- THE Christian doctrine of Justification and Reconciliation, which I purpose to unfold in a scientific manner, constitutes the real centre of the theological system. In it is developed the determinate and direct result of the historical revelation of God’s purpose of grace through Christ—the result, namely, that the Church founded by Christ has freedom of religious intercourse with God, notwithstanding the fact of sin, and at the same time, in the exercise of that freedom, directs the workings of its own will in conformity with God’s expressed design. To the religious discernment this implies in itself the moral restoration of man, and all religious blessedness.
The title I have chosen certainly presents an unusual collocation and order of ideas, and so demands a preliminary explanation, although the adequate vindication of its suitableness to describe the contemplated theme can result only from the full working out of the subject to the end I have in view. In that part of the system of Christian doctrine to which these ideas belong, many other additional conceptions have been developed in the course of the history of theology; while, on the other hand, the practice of theologians has not yet given them a fixed or self-consistent arrangement. Thus, while all other theological doctrines are provided with distinct and definite titles, here, in the entire absence of a fixed terminology, we are not only warranted but compelled to exercise freedom of choice. At first sight it seems as if the difficulty could easily be got over if one were to have regard simply to the historical fact to which the abovementioned saving operations and kindred ones are referred, and were to name it accordingly the doctrine of the death of Christ. In this way it would be left an open question what reference to God and what effects upon men might be grounded upon this fact, and upon which class of these references the emphasis ought to be laid. Yet weighty objections to such a title readily present themselves. While the apostles mastered the first impression of the death of their Lord by recognising in it His sacrificial act for the salvation of men, they included along with it, in this view, Christ’s resurrection also, and referred to His death and resurrection together the effects resulting from the finished sacrifice. Further, in the doctrinal method of the Reformation, value has been assigned not only to the suffering and death of Christ, but also to the whole compass of His active life as a ground of the saving operations in question. And, although this theory has not been permitted to pass unchallenged, it has gained so much weight that on account of it we must avoid making it appear as if the death of Christ were regarded only as an external and isolated event, so far as the salutary effects dependent upon it are concerned. But, further, I cannot help expressing my opinion that our religious assurance of such results as are the justification and reconciliation of men can be based upon the death of Christ only on condition that the value of His life and of His resurrection be taken into consideration in inseparable connexion with that fact. But on this account, the title, “Doctrine of the Death of Christ,” would fail to convey clearly and completely all that ought to be denoted by it. On the other hand, such a title as “Doctrine of the saving work of Christ,” would comprehend more than our intended subject. For it would embrace the whole sphere of the three offices of Christ, the prophetical, the priestly, and the kingly; but I have at present to do only with the exhibition of so much of the saving work of Christ as corresponds to His priestly office.
It seems then as if this conception might furnish the appropriate title for our task. As all know, it is derived from the Epistle to the Hebrews. Yet, we may with some propriety attribute to it a general currency in the New Testament: for the idea (common to the greater number of New Testament writers) of an offering for which Christ consecrated Himself necessarily involves the analogy of a priest. The biblico-theological portion of the following treatise will show that I can appreciate to its full extent the constitutive importance of the Old Testament conceptions of sacrifice and priesthood for the formation of a worthy view of the death and resurrection of Christ. I readily acknowledge also with Schleiermacher1 that the threefold attributes of prophet, priest, and king, when taken together, do secure, in a special manner, completeness to our view of the saving work of Christ. At the same time I cannot get rid of the objections raised by Schleiermacher himself against the use of these metaphorical expressions in systematic theology. Schleiermacher pronounces for the continued use of these dogmatic terms in order to maintain continuity with the original modes of representation, inasmuch as the earliest Christian terminology proceeded upon the co-ordination of the new kingdom of heaven with the old. But the fact is, that neither our Lord Himself nor any one of the New Testament writers, has made use of the three offices as the comprehensive and only forms for expressing the saving operations of Christ, and that this use was not introduced into systematic theology until the Reformation period.2 Besides, in the New Testament these official titles are in part superseded in their application to Christ by designations which are peculiar to it; or where they are used, occur only in a metaphorical sense in such a way that the idea contained in them can also be conveyed independently of them. The character of Prophet, although Christ Himself lays claim to it, is surpassed by his designation as Son of Man and Son of God. His Kingship pertains to a sphere entirely different from that which is assigned to the expected Son of David. His Priesthood, corresponding to His sacrificial character, has, when viewed more closely, more of dissimilarity than of resemblance to the type. And, therefore, although our solution of problems in biblical theology will be dependent on our consideration of these typical notions, the framing of our leading conceptions in systematic theology cannot be regulated by such regards. These conceptions must proceed throughout upon specifically New Testament views, and not upon those which, being used in a tropical sense, are easily seen to be merely subsidiary representations so far as the New Testament sphere of thought is concerned. If the old school, in its mechanical use of Bible authority for its theological system, has disregarded this distinction in the construction of New Testament thoughts, it has set us no example that we should imitate. Rather, inasmuch as even the old school has in a great majority of instances fashioned its dogmatic heads of doctrine in accordance with the fully developed ideas of the New Testament, the introduction of the three offices of Christ as a head produces, even in the old theology, an inharmonious and strange impression which ought to serve as a warning against the continued use of such titles.