« AnteriorContinuar »
to self and live that higher life of love which the Master had once lived on earth. The Risen Christ, victorious over sin and death, was therefore the proper object of imitation to the believer; to be conformed to Him in His Dying and Rising again was his ambition and aim. Paul craved in a perfect Example one who was not only in the graces of human character all that man should be, but who had attained to that destiny for which man was made. This he found in the Christ in whom Man had overcome death, and been crowned with everlasting life. He set the once Crucified and now Risen Christ accordingly before him, that he might not only by His Spirit fulfil love in its essential requirement, but might attain to the “resurrection from the dead," and to that perfection which consists in the complete supremacy of the Spiritual over the material.
ehrerin, 10, 1Ove Aus
NOTE A, p. 119.—DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PAUL's Doc
TRINE OF THE SPIRIT AND THAT OF THE BOOK OF
WISDOM This difference has been well put by Gloel in his suggestive little book on Die Wirkungen des heiligen Geistes nach der Lehre des Ap. Paulus. The following quotation sums up the points of difference :
“Paulus glaubt an den göttlichen Geist, weil er ihn erfahren hat; das apokryphische Buch spekuliert über die Weisheit und kombiniert dieselbe mit der ganz abgeblassten, aus der Tradition entnommenen, Vorstellung vom Geiste Gottes. Für jenen ist der Geist die Gotteskraft, die ihn im innersten Wesen umwandelt; für dieses ist die Weisheit die Lehrerin, die über Gottes Wege unterweist 7, 22; 8, 9; 9, 10 f.; 10, 10. Weisheit lernt der Mensch; der Geist ergreift ihn.—Alle Ausagen beider, so ähnlich sie scheinen mögen, haben also einen ganz verschiedenen Sinn.
“Die Weisheit stattet mit allen Tugenden aus, denn aus ihrer Belehrung entspringen sie (6, 17 ff.; 8, 7). Auch der Geist verleiht alle Tugenden, aber weil er sie als eine Kraft Gottes im Menschen wirkt.
“Die Weisheit bewahrt durch ihre Belehrung den Gerechten unsträflich (10, 5. 13); der Geist wirkt in dem früheren Sünder einen Kampf gegen das Fleisch.
“Die Weisheit macht zu Freunden Gottes, 'denn nichts liebet Gott als den, der mit der Weisheit vertraut ist' (7, 28 cf. 4, 10; 7, 14; 9, 12); der Geist aber wird dem geschenkt, der die erwählende Liebe Gottes im Glauben aufnimmt.
“ Die Unsterblichkeit' ist der Lohn für ein in Weisheit
geführtes Leben, denn gute Bestrebungen bringen gute Früchte hervor' (3, 15 cf. 1, 15; 2, 22; 3, 5; 3, 14; 5, 15 f.; 8, 13, 17; 10, 17); der Geist ist die Kraft eines neuen ewigen Lebens.
"Woher die Verschiedenheit ? Paulus ist der Apostel Jesu Christi, der bezeugt, was er erfahren; der Verfasser des Weisheitsbuches dagegen ein Religionsphilosoph, nicht unberüket von griechischer Philosophie, dessen Spekulation im wesentlichen auf moralistischer Grundlage ruht und nur wenig durch eine aus ernster Frommigkeit hervorgehende religiöse Betrachtungsweise altiriert ist (z.B. 7,7; bes. 8, 21: Gott verleiht die Weisheit; 9, 9-18); also eine Lehrweise, welche etwa derjenigen der Patr. Apost. kongenial ist, von letzterer nur unterschieden durch eine spekulative Haltung” (pp. 86, 87).
NOTE B, p. 121.-RECENT LITERATURE ON THE
PAULINE PHRASE εν Χριστώ The Pauline phrase èv Xploto has been made the subject of an interesting monograph by Deissmann, 1892 (Die N. Tliche. Formel“ in Christo Jesu"). Paul, he maintains, is the creator of it, and it expresses a truth characteristic of his theology. It is an instance of the formative power of Christian thoughts to create forms of language that express them. It does not occur in the Synoptic Gospels : there, meta, “ with," not év, “in," is used to describe the relation of men to Christ, e.g. Matt. xii. 30; Mark iii. 14; Luke xxiii. 4.3, etc. Paul never uses uera to set forth relation to Christ: the Synoptic Gospels never use év. Deissmann conceives that it must be taken in a local sense, as declaring Christ to be the element in which the Christian lives. It is the technical expression for the Pauline central thought of the Kolávia, or fellowship with Christ. The underlying idea is that Christians somehow live in the element Christ, as birds live in the air, and fishes in the sea, and the roots of plants in the earth (p. 84). It is as Pneuma that Christ sustains this relation to His people. The Christian lives in the Pneumatic being, Christ. In regard to the idea Χριστός, ου πνεύμα εν τίνι, which corresponds to èv Xplot eivai, he says: “As one may, without being guilty of absurdity, say, The man is in the air, and the air is in the man, so may an author, who has represented the manner of existence after the analogy of the air, speak at once both of tis tv Xploto, and Xplotós Év TIL” (p. 92). “The same idea underlies both forms of representation ; only, the way of looking at it is in the one case e specie Christi, in the other, e specie hominis. They do not exclude one another, but together complete the local mode of apprehending the relation of the individual to the Pneumatic Christ ”i (p. 93). Even although they could not be perfectly harmonised, the author adds, one has no right, in the case of a man like Paul, who was no systematic theologian, to speak of contradiction here. A religious ethical genius emancipates himself from all theological methods. His expressions are wont to reflect the events of the moment with absolute honesty. “The question whether we must apprehend the local ground-thought of the formula in the proper sense, or as a rhetorical expedient (Hülfsmittel), cannot with certainty be determined, but the former view is the more likely.” The formula is the proper Pauline expression for the closest conceivable communion of the Christian with the Living Christ (p. 98).
Holding Paul to be the originator of the phrase, he views the Johannine use of it as betraying the Pauline influence on the later writings of John—the eivai év Xplot becomes in his vocabulary μείνατε έν έμοι.
These results have not passed unchallenged. Karl, in his Beiträge zum Verständniss der Soter. Erfahr. u. Specul. des Ap. Paulus, 1896, accepts the general position of Deissmann as to the Pauline originality of the phrase, but thinks that he has missed the exact sense of it. Taking for his parallel the expression êv Beer Bour, Matt. xii. 27–28, where the idea of a possession of the believer by a personal
1 Abbott (The Spirit on the Waters) thinks that we have here a double metaphor,--the Spirit in the man representing man as a machine moved by internal springs, the man in the Spirit representing man as an organism influenced by an external atmosphere.—P. 311.
spiritual Being is conveyed, he understands the phrase as meaning that the man who is εν πνεύματι, or εν Χριστώ, is within the sphere of the influence or operation of the Spirit, or Christ (the two being the same thing). On this view, Karl differs from Deissmann in emphasising, more than the latter in his interpretation of the phrase, the personal influence of a spiritual Being to which that man is subject whose state is described by the phrase under discussion.
In an article in the Stud. u. Kritiken, 1896, 1 Heft, on Paulinische Probleme 11., Prof. Weiss also reviews the conclusions of Deissmann. He agrees with him that in the mass of characteristic passages, εν Χριστώ είναι means an “abiding within the exalted Christ.” But he thinks that Deissmann has pushed his theory too far; and he finds, after a searching examination and comparison of passages, that Paul often uses the phrase where no such out-of-the-way meaning attaches to it; ¿v, conveying the idea of limitation, often describes the sphere within which the action takes place, e.g. Rom. xvi. 3, 9; Col. iv. 7; i Thess. iii. 2. The formula, he thinks, must have been in common use in Paul's day, and applied in a general sense, though the specific sense attached to it when it describes the Pneumatic relation of believers to Christ is Pauline. The influence of the Septuagint, where the use of ev is used in reference to God, had probably to do with the combination in Christ, 2 Sam. xxii. 30; Ps. xvii. 30; Zech. xii. 5.
NOTE C, p. 144.—ON THE USE OF THE TERM Kúpios
IN THE SEPTUAGINT The term Kúpios is the common rendering of Jehovah in the Septuagint. If there was anything originally distinctive in the use of “ Jehovah " as the name of God in contrast with other names, this distinctive idea was not present to the Greek translators, who render Jehovah Adonai, when it occurs, either by a double Kúplos (e.g. Ps. cviii. 21; Ezek. xiv. 6), or by Kúplos alone (Isa. Ixi. 1; Jer. ii. 22). Κύριος and Θεός are used indiscriminately as translations of the Hebrew name for God. Accustomed to this usage,