§ 73. Heretical Perversions of the Apostolic Teaching.
§ 73. Heretical Perversions of the Apostolic Teaching.
(Comp. my Hist. of the Ap. Ch., pp. 649–674.)
The three types of doctrine
which we have briefly unfolded, exhibit Christianity in the whole fulness of
its life; and they form the theme for the variations of the succeeding ages of
the church. Christ is the key-note, harmonizing all the discords and resolving
all the mysteries of the history of his kingdom.
But this heavenly body of apostolic truth is confronted with the ghost of heresy; as were the divine miracles of Moses with the satanic juggleries of the Egyptians, and as Christ was with demoniacal possessions. The more mightily the spirit of truth rises, the more active becomes the spirit of falsehood. "Where God builds a church the devil builds, a chapel close by." But in the hands of Providence all errors must redound to the unfolding and the final victory of the truth. They stimulate inquiry and compel defence. Satan himself is that "power which constantly wills the bad, and works the good." Heresies in a disordered world are relatively necessary and negatively justifiable; though the teachers of them are, of course, not the less guilty. "It must needs be, that scandals come; but woe to that man by whom the scandal cometh."862
The heresies of the apostolic age are, respectively, the caricatures of the several types of the true doctrine. Accordingly we distinguish three fundamental forms of heresy, which reappear, with various modifications, in almost every subsequent period. In this respect, as in others, the apostolic period stands as the type of the whole future; and the exhortations and warnings of the New Testament against false doctrine have force for every age.
1. The Judaizing tendency is the heretical counterpart of Jewish Christianity. It so insists on the unity of Christianity with Judaism, as to sink the former to the level of the latter, and to make the gospel no more than an improvement or a perfected law. It regards Christ as a mere prophet, a second Moses; and denies, or at least wholly overlooks, his divine nature and his priestly and kingly offices. The Judaizers were Jews in fact, and Christians only in appearance and in name. They held circumcision and the whole moral and ceremonial law of Moses to be still binding, and the observance of them necessary to salvation. Of Christianity as a new, free, and universal religion, they had no conception. Hence they hated Paul, the liberal apostle of the Gentiles, as a dangerous apostate and revolutionist, impugned his motives, and everywhere, especially in Galatia and Corinth, labored to undermine his authority in the churches. The epistles of Paul, especially that to the Galatians, can never be properly understood, unless their opposition to this false Judaizing Christianity be continually kept in view.
The same heresy, more fully developed, appears in the second century under the name of Ebionism.
2. The opposite extreme is a false Gentile Christianity, which may be called the Paganizing or Gnostic heresy. It is as radical and revolutionary as the other is contracted and reactionary. It violently breaks away from the past, while the Judaizing heresies tenaciously and stubbornly cling to it as permanently binding. It exaggerates the Pauline view of the distinction of Christianity from Judaism, sunders Christianity from its historical basis, resolves the real humanity of the Saviour into a Doketistic illusion, and perverts the freedom of the gospel into antinomian licentiousness. The author, or first representative of this baptized heathenism, according to the uniform testimony of Christian antiquity, is Simon Magus, who unquestionably adulterated Christianity with pagan ideas and practices, and gave himself out, in pantheistic style, for an emanation of God.863 Plain traces of this error appear in the later epistles of Paul (to the Colossians, to Timothy, and to Titus), the second epistle of Peter, the first two epistles of John, the epistle of Jude, and the messages of the Apocalypse to the seven churches.
This heresy, in the second century, spread over the whole church, east and west, in the various schools of Gnosticism.
3. As attempts had already been made, before Christ, by Philo, by the Therapeutae and the Essenes, etc., to blend the Jewish religion with heathen philosophy, especially that of Pythagoras and Plato, so now, under the Christian name, there appeared confused combinations of these opposite systems, forming either a Paganizing Judaism, i.e., Gnostic Ebionism, or a Judaizing Paganism i.e., Ebionistic Gnosticism, according as the Jewish or the heathen element prevailed. This Syncretistic heresy was the caricature of John’s theology, which truly reconciled Jewish and Gentile Christianity in the highest conception of the person and work of Christ. The errors combated in the later books of the New Testament are almost all more or less of this mixed sort, and it is often doubtful whether they come from Judaism or from heathenism. They were usually shrouded in a shadowy mysticism and surrounded by the halo of a self-made ascetic holiness, but sometimes degenerated into the opposite extreme of antinomian licentiousness.
Whatever their differences, however, all these three fundamental heresies amount at last to a more or less distinct denial of the central truth of the gospel—the incarnation of the Son of God for the salvation of the world. They make Christ either a mere man, or a mere superhuman phantom; they allow, at all events, no real and abiding union of the divine and human in the person of the Redeemer. This is just what John gives as the mark of antichrist, which existed even in his day in various forms.864 It plainly undermines the foundation of the church. For if Christ be not God-man, neither is he mediator between God and men; Christianity sinks back into heathenism or Judaism. All turns at last on the answer to that fundamental question: "What think ye of Christ?" The true solution of this question is the radical refutation of every error.
Notes.
"It has often been remarked that truths and error keep pace with each other. Error is the shadow cast by truth, truth the bright side brought out by error. Such is the relation between the heresies and the apostolical teaching of the first century. The Gospels indeed, as in other respects, so in this, rise almost entirely above the circumstances of the time, but the Epistles are, humanly speaking, the result of the very conflict between the good and the evil elements which existed together in the bosom of the early Christian society. As they exhibit the principles afterward to be unfolded into all truth and goodness, so the heresies which they attack exhibit the principles which were afterward to grow up into all the various forms of error, falsehood and wickedness. The energy, the freshness, nay, even the preternatural power which belonged to the one belonged also to the other. Neither the truths in the writings of the Apostles, nor the errors in the opinions of their opponents, can be said to exhibit the dogmatical form of any subsequent age. It is a higher and more universal good which is aimed at in the former; it is a deeper and more universal principle of evil which is attacked in the latter. Christ Himself, and no subordinate truths or speculations concerning Him, is reflected in the one; Antichrist, and not any of the particular outward manifestations of error which have since appeared, was justly regarded by the Apostles as foreshadowed in the other." — Dean Stanley (Apostolic Age, p. 182).
Literature.—The heresies of the Apostolic Age have been thoroughly investigated by Neander and Baur in connection with the history of Ebionism and Gnosticism (see next vol.), and separately in the introductions to critical commentaries on the Colossians and Pastoral Epistles; also by Thiersch, Lipsius, Hilgenfeld. Among English writers we mention Burton: Inquiry into the Heresies of the Apostolic Age, in eight Sermons (Bampton Lectures). Oxford, 1829. Dean Stanley: Sermons and Essays on the Apostolic Age, pp. 182–233, 3d ed. Oxford, 1874. Bishop Lightfoot: Com. on St. Paul’s Ep. to the Colossians and to Philemon, pp. 73–113 (on the Colossian heresy and its connection with Essenism). London, 1875. Comp. also Hilgenfeld: Die Ketzergeschichte des Urchristenthums. Leipzig, 1884 (642 pages).
John 17:3.
euvaggevlion tetravmorfon.
ajpovstolo".
Comp. tuvposdidach'", Rom. 6:17, and the remarks of Weiss in loc. (6th ed. of Meyer’s Com., 1881), who takes the word in specific application to the Pauline doctrine of Christianity; while others refer it to the Christian system in general. Similar terms in Plato, tuvpoi paideiva", tuvpo" th'" didaskaliva", etc.
Gal. 2:11 sqq. See § 85, pp. 352 sqq.
Schelling’s great idea of the three ages in the history of Christianity, the Petrine (catholic), the Pauline (Protestant), and the Johannean (future), is well known. I saw the aged philosopher shortly before his death, in a hotel at Ragatz, Switzerland (August, l854), and found him lying on his bed, as pale as a corpse, but with clear mind and brilliant eyes. When I asked him whether he still held to that construction of church history, be emphatically replied in the affirmative, but added that he had, on further reflection, made room for James as the representative of the Greek church, in distinction from the Roman or Petrine church. I mention this as an interesting modification of his theory, not made known before, and as containing a grain of truth.
James 1:25: eij" novmon tejleion to;n th'" ejleuqeriva".
Gal. 5:1; 2 Cor. 3:6.
Comp. Gal. 6:2 (the law of Christ); Rom. 13:8 sqq.; 3:22; 8:2.
James 1:1; 2:1; thvn pivstin tou' Kurivou hJmw'n jIhsou' Cristou' th'" dovzh".
James 1:18: boulhqei" ajpekuvhsen hJma'" lovgw/ ajlhqeiva".
James 2: 22 hJ pivsti" sunhvrgei toi'" e[rgoi" aujtou' kai; ejk tw'n e[rgwn hJ pivsti" ejteleiwvqh.
1 Cor. 13:2.
James 2:19.
See Rom. 2:6 (oJ" ajpodwvsei eJkavstw/ kata; ta; e[rga auvtou'); 2 Cor. 5:10; Gal. 6:7; comp. Matt. 12:37; 25:35 sqq. The solution of the apparent contradiction between the doctrines of justification by faith and judgment by works lies in the character of the works as being the evidence of faith.
Gal. 5:6: pivsti" dij ajgavph" ejnergoumevnh, is operative (in the middle sense, as always in the New Test.). "These words," says Bishop Lightfoot (in loc.),"bridge the gulf which seems to separate the language of St. Paul and St. James. Both assert a principle of practical energy, as opposed to a barren in active theory." To quote from my own commentary on the passage (1882): "The sentence ’faith working through love’ reconciles the doctrine of Paul with that of James; comp. 6:15; 1 Thess. 1:3; 1 Cor. 13; 1 Tim. 1:5; James 2:22. Here is the basis for a final settlement of the controversy on the doctrine of justification. Romanism (following exclusively the language of James) teaches justification by faith and works; Protestantism (on the authority of Paul), justification by faith alone; Paul and James combined: justification and salvation by faith working through love. Man is justified by faith alone, but faith remains not alone: it is the fruitful mother of good works, which are summed up in love to God and love to men. Faith and love are as inseparable as light and heat in the sun. Christ’s merits are the objective andmeritorious ground of justification; faith (as the organ of appropriation) is the subjective condition; love or good works are the necessary evidence; without love faith is dead, according to James, or no faith at all, according to Paul. A great deal of misunderstanding in this and other theological controversies has arisen from the different use of terms."
James 1:27; comp. 5:13sqq., and the concluding verse.
Matt. 16:16; comp. John 6:68, 69.
Weiss (p. 172): "Die Hoffnung bildet in der Anschauung des Petrus den eigentlichen Mittelpunkt des Christenlebens. Sie erscheint bei ihm in der höchsten Energie, wonach die gehoffte Vollendung bereits unmittelbar nahe gerückterscheint."
See his Pentecostal sermon, Acts 2:14 sqq.; his addresses to the people, 3:12 sqq.; before the Sanhedrin, 4:8 sqq.; 5:29 sqq.; to Cornelius, 10:34 sqq.
Acts 10:35; 15:7-11.
1 Pet. 1:3-5; 5:4; 2 Pet. 3:13.
1 Pet. 1:18 sqq.; 2:4; 3:18 sqq.
1 Pet. 1:20: Cristou' proegnwsmevnou mevn pro; katabolh'" kovsmou, fanerwqevnto" dev, k. t. l.; 1:11: to; ejn aujtoi'"(toi'" profhvtai")pneu'ma Cristou' promarturovmenon, k. t. l. Schmid, Lechler, Gess, and others understand these passages as teaching a real pre-existence; Beyschlag (l.c., p. 121) finds in them only an ideal pre-existence in the foreknowledge of God, and emphasizes the ejpoivhsen in Acts 2:36. He refers the pveu'ma Cristou'to the Holy Spirit, which was afterwards given in full measure to Christ at his baptism. So also Weiss (p. 161). But in this case Peter would have said to; peu'ma a{gion, as he did 1 Pet. 1:12; 2 Pet. 1:21; Acts 2:33, 38.
1 Pet. 3:19; 4:6; comp. Acts 2:27. The reference of the first passage to a preaching of Christ through Noah at the time of the flood is artificial, breaks the historic connection (ajpevqanen ... qamatwqeiv" ... zwopoihqeiv" pneuvmati ... ejkhvruxen ... poreuqei;" eij" oujranovn ) and is set aside by 1 Pet. 4:6, which explains and generalizes the statement of the former passage. Baur (p. 291) understands the pneuvmata ejn fulakh/' to be the fallen angels (comp. 2 Pet. 2:4; Gen. 6:1), and the preaching of Christ an announcement of the judgment. But in this case we should have to distinguish between the ejkhvruxen, 1 Pet. 3:9, and the eujhggelivsqh in 4:6. The latter always means preaching the gospel, which is a savor of life unto life to believers, and a savor of death unto death to unbelievers.
Dr. Baur, who was formerly disposed to make Paul the founder of Christian universalism, admits in his last elaboration of the Pauline system (N. T. liche Theol., p. 128), that "Paul only expressed to the consciousness what in itself, in principle and actually, or by implication, was contained already in the doctrine of Jesus (was an sich principiell und thatsächlich, oder implicite schon in der Lehre Jesu enthalten war)."Pressensé misstates here Baur’s position, but himself correctly calls Paul’s doctrine "as a whole and in all its parts, the logical deduction and development of the teaching of the Master" (Apost. Era, p. 255).
1 Cor. 1:30; 2:2.
1 Cor. 15:13.
Rom. 4: 23. The first diav is retrospective, the second prospective: for the destruction of sin and for the procurement of righteousness.
Rom. 1:17:duvnami"' qeou' eij" swthrivan panti; tw/' pisteuvonti , jIoudaivw/ te [prw'ton]kai; {Ellhni. Other pregnant passages in which Paul summarizes his dogmatics and ethics, are Rom. 1:16, 17:3: 21-26<cbr>; 4:25</cbr>; 11:32; 1 Cor. 15:22; Gal. 3:22; Tit. 3:3-7.
Rom. 1:18; 3:20. First the depravity of the heathen, then that of the Jews (2:1, comp. 2:17).
Rom. 1:18-21; 2:14-16; comp. Acts 17:28.
The Augustinian application of this conflict to the regenerate state, involves Rom. 7 in contradiction with Rom. 6 and 8, and obliterates the distinction between the regenerate and the unregenerate state. Augustine understood that chapter better in his earlier years, before the Pelagian controversy drove him to such an extreme view of total depravity as destroys all freedom and responsibility. We see here the difference between an inspired apostle and an enlightened theologian. The chief object of Rom. 7 is to show that the law cannot sanctify any more than it can justify (Rom. 3), and that the legal conflict with the sinful flesh ends in total failure. Paul always uses here nou'" for the higher principle in man (including reason and conscience); while in Rom. 8, where he speaks of the regenerate man, he uses pneu'ma, which is the nou'" sanctified and enlightened by the Holy Spirit. In 8:25 he indeed alludes to the regenerate state by way of anticipation and as an immediate answer to the preceding cry for redemption; but from this expression of thanks he once more points back with a\ra ou\n to the previous state of bondage before he enters more fully with a\ra nu'n into the state of freedom.
1 Tim. 1:15; 2:4, 6; Tit. 2:11. Particularistic restrictions of "all" in these passages are arbitrary. The same doctrine is taught 2 Pet. 3:9, and John 3:16; 1 John 2:2. The last passage is as clear as the sun: "Christ is the propitiation (iJlasmov") for our sins; and not for ours only, but also for the whole world"(ouj movnon ... ajlla; kai; peri; o{lou tou' kovsmou ).
Rom. 5:12-21; 1 Cor. 15:1, 22. The pavnte" and the oiJ polloiv (which is equivalent to pavnte" and opposed, not to a few, but to the one) in the second clause referring to the second Adam, is as comprehensive and unlimited as in the first clause. The English Version weakens the force of oiJ polloiv, and limits the number by omitting the article. The pollw'/ ma'llon (Rom. 5:15, 17) predicated of Christ’s saving grace, is not a numerical, nor a logical, but a dynamic plus, indicating a higher degree of efficacy, insomuch as Christ brought far greater blessings than we lost in Adam.
Rom. 11:32; Gal. 8:22. These contain the briefest statement of the sad mystery of the fall cleared up by the blessed mystery of redemption. In the first passage the masculine is used (tou;" pavnta"), in the second the neuter (ta; pavnta), and the application is confined to believers (toi'" pisteuvousin).
Rom. 3 –7; Gal. 2 - 4; especially Rom. 3:20; 5:20; Gal. 3:24
Rom. 8:3, 32; Phil. 2:6-11; 2 Cor. 8:9. On the Christology of Paul, see the Notes at the end of this section.
Gal. 5:11; 6:12. 1 Cor. 1:23.
1 Cor. 15:3: "I delivered unto you first of all that which I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures."
Rom. 3:26: eij" to; ei\nai aujto;n divkaion kai; dikaiou'nta to;n ejk Cristou'. Bengel calls this "summum paradoxon evangelicum."
2 Cor. 5:15: o{ti ei\" ujpevr pavntwn ajpevqanen, a[ra oiJ pavnte" apevqanon. Mark the aorist. The prepositions uJpevr (used of persons) and periv (of things, but also of persons) express the idea of benefit, but often in close connection with the idea of vicariousness (ajntiv). Comp. Gal. 1:4; 3:13; Rom. 4:25; 5:6, etc
Rom. 3:21-26; 5:6-10; 8:32; 1 Cor. 1:17, 18; 2:2; 6:20; 7:23; 11:24; 15:3; 2 Cor. 5:15, 18, 19, 21; Gal. 1:4; 2:11 sqq.; 3:13; 6:14, etc. Comp. Weiss, p. 302; Pfleiderer, p. 7; Baur (N. T. Theol., p. 156). Holsten and Pfleiderer (in his able introduction) regard the atoning death of Christ as the kernel of Paul’s theology, and Holsten promises to develop the whole system from thus idea in his new work, Das Evangelium des Paulus, of which the first part appeared in 1880. But they deny the objective character of the revelation at Damascus, and resolve it into a subjective moral struggle and a dialectical process of reflection and reasoning. Luther passed through a similar moral conflict and reached the same conclusion, but on the basis of the Scriptures and with the aid of the divine Spirit.
The passages in which the Holy Spirit is mentioned are very numerous, especially in the Thessalonians, Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, and Ephesians. Comp. Rom. 5:5; 7:6; 8:2, 5, 9, 11, 14, 15, 16, 26; 1 Cor. 2: 4 sqq.; 3:16<cbr>; 6:11, 17, 19</cbr>; 12:3-16; 2 Cor. 1:12; 2:7; Gal. 4:6; 5:16, 22, 25; Eph. 1:17; 2:2; 4:23, 30; 5:18; 1 Thess. 1:5, 6; 4:8; 5:19, 23; 2 Thess. 2:2, 8, 13; 2 Tim. 1:7, 14; Tit. 3: 5.
The concluding verse in the second Epistle to the Corinthians; comp. Eph. 2:18, 22; 4:4-6, where God the Father, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit are mentioned as distinct personalities, if we may use this unsatisfactory yet indispensable term.
1 Cor. 13:13.
Rom. 8:29: "Whom he foreknew (ou}" proevgnw), he also foreordained (prowvrisen), to be conformed to the image of his Son. "The verb proginwvskw occurs in the New Test. five times (Rom. 8:29; 11:1, 2; Acts 26:5; 1 Pet. 1:20), the noun provgnwsi" twice (Acts 2:23; 1 Pet. 1:2), always, as in classical Greek, in the sense of previous knowledge (not election). The verb proorivzw occurs six times, and means always to foreordain, to determine before. The words ejklegw and ejklevgomai, ejkloghv, ejklektov" occur much more frequently, mostly with reference to eternal choice or election. See note below.
Eph. 1:4: "Even as he chose us in Christ (ejxelevxato hJma'" ejn aujtw/') before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blemish before him in love: having foreordained us unto adoption as sons (proorivsa" hJma'" eij" uiJoqesivan )through Jesus Christ unto himself, according to the good pleasure of his will."
Phil. 2:12, 13. Comp. Romans 9 with 10.
Rom. 8:30: "Whom he foreordained them he also called (ejkavlesen): and whom he called them he also justified (ejdikaivwsen), which is also the beginning of sanctification), and whom he justified, them he also glorified (ejdovxasen)."The proleptic aorist is used for the future to indicate the absolute certainty that God will carry out his gracious design to the glorious consummation.
Rom. 10:14, 15. A chain of abridged syllogisms (sorites) by which Paul reasons back from effect to cause till he reaches the first link in the chain. On the klh'si"(vocatio) see Rom. 11:29; 1 Cor. 1:26; 7:20; Gal. 1:6; Eph. 1:18; 4:14; Phil. 3:14, etc. The verb kalevw is of very frequent occurrence in the Gospels and Epistles.
Rom. 2:4; 2 Cor 7:9, 10; 2 Tim. 2:25.
Baur (p. 154) distinguished five conceptions of pivsti" (from peivqein): 1st, conviction in general, a theoretical belief or assent. In this sense it does not occur in Paul, but in James 1:17. 2d, conviction of the invisible and supernatural; 2 Cor. 5:7, pivsti" as distinct from ei|do". 3d, religious conviction, 1 Cor. 2:5; 2 Cor. 1:24, etc. 4th, trust in God, Rom. 4:17-21. 5th, trust in Christ, or the specific Christian faith, Rom. 3:22; 1 Cor. 15:14; Gal, 1:23, and always where justifying faith is meant. Weiss (p. 316) defines the Pauline idea of justifying faith as "the very opposite of all the works required by the law; it is no human performance, but, on the contrary, an abandonment of all work of our own, an unconditional reliance on God who justifies, or on Christ as the Mediator of salvation." But this is only the receptive side of faith, it has an active side as well, pivsti" is ejnergoumevnh di j ajgavph". See below.
Rom. 5:1; 8:15-17; Gal. 4:5-7. If we read in Rom. 5:1 (with the oldest authorities) the hortative subjunctive e[cwmen "let us have" (instead of the indicative e[comen "we have"), peace is represented as a blessing which we should grasp and fully enjoy—an exhortation well suited for Judaizing and gloomy Christians who groan under legal bondage. On justification see the notes below.
Matt. 5:20; 6:33; 9:22, 29; 17:20; Mark 11:22; 16:16; Luke 5:50; 18:10-14; John 3:16, 17; 6:47, etc.
Comp. Rom. 6:19, 22; 1 Cor. 1:30; 1 Thess. 4:3, 4, 7; 2 Thess. 2:13.
1 Cor. 18:1, 2. Luther’s famous description of faith (in his Preface to Romans), as "a lively, busy, mighty thing that waits not for work, but is ever working, and is as inseparable from love as light is from heat," is in the very spirit of Paul, and a sufficient reply to the slander brought against the doctrine of justification by faith as being antinomian in its tendency.
1 Thess. 5:23: "The God of peace sanctify you wholly; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved entire, without blame at the coming (parousiva)of our Lord Jesus Christ. Faithful is he that calleth you, who will also do it." Comp. Romans 6 –8, which treat most fully of sanctification, also Rom. 12 –15, and all the ethical or hortatory portions of his other epistles.
Phil. 2:12, 13. The apostle emphatically uses the same verb, ejnergw'n and ejnerfei'n, while the E. V., with its usual love for variation, renders "worketh" and "to do." Augustin (De dono persev. 33): "Nos ergo volumus, sed Deus in nobis operatur et velle nos ergo operamur, sed Deus in nobis operatur at operari." Phil. 2:13 "supplies at once the stimulus to, and the corrective of the precept in the preceding verse: ’Work, for God works with you;’ and ’The good is not yours but God’s.’" Lightfoot, in loc. Comp. also Calvin, Alford, and Braune, in loc.
Gal. 2:20. This passage is obscured in the E V. by the omission of oujkevti, "no longer," and the insertion of "nevertheless."
Gal. 3:27; Eph. 5:30; 1 Cor. 1:9; 2 Cor. 1:3, 5; 5:17; 13:4; Col. 3:4; Phil. 1:21; Rom. 6:4-8; 14:8; 1 Thess. 5:10. Comp. those numerous passages where Paul uses the significant phrase ejn Cristw/', living and moving and acting in Him, as the element of our spiritual existence.
Hence the Heidelberg Catechism, following the order of the Ep. to the Romans, represents Christian life, in the third and last part, under the head: "Thankfulness."
Erasmus justly regarded the conclusion of Rom. 8:31-39 as unsurpassed for genuine eloquence: "Quid unquam Cicero dixit grandiloquentius It is only equalled by the ode on love in 1".
This is the subject of Rom. 9–11. These three chapters contain a theodicy and an outline of the philosophy of church history. They are neither the chief part of Romans (Baur), nor a mere episode or appendix (De Wette), but an essential part of the Epistle in exposition of the concluding clause of the theme, Rom. 1:17 ... "to the Jew first, and also to the Greek" (or Gentile). Romans 9 treats of divine sovereignty; Rom. 10 (which should begin at Rom. 9:30) treats of human responsibility; Rom. 11 of the future solution of this great problem. They must be taken together as a unit. Romans 9 alone may be and has been made to prove Calvinism and even extreme supralapsarianism; Rom. 10 Arminianism; and Rom. 11 Universalism. But Paul is neither a Calvinist nor an Arminian nor a Universalist in the dogmatic sense. See the doctrinal expositions in Lange on Romans, much enlarged in the translation, pp. 327-334.
Rom. 11:32, 33, 86.
2 Thess. 2:3-12; 1 Cor. 15:28.
John 1:17.
Herein Baur agrees with Neander and Schmid. He says of the Johannean type (l.c., p. 351): In ihm erreicht die neuteitamentliche Theologie ihre höchste Stufe und ihre vollendetste Form." This admission makes it all the more impossible to attribute the fourth Gospel to a literary forger of the second century. See also some excellent remarks of Weiss, pp. 605 sqq., and the concluding chapter of Reuss on Paul and John.
For the theology of the Apocalypse as compared with that of the Gospel and Epistles of John, see especially Gebhardt, The Doctrine of the Apoc., transl. by Jefferson, Edinb., 1878.
John 1:14 (ejqeasavmeqa th;n dovxan aujtou'); 1 John 1:1-3.
In the strictest sense of qeolovgo" as the chief champion of the eternal deity of the Logos: John 1:1:qeov" h|n oJ lovgo".So in the superscription of the Apocalypse in several cursive MSS.
John 17 3<cbr>; 15:11</cbr>; 16:24; 1 John 1:4.
Comp. John 1:14; 3:16; 1 John 4:1-3.
John 4:24; 1 John 1:5; 4:8, 16. The first definition or oracle is from Christ’s dialogue with the woman of Samaria, who could, of course, not grasp the full meaning, but understood sufficiently its immediate practical application to the question of dispute between the Samaritans and the Jews concerning the worship on Gerizim or Jerusalem.
There is a remarkable variation of reading in John 1:18 between monogenhv" qeov" ,one who is God only-begotten, andoJ monogenhv" uiJov" ,the only-begotten Son. (A third reading: oJ monogenh;" qeov" ,"the only-begotten God," found in a’ and 33, arose simply from a combination of the two readings, the article being improperly transferred from the second to the first.) The two readings are of equal antiquity; qeov" is supported by the oldest Greek MSS., nearly all Alexandrian or Egyptian (a* BC*L, also the Peshitto Syr.);uiJov" by the oldest versions (Itala Vulg., Curet. Syr., also by the secondary uncials and all known cursives except 33). The usual abbreviations in the uncial MS., Qo-forqeov"and UO for uiJov" ,may easily be confounded. The connection of monogenhv" withqeov"is less natural than with uiJo;" although John undoubtedly could call the Son qeov" (not oJ qeov"), and did so in 1:1. Monogenhv" qeov"simply combines the two attributes of the Logos, qeov" 1:1, and monogenhv", 1:14. For a learned and ingenious defence of qeov" see Hort’s Dissertations (Cambridge, 1877), Westcott on St. John (p. 71), and Westcott and Hort’s Gr. Test. Introd. and Append., p. 74. Tischendorf and nearly all the German commentators (except Weiss) adopt uiJov", and Dr. Abbot, of Cambridge, Mass., has written two very able papers in favor of this reading, one in the Bibliotheca Sacra for 1861, pp. 840-872, and another in the " Unitarian Review" for June, 1875. The Westminster Revision first adopted " God" in the text, but afterwards put it on the margin. Both readings are intrinsically unobjectionable, and the sense is essentially the same. Monogenhv" does not necessarily convey the Nicene idea of eternal generation, but simply the unique character and superiority of the eternal and uncreated sonship of Christ over the sonship of believers which is a gift of grace. It shows his intimate relation to the Father, as the Pauline prwtovtoko" his sovereign relation to the world.
Lit."towards the bosom" (eij" to;n kovlpon), i.e., leaning on, and moving to the bosom. It expresses the union of motion and rest and the closest and tenderest intimacy, as between mother and child, like the German term Schoosskind, bosom-child. Comp. prov" to;n qeovn John 1:1 and Prov. 8:30, where Wisdom (the Logos) says: "I was near Him as one brought up with Him, and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him."
With this sentence the Prologue returns to the beginning and suggests the best reason why Christ is called Logos. He is the Exegete, the Expounder, the Interpreter of the hidden being, of God. "The word ejxhghvsato used by classical writers of the interpretation of divine mysteries. The absence of the object in the original is remarkable. Thus the literal rendering is simply, he made declaration (Vulg. ipse enarravit). Comp. Acts 15: 4. Westcott, in loc. See the classical parallels in Wetstein.
John 1:1, 14:1 John 1:1; Rev. 19:13. The Logos theory of John is the fruitful germ of the speculations of the Greek church on the mysteries of the incarnation and the trinity. See my ed. of Lange’s Com. on John, pp. 51 and 55 sqq., where also the literature is given. On the latest discussions see Weiss in the sixth ed. of Meyer’s Com. on John (1880), pp. 49 sqq. Lovgo" means both ratio and oratio reason and speech, which are inseparably connected. " Logos," being masculine in Greek, is better fitted as a designation of Christ than our neuter " Word." Hence Ewald, in defiance of German grammar, renders it "der Wort."On the apocalyptic designation oJ logo" tou' quou' and on the christology of the Apocalypse, see Gebhardt, l.c., 94 and 333 sqq. On Philo’s idea of the Logos I refer to Schürer, Neutestam. Zeitgeschichte, pp. 648 sqq., and the works of Gfrörer, Zeller, Frankel, etc., there quoted.
These three ideas are contained in the first verse of the Gospel, which has stimulated and puzzled the profoundest minds from Origen and Augustin to Schelling and Goethe. Mark the unique union of transparent simplicity and inexhaustible depth, and the symmetry of the three clauses. The subject (lovgo") and the verb (h|n) are three times repeated. " The three clauses contain all that it is possible for man to realize as to the essential nature of the Word in relation to time and mode of being and character: He was (1) in the beginning: He was (2) with God: He was (3) God. At the same time these three clauses answer to the three great moments of the Incarnation of the Word declared in John 1:14. He who ’was God,’ became flesh: He who ’was with God,’ tabernacled among us (comp. 1 John 1:2): He who ’was in the beginning,’ became (in time)." Westcott (in Speaker’s Com.). A similar interpretation is given by Lange. The personality of the Logos is denied by Beyschlag. See Notes (in text at end of § 72).
Here we have the germ (but the germ only) of the orthodox distinction between unity of essence and trinity of persons or hypostases; also of the distinction between an immanent, eternal trinity, and an economical trinity, which is revealed in time (in the works of creation, redemption, and sanctification). A Hebrew monotheist could not conceive of an eternal and independent being of a different essence (eJteroouvsi") existing besides the one God. This would be dualism.
John 1:3, with a probable allusion to Gen. 1:3, "God said," as ejn arch/' refers to bereshith, Gen. 1:1. The negative repetition oujde; e[n, prorsus nihil, not even one thing (stronger than oujdevn nihil), excludes every form of dualism (against the Gnostics), and makes the pavnta absolutely unlimited. The Socinian interpretation, which confines it to the moral creation, is grammatically impossible.
John 1:14: oJ lovgo" sa;rx ejgevneto a sentence of immeasurable import, the leading idea not only of the Prologue, but of the Christian religion and of the history of mankind. It marks the close of the preparation for Christianity and the beginning of its introduction into the human race. Bengel calls attention to the threefold antithetic correspondence between 1:1 and 1:14:
The Logos
was (h|n) in the beginning
became (ejgevneto)
God,
flesh,
with God.
and dwelt among us
Paul expresses the same idea: God sent his Son "in the likeness of the flesh of sin," Rom. 8:3; comp. Heb. 2:17; 4:15. See the note at the close of the section.
John 1:14: ejskhvnwsen ejn hJmi'n, in allusion to the indwelling of Jehovah in the holy of holies of the tabernacle (skhnhv) and the temple. The humanity of Christ is now the tabernacle of God, and the believers are the spectators of that glory. Comp. Rev. 7:15; 21:3
John 17:5, 24; 1 John 3:2.
John 20:31.
1 John 3:5, 8; comp. the words of Christ, John 8:44.
John 6:52-58; 10:11, 15; 1 John 2:2: aujto;" iJlasmov" ejstin peri; tw'n aJmartiw'n hJmw'n, ouj peri; tw'n hJmetevrwn de; movnon, alla; kai; peri; o]lou tou' kovsmou.. The universality of the atonement could not be more clearly expressed; but there is a difference between universal sufficiency and universal efficiency.
1 John 1:10; John 1:29; 11:50; comp. 18:14.
1 John 2:1: eja;n ti" aJmavrth/, paravklhton e[comen pro;" to;n patevra jIhsou'n Cristo;n divkaion.
1 John 1:2: hJ zwh; ejfanerwvqh, kai; eJwravkamen kai; marturou'men kai; ajpaggevllomen uJmi'nth'n zwhvn th;n aijwvnion h{ti" h|n pro;" to;n patevra kai; ejfanerwvqh hJmi'n. Comp. John 1:4; 5; 26; 14:6. The passage 1 John 5:20: ou|tov" ejstin oJ ajliqino;" qeo;" kai; zwh; aijwvnio" , is of doubtful application. The natural connection of ou|to"with the immediately preceding jIhsou' Cristw/', and the parallel passages where Christ is called " life," favor the reference to Christ; while the words oJ ajlhqino;" qeov" suit better for the Father. See Braune, Huther, Ebrard, Haupt, Rothe, in loc.
John 6:47; and the whole mysterious discourse which explains the spiritual meaning of the preceding miracle.
Apoc. 12:1-12; 20:2. Comp. with 1 John 3:8; John 8:44; 12:31, 13:2, 27; 14 30; 16:11.
Apoc. 1:6; 5:6, 9, 12, 13;7: 14, etc. Comp. John 1:29; 17:19; 19:36; 1 John 1:7; 2:2; 5:6. The apocalyptic diminutive ajrnion(agnellus, lambkin, pet-lamb) for ajmnov" is used to sharpen the contrast with the Lion. Paul Gerhardt has reproduced it in his beautiful passion hymn: "Ein Lämmlein geht und trägt die Schuld."
Apoc. 1:5: "Unto him that loveth us," etc.; comp. John 15:13; 1 John 3:16.
Apoc. 1:5, 17, 18 2:8; comp. John 5:21, 25; 6:39, 40 –11:25.
Apoc. 1:5; 3:21; 17:14; 19:16.
Apoc. 2:10; 3:21; 7:17; 14:1-5; 21:6, 7; 22:1-5. Comp. Gebhardt, l.c., 106-128, 343-353.
John 14:16, 26; 15:26; 16:7. Comp. also 1 John 2:1, where Christ is likewise called paravklhto". He is our Advocate objectively at the throne of the Father, the Holy Spirit is our Advocate subjectively in our spiritual experience. The E. V. renders the word in all these passages, except the last, by " Comforter" (Consolator), which rests on a confusion of the passive paravklhto" with the active paraklhvtwr. See my notes in Lange’s Com. on John, pp. 440 sqq., 468 sqq.
There is a distinction between the eternal procession (ejkpovreusi")of the Spirit from the Father (para; tou' Patro;" ejkporeuvetai, procedit, John 15:26), and the temporal mission (pevmyi") of the Spirit from the Father and the Son (15:26, where Christ says of the Spirit: o}n ejgw; pevmyw, to, and 14:26, where he says: o} pevmyei oJ path;r ejn tw/' ojnovmativ mou). The Greek church to this day strongly insists on this distinction, and teaches an eternal procession of the Spirit from the Father alone, and a temporal mission of the Spirit by the Father and the Son. The difference between the present ejkporeuvetai and the future pevmyw seems to favor such a distinction, but the exclusive alone (movnon) in regard to the procession is an addition of the Greek church as much as the Filioque is an addition of the Latin church to the original Nicene Creed. It is doubtful whether John meant to make a metaphysical distinction between procession and mission. But the distinction between the eternal trinity of the divine being and the temporal trinity of the divine revelation has an exegetical basis in the pre-existence of the Logos and the Spirit. The trinitarian revelation reflects the trinitarian essence; in other words, God reveals himself as he is, as Father, Son, and Spirit. We have a right to reason from the revelation of God to his nature, but with proper reverence and modesty; for who can exhaust the ocean of the Deity!
1 John 5:8. There are different interpretations of water and blood: 1st, reference to the miraculous flow of blood and water from the wounded side of Christ, John 19:34; 2d, Christ’s baptism, and Christ’s atoning death; 3d, the two sacraments which he instituted as perpetual memorials. I would adopt the last view, if it were not for to; ai\ma, which nowhere designates the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, and more naturally refers to the blood of Christ shed for the remission of sins. The passage on the three heavenly witnesses in 5:7, formerly quoted as a proof text for the doctrine of the trinity, is now generally given up as a mediaeval interpolation, and must be rejected on internal as well as external grounds; for John would never have written: "the Father, the Word, and the Spirit," but either "the Father, the Son, and the Spirit," or God, the Word (Logos), and the Spirit."
2 John 1:13: tevkna qeou' ... ejk qeou' ejgennhvqhsan. The classical section on the new birth is Christ’s discourse with Nicodemus, 3: 1-15. The terms gennhqh'nai a[nwqen, to be born anew, afresh, or from above, i. e., from heaven, Comp. 3:31; 19:11 (the reference is not to a repetition, again, a second time, pavlin, deuvteron, but to an analogous process); 3: 6, 7; gevnhqh'nai ejx u]dato" kai;pneuvmato" of water (baptism) and spirit, 3:5;ejk qeou', of God, ejk tou' oujranou'from heaven, are equivalent. John himself most frequently uses ejk qeou', 1:13; 1 John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1, 4, 18. He does not use ajnagennavomai, to be begotten or born again (but it occurs in Justin Martyr’s quotation, Apol. I. 61; also in 1 Pet. 1:23, a[agennhmevnoi ... dia; lovgou zw'nto" qeou', and 1 Pet. 1:3, ajnagennhvsa" hJma'" eiv" ejlpivda), and the noun ajnagevnnhsi", regeneration, is not found at all in the Greek Test. (though often in the Greek fathers); but the analogous paliggenesiva occurs once in connection with baptism, Tit. 3:5 (e[swsen hJma'" dai; loutrou' paliggenesiva" kai; ajnakainwvsew" pneuvmato" aJgivou), and once in a more comprehensive sense of the final restitution and consummation of all things, Matt. 19:18. Paul speaks of the new creature in Christ (kainh; ktivsi" , 2 Cor. 5:17) and of the new (kaino;" a[nqrwpo" ,Eph. 4:24). In the Rabbinical theology regeneration meant simply the change of the external status of a proselyte to Judaism.
1 John 3:9; comp. 5:18. But 5:16 implies that a "brother" may sin, though not "unto death," and 1:10 also excludes the idea of absolute freedom from sin in the present state.
1 John 5:18: oJ ponhro;" oujc a}ptetai aujtou'.
John 17:3, words of our Lord in the sacerdotal prayer.
1 John 5:12, 13: oJ e[cwn to;n uiJo;n e[cei th;n zwh;n ... zwh;n e[cete aijwvnion. Comp. the words of Christ, John 3:36; 5:24; 6:47, 54; and of the Evangelist, 20:31.
1 John 3:2: oi|damen o{ti eja;n fanevrwqh/' (he, or it), o{moioi aujtw/' ejsovmeqa, o{ti oyovmeqa aujto;n kaqwv" ejstin.
1 John 5:4: au{th ejsti;n hJ nikhvsasa to;n kovsmon, hJ pivsti" hJmw'n.
John uses the term dikaiosuvnh, but neverdikaivwsi" ordikaiovw. A striking example of religious agreement and theological difference.
John 17:22-24; 1 John 1:3, 4.
1 John 3:11, 23; 4:7, 11; comp. John 13:34, 35; 15:12, 17.
The word ejkklhsiva occurs in the third Epistle, but in the sense of a local congregation. Of the external organization of the church John is silent; he does not even report the institution of the sacraments, though he speaks of the spiritual meaning of baptism (John 3:5), and indirectly of the spiritual meaning of the Lord’s Supper (6:53-56).
1 John 2:3, 4; 3:22, 24; 4:7, 11; 5:2, 3; 2 John 6; comp. the Gospel, John 14:15, 21: "If ye love me, ye will keep my commandments," etc.
Rom. 13:7-10; 1 Cor. 13:1-13.
862 Matt. 18:7; 1 Cor. 11:19: "There must be also heresies (factions) among you, that they who are approved may be made manifest among you." Comp. Acts 20:30; 1 Tim. 4:1; 2 Pet. 2:1-3.
863 Acts 8:10: hJ Duvnami" tou' qeou' hJ kaloumevnh Megavlh.
864 1 John 2:23; 4:1-3.