(llnurnrbiu W'Qtnlngirul flnut41y Continuing Lehre und Wehre (Vol. LXXVI) Magazin fuer Ev.-Luth. Homiletik (Vol. LIV) Theol. Quarterly (1897-1920) -Theol. Monthly (Vol. X) Vol. I November, 1930 No. 11 CONTENTS Page PIEPER, F.: Eroeffnungsrede zum neuen Studienjahr 1930-1931 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 801 FUERBRINGER, L.: Paulus in Athen. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 804 ENGELDER, Th. The Active Obedience of Christ ......... 810 KRETZMANN, P. E.: Die Bekehrung ein Prozess oder eine KrisisP ................................................. 818 DALLMANN, WM.: How Peter Became Pope.. . . . ... . . . . .. 828 KRETZMANN, P. E.: Clerical Vestments in the Lutheran Church .......................... ~. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 838 Dispositionen ueber die Eisenacher Evangelienreihe ....... 848 STREUFERT, F. C.: Pastoral Visits ....................... 857 Theological Observer. - Kirchlich-Zeitgeschichtliches. . . . .. 864 Book Review. - Literatur. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 873 Ein Prediger muss nicht allein weide .. , also dass er die Schafe unterweise, wie sie rechte Ohristen sollen sein, sondern auch daneben den Woelfen wehren, dass Bie die Schafe nicht angreifen und mit falscher Lehre verfuehren und Irrtum ein· fuehren. - Luther. Es 1st kein Ding, das die Leute mehr bei der Kirche behaelt denn die gute Predigt. - Apologie, Art. 24. If the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself to the battle? 1 Oor.14, 8. Published for the ;J Ev. Luth. Synod of Missouri, Ohio, and Other States r CONCORDIA PUBLISHING HOUSE, St. Louis, Mo. i f .A.RCHIVER 810 The Active Obedience of Christ. maden iljre£l m5oljneni:l gef ett, ljat oeftimmt. "hJie hJeit fie hJoljnen follen". IDCe~er~m5enbt benU oei .. BeHen" an bie regelmiitig hJed]feln~ ben ;saljrei:laeiten, ~ct. 14, 17, unb oei ®renaen an bie natiidid]en ®renaen (geograpljifd]e ®e6irge, iJfiiffe unb IDCeere); Wiii:lgen benft an bie .. BeHen ber SJ eib en " , Euf. 21, 24, nod] anbere an bie ljSerioben ber inneren @Staati:lenthJicUung, )Baumgaden an bie oei ~anier oeftimmten m5eHepod]en; aoer bai:l allei:l ljiitie genauer gefagt hJerben mfrffen. ~er allgemeine ~Ui:lbrucf .. BeHen" ift fd]on berftiinblid] genug. @So ljat ®oti bon ~nfang an ba£l )8iiUedeoen ber IDCenfd]ljeit oeftimmt unb geleitet, .\>ioo 12, 23, unb ljat baoei gana oeftimmte, ljeiIhJiidige ~ofid]±en geljaot. ~iefe ~ofid]ten ®otie£l unb hJa£l fid] baraui:l ergi6±, hJirb bann tm niid]ften, a6fd]Iietenben ~diteI ®egenftanb ber ~Xui:lfiiljrung fein. 4 • I 2. iJ. The Active Obedience of Christ. Being asked to discuss this important doctrine in the GONOORDIA THEOLOGICAL MONTHLY, we would, first of all, call attention to the comprehensive treatise of the subject contained in the Christliehe Dogmatik, Vol. II, pp.446-453. The matter is there presented sub- stantially as follows: - The vicarious satisfaction rendered by Ghrist includes, besides His suffering and death, His fulfilment of the divine Law given to man in place of man (loco hominum). In other words, in order to satisfy the divine justice, Ghrist not only bore the penalty of man's disobedience of the Law, but also rendered in His holy life that obe- dience to the Law which man is obligated to render, but does not render (active obedience of Ghrist, obedientia Christi activa). As our guilt and punishment was imputed to Ghrist, so also our obliga- tion to keep God's Law (Y8YOWYOC; {m:se ~fl{jjy xa-raea - J'8YOfl8YOC; vno YOflOV, tva 7:OVC; vno YOflOY 8~aroea(J17} Gal. 3, 13; 4, 4. 5). In treating of the redemption, some have kept the active obedience in the back- ground, while others have denied outright that it belongs to the vicarious satisfaction. Anselm (Cur Deus Homo, II, 11) excluded it on the ground that Ghrist was bound to yield this obedience for His own sake - a omnis enim rationalis 01'eatura debet hane obedientiam Deo." (It should be pointed out, however, that, when Anselm per- mitted his faith and heart to speak, he abandoned his scholastic theory. When he prays: "I refused to obey; but Thou, through Thy obedience, didst expiate for my disobedience; I caroused, Thou didst suffer thirst," he distinctly included the active obedience of Ghrist in His vicarious satisfaction.) The Lutheran superintendent George Karg (Parsimonius), misapplying the proposition (which indeed lends itself to misapplication) that "the Law obligates either to obedience or to punishment, not to both at once," argued that, "since Ghrist The Active Obedience of Christ. 811 bore the punishment for us, He rendered the obedience fO?' Himself." (His thesis aroused a general protest; he was brought to see his error and retracted in 1570.) A number of Reformed theologians, in particular John Piscator (t 1625), held that Ohrist, as a human being, was required to render the active obedience. Modern theo- logians in general deny that Ohrist fulfilled the Law given to man in man's stead, insisting that His obedience consisted solely in His willing assumption of the Saviorship and of the suffering attending upon the performance of His office in the midst of sinful humanity. (See Lehre u. Wehre> 1896, p.137. On the modern "vocational obe- dience" see Nitzsch-Stephan, pp. 557 ff.) The net'in;oy 'ljJsv(jo. of this position lies in placing the "vocational obedience" and the obedience which Ohrist rendered the Law given to man, in place of man, in opposition. The Formula of Ooncord teaches clearly and distinctly that the obedientia Ohristi activa is an integral part of the vicarious work of Ohrist. It states: "Since Ohrist is not man alone, but God and man in one undivided person, He was as little subject to the Law [that is, obligated to keep the Law, legi subiect~tsJ, because He is the Lord of the Law, as He had to suffe1' and die, as far as His person is con- cerned. For this reason, then, His obedience, not only in suffering and dying, but also in this, that He in our stead was voluntarily made ~tnder the Law and fulfilled it by His obedience, is imputed to us for righteousness, so that on account of this complete obedience, which He rendered His heavenly Father for us by doing and suffering, in living and dying, God forgives our sins, regards us as godly and righteous, and eternally saves us." (Trigl., p.919 f.) The view that the obedientia Ohristi must be limited to "the volunta1'y assumption of the suffering" is here explicitly rejected. What the Formula of Ooncord teaches is taught clearly in Scripture. In Gal. 4, 4. 5 two things are brought out distinctly; 1) The Law spoken of is the Law given to mankind; "Law" cannot mean the "saving will" of God, which was to be executed, not by men, but by Ohrist. 2) Ohrist was put under this Law which was given to men,· and He fulfilled it in order to redeem mankind. Philippi, on Gal. 4, 4. 5: "Israel was under the ordinances of the nomos, bound to keep them; accordingly the redemptive work of Ohrist must be viewed as a substitutionary fulfilment of the Law." Stoeckhardt: "The Law to which Israel was subject is the sum of all that God demands of man, specifically of Israel, of all that God would have man do or omit. And it is just this Law under which Ohrist also was put. And Ohrist assumed the obligation, that is, he fulfilled all commandments of God. And it was precisely this obedience which made for our redemption." (L. u. W., 1896, p. 137.) We also insist with most of the old theologians that Matt. 5, 17 is 812 The Active Obedience of Christ. a proof-text for the obedientia Ohristi activa. "Tov vop,ov 3I:AfJeruaal, to fulfil the Law," cannot mean to fulfil it "by teaching"; the words will not bear such a limitation. Again, it is arbitrary to restrict the Jlxalcop.a of Rom. 5, 18 to the obedience exhibited by Ohrist's voluntary assumption of the suffering. Over against the 3I:aea.:rn:cop,a, the trans- gression, of Adam is placed the Jlxaicop,a, the righteous behavior, of Ohrist, that by which Ohrist, unlike Adam, approved Himself right- eous, the obedience of Ohrist ({maxo~, v. 19) without any limitation. Quenstedt: "Lltxalcop,a opponitur :naea3l:u.op,aTt. Ut ergo 3I:aea.3I:'rcop,a est avop,la, ita CJlxalcop,a vi oppositionis est ivvop,la, . • . actio lvvop,or; seu activa Ohristi obedientia." Modern theologians are guilty of a flagrant petitio principii in this matter. They assume that the fulfilment of the Law by Ohrist does not belong to His execution of the divine "counsel of salvation." But :first of all it must be ascertained from Scripture what the "counsel of salvation" comprises. And according to Scripture the execution of the "counsel of salvation" required not only the obedience Ohrist exhibited in assuming the suffering, but also the vicarious obedience of life, the fulfilment of the positive demands of the Law in place of man. The righteousness of Ohrist's life is therefore not merely exemplary (it is indeed that, too, 1 Pet. 2,21), not merely a prerequisite for the passive obedience (it is that, too, inasmuch as only the death of a perfectly holy one has expiatory value, 1 Pet. 1, 19), but it is also an essential part of the payment which Ohrist vicariously rendered unto the just God for the recon- ciliation of mankind. The Scripture doctrine of the active obedience of Ohrist has also a most important practical bearing. The following exposition of Luther shows how deeply it affects the life of faith. "He satisfied the Law, He fufilled the Law in every way; for He loved God with all His heart, with all His soul, with all His strength, with all His mind, and His neighbor as Himself. . .. Therefore, when the Law comes and accuses you that you have not kept it, bid it go to Ohrist and say: There is the man who has kept it; to Him I cling; He fulfilled it for me and gave His fulfilment to me. Thus the Law is silenced." (Erl. Ed., 15, 61. 63.) We have pointed out already how Anselm practised in his life of faith what he denied in theory. Against this doctrine the following objections have been raised. I. Ohrist, being a true man, was bound to yield obedience to the Law; therefore this obedience cannot form a part of the vicarious satis- faction. Answer: This assertion involves the denial of the personal union (unio pe1'sonalis) of God and man in Ohrist. Through the personal union the human nature was taken into the person of the Son of God and is consequently as little under the Law as the person of the Son of God is. By assuming the human nature, the Son of God was not made subject to the Law; rather was the human nature, The Active Obedience of Christ. 813 through the personal union, made to share in the lordship of the divine person over the Law. Ohrist was indeed made under the Law, but not by virtue of the incarnation in itself; it was rather the result of a special act, which indeed was coincident with the incarnation in point of time, but differed from it in point of fact. God made His Son, and His Son put Himselr under the Law for man and for man's redemption, Gal. 4, 4. 5; Ps. 40, 7-9. In this manner an obedience to the Law ({Jt>w [wfta, tmax01], Rom. 5, 18. 19) has been achieved by Ohrist which is available for man. While yet in the state of humilia- tion, Ohrist explicitly declared that He, in His person, was above the Law, Matt. 12, 8. Quenstedt says on this point (II, 407): "Obicit Piscator.' ChristtLS ut verus homo tenebatur obedire Deo Creatori >' pro se igituj' activam obedientiam legi praestitit. Eodem modo Socinus ait . .. , Respondeo.' 1. FiliUl5 1. 0 minis est Dominus Sab- bathi et sic etiam totius legis. 2. Si Christus esset 'PIAd, lIyf}eWJ1:0" obsb'ictus fuisset legi>' iam vero in unitate personae est verus Deus~. pj'oinde stLi ratione non hLit legi obstrictus. IJec7noy 'PeVOO, htLius argumenti> adeoque 81'1'oris huius universi consistit in eo, quod actiones et passiones Christi consideranturJ ac si essent tantum naturae htLmanae actiones et passiones >' at qui persona est, quae agit et patitur. Obedientia Chl'isti non est naturae tan tum htLmanae: actio> sed Chj·isti f}Wyf}eomov, q'l1,i ut nobis natus et datus> Es. 9> 9~ ita et PTO nobis sub lege factus, Gal. 4,4." II. It is asserted that Scripture ascribes the redemption of man to the shedding of the blood of Christ, to the obedientia passiva. AnSWM·.' It does indeed, but not exclusively. While certain passages, for instance, 1 Pet. 1, 19; 001. 1, 14, place the obedientia passiva in the foreground, other passages, for instance, Rom. 5, 18. 19; Ps. 40, 7-9, ascribe redemption to the obedientia activa. Neither the former nor the latter passages are therefore to be understood eXcltLSive. Ger- hard (De Iustif., § 55 sqq.): uQuamvis in pluribus Scripturae dictis morti et effusioni sangtLinis Christi redemptionis opus tTibtLattLT, id tamen haudquaquam exclusive accipiendum, ac si sanda Christi vita ab opere redemptionis per hoc excludatuT>' sed ideo illud fieri existi- mandum, quia nusquam illuxit claTitLS, qtwd nos dilexit ac j'edemii Dominus, quam in ipsius passione, morte ac vulneJ·ibus, td loquunttw pii veter-es; et quia mOTS Chl'isti est velut ultima linea ac com- plementum, dAo" finis et pel'fectio, totius obedientiae, sicut apostolus in quit Phil. 2, 8. Quid? Quod plane aovva,ov est, activam obedien- tiam a passiva in hoc mer-ito separare." Quenstedt (II, 351 sq.) : "AGENDO CULPAM, quam homo iniuste commisej'at, expiavit, et PATIENDO POENAM, quam homo iuste perpessurus erat, Christus sustulit . ... Quia enim non tan tum ab ira Dei, iusti Iudicis, liber-andus erat homo, sed et, ut coram Deo posset consistere, iustitia ei opus erat, quam, nisi impleta lege, consequi non poterat.' ideo Christus utrumque in '814 The Active Obedience of Christ. -813 8U8cepit et non tantum passus est pro nobis, sed et legi in omnibu& -satisfecit, ut haec ipsius impletio et obedientia in iustitiam nobis imputaretur." ill. It is further objected that full satisfaction was rendered the divine justice by means of the obedientia passiva; God would be demanding too much if He exacted not only the payment, on the part of Ohrist, of the penalty for the transgression of the Law, but also the positive fulfilment of the Law; lex obligat vel ad obedientiam vel ad poenam. Answer: This objection, which, forsaking Scriptural ground, would settle the matter on the ground of reason, does not even square with reason. Even in human law the suffering of the penalty for the transgression of the law is not equivalent to the ful- filment of the law, to the conformitas cum lege. The fact that the thief pays the legal penalty for his crime does not restore to him the name of a law-abiding citizen, as of one who has never stolen. ::Much less is the suffering of the penalty a fulfilment of the Law in the sight of God. Are the damned, who are suffering the punishment 'Df their transgression of the Law in hell, thereby ful£lling the Law .of God, the sum of which is to love God with all the heart and the neighbor as oneself? The intent of the proposition: Lex obligat vel ad obedientiam vel ad poenam is to enforce the truth that man cannot with impunity refuse obedience to the Law. This canon does not cover the case where the Law has been transgressed. In this case, in the case of fallen man, the rule applies: Lex obligat et ad poenam et ad obedientiam. (See Quenstedt, II, 407 sq.) IV. A £Ual objection is made in the interest of morality: If men believed that Ohrist fulfilled the Law in their stead, they would no longer apply themselves to the observance of the Law. Answer: The same argument would apply to the obedientia passiva with equal force. We would have to deny that Ohrist in His suffering paid the penalty of our sins, because men under that teaching would no longer fear hell and repent. No one will raise this objection who is at all ac- quainted with Ohristianity, the Ohristian "experience," as described Rom.6,lff. The charge made by modern theologians that the old theologians overlooked the intimate connection of the obedientia activa and pas- .siva, disrupting them through a mechanical juxtaposition, is but :another of the many current misrepresentations of the teaching of the old theologians. Oompare Gerhard's statement quoted above: ~'Quid? Quod plane &Jvva..-ov est, activam obedientiam a passiva i~ hoc merito separare." And see particularly Quenstedt, II,407. Thus, in substance, Dr. Pieper, l. c. Additional confessional statements may be found in the Formula of Ooncord, Sol. Decl., Art. III, §§ 4. 22. 56. 58; Art. VI, § 7. It will serve a good purpose to submit some quotations from other The Active Obedience of Christ. 815 Lutheran dogmaticians of the present day. H. E. Jacobs, A Summary of the Ohristian Faith, p. 172 f.: "By what means was the satisfaction of Ohrist rendered? By His obedience to the Law, Rom. 5, 19. How has this been confessionally stated? Formula of Ooncord, Art. III, § 15. What two factors are comprised in this obedience? It has been divided into the active and the passive obedience. What is the active obedience? Ohrist's perfect compliance with all the requirements of the Law, Moral, Oeremonial, and Forensic. . .. Matt. 5, 17; Gal. 4, 4. 5; Rom. 10, 4. This can be illustrated by a careful study of the history of His life in the gospels, in which He will be seen to have done fully all that the Law demanded and to have abstained entirely from all that it prohibited. . . . Was this subjection to the Law rendered that He might Himself win the rewards? No. For per- sonally He not only was the Lord of the Law, but already possessed all things. Personally He could not acquire righteousness for Him- self, as He already had it. All the merit and reward belongs there- fore to those for whom He was vicariously under the Law, Phil. 3, 9; Rom. 1, 17. . .. Oan the active and passive obedience be separated ~ Only in thought. They are the positive and negative sides of thEl" same thing. Man could have no righteousness with the guilt of siru reckoned to him and its penalties impending. By His passive obe- dience Ohrist transfers all the penalties to Himself and endures them; by His active obedience a righteousness is provided in whioh the guilt of sin disappears as night flees before the rising of the sun or man's shame and nakedness are covered by a spotless robe." O. E. Lindberg, Ohristian Dogmatics, p. 261 f.: "The whole life of Ohrist was one of active and passive obedience, although His suffer- ing culminated toward the end. He not only suffered for our sins that we might be liberated from punishment; through His active obedience He procured a righteousness which He Himself did not need and which therefore redounded to the benefit of mankind in the determined way. This righteousness was the fruit of His active and passive obedience." It will also serve a good purpose to quote some Reformed dog- maticians. Oharles Hodge, Systematic Theology, II, p.494: "The work of Ohrist was therefore of the nature of a satisfaction to the de- mands of the Law. By His obedience and sufferings, by His whole righteousness, active and passive, He, as our Representative and Sub- stitute, did and endured all that the Law demands." P. 517: "Re- demption from the bondage of the Law includes not only deliverance from its penalty, but also from the obligation to satisfy its demands . . . . The Law demands, and from the nature of God must demand, perfect obedience. It says, Do this and live; and, 'Our sed is every one that continueth not in all things which are written in the Book of the Law to do them.' No man since the Fall is able to fulfil these; 816 The Active Obedience of Christ. ·demands, yet he must fulfil them or perish. The only possible method ;according to the Scriptures by which men can be saved is that they ;should be delivered from this obligation of perfect obedience. This, the apostle teaches, has been effected by Ohrist. He was 'made under the Law to redeem them that were under the Law.''' A. H. Strong, Systematic Theology, p. 390: "The Scriptures teach that Ohrist obeyed and suffered in our stead to satisfy an immanent demand of the divine holiness and thus remove an obstacle in the divine mind to the pardon and restoration of the guilty." P. 409: "To this theory [the Anselmic] we make the following objections: ... (b) In its eagerness to maintain the atoning efficacy of Ohrist's passive obe- dience, the active obedience, quite as clearly expressed in Scripture, is well-nigh lost sight of." We shall now examine the proposition: Scripture teaches that our redemption was effected solely through the death of Jesus on the -cross; Scripture nowhere states that the holy life of Jesus belongs to His vicarious satisfaction. In discussing this proposition, which is identical with the second objection noted above, we shall be covering the same ground as before; but that will serve to emphasize the -truths there presented and will give occasion to expand some of the supporting statements. It should be noted, in the first place, that the gospels make much of the holy life of the Savior. The point is stressed that Ohrist complied with the Law in every way. He was circumcised and pre- sented in the Temple "according to that which is said in the Law of the Lord," Luke 2,24. He was subject unto His parents, Luke 2, 52. He paid the Temple-tax and observed the Passover and the other prescribed feasts. He honored the high priest and the civil magis- trates. He kept the First Oommandment, Matt. 4, 4--10. His entire life was given to the observance of the law of love, to obeying His Father and serving His fellow-men. Ohrist, too, makes much of His fulfilment of the Law. "Even as I have kept My Father's com- mandments and abide in His love." John 15, 10. "Which of you convinceth Me of sin~" John 8, 46. The inspired writers, in report- ing on Ohrist's obedience at such length, make of it a most important matter. If it did not belong to His mediatorial work, it was not of supreme, but only of secondary, importance. It would seem to bring an element of incongruity into the Gospel-story to give a matter which in itself has no redemptive value such prominence. One would presume that the holy life of Jesus is described so minutely be- cause the story of the Savior is being told. This presumption is strengthened when right at the beginning of the Gospel, in the first chapter of the first gospel, we meet the statement: "Thou shalt call His name Jesus, for He shall save His people from their sins." Mary's Son is to be known as the Savior from the day of His con- The Active Obedience of Christ. 817 ception on. In fact, the rejoicing over the work of salvation set in, not on the day of the crucifixion, but on the day of His birth. Men and angels praised God, not that there would be, but that there was, peace on earth, Luke 2, 10-20. Most of this is, to be sure, only pre- sumptive evidence. But it yields food for thought, and in the light of the incontrovertible proof to be adduced in the following it becomes evident that Matt. 1,21 is an apt motto for the entire Gospel-story. In discussing, in the second place, these incontrovertible proof- texts, we naturally begin with Gal. 4, 4. 5. Enough has been said on this text in the foregoing expositions. But it will bear repetition. Gal. 4, 4. 5 disposes of the contention that Scripture nowhere teaches that redemption was procured by the holy life of Jesus. All hinges on the meaning of the phrase "made under the Law," and one hesi- tates to write down the platitude that, whatever else it may mean, it certainly means that Christ, in being made subject to the Law, was put under the obligation to keep it. If it means that when applied to men, it certainly means the same when applied to Christ, because the identical phrase is used in the same verse with reference to man- kind and to Christ as applying equally to both. It will not do to say that in the case of man it means subjection to the requirements and to the penalties of the Law, but in Christ's case subjection only to the penalties. Again, the apostle is using the phrase "under the Law" synonymously with the phrase "in bondage under the elements of the world," v. 2, and the meaning of that is brought out in v. 10: "Ye observe days and months and times and years." "Under the Law" describes the condition of those who are bound by the provisions of the Law, provisions imposing not exclusively penalties, but also duties. And, finally, they who prefer to remain "under the Law," v. 21, have in mind primarily the duties imposed by the Law. Gal. 4,4. 5 teaches that "the Son of God took upon Him our nature and our duties" (Exp. Gr. N. T.) to redeem us, to render satisfaction for our non-fulfilment of our duties. Luther: "In order that we may the better understand how Christ was put under the Law, we should know that He placed Himself under it in a twofold way. First, under the works of the Law: He suffered Himself to be circumcised, sacrificed, and purified in the Temple; He obeyed His father and mother, and the like, though He was not obliged to do so; for He was the Lord of all laws. But He did it voluntarily. . .. Secondly, He voluntarily put Himself under the pains and penalties of the Law. He not only performed the acts He was not obliged to perform, but He also suf- fered, willingly, and innocently, the punishment," etc. (XIT, 235.) This one text is sufficient to dispose of the claim that Scripture nowhere states that the holy life of Jesus belongs to His vicarious satisfaction. But it will be profitable to study some of the other passages of the same import. E. 52 (To be concluded.)