Footnotes

1. Rom. xiv. 16-18. The kingdom of God is the divinely ordained end of the preaching of Christ, including the demand for change of heart and for faith (Mark i. 15), and forming the principal subject of prayer to God (Luke xi. 2; Matt. vi. 10). The value of the highest good is especially set forth in the parable of the wedding-feast (Matt. xxii. 2-14; viii. 11; Luke xiv. 16-24; xiii. 29). In John the promise of eternal life has the same significance. ↩

2. Christ in His office of Revealer actualizes the kingdom of God (Matt. xii. 28); in order to assure its task for men, He calls the twelve disciples, that they may be with Him (Mark iii. 14; Luke vi. 13), may learn the mysteries of the kingdom (Mark iv. 11), and enter into the same union with God which He Himself maintained (John xvii. 19-23). In accordance with this purpose He distinguishes them, the sons of God, as a special religious community, from the Israelitish community of the servants of God (Matt. xvii. 24-27). ↩

3. The parables (Mark iv.), which set forth the mysteries of the kingdom in figures of the growth of grain, etc., al- ways signify by “fruit” a human product, springing out of an individual activity called forth by the divine “seed,” i.e., by the impulse of the divine word of revelation. The parable of the labourers in the vineyard has the same meaning (Matt. xx). ↩

4. Fruit is the figure for a good deed or for righteous conduct (Matt. vii. 16-20; xiii. 33; Jas. iii. 18; Phil. i. 11). The kingdom of God consists in the exercise of righteousness, in the peace thereby produced among all its members, and in the joy or blessedness proceeding from the Holy Spirit (Matt. vi. 33; Rom. xiv. 17, 18). As to peace, compare Mark ix. 50; Rom. xii. 18; xiv. 19; 2 Cor. xiii. 11; 1 Thess. v. 13; Heb. xii. 14. As to joy and blessedness, compare Gal. v. 22; Jas. i. 25; and Luther’s Smaller Catechism, second division, second article: “That I live under Him in His kingdom and serve Him in everlasting righteousness, innocence and blessedness.” ↩

5. The law which Christ indicates, as expressed in the two chief commandments of the Mosaic law (Mark xii. 28-33), has reference to the conduct suitable to the kingdom of God. Love to God has no sphere of activity outside of love to one’s brother (1 John iv. 19-21; v. 1-3). ↩

6. One’s neighbour is no longer one’s relative or compatriot alone, but possibly may be also the benevolent citizen of a hostile people (Luke x. 29-37); thus love of one’s enemy in manifestations which are at all permissible is included in the Christian love which embraces all mankind (Matt. v. 43-48; Rom. xii. 20, 21). This special command does not mean that we shall support an enemy in what he is doing against us, but that we shall have regard for his dignity as a human being. The ordinary duty, of course, is love of the brethren (1 Pet. i. 22; iii. 8; 1 Thess. iv. 9; Rom. xii. 10; Heb. xiii. 1), to whom one is also bound to extend forgiveness (Luke xi. 4; xvii. 3, 4); but since the Christian community is the special body in which the members of different peoples are bound together into a moral fellowship whose principle is brotherly love, the circle of the kingdom of God is in this latter command also extended to include all men (Gal. iii. 28; v. 6; 1 Cor. vii. 19; Col. iii. 10, 11). ↩

7. The surrender of private rights which follows from the law of love is the rule in intercourse with the brethren (Matt. v. 23, 24, 38-42; the evil doer referred to in v. 39 must also be understood to be a brother). ↩

8. The Mosaic decalogue, except in the command to honour one’s parents, prescribes negative regard for the personal rights of every one, in the sense of not inflicting injury (Ex. xx. 12-17). This negative care for the rights of others is always the presupposition of the positive regard which finds its completion in the love of others (Rom. xii. 10). This love manifests itself in the positive demand for the good of all, therefore in the exercise of public spirit (Rom. xii. 16, 17; xv. 7; Phil. ii. 2-4; 2 Cor. xiii. 11; 1 Thess. v. 11; Heb. x. 24; 1 Pet. iii. 8). Thus the “royal law of love” includes in itself the decalogue and has a broader reach than its prohibitions (Jas. ii. 8, 9; Rom. xiii. 8-10). ↩

9. The one only God who created the world and therefore is the King of all nations (Jer. x. 10-16; Ps. xlvii; xcvii; ciii. 19-22) will especially lead his chosen people as their King, on condition that they by obedience keep His covenant (Ex. xix. 5, 6; Judg. viii. 23; Is. xxxiii. 22). As ruler God administers justice among all peoples (Ps. ix. 8, 9; 1 Sam. ii. 2-10; Is. iii. 13), but especially among the chosen people, partly as their leader in war, maintaining their cause against other peoples (Ex. vii. 4; Ps. vii. 7-14; lxxvi. 5-10; xcix. 1-5), and partly executing justice for righteous individuals against their insolent oppressors (Ps. xxxv.; xxxvii.; l.). ↩

10. Is. ii. 2-4; Mic. iv. 1-4; Jer. iii. 14-18; iv. 1, 2; Is. xliii. 1-6; li. 4-6; lvi. 6-8. ↩

11. Mark x. 42-45; xii. 13-17; ii. 27, 28 (compare with Is. lvi. 2-5); Matt. xvii. 24-27. ↩

12. Luke xvii. 20, 21; Heb. xi. 1. ↩

13. The name of the community of believers (church, ἐκκλησία, Heb. kahal), in harmony with Old Testament use of terms, designates also its public united worship (§ 81). But this religious community has at the same time to unite itself to the kingdom of God by the mutual exercise of love. By virtue of the different nature of these two activities, and the difference of the conditions under which they arise, it follows that they are never exercised to an equal extent during the historical existence of the community. The community of believers must fulfil its mission in these two relations, and in such a way that the two lines of their activity shall stand in reciprocal relation to one another, but it is a mistake so to identify the two as to use the same name interchangeably for them both. For the duties in the exercise of which the community becomes a church are not those by which it unites itself to the kingdom of God, and vice versa. And it is particularly misleading to claim, as does the Roman Catholic Church, the right to consider itself the kingdom of God because of a certain external judicial form [rechtliche Verfassung]. ↩

14. Menander: “The slave becomes base, when he learns merely to bend himself to every service; give freedom of word to the slave and he will surely become the best of the good.” “Serve in a free spirit and thou dost not serve.” Philemon: “Even he who is a slave, Madam, is yet none the less human, since he is verily a human being.” “Though one be a slave, he is yet of the same flesh; for nature never created a slave, it is only fortune that has thrust the body into servitude.” ↩

15. Antiochus of Ascalon in Cicero’s “De finibus bonorum et malorum,” V. 23, 65: “In omni honesto, de quo loquimur, nihil est tam illustre, nec quod latius pateat, quam conjunctio inter homines hominum et quasi quaedam societas et communicatio utilitatum et ipsa caritas generis humani, quae nata a primo satu, quo a procreatoribus nati diliguntur et tota domus conjugio et stirpe conjungitur, serpit sensim foras, cognationibus primum, tum affinitatibus, deinde amicitiis, post vicinitatibus, tum civibus et iis qui publice socii atque amici sunt, deinde totius complexu gentis humanae: quae animi affectio, suum cuique tribuens, atque hanc, quam dico, societatem conjunctionis humanae munifice et aeque tuens, justitia dicitur.” Seneca expresses himself similarly. Compare the collection in Schmidt, “Die bürgerliche Gesellschaft in der altrömischen Welt,” p. 306. ↩

16. Concerning a standard of this relation which comes closer to us, compare § 19. ↩

17. 2 Cor. i. 3; xi. 31; Rom. xv. 6; Col. i. 3; Eph. i. 3; 1 Pet. i. 3. ↩

18. 1 Sam. ii. 2; Is. xlv. 18, 21, 22; Ex. xx. 2, 3. The Old Testament conception of the gods of the heathen is accordingly either that they are nothing or vanity (Lev. xix. 4; 2 Kings xvii. 15; Jer. ii. 5; viii. 19), or, in so far as their existence is granted, that they are subordinate organs of the government of the only God (Deut. iv. 19; x. 17; Ps. xcv. 3; xcvi. 4; 1 Cor. viii. 5, 6). Being the only One the true God is the Holy One (1 Sam. ii. 2), unattainable by the way of natural knowledge, exalted above all sense perception, inviolable. ↩

19. Gen. i.; Is. xlv. 12; Matt. xi. 25. That God as the absolutely free Will determines Himself, and as Creator determines all that together makes the world, is united into the statement that God is the end of the universe, or that the course of the world ministers to His glory (1 Cor. viii. 6; Rom. xi. 36; Eph. iv. 6). The conception of the creation of the world by God lies entirely outside of all observation and ordinary experience, and therefore outside of the realm of scientific knowledge, which is limited by these. Thus, even though we are able to obtain from experience a clear idea of natural causes and effects, yet the creation of the world by God cannot rightly be thought of as analogous to these forms of knowledge. It can only be analogous to the original force of our will directed toward an object, and this as we think of the world, not as individual parts, but as a whole in relation to God. ↩

20. ⁴ Scientific observation of nature is directed toward the causal relationship of things. Since it regards organic beings (plants, animals) with reference to the end which they have in themselves, it has no occasion to recognize them as necessarily existing for the sake of man. Such a relationship is only apprehended by the religious judg- ment; thus in the Old Testament everything is subservient to the world-supremacy of the Israelitish people. ↩

21. In the majority of the inscriptions of the New Testament epistles. ↩

22. As the end of creation (Col. i. 16; Eph. i. 10), Christ is also by the divine purpose the central reason [Mittelgrund] for creation (1 Cor. viii. 6). As Lord over all He is the One “to whom every knee shall bow,” that is, He receives divine worship (Phil. ii. 9-11). But God the Father is placed over Him (1 Cor. iii. 23; viii. 6). ↩

23. Matt. xi. 27. That God alone knows the Son signifies that He is set apart from all the world. God’s knowledge of Him, however, includes in itself a voluntary purpose (1 Pet. i. 20; Rom. viii. 29). Thus Jesus knowing His peculiar existence to be grounded in the love of His Father (John x. 17; xv. 10), places this relation above the coherence and existence of the world (John xvii. 24). ↩

24. John iv. 8, 16. Love is the constant purpose to further another rational being of like nature with oneself in the attainment of his peculiar end [Bestimmung], and in such a way that the one who loves follows in so doing his own proper object [Selbstzweck]. This appropriation of the life-purpose of another is thus not a weakening negation but a strengthening affirmation of one’s own purpose. Thus if God is revealed as love in that He directs His purpose toward Jesus Christ His Son, the love of God will be revealed in proportion as this purpose includes the world of which this Son is Lord, and causes it to be recognized as the means to the end, this end being Christ as the Head of the community. ↩

25. Rom. v. 5-8; viii. 39; 2 Thess. ii. 16; 1 John iv. 9, 10; Heb. xii. 6. ↩

26. In the love shown by Christians to their brethren the love of God is perfected (1 John ii. 5; iv. 12), i.e., finds its complete revelation. ↩

27. Eph. i. 4-6. “God has chosen us (the Christian community) in Christ (as Lord of the same) before the foundation of the world, that we might be holy and without blame before Him; having in love predestined us to the adoption of children through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace.” ↩

28. ² Ps. xc. 2, 4. ↩

29. ³ Ps. cii. 26-28. ↩

30. Ps. xxiv. 1, 2; cxv. 3; cxxxv. 6; cxxxix. 7-12. ↩

31. ² This is the application given to these divine attributes in the theological doctrine that God as the First Cause is present in all mediate causes. This doctrine consists, nevertheless, of a confused mixture of religious and scientific observation. The idea of God is not at the disposal of science in her explanation of nature, and this explanation would indeed militate against the content of this idea, if it should make Him, under the conception of cause, similar to the natural causes which are explicable by observation. Religious observation of nature, however, does not limit itself to the explanation of natural phenomena as such, but subordinates their existence for the sake of man to the will of God (§ 11, 4), which is entirely different in kind from natural causes. ↩

32. ³ Ps. cxxxix (as a whole, culminating in verses 23, 24); xxxiii. 13-19; civ.; Job v. 8-27; xi. 7-20; xxxvi.; xxxvii. ↩

33. Ps. cxlv. 8, 9; Ex. xxxiv. 6; Ps. ciii. 8; Acts xiv. 15-17; Jas. v. 11; Rom. ii. 4; 2 Cor. i. 3. ↩

34. ² Ps. xxxv. 23-28; xxxi. 2-8; xlviii. 10-12; lxv. 5; cxliii. 11, 12; li. 14-16. ↩

35. ³ Is. xlv. 21; xlvi. 13; li. 1-6; lvi. 1. ↩

36. ⁴ Hos. ii. 18-21; Zech. viii. 8; Ps. cxliii. 1. ↩

37. ⁵ 1 John i. 9 (Ps. li. 16); Rom. iii. 25, 26; John xvii. 25, 26; Heb. vi. 10 (1 Cor. i. 8, 9; 1 Thess. v. 23, 24). ↩

38. Ps. cv.; cvii.; lxxi. 16, 21; lxxxvi. 8-17; lxxxix. 6-15; xcviii. 1-3; cxlv. 3-7; Job v. 8-11. ↩

39. Signs and wonders, Ps. cxxxv. 8, 9; Ex. iii. 12; xiii. 9. ↩

40. Mark v. 34; x. 52; vi. 5, 6. We shift completely the religious conception of miracle when we measure it against the background of the scientific acceptance of the orderly coherence of all natural events. Since this conception lies outside the horizon of the men of the Old and the New Testaments, a miracle never signifies to them an occurrence contrary to nature, or a breaking through of the laws of nature by divine arbitrariness. Hence the belief in miracle in the sense above referred to, as a gracious providence of God, is perfectly consistent with the probability of the coherence of the whole world in accordance with natural law. If, nevertheless, certain accounts in the Bible appear to be contrary to these laws, it is neither the duty of science to explain this appearance nor to confirm it as a fact, nor is it the duty of religion to recognize these narrated events as divine operations contrary to the laws of nature. Neither ought one to base one’s religious faith in God and Jesus Christ upon a preceding judgment of this kind (John iv. 48; 1 Cor. i. 22), especially since every experience of miracle presupposes faith. Beginning, however, with faith, every one will meet the miraculous in his own experience, and, in view of this, it is entirely unnecessary to stumble at the miracles which others have experienced. ↩

41. Matt. v. 12; vi. 1, 2; 1 Cor. iii. 8; 2 Thess. i. 8, 9; Heb. x. 29. ↩

42. Job xli. 11; Rom. xi. 35. In general the view of life set forth in the biblical writings moves within the limits set by the covenant grace of God. When, therefore, the righteousness of God is appealed to for the reward of righteous men (Ps. vii. 9-11; xvii. 3; lviii. 11; cxxxix. 24; 2 Thess. i. 5-7), the mutual legal relation thereby indicated is only apparent. For the righteousness of God signifies in these cases also only the consistent completion of the salvation of the righteous (§ 16), which, however, has the appearance of reward because it deals in these cases with a condition of innocence and righteousness. Properly the recompense of the righteous is the work of the grace of God (Ps. lxii. 12), that of the wicked is their exclusion from his (grace-) righteousness (Ps. lxix. 25-29). Reward and punishment are not co-ordinated as expressions of the righteousness of God, but only as visible acts of His exercise of justice, i.e., of His government of the world (Ps. xciv. 1, 2; lviii. 10, 11). ↩

43. Ex. xxxiv. 7; Mark x. 29, 30. The divine punishment in its common Old Testament representation as the wrath of God, by the very nature of the term wrath excludes the idea of an exact weighing of the amount of the punishment. ↩

44. The poets of the Old Testament find themselves completely disappointed in their natural expectation that the good would be prosperous and the wicked unhappy. They must content themselves with praying God for the righting of the wrong condition of affairs in the future. Thus the establishment of the right order awaits the future judgment of God in the Old as well as in the New Testament. ↩

45. Eliphaz draws this conclusion in the book of Job (iv. 7; xxii. 4-11); on the other hand Job’s assurance of his integrity (vi. 28-30; xxiii. 10-12). As against this combination compare John ix. 1-3; Luke xiii. 1-5. ↩

46. Matt. v. 11; Mark viii. 34, 35; Phil. i. 28; compare § 32. ↩

47. The scheme of retribution in the final judgment (Rom. ii. 6-12; 2 Cor. v. 10; 2 Thess. i. 6, 7; Eph. vi. 8) is surpassed by the analogy of the seed and the harvest (Gal. vi. 7, 8). The final result in the case of the good as in that of the evil is but the appropriate legitimate effect of the force of the good or the evil will. In comparison therewith the brief temporal experiences of a contrary nature are not worthy of consideration. ↩

48. Rom. xi. 33-36. From § 13 follows the universal law of the divine government, which is maintained everywhere in the Old as well as in the New Testament, that all punishment or destruction of the wicked by God serves as a means to the complete salvation of the righteous, not, however, as a co-ordinate means to His own glory or righteousness, as is set forth in Luther’s and Calvin’s doctrine of predestination. ↩

49. In all national religions the person of the founder, even when known (Zoroaster, Moses), is a matter of indifference, because the religious community, consisting of the whole race or people, is determined by nature. On the other hand, in universal religions (Buddhism, Christianity, Islam), allegiance to the Founder, or worship of him, is prescribed, because only through the Founder does the special community exist as it is, and only by allegiance to him can it be preserved. In these cases the difference in the estimation of Mohammed and Christ is to be explained by the difference in the nature of the two religions. ↩

50. Mark vi. 4; ix. 37; John iv. 34; v. 23, 24; vi. 44. It comes also under the prophetic conception (Ex. xxxiii. 11; Num. xii. 8) that Jesus speaks what He hears from God (John viii. 26, 40; xv. 15) and has seen of Him (John vi. 46; viii. 38). ↩

51. Mark xii. 1-9; viii. 29; xiv. 61, 62; John iv. 25, 26. ↩

52. John iv. 34; xvii. 4. ↩

53. John xviii. 36; Mark x. 42-45. ↩

54. The fitness of Jesus finds expression in His assertion of the mutual knowledge existing between Himself and God as His Father (Matt. xi. 27; John x. 15; compare Luke ii. 49). He does not know God as His Father without being Himself conscious that He is the one called of God to found the kingdom of God in a new religious community. This conviction vouches also for all the other sides of His spiritual endowment for this calling, because all the characteristics of His life witness to His absolute rational soundness, and there is not the least trace in Him of fanaticism or self-deception. ↩

55. The sinlessness of Jesus (John viii. 46;—1 Pet. ii. 22; 1 John iii. 5; 2 Cor. v. 21; Heb. iv. 15) is only the negative expression of the constancy of His disposition and conduct in His calling (obedience, Phil. ii. 8; Heb. v. 8), or for the positive righteousness in which He differs from all other men (1 Pet. iii. 18). ↩

56. Heb. ii. 18; iv. 15; Mark xiv. 33-36; i. 13. ↩

57. The principle of Matt. xi. 28-30. The two Greek words, πραΰς and ταπεινός, point to the use of one Hebrew or Aramaic word, anav, which indicates the regular characteristic of the righteous in their suffering under the persecution of the godless (Ps. ix. 12; x. 12-17; xxv. 9; xxxvii. 11; lxix. 32). The addition of τῇ καρδίᾳ denotes that Jesus in His righteousness is ready to endure all the undeserved sufferings which follow from the opposition to His activity in His calling. Thereby, however, He makes a distinction in kind between Himself and the righteous of the Old Testament, who always seek to be delivered from undeserved suffering. ↩

58. John iv. 34. ↩

59. John x. 28-30, 38; xiv. 10; xvii. 21-23. ↩

60. John xv. 9, 10; xvii. 24-26; x. 17; xii. 49, 50. ↩

61. John i. 14; Ex. xxxiv. 6, 7; compare § 16. ↩

62. Matt. xi. 27. ↩

63. Matt. xvii. 24-27; viii. 11, 12; Mark xii. 9. ↩

64. Matt. xi. 28-30; compare § 21, 4. ↩

65. John xvii. 1, 4, 5; xvi. 16, 33. Accordingly, the view of Jesus’ life given by Paul in Phil. ii. 6-8 is not complete. The path of obedience even unto death is for Jesus only apparently a degradation beneath His dignity. It is in truth the form of His self-exaltation above the world and above its usual standards (Mark x. 42-45). That is to say, one becomes great through the degradation of service only because in unselfisn obedience (Phil. ii. 1-5) one is already great. ↩

66. In apostolic usage, the Old Testament name of God, “ Lord,” is applied only to the risen Christ, exalted to the right hand of God (Phil. ii. 9-11). Yet this conception can only be understood on the condition that this attribute is discernible as an actual characteristic in the historical life of Christ (§ 23). But this dominion of Christ has no sphere of activity save such as is maintained through the power of a will concentrated upon God’s supramundane purpose of love. Also the apostles regard Christ as Creator only in this respect that, because He comprises typically in Himself the object of the world. i.e., the kingdom of God and the glory of God, He furnishes in the divine creative will the central reason for the creation of the world (Col. i. 15-18; 1 Cor. viii. 6; Heb. i. 1-3). This line of thought, however, leads over into the territory of theology proper, and has no direct and practical significance for religious belief in Jesus Christ. ↩

67. Melanchthon, Loci theol. (1535. Corp. Ref. XXI. 366), “ The Scriptures teach us the divinity of the Son not only speculatively, but practically, i.e., they command us to pray to Christ and to trust in Christ, for thus is the honour of divinity truly accorded to Him.” ↩

68. There is a complete misconception of the problem, and the understanding desired is rendered impossible, if the principle is followed that historical knowledge of Christ is possible only in so far as one is divested of religious devotion to Him. ↩

69. Accordingly, His death will be regarded, not as a just punishment for blasphemy, as His enemies intended it, nor as the result of fanatic daring, but as the completion of the work of His calling, which He accepted with dutiful determination, because He recognized in it God’s purpose for Him. This significance of the death of Christ, set forth by the apostles, marks also the right and complete understanding of His life-obedience which was completed in it. (§ 41, a.) ↩

70. Gal. ii. 20; iii. 27; Rom. vi. 5-11; viii. 2-10; xii. 4, 5; 1 Cor. xii. 12. ↩

71. Rom. x. 9; 1 Cor. xv. 3-20; 1 Pet. i. 3; iii. 21, 22; Heb. xiii. 20, 21. ↩

72. Mark xiv. 62; John x. 17, 18; xvii. 4, 5. ↩