www.PresentTruthMag.com

Proclaiming the Good News of the forgiveness of sin and eternal life by God’s unmerited grace alone through faith alone in the sinless life and atoning death of Jesus Christ our Lord alone. Sola Gratia…………Only By Grace Sola Fide………...…Only By Faith Solo Christo…….....Only By Christ Sola Scriptura……..Only By Scripture

Volume 44

Essays on Justification by Faith

Letters – page 2 Editorial Introduction – page 5 Justification and Regeneration – page 6 Justification and the Holy Spirit – page 8 Justification and the Faith of Jesus – page 14 Justification and Eschatology in Luther’s Thought – page 21

2

“Restoring the Gospel to Its Rightful State” Sir: I appreciate very much your recent emphasis on the Old Testament framework of the gospel and its need of restoration in our preaching and teaching. It has helped me see some weaknesses in my own ministry. Restoration of such a costly jewel however, takes more than the broad sweeps and generalities that characterized your issue. Many of your childish neighbors who specialize in Palestinian eschatology and dispensationalism are guilty of the same thing in seeking to develop a restored biblical system of their own. These broad sweeping statements go far in exciting the general evangelical public and many times they draw the “you really opened my eyes!” response from those who are looking for some honest help in their approach to the Scriptures. But these things do little service in drawing any of us closer to the text of Scripture. What is needed today is some energetic work through the text of Scripture. Your staff is quite capable of such a venture, as was demonstrated when you devoted several issues to an exposition of Romans 6-8 some time ago. Being a “childish neighbor,” I did not agree with all that you said, but I found it to be the most stimulating discussion of the passage that I have seen. Where I disagreed,] had to do some digging in the text myself, which proved most helpful. The broad studies may get you wider following and gain you the approval of those already on your side of the fence, but it is the text of t Word itself that is able to effect restoration of the gospel in its proper framework in the hearts and lives those on both sides. May God see fit to further use you and your journal that end. John P. Cwynar Baptist Pastor New York

“New Testament Witnessing" Sir: I found Geoffrey J. Paxton’s article on “The Gospel and Testimonies” quite good. I have seen the very thing he talks about. Yet I think Mr. Paxton, as usual overstates his case. Art Calhoun West Virginia

Sir: I enjoyed very much two articles: “The Witness Theme in the Gospel of John,” by Allison A. Trites, and “The Gospel and Testimonies,” by Geoffrey Paxton. The latter aptly described what I have also witnessed while fellowshipping with many of my friends who describe themselves as “evangelical Fundamentalists,” whose ambition is to emulate today’s so-called “soul-winners.” I often wonder what the souls they have won have been won to, for their preaching is so full tear-jerking stories about other people and so devoid of the witness Jesus Christ. I challenge every believer to study 1 Corinthians 2:1-2, then analyze his own testimony and then strive make Paul’s testimony his own, because the apostle said, “We preach not ourselves, but Christ Jesus the Lord” (2 Cor. 4:5). Daniel E. Parks Baptist Missionary Virgin Islands

Sir: I was thoroughly enjoying your magazine until I came to the article entitled “The Gospel and Testimonies,” by Paxton. That made me decide that the round file under my desk was the place for your publication rather than passing it to another as is my practice. I am amazed that you would waste your space and your readers’ time by publishing such drivel. To try to establish a difference between a “gospel testimony” and an “evangelical type testimony” seems only an at tempt to start another theological argument. And how can Paxton judge all testimonies so harshly when so many have proven a blessing?

3

Had Paxton had his way, Joni Eareckson would have never published her book, Joni, or its sequel, Step Farther, nor would Chuck Colson have published his testimony Born Again. I have to wonder how Paxton would handle Luke 8:39, where Jesus told the healed maniac go home and tell what had happen to him. And Paxton’s conclusion suggesting that to “discard the traditional evangelical-type testimony will bring great honor and glory God”—what an idea! I’ll be the first to agree that many so-called testimonies are emotion packed, sometimes poorly delivered and I am sure some are exaggerated. But can’t the same be said of many sermons? So do we exclude them all?

I’d like to ask Paxton: “Has an atheist ever testified to you of how much his atheism has helped him and tried to share his beliefs with you? Or has a Moslem or Hindu given you his testimony—how his faith has lifted him out of the doldrums of life? In my sixty-eight years of experience in this life, I have been approached few times by evangelical Christians with a desire to share their faith. No liberal, no Catholic, none of any other faith has found enough personal satisfaction in his faith to want to share it with me. And Paxton would remove this one unique activity from the zealous Christian who wants to share with others the best thing that ever happened to him. I’m sure you don’t expect your readers to agree with all you publish. But this—it’s near blasphemy. A. Frank Gibbs Arizona

Sir: Reading the article on “New Testament Witnessing” was like having an accumulation of dust blown away by a cool wind. I particularly appreciated Geoffrey Paxton’s article on “The Gospel and Testimonies,” which cut through the heart of an issue that I have been wrestling with for some time. A few months ago a lady who knew something of my personal history asked that I come and speak to her Sunday night group about my experiences in coming to Christ. I said I would, but that it seemed to me the most important experience to talk about was Christ’s experience on our behalf. The most significant thing about becoming a Christian, and later living as one, is having our eyes turned away from ourselves and focused on the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. To this the lady replied, “Well, if all you want to talk about is the gospel, then I don’t want you to come. That doesn’t fit in with our format.” I have been uneasy about this ever since, and even Mr. Paxton’s article hasn’t completely dissipated the problem. In attempting to defend the centrality of the gospel, all I really did was lose an opportunity to tell it. (And I probably also came across as a sanctimonious, pietistic religious snob—which, being the sinner I am, is, I fear, largely true!) Ah well, no one ever promised that being a Christian would be easy—at least no one trustworthy ever promised that. But Present Truth Magazine is surely a comfort in times of stress. It is also a challenge and a stimulus to continuing study in God’s Word. Anne M. Wallace Arizona

“Preaching Christ from the Old Testament” Sir: I want to express a word of thanks, especially for the issue of Present Truth Magazine that deals with “Preaching Christ from the Old Testament”. It came at a time when I myself had only started to think along these lines. In my preaching, which has mostly dealt with New Testament themes, I have only made scant reference to Old Testament contexts and passages. I have, however, realized that I needed to expose myself and my church much more to the Old Testament. And so your issue was very timely. Although I don’t agree completely with everything you publish, your journal is refreshing and stimulating. C. R. Dickson Pastor Republic of South Africa

4

Sir: Your issue on the Old Testament was a joy to me. You’ve provided a long-needed forum for a crucial matter. So let’s move on with it and pursue this to its obvious conclusion. When will we finally listen seriously to Paul’s statement that the gospel was long before announced to Abraham, the believer? (Gal. 3:7-9). When will we recognize the Mediator of the eternal covenant throughout the events of the Hebrew text and believe that there is (and has always been) only one Mediator between God and man, the Man? When will we hear the Messenger of God speaking the Eternal’s words of truth from the Glory-Presence on Mount Sinai and from the Mount of Transfiguration? When will we realize that the Anointed One gave Jacob a name above every name; He gave him His very own name: Israel, the Prince of God? (Gen. 32). And when will we Gentiles forsake our self-righteous piousness and acknowledge that we—by God’s eternal love—were grafted into the one true Olive Tree, which had its root in the Ancient of Days and its trunk in the righteous believers of old (Seth, Enoch, Noah)? When will we stop condemning the natural branches to darkness and break into weeping and prayer for them, knowing that their centuries of terrible wandering have allowed us to find a home in the Holy One of Jacob? When will we forsake our pagan festivals and ritual and return to the God-given patterns in His Scripture? And when will we open our hearts to the eternal glad tidings: “Messiah our Passover has been sacrificed”? (1 Cor. 5). There is much ground left to inherit in the Book of the Covenant. It is time we started home. Paul B. Sumner Washington

Bogged Down Sir: Thank you for your wonderful journal and the truth I have learned from it. The only improvement I would want is for the literary and theological giants to write so a high-school grad could understand them more easily. Sometimes I just get bogged down with so many words and have to put the journal down for a while and let them sink in. Your presentation on the law and gospel is great. I have recommended it to several pastors. It was the clearest presentation I have ever read or heard. Samuel Errington Pennsylvania

This Is Life Sir: I am extremely pleased with your book, This Is Life—probably because my wife and I have already been practicing some of the things mentioned. I am most anxious to involve our congregation in the use of This Is Life. We have already discussed the possibility of involving the community in a monthly meeting with this type of discussion. Wendell England Pastor Arizona

Sir: I thoroughly enjoyed your publication, This Is Life. It is very well written. I was particularly impressed by your common-sense approach to evangelism and man as a wholistic being—body, soul and spirit. I pray that This Is Life gets the wide reading it deserves. You can be sure I will expose many friends to it. Keep up your scholarly work. Rick Zeiser California

Sir: I have appreciated the spiritual meat in your journal. Yet I never considered using any of your material as an evangelical tool. However, This Is Life is the most complete explanation of the most gracious gift the Lord has given us—salvation. There are very few books I can hand to a person who is not mature in the Lord without having to give cautions and explanations about the material. But This Is Life—indeed, all the publications I have read from your organization— does not contain doctrine and tradition not found in God’s Holy Word. Jack P. Heilborn, Jr. Michigan

5

Sir: This Is Life is without doubt the most meaningful work ever put into print on what it is to live the real Christian life. This comes from folks who have been educated from elementary school through college in Christian schools. Just wish this had been available thirty-five years ago! Mr. and Mrs. Eugene F. Wakefield Missouri

Sir: I happen to read Verdict, and I believe that no other publication has so clearly presented health in relation to God. I am in agreement with almost all that you have published. I especially like your treatment of the subject of life in This Is Life. I am a Roman Catholic and would like to see the neglected values of truth back in their proper place. Nick L. Madijanon III Philippines

Editorial Introduction In this issue of Present Truth Magazine we have selected four essays on four different aspects of man’s justification before God. The first article is a selection from John Calvin. It is a masterful statement on the distinction and union of justification and regeneration. The second article is from William Reid, a nineteenth-century Scottish author. It is a simple but important testimony distinguishing justification by the blood of Christ and the inward work of the Holy Spirit. The third article is from an Australian clergyman, Bishop D. W. B. Robinson. It is a discussion on the meaning of “the faith of Jesus.” The final article is by George W. Forell. Dr. Forell is Carver Distinguished Professor in the School of Religion at the University of Iowa. His essay shows the crucial relationship between justification and eschatology in Luther’s thinking. We trust that our readers will be stimulated and challenged by these essays. We not necessarily agree with every point in all four essays, but their testimony deserves to be heard. They help clarify some important issues. Come, let us reason together. R. D. B.

6

Justification and Regeneration John Calvin Editorial Note: The following short article on the subject of the sinner's justification before God is from the masterful pen of John Calvin.1 His brilliant definitiveness on this subject exceeds both Luther and Melanchthon. In our judgment it is equaled only by Chemnitz and the Formula of Concord. The relation between justification and regeneration has again become prominent. Many today, including some leading scholars, eschew a purely forensic justification. They wish to include the inward work of regeneration in the article of the sinner's justification before God. We need to realize that these arguments are not new. What is righteousness by faith? Does it include regeneration and the life of sanctification? Calvin shows that the righteousness which is of faith and regeneration of life must be clearly distinguished but never separated. Care must be taken that respect to works be not intermingled with gratuitous Reconciliation, which wholly consists in the forgiveness of sins. For though we are never reconciled to God, without being at the same time presented with inherent righteousness, yet things which cannot be separated ought to be distinguished.... We say that we are justified by faith, because the righteousness of Christ is imputed to us. If any one, on the other hand, objects that we are made partakers of Christ only by being renewed by his Spirit unto the obedience of the law, this must be acknowledged to be true; but let Regeneration be what it may, we deny that Justification is to be placed in it.

We do not act thus either from a love of disputation, or because we will not allow anything to be passed over that does not altogether please us. The cause which urges us is most necessary. The point involved is peace of conscience, without which we must all be most wretched, nay, almost undone. It is asked, I say, where our consciences may rest safely in regard to salvation. If they are agitated by disquietude, or in doubt, Paul teaches that faith is made void. (Rom. iv. 14.) And he declares that this is the necessary result, so long as they look to the law. What then? That we may have salvation, we must at the same time have a sure conviction of righteousness. Any part of this righteousness, however small, if placed in works will totter, as resting on an insecure foundation. It remains, therefore, to recline solely on the pardon of sins. It is a plain matter, that we cannot come boldly before the tribunal of God, unless we are certainly persuaded that he is our Father: and this cannot be without our being regarded as righteous in his sight. Thus we are precluded from all access to him, until trusting in his paternal good will, we can without hesitation invoke him as our Father. But if there is no salvation and no invocation of God, without tranquil and sure trust for the conscience; and, on the other hand, if conscience cannot rest in anything short of certain righteousness, who can doubt that the whole righteousness on which man ought to lean, is contained in the free remission of sins? Our mediators then only gloss the matter in pretending that inherent righteousness concurs with the merit of Christ, when the point under discussion is the mode of justifying. Such concurrence must necessarily beget a fearful conflict, until, altogether forgetting works and discarding the mention of them, we obtain not a part of righteousness only, but the whole entire from Christ.

They say that God does not act with us after the manner of an earthly judge, who only acquits, and does not also bestow true righteousness. I admit it. But while a twofold grace is at the same time bestowed upon us by Christ, we ought carefully to consider the effect of each. The question now asked is, In what way are we accepted by God? If works are mixed up with the free Imputation of Righteousness, another question will immediately arise, viz., how far works avail in procuring the favour of God, and whether free imputation holds the chief place, or is only a kind of inferior auxiliary? What else is this than completely to subvert the foundation? Accordingly, Paul deservedly includes the righteousness of faith simply in forgiveness of sins, teaching that it is described by David when he pronounces the man blessed to whom sins are not imputed. (Rom. iv. 6; Psalm xxxii. 2.) And certainly that blessedness which David mentions flows from righteousness. It follows, then, that we are righteous in this, that our sins are not imputed. Hence, Zacharias in his song describes instruction concerning the forgiveness of sins, as the knowledge of salvation. (Luke i. 77.)

1 From Kenneth A. Strand, ed., Reform Essentials of Luther and Calvin: A Source Collection (Ann Arbor: Braun-Brumfield, 1971), pp.219-222. Copyright (c) 1971. Reprinted by permission.

7

On the whole, let us remember that the debate here is not simply concerning the manifold grace of God toward us, but concerning the cause of our Reconciliation with him. This cause, unless it is fixed as one, is null. For Scripture does not tell us to borrow only part of our righteousness from Christ in order to supply what is wanting in our works; but the Apostle plainly declares that Christ himself was made righteousness to us. And in another passage he declares, that men are righteous before God by the very circumstance that our sins are no longer imputed to us. (1 Cor. 1. 30; 2 Cor. v.19.)

Both the magnitude and variety of the blessings which we receive from Christ are indeed to be extolled; nor does it become us to restrict his office and efficacy to any one species. Nor, when we say that men are justified by the benefit of Christ, are we to be silent as to the grace of Regeneration; nay, rather, we must take care not to separate what the Lord perpetually conjoins. What then? Let men be taught that it is impossible they can be regarded as righteous by the merit of Christ, without being renewed by his Spirit unto a holy life; and that it is in vain for any in whom the Spirit of regeneration dwells, not to glory in the free adoption of God; in short, that God receives none into favour who are not also made truly righteous. But there is need of distinction, lest the one of the two gifts should derogate from the other. Let the children of God consider that Regeneration is necessary to them, but that, nevertheless, their full righteousness consists in Christ – let them understand that they have been ordained and created unto holiness of life and the study of good works, but that, nevertheless, they must recline on the merits of Christ with their whole soul – let them enjoy the righteousness of life which has been bestowed upon them, still, however, distrusting it so as not to bring before the tribunal of God any other trust than trust in the obedience of Christ.

In order that ambiguities may be removed, it is necessary that the Righteousness which we obtain by faith, and which is freely bestowed upon us, should be placed in the highest rank, so that, as often as the conscience is brought before the tribunal of God, it alone may shine forth. In this way the righteousness of works, to whatever extent it may exist in us, being reduced to its own place, will never come, as it were, into conflict with the other; and certainly it is just, that as righteousness of works depends on righteousness of faith, it should be made subordinate to it, so as to leave the latter in full possession of the salvation of man. There can be no doubt that Paul, when he treats of the Justification of man, confines himself to the one point – how man may ascertain that God is propitious to him? Here he does not remind us of a quality infused into us; on the contrary, making no mention of works, he tells us that righteousness must be sought without us; otherwise that certainty of faith, which he everywhere so strongly urges, could never stand; still less could there be ground for the contrast between the righteousness of faith and works which he draws in the tenth chapter to the Romans. Wherefore, unless we choose to sport with so serious a matter, (this would be fraught with danger!) we must retain propriety of expression, which carries with it the knowledge of the thing expressed. Were the thing conceded to us by those who entangle this part of the doctrine by their comments, I would easily give up all contest about the word. But those who confound the two kinds of righteousness together, seeing the thing they aim at is to prevent the righteousness of Christ from being entirely gratuitous, are on no account to be borne.

But we must obviate their cavil, when they bring forward James, and collect other passages in Scripture, where the term justify is taken differently, to establish what they call concurrence. James does not mean that man acquires righteousness with God, even in the minutest degree, by the merit of works; he is only treating of the approval of righteousness. (James ii. 21.) And who denies that every man proves what he is by his actions? But to furnish men with credible evidence of your disposition is a very different thing from meriting salvation in the sight of God. Hence, not to be imposed upon by the different meanings of the word, we must always observe whether reference is made to God or to men. Moreover, we deny not that the righteous are called the children of God, in respect of holiness of life, as well as in respect of a pure conscience: but as no work, if weighed in the Divine balance, will be found otherwise than maimed, and even defiled by impurities, we conclude, that this name of righteousness, when given to works, is founded on free pardon. Believers, therefore, are righteous by works, just because they are righteous without any merit of, or without any respect to works, seeing that the righteousness of works depends on the righteousness of faith.

Justification and the Holy Spirit by William Reid Editorial Note: This article is from a book entitled The Blood of Jesus, written in 1881 by the Rev. William Reid of Edinburgh. A certain emphasis on the Holy Spirit's work does not enhance the gospel of Christ but detracts from it. It fails to correctly relate the Holy Spirit's work to the saving work of Jesus Christ. Much mischief is done when the Spirit's work is confused with or placed in the room of the substitutionary work of Christ. This confusion makes an antichrist out of what is thought to be the Spirit. William Reid writes with great simplicity yet with careful thought. We trust that his testimony will challenge us to be more biblical and true to the gospel in relating to the work of the Son and the work of the Spirit.

The Gospel

We sometimes hear "the claims of Jesus" pressed upon sinners; but this is to confound Christ with Moses, and represent His salvation as only an amended republication of the law "given by Moses," forgetting that "grace and truth came by Jesus Christ" (John i. 17).

"The gospel, strictly taken, contains neither 'claims,' commands, nor threatenings, but is glad tidings of salvation to sinful men through Christ, revealed in doctrines and promises; and these revealed to men as sinners, stout-hearted, and far from righteousness. In the good news from heaven of help in God through Jesus Christ, for lost, self-destroyed creatures of Adam's race, there are no precepts. The gospel is the good news of salvation for lost sinners through the sacrifice of Christ.1 The gospel is the report of a peace made by the BLOOD OF CHRIST for poor sinners, and offered to them. 2 The gospel brings a sound of liberty to captives, of pardon to condemned criminals, of peace to rebels, a sound of life to the dead, and of salvation to them that lie on the borders of hell and condemnation. 3 It is not, indeed, the gospel of itself, but Christ revealed therein, that heals the sinner. It is Christ that is to be received, but He is received as offered in the gospel, and the gospel holds out Christ to the eye of faith. The gospel is with respect to Christ what the pole was with respect to the serpent." 4

The gospel does not therefore urge upon us claims which we cannot fulfill, but it places before us the free grace of God in Christ Jesus, and permits us to claim the Son of God as our Redeemer, and through Him to enjoy "all things" pertaining to the life of faith and the hope of glory. We are asked to give God nothing for salvation. He is the great Giver. Our proper position is to stand before Him as beggars in the attitude of receiving. "He that spared not His own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall He not with Him also freely give us all things?" (Rom. viii. 32.)

The gospel of the grace of God does not consist in pressing the duty defined by the words, "Give your heart to Christ," although that is often unwisely pressed upon inquirers after salvation as if it were the gospel; but the very essence of the gospel is contained in the words, "Having liberty to enter into the holiest BY THE BLOOD OF JESUS, by a new and living way, which He hath consecrated for us, through the veil, that is to say, His flesh; and having an high-priest over the house of God; let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith" (Heb. x. 19-22).

"Give your heart to Christ," is rather law than gospel. It is most proper that it should be done, for God Himself demands it; but merely urging the doing of it is far short of the gospel. The true gospel is, Accept the free gift of salvation from wrath and sin by receiving the Lord Jesus Himself, and all the benefits He purchased with His OWN BLOOD, and your heart will be His in a moment, being given to Him, not as a matter of law, but of love; for if you have the love of His heart poured into yours by His blessed Spirit, you will feel yourself under the constraining influence of a spontaneous spiritual impulse to give Him in return your heart, and all that you possess. It is right to give Him your heart, but unless you first receive the open proof of having His, you will never give Him yours.

The design of the following pages is to exhibit "the true grace of God" "without the works of the law," and only "by THE BLOOD OF JESUS" (Heb. x. 19). Our great aim is the glory of Christ in the conversion of

1 Representers' Answers to Queries. 2 Boston. 3 Ebenezer Erskine. 4 Ralph Erskine.

9

souls; and the means employed to accomplish that end are simple statements concerning the great Scripture truth, that we are saved at once, entirely, and for ever, by the grace of God "who is rich in mercy," and that we have no part at all in the matter of our salvation save the beggar's part, of accepting it as a "free gift," procured for us by "THE PRECIOUS BLOOD OF CHRIST" (1 Pet. i. 19). And, as many are struggling to get up something of their own as a price to bring to God to buy salvation of Him, we have taken pains to show the entire uselessness of all such efforts; and have pointed out, we think, with some degree of clearness, and by a variety of ways, that all true religion has a distinct beginning, and that that beginning dates from the time when a sinner, conscious of his utterly ruined condition, believes in his heart that Jesus so completely satisfied God for sin, that He could say before He gave up the ghost, "It is finished" (John xix. 30); so that "we have redemption through His BLOOD, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace" (Eph. i. 7). "He His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree" (1 Pet. ii. 24), and thereby, God "having made peace by THE BLOOD OF His CROSS" (Col. i. 20), we may at once be "made nigh by THE BLOOD OF CHRIST" (Eph. ii. 13), without anything of our own. That God who hath set Him forth, "a propitiation through faith in His BLOOD, to declare His righteousness" (Rom. iii. 25) in pardoning sin, will pardon ALL sin through faith in Him, for His own testimony is, that "THE BLOOD OF JESUS CHRIST His Son cleanses us from all sin" (1 John i. 7).

"THE BLOOD OF JESUS" is the ground of peace with God to every believing sinner below, and it will be the subject of the everlasting song of the redeemed above. It is our ALL for acceptance with God, for pardon of sin, for "justification of life," for adoption into God's family, for holiness and glory. As the altar with its streaming blood stood at the very entrance of the ancient tabernacle, so the Lord Jesus Christ and THE BLOOD OF His CROSS meet us at the very entrance of the Church of the redeemed. The blood shedding of Jesus as "a propitiation for our sins" (1 John ii. 2) lies at the very threshold of the Christian life. It is the alphabet of Christian experience to know the value of "THE BLOOD OF SPRINKLING" (Heb. xii. 24). The first step in the Christian course is to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ and be saved (Acts xvi. 31).

"THE BLOOD OF JESUS" is our great and only theme in the following pages. May the Divine Spirit make the truth this book contains "the power of God unto salvation" (Rom. i. 16) to every reader. . . .

The Blood of Jesus, Not Conviction of Sin, the Foundation of Our Peace and Joy

If the Holy Spirit be awakening you to a true apprehension of your danger as a rebel against God's authority – a guilty, polluted, hell-deserving sinner – you must be in a deeply anxious state of mind, and such questions as these must be ever present with you – “What must I do to be saved? What is the true ground of a sinner's peace with God? What am I to believe in order to be saved?"

Well, in so far as laying the foundation of your reconciliation is concerned – I wish you to observe that you have nothing to do; for Christ who died for sinners said on Calvary, "It is finished" (John xix. 30). Jesus has done all that the Righteous God deemed necessary to be done to insure immediate pardon, acceptance, and salvation to all who believe on His name. If you take Jesus Christ as your Saviour, you will build securely for eternity. "For other foundation can no man lay than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. iii. 11). He is the foundation-stone of salvation laid by God Himself, and on His finished atoning work alone you are instructed to rest the salvation of your soul, and not on anything accomplished by you, wrought in you, felt by you, or proceeding from you. It is of the last importance to be clear as to the fact that it is the work of Christ without (outside) you, and not the work of the Spirit within you, that must form the sole ground of your deliverance from guilt and wrath, and of peace with God. You must beware of resting your peace on your feelings, convictions, tears, repentance, prayers, duties, or resolutions. You must begin with receiving Christ, and not make that the termination of a course of fancied preparation. Christ is the Alpha and Omega. He must be EVERYTHING in our salvation, or He will be nothing. Beware lest you fall into the common mistake of supposing that you will be more welcome to accept of Christ that you are brought through a terrible process of "law-work."

10

You are as welcome to Christ now as you will ever be. Wait not for deeper convictions of sin, for why should you prefer conviction to Christ? And you would not have one iota more safety although you had deeper convictions of sin than any sinner ever had. "Convictions of sin are precious; but they bring no safety, no peace, no salvation, no security, but war, and storm, and trouble. It is well to be awakened from sleep when danger is hanging over us; but to awake from sleep is not to escape from danger. It is only to be sensible of danger, nothing more. In like manner, to be convinced of your sins is merely to be made sensible that your soul is in danger. It is no more. It is not deliverance. Of itself, it can bring no deliverance; it tells of no Saviour. It merely tells us that we need one. Yet there are many who, when they have had deep convictions of sin, strong terrors of the law, congratulate themselves as if all were well. They say, 'Ah, I have been convinced of sin; I have been under terrors; it is well with me; I am safe.' Well with you? Safe? Is it well with the seaman when he awakes and finds his vessel going to pieces upon the rocks amid the fury of the whelming surge? Is it well with the sleeper when he awakes at midnight amid the flames of his dwelling? Does he say, 'Ah, it is well with me; I have seen the flames'? In this way sinners are not infrequently led to be content with some resting-place short of the appointed one. Anxiety to have deep convictions, and contentment with them after they have been experienced, are too often the means which Satan uses for turning away the sinner's eye from the perfect work of Jesus, who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree. Our peace with God, our forgiveness, our reconciliation, flow wholly from the sin-atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ.

Behold, then, O Spirit-convinced soul, the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world! In His death upon the cross, behold the Lamb of God that taketh away the sin of the world! In His death upon the cross, behold the mighty sacrifice, the ransom for the sins of many! See there the sum of all His obedience and sufferings! Behold the finished work! – a work of stupendous magnitude, which He alone could have undertaken and accomplished! Behold our sacrifice, our finished sacrifice, our perfected redemption, the sole foundation of our peace, and hope, and joy. 'He His own self bare our sins in His own body on the tree' (1 Pet. ii. 24). It is not said that our duties, or our prayers, or our fastings, or our convictions of sin, or our repentance, or our honest life, or our alms deeds, or our faith, or our grace – it is not said that these bore our sins; it was Jesus, Jesus Himself, Jesus alone, Jesus, and none but Jesus, 'bore our sins in His own body on the tree.' Rest, then, in nothing short of peace with God through our. Lord Jesus Christ."

"Christ has done the mighty work; Nothing left for us to do, But to enter on His toil, Enter on His triumph too." "His the labour, ours the rest; His the death and ours the life, Ours the fruits of victory, His the agony and strife."

The Blood of Jesus Our Only Ground of Peace with God

When you, who are anxious about your soul, are hearing much prayer offered by Christians for the forth-putting of the power of the Holy Spirit, you may conclude that the first thing you also have to do is to pray for the grace of the Holy Spirit; but Jesus Himself sets you right in this matter when He says, "This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him whom He hath sent" (John vi. 29). If you desire to do this at "the throne of grace," by all means repair thither, but do not go to it to do anything else at present. Believers in Jesus pray "in the Holy Ghost" (Jude 20) that He may revive the work of God in themselves and in their fellow believers – lead awakened souls to Christ – and convince sinners of their wickedness and unbelief; but as your only foundation for peace, pardon, purity, and glory, is to be found in the blood-shedding of the

11

Lord Jesus, your more immediate occupation is to "behold the Lamb of God" (John i. 29). No doubt, the quickening grace and presence of the Holy Spirit is most essential to your seeing the Lord Jesus to the saving of your soul, and you should by all means recognize His gracious presence as you contemplate the crucified Redeemer; but it is unscriptural to seek the sanctification of your heart through the Spirit before the justification of your person through Christ; and it is equally unscriptural to mix the two, and depend partly on the one and partly on the other; for the Lord Jesus, and "Jesus only, "is the object on which your anxious eyes must rest for peace with God and a change of heart. "It is Christ that died" (Rom. viii. 34); and the Spirit's office is to direct you to Him who said on Calvary, "It is finished" (John xix. 30).

It is nowhere written in Scripture, The work of GOD'S Holy Spirit cleanseth us from sin; but it is written that "The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin" (1 John i. 7). What you are called upon, then, more especially to do, is to receive Jesus as your Redeemer, that you may "HAVE REDEMPTION THROUGH His BLOOD, THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS, ACCORDING TO THE RICHES OF His GRACE" (Eph. i. 7); for it is written, "As many as received Him, to them gave He power to become the children of God, even to them that believe on His name (John i. 12).

We are not required to be prepared as children, and then come and be accepted of God, be justified, and have our sins pardoned through Christ; but we are instructed to come to the Lord Jesus in order to our being justified freely by His grace, and made sons by faith on Him who is the eternal Son of God. We are justified freely as sinners, and being thus accepted in the Beloved, we become children of God, and have the nature, experience, and walk of His children.

Awakened sinner! begin at the beginning of the alphabet of salvation, by looking upon Him who was pierced on Calvary's cross for our sins – look to the Lamb of God, and keep continually looking unto Jesus, and not at your repentings, resolutions, reformations, praying, reading, hearing, or anything of yours as forming any reason why you should be accepted, pardoned, and saved – and you will soon find peace and take your place among them that "worship by the Spirit of God, rejoice in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh" (Phil. iii. 3).

I do not know a more striking illustration of safety by the blood of Jesus alone, than that which is furnished by the sprinkling of the blood of the Passover lamb on the homes of the Israelites, on the eve of their redemption from the bondage of Egypt. "The blood on the lintel secured Israel's safety." There was nothing more required in order to enjoy settled peace, in reference to the destroying angel, than the application of "the blood of sprinkling." God did not add anything to the blood, because nothing more was necessary to secure immunity from the sword of judgment. He did not say, "When I see the blood and the unleavened bread or bitter herbs, I will pass over." By no means. These things had their proper place, and their proper value; but they never could be regarded as the ground of peace in the presence of God.

It is most needful to be simple and clear as to what it is which constitutes the groundwork of peace. So many things are mixed up with the work of Christ, that souls are plunged in darkness and uncertainty as to their acceptance. They know that there is no other way of being saved but by the blood of Christ; but the devils know this, and it avails them naught. What is needed is to know that we are saved – absolutely, perfectly, eternally saved. There is no such thing as being partly saved and partly lost; partly justified and partly guilty; partly alive and partly dead; partly born of God and partly not. There are but the two states, and we must be in either the one or the other.

The Israelite was not partly sheltered by the blood, and partly exposed to the sword of the destroyer. He knew he was safe. He did not hope so. He was not praying to be so. He was perfectly safe. And why? Because God had said, 'When I see the blood, I will pass over you' (Exod. xii. 13). He simply rested upon God's testimony about the shed blood. He set to his seal that God was true. He believed that God meant what He said, and that gave him peace. He was able to take his place at the paschal-feast, in confidence, quietness, and assurance, knowing that the destroyer could not touch him, when a spotless victim had died in his stead.

12

If an Israelite had been asked as to his enjoyment of peace, what would he have said? Would he have said, 'I know there is no other way of escape but by the blood of the lamb; and I know that that is a divinely perfect way; and, moreover, I know that that blood has been shed and sprinkled on my door-post; but somehow, I do not feel quite comfortable. I am not quite sure if I am safe. I fear I do not value the blood as I ought, nor love the God of my fathers as I ought'? Would such have been his answer? Assuredly not! And yet hundreds of professing Christians speak thus when asked if they have peace. They put their thoughts about the blood in place of the blood itself, and thus, in result, make salvation as much dependent upon themselves as if they were to be saved by works.

Now, the Israelite was secured by the blood alone, and not by his thoughts about it. His thoughts might be deep or they might be shallow; but, deep or shallow, they had nothing to do with his safety. He was not saved by his thoughts or feelings, but by the blood. God did not say, 'When you see the blood, I will pass over you. No; but 'when I see it.' What gave an Israelite peace was the fact that Jehovah's eye rested on the blood. This tranquillized his heart. The blood was outside, and the Israelite inside, so that he could not possibly see it; but God saw it, and that was quite enough.

The application of this to the question of a sinner's peace is very plain. Christ, having shed His blood as a perfect atonement for sin, has taken it into the presence of God and sprinkled it there; and God's testimony assures the believer that everything is settled on his behalf. All the claims of justice have been fully answered, sin has been perfectly atoned for, so that the full tide of redeeming love may roll down from the heart of God, along the channel which the sacrifice of Christ has opened for it.

To this truth the Holy Ghost bears witness. He ever sets forth the fact of God's estimate of the blood of Christ. He points the sinner's eye to the accomplished work of the cross. He declares that all is done; that sin has been dealt with, and righteousness brought nigh – so nigh, that it is 'to all them that believe’ (Rom. iii. 22). Believe what? Believe what God says; because He says it, not because they feel it.

Now, we are constantly prone to look at something in ourselves as necessary to form the ground of peace. We are apt to regard the work of the Spirit in us rather than the work of Christ for us, as the foundation of our peace. This is a mistake. We know that the operations of the Spirit of God have their proper place in Christianity; but His work is never set forth as that on which our peace depends. The Holy Spirit did not make peace; but Christ did: the Holy Spirit is not said to be our peace; but Christ is. God did not send 'preaching peace' by the Holy Spirit, but 'by Jesus Christ' (comp. Acts x. 36; Eph. ii. 14, 17; Col. i. 20).

The Holy Spirit reveals Christ; He makes us to know, enjoy, and feed upon Christ. He bears witness to Christ; takes of the things of Christ, and shows them unto us. He is the power of communion, the seal, the witness, the earnest, the unction. In short, His operations are essential. Without Him, we can neither see, hear, know, feel, experience, enjoy, nor exhibit aught of Christ. This is plain, and is understood and admitted by every true and rightly-instructed Christian.

Yet, notwithstanding all this, the work of the Spirit is not the ground of peace, though He enables us to enjoy the peace. He is not our title – though He reveals our title, and enables us to enjoy it. The Holy Spirit is still carrying on His work in the soul of the believer. He 'maketh intercession with groanings which cannot be uttered' (Rom. viii. 26). He labours to bring us into more entire conformity to the Lord Jesus Christ. His aim is 'to present every man perfect in Christ' (Col. i. 28). He is the author of every right desire, every holy aspiration, every pure and heavenly affection, every Divine experience; but His work in and with us will not be complete until we have left this present scene, and taken our place with Christ in the glory. Just as, in the case of Abraham's servant, his work was not complete until he presented Rebecca to Isaac.

Not so the work of Christ for us; that is absolutely and eternally complete. He could say, 'I have finished the work which Thou gavest me to do' (John xvii. 4); and, again, 'IT IS FINISHED' (John xix. 30). The blessed Spirit cannot yet say He has finished the work. He has been patiently and faithfully working for the last eighteen hundred years as the true – the Divine Vicar of Christ on earth. He still works amidst the various hostile influences which surround the sphere of His operations. He still works in the hearts of the people of God, in order to bring them up, practically and experimentally, to the divinely-appointed standard; but He

13

never teaches a soul to lean on His work for peace in the presence of Divine holiness. His office is to speak of Jesus. He does not speak of Himself. 'He,' says Christ, 'shall receive of Mine, and shall show it unto you' (John xvi. 14). He can only present Christ's work as the solid basis on which the soul must rest for ever. Yea, it is on the ground of Christ's perfect atonement that He takes up His abode and carries on His operations in the believer: 'In whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with that Holy Spirit of promise' (Eph. i. 13). No power or energy of the Holy Ghost could cancel sin; the blood has done that. 'The blood of Jesus Christ His Son cleanseth us from all sin' (1 John i. 7).

It is of the utmost importance to distinguish between the Spirit's work in us and Christ's work for us. Where they are confounded, one rarely finds settled peace as to the question of sin. The type of the Passover illustrates the distinction very simply. The Israelite's peace was not founded upon the unleavened bread or the bitter herbs, but upon the blood. Nor was it, by any means, a question of what he thought about the blood, but what God thought about it. This gives immense relief and comfort to the heart. God has found a ransom, and He reveals that ransom to us sinners in order that we might rest therein, on the authority of His word, and by the grace of His Spirit. And albeit our thoughts and feelings must ever fall far short of the infinite preciousness of that ransom, yet, inasmuch as God tells us that He is perfectly satisfied about our sins, we may be satisfied also. Our conscience may well find settled rest where God's holiness finds rest.

Beloved reader, if you have not as yet found peace in Christ Jesus, we pray you to ponder this deeply. See the simplicity of the ground on which your peace is to rest. God is well pleased in the finished work of Christ – ‘well pleased for His righteousness' sake' (Isaiah xlii. 21). That righteousness is not founded upon your feelings or experience, but upon the shed blood of the Lamb of God; and hence your peace is not dependent upon your feelings or experience, but upon the same precious blood, which is of changeless efficacy and changeless value in the judgment of God.

What, then, remains for the believer? To what is he called? To keep the feast of unleavened bread, by putting away everything contrary to the hallowed purity of his elevated position. It is his privilege to feed upon that precious Christ whose blood has cancelled all his guilt. Being assured that the sword of the destroyer cannot touch him, because it has fallen upon Christ instead, it is for him to feast in holy repose within the blood-stricken door, under the perfect shelter which God's own love has provided in the blood of the cross.

May God the Holy Spirit lead every doubting, wavering heart to find rest in the Divine testimony contained in those words, 'When I see the blood, I will pass over you' (Exod. xii. 13) ...........

The Holy Spirit Not Our Redeemer

There is, we regret to think, a large class of professing Christians who seem to have the unfounded notion engrained in their minds, that Christ came as a Saviour in the fullness of time, and on being rejected and received up into glory, the Holy Spirit came down to be the Saviour of sinners in His stead, and that whether men are now to be saved or lost depends entirely on the work of the Holy Spirit in them, and not on the work of Christ done for them; whereas the Holy Spirit was given as the crowning evidence that JESUS IS STILL THE SAVIOUR, even now that He is in heaven; and the great work of the Spirit is not to assume the place of Jesus as our Saviour, but to bear witness to Christ Jesus as the only Saviour, and by His quickening grace bring lost sinners to Him, that they may become "the sons of God by faith in Christ Jesus" (Gal. iii. 26). This He did on the blessed day of Pentecost when thousands of divinely-quickened souls received His testimony, believed "in the name of Jesus," and obtained "remission of sins" (Acts ii. 38). The Holy Spirit is not the Saviour, and He never professed to be so; but His great work, in so far as the unconverted are concerned, is to direct sinners to the Saviour, and to get them persuaded to embrace Him and rely upon Him. When speaking of the Holy Spirit, Jesus said distinctly to His disciples, "He shall not speak of, i.e., from, Himself HE SHALL GLORIFY ME" (John xvi. 13, 14). If to glorify Christ be the grand aim and peculiar work of the Holy Spirit, should it not also be the grand aim and constant work of those who believe on Him, and more especially of those specially gifted by Christ to minister in the Church of God?

14

The whole drift of the Holy Spirit's inspired oracles, as we have them in the Bible, is to glorify Christ; and the various "gifts" have been granted by Him (Eph. iv. 11-12) to keep the purport of those Scriptures incessantly before the minds of men, and in so doing to beseech sinners to be reconciled to God. Now, Holy Scripture throughout clearly teaches that, simply on account of the one finished and all-sufficient and eternally efficacious work of Christ, sinners who believe in Him are "justified from all things;" that we are "justified freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus: whom God hath set forth to be a propitiation through faith in His blood" (Rom. iii. 24, 25); and we are justified as "sinners," as "ungodly" (Rom. v.6, 8), and not as having an incipient personal righteousness wrought in us by the Holy Ghost. Few men with the word of God in their hands would subscribe to such a doctrine; and yet it is the latent creed of the great majority of professing Christians. It is, in fact, the universal creed of the natural heart. Fallen human nature, when under terror, says, Get into a better state by all means; feel better, pray better, do better; read your Bible more diligently; become holier, and reform your life and conduct, and God will have mercy upon you! But grace in the believer says, 'Behold, God is my salvation!" (Isa. xii. 2).

To give God some equivalent for His mercy, either in the shape of an inward work of sanctification, or of an outward work of reformation, "the natural man" can comprehend and approve of; but to be justified by faith alone, on the ground of the finished work of Christ, irrespective of both, is quite beyond his comprehension. But "the foolishness of God is wiser than men" (1 Cor. i. 25), for, instead of preaching holiness as a ground of peace with God, "we preach Christ crucified" (1 Cor. i. 23), "for other foundation can no man lay " – either for justification or sanctification – “than that is laid, which is Jesus Christ" (1 Cor. iii. 11); and, whatever others may do, in preaching the gospel, I am "determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ and Him crucified" (1 Cor. ii. 2).

Justification and the Faith of Jesus by D. W. B. Robinson Editorial Note: Although the following article by Bishop Robinson is from a closely reasoned and somewhat technical discussion of the biblical expression, "the faith of Jesus Christ," it will prove rewarding to those who persevere with the argument.1 It challenges what is generally accepted as the meaning of "the faith of Jesus Christ." If Bishop Robinson is correct – and we leave the question open – we wish to suggest that his argument strengthens the old Reformed position on "the active obedience of Jesus Christ." Critics of this view have argued that the entire concept of the imputation of Christ's righteousness (including His active obedience) lacks specific biblical support. Although we cannot agree with this criticism, we suggest that Bishop Robinson's argument might prove a new line of defense for the objective gospel. To this type of article we especially need to apply our formula, "Come, let us reason together."

"Faith of Jesus Christ" – a New Testament Debate Many years ago, as a schoolboy, I gave my autograph book to a visiting preacher who wrote in it three Greek words from Mark xi. 22, echete pistin theou, with this rendering, "Reckon on God's fidelity." I knew that this was not the usual rendering of the text, which in most versions is "Have faith in God." But when in later years I came to the serious study of the Greek Testament I found myself wondering whether perhaps the text could indeed be about God's faithfulness. I transferred my curiosity to another phrase, more frequently found in the New Testament, pistis Iesou Christou, and wondered whether it, likewise, might be referring to a quality possessed by Jesus, his faith or his faithfulness, rather than our faith in him. After all, the Authorized Version regularly rendered the phrase in question as "the faith of Jesus Christ," not "faith in Jesus Christ," before modern versions, with one accord, opted for the latter interpretation. Then came the day when, as a student working through Sanday and Headlam on Romans, I was arrested by a note on the phrase pistis Iesou Christou where it occurs in Romans iii. 22: "Genitive of object, 'faith in Jesus Christ'. This is the hitherto almost universally accepted view, which has, however, been recently challenged in a very carefully worked out argument by Prof. Haussleiter, of Greifswald . . . Dr. Haussleiter

1 D. W. B. Robinson, "'Faith of Jesus Christ' – a New Testament Debate," The Reformed Theological Review 29, no.3 (Sept.-Dec. 1970), pp.71-81. Reprinted by permission.

15

contends that the gen. is subjective not objective, that like the 'faith of Abraham' in ch. iv. 16, it denotes the faith (in God) which Christ Himself maintained even through the ordeal of the Crucifixion, that this faith is here put forward as the central fact of the Atonement, and that it is to be grasped or appropriated by the Christian in a similar manner to that in which he reproduces the faith of Abraham. “If this view held good," the commentators go on to say: "a number of other passages would be affected by it. But, though ably carried out, the interpretation of some of these passages seems to us forced; the theory brings together things, like the pistis Iesou Christou here with the pistis theou in iii. 3, which are really disparate; and it has so far, we believe, met with no acceptance."

Nothing daunted by this dismissal of a German scholar I had never heard of, I continued to toy with the possibility that there was more to Iesou Christou than was usually allowed. I was especially struck by the odd fact that in some places the phrase had alongside of it an additional reference to men believing in Jesus, using the word pisteuo. Rom. iii. 22 speaks of the righteousness of God being revealed through pistis Iesou Christou, "unto all who believe." If pistis Iesou Christou means "faith in Jesus Christ," why add "for all who believe"? Gal. 3:22 similarly speaks of the promise of God which proceeds from pistis Iesou Christou as being given "to those who believe." And what about Rom. i. 17, which says that the righteousness of God is revealed "from faith to faith"? Why two "faiths"? I began a more systematic study of the use and meaning of pistis in the New Testament.

In the early 1950s, Dr. Gabriel Hebert came to Australia, and in the course of an acquaintance with him I discovered that he was following a similar kind of inquiry. We discussed an article he was preparing with the title "'Faithfulness' and 'Faith'," which duly appeared in Melbourne in the "Reformed Theological Review" of June, 1955, and also in the English periodical "Theology" in October the same year. Hebert took the point that the genitive after pistis in a number of N.T. passages is, in fact, subjective, that the pistis is the pistis of Jesus (not faith in him). Hebert's special interest was in attempting to establish that the meaning of pistis in these phrases was "faithfulness" rather than "faith," and that the Greek word pistis was being used in the sense of the Hebrew 'emunah. But Hebert went further than that. In the Old Testament, he declared, 'emunah "is repeatedly used to mean 'the Faithfulness of God'. The phrase (sc. in the N.T.) will then mean 'the Faithfulness of Jesus Christ', God's Faithfulness revealed in Him" ("R.T.R.," June, 1955, p.33). His argument was that pistis was fundamentally something pertaining to God, not man, and that God's faithfulness was always part of the connotation of the word pistis and of all the various forms of nouns or verbs associated with 'emunah.

In the "Expository Times" of January, 1957, Professor T. F. Torrance, of Edinburgh, published an article entitled "One Aspect of the Biblical Conception of Faith." He followed much the same line as Hebert, whose article he acknowledged, but his special point was that "in most of these passages pistis Iesou Christou does not refer only either to the faithfulness of Christ or to the answering faithfulness of man, but is essentially a polarized expression denoting the faithfulness of Christ as its main ingredient but also involving or at least suggesting the answering faithfulness of man." I suspect that Torrance may have been influenced by Karl Barth, who, in his famous commentary on Romans, took the pistis of Jesus Christ in iii. 22 to be the faithfulness of God manifested in Jesus Christ, and "from faith to faith" in i. 17 to mean "from God's faithfulness to man's faith" ("The Epistle of the Romans," translated by Edwyn Hoskyns, Oxford, 1933, pp.96, 41).

Professor C. F. D. Moule, of Cambridge, reacted at once against the thesis of Hebert and Torrance, especially Torrance's version of it, with a note in the "Expository Times" the following month, February, 1957. Partly on theological, but chiefly on linguistic, grounds he expressed the opinion that it was "a false trail." Paul's usage, he felt, offered good parallels to an objective genitive in this sort of phrase; the verb pisteuo certainly is used with Christ as object, either explicitly or implicitly; pistis itself, at least with prepositions, is used of faith in Christ. Moule urged the force of Gal. ii. 16 in particular, where pistis Christou and the Christian's believing are set side by side. The onus probandi, he said, is on "anyone who interprets pistis differently from (the verb) pisteuo."

16

A similar reaction on linguistic grounds came in 1959 from Professor John Murray, of Westminster Seminary, Philadelphia, who added an appendix of 11 pages on the Hebert Torrance thesis to his large commentary on Romans 1-8. He also charged Torrance with "confusing a polarized situation with a 'polarized expression"' ("The Epistle to the Romans," Vol.1, Grand Rapids, 1959, pp. 363ff.). Murray did not deny that man's faith answers to the faithfulness of God, or that the faithfulness of God is exhibited in the mind and work of Christ; but he demurred at Torrance's claim to see this complex situation in the mere use of the term pistis Christou.

Then in 1961, Professor James Barr, of Edinburgh, got out his shotgun, and both Hebert and Torrance were among the noble army of martyrs who fell in the fusillade. Chapter 7 of "The Semantics of Biblical Language" (Oxford, 1961) is devoted to "'Faith' and 'Truth' – an Examination of Some Linguistic Arguments." The ground of Barr's attack is the misunderstanding by both Hebert and Torrance of the force of Hebrew words which (in their opinion) lay behind Paul's use of pistis and pisteuo. It can hardly be doubted that Barr is entirely correct in his particular criticisms. One cannot read into the mere phrase pistis Christou all the connotations of the 'emunah of God which Hebert and Torrance wished to read into it. Barr did not deny the influence of O.T. usage on Paul and, although he criticized even C. H. Dodd for paying too much attention to an alleged "basic idea" for the Hebrew root, he draws attention to Dodd's treatment of pistis in "The Bible and the Greeks" (Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1935, p. 65ff.).

Nevertheless, when full allowance has been made for Barr's criticism, Hebert and Torrance remain as scholars who have expressed their preference for seeing pistis in a number of passages as Christ's pistis (whatever that is to mean) rather than as the believer's pistis in Christ, and for regarding the noun pistis as patient of the meaning "faithfulness" rather than "faith" in these cases; and I do not think that Barr's case makes any necessary difference to these contentions, though the strength of Moule's and Murray's objections remains to be tested.

In any case, the matter has not rested with Barr's particular semantic caveats. In the "Harvard Theological Review" for 1967 George Howard brings forward further evidence of scholars favoring a pistis which is in some sense Jesus' own pistis rather than the believer's faith in Him. Apparently Gerhardt Kittel in 1906 argued that, since Paul certainly uses the subjective genitive in Rom. iii. 3 in reference "to the faith of God," and again in iv. 16 in reference to "the faith of Abraham," he is confusing his readers unless he intends the same grammatical construction in iii. 22 and 26 to refer to "the faith of Christ." Among recent scholars, E. R. Goodenough – in a posthumous essay published in 1967 – also held that the faith of Jesus was closely parallel to Abraham's faith; he defined it as "his trusting that the cross would not be the end, and that God would save Him from death." (This interpretation reminds us of Bishop Westcott's interpretation of Heb. xii. 2, where he takes the phrase "the author and finisher of faith" to refer to that faith which "in its highest form was exhibited by Jesus in his human nature," that firm trust or hope which endured the present woes with eyes set on the glory of God beyond death.) Howard's own view differs from these: the pistis of Jesus is not, he thinks, his trust in this sense, but his faithfulness to the promise given to Abraham that all the Gentiles would be blessed through his seed. 2

Let me now set out the question as I see it, in particular relation to pistis Christou. There are eight occasions in Paul's letters where the phrase pistis Christou or its equivalent occurs. These are all important passages relating to the central issues of God's salvation in Christ and of the participation by men in that salvation. If in these phrases, or in any of them, the faith or faithfulness of Christ is meant (as distinct from men's faith in him), it at once becomes likely that there are other occurrences of pistis by itself which should also be referred to the faith or faithfulness of Christ if the context allows this.

The eight basic occurrences are:

Gal. ii. 16 (twice): "we... knowing that a man is not justified from works of law but only through pistis Iesou Christou, even we believed (episteusamen) on Christ Jesus, that we might be justified from pistis Christou and not from works of law."

2 A second article by Professor Howard has now appeared. "Romans 3:21-31 and the Inclusion of the Gentiles," in the Harvard Theological Review for April, 1970. Pages 228-31 are relevant to our subject, especially the references in footnote 29.

17

Gal. ii. 20: "I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I that live, but Christ lives in me, and that life I now live in the flesh I live by pistis which is of the son of God who loved me and gave himself up for me.

Gal. iii. 22: "but the scripture shut up everything under sin so that the promise from pistis Iesou Christou might be given to those who believe (pisteuousin)."

Rom. iii. 22: "but now the righteousness of God has been manifested... the righteousness of God through pistis Christou unto all who believe (pisteuontas)."

Rom. iii. 26 (which concludes this same section): "to display his righteousness at this present season, that he himself might be just and the justifier of the man who is from pistis Iesou."

Phil. iii. 9: "that I may gain Christ, and be found in him, not having my own righteousness which is from law, but that which is through pistis Christou, the righteousness of God on the ground of (that) pistis."

Eph. iii. 12: "according to the eternal purpose which he determined in Christ Jesus our Lord, in whom we have boldness and access with confidence through the pistis autou."

The renderings given above are not, of course, intended to beg the question of a proper translation, which must wait for a decision as to interpretation. I have simply preserved as far as possible the Greek constructions, and I have rendered ek by "from" and dia by "through."

Now the student may distinguish three problems here:-

1. the grammatical or syntactical problem: what is the force of the genitive after pistis? Is it objective ("faith in Christ") or subjective ("Christ's exercise of faith")? Or is it a less precise possessive ("faith belonging to Christ") or vaguely adjectival and descriptive ("Christian faith")?

2. the semantic problem: what is the meaning of the word pistis? Is it here the noun corresponding to the active and transitive force of the verb pisteuo ("I believe" or "I trust")? Or does it mean, as more usual in Greek, "that which can be trusted," "reliability," "faithfulness," perhaps even "a pledge" or "an assurance"?

3. the theological problem: what is Paul talking about? Is he telling us about the work of Christ, or the response of man (or, as Hebert and Torrance would have liked it, about both in the same breath)? Does the general balance of Paul's teaching about atonement and salvation shut us up to one or other of the various grammatical or semantic alternatives? What will follow for our estimate of Christian truth by a shift in emphasis in our usual understanding of these verses?

With regard to the semantic problem, the meaning of pistis in the N.T., two possibilities at least must be kept in mind. First, there may have been such distinctions in the uses of pistis that you could not know, until the word was used in a particular context, which meaning was intended. For example, there may have been a real distinction between pistis = "belief" and pistis = "fidelity," and in this event only the usage in a particular context could convey even to a Greek which sense was meant. But the other possibility is that, where we think we see a distinction through applying a test based on our own language and its distinctions, none existed for the native user of pistis. In this event, pistis did not convey to Paul either precisely what we mean by "faith" or precisely what we mean by "fidelity," but something else, a tertium quid, some notion, say, of fixity or firmness, which was suitable for use in a variety of contexts, but which did not, as a constant semantic marker, require any differentiation in significance. But where this sort of thing may be the case, it will probably baffle us to grasp the true state of things.

Before returning to our eight texts, let us observe Paul's use of pistis in the two earliest letters of his which we possess. Perhaps this will give us a tentative idea of what the meaning of the word was for him. We know, of course, even before we look at Paul, that the predominant use of pistis in ordinary Greek was not to indicate what we indicate by the word "faith" or "trust" directed to someone, but rather what we indicate by the word "reliability" or "fidelity," or, in a more concrete way, an "assurance" or "pledge." the Septuagint, for example, probably never uses pistis in our sense of "faith" or "trust."

18

So at least we can say that pistis by itself would not primarily suggest the idea of "faith" or "trust." We should not, therefore, be surprised, in opening the Thessalonian letters, to find that pistis, though it is chiefly something pertaining to the Christians at Thessalonica, does not clearly refer to their faith or believing (as we think of these attitudes), but rather to the firmness of their stand or of their attitude in relation to the Christian gospel. We cannot exclude their faith or belief from the area to which the term pistis is applied, but insofar as these notions are implied in the context, the word pistis denotes the firmness of the Thessalonians' attitude; and the reference seems to extend equally to the firmness exhibited in the Thessalonians' behaviour and endurance under pressure.

Let us look at the letters in detail. Pistis is used eight times in the first epistle. First, Paul gives thanks for the Thessalonians' work of pistis along with the labour of love and endurance of hope. This phrase does not define pistis. The "work" is somehow related to pistis, and the phrase could be expounded according to any meaning of pistis. The definition comes as the passage proceeds. The gospel has come to the Thessalonians not only in word but in power, and they have become imitators both of Paul and of the Lord himself, presumably in their endurance under affliction. In every place, says Paul, "your pistis which is in relation to God (he pistis humon he pros ton theon) has gone forth." Can we distinguish "faith" and "faithfulness" here? I do not think so. Certainly, a trustful response to the gospel is involved. But also involved is the firmness of the Thessalonians' stand, despite pressure to dislodge them. The report said, not only that they had turned to God from idols, but had turned so as to serve a living and true God and to wait for his son from heaven. The epistle continues on the theme of the steadfastness of the Thessalonians, and their pistis is the central subject of chapter 3. Timothy had been sent from Athens to know their pistis and to exhort them in regard to it (verses 2-5). He returned to Paul with the news of their pistis and love (v.6). Paul is comforted by this. In the midst of distress and affliction, he says, he was comforted because of them, through their pistis (i.e., the pistis of which Timothy had brought the tidings). "For now we live," Paul goes on, "if you stand fast in the Lord" (ean humeis stekete en kurio). It thus appears that the pistis of the Thessalonians is their firmness. This firmness is set by the context in relation both to their initial response to the gospel, and also to their continuance of adherence and to their consistency of behaviour. It remains only for Paul to express the hope of seeing them shortly so as to complete or perfect what is lacking in their pistis. What he means by this is perhaps reflected in the prayer which follows, in which he prays that they will abound in love, and that God will make their hearts firm (sterixai) so that they may stand before God holy and blameless when the Lord Jesus comes (v.13).

The second epistle, written soon after the first, uses pistis similarly. Again there is thanks that their pistis is increasing mightily (v.3), and then Paul says how he boasts among the churches about the Thessalonians because of what he calls "your steadfast endurance and pistis under all your persecutions and the troubles you endure." Hupomone and pistis are linked with a single definite article. Once again, pistis looks like firmness, and the letter continues on the theme of standing fast (ii. 15-17) and not being wearied in well doing (iii. 13). (The reference to pistis ale theias in ii. 13 raises special problems, and will be dealt with later in this paper.) Pistis occurs once more in iii. 2. Paul prays that his friends may be delivered from unreasonable and evil men, "for all," he warns, "have not pistis. But the Lord is trustworthy (pistos) and will establish you (sterixei) and guard you from evil." Does this mean that not all men have faith (in the sense of belief), or that not all have firmness, in the sense that they cannot be trusted, in contrast to the Lord who is trustworthy, i.e., firm (pistos) and who will continue to confirm those who hold to him?

I have discussed these letters at some length to give us a preliminary idea of how we might expect Paul to use pistis in Galatians and Romans. The impression of Thessalonians is that pistis is used without too much specialized Christian connotation. It is not necessarily to be expected that this would remain for ever the case; but it provides a good starting point for what follows.

As we return to the eight instances in which pistis is used in relation to Christ, I wish to make clear that I am suggesting no more than that there is a good case for considering these all to refer to the pistis of Christ, and for considering that this pistis of Christ is his firmness, exhibited in his self-giving and his passion. The varying contexts may reflect different aspects of this, whether his firmness in adhering to the path appointed for him, or his firmness of attachment to the Abrahamic promise, or to the righteousness of God. It would be difficult to distinguish absolutely between "faith" and "faithfulness" as applied to Christ in

19

such situations. We are, however, justified, in my opinion, in giving first option to the view that the genitive after pistis is not objective, on the ground of general Greek usage. No case of pistis with an objective genitive is cited in the ninth edition of Liddell and Scott. (Two examples in earlier editions are rightly reclassified in LS9 as belonging to the sense of "pledge" or "fidelity," with subjective genitive.) No case is cited in Moulton and Milligan's "Vocabulary." There is no case of such a usage in the Septuagint. Where pistis is clearly in active relation to an object (i.e. = "faith" or "belief"), this is expressed with eis or en. For what it may signify, pisteuo in its transitive form is never used with an objective genitive, but always with the prepositions eis, en or peri, or with tini, or occasionally with the accusative object.

In regard to Paul's own usage, Howard claims that pistis followed by a genitive of a person or of a personal pronoun occurs 24 times not counting the places where pistis Christou and its equivalents appear, and that in all 24 cases the phrase refers to the faith of the person, never faith in the person. Outside the Pauline corpus, we may first look at the four instances where pistis is followed by a genitive of the person of Christ or God. We discover that none of them is so unequivocally objective as to provide certain evidence for the usage we are looking for. (1) Mark xi. 22 could well be "God's pistis," either subjective or adjectival. Nowhere else in the gospels does the expression "have faith" either have, or even imply, an object. It could mean "be firm," and in Mark xi. 22 "be firm as God is firm," notwithstanding C. E. B. Cranfield's complaint: "The suggestion that the genitive is subjective – ‘have the sort of faith God has' –is surely a monstrosity of exegesis" (Commentary on Mark in loc). Rom. iii. 3 certainly speaks of God's pistis, his fidelity which is contrasted with the infidelity of Israelites. The subject matter is closely parallel to that of the incident of the withering of the fig tree. "God's pistis" must be kept as a live option for Mark xi. (2) James ii. 1 ("Hold not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ with respect of persons" RV) is taken, by W. E. Oesterley for instance, as "the new religion which Christ gave to the world, i.e., the Christian faith" ("Expositor's Greek Testament" in loc.), where the genitive is broadly adjectival. (3) The same may be true of Rev. ii. 13 ("you did not deny my faith"), and (4) Rev. xiv. 12 ("here is the patient endurance of the saints, they that keep the commandments of God and the faith of Jesus"). Apart from these four instances, there are yet another 24 places outside the Pauline corpus where pistis is followed by a genitive of the person or a personal pronoun, and all these cases refer to the pistis of persons, not pistis in them.

There remain only three other instances of any significance involving a genitive after pistis. (1) In Acts iii. 16, "the pistis of his name" may mean "the assurance, or pledge of his name," with the genitive practically appositional. The whole verse is very confused in syntax, but "pledge" or "assurance" is worth considering for both places where pistis occurs. (2) In Col. ii. 12, "through the pistis of the working of God" is likely to refer to God's pistis, with pistis again approximating to "pledge" or "assurance" as definitely in Acts xvii. 31 in reference to the resurrection. (3) II Thess. ii. 13 is a problem. It could mean "belief in the truth," though the genitive in the parallel phrase (hagiasmo pneumatos) is not objective. On the other hand, the pistis of God could be meant, with aletheias an adjectival or qualitative genitive.

All in all, a non-objective genitive for pistis Christou is at least a live option, in the light of other usage of pistis with the genitive.

Let us then finally look at the possible theological significance of the theory that the pistis of Christ is what our eight occurrences are talking about. Gal. ii. 15-end introduces us to an already formulated doctrine of justification in which pistis Christou has a thought-out place. We do not know the stages of thought by which Paul arrived at this formulation. Jesus Christ is he "who gave himself for our sins, that he might deliver us out of this present evil world, according to the will of our God and Father" (i. 4). The response of men is to "believe on Christ Jesus" (ii. 16), and so to be "justified in Christ" (ii. 17). But "justified in Christ" points to some ground of justification for the believer within the life or work of Christ, and in fact the phrase "justified in Christ" is parallel to "justified as a result of pistis Christou and not of works of law."

The whole verse may be taken as relating Paul's believing to Christ's firm adherence to the will of God in the work of atonement and redemption: "a man is not justified by performing the law, but only by means of the faithfulness of Christ. So even we Jews believed on Jesus Christ so that we might be justified 'in Christ,' i.e., as a result of his faithfulness to God's will, and not as a result of our law keeping" Verse 20 amplifies this. To be "justified in Christ" is to be crucified with him, and to live by, or in, that quality or attitude of constancy by which the Son of God loved me and gave himself up for me.

20

In Gal. iii. 22 the pistis Iesou Christou is the means by which the ancient Abrahamic promise overcame the obstacle posed by the interlude of the law and was made available to all who should believe, i.e., it is not man's faith but Christ's faithfulness. In support of this interpretation we can cite Rom. xv. 8: "Christ became a servant of the circumcision on behalf of the truth of God, to confirm the promises made to the fathers, and that the gentiles should glorify God for his mercy." This "firmness" of Christ, in this case his faithful servitude to the will of God, is the pistis Christou which is the ground of men's confidence and trust as they seek a standing before God.

Rom. iii. 22 and 26 only repeat this exposition of the economy of salvation. The chapter begins with an assertion of the pistis theou, the faithfulness of God without doubt, over against the unfaithfulness of his people. But then, in the centre of that divine operation by which God works salvation for a guilty world, the faithfulness of Jesus Christ is said to be the means through which the justification or righteousness of God has been manifested to those who believe. This interpretation is to be preferred to the usual interpretation, for it makes much better sense to say that God's righteousness has been manifested by the character of Christ's work than to say it has been manifested by man's faith in Christ, for how can man's faith be said to have demonstrated God's righteousness? Rather, Christ's faithfulness, in death itself, makes possible an atoning sacrifice which redeems lost men, and thus God's way of righting wrong has been demonstrated in this age.

In Phil. iii. 9 Paul seeks a righteousness, not his own but of God, which is through the faithfulness (pistis) of Christ. That "firmness" of Christ was established in his sufferings and in his resurrection, and Paul's answering faith is in "knowing" Christ by sharing in his sufferings and in the power of his resurrection. Eph. iii. 11 also places the faithfulness of Christ at the heart of the eternal purpose of God for the reconciliation of men, and as the ground of men's boldness and access to God with confidence.

All this means that the term pistis designates a quality of firmness or fixity or constancy which, as Paul discerns it, exists at three vital points in the scheme of salvation. First, there is the pistis of God himself, his eternal, immutable character, displayed in his word and his action, notably in his righteousness and salvation. Secondly, there is the pistis of Christ, seen in his unflinching obedience to the will of the Father, and in his faithfulness to the promise of blessing through the seed of Abraham and to the loving purposes of salvation even in suffering and death. We do not have to say that this is God's faithfulness in Christ; it is Christ's own pistis, peculiar to his role. Finally, there is the pistis of believers, evoked, no doubt, by the pistis of God and the pistis of Christ, yet a quality in the believer himself, and therefore properly distinct from God's and Christ's. The believer's "firmness" is expressed both in his trust in the word of God and in the work of Christ for him, and in the steadfastness with which he endures the trials of his life.

The one word pistis will do for all these things because it means something like "firmness" in each case. Paul sees this quality as of high significance, in whatever set of relations it is thought of. In Gal. iii. the era of Christ can be called the era of pistis, and in Rom. i. 17 the righteousness of God, by the gospel, is revealed from pistis to pistis, in accord with the prophetic scripture which says that "the righteous man will find life as a result of pistis." Perhaps Paul means that salvation proceeds from God's faithfulness and is offered to the answering faith of man, as Barth proposed. The Hebrew of Habakkuk ii. 4 has "the righteous will live by his faithfulness," while the LXX has "the righteous will live by my faithfulness." Paul omits any personal pronoun. For him the principle of pistis is seen in both God and his Christ, and also in the believing man. Each of these three settings of pistis has its own connotations. Man's apistia cannot negate the pistis of God, and man's pistis only has significance in the end because it stands in relation both to the pistis of God and the pistis of Christ. Christ is the immovable rock established by the immutable God, upon which he invites men to take their stand without flinching. And "he who puts trust on him will never be confounded" (Isa. xxviii. 16, Rom. ix. 33). 3

3 Presidential address to the Fellowship of Biblical Studies, Sydney, 26th June, 1969, slightly abridged.

21

Justification and Eschatology in Luther's Thought George Wolfgang Forell Editorial Note: It is widely known that Luther regarded justification by faith as the article of the standing or falling church. Not so well known is the significance of Luther's eschatology. Originally published in Church History, this essay by Dr. Forell suggests that Luther's understanding of justification by faith developed against the background of his eschatological consciousness. Reprinted with permission from Church History 38 (June 1969): 164-174.

The juxtaposition of "justification" and "eschatology" in Luther's thought seems at first strikingly inappropriate. Justification is undoubtedly the central concern in Luther's theological effort. It was to Luther "the master and prince, the lord, the ruler and the judge over all kinds of doctrines; it preserves and governs all church doctrine and raises up our conscience before God. Without this article the world is utter death and darkness. No error is so insignificant, so clumsy, so outworn as not to be supremely pleasing to human reason and to seduce us if we are without the knowledge and the contemplation of this article." 4

Earlier he had written, "This article is the head and the cornerstone, which alone begets, nourishes, builds, serves and defends the church of God. Without it the church of God cannot exist for even one hour." 5 In his commentary on Galatians he could say about this same article, "Whoever falls from the doctrine of justification is ignorant of God and is an idolater.... For once this doctrine is undermined, nothing more remains but sheer error, hypocrisy, wickedness, and idolatry, regardless of how great the sanctity that appears on the outside. The reason is this: God does not want to be known except through Christ; nor, according to John 1:18, can He be known any other way." 6 It is this article which in Luther's judgment makes the theologian a judge of this earth and, indeed, of all things. He added, however, that only few people had given this article sufficient attention, had thought it through and thus were able to teach it correctly. 7

Luther was quite aware of the fact that it was his emphasis on doctrina and especially the centrality of justification by faith rather than questions of moral corruption which constituted the central issue of the Reformation. He saw the difference between his own efforts and those of Wycliffe and Huss quite clearly. They had attacked the moral decay in the church. Luther knew that, "Doctrine and life must be distinguished. Life is bad among us, as it is among the papists, but we don't fight about life and condemn the papists on that account. Wycliffe and Huss didn't know this and attacked [the papacy] for its life. I don't scold myself into becoming good, but I fight over the Word and whether our adversaries teach it in its purity. That doctrine should be attacked – this has never before happened. This is my calling." 8

4 Weimar Ausgabe, 39, I, 205, Promotions disputation von Paladius und Tilemann, June 1,1537. 5 WA, 30, II, 650, Vorwort zu In prophetam Amos Johannis Brentii expositio, 1530. 6 3Luther's Works American Edition, 26, 395f., Lectures on Galatians, 1535; WA, 40, I, 602. 7 WA, 25, 375, Isaiah, Scholia, 1532/34. 8 AE, 54.110, Veit Dietrich, Fall, 1533; WAT, 1, 294.

22

For Luther, if only the word remained pure, there was always the hope that the life would also be straightened out through the power of this word. But if the word was missing there was also no hope for a changed life. 9 He said, "If the teaching (doctrina) remains pure there is hope that life could easily be improved. The rays of the sun remain pure and shine brightly even if they fall on excrement. Thus God maintains something pure among us through which we readily condemn the error committed. The Lord magnifies this word and loves it." 10

In view of the centrality of this doctrine of justification by faith for Luther it is not surprising that it has been both a central object of study for all Luther scholars and the subject of considerable controversy in the history of Luther research, involving practically every scholar in this field up to the present time. This very debate has been an indication of the general awareness of the centrality of the doctrine of justification for all of Luther's thought. Eschatology, on the other hand, has been a most neglected aspect of Luther's theology. In his description of this theology Johannes v. Walter pointed out in 1940 that in spite of the attention given to all the details of Luther's thought there was then no monograph dealing with Luther's eschatology, and even more significantly, the major efforts of interpreting Luther's theology either avoided the topic entirely (Th. Harnack and E. Seeberg) or dealt with it in a most cursory fashion and more for the sake of completeness than because of any awareness of its significance for an understanding of Luther's theology (J. Kostlin). This, as Walter pointed out, was the more astonishing since Calvin's eschatology had received a great deal of attention. He added that the meditatio futurae vitae seemed to him at least a far more central part of Calvin's theology than of Luther's. Indeed, Walter suggested the reason for the relative neglect of Luther's eschatology himself by saying, "In the end isn't this the deepest and final reason for this state of affairs, that, according to Luther's last utterance, 'Heaven and earth have become one in faith,' that, therefore, the blessedness of faith cannot be essentially surpassed even in the next world, but rather only in so far as the human boundaries to complete communion with God will be lifted?"11

Since 1940 the significance of Luther's eschatology has received more attention. The way was prepared by Paul Althaus in his seminal work, Die letzten Dinge, which focused attention on the problem of eschatology in general and took Luther's own contribution most seriously. 12 Carl Stange entered the discussion of Luther's eschatology by opposing Althaus, especially in his interpretation of Luther's understanding of the immortality of the soul.13 Walter Koehler insisted in his Dogmengeschichte als Geschichte des chnsthchen Selbstbewusstseins, which appeared in 1951, five years after his death, that Luther's eschatology was the mirror of his faith and that Luther's thought was relevant to one of the most acute modern issues since he had bridged the tension between axiological and teleological eschatology. He said,

Modern Dogmatics (E. Troeltsch, P. Althaus) speaks of axiological eschatology and understands by this the experiencing of final, unconditional values here on earth. Luther experienced this in faith; faith is axiological eschatology. One could also say, conscience; out of its terror came the call. But the final values were not immanent but rather transcendent-values 'in hope.' In this way the bridge was built from axiological to teleological eschatology, which asks about the goal, purpose and end of all being.... Thus alongside of the eschatology already completed in principle he knows the drama of the end of history in the succession of scenes, untroubled by the fact that both trains of thought submit to a unification only partially, especially since biblical eschatology itself is not homogeneous. 14

Since that time there have been a number of studies which have attributed to Luther's eschatology a central place in his theological vision. Wingren showed in 1942 that Luther's eschatology is the key to the 9 AE, 54,110, Veit Dietrich, Fall, 1533; WAT, 1, 294. 10 WA, 13, 688, Proph. Min, 1524. 11 Johannes von Walter, Die Theologie Luthers (Gutersloh, 1940), p.230. 12 Paul Althaus, Die letzten Dinge, 5th ed. (Gutersloh, 1949). It is, however, remarkable that the same Althaus gave so little consideration to the central significance of Luther's eschatology in his Die Theologie Martin Luthers of 1962. In sixteen pages (pp.339-354) he deals with this issue as the final locus in Luther's theological system. 13 Carl Stange, "Zur Auslegung des Aussagen Luthers uber die Unsterblichkeit der Seele," in Studien zur Theologie Luthers (Gutersloh, 1928), p.287f. 14 Walter Koehier, Dogmengeschichte, Das Zeitalter derReformation (Zurich, 1951), p.486.

23

ultimate hope that upholds the Christian in his vocation.15 In 1954 this writer tried to show that it is Luther's eschatology which constitutes the limiting principle of his social ethics and the source of his efforts to find a temporary and pragmatic solution to the great social problems of his time.16 In 1956 T. F. Torrance surveyed the eschatology of the Reformation in his Kingdom and Church and asserted its crucial significance. He said,

The Reformation stands for the rediscovery of the living God of the Bible, who actively intervenes in the affairs of men, the Lord and the Judge of history, and with that comes a powerful realization of the historical relevance of eschatology. The Reformation thinks of the ends of the world as having already overtaken humanity, so that even now the Church on earth lives in the last times and even now the last things are being wrought out in history. 17

Later, in 1960, David Lofgren called attention to the eschatological dimension in Luther's teaching concerning creation. He said,

The idea of creation and eschatology belong closely together in Luther: 'Thus when one says that heaven and earth are one creation or work which was made by Him who is called the one and only God, and were made out of nothing, that is an art above all art. That everything, therefore, was brought out of nothing into being and shall again be brought out of being into nothing, until everything will be made anew, more glorious and beautiful – this, I say, we know, and Holy Scripture teaches it and thus pictures it for the children in faith with the words: I believe in God the Father, Creator, etc. ' 18

It is because God is the creator that a new creation is possible, and it is because of this new creation that the Christian life in time is possible. Similarly Karl Gerhard Steck, investigating doctrine and church in Luther, asserted that if the eschatological dimension of Luther's understanding of doctrine is lost, the concept "doctrine" is falsified and becomes incomprehensible. 19 Luther's eschatology is seen here as decisive for an understanding of his use of the notion "doctrine," which we have claimed earlier to be so very central for his thought.

Two further monographs dealing with Luther's eschatology have come to my attention. Erich Wittenborn treated Luthers Predigt vom Jungsten Tag in his Inaugural-Dissertation at Bonn in 1964.20 And in 1967 Ulrich Asendorf, who had dealt with Luther's eschatology earlier in his – Der Jungste Tag, Weltende und Gegenwart,21 published a comprehensive investigation of Luther's eschatology in which he devoted his attention to our specific topic.22

15 Gustaf Wingren, Luthers lara om kallelsen (Lund, 1942); cf. Luther on Vocation, trans. Carl R. Rasmussen (Philadelphia, 1957(, pp. 248ff. "Summarized in three points, the condition before the resurrection consists of these concepts: 1. We live on earth under the law, even while we believe the gospel. 2. We are always confronted by an unconquered devil, even while we believe in God's victory through Christ.....[#3. not given here. Not sure why, but we can get the point being made – eds.] The final eschatological consummation can be summarized in the following three points: 1.The earthly realm and the sway of the law are past, for Christ's heavenly kingdom, which formerly existed only in the form of the gospel, has now come in power. 2. The devil is conquered and Christ's mastery is revealed. 3. The old man has died completely through the cross, and the entire man has been raised as a spiritual body without sin. These three points correspond exactly with the three points characterizing the condition before the resurrection and supply their resolution. These three, like the first three, constitute a unity, a single truth. For the law ceases where the old man ends; and this abolition of the old man is the same as the victory over the devil. In the divine hour when this occurs, hiddenness is ended and the toil of vocation is terminated. But that day cannot be hastened either by man's effort or his piety." 16 George W. Forell, Faith Active in Love (New York, 1954), pp.156ff. See also p.188: "All life, of individuals as well as collectivities is lived in the shadow of eternity. The social order is merely an interim order valid until the impending end of this world. All the ultimate problems of man's individual and social existence can be solved only when the coming kingdom of God ends all human history. Until that time all human efforts are merely attempts to eliminate proximate evils. The ultimate evils that confront man can be overcome only through the parousia of Christ, the coming kingdom of God." 17 T. F. Torrance, Kingdom and Church, A Study in the Theology of the Reformation (London, 1956), p.3. He surveyed the theology of the Reformation under three headings – The Eschatology of Faith: Martin Luther; The Eschatology of Love: Martin Butzer; The Eschatology of Hope: John Calvin. 18 David Lofgren, Die Theologie der Schopfung bei Luther (Gottingen, 1969), p.301; see also: "As we have seen, the new creation of man through faith produces not only the right 'image' of God, but also the right perception of things and of the neighbor and thereof gives the believer a greater candor in his life's task, in relation to his calling in the world. And hence the eschaton becomes decisive for the life which man lives here and now and includes not only the discovery that God's goodness is preferred here in this life, but also the recognition that the innermost meaning of life lies hidden in death. Man thus obtains his power for obedience finally not from out of himself or any created thing at all, but rather from faith in the resurrection of the dead, which indeed means the end of dying." 19 Karl Gerhard Steck, Lehre und Kirche bei Luther (Munchen, 1963), pp. 197ff. "Creative power is attributed to doctrine; it creates Christians. In this its eschatological divine power reveals itself. As soon as the eschatological aspect is lost, only an apparently boundless over-estimation of doctrine is left, for which the title 'socratic-idealistic' would be too mild." 20 Erich Wittenborn, Luthers Predigt vom Jungs ten Tag (Bonn, 1964). 21 Ulrich Asendorf, Der Jungste Tag, Weltende und Gegenwart (Hamburg, 1964). 22 Ulrich Asendorf, Eschatologie bei Luther (Gottingen, 1967), pp. 36-48.

24

While all these developments since 1940 would indicate a new appreciation for the significance of Luther's eschatology, they would not of themselves warrant the juxtaposition of justification and eschatology. This juxtaposition is justified, however, because we can claim:

1. Luther's justification by faith is an eschatological experience.

2. Luther's view of eschatology makes it the seal of his doctrine of justification.

3. Justification by faith without eschatology is a form of subjectivistic and individualistic self-hypnosis.

4. Eschatology without justification by faith is mere utopianism.

In the contemporary discussion of eschatology it is fashionable to speak of consistent eschatology (Konsequente Eschatologie), salvation-historical eschatology (heilsgeschichtliche Eschatologie), and realized eschatology (Eschatologie des hic et nunc).23 In this context it would be possible to say that Luther's understanding of justification by faith is developed against the background of what we would call realized eschatology. Justification is, indeed, the liberating act of God because man is and knows himself to be enslaved. It is this slavery to sin which brings the judgment upon him. Luther can be most colorful in his description of his own personal experience of confrontation with the final judgment here and now. He says,

I myself 'knew a man' [II Cor. 12:2] who claimed that he had often suffered these punishments, in fact over a brief period of time. Yet they were so great and so much like hell that no tongue could adequately express them, no pen could describe them, and one who had not himself experienced them could not believe them. And so great were they that, if they had been sustained or had lasted for half an hour, even for one tenth of an hour, he would have perished completely and all of his bones would have been reduced to ashes. At such a time God seems terribly angry, and with him the whole creation. At such a time there is no flight, no comfort, within or without, but all things accuse. At such a time as that the Psalmist mourns, 'I am cut off from thy sight' [Cf. Ps. 31:22], or at least he does not dare to say, 'O Lord, . . . do not chasten me in thy wrath' [Ps. 6:1]. In this moment (strange to say) the soul cannot believe that it can ever be redeemed – other than the fact that the punishment is not yet completely felt. . . . All that remains is the stark-naked desire for help and a terrible groaning, but it does not know where to turn for help. In this instance the person is stretched out with Christ so that all his bones may be counted, and every corner of the soul is filled with the greatest bitterness, dread, trembling, and sorrow in such a manner that all these last forever.24

This sense of the presence of hell in time is expressed also in Luther's commentary on the prophet Jonah where he describes the anxiety of fate and death most colorfully and asserts: "Those who stand in anxieties appear to enter into hell. For that reason, when someone finds himself in the most extreme misery, this experience is also called the deepest hell. It appears as if they were oppressed by the whole world." And here Luther speaks the language of realized eschatology when he continues in his description of hell: "Non est certus locus, nihil in scrip turis est." 25 Hell is anxiety: "I consider the pains of death and of hell to be the same thing. Hell is the terror of death, that is, the sensation of death, in which the damned have a dread of death and nevertheless cannot escape. For the death which is scorned is not felt, but is like sleep." 26

It is the task of theology to concentrate on the clarification of this issue and not to become sidetracked into other concerns:

For we are treating here not of the philosophical knowledge of man, which so described man that he is a living being gifted with reason, etc. For that belongs to natural science and not to theology. Thus a lawyer speaks of man as owner and lord of his goods; the doctor speaks of the healthy and sick man; but the theologian treats of man as sinner. This is the nature of man in theology, and with this, theology deals, in order that man become conscious of this nature of his which is corrupted by sins. When this happens, then despair follows, which thrusts him into hell. 27

23 Cf. Walter Kreck, Die Zukunft des Gekommenen, 2nd ed. (Munchen, 1966), pp. 14-76. See also: Helmut Wenz, Die Ankunft unseres Hern am Ende der Welt (Stuttgart, 1965), pp. 11-27. 24 AE, 31, 129, Explanations of the Ninety-five Theses; WA, I, 557, 558, Resolutiones, 518. 25 WA, 13, 232; Praelectiones in prophetam minores, 1524/26. 26 WA, 5,463; Operationes in Psalmos, 1519-21 27 WA, 40, II, 327; ennaratio psalmi LI, 1532.

25

This, according to Luther, is not intellectual speculation or a mere playing with ideas. It is a true feeling, a real experience, a very serious struggle of the heart. 28

It was out of this concrete and torturing experience of hell that Luther was freed by the Gospel. It is against this background of rejection and condemnation as an eschatological experience that we learn to understand how for Luther justification is the anticipation of the presence of God and of eternal life in time.

This brings us to our second observation: Luther's view of eschatology makes it the seal of his doctrine of justification.

It is because God is coming towards us, because the "dear Last Day" is approaching, that we can live here and now as sinners and righteous at the same time. Certainly, "A man is truly justified by faith in the sight of God, even if he finds only disgrace before man and in his own self." 29 Luther rejects clearly what he considers the Erasmian error that "Faith alone begins the forgiveness of sins, but works obtain salvation or merit and the kingdom of heaven or eternal life. He [Erasmus] says that faith in this life removes sins and gives remission of sins; afterward he ascribes salvation to works. This is most excellent and plausible and this argument pleases reason. For reason rushes in blindly and thinks thus: Eternal salvation is something else than Christian righteousness." 30 For Luther, Christian righteousness is, indeed, salvation, and thus we have salvation now because we are the recipients of this alien righteousness. But Luther also knows that it is because history moves towards a goal which is controlled by God that we are enabled to live in this tension he so colorfully describes as simul justus et peccator:

At this point we say that original sin, although forgiveness has been imputed and thus sin is removed so that it is not imputed, nevertheless, is not substantially or essentially destroyed except in the conflagration of fire by which the whole world and our bodies will be completely purified on the last day. When we have been reduced to dust, then at last sins will be entirely extinguished. In the meantime, while we live, original sin also lives. . .Therefore sin is only remitted by imputation, but when we die, it is destroyed essentially. 31

"For original sin is a root and inborn evil, which only comes to an end when this body has been entirely mortified, purged by fire and reformed. Meanwhile, however, it is not imputed to the godly." 32 Luther's use of the Christian hope for a coming kingdom of God, his "teleological" eschatology and the comfort and assurance it provides is clearly expressed in his discussion of hope in connection with the fifth verse of the fifth chapter of Galatians. He claims that hope can be used in two ways: for the thing hoped for, the object of our hope, and for the feeling of hope, the subjective attitude of hopefulness. And he elaborates this view as follows:

For as long as we live, sin still clings to our flesh; there remains a law in our flesh and members at war with the law of our mind and making us captive to the law of sin (Rom. 7:23). While these passions of the flesh are raging and we, by the Spirit, are struggling against them, the righteousness we hope for remains elsewhere. We have indeed begun to be justified by faith, by which we have also received the first fruits of the Spirit; and the mortification of our flesh has begun. But we are not yet perfectly righteous. Our being justified perfectly still remains to be seen, and this is what we hope for. Thus our righteousness does not yet exist in fact, but it still exists in hope.33

It is an eschatological reality.

To those terrified by the wrath of God this knowledge is of the greatest importance. Luther, using his eschatological imagery, says:

28 WA, 40, II, 326; ennaratio psalmi LI, 1532. 29 AE, 34, 151, The Disputation Concerning Justification, 1536; WA, 39, I, 82. 30 AE, 34, 163, The Disputation Concerning Justification, 1536; WA, 39, I, 94. 31 AE, 34, 164f., The Disputation Concerning Justification, 1536; WA, 39, I, 95. 32 AE, 34, 165, The Disputation Concerning Justification, 1536; WA, 39, I, 96. 33 AE, 27, 21, Lectures on Galatians, 1535; WA, 40, II, 23-24.

26

For, as we know from our own experience, in such a conflict of conscience the sense of sin, of the wrath of God, of death, of hell, and of every terror holds powerful sway. Then one must say to him who is distressed: 'Brother, you want to have a conscious righteousness; that is, you want to be conscious of righteousness in the same way you are conscious of sin. This will not happen. But your righteousness must transcend your consciousness of sin and you must hope that you are righteous in the sight of God. That is, your righteousness is not visible, and it is not conscious; but it is hoped for as something to be revealed in due time. Therefore you must not judge on the basis of your consciousness of sin, which terrifies and troubles you, but on the basis of the promise and teaching of faith, by which Christ is promised to you as your perfect and eternal righteousness.' Thus in the midst of fears and of consciousness of sin, my hope – that is, my feeling of hope – is aroused and strengthened by faith, so that it hopes that I am righteous; and hope – that is, the thing hoped for – hopes that what it does not yet see will be made perfect and will be revealed in due time.34

And Luther concludes:

My righteousness is not yet perfect or conscious. Yet I do not despair on that account; but faith shows me Christ, in whom I trust. When I have taken hold of Him by faith, I struggle against the fiery darts of the devil (Eph. 6:16); and through hope I am encouraged over against my consciousness of sin, since I conclude that perfect righteousness has been prepared for me in heaven. Thus both things are true: that I am righteous here with an incipient righteousness; and that in this hope I am strengthened against sin and look for the consummation of perfect righteousness in heaven.35

In the terror which the experience of one's own unrighteousness – remaining after justification by faith –produces, Luther finds hope in the coming consummation of perfect righteousness in heaven. But this is not the result of any human effort; it is not a human process at all. God initiates justification and the same God completes it. The Christian must believe in the beginning that God has declared him just. Furthermore, God imputes Christ's righteousness to him. 36 Finally, the same God shall complete what he has begun, and the Christian will eventually become what God has declared him to be even now. 37 Perfect righteousness is not a dream. It is a reality coming towards us. It will be revealed in due time. It is for this reason that Christians must pray incessantly for the coming of this day. Luther explains the petition, "Thy kingdom come," by saying:

Help, dear Lord, that the blessed day of your glorious future may come soon, that we be rescued from the wicked world, the devil's kingdom, and be freed from the horrible vexation which we outwardly and inwardly must suffer both from evil people and our own conscience.. . . Therefore they who believe in Christ should become certain and assured of the eternal glory and together with all creatures groan and cry out that our Lord God might hasten to bring about the blessed day when such hope will be fulfilled. 38

The coming day of the Lord is the completion of the work of God begun in our justification. Here eschatology is not so much "realized" as "teleological"; it is an event of the future. Axiological and teleological eschatology were for Luther not mutually exclusive but rather complementary. Thus he could sing:

Thy kingdom come now here below, And after, up there, evermo'. The Holy Ghost his temple hold In us with graces manifold.

34 AE, 27, 21, Lectures on Galatians, 1535; WA, 40, II, 24-25. 35 AE, 27, 22, Lectures on Galatians, 1535; WA, 40, II, 25. 36 AE, 26, 232, Lectures on Galatians, 1535; WA, 40, I, 368: "Then they will find that this is the situation, that Christian righteousness consists in two things: first, in faith, which attributes glory to God; secondly, in God's imputation. For because faith is weak, as I have said, therefore God's imputation has to be added. This is, God does not want to impute the remnant of sin and does not want to impute it or damn us for it. But He wants to cover it and to forgive it, as though it were nothing, not for our sakes or for the sake of our worthiness or works but for the sake of Christ Himself, in whom we believe. Thus a Christian man is righteous and a sinner at the same time, holy and profane, an enemy of God and a child of God." 37 AE, 26, 235, Lectures on Galatians, 1535; WA, 40, I, 372. "Meanwhile, as long as we are alive, we are supported and nourished at the bosom of divine mercy and forbearance, until the body of sin (Rom. 6:6) is abolished and we are raised up as new beings on that Day. Then there will be new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness will dwell." 38 WA, 41, 317-318, Sermons of 1535; cf. WA, 37, 617, Sermons of 1534, and WA, 34, II, 474-475, Sermons of 1531.

27

The devil's wrath and greatness strong, Crush, that he do thy church no wrong. 39

The kingdom of God is coming in this time and afterwards in eternity; but it is the very same kingdom:

It is one and the same kingdom, the kingdom of faith and the kingdom of the future glory. But nevertheless it happens in this manner and is distinguished: that which is here in the realm of faith offered to us in the Word and which we receive and grasp through faith, the same will be presented to us there in the revelation. Thus St. Peter says, I Peter 1, that such a gospel will be proclaimed to us, 'which things the angels desire to look into.' Therefore it is the same kingdom without there being a difference in knowledge. Now we hear it in the Word; there we shall have the vision itself. Now we believe and hope for it with all Christians on earth; there we will possess it with all the holy angels and chosen of God in heaven.40

On the basis of this summary of the relationship of Luther's doctrine of justification to his eschatology, what can we learn for the contemporary theological situation? As we indicated earlier, Luther teaches us that justification by faith without this eschatological dimension is subjectivistic and individualistic self-hypnosis. Against all those theological efforts in our time which attempt to reduce justification to an essentially subjective psychological experience, Luther insists on an objective event at the end of history:

"Meanwhile, as long as we are alive, we are supported and nourished at the bosom of divine mercy and forbearance, until the body of sin (Rom. 6:6) is abolished and we are raised up as new beings on that Day. Then there will be new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness will dwell (II Peter 3:13).41 For Luther the solution to the problem of sin remaining after justification is not the "death of God" but rather the "death of man." Against those theologians who see the hope for the world in the realization of the death of God and the resulting new freedom for man, as for example, the Americans T. J. J. Altizer and William Hamilton,42 Luther would see the hope for the world in the death and resurrection of man – a real death as well as a real resurrection ushering in a new age, a new heaven and a new earth. This is not merely a psychological transaction within the mind of the believer or unbeliever, but it is an act of God involving not only the individual but also his community and his world. Luther reminds us of the reality of the future as the guarantee of our present experience. Justification is not some oriental satori, some intuitive flash of insight into the unitary character of reality, no psychological tour de force. The guarantee of the reality and absoluteness of justification by faith is the hope that he who came shall come again. This future which is coming towards us is not merely a personal and subjective hope, but a hope for the entire people of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of the living and not of the dead. Through the people of God this eschatological hope becomes a hope for all men, indeed, for all of creation. Luther quotes Jesus as saying to the Sadducees who question the resurrection (Matt. 22:23ff.):

You fools, you know nothing of God's Word nor anything of His grace and power; you bring only your dreams here, which should prove something. But if you would consider the Holy Scriptures and look at God's omnipotence, then you would see whether God could not raise the dead. He who in creation indeed made everything out of nothing, should He then not also be able to make the dead alive? And from out of what are all men still created everyday? Isn't it true, out of nothing? Since then He can do that which you daily see before your eyes, grasp and feel, should He then not also restore the dead to life? Is that such an unbelievable thing, to raise the dead, when He addresses something that is nothing, and it comes into being? And when He speaks, then it takes place, and when He commands, then it stands before Him.... I see indeed that you have not studied Scripture, from which you should have learned that God's might and power is so great that He can make everything out of nothing. But meanwhile it happens everyday, yet no one pays attention to it; when a young girl is a virgin and a year later a mother, this is common in villages and cities. Therefore nobody calls it a miracle; and if a man would now 43 rise from the dead, I believe the whole world would come running. But that children are born who a year earlier were nothing at all, this we don't ask about, for we do not recognize God's power or understand Holy Scripture. 44

39 AE, 53, 297, "Our Father in the Heaven who Art"; WA, 35, 464, Das Vater Unser Kurtz Ausgeleget, 1539. 40 WA, 45, 230; Sermon of Nov. 1, 1537; Psalm VIII. 41 AE, 26, 235, Lectures on Galatians, 1535 (the passage from II Peter 3:13 is incorrectly identified as Rev. 21:1 in the AE), my italics; WA, 40, I, 372. 42 Cf. Thomas J. J. Altizer and William Hamilton, Radical Theology and the Death of God (New York, 1966). 43 I am indebted for the correction of the WA reading of ist (is) to itzt (now) to Professor Ernst Kahler of Greifswald. 44 WA, 47,433; Sermon on Matthew 22:28, 1537/40.

28

Finally, eschatology without justification by faith is mere utopianism. For Luther it is not history which is redemptive but the Christ who came in history. It is because of Christ's justifying deed that we may have hope. This is as valid against the Schwarmer in Luther's time as against those who today see the historical process itself as the agent of redemption. A certain and prevalent type of evolutionary thinking attributes a moral conscience to the evolutionary process itself. It is almost tragic how rapidly these optimistic theologians of evolution are crushed by the events that were to redeem mankind.... The total inadequacy of an eschatology without justification by faith . . . is . . . shown by the pathetic new legalism of the so-called situation ethics as presented in England and America under the pretentious title of "The New Morality" by men like J. A. T. Robinson and Joseph Fletcher.45 Here . . . it is naively assumed that the life of love, the life of discipleship, is a simple human possibility, without the need for justification by faith. The result is, as always, a utopia which enslaves and terrifies men by the very laws devised to free them and make them happy. Here again Luther's warning remains valid: "For other kingdoms, no matter how happy or well constituted they are, still have innumerable offenses – to such an extent that one cannot find a single civil society in which there are not collected innumerable and glaring sins. They are all shot through with tyranny, stupidity, malfeasance of duty, with all kinds of desires for glory, lust, revenge, avarice. Therefore the person who rules must necessarily dispense injustice to many people."46 What was true in Luther's time in Munster can be demonstrated clearly in our time in America and Asia, in Africa and Europe. Luther complained against the Schwarmer of his time: "Their teaching is nothing other than worldly goods, temporal, fleshly and earthly promise, which the mob gladly hears – namely that they . . . imagine a kingdom in on earth in which all the godless are slain and they alone are to have good days. Who wouldn't want that? That is indeed, however, an open, palpable lie, for Christ has prepared for His own not a worldly kingdom, but rather a heavenly kingdom and says, 'In the world you will have anxiety and distress' [John 16:33]; likewise, 'My kingdom is not of this world' [John 19:36]; 47 We can learn from Luther that history is not redemptive and neither is technology or natural science. The problem of man is man and this problem is not solved by avoiding the issue. Luther escaped utopianism because he saw the focus of man's problem in man, not in his environment. It is his lasting contribution to have juxtaposed justification and eschatology in such a manner as to avoid both despair and illusion.

45 John A. T. Robinson, Honest to God (Philadelphia, 1963); and Joseph Fletcher, Situation Ethics, The New Morality (Philadelphia, 1966). 46 AE, 12, 236f., Psalm 45, 1532; WA, 40, II, 524. 47 WA, 30, II, 213, Preface to Menius, 1530.