was uttered in this ecstatic state into intelligible language, for 
 the edification of all (vers. 27, 28). This interpretation, again, is 
 also reckoned as a special gift, consisting probably in the power 
 of transporting oneself into the half-expressed feelings of ano- 
 ther, and clothing them in suitable language. By this interpre- 
 tation of what is spoken in tongues, the outpouring of the 
 feeling of the individual is turned into the utterance of the 
 feeling of the assembled community, so that the ecstatic mono- 
 logue becomes a responsory dialogue between the speaker and 
 the community (ver. 16), in which the beginning of a church 
 liturgy may perhaps be found. 
 
 Thus we see how these gifts embrace the entire community 
 as an organic whole, with all the activities which mutually work 
 on each other within it ; the diversity of these operations, which 
 are necessary for the whole, corresponds with the different in- 
 dividual gifts, as they again, as operations of the one spirit of 
 Christ, are serviceable to the one community for the one purpose 
 of its edification. But the oneness of this manifoldness does not 
 remain a merely inward unity in the one spirit, but also comes 
 forth in outward manifestation, in the first place by the rite of 
 baptism, which establishes communion, by which the individuals 
 are united to one body in one spirit ; and secondly, by the rite 
 of the love-feast, or the Lords Supper, which preserves that commu- 
 nion, and renders it perceptible to the senses by a figure, which two 
 things are declared, in the classical passage on the subject of the 
 community, to be, together with the body of Christ, the means 
 of holding it together, and the visible manifestations of its 
 organic unity (comp. 1 Cor. xii. 13). Of baptism we have 
 already (Chap, v.) spoken ; we have now, therefore, to treat of 
 
 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 
 
 When the Apostle, in 1 Cor. x. 16, calls the cup of blessing a 
 " communion (/coii/w^ia) of the blood of Christ," the bread which
 
 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 239 
 
 we break a " communion of the body of Christ," we must take 
 this as an abbreviation for a means of communion, means of bind- 
 ing togetlier, bond; his words do not directly inform us what the 
 nature of this union is, but we may learn it from the context. 
 This union with the blood and the body of Christ, by drinking 
 and eating at the Supper, is represented by the context of the 
 passage as a contrast to that union into which those who eat of 
 the sacrifice enter with the altar of sacrifice, and him to whom 
 it is devoted ; Israel with God's altar and with God, the Gentiles 
 with the altar of demons and with the demons themselves (vers. 
 18, 20 f.). Now it is clear that this union with the altar and 
 the being to whom it is devoted, can be no other than that 
 which is implied in belonging to him, being personally united 
 and bound by the recognition, in an act (by means of a symbol), 
 of his supremacy. 1 The idea in this its general form is neither 
 Christian nor Jewish, but has formed part of the popular belief 
 in all nations, religions, and times ; 2 and for the very reason that 
 it was an idea generally acknowledged and recognized, the Apostle 
 was able merely to indicate it in this pregnant manner, without 
 any fear of being misunderstood by his immediate hearers. Ac- 
 cordingly, it is no actual partaking (whether material or spiritual) 
 of the body and blood of Christ, and of course no mere represen- 
 tation of the absent Christ, that is here intended ; but the real 
 meaning of the Apostle surely is, that partaking of the Lord's 
 Supper puts us into mystical union and real connection of life 
 with the "Lord himself, just as the partakers of the flesh of 
 heathen sacrifices were put into such a connection with the 
 demons, whereby they were subjected to their dominion and 
 their influence. It is all the more necessary to acknowledge the 
 
 1 Meyer, in his commentary on this passage, calls it a "theokratischer Konnex;" 
 for the rest., his explanation of the meaning of the word icoivwvia is correct, though 
 not exhaustive ; nor does he say why it is connected with blood and body. 
 
 1 I may remind the reader of the Greek legend, that by eating a fruit of the nether 
 world a man is given over to it ; also of the German popular sayings about leagues 
 with the devil being sealed by the acquisition, use, or enjoyment of things which 
 belong to demons.
 
 240 THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY. 
 
 existence of this mystical element in Paul's conception of the 
 Lord's Supper, because it does in fact lie at the very root of the 
 ancient idea of worship ; the symbol is here never mere symbol, 
 but always mystical representation, medium of a real connection 
 with the actual and operative object of worship. (The explana- 
 tion of this phenomenon, which constantly recurs in the history 
 of religion, is a psychological question, which belongs to the 
 philosophy of religion rather than to an exegetical inquiry like 
 the present.) But how is it that a union, not simply with Christ, 
 but with the body and blood of Christ, takes place by eating and 
 drinking at the Lord's Supper? We shall find an answer to this 
 question also by the analogy of the communion of the altar, ver. 
 18. Of course, the mystical union that is established by the act 
 of worship can in reality only relate to a person, but to the 
 person according to the definition and characteristics indicated 
 by the things which belong to him. Thus the communion with 
 the altar is a communion with the God who has his place of 
 worship and of revelation there; so also the communion of the 
 body and blood of Christ is a communion with Christ, not in a 
 general sense, but very specially, according to those character- 
 istics which are indicated by his (broken) body, and his (shed) 
 blood; therefore, in short, a union with Christ as the crucified 
 Redeemer therefore essentially the same as that which is 
 effected by faith and baptism (see Chaps, iv. and v.). But 
 that this thought should be expressed precisely in this and 
 in no other way, was suggested by the use of bread and wine 
 as symbols, and required by the words of Jesus himself at the 
 institution of the rite. The view 1 that by o-w/xa TOV Xpia-rov, in 
 ver. 16, we are not to understand the real body of Christ at all, 
 but his ethical body that is, the community is incorrect, as 
 the parallelism of the blood contradicts it, as well as the addition 
 of the words, ov xXw/icv to a/oros, which would in that case have 
 no meaning. 2o>//,a has this figurative sense for the first time in 
 ver. 17; but even if we allow that the word o-w/xa in ver. 16 may 
 
 1 Put forth as a conjecture by aur t N. T. Theol. p. 201.
 
 THE LORD'S SUPPER. 241 
 
 by an association of ideas have suggested the thought contained 
 in ver. 17, yet this thought is in any case a new thought, and 
 different from that of ver. 16. It connects the communion that 
 exists between Christians and Christ with that of Christians 
 with each other, and makes the latter, which, in the form of a 
 meal eaten in common by the members of the community, is a 
 fact directly apparent to the senses, the ground of recognition 
 and proof of the former, which cannot be an object of outward 
 observation. The truth that all belong in common to the one 
 Lord, the crucified Jesus, becomes a visible fact in the oneness 
 of the community finding expression in their partaking of the 
 Supper together. It is not implied by ver. 17 (as is often said) 
 that the bread of the Lord's Supper is separate from other bread; 
 but what it means is, that eating the bread of this Supper is an 
 act of uniting with Christ, because it is an act that openly pro- 
 claims the uniting of Christians with each other, which union 
 can evidently have its real ground only "in Christ," in the spirit 
 of Christ that makes them one. Thus this passage comes into 
 the most exact accordance with xii. 13, where the two moments 
 which are separated in vers. 16 and 17 are comprehended in the 
 pregnant expression, Travres eis tv Trvevp-a 7roTio-0ij/Aei>, for this 
 irvfvfj.a is the spirit of Christ, and at the same time that of 'the 
 community as the body of Christ. 
 
 The other classical passage, 1 Cor. xi. 23 f., contains nothing 
 inconsistent with the interpretation which we have given to 
 1 Cor. x. 16, and which completely harmonizes with the funda- 
 mental ideas of Paul as expressed elsewhere. Here the Apostle, 
 after giving an account of the institution of the Lord's Supper 
 as he had received it from Christ, without any intervention 
 whatsoever (of man), adds as a further explanation from himself 
 of the words eis r^v fp.i)v dvafj-vrja-iv, that the celebration of this 
 Supper, as often as it occurred, was an act which proclaimed the 
 death of the Lord (KarayyeAAere indicative, not imperative); 
 which we must certainly understand not in the bare sense of a 
 proclaiming of that historical fact, but in the religious sense of 
 
 B
 
 242 THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY. 
 
 a confession of that fact, and a recognition of its significance for 
 faith. The significance of the celebration therefore turns out to 
 be the same here as in the previous passage, namely, to give 
 again and again an actual expression, a fresh confirmation by a 
 mystical symbolic act, to the fact of belonging to the crucified 
 Redeemer. But not a single word is said in the whole passage 
 of any partaking of the present body and blood of Christ : if that 
 were the meaning of the Apostle, why has he not once in the 
 whole passage said the decisive word, but always spoken of eat- 
 ing the bread and drinking the cup ? But when the unworthy 
 partaker of this bread and this wine loads himself with guilt 
 against the body and blood of Christ, because he does not dis- 
 tinguish (think of or take into consideration) the body of Christ, 
 we must not exactly suppose that this body is partaken of, or is 
 in any way present ; the guilt, on the contrary, consists in the 
 fact that the thoughtless partaker does not actually in earnest 
 devotion realize to himself that to which his external act refers 
 the putting to death of the body of Christ ; this irreverent cele- 
 bration is itself a profanation of that which is holy, of that to 
 which the celebration refers. Moreover, the offence of the 
 Corinthians which the Apostle is here rebuking, consisted not 
 only in want of due reverence for the Eedeemer, whose death 
 the solemn act of remembrance and confession represented, but 
 also in the want of due love towards the community, so that this 
 meal, instead of being a love-feast which showed the unity and 
 equality of the community in the Lord, gave occasion, on the 
 contrary, to a separation of the rich, which showed pride and 
 absence of love, and to a shaming of the poor, and thus to a 
 dividing of the community, ver. 20 f. This also reminds us 
 again that the idea of the Lord's Supper is two things at once, 
 an expression of communion with Christ by faith, and of the 
 communion of Christians with each other by love. 
 
 The union of the community exhibited in baptism and the 
 Lord's Supper is in 1 Cor. xii. 13 expressly described as a union
 
 THE LORD'S SUPPER, 243 
 
 of those who had been Jews and Gentiles. Although this does not 
 appear at present to concern us nearly, we must consider that 
 the main practical question for early Christianity, and especially 
 for Paulinism, regarding the life of the community, was precisely 
 this were Jews and Gentiles to exist in the future as two sepa- 
 rate parts that could not be bound together, or were they to be 
 fused into the complete union of a new religious community ? 
 We have already seen the position that Paulinism took up theo- 
 retically with regard to this question, in the doctrine of the law 
 and its abrogation by Christian sonship. And the practical 
 carrying out of Paul's idea was rendered possible mainly by the 
 fact, that far the greater part of the Christian community con- 
 sisted of those who had been Gentiles, against whom the Jewish 
 minority were unable to maintain for any length of time the par- 
 ticularism which was the essence of their law. But this very 
 course of events, which was brought about by the mission of 
 Paul to the Gentiles, and which supplied the most brilliant con- 
 firmation of the truth of the Pauline gospel, as it were by an 
 actual judgment of God, was to a Jewish mind the almost 
 insuperable stone of stumbling. That the children of Abraham 
 should form only a dwindling minority in the Messianic com- 
 munity, compared with the Gentiles who had hitherto been kept 
 at a distance from the Divine promises, while all the prophets 
 had conceived of the future period of salvation as essentially 
 within the limits of the theocracy, so that Israel was the main 
 stem and the overpowering majority, the Gentiles being only 
 admitted on sufferance as guests and not as principal actors all 
 this was a perversion of what they had held on the authority of 
 the Scriptures to be the Divine plan of salvation, to which the 
 Jewish Christians could not reconcile themselves, and was hardly 
 a less bitter vexation to them than the Pauline doctrine of the 
 cross of Christ as the end of the law. 
 
 In support of his view the Apostle had to show that, as the 
 favour of God was the sole cause of the provision of salvation, 
 so it was the sole and sovereign dispenser of the call to salva- 
 
 R 2
 
 244 THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY. 
 
 tion, and that consequently the composition of the community 
 by the calling of its members from among Gentiles and Jews 
 was a matter of the free election of God's favour. This doctrine 
 is, as it were, the key-stone by which the peculiar system of Paul 
 is a second time bound together, and so is the exact counterpart 
 of that other specific Pauline doctrine, which we may call the 
 foundation or corner-stone of his system, the redemption from 
 the law by the death of Christ. But while the truth of the latter 
 doctrine rests only upon consequences deduced from theory, the 
 key-stone of the system derives its high significance from its 
 theory being supported by actual facts. 
 
 THE CALLING OF THE COMMUNITY BY THE ELECTION OF FAVOUR. 
 
 The actual course of events in the preponderating conversion 
 of the Gentiles in comparison with the Jews, was, as we have 
 remarked, the more offensive to the latter (even to those who 
 had become Christians), as it appeared to stand in direct contra- 
 diction to the Divine promises. This objection, that the word of 
 God with its promises to Israel had been done away by means 
 of the mission of Paul to the Gentiles, with its blessed con- 
 sequences, he endeavours in Rom. ix. xi. to encounter. And 
 this he does by a double line of argument. First, by a sharp 
 polemical attack directed against Jewish arrogance, which pre- 
 sumed that the Jew had a privileged claim to the Divine favour : 
 he has no more right to it than any other man, for the Divine 
 favour is unconditioned by anything human, and is absolutely 
 free in its bestowal and refusal (chap. ix.). But, secondly, he 
 endeavours to secure peace, by inspiring the hope of a concilia- 
 tory termination of the present discord, according to which the 
 blindness which had fallen upon the greater part of Israel was 
 to be only a temporary one, which should not prevent the final 
 fulfilment of the promise of favour to Israel as a nation (chaps. 
 x. and xi.).
 
 THE CALLING OF THE COMMUNITY. 245 
 
 In the first place, the Apostle proves from the Old Testament 
 history that the Divine promises were not from the beginning 
 attached to the natural offspring of Abraham, consequently not 
 to the fact of externally belonging to the nation, but were quite 
 independent of this, and purely a matter of free choice. Accord- 
 ingly, of the several children of Abraham's body, it was only the 
 child of promise, Isaac, who was to be the receiver of the pro- 
 mises which were given to the seed of Abraham, and the proge- 
 nitor of those who were to be sons of God, i. e. belonging to 
 God, members of the theocracy. It was the same, again, with the 
 twin sons born to Isaac only one of these, Jacob, who was 
 inferior to his brother, born after him (whereby the Divine pur- 
 pose was to be exhibited as electing freely, without regard to 
 human conditions, KO.T e'/cAoyv/i/ 7iy>o0ris), was chosen to receive 
 the promises, and that before he was born, therefore before there 
 could be a question of any personal merit ; the cause lay in no 
 relation in which he stood to his brother, but w r holly in God, 
 who simply loved the one and hated the other (ix. 6 13). But 
 that God has the full right to do this, He himself testifies with 
 regard to both, as to the freedom of dyairyv, in the words which 
 He says to Moses, " To whomsoever I am gracious, to him I am 
 gracious ; and on whomsoever I have compassion, on him I have 
 compassion ;" and as to the freedom of /uo-eiv, by his speech to 
 Pharaoh, " Even for this cause have I raised thee up in order to 
 show my power on thee, that is, by thy destruction." Hence it 
 follows, that whether a man obtains compassion from God or not, 
 does not depend upon his own will and independent striving 
 (" running "), but solely upon the will of God, which in both 
 cases is equally an unconstrained will, whether He shows com- 
 passion on any one, or places any one in such a spiritual state 
 that he is not an object of his love, but of his anger ("hard- 
 ens," a-K\r}pvvei). This is certainly exposed to the objection, that 
 if the determination of the Divine will is thus free from limita- 
 tion, the freedom of man, and consequently his responsibility, is 
 done away. And what says the Apostle on this subject ? Far
 
 246 THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY. 
 
 from meeting this objection, which he himself makes, with p) 
 yei/oiro, as he is wont in such cases, he silently admits it, and 
 simply puts down all further questions and claims by the boldest 
 inference from a religious mode of viewing the matter, which is 
 magnificent in its one-si dedness. He silences all human claims 
 by referring to the unconditional dependence of man upon God, 
 which he could not have expressed in more stringent terms than 
 by the figure of the potter and his vessel. As the shape has 
 become what it is solely by the will of Him who shaped it, and 
 who has free power out of the same material to make some vessels 
 for honourable uses, and others for uses that are not honourable, 
 so man also is what he is, morally and religiously, only through 
 God, and must not comp]ain if he has become something bad, 
 because God is unconditionally free, as we know, out of the same 
 material of human nature, to stamp some as recipients of his 
 compassion, with the final purpose of their being glorified, and 
 others as recipients of his anger, with the final purpose of their 
 perdition. But there is a further objection, which is not indeed 
 expressed, but which is clearly in the Apostle's mind, and sug- 
 gests to him what follows, viz., What possible ground can God 
 have for making men recipients of his anger, destined to destruc- 
 tion ? One would think that the most obvious answer to this 
 would be, that He desired to display his anger, and to make 
 known his power ; the ground of such action on the part of God 
 would thus be his purpose of revealing his holiness, which 
 makes no exceptions, but absolutely annihilates that which is 
 evil (whatever its origin may be), and his absolute power, which 
 can do what it will, without asking any one else. Only it 
 appears that the Apostle, while wishing to say this, felt himself 
 that this purpose was no sufficient ground for action so gravely 
 contradictory to the manifestation of the Divine compassion. But 
 what if this apparent contradiction of his compassion should 
 turn out to be, on the contrary, the most brilliant proof of it ? 
 And in fact it is in this bold carrying out of the doctrine of 
 predestination that the Apostle's argument (ver. 22 f.) culmi-
 
 THE CALLING OF THE COMMUNITY. 247 
 
 nates : But wliat if God, wishing to show his anger, and make 
 known his power, (not only made, ver. 21, but also) endured with 
 much patience vessels of anger, made for destruction, purposing at 
 the same time to make known the riches of his majesty (abounding 
 in favour) on the vessels of mercy whom He has prepared for glory? 
 "We have here and this makes the construction involved, al- 
 though the thought is clear two different motives for the pre- 
 destinating action of God entwined together. First, the more 
 general one, which refers to the vessels of anger merely as such, 
 and to their existence, i. e. their having been made so by God 
 (6f\(av cvStigaa-Oai .... SWO.TOV arrow) viz., revelation of the holi- 
 ness and unlimited power of God ; secondly, a more special 
 motive, which refers to the vessels of anger in their relation to 
 the vessels of mercy, and therefore not merely to their coming 
 into being, but at the same time to their existing together with 
 these, and which thus manifests itself also in the merciful pre- 
 servation (tjvfyKfv fv TroAAr; p.a.KpoOvp.i() of the vessels of anger, 
 KCU ivo. S6av viz., revelation of his mercy, to which even evil 
 must minister as means to good. 
 
 The harshness of this view has often given offence, and has 
 led to all kinds of attempts to soften it down. In the first 
 place, it has been thought that the passive Ko.TrjpTio-fj.cva might 
 be turned into a reflective verb, " who have fitted themselves " 
 for destruction in contradiction both to the true meaning of 
 the word and that of the context. The word Ka-n7/3Tioy/,eva corre- 
 sponds too exactly to a TrporjToifiaa-ev in the following, and to 
 iroifjo-ai cis ari/uav in the preceding verse, not to have God like- 
 wise for its active cause; and besides, is it not precisely the 
 purpose of the whole section, xiv. xxiii., to prove that /uo-av as 
 well as ayawaiv, crK\rjpvvfiv as well as e \tfiv, are matters of the free 
 determination of the will of God ? Any admixture of subjective 
 human causality in connection with these is a distortion of the 
 sense, which, as clearly as possible, by the consistently worked 
 out figure of the potter and his vessel, excludes all human caus- 
 ality. But again, the convincing force of this analogy has been
 
 248 THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY. 
 
 completely destroyed by understanding ver. 22 f. to express the 
 opposite of ver. 20 f., as if the Apostle wished to say, that in the 
 abstract God has indeed an absolute right over man, as the 
 potter has over his vessel, but (Se, ver. 22) in the concrete He has 
 never made any use at all of this right ; on the contrary, He has 
 with great patience endured vessels of wrath, who, through their 
 own fault (of unbelief), had fallen under the anger of God, and 
 were ripe for destruction, in order to bring them to repentance. 1 
 But how thoroughly forced is all this ! Kar-^pna-fjieva eis air., as 
 we have seen, does not mean " ripe for destruction through their 
 own fault," but fitted for destruction, that is to say, by God ; 
 and ver. 23 says with the utmost conceivable distinctness, that 
 the purpose of ^veyKfv Iv TroAXrf paKpodvpiy. is not the showing of 
 favour on the vessels of wrath (by their conversion), but exactly 
 the contrary, namely, the showing of favour on the others, the 
 vessels chosen and prepared beforehand for mercy. 
 
 So far then is the Apostle from retracting in ver. 22 f. what 
 he has said before, that he here, on the contrary, carries on his 
 argument to its conclusion. Yet in this very conclusion his 
 powerful dialectic turns aside again its sharpest point. The 
 harshness of the thought that God has made vessels of wrath 
 only to display his anger and his power, is evidently palliated, 
 when it is shown that this is not the sole nor the final purpose, 
 but is nothing more than a means to the end of compassion. 
 According to this view, it is not abstract power (which as such 
 is merely physical), nor abstract holiness (which as such is 
 merely negative and condemnatory), the former being the cha- 
 racteristic of the Gentile, the latter preponderating in the Jewish 
 notion of God, but it is compassionate love which is exalted 
 above all else in the Christian idea of God ; and the revelation 
 of this is set forth as the only absolute final end in itself, to 
 which the revelation of power and of holiness are subordinated 
 as merely relative or intermediate purposes. But when once 
 
 1 So Tholulc, Coram., and Weiss, N. Tie. Theol. p. 354 ; also in his article in Jahrb. 
 f. d. Th. 1857.
 
 THE CALLING OF THE COMMUNITY. 249 
 
 the revelation of the holiness that judges, or of anger, as attri- 
 butes of God, are recognized as relative and subordinate in com- 
 parison with the absolute end of the revelation of love, then it 
 is a very obvious and logically necessary conclusion, that this 
 relation of the Divine attributes to each other should also be 
 reflected in the present temporal state of mankind, in such wise 
 that the realization of the relative moment (anger) should also 
 be relative in respect to time, i. e. only a temporary means 
 towards the final goal of the absolute purpose, the revelation of 
 love ; i e. that the hardening of some should be, even for these 
 themselves, only a temporary state which should eventually end 
 in the universal bestowal of favour. This thought, which is 
 involved in the argument of ver. 22 f., is now indeed laid aside, 
 wholly untouched by the Apostle ; for his main object here is to 
 establish in its full force, which smites down all human pride, the 
 unconditioned right of God to exercise his sovereign power both 
 in hardening and in showing mercy, and to assert this against 
 the arrogated right of 'the Jews. But what he here in grand 
 one-sidedness leaves out of view, he does not on that account 
 entirely forget, but brings it forward again in chap, ii., where 
 his attention is fixed on the final end of God's dealings with the 
 Jews in respect of the Gentiles. The Apostle then has certainly 
 not solved in chap. ix. the enigma of the present, which so 
 greatly shocked the religious consciousness of the Jews, but has 
 thrust it back into a predestination before all time, allowing it 
 to remain there in all the harshness of an opposing dualism, viz. 
 a loving God, who, with a freedom that acts without any grounds, 
 shows compassion on those whom He chooses, and prepares them 
 for glory, and a hating God who hardens those whom He chooses, 
 and fits these for destruction. The struggling of the reason, 
 which ever seeks for unity, against this dualism in God, is put 
 down by the authoritative words, MevoiVye <S avQpwn-e, <rv n's ? 6 
 avTairoKpivoufvos T$ 0eo> ; nevertheless, it is this very dogmatical 
 hardness which, by its inward dialectic force, urges us on to the 
 perception that the love of God is wider than his anger, and
 
 250 THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY. 
 
 thus this duality resolves itself into the unity of the will to 
 love ; a perception from the height of which a view of the philo- 
 sophy of history opens out to us, which promises such a solution 
 of the religious enigma of the present as will satisfy our reli- 
 gious aspirations. 
 
 But before the Apostle enters upon this path in chap, xi., he 
 takes up (from ix. 30 to x. 21) the non-conversion of the Jews 
 from another point of view, viz. the anthropological and moral, 
 which serves to complete the theological and religious view. If 
 the hardening of Israel is, from the latter point of view, a 
 divinely-appointed destiny, against which it does not become 
 weak man to murmur, it is, on the other hand, from the former, 
 his own fault, because he did not submit himself obediently to 
 the word of faith, the gospel of righteousness, which was offered 
 as a gift by God, but, on the contrary, persisted in his proud 
 attempt to set up his own righteousness, to be won by works of 
 the law, and therefore came to fall against the gospel as a stone 
 of stumbling. Israel, by struggling against the way of salvation 
 newly ordained by God, proved itself again in spite of present 
 zeal on behalf of the law to be a disobedient and stubborn 
 nation, just as it had before in the time of the prophets, who so 
 often had reason to complain of their stiffneckedness (the 
 Apostle quotes examples from the Pentateuch and Isaiah in 
 x. 16 21). It is true that so far as this want of faith in 
 the gospel on the part of Israel depends essentially on ignorance 
 and want of perception, which accompanied what was after all 
 a zealous striving after the good (x. 2, 18), the main element of 
 moral guilt disappears again; for it is plain that we are not 
 morally accountable for failing to understand a higher stage of 
 religion, in the same way as we are for offending against better 
 knowledge and conscience. It is plainly to be seen, however, 
 throughout this exposition, that the Apostle has no intention to 
 restrict the view of predestination contained in chap, ix., which 
 would be in part to retract it; but the objective theological and 
 the subjective anthropological modes of viewing the matter
 
 THE CALLING OF THE COMMUNITY. 251 
 
 proceed here parallel to one another, and -unreconciled, as if each 
 were complete and separately valid, a peculiarity which we have 
 already often noticed in Paul. And as before in a similar case 
 (sin, according to 1 Cor. xv. f. and Rom. v. 12), we were obliged 
 to reject the combination of the one with the other, as an intro- 
 duction of ideas alien to Paul's mode of thought, so here also it 
 would be a decided forcing of the train of thought to explain, 
 i. e. to weaken, chap. ix. by chap, x., according to the well-known 
 method of rationalizing exegesis, in the sense that, after all, the 
 Divine eAeetv and ovcA^pweiv, Trpoo-cToi/m^eiv cts Soav and KarapTcfav 
 eis aTTwAeiav, had their ultimate ground, not in the free will of 
 God (ov Of\ei), but in the free will of man, who believes, or 
 by his own fault does not believe. 
 
 An attempt has been made to support this interpretation, 
 which directly contradicts the sense of the words of chap, ix., 
 by the help, among other things, of the idea of irpoyi-yvwa-Kfiv in 
 Eom. viii. 29. In that passage, it is said, the predestining of 
 God is dependent on his foreknowledge, the object of which is 
 of course free human belief or unbelief ; the unconditioned will of 
 God acts therefore only to the extent of showing compassion on 
 believers in general, and rejecting the unbelievers; but what in- 
 dividuals are included in one or the other category is also indeed 
 predetermined by God, not however by an unconditioned deter- 
 mination of will, but by an application of will dependent on 
 foreseen belief or unbelief, and therefore conditioned by man. 
 Whether this separation of favour and freedom has any value or 
 not, it is not Pauline. For, in the first place, it does an out- 
 rageous violence to the ov OeXei, which distinctly connects the 
 Divine act of will, and that as an unconditioned sovereign act, 
 with each single individual ; and, moreover, it mistakes the real 
 sense of Rom. viii. 29 f., especially that of Trpoyiyvuknceiv. That 
 this does not mean a merely theoretical foreknowledge of beha- 
 viour on the part of man (free belief or unbelief), independent 
 of God's willing and acting, is proved by xi. 2, where irpocyvu, 
 applied to the people of Israel, cannot possibly mean anything
 
 252 THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY. 
 
 but the free election of God, by which that people became pecu- 
 liarly his own. 1 Accordingly, 7iy>oeyva> in Eom. viii. 29, may also 
 mean appointing beforehand, or electing some individuals in 
 preference to others. And that it must mean this is proved by 
 the context. The object of the passage is plainly to show that 
 the Kara irpoOea-iv K\rjToi reach without fail the final goal which 
 is destined for them. This Trp66ris is now separated into the 
 two verbs -n-pofyvw and -n-po^pure, of which the first denotes the 
 appointing = selecting of the persons, the second the destination 
 to which they are appointed ; both together are the e/cAoy?/ 
 Xa/oiTos (Eom. xi. 5), i. e. the election which has the favourable 
 will of God for its ground, and the 86ga (viii. 30 and ix. 23) for 
 its final goal. The acts of xaAeiv and SIKO.IOVV, the calling through 
 the preaching of the gospel that is the cause of believing (x. 
 14, 17), and the justification that is its consequence, which occur 
 in time, form the intermediate connection between the act of pre- 
 destination and that of glorification in the eternal life, both of 
 which transcend time. 2 We should observe how, in this chain 
 
 of firmly closed links (Trpolyvco, Tr/Dowpio-e, e/caAeo-e, eSiKauoo-e, eSoao-e), 
 
 the Divine acts depend on one another in such a way that one 
 does not merely follow upon another, but is its necessary conse- 
 quence. For it is the very purpose of this passage to show that, 
 when one of these Divine acts has once occurred, the others will 
 likewise infallibly occur; or more particularly, whoever has once 
 known himself to be called and justified as a believer, may be 
 
 1 Also in 1 Peter i. 20, Christ is said to be irpofyvufffi'evoi; jrpo Kara/3oX% KOfffiov, 
 evidently not because God knew from the beginning concerning him that he would 
 come, but because God had from the beginning appointed him to come, as the Messiah 
 who should take away sin, and therefore should be a partaker of his glory, in which 
 character he has now revealed himself. 
 
 * This follows from the idea of 6%a which is found in all the writings of Paul, and 
 especially from the exact parallel in ix. 23, where Oo, opposed to dmoXtta, must 
 mean eternal life; comp. also 2 Cor. iv. 17. We must not be perplexed by the aorist 
 tS6ffe in the passage before us; it represents the 6a, which is to be hereafter 
 entered upon, as something which is already secured to him who is justified, as an 
 inheritance which the Son already as good as possesses, although he will only enter 
 into the enjoyment of it at a future time (cf. viii. 17).
 
 THE CALLING OF THE COMMUNITY. 253 
 
 sure that he has already been long before chosen by God in the 
 (K\oyr) XCI/HTOS, and predestined to the final goal of S6ga, which 
 for that very reason will also surely be realized in him ; so 
 surely, that it is as good as realized already. This securely 
 linked chain of Divine acts, which develope themselves infallibly 
 from one another, nowhere, therefore, leaves an opening for any 
 human self-determination taking part against or for Christ ; yet 
 faith is so far from being thereby excluded, that it is, on the 
 contrary, the necessary means, but only the means, by which 
 the Divine irpodea-is which has been manifested by the KaXetv 
 first realizes itself inwardly in the man, in order finally to realize 
 itself outwardly also in the Soa. The question obviously arises 
 here, how it is to be explained that the Divine KaXelv through the 
 preaching of the gospel, which manifests the Tr/aofleo-ts, has as its 
 certain consequence the faith of him who is elected, which is 
 presupposed as necessary for the further acts of SIKO.IOVV and 
 Sogdfav. This question is put aside here by the Apostle, since 
 he is only dealing with those in whom faith was already an 
 actual fact, and he has therefore no inducement to reflect on the 
 abstract possibility that they might not have become believers. 
 On the other hand, we may find in ix. 23, Tr/Do^rot/iao-ei/, an inti- 
 mation which bears upon this question ; for this word appears 
 to indicate, not merely, like n-powpure, an ideal predestination in 
 the Divine counsel, but a real predisposition, i. e. a moral dispo- 
 sition prepared by God, in consequence of which those who are 
 affected by it are receptive of the Divine KaAeu/, and thus by the 
 same cause infallibly allow themselves to be induced to believe. 
 The reverse side of this is, that those in whose case the preach- 
 ing by which they are called has not had this result, have not 
 obtained the receptive disposition to it, or, to express it posi- 
 tively, have been made unreceptive by God, hardened from the 
 first, and thus fitted for destruction Kar>7/moyiva eis cfortoAeiai'. 
 Thus Horn. viii. 28 30 completely agrees with chap. ix. in the 
 sense of a decided doctrine of predestination, which is distinctly 
 opposed to any introduction of free decision of the human will.
 
 254 THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY. 
 
 And how could it be otherwise in the view of an Apostle, whose 
 most special peculiarity consists throughout in reflecting the 
 actual world, with all its contradictions and all its harshness, 
 into the other world of the Divine will, and apprehending it, not 
 as a thing that is merely in some way permitted, but as expressly 
 willed and wrought out by God ? 
 
 If, however, this doctrine of predestination is left untouched 
 and unsoftened in its harshness as regards the individuals 
 affected by it, we must also remember that the Apostle nowhere 
 specially reflects on these. In Eom. viii. 29 f., he speaks only of 
 the elect, for whom the doctrine of predestination, precisely by 
 reason of its determinateness, being independent of anything 
 finite, serves as a most comforting support of their certainty of 
 salvation; and therefore the harshness of the reverse side simply 
 remains unnoticed. In Eom. ix. 14 f., both sides, it is true, are 
 dealt with, election and rejection, vessels of wrath and vessels of 
 mercy ; but to whatever extent the abstract theory connects the 
 two-fold counsel of God with individuals, yet the whole of this 
 exposition refers in the concrete to the people of Israel as having 
 the majority of them at least remained unbelieving compared 
 with the Gentiles, who had been more inclined to Christianity. 
 And the prospect of the future course of the Divine guidance of 
 events offers a satisfactory explanation of this conduct, inasmuch 
 as the hardening of the one is recognized as a merely temporary 
 means to a final universal "bestowal of favour. True it is that 
 Israel as a people have stumbled (lirraia-e, xi. 11), but not so that 
 it should irretrievably fall. This is absolutely impossible ; God 
 cannot for ever repudiate his chosen people, whose root and pro- 
 genitors, the patriarchs, were holy and devoted to God, because 
 He cannot repent of his gifts and his calling (xi. 1, 16, 28, 29). 
 And that He has not in fact done so is proved by there being a 
 remnant chosen from the mass (Aei/i/xa KO.T eKXoyrjv), which now 
 again, as a similar remnant did before in the time of Elias, main- 
 tains the continuity of the chosen nation, and constitutes a 
 pledge that the Divine favour is still reserved for the chosen
 
 THE CALLING OF THE COMMUNITY. 255 
 
 nation as a whole, in spite of the hardening of the present 
 majority of those who belong to it. In virtue of this chosen 
 remnant, the nation, which in regard to the gospel is at enmity 
 with God, is still an object of his love, for the sake of the 
 fathers (ver. 28). But why then has God allowed this nation 
 to stumble at all ? why hardened the greater part of it ? From 
 their false step, salvation is to come to the heathen ; the natural 
 branches are broken off, and the Gentiles, as wild twigs, have 
 been grafted in. This actual course of events, which Paul had 
 before his eyes as the result of his missionary labours, he recog- 
 nizes as a Divine dispensation the unbelief of the Jews is to be 
 historically the means of applying the Divine compassion to the 
 Gentiles (vers. 11, 17, 30). But if this were the only and the 
 final purpose of God in this transaction, then would the chosen 
 nation be sacrificed in favour of the Gentiles who were not 
 chosen, and thus God's gift of favour and his calling would be 
 revoked, which, from what has been said above, cannot be and 
 is not the case. Therefore Israel cannot be finally sacrificed for 
 the sake of the heathen, but his partial hardening is, according 
 to the counsel of God, only to last for a time, namely, until the 
 purpose of it is attained "until the time when the full number of 
 the Gentiles shall have entered into tJie kingdom of God." Thus, 
 as soon as this object is attained, the whole of Israel will also be 
 made blessed (ver. 25 f.). And, in truth, the realization of this 
 latter object in favour of Israel will be brought about again by 
 the attainment of the previous object by the heathen, as the 
 counsel of favour to be conferred on the Gentiles had before 
 been brought about by the counsel of hardening which was to 
 befal the Jews. And it will be brought about in this way 
 the fact of the Gentiles entering first into the kingdom of God, 
 the more it advances to completion, and the greater the number 
 of the converted Gentiles becomes, will so much the more incite 
 Israel to emulation, so that they also, who at first were un- 
 bjlieving with regard to the gospel, will at last themselves 
 obtain mercy (vers. 11, 14, Tra/ja^Awu-ai, ver. 31) by means of
 
 256 THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY. 
 
 the mercy that the Gentiles have experienced (by being shamed 
 and drawn on by this event). And further, if the Gentiles 
 shall thus have helped the Jews to salvation by taking prece- 
 dence of them, then again will those who have been the first 
 derive the greatest advantage from it; for if the fall of the Jews 
 was the riches of the Gentiles, how much more will abundant 
 salvation accrue to the Gentiles from the completion of the 
 number of the (converted) Jews ! If the rejection of the Jews 
 served as a means of reconciliation for the (Gentile) world, then 
 must the final acceptance of the Jews serve no meaner end than 
 the completion of the time of salvation for the whole world, the 
 commencement of the final redemption that is to be ushered in 
 by the resurrection from the dead (vers. 12, 15). 
 
 Thus in the Apostle's splendid philosophy of history, one 
 moment ever becomes the means of attaining to the next higher 
 moment of the Divine counsel, until at last the whole culminates 
 in the final end of the will of God to bestoiv universal favour 
 "for God has concluded the whole under disobedience, to tlie end 
 that He might show compassion upon tlie wliole" It is true that 
 this text is not to be understood in the sense of the strictly dog- 
 matic cbroKaTao-Tao-is, because conversion in the world beyond the 
 grave does not come under consideration here ; on the contrary, 
 the mode of treatment is essentially historical, reflecting on a 
 final conversion of the wliole of mankind who shall then .still be 
 on the earth. But even so, it advances in its speculative grandeur 
 far beyond the narrow pale of the thoughts of ecclesiastical dog- 
 matism regarding the future, whether it be that of Calvinistic 
 predestination or of Lutheran indeterminism. In opposition to 
 the latter, this passage yields conclusive evidence that Paul held 
 the religious doctrine of predestination ; for we are by no means 
 justified in limiting the TOVS Travras, which denotes " all the indi- 
 viduals," to mere classes of persons, nor in adding mentally the 
 condition that they actually believe, by which the whole point 
 of the passage would manifestly be destroyed ; for the object 
 contemplated by the Divine counsel, the ultimate realization of
 
 THE CALLING OF THE COMMUNITY. 257 
 
 which the Apostle declares to be certain, is precisely that all, 
 including those who had before been disobedient, should finally 
 be so no more, but should be converted and rescued. But this 
 predestination is not that of a two-fold definitive decree, like 
 that of Calvin. If the Apostle has in chap. ix. referred the con- 
 tradictions which the reality exhibits to a two-fold will of God, 
 yet here, in the prospect of the future, this duality resolves itself 
 into the higher unity of a counsel of favour, which embraces all, 
 and which no longer has its opposite beside it as a limit, but 
 under it, as a means which serves the single final end. The 
 rejected no longer stand over against the chosen, but those who 
 appear to be such are in truth only those who have provisionally 
 been passed over, and put back, whose turn to be taken up into 
 salvation has not yet come, but who, on the contrary, are still 
 for the present held fast by the will of God in the bondage of 
 sin and disobedience, but this, nevertheless, only in order that by 
 means of the others, who have entered before them into favour, 
 they also may yet become partakers of the same salvation, and 
 that so salvation may come upon all equally, as a free gift of the 
 favour of God. But as this speculation on the philosophy of 
 religion embraces the whole world's history, as the realization in 
 successive moments of the Divine idea of the world, which is in 
 itself one, though of many parts, so from this height, not merely 
 the unbelief of the Jews, but at last the sin of man in general, 
 is seen to be a moment in the process towards the absolute end 
 of salvation. If the Divine counsel includes all under sin, for the 
 purpose of realizing itself upon all as redeeming favour, then in 
 fact sin also is included in that Divine counsel, i. e. not merely 
 permitted, but ordained as a means to the revelation of favour. 
 If we have already seen in the doctrine of the law, that it was 
 given by God, according to Paul, not to guard against sin, but to 
 increase it, for the sake of the redemption which is brought 
 about through it, then it is but a small and logically necessary 
 step which the speculation of the Apostle makes in gaining this 
 crowning eminence of his dogmatic exposition, when he recog- 
 
 s
 
 258 THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY. 
 
 nizes the fact of being in bondage under sin (the state of the 
 natural man, Rom. vii.) as the means appointed by God for the 
 realization of his favour a height truly to which ecclesiastical 
 dogmatism has been unable to follow him. 
 
 This universal realization of the favourable will of God forms, 
 according to the Apostle, the concluding epoch of the develop- 
 ment of the plan of salvation, and the commencement of the 
 completion of salvation (xi. 15), to the consideration of which 
 therefore we have now finally to pass.
 
 CHAPTER VII 
 
 THE COMPLETION OF SALVATION, 
 
 IN this portion of his teaching, the Apostle Paul stands indeed, 
 for the most part, on the common ground held by the primitive 
 Church, although some specifically Pauline features will be found 
 here also. Paul has made no attempt to accommodate these to 
 the traditional eschatological views, nor to modify the latter in 
 the spirit of his gospel. The consequence is, that it is here least 
 of all possible to obtain a coherent representation of his views ; 
 on the contrary, we meet everywhere either with actual contra- 
 dictions or at least with inconsistencies, which it is the business 
 of our exegesis simply to note as such, and to explain genetically, 
 instead of reconciling them according to our own arbitrary judg- 
 ment. 
 
 The coming of Christ is with Paul also the central point of 
 the eschatology ; but the position of this event, both with refer- 
 ence to the intermediate state of individuals, looking to the past, 
 and, looking to the future, with reference to the end of the world, 
 presents many unsolved antinomies. 
 
 THE COMING OF CHRIST. 
 
 Paul, together with the entire primitive Church, expects the 
 speedy return of Christ to the earth, in a visible form, to under- 
 take the management of his kingdom ; he calls it Trapowla, 1 Cor. 
 
 s2
 
 260 TEE COMPLETION OF SALVATION. 
 
 xv. 23 ; diroKaXv\f/i<s, or T7//,/ja TOV Kvptov, i. 7, 8, and v. Simulta- 
 neously with this event, the whole body of Christians will pass 
 over into that state which is conformable to the kingdom of God, 
 a spiritual corporeality, which not being fleshly is no more sub- 
 ject to decay, and is analogous to the heavenly body of the risen 
 Christ, which consists, as before explained, of heavenly light- 
 substance (Soa). This transition will take place in those who 
 are at that moment living by a change of their earthly bodies 
 into heavenly bodies, and in those who are dead by the resurrec- 
 tion. 
 
 As regards the resurrection body, it is not, at all events, any 
 longer the old fleshly body, for flesh and blood are, according to 
 1 Cor. xv. 50, precisely that which cannot enter into the king- 
 dom of God ; moreover, if it were so, the body of those who sur- 
 vived till then would require no change. It is not equally clear 
 whether the resurrection body is to be a completely new one, 
 having no relation to the old, or only a new and higher form of 
 the old body, stripped of earthly and fleshly materiality. The 
 latter view appears to be supported by the analogy of the resur- 
 rection body of Christ, which Paul conceived 1 not as an entirely 
 new one, having no relation to the old (which would then have 
 remained in the grave), but as identical, at least in its form, if 
 not also in its material, with the body which was put to death, 
 inasmuch as it came into being from that body, by being re-ani- 
 
 1 Holsten, ut supra, p. 132 f. and note, maintains this very decidedly, and declares 
 the contrary view to be a misconception of the main idea of Paulinism. Only he 
 happens here again (as in many other instances) to be wrong in drawing a too strictly 
 logical inference from the weak point of the conception. His argument is inconclu- 
 sive, because it rests upon a dilemma to which Paul was indifferent, that either the 
 resurrection body was an entirely new one, which had nothing in common with the 
 body that was put to death, or it was the old "JlesJily body" which had necessarily to 
 be done away with, in order to the accomplishment of redemption. The above exposi- 
 tion, on the contrary, gives the tertium of the Pauline (and general primitive Chris- 
 tian) conception. (Moreover, Holsten's assertion (ut supra) that the doing away with 
 the <r<7(.i in the death on the cross is the fundamental idea on which the Pauline 
 gospel rests, is incorrect.) Holsten himself has elsewhere well demonstrated that 
 this is rather the idea of the means of reconciliation, which belongs to quite a different 
 range of thought. For further details on this subject see Chap. Li.
 
 THE COMING OF CHRIST. 261 
 
 mated, and at the same time changed ; for on no other supposi- 
 tion could such terms as " resurrection " and " rising from the 
 dead " have been appropriately used. The analogy of the grain 
 of seed, which comes into new life by dying, also supports this 
 view, for the point of this analogy lies precisely in the changing, 
 the passing over of the old out of decomposition into a new 
 structure, where the substratum of the process still remains the 
 same, and an entirely new thing does not take the place of the 
 old. But in 2 Cor. v. 1 f, the resurrection body is spoken of as 
 a " building of God " which we have in heaven, in the case of the 
 dissolution of our earthly tent, which is the present body (as a 
 substitute kept, ready for us), which we therefore, even whilst 
 we are here, long for in order that we may be clothed upon from 
 heaven. According to this text it appears as if the resurrection 
 body did not come into existence from the old one, which rested 
 in the grave, by means of a change of its substance, but was 
 related to it as a new garment, which previously existed in. 
 heaven, in order that it might be put on us from thence 
 whether as a substitute for the old, or put on over the old 
 (e7rev8wao-0cu). In this case, then, it would certainly not be easy 
 to see why this new house or garment should not be given to us 
 immediately after death, instead of waiting till the resurrection ; 
 especially as it appears from ver. 8 that the dwelling with the 
 Lord begins immediately after the departure from the body. 
 Is, then, the soul of the departed Christian which is dwelling 
 with the Lord, to be nevertheless obliged to wait to be worthily 
 housed until the general resurrection ? Nothing in the passage 
 before us points to such a conclusion ; on the contrary, it may 
 be inferred from ver. 3, 1 that we shall never be left in a condi- 
 
 1 Of the different explanations of this passage, which is rendered doubly difficult by 
 the various readings (an enumeration of which is given by the commentators), the 
 simplest appears to me to be the following : "Although (fiTrtp) should we even be 
 unclothed (iicSvadfifvoi, i. e. even though we may not depart without laying aside our 
 old garment, without dying), we yet fhall not (deed to fear that we shall ever) be 
 found without a body." Thus the Apostle wishes to limit the desire to be clothed, 
 upon, which he had before expressed, by reminding himself, as it were, for comfort i 
 case of its uon-f ulfilment, that even in the less happy event of having actually to die,.
 
 262 THE COMPLETION OF SALVATION. 
 
 tion of nakedness, i. e. existence without a body. Many com- 
 mentators, therefore, clearly perceiving this difficulty, have sup- 
 posed the heavenly house or garment to he merely a provisional 
 body for the intermediate state. But not only is there no inti- 
 mation of any kind in the passage before us that would justify 
 this hypothesis, but it is one which is quite alien to the whole 
 tenor both of Paul's teaching and that of the Bible ; and it must, 
 therefore, be regarded only as a desperate resource, adopted by 
 an arbitrarily harmonizing exegesis, determined to reconcile at 
 any cost the discordance which here manifests itself. 
 
 If the Christians rise from the dead together at the coming of 
 Christ, then they are, until that time, in a merely provisional 
 intermediate state, which can the less be regarded as a state of 
 vitality and happiness in proportion as these qualities are more 
 decidedly connected with regaining possession of the body. 1 
 The Apostle describes it as sleep, Koipaa-Oat, (1 Cor. xi. 30, rv. 6, 
 xx. 51), to which common expression he doubtless attached only 
 the common meaning of a dim shadowy existence, from which 
 the feeling of life and its activity are absent. As to the how 
 and the where of this state, he had the less occasion to go into 
 details, as he hoped, for himself and most of the Christians 
 of his timfc, to survive till the coming of Christ, and so to pass 
 directly, by being changed, from the earthly life to the higher 
 life of the Messiah's kingdom, without passing through that 
 intermediate state (1 Cor. xv. 52, ^/zeis d\\ay^a-ofj,f6a, opposed to 
 fyepOrj<rovTa.i : and 1 Thess. iv. 15 and 17, 
 
 the soul will not be in a state of nakedness (without a body), but, on the contrary, 
 will immediately (this is implied in t\ofitv, ver. 1) obtain its new body from heaven 
 (and be in heaven, ver. 8). In this sense the whole passage is entirely consistent with 
 itself, though certainly at variance with the idea of the resurrection at the coming of 
 Christ. 
 
 1 The whole of the argument for the necessity of a resurrection in 1 Cor. xv. would 
 be superfluous, without the supposition that the condition of the dead, previously to 
 the resurrection, was an unhappy one. If it already consisted in communion of soul 
 with the glorified Jesus in heaven (Weiss, p. 393), what necessity would there be in 
 that case for the resurrection ? And how could this communion with Christ be de- 
 scribed as a KoifiaaQai, whereas it is, on the contrary, according to Horn. viii. 17, a
 
 THE COMING OF CHRIST. 263 
 
 rreptXeiirop-fvoi. cis T)V irapova-Lav TOV Kvpiov ov p-rj (j>0da-(ap.fv TOVS 
 KoifjirjQfvTas). But intelligible as it is that, assuming the near- 
 ness of the coming of Christ, the intermediate state might 
 appear to be of little importance, and the unsatisfactory nature 
 of it, according to the traditional Jewish view, might escape 
 notice, it is yet equally certain that the matter would assume 
 quite another aspect, so soon as the preponderating sense of the 
 nearness of death brought the state that was to follow death, as 
 being the object of immediate expectation, into the foreground of 
 consciousness and of interest, and threw the prospect of the 
 coming of Christ and of the general resurrection into the back- 
 ground. Consequently the object of Christian hope the com- 
 munion with Christ in the kingdom of glory advanced a step 
 nearer, as it immediately succeeded to the moment of death. If 
 death is the laying aside of that fleshly body which has hitherto 
 been the hindrance to full communion with the Lord, and to 
 the realization of the freedom of sonship (Eom. viii. 21, 23), and 
 whose fault it is that we are relatively at a distance from the 
 Lord (eK8^/xr}o-at avro TOV Kvpiov, 2 Cor. v. 6), why should not that 
 state, which is guaranteed as to its certainty, and prepared with 
 respect to its real possibility, by the spirit of sonship which 
 already dwells in us, commence at the moment when this hin- 
 drance ceases, at the death therefore of the fleshly body ? Comp. 
 Phil. iii. 10, 11; 2 Cor. v. 5; Eom. viii. 11. In thus founding 
 the resurrection on the communion of life with Christ which 
 already exists, or on the spirit of Christ which dwells in us 
 (wherefore this spirit is distinctly called " life," in opposition to 
 the body which is forfeited to death, Eom. viii. 10), the ground 
 of the Jewish eschatology, which depended on particular Mes- 
 sianic miracles, is implicitly abandoned, and the Christian idea 
 substituted for it, according to which the completion of salvation 
 depends on an essentially immanent development of the higher 
 life, which is already inwardly present, as is brought out more 
 distinctly in the theology of John. In fact, the acceptance of 
 the intermediate state, which is connected with the waiting for
 
 264 THE COMPLETION OF SALVATION. 
 
 the coming of Christ, is inconsistent with the way in which 
 Paul joins Christian hope to the present possession of salvation 
 by the Christian. Is the object of Christian hope, according to 
 Paul, only the completion of that salvation which is not merely 
 promised by God (the Jewish Christian notiqp), but already 
 really present as life in Christ or in the spirit, and only hin- 
 dered from external manifestation by the opposing reality of the 
 fleshly body ? If so, it is impossible to see why the realization 
 of that hope, the completion of the life of the spirit, which is 
 now already inwardly actual, by the external manifestation of 
 the 8oa, should not begin immediately after death, but be post- 
 poned till the coming of Christ, while the operative power of the 
 spirit remains as it were latent or suspended, in spite of the 
 removal of its hindrance (the flesh), from the time of death until 
 the coming of Christ. From this standpoint of the already 
 present life in the spirit, the hope of passing immediately after 
 death into the state of completed salvation, of dwelling with 
 Christ, and being " clothed upon " with a body of a higher kind 
 corresponding with the spirit, is most obvious and most reason- 
 able ; and the Apostle has undeniably (2 Cor. v. 1 f. and Phil. 
 i. 23) expressed this hope without the slightest reference to the 
 coming of Christ or an intermediate state. Only it is in the 
 highest degree characteristic of the teaching of Paul, and a 
 repetition of the frequently remarked peculiarity of it, that this 
 specifically Christian turn of thought by no means sets aside 
 that conception which is derived from entirely different pre- 
 suppositions, and belongs to the specifically Jewish sphere of 
 thought (the coming of Christ simultaneously with the resurrec- 
 tion) ; on the contrary, both views stand quite harmlessly side 
 by side, without any thought of their essential inconsistency, 
 much less any attempt to reconcile them. 
 
 The same thing happens with regard to the second point con- 
 nected with the coming of Christ, the judgment Agreeably to 
 the general Jewish and Jewish-Christian expectation, Paul 
 makes the Messianic reign begin with a great day of judgment,
 
 THE COMING OF CHRIST. 265 
 
 and that catastrophe is called mainly in this sense " the day of 
 the Lord" (1 Cor. i. 8; cf. 7, y. 5, iii. 13; 2 Cor. i. 14; Rom. 
 ii 16). On this day all Christians must appear at the judgment- 
 seat of Christ to give an account of their deeds ; and especially 
 it will be made known whether their work done in the service 
 of Christ was good or not (Eom. xiv. 10; 2 Cor. v. 10; 1 Cor. 
 iii. 13). But, according to Rom. ii. 3 16, judgment will be 
 passed on all men (not only on Christians) by God (not by 
 Christ), when every man will be rewarded according to his 
 works. Not only is no intimation of a second day of judgment 
 given by the Apostle, which might justify us in regarding this 
 judgment as distinct from the judgment of Christians by Christ 
 at his coming, as just described, but, on the contrary, the identity 
 of the two is proved by Rom. ii. 16, inasmuch as at the great 
 day of judgment God will judge through Christ, or (according to 
 1 Cor. iv. 5) will dispense to every one his reward (and punish- 
 ment?). Now a difficulty certainly arises out of the above state- 
 ment, namely, that if the general judgment takes place at the 
 coming of Christ, there would afterwards remain no enemy to 
 be overcome during the reign of Christ, in the interval between 
 his coming and the end of the world, as it is plainly supposed 
 there will be, in 1 Cor. xv. 24, 25. This is connected with the 
 question of the millennium, of which we shall shortly have to 
 speak. 
 
 There is a further difficulty touching the principle on which 
 the judgment will proceed. The Apostle, without any limitation 
 and in general terms, states the rule to be recompence according 
 to works (Rom. ii. 6 10), and also applies this specially to the 
 Christians, who were to receive at the judgment-seat of Christ 
 what they had done in (by means of) the life of the body, 
 whether good or evil, i. e. the exact equivalent of their entire 
 moral action, in the shape of a corresponding recompence of 
 reward or punishment (2 Cor. v. 10). How does this agree with 
 the Apostle's doctrine of favour, which (Rom. iv. 4) excludes 
 all reward which might pertain to action as such, because this
 
 266 THE COMPLETION OF SALVATION. 
 
 would be a recompence KO.T o^iXr^a., and therefore not /carol 
 \aptv ? How does it agree with the Apostle's doctrine of pre- 
 destination, according to which the Divine purpose is asserted to 
 be a purpose grounded on the free choice of favour, by the fact 
 of its not being directed according to human action (Eom. 
 ix. 11 f., xi. 6)? How does it agree, finally, with the Christian 
 hope of the immediate union of departed Christians with their 
 glorified Lord, expressed in 2 Cor. v. 1 f., Phil. i. 23, and there- 
 fore of a blessedness that should begin directly after the laying 
 aside of this body of death ? This must necessarily have been 
 disturbed, if not taken away, by the prospect of a judgment yet 
 to come, by which morally defective conduct and such must 
 that of the best Christian ever remain had to expect punish- 
 ment. We can hardly help perceiving that there appears here 
 again in the retention of the expectation of a Messianic judg- 
 ment, the opposition which constantly pervades the dogmatic 
 teaching of Paul, between the Christian mode of thought, which 
 apprehends the relation of man to God from the standpoint of 
 favour and sonship, and Jewish presuppositions, which have 
 their root in the judicial relation of performance and reward. 
 It may certainly be pointed out that, after all, from the stand- 
 point of Paul's doctrine of salvation, reward is not in every 
 sense excluded ; that, on the contrary, it may find a place on 
 the ground of Pauline anthropology (the doctrine of flesh and 
 spirit), under the form of the natural congruence of the harvest 
 with the sowing (cf. Gal. vi. 7, 8. Comp. what is stated above, 
 Chap. v. p. 224 f.). Only, certain as it is that the true moral core ' 
 of the Jewish doctrine of recompence is contained in this ethical 
 teleology, it is equally certain that it is not to be identified with 
 the judicial form of this Jewish doctrine, as distinctly embodied 
 in the conception of a "day of judgment." For a recompence in 
 exact equivalent to the sum of the actions, dependent on the 
 sentence of a judge, is the precise judicial form of the doctrine 
 of recompence, and is in simple and plain opposition to the 
 Pauline gospel The ethical system, which apprehends moral
 
 THE COMING OF CHRIST. 267 
 
 life as an organic development, in which every force must attain 
 to a corresponding effect, every germ and every propensity to its 
 corresponding fruit, is based on quite a different point of view. 
 There, in the doctrine of judicial recompence, performance and 
 reward stand externally and mechanically over against each 
 other, and a balance is struck between them by an external 
 valuation (a thing impossible in the realm of morals) ; here, on 
 the contrary, performance and reward stand in the inwardly 
 organic relation, in which the one produces the other out of 
 itself, like force and its effect, and the reward itself becomes 
 again an operative force, which produces from itself new per- 
 formances. But the idea of a recompensing judicial sentence 
 which shall on a single " day of judgment " assign to every one, 
 at the same time and for ever, his reward or punishment, cannot 
 possibly form part of such an organic and ethical apprehension 
 of the relation of moral cause and effect ; for this organic moral 
 development is rather a constant process that varies in each 
 individual. It is accordingly not to be denied that the judg- 
 ment which Paul allows to be connected with the coming of 
 Christ is as far from having anything in common with his fun- 
 damental anthropological views, as it is from agreeing with his 
 doctrine of the favour of God. Nothing therefore remains but 
 to see in it a remnant of Jewish dogmatism unassimilated with 
 the rest of Paul's teaching. 
 
 The resurrection of Christians and the judgment are the events 
 immediately connected with the vra/aovo-ia, but they by no means 
 constitute the end. On the contrary, the epoch of the Messianic 
 reign of Christ on the earth begins at the irapova-ia, that epoch 
 to which the author of the Apocalypse assigns a duration of a 
 thousand years, and which is therefore technically called the 
 " Millennium," even when its duration is undetermined, as it is 
 with Paul. That Paul, as well as the writer of the Apocalypse, 
 assumes that there will be an interval (of undetermined length) 
 between the coming of Christ and the end of the world, during 
 which Christ will rule the earth in visible Messianic glory, and
 
 268 THE COMPLETION OF SALVATION. 
 
 after which he will resign this sovereignty to God, is unmis- 
 takably implied in 1 Cor. xv. 23 f. In ver. 23, the order (ray^a) 
 of the resurrection is discussed : first of all is Christ " the first- 
 fruits ;" then at his irapovo-ia follow those who are Christ's ; eTVa 
 TO TeAos, i. e. then is the end of the resurrection, namely, the 
 resurrection of all ; which moment will be at the same time the 
 end of all things, the end of this present world-period, because it 
 coincides in time with the giving over of the sovereignty to God 
 (6Vav Trapa8i8w rrjv /3acriAeiav T(p 6i> SC. 6 X/OMTTOS note the pre- 
 sent tense Tra/DaSiSw, which indicates that this giving over is 
 simultaneous with the end of the resurrection). We therefore 
 have here a series (rayp.a) of moments of the resurrection, in 
 which each is separated in time from the preceding one ; this is 
 expressed by dirapxrj eTreira eira. This distinct idea of a rd-y^a, 
 which consists of different parts, and comprises different periods 
 of time, would be altogether destroyed by supposing that dra. TO 
 TeAos is simultaneous with the preceding oreiTa n-a/>owip avrov : 
 for in that case there would be, at the coming of Christ, only one 
 thing, namely, the resurrection of the Christians, to be expected, 
 besides that of Christ which had preceded it, which evidently 
 would give no ground for speaking of a " series ;" and, moreover, 
 the fate of the entire non-christian world would have been 
 passed over in silence in an inconceivable manner. But apart 
 from this negative argument, the Apostle also positively says 
 that the TeAos will occur at a point of time different from that of 
 the coming of Christ, nay, at an opposite point of time. That is 
 to say, the point of time of the TeAos is that at which Christ 
 gives up the /feo-iAeia to God, after he shall have conquered all 
 hostile powers, for until that has happened he must /BaanXeveiv. 
 Now, according to the universal showing of the New Testament, 
 the Trapovo-ia is undeniably the point of time at which Christ 
 enters upon the /2ao-iAeia ; and to what end should he appear on 
 the earth in visible glory, if not for the very purpose of entering 
 upon his sovereign dignity, and administering his regal office in 
 the place of God ? A visible appearance on earth, not in order
 
 THE COMING OF CHRIST. 269 
 
 to enter visibly upon the sovereignty he had until that time 
 exercised invisibly through the spirit, but in order to give it up 
 immediately to God, would surely be a contradiction to common 
 sense. Hence it follows undeniably that we must conceive the 
 reAos when Christ gives up the /3ao-iA.eta, as essentially different 
 from the irapova-ia. when he enters upon it, and in fact separated 
 from it by the period during which he reigns (/WiAevei), i. e. by 
 the period of the millennium (as it is called in the Apocalypse). 
 Thus, then, we find Paul agreeing with the author of the 
 Apocalypse in the supposition of a period of the visible govern- 
 ment of the world by Christ, between the irapowia and the end 
 of the world. He differs from him, however, not merely in the 
 secondary matter of not assigning any definite duration to this 
 period, but in the mc/re important respect, that he makes out 
 that the whole of this period is filled up with incessant warfare 
 against hostile powers, and conquest of them ; while the writer of 
 the Apocalypse, on the other hand, imagines this period to be a 
 time of blessed, unopposed, priestly dominion of Christ and the 
 believers ; while Satan is bound and unable to carry on his work 
 of perversion until the end of the thousand years, when he will 
 once more be let loose, and will be conquered in a short and 
 decisive battle (Rev. xx. 2 6 and 7 10). But what gives to 
 this difference its great importance is that, according to the 
 Apocalyptic view, the millennium is the anticipation of heavenly 
 sovereignty and blessedness on the theatre of the world, which 
 is precisely the Jewish idea of the Messiah's kingdom painted in 
 Christian colours ; while according to the Pauline view, on the 
 contrary, the millennium is merely the continuation of the pre- 
 sent spiritual conquest of the world by the power of Christ, only 
 in such wise that it will at the same time be visibly present, 
 which we may describe as the Christian idea of the kingdom of 
 God in a Jewish form. It certainly follows from this, that no 
 really clear line can be fixed between the period preceding and 
 that following the irapova-ia., and that what is to be placed before, 
 and what after it, remains in the greatest obscurity. As to the
 
 270 THE COMPLETION OF SALVATION. 
 
 conversion of the Gentiles and the Jews, for instance, we have 
 already seen, from Rom. xi. 15, that Paul looked forward to the 
 latter as the signal for the resurrection of the dead ; but which 
 resurrection ? The first, which is confined to the Christians and 
 connected with the coming of Christ ? Or the second general 
 resurrection, which is connected with the end ? The former 
 might appear the more obvious and natural in itself; only we 
 are met by the consideration that, after the complete conversion 
 of both Gentiles and Jews, no enemies would remain to be con- 
 quered in the Messianic reign of Christ during the millennium. 
 This question can hardly be determined with certainty from the 
 tone of thought or the statements of Paul. And the same is the 
 case with regard to the judgment. Paul everywhere speaks, as 
 we have shown, of one judgment, and connects it apparently 
 with the coming of Christ. But if the final judgment shall have 
 been pronounced on that occasion upon all who are alive, where, 
 after that event, will the enemies be who have still to be con- 
 quered ? And what becomes of the judgment to be passed on 
 the entire body of non-christians, who are not to rise until the 
 end of the period of the millennial kingdom ? Simply to supply 
 this as " necessarily involved in the resurrection, although not 
 expressly mentioned by Paul in the context of this passage," 1 is 
 no more justifiable than it would be to introduce any other of 
 the numberless hypotheses and combinations that might be made 
 on this subject, but could not be shown to be Pauline in cha- 
 racter. Instead of such fanciful criticism, a scientific exegesis 
 has simply to note the inconsistency, and to point out how it 
 originated. The fact is, as we have already repeatedly shown, 
 that the whole of this circle of ideas which revolved round the 
 Tra/jovcria, had got beyond the range of possible reconciliation 
 with the advanced Christian yvwo-is of the Apostle, and from the 
 very nature of the case must have done so. For this remnant of 
 the Jewish doctrine of the Messiah agreed neither with the theo- 
 logy of Paul, with its doctrine of favour and predestination, nor - 
 
 1 Meyer, Comm.
 
 THE END OF THE WORLD. 271 
 
 with his anthropology, which involved the immanence of the 
 spirit of Christ in individuals and in the community. Accord- 
 ing to this, the realization of salvation in the individual and in 
 the world is a constant process, a historical development ; but 
 the wapova-ia originates in a circle of ideas, according to which 
 salvation was something merely transcendental in its subject- 
 matter, something to be expected from heaven, and whose real- 
 ization was in its form a purely isolated miraculous act of God, 
 without any inward connection with that which preceded or 
 that which followed it. It is therefore natural that two elements 
 so foreign to each other should not have been able to coalesce 
 into unity. But here also we have again, in conclusion, the same 
 thing which occurs in all the main points of Paul's teaching, 
 namely, that the logical inference not yet drawn by Paul himself 
 from his Christian yvwo-ts, according to which the Judaizing ele- 
 ments would be completely set aside, is drawn in the theology of 
 John. In this theology, the conception of the irapovo-ia is so far 
 set aside, that it is resolved into or made potential in the coming 
 of Christ in the spirit ; and in the same way the judgment is 
 changed from being on the other side of the grave and accom- 
 panying the irapowia., into a process of separation in this world, 
 introduced by the word and spirit of Christ, and constantly 
 advancing towards completion (John xiv. 12, 31, 47 f., xvi. 8 f.). 
 We now proceed from the Trapovo-ia to consider the second focus, 
 as it were, of the eschatology, 
 
 THE END OF THE WOELD. 
 
 As the millennium, or the Messianic regency of Christ in a 
 visible form, is ushered in by the resurrection of Christians, so 
 the end of the world is ushered in by the resurrection of all, as 
 the last term in the series (ray/xa) of resurrections (vers. 23 and 
 24, eZra TO reAos). This is the last act of Christ's government, 
 because by it the last enemy, death, is definitely conquered (26). 
 By it all powers hostile to God as such, as actually operative
 
 272 THE COMPLETION OF SALVATION. 
 
 forces, are done away, and thus all creatures are subjected to 
 Christ, and therefore to God. Whether this is to be understood 
 in the sense that all have voluntarily subjected themselves, i. e. 
 have been converted, or that the effectual opposition of all has 
 been broken, and the opponents of Christ laid at his feet, bound 
 and powerless, cannot be decided by the words used ; the words 
 which follow, however, 0cos TO. TTO.VTO. ev Trao-tv, appear to support 
 the former view, of which more hereafter. The grand univer- 
 sality, moreover, with which the eschatological perspective of 
 the Apostle truly embraces the whole universe, is notably 
 attested by his intimation (Rom. viii. 19 23) of a final redemp- 
 tion of Trao-a ^ KTICTCS from the SovAta rrjs (frOopas to the eXtvOepia 
 
 TT}S 6o'r/s TWV re/cvwi/ TOV Oeov. Even nature, the irrational world 
 (for KTto-ts, according to the context, can have no other meaning), 
 is in a state which does not correspond with its true destination, 
 namely, the reflecting of the Divine Soa, for it is subject to the 
 bondage of corruptibility, and an instinctive feeling of this exists 
 in nature, and shows itself in groaning after redemption. This 
 will also be granted to it, for it has been subjected by God to 
 this bondage, in hope, for the sake of Him who has subjected it, 
 that is to say, in order that He may manifest upon it the more 
 gloriously his power and his favour, by freeing it precisely the 
 same fundamental idea of Paul's teaching to which he has given 
 utterance in xi. 32. What Paul thought of the way in which 
 this freeing of the groaning creation was to be effected, we 
 cannot tell; but we may be certain that it was not by com- 
 pletely destroying and newly creating it in its substance, but by 
 changing its form, for he only speaks of the form (o-x^) of the 
 world in 1 Cor. vii. 31 as passing away. It is worthy of obser- 
 vation how Paul has here given an application full of deep 
 meaning to the traditional expectation of a golden age in a 
 renovated world, for which authority is to be found even in the 
 prophets, 1 by placing it in direct relation to the specifically 
 Christian fundamental doctrines of favour and redemption. 
 1 Comp. Is. xi. 6 f., Ixv. 17 25; also Ps. cii. 27.
 
 THE END OF THE WORLD. 273 
 
 Now when Christ shall have thus accomplished the task of 
 his Messianic regency, and made all things subject to himself, 
 the whole created world, rational and irrational, then, finally, lie 
 will make himself siibject to Him ivho has made all things subject to 
 him, that God may be all in all (1 Cor. xv. 28). The thought 
 expressed in this verse, taken with ver. 24, is very plain : when 
 God's counsel of redemption has been fully carried out to its 
 end, then the instrument of it, the historical Eedeemer, retires 
 from his exalted post; he has completed his task as the Ee- 
 deeiner and the ruler of the redeemed (which was part of the 
 carrying out of redemption to its definitive and victorious 
 realization), and now resigns his office of leader to God, in order 
 to return into the ranks of the perfect created beings who are 
 under God's immediate rule ; just as a victorious general, after 
 the close of the war, resigns his command into the hands of his 
 king, and returns into the ranks of the ordinary citizens. This 
 thought of the Apostle's is so simple, that regarded by itself its 
 meaning could never have been mistaken, had it not given so 
 severe a shock to the dogmatic consciousness of ecclesiastical 
 interpreters. For there is no doubt that it can by no means be 
 reconciled with the ecclesiastical doctrine of the Trinity. That 
 the majesty and leadership of Christ is only a dignity conferred 
 upon him by God for a time, certainly gives a deadly blow to 
 the " homoousia " of the Church. But, moreover (and this it is 
 which alone concerns us here), this doctrine, when viewed from 
 the presuppositions of Paul's own Christology, certainly appears 
 very extraordinary. For we have already seen that Paul makes 
 the person of Christ, before his work on earth, in his pre-exist- 
 ence, take part in the creation of the world as the organ of God, 
 and consequently does not date his more exalted position in the 
 Divine plan of revelation from his historical work on earth as 
 the Messiah ; and now, notwithstanding that, is this Lord who 
 existed before the world and before time, by whose means the 
 creation was effected, all at once at the end of the period of the 
 world's duration, to be stripped of his sovereignty, and to enter 
 
 T
 
 274 THE COMPLETION OF SALVATION. 
 
 into the ranks of the created beings as a subject like any other ? 
 It is hardly to be denied that there is a certain amount of con- 
 tradiction here ; and this would be quite unaccountable, if that 
 position of pre-existence, that cosmical .significance and dignity 
 of Christ, were the starting-point or the central idea of Paul's 
 Christology. But this, as we have seen, is plainly not the case ; 
 on the contrary, the complete souship of Christ h 8wa.fj.ei, dates 
 from no earlier time than his resurrection (Eom. i. 4), just as the 
 whole of the Christology is built up on the ymo-is of the histori- 
 cal work of redemption (the death on the cross), and it is only 
 by means of the reflection into the past of the picture thus 
 obtained that the pre-existence comes to be added to it. It is 
 perfectly consistent with Paul's Christology, starting from this 
 point, which was ever foremost even in the dogmatic conscious- 
 ness of the Apostle, that the sovereignty of Christ, as it had its 
 beginning in time, should also have a limited duration in time ; 
 but of course the pre-existence is in this case left out of view ; 
 as soon as this is taken as the standpoint whence the matter is 
 regarded, the dignity and power of Christ, which he had before 
 all time, must also be conceived as unlimited by time, as endless, 
 which is the case in the writings of John. Thus we have in 
 this peculiar Pauline doctrine of the subjection of Christ at the 
 end of the world- period, another conclusive argument in favour 
 of our view of the Christology of Paul, the view, namely, that it 
 has indeed advanced in free speculation regarding the historical 
 person of Jesus to the dogmatic personification of the religious 
 principle developed in redemption, but that it has not yet gained 
 a firm footing on this standpoint of dogmatic speculation, has 
 not yet made the height of the absolute principle the dominating 
 point of view for the whole system, and therefore stands half- 
 way between the Jewish-Christian Christology and that of John. 
 After Christ shall have subjected himself and his kingdom to 
 the Father, the grand final end of the world will have been 
 attained God will be all in all. This sentence, looked at by 
 itself with unprejudiced eyes, certainly supports the notion of a
 
 THE END OF THE WORLD. 275 
 
 conclusion of the world in unity, where no existing thing will 
 be excluded from the kingdom of God, and therefore from the 
 fulfilment of its destination from blessedness; where no hell 
 goes on by the side of the kingdom of heaven. For the suppo- 
 sition of the continued existence of the damned, outside of the 
 blessed kingdom of God, would either limit unwarrantably the 
 fv iraa-tv to the half of the TTOVTCS, which appears quite inadmis- 
 sible in the case of a final comprehensive survey of the whole 
 result, such as we have here ; or it would make the expression 
 iva y rot TravTa mean, contrary to the sense of the words, that 
 God is only Lord aver all over the one part (the blessed) with 
 their will, over the other (the damned) against their will, though 
 without any limitation and without opposition. But tVa $ TO. 
 jrdvra h ira<rt does not mean that He is completely Lord over 
 all, but that He is the whole, the only and the all-determining 
 inward principle in all, which is just the opposite to being Lord 
 over subjugated enemies whose will is opposed to his. The ter- 
 mination of the world in unity, as above explained, might be 
 brought about either by unbelievers being completely annihi- 
 lated, or by their being all finally converted. In support of the 
 former view it may be observed . that no mention is made of a 
 resurrection of the godless, therefore these might possibly be 
 conceived as remaining for ever in death, and consequently 
 (according to the Jewish view, which regards actual existence 
 as essentially connected with the body) as no longer existing ; 
 but 1 Cor. xv. 22 appears to support the latter view : "As in 
 Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive." For in this 
 passage iravres can hardly be taken in a more limited sense in 
 one clause than in the other, and as it applies in the first clause 
 to all men without distinction, it must also be taken in an 
 equally general sense in the second ; and if the resurrection of 
 all will be h XpurrQ, then it must be a resurrection to life and 
 blessedness. And this is strikingly confirmed by Eom. xi. 32, 
 where the universality of man's disobedience is contrasted with 
 the universality of God's mercy in Christ, just as in the former
 
 276 THE COMPLETION OF SALVATION. 
 
 passage the fact of all being made alive in Christ is contrasted 
 -with that of all dying in Adam. These two passages, together 
 with the final " God all in all," would seem to show that Paul, 
 when he speaks out of the fulness and the depth of his Christian 
 view of the universe, is inclined to the idea of a termination of 
 the world in unity, in the sense of the aTro/caTao-Tao-is. 1 Never- 
 theless, those passages again are opposed to this view, which 
 speak of a judgment with a two-fold termination eternal life 
 for some and perdition for others (Eom. ii. 5 12) as well as 
 the often-repeated mention of the dTroAAv/ievot (1 Cor. xviii.; 2 
 Cor. ii. 15, xvi. 4, 3). And thus even when we reach the end of 
 the dogmatic teaching of Paul, we are still confronted by the 
 unsolved antinomy between the termination of the world in 
 unity, which was more in harmony with the Apostle's religious 
 speculation on the doctrine of God's favour, and the two-fold 
 end which is more conformable with the legal standpoint, not 
 only of the Jews, but of moral reflection in general. We have 
 here once more, therefore, essentially the same antinomy which 
 we have met with, in one form or another, in all the chief points 
 of the Apostle's dogmatic teaching, and which, moreover, is no- 
 where more intelligible than in the case of the man who, from a 
 Pharisee and a zealous upholder of the law, was called to be a 
 chosen instrument of the gospel of the favour of God in Christ. 
 
 1 " That an airoKaraaTaate is entirely irreconcilable with the presuppositions of 
 Paul's doctrine of election, which assumes throughout a two-fold termination of man's 
 destiny" ( Weiss, p. 404 f.), is so far from being obvious, that the contrary will rather 
 impress itself upon every one who considers how decidedly the Pauline doctrine of 
 predestination (Rom. ix. xi. ) finally makes the dualism with which it commences 
 lose itself (xi. 30 36) in the complete unity of the final result (see above, p. 256 f.). 
 
 END OF PART I. 
 
 C. Green & Son, Printers, 178, Strand.
 
 J4, HENRIETTA STREET, COVENT GARDEN, LONDON; 
 
 20, SOUTH FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGH. 
 
 CATALOGUE OF SOME WORKS 
 
 PUBLISHED BY 
 
 WILLIAMS AND NORGATE. 
 
 Ali. Life of Mohammed. A Critical Examination of the Life and 
 Teachings of Mohammed, from a Mohammedan Stand-point, including 
 Chapters on Polygamy, Slavery, Moslem Rationalism, Moslem Mysticism, 
 etc. By SYED AMEER ALI, Moulvie, M.A., LL.B., of the Inner Temple, 
 Barrister-at-Law, etc. Crown 8vo. cloth 9$ 
 
 Apocryphal Gospels, and other Documents relating to the History of 
 
 Christ. Translated from the Originals in Greek, Latin, Syriac, with Notes, 
 References, and Prolegomena. By B. HARRIS COWPER. Third edition. 8vo. 
 cloth 6s 
 vide also; Gould (Rev. S. Baring) 
 
 Baur (F. C.) Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ, his Life and Work, 
 his Epistles and his Doctrine. A Contribution to the Critical History of 
 Primitive Christianity. Edited by E. Zeller. Translated by Rev. Allan 
 Menzies. 2 vols. 8vo. cloth 21* 
 
 '_Vide Theological Translation Fund Library. 
 
 Beard (Rev. Chas.) The Soul's Way to God, and other Sermons. 
 Preached in Liverpool by CHARLES BEARD, B.A., Author of " Port Royal, or 
 Contribution to the History of Religious Literature in France" 7* 6d 
 
 Beard (Rev. Chas.) Port Royal, a Contribution to the History of 
 Religion and Literature in France. Cheaper Edition, 2 vols. Crown 8vo. 
 
 125 
 
 Beard (Rev. Dr. J. R.) The Autobiography of Satan. Crown 8vo. 
 cloth 7* 6d 
 
 Bible for Young People. A Critical, Historical, and Moral Hand-book 
 to the Old and New Testaments. By Dr. H. OORT and Dr. J. HOOYKAAS, 
 with the assistance of Dr. KUENEN. Translated from the Dutch by the Rev. 
 P. H. WICKSTEED. Vol. I. Introduction and the Generations before Moses. 
 45. Vol. II. From Moses to David. With Map. Crown 8vo. Cloth $s 
 
 Vol. V. The Narratives of the New Testament, I. With Map. Crown 
 
 8vo. 6s
 
 Catalogue of some Works 
 
 Belsham (T.) Memoirs of the late Rev. Theophilus Lindsey, M.A. 
 The Centenary Volume. 8vo. cloth $s 
 
 Bleek (F.) Lectures on the Apocalypse. Edited by T. Hossbach. 
 Translated from the German. Edited by the Rev. Dr. S. DAVIDSON. In 
 one volume. 8vo. cloth los 6d 
 
 Vide Theological Translation Fund Library. 
 
 Bouzique (E. U.) History of Christianity. Translated from the French 
 by the Rev. Dr. BEARD. 3 vols. crown 8vo. cloth 2 is 
 
 Cartan (W.) The Christian's Manual. A Practical Guide to the 
 Study of the emended New Testament. Crown 8vo. Cloth $s 
 
 Channing and Lucy Aikin. Correspondence of William Ellery Chan- 
 ning, D.D., and Lucy Aikin, from 1826 to 1842. Edited by Anna Letitia Le 
 Breton. Crown 8vo. cloth 95 
 
 Channing (Rev. Dr.) The Perfect Life. A Series of Unpublished 
 Discourses of William Ellery Channing, D.D. Edited by the Rev. W. H. 
 CHANNING. 2nd Edition. Crown 8vo. 6s 
 
 Chastel (Rev. E.) Christianity in the igth Century: a Religious and 
 Philosophical Survey of the immediate Past, according to the Spirit of Jesus. 
 Translated by the Rev. Dr. Beard. Crown 8vo. cloth $s 
 
 Cobbe (Miss F. P.) The Hopes of the Human Race, Hereafter and 
 
 Here. Essays on the Life after Death. With a Preface having special 
 reference to Mr. Mills' Essay on Religion. By FRANCES POWER COBBE. 
 8vo cloth Js 6d 
 
 Cobbe (Miss F. P.) Essays. Darwinism in Morals, and (13) other 
 Essays, (Religion in Childhood, Unconscious Cerebration, Dreams, the Devil, 
 Auricular Confession, etc. etc.) 400 pp. 8vo. cloth (pub. at 105) $s 
 
 Cobbe (Miss F. P.) Re-Echoes. Crown 8vo. js 6d 
 
 Cobbe (Miss F. P.) Dawning Lights. An Inquiry concerning the 
 Secular Results of the New Reformation. 8vo. cloth $$ 
 
 Cobbe (Miss F. P.) Alone to the Alone. Prayers for Theists, by 
 
 several Contributors. New Edition. Crown 8vo. cloth $s 
 
 Cobbe (Miss F. P.) Religious Duty. 8vo. cloth (pub. at js 6d) $s 
 
 Cobbe (Miss F. P.) Studies, New and Old, of Ethical and Social 
 Subjects. 8vo. cloth (pub. at tos 6d) $s 
 
 Cobbe (Miss F. P.) Italics. Brief Notes on Politics, People and 
 Places in Italy in 1854. 8vo. cloth (pub. at 12* 6d) $s
 
 Published by Williams and Norgate. 
 
 Cotta (B. von) The Development-Law of the Earth. By Professor 
 BERNHARD VON COTTA. Translated by R. R. NOEL. i8mo. Cloth 2$ 
 
 Davidson (Rev Dr.) On a Fresh Revision of the English Old Testa- 
 ment. By SAMUEL DAVIDSON, D.D. Crown 8vo. cloth 55 
 
 Davidson (Rev. Dr.) An Introduction to the Old Testament, Critical, 
 
 Historical, and Theological, containing a discussion of the most important 
 questions belonging to the several Books. By SAMUEL DAVIDSON, D.D., 
 LL.D. 3 vols. 8vo. cloth 42$ 
 
 Echoes of Holy Thoughts : arranged as Private Meditations before a 
 
 First Communion. Second Edition, with a Preface by the Rev. J. HAMILTON 
 THOM of Liverpool. Printed with red lines. Crown 8vo. cloth 2s 6d 
 
 Ewald (Professor H.) Commentary on the Prophets of the Old Tes- 
 tament. Translated by the Rev. J. FRED. SMITH. Vol. I. Yoel, Amos, 
 Hozea, and Zakharya, 9-11. 8vo. cloth 105 6d 
 
 Vol.11. Yesayah, Obadya, Micha. 8vo. Cloth jos 6d 
 
 Vide Theological Translation Fund Library. 
 
 Fellowes (Robert, LL.D.) The Religion of the Universe, with Conso- 
 latory Views of a Future State, and suggestions on the most beneficial topics 
 of Theological Instruction. Third Edition. Post 8vo. cloth 6s 
 
 Flower (J. W.) Adam's Disobedience, and the Results attributed to 
 it, as affecting the Human Race. Second Edition, enlarged and corrected. 
 8vo. cloth 6* 6d 
 
 Gould (S. Baring) Lost and Hostile Gospels. An Account of the 
 
 Toledoth Jesher, two Hebrew Gospels circulating in the Middle Ages, and 
 extant fragments of the Gospels of the first three Centuries of Petrine and 
 Pauline origin. By the Rev. S. Baring Gould. Crown 8vo. cloth. Js 6d 
 
 Hanson (Sir Richard) The Apostle Paul and the Preaching of 
 
 Christianity in the Primitive Church. By SIR RICHARD DAVIS HANSON, 
 Chief Justice of South Australia, Author of "The Jesus of History," ' Let- 
 ters to and from Rome," etc. 8vo. cloth 125 
 
 Higginson (Rev. E.) Ecce Messias ; or, The Hebrew Messianic Hope 
 and the Christian Reality. By EDWARD HIGGINSON, Author of "The 
 Spirit of the Bible," " Astro-Theology," " Six Essays on Inspiration," etc. 
 8vo. cloth (pub. at i os 6ti) 6$ 
 
 Janet (Paul) The Materialism of the Present Day. Critique on Dr. 
 Buechner's System. Translated by Gustave Masson, B.A. Crown 8vo. 
 cloth 8f
 
 Catalogue of some Works 
 
 Keim's History of Jesus of Nazara, considered in its connection with 
 
 the National Life of Israel, and related in detail. Translated from the German 
 by A. Ransom. 2nd Edition. Vol. I. 8vo. cloth IQS 6d 
 
 Vol. II. Translated by Rev. E. M. GELDART. The Sacred Youth ; Self- 
 Recognition j Decision. 8vo. Cloth los 6d 
 
 Vol. III. Translated by A. RANSOM. (In the Press) 
 
 Vide Theological Translation Fund Library. 
 
 Kuenen (Dr. A.) The Religion of Israel to the Fall of the Jewish 
 
 State. By Dr. A. KUENEN, Professor of Theology at the University, Leyden. 
 Translated from the Dutch by A. H. MAY. 3 vols. 8vo. cloth 31* 6d 
 
 Vide Theological Translation Fund Library. 
 
 Letters to and from Rome in the years A.D. 61, 62, and 63. Trans- 
 lated by C. V. S. Crown 8vo. cloth 25 6d 
 
 Macan (Reg. W.) The Resurrection of Jesus Christ. An Essay 
 in Three Chapters. 8vo. Cloth $s 
 
 Mackay (R. W.) The Tuebingen School and its Antecedents. A 
 
 Review of the History and Present Condition of Modern Theology. 8vo. 
 cloth -105 6d 
 
 Mackay (R. W.) Progress of the Intellect, as exemplified in the 
 Religious Development of the Greeks and Hebrews. 2 vols. 8vo. cloth 245 
 
 Mackay (R. W.) Sketch of the Rise and Progress of Christianity. 
 8vo. cloth (pub. at 105 6d) 6s 
 
 Man's Belief, A : an Essay on the Facts of Religious Knowledge. Cr. 
 8vo. Cloth 25 6d 
 
 Martineau (Rev. Dr. James) Religion as Affected by Modern Material- 
 ism. Fifth Edition is 
 
 Martineau (Rev. Dr. James) Modern Materialism : its Attitude towards 
 Theology. A Critique and Defence. A Sequel to " Religion as affected by 
 Modern Materialism." 8vo. is 6d 
 
 Mind : a Quarterly Review of Psychology. Contributions by Mr. 
 Herbert Spencer, Professor Bain, Mr. G. H. Lewes, The Rector of Lincoln 
 College, Mr. Henry Sidgwick, Mr. Shadworth H. Hodgson, Professor Flint, 
 Mr. James Sully, the Rev. John Venn, Professor T. M. Lindsay, Dr. 
 McKendrick, the Editor (Professor Groom Robertson), and others. Vol. i. 
 1876, 125 cloth 13* 6d J25 per annum, post free 
 
 Muir (Dr. John) Religious and Moral Sentiments. Metrically 
 rendered from Sanskrit Writers ; with an Introduction and Appendix contain- 
 ing exact translations in Prose. Cloth 25
 
 Published by Williams and Norgatc. 
 
 Multum in Parvo. Thoughts for every day in the Year. Selected 
 from the Writings of spiritually-minded persons. By the author of "Visiting 
 my Relations." Crown 8vo. cloth 25 6d 
 
 Pfleiderer (O.) Paulinism. An Essay towards the History of the 
 
 Theology of Primitive Christianity. Translated by E. PETERS, Esq. Vol. I. 
 
 8vo. Cloth 10* 6d 
 
 Vide Theological Translation Fund Library. 
 
 Quarry (Rev. J.) Genesis and. its Authorship. Two Dissertations, 
 i. On the import of the Introductory Chapters of the Book of Genesis, a. 
 On the Use of the Names of God in the Book of Genesis, and on the Unity 
 of its .Authorship. 2nd Edition. With notice of Animadversions by the 
 BISHOP OF NATAL. 8vo. cloth 124 
 
 Reville (Rev. Dr. A.) The Song of Songs, commonly called the Song 
 of Solomon, or the Canticle. Translated from the French. Crown 8vo. 
 cloth is 6d 
 
 Reville (Rev. Dr. A.) The Devil: his Origin, Greatness, and Decadence. 
 Translated from the French of the Rev. ALBERT REVILLE, D.D. and 
 Edition. iamo. Cloth zs 
 
 Samuelson ( Jas.) Views of the Deity, Traditional and Scientific ; a 
 
 Contribution to the Study of Theological Science. By JAMES SAMUELSON, 
 Esq., of the Middle Temple, Barrister-at-Law, Founder and Former Editor of 
 the Quarterly Journal of Science. Crown 8vo. cloth 45 6d 
 
 Second Adam, the, the Seed of the Woman. A Thesis maintaining 
 that Jesus, the only begotten of the Father, is very man, a human person. 
 Crown 8vo. Cloth 6s 
 
 Spencer (Herbert) Works. The Doctrine of Evolution. 
 
 First Principles i6s 
 
 Principles of Biology. 2 vols. 34$ 
 
 Principles of Psychology, a vols. 36* 
 
 Principles of Sociology. Vol. I. 2 is 
 Social Statics ios 
 
 Education 6s 
 
 Essays, a vols. i6s 
 
 Essays (Third Series) 7$ 6d 
 
 Spencer (Herbert) Descriptive Sociology. Compiled and Abstracted 
 
 by Prof. DUNCAN, Dr. SCHEPPIG, and Mr. COLLIER. Folio bds. 
 i. English i8s 
 
 i. Ancient American Races i6s 
 
 3. Lowest Races, Negritos, Polynesians 185 
 
 4. African Races 16$ 
 . Asiatic Races 18*
 
 Catalogue of some Works 
 
 Strauss (Dr. D. F.) New Life of Jesus. The Authorized English 
 Edition. 2 vols. 8vo. cloth %V 
 
 Taine (H.) English Positivism. A Study of John Stuart Mill. 
 Translated by T. D. HAYE. Second Edition. Crown 8vo. cloth 3* 
 
 Taine (H.) The Philosophy of Art. By H. Taine. Crown 8vo. $s 
 
 Tayler (Rev. John James) Last Series of Christian Aspects of Faith 
 and Duty, Discourses. Post 8vo. 7^ ^ 
 
 Tayler (Rev. John James) Letters, embracing his Life, of John James 
 Tayler, Professor of Ecclesiastical History and Biblical Theology; and Prin- 
 cipal of Manchester New College, London. Edited by the Rev. JOHN 
 HAMILTON THOM. 2 vols. in one, 8vo. Portrait. Cheaper Issue lov 6d 
 
 Tayler (Rev. J. J.) An Attempt to Ascertain the Character of the 
 
 Fourth Gospel, especially in its relation to the first three. New Edition. 
 8vo. cloth 5s 
 
 Theological Review : A Journal of Religious Thought and Life. 
 Published Quarterly. Each No. 8vo. 2s 6d. Annual Subscription, post 
 free IQS 
 
 Theological Translation Fund. A Series of Translations, by which 
 the best results of recent Theological investigations on the Continent, con- 
 ducted without reference to doctrinal considerations, and with the sole purpose 
 of arriving at truth, will be placed within reach of English readers. A 
 literature of a more independent character, less biassed by dogmatical proposi- 
 tions, a literature which is represented by such works as those of Ewaid, 
 Hupfeld, F. C. Baur, Zeller, Rothe, Keim, Schrader, Noldeke, &c. in 
 Germany, and by those of Kuenen, Scholten, and others in Holland, it is 
 desired to render accessible to English readers who are not familiar with the 
 languages of the Continent. 
 
 Three Volumes annually, for a Guinea Subscription. The Prospectus, 
 
 bearing the signatures of Principal Tulloch, Dean Stanley, Professors Jowett, 
 
 H. J. Smith, Henry Sidgwick, Dr. Davidson, the Rev. James Martineau, 
 
 . Mr. W. G. Clark, the Revs. T. K. Cheyne, J. Allanson Picton, C. Kegan 
 
 Paul, Principal Caird, and others, may be had. 
 
 12 Volumes published for \. 4$ 
 
 Keim's History of Jesus of Nazara. Vols. I. II. 
 
 Baur's Paul, His Life and Work. 2 vols. 
 
 Kuenen. The Religion of Israel. 3 vols. 
 
 Ewald. Prophets of the Old Testament, Vols. I. II. 
 
 Bleek, On the Apocalypse. 
 
 Zeller, On the Acts of the Apostles. 2 vols.
 
 Published by Williams and Norgate. 
 
 In the Press. 
 
 Keini's Jesus of Nazara. Vol. III. 
 
 Ewald's Prophets. Vol. III. 
 
 Pfleiderer's Paulinismus. Vol. I. 
 
 Baur's First Centuries of the Christian Church. Vol. T. 
 
 Willcock (J. W., Q.C.) The Scriptural Religions, Histories and Pro- 
 phecies, analyzed and examined. Are incredible Narratives of Jews to be 
 treated with more respect than incredible Narratives of other Authors ? If 
 so, why ? Vol. I. 8vo. Cloth 15$ 
 
 Williams (Dr. Rowland) The Hebrew Prophets. Translated afresh, 
 
 and illustrated for English Readers. Two vols. 8vo. cloth 22s 6d 
 
 Vol. i. The Prophets under the Assyrian Empire los 6d 
 
 Vol. ii. The Prophets under the Babylonian Empire 12s 
 
 Williams (Dr. Rowland) Psalms and Litanies, Counsels and Collects, 
 for Devout Persons. By ROWLAND WILLIAMS, D.D., late Vicar of Broad- 
 chalke, sometime Senior and Fellow and Tutor of King's College, Cambridge. 
 Edited by his Widow. Library Edition. Fcap. 4to. cloth extra 12* 6d 
 
 Williams (Dr. Rowland) Broadchalke Sermon Essays. On Nature, 
 Meditation, Atonement, Absolution. Crown 8vo. cloth Js 6d 
 
 Zeller (Dr. E.) The Contents and origin of the Acts of the Apostles 
 
 critically investigated. Preceded by DR. FR. OVERBECK'S Introduction to the 
 Acts of the Apostles from De Wette's Handbook. Translated by JOSEPH 
 DARE. 2 vols. 8vo. cloth aw 
 
 Vide Theological Translation Fund Library. 
 
 PAMPHLETS. 
 
 Athanasian Creed. Two Prize Essays on the Disuse of the Athanasian Creed in 
 the Services of the Church of England. By C. Peabody and C. S. Kenny. 88 pp. 
 8vo. sewed is 
 
 vide also Flower Howe 
 
 Beard (C.) The House of God, and two other Sermons by Rev. R. A. Arm- 
 strong. i2mo. i* 
 
 Butler's Analogy : A Lay Argument. By a Lancashire Manufacturer. Inscribed 
 to the Bishop of Manchester. 8vo. is 
 
 Euthanasia. By S. D. Williams. Reprinted from the " Essays by the Members 
 of the Birmingham Speculative Club." Fourth Edition, with Preface and Thesis by 
 Rose Mary Crawshay. 8vo. 
 
 Flower (J. W.) A Layman's Reasons for Discontinuing the Use of the Athanasian 
 Creed. 8vo.
 
 8 Catalogue of some Works published by Williams and Norgate. 
 
 Hopgood (Jas. R.) Disestablishment and Disendowment of the Church of Eng- 
 land, Reprinted from the Contemporary Review, with Introductory Remarks. 8vo. 
 sewed 64 
 
 Howe (Rev. C.) The Athanasian Creed. Two Discourses. i2mo. sewed is 
 Liberal Christianity. By a Broadchurch Nonconformist. i2mo. 6d 
 
 Marriage of Cana, as read by a Layman 6d 
 
 Martineau (Rev. Dr. James) New Affinities of Faith ; a Plea for Free Christian 
 Union, rarno. is 
 
 Martineau (Professor Russell) The Roots of Christianity in Mosaism. 8vo. is 
 Must God annihilate the Wicked ? A Reply to Dr. Jos. Parker, izmo. is 
 
 Review of the Four Gospels. Part i. Their Evidentiary Value. 8vo. is 
 
 Sidgwick (H.) The Ethics of Conformity and Subscription. By Henry Sidgwick, 
 M.A., late Fellow of Trinity College, Cambridge. lamo. is 
 
 Tayler (Rev. J. J.) Christianity: What is it? and What has it done ? is 
 
 Tayler (Rev. J. J.) A Catholic Christian Church, the Want of our Time is 
 
 Tyssen (A. D.) The Origin of the Week Explained. 8vo. sewed. is 
 
 Upton (Rev. C. B.) Free Teaching and Free Learning in Theology ; or the Place 
 of a Science of Theology amongst University Students. 8vo. sewed is 
 
 Who was Jesus Christ .? 8vo. sewed. 6d 
 
 Wicksteed (Rev. P. H.) The Ecclesiastical Institutions of Holland, treated with 
 special Reference to the Position and Prospects of the Modern School of Theology. 
 A Report presented to the Hibbert Trustees. 8vo. is 
 
 WILLIAMS AND NOEGATE, 
 
 14, HENRIETTA STREET, CO VENT GARDEN, LONDON; 
 AND 20, SOUTH FREDERICK STREET, EDINBURGH.
 
 University of California 
 
 SOUTHERN REGIONAL LIBRARY FACILITY 
 
 305 De Neve Drive - Parking Lot 17 Box 951388 
 
 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90095-1388 
 
 Return this material to the library from which it was borrowed.