?:*,';vi'.-iv^;.'.>5;;jiov';,/.v:>.«u;*!f'::*',) ,:\t .'.' A'i'. ¦:<¦:• -X.-iM'% ivV

,,1,;/
'.¦¦¦Ai':\'M^'r-i'.

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

THE RELIGION OF THE
NEW TESTAMENT

BY THE SAME AUTHOR

A Manual of Introduc
tion to the New Testament
By Prof. BERNHARD WEISS, Ph.D.,
University of Berlin.
Translation! by A. J. K. Davidson
A critical and analytical study of the New
Testament. " The analysis of the sacred writers and their works is very
acute. The foot-notes are a perfect thesaurus of information
upon the literature of the subject under treatment." — Christian
Endeavor World, Boston.
" This is the best of Dr. Weiss's works. — Wesleyan Meth
odist Magazine.
" As a thoroughly complete and satisfactory introduction from
the point of view of a fairly conservative criticism, no book can
compete with Weiss. It is throughout full of knowledge, of
sense, and of vigor." — The Expositor, London.
"The volume is well worth studying as the result of the la
bors of one of the best living German commentators, who,
as it seems, derives his learning solely from German sources.
The student who has already made some progress in New Tes
tament study can not fail to derive much help from it." — The
Record, London.
" An introduction like this is of real value to readers of all
kinds. It gives us an insight into the origin and meaning of
the New Testament, which invests it with deeper interest, and
makes it, in an equal degree, a more living and influential
book." — Baptist Magazine.
Complete in noo vols. 871 pp. Price, $4.00.
FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY, Publishers,
NEW YORK anh LONDON

%ty Religion of \%t
J^eto Cestament

By
Professor Dr. BERNHARD WEISS to
of the University of Berlin

Translated from the German by
Professor GEORGE H. SCHODDE, Ph.D.

FUNK & WAGNALLS COMPANY
NEW YORK and LONDON
1905

Yale Divinity Library

Copyright, 1905
by
Funk & Wagnalls Company
[Printed in the United States of America]
Published, January, JpOf

PREFACE

Fifty years ago I began my academic career in Konigs-
berg with a lecture on the relation of Exegesis to Biblical
theology. The programme that I then developed in the com
paratively new science of Biblical theology has been fully
elaborated in my text book on that subject, of which the
seventh edition has made its appearance. In the same
address the fact was emphasized, that the purely historical
account of the different types of doctrine furnished by a
theology of the New Testament must be supplemented by a
work giving the underlying unity of this diversity. This idea
I had never lost sight of during my university work of half
a century; and I do not wish to close my academic jubilee
year without its consummation.
This is done in the present volume, which is intended not
for the learned alone but for all thinking Christians. The
problem as to what the religion of the New Testament
really is, has become a burning question of the day, and to
this question the present volume is to give a brief but clear
answer. The purpose is not to construe a theological system
and then try to prove it from the Scriptures; but rather to
permit the Scriptures to speak for themselves. Nor is it
my endeavor to furnish an apology for what I regard as
the religion of the New Testament. As I understand the
Scriptures, they alone can furnish the evidences as to
what they are and what they want, and they do this all the
more when their contents are given in an objective and com-
v

vi PREFACE
plete manner. But I cannot suppress the hope that through
the present volumes they will be shown as furnishing to
many others what they have to me, their own proof, namely
that they are the light and the strength of life.
B. WEISS.

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION PAGE
Chapter I. The Essence op Christianity.
1. The Religion of the Old Testament  1
2. The Theocracy of Israel  5
3. Jesus' Announcement of the Kingdom of God . . 8
4. The Kingdom of Heaven  13
5. The Announcement of the Kingdom of God by the
Apostles  16
Chapter LL The Essence of Revelation.
1. The Primitive Revelation  20
2. The Revelation of Redemption in Israel ... 24
3. The Law and the Prophets  28
4. The Revelation in Christ  33
5. The General Outpouring of the Spirit . ... 36
Chapter HE. The Sacred Scriptures.
1. The Old Testament  41
2. Its Inspiration  46
3. The New Testament  50
4. Its Inspiration  53
5. The Perfection of the Scriptures  57
Chapter IV. Religion and Theology.
1. The Church and Theological Science . ... 63
2. The Canon  66
3. Exegesis  69
4. Biblical Theology  73
5. The Religion of the New Testament . ... 76
vii

vj;j CONTENTS PART I
THE CONDITIONS OF REDEMPTION PAGE
Chapter V. The Essence of God.
1. The One True God  85
2. The Glory of God  89
3. Holiness and Righteousness  94
4. Grace and Faithfulness  98
5. The Revelation of the Love of God  102
Chapter VI. The World and Man.
1. Creation as History  107
2. Creation as the Revelation of Love  110
3. Man as a Natural Being  114
4. The Image of God in Man  117
5. The Original State of Man  121
Chapter VII. Sin and its Consequences.
1. The Occasion of the First Sin  125
2. The Origin of Sin  128
3. The Punishment of Sin  131
4. The Universality of Sin  135
5. Original Sin  140
Chapter VIII. The Divine Government op the World.
1. The Continuation of the Fallen World . ... 145
2. The Divine Providence  148
3. Sin and Evil in the Light of the Divine Providence 151
4. The Angels  156
5. The Devil  160
Chapter IX. The Preparation of Redemption.
1. The Heathen World  166
2. The Law of Israel  170
3. The Promise  173
4. The Fulness of Time  177

CONTENTS ix
PART H
THE REDEMPTION IN CHRIST PAGE
Chapter X. The Son of God and of Man.
1. The Messiah and the Sonship of God . ... 183
2. The Eternal Godship of the Son  186
3. The Son of Man and the Incarnation . ... 191
4. The True Human Nature of Jesus  195
5. The Uniqueness of the Human Life of Jesus . . 199
Chapter XI. The Life Work of Jesus.
1. The Realisation of the Religious Ideal . ... 204
2. The Realisation of the Moral Ideal  208
3. The Results of the Activity of Jesus . ... 212
4. Jesus' Prediction of His Death  216
5. The Death of Jesus as a Divine Redemptive Counsel 219
Chapter XII. The Signdicance of Jesus' Death
for Redemption.
1. The Death of Jesus as an Atonement . ... 223
2. The Death of Jesus as a Ransom  228
3. The Death of Jesus as Deliverance from the Power
of Sin  234
4. The Death of Jesus as the Means of Reconciliation 239
5. The Universality of the Redemptive Significance of
the Death of Jesus  243
Chapter XHX The Exaltation of Jesus and the Spirit.
1. Resurrection and Ascension  248
2. The Essence of the Exalted Christ  252
3. The Activity of the Exalted Christ  257
4. The Activity of the Holy Ghost  262
5. The Essence of the Holy Ghost  264
Chapter XIV. Word and Sacrament.
1. The Word as Means of Grace  268
2. Word and Spirit  271

x CONTENTS PAGE
3. Baptism  274
4. The Lord's Supper  278
5. The Two Sacraments  283
PART HI
THE REALIZATION OF REDEMPTION
Chapter XV. Election and Call.
1. The Election  291
2. The Conditions of Election  295
3. The Universality of the Offer of Redemption . . 299
4. The Call as the Work of Divine Grace . . . . 304
5. Election as the Basis of the Certainty of Redemp
tion  307
Chapter XVL Faith in Redemption and the State
of Grace.
1. The Essence of Faith  312
2. Salvation by Faith  317
3. The State of Sonship of God  325
4. The State of Servant of God  330
5. The Inheritance and the Reward  335
Chapter XVII. Regeneration and Sancthtcation.
1. The Essence of Regeneration .... ... 341
2. The Essence of Sanctification  344
3. The Freedom from the Law  348
4. The New Morality  353
5. Ascetics and Adiaphora  359
Chapter XVIII. Preservation and Consummation.
1. The Dangers of Christian Life  366
2. Praying and Watching  371
3. The Judgment According to Works  375
4. The Intermediate State  380
5. The Resurrection  383

CONTENTS xi
PAGE
Chapter XIX. The Church and the Kingdom op God.
1. The Origin of the Church  390
2. The Essence of the Church  393
3. The Upbuilding of the Church  398
4. The Congregational Offices  403
5. The Hope of the Kingdom of God  407
Chapter XX. The Last Things.
1. The Heturn of Christ  411
2. The Anti-Christ  416
3. The Final Judgment  420
4. The New World  426
Index  433

INTRODUCTION

INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER I
THE ESSENCE OF CHRISTIANITY
1. The Religion of the Old Testament.— The New
Testament has no term to express our conception of religion.
This is not accidental, for the New Testament does not recog
nize a number of religions of which the one is only more
perfect than the other, yet all of which have the same
claim to be religion. The New Testament knows of only one
religion, and that is the religion of Israel. Jesus, too, knew
of none other. While yet a youth He went up to Jerusalem
on the national festival of His people in order there to wor
ship after the manner of the pious in Israel. When in the
temple He feels that He is in his Father's house (Luke ii. 49).
His first public appearance was on the occasion when He
cleansed the temple of those who defiled it by buying and
selling (John ii. 16). When the Samaritan woman, who be
lieved that she had discovered in Him a prophet, asked if
it really was necessary, as the Jews claimed, to worship God
in Jerusalem (John iv. 19-20), He bases his decision on the
consciousness of the Israelites, saying: Ye worship ye know
not what; we know what we worship (John iv. 22). Indeed,
without a knowledge of God there could be no worship of
God, no religion, and Israel alone knows the true God. This
statement on the part of Christ may seem surprising, for the
A 1

2 INTRODUCTION
Samaritans certainly were monotheists as well as the Jews;
indeed, their conception of God is generally regarded as
being more spiritual than that of the Jews in Christ's time.
But from this the conclusion must be drawn that Jesus, and
in agreement with him the entire New Testament, did not
find the essence of the knowledge of God in the conceptions
that are entertained concerning the essence of God, but in
the recognition of God in His revelations. To Israel He has
revealed himself in the Law and in the Prophets ; and, because
the Samaritans rejected the entire revelation through the
Prophets and recognized only the Pentateuch, Christ judges
that their knowledge of God is insufficient.
The question here is not what perchance wise and pious
men like Moses and the Prophets had taught, but rather
what God had through them revealed concerning Himself.
It is further clear from the reason which Jesus assigns for
His position, that what the Samaritans lack is a knowledge
of that salvation which God had promised His people through
the Prophets, and which is to come from the Jews (John iv.
22). Their knowledge of God is a false knowledge, for in
the Law, too, God has revealed Himself, only not yet as the
one who is preparing salvation for His people. Jesus thereby
teaches, that revelation is progressive, and that he who does
not recognize God as He can and wants to be recognized in
the progress of His revelations, does not in reality know
Him at all.
But the religion of Israel is older than Moses and the
Prophets, and reaches back to the Patriarchs. In the dis
cussion of the resurrection question, Jesus appeals to the
fact, that God has called Himself the God of Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob (Mark xii. 26, referring to Ex. iii. 6). This does
not mean, that He is the God whom the Patriarch worshiped,
but rather the God who through his revelations had entered

THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 3
into a personal relationship with them ; for Christ draws the
conclusion that this relationship, in accordance with the
essence of God, must necessarily be unchangeable. But with
the consciousness of this personal relationship with God true
religion as such can only begin. But God stands in exactly
the same relationship to the descendants of the fathers, who
can boast of God as their God (Rom. ii. 17). Paul finds in
the promise that God would be Israel's God and that they
shall be His people (Lev. xxvi. 12), the evidences of a rela
tionship between God and them, which promises salvation
and blessing to Israel. For he takes the position that this
relationship has been fully realized only in Christianity
(2 Cor. vi. 16), and delights to call God his God in the same
sense (Rom. i. S). From this it is evident that the knowl
edge of God which lies at the foundation of Israel's religion
does not consist in the knowledge of certain abstract truths
concerning His essence, and that the revelation concerning
Him does not consist in information about these truths, but
rather is based on an historical manifestation of the purposes
concerning salvation, which God has in mind to realize in
His people. As surely as their manifestation was progressive
in character, so surely, too, must Israel's religion be a pro
gressive development. But it is the same God of the fathers
who is recognized and worshiped in it, and who is proclaimed
by Jesus in His discussion with the Samaritan woman.
Paul, too, knew of no other God than the one who had
already been revealed in the Old Testament, as can be
seen from this, that, whenever he has anything to say con
cerning the nature of God, he nearly always expressly
appeals to the Old Testament. It is for this reason, that,
in the address delivered on Mars' Hill in the city of Athens,
on which occasion he evinced most clearly his purpose to
find a connecting link for his sermon in the heathen religious
consciousness, he declares that he is proclaiming to them
the God whose real character they do not know, as they

4 INTRODUCTION
themselves acknowledge by the erection of altars to The
Unknown God." He admits, that the multitude of their
altars and sanctuaries indeed shows that they are more
Godfearing than other people; but the very expression that
he chooses indicates that he does not pass a judgment on the
object and the character of their divine worship (Acts xvii.
22-23). This is not the place to show how the great Apostle
of the Gentiles, who has penetrated into the essence and
origin of Gentile thought more deeply than anybody else,
viewed this matter from his religious viewpoint. But be
cause the heathen nations do not know the God of Israel
and do not worship Him as their God in the Old Testament
sense, they really do not know God at all, but live without
God in the world (Gal. iv. 8; Eph. ii. 12). What we call
the religion of the Gentiles he does not consider any religion
at all, because for him there is but one religion, and that is
the religion of Israel. This is the absolutely true religion,
because it is based on the self revelation of God, of which
the Old Testament bears testimony. There are no improve
ments to be made in this religion ; there is nothing false in it
that needs to be removed.
But for the reason that the revelation in the Old Testa
ment appears in an historical and progressive character, the
religion of Israel is not the perfection of religion. For the
Old Testament everywhere points to something beyond itself,
to a final and highest revelation of God. Since this has ap
peared in Christ there is not true knowledge of God except
the knowledge through Him. The unbelieving Jews with
whom Jesus deals do not know God, because they do not rec
ognize Christ as the one sent by God as His final revelation
(John vii. 28; viii. 19). They call God their God, but they
do not know and do not want to know Him as Jesus knows
Him, and as God has revealed Himself in Jesus : as the God
who is effecting the consummation of salvation (John viii.
54-55). Here again it is seen that what Jesus calls knowledge

THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 5
of God does not consist in the more or less adequate concep
tion which a person entertains concerning God. Jesus frank
ly acknowledged the zeal with which the scribes of His day
studied the Old Testament ; He rebuked them, however, for
being content with this and did not suffer themselves to be
led to Him by the Scripture that certainly did testify of
Him (John v. 39-40). The trouble was that they did not
understand the Old Testament because they did not study
it in the light of the fulfilment that had come with Him.
The religion of Jesus is none other than the religion of the
Old Testament; but because only in Him the perfect revela
tion of God had appeared, true religion also becomes per
fectly realized only in Him. The Epistle to the Hebrews
also emphasizes the prophecy, that in a new covenant God
would be the God of Israel (Jer. xxxi. 33), in the sense that
only this new covenant would bring with it the full blessings
of religion. The author of this Epistle sees this prophecy
fulfilled in the New Covenant, which Jesus established
through his redemptive work (Heb. viii. 10), because
through this covenant the promised blessings have for the
first time all become our own. The Revelation of St. John
even finds that primitive promise of Israel (Lev. xxvi. 12),
for the fulfillment of which all the Prophets had hopefully
looked, entirely fulfilled only in the final consummation
which lies beyond all history, in which the final goal of all the
divine plans of redemption is to be realized.
2. The Theocracy of Israel. — It is of fundamental
significance for the knowledge of God in Israel that the
essence of God as made known through revelation became
the norm for all His worshipers. The whole Law is based on
the principle : " Ye shall be holy : for I am holy " (Lev. xi.
44). The religion of Israel recognizes no difference between
religion and morality. What the Scriptures call truth is
both the known will of God as also the known essence of God.
The truth is not only to be known (John viii. 32) but also

6 INTRODUCTION
to be done (John iii. 21). A worship of God which does not
at the same time bring with it the fulfilment of the will of
God is in reality a dishonoring of God, because it would
seem that God is not able to secure an obedience to His will
on the part of His worshipers (Rom. ii. 23-24). The right
eousness of man is that condition in which he conforms to
the norm of the divine will (Deut. vi. 25). This will of
God Israel finds in its Law. This Law not merely demands
certain cultus forms, in which the correct worship of God
finds its expression, but it contains also the regulations for
all the affairs of the family, society, and the state. Israel
was to be a Theocracy, i. e., a nation that recognized God as
its Lord and His will as its only law. This Law by no means
refers only to certain outward performances of a cultus or of
an ethical kind. At the head of all the Commandments and
Ordinances are found these words: "Thou shalt love the
Lord thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul and
with all thy might" (Deut. vi. 5). It is clear that the
further development at once shows that by these words are
not meant indefinite religious feelings, which surely no
body can artificially awaken in himself, and which accord
ingly can guide nobody. The commandment rather demands
that religious mind which, because it does not forget the
mercies of God, wants to serve Him alone (Deut. vi. 12-13),
and which accordingly can be instilled from early youth
(Deut. vi. 7 sqq.). The Decalogue closes with the words:
" Thou shalt not covet anything that is thy neighbor's " (Ex.
xx. 17) ; and the Commandment, " Thou shalt love thy
neighbor as thyself," is the seal upon the words : " I am the
Lord" (Lev. xix. 18), which show that this love also does
not consist in feelings, but is to be exercised in accordance
with the will of the Lord.
This revelation of the divine will Jesus also knew full
well. He did not come to destroy the Law and the Prophets
(Matt. v. 17) ; He purposes only to fulfil them and to teach

THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 7
how to fulfil them in accordance with the will of God that
has been revealed to Him, but which will could not find
ample and complete expression in the Law that had been
given for the direction of the national life of Israel. Only
these plants which his Heavenly Father has not planted he
intends to root out (Matt. xv. 13). It was because of the
holiness of the divine law that He antagonizes those human
traditions which the theology of the day had heaped upon
the Scriptures, thereby in many cases making the Word of
none effect. In the words of an Old Testament prophet
(Is. xxix. 13) He tells the religious leaders and guides of the
people, that their service of God is of no avail because their
doctrines are the ordinances of men (Mark vii. 6 sqq.).
He finds nothing to add to the Old Testament Law and noth
ing to subtract from it as a human addition. In this law
Israel had everything that it needed to realize in its Theoc
racy the true religion.
But Old Testament Judaism, too, was deeply saturated with
this conviction that this ideal had not yet been realized in
its national existence. All the Prophets upbraid the people
and their leaders for their sins ; all exhort them to fulfil the
divine will The seers of Israel never believe that this ideal
has been perfectly attained, yet at the same time they never
fail to he filled with the confident certainty, that a time
would come when this ideal of the Theocracy would be
realized in Israel's national existence. It is true that they
never based this hope on a gradual development of the people,
though to this they were ever confidently looking forward.
It is only the last and final revelation of God, of which men
tion has been made above, to which the Old Testament points,
when it expects a new act on the part of God in which the
manifestations of His mercy toward His people are to be com
pleted, when God will effect the perfect realization of the
religion of Israel. This is the kernel of the Messianic hopes
which in various shapes and forms are found in all of the

8 INTRODUCTION
Prophets. It is not correct to say that the hopes for the
realization of this ideal in Israel had been limited in a
particularistic way. The Old Testament constantly points
to this, that, when the Messianic era shall dawn, in which
the religion of Israel shall have been realized in the life of
the people, then the nations from far and near would join
the Theocracy and worship the God of Israel. These are
not dreams of political supremacy or world power, but only
the natural and necessary expression of the conviction, that
wherever the true religion develops its full blessings, there
it possesses an irresistible power of attraction, through which
it exercises a propaganda that embraces all mankind. It is
true that the opinion is entertained that these blessings as
expressed in the Messianic hopes of Israel were often con
ceived to be of a very external nature and to consist in a
suitable reward of earthly goods. But the expectation that,
together with the religious and moral perfection of Israel's
national life, there was to be a time of the richest blessings
for Israel, was no carnal dream, but was based on the funda
mental conceptions of the true religion, according to which
the religious and the secular life are not separate spheres,
but mutually condition each other. If the fulfilment of the
divine will is the perfect completion of religion, then, too,
the highest salvation of man must include the earthly life
also. For the will of God demands of man only that which
aids his salvation, and this salvation must be realized in
his outward as much as in his inner life.
3. Jesus' Announcement of the Kingdom of God. —
Historically considered it cannot be questioned that Jesus
based His proclamation on these Messianic hopes of His peo
ple. Accordingly, only on the ground of these presupposi
tions can the essence of Christianity be understood. It is
impossible that Christianity should claim to be a new reli
gion, for the one true religion has been given in the Old
Testament and is accepted by Jesus as such. But this

THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 9
religion has not yet been realized in Israel; the religion that
is objectively contained in the Old Testament has not yet
become a subjective religion, nor has it yet become a reality
in the life of the nation. Israel has at all times been hoping
for the time when this would be the case; and this hope is
now being fulfilled. Jesus appears with the announcement,
that the fulness of time has come, and that the kingdom
of God is at hand (Mark i. 15). The time of preparation,
which was destined to continue until the completion of the
Theocracy, as this was promised and expected, has passed
by; the fulfilment of all that Israel had ever hoped for, is
at hand. Jesus brings these conceptions together in the idea
of the "Kingdom of God. But it is perfectly useless to con
struct out of his addresses an exact conception of what he
meant by this thought. Jesus never explains this idea; he
everywhere presupposes that it is known. What he means
by it is nothing else than the completion of the Theocracy
as expected in Israel, and thereby also the realization of the
religious ideal as given in the Old Testament. It is one of
the most manifest providential dispensations that this con
ception of Jesus, which He brings in close touch and contact
with the historical situation, contains also a significance of
a general historico-religious nature. Not a new religion did
Jesus purpose to bring, but the realization of the one true
religion in the Kingdom of God.
It is true that in the beginning of His ministry He merely
states that the Kingdom of God is at hand. But it is useless
to claim, that by this He only points to a goal in the distant
future, which, however near or distant it may be thought,
would not put in its appearance before the end of days in
the new world, and that the idea of the Kingdom of God is
to be understood in a purely eschatological sense. From the
very beginning Jesus declared that in Him and in His ap
pearance the predictions of the Old Testament were being
fulfilled (Luke iv. 17-21) ; that His disciples had found in

10 INTRODUCTION
him what the Prophets and the pious men of the Old Testa
ment had longed to see (Matt. xiii. 17). But the Old Testa
ment knows of only one consummation, which is to be estab
lished by the Messiah in and with His appearance among the
people as He finds these. John the Baptist, who was begin
ning to doubt Jesus, because nothing was yet seen of the
form in which he himself expected to see this realization, is
directed by Jesus to the fact that the promised signs were
already being fulfilled (Matt. xi. 3"6). He proves to the
Pharisees that in His victory over the satanic powers on
earth the Kingdom of God had come (Matt. xii. 28).
It was conditioned by the historical circumstances amid
which Jesus began his work, that He for a long time care
fully refrained from making the direct claims of his Mes-
siahship. When He entered Jerusalem for the last time He
accepted for Himself the honors of the Messianic king
(Mark xi. 8-10). He claimed to be the Messiah who had
been predicted in the Old Testament and whom the people
were expecting; and before the Sanhedrin He solemnly laid
claim to the Messianic dignity (Mark xiv. 62). But a
Messiah who does not bring the Kingdom of God, but only,
after the manner of the Prophets, predicts anew its advent is,
in the religion of the Old Testament, a self-contradiction.
In His person the realization of the true religion was given
and through His activity this should also be effected in the
people. If the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater
than the greatest born of woman (Matt. xi. 11), then there
must already be some who are in this kingdom and have
entered into it (Matt. xxi. 31). To those who ask concern
ing the coming of the Kingdom of God Jesus answers, that
the kingdom is already within them (Luke xvii. 21). The
Kingdom of God is compared with the field, in which a
treasure is hid, or with the goodly pearl, which a man buys
(Matt. xiii. 44~46). It is accordingly a present good, that

THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT H
can be received, if like a child in the consciousness of need
one longs for it (Mark x.. 15).
This is indeed the secret of the Kingdom of God which
Jesus announces in His Parables (Mark iv. 11), that this
good is not bestowed upon the nation without his co-opera
tion; that it will not, as the people expected, be realized by
an act of power on the part of God in the forms of the
national Theocracy. Jesus realized it through a spiritual
activity, the success of which depends upon the condition of
the heart, just as the success of the sower depends upon the
nature of the field upon which his seed falls (Luke viii. 5_8).
But the essence of this kingdom at all times consists in the
promised realization of the Old Testament Theocracy. Jesus
did not disclose this to His disciples in the form of theo
retical discussion; but in the prayer which He taught them
to use He put it upon their own lips. When each single indi
vidual calls upon God as his Father, then the religious ideal
of Israel has been realized, as they found it in this, that they
knew that as a nation they were chosen to be the child of
God. When the will of God is done on earth as it is done in
heaven (Matt. vi. 10), then the Kingdom of God has come
and the ideal of the true religion has been realized in the
national life of the people. For the will of God signifies the
establishment of righteousness upon earth; and those who
hunger and thirst after righteousness are to be filled, because
the Kingdom of God is theirs (Matt. v. 3, 6). But this does
not exclude, that all the blessings of earthly life, which the
Prophets had promised, are to come with the Kingdom of
God. Jesus has not deprived His people of these promises;
for those who seek first the Kingdom of God, to them these
things shall be added (Luke xii. 31). But these are things
that are added; the main thing still is the realization of
righteousness, as the first evangelist explains, in full accord
with the meaning of Jesus (Matt. vi. 33).
It has been said that if Jesus had regarded the Kingdom

12 INTRODUCTION
of God as already present he would somewhere in a direct
way have designated the circle of His disciples as this king
dom. But this He could not do. For even if the Kingdom
of God had entered upon its realization in His disciples, this
realization would still in the nature of the case be a pro
gressive development. They still were called upon to seek
the Kingdom of God and to pray for its advent. The ideal
of religion in each case is realized only to that degree in
which the distance from the ideal is felt, and in which one
seeks it with work and with prayer. The idea that the King
dom of God was present in the disciples, and that the ideal
had been realized, would have destroyed this feeling and
would have weakened their efforts. In the man in this world,
where each hour brings new duties, this realization is and ever
will be in the state of development. None is good, but one,
and that is God (Mark x. 18) ; but man can never get beyond
the stage of becoming good. To this another thing must be
added. The Kingdom of God, according to prediction, is
to be realized in the national life of Israel, and is to be the
completion of the national Theocracy. Every direct -designa
tion of the circle of the disciples as the Kingdom of God
would have appeared as a departure from the realization on
the part of the nation as a whole. In how far such a de
parture would eventually take place did not depend upon
Jesus alone; only the future would show this. At any rate
He labored to the end for this; and He never separates His
disciple-congregation from the great national congregation,
nor does He devote himself exclusively to the former. Also
after His death and when at His command Peter organized
the first Messiah-congregation, the directions were given that
it should continue His work among the people, until these as
a nation had been won for the faith in the crucified and
risen Lord. Only then could be effected in all Israel the
realization of the Kingdom of God, for which the Prophets

THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 13
had hoped; but the consummation of this project depended
upon the further attitude of the people.
4. The Kingdom of Heaven. — But if the Kingdom of
God should become a reality in Israel or in the surrounding
nations, which Jesus had already appointed as the heirs of
Israel in case that His people failed to fulfil their mission,
even this could not constitute the final consummation of the
Kingdom of God. The same principle that applies to the
individual is applicable to the nations also, namely, that here
upon earth the realization of the ideal can never pass beyond
the stage of a development. This indeed appears to obliterate
the specific difference between the Messianic time that was
inaugurated with the advent of Jesus, and the preparatory
stage marked by the Old Testament. The ideal of the King
dom of God, in which the true religion is realized, was found
also in the Old Testament. A certain kind of a beginning
in its realization was already found in the Theocracy of
Israel, however imperfect this may have been. If Jesus
could do no more than bring about a beginning of its
realization in the individuals and in the nation, wherein then
did the new element consist, by which the Messiah of Israel
differed from the Prophets, who also had hoped and labored
for this realization ? It is found in this, that with His advent
that act of God had taken place, for which the Prophets
had been looking in hope. He was the highest and the last
divine revelation, which gave the guaranty for the realization
of the longed-for goal; in His appearance the means had been
given through which this goal could be attained. In the
Old Testament times the religious ideal of Israel could not
yet be realized, because the prerequisites for this were yet
wanting, because there were as yet no means for a full de
liverance from the guilt of sin and no real impulse and power
to do the will of the Lord. In the person and the work of
Christ all of these conditions were fulfilled for this, and that,
too, in a most effective manner, which made its success abso-

14 INTRODUCTION
lutely certain. The beginning of the Kingdom of God which
He inaugurated was not of a kind that it could have failed
of a completion, on the ground that the means for the attain
ment of this object could have been wanting. This beginning
furnished the certainty that the goal would be attained.
Christianity alone knows of a religious life, in which, if it
is once really begun, there is found the full consumma
tion, in which and with which in close union with the pres
ence of redemption the whole future of redemption is cer
tainly also ideally given.
This future completion of the Kingdom of God does as
a matter of fact point to a time beyond this world of limita
tions and imperfections, in which an absolute realization of
the ideal is not yet attainable. Without a doubt Jesus spoke
also of this final completion of this kingdom, which is to be
expected only in the world beyond, in a way not yet contem
plated by the Old Testament. Entrance into this kingdom
is the highest promise Jesus makes (Mark x. 23 sqq.) ; this
is identical with entrance into eternal life (Matt, xviii.
8-9). The determination of those who are to participate in
this kingdom is reserved for the final judgment (Matt. xxiv.
34), and this decision is made dependent upon their relation
to the Kingdom of God now at hand. He who does not re
ceive the latter with the simplicity of a child, cannot possibly
enter the former (Mark xi. 15). Only for that person who
is already in possession of the redemption now at hand
does the promised completion of the same possess a real
worth and a tangible reality. On the other hand, the cer
tainty of that future redemption, as promised and guaranteed
by Jesus, is only the last of the means by which He secures
the realization for the kingdom He has founded. For the
ideal as such has no impelling power ; only the certainty that
it can be and will be realized gives to the efforts to attain it
the strength that never grows weary.
How firmly this certainty has impressed itself on the

THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 15
Christian consciousness is seen from a peculiar expression
used by the first gospel. At the same time when the de
struction of the national state of Israel made it for all times
impossible that this ideal should be realized in the historic
Theocracy, this evangelist begins to apply to this completion
of the Kingdom of God the term " Kingdom of Heaven,"
i. e., the kingdom that is realized in heaven. He and he
alone it is who puts into the discourses of Jesus the ex
pression " Kingdom of Heaven," and that too not only in
those that speak of the completion of the kingdom of God,
but also in those that speak of this kingdom as already pres
ent (Matt. v. 19; xiii. 52; xviii. 4). In his eyes the King
dom of God as established by Jesus upon earth was in all
eases already the beginning and the pledge of its heavenly
consummation. Thereby the idea has been definitely exclud
ed that Jesus had intended to make preparations only for a
future Kingdom of God, and that the kingdom was to be
found only in the world to come. Here the modern recon
struction of the proclamation of Jesus, which claims that this
was formed on the basis of contemporaneous history, comes
into close and most dangerous proximity to the perfectly
unhistorical conception which declares that the essence of
Christianity, in which religion attains its perfection, consists
in this, that it merely prepares man for heaven. But it was
Jesus' purpose to bring about the realization of the Kingdom
of God in His people and thereby He has implanted into Chris
tianity the impetus to realize the religious ideal already here
upon earth, in so far as this can be done consistently with the
limitations and imperfection of all that is of the earth.
In the beginning of this realization in a manner that
brings with it the certainty of its completion, is to be found
also the guaranty that Christianity is the absolute religion.
If there were such a thing as a gradation of religions, of
which the one is more perfect than the other, then none could
ever claim that it is the absolutely perfect creed. For under

16 INTRODUCTION
the conditions of time, which are subject to the law of
growth, the proof can never be brought, that any particular
religion which we would to-day consider as the most perfect
would not be crowded into the background to-morrow by
one that is still more perfect. But if there is but one true
religion, the realization of which according to the law of
human development can only be of a progressive character,
then the acme of the history of religion has been actually
attained, and its realization assured, when it needs no other
means for its realization than those found in Christianity.
5. The Announcement of the Kingdom of God by the
Apostles. — Surprise has often been expressed that the idea of
the Kingdom of God, which constitutes the centre of Jesus'
discourses, is virtually ignored in such a noteworthy manner
in the preaching of the Apostles. Of course we are compelled
on this subject to distinguish between different groups in
the remnants of the Apostolic preaching that have been
handed down to us. In the preaching of the earliest Apos
tolic times the feeling is emphasized that the Kingdom of
God as Jesus has founded it in Israel, and as Peter still seeks
to bring it about by his sermon of repentance (Acts iii.
20-21), was not realized on account of the conduct of the
people. Accordingly there remains only the hope of the
completion in the world beyond; and this is the real heart
and soul of all the earliest preaching of the Apostles. The
faithful feel that they are already in possession of redemp
tion (James ii. 5). That this term "Kingdom of God," oc
curs so rarely in the Apostles is to be explained on the ground,
that the return of Jesus, which marks that consummation, is
everywhere found in the foreground of apostolic thought and
as its clearest and most tangible object. On this idea is based
the whole exhortation of the Epistle of James ; indeed, it can
be said that this is the sole specifically Christian element in
this letter. Throughout in the manner of Old Testament
faith, the readers are admonished to fulfil the Law. which.

THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 17
however, is very evidently already understood in the manner
of Jesus, and to be patient in suffering. For both, the speedy
return of the Judge is the leading motive. The First Epistle
of Peter starts out from the regeneration to a lively hope;
the theme of the letter is the heavenly inheritance, as the
Kingdom of God in its complete realization is termed (cf.
Heb. ix. 15), because we can now already be sure of par
ticipating in it (1 Pet. i. 3-4). But here already we find
as a ground for this the fact that in the congregation of
believers out of Israel the religious ideal of the Old Testa
ment has been realized (1 Pet. ii. 9~10), in that sense in
which Jesus purposed to realize it in the present Kingdom
of God. For this reason the exhortation of this epistle is
directed constantly and steadily to a more complete realiza
tion of this ideal (1 Pet. i. 15). In a very marked way the
significance of the death of Christ for salvation is made
prominent (1 Pet. i. 18, 19; ii. 24; iii. 18) ; but the deepest
motive for this exhortation is nevertheless always to be found
in the hopes of the Christians. Not without good reasons
has Peter been called the Apostle of Hope. The second
epistle that bears his name everywhere purposes to fight
against the danger that threatens the development of a Chris
tian life by holding up the hope of the return of Christ over
against the doubt that had been awakened by the delay in his
reappearance. The Gentile Christians, indeed, to whom the
letter is written, who know nothing of the hopes of Israel,
are reminded only of the everlasting Kingdom of our Lord
and Savior Christ (2 Pet. i. 11), as it shall be realized after
the destruction of the present world in a new heaven and
a new earth (2 Pet. iii. 13). All the more the promise of
Israel constitutes the central thought of the Epistle to the
Hebrews. The purpose of the entire exhortation of this writ
ing is to make the reader cling to this hope at a time when
the failure of the return of the Messiah had began to shake
this faith. A foundation is built for this hope by the demon-
B

18 INTRODUCTION
stration on a grand scale, that in Christ, or rather in his
high priestly atoning sacrifice, with which the Messianic
era of salvation has been inaugurated, the conditions are for
the first time fulfilled for the realization of the kingdom
which cannot be moved (Heb. xii.. 28), and which the old
covenant with its means could not- achieve. Entirely in
agreement with the proclamation of Jesus concerning the
kingdom the believers from all the nations constitute a king
dom in the Apocalypse of St. John, which Christ has prepared
for God (Rev. i. 6, 9; v. 10). In the visions of this book
the point at issue is always to show, that as a result of the
final contests the kingdom of the world becomes that of God
and His Christ (Rev. xi. 15). It can be claimed that the
entire preaching of the primitive Apostolic times has an
eschatological coloring.
In this regard a change is observable when we come to the
Apostle Paul. Naturally for him also, from the very outset
the consummation of the Kingdom of God in the world
beyond constitutes the final goal of the Christian hope
(1 Thess. ii. 11; 2 Thess. i. 5); but for him the Kingdom
of God, entirely in accordance with the teachings of Jesus,
has become an ideal which is realized already in this world
in righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost (Rom.
xiv. 17). In the justification through grace achieved through
the redemptive death of Christ, and in the adoption into son-
ship by God, the religious ideal is already realized in the
present world. Through the agency of the Holy Ghost, who
becomes the source of the new life in the believers, the ethical
idea is progressively realized. Now already they are changed
into the image of the glory of the Lord, which they are at
the same time also to possess bodily (2 Cor. iii. 18). Now
already we are saved for the future goal of our hope (Rom.
viii. 24; cf. Eph. ii. 5), although the finished redemption
can be attained only when we are transformed into the life
of the exalted Son of God (Rom. v. 10). The center of the

THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT 19
whole Pauline proclamation of redemption is found in the
salvation which Christ has achieved for the present time,
in which the future consummation is already guaranteed.
But it was reserved for that apostle through whom the
religion of the New Testament attained its most exalted
expression, fully to develop this viewpoint. Only a single
time is there heard in the discourses of Christ as transmitted
by John the echo of the idea of the Kingdom of God (John
iii. 3, 5). But exactly as Jesus purposed to realize the King
dom of God already in this world, so that it might come in
the future world, the writer of the fourth gospel starts out
from that which in the world beyond is to constitute the
actual contents of our blessedness, " Blessed are the pure in
heart; for they shall see God" (Matt. v. 8). In this seeing
of God consists the blessedness of the eternal life in the world
beyond. But this seeing God begins already in this world,
when we through faith see God in Christ. He that believes
has eternal life ; he has passed through death into life (John
v. 24). And he only who has life in this world will Jesus
also awaken unto the life beyond the grave on the last day
(John vi. 20). He who has not seized upon the highest
good in this world cannot attain it in the next. The Apostles
were not sent out to repeat the words of Jesus but to in
terpret them to meet the needs of their own times. It is
possible to count how rarely they have made use of his
expression " Kingdom of God." But however different their
individualities were, as also how different their methods of
preaching in accordance with the circumstances and times,
their Christianity was none other than the Christianity of
Christ.

CHAPTER II
THE ESSENCE OF REVELATION
1. The Primitive Revelation.— What the New Testa
ment calls Revelation is not the supernatural communication
of facts about God and divine things, but an actual making
known the transcendental in the world of sense, because
all the knowledge of man comes from experience, and that
from without. The fact that something concerning the nature
of God can at all become known, is attributed by the Apostle
Paul (Rom. i. 9) to this, that He has made himself known, in
so far as His invisible being and His eternal power and god
head are seen from the creation of the world, in everything that
He has produced (Rom. i. 20). " The heavens declare the glory
of God; and the firmament showeth His handiwork," is al
ready affirmed by the Old Testament (Ps. xix. 1). But this
revelation is ever of a progressive kind. God has not left
Himself without witness among men, in that He did good,
and gave rain from heaven and fruitful seasons, filling the
hearts with food and gladness (Acts xiv. 17). Jesus makes
use of these revelations of God in nature, when He proves
the all comprehensive goodness of God by declaring, that He
maketh His sun to rise on the evil and on the good and sends
rain on the just and on the unjust (Matt. v. 45) ; and when
in speaking of the providence of God for His creatures He
points to the birds of the air, which He feeds, and the flowers
of the field that He clothes (Matt. vi. 26, 28-30). But in the
historical development of the heathen world also, which step
by step gradually sank into the depths of religious and moral
corruption, Paul sees a revelation of the wrath of God from
20

THE ESSENCE OF REVELATION 21
heaven (Rom. i. 18). All history, i. e., the vicissitudes in
the life of the nations, is for him a progressive revelation of
God. In the way in which the nations are scattered over the
earth by God and in the boundaries and times that He has
determined for them, the Apostles sees the manifest purposes
of God (Acts xvii. 26-27).
But to understand these manifestations of God there is
need of a special organ. Since man is made out of the dust
of the earth (1 Cor. xvii. 47), he did not in his material
nature possess this organ. But when Paul declares, that the
first man became a living soul, he thereby refers back to
Genesis ii. 7, according to which this took place by God's
breathing into man's nostrils the breath of life. There is
accordingly, because of this original inspiration, an element
in man related to the divine, which as such enables him to
understand these divine manifestations as they are. The
invisible nature of God becomes visible through the works
of creation, when they are understood by the power of intelli
gence (Rom. i. 20). This is the spiritual eye, from the con
dition of which, according to the words of Jesus, is made
dependent the capability of man to receive within himself
the light of the divine revelation, which in itself shines with
sufficient brightness (Luke xi. 33-34). This element in man,
that is related to the divinity, also makes it possible, that
the will of God can be revealed to him as also the essence
of God. By the side of all the impulses that originate in his
material nature, the higher impulse also makes itself felt,
which thwarts and regulates the former. In this inner
experience also an original revelation of God appears. Paul
says of the heathen people, that the works demanded by the
Law are written in their hearts (Rom. ii. 15). But this
natural consciousness of moral duties must also be recog
nized by reason as the will of God that has been revealed
to us (Rom. xii. 2). If this is done, then all the conditions
are present in primitive revelation for the realization of

22 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
religion. But that, too, would not be a "natural religion";
it too would be dependent on divine revelation.
Even if in certain particulars the beginnings of this reli
gion are in a degree realized, and even if the Epistle to the
Hebrews counts among the men of the olden times, of whom
the Old Testament speaks, Abel, Enoch, Noah, as those, who
on account of their faith were pleasing to God (Heb. xi. 4~7),
and if Paul does speak of those who by nature do the will of
God (Rom. ii. 14r26-27) ; and if according to St. John scat
tered children of God are to be found also among the
heathens (John xi. 52), notwithstanding all this, a realiza
tion of this religion among mankind at large has not been
achieved. The impressions made upon the natural powers
of man by manifestations of God in the world within and
around him could lead to a real knowledge and worship of
God only if man would subject himself to Him and suffer
Him to determine his thought at will. But this did not take
place. Men did not recognize the God who manifested Him
self in His revelation as He is, nor did they glorify Him for
his goodness (Rom. i. 21). It was human pride that refused
to acknowledge a being above man; and the selfishness that
receives the gift but forgets the giver, Paul calls the un
righteousness of man by which he hinders the development
of truth in their consciousness (Rom. i. 18). Instead of
filling their minds with this highest object of all thought,
they have directed them to that which is vain and useless
by nature (Rom. i. 21) ; they did not consider it worth while
to attain to a true knowledge of God (Rom. i. 28). In this
way the ability that had originally been bestowed upon them
was lost, since all power grows only by exercise, but is lost
through neglect, their hearts having become incapable of
appreciating the divine have become dark (Rom. i. 21) ; or,
as we are told in Eph. iv. 17-18, because their minds were
emptied of their highest contents men have become dark
ened in their whole sense and thought. Jesus had already

THE ESSENCE OF REVELATION 23
declared, that if the spiritual eye is evil then all is darkness
(Luke xi. 34-35).
The same is true of the revelation of God in the moral
consciousness originally implanted into man. If man is not
willing to recognize the will of God that has in this way been
implanted into him, then he gives himself up to the lusts
of his own heart (Rom. i. 24) until his mind is gradually
incapacitated from knowing the will of God (Rom. i. 28).
The heart becomes more and more hardened, so that it no
longer recognizes the divine impulse that has been implanted
into him as that what it is; and having been incapacitated
to receive its influence, it gives itself up to the gratification
of the lowest desires (Eph. iv. 18-19). It is this unbridled
supremacy of the senses that prevents man from doing the
will of God, just as his selfish pride restrains him from doing
honor to God. It is natural that the needs that had been
awakened by the ability of man to receive religious impulses
could not be entirely crushed. Hence came those impotent
efforts of the gentile peoples by their own reason and power
to make religions for themselves, which the New Testament
pronounces mere caricatures of true religion. As a matter
of fact, the original revelation of God has not resulted in
the realization of religion in mankind. This was not the
case because this revelation did not in itself possess the
power to establish religion in the hearts of men, but because
the greater power of sin in man made this revelation in
effective. H notwithstanding this, religion should yet become a reality,
a new revelation of God was a necessity, which with new
means would be able to overcome that obstacle which had
made it impossible for the original revelation to attain its
purposes. If it was sin that brought men into that non-
religious state that leads to destruction, then it was necessary
to inaugurate a new plan of redemption, by which sin could
be overcome and the realization of religion be made possible.

24 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
As little as mankind, enslaved by the power of sin was by
its own power able to deliver itself from its oppressor, so
little could natural reason come to a knowledge of the means
which God applied in order to effect the conquest of sin.
But in this instance too the new revelation could not consist
in the communication of new knowledge, which man,
made incapable through sin to receive that which is divine,
would not have been able even to appropriate and would not
have been able to impel man on to the consummation of true
religion, since his will was enslaved by sin. This revelation
could consist only in new historical manifestations of God,
which made it possible for men in an effective way to see and
praise God; it could consist only in a new revelation of
redemption. 2. The Revelation of Redemption in Israel. — The
New Testament everywhere points to the Israelites as recip
ients of the divine revelation through which the true religion
is to be established. Thus distinction is made between the
original revelation and that of redemption. The former was
the same for all men. It made known the same things and by
the same means to primitive man and to all others. If man
kind as such had been incapacitated, through the original
revelation that constituted their common possession to realize
this religion, then it became necessary for the revelation of
redemption to address itself to the individuals, in order
first of all in these and through these and among those
under their influence to attain these ends. This is the
sense in which the New Testament declares that Abra
ham and the Patriarchs were chosen by God (Acts xiii.
17). In the fact that God appeared to Abraham while he was
still in Mesopotamia and directed him to leave his native
land and his family, Stephen, in Acts vii. 2, 3, sees the ful
fillment of this selection. The Old Testament history tells us
also of other and similar visions to him and the Patriarchs
Of what nature these were we are not informed. No certain

THE ESSENCE OF REVELATION 25
historical knowledge reaches up to these primitive times ; and
religious experiences like those lauded in Heb. xi. 8-22, as
a typical faith of the Patriarchs in the midst of Gentile
surroundings, by the very nature of the case, are not sub
ject to exact historical tradition. Certain is only this, that
these were individual experiences, in which God made Him
self known immediately, and that the consciousness of God,
which in them also had been weakened or entirely extin
guished, was awakened unto new life, in a manner not pos-
possible for the original revelation through the creation of
God. But as all the knowledge of man originates in ex
ternal experience, it is probable that this revelation too was
in some way transmitted in a manner understood by the
senses. The family of the Patriarch grows into the nation of
Israel, which is conscious of the fact that it has received
its religion from the Father (2 Tim. i. 3). But the tradi
tional religion can become a living power in the nation
only then, if through constant and new actual manifesta
tions, God reveals Himself to the people. At the very begin
ning of its national existence, when the people for the first
time step out of the old family relations, are found the
great miracles and signs at the Red Sea, where God with a
mighty hand delivers Israel from the servitude of Egypt,
and in the desert, where He sustains them miraculously for
forty years (Acts vii. 36, 13, 17). Israel at all times saw in
these events the fundamental revelations of their God. Paul
yet recognizes in the passage of the Red Sea, in the giving
of Manna, in the water from the rock the highest manifesta
tions of the grace of God to His people (1 Cor. x. 1, 3). As
original revelation could enable God to be seen only
through the order of nature, in the revelation of redemption
God made Himself known through extraordinary events,
that appeared to be contrary to the laws of nature. It is a
matter of perfect indifference if these were miracles in the

26 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
dogmatical sense of the word or merely natural phenomena,
the appearance of which at the decisive moment brought
help and deliverance when this seemed no more possible.
For the very reason that Israel saw in these phenomena
the unmistakable indication of the hand of God, they were
for them miracles and signs, in which they recognized God
as their God and were themselves impelled to worship him.
It has already been seen that Paul saw in the history of
the nations in general this original revelation through
which the providence of God was to be made manifest. But
more clearly and in a more direct way this became mani
fest, when the history of Israel was taken into considera
tion, in which the purpose of God for their redemption
were made manifest in a most unmistakable manner. As
Stephen does in his address in Acts vii., Paul, in his address at
Antioch, Acts xiii., reminds the Jews of this providence of
God in the history of His people. In this the revelation of
redemption itself becomes history. This lies in the nature
of the case. As sin, which made the realization of the
original revelation an impossibility had become such in an
historical manner and had grown gradually into a power
that enslaved mankind, thus too sin could be overpowered
only in an historical manner. While the original revelation
necessarily at all times was and remained the same, the
revelation of redemption, in accordance with the law of
historical development, must unfold itself with increasing
clearness and new power. In order to do this, it must seek
among mankind a community, which, united inwardly and
outwardly, would be able to become the body in which the
divine educational process could become a reality in the
progressive unfolding of its redemptive institution. This
is the sense in which the New Testament designates the
people of Israel as the recipients of divine revelation. Their
history becomes the history of redemption. The purpose is
not that this people alone is to be the possessor of redemp-

THE ESSENCE OF REVELATION 27
tion, but that primarily redemption shall be realized in their
midst, and that thus this nation shall become the mediator for
a new revelation of redemption for all peoples, for all man
kind. To attain this end it is above all things necessary that the
people of God in their national life recognize this mission.
In order to understand the original divine revelation man
kind had been endowed with the power of intelligence as
the organ through which God could be known in His mani
festations. But sin had weakened and dulled this organ,
and the original and general inspiration no longer sufficed
to understand this new revelation of redemption. A new
inspiration was needed for this purpose, namely an imme
diate influence impressed by God upon the spiritual life of
the recipients of this revelation, that would open their eyes
to see the divine manifestations. In the earliest ages it was
the patriarchs themselves to whom this understanding be
came clear through the visitations of God which they ex
perienced, so that they could themselves establish the true
religion in the circle of their families, for which reason they
are also called "Prophets" (Gen. xx. 7; Ps. cv. 15). At
the head of the national history of Israel stands the figure
of Moses, with whom God spoke face to face, as one does
with a friend (Ex. xxxiii. 11). He constitutes the con
necting link between the times of the patriarchs, in which
Abraham is called the Friend of God (James ii. 23) and
of the Prophets, which belongs with Samuel (Acts iii. 24).
To the latter David also belongs, through whose mouth the
Holy Ghost spake, when he sang his Psalms (Acts i. 15),
as also the long list of men, whom we call Prophets in the
narrower sense of the term. These were chosen by God to
be the interpreters of the new divine revelation for the
people. Just because inspiration was not an act of magic,
i. e., not an impress of God made upon the mental life of
man immediately, it was necessary that God select men for

28 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Himself, whose special religious receptivity would enable
them to receive in a vivid manner these impulses from God,
that opened their eye to see the manifestations of God in
the history of the people. For in this case too it was not a
supernatural imparting of certain new truths in them
selves, which could in the nature of the case have been
effected only in a manner contrary to the laws of our intel
lectual life. The Prophets were merely called to interpret
to the people that which God intended in His guiding of
the people. They appear at specially critical periods of its
history; they teach the people to recognize in all of its vicis
situdes the manifest will and purposes of God. The authors
of those psalms too which are not ascribed to David are
regarded as Prophets (Matt. iii. 35). Asaph, who is men
tioned as the author of the xxviii. Psalm here quoted, is men
tioned in 2 Chron. xxix. 30, as a Prophet. Their songs
are the expression of the religious feeling that has been
aroused in them through their understanding of the divine
revelation, that the spirit enabled them to feel, and that
these lyrics when read and sung by the people affect
them the same way. The Jews also designate the authors
of their historical books as Prophets; these latter interpret
the history of the people past as the Prophets in no special
sense of the term interpret the history of the present. The
external affairs are not what they chiefly aim to narrate,
but they purpose rather to expound the divine plan, which
is being realized in this history. Prophecy, as it appears in
Israel, is an entirely unique phenomenon. It is most in
timately connected with the fact that Israel is the people of
the revelation of redemption. Prophecy is the means
through which this people is enabled to understand this
divine revelation.
3. The Law and the Prophets. — Already in this reve
lation God's will is made known through the moral con
sciousness implanted in man. But Paul emphasizes in Rom.

THE ESSENCE OF REVELATION 29
ii. 27, that Israel had received a much more powerful im
pulse to do the will of God, because Israel had received the
written law. It was possible for the original moral con
sciousness to be darkened, or entirely eradicated by sin
Rom. i. 28-32, but the written law declared the will of
God in unmistakable objectivity. To this, according to
Rom. ii. 27, circumcision was yet added, which had dates
back not to Moses but to the patriarchs (John vii. 22), and
which expressly obligated the people to a fulfillment of the
divine will. The effort is made to rob this act of its reli
gious significance by drawing attention to the fact, that
circumcision is found also among other people and was a
medical measure. But this will make no difference. Israel
had already learned through its prophetical interpretation
of its history to regard this rite as one that had been en
joined upon the patriarchs as the sign of a covenant between
them and Jehovah (Gen. xvii. 10-11), through which God
had obligated Himself to bless the chosen people (Rom. iv.
11), as in turn the people had thereby obligated themselves
to keep His law (Gal. v. 3), and this meant more than a mere
external observance of the Law. The very prophetic interpre
tation of the law (Deut. xxx. 6, cf. Jer. ix. 25, Ez. xliv.
7) is understood by Paul as a type of the circumcision of
the heart which constitutes the kernel of true Judaism, and
as a removal of all impurities from the life of the inner
man (Rom. ii. 28, 29). The Law was given by Moses
(John i. 17). To this Old Testament tradition the entire
New Testament adheres firmly. No matter what command
ment of the Law is under consideration, the historical ques
tion which of these laws or ordinances came from Moses
or the Mosaic period, is not taken into consideration.
Moses merely heads the long series of divinely appointed
men, whose mission it was to bring to the people the revela
tion of the will of God. In the very nature of the case
it is a part of the calling of all. the Prophets to interpret

30 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
and to supplement the laws that had been given through
Moses according to the changed conditions of the times, and
in each case to give the instructions required by the times
for the religious relationship that existed between God and
his people. Jesus, however, purposes to teach the fulfill
ment of the will of God as this has been revealed in the
Law and in the Prophets (Matt. v. 17, cf. vii. 12; xxii. 40).
In this case then Moses and the Prophets are not only the
interpreters of the revelation of God in the history of
Israel; they are independent bearers and transmitters of
such revelation. Just here it is that we find in perfect
clearness the unique character of this high inspiration that
marks the revelation of redemption.
In that passage in which Jesus tells the spiritual leaders
of His people, that they possessed the revelations of the past
only in their sacred writings and that their conduct over
against these made it impossible for them to understand
the divine manifestations that had appeared in Him (John
v. 38 sqq.) He characterizes the prophetic revelation. They
live, if they disregard Him, in a time that lacks revelation ;
they have never yet heard the Voice of God nor have they
seen His shape (John v. 37). With these words, He plainly
refers to both kinds of prophetic revelations. Unless we boldly
charge these godpleasing men of the Old Testament as liars
or as visionary dreamers, then they were considered as worthy
of receiving religious experiences, in which the will of God
impressed itself upon them with such immediate certainty,
that there could not for a moment be a doubt, that they
were not declaring the results of their own thoughts when
they proclaimed: "Thus saith the Lord!" On these ex
periences are based all the manifestations of the will of
God in the Law and in the Prophets. Whether these be
regarded immediately as a divine activity, so that God spoke
through their mouths (Acts iv. 23), or as transmitted
through the medium of the Spirit, is a matter of indiffer-

THE ESSENCE OF REVELATION 31
ence. Paul declares that the Law was imparted by the
Spirit (Rom. vii. 14) ; and was accordingly written by in
spiration; and Peter teaches that the Messianic predictions
were the work of the Spirit (1 Pet. i. 11).
The other form of prophetic prophecy is the vision. We
meet this form in the New Testament. Paul had visions
which he ascribed to the influence of the exalted Christ
and given to himself as a special revelation (2 Cor. xii. 1).
On the basis of such visions, which enabled John to see
God, rests the Apocalypse. In itself the vision is a psycho
logical process, in which, although the natural eye be
closed, the spiritual eye sees phenomena in which it recog
nizes a higher meaning. If these visions come from God
or from Christ, then they become the mediums of divine
revelations. In what John saw a word of the Lord and a
testimony of Christ was transmitted to him of that which
God had given him, to show his servants concerning his
counsels about the future (Rev. i. 1 sqq.). For this reason
his book is called a revelation coming from Christ. On
such visions doubtlessly to a large extent were based also
the divine appearances in the times of the patriarchs, in
which the redemptive purposes of God for the future of
their race were made known to them. The same is true of
the prophetic discourses, in so far as these were of a pre
dictive nature, the word of the Lord that came to Micah
is especially designated as one that he had seen concerning
Samaria and Jerusalem (Mich. i. 1).
Prediction is indeed by no means the principal or the
exclusive mission of the Prophets, but it constitutes an
essential part of prophecy. For everywhere in the New
Testament reference is made not only to the Law but also
to predictive prophecy as a special prerogative of Israel
(Rom. ix. 4). Already in the Law itself there is found,
connected with the demand for the fulfillment of the divine
will, a promise of blessings which this fulfillment will bring

32 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
with it, the counter picture being found in the threats for
the transgressor. But the real object of predictions and
promises is at all times the divine determination in refer
ence to the future of Israel, which the New Testament in
its kernel finds already in this promise given to Abraham
(Rom. iv. 13; Heb. vi. 13-14, 17-18; xi. 9-10). This is based
on the character of the revelation of redemption as a pro
gressive development. At each step of this development the
truth that had so far been revealed would not have been
recognized as correct, if the bearer of this revelation had
not been conscious of the limitations of this trust. The en
tire revelation of redemption in Israel points to a higher
goal beyond itself, in which the history of salvation shall
finds its consummation. It is the specific purpose of predic
tive prophecy to declare the divine counsel concerning this
goal. This is necessary for the reason already, that at the
advent of the perfect revelation the latter will be recognized
as that for which in accordance with the purposes of God,
preparation had been made in earlier revelations. This
already shows that predictive prophecy is not the foretell
ing of individual data and facts but the declaration of the
divine redemptive purposes for the future. It is of course
not impossible that individual facts may also have been pre
dicted according to God's purposes. But predictive prophecy
as such has nothing to do with these. For the very reason
that this is only the promise concerning the goal, to which
the divine redemptive purpose guides the chosen people,
it cannot claim to foretell the manner in which this purpose
is to be fulfilled. Notwithstanding his absolute faith in the
prophetic promises concerning Christ and the salvation
wrough Him, Paul, in Eph. iii. 5, says that the secret of
redemption had not been revealed in other generations to
the children of men, but had now been made manifest
through the holy Apostles and Prophets. The former could
know only of the goal; but the ways .which God would adopt

THE ESSENCE OF REVELATION 33
for the purpose of attaining His object, could in their
realization be made known only to the latter.
4. The Revelation in Christ.— The New Testament
proceeds from the premises that the entire Old Testament in
its predictions points to Christ. In Him must be given that
highest and final revelation of God promised to Israel by its
Prophets. Thus in this final consummation the essence of
revelation is made entirely clear. What had been promised
Israel was not at all the communication of a certain number
of new truths, the appropriation of which would in itself
bring salvation; but it was the sending of the Messiah,
who together with the complete realization of the true reli
gion would bring to the people the entire promised salvation.
Jesus Himself explains what He means when He speaks
of the revelation which the Father had given to Him to
carry out (Luke x. 21-22), by declaring that what all the
Prophets and kings had desired to see and had not seen had
appeared in Him (Luke x. 23-24). But the eye-witnesses
of the life of Jesus saw this in the sending of the Son as
the Saviour of the World (1 John iv. 14), especially in the
submission of the Son to the atoning death, wherein the
deepest love of God become manifest (John iii. 14 sqq.).
Paul declares that the advent of Christ was the appearance
of the life bringing grace of God, of the kindness and love of
God (Tit. ii. 11; iii. 4). As God revealed himself in the
works of creation, thus He makes known His innermost
essence for the first time in this, that he fulfills his promises
and sends to the people Him who can bring to them the
most complete salvation.
As the revelation of redemption began with the appear
ances of God in the history of the patriarchs, it attains its
final consummation in the theophany of Christ. When
Philip, for the strengthening of the faith of the disciples,
demands a theophany after the manner of the Old Testa
ment, Jesus answers : " He that hath seen me hath seen the
c

34 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Father" (John xiv. 9). He Himself declares that this state
ment is not a dogmatical proposition concerning the equality
of Himself with the Father, but that the words which He
speaks are not His own words, and the works He does are
the works of God, who dwells in Him (John xiv. 10) ; so
that God manifests Himself in all that Jesus says and does.
For the spiritual nature of God there exists no more ade
quate and therefore no higher form of representation than the
form of an earthly spiritual being, than man, who is created
after His image. In Christ's daily labors for the salvation
of His people, in His unselfish life of love that even caused
Him to give up His life as a ransom, the innermost essence
of God is made manifest. Nor do His words at all times
purpose to convey certain new truths; they are at bottom
only the interpretation of the revelation of God that has
appeared in Him, as which the gospel of St. John has re
vealed them in their deepest significance. With this highest
form of divine revelation it is most intimately connected,
that no other special revelation of the divine will is needed.
Christ has come to fulfill the Law and the Prophets in all
His doings (Matt. v. 17). The will of God with its demands
no longer stands before us as an unattainable ideal. Just
as the divine redemptive plan for man was perfectly fulfilled
in Him, thus he also shows that in his life have been ful
filled all those demands of God made in the Law and the
Prophets of man. Just as His words in the gospel of St.
John emphasize the manifestation of God's revelation in
Him, thus His words in the earlier gospels point to the ful
fillment of the revelation of God's will through Him. They
teach how to fulfil the Old Testament revelation as this
should be fulfilled in the advent of the era of grace, and
point to new demands as these arise from the completed
revelation of God in Jesus.
In the preparatory revelation of redemption the direct
activity of God in the history of His people exhibited itself

THE ESSENCE OF REVELATION 35
in signs and wonder. The advent of Christ, in whom the
revelation of redemption has reached perfection, is the abso
lute miracle. Here we find in the midst of the world of sin
that one whom nobody could convince of sin (John viii. 46),
the Holy and Sinless One, as which He was proclaimed by
all of His apostles. Here in the midst of mankind, who are
of the earth, is found a man whose origin goes back to an
eternal divine existence and whose final goal shall be His
exaltation to the divine glory. His nature cannot have been
derived from mankind as this is ; it is a gift of God to man
kind, a new branch planted into mankind, that receives for
the latter the attainment of its goal. The miracles of His
activity correspond to the miracles of His person. The older
gospels call them Miracles; the fourth gospel, Signs. But
they are not merely signs of a certain power which is greater
than that of man; for He went about doing good and heal
ing those that were oppressed of the devil (Acts. x. 38).
When the Baptist doubted if Christ was the Promised One,
Jesus refers him to the miracles He did to the sick, as a
proof that in Him had appeared the saving grace of God,
which transformed also the external life (Matt. xi. 5). Because
it was only through the power of the Holy Ghost that Jesus
drove out devils, only through Him too has the sovereignty
of God been realized, which puts an end to the sovereignty
of Satan upon earth (Matt. xii. 28). With this the history
of redemption in Israel has reached the consummation, to
ward which it was directed from the very beginning. God
reveals Himself in Christ as the one who brings the con
summation of salvation, but not by proclaiming through
Jesus certain doctrines concerning salvation or the way to
attain it, but by making salvation a reality through Him.
He reveals His plans for the redemption of mankind by
realizing them. The history of Jesus itself is the comple
tion of the revelation of salvation, beginning with His call
to enter upon His mission given Him at the Jordan and

36 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
enabling Him to do this Messianic work, down to the Cross,
upon which He finishes the salvation of the world. That
His death did not show His work to be a failure or that He
was conquered by His enemies; that it was only the council
of God that put Him into the hands of His enemies, so that
He should through His death complete what He had begun
in His life, all this is proved by His resurrection on the third
day. But He was not awakened to life upon the earth; His
resurrection means for Him the transfer to the right hand
of God, and thereby He is enabled victoriously to complete
the work He had begun on earth. In the Mediator, who has
been exalted to divine glory God gives the final security for
the accomplishment of His plan of redemption. Through
Him God can establish His kingdom upon earth; through
Him, when this earth shall have shared the common destiny
of all that is temporal and passes away, He can bring about
His heavenly kingdom in which the highest purposes of re
ligion are realized, and men are brought to a blessed union
with God. In the history of Jesus the absolute proof is fur
nished that all of the revelations of God are revelations of
deeds. 5. The General Outpouring of the Spirit. — Because
the revelation in Christ appears as deeds it can accomplish
its purpose when these deeds are recognized in their signifi
cance and lead to the certainty that Christ is the Mediator of
Salvation, that His work is the completion of all the pre
vious revelations. For this reason Christ constantly ex
plains His earthly activity, which policy of Christ, however,
finds itself checked before the completion of His work in
the inability of His disciples to understand Him (John xvi.
13). These disciples He selected to be His most intimate
associates in His earthly career, so that He could send them
to His people to preach His gospel (Mark iii. 14). It is
only after He has become the exalted one, to whom all the
power of heaven and earth belongs, that He sends His disci-

THE ESSENCE OF REVELATION 37
pies out to all the nations (Matt, xxviii. 18-19). As the pre
paratory revelation of God could attain its purposes only
when the Prophets interpreted its meaning, in the same
way the Apostles are sent out to proclaim that He who
had died and risen again is the Redeemer of the world.
As the Prophets of the Old Covenant, thus the Apostles had
to be prepared for the work of their mission by the Holy
Ghost, and their inspiration furnished the certainty of the
correctness of their understanding of the revelation that
has reached its highest phase in the person and the history
of Jesus. The divine influence that inspires them is not a
magical act. In the earthly association of Jesus with His
disciples He produced within them the ability of receiving
this influence, and therein this divine influence finds
its psychological connecting link. This inspiration is not
produced by a mechanical imparting of certain new truths;
the Holy Ghost leads them into all truth by declaring unto
them that Savior whose career here upon earth was a part
of their experience, i. e., teaches them to understand Him
in His perfect glory (John xvi. 13-14). The Apostle Paul,
being called at a later period, also had to be appointed to
the Apostleship by the personal appearance of Christ on the
way to Damascus (1 Cor. ix. 1), where it pleased God to
reveal to him His Son, that he might preach His gospel (Gal.
i. 15-19). But unlike the Prophets of the Old Covenant,
the Apostles had not only the duty to interpret the revela
tion acts of God, but also in a prophetic way to point to the
final consummation of the redemption given in God's revela
tion. The final revelation of Christ (1 Cor. i. 7) is His
return in glory, in which He will reveal Himself as the fin
isher of salvation by the very act of bringing about this
consummation. Then, too, the glory prepared for us in the
plan of God will be realized in us (Rom. viii. 18) in so far
as we, too, shall be revealed with Him in glory (Col. iii. 4).
That which God has prepared for those who love Him He

38 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
has revealed to His Apostles through the Spirit (1 Cor. ii.
9-1Q). In all these things there is nothing that distinguishes the
Apostles from the Old Testament Prophets. It is the same
Spirit that gave testimony to the Prophets concerning the
Bufferings that Jesus was to endure, and also concerning
the glory that was to follow, which also now declares the joy
ful tidings of the salvation that has already been achieved
in them (1 Pet. i. 11-12). What distinguishes the New Tes
tament stage of revelation from that of the Old Testament
is not the inspiration of those who were called to proclaim
the truth of redemption, but the fact that this inspiration
became general in character. Of this completion of inspira
tion Old Testament prophesy has already spoken (Joel iii.
1 sqq.). Peter declares that this prediction was fulfilled in
the communication of the Spirit to all believers (Acts ii.
17-18). This is the final redemptive act of God, in which
He manifests Himself as the finisher of the work of Christ.
The inner experience of this communication of the Spirit
finishes for the individual believer the certainty of the salva
tion given in Christ and of his participation in it. None
can call Jesus the Lord except through the Holy Ghost
(1 Cor. xii. 3). Only the Spirit can give us the certainty
that the Exalted Christ is our own Mediator of Salvation.
The Spirit Himself bears witness to our Spirit that we are
the children of God (Rom. viii. 16) ; that in consequence of
His redemptive work we have entered into the normal rela
tions to God, have become the object of His love, so that we
can now appeal to Him as our Father in childlike faith
(Rom. viii. 15). It is the Spirit that teaches us to under
stand completely the will of God, and at the same time works
in us the power to fulfill this will (Rom. viii. 14). In the
Spirit we have the pledge of the completion of redemption
in the world to come (2 Cor. i. 22; Eph. i. 13-14), because
He who has given us this greatest of gifts has also there-

THE ESSENCE OF REVELATION 39
with given us the promise that He will bring us to the goal
that has been marked out.
With this the last question has also been answered, as to
the way in which we can recognize revelation, and especially
the revelation of redemption, as that which it is and which it
claims to be. H this consisted in the communication of
supernaturally revealed doctrines, there would in reality
be no means of making us certain that revelation is what it
claims to be and what it is. Appeal is indeed often made
to miracles and prophecies, but Lessing has already cor
rectly said that even the most noteworthy miracles could not
furnish the evidence for the truth of a doctrine ; and prophe
cies could be such proofs only if they were what they in
reality are not, viz., predictions of single events yet to occur.
And since, finally, historical criticism has called into ques
tion the reality of miracles it prophecies, only he can cling
to his faith in these who has recognized them as essential
elements of revelation, i. e., who believes in revelation and
hence does not require any further evidence for this belief.
When revelation is understood in its real character, there is
no need of this problem at all. Rothe correctly says that it
would be the same as the question how light can be recog
nized as light. Light is recognized as such by seeing it. In
the same way revelation is recognized as such by the fact
that it reveals God, i. e., it produces the knowledge of God,
which proves itself to be true and life-giving when it satis
fies our deepest religious needs and makes us capable and
willing to do God's will. The revelation of redemption is
recognized by the very fact that it breaks the fetters of sin
within us and makes us lost creatures sure of salvation in
time and in eternity. If the imparting of the Spirit consti
tutes for the present time the completion of the revelation
of redemption of God, then we can be sure of this salvation if
we are in possession of the Spirit; and this assurance we
have unless we feel the workings of the Spirit. Paul does

40 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
not propose to found his gospel proclamation on the per
suasive words of wisdom, but on the proof which the Holy
Spirit and the works that the Spirit does furnish. Our
faith is not to rest on the wisdom of men, but on the power
of God (1 Cor. ii. 4-5). This power of God we feel when
true religion has been realized in us, and then we know that
the revelation which has accomplished this is the true reve
lation. Its works in us that testify of its divine power is the
witness of the Holy Ghost.

CHAPTER UI
THE SACRED SCRIPTURES
1. The Old Testament. — The entire New Testament
bases its message on the preparatory revelation of salvation
in Israel, which is recognized as pointing to the consumma
tion of revelation in Christ. But the redemptive acts of
God, in which this revelation appeared, the interpretation
of these through the Prophets, who revealed the will of God
and His plans of salvation for the peoples of their times as
well as for the future, the New Testament know only through
the writings of the Old Testament, which narrate the former
and record the latter (John v. 38-39). These writings, in
which God had been promised by His Prophets beforehand
what is fully revealed in the gospel, are called " sacred "
writings by the Apostle Paul (Rom. i. 2), because they were
from God, because God has given them to His people for the
purpose of declaring unto them both His promises and His
commands. This primarily refers, of course, to all of the
revelations of God in the narrow sense, which are recorded in
the Scriptures, to the words which God spoke through Moses
and the Prophets. When the Scribes, in their traditions,
insist upon something that is contrary to the written law
of Moses, they thereby make the word of God of none effect
(Mark vii. 10 sqq.). Because Israel possesses the Law, it has
been entrusted with the oracles of God (Rom. iii. 2), and is
acquainted with all that the Prophets have spoken (Matt. i.
22). The Word of God, which, according to Rom. ix. 6, is
not to become void, is immediately in the following verses
explained by citations from the Scriptures. That which is
41

42 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
written in the Law of Moses, in the Prophets and in the
Psalms concerning Christ must be fulfilled (Luke xxiv. 44)
because it is the Word of God. The Psalmist's word of ad
monition coming from the mouth of David (Heb. iv. 7), as
also what the epistle to the Hebrews says by way of com
mand is a Word of the Lord (Heb. iv. 12), since such men as
Moses, David and the Prophets were the called recipients
and mediators of the divine revelations. But the entire
complex of writings, in which these divine revelations are
handed down, is called "The Scriptures" by the New Testa
ment. That Jesus knew the Scriptures of the Old Testa
ment in the completeness with which this has been handed
down to us is seen from Matt, xxiii. 35, where he cites an
example from the first and from the last of these books.
The Apostles considered the Scriptures exclusively from
the religious point of view. They do not ask what the writ
ers of these books intended to say to their contemporaries
at the time when they wrote, but solely what the Scriptures
want to tell us by these writings. That which is written
in the book of Leviticus concerning the stages of Israel's
wanderings in the desert has been written for our instruc
tion, i. e., as is explained by 1 Cor. x. 11, for those who live
in the time of redemption, for which all the preceding
periods are preparatory steps. What the Scriptures report
concerning the faith of Abraham has not been written for
his sake, i. e., not for the purpose of reporting how he was
justified, but for our sakes, who are thereby to learn what
the original order of God for the justification of men was
(Rom. iv. 22). What the Psalm prophesies concerning the
sufferings of Christ has been written for our instruction.
(Rom. xv. 4). From this point of view the Law as it is
recorded in Deut. xxv. 4 cannot have been written for the
sake of the oxen; it was written for our sakes in order to
instruct us in reference to the special ordinance of God
therein contained (1 Cor. ix. 9). There can be no doubt that

THE SACRED SCRIPTURES 43
the Apostle Paul, who was thoroughly versed in the Scrip
tures, knew as well as we know that these words in the first
sense are to be understood literally; but they would not be
found in the Scriptures that are destined for the salvation
to come if it were not possible to draw from them by alle
gorical interpretation a meaning that has a significance for
us. In Galatians iv. and 2 Corinthians iii. also the Apostle
interprets Old Testament narrative allegorically ; and it was
superfluous to worry about the fact that Moses would have
purposely deceived the people if he had intended by the veil
upon his countenance to hide from the people the transitory
character of the Old Testament Law (2 Cor. iii. 13). Paul
knew as well as we that neither Moses nor the people sus
pected in the least what he by allegorical interpretations finds
in the glory of the face of Moses, but for Paul this history
written for us has a significance only if it is interpreted as
he does. The Epistle to the Hebrews also sees in the reports
of the Scriptures on the arrangements of the Ark of the Cove
nant the purpose to make known that at those times the
way to the heavenly sanctuary was not yet open (Heb. ix.
8). Because the Scriptures do not mention either the par
ents of Melchizedek or his descent or the beginning of his
life or its close the Apostle recognizes their purpose to make
him a type of the eternal Son of God.
From this point of view we are to understand why it is
that as a rule the question is not asked, what this or that
person says in the Scriptures, but what the Scriptures say,
although other passages also show that the New Testament
writers know full well what Moses and what the different
prophets wrote. Hence comes the peculiar usage, according
to which the whole Old Testament is called the Law, i. e.,
is designated as the norm. Even the Psalms are referred to
by Rom. iii. 19 and the word of prophecy found in 1 Cor. xiv.
21. In the same way in John xv. 23 a citation from the
Psalms is declared to be written in the Law; and Jesus

44 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
says in reference to just such a passage, John x. 35 : "The
Scriptures cannot be broken," just as He says this concern
ing the Law in Matt. v. 17 : " It is written," is everywhere
regarded as the final authority. As a rule such an appeal
to the Scriptures, more or less consciously, is based upon
the presupposition that these are words which God has
spoken through the mouths of His prophets (Jer. i. 9) ; but
particularly the Epistle to the Hebrews in a number of
cases (e. g., i. 6, vii. 8) cites from the Scriptures as Words
of God passages that speak of God in the third person, and
are accordingly not reported as having been spoken by God.
In the case of Paul it is often hard to determine whether he
quotes God or the Scriptures as speaking. Expressly he
discusses in Gal. iii. 8 the question, why the Scriptures pre
dict something to Abraham, although the matter under con
sideration is simply an old promise of God; and in Gal. iii.
22 the very thing is stated of the Scriptures that in Rom. xi.
32 is said of God. But this passage shows why this is done.
It is the Scriptures through whose infallible statements we
learn that all human activity is by God concluded under the
power of sin, so that we can learn that the promises of re
demption can not be gained through the deeds of men.
This personification of the Scriptures, as well as its iden
tification with God, according to which it is one and the
same whether the Scriptures or God says something, is based
upon the fact that at bottom it is God who has given us the
Scriptures, in so far as, according to His counsel and will,
for the purpose of preserving His revelation among men,
it has been laid down in the Scripture how He has formerly
revealed Himself. And this is the case with the entire
Scriptures, although the statement that the Scriptures are
the Word of God is nowhere directly made. But a distinc
tion between a word of God in the Scriptures and something
there contained that is not of God is entirely foreign to the
New Testament, and is in so far irrelevant, since with this

THE SACRED SCRIPTURES 45
distinction, which only we make, the authority of the Scrip
tures, upon which we lay so much emphasis, is undermined.
Equally foreign to the New Testament is also the idea that
everything that the Old Testament writers penned was im
parted to them in form and contents. This idea originated
in the presupposition that it is the purpose of the Holy
Scriptures to transmit religious doctrines and demands in
a supernatural way, and this conception of inspiration was
a necessary development of the idea that the Scriptures must
furnish the guarantee for these teachings, since contents and
forms, in the nature of things, were considered inseparable.
In that case the Scriptures themselves would be the revelation
which consists in the imparting of such doctrines, which idea
always turns out to be a false conception of the character and
nature of redemption; and since this from beginning to
end points to Christ, Jesus can say that these Scriptures tes
tify of Him (John v. 39).
That the New Testament with its actual identification of
the Scriptures and the Word of God does not intend to
claim that the very words of the Scriptures have passed
from the mouth of God to the writers, is proved by the phe
nomenal freedom in the way in which New Testament writ
ers make citations, who sometimes omit, sometimes add to or
change; which, under the presupposition of God's dictation
of the words, would have been a falsification of these. In
the same way the indifference of these writers over against
the relation of the original text to the Greek translation, even
in the case of those who, unlike the author of the Epistle
to the Hebrews, certainly are not acquainted with the orig
inal Hebrew of the Old Testament, as also in the case of Paul
and the first Evangelist, who according to free choice some
times follow the original text and sometimes the translation,
show this. But even if the New Testament writers would
have wanted to or been able to adhere most stringently to the
original text, this text, since it at that time contained no

46 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
vowel or accents, would itself have been capable of different
interpretations, and that entirely independent of the ques
tion as to the extent to which the Massoretic text that they
had in hand was perfect or not. A text fully reliable and
capable of only one interpretation and thereby a Word of God
handed down in its very words with absolute reliability did
accordingly not exist for them. This identification of the
Scriptures with the Word of God can only mean this, that
God everywhere in the Scriptures speaks to us. It is He
who commands us to use this record of the preparatory reve
lation of redemption for the purpose for which all of the
revelations have been given, namely to awaken or to
strengthen our religious life and for the fulfillment of His
will (2 Tim. iii. 15-16). But this object is attained just
through the purely human element in the Scriptures, in so
far as this pictures to us vividly the impression which the
divine revelations made upon their recipients. Thereby he
speaks to us to-day yet as He once spoke to them.
2. Its Inspiration. — The false conception of the nature
of the Scriptures was based on their inspiration, by which
term was understood a special miraculous act by which
the authors of the Scriptures received from the Holy Ghost
the impulse to write, as also the contents of what they were
to write and further the expression of this by the exact words.
The New Testament knows nothing of such a miraculous
act. What it calls inspiration is something much higher
than this single miraculous act. It is the divine spiritual
activity, through which God enables the disciples He calls to
become the witnesses of His redemptive revelation. David
spoke by the Holy Spirit (Mark xii. 36) ; the Holy Ghost
spoke through Isaiah' (Acts xxviii. 25), when in Hebrews iii.
7 a citation from the Psalms is introduced with the words:
" The Holy Ghost saith." It is further explained in iv. 7 what
God purposed to say in these words through David. Nat
urally the prophetic word handed down in the Scriptures is

THE SACRED SCRIPTURES 47
no less inspired than was that spoken with the mouth. Ac
cording to 2 Pet. i. 19, we have a prophetic word in the Scrip
tures, in order that we may make use of it for the purpose
for which it has been given us ; but what is said in 2 Pet. i. 20
of every prophecy of the Scriptures; this is not based upon
that which men, moved by the Holy Ghost, wrote, but upon
what they have spoken (2 Pet. i. 21). In Acts i. 16, it is
said for passage in the Scriptures, it, i. e., that which is
prophesied therein, had been spoken by the Holy Ghost; yet
the words that are added, "through the mouth of David,"
shows that the author has in mind a prophecy spoken by
him. Not because the historical books of the Old Testa
ment are inspired, but because the writing of the sacred his
tory is an essential part of the preparatory stage of redemp
tive revelation, and because for this reason those who write
them, are equally inspired with the Prophets and the Psalm
singer, therefore these books are from the Holy Ghost, who
in the description given of the details of the Tabernacle
gives those hints which Heb. ix. 8 finds there. Because the
writing of these books constitutes only the completion of
the revelation process, because it is their object to preserve
the redemptive revelation for the coming generation, they
are in 2 Tim. iii. 15 callled " Sacred Scriptures." And when
in 2 Tim. iii. 16 they are called " inspired," this does not mean
to declare the infallibility of each and every word, upon
which the old theory of inspiration is based, but purposes
only to emphasize the utility of the Scriptures for the
religious moral life, the beginning and development of
which is the purpose of the redemptive revelation. It is in
vain to appeal to the fact that Paul in Gal. iii. 16 bases his
argument upon the exact reading of the very word in Gen.
xiii. 15. What he according to his method of interpretation
deduces from that passage is generally acknowledged not to
be drawn from the exact wording of this text, but from his

48 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
interpretation of it, which is different in Rom. iv. 13, 18, and
here is undoubtedly the correct idea.
The theory of a special inspiration of the Scriptures not
only cannot be proved but contradicts facts that lie on
the surface in the Old Testament. The historical books do
not report that which the Spirit imparted to the writer.
They in many cases mention their sources, and where
this is not done the different methods of presentation of the
same facts shows that these are based on different oral or
written traditions. Contradictory statements in the genea
logical and historical accounts exclude the possibility of
absolute inerrant reports, which the old theory purposes to
establish. The same appears from the naive ideas enter*
tained by these books on matters pertaining to the natural
sciences. It certainly cannot be said that these ideas are
of no religious significance. When the book of Joshua
proceeds from the mistaken idea that the sun goes around
the earth, then the miracle there reported that the sun stood
still cannot have taken place as there claimed (Joshua x.
12-13). The prophetical books only in exceptional cases
mention the person by whom they were compiled and ar
ranged. Undoubted indications go to show, that in many
cases prophesies from different periods are arranged together;
that later prophecies are ascribed to earlier prophets, as is
done in the case of Second Isaiah ; or that earlier prophecies
are ascribed to later prophets, as is done with a part of the
book of Zachariah. In the book of Psalms particularly
this theory even deprives these lyrics of their character as
products of revelation. If those outpourings of religious
feeling are not the product of their human authors, but have
been dictated to the writer by the Spirit, then every effect
of these joyful songs of praise, every heartfelt prayer of
repentance, those testimony of an heroic trust in God and His
divine and providential help, every declaration of the sin-
pardoning grace of God are lost for us. Only if they are

THE SACRED SCRIPTURES 49
regarded as the expression of personal conviction can they
testify what the Old Testament revelation of redemption
achieved in real men and thereby also can work in us what
it is their purpose to effect. The same is true of the
didactic poetry of the gnome literature in Israel. Only
if these show how the preparatory revelation of God taught
men to judge and to regulate life, can they produce in us the
same religious wisdom of life, which Heb. xii. 5 sqq.
states was their purpose.
The emphasis placed upon the purely human element in
the Old Testament does not hinder but rather helps their
influence as the official records of the divine revelation of
redemption. If the historical method of Biblical research
has taught us to look upon the Old Testament in a different
light than that which the New Testament evinces regarding
these books in looking upon them solely from the view of
their religious importance, then this, correctly used, can
only place the significance of the Old Testament in a clearer
light. The more that science makes clear the development
of religion in Israel, the more it appears that this life un
folds itself only gradually out of the last influences of
heathendom, which had its origin in the misunderstanding
and neglect of the original revelation, until these influences
were finally victoriously overcome and finally produced the
most outspoken and radical hostility to all heathen ideas,
all the clearer do we therein recognize the efforts of the
gradual development of the divine revelation of redemption.
The latter does not purpose to force a perfect religion upon
the people, which, having no roots in them, shall produce
only a theoretical knowledge and an external culture; it
aims rather in an historical manner to produce the true re
ligion in Israel, taking it to that period when the perfected
revelation of redemption in Christ can step in and complete
what has been begun. The clearer the Old Testament is
recognized as the records of this preliminary redemptive
D

50 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
revelation the higher its religious significance in the New
Testament scenes becomes for us.
3. The New Testament.— In the last quarter of the
second century all New Testament writings were put on the
level with sacred writings of the Old Testament, as had
been done first with the prophetic book of the New Testament
and then with the gospels. And rightfully so. Quite
naturally the New Testament itself does not furnish us any
proofs for this; for when the assertion is made that in
1 Tim. v. 18, the gospel of St. Luke, and in Pet. iii. 15,
the Pauline Epistles are put on the same level with the
Old Testament, this would if it were the case show that
these books are not genuine. But in the former case it is
only the Word of the Lord reported in Luke x. 7, that is
regarded as equal to the Word of God in the Old Testament.
In the same way in the latter passage the Letters of Paul,
whose characterization alone through the wisdom he dis
plays suffices to show how little the author thinks of placing
him on the level of the Old Testament writings, are only
mentioned in connection with these writings because
certain persons twist their admonitions and abuse them as
they do these books. The justification for us lies, on the
other hand, exclusively in this, that as a matter of fact the
New Testament is just as much the record of the perfected
revelation of redemption as the Old Testament is that of
the preparatory stage. Therefore the former opens with
the Gospels, that report the history of Jesus, in which this
revelation was realized. Of course this is not done in a
manner that makes everything depend upon an authentic
and detailed account of this history, which then would be
distributed among four books with such remarkable agree
ments and such remarkable disagreements, out of which a
uniform account of the history of Jesus can be construed
only through scientific research. The three older Gospels
contain the traditions of the doings and the sayings of

THE SACRED SCRIPTURES 51
Jesus as these reports were current and were written down
in the congregation, in order to make His religious impor
tance clear to the readers and to influence their religious
life. The only gospel that was written by an eye-witness
evidently has as its purpose not to narrate this history as
such, but to make clear the deepest significance of the per
son and the history of Jesus and openly declare its didactic
and hortatory purpose (John xx. 30-31). But for this very
reason, the gospels just as they are, are especially adapted
to reproduce the impression which the revelation of God
that appeared in the life of Jesus made on all sides, and to
transmit this to readers of future ages. With the Gospels are
connected the Acts, which reports and utilizes in the in
terests of edification the redemptive plan of God as this was
being realized in the development of the Church.
The apostolic letters are writings for their times and
people and for that reason but poorly adapted to furnish a
uniform religious system of doctrine. The average cate
chism would accomplish this end better and more completely
than these letters. But just as they are these letters carry us
into the religious life of the first congregations, showing how
these originated and were directed by the preaching of the
revelation of God in Christ; how they struggle with the
former heathen or Jewish life; they show us the bright and
the dark sides of these congregations, how their manifold
needs could be met only by a further renewal of the proc
lamation of the gospel. Here we become acquainted with
the representatives and hearers of this gospel, each one in his
individuality as this has been produced by the revelation of
God in Christ that they had experienced in their own hearts ;
and we hear them interpret these revelations of salvation
in their basal principles and their consequences, see them
utilize these for admonition, comfort, promise and threats
for the unfolding of the religious life in the congregations
amid their varied surroundings. Therefore, too, they are

52 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
by their very nature suited to bring us into a living contact
with the revelation of redemption, to make this effective for
us also and for our varied surroundings, which are essen
tially the same as those that prevailed in the first congrega
tions. The only prophetic book in the New Testament con
tains prophesies of the future that aim to strengthen faith,
admonish to patience, and revive the hope of the Christian.
This it does not do if we regard this book as a collection of
oracles and predictions of certain events in the future, but
only as a book which, like the prophetic books of the Old
Testament, contains a proclamation of the divine redemptive
plans; when we leave to the future the question as to the
manner in which these are to be fulfilled. If it is the
peculiarity of every document referring to the past that we
can, as it were, live over again what it reports, and can
vividly experience what the first actors felt, then the New
Testament, as it is, must be regarded as the most perfect
record of the revelation in Christ.
Correctly do we call the New Testament the Word of God
as we do the Old, but only when we understand this in that
sense which the New Testament itself suggests. The Evan
gelist call the proclamation of Jesus the word of God,
(Luke v. 1, viii. 11; John xvii. 14-17), but not in the sense
as though this proclamation had been given to Him in its
exact words, but because he declares the saving counsel of
God that was being realized in His coming and thereby the
revelation of God was being consummated. The Apostles
designate their oral preaching as the word of God (Rom. x.
17; 1 Cor. xiv. 36; Heb. xiii. 7; 1 John ii. 24), or as the
gospel of God, i. e., the joyous message coming from God
(Rom. i. 1; 1 Pet. iv. 17), because it proclaims the mighty
deeds of God, which have been done in and through Christ,
in which God has completely revealed Himself. God sends
through them His message of what He has done for our
salvation and what we are to do in order to partake of this

THE SACRED SCRIPTURES 53
salvation. When the Apostles attribute directly to their
preaching what in the Old Testament is written concerning
the word of God (Rom. iv. 8; 1 Pet. i. 25), they thereby
not only confirm perfectly the sense in which the Old Testa
ment has been called the word of God, but they give us too
the full right to apply this to the New Testament also. For
we no longer possess the oral proclamation of the Apostles;
all that we know of this we learn from their discourses in
the Acts and from the apostolic letters. And of the doings
and sayings of the Lord we know only what the Evangelists
have handed down to us. If God has revealed Himself
through Him and through the Apostles, then we can learn
of this revelation only through the New Testament. This
book would have passed over the world like a shining meteor,
which, after it is extinguished, leaves nothing behind save
utter darkness, had God not seen to it that these records of
this revelation had been handed down. In these records
He sends us the message of the salvation in Christ and of
the way to this salvation; in these he still speaks to us to
day. Here, too, no distinction can be made between the
word of God and the human form in which it is clothed.
By the very fact that the revelation comes to us in living
personalities, in whom we can see and feel the impression
that this revelation has made on them, it becomes effective
for us and a power-working word of God. Quite naturally
here too it is not possible that He dictated the very words to
them which they spoke; such a dictation would have no
power to produce in us what in them was possible only
through personal experience. Only life can bring forth life.
4. Its Inspiration. — Jesus has promised to all true
disciples and not only to the twelve His spirit (John xiv.
15-16), who should bring to remembrance all He had said to
them (John xiv. 26), and lead them into all truth (John
xvi. 13). When this spirit would come, then streams of
living waters would flow from them in order to communicate

54 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
to others the saving truth that they had experienced (John
vii. 38-39) ; through this spirit would be given to them what
and how they were to speak (Matt. x. 19-20). This naturally
does not mean that the Holy Spirit would give them
the very words they were to utter. When Paul expresses
his conviction that he has received not only the con
tents but also the form of what he speaks from the Holy
Ghost (1 Cor. ii. 12-13), here the contrast with the words
of human wisdom shows what is meant. No human wisdom
whispers to the speaker the very words he utters ; it can only
teach him to find the right words for what he intends to say.
What is here said of the oral proclamation of the disciples,
can naturally be applied to them also when they write letters
and gospels. Just as sure as this latter is a part of their
divinely appointed mission, just so surely this inspiration
did enable them in their writings to interpret the revelation
of God in Christ correctly and completely to declare the
saving counsel of God that has been made manifest in Him.
But not a word is said of that unique miraculous act, by
virtue of which it is claimed that these writings originated
and which unjustly claims for itself alone the name of in
spiration. To accept such an act would involve the con
tradiction, that the author of the Acts, in reporting the
discourses of the Apostles had been deemed worthy of a
higher inspiration than the Apostles themselves were when
they spoke these discourses ; that the separation of the Apos
tles from their congregations, which compelled them to resort
to epistolary intercourse with them, proved to be a greater
blessing than their presence was, since they now received
the inspired letters of the Apostles instead of the addresses
of the inspired Apostles transmitted in a human way. The
New Testament further knows of no acme of inspiration
which had been bestowed upon the Apostles or the New Tes
tament writers. In 1 Pet. i. 12 the persons spoken of as
preaching the gospel are doubtlessly others than the Apos-

THE SACRED SCRIPTURES 55
ties; and yet their proclamation is described as having been
given them through the medium of the Holy Ghost. Paul
means to say merely that he, too, possesses the Spirit of God
(1 Cor. vii. 40), and just he it is that teaches so prominently
the bestowal of the Spirit to all believers as a mark of the
final consummation of the redemptive work of Christ (Tit.
iii. 6-7). This naturally does not exclude that the effect of
this Spirit, in accordance with the receptivity, the ability and
the calling of the individual, differs, and that those who
according to the purpose of God were called to transmit to
us the records of the perfect revelation of redemption were
especially called and prepared for this purpose by God; but
it does not demand that these writings originated through a
special miraculous act, as is claimed by the traditional
theory of the inspiration of the Scriptures.
Indeed the character of the New Testament books ex
cludes this idea as much as do those of the Old Testament.
It was not a special activity on the part of God that gave
the New Testament author the impetus to write. The Evan
gelists in an unmistakable manner make mention of the
purely human motive for their writing (Luke i. l-4; John
xx. 30-31), just as the authors of the letters in the New
Testament find in the state of affairs in their congregations
the occasion for these epistles. The materials of which the
Evangelists make use were not given to them in a super
natural way. They themselves refer either directly (Luke
i. 2-3), or at least indirectly by their literal reproduction
from older sources to the sources whence they have been
drawn. The difference in the character, plan and method
of presentation between these writings unmistakably comes
from purely literary motives. The fact that some apostolic
letters have been lost (1 Cor. v. 9, and Col. iv. 16), prove
that these letters as such or because of their origin were not
regarded as unique writings nor that they had a special
divine purpose based on such a uniqueness. The contents

56 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
of the Epistles also shows that they were not specially in
spired by God. The remarkable expression of religious ex
periences and feelings (cf. e. g. Rom. vii. 7 sqq. ; viii.
31-32) ; the expression of individual feelings toward the con
gregations, such as are found in the warm rebukes and in
the warnings against dangerous deceivers (cf. especially
2 Cor. and Gal.), become inner untruths and lose their effect
if they have not originated in personal experience but were
dictated to the writer by the Spirit. Paul corrects himself
and presupposes that he may in the future forget something
(1 Cor. i. 16). The Epistles contain a mass of purely per
sonal matter of external character, such as greetings, orders,
direction to bring a cloak and books from Troas (cf. 2 Tim.
iv. 13). The Epistle to Philemon, as also 3 John, consist
almost entirely of such matters. The Apocalypse for the por
traiture of its vision makes use of purely literary arts and
adaptations of Old Testament pictures. The complete passiv
ity of the authors presupposed by the older theory is in
contradiction to the individual differences observed in the
methods of presenting the teachings of the gospel down to
matters of language and style.
The absurdities to which this theory may lead are seen in
the debate between the Purists and the Hebraists, the for
mer of whom would vindicate for the honor of the Holy
Spirit the classical character of the Greek of the New Testa
ment books. If every word in the New Testament Scrip
tures is dictated by the Holy Spirit then, too, these books
must necessarily have been handed down in an absolutely
correct form. It was this feeling that suggested the thought
that the textus receptus is to be regarded as inspired. We,
however, know that this text, prepared with perfectly inade
quate means, is full of mistakes, and some of these not with
out importance for the sense. Scientific investigation has
been diligently at work to correct the text; but no scholar
can boast that he has restored the original text with in-

THE SACRED SCRIPTURES 57
fallible certainty. The New Testament is written in a lan
guage not known to those peoples of the future for which it
was written. The very fact that the oldest text does not
separate the words by spaces and marks of punctuation, and
still more the methods of expression, so difficult at times,
admit the possibility of different translations. Without a
specially inspired translation no people would possess a per
fectly intelligible reproduction of the original word of God
in the sense of the old inspiration theory. The Catholic
Church knew what she was doing in declaring the Latin
Vulgate as an authentic translation, but even this version
is written in a language not understood by modern peoples.
And even in the best translation the individual words must
first be interpreted if the purpose of that supposed miracu
lous origin of the Scriptures is to be attained. We do not
possess for this interpretation the infallible authority
claimed by the Catholic Church; and if we did possess this,
then such a miracle would become a perfectly superfluous
thing, since, if such an authority would be in the possession
of the truth, it would not be necessary to search for this in
the writings of the New Testament. Notwithstanding all
this the old theory of inspiration of the Scriptures is per
fectly correct from its standpoint. If revelation consists in
the supernatural communication of religious truths and
doctrines and if the Sacred Scriptures are the means for its
declaration, then there must be tradition infallible in its
very words, and this can be secured only through such miracu
lous inspiration. It is perfectly useless to try to modernize
or remove the rough edges from this old inspiration theory.
It is only by such a theory that the entire infallibility and
inerrancy of the Scriptures can be guarded, something that
is demanded from its standpoint.
5. The Perfection of the Scriptures.— The New Testa
ment, however, as little as the Old possesses the inerrancy
claimed by the old inspiration theory. The New Testament

58 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
writers share the same general world of thought prevalent
in their times; and must do so, or they would not have been
understood by their contemporaries for whom they wrote, if
they would have had different ideas than their readers on
matters of geography, history or the phenomena of nature.
It is not possible for any system of harmony to remove all
the contradictions in the accounts given by the Evangelists
of certain events in the life of Christ, all the peculiarities
in the reproduction of the sayings of the Lord, all the
differences between the Acts and the Pauline Letters; there
certainly must be an error somewhere, as, e. g., in the case
of proper names (Matt, xxvii. 9; Mark ix. 26) or numbers
(1 Cor. x. 8; Gal. iii. 17). It does not help matters to say
that these are mere externals that do not touch the religious
sphere; for if it is maintained that every word in the Scrip
tures has been dictated by the Holy Ghost, then such diffi
culties cannot have occurred, and then error in matter per
taining to the natural sciences or to history can easily
affect the religious sphere also. If it is really the case that
the ideas concerning certain sicknesses healed by Christ are
based on false notions of the times, then the reported driving
of devils are something else than what the Evangelists
see in them. It is a purely historical question if the
Psalms were written by those men to whom the Old Testa
ment ascribes them; but in these cases where the way of
utilizing these Psalms is based on such authorship, e. g.,
that of a certain Psalm of David (Mark xii. 31-32; Acts
ii. 25-31), here certainly there are religious interests also
involved. Whether the contents of the book of Jonah, in
accordance with the views of the New Testament times are
regarded as historical or as a didactic poem; whether Old
Testament predictions are to be taken as directly or only
typically Messianic, are certainly purely problems of learned
research, which are, however, not without importance for
the lessons that the New Testament has taken from them.

THE SACRED SCRIPTURES 59
The whole interpretation method of the New Testament
writers could be none other than that of their own times,
partly because they could not yet have attained to our
method and partly because any other would not have been
intelligible to their readers. It is for this reason that they
never take the connection of thought into consideration, the
purpose or the historical surroundings, amidst which the
Old Testament passages cited by them were written, some
thing that scientific Bible interpretation does and must do;
but they merely take the words as they stand, which brings
with it frequently a departure from the original sense. In
deed it here appears with clearness how the current proof
for the inspiration of the New Testament moves in a de
ceptive circle, when the passages claimed in the New Testa
ment as evidence for the inspiration of the Old Testament
are applied to include the New Testament also. For not
until inspiration of the latter has been established can it
be demonstrated that the New Testament statements con
cerning the inspiration of the Old Testament are infallible.
But the New Testament writers do not declare themselves
to be infallible. Even in religious matters Paul declares that
he knows in part (1 Cor. iii. 9) ; and when he in Gal. ii.
11-17, in a religious problem of great importance for his
day antagonizes the view of Peter and charges him with
hyprocrisy, he certainly did not consider him infallible.
But this postulate of inerrancy is in itself based on a
false conception of the character of the New Testament.
The New Testament is not a codex of doctrines, which trans
mits to us in a correct form a sum of ideas and teachings
necessary to salvation, but it furnishes the testimony of the
divine revelation of redemption in Jesus, which it teaches
us to know and to understand completely in its significance.
It is able to do this through the personal attitude of its
authors to the acts of God in which this revelation took
place and through the inspiration that taught them correctly

60 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
to understand and describe these. But they can only furnish
the evidence in an effective manner when they demonstrate
in their own personal religious life what the revelation of
redemption is to work. Now they do not themselves claim
that they are already sinless (James iii. 2 ; 1 John i. 8) ; and
it lies in the nature of the case, that the wealth of the divine
revelation of redemption can be appropriated by the indi
vidual not completely but only in accordance with his char
acter and life and the religious needs of his nature. And
then this appropriation, in accordance with the law of his
torical development, can take place only in a gradually
progressive manner. But the fact that a single book or a
single author does not show forth to its full extent the effect
of the redemptive revelation of God does not say, that we
thereby receive from these a false interpretation thereof or
an insufficient instruction concerning the way of life. The
absolute perfection of the Scriptures is rather to be found
in this, that the revelation of redemption as it has become
effective individually and historically in them is just thereby
adapted to satisfy the varied individual religious needs and
is able to awaken and to develop religious life at all stages.
The records of the redemptive revelation can have no other
purpose than this revelation itself, and that is actually to
bring about the salvation that is rooted in religious life.
And from this conception it becomes clear why we do not
need an infallible authority for interpretation. The Scrip
tures interpret themselves. This principle, understood as an
Hermeneutical rule, can lead to serious misinterpretations.
But the Scriptures do not exist merely for the learned;
everybody is to understand them and experience their saving
power. And to effect this a good translation amply suffices,
even if not perfectly correct in all details. The Sacred
Scriptures, even if the reader lacks understanding for its
history or its accounts of the religious life that pulsates in
them, can yet awaken the same kind of life and can open

THE SACRED SCRIPTURES 61
up in all essential points the understanding of salvation and
the way to life. Even if not a few things are yet beyond
comprehension, the reader who is really searching for re
demption will always find enough that is perfectly clear
and will gradually, too, understand what was- to him a mys
tery at first. A good deal depends in this matter upon tak
ing the Scriptures as a whole and not arbitrarily isolating
certain passages, in order to barricade oneself against every
thing else, as the Samaritans closed their eyes to all pro
phetic revelations and were for this reason declared by
Jesus not to know God. If it was the purpose of God that
the Scriptures should show forth a variety of forms of re
ligious consciousness and life, then these are mutually to
supplement and determine each other more closely. Not one
of these forms is in itself incorrect or misleading, but it
becomes such if we are determined to regard it as in itself
and alone sufficient and decline to receive other forms as
its necessary complement and foundation. Each one can
awaken a beginning of new life, but this life must grow and
take root if it is to develop into a full appropriation of the
revelation in Christ and of the salvation that is given in
this revelation, and this can be accomplished only if we
make use of the entire Scriptures.
Naturally the Scriptures will be used only as they want
to be used if we are convinced that they are the records of
the divine revelation of redemption. But no scientific dem
onstration is capable of proving this. All that has been
learned through history as to the origin of the Scriptures,
all that has been learned concerning the historical signifi
cance and the qualification of the New Testament writers,
can only effect this, that we consider these books worthy of
attention and of diligent study. But this may also arouse
criticism and lead to a purely external investigation of the
Scriptures, which brings no fruit for religious life. Only
he who with a longing for redemption in his heart comes to

62 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
the Scriptures can experience this effect. This experience
is the only unshaken proof that they are what they purpose
to be. Just as revelation can only through its effects prove
what it is, thus too the testimony of it in the New Testament
writings can only prove itself by the effects it produces.
Only he who has experienced that the Scriptures awaken in
him a new religious life; that they break the bondage of
sins that fetters him ; that they bring peace in all the terrors
of sin and of our daily life, only he knows what the Scrip
tures really are. Such an one does not need scientific proof,
and his convictions cannot be shaken by any criticism. It
is impossible in the very nature of the case, that the fact
that a book that has the power of conviction can furnish the
certainty that the doctrines it brings are divine revelation;
and this the Scriptures would be forced to do, if it were their
purpose to communicate a sum of ideas and of doctrines re
vealed by God. On the other hand, this specific effect can
prove nothing for the divine miracle which the old inspira
tion theory employs. But the fact that they really attain
the purpose in us which the records of a complete revelation
of redemption alone can possibly work, proves absolutely
that divine perfection, which can consist only in this, that
they are what they claim to be and that they work what they
are intended to work.

CHAPTER IV
RELIGION AND THEOLOGY
1. The Church and Theological Science. — The New
Testament is more than the immediate expression of the re
ligious consciousness of its authors, strongly as this may at
times appear. As the different books are generally written for
their times and surroundings, they purpose in many cases
to instruct their readers on special points of redemptive
truth, to antagonize false ideas, to defend the truth against
errors that had arisen. If the religion of the New Testa
ment is based on the revelation of the redemption in Christ,
then these books must be able to tell us what this redemption
is that has been revealed in the New Testament; how it can
be attained, and what it is to work in us. A religion that
moves only in the world of feelings and reflections is un
known to the New Testament. Faith must express itself in
confession, and this confession quite naturally centres on
the person of Christ and its importance for us (Rom. x.
9-10). But if this matter is to be further explained, estab
lished or defended, then a distinct doctrinal formula for the
person of Christ must be developed, in which the question is
no longer the religion as such, but the theological under
standing of the facts which constitute the basis of this re
ligion. It is not merely a theoretical interest that leads to
the development of such doctrinal formulas, but the purpose
is to secure the results of the proclamation of redemption
and to protect these against corruption. In these formulas
religion becomes theology. The individual in whom the
gospel proclamation has awakened faith and a new life does
63

64 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
not need any theology; but the communion that aims to
preserve in its midst the proclamation of the truth of re
demption for the purpose of edification, instruction and
admonition of its members in its purity and strength, needs
it. Accordingly we find already in the apostolic age that the
process of theological dogma formulation has begun and is
further developed, just as we also see in those times
already new formulas of cultus being developed and the
forms of ethical life in communious reorganized in ac
cordance with the Christian spirit.
In the nature of the case this process must be continued
in the further development of the Christian Church. Just
as the latter is constantly engaged in bringing forth richer
cultus forms for the cultivation of its religious life, just
as she makes use of her religio-ethical impulses for a con
stant and further reconstruction of all the forms of social
life, thus, too, she must for the instruction of her members
and for her own justification in the eyes of the world and
further for the conquest of the errors that are constantly
ready to make themselves felt, give expression to the re
ligious consciousness that has been awakened in her through
the Holy Spirit in ever new forms of doctrines. In doing so
she must find a connecting link with the spiritual life that
she finds surrounding her, since she has as her purpose to
spiritualize the latter with the new power of redemption and
life that has been bestowed upon her and to utilize it for her
faith. If she would fulfil this mission she cannot be content
with the formulas of doctrines which primitive Christianity
developed, as little as she can be with the cultus and social
forms that the earliest congregation produced. But the
further development can be achieved only through a con
stant interchange with the whole progress of the thought,
morality and culture of the world, if the church would retain
her influence on the latter. Naturally this historical process
can be of a healthy character only then when it goes back

RELIGION AND THEOLOGY 65
to the Sacred Scriptures as the source of new religious life
and draws its motives from this head; but it cannot rest
content with this. For this very reason the redemptive
revelation in Christ was supplemented by the general out
pouring of the Holy Spirit over the believers. The same
Holy Spirit that inspired the official witnesses of salvation
in Christ and in that way produced the New Testament,
still is at work in the congregation of the believers and gives
it the power constantly to develop new forms of doctrine,
of the cultus and of ethical and social life.
But a real progress in historical development can not be
achieved if every period is to begin anew under the guidance
of the Spirit to draw these formulas out of the Scriptures.
Just as progress in spiritual and ethical life in general can
be brought about only when every period builds carefully
upon the foundation laid by preceding generations. Thus,
too, the Christian congregation must in its development
appeal to tradition also. This tradition appears in the form
of a tradition of doctrine, which places by the side of the
forms of doctrine already expressed in the Scriptures the
richer developments of later ages, just as this is the case
with the traditions of the cultus and the tradition of Christian
and moral and social life. The Christian life of the indi
vidual does not need tradition; and since this has as its
only source the Sacred Scriptures, it must in principle
decline to listen to tradition. But the church needs tradi
tion for her further development. This development in
accordance with the nature of things is not absolutely normal.
The further the development of new forms of Christian
doctrines and life is removed from the fountain of saving
revelation in Christ, the more it is in danger of all kinds of
corruption that originates in a false conception of the
Sacred Scriptures as the only source of this revelation and
which can also hinder the influence of the Holy Ghost in
the church and congregation but cannot entirely destroy it.
E

66 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
But just for the reason that this development must take into
consideration the intellectual development of the world as
such, in order thereby to be able to influence the world in
turn, it is only natural that foreign influences also make
themselves felt in its progress. Just as it is necessary that
the Church in her further unfolding in addition to the
Scriptures dare not ignore tradition so surely, too, must this
tradition be used only critically. But such criticism must
have a fixed canon according to which it is exercised, and
this canon cannot be found elsewhere than in the Sacred
Scriptures, out of which the entire religious life of the
Church is drawn. The object of this criticism cannot be to
cut out everything in the forms of doctrine and life that is
not yet found in the Scriptures; for this would make all
further development impossible. Its purpose can consist
only in excluding that which is contrary to the original
formulas of doctrines and life taught in the Scriptures, be
cause this difference is proof that such material has not
been drawn from the fountain of the divine revelation in
Christ, but are foreign matters. The Church is constantly
called upon to examine, if the traditional forms of doctrine
and life have been derived from the correctly understood
interpretation of the Scriptures, or if they have been cor
rupted by the foreign influences that surround the Church.
2. The Canon. — When the Church became conscious of
this mission, she had to meet the problem of the canon, i. e.,
the question, which of the books were entitled to be received
into the codex of sacred writings and thus constitute the
Sacred Scriptures, that were to be the norm for Christian
consciousness and life. The Old Church never reached a de
cision in the principle according to which this was to be
done, and did not do so for reasons that appear clearly in
the history of the canon. Only at a late period and then
more on account of the necessity of harmony on this matter,
the different collections of sacred writings current in the

RELIGION AND THEOLOGY 67
Oriental and the Occidental Church gradually became one
codex, without a single conclusion being reached in this
matter that was binding the whole Church. In this process
the Old Testament quite naturally could no longer be made
matter of debate, because the New Testament writers accepted
this as normative substantially in the form in which it
now is found, and regarded it as the record of the prepara
tory stage of redemption, and therefore by that very fact
has it secured canonical authority for us. In reference to
the New Testament Scriptures so much is in itself settled,
that the writings of the Apostles as the official witnesses of
God called and empowered by God to declare the revelation
of redemption have this normative authority for us. But the
official proclamation of the gospel was by no means confined
to the Apostles. Pupils of the Apostles, such as Mark and
Luke, were chosen by the Apostles themselves as their coad
jutors. The brothers of the Lord, James and Jude, made
journeys as evangelists (1 Cor. ix. 5), and even unknown
men, such as the author of the first gospel and the writer
of the Epistle to the Hebrews, must have occupied high
positions of influence in those circles for which they wrote.
Finally it is clear that the canonical authority of these writ
ings in reality depends less upon the persons who were their
authors, than upon the fact that they belong to the times
when the impression of the divine revelation in Christ was
yet so fresh and original that the later developments of
doctrines and life were measured by them.
The attempt to distinguish degrees of canonicity must fail
for this reason, that the lives of many of the New Testa
ment writers are too little known to enable us to judge how
far they were capable by their character and careers to be
reliable witnesses of the divine revelation in Christ. But the
distinction in degrees of canonicity is really based on that
false conception of the character of revelation, according to
which it consists of a supernatural communication of re-

68 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
ligious ideas and doctrines, which are laid down in the
Scriptures, and the correctness of which is to be measured
by the Scriptures. When theological science through its
historical criticism declares that this or that one among the
New Testament books was not written by the apostle whose
name it bears, or that this is at least a matter of doubt, this
cannot affect its canonical authority, as long as it is settled
that the book was at least written by a pupil of an apostle
and in the apostolic times. But the question assumes a dif
ferent character as soon as criticism is able to prove that a
number of these writings originated in the second century,
and even in the later times. For the abstract possibility,
that there may have been men in these late times who,
in consequence of peculiar circumstances, could have faith
fully and in its purity preserved the original impress of
revelation, cannot settle the matter for the life of the
Church. If it has been proved of a certain book that it does
not belong to those primitive times, which are normative for
us, then it must be excluded from the canon. But just as
confidently as this has been claimed at times, just as often
have good reasons been brought out against the claim,
and at any rate the Church cannot depend upon the
learned discussions on this subject, which possibly may never
reach a final conclusion.
Even the experience that the individual has of redemp
tion is for him a sufficient guarantee that the New Testa
ment is what it claims to be, this proof is valid only for the
New Testament as a whole. Only in so far could this be
significant when the one or the other of these writings proves
itself not conducive to but hindering and misleading for the
Christian consciousness and life that is produced in us
through the other books. But how easily the judgment of an
individual can err in this matter is shown by the careless
and untenable judgments of Luther on the Epistle of James,
the Epistle to the Hebrews, and the Apocalypse, which origi-

RELIGION AND THEOLOGY 69
nated in his inability to understand these books and in his
one-sided preferences for others. Certainly, too, on the other
hand, the individual can easily fail to see what in some
book might prove to be a disturbing element and con
tradict the religious consciousness that has been awak
ened. At any rate, the judgment of the individuals in this
matter cannot be decisive for the Church. Even the judg
ment of the period that formed the canon can have a sup
plementary influence only. The plan has been suggested to
return to the distinction between the Homol°goumena and
the Antilegomena that obtained at that period; but this
distinction, both on account of its origin and its very doubt
ful justification, is entirely unsuited to determine even the
grade of canonicity. True, the more it is recognized that
the judgment of the Church as to which is to be regarded
as normative, was based less on principle than on instinct,
the more we will be inclined to believe, that it was the Provi
dence of God, to which we are indebted for the very existence
of the records of revelation, which also controlled the selection
of these writings. To this must be added that every un
prejudiced feeling tells us, that the final and unanimous ex
clusion of those writings that had so long struggled for
reception into the canon, such as the Letter of Clement and
of Barnabas, or even the Shepherd of Hennas, is based upon
excellent tact of the Church.
3. Exegesis. — If the Scriptures are to serve as the norm
for critical examination of all forms of doctrine and life in
the Church, then they must themselves first be understood;
and the indispensible means for this is methodical exegesis,
as this is furnished by the theological science of the Church.
For the Scriptures were written in foreign languages, the
laws of which we must learn in order to understand the Scrip
tures, and in an age, the character and influence of which
on the New Testament writers can only be made clear by his
torical investigation. Of course if we regard the New Testa-

70 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
ment writers as completely passive organs for the transmis
sion of religious ideas and doctrines revealed to them, then
the latter requirement falls away; but with it also the pos
sibility of understanding the statements of the Scriptures
on their own basis. For every written word can only be
understood when we understand the condition under which
and the purpose for which it was written. If the Sacred
Scriptures were written without any regard for their sur
roundings and solely through a miraculous act of God, as
is claimed by the old theory, then there is lacking each and
every means for the objective understanding of what the
words say, no matter how much the exact readings may have
been settled by exact philology. It was thought in the times
when this inspiration theory prevailed, that these means had
been found in the dogmatics of the Church, and this was
done by simply transferring into the Scriptures the ideas
and the doctrines of the Church. But it is evident, that by
such a process the normative use of the Scriptures is de
stroyed. If it is possible to understand the Scriptures only
on the basis of a doctrine already formulated by dogmatics,
then the contents of the latter can no longer be tested by the
former, since its absolute agreement is the presupposition
of dogmatical exegesis. Nor is this matter changed, when a
modern philosophical theory is substituted for the old ortho
dox proposition. Rationalistic exegesis also could not and
would not find in the Scriptures anything else than what
agreed with its own notions; and in an equally arbitrary
manner as did the old orthodox school, it forced its ideas
upon the Scriptures. In those cases where rationalism was
still unprejudiced enough to distinguish between what it
regarded as the teachings of the Scriptures and what
could not be regarded as Biblical thought, it made a distinc
tion between the normative word of God in the Scriptures
and the peculiar notions and teachings of the times in which
the human authors had clothed their thoughts. But for this

RELIGION AND THEOLOGY 71
very reason the normative power of the Scriptures was de
stroyed. Only the philologico-historical method can bring
about that genuine interpretation of the Scriptures, which is
demanded by the normative authority of the Scriptures.
However, the application of this scientific method in the
interpretation of the Scriptures is not so simple a matter.
If we proceed from the presupposition that a large portion
of our New Testament books was written in the second cen
tury, then they must be explained on the basis of the ideas
of that time. This method of explanation evidently moves
in a deceptive circle. It explains the New Testament on the
basis of the ideas of the second century, and proves out of
the books explained in this manner that these belong to the
second century; but against this method the other method is
just as much right which believes that the doctrinal forms
of the New Testament were first used and modified in the
second century to represent thoughts entirely foreign to it.
But even on the supposition that the New Testament books
are the productions of the first century it is often main
tained that their contents are to be explained on the basis
of the later Judaism of the Jewish religious philosophy of
Alexandria. Scriptures explained along these lines cannot
of course any longer claim a normative character, because
no scientific method would be able to determine what was
original in these writings and what was taken from the
notions of the times. But all of these interpretative
methods overlook the fact that the agreement in these
ideas in itself does not prove that in these writings a new
religious consciousness and life has not found its expression.
In itself it is still a matter of no doubt that if two persons
say the same thing it is not the same. Whether this is the
case here must be determined by the purely historico-philolog-
ieal method. It is clear from this that this method cannot
be applied to the explanation of the New Testament except
under certain presuppositions. These presuppositions are,

72 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
however, just as much without justification as are those of
the dogmatical and the rationalistic interpretation of the
Scriptures, if we proceed from the standpoint that the New
Testament writer did not intend to say anything else than
what other contemporaneous writings say. Just as certain
as there is no scientific research without any presuppositions
or " standpoint," so certain it is that only those presupposi
tions are justified in a science which proceeds from the
nature of the objects to be scientifically investigated. Now,
however, the New Testament without the shadow of a doubt
claims to be the testimony of the revelation of redemption
that has appeared in Christ. Whoever does not share this
view cannot understand the Scriptures as they want to be
understood. The conviction that their position is justified
is purely religious in character, and as little originates in a
purely scientific investigation of the Scriptures as any
religious conviction is based upon or is refuted by scientific
reasons. This conviction originates in the personal experi
ence of redemption which is made through the correct use
of the Scriptures, in this that the religious life that pulsates
in the Scriptures, or the Holy Ghost who creates this life,
works a similar religious life in us. Therefore he who
reads the Scriptures for his edification has no need whatever
of a methodical and scientific interpretation of the Scrip
tures; and of this use of the Scriptures it is true in the
fullest sense of the word that the Scriptures interpret them
selves. But the theological interpretation of the Scriptures
requires this method to prove that the Scriptures are what
they claim to be, or otherwise it could not do justice to
their statements and could not understand them in accord
ance with their underlying presuppositions. A scientific
interpretation of the Scriptures from this point of view is
a necessity for the Church, if the latter would lead her mem
bership into a true understanding of the Scriptures and
their proper use, and if she would justify her faith over

RELIGION AND THEOLOGY 73
against those of other faiths. Most of all, however, it is
impossible without this method to employ the Scriptures as
a canon, i. e., as norm for the critical examination of all
new forms of doctrine and life.
4. Biblical Theology. — The sum of results of scientific
exegesis of the Scriptures is called biblical theology. The
chief object of the biblical theology of the Old Testament
consists in a presentation of the different forms in which
the religion of that stage found its expression at various
periods. However important it may be for. this purpose to
show how the preparatory revelation of redemption was his
torically developed in progressive stages, so unimportant is
this, for the religion of the New Testament, which almost
throughout in its religious concepts and doctrines accepts
as such this preparatory revelation. The biblical theology
of the New Testament has an essentially different problem
to deal with. This science deals with a complex of writings
that originated within the comparatively short time of a
few decades, but which were written by authors often differ
ing to a marked degree. Their different individualities as
also the course of their lives must necessarily have modified
in them in different ways the impress which the revelation in
Christ made upon them. In cases like Paul and John, from
whom we possess writings dating from different periods in
their lives it is even possible that the necessary development
that came from the revelation of God in Christ may have in
different ways affected the statements in their various writ
ings. Still more significant is the fact that their writings
are not merely confessions of their religious life, and that
they all, as is shown by scientific exegesis, had the special
purpose of meeting the particular wants of the different con
gregations. These circumstances were the occasion that
induced the authors to write, for the purpose of educating
the untrained Christians for whom they wrote and to justify
the positions held by the authors over against the corruptions

74 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
of Christianity that at an early date to a greater or less
extent were making themselves felt, to develop and unfold
the fixed form of doctrines and then by exhortations to have
these practically applied to the life that grows out of the
true religion. The biblical theology of the New Testament
can have only the one object of exhibiting in their individ
uality the religious and ethical ideas and doctrines that are
found in the different books. Naturally in doing this we
cannot go out from the presupposition that every biblical
writer has fully developed his own doctrinal system, as it
has often been charged against biblical theology. But not
withstanding this, this discipline will not be true to itself
unless it makes prominent also the organic unity of each
group of ideas with the central thought around which they
circle and to demonstrate the historical development of the
different types of doctrines. In those cases in which we
have several books from the same author written at different
times it must point out how far a development in ideas and
doctrines can be traced in these writings. Here it can be
readily seen how dangerous the principle, correct in itself,
that the Scriptures interpret themselves, can become, if it
is utilized without further thought as an exegetical canon.
If a passage from John is interpreted by one from Paul, or
a statement in the Gospels by one in the Epistles, because
these are erroneously regarded as parallels, this process can
lead only to misinterpretations. Whole books of the New
Testament, such as the Petrine Epistles and Hebrews, have
by these false methods been sealed as far as their real his
torical explanation is concerned.
Every dogmatical method of interpreting the Scriptures
must, however, adopt this false method, in which case it is
a matter of total indifference if it proceeds from the stand
point of orthodoxy or of that of modern advanced thought.
From this point of view there is no such a thing as biblical
theology, i. e., no recognition of the different types of

RELIGION AND THEOLOGY 75
doctrines based on individual and historical peculiarities.
True it is that only the old conceptions of revelation and
inspiration in principle discard biblical theology, for if the
Scriptures consist of a communication of religious doctrines
transmitted through a supernatural revelation, then these
doctrines are everywhere the same in the Scriptures. But
as a matter of fact the adherents of the so-called " Biblical
School" combat more or less directly the work of biblical
theology by seeking to cover over the different types of doc
trines that so plainly appear in the pages of the New Testa
ment. These, too, are mistaken in this, that a theology which
in all its essential features has been drawn from biblical
scources can be applied to every detail as a canon of inter
pretation on the ground that Scriptures interpret them
selves. The danger here is just as great as in the case of the
old orthodox and rationalistic interpretation of the Scrip
tures, by which the interpreter's peculiar views are carried
into the Scriptures, and that the unity and agreement of
the Scriptures are saved by this method.
But from another side the attempt is made to show that
this purely objective representation of the different types
of doctrine found in the New Testament is of little value,
as the purpose should be only to show the relation between the
New Testament writings in the historico-religious develop
ment of the times. In doing this these writings are placed
in the same category with the literary productions of later
Judaism and of Alexandrianism, and are regarded like these
as products of the religious movements of those times,
although in the New Testament writings it is conceded that
the religious impulses that proceeded from Jesus may have
constituted an essential factor, but that these were insep
arably connected with other influences. If that is the case
then there is no reason to isolate them and to separate their
theology from that of the times. True it is that in connec
tion with this view the idea is advanced that the religion of

76 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Jesus constitutes the highest development of religion, and
that at all events through Him as a religious genius a new
element has become active. But we know the religion of
Jesus only through the pages of the New Testament, in
which it is claimed that these foreign influences already are
in evidence; and this religion itself, this new element is
thought to have appeared only in old forms, out of which
it is the work of scientific theology to glean the real kernel.
The only thing that biblical theology can with a certainty
discover, according to this view, still remains the agreement
of its ideas and doctrines with those of contemporaneous
theology. In so far as this agreement really existed and
has not been carried into the New Testament theology by a
false historical method, there is nothing strange at all in
this phenomenon. For just as soon as the religion of the
New Testament authors was called upon to find its expres
sion in the form of doctrine for the instruction of others or
for the defense of the writers, it was necessary that a con
necting link be found between it and the consciousness of
the hearers, and thus to express itself in forms of presenta
tion common to the writers and the readers. If, however,
biblical theology adheres to this shell, it never finds the real
kernel of the matter, i. e., never attains to a knowledge of the
new religious consciousness and life which the redemptive
revelation in Jesus produces and expresses in the forms of
its doctrines. But as these doctrines have without a doubt
found their expression in a variety of forms in the religious
development of the Apostolic age, both in accordance with
the individuality of the New Testament writers and according
to the conditions of the times, it is the province of New Tes
tament theology in an objective manner to present these dif
ferences without consideration if or how much in these forms
extra-Christian influences may have been potent factors.
5. The Religion of the New Testament.— The scien
tific investigation of the books of the New Testament can-

RELIGION AND THEOLOGY 77
not rest content with these differences. It must press on to the
unity that underlies these diversities. It is indeed claimed
that if the existence of these diversities in the doctrinal types
of the New Testament have once been acknowledged that it
is arbitrary to presuppose such a unity, as such diversity
might consist of contradictions and inconsistencies that pre
clude a unity. For that kind of theology which studies the
Scriptures on the basis of its own presuppositions this pos
sibility is out of the question. If the different types of doc
trine are only the expression of the religious consciousness
effected by the same revelation of redemption in different
individuals at different stages of development, then these
can mutually supplement and complement each other, but
cannot contradict each other. A book in which would be
found a religious consciousness absolutely contradicting that
of another would be no record of revelation and of a necessity
would be excluded from the canon.
It is something entirely different if in these forms of pre
sentation and series of thoughts of which the New Testa
ment writers make use to give expression to their forms of
doctrines and to their defense and argument, such also are
found as spring from the world of thought common to
themselves and their readers, without their being connected
with the religious consciousness that has been worked in
them through the revelation in Christ. Only too often is the
mistake made that an agreement between New Testa
ment statements and pre-Christian and extra-Christian ideas
is itself a proof that these had been incorporated into the
New Testament as a foreign or even a contradictory element.
It was not possible for the writers of the New Testament
to give expression to the truths of redemption that had been
furnished them by revelation for the purpose of communi
cating these to others in any other way than through current
methods of thought, which they thereby convert into
mediums and bearers of those divine truths. Where this did

78 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
not take place, where, as is often the case in later stages,
remnants of the old have not yet been discarded or foreign
elements are claimed to have been received without being
properly assimilated, in these cases those forms of presenta
tion by that very fact lose their importance for him who is
seeking the underlying unity amid these diversities of doc
trinal types. For this unity can consist only in the knowl
edge of the Divine Being, which has been given through the
revelation in Christ, which, if appropriated as a living
factor, works of itself a new relation to God and a method
of conduct determined by His will, i. e., in the religion of the
New Testament. This religion can be only one, because
upon it is based the realization of the entire development of
redemption, especially its consummation in Christ. Nat
urally this religion can be described only when the state
ments of the New Testament concerning the redemption
given in Christ as also concerning the conditions and effects
of its appropriation are given; hence it is found in a series
of doctrinal statements which in their inner connection and
in the solidarity of their connection in itself demonstrates
the unity and the completeness of the truths of salvation
it conveys.
Accordingly it will be the province of the First Part of this
book to describe the presuppositions or conditions of this
salvation. These are indeed not directly expressed everywhere
in the New Testament, because the authors in many cases
consider them as known from the preparatory stage of revela
tion. We must therefore in many cases go to the Old Testa
ment as a source for them, to which the New Testament
Writers often enough appeal for this purpose. The Second
Part will discuss the redemption in Christ proper. Here
the subjects discussed will be the redemptive acts of God, in
which this revelation has attained its consummation. But
these are not simply historical facts, the mention of which
would suffice; its purpose is rather to show the religious

RELIGION AND THEOLOGY 79
significance of these acts, the understanding of which is
necessary for the understanding of what true religion is.
Here it will appear that religion is viewed by the different
New Testament writers in many instances from different
points of view ; and their statements on the subject we must
compare, if we would reach a complete understanding of the
subject. The Third Part finally will treat of the Realization
of Redemption in the individual and in the congregation, in
the present and in the world to come. Here especially
the divergencies of New Testament types of doctrine will
become prominent. It will be necessary to show that these
originated from the individual peculiarities of the New
Testament writers and from the historical development of
their religious life, which appropriated the redemption in
Christ from different points of view and thus in a different
manner showed forth this life. One of the natural results
of this will be, that however different the expressions may be
that are made concerning the salvation brought by Christ,
these all go back to the same fundamental facts. Not all of
the New Testament writers have had occasion to speak of
the realization of salvation in the congregation ; but we will
be able to show that the statements made on this subject
will suffice to reach an understanding of the question as to
the divinely given laws according to which this consumma
tion shall be realized. A vision of the future of redemption
and the consummation of salvation then expected is certainly
not wanting; but here, too, it will be influenced by the con
ception entertained of the completion of redemption already
realized in this world. Notwithstanding this, we will see
that everywhere the consummation of redemption promised
by Christ is viewed in these different pictures only from
different points of view. But it will not be possible for us
to consider only the single types of doctrine, as these are
given in objective form by biblical theology; but must go
to their common root, in order to bring out the real religious

80 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
consciousness expressed in them. The inner unity and the
necessary connection of the witnesses of this religious con
sciousness will furnish us a picture of the religion of the
New Testament.
The relation between this picture of the religion of the
New Testament and the theology of the New Testament
can best be represented by the relation that exists between
dogmatics and symbolics. If the dogmatics of any particu
lar church purposes to summarize its distinctive doctrines
as laid down in the symbols of that church in a harmonious
and complete system of the religious truths therein con
fessed that it is the purpose in presenting the religion of the
New Testament to give expression to the inner unity under
lying the different types of doctrine of the New Testament
writers. From this it by no means follows that such a pre
sentation would usurp the place of the dogmatics of' the
church. For it is the duty of the church to penetrate more
deeply into these truths of salvation, even beyond the forms
of doctrine expressed in the New Testament. In the course
of her development new needs arise which the New Testament
writers could not take into consideration in their teachings.
New hostile views appear which are to be overcome, new mis
understandings and errors which must be warded off. In
their deepest foundations and consequences the church must
understand these doctrines and must be able to defend them
in the progressive advance of intellectual thought and life.
This necessitates further construction of doctrines, which are
not for this reason alone that they are such to be rejected,
the conditions being the same in the development of the
cultus and the life of the church, which the church gradually
unfolds also beyond the precedent set by the New Testament.
In these developments the Scriptures are the authority and
a canon, i. e., are the norm according to which these devel
opments are to be examined, to see if they have originated
in the genius of the church or are to be rejected as foreign

RELIGION AND THEOLOGY 81
elements. This latter is to be done, not because they are not
yet found in the Scriptures, but because they are in conflict
with the doctrines found in them or cannot show that they
are based on scriptural teachings. In the degree to which
this is discovered the baneful tendency will decrease, which
has caused so serious a misinterpretation of the Scriptures,
of finding in the Scriptures forms of doctrine and life that
have been historically developed and perhaps are justified
on the plea of thereby securing recognition for them as legiti
mate parts of Christian doctrine. On the other hand, the
dogmatics of a certain church will always retain its indi
viduality as historically developed, but correspond rather
to a separate biblical type of doctrine and does not expand
the whole wealth of biblical redemptive truth. Here it is
that the science of the religion of the New Testament will
be able to show the places where the one-sided features, that
of a necessity accompanied the historical development of
dogmatic, may endanger the correct presentation of the
biblical truth, and where, on the other hand, it has been the
occasion of newer constructions, which make better use than
before of the whole wealth of the doctrinal forms contained
in the Scriptures. This presentation is a necessity for the
theological science of the church, in order that she may make
full and complete use of the Scriptures as a norm for the
development of her doctrines.

PART ONE
THE CONDITIONS OF REDEMPTION

PART I
THE CONDITIONS OF REDEMPTION

CHAPTER V
THE ESSENCE OF GOD
1. The One True God. — The Sacred Scriptures, the
purposes of which is to furnish us the revelation of God, can
not begin with declaring or with proving the existence of God.
On the other hand, every one who would come near to God
and who would search the Scriptures from real religious
needs, must believe that God exists (Heb. xi. 6). Only the
fool saith in his heart there is no God (Ps. xiv. 1). But
foolishness is not the inability to learn, but is the denial of
this, that is, willful blindness. This presupposes that God
can be known and that it is His purpose that He shall be
known. True it is that He is invisible (Col. i. 15). The
fact that no man has ever seen His essence (1 John iv. 12)
is explained by 1 Tim. vi. 16-17 on the ground that He lives
in a light which no man can approach. His essence by the
very nature of the case is not knowable to man, whose knowl
edge in all cases proceeds from what he learns through his
senses. It is significant that the Scriptures nowhere dis
cusses the possibility of man attaining to a knowledge of
God through his reasoning powers. This, however, is be
cause the Scriptures nowhere call the ideas which mankind
through his reason attains of God, even if these are of the
most spiritual character, a knowledge of God. Reason has
not been given to man for the purpose of furnishing him
with ideas concerning God, but to understand the revelation
of God. God is known only in his revelations, in the primi-
85

86 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
tive revelation (Rom. i. 21), in the revelation that has been
given to Israel (John iv. 22) ; and, finally, in Christ (John i.
18, Matt. xi. 27). At the same time it is true that Paul
declares that even this knowledge is only " in part," and
that the complete seeing of God is reserved for the state of
perfection (1 Cor. xiii. 9, 12). Even John, who has found
in this seeing of God in Christ the highest blessedness (Chap.
1. 1), still looks to the future, when we shall see Him as He is
(1 John iii. 2). But this shows anew that God can be known
only in so far as He has made Himself known in His revela
tion acts. Just as He reveals Himself in Christ as the one
who brings salvation through the sending of the Messiah,
thus He reveals Himself in the end as that one who will
complete this redemption, and only in this way will He be
perfectly known.
The knowledge of God secured through revelation is and
can be nothing else than experimental knowledge. It is
therefore a mistaken idea to speak of a conception of God
in the Scriptures. A knowledge of God received through the
normal processes of the intellectual powers would be possible
only for those who are skilled in logic and are able to form
concepts. But in His revelation God reveals Himself to the
babes, and indeed especially to these (Matt. xi. 25), because
the pride of self-gained wisdom is often a hindrance to the
reception of the full impression of the divine revelation.
The result of a knowledge coming from revelation by the
Scriptures is called "The name of God." Israel knows
the name of God when God has manifested Himself as the
one He is, by delivering the people out of the hands of their
enemies (Jer. Iii. 6), and because He has manifested Him
self through His miraculous leading of Israel every pious
Israelite knows His name (Ps. ix. 10). In this it is presup
posed that His name is not an accidental or purely conven
tional designation, but that it expresses the nature of Him
who bears it. Certainly not in a manner evident to our

THE ESSENCE OF GOD 87
reasoning powers, but as is the case with significant names
that are favorite appellations in the Orient, and which char
acterize the leading peculiarity of the bearer (John i. 42).
In this way the name of God includes everything that has
been made known to us concerning the essence of God, as
this name brings these things vividly to our minds. The
purpose is not to furnish a theoretical knowledge of His
being; but, since all revelation aims at a realization of
religion, to determine our conduct over against Him. The name
of God has been made known to us, that we may love this
name, i. e., the God whose essence is designated by this name
(Ps. v. 11), to praise and to glorify Him (Ps. lxii. 1; Rev.
xv. 14), to call upon Him (Ps. cxvi. 4), as the one who alone
can furnish help (Ps. cxxiv. 8), to deem Him holy and to
fear Him (Matt. vi. 9, Rev. xi. 18). The name of God is to
be proclaimed over all the earth, in order that all may learn
to know Him as the one who has proved Himself through
His wonderful deeds (Rom. ix. 17, on the basis of Ex. ix. 16).
Jesus, too, summons together the whole result of His life's
work in the statement that He has made known to His own
the name of God (John xvii. 6-26). These now know to
call Him as the one who has revealed Himself in Christ.
The word " God " (Elohim, 0e6?) is not a name for this
purpose. The Scriptures use this name as a generic term
for every creature superior to man in dignity and strength,
for which reason it is often without the article the equivalent
of " divine being " (cf. John i. 1). In this way Moses was to
be the " god " of Aaron when he puts into the mouth of the
latter what he is to speak (Ex. iv. 16), and of Pharaoh
when he gives orders to him by divine authority (Ex. vii. 1).
In this way Jesus Himself refers to a passage in the Psalms
(Ps. lxxxii. 6), where human and that too unjust govern
ments are called gods (John x. 35), and Paul calls the devil
the god of this world (2 Cor. iv. 4). On the basis of such
passages, in which the God of Israel is called the God of all

88 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Gods and Lord of all Lords (Deut. x. 17, Ps. cxxvi. 2 sqq),
Paul declares that there are really many gods and many lords
(1 Cor. viii. 5). Only through His revelation does God re
ceive a name that designates Him as the one who has made
Himself known. It is therefore possible that there are many
names of God, according to the different sides of His being
which He has revealed. Thus He reveals Himself to Abra
ham as the Almighty (Gen. xvii. 1). To Moses He makes
Himself known as Jehovah. For us it is not the chief mat
ter to decide what this tetragrammation (J. H. V. H.) means ;
which even in the explanation given in Ex. iii. 14 admits of
different interpretations, but says that by this name He in
tends to designate Himself as the God of Abraham, Isaac and
Jacob, or as the God who has revealed Himself to the Pa
triarchs (Ex. iii. 15), and whom Israel is to honor as its only
God (Deut. vi. 4~5). For this, too, is a characteristic of a
proper name that it designates the bearer in his individual
capacity, who is thereby distinguished from all others.
Since later Judaism on account of a misintepretation
of Lev. xxiv. 16 considered the name of Jehovah as too
sacred to be uttered by the mouth of man, the Massoretes
through the vocalization of the text indicated that the name
is to be pronounced " Adonaj," or Lord. Hence it happens
that the New Testament has only this one name (Greek
Kvpios ) for the god of revelation, the God of Israel. Mark
xii. 29 quotes the passage in Deuteronomy : " The Lord our
God is one Lord," i. e., unique in his essence, with whom
none other can be compared. Jesus himself cites the passage
from Deut. vi. 13 in this way : " The Lord thy God thou
shalt worship and Him alone shalt thou serve " (Matt. iv.
10). This name was all the more characteristic because in
this name was included the whole content of the higher
stage of revelation. God can be recognized as the Almighty
through the very works of creation (Rom. i. 20), but He can
in this way only as the Highest Power in the presence of

THE ESSENCE OF GOD 89
which man is ahsolutely helpless. To Israel God has re
vealed Himself as the highest authority, to whom the people
are pledged to absolute obedience. It is only to be regarded as
an echo of the Old Testament when in the New, God is desig
nated as the Almighty (Luke xxxii. 35, 76) or when special
reasons in this connection calling for emphasis of His
uniqueness (Rom. iv. 3, Eph. iv. 6, 1 Tim. ii. 6) explain it.
In the records of the New Testament revelation of God it is
self-evident matter that there is but one true God, i. e.,
only one who really exists, and that is He who has sent Christ
to reveal Him ; and the knowledge of whom is only then true
knowledge when it includes also Him whom God has sent
(John xvii. 3). As He is called the God of the fathers, be
cause He had employed them as mediums of His revelation,
thus in Eph. i. 17 He is called the God of Jesus Christ,
because He has made use of the latter as the organ of His
highest revelation. Through this revelation God receives a
new name, in which His deepest essence is expressed. With
this name Christ addressed Him (Matt. xi. 25) and taught
His disciples to address him (Matt. xi. 9). Therefore Paul
says (1 Cor. viii. 6) : " But to us there is but one God, the
Father." 2. The Glory of God. — The one true God is in contrast
to the dead idols the living God (Acts xiv. 15; 1 Thess. i. 9).
Every living thing possesses power, by expressing which it
reveals itself. But the God of revelation makes Himself
known through His deeds and through His works, in the
blessings He bestows on the faithful and the punishments
He inflicts on His enemies. The Messiah is called the Son
of the living God, because this God has sent Him to carry
out His plan of redemption (Matt. xvi. 16). The High
Priest adjures Jesus by the living God, who will punish
him if he lies (Matt. xvi. 26, 63), and it is a terrible thing to
fall into the hands of the living God (Heb. x. 31). What
the Scriptures say of the way in which He gives expression

90 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
to His life can be clothed only in the forms that are taken
out of the sphere of our own experiences. Only a spiritual
being that is similar to our own being can become the object
of our thoughts and can prove a power in determining our
activity, something that an abstract conception cannot.
The life that is in God and that He gives to His Son, in
order that the latter should communicate it to us (John v. 26,
vi. 57) is none other than that which for us consists in the
knowledge of God in Christ (John xvii. 3), that is, His orig
inal self-knowledge. The way in which the Spirit of God
searches the depths of the divinity is described by Paul
entirely in accordance with the analogy of human self-con
sciousness (1 Cor. ii. 10_11). The Scriptures speak of the
mind of the Lord as the seat of His counsels (Rom. xi. 34,
according to Is. xl. 13) ; of His soul as seat of His pleasure
(Matt. xii. 18, according to Is. xiii. 1) ; of His heart as the
seat of His affections (Acts xiii. 22, according to 1 Sam. xiii.
14). The New Testament speaks exactly as does the Old
Testament of the eyes and the ears of God as the organs of
His knowledge, of His hands as the organs of His activity.
All the so-called anthropomorphisms can be no proof that the
idea of God found in the Old Testament is not yet spiritually
concerned. When Jesus says that God is a spirit (John iv.
24) he does not propose thereby to proclaim a new concep
tion of God, but He appeals for what He says to a truth that
was equally well understood as self-evident by the Samari
tans as well as by the Jews. But it is true that God's
spiritual life is exalted above all limitations to which our
life by experience is shown to be restricted. This super
mundane exaltation of God the Scriptures expresses in the
idea of his " Glory" (Sofa ). This glory of God has mani
fested itself already in His revelation in nature, as Paul pre
supposes in Rom. i. 23, and as is so grandly described in Ps.
xix. 1-7. This God of glory appeared to Abraham in the
beginning of the history of redemption (Acts vii. 2) ; in the

THE ESSENCE OF GOD 91
deeds of salvation of the New Testament His glory is also
manifested (Rom. vi. 4, ix. 23) ; and in the doxologies of God
it is lauded (1 Pet. iv. 11).
Our life as we know it by experience is finite. It is only
divine life that is infinite. God lives in all eternity (Rev.
x. 6) ; He is the eternal and everlasting, who alone is immor
tal (Rom. i. 23, xvi. 26; 1 Tim. vi. 16). But Psalm xc. 2
declares that He was from everlasting to everlasting, as the
one who was before the mountains were brought forth and
the earth was formed; and in Revelations He is called the
Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end (Rev. i. 8).
Human measurements of time do not apply to Him, for
one day is to Him as a thousand years and a thousand years
as one day (2 Pet. iii. 8, according to Ps. xc. 4). As the
ruler of all the ages He not only rules all the generations of
the world, but has also determined the order in which the
development of the world takes place in distinct periods of
time. That we are limited by time we not only know by
the fact that our lives have a beginning and an end, but also
the changes and vicissitudes that we observe taking place in
time and in the progress in time. Even the heavens are sub
jected to this law of changeableness. God alone remains as
He is (Heb. i. 11-12; Ps. cii. 27-28). This Being knows no
change or turning, not even of the kind that the heavenly
bodies show, which sometimes shine and sometimes do not
(James i. 17). He is unchangeable.
But everything that has life has also an abiding place.
God alone needs no dwelling place. He does not live in the
temples made with hands (Acts vii. 48-49), because all the
heavens cannot contain Him (1 Kings viii. 27). In order to
give reason why the true worship of God is not confined to
certain localities Jesus draws attention to the fact that God
is a spirit (John iv. 21_24) and is therefore not limited to a
certain place. But just as His exaltation above time does
not exclude that He controls all times with their changes

92 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
and vicissitudes; thus, too, His exaltation above the limita
tions of space does not prevent His omnipresence. All of
these statements are not based on the idea of an absolute
spirit, whose freedom from the conditions of time and space
excludes all relations to a world bound by time and space;
it is based rather upon the recognized consciousness of the
limitation of our human life, in order to awaken a vivid con
ception of the exaltation of God, who, for the very reason
that He is not bound by these conditions, shows His presence
in the same way and at all times everywhere in the world.
These statements have as their purpose to awaken religious
life, fear of Him before whom nobody can hide himself (Is.
xxiii. 23~24), and from whose presence none can flee (Ps.
cxxix. 7~10), confidence in Him who is near to all (Acts xvii.
27) and is by our side in every danger (Is. xliii. 2).
Everything that has life needs something for life. God
alone needs nothing; He does not require man's help (Acts
xvii. 25). Nobody has ever given Him anything first that it
shall be recompensed unto Him (Rom. xi. 35, according to
Job xii. 2) ; He is the Blessed One who has all sufficiency in
Himself (1 Tim. i. 11, vi. 15). In order to satisfy its needs
human life must depend upon the power that has been im
planted in it, bodily and spiritual; but experience shows how
limited these powers are. God's power alone has no limita
tions; He is the Almighty (2 Cor. vi. 18; Rev. i. 18). Again
the point here is not that He is able to do everything abso
lutely, so that such foolish questions could arise as to God's
ability to do what is self -contradictory or what is evil. His
omnipotence consists in His being able to do what He wills
(Ps. cxv. 3, cxv. 6). For He speaks and it is done; He com
mands and it stands fast. (Ps. xxxiii. 9). This is made
known to us, so that we may do as Jesus did, look up to Him
who can do all things (Mark xiv. 36), to trust Him for whom
all things are possible, even what is impossible for men
(Matt. xix. 26).

THE ESSENCE OF GOD 93
But to carry out one's purposes there is need not only of
power but also of the wisdom that always discovers the right
means to attain its ends. Therefore the Scriptures call God
the " Only Wise " (Rom. xvi. 27), who has no need of a
counselor (Rom. xi. 34, according to Is. xl. 13). His wisdom
is even past finding out (Rom. xi. 33), because His thoughts
are higher than our thoughts (Is. Iv. 9). He has manifested
His wisdom in the creation (Prov. iii. 19-20, xxvii. 13), as
also in the preparatory stage of revelation (1 Cor. ii. 7), and
then in its full development (Eph. iii. 10). But a wisdom
that knows its goal must be able to know also absolutely all
the conditions necessary to the attainment of this goal. Be
cause our wisdom is limited we do not possess the right wis
dom. God's wisdom, however, is absolute. He knows the
whole world; He numbers the stars as also the hair on our
heads (Ps. cxlvii. 4; Matt. x. 30); He knows all our
wants (Matt. vi. 8) ; He looks into the secrets
(Matt. i. 4, 6), and knows the heart (Luke xvi. 15;
Acts xv. 8). It is only necessary to examine into the motives
that the Sacred Scriptures assign for the omniscience of God
to recognize the fact, that their purpose is to awaken fear
of Him who will in His own time bring all things to light
that are hidden in the hearts of men (1 Cor. iv. 5), and to
arouse confidence in Him who knows all things that He
needs to know to attain His purposes (Rom. viii. 27). God's
omniscience is used for the purposes of His wisdom. What
has been revealed to us concerning the former has not been
deducted from the conception of the absolute, or with a view
to the question whether He really knew everything knowable
or not. Above all, the question whether He knows before
hand what men by virtue of the freedom of their will would
determine to do, which would relieve them of responsibility
or would destroy the future in so far as it is conditioned by
their activity, by which their liberty of action would be

94 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
destroyed, is from the very nature of the case an impossible
problem for the religion of the New Testament.
3. Holiness and Righteousness.— As God's name is
glorious (Ps. lxxii. 19) it is also holy (Luke i. 19, after Ps.
cxi. 9) ; His holiness corresponds to His glory (Is. vi. 3). He
is the absolutely Holy One (Is. xl. 25 ; 1 John ii. 20), and is so
worshipped (Heb. i. 12; John xvii. 11). His exaltation above
the world brings with it also His holiness. But while the
glory of God has already been revealed in the sphere of natu
ral revelations God's holiness belongs exclusively to the sphere
of the revelation of redemption. He is the Holy One in Israel
(Ez. xxix. 7). For the limitations and restrictions above
which God is exalted according to His glory are conditions
of the world as God has been pleased to create it; in His
holiness is found expressed His relation to the world, which,
as is known through experience, is no longer what it should
be, since sin has become dominant in the world. Over
against this world God reveals himself as the Holy One,
i. e., as the one who is absolutely separated from that which
is not what it ought to be. The idea of holiness contains
the idea of being separated. It is not lack of clearness in the
representation of His holiness when in the Old Testament it
is put in contrast to what is morally unclean, but also to
what is physically unclean. There lies at the bottom of this
idea the deep feeling that this world as such has through sin
come into a state that is the opposite of what it ought to
be and that even natural conditions and processes of life
have been polluted by sin and have become unclean. Holi
ness is not sinlessness; for the mere declaration that God is
without sin is folly, since God's very nature is the opposite of
what is sin. But God's name is polluted by everything in
the world that is sin (Jer. xxxiv. 16 ; Amos ii. 7) ; through
sin it would appear that He is not in earnest in His separa
tion from all sin or that He is not able to live up to His
holiness, although His supermundane exaltation enables Him

THE ESSENCE OF GOD 95
both to show His holiness and to glorify Himself in the
world (Lev. x. 3). In so far it is only a revelation of His
holiness when He separates from among those nations that He
had permitted to go their own way (Acts xiv. 16) one people
to make it a holy nation (Lev. xi. 44-45). By making this
people holy, according to His commandment, as He is holy
(Lev. xi. 44-45) He makes Himself holy in it, i. e., He reveals
His holiness to all the nations (Ez. xx. 41; xxxix. 27) the
holy seasons and places that He orders for it have been sep
arated from contact with the world elsewhere, that is not
as it should be, and are dedicated to Him, as are the holy
men whom He selects for His special service. Whenever
that is done in Israel, too, which should not be done and His
name is thereby defiled, then He makes Himself holy by pun
ishing the sin (Lev. x. 3) ; and by the fact that the people
purify themselves from their sins and repent (Ez. xxxvi.
23-27), then the Gentile nations by attacking His nations
dishonor the name of God, and He can make it holy again in
the eyes of all only when He punishes these nations (Lev.
xxxix. 7, cf. xxxviii. 16). In this way Israel is the specific
field where He reveals His holiness. Isaiah calls God the Holy
One of Israel (Is. i. 4) ; He is the Holy One in their midst
(Hos. xi. 9). To this people He has revealed His will through
Moses and the Prophets, so that it keeps His law as well as
every one of His commandments holy (Rom. vii. 12). In
contrast to all that is as it should not be, the law reveals
that which is good and right in the eyes of God (Deut. vi.
18) and God demands of the people (Micah vi. 8, cf. Rom.
ii. 18). It is to this law to which Jesus refers when He says
Matt. xix. 17) : Why dost thou ask me concerning that
which is good? There is but one who is good. If thou
wouldst enter into eternal life, keep the commandments.
Here in connection with the completion of the redemptive
revelation we find the position correlate of the holiness of
God. While the Old Testament revelation of holiness looked

96 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
to the exclusion of sin from Him and through Him, because
it was what should not be, Jesus transfers the commandment
of Lev. xi. 44 into the positive word, Ye shall be perfect (in
love) as your Father in heaven is perfect (Matt. v. 48).
It is only a revelation of the holiness of God when He in
His words separates Himself from the sinful world, in which
sin and infidelity rule. God is not a man that He should lie
nor the son of man that He should repent ; hath He said, and
shall He not do it? or hath He spoken and shall He not make
it good? (Num. xxiii. 19). The word of the Lord is right;
and all His works are done in truth (Ps. xxxiii. 4) ; and it is
impossible that God should lie (Heb. vi. 18) ; and He has
everywhere shown that He is the truth (Rom. iii. 4). But
this can be the case only when He, who has in His command
ments threatened with punishment all the transgressors of
His will, in order to preserve His holiness, punishes all those
who defame His name. This manifestation of His word of
truth by the condemnation of all the transgressors is nothing
else than a farther revelation of His holiness. Through His
judgment upon the pride that rises up against Him the
God of holiness sanctifies Himself, and that through right
eousness (Is. v. 16). For the righteousness, on account
of which He punishes the sins of the peoples (Neh. ix. 33;
Dan. ix. 7), is the specific quality of God as a Judge (Ps. ix.
5 ; Jer. xi. 20; Acts. xvii. 31 ; 2 Tim. iv. 8). His judgments are
just (Apoc. xvi. 5; xix. 2). In this respect, too, God is
separated from the world, in which injustice and partiality
rule. God does not regard the person of a man (Rom. ii. 1 ;
Gal. ii. 6) ; His judgment is passed in accordance with the
actual facts in the deeds of men (Rom. ii. 2). In His prayer
at His final departure Jesus still appeals to the justice of the
Father, so that in accordance with it He may treat His own
differently from the world (John xvii. 25). For if His jus
tice demands that He recompense each one in accordance with
his works (Rom. ii. 5-6; 2 Thess. i. 6~7), then the pious

THE ESSENCE OF GOD 97
must be more prosperous than the wicked, as God must
recompense these also according to their righteousness and
purity (Ps. vii. 9; xviii. 21; xxiv. 5). But justice is not
only the justice that punishes, but it must show itself over
against both the good and the bad equally. It was owing
only to the position of Israel, as the people were often sur
rounded by heathen nations and the pious were often op
pressed by the godless, that God was called upon with
greater frequency to prove His righteousness, by delivering
them (Ps. xxxi. 2), and by bringing their enemies to shame
(Ps. xxxv. 24 sqq.) when the pious so often appeal to His
justice for help in their oppression (Ps. iv. 2). It still is His
righteousness as judge that keeps the pious and punishes
the wicked. But this idea is not changed by the fact that
God has promised both and that He thus at the same time
shows forth his faithfulness and truthfulness ; for which rea
son His righteousness and truthfulness are appealed to in the
parallelisms of Ps. cxliii. 1 and are glorified together in Deut.
xxxii. 4. Ps. xcvi. 13 expressly says that He will come to
judge the earth with righteousness and the people with His
truth. It is also impossible to apply the idea of righteousness
to God in any other sense. In the case of men righteousness
consists in this that they conform to the norm of the divine
will (Deut. vi. 25) ; but in the case of God, who has Himself
established this norm, it can consist only in this, that He
regards this norm established by Himself as a guide for His
own dealings with mankind. It is in all events only, as Paul
says, speaking " after the manner of men," when he in Rom.
iii. 3~5 on the basis of Ps. Ii. 6, speaks as if God were being
tested as to the fidelity of His word and found justified ; or,
when, in Deut. xxxii. 4, the conclusion is drawn from God's
faithfulness, that there is no iniquity in Him, and from His
righteousness, that He himself is norm, in so far as in both
cases He is separated from the falsehood and the iniquity of
G

98 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
the world, while without any reason an appeal is made
to Ps. Ii. 16 for a seemingly different idea of God's righteous
ness than the judicial. When the repentant praises the
righteousness of God that has saved them from their bloody
guilt, they do this because God treats them differently from
His treatment of the unrepentant; and because God ex
pressly promises to do this, it is said in 1 John i. 9, that God
is faithful and just to forgive the sins of those who repent.
Righteousness continues to be the attribute of God which
regulates the reaction of the holiness of God against sin and
recompenses every one, both the good and the bad, according
to his deeds. Even the revelation of the glory of God in His
omnipresence and His omniscience is intended to awaken the
fear of God in man. But it is only the revelation of His
righteousness, which is controlled unalterably by the norm
which God has established for the conduct of man, that can
positively work a desire for that righteousness through
which man can stand in the judgment before God.
4. Grace and Faithfulness. — God's revelation in nature
makes known His goodness, and the Bible often inter
prets this revelation in order to awaken and intensify our
appreciation of it. " Thank the Lord, for He is good and His
mercy endureth forever," are the opening words of Ps.
cxxxvi. ; and by the constant repetition of this refrain, it
directs us to the revelation of God's goodness in nature (vv.
5, 9, 25). The magnificent Psalm on nature (Ps. civ.), pic
tures in verses 10-28 the care of God for all His creatures,
in affording them food and protection; and Ps. xlvii. 8-9;
14 ascribes this in so many words to the goodness of God.
Jesus in Matt. v. 45 emphasizes the fact, that this goodness
is shown without distinction to good and to bad. But nature,
besides exhibiting such evidences of goodness also shows
forth great terrors ; by the side of the riches and the benev
olence for the creature it points out also great sufferings
and terrible oppressions. But in an altogether different way

THE ESSENCE OF GOD 99
God has revealed His goodness to Israel, as the Ps. cxxvi.
already quoted in verses 10-14 shows at the hand of the his
tory of the people and Ps. evii. in the thousandfold expe
rience of individuals. For the very reason that Israel is His
holy people, the people of His possession, whom He has se
lected out of His own free love and has delivered it from
the bondage of Egypt (Deut. vii. 6 sqq.), and whom He has
guided by His goodness (Ex. xv. 13). It is the firstborn of
the Lord (Ex. iv. 22; Hos. xi. 1), all the members of this
nation are His children (Is. i. 2; xliii. 6), i. e., are the
objects of His special love and care. He has led, protected
and blessed the people v.ith a father's love (Deut. xxxii. 6;
Is. lxiii. 16), and has shown for it an affection deeper than
a mother's love (Is. xlix. 15; Jer. xxxi. 3). The love of a
husband for his wife is also a picture of the love of God
for His people (Hos. iii.; Ezek. xvi. 23). From this it can
be seen how erroneous it is to place the revelation of the
love of God in contrast to the revelation of His holiness and
His righteousness in the Old Testament. It is, indeed, said,
that in the Old Testament the love of God is limited to one
single people; but this is conditioned by the historical char
acter of the revelation of redemption. Since all the revela
tions of God are revelations of acts, this love can show itself
over against the people only in this way that He makes them
to be mediums of His revelations. It shows itself first of all
in His mercy, according to which out of pity for the deplor
able condition of the peoples, as this is so impressively pic
tured in Ex. iii. 7, 9, He has compassion upon them. He
reveals himself to them as the merciful God (Deut. iv. 31).
But since the greatest evils of the people were those caused
by sin, He shows His mercy especially in forgiving the sins
of the people who return in repentance and by not punish
ing them (Ps. lxxviii. 38), He reveals Himself to them as a
God of mercy (Ps. cxvi. 5), and because the people frequently
continued in their sins for a long time, He waits patiently

100 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
with His punishments, to see if they will finally repent (Jer.
xv. 15). Since these three forms of the revelation of God's
love are connected with the giving and the blessing mercy of
God made with the Father He has promised this grave to their
fession of Israel, which is the sum and substance of their
redemptive history, and is often re-echoed in the Psalms
(lxxxviii. 15; ciii. 8; cxlv. 8), a confession the like of which
is scarcely to be found in the New Testament, viz. Lord
God, merciful and gracious, longsuffering and abundant in
goodness and truth (Ex. xxxiv. 6).
The intimate connection between this fidelity and the
demonstration of His grace is deeply embedded in the reve
lation of salvation in Israel. For in the covenant which
God made with the Father He has promised this grace to their
descendants, and has confirmed this repeatedly in the re
newals of the covenant. However much Deut. vii. 7~8 em
phasizes that God has selected His people from His own free
love, mention is nevertheless made of the fact, that He thereby
is keeping the oath which He has made to the fathers. So
little is the revelation of His goodness contrary to the reve
lation of His holiness, that the certainty of His word, which
is a revelation of His holiness, is only confirmed when He
keeps what He has promised and remains true to what He
has said. The patriarchs already glorified all the manifes
tations of the grace of God, which they had experienced, or
evidences of his goodness and fidelity (Gen. xxiv. 27; xxxii.
11). Because His word is truth Israel hopes for the fulfill
ment of His promises (2 Sam. vii. 28), and does not hope
for this in vain. " There failed not ought of any good
thing which the Lord had spoken unto the house of Israel;
all came to pass" (Josh. xxi. 45), therefore the Psalms glori
fy together His goodness and His fidelity (Ps. lvii. 4; Ixi. 8).
His goodness does not cease to be goodness if it is exhibited
as the faithful fulfillment of a promise made by God. But
only tliose can experience the goodness of God who on their

THE ESSENCE OF GOD 101
part keep the covenant faithfully and realize the mission
of the people to be a holy nation. The fulfillment of His
promises is conditioned'by the keeping of His commandments.
And God remains faithful also when He showers His mercies
abundantly over those who keep His commandments (Ex.
xx. 6; Deut. v. 10). Only for those who keep His covenants
are the wages of God nothing but goodness and truth (Ps.
xxv. 10).
But as is His truth thus, too, His justice, which recom
penses everyone according to his deserts, is a revelation of
His holiness. According to His justice God must treat His
people if they are faithful to His covenant differently from
His treatment when they are unfaithful, by keeping His prom
ises only in the former case. It has already been seen, that
it is no misinterpretation of the idea of justice when justice
and grace are extolled as parallels (Ps. xxxiii. 5; cxlv. 7),
when the goodness of God, which continues from eternity to
eternity over those who fear him, is joined with His justice
toward those who keep His covenant and obey His command
ments (Ps. cxiii. 17-18). Again in a parallelism to the
statement that His goodness reaches as far as the heavens
and His truth unto the clouds (Ps. xxxvi. 5-6) the state
ment is found that His justice stands like the mountains
of God (cf. Ps. 1 xxxix. 15). Goodness does not cease to
be goodness when he to whom it is shown has made it pos
sible for God to do so according to His justice. In Ps. Ixii. 12
we read : To thee belongeth mercy ; for thou renderest to every
man according to his work. His goodness as also His justice
are appealed to, so that these through the punishment of
the wicked will bring deliverance to the pious (Ps. xxxvi.
11 sqq.). It is seen here again, how erroneous it is to regard
the revelation of His grace as contrary to the revelation of
His justice, as this latter only aims to secure for those who
deserve it the goodness and the truth of God. Only we
see here again, how much better the revelation of redemp-

102 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
tion is able to awaken religious life than the revelation of
His glory can. The revelation also of His eternal and un
changeable omnipotence, His all-knowing and all-wise near
ness, is intended to awaken our confidence in Him. But the
revelation of His goodness, which is not bestowed arbitrarily
and which could be withdrawn, but which if connected with
His word of promise, must prove true, exalts the confidence
in God into a conscious trust in His word, through the
entire preparatory stage of the revelation of redemption
runs, too, the promise of a final and highest revelation of
His goodness toward His people. In Christ this promise
has been fulfilled (2 Cor. i. 20). Therefore the faithful
ness of God can manifest itself fully only in the New Testa
ment. Here it has been revealed, that He is faithful who
has given the promises (Heb. x. 23). Upon His faithfulness
is then founded the certainty, that He will bring to a realiza
tion of salvation those whom He has called by strengthening
and preserving them from all evil (1 Cor. i. 9; 2 Thess. iii.
3). In this way the revelation of His fidelity naturally leads
over to His final and highest revelation.
5. The Revelation of the Love of God.— Christ fulfils
the Old Testament promises. All of Israel's hopes are real
ized in Him. He is the Beloved Son in whom God is well
pleased (Matt. iii. 17), and whom He has selected to be a
Mediator of all of His redemptive work (John v. 20). The
revelation of God which Christ alone can transmit (Matt.
xi. 27) is the final and the highest revelation of the love of
God to His people, through which God brings to them the
promised completion of salvation in the Kingdom of God
announced by Jesus. In Him His love is bestowed not only
upon the people as such, which the mere membership in this
nation of itself does not yet guarantee to everyone. In the
Kingdom of God He manifests His Father's love to every in
dividual who would be a member of this kingdom, by forgiv
ing his sins, by realizing in Him His justice, by answering

THE ESSENCE OF GOD 103
k
His prayers, and by blessing and protecting him in his
external life also. Among all the good and perfect gifts
mentioned by James i. 17-18, the highest is this, that He
has begotten through the word of truth the members of the
congregation to become true adherents of God, as the children
of Israel were always intended to be and yet actually often
were not. Peter calls the believers out of Israel the " chosen
generation," who notwithstanding their former apostasy
received mercy, and to whom God now shows the evidences
of His grace, of which they stand in need (1 Pet. ii. 9-10;
v. 10). According to the Epistle to the Hebrews God has
made a covenant with them, in which, on the basis of a full
atonement for sin, the grace of God has again been bestowed
upon them, and thereby the fulfillment of the promises of
the old covenant has been secured. Especially is it the
Apostle Paul who tells us that after the appearance of Jesus
a new era has been inaugurated, the time of grace (x'opis)
and of salvation ( dpyvrj ). But the gospel of this grace is
preached not only to the people of Israel, but to all nations.
God no longer waits for the return of the sinner in order to
be merciful unto him. He has shown His love by giving His
Son unto death for men while they were yet in their sins
(Rom. v. 8), and accordingly proclaims the message of re
demption to all the world (2 Cor. v. 19). In this act He re
veals His innermost essence; now He is nothing but light,
i. e. has been perfectly revealed (1 John i. 5). It is now no
longer a single side of His essence that has been revealed, but
His very essence. The revelation of God that is yet to be
expected has nothing to add to this (cf. 1 John iii. 1~2).
Everything is summed up in the word : God is love (1 John
iv. 8, 16). The living God can give evidence of His life only
in a certain activity, and the essential activity of His life is
love. In His loving the real essence of His love is made
known (1 John iv. 10). We so often understand by love
the desire of love for that which pleases us; but this is at

104 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
bottom only one form of selfishness. God's love is of a
kind that is directed toward the salvation of man; is a love
that withholds no sacrifice. God so loved the world that
He gave His only begotten Son (John iii. 16). This love
manifests itself also in a goodness that gives and bestows
(Rom. xi. 22; Eph. ii. 7), in pity, by which He has com
passion with the distress of man (Rom. ix. 23 ; 1 Pet. 1. 3) ;
in his forgiving grace (Rom. iii. 24) ; in His long-suffering
that does not desire a single one to be lost but that all
should repent and live (2 Pet. iii. 9). All these manifesta
tions of love are known to the Old Testament; what is new
in the New Testament is the fact that they all spring from
the love of God as His very essence.
The glory and the holiness of God already revealed in the
Old Testament must then also serve the purposes of this love.
Here it is again seen that the revelation of God's love is not
to be placed over against the revelation of His holiness.
The wrath of God that is aroused by sin is only the neces
sary reaction of His holiness, which must separate itself
from everything that is not as it should be. Therefore His
wrath is directed only against that which is really sin, while
man's anger does not work the righteousness of God (James
i. 20). Therefore, His holy wrath against sin goes hand in
hand with His love for the sinner, the purpose of which being
first of all to deliver man from his sins and make him
again the object of the Father's love. The Jews were the
children of wrath on account of their sins, i. e., had become
objects of divine wrath (Eph. ii. 3), and yet on account of
their election by God were loved for their Father's sake
(Rom. xi. 28). It is entirely incorrect to look at the wrath
of God from a purely eschatological point of view. It is true
that the Prophets already point to the Day of Wrath in the
Old as well as in the New Testament (Zeph. ii. 3; Rev. vi.
17). This is the great day of judgement on which the wrath
of God will in a final way reveal itself (Rom. ii. 5; iii. 5).

THE ESSENCE OF GOD 105
The Baptist begins his work with the threat of the coming
wrath of God (Matt. iii. 7) ; Christ has appeared to deliver
from this day (1 Thess. i. 10; Rom. v. 9). But the wrath
of God is aroused now already over all godless deeds (Ex.
xxxii. 10; Jer. xvii. 4), and makes itself felt in the punish
ments that are inflicted on the sinners (Ps. vi. 2 ; xxi. 10) ;
unless God turns His wrath into mercy (Ps. lxxviii. 38),
and convert it into eternal grace (Is. liv. 8). This is not
only the Old Testament way of speaking. In Rom. iv. 15,
the Apostle tells us that all transgressions work the wrath
of God; and in this world already His wrath extends over
the children of disobedience (Eph. v. 6). In the history of
the heathen peoples Paul sees a revelation of the wrath of
God over all the ungodliness and injustice of men (Rom. i.
18). The wrath of God abides over all who do not render
obedience to Jesus (John iii. 36), and this wrath accord
ingly rests upon them now already. There are vessels of
wrath now already, which God has borne in long patience
without thereby withdrawing the final proof of His wrath
(Rom. ix. 22). The unbelieving Jews have felt the extreme
wrath of God (1 Thess. ii. 16). The greater the revelation
of the love of God in Christ, the more terrible must His
wrath be enkindled over those who do not accept His grace
and will not permit this grace to perform its work in them
(Rev. xiv. 10; xvi. 19). But all of these manifestations of
wrath in time have only the one purpose of bringing man
to repentance (Rev. ix. 20-21; xvi. 9). Just as sure as His
wrath on account of sin can be joined to His love for the
sinner, just so little can there be a disharmony between His
love and between His holiness and justice, which is to be
harmonized from without. This is indeed, the highest revela
tion of His love that He does not seek the transcient hap
piness of man, but his eternal salvation. Just as even hu
man love, like weak good nature, does not take pleasure in
the evil that the neighbor does, but because it seeks only

106 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
his good, rejoices only in what good he does (1 Cor. xiii. 6),
thus God shows His wrath to man on account of sin, be
cause He knows that sin is the destruction of man, only for
the purpose of delivering him. For the very reason that
He is holy the highest manifestation of His love must have
as its purpose to make man holy as he Himself is holy, so
that God can make it possible for man to participate in his
own blessedness.

CHAPTER VI
THE WORLD AND MAN
1. Creation as History. — The revelation of God
throws light also on the world around us and teaches us to
recognize it as a creation of God (Rev. iii. 14). The proper
conception of revelation from the very outset excludes the
idea that the Mosaic account of creation is based on a super
natural communication of the process of creation made to
the first man or to the Old Testament writers. This report
shows merely what form the ideas current on this subject
among all the peoples took from the standpoint of the reli
gion that had been established in Israel. In this form the
most significant feature is the fact that the world was called
into existence through the word of the Lord. What is nar
rated in Genesis is only the plastic expression of what Ps.
xxxiii. 6 declares : By the word of the Lord were the heavens
made ; and all the hosts of them by the breath of his mouth.
But the word is the revelation of the divine will, on account
of which all things are, and are created (Rev. iv. 11). In Heb.
xi. 3, it is particularly emphasized that this was to be so,
so that the things which are seen were not made of things
that do not appear. Not on account of the dualistie conse
quence do the Scriptures, to the scope of which such matters
do not belong, deny the existence of material out of which
the world was created; but, as we are distinctly told here,
for the reason that the origin of the world can be under
stood only by faith, i. e., only from the standpoint of religion.
It is a matter of essential importance for the Scriptures
that the heavens and the earth were called out of non-
107

108 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
existence into existence by God (Is. xlviii. 13), who calls
that which does not yet exist by name as though it were
already finished in his eyes (Rom. iv. 17). From God alone
all things can come (Rom. xi. 36).
The second thing that strikes us in the account of creation
given in the Old Testament is, that there was a beginning
of creation (Gen. i. 1) ; that the world did not proceed from
God from eternity, in an endless succession of ever new
world formations. As the Scriptures speak of a passing
away of the heavens and the earth (Matt. v. 18), although
only to make room for a new heaven and a new earth (Is.
Ixv. 17), thus they also speak of a beginning of creation
(Heb. i. 10). They consider the creation of the world as a
point of time from which they count and do not hesitate
to speak of that which was before this beginning (John xvii.
24; Eph. i. 4), although seemingly the existence of God
without time is put under the category of time. This is
most intimately connected with the ideas entertained by
the Scriptures of eternity and of the unchangeableness of
God, which do not consist in this, that the changes and
vicissitudes in time are not applicable to God, but that He
rules and determines these. The Epistle to the Hebrews
expresses a deep thought when it designates the created
world not as a finished something, but speaks of the creation of
the ages of the world, of the seons (Heb. i. 2; xi. 3), because
their development, which God has apointed at the same time
with the creation, necessarily takes place in epochs of time.
The conviction has been deeply impressed on the true reli
gion, which itself is based on a history that has become
revelation, that real life began with creation, which life has
the power and the laws of self-preservation and self -develop
ment in itself, and therefore from the very beginning must
take the form of history.
It is for this reason that the very first book of the Bible
relates a history of creation, which takes place in a series

THE WORLD AND MAN 109
of creative acts. In doing this the account presupposes that
in no case the lower state of life has developed through
itself a higher, but that to bring about this a new creative
action was necessary on the part of God. In this way the
world of the inorganic comes into existence first through
the formation of the earth (Gen. i. 9-10). Then follows the
creation of organic life in the vegetable kingdom and of
animal life in the animal kingdom, both of which already
contain in themselves the law of self-propagation (Gen. i.
11, 22). In the same way this account presupposes that al
ready through the creative act, the different forms of life,
in which each stage of life develops, are implanted (Gen. i.
12, 21, 25). It is, however, clear that at the bottom of the
series of different creative acts is found the idea that in the
earliest stages of existence the conditions must be estab
lished without which a development of the higher stage is
not possible; that the former must first have attained to a
full stage of development before a new one can be estab
lished. For this reason the creation of light is the first in
order (Gen. i. 3; 2 Cor. iv. 6), as this conditions all life.
It is naturally just as unnecessary as it is futile to try to
bring into harmony with the results of natural science the
different processes of creation, which even in the account
found in Genesis and still more in later accounts are given
in poetical forms. As certain as it is, that the mind im
bued with the religious study of nature will have grasped
essential features in this development correctly, so self-
evident it is, that it will be only through the scientific in-
vestigaton of nature that the different forms of life and
these conditions of life will be correctly understood. It is
clear that the distribution of the creative acts over six days
is certainly done for the purpose of showing that the seventh
day as the day of rest is something already appointed as a
divine ordinance in creation (Gen. ii. 2-3). Jesus says ex
pressly that by the fact of God's resting on the seventh day

HO THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
a continued work of God in the world that was created by
Him was in no wise denied (John v. 17) ; and the Epistle to
the Hebrews considers this Creation Sabbath as a prophecy
of the Sabbath rest which is in store for the people of God
above, when the labors on earth shall have been done (Heb.
iv. 9-10). The Old Testament itself at the close of its
account of the history of creation emphasizes that every
thing that God made was very good (Gen. i. 31), i. e., was
suitable for its purpose (1 Tim. iv. 9). This does not ex
clude each and every imperfection in details, for the har
mony of the world at large, to which the New Testament
term for world, i. e., oKooywjs already points, is based on
this, that higher and lower stages of life are united with
each other and that each one points to a higher, until man,
the highest, is reached. Further, the fact that each life
stage appears in different species, shows that none of these
represent in its fullness the essence of its stage of life, until
on the highest stage man as a unique creature is found, in
whom, therefore, the final purpose of creation must be
sought. 2. Creation as the Revelation of Love. — If in the
perfect revelation of Himself God is recognized as Love,
then the beginning of His self revelation in the creation
can be not only a revelation of His power (Rom. i. 20) but
must also be regarded as a revelation of His love. By this
fact everything that is already revealed in the Old Testa
ment receives its deepest basis. The pictures of a world-
material thought as existing at some place or other, or the
creation of such, could not be a work of His love. Then,
too, in an emanation of His own person, that would aim at
His self -evolution, God could love only Himself. Creation
must therefore consist in the production of something else
that could become the object of His love. A world that
from the beginning was a completed object could only be a
play-ball of divine omnipotence. Only if the world from

THE WORLD AND MAN HI
the beginning contained in itself a relatively independent
life can it make use of this life and in the development of this
hfe experience the love of God, for all love is activity for
the benefit of others. And now it is seen that it was His
loving providence that caused the different creative acts to
follow upon each other ; that each stage of life finds realized
already in the preceding that which it requires for the
development of its own life. Now it becomes perfectly
clear why the act of creation reaches its final and highest
stage only in the creation of man (Gen. i. 26-27). There is
such a thing as love for all things, but the perfection of
love can exist only between spiritual beings. The whole
work of creation has for its aim this highest creative act;
each stage of life has its purpose in one higher; man alone
has his purpose in himself; all creation exists for his
sake, and yet the object of his existence is found beyond
this world in a higher sphere, in which his destiny, his
life, his happiness is to be fully realized. Therefore the
individual as such in the lower sphere of its existence is
transient; only the genus, rendered certain through the
propagation of the race, has an abiding value; while man,
if he is destined for a higher world, has as man an eternal
worth. With this we step upon the New Testament stage of reve
lation in the narrow sense. When the apostle emphasizes
the fact that the secret of the divine plan of redemption,
as long as there are ages or asons, was hidden in Him who
has created all things (Eph. iii. 9), his object can be only
to indicate thereby that in the act of the creation of the
world the divine plan of redemption, which has been re
vealed in Christ, was already the decisive factor. It is
expressly made prominent in 1 Cor. ii. 7, that the purpose
of this determination of the wisdom of God made before
the ages is our participation in His glory and blessedness.
Because His love impelled Him to have other beings also

112 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
partake of this love He created man, and for his sake the
whole world. But this love of God has been revealed to us
only in Christ. As He was foreordained of God before the
foundation of the world as the Mediator (1 Pet. i. 20), thus
in Him also the recipients of salvation are chosen before
the foundation of the world (Eph. i. 4). For their sakes
the Kingdom has been prepared before the foun
dation of the world (Matt. xxv. 34). In Christ grace has
already been given then before all times (2 Tim. i. 9).
Therefore, it is stated in Col. i. 16, that the world was
created in Christ; in Him in a causal sense the fact of the
creation of the world rests. If He had not been, in whom.
God, as it were, has furnished the guaranty, that mankind
is to be led to that goal for which they have been destined,
then the world would not have been created, which
could have only this one purpose to lead man, who represents
the highest stage of creation, to this goal. That He who
upon this earth is the Mediator of our salvation must also
be the Mediator of our creation, is a view that is common
and current in all New Testament writings (1 Cor. viii. 6;
Heb. i. 2; John i. 3).
These foregoing opinions are not useless theological spec
ulations that are taken out of this or that philosophical
scheme. The passage in the Epistle to the Colossians
shows how the riddle of creation, and with it the whole
world-riddle, is solved from this point of view. The words
" by Him " is particularly explained in this passage by the
statement, that all things were created by Him and for
Him, because, if creation originally rested in Him in a
causal sense, it could not take place without Him, in whom
from the first beginning God has revealed Himself in His
essence as self -communicating love, and without reference
to Him, in whom mankind was eventually to enter into the
most intimate communion, it could not attain its end. In
this relation of the creation of the world to the divine plan

THE WORLD AND MAN H3
of redemption is found the reason why in the former, too,
the promise of the eventual consummation of the latter is
contained. Therefore, even in the most direful times we
can entrust our souls to our faithful Creator (1 Pet. iv. 19),
who will finish what He has begun in the creation. Just
as surely as the essence of God, which consists of love,
excludes the idea that in the creation of the world He sought
only His self-realization and the self -development of His be
ing so certain it is nevertheless, that the creation of the world
was not something arbitrary or accidental, that could equally
as well have not been done. Since love has need of another
in order to communicate itself to the latter, the creation of
the world was something the necessity of which is based on
the essence of God. But as this essence is revealed only
through His works, the purpose of creation, as of all the
acts of God, is to reveal His essence and to glorify Him.
"Thou art worthy to receive glory and honor" are the
words found in Rev. iv. 11, " for Thou hast created all
things." In so far we can say that the whole world was
created just as much for His sake (Heb. ii. 10) as it is for
man's; that all things have their highest purpose in Him
(Rom. xi. 36), finding in Him their blessedness. Indeed the
assignment of this purpose thereby designates their real con
tents. God's glory cannot consist in the mere expression of
His power. H the consummation of His plan of redemption
tends to the praise of His glory (Eph. i. 12-14), then His
highest glory from the standpoint of the New Testament
consists in nothing else than the glory of His love; and the
glorification of God, which was intended by the creation,
can have been none other than this, that He was to be known
in this act of love as He who He is. From the standpoint
of this religious view of the world the solution is also found
for every riddle that is based on the philosophical con
struction of an idea of God, such as how it is possible for
the eternal and unchangeable God by the act of creation to
H

114 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
enter into time with all of its changes. By this fact He
not only does not change His nature but He rather in
reality realizes it, in so far as the deepest essence of all love
is found in the transmission of self to another. Only in
this way was it possible for God to bring the world to its
goal, the limitations of which by time and its changes only
could really transform, make it into something else, when
man, in whom the highest stage of the world is reached, by
the way of historical development, finally becomes partaker
of eternity and of the unchangeableness of God.
3. Man as a Natural Being. — It is of basic import for
the religious conception of the world, which regards man as
the one great object of creation, to recognize the fact that
the world is a fixed organism. Even the highest stage of
life, which is marked by this, that God expressly makes
known His counsel for its creation (Gen. i. 26), stands in
the closest connection with the preceding stage, which con
sists of the land animals as the highest form of the animal
kingdom, together with which man is created on the sixth
day. He belongs primarily to the stage of animal
life. As little as the creation of the animals (Gen. ii. 19)
excludes the possibility that nature called into activity
through the word of God should cause a new stage of exist
ence (Gen. i. 24-25), so little does the formation of the
body of man (Gen. ii. 7) exclude the possibility of his origin
in an organic manner through the germs of life called into
activity by the divine creative power. But we are told that
he was made of the dust of the earth (cf. 1 Cor. xv. 47),
and the idea of his artistic formation suggests the thought
that the form of the body of the highest of God's creatures
has also been prepared a beautiful object. The breath of
life which God breathed into man (Gen. ii. 7; cf. Rev. xi.
11) is in itself none other than that which is found also in
all animals (Gen. vii. 22). The earthly material, called
into life by this breath of life, is called in the Scriptures

THE WORLD AND MAN 115
" flesh," both in the case of man and of animals. The same
differs in kind, but without a specific distinction (1 Cor.
xv. 39). Animals and men are classified together as flesh,
in whom there is the breath of life (Gen. vi. 17; vii. 15).
But the breath of life, which enters into the flesh becomes a
living soul, both in the case of men (Gen. ii. 7; cf. 1 Cor.
xv. 45) and in the case of the animals (Gen. ix.16 ; cf. Rev. xvi.
3) ; all living individuals men call " souls " (Acts ii. 41 ;
vii. 14). The soul is the bearer of the physical life (Rom.
xi. 3, according to 1 Kings xix. 10) as well as of the soul
that feels and desires. The seat of the soul according to
the Old Testament conception is the blood (Lev. xvii. 11) ;
the flesh in which the blood is contained, is living flesh
endowed with a soul. Flesh and blood (1 Cor. xv. 30; Heb.
ii. 14) characterize man as an earthly living being. If the
blood has been poured out, then the soul departs and a dead
body remains, in which the flesh elements (James v. 3 ; Rev.
xvii. 6) have lost their organic connection by virtue of
which they had formed a carnal unit. Therefore, too, the
flesh, if joined to the soul, can itself feel (2 Cor. vii. 5) and
desire (Gal. v. 16), as a creature that feels and desires, i. e., as
a creature with senses, man stands on the same level with
all other animal beings and thereby in connection with
the life of all nature. This connection by no means de
grades him, it rather only confirms that all creation is an
organic whole and makes it possible that in man, in whom
the highest stage of creation has been reached, the purposes
of creation shall be attained.
In this particular, too, man is akin to the animals, that he,
like they (Gen. i. 22), received the blessing of reproduction
of his kind (Gen. i. 28). Man, too, has from the beginning
been created in two sexes (Gen. i. 27). The idea that Adam
was created first and afterwards Eve (1 Tim. ii. 13), and
that, too, out of Adam (1 Cor. xi. 8, 12), already finds a
plastic expression in Gen. i. 2, 21 sqq., but with the express

116 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
object only of explaining the fact that an irresistible im
pulse of nature draws the man to the woman for the purpose
in turn of uniting her in sexual union with him and thus
to annul the sexual difference (Gen. ii. 24). By these two
becoming one flesh (Mark x. 8) begetting according to the
flesh results (Gal. iv. 23-29) whereby reproduction is brought
about. What the flesh begets is again a creature of the flesh
(John iii. 6). Adam begets a son after his own image
(Gen. v. 3). With this it has been given that in the beget
ting of a new living creature a soul comes into existence
together with the living flesh ; for living flesh without a soul
is an impossibility. The idea that in connection with the
act of begetting a soul newly created by God or even a
pre-existing soul is united with the newly begotten flesh, is
entirely contrary to the Scriptures. It is useless to appeal
for this idea to such passages where it is said of a single
human being that God made him or that the breath of God
gave him life (Ps. cxix. 73 ; Job. xxxiii. 4) ; for this is only
a religious expression for the fact that man is indebted to
the creative act of God for his existence, in which connec
tion the question whether this in each case takes place
mediately or immediately is left undecided altogether. When
in Heb. xii. 9, God is called the Father of the Spirits in
contrast to the Father of our flesh, this can not at all be
meant in the creative sense, since the proceeding of a de
scendant from the loins of a father (Heb. vii. 5, 10) is the
strongest expression for Traducianism. The idea of a con
stant renewal of creative acts, which are thought to be
necessary in the origin of each human being, contradicts
the fundamental thought of the Scriptures of a creation
finished once for all (Gen. ii. 2). It tears apart the organic
unity of the human race, upon which Acts xvii. 26 lays so
much stress, and the clear teachings of the Scriptures that
salvation is intended not for the individual human being
but for all mankind as such.

THE WORLD AND MAN H7
On the other hand the question if the human race is
derived from a single pair or from a number has no con
nection with the preceding. This is purely a question for
natural science, which can be solved by science only with
a greater or smaller degree of probability. Only the idea
that the Biblical account of primitive history is super
natural instruction on the subject of the order of creation
can make the unity of the human race a binding dogma of
faith. The creative and primitive history of man as this
is depicted from the standpoint of the religion of Israel,
could naturally be exemplified only in the case of a single
human pair. The idea of the simultaneous creation of a
number of pairs is from a religious point of view so little
an impossibility, that it makes unnecessary for the propaga
tion of the human race the marriage of brother and sister,
so strongly condemned by the Scriptures. That throughout
the New Testament this typical primitive history is every
where regarded as real history is based on the fact that it
was so understood by the New Testament times. The unity
of the human race is based on the fact that God created
mankind of two sexes and through the sexual desires and
the corresponding organization of the woman secured the
propagation of the human race.
4. The Image of God in Man. — That which raises man
above the animal is often sought for in a third element
claimed to be his in addition to body and soul, namely the
spirit, so that man is considered trichotomic. This idea is
in every particular contrary to the Scriptures. The Spirit
which God causes to dwell in man (James iv. 5) is really
nothing else than the principle of physical life without which
the body is dead (James ii. 26), for which reason this spirit
also departs when death is present (Matt, xxvii. 50). The
spirit is so little different from the soul which man possesses
in common with the animal creation, that it is only by the
entrance of this divine breath of life into the material that,

118 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
as we have seen, animals and men become living souls.
Everywhere throughout the Scriptures the same manifesta
tions of life are ascribed sometimes to the soul and then
again to the spirit. Both expressions appear as perfectly
synonymous; for the soul is merely the divine breath of
life that has entered into the earthly matter and the spirit
is the living principle of the soul. The heart, however, is
not a psychological conception in the Scriptures. The heart
as the centre of the circulation of the blood, since according
to the idea of the Old Testament the life has its seat in the
blood, is the seat of all spiritual-mental life. It is especially
called this in those passages in which the secrecy of the
inner man (2 Cor. iv. 16) is to be emphasized in contrast to
the all that is externally visible (1 Pet. iii. 4; 1 Cor. iv. 5).
It is in vain to appeal for the doctrine of the trichotomy of
man to Heb. iv. 12, where the sole purpose is to picture the
power of the word of God as it forces its way into the inner
most recesses of man in this manner that, the soul and its
deepest life foundation, namely the Spirit, are, as it were,
dissected. A departure from the common usage of the
Scriptures is found only in the case of the Apostle Paul,
who, in so far as he does not adhere to the popular use of
the words body and soul, reserves the word " Spirit "
(irvcvpia) as an expression for the Spirit of God that has
been bestowed upon the believer, in which sense also 1 Thess.
v. 23 alone speaks of a spirit besides the soul and the body.
The Scriptures know nothing of the bestowal upon man
of a new element of life that distinguishes man from the
animals, but they do ascribe to both the spirit and the soul
of man functions which are unknown in animal life; the
functions of feeling, thinking, and willing. How man has
attained these the Scriptures nowhere directly say. It is
only noteworthy that they state, that in the creation of
man the breath of life was breathed into him by an especial
act of God (Gen. ii. 7), but that its presence is simply pre-

THE WORLD AND MAN 119
supposed in the case of the animals. This can be nothing
but the plastic figurative expression for the idea that on
the basis of a new creative act on the part of God the
animal life that belonged to man was given the power to
develop into a higher life, the spiritual life in the harrow
sense of the term. Spiritual life cannot in the nature of
the case be communicated to others, but can originate only
there where the conditions for it exist. Even the life of
feeling and the desires cannot be communicated, but it
originates on the basis of a material organization of man
endowed by the divine breath of life for this purpose. In
the same way it is only possible as the result of a higher
power coming from a divine breath of life that feeling,
thinking and willing are developed in man. At the creation
of the world this process was not only introduced by the
one act of creation, but in conjunction with this there has
been implanted in every soul the law of life according to
which in every newly created man the soul-life is unfolded
into the spiritual (in the narrow sense). This dichotomic
view of the Scriptures is a matter of the greatest impor
tance. It alone guards the unity of the nature of man,
which by the separation of the soul and the spirit into
different life centres is irredeemably lost, as also man's
organic connection with the life of nature, upon which his
relation to the entire creation depends. The trichotomic
hypothesis necessarily leads to the acceptance of a special
creative act in connection with every new life and to a
false spiritualism, according to which the body is the prison
of the soul.
The spiritual life that develops on the basis of the animal
life is the image of God, after whom man has been created
(Gen. i. 26-27). This cannot mean a religico-moral char
acteristic; for since after the loss of the original it is still
said that God created man after His image and His simili
tude (Gen. ix. 6; James iii. 9). Paul sees in man the

120 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
image of God (1 Cor. xi. 7) just as this is the case in the
story of creation. The churchly use of the term Image of
God is based on Col. iii. 10; Eph. iv. 24, where, however,
the writer does not speak of the first creation at all but of
the new creation in the believers. Again the image of God
cannot consist in his supremacy of the earth, since this,
according to Gen. i. 26, is only one of the consequences of
the fact that man has been created in the image of God.
The spiritual life, in the narrow sense, is that which in man
is specifically like God. In this sense Paul finds that the
word of the heathen poet is justified (Acts xvii. 28) : Ye
are of divine origin. Just for this reason the Scriptures
as in all of their statements concerning God from the
analogy of man's life, could speak of His affection, His
thoughts, His counsels; not because they make God to be a
man, but because man has been created after the image of
God, and it is accordingly possible to recognize God in him
and his being. Just as a picture is the representation of an
object in a different material, thus, too, man is the expres
sion of divine life in the limitations of the carnal nature.
In the Old Testament, too, the flesh is often mentioned in
contrast to God, His word and His spirit (Ps. lvi. 5 ; Is. xl.
6-8; xxxi. 3). It is not a contrast that has become such
through sin, but one that is founded in creation. This is
the basis of the peculiar use made of the word " flesh "
(<rdp£) by the Apostle Paul, according to which this is
not only the material substratum of our earthly life but the
entire natural life of mankind in contrast to the divine.
On the basis of the divine act of creation a life is developed
within the limitations of our life in the flesh that goes out
beyond this. His self-consciousness and self-determination
are not confined by these limitations and for that reason
have a virtue and worth that goes beyond the transitive-
ness of all flesh. For this reason God has found only in
this stage of His creation an object worthy of His love.

THE WORLD AND MAN 121
For love demands for the I a Thou, and can exist only be
tween beings endowed with personality.
5. The Original State of Man.— Since the idea of a
primitive golden age is found in the traditions of all nations
it is perhaps not impossible that in Israel, too, the account
of its conception of Paradise and of the first human beings
may have received much of its formation and coloring from
this source; but the thing itself is indissolubly connected
with the true religion itself. If all things that God created
were very good (Gen. i. 31), then man, too, as he came from
the hands of God must have been very good. This does of
course not mean that he from the outset possessed all of the
perfections of the religico-ethical life; for it belongs to the
nature of spiritual life that it is developed by gradual
stages. It lies in the nature of all spiritual things, that
they possess a value only when they are acquired by con
scious self-determination. 11, however, the creation is the
first and most natural revelation of God, and if man has in
creation been endowed with the ability to know God and
to serve Him according to His will, then naturally religious
life must have developed itself in man in his normal condi
tion. Reason and freedom are no empty powers. Reason
develops the power to know God only as He reveals Himself
in His creation; freedom and self-conscious self-determina
tion develops in man who has been created good only as a
voluntary entering upon the revealed will that shows itself
in love. If it is the highest destiny of man to attain to a
perfect communion with God then a beginning of this must
have been realized even in the primitive condition of man
kind. The Apocalypse in its picture of the life in the con
summation of the Kingdom of God draws its colors from
the Old Testament description of the life in Paradise. God
walks among men (Gen. iii. 8) and they hear His voice
(Gen. ii. 6). In the primitive stage of the history of man
kind religion is realized in so far as this could be done in

122 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
the child state of man in that era, in a Godpleasing state of
blessedness. The normal relation that existed between God and man
corresponds to man's normal relation to the world created by
God. Man was created to be lord of creation (Gen. i. 26-27 ;
cf. Ps. vii. 7 sqq.), and as in the nature of the case he could
only in the course of time become such; this purpose, too,
of his development must have been implanted originally and
realized so far as it was possible in his state of progressive
development. Nature around him still offered him every
thing that he needed and proved serviceable to him in all
respects. God brings to him the animals and awakens in him
the ability to give them names (Gen. ii. 19) so that he may
determine the value of each for his purpose. In what way
this normal relation between man and nature was at that
time realized is a matter that on account of the perfectly
changed conditions, we can no longer know, since we can
know only what falls under our experience. But so much is
emphasized by the story of Paradise that this condition of
the world was not yet universal. God planted a garden in
Eden (Gen. i. 7, 8). But this condition could be preserved
only through the work destined for man, that he should
dress and keep the garden (Gen. ii. 15). Man is just as
much intended for culture as for the cultus. He is to learn
to serve God and to rule over the earth, and in this very
thing he is serving God. The thought suggests itself to
supplement the account of the Scriptures with the idea that
under his hands the whole earth is to be converted into a
garden of God; i. e., is to be converted into the domain
adapted for his highest realization and perfect service to
Him. As in the prophetic prediction, together with the
realization of religion the richest blessings are poured out
also over all nature around and about in the same way. On
the basis of its normal development, this condition was to
be brought about through his activity, because the world,

THE WORLD AND MAN 123
created for his benefit, was adapted for this very end. The
life of man in Paradise shows that the beginnings of this
destiny of man has already been realized ; the primitive con
dition of man was as little one without culture as it was
without cultus.
Naturally man in his own essence partakes of the essence
of the nature that surrounds him. He himself is a creature
of nature. But because he has been created after the image
of God, because all other stages of the life of creation are pos
sible only for this reason, because these stages of life have
their purpose not in themselves but in him, therefore he
cannot like all other creatures of nature be a mortal being.
He in whom the purposes of all creation are realized
must be immortal. Man is destined for communion with
God. But the eternal God cannot enter into communion
with a being that is mortal. For this reason Jesus con
cludes from the mere fact that God calls Himself the God
of the Patriarchs that these were destined for an eternal
life (Mark xii. 26-27). In the religion of the New Testa
ment, according to which creation is a work of divine love,
the purposes of which are realized in man as the crown of
creation, the endless existence of man is a self-evident propo
sition. In general the Scriptures nowhere in so many words
teach the existence of the soul after death. All peoples in
all religions have hoped for it and only philosophical con
fusion has denied it. But it was reserved for the true religion
as established in the Scriptures to furnish the absolute cer
tainty of immortality. If the soul is the breath from God,
which by His creative word has founded in the carnal
nature of man a Hfe that is a godlike life, that is above
nature, then this soul must be as immortal as God is Him
self. But the endless existence of the human soul is not
immortality. This latter is an attribute of God alone (1
Tim. vi. 16). Man is distinguished from God by this very
fact that he has a natural side which is subject to death.

124 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
According to his carnal nature he is dust that will return
to dust (Gen. iii. 19). But in Paradise grows the tree of
life (Gen. ii. 9) ; and when in consequence of his sin man
was forbidden to eat of its fruit and to live forever (Gen.
iii. 22, 24), this presupposes as self-evident that this had
been his destiny originally. As he through the complete
mastery over the world was to convert the whole earth into
a garden of God, thus, too, through the normal development
of his spiritual life he was to master the nature side of his
life, to transform it into a perfect organ of his religious and
ethical life, and thereby exalt it unto everlasting glory. Man
was not created immortal, but he was destined for the im
mortality, which in the normal course of his development
he could and would have attained.

CHAPTER VII
SIN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES
1. The Occasion of the First Sin.— The fact that the
original destiny of man in his primitive condition was not
realized but rather that his condition, as evidenced by ex
perience facts, became an entirely different one, is explained
in the Scriptures by the narration of his fall into sin and
its consequences. It is entirely a matter of indifference to
what extent in the development of this picture details from
the old traditions of the nations have been introduced. The
nature of revelation precludes the idea that this narrative
was transmitted in a supernatural way, nor could it have
been handed down by tradition from the first human beings.
The religion of the Old Testament, which worships a holy
God, can explain this direful change only as a punishment
for the sins of man; and its prophetic narrator reports a
typical story of the origin of sin; not for the purpose of
reporting dead facts, but vividly to teach the essence of sin
and to warn against it. This narrative begins with the
statement that God through a positive command gave to
man the choice to follow His will or to disregard it (Gen. ii.
17). According to Rom. vii. 7 sqq., also the history of sin
begins with the fact that the commandment is given to man :
" Thou shalt not covet." The book of Genesis considers
this, too, as something good, i. e., as something wholesome
for man; for the tree of temptation belonged also to those
trees that God had caused to grow in the garden for the
good of man (Gen. ii. 9). In fact the condition of inno
cence in primitive man, in which man does the will of God
125

126 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
because he immediately recognizes it as that which must be
done, notwithstanding the God-pleasing condition of blessed
ness that is connected with this, is not yet the goal which
man was to attain. A truly voluntary fulfilment of
God's will, one that proceeds from the love of God, must be
conditioned by the consciousness of the ability to do other
wise. This consciousness, however, can arise only when the
opportunity is offered to man to do that which God has
forbidden. Not through the actual prohibition but already
by the very fact that He planted the tree with the forbidden
fruit in the garden, God gave to man this opportunity of
being tested.
Without this test man cannot go from the condition of
innocence into the state in which he through trial becomes
pleasing to God. Even the Son of God could not learn
obedience without this temptation (Heb. ii. 18; iv. 15) and
become perfect (Heb. v. 8-9). Therefore, too, the children
of God should consider such trials as a great good (1 Pet.
i. 6), because without these they cannot prove themselves.
And if in the consciousness of their weakness they con
stantly pray that God would not lead them into temptation
(Matt. vi. 3), and on their part avoid everything that would
lead to a temptation (Mark xiv. 38), yet the experiences of
life that bring temptation with them are not an evil but a
good, not the consequences of sin, but have been so ordered
by God. The New Testament has only one single word
(cf. James i. 2, 12) for the temptation that gives us the
opportunity to decide for God while at the same time we are
conscious that we could determine otherwise, and for the
temptation that lures us on to sin, because in reality both
are the same, and only the results show whether it was the
one or the other. This is the history of every sin. Paul
says, in Rom. vii. 7: I had not known lust except the Law
had said : Thou shalt not covet. The natural impulse is noth
ing sinful. Only when the law of God confines the natural

SIN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES 127
impulses within those limitations that must be set for them,
in order that the use of the good things of the world that
have been created for us may not conduce to our destruc
tion, man becomes conscious of the fact, that he could do
otherwise, of the consciousness of the possibility of a self-
determination that may set itself up against the recognized
will of God. Paul had an experience that he regarded as
typical of the experience of all, namely, that this conscious
ness leads to sin. Only when the prohibition came did sin
become actual in him; the latter took advantage of the op
portunity in order to influence the will through the Law to
seek that which was forbidden (Rom. vii. 7-8).
With this enough has been said to characterize sin. All
the terms used in the Old Testament for sin point to a
missing of the right road, i. e., in accordance with the pic
ture common in the Scriptures of a departure from the
correct divinely appointed way of action, of a provision in
contrast to straightness, of an abnormal action in contrast
to the action after the norm of the divine will, even of a
rebellion against God, an apostasy from Him. The New
Testament Term for sin ( apapriaf), also points to a miss
ing of the right mark, whenever it is not directly used to
designate a trespass or a fall, or the transgression of the
law. Sin (1 John iii. 4) is ignoring the law, it is in prin
ciple, a declaration of independence of the will from a
divinely given law, and is therefore enmity to God (Rom.
viii. 7; James iv. 4). Sin is accordingly conscious self-
determination against the recognized will of God. The
idea that sin is something that is necessary by nature is
something that could not have been prevented, is nowhere
in the Scriptures expressly declared impossible, because this
in the nature of the case is impossible in view of the reve
lation of God as of the Holy One. The idea of a conscious
self-determination, to which also sin belongs, is as such
never formulated in the Scriptures, because this belongs to

128 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
the essence of man, who is created after the image of God,
and is therefore a free agent.
2. The Origin of Sin.— But the narrative in Genesis also
solves the riddle how man, living in blessed innocence, came
to sin. It was not an irresistible temptation that come from
the forbidden fruit that caused the sin of our first parents,
because then God would be the author of sin, since He had
made the tree together with its fruits. Just as little was it
the impulse of the senses in so far as this was more powerful
than this impulse to fulfil the divine command; for the
former is established in the nature of man as created by God
and therefore in itself is without sin. How it took place
that man transgressed the limits that God had set for his
desires is the riddle that calls for a solution. The narrative
in Genesis expressly shows that the power of deception was
not found in the tree with its fruits, and transfers this to
the serpent that is regarded as the symbol of deception
(Gen. iii. 1, 4-5). Jewish theology already saw in this ser
pent the Devil (Rev. xii. 3-9) in order to explain the super
human power which the temptation displays. But this
agency, too, must have had some connecting link in man,
and this is designated by the old narrative already as de
ception (Gen. iii. 13; 2 Cor. x. 3), effected through a mis
representation of the consequences of eating this fruit. The
deception does not indeed lie in what the serpent says of the
consequences in themselves (Gen. iii. 5, cf. v. 22) ; for man's
being like God, that is here promised, consists in this, that
God has the law of His actions solely in Himself, while man
can attain his goal only in the voluntary subordination to
the divine will. In this, too, the serpent is perfectly right
that man gains the practical experience of this ability to
make use of his own will over against the divine only by a
transgression of the commandment. But the deception con
sisted in this, that the consequences of this act' were repre
sented to him as something good. Man believed by making

SIN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES 129
his own self the law of his actions, by following his own
individual will in contradiction to the will of God, that he
would gain a higher stage in his type of life, and a richer
progress in life than had been his during his former subordi
nation under the divine will, and this misled him to desire
the forbidden fruit and to transgress the commandment.
This, too, is typical for the origin of sin. Certainly the
first impression is always this, that sin originates in the love
for the world, i. e., for the multitude of earthly possessions
(James iv. 4), the attraction of which induces men to enjoy
these also against the commandment of God, so that the
influence that taints him with the corruption of sin emanates
from the world (James i. 27). But this attractiveness is
something entirely in conformity with nature and hence
produced by God, because it is He who incites man to the
attainment of his destiny, that of ruling over the earth;
only this, however, that God for the blessing of man must
rule and regulate man's enjoyment by His commandment.
This James knows full well, as he emphasizes the fact that
God tempts no one to evil (James i. 13). This attraction
that proceeds from nature and arouses the lust of the senses
is not the cause of sin, but it is the occasion which sin
seizes upon in order to deceive men as to the consequences
of yielding. For the very reason that the image of God in
man has found its expression in his carnal nature, it is pos
sible that only the sense impulse aroused in this can give
him the occasion of becoming conscious of his being like
God, i. e., of making use of his own will against the will
of God that regulates all enjoyment of his desires. While
the impulses that grow out of his Godlike nature determine
him only in agreement with the divine will, he now, in fol
lowing his sense wishes, becomes conscious of a will of his
own that can find satisfaction also when it goes against the
divine will. James i. 13 also explains the temptation to sin
on the basis of desire inherent in man as such, that is, a
I

130 ¦ THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
being of flesh; and Paul expressly characterizes sin as sel
fishness, as living for self (Rom. xiv. 7; 2 Cor. v. 15). The
last and extreme form in which sin appears is found in the
arrogance that makes itself equal to God (2 Thess. ii. 4).
It can therefore only be a misunderstanding when it is
maintained that Paul in a dualistic sense considers the flesh
with its impulses as in itself sinful; or the supremacy
which the former sensuous impulse in its more powerful
development has gained over the spiritual life in man as the
cause of sin. In both cases sin is made the product of God,
who has created man as a carnal being and has ordained the
laws of the development of his life. If the flesh in itself
were sinful then the body could not, before the transforma
tion of its substance, belong to him as the temple of God (1
Cor. vi. 13, 15, 19) ; could not be made a God-pleasing sacri
fice (Rom. xii. 1), and with all of its members serve the
Lord (Rom. vi. 13-19). Then the sanctification of the body
could consist only in killing the sensuous impulses, to which
Paul does not agree, who expressly antagonizes this kind of
asceticism in the Epistle to the Colossians (cf. also 2
Tim. iv. 1 sqq.). The fact is for Paul not merely
the material substance of the body is the seat of sensuous
desires, since he counts purely spiritual sins also (Gal. v.
19-21) among the deeds of the body. The false concern and
care for the body lead not only to licentiousness and lust,
but also to strife and jealousy (Rom. xiii. 13-14). He calls
the Corinthians " carnal," on account of their contentions
(1 Cor. iii. 3), and he speaks of a carnal wisdom (2 Cor. i.
12, 17). For him the flesh is man as a creature of nature in
general, but as he has been developed on the basis of his
material nature, he does not designate it as sinful flesh
(Rom. viii. 3), because it is sinful in itself, but because it,
like the body of man as a matter of fact (Rom. vi. 6) is con
trolled by sin. Sin as a power is expressly declared to be
something different from the flesh, in which it merely has

SIN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES 131
its abiding place (Rom. vii. 18, 20). The ideas that underlie
this account are exactly the same as those at the basis of the
story of the fall. While the spiritual life of man in its
likeness to God is always directly subordinated to the divine
law (Rom. vii. 23, 25), man in his carnal nature becomes
conscious of his individual life, that furnishes him the
opportunity to carry out his will over against the will of
God, and thus becomes subject to sin (Rom. vii. 14, 25).
Only through sin is the natural difference between the carnal
human creature and the divine spiritual being converted
into a hostility. Paul also declares that all sin came from
deception (Rom. vii. 11), which hopes for a higher phase of
life as a result of insisting upon one's own will instead of
trusting God, who so far had given man all that he needed,
to find this in submission to His will.
3. The Punishment of Sin. — Man's deception through
sin consists in this, that instead of the hoped for advance
ment he now finds a hindrance in life. This is clearly ex
pressed in this that the Scriptures, which otherwise do not
have a special term for guilt, because this is contained as
a matter of course in its idea of sin, now at times compares
this guilt with a money debt (Matt. vi. 12). Like that per
son who is obligated to pay something, by the fact that he
does not pay, only loads upon himself a debt that constantly
oppresses him; thus, too, the duty of man to obey the divine
will does not cease to be a duty because men has declined to
do it It rather continues as a burden upon man's shoulders,
and becomes all the more oppressive and a hindrance in his
life, because it cannot be fulfilled. For a man can never do
more than his duty (Luke xvii. 11). So that he cannot by
any later works of his make amends for the non-fulfilment
of duty in former times, he accordingly is guilty over
against the commandment when he failed to fulfil (James
ii. 10), or over against him against whom he has transgressed
(1 Cor. xi. 27). This indebtedness is always forced upon the

132 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
attention of man by his conscience, i. e., by the consciousness
of his sin. Just as conscience, which unconsciously passes
judgment on the moral quality of man's actions, presupposes
a gauge for the measurement of these and in so far bears
testimony to the original existence of a moral consciousness
in man (Rom. ii. 15), thus it is in reality nothing else than
the reaction of this consciousness of duty against the actual
non-fulfilment of duty, as this had been arranged in the orig
inal creation of man by God as necessary. Instead of the ex
pected exaltation of the feeling of life sin, in accordance with
divine order, rather works in the feeling of guilt that has
been awakened by conscience a depression of the feeling of
life through the burden of the duty that has remained un
fulfilled and now can no longer be fulfilled.
The Biblical narrative states that the first expression of
the feeling of guilt was shame (Gen. iii. 17). Shame shows
itself when man no longer wants to be seen as he is, because
he feels that he no longer is what he ought to be. But bodily
shame is only the consequence of moral shame; in the state
of innocence man knew as little of the one kind as he did
of the other (Gen. ii. 2-5). Only through the feeling of guilt
shame was aroused. Immediately fear also follows, that
would hide itself from the presence of God (Gen. iii. 8),
because man feels that his normal relation toward God has
been disturbed by sin; that God can no longer do to him,
what He did to him before; that He can no longer bless him
but must punish him. This is the punishment that fear has
already in itself (1 John iv. 18), that it severs the original
relationship of love between God and man. Man feels that
he deserves punishment from God (Rom. iii. 19; Matt. v.
22), and the fear of punishment is a new hindrance to his
life, which sin has brought him instead of the expected ad
vancement. Punishment is the necessary reaction of divine
holiness against sin ; every sin merits punishment. It is true
that he who sins out of ignorance receives less punishment

SIN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES 133
(Luke xii. 47), and he who had better reasons to avoid sin
receives heavier (Matt. xi. 21-24) ; but all sin nevertheless
deserves its punishment. The Holy God who cannot ignore
sin reveals Himself as the Holy God, in this that He makes
man, who does not recognize his sin as such or actually
does not acknowledge it, to feel it in its consequences as
being that which should not be.
It is significant that the Scripture uses the same terms
(<ca*cov, ¦n-ovrjpov) in order to designate that which is morally
wrong as well as the evil that results, because the two are
inseparably connected. God does not inflict upon each sin
ner a special evil in accordance with some criminal code ; he
punishes man by permitting him to suffer the consequences
of his sins. But by the very fact that He causes him to feel
the necessary consequences of sin, as also in the conscious
ness of his guilt and in the fear of punishment, this sin
thereby is felt as the opposite of the will of God, as directed
by His love for the good of man, i. e., as that which should
not be (cf. Rom. vii. 13). In this respect, too, the narrative
in Genesis turns out to be typical in that it mentions only
those consequences of sin which make themselves felt among
men in the most marked degree, such as the birth pangs of
the woman, her slavish subordination to man, and his work
in the sweat of his brow (Gen. iii. 16-19). It is, however,
clear that all social as well as physical evils are the natural
results of sin; the former in so far as they originate in the
disturbance which sin has introduced into the divinely ar
ranged social order among men; the latter, because man has
not attained the mastery over the world for which he was
intended, in consequence of the sin that prevented his secur
ing this in the divinely ordained way. The world around
and about him, which he in a manner contrary to the will
of God would make the object of his pleasure, becomes for
him only a cause of constant hindrance of life, a source of
evil and suffering. Not only the dangers with which the

134 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
world threatens man, but also the curse of the transitoriness
that overhangs it, and under the burden of which the Apostle
hears the groanings of nature (Rom. viii. 22) Paul con
siders as the consequences of sin (Rom. viii. 20). Now the
work of man in nature has become a hard task that in spite
of this does not bring him abundance and gratification but
often need and suffering.
In the most direct way man experiences the consequences
of his sins in the nature side of his own existence, not only
when sickness is the direct outcome of his sins (John v. 14;
Matt. ix. 2), but in the decrepit condition of the body in
general (2 Cor. iv. 7), since the supremacy of the spirit
over nature has been lost to him. Thereby the existence of
death is already given, which had been threatened as a pun
ishment for his sin (Gen. ii. 27), because in consequence
of his sin he lost the right and the power to eat from the
tree of life (Gen. iii. 22, 24). Through sin death came into
the world (Rom. v. 12), which throughout the New Testa
ment is represented as the punishment for sin (Rom. vi. 23 ;
James i. 15; 1 John v. 16). Life which could primarily be
only a life of this world for man as he came forth from the
hand of God, is regarded by the Scriptures as an invaluable
possession, the withdrawal of which is punishment. This
latter is the case particularly when an early, rapid or violent
death removes man (Gen. vi. ; cf. Luke xiii. 3, 5). And
even if in the case of a long and blessed old age death seems
to lose its terrors, when the Patriarchs die, aged and satisfied
with life and are gathered to the Father (Gen. xxv. 8), it
nevertheless remains a fact that, the decay of human life is
a sign of the judgment of God over sin (Ps. xc. 7-10).
Death, which stands out opposed to the original purpose of
God's love for man, is the last enemy who is to be over
powered by the redemption (1 Cor. xv. 26).
The Scriptures never make the attempt to explain away
the terrors that death has in store for man. Heb. ii. 15 tells

SIN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES 135
us that these keep us in bondage all our life. The violent
separation of soul and body, which latter is then doomed to
decay, continues to be a painful evil, of which even the
Apostle Paul prays to be relieved (2 Cor. 5, 3-4). The end
less continuance of the soul, which has in a most mistaken
manner been called immortality, is no blessing for the sinner
who lives only for this world, but is a curse. Separated from
everything wherein it here found its greatest good and de
prived of the body as the necessary organ of all of its active
and passive energy, the" soul continues in its separation from
the body in a shadowy existence which has no true life.
In this manner the Old Testament describes the existence in
Sheol; and thus the heathen describes, in so far as it was
clear to them that the sinner was deserving of death (Rom. i.
32), the existence in Hades as an eternal longing that is never
satisfied, an everlasting striving that never attains its pur
pose. Bodily death, in case there are no hopes of a resurrec
tion from the condition of death, in itself leads to the misery
of an eternal death. The detail representations of this con
dition of death belong to the sphere of the imagination; a
revealed account of this is not and cannot be given in ac
cordance with the character of revelation (Luke xvi. 27-31).
As heaven, the abiding place of God, is represented as the
world above, thus the place of the dead is called the world
below (Phil. ii. 10; Matt. xi. 23). A change in the condi
tions in Hades, such as are presupposed by Jesus in Luke xvi.
22-23, and is described there in strong colors, without which
we cannot picture it for ourselves, can only find a place
here when through the religion of redemption a ray of light
and life falls into this region. But leaving this out of con
sideration, the fact remains that the gates of Hades are the
strongest that exist (Matt. xvi. 18), because none can open
them when they have once been closed on the sinner.
4. The Universality of Sin. — The first man was not the
only one who sinned. Early it was seen that all flesh was

136 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
corrupt before God (Gen. vi. 13-14); that all men's
thoughts were corrupt continually (Gen. vi. 5). Even
in the best times the prophets of Israel charge the entire
people with rebellion; and all the more is this done in the
degenerate days of the people. There is no man who does
not sin (1 Kings viii. 46) ; and before God none are justi
fied (Ps. cxliii. 2). The New Testament everywhere treats
this as a self-evident fact. The Baptist and Jesus himself
make appeal for a change of heart, not to individual sin
ners or to special classes as transgressors, but to the entire
people. Jesus calls man, as such, wicked as distinguished
from God (Matt. vii. 11). None is good but God (Matt.
xix. 17). None has developed this subject more deeply or
as a matter of principle than the Apostle Paul, who shows in
Rom. i. to iii. that all men have sinned and come short
in the glory (the righteousness) that avails before God (Rom.
iii. 23). This does not say that the sinful condition of all
is the same. From the very beginning the Old Testament
distinguishes between the development of the generation of
Cain and that of Seth. Noah was a just man and Enoch
walked with God (Gen. vi. 9; v. 24). The Patriarchs stand
out prominently as shining lights of piety, although the Old
Testament does not conceal the fact of their sins (cf . also Is.
xliv. 27) ; and the pious appeal to their righteousness over
against God (Ps. xviii. 20), although at the same time they
pray for grace and pardon. This is not to be attributed to
the fact that the Old Testament has not yet recognized the
depth and the universality of the corruption caused by sin,
although naturally the knowledge of this is also progressively
developed in the Scriptures. For side by side with this, is
found the view that unholy man does not come into the
presence of the Holy God without suffering death (Is. vi. 5) ;
and the Old Testament ordinance of sacrifice offers atone
ment for the entire people. Jesus, too, speaks plainly of the
good and the bad, of the just and the unjust (Matt. v. 45),

51JN AJND ITS CONSEQUENCES 137
and in this He is followed by the whole New Testament.
Only Paul on principle avoids this expression, although he,
too, calls himself blameless touching the righteousness which
is of the law (Phil. iii. 6). But this cannot change the
general judgment in reference to mankind, since God can
be well pleased only toward those who keep all of His com
mandments (Gal. iii. 10). But he who keeps all the com
mandments but offends in one is guilty of them all (James
ii. 10).
The Apostle Paul finds the reason for this fact that the
sinful condition of man has become universal, although in
degree and kind it may differ, in this, that sin has become
the ruling power in the world (Rom. v. 21), and that, too,
from the beginning of the history of man (Rom. v. 12).
This is not accidental but is based upon the divinely or
dained connection of moral life. It is not so and should not
be so, that every man at each moment is to have this liberty
to choose between good and evil; for each single act con
tributes to the production of a moral condition and this
moral condition aids in the production of each expression of
the will power. In this significant inter-relation is to be
found the cur3e of the evil deed, that must continually bring
forth evil. Paul recognizes a revelation of the judgment of
divine wrath in this, that God punishes sin by sin, that He
permits the sinner continually to fall into deeper sin in
accordance with psychological laws (Rom. i. 18 sqq.). Man
who seeks a false liberty in sin must now experience the
fact that he has only exchanged the servitude of God or of
righteousness for the servitude of sin (Rom. vi. 20). Every
one who commits sin is the servant of sin (John viii. 34).
Man discovers that when he purposes to do what is good, he
no longer can do it (Rom. vii. 15, 19) ; that he, indeed, still
wills it, but has not the power of accomplishing this (Rom.
vii. 18). Over against the very divine law, it appears that
the carnal nature of man which through sin has been turned

138 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
against God, will not become submissive (Rom. viii. 7; cf.
vii. 14), and becomes weak in the presence of the law (Rom.
viii. 3). This is the divine judgment of hardening, that he
who for a long time will not listen at last, in accordance
with the divinely ordained laws of our souls, no longer can
hear (Matt. xiii. 13 sqq.; John xii. 39-40; after Is. vi. 9-10).
" Can an Ethiopian change his skin, or a leopard his spots ?
Then may ye also do good that are accustomed to do evil "
(Jer. xiii. 23). This is spiritual death (Luke xv. 32; Rom.
vii. 10; Eph. ii. 1), the extreme antipodal state to that
progress of life which man by his sin attempted to achieve.
But the impossibility of fulfilling the divine will, which
nevertheless, should be entirely fulfilled if man would be
pleasing in the sight of God, is by no means identical with
the necessity of sinning and therefore does not relieve him
of the responsibility for what he does. It is true that in
His judgment on sin God does not forget the natural weak
ness of man (Ps. ciii. 14) ; but just because of the weakness
o± the flesh man should watch and pray (Matt. xiv. 38).
Even in the most depraved of men the image of God has not
been entirely destroyed since even he has not ceased to be
a human creature and conscience alone constitutes a constant
reaction of the original moral sensibility against sin.
Although Paul declares it to be the deepest stage of moral
degradation when one finds pleasure in the wickedness of
others (Rom. i. 34), he yet knows of heathens who by nature do
the deeds of the law (Rom. ii. 14, 26-27). The same prophets
who announce to the people the judgment of hardening,
continue with their exhortations to repent, and Paul con
fidently counts upon the final conversion of hardened Israel
(2 Cor. iii. 15-16; Rom. xv. 25). Although men from the
very moment he becomes conscious of self and of his self-
determination feels himself bound by a moral obligation, the
origin of which lies beyond his conscious moral life, his
conscience nevertheless condemns as sin his deeds that are

SIN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES 139
in part at any rate conditioned thereby. There are no limita
tions which separate his voluntary sins from those that arise
out of his moral condition; and if there were such, they
would not do him any good, since every sin continues to
merit punishment, including those that are not committed
with a full consciousness. Even for the faults that are
hidden to himself man must pray for forgiveness (Ps.
xix. 12).
Man becomes conscious of the supremacy of sin not only
through the moral responsibility which he finds within him
self, but also by the fact that sin has affected the social life
with which he is connected and through this influences him
also. The sin of the one brings with it the sin of the other
(Gen. xx. 9; xvi. 10). It is not only the evil example that
leads to sin. The individual is constantly being influenced
by the moral character of the circle in which he moves. But
as he just as much determines through his acts the moral
tone of his surroundings, he is never able to separate his
sin from that which has been produced by the community.
Isaiah not only fears the presence of God, because he himself
is unclean, but also because he dwells among a people that
is unclean (Is. vi. 15). A curse rests upon Israel on account
of the sins of one of the people (Is. vii. 13). As God on
account of the piety of individuals spares the community
(Gen. xviii. 24-32) ; so, too, the pious must bear the punish
ment for sins that is inflicted upon the wicked community.
In the same indissoluble communion the individual stands
also with the generation that have preceded the age to which
he belongs. By the very fact that a sinful conduct was
inherited from the father, it exercises an enslaving power
over the individual (1 Pet. i. 18). But as little as man can
separate his own personal sins from those received from
others, just so little can he doubt that his own sin will again
in turn be transmitted to coming generations. In God's eye
not only the sins of the present generation but also that of

140 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
succeeding generations is common sin. As the blessings of
the pious accrue to the children (Prov. xx. 7) thus God
visits the sins of the parents upon the children to the third
and fourth generation (Ex. xx. 5; Is. lxv. 7). Even in the
furthermost generations the sins of the parents can be pun
ished (Matt, xxiii. 35), but naturally on the presupposition-
that the children are like the fathers and that the measure of
their sin is full (Matt, xxxiii. 30-31). For just as little as
the sinful tendency of man relieves him of his responsibility
in each case, so little does the sin of a generation make it
impossible for him to be converted. Conversion can save
the son from the curse which he has inherited from the
father (Ezek. xviii. 19). None are to die on account of the
sins of the fathers (Deut. xxiv. 16; 2 Kings xiv. 6).
5. Original Sin. — Since the sin of each generation con
tinues in its effects on the coming generations, and the indi
vidual in his first moral self -consciousness always finds within
himself a tendency to sin, this can be explained only by a
natural transmission through physical descent (Ps. Ii. 5),
cannot according to Old Testament thought be interpreted
as meaning that the aet of begetting is sinful, but only this
that the sinfulness of the parents has been transmitted to the
children. From the unclean no clean thing can come (Job. xiv.
4) ; none born of women are clean (Job. xv.14; cf. Is.xlviii. 8).
The equally inexplicable but yet undoubted fact that bodily
and mental peculiarities, abilities, virtues and vices are
transmitted by birth, suggests the idea that together with
the essence of the soul itself the individual carnal funda
mental tendency of the soul, as this has developed under the
supremacy of sin is transmitted through bodily descent. In
the New Testament this idea is indeed not found. In Eph.
ii. 3 and John iii. 6, only in so far as here, from the fact
that flesh can produce only a creature of flesh the conclusion
is drawn that a regeneration is necessary for the production
of a higher, ethico-religious spiritual life. In the normal

SIN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES 141
course of things this was intended to be developed in the
creature of flesh as such, but this has been thwarted by the
interference of sin. But since, as is shown by experience,
the sinful condition of man has never been any other than
that which it now is, the cause of this destruction must
naturally be traced back through all the generations up
to our first parents. This is done in Rom. v. 12, also in so
far as the supremacy of the power of sin among men, be
cause all have sinned, is ascribed to one man. And when
Adam is expressly mentioned as this one man (Rom. v. 14),
although in fact it was Eve who first sinned (1 Gen. iii 6;
1 Tim. ii. 14), the ground for this can be sought only in the
fact that the act of begetting on the part of Adam formed
the connecting link between that one man and the coming
generation. The dire consequences of this act are expressly
not attributed to the nature of man, but evidently with
reference to Gen. iii., to his transgression (Rom. v. 15, 17-18),
and this in v. 17, is designated expressly as disobedi
ence, i. e., or a self-determination against the divine will.
The tendency thereby brought about in man has through
natural birth been transmitted to all of man's descendants
and thereby has made the development of the religico-ethical
life an impossibility in them.
It is a fact, however, that even a passage like Rom. v. 12
does not really want to say anything about so-called
original sin. The purpose is rather to show that through
one man (Adam) sin came over all men, just as though one
man (Christ) eternal life came to all (Rom. v. 18). That
through one man death came is apparent in the case of the
first sin, since this consisted in the transgression of a law
the punishment of which act was to be death (Gen. ii. 17).
But the Apostle in Rom. v. 13-14, expressly points to the
fact that between Adam and Moses, who repeated the doc
trine that the transgression of the will of God was punish
able with death, death also prevailed over all men, also over

142 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
those who unlike Adam had not transgressed a law the
violation of which was to be death. From this he con
cludes that if death prevailed over all men because these,
by the fact of their descent from Adam all have sinned, this
must have had its ground in the fact that death was in the
case of Adam once for all appointed as the punishment for
sin, and that in this way death had found its way into the
world through one man (1 Cor. xv. 21-22). Only exegetical
and dogmatical prejudice can find here on the basis of a
juridic process an idea totally foreign to the Scriptures, viz. :
the thought that the sins of Adam have been imputed to his
descendants and are therefore to be punished in the same
way as his were. In Rom. v. 19, too, he does not say that
in consequence of such an imputation the many were re
garded as sinners on account of the disobedience of the
one, but that through him they stand as sinners, have been
changed into the state of sinfulness, in so far as the guilt
that began with the disobedience of the ancestors of the race
has been inherited by his descendants.
If then death has come over all mankind this is certainly
not the result of an arbitrary decree of punishment, but
because already in the case of the first sin it became evident
that death is the inevitable result of sin. The fact that man
was for all time refused access to the tree of life (Gen. iii.
22-24) was the natural result of this, that after having
through sin made himself the servant of the nature side of
his being, man could no longer through his supremacy and
control over the world, raise his own nature side, nor
also all nature around him into that state of perfection for
which it was intended, nor thus develop to an imperishable
glory. Man did not become mortal through his sin, but in
consequence of it he continued in his mortal state. He has
lost the ability of attaining immortality. It is accordingly
no contradiction when in 1 Cor. xv. 47-49 the condition of
mortality common to all men is clearly regarded as the con-

SIN AND ITS CONSEQUENCES 143
sequences of the earthly character of his body. That this
has continued to be earthly instead of being changed or
transformed from a psychical into a spiritual condition (cf.
1 Cor. xv. 44) is itself a consequence of this sin. This as
little as the government of sin that came over all man
kind is something accidental, but is rather something found
in the nature of man as God has created him and is there
fore a necessity.
Certain it seems then that thereby the very purpose of
his whole creation had been thwarted. Man had not attained
to communion with God and to a participation in His bles
sedness, but had become the prey of temporal and eternal
destruction. But from this it does not follow that the fall
was included in the eternal counsel of redemption, the
realization of which began with the creation. Certainly
this was not the case in the sense that sin in itself is a
necessary intermediate state, which must be in harmony
neither with the holiness nor the love of God. Not with the
former, because according to it God could not have created
a world in which sin, which is inconsistent with his holi
ness, would have been a necessity; nor with the latter, be
cause even if the destruction that has been brought about
by sin has been undone again at last by the work of redemp
tion. Yet all the nameless evils that sin has brought into
the world in the course of their development could not have
been intended by the love of God. Only the possibility of
sin was given by the fact that man was created in the image
of God. And if he thereby was endowed with the dangerous
freedom to decide against the divine will and thereby to
become the object of sin and death; on the other hand with
out this liberty, he could not have attained the goal for
which he is created. In case that man would abuse this
liberty, it was a part of that plan of God that a redemption
should be prepared. True it is, that considering the depth
and the universality of his sin, it was evident that man

144 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
could do nothing toward saving himself; but just as surely
as the image of God could not be totally eradicated in him
through his sin without destroying his very essence, so cer
tainly, too, he continued to be capable of redemption. Just
as in the necessary consequences of sin the connecting point
for redemption was given, in so far as conscience, that had
been awakened by sin, taught man to recognize sin as such
and the actual experience of the misery that sin brought
over him must arouse in him the longing for salvation.

CHAPTER VTH
THE DIVINE GOVERNMENT OF THE WORLD
1. The Continuation of the Fallen World.— For
the Old Testament already it was a problem how God could
suffer a world that had through sin become subject to de
struction to continue to exist. It connects its explanation
with the story of a deluge, which is current among all the
nations, according to which the flood once covered all the
earth, and it regarded this as a divine punishment for the
universal corruption of mankind. Jesus also sees in it a
picture of the final judgment (Matt. xxiv. 37 sqq.), as Peter
sees in the deliverance of Noah and his family a figure of
the deliverance from eternal destruction that has been se
cured through baptism (1 Pet. iii. 20-21). But God makes
a covenant with Noah, in which He promises never again to
destroy the earth on account of sin (Gen. ix. 9 sqq.). The
Old Testament knows of no other reason for this than the
mercy of God with the natural sinful condition of man
(Gen. viii. 21). Only in the light of the New Testament
is it made plain that all this is founded in Christ
(Col. i. 17). Only in Him as in the preordained Re
deemer has it been established that the world shall continue,
since the entrance of sin could not permit it to exist on
account of the holiness and the mercy of God, unless God
had arranged for the redemption of the world. But if the
world was appointed as an inheritance for the Son, who was
to accomplish this redemption, then it was His mission to
carry this redemption with the divine word of power through
the ages, until the plan of divine love was consummated,
J 145

146 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
according to which He was to bring about the purification
from sin (Heb. i. 3). It is the divine will of love that per
mits the world to continue in view of the coming redemp
tion. For this there is no need of the preservative activity of
God. At times it may indeed seem to be the case as though
the Scriptures taught that the whole course of the world
depended upon a constant renewal of the creative power of
God. He sends rain and sunshine (Matt. v. 45) ; he causes
the fountains to send forth their water and the grass to grow
(Ps. clxiv. 10, 14) ; He gives life and breath to all (Acts
xvii. 28). But all this is merely the immediate expression
of the religious consciousness that makes God the source of
everything, whether it came from Him immediately or
mediately. It is a mistake to think that the Scriptures
while holding to their religious viewpoint do not know of
a fixed order in nature. The praise of creation finds its
highest expression in this, that God established a law which
the different spheres of creation were not permitted to trans
gress and bases on this the continuance of the whole uni
verse (Ps. cxviii. 6). When God promises to Noah not again
to destroy the earth, He does so by sanctioning the continu
ance of the natural order of things (Gen. viii. 21-22). It is
impossible to guarantee the unchangeableness of the order
of nature more firmly than is done when this is set up as a
pledge for the faithfulness of God over against His people
(cf. Jer. xxxiii. 25-26). And yet here nothing is more for
eign to the Scriptures than the irreligious idea, that the
world, after being once created, must, like the works of a
clock, go its way without any further interference on the
part of the Maker. If the world continues to exist only
through the loving will of God then everything that takes
place through the divinely ordained law of nature is done in
accordance with his knowledge and will. When He causes
the vapors to rise from the ends of the earth, or prepares

THE DIVINE GOVERNMENT OF THE WORLD 147
lightning and rain and leads out the winds from His treas
uries (Ps. cxxxv. 7) this refers only to the origin of these
phenomena in accordance with the law of nature, but they
are all ascribed to God, who has established this order. The
fact that He sends His word and ice melts, i. e., that at
His command a thaw sets in, is in the parallelism ascribed
to the warm southwind that causes the water to flow (Ps.
cxlvii. 18). Heaven and earth continue according to His
ordinances and they are His servants (Ps. cxix. 91) that
carry out His will for the continuance of the world.
What is said of the maintenance of the whole world is
true of all Hfe in the world. There can be no life without
the ability of showing forth its vitality; everything that
lives has the power to sustain, nourish, and propagate itself
in accordance with the laws appointed for it. Acts xvii. 28
does not say that God participates in every activity of life,
but that in Him, i. e., in His will the ordinances appointed
by Him all life, every movement of life, and our whole exist
ence find the conditions of their being. Even the life of
the creature not endowed with reason is reduced to the mere
semblance of life if in each expression of life carried on in
accordance with its own laws a divine co-operation takes
place. Especially the life that has been created in accord
ance with the image of God is deprived of its real indi
viduality if it is not based on the spiritual life which is
developed in it in accordance with the divine order in man
kind, i. e., on conscious self-determination (ch. vi. 4). The
co-operation of God accompanying each of these acts of life
would make man only a shadow or would be such itself.
The creatures that have been created for reason and for
liberty live and act in accordance with the vital powers and
love that have been implanted into them, just as the irrational
creatures do. The free life that is developed in them in
accordance with their spiritual organism, i. e., through
psychological laws, is just as much divinely willed as that

148 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
found in the laws of nature. If it is the loving will of God
that the world shall continue to exist then, too, the life that
has been implanted into man, for whom the whole world
has been created, must be developed in accordance with his
nature. This is the reason why, notwithstanding all the
corruption by sin, the image of God in man has not been
totally destroyed. Of course here, too, it is true, that it
continues only because and as long as God so wills it. Indi
vidual life has no sudden existence. But even if no sparrow
can fall from heaven without the will of God (Matt. x. 29)
this does not make it impossible that its death takes place
in accordance with the laws of nature. Man, indeed, was
originally intended to an endless Hfe. But after he had
become the victim of sin his earthly existence is subject to
the same laws as are the purely natural creatures. God
takes his breath of life away and he returns to the dust
(Ps. civ. 29; cf. Job xxxiv. 19). On the other hand, God
sends health (Phil. ii. 27) and delivers from danger of death
(2 Cor. i. 10-11) when He wills to lengthen life. He remem
bers Noah and sends the wind, and the water begins to fall
(Gen. viii. 1).
2. The Divine Providence. — As certain as it is that
the life of man would not be what it is in essence, if he
did not possess the ability to form resolutions and a will
to carry these out, so certain it is that the way of man, i. e.,
the carrying out of his will, does not stand in his power
(Jer. x. 23). The heart of man devises his way but the
Lord directs his steps (Prov. xvi. 9), i. e., He alone deter
mines if man is to attain his object or not. The King does
not conquer by the greatness of his armies nor is the
mighty man delivered by the greatness of his strength (Ps.
xxxiii. 16). Horses are prepared against the day of battle
but safety is of the Lord (Prov. xxi. 31). Therefore, it is
said: Commit thy works unto the Lord and thy thoughts
shall be established (Prov. xvi. 3). It lies in the nature of

THE DIVINE GOVERNMENT OF THE WORLD 149
the case that this experience forces itself upon man espe
cially when all of his efforts have little or no results. God
brings the counsel of the heathen to naught; He makes the
devices of the people of none effect (Ps. xxxiii. 10). The
Lord who has His throne in heaven mocks at the hostile
undertakings of men (Ps. ii. 4). He can at all times deliver
His own out of the hands of their enemies and oppressors
(Ps. xviii. 18), by putting to naught their devices through
unforeseen interferences. He makes the winds his messen
ger and flames of fire his servants (Ps. civ. 4). It also
occurs that the consequence of man's action turns out to be
the opposite of what was intended; that he thought to do
evil and God converted it into good (Gen. 1. 20). On the
other hand, every success depends upon God's giving to man
the spirit of wisdom (Gen. xii. 38-39) and a heroic zeal
(Judges xi. 29; 1 Sam. xi. 6), or upon His leading the heart
of man to what will bring success (Prov. xxi. 1). But under
all circumstances the fact remains that there are many
thoughts in the hearts of men, but that it is God's counsel
that decides the matter (Prov. xiv. 21). In this very matter
is found the entire shortsightedness of man, that he can
never foresee all the conditions and circumstances that un
derlie the success of an undertaking. The divine government
of the world, however, consists in this, that God advances
or hinders the success of human action, according as this
agrees with His purposes. Neither an occurrence in nature
in itself nor the action of a man can in itself attain to higher
purposes. Every success depends upon the conditions that
surround it. Only divine wisdom can so influence events
that the outcome is in harmony with God's purposes. Just
the very things that are entirely inexplicable to human
thought and appear to the non-religious way of thinking
purely accidental are for religious thought the work of the
divine government of the world, the purpose of which this
arrangement of events is made to serve.

150 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
The miracles of God, which are so often lauded in the
Scriptures (cf. e. g., Ps. xcvi. 3; xcviii. 1), are in no wise
necessarily miracles in the dogmatical sense of the word.
They are, as is already indicated by their name in the Old
Testament, events that awaken amazement, and by the great
ness of their results or by the power of the impression they
make, produce an effect corresponding to a divine purpose.
The examination as to whether they are brought about by
natural causality or not does not in itself belong to the
religious method of thinking. They are events which
the Divine Providence through an arrangement of circum
stances has made subservient to higher purposes, and this is
made evident in a manner that cannot be doubted. This,
too, is evident that the entirety of natural causalities will
never be completely known. No natural science can affirm
that there are not powers of a higher order than those which
it has so far learned to know, and other laws than those
that have so far been discovered. No method of historical
investigation can know beyond any doubt in how far the
actual results of human action can be figured out before
hand or are intentional. Wherever the natural causes of an
event or of the concurrence of events, that have ended in
the attainment of an intended purpose, are hidden from us,
there the religious idea of the world accepts a miracle of
Divine Providence. It is non-religious not to accept in the
fullest degree this miracle of Providence as a miracle; i. e.,
as something effected by God.
It is true, however, that the Scriptures understand some
thing different, even when they affirm that nothing is too
great or too wonderful for God (Gen. xviii. 14), and that
nothing is impossible for Him (Mark xiv. 36). He who has
created the world and has Himself established its laws,
according to which nature and the spiritual mind of man
operate, cannot be found in His government of the world;
i. e., in His activity that subserves His purposes, by natural

THE DIVINE GOVERNMENT OF THE WORLD 151
causalities. It is true, that the Scriptures make no mention
of a breaking through of the order of nature, of a suspension
and restoration of the laws of nature, by which in former
times the miracle in the dogmatical sense was explained.
The divinely ordained order of nature, according to which
natural causes can have only those results that are con
tained in their own laws, is not violated by this, that a
supernatural cause produces results which natural causes
cannot produce. The Scriptures, indeed, make no mention
of natural laws, according to which certain results in the
visible world can be produced only by certain natural causes ;
and if there were such they could never be learned by experi
ence through scientific methods. The fact of the creation
of the world makes this impossible. Equally far from the
Scriptures is also the thought, that God would declare
the laws in nature that He has established in creation to be
imperfect, if there is need at any time or place of a direct
interference in the order of nature. Miracles in the real
sense of the term do not belong to the sphere of the creative
laws of God, but to His plan of redemption. We know the
divine government of the world only in so far as it has
been revealed to us in the world corrupted by sin. But sin
has destroyed the original order of the world, and with
its means man cannot attain his destiny. If it was neces
sary for the redemption of man that an immediate activity
of God be introduced, the reason for this is not to be found
in the imperfection of the order of creation as this was made,
but in the interference of sin, for which this order was not
calculated. If the divine order of the government of the
world requires miracles, this conclusion only follows, that
the final purpose of this government is everywhere the re
demption of man from sin, his restoration to his original
destiny. 3. Sin and Evil in the Light of the Divine Provi
dence. — As God to attain His purpose in the world

152 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
had created beings with the power of free self-deter
mination, He could not and would not prevent them from
deciding on a course of action against His will and laws
contrary to His purposes. But when with the advent of sin
this condition had actually come to pass, then even the
development of sin's course had to become subservient to His
purpose. But sin, after it has once become a factor in the
history of the world, can exercise its activity only in accord
ance with the laws of God, as this is the case with every
other historical development. He permits the nations to go
their own way (Acts xiv. 16) ; He suffers His own nation to
follow the perversity of its own heart (Ps. Ixxxi. 13). This
is no indifferent permission; He suffers it because it serves
His purposes. Sin must reach its own legitimate outcome;
i. e., must through its own development make known entirely
its real character as that which it is (Rom. vii. 13), because
the knowledge of sin is the first prerequisite for the conquest
over sin. Men are to see whether they are drifting in their
self-appointed way. In this way God suffers the Gentile
nations to learn by experience through the punishments of
His wrath, how sin ever begets sin (Rom. i. 18; xxiv. 28).
The same thing He does in the case of Israel, when He
through His Law makes sin abound (Rom. v. 20). What
the Scriptures call hardening (Rom. ix. 18 ; xi. 7) is not an
act of predestinarian arbitrariness, but is a judgment of
God, according to which he who until now would not, finally
gets so far that he cannot, as a " recompense," as Paul,
Rom. xi. 10, on the basis of Ps. lxix. 23 says in unmis
takable words. It is both said that Pharaoh hardened his
heart, as also that God hardened it (Ex. viii. 28; vi. 12).
God does not cause the increase in sin ; but the laws ordained
by Him in the spiritual life of man have this effect, and it
is His will that they should have and retain this effect. The
result of the decision of man against the divine will of God
could at any moment make of none effect and thus hew

THE DIVINE GOVERNMENT OF THE WORLD 153
the development of sin; but He does not do so if its suc
cess corresponds to His purposes. He makes use of evil
men and their actions as a scourge for His people, although
these have in all of their doings other purposes (Is. x. 5 sqq.).
His punishments, too, everywhere serve the ends of his re
demption. For what is said of sin must also be said of the evil that
has by divine arrangement come into the world as the neces
sary consequences of sin, both of the social and the physical
evil. In the original world plan of God evil had no place;
but in the world as corrupted by sin, it must serve the pur
poses of God's government of the world. He makes evil
as He creates deliverance (Is. xiv. 7). There is no evil in
the city that the Lord has not done (Amos iii. 6). As He
sends rain and fruitful seasons, He also sends dryness and
unfruitfulness for the purpose of recompense (Deut. xi.
13-17); He punishes sin with sickness (John v. 14; 1 Cor.
xi. 30). The shortsighted man indeed takes offense at the
presence of evil and its distribution in the world, especially
if it falls to the fate of the pious to suffer. The problem
of a Theodicy is discussed as early as the book of Job. The
question here is the mistaken idea that the evil which God
has ordained for the world as a consequence and punish
ment for sin must be such also in individual cases. This
idea Christ opposed in most unmistakable terms (Luke xiii.
2-5). He tells us that those who are not afflicted with evils
are thereby not the less sinners. The more deeply the im
morality of sin is recognized the clearer it becomes, that
everybody partakes of sin, so that everybody, too, must bear
a part of the burden of the evil that sin has brought into
the world. But as God has ordained evil in general as the
consequence of sin in order that men may thereby learn to
recognize sin as the source of misery, thus it now, too, serves
only his redemptive purposes in his government of the world,
all of which have as their one single purpose the deliverance

154 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
from sin. For this reason God also makes use of sin after
it has once been brought into the world for the education
of mankind, for his deliverance from sin. If we are judged
by the Lord, then we are chastened by the Lord so that we
be not condemned with the world (1 Cor. xi. 32). That
God co-operates in all our affairs for our own good, we can
only believe when we have recognized the fact, that He has
destined for us not the temporal, fleeting joy of earth, but
eternal redemption (Rom. viii. 28). All the enigmas of life
can be solved only in the light of the perfected revelation
of redemption in Christ. When the disciples of Jesus asked
Him why the beggar had been born blind, He answered,
that the works of God should be made manifest in him (John
ix. 2-3). The following verses show how this is to be under
stood: The man born blind was to attain deliverance not
only from his misfortune through his healing but through
this was to attain eternal life. But the main thing in
Christ's answer is what He indicates in a most unmistakable
way, namely, that it does not behoove its to ask what the
intentions of God are in any particular misfortune but what
He would have us do in view of it (John ix. 4). This was
the case with Him when He proceeded to heal the man born
blind ; but He purposely puts the sentence in a general form.
Only then when we recognize what lesson the misfortune
is to teach us, be it ours, or another's, will we know what
God in the purposes of His love wills to do thereby.
The divine government of the world can be understood
only in the light of its final purposes. This goal is definitely
appointed; but from this it does not follow, that the way
to the attainment of this goal is once for all settled. It is
the fatalism of heathenism to believe in a world plan that
has been definitely determined in all of its details. If the
history of the world develops in accordance with a previously
determined programme, in which has been assigned to each
creature his particular role, then there is no room left for

THE DIVINE GOVERNMENT OF THE WORLD 155
the governing activity of God. If God has created man
after His image, then, too, He must suffer His government
of the world to be influenced by man's free conduct. As,
on the one hand, we are told (Ps. cxix. 16; John xi. 9) that
the number of our days has been determined, thus, on the
other, it is stated that the days of the pious are lengthened
(Prov. iii. 1-2), and the days of the godless are shortened
(Ps. Iv. 24). The Scriptures do not hesitate to say, that God
repents of the evil that He has threatened, and He does not
permit it to come if the godless repent ; nor to repent of the
deliverance He has promised, if those to whom it has been
promised do evil (Jer. xviii. 8, 10). There are no promises
of God for individuals the fulfilment of which, whether
this is so stated or not, is not dependent on his conduct.
On the other hand, all His promises to hear prayer would
be empty words, if God is not really influenced by prayers.
This is the fundamental reason why sin and evil also, that
seems to thwart His purposes, must nevertheless serve the
purpose of His government of the world. The government
of God does not consist in this that He does everything
alone as He had determined this in His eternal counsel. If
God had created a world of creatures endowed with freedom
for the attainment of the purposes of His love; then these,
too, must in the development of the world have freedom of
action, without which they are not what they were created
to be and will not become what they are intended to be.
His wisdom would not be so manifold as it is described in
Eph. iii. 10 if it alone determined what is needed for the
attainment of its purposes. The Apostle Paul in the con
clusion of his exposition of the hardening and the restora
tion of Israel, finds the highest triumph of divine love in
this very thing that, notwithstanding the self-determination
of man contrary to the will of God, which endangered the
consummation of His redemptive plans, He nevertheless
knows how to find ways, by which He can make use even of

156 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
the perverse conduct of man for His ends, and thus notwith
standing all this, secure his object (Rom. i. 33-36). This
self -limitation of God, according to which He permits Him
self to be influenced in His actions by the conduct of men,
does not imply a curtailment of His government of the
world, but is its greatest glorification, because it is the
manifestation of His love that can and will attain its highest
purposes only with free creatures.
4. The Angels. — Angels are often mentioned in the
Bible as the servants of God in government of the world. In
the Old Testament the Angel of the Lord is often the mediator
of His divine revelation. For this reason his calling is para
mount and his personality is lost in that of his Master. He
speaks in the name of God, and is himself addressed and
revered as God. But if for this reason to regard him as the
Logos or the second person in the godhead, is a dogmatical
fiction not founded in the Scriptures. The angels are noth
ing else than the servants of the Lord who carry out His
will (Ps. ciii. 20-21) ; they watch over the pious (Ps. xci.
11-12) and carry them into Abraham's bosom (Luke xvi.
22) ; but they inflict the punishments of God on those who
are carried away by a sudden or terrible death (2 Kings xix.
35; Acts xii. 23). It is only a sign how salvation is regarded
as the real purpose of God's government of the world when
in Heb. i. 14 the angels are in so many words simply called
the servants of the work of redemption. Moses already saw
the angel in the burning bush (Acts vii. 30-35). According
to the teachings of later Judaism the angels were regarded
as the mediators through whom God gave the Law (Gal. iii.
19; Heb. ii. 2; Acts vii. 38, 35). They transmit the revela
tion of God in the childhood's narratives of the Baptist and
of Jesus as also in the story of the Resurrection and Ascen
sion (Mark xvi. 5-6 ; Acts i. 10-11). They deliver the apostles
and bring to them divine commands (Acts xii. 7-10 ; viii. 26 ;
x. 3, 7). In the Apocalypse they transmit and interpret to

THE DIVINE GOVERNMENT OF THE WORLD 157
the Seer the visions of the future. Christ will appear in His
return to judgment surrounded by angels (1 Thess. iii. 13) ;
they gather the elect around Him (Matt. xxiv. 31), and con
sign the wicked to their punishment (Matt. xiii. 41).
But from all this it does not follow that the Scriptures
give us a revelation concerning the angels or intend to
give us a dogma of the angels. It is in general not the
purpose of the Scriptures to furnish us with knowledge con
cerning supernatural things. They want to reveal God to
us, in order to establish the true religion in us, and the aim
of the Scriptures is to testify of the revelation through
which He has done this. There is no place in the Biblical
story of the creation of the world where, without arbitrari
ness, the creation of the angels can find a natural room, since
this story purposes only to interpret to us the divine revela
tion that is contained in the creation already known to us.
The Scriptures assume the creation of angels as a matter
of fact and thereby accept it as Jesus Himself has done.
It is natural in the religious view of the world that the
activity of God is everywhere represented and vividly por
trayed by explaining it as having been accomplished through
His servants. It is equally arbitrary to deny the existence
of the angels, because we do know and are to know the world
only in so far as it has been given to us as an object of our
domination, as it is to make the existence of angels a dogma
of faith.
When an appeal is made to the fact that the Scriptures
speak of the appearances of angels, which presuppose their
existence, it is overlooked that this is primarily a natural
literary form in which inner revelations can be vividly repre
sented. This is clearly shown by the descriptions given of
the words and conversations of the angels, as also by the
simple fact, that the first Evangelist, in contradistinction
from Luke always describes these as taking place in dreams
(cf. also Acts, xxvii. 34). At any rate those who see in this

158 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
idea of the angels a curtailment of the Biblical truth, must
decide which one of the Evangelists is in the right when
two narrate that the women at the sepulchre had seen two
angels and the other two know of only one, and how two
of the writers accordingly came to make a mistake. The
Scriptures themselves clearly show how this idea serves only
the one purpose of vividly picturing the doings of God Him
self when in Heb. i. 7 it is said, that God converts His
angels into winds and His servants into flames of fire; it is
also expressly said in the citation there given, that He makes
winds to be His messenger and flames of fire to be His serv
ants (Ps. civ. 4), so that He makes use of the phenomena
of nature for His purposes. Jesus with a view to the dream
of Jacob says, that the disciples could see the angel of God
transmit to him divine help (John i. 51), and Mark reports
of the Son of God who had been approved in the tempta
tion, that the angels were ever ready to help Him (Mark i.
13). Jesus Himself has ascribed His wonderful deeds at
times to the spirit that has been given to Him (Matt. xii. 28)
and at times to God Himself, who worked these deeds
through Him (John xiv. 10). When it is said in Matt.
xxvi. 53 that God could send for His protection a legion of
angels, this does not mean that He needs these, since He
at all times knows that He is in communion with God and
under His protection (John viii. 29), and if in Matt. xxiv.
31 He sends out His angels to gather together the elect,
He nevertheless promises in John xiv. 3 that He will come
personally to take His own home.
There are other reasons for maintaining how little the
idea of the angels deals with fixed realities in the Scriptures.
When the idea of the guardian angels for the nations (Dan.
x. 13) or for individuals (Acts xii. 15), especially for the
children (Matt, xviii. 10) is further developed in the
Apocalypse that speaks of angels appointed over fire and
water (Apoc. xiv. 18; xvi. 5), and that the single congrega-

THE DIVINE GOVERNMENT OF THE WORLD 159
tions have their guardian angels (Apoc. ii. 3) this idea grad
ually expands unconsciously in the apocalyptic letters into
that of a representative personification of the congregations.
It is not at all remarkable that contemporaneous descriptions
are employed, for the embellishment of what is said of the
angels, even to including proper names (Michael in Apoc.
xii. 7; Gabriel in Luke i. 19), further the idea of throne
angels that stand in the very presence of God (Apoc. viii.
2, 6), of powerful angels, of archangels (1 Thess. iv. 16),
and of different orders of angels (1 Pet. iii. 22). But how
little importance Paul attaches to this can be seen from the
fact that he mentions them in different orders and with
different names (Eph. i. 21; Col. i. 16). In the apocalypse
myriads of angels who surround the throne of God praising
and glorifying Him appear entirely on the same level with
the four living beings and the twenty-four elders, who cer
tainly are only typical representatives of the creation and the
redemption. Here it becomes clear that it is another religious need
which the idea of the angels is to serve, namely the need of
seeing in its realized form and of picturing vividly the goal
for which God has destined man. In this way the angels
according to Job. xxxviii. 7 already surround God at the
time of the creation, praising and glorifying Him, as the
heavenly prototype of the family of God which Israel was
destined to become. It is noteworthy how in the Old Testa
ment this side of the idea of the angels is not yet fully
developed, as in Job. iv. 18; xv. 15 they do not yet appear
as without imperfection. On the other hand, it appears in
Gal. i. 8 to be a hypothetical case, which is regarded as
practically an impossibility that an angel could do anything
wrong. They have no part in the redemption, because they
do not stand in need of it (Heb. ii. 16), but they rejoice
at the sight of redemption (1 Pet. i. 12; Eph. iii. 10). When
Jesus wishes to describe the most perfect fulfilment of the

160 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
will of God He directs attention to the manner in which
this is done by the angels in heaven (Matt. vi. 10). When
He wants to depict the heavenly glory to which the resur
rection leads, He says that those who are risen will
be like the angels in heaven (Mark xii. 25), who in
deed are regarded as spirits (Heb. i. 14), but with a
heavenly body (1 Cor. xv. 40). Paul considers it as the
highest purpose of their existence that they be united with
redeemed mankind under Christ as its head (Eph. i. 10),
and in this way the separation that has been made through
the sin of man between the spiritual world of the earth and
that of heaven be removed again. They appear as invisible
beings present in the congregation, admonishing and warn
ing them (1 Cor. iv. 9; xi. 10; 1 Tim. v. 21). The Scriptures
have only this one interest in the over against errors that
put in their appearance at an early date, to preserve this
idea in its purity. In this interest Paul emphasizes the fact,
that the angels are included in the totality of creatures that
were made in Christ (Col. i. 16) ; and as the Revelation of
John expressly declares against the worship of angels (Apoc.
xix. 20; xxii. 8-9), thus Paul opposes every kind of angel
service (Col. ii. 18, 23).
5. The Devil. — The enemy of God, who opposes the pur
poses of His love in government of the world, is throughout
the Bible said to be the Devil. The serpent who tempted our
first parents to sin is already in the Apocrypha (Wisdom ii.
24), and in the New Testament declared to be the Devil
(2 Cor. xi. 3; Rev. xii. 9). Jesus declares that he was the
murderer of men from the beginning, because through his
temptation he brought death upon mankind (John viii. 44).
All sin is his work (1 John iii. 8). He is called the prince
of this world (John xii. 31; xvi. 11), because in the world
that is hostile to God he rules supreme. Paul calls him the
god of this world (2 Cor. iv. 4), because sinful man irresist
ibly falls a prey to his power (1 John v. 19). It is his spirit

THE DIVINE GOVERNMENT OF THE WORLD 161
that even now works in the sins of iniquity (Eph. ii. 2). He
is engaged in a constant struggle against the work of redemp
tion. He has tempted Christ (Matt. iv. 1 sqq.), and tempts
the disciples (Luke xxii. 31) ; he has misled Judas and thus
brought about the death of Jesus (Luke xxii. 3; John xiii.
27). He prevents the success of Jesus' discourses (Matt.
xiii. 19, 39) as he interferes with the work of His messengers
and seeks to thwart their work (1 Thess. ii. 18; iii. 5), until
he is deprived of his power by the returned Messiah (Rev.
xx. 2).
And yet here, too, it must be said that the Scriptures do
not contain a doctrine of the devil. When it is said in
1 John iii. 8, that he sinned from the beginning, i. e., made
a beginning of sinning, this does not at all mean that he
was from the very outset a wicked principle in the dualistic
sense. The Scriptures do not even consider it worth while
to deny this error, which is fundamentally antagonistic to
their religious teachings. When in John viii. 44, the fact
that he does not stand in the (objective) truth is based on
this, that the (subjective) truth, i. e., love and desire for
the truth is not in him, the psychological motive here would
be a senseless tautology, if both in the same manner were a
part of the natural condition of the devil. But it is only
through a misinterpretation of the sense and the words in
this passage or in such passages as Luke x. ; xviii. 1 ; 1 Tim.
iii. 6, that the doctrine of the fall of the devil into sin is
found here. The Scriptures know nothing of this; and yet
this would be the first and the most natural thing that would
have to be said by way of doctrine concerning the devil.
Here, accordingly, we are still dealing with a conception that
impressed itself through necessity upon religious conscious
ness. The deeper the knowledge of sin becomes, the more
necessary the superhuman power of sin also becomes, by
which it deceives man, corrupts and rules him; and since
this sin cannot be ascribed to God, it is attributed to a
K

162 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
superhuman enemy of God. The Scriptures and Jesus Him
self accept this view as they find it and have thereby given
it sanction. It is perfectly arbitrary to deny to the idea of
a Devil its claims, as we certainly can not claim to be able
to measure all the boundaries of the creation of God ; but it
is equally arbitrary to make the existence of the devil a
dogma of faith.
In the Old Testament we see only the beginnings
of this idea. Satan still appears here as an angel of God,
who stands before His face, although he finds pleasure in
accusing and tempting men (Job. i. ; Zech. iii.; cf. 1 Kings
xxii. 19 sqq.). In Judges ix. 23; 1 Sam. xvi. 44, when God
Himself sends an evil spirit, this is only to express the idea
that God permits the sinner through deception and tempta
tion to fall into deeper sin. And when God (2 Sam. xxiv.)
in His anger causes David to make an innumeration of the
people, we are told by 1 Chron. xxi. that this is the work of
Satan. It is a matter of no significance at all, if later ideas
taken from foreign sources influenced the formal develop
ment of this idea in Israel. As we learn from the New
Testament this is merely the expression of a deeper insight
into the superhuman power of sin. Among these ideas must
be reckoned the notion of a whole kingdom of devils (Matt.
xii. 26), of unclean spirits, demons or angels (1 Cor. vi. 3;
Matt. xxv. 41; Rev. xxiv. 7, 9), who like the good have
their different ranks (1 Cor. xv. 24; Col. ii. 15), who dwell
in the desert (Rev. xviii. 2; or in the air that surrounds
the earth, Eph. ii. 2), and as spirits without bodies desire
to enter into the bodies of men or of animals (Matt. viii. 31).
In connection with this appears the idea according to which
these devil angels are fallen angels, whose fall was caused
by the devil (Rev. ix. 1; xvii. 9). The story of the sons of
God (Gen. vi. 1 sqq.) is interpreted as referring to the fall
of the angels (Jude i. 6; 2 Pet. ii. 4). On the other hand,
the idea of elementary spirits or of the spirits of the stars,

THE DIVINE GOVERNMENT OF THE WORLD 163
who are claimed by many modern theologians to have even
taken a part in the giving of the law, can find no exegetical
ground in the New Testament and is entirely contrary to its
spirit. In the New Testament the devil or Satan is the
evil one pure and simple (Matt. xiii. 19; 1 John ii. 13), even
if he bears the more popular name, such as Belial (2 Cor.
vi. 15), or Beelzebub (Mark ii. 22).
A certain deviation in the idea appears only in the rela
tion between the devil and the evil which is the consequence
of sin. This appears most clearly in connection with the
demoniacs. However much popular superstition may be
found in the idea of being possessed by the devil, in the New
Testament the matter is nevertheless always regarded from
a spiritual point of view. It is not otherwise when the devil
enters Judas, in order to lead him to betray Christ, and
when the spirit of the antichrist inspires his pseudo-prophets
(1 John iv. 1 sqq.), or when those possessed are in the power
of the unclean spirit, who inspires them (Mark i. 23-34).
And when in these accounts the fact of that spiritual sub
jugation under the evil powers brings with it also sick
nesses of a physical or psychical kind in those possessed, it
is only natural that these are ascribed to the workings of the
evil spirit who have them in his power and speaks out of
them. As the devils know that there is a God and tremble
before His judgment (James ii. 19) those, too, who are
possessed know the Messiah as the conquerer of the su
premacy of Satan and fear that He will condemn them to
the tortures of hell (Matt. viii. 29). In the consequences
of their sins those possessed become conscious of the fact
that they are in the control of Satan's power, and this
awakens in them the desire for deliverance, which is then
given them when the devils are expelled by Christ. Both
facts, however, show that the modern idea according to which
those possessed were persons suffering only from nervous
disorder is altogether irreconcilable with the data found in

164 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
the New Testament. But other sicknesses also are ascribed
to Satan (Luke iv. 39), when we see a certain deviation in
our traditions, according to which sicknesses also that are not
originally connected with possession by the devil are de
scribed as such (Luke xiii. 11 sqq.; Matt. xvii. 15-16, 18).
But as a superhuman being the devil is endowed with
higher powers and can perform wonders and miracles
(2 Thess. ii. 9). Paul delivers up the unrepentant sinner
to Satan that he should vex him with bodily illness (1 Cor.
v. 5), and ascribes a painful suffering that afflicts himself
to the angel of Satan, who strikes him with fists (2 Cor.
xii. 7). But if he is in the former case conscious of the
fact that this is only done by the power and at the direc
tions of Christ and if in the latter case he petitions Christ
for deliverance from his sufferings (2 Cor. xii. 8) it becomes
clear that Satan's power over the natural life is regarded as
extending only so far as this is the will of God. To this
belong also the terrible plagues which are brought about by
the angels of Satan (Rev. ix.), and yet are considered as
divine punishments that are to lead to repentance (Rev.
ix. 20). But the devil is considered as the ruler over death
(Heb. ii. 14) only in so far as he makes use of death as a
means of bringing man under his control and of delivering
him up to destruction, into which he purposed to lead him
through the temptation to sin. This is in substance the
same as where in 1 Cor. xv. 56 sin is described as a sting, with
which death slays man. Just as in this passage redemption
is described as having deprived death of this power, thus in
the other passages the devil is deprived of his power and
thereby the danger of death is removed. In general the
Scriptures here also evince only the purpose of guarding
this idea against any abuse for the excuse of sin. The rule
over the world has been given to Satan by God (Luke iv. 6) ;
i. e., only over that world which through sin has become
subject to him. As he found nothing in Christ through

THE DIVINE GOVERNMENT OF THE WORLD 165
which he could tempt Him (John xiv. 30), thus he flees when
the pious resist him (James iv. 7). The whole work of
redemption has for its purpose to rob him of his power. The
Scriptures have nothing to say of any hopes of Satan or
his angels for redemption. For them eternal fire has been
prepared (Matt. xxv. 41), to which Satan, after his final
overthrow, will be assigned (Rev. xx. 10).

CHAPTER IX
THE PREPARATION OF REDEMPTION
1. The Heathen World. — If the supreme object of
the divine government of the world is the deliverance of
mankind from sin, which has prevented mankind from attain
ing the goal destined for it, then there runs through the whole
pre-Christian history, like a golden cord, the preparation
for the realization of the revelation of redemption in Christ.
When it is said that God permitted the nations to go their
own way (Acts xiv. 16) this only means that He did not
guide them into the way of a history of redemption in the
narrower sense as He did Israel; but not that He thereby
did not intend to prepare them also for redemption. Paul,
indeed, looks upon the age of heathendom as the time of
ignorance, but when he says that God " winked at " them
(Acts xvii. 30) he does not wish to maintain that this igno
rance was entirely without their fault. Through the original
revelation it would have been possible for the heathen to
know God; but as they did not make use of these means
as they should have done, they remained ignorant and babes
(Rom. ii. 20) as is natural in the infant stage of mankind.
What they possessed of religion at that time could only be
the weak and miserable elements of religion (Gal. iv. 19)
that could not work what all religion is to work (pleasing
God) or secure for them what it should attain (salvation).
For while all religion is the voluntary worship of the true God
they did not know the essence of God and were bound to
the service of beings that in truth were not gods (Gal. iv. 8).
But this view of heathendom as an elementary religion cor-
166

THE PREPARATION OF REDEMPTION 167
responding to the child age of mankind already points to a
future, in which the divine education of the human race
would develop this into religious manhood. It certainly was
most natural for the apostles, both in their dealings with
the new gentile congregations and in their mission sermons,
to confine themselves to this idea. The heathen people, as
they actually were, had received from their ancestors what
ever of religion they possessed. Their unripe condition was
then relatively not a fault of their own, even if it was dis
pleasing to God.
But it was necessary to go one step farther in passing
judgment on this primitive religion. Those so-called gods
(1 Cor. viii. 5) whom the heathens worship were indeed in
reality not gods at all, and yet not purely the production of
phantasy, but were demons (1 Cor. x. 20). Paul was able
to explain the departure of the heathens from the God who
had revealed Himself in nature to the worship of other
objects, after the manner of His times, as effected by
the deceptions of the evil spirits, who had drawn the adora
tion of men to themselves. This was indeed only possible
if men were led against their knowledge and will by these
spirits to the dumb idols, in which they thought they were
worshiping divinities but which were in reality demons
(1 Cor. xii. 2). All the glory of Greek philosophy could
appear as nothing but foolishness in the eyes of the Apostle,
since they did not recognize God who had revealed His
wisdom to them in the creation (1 Cor. i. 20-21), and by this
very fact He considered them as condemned by the Old
Testament (1 Cor. iii. 19-20).
To this was added that the demons could secure for them
selves this worship only for the purpose of leading the
heathen into immorality. The Apostle Paul everywhere con
siders as the cardinal sin of the gentile world licentiousness,
which through the abuse of sexual relations destroys the
foundation of social life, and then the greed, which over-

168 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
turns the divinely ordained relation of man to nature, by
converting nature into an object of idolatry (Col. iii. 5; cf.
Matt. vi. 24). Accordingly the characteristic feature of
heathendom is spiritual darkness and a rebellion in principle
against the order of God (2 Cor. vi. 14 sqq.). But in this
very development, which out of this crude character of
primitive religion, had to expand into this utter perversion
of the religious and moral life, Paul recognized the judgment
of God's providence. For the fact that men remained in
that crude state was in reality the consequence of their own
departure from the primitive religion and the adoption of
the foolishness of idol worship and the wickedness of a
service of nature (Rom. i. 21 sqq.). Paul accordingly does
not at all see in idolatry the crude adoration of images ; but
when these images of men or animals, prepared skilfully
out of gold and silver (Acts xvii. 29), are really thought to
represent divinities, then these divinities necessarily were
like the creature which they thereby substituted in place
of God the Creator. However much they venerated these
beings represented by the idols, they yet could be nothing
but created things (Rom. i. 23-25). As Paul accordingly
regards the worship of demons as a deification of the crea
ture, he exposes also the sin of licentiousness of the heathen
people in its most horrible form when it, too, leads to a
perversion of the divine order of creation into the unnatural
sins of lust (Rom. i. 24-27). But he sees in this an inner
necessary connection, a judgment of God's wrath (Rom. i.
18), which as a punishment for the perversion of religion
gave up the gentiles to a perversion of their moral
life; and he considered as the acme of this punishment
their subjection in a manner in which the moral power of
discrimination is as good as eradicated (Rom. i. 28-31; cf.
Eph. iv. 19). But for the very reason that he sees in this
development a revelation of divine wrath, which punishes
sin with sin by suffering sin to work out its own conse-

THE PREPARATION OF REDEMPTION 169
quences, he finds herein for his missionary sermons a basis
to proclaim the impending judgment of God's wrath (1 Thess.
i. 9-10; Acts xvii. 31-32). He presupposes that thereby the
unconsciousness of certain destruction and a desire for
deliverance from divine wrath is awakened in the heathen.
On the other hand Paul recognizes in the reverence for
"unknown gods" a hidden desire for a higher and better
religion even among the heathen (Acts xvii. 23), to which
he can appeal in his message of redemption. And when he
speaks of those who by nature do the will of God (Rom. ii.
14, 26-27), he must accept that the effects of the natural
moral consciousness found in the original revelation and
which can never be entirely eradicated, still bring about in
a positive way in individuals a moral striving, which pre
pares to meet and accept the message of redemption. This
is made still more prominent in John. However sharply the
apocalypse may picture the gentile world as the real domain
of Satan's supremacy, which is entirely closed to all the
admonitions of God for repentance and out of which accord
ingly at some future time the powers hostile to God and
Christ shall come forth. Yet this book, too, in accordance
with the words of Jesus (John x. 16), knows of children
found scattered among the heathens, who need only to be
collected and put under the care of a good shepherd to
become the Master's sheep (Apoc. xi. 52). John appears
then even more strongly than Paul to recognize virtue
and wisdom in the heathen world, which under the influence
of preparatory grace would open the hearts for the coming
redemption. There can probably be no doubt that he ascribes
these effects to the Logos, who as the light of mankind in
general enlightens also each individual (John i. 4, 9). If
Paul more from the negative side sees in the development of
the gentile world a divine educational process, which through
the recognition of certain destruction to which this develop
ment leads, prepares the hearts for the message of the

170 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
redemptive grace, John has more from the positive side
taught such a preparation for redemption in the gentile
world. The fact that both apostles have no eye for the
great and the beautiful that has been developed in the
heathen world in other departments, is to be explained by
this that they look upon them exclusively from a religious
point of view.
2. The Law of Israel. — In Israel the real nature of the
revelation of redemption was entirely different. The peculiar
advantage enjoyed by Israel over the nations around does
not consist primarily in the possession of the religious life
that the others lacked, since the prophets at all times de
clared that this life was very defective in Israel and that
the people were punished on account of their sins. This
advantage consists rather in the peculiar relation in which
God has entered with the people by selecting them in their
fathers as His property and the object of His love (Rom. xi.
16, 28). Israel could boast of God as their God (Rom. ii.
17), they were His children (Rom. ix. 4), and this advantage
on account of the fidelity of God could not be lost (Rom.
iii. 3; ix. 29), independently of the questions how far in
Israel the true religion, of which they were the bearers, had
been realized. But to make this people in reality also His
property, which it was destined to be, God had given them
a law, an order of life that separated them from the sur
rounding heathen people as a wall of partition (Eph.
ii. 14). In this law Israel possessed the knowledge of the
divine will of the full development of the truth (Rom. ii.
20). In this passage the law is everywhere considered, as
this is done by Jesus Himself (Matt. v. 18) as an indivisible
entity (Gal. v. 3; cf. James ii. 10). A difference between
the ethical, the ritual, and the social command is not known
to the New Testament. Paul also counts among the ad
vantages of Israel the cultus as established by the law
(Rom. ix. 4). The modern idea that according to Paul a

THE PREPARATION OF REDEMPTION 171
part of it at least was added by the angels and the spirits
of nature is totally without foundation and is contrary to
the most direct statements of the apostle (cf. Rom. vii. 12).
Of course it remained a fact that in Israel, too, this law
was not fulfilled as it was to be fulfilled. Paul includes
the Jews as well as the Gentiles in the condemnation of
being under the supremacy of sin (Rom. iii. 9 ; cf . Eph. ii.
3). He emphasizes particularly that the law has included
Israel also under its judgment of the universality of sin,
since it lies in the nature of the law that it constantly lays
open the difference between human obedience and divine
command and in this way brings about a knowledge of sin
(Rom. iii. 19-20). The apostle has himself had the experi
ence under the law, that the law, for the very reason that
it was given by the Holy Spirit, finds residence in the carnal
nature of man (Rom. vii. 14) through which it becomes im
possible to achieve its fulfilment (Rom. viii. 3). The same
experience teaches that the positive command only incites
to disobedience (Rom. vii. 7-11) and thus brings man under
the supremacy of sin, which always brings renewed trans
gressions. But as these provoke the wrath of God (Rom.
iv. 15) it had the appearance that the law did not prepare
for redemption but prevented it. Nevertheless Paul had to
consider this result as intended by God, because the law
had been given to a sinful people, among whom there could
be no other consequence. Therefore, he does not hesitate to
use the seemingly paradoxical statement, that the law had
been given to increase transgressions (Rom. v. 20; Gal. iii.
19), and thus, as it were, force man into disobedience, so that
every other way to salvation would be closed to him than
the one upon which God had intended to lead man (Gal.
iii. 22-23). Man is to recognize that he by his own powers
cannot attain to salvation, that he stands in need of divine
grace. It is in this sense that Paul calls the law a school
master unto Christ (Gal. iii. 24), wherein He puts on the

172 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
same level the subjection of Israel to the law and the ele
mentary beginnings of religion, as these were natural for
man in his undeveloped state (Gal. iv. 2-9).
Naturally this view of the pedagogical significance of the
law drawn from his own experience with the law is a one
sided view, as are all individual experiences. Paul who,
according to his Pharisaical training, sought to win his
salvation by the fulfilment of the law, had by this attempt
been involved only more deeply in the destructive contra
diction between the ideal and the real, between the willing
and the fulfilling. His zeal for the law had forced him
into the greatest sin of his life. And yet this conduct was
typical of all those who seek to find the way to God through
self-righteousness. But the history of Israel shows, that
the law could also have an entirely different effect. In the
Psalms we constantly hear the confessions of the pious, who
had found their joy and highest delight in the law. We see
from this, too, that they did not for this reason consider
themselves as without sin, but constantly pray for forgive
ness, but that they are also sure of forgiveness on account
of the relation of love which connects them with God. It
is clear, that all of these pious men were prepared in a
positive way by the law for the full revelation of God in
Christ, which alone could make possible for them a com
plete fulfilment of the law and hence the attainment of
redemption. This side of the question is especially made
prominent in the discourses of Jesus in John's gospel. If
Christ finds in Israel those already who do the truth (John
iii. 21) ; or are of the truth, because they permit themselves
to be guided by the truth (John xviii. 37) ; or are of God
(John viii. 47), this can have been effected in them only
by the revelation of the law. It is noteworthy that John
uses in this connection exactly the same expressions with
which he in other places describes the state of Christian
redemption. He saw in this already a preparatory realiza-

THE PREPARATION OF REDEMPTION 173
tion. Jesus has indeed said, that he who wills to do the
will of God will know Him as the One that He is (John
vii. 17). If the law had done nothing but arouse this will
then it would have fulfilled its mission of leading to Christ.
These souls thus made ready for the reception of salvation
had been God's possession (Job xvii. 9), and thereby became
the sheep of the flock of Christ (John x. 14, 27).
It seems as if all this could be said only of that part of the
law which is of a specifically ethical character. But history
has shown that this is not the case. The Epistle to the
Hebrews shows that types of the salvation in Christ were also
to be found in the levitical ordinances of atonement in the
cultus (Heb. x. 1) ; and the grand elaboration of this idea in
this Epistle has certainly brought many in Israel to under
stand the law. When Christ in the parable (Mark vii. 15)
uses the levitical ordinances of purification as a picture of
the moral cleansing demanded by Himself, this should above
everything else awaken in earnest souls the consciousness
of the fact that the former could be fulfilled only through
the latter (Luke xi. 40). Just as the Prophets at all times
had interpreted the bodily circumcision to refer to the puri
fication of heart (ch. ii. 3). We will see how the New
Testament age in many respects recognized the ordinances
of the cultus in the Old Testament as deeply significant for
salvation in Christ. The Apostle Paul also was not igno
rant of this significance of the ordinances of the Old Testa
ment law (Col. ii. 17). In this way the law with its ordi
nances had already a prophetic significance for Christ and
points to a still more direct preparation of redemption in
Israel. 3. The Promise. — In his second sermon (Acts iii. 25)
Peter says that the promise to Abraham (Gen. xxii. 18) had
begun to be fulfilled in Christ. Paul also sees this fulfilled in
Christ (Rom. vii. 13; Gal. iii. 16). Here, as well as in the
Epistle to the Hebrews, he knows perfectly well that in the

174 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
first instance this promise meant only a great progeny (Rom.
iv. 18 ; Heb. vi. 13-14) ; but especially the latter already sees
in these words a promise of the salvation that has come in
its final heavenly perfection in Christ (Heb. xi. 10; xiii. 16).
All the prophets of Israel have hoped for the final consum
mation of the revelation of God, in which the redemption
that had been promised them would be realized; and their
predictions have at all times kept this hope alive in Israel
and thus prepared them for its fulfilment. This prediction
was the announcement of the divine determination, accord
ing to which God Himself would bring about the completion
of the Theocracy, the realization of the religico-ethical ideal.
If, as we have learned, there is no divine world plan that
foresees all the details in the development, this naturally
applies also to the carrying out of this plan of redemption in
Israel. Prophecy is not the prediction of special future events,
only the heathen mantic art can claim to be such, because it is
based on the presupposition of fate, that surely accomplishes
its purposes without let or hindrance on the part of man.
All the promises of God are conditioned by a certain con
duct of man, and the manner of their fulfilment is measured
by this, or in accordance with the holiness and the love of
God, which direct His wisdom in the ways of their realiza
tion. But naturally the prophets could not predict this divine
plan of redemption in the form of an abstract dogma, if they
intended to awaken in the people a lively hope of this future
redemption. They could only portray the picture of redemp
tion that had been awakened in themselves through the
divine revelation, which picture had received its background
through circumstances and the needs of their times. There
fore, the picture is as the prophets represented to themselves
the coming of the future redemption, and is quite different,
according to the individuality as also according to the his
torical situation of each prophet. Sometimes they think

THE PREPARATION OF REDEMPTION 175
that it will be inaugurated by God Himself, sometimes by
the last and the greatest representative of God. Sometimes
they expect the latter in the shape of a victorious king of
the house of David, bringing an abundance of blessings;
again as a servant of God, who bears the sins of the world.
But at all times the hoped for redemption is considered as
coming in the immediate future, because it is to come at the
same time with the repentance of the people for which the
prophets were laboring. Therefore, too, the latter can think
of the realization of this perfection of the Theocracy only
in the form that it could assume under the circumstances of
their age. All the blessings that its advent must bring for
the people are measured only by the needs of their times.
None of the prophets have predicted the time or the hour,
as 1 Pet. i. 10-11, expressly states, and therefore, too, not
the kind or the form which the fulfilment would assume
according to the conditions of the time when it appears.
It is entirely useless to construct Messianic dogmatics out
of the predictions of the prophets, as though they had a
definite programme, according to which the future redemp
tion would unfold itself.
The final realization of this plan has in reality left unful
filled certain traits marked out by prophecy and has fulfilled
others. This method of fulfilment it was that caused the
tragic vicissitudes in the historical life of Christ, which
finally in accordance with the counsel of God, nevertheless
was made to serve the final completion of His work. On the
other hand, it certainly was a providential guidance that so
many prophetic details were actually fulfilled, just as the
Old Testament seers had hoped and represented them, because
only in this way it was possible to prove to the people that
the salvation promised by the prophets had really appeared
in Christ. For the religious significance of Jesus and the
salvation that has appeared once for all in Him, it is, how
ever, a matter of total indifference, whether He came from

176 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
the seed of David, or whether He was born in Bethlehem,
or whether he entered Jerusalem as the King of Peace upon
an ass; but it is a matter of essential importance for the
production of faith in Him as the Messiah and for an
understanding of what kind of a Messiah he claimed to
be. It is in this case literally true that this had to be thus
in order that the prophecy be fulfilled (Matt. xxi. 4). It
was not thus predicted because it had to be thus; but it
happened thus in order that in the appearance of Jesus the
fulfilment of the divine plan of redemption as predicted by
the prophets must be recognized as taking place in Jesus.
It was a part of the preparation of redemption in Israel,
that the people should receive Sacred Scriptures, in which
not only the revelation of the divine will, but also the divine
promise of redemption should be constantly presented to the
eyes of the people through the prophets, in order to keep
alive in them the hope of salvation. From these writings
it was possible, when this promised redemption had come,
to bring the proof that the message of redemption brought
by the apostles had been foretold by the prophets in the
sacred books (Rom. i. 1-2), and thus through the prophetic
writings it could be demonstrated that the counsel of re
demption that was now being realized was the one that had
been predicted as being formed from eternity.
It indeed appears that in this way a great difficulty had
been conjured up, because so many of the details of the pro
phetic pictures of the future have not been fulfilled. But
this is a difficulty only for us who look at the predictions
of the prophets from an historical point of view, i. e., who
ask what was to be said to the contemporaries in these mes
sages. For those times this difficulty had no existence,
because the Bible study of those times did not ask such
questions, but considered the Scriptures purely from a reli
gious point of view, i. e., merely asked what God intended
to say in them to those who read them (ch. xxxi.). It mani-

THE PREPARATION OF REDEMPTION 177
festly is a providential arrangement that this difficulty was not
only unknown to the Bible study of this kind, but that rather
it was possible to bring the proof of a literal fulfilment,
through which the harmony between prophecy and fulfilment,
and thereby the identity of the divine plan of redemption
in the Old and in the New Testament times, were made
evident in a clear and effective way. It is a misjudgment
and misunderstanding of this divine providence, which did
so much for the preparation of redemption, when by the
application of exegetical trickery, that in the end is only
self-deception, the New Testament interpretation is carried
into the Old Testament Scriptures or the latter are inter
preted according to the former.
4. The Fulness of Time. — Israel read in her Scrip
tures not only the law and the prophecies but also the history
of the nation, of course not as an accurate narration of single
details but as the representation of the divine guidance of the
people for the purposes of His redemption. Then this entire
history must serve the purpose of preparing for the time of
the fulfilment of this redemption; this history could accord
ingly be perfectly understood only when in it a type and a
figure of that which was yet to come was recognized. In
this sense men have found in the entire history of Israel a
typical prophecy; and in so far this is perfectly correct, as
the divinely controlled history of the past, according to its
real character and active principles, could be none other
than like that of the future which it promised and for which
it prepared. But when the attempt has been made to dis
cover in individual persons and events of the Old Testament
express types of the persons and the events of the future
redemption, this is just so far correct and incorrect as the
literal interpretation of the prophetic promises that refer
to them. At any rate only the future could tell which events
of the Messianic age could be read out of the doings of God
in the past history of the people.
L

178 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
In this it was presupposed that the time of the appearance
of Jesus was the very one toward which all the former
dispensations of God were directed (1 Cor. x. 11). But this
had been declared by Christ to be the case when He an
nounced that the time had been fulfilled (Mark i. 15), which
was to pass by before the preparation for redemption, which
was necessary according to the counsel of God, had been
completed. Paul compares this time with that which a
father has determined by his testament before the son can
be permitted independently to assume control of his in
heritance (Gal. iv. 2, 4). Naturally this was not fixed
chronologically, since only the future could show when
through His government of the world the goal had been
reached, which made possible the appearance of the perfect
revelation of God. We try to show what general historical
conditions mark the age as suitable for the advent of Christ
and for His victory over the world. But as little as mankind
can by itself, contribute anything to the promised and hoped
for redemption, so little could the development of man con
tribute positively to the appearance of the proper time for
the coming of this redemption. It could only be a question
of bringing about either positively or negatively the receptiv
ity for the coming redemption. To the greatest extent this
was accomplished in the history of Israel; and for this
reason Jesus not only made His appearance in Israel but
also confined His activity as well as that of His disciples to
Israel in accordance with the counsel of God. In the pious
circles of Israel, in which the law and the promises had
attained their object, such receptive souls were actually
found, who as a result of the divine educational process
had learned to understand and to long for redemption. But
if there were only a few of these in Israel and if there were
others outside of Israel (John x. 16) then the wall of
separation had been torn down thereby, that so far had
hemmed in the development of the history of redemption.

THE PREPARATION OF REDEMPTION 179
This had begun within the limitations of a single nation;
but its purpose had not been attained in this people as a
whole. By this fact a new element had been introduced
into the realisation of redemption. In this manner the way
had been prepared for the universality of Christianity.

PART TWO
THE REDEMPTION IN CHRIST

PART II
THE REDEMPTION IN CHRIST

CHAPTER X
THE SON OF GOD AND OF MAN
1. The Messiah and the Sonship of God. — The preach
ing of the Apostles begins with bringing the proof that the
crucified and risen Jesus of Nazareth is the Messiah (Acts
ii. 36). The term taken by the theology of the times from
Ps. ii. 2 (cf. Mark. xii. 35) designates Him who was pre
pared by God through the anointing of the Holy Spirit for
the highest mission (Heb. i. 9, after Ps. xiv. 8; Luke iv. 18).
The disciples recognised in Him the Anointed One (Mark
viii. 29), which John explains in his gospel vi. 69 to mean,
that He was in the eminent sense of the term the divinely
chosen one (cf. also Mark iii. 11). The calling for which
he was dedicated through His anointing need not be more
closely designated; for through the prophetic predictions all
Israel knew of Him who was to bring the religion, as it was
founded in the Old Testament, to a full realisation, and
thereby also bring about the spiritual and temporal redemp
tion for which they longed. In the statement that Jesus is
the Messiah His specifically religious significance is already
expressed. We see here confirmed, that He was not to be a
new teacher or lawgiver, still less the founder of a new
religion, but the finisher and bringer of redemption.
183

184 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
But Jesus is the Messiah in so far as He is the Son of
God. In the question of the High Priest (Mark xiv. 61)
this name appears as a further designation of the Anointed
One (cf. Matt. xvi. 16; 2 John 31). The one object of the
predictions of the prophets and of the proclamation of the
gospel is the Son of God (Rom. i. 3; cf. 2 Cor. i. 19-20).
With this the New Testament expressly builds upon the Old.
The name is not to be explained on the basis of what the
New Testament says concerning Christ as the Son of God
but on what the name signifies in the Old Testament. In
the latter it is never the designation of a being but
of the relationship upon which God has entered with His
chosen ones. As God has selected Israel as His child, i. e.,
as the object of his fatherly love (Ex. iv. 22), in this way
the theocratic King is in a special sense the chosen object
of His fatherly care and training (2 Sam. vii. 14). It is
only the ideal picture of such a King of whom it is said
in the Messianically interpreted Ps. ii. (v. 2) that God
salutes His anointed as His Son and thereby appoints Him
to the Messianic government of the world (v. 7-8; cf. Heb.
i. 5). But at His baptism and at His transfiguration the
voice of God pronounces Jesus to be the Son of God and
explains this expressly by declaring that He is one in whom
God is well pleased (Matt. iii. 17; xvii. 5; cf. Col. i. 13).
In the preaching of the Apostles, too, this name primarily
designates nothing that is said concerning the eternal and
divine nature of this Son. If the greatness of the divine
love is brought out by stating that God did not spare His
only Son (Rom. viii. 32), or the only begotten Son, but gave
Him as an atonement for the sins of the world (1 John iv.
9-10), the name of the Son here refers to the unique rela
tionship of love in which God stands toward Him.
But Jesus Himself knows that He has been called to be
the Messiah because He is in a unique sense the Son of God.
However often He calls God His Father and the Father

THE SON OF GOD AND OF MAN 185
of the members of His kingdom He never at the same time
calls Him His and their Father. He alone is the Son pure
and simple, to whom according to Matt. xi. 27, intrusted
the work of carrying out all His counsels of redemption, and
this because the Father knows Him as no one else knows
Him. Because He is the Searcher of Hearts, God has learned
to know Jesus as the one who is fitted to carry out His
redemptive purposes, as we are already told in Matt. iii. 17 ;
xvii. 5, that He had found pleasure in Him. On the other
hand, the relationship of love brings with it that no one
knows the Father except the Son; that the latter alone is
initiated in all of God's counsels and can therefore reveal
the Father by carrying these out. Mark xiii. 32 also pre
supposes that the Son by the very fact that He is such must
know better than the angels, who in a certain sense are also
the sons of God (Job. xxxviii. 7), those plans of God that
are hidden from all others. And when in the parable God
seeks finally to attain through His Son what He had failed
to accomplish through the sending of His servants (Matt.
xxi. 37) this is interpreted in Mark xii. 6-7 to mean that the
Son who has been appointed to be the heir of the Theocracy
is the special object of the Father's love. John v. 19 also
ascribes to the love of the Father for the Son the fact that
the former shows Him how to accomplish all of His works
and this for the reason, that it lies in the character of this
peculiar sonship that the Son should not do anything inde
pendently but do only what He sees the Father do, whose
doings are in every respect His models. In the same way
in John ii. 16 he declares it to be the greatest evidence of
the love of God that He gave His only begotten Son, i. e.,
the special object of His love, for the redemption of the
world. Only in this respect do the discourses of Christ in the
fourth gospel go beyond those found in the older gospels,
that they declare this relation of love to have existed before

186 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
all times (John xvii. 24), that accordingly Jesus' unique
knowledge of God dates from His existence with God be
fore all times (John vi. 36; viii. 36), from whom He has
come and to whom He will again return (John v. 62; xvi.
27-28). The issue at stake here is not the historical ques
tion how far the apostle, who was conscious of the fact that
he was reminded by the Spirit also of these words of Jesus,
which had not found their way into the older gospel tradi
tions (John xiv. 26), and through this same spirit was being
reminded also of these phases of the truth, which Jesus
could not yet reveal to His disciples, because they were not
yet prepared for this (John xvi. 12-13), based their exposi
tions on words that Christ had actually spoken. Certainly
it is historically unthinkable that Jesus should have spoken
in so direct and didactic a way as is reported by John con
cerning His pre-existing state with God, since this certainly
belonged to those things which His disciples, and still more
the Jews with whom He discoursed, could not yet bear (John
xvi. 12). But this does not make it impossible that there
were in the memory of the evangelist certain enigmatical
sayings of Jesus, in which He had at least hinted at this
deepest secret of His self-consciousness (cf. John viii. 23,
58; xvii. 5). At any rate the question of the nature of this
unique Son of God cannot be answered on the basis of a
critical examination of the genuineness of the gospel of John
and of the extent to which the authentic words of Jesus or
their interpretations by the evangelist are given in this
gospel, in order to gain a firm ground for our faith in their
gospel. 2. The Eternal Godship of the Son.— That the old
est traditions did not possess any sayings of Jesus that
speak of His pre-existent state and of His superhuman
nature that this state presupposes, is already seen from
this, that the oldest apostolic traditions, as these appear
in the addresses in the Acts or are found in Peter and

THE SON OF GOD AND OF MAN 187
James, never make any mention of these things. On
the other hand, this tradition knows as certain that Jesus
through His resurrection has been raised to glory and
dominion, as He Himself had predicted (Mark xiv. 64).
But as soon as the religious reflection of the consequences
of this act, which was originally received as a matter of fact
in the redemptive work, was developed, the conclusion from
these premises to an originally divine character of Jesus was
a necessary step. On the presupposition of a religion of reve
lation the apotheosis of a human being is an absolute im
possibility and a sinful blasphemy. The Pauline teachings
on this subject are not based upon an application of any
contemporaneous philosophies to Christ, but are the neces
sary conclusions drawn by religious consciousness from the
appointment of the Son to a dignity equal to God (Rom. i.
4), to an original nature that made this appointment a pos
sibility. The worship of the exalted Christ as God was
possible for the monotheistic conscience only in case this
Son was regarded as equal to God from eternity.
Such a conclusion we find also clearly expressed in 1 Cor.
xv. 47, according to which He, who in His resurrection
bestows upon mankind a body corresponding to their heavenly
purposes, must Himself have been of divine origin in order
to effect this. In Gal. iv. 4-5, the sending of the Son, who
has secured for us the sonship, is considered as an altogether
exceptional divine measure ; because He was born of a woman
and put under the law, who as Son stood in the free rela
tionship of love with the Father before He was born. In
the same way we read in Rom. viii. 3, that the Son, through
whom sin was to be condemned in the flesh, was sent in the
form of flesh, and accordingly in His original state did not
have such flesh. Both passages teach that it was everywhere
a matter of necessity for the religious consciousness of
the apostle to think of the Son of God, who in His exalta
tion had attained to the inheritance of divine glory, as orig-

Ig8 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
inally not belonging to mankind. In his later Epistles Paul
reaches the same conclusion on the basis of the religious
consideration of the original plan of redemption formed by
Christ before the foundation of the world (Eph. iii. 9, 11),
in so far as He in whom the believers were elected before
the beginning of time and had been blessed with all kinds
of spiritual blessings (Eph. i. 3-4), must Himself have
possessed a pre-existing existence, which could be thought
only as an existence in a divine form (Phil. ii. 6), i. e., in
divine glory.
The same conclusion from His exaltation to divine glory
and majesty to an original divine creature in the case of
Him who, in contradistinction to other messengers of God
in the past, -is called the Son of God pure and simple, is
found in Heb. i. 1 sqq. In this passage for the first time
the attempt is made to describe the existence of such a being
equal with God without any damage to the doctrine of mono
theism. The brightness that has emanated from the divine
glory has, as it were, concentrated itself in a second equally
glorious being of light, so that, as it were, we see the former
only in Him who is the reflection of the original light and
in whom the divine being has received its full expression.
Only in this way does the author of this Epistle, who thinks
after the manner of the scribes, use this name of Son, which
the Messiah receives in the Old Testament in a pre-eminent
sense (Heb. i. 4) as the first-born among the heavenly sons
of God (Heb. i. 6), who is infinitely exalted over all others,
as the designation for a superhuman (Heb. v. 8), eternal
(Heb. vii. 3), and therefore God-equal being. How little,
however, he thought of an eternal generation from God,
which is often read into the passage (Heb. ii. 11) is seen
by the entirely different way in which Heb. i. 3, the origin
of this God-equal being from eternity is depicted.
And especially John, who everywhere bases the origin
of the divine sonship of the believers on a generation out of

THE SON OF GOD AND OF MAN 189
God, has nowhere applied this idea to Christ as the Son of
God. To him had been revealed already during his inter
course with Jesus on earth the unique life of the Lord as
one that was eternal and therefore also pre-existed (1 John
i: 1-2). In the Apocalypse he describes Christ throughout
as God, as the First and the Last, as the Alpha and the
Omega (Rev. i. 17; xxii. 13). He, too, searches in the Old
Testament for a premonition of this eternal nature and finds
this in the creative word of God, who at the same time is the
medium of the revelation of God to the prophets. He there
fore calls the " Word " that was in the beginning, itself a
divine being, in living, personal communion with God (John
i. 1). For it is the essence of the word that it makes known
the secrets of the heart ; and this, according to John, was the
specific mission of the Mediator of redemption as promised
in the Old Testament. But it is possible in the sense in
which the Scriptures understand the term, where it does not
imply the transmission of knowledge but a making known by
actions, for the Mediator of redemption to reveal the divine
essence only if He Himself has this essence. Just as an
earthly father bestows upon his only son everything that he
has (John i. 14), thus the Father has given His glory to His
Son, because He loved Him before the foundation of the
world (John xvii. 24). In this very way for John, too, the
name of " Son " becomes a designation of the eternal God-
equal nature that has appeared in Jesus Christ (1 John v.
20). Only to this, according to John, could the Old Testa
ment have referred, when it promises the Anointed One, who
was to bring about the perfect revelation of God. John con
sidered Messiah and Son of God as purely interchangeable
terms (1 John v. 1, 5) ; and the faith in Jesus as the Christ,
which he purposed to arouse through his gospel, he explains
by saying, that He is the eternal, God-equal Son of God
(John xx. 31).

190 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Only on the basis of this knowledge of the Son it becomes
entirely clear why the creation of the world had to be brought
about through Him. This cannot naturally mean that God
stood in need of one to help Him in His work, but only that
the love of God that communicates itself according to its
essence, and that impelled Him from eternity to communi
cate His glory to the Son, also induced Him to create a
world, in order to have other spiritual beings participate in
His glory and blessedness. Only through the love that has
been revealed through the Son, which love constitutes the
essence of God, has the world then been created. But we
have seen that the continuance of the world that had fallen
into sin is dependent on the Son alone, who has made cer
tain its final deliverance; and thus, too, the entire world
government of God, the goal of which is the redemption
achieved through Christ, can be regarded only as done
through Him as a medium. He is the Mediator of the entire
preparatory history of redemption as He is the Mediator of
the salvation that has appeared in the fulness of time. In
the Epistle to the Hebrews, the Son, who was to be set over
the house of the perfected Theocracy, is described as the one
who has prepared this house from the beginning (Heb. iii.
3, 6) ; just as He who is at some future time to be made the
heir of all things, from the very beginning must have stood
in connection with the world that has been created through
Him (Heb. i. 2). According to Paul the Mediator of the
full revelation of redemption is also the Mediator of the
gracious leadings of Israel, for which reason he describes
this Mediator as accompanying the people in the desert in
the form of rock gushing out water (1 Cor. x. 4). In John
the people that was the property of the Lord is called, in
perfect agreement with Heb. iii. 3, the property of the
Logos (John i. 11) ; and the prophets in the theophanies
that they received saw the glory of the eternal Mediator
of redemption (John xii. 41). As the word of God is given

THE SON OF GOD AND OF MAN 191
to the prophets of Israel and is seen by them (Jer. i. 4; Is.
ii. 11), thus in John the Logos, which was the light of the
world, was from the outset the principle of all revelation,
the rays of which spread also over the gentile world (John
i. 4, 9). Here it first becomes clear, that these statements
concerning the Eternal Being and the pre-existing activity
of the Son of God are not empty theosophical speculations.
He who was the highest revelation of the self-communicat
ing divine love from eternity, is also the pledge of this,
that the creation like the history of redemption is the work
of the same love of God that has appeared to us in the
Mediator of salvation, Jesus.
3. The Son of Man and the Incarnation. — The
favorite self -appellation of Jesus was " Son of Man."
Naturally it was not His purpose in using this name to
emphasise His real human nature, which was not a
matter of doubt for His hearers (cf. even Rom. v. 15; 1
Cor. xv. 47; 1 Tim. ii. 15), because He designates Himself
not as a Son of man in general, but as the unique one
among the sons of man. This can of course not be meant
in this sense, that He wanted to declare Himself as the
type of mankind, as its realised ideal. This entirely
modern idea is not at all found in the statement of Paul
declaring Christ to be the Second Adam (Rom. v. 12 sqq.;
1 Cor. xv. 45 sqq.), because like the first Adam He had
been of decisive importance for the whole human race.
Rather Jesus everywhere presupposes as self-evident on the
part of His hearers that they knew wherein this uniqueness
consisted. But Israel knew of only one Son of Man, who
was to come in order to fulfil the promises of God, and by
the side of whom there was to be no second like Him. This
is a self-evident conclusion from the fact that Jesus makes
use of this name, not when He wants to mention something
in reference to His person as such, but when He speaks of
the work that has been assigned to Him in connection with

192 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
His calling (Mark x. 45 ; Luke xix. 10), or when He men
tions His authority (Matt. ix. 6; xii. 7); or of the proper
course for Him to pursue (Matt. viii. 20; xi. 19), or of His
impending fate (Mark viii. 31; xiv. 21). The historical
conditions of the activity of Jesus bring it with them that He
does not designate His unique calling more specifically as
the Messianic, and yet His hearers could and should, if they
were so inclined, accede to Him a mission which could be
none other than the Messianic; and He later, when He
began to announce more definitely His Messianic dignity,
and with reference to Dan. vii. 13, began to speak of the
return of the Son of Man in the clouds of the heavens
(Matt. xxiv. 30; Mark xiv. 62), it was not possible to see
in this a reference to His heavenly origin, but only to the
Messiah who was to be exalted to the God-like dignity in
the government of the world. Even after the idea of the
original divine essence had been unfolded, this idea was for
the first time connected with the name of the Son of God,
and in this way the name Son of Man disappeared entirely
from apostolic tradition. In Acts vii. 55 we find an allusion
to the prediction of the return of Jesus, as Rev. i. 13; xiv.
14 is based on the passage in Daniel.
Only John has from the higher standpoint of his under
standing of the person of Christ, probably wherever he cites
Jesus as making use of the name Son of Man, referred this
name to the uniqueness of His nature, by virtue of which,
on account of His heavenly origin (John iii. 13) the fact
that Jesus was man was not His first and original condi
tion; although also in the case of John in many places
there are reminiscences of the original meaning of this
name. This idea that is peculiar to him, originated even
without the use of this name, as a matter of course when
he thought of the original existence of Christ in divine
glory. Only that His sending was not, as in the case of
the prophets, the assignment of a special calling to a human

THE SON OF GOD AND OF MAN 193
being, but rather His transfer from the condition of His
heavenly life into the condition of the terrestial and human,
that was not adequate to His original being, as we learned
from Gal. iv. 4 and Rom. viii. 3. He had descended from
heaven to which he at last again ascended (Eph. iv. 10 ; John
xvi. 28) for the purpose of carrying out the divine plan of
redemption (John vi. 38). He had come from heaven upon
the earth (Heb. x. 5) as He will come again (Heb. i. 6).
He had come in the similitude of man and in all His
actions had appeared as a man (Phil. ii. 7). He, like all the
children of men, partook of flesh and blood (Heb. ii. 14) be
cause he had a body of flesh (Col. i. 22). Jesus, who is
identical with the heavenly Christ, or Son of God, had ap
peared in the flesh as a factor of history (1 John iv. 2) ;
the eternal God-equal being, which John calls the Logos,
had in time become flesh, i. e., had become a being of flesh
(John i. 14). For this very reason He had been born of a
woman (Gal. iv. 4), had a common origin with all the chil
dren of Abraham (Heb. ii. 11), and is according to the
flesh from the seed of David, i. e., from his descendants
and from the fathers (Rom. i. 3; ix. 5).
Further the gospels tell us that He was not begotten by
a man, but by the Holy Ghost (Matt. i. 18), i. e., by a
creative act of God, according to which Luke thoughtfully
interprets the name Son of God, the original meaning of
which He no doubt well knew. It is a perfectly groundless
claim that this idea was first originated to explain the
superhuman nature of Jesus, since neither in the gospels
nor in the epistles is this doctrine based anywhere on this
miraculous generation. Not even Paul, who traces back the
sinfulness of man to the descent from Adam, and accord
ingly might have thought of making an exception in the
case of Jesus, stood in need of this idea. As little as it is
found in Gal. iv. 4, so little is it on the other hand, incon
sistent with Rom. i. 3. Above all the idea that John in
M

194 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
his account of the incarnation of the Logos (John i. 14)
purposes to explain this superhuman nature of Jesus in a
different and higher sense, is manifestly erroneous, since
this doctrine says nothing of the way in which this incarna
tion, in which the Logos became manifest, came about.
Just because the New Testament nowhere stands in need
of a supernatural generation of Jesus in order to explain
His originally God-equal nature, it becomes clear, that the
narrative thereof is not a mere postulate of religious ideas
and therefore must stand on an historical basis. But for
the same reason it is not permissible to put upon the
miraculous conception of Christ the stamp of a dogma, with
out the acceptance of which faith in the eternal divinity of
Jesus would be an impossibility. It is useless to maintain
that only in this way the incarnation of the eternal God-
equal Son of God can be consistently explained. He who
does not regard the essence of revelation to consist in
the communication of knowledge otherwise inaccessible to
man's understanding, will be satisfied to understand this
miracle of the incarnation, as little, whether this being of
flesh in which the eternal Son of God manifested Himself
on earth (1 John iii. 5, 8) was created in a supernatural or
in a natural manner, and will leave it to historical criticism
to settle this problem, which, however, must go to work in a
more unprejudiced way than has been generally done in the
past. The apostolic writings nowhere feel the need of explain
ing to the understanding the fact that He who possessed the
divine glory from eternity (John xvii. 24) at the end
of His life asked for its return (John xvii. 5) and accord
ingly did not possess it upon earth. The apostolic preaching
that possessed its knowledge by revelation evidently did not
regard this fact as so strange a thing as it appears to the
speculative dogmaticians, since the attributes of the super
mundane glory of God did not affect His real nature as

THE SON OF GOD AND OF MAN 195
revealed in Christ; since an entrance of the eternal and
unchangeable God into the development of history, as this
was demanded by its conception of the world-government by
God, necessarily always brought with it a self-limitation of
God; since the fact of the self -emptying was only the high
est proof of that love which constitutes the very nature of
God. The apostolic proclamation merely contemplates with
reverence this fact, that the original God-equal Son through
His birth on earth was made lower than the angels, and is
not ashamed to call those men His brethren for whose re
demption He has become their equal (Heb. ii. 9 ; xi. 12, 17) ;
and the Apostles glorify the evidence of the grace of Christ,
who has exchanged the treasure of His heavenly glory for
the poverty of this earth, in order thereby to lead us to
glory (2 Cor. viii. 9) ; and they point as to a model to this
humble proof of love on the part of Him, who although
He did exist in divine form of life, did not want to seize
for Himself as robbery the adoration that was due to
His station, but rather emptied Himself of that divine glory
and took upon Himself the form of a servant (Phil. ii. 5
sqq.). Not to speculate or to make intelligible to reason
that which by the very nature of the case cannot be under
stood, has been revealed to us the highest divine love in
the fact of the incarnation of the Son, but rather that we
should thankfully revere it and imitate Him who has so
deeply humiliated and emptied Himself for us. This is the
purpose of the religion of the New Testament.
4. The True Human Nature of Jesus. — How thor
oughly in earnest the New Testament is when it speaks
of the humanity of Christ appears from the very first
pages of the gospel, when it tells us that His spiritual
and His bodily life developed in a natural way (Luke ii.
41, 52). Like every creature of flesh He had a soul (John
xii. 27), and as in every man this is the bearer of the spirit,
of which accordingly the same thing is said as of the soul

196 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
(John xiii. 21; cf. xi. 33), and which in death departs from
the body (Matt, xxvii. 50). Jesus feels the wants of a
human being. He is hungry and He thirsts (Mark xi. 12;
John iv. 7) ; He is acquainted with the feelings of pleasure
(Luke xv. 21; John xv. 11), and of sadness (John xi. 35;
cf. Heb. v. 7); and of anxiety (Luke xii. 50; Mark xiv. 33;
John xii. 27), and of peace of soul (John xiv. 27) ; the sen
sation of love (John xi. 5 ; Mark x. 21) and of anger (Mark
iii. 5) ; of pity (Mark vi. 34) and of indignation (John xi.
33, 38). Above all the Scriptures make prominent His
capacity to suffer, which was the condition of His redemp
tive work (Heb. ii. 18), and attributes His death to the
natural weakness of the carnal nature (2 Cor. xiii. 4). As
the One who has become flesh He stands in no other relation
to God than any human being. He calls Him His God
(John xx. 17) and honors Him as one greater than Himself
(John xi. 28) and prays to Him and trusts Him (Heb. ii. 13).
As His religious relation to God was a truly human one,
so was also His moral relation to the divine will. The form
of a servant that He had taken upon Himself (Phil. ii. 7)
consisted in this that He was put under a law (Gal. iv. 4) ;
that the will of God, which was indeed in His original
form of existence, and by that very fact also His own, now
appears to Him in the form of a command (John viii. 55;
xv. 10), which He is to fulfil and over against which He
feels that He could have a different will. This fulfilment is,
as in the case of every man, His moral obligation, which
He can only fulfil when He discards all selfish activity (John
v. 30; vi. 38), and does not seek His own honor (John vii.
18 ; viii. 49-50). Therefore He must, like every human being,
learn to obey (Heb. 5-8), and by such obedience constantly
again earn the Father's love (John x. 17-18; xv. 10; cf.
viii. 29). He must through the progressive fulfilment of
His life's mission become good, since it is only God who
is good (Mark x. 18). This makes possible His tempta-

THE SON OF GOD AND OF MAN 197
tion. He too must overcome the desire to acquire those
goods that advance human life as also to thwart those evils
that hinder it, if this is the desire of the will of God.
This desire is in itself not sinful. It becomes such only
when man's will rises against the consciousness of the divine
will that demands self denial of him. Jesus was tempted
in the beginning of His career (Matt. iv. 1-sqq.) ; these temp
tations were constantly being renewed during His life (Luke
iv. 13; xx. 28); He was tempted like as we (Heb. ii. 18;
iv. 15).
Nowhere do the gospels assign to Him a higher knowledge
that goes beyond the limitations of His times and surround
ings. He reads the Scriptures as the people of His age did ;
He considers the ex. Psalm, on the basis of its superscription,
which is acknowledged to be of a late date, as the product of
David (Matt. vii. 36) ; the whole law, including Deuteron
omy, He ascribes to Moses (Mark i. 44 ; vii. 10 ; x. 3) ; the
book of Jonah He does not regard as didactic poem, but as a
history (Matt. xii. 40). He interprets the predictions of the
prophets entirely after the manner of His age, without any
reference to the historical conditions amid which they were
spoken, as directly Messianic and finds in individual persons
of Old Testament history types of the times of redemption
that appeared with Him. Entirely naively the Evangelists
relate that He inquired about this or that matter (Mark v.
30; vi. 38; John xi. 34), and that He happened to make a
mistake (Mark xi. 13). He, too, had received the necessary
equipment for His calling through His being anointed by
the Holy Ghost in His baptism (Acts x. 38) concerning
which even the oldest tradition speaks (Matt. iii. 16). It is
the spirit of the gifts of grace, through which God in other
cases also equips His servants for His service. The Messiah
had the same God through whom the prophets spoke of Him
(1 Pet. i. 11). It is true that the evangelists ascribe to Him
the ability to know the hearts (Matt. xii. 25; John ii. 25),

198 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
but this is expected of every prophet (Luke ii. 39) ; and
from such an example of superhuman knowledge the Samari
tan woman recognises the fact that He is a prophet (John
iv. 18-19). The prophetic knowledge that He shows in His
predictions He Himself declares not to be unlimited (Mark
xiii. 32). Nothing is more certain than that the gospels do
not ascribe to Him perfect omniscience during His career on
earth. Just as little are His miracles signs of a divine omnipotence
that He possessed. Moses and the Prophets according to the
Old Testament account also performed miracles. The book
of Acts narrates many miracles which were performed by
the Apostles. Paul speaks of the gift of performing miracles
(1 Cor. xii. 9-10) and appeals to such evidence of his apos
tolic mission (2 Cor. xii. 12). Jesus Himself ascribes His
driving out of devils to that Spirit (Matt. xii. 28) which
He had received in baptism, as Luke does in the case of his
miracles of healing (Luke v. 17). If the idea is already
found in the gospels that certain miraculous powers in the
manner of magic emanated from His person (Mark v. 30),
it does not appear that the oldest tradition in which this
occurs, furnishes any proof at all for this (Matt. ix. 20 sqq.).
Peter ascribes the miracles He performed to the fact that
God was with Him (Acts x. 38). Whether it was thought
that this divine aid was transmitted through the Spirit of
God, or, as was the case with Jesus Himself (John i. 52)
through the angel of God, who ascended and descended to
bring to Him divine miraculous power, is practically the
same. It is always the Father who assigns the miracles to
Him to do (John v. 36), and who accordingly performs them
Himself (John xiv. 10; cf. Mark v. 19), and whose glory is
seen in them (John xi. 40) and is glorified by them (Matt
xv. 31; Luke ix. 43). With prayer and thanksgiving Jesus
looks up to Him before He performs a miracle (Mark vii. 34;
Matt. xiv. 19) ; and at the tomb of Lazarus He thanks the

THE SON OF GOD AND OF MAN 199
Father who has heard Him (John xi. 41-42). Nor does His
divine nature protect Him against the attacks of His enemies,
but he is protected by the assistance of the Father (John viii.
29) who could send Him His legion of angels if He desired
(Matt. xxvi. 53). It is only a reflection of what falls
from the picture of the exalted Christ upon His earthly
career, or the transferring of apostolic statements concerning
this pre-existing, God-equal nature of the Son upon this
career, that has caused all the dogmatical worry that seeks
to explain intelligently the union of two natures in the man
Jesus. The same John, who teaches that the eternal God-
equal Logos entered into the limitations of a being of flesh,
which by its nature does not possess the unlimited divine
omnipotence and omniscience, is the one who reports Jesus
as asking at the end of His earthly career for a restoration
of His supermundane glory, and emphasises especially that
the works of divine omnipotence and the words of divine
omniscience had been given to Him to do and to say, so that
the divine glory of the eternal Logos could be seen, which
had appeared in the man Jesus (John i. 14; ii. 11).
5. The Uniqueness of the Human Life of Jesus. —
So surely as Jesus in His Mission was the most unique
among the sons of man, so certainly, too, this uniqueness will
show itself in His earthly career. The Baptist already
ascribes this to the fact that in His baptism the Spirit had
descended upon Jesus (John i. 33) ; that He had received
the Spirit without measure (John iii. 34). He is not the
recipient of only spasmodic inspiration, as was the case with
the Prophets, when they spoke under the impulse of the
Spirit. The Spirit has saturated equally the whole earthly
career of Jesus. Paul no longer seems to think farther of
the communication of the Spirit to Jesus, but to consider
this higher divine element of His being, which is through
Him first to be communicated to the believers, as something
that from the outset constituted a part of His nature, and

200 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
this constitutes the other side of His natural and human
nature, i. e., His flesh. For upon this He bases the fact that
Christ on the occasion of His resurrection from the dead had
been appointed the Son of God with power, i. e., had been
exalted to the full divine glory and dominion (Rom. i. 4).
This God-equal element of the being of Christ, by virtue of
which in His resurrection for the first time the heavenly life
form of man had been realised, distinguished Him from all
the children of Adam, for which reason He is called the
Second Adam (1 Cor. xv. 47). Peter also makes prominent
the fact, that as far as that side of His nature is concerned
which is spirit, He was again made alive in His resurrection,
but that His spirit, after its separation from the body did
not descend to Hades, as do the souls of other human beings,
but continued to labor among the spirits in prison (1 Pet.
iii. 18-19). At the bottom of this is found the idea that
Jesus, through this eternal spirit, possessed an imperishable
life, in which He, even after He had given His bodily life
as a sacrifice for our sins, could yet continue to perform
the functions of our High Priest in the heavenly sanctuary
(Heb. ix. 14; cf. vii. 16). It is altogether a mistake, when
it is so often claimed, that the first form in which the higher
idea of Christ had been thought had been that He received
the Spirit in His baptism, which in itself is also unthinkable,
since this baptism in itself would not have raised Him above
the level of the Prophets. Just whenever this uniqueness of
His nature that had been transmitted to Him through the
Spirit is considered, no further thought of the baptism of
Christ is taken ; and not the original character of Christ but
rather His heavenly exaltation is derived from this baptism.
But that which constitutes the uniqueness of His life upon
earth is in general no longer based on the spirit that dwells
in Him or was bestowed upon Him. Jesus Himself declares
this to consist in the perfect knowledge of God, which none
others have save the Son, and which can only be compared

THE SON OF GOD AND OF MAN 201
with God's knowledge of the nature of the Son (Matt. xi. 27 ;
cf. John xi. 15). This uniqueness is the life which the
Father has given to the Son, to have within Himself (John
v. 26) ; and when John describes this as based on the fact
that from the beginning He was with the Father and had
seen Him (John vi. 46; viii. 36), this is merely the expression
based on his knowledge of the eternal being of the Son of
God, for the fact that Jesus did not first acquire this knowl
edge during His earthly career or receive it through special
revelations, but that He possessed it from the beginning and
therefore can only be explained on the ground of His
heavenly origin. But this complete knowledge of God pre
supposes that the typical perfection of religious life is given
in Him. As according to John there is found in the believer
an immediate connection with the seeing of God in
Christ, also their being in Christ and in God, and the being
of God in them; thus, too, by virtue of that immediate seeing
of God the Son is in the Father and the Father in the Son
(John xvii. 21). The fact that the two are one (John xvii.
27), i. e., this perfected communion with God, is the guar
antee that we are as safe in His hands as in God's (John
xi. 28 sqq.) ; and this is further explained by Jesus (John x.
38) by the statement, that the Father is in Him and He is
in the Father. It is hard to understand that the attempt is
still made, contrary to the entire connection, to find here a
statement about the original relation of Christ's nature to
God, since Jesus Himself, in reply to the charge of blas
phemy, appeals to a passage in the Psalms, in which even
wicked governments, on account of their representative rela
tion, are called " gods," without anybody ever having at
tempted to find in them anything of a divine nature (John
x. 34 sqq.). The same is true of the statement, that he who
sees Him also sees the Father (John xiv. 9), which Jesus
Himself explains by stating that He is in the Father and the
Father is in Him, and as a consequence all of His words are

202 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
His Father's words and all His works the Father's works
(John xiv. 10). In this the further thought is contained,
that He is the most perfect revelation of the Father, not
by virtue of any metaphysical communion of natures, but by
virtue of that communion with God, in which according to
John, religion is made perfect. And when He speaks only
that and as the Father directs Him to speak (John xii. 49-
50) ; and when by virtue of His peculiar and unique sonship,
which is indeed founded in eternity but which appeared only
here upon earth in His historical life and sayings, He can
do nothing else than what He sees the Father do and what
the Father has shown to Him (John v. 19-20), then we
indeed hear God speaking in Him and in all His doings the
very will of God is revealed.
But the perfect knowledge of God at all times presupposes
also the immediate knowledge of the will of God. Our busi
ness it is at all times, in the many vicissitudes of life, to
seek first the will of God for all our words and deeds, in
order to fulfil this will. Jesus is always conscious of an
immediate knowledge of the will of God, who directs all
His steps (Luke xiii. 32). As the spirit that He received
in His baptism first of all drives Him into the desert (Mark
i. 12), we see Him often acting under impulses that are
incapable of any psychological explanation, and this not only
in John (cf. vii. 8, 10; xi. 6), but also in the older gospels
(Mark x. 32; xi. 1). He must wait until His hour has come
(John ii. 4) ; but He knows when it is here. To fulfil the
will of the Father, which is always immediately known to
Him, is His greatest delight (John iv. 34) ; He at His very
entrance into the world made the fulfilment of the will of
God the conscious purpose of His life (Heb. x. 5 sqq.). He
accordingly cannot act according to His own will, but accord
ing to the Father's will (John v. 19, 30), because out of love
to the Father He must fulfil His commands (John xiv. 31).
Therefore no one can convince Him of any sin (John viii.

THE SON OF GOD AND OF MAN 203
46) ; in Him there is no sin (1 John iii. 5). As He came out
victorious in the first temptation of Satan (Matt. xii. 29),
thus the devil can do Him no harm, because there is no
spot in Him where He can be affected (John xiv. 30). His
experiences in temptation are only in so far different from
ours, as they were never caused by any sin within Him
(Heb. iv. 15). He is holy and just, pure and guileless, sinless
and unspotted (Acts iii. 14; 1 Pet. ii. 22; Heb. vii. 26).
When He appeared in our human form, His flesh was not
like that of all mere men, ruled by sin, but He came for the
purpose of overcoming sin in the very seat of its power
(Rom. viii. 3).- A knowledge of sin by actual experience He
never had (2 Cor. v. 21). Rather in giving Himself up unto
death He furnished the highest proofs of His obedience
(Rom. v. 19; Phil. ii. 8; cf. John x. 18), and He has thereby
become the author of our eternal redemption (Heb. v. 8-9).
Just because the Searcher of hearts recognised in Him the
one who willingly and gladly at all times obeyed His will,
who only thanked Him for the counsels of His salvation, God
would also intrust to Him the complete fulfilment of these
counsels (Matt. xi. 25 sqq.). Because He knew that Jesus
would fulfil them according to His will, therefore He could
make Him the organ for finishing His redemptive activity
(John v. 20; xiii. 3).

CHAPTER XI
THE LIFE WORK OF JESUS
1. The Realisation of the Religious Ideal.— Jesus
begins the fulfilment of His mission by placing Himself in
the same category with the messengers of God in the past
(Mark vi. 4). But all the Prophets down to John had only in
a predictive way pointed to the coming salvation. In John
Jesus recognised the Elias, whose coming had been predicted
(Matt. xi. 13) and thereby the beginning of the fulfilment of
prophecy had been made. He accordingly claimed to be the
greater one, who was to come after the Baptist (Matt. iii. 11),
the prophet who had already been promised by Isaiah, who
was to bring good news to the people (Luke iv. 18). This mes
senger announced that the time of preparation for the advent
of the entire promised redemption had been fulfilled and that
the Kingdom of God was at hand (Mark. i. 15) . Through Him
then the joyful message of the final realisation of redemption
had been sent to the people (Acts x. 36). The certainty of
Jesus in this matter could be based only on the uniqueness
of His religious life. If the religious ideal had been realised
in Him, then He could be sent only for the purpose of
realising it also in His people. Sending Him was the great
est proof of the love of God (John iii. 16), toward which
all prophecy had been directed. In this act God revealed
Himself as the Finisher of redemption (Matt. xi. 25). The
daily miracles of healing performed by Jesus were not only
the proofs of His divine mission, but also the guarantee that
the promised redemption had actually appeared, in so far as
204

THE LIFE WORK OF JESUS 205
in these miracles the blessings of God's grace had already
been diverted toward the people (Matt. xi. 5). His casting out
of devils was the sign that the supremacy of Satan had been
overthrown and that the Kingdom of God had come (Matt.
xii. 28). John, at a time when it had long ago become
evident, that through the fault of the people the external
blessings in the national life had never been realised, saw
in these miracles the signs or symbols of an enlightening
power, that produced and fostered a new spiritual life; but
originally they were not only a symbol but the beginning of
that redemption which Jesus was to bring to His people and
for the present could bring only to those individuals who
were waiting for the appearance of the grace of God. Every
thing that Jesus, according to the reports of John, says con
cerning the testimony of truth, concerning the enlightenment
that goes out from Him, concerning the highest revelation
of God in His person, is still only the deepest interpretation
of this, that God, by realising in Jesus the religious ideal
and thereby bringing about the salvation that comes through
Him, reveals Himself to His people in His deepest love and
grace. For the very reason that Jesus does not bring theo
retical knowledge but the message of redemption, He calls
this the water that quenches the thirst for all eternity (John
iv. 10, 14; vii. 3), and the food that endures to everlasting
life (John vi. 27).
All the Prophets had made the revelation of God's grace
that they proclaimed to the people dependent on the repent
ance of the people, which they sought to bring about through
their preaching. The Baptist had also sought to effect a
change of heart by the threats of the judgments of divine
wrath that was to precede the time of the coming redemp
tion. Jesus announces that God is not waiting on the re
pentance of the people, but that in the sending of the Mes
siah He offers them the greatest revelation of His grace.
By this the change of heart is to be worked in the people

206

THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

as also the faith in Him on account of the joyful news of the
redemption, that has appeared in Him (Mark i. 15). He who
no longer doubts as the Baptist, that Jesus is the expected
one, but believes that He is the God-sent bringer of redemp
tion, is already in the Kingdom of God, and therefore, no
matter how small or humble He may otherwise be, He is
greater than the greatest of those born of women (Matt. xi.
11). In this Kingdom of God the religious ideal of Israel
is being realised. At one time they were the people of God,
that knew that they had been chosen to be the sons of God,
which by no means says in how far the individual could be
certain of His fatherly love. It is not correct that Jesus
taught that God is the Father of mankind in general. He
taught only His disciples, who believed in Him as the Mes
siah, to appeal to God as their Father (Matt. vi. 9). The
highest result of His activity in them was this, that they
felt assured of the love of the Father, because they had
come to the faith that this love of God had become manifest
in Him (John xvi. 27). Now in truth every individual, who
through this faith had become a member of the Kingdom of
God, could be certain of this fatherly love.
This love showed itself first of all in this, that He forgives
all those their sins, who believe in the grace that has ap
peared in Jesus. Jesus presupposes that an unmeasured
debt had been forgiven to each one (Matt, xviii. 24-27).
When, therefore, especially the publicans and sinners, come
to Him, impelled by the consciousness of guilt He received
them in a friendly manner, and shows to them in the Parable
of the Prodigal Son that God gladly receives again the
penitent sinner (Luke xv. 1-2; 20-24). Indeed He even
called them to Himself, since He had come rather for the
sake of the sinners than for the sake of the just (Mark ii.
17). He announces to them the forgiveness of their sins
(Luke vii. 48). He does not ask of them a sacrifice, as the
Old Testament does, not a proof of their change of heart in

THE LIFE WORK OF JESUS 207
certain works ; nor does He make them wait for the forgive
ness of sins to be effected by His death; on the contrary, He
declares to them that the Son of man has come upon earth
to forgive sins (Matt. ix. 6), i. e., to announce to them that
God has forgiven sins. He teaches His disciples to pray
daily for the forgiveness of sins, as much as for their daily
bread (Matt. vi. 12). Now they could at all times, being free
from their guilt, in childlike trust be sure of the protection
and the blessing of their heavenly Father. Not to men in
general, who are only the creatures of God, but to His
disciples Jesus says, that they can be more sure of the love
of God than are the birds of the heavens, which He feeds,
and than the flowers of the field, which he clothes; for He
calls Him their Heavenly Father (Matt. vi. 26). Because
they are the objects of His love they can be so certain of
His protection which He extends even to the smallest of His
creatures (Matt. x. 29-30). Jesus lived in the constant con
sciousness of His paternal protection and blessing; and that
exalted peace of His soul, that at all times filled Him, He
left at His departure to His disciples, in order to relieve
them of all anxiety and terror (John xiv. 27). In this way
He realised in the circle of His own the ideal ¦> of religious
life that He exemplified for them in His own life.
The specific way in which this ideal is expresed in life is
prayer. Jesus nowhere discusses the necessity of prayer;
indeed, He even emphasises the fact that God knows what
we need before we pray (Matt. vi. 8). But the believers
through the confidence with which they approach God, are
prepared for the proper reception of His bounties. For this
reason Jesus can no more effectively urge to prayer than by
assuring the members of His kingdom that God will cer
tainly hear their prayers (Matt. vii. 7-8). This, however, is
presupposed to be a real prayer of faith (Mark xi. 23-24).
Christ does not grow weary when help does not come at once
(Luke xi. 5-8; xviii. 1-5). Jesus indeed reminds His dis-

208 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
ciples of this that the earthly father, too, does not always
give his child what it asks; but certainly he does not give
it something harmful instead of something useful, but knows
at all times to give it something good when it asks (Matt. v.
9-11). According to John also the true prayer to God con
sists in appealing to Him as the Father and thus alone to
pray to Him in truth (on the basis of the truth revealed to
Jesus) (John iv. 21, 23). According to John also Jesus has
in no wise made the certainty of being heard conditional
upon any dogmatical consideration, as is often claimed in
the interpretation of the statement that our prayer should be
in His name. In all of these cases the matter He has in
view is the continuation of His work through the Apostles.
Just as He has prayed for and received the entire success
of His work from the Father, thus, too, they are to pray in
His name, i. e., at His command (Matt. xiv. 13-14; xv. 16),
and could be certain of being heard, just as sure as He had
been (Matt. xi. 42). Jesus expressly emphasises in Matt.
xvi. 26-27, that this praying in His name does not signify
that it is to be a prayer for which He acts as a Mediator,
but is based on their consciousness of the love of God, of
which they can be sure because of their faith. In this way
Jesus actually realises in the circle of His disciples that
Kingdom of God in which true religion has been per
fected. No religion can do more than make a human
being the child of God, who can at all times be sure of the
love of His heavenly Father.
2. The Realisation of the Moral Ideal. — In so far
as in the Kingdom of God not only a religious ideal is
to be realised but also a moral ideal, i. e., the fulfilment
of the divine will (Matt. vi. 10), without which there
can be no true worship of God, i. e., no true religion, Jesus
must, like every prophet, also declare the will of God. It
is true that He recognises in its fullest, extent the Old
Testament revelation of God's will (Matt. v. 17 sqq.); but

THE LIFE WORK OF JESUS 209
the method of interpretation current in His day among the
Pharisees was entirely insufficient, because clinging to the
words of certain commandments and prohibitions, it sought
to find the fulfilment of the divine will in a system of ex
ternal observances (v. 20). It is true that Jesus did not
understand the statement, that not a tittle of the law should
fall (v. 18) in the same literal sense for which He censures
them. He who knew the will of God immediately, could
even over against the words of the law, which had only been
given for the needs of the preparatory Theocracy, explain
how the will of God that was contained in the law was to be
fulfilled in the perfected Theocracy. He could show that at
the bottom of the command not to kill and not to commit
adultery was to be found the word of God, which forbids all
anger and impure desires. He could show that, while divorce
and the oath were permitted in the Old Testament and were
only regulated there on account of the hardness of the peo
ple's hearts and on account of their unfaithfulness, for this
very reason they must fall away in the New Testament. He
knew that this alone was in harmony with the perfect will
of God, if in the place of quarreling, for which the Old
Testament had only the principle of an equivalent retalia
tion, the suffering and sacrificing love was substituted, that
could no longer be confined to the members of the one nation
but was to be extended even to the enemy of religion (Matt.
v.). He summed up the revelation of God in the law and the
prophets together as one whole, in which each single factor
was only the outcome of the love to God and to man that He
demanded (Matt. xxii. 40).
But it was not only His concern that this will should
be fulfilled in single cases, but that this fulfilment and
thereby the realisation of the Kingdom of God should be
come the one supreme object of all the prayers and endeavors
on the part of the child of God (Matt. vi. 10, 33). Real
conversion consists in this very thing, which He demanded
N

210 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
from the outset, that the seeking for earthly and fleeting
possessions should give way to a seeking for the one highest
possession, the fulfilment of the divine will, as this is com
pletely done in heaven; so that the heart would henceforth
be entirely dedicated to Him, since a division of the heart
between God and the worship of earthly goods would be im
possible (Matt. v. 19 sqq.; 24). The demand for such un
divided service of God is followed by all His exhortations
to hear and do the word (Matt. vii. 24), to be ready to sacri
fice everything for this highest possession, i. e., the Kingdom
of God (Matt. xiii. 44 sqq.), to deny oneself and be ready
to suffer for His sake (Mark viii. 34-35), to remain in Him
and bring forth fruit, by which the discipleship is proved
(John xv. 1-8).
But in one respect Jesus differed from all the Prophets,
namely in this that He not only declared the will of God
but that He also made it possible to fulfil this will. But this
He made possible through the message of redemption that
He announced, as in this are found the strongest motives
for the realisation of the ethical ideal. He who is conscious
of being a member of the Kingdom of God that Jesus has
brought, can not do otherwise than strive to become like Him.
That which is typically realised in His person, says Jesus in
John v. 19, in speaking of the essence of the genuine Son in
general, is this, that He does only what He sees the Father
do. In Matt. v. 45 He also regards it as self-evident, that
the sons of God want to become similar to God, and He
shows them how this may be brought about. Through that
all comprehensive love, which includes even the enemies, it
is possible to become perfect (Matt. v. 48). This is the
acknowledged purpose of His entire method of interpreting
the Old Testament law, that the purpose is now no longer
to become holy as God is holy (Lev. xi. 44), but that rather,
since God has revealed His fatherly love in its highest per
fection, the object should be in this respect to become like

THE LIFE WORK OF JESUS 211
unto Him. In a powerful manner He has illustrated this
principle in the Parable of the Wicked Servant, that he who
does not exercise in the case of his neighbor that love which
he has himself experienced, loses the forgiveness that he
has already received (Matt, xviii. 28-34). In the prayer
which He taught His disciples, He teaches the principle, that
they can ask the Father for His daily forgiveness only under
the condition that they in imitation of His forgiving love
have shown themselves to be His children (Matt. vi. 12). In
the Parable of the Lost Sheep He has illustrated to what
extent the seeking love of God should urge them on in order
to win back the brother who has erred and thereby lost his
redemption (Matt, xviii. 12-16).
But in this respect, too, the admonition of Jesus to fulfil
the will of God goes beyond all prophetic admonitions, that
He demands nothing more than He has shown as realised
in Himself as the Son of God in a unique sense. He not
only teaches the observance of the law, but He Himself
fulfils it (Matt. v. 17). In His humble service of His dis
ciples He gives them an example of such service (John xiii.
14-15) in which alone His disciples should find that great
ness, in which the one should try to excel the other (Mark
x. 42-43). This is the new commandment, in which He
teaches that the highest commandment of the Old Testament
has been fulfilled in accordance with the most perfect will
of God, that we should love our neighbor not only as our
selves, but more than ourselves, as He showed this love even
to the extent of sacrificing Himself, in order to give an
example of such love (John xiii. 14; xv. 12). In His own
example of gentleness and humility all who had in vain tried
under the burden of the law to fulfil the will of God, can
learn to imitate Him, and this is the way that leads to the
rejoicing of the soul (Matt, xxviii. 11 sqq.). For there can
be found no stronger impulse for the realisation of our
ethical ideal than when we see that this ideal can be and has

212 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
been realised. But He who has realised it is not one among
others who are His equals, but is He who has come to bring
us all righteousness, and who accordingly Himself purposes
to work this righteousness in us. Therefore he who would
strive for this righteousness must love Him more than father
and mother (Matt. x. 37) ; must be prepared for His sake to
endure persecution, if the righteousness in the Kingdom of
God is to be in His estimation the highest possession (Matt.
v. 10-11). But the love for Christ does not consist in feel
ings, in a weak pleasure in Him. Just as all love is a life for
another, so, too, love for Him can show itself only in keeping
His commandments (John xiv. 15). This love for Him is
enkindled by the very fact that He has first loved them in
order to bring them redemption. To preserve this love must
necessarily be their strongest endeavor; and man can abide
in His love only if he keeps His commandment, as He has
kept the commandments of the Father and continued in His
love (Matt. xv. 10). Hence the fulfilment of the will of God
results as a necessary consequence of following Him. In
the Kingdom of God, in which they take part, all will be
satisfied with righteousness (Matt. v. 3, 6). In this way He,
through His activity, realises in them also the ethical ideal.
3. The Results of the Activity of Jesus. — As is al
ready shown by Matt. i. 21 in His very name, Jesus had
come not only to bring to His people the most perfect
salvation, but also to deliver them from the destruction
to which they had fallen a prey through their sins. The
apostolic letters call Him the Redeemer (Phil. iii. 20; Eph.
v. 23; Tit. i. 4). He Himself says that He had been sent to
the lost sheep of the house of Israel, to seek that which is
lost and to deliver it from destruction (Matt. xv. 24; Luke
xix. 10). According to John vi. 35, 50-51, He is not only
the one who satisfies the religious needs but He also delivers
from death and destruction (John vi. 39, 58). But the peo
ple can only be delivered if they permit Jesus to implant in

THE LIFE WORK OF JESUS 213
them the Kingdom of God in the sense in which it is the
full realisation of the religico-ethical ideal. The motives
for this were all contained in an effective way in His activity.
All that was necessary was for the people to recognise in
Him the promised consummation of redemption and to per
mit him to realise this glorious aim in the way that He had
marked out. In the people of Israel all the conditions for
the success of the mission of Jesus were to be found.
Through the entire preparatory development the people had
been educated for the appearance of their Messiah, and by
the law and the Prophets the desire for this religico-ethical
ideal and the hope of its realisation had been awakened.
The people accordingly had all possible reasons to accept in
faith and longingly the message of the Kingdom of God
(Matt. xii. 41-42). And in truth there were also found, not
only among the pious in Israel, but also among the publicans
and sinners, those who, although despised by the others in
the nation, had under the accusations of their own con
sciences learned to look for this redemption, and these
were in a condition to receive it and in their case the labors
of Jesus attained their purposes.
But we must not forget that this ideal, as it had been
marked out by the Prophets, always contained the two ele
ments of the perfection of religion and of earthly blessings
in inseparable union. It is not surprising that the great man
of the people, feeling keenly the deplorable external condi
tion of the nation in contrast to its high destiny, clung
chiefly to this second element, which demanded of the Mes
siah first of all a realisation of those brilliant prophetic
pictures of the future, such as political independence, the
restoration of the kingdom of David and of all the earthly
blessings that had been promised in connection with this.
But Jesus demanded and had to demand that they first of
all realise within themselves the Kingdom of God through
the religious and ethical regeneration of the people at large.

214 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
He declined to have anything to do with political affairs
and left it to God when and in what form He would also ful
fil the promises of earthly blessings made to the people, after
these had realised the ideal of their religion. Here it was
where the people and Jesus separated. Through the carnal-
mindedness of the people, which is one of the fundamental
forms of sin, through the worldly spirit and the desire
for earthly blessings, concerning which the people were
always and expressly warned by Jesus (cf. Luke xii. 15;
Matt. xxii. 5), the newly awakened Messianic hopes neces
sarily degenerated into fanatical visions of a Messianic reign
(cf. John vi. 15), while the people listened with deaf ears
to His proclamation of redemption (Matt. xi. 20-24; xii.
41-42). When Jesus refuses to yield to their desires, the
people still do not give up hope that later on He would be
come more pliable; but when in the question concerning the
tribute money the Jewish revolutionary ideas were distinctly
rejected (Mark xii. 13-17) the former enthusiasm for Him
necessarily was converted into the most bitter hostility for
having dashed their fondest expectations to the ground.
In the same way it was natural for the preparatory Theoc
racy that the highest ideal of Israel should find representa
tives in Pharisaism and in its legal ideal in the ruling
priesthood. And again it was the other fundamental form
of sin, selfishness, which caused these representatives of
divine order to abuse their position in the nation for the
satisfaction of their own ambition and honor. These, being
those that could see, had the best reasons for recognising in
Jesus the one He really was (John iv. 41), but were from
the very outset forced by their own position to assume the
attitude of deadly hostility to Him, who, without consulting
them and indeed in opposition to them sought to gain con
trol of the people and to realise their ideal in His own man
ner (John v. 18, 44; Mark iii. 6). Jesus had drawn the
attention of the people to the fact that the powerful men

THE LIFE WORK OF JESUS 215
in the nation had at all times persecuted and killed the
prophets of God (Matt. v. 12, 23, 37) ; and that His experi
ence would not be different (Matt. xxi. 33-39 ; xxii. 6-7 ; Luke
xiii. 33; xix. 14, 27). Naturally as long as the people clung
to Him enthusiastically, the leaders could not venture to
undertake anything against Him; but when the former in
disappointment turned away from Jesus and returned to
their old leaders, then it became an easy matter to excite the
populace against Him and to insist that He be put to death
(Mark xv. 13-14). Not the weak Procurator, who without
understanding what he was doing, out of fear of men sacri
ficed the Innocent One (John xix. 15-16) ; but the hierarchy
in Israel was guilty of the death of Jesus (John xix. 11;
cf. Mark xv. 10). But because they could carry out their
plans to slay Him only if they misled the people to demand
His death, Peter accuses the whole nation of the murder of
Jesus (Acts ii. 23; iii. 13 sqq.).
In this way the death of Jesus becomes an historical neces
sity. Everything that Jesus did to establish the Kingdom
of God in Israel had not in the end led to their deliverance,
but only to this, that they had loaded upon themselves the
greatest possible guilt, the murder of the Messiah, and that
by this act they became irredeemably doomed to destruction.
But this historic tragedy, in which both the people and their
leaders under the circumstances and by the force of necessity
became involved, which action could not otherwise than
bring destruction upon them, had a typical significance for
all mankind. If the people of Israel, which like none other,
was prepared for the coming of the Messiah, instead of per
mitting Him to effect in them what He intended to, rejected
and slew Him, what other nations of the world would have
treated Him differently? Where has there ever been a hier
archy and where will there be one, which voluntarily gives
way to something that is greater? The outcome of the his
tory of Jesus was not accidental. The highest revelation of

216 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
the grace of God, which had been given to the world in His
Messiah, could have in sinful mankind no other outcome
than that which it had in Israel.
4. Jesus' Prediction of His Death.— It is purely an
historical question how early Jesus foresaw this outcome
of His career. Since He in His earthly career did not
possess divine omniscience but only a prophetic knowledge,
the future could reveal itself to Him only in this degree
as the results of His activity among the people and
their leaders made this outcome inevitable. It is his
torically simply unthinkable that He clearly foresaw His
death from the very beginning of His career. All pleasure
and the energy in His work would have been undermined
if He had known from the very outset that His work would
have been in vain and would end only in His violent death.
In the same way, however, it lies in the very nature of the
case, that later on when the death of Jesus had actually
taken place, the attempt was made to find references to it
at an early stage and with increasing clearness in the Par
ables of Jesus, which, however, were not originally contained
therein (cf. Mark ii. 20; John ii. 21-22; iii. 14-15; vi. 51-56).
It is historically certain, that only after the first keen disap
pointment of the people on the occasion of the feeding of
the thousands (John vi. 15), and the refusal of that sign
which was demanded as a pledge of the final fulfilment of
the national hopes (John vi. 30-31 ; Matt. xii. 39 ; Mark xiii.
12) the great mass of the disciples gave up their faith in
His Messianic character (John vi. 66). He was indeed
yet considered as one who was preparing the way for the
Messiah, but no longer as the Messiah (Mark viii. 28). It
was only at this point that we are first informed that Jesus
spoke definitely and unmistakably of the necessity of His
death (Mark xiii. 31-32). He speaks not only of terrible
agony and suffering, which He expected to meet in His
further work (Luke xii. 50; Mark x. 39), but also of His

THE LIFE WORK OF JESUS 217
rejection by the generation of His day (Luke xvii. 25) ; of
His condemnation by the heads of the people and His be
trayal into the hands of the gentile authorities, without
whose consent no capital punishment could be inflicted
(Mark xvii. 33; cf. John xviii. 32) and of His death in
Jerusalem (Luke xiii. 33). For this very reason He con
siders this death as sure soon to come on the occasion of
His last passover feast in Jerusalem (Luke xviii. 31 sqq. ;
John xii. 7).
But this Jesus never had doubted that nothing could
befall Him as the Messiah of His people that would not in
the end serve the purposes of His calling. The attempt has
indeed been made to distinguish between the knowledge of
the divine will of fate and the divine will of redemption.
But since the object of the divine government of the world
is at all times the realisation of the final redemptive purposes
of God (chap. viii. 5) there could be nothing in store for Jesus
that did not serve the ends of the redemptive purposes of
God, as He recognised this divine counsel of redemption as
already prophesied in the Old Testament ; thus, too, this His
intuition must have been foreseen these also (Mark ix. 12;
xiv. 21; Matt. xxvi. 54). We have no further information
as to where and how Jesus found in the Old Testament pre
dictions concerning His death; probably He thought espe
cially of such passages as Is. liii. (cf. Luke xxii. 37) or of
the Psalms, that treat of the sufferings of the just (cf. John
xiii. 18). It is generally thought that for this reason Jesus,
who lived in Old Testament prophecy, must have on the basis
thereof from the beginning foreseen His death. But Jesus
never read the Old Testament as a book of oracles that
predicted all the details of the future. He knew that the
fulfilment of all the promises and the threats were made
dependent on the conduct of the people. So many of the
most brilliant pictures of the future as drawn by
the prophetic pencil had been unfulfilled, because the con-

218 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
duct of the people had made their fulfilment impossible.
And then even as it is, there were no direct prophetic pre
dictions of His rejection by the people or of His violent
death. Therefore, the prediction of the sufferings of the
Messiah could be found only then when circumstances
showed that these were inevitable. It was rather the fate of
the Baptist in which He saw the proof that the people would
not receive His message and that He would share the same
fate (Matt. xvii. 12).
Of course there can be no historical necessity that cannot
be made nugatory through divine providence. Even the
death of Jesus could have been averted through the
change in heart on the part of the people among whom He
labored to the end, if God had given this result to His
efforts; or this could have been accomplished through cir
cumstances that would have thwarted the plans of the ene
mies. The history of the trial of Jesus certainly shows that
its outcome to the very last hung, as it were, on a thread;
but even if humanly speaking there had been no possibility
of saving him, the wonderful help of the Father was never
theless at His command at all times, if God has purposed
to deliver Him (Matt. xxvi. 53). To the very last it was
God's business if He would regard it as necessary to make
use of this extreme means for the salvation of the people, or
if He would select other ways of making this possible. In
this sense, even in Gethsemane, Jesus yet prayed to have His
death averted and still considered this necessary (Matt. xiv.
35-36) ; and even on the cross He lamented the absence of
divine deliverance (Matt. xv. 34). In all things that He
says concerning the necessity of His death this possibility yet
remains. It was not His business to decide, if this possi
bility was to be realised, but to submit to the will of God,
who was to decide; and it was God who did this (Mark xiv.
36; John xviii. 11). Here it was His duty to furnish the
greatest proof of His obedience in that He typically realised

THE LIFE WORK OF JESUS 219
full righteousness. Just as His disciples were to give up
their lives for His sake (Mark viii. 35) thus He, too, must
be willing to give up His life in the service of the mission
for which He had been sent (Mark x. 45). But this service
was for the good of His people whom he loved, and in whom
He embraced all mankind in His Savior-heart. And when
He on account of the hostility of His opponents does not
become untrue to His mission but hurled words of thunder
against them, that of a necessity cost Him His life,
He did nothing but what a good shepherd does, who attacks
the wolf at the risk of His life, in order to save the sheep
(John x. 11-12). J£ He has said to His disciples that it is
the highest test of love to give up one's life for His friends
(John xv. 13) then He, who loved His people, must certainly
willingly and gladly submit to the Father's will, if according
to His counsel it became necessary to employ this extreme
means for the salvation of the people (John xxii. 27). If
He had devoted His whole life's work to the salvation of His
people and He had not succeeded, He yet had to be ready to
give up even His life to attain His object, if God regarded
this as necessary.
5. The Death of Jesus as a Divine Redemptive
Counsel. — The fact of the matter is that God did not inter
fere with the historical necessity of the death of Jesus, but
permitted events to take their course. From this the apos
tolic writings, entirely in harmony with Jesus, conclude that
in this death a divine counsel of redemption was fulfilled,
that Christ had died for the good of mankind (1 Thes. v. 10 ;
1 Pet. i. 21). It is not something new, which the apostolic
teachings have added to the declaration of the redemptive
message of Jesus, through which perchance even the original
simplicity and beauty of this message had been lost and the
dogmatic features of which had only rendered its acceptance
by men all the more difficult. Even if in the epistles it
sometimes seems as though Jesus had been sent into the world

220

THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT

in order to die (1 John iv. 10) ; and if in the writings of Paul
the death of Jesus actually does appear to be as the one
specific means for the deliverance of the world, this view
from the Apostles' standpoint is perfectly justifiable. As a
matter of fact, the entire life of Christ upon earth did not
bring to the people their deliverance, not because it was not
sufficient for this, but because the conduct of the people
thwarted this purpose. It is also true that the apostolic
letters do not especially consider the death of Christ in its
importance for His own people but only in its significance
for all mankind. But this, too, is sufficiently justified, be
cause if the life's work of Jesus did not save His nation, in
which the most favorable conditions for success were present,
the success under other circumstances would not have been
greater. The opposition which the appearance of divine glory
necessarily called forth in a world under the supremacy of
sin could elsewhere, and under other still more unfavor
able conditions only prove more disastrous for the Holy
and the Pure One. If Israel could be saved only by the death
of Jesus, then in a higher degree there was no other remedy
for the world of sin at large that could deliver them from
destruction. * It accordingly is the truth, that an act that took place by
historic necessity under circumstances such as prevailed in
Israel has through the counsels of God attained the highest
significance for the redemption of all mankind and for the
realisation of religion. Just because Israel committed a sin
by crucifying Christ, to avoid which this people according to
its preparatory training had but the greatest motives, this
sin assumed the greatest possible proportions, and in this
act the sin that ruled in mankind had, as it were, drawn its
final conclusion. This very thing was, as we have seen, the
peculiar feature of this historic tragedy, that the last result
of the activity of Jesus involved Israel in that terrible guilt
which under the given circumstances was almost unavoidable.

THE LIFE WORK OF JESUS 221
Religious contemplation can look upon this only in this light,
that God, whose purposes of redemption the development of
sin also, as these emanate from the psychological conditions
of man, must serve, had intentionally permitted sin to reach
this extreme growth. Jesus Himself regarded the matter in
this light. He regarded the hardness of heart on the part of
His people as a divine punishment, which through His
activity He was inflicting (Mark iv. 11-12; cf. John xii.
37-40). Those therefore who would not hear, must and did
through divine necessity get to that stage where they could
not hear, and this condition then made it impossible for them
to be saved. Jesus says of the hierarchy of Has times, that
because they were the sons of the murderers of the prophets
in a moral sense, i. e., were like their ancestors in spirit and
thought, and had not separated themselves from the sins of
the fathers by honest repentance but only by empty pietistic
formalism, that they would and must make full the measure
of their sins (Matt, xxiii. 29-32). It was accordingly the
counsel and the will of God that sin should develop to this
extreme. That sin should thus draw its final consequences
was according to His wisdom and grace the last means by
which sin was to be overpowered. The greatest crime in
which human sin reached its acme and which accordingly
seemed to deliver men over to their destruction without any
hope of deliverance, was intended, according to God's won
derful counsel, to become the means for the salvation of all
mankind. The Scriptures describes this counsel as one that
was made in eternity, although its consummation was only
possible through the free action of man in time. As the
Scriptures in general do not attempt to solve the riddle, as
to how the all controlling will of God that in the end directs
everything to the purposes of His redemptive work, in the
sole interests of which He rules the world, is to be harmon
ised with the free activity of man, which has been his
endowment since the beginning of the world, just so little

222 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
do they purpose to solve this riddle. Israel's sin does not
cease to be their guilt for this reason that God has made
use of the seeming destruction of His work of redemption
begun in Christ, as a means to carry out this very plan.

CHAPTER XH
THE SIGNIFICANCE OF JESUS' DEATH FOR RE
DEMPTION
1. The Death of Jesus as an Atonement. — Jesus
Himself explained to His disciples the importance of His
death in the words in which He performed for them the
memorable consecration of the cup (1 Cor. xi. 25; Mark
xiv. 24), and which through the repetition in the Lord's
Supper are kept at all times in the memory of the con
gregation. He compares His blood, which is to be shed
in His impending death, to the blood which at the estab
lishment of the Old Covenant was sprinkled over the peo
ple (Ex. xxiv. 5 sqq.), in order to cleanse them from their
guilt through the blood of an atonement offering (cf. Heb.
ix. 19-22), and thus to make possible a covenant union
with the Holy God, who as such could not enter into com
munion with the people that was defiled by sin. He accord
ingly considers the new relation between God and the people,
which He purposed to realise in the Kingdom of God, as a
new covenant, as this had already been prophesied (Jer.
xxxi. 33-34), which could not be effected, unless the people
were purified of their guilt; and He ascribes to His blood
an analogous effect to that of the Old Testament atonement
offering. Surprise has been expressed that Jesus, who in
His earthly career preached to His people the sin-forgiving
grace of God without suggesting the necessity of any such
guilt removing means, at the end of His life made this
223

224 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
dependent on the effects of His death. The attempt is made
by all kinds of exegetical and critical manceuvrings to re
move this reference to His death from the words with which
the Lord's Supper was instituted, which, however, by their
reference to Ex. xxxiv. 5 sqq., are shown to be absolutely
authentic. But it is forgotten that the first proclamation
of the Kingdom of God by Jesus did not attain its purpose,
but that the people rejected this highest revelation of their
God, and was just at the point of committing the most
grevious sin in its history by the murder of its Messiah.
According to the revelation in the Old Testament there
could be no means of atonement for such a flagrant rebellion
against God and His Anointed (Acts iv. 25 sqq., according
to Ps. ii. 1, 2), since every mortal sin deservedly brought
with it the punishment of death (Heb. ii. 2; x. 28). If,
however, notwithstanding the mission of Jesus was to attain
success, then a new means of atonement had to be found,
that would render the forgiveness of sin possible (Matt. xxvi.
28) ; and if God had suffered that the wickedness of His
enemies secure its end, because this served the purposes
of His redemptive plan, then only His blood, that was shed
in His violent death, could be such a means of atonement.
The idea of such an atonement-means was found by Jesus
and also by His disciples in the Old Testament, and He
could make use of it only in the way in which it was known
to Him from that source. Therefore the current juridic
idea, which is not in agreement with the Old and the New
Testament ways of looking at the matter, appears as incor
rect, as though the atonement consists in the infliction of
the punishment, only that this punishment is borne not by
the guilty but by the innocent, in the Old Testament this
being the sacrificial animal. For as in the Old Testament
there was no atonement offering for those sins that merited
death, the slaying of the sacrificial animal cannot have had
the purpose of freeing the one who brought the sacrifice

SIGNIFICANCE OF JESUS' DEATH 226
from the punishment of death. The Old Testament atone
ment sacrifices were in general intended only for sins of
weakness and ignorance (cf. Heb. v. 2; ix. 7). God gave
again His grace to His people, who were true to the cove
nant and in the consciousness of their sins sought His
presence and by this act separated themselves from their
sins, and offered to Him the blood of animals as a means
of rendering satisfaction for their sins (Lev. xvii. 11), i. e.,
as is already seen by the Old Testament sacrificial term,
to cover His eyes, so that He no longer saw their guilt, but
graciously forgave them. Jesus wanted His death to be
regarded according to this analogy. His chief purpose was
not to render an equivalent for the punitive justice of God
with His grace, which He brought about in the death of
His Son ; but by giving His Son unto death, He has revealed
His highest love (John iii. 16) and has thereby glorified
His name (John xii. 27-28). As it was His grace that ar
ranged for the people of the Old Testament the atonement
sacrifice, so that the constantly repeated sins of the covenant
people would not disturb their relation to Him, thus His
highest revelation of love has decided upon the blood of
Jesus as the means that would cover even the most grievous
sin of His people and thereby, too, the sins of all mankind,
and thus make it possible to forgive them.
Upon this word of Jesus the apostolic proclamation of the
significance of the death of Christ for redemption was from
the first based. When 1 Pet. i. 2 speaks of the sprinkling
of the blood of Jesus, this is to be understood according
to the analogy of the blood With which the people were
sprinkled, in the Old Testament at the establishment of the
covenant (cf. Heb. xii. 24). The purpose was accordingly
the cleansing from sins (Heb. i. 3; 2 Pet. i. 9) that defiled
the conscience with the consciousness of guilt (Heb. ix. 14;
x. 22; cf. x. 2). Expressly the Epistle to the Hebrews, on
the basis of Jer. xxxi. 31 sqq., refers to the fact that in the
O

226 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Old Testament through the violation of the covenant by the
people the old covenant was dissolved and a new one had
become necessary in which there would be a forgiveness of
sin that would cover all transgressions (Heb. viii. 17). The
Mediator of this covenant is Christ (Heb. viii. 6; ix. 15);
His blood is the blood of the covenant (Heb. x. 29 ; xiii. 20) ;
through His sacrifice all sins have been removed (Heb. ix.
29; cf. ix. 27), because He has rendered satisfaction for
them (Heb. ii. 17). John tells us that He is the author of
the atonement (1 John ii. 2), who has been sent for this
purpose (John iv. 11). Therefore His blood cleanses us
from all sins (John i. 7, 9), by removing the sins of which
we are guilty (John iii. 5). In the blood of the lamb the
faithful have washed their garments (Apoc. vii. 14; xxii. 14).
Paul, at least in his earliest letters, no longer refers to
the analogy of the Old Testament sacrifice of atonement,
which could atone for sin only in a limited degree, while
he considers all sins as mortal. But he, too, in Rom. iii.
25-26, proceeds on the basis that God has established in the
blood of Christ a means of atonement, but which is not, as
was that in the Old Testament, such by divine order in
itself as received its power of satisfaction through faith.
He does not, however, base this, as has been erroneously
maintained, on this that God in the blood of Christ, i. e.,
through the death of the innocent in the place of the guilty,
has shown forth His justice; but in this way, that His
justice demanded, either that the sins, which He had
hitherto graciously overlooked, shall be punished, or that
He must establish a means of atonement; and that in the
present time of grace, in which He would prove His grace
to the sinner through declaring Him righteous (cf. Rom.
iii. 24), He has chosen the latter. Here, as is the case in
Heb. x. 26-27, the satisfaction-atonement appears as the
opposite of the infliction of a punishment. Without consid
ering this further, Paul says that Goo. had made gift to

SIGNIFICANCE OF JESUS' DEATH 227
men of their transgressions (Col. ii. 13), i. e., has refrained
from taking an account of them, by blotting out the hand
writing of the law that was against us, in consequence of
the death of Jesus (Col. ii. 14) ; and declares the giving of
the Son unto death, exactly as it is done in John iii. 16, as
the highest evidence of the love of God toward sinful man
kind (Rom. v. 8; viii. 32).
And in fact the idea of satisfaction does not in itself
explain sufficiently why just the death of Jesus was neces
sary. As little as the Old Testament ever reflects upon the
question, why God through the blood of the animals per
mitted His eyes to be covered, so little the New Testament
asks, why the blood of Christ has this atonement effect.
Even the author of Hebrews, so deeply versed in the Scrip
tures, who seems to attempt an explanation of this phe
nomenon, returns again to the thought that the blood of
animals could not possibly atone for sins (Heb. x. 4, 11),
although God has Himself arranged for these sacrifices in
the Old Testament, and proves by this the necessity of a
constant repetition of the animal sacrifices (Heb. x. 1 sqq.),
which was naturally caused by the fact that new trans
gressions constantly required new satisfaction. This could
be a sufficient reason for the atonement death of Jesus for
him, because he from the very outset considered the Old
Testament atonement sacrifice only as a shadowy type of
the sacrifice of Christ (Heb. x. 1), who has Himself been
the perfect sacrifice of God (Heb. ix. 14). For this very
reason he preferred to compare this sacrifice with that on
the great day of atonement, in which the High Priest Him
self made the sacrifice and took the blood thereof into the
Holy of Holies as a sign of the completion of the atonement
(Heb. ix. 12, 24). He lays the chief stress on this, that
Christ is both High Priest and Sacrifice (cf. also John xvii.
19; Apoc. i. 13), and he concludes from this, that His sacri
fice can not be repeated and requires no repetition (Heb. ix.

228 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
26 sqq.). By this he wishes to show, that it was the volun
tary entrance into death on the part of Christ that gave to
His sacrifice in the eyes of God its specific virtue, that far
surpassed the Old Testament sacrifices and of which the
latter were accordingly only types. A similar view we find
in Eph. v. 2. But with this the idea of satisfaction is
already passed by, as appears also from the combination of
two heterogeneous kinds of sacrifices in Eph. v. 2. For no
where in the Old Testament is the virtue of satisfaction
found in the means themselves. The animal sacrifice is an
atonement because God has ordered that it should be so;
but in this case the sacrifice of Christ is an atonement on
account of the perfect and sinless character of the sacrifice
itself. As little as the mere fact that the voluntary entrance
into death on the part of Christ gave to His sacrifice a
special virtue in the eyes of God explains the further fact
why God, in consequence of this sacrifice, could regard the
sins as atoned for, so certain it is that this idea led to an
altogether different conception of the death of Jesus.
2. The Death of Jesus as a Ransom. — The word
with which Jesus in Mark x. 45 expresses to His disciples
the significance of His death states that the giving up
of His life was a ransom, which men, even if they pos
sessed the whole world, would not be able to pay them
selves, in order to deliver their souls from destruction (Mark
viii. 36-37). Here He then is not speaking of the sins of
man that prevent God from entering into a covenant rela
tion with man until His eyes have been covered, but of the
destruction which man has incurred as a punishment for
his sins and which accordingly prevents him from receiving
that grace which God purposes to bestow upon him in His
kingdom ; not of that act of grace on the part of God, when
He establishes an atonement in order to cover the sins in
His eyes so as to be able to forgive the guilt, but of a ransom
that Jesus has paid, which enables God to relieve man of the

SIGNIFICANCE OF JESUS' DEATH 229
state of punishment which God by virtue of His righteous
ness had to impend over man. But it is arbitrary to put into
these words the presupposition that Jesus was thereby pay
ing the punishment which the sinners ought to have paid,
by suffering what they should have suffered. This verse does
not speak of this subject that He gives up His life for their's
which had been forfeited to death, but that He paid in their
stead a ransom that was valuable enough in the sight of God
to secure the remission of the punishment for sin. As un
natural as it is that according to any norm of righteousness
the death of the innocent should take the place of the guilty,
so intelligible it is, according to the circumstances from
which the idea of a ransom has been taken, that the price,
on account of which the creditor would release the debtor,
could also be paid by somebody else. In John vi. 51, too, it
is not said that Jesus gave His flesh, i. e., His bodily life
unto death in order to suffer death in the place of man, but
to make hfe possible for the world that had on account of
its sins incurred death. Paul, who in 1 Cor. i. 30 tells us,
that Christ is the author of the deliverance by a ransom,
takes into consideration the high price at which this pur
chase has been made (1 Cor. vi. 20; vii. 23; 1 Tim. ii. 6).
In consequence of this death, as a punishment for sin, has
no more power over us (2 Tim. i. 10) ; and in Gal. i. 4 the
giving up of Christ's life is described as the means whereby
He had delivered us from the present wicked earth that
has incurred destruction.
In itself the idea of a remission of punishment, which
Ohrist effects through His voluntary death in a manner
pleasing to God, is not in harmony with that of an atone
ment for sins, which God had ordered for the purpose of
making it possible to forgive sin. But the state of liability
to punishment (Mark iii. 29) from which we are delivered,
is in substance identical with the state of guilt in which the
sinner finds himself (James ii. 10). The punishment can

230 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
only be forgiven if the guilt has been removed, for which
reason salvation in Eph. i. 7; Col. i. 14, is simply called
forgiveness of sin. In Rom. iii. 24-25 the deliverance which
the fact of our being declared free from guilt makes pos
sible is based on this, that God has decided that the blood
of Christ is the means of atonement. In Heb. ix. 12 the
eternally valid redemption, which Christ through His blood
had to bring about, is called a deliverance from transgres
sion, which could not have been effected without the blood
of an atoning sacrifice (Heb. ix. 15-23). But as little as the
idea of a sacrifice explains, how God in the blood of Christ
could see an atonement for sins, i. e., could regard them
with covered eyes, so little does the idea of a ransom explain,
why the voluntary giving up of His own life unto death
on the part of Christ could be an achievement on account
of which the guilt and punishment of man were remitted.
Even if in this matter all the emphasis is put upon the
service of Christ, then the acceptance of a ransom is also
an act of God's grace, since no principle of justice could
force the creditor to accept such a ransom.
It is indeed generally thought that both can be explained
on the basis of the Old Testament idea of the carrying of
sin. But this has nothing to do with the atonement sacri
fice, since it is nowhere said of the sacrificial animal, that
it bears the sins of him who sacrifices. Nor could this be
said, since, as we have seen, the death of the sacrificial ani
mal can in no way take the place of the death of him who
sacrifices. But rather it is said of the second goat, who in
the great day of atonement is not slain, but is driven into
the desert, that he carries the sins of the people, since it
was the purpose of this rite to symbolise, that through the
atonement sacrifice the sins of the people have been entirely
removed (Lev. xiv. 20-22). But the idea of the carrying
of sin has primarily nothing to do with a ransom by which
tho freedom from punishment is purchased, on the ground

SIGNIFICANCE OF JESUS' DEATH 231
that according to the current view God accepts the death
of the innocent as an equivalent for that of the guilty.
According to Old Testament usage, which has no special
terms for sin, guilt and punishment, because these three are
always inseparable, the carrying of sin nieahs the suffering
for sin (cf. e. g. Num. xiv. 33). Whether men endure this
punishment, i. e., the evil which sin in accordance with the
arrangement of God brings with it, because they have been
guilty of the sin; or if they must suffer, because, although
entirely innocent, on account of the intimate connection
with sinners many suffer with them, or even alone — this is
not in the expression at all. When the Just Servant of God
in Is. liii. bears in silence and patiently the sufferings
which He endures because of the sins of the people, it is
indeed said, that God, in order to show to the people His
pleasure at this kind of suffering, permits it to redound to
their salvation; but that this is to be in payment for the
sufferings that His justice would demand of the people, is
not at all stated. Rather is this idea suggested, that, when
the pious suffer under the sins of his people, that God per
mits the way in which he suffers to redound to the good of
the sinful people. Solely to this passage is the reference of
the Baptist, made when he designates Jesus as the Lamb of
God that bears the sins of the world (John i. 29) without
ever mentioning this result; and the Apocalypse does the
same in constantly referring to Jesus as the Lamb that was
slain. Peter, in a connection in which he repeatedly makes
use of the words of Isaiah liii. (1 Pet. ii. 22-23), says that
Christ carried our sins upon the cross. Certain it is, that
He suffered the death on the cross for our good, since it is
said (1 Pet. iii. 18) that Christ as the Just suffered for the
unjust. But the Apostle so little thinks of a punishment
as payment, that he expressly states as the purpose of this
suffering merely this, that He purposed through His (aton
ing) death to lead to God mankind, that has been freed

232 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
from sin. John, too, interprets the word of Caiphas which
he regards as prophetic, only to mean this, that Jesus was
to die for the good of the people (John xi. 50-51).
When the Epistle to the Hebrews emphasises that fact that
Christ on the cross had to taste all the bitterness of death,
even to desertion on the part of God (cf. Mark xv. 34), it
finds the motive for this not in this, that he thereby wanted
to render an equivalent for the bitterness of death that we
were to taste, but in this, that it behooved God to raise to
perfection the source of our salvation by the highest test of
obedience in suffering (Heb. ii. 10; v. 8-9). But when it
is said (Heb. ix. 28) that Christ was offered once to bear
the sins of many, although, notwithstanding this, as we have
seen, the atonement sacrifice had nothing to do with the
carrying of sins, yet the connection shows, that the purpose
here is to make prominent the fact, that He in His atoning
death suffered once and could not suffer again, what the
sins of mankind compelled Him to suffer. So little does the
Epistle to the Hebrews think of teaching that the death
penalty which was inflicted upon Jesus was according to
any principle of law to be a substitute for the death, which
the sinner was to suffer for his sins, that it on the other
hand expressly emphasises the fact that death, which is fol
lowed and not preceded by the judgment for sin, is the
common fate of man and remains so (Heb. ix. 27). Jesus
has delivered us through His atoning death only from the
fear of death, in so far as we, because we are freed from
sin through Him, need have no more fear of becoming in
death the prey of Satan, who through death as a punish
ment for sins, has delivered us over to destruction (Heb.
ii. 14-15).
But as it was generally thought that our deliverance was
effected through the death of Christ, it was natural to re
gard Him, who delivered us from death as the punishment
of sin, as a substitute, since this idea is evidently already

SIGNIFICANCE OF JESUS' DEATH 233
found in the background of 1 Pet. iii. 18 ; Heb. ii. 9. In the
most pronounced manner this vicarious significance of the
death of Christ, but without any reference to the carrying
of sin in Isaiah, is found expressed in Paul. According to
his teaching the death of the One counts in God's eye as the
death of all, so that because He has died for all, they need
no longer die (2 Cor. v. 15). God has made Him to sin for
our good, i. e., has treated Him as a sinner, that He might
make us righteous, i. e., regard us as righteous, and hence
will no longer punish us (2 Cor. v. 21). Christ has be
come a curse for us, by becoming the punishment of those
that were cursed of God, in order to buy us free
from the curse of the law (Gal. iii. 10). But when this
statement is made to mean, that the curse which the law
threatened to the transgressor, must be carried out, if not
on the guilty, then on the innocent, in order to satisfy the
justice of God, it is forgotten, that according to Paul death
as the punishment for sin was not first imposed through
the law, but already through the sin of Adam, and that the
law at any rate knew nothing of such a substitution. Then,
too, the connection shows that it is the Apostle's purpose
merely to set forth, that the law could do so little for sal
vation, but that Christ was rather forced to suffer the
utmost, in order to deliver those that were under the law
from the curse that their transgression of the law had
brought upon them. Here as everywhere the extreme de
velopment of the substitution idea has no other object than
to emphasise the greatness of the purchase price which
Christ voluntarily paid to deliver us from our sins. But
why this service of His should be so valuable in the sight
of God, that He for this reason freed the sinner from all
punishment, this the idea of the carrying of sins and of a
substitution does not intend to and cannot explain. The
dogmatical interpretation of the saving death makes prom
inent this very thing that it was the death of the Son of

234 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
God (in the metaphysical sense) which should serve God as
a satisfaction for the punishments of the sins of the world,
but the New Testament, in direct contrast to this, makes
prominent the human conduct of Ohrist at His death as
that which made it valuable in the sight of God. Jesus
Himself says that God loves Him because He gave up His
life and because this was the fulfilment of His commandment
(John x. 17), as this also appears according to Mark x. 45,
as His highest service in the interest of His mission. His
innocence and patience in suffering (1 Pet. ii. 22 ; cf . i. 19),
His trust in God, in taking this suffering upon Himself
(Heb. xii. 2) ; His moral perfection in obedience (Heb. vii.
28; cf. v. 8-9; x. 5 sqq.), the highest degree of obedience
(Rom. v. 19; Phil. ii. 8) are everywhere made prominent
as that which gives its unique value to His death. From
the other side it is the love that He has thereby shown to
mankind (Gal. ii. 20; 2 Cor. v. 14; Eph. vi. 25-26; Rev.
i. 5) that is emphasised as the basis of it. As the perfect
fulfilment of duty in obedience to God and in love to His
people, His death is a service which has the greatest value
for God; but this does not and cannot explain why God
accepted this service as a ransom, on account of which He
freed the sinner from his punishment.
3. The Death of Jesus as Deliverance from the
Power of Sin. — But it is not the purpose of the Scriptures
to give an explanation of this kind, for it is not the purpose
of the Scriptures to solve dogmatical problems, and the way
in which through dogmatical prejudices interpretations are
forced upon the Scriptures can only harm their authority.
It certainly is evident, that the religious effect of the state
ment, that God gave His only Son unto death, in order to
secure a means of atonement, by which sin could be covered
in His eyes, is only weakened when it is claimed that thereby
He only effected a necessary compromise of His love and His
righteousness and therefore satisfied the necessity of inflict-

SIGNIFICANCE OF JESUS' DEATH 235
mg punishment that was obligatory for Him also. The
Scriptures merely declare that this is the great revelation
of the love of God, which is able to accomplish what the
revelation of His love in the sending of Jesus could not
accomplish, to produce the grateful reverence of God, which
Paul in Rom. i. 21, has already described as the most ele
mentary expression of all religion, to be awakened in us
by the Scriptures. Gratitude toward God, which we owe to
Him for being made the objects of salvation and deliverance
from the power of Satan, Paul in Col. i. 12 sqq., makes
in the end dependent on this, that we have in the Son of
His love the redemption that was made possible through the
forgiveness of sin. In the same way Rom. viii. 32 shows
that in this way the confidence in God is aroused in us,
which is the highest proof of religion. " He that spared not
His own Son, how shall He not with Him also freely give
us all things?"
The same is true of the love of Christ which He has
exhibited to us when He gave His blood for us as a ransom
to buy us free from our punishment. Already in 1 Pet. ii.
24 we are told, that He bore our sins, that we, being deliv
ered from our sins, might live unto righteousness, i. e., that
the practical purpose of religion, the fulfilment of the divine
will, might be accomplished in us. In the same sense it is
said, Tit. ii. 14, that He gave Himself up for our good, in
order that He might deliver us from all kinds of iniquity
and purify to Himself a peculiar people zealous of good
works. How this is achieved is seen from 2 Cor. v. 14-15,'
where it is stated that, when the death of Christ is regarded
as a substitution service, by which we are delivered from
death as a punishment from sin, then the love of Christ that
is therein revealed exercises such a powerful influence upon
us, that we cannot live any longer unto ourselves but must
live unto Him who died and rose again (cf. also Rom. xiv.
9). Living unto oneself, i. e., selfishness, is however the

236 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
fundamental form of all sin, and life for Christ or under
His rule, since He has never demanded or sought anything
else than the fulfilment of the divine will, is the realisa
tion of religion from its practical side. This purpose of
the death of Christ can of course be realised only in those,
who know Him in His significance for our redemption, as
the atonement for our sins and as the ransom money paid
for us. Even the most heroic martyr's death cannot in itseK
have this effect; only the death of Christ could work this,
when God ordained this for such a purpose and Christ suf
fered it for our good.
The New Testament declares that this purpose has been
attained in the believers. The believers from Israel know
that they have been delivered from their vain conversation
which they have inherited from the fathers (1 Pet. i. 18;
cf . 2 Pet. ii. 1) ; they are healed from the disease of sin
(1 Pet. ii. 24). Through His blood the believers of all
nations have been bought to become the property of God
Rev. v. 9; xiv. 3), because in the deed of Christ's love in
giving Himself unto death they have been freed from the
fetters with which sin has bound them, and have become a
Kingdom of God, in which they serve Him alone (Rev. i.
5-6). That this was the result of the ransom paid by Christ,
that God through His acceptance thereof, secured for Him
self a community as His property (Acts xx. 28). So nmch
is presupposed by Paul, that he, in 1 Cor. vi. 20 ; vii. 23, at
once draws the conclusion that they henceforth shall glorify
Him with their whole bodily life and can no longer be the
servants of men. As Jesus had already emphasised, that the
devil, who sought to destroy Him and His work (Luke xxii.
3; John xiii. 2, 27) had now been robbed of his dominion
through Him and had been judged (John xii. 31; xvi. 11),
thus the Apocalypse, too, sees in Him the victory over Satan
(Rev. v. 5) ; for, since Jesus has shed His blood for the
believers, these in turn overpower Satan (Rev. xii. 11).

SIGNIFICANCE OF JESUS' DEATH 237
The relation of the significance of the death of Christ for
redemption and its religico-ethical effect is entirely perverted,
if the latter is regarded as the condition of the former, and
it is thought that God forgives sin as a consequence of
what the death of Jesus has worked in man and in so far
as something has been effected, and frees from punishment
according to the same rule. For as this effect in the nature
of the case only makes itself felt gradually, we would then,
in the consciousness of our imperfections, never be certain
of our regeneration. Indeed, then, the death of Christ would
not be what it is according to the teaching of the New
Testament, since in itself it would not accrue to our benefit
and hence could not be a proof of the love of Christ or of
God. Then the forgiveness of sin and the declaration of
pardon would not result from the death of Christ, but as
the result of our own improvement, which we would earn
for ourselves through obedience to the law. But Paul has
said, that if righteousness could come through the law, then
Christ would have died in vain (Gal. ii. 21). If the death
on the cross (Col. ii. 15) is triumph over the powers hostile
to God, which are thereby robbed of their might, then the
connection with ii. 14 teaches, that this occurs, because man,
freed from the guilt of sin, is no longer subject to sin's
dominion. The connection with i. 13-14 also shows, that
God has delivered us from the might of the Satanic powers
and has transplanted us into the Kingdom of His Son, in
which we serve Him alone, because we have in Him the
redemption that is given with the forgiveness of sin. All
religious experience teaches, that conscience-striken man,
who fears God only as a judge, cannot even begin a new
life, because, only through the consciousness that he has
received forgiveness, can he gain courage and joy for such a
life. The highest value then of Jesus' fulfilment of His mis
sion through His death for God lies in this effect. When

238 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Jesus describes His death as necessary for the success of
His work, He did so on the presupposition that this death
would be able to accomplish what His life had not, namely,
the penitent return of His people and the realisation of the
Kingdom of God. . And when He depicts this as already
contemplated in the Old Testament in accordance with the
redemptive counsels of God, then He must regard this death
as the final means which God applied in order to attain the
end He had in view in sending the Messiah. This means
could indeed be effective only if His submission to death
was only the acme of what the entire mission of His whole
life's work had been, namely, a revelation of the love of
God. But this it was if it brought to men a salvation that
could not have been realised without it. In this sense it
can be said, that only in case that God makes the forgive
ness of sin dependent on the death of Christ, i. e., regarded
it as an atonement that covered all sin; and only in case
that on account of this death He remitted to sinners their
punishment, i. e., accepted this death as a ransom, on ac
count of which man can no longer be punished, only then
could the death of Christ have that effect which it was to
accomplish, because only in this way would He be recognised
as the highest manifestation of God's love. It is certainly
clear, although the Scriptures do not distinctly say it, that
the Old Testament sacrificial rite rendered atonement, i. e.,
covered the sins in the eyes of God, only because he who
sacrificed, through bringing the sacrifice as God had directed,
recognised his sin as sin and returned to the obedience
unto God. In the same way the death of Christ could render
satisfaction for sins, i. e., brought it about that they were
no longer punishable, because God knew that if this death
were recognised as the means for securing deliverance from
guilt, that then it would enable the sinner to become peni
tent and to return. He could on account of this death
remit the punishment, because punishment has only the one

SIGNIFICANCE OF JESUS' DEATH 239
purpose, of convincing man of his sin and by experienc
ing the results of his sins to rid himself of sin. Pun
ishment, however, had lost its purpose if this purpose was
already gained in this, that the sinner, when he saw in the
remittance of the punishment on account of the death of
Christ the highest manifestation of the love of his God,
and if thereby it was made possible for him to awaken to
a new life. From this it naturally follows, that the death of
Christ can have its effect only then, when men regard it as
an atonement and as a ransom, i. e., in the case of the
believers. Not because it has this effect, and in so far as
it has this effect, does God for the sake of this death forgive
the sins of the believers and remits their punishment; but
He does this because only in them this death can have the
effect that it was intended to have. Even if this effect in
the nature of the ease developed only gradually, yet God had
in the death of Christ furnished the guarantee, that this
effect would take place in the believers, i. e., among men
in so far as they at all longed for and accepted His grace.
4. The Death of Jesus as the Means of Reconcilia
tion. — It is impossible to emphasise the objectivity of the
significance of the death of Christ, i. e., its independence
from the effect that this has already achieved in the indi
vidual, more strongly than this is done by Paul in Rom. v.
10, who says that while we were yet enemies we were recon
ciled to God through the death of His Son. The entire pur
pose and connection in which this statement is found shows
that the apostle is not thinking here of a change in our
attitude toward God, but of a change of His mind toward
us; for Paul, in accordance with the parallel of v. 8-9,
wishes to show, that God showed His love for us at a time
when this exhibition of His love was all the more difficult
for Him, because we on account of our sins (v. 8) were
regarded and treated by Him as enemies, i. e., had to be
antagonised and punished. For this reason He, in v. 11

240 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
expressly states, that we had received for nothing the recon
ciliation, i. e., the change of his attitude toward us. In
the same sense it is stated in 2 Cor. v. 18, that God has
reconciled Himself to us through Christ. For this recon
ciliation is expressly explained in v. 19, by the statement
that He does not impute to us our transgressions and on
this account does not any longer look up or treat us as ene
mies. God has appointed special messengers whose work it
is to announce this reconciliation (v. 18-19) ; and Paul ex
pressly sums up the contents of this message in the
statement, that God treated the Sinless One as though He
had sin in order that He might treat us as righteous (v. 21).
In Eph. ii. 16 the reconciliation of both Jews and Gentiles,
which was effected through the one body of Christ upon
the cross, to which He was nailed, is expressly explained by
the enmity thereby destroyed, that is, by the fact that
Christ gave Himself up to the death on the cross as an
atonement for their sins. In Col. v. 21, in describing the
condition in which man was found before he had been recon
ciled to Him, in addition to the separation from God, men
tion is also made of their enmity toward God, but this is
expressly explained by this statement, that they were hostile
in their minds, and that this showed itself in their evil
deeds. But this is done because here the purpose is to state
that the object of the reconciliation in His body through
His death, which Chap. i. 20, entirely in the sense of Rom. v.
is called the making of peace through His blood on the
cross, is that the believers shall now be regarded as holy;
unspotted and without defect, because here again the author
is here thinking of the effects of this death of Christ work
ing reconciliation with God.
Naturally this reconciliation of man with God can accrue
to the benefit of those only who permit themselves to be
reconciled. Exactly as it is said in 1 Cor. vii. 11 of the
woman, who has separated herself from her husband, and

SIGNIFICANCE OF JESUS' DEATH 241
has offended him most grievously thereby, that she shall be
reconciled to her husband, i. e., in repentance return to him
and beg for his forgiveness, thus this message of reconcilia
tion reads in 2 Cor. v. 20, where it is said that man shall
be reconciled to God by penitently seeking His forgiveness
and accepting the reconciliation He offers. Just as the for
giveness of sin and the remittance of punishment can in
reality be secured only by those who believe in the death of
Christ as the revelation of the grace of God, because only
these desire this grace, thus, too, the reconciliation that is
offered to men can be of benefit only to those who desire
to be reconciled with God and accept the death of Christ as
a means of reconciliation. To what extent the death of
Jesus could produce the change in the mind of God toward
the sinner is a subject not explained in the Scriptures, as
little as we can explain why He appointed this death as a
means of satisfaction for man and accepted it as a ransom.
The Scriptures have only this purpose, through the message
of this reconciliation to awaken in men the joyful confi
dence, that notwithstanding their sins they can find a gra
cious God if they come to Him with the prayer for forgive
ness. But this does not exclude the thought, that we follow
out further the thought of the Scriptures and seek, on the
basis of what the Scriptures otherwise say concerning the
death of Christ, as well as from their general teachings, to
understand the significance that God assigns to this death.
But here we first of all face the fact that the Scriptures
do not consider mankind as a sum of individuals but as an
organic whole. For this very reason they do not regard
sin as an individual phenomenon, but as a power that has
seized upon all mankind ruling and enslaving them, which
necessarily brings with it the enmity of God. But there
had now appeared in the midst of mankind in Christ one,
upon whom the eye of God rested with favor (Matt. iii. 17).
God declared this not only at the beginning of His mission,
P

242 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
but also when He was approaching its conclusion (Matt.
xvii. 5), and Jesus has actually fulfilled on His part every
thing that had been commanded Him (John xvii. 4; xix.
30). He has proved this fidelity to His mission amid the
greatest temptation, by willingly submitting Himself to the
Father and joyfully entering upon the death that the Father
had determined for Him (Matt. xiv. 31). He did this in
the same love with which God Himself had loved His peo
ple, when He sent them the Savior and He proved true to
this life in the face of a terrible death. In Him the pleas
ure of God could again be turned to men, through His
incarnation in the flesh, in which sin had hitherto held
undisputed sway. God had already condemned the sin to
subjection, in so far as Christ, on this very field of its
supremacy, had taken up the struggle and had conquered
sin (Rom. viii. 3).
Of course it would seem that the very thing which this
highest proof of the obedience to God as also of His
love toward mankind produced, must convert the good will
of God toward men into extreme displeasure. As we
have seen, it was the very acme of all sin when Israel rejected
and nailed to the cross the very one who was for them the
highest revelation of the grace of God. But God had Him
self, in accordance with His providence permitted sin to
reach this extreme expression, so that sin would thereby
become manifest in its real essence, because only in this
way it was possible to begin the conquest of sin in mankind.
But sin was overpowered because it gave to God the occa
sion for the manifestation of His greatest revelation of
grace in Christ to exhibit an act of love, which must win
the hearts of men, in so far as these could be won at all.
In the Son of Man, who has given Himself up as a sacrifice,
a pledge had been given to God, that man would attain the
end for which he was created. At the very extreme develop
ment sin had been converted into the means by which it

SIGNIFICANCE OF JESUS' DEATH 243
was itself overpowered. Now God's good pleasure could
again rest upon mankind, whom in Christ he already re
garded as free from sin and from the supremacy of sin, and
who were no longer the objects of His wrath. He could
enter into the new covenant with them, in which His
Father's love at all times could give and forgive the chil
dren who sought Him and His grace, and secured a final
perfection for their love to Him, who had loved them unto
death, and to Him who had set this death as a means of
redemption, notwithstanding all their weaknesses and errors.
In this way the cross of Christ had become the means of
reconciliation. 5. The Universality of the Redemptive Significance
of the Death of Jesus. — True it is that this becomes per
fectly clear only when we remember, as is expressly stated in
2 Cor. v. 19, that God in Christ effected the reconciliation of
the whole sinful world with Himself, and that in v. 14, His
death is considered as an equivalent for the death of all with
out exception, and not only for the death of the believers.
The whole parallel between Adam and Christ (Rom. v. 12-19)
is based on the idea that the act of obedience on the part
of Christ has in the same way brought righteousness and
life for all mankind as Adam's fall brought sin and death.
A glance at the connection of. Eph. ii. 16 and CoL i. 20
shows, that the peace which God made by the cross of
Christ, is intended not for the believers only but for the
entire sinful world. According to John ii. 2 Christ is the
cause of the atonement of the whole world (cf. John vi. 51) ;
God has looked upon its entire sin in the death of Christ
as with closed eyes and has declared them free from guilt
and punishment. It is no contradiction of this that in the
same way, and indeed more frequently, the thought is
emphasised, that the redemptive significance of the death of
Christ becomes an actuality only in the congregation of the
believers. If God has appointed this death as a means of

244 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
atonement and has accepted it as a ransom, on the basis
of which He releases mankind from punishment, because
He foresaw that the death of Christ would deliver men from
the servitude of sin and would realize in them righteousness,
providing they would recognise in Him the highest revela
tion of the grace of God and the greatest proof of the love
of Christ, then it lies in the nature of the case, that this
-could become effective only in the case of the believers.
Only on the supposition that according to certain juridic
principles through the death of Christ satisfaction must
be rendered to the justice of God and that the punishment
of sins could be remitted to men because this punishment
had been inflicted in the case of one among them, it remains
inexplicable, how God, after this had taken place, after
wards yet could make the fruits of the death of Jesus
dependent on new conditions, namely, the demand of faith.
If on the other hand God has offered in the death of Christ
a reconciliation with Himself, then this could be realised
in fact only in the case of those who seek this reconciliation
and accept it in faith. When the criminal rejects the
amnesty of his king, he must still submit to punishment;
he cannot be helped. The fact remains, that God through
the cross of Christ offers to the entire world a universal
amnesty and has been reconciled to the world. No one is
any more condemned on account of his sins, for the sins
of the world have been atoned for. From now on there is
left only one mortal sin, namely, the rejection of the grace
offered in the gospel or the refusal of the salvation that had
already been accepted. This universal significance of the
death of Christ is emphasised all the more by the Epistle
to the Hebrews, which gives to it retrogressive power
(vi. 26). Also the pious of the Old Testament, on account
of their sin and guilt, could be delivered only through the
sacrificial death of Jesus, and therefore they had to wait
for the fulfilment of the promise of redemption until it

SIGNIFICANCE OF JESUS' DEATH 245
would be accomplished (xi. 39-40). Peter regards it as self-
evident, that the dead, too, must hear the gospel proclaimed,
so that both the dead and the living can be judged in the
final judgment (1 Pet. iv. 5-6). And if the deliverance in
this judgment was made entirely dependent on the name of
Jesus (Acts iv. 12), then, too, it was necessary that this
name should be proclaimed to all sinners of the pre-Chris-
tion period, so that these, too, could decide for themselves,
whether they would accept the proffered redemption or not.
It is a mistake to think that Peter, in Acts iii. 19-20, was
bringing an entirely new and unheard of announcement to
his hearers. In this connection his purpose is only to illus
trate the blessed results of the death of Christ (Acts. iii.
17-18), serving not only to bring deliverance from sin to
the people of His own times, but also to the dead. Since
Jesus in consequence of His death had to descend into
Hades (Matt. xii. 40; Luke xxiii. 43; Rom. x. 7), this could
serve only the purposes of His redemptive work. In this
it is indeed presupposed, that His soul in death when sep
arated from the body, did not enter the shadowy life of
Hades, but that His spirit, anointed by the divine spirit and
therefore eternal (Heb. ix. 14), continued its activity in
the region of the dead. In the spirit He declared to them
that gospel that in the body He had preached to men. Peter
illustrates the whole scope of this redemptive activity of
Christ, by stating that He preached even to those men that
were destroyed in the typical judgment of the deluge. How
Christ's self-revelation could come to these departed spirits,
the author does not say; he has described it as he does the
preaching among the living. It was a religious postulate
of His faith in the salvation that was found only in Christ,
that this must be proclaimed also to those who died before
Christ, so that these, too, could decide for or against Him.
He presupposes that this idea is also shared by his readers.
He thereby gives us the right to the same postulate. All

246 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
religious feelings tell us, that if in the future the salvation
and condemnation of men are dependent solely on the atti
tude that they take toward the revelation of grace in the
death of Christ, that then those countless hosts who died
without having been told of the death of Christ, or at any
rate without having it proclaimed in a way that made
such a decision really possible, must after their death have
an opportunity for ¦doing this. We, too, will not worry about
the question, how this can be possible. We cheerfully leave
this to the wisdom and the goodness of God; but we can
do without this certainty as little as Peter did, if we would
trust the testimony of the Scriptures concerning the uni
versal significance of the death of Christ.
We have here not to deal with a few passages of Scrip
tures that perhaps are capable of different interpretations.
The question at stake is the fundamental idea of a Paul,
according to whom the gospel is the word of the
cross (1 Cor. i. 18). There are indeed many who regard
this as a dogmatical invention, which this apostle is claimed
to have added to the simple gospel of Jesus. But it is use
less to attempt through critical or exegetical means to banish
from the gospels the references to the death of Jesus and its
redemptive significance. But even if this could be done it
would only follow, that this belongs to those things which
the disciples were not yet prepared to hear during the earthly
career of Jesus. But even without this, the fact is fixed,
that the gospel of Jesus, preached in a manner as it never
will be preached again and under circumstances that were
for its reception the most favourable imaginable, did not
gain the victory over the world, which stood opposed tc
Christ in the people, but rather that this world nailed Him
to the cross. Whosoever with the Scriptures believes in a
government of the world by God cannot believe that this
fact is explained sufficiently on historical and psychological
motives. If Jesus was the divinely sent Redeemer, and if

SIGNIFICANCE OF JESUS' DEATH 247
His career ended with His death, then this death must have
been intended for the salvation of mankind, and the place
of this death in the gospel, as it has been preached since the
days of the apostles, cannot be shaken. It is a fact that this
gospel of the cross has overcome the world, and this was not
done by the declaration of the paternal love of the Father
or of the duty of love to the neighbour. Certainly the pious
Christian can repeat the Lord's prayer, without thinking
in connection with the fifth petition of the forgiveness of
sins through the death of Jesus, and he can love his neigh
bour without remembering that this is a duty enjoined on
him by the death of Jesus. But this is based on the fact,
that he already belongs to the congregation that has been
won through the blood of the Son (Acts xx. 28) and by
Christ through for self-sacrifice (Tit. ii. 14).
In this congregation has been realised what Jesus in His
day sought to attain through His mission and His message.
Here the Kingdom of God is realised, which He wanted to
establish in Israel, because here the children of God are so
sure of the forgiving love of their heavenly Father as they
are of His giving love, and they cannot do otherwise than
be like unto Him, who permits His sun to shine over the
good and the bad. But the fact that such a congregation
exists on earth notwithstanding the wonderful power of the
sins of mankind, which had at one time prevented the estab
lishment of this kingdom in Israel, is according to the
Scriptures, owing to the death of Jesus, who has broken the
fetters of the power and the guilt of sin. Therefore this
death had to become the central theme of apostolic preach
ing and this must continue to be the case in' the religion of
the New Testament.

CHAPTER xrn
THE EXALTATION OF JESUS AND THE SPIRIT
1. Resurrection and Ascension. — As soon as Jesus
foresaw that His earthly career would reach a prema
ture end in a violent death, He necessarily had to be sure
of His resurrection (cf. Matt. xii. 40; Mark viii. 31; John
x. 17), since He could not without this certainty main
tain the faith in His Messianic calling, which demanded not
only the beginning but also the completion of His redemp
tive work. But by resurrection must be understood, accord
ing to His express statement in Mark xii. 25, and together
with this passage according to the whole New Testament,
not a return to earthly life, as the Pharisees hoped, but a
resurrection to a heavenly life. In this sense the risen
Lord declares, that the end of His sufferings through death
is at the same time the beginning of His entrance into His
glory (Luke xxiv. 26), and tells His disciples, that He has
been exalted to the sovereignty over the world (Matt, xxviii.
17-18). Peter connects the bestowal of the glory upon Christ
directly with His resurrection (1 Pet. i. 21), and even calls
this very act His glorification (Acts iii. 13; cf. v. 15). In the
discourses of Christ in the gospel of John reference is made
only to His going to the Father (xxi. 10) where resurrection
and ascension are regarded as one (cf. Luke ix. 51). Paul
speaks only in Eph. iv. 10 and 1 Tim. iii. 16 of an ascension
into heaven and His being received into glory, without hav
ing before made any mention of the resurrection; in other
places He speaks exclusively and directly of His resurrec-
248

THE EXALTATION OF JESUS 249
tion, and in Rom. viii. 34 (cf. 1 Pet. iii. 21-22) declares that
the risen Christ is sitting at the right hand of God. On
the other hand, the Epistle to the Hebrews everywhere speaks
of Christ's entrance into the Holy of Holies (Heb. ix. 24),
while only in xiii. 20 mention is made of His being brought
from the dead, which made this entrance possible.
But even if the believers in the New Testament also
hope in the same way to be awakened on the last day to a
heavenly hfe through the help of the exalted Christ, yet the
peculiarity in the case of Jesus consists in this, that He
(according to the most original form of His prophecy)
expected to be raised again after three days, i. e., in the
shortest period possible (Mark viii. 31), and that in accord
ance with the reports of the first apostles He really was
raised on the third day (1 Cor. xv. 4), as His tomb was
opened on Easter morning and found empty (Mark xvi. 6;
John xx. 6-7). Only in this way can the peculiar signifi
cance that is assigned to the resurrection of Christ be
understood as an aet of God by which God Himself testifies,
that Jesus did not die the death of a sinner but the death
for the sinner as the Mediator of redemption. In this sense
Paul says (1 Cor. xv. 17) that the confidence in His death
as a means to cleanse us from sin would be futile, if Christ
had not raised; that He has been raised for our justifi
cation, which can be attained through faith in His atoning
death (Rom. iv. 25; cf. viii. 34). The real source of re
demption lies in the death of Jesus, as both our resurrec
tion on the last day into a new life as also to a heavenly
life is guaranteed only through the resurrection of Jesus,
but is accomplished only through the connection of the
believer with the risen Lord. Only His submission unto
death is an act of Jesus Himself, while the resurrection
was an act of God that Jesus experienced.
It is accordingly undeniable, that the still prevailing idea,
according to which Christ's resurrection was only a recall

250 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
to earthly life, as this occurred already in the course of the
Old Testament history in the case of certain individuals
and according to the New Testament was several times
brought about by Ohrist HimseK, utterly destroys the unique
significance which the entire New Testament attributes to
the resurrection of Jesus. It is in fact impossible to under
stand what purpose this lengthening of His earthly life for
a period of forty days should have, since neither the apos
tolic nor the Pauline tradition has anything more to report
of a continuation of Christ's intercourse with His disciples
but speaks only of occasional meetings. But these latter
show that this idea is incorrect; for as sure as it is a fact
that Jesus appeared to His disciples in visible form, spoke
to them, showed them the marks of His wounds (John xx.
27), so unmistakably all the reports of these appearances
show that He no longer walked upon earth in His carnal
body. He does not come and go, but He appears and dis
appears (Luke xxiv. 15, 31) ; when the doors are locked He
appears in the midst of the disciples (John xx. 19, 26). The
idea of a gradual transformation of His body, by which the
effort is made to remove the difficulty involved in this con
ception, is according to 1 Cor. xv. 50, itself a contradiction
and impossible, since there is no transition from one to the
other kinds of body, the earthly and the heavenly, as these
two are in the nature of the case contradictory (xv. 42 sqq.).
The Scriptures themselves describe these appearances as
miraculous signs (John xx. 30; Acts i. 3), through which
Jesus makes His disciples certain of the fact of His bodily
resurrection, which necessarily must be in a visible manner,
since the heavenly and transformed body in accordance with
its very nature cannot be perceived by the senses. When
Paul saw Christ in Damascus (1 Cor. ix. 1, referring to the
account of his conversion in Acts ix. 1-22) this is to be
understood as a visible appearance, as were those to the
original apostles, between whom and Himself there was no

THE EXALTATION OF JESUS 251
difference, although according to the current views Jesus
was already at that time ascended to heaven.
For this reason the idea of a special miraculous act by
which Jesus ascended to heaven in His body is contrary to
the Scriptures. From the day of His resurrection He
already belonged to the heavenly life; and Acts i. 9 speaks
only of a sign that on the occasion of the last appearance
of Jesus was to make His disciples certain of this fact, that
the ceasing of His appearances signified the definite close
of His earthly career. Just as little as His reappearance in
any place is described as taking place in the body, so little
can His reception into heaven, which according to the dec
laration of the angels (Acts i. 10-11) is to take place in the
same way, be a reception in His earthly body. Jesus Him
seK in John xx. 17 gives us the right to count this appear
ance as yet belonging to His earthly career, in which He
was yet in the act of returning to the Father. But as a
matter of fact He since the days of resurrection, is the one
who is exalted to God, as He clearly states at one of His
appearances (Matt, xxviii. 18). Only in this way does His
resurrection become a unique miraculous act of God. The
flesh of the Messiah has not seen corruption (Acts ii. 31).
On the third day His tomb was found opened in a miracu
lous manner (Matt, xxviii. 2). The spirit that had in death
been separated from the body of Jesus (Matt, xxvii. 50 ; John
xix. 30) has in a wonderful way returned to it. The body
of Jesus that had thus returned to life, that had taken the
soul to itself again and had put aside the linen cloth and
the napkin (John xx. 6-7), has by God in a miraculous way
been converted into a glorified body (Phil. iii. 21) belonging
henceforth to the heavenly life. In the same way, according
to Paul, those who will be alive at His return hope to be
immediately glorified from the earthly into a heavenly body
(1 Cor. xv. 21; 2 Cor. v. 3-4). There is then no need of a
special miraculous act by which His earthly body was taken

252 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
up into heaven, because Jesus no longer was living in the
earthly body but in the heavenly and glorified body. His
resurrection is His ascension in the teaching of Jesus as
in the entire apostolic preaching.
2. The Essence of the Exalted Christ. — If Jesus
through His resurrection entered upon the heavenly
life, and if He there attained the glory which He originally
possessed with the Father (John xvii. 5) then He has been
transformed to the supermundane glory of the Father (John
vii. 39; xii. 16), which is exalted over all the limitations
of terrestrial and human life; for which reason after the
resurrection He accepts the worship due to God (John xx.
28). Passages like Matt, xviii. 20; xxviii. 20; John xiv. 23,
presupposes for His heavenly life God-equal omnipresence;
and with the picture taken from Ps. ex. 1, Jesus describes
His future participation and the divine dignity and govern
ment of the world (Mark xiv. 62; Matt. xxv. 31). When
He returns in the supermundane glory of the Father, then
it will be the angels who will accompany Him, His angels
(Mark viii. 38; Matt. xxiv. 30-31) whom He sends out to
fulfil His commands. His relation to the angels determines
His position in the world; He who is above the angels is a
God-like being. According to the first apostolic preaching
God had made Jesus only through His resurrection and
reception of the throne to be the Messiah in the full sense
of the word (Acts ii. 36; cf. v. 32-33), since the attribute of
God-like dominion essentially belongs to the Messiahship.
Only in this way has He become the Son of God in power
(Rom. i. 4), because only in this dominion destined for the
Chosen One of divine love realised, to which He could not
attain while on earth. He sits at the right hand of God
(1 Pet. iii. 22; Apoc. iii. 21; Rom. viii. 34; Eph. i. 70; Heb.
viii. 1).
In His state of exaltation Christ is already, according to
James v. 7-8, the very Lord, in the same sense in which the

THE EXALTATION OF JESUS 253
name "Lord" is specifically the name of God in the Old
Testament, for which reason, too, Old Testament passages
that speak of the Lord in this sense are directly applied to
Christ (Acts ii. 20-21; 1 Pet. ii. 3; iii. 15-18; 1 Cor. ii. 16;
x. 22; Heb. i. 10 sqq.). It is evidently contrary to the
context, when on the basis of 1 Cor. viii. 6, a difference
is made between God the Father and Jesus Christ as the
Lord of the congregation, since in v. 5 gods and lords are
evidently synonymous terms, and here the point at issue is
merely the opposition to beings which the heathens worship
as gods. He is the Lord over all (Acts x. 36; Rom. x. 12;
cf. Apoc. i. 5; xvii. 14), to whom God subordinates every
thing (1 Cor. xv. 27) and to whom together with the throne
He has given the whole world as a possession (Heb. i. 2-3;
Gal. iii. 16). Especially in the Epistles to the Thessalonians
is it difficult to determine, whether the term " Lord " is meant
for God or for Christ (cf. also Rom. xiv. 4). He is the
Lord of glory (James ii. 1 ; 1 Cor. ii. 8) to whom the super
mundane glory of God belongs. He is divine omnipotence
(James ii. 1 ; 1 Cor. ii. 8) ; He it is that searches the hearts
and the reins (Apoc. ii. 23) ; the Omniscient One (1 Cor. iv.
5); in Him dwells the fulness of the God-head (Col. ii. 19).
He is lauded in the doxologies as is God Himself (2 Pet.
iii. 18; Apoc. i. 6; vii. 10; Heb. xiii. 21; 2 Tim. iv. 18).
The representatives of the first as well as of the second
creation fall down and worship Him (Apoc. v. 8, 14) ; and
that His adoration (2 Cor. xii. 8; cf. 1 Cor. i. 2; Phil. ii. 10)
is really divine worship, is seen beyond a doubt from Rom.
x. 12 (cf. iii. 5). All the powers of the angels are subject to
Him (Apoc. i. 1; xxvii. 16), and they, too, are to worship
Him (Heb. i. 6). The One who is exalted, according to Heb.
i. 8-9, is addressed as God. It is perfectly useless to refuse
to accept what the context plainly shows, namely, that in
Rom. ix. 5 He is glorified as the God over all (cf. Tit. ii. 13)
and in 1 John ii. 20 He is called the true God.

254 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
But in this connection one thing must not be overlooked.
The person of whom all of these statements are made is the
historical Mediator of redemption as He has appeared in
the man Jbsus. They do not purpose to say that an eternal
divine being after the days of His humiliation simply re
turned again to its original glory; for such statements also
occur where no reference is made to His original glory. God
has made Jesus of Nazareth, a man who was sent by God as
His representative, to the Lord (Acts ii. 27-36) and has
given Him the glory that He Himself possesses (1 Pet. i.
21). Just as the Messianic King does in answer to His
petition (Ps. ii. 8-9), He receives the government of the
world from His Father (Rev. ii. 27). In those passages,
too, where the eternal divinity of the Son is emphasised to
the most marked degree, this method of treating the subject
is found. On account of His righteousness God has be
stowed dominion upon Him (Heb. i. 9) ; on account of His
sufferings and death He has crowned Him with honour and
glory (Heb. ii. 9) ; indeed in order to attain this goal ap
pointed for Him, Jesus has borne patiently the heaviest
burdens (Heb. xii. 2). As a recompense for emptying Him
self God has raised Him to the highest place and has given
Him the name of Lord, which is above all other names
(Phil. ii. 6-9). Even in the gospel of St. John, where Jesus
is described as having possessed His glory from eternity, He
asks for it as a reward for this that during His whole earthly
career He has done everything for the glorification of God
(John xvii. 4-5; cf. 13, 32). And in reality He does receive
more in His exaltation than He ever possessed before. Paul
expressly distinguishes between His original state in divine
form, which the historical Jesus Christ at one time possessed,
and the God-like dignity, which He would not violently
appropriate (Phil. ii. 5-6), and which He received when He
had given the highest proof of His obedience (Phil. ii. 8),
so that henceforth all knees should bend before him, even

THE EXALTATION OF JESUS 255
those of the dwellers of heaven, the angels, who acknowledge
Him as their Lord (Phil. ii. 10-11). This God-like position
in the world He did not yet possess in His original state.
Jesus Himself sees that with His approaching death the
time is coming, when the Son of Man is to be glorified
among the nations (John xii. 23), and He is glorified on
earth by His disciples (John xiii. 31).
But even in John it is not at all the eternal Son of God
who, after He has laid aside His carnal body in death, re
turns again to His former condition. It is the Son of Man
who ascends where He (the eternal Son of God) formerly
was (vi. 32). But it is characteristic of the children of
men that they are not purely spiritual beings like God, but
that they have a body in which the spirit dwells (James vii.
26, 4, 5). The Scriptures do not say that Christ went to
God in the spirit, when this was separated from the body,
as He went to the spirits in prison (1 Pet. iii. 19), but that
He arose again, and the Scriptures know of no resurrection
separated from the body. It is true that He who arose and
was exalted has no body of flesh and blood (cf . 1 Cor. xv. 50)
as did the first man that was created from the dust of the
earth (1 Cor. xv. 15). The body that He received in the
resurrection was one made by this Spirit (1 Cor. xv. 44)
in all respects the opposite of the earthly body, that is organ
ised through the human soul life (1 Cor. xv. 32-43). The
apostle makes no effort at all to give us an idea of this body ;
for him it is enough that it is unlike our earthly body not a
prison for the soul but a perfect organ of the soul. But
the idea of the spirit is everywhere connected in his mind
with that of the heavenly glory of light that is considered
as dwelling with God (1 Tim. vi. 16), in which God appeared
to Abraham (Acts vii. 2), in which He is thought as dwell
ing over the Cherubim (Rom. ix. 4). This glorious light
Paul had seen in the countenance of Christ when He ap
peared to Him (2 Cor. iv. 6), and in it He saw the reflection

256 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
of God (2 Cor. iv. 4; Col. i. 15). He accordingly describes
the body of the Exalted One as the body of glory (Phil. iii.
21), which had as it were, been made from this supermun
dane light.
The incarnation of the Son of God is then not to be re
garded as a merely transitory state, as a passing episode in
the life of the eternal Son of God. The Son of Man, which
He became when He appeared on earth, has been exalted to
God and has been established in a God-like dignity. If a
dogmatical formula is desired, it can be said, that He became
the God-man. The New Testament makes no use of this
expression; and the prevailing view has made the term diffi
cult to an extreme degree, by transferring this idea into
the earthly life of the Son of Man and thus has made the
life as it is found in the gospel entirely unintelligible. It
really suits to the exalted Christ. But Paul puts the great
est emphasis on this that he who has been exalted to God
is and remains a human being. Over against the theosophists
of Colossse, who saw only a spiritual being in their Christ,
in which the fullness of the divinity was developed, he em
phasises the fact that in the historical Christ and in Him
alone dwells the entire fullness of the God-head bodily
(Col. ii. 9). This is no theosophical speculation. He is
above all anxious that the God-like being that is recognised
and worshipped in Christ as the Lord is the historical Christ.
The religious importance of this is certainly to be found
in the fact that Christ in His heavenly life, too, continues
to be what He was in His earthly life, namely, the perfect
revelation of God. It certainly is not the case that He was
the Revealer of God only during His earthly career, whom
His people did not recognise as that which He really was,
and to whose complete knowledge even the disciples did not
attain except through the Spirit. This earthly life of His
was not in vain. Its picture, as given to us by the evan
gelists, is before us to-day yet in a vivid form; in Him to-day

THE EXALTATION OF JESUS 257
yet God, whose essence is and continues to be invisible, comes
to us in a human way; we hear Him speak to us, we see
Him in the highest revelation of His love. Only that now,
when He is sitting in God-like glory to the right of God,
we know as a certainty that this man Jesus was the perfect
image of the Father, in whom now yet we can see God. As
the proclamation of the eternal divinity of the Son is the
guarantee for this that the salvation that has appeared in
Him had been determined upon in eternity and has begun
to be realised as early as the creation, thus the exaltation to
God is the guarantee for this, that He did not merely once
and in a transient way reveal the Father, but that we this
day yet in the picture of His earthly career see the complete
revelation of God HimseK.
3. The Activity of the Exalted Christ.— During
His earthly career Jesus already looked forward to
the time when He would be relieved of the limitations
of His earthly activity through His death (John xii. 24)
in order to take up this activity in an amplified form
from His exaltation (John xii. 32). This earthly career, in
accordance with the development of the history of redemp
tion and the arrangement of God, was limited to Israel
(Matt. xv. 24). The exaltaton that had been brought about by
His death not only made the continuation of His Messianic
work possible but did this in an amplified form. His call
as the Mediator of redemption applied to all mankind (John
xvii. 2) upon whom He could only from this standpoint
exert His influence. Naturally He required earthly organs
for this purpose on earth, who now should do greater works
than He (John ix. 22); should reap where He had sown
(John iv. 37-38). But in these He came Himself to bring
the message of salvation to all that were far or near (Eph.
ii. 16-17; cf. Acts. 26, 23). He had to equip and send them
out, to give them directions for the fulfilment of their mis
sion, to strengthen them in this calling and protect them

258 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
from dangers. The entire book of the Acts is devoted to
the purpose of furnishing the proof that Jesus did this
in a signal manner, from the time of the establishment of
the congregation in Jerusalem to the time when the gospel
was preached in the metropolis of the Roman empire. But
above all else He was the Lord of this congregation, whose
work it was to secure and strengthen it by inner and out
ward prosperity. In His gracious presence within the con
gregation (Matt, xviii. 20; xxviii. 70; John xiv. 23) the
prophetic promise of God was fulfilled, that God at the time
of redemption would dwell in the midst of His people (Joel
vii. 27). All the grace and all the salvation that Paul wishes
his congregation comes from God the Father and the Lord
Jesus Christ (Rom. i. 7) ; whatever the apostle wishes for
himself in the prosecution of his calling, even in the out
ward conduct of his life, he asks from God the Father and
the Lord Jesus Christ (1 Thess. iii. 11).
It is altogether unnecessary in this connection anxiously
to emphasise the fact that God is the real author and Christ
the Mediator of the salvation for which we plead, since
Christ sitting at the right hand of the Father rules and
reigns with Him in the equality of power. But we stand in
need of a Mediator. The certainty that God will give us
all things that are necessary for our redemption we have
received only through Christ, as soon as we recognise in Him
the God-sent Mediator of redemption. But this is no theo
retical knowledge. In that picture of the historical activity
of the Redeemer we to-day yet vividly see before us how
God achieves our salvation through Him; for He who once
sent Christ has HimseK exalted Him to His right hand in
order to carry out His work through Him. It is accordingly
entirely an indifferent matter whether we direct our petitions
and our thanksgivings as far as their hearing is concerned to
God or to Christ, only that He who was and will continue
to be our brother (cf. John xx. 17) always will be humanely

THE EXALTATION OF JESUS 259
nearer us, to whom we accordingly address ourselves with
greater confidence of heart. But the New Testament gives
us a perfect right to ascribe what we secure through our
petitions as much to Christ as to God. Here the thought
that is expressed by Jesus in John x. 28-29, 36 applies exactly,
when He says that He and the Father are one. It is accord
ingly entirely unbiblical to want to separate between the
two and to reserve, perhaps, for the Father the participation
in the external conduct of life, but for Christ everything
that pertains to the development of our spiritual life, since
the whole government of the world by God has no other
purpose then to bring men to the goal found in the estab
lishment of redemption which the government by Christ as
a King is to effect. II God has set Christ at His right hand,
i. e., has given Him a part in His government of the world,
then the worship of Christ is no curtailment of God's
privileges. H all bend the knee before the exalted Christ,
this takes place for the glorification of God (Phil. ii. 11),
whose eternal council of redemption is thereby fulfilled (cf.
Phil. ii. 11; Eph. i. 6, 12, 14) according to which He wills
that the Son shall be honoured as is the Father (John v. 23).
For this remains a fact, that the redemptive work which
Christ is carrying out from His throne in heaven, is really
the work of God, just as He contemplated nothing else in
His earthly career in His entire ministry than the fulfil
ment of the counsel and the will of God. In this way these
passages find their explanation that have often caused dog
matical scruples, because they seem to deny that Christ is
on an equality with God. Paul says, that as we belong to
Christ, thus Christ belongs to God; and as Christ is the
head of the man, thus God is the head of Christ (1 Cor.
iii. 23; xi. 3). But that it was God who sent His Son into
the world; that it was God who placed Him at His right
hand in order to carry out and complete the work that had
been begun, this yet remains a fact even after He had given

260 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Him a share in the divine glory. The will of the eternal
Son of God was by its very nature the same as that of the
Father. In His career upon earth He had, however, as
sumed the form of a servant (Phil. ii. 7), as the Son of Man
at all times submitted to the will of God and wanted to do
nothing else. But even if He as the Son of Man has been
exalted, He nevertheless in His exaltation remains bound
by the counsel and the will of God, and it is God's work that
He is carrying out. God Himself has transplanted the
believers into the kingdom of His Son (Col. i. 12), and the
congregation that is established on earth through the work
of His Son is called His kingdom (Matt. xiii. 41). He shall
reign, until, according to the word of Ps. ex. 1, God has
made all the nations His footstool (1 Cor. xv. 25).
Here again it appears from another side how His activity
is perfectly identical with that of the Father. As Jesus in
His earthly career described all His success as given by God,
thus, too, the success of His rule as a King of Heaven,
through which He gains what can at all be gained and at
least robs of their power all those enemies who cannot be
gained and who would hinder Him in His rule (1 Cor. xv.
24), is represented as being given to Him by God. And yet
Phil. iii. 21, speaks of a use of power according to which
Christ makes all things subject to Himself. Paul has repre
sented it in this manner, that Christ, when this aim has
been gained, gives His rule over to God and thereby subjects
HimseK to Him, so that God could be all in all, i. e., that
the absolute rule of God could be inaugurated (1 Cor. xv.
24, 28). But this does not say anything but that the royal
rule of Christ, too, in the end must also serve the purposes
of the divine plan of redemption, that its consummation is
effected through His subjection to the same will of God,
that through Christ's exaltation could be begun and be car
ried out.
How highly significant from a religious point of view

THE EXALTATION OF JESUS 261
the recognition of this Mediatorship of Christ is, becomes
perfectly clear when it is considered from a different point
of view in the New Testament. It is by no means only the
Melchizedek type that causes the author of the Epistle to the
Hebrews constantly to unite the royal activity of Christ
with His work as a high priest. As Christ in the heavenly
Holy of Holies appears before the countenance of God, in
order there to secure the fruit of His atonement sacrifice,
the eternal salvation (Heb. ix. 12, 24) ; in this way the blood
of the Mediator of the New Testament covenant ever pleads
for us (xii. 24) ; Christ is Himself the eternal high priest
who intercedes for us before God (vii. 25; Rom. viii. 34),
the continual Mediator between God and man, because He
has given HimseK as a ransom for us (1 Tim. ii. 5) Accord
ing to John also, where Christ tells His disciples that they
no longer will need His petitions, when the immediate rela
tionship between them and the Father has been established
by Him (xvi. 26-27), the fact still remains, that Christ on
the basis of the atonement that He has achieved is our advo
cate with the Father (1 John ii. 1-2). In this fact only
it is said that all that the exalted Christ still does for the
completion of the work of redemption is done through the
sacrificial death of the man Jesus, and by the acceptance
of the same on the part of the Father. It is, however, of the
greatest significance that the consciousness of this continue
to be constant and vivid; for Christ cannot do the work in
us that He would unless we have Him in mind at all times
as the one who has given Himself up for us, so that we
henceforth may live for Him and serve Him alone. We are
to find in the highest revelation of God's love, who has ap
pointed Christ's death as the means for our redemption and
reconciliation, the constantly renewed impulse to permit
the new religious hfe to be realized in us, which He pur
poses to realise. But from the other side, it is also neces
sary, over against all the vacillations and weaknesses of our

262 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Christian life that His consciousness be strengthened so that
in consciousness of what Christ has gained for us through
His death, all these vacillations and weaknesses of our new
communion and life with Him be not disturbed nor de
stroyed. This is the significance of the eternal priesthood
of Christ.
4. The Activity of the Holy Ghost.— Jesus had
promised His twelve disciples that the Holy Spirit would be
their helper in their defense before the courts, by giving
to them the right word to speak (Matt. x. 19-20). But
according to John xiv. 15-19 it is God who will send
this help to the disciples at the petition of Jesus. In this
way in the completion of the revelation of redemption the
old promise of God is fulfilled, according to which God
would pour out His spirit upon all flesh (Joel iii. 1-2), some
thing that the Baptist already expected from the Messiah
(Matt. iii. 11) and which Peter declares fulfilled on the
festival of Pentecost (Acts ii. 16 sqq.). In accordance with
the predictions of the Old Testament, the New Testament
sees the fulfilment of this first of all in the restoration of
the gift of prophecy (Acts xix.), and of the seeing of visions
(Acts vii. 55), of speaking with tongues (Acts ii. 4; x. 46)
and of the power to perform miracles, which the Spirit gives
to those who proclaim the gospel, in order to give them
authority (Heb. vi. 4). On the basis of the promise of
Jesus (John xvi. 13) it is the spirit of prophecy (Apoc. xix.)
who speaks in the visions of revelation (Apoc. ii. 7, 11;
xiv. 13). But Paul sees already in the manifold gifts (1 Cor.
vii. 4), with which the individual members of a congregation
are endowed for the edification of the same manifestations
of the Spirit, who gives these gifts (1 Cor. xii. 1, 11), whether
these be miraculous developments of natural gifts or are of
an entirely supernatural character. At all events, they are gifts
that serve the purposes of the exalted Christ in the conduct
and growth of His congregation (1 Cor. xii. 5) and which

THE EXALTATION OF JESUS 263
are in reality the workings of God (1 Cor. xii. 6), because
He is at all times the author of our redemption and of all
the success through which the exalted Christ perfects this
redemption. For this reason the spirit imparted by Him is
called the Holy Spirit or the Spirit of God (cf. 1 Cor. xii. 3).
But the Old Testament prophecy itself makes the new
heart, which in the Messianic period God will give and which
will enable men to fulfil the commandments of God (Ezek.
xxxvi. 26-27), the work of the Spirit; and Jesus Himself
says, that without this spiritual power no new life can be
produced in the natural man (John iii. 5-6). This thought
has been particularly elaborated by Paul. No one can call
Christ the exalted Lord but through the Holy Spirit (1 Cor.
xii. 3), who first works in us the certainty of the salvation
secured in Him (Rom. v. 5) and awakens in us the child
like confidence with which we call God our Father (Rom. v.
18). The peace and the joy, which fills the believers in the
consciousness of their redemption through Christ, is His
work (Gal. v. 22; 1 Thess. i. 6). Above all it is He who in
the place of the letter of the law (2 Cor. iii. 6) teaches us
to know perfectly the will of God and enables us to fulfil it
(Rom. viii. 2, 4). For through Him we receive the inner
impulses for such a fulfilment (Rom. viii. 14; Gal. v. 18)
as is the case with love (Rom. xv. 30) ; thus all Christian
virtues are the fruits, i. e., the workings of the Spirit in us
(Gal. v. 22). But this does not mean that the Holy Spirit in
each case works in us the single sentiment or the single
determination of the will for our action; but from the con
stant influences of the Spirit a new spiritual life results, a
new Christian knowledge and character building, in which
this divine Spirit individualises Himself, so that Paul calls
Him his Spirit (Rom. i. 9; 1 Cor. v. 4; vii. 18). This ap
pears from the fact that Paul at times distinguishes the
objective spirit that works within us from His subjective
spiritual life (Rom. viii. 16, 26-27). The new spiritual life

264 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
also needs new power from above, constant influences from
the spirit of God who has produced it.
John, too, states that the entire knowledge of redemption
on the part of the believers is the product of the Spirit
(1 John ii. 20, 27). In Him the remembrance of the words of
Jesus is yet vivid, according to which the Spirit is to remind
them of all the things that He said, and beyond this to
lead them into all truth (John xiv. 26; xvi. 12-13), and they
thus will learn to know Jesus more perfectly in His divine
glory (John xvi. 14-15). Only through Him, who has taught
us to know Jesus as the revelation of God that has ap
peared in history (1 John iv. 3), do we know, that it is that
God, who in His nature is invisible, whom we see in Christ
and who thereby has entered into the most intimate per
sonal life communion with us (John iv. 12-13; cf. iii. 24).
This is not a onesided view, opposed to that of Paul, but
only the highest development of the latter, since this knowl
edge is for John the centre of the new Christian life, that
controls all activity. This only forms a parallel to what
Paul says, that in this same spirit, who is also the spirit of
Christ, Christ Himself dwells and works (Rom. viii. 9 sqq.).
Paul himself calls the exalted Christ, the Lord, the essence
of whom is Spirit (2 Cor. iii. 18) ; for which reason, he says,
in v. 17, that the Lord Himself is the Spirit, because, where
He is, His spirit is also and there works. The Spirit is not
only the means in His hands or an organ outside of Him,
through which He works, but is the Lord, who through His
resurrection and ascension has become a life producing spirit
(1 Cor. xv. 45; cf. 2 Cor. iii. 6), and HimseK works through
the power that proceeds from Him as the Mediator of sal
vation and the surety of their eternal redemption. In the
Spirit, which they have received from the Father and who
has been poured out upon them, the believers know that He
has been exalted to the Father (Acts ii. 33; v. 31-32).
5. The Essence of the Holy Ghost. — Peter states

THE EXALTATION OF JESUS 265
that the Holy Spirit is a gift that we receive (Acts ii. 38),
which conception is also implied in the statement that He is
poured out. This gift can be given in a measure (John
iii. 34) and be received by them (1 John iv. 13) ; He
comes from God (1 John iv. 1; 1 Cor. ii. 17), who is the
real giver of the Spirit (2 Cor. v. 5; 1 John iii. 24). He
is the oil with which the Christians are anointed for the
service of God (1 John ii. 20, 27). Jesus defines this gift
more closely as a power from on high (Luke xxiv. 49), by
which, according to Acts i. 8 the power of the Holy Ghost
is meant; and Paul in 1 Cor. ii. 5 calls it the power that
mamfests itseK by the effects that He produces (1 Cor. ii. 4;
cf. Rom. xv. 13, 19). Through this power, which proceeds
from His spirit, God HimseK makes His dwelling place in
the congregation, so that they are His temple (1 Cor. v. 16).
It is hard to understand how it was ever possible over
against these facts, to debate the question, whether the
Spirit in the New Testament is considered a personal spirit.
When purposely the sending of the Son is put on a parallel
with the sending of the Spirit (Gal. iv. 4, 6), then, too, the
giving of that power is declared to be as much a divine act
as is the other. Just in Luke xxiv. 49, where mention is
expressly made of a power from on high, we are told that
this power is sent by the Father because He had promised
it. Then, too, it is possible to speak of His coming, of His
teachings and reminding (Luke xvi. 8-9; xiii. 14, 24), as
when such teaching is ascribed to the oil of anointment
(1 John ii. 27). When in Rev. i. 4, grace and redemption
are ascribed to the seven spirits before the throne of God,
just as they are to God and Christ, the use of the plural
shows here, that the writer is thinking of the Spirit as He
is active in different persons. Only through a perfectly un-
hermeneutical pressure can passages that speak of a making
sad and deceiving of the Spirit (Acts v. 3-4; Eph. iv. 30)
be used to demonstrate that the Spirit is considered personal.

266 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
In doing this emphasis is laid chiefly on the final dis
courses found in John, where the Spirit under the name of
the Paraclete or Assistant is constantly designated as the
substitute of Christ, who is to come only after He Himself
is gone (John xiv. 16; 16, 7). In former centuries the
Oriental and Occidental Church split on account of the
question, whether the Spirit proceeds from the Father or
from the Father and the Son and in this connection they
thought of an inner process in the Trinity. But these
passages do not speak of this at all, but of the significance
of the fact of the sending of the Spirit for our redemption.
The fact that Christ sends him (John xvi.) from the Father
(John xv. 20) is expressly declared in xiv. 16, 26 to mean,
that the Father sends him at His request, just as in His
earthly career Jesus did merely what He asked of the Father
and what the Father did through Him. By this it is only said,
that the new stage in the development of salvation, which
begins with the bestowal of the Holy Ghost, is equally in
dependent and unique as was that which began with the
sending of the Son. It is true that the analogy thus given
is carried out to the extent that to the Spirit is also ascribed
a hearing, and a reception and a proclaiming as this is done
of Christ (John xvii. 13-14), but this does not go beyond
a personification, which intent is not a rhetorical form, but
is deeply founded on the idea of the uniqueness of the
activity of the work of the Spirit. It is merely the same
personification that is found when the distribution of the
gifts, which in so many words in Cor. xvii. 6, are ascribed
to God, are as xii. 11 declared to be the product of the will
of the Spirit, who, because God works through Him, nat
urally realises only the divine will. How little Paul in this
connection thinks of a personality of the Spirit, is seen
most clearly from 1 Cor. ii. 10 sqq., where on the analogy
of the human spirit (in the popular sense), that alone in its
consciousness knows the inner man, the manner is illustrated

THE EXALTATION OF JESUS 267
in which the divine spirit, who also searches the depths of
the God-head, when He is bestowed upon men, can alone
reveal His most secret counsels. And yet just here the
apostle speaks of the searching activity of the Spirit.
In the Trinitarian passages of the Scriptures (1 Pet. i. 2 ;
1 Cor. xii. 4 sqq.; Eph. iv. 4 sqq.; Tit. iii. 4 sqq.) it is
always the activity of the spirit sent by God, that is spoken
of, which is co-ordinate to the activity of the Son whom He
has sent, as is done in the baptismal confession (Matt, xxviii.
19). These passages are for this reason fundamental, in so
far as they show, that the sending of the Spirit is regarded
as the necessary close of the revelation of redemption in
Christ. The most important of these passages, 2 Cor. xiii. 13,
shows, that the writer does not here think of " personality "
of the Spirit, since here mention is not made of a com
munion of the Spirit, but in accordance with a fixed form
of expression (cf . Phil. ii. 1 ; 1 Cor. x. 16) of a taking part
in the Holy Spirit, who works in us all that is needed for
the salvation that the grace of Christ has prepared for us and
the love of God has promised. And the so-called "trinity
of revelation," according to which the revelation of the
redemption of God in Christ, is only completed through
the Spirit, the Scriptures do not teach. This alone is in
harmony with the purposes of revelation, which establishes
true religious life; for this can not be done by a knowledge
of the relationship that is thought to exist between the three
persons in the God-head, which can be understood only by
the few, but only through this, that the wonderful power
with which the revelation of redemption in Christ takes
hold of us and works something new in us, is recognized as
the Spirit from the living God Himself, who manifests Him
seK to us in this power. It is, however, manifest that this
power can become active in us only when we secure knowl
edge of this revelation of redemption in the words of the
message of salvation.

CHAPTER XIV
WORD AND SACRAMENT
1. The Word as Means of Grace.— While He was
upon earth Jesus accomplished everything that He worked in
His disciples by communicating to them the word of God
(John xvii. 14), i. e., by bringing the message, that in Him
the highest revelation of God has appeared, which was to
bring to the people the promised redemption. This word was
the seed by the sowing of which the Kingdom of God was es
tablished (Luke viii. 11). It was only necessary for the dis
ciples to keep this word (John xvii. 6) ; that this word
should remain in them (John xv. 7) and develop (John viii.
37) ; and that they should remain in it (John viii. 31), i. e.,
should ever anew penetrate into it and in this way experi
ence its effects. This effect could consist only in this, that
they learned to recognise in Him the one who had been
sent for their redemption and to believe in Him (John xvii.
8). Then they would know that God Himself had come to
them in Him and that He loved them with a Father's love
(John xvi. 27-28). But this highest revelation of God's love
must of itself work a new life in them, by which they be
came His real children, i. e., became similar to Him (Matt.
v. 45) and in that way fulfilled the will of God, as He at all
times fulfils it. In this sense we are told in John viii. 31-32,
that the truth that is known from His word, which consisted
in that highest revelation of God's love, will deliver them
from the servitude of sin; that His disciples are clean on
account of the word that He has spoken to them, because
it delivers them from their old sinful being (John xv. 2).
268

WORD AND SACRAMENT 269
In this way His word, or the word of God, which He pro
claimed, was the specific means of grace, through which He
worked in the disciples what He had come to work, namely,
the realisation of the religico-ethical ideal, and in this way
established the Kingdom of God.
And when Jesus was taken from this earth and had been
exalted to heaven, it was necessary that the permanent work
ing of this means of grace should be secured. For this
purpose Jesus during His earthly career, selected His twelve
disciples, who through their constant associations with Him,
were prepared to be sent out (Mark iii. 14) with the message
of redemption, which He had preached (Luke x. 9), to bear
testimony of Him, in whose company they had been from
the beginning (John xv. 27), and whose resurrection and
ascension had finished His redemptive work (Acts ii. 32-33).
The Apostle Paul, too, who was called after Christ's earthly
career was closed, had been sent for the same purpose by the
exalted Christ, to declare His joyful message (1 Cor. i. 17).
The word which at one time God had sent to His people
through Jesus with the glad news of redemption, as Peter
had on occasions been commissioned to proclaim it to the
Gentiles (Acts x. 38 ; cf . xv. 7), was through Paul sent par
ticularly to the Gentiles (Acts xxviii. 20). The proclama
tion of the word was thereby by no means to be confined to
the regular apostles, but the preaching was by the fact of
the apostles' call, to be fixed. For through them God
works in the Gentiles a change of heart (Acts xi. 18) with
which the life of redempticn begins, as He has worked this
in Israel (Acts v. 31).
This word, which in character and effect is in every par
ticular placed on an equality with the word of the Old
Testament (1 Pet. i. 25; Rom. x. 8), is like the latter (cf.
Heb. iv. 17), a living word, i. e., effective. Like an incor
ruptible seed it produces and sustains a new life (1 Pet.
i. 23), because it announces Christ as the true sustenance

270 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
of life (cf. Job vi. 35), so that in this way we can gain
salvation (1 Pet. ii. 2-3). Through this word of truth Chris
tians have become what they are, as it were, are begotten
again (James i. 18). The will of God as proclaimed by
Christ is thereby, in accordance with the promise of Jer.
xxxi. 33, written in their hearts, and for this reason this
implanted word can save their souls (James i. 21). In John,
too, this word is the seed, which, if it abides in man (cf.
John xv. 7) begets a new sinless life in God (1 John iii. 9)
and works the sujugation of all evil (1 John ii. 14). In the
Apocalypse the believers receive the testimonial of Jesus
that which He as the faithful witness (i. 5) gives during
His lifetime (John viii. 37), as a permanent possession, so
so that they thereby are strengthened in their fidelity in
faith and willing for His sake even to suffer martyrdom
(Rev. vi. 9). In Heb. vi. 5 that beautiful word of God
which the believers have tasted is declared to be that
which (cf. v. 12; xiii. 7) has made the Christians to be
what they are; and it is doubtlessly regarded as an effect
of this word, when, on the basis of the prophecy of Jeremiah,
the word is said to be written in their hearts (viii. 10; x. 16).
Paul calls the gospel as the apostles proclaim it the power
of God (Rom. i. 16), in so far as it brings about faith in
the message of salvation, or the call through which this faith
is produced and the believer is brought into the congrega
tion (1 Thess. ii. 14), in which he participates in all of the
blessings of redemption (Eph. iii. 6). Through this gospel
Paul begat those who had been converted through him as
his children (1 Cor. iv. 15). His word, which the Thes
salonians had with all reason accepted as the word of God,
continues to work in them by constantly strengthening
them in their faith (1 Thess. ii. 13). Accordingly then the
apostolic word is also the word of God, which as the specific
means of grace works all things that are necessary for sal
vation.

WORD AND SACRAMENT 271
2. Word and Spirit. — This result is produced by the
word of God in the first place by reason of its contents,
just as the word that Jesus preached exercised its
influence through the message of joy that it brought.
These contents will be different in the case of the regular
preachers of the word according to their different conceptions
of the revelation of redemption in Christ. The first
apostles thought chiefly of the near return of the Lord
and the establishment of His kingdom, the fulfilment of
which naturally brings with it the fulfilment of the will
of God as revealed in His word and preaching, for which He
will come to demand an account. In addition, they pro
claimed patience in this hope, without which it is impossible
to secure that perfect redemption that He brings with Him.
These are the thoughts particularly of the Epistles of James
and to the Hebrews. In 2 Pet. i. 4; iii. 14, also the prom
ises given to us by Christ are described as furnishing the
strong impetus for the development of Christian virtues.
But already in the first Epistle of Peter, it is the powerful
example of Christ that the word brings to us (ii. 21; iii. 18),
the message of the saving power of His atoning death (i.
18-19; ii. 24), the announcement of His resurrection pro
ductive of a vivid hope (i. 3), which makes the word a
means of grace. In the case of Paul, for whom the gospel
is the word of the cross and of the salvation that was
thereby secured, this word does its work essentially through
the message of grace that it brings. With a "for" the
apostle goes from the presentation of this message of re
demption to the admonitions, the fulfilment of which the
evidence of God's grace contained in this' message must
necessarily bring about (Rom. xii. 1). The love shown by
Christ in His death had the purpose of renewing our whole
Hfe (2 Cor. v. 15 ; cf . Rom. xiv. 9) ; again the common Lord
and the name worshipped in common (Rom. xiii. 31; 1 Cor.
i. 30), are the motives for the exhortation, and the contest

272 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
against fornication is directly based on the experience of
salvation as the foundation of our Christianity (1 Cor. vi.
17; xix. 20). Especially in John, for whom the entire gospel
is contained in this, that in Jesus God has mamfested His
innermost essence, so that now all is light, i. e., has become
perfectly clear so that nothing is any more unknown (1 John
i. 5), it is regarded as necessary, as we shall see, that our
perfect communion with God must of itself become a power
ful beginning of a new life.
When the messengers, who had been sent out to proclaim
this message, were equipped by God for this purpose, then
this Spirit could not work in a different way from that seen
in all to whom He had been promised, namely that He
would guide them into all truth (John xvi. 13), i. e., would
enable them to understand perfectly the revelation of re
demption in Christ and teach them to proclaim it aright
(1 Cor. ii. 12-13). As He would remind them of all that
Jesus had said, He also furnishes them the surety that noth
ing was lacking to insure the success of their preaching.
On the other hand, the message of redemption, in order that
it should attain its ends solely through its God-given con
tents, dares not through the admixture of human wisdom
and oratorical art be emptied of its real power of persuasion
(1 Cor. i. 1-2; ii. 11). It is not to be the words of human
persuasion (Gal. v. 8), but is to work through the God-
given power within it, so that faith can rest unshaken upon
such a power and not be overthrown by any human wisdom
(1 Cor. ii. 5). But because the Spirit only teaches us to
proclaim the gospel in this way, therefore every success that
the apostle attains through his preaching is a divinely
given gift of grace (Rom. i. 11) ; the congregation that he
establishes is a letter of Christ, written by the Spirit upon
the hearts of men, is the writing of which he did a helper's
service through the preaching of the gospel (2 Cor. iii. 3).
But in the congregation thus established, upon which the

WORD AND SACRAMENT 273
spirit has been poured out, the word of Christ is yet pro
claimed richly by believers filled with the Spirit (Col. iii.
16) ; and then the sword of the Spirit is at all times the
word of God (Eph. vi. 17), as it is the Spirit that gives to
the believers this word in order to establish it and to confirm
it in others. For whenever through the working of the
Holy Ghost an independent understanding of the divine
revelation of redemption has been matured, and this has pro
duced the new religious life, there streams of living water
flow for such a man (John iii. 38-39) ; and his proclama
tion of the truth of salvation, coming from a heart filled
with the Spirit, is again a word of God, that passes over to
others. This appears particularly in mission preaching.
The world cannot receive the Spirit (John xiv. 27), and the
Holy Spirit cannot influence them immediately. The im
portant office of convincing the world of sin and thus bring
ing it to faith (John xvi. 8-11) can be filled only by the
Spirit, in so far as He speaks through the spiritually power
ful members of the congregation, since the apostolic preach
ing could naturally reach only a small part of the world
and yet the gospel was to be preached to all the nations
(Mark xiii. 10).
But it is also possible that a spirit which is not of God
can find his way into the congregation, and from fear of
this the mamfestation of a higher spirit in the congrega
tion could be regarded with suspicion. Therefore, Paul felt
it necessary to warn against quenching the spirit, not to
despise prophesying but to prove all things (1 Thess. v. 19
sqq.). John expressly urges to search the spirits, if they
are of God, and tells us that the measure for this is the
sum of apostolic proclamation and the willingness to hear
it (1 John iv. 1-6). In so far it is necessary to try words
of the Spirit at all times by the testimony of eye-witnesses,
which Jesus expressly puts side by side with that of the
Spirit (John xv. 27). John also in his discussion of the
R

274 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
manner in which the fulfilment of the commandments of
faith and of love originate (1 John iii. 23) proceeds from
what the Spirit works in us (1 John iii. 24; iv. 13), and
then passes over to the testimony of the eye-witnesses
(1 John iv. 14-15), which he, in v. 6-8, puts by the side of
the testimony of the Spirit and over against erroneous
teachings. To-day yet, when we possess the testimony of
the eye-witnesses only in the New Testament, this must con
stitute for us the norm for judgment of everything that
claims to be in doctrine or life the product of the Christian
spirit. 3. Baptism. — The rite of immersion, which as an sym
bolical act that was performed but a single time was
specifically differentiated from the Jewish washings, as the
believers from among the Jews were taught in their ele
mentary training, was originally introduced by John the
Baptist to represent and to seal the change of heart that
was brought about by his preaching of repentance. When
in Mark i. 4 the purpose of this rite is stated to be the for
giveness of sins, we find here already a transferring of the
effect of the Christian baptism upon the baptism of John,
since the Baptist himself describes it in Matt. iii. 11 as an
obligation of proving the change of heart that was sym
bolised by the rite and expressly reserves for the Messianic
baptism the bestowal of the spiritual gifts necessary for this.
When Christ sends out His disciples to baptise in Judaea
(John iv. 2 ; cf . iii. 22) this is to be regarded simply as a con
tinuation of the baptism of John into repentance. A direct
command for the performance of this rite was not given
by Christ during His earthly career. Matt, xxviii. 18-19
undeniably expresses the consciousness that it was only the
Christ who had been exalted to a participation in the divine
government of the world, who had made known to His dis
ciples the command to receive into discipleship all the
world. On the basis of the promise given him (Matt. xvi.

WORD AND SACRAMENT 275
18), Peter for the first time recognised this command of
his Lord on the day of Pentecost and by the application of
this rite separated those who believed in the Messiah from
the people at large and organised them into a congregation
of believers in the Messiah (Acts ii. 38).
Here, too, the purpose is still primarily to show that this
baptism took place in consequence of the change of heart,
but on the basis of the name of Jesus (cf. x. 18), i. e., on
this that Jesus was designated as the Exalted Lord (viii.
16), for which reason, according to Heb. x. 26-27, for all
times the confession of Him as the one who fulfilled the
promise of God is connected with baptism. Paul from the
very beginning introduced this entrance rite into his con
gregation, without, as he expressly states, having received
a special command to do this (1 Cor. i. 17), and that,
as appears from 1 Cor. i. 13, 15, as a baptism in the name
of Christ. In Matt, xxviii. 19 also there is no hint of any
change in the original baptismal rite; but here this con
fession is explained to mean that in it the name of God is
recognised as that of the Father who has sent His Son and
has bestowed the Holy Spirit for the carrying out of His
plan of redemption. In so far as baptism was administered
when the Christians connected themselves with the congre
gation, it naturally constitutes the medium for the partici
pation in the salvation that Christ has brought and thereby
the deliverance from the destruction to which the world
had fallen a prey (Acts. ii. 40; 1 Pet. iii. 21; Tit. iii. 5).
But this salvation is given to us through the forgiveness
of sin that Christ has won for us through His death, for
which reason, according to Acts ii. 38, the attainment of
this is primarily the object of baptism. Then it was nat
ural to find in the symbolism of this rite, that it aims at
the washing away of the uncleanness that adheres to the
flesh and the cleansing of the conscience from the pollution
of guilt, which is prayed for and secured in baptism (1 Pet.

276 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
iii. 21). In 1 Pet. i. 2, the sprinkling with the atoning
blood of Christ is connected with baptism (cf. also Heb.
x. 22). Here the fact is expressed that for the members
of the apostolic congregation, the sin that has been done
away with in the atoning blood of Christ, is no hindrance
any longer for the consummation of a covenant with God.
Then according to 1 John i. 7, the congregation of those
who walk in the light, which is a communion with the
Father and the Son (v. 3), brings too the cleansing from
the pollution of sin through the blood of Jesus. In Paul
is still found an echo of this the oldest conception of the
symbolism of baptism, when he calls baptism the washing
away of sins (Acts xvii. 16), the cleansing through the
washing by the word (Eph. v. 26), which here seems even to
be based on the word of Christ's promise, as the state of being
washed (1 Cor. vi. 11).
But now Peter connects with baptism also the prom
ise of the bestowal of the Spirit (Acts. ii. 38), for which
reason, evidently in harmony with old Christian usage of
language, it is also called the consecration to God effected
through the Spirit (1 Pet. i. 2; ii. Thess. ii. 13), and John
describes the Spirit as the anointing oil necessary for this
(1 John ii. 20, 27). In Heb. vi. 2, also the laying on of
hands is also connected with baptism, which naturally is
only the symbolical representation of the transition of the
prayed for gifts of the Spirit upon the one who is baptized
(Acts viii. 16). In 1 Cor. xii. 13 Paul directly calls bap
tism the baptism of the Holy Ghost in which the candidate
is filled with the Holy Ghost. And since Paul regards the
Spirit as the principle of the entire Christian life, he could
again return to the original symbolism in baptism, accord
ing to which baptism points to the drowning of the entire
old being and the coming forth of a new being, and sees in
it the death of the old man (Rom. viii. 2), a washing of
regeneration through the Holy Ghost (Tit. iii. 5).

WORD AND SACRAMENT 277
Through this, according to him, the believer is also trans
ferred into the living communion with Christ, in that Paul,
grasping the sense of baptism more deeply, sees in it a
being immersed into Christ (Rom. iv. 3) and even a put
ting on of Christ (Gal. iii. 27). In consequence of this
the Christian in baptism figuratively goes through the two
stages of the life of his Savior (Rom. vi. 5) ; he dies with
Him according to the old being (Rom. vi. 6; Col. ii. 20)
and arises with Him to a new life (Eph. ii. 5, 6; Col. ii.
12-13; cf. Rom. vi. 8). The fact that with the act of bap
tism the bestowal of the Holy Ghost as the second of the
specific gifts of the congregation is connected, becomes all
the more certain for the congregation, because the presence
of the Spirit was made evident in the miraculous gifts that
appeared in connection with baptism (Acts. xix. 5-6).
Now it is of course certain that the forgiveness of sin
is received by every penitent and believing man as such
(Acts ii. 19; v. 31; x. 43; cf. Rom. iii. 25), and the same
is true of the gifts of the Holy Ghost (Gal. iii. 5, 14;
Eph. i. 13). The congregation of the first Pentecost re
ceived the Holy Ghost without baptism (Acts ii. 4), and
the same is true of the first Christians among the Gen
tiles, to the baptism of whom Peter was brought by this
very fact (Acts x. 44, 48). The case even occurs that the
signs of the bestowal of the Spirit do not immediately
follow baptism (Acts viii. 12, 16). It is accordingly not
said that God limits the bestowal of these two gifts to the
application of the rite of baptism. But in so far as the
determination to be baptized presupposes faith in Jesus as
the Mediator of redemption, the reception of these two
gifts could in an ordinary way be connected with the per
formance of the baptismal rite. And as the rite of im
mersion as such undoubtedly had a symbolical signification,
whether it was referred to the washing away of the pollu
tion of guilt or to the renewal through the death of the

278 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
old man and the birth of the new in the communion of
life with Christ through the Spirit, in each case baptism
could have only the one significance, to seal as a pledge
the reception of these two gifts of salvation, as it sealed
in John's baptism the change of heart, the determination
of the baptized persons. In this way Paul understood the
meaning of baptism, in saying that baptism meant being
buried with Christ (Rom. vi. 4). For as being buried
confirms as a finality the fact that a person is dead (1 Cor.
xv. 4), thus baptism confirms the reception of these two
gifts of grace and thereby makes the believer certain of
their possession amid all doubts and uncertainties. This
becomes perfectly clear only by the fact that Paul sees in
being buried the New Testament antetype of the Old Tes
tament circumcision (Col. ii. 11). Typology is to be found
not in this, that the laying aside of the carnal life in the
death of the old man is compared with the doing away of
the unclean foreskin, but in this, that circumcision was the
sign of the covenant of grace between God and Israel
(Rom. iv. 11) and that in the same way the reception into
the new covenant and the participation in its possession of
redemption was sealed and pledged in baptism.
4. The Lord's Supper. — In the Christian congregation
from the beginning the rite of the breaking of bread was
celebrated in connection with the common love feast (Acts
ii. 42) and was connected with the consecration of the cup
(1 Cor. x. 16). It was called the Lord's Supper (1 Cor. xi.
20), because it was held after the manner of the sacred aet
which Jesus performed on the night in which He was be
trayed and in connection with His parting meal with the
disciples. The original apostolic tradition (Mark xiv. 22
sqq.) in this connection makes as little mention of a direct
order to repeat the rite from the life of Christ as it does
in connection with baptism, it was the immediate impres
sion which the disciples had received of that act of Christ,

WORD AND SACRAMENT 279
that caused it to be made a regularly repeated rite. On the
other hand Paul, who of course knew of the details of that
act of Christ from the reports of the disciples, had received
a revelation in reference to the purpose and the significance
of the rite (1 Cor. xi. 23), which contained the express
command to repeat the breaking of the bread and the con
secration of the cup in conjunction with the repetition of
words spoken by Christ as an interpretation of that act
(1 Cor. xi. 24-25). That this act of Christ was symbolical
is clear from the fact that in this supper He bases His words
on the significant customs of the Passover and the usual
manner of their interpretation. But from this very fact
it follows, that He did not purpose to compare the bread
with His body or the wine with His blood. As He broke
the bread at the close of the Paschal feast in order to distrib
ute it, thus His body is to be broken by a violent death, so
that each one can receive a part of it. Whether Jesus in
this connection spoke of a taking and an eating is a matter
on which the evangelists do not report alike; whether He
expressly designated His body, as is reported by Paul, as
being given for our salvation, is naturally in itseK a mat
ter of indifference, since both was contained in the sym
bolism of the act. His death was not to be looked upon
as a dark destiny, but as a means through which God
prepares His gift of redemption for the believers, for which
reason Jesus also spoke words of thanksgiving over the
bread. As He gave them the bread not to look .at or to
contemplate, but to eat, thus they should receive His body
given into death, in order personally to appropriate the
redemption thereby given.
What redemption is here meant is seen in perfect clear
ness from the second part of the rite, which immediately
follows at the close of the eating of the Passover (1 Cor. xi.
25). As He gives the cup, which He had also consecrated
with thanksgiving, to all of them to drink, Jesus declares

280 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
that the drinking in common from this cup is a symbol of
their common participation in the new covenant. But as it
was possible to drink from the cup if it was filled with
(red) wine, thus too they could participate in this cove
nant only on the basis of His blood that had been shed
through a violent death, that cleansed them from all pollu
tion of guilt and thus made possible their communion with
God. The more original and certainly older forms of the
tradition of the words as given by Paul, say nothing really
of a comparison of the wine with the blood, and it is only
Mark xiv. 24 that does this, and thereby the reference to Ex.
xxiv. 8 is made all the clearer. Whether Jesus designates
the covenant as a new one, is naturally in itself a matter
of indifference, since it certainly was such for the adherents
of the old covenant to whom He is speaking. It is im
possible that the disciples should have thought that the
words of Jesus referred to a glorified body or even to a
glorified blood (which in itself is an idea which according
to 1 Cor. xv. 50 would be self-contradictory), since Jesus
at the time was yet in His body in their midst. Just as
little could they think of receiving His body and His blood
given for them into death, since His body had not yet been
given for them into death and his blood had not yet been
shed. They could accordingly have looked upon the words
only as symbolical and prophetical, representing figur
atively what was to take place after His impending death.
Then each one of them was to have a part in Jesus through
the body given unto death, just as He now was giving to
each one bread to eat; then the common cup was to be to
them a picture of the covenant into which they entered
through His blood.
Now we can also understand why there was no need of a
command to repeat this rite for the participants in His last
supper, as this repetition could have a real meaning only
after His death. It is not the purpose of a symbolical act

WORD AND SACRAMENT 281
only to give a picture of a thing. Its purpose is, whether
its object is to picture an event in the past (as in the case
of John's baptism) or an event in the future (cf. e. g. Acts
xxi. 11), not only to recall these things but to emphasise
and to seal the obligations and the promises that these
events bring with them. Since now in the symbolical
action of Jesus the eating of the bread and the drinking
of the cup, as He established these, is the real centre, but
the event, to which He refers in His words of institution
could occur only after His death, it lies in the nature of
the case that this eating and drinking must be repeated
after His death, K that to which Christ refers is really to
be enjoyed, namely the receiving of the body and the par
ticipation in the new covenant on the basis of His blood
and the being confirmed in this again and again through
this symbohcal action.
That in the primitive church, on the basis of apostolic
tradition, this subject was thus regarded is perfectly clear
from 1 Cor. x. 16. It is not Paul's purpose here to give
an exposition of the doctrine of the Lord's Supper; but in
proof of this that a heathen sacrificial feast transfers the
participants into a real and sinful communion with the
demons (x. 20), he appeals to the analogy of the Christian
Lord's Supper and its well known effects. Of course he
does not say that this produces a communion with the liv
ing and present Christ, which thought would naturally be
first suggested by this analogy, since this communion ac
cording to His teaching is brought about by the bestowal
of the Holy Spirit and thereby the symbolism of the eating
and the drinking, as also the words of interpretation spoken
by Jesus, would be emptied of their contents. He rather
calls to mind, that though the partaking of the consecrated
cup in His Supper we receive a share in the blood of Christ,
and through the eating of the bread broken we participate
in the body of Christ, and that in this way the redemptive

282 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
appropriation of His death is effected. In what real sense
Paul understands this matter is seen from x. 17, where he
draws attention to the fact, that the bread, for the very
reason that it transfers us into the communion with the
body of Christ, unites the congregation into an organic
unity, which ordinary bread could not accomplish, but
only that bread that is the means for common participa
tion in a centre that is vital to an entire organism.
Only on this ground can the statements made concerning
the unworthy partaking of the Lord's Supper be explained.
It had occurred in Corinth that gluttony had been practised
in connection with the love feasts and that the Corinthians
had thereby made themselves incapacitated to receive the
Lord's Supper in the proper religious spirit, in which act,
Paul sees despising of the rite on the part of the congre
gation of God, who had met for a religious celebration and
who were treated like guests at a common feast (xi. 21-22).
He does not say that they had sinned in reference to the
bread and the wine as sacred symbols, because they had
not distinguished between the Lord's Supper and the com
mon food, but that they were guilty of the body and the
blood of the Lord, because they did not judge the body
which they had received, i. e., did not esteem properly its
blesed significance (xi. 27, 29). Not by the religious mis
interpretation and denial of the significance of eating and
drinking, but only when they had sinned in reference to
the gift that had been received, simply from the fact that
they received it with unconsecrated mind, could this eating
and drinking turn out to be a judgment for them of God
(xi. 29). But what the blessing was which they received
from this same eating and drinking, of this there could be
no doubt, as indicated by the symbolical meaning, as inter
preted by Jesus and ever accepted by the congregation.
If God had assigned to the death of Christ its importance
for the work of redemption, because this death must work

WORD AND SACRAMENT 283
in those who looked upon Him as the highest revelation of
the grace of God which it was God's purpose to bring
about through the death of His Son, then there was a
constant need of new strength for this faith, if men would
participate in the fruits of the death of Christ. But as
the symbohcal action of the congregation in the Lord's
Supper sealed and strengthened this anew, that they
through this eating and drinking achieved a strong par
ticipation in the body that had been given unto death for
them and in the blood that had been shed for them, then
the faith in the redemptive importance of this death would
thereby necessarily be strengthened anew and make this
faith all the more potent for their religious life.
5. The Two Sacraments. — Paul describes the deliver
ance of Israel and the passage of the Red Sea and their
wonderful preservation in the desert as a type of the ex
perience of grace which all Christians make. In the
former he sees, as is evident from his description, an
analogy of baptism; in the latter, of the Lord's Supper;
and in this way he classifies the two as unique mediums
of special exhibitions of grace, i. e., as means of grace.
As the passage of the Red Sea for the first time enabled
the children of Israel to make the covenant with God at
Sinai, by which they became certain of all of the prom
ised blessings of their God (1 Cor. x. 1-2) ; thus there stands
at the portals of Christianity the rite of baptism, which
seals for the believer his entrance into the new covenant
and certifies to him the possession of all of the redemptive
blessings that this covenant conveys. It is a matter of no
doubt that in the New Testament times only adults were
baptized, as all the statements made concerning baptism
presupposed that this rite was administered to adults. On
the other hand, the very passage that proves this in the most
undoubted manner shows at the same time that after
Christianity had gained firm roots in the family life, the

284 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
baptism of children had to become a common practice. If
according to 1 Cor. vii. 14 the children of Christian
parents, by virtue of the divinely established family cove
nant, in which they are born, are consecrated to God, i e.,
are intended for reception into the new covenant, in which
the full sonship of God is realised, then there is nothing
forbids men to apply to them also that rite, which seals
this reception, and thus from the very outset to assure to
them those redemptive possessions which this covenant
bestows. Naturally the statements found in the New Testament
on the subject of baptism can be applied only mutatis
mutandis to the baptism of children. But the faith which
conditions the real acceptance of the promised blessings of
baptism is, according to the New Testament teachings, a
gift of God, which He brings about through His word.
Although the Church by the arrangement of the sponsor
institute sought to make the Christian education of the
children an assured thing, through which the word would
be taught them at an early age, the generation of faith
nevertheless depended solely on the influence of the word.
But that children, too, can be the recipients of spiritual
blessings is taught by Jesus Himself (Mark x. 6). It was
in perfect harmony with the deepest conviction of the reli
gion of the New Testament, according to which salvation
can be earned or secured by no human works, that the
believer in his later life should be perfectly certain of
this, that at a time when he was not able to perform any
act of the kind, his reception into the new covenant and
participation in its blessings had already been sealed.
This importance of baptism could not be changed either
when the Church substituted in the application of the rite
sprinkling instead of immersion, or when the original
baptismal formula was enlarged into a fuller confession
as found in Matt, xxviii. 19. And then when the effect

WORD AND SACRAMENT 285
of the rite was made dependent in any way on the faith
of the one who was batized or his parents, or even on
faith in the child itself, or when by a repetition of the
act or by confirmation the attempt was made to render
the advantages of baptism safe, these things were a com
plete misconception of the sacramental significance of the
act. Baptism if performed in the case of children in con
formity with the counsel and the will of God, was intended
to make the adult, amid all the dangers of sin, sure that God
had intended him for redemption and would surely lead
him to redemption, as soon as he would seize this salvation
by faith and permit the grace of God to work in him.
The same is true of development in regard to the Lord's
Supper, as soon as this had been established as an
independent part of the cultus. Paul saw in it an analogy
of the preservation and support of Israel in the desert,
by interpreting manna as a spiritually produced food
and the water from the rock as a spiritually produced
drink (1 Cor. x. 3-4). He no doubt means that this sus
tained not only the bodily life of Israel, but at the same
time added strength to their faith in the providential care
of God. He regarded the production of such strength as
the specific effect of the Lord's Supper, which by sealing
sacramentally the certainty of a participation in the body
and the blood of Christ, i. e., in the salvation achieved
through His death produces such renewed strength. Cer
tainly the Church acted in harmony with the apostle
when it sought to satisfy his demand for self-examination
before partaking of the Supper by the establishment of the
confessional service (1 Cor. xi. 28), as far as such a thing
can be done by a human arrangement. But when the
effort is made to make these effects of the Lord's Supper
dependent on the faith of the one who celebrates it or of
the one who receives it, as this is often done, and when thus
instead of inviting to the Supper men are frightened away

286 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
by an arbitrarily constructed religico-ethical "worthiness"
and they deny themselves these blessings, then this must
be regarded as based upon a perversion of its sacramental
significance, as such perversion is also often applied in the
case of baptism.
The Lord's Supper gives its blessings unconditionally.
It effects the participation in the body and the blood of
Christ, which is promised upon the condition of eating and
drinking. Whether this will become a curse or a blessing
to the recipient, depends, as is the case with all divine
gifts, upon the way in which the recipient receives and
makes use of this gift. The reception of the preaching of
the word of God also, or of baptism is not without signifi
cance for him who despises and rejects these blessings, but
they become for him a judgment of condemnation (cf. John
xii. 48), as Paul states in reference to the unworthy use of
the Lord's Supper. How little, however, those of the Lord's
Supper presupposes an especially developed faith in the
redemptive significance of Christ's death, is clear from the
fact, that its very purpose is to strengthen this faith. The
same is true with reference to the demand of a special
worthiness for its reception. For the very reason that
experience shows how easily faith is shaken through weak
ness and unworthiness, it is the purpose of the Lord's
Supper to give the assurance, that the man who is anxious
for redemption can always take part in the salvation
achieved through the death of Christ. Only by the meas
ure of the desire for redemption can the worthiness for the
reception of it be guaged.
If, however, through baptism the participation in the
blessings of Christ's redemption and through the Lord's
Supper the undisturbed possession of the same are made
certain, then it is clear that there can be no other sacra
ments besides these. As all of the revelations of God are
revelation of acts, thus He in the establishment of these sac-

WORD AND SACRAMENT 287
raments gives the conclusion of the revelation of redemption
that was begun with the sending of Christ into His atoning
death and was continued by His exaltation and the sending
of the Holy Ghost. We weak human beings, bound by the
Hmitations of our sense experiences must have some visible
signs and seals of the fact that we have part in the salva
tion that has been won through Christ, as baptism, which
is applied but once and can never be recalled, seals our
entrance into the covenant of grace, thus the Lord's. Supper
makes us certain of this, that the continuing in the cove
nant of grace even amid repeated sins, can not be abro
gated, if we return again seeking salvation. With this the
circle of divine arrangements for salvation, through which
salvation of Christ is to be imparted to us, is completed.

PART THREE
THE REALIZATION OF REDEMPTION

PART III
THE REALIZATION OF REDEMPTION

CHAPTER XV,
ELECTION AND CALL
1. The Election. — When God selects Israel as His
own peculiar people, He in Deut. vii. 6 sqq. empha
sizes the fact that this is done out of pure love on account
of the oath which He had sworn to their fathers,
and not for the sake of any merit of the people or on account
of their righteousness. The subject here is the historical
act of appointing Israel to be the bearers of the preparatory
revelation of redemption and of all the blessings connected
therewith. This appointment could not be recalled (Rom.
iii. 5; xi. 28). No apostasy and no hardening of heart on
the part of the people could prevent the carrying out of
this appointment. God knew the people before He selected
them (Rom. xi. 2) and accordingly knew that it was a
rebellious and disobedient people (Rom. x. 21, according to
Is. Ixv. 2; cf. Deut. ix. 6), and could not reject them now
when they showed themselves as such. But from the selec
tion of Israel to be His people (Is. xiv. 4) it by no means
follows, that all the bodily descendants of the Patriarchs
were to take part in that redemption that God was prepar
ing in this people and through this people for the world.
Paul has expressly shown that, as the times of the Patriarchs
291

292 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
teach, God had decided to select from among the sons
of the Patriarchs those who were to be the bearers of His
redemptive plan and its blessings (Rom. ix. 6-13). Accord
ing to all of the prophets, the time of redemption is pre
ceded by a great judgment of God, through which all those
members of the nation who are unworthy are to be re
jected. This divine judgment it is that the last of the
prophets predicts (Matt. iii. 10), in order to arouse the
people to prepare through a change of heart for the advent
of redemption (Matt. iii. 8). And when God's counsel of
redemption was being fulfilled and the Redeemer of Israel
appeared, whose earthly career was destined for Israel alone
(Matt. xv. 24), He expressly declares the redemptive will
of God, according to which there are only distinct classes
among the people to whom He would make clear the saving
revelation (Matt. xi. 25 sqq.). The company of the twelve,
to whom the last discourses of the Saviour are addressed,
represents not only those who are selected for a specific pur
pose (Matt. vi. 70) but also the whole circle of disciples
whom Jesus has selected from the unbelieving world (Matt.
xv. 19). In reference to these Jesus says directly, that
God had determined to give the kingdom not to the nation
as a whole but to this small fold of His disciples.
In the preaching of the apostles also it is not the people
of Israel as a nation, but the congregation of the believers
out of Israel that is the chosen generation, the holy nation
the people of God's possession (1 Pet. ii. 9; v. 13). All un
believers are henceforth to be excluded from the chosen
people (Acts iii. 23; 1 Pet. ii. 7-8). But this is not to
be understood as if the others had been elected on ac
count of their faith; but that they have been chosen
in order to become rich on the ground of their faith in the
possession of a present and a future redemption (James ii.
5). It is indeed true that in conformity with the divine
foreknowledge, which selected Israel as His own people

ELECTION AND CALL 293
(Rom. ii. 2), they were chosen in baptism, by which rite
they were consecrated through the Spirit to be God's pos
session, to acquire the possession of the New Testament
redemptive gift of the forgiveness of sin and to fulfil the
duty of obedience connected with this covenant (1 Pet. i.
1-2). But only a select few from Israel has gained redemp
tion in the time of the apostle (Rom. xi. 7). Jesus, too,
had already drawn attention to the fact that many Gentiles
would participate in the consummation of the kingdom
(Luke xiii. 29 ; cf . John x. 16) ; that if Israel as a nation
became unfaithful to their mission, the Kingdom of God
would be taken from them and given to another people
(Matt. xxi. 43), as the Baptist had already said that God
could raise up new children of Abraham of the stones
(Matt. iii. 9). And when this possibility had become a sad
reality, then Paul was entrusted with the special com
mission to preach the gospel to the Gentiles. But here
again it is not said that the Gentiles as such are to have
part in redemption. Paul says also of the members of a
congregation that was predominently of Gentile origin
(1 Cor. i. 27-28; cf. 1 Thess. i. 4) that they had been
chosen. But they were not elected because they had be
come beHevers, but as many as were appointed for eternal
life, these came to faith (Acts xiii. 48).
It is an old error to maintain that according to New
Testament teaching, this is based on an eternal decree of
election. This opinion is based on 2 Thess. ii. 13, where
according to the corrected reading it is not said, that God
had selected the readers from the beginning, but that He
had chosen them to be first fruits (dedicated to Him) ; which
fact is confirmed most clearly by the fact that exactly as it is
done in 1 Pet. i. 2, this is described as having taken place
through the consecrating act of baptism. Eph. i. 4 also
merely says that God before the foundation of the world
had in the Mediator of redemption chosen those, who

294 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
through Him were to attain to redemption, and that accord
ingly those, who now through Him really secure this re
demption by virtue of an eternal decree had been elected
for this end. Just as surely as Paul believes that the
selection of Israel, which took place on account of the
fathers, was an historical act (Rom. xi. 28) so certainly
too does he teach that the selection of those who in Christ
attain salvation is such an act. In Rev. xiii. 8; xvii. 8,
it is not said that the writing in the book of life (xxi. 27;
cf. Luke x. 20; Phil. iv. 31), which predestinates certain
persons to eternal life, took place before the foundation
of the world, but in contrast to those whose names had at
one time perhaps been written in the book of life but had
been erased (iii. 5) the writer here speaks of those whose
names had never been entered here.
The actual selection of those in whom God wiU realize
the redemption through Christ from among the mass of
those who are in need of salvation, is by no means in con
tradiction to the universal will of God for the redemption
of all mankind. Everywhere the entire world is repre
sented as the object of the sending of Christ (John iii. 16)
and of His redemptive death. As little as the passage
Rom. xi. 32, in which it is only said, that God at the
end of His ways has mercy upon the Jews as well as the
Gentiles, speaks of the final selection of all individuals,
in which interpretation the very idea of a selection would be
discarded, so little are those passages that emphasize the
universality of the divine redemptive purposes (1 Tim. ii.
4; Tit. ii. 11) contrary to the Pauline doctrine of election.
God does not wish that a single man be lost, but that all
shall repent and live (2 Pet. iii. 9). Even the final judg
ments of God's wrath have always this purpose in view to
arouse the world to repentance (Rev. ix. 20-21; xvi. 9, 11),
although the effort may be useless. For there is in fact a
sin that cannot be forgiven (Matt. xii. 31-32), namely the

ELECTION AND CALL 295
final seK-hardening of the heart against the undoubted
proofs of the revelation of God in Christ, the definite
disobedience against the divine message of salvation (Acts
iii. 23). But the Scriptures nowhere speak of the predestina
tion of individuals to condemnation. This is not even done
by 1 Pet. ii. 8, where the apostle speaks only of destruction
as ordered by God, as the punishment for the final dis
obedience. It is true that the kingdom has been prepared
for its blessed adherents before the foundation of the
world; but the eternal fire is not originally established for
any human being but only for the devil and his angels
(Matt. xxv. 34, 41). The vessels of wrath (Rom. ix. 22)
are not those who were prepared by God for this purpose,
but are those who are ripe for the destruction, which they
had through their unbehef brought upon themselves. Over ,
against the elective grace of God there is no election to
condemnation, but there is a divine judgment of hardening
(Rom. ix. 18; xi. 7), which by its nature presupposes an
attitude hostile to God. There is no double degree of elec
tion. 2. The Conditions of Election. — When God selects
from the mass who are in need of the redemption those
whom He will bring to salvation, then in accordance with
His universal will of redemption, the reason for this can
not be, that He does not want to give to others to partici
pate in redemption, but because He considers them, at least
for the time being, as unworthy of this participation. If
the preparation of salvation in Christ is as such a work
of divine grace, then it is self-evident that the realization
of redemption also, and including this also the election
for this, depends upon this divine grace; and that this is an
election (Rom. xi. 5). According to his method of inter
preting the Scriptures, Paul sees in the words of Malachi i.
2-3, a reference to this, that the preferring of Jacob to
Esau, according to which God determined that the former

296 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
and not the latter should be the bearer of salvation, is based
entirely upon the love that He bestowed upon the one but
withheld from the other (Rom. ix. 13). It is not an his
torical account of that matter that he proposes to give, but
he sees in the statement of the subject only the purposes of
the Scriptures to establish the fundamental principle of
the divine election. In the following verses he expressly
shows that divine mercy is in its character perfectly free
(ix. 14-15), just as God impends the hardening of the
heart according to His free choice (ix. 17-18); that in
His election He can be bound neither by bodily descent nor
by man's deeds or virtues (ix. 11, 16). It is true that Paul,
to refute the charge that in this is an injustice appeals
to the right of the Creator to do what He pleases with
the creature (ix. 20-21) ; but ix. 22 and the whole following
section (ix. 30; x. 21) show that, unless we would involve
the apostle in hopeless contraditions, God, as in the case
before Him, when Israel as the people of promise in their
majority has lost salvation, has not made use of this right.
Rather He has borne with great patience the people that
deserved His righteous wrath, although at the same time
with the purpose of choosing for Himself other vessels of
grace outside of Israel (ix. 23-24). Undoubtedly the em
phasis put upon the liberty of free choice on the part of
God in the matter of the elective decree, as shown by the
connection, has only the purpose of excluding the idea that
the Israel of Paul's day, on account of its bodily descent
and its attempt at the fulfilment of the law, has a right to
a participation in redemption. But from this very fact it
follows, that the opposite of this is not, as is so often main
tained, the idea, that God has chosen individuals in a
purely arbitrary manner, to give to them salvation. Rather
is the opposite thought this, that He reserves to Himself,
to establish according to His own choice the conditions
that are attached to His election.

ELECTION AND CALL 297
But that this choice is not at all independent of the
character of the individual, is clear from the fact that
Paul constantly bases the acquisition of redemption to which
men are elected, on the fact that they are known of God
(1 Cor. viii. 3; Gal. iv. 9). It is expressly stated concern
ing the decree of election (Rom. ix. 11) that God has deter
mined to save those whom He foreknew (viii. 28-29). It
is seK-evident that this does not mean that He foresaw
their faith, which God Himself works in the believer (Tit.
i. 1) ; but rather that is meant which the Searcher of
hearts (Rom. viii. 27) alone can know, namely, the capacity
to receive the redemption that He would work in them.
Wherein this consists Jesus has Himself repeatedly indi
cated. Sometimes He calls it simplicity, that is not pre
judiced by pride in one's own wisdom over against salva
tion (Matt. xi. 25 ; John ix. 39, 41) ; sometimes, poverty in
spirit, that hungers for righteousness (Matt. v. 3, 6 ; xi. 28) ;
sometimes, the humblemindedness of children, that is con
scious of its own weakness and is ready to receive what it
stands in need of (Matt, xviii. 3-4; Mark xi. 14-15). The
feeling of need as well as the desire for deliverance
has as a matter of fact been developed to the greatest de
gree among the poor and the uneducated of this world,
who have not been misled by their prejudices and the
deception of wealth and have thus kept their capacity of
accepting the revealed redemption of God. Therefore, the
fact is expressly emphasized both over against the believers
from among the Jews as well as those from among the
Gentiles, that God has elected the foolish and the poor and
the weak and the despised (James ii. 5; 1 Cor. i. 27-28).
But from the positive side also Jesus mentions the striv
ing for the fulfilment of the divine will (John vii. 17) the
obedience to the truth (John xviii. 37; cf. xviii. 47), be
longing to God (John xvii. 6, 9), love for God and all
divine things (John viii. 24) as conditions for participat-

298 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
ing in redemption. And here, too, the preaching of the
apostles only confirms that God has foreknown those whom
He before predestinated for salvation as those who love
Him, as this appears with perfect certainty from the con
nection of Rom. viii. 28-29 (cf. 1 Cor. ii. 9; viii. 3). It is
self-evident that the apostle does not here speak of that
love for God which is only the fruit of the love of, God
that has been experienced in Christ, but of that love for
God which is awakened by the entire preparation of salva
tion. For Paul expressly states that these vessels of mercy
were before prepared by God (Rom. ix. 23). And James
too presupposes that the Old Testament predictions of life
and salvation are based on the fulfilment of the funda
mental law of love to God (James i. 12 ; vii. 5) ; not only
the law which calls forth a knowledge of sin and of the need
of redemption, but yet through its fundamental command
must have awakened in the pious the beginnings of a love
for God, but also prophecy with its promises, had as their
mission to prepare the hearts for the coming redemption.
But we have already seen that the divine educational work
found means to accomplish these purposes also in the
heathen world.
This statement is not in contradiction to the fact that
election is not dependent on human efforts, conduct and
merit. For this humble capacity to receive salvation, as
also the positive desire to attain the goal to which Jesus
would lead us, produces only the willingness to be led to
it. Above all, both are themselves first brought about by
the preparatory grace of redemption, and are accordingly
not at all human merits. This preparatory work of grace,
however, was applied in the law and in the prophets, not
only to the elect individuals, but to all the peoples of Israel,
and to the whole Gentile world in the original revelation
and in the providential guidance of their history. Thereby,
too, the universality of the divine purposes of redemption

ELECTION AND CALL 299
is shown, which is not destroyed by the fact that those
have been elected for salvation in Christ, which first be
comes operative in the individuals, who have proved that
they are capable of receiving the proffered means of re
demption. Not because they accomplished what others
could not accomplish, but because they suffered that pre
paratory revelation of redemption that was intended for
all to effect in them what it was intended to effect. The
others are not excluded from election because salvation is
not intended for them, but because they closed their hearts
to the preparatory revelation of redemption, and hence,
for the present at least, are not able to receive the salvation
in Christ.
3. The Universality of the Offer of Redemption.
— As did all the prophets, the Baptist also belonged to
these messengers of God through whom the preparatory
revelation of redemption was to get ready the hearts of
men for salvation in Christ. As the former at all times
demanded the return of their people thus John demands
a change of heart. This change was to be nothing else
than to a preparation for the reception of redemption.
The natural man lives solely for his temporal interests.
He does not desire God or His redemption. He is under
the supremacy of sin, the guilt of which does not burden
him, and the yoke of which he does not want to throw
off. In this state John found his people and called to them
to repent. His baptism to repentance could symbolically
picture this resolution to repentance, which naturally then
had to evince its sincerity by works (Matt. iii. 8).
But all this only made man ready to receive redemption;
for just the most sincere who received this baptism and
its obligations soon must have felt their entire inability
to fulfill them, by which fact the desire for redemption
must have been aroused in their hearts. For this very
reason the Baptist had directed attention to the Messiah,

300 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
who through His baptism of the Holy Ghost was to bring
this salvation itself (Matt. iii. 11).
We have seen that the preaching of Jesus differed from
that of all the prophets in this, that He did not make the
coming of the time of redemption dependent on repentance,
but declared that salvation was now at hand. But the
first object that had to be effected through this preaching
was a change of heart in the people. The Baptist had not
been able to fulfill his mission of putting his nation in a
condition ready for the Messianic redemption (Luke i. 17),
because men did not recognize him as the forerunner of
the Messiah; and instead of permitting him to accomplish
then what he desired to accomplish they did to him what
they would, i. e., they did away with him (Matt. xvii.
11-12). Jesus had to prepare the way for Himself, but
with this difference, that He did not seek to attain the
conversion of the people by the threat of impending judg
ment, but by the offer of redemption. This offer of re
demption, however, went out to the whole people, because
the purposes of God were universal. It was the sinner
above all others who was called (Mark ii. 17). He com
pares the offer of redemption to an invitation to a supper
(Matt. xxii. 1 sqq.). Through this gracious offer He hoped
to bring about the change in the heart of the sinner (Luke
v. 32). Through this presentation of the redemption that
had appeared in Him He wished to free His people of
their worldlymindedness, the folly of which He exposed
(Matt. xii. 15-21). But He has already shown in the
parable of the sower that the success of this offer of re
demption was not the same in all cases, and that it was
really only to a small degree. He has not explained this
by the fact that only a few are elected, but because of the
condition of the heart which would not admit the seed of the
word. As a whole the people continued to be unrepentant
(Mark xi. 20 ; xii. 41 ; cf. Luke xiii. 3, 5) ; they remained in

ELECTION AND CALL 301
spiritual death (Matt. viii. 22; Luke xv. 32) to arouse
spiritual Hfe in whom John had designated as the specific
mission of Jesus.
This fact is also the presupposition of the Parable of
the Great Supper. On account of their temporal interests
the majority despise the invitation to the supper (Matt.
xxii. 5; Luke xiv. 18 sqq.). Christ then draws the lesson
from this Parable that many are called, but few are chosen
(Matt. xxii. 14). Here, too, as the Parable shows, an elec
tion of a few in the sense of the apostolic teachings is not
spoken of. Just as the call that is extended in the offer
of redemption for repentance is universal, so those se
lected are not certain ones predestinated to salvation, but
those who have willingly accepted salvation, and have
also shown themselves willing to fulfil the conditions that
this acceptance impHes. These were the disciples in the
wider sense of the word who followed Christ on His jour
neys, and who always gladly listened to His word and
suffered themselves to be guided by it. These He also call3
(Matt. xxiv. 24, 31; Luke xviii. 3) His chosen ones in the
sense of Rom. xvi. 3.
Although Jesus declares that the unwillingness of His
people to accept His preaching of repentance is a divine
judgment of hardening (Mark iv. 11-12), He still to the
end continued to make this offer of redemption. Since
He always connects His promises with certain conditions,
on the fulfilment of which the participation in redemption
depended, He did this only in order to invite the people to
their fulfilment, which could be accomplished only by the
change of heart that He demanded. Those that were
weary and heavy laden, whom He called to Himself, so
that in His teachings and training they could find rest for
their souls (Matt. xi. 28 sqq.), still first had to learn
through His preaching of repentance that they were bur
dened with a load of obligations, which they could with

302 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
all their strength not remove. When He glorifies God for
His counsel, according to which salvation has been hidden
from the wise and the prudent (Matt. xi. 25-26), He did
this only because thereby the revelation of redemption was
opened to all mankind. The wise and the prudent too
needed only to recognize in this change of heart that He
demanded that their wisdom and prudence did them no
good for the attainment of redemption, in order to receive
this redemption in simplicity of spirit. However clear it
gradually became that the worldly spirit of His people was
not to be broken; that, humanly speaking, it was impos
sible for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God,
yet Jesus put His confidence in the almighty grace of God
that works through the word that He preached and that
could break these bonds (Mark x. 25, 27). Even the judg
ment of hardening is, according to the biblical view, not
irrevocable. For this very reason Christ did not permit
the temporary hardening of His people's hearts to hinder
Him in continuing the offer of the preparatory grace by
His own offer of redemption and His preaching of repent
ance. When by His death He had departed from the earth
and through His exaltation had given the great Jonah
sign, in which Jesus saw the last revelation of grace on the
part of God through which the nation was to be led to re
pentance (Matt. xii. 39-40 ; cf. John viii. 28) the apostles took
up the work again with the demand for a change of heart
(Acts ii. 38; iii. 19). Now a new motive for this change
had been given to the people through the crucifixion of
Him who through His exaltation had been proven to be
the Messiah (Acts iii. 12 sqq.) ; now the redemption that
at the advent of the Messiah had been preached only as
one at the point of coming, as was the case in Christ's
preaching (Matt. i. 19), was declared to be one that had
already appeared. With this, for the time being, the time

ELECTION AND CALL 303
of the preparation of redemption had been closed. Those
in whom this message of redemption did not produce a
change of heart (Acts v. 31) could not partake of this
redemption, and for that reason, too, they could experience
no further manifestations of God's grace, through which
this redemption was to be realized. As a matter of
fact, the apostles' preaching did not bring about the con
version of Israel. The people on the whole became the
objects of the judgment of hardening (Rom. xi. 8 sqq.;
Acts xxviii. 25 sqq.). But even this does not hinder that
further gracious guidance and offer of redemption on the
part of God, finally to lead the chosen people to a knowl
edge of the truth (Rom. xi. 14; 2 Cor. iii. 16), and Paul
has predicted such a conversion of Israel (Rom. xi. 25 sqq.).
The same is naturally true also of the mission preaching
among the Gentiles. Paul, too, had no other means than
the Baptist had when he tried through threats of the com
ing judgment to awaken the heathen out of their sleep of
sin and to bring about a change of heart (Acts xvii. 31) ;
so that they, too, could repent and receive life (Acts xi. 18).
But naturally he could make use of this means in a specially
effective manner, because he preached that Christ who
had been raised from the dead and who would soon return
again as the Saviour for the impending judgment of wrath
(1 Thess. i. 10). In this way it happened in the end that
the grace that works repentance and the grace that through
the preaching of redemption in Christ effects redemption
itseK finally became to be one and the same, and that the
preaching of the apostles had to bring about both. It is
true that it was addressed to all, but what it could work
in all was only repentance and the desire for redemption.
Accordingly as this was accomplished those that were saved
were separated from those that were lost (1 Cor. i. 18; 2
Cor. ii. 15), i. e., the elect from the non-elect. While the
specific contents of the gospels were for the latter, both

304 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Jews and Gentiles, an offence and foolishness, the former
found in it a power of God (1 Cor. i. 24). For them it be
came a savour unto life; for the others unto death (2 Cor.
ii. 16).
4. The Call as the Work of Divine Grace.— Jesus
HimseK could begin His special work only among those who
became His disciples, who followed Him and Hstened to His
words. Only those who came to Him could attain to that
faith that He was the bread of Hfe that would satisfy to
all eternity (John vi. 35). But he who came to Him was
one that had been given to Him by the Father (John vi.
37), i. e., one of those chosen by the Father, because either
the preparatory revelation of the Old Testament or the
preaching unto repentance by Christ, through the influ
ence of God's grace, had aroused in him that desire of sal
vation that drove him to Jesus. But that which really
brought redemption to him was the revelation of God that
he found in Jesus. This could be worked only through a
new influence of divine grace, by which he learned to know
Him as that He really was, as Jesus says (Matt. xvi. 17).
This was the revelation of redemption that had been given
to Jesus, in order to transmit it to the simple-minded, i. e.,
those ready to receive it (Matt. xi. 25 sqq.). For naturally
this could result only through the manifestation of HimseK
in word and deed. In this way the Father drew them to
the Son and began to instruct those in reference to the
salvation in him who followed this call; but men had to
learn in this school of his (John vi. 44-45). But only those
did this in whom through the preparatory grace the desire
for redemption had been awakened, the sheep of His fold,
who had in following Him learned to listen to His voice
(John x. 3, 14). These accepted the word of God that
Jesus brought them and thereby came to knowledge and to
faith (John xvii. 7-8). But what gave to His word an effect
in the call of individuals that it did not have in the great

ELECTION AND CALL 306
mass of people, was the working of the grace of God in
those whom He selected from the world (John xv. 19), be
cause they had fulfilled the conditions that made participa
tion in salvation possible (Chap. xv. 2). This working of di
vine grace in contradistinction from the general offer of
redemption of which Jesus speaks, the apostolic preaching
in the narrow sense he terms the call.
Here, too, the connection with the Old Testament is made
prominent; since the caU is a correlative idea to election
(cf. Is. xhi. 6). The members of the first covenant are the
called (Heb. ix. 15), the chosen generation in the old as
well as in the new covenant as such have been called to
perfect salvation (1 Pet. ii. 9). In the idea of election the
thought is only that the divine grace selects from the mass
of those who are in need of redemption those individuals
who will permit themselves to be saved. The idea in the
oaH is the thought of the goal to which election tends,
whether this be thought to be the attainment of the highest
redemption or the fulfilment of highest duty, both of which
sides of the subject mutuaUy condition each other. While
James speaks only of the election (James ii. 15) the Epistle to
the Hebrews speaks of the caU (Heb. iii. 1). As correlative
conceptions both can also be united in such a way, that the
call precedes (2 Pet. i. 10). Paul was the first to dis
tinguish the two ideas sharply. According to him election
is an inner divine act, which then is one that cannot be
seen or known, while the call is the work of divine grace
through which the conditions that are contained in election
begin to be realized (Rom. viii. 30), through which the
divine counsel of election becomes visible and knowable.
The Corinthians are to recognize their call by having ex
perienced the effects of grace in the gospel (1 Cor. i. 24-26),
in order to learn from this, what class of men God has
chosen (1 Cor. i. 27-28). Paul recognizes the election of the
Thessalonians by the success of the gospel among them
T

306 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
(1 Thess. i. 4-5) ; for through the gospel the call in all cases
comes (2 Thess. ii. 14). The working of divine grace con
sists in this very thing, that God gives to the preaching of
the apostle that is filled with the Spirit, the power to call
the elect through the awakening of faith to become a con
gregation, i. e., to induce them to become members of the
congregation, by permitting themselves to be baptized in the
name of Jesus. This result is an infallible one, not because
it forces the hearer in an irresistible manner, but only
because it takes place only in those whom the Searcher of
hearts has recognized as ready to accept salvation and has
therefore chosen for the realization of this redemption. All
the members of the congregation are accordingly called
(Rom. i. 7) and therefore also elect; for only the elect are
called. The working of divine grace in the call consists in this,
that God opens the heart of the individual for the preach
ing of Christ (Acts xvi. 14), that this preaching prove it
a spiritual power in him, so that he accepts the word
(1 Thess. i. 5-6) not as the word of man but of God (1 Thess.
ii. 13). Being such this word can demand and does demand
that its declaration be accepted as true and that its direc
tions be followed. In Acts v. 32 the faithful acceptance
of this word is in so many words designated as obedience
to God. Even Paul, who at all times puts faith into the
sharpest antithesis possible to all works, calls this effect of
the apostolic message the obedience of faith (Rom. i. 5).
This obedience is without doubt the product of divine grace
and hence not a human achievement; for the acceptance of
a human word as divine can be done only when it proves
itself to be such (cf. chap. iii. 5). And yet Paul declares that
the heathen are the objects of God's condemnation, if they
do not obey the gospel concerning Christ; and accordingly
•he makes them responsible for doing it or not (2 Thess.
i. 8). In the same way he declares it to be inexcusable guilt

ELECTION AND CALL 307
on the part of Israel if they do not obey the gospel (Rom.
xi. 16-21). The deep foundation for this he has laid in Rom.
ix. 30-33. Israel refused to desist from its false striving for
righteousness (cf. x. 3) ; therefore the preaching of Christ
has become to it a rock of offence. In exactly the same way
the Gentiles are not willing to give up their sinful lives and
obey the gospel. Because they do not permit the word to
work in them a change of heart it could also work in them
no obedience of faith; but that this could not be done was
their fault.
But now it is certain, that the faith which induced the
individuals through baptism to suffer themselves to be
received into the congregation, was in many cases only a
weak beginning of a Christian life. Paul distinguishes very
sharply between a believing acceptance of the gospel, which
is the condition of his labors for salvation' (1 Cor. i. 21;
Rom. i. 16) and that confidence which brings with it the
deHverance of redemption, which the gospel as the power
of God works in those who accept it in faith, which takes
place only in those that are called (1 Cor. i. 24). But both
are in his eyes faith. He does not distinguish dogmatically
in this case; but in Rom. i. 17 he expressly says that the
revelation of God's justice, in which he includes the whole
salvation in Christ, works only through faith, that is, the
faith that accepts the gospel, works that faith that is a sav
ing confidence in the salvation through Christ. In the call
faith can be worked only in the former sense.
5. Election as the Basis of the Certainty of Re
demption. — If according to 2 Pet. i. 10, it is first necessary
to make our calling and election sure, then it is clear that
election is not to be understood as an eternal decree of sal
vation for the few, which once made, must irresistibly be
carried out. Rev. iii. 5 also presupposes that the names
of those that have been determined to eternal life may yet
be erased from the book of life. The election that begins its

308 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
realization in the calling was based on certain conditions,
which, according to chap. xv. 3, can briefly be summarized in a
change of heart. This change, although it is worked by the
preparatory grace of redemption, really made its appearance
only in those- who permitted this grace to work in them
(chap. xv. 2). But then all further workings of God's grace
depends upon this that the faith that has been worked on
the basis of the call, which still is one that is worked sub
jectively, continues. Jesus Himself in His Parable of the
vine speaks of disciples, who, because they do not abide in
Him, will be cast off and be delivered over to destruction
(John xv. 6). He was probably thinking of the case of
Judas. The Epistle to the Hebrews, which was written in a dan
gerous crisis of the congregation to which it is addressed,
and with terrible earnestness warns against hardening and
apostasy (Heb. iii. 12-13), proceeds from the supposition
that a person who has experienced all the manifestations of
grace may nevertheless again fall away. In this case he
can then no longer be renewed in heart (vi. 4 sqq.) because
there would then be no motives for his return, since the
highest possible had proved ineffectual in him, has volun
tarily committed that sin of blasphemy for which there is
no satisfaction but only a terrible judgment, as the Old
Testament has appointed for such sinners (x. 26-31). John,
also speaks of such mortal sin, for which there should be
no further petition, because such a prayer wiU no longer be
heard (1 John v. 16-17). Without a doubt an apostacy from
faith is here meant and the severance of ' connection with
the congregation of the believers. He indeed states that
such persons really never belonged to the congregation (ii. 19)
and accordingly, had not experienced that grace which is
felt in the congregation. But the Epistle to the Hebrews
shows that this acceptance is not necessary or universaHy
applicable. But both agree in this, that it is not any weak

ELECTION AND CALL 309
lack in the development of Christian life that leads to this
mortal sin, but the casting aside of the faith in Christ.
Paul also, who has taught the doctrine of election in the
most explicit form, yet presupposes that it is possible to
receive this grace in vain (2 Cor. vi. 1) and warns against
apostasy. He does not consider the Corinthians and the
Thessalonians threatened by this danger notwithstanding
their heathenish sins, which still prevail among them, since
he has the confidence that these will be overcome by the
grace that is in them. But he does fear in the case of the
Galatians, that they will again subject themselves to the
yoke of the law instead of seeking salvation alone in Christ
(Gal. v. 1-8) ; and in the case of the Romans, if they do
not abide in the grace but sink back into a false self-confi
dence (Rom. i. 20 sqq.) At all events, the possibility of a
faHing away remains, although they were chosen and caUed.
In this Paul found nothing contradictory. For him it was
a seK-evident matter on the basis of the Old Testament,
that, as was the case with the fulfilment of every promise
of God, so the fulfilment of election and calling was based
on the conditions under which they were tacitly or ex-
plicatedly bestowed. This presupposition, however, he saw
in the condition in which the Searcher of hearts finds man,
which, however, could be changed in the course of develop
ment. But equally certain it was to him, that man remains
responsible for his fate, that no arrangement of God for his
salvation could take away this responsibility, but could only
make it possible for him to meet it. In a time when as a
matter of fact many suffered shipwreck in their faith and
Christian life, Paul comforted himself with the truth, that
in the great eommmunity of the congregation, there must
be not only golden and silver, but also wooden and earthly
vessels, since these were useless and easily broken, that
could not be destined for the same purpose as others (2 Tim.
ii. 20). He evidently considers only a part of the congre-

310 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
gation as elected; but of these he says, that they are the
firm foundation that shall remain, no matter how many may
fall away. It is highly significant that he finds the guaran
tee for this not only in the fact that the Lord knows His
own, but also therein that everyone who through this calls
the Lord his Lord, is obligated to separate himself from
evil (2 Tim. ii. 19). Notwithstanding the confidence he has
just experienced in the election, he (ii. 21) expressly points
out the way by which one may become a vessel as those are
who in v. 20 are described as the elect.
It is indeed thought that the religious significance of the
doctrine of election is thereby abrogated. Without a doubt
Paul in Rom. viii. 28 sqq. bases his hymn on the certainty
of salvation on this doctrine; but this seems to become of
little moment, as soon as the carrying out of the divine
counsel in any way is made dependent on human conduct.
But according to the New Testament this is not at all the
case. In the call, through which man becomes certain of
his election, the promise is contained that God will bring
him to the goal that is appointed for him in his election.
Upon his faithfulness rests the confidence that He wiH do
everything that wiU bring him to this goal (1 Cor. i. 9;
1 Thess. v. 24) ; that He wiU finish the good work He has
begun in him (Phil. i. 6). But this confidence is not awak
ened in us, that it should lead us to a false certainty. Upon
this very fact, that God works in us both to will and to do,
that accordingly we cannot excuse ourselves on the ground
of our weakness, if that which is necessary for our salvation
is not worked in us, Paul bases his admonition to work out
our salvation with fear and trembling (Phil. ii. 12-13).
The real tendency of the doctrine of election is accord
ingly to make every member of the congregation sure that
the entire work of redemption that is done in him, from its
very beginning, is entirely the product of God's grace, so
that Paul can say, Through God's grace I am that I am

ELECTION AND CALL 311
(1 Cor. xv. 10). Everyone accordingly is to regard his sal
vation as a pure work of God's grace, so that none shall
boast (Eph. ii. 8-9). Therefore Paul begins almost every
one of his epistles with thanksgiving for what the Lord has
done in the congregation, by having worked in them faith
through the grace of His call (Rom. i. 8 ; Col. i. 3). In this the
change in baptism to infant baptism (chap. xiv. 5) can alter
nothing, since this continues to be the pledge of our election.
Only that now the call follows through the working of grace,
which awakens faith in the sense described in chap. xv. 4 in
children of God who have come to Christian consciousness.
But the consciousness that our salvation is no work of our
own; that our salvation is in no way to be ascribed to our
merit, can only be established all the more firmly by this,
that the pledge had been given to us in baptism, that we
received while yet in a state of unconsciousness. Only
thereby the gratitude toward God is aroused in the surest
manner, and this is the basis of all correct and religious
relations to God.

CHAPTER XVI
FAITH IN REDEMPTION AND THE STATE OF
GRACE
1. The Essence of Faith. — Faith as the obedient ac
ceptance of the gospel and as the willingness to submit to it
in thought and action is not yet the faith that brings salva
tion; for it only rests on the immediate impression of this
word as a divine declaration. This immediate impression
must be raised to the conscious conviction and to the con
fident certainty of this, that what the word declares is the
truth. Faith in this sense is not the work of man (2 Thess.
iii. 3) ; it cannot either be proved by demonstration or can
a person force himself to accept as truth what the word
declares. Only when the gospel is accepted in obedience does
this faith grow out of the gospel (Rom. x. 16-17) ; the gospel
itseK produces this as the power of God (Rom. i. 16 ; 1 Cor.
i. 24). On the other hand, this conviction cannot be pro
duced in anybody who will not permit it. Jesus already
says, that he who does not wiuingly hear the word cannot
understand it (John viii. 43), and still less have faith in
it as the truth (John x. 25-26). Only those who accept
Him willingly believe in His name (John i. 16). In this
sense, too, faith is a work (John vi. 29) that God demands,
and the fulfilment of a divine command (1 John iii. 23).
Paul, too, speaks of the work of faith (1 Thess. i. 3) when
it proves itself as permanent in adhering to this conviction,
and he admonishes to hold fast to the faith (1 Cor. xvi. 13).
The object of faith, which so often is called by John
faith in the name of Christ, is primarily nothing else than
312

FAITH AND STATE OF GRACE 313
the confident conviction that that is true which His name
indicates, namely, that Jesus is the Mediator of redemp
tion. This was connected from the very beginning with
His faith in His divine mission (John xvii. 21). In this
sense Jesus speaks of faith as such (Mark i. 15; ix. 42).
Only after He has been exalted to God does this faith
become a faith in Him as the Lord of glory (James v. 1),
who would in the near future show HimseK as such in His
second coming. Also in the case of Paul, who declares
faith to be the characteristic mark of Christians as
such, nothing also is primarily meant, than this confident
conviction of the mediatorship of redemption in Christ, and
of the fact upon which this certainty is based, namely, that
God has again raised Him who has died for us from the
dead (Rom. x. 9; 1 Thess. iv. 14). When the Epistle to
the Hebrews formally explains the essence of faith, it men
tions first of aH the fact that the believer is convinced of
invisible things (xi. 1) and undoubtedly refers to the facts
of which the entire Epistle speaks, namely, that Christ as
our High Priest, who by His sacrifice made once has re
deemed us, is exalted to God, in order there to make this
sacrifice effective. This Epistle demands the fuH confidence
of conviction in reference to these facts (x. 22). Here is
meant then first of aU faith in an object of knowledge
that is seized with the full conviction of its truth, or faith
in the truth (2 Thess. ii. 13; cf. v. 12). But this object
is not abstract truths, not doctrines concerning God and
divine things, but are the facts in which the revelation of
salvation in Christ have taken place. The wisdom, too,
which Paul preaches to the advanced Christians, deals en
tirely with what God through His redemptive counsel has
prepared for those who love Him (1 Cor. ii. 6-9) ; and the
knowledge which He expects from the advent of the con
summation of redemption is a seeing face to face (1 Cor.
xiii. 9-17).

314 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Later, also, when Paul through misconceptions in the
matter of Christian knowledge in his congregations had
been forced to lay greater stress on the development of this
knowledge, he states expressly that all the treasures of wis
dom and knowledge are hid in Christ (Col. ii. 2-3). The
unity of faith according to Eph. iv. 13 leads to a unity in
the full knowledge of the Son of God. But that the apostle
here has not in mind any doctrinal statement concerning
the metaphysical essence of Jesus, is shown by the connec
tion with Phil. iii. 8. According to this the unity consists
in this that we recognize the complete worth of Christ for
our redemption, over against which all other things are
useless, and even harmful, because they prevent us from
appropriating Christ as our highest good. Especially in
the Pastoral Epistles Paul emphasizes the fact again and
again, that the knowledge of the truth does not in any
sense consist in theosophical speculation, but in the fact
that Christ is the Mediator of salvation (1 Tim. ii. 4 sqq.).
This knowledge of the truth is alone in accordance with
godliness (Tit. i. 1; cf. 1 Tim. vi. 3), i. e., is such as the
godly seek and love. In 2 Pet. iii. 18 the knowledge of
Christ is nothing but the knowledge of the glorious prom
ises that have been given us in Him (i. 3-4). In the most
emphatic manner the inner connection between knowledge
and faith is brought out by John. Faith presupposes
knowledge (1 John iv. 16; John xviii. 8), in so far as the
latter is merely the confident conviction of a recognized
truth ; but a higher stage of knowledge can be reached only
when that which is known is also appropriated in faith
(1 John vi. 69; x. 38). In John also the contents of this
knowledge is not at all a doctrine concerning Christ and
His divine being; for the opponents whom He antagonizes
also speak of a heavenly God-like Christ. The proposition
that He maintains over against them is, that this Christ has
appeared in the flesh (1 John iv? 2; 2 John vii.), i. e., the

FAITH AND STATE OF GRACE 315
historical fact of the complete revelation of God in the
man Jesus. The fact that we see in Him, i. e., in His his
torical activity, the Father, is the one thing that Christ at
aU times and occasions demands that we believe (John x.
38; xiv. 10).
Now in this confident conviction of these redemptive
facts there is already always contained the factor of con
fidence, as these are only accepted because we are confident
that that is true which Jesus has said concerning Himself
and the apostles have taught of Him. But as this does
not consist in a doctrine concerning His person, but in the
announcement of the salvation that has appeared in Him,
then faith necessarily becomes a confidence in this salva
tion. Only in this way is faith made perfect as the deter
mining influence of our whole religious life. If the con
viction of the divine revelation in Christ is primarily only
the satisfaction of our God-seeking striving for knowledge,
then the confidence in the grace of God declared in the
gospel becomes the effective support for all religious life
and moral endeavours. For that reason these two elements
appear together throughout the New Testament. Only in
the case of John is the second, in accordance with the
peculiarity of his religious life, left quite in the back
ground. Even in the case of James the conviction of the
glory of the exalted Christ goes hand in hand (ii. 1) with
the trust in God (i. 3, 6), which characterized the Old
Testament godliness too, and does not yet need a reference
to Christ. All the more strongly is the second element
emphasized by Paul, who especially in his struggle with the
Judaists was compelled to make very prominent that this
trust in redemption, which is based on Christ and His
redemptive work (Rom. ix. 33; Gal. iii. 26) is the opposite
to aU works (Gal. iii. 2, 5; Rom. ix. 32) and to all human
achievements (Rom. x. 5). It is rather a renunciation of
all merit or service of self, an exclusive dependence on the

316 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
grace of God. Of this trust in redemption, too, it can be
said what has been stated concerning a conviction, that it
cannot be the subject of a command because one person
cannot force another to have confidence in a third. Con
fidence can be awakened only by conduct, and the gospel
has the power to awaken this confidence in God in us. On
the other hand, it must be said here, too, that this confi
dence can be worked only in him who is willing to be
influenced by the word, just as the conviction of the truth
of the word can be awakened only in him who receives it
as the word of God. But while faith from this point of
view is something that grows, appropriating at all times
new phases of the message of redemption, this is not the
case when considered from the other. Every element of
seK-confidence or of work-righteousness absolutely destroys
the dependence in the grace of God given us in Christ
(Gal. v. 4).
It is found in the whole religious peculiarity of Paul
(cf. chap. i. 5), that he refers this confidence in redemption
entirely to the salvation that has already been achieved;
but naturally it can be referred also to that which is prom
ised and is yet to come, as this is everywhere done by Peter
(1 Pet. i. 5; vii. 9; cf. 2 Pet. i. 1, 5), so that it is ever
said in 1 Pet. i. 21 that faith is also hope. More definitely
the Epistle to the Hebrews looks upon faith as a state
of the heart, without which the specifically New Testament
covenant duty, the holding fast to the hope of the fulfil
ment of the Old Testament covenant promises now about
to be realized in the completed work of redemption, cannot
be fulfilled (x. 31-36). Without the confident trust in this
that God will realize these promises through His Messiah,
there naturally can be no hope of their realization. There
fore, in Heb. xi. 1, the other side of faith is called the
confidence in the things hoped for. It is of fundamental
importance for the understanding of the religion of the

FAITH AND STATE OF GRACE 317
New Testament, in which faith is everywhere declared to
be the foundation of the realization of salvation, that the
essence of this faith consists of these two elements, the
being convinced of something and the confidence in this,
and only of these two. All other works, which generally
are based on a mixture of the conditions and the conse
quences of faith with faith itseK, are without reason and
only confuse and duU the biblical statements.
2. Salvation by Faith. — Everything that the believer
in Christ receives is summed up by the apostolic benedic
tions in the one conception of salvation, which God's grace
has prepared for us through Christ ; for this is the original
sense of the word (Greek, elp^vn); Heb., Shalom), which is
translated with the term " peace " (Rom. i. 7 ; 1 Pet. i. 2 ;
2 John iii.; Rev. i. 4). But as the nature of faith can
be understood from different sides, so too the nature of
salvation. It lies in the eschatological tendency of primitive
Christianity, which we become acquainted with in chap. i. 5,
that at that time faith was understood chiefly in the sense
of a trust in the fulfilment of redemption guaranteed by the
Messiah. In the redemption He has effected in them the
certainty of this, as this is grasped already in hope and
as present in idea. When Jesus is exalted as the Messiah
and the Holy Spirit, who had been promised for the Mes
sianic times, is poured out, then the beginning of this
era of redemption has been inaugurated (Acts ii. 17 sqq.;
iii. 24). The appearance of the Saviour is identical with
the last times predicted by the prophets (1 Pet. i. 18 sqq.).
The last days are already here (James v. 3) ; only the final
close is yet lacking (1 Pet. i. 5), the last day (John vi.
39-40), the last hour of which is at hand (1 John ii. 18).
It is the fundamental idea of the Epistle to the Hebrews,
that the Messianic period has been inaugurated by the
establishment of the new covenant and the sacrificial death
of Christ (Heb. ii. 5) ; the believer already tastes its powers

318 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
(vi. 5) and possesses its good things (ix. 11; x. 1). He
knows that he is already the possessor of the kingdom
(James ii. 5), of eternal life and its blessedness (1 Pet. iii.
7, 14). In his faith in the stiU invisible but soon to be
revealed Messiah he rejoices in all afflictions with a joy
that is already purified by the light of the coming glory
(1 Pet. i. 8). In the Holy Ghost this glory already rests
upon him (1 Pet. iv. 14).
But this hope of primitive Christianity is by no means
an empty and unpracticable enthusiasm. It was seK-evi-
dent to these pious Israelites, that the realization of redemp
tion could come only when the ideal of religion had been
realized in the people, or at any rate in the believing por
tion. It had been the purpose of the whole life of Christ
to realize this ideal, and thus in the present kingdom to
guarantee the certainty of the future kingdom through the
resurrection of Christ. Those who in faith had become
certain of the kingdom, were regenerated unto a living
hope, i. e., a hope definitely directed the entire life (1 Pet.
i. 3). Accordingly the entire first Epistle of Peter bases
its admonitions on this motive, which is also frequently
emphasized in other portions of the New Testament (cf.
2 Cor. vii. 1; 1 John iii. 3); but never has the funda
mental importance that is assigned to it in Peter (1 Pet.
i. 13; ii. 11; iii. 7; v. 5). There yet remains the fuUer
realization . of the ideal that had been set up before Israel
for the Messianic period, which had already been begun in
the congregation of the believers (1 Pet. ii. 9). The holy
people, the people of His possession must naturally be holy
in its walk as He is holy, who has called it (1 Pet. i. 15).
According to 2 Pet. i. 3-4 also, in the appeal for the reception
of the promises, everything is given that belongs to a true
life of godliness, whereby the divine nature, i. e., sancti
fication is worked in us. Therefore there is need only of
a reference to this, that and how all Christian virtues must

FAITH AND STATE OF GRACE 319
appear where there is full righteousness. It had been deeply
impressed upon every son of Israel, and upon Paul, too,
that the completion of redemption, the life, could only
appear where there is fuU righteousness. Jesus already
promised to realize this in the present Kingdom of God
(Matt. v. 6). This righteousness consists in the fulfilment
of aH the divine commandments (Deut. vi. 75), in the
works that correspond to the norm-giving wiU of God. The
question accordingly arises, if this gift of redemption too
is given in and with faith.
James was the first to express himself fully on this
question. We must remember in this connection, that for
him faith was the conviction that Jesus is the Lord of glory
i. e., the Messiah, who would in the near future return
again (James ii. 1; v. 8). But because He had in His
earthly career taught the complete fulfilment of the will
of God, and for this reason the preaching concerning Christ
was primarily a perfect law (i. 25), He will come as Judge
(v. 9), who will ask, if this will of God has been fulfilled;
for upon this it depends whether we will be delivered from
destruction and participate in the salvation He has brought
(iv. 14). Then it is easily understood, how James regards
it as seK-evident, that this conviction alone cannot save
(ii. 14), unless faith through works also shows itself to be
a living, active power (ii. 18) ; for that a dead (ii. 17, 26)
ineffective (ii. 20) faith will be worthless in the presence
of the coming Lord, he knew from Matt. vii. 21. But
the Judge can declare him only as just, i. e., well-pleasing
in the sight of God, whose faith has helped his works to
make it possible for him to attain its perfection and thereby
to secure the declaration that he is just. On the other
hand, faith attains from these works that it produces to a
perfect state, which can be found only in the faith that
is vital and active (James ii. 22). Man can not be declared
just on account of faith alone but only on account of works

320 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
which faith produces (ii. 24). This then is the salvation
that James finds in faith; because this faith became the
strongest possible motive for the fulfilment of God's will
to be found, and necessarily produces works that can make
us capable of being declared just before God and thus
attains the complete redemption. It could not occur to
him to think further of the imperfections that still cling to
our works, since the hearing of the prayer of the believer
for the forgiveness of sins was a fixed fact for him, even
without his thinking, as little as Jesus does in the Lord's
Prayer, that this was realized through the atoning death of
the Lord (James v. 15-16).
It is singular that it is regarded as the peculiar doctrine
of Paul that good works are the fruits of faith. Again and
again appeal is made to individual passages in the larger
letters of Paul (Gal. v. 6) according to which it is claimed
love is the fruit of faith, although according to Gal. v. 22,
love is directly declared to be the first fruit of the Spirit
(cf. Rom. xv. 30). But the connection of the former pas
sage clearly shows that faith is active only in the com
munion of life with Christ that is effected through the
Spirit (v. 5). It was rather Paul who declares that our
righteousness, at all times imperfect, can not secure for us
the possession of redemption, even if through faith in Christ
a new motive has been given for the fulfilment of the law.
It is expressly stated in Gal. ii. 16, that, if it is conceded
that without faith righteousness cannot be achieved, we
must go further and recognize that the declaration of
righteousness in general is given on the basis of faith and
not on account of our imperfect works. In this case faith
is no longer merely the conviction of the truth of the facts
of redemption, but is confidence in the salvation that Christ
has achieved. From this idea of faith Paul proceeds to
regard righteousness as the free gift of God (Rom. v. 17),
as one that God has given (Rom. i. 17; x. 3), as it is given

FAITH AND STATE OF GRACE 321
to the sinner without his deeds, through grace, on the basis
of the salvation achieved through Christ (Rom. iii. 26; cf.
Gal. ii. 17; 2 Cor. v. 21). This righteousness then is
secured only through faith (Rom. iii. 22) to the exclusion
of all works or merits (Rom. iii. 28-30) ; the very opposite
of which in the sole dependence upon divine grace char
acteristic of faith. Paul says nothing of attributing
the merits of Christ to us, but only of an imputing of
righteousness, which is identical with not imputing sin
(Rom. iv. 6 sqq.). When it is said that to him who trusts
in God who declares the unjust just, his faith is counted
for righteousness (Rom. iv. 5), this is not meant to say
that faith in the place of all the fulfilment of the law, is
the only service that makes us pleasing in the sight of God;
since faith, which the gospel alone works in us, is not a work
of our own. Just as Httle does God count faith to us for
righteousness for the reason that He sees in faith the active
germs and thereby the guarantee of a complete righteous
ness, as James ii. 23 interprets Gen. xv. 6. For in this
case justification would not be an act of grace, which
according to Rom. iii. 24 (cf. iv. 4) it must be, but the
act of a wise, even if of a foreseeing justice. The Pauline
doctrine of justification by faith alone is at heart nothing
else than the fundamental thought of Christ's preaching,
according to which God does not wait until the people have
repented, but offers them forgiveness of sin and salvation
in order to convert and to regenerate them. Thus, too, in
Paul God does not wait with His sentence of justification
until man earns it through his work, however imperfect,
but He gives it to him as a gift of His free grace.
This doctrine is by no means specifically a Pauline teach
ing. The Epistle to the Hebrews also proceeds from the
basis, that it is impossible to please God without faith
(xi. 6), only that this letter, on the basis of the original
sense of Gen. xv. 6 considers faith as the fundamental state
U

322 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
of heart through which man is made righteous (Heb. xi.
4-7). The fact, however, remains that man cannot be per
fect, as Christ became perfect through His obedience that
had been proved through His sufferings (v. 8-9; vii. 28; cf.
ii. 10). For this reason God established the Old Testament
institution of atonement, which through the removal of the
guilt of sin was to make man perfect. But as this had
only prefigurate significance it could for this reason in
itself not bring about this perfection for the sin-laden con
science of those who sacrificed (ix. 9; x. 1), but could only
point to Him, who, through His sacrifice offered once for
all, could cover the sins in the eyes of God and accomphsh
this (x. 14). Naturally he alone can take part in the new
covenant that was established by this sacrifice who clings to
the hope of the fulfilment of the promises in this covenant.
But as this is possible only through faith, it is evident here,
too, that only the believer can attain that perfection that
substantially is identical with the righteousness taught by
Paul. Only that the former Pharisee proceeds from the
idea of righteousness as the fulfilment of the law, while
the Levitical author of the Epistle to the Hebrews goes out
from the idea of the perfection which already in the Old
Testament could be secured only through the atonement
sacrifice. But the foundation of both is the idea that salva
tion is conditioned on the establishment of a state fully
pleasing to God and that man cannot attain this through
his own exertions. But while the Epistle to the Hebrews is
content in teaching that man attains this when the sacri
ficial death of Jesus frees him from sin, Paul goes further
and states, that on this ground God out of grace declares
him just. Of course this applies only to the believer in
whom God Himself through His message of redemption has
worked implicit confidence in his grace in Christ.
Paul emphasizes the fact that this new order of justifi
cation, which, as he himseK proves by his interpretation

FAITH AND STATE OF GRACE 323
of Gen. xv. 6, was already prefigured in the story of Abra
ham, in the only one that satisfies the religious conscious
ness because it excludes the possibility of human boasting
(Rom. iii. 27-28). In this way the normal relation of man
to God is restored, who is to receive redemption solely
from the hand of God and not in any way earn or merit it.
In this certainty of salvation, which depends entirely and
exclusively on the grace of God, the religious ideal has
been realized, and thereby alone have the conditions been
fulfilled for a realization of the moral ideal. The latter,
too, man cannot achieve through his own powers but only
through the grace that the spirit of God gives. But as
Jesus already taught, that man can secure nothing from
God except through faith (Mark xi. 24; cf. James i. 7),
i. e., without trust in His grace, thus too it is only the
beHever who is sure of aH other manifestations and gifts
of the grace of God to the final perfection of salvation.
Only he who seeks for dogmatical propositions in the Scrip
tures can find a contradiction between Paul and James.
He who sees in them the evidences how the revelation of
redemption in Christ in different stages of Christian life
realizes this redemption in the believers, will praise God who
has thus satisfied the different religious needs in the same
way. But there is also another form in which the believer can
find the certainty that he possesses redemption. If faith
consists essentially in the conviction that Christ is the
highest revelation of God, if he sees the Father in the Son,
then the goal to which religion would lead is realized in
faith immdiately (chap. i. 5). The knowledge of God which
is given through Christ is for John eternal life (John xvii.
3). The highest good that is to be realized in eternal life
is nothing else than seeing God, the immediate communion
with God. This seeing of God begins for the believer in
Christ, when he has learned to know that he sees the

324 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
Father in the Son (John xiv. 9). Judgment is no longer
needed to decide in his case whether he is to attain life,
for he has this life already and has passed through death
to life (John v. 24). In this the need of deliverance from
sin is not excluded but included; for only he who is free
from sin can see God (Matt. v. 8); but the believer has
been made free from sin through the blood of Christ (1
John i. 7). Life presupposes deliverance from death of
which man on account of his guilt of sin was the victim;
but Jesus gives His life unto death for the life of the
world (John vi. 51), and this very act of entering death is
the highest revelation of the love of God that has secured
life for us (John iii. 16). In the life that the believer
has as such the full communion with God is realized. Just
as faith, which is at the same time the highest knowledge
of God, is also certain that the Father is in the Son and
the Son in the Father (John x. 38; xiv. 10), thus, too, the
believer centres his whole being, together with his thoughts
and mind, on the Son, in whom he sees the Father and
thereby the Father Himself (1 John ii. 24). As a conse
quence Christ remains in him (John xv. 4) ; and as the
Father is always in the Son, the Father, too, remains in
Him (1 John iii. 24) as the presence of His spirit within
us constantly shows (John iv. 13). It is expressly stated,
that abiding in the Son and in the Father is the eternal
life which the Father has promised us, and that this de
pends entirely upon our abiding in the proclamation of
the gospel in us, i. e., of faith (John ii. 24-25).
As the oneness of the Son and the Father is found in
their mutual inter-relation (John x. 30, 38), which is at
the same time the being of the Father and the Son in the
believers, thus, too, is the unity of these with the Father
and the Son (John xvii. 21) the perfect communion with
God (1 John i. 6 ; cf . v. 3) . This mystical relation is the high
est realization of religion. For the knowledge of this, which

FAITH AND STATE OF GRACE 325
is eternal Hfe, is not to be taken as something merely
theoretical but as a centering of the whole heart and soul
upon God. This being in God could in itself be also a
contemplative seeing, an indulgence in the enjoyment of
God; but as it is always connected with God's being in us,
this mystical relation is at the same time also a going over
of God's being into us, which determines practically our
whole being. As the Joannine mysticism excludes all
pantheistic mingling between the Creator and the creation
by the fact that the being in God is always brought about
only through the being and the abiding of the historical
Christ in the behevers, it can never become quietistic or
antinomic. A communion with God or a knowledge of God
which is considered possible in conjunction with sin, is seK
deception and even a lie (1 John i. 6; ii. 4; iii. 6), and
doing evil is incompatible with seeing God (3 John xi. ; cf.
1 John iv. 8).
3. The State of Sonship of God. — The new relation
into which the disciples enter in the Kingdom of God is
caHed by Christ the sonship of God (xi. 1). If this idea
is less prominent in the preaching of the first apostles, the
reason for this is to be found in the fact that this was
nothing specifically new for the pious Israelite. Even if
the fatherly love of God in the old covenant primarily
applied to the nation as a whole, yet the Israelites felt it
more and more in the course of time that the pious alone
were the real members of the nation and therefore they
apphed this love to them (Ps. ciii. 13). That God gives
mercy to the humble appears in James iv. 6 only from one
statement from Prov. iii. 34; the giving as well as the for
giving goodness of God (James i. 17; v. 15) is a self-
evident matter for the pious Israelites. The certainty that
prayer would be heard is founded on Old Testament ex
amples (James v. 16 sqq.) ; not even the exhortation to
consider affliction, because it is a profitable trial, as a pure

326 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
joy (James i. 2-3) requires a specfically Christian motive.
It is indeed made prominent in 1 Pet. i. 17 that the be
lievers appeal to God as their Father, because they have been
called to be His children (v. xiv. 15) ; but the exhortation
to trust God, which overcomes all troubles (iv. 19; v. 7)
as also the statement that suffering is a wholesome trial
(i. 6-7; iv. 12) is not yet made dependent on this. On
the other hand, it is here strongly emphasized that the grace
of God is bestowed on the believing congregation (ii. 10)
and that also the divine mercy, which is offered to them
in the manifestation of Christ (through the gospel) i. 13,
and is constantly increased (i. 2) gives them aU grace
(iii. 7; iv. 10; v. 10). In the Epistle to the Hebrews the
new relation between the believer and God is described
entirely in the Old Testament form of a communion with
Him, as this was prophesied by Jer. xxxi. 31 sqq. concern
ing the new covenant (ix. 6 sqq.), of which covenant Jesus
already speaks in Mark xiv. 24, and which idea is touched
upon by Paul only in Rom. xi. 27, and 2 Cor. iii. 6. This
covenant is established by the death of Christ as the
Mediator (Heb. ix. 15; xiii. 20; cf. 1 Pet. i. 2). In it we
have access to the throne of divine grace (Heb. x. 19-20),
where the adherents of the covenant at all times find mercy
and grace (iv. 16), which make the heart strong, and ever
bestow upon them and deck them with the gifts of grace
(xiii. 9, 25; x. 29) as long as they do not turn from it
(xii. 15). Here the believing Israel is described as a family
of God, as was that in the Old Testament (iii. 6) the mem
bers of which are the sons of God and the brothers of
Christ (ii. 10-11). Here suffering is explicitly declared
to be a part of the education by the Father (xii. 8-9), but
this, too, only on the basis of an Old Testament citation
(Prov. iii. 11-12).
Paul, too, speaks of the advantage of Israel in being the
children of God (Rom. ix. 4) ; but as long as the heir is a

FAITH AND STATE OF GRACE 327
child he is not essentiaUy different from a house-slave (Gal.
iv. 1-2). Only through faith have all, Jews and Gentiles,
become full sons of God (iii. 26 sqq.), a family of God
(Eph. iv. 19; 1 Tim. iii. 15). Just as justification, thus,
too, adoption, which is intimately connected with it, is
regarded as a juridic act, in which God adopts as His
children those who in themselves in nowise were such (Gal.
iv. 5, and Eph. i. 5). Now they have become the beloved
of God (Rom. i. 7; Col. iii. 12), who at all times have
access to the Father (Eph. ii. 18 ; iii. 12) and can in child
like faith call Him Father (Gal. iv. 6; Rom. viii. 15). In
this way the adoption to childhood realizes just as is done
in the teachings of Jesus (chap. xi. 2), the ideal of religious
Hfe. Only in this way is the position of the believer over
against the trials of suffering put upon a Christian foun
dation. Because in justification, which is bestowed upon
us on account of faith, we have entered into the relation
ship of peace with God and thereby upon the state of grace
(Rom. v. 1-2), therefore sufferings that fall to our lot can
not cause us to cast aside the faith that has brought to us
this highest good. These can work in us only patience,
in which faith is proved, and make us all the more certain
of the completion of redemption (v. 3-4). In faith we
have the inner peace of soul and the joy (xv. 13) which is
the characteristic state of the Christian heart and cannot
be lost amid aU the sufferings of Hfe (2 Cor. vi. 10; viii.
2; Phil. iv. 4).
But of this gracious adoption as children we can in the
nature of the case know nothing unless the spirit of this
adoption has been given to us, through which we learn to
appeal to the Father as children (Rom. v. 18). He it is
that first awakens in us joy and peace (Gal. v. 22); for
through Him the love of God is poured out into our hearts
(Rom. v. 5), i. e., has become the object of our conscious
ness. Just as in the preaching of Jesus, the inner experi-

328 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
ence of the grace of God compels us to imitate His actions
to us in our dealings with others (chap. xi. 2), thus, according
to Paul, the Spirit that assures us of our adoption is at
the same time the impulse to a new life (Gal. v. 18; cf.
chap. xiii. 4). Therefore, too, in connection with our new
spiritual life, in which we call upon God as our Father
(Rom. viii. 15) the objective Spirit, that works within us
and urges us on (v. 14) testifies to us that we are the
children of God (v. 16), since only the children of God in
their conduct can be like unto Him. Not as though we
become the children of God only through becoming like
unto God through this spirit, whereby, since this likeness
to God is never perfect but only begun, all certainty of our
state of grace would be undermined, and the adoption to
the state of being the children of God would then not be
an act of God's grace, but the fruit of our own conduct.
But rather, because on the basis of the act of grace on
God's part we have been adopted as his children, God has
sent into our hearts the spirit of His Son (Gal. iv. 6).
Here again we find the fundamental thought of Christ's
preaching, according to which we become the children of
God in the Kingdom of God, and only because we are such,
we feel impelled to become like unto Him (Matt. v. 45).
This is made particularly prominent by John. According
to him the love of God, which He has shown to us in the
sending of His Son, and from which we are first to learn
what it means to love (1 John iv. 10), is made perfect in
this, that God Himself abides in us (1 John iv. 12). As
this presupposes that we remain in Him, it is the mystical
relation with God that has been established by the seeing
of God, in which John sees the specific possession of re
demption and therefore too the completed realization of
divine love in the believers. This love is in this case also
the fatherly love of God (1 John iii. 1) whom we have
learned in Ohrist to know as our Father (ii. 13). But

FAITH AND STATE OF GRACE 329
Jesus has already said in John, that when His work would
be finaUy completed in His return after the resurrection,
there would be no further use of this picture, because then
He could without picture or proverb reveal this love to
them (John xvi. 25). Accordingly in John it is the con
fidence in God HimseK, whose love has been perfectly
revealed to us, which proves itseK in the fact that our
prayers are heard (1 John iii. 21; v. 14-15). But only in
John in consequence of this mystical vital union with God
does this new relationship into which the believer enters
with his God, become a mutual relation of love. For it
belongs to the essence of love that one lives entirely in
the other, and the other so completely fills the first, that
he is determined in his thought and actions only through
Him. But the typical being of the Son in the Father and
of the Father in the Son was such a revelation of love;
for the Father loved the Son from eternity (John xvii.
23-24, 26), and the Son loves the Father (John xiv. 31).
The Hfe communion of the disciples with Him, which
was the basis of their communion with God (xv. 4) Jesus
also regards as a relation of love. He has loved them as
the Father has loved Him (xv. 9) and as they love Him
(xiv. 21). Thus then in the new state of salvation the
love of God is recognized as being in Him (1 John ii. 5).
Since His love toward us is only perfected in His being
in us (iv. 17), we recognize His love, which He has realized
in our hearts (John xvii. 26), entirely only in this, that
His being, recognized as love, now passes over to us also.
Whosoever dwells in love abides in God and God abides
in him (1 John iv. 16). Only in this do we recognize
that love becomes perfect in the believing congregation
(iv. 17). This love, which by its nature is both a love for
God and a love for the brethren (iv. 20-21; v. 1), in con
sequence of the highest manifestations of God's love is
made perfect in us. Paul already says, that the love of

330 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
God can be known only if we experience, that by His
dwelling in us our love constantly grows, until at last we
are entirely filled with the fulness of God's love (Eph. iii.
19). As Jesus says that the true descent from Abraham
can be recognized by the fact that we do the works of
Abraham, and the fact that men are the children of the
Devil by this, that they carry out the devilish desires (John
viii. 39, 44), thus in the state of being the children of God
the essential likeness to God is established in us (cf. Matt.
v. 45). To those who have accepted Christ in faith, He
has given the authority (John i. 12) to become the chil
dren of God, in this sense, and we, says John triumphantly,
are these (1 John iii. 1). Just at the highest development
of Joannine thought, where religion is realized in the most
complete vital communion with God, this mystical union
becomes the potent source of a new God-like life. No
distinction is any more made between an adoption based
on grace and the conduct of children effected through
grace; but the new state of adoption is in its very nature
itseK a state of being similar to God. How this state is
brought about will be seen in chap xvii. 1.
4. The State of Servant of God.— If the adoption
to childhood is realized in the Kingdom of God, then in
its nature it is always the communion in which the su
premacy of God becomes the sole determining factor, and
aU the members become the subjects of God, who are obli
gated to obey His will exclusively. If the Kingdom of
God is, on account of the complete redemption that is
given in it, by virtue of the adoption, the highest good
for the acquisition of which we must be ready to sacrifice
everything (Matt. xiii. 44-45), then, too, the fulfilment of
the will of God in this kingdom, for which we pray (Matt.
vi. 10), is that for which we are in duty bound to strive
(Luke xii. 31). In the Theocracy of Israel the typical
realization of this ideal had already been begun, in so far

FAITH AND STATE OF GRACE 331
as God had chosen this nation as His peculiar people
(Deut. vii. 6), which was obligated to serve Him alone.
It is true that rebellious Israel had forfeited the right to
this honor (Hos. ii. 25) ; but the congregation of believers
from Israel has again been made the chosen race (1 Pet.
ii. 9-10), the people of God, as the Church is called every
where else in the New Testament (Heb. viii. 10, after Jer.
xxxi. 32; 2 Cor. vi. 16, after Lev. xxvi. 11-12; Rev. xviii.
4, after Jer. H. 45). When viewed from the standpoint
of a prophetic picture they are called the fold of God
(1 Pet. ii. 25; v. 2; cf. Heb. xiii. 20).
As the people that in a specific sense belong to God, Israel
was to be the holy nation (Ex. xix. 6), and the congrega
tion of believers out of Israel has become such (1 Pet. ii.
5, 9). As in the Old Testament every first born was dedi
cated to the service of the Lord (Rom. xi. 16), thus, too,
the beUevers have been selected as the first fruits (2 Thess.
ii. 13; cf. James i. 18; Apoc. xiv. 4). Therefore in the
Epistles of Paul, in Hebrews, in the Apocalypse, the mem
bers of the congregation are all called saints. But as noth
ing unclean can be dedicated to the service of God, it was
necessary that they first be cleansed from the pollution of
their sins through the blood of an atoning sacrifice (Heb.
ix. 13-14) ; that they be consecrated (xiii. 12 ; cf . x. 10, 14),
for which purposes Christ had given Himself up as a sacri
fice (John xvii. 19). Thus, too, God can accept none in
His service whom He has not Himself prepared; for which
reason He through baptism gives the believers His spirit,
and for this reason baptism is designated as dedication by
the Spirit (1 Pet. i. 2; 2 Thess. ii. 13). As the Spirit
transfers them into the living communion with Christ,
they are saints and consecrated to God in Christ (1 Cor.
i. 2; Phil. i. 1), or in the Holy Ghost (Rom. xv. 16). But
there was a special class in Israel that was to realize in a
typical manner the ideal that was held out to the whole

332 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
people, namely, the priesthood. But this ideal, too, was
realized entirely only in the congregation of the believers.
Therefore they are the priests of God (Rev. i. 6), a holy
priesthood serving their heavenly King (1 Pet. ii. 5, 9),
who because they have been cleansed from aH poUution of
guilt (Heb. x. 19-20) come near to God (1 Pet. iii. 18)
and were permitted to bring offerings to Him (ii. 5). Their
sacrifices are their prayers (Rev. v. 8 ; viii, 3-4) and their
works of love (Heb. xiii. 15) and all of their deeds that
are pleasing to God are a service of God (Rom. xii. 1;
Phil. iii. 3). This is the Biblical idea of the universal
priesthood of the believers. This does not bring with it
special prerogatives, but only a great advantage, but one
that at the same time includes duties that involve the whole
life. In the conception of the covenant relation that pre
vails in the Epistle to the Hebrews, the same double rela
tionship is also contained. In the covenant which God
has made with Israel, and which on the basis of the blood
of Christ has been renewed with the congregation of
believers (Mark xiv. 24) God obligates HimseK just as
much to bless the people as the people obligate themselves
to obey Him. He makes the business of the people His
own, just as the people make God's business their own.
The specific expression for this other side of the state
of grace is the servitude of God. As the revelation of the
Father to the Son becomes the parabolic picture of the
love relation into which God enters over against the con
gregation of believers, thus the relation of the Master to
the servant becomes the picture of the absolute and un
conditional dependence in which the faithful stand to
God. In itself this is not in conflict with the sonship;
for the Son also must be obedient (1 Pet. i. 14) and is
obligated to serve the Father (Luke xv. 29; Matt. xxi. 28).
But the duty of unconditional service is inherent in the
idea of a servant. It lies in the nature of servitude that

FAITH AND STATE OF GRACE 333
no one can serve two masters (Mark vi. 24). Here, too,
the idea is not that of the natural relation of dependence
of man on God. Israel was the servant of God in their
capacity as a chosen people (Is. xii. 8, 9; xlvi. 2), as His Son.
Only it must be remembered here, that what in the Old
Covenant Israel was only as a nation, in the New Covenant
aU the individuals are, who through a voluntary entrance
into the congregation have also entered upon this state of
servitude. For this reason Jesus in the parable tells us
that the Lord of the vineyard goes out to hire voluntary
workmen (Mark xx. 1 sqq.) ; and according to Matt. xxi.
33 also the workingmen in the vineyard have been hired.
But after they have once entered upon this arrangement
they are now bound unconditionally as are the slaves. As
such Jesus repeatedly describes His disciples (Matt, xviii.
23; Luke vii. 7), and the designation of the believers as
the servants of God is especially frequent in the earliest
apostoHc preaching (Acts iv. 29; 1 Pet. ii. 16; Rev. vii.
3; xix. 2, 5).
However much Paul regards the adoption as children as
that which is new in Christianity, yet the believers accord
ing to his teachings also are the servants of God (Rom.
vi. 22), which is in vi. 16 emphasized over against all other
servitude, as this is done in Matt. vi. 24; and is also found
in 1 Cor. vii. 23; or, what is in substance the same, they
are caHed the servants of Christ (vii. 22). Very frequently
the apostle calls himself and his co-workers the servants
or slaves of Christ (Rom. i. 1; Phil. i. 1), or, after the
manner of the Old Testament, slaves of God (Tit. i. 1;
cf . James i. 1) in so far as they have made His special service
their life's work; but according to 1 Cor. xii. 5 all Chris
tians serve God, each with his own gift. As Paul in
1 Cor. iv. 1-2 calls himself a steward, thus Jesus compared
all of His disciples with stewards (Matt. xxv. 14 sqq.; cf.
1 Pet. iv. 10). In this way the relation of servitude

334 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
becomes for each the expression of the consciousness of
his calling for every individual, by virtue of which each
is called upon, according to his gifts or state, to render
his life as a service to God in the congregation of believers.
This is merely the other side of the realization of the
religious ideal. The unconditional confidence in God is
accompanied by an unconditional feeling of obligation;
only that this phase, since God's will also regulates our
conduct toward men, leads at the same time to a realiza
tion of the ethical ideal. Even John, who directly calls
the state of redemption a relation of love, yet everywhere
presupposes that love cannot satisfy itself unless it does
everything that the beloved one demands. As Jesus out
of love does everything that the Father directs (John xiv.
31), thus, too, He loves those only who keep His com
mandments (xiv. 15-21), and is for this reason loved by
them as He is by the Father (xv. 10). In keeping the com
mandments, which according to Revelation is a mark of
the servants of God (xii. 17; xiv. 12), the love of God is
made perfect, according to 1 John ii. 5. This is a mark
of the continual communion with God (iii. 24), which in
its essence is a relation of love. This idea is character
istic of John, who alone in the New Testament discusses
extensively the love of God, that, as God's love is con
stantly in a self-sacrificing manner active for our good,
our love toward Him does not consist merely in a vague
feeling or the desire for Him, but in keeping His com
mandments (v. 3), i. e., in the subjection of our wUls and
interests and in living exclusively for God and His service.
Nothing else is demanded in the condition of servitude
to God.
But this brings with it a grave responsibility, which is
constantly accompanied by the fear that it will not be
met. For this reason the fear of God is a characteristic
feature of all the servants of God (1 Pet. ii. 16-17; cf.

FAITH AND STATE OF GRACE 335
Rev. xi. 18; Acts ix. 31). Jesus already demands that
this fear should drive away all other (Matt. x. 28) ; and
the sanctification of the name of God, for which He prays
(vi. 9), according to 1 Pet. iii. 14, presupposes this fear,
which is the opposite of all fear of men. Peter i. 17
expressly emphasizes the fact that the consciousness of being
the children of God cannot cast out the fear of the just
Judge. It is altogether a mistake when the religion of
the New Testament is placed in contrast to that of the
Old, in which latter, the fear of God is thought to prevail.
It is true that perfect love excludes fear (1 John iv. 18) ;
but as long as we are yet in the process of development
in this love, we cannot and should not be without the fear
of God. What Paul places over against the childlike
trust, with which we appeal to a Father's love, is the fear
that prevailed over his readers in the time when they were
yet Gentiles, when they were threatened at all times by
the vengeance of their gods (Rom. viii. 15). He knows full
weH the fear of God, whom he is to serve (2 Cor. v. 11)
and he perfects the work of self-purification in the fear
of God, which has been commanded him (vii. 1). He
exhorts them to work out their salvation with fear and
trembling (Phil. ii. 12), as he himself with fear ap
proaches the task assigned him by the Lord (1 Cor. ii. 3).
It is a matter of the highest significance, which is generally
overlooked, that the state of grace includes not only the
consciousness of being the children of God but also the
consciousness of duty in the service of God.
5. The Inheritance and the Reward. — The pecul
iarity of these two phases of the state of grace is brought
out most prominently in the manner in which its goal,
namely, the completion of redemption, appears as guaran
teed in it. In itseK already, often, according to Old Tes
tament model (cf. Acts vii. 5 ; Heb. xi. 8) this is described
as the eternal and imperishable possession set apart for

336 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
us (1 Pet. i. 4; Heb. ix. 15). Even where there is no
thought of the adoption, the Scriptures often speak of
the inheritance of the Kingdom of God (Matt. xxv. 34;
1 Cor. vi. 9-10) or of eternal life in Him (Mark x. 17;
Luke x. 25; cf. 1 Pet. iii. 7). Now, however, it is gen
erally the case among men that the possession intended
for the son is his inheritance. If then we have become
the children of God, then too are we the heirs (Gal. iv. 7;
Rom. viii. 17), i. e., the possession of aU of the goods of
our Heavenly Father is in store for us. The Spirit who
makes us sure of this adoption, is the pledge of this in
heritance (2 Cor. i. 22; v. 5; cf. Eph. i. 14) in this, that
He teaches us to recognize the love of God in all His
dealing for our salvation so far, and guarantees to us that
our salvation will be completed (Rom. v. 5-11). Indeed,
He Himself is the first of the gifts of God, who gives us
the assurance that we shall also enjoy the consummation
(viii. 23). Since according to the law of Israel only the
first born was heir (cf. Heb. xii. 16), in xii. 23 those who
are to participate in the completion of redemption are
called the first born. Only through the entrance upon
this heavenly inheritance they become sons in the fullest
sense (Rev. xxi. 3, 7), so that even Paul, who is so fond
of describing the present state of grace as that of adoption,
sees in 2 Sam. vii. 14 (cf. 2 Cor. vi. 18) a promise also
for the future, from which he expects the fuU adoption to
the sonship of God (Rom. viii. 23; cf. v. 29).
When regarded from the standpoint of the conscious
ness of servitude, the promised completion of redemption
has another aspect, in so far as the servant can expect
pay. Here there is no thought of one who has been born
a slave or has become such against his will, since, as we
have seen, in the new covenant the individual enters the
congregation and thereby also the state of service of God
by a voluntary act. Hence this state appears at all times

FAITH AND STATE OF GRACE 337
as one in which the servant of God can expect the pay
that has been promised him and which he has been work
ing for. The parable in Luke xvii. 7-10 also, which stiH
proceeds entirely from the standpoint of servitude in the
ancient nations, has not at all the purpose to deny to the
disciples the right of asking for such pay. Here the
object is to show that the slave, who himseK and aU that
he has belongs to his Master, can never render more than
his duty demands, and hence cannot expect to be thanked
for the fulfilment of his duty (v. 9). But the furnishing
of the daily support of the servant that is found in the
very relation of servitude (v. 8) is in no wise denied him.
Jesus presupposes that His disciples expect wages and
only discusses the question how these can be secured in a
proper way (Matt. v. 46; vi. 1). With these He, however,
does not mean only the inner satisfaction, which every
truly God-pleasing action brings itself, although according
to James i. 25 this, too, belongs fundamentaUy to the cer
tainty of the attainment of the heavenly goal (v. 12). Jesus
speaks particularly of a reward that we possess in heaven
(Matt. v. 12), and which, as it were, is there collected for
us for the day of the consummation (vi. 20). Frequently
He emphasizes in gnomic contrast the actual relation
of this pay to the service (cf. e. g., Matt. v. 7; x. 32-33)
and even illustrates this in the parable by a picture that
surpasses the boundaries of aU ordinary reality (Luke xii.
37). And when on the other hand the unmeasured greatness
of this pay is emphasized (Matt. xix. 29; Luke vi. 30)
this seeming contradiction is solved by this, that the
equaHty is regarded not quantitatively but qualitatively.
In fact the pay is only one and the same, that which the
Lord gives from free grace to all whom He has hired for
service in His vineyard, whether they have done much or
little (xx. 1-16), namely, eternal life (xix. 29) in the con
summation of the Kingdom of God. But as every really
V

338 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
useful service consists only in the striving for the su
premacy of God, i. e., seeking His righteousness (Luke
vi. 33) the pay is not something foreign to the service
but is only the fuU realization of what the service aims
to secure; and there is accordingly a perfect equivalent re
lation between the two. In so far, on the other hand, as
the realization of the rule of God in the consummation of
the Kingdom of God surpasses immeasurably aU this rela
tive realization in individual activity, the same is also sur
passingly great. Since the pay is of a uniform kind, the
measure is not to be found in the individual service, which
will always be different, according to ability and conduct
of life, but only in the effort to attain the right goal as such,
i. e., the fidelity in the service of God (cf. 1 Cor. iv. 2).
But no more powerful impulse is to be found in striving
after the ideal than the certainty that it can be realized
at some time; and therefore the certain hope of this reward
is the impulse for all the service rendered by the servant
of God.
The promise of reward made by Jesus is appropriated
throughout by the apostolic preaching. Even in 2 John
viii., the readers receive the full pay of the work the apostle
has done in their case. Christ comes to bring the reward
to His servants (Rev. xi. 18) and His reward is with Him
(xxii. 12). It is even said in Heb. x. 35-36 that the attain
ment of the reward of the covenant, toward which all the
arrangements for salvation in both the old and the new
covenant are directed, is the pay for holding fast to the
joyful confidence in these promises, in order thereby to
encourage this confidence. Paul makes use of the figure
of the seed and the harvest in order to represent the heavenly
consummation as a necessary result of efforts on earth
(Gal. vi. 7-8), and calls this a reward of victory (1 Cor.
ix. 24-25; Phil. iii. 14), which the athlete on reaching the
goal receives from the just Judge (2 Tim. iv. 8). In this

FAITH AND STATE OF GRACE 339
figure it becomes perfectly clear that this relation between
pay and service is determined solely by divine grace in
order to encourage us to be faithful in our calling as the
servants of God. Even the attainment of the possession
destined for us, which in other cases is described as the
consequence of our being received as children, is in Col.
iii. 24 caUed a reward of a service devoted exclusively to
the Lord. Also in James i. 72; 1 Pet. v. 4, this consum
mation of redemption is called the crown of honor that
awaits us at the goal.
However this reward is by no means one that we receeive
only in the world to come. As the growth in the develop
ment of salvation in Heb. vi. 9-10 is represented from the
side of God as a reward for the service of love so far ren
dered by the believers, and as the preservation of this
reward amid temptations is depicted as a reward for the
preservation of the word, which demands patience (Rev.
iii. 10), thus John likes to call the being and continuance
of God and of Christ in us, in a pointed manner an equivalent
reward for our being and continuing in them, although
it is merely the consequence of this. Then, too, the thought
that blessings wiU be received where blessings are given
(1 Pet. iii. 9) is not foreign to the New Testament. It is
altogether a mistake to think that the Old Testament law
of retaliation has been abrogated by the New Testament
doctrine of grace. Peter appropriates the sharp expression
of the former from Ps. 34, 13-17, and reproduces it in his
own words (1 Pet. iii. 10-12). As reward for the way in
which the PhiHppians have fully satisfied the needs of the
apostle, God will satisfy their needs in a surpassing man
ner (Phil. iv. 18-19). Indeed Paul promises an abundant
harvest to the rich sowing of love; and as a result the
Corinthians will ever receive new impulses to works of
charity (2 Cor. ix. 6, 10-11). He discusses the reward of
the teacher extensively, which indeed will be different in

340 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
accordance with the difference in the service (1 Cor. iii. 8) ;
but in doing so he has not in mind a difference in the degree
of blessedness, but of praise which God bestows upon the
faithful workers (iv. 5), when that which he has done to
the congregation will redound to his glory on the day of
Jesus Christ (2 Cor. i. 14; Phil. ii. 16; xiv. 1; 1 Thess. ii.
19-20). In order to attain this reward he indeed tries to do
more than his duty requires (1 Cor. ix. 17-18), for the
mere fulfilment of his duty only saves him from the pun
ishment that would be meted out to him, if he did not do
his duty (ix. 6), and which, like the reward, can be only
one, namely, the denial of salvation. But what is true of
his duties as an apostle applies naturaHy to every duty
of an individual, to the fulfilment of which obligation his
calling as a servant of God should urge him on. In this
way the fulfilment of the divine wiU at all times receives
the necessary impulses, through this consciousness that con
tains the promise of reward, just as the certainty of the
inheritance at all times strengthens the religious conscious
ness in reference to our relation to God, which has been
made normal again by our state of grace.

CHAPTER XVH
REGENERATION AND SANCTIFICATION
1. The Essence of Regeneration. — The specific ex
perience which the believers make in the state of grace
is regeneration. James calls it the highest of all the good
and perfect gifts that come from above, that God has be
gotten us from His own free will, through the word of
truth, as this is given us in the proclamation that Jesus
has been exalted to the Messiahship, to be a first fruit
especially dedicated to Him from among all His creatures
(James i. 18). The word of God's law that, according to
prophetic promises, has been implanted in the heart of
believers can now save souls (i. 21), because it is a word
given to Hberty (i. 25 ; cf . ii. 12) ; i. e., because these souls
feel that they have been delivered from the bondage of
sin, that so far hindered its fulfilment. We still hear the
joyful echo of the experience once made in the words of
Peter, who, like every Israelite, had possessed a hope of
redemption, but one that was dead and impotent to pro
duce religious life, because it pointed only to an uncertain
future, but who had felt that only through the fact that
Jesus had been exalted to the Messiah, he had been regen
erated to a Hvely and potent hope (1 Pet. xiii.). The
beHevers, however, to whom he writes, experience the power
of the living and incorruptible word of God, that is de
clared to them in this message of redemption, in the re
generation to an unfeigned love to the brethren (i. 22-23,
25). They know that they have been saved by the blood
of the Mediator of redemption from the fetters with which
341

342 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
they had been bound during their old life in unprofitable
legalism, which did not permit a life pleasing to God
(i. 18-19). The old things have passed away; ah things
are become new, is the exclamation of Paul in 1 Cor. v.
17. It is a new creation that we have experienced (Gal.
vi. 15; cf. Eph. ii. 10), in which a new man has been
created in him after God (Col. iii. 10; Eph. iv. 24). The
apostle bases this on the imparting of the Holy Spirit in
baptism (Tit. iii. 5) as the new power of God that has
thereby imparted to him fills his whole being. Through
this spirit of Christ he has been delivered from the domin
ion of sin, because this spirit has transferred him into a
living communion with Christ (Rom. viii. 2). In a living
communion with Him who died for the sake of his sins,
he finds everything that the world has and is, i. e., his whole
sinful being has been crucified for him and he for the
world (Gal. vi. 14). His old man, a servant of sin, has
died in Christ (Rom vi. 5-6) ; with the risen Lord he has
been awakened to a new life (vi. 5 ; cf. Col. ii. 12 ; Eph.
ii. 6). In the living communion with Him, he has died
unto sin and now lives only for God (Rom. vi. 11), because
in reality he no longer lives, but only Christ in him (Gal.
ii. 20), whose heart beats in him (Phil. i. 8), who in this
life upon earth is His one and all (Phil. i. 21).
Especially does John emphasize the fact that the dwell
ing of God in us necessarily brings with it that His love
is transferred to us. This is what He means by saying
that we are begotten of God (1 John ii. 29; iii. 9) in con
sequence of which we are of Him (iv. 6; v. 18-19), i. e.,
are in our character determined by Him. It is this result
of His grace that makes us children like unto God (John i.
12-13). The fact that we are begotten of God is known
in this, that we no longer sin, and indeed can no longer sin
(1 John iii. 9-10). It is perfectly useless to try to weaken
these expressions. This only follows that he who has not

REGENERATION AND SANCTIFICATION 343
yet entered upon this stage, has not yet been begotten of
God, or has not yet experienced this fully. John knows
full well that it is empty self-deception to think that we
have no more sin (i. 8), and that we must constantly be
admonished to sin no more (ii. 1). He accordingly under
stands this being begotten of God, in so far as this has
actually taken place, as a potent beginning, which only
through constant seK-preservation over against sin can
attain to a permanent condition (v. 18). But as this being
begotten of God is a work of God, which is experienced
by the believing in the communion with God that has been
made possible only through seeing God in Christ, his pur
pose in this statement is to point to the fact, that only
through constant uniting with God through Christ this
condition can be realized gradually and in a more and more
perfect form. Therefore, new admonitions are constantly
added to the effect that those who do evil have never seen
God (3 John xi.), that he who does not love has never
seen God (1 John iv. 8) ; that all claims of having seen
God (iii. 6), of having known God or having communion
with God (i. 6; ii. 4) that is considered compatible with
sinning and the non-observance of the divine law is a lie.
All moral progress is only possible through a renewed and
closer union with the source of religious life, which is made
possible for us through seeing God in the historical Christ.
The oldest Scripture passages treating of this sub
ject look upon regeneration in the same light. In seeming
contradiction to this, according to James i. 21, the im
planted word must be constantly received again, if it is
to save souls. With the word, through which they have
been begotten the new born babes must again be nourished,
so that through this word they may grow into deliverance
(1 Pet. ii. 2). Although they have put on Christ in bap
tism (Gal. iii. 27) the believers must nevertheless again
put on Christ (Rom. xiii. 14); although the old man has

344 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
died in Christ, they must yet constantly put him off and
put on the new man (Col. iii. 9-10 ; Eph. iv. 22 sqq.) ; al
though they have crucified their flesh and all its lusts and
affections (Gal. v. 24), they must yet through the Spirit
destroy the activity of the body that stands in the service
of sin (Rom. viii. 13). These seemingly contradictory
statements emphasize all the more strongly that in re
generation only the beginning of a new life has been estab
lished, which in accordance with the principal of human
development is only graduaUy to grow into a life that is
made perfect in Christ (Gal. iv. 19). But through God's
grace a potent beginning is made in the state of grace,
which carries with it the possibility of a full development.
Only the certainty that this possibiHty is here furnishes the
impulse to attempt its further development; only the con
stant presence of the ideal, the realization of which is made
possible by this presence, can supply the motive and the
joy to realize the same. A regeneration through which the
ideal has already been realized is unknown to the New
Testament. 2. The Essence of Sanctification. — The same is true
of sanctification. In the biblical sense it is clear of itself
that no one can sanctify himself; but in the state of servi
tude to God we are dedicated to be His property and are
equipped for His service. The matter at bottom is then
always this, to be preserved blameless in the state of this
holiness (1 Thess. iii. 13), so that no new pollution of sin
destroys this state. And yet this very preservation is de
scribed as consisting in a constant renewal in a more per
fect sanctification of our whole being through God (1 Thess.
v. 23). It is described as an act that takes place once in
our baptism (1 Cor. vi. 11) ; and yet our sanctification is
demanded in 1 Thess. iv. 3, enjoined upon us as the wiU
of God. Here it appears clearly that this will demands of
us only the abstaining from everything that would destroy

REGENERATION AND SANCTIFICATION 345
this sanctification. According to 2 Cor. vii. 1, also the
sanctification that has been implanted into us is brought
to a full realization through a constant renewal of the purifi
cation of ourselves from all pollution. It is nothing but a
positive expression of this fact, when in 1 Pet. 15 the
demand is made, that we shaU be holy in aU our conver
sations, to prove the sanctification that has been given us
in aU our deeds (2 Cor. i. 12). That same Epistle to the
Hebrews, in which our being holy (in the sense of the
cleansing from the pollution of guilt making possible our
dedication to God) is constantly considered as the imme
diate effect of the death of Christ (x. 10, 29) admonishes
us to seek hohness, as though it were a gift yet to be attained
(xii. 14), and says, that the object of the providential edu
cation of God in our lives is the participation in His holi
ness (xii. 10). The seeming contradiction is found here
as in the statements made concerning the ideal that is
realized in the regeneration and yet always is yet to be
realized, because it can be realized only after the grace of
God has implanted in men a potent motive and a beginning.
Here, too, it is very evident, that this constant growth in
the realization takes place only through divine protection
and co-operation. Paul is the first who teaches that the
spirit that has been given in baptism is the principle of
the new moral life, and thus it becomes clear, that this
protection and co-operation is in the ordinary way trans
mitted to us only through the divine power that is bestowed
upon us. Hence results, that he not infrequently speaks
of a sanctification in a sense that corresponds more to the
common idea of moral perfection, than this is done else
where (cf. Rom. vi. 19-27).
In the case of Paul accordingly we find a detailed de
scription of the process of sanctification. This is based on
the fact that in spite of regeneration, the flesh, i. e., the
natural human life, which is still susceptible to sinful im-

346 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
pulses, has not been destroyed in us as long as we are upon
earth. But when in regeneration a new divine power has
been bestowed upon us through the Spirit, then Christianity
becomes a constant struggle of the flesh against the Spirit,
since the two have contrary impulses (Gal. v. 17). The
point in the process of sanctification is accordingly how
far the regenerated man walks according to the flesh and
how far according to the Spirit (Rom. viii. 4), how far he
is a spiritual man (Gal. vi. 1), i. e., a man determined by
God's power through the Spirit, or how far he is a man
of the flesh (1 Cor. iii. 3). But reason, too, belongs to
the natural life of the flesh (Col. ii. 18), which through the
sinful impulses of the flesh has lost the ability to know
the will of God and accordingly must be constantly re
newed for an examination of this will (Rom. xii. 2).
Therefore Paul says of the Corinthians, in whose moral
life the workings of the spirit was as yet very meagre,
that he regards them as being yet entirely in the flesh;
he is not able as yet to impart to them the deeper doctrines
of truth (1 Cor. iii. 1-2), which could be understood only
by the spiritual minded (ii. 15). But this struggle between
the spirit and the flesh is not of a hopeless character, as
that contest is, which the apostle on the basis of his ex
perience with the law, describes in Rom. i., and in which,
in opposition to the purely theoretical powers of reason, the
power of sin dwelling in the flesh always comes out vic
torious (vii. 23-25). The new spiritual power proves itseK
to be divine and overwhelming as soon as man submits
to its influence. In this way he can gradually attain to the
development of Christian knowledge and character (chap. xiii.
4) ; although naturally this new spiritual life, too, must
always be dedicated to God anew and be cleansed from aU
pollution (1 Cor. vii. 34; 2 Cor. vii. 1; cf. 1 Thess. v. 23).
Gradually then the transformation into the similarity
of the spiritual supremacy of Ohrist will result, which is

REGENERATION AND SANCTIFICATION 347
the pledge of our final complete participation in His glory
(2 Cor. iii. 18).
It is a fatal misunderstanding if, as is often done, we
see in this contest between the flesh and the spirit only a
struggle against the lusts of the senses, although Paul
counts among the works of the flesh also the sins of a lack
of love and pride (Gal. v. 19-20), and declares that all
kinds of sinful desires grow out of the flesh and its thoughts
(Eph. ii. 3). It was natural in the surroundings of the
early Christians, that their development in sanctification
was at all times endangered by the pollution of particular
sins that had marked their lives as heathens, the sins of
lasciviousness and covetousness. But Paul does not at all
think that their sanctification consists only in their gradual
cleansing from such sins. And when it occasionally seems
that he regards the sinful impulses that he antagonizes as
proceeding solely from the body and its lusts (Rom. vi. 12;
viii. 13) this is to be explained on the ground that accord
ing to the regular order the Spirit already is dwelling in
the beHevers and has obtained the supremacy there and
therefore their sinful impulses proceed only from the lower
sensual nature of man. But in Rom. vi. 19 he expressly
states, that sanctification is the fruit of this, that man sub
jects aU of his members to righteousness, i. e., to the
normal conduct as servants in harmony with the will of
God. Sanctification is the fruit of a perfect freedom from
sin and of complete service of God (vi. 22). It is of the'
greatest importance that sanctification does not consist in
the laying aside of special, even grievous sensual sins, but
in the positive subjection of the whole person to God, to
whom we can render service only when all the organs of
our senses become weapons of righteousness, i. e., means
for the realization of righteousness in the struggle against
sin (iv. 17). But this state of being pleasing in the
sight of God can only be attained if we submit ourselves

348 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
entirely to His will and to obedience to Him (vi. 16). It
was not Paul's fault that men have been content with the
righteousness that is given us by grace. He has expressly
held up over against the picture of this new righteousness
(Rom. iii. 5), the fact that, on the basis of the grace that
has been given us in baptism, our actual righteousness must
be attained and can be attained (Rom. vi.). But this
righteousness is nothing else than the fulfilment of the
divine will, in which the moral ideal is realized in the same
way in which the religious ideal is realized when we put
our trust in Him, who out of grace pronounces the sinner
just. 3. The Freedom from the Law.— For the faithful
in Israel the question as to the norm according to which
God's will was to be fulfilled could not possibly be raised.
Jesus had Himself fully recognized the revelation of God's
will in the Old Testament (chap. i. 2) and had not with a
single word absolved them from the duty to fulfil the law,
which had been imposed upon them in circumcision (Gal. v.
3). How this was to be fulfilled Jesus had Himself explained
(chap. xi. 2) ; and when James speaks of the perfect law
(i. 25), he evidently thinks of the law as Jesus had taught
that it should be fulfilled, since he, too, appeals to the
very words of the Old Testament law (ii. 8-19), just as in
his mentioning the law of love as the royal law and in
the command not to judge, there are distinct reminiscences
of Jesus' interpretation of the law (ii. 8; iv. 11).
Our distinction between a moral and a ceremonial law
is entirely unknown to the New Testament. That in cases
of a conflict charity stood higher than duty to cultus
Jesus has set down as self-evident by a simple appeal to
the word of the prophets (Hos. vi. 6; Matt. xii. 6). The
eternal thoughts of God also, which find their expression
in the Old Testament cultus order, could be completely
realized only in the New Testament worship of God, which

REGENERATION AND SANCTIFICATION 349
was no longer bound to a fixed place of cultus (John iv.
21). Jesus, too, who had already taught the fulfilment of
the letter of the law in the sense of the divine lawgiver,
has repeatedly pointed out how this takes place; and the
Epistle to the Hebrews has expanded this in brilliant
typology. And when the hardening of Israel and the divine
judgment over the people had resulted in the overthrow of
their political state and therewith also of the cultus insep
arably connected with this state, then it became clear, that
the exalted Christ now yet demanded only this, that the
nations that had been made His disciples should be taught
to keep His commandments, i. e., the commands taught by
Himself (Matt, xxviii. 20). In the Revelation we find that
only the words of God and of Christ are enjoined by the
prophet; and the commands which his epistle says should
be observed expressly include the demand of faith in the
name of Jesus and of the love of the neighbor, as He had
enjoined this (1 John iii. 22-23; cf. John xiii. 34). But
the fact remains that aU sin by its very nature is the rebel-
Hon against the divine law (1 John iii. 4) as it is con
stantly condemned in the case of the libertinism of the
Gentile Christians (Matt. vii. 23; xiii. 41; xxiv. 12). Not
only that the beHever knows what he is to do, is everywhere
regarded as a self-evident matter by the apostles, but also
that he can do what is asked of him. According to ancient
prophetic promise the word of God is written in his heart
(Heb. viii. 10; x. 16; cf. James i. 21). Already in the
wisdom Hterature of the Old Testament wisdom is described
as the innerly appropriated law, that goes beyond its letter
in teaching the divine will, and such wisdom can always be
sought of God by prayer and is surely given in answer to
the believing prayer (James i. 5-6).
The apostles did not impose the Jewish law upon the
converts who were won from heathendom (Gal. ii. 3), and
Peter and James have both, although in different ways,

350 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
given the reasons for this (Acts xv. 8-11; xiv. 18). Not
withstanding this there existed for a long time a tendency
in the primitive Church, that regarded it as self-evident,
that if the Gentiles wanted to take part in the promises of
Israel, they must become members of the chosen people
through submission to the rite of circumcision. It was a
natural thought that if the Gentiles accepted the God of
Israel and the Messiah whom He had sent, that then they
must submit to His law. To this was added, that the
altogether different order of life which this law imposed
upon the Jewish Christians, in many cases made impossible
that congregational life with the Gentile Christians, who
were free of the law, which was demanded by the principle
of brotherly love (e. g., in the love feasts) (Gal. ii. 12).
But Paul, who had the special call to be the apostle of the
Gentiles, could not possibly admit, that the Gentiles, who
had been called to God through him, should first become
Jews in order to participate in the full salvation that he
had offered them in the name of God. The secret of re
demption, which had not yet been made known to the
prophets of the Old Testament as it was now revealed to
the apostles, is declared by him in Eph. iii. 4 sqq., to be
this very thing, that salvation was actually bestowed upon
the Gentiles through the gospel and not through proselyting
method (cf. also Col. i. 26-27). The law was once for all
abrogated for the Christians as the order of salvation
(Rom. x. 4).
This did not exclude that Paul, in accordance with the
principle that every one should remain in the station in
which he had been found when called to the gospel (1 Cor.
vii. 17), himself as a born Jew considered it obligatory for
him to observe the order of life that had been made obliga
tory upon him through his circumcision, in so far as the
duties of his office and love did not compel him, in view
of the heathen, to depart from it (ix. 21). But these things

REGENERATION AND SANCTIFICATION 351
had lost aU redemptive importance in his eyes and became
harmful, if in any way they interfered with the knowledge
and the appropriation of the one redemption in Christ (Phil.
iii. 7-8). With perfect right he could, according to 1 Cor.
vii. 18, declare it a slander, when it was stated that he had
enjoined upon the Jews no longer to circumcise their chil
dren (Acts xxi. 21). But he could no longer find in this
order of life an obligation binding upon himself or upon
the beHevers from among the Jews in general; for these,
too, had been called to membership in the congregation,
without such duties being imposed on them (Gal. v. 13).
They were the children of the free woman (iv. 31) and in
principle free from the law. How the apostle with his train
ing as a student of the Scriptures explained these things from
a theological point of view, whether this was done through
the vicarious fulfilment of the law through Christ (iv. 4-5),
or in this way, that the old man, subject to the law had
died in the communion of life with Christ (Gal. ii. 19-20;
Rom. vii. 4 sqq.) is naturally of no religious significance
for us. The main fact remains, that in principle through
the redemption achieved in the death of Jesus, together
with the law as an order of redemption, also the law as
an order of life had been abrogated (Col. ii. 14), and in
this way for aU sinners the wall of partition between Juda
ism and heathendom had been removed (Eph. ii. 14 sqq.).
The decisive justification for this was found in the fact
that the spirit had taken the place of the letter of the law
(2 Cor. iii. 3, 6; Rom. vii. 6), which spirit not only in
structed the believers more perfectly as to what they were
to do, but also urged them on and gave them the power to
do this (Rom. viii. 3-4), which the law had never been able
to effect. As a matter of fact the love that the spirit
awakened in them was the fulfilment of the law (Gal. v. 13-
14; Rom. xiii. 10). Jesus Himself had declared that the
law would not pass away in the sense that it would con-

352 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
tinue until that which it demanded had been fulfilled
(Matt. v. 18). Then naturaUy the law would cease in its
demanding function, of itseK, to continue as a law that
had been fulfilled, and hence no longer as law. This had
actually taken place. The children of God under the im
pulse of the Spirit no longer stand under any law (Rom.
vi. 14-15), not even under the law of Christ, which they ful
filled of themselves (Gal. vi. 1-2). Reason as renewed by
regeneration taught them to examine of themselves as to
what was good and pleasing in the sight of God (Rom. xii.
2; cf. Eph. v. 10; Phil. i. 10).
Naturally it was necessary to instruct them in this, since
regeneration was only the beginning of a new life (chap. xvii.
1), and the spirit stiH had to struggle against the old natural
man (chap. xvii. 2). Therefore Paul was compelled in aU of
his letters to admonish his congregations in reference to the
proper Christian life; and in difficult individual cases, by
virtue of the gift of the spirit he possessed, to give them
counsel (1 Cor. vii. 25, 38), or even directly at the command
of Christ, i. e., by virtue of his office (2 Thess. iii. 6). But
as the law of the old covenant was for him a revelation of
the divine will and continued to be such, he could also as
occasion demanded, appeal to a command in the Old Testa
ment in its literal form (Eph. vi. 2-3), or in its allegorical
interpretation (1 Cor. ix. 8-9), just as the Scriptures them
selves give instruction in manifold form for the develop
ment of Christian life (Rom. xv. 4; 1 Cor. x. 11). His
pupil, Luke, also finds in one of the parables of the Lord
the lesson that the law is to retain its permanent signifi
cance in its purpose to bring about repentance (Luke xvi.
17-18, 29 sqq. ; cf. 1 Tim. i. 9-10). In the same way Paul
could appeal to certain norm giving statements of Christ
(1 Cor. vii. 10-11 ; ix. 14-15), even if he did not know how
to give the reasons for the demands these made. Above all
he could appeal to the example of Jesus Christ itself (Rom.

REGENERATION AND SANCTIFICATION 353
xv. 3; 2 Cor. viii. 9; Eph. v. 2; Phil. ii. 5). If this is done
with less frequency than is by the original apostles (1 Pet. ii.
21-22; 1 John ii. 6; iii. 3-7; iv. 17; Rev. i. 9), the ground
of this is to be sought for in the fact that Paul did not have
before his eyes a vivid picture of the earthly career of
Jesus, and that he trusted in the workings of the Holy
Spirit, who would of HimseK, in the living communion in
Christ, reconstruct a picture of His Hfe in the believers.
When he so frequently appeals to his own example (1 Cor.
iv. 6-7; xi. 1; Phil. iii. 17; iv. 9) it does not follow that he
considered his life as a perfect model, but only this, that in
him as a fully developed Christian there had become a
reality of Hfe which the Spirit wanted to work and did
work. In the same sense he counts on the gradual develop
ment of Christian conduct, which he, as far as this was
already fixed positively, declares to be binding on the single
congregations (1 Cor. xi. 16; xiv. 33). Legal enactments
were no longer needed in this direction, since, as we have
seen, the beHeving acceptance of the redemptive acts of
God and of Christ is the fundamental experience of the
Christian in the call to the new state of grace; and in the
regeneration that comes with it are found sufficient impulses
for a God-pleasing conduct, in which accordingly every
where God HimseK, His Word and His spirit or the exalted
Christ are active.
4. The New Morality. — At bottom the new Christian
morality no longer consists in a system of actions prescribed
by a law, but in a uniform fundamental state of mind that
determines all actions. The statement of Christ that love
is the greatest commandment, because it finds its measure
and its law only in the love of the heart that lives on love
(Matt. vii. 12) and upon the fulfilment of which all the
other commandments depend (Matt. xxii. 39-40), cannot be
grasped more deeply that this is done by Paul, who declares
that love is the fulfilment of the whole law (Gal. v. 14),
W

354 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
and which never is completely accomplished (Rom. xiii.
8-10). For the object that Christ had in view was not to
draw a new line of demarcation between great and smaU
commandments, which formed the subject of the minute
theological speculations of the day, but over against aU this
measuring and weighing of the commandments of God,
which were in reality all of equal value (Matt. v. 18; James
ii. 10) to make an end of the moral casuistry. In his glori
fication of love Paul declares that it excludes even the
slightest injury of the neighbor (1 Cor. xiii. 4-7). Accord
ing to Col. iii. 14, love is the tie that binds ^together the
detail manifestation of Christian perfection so that none of
these can be lost. But this love is awakened in the hearts
of the children of God through the love of God, which they
have experienced because the child must and wants to be
like the father (Matt. v. 45-48; Eph. v. 1; 1 John iv.
16-9) ; and also through the powerful example of Christ,
which exhibits this ideal in realized form (John xiii. 34;
Eph. v. 2). This love is more closely defined as the love
for the brethren (1 Pet. i. 22; Heb. xiii. 1; Rom. xii. 10),
especially by John, who declares that its motive is found in
the consciousness of the fact that we are all begotten of the
God (1 John v. 1). But as this love cannot, without losing
its intrinsic value, count upon a return of love (Matt. v.
46-47), whereby it be only a loan that requires no sacrifice
(Luke vi. 36), although it is only the extent of the sacri
fice that can measure this love, as Jesus explains in con
nection with the widow's mite (Mark xii. 41-44), this love
shows itself in its purest and most perfect form as love
for our enemies. Love for one's enemies, according to Matt.
v. 44, can do everything if it can pray for them. In the
faithful prayers for others, of which the New Testament
furnishes such brilliant models, as also in fraternal admoni
tions and exhortations, which would lead the erring brother
back upon the right way (James v. 19-20; Heb. x. 24-25) is

REGENERATION AND SANCTIFICATION 355
found an imitation of the seeking and saving love of God
for sinners, which we have all felt (Matt, xviii. 12-16).
On the other hand, every seeming exhibition of love is use
less if it proceeds from any other motive than that loving
state of the heart (Matt. vi. 2; 1 Cor. xiii. 3). But this is
here, too, not a feeling, a sympathetic inclination, not even
a powerless taking part in the troubles of the neighbor
(James ii. 15-16; 1 John iii. 17-18); but is the sentiment
that does not seek its own, but that which is the others (1
Cor. xui. 5; Phil. ii. 4). Only when this is done is the
fundamental sin of selfishness overcome.
But this love must prove itseK in unselfish service,
wherein the disciple is to show his true greatness after the
example of Christ (Matt. xx. 26 sqq.; John xiii. 14-15). Such
service is not possible without humility, that does not exalt
itseK above the other (Mark ix. 34 sqq.) nor seek rank or
titles (Matt, xxiii. 7-10), does not esteem itself better than
the others and therefore does not judge haughtily and want
to correct others (vii. 1-5), but is wiUing to submit itself to
others (Phil. ii. 3). For this reason love everywhere ap
pears in the exhortatory portions of the apostolic letters as
connected with humiHty and as the second cardinal Christian
virtue (1 Pet. iii. 8; Rom. xii. 16; Col. iii. 12). By this
the other fundamental sin, that 'of pride, is overcome. But
this victory is in turn again the necessary consequence of
the fundamental experience of redemption, according to
which we can accomplish nothing of ourselves through our
own worthiness, and self-praise is accordingly out of the ques
tion (Rom. iii. 27; 1 Cor. i. 29). It is only the reverse side
of this humility when we do not estimate too highly that
which we have a right to demand of others or the injury
we may have received from them; for which reason gentle
ness and mildness is everywhere found connected with the
example of Christ (2 Cor. x. 3; cf. Matt. xi. 29). Because
gentleness will not suffer itself to be provoked or embit-

356 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
tered; it does not seek revenge (Matt. v. 39 sqq.; 1 Cor. vi.
7-8; 1 Pet. iii. 9; cf. Rom. xii. 19 sqq.), but bears injustice
with long suffering (Eph. iv. 2; Col. iii. 12-13); is peace
able (James iii. 13; Rom. xii. 18); forgives as it would
be forgiven (Eph. iv. 32; cf. Matt, xviii. 24-35). All
other conduct then naturally springs from love; aU lying
is impossible because this undermines confidence and
makes the fraternal union of Christians out of the question
(Eph. iv. 25) ; diligence is a matter of course, so that we may
have to give to the needy (iv. 28); it regulates all
social intercourse, so that we can serve our neighbor with
every word also (iv. 29) and wiU not mislead him with
unchaste and frivolous words (v. 4). Later the apostle de
scribes the new morality as all that is worthy of love and
praise (Phil. iv. 8) and brings to naught also the evil slan
der of those who are not Christians (1 Tim. iii. 6-7; 1 Pet.
ii. 12, 15).
But the Christian finds himself surrounded by a moral
order which Christianity has not established. In this case
the fundamental rule is to be applied that every one shall
abide in the surroundings in which his call to Christianity
found him (1 Cor. vii. 17; xx. 24) and see in this call the
demand through a faithful performance of his duties to
serve the Lord in the right way in these surroundings. Ac
cordingly the Christian is to submit to the human order of
the government for God's sake (1 Pet. ii. 13) and regard the
government as appointed by God (Rom. xiii. 1 sqq.), for
which reason the duty toward God does not exclude but in
cludes the duty as a citizen (Mark xii. 17). If conflicts
occur, the will of God must as a matter of course prevail
(Acts iv. 19 ; v. 29) ; but as for the rest it is the Christian's
duty to live a life retired from the world, not interfering by
word or deed in the affairs of the world, of which, however,
prayer for the government is a part (1 Tim. ii. 2). The
permanence of the marriage tie demanded by Jesus (Mark

REGENERATION AND SANCTIFICATION 357
x. 8, 9), Paul insists upon even in the case of mixed marriage
and adds the prohibition of contracting a further marriage
for the guilty half (1 Cor. vii. 10-16). Notwithstanding
the self-evident religious equality of the sexes (Gal. iii. 28,
cf . 1 Pet. iii. 7) the social status of the woman remains un
changed in marriage ; the husband is the head of the woman,
only that his own subordination to God through Christ does
not permit him to exercise any tyranny (1 Cor. xi. 3).
Rather the love of Christ for his congregation is made a
model of the love for the wife, just as the willing subjection
of the congregation to Christ is a model for the wife (Eph.
v. 24, 25). Thereby slandering the message of redemption,
as if it absolved from the fulfilment of natural duties
is made improbable (Tit. xxv.) and even the unbelieving man
can be won (1 Pet. iii. 1). The command that women shaH
not preach, expressly repeated in 1 Tim. ii. 12 ; from 1 Cor.
xiv. 34, is based on the fact that he who prays publicly or
delivers an address of devotion or exhortation rules the con
gregation, which is contrary to the natural subordination of
woman. Then too the duty of children to parents, as this
is laid down in the Old Testament, is not changed (Eph. vi.
1 sqq.), but the fact is rather emphasized that the com-
pHance with this duty, especially when the child has entered
into the Hving communion with Christ, is alone pleasing to
Him (Col. iii. 20). Parental training is regulated by the
fact that this really proceeds from the Lord, whose instru
ment the father is (Eph. vi. 4).
In the strongest way the Apostle Paul has emphasized his
position of maintaining the natural order of things by his
advice given to Christian slaves not to free themselves, even
K they have the chance, but to remain slaves, in order to
fulfil their Christian duties in the state in which God has
placed them (1 Cor. vii. 21). He bases this on the fact, that
even as a slave he had by Christ been led to true freedom,
and that even if he became free he would continue to be a

358 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
servant of Christ (vii. 22). If in the new relationship with
Christ, brought about by the Spirit, the difference between
slaves and freemen has ceased to exist (1 Cor. xii. 13; Gal.
iii. 28), thereby slavery in the sense of the ancient world
had also ceased to exist. The slave now did not serve because
he was compelled to, but saw in his earthly master his
heavenly Master, who called him to account for the way
in which he had fulfilled his duty (Col. iii. 23 sqq. ; Eph. vi.
6 sqq.). Through renewed zeal in the service of his Chris
tian master he would only add credit to his calling as a
Christian (1 Tim. vi. 2; Tit. ii. 10). Also over against the
unbelieving master he was to see to it, that Christian doc
trine was not blasphemed (1 Tim. vi. 1), and could be certain,
that, if notwithstanding his fulfilment of duty he patiently
suffered evil from his master, he would thereby win favor
with God (1 Pet. ii. 20). On the other hand, all tyranny
of the master had been put away, when he could say or
command the slave to do for him only what he could answer
for to his Lord in heaven (Col. iv. 1; Eph. vi. 9). Paul
sends the runaway slave back to his master ; but he reminds
Philemon of the fact that the latter was no longer his slave
but a beloved brother (Phil. v. 16). From this standpoint
there was no need of specific directions for the fulfilling of
well-known duties of a certain station. The idea of a
reformation of the natural arrangement of things in the
spirit of Christ, is not found in the apostolic letters even
when they speak in words of exhortation of the relation of
Christians to each other. The reason for this is found in
the simple fact, that their leading interest was to be found
in the cultivation of religious life, out of which came as a
natural thing the regulation of morals ; and that the expecta
tions of the speedy coming of Christ and of the end of the
world excluded all needs of such special regulations. Here
it becomes perfectly clear how it came to be reserved as the
duty of the Christian congregation of later times through

REGENERATION AND SANCTIFICATION 359
their spirit to transfuse the completely changed political and
social conditions of things. The injunctions of the apostles
cannot be directly applied to them; but just as little can
these injunctions be ignored, as far as religious principles
are concerned, on account of these changes.
5. Ascetics and Adiaphora. — For the personal life of
the Christian there is but one norm, namely, to walk worthy
of our calHng, or of Christ, or of the gospel (Eph. iv. 1;
Col. i. 10; Phil. i. 27), i. e., to avoid everything that is con
trary to our new religious relation to God and our state of
grace. Here the Apostle Paul had to carry on a severe
struggle against the traditional views of his Gentile Christian
congregations, who considered the extra marital sexual rela
tions, in so far as the rights of the husband were not touched,
as something from a moral point of view perfectly indif
ferent, as merely the satisfaction of a natural desire (cf.
1 Cor. vi. 13). To this is added that the worst sins of
heathendom sprang from this inclination to gratify the lusts,
which naturally always needed new means for their gratifi
cation (Rom. i. 26-27). Although Judaism was as a rule
free from this licentiousness, which Paul regards as the
specific characteristic of heathenism (Rom. i. 24), yet
even in the case of the Jewish Christians it was always
necessary too, to admonish to keep the marital relation
sacred (Heb. xiii. 4). But if in this case the emphatic re
membrance of the command not to commit adultery was
sufficient, yet Paul could not from his standpoint concern
ing Christian freedom hope to root out this evil by a
mere appeal to a command of God or of Christ, but he had
to draw attention to the fact that such action was contrary
to the mission of the body to be an organ in the service of
Christ (1 Cor. vi. 13-14), that fornication was injurious to
the living union with Christ (vi. 16) and was a sin against
one's own body, which, being dedicated by the Spirit to be
a temple of God, belongs to God and is to serve His glory

360 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
(vi. 18 sqq.). In this he has once for all set up the prin
ciple that the power of sexual lust can be overcome only
through religious motives.
Those times were much inclined to seek deliverance from
this sin by ascetical exercises and overlooked the fact that
the compulsory suppression of natural desires in the place
of satisfying them in a manner pleasing to God, will avenge
itseK by leading to worse sins (1 Cor. vii. 2-5). Paul, too,
regarded such exercises as something in themselves useful,
in so far as their purpose was only, through practice in self-
denial to secure supremacy over the natural desires (ix.
24-27). In this sense he could say that the entire abstinence
from sexual relations is for everybody something praise
worthy and desirable (vii. 1, 7-8) ; but had to warn strongly
against the attempt to force it contrary to natural inclina
tions. In this sense he declares the question of marriage to
be an adiaphoron (vii. 8, 36 sqq.) ; forbidding marriage on
dualistic grounds he considers a devilish false doctrine
(1 Tim. iv. 1 sqq.). To the current view, according to which
at least the second marriage was regarded as a sign of in
ability to abstain (cf. Luke ii. 36-37), he has, in so far
yielded, that he wanted to secure the church officials at any
rate against this accusation by giving the direction that only
those are to be chosen who had been married but once
(1 Tim. iii. 2, 12; v. 9). Jesus already had mentioned as
the only justifiable motive for the failure to marry, not the
fear of the earnest and heavy responsibilities, but the ex
clusive devotion to the service of the Kingdom of God
(Matt. xix. 10 sqq.). Paul also found a leading motive for
his preference (1 Cor. vii. 32 sqq.) in his own experience
that the fact that he was not married facilitated this devo
tion. But to the other messengers of the gospel, who were
married, he acceded the full right thereto, together with all
of the consequences thereof (ix. 4-5). He points out he had
had sad experiences in the case of young widows who had

REGENERATION AND SANCTIFICATION 361
undertaken to devote themselves entirely to the service of
Christ, and later demanded of them that they marry (1 Tim.
v. 11-15).
It is a seK-evident rule with reference to all other cares
of the body that the natural tendencies are to be prevented
by stringent seK-control from degenerating into sinful de
sires (Rom. xiii. 13-14). Participation in the sacrificial
meals of the Gentiles, with the temptations for gluttony and
lust that naturally accompanied them, was absolutely for
bidden by Paul from religious principles (1 Cor. x. 20 sqq.).
To the desire for sensuous exhilaration through excessive
use of wine he puts in contrast the higher spiritual en
thusiasm, which finds its expression, not in drinking songs,
but in hymns of praise (Eph. v. 18-19). But when the false
teachers at Colossse try by abstaining from the gratification
of their pleasures to attain a higher state of spirituality,
which alone would make them worthy of association with
the heavenly world, this he rejects as a new servitude under
human ordinances, which in the end would produce fleshly
pride (Col. ii. 16 sqq.; xx. 24). When on the other hand
men from ascetic motives deny themselves the use of meat
and wine and strictly observe fast days, he only demanded
in this case, that the strong should not despise the weak
and that the weak should not condemn the strong. For
him this only was at stake, that in all things that have no
connection with Christian morals, but fall under the judg
ment of natural reason, everyone should be sure of his own
conviction in order to act conscientiously (Rom. xiv. 3, 5).
Just the strong, to whom this use was an adiaphoron,
should rather abstain than by the reckless insisting upon his
freedom to lead the weak to action contrary to his conscience,
which was against the love for the brother, whom eternal
salvation carried for him through the death of Christ was
thereby endangered (Rom. xiv. 13 sqq.).
But there are certain kinds of abstaining that depend on

362 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
religious motives. The so-called Apostolic Council had
already demanded that the believers who had been Gentiles,
in addition to abstaining from fornication should refrain
from all participation in the idolatrous service by partaking
of the meat or the blood of sacrifices, which was a blasphemy
in the eyes of the Jews from religious grounds (Lev. xvii.
11), in order not to prevent the entrance into the congre
gation of the Jews living abroad, whose abhorrence of these
things was constantly kept alive by the reading of the law
in the synogogue (Acts xv. 20-21, 29). This demand was
complied with at least to this extent, that in the Gentile
congregations throughout Asia Minor Christians abstained
from partaking of the meat of animals that had been sacri
ficed to idols, which could be equally offensive also in the
eyes of Gentile Christians as was fornication (Rev. ii.
14, 20). In the Corinthian congregation, too, were found
those who, bound by their idea that the idols were equal to
God, considered themselves polluted in their conscience by
partaking of such meat (1 Cor. viii. 4-7). Paul could on
principle not admit this. He considered this as an adia
phoron; but for this very reason lays down the same prin
ciples that he had enjoined on the Roman congregations
(viii. 8-13; x. 23-28). He sought only that every pleasure
allowable to the free conscience should be sanctified by
prayer (x. 3 ; v. 20 ; 1 Tim. iv. 4-5 ; cf . Rom. xiv. 6) . He has
thereby for all times established the principle that no pleasure
of which the Christian partakes with thanksgiving to God
can be contrary to conscience, but that only such is allowed.
As a second cardinal sin of heathendom Paul everywhere
regards covetousness (1 Thess. iv. 4 sqq.). Entirely in the
sense of Matt. vi. he sees in it a form of idolatry (Col. iii.
5; Eph. v. 5). How easily wealth is a snare to worship
earthly goods, that monopolize all of man's powers, was recog
nized by Jesus, when He said, that it was hard and humanly
speaking impossible for a rich man to attain to salvation

REGENERATION AND SANCTIFICATION 363
(Mark x. 23 sqq.). When Jesus taught that we must sacri
fice every possession, even the most valuable and indispen
sable, in case this leads us into temptation, and applies this
even to the closest of family ties (Matt. x. 37 ; Luke xiv. 26)
He naturally applies this first of all to riches, since the love
of these is in His eyes the root of many sins (1 Tim. vi.
9-10). Jesus had demanded of the rich man, who thought that
he had been willing to comply with every duty in order to
attain salvation, as a proof of this willingness, that he should
give aU his possessions to the poor (Mark x. 21), in order
thereby to lead him to a knowledge of himself. Now the
idea, that getting rid of earthly possessions was a general
command of Christ (Luke xi. 41; xii. 33), soon became a gen
eral idea in the church. The ascetic interests were at the bot
tom of this idea, that getting rid of earthly possessions was the
best means of avoiding aH the temptations of riches. To this
is added that communism was regarded as the highest ideal
of congregational life (Acts ii. 44-45; iv. 32), although it is
shown beyond a doubt in Acts iv. 36-37; v. 4, that this prin
ciple was by no means a prevailing law in primitive Chris
tianity. But this generalization was not in harmony with
the mind of Jesus. The parable of the Unjust Steward
teaches, according to Luke xvi. 8, without a doubt, that true
wisdom does not consist in using earthly possessions for
momentary purposes, but in this, that we make our future
sure thereby, which depends entirely upon attaining the good
pleasure of God. Certain it is, that the exclusive applica
tion of His word to the use of riches for charitable purposes
(xvi. 9), which application is not of unquestionable correct
ness, did not belong originally to the parable. Jesus has only
said, that the bitter disappointment of the foolish rich man,
who wanted to gather together all his possessions for his
own enjoyment, experienced in the hour of death, would be
repeated in the case of everybody who is not rich in God,
i. e., does not use his earthly possessions for God's purposes

364 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
(xiii. 21), because we can never be certain of attaining a
real and permanent happiness through the enjoyment of
earthly goods. But what is meant by this being rich in
God is explained in the parable of the entrusted pounds. If
all earthly goods and possessions are only entrusted to us
by God, to use them according to His will, then they can be
increased only by using them faithfully according to His
will (xix. 26) and thereby we can expect the right to greater
possessions (xvi. 11-12). But that this will of God consists
only in the use of wealth for charity is nowhere indicated.
Paul has evidently not understood the command not to
gather earthly possessions (Matt. vi. 19) in the false literal
sense, in which it is so often cited now as an argument for
the ascetic tendency of Jesus' teachings (cf. 2 Cor. xii. 14).
Although he strongly urges contributions to the coUection
for Jerusalem, he nevertheless emphasizes only this that the
Corinthians through their surplus should relieve the needy
in Jerusalem (viii. 12-14) and has promised them a rich
return from God (ix. 8-9). Under the circumstances that
prevailed in the poor congregations of early Christians there
were few opportunities to warn against the dangers of riches.
Here too the heathen sin of greed appeared in the Jewish
Christian congregations at most in the form of a lack of
confidence in God, when He did not give what they thought
they needed (Heb. xiii. 5). But the Epistle of James shows,
that under the pressure of poverty the secret lust for earthly
possessions and all of its dire consequences could arise, which
in this letter, in exact agreement with Matt. vi. 24, is re
garded as enmity to God (James iv. 1-4), because it will
not humbly subject itself to God's providence (iv. 5 sqq.).
Only in this sense did James regard the world, i. e., the
totality of all earthly possessions as corrupting, because it
arouses sinful desires (i. 27; cf. v. 14), and thus has in a
certain way prepared the current ascetic use of this term,
that condemns as worldly all possessions and endeavors that

REGENERATION AND SANCTIFICATION 365
are not directly connected with religious interests. The
New Testament knows nothing of this usage of the term.
Paul has only commanded that the rich man shaU not be
proud of his uncertain wealth, but expressly states that this
wealth was given to him for enjoyment. He knows full
weU that this wealth can be used for many other good and
noble purposes besides charity, and that in this way the
fulfilment of Christian duty is advanced in a most com
prehensive sense, without which it is impossible to attain
eternal life (1 Tim. vi. 17 sqq.). But on this matter it is
absolutely impossible to extract from the New Testament
solutions of our social problems. What the New Testament
says of earthly goods is altogether for the purposes of the
highest reHgious interests.

CHAPTER xvrn
PRESERVATION AND CONSUMMATION
1. The Dangers of Christian Life. — As little as the
first man could attain to complete God-pleasing state with
out a trial, so little can a believer secure his preservation
as such (Rom. v. 4; cf. James i. 12) if he is not tempted.
Against these temptations the Christian must always be on
his guard. As surely as Christian love reaches out beyond
the circle of the co-religionists and is to include aU man
kind (2 Pet. i. 7) so surely, too, does it find its limitations
in the duty of seK-preservation. The unchristian men of
the world, in so far as they are and remain the world, can
not be the object of the love of the child of God, because
the anti-divine element in the world does not come from
God and therefore the love of the world is not in harmony
with the love to the Father (1 John ii. 15-16). NaturaUy
this does not in any way cancel the duty to seek to win the
world for God and to save it (1 Cor. ix. 19, 22). The object
is to prevent the love of persons from weakening the neces
sary antithesis against the anti-divine character of the
world, that may form a temptation to us. That member
of the church, too, who has become uncertain in his faith
threatens the others with a pollution of their consecrated
state (Heb. xii. 14-15). However much it is the duty of
the Christian to seek to save his sinning brother, so much
the duty of self-preservation may demand that he separate
himself (Matt, xviii. 17; cf. 1 Cor. v. 11), without thereby
excluding further efforts for his reformation (2 Thess. iii.
14-15). 366

PRESERVATION AND CONSUMMATION 367
But according to New Testament views the unbelieving
world is under the dominion of Satan. For this reason all
temptation to sin reaUy emanates from him (1 Cor. vii. 5;
1 Thess. iii. 5), who thereby would overthrow the work of
redemption. From this point of view the entire Christian
life is a contest against satanic power (Eph. vi. 11-16).
Although Satan has been in principle conquered by the
death of Christ (chap. xii. 3), he yet constantly seeks to gain
anew his supremacy over mankind. Here, too, what has
been said of regeneration is true. As the latter is reaHzed
only in a gradual process, thus too the Christian in con
stant struggle against the devil must push the victory that
Christ has gained over him, until he is altogether undone.
As, however, only the divinely appointed beginning of the
new Hfe furnishes the power and courage to continue this
contest, no Christian can offer as an excuse the power and
trickery of the devH, since he has in Christ secured the
abiHty to overcome his adversary. Satan does not touch
those who are begotten of God (1 John v. 18) ; these gain
the victory over him, because He who is greater than he of
the world (iv. 4) is and works in them.
But there is no other protection against the temptations
threatened by the devil than faith, which is declared by
Eph. v. 16 to be the shield with which we must protect our
selves against his fiery darts. Only by standing firm in the
faith can we withstand him (1 Pet. v. 9). If new life has
been produced through the state of grace secured by faith
(chap, xvi.), then it can be protected against all danger only
by cHnging to faith (1 Cor. xvi. 13 ; Col. i. 23), by contending
for the faith (Phil. i. 27; Jude v. 3), by remaining in the
state of grace established by faith (1 John ii. 28; cf. Col.
ii. 7). This would, however, not be impossible if this meant
the holding fast to a certain doctrine in the knowledge of the
truth, since no knowledge as such can move the wilL This
too the apostle, on the basis of his experience with the law,

368 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
has so drasticaUy demonstrated in Rom. vii. Nothing but
this trust in the salvation achieved by Christ offers a firm
support and protection for the life of the Christian, because
therein are found aU the motives for the proper develop
ment of this life. For that reason the greatest danger that
threatens the Christian is the false doctrine that undermines
this confidence and seeks to establish it on any other foun
dation than Christ. The servants of Satan who are clothed
in the garb of the servants of righteousness, are those false
apostles who maintain anew that the salvation that has
been given is to be founded on the basis of an observance
of the law (2 Cor. x. 13 sqq.). For as soon as we seek again
to gain righteousness through the law we fall from the state
of grace and sever our connection with Christ as the only
Mediator of salvation (Gal. v. 4).
Even the Colossian theosophists, who did not antagonize
the doctrine of salvation as such, through their speculation
led away from Christ more and more (Col. ii. 8), because
through their injection of new mediators of redemption in the
shape of the angels whom they adored, they no longer clung
to Christ as the only Mediator and head of salvation (ii. 19).
Most of all the erroneous teachings mentioned in the Pas
toral Epistles are throughout described as those that seek to
turn the interest that should be devoted to the advance of
religious life into speculations, which were without all
religious value and thereby bring about the shipwreck of
faith. Especially do the pseudo-prophets as described in the
Epistles of John appear as inspired by the spirit of the
anti-Christ, because they did not accept the historical fact
of the complete revelation of God in the man Jesus (1 John
iv. 3; v. 6), and thereby undermine the foundation of the
state of grace, the seeing of God in faith. Here again it
appears that the duty of self -protection constitutes a limita
tion even for the exercise of love. John demands that
Christians should even refuse hospitality and greetings to

PRESERVATION AND CONSUMMATION 369
such heretics, not only on account of the danger involved
to one's own faith, but also by the recognition of these men
as Christian brethren not to encourage their deception of
others (2 John x. 11). Other dangers, too, surround faith
for the future, when the false teachers of dualistic ascetics
(1 Tim. iv. 1 sqq.) would influence the congregation, because
this false doctrine is based on a denial of the unity of the
creation of the world and thus undermines the very first
presupposition of religion. On the other hand, it is stated
that the pseudo-prophets of libertinism have crept into the
congregation (2 Pet. ii. 1 sqq.), who convert grace into
lasciviousness and actually deny the faith in the supremacy
of Christ (Jude iii. 4).
But the new dangers for the state of grace arose also from
the fact that the believers Hved in a world that is hostile
to Christ. The believers out of Israel, if they had come to
faith in the Messiah, constantly hoped that in the near
future the time of bliss would be inaugurated. It was
accordingly a great trial for them in that they continued in
their depressed condition (James i. 9-12). which became all
the more dangerous by the fact that that portion of their
people who had remained in unbelief now thought they
could abuse the converts as heretics. And yet they were
taught to consider these trials as pure joy in the conscious
ness that these were a means to test them and should in
the faith work patience (i. 2-3). The situation is made
more acute when, as in the case of the Christians to whom
the Epistle to the Hebrews is addressed, the return of
Christ, which is to inaugurate this golden age, seems to be
becoming more and more remote, and the hostilities of their
fellow Jews in their unbeHef have only increased. In this
case, where a dangerous inclination to discard the belief in
the Messianic mission of Jesus had already put in its ap
pearance, there was special need of admonition to patience
(Heb. x. 36; xii. 1). In the Gentile Christian congregations
X

370 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
in Thessalonica and in Philippi the Jewish converts had
from the outset to suffer much from the portion of their
people who had remained in unbelief and were accordingly
tempted to become reconciled to these by discarding their
faith. And when the trials which Paul considered as neces
sarily connected with Christianity (Acts xiv. 22; 1 Thess.
iii. 4) were of any other kind, they aU cause distrust of the
love of God that had been gained through Christ. This
danger could be overcome only in the consciousness, that
these trials were sent to test the Christian in his patience
and thereby help him by strengthening his hope in the future
glory (Rom. v. 3-4). To what heroism of faith, the con
sciousness that God seeks only the good of those that are
called in all that He does for them (viii. 28), and that too
in the very crises of faith, leads, is seen in the triumphal
hymn of Rom. viii. 32-39.
It is true that the trials that threatened the Christianity
of those times was to a large extent persecution pure and
simple on account of their faith, as Jesus had predicted
that these would certainly come (Matt. x. 24-25; John xv.
20). In these Peter sees the devil going about like a roaring
lion, seeking whom he may devour, i. e., bring to a denial of
the faith (1 Pet. v. 8), as Jesus had predicted this in an
other picture (Luke xxii. 31 sqq.). But this very patient
endurance of suffering Jesus has promised to reward by
testifying that the Father would bring deliverance (Matt.
x. 21-22; 32-33). Therefore, Peter was able to see in his
sufferings a joyful participation in the sufferings of Jesus,
who also suffered at the hands of a world hostile to God,
because this as a proof of discipleship made him sure of
participation in the coming glory (1 Pet. iv. 13). Paul
has even described this participation in the sufferings of
Christ (2 Cor. i. 5-7) as only a continuation of the living
communion into which Christians enter in their baptism
(Rom. viii. 17). He has, by employing another description

PRESERVATION AND CONSUMMATION 371
of this idea, experienced in this a constant renewal of his
fellowship in the subjection of Jesus into death and in His
resurrection (2 Cor. iv. 10-11). Therefore he rejoices to
make full the measure of this suffering, in order to recom
pense to Christ in his congregation for what He has done
for him (Col. i. 24), when he is put on the same level with
Him in the death of martyrdom that he expects to suffer for
his calling (Phil. iii. 10). He considers this death as a
drink offering, by which He is to complete the sacrifice of
His Hfe's work (Phil. ii. 17; cf. 2 Tim. iv. 6). With such
deep reHgious motives for patient endurance (Rev. xiii.
10; xiv. 17) primitive Christianity entered into the last
terrible times of persecutions, which the seer of Patmos saw
in his visions.
2. Praying and Watching. — Over against the dangers
that threaten the development of Christian life the exhorta
tion of the apostle demands that they be watchful (1 Cor.
xvi. 13; Rev. xvi. 15), i. e., the altertness of the spirit that
is at aH times ready for the efforts that are necessary to
overcome these dangers as also for the sacrifices required
for this. AH lethargy of carelessness or self-certainty is
thereby excluded. He calls the preparation for this sobriety
(1 Thess. v. 6; 1 Pet. v. 8), i. e., the clearness of mind that
is always open to the presence of dangers surrounding us
and to the requirements to meet these. Thereby all weaken
ing of this sobriety through the joys and cares of the world,
as also indefinite exaltation, all empty enthusiasm, which is
often suspected in primitive Christianity, is excluded. The
apostolic admonitions presuppose that the believer is able
and ready for every sacrifice and effort that are necessary
for preservation in Christian Hfe. This can be done, how
ever, because in the state of grace the sufficient motives
was given for this; and for this reason nothing is required
except to abide in the faith, which has brought us into the
state of redemption, and guarantees this state. For this

372 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
very reason the Christian can never feel that his progressive
preservation is his own work, but is the outcome of the
grace that is operative in this state. It is God who has
begun, continues and finishes the good work; He works both
to will and to do (Phil. i. 6; ii. 13).
Therefore prayer must at all times be joined with watch
fulness (Mark xiv. 38; Col. iv. 2; Eph. vi. 18), of the hear
ing of which the believer is from the outset certain, for the
very reason that he is in the state of grace. Prayer for
that which is necessary for our preservation in the faith is
primarily thought of. But this does not at all exclude
prayer for our earthly life, as Jesus Himself has taught us
to pray for our daily bread (Matt. vi. 11). To this is added
that the sufferings and burdens of care often belong to the
temptations that endanger the Christian, and the removal
of these can be asked for on the ground that this tends to
our preservation in the faith. In 1 Cor. x. 13, too, it is
presupposed, that God must put an end at the proper time to
temptations, so that we can bear them, i. e., that we will be
strengthened by them. Peter demands on the basis of a
citation from the Psalms that we should cast all our cares
on the Lord (1 Pet. v. 7) ; and Paul teaches, that we should
made known our requests and supplications in prayer to God
in all simplicity (Phil. iv. 6). James directs aU sufferers,
whatever may be the character of their sufferings, to pray
(v. 13). When Paul continued to ask of the Lord to relieve
him of a troublesome bodily ailment, the Lord told him
to be satisfied with his grace; but He also permitted him
to experience that the power of this grace is felt all the
more richly, the more the lack of one's own strength is felt
(2 Cor. xii. 8 sqq.). This case is typical in this, that even
if what we pray for is not given, that nevertheless the
prayer is heard in a manner beneficial for our inner and
higher life. But whenever the prayer is directed to the
advancement of this life, it is a self-evident matter for the

PRESERVATION AND CONSUMMATION 373
beHever that the prayer will be heard, because he is only
asking for that which he wants to realize in us and to
receive which the believing prayer makes him capable. His
petitions for the congregations as for the single members,
whose good was the wish of his heart (2 Cor. xi. 28-29),
in so far as these appear in his letters, always pertain
primarily to their spiritual welfare. Yet John prays for
the good health of his beloved Gaius (3 John ii.), and
James does not doubt that God wiU hear the prayer of faith
when spoken over the sick (James i. 14-15).
One thing, however, is peculiar to the prayer of the
believer, namely, its connection with thanksgiving (Phil.
iv. 6). Paul prefaces aH of his prayers for the congregations
by thanksgiving for what God has already done for them.
Just as aU confirmation and strengthening in Christian life
can take place only in that degree in which we learn to
thank God for the salvation given us in Christ (Col. ii. 7),
thus, too, aU spiritual preparation for prayer is founded on
thankfulness (iv. 2) ; for thankfulness for the good that
has already been received always produces new joy and
confidence in prayer, through which alone we can always
receive more. In need and trouble man, as he is,
can easily forget aH the good things that he has
received and for which he should be thankful, hut
the remembrance of the good things for which the believer
has been the recipient, must always be present to him
(i. 12 sqq.). Just as apostasy from God begins with this
that we are no longer thankful to God for what He has
done for us (Rom. i. 21), thus the revelation of redemption
completes its work of the restoration of religion with this,
that in the experience of its blessings it impels us to con
stant thanksgiving to God (1 Thess. v. 18). This is com
pleted not in prayer, which is only the first sign of religious
life, but in thanksgiving. In this thanksgiving we are
constantly being reminded of the highest possession of re-

374 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
demption, namely, the peace of soul secured through Christ
(Col. iii. 15). But this peace of God, which by its very
nature is incomprehensible to human reason, is the experi
ence of which in turn preserves us also in the communion
with Christ, i. e., in the state of grace, in so far as we then
do everything of ourselves that we may abide in Him who
has secured this gift for us and who alone can make it our
certain possession (Phil. iv. 7).
As the first congregation remained steadfast in the teach
ings of the Apostles, in the fellowship and the breaking of
bread and in prayer (Acts ii. 42), thus too the congregation
of the believers wiU at all times remain steadfast in the
use of the means of grace that have been given to them for
the preservation and cultivation of religious life (chap, xiv.),
because they know that all progress in religious life always
depends on the renewed and closer union with the source
of religious life. They wiU permit the word of Christ,
which constantly proclaims to them anew the salvation
given us in Christ, to dwell richly among them (Col. iii.
16) ; and this preaching will always fill the Christian with
hymns of thanksgiving for such gifts of grace (iii. 16-17;
cf. Eph. v. 19-20). In this circle of new impulses and
thanksgiving, which always produces a new longing for the
fountain of all grace opened to us in Christ, wiU always
lead us to a more faithful application of the means of grace
together with the confident prayer for their effective use,
the preservation and development of Christian life is made
certain. The certainty of salvation found in the caU can
never be unsettled by this that there is yet need of develop
ment and proof of Christian life before the goal is finally
attained; for as this call is not at all based on any human
work in the past, thus, too, this final proof is not dependent
on any works of the future, through the imperfections of
which it might be unsettled. The believer is certain of
this, that God has given him the means through which to

PRESERVATION AND CONSUMMATION 375
effect this preservation and proof, because God Himself co
operates in the use of these means. He knows that as long
as he seeks this preservation and tries to attain it in the
manner prescribed by God he cannot fail to secure the goal
he has in view.
3. The Judgment According to Works.— It depends
on the preservation if the individual attains the completion
of redemption or not. Just as there is but one reward for
faithfulness in the service of God (chap. xvi. 5) thus there is
but one punishment for the unfaithfulness, namely, exclu
sion from redemption. All separate judgments for instances
of unfaithfulness on the part of the believer can only be
regarded as divine means of education, the purpose of which
is to preserve him from this deplorable outcome (1 Cor. xi.
32). But as the preservation itseK is only a work of the
Holy Ghost, the final completion of redemption of those
that are preserved is a pure gift of grace (Rom. vi. 23;
1 Pet. iii. 7). According to this, the final decision if the
individual is to attain this object, does not indeed seem to
depend on faith, which is itself a gift of divine grace, but
upon remaining in the state of grace that has been estab-
Hshed through faith, which is possible only when the be
liever permits the Spirit to continue the work of grace in
him. Paul caUs this abiding in the goodness of God in
contrast to seK-righteous pride, which necessarily leads to
exclusion from the communion of those that are redeemed
(Rom. xi. 20 sqq.). Christians are to test themselves to
see if they stand in the faith as in the living communion
with Christ, because upon this their preservation depends
(2 Cor. xiii. 5). John says expressly that our joy in the
judgment depends on our standing in the state of grace,
in which we stand in the same relation to God in which
Christ who has already entered into His glory stands,
although we are yet in the world, which through its un
belief is excluded from this (1 John iv. 17). All the warn-

376 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
ings of the Epistle to the Hebrews against apostasy pre
suppose this, that the one thing needful is to abide in Him
who has established our redemption.
In direct contradiction to this the Scriptures seemingly
everywhere state that the judgment in which our final fate
will be decided is a judgment according to works. This is
already the case in Matt. xvi. 27 as in all the statements
of Jesus, in which the completion of salvation is made de
pendent on fidelity in the service of God, in the works of
love; and even in our words (Matt. xii. 36-37; cf. also John
v. 29). In the same way it is stated in 1 Pet. i. 17 that
He who is called Father by his children impartially judges
according to each work; in 1 John ii. 17, that only he who
does the will of God remains, when the godless world is
destroyed; in Rev. xx. 12-13-14, that the dead wiU be
judged according to their works. But Paul also maintains
this original norm of divine righteousness (Rom. ii. 6) not
only in a hypothetical manner for the times when there yet
was no salvation in Christ, but also for the judgment in
which Christ wiU decide the final fate of the believers
(2 Cor. v. 10). He says that it would be mocking God to
believe that He would not have each one reap what he has
sown (Gal. vi. 7 sqq.). Nor does the easy excuse, that the
" works " here meant are only the fruits and proof of faith,
come into consideration. Apart from the fact that in the
fully developed exposition of the doctrine of redemption by
Paul good works are not looked upon as the fruits of faith
(chap. xvi. 2), but of the spirit of God that is active in the
state of grace, they always are here described in so many
words as the doings of men, upon which in the end salva
tion depends, although at almost every other place in the
New Testament this salvation is from the beginning to the
end considered as the effect of the divine grace. Good works
do not indeed in any way constitute the foundation of our
redemption but they have been ordained by God for the

PRESERVATION AND CONSUMMATION 377
very purpose that we should walk in them (Eph. ii. 9-10).
The fate of a man can accordingly be in the end only
decided by this, if he has attained this object, or not.
Therefore it is necessary that he at all times be reminded
of the terrors of the divine judgment, in which the entire
fulfilment of the divine wiU be demanded, so that he may
never cease in his efforts at the preservation of his faith,
i. e., in the use of the means through which this is worked
in us by divine grace.
But experience shows that the evidence of faith as fur
nished by good works wiU always be more or less imperfect.
Seemingly aU certainty of redemption is thereby made im
possible, because man can never submit to judgment after
the norm of his works. But this difficulty only arises when
the statements of the Scriptures are taken as dogmatical
propositions, because this view grows out of the traditional
idea of revelation. The fact is that the witnesses of the
revelation in Christ have never felt these. They have not
been the authors of the notion, that the proof of Christian
faith in this Hfe is an absolutely normal one, or that our
works would be perfect and that nevertheless a judgment
of works is to be expected. But they knew already from
the Old Testament that the people of the covenant also
were compeUed again and again to seek the grace of God
when they had fallen into sin of weakness or error, and
that they were sure of finding this grace. Infinitely more
sure they were that the grace which from the outset was
offered to the believer as a pardoning and a giving grace,
would also in the final judgment cover for the faithful
servant of God what he had failed to do in the fulfilment
of his duty. Whether he was in reality a faithful servant
had to be decided by his conduct, even if he was not alto
gether free of faults.
With this sufficient occasion has been given for a judg
ment according to works. Entirely in harmony with such

378 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
a judgment Jesus said, that the merciful are blessed for
they are to obtain mercy (Matt. v. 7), and that, as it ap
pears from the connection with the Beatitudes, in the final
judgment. Evidently with reference to this James says,
that the judgment without mercy is passed upon him who
has exercised no mercy. Mercy rejoices against justice
(ii. 13), i. e., mercy appears with the triumphant certainty
of finding mercy as it has exercised such (cf. Jude xxi.).
In exactly the same sense it is said (1 John iii. 19 sqq.)
that we can know by the fact that we love (if it is love
in reality and truth, cf. iii. 18), that we are of the truth,
i. e., are in the state of grace. And even if our heart notwith
standing this constantly does accuse us of weakenesses and
failings and thus would make our certainty of redemption
unsettled, we will convince our heart by the fact that God
is greater than it is, because He knows all things, even
our innermost being, however much the appearance of things
may not seem to agree with this. But as our abiding in
love proves our abiding in God and thereby also our abiding
in the state of grace, therefore we have joy for the day of
judgment (iv. 17). Both passages are based on the sup
position that God looks upon the heart first in judgment,
and is not satisfied with weak sentiments, that do not prove
themselves in life; but in this testing He does not regard
the individual works, which always may be imperfect, but
the roots out of which they spring.
Even the great preacher of grace has said of himseK
that aU of his unselfish life's work for the salvation of man
had only the one purpose to receive for his own person a
share in the gospel and in all the blessings that it promises
(1 Cor. ix. 23). This includes the fact that this can only
be done if he is faithful in fulfilling the duties of his call
ing. And yet he has also said, that nothing is asked of the
steward except that he be faithful (iv. 2), and that he can
feel that he has been faithful, even if God does not find

PRESERVATION AND CONSUMMATION 379
that everything he does is in accordance with the norm
(iv. 4). He did not even claim that he had grasped the
religious foundation of aU new life, namely, the perfect
appropriation of Christ, but that he was only engaged in
this striving (Phil. iii. 12 sqq.). He saw Christian perfec
tion only in the constant striving for this perfection (iii.
15-16). When he makes it conditional on his experience of
suffering with Christ by his own death as a martyr, if he is
also to experience the resurrection from the dead (iii.
10-11), he naturally presupposes that only the fullest proof
of faith possible can secure for him a certainty of redemp
tion; but of this proof as such he is certain because he
knows the divine assistance for which his congregations
have been praying will help him in this (i. 19). He, too,
prays for the mercy of God in the final judgment, for the
Onesiphorus, who has already proved himself faithful (2 Tim.
i. 18). However certain he is if at the end of his career in
which he has proved his faith at the hands of the just Judge
of the crown of victory in store for those who demonstrate
their righteousness (iv. 7-8), so little does he thereby want
to deny, that he too stands in the judgment, in the need
of the mercy of God, which wiU cover aU sins.
In this connection of course it must not be forgotten that
the sins such as the heathen commit exclude from the King
dom of God (1 Cor. vi. 9-10), not because these are graver
sins than others, but because they show that a man has not
honestly sought that grace that forgives sins and gives new
Hfe and has not in truth yet found it; for in this case he
would lay aside these sins. But otherwise too our state of
grace can prove itseK only if we are at all times ready for
the greatest endeavors and the heaviest sacrifices that it de
mands; and for this the constant admonition of a judgment
according to works must be a steady impulse. Certain it is
that this preservation in the fatih is not the work of man
but is effected only by that grace of God which does its

380 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
work through the application of the means of grace and of
prayer. But just so surely can the believer trust the divine
grace, which even in the final judgment will cover all our
transgressions if the Searcher of hearts finds that he has
been faithful in his endeavors to approve himseK as a be
liever. All relaxing in this effort in the false confidence in
this grace would by this very fact destroy its foundation;
and in order to prevent this, the judgment according to
works must ever be held up before the eyes of the believer.
4. The Intermediate State. — The goal of the develop
ment of the preservation and growth in grace that is
appointed for the believer ends at his bodily death, with
which accordingly the decision of the question, whether he
is to attain final salvation, is already given (Heb. ix. 27).
It is indeed true that the believer does not enter into judg
ment (John iii. 18), because in faith he already possesses
that salvation (life) in the begining of which its con
summation is already found. In his case it is accordingly
not necessary to reach a decision, whether he is to attain
salvation or not, while the unbeliever is already judged,
since unbelief excludes from salvation for time and eternity.
But for the unbeliever the possibility of being converted
remains during his whole life, a possibility that even the
judgment of hardening does not exclude; and for the be
liever the possibility is always present, that he may fall
away, from which he is not even made certain by the grace of
election and the call (chap. 15). Man must accordingly make
use of the time allotted him, both for the service of God
(John ix. 4) and to show that he is in the state of grace.
When Peter regards it as self-evident that those who died
before the time of Christ are yet to have the opportunity to
accept the salvation He offers (chap. xvii. 5), it will even now
yet remain a religious postulate, that those who died and the
preparatory grace of God has not exhausted all of its means
to bring about their repentance, that then after death an

PRESERVATION AND CONSUMMATION 381
opportunity wiU be given to them to decide for or against
redemption. But the Scriptures say nothing on this subject
and do not purpose to say anything; for he who in view
of this would postpone his repentance, for him this possi-
biHty would be as little a reality as is the grace of God
in the judgment for him who in view of this grace continues
in his sins. Nor can this be done; for from that moment
in which the soul is separated from the body and thereby
has been removed from the conditions of time, then, from
our point of view, aU possibilities of a development ceases
and thereby too the history of redemption comes to an end.
For us then it remains a mystery and is intended to be a
mystery, what ways the grace of God may find to apply its
means for the conversion of man in this case.
Certain it is that for the believer there is no new period
of probation beyond the grave. For him death has no more
terrors, because his sins have been forgiven, and death is
accordingly no longer the punishment for sins, which de
livers him into the power of the devil (Heb. ii. 14-15 ; 1 Cor.
xv. 55-56). Not even death can separate him from the love
of God (Rom. viii. 38) ; death does not exist for him (John
vi. 50; viii. 51-52). For the true life, to which he has
already attained here, cannot be annulled by death (xi. 25).
The spirit that he has received is by his very nature a life-
producing power (1 Cor. xv. 45; 2 Cor. iii. 6), a spirit of
Hfe, from which Hfe is naturaHy reaped (Rom. viii. 2; Gal.
vi. 8). For in this spirit Christ HimseK lives, the eternal
Hving Lord, in whose communion the believer will never
again faU into the shadowy regions of Hades. That the
soul separated from the body naturally participates in such
a shadowy existence is based on the fact that only through
the organic connection with the body it stood in a receptive
and active connection with the earth, in whose treasures it
alone found its highest good. Only he who in the exalted
Son of Man and through Him in God has found a treasure

382 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
that is higher than aU other treasures, only he who here
already in a receptive and in an active manner has stood
in an inseparable communion of life with Him, the real Hfe
of only such an one is entirely uneffected by bodily death.
Therefore Paul, having in mind the close of earthly Hfe,
says: If Christ be in you the body is dead because of sin;
but the spirit is life because of righteousness (Rom. viii.
10). The external consequence of sin, through which our
earthly body can no longer be immediately changed but
becomes the victim of death (chap, vii: 3), can not and shall
not be changed by redemption; but the spiritual life, that
was worked in us through redemption, because it is pleas
ing to God, is a life in the full sense of the term and that
carries in itseK the guarantee that it wiU not perish. This
life can only be delivered through temporal death from aU
that hems and hinders it as long as it yet dweUs in the flesh.
Only then the soul is entirely at home with Christ (2 Cor.
v. 8), because nothing that in its earthly existence drew it,
now separates it from him. The soul is now united with
Him (Phil. i. 23), in whom it here already possesses its one
and all, for which reason death is only a gain for it (i. 21).
Whether this place of dwelling together with Christ is to
be considered as the place of the dead or as the heavenly
paradise, is in the nature of the case a matter of indiffer
ence, since the soul when separated from the body is free
from the limitations of time and space. The expression of
which Jesus makes use (Luke xxiii. 43) in speaking to the
thief on the cross (no matter how this term was otherwise
used during that time) merely indicates the state of blessed
ness, which was the original possession of man as he came
from the creative hand of God but which he had lost
through sin and had been restored to him through the work
of redemption. This blessedness Paul esteems so much
higher than all the blessedness that we find already here
upon earth in living communion with Christ, that he him-

PRESERVATION AND CONSUMMATION 383
seK is wilhng to sacrifice his wish to be relieved from the
painful catastrophe of death as also the wish to serve his
* congregations stiU longer, if through this bodily death he
can immediately enter upon the other life (2 Cor. v. 8;
Phil. i. 21-23). It is altogether arbitrary to claim that
according to Paul this blessedness is in store only for the
martyrs; since it lies in the nature of the matter, that the
Apostles, who expected the reappearance of Christ during
their lives, could only incidentaUy speak of this inter
mediate state.
Death is caHed a sleep, in so far as it is to be undone
again through the resurrection (1 Cor. vii. 39; xi. 30; cf.
Matt. ix. 24). The seK-contradictory idea of a bodily exist
ence in this state is based on the misinterpretation of the
passage 2 Cor. v. 1, 3. Death can be nothing but the con
dition of blessed rest, in which can rests from all bodily
evils and sufferings (Apoc. xviii. 13). In so far as the
impulse to receive and to act is inherent in the soul by its
very nature, this can be perfectly satisfied only when the
soul (through the resurrection of the body) enters upon a
new kind of a world. But the waiting for this, which nat-
uraUy, after the soul is separated from the body, can no
longer be felt, can no longer disturb the blessedness of the
perfected communion with Christ, which for the soul is
the enjoyment of the highest good. Further information
with reference to the Hfe in this intermediate state is not
given by the Scriptures. He who is not satisfied with what
they cleariy state on this subject, thereby only shows that
he has not yet found in his communion with God through
Christ his highest good, and that accordingly he is not yet
ready for the full realization of redemption in so far as this
is entered upon when death comes.
5. The Resurrection. — The final completion of redemp
tion in the sense of the Scriptures, is naturally not yet the
existence of the soul without the body, as this had to be the

384 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
case for the Jewish Alexandrian philosophy, which regarded
the body as the prison of the soul and therefore a hindrance
to true Hfe. In later Judaism also, that had preserved the
Old Testament religion more faithfully and had not emptied
it through Greek philosophy, the hope of a bodily resur
rection puts in its appearance. But in its popular form,
as this is represented by Pharisaism, and was retained by
the fantastic Apocalypses of later Judaism, this only pro
duced the idea of a restoration to life upon the earth,
through which men were to be enabled to take part in the
final and earthly restoration of Israel. Jesus explicitly
antagonizes the idea in this form (Mark xii. 24-25); by
teaching that the resurrection is an entrance into a heavenly
life similar to that of the angels and free from the condi
tions of earthly existence, and hence He evidently regarded
it as a reclothing of the soul with a new body. In this sense
Jesus predicted His own resurrection for which reason the.
disciples could not yet understand what He meant (ix. 10).
Only when He appeared after the resurrection did they be
come convinced of this, that His heavenly life, now no
longer belonging to the earth, was one in the body, which
Paul can understand to be only as a body that had been
transformed by heavenly glory (Phil. iii. 21), as he was
convinced that he had seen Him on the road to Damascus.
There accordingly was already (in Christ) a heavenly life
in a glorified body, although as far as this is to be ours,
it is yet hidden with Christ in God, i. e., in His counsel
(Col. iii. 3). We know, that if our earthly body is dis
solved (in death), i. e., if we should die before the return
of the Lord, that we already possess a heavenly body, which
was prepared for us already in the glorified body of Christ,
even if we do secure this body only when Christ appears
(2 Cor. v. 1). For through the resurrection of Christ it is
settled once for all that there will be a resurrection in this
sense (1 Cor. xv. 12). The omnipotence of God, which

PRESERVATION AND CONSUMMATION 385
awakened him, wiU also awaken us (vi. 14) in consequence
of our living communion with Him (xv. 21-22); and the
body which was deemed worthy of being the dwelling place
of the Holy Spirit can not be forever subject to death, but
must at some time again be caHed to life (Rom. viii. 11).
H the hope of this resurrection appears in the apostolic
letters only on certain special occasions, the ground for this
is to be found in the fact, that the congregations as a rule
were yet expecting to live and see the coming of the Lord;
but it belongs to the fundamental doctrines of Christianity
(Heb. vi. 2; cf. John vi. 39-40). This doctrine has not been
developed out of contemporary ideas, neither from the phi
losophy of the Jews, which knows nothing of such a doc
trine, nor from the Pharisaic notion which Christ antago
nizes, but it is based on the redemptive fact of Christ's
resurrection and is therefore an essential factor in the reve
lation of redemption in the New Testament. At its foun
dation Hes the presupposition found throughout the Scrip
tures, that there can be no IKe in the full sense of the word
for the creative spirit without a body. Life can show itself
only in activity, and for the creative spirit, which is itself
not the source of aU, there is need of an organ, through
which it puts itself into relation to the world surrounding
it, be it before or after death. It is remarkable that the
modern view, that finds scarcely anything so objectionable
in the apostolic proclamation as the doctrine of the resur
rection of the body, likes to imagine that the blessedness in
the beyond is chiefly a reunion with those we love, although
such a reunion could scarcely be regarded as possible unless
evinced through the organ of a new body.
For the majority of the believers who had yet expected
to be living when the Lord would come again, the change
to the belief in a body destined for a heavenly existence is
not difficult to grasp. The change in the world that was
connected with the return of Jesus, which in Matt. xix. 28
Y

386 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
is compared with regeneration, necessarily also would
change their bodies (1 Cor. xv. 50 sqq.; 2 Cor. v. 4). For
this transformation the change that had taken place in the
case of the earthly body of the risen Lord (chap. xiii. 1) was
a suggestive example. On the other hand the first deaths in
the new congregation at Thessalonica gave rise to the ques
tion, what would happen to those who had died in the mean
while (1 Thess. iv. 13-14). Paul directs them to the fact
that the returning Christ will first awaken these in order
to take them together with those that are alive into His
glory (iv. 15 sqq.). But for the Christians from the Greek
world the idea of a restoration to life of the body that had
been dissolved by decay was one they could not at all grasp
and even was unpalatable (Acts xvii. 32; 1 Cor. xv. 35).
Paul seeks to teach them to regard it with greater favor
by appealing to an analogy from nature. As the seedcorn
decays in order that a new plant organism may grow out
of it (cf. already John xii. 24), thus the earthly body must
decay in order to prepare for the heavenly body (1 Cor. xv.
36 sqq.). And yet this is a different, almost opposite way
from the decay of the body in the tomb. The possibility of
this Paul again seeks to explain by the different kinds of
bodies that exist in heaven and on earth (xv. 39 sqq.). For
him it was a matter of certainty on the basis of Gen. ii, 7,
that the living soul that had come into existence by God's
breathing into the body made of the dust of the earth, had
organized the latter into the earthly life. He concluded
from this, that in the same manner the life creating spirit
that is given to the believers will organize this heavenly
body (xv. 44 sqq.). In this way only it was possible, that
while our earthly body in many respects and always was
a hindrance and a harm for the new spiritual life produced
by the Spirit, this heavenly body could become completely
the organ of the Spirit. Paul could of course on the basis
of a revelation give no distinct idea of the nature of this

PRESERVATION AND CONSUMMATION 387
heavenly body, for which there exists no analogy in our
experience. He tries to make it clear to himseK and his
readers in contrasting it with the earthly body by the
nature of the Spirit, of which imperishability, fuHness of
power, and glory are attributes (xv. 42 sqq.), because the
body that is organized by the Spirit will naturally partake
of the characteristics of the Spirit. Especially in the mat
ter of glory he thinks of the transcendent glory of light
in which God is accustomed to dwell according to the Old
Testament (Rom. iv. 4), in which the exalted Christ had
appeared to him on the way to Damascus (2 Cor. iv. 4-6),
and which must also be a work of the body of those that
are risen from the dead, if they are to be like unto Him
(Rom. viii. 17; 1 Cor. xv. 49). He regards this glory as
a heavenly substance ; out of which, in contrast to all things
earthly, the heavenly body is formed (Phil. iii. 21).
The condition of the risen believers is described by the
Scriptures as eternal Hfe. But the idea here is not only
an existence without an end, but of a Hfe such as God lives
(1 Pet. iv. 6) ; that is, a powerful, vigorous life, that brings
to full maturity all the gKts and powers that have been
given to the individual man. In this condition for the- first
time man can realize the dominion over the world, which
had been originaHy set apart for him (Rom. v. 17; 1 Cor.
iv. 8), which now appears in the form of a joint rule with
Christ (2 Tim. ii. 12). But as these gifts and powers are
individuaHy different, a difference in the condition of men
in the perfected Kingdom of God is accordingly not an im-
possibiHty (Mark x. 37; Matt. xix. 28). Those made perfect
are like to one another only in the fact that they are equal
in their entire sinlessness, which is pictured in the Apoc
alypse by the white garments with which they are clothed
(Rev. xix. 8). But as together with sin the consequent
evil has also ceased in the new world, thus all suffering and
want also no longer exists (Rev. vii. 16-17; ii. 4-5); even

388 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
the contrast between work and rest has ceased in the ever
lasting Sabbath celebration which is prepared for the people
of God (Heb. iv. 1). The Scriptures have no special ex
pression for the undisturbed blessedness of this life. They
picture it in figurative language taken from the highest
earthly joy (Matt. viii. 11; Mark xiv. 25; Rev. xix. 9) and
summarize it as glory (1 Pet. v. 10; Heb. ii. 10), which is
prepared for those perfected with Christ (1 Pet. iv. 13;
v. 1-4).
But the kernel of the idea is always what is also the
object of true religion as such, namely, perfect communion
with God, seeing God directly (Matt. v. 8; Heb. xii. 14;
Rev. xxii. 4), or seeing Him from face to face (1 Cor. xiii.
12). Even John, who teaches that the Christian already
enters upon eternal life when he sees God in Christ, still
looks for a final perfection of this life. It is true that we
have no conception of this; but we know that we are to see
God (no longer as he has been revealed to us in Christ but)
as He is, and that in this seeing of God our real likeness
to God is to be perfected (1 John iii. 2). The book of
Revelation in its most brilliant pictures of the heavenly
Jerusalem, i. e., of the final consummation, emphasizes as
the fundamental thought the perfected communion with
God. God dwells among the perfect (viii. 15); He is the
Sun, in the light of which there is eternal day (xxi. 23, 25 ;
xxii. 5). Their chief work will be together with the angels
to glorify God, as is done by the representation of the per
fected congregation of God in the visions of Revelation
(cf. also Phil. ii. 10).
Hereby, too, it becomes clear why the perfection of re
demption is achieved only by those who have to the end
striven to attain their religious goal. The rest are indeed
not shut out from it by an edict of punishment, that they
should not for any faults of their own be able to secure
this redemption, but because this goal would not be any

PRESERVATION AND CONSUMMATION 389
blessedness at all for those who have not sought it. It is
equally clear that any blessedness in which anything else
than its real kernel is the main thought, be this the reunion
with the beloved of this earth or the communion with the
great minds of the past, has no scriptural warrant.

CHAPTER XIX
THE CHURCH AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD
1. The Origin of the Church. — Jesus had not come
to establish a church, i. e., a communion of religious life.
His purpose was. to realize the Kingdom of God in His
nation, in which the whole natural life in all of its activity
would be determined by the rule of God and He for this
reason confined His work to the last to His people as a
whole. He did nothing to separate His foUowers from the
great national congregation and to organize them as a sep
arate association. The circle of the twelve, too, whom He
was preparing to send out later (Mark iii. 14) by His daily
association with them and work devoted for a time exclu?
sively to them, was by no means intended to be the nucleus
of a "new Israel," as has repeatedly been stated. Only
when Jesus began to entertain the thought that His people
would not respond to His call and that the consummation
of His work would be made possible by His death only
(chap. xi. 4) He undertook the collection of a Messiah-congre
gation, i. e., of an association consisting exclusively of His
believers in the midst of the great national communion of
Israel (Deut. xxiii. 2-3; xxxi. 30; Matt. xvi. 18; xviii. 17).
Thereby He naturally did not give up His original purpose;
for from ths smaller circle it was possible gradually to win
the whole people to faith and in this way realize in them
the Kingdom of God.
It was without doubt only carrying out the will of Christ,
which Peter found both in the words of promise in Matt.
xvi. 8 as also in the exhortation of John xxi. 15 sqq., when
390

THE CHURCH AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD 391
on the first Pentecost he organized the newly won disciples
of Jesus in Jerusalem by baptism into a separate organiza
tion (Acts ii. 38-41). This association was not, as was the
case with the national congregation in Israel, bound to
gether by the ties of blood, but by the bonds of discipleship,
which made a union of all the members with the exalted
Lord and Messiah, and by the participation in the one spirit
that had been given them in baptism. It was a congregation
of brothers, because aU of the members were conscious of
the fact that they were the children of the Havenly Father
and thereby brethren to each other. But it was no special
reHgious association, since aH the members took part in the
services of the temple and the synagogue (Acts ii. 46;
James ii. 2) which naturally did not exclude the fact that
they also had in addition special devotional services of their
own. Above everything else they stiU hoped for the con
version of aU Israel, with which event they would then again
become a part of the national congregation, in which this
Kingdom of God would be realized in accordance with the
purposes of Jesus.
Things did not change in this regard when gradually a
number of new congregations of disciples were established
in Palestine and neighboring countries (Acts xv. 14; xvi. 5),
who however felt that they were united with each other into
one large congregation by the same ties that connected the
members with each other (ix. 31). As little did things
change because in this growth a larger or smaller number
of Gentiles were added to the fold, as Israel was long accus
tomed to have proselytes join their communion, in order,
either in the wider sense to be received into the cultus con
gregation or to be received as members of the nation itself
to participate in their privileges and promises. Only in refer
ence to the difficult problem under which conditions these
Gentiles whose cause was warmly advocated by Peter and
James, could be received into the congregation of behevers

392 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
gathered from Israel could there be a difference of opinion
(cf. ch. xv.).
Things began to change first when Paul in company with
Barnabas on his first missionary journey, which was under
taken originally for work in the synagogical congregations
of the Jewish Dispersion (xiii. 5), discovered that the Jews
on the whole rejected the gospel and that the Gentiles gladly
accepted it. Through his experience on this journey Paul
was convinced that he had been specially caHed to be the
apostle of the Gentiles. The congregations that had been
founded by him here and there during his second great mis
sionary tour no longer had any connection with the national
congregation of Israel, although a certain number of be
lievers out of Israel had joined these congregations. James
already, on the basis of a prophetic promise, understands
this to mean that God had selected for Himself in them
a new people, that was to hear His name (xv. 14). For the
former Gentiles the name congregation meant an assembly
which had been gathered for certain civil purposes (xix.
32, 39). Paul first applied this term to the devotional meet
ings for which the believers from among the Gentiles were
accustomed to assemble themselves, either all who lived in
a certain place (1 Cor. xi. 18; xiv. 28, 35) or as a smaller
circle of those who belonged to a single household (1 Cor.
xvi. 19; Rom. x. 5). From these the term was transferred
to the communions that were represented in these gather
ings, and which are accordingly designated as the congrega
tion of the Thessalonians (1 Thess. i. 1) or as the
congregation of Galatia (Gal. i. 2). And these congrega
tions, too, like the national congregation of Israel had been
(Num. xvi. 3) and as the congregations of Judea were
(1 Thess. ii. 14), each a congregation of God, whom God
had selected as His property, as the congregation found in
Corinth (2 Cor. i. 1) or the one in Cenchrea (Rom.
xvi. 5). These first were the real religious congregations.

THE CHURCH AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD 393
But they aU felt themselves united into a large communion,
that constituted a new religious communion over against
the unbeheving Jews and the Greeks (1 Cor. x. 32). The
congregation had become the Church.
2. The Essence of the Church.— The chureh, by the
fact that it belongs to God, as is everything that belongs
to Him, is holy, especially since it consists only of saints
in the sense of chap. xvi. 4 (Phil. i. 1; Col. i. 2). For all of
its members are the elect of God, as their call, which caused
them to be baptized (chap. xv. 4) shows. That which is said
of the elect in the Jewish Diaspora congregation of Asia
Minor (1 Pet. i. 1) is now naturaHy also applicable to the
Church as a whole. They are the chosen generation, the
holy nation, as Israel was of old (ii. 9). With Christ, who
had promised His gracious presence to the congregation of
the disciples (Matt, xxviii. 20), God makes His dwelling
place in their midst (John xiv. 23). The old promises made
to Israel (Lev. xxvi. 11) are fulfilled in the Church. In
this way it is the temple of God (2 Cor. vi. 16; cf. 1 Pet.
u. 5; iv. 17), which Paul explains more exactly as based on
the indwelling of the Holy Spirit in them (Eph. ii. 22;
1 Cor. iii. 16). But as the temple of God the Church is
in itseK holy in aU of its members (iii. 17). The marital
relation, in which the Old Testament congregation stood in
relation to its God, is also transferred to the relationship
between the Church and Christ. As the Baptist had de
scribed himseK as the friend of the bridegroom, who had
sued for the bride for the Messiah (John iii. 29) ; and as
Paul says he has united with one man, Christ, a true virgin
(for a coming marriage), thus in Rev. xxii. 17, the Church
is caHed the bride who at the marriage of the lamb as a
perfect congregation is united with Him as a wife (xix.
7-8; xxi. 2, 9). And when Paul directs that the relation
between husband and wife shall be modeled after the ex
ample of Christ to His congregation, he expressly states,

394 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
that Christ had given Himself for the congregation out of
love, to cleanse them through baptism from all the pollution
of sin and thus to consecrate them to be a worthy object of
His love (Eph. v. 25).
But aU of the members of this holy Church constitute
an organic unity, as do the members of a body (1 Cor. xii.
12) in which each member according to its individuahty
serves the whole (xii. 7 sqq.; cf. Eph. iv. 7 sqq.), but the
whole body serves Christ (1 Cor. xii. 27). Later Paul is
fond of calling Christ the head of this body (Eph. iv. 15-16 ;
Col. i. 18), not in the sense of a head that rules over aH
the members (Eph. i. 22; cf. 1 Cor. xi. 3) but in the sense,
that all the members possess their organic unity only be
cause and as long as they are united with the head. For
this organic unity of the Church is brought about only
through the living communion of all the individual mem
bers with Christ (Rom. xii. 5). But as this has been
established by the fact that they all in their baptism have
received His spirit, this spirit too can be regarded as the
ground of the unity of the congregation (1 Cor. xvii. 13).
A body can in the nature of the case have only one spirit
(Eph. iv. 4) just as there is only one Lord in whom the
members believe and in whose name they are baptized, only
one God and Father, who is over all and works through
them and dwells in all (iv. 5-6). On the other hand, the
common participation of aU the members taking of the
bread that is given them in the Lord's Supper, in so far as
this is the participation in the body of Christ that has been
given unto death, can be regarded as being a medium of
their organic union (1 Cor. x. 16-17).
As a matter of course there can be but one such a Church,
namely, that Church which God has established through
the witnesses chosen before by God (Acts x. 41), whom
Jesus had already appointed to be sent out (Mark iii. 14)
and whom the exalted Christ had then sent out (1 Cor. i.

THE CHURCH AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD 395
•17). It was their special caUing to found congregations
(1 Cor. iii. 10; cf. Gal. ii. 7-8) through the preaching of
Christ. Just as little as there is salvation in any one else
(Acts iv. 17), so little can there be a different foundation
for the congregation (1 Cor. iii. 11) than Christ whom
God has appointed once for all to be the cornerstone
(Matt. xxi. 42; 1 Pet i. 2, 6). The apostles have laid
this foundation by preaching Him, but Christ remains the
cornerstone, upon which the holy temple of the Church is
buUt ; in which aU the stones are fitly framed together (Eph.
ii. 20-21; 1 Pet. iv. 5-6). But this gospel of Christ is
intended for aU the nations (Matt, xxviii. 19; Mark xiii.
10) ; it is preached in aU the world (Col. i. 6, 23) ; and in
harmony with its universal character is the universal char
acter of the Church. In this way the Church becomes the
bearer of the truth to the world, its solid basis, upon which
it stands, through which the truth of the gospel redemption
has found a permanent and sure existence (1 Tim. iii. 15).
Jesus already has predicted that Church could not be over
thrown (Matt. xvi. 18).
AH of these statements, however, presuppose that all the
members received into the congregation by baptism are be
hevers, i. e., have recognized Christ as their only Lord and
Mediator and have accordingly been brought completely
under the influence of the Holy Ghost. This presupposition
was justified, as it was scarcely thinkable under the condi
tions of the apostolic age that any influence other than this
could induce anybody to be baptized. The occasion for
baptism could be none other than the faith that had been
worked by God in the call. And yet Paul already speaks
of false brethren who had by false ways found their way
into the congregation of Christian brethren (Gal. ii. 4) ;
and John speaks of those who later on separated from the
congregation because they had really never belonged to it
(1 John ii. 19). Those who introduced into the congrega-

396 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
tion a destructive false doctrine could not possibly belong
to it in truth. To these belonged the defenders of a fleshly
Libertinism, who claimed to be prophets and were not
(Rev. ii. 20), whose appearance in the congregation is ex
plained in 2 Pet. ii. 1 by the typical appearance of false
prophets in Israel. It was not a lack of faith (1 Thess. iii.
10) that induced the apostle to maintain, that there were
also members in the congregation who were not of the elect
(chap. xv. 5) ; but experience shows that many members of the
congregation fall away from the faith, and devote aU their
religious interests to disputation about empty questions.
And yet the apostle, evidently on account of their call
through baptism, stiU counts them to the house of God
(2 Tim. ii. 20), in which there are also wooden and earthen
vessels. But even independent of this Paul, who teaches
that the sanctification that had been implanted through bap
tism must be graduaUy realized, since this spirit gradually
cleanses the believers of all that is not in harmony with
their sanctification (chap. xvii. 2), could least of aU hide from
himself the truth how far, his young Gentile Christian con
gregations were still from that state which they should
attain by virtue of their sanctification. With the progress
of sanctification in the individual through the growth of
the living communion with Christ, the organic unity of the
congregation would as a necessary consequence be realized
more and more.
But in a letter like that to the Ephesians, the outspoken
purpose of which is, through admonitions to unity to pro
tect the congregations against the inroads of an anti-Chris-
tion spirit (iv. 1 sqq.) shows that the apostle has here too
in mind not only the unity in the spirit of love, but also the
unity of the Church in that sense according to which the
one character of the Church is realized in all the indivi
duals and in all the congregations. It is clear from the
first three introductory chapters of this Epistle, that a lead-

THE CHURCH AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD 397
ing cause of this exhortation was found in the fact that the
distinctions between the Jewish Christian and the Gentile
Christian congregations were still maintained. These distinc
tions were in reahty of such momentous character, that their
removal was possible only in the course of the development
that underhes the exhortations found in Rom. xv. 5-9. The
great coHeetion for Jerusalem, to which Paul had pledged
himself (Gal. ii. 10) and which he persistently urged in all
of his congregations, and which he in company with the
representatives of the congregation in a solemn manner
took up to Jerusalem, and the fact that he did not permit
himseK to be deterred from this by the dangers that threat
ened him, aU this was by no means merely a work of love,
but of the highest significance for the development of the
Church in general. We need only to read 2 Cor. ix. 12 sqq.
to be convinced that Paul understood this importance to
the fullest measure.
The reasons that James on one occasion yielded the free
dom of the Gentile Christians from the law (Acts xv. 14
sqq.) show clearly enough that he regarded the great Gentile
Church as at bottom stiU a second people of God by the side
of that found in the congregation comprised of believers out
of Israel, and accordingly was not yet conscious of the unity
of the Church in the Pauline sense. Even the unity of the
gospel, upon which the Church was founded, could not
remove this distinction. Every unprejudiced comparison of
the letters of James and of John with those of Paul shows
clearly enough, that this unity was by no means so com
monly recognized and so clear as it should have been on
this basis alone. Just as little, however, as the unity of
the Church was the universality of the Church realized in
the beginning. It certainly was no empty exaggeration
when Paul according to his geography thought that the
gospel had already been preached to all the world (Col. i.
6, 23 ; cf . Rom. i. 8) ; but how much still remained to be

398 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
done before the oecumenical character of Christianity could
be realized is seen from the history of missions.
According to aU this the apostolic statements concerning
the character of the Church cannot be understood in any
other sense than those made concerning the nature of re
generation and sanctification (xvii. 2). Not through the
introduction of infant baptism, nor through the different
controversies that arose in the history of the Church on
account of different conceptions of its character has the
one Church actually become to be a body so different from
what it ideaHy should be. Those statements concerning the
character of the Church in the Scriptures are and wiU ever
be the statements of faith. Paul did not permit his vision
to be darkened by the destruction between the visible and
the invisible church or by any other dogmatical phrases
to the fact that the real character of the Church can be
realized only gradually, as this in the case with regenera
tion and sanctification. And yet he cHngs to his faith in
the one Holy Church, united organicaHy and universal
world comprehensive. Through the preaching of Christ not
only the ideal was furnished which Israel already really
possessed, but the beginning was made of what was to be
realized, because the means were furnished in this gospel
for the realization and consummation. Exactly in this sense
Jesus had declared that the Kingdom of God was already
at hand and yet announced it as yet in the future (chap.
xvii. 4).
3. The Upbuilding of the Church. — It lies in the
nature of the case that the Church can realize its character
only through the means through which faith and the gospel
life is produced and developed in the individual (chap, xiv.),
i. e., through the word and the sacraments. The Church in
which the word is preached in its purity and cleanness
and where the sacraments are administered in accordance
with the will of Christ is indeed not the Church in which

THE CHURCH AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD

399

its character has already been fully realized but is the ono
in which this realization can take place first. For this reason
the first congregation, which was gathered by the preaching
of Peter, after they had been baptized, continued steadfast
in the teaching of the apostles and the breaking of bread
(Acts ii. 42). But if it is to be developed into the world
embracing reHgious organization, i. e., into the Church, then
the preaching of the word must spread until all faith has
been worked and aU of the nations of the earth and they
have by baptism been received into the congregations of
disciples (Matt, xxviii. 19). As Jesus Himself strengthened
His gospel message by signs and wonders, thus too He had
given His first disciples, whom He had educated for its
proclamation, the power to manifest the glory of God in this
way (John xvii. 22 ; cf . Mark vi. 7 ; Matt. x. 1) ; and God
has reaHy put His seal upon their preaching as His word
by signs and wonders (Heb. ii. 4). But as Jesus Himself
asked and secured aU of His success from the Father, thus
they too were to pray to the Father for it, and to this prayer
spoken in His name, i. e., by His authority, He had uncon-
ditionaHy promised an answer (John xiv. 13-14; xv. 16).
Upon this Jesus bases His promise that they would be able
to do even greater works than He, whose activity was limited
by the conditions of His earthly existence (xiv. 12) ; that
they would reap where He had only sown (iv. 37-38).
But no matter how wide the circle of the believers had
thereby been drawn, He stiU adhered to the position that the
character of the Church thus established would be developed
only gradually. Paul describes the activity necessary for
this development in connection with a picture of the build
ing of God (1 Cor. iii. 9), as the upbuilding of the congre
gation; and He applies this expression, without any seeming
connection with this picture, to every advancement of Chris
tian life in the congregation and in the individual. In order
now to enable the saints, i. e., the members of the congrega-

400 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
tion, to take part in this service of upbuilding the body of
Christ, Christ has given to the congregation the bearers of
certain gifts (Eph. iv. 11-12); but God has in accordance
with the measure with which Christ has endowed each with
His gifts, given to each the grace to help in this work
(iv. 7). These are the gifts of grace, which Paul names
(1 Cor. xii. 6-11), be these regarded as real miraculous
gifts or only as miraculous developments of natural gifts.
In this list are by no means found only those (cf . also xii. 28
sqq.) which are necessary for the preaching of the word but
also those which serve to strengthen this proclamation by
the working of miracles or are necessary for the management
of the congregation or for the care of the poor (cf. also
Rom. xii. 6 sqq.). The very fact that the Church is one
organic body demands that every member possess his own
gift to satisfy the different needs of the body, for which
reason none is to despise his gift or to overestimate the gift
of another, since they are all necessary for the body (1 Cor.
xii. 14-25). If by prayer and preparation the Christian
would strive for still higher gifts (xii. 31) the measure for
this can only be love (1 Cor. xiii.), i. e., the question
through what kind of a gift the Church would be served best
(1 Cor. xiv.).
Naturally all work for the congregation as well as all
missionary activity can be attended with success only when
and because the Christians pray for this; for all gifts can
be used only as the gifts of God, which He has entrusted to
us as stewards (1 Pet. iv. 10-11), and only in the name of
Christ, i. e., at the command of Christ, who has directed us
to thank God in word and deed through this activity (Col.
iii. 17; cf. Eph. v. 19). In reality it is Christ HimseK as
the head of the congregation who does this work which is
performed by the members in their united service for the
development and growth of the congregation (Eph. iv. 16;
Col. ii. 19). Paul does not doubt, that in this way the

THE CHURCH AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD 401
congregation wiU grow to fuU manhood (Eph. iv. 13-14),
i. e., wUl and can realize its real character. Of course this
wiU take place only when the goal has been attained, for
which reasons these gifts must continue until that time
(1 Cor. xiii. 8 sqq). From this it does not follow that there
must always be the same gifts; since each age has its own
needs and therefore needs its own means to satisfy these
needs. Certain it is, that the congregation wiH never lack
the gift or the power to utilize the means of grace> that God
has given it for its upbuilding.
Notwithstanding this it is not possible that, in the course
of the development of the Kingdom of God amid earthly
surroundings sin wiU not ever again find its way in. Jesus
has taught this in His parables, by showing that in His
work in the estabhshment of the Kingdom bad fishes as
weU as good were caught, that there were tares as well as
wheat (Matt. xiii. 47-48; xxiv. 30). He has expressly for
bidden the attempt, during the course of this development,
during which it is always possible that bad members would
become good, and good bad, to separate these from each other,
because there are no searchers of hearts on earth who could
do this. With this it has for aU times been forbidden the
congregation to undertake, by separating its impure mem
bers, to make itseK " a congregation of saints." For apart
from the fact that aU of its members are yet in the stage
of development toward perfect holiness, it is in harmony
with its character as the body of Christ that its activity
should be directed to the very end of advancing the indi
vidual members in their growth and to remove their faults.
And yet it is necessary to remove the danger which is
found in the individual members for the whole congregation
(1 Cor. v. 6; Heb. xii. 15). Jesus HimseK gave authority
to the congregation, when all the means of bringing an un
repentant brother to repentance had failed, to declare that
such an one had lost all the rights of Christian brotherhood ;
z

402 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
because in this case the duty of- self-preservation put a limit
even upon the duty of love to save the brother (Matt, xviii.
15-17), even if he has thereby excluded him from the great
est blessing of the congregation, the forgiveness of sins.
Yet Jesus has for this very case promised the congregation,
be it great or small, the certainty of being heard. The prayer
of the congregation also secures for the penitent brother
the forgiveness of his sins (xviii. 18-19). Jesus has already
endowed His disciples with the spiritual power for this,
which enabled them to distinguish between mortal and par
donable sins (John xx. 22-23). Paul and John demand that
Christians dissolve their social relation with those mem
bers of the congregation who have poUuted themselves with
grievous sins or through soul-destroying heresies might mis
lead others (1 Cor. v. 11 ; 2 John x. 17) ; although this does
not exclude that attempts to regain them should be made
(2 Thess. iii. 14-15). It is of course possible that such
efforts (2 Tim. ii. 25-26) must turn out to be useless and
must be given up (Tit. iii. 10-11) and that the congrega
tion must conclude to expel these members (1 Cor. v. 2, 13).
The author of the Apocalypse praises the expulsion of the
soul-destroying deceivers and upbraids their retention in
the congregation (Rev. ii. 2 ; cf . ii. 14, 20) ; and in the
congregation to which the first Epistle of John is directed,
such errorists as the libertinists were certainly compelled to
leave. But if repentance has taken place then the restoration of
the sinner can and must take place (2 Cor. ii. 6 sqq.). Paul
decides to make use of the sharpest disciplinary measures
given him by his apostolic authority (1 Tim. i. 20), although
he would apply these only in agreement with the congrega
tion, and intends that this shall lead to the deliverance of
the sinner (1 Cor. v. 3 sqq.). The New Testament has no
where authorized a Church discipline that would arrogate
to itself the right to punish the sinning members of the

THE CHURCH AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD 403
congregation and forgets that in accordance with Christ's
command, nothing can be done in this direction until all
the means for regaining the sinner have been exhausted.
4. The Congregational Offices.— When Jesus warns
his twelve against ambition for honors of rank and title (Matt.
xxiu. 8 sqq.) He thereby did not to make it impossible that
He could assign to the one or the other a prominent posi
tion in the congregation, but intended only to awaken in
them that humility which seeks true greatness in serving
(xx. 26-27). When the two sons of Zebedee asked Him for
such a position, He did not at once refuse them, but only
told them that it was not His business to give such posi
tions, since only those could secure them for whom God
(by the bestowal of proper gifts) had prepared them (xx.
23). John was nearest to His heart, but upon Peter, on
account of his rock nature, he founds His greatest hopes for
the estabhshment of His kingdom (xiv. 18), i. e., because
on account of his natural abilities. Even if the manner,
in which in later times the power of the Keys, i. e., for
binding and loosening of that which should be permitted in
the congregation, was applied (xiv. 19), does not reproduce
exactly the sense of the figurative language of Jesus, it
nevertheless is true that without a question, He in these
words assigned to Peter a prominent position in the time
of the estabhshment of the congregation; which fact is also
confirmed clearly in John xxi. 15 sqq. But the very fact
that Jesus bases this prominence on His natural abilities
its transfer to His pretended successors is absolutely out of
the question. The twelve also, who had been selected by Him
and equipped to be His witnesses, held such prominent posi
tions in the congregation, on account of their personal rela
tions to Christ.
But Jesus has in no wise intended to confer upon them
the exclusive privilege of preaching the word, but has pur
posed to make this preaching secure by caHing and equipping

404 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
them. They nowhere claim for themselves exclusive priv
ileges; and even Peter admonishes the elders of the congre
gation only as their fellow elder and the witness of the
sufferings of Christ (1 Pet. v. 1). Paul, however, called
after the other apostles, was compelled by his adversaries to
define more closely the position given him by his call, but
he bases this position, apart from this personal relation to
Christ, exclusively on his gift of establishing congregations
through his faith-working proclamation of the gospel
(1 Cor. iii. 10; ix. 2), i. e., on his success (Gal. ii. 8). For
this reason he always considers the apostles as the first
bearers of the gifts of the Church (1 Cor. xvii. 28 ; Eph. iv.
11). He has also yielded to the brethren of the Lord and
to Barnabas the same right and privilege of preaching the
gospel that he claims for himself and the original apostles
(1 Cor. ix. 5-6), and he has designated the specific work of
his pupil and helper. Timothy as that of an evangelist
(missionary) (2 Tim. iv. 6; cf. Eph. iv. 11). But aU of his
letters show that he claims for himself an authoritative
position over against his congregation and assistants, by
virtue of which he gives them directions in the name of
Christ, i. e., by His authority (2 Thess. iii. 6). In the
apostolic office also, apart from the fact that nowhere dis
tinct lines are marked out for it, there can be no successors,
since it is based on the individual abilities and the historical
relations of the apostles to Christ. It continues in the
Church through the authoritative significance of their writ
ings (chap. iv. 1), and requires no renewal.
It is very significant that the beginnings of the congre
gational office, i. e., of the official transfer of certain con
gregational duties to certain individuals, do not at aU take
place in that department in which the congregation is
engaged in realizing its ideal. As the upbuilding of the
congregation was left to the free use of the spiritual gifts
(cf. 1 Cor. xiv), thus also the purification from the danger-

THE CHURCH AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD 405
ous portion of its membership, was on the whole, although
the apostles in this regard at aU times claim the privilege
of giving directions. On the other hand the apostles, in
whose hand so far the entire management of the congrega
tion had been placed, soon saw the necessity of appointing
special agents for the management of the care of the poor
(Acts vi. 1-6). From the appointment of these seven men,
it seems that later the diaconate was developed (1 Tim. v.
8; Phil. i. 1; Rom. xvi. 1).
The origin of the office of elders is involved in total dark
ness, which office in the Jewish Christian congregation
probably was a natural evolution, when the separation of
the behevers in the Messiah from the old adherents of the
synagogue had made it necessary to appoint certain elders
of their own after the manner of the synagogue. In the
Gentile Christian congregations the elders seem, after the
character of their work, to have been called bishops, i. e.,
overseers (Phil. i. 1), after the current manner that pre
vailed in the reHgious communions in the Roman Empire.
At aU events this office also originated solely in the needs of
congregational Hfe and was not founded upon any revealed
ordinance of God. In the congregations of Corinth and
Galatia this office was not found; but it did exist in the
congregations in Macedonia. When Paul in Tit. i. 5 directs
his assistant to appoint presbyters, it appears already from
the qualifications that are to be considered in this matter
and which are to be decided upon by the congregation alone,
that the latter was really the power that did the electing.
Their work was primarily devoted to the social life in the
congregation. When it occasionally appears that they were
at the same time pastors (Heb. xiii. 17), it yet seems abso
lutely certain, from James v. 14 sqq.; 1 Thess. v. 17 sqq.,
that they were those in the congregation who (on account
of their age as a rule) seemed to be the most revered in the
congregation, but that each member could and should per-

406 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
form the same pastoral functions that the presbyters did.
Hence there was found an arrangement in Ephesus by virtue
of which older widows were formally entrusted with the
pastoral care of the younger women (1 Tim. v. 9 sqq.).
Only when it became evident that the period in which
these spiritual gifts flourished was past and the congrega
tion was threatened with dangerous doctrinal controversies,
the need was felt to secure the constant practice and normal
exercise in the preaching of the word in this way, that the
effort was made to unite with the duties of the elders the
office of teaching, as Paul clearly does in his Pastoral
Epistles (1 Tim. iii. 2; Tit. i. 9; cf. 2 Tim. ii. 2). But even
by this arrangement the special calling of preaching had
not yet been called into existence connected with particular
privileges ; only that now it became the congregation's duty
to make such provisions for these, too, which Paul, after
the manner of Jesus (Luke x. 7), had demanded for all
official preachers of the gospel (1 Cor. ix.). The laying on
of hands when entering upon their duties (1 Tim. v. 27) is
none other than that received by those who took care of the
poor, when the blessing of God was asked down upon them
when they entered upon their duties (Acts vi. 6), as also
upon the missionaries, who were no permanent officials (xiii.
3). Nor did this exclude the preaching of the word on the
basis of special spiritual gifts, as clearly appears from this,
that the apostlo in his Pastoral Epistles also forbids this to
women. The office of elders and bishops, as far as we know, con
tinued throughout the whole apostolic period on the same
footing with the congregation, and was exercised under the
direction of the congregation, as it was appointed by the
congregation. The discipline over presbyters in 1 Tim. v.
10 sqq., is administered by Timothy in the name of Paul-
Here was the place where, after the departure of the apostles
and their pupils, the need of governmental authorities was

THE CHURCH AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD 407
felt in the Church, which gradually, together with the
change of the work of teaching into a congregational office,
brought about the change of the office of elders, which had
been nothing higher than the congregation, into a mon-
archial episcopal office in its different stages. These were
human arrangements that had been developed in the course
of history, to which Christians naturaUy submitted them
selves as to every human ordinance (1 Pet. ii. 13) for the
Lord's sake. But no hierarchy can appeal to a single word
in the New Testament and no spiritual office is of apostolic
appointment. Only the preaching of the word as such, as
also the administration of the sacrament, is based upon
divine command, because it is indispensable for the realiza
tion of the essence of the Church.
5. The Hope of the Kingdom of God.— The Church
is by no means the Kingdom of God as Jesus had come to
establish it in His nation. This was not intended to trans
form the people into a purely religious communion; it was
to renew the entire national life of Israel in its political,
social and family relations through a religious regeneration
of the people, so that the will of God would be realized
in aH these spheres. For this is the perfection of religion
that the reHgious life does not become a separate side but
the soul of the whole life. When Jesus confines His activity
to Israel (Matt. xv. 24) and selects His twelve apostles with
evident reference to the twelve tribes of Israel (xix. 28),
this did not mean that the Kingdom of God was to be con
fined to Israel; since, according to the promises of the
prophets of old, when salvation had become a reality, the
nations themselves were to come and join the Theocracy in
its consummation (Is. ii. 2 sqq.) But when the nation, in
its head and members, had refused to accept Jesus, and
when the people also as a whole had more and more hardened
themselves against the preaching of the first apostles, who
had continued to hope that the Kingdom of God would be

408 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
realized in Israel, then this hope became futile. The judg
ment of punishment, which destroyed the national and
political existence of the people, has definitely pronounced
their sentences. Thereby Israel has for all times lost its
importance in the call to redemption. Even if the hope for
the restoration of a remnant of Israel (Rev. ix. 13) or of
a final repentance of the whole people (Rom. ix. 26) was
entertained, yet the hope of a restitution of Israel to its
historical mission is an empty dream, which is based on a
false conception of the character of prophecy, the liberal
fulfilment of which is demanded.
The Kingdom of God which Jesus was to found in
accordance with prophetic prediction and which He also
wanted to found, has not been realized and cannot be
realized. This not for the reason that He or the Prophets
entertained fanatical hopes, but because the fulfilment of
aU the promises of God is made dependent on the conduct
of those to whom they are given. Jesus already thought
of the possibility that the Kingdom of God would be taken
from Israel and given to the Gentiles (Matt. xxi. 43). This
possibility has become a reality. The great apostle to the
Gentiles became the instrument that brought salvation to
the Gentiles, after it had been rejected by the Jews (Rom.
xi. 11). It is true that the believing Gentiles have thereby
been engrafted on the noble oil-tree, the roots of which are
the patriarchs (xi. 16 sqq.; cf. Eph. ii. 12-13, 19) and now
constitute the true Israel (Rev. vii. 3-8 ; xiv. 1-3) ; but the
ideal theocracy with its promises and blessings has as little
to do with the actual people of the Jews as the 144,000 from
all the tribes (who at that time no longer existed) have, as
this is only the typical designation of the New Testament
people of God. With the transition of the Kingdom of God
into the sphere of the heathen world, the Church is for the
present the only form in which this ideal has been realized
in a communion. The natural political, social and poHtieal

THE CHURCH AND THE KINGDOM OF GOD 409
life of the Gentiles did not offer a basis for this realization
of the Kingdom of God among the nations, as did the
national hfe of Israel, that had been trained by divine
revelation. In itself such a realization is not an impos
sibility. But a Church, which would identify itself with
the Kingdom of God and thereby injure its deepest religious
being, could not and would not solve this problem.
And yet notwithstanding aU this, the realization of this
goal is predicted by both New Testament prophecy as well
as by that of the Old Testament. He who understands the
nature of prophecy and does not confound it with predic
tion, wiH not consider the picture of the millenium given
by Rev. xx. as a fantastic dream of the prophet. At
a time when the hostihty against God had seemingly reached
its highest stage in the Roman Empire, the writer of the
Revelation had hoped that the returning Christ would
crush this empire; and because thereby aU the powers of
Satan would seem to be bound for the time being, that He
would in company with his faithful reahze the Kingdom
of God on earth. This kingdom could become the priestly
Mediator to them to realize the kingdom among those that
had not yet been reached by the gospel and had not yet
been hardened against it (xx. 6). This would gain that im
portance for the whole world which at one time Israel was
to have. That Christ was to descend upon the earth for the
purpose of establishing and ruling this kingdom is an idea
not suggested by the writer; the royal dominion of the
exalted Christ serves here as everywhere else merely to
realize His glory. But a Kingdom of God upon earth can
never be its last realization. Therefore the writer of the Reve
lation assigns to this rule only a period of thousand years
(naturaUy a round number), after which time, with the
attack of the people that have not yet been brought under
its influence in the outermost ends of the earth (xx. 7 sqq.)
the final catastrophe breaks in upon the Kingdom of God.

410 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
The presuppositions of the prophet have not been fulfilled
and therefore, too, his picture of hope has as little been
realized as have those of the Old Testament prophets. But
he has by his picture given Christianity the right to pray
and to work for the realization of the Kingdom of God on
earth among the nations. How far the Church will be able
to attain this goal in the different nations in the world at
large and thus entirely to Christianize the life of the peo
ple in the full sense of the term, depends upon the extent
to which the real character of the Church is realized in itself
and on the extent to which the nations accept its missionary
activity. At any rate, the ideal can be realized only to a
relative degree under the conditions that prevail in the life
on earth, in which the power of sin is indeed hemmed but
has not been destroyed; and the Church can never become
the Kingdom of God; or as this can be stated, the Church
will never become the state.
For the Church is and will remain the communion of
religious life, in which the work to be done is to plant,
cultivate and bring to maturity this life. But the Kingdom
of God embraces the entire life of man, the economic and
the national, the social and the political; it Includes the
arts and the sciences, as well as all the forms of human
culture and dominion over nature. This totality of life
can become under the influence of the Kingdom of God
only to that degree to which it is ruled by religious mo
tives, is developed according to religious norms, is led to
religious ends, so that in everything the will of God is
accomplished. But aU these elements of religious life can
be produced and be cultivated only in the Church as the
communion of the religious life. The Church is at all
times the hearth where that sacred fire is fed which is to
transfuse, sanctify and purify the life of the world. The
Church will cease to exist only in the Kingdom of God in
heaven (Rev. xxi. 22).

CHAPTER XX
THE LAST THINGS
1. The Return of Christ. — From that time when Jesus
began to foreteU to His disciples His own sufferings and
also the heavy fate that awaited them, He announced to
them His return to glory (Mark viii. 38). He could not
be the Messiah sent by God if He did not actually realize
the promised completion of redemption. If His work on
earth was cut short by the sins of His people then He had
to continue it in His exaltation. As the Father had sent
him to begin His work, thus He had to send Him a second
time to complete it; since it was God's work that had to be
accomphshed by the Messiah. The prophets of old had
spoken of a Day of Jehovah (Joel ii. ; Mai. iii.; cf. Heb.
x. 25), when He would return to bring the consummation
of salvation; and this could only be the day, when at His
second coming (Acts iii. 20-21) the Messiah, who is now
hidden in heaven, would be revealed in His glory (1 Cor.
i. 6-7; Phil. i. 6). Only then could the prophecy of Daniel
be fulfilled (Dan. vii. 13), according to which He was to
come like the Son of Man in the clouds of the heavens, in
order to establish His dominion over the completed King
dom of God (Mark xiv. 62). The company of the angels
(Matt. xxv. 31) was only to show that He was not return
ing in humility as a man but in divine glory.
On this day then the prophetic prediction was being ful
filled, and now only had the promised advent of the Mes
siah become His real presence (James v. 7; 1 Cor. xv. 23)
or the presence of God HimseK (1 John ii. 28). Therefore
411

412 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
this return of Christ is technically called His "Parousia."
The Old Testament prophets had as a matter of fact pre
dicted nothing concerning the concrete forms of the first
coming of' Christ, although in later times attempts have
been made to find in them references to these. Just as
little have Christ and the New Testament prophets said
anything concerning the forms of this return, but have
pictured them only in the manner of Old Testament
prophecy. But so much is certain, that the second coming
will not, like the first, be one that can be grasped by faith
only, but it will be made known to aH the world at the same
time, just as Jesus represents it (Matt. xxiv. 24), since it wiU
practically bring the final decision of the fate of the world.
But if Jesus really was the Messiah, whom God had sent
in accordance with His promises, then God must have in
tended to give His full redemption with His first advent
to the generation to whom He was sent. Jesus could, then,
according to the prophecy that He was sent to fulfil could
not believe, that if His work on earth was cut short by the
sins of His people, that God would complete it by sending
Him a second time to this generation. It is perfectly use
less by exegetical and critical means to get rid of the fact
that Jesus had promised His return to the generation of
His day (Mark ix. 1; xiv. 62; Matt. xxiv. 34). All His
discourses with reference to His return proceed from the
standpoint that His hearers as a class would yet live to
see His return (cf. also John xiv. 3; xxi. 22). It would
otherwise also be historically beyond comprehension, that
all apostolic preaching expected it in the near future
(James v. 8-9 ; 1 Pet. iv. 5 sqq. ; Heb. x. 25, 37 ; Rev. iii. 11 ;
xxii. 20; cf. i. 3; xxii. 10). Paul hopes with the majority
of the believers to see the return (1 Thess. iv. 15-16 ; 1 Cor.
xv. 52) ; and he adheres to the near approach of this return
even when thought of His martyrdom came nearer and
stronger (Phil. ii. 17; iv. 5). John knows that the last

THE LAST THINGS 413
hour is already at hand and expects with his readers to
Uve to see the return (1 John ii. 18, 28).
This naturally did not make it impossible that within this
period the actual movement of the final consummation should
remain unknown (Acts i. 7) ; that the day of the return should
come suddenly and unexpectedly, as a thief in the night
(Matt. xxiv. 43-44; cf. 1 Thess. v. 2; 2 Pet. iii. 10; Rev.
iii. 3). Sometimes the admonition is given not to expect it
too soon in order not to be deceived through false reports
(Luke xvii. 23 ; cf . 2 Thess. ii. 2) ; sometimes not to doubt
on account of the delay (Luke xii. 45; cf. 2 Pet. iii. 9).
This very certainty with reference to the nearness of the
return, united with the uncertainty as to the exact moment,
became for the apostolic views the strongest impulse for
watchfulness, without which there is no development of
Christian Hfe (chap, xviii. 2). Living constantly in the ex
pectation of the coming of the Lord should and could
enable them to continue their personal relation to the Lord
who had been taken from them and exalted to the heavens.
As certain as it accordingly is, that the divine providence,
according to which Jesus was compelled to expect His
speedy return, had its special redemptive purposes, so cer
tainly, too, is it wrong to speak of a mistake on the part
of Jesus or even of a seK-deception in reference to the
success of His work. When He in Mark xiii. 37 says that
the determination of the day of His return is unknown to
HimseK, He certainly did not believe that God, who had
revealed to Him aH the Other counsels of redemption, would
withhold the single one concerning this day. But rather
He will have thought, that God had not revealed to Him
this matter, because He had reserved for Himself the
determination of the exact time. Thereby it was settled
that God could postpone the day of His return to also
beyond the period when Jesus and the prophets had ex
pected it, if such were the counsels of His grace. The

414 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
whole outcome of His career upon earth was a proof of the
fact that if the conduct of man hindered God from attain
ing His purposes in the way originally intended, He could
select other ways.
Under existing circumstances Jesus had a right to expect
that only a few would attain salvation (Matt, xxvii. 14;
cf. Luke xii. 32), and that4 if this was true of the people
of Israel who had been prepared by the history of redemp
tion, He would find the world as a whole, living in careless
impenitence at His return (Matt. xxiv. 37 sqq.; cf. Luke
xvii. 8). It is true that He had at the approach of His death
pointed to the sign of Jonah as indicative of His resurrec
tion (Matt. xii. 39-40), that would lead many to faith in
Him (cf. also John viii. 28). The apostles had tried by
the preaching of the resurrection of Jesus to work the
repentance of all Israel (Acts iii. 19 sqq.) ; but they had
failed. What was then more natural than the thought that
God would postpone His original counsel with reference to
the return, in order to give the world time to repent. If
Jesus had at one time only thought of this, that His dis
ciples, when they would be brought before rulers and kings,
would be given an opportunity to ¦ testify of Him to the
Gentiles (Matt. x. 18), Mark has aheady enlarged this to
the thought, that before His return the gospel must yet be
preached to all the nations (xiii. 10; xiv. 9). And of this
the first evangelist no doubt thought when he reports the
exalted Christ as giving the command in Matt, xxviii. 19.
Paul teaches that God's judgment of wrath over Israel,
which is to come with the return of Christ, is postponed, in
order to find room for the caU of the Gentiles through the
gospel (Rom. ix. 22-23). He has announced it as a revela
tion given to him, that when the fulness of the Gentiles
shall have entered, that then the people of Israel also is to
be saved (xi. 25-26), and then the end is to come at once
(xi. 15). And yet it is true that he had clung to the idea

THE LAST THINGS

415

of the near return of Christ (xiii. 11) ; but we certainly
know that already at the time when he wrote this Epistle
to the Romans, he regarded that gospel as having already
been preached to aU the world (i. 8). Evidently he hoped
at that time yet, that the work of evangelization of the
Gentiles would continue to make the phenomenal progress
with which it had been begun; and that, when this was
finished, that Israel, in accordance with the wonderful
counsel of God, the fulfilment of which he expected in the
Gentile world, would be roused to follow the example and
become converted (xi. 11, 13, 14).
At a later period, indeed, after he had been suffering
imprisonment for four years, we see that his hopes weak
ened, and he can only with tears think of the many for
whose conversion he had once hoped (Phil. iii. 18). The
author of the Revelation sees in the mighty judgments
of God, which according to the predictions of Jesus con
cerning the end were to go out of the world, like the
travails out of which the new age had been born (Matt.
xxiv. 6 sqq.; cf. Rev. vi. 8-9; xv. 16), the last admonitions
of God for the repentance to the world, which however, are
scarcely expected to have any results (ix. 20-30; xvi. 9; xi.
21). But the nearer the congregation progressed toward its
fuU development, the more the Church must in itself have
constituted a powerful propaganda for faith in Christ
(John xvii. 21, 23). It is true that in the Church itself,
in the course of its further growth, each development came
to the surface; but over against these very things we are
told in 2 Pet. iii. 9, 15, that the postponement of Christ's
return is to serve the purposes of giving all the time to
repent and to be saved. It was dependent on the Christians,
by their timely repentance to hasten the coming return (iii.
17). Evidently the primitive congregation comforted
themselves with the thought, that God had given the world
a longer time to repent; for the failure of Christ to return

416 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
again during that generation did not shake its faith that
Jesus was the Messiah.
2. The Anti-Christ. — If God through the second send
ing of Christ brings about this consummation it is thereby
settled that this is not attained by way of an internal
development of the work that has been begun by Christ.
The parables in Matt. xiii. 31 sqq. speak only of the pur
pose of the Kingdom of God to include and to transform
the whole nations, without a word being said of and in how
far this is attained. The parable in Mark iv. 26-29, unless
it is aHegorical in an arbitrary manner, describes merely the
fact that this is an independent and gradual development.
Nothing is more certain then that Jesus did not have in
view a victory over the world in our sense of the term. He
had hoped to gain a small flock, as we saw, for whose de
liverance from the power of the enemy He would come
again. For nothing is more certain than that, the more the
Kingdom of God began to be realized, the stronger the
reaction of the hostile world must Become (1 John iii. 13).
Already in the Sermon on the Mount Jesus began to speak
to His disciples of their persecutors (Matt. v. 11) ; the more
the hate of the world fell upon Him, the more surely His
followers must experience it too (John xv. 18 sqq). Mark
considers the persecutions that Jesus had prophesied to His
disciples as the signs of the end of the world (Mark xiii.
9-13). Peter sees in them the beginning of the judgment
in the house of God ( 1 Pet. iv. 17). Paul also expects
terrible oppression, which will come over the faithful
(1 Cor. vii. 26). Above all it is a fundamental thought
in the Revelation of John that the faithful shall indeed be
preserved from the judgment that is passed over the hostile
world (vii. 2 sqq; cf. ix. 4) but that a great tribulation
(vii. 14) yet awaits them in the last times of persecution.
Jesus and His disciples saw the near approach of the
last times not in the progress of Christianity, but in the

THE LAST THINGS 417
growth of the hostihty against it, in the development of
anti-Christianity. Jesus in Matt xxiii. 31-36 presupposes
in an undoubted manner, that the judgment that is to come
in the end, can come only when the present generation has
fiUed the measure of the sins of their fathers, i. e., when
the hostility against God and His salvation has reached its
acme, because only then it can be determined that there
is no hope left of gaining the world for salvation. The
greater this enmity grows, the more the believers can hope
that the end is near. And in order that they may prepare
themselves for this, Jesus taught His disciples to interpret
the signs of the times (Luke xii. 56 sqq.), from which it is
possible to see the approach of the end. In this the New
Testament prophet sees the duty to judge from these signs
of the times, what stages the development of the hostihty
to God has yet to pass through before the world is ripe for
the judgment. Apocalyptic prophecy, which sought on the
basis of this stage of this development to discover whether
the end was near or far off, is a kind of a philosophy of
history, which is not to be regarded as something foreign to
the reHgion of the New Testament, because it is also found
outside of Christianity.
Jesus HimseK has set the precedence for this. If His
miraculous deliverance from death and His consequent
exaltation was the last means that God resorted to in order
to bring the people of His times to repentance and to faith
(Matt. xii. 39-40; John viii. 29), then the rejection and the
persecution of the witnesses who proclaimed this act of God
is the sign that the leaders of the people had completed the
sins of their fathers and that the judgment must come over
them (Matt. xxii. 32-36). When the people were misled
by false Messiahs (xxiv. 5) and would have rejected salva
tion as it was brought to them by Jesus, and have in a
revolutionary manner tried to force redemption in its sense,
then the catastrophe would break out over them (xxiv. 15-21)
AA

418 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
from which only the returning Messiah would deliver His
foUowers (xxix. 29 sqq.). Therefore the Epistle to the
Hebrews sees in the signs of the impending Jewish wars
the approach of the great day of the Lord (Heb. x. 25). ¦
In the time when the activity of the great apostle of
the Gentiles everywhere met among the unbelieving Jews
with a strong and energetic opposition movement (1 Thess.
ii. 15-16), Paul saw in this already the essence of that
iniquity (2 Thess. ii. 7) which had hidden itseK in the
garb of a zeal for God and His law, but necessarily would
soon grow into a full apostasy from God and from the
Messiah who declared His will. This acme he saw reached
when the man of inquity would seat himself in the temple
of God (ii. 3-4), i. e., would declare himself to be the God
who had come to his Messiah. As an instrument of Satan,
endowed with superhuman powers (ii. 9), this pseudo-
Messiah would certainly overthrow the Roman law, which
had protected the apostles so often in the past against Jew
ish fanaticism (ii. 6-7) ; and when then the hostility against
God and Christ would have reached its highest stage, then
the coming of Christ would put an end to this power of
the anti-Christ (ii. 8-9).
Soon indeed it appeared that the unbelieving Jews, who
are called the synagogue of the devil in Apoc. ii. 9; iii. 9,
did not possess the power to produce out of its own midst
this last personification of anti-divine hatred ; and Paul him
self never again expressed his views in this manner, but
finally even expects the conversion of the Jews as a people
(Rom. xi. 26). On the other hand, it was later the Roman
Empire itself that kept the apostles in chains and prisons
for long years ; and in the horrors of the persecutions under
Nero, as also in the murder of Peter and of Paul, showed
itself as the bearer of the specific hostility to Christ. It is
true that the great enemy of Christianity, Nero, finally him
self died, and with the destruction of the Julian line the

THE LAST THINGS 419
Roman Empire seemed to have received its death blow, from
which it did not recover for a long time. But when by the
ascent upon the throne of Vespasian and of the family of
the Flavians this wound was healed, then John saw that
the hour had come, when after the seven headed rule the
beast, i. e., the Roman Empire would in the last representa
tives of the Flavians develop the highest stage of hostility
to Christ and thereby inaugurate the final catastrophe
(Rev. xii. 17).
But this combination, too, was not fulfilled, since
Domitian did not at aU justify the fears that were enter
tained of him. But the Apocalypse itself, which already
had placed by the side of the Roman Empire the power of
pseudo-prophecy as a second beast, knows of a satanic
pseudo-prophecy within the congregation itself, that pur
poses to lead it into heathen libertinism (ii. 20-24). In 2 Pet.
ii. 1 sqq. aheady the fear is expressed that the development
of practical libertinism into theoretical (ii. 17 sqq.) is the
greatest danger for the last times, which Paul also sees
approaching in the general moral degeneracy (2 Tim. iii.
1 sqq.; cf. Matt. xxiv. 11-17). John beheved later that in
the false doctrines of Gnosticism the pseudo-prophecy of the
last times and with it the anti-Christ had come, from whose
appearance he concludes that the last hour is at hand
(1 John ii. 18, 22; 2 John vii.).
We have here a new proof that the apostles themselves
have no fear to give up an expectation formerly entertained
and to see in a new phenomenon the final personification
of the hostility to Christ. What independent positions they
took in reference to expectations of the future is seen from
the way in which John sees the expectation of a personal
anti-Christ that had already become current in his own
times, fulfilled in the appearance of a number of false doc
trines, as he himseK says. Modern interpreters try in vain
to oppose the clear statements on this subject, because they

420 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
have made the former view a part of their dogmatical sys
tem. This is based, as is the whole dogmatical conception
of the New Testament Apocalypse, which cannot possibly
be forced into one uniform doctrine of the events of the last
times, upon a false idea of what New Testament prophecy
reaHy is. This, as little as Old Testament prophecy, is a
prediction of future events; but it could, if it wanted to,
using the pictures given by the prophets through divine in
spiration of the hopes of the future for the consolation and
the exhortation of their generation in an effective manner,
take its forms only from the circumstances of its own times.
When these changed, then it, too, had to change, exactly
as this is done by Old Testament prophecy. As a matter
of fact neither gnostic heresy nor the Roman Empire gave
Christianity its last battle. Christianity has done perfectly
right when it began to interpret the signs of the times suc
cessively in Mohammedanism and then in the Papacy, and
then in the [French] revolution as the acme of anti-Chris
tianity; but it was a mistake to find these interpretations
in the Revelation. What wiU in reality prove to be the
extreme development of the hostility to Christ, can nat
urally be determined only then when the end has come.
3. The Final Judgment. — The prophecy of the Old
Testament always predicts that in connection with the great
day of Jehovah the judgment will come over the enemies
of Israel and over all the iniquity in its midst. This was
the judgment that John the Baptist announced in order to
persuade Israel to a change of heart, since the Messiah must
first root out those who are unworthy of redemption from
among the people in order to establish the kingdom with
the others (Matt. iii. 10, 12). But Jesus had not come to
judge but to save (John iii. 16-17). Measured by His
standards all were unworthy of redemption. The Messianic
judgment had to be postponed till His work was finished
(Matt. xiii. 41-43, 49-50). This completion came only

THE LAST THINGS 42l
when He returned. In the prophecies of Jesus this return
is accompanied by signs in the heavens, which without a
doubt would bring about the collapse of the present order
of the world (Matt. xxiv. 29). Such an end of the world
is also presupposed by Jesus elsewhere (Matt. v. 18; xiv.
35) ; and upon it is based the promise of the return, which
is compared with the advent of the deluge (Matt. xxiv.
37-42). In 2 Pet. iii. v. sqq., it is described as brought about
by the fire of divine wrath, since the earth is secured by
the promise of God (Gen. ix. 11) against another deluge.
Paul also knows that the present world is in the process
of decay (1 Cor. vii. 31) ; and the Epistle to the Hebrews
speaks of the end, when this changeable form of the world
(i. 11-12) wiU be for the last time put into motion in order
to make room for one that cannot be changed (xii. 26 sqq).
This is a natural consequence of the fact that with the
return of Christ the final consummation for the believers
and thereby also the final judgment has come as to who
belongs to them. If the history of mankind thereby ends,
then with it also comes to an end the form of the world
which cannot be thought without the former and which only
exists for it. For this reason already no conception can
be formed of the return of Christ, which could be adjusted
to our ideas drawn solely from our experiences in the pres
ent earth (Chap. xx. 1), since the return changes all the
conditions of Hfe upon this earth. Amid the terrors of the
destruction of the world, which all will experience, only
the believers wiH be delivered and will be gathered around
the returning Christ, who will take them into His kingdom
of perfection (Matt. xxiv. 31; cf. also 1 Thess. iv. 17; John
xiv. 3).
The final decision that has with this been made of the
fate of man can naturally only be thought in the form of a
judgment, in which all the nations will be gathered before
the throne of God or of Christ (Matt. xxv. 31-32), because

422 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
God will judge the world through Him (Rom. ii. 16), who
as the Mediator of redemption has brought salvation and
redemption. When it is said that the apostles and the
believers in general are to take part in this judgment (Matt.
xix. 28; 1 Cor. vi. 2), this naturally only says that the
decision is made dependent on the conduct of men over
against the preaching of the apostles, and that the believers
will testify how it was possible through the right conduct
over against the gospel to attain redemption. Only in this
sense does Jesus speak of a participation of the Ninevites
and the queen of Sheba in the final judgment (Matt. xii.
41-42). As a matter of fact in this final judgment only the
fact is definitely made known what the result of the develop
ment so far has been. For the believer who has actually
already attained redemption does not come into the judg
ment (John iii. 18; v. 24), and the unbeliever has through
his rejection of redemption excluded himself from such
(Matt. iii. 18; xii. 31).
The fact that this judgment is final in its character makes
it impossible that in some way or other all men are to be
saved. The idea of such an Apocatastasis is made impossible
by the New Testament doctrine of election, according to
which only single persons are elected to salvation (Chap.
xv.). It also contradicts the statement of Christ concerning
a sin, for which there is no forgiveness (Matt. xii. 31-32), i.
e., of a final hardening against redemption, as also contrary
to the teaching of the Epistle to the Hebrews of a final apos
tasy of those who had already received redemption (vi. 4
sqq.; x. 26 sqq.). Such a doctrine undermines the funda
mental idea of the Scriptures, according to which every
one is reponsible for his own final fate and that salvation
will be not forced upon any one, which would also be contrary
to the character of redemption. Such passages as John xii,
22; Eph. i. 10, speak only of the universal will of God for
the redemption of mankind; and if according to Rom. xi.

THE LAST THINGS 423
25 the conversion of aU Israel is to take place, after the
fulness of the Gentile world has entered, then, in accord
ance with the purpose of the connection of this section, this
refers only to the nations as such, which does not at all
exclude the idea of a hardening of individuals. Just as in
Rom. xi. 30 sqq. it is a matter of certainty for everybody
who does not search for dogmatical formulas in the Scrip
tures, but would explain the Scriptures in their connection,
that the apostle is here speaking only of the Gentiles that
have become behevers and of the unbelieving Jews but not
of aU individually. Just as Httle does the fact, that in the
end all the powers hostile to Christ will be overthrown
(1 Cor. xv. 24-25) demand a conversion of all men. For
in this passage, to say the least, the superhuman power of
evils are also included, of whose conversion the Scriptures
never say a word. And if in the end God is to be all in
aU (Rom. xv. 28) this, according to the connection, is only
to be the contrast of the perfected Kingdom of God to the
rule of Christ as Mediator, through which the former is
estabHshed, but for this reason can refer only to those who
through faith in Christ have become His subjects.
For aU others no other fate is then in store except that
which the New Testament calls eternal destruction and
everywhere places in contrast to the deliverance from the
same (Phil. i. 28; cf. 1 Cor. 1, 18). A destruction of the
wicked in the sense of their being devoured by divine wrath
(Heb. x. 27; xii. 29) cannot be found in the Scriptures, if
according to the words of Jesus it would be better that such
persons were never born (Mark xiv. 21). The Scriptures
everywhere presuppose as seK-evident that the soul lives
after death; the only question is at all times how to save
the soul from destruction (Matt. x. 39). But bodily death
is for him, who thereby is separated from everything that
for him is the highest good in itself the greatest misery
(Chap. vii. 3). This begins immediately after death and, ac-

424 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
cording to Luke xvi. 24 is described as a burning thirst. Ti
the desire of the soul for that which is for it the highest
good remains unsatisfied for ever, then this is the eternal
torment of the damned (Rev. xiv. 10-11; cf. Mark ix. 48,
according to Is. lxvi. 24), and their eternal punishment
(Matt. xxv. 41, 46; 2 Thess. i. 9). What is called the sec
ond death in Rev. xx. 6, 15 is merely the definitively set
tled condition of death. The designation of this condition
as hell's fire (Matt. v. 22) or as the deepest darkness, in
which there is weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matt. viii.
12) already shows through the contrast in which it is
placed, that these are only the current symbolical pictures
of eternal misery, which divine wrath inflicts upon the lost.
Passages like Matt. v. 29-30; x. 28 do not refer to bodily
torments in hell, but to this, that the sinner while yet in
this life is judged, since here as in all cases the present
generation is regarded as the objects of the judgment.
It has indeed been thought that this is contradicted by
the scriptural doctrine of a universal resurrection, through
which the godless also receive bodies again that can be
subject to such torments. But the passages that are cited
as teaching this doctrine proceed only from the thought,
that the final judgment is universal in its character and
thus decides definitely the fate of the living and the dead
(Acts x. 42; 1 Pet. iv. 5). If this is described as a special
act of judgment, then, too, those who are dead must be re
garded as having come from the tomb and as placed in
this judgment, and receiving their final sentence (John v.
29). This appears especially from the plastic description
(Rev. xx. 17-13), which describes the eternal fate of the
condemned only as the second death (xx. 6, 15). Luke, too,
who in Acts xxiv. 15 speaks of a resurrection of the just
and the unjust, which, however, according to v. 16, mani
festly only is an evidence that these will receive their judg
ment, undoubtedly presupposes in his gospel (xx. 35-36)

THE LAST THINGS 425
that there is a resurrection from the dead only for those
who are to be considered worthy of a heavenly hfe (cf. xiv.
14). That a double resurrection can only by forcible means
be taken from passages like 1 Thess. iv. 16; 1 Cor. xv. 23-24
is now generaUy recognized. If death as the last enemy
is overcome only immediately before the end (1 Cor. xv. 26)
then by this the idea is excluded that this is to be a double
conquest over death by two resurrections, which have per
haps been separated by the miUennium. Everything that
Paul says in 1 Cor. xv. 35-55 concerning the manner of the
resurrection fits only to the resurrection to eternal life (cf.
Phil. hi. 21), just as Jesus too spoke only of such (Mark
xii. 25).
It can only be based on a misunderstanding of the Scrip
tures if their statements, concerning the eternal character
of the punishments in heU are found irreconcilable with the
love of God. The Scriptures nowhere teach that God
inflicts an equivalent punishment for their sins upon the
condemned according to any codex of criminal law. As
there is but one blessedness, which consists in nothing else
than that for which the godless never long, in which he
would find no happiness, thus too there is but one punish
ment in hell, which consists in the exclusion from this
blessedness, the continuance in death. To this that man
condemns himseK, who on earth has not sought and found
the greatest good, and in this aU the grace of God can
make no change, no matter how much one may trust this
grace to find inexhaustible means for bringing the rebel
lious man to salvation, and God's wisdom to discover
ways to apply these, even beyond the boundaries that have
been drawn for the end of human history and human de
velopment. If God in His wisdom has made man after His image,
and with ability and freedom to decide for himself as far
as his salvation is concerned, then too He has given him

426 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
the ability to reject it permanently; and the final judgment
can only determine which side he has chosen.
4. The New World. — It has often been maintained
that the eschatological ideas of the New Testament consist
only of an odd mixture of irreconcilable pictures, that were
taken from contemporaneous notions and therefore have
in reality nothing to do with the religion of the New Testa
ment. This is not at all the case. It is true that there has
been a comprehensive change in the ideas concerning the
last things, which are found in the Apocalypse, when this
book does not make the return of Christ the final end but
only as the beginning of the millennium of Christ's rule upon
earth. This must of course have been preceded by a judg
ment as to who have been the true disciples (xx. 4) and
as such is to take part in this rule. The resurrection in this
case is then indeed only the resurrection to an earthly Hfe,
as Israel had hoped for all of the dead, when the kingdom
of the Messiah would be realized in the form of the Old
Testament theocracy. But the first by no means excludes
the second resurrection, since before the final judgment,
which will condemn some to a second death, and bring
others into the heavenly Jerusalem, the old world will dis
appear (xx. 11) and with it the Kingdom of God on earth.
We have seen that according to John this hope is realized
in this way, that all the forces hostile to God and to Christ
are concentrated in the Roman Empire, the overthrow of
which, because it represents to him the acme of human ini
quity, could be expected only through the returning Christ
(Chap. xx. 2). The Roman Empire has shown itself as the
special persecutor of the Christians; but it went to pieces
without the intervention of Christ, and even in the end ac
cepted Christianity, without however thereby realizing the
rule of God upon earth, as this has often been thought
necessary by those who do not understand the nature of
Christianity. With this hope of a millennium upon earth,

THE LAST THINGS 437
as this has been described by the Revelation, has fallen to
the ground, but thereby its religious significance has not been
lost (cf. Chap. xix. 5).
Perfectly useless are all the efforts to force such an idea
upon the Apostle Paul, who never entertained it. He ex
plains more clearly how it happens, that, although the
resurrection of Christ is a pledge of the resurrection of
the behevers (1 Cor. xv. 21-27) that nevertheless those that
are His shaU only arise when He comes again (xv. 23).
Only then, namely, he says, when the final consummation
has come, when after the final victory over all His enemies,
which God has promised Him in Ps. ex. 1, death has also
made His last enemy powerless (xv. 24 sqq.). First sin,
which the hostile powers try again and again to bring into
dominion, has been definitely conquered, then death too
which is the consequence and the punishment of sin, can be
robbed of aU of its power over the redeemed. Just as little
as the end of which he speaks can be the end of the resur
rection in the return to Hfe of the godless, so little can the
period of His rule and victory, in which He will subdue
aU those who resist His rule, begin only with the return
of Christ. For the royal rule of Christ according to Paul
(cf. Col. i. 13) and the whole New Testament begins already
with His exaltation and not with His second coming. Paul
himseK formerly made a distinction between this intermedi
ate rule and the point of time when after the completion of
His work He wiU restore this government to God again (1
Cor. xv. 24) in order to be henceforth only the first born
among His brethren (Rom. viii. 29). But this does not and
cannot say that with this period the exaltation of Christ to
divine dignity and the government of the world ceases, since
the completion of His rule as the Mediator is not the cause
but the result of this. Thereby it is not made impossible
that the completed Kingdom of God also (1 Cor. xv. 28)
can be designated as a rule of God or of Christ (2 Tim.

428 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
iv. 1, 18; cf. 2 Pet. i. 11). In every expression of the idea
of a transfer of supremacy to God (1 Cor. xv. 24), as v. 28
clearly shows, only the certainty is expressed, that the com
pletion of the mediatorial activity just as much takes place
in the subjection to the divine counsel of redemption as
this is also true of the entire work (Chap. xiii. 3).
The strongest reason why the resurrection of the believers
can take place only in the return of Christ, as Paul had
from the beginning maintained (1 Thess. iv. 16) as also
the change of those that are alive into bodies suitable
for a heavenly existence (1 Cor. xv. 51-52), is to be found
in this, that only with the destruction of the old form of the
world the new world will arise, which is the goal of aU Chris
tian hope. Here it is made definitely clear, that there is no
reason for believing, that the expectation of a return of Christ
had only been developed because the hopes for the establish-
mnt of an earthly rule of the Messiah had not been fulfilled
in the life of Jesus. In the Old Testament such an expecta
tion had no grounds, since it knows of only one coming of
the Messiah. Apart from the Revelation, in which the
return is nothing else than the restoration of the rule of
David as predicted by the prophets, the New Testament too
knows nothing of the return of Christ for the purpose of
establishing a rule upon earth. The Messianic period, which
Israel expected with the advent of the Messiah, the begin
ning of which, in so far as this had not taken place already
at the first coming of Christ (Chap. xvi. 2), especially ac
cording to Paul, is regarded as beginning with the second
coming of Christ, will not find the world any more in its old
form of existence.
In the Apocalypse also the new Jerusalem, which had been
prepared by the counsel of God from all eternity, descends
down from heaven (xxi. 1; v. 10), but not to realize the
completion of blessedness here upon the earth; for the
heaven and earth, as we know them, will then no longer

THE LAST THINGS

429

be in existence (xx. 11); a new heaven and a new earth
(2 Pet. iii. 13, according to Is. lxv. 17) will have taken
their places. This expression, taken from the first world
that was created, is indeed inaccurate; in the completed
Kingdom of God there is no difference between the heaven
and the earth. That which we caU heaven is nothing else
than the place of the undisputed dominion of God, for
which Jesus teaches us to pray: Thy wiU be done on earth
as it is in heaven (Matt. vi. 10) ; and in the perfect King
dom of God this wiU be realized. When Jesus directs us
to pray to the God whose throne is in heaven (Matt. vi. 9),
although He rules everywhere, He wishes thereby only to
designate a place where His power is supreme. But those
that are made perfect have already attained this, that they
see God in aU of His glory. He dweUs in their midst, as
the Apocalypse again and again describes in glowing colors
(Chap. xvui. 5). The dwelhng places of man, which we caU
the earth, have in their perfection themselves become a
heaven. Therefore this perfection is generally called the
heavenly, because everything mortal and finite has ceased
there. The bodies too which we have received in the resur
rection must also partake of the nature of heavenly perfec
tion, and therefore this resurrection cannot take place until
with the return of Christ this new heaven has come also.
Jesus has said that in the resurrection we will be like the
angels (Mark xii. 25) ; Paul describes all the spiritual crea
tures, men and angels, in the end as united under Christ
as their head (Col. i. 20; Eph. i. 10).
But the brute creation also is a creation of God, which,
because it is intended for the good of man, must also par
ticipate in his perfection (Rom. viii. 19). Paul says, evi
dently with reference to Gen. iii. 17-18, that in consequence
of sin, it is subject to the vanity, the uselessness, which
now constitutes its being; but on the hope that once, when
With the redemption from sin the purpose of this subjection

430 THE RELIGION OF THE NEW TESTAMENT
has been attained, then it will also be freed from this state
of vanity that results from its state of subjection. When
the children of God have once passed through their resur
rection into the stage of heavenly glory and have been
delivered from the vanity and the resultant uselessness, then
too the brute creation must be to undergo a similar trans
formation (Rom. viii. 20-21). Again and again the author
of the Revelation employs in his description of the heavenly
Jerusalem pictures that he has taken from the account of
Paradise (ii. 7). The state of nature, as this was destined
in the first creation for man, was realized in the Garden of
Eden, in which man lived in a sinless condition. Through
sin, which made it impossible for man to attain the full
supremacy over nature in him and around him, this was
lost again ; but it will in the regeneration of the world (Matt.
xix. 28) be restored again when a new heaven and a new
earth will have been created.
These are not fantastic dreams. This hope is deeply
embedded in the religion of the New Testament. A real life
in the full sense of the word cannot for this reason be con
sidered as possible without a body, because it would not be
effective without an object of its activity. Paul promises
to the saints a dominion in eternal life (Rom. v. 17), even
a joint rulership with Christ (2 Tim. ii. 12) ; and the
object of this rule can be only the world that has been
regenerated into a perfect state. True religion never tries
to sever man from the world in the closest connection with
which God has created him. Together with the transforma
tion of his natural side nature too around him will be trans
formed, so that it can serve him and he can rule it.
Eternal life also is not regarded as an absolute absorption
in God, who needs nothing else than Himself, but on ac
count of His love has created a world and man to exercise
dominion over it. In the new world the saints are to serve
God and to govern the world. Only in this way is a life

THE LAST THINGS 431
secured for them, which in its receptive and its active
phases is in reality a continuation of the association
with all those who attain to the same goal, which, because
it no longer knows of sin, is eternal and imperishable, as
is God HimseK. To this final consummation the religion
of the New Testament hopefully looks.

INDEX

Abraham, the promise to, 173.
Activity of Jesus, results of, 212.
Adiaphora, 359.
Adoption by God, 327; assurance of, 328.
Angels, 156; their office and character, ibid ; appearance of, not actual, 157;
creation of, ibid; a figurative or allegorical term, 158; have no
part in the redemption, 159; their highest destiny, 160.
Animals, how far man akin to, 115.
Anthropomorphism of the Old Testament, 90.
Antichrist, spirit of, explained, 368, 416; not the Jewish nation, 418;
Paul's view of, ibid; not the Roman empire, 419; a personal fore
seen by John, ibid; has been seen in Mohammedanism, 420.
Apostasy, Paul's view of, 309.
Apostolic Letters, their scope and limitations, 51.
Apotheosis, impossibility of, 187.
Ascension of Christ in the body, unscriptural, 251.
Asceticism, Paul's view of, 360.
Ascetics and Adiaphora, 359.
Atonement, typified by levitical ordinances, 173; Peter's view of, 231;
Paul's view of, 226; as viewed by author of Hebrews, 227; in
cludes the whole world, 243; its retrogressive power, 244.
Baptism, enjoined by Christ after His resurrection only, 274; its efficacy
contingent on a change of heart, 275; bestowal of the Spirit in,
276; infant, 384.
Barnabas, letter of, 69.
Beelzebub, 162.
Belial, ibid.
" Biblical School," object of, 75.
Brute Creation, according to Paul, to be glorified with men, 430.
Call, of God in the Old Testament, 304; to Christ, the work of divine
grace, ibid.
Canon of Old Testament, 67.
Canon of Scripture, 66.
Canonicity, of New Testament books, 67; of New Testament unaffected by
question of authorship, 68.
Carnal Sin, Paul's idea of, 130.
Character requisite for election, 257.
Christ, the exalted essence of, 252; is the Lord of the Church, 258; our
Mediator in heaven, 261; the Mediator in Creation and redemption,
112; the return of, 411.
Christ's work in the Creation, how to be understood, 190.
SB 433

434 INDEX
Christian Life, danger of, from persecution, 370; from religious specula
tion, 368; from world hostile to Christ, 369.
Christian's duty as a citizen, 356.
Christianity, the absolute religion, 15; universality of, 179.
Church, its existence witnesses to the effect of Christ's death, 247; origin
of, 390; original meaning of the Greek word for, 392; nature ot,
393; and theological science, 63.
Church, upbuilding of, 398; to be gradual, 399; to be effected through
prayer, 400; not to be effected without the entering in of sin, 401.
Circumcision, object of, 29.
Clement, letter of, 69.
Colossae, theosophists of, 256.
Communism, 363.
Conscience, the judge of sin, 132.
Continuation of the fallen world, 145.
Council, Apostolic, its decrees, 262.
Counsel of Christ's Death, from eternity, 221; does not absolve His mur
derers, 222.
Covetousness, cardinal sin of heathendom, 362.
Creation, as history, 107; Mosaic account of no revelation, ibid; implies
a beginning of the Universe, 108; biblical history of, 109; as a
revelation of love, 110; antedated by God's plan of redemption,
111; purpose of Man's, thwarted by sin, 143.
Death, the natural consequence of sin, 134; spiritual, characterized, 138;
of Jesus, as a divine redemptive counsel, 219; of Jesus, its re
demptive significance universal, 243; a sleep, 383; the second, 424.
Deliverance from Death, the work of Jesus, 212.
Deluge, its object, 145.
Demons, worship of, what it implied, 168.
Devil, character of, 160; doctrine of, not found in Scripture, 161; in the
Gospels, 163; power of, 164.
Dispensations of God, end in Jesus, 178.
Domitian, 419.
Election, 291; excludes all unbelievers, 292; eternal decree of unscriptural,
293; does not carry out God's will for universal redemption, 294;
conditions of, 295; not independent of individual character, 297;
not dependent on human efforts, 298; in the parable of the Great
Supper, 301; in Apostolic preaching, 303; and the call first dis
tinguished by Paul, 305; as the basis of the certainty of redemp
tion, 307; may be received in vain, 309; doctrine of, its tendency,
310.
Epistle to the Hebrews, purpose of, 17.
Eschatological ideas of the New Testament, 426.
Eternal Godship of the Son, 186.
Eternal punishment not unscriptural, 425.
Eternity of Christ, proofs of, 187; John's testimony to, 188.
Evangelists, their contradictions irreconcilable, 68.
Evolution of Man from lower organisms unscriptural, 114.
Exaltation of Christ, Paul's view of, 256.
Exalted Christ, nature of, 262 sqq. ; activity of, 257.
Exegesis, why necessary, 69; rationalistic, 70.
Existence of Devil, no necessary dogma of faith, 162.

INDEX

435

Faith, essence of, 312; object of, 313; how made perfect, 316; Paul and
Peter on, 316; salvation by, 317; James' conception of, 819; alone
does not justify, ibid; necessity of, according to Hebrews, 321; a
protection against temptation, 367.
Fall of Man, explained, 128.
Fatalism, or necessitarianism is unscriptural, 164.
Fear of God, proper to His servants, 334.
Flavian, 419.
"Flesh" the same in man and animals, 115; the term as used by Paul,
120; and spirit, nature of the contest between, 347.
Fixed organism, the world a, 114.
Forgiveness of Sins, 230; not contingent on baptism, 277.
Free Will, 143.
Freedom from the Law, 348.
Gates of Hades, 135.
Gnosticism brought Antichrist, according to John, 419.
God, His existence the first postulate of Scripture study, 85; experimental
knowledge of, 86; the name of, 87; the glory of, 89; eternal, 91;
omnipresence of, 92; omniscient, 93; holiness of, 94; righteousness
of, 96; grace and faithfulness of, 98; grace and faithfulness of
revealed in salvation of Israel, 100; how man distinguished from,
123; his preservative activity, 146; as the Upholder of the world,
147; the kingdom of, its content, 410.
Gods of the heathen, 167.
Golden Age of universal tradition, 2.
Grace, the Wora as a means of, 268; divine, in the call, 306; means of,
must be used, 374; and salvation revealed in Christ, 103.
Hades, Atonement extends to those in, 245.
Hardening, and apostasy, 308; of Pharaoh's heart, how caused, 152.
Heathendom, the characteristic feature of, 168.
Hebrew idea of the Golden Age, 121.
Hermas, Shepherd of, 69.
Hierarchy not found in the New Testament, 407.
Holiness and Righteousness, 94.
Holy Ghost, activity of, 262; giver of the "new heart," 263; essence of
the, 264; gives the knowledge of redemption, 264; not a personal
spirit, 265; sent by Christ, 266; the substitute for Christ, ibid;
co-operation of, in preaching the word, 272; received without
baptism.
Homologoumena and Antilegomena, 69.
Hope, a living, 318; of the kingdom of God, 407.
Ideal of religious life realized by Jesus, 207; moral realization of, 208.
Image of God in man, 117.
Immersion, superseded by sprinkling, in baptism, 284.
Immortality, of man established by the Scriptures, 123; not man's primeval
state, 124; a curse to the wicked, 135.
Imputation of Adam's sin not provable, 142.
Incarnation of Christ, the consummation of miracles, 36; what is implied
by, 193.
Influence of sin of one upon others, 139.
Inheritance and reward of believers, 335.

436 INDEX
Inspiration, not a magical thing, 27; of the Old and New Testaments,
38; special, not to be proved, 48; of the New Testament, based on
the words of Jesus, 53.
Israel, religious ideal of, 13; the law of, 170.
Israel's spiritual advantages, 170:
Jehovah and Adonaj, 88.
Jesus, knew only Jewish religion, 1; His announcement of the kingdom
of God, 8; His interpretation of Old Testament predictions, 9;
and the Messianic kingdom, 11; on prophetic revelations, 30;
His pre-existing state, 186; begotten by no man, 193; a messenger,
like the prophets, 204; forgives all who believe, 206; and the
prophets, difference between, 210; alone of prophets fulfils the
law, 211; shrunk from political affairs, 214; His final unpopular
ity, 215; predicts His own death, 216; His early death not first
foreseen by Him, ibid; judicial trial of, 218; His death as an
atonement, 223; His death a sacrifice, 225; His death not a satis
faction, 227; as the sacrificial Lamb of God, 231; His death as
deliverance from the power of Sin, 234; His blood ransomed us
from punishment, 235; His blood ransoms from power of sin and
Satan, 236; His Resurrection predicted by Him, 248; in heaven,
249.
John the Baptist, 10.
Jonah sign, the great, 302.
Judaism in Christianity, 350.
Judgment, according to works, 375; basis of decision at the, 376.
Justice of God, a revelation of His holiness, 101.
Justification prefigured in Abraham, 323.
Kenosis, implications of, 194.
Kingdom of God, secret of, 11; entrance into, 14; its completion, ibid; on
earth, 15; announcement by the Apostles, 16; Peter's idea of, 17;
Paul's idea of, 18; John's idea of, 19; and the Church, 410.
Kingdom of Heaven, ideal of, 13.
Knowledge, supernatural, not imparted by Scripture, 157; in Jesus, limited
by environment, 197; is the development of faith, 314.
Last Judgment, 420; idea of necessary, 421; its decisions final, 422.
Law, basis of the, 5; and Prophets, 28; the written, why necessary, ibid;
of Israel, 170; Paul's idea of, 172; moral and ceremonial undis
tinguished in the New Testament, 348; Jewish, not imposed on
proselytes, 349.
Lessing on miracles, 39.
Libertinism, 396.
Licentiousness, the cardinal sin, according to Paul.
Life, Creation the beginning of, 108.
Logos, work of the, in the heathen world, 169.
Love of God, fully revealed in Christ, 102; revelation of, ibid.
Love, necessarily revealed in creation, 110.
Love-feasts, and breaking of bread, 278.
Luther, on Epistle of James, 68.
Man as a Natural Being, 114.
Mankind, an organic whole, 241.

INDEX 437
Mars' Hill, 3.
Massoretes, their pronunciation of Jehovah, 88.
Mediator, Christ as the, 190.
Melchizedek, 43.
Messiah, and the Sonship of God, 183; Jesus was the, 184; and Son of
God synonymous terms, 189.
Messianic hopes of Israel, 8; dogmatics not to be framed from the proph
ecies, 176; types in persons and events, 177.
Millennarianism not taught by Paul, 427.
Millennium, 426.
Miracles and signs, 35.
Miracles, what they are, 150; no proofs of the omnipotence of Jesus, 198.
Moral consciousness, innate, 21; how obscured, 23.
Moral relation of Jesus to divine law, 196.
Morality, the New, 353; based on love and unselfishness, 355,
Moses, as a prophet, 27.
Necessity, historic, frustrated by Divine Providence, 218.
Nero, persecution under, 418.
New Jerusalem, of the Apocalypse, 428.
New Testament, knows no other religions, 1; early ranked with the Old,
50; as much as the Old is the Word of God, 52; inspiration of,
53 ; text us receptus of, 56 ; writers, their interpretative methods, 59 ;
not a codex of doctrines, ibid; books of their object, 63; dogma
formulation begun in, 64; style and language of, 57.
New World, 426.
Noah, God's covenant with, explained, 146.
Obedience and Faith, 312.
Offices, congregational, 403; preaching not to be confined to the twelve,
404; elders, ibid; bishops, 406; laying on of hands, 406.
Old Testament, religion of, 1; its basis, 41; how viewed by the Apostles,
42; as the Word of God, 45; its inspiration, 46; human element in
composition of, 49.
Omnipotence of God, 92.
Oneness of the Church, 394; of the Father and Son, its nature, 324.
Organic Unity of the Church, 394.
Origin of Sin in deception, according to Paul, 131.
Paganism, a rudimentary and preparatory religion, 167.
Parable of the Great Supper, and election, 301.
Paraclete (Assistant), title of Holy Ghost, 266.
Paul's knowledge of God, 3; view of faith and works, 820.
Peace, meaning of, 317.
Perfection and prosperity combined to form prophetic ideal, 213.
Personality of the Holy Ghost not taught by Paul, 267.
Pharisaism and the Theocracy, 214.
Philip and the theophany, 34.
Political power repudiated by Jesus the Messiah, 214.
Poverty, advantages of, 363.
Prayer, how it may be genuine, 208; with thanksgiving, 375.
Praying and watching, need of, 371.
Preaching of the Apostles, its first object, 183.
Prediction, how far the mission of the prophet, 31.

438 INDEX
Preparation for Christ in the heathen world, 166.
Primitive Revelation, 20; found in the works of God, ibid; missed by
pride and selfishness, 22; to men of the early world, ibid.
Probation after death impossible, 381.
Promise, to Abraham, 173.
Promises of the Old Testament fulfilled in Christ, 102.
Prophecy, Hebrew, not heathen mantic art, 174; its scope and import, 175.
Prophetic ideal included perfection and prosperity, 213.
Prophet, meaning of the term, 27; office of, ibid.
Providence, Divine, 148; the guide of man's life, ibid; explained by its
final purpose, 149.
Providential purpose in the death of Christ, 121.
Punishment, of God, 131; necessitated by sin, 132.
Purists and Hebraists, debate between, 56.
Purity, bodily, Paul's argument for, 359.
Ransom, death of Christ as, 228; of Christ completed by the obedience of
the ransomed, 238.
Reconciliation, Christ's death as a means of, 239; with God through Christ,
contingent, 240.
Redeemer, title given to Jesus by the Apostles, 212.
Redemption, offer of, universal, 299.
Regeneration, nature of, 341.
Religion, among Israelites older than Moses, 2; of Hebrews not perfect, 4;
of Jesus that of the Old Testament, 5; of the New Testament
underlies individualistic diversities of its books, 78; basis of, ibid.
Religious Ideal, realization of, 204.
Remission of punishment and atonement irreconcilable, 229.
Repentance, 138.
Resurrection, and Ascension, 248; of Christ, its significance, 250; results
of to Christ, 252 sqq. ; of man, 383; ancient and modern views of,
385; Paul's analogy of, 386; of believers, 428; body of Christ, 255.
Return of Jesus promised by Him to people of His day, 412; expected to
be early by Paul, 415.
Revelation of Redemption to Abraham and the Patriarchs, 24; in Israel,
ibid, to Hebrews in the wilderness, 25; history of, 26; Paul on,
ibid; summed up in theophany of Christ, 33.
Reward, Christ's promise of repeated by the Apostles, 338; to be received
in this world also, 339.
Rothe on Revelation, 39.
Samaritan and Jewish conception of God compared, 2.
Sanctification, its nature, 344; Paul's description of, 345.
Satan, 163; and his angels not to be redeemed, 165.
Satisfaction, Death of Christ not a, 227.
Scapegoat, symbol of atonement, 230.
Scriptures, and experimental faith, 62; perfection of, 57; interpretation of,
60; real object of, 61; the criterion of tradition, 66; normative use
of, 70; normative character of, how imperilled, 71; to be scientific
ally interpretated, 72.
Seeing God, meaning and results of, 323.
Servant of God, the state of, 330; in the Old Testament, 331.
Sexual morality, heathen, 359.
Shame the first expression of guilt, 132.

INDEX 439
SlN, its consequences, 125; meaning of the term, 127; its origin according
to James, 129; as characterized by Paul, 130; is indebtedness, 131;
followed by fear, 132; the cause of all social and physical evils,
133; universality of, 135; the ruling power in the world, 137;
original, 141; and Evil in the light of the Divine Providence, 152;
consequences of, providential, 158; its acme in the Crucifixion
proved its conquest and defeat, 242.
Slavery, Paul's view on, 357.
Son of Man, meaning of the term, 191; and the Incarnation, ibid.
Sons of God, how we become, 325.
Soul possessed by Jesus, 195.
" Soul, living " the same in man and animals, 115.
Spirit, general outpouring of the, 36; work of the, 38; gifts of the, 202.
Spirit of Man, 119.
Spirits, false, in preaching, 273.
Spiritual eye of man, 21.
State, the Intermediate, 380.
Supper, the Lord's, 278; its significance revealed to Paul, 279; a symbolic
rite, ibid; its significance to the primitive church, 281; Paul's expo
sition of, ibid; unworthy partaking of, 282; type of, 285.
Synagogues, earliest Christian meeting houses, 392.
Temporal consequences of sin, 134.
Temptation, purposed, 26.
Theocracy, of Israel, 5; its coming promised to Abraham, 174.
Theodicy in book of Job, 153.
Theology, and the Church, 63; Biblical, 73; Biblical, its place in studying
the New Testament, 74.
Tradition needed in the life of the Church, 65.
Trial of Jesus, 218.
Trichotomy of man's nature, 117.
True human nature of Jesus, 195.
Truth in the Scriptures, what it is, 5.
Two Sacraments, types of the, 283.
Unioueness, of the human life of Jesus, 199; of Jesus testified by Baptist,
199; of Jews testified by Paul, 200.
Unity of the Church, its essence, 396.
Universality of sin, 135.
Unknown God, Altar to the, 4.
Unpopularity led to death of Jesus, 215.
Vegetative body possessed by Jesus, 195.
Vespasian, 419.
Vicarious character of Christ's death, 233.
Visions of the Apostles,
Wants and feelings of a humanity experienced by Jesus, 196.
Watching and praying, need of, 371.
Wealth, danger of, 364.
Wicked, end of, 423.
Will, Divine, impossibility of fufilling, 138.
Word of God, the highest revelation of His love, 268; preached by Christ,
ibid; preached by Apostles, 269; how its preaching efficacious, 271;
preachers of, guided by the Spirit, 272.

440 INDEX
Word and Spirit, 271.
World, the heathen, 166.
Works, the proof of faith to James, 319.
Wrath, of God against sin, the reaction of His holiness, 104; children of,
104; Day of, Ibid; the Baptist's message of, 105; of God revealed
for man's deliverance, 106.
Wrong, and its results, identical, 133.

3 9002 05130 6935

:'<:¦> .:; ¦;;. '.':¦•:

'->'¦'' -,\ ' '.- " •'¦<>'