8. § 42. The Work of the Mediator.

8. § 42. The Work of the Mediator.

§ 42. The Work of the Mediator.

. Among all peoples we encounter some awareness of sin and need of reconciliation and redemption. There also occur in almost all religions holy persons, who effect and maintain communion with God for others.

Kings and prophets often act as such mediators, but especially the priests are charged with this service. The word priest comes from presbyter, elder, and thus originally had no hieratic sense at all; the names in other languages, such as ‎‏‏ ֹּכֵחן‎, ἱερευς, sacerdos designate the priests as such persons, who stand before God and perform a holy work, specifically bring sacrifices. However much such a priesthood occurs in almost all religions, cf. Julius Lippert, Allgemeine Geschichte des Priesterthums, Berlin 1883-4, yet its origin is unknown to us. According to Scripture, in the earliest time there were as yet no special priests; Abel, Cain, Noah, the [303] patriarchs still themselves bring their offerings, Gen. 4:3, 4, 8:20, 12:7 etc.; only when among the peoples the consciousness of sin and the awareness of separation between God and man increases, does the idea of a mediation arise everywhere. The principal means of which this priesthood makes use, in

order to obtain communion with God, is the offering, ‎‏ַ‏ִמְנָח‎, ‎‏‏ ֹעָלה‎, ‎‏‏ֶזַבח‎, ‎‏‏ִא ֶּׁשה‎, δωρον, ἱερειον, προσφορα, θυσια, τελετη, oblatio, sacrificium. The origin and essence of sacrifice too is shrouded in darkness for us. Some explain sacrifice from the disposition of man, to make the Deity favorable by some gift or other and to obtain all kinds of help from it (do ut des, gift theory),

Saussaye, Religionsphilos. I 101. v. Hartmann, Religionsphil. I 35. In addition, many then think that men at first thought the gods like themselves and therefore in the sacrifices offered them chiefly foodstuffs (food theory), ib. and Siebeck, Religionsphilos. 279. Others adhere to the mystical or sacramental theory and see the essence of sacrifice not in a gift to but in communion with the gods, enjoyed thereby, that one sits together at one table and consumes one food and drink, Marti, Israel. Relig.3 36. Smend,

Att. Rel. 24. Pfleiderer, Religionsphilos.3 648. According to another, the symbolic theory, the sacrificer in the gift that he offers to the gods gives a proof of his reverence and submission, of his denial of all that is earthly and of his complete devotion to God, Wuttke, Gesch. des Heidenthums I 127 f.

Finally there are still those who consider the destructive element in sacrifice essential and therefore give to every sacrifice an atoning character,

Bellarminus, Vasquez and many Roman theologians, cf. Thalhofer, Das Opfer des alten und neuen Bundes, Regensb. 1870. Id. Handbuch der kath.

Liturgik, Freiburg 1894 I2 197 f. The question concerning origin and essence of sacrifice becomes still more difficult when we think of the bloody and then again specifically of the human sacrifices. How did humanity come to this manner of worship of God? Which sacrifices were the oldest, the bloody or the unbloody? Whence the broad place and the tremendous significance, in the cultus, assigned to blood? History gives no answer here. Only Scripture relates that sacrifice already exists from the

earliest time of humanity. Before the fall it makes no mention of sacrifice.

Yet there is nothing [304] absurd in the thought that even then sacrifice in a broader sense belonged to the elements of the cultus, just as much as prayer.

Offering indeed is, according to the definition of Augustine, de civ. X 6, omne opus, quod agitur, ut sancta societate inhaereamus Deo. As such it also suited man in the status integritatis. He was after all created in God's image in true knowledge, righteousness and holiness; he was prophet, priest and king and as such had to glorify God's name, devote himself with all that was his to God, and govern and direct everything according to the will of God; he also received in the Sabbath a special day for the service of God and for that purpose needed definite forms of cultus; there is nothing strange in it, if for that purpose besides prayer also offering belonged.

Indeed man can properly give nothing to God, for the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof. But God nevertheless gave the earth to man and appointed him as lord over it. And therefore man can in a symbolic sense offer something to God, as proof of his reverence and dependence. If offering from the outset belonged to the religion of man, which also before and after the fall cannot be different in essence, then it also explains easily that soon after the fall there is spoken of Cain's and Abel's offering, without God intentionally instituting the sacrificial cultus. Protestants and Roman

Catholics formerly contended about whether sacrifice rested on a positive command of God or rather on an inner religious impulse of man, M.

Vitringa IV 275-280. Herzog2 11, 31. But if sacrifice already existed before the fall, this dispute is thereby also resolved. Yet sin has brought great change in the offering, not only such that to the existing the sin-offering was mechanically added, but also specifically in the sense that the offering itself has changed in character. Man after the fall fears God and hides

himself from his face, and therefore the disposition and the intention have also changed with which he offers and with which he prays. The sinoffering (sacrificium propitiatorium, propter offensam commissam) comes to stand in the center and forms and bears the other offerings (sacr. latreuticum, propter Dei majestatem, praise-offering; sacr. impetratorium, propter beneficia sperata, prayer-offering; sacr. eucharisticum, propter beneficia jam suscepta, thank-offering), Thomas, S. Theol. II 1 qu. 102 art.

3 ad 10. Among those [305] sin-offerings the bloody sacrifices take a first place, and these bear a destructive and a substitutive character; what is offered to God is destroyed, slaughtered; and because properly man himself for his reconciliation had thus to sacrifice himself, he takes an animal or also another man in his place. And finally there gradually arises in all religions a separate class of priests; man feels himself removed from God and has need of a mediator, who brings him into the proximity of God. Thus all sacrifices of humanity, directly in Israel, indirectly also among the Heathen, point toward the great perfect offering, which has been brought by Christ, the Mediator of God and of men, on the cross of Golgotha. Cf.

Pfanner, Theol. gent. c. 15. Lasaulx, Die Sühnopfer der Griechen u. Römer u. ihr Verh. zu dem Einen auf Golgotha, Würzburg 1841. Nägelsbach,

Nachhom. Theol. 1857 S. 315 f. Bähr, Symb. des mos. Cultus II 217 f. 269 f. Stöckl, Das Opfer nach seinem Wesen u. Geschichte2, Mainz 1861.

Weiss, Apol. d. Christ. II3 248-304. Oswald, Die dogm. Lehre v. d. h. Sakr. der kath. Kirche I2 503 f. Gihr, Das heilige Messopfer6, Freiburg 1897 S.

10 f. Scheeben, Dogm. III 387 f. Daniel Dewar, The nature, reality and efficacy of the atonement 1831 ch. 1. Trumbull, The blood covenant. A primitive rite and its bearings on Scripture, 2 ed. Philad. 1893. Art. Blut in Herzog3.

2. The alteration, introduced into the offering by sin, manifested itself only gradually at first. At first the offering was a simple ‎‏‏ִמְנָחה‎, gift, Gen. 4:3; and the offerings were brought by the offerers themselves. When sacrificial cultus and priesthood had already developed among other peoples, these too were regulated for Israel. Just as the prophetic and the royal, so too the priestly office according to the law rests on election by Ihvh, Num. 16:7,

Hebr. 5:4. The task entrusted to the priests is a double one; they must instruct the people of Israel, also by means of the urim and thummim, concerning the rights and laws of the Lord, Ex. 28:30, Deut. 17:9, 33:8-10,

Jer. 18:18, Ezech. 7:26, 44:23, 24, Hagg. 2:12, Mal. 2:7, and further approach Ihvh with the offerings of the people, Lev. 21:8, Num. 16:5 etc., and then on his behalf bless the people, Lev. 9:23, Num. 6:23. The sacrifices which Israel had to bring were different. [306] The Passover sacrifice, Ex. 12, occupies an independent place, is sin-offering and burntoffering, sacrificium and sacramentum at the same time; the covenant sacrifice, Ex. 24:3-11, served, just as that with Abraham, Gen. 15:9, Jer.

34:18v., for confirmation of the covenant; it therefore consisted of burntofferings of bulls, whose blood for the covering of sin and for sanctification by Moses as mediator of the covenant was sprinkled partly on the altar partly on the people, and was thereafter concluded with thank-offerings; the burntand thank-offering, Lev. 1, 3, served to maintain the communion with God resting on the foundation of the covenant; the sinand guiltoffering, Lev. 4-6, presupposed that the communion with God had been disturbed by a sin of weakness and offered in the sprinkling of the blood of the slaughtered sacrificial animal covering of sin and restoration of communion with God. The atonement now came about thus: by the laying on of hands the offerer transferred his sin to the animal; this is indeed often

denied, but wrongly; laying on of hands in Scripture always includes some transfer, of blessing, Gen. 48:13, Mt. 19:13, curse, Lev. 24:14, office, Num.

27:18, Deut. 34:9, the H. Spirit, Hd. 8:17 etc., and thus with the bloody, also the burntand the thank-offerings, Lev. 1:4, 3:2, of acknowledged and confessed sin, Lev. 4:4, 15, 16:21, 2 Chr. 29:23; the offering itself was called ‎‏‏חטאת‎ or ‎‏‏אׁשם‎. Thereby the sacrificial animal was now worthy of death. But because it served not only to undergo the punishment for the offerer but precisely to make atonement for his sin, therefore the killing of the animal is always called a slaughtering. It was not to do death as death, but in order thereby to obtain the blood, which had to make atonement. God had precisely given that blood of the animal for an atonement on the altar; and indeed because that blood is the seat of the soul, the seat of a life freed again from sin after and through the slaughtering, Lev. 17:11. When this blood now came on the altar or on the mercy-seat in God's proximity, then thereby the offerer or his sin was covered before the holy face of God; or rather, God himself was it, Deut. 21:8, Jer. 18:23, Mich. 7:19, and as his representative the priest, Lev. 5:13, 10:17, 15:15, who by the offering conceived as ‎‏‏ ֹּכֶפר‎, λυτρον, ransom-price, covered the persons of the offerers from their sins away or also those sins themselves before his face, ‎‏‏ִּכֶּפר‎ with the praep. ‎‏‏על‎ or ‎‏‏בעד‎. [307] Litt. on the O. T. sacrificial cultus in Herzog2 11,

61 and further still Smend, Altt. Relig. 319. Marti, Gesch. d. isr. Rel. 226.

It deserves remark, however, that the expiatory sacrifices by no means atoned for all but only some, definite, unintentional sins; upon sins with a raised hand there stood extermination from the midst of the people, Num.

15:30. Even if the sins through error were also taken very broadly, Lev. 5, 6; yet the atonement, which was effected by the expiatory sacrifices, remained very limited. Besides, the covenant of grace, established by God with Israel,

did not rest on those expiatory sacrifices but preceded them and had its foundation only in God's promise: I am the LORD your God. The sinand guilt-offerings served only to atone for unintentional transgressions, which were no definite breach of covenant, and to restore the fellowship with God disturbed thereby. This is also evident from the fact that they were ordained for cases in which there was only Levitical uncleanness but not subjective guilt, Lev. 5:2, 12:6, 7, 15:14. There thus remained numerous sins for which the law indicated no atonement by sacrifices; not only some sins with a raised hand, which were punished with extermination, but further all kinds of spiritual and fleshly sins, sins with thoughts and words, sins of pride and selfishness. For all these sins no sacrifices were prescribed. It is true, that by no means only the sinand guilt-offerings but that also the burntand thank-offerings bore an expiatory character, Lev. 1:3, 4, 9:7, and that on the great day of atonement all sins of the people were atoned for, Lev. 16:16,

23:26-32, Num. 29:7-11. Yet it remains remarkable, that in that connection there is no mention of all the above-mentioned sins and that the proper sinand guilt-offerings provide only in certain cases. On special occasions, when the people have sinned grievously and have made themselves guilty of breach of covenant, the atonement is therefore also obtained in an extraordinary way, through Moses' intercession, Ex. 32:30-35, Num. 14, Ps.

106:23, or through unusual sacrifices, Num. 16:45-50, 2 Sam. 24:25, 2 Chron. 29:8-11. And the pious in Israel knew that too; they knew, that the expiatory sacrifices opened a way to atonement only in very few cases; and therefore they go back behind those sacrifices and plead upon the mercy of God. And that is what the O. T. sacrificial cult also intended to teach Israel.

Those few sacrifices, which [308] were prescribed, did not cover the whole life; they brought about no true atonement; they served only to awaken the

consciousness of sin and were types, which pointed onward to another and better sacrifice. The O. T. sacrificial cult was imperfect; the priests were themselves sinners; the blood of bulls and goats could not take away sins; the sacrifices had to be repeated endlessly. Everything indicated, that the ceremonial dispensation of the O. T. had only a transient, symbolic, typical significance. And therefore, according to the prophecy, there comes another covenant, which is not broken but is kept by all, Jer. 31:31; another prophet, who in special measure will be anointed with the Spirit of God and will bring a glad message to Israel and the Gentiles, Deut. 18:15, Jes. 11:2, Mal.

4:5; another priest, who will be appointed not after the manner of Aaron but after the order of Melchizedek and therefore will unite in himself the priestly and kingly dignity and will bear both eternally, Ps. 110, Jer. 30:21,

Zach. 6:13; another king, who will come forth from David's house and will be a Ruler in Israel, Mich. 5:1, 2. And so there will also come another, better sacrifice. The sacrifices of animals are not the true ones, Ps. 40:7,

50:8, 51:18, Am. 4:4, 5:21, Hos. 6:6, 8:11, Jes. 1:11, Jer. 6:19, 7:21 etc.; the true sacrifices of God are obedience, 1 Sam. 15:22, mercy, Hos. 6:6, a broken spirit, Ps. 51:19, hearkening to God's voice, Jer. 7:23. And that sacrifice will be brought by that servant of the Lord, who will take Israel's place, accomplish his work, be for a covenant of the people and for a light of the Gentiles, Jes. 42:6, 49:6, and for the sins of his people will set his soul as a guilt-offering, Jes. 53:10.

In the O. T. this promise of the suffering servant of the Lord and that of the anointed king still run in part parallel. Both promises are rooted in the steadfastness of God's covenant; God cannot forget his covenant, in spite of Israel's unfaithfulness and apostasy; He cannot do it for his name's sake; it is an eternal covenant, which knows of no wavering. And therefore Israel,

however it may have fallen into misery on account of its sin, nevertheless again receives a king from David's house. That king will be of humble birth, Jes. 11:1, 2, Mich. 5:1, 2, Ezech. 17:22, He will be not only king but also priest, Jer. 30:21, Zach. 3:1, 6:13, Ps. 110, bring about the [309] righteousness for his people, Jer. 23:6, make the sacrifices superfluous, Jes.

60:21, Jer. 24:7, 31:35, Ezech. 36:25, 27 and make all into priests, Jes. 61:6.

Alongside this now runs the other promise, that this righteousness for Israel will be acquired only in the way of suffering. The sacrificial cult symbolized the necessity of the expiatory offering; history showed it in so many an example, in Moses, David, Job, the prophets and in that small band of the faithful, who did not bow the knee to Baal, that the best suffer the most, that they who stand up for the cause of God and in so far are righteous, must enter through suffering into glory; and in the exile and thereafter as congregation Israel became the servant of the Lord, who, being in distress and misery and hard pressed on all sides, would nevertheless be delivered by the Holy One of Israel, Jes. 41:8v. Yet Israel too is not the true servant of the Lord; and itself has need of deliverance, Jes. 41:14, 42:19v.; where could the prophet also in the past or present find the Israel or an individual person, a prophet, a martyr, who had been so wonderfully equipped by Jhvh, who remained so unwaveringly faithful, who in the proclamation of the truth to the Gentiles underwent the heaviest suffering and the most shameful death? Modern exegesis makes vain efforts to find, in the few pious among Israel, in the prophets, or also in Jeremiah or another sufferer, the figure for Isaiah's portrayal of the servant of the Lord.

Israel itself with all its pious and prophets places itself in Jes. 53 over against that servant of the Lord, acknowledges that it despised Him on account of his suffering and confesses that He was wounded precisely for

their transgressions and crushed for their iniquities. Even if it is not said directly, the servant of the Lord can be no other than the Messiah, who after all will also be priest and will bring about the righteousness for his people.

Cf. Delitzsch on Jes. 42v. Oehler, in Herzog2 9, 649 and the litt. cited there, also Smend, Altt. Rel. 257. It is a difficult question, whether Jewish theology before Jesus' coming already let these two lines in prophecy coincide and thus expected a suffering Messiah, cf. Wünsche, Leiden des

Messias, Leipzig 1870. Dalman, Der leidende u. sterbende Messias der Synagoge 1888. Weber, System 344 f. Schürer, Neut. Zeitgesch. 597.

Baldensperger, Selbstbew. Jesu 121 f. Oehler in Herzog2 9, 670.

Holtzmann, Neut. Theol. I [310] 65 f. But even if this question is also answered affirmatively; the expectation of a suffering Messiah was nevertheless not the content of popular belief; Jesus' disciples show themselves wholly incapable of it, Mt. 16:22, Luk. 18:34, 24:21, Joh. 12:34.

3. According to the N. T. all these different testimonies of law and prophecy converge upon Christ; the whole O. T. is in principle fulfilled in Him; in Him all the promises of God are yea and amen, Rom. 15:8, 2 Cor.

1:20. He is the true Messiah, the king from David's house, Mt. 2:2, 21:5, 27:11, 37, Luk. 1:32 etc.; the prophet, who proclaims the gospel to the poor,

Luk. 4:17v.; the priest, who in his person, his office, his appointment, his offering, his sanctuary far surpasses the O. T. priesthood, Hebr.; the servant of the Lord, who as a δουλος, Phil. 2:7, 8, came to serve, Mk. 10:45, subjected himself to the law, Gal. 4:4, fulfilled all righteousness, Mt. 3:15 and was obedient unto the death of the cross, Rom. 5:19, Phil. 2:8, Hebr.

5:8. As such Jesus now makes a distinction between the kingdom of God, as it is now founded by Him in a spiritual sense and as it will once be revealed in glory; between his first and second coming, which for the O. T. prophecy

still coincided; between his work in the state of humiliation and that in the state of exaltation. The Christ must enter into his glory through suffering,

Luk. 24:26. The work, which He now accomplishes in the state of humiliation, is described in the N. T. in many-sided fashion. It is an ἐργον, entrusted to Him by the Father, Joh. 4:34, 5:36, 17:4; it consisted in general in accomplishing God's will, Mt. 26:42, Joh. 4:34, 5:30, 6:38, and then more particularly comprised the declaration of God, Joh. 1:18, the revelation and glorification of his name, 17:4, 6, 26, the communication of God's words, 17:8, 14 etc. Christ is a prophet, mighty in words and works,

Luk. 24:19; He is no novus legislator, but he explains the law, Mt. 5-7, 22:40, Luk. 9:23, 10:28, Joh. 13:34, 1 Joh. 2:7, 8, proclaims the gospel, Mt.

12:16-21, Luk. 4:17-21, and in both preaches himself as fulfiller of the law and content of the gospel. He is the law and the gospel in his own person.

He is not a prophet only by what He speaks, but first of all by what He is.

He is the Logos, Joh. 1:1, [311] full of grace and truth, Joh. 1:18, anointed with the Spirit without measure, 3:34, the revelation of the Father, Joh.

14:9, Col. 2:9. The source of his preaching is He himself; it is not the inspiration but the incarnation. God's Spirit did not merely come upon Him;

God did not merely speak with Him, as with Moses, face to face, but God was in Him and spoke through Him, Hebr. 1:3. He is not a prophet alongside others but the highest, the only prophet; source and center of all prophecy; and all knowledge of God, in the O. T. before his incarnation, and also now in the N. T. after his resurrection and ascension, is from Him,

1 Petr. 1:11, 3:19, Mt. 11:27. Next, the will of God, which Jesus came to accomplish, also comprised the miracles which He did; the one work falls apart into many ἐργα, Joh. 5:36, which are the works of his Father, 5:20,

9:3, 10:32, 37, 14:10, prove that the Father loves Him and is in Him, 5:20,

10:38, 14:10, testify that the Father has sent Him, 5:36, 10:25, and reveal his divine glory, 2:11, 11:4, 40. Yes, He not only does miracles, but He himself in his person is the absolute miracle; as the Son of God become man, conceived of the H. Spirit, risen and glorified, He himself is the greatest miracle, center of all miracles, author of the re-creation of all things, firstborn from the dead, in all things the First, Col. 1:18. Further, the will of God especially comprises that the only-begotten Son of the Father lay down his life for his own, Joh. 10:18. The N. Test. sees in Christ an offering, and the fulfillment of the O. T. sacrificial cult. He is the true covenant-sacrifice; just as the old covenant was confirmed by the covenantsacrifice, Ex. 24:3-11, so the blood of Christ is the blood of the new testament, Mt. 26:28, Mk. 14:24, Hebr. 9:13v Christ is a θυσια, ‎‏‏ֶזַבח‎, the victim for our sins, Ef. 5:2, Hebr. 9:26, 10:12; a προσφορα, δωρον, ‎‏‏ָקְרָּבן‎,

‎‏‏ִמְנָתה‎, Ef. 5:2, Hebr. 10:10, 14, 18; a λυτρον, ἀντιλυτρον. Mt 20:28, Mk.

10:45, 1 Tim. 2:6 ‎‏‏ְּגֻאָּלה‎, ‎‏‏ָפדּוי‎, ‎‏‏ ֹכֶפר‎, ransom-price, ransom-money, to buy someone free out of prison, and hence means of atonement, to cover another's sin by an offering and thus to save them from death; a τιμη, 1 Cor.

6:20, 7:23, 1 Petr. 1:18, 19, a price that has been paid for the redemption; a sin-offering, which for us has been made sin, 2 Cor. 5:21, 1 Joh. 2:2, 4:10; the Passover sacrifice, which for us [312] has been slain, Joh. 19:36, 1 Cor.

5:7, the Lamb of God, who bears the sin of the world and for it has been slain, Joh. 1:29, 36, Hd. 8:32, 1 Petr. 1:19, Op. 5:6 etc.; the ἱλαστηριον,

Rom. 3:25, i.e. not the mercy-seat, ‎‏‏ַכ ֹּפֶרת‎, although this word has also been rendered thus in LXX because no better aequivalent was to be found in Greek, but that which serves for reconciliation, means of atonement, or scil. θυμα, atoning sacrifice, cf. Deismann, Die sprachl. Forschung der griech.

Bibel, Giessen 1898 S. 16. 17; a καταρα, Gal. 3:13, which took over from

us the curse of the law; as the serpent in the wilderness, lifted up on the cross, Joh. 3:14, 8:28, 12:33, and as a grain of wheat, dying in the earth, in order thus to bear much fruit, Joh. 12:24. The relation in which this offering of Christ stands to us and our sin is likewise expressed in very different ways. He gives or sets his life, Mk. 10:45, Joh. 10:15, sanctifies himself,

Joh. 17:19, is made sin and curse, 5 Cor. 5:21, Gal. 3:13, is delivered up, Rom. 4:25, has given himself up, Gal. 2:20, has suffered, 1 Petr. 3:18, has been crucified and has died, Joh. 11:50, 51, Rom. 5:6, 1 Cor. 15:3, 2 Cor.

5:15, 1 Thess. 5:10, and indeed as a λυτρον ἀντι πολλων, Mt. 20:28, Mk.

10:45, in the place of many, or ὑπερ c. gen. pers., Joh. 10:15, 11:50, 51, Rom 5:6, 8, 2 Cor. 5:15, 21, Gal. 3:13, Ef. 5:2, Hebr. 2:9, for the benefit of us, of his people, cf. Phil. 13, ὑπερ σου, in gratiam tuam, so that you do not need to do it; or ὑπερ c. gen. rei, Joh. 6:51, 1 Cor. 15:3, Hebr. 10:12, for the benefit of the sins, to take them away, or for the benefit of the life of the world, so that this through Christ's death may obtain life; or περι c. gen. pers., Mt. 26:28, 1 Joh. 2:2, for, for the sake of many or of the whole world; or περι c. gen. rei, Rom. 8:3, Hebr 10:6, 18, 1 Petr. 3:18, 1 Joh. 2:2, 4:10, for, for the sake of sin; or δια c. acc. rei, Rom. 4:25, on account of, because of sin.

That which Christ has acquired by this his sacrifice is almost too much to enumerate. For himself he thereby acquired his entire exaltation, the resurrection, Ef. 1:20, the ascension, 1 Petr. 3:22, the session at the right hand of God, Ef. 1:20, Hebr. 12:2, the elevation to Head of the church, Ef.

1:22, the name above every name, Phil. 2:9-11, the Mediatorial glory, Hebr.

2:9, the dominion over [313] all things in heaven and on earth, Mt. 28:18, Ef. 1:22, 1 Cor. 15:24v., the last judgment, Joh. 5:22, 27. And further he acquired for his own, for humanity, for the world an immeasurable series of

blessings. He himself in his person is the sum of all those blessings, the light of the world, Joh. 8:12, the true bread, 6:35, the true vine, 15:1, the way, the truth, the resurrection and the life, 11:25, 14:6, our σοφια, δικαιοσυνη, ἁγιασμος, ἀπολυτρωσις, 1 Cor. 1:30, our ειρηνη, Ef. 2:14, the firstborn and the firstfruits, who is followed by many, Rom. 8:29, 1 Cor.

15:23, the second and last Adam, 1 Cor. 15:45, the head of the church, Ef.

1:22, the cornerstone of the building of God, Ef. 2:20; and therefore there is no participation in his benefits except through participation in his person.

But from him all benefits nevertheless flow forth: the entire σωτηρια, Mt.

1:21, Luk. 2:11, Joh. 3:17, 12:47, and then more specifically the forgiveness of sins, Mt. 26:28, Ef. 1:7, the taking away, αἰρειν, of our sins, Joh. 1:29, 1

Joh. 3:5, the cleansing or deliverance from an evil conscience, Hebr. 10:22, justification, Rom. 4:25, righteousness, 1 Cor. 1:30, the υἱοθεσια, Gal. 3:26,

4:5, 6, Ef. 1:5, free access to God, Ef. 2:18, 3:12, the laying aside by God of his wrath on the ground of Christ's sacrifice, i.e. the ἱλασμος, Rom. 3:25, 1

Joh. 2:2, 4:10, Hebr. 2:17, the new, reconciled, no longer hostile but favorable relation of peace toward the world, which has taken the place of that with God, καταλλαγη, Rom. 5:10v., 2 Cor. 5:18-20, and the relation of peace of man in relation to God, Rom. 5:1; further the gift of the H. Spirit,

Joh. 15:26, Hd. 2, Gal. 4:6, regeneration and sonship from God, Joh. 1:12, 13, sanctification, 1 Cor. 1:30, participation in Christ's death, Rom. 6:3v., the dying off of sin, Rom. 6:6v. Gal. 2:20, crucifixion to the world, Gal.

6:14, cleansing, Ef. 5:26, 1 Joh. 1:7, 9, and the washing away, 1 Cor. 6:11, Op. 1:5, 7:14, of sins by the sprinkling with the blood of Christ, Hebr. 9:22,

12:24, 1 Petr. 1:2, the walk in the Spirit and in the newness of life, Rom.

6:4, participation in the resurrection and the ascension of Christ, Rom. 6:5, Ef. 2:6, Phil. 3:20, the following of Christ, Mt. 10:38, 1 Petr. 2:21v.; further

still the deliverance from the [314] curse of the law, Rom. 6:14, 7:1-6, Gal.

3:13, Col. 2:14, the fulfillment of the old and the inauguration of a new covenant, Mk. 14:24, Hebr. 7:22, 9:15, 12:24, deliverance from the power of Satan, Luk. 11:22, Joh. 14:30, Col. 2:15, 1 Joh. 3:8, Col. 1:13, the victory over the world, Joh. 16:33, 1 Joh. 4:4, 5:4, deliverance from death and from the fear of death, Rom. 5:12v., 1 Cor. 15:55v., Hebr. 2:15, escape from judgment, Hebr. 10:27, 28; and finally, the resurrection, on the last day, Joh.

11:25, 1 Cor. 15:21, the ascension, Ef. 2:6, glorification, Joh. 17:24, the heavenly inheritance, Joh. 14:1, 1 Petr. 1:4, eternal life, already beginning here with faith, Joh. 3:15, 36 and once revealing itself fully in glory, Mk.

10:30, Rom. 6:22, the new heaven and earth, 2 Petr. 3:13, Op. 21:1, 5, the restoration of all things, Hd. 3:21, 1 Cor. 15:24-28.

4. The history of the doctrine of Christ's work exhibits a different character from that of the dogma of the Trinity and of Christ's person. No definite conflict has been waged over it, which has led to a sharp and clear formulation. Scripture was also so many-sided in the description of that work; and in the history of theology all kinds of conceptions of the work of Christ arose, which contained a kernel of truth, cf. Bähr, Die Lehre der

Kirche vom Tode Jesu in den drei ersten Jahrh. 1832. Baur, Die christl.

Lehre v. d. Versöhnung in ihrer gesch. Entw. 1838. Dorner, Entw. d. Lehre v. d. Person Christi2 1851. Thomasius, Christi Person u. Werk II3 113 f.

Ritschl, Rechtf. u. Vers., part I. Art. Versöhnung in Herzog1 by Schoeberlein, in Herzog2 by H. Schmidt, and furthermore the dogmahistorical works of Hagenbach etc. The apostolic fathers attach themselves to the usage of the H. Scripture and say only, that Christ out of love for us suffered and sacrificed himself, Barn. 7. Ign. ad Eph. 1. Polyc. ad Phil. 1.

Diogn. 9. Soon, however, people attempted to give themselves some further

account of the work of Christ. And then immediately different conceptions occur alongside one another; from the beginning Christ was regarded not only as prophet but also as king and priest. Sometimes these three offices are also expressly mentioned alongside one another; Eusebius speaks of Christ as [315] μονον ἀρχιερεα των ὁλων και μονον ἁπασης της κτισεως βασιλεα και μονον προφητων αρχιπροφητην του πατρος, Hist. eccl. I 3, and related statements also occur in Lactantius, Greg. Nyss., August., de civ. X 6 etc., cf. Krauss, Das Mittlerwerk nach dem Schema des munus triplex,

Jahrb. f. d. Theol. 1872 S. 595-655. That does not prevent one or another conception from sometimes coming one-sidedly into the foreground. The emphasis then falls on the fact that Christ is the Logos, who appeared on earth, in order to reveal the full truth to men and to give them an example of virtue, Just. Apol. I 10. Iren., adv. haer. V 1. Tertull., de orat. 4. Clem. Alex.,

Strom. V 12. Orig., de princ. III 5, 6. c. Cels. I 67. 68. Athan., de incarn. 16.

Or else sin is felt more as power than as guilt and correspondingly the work of Christ is conceived more as redemption than as reconciliation; God has become man, in order that He might deliver men from sensuality, mortality, and dominion of demons and might make them like God, partakers of eternal life and immortality, Iren., adv. haer. III 16, 6. 20, 2 IV 2 V 1.

Athan., de incarn. 7. Greg. Nyss., Catech. magna 17-26 etc. Another, wellknown conception, and in spite of the contradiction of Gregorius Naz., Orat.

42, 48, embraced by many, was that Christ in his death had given himself over to Satan as a ransom, bait, or trap and thus had overcome him by cunning and had delivered men from his dominion, Orig., op Mt. 20:28.

Greg. Nyss., Orat. cat. 22-26. Damasc., de fide orthod. III 1. 27 etc. And finally, from the beginning already, the thought also occurs that Christ in his suffering and dying offered himself for us and in our place to God, in order

to acquire reconciliation, forgiveness, sanctification, and the whole salvation. Very beautifully we find this thought already in the epistle to Diognetus c. 9, cf. Clemens Rom., I ad Cor. 7. Barnabas c. 5. 6. 7.

According to Justin Martyr Christ not only became man, in order to make himself a partaker of our suffering and to bring healing, in order to put an end to the disobedience that had come into the world, in order to overcome the power of Satan and of death; but his death is also a sacrifice for all sinners who wish to repent, the passover that has been slaughtered for all, the cause of the forgiveness of sins, Dial. c. 40. 111, cf. [316] Semisch,

Justin der Märtyrer II 416 f. Much more clearly Irenaeus says that Christ, who through his incarnation stands in communion with us and has entered into our whole condition, V praef. cf. III 18. 7. V 16, 2, through his suffering and death has reconciled us to God, III 16, 9, has restored us to the favor of God, against whom we had sinned, has reconciled the Father for us, has made good our disobedience by his obedience and has bestowed on us in faith the forgiveness of sins, V 17, 1. And a similar conception of the suffering of Christ as a sacrifice for our sins, which acquired for us righteousness and life, also occurs in Origen, Athanasius, Cyrillus,

Gregorius Nyss., Damascenus, Thomasius, II 125 f. In the West too this conception was adopted and further developed. Tertullian saw in religion a legal relationship, in which man is subject to God's law and for transgressions has to render satisfaction to God through the poenitentia; as in the Trinity, so Tertullian in the doctrine of penance brought various terms into use, deo offenso satisfacere, deum iratum placare, reconciliare, deum promereri etc., which indeed were not yet applied by himself but already by Cyprian, Hilarius, Ambrosius and others to Christ and his offering,

Harnack, D. G. III 15 f., cf. I 524. Augustine enumerated various fruits of

Christ's offering, which all come down to this, that on the one hand it has delivered us from guilt, stain, death, and devil and on the other hand has bestowed on us illumination, life, and salvation, Kühner, Augustinus

Anschauung von der Erlösungsbedeutung Christi, Heidelberg 1899 S. 18.

Alongside the ethical, the mystical, and the ransom theory, the juridical or satisfactorial also occurs in him. Christ is mediator, reconciliator, redemptor, salvator, medicus, pastor etc., He is sacerdos and sacrificium at the same time; He is the true and only sacrifice for sins, de civ. X 6. Enchir.

33. 41; himself without guilt, He took over our punishment, in order thereby to pay our guilt and to put an end to our punishment, c. Faust. Man. XIV 4.

Delicta nostra sua delicta fecit, ut justitiam suam nostram justitiam faceret.

His maledictio is our benedictio; Christus de te sibi habebat carnem, de se tibi salutem, de te sibi mortem, de se tibi vitam, de te sibi contumelias, de se tibi honores, Enarr. in ps. 60.

The representations that we encounter among the church fathers concerning the suffering of [317] Christ recur in scholasticism. But Anselm's writing Cur Deus homo nevertheless gave to the satisfactorial conception a preponderance over all others. What was new in Anselm did not consist in this, that he regarded Christ's death as an offering for our sins.

But while earlier one had mostly said that the incarnation and satisfaction were not absolutely necessary, Anselm sought a ground in order to prove the contrary. He found it in this, that upon sin there must always follow aut poena aut satisfactio and that, if God wills to forgive and preserve humanity, none other than a God-man can bring that satisfactio to God and give back to Him His honour. But because Christ was God-man, his wholly voluntary death was of so great value, that He not only delivered from punishment but moreover also merited; and that merit He, since He did not

himself need it, ceded to humanity, in whose place He had given back to God the honour. No one took over this view of Anselm unchanged. The absolute necessity of Christ's incarnation and satisfaction was mostly denied; Duns Scotus stood wholly on the other side, denied the infinity of the guilt and the infinity of Christ's merit, denied that Christ's offering was sufficient in itself, taught that it was reckoned sufficient by God, and reduced incarnation and satisfaction to pure arbitrariness, to the dominium absolutum in God, cf. deel II 211; but Thomas also did not deem them absolutely necessary and called them conveniens, S. Th. III qu. 1 art. 1. 2. qu. 46 art. 1-3. Further, a single one, viz. Abaelard, contested the whole satisfaction-doctrine and set over against it, that Christ's incarnation and suffering was not a revelation of God's righteousness but only of his grace and love; that Christ from the beginning to the end of his life had taught us by his word and example and thereby awakens in us a love which delivers from sin and makes us God's children, and that herein the redeeming and reconciling power of Christ's person and work is situated, Herzog2 1, 16.

Various elements in Anselm's representation were later rejected by all, such as the whole private-law character that he gives to the satisfaction, the conception of sin as an insult and of satisfaction as restoration of honour, the one-sided emphasis that he lays on Christ's death with [318] disregard of his life, the antithesis that he makes between poena and satisfactio, the mechanical connection that he lays between satisfactio and meritum, between Christ's merit and the reason why it benefits humanity. But that does not take away, that the doctrine of Anselm nevertheless in its essential constituent parts, as satisfaction for the debt of sin to God's righteousness, in order thereby to acquire for us righteousness and life, has obtained in later theology an enduring significance. The redemption brought about by

Christ was by Anselm first and most clearly conceived as a deliverance, not in the first place from the consequences of sin, from death and from the power of Satan, but first of all from sin itself and its guilt; the redemption of Christ became in the first place a reconciliation of God and man. Yet this has come much less into its own in scholastic and Roman theology than in Protestant. Thomas does not, with Anselm, limit the satisfaction chiefly to the death, but extends it to the whole suffering and the entire obedience of Christ, S. Theol. III qu. 46; he also explains the transfer of Christ's merit to his own better than Anselm from this, that Christ is the head and the church his body, ib. qu. 8; but he nevertheless does not bring it in the consideration of Christ's suffering to any unity, conceives it successively as meritum, satisfactio, sacrificium, redemptio, ib. qu. 48 and then names as its fruits the liberatio a peccato, a potestate diaboli, a poena peccati, reconciliatio, aditus paradisi, ib. qu. 49. The reconciliation is here not yet in the foreground and it also comes about only fully thereby, that Christ as a forma virtutis et humilitatis awakens us to imitation, by his love and grace moves us to love and in faith delivers us from sin; objective and subjective side of the reconciliation, forgiveness and renewal are not sufficiently kept apart from one another, ib. 48 art. 1. 49 art. 1 and further Lombardus and other comm. on Sent. III dist. 18. 19. Bonaventura, Brevil. IV 7. 9. Later this also still remains so with many Roman theologians, Petavius, de incarn. XII. XIII.

Theol. Wirceb.3 IV 295 sq. Deharbe's explanation of the Catholic doctrine of faith and morals, Utrecht 1888 II 267v., but others nevertheless place the whole work of Christ under the concept redemptio, or satisfactio (and meritum) [319] or also treat it in the schema of the three offices, Cat. Rom.

I c. 3 qu. 7. Perrone, Prael. theol. IV 1839 p. 309. Liebermann, Instit.

theol.8 II 264. Dieringer, Kath. Dogm.4 465. Scheeben, Dogm. III 309-454.

Pesch, Prael. dogm. IV 198 sq. 256 sq. Jansen, Prael. theol. II 708.

The Reformation originally had no other doctrine concerning the work of Christ than Rome, and defended the satisfaction of Christ tooth and nail against the Socinian attack. Yet, by virtue of its principle, it placed it under a new point of view and in another connection. Because it had learned to know sin first of all as guilt, in the work of Christ reconciliation came to stand in the foreground. Sin was of such a nature that it angered God; in order to appease that wrath, in order to satisfy God's justice, to that end, in the first place, satisfaction by the God-man was necessary. He brought this about by placing Himself, as Surety of the Covenant, in our place, taking upon Himself the full guilt and punishment of sin, and subjecting Himself to the entire demand of the law of God. The work of Christ therefore consists not so much in humilitas, not only in His death, but in His entire obedience, both active and passive. And He accomplished this work in His threefold office, not only as prophet by teaching us and giving an example and stirring us up to love, but also as priest and king, Calvin first in the Catech. Genev., thereafter in the edition of the Institutio of 1539 and then by him gradually taken over by Reformed, Lutheran, and Roman theologians. The objective and the subjective side of reconciliation are thereby clearly distinguished. Christ has accomplished everything. All benefits are objectively enclosed in His person. Because Christ by His offering has satisfied God's justice, He has objectively changed the relation of God and man and thereby also all other relations of man to sin, death,

Satan, world. The first benefit is therefore the forgiveness of sins, and as a consequence thereof also the deliverance from stain, death, law, Satan.

Christ is the only Mediator of God and of men, the all-sufficient Saviour,

the highest prophet, the only priest, the true king. Cf. Luther and Melanchton bij Thomasius II 168 f. Gerhard, Loc. IV 320-331. XVI 31-63.

Quenstedt III 450-460. Hollaz, Ex. 728-764. Buddeus, Inst. theol. 806-859.

Calvijn, [320] Inst. II 15-17. Polanus, Syst. Theol. VI c. 27-29. Maccovius, Coll. theol. I 228 sq. Voetius, de merito Christi, Disp. II 228-284.

Turretinus, Theol. El. XIV. Id. De satisfactione Christi 1691. Owen, various tractates in vol. X of his Works, Edinburgh Clark 1862. Moor III 842 sq. M.

Vitringa V 315 sq. VI 5 sq.

5. The work of Christ, however, like his person, was understood by others in a wholly different way. The Ebionites saw in Christ only a prophet, who by his teaching and example gives man strength for the struggle against sin.

For the Gnostics Christ was an aeon of Divine wisdom, who had appeared on earth in an apparently human form, in order by illumination and knowledge to free men from the bonds of matter and to make them πνευματικοι. Over against this speculative rationalism the Montanists maintained the supernatural, transcendent character of Christianity, not only in the person of Christ, but also in the revelation continuing through the H.

Spirit, which now still is the portion of believers and causes the Christian religion to pass from the childish into the manly age. In the dualistic, pantheistic, apocalyptic and libertinistic sects of the Middle Ages likewise no other significance remained for Christ than that he in his time had revealed to men their true essence and destination, whereby they now themselves in the age of the Spirit can become what Christ was; what

Scripture teaches of Christ is realized in every Christian; the actual dying and rising of Christ takes place in the regeneration of every man. All these thoughts continued to operate in the century of the Reformation and led to a strong combating of the doctrine of Luther and Calvin. Not the Christ for

us, but the Christ in us, not the Word but the Spirit was the essence of religion. Osiander taught that Christ had brought the eternal, Divine essential righteousness in his human nature, and pours this into his own through faith and thus justifies them, Herzog2 11, 125 f. Carlstadt, Frank,

Schwencfeld, Weigel e. a. saw in trust in Christ's imputed righteousness a dangerous error; our salvation lies not in what Christ outside and for us

[321] but in what he does in and through us, in the mystical communion with God, Erbkam, Gesch. d. prot. Sekten 247 f. 340 f. 441 f. This mystical conception of redemption through Christ also later found acceptance with many. Böhme regarded the wrath of God and death as real, physical powers, which Christ has conquered by his death and in whose place he pours out a new Divine life into humanity, Joh. Claassen, J. Böhme, sein Leben u. seine theos. Werke III 31-76. Among the Quakers redemption indeed has its cause in Christ, but Christ himself is nothing other than the summary of grace and light in humanity; the actual, true redemption is that which takes place in us, Barclay, Verantwoording van de ware Christ. Godgel. Amst. 1757 bl.

154. Antoinette Bourignon and Poiret called vicarious suffering impossible and improper; Christ did not come to earth to make satisfaction for us, but to preach to us God's forgiving love and by his teaching and example to cleanse us from sin, M. Vitringa VI 51. Likewise J. C. Dippel conceived the suffering and dying of Christ as an example of his spiritual mediatorship, whereby he kills the old man in us and causes the new to rise; redemption takes place in us; an objective reconciliation is not necessary, for there is no wrath in God, ib. 56. Dorner, Entw. II 924. According to Zinzendorf Christ is the Creator and Sustainer of all things, the Jehova of the O. T., who therein has revealed God's love, that he has become so small, so poor, so humble and has suffered so much; his suffering is not so much punishment

and satisfaction to God, as rather voluntary and loving martyrdom; his blood, his death is thereby the source of the life of humanity; the martyrwounds of Christ's side are the matrix of the human race, the origin of the Spirit, who from Christ pours himself out into all, Plitt, Zinzendorfs Theol. I 291. II 194 f. Schneckenburger, Vorles. über die Lehrbegriffe der klein. prot. Kirchenparteien 195 f. Swedenborg held the belief that the suffering on the cross was the redemption to be a fundamental error, which together with the doctrine of the Trinity had brought the church to ruin. The suffering on the cross was not the redemption but was for Jesus the last temptation and, because he stood firm, the means of his glorification; then the human in him was united with the Divine of his Father, then God truly became man, [322] could he approach the hostile, sensuous powers of hell and overcome them; redemption is a continuing subjugation of hell and ordering of heaven, brought about by God as man, Swedenborg, Die wahre christl. Religion2 1873 S. 169-205.

But not only from the mystical side, but also from the rationalistic side, there arose opposition to the ecclesiastical doctrine concerning the work of Christ. To this may be reckoned the doctrine of Stancarus, that Christ only according to his human nature is our mediator and our righteousness,

Herzog2 14, 590 f.; and also the denial of the obedientia activa by Karg (Parsimonius), and by Joh. Piscator, who first set forth his ideas in a letter in the year 1604, included in the Epist. praest. virorum p. 156, cf. Theses theol. XV 18. 19. Karg retracted his opinion in 1570, but Piscator found support with Martinius, Crocius, Pierius, Pareus, Wendelinus, H. Alting e. a., and later exercised through Camero, Placaeus, Capellus etc. a harmful influence on Reformed theology. But the most serious and solid opposition to the satisfactio vicaria came from the side of the Socinians. Indeed they

still call Christ prophet, priest, and king, Cat. Rac. qu. 101, but in fact they make the priestly office an appendage of the kingly office. When Christ was on earth, He was only a prophet, who before the beginning of his public activity had been taken up by God into heaven (raptus in coelum, Joh. 3:13,

31, 6:36, 62, 8:28, 10:28, Cat. Rac. qu. 195), there had been made acquainted by God himself with the truth, and thus was in a position to perfect the law with new commandments, Cat. Rac. qu. 209v, and to promise to the keepers of those commandments eternal life, ib. qu. 352 and the sanctifying power of the Spirit, qu. 361. This his doctrine Christ confirmed by his sinless life, by his miracles, and especially by his death and his resurrection ib. qu. 374. His death was necessary, in order to cause his followers to persevere to the end in their piety and holy walk, qu. 380, and in order clearly and distinctly to confirm God's love toward us, qu.

383.; and his resurrection served, to cause us by his example to see that they who are obedient to God are delivered from all death, and in order to grant to Christ himself the power to grant eternal life to all who obey Him, qu.

384. [323] The death of Christ thus had here a wholly different significance than in the doctrine of the church; it formed no independent moment in the work of Christ but served only, on the one hand to confirm his doctrine and on the other hand to cause Him to come to the resurrection, which first made Him King and Lord in heaven, qu. 386. And even this He in fact first became through his ascension. The resurrection still belongs to the state of humiliation, for even thereafter He still had a mortal body, qu. 465. But at the ascension He received a glorified body, and was exalted to King, Lord, and God. As such He received from God the power, to support those who follow his example in all distress and at last to reward them with immortality. That He can do this, is his kingly office; that He will do this, is

his high-priestly office, qu. 476. Priest, therefore, He was not yet on earth, qu. 483; his death was not the actual sacrifice, but the introduction and preparation for it; the true sacrifice He now brings in heaven, just as the O.

T. high priest first brought about the reconciliation in the most holy place, qu. 413. And that sacrifice consists in this, that He accomplishes the reconciliation, i.e. delivers us from the service and the punishment of sin.

From this standpoint the Socinians had to oppose the doctrine of satisfaction just as strongly as that of the Trinity and the Godhead of Christ, cf. especially Catech. Rac. qu. 388-414 and F. Socinus, Praelect. theol. c. 15 and de Jesu Christo Servatore, Bibl. Fr. Pol. II 121-252. First, in their judgment it is in conflict with Scripture; the proponents cannot adduce a single certain passage for their opinion; Scripture says clearly that God forgives sin out of grace and forgiveness excludes satisfaction; the expression that Christ has suffered for us etc. has no substitutionary meaning, but says only that Christ has suffered for us, not to satisfy God, but to deliver us from sin; the words redemption, reconciliation and the like indicate only that Christ has shown us the way to be delivered from the service and the punishment of sin, but absolutely not that God had to be reconciled by a sacrifice, for God was graciously disposed toward us and has made this known to us through Christ. Further, satisfaction is also not necessary; the justice and mercy in God are [324] not in conflict with one another, they are also not attributes naturally proper to God, but they are effectus ipsius voluntatis and depend on his will; whether God wills to punish or to forgive sins is not at all determined by his nature but by his will; God can just as well and better than a man forgive sins without satisfaction; indeed his justice is nullified by satisfaction, because it punishes the innocent and lets the guilty go free, and his mercy loses its

value if it can show itself only after satisfaction; God has therefore always promised forgiveness to the penitent and willed that we should imitate Him therein. Next, satisfaction is also impossible; the obedientia passiva is impossible, because indeed money debts but no personal moral debts can be transferred to another; to punish an innocent person for the sin of another is unjust and cruel; and even if this were possible, that other would then at most be able to undergo the punishment of sin, i.e. eternal death, for one single man, but never for many or for all men; and as regards the obedientia activa, this is even much less possible, for to the keeping of God's law each is personally obligated for himself, but the one can never take it over for the other; moreover the obedientia passiva and activa are in conflict with one another, whoever accomplishes the one is free from the other; Christ therefore has not accomplished them, He has not suffered eternal death but rose on the third day from the dead; however severe, his suffering was finite; his divine nature could not make it infinite in value, because it could not suffer and die, or it would at every moment in that suffering be infinite and thus make all the rest superfluous; moreover, what could that benefit us, since man had sinned, and how could God (the Son) satisfy God himself

(the Father)? Finally, the doctrine of satisfaction is also harmful, because it exalts Christ with his mercy above God with his demand for satisfaction, obliges us to greater gratitude to Christ than to God, and also opens the door to carelessness and ungodliness; all sins have, after all, been satisfied, we can then sin as much as we wish. And the death of Christ intended precisely that we should be delivered from sin and should walk in a new godly life!

[325] Faustus Socinus' criticism of the doctrine of satisfaction was so sharp and complete, that later opponents could do nothing other than repeat his

arguments. The Remonstrants did indeed still try to maintain the satisfaction of Christ, but in fact adopted all objections raised against it; they taught not only, with Roman Catholics and Lutherans, that Christ had made satisfaction for all men, but they also denied that Christ suffered all punishments which God had imposed upon sin, that He underwent eternal death, that His obedientia activa was vicarious. Even His suffering and death was no satisfactio plenaria pro peccatis, no solutio debitorum, which after all would make forgiveness on God's side and faith on our side superfluous; but an offering, a perfect, unto death maintained, dedication of Christ to God, which was regarded by Him as sufficient for all sins. On the ground of that offering God now, through the gospel, has forgiveness of sins offered to all, in order that everyone who believes may be saved; but Christ did not acquire actual salvation for His own, but only the possibility of becoming saved, for all; whether someone actually is saved depends on himself, Conf. en Apol. Conf. c. 8. Limborch, Theol. Christ. III c. 18-23.

Hugo Grotius also, in his Defensio fidei catholicae de satisfactione Christi 1617, undertook an attempt at justification of the doctrine of satisfaction. To that end he derived it, not from the will of God nor also from His punitive justice, but from the justitia Dei rectoria, i.e. from the necessity for God to maintain in the world order and law, right and justice, and to take account of the bonum commune. By conceiving that legal order, however, as a world-order which stood outside God, he made God's justice subservient and subordinate to it; he changed the satisfaction of Christ into an undeserved suffering, into a penal example for the deterrence of others, into a measure of regents' wisdom; and he left unexplained how Christ for that had to be God, and how God could thus cause an innocent person to suffer and could regard his suffering as satisfaction for others. Yet, however many

objections the Socinian and Remonstrant doctrine could provoke, it gradually gained the upper hand. The supranaturalists, such as Michaelis,

Storr, Morus, Knapp, Steudel, Reinhard, Dogm. § 107, Muntinghe, Vinke, [326] Egeling, Weg der zaligheid II 175 etc., although sometimes still thinking to defend the ecclesiastical doctrine, in substance propounded no other doctrine than that of the Remonstrants or of Hugo Grotius. The same was the case in the New England Theology. The older Jonathan Edwards still defended the orthodox doctrine, Works I 582; but Edwards Jr., Smalley,

Maxey, Burge, Dwight, Emmons, Spring, propounded the governmental theory of Grotius, cf. E. Park, The atonement, discourses and treatises of Jon. Edwards, Smalley, Maxey, Emmons etc., New-York 1860. A. A.

Hodge, The atonement p. 328. But many went still further and rejected the whole doctrine of satisfaction. Ernesti, de officio Christi triplici, Opusc. theol. 1773 p. 413, contested the doctrine of the three offices with the argument that the names of prophet, priest, and king are unclear, Old Test. representations and that each office already includes the other two within itself. Töllner, in his de obedientia Christi activa commentatio 1755, renewed all Socinian objections, not only against the active obedience of Christ but against the whole doctrine of satisfaction. And with him Bahrdt,

Steinbart, Eberhard, Löffler, Henke, Wegscheider, Inst. § 140-142, Hobbes, Leviathan ch. 41, Locke, Chubb, Coleridge, John Taylor, Priestley etc., argued that Christ was not a revelation of God's justice but of His love and mercy; that God does not punish sin except with such natural punishments as proceed from sin itself and bear a paedagogical character; that the doctrine of substitution is an absurd thought of Augustine and Anselm and occurs in Scripture not at all or only from accommodation, in O. T. symbols; that the active obedience of Christ, if it were vicarious, would on

our side make all faith, conversion, moral improvement unnecessary; and especially, that forgiveness of sins, adoption as children of God, justification cannot precede moral renewal or sanctification but must follow it and be dependent on it. Religion was built upon morality; the center of gravity shifted from the objective to the subjective; Versöhnung made dependent on Erlösung; God a servant of man. Thus the death of Christ could only still be an example of virtue and confirmation of the truth

(Eberhard, Löffler), or a sacrifice for the benefit of men and a proof of God's love (Schwarze), or a factual [327] declaration of God that He wishes to forgive sins to whoever repents (Morus, Köppen, Klaiber, Stäudlin), or a means to awaken trust in God, to deter from sin (Töllner, Egeling), or also, to free us from the erroneous thought that God is wrathful and punishes

(Steinbart), or a symbolic representation of the voluntary assumption by the moral man of the punishment which he has deserved in his sinful condition,

Kant, Religion 84 f., cf. v. d. Willigen, Oordeelk. Overzigt over de versch. wijzen, op welke men zich heeft voorgesteld het verband tusschen den dood van J. C. en de zaligheid der menschen, Godg. Bijdr. II 1828 bl. 485-603.

Bretschneider, Syst. Entw. 608 f. Baur, Chr. Lehre v. d. Versöhnung 478 f.

Ritschl, Rechtf. u. Vers. I cap. 7. 8.

6. In more recent theology there has been no lack of attempts to modify the doctrine of Christ's office and work in accordance with the many objections raised against it, and yet to maintain it in a new form. In general it was thereby guided by the striving to transform the juridical doctrine of satisfaction, in which Christ in our place fulfilled the demand of God's justice, into that of a personal, religious-ethical activity of Christ, by which He brought about change not in God, who is always love, but in us, whether then more in our understanding or in our heart or in our will. Schelling and

Hegel, however, ascribed to Christianity as a historical phenomenon only a transitory value. That God becomes man in a particular person and then suffers and dies for another's sin is unthinkable. But, taken symbolically, it contains profound truth. The person and the work of Christ are the historical clothing of the idea that the world as Son of God, proceeding from Him and returning to Him, must necessarily suffer and thus enter into glory; the world and humanity subjected to time and finitude is the suffering and dying God, Schelling, Werke I 5 S. 386-305; the reconciliation of God is a necessary, objective moment in the world-process, God reconciles himself with himself and returns from alienation to himself, Hegel, Werke XII 249256. Reasoning further in this way, von Hartmann said, God cannot redeem me, but I can redeem God, nur durch mich kann Gott erlöst werden. Das reale Dasein ist [328] die Incarnation der Gottheit, der Weltprocess die

Passionsgeschichte des fleischgewordenen Gottes und zugleich der Weg zur Erlösung des im Fleische Gekreuzigten, Das sittl. Bewustsein2 1886 S. 688.

In modern theology, which does not go that far but is nevertheless in principle governed by the philosophy of Hegel and Kant, the person of Christ accordingly attains no higher significance than that of liberator from the legalistic, historical starting-point of the Christian religion; archetypal realization of the sonship of God, of the unity of God and man; proclaimer of God's fatherly love and example of the congregation, Pfleiderer,

Grundriss § 128. 133. Schweizer, Chr. Gl. § 115. 125 f. Biedermann, Chr.

Dogm. § 802. 815 f. Lipsius, Dogm. § 619 f., cf. v. Hartmann, Die Krisis d.

Christ. in der mod. Theol. 1880. Scholten, L. H. K. I 410v. Hoekstra, Godg.

Bijdr. 1866 bl. 273v. Id. Grondslag, wezen en openb. van het godsd. geloof bl. 201v.

Higher stands the person and the work of Christ with Schleiermacher; indeed he taught something entirely different from what the church confessed, although he also attached himself to her usage of language and to the doctrine of the three offices, but it was nevertheless his concern to assure Christ a lasting place in Christianity. The Erlösung comes about with Schleiermacher through the mystical union of the human being with Christ.

Christ namely always shared in the communion with God, and was thereby holy and blessed. As such He came to us, entered into our communion, received a share in our suffering, suffered with us in priestly fashion, and maintained his holiness and blessedness down into the deepest sorrow, even unto the death of the cross. Thus, first entering into our communion, He then, not through his word and example only but through the mystical operation that proceeds from his whole person, takes us up into his communion, and causes us, through his redeeming activity, to share in his holiness and, through his reconciling activity, to share in his blessedness; the Erlösung, i.e. regeneration, sanctification, goes, as with Rome and rationalism, before the Versöhnung, before the forgiveness of sins, Chr. Gl.

§ 101-104. This mystical substitution theory remained the fundamental thought in the doctrine of reconciliation of the Vermittelungstheologie,

Nitzsch, Syst. d. chr. Lehre § 80. 134-136. Rothe, Theol. Ethik § 541-558.

Schoeberlein, art. Versöhnung in Herzog1 en [329] Princip u. Syst. d.

Dogm. 182 f. 647 f. Lange, Dogm. II 813-908. Martensen, Dogm. § 156169, also Hofmann in his Schriftbeweis, which for that reason was contested by Philippi, Thomasius, Delitzsch e. a., cf. Weiszäcker, Um was handelt es sich in dem Streit über die Versöhnungslehre? Jahrb. f. d. Th.

1858 S. 155-188. Related is also the doctrine of reconciliation with Ritschl.

This is not to be brought into connection with God as judge, with his

avenging righteousness or wrath, with a legal order of reward and punishment; for that is a juridical, Pharisaic conception of the relation of God and human being, which does not belong in religion. God is essentially love, and his righteousness consists in this, that He unchangeably wills to bring human beings to blessedness and to realize a kingdom of God in them. But now humanity, because of sin, is far from God; it goes bowed down under the consciousness of guilt, it has the feeling that it is in a state of punishment, it fears and does not dare to approach God, it does not live in communion with God. Therefore Christ has come to reveal to us the love of God. The doctrine of the three offices meets with objection with Ritschl; the word office belongs only in a legal community; in a moral community of love it is better to speak of a calling; the three offices are also not to be kept apart in Christ and run into one another; if one wishes to retain them, the kingly office stands in the foreground, Christ is appointed as king, in order to found a congregation, a kingdom of God on earth, and to that end

He has revealed God as prophet, and has sacrificed himself to God for his own as priest. Christ namely stood in an altogether special relation to God;

He made the goal of God, namely to unite human beings into a kingdom of God, into his task of life; and his whole life, suffering and dying must be conceived under this point of view, as a moral calling, which He fulfilled, not as a suretyship or mediation, as a substitution for us. In that moral task of life Jesus was absorbed, to that He devoted himself wholly, He remained faithful to it unto death. Thus living, He has fulfilled God's will, realized his goal with humanity, revealed his love, grace, faithfulness, and at the same time, in this his holding fast to his task of life unto death, sacrificed and devoted himself to God for the benefit of his own. Through this his moral obedience Christ [330] has exercised no effect upon God, as if He had been

disposed from wrathful to favorable, nor also brought it about that the believers are bought free from the power of Satan or of death; but indeed obtained that all who, like Christ, make God's will their own, in his communion may lay aside the consciousness of guilt, unbelief, distrust, the erroneous thought as if God were wrathful and punished, and in spite of their sins may believe in God's love and faithfulness and may glory in the forgiveness of sins (justification), and thereafter also themselves can positively enter into the new relation in which God stands to them, and can lay aside all enmity against God, Rechtf. u. Vers. III especially c. 6-8, and further Herrmann, Der Verkehr des Christen mit Gott 1886 S. 93 f. Schultz,

Grundriss d. ev. Dogm. § 44-46. Kaftan, Wesen der chr. Rel. 246 f. Dogm.

S. 446 f. Haering, Zu Ritschl's Versöhnungslehre, Zurich 1888. Id. Zur Versöhnungslehre, Gött. 1893. Nitzsch, Ev. Dogm. 504-513. Ziegler in Gottschicks Zeits. f. Th. u. K. 1895. Riebergall, ib. 1897 S. 461-512.

Ecklin, Der Heilswert des Todes Jesu, Basel 1888. Kühl, Die Heilsbedeutung des Todes Christi, Berlin 1890.

Similar attempts at a mystical or ethical reconstruction of the doctrine of satisfaction were also tried in other countries. In our country the Groningen theologians combated the ecclesiastical doctrine and saw in Jesus' death, which was done by men, suffered by Jesus, and permitted by God, especially in connection with his resurrection, a revelation of God's love, of Jesus' perfection, and of the sin of men, which makes them shudder at their wickedness, teaches them to admire Jesus' greatness, and to believe God's love, Hofstede de Groot, De Gron. Godg. 181. Chantepie de la Saussaye, in his doctrine of reconciliation, adopted the ideas of Schleiermacher and of the Vermittelungstheologie, cf. my Theol. van Ch. d. I. S. 48. In England

Thomas Erskine, The unconditional freeness of the gospel 1828, and Dr.

John Mc Leod Campbell, The nature of the atonement, 5 ed. 1878, taught that Christ did not acquire God's love but revealed it and thus was God's representative with us. But He was also our representative with God, in that He, entering into our fellowship, suffered the deepest sorrow over sin as guilt before God and as the source of all misery, pronounced the amen upon God's judgment over sin [331] and, as it were, made confession of it in our place, and thus as our Head acquired a righteousness and life which is not juridically imputed to us but is indeed mystically and ethically communicated to us. Horace Bushnell, Vicarious sacrifice grounded in principles of universal obligation, ed. New-York 1866, attempted to explain the suffering of Christ entirely from the vicarious character which all love bears. Maurice, Doctrine of sacrifice 1854, Kingsley, F. Robertson e. a. saw in the perfect self-surrender of Christ to the will of the Father the essence of the reconciliation brought about by Him; for all salvation for man flows from the offering of himself. Cf. Orr, Chr. view 346. Pfleiderer, Entw. der prot. Theol. 1891 S. 460 f. Clemen, Stud. u. Krit. 1892 S. 644 f. In France, for this mystical or ethical conception of the doctrine of reconciliation, the following are especially to be considered: Pressensé, Essai sur le dogme de la Rédemption, Bulletin Théol. 1867. Durand, Etude sur la Rédemption,

Revue de théol. et de philos. 1889. Ménégoz, Péché et Rédemption. Bovon, Etude sur l'oeuvre de la Rédemption 1893 s. Unchanged, the ecclesiastical doctrine remained with scarcely anyone, but yet it was still presented in the main by Tholuck, Lehre v. d. Sünde u. v. d. Versöhner 1823. Philippi,

Kirchl. Gl. IV 2. Thomasius, Christi Person und Werk II. Vilmar, Dogm. § 48. Böhl, Dogm. 361 f. Bula, Die Versöhnung des Menschen mit Gott durch

Christum oder die Genugthuung, Basel 1874. Koelling, Die satisfactio vicaria, d. i. die Lehre v. d. stellvertr. Genugthuung des Herrn Jesu, I

Gütersloh 1897. Gess, Jahrb. f. d. Theol. 1857 S. 679-752. 1858 S. 713 f.

1859 S. 467 f. Dorner, Chr. Gl. II 612 f. Ebrard, Dogm. § 396 f. Id. Die Lehre v. d. stellvertr. Genugthuung 1857. Frank, Chr. Wahrheit II2 157 f.

Kähler, Wiss. v. d. chr. Lehre S. 363 f. Id. Zur Lehre v. d. Versöhnung, Leipzig 1898. Ch. Hodge, Syst. Theol. II 480. Shedd, Dogm. Theol. II 378.

Arch. Alex. Hodge, The atonement, Philad. 1867. Dale, The atonement, 18 ed. London 1896. Crawford, The doctrine of H. Scr. resp. the atonement,

Edinb. London 1871. Candlish, The atonement, its reality, completeness and extent, London 1861. Hugh Martin, The atonement in its relations to the covenants, the priesthood, the intercession of our Lord, Edinb. Hunter z. j.

George Smeaton, The doctrine of the atonement as taught by Christ Himself, Edinb. Clark [332] Lyttelton, The atonement, in Gore's Lux mundi

1892 p. 201-229. John Scott Lidgett, The spiritual principle of the atonement as a satisfaction made to God for the sins of the world2, London

1898. Merle d'Aubigné, L'expiation de la croix, 2 ed. Paris 1867. Bois, La nécessité de l'expiation, Revue théol. de Montauban 1888. Id. Expiation et solidarité, ib. 1889. Grétillat, Exposé de théol. syst. IV 300 s., etc.

7. The whole confession of Christendom concentrates in this, that Jesus is the Christ. With this claim, that He was the Christ, Jesus Himself appeared; through this faith the Christians came to stand as a particular sect both over against the Jews and over against the Gentiles; after the name of Christ the believers at Antioch were first called Christians. The name Jesus, ‎‏ַ‏ְיהֹוׁשּו‎ and ‎‏‎ַהֹוֵׁש‎‏‎ 3 p. imp. hi. alongside ‎‏ַ‏ְיהֹוִׁשי‎, Ps. 116:6 a. v. ‎‏‏ישע‎, to save, to help, and thus He, viz. Ihvh, will help, later shortened to ‎‏ַ‏ֵיׁשּו‎, Ιησους, Jhesus, Jesus, was indeed given to His son by Joseph on the express command of the angel, Mt. 1:21, because He was the perfect Saviour, Hd. 4:12, Hebr. 7:25, but was nevertheless in Israel a common name, Num. 13:16, 1 S. 6:14, 18, 2

K. 15:30, 23:8, Hos. 1:1, Hagg. 1:1, Zach. 3:1, Ezr. 2:2, 6, Neh. 7:7, 11, 39, 10:24 etc., Hd. 7:45, Hebr. 4:1, Col. 4:11. In the name Christ, on the other hand, His office, His dignity is expressed. The Jesuits name themselves after the name Jesus and thereby arrogate to themselves a name that belongs to no one, for saviour is Christ alone; but they have also often brought upon themselves the judgment that they become the less Christians the more

Jesuits they are. But the believers name themselves after the name Christ, for they are anointed with Him as prophets, priests, and kings. Of the other names that indicate His office and work, that of μεσιτης especially comes into consideration, 1 Tim. 2:5, Hebr. 8:6, 9:15, 12:24, mediator, sequester, intercessor, interventor, because He in the covenant of grace by His person and work unites and reconciles God and man with one another. In the age of the Reformation there arose over this mediatorship of Christ a not unimportant dispute. Over against Osiander, who held the essential righteousness of God in Christ to be the materia of our justification,

Stancarus, professor at Königsberg, [333] defended the proposition that Christ was mediator only according to His human nature and thus also could justify us only on the ground of His humanly acquired righteousness,

Herzog2 14, 590. He could appeal for that to Augustine, de civ. XI 2, Conf.

X 43, Lombardus, Sent. III dist. 19, Thomas, S. Theol. III qu. 26 art. 2, who all said that Christ was only mediator, in quantum homo, nam in quantum

Deus non mediator sed aequalis Patri est; and these theologians were by Stancarus esteemed quite a bit higher than the Reformers: plus valet unus

Petrus Lombardus, quam centum Lutheri, ducenti Melanchtones, trecenti Bullingeri, quadringenti Petri martyres et quingenti Calvini; qui omnes si in mortario contunderentur, non exprimeretur una uncia verae theologiae.

Lutherans and Reformed opposed this most strongly and asserted that

Christ was mediator according to both natures, that He as such had been appointed from eternity and that He had also already fulfilled the office of mediator in the days of the O. T. Die symb. Bücher der ev. luth. K. ed.

Müller 622. 684. Gerhard, Loc. IV 325. Quenstedt III 273. Calvin, in two letters, C. R. XXXVII 337-358, the ministers of the church of Zurich in two letters, Herzog2 14, 592. Polanus, Synt. theol. p. 430. Turretinos, Th. El.

XIV qu. 2. The Roman Catholics maintained that Christ was mediator only according to His human nature, but they nevertheless had to acknowledge that Christ, in order to be mediator, had to be both God and man, that both natures constituted the suppositum and the substantia mediatoris and thus could only still assert that Christ accomplished the mediatorial works, offering, suffering, dying, in His human nature, that this therefore alone was the principium quo, principium formale of the mediatorial works,

Bellarminus, de Christo V c. 1-8. Petavius, de incarn. XII c. 1-4. But this separation between the person and the work of the mediator is not to be maintained; the mediatorial works have precisely this peculiarity, that they have been performed by the one person with both natures. That does not mean, as Petavius imputes to Lutherans and Calvinists, ib. XII 4, 9, that these ascribe the mediatorial work to the divine nature of Christ per sese et ab humana divulsa. Not according to His divine nature as such, as one and equal with the Father and the Spirit, is the Son mediator, but [334] indeed according to that divine nature κατ' οἰκονομιαν, quatenus secundum eam voluntaria illa dispensatione gratiae se submiserit, Polanus p. 430. Scripture therefore also more than once calls Christ according to His divine nature subject of the humiliation, Joh. 1:14, 2 Cor. 8:9, Phil. 2:6; the church fathers more than once express themselves in the same spirit, Petavius XII 1;

Augustine, Lombardus and Thomas meant nothing else than that Christ was

not mediator according to His divine nature as such, ab humana natura divulsa, but only as the incarnate Son of God was and could be mediator; and finally the Roman theologians themselves again had to defend this against Stancarus.

Yet there lies behind this another difference. If Christ, namely, is mediator only according to his human nature in the sense of Bellarmine and Petavius, then He also was no mediator before his incarnation but only began to be this at the moment of his conception, and the O. Test. thus in fact has been without a mediator, Petavius, de incarn. XII 4, 10. But even if it is the case that the Son first became flesh in the fullness of time, yet He has from eternity been chosen and appointed as mediator. It cannot be objected against this that David, Solomon, etc. also have from eternity been chosen as king and in that sense anointed. For herein consists this great distinction, that David, Solomon, etc. and all the elect before their conception existed only in the idea and the decree of God, but the Son was in the beginning with God and Himself God. His election to mediator did not take place outside of Him; it bears the character of a pactum salutis; the work of redemption is a common work of Father, Son, and Spirit, and has immediately after the fall been begun to be carried out by all three persons.

In the same sense as the Father has from eternity been Father of his children and the H. Spirit has from eternity been Comforter of the believers, the Son has from eternity been appointed as mediator and immediately after the fall has appeared as mediator. Already under the O. T. He was active as prophet, priest, and king. The fallen world has immediately been delivered over to the Son as mediator for reconciliation and redemption. And in the fullness of time He, who already was mediator, has been manifested in the flesh, 1

Joh. 1:2, 3:5, 8. From this it is to be explained that [335] the kingly office in

Christ comes to the foreground; as such He is especially portrayed and foretold in the O. T.; and with that title He especially appears among his people. But that kingship of Christ is very distinct from that of earthly princes; it has its type only in the theocratic, in the Davidic kingship, which is essentially distinct from that of other kings; it is a kingship in God's name, subordinate to God's will, leading everything to God's honor; it is not a kingship of violence and weapons, but it rules and governs in a wholly other, much better way; it rules through Word and Spirit, through grace and truth, through right and righteousness. The king is therefore at the same time prophet and priest; his power stands in the service of the truth and the righteousness. Because the kingship of Christ bears an entirely peculiar character, many raise objection to speaking of his kingly office or use the title of king with Christ in a figurative sense, Wegscheider § 144. Scholten

L. H. K. I4 369v. Yes, many consider it better, with Christ, not to speak of office but of personal calling, for office belongs in a community of law and Christ's kingdom is a kingdom of love and not of law, Ritschl, Rechtf. u.

Vers. III2 402. Indeed an office is distinguished from calling, craft, position in that it presupposes an authority, rests on an appointment by that authority, and serves that authority with his person, not for wages. But thus it is precisely the word office that ought to be used with respect to Christ. For He has not taken the mediatorial dignity to Himself, but God has chosen

Him, called Him, appointed Him, Ps. 2:7, 89:19-21, 110:1-4, 132:17, Jes.

42:1, Hebr. 5:4-6; the name Christ is not a calling-name, but an officename, a title, a dignity, to which Jesus lays claim, because He has been chosen by God Himself. Under the O. T. especially the kings were anointed,

Richt. 9:8, 15, 1 Sam. 9:16, 10:1, 16:13, 2 Sam. 2:4, 5:3, 19:10, 1 Kon.

1:34, 39, 2 Kon. 9:1, 11:12, 23:30, probably with the holy anointing oil, 1

Kon. 1:39, Ps. 89:21; anointed was the name of the theocratic king, Ps.

20:7, 28:8, 84:10, 89:39 etc. The anointing with oil was symbol of the divine consecration, of the equipment with the Spirit of God, 1 Sam. 10:1,

9, 10. [336] And this anointing, not in an outward, symbolic, but in a spiritual, essential sense, Christ partook of, Jes. 11:2, 42:1, 61:1, Ps. 2:6,

45:8, 89:21, Luk. 4:18, Joh. 3:34, Hd. 4:27, 10:38, Hebr. 1:9, at his conception from the H. Spirit, Luk. 1:35 and at the baptism by John, Mt.

3:16, Mk. 1:10, Luk. 3:22, Joh. 1:32. And as real as his anointing, of which that under the O. T. was only shadow, was also his kingship. The theocratic,

Davidic kingship was only the weak type of it, and has in the kingship of Christ received its essential fulfillment. Christ is king not in a lesser but in a greater, in a much truer sense than David and Solomon. For to the idea of the theocratic king belonged that he had to be a man after God's heart, had to be bound to God's law and might not exalt himself as a despot above his brothers, Deut. 17:14-20. To this kings' law Israel's kings did not adhere, and thus prophecy expected another, better king, who, himself anointed of the Lord and servant of God, would rule his people through truth and righteousness, and would overcome his enemies. As such a king Christ appears; He establishes a kingdom of God, which now exists only spiritually and morally but is destined also outwardly and bodily once to reveal itself in the city of God, where all the ungodly are banished and God will be all in all. And because He is such a king, a king in a true, full sense, therefore his kingship also includes the prophetic and priestly office.

8. This threefold office of Christ, however, meets with objection among many, because the one is not to be distinguished from the other, Ritschl,

Rechtf. u. Vers. I2 520 f. III2 386 f. Frank, Chr. Wahrh. II2 158. 202.

Kaftan, Dogm. 486. 531. It must then also be conceded that no single

activity of Christ is to be restricted exclusively to one office. His words are a proclamation of law and gospel, and thus point to the prophetic office; but He speaks as one having authority and everything obeys his command, Mk.

1:122, 4:41, Luk. 4:32 etc.; He himself calls himself king, come into the world, to bear witness to the truth, Joh. 18:37. His miracles are signs of his doctrine, Joh. 2:11, 10:37 etc., but also revelation of [337] his priestly mercy, Mt. 8:17 and of his kingly power, Mt. 9:6, 8, 21:23. In his intercession not only his high-priestly but also his prophetic and kingly office is expressed, Joh. 17:2, 9, 10, 24. His death is a confession and example, 1 Tim. 6:13, 1 Petr. 2:21, Op. 1:5, but also an offering, Ef. 5:2 and a display of his power, Joh. 10:18. Dogmatics has therefore also been at a loss as to what, in particular, was to be brought under each office from Jesus' life and works. Under the prophetic office there was usually treated teaching, foretelling, and doing miracles; under the priestly office offering, interceding, and blessing; but for the kingly office, in the state of humiliation, there then remained no more than the homage of the wise men from the east, the entry into Jerusalem, the appointment of the apostles, the institution of the sacraments; isolated facts, which in part can just as well be brought under the other offices. Still more difficult was the indication of the distinction in the state of exaltation; for Jesus' prophetic activity does indeed continue in the teaching of his congregation through Word and Spirit, but also as king He rules and protects his church through these two; and his high-priestly intercession is no supplication but a kingly willing,

Joh. 17:24. It is then also an atomistic view, which detaches certain activities from the life of Jesus and assigns some of them to the prophetic, and others to the priestly and the kingly office. Christ is yesterday and today the same forever. He performs not merely prophetic, priestly, and kingly

activities, but is himself in his whole person prophet, priest, and king. And everything that He is, speaks, and does, brings that threefold dignity to revelation. To be sure, for us in the one activity more of his prophetic, and in another his priestly or his kingly office can come to expression; and indeed his prophetic office comes more to the fore in the days of the O. T. and in his walk on earth, his priestly office more in his suffering and dying, his kingly office more in his state of exaltation; but in reality He bears all three offices simultaneously and exercises all three always at the same time, both before and after his incarnation, both in the state of humiliation and that of exaltation. Therefore, however, speaking of three offices in Christ is no arbitrariness, no oriental figurative speech, which can be surrendered without [338] objection; nor is the one office to be reduced to one of the other two. Separation is not possible, but distinction is most certainly there.

In order to be mediator, to be perfect saviour, He had to be appointed by the Father to all three offices and to be made fit by the Spirit for all three. For the idea of man already contains this threefold dignity and activity in itself; he has a head, in order to know, a heart, in order to give himself, a hand in order to rule and to lead; and correspondingly he was in the beginning equipped by God with knowledge and understanding, with righteousness and holiness, with dominion and glory (blessedness). Sin, which corrupted man, worked upon all his faculties and was not only ignorance, folly, error, lie, blindness, darkness, but also unrighteousness, guilt, moral corruption and furthermore misery, death and destruction. Therefore Christ, both as Son and image of God for himself as well as as mediator and saviour for us, had to bear all three offices; He had to be prophet, in order to know and to reveal the truth of God; priest, in order to consecrate himself to God and in our place to offer himself to God; king, in order according to God's will to

rule and to protect us. Teaching, reconciling and leading; discere, acquirere and applicare salutem; wisdom, righteousness and redemption; truth, love and power, all three are necessary for our complete salvation. Prophet is He in his relation from God to us; priest in his relation from us to God; king in his relation as head to humanity. Rationalism acknowledges only his prophetic, mysticism only his priestly, chiliasm only his kingly office. But Scripture sees in Him all three, and these always and simultaneously, our highest prophet, our only priest, our eternal king. He is king, yet He does not rule by the sword but by his Word and Spirit; He is prophet, but his word is power and comes to pass; He is priest, but He lives by dying, conquers by suffering and is almighty by his love. He is always everything together, never the one without the other, in his speaking and acting mighty as a king and in his kingly dominion full of grace and truth. Witsius, Exerc.

10 in Symbolum, Amesius, Med. Theol. I 19, 11. Leydecker, de verit. relig. ref. IV 9, 3. Schleiermacher, Chr. Gl. § 102. Philippi, [339] Kirchl. Gl. IV 2

S. 5. 6. Ebrard, Dogm. § 399. Heraut 509v.

9. This Christ is, in his whole person and in his entire work, a revelation of God's love. The Gnostics and especially Marcion made a sharp contrast between the God of wrath, of vengeance, of righteousness, who revealed himself in the O. T., and the God of love and of grace, who in the N. T. had made himself known in Christ, part II 200. But such a contrast is unknown to Scripture. Ihvh Elohim in the O. T. is indeed righteous, holy, zealous for his honor and wrathful against sin, but He is also gracious, merciful, readily forgiving and great in lovingkindness, Ex. 20:5, 6, 34:6, 7, Deut. 4:31, Ps.

86:15 etc. In the N. T. God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is the God of all grace and mercy, Luk. 6:36, 2 Cor. 1:3, 1 Petr. 5:10; there is no contrast between the Father and Christ; as loving, merciful, and readily

forgiving as Christ is, so also is the Father; they are his words that Christ speaks, his works that He does. The Father is himself the Savior, σωτηρ,

Luk. 1:47, 1 Tim. 1:1, Tit. 3:4, 5, the one who in Christ reconciled the world with himself and did not impute its sins to it, 2 Cor. 5:18, 19. Christ therefore did not first move the Father by his work to love and grace, but the love of the Father precedes and comes to revelation in Christ; Christ is a gift of God's love, Joh. 3:16, Rom. 5:8, 8:32, 1 Joh. 4:9, 10. To be sure,

Paul says in Rom. 3:25, 26, that God publicly, before all eyes, set forth Christ Jesus as a reconciliation through faith in his blood εἰς ἐνδειξιν της δικαιοσυνης αὐτου; and here, without doubt, righteousness as a virtue of God is to be thought of, which, because of the passing over without reconciliation of the sins formerly committed by Jews and Gentiles under God's forbearance, seemed not to come to revelation and therefore seemed not to exist; it was thus necessary that God, in the present time, in the fullness of time, set forth Christ as a reconciliation through his blood, in order that He himself might appear to be righteous and might also justify the one who is of the faith of Jesus. But also here God's righteousness is not conceived as in conflict with his grace and love. For God's righteousness showed itself not in this, that it [340] punished sinners for their transgressions, but that it set forth in Christ a reconciliation through his blood, so that God now, in the forgiveness of sins, nevertheless appeared himself righteous and at the same time could justify the believer. God's righteousness, namely, consists in Scripture first of all in this, that He judges righteously, does not hold the guilty for innocent and the innocent for guilty; and then subsequently, that He helps and saves the poor, the wretched, those who personally are indeed guilty but objectively have the right on their side, and acknowledges them in their right. In this latter sense

righteousness is then related to mercy, faithfulness, truth; but it is always distinguished from these in that it especially pays attention to the anomaly that exists between the right that someone has and the condition in which he finds himself, part II 194v. Also here with Paul God's righteousness is not identical with his goodness, mercy, faithfulness, truth, but it is still much less opposed to them. For it is precisely that virtue of God which gave

Christ as a reconciliation, so that God could forgive sins out of grace. Of a conflict of God's righteousness and love, as the evangelical hymn 125:5 represents it, there is therefore no question. In our sinful condition this can indeed appear so to us; but in God all virtues are one and in full harmony.

On the one hand, therefore, the representation is to be rejected, as if Christ were only a revelation of God's punishing righteousness. The God of revelation, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, is no pagan god, whose envy and hatred against human beings must be averted by all kinds of sacrifices; the sacrifice in Scripture, also in the O. Test., bears an entirely different character; it presupposes the covenant of grace. Then there would also arise a gnostic contrast between Father and Son, which would exalt the Son as the God of grace far above the Father as the God of vengeance and would tear apart Old and New Test., creation and re-creation, nature and grace. But on the other hand Christ is also not to be conceived as a manifestation of God's love alone, at least not of a love such as we often imagine it and which differs entirely from the love of God in Scripture. In that case, not only would the suffering and death of Christ, which Scripture undoubtedly presents as a punishment for our sin, remain wholly [341] unexplained; but Paul's word would also be directly contradicted, that God gave Christ for that purpose as a reconciliation, in order that He himself might appear to be righteous and might justify the one who is of the faith of Jesus. Scripture

teaches us rather that in Christ and his offering all God's virtues came to glorious revelation. Grace takes the lead there, but it is followed by all the others. It realizes itself in the way of right and righteousness, Jes. 1:27,

5:16. Hinter dem Zorne ist als letztes Agens die Liebe geborgen, wie hinter Gewitterwolken die Sonne (Delitzsch). Cf. on Rom. 3:25, 26, besides the commentaries of Philippi, Tholuck, Meyer etc., Pfleiderer, Der

Paulinismus2 143 f. Holtzmann, Neut. Theol. II 100. Fricke, Der Paulin.

Grundbegriff der δικ. θεου, erörtert auf Grund von Röm. 3:21-26, Leipzig 1888.

10. This naturally leads to the question much discussed in theology, whether this way of justice before God was necessary in order to reveal his grace, or whether He could also forgive without satisfaction. Scotus proceeded from the absolutum dominium Dei and considered incarnation and satisfaction to be determined only by God's arbitrariness; Athanasius,

Augustine, Thomas, Calvin, Musculus, Zanchius, Twissus, and others judged them not absolutely necessary but nevertheless in accordance with God's wisdom as most fitting and suitable; Irenaeus, Basilius, Ambrosius,

Anselmus, Beza, Piscator, Voetius, Turretinus, Owen, de Moor, and others inclined to hold them to be absolutely necessary, cf. deel II 207-216 and Voetius, Disp. II 238. It is understandable that many preferred to walk the middle way rather than to elevate arbitrariness to the throne in God or to limit his omnipotence by an absolute necessitas. Yet there is no objection to speaking here of necessity, provided this is rightly understood. The will in God is neither a formal arbitrariness separated from all virtues and from the whole being of God, nor also a choice bound by all those virtues and by that whole being and therefore unfree. The will of God is often for us the final ground of things and we have to acquiesce in it, even if we do not know

why God has acted thus and not otherwise. But in God that will always has wise and holy reasons for his acting thus and not otherwise, for He [342] never acts except in accordance with all his virtues, with his love, wisdom, righteousness, etc. And this accordance of the will of God with all his virtues is no compulsion, no limitation for that will, but precisely the true, highest freedom. To will and to act as his holy, wise, almighty, loving nature itself wills, that is for God both the highest freedom and the highest necessity. So it is also with the incarnation and satisfaction; they may be called necessary, not as a compulsion imposed on God from without and from which He cannot escape, but indeed as deeds and acts that are in accordance with his virtues and bring these to revelation in the most glorious manner. For first of all Scripture teaches that God does everything for his own sake, Spr. 16:4, Rom. 11:36; the final ground and the final goal, also of incarnation and satisfaction, cannot lie in the creature, in the salvation of the sinner, but must lie in God himself. For his own sake He has sent his Son into the world as an atonement for our sins, in order that thus his virtues might come to revelation. And indeed there is no fact that sets those perfections of God so in the light as the incarnation and the satisfaction. Not a single virtue comes thereby into the clearest light, but all together, his wisdom, grace, love, mercy, longsuffering, righteousness, holiness, power, etc. Even if there is usually only mention of God's grace and righteousness, yet the other virtues may not be forgotten. Christ is in his person, word, and work the highest, most perfect, most all-sided revelation of God, his servant, his image, his Son; He has declared the Father to us. If God wished to reveal himself in the most glorious manner, then for that the creation and the re-creation, the incarnation and the satisfaction, were necessary. In creation his virtues were already made manifest, but much

more richly and more highly still in the re-creation; sin He knows how to use omnipotently as a means to glorify himself. Secondly, it is the teaching of Scripture that God as the absolutely righteous and holy hates sin with divine hatred, Gen. 18:25, Ex. 20:5, 23:7, Ps. 5:6, 7, Nah. 1:2, Rom. 1:18,

32. There is an absolute antithesis between God and sin, necessarily coming to expression in this, that He reacts against it with all his virtues; He does not will sin, He has no desire and pleasure in it, He hates it and is wrathful against it. Sin cannot exist without its being hated and punished by God.

God cannot deny himself; He cannot acknowledge the right of sin; He cannot give Satan equal rights with himself. Precisely because He is the absolutely holy, He must hate sin. Actually everyone concedes that; even if one says that God can forgive sin without satisfaction and as the highest love also must forgive; yet everyone still acknowledges that God forgives sin, i.e. that He out of grace does not punish it, but does possess the right and the power to that punishment. Even Mr. Chavannes found at the meeting of modern theologians little assent to his thesis that the expression

"forgiving love" is a contradictio in adjectis and means nothing, Bijbl. v. d.

Herv. 28 Juni 1895. Thirdly, God is very certainly Father of men, but this name by no means represents the whole relation in which God stands to his creatures. He is also Creator, Preserver, Ruler, Sovereign, Lawgiver, Judge, etc., and it is one-sided and leading to error if one, in one of these names with overlooking of the others, beholds the full revelation of God. Thus

God with respect to sin is not a creditor and not an offended party only, who can remit the debt and forget and forgive the offense. But He is himself the Giver, Protector, Avenger of the law, personal righteousness, and as such He cannot forgive sin without satisfaction, Hebr. 9:22. In that quality He cannot nullify the right of the law; for here it is not a personal, private right, of

which one can renounce, but the righteousness, i.e. the virtues and the honor of God himself. One could indeed appeal against this to the right of pardon, which the earthly government exercises many times; but this right of pardon is granted to it only because it is fallible and in many cases imposes a too heavy or even undeserved punishment. In God such a thing cannot occur; He is righteousness itself, does not need by grace to restore the justitia, does not by it also nullify it, but lets it come to revelation together in the cross of Christ. Fourthly, the moral law as such is not an arbitrary, positive law, but grounded in the nature of God himself; it is also not an impersonal power independent of God, resting in itself [344] power, so that Christ satisfied not God but its demand, cf. Dale, The atonement, lect. 9; but it is expression of his being. God, maintaining the law, maintains himself and conversely. Therefore it is unbreakable and inviolable.

Throughout the whole of Scripture it bears that character; our own conscience bears witness to it; and the whole so-called moral world-order with its phenomena of responsibility, sense of duty, guilt, remorse, fear, compunction, punishment, etc., is built on this inviolability of the moral law. Christ, then, has not come to dissolve the law but to fulfill it, Mt. 5:17,

18, Rom. 10:4; He has maintained its majesty and glory; and faith does not nullify the law but confirms it, Rom. 3:31. Fifthly, sin bears in Scripture manifold character; it is lack of understanding, folly, guilt, stain, uncleanness, shame, etc., it is compared with a money debt, and under another viewpoint is again an offense against God. But thus it also occurs in Scripture as a crime, crimen, a transgression against righteousness, a violation of the majesty of God, which brings us under his judgment, Rom.

3:19, and makes us worthy of death, Rom. 1:32. In this character it demands punishment and without satisfaction there is no forgiveness; only in the way

of justice is it, both as regards its guilt and stain and as regards its power and dominion, completely to be overcome. Sixthly, it may still be added to this, that sin is so great that God, before He let it remain unpunished, punished it upon his beloved Son Jesus Christ with the bitter and shameful death of the cross. If righteousness could have been obtained in another way, Christ would have died in vain, Gal. 2:21, 3:21, Hebr. 2:10. To summarize everything, incarnation and satisfaction have occurred for this, that God would again be acknowledged and honored as God by his creatures. Sin was non-recognition of God and of all his virtues, turning away to and worship of the creature. But in Christ God has again revealed himself, restored his sovereignty, justified all his virtues, glorified his name, maintained his Godhead. It was God, also in the work of redemption, first of all about himself, about his own glory. Cf. Voetius, Disp. I 372 II 238 sq.

Mastricht, Theol. V 18, 34. Turretinus, Theol. El. XIV 10. Id. de satisf.

Christi, disp. 1 en 2. [345] Heidegger, Corpus Theol. XIX 80 sq. Heppe, Dogm. 341. Ebrard, Dogm. § 427. Martensen, Christl. Ethik II2 155 f.

Dorner, Chr. Gl. II 614. Ch. Hodge, Syst. Theol. II 487. A. A. Hodge, The atonement p. 48. Shedd, Dogm. Theol. I 378. Hugh Martin, The atonement,

Edinb. z. j. p. 172 enz.

11. The Socinians and their kindred spirits, however, have very seriously contested this necessity of satisfaction; their arguments all come down to this, that justice and grace, satisfaction and forgiveness, and thus further also law and gospel, Old and New Testament, creation and re-creation etc., are in conflict with one another and exclude one another. The Christian religion is namely, according to them, the absolutely spiritual and moral religion, freed from all natural and sensuous elements. God is not to be conceived as Judge but as Father; punitive justice, holiness, hatred, wrath

against sin are no virtues in God but only love. The O. T. religion still stood on the standpoint of the law, conceived the relation of man to God as a legal relation; Pharisaism drove this to the extreme and Paul still made use of this

Pharisaic manner of speaking and did not combat the Pharisaic combination of law-fulfilment, righteousness and reward. But yet Paul does not derive the unfulfillableness of the law from man's sinfulness but from the nature of the law itself, which does not serve to give life but to increase sin. The Christian religion he thus nevertheless conceives purely as Erlösungsreligion, as grace, forgiveness, faith. And that it is indeed. It is purely religious-ethical, has no cosmic, juridical, metaphysical constituents any more, it is purely doctrine of salvation, and all the other, the doctrine of God, man, sin, the world etc., must from this standpoint, christologically and soteriologically, be revised and reworked. The state is the sphere of law, but religion and law stand diametrically opposed to each other. Cf. above p.

322v. and further Wegscheider, § 142. Hofstede de Groot, De Gron. Godg.

181. Scholten, L. H. K. II 46v., 57v. Schweizer, Gl. der ev. ref. K. § 63 f.

Christl. Glaub. § 94 f. Pfleiderer, Paulinismus2 86-110, 150-159.

Holtzmann, Neutest. Theol. II 108 f. Ritschl, Rechtf. u. Vers. III2 8-14, 223265. Kaftan, Dogm. 544 f. v. Hartmann, Religionsphilos. I 546 f. This whole antithesis, however, is false and has in Christian theology always been rejected as [346] Marcionitic. In the first place, it is untrue that righteousness and grace (love) in God would be an antithesis; not only does the whole of Scripture also ascribe to God the virtues of righteousness, holiness, wrath and hatred against sin, vol. II 195v., but grace even presupposes righteousness in God and cannot be maintained without it. For grace is that virtue in God by which He for one reason or another relinquishes his right; if He thus does not as the righteous and holy One

have the right to punish, there can be no question of grace with Him.

Likewise the highest love in God, i.e. forgiving love, which has been revealed in Christ, is no longer love, if sin according to God's righteous judgment deserved no punishment. Whoever denies right, also denies grace.

In the second place, law and religion (morality) are absolutely no antithesis.

Religion and morality are themselves a right that God has over us; He demands in his law that man love Him above all and the neighbour as himself. Thereby religion and morality are not lowered or externalized, but on the contrary maintained in their true meaning. God wills that man shall love Him with his whole heart and with his whole understanding and with all his powers; He claims the whole man for his service of love. Religion and morality could not exist if they did not root in God's right over his creature. The moral order is in this sense borne by the legal order. Much deeper than the religious and the ethical consciousness, there roots in man still the sense of right. Even in those who have shaken off all religion and all morality, it often still lives up powerfully. And indeed it is true that the perfect man loves God and the neighbour spontaneously and according to the prompting of his holy nature; but this changes nothing about the fact that precisely that service out of love corresponds with God's law and is prescribed therein. The moral law is indeed an exigency and a right of God, even though it claims the whole man and demands a service in spirit and truth. For just as religion and morality root in a right of God, so conversely that right of God is no abstract, formal arbitrariness, but is grounded precisely in God's nature; the legal order itself in turn bears an ethical character and finds in the moral order confirmation and support, part II 201.

In the third place, therefore, the assertion is incorrect, [347] that the moral world-order has first become a legal one through sin, Kaftan, Dogm. 370.

545. Legal it has indeed become for man through sin, in the sense that the love to God and the neighbour now stands as a command outside and over against him, to which he cannot correspond, which he has transgressed, and whose punishment he deserves. But legal it has not become through sin, as though it did not rest in a right and a law of God. Lutheran theology has indeed taught it thus, part II 556. 558, but the Reformed has judged otherwise and better. The law is indeed the norm for the whole moral worldorder, grounded in God's being, even apart from sin. This is not even conceivable without a law. All religion and morality presupposes a law.

Where there is no law, there is also no transgression. Whoever detaches the moral world-order from the law, makes it objectively and subjectively into arbitrariness and digs away the foundation from under its feet. In the fourth place, whoever thus places law and grace dualistically over against each other, comes into conflict with Scripture at all points. The status integritatis, as life of man created after God's image in accordance with the moral law, is no longer to be maintained. Sin is no guilt and deserves no punishment, other than in the consciousness of the sinner. The law has no eternal but only a temporal, transitory, paedagogical significance. The O. Test. as religion of the law, no longer concerns us. The doctrine of the righteousness of God and of the satisfaction in Christ is a Jewish, Pharisaic intrusion into the theology of the N. Test. The forgiveness of sins is a subjective coming to insight that they are no guilt and deserve no punishment. Sanctification is moral, autonomous self-development. The church is only a religious-ethical community and has nothing to do with law and statute. Under the appearance of conceiving the Christian religion more purely, it is robbed of its heart and core. Finally, in the fifth place, if, however, grace, love, forgiveness are wholly undeserved and all presuppose the voluntary

relinquishing of a right, then very certainly with Socinus, de Christo Servatore I 1, the question can still be asked whether God cannot relinquish that right without demanding satisfaction; God is nevertheless slow to anger, long-suffering and merciful and in Scripture forgives many times, without there being any mention of any satisfaction, if only sincere repentance [348] is present, Deut. 30:1-3, Jerem. 3:13, 14, 18:8, Mt.

18:24v., Luk. 15:11v. With this question, if it is really meant seriously, there is then no difference any more de jure but only de facto. God had the right to demand satisfaction; grace and forgiveness presuppose it; only there is difference over whether God has demanded that satisfaction. It will appear presently that suffering and dying in truth bears a satisfactorisch character.

Over against this reality, the question about the possibility, whether God could not have relinquished his right to satisfaction, is of very subordinate significance. But in any case it is impermissible, with forgiveness, to combat satisfaction, as though the one excluded the other. For not only are they connected with one another in Scripture, Lev. 4:31, Rom. 3:24-26,

Hebr. 9:22, but they are also placed in that relation to one another, that satisfaction precisely opens the way to forgiveness. With money debts satisfaction does indeed cancel forgiveness, because here it does not matter at all about the person who pays, but only about the sum that is paid. But with moral debts that is wholly different. These are personal and must be punished in the guilty person himself. If here a substitute is at all admitted, then the admitting of such a substitute and the letting of his merits count for those of the guilty person is nevertheless always an act of grace.

Satisfaction Christ renders to God, but forgiveness God grants to us; forgiveness is not with a view to Christ but with a view to us grace. The satisfaction of Christ opens for God the way, without violation of his right,

out of grace to forgive sins and to justify the ungodly. If sin is of such a nature that right and righteousness, law and truth suffer not the least damage even if it is not punished, then the grace of forgiveness is also not great. But if sin is so great that God, before He left it unpunished, has punished it with the bitter and shameful death of the cross upon his beloved

Son Jesus Christ, then the riches of God's grace, the power of his forgiving love, comes to light. Then man also finds in that satisfaction rest and comfort for his accusing conscience and can without any fear rejoice in the forgiveness of his sins; for the perfect satisfaction guarantees the absolute, unrepentable, [349] eternal forgiveness. Cf. Maccovius, Coll. theol. I 274.

Mastricht, Theol. V 18, 35. Turretinus, Th. El. XIV qu. 10, 8. Id. De satisfactione p. 44. Hoornbeek, Socin. Confut. II 629. Petrus de Witte,

Wederlegginge der Socin. Dwalingen, Amst. 1662 II 90v. Leydecker, Vis verit. p. 82. Moor III 1031. Shedd, Dogm. Theol. II 382. Martin, The atonement 183 etc.

12. The work which Christ accomplished for his own consisted in general in his absolute and perfect obedience to God's will, Mt. 3:15, 20:28, 26:42,

Joh. 4:34, 5:30, 6:38, Rom. 5:19, Gal. 4:4, Phil. 2:7, 8, Hebr. 5:8, 10:5-10 etc. This rich thought has in theology many times not come into its own.

The suffering of Christ has often been detached from the act of obedience which expressed itself therein, and thus made an object of pious meditation.

In the Christian church, successively the martyrs, the monks, the beggars, the flagellants have been regarded as the true disciples of Jesus; asceticism and self-torment in every form were the Christian virtues par excellence; the imitation of Christ consisted in a copying and imitating of deeds and conditions from his life, specifically from his suffering; Christ was the great sufferer, the exalted martyr, whose suffering had to be an object of

contemplation and imitation, Zöckler, Askese und Mönchthum, I 1897 S.

145 f. Moll, Joh. Brugman II 1-97. With Anselm the satisfaction of Christ, since he was already obligated for himself to obedience to God's law, consisted only in his suffering and dying, which by him was added to his life as an opus supererogationis and offered as a voluntary gift to the Father.

Roman theology does not express itself unanimously and unambiguously about the active obedience of Christ. Trent does indeed make mention of the sanctissima passio of Christ, VI c. 7, but the theologians reject it entirely or at least construe it in such a way that Christ did not fulfill God's law in our place, Bellarminus, de justif. I 2, de Christo V 9. Bossuet, Gesch. der veranderingen v. d. Prot. kerken, trans. by Berends 1829 II 340. Scheeben,

Dogm. III 321. 341. Also among the Protestants, among Mystics, Anabaptists, Herrnhutters etc., there occur conceptions of the suffering of Christ as Etwas Sachliches, which do injustice to his active obedience

[350]. Even Parsimonius and Piscator denied it, because Christ was already obligated for himself to this obedience and this obedience thus was indeed a necessarium requisitum personale, to our benefit, nostro bono, but no constituent part of his satisfaction, accomplished nostro loco; because Holy

Scripture always connects our entire salvation, both the forgiveness of sins and eternal life, only with the suffering and dying of Christ; and because believers, even though they have forgiveness and eternal life, nevertheless remain obligated to the keeping of the law. The Lutherans saw in this

Nestorianism and said that the person of Christ according to both natures was Lord of the law and thus also as man was not of himself subject to the law for his person, Gerhard, XVI 57. 59. Quenstedt III 284.

Schneckenburger, Zur kirchl. Christol. 58-73. Ritschl, Rechtf. u. Vers I2 274. But the Reformed could not speak thus, because Christ as true man

was certainly obligated to keep the law, and to love God above all and the neighbor as himself. Yet they rightly rejected the opinion of Piscator. For in the first place, Holy Scripture conceives the whole life and work of Christ as one whole and never makes a separation between an obedientia vitae, which he accomplished for himself, and an obedientia mortis, which he accomplished for us. It is one work which the Father has assigned to him and which he brings to completion in his death, Joh. 4:34, 17:4, 19:30. His service is completed in the giving of his soul as a ransom for many, Mt.

20:28. Even Paul, who lays all emphasis on the cross of Christ, sees in his death not his entire but the completion of his obedience. He has become under the law, Gal. 4:4, in the likeness of sinful flesh, Rom. 8:3, has not lived to please himself, οὐχ ἑαυτῳ ἠρεσεν, Rom. 15:3, has already annihilated himself at his incarnation and assumed the form of a servant, has continually humbled himself and has become obedient unto death, μεχρι θανατου, Phil. 2:7, 8, 2 Cor. 8:9, and thus it is one δικαιωμα and one ὑπακοη, which grants to many the δικαιωσις ζωης, Rom. 5:18, 19. It is therefore wholly in conflict with Scripture to limit the satisfactorial work of Christ to his suffering, or even, as Jac. Alting did, Op. V 393-395, cf. however p. 478-480, to the suffering during the three hours of darkness on the cross. The [351] appeal to passages such as Zach. 3:9, Joh. 19:30, Rom.

6:10, Hebr. 7:27, 1 Petr. 3:18, where it is said that Christ has suffered once, on the wood, and has cried out: it is finished, proves nothing against this, because in the suffering and dying the whole preceding life of Christ is taken up, summarized, and completed, cf. Moor III 985 sq. Mastricht V 11,

34. 18, 29. Witsius, Oec. foed. II 6. Misc. S. II 771. Maresius, Syst. Theol.

IX 46. Ex. v. h. Ontw. v. Tol. X 467-471. Rather, the whole life and work of Christ from his conception up to and including his death is substitutionary

in nature. The assumption of human nature itself and in itself does not yet bear this character, because all mediatorial works presuppose the two natures; but his holy conception and birth and all his holy works are included in the one work of Christ, Lombardus, Sent. III dist. 18, 2. Heid.

Cat. qu. 36 and 60. Ned. Gel. art. 22, cf. Acta Syn. Dordr. sess. 172. 173.

Voetius, Disp. II 282. Schneckenburger, Vergl. Darst. I 91. 122 f. Ritschl, Rechtf. u. Vers. I2 287. In the second place it is certainly true that Christ as man, for himself, was subject to the law; only, his incarnation and his being-man did not take place for himself but for us. Christ has never been and may never be regarded as a persona privata, an individual alongside and on an equal line with others; he was from the beginning a persona publica, the second Adam, sponsor et caput electorum. Just as Adam sinned for himself and thereby loaded guilt and death upon all whose representative he was; so Christ by his righteousness and obedience has acquired forgiveness and life for all his own. More still, certainly Christ as man was subject to God's law as rule of life; even believers are never released from the law in that sense. But Christ has placed himself in a wholly different relation to the law, namely to it as law of the covenant of works. Adam was not only obligated to keep the law, but in the covenant of works the law was held before him under another forma, namely as way to eternal life, which he did not yet possess. Christ, however, by his union with the divine nature had the eternal and blessed life. Of that he voluntarily renounced; he has subjected himself to the law of the covenant of works as way to eternal life for himself [352] and his own. The obedience which Christ rendered to the law was thus an entirely voluntary one. Not his death alone, as Anselm said, but his whole life was a self-denial, one self-offering, brought by him as Head in the place of his own. In the third place, that believers are still always

obligated to keep the law as rule of life proves nothing against this. If this proved anything, all that is satisfactorial from Jesus' life and suffering would disappear. For believers still have to bear all kinds of suffering as a consequence of sins, they are still tempted by Satan and enticed by the world, they still sin time and again and still must die etc., and thus Christ would have freed them from nothing, neither from sin nor from its consequences. Jac. Alting reasoned thus and therefore said that Christ had freed his own only from eternal death by his hellish agonies during the three hours of darkness on the cross, but not from suffering, bodily death etc. But this view of the work of redemption is without doubt wrong. The redemption is complete, a redemption of the whole man according to soul and body, from all sins and consequences of sin. And this has been accomplished in and through Christ's life and dying. But just as his kingdom is by him distinguished into an invisible, spiritual and a visible kingdom to be established on earth one day; just as he himself has once come to suffer and will soon come again to judge the living and the dead; so the redemption brought by Christ is gradually worked out and applied, first spiritually, thereafter bodily. Now in this dispensation believers are spiritually freed from every guilt and power of sin and its consequences, from world, Satan, death; they have the forgiveness of sins and eternal life; law, Satan, death can no longer rob them of these; and one day they will also outwardly, bodily be freed from all sin and power of sin. The whole recreation, as it will be completed in the new heaven and the new earth, is fruit of the work of Christ. Just as it is one-sided, with Alting, to see the fruit of Christ's work only in the redemption from eternal death; just as onesided is it, with Ritschl, to limit that fruit to the spiritual, ethical dominion of the Christian over sin and world in the Diesseits. The whole person of

Christ, both with his active and passive [353] obedience, is the surety for the whole redemption. Cf. on the active obedience. Calvijn, Inst. II 16, 5. III 14, 12. Comm. on Rom. 5:19, Gal. 4:4. Gomarus, Theses theol. disp. 19, 9.

Junius, Theses theol. 36, 8. Synopsis pur. theol. 29, 35. Turretinus, Th. El.

XI 22. XIV 13. Cloppenburg, Op. I 504 sq. Witsius, Oec. foed. II 3, 18 sq.

Coccejus, de foedere V 93. Quenstedt, Theol. III 281. Gerhard, XVI 57 sq.

Walch, Comm. de obed. Christi activa 1755. Baur, Versöhnung 478v.

Philippi, Der thätige Gehorsam Christi 1841. Id., Kirchl. Gl. IV 2 S. 142 f.

Frank, Chr. Wahrheit II 172. Id., Neue kirchl. Zeits. 1892 S. 856. Ritschl, Rechtf. u. Vers I2 271 f. A. A. Hodge, The atonement 248-264 etc.

13. While Piscator and many others excluded the obedientia activa from the satisfaction, in more recent theology the obedientia passiva does not come into its own. After Socinianism and Rationalism had subjected the ecclesiastical doctrine of satisfaction to a sharp criticism, many in the present time attempted still to maintain it, by recasting it in a mystical or ethical sense, above p. 327v. The representation is then in the main this, that Christ's suffering and death was not necessary in order to satisfy God's justice nor was it demanded by God as a sacrifice for our sins, but that it was the consequence of his life in obedience to God's will, the proof that He in his religious-ethical calling remained faithful to God even unto death, the historically necessary result of his holy life in the midst of a sinful world. Over against such conceptions, which detach the suffering and death of Christ entirely from the person and set it up as Etwas Sachliches in itself, this representation possesses an unmistakable right. Christ is, after all, the faithful witness, Op. 1:5, He has under Pontius Pilate testified the good confession, 1 Tim. 6:13, his suffering and death is no fate but an act, He has power to lay down his life, as also to take it again, Joh. 10:18. But yet it

itself is pressed by no less serious objections. 1o Already this is of significance, that the mystical and ethical theories with Jesus speak only of a calling and no longer of an office. Herein already lies all the difference. If Christ exercised a calling, then He himself by his disposition, upbringing etc. developed himself thereto, He does not stand above but alongside us,

He has only [354] advanced beyond us in a religious and ethical sense, and we can and must conform ourselves as much as possible to his example. If, on the other hand, Christ is anointed to the office of prophet, priest, and king, then He is appointed by God, has received from Him a work to do, stands with authority above us, to teach us, to represent us before God's face, to govern us according to his will, Martin, The atonement 105. 2o

Consequence of this conception is, that the suffering and death of Christ remains totally unexplained. Schleiermacher derived it from this, that Christ as holy entered into our sinful community; he let it consist in Mitgefühl mit menschlicher Schuld und Strafwürdigkeit and saw in his death a consequence of his Eifer für seinen Beruf, Chr. Gl. § 104, 4. Ritschl likewise says, that it is the faithfulness to his calling which qualifies Christ as a sacrifice; his death was no sacrifice but an unintended consequence of the conflict between Him, the holy one, and sinful humanity, das Accidens seiner positiven Treue im Berufe, Rechtf. u. Vers. III2 525, cf. 415 f. 441 f.

II 334 f., Kaftan, Dogm. 565-569. Kühl, Die Heilsbedeutung des Todes Christi 190 f. The Groningen theologians saw in the death of Christ a matter done by men, suffered by Jesus and permitted by God, and interpreted the δει in Mt. 16:21, Mk. 8:31, Luk. 9:22 in a moral sense, Pareau et H. de

Groot, Lineam. theol. christ. ed. 3 p. 153. H. de Groot, De Gron. Godg. 181.

A theory now, which declares the suffering and death of Christ to be accidental, is thereby already fully judged. 3o Scripture, after all, says

clearly, that Jesus' suffering and death was determined beforehand and was necessary. To be sure, in more recent times one attempts to show, that Jesus at first appeared gladly and with great expectations among his people and first perceived the necessity of his death since the day at Caesarea Philippi,

Mt. 16:20v., as a consequence of the hostility which gradually developed against his person, e.g. Holtzmann, Neut. Theol. I 284-295. But Kähler rightly calls this a legend. The Messianic consciousness, which Jesus, as appears from his baptism by John, possessed from the beginning of his public appearance; the name Son of Man, which He with clear consciousness and a definite intention ascribed to himself; the application to himself of Isaiah's prophecy, Luk. 4:21; the prediction, that He as the bridegroom of his [355] disciples would be taken away, Mk. 2:20; the comparison of himself with Jonah, Mt. 12:40 and with the serpent in the wilderness, Joh. 3:14; the preaching of the kingdom of heaven in a spiritual sense, of self-denial and bearing the cross, of the hatred and hostility of the world, Mt. 5, 10, 11:16v., 12:25v., prove abundantly, that for Jesus' consciousness death stood fixed from the beginning as the goal of his life; thus prophecy had instructed Him, Nösgen, Gesch. d. neut. Offenbarung I 1891 S. 395 f. Kähler, Zur Lehre v. d. Versöhnung 1898 S. 159 f. The day of Caesarea Philippi brought only this change, that Jesus openly proclaimed to his disciples, that He was the Messiah, that He would be delivered up and would rise on the third day, Mk. 16:21, Mk. 8:31, Luk. 9:22. And He adds thereto, that this must be so, not because He was morally obligated to die or could only thus remain faithful to his calling, for a moral obligation to be delivered up, killed, and even raised, does not exist, but because it was thus determined in God's counsel and was foretold in Scripture, Mt. 26:54, Luk.

22:22, 24:26, 44, 46, Joh. 3:14, 7:30, 8:20, 10:18, 11:9, 12:23, 17:1, 20:9,

Hd. 2:23, 4:28, 1 Cor. 15:3, cf. Scholten, L. H. K. II 45. 4o The two texts Mt. 26:39 and Hebr. 5:7 are by no means in conflict with this. According to Hebr. 5:7 He did not pray for deliverance from death, as if He had not acknowledged this as necessary; for it is stated clearly, that his prayer, notwithstanding his death, was heard by God; but Christ prayed, that He might not perish in death but might be delivered from it and raised and glorified; He came precisely, to do God's will by his dying and sanctified us by that will, Hebr. 10:5-10. This throws light on Mt. 26:39-42; Jesus there prays not according to his will, which He precisely subjects to that of the Father, but according to the inclination which is implanted in human nature to flee its own destruction, Kantt. St. Vert.; He looks upon death as death, but prays precisely, that God might strengthen Him, to do God's will in his dying, that God's will might take place not only to Him but through Him.

5o The suffering and death of Christ takes such a place in Scripture, that it cannot be conceived as the accidens of his faithfulness to his calling. To the description thereof the [356] greatest part of the gospels is devoted. And it is not described as a martyrdom but as a judgment of God, as the will of the Father, as the offering of a priest. He does not die for his faith, but is judicially condemned, because He claims to be the Son of God, the Messiah. He does not go joyfully to meet death, but is moved, sorrowful, astonished, anxious unto death and is in heavy struggle, so that his sweat became like drops of blood, Mt. 26:37, 38, Mk. 14:33, Luk. 22:44, Joh.

12:27, Si la vie et la mort de Socrate sont d'un sage, la vie et la mort de Jésus sont d'un Dieu (Rousseau). In the preaching of the apostles the cross of Christ is the center and the cause of all benefits of salvation. Much more than on the life, the emphasis falls on the death of Christ; and that death is always brought into connection with our sins; for the sake of sins Christ has

died and thereby He has acquired for his own righteousness and life. Even though that suffering and death may not be detached from the person, it is nevertheless determined by God as such willed, accomplished by the Son; it forms in the life of Christ not an accidental component, become necessary only through the circumstances, but an essential, indispensable constituent; thereby in the first place the reconciliation of sins, righteousness, and salvation has been acquired. 6o To be sure, it is objected against this, that God does not propter but only per Christum bestow upon us the benefits of the covenant of grace; thus earlier already Socinus et al. and now e.g.

Scholten, L. H. K. I 20 II 426v. Gottschick, Propter Christum, Zeits. f.

Theol. u. Kirche 1897 S. 352-384. The Lutherans even took pleasure in accusing the Reformed, that by virtue of their doctrine of predestination they had to deny the satisfaction of Christ and could only regard Him as causa instrumentalis of salvation; the Reformed themselves, after all, also said, that Christ was not fundamentum and causa electionis, part II 380; the elect were already objects of God's love before Christ was designated as their mediator and were elected not because of but in and unto Christ,

Gerhard, Loc. XVI de justif. § 36. Schneckenburger, Zur kirchl. Christol.

1848 S. 45 f. Id. Vergl. Darst. II 264 f. Schweizer, Gl. d. ev. ref. K. II 379.

389. But this accusation is untrue. Christ is most certainly proof and revelation of the love [357] of the Father; logically our election to salvation precedes his election to mediator; God therefore is not first moved by Christ to love sinners. But precisely herein consists the love of God, that He has that salvation, which He wills to bestow upon sinners, acquired for them in time by his own Son, and thus bestows it upon them in accordance with his justice. God's grace therefore does not nullify the satisfaction and the merit of Christ, but is precisely the ultimate ground for that merit, quia mero

beneplacito mediatorem statuit, qui nobis salutem acquireret, Calv. Inst. II 17, 1. Imo quia prius diligit, postea nos sibi reconciliat, ib. 16, 3. Jam nos diligenti reconciliati sumus, ib. 4. And these two, God's love and the satisfaction of Christ, had to and could therefore go together, because we were at the same time as creatures the object of his love and as sinners the object of his wrath, ib. 3. Thus it is therefore pure grace, out of which God forgives sins, He does it for his own sake, for the sake of his great name,

Jes. 43:23-25, Ezech. 36:21, Ef. 1:17, 1 Joh. 2:12, but this is so little in conflict with it, that God forgives us sins for Christ's sake, that the name of God has first been revealed to us in Christ. That God forgives sins and bestows life only out of grace, for his own sake and not because of anything that is in us, that Christ has proclaimed to us, that He has acquired for us.

Forgiveness out of grace, as disposition in God eternally present and preceding the election and sending of Christ (amor benevolentiae), is nevertheless first made possible in time by Christ's offering (amor complacentiae). The benefits themselves have been acquired by Christ, even though the inclination to bestow them upon the elect has been present in God from all eternity. Christ is made to be sin, that we might be God's righteousness in Him. He is become of a woman and become under the law, that He might redeem us from the curse of the law and that we might receive the adoption as children. As Adam is the cause of sin and death, so Christ is the source of righteousness and life, Mt. 20:28, 27:28, Joh. 1:18,

15:13, Rom. 5:12v., 1 Cor. 15:21, 22, 2 Cor. 5:19-21, Gal. 3:13, 4:4, 1 Joh.

4:9. Thus understood, the expression, that God forgives us sins and bestows eternal life propter Christum, for Christ's sake, is scriptural and taught by [358] the whole of Christendom, also by the Reformed, Calvin, Inst. II 16 and 17. Comm. on Joh. 15:13, Rom. 5:10, 2 Cor. 5:19, 1 Joh. 4:19 etc. Ned.

Gel. art 21. 22. 23, cf. Scholten, L. H. K. I 20. Heppe, Dogm. d. d. Prot. I 190. Heid. Cat. qu. 37. Petrus de Witte, Wederl. der Soc. dwalingen II 170v.

Mastricht, Theol. V 18, 20. 41v. Maresius, Syst. Theol. IV 40 X 30.

Turretinus, de satisf. p. 7. Ritschl, Rechtf. u. Vers. I2 265 f. Finally 7o, the mystical and the moral theory come into conflict at all points with Scripture and with the Christian religion. The former considers the essence of religion to lie in the mystical unity of God and man. This has been disturbed by sin but restored by Christ, and indeed not so much by what He does as by what

He is, by his person more than by his work, by his birth more than by his cross. How that mystical unity of God and man has now been restored by Christ is, from this standpoint, difficult to say. Hegel said, that that unity exists objectively, but by Christ was first clearly perceived and expressed.

Schleiermacher represents it thus, that Christ, first entering into our sinful community, thereafter takes us up into the community of his holiness and blessedness. The mediation theology often expresses itself thus, that Christ pours into us a new divine-human life. All these modes of representation are derived from pantheism and are, without this philosophical system, simply unintelligible. The moral theory proceeds from the thought, that God demands no satisfaction but in his love gave us Christ, in order that this one by his teaching, life, and dying might assure us of God's love, change us in our hostile disposition, and frighten us away from sin. And also the governmental theory of Grotius sees in God the Rector mundi, who personally indeed could and would forgive, yet in the interest of the world order must punish sin exemplarily, as a deterrent for others. With all these theories now one can indeed continue to speak of Christ as Son of God, of his priesthood and offering, but one then speaks in a figurative sense, uses the words in an unusual meaning and gives occasion to misunderstanding.

For it is clear, that in pantheism and deism there is no place for the Christ of the Scriptures. The high priesthood of Christ then changes into a martyrdom, his offering into an example, the [359] Christian religion into a pedagogy and the church into a school. Justice is no virtue of God, but only in the state in its place. Sin is no guilt and punishment no restoration of right. Man is not so evil, or he can be changed for the better by a moral example, by a shock or an impression, cf. Ch. Hodge, Syst. Theol. II 566 etc. A. A. Hodge, The atonement, ch. 21. The objective satisfaction is transformed into the subjective reconciliation; the proper, true reconciliation then first takes place, when man follows the example of Jesus and changes himself. The believers under the O. T. did not yet have the example of Jesus, thus are either all lost or have become blessed in another way than we, and Christ is not the only name, under heaven given to men for salvation. Above all, with all the theories mentioned the connection remains unexplained, which Scripture lays between the death of Christ and the forgiveness of our sins and eternal life. It is not to be seen, how the death of Christ as an example of these benefits can be the ground why God for Christ's sake forgives us sins and bestows life. In fact everything comes down to this, that Christ by his image makes a deep impression on the understanding or on the will or also on the feeling of man, and thus delivers him from the opinion, that God is angry with him on account of his sin, or from the selfishness which holds him bound, or from the feeling of unblessedness which weighs him down. But in none of these cases is true peace and rest bestowed upon man. For the conscience is not thereby cleansed and the feeling of guilt is not thereby taken away. Peace exists only in the blood of the cross!

14. This active and passive obedience of Christ, which is taught so clearly in Scripture, cannot be maintained except by conceiving it as satisfactio vicaria. The opponents of this doctrine, however, often represent it in such a way that, with respect to the work, just as with respect to the person of Christ, one must distinguish between the pure facts and the theories which have been set up in explanation thereof. First this distinction is made with a view to the ecclesiastical doctrine of the satisfactio vicaria, but soon thereafter also with a view to the teaching of the apostles. Finally, then, nothing remains but the [360] naked fact of the death of Christ itself; the interpretation and appreciation of the fact is left to each person's arbitrariness. The matter, however, is not so. Word and fact go together in God's revelation; Christ is priest but also prophet; He has explained His own person and work; He Himself has interpreted His death in His word, and Christian theology is bound to that. There are therefore not many theories, the moral, the governmental, the mystical, the privateand the public-juridical, which are set up by theology by way of hypotheses in explanation of the facts and phenomena and, as different attempts at solution, all have an equal right to exist. But the question is, what in all these opinions and doctrines corresponds with Scripture and is grounded therein. If the question is posed thus, there is scarcely any doubt possible that the satisfactio vicaria is taught by Scripture. The exegesis which the Socinians and the Rationalists applied in order to remove it from Scripture, no one any longer takes upon himself. And the interpretation of Ritschl, however much it may for a time have captivated by its acuteness, its untenability is scarcely doubted by anyone any longer, cf. Kreibig, Die

Versöhnungslehre auf Grund d. chr. Bew. 1878. Frank, Die Theol. Ritschls 1891. Pfleiderer, Die Ritschl'sche Theologie, Jahrb. f. pr. Theol. 1889. Id.

Entw. der prot. Theol. 228 f. Orr, The Ritschlian theology, London 1897.

Impartial reading of Holy Scripture always finds in it again the ecclesiastical doctrine of vicarious satisfaction, Wegscheider, Instit. theol. §

136. Pfleiderer, Der Paulinismus2 136 f. Holtzmann, Neut. Theol. I 68. II 97. 313 f. enz.

Holy Scripture, however, shows us in the whole work of Christ a fulfilment of God's law, a satisfaction of his demand, above p. 310. As prophet, priest, and king, in his birth and death, in his life and suffering, in his words and miracles, in his speaking and acting, he always accomplishes

God's will; he has come to do that will; the law of God was in the inward parts of his bowels; his whole life is one perfect offering, to God for a sweet-smelling savour. That will of God is one, and one also is the will of Christ, and one his offering. But yet, in it a double side can be distinguished very clearly. Twofold, namely, was the demand set by God to fallen man, viz. that he should keep the law perfectly [361] and also restore its transgression by punishment, above p. 220. Twofold are the benefits which Christ has acquired for us, viz. the forgiveness of sins and eternal life. Both are not identical; justification does not of itself coincide with heavenly blessedness. Adam was indeed righteous before his disobedience, but nevertheless still had to acquire eternal life in the way of works. The bearing of punishment is in itself still by no means one with the fulfilment of the law; the criminal who is punished but hardens himself under the punishment fulfils justice but in no way answers to the whole demand of the law. Moreover, Christ was the second Adam; he came not only to bear the punishment for us but also to acquire for us that righteousness and that life which Adam had to acquire by his obedience; he did not deliver us from guilt and punishment only and place us not at the beginning but at the end

of the way which Adam had to walk. He bestows on us much more than we lost in Adam, not only the forgiveness of sins and the remission of punishment, but also immediately in faith the non posse peccare and the non posse mori, part II 557: he who believes in him is not condemned and has eternal life, Joh. 3:16, 18. Both kinds of benefits are therefore also, although in concreto they are never to be separated, yet often named separately alongside one another, Dan. 9:24, Joh. 3:36, Hd. 26:18, Rom.

5:17, 18, Gal. 4:5, Op. 1:5, 6. And so it is also with the active and passive obedience of Christ. They are distinct, but in concreto, in the life and death of Christ, always coincide. The active obedience is no external addition to the passive, nor conversely. No single act and no single event in the life or suffering of Christ is to be brought exclusively under the one or under the other. Just as Christ always and in everything is at the same time prophet, priest, and king, so he is also continually active for reconciliation of the guilt of sins and for acquisition of eternal life. Indeed it is not good to say that the forgiveness of sins has been acquired only by his passive, and eternal life only by his active obedience. For his suffering was not a bearing of punishment only but also fulfilment of the law; and his working was not fulfilment of the law merely but also a bearing of its punishment. His doing was suffering and his suffering was [362] act. It was one work that Christ accomplished, but so rich, so valuable in God's eye, that the righteousness of God is completely satisfied by it, every demand of the law is fully fulfilled by it, and the whole, eternal blessedness is acquired by it. The satisfactorious element of Christ's obedience does not consist in this, that he satisfied a vengeful deity by blood, stilled its hatred and envy by a quantity of suffering; but it lies herein, that from the beginning to the end of his life he subjected his will to the whole, perfect, holy, and loving will of God, and

consecrated himself with body and soul and all powers to God as a perfect offering. But that will of God, according to the teaching of Scripture, included not only the life but also the suffering of Christ; and that offering consisted not only in his "moral vocation" but also in his death on the cross.

What God has united, man shall not separate. Cf. Turretinus, Theol. El. XIV 13, 11 sq. Mastricht, Theol. V 18, 14. Moor III 960 sq. Heppe, Dogm. d. ev. ref. K. 326. 341. Schleiermacher, Chr. Gl. 104, 2. Ritschl, Rechtf. u. Vers.

I2 279 f. III2 61.

The obedience of Christ, however, is not only a satisfactio; it is a satisfactio vicaria. On this too Scripture expresses itself clearly. Properly speaking, in every sin offering the idea of substitution is enclosed; it puts in the place of the offerer, who is worthy of the wrath of God, something else that can again make Him favorable. In Israel's history we already encounter the idea of substitution with Abraham, when, at the command of the Angel of the Lord, he does not stretch out his hand toward his son, but offers a ram as a burnt offering in his son's place, Gen. 22:12, 13. In the Old Test. cultus, in the case of the sin offerings, the laying on of hands transferred the sins of the offerer onto the sacrificial animal, Lev. 16:21; the reconciliation itself comes about not in one but in three acts, viz. slaughtering, sprinkling of blood, and burning; although laden with the sins of the offerer and thus worthy of death, the sacrificial animal is nevertheless not simply killed but slaughtered. It is not a matter of death as such, without more, for the sacrificial animal is destined to make reconciliation and to restore the offerer into God's favor. That favor is not to be obtained by the death of the sacrificial animal without more, but by the fact that the blood, the soul, the life of the sacrificial animal, which indeed is laden with the sins of the offerer and therefore killed, but nevertheless in itself completely innocent,

is brought and consecrated to God. Thus that blood, as the self-offering of a living being, which therefore is not killed but slaughtered, makes reconciliation over the sins of the offerer; it causes that the whole animal in the burning is to God for a pleasing odor; the offerer himself then shares completely in His favor, the animal has from the beginning to the end replaced his place and thus reconciled him and restored him into God's communion. From this cultus Isaiah borrowed the features for his depiction of the servant of the Lord; the poena vicaria cannot be expressed more strongly than in Jes. 53; the servant of the Lord has taken our sicknesses upon himself and borne our pains; He is wounded for our transgressions, for our iniquities He is crushed; the punishment that brings us peace was upon Him, and by his stripes healing has come to us. The Lord has caused the iniquities of us all to meet upon Him. For the transgression of the people the plague was upon Him. He has set his soul as a guilt offering. Himself a righteous one, without injustice or deceit, He bears the iniquities of his own.

All this becomes still clearer in the N. Test. In the first place the expression λυτρον comes into consideration here, Mt. 20:28, Mk. 10:45, 1 Tim. 2:6; it is, according to its derivation, from λυειν, to loosen, the means to loosen someone, to free from prison, and hence often ransom money. In the LXX it is the translation of ‎‏‏ְּגֻאָּלה‎, Lev. 25:51, 52 or ‎‏‏ִפִּדוי‎, Num. 3:46 or ‎‏‏ ֹּכֶפר‎, Ex.

21:30, 30:12, Num. 35:31, 32, Spr. 6:35, 13:8, which, however, elsewhere is translated by ἐξιλασμα, 1 Sam. 12:3, Ps. 49:8 or ἀλλαγμα, Am. 5:12, Jes.

43:3, or δωρον, Jos. 36:18. Now it is true that in the word λυτρον the substitutive and aequivalente is not yet understood of itself. But nevertheless it is incorrect, with Ritschl, Rechtf. u. Vers. II 69, to understand the words in Mk. 10:45 in such a way that Jesus' voluntary death is a gift, a covering, a protective means, by which many remain

preserved, not from death as the lot of all creatures, but from full annihilation and the purposelessness of life and thus are freed from the fear of death. For although the word λυτρον may in itself not yet express that the ransom price outweighs what is bought free by it; yet the thought lies at hand that someone who has a right to something will in general not relinquish it except for proper compensation; in Jes. 43:3, Spr. 21:18 it therefore alternates with ‎‏‏תחת‎, in the place of. And then especially, the ransom price that Christ brought is elsewhere called a τιμη, a costly price, 1

Cor. 6:20, 7:23, 1 Petr. 1:18. 19; it is expressly said that a man cannot give an ἀνταλλαγμα, ransom price, compensation, aequivalent, for his soul, Mt.

16:26, Mk. 8:37, cf. Ps. 49:8; and the word λυτρον is in the N. T. further strengthened by the praepositie ἀντι, Jesus gives his life as a ransom price in the place of many, who indeed ought to but could not do it, cf. Cremer s. v. But besides the expression λυτρον, in the second place the whole N. T. doctrine of the offering of Christ comes into consideration here. The praeposities that indicate the relation of that offering to us and our sins, ὑπερ, περι, δια, above p. 312, do not in themselves mean: in the place of, but for the benefit of, for the sake of, on account of, in order to, because of; yet they establish between Christ's offering and our sins such a connection that the mystical, moral, and symbolic interpretation does not at all exhaust the sense of Scripture. Naturally it is indeed true that Christ also suffered and died for us as an example, and that all in Him have been crucified, have died, and have been buried. But the sense of Scripture is not exhausted in that; indeed the mystical and moral conception of Christ's suffering and dying cannot be maintained unless it is previously acknowledged that He, in a legal sense, suffered and died substitutively for us. And that Scripture teaches as clearly as possible, even though it uses the expression satisfactio

vicaria no more than that of trinity, incarnation, God-man, etc. For when it says that Christ, although personally without any sin, according to the will of God has taken our sin upon himself and borne it, has been made sin for us and has become a curse, according to that same will of God has been punished for that with the accursed death of the cross, and thereby as causa meritoria has acquired for us the reconciliation, the forgiveness, the righteousness, the life, the whole salvation for us, then that cannot be thought otherwise than that He has placed himself in our stead and has borne our punishment. Cf. Weiss, Lehrb. der bibl. Theol. § 49 b. 80 etc.

Holtzmann, Neut. Theol. I 64 f. II 97 f. etc. On the praep. ὑπερ, Holwerda, Jaarb. v. wet. Theol. 1862 p. 521v. [365]

15. However, from of old very weighty objections have been raised against this satisfactio vicaria. Monetary debts one person can take over from another and pay for him; but sins are moral debts and adhere to the person. They cannot, by the nature of the case, be taken over by another. It conflicts with God's justice, which does not hold the guilty innocent and the innocent guilty. It conflicts with the nature of sin, for whoever would wish to bear them for another would nevertheless never be able to take over the most dreadful thing in sin, i.e. self-accusation, repentance, remorse, but only the outward suffering and dying, and this would then for him be no punishment of sin but a chastisement, a trial, a martyrdom. It conflicts with reality, for Christ did not bear the wrath of God but always shared in his love and favor; He did not bear the whole punishment of sin, for He died neither the spiritual nor the eternal death; and if He had borne it as well, then in any case only for one single human being, never for many, for He has then borne that punishment only once; even if He was God, this cannot increase the value of his offering, since his Godhead could not suffer, above

324. Many of these objections flow from misunderstanding, which therefore must first be removed out of the way. In the first place, then, it is completely true that Christ has never personally, in and for himself, been the object of God's wrath; He has never in his own person been a sinner.

Gnostics and Anabaptists did indeed many times distinguish between a divine, heavenly, immortal, holy and a human, earthly, unclean, mortal corporeality in Christ, above 275v. And the Antinomians understood the substitution in such a way that upon Christ not only the guilt and punishment but also the stain and uncleanness of sin had been transferred; the exchange between Christ and the elect was so absolute that He himself is sin and they are righteousness; in Christ they have been sorrowful over their sins, justified, born again; the sins which they themselves do are no sins any more, no longer torment them in the conscience, have no need of forgiveness any more and are only deeds of the flesh, of the old man,

Hulsius, De hedendaagsche Antinomianery, 2e dr. 1738 bl. 377v.

Hoornbeek, Summa Controv. [366] 1653 p. 704. Witsius, Misc. S. II 758780. And in later time these sentiments have sometimes been renewed by the Methodists, Schneckenburger, Vorles. über die kleineren protest.

Parteien 146, by the Irvingians, Herzog2 7, 154, by some followers of Kohlbrugge, Bula, Die Versöhnung des Menschen mit Gott durch Christum

1874. Böhl, Von der Incarnation des göttl. Wortes 1884 Id. Dogmatik 299 f., cf. Kuyper, De vleeschw. des Woords Amst. 1887, Inleiding en bl. 155v. But Scripture teaches as decisively and clearly as possible that Christ personally was free from all sins, above 296, and the few passages to which one appeals for the contrary, Joh. 1:14, Rom. 8:3, Hebr. 2:14 speak only of this, that the Son of God assumed a weak nature subject to suffering and death, but not that He himself in a subjective sense was a sinner. Some theologians

such as Chrysostomus, Oecumenius, Luther, Marlorat, also Calvin on Gal.

3:13, have indeed called Christ a sinner, but meant that only in an objective sense, as Paul says that Christ was made sin and became a curse, 2 Cor.

5:21, Gal. 3:13, cf. Jes. 53:12. Thereby the apostle does not indicate that Christ in himself was a sinner and accursed, but that He was regarded and treated by God as one who was guilty of the transgression of the law and had loaded its curse upon himself. Self-accusation, repentance, remorse, confession of personal sins could therefore not occur in Christ; spiritual death, as incapacity for good and inclination to all evil, was not suffered by Him. Precisely in order to bear the sins of others and to make satisfaction for these, He could and might himself not be a sinner. The permutatio personarum, which took place between Christ and his own, is not to be understood in a pantheistic physical or mystical sense, but bears a legal character; Christ has voluntarily come to stand in that relation to the law and its demands in which we stood to it through our transgression. In the second place, the substitutionary character of Christ's obedience of itself also brings with it that it is aequivalent, fully answering to the demand of the law. But this equivalence was nevertheless conceived by the Reformation differently than by Rome. Duns Scotus judged that also a holy man or an angel could have made satisfaction for our sins, if God had approved it, [367] for tantum valet omne creatum oblatum, pro quanto Deus acceptat illud et non plus, 8ent. III dist. 20 qu. un. n. 9 cf. dist. 19 qu. un. n.

7. And likewise later the Remonstrants taught that not the justitia Dei but only the aequitas demanded some satisfaction and that meritum quod

Christus persolvit juxta Dei Patris aestimationem persolutum est, Limborch, Theol. Chr. III 21, 6. 8. 9. 22, 2. Episc., Inst. Theol. IV sect. 5 c. 3. Directly over against that Thomas called, S. Theol. III qu. 48 art. 2 the passio Christi

not only sufficiens sed superabundans satisfactio pro peccatis humani generis, cf. Cat. Rom. I 5 qu. 13, 2. Theol. Wirceb. IV 317. Billuart, Summa

S. Thomae Pars III tom. 2 p. 206-226. Scheeben III 206. 343 etc. One even treated the question whether not one drop of Christ's blood would have been sufficient for reconciliation, cf. Quenstedt, Theol. III 327. Dorner,

Entw. der Lehre v. d. Person Christi II 843. This whole conception both in Thomas and in Duns Scotus rests on a sensuous, quantitative calculation of the suffering of Christ. In principle the Reformation broke with this system of calculation. That appears from this, that it rejected both the acceptilatio

(from acceptum ferre) of Scotus and the superabundance of Thomas, Voetius, Disp. II. 247. Mastricht V 18, 38. Moor III 1084. Alting, Theol. probl. pr. 41; that it included in the work of Christ alongside the passive also the active obedience; that it called the offering of Christ indeed aequivalent but not identical with what we were obligated to render; that it held it to be perfectly sufficient, so that neither in a Roman nor in a Remonstrant way was an addition by our faith and our good works necessary; and that in particular the Reformed said that Christ's work in itself was perfectly sufficient for reconciliation of the sins of the whole world, that it, if He had wished to save a smaller number, could not be less, and if He had wished to save a greater number or all men, would not have needed to be greater. Sins are also indeed no monetary debts, and the satisfaction is no arithmetic sum. The transfer of our sins to Christ did not proceed so mechanically that these were first accurately added together from all the elect, thus laid upon Christ and each separately satisfied by Him. Christ also did not pass through all human ages nor did He therein separately make satisfaction for the sins [368] of each age, as Irenaeus, adv. haer. II 22, 4 and others represented it. He also did not suffer precisely the

same, idem, as we nor in the same way; for consciousness of guilt etc., could not occur in Him, spiritual death as inclination to evil He did not know, and eternal death He suffered not in form and duration but only intensively and qualitatively, as abandonment by God, Thomas, S. Th. III qu. 46 art. 5. qu. 48 art. 2. Calvin, Inst. II 16, 12. Mastricht, Theol. V 12, 9.

21. Moor IV 122-133. Witsius, Misc. S. II 770. Shedd, Dogm. Theol. II 454. Schneckenburger, Vergl. Darst. II 239. Phillippi, Kirchl. Gl. IV 2, 29.

Sartorius, Lehre v. d. h. Liebe II 75. v. Oosterzee, Dogm. II 586. There is even some truth in the acceptilation, for the strict justice of God demanded that each human being personally for himself made satisfaction; and it was his grace which gave Christ as a mediator of the covenant and imputed his righteousness to the covenant partners. With a quantitative calculation we therefore do not get out of the satisfactio vicaria. They are other than measurable and weighable magnitudes with which we have to do in the doctrine of satisfaction. Sin is a principle governing and corrupting the whole creation, a power, a kingdom, which extends and organizes itself in many actual sins. The wrath of God is an indignation which is directed against the sin of the whole human race, Heid. Cat. 37. His justice is that virtue by which He cannot tolerate that He is as God unacknowledged or dishonored by his creatures. Therefore the satisfactio vicaria consists in this, that Christ as surety and head has come to stand in that relation to God, to his wrath, his justice, his law, in which the human race stood over against it.

He has for that humanity which is given to Him for reconciliation been made to be sin, become a curse and has taken its guilt and punishment upon himself. When the Socinians say that Christ in any case could only make satisfaction for one human being and not for many, since He has borne the punishment of sin only once, then this reasoning proceeds from the same

quantitative calculation as the acceptilation of Duns Scotus and the superabundance of Thomas. For although the sin that has come into the world through Adam manifests itself in an innumerable series of sinful thoughts, words and deeds; although the wrath of God is individually felt by every guilty human child; it is and remains nevertheless always the one, indivisible law that has been violated, the one indivisible wrath of God that has been kindled against the sin of the whole human race, the one, indivisible justice of God that has been injured by sin, the one, unchangeable, eternal God who has been mocked by sin. And therefore the punishment of Christ is also one, but one that intensively and qualitatively outweighs the sin and guilt of the whole human race, reconciles the wrath of God against that whole human race, fulfills the whole law, fully restores

God's justice and brings God himself in all his virtues of truth and justice, of love and grace again to recognition in the human race. For that punishment was also laid upon Him who was not merely an individual alongside others, but the second Adam, head of the human race, the Son of man and the Son of God at the same time.

16. Thus understood, the doctrine of the satisfactio vicaria can only still be defended against the objection that in the moral sphere such a substitution is not possible. In the first place, however, it is to be remarked against this, that the idea of substitution is also deeply grounded in human nature in the moral sphere, and among all peoples has embodied itself in priesthood and sacrifice and has also been expressed in all sorts of ways in poetry and mythology. Origen compared Christ in his death already with those who, according to classical traditions, have died for their fatherland in order to deliver it from plague or other disasters, for it seems, according to hidden laws, to lie in the nature of things that the voluntary death of a

righteous man for the common good breaks the power of the evil spirits, c.

Cels. I 31. Christian theology also many times adduced the examples of Codrus, Curtius, Kratinus, Zaleucus, Damon and Phintias and the hostages, in order thereby to elucidate the vicarious suffering of Christ. Naturally these examples have no other value than to show that the idea of substitution occupied a great place in the world of thought of Greeks and Romans. The same is the case with tragedy, whose fundamental thought certainly is not always to be rendered by Schuld und Sühne but indeed by Leidenschaft und Leid. The death of the hero is in many tragedies not an actual reconciliation for committed sin, but yet always a deliverance, made necessary by some or other mistake, error, etc., and therefore in the end reconciling us and granting satisfaction. But even thus conceived, tragedy proclaims a great truth: all that is great in humanity walks along abysses of guilt, and satisfaction is there only then, when the noble and great perishes in death. The downfall of Orestes, Oedipus, Antigone, Romeo and Julia,

Max and Thekla, Iphigenie etc., reconciles us with them and with their race; alle menschlichen Gebrechen sühnet reine Menschlichheit (Goethe). And so it is also often in history: the last, noble Constantine is, fighting and dying for his people and land, an atonement for the horrors of the Byzantine emperors, and the in comparison with his predecessors innocent Louis XVI expiates in his death for the sins of his house. If the history of the families and lineages were known to us, it would furnish us with numerous such examples. In the de mortuis nil nisi bene we all honour the reconciling power of suffering and death. Yes, all life and joy here on earth is fruit of pain and death. Everything lives from one another's death. The grain of wheat must die in order to bear fruit. What the one has sown is reaped by the other. The mother gives, in labour-pain and sometimes dying, life to her

child. All birth, also in the sphere of thought and of art, is from darkness to light. Some work, struggle, suffer, and others enjoy their labour. We all live from the treasures of the forefathers acquired with exertion. All noble goods of humanity have been conquered under struggle and suffering by some for all. Above all, love bears a vicarious character; here on earth it is scarcely conceivable otherwise than as co-suffering, συμπαθεια; whoever loves most, suffers most. The mother suffers for, in, with her child; the father bears mourning in the heart over the wandering of his son. Nature and humanity teach that there are stellvertretende Kräfte. Cf. above p. 135 and furthermore also Maresius, Syst. Theol. X 24. Turretinus, de satisf. 51.

Petrus de Witte, Wederl. der Soc. dwal. II 221v. Bushnell, Vicarious sacrifice 1866. Dorner, Chr. Gl. II 622. de Maistre, Soirées de St.

Petersbourg, éclairc. sur les sacrifices.

All these examples and reasonings are without doubt suitable, [371] to elucidate to some extent the vicarious suffering of Christ. Over against the individualism and atomism that tear humanity apart and know nothing of the mysticism of love, they are of excellent value. But yet they are not able to explain the suffering of Christ. Many indeed remain with these examples and attempt to understand the suffering of Christ as a natural consequence of his entering into our sinful community, e. g. Schleiermacher, Chr. Gl. §

104, 4. Weisse, Philos. Dogm. § 876. Lange, Dogm. II 840. 841. H. Schultz, Der Begriff des stellvertr. Leidens, Basel 1864 etc. But thus the sacrifice of Christ does not come into its own. Indeed human sympathy for Christ, and above all for Him as the holy and merciful High Priest, has been the cause of deep, painful suffering, Mt. 8:17, 9:36, 14:14 etc., but it is not the only and the principal cause, any more than hunger and thirst, persecution by his enemies, temptation by Satan, abandonment by his disciples. For then the

suffering for Christ would be only suffering and no punishment, and He himself no more than a witness, a martyr, a sufferer, only differing in degree from others. But Christ himself regarded his suffering as a punishment, laid upon Him by God for our sins, Mt. 20:28, 26:28, 27:46, and the whole of Scripture teaches that He was made sin for us and became a curse, 2 Cor.

5:21, Gal. 3:13. One step further go those who explain the suffering of Christ in a realistic way from the place which He occupies in the human race.

He is namely not an individual alongside others, but Centralindividuum; He did not assume a human person but the human nature; that nature bore sin and lay under the curse; and thus Christ with that nature also took its guilt and punishment upon himself. Just as Adam therefore could be our representative, because he was the progenitor of the whole human race, so Christ is substitute of the congregation, which as his body is born from Him as the head and is one with Him. And just as we e. g. are punished on our back for what we have done wrong with our hand, so Christ is punished for our sins because He is one with us, Thomas, S. Theol.

III qu. 48 art. 1. 2. Suppl. qu. 13 art. 2. Shedd, Dogm. Theol. II 57v. 533v.

Dale, The atonement, lect. 10. Scott Lidgett, The spiritual principle [372] of the atonement, ch. 7. Sartorius, Lehre v. d. h. Liebe II 67 f. Bilderdijk, Opst. v. godg. en zedek. inhoud, I 1-15 etc. This realistic-mystical conception of Christ's substitution is in itself completely correct and is also clearly taught by Scripture; for the believers themselves are crucified, died, buried, raised, and set in heaven with Christ, Rom. 6-8, Gal. 2:20, Ef. 2:6, Col. 2:11, 3:3 etc., cf. Holtzmann, Neut. Theol. II 114-121. Because Christ is not only reconciler but also redeemer, not only had to remove objectively the guilt of sin but also had to break subjectively the power of sin, this mystical union of Christ and the believers in the work of salvation forms an essential and

indispensable constituent. But yet it is not the only and the first relation which exists between Christ and his own. In Scripture it is built upon the federal; Rom. 6-8 follows upon Rom. 3-5. When it is detached from that, it loses the foundation on which it must rest; it goes to seek its support in pantheism, which changes the re-creation into a process; and it shifts the objective reconciliation more and more into the subjective redemption;

Shedd e. g. already makes the imputation of Christ's righteousness depend on regeneration and faith, ib. 534, cf. Dale 422 etc. Only then is this mystical union in its scriptural meaning to be maintained together with the objective reconciliation of Christ's sacrifice, when Christ is first of all regarded as Head of the covenant and in a federalistic, legal sense has taken the place of his own. The covenant of grace precedes the person and the sacrifice of Christ. For that covenant does not begin after Christ has completed his work, with the H. Spirit, with the benefits of regeneration and faith; but Christ himself also stands in that covenant, He is its surety and mediator, Hebr. 7:22, 8:6, 12:24; his blood is covenant blood and therefore reconciling, Mt. 26:28. Yes more still, the covenant of grace is not first established in time, but it has its foundation in eternity, it rests in the pactum salutis, it is in the first place a covenant of the three persons in the Divine being itself. Father and Son and Spirit are all three active in that covenant; and so little does it begin first in time with the activity of the H.

Spirit, that it rather has from eternity in the counsel of God triune its existence and [373] stability. And from that the satisfactio vicaria of Christ is also explained. It rests on an ordinance, on a free, almighty, gracious disposition of God. That absolutely does not mean that it is arbitrary and unreasonable. All kinds of relations in nature and humanity offer analogy of the substitution in Christ. But analogy is here and can here, just as little as

with Adam, above p. 129v. be identity. Both occupy a peculiar place in humanity; they alone are heads of the whole human race; their influence and operation extend to all places and times. And above Adam Christ stands yet again. For Adam was representative, Christ is substitute of humanity.

Adam acted in our name but took over nothing of us; Christ came to us, put himself in our place, bore our guilt and punishment and acquired our righteousness. Adam was head of a covenant of works, which was unstable;

Christ is head of a better covenant, which knows of no instability. Adam was a man, though without sin, earthly out of the earth; Christ was the Word made flesh, the Only-begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth, the Lord from heaven. Adam spoiled what was good, Christ restored and perfected what was spoiled. As far as the covenant of grace goes beyond the covenant of works, and the gospel beyond the law, so high does Christ stand above Adam. His satisfactio vicaria is not even to be understood according to the covenant of works with its law; it is indeed not contra legem, for it confirms the law, but it is nevertheless supra legem and goes very far beyond all our thoughts. It is not to be reduced to any general rule nor to be explained by any general law, for it is no phenomenon alongside others, but it is a concrete fact, wholly unique in the history of humanity, explained by nothing and itself explaining everything, resting in a special ordinance of God. And this ordinance of God is no isolated act of will, but bears a covenantal character. The satisfactio vicaria has its foundation in the counsel of God triune, in the life of the highest, the perfect and eternal love, in the unshakable covenant of redemption. According to the ordinances of that covenant Christ takes the place of his own and exchanges their sin for his righteousness, their death for his life. Ὠ της γλυκειας ἀνταλλαγης, ὠ της ἀνεξιχνιαστου δημιουργιας, [374] ὠ των ἀπροσδοκητων εἰεργεσιων, ἱνα

ἀνομια μεν πολλων ἐν δικαιῳ ἑνι κρυβῃ, δικαιοσυνη δε ἑνος πολλους ἀνομους δικαιωσῃ, Ep. ad Diogn. 9. Cf. A. A. Hodge, The atonement 198 etc. Hugh Martin, The atonement p. 9 etc.

17. This obedience Christ fulfilled in the whole state of his humiliation.

The formal treatment of the doctrine of the two states arose among the Lutherans, in order to bring the communicatio idiomatum into agreement with Jesus' humiliation, but was soon also taken over by the Reformed,

Olevianus, Subst. foed. II 5. Polanus, Synt. VI c. 13. Junius, Theses Theol. c. 29. Synopsis pur. theol. c. 27. 28 etc. Since Schleiermacher's critique,

Chr. Gl. § 105, it has, however, either been entirely abandoned or importantly modified. Those who deny the pre-existence and the resurrection of Christ have, with this doctrine, no interest any longer either,

Biedermann, Chr. Dogm. § 824 f. Lipsius, Dogm. § 567 f. Others, who accept these testimonies of Scripture, have often transformed it into a description of the gradually being completed incarnation of the Logos, or of the divine-human development and perfection of Christ; his humiliation is then conceived as eine stete Erhöhung seines inneren Lebens, which had as a consequence the exaltation of the same, Martensen § 139 f. Dorner § 104.

Lange II 635. Rothe, Ethik § 533 f. The doctrine of the two states is replaced by a biography of Jesus, which, however, with a view to the sources is impossible, with a view to the person is impermissible, and therefore always results in a false antithesis between the historical Jesus and the apostolic Christ, Strauss, Leben Jesu 1864 § 1. Weiss, Leben Jesu I 180.

Ritschl, Rechtf. u. Vers. III1 3. 63. Kähler, Der sogen. histor. Jezus und der geschichtliche, bibl. Christus 1892. Id. Zur Lehre v. d. Versöhnung 68 f.

Kuyper, Enc. III 158. No separation can be made between a vita Christi and an officium Christi, as Ebrard wishes, Dogm. § 408. His entire life stood in

the service of the office to which he had been appointed by the Father and sent into the world. The dogma of the apostolic preaching is the only key to unlock the evangelical tradition of Christ; the only means to provide us with an image full of life of the Savior of the world, Kähler, Versöhnung 69.

Christ did not live a moment [375] for himself, Rom. 15:3, but always for his church, in order to give her an example, Mt. 11:29, Joh. 13:14-16 etc., in order to serve her and to give his life as a ransom for many, Mt. 20:28, in order to share with her his grace and truth, his light and his life, Joh. 1:16,

6:33v., Col. 3:4. The incarnation itself was already a κενωσις, consisting in this, that he who ἐν μορφῃ θεου ὑπαρχων οὐχ ἁρπαγμον ἡγησατο το εἰναι ἰσα θεῳ, i.e., who in the form of God existed, in the same manner as God, and did not regard this as something robbed or usurped, nevertheless relinquished this divine mode of existence and assumed the μορφη δουλου, so that he truly became like a human being and was found in appearance as a human being, Phil. 2:7, 8, 2 Cor. 8:9, cf. Weiffenbach, Zur Auslegung der

Stelle Phil. 2:5-11, Karlsruhe u. Leipzig 1884. In the exchange of the μορφη θεου with the μορφη δουλου, of the divine mode of existence with the human, consisted his κενωσις, exinanitio. And as soon as this had taken place, his ταπεινωσις, humiliatio, began, consisting in this, that he was and remained obedient to God unto death. The whole life of Christ from the conception on to death was thus a humiliation as a consequence of his obedience, an ever deeper entering into the fellowship of our sin and an ever further removing of himself from the heavenly joy. His circumcision,

Luk. 2:21, served as proof that he was truly human and Abraham's seed, that he as such stood in the fellowship of our sin and had to receive the sign of the cutting off of that sin, and that God was his God and he was God's

Son. His baptism, which he as the Holy One no more than circumcision

needed for himself, Mt. 3:14, took place because it befitted him as mediator, πληρωσαι πασαν δικαιοσυνην, to satisfy all the right of the law and to bring about the whole, full righteousness which the law demanded of him; because he, as such standing in the fellowship of sinners, had to receive the sign and seal of his fellowship with God, as the Son in whom the Father had all his good pleasure; and because he had to be anointed and qualified with the H. Spirit and thus inaugurated for his public appearance as the Christ who alone himself can baptize with the H. Spirit and with fire, Mt. 3:11-17, cf. parall., Hd. 10:38, Bornemann, Die Taufe Christi durch Joh. in der dogm. [376] Beurteilang der christl. Theologen der vier ersten Jahrh.,

Leipzig 1896. The temptation, which took place immediately after the baptism and further repeatedly repeated itself up to Gethsemane, cf. ἀχρι καιρου, Luk. 4:13, Joh. 12:27, Mt. 26:39, Hebr. 4:15, 5:7, 1 Petr. 2:23, had as its purpose that Christ, who had just received the sign and seal of his fellowship with God and the gifts of the H. S., would also maintain this fellowship over against all temptation of Satan and world, as the second

Adam would not break the covenant with God but would maintain and confirm it for himself and his own, and as the merciful High Priest, having been tempted in all things as we are, would come to our aid in our weaknesses and temptations. All the words and works which Christ during his life spoke and did are an execution of God's will, Joh. 5:19v., 6:38 and have as their purpose to make known the name, the virtues, the counsel and the good pleasure of God both in law and gospel, Mt. 11:27, Joh. 1:18; to show his priestly mercy to all poor, sick, and lost, Mt. 8:17, 11:5; to prove his kingly power over Satan, world, sin, and all their workings. Luk. 10:18,

Joh. 12:31, 14:30, 16:33, 18:37. The suffering of Christ, which begins with his incarnation but is completed in the passio magna, is the will and the

command of the Father, Mt. 26:39, 42, Joh. 10:17, 18, proof of his absolute obedience, Phil. 2:8, Hebr. 5:8, and for his own as an example for their life,

1 Petr. 2:21, as a ransom for their sins, Mt. 20:28, 26:28, as a victory over the world, Joh. 16:33, Col. 2:15. His condemnation, not only by the sanhedrin but also by the secular Roman judge Pontius Pilate, took place for this purpose, that he would not die secretly by an assassination or in a riot, but according to the verdict of the then best and most virtuous law, after proper investigation, would be killed publicly, in the way of justice, and that thereby both his personal innocence, Mt. 27:18-24, and the ground of his condemnation, namely his confession to be the Son of God and the Messiah of Israel, Mt. 26:63, 27:11, and the will of God, Hd. 2:23, 4:27, 28, and the character of his death as a dying for others, Mt. 20:28, would come to light clearly and incontrovertibly before everyone's eyes. The death of crucifixion, crudelissimum teterrimumque supplicium, and [377] usually applied only to slaves and serious criminals, had this meaning, that Christ, in the name of the law having been condemned to the most dreadful and most disgraceful punishment, has satisfied the strictest demand of the law, as one hanged has become a curse to God, but thereby has also taken away from us the curse of the law, Deut. 21:23, Gal. 3:13, and has completely delivered us from all evil to which the law condemns us on account of our sins; the cross is therefore the center and the core of the gospel, 1 Cor. 1:23,

2:2, Gal. 6:14. The blood that Christ shed—non infirmitate, sed potestate mortuus est, Aug., de nat. et gr. 26—proves that he voluntarily consecrated his life to God, that he brought it as an offering, and thereby brought reconciliation and peace into being, Mt. 26:27, Hd. 20:28, Rom. 3:25, 5:9,

Ef. 1:7, Col. 1:20, Hebr. 9:12, 22. Finally, the burial of Christ also has a special significance; it is repeatedly mentioned, Jes. 53:9, Mt. 12:40, 27:59,

60, Luk. 11:29, 23:53, Joh. 19:40-42, Hd. 13:29, 1 Cor. 15:3, 4. It is not only proof of the fact that he truly died and thus also rose from the dead, but its significance lies especially herein, that Christ, although giving up his spirit into the hands of his Father, who received him into paradise, Luk.

23:43, 46, nevertheless for three days remained in the state of death, belonged to the realm of the dead, and thus bore the punishment of sin,

Gen. 3:19, in full. To that state of death, Hades, he was not abandoned, his flesh did not see corruption, for he was raised on the third day; but he nevertheless was in Hades, Mt. 12:40, Hd. 2:27, 31.

No other places of Scripture exist that speak of the burial of Christ or of his sojourn in the state of death, for the descent εἰς τα κατωτερα της γης,

Eph. 4:9, as is evident from the contrast, points to his descent to the earth by his incarnation, cf. Meyer t. p.; and 1 Pet. 3:19-22 in no case speaks of what Christ did between his death and resurrection, but either of what he did after his resurrection or before his incarnation; the words ζωοποιηθεις δε πνευματι indicate that Christ, who, because he partook of a sarkic body, was put to death, yet, because the πνευμα was proper to him, was raised again, [378] so that his life after the resurrection was not a sarkic but a pneumatic life. The descensus ad inferos, τα κατωτατα, Hades, not hell, gehenna, in the Greek, Roman, Lutheran sense therefore nevertheless finds no support in this text. But soon in the Christian church the thought arose that Christ in the time between his death and resurrection had gone to Hades. The Evangelium Petri vs. 41 42, discovered some time ago, has a voice from heaven say to Jesus: ἐκηρυξας τοις κοιμωμενοις, to which the answer is: γυμναι, the infernal powers are laid bare. According to Hermas,

Sim. IX 16, 5-7, the apostles after their death continued their preaching, and indeed to those who formerly had fallen asleep in righteousness, cf. also

Clemens Alex. Strom. VI 6, 45. 46. And Tertullianus, de an. 55. Irenaeus, adv. haer. I 27, 3. IV 27, 2 and V 31, 1-2, teach that Christ descended apud inferos or in ea quae sunt sub terra, in order to make the believers of the O.

T. share in the benefits of his work. According to Rufinus †410 the symbol of the church at Aquileia also had this article: crucifixus sub Pontio Pilato et sepultus descendit in inferno; probably from here this article passed over into various confessions, into that of the synod at Sirmium 359, Nice 359,

Constantinople 360, Toledo 633, into the symbolum Quicumque and thus also into various later forms of the so-called apostolic symbol, cf. besides the many dogmatics-historical works of Harnack, Hagenbach etc., the works on the apost. symbol of Caspari, Harnack art. Apost S. in Herzog2,

Zahn, Das ap. Symbol, Erlangen 1893. Kattenbusch, Das apost. Symbol I 1894 S. 103 f. Id. Christl. Welt 1889 n. 27. 28. Id. Zur Würdigung des

Apostolikums, Hefte zur Chr. Welt n. 2, Leipzig 1892 S. 29. Hahn, Bibl. der Symb. u. Glaubensregeln der alten Kirche3 1897. The Greek church, Conf.

Orthod. qu. 49, understands by the descensus ad inferos, that Christ with his divine nature and with his soul went to Hades and freed the souls of the holy forefathers and, with the murderer on the cross, transferred them to paradise. The Roman church, Cat. Rom. I c. 6, cf. Bellarminus, de Christo

IV 6-16. Petavius, de incarn. XII 19. 20 XIII 15-18 Scheeben III 298 f. etc., teaches that Christ, really, with his soul, after his death, descended ad inferos and remained there as long as his body rested in the grave, in order to free the souls of the pious, [379] who there sine ullo doloris sensu, beata redemptionis spe sustentati, quieta habitatione fruebantur, but nevertheless lacked the vision of God, in order as victor to strike down the demons and to wrest from them the booty of souls. The Lutheran church, Symb. B. ed.

Müller 550. 696 confesses that Christ according to both natures, with soul

and body after the burial went to hell, overcame the devil, disturbed the power of hell and took from the devil all force and power; the theologians extended this so far that Christ on the morning of the third day, after the vivificatio, resurrectio interna and before the resurrectio externa, with soul and body went to hell, and there to Satan and all condemned spirits, by a praedicatio non evangelica sed legalis, elenctica, terribilis, made known his victory over death and Satan, Frank, Theologie der Concondienformel III 397-454. Schmid, Dogm. der ev. luth. K. 277. 288 f. The Reformed confessions are not unanimous and understand by the descent into hell the infernal pains that Christ suffered on the cross, Calvin, Inst. I 16, 8-12, Cat.

Genev. 1, Cat. Heid. qu. 44, and thus Beza, Danaeus, Pareus, etc.; or the actual going of Christ with his soul alone to hell, in order there to make known his power, Repet. Anh. 9, and likewise Zanchius, Aretius, Alsted; or the going of Christ to hell with soul and body both with the same purpose,

Coll. Lips. 9; or the state of death, in which Christ was for three days, Cat.

Westm. bij Niemeyer 55, and thus Olevianus, Perkins, Amesius, Molinaeus, Bronghton, Vossius, Bochartus, Pearson, Schultens, Vriemoet etc.; while some tried to unite these different opinions, Sohnius, Op. III 311. Witsius,

Explanation of the apost. symbol, 18 § 9v. Burmannus, Synopsis theol. V 21 § 13-14. Mastricht V 13, 5. Synopsis pur. theol. 27, 32. Heidegger,

Corpus theol. 18, 32. etc. The great diversity of opinions explains that many did not know how to attach a good sense to the article and rejected it entirely, Schleiermacher, Chr. Gl. § 99, 1, or also seized upon this article in order to give a churchly stamp to their doctrine of a continuing preaching of the gospel and of a Missionsanstalt in place of the intermediate state, cf. especially Güder, Die Lehre v. d. Erscheinung Jesu Chr. unter den Todten

1853. Spitta, Christi Predigt an die Geister, Göttingen 1890. [380] In fact

the matter stands with this article thus, that 1o the expression descended into hell, insofar as it might have been derived from texts such as Acts 2:27,

31, Eph. 4:9, historically has acquired a wholly different meaning than that which is contained in those texts; 2o that the Greek and Roman explanation of this article, as though Christ had gone to Hades in order to free the pious of the O. T., finds not the least support in Scripture; 3o that the Lutheran conception, that Christ made known his power to Satan, indeed, as will later appear, is grounded on definite statements of Scripture, but cannot be regarded as a correct explanation of the words: descended into hell, since these in that case would not belong to the state of humiliation but to that of exaltation, which begins only with the resurrection; 4o that the more recent opinion, as though Christ had gone into hell in order to preach the gospel to all who have not heard it here on earth, likewise for the same reason cannot be considered a correct explanation of this article of faith; 5o that 1 Pet.

3:19 at most says, although it will later be shown that this too is not the correct opinion, that Christ after his resurrection proclaimed the gospel to the contemporaries of Noah but gives absolutely no right to an extension of the preaching of the gospel to all or to other lost ones; and 6o that the words descended into hell, in agreement also with what Rufinus says, that they are an expansion of Jesus' burial, are still best understood of the state of death, in which Christ as mediator was for three days, in order to bear the punishment of sin to the end and to deliver us from it. Thus the whole life of Christ has issued in his death as the perfect satisfaction to the righteousness of God. And by that one offering he has perfected for ever all those who are sanctified.

18. The fruit of this obedience of Christ is no less than the whole salvation. Under this concept are comprised all the benefits which Christ

has acquired for his own. God is called in Scripture σωτηρ, Luke 1:47 etc., but Christ also bears that name, because He saves his people from their sins,

Mt. 1:21, Luke 2:11. He is the ἀρχηγος της [381] σωτηριας, Hebr. 2:10, αἰτιος σωτηριας αἰωνιου, Hebr. 5:9, and his gospel is the gospel της σωτηριας, Eph. 1:13. This σωτηρια is a deliverance from sin and all its consequences and a participation in the highest blessedness; it therefore stands over against θανατος, 2 Cor. 7:10, ἀπωλεια, Phil. 1:28, ὀργη, 1

Thess. 5:9, and endures unto eternity, Hebr. 5:9. Therefore it comprises many particular benefits under itself, which are all also mentioned separately in Scripture. At the top stands the καταλλαγη, reconciliatio, reconciliation. The offering of Christ has namely according to Scripture objective significance, also valid for God. In the O. T. the sacrifices had the intention to cover the sins of the offerer before God's face, ‎‏‏כפר‎, LXX ἐξιλασκεσθαι. This reconciliation now indeed nowhere has God as direct object, but it nevertheless takes place with reference to Him, occurs before his face, Lev. 1:3, 6:7, 10:17, 15:15, 30, 19:22, Num. 15:28, 31:50, and intends, by the covering of sin, to avert his wrath, Num. 8:19, 16:46, and to render Him gracious, ἱλασκεσθαι, ἱλαον ποιειν, propitium reddere, placare.

Likewise Christ in the N. T. is ἱλαστηριον, Rom. 3:25, ἱλασμος, 1 John 2:2, 4:10, a merciful and faithful high priest with reference to the things with God, εἰς το ἱλασκεσθαι τας ἁμαρτιας του λαου, Hebr. 2:17; as high priest

He has with the offering of his perfect obedience covered the sins of his people and thus averted God's wrath and acquired his grace. Indeed by Socinians, Remonstrants, Rationalists and also most newer theologians, cf. e.g. Schleiermacher, Chr. Gl. 104, 4. Ritschl, Rechtf. u. Vers. II2 230 f.

Kaftan, Dogm. 460, it has been asserted that God is love, does not need to be reconciled but is himself the author of reconciliation. But this rests in

part on misunderstanding and is otherwise contradicted by Scripture. For this teaches clearly, also in the N. T., that God is wrathful over sins, Rom.

1:18, Gal. 3:10, Eph. 2:3, that He also on his part had to be reconciled, Rom. 5:9, 10, 2 Cor. 15:18, 19, Gal. 3:13, and that Christ to that end has been a ἱλασμος, Rom. 3:25, Hebr. 2:17, 1 John 2:2, 4:10. This, however, absolutely does not conflict with the fact that God is love and has himself given the Christ as a reconciliation for our sins. For his wrath is no evil passion of hatred or envy, his righteousness is no thirst for vengeance, but [382] both are compatible with the highest love. Just as a mother has the more pain over the straying of her son, the more she loves him; just as a judge sometimes must condemn a blood relative or friend, to whom he as a person feels intimately bound, so also in God the wrath against sin can go together with the love toward his creatures. Odit in unoquoque nostrum quod feceramus, amavit quod fecerat, Bede in Turret., de satisf. 86. Diligit omnes homines quantum ad naturam quam ipse fecit, odit tamen eos quantum ad culpam, quam contra eum homines contraxerunt, Thomas, S.

Theol. III qu. 49 art. 4. Because of our sins we are indeed objects of God's wrath, verum quia Dominus quod suum est in nobis perdere non vult, adhuc aliquid invenit, quod pro sua benignitate amet, Calvin, Inst. II 16, 3. And this again is not to be thought in such a way as if God at the moment of Christ's offering suddenly changed disposition and mood. For in God there is no change nor shadow of turning; all his attributes are one with his being; in eternity there is no before and no after. When Scripture speaks of God's wrath and of his reconciliation with us, then it speaks not untruthfully but yet according to our human comprehension. There is no change in the being of God, but there is in the relation in which He stands to his creatures. He also does not set himself in relation to the creature as if this would in any

way exist outside Him, but He himself sets all things and all men in those relations to himself which He eternally and unchangeably wills and precisely thus, in that way and in that moment of time, in which they take place in reality, cf. part II 125v. Therefore it is also God himself who in Christ brings about the reconciliation, 2 Cor. 5:19; He reconciles himself through the offering of the cross; He brings in the obedience of Christ himself and all his virtues to recognition and maintains himself as God before the eye of all his creatures; it is, because Christ is true God and for this divine work also had to be true God, it is God himself, who through the cross reconciles all things with himself. He places in Christ the church in that relation to himself, that it no longer beholds Him, the unchangeable one, in his wrath but in his grace. Jam diligenti nos sibi reconciliavit. Quia prius diligit, postea nos sibi reconciliat. Cf. Augustine, de trin. V 16. Enchir.

33. Lombardus and others on Sent. [383] III dist. 19, 6. Thomas, S. Theol.

III qu. 49 art. 4. Calvin, Inst. II 16, 2-4. Turretinus, de satisf. p. 49. 86. 87.

Moor III 448-450. Philippi, Kirchl. Gl. IV 2, 263. Dorner, Chr. Gl. II 612.

Frank, Chr. Wahrh. II 181 f. 194 f. Kähler, Zur Lehre v. d. Vers. 362 f.

Shedd, Dogm. Theol. II 401 etc. A. A. Hodge, The atonement ch. 9 etc.

By the offering of Christ, therefore, a relationship of reconciliation and peace has been brought about between God and man. Christ, as ἱλασμος, has expiated sin and thereby reconciled God. The distinction between ἱλασμος and καταλλαγη does not consist in this, that the former is objective and the latter subjective. The καταλλαγη also is an objective relation, brought about by God himself, between Him and the world, 2 Cor. 5:18, 19.

But in the ἱλασκεσθαι Christ as mediator is the subject, turns away, by his offering covering sins, God's wrath and acquires his grace. But in the καταλλασσειν God himself is the subject, 2 Cor. 5:19; by giving Christ as

ἱλαστηριον, He brings about between himself and the world a relationship of peace. He is no longer wrathful; what made Him our ἀντιδικος, namely sin, has been covered by Christ's offering; He established in Christ such a relationship, in which we no longer have Him against us; He laid aside his enmity, because its cause, sin, has been removed by the death of Christ, and now stands toward the world in a relationship of friendship and peace; καταλλαγη is therefore the reconciliatio, Versöhnung, brought about by expiatio, placatio, Versühnung. This καταλλαγη is the content of the gospel; all is accomplished, God is reconciled, there is on our side nothing more to do; and the whole διακονια κης καταλλαγης consists in the invitation to men: καταλλαγητε τῳ θεῳ, you too on your side lay aside the enmity, enter into that relationship of peace, in which God through the offering of Christ has placed himself toward sinners, believe the gospel, Rom. 5:9, 10, 2 Cor.

5:18-21, cf. Ef. 2:16, Col. 1:20-22, Cremer s. v. ἱλ. and καταλλ., Philippi on Rom. 5:10, Holtzmann, Neut. Theol. II 99 f. Already by this the whole representation is judged, which separates satisfaction and reconciliation and has the latter come into being only when man believes and repents. Men do not reconcile themselves with God, as if they, with and alongside God, were the subject of reconciliation; [384] but God has reconciled the world with himself, without its cooperation, apart from it, without its having contributed the least to it or needing to contribute to it; men only receive the reconciliation as a gift, Rom. 5:11, and accept it by faith, 2 Cor. 5:20. But from this one benefaction of reconciliation, acquired by Christ, all kinds of benefactions flow forth. That cannot be otherwise. If the relationship between God and the world is set right, then in due time everything comes into order, also the relationship between heaven and earth, angels and men, men among themselves, and also the relationship of men to sin, death,

world, Satan etc. In the sphere of justice the case is decided. God is in the right and therefore He will sooner or later everywhere, on every terrain, and for all creatures be put in the right. The right is on his side and it will once be acknowledged by all, willingly or unwillingly. In the καταλλαγη, the peace-relationship of God in Christ to the world, therefore all kinds of other benefactions are enclosed. The fruits of Christ's offering are not limited to any one terrain; they do not confine themselves, as so many nowadays think, to the religious-ethical life, to the heart, the inner chamber, the church, but they extend to the whole world. For mighty though sin may be, not as the trespass is the gift of grace; the grace of God and the gift through grace is exceedingly abundant, Rom. 5:15. The benefactions, which come to us from the καταλλαγη of God in Christ, are too many to name, above p.

312v. They can be divided into: juridical, namely forgiveness of sins, Mk.

14:24, Hebr. 9:22, justification, Rom. 3:24, 4:25, 5:9, 8:34, 1 Cor. 1:30, 2 Cor. 5:21, adoption as children, Gal. 3:26, 4:5, 6, right to eternal life and the heavenly inheritance, Rom. 8:17, 1 Petr. 1:4, also redemption, ἀπολυτρωσις, Ef. 1:7, Col. 1:14, Hebr. 9:15, which however sometimes has a broader meaning, Rom. 3:24, 8:21, 23, 1 Cor. 1:30, Ef. 1:14, 4:30, 1 Petr.

1:18, 19; mystical, consisting in being crucified, buried, raised, and set in heaven with Christ, Rom. 6-8, Gal. 2:20, Col. 3:1-13; ethical, namely regeneration, Joh. 1:12, 13, making alive, Ef. 2:1, 5, sanctification, 1 Cor,

1:30, 6:4, washing, 1 Cor. 6:11, cleansing, 1 Joh. 2:9, sprinkling, 1 Petr. 1:2, according to body, soul and spirit, 2 Cor. 5:17, 1 Thess. 5:23; moral, consisting in the imitation [385] of Christ, who has left us his example, Mt.

10:38, 16:24, Luk. 9:33, Joh. 8:12, 12:26, 2 Cor. 8:9, Phil. 2:5, Ef. 2:10, 1 Petr. 2:21, 4:1; oeconomical, namely the fulfilment of the Old Test. covenant, the inauguration of a new covenant, Mk. 14:24, Hebr. 7:22, 9:15,

12:24, the freedom from the law, Rom. 7:1v., Gal. 2:19, 3:13, 25, 4:5, 5:1 etc., the blotting out of the handwriting of the law, the breaking down of the wall of partition, the reconciliation of Jew and Gentile and of all other oppositions existing in humanity to the unity in Christ, Gal. 3:28, Ef. 2:1122, Col. 2:21; physical, namely the victory over the world, Joh. 16:33, over death, 2 Tim. 1:10, Hebr. 2:15, over hell, 1 Cor. 15:15, Op. 1:18, 20:14, over Satan, Luk. 10:8, 11:22, Joh. 14:30, Hebr. 2:14, 1 Cor. 15:55, 56, Col.

2:15, 1 Petr. 3:22, 1 Joh. 3:8, Op. 12:10, 20:2 etc. In one word: the entire recreation, the complete restoration of the world and humanity, burdened with guilt, corrupted and shattered by sin, is the fruit of Christ's work.

Objectively, in principle, in the sphere of justice, He brought about that recreation by his cross. Then between God and world the καταλλαγη was established. And therefore Christ in due time—for everything proceeds in fixed order—will once present the church without spot or wrinkle to the Father, deliver the kingdom to God and God will be all in all, 1 Cor. 15:2228.

In theology this richness of the benefits of Christ has always been acknowledged. Through Christ, said Clemens Alex., the earth has become a πελαγος ἀγαθων. People spoke of Christ as mediator, redemptor, reconciliator, liberator, dispensator, salvator, medicus, dominus, pastor, rex etc., designated the work brought to pass by Him as θεοποιησις, θειωσις, deificatio, vivificatio, salvatio, liberatio, redemptio, restitutio, purgatio, regeneratio, illuminatio, resurrectio etc., and sometimes attempted also to classify all those benefits in some measure, as in the well-known lines of verse: Propitians, purgans, redimens, ut victima, sponsor Salvavit, sic jura

Dei verumque requirunt, or under the heads expiatio, remissio, consummatio etc., cf. Athan., de incarn. 54. Greg. Naz., Or. 2. Eusebius,

Dem. Ev. IV 21. Aug. de pecc. mer. I 26. Thomas, S. Theol. III qu. 48. 49.

Bonaventura, Brevil. IV 1. Petavius, de incarn. XII c. 6. 7. Polanus, [386] Synt. VI c. 18. Voetius, Disp. II 229 sq. Mastricht, V 18, 22. Turretinus, de satisf. 317. M. Vitringa VI 121. But it nevertheless usually did not come to a logical order and regulated treatment. The consideration of the work of Christ as satisfactio and meritum, which arose since Anselmus, could not make good this lack; both are only logically distinguished, for the same work of Christ is satisfactio, insofar as He brought His offering to God and satisfied His demand, and it is meritum, insofar as Christ thereby acquired salvation for us with God, Thomas, III qu. 48 art. 1 and 2. Petavius, de incarn. XII 9. Perrone, Prael. IV 311. Calvijn, Inst. II 17 1. Voetius, Disp. II 228. Mastricht, Theol. V 18, 14. 20. Quenstedt III 225. Ritschl, Rechtf. u.

Vers. I2 283 etc. Both concepts also place the work of Christ too onesidedly under the category of work and merit; it is much more the question what Christ has "merited" and how this stands in connection with His offering. In more recent times one has therefore almost entirely dropped these terms and in their place designated the fruit of Christ's work as Erlösung or Versöhnung. The first description came especially into honor through Schleiermacher; to be sure he also speaks of a new creation, which is brought to pass through Christ, but this nevertheless coincides for him with the Erlösung, Chr. Gl. § 89, 1. 2; and by it he understands the communication of His sinless perfection, § 88, the reception of believers into the power of His God-consciousness, § 100, which takes place not magically, nor empirically, but mystically through creative divine activity, through the self-revelation of Christ in His congregation, § 100, 2, 3.

Alongside this Schleiermacher then still assumes a reconciling activity of Christ, consisting in this, that He receives believers into the communion of

His undisturbed blessedness and through means of His life-communion with Him makes them share in the forgiveness of sins, § 101. Ritschl, on the other hand, comprehends the working of Christ under justification and reconciliation; the fruits of His life do not consist in Umstimmung of God from an angry judge into a gracious Father, II 208 f. 217 f. III 439, not in actual ransoming, II 221, not in deliverance from death, II 86, nor also in the mystical dying and rising with Christ, for Rom. 6 is strong symbolism and provides no material for a [387] dogma, II 226 f.; but Christ assures and guarantees us through His whole person and life that God is love; He admits us, in spite of our sins, to communion with God, III 506 f. The justification which Christ grants us is not remission of guilt and punishment, not imputation of His righteousness, but removal of the consciousness of guilt, and thereby of the separation between us and God, III 51, 61, the removal of the thought that sin hinders communion with God, III 60. Consequence and working of this justification is reconciliation; this consists in this, that he who accepts in faith the justification, which is properly a good of the congregation, now also subjectively enters into that new relation to God, on his part lays aside enmity and places himself in a relation of peace to God; it is an ethical change in us, II 230 f. 342 f. III 74-76. Unterricht § 37. There is a great difference between Schleiermacher and Ritschl: with the former the person, with the latter the work of Christ stands in the foreground; with the first the subjective change of man comes to pass by a mystical way, through communication of life, with the second by an ethical way, through teaching and example; the first benefit with Schleiermacher is the Erlösung, the communication of Christ's sinless perfection, and with Ritschl the objective, synthetic justification, which in the first place is a good of the congregation. But with that difference the agreement is still greater: with

both Christ is the sinless man, who stands in special communion with God; passive obedience is denied by both in the work of Christ; His suffering and death is only the necessary consequence of His faithfulness to God maintained to the end; the connection between Christ's work and the fruits thereof in the believer, in the congregation, remains unclear with both; both shift the center of gravity of redemption and of reconciliation from the objective work of Christ into the subjective change of believers; and even, although Ritschl seems to let justification as an objective benefit of the congregation and as a synthetic judgment precede faith, in fact with him too, not for the congregation as a whole but indeed for each individual, justification is made dependent on subjective reconciliation, cf. Jahrb. f. d.

Theol. 1888 S. 21. 22. Kübel, Ueber den Unterschied der posit. u. der liber.

Richtung in der mod. [388] Theol.2 1893 S. 150. Kähler, Zur Lehre v. d.

Versöhnung 32 f. Above all, however, both agree in this, that they limit the working of Christ's life and suffering to the religious and ethical domain.

Now it is true that even with this limitation neither of them sets clearly in the light how the person and the work of Christ can bring about this change in the religious and ethical domain. But yet on the other side it is to a certain extent understandable that, if the fruit of Christ's work is limited to this terrain, His work and His person are also conceived as happened with Schleiermacher and Ritschl; for it is true what the former says: die eigenthümliche Thätigkeit und die ausschliessliche Würde des Erlösers weisen auf einander zurück und sind im Selbstbewusstsein der Gläubigen unzertrennlich eins, Chr. Gl. § 92. With this conception it is understandable that passive obedience is denied, that the Godhead of Christ is only a being of God in Him, that resurrection, ascension etc., are unnecessary; a

pantheistic-mystical or a deistic-moral working of Christ's person and work is then sufficient unto salvation.

But that is truly not in accordance with the doctrine of Holy Scripture; it is a failure to recognize the person of Christ and a belittling of his work.

Christ is not merely an ἀνθρωπος ἐνθεος but the eternal and only-begotten Son of God, the radiance of his glory and the expressed image of his substance, himself God, above all to be praised unto eternity. And the fruit of his life and death is not merely a certain magical or moral influence that proceeds from him into the world, but is no less than the ἀποκαταστασις παντων, Hd. 3:21, the ἀνακεφαλαιωσις των παντων ἐν τῳ Χριστῳ, τα ἐπι τοις οὐρανοις και ἐπι της γης, Ef. 1:10. This work of re-creation has its principle and origin in the perfect offering of Christ, or rather still in the καταλλαγη, which God in Christ has brought about between himself and the world. God does not wish to win by overpowering force. Easy it would have been for him to destroy the whole world in his wrath and to grant the prospect to another world and humanity, Num. 14:12. But God exalts himself in judgment and sanctifies himself in righteousness, Jes. 5:16. Sin is not a physical, but an ethical power. Satan has in sin his ungodly [389] power over the world, and sin has its power in the law, 1 Cor. 15:56. Thus it has pleased God to overcome this power in a moral way, in the way of right and righteousness. Not by violence or power, but by the cross, which made void the certificate of debt of the law, has God triumphed over the principalities and powers, stripped them of their armor, and publicly displayed them in their shame, Col. 2:15. And therefore now, because God in the way of right has overcome sin and all its power, therefore he is free, even while his adversaries are judges, to justify the ungodly, Rom. 4:5; no one can bring an accusation against the elect of God, Rom. 8:33. It is God

who justifies, and who in the justification of him who is of the faith of Jesus himself appears to be the righteous one, Rom. 3:26. God can do that, without prejudice to, indeed to the glory of his righteousness, because

Christ has died and has been raised, Rom. 8:34. On the ground of that offering he can wrest world and humanity away from sin, extend his kingdom, gather all things together under Christ as head and once be all in all. No one, not even Satan, can bring anything against that; at the end each will have to acknowledge that God is righteous and that Christ is the lawful, the legitimate Lord, Phil. 2:11. Between the benefits that Christ has acquired and his person and offering, there exists therefore no physical or magical connection, as if some substance of God-human life, divine nature, etc. were poured over from him into us, as theosophists imagine it. But God has himself in Christ paved the royal way of right, in order to glorify to his fallen creature the riches of his grace. From the objective καταλλαγη established by him himself, apart from the world, all the above-mentioned benefits flow to humanity for Christ's sake, justification, sanctification, complete redemption, the entire re-creation. And because this work of recreation is so great, greater still than that of creation and of preservation, therefore he to whom this work was entrusted had to be not only true and righteous man, but also stronger than all creatures, i.e. at the same time true

God. The same one through whom God created the world could also alone be the mediator of the re-creation, Bonaventura, Brevil. IV c. 1. [390]

19. Intensively the work of Christ is of infinite worth, but also extensively it extends to the whole world. Just as the world has been the object of God's love, Joh. 3:16, so Christ has come in order not to condemn that world but to save it, Joh. 3:17, 4:42, 6:33, 51, 12:47; in him God has reconciled the world, all things in heaven and on earth, to himself, Joh. 1:29, 2 Cor, 5:19,

Col. 1:20 and gathers them in this dispensation into one, Ef. 1:10; the world, created by the Son, is also destined for the Son as its heir, Col. 1:16,

Hebr. 1:2, Op. 11:15. From this Origen derived that Christ by his suffering and death has redeemed the whole world, not only all human beings but also all other rational beings, namely the fallen angels, and furthermore all creatures, de princ. I 6.; Christus οἰ μονον ὑπερ ἀνθρωπων ἀπεθανεν, ἀλλα και ὑπερ των λοιπων λογικων, in Joann. I 40. He indeed died only once, in the consummation of the ages, Hebr. 9:26, but the power of his death is sufficient for redemption not only of the present world but also of that which existed earlier or will exist later, and not only of human beings but also of the heavenly spirits, de princ. II 3, 5. Hom. in Lev. I 3, cf. Schwane,

D. G. I2 254. This universalism, however, has always been rejected by the Christian churches, e. g. Const. 543 can. 7. 12; and in fact these have always been particularistic insofar as they limit τα παντα in Col. 1:20 and do not extend it to the fallen angels. But nevertheless from these and other passages, where the word world or all is brought into connection with the offering of Christ, Jes. 53:6, Rom. 5:18, 8:32, 1 Cor. 15:22, 2 Cor. 5:15,

Hebr. 2:9, 1 Tim. 2:4, 6, 2 Petr. 3:9, 1 Joh. 2:2, the conclusion has been drawn that Christ had made satisfaction for all human beings, head for head, and that the satisfactio vicaria therefore had to be understood as universal. The church fathers before Augustine commonly speak very universalistically about the saving will of God and about the reconciliation of Christ, cf. Petavius, de incarn. XIII c. I. 2; but the actual question did not yet exist in that time and could then also not yet arise, because on God's side one assumed only a praescientia and on man's side one laid the emphasis on his freedom of will, though weakened by sin, part II 319. In the Pelagian struggle, however, it had to come onto the agenda; and

Augustine was the first who clearly taught the particular satisfaction. To be sure Augustine says repeatedly with Scripture that God wills the salvation of all, that, if one has died for all, all have died, that those who perish have not wanted to believe, that whoever believes does so voluntarily, Petavius, ib. c. 3, that Christ is a reconciliation for the whole world and has reconciled all things, heavenly and earthly, with one another, Kühner,

Augustins Anschauung v. d. Erlösungsbedeutung Christi 1890 S. 62. But all this proves absolutely nothing over against this other, expressed by Augustine just as clearly and distinctly, that the saving will of God and the reconciliation in Christ is limited to the praedestinati. In the first place this already follows in general from Augustine's doctrine of predestination and of grace, part II 320; if the number of those who will be saved is eternally and unchangeably determined by God and to them alone the grace of faith and of perseverance is bestowed, then in between the proposition can no longer be maintained that Christ has made satisfaction for all human beings head for head. In the second place Augustine always takes 1 Tim. 2:4 in a restricted sense; to be sure he gives of that text different explanations, now once, that omnes qui salvi fiunt nisi ipso volente non fiunt, Epist. 107, de civ. XIII 23, and then, that by all human beings are to be understood all praedestinati, who are chosen from all peoples and classes of the human race, Enchir. 103. de corr. et gr. 14. c. Jul. IV 8, but everywhere, where he deliberately explains the text, he understands it in a restricted sense, cf.

Petavius, de Deo XI 7, 10. de incarn. XII 4. And in the third place he connects the person and the work of Christ time and again only with the elect; God called through Christ populum credentium to adoption, Conf. IX 1; Christ by his resurrection called nos praedestinatos to a new life, by his blood redeemed justificandos peccatores, de trin. IV c. 13. Omnis, qui

Christi sanguine redemptus est, homo est, non tamen omnis, qui homo est, etiam sanguine Christi redemptus est, de conj. adult. I 15. Non perit unus ex illis, pro quibus Christus mortuus est, Epist. 102 ad Evod., cf. Wiggers,

August. und Pelag. I 313. Vitringa VI 147. Although semipelagianism soon gained the upper hand, there nevertheless remained many who on this point too remained faithful to Augustine. With appeal to 1 Tim. 2:4 the Semipelagians said [392] that God embraces all human beings with equal love and assigns to all an equal measure of grace. To that Prosper answered, that omnium cura est Deo, et nemo est, quem non aut evangelica praedicatio aut legis testificatio aut ipsa etiam natura conveniat; sed infidelitatem hominum ipsis adscribimus hominibus; fidem autem hominum donum Dei esse fatemur, sine cujus gratia nemo currit ad gratiam. And as regards the particularity of the satisfaction, Christ indeed is pro totius mundi redemptione crucifixus, propter veram humanae naturae susceptionem et propter communem in primo homine omnium perditionem; potest tamen dici pro his tantum crucifixus, quibus mors profuit, Resp. ad cap. cal. Gall. 8. 9. However moderately this may be expressed, all followers of Augustine, Prosper, Lucidus, Fulgentius etc., nevertheless agreed in this, that, however much God cares for all human beings and bestows on them all kinds of benefits, he nevertheless does not in the same way will the salvation of all; that he does not grant all the same measure of grace; and that Christ, though in a certain sense having died for all, yet efficaciter has died only for those to whom his death actually benefits. But the synod of Arles 475 compelled Lucidus to retract his doctrine that Christ had died only for those who actually are saved. And the synod of Orange

529 said only that omnes baptizati can fulfill what is necessary for salvation, cf. Petavius, de incarn. XIII c. 5-7. Schwane, D. G. II2 571-582.

In the 9th century the question came up again; Gottschalk taught that Christ baptismi sacramento (reprobos) luit, non tamen pro eis crucem subiit neque mortem tulit neque sanguinem fudit. Lupus said that Christ did not die for all human beings, but indeed for all believers, also for those who later lose the faith again. Remigius made a similar distinction. And the synod of Valence 855 spoke in the same spirit; it rejected that Christ had poured out his blood etiam pro illis impiis, qui a mundi exordio usque ad passionem

Domini in sua impietate mortui aeterna damnatione puniti sunt, and confessed that that price was paid only for those, de quibus ipse Dominus noster dicit: sicut Moyses exaltavit serpentem in deserto, ita exaltari oportet

Filium hominis, ut omnis qui credit in ipso non pereat sed habeat vitam aeternam, can. 4. Scholasticism too in the main remained faithful to Augustine; 1 Tim. [393] 2:4 must not be understood as if God indeed willed what does not happen, as if he willed that those also be saved who in fact are not, but this text means, nullum hominum fieri salvum nisi quem salvum fieri ipse voluerit, or that all kinds of people from all peoples and estates will be saved, or also, more in the sense of Damascenus, that God wills the salvation of all, namely voluntate antecedente, conditional, i.e. if they themselves will and come to him, but then this will was magis velleitas quam absoluta voluntas, Lombardus, Sent. I dist. 46, 2 and also on 1 Tim.

2:4. Bonaventura, ib. art. 1 qu. 1. Thomas, S. Theol. I qu. 19 art. 7 qu. 23 art. 4 ad 3. And as regards the satisfaction, scholasticism did indeed teach that it was superabundans and occurred pro peccato humani generis, totius humanae naturae etc., Thomas, S. Th. III qu. 46 art 1, but it argued the possibility of the satisfaction especially with this, that Christ was the head and the believers the members of his body, and therefore connected the satisfaction time and again only with the believers; thus Thomas says, caput

et menbra sunt quasi una persona mystica et ideo satisfactio Christi ad ommes fideles pertinet sicut ad membra, III qu. 48 art. 2; quia ipse est caput nostrum, per passionem suam liberavit nos tanquam membra sua a peccatis, quasi per pretium suae passionis, sicut si homo per aliquod opus meritorium quod manu exerceret, redimeret se a peccato quod pedibus commisisset, III qu. 49 art. 1. And in III qu. 79 art. 7. he says: passio Christi prodest quidem omnibus quantum ad sufficientiam, sed effectum non habet nisi in illis qui

Christi conjunguntur per fidem et charitatem. That this efficacitas does not depend on man's free will, but on God's election and Christ's offering itself, appears in general from Thomas' doctrine of gratia and in particular also from this, that he says in III qu. 48 art. 6: passio Christi efficienter causat salutem humanam; cf. also Lombardus: Christus electos tantum sicut se dilexit eorumque salutem optavit, Sent. III dist. 31, 4. Christus se trinitati obtulit pro omnibus, quantum ad pretii sufficientiam, sed pro electis tantum quantum ad efficaciam, quia praedestinatis tantum salutem effecit, ib. III dist. 20, 3. Later this same view was still defended in the Roman church by Bajus, Jansenius, Quesnel. and even also by Tapper, Estius, Sonnius and others, cf. Rivetus, Op. III 438. M. Vitringa VI 155-159. But [394] semipelagianism penetrated ever more deeply into Rome's church, and thereby it became especially after Trent the almost general doctrine that God voluntate antecedente wills the salvation of all, that Christ has made satisfaction for all, and that the voluntas consequens takes account of the good or bad use that human beings make of their freedom and of grace, part

II 325, and further Trid. VI c. 2 and 3. Cat. Rom. I 3, 7. Innoc. X in damn. 5 propos. Jans. Bellarminus, de sacrif. missae I 25. de poenit. I 2. de amiss. gr. IV 4. Becanus, Manuale Controv. III 1 qu. 1. Petavius, de incarn. XIII c.

14. Theol. Wirceb. IV 322. Scheeben, Dogm. III 356. Jansen, Prael. theol. II

748 etc. And with this in the essence of the matter are in agreement the Greek church, Damascemus, de fide orthod. II c. 29. Conf. orthod. qu. 34.

47; the Lutherans, Symb. ed. Müller p. 781. Gerhard, Loc. VII c. 6.

Quenstedt, III 311-324. Hollaz, Ex. 745. Buddeus, Inst. theol. 824; the Remonstrants, Conf. en Apol. conf. VIII 10. Arminius, Op. 153. Episcopius on 1 Joh. 2:2. Limborch, Theol. Christ. IV c. 3-5; and further the Mennonites, Quakers, Herrnhutters, Methodists etc.

The Reformed therefore stand almost alone with their doctrine of particular satisfaction. And in addition to that, it then also comes about that among themselves they were absolutely not unanimous and gradually diverged ever further from one another. Various confessions speak moderately and generally, e.g. the conf. Anhalt., in Niemeyer p. 635. 639,

March., ib. 650. 651, Lips., ib. 662, Thorun., ib. p. 674; the Anglicana is silent about it; the Cat. Heid. also does not express it directly, although qu.

37 has wrongly been cited as a proof for the general satisfaction, cf. M.

Vitringa VI 136; the French, Dutch, Scottish confession teach it only per consequentiam. In the canons of Dordrecht it is clearly taught, but at the same time it is said that the offering of Christ was infiniti valoris et pretii, abunde sufficiens ad totius mundi peccata expianda, II 3, and furthermore it also occurs in the Westm. conf. VIII 1. 5. 8. Cat. major et minor Cons. Helv.

13. Walch. art. 1693. Also among the theologians there was no unanimity.

Some thought that it was indeed good to say that Christ's offering would have been sufficient for all men, if God had wanted to make it efficax for all; but one could nevertheless actually not [395] say that it was sufficient for all; for if Christ had not died efficaciter for all, then He had also not done so sufficienter; and if one nevertheless began to speak in that way, one gave occasion for misunderstanding and prepared the dangerous distinction

of voluntas antecedens and consequens, of gratia sufficiens and efficax, Beza, Piscator, Twissus, Voetius, Disp. II 251 sq. Others, however, spoke with Augustine and the scholastics in such a way that Christ had died sufficienter for all, efficaciter only for the elect, Calvin on 1 Joh. 2:2. H.

Alting, Probl. theol. 174. Turretinus, Theol. El. XIV qu. 14. Mastricht, V 18, 21. 39. Moor III 1035-1075 etc. At the Synod of Dordrecht the foreign delegates spoke about the dignitas and sufficientia of Christ's offering as broadly as possible; the English divines even said that Christ in a certain sense had died for all; sic Christus pro omnibus mortuus est, ut omnes et singuli, mediante fide, possint virtute ἀντιλυτρου hujus remissionem peccatorum et vitam aeternam consequi, thesis 3. In England, over against the strictly Reformed school of Twissus, Rutherford et al., there was a more moderate direction, represented by Davenant, Calamy, Reynolds,

Arrowsmith, Seaman etc., and especially by Richard Baxter. Their view corresponded in substance entirely with that of the French theologians,

Camero, Testardus, Amyraldus etc.; there was a preceding decree, according to which Christ had made satisfaction for all conditionally, under the condition of faith, and another subsequent particular decree, according to which He had made satisfaction for the elect in such a way that He in due time also grants them faith and infallibly leads them to salvation, part II 341. In the Scottish church the doctrine of particular satisfaction in connection with the general offer of grace repeatedly came up; it was even also one of the causes for the separation of the Erskines in 1733. In order to avoid the neonomian direction, which made faith into a legal condition and therefore let the gospel be intended only for certain, qualified persons, the so-called Marrowmen (James Hog, Thomas Boston, Ralph and Ebenezer

Erskine, Alexander Moncrieff etc., cf. part I 128) taught that Christ's

offering possessed a legal, federal sufficiency for all men and grounded upon that the general offer of grace. Some went still further, [396] made a distinction between a general and special grace, an external and internal covenant (Thomas Mair 1754), or taught a general satisfaction (James

Fraser, †1698, but his treatise on justifying faith was first published in two parts 1722 and 1749), or even denied satisfaction entirely (Dr. M. Gill,

Practical essay on the death of Christ, 1786). In this century the particular satisfaction in Scotland again became the subject of a prolonged struggle. In 1820 the United Associate Synod of the Secession Church issued a declaration, by which it did indeed condemn the general satisfaction, but nevertheless taught that Christ's offering was sufficient for all and had brought all into a salvable state. Both on the right and on the left this declaration met with objection; some denied that all had a right to Christ, and contested the general satisfaction in every sense, Palaemon in his

Letters upon Theron and Aspasio, Symington, Haldane, and especially Dr.

Marshall; others decidedly taught the general satisfaction, William Pringle, John Mc Leod Campbell, James Morison, Robert Morison, A. C.

Rutherford, John Guthrie; the two professors Balmer † 1844 and Brown were even accused by Marshall, but nevertheless were acquitted by the synod in 1845, cf. Andrew Robertson, History of the atonement controversy in connexion with the Secession Church from its origin to the present time,

Edinb. 1846. Likewise in other countries the doctrine of the special satisfaction was weakened in the spirit of Grotius or of Amyraldus or also decidedly rejected, in England by Daniel Whitby, against whom Jonathan

Edwards came forward; in America by the Edwardean or New-England theologians, Emmons, Taylor, Park, Fiske etc.; in Germany by P.

Volckmann et al.; in this country especially by Venema, cf. Ypey, Gesch. der

chr. kerk in de 18e eeuw VII 133v. At present the doctrine of the special satisfaction has almost generally been abandoned, also by Van Oosterzee, §

111, 6. Leer der Zal. n. 66. Heid. Cat, p. 176. Ebrard, Dogm. § 430. On the other hand it is still defended by Ch. Hodge, Syst. Theol. II 544-562. A. A.

Hodge, The atonement p. 347-429. Shedd, Dogm. Theol. II 464-480. W.

Cunningham, Historical Theology, 2 ed. Edinb. Clark 1864 II 323-370.

Robert S. Candlish, The atonement, its reality, completeness and extent, London 1861. Hugh Martin, The atonement, Edinb. Hunter z. j. Kuyper,

That the [397] grace is particular. And in recent times it again found support with Ritschl, according to whom the correlate of Christ's offering is not the individual man nor also all men but specifically the congregation; it alone is in possession of justification and full of forgiveness of sins, it is in Scripture always presented as the object of the operations which proceed from Christ,

Rechtf. u. Vers. I2 47-67. 205 f. 305 f. II2 216 f. III2 103 f.

20. In this important dispute over the value of Christ's sacrifice there is complete agreement, on the one hand, on this, that not all but only some human beings actually become partakers of the benefits of Christ, and on the other hand on this, that the sacrifice of Christ in itself would be perfectly sufficient, to cause not only some but all human beings to share in the forgiveness of sins and eternal life. The universalists are therefore in practice all devoted to the particularity of grace; and the particularists all without exception confess the universality of the sacrifice of Christ, as regards its intrinsic value. Even those who have objections to the words, that Christ has died sufficienter for all and efficaciter for the elect, nevertheless readily acknowledge that the materia meriti of Christ is perfectly sufficient for the reconciliation of the sins of all human beings, and what they want is only this, that the forma meriti, i.e. the merit of

Christ, considered not in itself but in ordine ad reprobos, can be called not only not efficax but also not sufficiens, Voetius, Disp. II 254. The difference therefore concerns only the question, whether it was the will and the intention of God that Christ brought his sacrifice for the sins of all human beings without exception, or only for the sins of those who have been given to him by the Father. So stated, the question seems hardly susceptible of a twofold answer. For in the first place, Scripture throughout connects the sacrifice of Christ only with the church, whether this is indicated by many,

Jes. 53:11, 12, Mt. 20:28, 26:28, Rom. 5:15, 19, Hebr. 2:10, 9:28, by his people, Mt. 1:21, Tit. 2:14, Hebr. 2:17, 7:27, 13:12, by his sheep, Joh.

10:11, 15, 25v., Hebr. 13:20, by his brethren, Hebr. 2:11, by children of God, Joh. 11:52, Hebr. 2:31-45; [398] by those given to him by the Father,

Joh. 6:37, 39, 44, 17:2, 9, 24, by his church, Hd. 20:28, Ef. 5:25, by his body, Ef. 5:23, or also by us as believers, Rom. 5:9, 8:32, 1 Cor. 5:7, Ef.

1:7, 2:18, 3:12, Col. 1:14, Tit. 2:14, Hebr. 4:14-16, 7:26, 8:1, 9:14, 10:15, 1 Joh. 4:10, 1 Petr. 3:18, 2 Petr. 1:3, Op. 1:5, 6, 5:9, 10 etc. Ritschl has rightly again drawn attention to this; for, even if it is also the case that he came to this through entirely different considerations, the fact itself nevertheless stands firm: in Scripture it is not all human beings head for head, but the church is das Correlat aller an den Opfertod Christi geknüpften Wirkungen,

Rechtf. u. Vers. II2 216. The considerations in Ritschl, however, are different from those in the Reformed; the latter said: not all but the church of the elect. Ritschl says: not the individual but the church and thus attempts to remove the unio mystica, the communion of believers individually with Christ, from Scripture. But in the matter itself there is nevertheless agreement. Over against this clear, continuous teaching of Scripture, the few texts on which the universalists appeal have little weight.

The expression all in Jes. 53:6, Rom. 5:18, 1 Cor. 15:22, 2 Cor. 5:15, Hebr.

2:9, cf. 10 proves nothing, or it proves much more than the universalists assert and would come to the benefit of the doctrine of Origen concerning the restoration of all things. The universalists are therefore themselves compelled to restrict the word all in these places. Of more weight are texts such as Ezech. 18:23, 33:11, Joh. 1:29, 3:16, 4:42, 13:22, 1 Tim. 2:4, 6, Tit.

2:11, Hebr. 2:9, 2 Petr. 3:9, 1 Joh. 2:2, 4:14, where the will of God or the sacrifice of Christ is brought into connection with the salvation of all or of the world. But none of these texts is in conflict with the above-mentioned statements, which restrict Christ's benefits to the church. For the N. Test. is an entirely different dispensation than the O. Covenant; the gospel is not limited to one people but must be preached to all creatures, Mt. 28:19; there is no respect of persons with God, there is no longer any distinction of Gentile and Jew, Hd. 10:34, 35, Rom. 3:29, 10:11-13. Yes even, when in Jes. 53:11, 12, Mt. 20:28, 26:28, Rom. 5:15, 19, Hebr. 2:10, 9:28 there is mention of many, for whom Christ has died, then underlying that is not the contrast [399] which has later often been smuggled in, that not all but only many will be saved. But the thought from which this speaking of many arises is an entirely different one, namely: Christ has not died for a few, but for many, for very many. He gives his life for many, he pours out his blood for many, he will make many righteous; it is not few, but many, who by the obedience of one are constituted righteous. Scripture is not afraid that too many will be saved. And therefore, from that same consideration, it says that God has no pleasure in the death of the ungodly, that he wills that all come to repentance and be saved, that Christ is a reconciliation and has given his life for the world and that the gospel must be preached to all creatures. If the universalists infer from this that the satisfaction is wholly

general, then they come into conflict both with Scripture and with reality; for these both teach, as it were in competition, that not all but only many become acquainted with the gospel and come to true repentance. In all those places there is therefore mention, not of the voluntas beneplaciti which is unknown to us and cannot or may not be a rule of our conduct; nor also of a voluntas antecedens, which precedes our decision of will and then directs itself according to it; but of the voluntas signi, which tells us how we are to conduct ourselves in the N. Covenant. It gives us the right and imposes on us the duty to bring the gospel to all human beings without exception. We have no need of any other ground than this clearly revealed will of God for the general offer of grace. For whom Christ has specifically died, we have no more need to know beforehand than who are chosen by God unto eternal life. The calling does indeed rest on a particular basis, for it belongs to and proceeds from the covenant, yet it is directed, in accordance with God's revealed will and with the in itself all-sufficient value of Christ's sacrifice, also to those who are outside the covenant, in order that they too may be incorporated into that covenant and in their faith itself receive the proof of their election, cf. deel II 216-222. In the second place Scripture maintains that the sacrifice and the intercession of Christ, and thus also the acquisition and the application of salvation, hang together inseparably. The sacrifice is the ground of Christ's [400] intercession; the latter therefore extends as far as the former. Limborch, Theol. Chr. III 19. 11 accordingly also acknowledges, intercessionem non esse actum reipsa ab oblatione, quatenus in coelo peragitur, distinctum. If the intercession is therefore particular, as it is, Joh. 17:9, 24, Rom. 8:34, Hebr. 7:25, 1 Joh. 2:1, 2, then the sacrifice is also. Limborch IV 4, 7 does indeed appeal against this to Luk. 23:34, but here Jesus prays not for the salvation of his enemies but only for the non-

imputation of that dreadful crime, of which in their ignorance they made themselves guilty, when they crucified the Messiah. And likewise there is an indissoluble connection between the acquisition and the application of salvation. All benefits of the covenant of grace hang together, Rom. 8:2834, and find their ground in the death of Christ, Rom. 5:8-11. The reconciliation in Christ brings preservation and salvation with it. For Christ is the head and the believers are his body, which receives its growth from him, Ef. 4:16, Col. 2:19; he is the cornerstone and they are the building, Ef.

2:20, 21. He is the firstborn and they are his brethren, Rom. 8:29. The believers are therefore also objectively with and in him dead, crucified, buried, raised, set in heaven. That is: the church is not an accidental arbitrary aggregate of individuals, which can just as well be smaller as larger, but it forms with Christ an organic whole, which is enclosed in him as second Adam, just as the whole of humanity proceeds from the first

Adam, cf. Rothe, Theol. Ethik I S. 501. The application must therefore extend as far as the acquisition of salvation; it is included in this and is its necessary effect. Moreover, that also lies in the nature of the case. If Jesus is truly Saviour, then he must also truly save his people, not in possibility but in reality. The universalists, however, are compelled to conceive salvation itself in a wholly different way and to do injustice to the name of Jesus. In logic the rule holds: quo major extensio, minor comprehensio. And this rule is also applicable on many another terrain, it is also applicable here. Under the appearance of honouring the work of Christ, it is weakened and limited by the doctrine of general satisfaction. For if Christ has satisfied for all, the acquisition does not necessarily include the application of salvation. The latter is then something that perhaps accidentally [401] is added, but that is not of itself given along with it and does not naturally flow from it. The

application of salvation is then not and cannot be the work of Christ, but in the end always depends on the will of man. This must supplement the work of Christ, apply it, cause it to pass over into reality. That is, for Christ there remains only the acquisition, not of the reality but only of the possibility of salvation, not of the actual reconciliatio but of the potential reconciliabilitas. Christ acquired for God only the possibility to enter into a covenant of grace with us, to grant us the forgiveness of sins and eternal life, if we, namely, believe. The principal part of the work of salvation, that which truly makes us saved, remains for us still to do. Christ did not make the covenant of grace itself firm in his blood, he did not make it that the sins of his people are forgiven, but he only declared that from God's side there is no objection to entering into a covenant with us and forgiving us sins, if we and after we on our side believe. For us Christ has therefore actually acquired nothing, but only for God the possibility to forgive us, if we fulfil the commands of the gospel. The universalists therefore all come to diminish the value and power of Christ's work. What they, and then only seemingly, gain in quantity, they lose in quality. Rome teaches that the sins committed before baptism, i.e. as a rule original sin, are forgiven in baptism. But after baptism the concupiscentia remains, which indeed is itself no sin but becomes an occasion for sinning. The sins then committed are indeed forgiven in the sacrament of penance, as regards guilt and eternal punishment; but the temporal punishment must be borne by the human being himself here or in purgatory, Trid. VI 30. XIV c. 8. 9. can. 12-14 etc.

The Remonstrants said that God in the death of Christ has reconciled all sinners with himself in such a way, ut per et propter hoc ipsum λυτρον ac sacrificium in gratiam cum iis redire et ostium salutis aeternae viamque immortalitatis pandere ipsis voluerit, Conf. VIII 9. The Quakers let Christ's

work consist in this, that he has offered reconciliation to us and has made God inclined to forgiveness, Barclay, Verantwoording 1757 bl. 153. And to the same conclusion must [402] all come who teach a general satisfaction.

The centre of gravity is shifted out of Christ into the Christian; faith is the true reconciliation with God, cf. Kübel, Unterschied 135 f. The Reformed, however, were of a different mind. The satisfactio vicaria is no fertige

Grösse, but in principle includes the whole re-creation in itself. The work of Christ is only then finished, when he delivers the kingdom to the Father. He did not open the possibility of becoming saved, but always saves through, on the ground of his sacrifice accomplished on the cross. Saviour is he who not only died for our sins but therefore also was raised and ascended into heaven and now as the exalted Saviour prays for his church. He sanctified himself, in order that his own also may be sanctified in truth, Joh. 17:19, he gave himself over for the church, in order that he might sanctify it and present it to himself glorious, Ef. 5:25-27. Both are out of one, namely God,

Hebr. 2:11, and are as it were one Christ, 1 Cor. 12:12. In and with Christ God grants to believers everything that they need, Rom. 8:32v., Ef. 1:3, 4, 2

Petr. 1:3; election in Christ brings with it all blessings in Christ, adoption as children, redemption through his blood, Ef. 1:3v., the gift of the H. Spirit, 1

Cor. 12:3, faith, Phil. 1:29, conversion, Hd. 5:31, 11:18, 2 Tim. 2:25, a new heart and a new spirit, Jer. 31:33, 34, Ezech. 36:25-27, Hebr. 8:8-12, 10:16.

Cf. Can. Dordr. II 8v. Prof. Leidenses in Censura Conf. Rem. VIII 9.

Trigland, Antapologia c. 16. Mastricht, V 18, 42. Voetius, Disp. II 9. 269 V 270. Witsius, Oec. foed. II 7. Misc. Sacra II 781. Vitringa VI 126. Moor III 1086 sq. Schneckenburger, Vergl. Darst. II 26. In the third place it is still to be added to this, that universalism leads to all kinds of false propositions. It brings separation between the three persons of the Divine being, for the

Father wills the salvation of all, the Son satisfies for all, but the H. Spirit restricts the gift of faith and of salvation to few. It brings conflict between the intention of God, who wishes the preservation of all, and the will or the power of God, who in fact does not will or cannot make salvation partaken of by all. It lets the person and the work of Christ precede election and the covenant, so that Christ comes to stand wholly outside it and cannot satisfy vicariously, because there is no communion between him and us. It does injustice to the righteousness of God, which lets forgiveness and life be acquired for all and yet does not distribute them. It sets up free will, which has the power to believe, can make the work of Christ undone or not, and has the decision, indeed the whole result of world history, in its hands. It leads to the doctrine, as the Quakers rightly observed, Barclay, Verantw. van de Ware Christ. Godg. bl. 92, that if Christ has died for all, then all here or hereafter must be placed in the opportunity to accept or reject him; for it would be wholly unjust to condemn and punish those whose sins are all reconciled, only because they were outside the opportunity to accept Christ by faith. And it comes to the proposition, in clear contradiction with the whole of Holy Scripture, that the only sin for which someone can be lost and punished is unbelief; all other sins are after all reconciled; even those of the man of sin, the antichrist, included.

21. Although, therefore, the satisfactio vicaria as acquisition of perfect salvation cannot be extended to all men head for head, it is not thereby asserted that it has not the least significance for those who perish. There is here between the church and the world not merely separation and antithesis.

It is not so, that Christ has acquired everything for the former, nothing for the latter. In rejecting universalism it must not be forgotten that the merit of Christ also has its limits with respect to the former and its value and

significance with respect to the latter. In the first place, it must indeed be borne in mind that Christ as such is indeed the Re-Creator but not the Creator of all things. Just as the Son follows upon the Father, so creation is presupposed by re-creation, nature by grace, birth by rebirth. Under the merits of Christ, therefore, it is not included in the strict sense that the elect are born and live, that they receive food, covering, clothing and all kinds of natural benefits. It can indeed be said that God would no longer have let world and humanity continue to exist after the fall, if He had not had another higher purpose with it. There is indeed the gratia [404] communis for the gratia specialis; and God also grants to the elect with salvation in Christ also many other natural blessings, Mt. 6:33, Rom. 8:28, 32, 1 Tim.

4:8, 2 Petr. 1:3. But nevertheless it is wrong, with Herrnhuters and Pietists, to erase the boundaries between nature and grace, creation and redemption, and to set Christ in the Father's place upon the throne of the universe. Even election and the covenant of grace, which both presuppose the objects and participants, have not been acquired by Christ but precede his merits. The Father prepares with his creation the work of re-creation and leads toward it; the Son, with his labor, goes deep, as far as sin reaches, back into the work of creation. But nevertheless both works are distinct and not to be mixed, Voetius, Disp. II 271-273. In the second place, Christ has not acquired the same for each of his own. There is distinction among believers, before they come to faith, in sex, age, station, rank, character, gift, etc., distinction also in measure and degree of wickedness and corruption. And when they come to faith, there is distinction in the grace that is bestowed upon them; to each one grace is given according to the measure of the gift of Christ, Rom. 12:3, 1 Cor. 12:11, Ef. 3:7, 4:7. The natural distinction among men is indeed purified by grace but not erased; it is even increased

by distinction of spiritual gifts, for the body of Christ consists of many members, in order that it may be one organism, a creation and a work of art of God. Third, the church is not of, but nevertheless in the world; it lives and moves in the midst of that world and is connected with it in all kinds of ways. Believers are brought in from the human race, and conversely there is much chaff among the wheat, there are branches on the vine that bear no fruit and are cut out. If Christ therefore took the place of his own, he had to assume the flesh and blood in which all men share. By his incarnation he has honored the whole human race; according to the flesh he is brother of all men. And even his work has value for all, also for those who never believe in him. For although it is the case that Christ has not, in the proper sense, acquired natural life by his suffering and [405] death, the human race is nevertheless spared because Christ would come to save it. Christ is not the head of all men, not the prophet, priest, and king of all, for he is head of the church and as king he is anointed over Zion. But all men do indeed have much to thank Christ for. The light shines in the darkness and enlightens every man coming into the world; the world was made through him and remains so, although it has not known him; also as Christ he grants to unbelievers many benefits, calling through the gospel, admonition to repentance, historical faith, an honorable life, all kinds of gifts and powers, offices and ministries in the midst of the church, such as e.g. even the apostolic office to a Judas. Sans Jésus-Christ le monde ne subsisterait pas, car il faudrait, ou qu'il fut détruit ou qu'il fut comme un enfer (Pascal).

Even when he hangs on the cross, he still prays for forgiveness for that dreadful sin of which the Jews at that moment make themselves guilty. Cf.

Voetius, Disp. II 275. 276. Fourth, the work extends to the irrational creatures. One cannot, with Origen, say that he suffered something for them

and merited something for them. But when Christ was made sin and bore the sin of the world, then he also nullified sin with all its consequences. The liberation of the creature from the bondage of corruption, the glorification of creation, the renewal of heaven and earth is a fruit of the cross of Christ,

Rom. 8:19v. Voetius, Disp. II 264. 265. Fifth, the angels in heaven also have use and benefit from the work of Christ. There is no sufficient ground for the assertion that Christ acquired for them perseverance and glory, although many have thus taught with appeal to Job 4:18, 15:15, Ef. 1:10, Col. 1:20, 1

Tim. 5:21, Hebr. 12:22, 23, Augustinus, de cons. evang. 35. Cyvillus, de ador. 9. Gregorius, Bernardus, Diez, Valentia, Suarez and also Calvin on Ef.

1:10 and Col. 1:20. Polanus, Synt. Theol. VI 27. Zanchius, Op. III 159-164.

Bucanus, Inst. theol. VI qu. 30. Davenantius on Col. 1:20. Walaeus, Synopsis pur. theol. XII 33 and Loci Comm. Op. I 195 etc. For angels do not need Christ for themselves as Reconciler or Savior; they are essentially distinct from men, who alone are made after God's image. [406] If Christ had to acquire gratia and gloria for them, this would lead to the thought that the Son of God nevertheless would have had to assume human nature, or, better still, the nature of the angels, even if man had not fallen, cf. part II 444, and further Lombardus, Thomas, Bonaventura, Scotus on Sent. II dist.

5. III dist. 13. Thomas, S. Th. I qu. 62 III qu. 8 art. 4. Petavius, de incarn.

XII 10. Becanus, Theol. schol. I p. 305. Quenstedt, Theol. I 476. Gerhard, Loc. XXXI § 42. Gomarus on Col. 1:20. Voetius, Disp. II 263. Alting,

Theol. probl. nova XII 24. Turretinus, Theol. El. XIV qu. 3. Moor II 353.

Vitringa III 26 VI 178. Yet simple denial that Christ has merited anything for the angels does not do justice to Ef. 1:10 and Col. 1:20. For it is stated clearly that God all things, τα παντα, i.e. not men or angels only but in general all that is created, the whole creation, the world, the universe,

further described by εἰτε τα ἐπι της γης εἰτε τα ἐν τοις οὐρανοις, that God has reconciled that whole creation through Christ, not mutually but to himself, εἰς αὐτον, and in him again brings together and into unity for himself. The doctrine of the restoration of all things finds no support in these texts; it is rejected by the whole of Scripture and has found in the Christian church only now and then a defense. If this is thus excluded, then these two texts can be understood in no other way than that, according to Paul's conception, the devils and the ungodly will one day be consigned to hell and that then in the new heaven and the new earth with its inhabitants the whole creation will be restored. This creation now, thought of in an organic sense, had as a whole been set in enmity against God by sin and shattered and destroyed among itself. It does not lie herein that the good angels personally and individually needed reconciliation, nor also that Christ had to suffer and die for the irrational creatures. But there does lie at its foundation the presupposition that sin has altered and disturbed the relation of all creatures both to God and to one another. And that is indeed also so. Sin has made the world of men an object of God's wrath and has divided and destroyed it within itself. The relation of the angels to God has been altered, not only insofar as many have become apostate, but also [407] because the good angels formed only a part of the whole of the spirits that had served God. Augustinus, Enchir. 61. 62 and others were of the opinion that this breach struck in the angelic world was healed by the elect from humanity and that therein the significance of Christ's reconciliation for humanity consisted. This opinion is not acceptable; men are specifically different from the angels and an equation of the number of the elect men with that of the fallen angels lacks all ground in Scripture. But nevertheless it is true that the fall of so many angels must have disturbed the whole

organism of the angelic world; just as an army is wholly thrown into disorder, and made unfit for battle, if many officers and soldiers go over from the ranks to the enemy. So also the angelic world as God's army for his service has been shattered. It has lost its head, its organization. And this it now receives back in the Son, and indeed in the Son not only according to his divine nature but also according to his human nature. For not only the relation to God, also that to the world of men was disturbed by sin. And now it is Christ, who as Lord of the angels and as Head of the church places angels and men both in the right relation to God and likewise to one another. By his cross he restores the organism of creation, in heaven and on earth, and these two also again together. The inanimate and irrational in creation, i.e. heaven and earth themselves, are not thereby excluded. That cannot be, for the relation of the angels to heaven and that of men to earth is not mechanical but organic. Heaven and earth themselves have, with the fall of the angels and of men, sunk below their original state; the whole creation, πασα ἡ κτισις, groans together and is together in labor pains. Die gesammte Creatur führt gleichsam eine grosze Seufzersymphonie aus

(Philippi); all members of that creation groan and have pain, in common, in connection with one another, Rom. 8:22. Just as also in the old covenant the tabernacle and all implements for the service were sprinkled with blood, Ex.

24:3-8, Hebr. 9:21, so also Christ by his cross has reconciled all things and acquired a new heaven and a new earth. The whole creation, as it will once stand perfect, without [408] spot and wrinkle, before God's face, is the work of Christ, the Lord of lords and the King of kings, Hebr. 12:22-28.

22. If this now is the great work, entrusted by the Father to Christ, namely, to be Savior in the full sense and to bring the entire re-creation to realization, then it at once becomes evident that the state of exaltation is for

that just as necessary as the state of humiliation. They must indeed have a poor conception of Christ's person and work, who think they can relinquish the resurrection, the ascension, and the session at the right hand of God without harm to faith and life, and have enough with the historical image of Jesus, which in the same way as that of other great men lives on in history and exerts influence. Conversely, it is understandable that whoever sees in Jesus no more than a particularly pious man and in his work nothing other than a religious-ethical reformation, deems the entire state of exaltation worthless for the Christian life and denies and combats the facts of the resurrection and of the ascension. Scripture, however, proceeds from an altogether different thought. It is the crucified but also the risen and exalted

Christ whom the apostles proclaim. From that standpoint of exaltation they view and describe his earthly life, his suffering and dying. In the work that he now carries out as the exalted mediator, he has laid the foundations in his cross. The cross has been his only weapon in the struggle against sin, world,

Satan. Through the cross he has triumphed in the sphere of justice over every power hostile to God. But for that very reason he has in the state of exaltation also received the divine right, the divine appointment, the royal power and authority, to carry out the work of re-creation in full, to overcome all his enemies, to save all those given to him, and to complete the entire kingdom of God. On the basis of the one, perfect offering, accomplished on the cross, he, in accordance with the will of the Father, distributes all his benefits. Those benefits are no physical or magical aftereffect of his earthly life and dying; the history of the kingdom of God is no evolutionistic process. It is the living Christ, exalted at the right hand of God, who with consciousness, [409] with freedom, distributes all these benefits, gathers his elect, conquers his enemies, and guides world history

toward the day of his parousia. He is still active in heaven as mediator; he was not only but is still our highest prophet, our only high priest, and our eternal king. Yesterday and today he is the same unto eternity. In the state of humiliation he by his life and dying fulfilled the condition, in order now in the state of exaltation, on the basis of his perfect offering, to set God's creation free from the bondage of sin and of corruption, and to gather all things together under himself as the head. The re-creation is the continuing act of the mediator. Christ is the one exalted at God's right hand, but yet always on earth, in his church, in office, word, sacrament, in forgiveness, regeneration, faith, etc., present and active Lord from heaven. In this light the state of exaltation receives a significance, indeed often misunderstood but yet of the highest importance for doctrine and life; resurrection and ascension are for the work of re-creation just as necessary as incarnation and death on the cross. In Scripture these facts are therefore not only mentioned but repeatedly placed in the foreground and explained in their rich significance. The resurrection of Christ, according to the whole N. T., took place on the third day; in Mt. 12:40, Mk. 8:31 etc., for the sake of the comparison with Jonah the parts of the days and nights are counted as whole, M. Vitringa V 597, or are intended only as a general description of a very short time, Kähler, Zur Lehre v. d. Versöhnung 207 f. It consisted in the rising again of that same body that had been taken down from the cross and buried in the garden of Joseph of Arimathea; it was indeed changed and glorified, so that it became no σωμα ψυχικον but a σωμα πνευματικον, Luk.

24:16, 36, Joh. 12:14, 19, 1 Cor. 15:44v., Phil. 3:21, but it nevertheless remained a human σωμα, Mt. 28:5, 9, Luk. 24:39, 40, 43, Joh. 20:27, 21:25,

Hd. 1:11, 1 Cor. 15:37v., Op. 1:7. The various attempts to explain this resurrection in another way (Reimarus), as apparent death (Rationalists,

Schleiermacher, Hase, Herder, Gfrörer), vision, whether then entirely subjective (Strauss, Lang, Holsten, Hausrath, Renan), or as objective, effected by God (Keim, Schweizer, Schenkel) have to the present day proved vain, Steude, [410] Stud. u. Krit. 1887 S. 203-294. Nösgen, Neut.

Offenbarung I 637 f. Loofs, Die Auferstehungsberichte und ihr Wert, Christl. Welt 33, Leipzig Mohr 1898. After the resurrection Christ remained for some time longer on earth, both in order by various appearances to convince his disciples of the truth of his resurrection, and also to prepare them for their office and to furnish them the proof that he, although he would no longer open the former intercourse with them, because after the resurrection he no longer belonged to the earth but to heaven, Joh. 20:17, would nevertheless remain unchangeably the same in love toward them,

13:1, and would be with them eternally until the consummation of the world, Mt. 28:20. The appearances took place the first eight days at Jerusalem, Joh. 20:26, where the disciples still had to remain for the Passover feast, and ended with this, that Jesus gave his disciples the H.

Spirit and granted the apostolic authority, Joh. 20:22, 23. Later followed his appearances in Galilee, whither the disciples returned and where most followers of Jesus lived, Joh. 21, Mt. 28:16, 1 Cor. 15:6. Matthew and John conclude their gospel with these appearances of Jesus in Galilee and do not mention the ascension. According to Luk. 24:49, Hd. 1:4 the disciples had to remain in Jerusalem until they were clothed with power from on high;

Luk. 24 speaks of no appearances in Galilee, Hd. 1:3 presupposes them.

Certainly Jesus at one of the appearances in Galilee also again commanded his disciples to go to Jerusalem and there to await the promise of the Father.

When he then in Jerusalem again appears to them for the last time, he says that they must remain in Jerusalem until that promise is fulfilled. Then he

leads them out as far as Bethany, Luk. 24:50, to the Mount of Olives, Hd.

1:12. And there he parted from them, διεστη, and was taken up from them into heaven, ἀνεφερετο εἰς τον οὐρανον, wrongly omitted by Tischendorf in Luk. 24:51, ἐπηρθη, Hd. 1:9, ἀνεληφθη, Hd. 1:2, 11, 22, 1 Tim. 3:16.

Though not mentioned by Joh. Mt. and Mk., whose gospel according to many ends with 16:8, the ascension nevertheless stands firm on the basis of many clear testimonies of Scripture. John presupposes it, 6:62, 14:2, 20:17,

Paul points to it, Rom. 10:6, Ef. 2:6, 4:9, 10, Col. 3:1 and mentions it in 1 Tim. 3:16. Peter makes mention of it, 1 Petr. 3:22, cf. [411] Hd. 2:33, 3:21,

7:56; the epistle to the Hebrews knows it, 6:20, 9:24. Furthermore, it lies at the foundation of the N. T. doctrine of Jesus' session at the right hand of God, Hd. 2:33, 5:31, 7:56, Rom. 8:34, Ef. 1:20, Col. 3:1, Hebr. 1:3, 8:1,

12:2, 1 Petr. 3:21, of his intercession in heaven, Rom. 8:34, Hebr. 7:25, 9:24-28, 1 Joh. 1:1, 2, of all the activities that he performs from heaven on earth, chiefly, in his congregation, and of the expectation of his return, Mt.

24:3 etc.

This exaltation has, in the first place, the greatest significance for Christ himself. Formerly, in dogmatics, the question was usually also discussed whether Christ, by his perfect obedience, had also merited something for himself. Anselm said that Christ had indeed merited a reward for his nonobligatory death but had transferred it to his own, Cur Deus homo II 19.

Most scholastics, Lombardus, Sent. III dist. 18. Thomas, S. Theol. III qu. 19 art. 3 qu. 48 art. 1 qu. 49 art. 6. Bonaventura, Brevil. IV c. 7; furthermore most Roman Catholics, Bellarminus, de Christo V c. 9. 10, Becanus, Theol. schol. III tr. 1 c. 14 qu. 5. Id., Manuale Controv. III 2 qu. 4; and very many

Reformed theologians, Zanchius, Op. VI 121, VIII 477, 502. Piscator on Phil. 2:9. Gomarus on Phil. 2, Op. I 530 sq., Cloppenburg, Op. I 305. 888,

Rivetus, Op. II 836. Voetius, Disp. II 265-267. Mastricht, Theol. V 14, 7.

Heidegger, Corp. Theol. XVIII 39. Moor III 600 e. a., gave an affirmative answer to the above-mentioned question, and then judged that the hearing of prayer, Joh. 11:42, Hebr. 5:7 and especially the whole state of exaltation, the resurrection, ascension, session at the right hand of God and return for judgment, had to be regarded as reward for his merits, Jes. 53:11, Luk.

24:26, Joh. 17:4, 5, Phil. 2:9, Hebr. 2:10, 12:2. Others, however, said that Christ merited nothing for himself but everything for us, Joh. 17:19, 1 Cor.

1:30, 1 Tim. 1:15 etc., and that therefore the exaltation was indeed a consequence but not a reward for his humiliation, Calvijn, Inst. II 17, 6.

Comm. on Phil. 2:9. Polanus, Syst. VI 26. Junius, Theses theol. 29, 11.

Chamier, Panstr. Cath. II 7, 8, Maresius, Syst. Theol. 45. Kantt. Stat. V. at Phil. 2:9 etc., and likewise the Lutheran theologians, Gerhard Loc. IV 329.

Quenstedt, Theol. III 324. Buddeus, Inst. p. 787. [412] Hollaz, Examen p.

748 etc. With Scripture in hand, however, the above question can be answered only affirmatively. For it repeatedly presents the state of humiliation as the way and the means for Christ to obtain the state of exaltation, Jes. 53:10-12, Mt. 23:12, Luk. 24:26, Joh. 10:17. The διο in Phil.

2:9 indicates not merely the ordo and consequentia but specifically the causa meritoria; because Christ humbled himself so deeply, vv. 5-8, therefore God also exalted him so exceedingly. The Epistle to the Hebrews in particular repeatedly lays strong emphasis on this meritorious connection between Christ's humiliation and exaltation, 1:3, 2:9, 10, 5:7-10, 10:12,

12:2; Christ himself has been sanctified through suffering, i.e. not dedicated to God or made morally perfect, but completed, brought to full growth and maturity, become τελειος, consisting in this, that he is now crowned with honor and glory, 2:9, and has become an ἀρχηγος, a cause of eternal

salvation, 2:10, 5:9. The reason why many had objections to speaking of a merit of Christ for himself lay in the opposition to the Socinians, who let

Christ attain the rank of divinity only in the state of exaltation. But even if this representation is also incorrect, Scripture clearly says that the exaltation has also been of great significance for Christ and stands in a meritorious connection with his state of humiliation. Reformed theology has precisely the advantage that it can do much better justice to this doctrine of Scripture than the Lutheran. For, on the Lutheran standpoint, there remains no place open for a merit of Christ for himself and even for a state of exaltation. The Logos, after all, in the first moment of the incarnation, by assuming the human nature, made it capable of the indwelling of the fullness of the Godhead and of the communication of the divine attributes. Even if the God-man, in a second moment, again laid aside these attributes, with respect to the use or at least to the public use, he nevertheless retained them, above p. 245. And the state of exaltation can therefore, among the Lutherans, be nothing other than a taking up again into use or into public use of the divine attributes laid aside in that sense. Christ therefore received in his exaltation nothing that he did not already have; non data est [413]

Christo in exaltatione nova potentia, virtus aut majestas, quam antea non habuit, sed collata ei tantum fuit plena facultas administrandi ejus regni, quod per ipsam unionem acceperat, Quenstedt III 368, cf. Gerhard Loc. IV § 306 sq. 329. Hollaz, Ex. 774. Buddeus, Inst. 788. Schneckenburger, Zur kirchl. Christol. 93-114. According to the Lutherans, this resumption of the use of the divine attributes took place in the moment of the reviviscentia or vivificatio, and this is thus actually the first step of the exaltation. Indeed, by Gerhard, Quenstedt e. a., the descensus ad inferos is called the first step; but because this descensus has taken place specifically according to the

human nature of Christ, according to soul and body both, the vivificatio must precede it; and Buddeus, Inst. p. 789 and others, cf. Vitringa V 573, therefore rightly give it the first place in the state of exaltation. Concerning this vivificatio the Lutherans further teach that it took place not only through Christ's divine but also through his human nature; this indeed did not have the power for that of itself, but it nevertheless possessed from the moment of the incarnation the divine attributes, specifically also the vis vivificans; and thus anima Christi, virtute divinitatis personaliter sibi communicata, corpus utpote proprium suum templum vivificavit, Quenstedt

III 435. Furthermore, Christ, according to his human nature, in that same moment of vivification again took into use all those divine attributes which it had received in the incarnation but in the exinanitio, at least as far as the use or the public use is concerned, had laid aside; i.e. it had at that same moment again the use of the omniscientia, omnipotentia, omnipraesentia and vis vivificans, Quenstedt III 154-198. From that it follows that the gradus exaltationis among the Lutherans actually cannot be different, successive steps in the exaltation. In the moment of vivification the human nature of Christ was immediately, through its union with the Logos, almighty, all-knowing, omnipresent. The descensus ad inferos, which is reckoned by the Lutherans to the exaltation, is a manifestation of Christ's majestas divina in hell; the resurrectio is only a resurrectionis manifestatio for men, Buddeus p. 789; both therefore also took place clauso sepulcro, just as the appearance of Jesus to the disciples, Joh. 20:19, took place occlusis foribus, Quenstedt III [414] 441; the ascension is indeed called a vera et realis loci mutatio, insofar as Christ visibly before the eyes of his disciples ascended, but is nevertheless only a visibilis and localis, by no means an invisibilis absentia corporis Christi in terris, for also according to

his human nature Christ is and remains omnipresent, even if in an invisible manner, Gerhard, Loc. IV § 219. XXVIII § 24. Quenstedt, III 380.

Buddeus, Inst. 796. Philippi, Kirchl. Gl. IV2 1 S. 185, cf. Vitringa V 601.

Moor IV 246; and the sessio ad dextram Dei finally consists in this, that Christ, specifically according to his human nature, shares in the divina, infinita ac immensa virtus et majestas Dei, especially also in his omnipresence, and exercises this in his kingdom of grace and of power,

Quenstedt, III 383-388, 443-450. Gerhard, Loc. IV § 218. Buddeus p. 797.

If one now considers that all these attributes have already been communicated to the human nature of Christ in the moment of the incarnation and that he indeed laid aside the use but never the possession of them; then it appears that according to the Lutheran representation nothing has been communicated to Christ in the state of exaltation that he did not already possess from his conception onward. Christ is immediately at his incarnation that which he can become; he is at once also according to his human nature completed, τελειος; no development is possible in him; the exaltation was already there at his conception and therefore cannot be conceived as a reward. The Lutheran doctrine is on this point akin to the Roman, which lets Christ already on earth be comprehensor and lets all gifts for which the human nature is capable be communicated to Christ already at the incarnation; and it serves in defense of the same religious interest, namely the bodily presence of Christ in the Lord's Supper.

Reformed theology, however, had a different view. While it maintains against the Socinians and also against many more recent theologians, that Christ did not first become prophet, priest, and king through his resurrection and was elevated to the rank of divinity. For Scripture testifies repeatedly that He was in the beginning with God and Himself was God, Joh. 1:1,

17:5, Rom. 8:3, 2 Cor. 8:9, Gal. 4:4, Phil. 2:9, Hebr. 1:3 etc., and that He was already from eternity anointed by the Father as prophet, priest, and king and as such was active in the days of the O. T. and during [415] his walk on earth, 2 Tim. 1:9, Tit. 3:4, Hebr. 13:8, 1 Petr. 1:11, 20. What Christ therefore received for Himself in the state of exaltation cannot have consisted in the divine nature or the rank of divinity, nor also in the office of prophet, priest, and king, which rests on divine election and appointment; but it consisted in the exaltation itself, in the resurrection, ascension, session at the right hand of God and return for judgment, in the mediatorial glory, to which He was exalted according to both natures, Jes. 53:10-12,

Luk. 24:26, Joh. 17:5, Phil. 2:9, Hebr. 2:10, 12:2, cf. Voetius, Disp. II 277.

According to Rom. 1:3 Christ is κατα σαρκα, i.e. in the way of the flesh, by birth from a woman, Gal. 4:4, become from David; but κατα πνευμα ἀγιωσυνης, by virtue of the Spirit of holiness, who dwelt in Him and had guided Him throughout his whole life, He was, from and through the resurrection, ordained and appointed by God, ὁρισθεις, cf. Hd. 17:31, as Son of God in power. Birth and resurrection stand here over against each other. Through birth Christ became the seed of David, Rom. 9:5, He assumed ὁμοιωμα σαρκος ἁμαρτιας, Rom. 8:3, He became weak, 2 Cor.

13:4; but through the resurrection He was publicly appointed as Son of God. That does not mean and cannot mean that He then first received the divine nature or the rank and the name of God, for the contrary appears from Rom. 1:3, 8:3, 32, Gal. 4:4, etc.; but while at his incarnation He exchanged the μορφη θεου for the μορφη δουλου, Phil. 2:9, He now at the resurrection receives back the glory which He previously had with the Father, Joh. 17:2, He now becomes κυριος της δοξης, 1 Cor. 2:8, θεου δυναμις, 1 Cor. 1:24, He receives a name above every name, i.e. the name

of κυριος, Joh. 20:28, Hd. 2:36, 1 Cor. 12:3, Phil. 2:9, 10, and therein the κυριοτης, the right, the competence and the power, to rule as mediator, as prophet, priest, and king over all creatures, to subject his enemies, to gather his people and to recover the fallen creation for God, Ps. 2, 72, 110, Mt.

28:18, 1 Cor. 15:21v., Ef. 1:20-23, Phil. 2:9-11, Hebr. 1:3v., 1 Petr. 3:22, Op. 1:5 etc. In the resurrection God publicly appointed Him as Son of God,

Lord, King, Mediator and said to Him: You are my Son, today I have generated you, Hd. [416] 2:36, 13:33, 17:31, Hebr. 1:5. Indeed Christ by his resurrection entered into a new state; as mediator He has been exalted above all creatures at God's right hand. In that exaltation, in a certain sense, his divine nature also shares. Just as not merely the human nature of Christ but the person of the Son was the subject of the humiliation, so also that same person according to both natures is the subject of the exaltation. For He had laid aside his μορφη θεου and had hidden his divine nature behind the garment of a weak human nature; no one saw in Him or could see in Him the Only-begotten of the Father, unless with the eye of faith, Joh. 1:14.

But now, in the state of exaltation, his divine glory shines into everyone's eyes; whoever now sees Him must confess that Christ is the Lord to the glory of God the Father. But further, in that exaltation his human nature also shares. The πνευμα ἁγιωσυνης already dwelt in Christ before his resurrection, from his conception onward, for He was conceived of the H.

Spirit, Luk. 1:35, was full of the H. Spirit, Luk. 4:1, received Him without measure, Joh. 3:34, etc., cf. Mt. 12:18, 28, Luk. 4:14, Hd. 1:2, 4:27, Hd.

10:38. But this glory, which Christ possessed inwardly, could nevertheless not reveal itself outwardly; He was flesh, and by virtue of the weakness of the flesh was also put to death on the cross, 2 Cor. 13:4. But in death He laid aside that weakness, and He broke all connection with sin and death.

God, who gave his own Son for us in death and therein carried out the judgment over sin, raised Him from the dead by his Spirit, who as πνευμα ἁγιωσυνης dwells in Christ Himself and also in all believers, Rom. 8:11, so that He would now live no longer in weakness of the flesh but in power of the Spirit. Put to death, therefore, He was indeed in flesh, but He was made alive in Spirit, 1 Petr. 3:18. For the Spirit of God has dwelt in Christ, even when He was flesh, as the governing power of his life, as πνευμα ἀγωσυνης, so that Christ always allowed Himself to be led by that Spirit and remained obedient to the Father even unto death; and therefore that Spirit must now also reveal itself in Christ at the resurrection as πνευμα ζωης, which completely overcomes death in Christ and also one day in the believers, Rom. 8:11. So far has Christ now been exalted above all [417] weakness of the flesh, that through the resurrection He has become a πνευμα ζωοποιουν, 1 Cor. 15:45; He also after the resurrection still has a σωμα, He is the same Jesus, Hd. 9:5, Rom. 4:24, 8:11, 1 Cor. 12:3, 2 Cor.

1:14, 4:5v. He is the second and last Adam, 1 Cor. 15:45; He has that same σωμα with which He rose, but it is a σωμα πνευματικον, instead of the φθορα, ἀτιμια and ἀσθενεια, which are proper to the σωμα ψυχικον, the σαρξ, it partakes of wholly other properties, namely the ἀρθαρσια, δοξα, δυναμις, 1 Cor. 15:42v., Phil. 3:21. Yes, in 2 Cor. 3:17 Paul says: ὁδε κυριος το πνευμα ἐστιν; the apostle does not thereby wish to give a description of the substantial being of Christ; but he comes to this statement because he wishes to argue that Christians are free from the law. For that freedom finds its ground in this, that the Lord, i.e. the exalted Christ, is the Spirit, i.e. that the Spirit of God now dwells in Christ so absolutely and is so most intimately one with Him, that thereby an end is made to all unfreedom, ὁυ δε το πνευμα κυριου, ἐλευθερια. The expression πνευμα κυριου proves that

Paul at the beginning of the verse is not thinking of an identification of Christ and the H. Spirit; the H. Spirit is the Spirit of Christ, because He dwells in Christ Himself and because Christ communicates Himself to his own through Him, vs. 18. And thus Christ is now the one in whom παν το πληρωμα της θεοτητος σωματικως dwells, Col. 2:9, cf. 1:19. He is the visible εἰκων του ἀορατου θεου, Col. 1:19. Divine glory becomes manifest in his human nature and shines forth from his face, 2 Cor. 3:18, 4:4, 6.

23. But just as in the state of humiliation, so Christ is all that He has become in the state of exaltation, for the good of His church. What He received for Himself and for His own as a reward for His labor is not to be separated. He is παντα και ἐν πασιν, Col. 3:11. The pleroma, which dwells in Christ, must also dwell in the church; it is filled εἰς παν το πληρωμα του θεου, Ef. 3:19, Col. 2:2, 10. God is He who fills Christ, Col. 1:19, Christ is

He who fills the church, Ef. 1:23. The church is therefore His pleroma, which, what He perfectly and from Himself (πληρουμενος), gradually, Ef.

4:10, fills with Himself, and which therefore [418] little by little becomes full and filled and thus in its turn fills Christ, Ef. 1:23; the completum becomes a complementum. For the church is not there without Christ, but Christ is also not there without the church; He is her κεφαλη ὑπερ παντα,

Ef. 1:22, Col. 1:18, and she is His σωμα, which is formed out of Him and obtains its growth, Ef. 4:16, Col. 2:19 and thus grows up εἰς μετρον ἡλικιας του πληρωματος του Χριστου, Ef. 4:13. The union between Christ and the church is as close as between vine and branches, bridegroom and bride, man and wife, cornerstone and building. She can with Him be called the one Christ, 1 Cor. 12:12. In order to perfect her, He has been exalted at the Father's right hand and continues His prophetic, priestly, and kingly activity in heaven.

Just as in the days of the O. T. and of his walk on earth, Christ is also now still the only prophet and teacher of his church. There is no other master,

Mt. 23:8, 10; there is, alongside, above, or in the place of Christ for the church, no need of any soothsaying, any oracle, any enthusiasm, any spiritism, any infallible papacy. For Christ is the wisdom, all the treasures of wisdom and of knowledge are hidden in Him, 1 Cor. 1:24, 30, Col. 2:3; and it is Christ himself, who by his Word and Spirit instructs his church, in order that they all, taught of God, would be prophets and would proclaim the great deeds of God, Num. 11:29, Jer. 31:33, 34, Mt. 11:25-27, Joh. 6:45.

Heb. 8:10, 11, 1 Joh. 2:20. And thus He also remains, in the state of exaltation, still active as priest. After He on Golgotha has accomplished his offering, He, as high priest, not with the blood of goats and calves but with his own blood, Hebr. 9:12-14, through the tabernacle of his body, 9:11 and through the veil of his flesh, 10:20, entered into the heavenly sanctuary, which in the holy of holies on Zion had its pattern, 6:20, 9:12, 24, in order there to make intercession for his own and to appear before God's face,

7:25, 9:24. The Socinians tried to infer from this, that Christ was not yet in the proper sense priest on earth, that his offering on the cross was not the true sacrifice but only its introduction and preparation; just as under the O.

Test. the act of atonement did not consist in the slaughtering of the sacrificial animal but in the sprinkling of the blood [419] on the altar or on the mercy seat, Lev. 16:11-16, so Christ brings the atonement to completion not on earth but in heaven, cf. Socinus de J. Christo Servatore, Bibl. Fr. Pol.

II 164. Volkelius, de verit. relig. III 37. Fock, Der Socin. 635. 646 f., and now still W. Milligan, The ascension and heavenly priesthood of our Lord,

London 1892, Doedes, Jaarb. v. Wet Theol. 1846 bl. 293v. 313 f. Seeberg, Der Tod Christi in s. Bedeutung für die Erlösung 1895 S. 14. 16 f. etc. This

has rightly been contested by others, for in the O. T. sacrifice the different atoning acts are indeed temporally separated but they nevertheless form one whole; it is the blood of a slaughtered animal, which by its pouring out and sprinkling restored the offerer to God's favor and delivered him from sin and its punishment. In the epistle to the Hebr. therefore, just as in the whole

N. T., the atoning power is also ascribed to the offering once brought by Christ on the cross, 2:17, 7:27, 8:3, 9:12, 26, 28, 10:10, 14, 18, 13:12; thereby all benefits, forgiveness, cleansing, sanctification, perfection have been acquired. Because Christ has now once sacrificed himself on the cross and has died, He cannot even do it for the second time, for every human being dies only once, his offering in death is not susceptible of repetition,

9:26-28. The entering of Christ with his blood into the heavenly sanctuary therefore cannot, in the opinion of the epistle to the Hebrews, be conceived as an offering. It is indeed said once, in 9:7, that the high priest offered the blood with which he entered into the most holy place, προσφερει, for himself and for the people's transgressions; but this offering of the blood is then nevertheless essentially distinguished from that which took place outside, in the court; and thus also only the bringing of the blood is so called in the O. Test. But of Christ's entering with his blood into heaven it is nowhere said that it is an offering; it is not that and it cannot be; by the one offering He has accomplished everything, 9:26-28, 10:12, 14. The entering of Christ with his blood into the inner sanctuary therefore has only the purpose, to cause the salvation acquired by his death to count for our benefit before God's face. Precisely because by the shedding of blood, i.e. by the offering on the cross, the atonement has been accomplished, Christ as high priest can enter into heaven with his blood and appear before [420]

God's face, 9:12-14, 26. His priestly activity in heaven therefore also

consists not in any offering, but in his intercession and appearance before God's face for the benefit of his people, 7:25, 9:24, cf. Rom. 8:34, 1 Joh.

2:2. Yet there lies truth in the representation derived by Thalhofer, Handbuch der kath. Liturgik I2 1894 S. 223-236 from Hebr. 8:1-4, that Christ, although having accomplished everything with one offering, nevertheless in heaven continues that offering in a heavenly manner and continually renews his act of obedience on Golgotha at the right hand of the Father. For the offering of Christ, once done on the cross, lives on not merely in the memory, but in the disposition from which it proceeded.

There is in heaven no repetition, no renewal, no reproduction of the offering on the cross; but that offering, once accomplished, continues to work in the appearance before God's face and in the intercession for us, 7:25, 9:24.

Therefore it can on the one hand be said, that Christ by one offering has perfected all, 10:24, and on the other hand, that He will make completely blessed all who through Him go to God, inasmuch as He always lives, to pray for them, 7:25. Cf. Cloppenburg, Op. II 889-902. Nic. Arnoldus,

Religio Socin. Fran. 1654 p. 678-706. de Witte, Wederl. der Soc. dwal. II 152v. Mastricht, Theol. V 7, 15 sq. Maccovius, Coll. theol. I 240 sq. Jaarb. v. Wet. Theol. IV 18v. Weiss, Bibl. Theol. d. N. T. § 121. Scheeben, Dogm.

III 443 f. Martin, Atonement 115. Therefore also, because Christ was and is priest and remains so eternally, the church on earth has no priest any longer needed; all believers are priests, Rom. 12:1, 1 Petr. 2:5, Op. 1:6. No offering for sin needs any longer to be brought, also no unbloody one in the mass, for from the one offering, accomplished on the cross, there proceeds in the intercession of Christ a continual speaking to God, not for vengeance, as from the blood of Abel, but for grace and forgiveness, Hebr. 12:24. The intercession of Christ is no longer a supplication as in the days of his flesh,

Calvin, Inst. III 20, 20, but is the steadfast and gracious will of Christ, Joh.

17:24, on the ground of his offering to lead all his people to the heavenly blessedness. Thus Christ is our only priest, who according to the order of Melchizedek remains forever, with his offering continually covers our sins, always appears with the Father as our [421] Paraclete, over against all accusations of Satan, world and one's own heart takes up our cause, makes our prayers and thanksgivings acceptable to the Father, continually assures us a bold access to the throne of grace, and causes all blessings of grace out of his fullness to come to us, Luk. 22:32, Joh. 14:16, 17:9v., Rom. 1:7,

8:32v., 1 Cor. 1:3, 2 Cor. 1:2, Ef. 1:3, 1 Tim. 4:8, Hebr. 7:25, 9:24, 1 Joh.

2:2.

And so Christ also is and remains our eternal king. Although also anointed to this office from eternity, He nevertheless, according to His human nature, first appeared as king at His exaltation. Then He received the name of Lord, was ordained Son of God, and received all power in heaven and on earth.

Christ is king in the first place over His people, in the regnum gratiae, Ps.

2:6, Isa. 9:5, 11:1-5, Luke 1:33, 19:21-23, 23:42, 43, John 18:33, 19:19; and He manifests this kingship in that He gathers, protects, governs, and leads

His church to eternal salvation, Mt. 16:18, 28:20, John 10:28. But because His kingship bears an entirely different character than that of the princes of the earth, in the N. T. He is much more called the head of the church, 1 Cor.

11:3, Eph. 1:22, 4:15, 5:23, Col. 1:18, 2:19; He does not rule by violence, but by right and righteousness, by grace and love, by Word and Spirit. Then in the N. T. He is also described especially as king, when there is mention of the victory over His enemies. For in order that He may truly gather, protect, and lead His church to eternal salvation, He must also as mediator have power over all creatures, Ps. 2:9, 72:8, 110:1-3, Mt. 28:18, 1 Cor.

15:24, 27, Eph. 1:22, Phil. 2:9-11, 1 Petr. 3:22, Rev. 1:5, 17:14. It does not lie herein that the world is positively governed by Christ, but indeed that it stands under His power, is subject to Him, and once, even if unwillingly, will acknowledge and pay homage to Him as Lord. Specifically there also belongs here His power over the kingdom of Satan. The representation of many church fathers, that Christ brought His offering to Satan and by cunning took his spoil from him, is unscriptural. But nevertheless Christ by His cross has also achieved the triumph over the world of the fallen spirits.

He came to earth, to break the works of the devil, 1 John [422] 3:8, and fought against him His whole life, Luke 4:13, especially in the last time, when it was the hour and the power of darkness, Luke 22:53. He was the stronger, Luke 11:22, and the devil had nothing in Him, John 14:30. He already saw him fall like lightning from heaven and took from him his armor, Luke 10:18, 11:22. Especially by the cross He triumphed over the principalities and powers, Col. 2:15, took from him the weapons of sin, death and world, John 16:33, 1 John 4:4, 1 Cor. 15:55, 56, Hebr. 2:14 and cast him outside the domain of his kingdom, John 12:31. And His triumph

He celebrated over the evil spirits specifically in the resurrection. In 1 Petr.

3:19-22 this is clearly taught. There is there no mention of a descent of Christ into hell, in order to proclaim the gospel to the lost. For it says that Christ was first made alive i.e. had risen and then went to preach. All ground is lacking to make, with the Lutherans, a temporal distinction between the vivificatio and the resurrectio and then in that intervening time to place the descent into hell. Nor is there anywhere in Scripture any indication that Christ after His resurrection, before He ascended into heaven, first still went to hell. On the other hand, the exegesis is also untenable, that Christ in the Spirit went to the contemporaries of Noah and

preached to them; ἐν ᾡ clearly refers to the Christ made alive; πορευθεις, cf. v. 22 allows no other interpretation; the preaching of Christ in the Spirit to Noah's contemporaries many centuries before is here irrelevant. The pericope therefore contains something quite different. Peter exhorts the believers to suffer while doing good and therein to follow Christ. For He suffered while doing good, because He suffered for sins, as a righteous one for the unrighteous, and indeed with this purpose, that He would bring us, the unrighteous, to God. That is suffering while doing good! And now

Christ was indeed killed in the flesh, but He was made alive and rose in Spirit, i.e. because the πνευμα ἁγιωσυνης was the principle of His whole life, as Spirit. And as such, as made alive, risen Spirit, as Lord and King, going, πορευθεις, i.e. not to hell, but according to v. 22 going to heaven, He preached to the spirits in prison. That is: His going to heaven as risen Lord,

Acts 2:36, was a κηρυγμα to the spirits in the [423] prison. What the content of that κηρυγμα was, is not said and need not be said. The rising and ascending into heaven was itself the rich, mighty, triumphant κηρυγμα of Christ to the spirits in prison. That Peter now specifically has Christ bring that κηρυγμα by His ascension to those spirits in prison, who in Noah's days, in spite of God's longsuffering and notwithstanding that they saw the building of the ark, were disobedient, has a double reason. First, those contemporaries of Noah in Scripture have always been the most godless of all men; and second, they perished and Noah with his own were saved by one and the same water. Likewise the water of baptism, by the resurrection of Christ, is the destruction for the godless and the salvation for the believers. For Christ who has risen and instituted that baptism and imparts power to it, sits at God's right hand, after by the ascension all angels and forces and powers have been made subject to Him. Christ

suffered while doing good and overcame; let the believers press His footsteps! And just as over all fallen spirits, so Christ as mediator also has power in His regnum potentiae over all His enemies. And He will not rest, before they all have been laid under His feet.

When Christ at the end of days will have overcome his church and all his enemies, then he will deliver the βασιλεια, the kingship, the royal office, to the Father. His mediatorial work is then completed. The work which the Father assigned to him is perfectly accomplished. God himself is then king eternally and always. Concerning the nature of this subjection of Christ to the Father, a difference already arose early. Marcellus of Ancyra wrote a treatise on the subjection of the Lord Christ, and was accused of the doctrine that the kingdom of Christ and also the union of the human nature with the Logos would come to an end, Schwane, D. G. II 136. 148.

Marcellus was opposed by Eusebius and later by Basilius; the NicaenoConstantinopolitanum added to the confession that Christ would return to judge the living and the dead, the words: οὗ της βασιλειας οὐκ ἐσται τελος, cujus regni non erit finis, Hahn, Bibl. d. Symbole u. s. w. 164-166, cf.

Petavius, de incarn. XII 18. Pesch, Prael. IV 84. Later the Socinians taught [424] that Christ, whom the Father had temporarily appointed as stadtholder, would one day step down, just as a field commander, after having achieved the victory, gives back his power and dominion to the prince, and from that they inferred that the Son of God, because he would one day be subjected to the Father, could not be the highest God, cf. against that Petavius, de trin. III 5. Bisterfeldius, de uno Deo, Patre, Filio ac Spiritu

So I 2, 26. Vitringa V 443-446. Among the Reformed there was also difference; some said that the kingship of Christ was oeconomic and temporary, Calvijn, Inst. II 14, 3. 15, 5. comm. on 1 Cor. 15:28. Alting,

Theol. probl. nova XII 36. Pareus on 1 Cor. 15, Kuyper, Enc. II 321; others were of the opinion that there indeed comes a change in the manner of governing but that his kingship is nevertheless eternal, Mastricht, V 8, 9.

Moor III 1129. Vitringa V 443. The difference is easily resolved in this sense, that the mediatorship of reconciliation, and thus insofar also the prophetic, priestly, and kingly office of Christ, comes to an end; God will be king and all in all; but what remains is the mediatorship of union, Christ remains prophet, priest, and king, as this, with the human nature, is of itself given, enclosed in the image of God, and in the highest and richest manner realized in Christ as Image of God. Christ is and remains the head of the church, from whom all life and salvation eternally flow to her. Whoever would want to deny this, would also have to come to the doctrine that the Son would one day lay aside and destroy his human nature; and for that all ground is lacking in Scripture.

CHAPTER VIII. On the Benefits of the Covenant.

Monergism Books

↑ Back to top