Church Dogmatics vol 4 pt 2: The Doctrine of Reconciliation

t

0;

37 6

§ 64. The Exaltation of the Son of Man

as the One who was exalted in His humiliation, who is alive from the dead. In the interval between these two revelations of Jesus Christ,here and now, .. on earth," the Christian life cannot be represented except in terms of this fearless movement, in which there is neither anxiety nor looking back. In this respect we can never give too much attention to the self-description of Paul in Phil. 3 121 • Apprehended by Jesus Christ, he can never think that he has already apprehended Him, and in Him his own life; that he has already attained the goal. .. Forgetting those things which are behind, and reaching forth unto those things which are before," he presses" toward the war":, for the prize of the high (or upward) calling" which is given him by God in Jesus Christ. This is the only possible aspect of life with Him here and now. And it is this aspect that it ought to have. Phil. 3 121 . is obviously a variation of the image already used in I Cor. 9 241 ., that of the athlete in the arena. The only difference is that in Corinthians the emphasis is on the effort and training that are demanded of those who win. As Paul says of himself, he does not run uncertainly, or fight as one that beats the air. The two passages ought to be compared and viewed as a whole. Together they bring out the fact that the Christian situation is so obviously a provisional one, in which we can only run but must run, and yet als
4· The Direction of the Son be all this, and that they should be it w'th d.' . 377 without reserve, like a sacrifice which, wh~the~~t1~lded attentlon and readiness, costly, can only be given unreservedl 1 e small or great, costly or less ~~n ~n y be presented, can only pass from their own determination to that e can only cease to belong to those who°offer it ne who demands and receives it, the vita christiana as its result is that th I'. T:e saz;.ctlficatlOn of man, and tinds a place and authority and pow . e ~ aim or thIS claImless self-sacrifice exaltation of the royal man Jesus as er m a uman eXistence. \Ve share in the this the name of our Lord Jesus Chris;rs m~i~nd must yield to this claim. In selves are glorified in Him (2 Thess. 112). 1n thie~~n Chnstla~s, and they themcorresponds to the 7TpoOv n [a 7'OV 81' th d' s ere IS attamed the end which • . r <M'P, e rea mess of their ·11 th . £XHP, their freedom (2 Cor. Sl1). In this there is 1 own WI, elr real (2 Cor. 10 6). In this they work out the' ,a so t.o be found .thelr obedience to it, actualising it-as those who are ll~tUW7'7JP~, domg that whIch corresponds them to will and to do (Phil. 212). In thi: th~O c olce by the God who works in and anointed £1, Xpurrop (2 Cor. 1 21 ). y prove themselves to be stablished It IS to be noted that in the apostolic adm .. . . moved or crossed between God, Jesus Christ andO~~tlO~ the frontler IS never reand man, even the Christian, on the other e oly SPI~lt on the one side he utterly (OA6KA7JpOS) sanctified by the God of . ea~:g Chr~~tlan IS wholly and to God m Jesus Christ (Rom 611) ha tt h hess. 5 ), that he may !lve hut everything with humble ~ubj~ctio~~~ wlfa~ver to do with deification, 20 2 that he no longer lives but Christ' h' h au says of himself m Gal. life which I now live in the'flesh, I live ~~ t~:iai:h~f ~~ceSexplains: "And the me, and gave himself for me." That Christian e, on ~f God, who loved 7TvdJJ1.u 7'OV XptU7'OV dwells in them beca th hS are ~ 7TP£vp.an because the they are therefore 1TV£VP.U7'tl
Yi

i

d:.

er

r. The Man of Sin in the Light of the Lordshzp of the Son of Man

§ 65

r

THE SLOTH AND MISERY OF MAN

r . . the resurrection of Jesus Christ The direction of God, given In h's overcome in His death. . f discloses w use 0 I who was crucified or us, k of his freedom, b u t was a It is the man who would nO~f s:lf-enclosed being, thus ~e~ng content with the lo~ level otall subject to his own stU:PIdlty, irremediably and rad.Ically and t . t Yand delivered up to hIS own inhumanity, dissipation and anXle y, death.

r:

1.

~ivine

~n

It

The general basis of this proposition (C.D., IV, r, § 60, r) need not be developed again, but only sketched. As the opposition of man to God, his neighbour and himself, sin is more than a relative and limited conflict which works itself out only in himself and which can therefore be known in the self-consciousness and self-understanding which he can have of himself. As the one who commits sin man is himself totally and radically compromised. Where this is a true knowledge of sin, it can be only as an element in the knowledge of God, of revelation, and therefore of faith, for which he cannot in any way prepare himself. Man is corrupt even in his self-understanding, even in the knowledge of his corruption, He cannot see, therefore, beyond the inner conflict and its purely relative compass. He can never really see his sin, and himself as the man of sin. He cannot turn to a true kno>yledge of his corruption, but only evade it. God and His revelation and faith are all needed if He is to realise the accusation and jUdgment and condemnation under which he stands, and the transgression and ensuing need in which he exists. But faith in an idol and its revelation has no power to give him this realisation. It cannot be given by any further work of corrupt man; by any normative concept that he himself may freely construct of majesty, goodness, righteousness and holiness; by any law that he thinks he has discovered but has really invented and planned and built up of himself. A law of this kind can never have the power to bind and commit, and therefore really to accuse and judge and condemn, because in his encounter with it man is finally in encounter only with his own shadow, and in his discussion with it he is finally engaged only in discussion With himself, Any normative concept that he may construct is ulti:Uately himself, By means of it he may well be conscious of that inWard and relative and redemptive conflict with himself, but not of sin as his destructive opposition to God, his neighbour and himself.

~~:

a~d

'~yW~nd

.

°h~

loveT , h ever we h ave fi rst to eonSI d h p'recedes this alteration an · 0 see it and understand It, 'more . . the form w lC the human situat~o~ m't It is determined by human s;n, o~ Jesus ~h~t the man with whom the, roya m~an who is not yyet affecte strictl d, by of His lordship is. the man ,of by has to da III , '. h man who IS determme . f the 'sute; who is sanctified by, the wills ar: it, It IS thIS direction which is an man by h 'ndividual Christian It IS shll a , f this man. commumty ~nd t, e ~ f this man and the overeomIllg o. an, the incisive modIfieatI~ ~ Himself to be the Brother of thIS t~o death The Sonof of a a~eTIty, whe n 37He was made flesh and pu . Bearer hisGod responslbl

t;~ef:~:

dSl~~d t~~rdened

co~mlts s~~ ~~~ Jes~s,

in the flesh. And when He overcame him in Himself, neither willing nor committing his sin, He set him aside, making him the old and superseded and outmoded man, becoming and being in his place the new and true and exalted and royal man, heading a new and reconciled world and humanity, sending out in His resurrection His mighty direction, and bringing about in the work of the Holy Spirit the act of His lordship, the great alteration, within the human situation as determined by sin. In order that we may know what this means in all its concreteness and significance, we have first to see and under~tand as such this situation as it was determined by sin, and the old who was overcome in Jesus and set aside by Him. The light in which this man is to be seen and understood is none other than the light of his overcoming. It is in view of the lordship of the Son of Man, in the power of His direction, and therefore in the knowledge ofof Jesus and the man sin. Christ by the Holy Spirit that we may know sin

~an

TH~~~S~~S~~ ~~i~~NL~~H~A~ THE

ied with the existence of the Son of So far we have been occup humiliated Son of God. W~ have Testament this existence I~ that Man who is none other t?an the man J esus. And we have consIdered h seen 'that as it is attested d dIn the yal New of the true and exalte an. ro h transition from Him to ot er me~, the roblem of the conn:xlOn, t e iven and is still given, by t}:ns the direction as It has 1roly ' Spirit. But the alteratlo.n man in the power a~d wor~ ? n ht about by this man and HIS of the hnman situatlOn a~ I~ ~:o ~orks itself out in the fac,t ~hat direction in the act o~ HI'~l ~~ ~ ~1ristian community and Chr~~~~~ there were and are an ':"1 It t'on that we shall have to spea t' ld It is of thIS a era 1 ' 1 1 ' of the sanc 1the waf in detail in the sectio,ns whIch fa of Christian m genera 'ld' f the Christian commum fication and upbm mg 0 'dec

379

eXls~:~~~stian

give~ ~y ~lm. ~~t~er-with

8

I

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Man

80

r. The Man of Sin in the Light of the Lordship of the Son of ilJan

3

" a n d so far as the materials that he uses He may perhaps achIeve thIs so l~ng the statements of Holy Scripture and to construct this concept are taken rom, 'rtue of their context. This was ' y sharpness m VI , do actually gIve the nec~ssar of the Law as it was adopted and aPP!led the case with the regulatIve concept B t 'n this as in other respects It IS a bv the theology of the ReformatIon, t u ~e materials out of the Bible rather t v~ry doubtful and dangerous entehrpnse 0 oantext and substance and from their ' t ak III t elr own c , than allowmg them a spe stion then arises on the basis of what presu;pposlown centre, For the cntIcal que , t h t plan they will be-even III the tion they will be read and accordmg at ~ a In other words, how is it to be most strictly biblicist manner-c~~:u~:j~styand will and Law? May it not decided what is meant by God ~n I:'on some other source of revelation and be that in the answenng of thiS q~est I d as well as the Bible: the book of knowledge is secretly or even open y appte hat is generally and self-evidently of all races as 0 w " , '. m . rational law ; the consensus d" f the innate mdlvldual consCIence, right and fitting for man; the eCllslOn ad' vered in the Bible as the true lex I, h' h 's mere y re ISCO " 't' shoTt a lex natura IS w IC ? h B'ble calls good and evil only ItS POSI lYe ' h f d m what t e l " f aeterna because1It as oun " (0 the questions of the ongms 0 thOIS · t' nd concretlOn . n t b t revelation, app Ica IOn a . . . into Christian theology, we canno e 00 pregnant concept, and ItS mcurslOnof the important book by Felix Fliickiger, emphatic in our recommendatlOn May it not be that it has Its effect, Geschichte des N atu~rechts, Vol. ~';~iJ~~ of this Law which is presumed to. be and is brought to hght, that th h' 'really man himself-the law bemg superior to man, and to confront hi:U~~ltbut which he himself has e~tablished ? only an ideal by which hemeas~r~s ts used in its construction, havmg lost the Is it not likely that the blbhca e en:e~h ir own context and substance and from d'istinctive power which they have m e , the long run to be intrusive and their own centre, ,Will n~cessan~ art:tra I~nthetic outlook and thin~ing wi!l dispensable? I~ It not I~evltt :he tension of a relative and redemphv~ ant~ triumph, for whIch there IS on y ween what man should be and what he IS, a~ thesis between good and eVil, bet 1 lace for genuine sin and a man of sm in the sphere of whi?h there IS no re,a is it not possible that th~re is betr~yed (in the serious meanmg of the term) 'd . anentism of the bibliclst enterpnse ? at this point the latent ratlOnahsm anthlI~~m1 They are a description (d. C.D., These questions are not merely hypo e IC~ . 'hich in repetition of the mistakes fl 6 IV, pp. 3 9 fl., 374. .) of the piace, in respect of the concept of the Early and Medl<eva,l Church, ac f i Y in the history of Protestant theo~ogy of law and the correspondmg conc;pt ~t~o~' to the apogee of Neo-Protestantlsm. from the closmg stages of the Re arm ,

I:

I r I

develofu~~~ t~Ok

. If b ative concept, a concept of God If man measures hll~se . :y a norm wa _ lanned and constructed and His revelation, WhICh IS III ,some h' y ~ work and therefore a with or without bibl.ic~l ma~en~ls im I~s~~le that he should see his p 'th God hI'S neighbour and reflection of himself, It IS baslc~l y . t' f hIS peace W I , •• aberration as a destruc 1O? a t the threat of eternal perdItIon. himself, and therefore as hIS e:<po~ure 0 nd think always of himself Even in his aberration he WIll ~ll e~ seesa able to order and control be together with th.at n.0r~. H\~Ihi~:~r He will interpret his tran~­ his encounter ':It~ It, I.e., ~~t of trans'ition, a stage in developm. en ~ gression as an mCldent, a po d b even the sharpest Judg But he himself will not really be aff~cte y h' lf so humiliated

0:~bt;h1cl~:heenr~a ;Qt:~!i~l:::;:!.]~:~:~~:~~::~~I~:~:b~esr;n~~~~~: .

chm mg ug

I

I

i'~

3

8r

under sentence of death, and that he needs redemption and total renewal will always be truths which are quite alien to his thinking. A genuine knowledge of sin is possible, and actual, as an element in the genuine knowLedge of God, of revelation and of faith. But as In element in this knowledge it does not consist in the assertion of this or that general or specific accusation which man may make against himself but which he can always evade because it is he who makes it, Nor does it consist in the acknOWledgment and acceptance of individual passages in the Bible which accuse and condemn man in the name of God but which are robbed of their true force because they are taken out of their context and given a purely arbitrary interpretation. It consists in the insight into the human situation which is given by the substance and centre of the biblical message; by the direction which is given us by the existence of Jesus Christ, in and with His resurrection, in and with the witness and work of the Holy Spirit. Where the Word of God became and is flesh, there it is disclosed that man is flesh, and what it means and involves that this is the case. Where the grace of God encounters him, there his sin is revealed, and the fact that he is a sinner. Where his salvation is achieved, there the perdition from which he is snatched cannot be overlooked or contradicted. The Gospel alone, which no man has invented or planned or constructed, but which encounters man, if at all, only as God's free revelation, is the Law in the knOWledge of which man finds himself accused and judged and condemned. But the Word made flesh, the grace of God encountering man, his salvation, the Gospel, is Jesus Christ. He and His existence as the Son of God and Son of Man are the light in which man as the man of sin is made known to himself, in which he must see and confess himself as such. Where there is a genuine knowledge of sin, it is a matter of the Christian knowLedge of God, of revelation and of faith, and therefore of the knowLedge of Jesus Christ. We will now attempt a more specific formulation and establishment of this statement in our present context. We must first bring out the truth and significance of what has to be said concerning the humanitas Christi, the existence of the man Jesus. He is the Son of God humbled to be a servant. And as such He is the Son of Man exalted to be the Lord. Both His humiliation as God and His exaltation as man as fulfilled in His death, both the true deity and the true humanity of His existence, are revealed in His resurrection from the dead. It is the second aspect which now concerns us: His true humanity as fulfilled in His death and revealed in Bis resurrection; His exaltation to be the royal man who in virtue of His identity with the Son of God lives and rules in full communion and conformity with God the Father. In this man God has elected humanity as such, and therefore all men, to the covenant with HimSelf. This man is the Representative and Head and Lord of all other men. But this being the case they are all established in Him and

~

65. The Sloth and Misery of Man 1.

directed to an eternal life in the service of God. Therefore the revelation of His exaltation as it has taken place in His resurrection is the revelation of theirs too. There thus went forth, and still goes forth, in the work of His Holy Spirit the direction of Eph. 514 to them and all of us: "Awake, thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light." It is not always and everywhere effective, or equally effective. It is not yet, or no longer, received and genuinely taken to heart by all. Yet in the present context it is not these and similar questions that are important, but the reality which is presupposed in all these questions and which precedes all acceptance or non-acceptance on our part-the objective fact of the existence of Jesus Christ among all the other men of every time and place.

The Jfan of Sin in the

L~E;ht of the

Lordship of the Son of JJan

31'\3

to all men, even though they rna b t th . never so much as heard of H' y Be a every lowest,point and have man who does not exist un~: th ec~use t hlS ~an eXIsts, there is no . " man IS not a pnvate person A thOe slgn a a f thIS . Sursum " .r F or th'IS born, this Lord and Head He hs t ISk n~h thlS IndlVldual, this Firsttor them and to live for them ;s / e~ ~place of all others, to die for them. No one can alter the ~ac~ve or t em as. the One who dies that he, too, IS a brother of this One, and that this One lives for h' ' h 1m. It IS t e knowledge of the man J h' frees us for, a knowledge of sin ' ~sus dlcn forces us to, or rather sin. It does so, in short becad a h now e g~ of man as the man of know it is se! in the light' of the ~:al~~ton e~Istence as "":,e tast: and taken place III Him. It is set under th n. a our humamty as It has t e ~gn of the great Sursum I, the Forward! and Onward I It· promise and the power of the "I~ un ern the command and the every man. We shall speak of this 0 ~~ me th~t He addresses to 0 sItive ~spect III our next section, which treats of the sanctificati ut ~e cannot speak of it meaningfully unless we are a~~ro 7~n. our side is also and primaril reve:l~ ,he negatIve. aspect which on tiOIl of humanity as it has iak I d Ill. the same lrght of the exaltawhich it is (validly and eflective~n p ~c~ III Jesus; of ~he d~pth from The alteration of the human ~tn . or ev~ry man) lrfted III Him, is differentiated from a prior sta:rea~I~nwa;:,l~h~s ~aken place in Him The movement in which He ha se t 't' IC It IS not yet altered. 1. IS p:ece~ed by an earlier immobility. To the above of mans a a very definite below, and to the ~:~~~~:~~ III !lIm the:e cor:esponds placed a separation from God I S up WIth God I~ whIch he is this immobility, this below thO n order ~o overcome thIS prior state, therefore to draw man to H' IS separatIOn of man from God, and Son. At this point of de ~mself, God took them to Himself in His became our Brother W.PIl~r utre He accepted solidarity with us' He . 1 Illg a accept and sUfle th d'" consequences of this situation H r e can, ItlOns and cross. Hence He became and e took ?ur, plac: and dIed on the SUffering and dying th C was and IS,. III thIS very act of His entering into that ab e. onq~eror, the VIctor: exalted as man' fellowship with Him ~vebe·passlllg from dereliction by God to perfect Father; and therefor~ ut~r:g s.et as man. at the right hand of the alteration of the h p 'tIllg ~nto effect III our place and for us that the belo\\l, the sepa~~to:~~:~t~~d ~~ehP~or state, t.he imr~IObility, to overcome, is the sin of m . IC , e made HIS own 1ll order state or know this t . ~n., It IS qUIte useless to try to see or rnan. This is the Lexcep hI?hre atIOn t~ this gracious act of God toward ad' aw w IC reveals It wh ere any a th er law Imagined . n l!1vented b 't'l h it t y man, no matter how holy or pI less e may think a be, can only lead t "I . . Where man h 011 uSIOns as to hIS own true nature It is anI rernorse whic~~n~~~~~ a~~~ ;~pa~~S!iVing that ~e has gro~nd for th~ nce, converSlvn and sanctification.

r

" The rays of dawn were still concealed, That flood the world with light; But, look, the Light is now revealed, Which shines for ever bright. The sun itself its slumbers kept, But forth in all its power there leapt The uncreated sun" (P. Gerhardt). But the light which has arisen before any dawn is the reality of the exaltation and institution which have come to man in the death of Jesus; of his establishment in a vital fellowship with God. It is the reality of the revelation, in His resurrection, of this decisive alteration of the whole human situation. It has happened once for all and radically for all men in the man Jesus. '''''hat is said of the final and conclusive revelation of Jesus (Lk. 17 24 ) is virtually true of His first revelation which initiated the closing epoch of human history: "For as the lightning, that lighteneth out of the one part of heaven, shineth unto the other part under heaven; so shall also the Son of man be in his day," "The true Light, which Jighteth every man, came into the world" (In. I'). I t " shineth in darkness," although the darkness apprehended it not. The fire which Jesus came to kindle on earth (Lk. 12") burns and cannot be put out.

s;t

l

Since God humbled Himself and became man, thus exalting man to Himself, there is no more peace in the lowliness of human existence. In the power of the eternal divine election of grace and its execution in time, i.e., in the existence of the man Jesus, and by the fact of the direction which has been, and is, given by Him, all other men, whether they realise and accept it or not, are already estranged from the place which in itself would necessarily be, and continue to be, their place, if this man had not existed among them, They are already startled out of it. They are already alarmed. They are already summoned to make the movement within which they too are put in virtue of the exaltation of this One. Because and as this man lives, and God is lowly and man exalted in Him, man is no longer bound absolute~y to his lowliness, nor is there now any absolute impossibility of ?is being in the height of a vital fellowship with God and in the serVlce of God. He is no longer imprisoned, if secure, below. He is no longer unfree to let himself be exalted and to exalt himself. The existence of this One, and the fact of the direction of the Holy Spirit whic~ :H~ gives, is equivalent in practice to a Sursum corda 1 Sursum homtnes. which is called out, and applies and comes, radically and objectivelY

J

304

§ 65· The Sloth and Misery of Man

To put the same thing in another way, the life of a new man lived by Jesus is preceded by the dying of an old man suffered by Him, the rising of the true man in His existence and death by the destruction of a false and perverted, His being as the royal man by the accepted and conquered being of the enslaved, His life in the spirit by the vegetating and passing flesh in which He willed to be like us, to be one of us. God has had mercy on the man who even in the form of that old, perverted man, even as that slave, even as flesh, is still the good creature which He elects and loves. He has received him so basically and radically that He was ready to make Himself his Brother in His own Son, to share his situation, to bear his shame, to be put to shame in his place and on his behalf, thus removing man from the situation which contradicts His election and love and creative will, divesting him of his shame and clothing him with His own glory: Himself being the new and true and royal and spiritual and worthy man in his place and on his behalf; the man in whose person the covenant was kept and fulfilled even on the part of man, and who in peace with God may also be at peace with himself and his neighbour. The first, perverted, fleshly man, whom God has so graciously pitied and accepted, is the man of sin. He is revealed in the light of the divine act of grace done to him in Jesus. In the light of this act, confronted with its law, this man is shown to be the man of sin. Where he has the most reason to praise God, no place whatever is left for any praise of self. We will try to bring what we have to say concerning the knowledge of this man, and therefore the knowledge of sin and the man of sin as it is enclosed in the knowledge of God, of revelation and of faith, under a single common denominator, by saying that the existence of the man Jesus and the event of the direction of the Holy Spirit as issued by Him involve the shaming of all other men. Shaming is the disclosure of shame. Jesus is distinguished from all other men, and the knowledge of Jesus from that of all other men, from that of aU other real or possible objects of knowledge, by the fact that they involve our incontestable shaming; the disclosure of our shame. When we say this we affirm in the first instance the purely factual element in the relationship between Him and us that He is the One who shames us and we are those who are shamed, quite irrespective of whether we are aware of the fact and are ashamed of ourselves, or still close our eyes or close them again to that which has happened and still does' so. In this respect, too, the reality precedes the knowledge of it. But at any rate it is a decisive criterion of our knowledge of Jesus that, in accordance with the fact that He is the One who shames us and we are those who are shamed by Him, we should be ashamed of ourselves. If there is not this corresponding result, we are sadly mistaken if we imagine that we have even the remotest knowledge of Jesus.

1.

I.he Man of Sin in the Light of the Lordship of the Son of Man

3 85

The parable of the Pharisee and the Publican (Lk IS 9 f. who are both equally shamed before God b t h .' ) speaks of two men of tllcir knowledge or ignorance of th f u w 00 ar~ completely different because t the temple, proudly displayed before ~h:cf;ce o~ ~ ~ one hand we have here in "NI therefore quite unashamed. He thanks God 0 the man who IS Ignorant is dnd therefore not as other men e t t' so , eautIfully that he IS as he . , , x or lOners unjust adulter ' f' , ers, or even as thIS publIcan. He can claim that he'lS f twicc in the week"· and he can also cl rtehe t rhom carnal appetItes: "I fast " ' " . aIm a e IS free from th '1 mon: I gIve tIthes of all that I " 0 e ru I e a f lY amtemple and before the face of God w~~ses\h n the other hand, also in the ashamed. He can only stand afa~ off aa:J d e ma~ ~Fo knows and is therefore unto heaven, but can only smite on' h' b aretn~, I t up so much as his eyes simplv this' "God be 'f I t I S , reas, IS confeSSiOn of faith being .' mercI u 0 me a smner" Th h f b ' ~ same 0 oth IS already disclosed, But the one knows that this is the c'ase onc can only humble himself whereas the th an thc other does not, The " a er sees many thing h' h hun. to exalt hImself It is by th' bl s w IC encourage . IS pro em of shaming h th ' acutc or remains latent that the de " , ' weer It becomes , ClSlon IS made and the ways divide.

b

"B~t man is shamed (~hether or not he is correspondingly ashamed)

bec~use he finds that he IS compared with God. With God

I

.

he IS radIcally and totally shamed it is bec h' . Yes: If . ause e IS compared WIth G d d o ,an ~~asured by His holiness he necessarily sees his own unholiness rev~a e. When we compare man with man there can and will b~ occasIOnal. and par~ial and superficial shamings. And becaus . VIew of .the dIfference m the relationships in which men may be ;~~~ ~a::d ~Ith one ar:other: these shamings are always at bottom reciprocal ~ ~ a ways pOSSIble eIther on the one side or the other or both t' n. good reasons for evading them. The basic and to'tal 1 '. a whIch w t'd" s Iammg . e canno avol IS eIther from God or it does not tak I at all. Bu~ we must add that it is from the true God who meeePtsauce concretely 1 1" • s man with anGa dIVl~g ~ncoutter. A supposed direct confrontation of f . . 0 w 0 IS on y a God at some height or depth in and ~~ Hlms~lf IS not an encounter with tte Holy One measured b ~ ose holIness man finds that he is revealed to be unholy In th y clrcum~tances h . d l' I' . ese h ,,' . e IS ea mg on y WIth an idea or concept of God which 0\\ ever lofty or profound it b '. ' . may e, cannot gIve fIse to any shaming any d" I be I~C osure of hIS .shame, so that he can never reall be ashamed onio.r~ It because h.e IS not really shamed by it. A Go~ who is God GO() i~nt:~td o~o~n~~~selki~ not t~~ true God. The concept of this pari~on' . e ween 1m and man there can be no comwlth And" it 'is th~ result that there can be no serious shaming of man deck out jtmr,.tlllg to
386

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Man 1.

very man even as He is very God. Between us men it is not the case that the one encounters God in the other. It may well be that we mutually attest God, and therefore the fact that we are compared with Him and shamed by Him. It may well be that we can and must lead one another to shame before Him. But none of us IS confronted with God Himself, or shamed by Him, in the existen~e of another eXIstence ofd the man. This takes place only , but genuinely, in the . H' true man in Jesus, the Son of God. It is in relatlOn to lln,~an we all stand in relation to Him~that there is the companson. w1tl~ a man which is also our comparison with the holy God. And m thIS .co~. with His of our actions and achievements, panson , . . our. posslb1hbes h' d and actualisations, the true expresslOn of that willch IS WIt m us, an the inwardness of that which we express, our whole, whence and whither, the root and crown of our existence, we are genum~ly s~an:ed. We are shamed because our own human essence meets us m HIm 1~ a form in which it completely surpasses and transcends the form wh~ch we give it. In Him we are not encountered by an ange~, ~r a bemg which is superior and alien to our own natur~, so that It IS easy to excuse ourselves if we fail to measure up to It.. We are confronted by a man like ourselves, with whom we are qm~e comparable. But we are confronted by a man in the clear exaltatlOn of our nature to its truth, in the fulfilment of its determination, in the correspondence to the election and creation of man. We are confronted .by the man who is with and for God as God is with Him, at. peace wIth God and therefore with His fellows and Himself. But thIS means ~hat we are all asked by Him who and what we ought to be as H1~ b~others. What about human life as we live it? What about our thmkm~ and willing and speaking and acting? What about our heart ~nd act~ons.? \Vhat about the use we make of our existence, of the bme whIch .1S given us, of our own distinctive opport.unity both as a whole an~ In detail? What about our coming and gomg? What about our motr~Tes and restraints, our plans and attainments? What about the ordenng of our relationship to God and our neighbours ,and ourselves: An~ finally and comprehensively, what about our hf.e-act as God s goo creatures within the cosmos of God's good creatlOn? If we had the freedom to orientate and measure ourselves by other men, or by an abstraction that we regard as God, or by a :aw invented. and established by ourselves, it migh~ well ?e possIble to acqmt. ourselv~~ . creditably, or not too discredItably, m face ?f th.ese questlOns. B' t we do not have this freedom. We can o?ly 1magme tha~ we havet~~ The measure by which we are measured IS the true man m whom . h true God meets us concretely in a living encounter. Compared Wlt Him we stand there in all our corruption. The failure. of ~:l that ~~ have and do is revealed. The lost state of our humamty b expos . Our holiness, however great or small, drops away. ~ur brilli~n~ ~~ extinguished, our boasting reduced to fubhty, our pnde depn ve

The Man of Sin in the Light of the Lordsht'p of the Son of Man

3 87

its object. The untruth in which we are men is disclosed. The need in which God has accepted us in His Son, and which consists in the untruth of our h.umanity, is incontestable. This is our actual shaming, whether we see It or not, whether we are ashamed of ourselves or not. We stand there as those who are shamed in this way, in this shame, because and as the man Jesus is among us. And if we are ashamed of ourselves, this means that we are aware of the way in which we are shamed by the man Jesus, of the shame in which we stand when we are measured by Him, and that we are grieved at it, but are quite unable, however ardently we may desire, to free our~elves from it. Even if the whole world takes our part, we cannot sabsfy ourselves as those who are responsible for it. Even if no one else sees it, we see it. Even if no one else accuses us, we can only accuse ourselves. And if we try to conceal it from ourselves, it is always the more painfully present, for we cannot conceal ourselves from ourselves. We are forced to see and know ourselves in the loathsomeness in .which we find ourselves exposed and known. We may pensh and dIsappear, but we now know of no place in which we are no longer the terrible creature which we are known, and know ourselves, to be. We have to put up with ourselves as such. We need to be Christians, to know the man Jesus, if we are to be aware of the ~haming which has come to all men in the existence of this One, and If we are to be affected by it, taking it to heart and accepting the fact of our shame. We can try to resist it, and to be without shame, only so long .and so f~r as we have not yet seen Jesus, or still try, or again try, to Ignore HIm; only so long and so far as we have not realised that as men we all stand in relation to Him, and are compared with Him and measured by Him, and are therefore shamed, like all other men, by this true man and therefore by the true God. The Christian canIlot and will. not refuse this knowledge. He does not do anything strange when, m the eloquent expression of the Bible, he "smites upon his breast." He would not be a Christian if he did not do this. He does only that which it is for every man without exception to do, and that which in the day of judgment every man will do. We will all be ashamed before Him then as those who are compared with Jesus and measured and therefore shamed by Him. '. It IS striking, and worth considering, that in the Gospels the shaming of man

~~ expressly revealed in a figure which is given great prominence-that of Peter. 8,,~t:r "5 obviously shamed already (although the word itself is not used) in Mk.

auu par. when, because he does not conceIve of the death and passion andivine but human terms, he is rebuked or "threatened" be told quite plainly: lJ7Tay< (J7T{aw fLOV, aaTava, i.e" that n.Ust remove hImself from the sIght of Jesus. He is shamed alreadv when accOrQI t Lk . 32 • . h' h ~ .. ug 0 . 22 , m a saymg w IC stands between a supreme promise gIVen to all the disciples (that they will eat and drink and sit Oil thrones and :X~rclse a judicial office in the coming Messianic kingdom) and a supreme assurnee of loyalty from this first disciple, Jesus telIs him that He has prayed for

~ounced by Jesus in h~' Him, and has to

I

J

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Zv! an him that his faith should not fail in the great trial which is at hand: "And when thou art converted strengthen thy brethren." He is ashamed already when in Mk. 14 30 (. and par. his far too rash (EK1T
But the statement that man is shamed in the light of the lordship of the Son of Man needs to be filled out and explained before we can pass from the question of knowledge to that of fact. That there is a serious and radical and total shaming of man must not seem to be only a statement made and accepted at random. It is a matter of the truth of man in this shaming, and of the knowledge of this truth, when a man, the Christian, has to be ashamed of himself in accordance with the shaming of all men as it proceeds from the existence of Jesus. If he sees himself forced, or rather freed, to do this by the direction of Jesus Christ and therefore by the Holy Spirit, this is not a dead and 'formless and irresponsible awareness. He finds him~e~f set in the light of the lordship of the Son of Man. He comes to partICIpate in a knowledge of Him, and of himself. He is demanded a~d set in a position to give an account of his situation, to reflect on Its origin and nature and significance and difficulty, to be clear about his sin and himself as the man of sin, and to make it clear to others and the world. He does not speak in the void. He does not merely assert. He does not merely appeal to an uncontrollable experience.

1.

The Man of Sin in the Light of the Lordship of the Son of Man

389

He knows what he is saying when he confesses that he is one who is shamed by Jesus, and when he approaches other men with the presupposition that in. them too, whether they know and accept it or not, he.h~s to do WIth those who are in fact shamed by Jesus. What the ChnstIan.knows of himself and all other men must now be developed III more speCIfic statements and deliberations. 1. We must begin with the factual question whether it is really the ca~e that all men do undoubtedly confront the one exalted man Jesus 111 the. depths of abasement. Does the phenomenon of the shamed and s1l1k1l1g ~eter really have a basic and general significance? Are there not those 111 whom humanity confronts us, at least in tendency, or in part, in a certain exaltation? Are there not those who c~n be compared with this One and do not emerge as men who are aosolutely and unreservedly shamed in this comparison? Are there not those who are at least nobles or princes beside this one royal man? Is there not even sOJ?ethin1S noble to be found in every man, ?ven 111 those whose aspect IS dom1l1ated by their abasement? May It not. be that t.he statement that all men are shamed by Jesus is true only III a relatIve sen.se? Are we perhaps guilty of an exaggeration whe~ we op~os.e to HIm
390

§ 65· The Sloth and Misery of Man

may be attempted or done in other respects this shaming cannot be explained away or relativised or weakened either in his own case or that of others. He stands together with those who confront this One in the Gospel history. This does not mean that he finds himself in particularly bad company. This may be said of Barabbas and the two who were crucified with Jesus. But by and large there are no outstanding villains, no titans of iniquity, no palpably disturbed social relations, in face of this One. He is set in an environment in which He has no serious opponent. But it is also the case that He has no serious companion or helper or fellow-worker. In the positive sense, too, there is a dearth of figures who stand out in some way when they are measured bv Him. The only possible candidate for this position is John the Baptist, but he belongs only to the beginning of the story, and the Gospels take good care to characterise him in such a way that there can be no place for any thought of an equality or even a similarity in the comparison between him and Jesus. For the rest, there are the sick who are healed, those whose sins are forgiven, those who seem to be, and are, affected and shaken by the preaching of Jesus; those to whom He turns in a way which completely surprises both themselves and others, and finally those who are called to follow Him, and do in some sense do so. There is not a single one among them who has any independent significance or weig~t in face of.Him: T~ey see Him, and hear Him, and are helped by HIm, and belIeve m HIm, or think they do so. And in all these relationships He is .always .the One who gives, the One to whom none of them has anythmg to gIve. He goes through the midst of them in .splendid isolatio~ as the .L?rd. The men around Him, measured by HIm, have no partIcular dIstmction either in good or evil; and if they have this in other respects, it pales in comparison with Him.. They fall away besi~~ Him. Mea.sured by Him, they exist on a dIfferent level. What IS revealed m the encounter with Him, in His light, is only the usual run, whet~er in good or evil, of mediocre and trivial humanity. And that the dIStinction and antithesis in relation to Him are not relative or temporary is proved by the fact that. this humanity ~hich is triv~al in bot~ good and evil is finally united m the fact that It doubts HIm, that It d~es not understand Him, that it forsakes Him, that it rejects and delll~s and betrays, or at the very best impotently bewails, .Hi~, that. It judges Him either on spiritual or secular grounds, that It bnngs. HIm to the cross and that it finally abandons Him on the cross. It IS the average man who does this. It is he who is the rebel that will not have this man to reign over us. It is he that is the perverted ~an who is so sharply distinguished, who so flagrantly distinguishes .hlI~­ self, from the true man. It is he who is the man of sin. And h.I5 ~lll consists in the very fact that he is the average man. The ChnstIan knows that he belongs to this group, and he confesses that-whether he is a little above or a little below the average-he is in this grOUp,

1.

The 111an of Sin in the Light of the Lordship of the Son of 111an

39 1

together w~th ~ll other men, man as such. He knows the Jesus who lives In thIS hIStory and therefore in this human environment. He thus knows who and what all other men are. He knows the lowliness :lnd misery in which we confront Him, both as individuals and in the mass, both in our better impulses and desires and our worse. He knows the descent in which we are all implicated as compared with Iris a.sce~t. He knows t~at the best possibility of man is only to be lIke smkmg Peter, who WIthout the hand of the Lord to save him and lift him up could only sin~ in his triviality. This is the first thing that has t? ~e s~Id concermng th.e factual question. It may not bring out the dIstmctIOn and the antIthesis between the one Son of Man and other men in all its clarity and strictness and danger. But its seriousness is already apparent. All our mediocrity is revealed, and it is revealed as the form in which we are unequivocally opposed to Him. 2. But the question arises, and demands an answer, whether and how far there is really any disqualification of others as sinners in and with. this. disti~ction .between Him and them. Can the mediocrity, or tnvialIty, .WIth whlCh they confront Him really be regarded as bad or evIl? Is It really the case that in this confrontation with the man J esus th~re is revealed a triviality of others in which they are not merely dIfferent from, but finally opposed to, Him? Is it really the shame of :n:an whic~ ~hi~ discloses? Is he really shamed by Him because of It? Is t:IvIahty real corruption? Ought not mediocrity to be at least permItted as an optimum which is accessible to all ? ~ay it n?t even be commanded as that which is basically normal? ExplanatIOns and excus~s might be sought and found for all those m.en in. the enviro~ment of Jesus who were not prepared to be wholly WIth HIm or defimtely against Him, and therefore for us to the extent that we are like them, and in solidarity with them. Indeed, it might even be asked whether they were not right. Was it not this One that was so different and str.ange and isolated among them-so one-sidedly onentated .on God, so Imprudently occupied with the cause of man, so smglemmded and emphatic in the proclamation of Himself-who was really perverted? Was it not a sound instinct for that which is possible and to that extent right for men that caused the others to keep. Him at a distance, not to commit themselves to Him absolutely or WIthout t.he freedom to withdraw at the last minute, even perhaps to shake theIr heads and turn away from Him at once, or nonchalantly to pass by on the other side, and let Him go His own way, or, if He ~ould not be resisted in any other way, and obviously willed to have It so, to make an end of Him altogether, driving Him out as One who w . "as not wanted, as a dIsturber of the peace? As Goethe put it : . Let every fanatic be nailed to the cross in the thirtieth year." Was ~~ not most li~ely that they were all in the right against the One rather an He agamst them? And may not we, if we belong to this

39Z

§ 65· The Sloth and Misery of Man

company of those who are different f:om Him, re?,ard ourseh:es, not as disqualified by Him, but as excused In face of HIm, and basIcally and finally in the right against Him? . The question is a serious one to the extent t~a~ It un?oubtedly brings before us an important aspect ?f th~ :ntlcal p~mt where Christians and non-Christians necessanly dIvIde. D~cI~ed nonChristians, however lofty their spiritual and moral pnn:lples, are always characterised by the fact that (more or less conscIOusly and explicitly, but always resolutely! they usually defen? tho~e wh? a~e ordinary in relation to Jesus agamst the charge that m theIr ordinanness they are sinners. Many things may be conceded. to the man Jesus, but not the fact that in their difference from HIm all others are disqualified and shamed and .ou.ght theref?r~ to be ashame~. Assuming that we ourselves are Chnstlans, what .IS It that we ~now If in practice we regard this obvious question as Just as s~lf-evIdent1y unimportant as it seems important to them? What was It that Peter began to know when as the first and best of the many who then surrounded Jesus, he ~ould not bear the look of Jesus after the denial, but" went out and wept bitterly" ? The first point is obviously that, if we know Jesus at all, we can never completely (but only temporarily) forget, nor ca~ we ab~olutely (but only superficially) abstract from the fact, that thIS One IS not a private person beside and among many others so that we can escape Him and keep ourselves to ourselves, but that. in all t?e, omn~potence of the merciful will of God He is the One who In all HIS I.solatlon to?k our place, and the place of. all m~n,. so th~t what ~e IS necessarily includes in itself our true beIng as It IS ascnbed and gIven us by God. If, then, He is very different from us, if there is this di~tinction between Him on the one side and all other men on the other, If we all co?fr~nt Him in our ordinariness, we cannot excuse and vindicate ~nd JustIfy ourselves against Him in this ordinarin~ss, or try to .accuse HIm becau~e He is so different. In and with the eXIstence of thIS One the ground IS cut away from under our feet as those who are ordinary men. In and with this One who has taken our place there has come to us grace and liberation. This ordinariness is behind. us a~d ~nder u~ We have become new men who are lifted out of this o:dl.nanness an separated from it. This is the first thing that the ChnstIan knows as he knows about Jesus Christ and himself and man. He belongs. to Him, to His side; and not therefore to that of the trivial humanIty in which he confronts Him. . it From this first thing there follows necessanly the second, that h is not normal or excusable or justifiable, but evil and wicked, th~ te does not stand at His side. He contradicts himself ~s h~ ~ontra 'b~e~ Him. Even from his own standpoint, he does that WhICh IS Im~oSS~ere He cannot be below, but has to be above with this One wh? IS t r for him. His mediocrity and triviality, the ordinariness of hIS manne

I.

The Man of Sin in the Light of the LordsMp of the Son of Man

393

an~ place, i~ actu.ally si?, and as such it is intolerable and inexcusable. 1~ u?demabl~ mgratItude to the grace which is shown him. In it h~ IS lIke a pnsoner who when the doors are opened will not leave It

hIS cell. but wants to remain in it. It clearly disqualifies him. As the o~dm~ry man he is like all others, he cannot be endured, His shammg IS an event. This is the second thing that the Christian knows. And frof?- this t~ere follows the third-he knows that every attempt to escape hIS shammg, to defend and justify and excuse himself, to regard the abnormal as normal and his wrong as right, to turn the tables, not only has no prospect of success and cannot alter his actual shame, but can o;tly con~rm hi~ shame. Is it not enough that he stands where he does, m the ImpOSSIble contradiction to himself where he does nO,t really. belo~g? When he ~s absolutely assailed in his being below, I.S h~ stIll gomg ~o espou~e It? Is he going to pretend that ~hat WhICh. IS so harmful IS really mnocuous? Is he going to acquiesce ~n that WhICh cannot .be? Is he going to glorify that which is plainly mfamous? Is he gOIng to reject and contest that which is his own he~lth. an~ greatness and ?,l?ry? ?urelY,it is. clear that every step in ~hlS dlrectIO.n, .all the actIvIty or InactIvIty In which he participates ~n t?e repudlatIon.of t?e One by the many, even the impulse of superior mdlfferenc~ or re]~ctIon, merely recoils upon himself and threatens to J?a.ke hIS shamIng final and definitive. This is the basis of the ~hnstlan answer to the question. The Christian is no real Christian, I.e., he does n?t k;tow Jesus and himself, if he cannot give this answer at once,. s~akIng It o~ as no less self-evidently meaningless than the non-C.hnstI.an regards It as meaningful and profound. He knows that man IS q~lte defenceless in face of the accusation arising from his confrontatlOn by the man Jesus. In their differentiation from this One all others are indeed disqualified as sinners. This statement too wh~ch is ,di:e:ted primarily ~gainst themselves, belongs to the wltnes~ WhIC~ Cnnstrans cannot WIthhold from non-Christians-quite irrespectrve of whether or not they receive it. . 3· It might also be asked, however, whether and how far it is dIre~tly t?e individual himself who is actually implicated in this disqua~lficatlO~ as ~ sinner which arises in his relation with Jesus. How far IS the sm dIsclosed ~n h!s confrontation with Jesus really to be unde:stood as a determmatron of his being, of all that he does or refrarns from doing? May it not be that the term" man of sin" is to? strong? We have to agree that the evil act of a man is not some~hrng. that ta~es place automatically from within himself, nor is it a UnctIOn of his creaturely nature. It is a new and responsible work and it is in contradiction to his nature, so that when he does it he i~ ~~tranger to himself. We have also to agree that even as the doer of IS act he does not cease to be in the hand of God, and to be the man Who Was not created evil but good. From this it might be deduced

394

§ 65, The Sloth and lvlisery of Man

that although it is right that he is disqualified in so far as he sins, ,i,e" as he frequently and seriously denies w~at he ought to be .and mlg~t be as a man, yet the disqualification IS not so far-r~achmg tha~ It affects himself, his being, and all that he does or reframs fro~ domg. The sinful act is a regrettable but external, incidental and Isola~ed failure and defect; a misfortune, comparable to one of the pass~ng sicknesses in which a healthy organism remains healthy and to whIch it shows itself to be more than equal. On this view, the individualI myself-cannot really be affected by the ~vil action, I do not have any direct part in its loathsome and offenSIve character. In the last resort it has taken place in my absence, I myself am elsewhere and aloof from it. And from this neutral place which is my real home, I can survey and evaluate the evil that has happened in me i.n its involvement with other less evil and perhaps even good motIves, a,nd elements; in its not absolutely harmful but to some extent pOSItIve effects' in its relationship to my other much less doubtful and perhaps even p:aiseworthy achievements; and especially in my relationship to what I see other men do or not do (a comparison in which I may not come out too badly); in short, in a relativity in which I am not really affected at bottom. I may acknowledge and regret that I have sinned, but I do not need to confess that I am a sinner. The alien nature of my act has not alienated me from myself. I am not really shamed, and therefore I do not have to be as~amed of mysel.f.. That there have often enough been, and will be agam, mean and tr~vIal and even unworthy things in our relationship to God and our nelg~bours and ourselves need not be concealed or unacknowledged, but thIS does not mean that we ourselves are mean in the totality, of O~Ir a~~ieve­ ments, and that we have to reckon with this fact. It IS an IllegltI;nate hyperbole to say that I am a man of sin, that I myself am ordinary and trivial and mediocre. How and why am I to see that I am pr~­ vented from regarding myself as secured against my sin, ~h~n all ~s said and done, by a kind of protective covering, by an alIbI of this kind? Our attitude to this question is a further test whether we .are Christians or non-Christians. Do we realise that it is quite impOSSIble to think and speak in this way, that it is not only difficult but out of the question to take even a first step in this direct.io~? To be su~e, we can follow this kind of argument. To be sure, It IS .all unc~nni1y familiar, as though we ourselves do sometimes argue. thIS way I~ our dreams. But in our waking thoughts we cannot pOSSIbly m.a~e It o?r own. It is self-evident that nothing less than the whole of It IS basICally false; that it is not at all the case that in :rirt,:e of the goodness of his creaturely nature as it is undoubtedly mamtamed by man ev~n as the doer of sin he is protected from being the one who dO,es ,It, and therefore a sinner who is alienated from himself in ~ommltt1U~ this alien act; that there is no neutral place from whIch he ca

I.

The Man of Sin in the Light of the Lordship of the Son of Man

395

rel~tivise his evil and therefore be, and claim to be, a free man in respect of It; that he has no alibi and cannot find one; that he himself is really mean as the doer of these mean actions' and that h h , e as every ' reason to b e genumely ashamed of himself. , What reason? S!mp~y .that he knows that the place which he mIght occu1?Y and mal.ntalT~ III face of his doing and non-doing in order to se~ure h.lmse~f agamst Its loathsome and offensive character and the dIsqualIficatIOn and shaming which are involved for himself' . · .. I d . , IS a I p a:e wh Ich IS ~ rea y occupIed, so that it gives rise to quite a different ~ram o~ reasonmg from that which he himself might pursue. For it IS. at thIS very place that there stands the man Jesus, the Other beside hIm and among all,other men, ?ut .as this Other beside him and among all other m~n the Son of God m hIS and their stead, who is instituted and determmed and empowered as man to conduct his and th . 11 ' th' elr caserea y I~. elr stead and on their behalf. His existence, therefore, is the deCISIOn who and w~a.t they are and are not with what they do and do. ~ot ~o; the deCISIOn as to their whence and whither. Thus the declslOn IS taken wholly and once for all out of their hands. It is no longer a matter of what they themselves think. For all of them it ca.n be. only a matter?f knowing the decision which has been made in ~IS eXIstence concernmg them all, and of accepting and confessing it. For ~one of th~m can there be any retreat into the fantasies of stricter or, mllde: self-Judgments. The omnipotent mercy of God has introduced thIS l?an .amo?g them. It stands behind the decision which has be~n ;nade In HIS ~xlstence and makes it incontestable and irrevocable. ThIS IS the ~rst thIng that .the Christian knows in this matter. He can confes~_as hIS own only the being in which he finds himself known by t~e eXIstence of the man who has taken and occupies the place of hImself and all men. But in ~his man Jesus who has taken his place he can and should hImself known as a new man exalted into peace and fellowshIp WIth God, as God's dear child and welcome saint. In Him he can aI~~ s~ould ~!so find the reconciliation of the world, and his own reconCIlIatIon, WIth God. This is the goa! of the divine decision which has been ade ~oncerning all men in Him. This is the goal of the movement. I? whIch the w~ole human situation is set by His existence. If the. d.ec~slO~ was ma~e III the ma~ Jesus in the place of all, in his place, If III ~IS and theIr place, as hIS and their Brother and Fellow ~e was and IS the new man in whom all others, and he too, may fih~cover tha~ they are known and proclaimed as regenerate, it is also Ixed what hIS and theIr place is which He has taken and whose Brother and Fellow He h.as become, to be for them this new and different man :nd as such, t~elr reconc~1iati:)11 with God. This is the second thing .hat the ~hnstIan knows m thIS matter. If his own whence is revealed ~~ the e:{JSte~ce of .this man, information is also given in this existence ncernIng hIS whIther. He could not find comfort and joy in the

a!~o fi~d

n:

396

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Man

1.

'1' t' I'th God which has taken place in this man, in the reconcl Ja lOn w .' . H' 'f h . . hl'p and sanctificatlOn which have been won m un, I e d Ivme sons h' 1 . told as this man has taken IS pace, w h 0 were no t prepare d to be , . . and what he himself is as the one for whom this Other has mtervene~, and whose hope and confidence are grounded wholly and utterly m

Hi~nd this Other,

to be the new man and the hop~ and confidence of . the Son of God who has become uneqUivocally lowly, the a11 men, IS . ., h F' d fbI' d Bearer of human mediocrity and tnvlalIty, t.e nen 0 pu Ica~s an . th B other of the ordinary man m order to reconcIle the Sinners, 't' e tr God I'n order to take up man ' to h'Imse If as th e e1ect , . . h 11 fi d wor ld as I IS 0 and beloved creature of God in the state m wh~ch e actua y n s himself. It is not at a height far above us, but III our dep~hs~ as one of us that He was and is the new man. If we do not see Him III these ' d t see HI'm at all and therefore we do not see the h o~, h'h d ~s~ . th a t t 00 k place in Him . . These depths are the placekw IC exaltatlOn ' • .. He has taken for us. This is the third thmg that the C.hnstIan nows. In the Son of God come down from he.aven he recogmses the. exalted Son of Man who as such is the ReconCIler of all other men with God, their hope and confidence. .., fi d A d this brings him to the fourth and deCISive pomt. He n. s hims~f in these depths, and therefor: he. him~elf is mean and lowly m what he does and does not do. It IS ~Ith him as s,:ch that the Son of God has associated Himself in becommg man. It IS he a~ such! the bI' nd sinner estranged from himself and therefore dlsq,:alIfied, ~o I~~n~im as th~ new man is reconciled with God, the child a~d saint of God. If he is not prepared to be such, to be a man of sm, this can only mean that he does not want to. be one of those whom God has taken to Himself in this one man, with who~ He h~s made Himself equal, whose place this One ~as ~aken.to t~elr salvatlOn. Ii~ the measure that he tries to contest his disqualIficatIon, or to .hedge around with reservations, or not t.o be .one of tho~~dto ~hot.TI ;t ~eg:~: he only compromises his real quahficatlOn as a chi an sa~n b in The only alibi that he can find is hell. If we are not rea ~ d ehas the far country we are not ready to allow that the SO~ 0 . 0 hom mong us' We want to be in hell. In the very ne III w e lt d h has also to se come a . . d d the Christian sees himself quahfie an .exa. e , . e boast in that he is disqualified and abased. The J.oy III wInch. ~e c.an hich he . relation to Him is absolutely bound up .wlth the hU~lhi; In w otheris necessarily ashamed in relation ~o H.lm-~ecessan Y ecause is own wise he would dash away fellowship with Him and theref?re ~imself. exaltation as it has taken place in Him, !hus conde~~l1ngbut only This One confesses in toto those wh? are snamed by 1m, Christian, those. Hence no one can confess Him, and therefo:e be a 's for this unless he confesses that he is totally shamed .by HIm. It I sinners. reason that there can be no escaping the recogmtlOn that we are

rt

The Man of Sin in the Light of the Lordship of the Son of Man

397

Only the Christian can see the force of this reason. But it is valid and momentous for all men. For it is for all men that the Son of God has become lowly, and takes their place in lowliness as the new man, and is their hope and confidence. What distinguishes Christians is that they know this reason, and therefore cannot conceal either from themselves or others that we cannot withdraw or protect ourselves from our sin, that in this matter there can be no question of an alibi. 4. We will assume that the first three questions have all been answered along the lines suggested, i.e., that they have been rejected as impossible questions. In comparison with the man Jesus (r) we are all shown to be opposed to Him; this opposition (2) involves our disqualification; and this disqualification (3) actually and inescapably applies to ourselves. Yet even if this is conceded, the three statements might still be over-arched or bracketed by the final question whether there is not a higher or deeper synthetic view on which the situation of man as one who is shamed is indeed necessary, but as a kind of metaphysical datum, so that in spite of its seriousness it does not prove to be finally or genuinely disturbing. Is it not perhaps the case that it is simply laid on man as an unavoidable destiny to be a man of sin, and to be revealed as such, and objectively shamed, and therefore necessarily to be ashamed of himself? Might it not be conditioned, for example, by his different nature and essence as a creature; by the limit which is set for him as such; by the fact that he does not confront that which is not with the same sovereignty as God but is exposed to its temptations and threats; by the fact that he cannot avoid the proximity and co-existence of darkness and its power but has to participate in them, and cannot ignore or deny this participation? Might it not be that his shaming is the characteristic feature of his existence as a man in the rest of creation (which might have the same experiences without being either shamed or ashamed)? Might it not be that simply to be a man is also to be disqualified by this opposition and to be directly and most intimately affected? Or, finally and decisively, might it not belong to the perfection of God, to His inaccessible and incomparable majesty encompassing both man as His good creature and the nothingness which menaces him, to have in the man who sins against Him and is therefore shamed by Him a kind of shadow, and therefore a counterpart with its negative attestation? Might it not be that man in his abasement, his sin, he himself as the man of sin, and his shame as such, are all integrated in the all-embracing nexus or system of a harmony of being in which he is affirmed as well as negated. and in this twofold determination is concealed, and knows that he is concealed, in a final and supreme and assured and reassuring compulsion: not lost but sustained and upheld even as the one he was and is, in all his shame; a free man ultimately even in that which speaks against him, and in the resultant misery, and in the knowledge

1.

39 8

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Man

of this situation? Might it not be that in the existence of the man Jesus, and the majesty and lowliness of the surrounding humanity which He receives and adopts, we have a supreme attestation and confirmation of this harmony which spans even the discord of human sin and is therefore all the more glorious in its universality, so that a basic calm is legitimate in spite of all the unsettlement to which our situation may give rise? Is there a penetrating Christian answer to these questions too? Can it be shown that even this attempt to throw light on the human situation, inviting though it may be by reason of its largeness, only obscures it-and perhaps more deeply than ever? We must not be too ready with our answer. It will not do merely to protest, attaching perhaps the derogatory label" monism." The question is the more seductive and dangerous because it seems to have overcome the first three questions by exposing their superficiality, and to have approximated in some sense to Christian truth. Even in a Christian doctrine of sin, although there can be no question of an innate potentiality for evil in accordance with creation, we have to reckon with the fact that, unlike God, man is indeed exposed to the assault of chaos by reason of his creatureliness, that he confronts the nothingness which is intrinsically alien to him, not with the superiority of God, but-although no possibility in this di.rection can be ascribed to him-with a certain reversionary tendency. Nor can it be contested, but only asserted, that within the created order it is the place of man to be not only the field and prize of battle, but himself the contestant in the divine conflict with nothingness which began with creation. Finally, there has to be confessed as in no other teaching the absolute superiority with which God controls and conquers nothingness even in the form of human sin, not in any sense being arrested by it, but setting it to serve His own glory and the work of His free love. All these are assertions which we cannot avoid if we are determined to derive our thinking on God, the world, man and even evil from J esus Chr~st. And the fourth question which no'v engages us seems to be co-extenslve with these assertions, aiming at the same bracketing of sin as we necessarily find in Christian doctrine. We have to be all the more careful, therefore, in our consideration whether we can decide for the view represented in this question, or whether as Christians, and therefore from the centre of Christian knowledge, we must return a negative answer, i.e., reject it, because even if we put only one foot on the ground indicated by this last question, it means that at the last moment we again obscure and even destroy the knowledge of sin and the man of sin. What is it that the Christian knows if he finds that he is in fact absolutely prevented from having any part or lot at all in th!s h~gh~r or deeper view of his own and human sin? from understandmg lt, ln the light of the relationship between the Creator and the creature, or

The Man of Sin in the Light of the Lordship of the Son of Man

399

in relation either to man or to God Himself' as a necessary datum d' d' co-or mate mto an embracing nexus of being as an unavoidable but not finally or ~e.nuinely disruptive discord in ~ superior harmony? from finally eXplaInIng the fact that man is shamed and has therefore to be asham.ed ? from a calm acceptance of the fact because there can ~e ~o .questlon of any real ~amage to God or fear of perishing, or of an~ thmg mor:st~ous ~nd ternb~e, any incurable wound, any absolutel fa,tal ~or:tradictIOn, m .th~ bemg of man in the abasement of sin ~ \'i hat IS lt that the Chnstlan knows which forbids him to regard himself as finally secure e:ren as the doer of sin, the man of sin, within ~he framework of a unIversal systematisation of this kind? What i~ It ~hat he knows w.hen. he knows that there can be no question of an; ullI.versal systematrsatIOn; that he cannot find any framework withi~ whIch he may be finally secure as a sinner; that he cannot .d tl fact that as the man of sin he has every reason seriously a~~lfea:~ and that he can find himself secure, and therefore free not to fear' ' only at the place w~ere he .has no option but seriously to fear? In. answ~r to thIS questIOn the decisive content of Christian knowled1?ie ~s agam the man Jesus, and therefore the actuality in which the ~hnst.lan ~nds that hi~ ~in, and that of the world, is contained, that Ir: ,all ItS fr~ghtflllne~s, It lS cancelled and overcome, and that it alread dlsp~rsed lrke a. fleetmg shadow. It is the actuality by which all respeZt ~or sm, or anXIety before it, is in fact forbidden' because sin has lost Its power, because it h~s been. made contemptible, because he has been f.reed and set or: hIS feet m face of it, because he had alread been lrfted up out of ltS abasement, It is true enough that it is on? s~bseSluentlJ:' ~h~t the ~ight of the lordship of the Son of Man, Hfs d~rectIOn as It lS.I~sue~ m the might of His resurrection and the power a . the Holy Spmt, dlsclos~s w~o and what is already overcome in HI.S dea~h, ar:d ~ro~ what SItuatIOn this one is already snatched But nus rad.Ic~l lImItatIOn of sin and man as its doer, as it is kno~vn b ihe Chnstran to already in the one man Jesus (f; lOW could he be a Chnstran If he did not know this i ) has noth' ~vhatever to .do with a harmony of being in which sin· ;nd its sha:~ ar~ systematIcally co-o~din~ted, and God and man and sin peacefull :rn~ted, Indeed: If any Idea IS excluded, like sin itself, in this limitatio! ~ IS that of th~s peaceful co-existence of God, man and sin, and of tne comfort whIch can be derived from it. For who and what is overcome in the death of the So f·M ', rev 1 d' H' no. an lS d ea e m IS resurrection. The Son of God died in our place th , eath of the old man, ~he man of sin. And the One who undertook t~ ~.uffer. the death of th~s old man in our place was the new man who eI~es m our plac~ agam as the Holy ?ne of God in whom we are all alted to be samts of God. There IS no continuity or harmon or Peace between the death of that old man and the life of th' y ' t f' , IS new. T he con tammen 0 sm as lt has taken place on the cross of the Son

hav~ t~k~n p~ace

400

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Man 1.

of Man, the complete replacement there of the .man of sin, to~k. pla~e in the conflict of an irreconcilable and unbndgeable oppOSItion m which only the one or the other could remain and one or the. other had neces~arily to give place. The old man could not be co-o~dmated with the new, nor the new with the old. The new could only hve: an.d the old yield and die. The divisive No of the wrath of God, ~hlch IS the con~uming fire of His love, lay on the old man, ~e~troymg a~d extinguishing him. This is the first thing that the ChnstIa~ knows m relation to this question as he knows what took place for hIm a~d .all men in the man Jesus. No compromise was made, no armIstice arranged, no pact of non-aggression concluded at the place where he and all men were helped, but an unequivocal and intolerable and definitive enemy of God was treated as h: ~eserve~ and utterly destroyed. This enemy is the sin of man; It IS he hImself as the man who wills this sin. He was not tolerated at that place. No pardon was given him. An end was made o~ him. This is how he stand.s ~s a sinner in the light of the resurrectlOn ?f the So~ of Man. ThIS IS what his sin looks like in that light. It IS unambIguously defined as that which God did not and does not will, and will never do so; 'as that in which He has no part; as that which He did .no~ create; ~s that which has no possibility in Him and therefore m I~self. It IS that which is absurd before Him, and therefore that whI.ch ~e has rejected and forbidden. God can be thought together WIth It only in the act of opposition in which He masters and contes~s and o:,ercomes it. This is what He did at Calvary. Any systemat~c ~o-ordm~­ tion of God and sin is made quite impossible for the ChnstIan. by ?IS knowledge of what took place there. But so, t~o, is any co-ordm3:tlOn of himself with sin; any attempt to make himsel~ comprehen.slble, to explain and understand hims~lf, as t?e doer of sm: any deSIre to find security in the peace of a hIgher VIew or synthesIs. To be sure, he may know, as the creature of God, that he is preserv.ed an~ blessed by Him, and in the man Jesus that he lives .i~ and WIth HIm. But this knowledge stands or falls with the recogll1t~on that as ~he man ?f sin he is cursed and slain by God, thrust out mto the VOId, dark In the darkness, a lost soul. There cannot, then, be any ~alk of harmony. In sin man strikes a chord which cannot be taken up mto any melody. The Christian can understand it only as something which is oV:rlooked, covered and forgiven-not as a reality whi~h is adapted to hIS hu~a~ nature or co-ordinate with his human destmy, but only as that WhiC cannot be co-ordinated. And he can understand himself only aso~e who is delivered from its kingdom as a brand is plucked from \ e burni~g, as one who can only avoid and withstan~ it. If he knows tn~ radical decision that has been made in Jesus Chnst for the world.a f himself and against evil, how can he still try to cre.ate a synthesIs 0 .. God and evil the world and evil and himself and eVIl? ' . thOIS d eCISlOn The first point gives rise to a second. The One wh a m

The Man of Sin in the Light of the Lordship of the Son of Man

401

acted against sin, i.e., who suffered in our place the death of the old man, the man of sin,. is none other than God Himself in the person of the Son of Man. It IS not only from a distance that God has reacted against this. enemy. as against one who has disturbed the peace of the created reahty dIstmct from Himself, but whose evil work did not in ~ny w~y affect His own life and being. As He sees it, this evil work IS obvlOU~ly not merely ~n imperfection, but something quite intolerab.le. It!S not merely a final and relative, but an infinite and absolute e~Il .. It IS not an evil that can be countered by a mere arrangement withm the world, or averted through the instrumentality and mediation of a creature. It is not an evil which any creature is good enough, or competent, or adapted to contest and remove. God Himself had to come down, to give Himself, to sacrifice Himself, in order that a place should be found for a man freed from this evil, and a reconciled world introduced in this man. On the cross of Golgotha God Himself interv~ned to accomplish this li?eration, paying the price Himself, giving Hanself up to death. If thIS was not too much for Him if this interven~ion ~as not too big a thing or this price too high, if this decision agamst .sm ~nd man as the doer of sin could be taken only in this way, th!s ~)[Ings home to us how great IS the absurdity of sin, and how se:lOus It IS. God .Himself is affected and disturbed and harmed by it. HIS Own cau.se, HIS purpose for man and the world, is disrupted and arrested; HIS own glory is called in question. He Himself finds Himse~f as~aulted by it in His being as God, and He hazards no less than HIS bemg as Go~ to encounter it. This being the case, we have every rea~on .to repudIate resolutely and once and for all any idea of a hm.ltat.lOn, counter-balancing or relativisation of sin apart from that wInch IS accomplished in this way. The seriousness of this disturbance ~an be. measured only: by the fact that it is met and overcome by God HImself. As He IS for us and against it, it is in fact limited and c~unter-balanced.an~ relat~vised, but only in this way, only by the occurrence of thIS hIstory In which God is the active militant and suffering Subject, and not in a co-ordination in which sin, and we ourselves as the doers of it, are tolerated alongside Him. What has ~aken place for us and against sin in this history proves that it is not III any sense tolerated, and that we ourselves are not tolerated as the ~oe~s of it. The Christ!an knows this, and does not cherish any IllUSIOns, e:ren the most kmdly and beautiful, in this respect. si But thIS l~~ds us to a third poi.nt. The dying of the old man of n, and the nSl11g of the new man m whom we are liberated from sin for God, did not take place as our own act, but as the act of the true Son of God and Son of Man in our place. Neither the destruction nor ~he emergence, neither the death of the old nor the life of the new IS our own achievement. We can participate in it only in such; wav".' a n d Our sanc t'fi' '. d' 1 catIOn, our eXIt as smners and our entry as ISCIples of God and Jesus Christ, can consist only in the fact, that we

402

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Man

love in return the One who has first loved us in this act. It is God's free grace that the battle which He Himself and alone has fought for His own glory is also a battle for our salvation, and that the victory includes also our deliverance and liberation. It is again His free grace that we have a part in this battle, being called and empowered to fight and suffer and triumph with Him in this cause. We cannot presume to do this of ourselves. It can only be given to us. No Christian can stand before the decision made at Calvary in the person of the true Son of God and Son of Man except in the pure gratitude of the knowledge that it took place for him but quite apart from him and against all his merits arid deservings. And no Christian will obey the divine direction of the Holy Spirit as it was and is issued in the power of the resurrection of Jesus Christ except in the pure gratitude of this knowledge; not, therefore, in the sense of an original achievement, but in that of a secondary correspondence, which he cannot evade because he knows that, apart from and even against him, disposition was made concerning him in that decision. It is free grace, an unmerited gift, that what took place on Golgotha as the death of the old man and the life of the new is valid for him too, and takes shape in his existence, when he must not and may not fear, when he may become and be a man who is liberated from sin for God. But the one who may become and be a man liberated in this way, by the free grace addressed to him in the person of another, is obviously completely enslaved when regarded in and for himself and his own person. He is not in a position to see his own imprisonment as limited in a higher synthesis, and therefore to understand his situation as finally harmful. Free grace is not one element in the totality of a nexus in which even that which man is without and against it also has its secure meaning and place and if possible a positive significance. Free grace is the event of the shattering and destroying of what he is without it and against it. It means his total disqualification from which he cannot find refuge in any system in which it has a relative significance and range--but also a limit. His only way of escape is forward. He can escape only to the place from which this disqualification comes; to the free grace which also judges him, which disqualifies him as it qualifies him, which humbles him as it exalts him. Except in the light of this grace, and therefore in the knowledge of the Son of Man in whom it comes to us in this twofold form, there can never be this mercilessly critical self-judgment of man. It is the self-judgment of the Christian man, and the Christian man alone. It is impossible, however, that love for the Son of Man, who is the Lord over all, should allow the Christian man any other judgment of the human situation; that it should not exclude absolutely the worthless consolation of a harmonising view. The light of the liberating lordship of the Son of Man, in which he views himself and all men, is what impels him towards, or rather liberates him for, this uncompromisingly sober assessment

The Sloth of Man 40 3 of the human situati . th k the meanness and low~~~ss n°:Vtl~dge that in its determination by . . man 1 IS an untenable situation "Th • IS no peace, salth the Lord, unto the wicked" (I 8 ) ere s·4 22 . 2.

0:

2.

THE SLOTH OF MAN

We now turn to the material question' What' . the standpoint of th . . IS sm as seen from the action of the ol~ new man mtroduced in Jesus Christ? What is What is the character man ?vercome III the death of Jesus Christ? Christ's resurrection, in ~i~l~~~h~ar: t~S l~e. ~~ su:seq~ently ~evealed in him from this source I 0 ,0 Ie Ivm~ JrectlOn whIch falls on the sloth of man . ur. ?re"e~t answer IS t~at the sin of man is calls for this or a ~im~:~: c~nstologlcal. aspect whIch now occupies us ness, indolence, slowness ;;~~rt~Ve ~lght .also desc~ibe it a~ s.luggi~h­ which is absolutely forbidd d' h~t IS meant IS the eVIlmachon ises human sin from the sta e~ a~ repre ensible. but which characterour first sub-section. . n pomt presupposed m the deliberations of There is a heroic Prom th f . light-as the ride' e .ean arm of sm. This is brought to P his fall-when w of ~an WhIch. not. only derives from but is itself who humbled Hi:rsCf?SI ~rb man 1D hIS confrontation with the Lord God made flesh Si~:: ecame a serva.nt for him, with the Son of

~;~~~:dc~~desce~sion pr~~t~~~a:~~dr~e~~~~~~uJ~:~~n~~;i~eeh:~ ~:

reconCiliati~n~or~~s~~;~~i~:~~d ~~t t::~ fi~st part .of the doctrine of 't ~ I Y ~man Slll always has this heroic form, just as in it addressed to man al~a s ~au~~y n totahty, the free grace of God tively encounters this Yr'd s Be orm of the. ~ustification which posiI ut as recon~Ilr?g grace IS not merely justifying, but also whtI1 establishing grace so s' Yh nd uttterl y sanctIfymg and awakening and also, in complete' antitI~esi~sv:~ ~erely the heroic form of pride ~ut ound unheroic and trivial form of 'I °i correspon~ence, the qUlte not only of evil action but IS 0 . .n. othe.r words, It has the form, arrogance which is forbidd a so ~f eVIl ~nac~lOn; not only of the rash ness -and failure wh' en an repre enslble, but also of the tardialso the counte lch are equally forbidden and reprehensible. It is from God H' rl-ill.0vJement to .the elevation which has come to man Imse f III esus Chnst.

t

=.

tt

In Protestantism and perh . \V ternptatlOn to overl;ok this as;~~tIII f t:stern _Christianity generally, there is a portance. The fi ure who c ' 0 e matter and to underestimate its imthe lightning fro~ Zeus and~I:::'~o~~ a~entlOn is Prometheus who tries to steal l as God, not a servant but the Lord h' 0 I.S owdn use: the man who wants to be as a d Ii . IS ow n J U ae and h e l ' . h' t ' e ant Illsurrectionary. \Ve do well t b , . per, man m IS hybris o reahse how powerfully he is contradicte~ ~onsl'der thIS figure, and constantly y t le grace of God whIch justifies

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Man the sinner and exalts the abased and only the abased; how decisively he is routed by Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Lord who became for us a servant. But the man of sin is not simply this insurrectionary, and his sin has more than the heroic form in which (however terrible it may seem to be) we can hardly avoid finding traces of a sombre beauty-the beauty of the Luciferian man. We are missing the real man, not only in the mass but individually, not only in the common herd but in the finest and most outstanding of all times and places, and especially in ourselves, if we try to see and understand his sin consistently and one-sidedly as hybris, as this brilliant perversion of human pride. At a hidden depth it certainly is this brilliant perversion in all of us. But sober observation compels us to state that, as it may be seen and grasped in the overwhelming majoritv, it has little or nothing of this Luciferian or Promethean brilliance, this sombre beauty; and that even among those who may be regarded as exceptions there is a hidden depth at which, although they are still sinners, they are not at all insurrectionaries, but something very different and much more primitive, in which sin is merely banal and ugly and loathsome. It gives evidence of a very deficient or, from the Christian standpoint, very unenlightened selfknowledge if we try to deny that, beyond all that we may see and bewail in ourselves as pride, we have also to confess this very different and much more primitive thing in which there is nothing at all even of that doubtful beauty. And is it really" beyond" what we call pride? Sin may have different dimensions and aspects, but it is a single entity. Ought we not to say, therefore, that this different form is there at the very heart of our pride and forms its final basis? And yet the connexion between the two forms cannot easily be reduced to a common denominator. \Ve might equally well say that this other, more primitive form has its final basis in human pride. The important thing is that we have every reason closely to scrutinise this second form. If we consider sin only in its first and more impressive form it might easily acquire an unreal and fantastic quality in which we do not recognise the real man whose heart, according to Luther's rendering of Jer. 17', is not merely desperate but also despairing. And the result would be to obscure the concrete point at issue in the sanctification or exaltation of sinful man. The sin of man is not merely heroic in its perversion. It is also-to use again the terms already introduced in the first sub-sectionordinary, trivial and mediocre. The sinner is not merely Prometheus or Lucifer. He is also--and for the sake of clarity, and to match the grossness of the matter, we will use rather popular expressions-a lazy-bones, a sluggard. a good-fornothing, a slow-coach and a loafer. He does not exist only in an exalted world of evil; he exists also in a very mean and petty world of evil (and there is a remarkable unity and reciprocity between the two in spite of their apparent antithesis) In the one case, he stands bitterly in need of humiliation; in the other he stands no less bitterly in need of exaltation. And in both cases the need is in relation to the totality of his life and action. We will gather together what we have to sayan this second aspect under the term or concept" sloth."

The forbidden or reprehensible tardiness and failure of man obviously fall under the general definition of sin as disobedience. In face of the divine direction calling him to perform a definite action, man refuses to follow the indication which he is given. Even in this refusal to act, however, and therefore in this inaction, he is involved in a certain action. The idler or loafer does something. For the most part, indeed, what he does is quite considerable and intensive. The only thing is that it does not correspond to the divine direction but is alien and opposed to it. He does not do what God wills, and sO he does what God does not will. He is disobedient and he does that

The Sloth of Man which is evil. In all that follows we m t 405 because sin in its form as sloth tush keep before us the fact that 0 ave the nat· . seems to act thI'S d t ure 0 f a vaCUum a mere fallure , oes no mean that 't " 1 ' or less potent type of sin tha 't' " . 1 IS a mI der or weaker as sloth., sin is plainly disobed~e~c~~ m ItS actIve form as pride. Even ,A.g~m, this form obViously falls under t h defJmtlOn of sin as unbelief. For th d. e ev:en m~re penetrating refuses the divine direction and d e . ~sobedIence m which man not will has its basis in the fa t t~St p~sI~vely that which God does given him with this direction cbut a f e oes not grasp the promise demonstrates and maintains His f ~~h~s~s to ~rust ~n the One who w~y, not claiming his obedience wit~I th u ness .m thIS overwhelming alIen tyrant but as the source of h' l'f e .seventy and coldness of an o~ the love with which He has lovedI~i~efr m the maje:ty and freedom hImself against the divine benevol nc d~m all eternIty. He hardens demand. The sloth of man too i: ; a r~ssed t~ him in the divine But we must define the' ten~ ra~harm 0 unbelief. human sloth. In its form ,er ~ore closely as we use it of as man s tardmess d f '1 presses much more clearly than 'd th ..an al ure, sloth exgratitude which repays good wir;Ie~il elosItJv.e an.d aggressive inonly that man does not trust God b t' t consl~ts m the fact, not love Him, i.e., that he will not kn~w :nbeyond t~IS that he does not have dealings with Him as th 0 d have HIm, that he will not eternity. In relation to God the:e is~owh'~d~rst loved him, from all hate. The man who does not ml. e term between love and that God is the One He is, and i~~~ Go~ res:sts an~ avoids the fact ~a.ck on God, rolling himself into a b~~ ~~k~hI: ~o~ hUh. H: turn.s his spIkes. At every point as we shall . . e gehog WIth pnckly action of the slothful m~n It b see, thIs .IS the strange inactive the disguise of a tolerant I:nd'ff may ~ that thIS action often assumes . ' . 1 erence m relatio t G d . It IS the actlOn of the hate which want t b f n 0 o. But m fact prefer that there were no God or th GO de ree of God, which would at. least for him, the slothful ~an ;h' ~ were not th~ One He isatJ?g point of human pride too: T~: atred of .God 15. the culminWhIch. consists in the fact that he wants overweenmg pnde of man, at a pInch be understood-and th" h to be and act as God, may beauty-as a perverse love of Go~ IS Ker ap~ the reason for its sinister usurpation, whose illegitimate atte~ ~set fnvolous encroa~hment and Course culminate in a desire that the p . a control ~ts object, do of that there should be no God or th a t Go~ect should dIsappear as such, should be able to sit unhindered °h' shfuld not be God, that man n SUbservient and obsequious sloth .a IS l: Irone. But sin as man's f not to be illuminated by the eXiste~~ero~ the very outset his desire to ac~ept Him, to be without God in ~n nature of God, not to have he tho IS of course identical with the r dworld.. The slothful man, eaves off, i.e., by saying in his heart ~ ~;rTh beg~ns where the other . ere IS no God." This is 2.

t

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Man 4 06 the characteristic feature of sin, of disobedience, of unbelief, in this second form. It is from this root that all the constitutive elements of human sloth grow. Sin in the form of sloth crystallises in the rej ection of the man Jesus. In relation to Him the rejection of God from which it derives finds virulent and concrete and forceful expression. For it is in Him that the divine direction and summons and claim come to man. It is in Him that the divine decision is made which he will not accept, which he tries to resist and escape. It is to be noted that in the main there is no radical opposition to the idea of God as a higher or supreme being to whom man regards himself as committed, nor to the thought of a beyond, of something which transcends his existence, nor to the demand that he should enter into a more or less conscious or unconscious, binding or non-binding connexion with it. He will never seriously or basically reject altogether religion or piety in one form or another, nor will he finally or totally cease to exercise or practise them in an open or disguised form. On the contrary, an escape to religion, to adoring faith in a congenial higher being, is the purest and ripest and most appropriate possibility at which he grasps in his sloth, and cannot finally cease from grasping as a slothful man. His rejection of God acquires weight and seriousness only when it is made with a final and concentrated piety. But that in this piety it is really a matter of rejecting God, of rendering Him innocuous, emerges clearly in the fact that man definitely will not accept in relation to himself the reality and presence and action of God in the existence of the man Jesus, and the claim of God which they involve. He definitely will not accept them as the reality and presence and action of God which refer absolutely and exclusively and totally and directly to him, and make on him an absolute, exclusive, total and direct demand. As one who worships a higher being, as a religious or pious man, he is able to resist this. It does not matter what name or form he gives to the higher being which he worships; he finds that he is tolerated bv it, that far from being questioned and disturbed and seized he is strengthened and confirmed and maintained in equilibrium by it. And he for his part can always show equal toleration to this beingand in this form to "God." It does not cause him any offence, and so he has no need to be offended at it. But he is not tolerated, let alone confirmed, by the reality and presence and action of God .in the existence of the man Jesus. He is basically illuminated and radlC~ ally questioned and disturbed and therefore offended by the deity ~f God in the concrete phenomenon of the existence of this man. J:IIS own tolerance is thus strained to the limit when he has to do WIth God in this man. His rejection of God finds expression in his r.elatio to this man. Tested in this way, he will unhesitatingly aVOId Go even as the religious or pious man. But this means that he will unhesitatingly resist God. In his relation to God he will show himself

d

2. The Sloth of Man 4°7 to be the slothfnl man turned in . upon hImself and finding his satisfaction and comfort in his ow Wh ' . n ego. . , y IS It that this is expressed in th e rejectIOn of the man Jesus? The reason is that in this transcendencies which he ~an, a~ 0)f0sed to all the higher beings and therefore commit himself ;:~s ~ ~ con~enial and to which he may who loved this man and w aA, 0 0 WIth the true and living God will love this man, ;nd be H~~ G~sd GtOd, l~rom a~l eternity, and who outstretched hand of promise and' 0 a et.ermty; the God whose command, has always been, and alwpreser:atIOn, of de.liverance and man. The reason is that what G d ~YS WIll be, the eXIstence of this was and is and will be for them .0 .a ways gave to all ~en, what He grace ~hich became a historic;ll~:~~r~y a ;emonstratIOn of the free the dymg and rising again, of this man n e appearanc~ and work, . 0 he God of .thIS man, and therefore concretely this man off d relation to Him it is our reat in en. sus. UT slo~h rejects Him. In into ourselves. Man rej~cts Hi~c~on, our heSItatIOn, our withdrawal himself, and he does not want t b e~~use ~e ~ants. to elect and will is disturbed, and he finds that ~ .e d~s~ur b e~ m thIS. choice. For he ?f G~d which always has and wil~ ~av~st~: ~ , by HIm; by t.he will m thIS name its unalterable go 1 d' ff ame of Jesus, whIch has comes face to face with the will a f ~ d I?e~ceable contour. When he which he can cross only if he 0'11 0, In HIm. he comes to the frontier hI~se1f an? his. congenial deities and find God and himse7t\n g;~~ ther. At thIS pomt he can only protest, for he is not tolerated He regards it as vitally necessary t a~d ;heref~re ~e cann~t tolerate. God of this man. This is a i 0 e ~ee 0 thIS man, I.e., of the reverence for the higher beingP °h~shacdt whIch he m~st execute in his hIm . "Th ere IS . no God " means concretely that W th IC . oes tolerate G God of this kind cannot and maye~~tI~:O od of this kind; that a Why not? Why is it that h d' , gratitude in sloth have this 1 u~an, IsobedIenc:, unbelief and inrevealed in this 0 osition;J cu mmatlOn? \tVhy IS the sin of man P because in himseft and as 'su~ur first a~d gene~al a?swer is that it is . man WIll not lIve m the distinctive freedom of the man Je ~nd Brother as a str::;e~n~~~ tih~re~ore forced to. rega:d this Fellow Intolerable demand. n er oper, and hIS eXIstence as an He wants to be left alone b th G d neighbour with His distinct' de 0 who has made this man a bo ur with His summons to f:~edo~~ om, and therefore by this neighnature declared l'n H' .t He regards the renewal of human f IS eXIs ence as quit eels, perhaps, the limitation and' e u.nnecess~ry. He sees and b~t they do not touch him so de:rr:PerfectlOn ?f hIS present nature, WIth this nature and th . that he IS not finally satisfied

i

'6

r

b.Y

~~~~~e:ef:v~h~~~ti~0~~~s1~~e1:C~~I~I;;~rf:~~l:0 i~'im~ ~~~~~r~;~~ IS reedom to be a new man.

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Man

The Sloth of Man 0 stand as a denier on this front of huma 4 9 " man in contradiction" th n sloth. He becomes and is fore contradicts and ho ~less~ ~an wh~ cont:adicts God and therewould be lost if in this sel~_contia.di~~foa~dI~sh~mself.; the man who confronted in the man Jesus h w Ie e achIeves he were not superior c~ntradiction of God o:~ om~ ~tumbles and falls, by the be that slothful man should p~ri h os~ It never was or is or wiII aspects of his mortal refusal of ~h~ f edmust n~w dev~lop four main the man Jesus. ree om WhICh he IS promised in 2.

Again, he thinks he has a sober idea of what is attainable, of what is possible and impossible, within the limits of his humanity. This leads him to question the real significance of this renewal, of man's exaltation. The limited sphere with which he is content seems to him to be his necessary sphere, so that its transcendence in the freedom of the man Jesus is an imaginary work in which he himself can have no part. Behind the indifference and doubt there is a definite mistrust. In the freedom of the man Jesus it seems that we have a renewal and exaltation from servitude to lordship. But this is an exacting and dangerous business if it necessarily means that we acquire and have in Jesus a Lord, and if His lordship involves that we are demanded to leave our burdensome but comfortable and secure life as slaves and assume responsibility as lords. Again, if the freedom of the man Jesus as the new and exalted and lordly man has its basis and meaning in the fact that he is the man who lives in fellowship with God, the indifference and doubt and mistrust in which we confront Him have their basis and meaning, or lack of meaning; in the fact that we regard it as unpractical, difficult and undesirable to live in fellowship with God. A life which moves and circles around itself, which is self-orientated but also self-directed, seems to hold out far greater promise than one which is lived in this fellowship. It is for this reason that our brother Jesus is a stranger, and His existence among us is an intolerable demand, and the God who is His God is unacceptable. This is, in very general terms, the deployment, or rather the rigid front which human sin presents to Him, and in which it is actual and visible in face of Him, in the form of human sloth. Why and to what extent is it sin? The reason is that, as the rejection of the outstretched hand of God, the refusal of His grace, all this means that man neglects his own calling, that he is untrue to his own cause, that with his true reality he goes out into the unreal, into the void, where he cannot stand and be what he wants to be, where he cannot be a man, himself, but only his own shadow. The One who confronts him in the freedom of the man Jesus is not merely this Fellow and Brother as such, nor is it merely the God of this man. It is the God of every man, without whom none either is or can .be who he is. And in the person of this Fellow and Brother given ~m by his own God it is he himself, his own true reality, his own humam~y as it is loved and elected and created and preserved by his God m the person of this One. The terrible paradox of his sin in this form is that if he refuses the man Jesus, he does n0t refuse only this man and His (and therefore his own God) but he also refuses to be himself, breaking free from his own reality, losing himself in his attemJ?t to assert himself, and thus becoming his own pitiful shadow. It IS light thing that man can unthinkingly accomplish when he takes 5

0

We a.re confronted by man's refusal ( ) . . . hIS relatIonship with his fellow-men' (I III h~s relatIOnshIp wIth God, (2) in order; and (4) in his relationship with I~i ~IS. re~ato~shi'p with the created are the same four groups in whi h . th r s OTlca ImItatIOn In time. These Christ, we developed the doctrin~ ~fm eIght of the true humanity of Jesus ahnd, in the first part of theological et~~: :et~e ~r~aturfe of God (C.D., III, 2) t e Creator (C.D., III, 4). Again in the' Ii oc nne a the command of God we are now considering the sin of ma . th ght of the humanztas ]esu ChYisti refusal of his own reality as it confro~;nh' e form of his sloth, and therefore hi~ character, this refusal constitutes a .s IIlIl; m Jesus Chnst. For all its varied We will thus turn our attention s eci~~~1l e mter-related and c~mnected whole. but we shall always look either d y to each of the relatIOnships in turn see how far his refusal in one of ;ar s ~ackwards, as the case may be t~ supposes and involves it in the other ~~~e~~ ationshlps necessarily inclUdes, preo

0

0

Els

fI:

or

I. The Word-Gad's eternal Word-b ence of the man Jesus it was ad' e~ame flesh. In the existIt is with this Word, which wa~ a~~ ~;~~~n III hun: an form to us men. t~ do in Him: proclaimed in and with IShman HImself, that we have did and suffered in His histor . r . w at He wa.s and spoke and pr.oclaimed as He lives and ~ei ~s oclalmed as I!e dIed on the cross; HIS royal freedom to be as mangth as t~e CrUCIfied. It was and is who knows God perfectly and the per ect hearer of God; the One e and teacher of God; the li ht :f ~~~the 'p~rfec.t servant and witness the revelation in which He ~isclosed ShI~l1ng In t~e world for us ; us to Himself· both d and dIscloses HImself to us and , ear an mouth for th .d plan and meaning of His omnipotent merc e .WIS o~ and purpose and able and equipped to make us w· y, :agaclOus and therefore n:en, .as one of us, but exalted Ise and sagaCIoUS. Among aU other dIrectIon to us He was d· t~bove us, and therefore the divine establishes the 'knowledgea~f ~~d :n~~' Who. fulfils and brings and Work, His presence and action N . .IS eXIstence and nature and and brings and establishes a s~ ~r IS thIS ~nowledge which He fulfils knOWledge. On the contrar pt;r ~ous?r Idle or partial or uncertain pens.a?le, vital and active, tot~i :~dI~rumversally rele,:ant and in dispartICIpants in this knOWledge of G d m ;.n~ ~re. It IS to be grateful closed and established on our beh ~ w IC e has fulfilled and disshould be wise in virtue of His wisd~ among us, so that we ourselves and determined in H'1m. m, that we are elected and created

t

::t

I

oj

410

§ 65. The Sloth and kIisery of [vI an

But we on whose behalf, for whose enlightenment and information and instruction, He has this freedom, refrain from making use of this freedom which is also, and precisely, our own freedom. The clear light of day has come, but we close our eyes and persist in the darkness which has been penetrated and dispersed in Him. \Ve harden ourselves in our unreason, our ignorance of God, our lack of wisdom, our folly and stupidity. And this refusal to move where we can and should bestir ourselves and follow Him is the unreason and ignorance which makes us the stupid fools we are. This is the folly in which we want to remain as we are instead of being those we are in Him and by Him. It belongs to the vanity of this human refusal and failure to budge that it is finally and objectively futile. That is to say, it cannot alter in the least what the man Jesus is for us and for all men in the freedom of His knowledge of God. Our refusal cannot make the Word of God spoken in Him an unspoken Word, nor can it kill His life nor silence His proclamation. It cannot conceal, let alone quench, His light, nor arrest His revelation, nor destroy His direction, nor dam up the stream of the knowledge of God of which He is the source. It is paradoxical and absurd, but it cannot cancel the fact of the new man Jesus who has a vital and active and total and sure and certain knowledge of God. It cannot control the fire which He came to kindle on earth. In face of Him it can be only the sloth of man-his puerility, his senility, his mediocrity. It cannot alter the fact, therefore, that in this one man all other men-----even the most untaught and unteachable amongst countless thousands who are yet untaught-are elected and determined to be taught about God. I may close my eyes, I may shut them as tight as I can, or I may turn away from the sun, but this does not alter the fact that the sun shines on me too, and that I have eyes to see it. I may try to cease or refuse to be the man I am in that one new man, but I cannot in fact cease to be this man. Evading the knowledge of God, I may contradict myself. It is my follv that I do this. But in my folly I can only contradict myself. I can· no more destroy myself than I can the light of the man Jesus in which I exist. My self-contradiction cannot touch the fact that in Him I am known by God even in my evil ignorance of God. It cannot set aside the reality in which I live by this divine knowing. As my proud attempt to be like God is futile, because this is quite impossible, ~o too is the slothful refusal in which I am content to be without God m the world, because He who has revealed Himself and acted in Jesus as the God of man, of every man, and therefore as my God, will n~t be God without me, so that even in the most secret recesses of this world I for my part can never be without Him, outside His lig?t, without the eyes with which I may and should see Him, with WhICh I am elected and determined to see Him as the fellow and brother of this One. The outcome of my refusal can be only another refusal, or the revelation of a refusal--the demonstration of the futility of my

2. The Sloth of Man . . 411 . . rernammg at a place which does not e~s~. I cannot In fact remain alone. I can try to do so Ad' reality. But this reality is' fro~ t~n so omg I can~ a~d do, create a is a reality of the second-and inw:r~~ry outset a l~mIted r~alitJ-:' It degree. It is a reality which . d Y and matenally an Infenorfolly can only reveal and expre~: mCoyn .emnedd ahs such to failure. My \V d h sm an s arne e 0 ave to do however 'th thO . . with the sin and sh;rne (how~v:' limi~s~)eal~ty of the se.cond ~egree, make no use of the freedom h' h e.o t~e folly In wh1ch we futility of human sloth like ~ I~ we are gIven m Jesus. The inner alter the fact that it does act~:lrrp~t~nce f human pride, does not corruption. It is a fact. Its charrct~ : p ace as a f~rm of human necessary or genuine or in th t' t IS purely. negatIve. It is not possible. It has no tru; basis e ; t nc sense, pOSSIble. It is only imexcused or justified. But it i' SutanFo t be de.duced or explained or futility in which it is created asd 1 .~ ;C\ It 1S a fact in the whole It is something. It is the so~eth?~1 e f' tis no.t, there~ore, nothing. th.at which is not, to that which G;d °h Our pers~stence In tu~ning to f . as not w11Ied but demed and rejected. It is the somethin our self-contradiction. Mang d~es01::c;gnl~ranc'~1 of G~d and. therefore ~a'y: WI the ImpOSSIble. He does actually will not to know God thanks to the freedom in wh' h th as e mIght and should know Him bright light of the eXistenc~cof t~·m~ lIesus does so for him, in the thoughts and attitudes and acti IS e ow a?d Brother. And his fusa!. He sets himself in mort~~S express th~£ ?,on-wiIIing, this remean that he can set aside his F II self-contradlctton. This does not reality as established in Him ~lIo~ an~ Brother ~esus, and his own impossible. And even this "~bTt ,,~t e can do IS to make himself 1 s bas~ess as the nothingness to which he wills to turn in this ~I in this will which is a osed to n-WI m&". et he does will it, and and lives in it He doPeP t I' the goo~ WIll of God he creates a fact b t . . s no Ive as a WIse m We are thus forced to the rath an, u as a stup1d fool. that sin is also stupidity and t e~d~~us.ual and ,hazardous statement mean, of Course, that ~hich :h~Pki~r 1~ als~bsm. By stupidity we human foUy Of thO 't . e escn es and condemns as '. .. IS 1 cannot be saId th a t ld It 1f he were better infonned It b man wou at once leave mitigation of man's carre . . cannot e advanced as an excuse or and actions. It is not .:~nding thoughts and words and attitudes draWback which can be ] ~n unfortunate weakness, a vexatious and enlightenment and Wh~~I~ly or ~otally removed by education anee and e uanimit as per aps to be suffered with tolerIt is the evIl act of ~~n~ ~~~e~~tfd by other and better qualities. here the basic dimension 'of his sloth~~ ~an; .Or b~tter-:-for we have and culpable refusal to act. It IS hIS mactton, hIS responsible

t

l;t

s

\Vh . en the Bible speaks of the nabal or k . ay in their hearts that there is no God (P e~Jtl, as, for example, of those who s. f4 ,there can be no question of any

412

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Man

lack of intellectual endowment, or of powers of thought and comprehension, or of the erudition which we both need and desire, The biblical dolt or fool may be just as carefully taught and instructed as the average man at any particular cultural level. He may be below the average, but he may also be above it, and even high above it, What makes him a fool has nothing whatever to do with a feebler mind or a less perfectly attained culture or scholarship, It is not in any sense a fate, Those who have only weak intellectual gifts and a rudimentary scholastic equipment-the" uneducated"-are not necessarily fools as the Bible uses the word, VIle have only to think of the V7]7rtOl of Mt, I I " to realise that they may very well be wise, In the biblical sense a man is a fool or simpleton when (whatever may be his talents or attainments) he thinks that he has no need of enlightenment by the revelation and Word of God; that he ought, indeed, to oppose it; and that he can live his life on the basis of the resultant vacuum, and therefore by the norm of maxims and motives which are perverted from the very outset-on a false presupposition and therefore by a false method. Anselm of Canterbury was quite right when, introducing the denier of God's existence of Ps, 14' at the beginning of his proof of the existence of God (Prosl. 2), he did not describe him as ignorans but as insipiens (=insapiens), His objection, which Anselm discusses, is that God is not a real object, but only one which we think or can think; that He is not a res, and therefore does not exist: non est Deus, He does not think and speak in this way because he is limited or uneducated, He does so because of a fundamental lack which consists in the fact that he is not an intelligens id quod Deus est (Prost, 4), . He does so because of his lack of understanding, grounded in his unbelief, of the revealed name of God, in virtue of which God is quo maius cogitari nequit, Anselm opened his own argument with a confession of his faith in God as the One who bears this name (the name of the Creator above which no legitimate thinking can exalt itself, but from which it can only derive), His enquiry and demonstration have reference to the knowledge of this faith, which necessarily includes the knowledge of the existence of God, They are evoked and stimulated by the objection of the denier, but it is obvious that the latter can have no part in the ensuing discussion. For he thinks and speaks as insipiens, and therefore from the point where he does not know, and as an unbeliever cannot know, the One whose existence he questions, This is his folly in which he excludes himself from the outset from the knowledge of God's existence. And it is in answer to his folly that Anselm deliberately proves that, presupposing the understanding of His revealed name, God's existence cannot be questioned. What a misapprehension it was that the good Gaunilo found it necessary to rush to the help of the atheist with the defence, Pro insipiente: as though his denial, deriving as it does from his folly, and denying what he does not know and understand, could still be championed and discussed; as though, proceeding from stupidity, it could be anything else but stupid.

We have to realise that as the basic dimension of human sloth stupidity is sin, It is disobedience, unbelief and ingratitude to G~d, who gives Himself to be known by man in order thaLhe may be ~se and live. It is thus a culpable relapse into self-contradiction; mto incoherent, confused and corrupt thought and speech and action. We have to realise this if we are to estimate its power; the strange ~ut mighty and tumultuous and dreadful force of the role-the lea~ng role-which it plays in world history, in every sphere of human life, and either secretly or flagrantly in each individual life. Whether great or small, every confidence or trust or self-reliance on what we can, and think we should, say to ourselves when we reason apart from

2.

r r

I

The Sloth of Man

lXT d f ' 413 t he vv or a God IS stupid ' Every attI't u de 'm wh'lch we th' k ' , aut.hontatIvely tell ourselves what I'S t d' m we can rue an good a d b 'f . .'" n eantl ul, wh at IS nght and necessary and salutary' t 'd speech and action which we think we . , IS SUP] , All thought and information is stupid, And this whole fr~:e ~~~~~ol:ld base .on this and even more acutely, stupid in the form in wh' h d .IS se~f-evldently, so heard the Word of God and so IC we thmk we have wisdom in the g~ise .of a principle or :~~;~~n~~ead Its dir:ction and to hear or practIse It afresh' in the t' 'th t we ha. e no need , , orm, erefore' h' h regard ourselves as so enlightened by the Word of Go ' In W lC ,we we can throw off our openness to furth d , d th~t we thl1lk Where an uncontrolled truth or rule h er ~n clontmuo us lIlstruction. , h ' OWever c ear posses ' . ses man or men m t e way in which they ought'to be g ov ledge of God Himself and bv His living W derned only ~n the knowj 'tl l' J or , we certamlv ha t co WI.1 a reve atlOn, and in principle with the w ve a stupIdIty, And where men think th h hole economy, of assured, not in the active fulfilment f ~h a~e a goodness which is itself, an,d .try to live and act and a~serte~he~~~~dgeof God .but i,n sense, thIS ]S not merely the self-ri hteousne ~ . ~s as ~oO? m thIS bu~ also the stupidity which is f;rbidden ~"I~l:hICh faIth IS denied whlCh wastes and destroys all the goodness th~t is re~frd .of God and Adam and Eve were not content with th W d Y gIven. When of. God, b~t wanted to know for themsel:es ~h a~d commandme~t thIS was dIsobedience, but it was also a ste i at IS gOO? ,and evIl, cannot and never will know w h a t ' d p ~to t~e stupIdIty which exchange. and confuse them And ItShgOO, and eVIl, but will always . ere IS a eepe '. common expression that for all his d T h 1 r meamng In the devil. is fi,nally stupid. This is ine'~i~~~le cwe;erness ,and c~nning the mstptens I~ principle, the personification of' en he IS ObVIOusly the correspondmg independence and t ,lg n orance of God and the au anomy m face of Him

'

The stupidity of man consists d ' . is of the opinion that he achieves a~. ~xpresses ,tself in the fact that when he knowledge of God, without hearing a~sd ~~: :~tuk.~sa~d ess~nce .apart from the and autonomy, he always misses his t (g ord, In th,s llldependence na too soon or too late. He is asleep wh:~eh ~re tdn~ essence. He is always either should be asleep. He is silent when h ~ s f~ ekawake, and awake when he better to be silent. He laughs when ~ s ~u Ci spea , and he speaks when it is should be comforted and lau h H e s ould weep, and he weeps when he should be kept, and subjects ~i~selfetlw~yS m~kes an exception where the rule Be always toils when he should ra ~: aw w en he should choose in freedom. He. always devotes himself to ~st~ricald prays when only work is of any avail. deCISIOns are demanded, and rushes i and. psycholog,cal lll,:,estIgation when logIcal investigation is reallv re uire nto deCISIOn when hlstoncal and psychounnecessary and harmful and h q die He ,s always contentious where it is :ldently attack. He is aiV:a 's s ee~p~a s of love and peace where he may Con·'ecCled is a little sound com) p klllg of faIth and the Gospel where what is Commit himself and others mon~tnse, and he reasons where he can and should given a list of different thin gq~,;o/ '~to the hands of God, In Eccl. 3 we are WIth the fact that God Hims lf d w 'ch there ,s a proper time-in accordance e oes everythlllg III ,ts Own time, The genius of

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Man stupidity is to think everything at the wrong time, to say everything to the wrong people, to do everything in the wrong direction, to lose no opportunity of misunderstanding and being misunderstood, always to omit the one simple and neo;ssary thing which is demanded, and to have a ~ure instinct for choosing and willing and doing the complicated and superfluous thing which can only disrupt and obstruct.

Again we have to realise that stupidity is sin if we are to estimate the dangerous nature of its power. Its very character betrays how dangerous it is to life and society, to state and Church. Like the demons, and as one of the most remarkable forms of the demonic, stupidity has an astonishingly autonomous life against whose expansions and evolutions there is no adequate safeguard. It has rightly been said that even the gods are powerless in face of it. And it is in vain that we appeal to many gods to counter it. We may meet it in righteous anger, or with ironical contempt. We may play the schoolmaster. We may try to overcome it by approximation or advances. We may try to use it, to harness it for better ends. But even when we are trying to overcome it in ourselves, to liberate ourselves from it, we must always be on the watch lest we merely augment stupidity with stupidity, either secretly or openly giving it place and nourishment, and being only the more completely overrun by it as we seek to encounter it. It is particularly and supremely dangerous because it has an uncanny quality of being able to attract, to magnetise and thus to increase. The folly of one seems irresistibly to awaken that of another or others: whether in the form of mutual boasting or sinister collusion, of cold or hot warfare or the formation of massive collectives and majorities which trample down all opposition like a herd of elephants; or even more dangerously by an inward process, in the form of winning others, of begetting children, and of acquiring fresh vitality in them. It is also dangerous in the fact that we do not usually recognise it (or only when it is too late) as the beam in our own eye, our own stupidity, so that in our unconcerned and self-conscious pandering to it we only help it to gain a greater hold on others. It is also dangerous because it is only very seldom, and probably never, that we see it unmasked and undisguised and unadorned. It normally takes, as we shall see later, the form of its opposite, of a superior cleverness and correctness, or even of an excess of noble feeling. For how sure and quick and persistent it is in finding and building up reasons for what it thinks and maintains and does and impels to do! 'With what assurance it always presupposes that it is right, and has always known better (" What did I tell you? ")! How it loves to make itself out to be either the pillar of society or the sacred force of revolutionary renewal! How powerfully (in contradiction or agreement with the form in which it encounters one in others) it can strengthen and deepen and advance itself by itself, continually preparing for, and embarking upon, ires? adventures of basic inactivity! It is also dangerous because at a first glance lt is so innocuous, so kindly disposed, so familiar, knowing how to awaken tolerance or a pardoning sympathy or even a certain recognition, but concealing somewh~re, and probably behind its probity and gentleness (like the claws of the feline species behind their soft pads), the supreme malice and aggressiveness and vlOlenc~ which will pounce on a victim and tear it to pieces before it is even aware 0 them.

,

r

!

2. The Sloth of Man Btl . 415 . u w 1at IS the value of markin its s m . theIr particular dangers? It is n ~ pt~ms and warnIng against but in its root that stupI'dI'ty" . a .mere y Ir: Its symptoms and fruits IS SIll' nor IS .t 1 b >ymptoms and fruits are dangerous, 'but b 1 mere y. ecause the ,rapIdIty as sin means destruction It· f Y ~eason of ItS root that actIOn of man is sin and that 't .' d IS rom ItS root that the stupid . . , l I S angerous as s ch B ' . .. (rom ItS root. There is thus n . t . ut It IS only being on our guard against it i~ pOl~ In ~e~Illg It III ItS stupidity, and it sin and therefore dangerou's wAet.ot no tr:G\: the root which makes . 1 S roo It IS th d' of that great omission which Pa 1 d 'b d' e l?ervcrte actIOn 34 dyvwa[a BEou, man's evil and cu~ b~scn e . III I Co.r. 15 as the a know God. Anselm was right e and IrresponsIble failure to h confession in his heart of the footofe~s. ~ ~ef~rde~ c:r en the s~~pid only one of the symptoms and fruit f h' 4 There IS no God ) as this confession to its root in his t s 0 thIS. folly, a.nd pointed beyond ~re a e.lsm, whIch consists in this wicked ignorance of God Th the true atheism of the fool \\~!:; ~~tUPId ~leme.nt in his stupidity, fcssion and all the other sym toms an~\to.IIgl~t III tha~ stupid conout Ius practical atheism. It Id rultS, IS not hIS theoretical nI definitively, that he comes to t;e Yo~~t or' and s~ldom .exp!icitly or o may regard it as unnecessary and e~en be 0 theorebca! reJ.ectlOn. He any the less an atheist in practice Th ..pposed to It WIthout being and even Christian stupidity a d' th ere IhS a w~ole. o~ean of religious " th ,n ose w 0 SWIm III It 1 d a~ ose who are religious and even Ch " f ~ ways a so of which the wise man \vill know and ~IS ~ans. But pr.acbcal atheism, than the fool, and therefore human on. e~s that .he IS no less guilty the fact that God is revealed t' stu1pldlty at ItS root consists in 0 man JUt that m '11 . t 1iC fact III practice' that in th k I d an WI not accept ofBis reality, prese~ce and acti~n·n~w.e ge ?f God, in the clear light reI Uses and fails to know God in reiu e:s radlcal~y ~now~ by God but that he lets himself fall as one who .rn fnd to ~XISt III thIS knowledge; God. It is this letting 'oneself fal~s a ready hft~d up ?y God and to nl1plicated-that is th ll' t 'd -a proc.ess III whIch we are all or n?t it is accompan~e;ab; :h~~;et~~:re~t I.~ our stupidity, whether relrgIOn or even Christianity on th" th a IeI"m on the one hand or B t . - 0 er. tl . u It would not be what it' one of its most remarkable as IS- 1~ pnmal phenomenon of sin in explanation for this process Df:~~S-?f ther~ were any reason and uf the fool in which stupidit r rPld~ and Inopportune movements plrcable. They' alw'ays h Yth ~vea s Itself are always relatively ex, d ' ave elr more or 1 d an' causes, their active and as" ess .emonstrable grounds by which they can in lar p Sive Impulses both mternal and external the stupid element in a f~~l~:~~u~e .be under~tood. But their root: does and seel"s to d b ffi. d pldlty, the Slll revealed in what he " ~ 0 a es un erst~ d' no reason for it It'd' d' I an rng or explanation. There is Consists in a mo~'ement ~~::srd;~~ct it ~ror:' that which is not, and it . IS SImply a fact, factum brutum.

f .

..:r

1

fs

416

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Man

We can only say concerning it that he does it. He is free, but makes no use of the fact. He is lifted up, but he lets himself fall. He is in the light and has eyes to see, but he does not see and therefore remains in darkness. He hears, but he does not hear or obey. Why? For what reason? There is neither rhyme nor reason. It is simply a fact. To try to find a reason for it is simply to show that we do not realise that we are talking of the evil which is simply evil. Of all the symptoms there is only one-a very striking one-which points with any clarity to the depths of primitive stupidity from which stupidity derives. This is the fact that it always appears and acts in disguise. Who has ever seen it gape, even in his own heart, as it would necessarily gape if it were seen and known openly and directly for what it is? What fool will ever confess his own folly, his dyvwala 8wv, his practical atheism, the fact that he lets himself fall? The moment we admit our folly, have we not become truly wise? Even the theoretical atheist, who is only one species of the practical, will not and cannot openly declare his folly, because he does not and will not know whom and what he denies. How, then, can he ever confess his folly? What is the reason for this shyness? Why is it that no one will allow that he is stupid? Why is this impossible? Why does stupidity always appear in disguise, in an incognito, anonymously or pseudonymously? The obvious explanation is that in the depth where he is a fool man knows that his folly derives from that which is not and consists in his movement towards it. He cannot see what is wrong, but he has instinctive awareness like a blind man who is groping towards an abyss. He is frightened to confess, or to be told or accused, that he himself belongs to that which is not. He is on the point of realising it, but he will not accept it. Nor is it really true. He does not belong to nothingness. Even in and in spite of his folly he belongs to God and is the good creature of God. How, then, can he accept and confess that this is not the case? May it not even be that the God whom he does not know, but who knows and does not cease to know him, keeps him back from this and makes it impossible, that the fact that he has this awareness and is frightened is the work of His gracious hand? This will, of course, only turn to his judgment, to which, in his attempts at concealment, he will react in the most perverse and perverted way. However that may be, the folly of the fool shuns the light. It does not want to be known as such. And it hides itself with a sure instinct and touch in its opposite. It pretends to be wisdom. Not, of course, the wisdom whose beginning is the fear of the Lord. Only the fool who is converted from his folly, from his ignorance of God, will be prepared in a profound horror at himself to accept this wisdom, ~o humble himself before it, to be clothed by it and to take refuge in .It. When this happens, he will not pretend to be a wise man, but exerCIse and reveal his true wisdom by the fact that-in the fear of the Lord-

2. The Sloth of Man . 41 7 he ~onf~ses hIS folly and ~n his folly cleaves wholly to the wisdom of Go. e are now speakmg of the unc t d f know the Lord and the fear of the L d donver e . 001 who do~s not which begins with thO f H or an necessanly lacks the wIsdom IS ear. ow can he conf ~ h', f 11;J . inevitable that he should deny and c I 't ;Jeo>~ IS 0 y. Is It not ~t but with what he regards as wisd~~ceahi~' n~ how else conceal m I Cor. 1 20 calls the" wisdo f h o";'~ wI~dom, what Paul " wisdom of men";J We mi h~ ~ t e .world or m I Cor. 2 5 the e as the fulness of all'the know1edge o~~ t~~ th~oreti~al1y and gen~rally accessible to man minus the knowled ;u ~~ :eah~y and expenence of Practically and in detail it will ne g d. In. HIS revealed Word. in an excerpt, in a particular form v~~ ~hpear I.n I~S fulness, but only e possibilities. Within the framework or br r~alIsatlOn. of ~ne of. many be either a rather limited or aver . a~ ets of thIS mmus, It may either the modest form of the self y ImtPOSIng matter. It may take -asser IOn of sound c theh~~~~der gUi~e of an inspired profundity of thought.°~~:sye:~e~~ a c l I e mernness or a deeper melanchol I ance eit.her of scepticism or of the ripe wis~~m toTara. have appearacademIc, or <esthetic or definitel a age. t may be political. And becau;e even in hls ~~ral, or ~on-moral, or even creature of God it is inevitable that' ~l ~a~ IS always the good primitive and suspect his own . III a I s orms, even the most should exhibit positi~el si ni;'Isdom, or .what h: regards as such, aspect~ which enable it t~ co~me~~~ts:7fb~~t~es~:,e eledments and The wIsdom of the world or of m . a 1m an to others. len IS ~ot, therefore, something which we must rate too low I It is never . . n ma~y cases It may have a very high value is often wor:~my~lrthaendmousntequI.vocallydevilish. Within its limits, it senous respect.

tIt

In its own way it may even have ex I " truly Wise-for Christians Wh h d e~p ary sIgmficance for those who are its limits. It was the wi~dom the tScnbed) It as he did, Paul clearly indicated asslll same Paul had no hesitation (in P . e ? <eon (I. Cor. 2 8 and 3 18 ). But the a form which in terminology mig~Il. 4 ~n glv~ng to hIS exhortation to Christians l ave een the worldly wisdom of a Stoic teacher of his day The t we. things are true, whatsoe~e;;~~ng~~~~s~der ~nd bonder (AOyt{HJ8a.L) "whatsoever Soever things are pure whatsoeve t . ones, w atsoever thmgs are just, whatgood report" And this c . r ~~ngs are lovely, whatsoever things are of God which ~ommands andomes Imme ~ately after the saying about the peace of tearts and minds through e~~~~~s;~seIr un1erstan?mg like a wall, keeping their ord Himself praised the" . t" us. gam, m Lk. 168 we read that the that the children of this <eonu~~~sin t~t~ward, or his worldly skill, concluding Ir theIr own sphere) wiser than the childre: ll~nhetratro~ (on ~heir own level or in o Ig are m theIrs.

;f

ri

The worldly wisdom h' h 1 eVer be effectively attackWd IC dconcea skhuman stupidity can hardly enCOunter. In virtu e an ~~mas ed and 0.vercome in a direct denied to 't' 't e of the qua!It~es.or excellencIes which cannot be 1 m 1 s own sphere It IS I I ' . COvering to rovid ..' n a rea pOSItIOn to serve as a , p e an alIbI, for stupidity. The fact is th t (. tl' C.D. IV-2-1 4 a In 1IS

§ 65, The Sloth and Misery of Man . 4 18 _ h dness of the divine creatIOn as in all its forms) sin profits by. t ~~~odoes not cease to parti~ipate, in which even the godles~ a.nd foohS h f necessarily or certamly or In this pseudo-wisdom It IS not, t h ereBore'k ted bv that minus, there pretence rae e •. 1 · exclusively a case 0 f pure th t are in a hIgher or ower are probably in most cases many t ~gs any rate incontestable, degree beautiful and true and g?dO ,or lId in the development of . the f001 can fi n d .soh cover,dacon~cience and even ma k e behind whIch which he can have t~e satisfactlon of a g~~ he i; not unsettled by t~e an impression on Ius fellow-creatures. b 'are of the fact that hIS he even e a\\ f '1 knowledge of God, h ow can . . this l)racket? How can he a~ witness is actually depl0J:'ed .wIthI: fact that within this bracket ~e IS to find comfort and even JOY m th I 1 and success ?~especlally . b t 'th more or ess zea I doing his relatiVe es WI . f' the helpful company not mere.y wh.en in so doing .he fin~s ~lmsel I~t bottom of all his fellow-men, m of the overwhelmmg ma]onty but _th me process of concealment whom we find other fo~ms of e.xactly I e sa well be that within this ~m~x be constant friction and as that in which he hImself lIves. company it is inevita~le that there ;f ~~rldly wisdom; that mutual collision between the dIfferent forms f1" t should be the order of animosity and depreciation and even can IC n° and global hostilities. the day in the most violent of sUbtera~~an finds that he has the as a 00 h I'n rank and step with This d oes not alter the fact .that ble to marc inestimable advantage 0f .b emg a For at bottom all fools underth norm or standard of the countless thousands of hIS fellowS, 11 because e they conceal theIr "~tUPl d't stand each other very we, . d which I'y different wisdoms of the world behm f a11 the differences ll1 detaIl. is always the same within this bracket' ord fight amongst themselves Thus although they may and nec~ssanly °ay and at some point they , . 'et ll1 some w . h' in the most devastatlllg way, Y h ft n do so with astoms mg can always come to terms, and t ey 0 e as in the case of Pilate . ld 'th ny permanence, k . to suddenness If se om WI a th t they all try to ta e ll1. 12 and Herod in Lk. 23 . In the fact\on of God and the affaIrs their own hands control of the good ~ea 1ativelY in the fact that the of men as if they belonged to them, a~ neg ver begins with the knowwisdom deployed and exercised by t e;- n~ted in spite of their differledge and fear of the Lord, they are a ~~Ire can and will be mutual ences in other respects, and at bottO!? e This is infallibly revea~ed understanding and mutual confirn~atlOn. up against the questIon and operative when they sudden y cO~~lencies the wisdom which whether, for all its advant~ge~ a~~ ~~~mework 'is or can be genu~ne they deploy in some form wlthm t IS abusing the good creatIOn wisdom; or against the protest that they a~~ anything else this fra~e­ of God; or against the den:and that pr:~~ the presupposed minus dlSwork should be broken, thIS bracket w t which is the mark of the solved, the whole purl?ose and c~racderand the knowledge and fear evolution of worldly WIsdom aban one ,

h'

:t

2,

The Sloth of Man

419

of God given their contested right as the true basis and beginning of wisdom. The trouble is that this question, protest and demand are perhaps encountered only in the unauthentic form of the pride of an ill-advised and at bottom worldly-wise Christianity in face of which they find themselves justified in the human sense and therefore grow all the more obdurate. 'Vha can say whether it was not due to his encounter with an ill-advised Christianity that the great Goethe took such offence at the saying in I Cor. 3 l8f · (" Let no man deceive himself. If any man among you seemeth to be wise in this world, let him become a fool, that he may be wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God ")~even arguing that life woulu not be worth living if this were true. It may well be, of course, that he would not have accepted the saying from a better advised Christianity. 'Ve can only say that as far as he himself is concerned he now knows better.

There can be no doubt that in spite of their divergence all the unfolding wisdoms of the world-even those within an ill-informed or better informed Christianity-attain mutual recognition and practical unity in the fact that they cannot admit that question, protest and demand, preferring every kind of compromise or settlement amongst themselves to surrender on this point. And this agreement always involves a further enhancing and intensifying of their activity as concealments-the one great concealment-of what man wills to be and do, or rather not to be and do, not to admit and confess that he is and does, a fool who commits folly. Nothing is more tempting at this point than to turn the tables, to represent that ignored and rejected wisdom of God as folly, as stupid, ridiculous, contemptible and even dangerous from the point of view of what he regards as wisdom, so that it can only be hated and contested, Without realising what is really taking place, he will again find that he is not tolerated, and therefore cannot tolerate. He will see and feel the point of the sword which according to Mt. 10 34 Jesus came to bring on earth, and he will try to protect himself against this threat with an energy which far surpasses the violence of all the internecine conflicts of different human wisdoms. What he does not really like and would rather ignore, what can only be the object of his unconcern and passive resistance-the knowledge of God~wil1 always appear to be irrational and nonsensical ~vhen in some form it comes, as it may suddenly do to anyone, with It.S insistent summons. In face of it he can only defend to the death hIS own stupidity, the great minus within whose sign he thinks he can and should be wise, as that which is truly rational. The wisdom of God, the cross of Christ (r Cor. rIB), is foolishness as he sees it. So much the better if he can feel justified in this view by reason of the pride of an ill-advised Christianity which in face of him regards Itself per nefas as the wisdom of God, But even if it were set before him in the greatest humility by an angel of God, he would be adept at finding it quite incredible, regarding and expounding and defaming

4 20

2.

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Man

it as irrational nonsense, and belligerently maintaining his own wisdom in face of it. He can only evade it in some way, and therefore he will never find himself at a loss for ways and means to do this, maintaining that he himself is wise. And because in so doing he akes use of the good gifts of God Himself, he will always be relatively successful in escaping the knowledge of God, in n:ainta~ning. and securing the incognito of his stupidity, in causing It to IllumIn~te himself and others as true wisdom. His success can be only relative because the good gifts of God are neither ordained nor adapted to authorise or empower man in an absolute opposition to their Giver, and therefore to be used as the means of this concealment. But there is undoubtedly a relative success, and it is strong enough to crea~e. a fact which can be removed only by God's own Word and Holy Spmt. Yet even the most effective concealment cannot alter the fact that the fundamental stupidity of man, hidden behind his supposed wisdom, is revealed as such on every hand. He may pretend that he knows God well, and try to be wise under the sign of this minus. But he cannot do so without serious consequences. In and with the knowledge of God he necessarily loses (I~ the relationship which gives to his existence the character of humamty---:his relationship to his fellow-men. It is God who guarantees thIS relationship. Its order has its basis in that of his relationship to .G?d. Without this it cannot be maintained. The knowledge of the dlvme Other by whom he is confronted, and therefore the knowledge that this Other is the triune and not a lonely God, is the indispensable presupposition of the necessity, dignity, promise and claim of the oth:r who also confronts him in the form of man. But the fool lacks thIS knowledge. He tries to evade it. It is foolishness to him. He thinks that he can replace it by his own better wisdom. How, then, ~an ~e have the further knowledge to which it gives rise? If God IS dISpensable, so is his neighbour. If he prefers his own soci~ty to fellowship with God, he will also prefer it to the company of hIS fellows. .If he tries to keep God at a distance, he will do so all the more emphatically in the case of his equals. Who is to prevent him? And conversely, how can the problematic being of his equals, his fellow-men, ca~e him to seek himself only in the encounter, fellowship and partnershIp of I and Thou, if God does not do so? How can man seek and find his brother in man if he will not allow God to be his Father? The necessary consequence of vertical self-withdrawal is horizontal selfwithdrawal and isolation. It is possible, and it will indeed take p~ace, that he may need another man, and claim him, an~ try to exercls~ a far-reaching control over him. But this does not mvolve a genUIne fellow-humanity. It does not mean that the one sees and understa~ds the other as a man, or that he accepts him as his ordained compaI1;l0n and helper, and himself as his. On the contrary, it means a radic~ superiority over him, an emancipation from him which because It

n:

The Sloth oj Man

42I

has the character of a needing, claiming and controlling in which the other may not readily acquiesce, necessarily has, and will sooner or later reveal, the character of opposition to and conflict with him. The solitary man is the potential, and in a more refined or blatant furm the actual, enemy of all others. The outbreak of war between ~im .and them is only a m~tter of time and occasion, and often enough It wIll b~ ca~sed by .a ludICrous accident. The stupidity of man, the false estimatIOn of hIS own (in other respects very worthy and excellent) wisd?m, wills that this should be the case, and inevitably calls for It. . WIthout t~e knowledge of God, which the stupid man despises, there IS no meamngful companionship between man and man no genuine co-operation, no genuine sharing either of joy or sorro~, no true so~iet~. But work ~hich is not co-operation is busy indolence. Joy whIch IS not shared IS empty amusement. Sorrow which is not shared is oppressive pain. The man who is not the fellow of others is no real man at all. And a society composed of men like this breaks up as soon ~s it is form~d a?d .even as the most zealous attempts are made to bUl~d ~nd mamtaIn It. But the stupidity of man calls for tIllS. Ev.en .In ItS noblest forms humanity without the knowledge of God has I~ It ~lways the seed of discord and inhumanity, and sooner or later.thls wII.I emer~e. Fro~ t~e vacuum where there is no " Glory to God In the hIghest even the SIncerest longing and loudest shouting for peace on earth will never lead to anything but new divisions. This is the first thing which all the concealment of human folly can never alter. T~is vacuum also involves inevitably (2) a dualism between the p~ychI~al and physical elements in his being. It is God who guarantees hIS umty, the whole man as such, who is not just soul and not just body, w~o does not co~sist of body and soul as two separate parts, bu~ who IS the soul of hIS body. God has created man in this ordered llmtJ:'. He p~edge~ its ma~ntenance, so that man's responsibility in relatIOn to thIS ~mty and Its order has its basis in his responsibility to ~od. Thus hIS knowledge of himself in this unity is an expression ?f hIS knowledge of the one God, the Lord of heaven and earth of all Invisible and. visible reality. If he renounces his responsibility to God and lacks thIS knowledge, he will also lack that which he can know only as its expression. This does not mean that he will destroy the w.ork. of God or himself in this unity. Only God, who has created ~~m In t~is ~nity, coul~ ~o that. But ev:rything that .he does of msel~ (In h.IS folly as It IS concealed by hIS supposed wIsdom) will result m a dIsturbance of this unity, a dualism of the two elements and a confusion of their relationship. In one of the countless fatai vanatlOns which are possible he will then lead a life which is either ~ore abstractly psy~h~cal or more abstractly physical. He will live lternately to the spmt and to matter. He will let himself be ruled a ternately by his head and by his nerves and appetites. He can

422

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Man

never wholly do either. On both sides he will always find himself hampered and contained. On neither side will he be able to escape tension. He will never know peace or satisfaction. He will never have a good conscience. He will always be pressing and pressed from the one to the other. He will never be able to destroy, and never wholly to forget, the order, the super- and sub-ordination, in the unity of his nature. Nor will he ever be able to maintain it. He will never rid himself of the unrest caused by the twofold character of his existence. Or he will do so only by means of strange compromises and hypocrisies between an abstracted higher part of his nature and an abstracted lower, and therefore only in appearance. He will take refuge in an inner world, trying to build up a world of the spirit, in which, to be happy, he must close his eyes to the forces of his physical nature. In face of these forces he will find himself forced to make concessions of which he is basically ashamed-in view of the fact that he is primarily a soul and only then and as such a body. When he seeks this higher level he will always have a desire for the lower, and when he is on the lower he will always be homesick for the higher. He will never be healthy on either. In the depths or on what seem to others remarkable heights he will always be a man of disorder. For he does not know the All-Highest, and therefore he has no true knowledge of the higher and lower levels of his own structure as a human being. He does not understand the norm of their relationship, and therefore he cannot direct himself by it and live as a whole man. His primary folly inexorably entails this secondary folly which cannot be radically amended by even the cleverest of psychical or physical diagnosis and therapy. The injuries which are continually caused can certainly be stated and described, and hints and advice can be given to mitigate them. But the problem of changing the man of disorder into a man of order is the problem of overcoming this vacuum, the primary folly, in which man will not and cannot understand God, and therefore, in spite of every concealment, cannot understand himself and be fit and healthy, This is the second point that has to be made, Again as a result of the basic failure, and in spite of every concealment, man is inevitably involved (3) in a perverted relationship to the limited temporality of his being, God is the Lord who guarantees the time and times of all individual men, The Yes of God makes both the limited individual time and all time with its beginning and end a time which is filled-filled by His dealings with man, by His call and claim and promise and patience and blessing. This relationship of man to God is the meaning of all his coming and going both individually and en masse. It is the meaning of history, of every human past and present and future. Thus the knowledge of God is the presupposition. of all man's knowledge of his historicity, i.e., of his being as a being· in time and in the limits of time. The loss of the one necessarily carries with it the loss of the other, and therefore of any clarity or

The Sloth of Man 42 3 cer am y. m the practIce of life I'n 1't S t empora I'Ity in th , of hlstoncal responsibility Whenc d , e acceptance h'th d 0 we go, 1'f not from God and to. God? eWh0 twe come ' and WIer we think and will and do if thi . b ,a. are we, and what is it that . , s egmnmg and end f . have no Interest or relevance for us d ~ our eXIstence us? What, then is the meanI'ng of' an are eve~ qUIte unknown to . '. our present' In h t . .' w a sense IS It to be taken senously by us- t 'th incompatible with a happy freedo~e? ~I a senousness which is not committed by it, passing courageo~sl nt~hat s~~se are we continually to-morrow? What is the meanin 01 rou~ It from yesterday to 10~1g or short life that we are giv:n? tae ~~IqU~ opportunity of the HImself gives and reveals Himself t ' 0 ~~ t e only answer. He the fool may be seen in the fact th °t ~~ ~s t IS answer. The folly of for him because he does not know ~od IS ~swer has no significance great fools we all are by considering h . ft e may each know what 0 h~w vulnerable we are' to the tern ta~~n en we are t~mpted, and wIthout significance And ye'te dP b ,to regard this answer as evening, youth old age, and tim"e :n~~ts ec~mes to-day, ~he morning f un~que opportumty pass, and all that man does is to dream' perh past; perhaps of a finer or ~ven ~~~ 0 a ~~ ~r ~ven more wretched the possibilities of general or individ eIwre c e ut~re; perhaps of can advance and ex erience . ua pr.ogr~ss whIch he thinks he of a.lasting fame th,ft he can' se~~hafs ~f. ItS Impossibility; perhaps or the Immediate circle of his acqUai::an I~ o~~ n~me, at any rate in ments; perhaps of supernatural dIces, y IS VIrtues and achieveof a personal or a cosmic natur ~ve opments beyond this life either 0.£ its games and its little anxie~ies a~ m~y ~vendd.rean: ~s a child does tlO~. He may not even dream at al~c 00 an ItS dIslIke of instructh' ~ut sleep a wakeful sleep in whIch there are neither dreams self in more or less ceaseles n?r. oug ts nor ends, forgetting himc~n attain, The wisdom wit~ ~~~:~Yh a~~d the satisfactions which he ~IS pli~ht may consist in the opinion :ha~ :~i~hi~ ~~ ~~~:c~edness ?f lC reSIgned determination t o ' a l e IS, and m to make the best of it e h se~ It th~ough as bravely as possible :orresponding depressi~J r ;~? ~ hIgher. or baser frivolity or th~ lUg death or an thO k" ng Pf P t an anxlOUS concern at approachis nothing more ~n Y ~~ i: org~tf~lness. ~ut what is all this if there with accidental' we are ?o.s there IS nothing more than this. or necessary vanatlOns Th' . th OUr bemg in th I' 't f : IS IS e whole fulness Of · e Imi s 0 our temporal t Th" • hIstory, In the light of our b ' f l Y , IS IS the fulness of our and too little t' Th ~SIC olly we will always have too much Ime. ere WIll neve b A . nd for the foolish man worl d . r ~ a~y content for our time. I~S marvels and hor ' '11 b hIstory WIth ItS greatness and misery I . ror", WI e much th . 't ' . e same In 1 S own appointed Imlts, except that everyth" fore an even darker aspcct IngI~Sino~ 07 a gr~ater sca!e and has thereOr less boldly attempt t ' I' s SImp y a nddle whIch he may more o so 'ie, or more or less boldly despair of 2,

. t . t

.

.

e:S:

42 4

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Man

solving; regarding himself either as responsible on the one hand or not responsible on the other. There is no lack of ways-optimistic and pessimistic, sceptical, idealistic and historical, moral and nonmoral, highly ;esthetic and starkly brutal-in which we may try to conceal this situation, the being in time of the man who cannot understand because he will not know the Lord of time, of his own and all history. But there can be no alteration of this situation by any such concealment. This is the third consequence of this vacuum, of the basic stupidity of man. This, then, in a first form and aspect, was the man whom God reconciled and seized and exalted to Himself in the man Jesus. Seen and measured by that One, he is this slothful man; the man who from the standpoint of his own action, or inaction, lets himself fall in this way, and is so stupid, such a fool. God has taken this man to Himself-not in ignorance but with a full awareness of this sin. What God willed and accomplished in the existence of that One was the healing of the sickness from which we all realise that we suffer in the light of that One; the instruction of the fools that we must all confess ourselves to be. His light shines in the darkness. And if it is true that the darkness has not comprehended it, it is even more true, and a better translation of In. 1 5, that the darkness has not overcome it. The fool or simpleton in his godlessness and thtl resultant imprudence and insecurity gives us a very concrete picture, as he is portrayed especially in Proverbs and .Ecclesiastes, of the folly which stands in such marked contrast to the divine and practical wisdom of which these two books speak and which is personified in the wise man, the man of prudence and understanding, the man who fears God. We may recall at this point some of the basic traits in the character of the fool. He is the man who trusts in his own understanding (Prov. 28 26 ). He does not think it necessary to take advice but thinks that his own way is right (12 15 ). He thus gives himself heedlessly to that which is wrong (r4 16 ). Folly is joy to him (r5 21 ). He wears it like a crown (14")· He proclaims it (1223). The awful thing about him is that the speech in which he shows himself to be a fool continually emphasises the fact. His own lips " will swallow up himself. The beginning of the words of his mouth is foolishness: and the end of his talk is mischievous madness" (Eccl. ro 12 !.). He might pass for a wise man if only he would be silent, and for a man of understanding if only he would keep his lips shut (prov. r7 26 ). But he does not do so, and this means that he has a mouth which is " near destruction" (IOU), for it covers violence (roll). Foolishness pours out from it (15 2). We need to beware of a fool, because he is always meddling (20 3 ). His lips bring contention and his mouth provokes blows (18 6). "If a wise man contendeth with a foolish man, whether he rage20or laugh, there is no rest" (299). "A companion of fools shall be broken" (13 ). "Let U a bear robbed of her whelps meet a man, rather than a fool in his folly" (I7 ). There is also an infectious quality in folly. The fool passes on folly as the wise man bequeaths wisdom (r416 ). "A stone is heavy, and the sand weighty; but a fool's wrath is heavier than them both" (27 3 ). It is even worse when he is clever. As" the legs of the lame are not equal" -or" as a thorn goeth up into the hand of a drunkard, so is a parable in the mouth of fools" (26'.9). Even his prayer is an abomination (28 9). Can we do nothing for him? Can he not improve himself? No," as a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool iterateth his folly" (2611). "Though thou shouldest bray a fool in a mo~tar among wheat

2.

The Sloth of Man

2

4 5

. h

WIt a pestle, yet will not his foolishness d f ." is corrupt (15'). He will die in his lack ofepa~t r~m hIm (27 For his heart 21 ). be a fool, for he cannot and will not' . unders a.ndIllg (ro ). He will always \Vh' . receIve a mOilltIOn (12 1) . o IS thIS fool of the wisdom literature) Th authors have in mind specific ind'v'd 1 . can be no doubt that its ps erehey signs of decadence in the societyl o~ ~~esr°jug;°.u . are thinking of certain SItuatIOns. Not all those whom th alsm. he reference IS to concrete follies indicated-disobedience to ey add~essed were guilty of all the individual drunkenness, blatant hardness of hfa~~enbls, ~~~ual and economic dissipation, misunderstand these proverbs if we ex C:u dO~h IrstIlless, raIllery, etc. We also group, an unpleasant stratum or pa;ty nthat e: ~I~h ~ef~rence to a recognisable entiated from the opposing grou t ' t 00 s, which can be differand condemned. The sign of de!a~:n~:~ou:h:h~~rty of t~e wis,~' and accused IS basically a characteristic of the h 1 l'f f e term .fool has reference applies virtually and even actually ~ ~~ i:se::e Israel III ItS .later stages. It It IS a characteristic of the life of all me "Th ~bers. And III the last resort Israel head and tail branch and rush , III . n.one d a yere ore . ' forthev Lord will . cuth off from . and an eVIldoer, and every mouth s eaketh f 11 ,:'.' e eryone IS an ypocnte Northern Israel in Is 910 1'. and P dO y, IS what we are told concerning 8 10 . .', III a con emnation of 'd 1 t . the same IS said concerning the Gentiles' "B t th loa ry III Jer. 10 • foolish: the stock is a doctrine of va :t' u ey are altogether brutish and knowledge." It is also to be noted hill Ie~. 'R' . Every man IS brutish in his ow In om 3 101 . P I t f context of the saying . deni au Gquo . in Ps . 141 a b ou t th e man who d' es"Trom the corrupt, they have done abominable works t h ' es o . hey are Lord looked down from heaven u on ' . ere IS none that doeth good. The any that did understand, and seek GO~he ~~ldren of men, to see if there were together become filthy: there is none th t d e~hare all gone aSIde, they are 1all 3 d. Ps. 53'!'). This is wh even the' a oe good, no, not one" (Ps. r4 - , to confess (Ps. 69.): "0 God,ythou kno~~g~teous man (not :,he godless) has 22 foolish was I, and ignorant: I was a: a m~afoolIshness, ar:,d (Ps. 73 ) : "So then continue: "Nevertheless I am . st before thee -although he can me by the right hand" F 11 contmually WIth thee: thou hast holden 22 1.), and the rod of ~fflicti~:::i~~ ~:t:~~s to ~he heart of the child (Prov. and deeper reference than to corporal un' h nvte It from him has much wider In .Eccl. 93 we read that" the heart of~hel:ome~ and other pedagogic measures. IS III their heart while they live and after t~\othmen IS full of eVil, and madness the case, the folly envisaged in these wrT ~ oe s ey go to the dead." If this is ness of its manifestations-only to s ec~~ngs d . not refer-for all the concreteare superior and unaffected It is n~t . \I~hIVI~U~lS as opposed to others who Jus mination under which the ~ise and cle e a aIr of a group. It is a deterwhile they are certainly distinguished f;;:n ~~~ f~n~erst~n~ and seek after God, understand and do not seek after God are 0 ~ an Simpletons who do not latter are at the very place from Which' th ~~o umted WIth them, because the ally come from which the h ey emselves have come and continuspend th~ir whole lives w/re i~v:o~o;isJ::~~:~er:eak ~way, at which they would wise-by the omnipotent Word of God h' 1 l'b an thiS IS what makes them break away from it to turn their back w I~~ .' erates them for knowledge, to y need always to be r~called and to recall °t~e eI~ foll b ; so that they too have IS something which concer~s Israel-for h mse ves, y these proverbs. Folly ~~Phhets as a foolish people in its relati;;ns~~pWt~S b~:e)l n~: addlressed by the . IC concerns the nations who com .' IS a so somethmg I.e .. of the God who rules Israel It' ethunder the lIght of the history of Israel in th e dlvIlle ., .Judgment Th's . . IS e concern of. ever y man as h e IS . revealed' rejection held out to all' men i plcturetof tfhe fool IS the mirror of the merited b -a reJec IOn rom whi Ch th . Y the gracious election of God by the . ht W ere IS no escape except chides. Thus the unfolding of this p'IC t uremig lY ord of God which calls IllVO ves the call to decision as it and has 22

i

426

§ 65. The Sloth and ivfisery oj Man 2.

been heard, and must be continually heard, by the wise man, and as he loves to hear it. \Vho is the wise man but the fool of yesterday who will also be the fool of to-day and to-morrow without a fresh issue of this summons and fresh obedience? And who is the fool but the man who is summoned by the Word of God to be the wise man of to-day and to-morrow? Even the fool who is incorrigible as such is man before God-or, rather, man in the history in which God is about to fulfil and realise His covenant with him, the covenant which he himself has broken but God has kept. The picture of the fool shows with pitiless clarity where it is that man comes from, who and what he is there where he does not seek but is found by God, and who and what he would remain if he were not found by God. No wise man will obviously see fools except as they are seen in the wisdom literature. None will fail to take with absolute seriousness their godlessness and their consequent imprudence and insecurity. On the other hand, it is not a wise man, but only a fool, who will not remember that God is also the God of the fool, and only as such the God of the wise; who will therefore only contrast himself with the fool, and not admit his solidarity with him, and speak about him and to him in this solidarity. The picture of the fool in the Book of Proverbs is not an invitation to this unwise wisdom. The Book of Ecclesiastes can and must also be regarded as a warning against this misunderstanding of Proverbs. Particular attention must be paid in this respect to the remarkable passage in Eccl. 7'6-18: .. Be not righteous over much; neither make thyself over wise: why shouldest thou destroy thyself? Be not over much wicked, neither be thou foolish: why shouldest thou die before thy time? It is good that thou shouldest take hold of this; yea, also from this withdraw not thine hand: for he that feareth God shall come forth of them alL" But even in the Book of Proverbs itself we have to take note of the surprising words of Agur the son of Jakeh (302!.): .. Surely I am more brutish than any man, and have not the understanding of a man. I neither learned wisdom, nor have the knowledge of the holy. Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists? who hath bound the waters in his garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth? what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?" There can be no doubt that it is a wise man who puts these questions. But there can also be no doubt that it is one who is wise in the fact that in and with these questions concerning God he ranges himself with the fool, acknowledging himself to be a fool. Is he wise all the same, and able and called to teach the fool wisdom? This is undoubtedly the case, for in vv. 5 f. he is given and gives himself the answer: .. Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar." It is of a piece with this-with the required modesty with which alone the wise man, if he is to be truly wise, can look upon (and not therefore look down upon) the fool-that in Mt. 5 22 the address /-,wp<, thou fool, is forbidden on the severest penalties as a term of reproach directly and personally flung by one man at another. It is, indeed, the most terrible form of what Jesus describes as .. murder" in exposition of the Old Testament commandment. It does, of course, occur several times in the New Testament in the context of teaching or prophecy. For example, we find it in Lk. I I 40 in the condemnation of the Pharisaic view of cleansing: aeppovES, .. did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also? "; in Mt. 23 17 in the attack on the pharisaic practice as regards oaths: /-'wpol Kal TUepAot: "for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift"; in Mt. 25 21 ., where in the parable five of the virgins are called /-,wpat; in I Cor. 15 36 : aeppwv, " that which thou sowest is not quickened, except it die"; and in Lk. 12 20 , to the rich man who planned to build greater barns: aeppwv, "this night thy soul shall be required of thee: then whose shall those things be, which thou hast provided?" It is to be noted

The Sloth oj Man

th t h' . 42 7 a t IS IS not said to him b' a man but b . all these passages the primrr d y God. It IS also to be noted that in specific ways of thinking andYa~~~gem~:tlO~hISfnot of the. in~ividual but of 22 ?vII. 5 as a qualified form of murder' as IS bel ormer WhICh IS forbidden in WIth one's brother. In this respect there an a so u~e breach of communication seriousness of the concept .. f I" F I{S agaIn rought out the whole basic the \lId Testament it is alwa~~ 'used ~~ ~heI\Sh::~ISh and drastic appearance in I t IS Impossible not to speak of the fo I Th person, never In the second. of folly-its poor slaves, but also its p~iests a~~ ~~~dnnumerable representatives And therefore there are innumerable fools Y t prophets and protagomsts. to see and treat another as such. It rna; wel~ b~Ot~~: as eIther place or right III a ternbly concrete way so that I I Ie confronts me as such s e e m a most to get th t h th I But he does not , confront m' h e ouc and smell of . e f00. · emsuc a way that I . h 1m concretely as such. To say" fool" of an . Can really recogmse such to murder him to invade th d' . other .man IS to Curse hIm, and as ' .Ignorance of ' God and the Ivme prerogative as a qual'fi t a act III f 1 ed murderer , e r e ore to show oneself f I ' · one w h Ich recoils on the man who utters it F " a 00. The curse is selves godless and stupid that will feel fr~e t~r:t I~ onl~ those who are themopprobnum and condemnation to th . . pp Y thIS murderous term of There is h ' eIr companIOns m stupidity. , owever, one nota ole exam 1 . th Old of a man who is as his name is (v 2 p e m e Testament (I Sam. 25) trasted with his wife Abigail as th'e :2pre~:btlt. a fo~l. . This man, sharply conexponent of the divine action and p . . n a lYe 0 WIsdom and David as the romIse m and WIth Is I I . 1 a very important-if as is 0 . . ~ae, pays m the form o f foly ;,;orth our while briefly to co~sider th:l?to~ttm1' SUbSI~Iary-ro~e. It will be study m desert customs" (R K'tt I eI) b y: . t certamly provIdes us with a has found a place in the collection of d' ut/t IS hardly for this reason that it of Samuel form the starting-point. Ev~n~~ IC records of which th; two Books thud marriage (with Abigail) which' th e c~ntractmg of DaVId s second or sufficient justification for so detailed IS e culmmatlOn of the story, is hardly a that in the depiction of the stran e han acc?unt of what precedes. It is evident three characters our attention I'sgd a~petmngs whi~h took place between these A n d th e emphasis given to them rawn . 0II somethmg of m a t ena . I sIgmficance. . . mistakeably that what we have h' especIa y to Nabal and Abigail, shows unpromise KaT '£~OX~v, with two co:;:a~~i~n encounter of David, the bearer of the expressly wise, and his rejection b th f g types, t~e expressly foolIsh and the ledgment and humble acc~ptance by t~e~:~:~,w1~iI:i~~lled Nabal, and acknowThe event takes place m Carmel south east g the prosperous Nabal the owner f' of Hebron, which is the abode of to keep the feast of shearin (v 0 3~0 seep and 1000 goats, who is just about experiences and activities -!he~ 2~itl he ~t~ry. belongs to the records of David's anointed to be the future kin 'h .1O~g e IS already elected and called and David and his 600 men are in t~ e IS arced mto eXIle by the attacks of Saul. ~orders of Carmel, where the she;h:~~~e~~:~t f~ the wI~dern~ss of Judah on the aVId hears of the sheep-shearing and send at ave t:. en hIS sheep to pasture. are to greet him as a brother sa i~ . " s en 0 f IS men to Nabal. They thine house, and peace be udto :ll fh~t t~eac~ be ~oth to thee, and peace be to they are to give is that no in'ur h au ast (v. 6). The message which selves can and do testify v I~) ~s been done to the shepherds (as they themthey have come, nor ha;e the f10lks t~rovmlg band into whose sphere of influence been expected (v. 7). On the contrar emse ves sUffer~d the loss that might have flOCks and shepherds against alien r~bb~~vId;nd hIS men have protected the they have been" a wall unto them both b . n' ~r from co~stltutmg a threat, not remmding Nabal of the ositiv . y Ig t and day (v. 16). David is Which he and his men have p roved~ a~~l1evement, but of the integrity and loyalty tahty at festivals of this kind whe h n~ ~ requests only the customary hospin e as s abal to be generous to his emissaries

t

h

6

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Man and to give them" whatsoever cometh to thine hand" for David and his servants. He even describes himself as " thy son David" (v. 8), It is at this juncture, however, that Nabal lives up to his name and shows himself to be" churlish and evil," a true son of Caleb (v. 3), " this man of Belial," as he is later called by his own wife (v. 25)-and so much so " that a man cannot speak to him" (v. 17). "Who is David? and who is the son of Jesse? there be many servants nowadays that break away every man from his master. Shall I then take my bread, and my water, and my flesh that I have killed for my shearers, and give it unto men, whom I know not whence they be ?" What is the folly of this foolish speech? Is it that it is the speech of an unusually self-opinionated and standoffish and intolerably priggish bourgeois? This is one aspect of it. He seems to be completely lacking in any feeling for a neighbour in need, or even in ordinary civility in his dealings with his fellows. He is a quite impossible neighbour. But there is more to it than this if we are not simply to read the story in moralistic terms. Nabal was addressed" in the name of David" (v. 9). The different reaction of Abigail as soon as she heard the name of David shows where the decisive folly of the speech is to be found, Note the beginning and end of his words. It is not just a bedouin sheikh but the elect of Yahweh that he refuses to recognise, and thinks that he can scorn and despise, accusing him of being a runaway servant and so inhospitably refusing him food and drink. How could he possihly miss the threefold shalom with which David greeted him? But he did miss it. It was really an encounter with his own and Israel's salvation that he neglected and so rudely rejected. It was Yahweh's own presence and action in the person of this man that he despised, refusing his services, and insisting so snobbishly upon his own right of possession and therefore control. He had to do with Yahweh Himself, and he acted as one who was completely ignorant of Him. That is why he was so impossible, David, of course, was a man like others, who .normally give a rough answer to churlishness, replying with anger and vengeance to foolish words and actions, and in this way. i,e., in the name of avenging righteousness, with folly to folly. When he received news of Nabal's reception he took 400 of his 600 men, and when they had girded on their swords they set out westward towards Carmela thunder-cloud which according to the practice of the times threatened complete extermination to Nabal and all his house (v. 12). We can see later (v. 21 f., 34) how David looked at the matter: "Surely in vain have I kept all this fellow hath in the wilderness, so that nothing was missed of all that pertained unto him: and he hath requited me evil for good. So and more also do God unto David, if I leave any men of all that pertain to him by the morning light." It is at this point that Abigail takes a hand. According to v. 3 she is a woman "of good understanding, and of a beautiful countenance," One of Nabal's servants has come (v. 14) and told her what has taken place (according to v. 25 in her absence); "Now therefore know and consider what thou wilt do; for evil is determined against our master, and against all his household" (v. 17). But her wisdom has as little need of lengthy deliberation as the folly of her husband. What is it that she knows and he does not know? That this is not the way to treat people? Yes, she knows this too. But this is not the decisive point. She hears the name of David and knows with whom they have to do (with the same immediacy as her husband does not know). She takes in the situation at a glance and acts accordingly (v. 18 f.). "Whatsoever cometh to thine hand" is what David had asked of Nabal. But she now takes two hundred loaves, and two bottles of wine, and five sheep ready dressed, and five measures of parched corn, and an hundred clusters of raisins, and two hundred cakes of figs, and loads them on asses. Some of the servants are to go on before, and she herself follows-eastward towards David. And she does all this without even consulting her husband. When the elect of God draws near, and with him

. 2. The Sloth of Man 42 9 thhe Jhudgment, wisdom does not dispute with follv, but ignores it and does th t w IC IS commanded, " a , There then follows her encounter with David and his band, Accordin to " ~o It ~;'es place ~n the fold of a valley, and is a surprise meeting for ~oth ~ar les, IgaJ! commg down from the one side and David from the other ~nd whe~ Abigail saw David, she hasted, and lighted off the ass and feli belore DaVid on her face, and bowed herself to the ground" ( )'-t prostratIOn of worship like that of Abraha;n before God (Gen I~'3)2~nd Jhe ~Ull before the angel (Josh, ,14) and before the ark (7 6) '\' ' f ' as ua b t f th' . , ' . sign a anxiety? No u ,0 some mg very different-an unconditional respect, Abigail has n~ anxiety, She knows very well what she wants and what she has to re with a very definite superiority, \Vhat she now does is the demonstr!t~~~e~~ the fact that m this situatIOn she knows with whom she has to do i th t! threatenmg person of this man, This is the core and guiding lightnof t~~alo~r speech which IS now put on her lips (vv, 24-31), This is the reason for her attitud~ and for the gifts that she has brought to David, It is also the basis of th t tha~ she makes, It is on this, account that she must and will make gOO~r:~eu:~i~ of N~bal, and prevent the eVil that DaVid himself is on the point of committin It IS m thiS respect that she shows herself to be of a good understanding, T;~ pomt IS that the name DaVid means something to her, She kn d I I declares h h ' d 'II b ows an so emn y . woe IS an WI e, Since the wordless anointing of David b S I m I S'im 16 1-13 d 't ' t f ' Y amue < " • -an .1 IS no or nothmg that the death of Samuel is re orted at the begmnmg of this chapter-it has not been reported that an on h p 'd anythmg to this effect either of or to David: "Yahweh shall do I~~;a~ll the g~~)d that he hath spoken concerning thee, and appoint thee r~ler over Israel (v. 30 ); and even more emphatically: "For the Lord will certainl ' make ',lly lord a sure house, because my lord fighteth the battles of the L and eVil hath not been found in thee all thy days Yet a man' , t or, thee and t k th l b ' IS nsen a pursue f 'j' a see y sou: u t the soul of my lord shall be bound in the bundle ~, I e With the Lord th:y God; and the souls of thine enemies, them shall he sling out, as out of the middle of a sling" (vv. 28b-29). Everything else de ends upon, and has ItS meanmg and power in the fact that Ab' 'I k P th' f ' ' Igal nows and has t a say IS a DaVid, and therefore of the will and promise the secret of th covenant, of the God of Israel. , e

10';

1

f .

r:

~I this knowledge which commits and constrains her fearlessly and wholeear e y to take up the cause of Nabal with David. As the one wh d know m this decisive respect, Nabal and all that he says and doe' a oes not can only be fa d t' , h' s m consequence is f h' un wan mg m t IS situation. This will be proved later in what or , 1m a ternble sense. In the first instance it means that h d t Come mto 'd t' 'th ' .e oes no even consl era IOn III e discussion and bargaining with David' "L t t my lord, r pray thee, regard this man of Belial even Nabal' for as h" e no so IS he', N a b a I'IS h'IS name, and folly is with ' . IS name IS him" (v 25 a ) Ab' al'] , ask David to listen to her and not to him' "r et thin~ ha d' 'dlgI can only SJleak' th· d' . n mal, pray thee , III me au lence, and hear the words of thine handmaid" (v ) B' ~~IS means that she accepts responsibility for what Nabal has said 'a~1'd . ut at she takes hiS place m relation to David. She knows and says that h o~e no part III the event: "But I thine handmaid saw not the sea lord, whom thou didst send" (v. 25 b ). And yet. "Upon me youn g m en of my l d let this iniq t b " ( ) T . , my or , upon me th ,111 Y e v. 24 a . he first practical meaning of her prostration is h at she gives herself mto David's hands for good or evil if anI h 'II h y e WI ear er, and hear her in the place of Nabal. to i~Vhat is it that she has to say to him? In the first instance, she has to act. re'e ake ?,ood the mistake that Nabal has made; to fulfil the request that he had c; cted, t? .unload the asses and present the bread and wine and shee and nl~ ~n~;~sms ~nd figs to David. '~And now this present which thine banda roug t unto my lord, let It be even given unto the young men that h

d

43°

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Man

follow my lord" (v. Z7). And then: "Forgive the trespass of thine handmaid" (v. z8a). 'Why should David forgive? Because she has made good the mistake and given the present? No, but because David-there now follow the words of promise in vv. z8b-z9-is already the anomted and future kmg of Israel. It is as the one who knows him as such that Abigail has mterposed herself between him and Nabal. And it is as the one who knows this, and in view of what she knows, that she asks for forgiveness. And the granting of this request carries with it the sparing of ""abal and his house from impending destruction. Even to her personally there will not now occur (as we learn from v. 34) the worst evil that could corne on any woman in Israel, the loss of her sons. But she is not concerned about this danger, as had been the servant who first told her what had happened and what it would necessarily entail. ~What moves Abigail is not that vengeance should be averted from Nabal and his house and indirectly herself, but that it should not be committed by David. In her mtervention she is particularly unconcerned as to the fate of Nabal. Indeed, she counts.on it as somethinO" which is as good as done that he will come to a bad end: "Let thine enemi~s, and they that scek evil to my lord, be as Nabal" (v. 26b). \'!hat she wills to prevent when she throws herself down before David, and accepts the guilt of Nabal, and asks that It should be forg~ven, IS ~hatDavld should be the instrument of Nabal's destruction, and therefore mcur gUIlt himself. Does she only will to prevent this? The remarkable thing in her speech to David is that she regards it as something which objectively is prevented already. With such superiority does she confront the wrathful David (before who~ she prostrates herself), so little does she fear him. or doubt the success of her IUtervention, that from the very first she speaks m terms of an accomplIshed fact : "Now therefore, my lord, as the Lord liveth, and as thy soul liveth, se~ing the Lord hath withholden thee from coming to shed blopd, and from avengIng thyself with thine own hand ... " (v. 26a). We find the same daring anticipation in the words of promise in relation to David's future as the one whom Yahweh has raised up and protected to be a prince over Israel. When God has done this (and it is assumed that He will), " this shall be no grief unto thee, nor offence of heart unto my lord, either that thou hast shed blood causeless, or that my lord hath avenged himself" (v. 31). This is the wisdom of Abigail in her relationship with David, who in the act of vengeance which he purposes stands m the only too human danger of making himself a fool. She knows that as the one he IS and will be he may not and cannot and therefore will not actually do what he plans to do. The elect of Yahweh may not and cannot and will not avenge himself, making himself guilty of the blood of Nabal and many others who were innocent, and thus violating the prerogative of Yahweh, whIch none ca.n ever escape. She towers above David with this knowledge as she makes thiS pronouncement. . And what of David? The practical consequence is as follows: "So DaVid received of her hand that which she had brought him, and said unto her, Go up in peace to thine house; see, I have hearkened to thy voice, and haveaccepted thy person" (and intervention, v. 35). But the reason why he forgives, and therefore foregoes his intended revenge, is not because he has received the present or changed his mind as to what Nabal deserves. He still fully acknowledges hiS purpose: .. For in very deed, as the Lord God of Israel liveth, which hath kept me back from hurting thee, except thou hadst hasted and come to meet me, surely there had not been left a man unto Nabal by the morning li¥ht" (v. 34)· The ground of his forgiveness is exactly the same as that of Abigail s reques~ for forgiveness. And in his words as in hers it is one :which has to be taken Into consideration and therefore dIscussed, but one whIch IS already reallsed and operative, excluding from the very outset the execution of his purpose. -:r:he beginning of his answer is decisive: .. Blessed be the Lord God of Israel, which sent thee this day to meet me: and blessed be thy adVice, and blessed be thou,

2.

The Sloth of Man

431

which hast kept me this day from coming to shed blood and from . lf .th ' " , avengmg myse WI mme own hand (v. 32 f.). The request of Abigail did not need to be fulfilled. It had been fulfilled already-even before it was made. It sim I' remmded. DaVid of the accomplished fact that he could not and would not Pd~ what he mtended to do.. For, Indicated by the voice of Abigail, it is Yahweh the Godof Israel who Withstands him as an absolutely effective obstacle on the way which he h~s planned to follow, arresting and turning him back aga'n And m face of thiS obstacle David can only break out into praise of God andlof the understandmg AbIgail. As the one he is on the basis of the election of Y h h and as the one he will be in the power of the calling of Yahweh h . at we , ~ · t · · . . e If, no In a POSI IOn to execute hIS purpose. As the Lord liveth-Yahweh and he himself :would have to he other thafol they are if he were to be in a position to execute it. [he Wisdom of Abigail conSIsts m the fact that she knows Yahweh and therefore knows DaVid. \'!hen DaVid hears the voice of this wisdom, no particular decision IS ne~ded. The matter IS deCided already. He is restrained from doing h t h had mtended to do. w a e The story has two endings. The first is a sombre one. Nabal has escaped the wrath of DaVId.. But he runs none the less to his destruction. The death ?vertakes him to which he has fallen a victim in his own corruption. The second IS bnghter. It speaks of the marriage of David and Abigail as the result of their encounter and remarkable agreement. _ Nabal is removed. .When Abigail returns from her enterprise to Carmel she fmds thiS r
But the death of Nahal means that Abigail is now a widow.

She does not

s~~aIn so long. She becomes the wife of David. At first sight this is rather

pnsmg, for there are no hmts of any romantic developments in the earlier part of the story. .The dealIngs between herself and David had been strictly ~atter of fact, and It would be wrong to allow artistic imagination to im art tc . em a dIfferent and preparatory character in the light of the outcome PTh IS In f t t f . . . ere . ' ac ,no race 0 sentlmentahty even in the portra}'al of the can 1 . Itself It t b d . c uSlOn tive '.. mus e un erstood m the sOber.context ~f the main part of the narra(v' And DaVid sent, and communed WIth AbIgaIl, to take her to him to wife" . 39b). The proposal was made by the servants of David (v. 40 ) and it was

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Man

432

2.

. .. m un uestioning resolution as had marked all accepted by AbIgaIl wIth th~ sa ed t~ same unconditional subjection as that her previous speech and actI~n'ha~ f ar~esslY and critically instructed this great which she had known when nd s e a t~e truth concerning Yahweh and himself. and fearsome leader,
d

;d

:n:ls;~n~~al~onceth~

~ool

. beP'in with a christological statement. The Word ?f W e agam b• d present m God became and is flesh. It was and IS spoken to ~~' f:;edom of this power, in the :xistence of the. ma~ J~~~s'fa~h~h~~y He is wholly the Nei hbour of us His neighone man consIsted and consIsts m Fellow-man of us His fellows ; w~ll~ t~ehers ~ the Witness Teacher, bours; wholly the Brother a f 1;1S IS ro ., In the actualDoctor Helper and Advocate gIven as a m~n to us men. bound and not merel isation 'which it has foundIin:im .' . d 'lling anY committed to other men. n 1m: to God but to other men. In HIm he IS qUIte open an w~one butd 2

t~~~~::ym~~a~\~~n~~

~~asC;;d~:g~~~::~~ra~~:~ a~~ ~~~t~~h~i~~:n1~~r~n~r?;~ and ~laim

The Sloth of Man

433 of the other man. In Him he does not live only in fellowship with God, but in so doing he also lives in fellowship with other men. In Him, in this man, God Himself is for all other men. This cannot be said of any other. In the fact that as He is with us He is also for us He remains exalted above all. In this exaltation above all He is also a direction for all; a summons to participate, as thankful recipients of His grace, in the humanity actualised in Him, to share this humanity with a concrete orientation on the fellow-man, the neighbour, the brother. To receive His Holy Spirit is to receive this direction and accept this summons. It is to see oneself in Him as one who is elected and created and determined for existence in this humanity. But we, on whose behalf and for whose orientation He was and is man in this freedom, fail to obey the call to this freedom. Among all the others for whom He is a Fellow and Neighbour and Brother as we are, and who are therefore our fellows and neighbours and brothers, we remain in our isolation and seclusion and self-will and unwillingness, and therefore in our latent or patent hostility, in relation to them; in a word, in our inhumanity. We are again inactive where we can and should and must let ourselves be moved in the direction of these others. This is the second form of our sloth, in which we want to be alone instead of being those we already are in and by this One. This human reluctance has again to be considered primarily in its futility. Nothing can alter the fact that the man Jesus is for all, not only the light of the knowledge of God, but also the power of humanity. He cannot be dismissed from the world, this One who is the Fellow and Neighbour and Brother of all men. The fire which He has kindled on earth in this sense too cannot be put out. His direction cannot be reversed. No absolute fact can be opposed to Him. Nor can anything alter the fact that in Him all men, even the most deformed and unnatural, are elected and created and determined for fellow-humanity, for neighbourly love, for brotherhood. It is as well not to keep this from even the worst of our fellows, but to tell it to him plainly, and above all to accept it ourselves. In this respect, too, I can refuse to be the new and neighbourly man that I am already in this One. In this respect, too, we can involve ourselves in self-contradiction. But in this respect, too, we cannot destroy ourselves. We cannot, therefore, destroy the fact that others are there as our fellows and neighbOurs and brothers. We may cause them to wait, and wait in vain, for our corresponding action and attitude. But they are there as such, and we cannot alter the fact that they do wait for our corresponding action and attitude. They are always there and they always wait for us even though our indifference, our aversion and even our more refined or blatant wickedness in face of them is uppermost-especially So When this is the case! It is not for nothing that the Son of God has made Himself theirs and ours. It is our sloth rather than His direction which is futile-the sloth in which we cause others to wait

434

§ 65· The Sloth and Misery of Man 2.

for us in vain. In it we remain at a place where there is no solid ground under our feet, so that v:e cannot maintain our~elves. In face of the fellowship already estab~lshed betwe~n all.men m the one man Jesus, no man can withdraw mto a final Is01a,tlOn. I. can, ~nd ~o, sabotage this fellowship. But I cannot ma~e It a .realIty o.f mfenor quality which is destined to perish. Even m my mhumamty I can only practise my sin and reveal my shame. . . But this is bad enough, and we must now s~eak ?f It. ~or all ItS relativity and ultimate futility, our .slot? even m .thlS form IS a fact. It is not nothing, but, in a way whIch IS very pamful for others ~nd even more distressing for ourselves, it is the somethinlS, of our persI.stence in the direction to that which is not. Man WIlls that whIch according to His incarnation God does D:0t will. .~e wills t?e impossible. He wills to be man without and even m 0ppositlOn to hIS fellow-man. His action and attitude in relation to others have nothing of the freedom in which the man Jesus causes him to participate in the power of His direction. For no real reason he dissociates himself from the movement to his fellows which proceeds from Jesus. Or perhaps he never really has any part in it at all, although .he is in th~ sphere of it. He does not live a genuinely human, but an mhuman, hfe, because he does not live as a fellow-man. . . Between humanity and inhumanity, divided by the. cnten~n of fellow-humanity, there is no middle term; just as there IS no mIddle term between wisdom and folly, between the knowledge of God and ignorance of God. "Inhu~an" meaD:s to b~ without one's fellowmen. We can either be WIth them, I.e., onenta~ed on the~, and therefore human, thinking and willing and speakmg and actmg as men' or we can be without them, and therefore not human, but inhur'nan in all our acts and attitudes. If we are without them ~e are agai~st them. And as the stupidity of, man does not .hav~ Its origin in the theoretical denial of God,. but ,IS me:ely pr~ctIsed I~ a particular and not indispensable way m thIS dem.al, so mhumanIty does not have its basis in individual actions and attItudes towards our neighbours, but either in these or without th~m in the fact that we think we can and should be without our neIghbours and therefore alone-a distorted attitude which will necessarily find powe~ful e~. actlOns . ., It'IS from thIS baSIC pression in correspondmg or omisslOns. . attitude that our repressions and actions.in relation to ot.he:s a~qUlr: the character of sin, of a culpable lapse mto self-contradIctIon III th fulfilment of which we deny and oppose and shame both GO? Creator and ourselves as His good creatures, and therefore, whIle do not cease to be men, become and are inhuman men. We are alwa~ inhuman from the very outset, even before we perform the carr sponding action and either trespass against our neighbours. and t~:r~ fore ourselves or in some way leave ourselves and our nelghbou h the lurch. The great rejection has already taken place even w en

0:

The Sloth of J'vlan

435

and as it finds specific expression. It is not, therefore, determined by our more or less lofty, sociable, altruistic or egotistic impulses or qualities or inclinations, by our em-ironment, or by the opportunities which we have or do not have. On the contrary, it is itself that which determines what takes place in the sphere of all these presuppositions as the activity, or inactivity, of our more or less lofty, sociable, altruistic or egotistic nature as such. What takes place reflects man's inhumanity as the second basic dimension of his folly. The form and texture may vary, but it is always his sin of disobedience, unbelief and ingratitude which is manifested in this sphere. It is his sin, because in it he turns aside from the grace which is given him by God to order his relationship not only to God but also to his fellows, violating the law of this grace, and therefore letting himself fall where he is in fact exalted and may and can and should stand. We have to realise this if we are to see from what source the notorious inhumanity of human life and society draws its perennial strength and irresistible efficacy. It is so easy to say how simple and pleasant everything would be if only we were a little more human in our dealings, a little more attentive to one another, a little more understanding and ready to help one another. We may even suspect that all the essential evil of human existence could be avoided, and all the incidental evil mitigated and made supportable, if only it were not for this great and constant lacuna of our inhuman dealings. And the corresponding admonitions, to ourselves and others, are easily made and spring self-evidently to hand; just as great or small measures have been devised and executed, and will continually be devised and executed, to fill or bridge the gap. The only trouble is that in great and little things alike the gap always reappears. What the one thinks about another, and says to him, and does in relation to him, is decisively determined by the fact that he maintains a continual reserve, that he constantly withdraws into himself, that he has to do with him only from this standpoint and in the form of his own interests, that he is not really for him and therefore his fellow. This reserve common to us all is not affected by any admonitions or counter-measures, by any pSY:hol0.gy or individual or social pedagogics, by any social revolution or mdlvldual conversion, however radical. On the contrary, it is app~lling to see how all the great and little things which can and Contmually do and will take place around this centre can only reveal afresh at some point that in his relation to his fellows too man is this slothfUl and sinful being who falls back upon himself and acts and reacts in this inhuman fashion. If we do not realise this, if we will ~ot accept it primarily of ourselves, we shall never understand the Intrinsically incomprehensible fact of the continual complication of that which is so simple; of the human life which can be lived only as a life in fellowship, but which is not lived as a life in fellowship

43 6

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Man

2.

The Sloth of Man

437 he raises the question why the other is so simple as not to exercise it himself. Is he not just as capable of doing so as anyone else? Indeed, when he is the accidental or intentional victim of someone else, he is given a legitimate reason to exercise it. Why should he be the fool? Why not repay like for like: indifference for indifference; threat for threat; pressure for pressure? Why not find a place for inhumanity in answer to inhumanity? Even the most pious man cannot live at peace if a bad neighbour will not let him. Why, then, should he remain a pious man, or the most pious? And in this way an endless series of aggressions and reprisals is initiated, as happens no less in the small sphere of personal relationships than in the greater of world-politics. Yet we cannot understand how irremediable is what we all do to one another and ourselves, but can know only a superficial and ineffective horror at it, unless we are aware of the root in which we are inhuman, and necessarily do sacrifice to inhumanity, and ourselves become its victim. It is there in the root-in the fruits too, but not primarily-that as sin it is the wasting and destruction which impends and falls. It is there where it consists so insignificantly in the fact that man does not follow the movement initiated for him by God, but evades it and lets himself sink and fall into the isolation in which he deludes himself that it is grander to live without his neighbour (as well as without God) than in the fellowship with him in which he is bound and committed to live if he is himself to be a man. But here, too, we must remember the concealment in which man is inhuman. In this form of sloth, too, it is not the case that anyone will openly admit. We are prepared to admit that in some respects we are superhuman, and in others (rather ashamedly) subhuman. But surely not that we are inhuman? Our reluctance to admit this has a sound positive reason in the fact that a man cannot cease to be a man. He cannot change himself into another creature altogether. He cannot become an animal or a devil. For all the movement toward that which is not, of which he is guilty in his relationship to his fellows, he cannot reverse the good creation of God and therefore destroy himself as a man. This may well be the objective basis of his reluctance to confess his inhumanity. But the terrible nature of inhumanity is this. Without ceasing to be man, and as such the good creature of God, man acts as though he were an animal or devil and not man. Inhumanity is the denial of our humanity. But we deny our humanity when we think that we can and should exercise it apart from our fellow-men. And when we try to conceal this, to deny this denial of ou.r humanity, we are not justified, but accused and condemned, by thIS sound positive reason for our reluctance. In our denial and concealment of that which we are and do we can and will only make it worse and really be and do it. Hypocrisy is the supreme repetition of What we seek to deny with its help. The aim of hypocrisy is to conceal the inhumanity which we will

and is therefore lived in inhumanity-an inhumanity necessarily and indissolubly connected with its godlessness. . We have also to realise this if we are to see how dangerous IS the effect of man's inhumanity. We will consider again its out:-vard aspect. As it takes place first in the distorted attitude and then m t~e corresponding acts it has th: :harac~er o~ J?ower; of a force whIch once unleashed as in the actIVIty or mactlvlty of our refusal, escapes our control, f~llows its own law and has its own d~namic, whose effe?ts we can experience only as spectators, thus addmg to ou~ own gU.llt. By renouncing our true humanity we. do, of c?urse, ach~eve a kmd of liberation, an independence, a supenor capaCIty to act, m the exercise of which we gain a peculiar advantage over oth~rs a~d seem t.o be the stronger. But even as we enjoy and. assert It thIS power IS strange and alien in relation to ourselves. I~ IS stron~er than we ar;. Our inhumanity sets us under a rule accordmg to whIch every ~an s hand is necessarily against his brother's: and we are all subjects. Again, there is a certain finality a?out ~~lS power. I~s development is along a line which moves from ItS ongm t? ~ ~efimte end, ~nd on which the first step is virtually the la~t, even If ~t I~ not taken I~ f~ct. It begins with the omissions and actions of an m.dl~e:ent aSSOCIation with one's neighbour to which there can be no Jundlcal and har~y any moral objection. It then become.s th.e s~cret or blatant oppressIOn and exploitation of one's fellow. HIS dlgmty, ~onour and nght are actively or passively violated. The final upsho~ IS what we call ~ctual transgression: stealing and robbery; murder m the lega~ sense, and finally war, which allows and commands almost ev~rythmg that G.od has forbidden. It is obviously one and the same thmg at every pomt on this way; just as everything that is done by one man t~ a~oth~r is at every step the same in essence. Society may ~ot see .It m this light. Nor maya less well-instructed Church. But m the Judgment of a conscience enlightened and sharpened by God, the hard and relentless citizen (perhaps a public prosecutor or judge~ ~ho keeps within the bounds of what is customary and decorous IS m exac.tly the sa!Ile boat as the flagrant criminal judged and condemned by hIm. He carries the latter within himself, just as the latter was perhaps for many years like him. The man has yet to be found who does not bear murder in himself, who might not become a murd:rer ev~n t~ou~ he never does so. How dangerous is this inhuman hfe, which. IS t d life of us all, is seen at the end of the line in the outbreak. of stnfe a:_ global warfare. But this only gives it palpable expreSSIOn.. It co sists decisively in the fact that it is. life on the steep. slope WhICh le~~~ in different ways to this end. And ItS. re.al menace, hke t.hat o~ stup It ity, lies particularly in the fact that It IS .so supremel~ l~fectlOuS. n e has such great powers of reproduction. LIved by one, It IS a challe g to others to live it. One man imposes on another by the J?ower w?n and exercised through great or little inhumanities because by ItS exerCIse ,j

l

43 8

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Man

not confess. But the result is only to make it worse rather than better. The veil chosen is selected with the attention of giving the appearance of the very opposite of what is concealed. We take up a position and attitude in which we think we can persuade ourselves and others and even God that they are supremely human, not least in relation to our fellows. It can all be summed up in the quite respectable word philanthropy. Philanthropy carries with it the thought of a causa in its exalted sense, a specific form of the great or little ideas, systems, programmes, institutions, movements and enterprises in which, under one name or another and in one direction or another, it is a matter of satisfying a more or less necessary and profound and general human interest or need, and therefore a matter of man himself, of his physical and psychical preservation, of the order of his coll~ctive life, of .his education and culture, of the increase and safeguardmg and explOItation of his material and spiritual resources, of his individual, social, scientific and cultural progress. Of course, in all this man is always understood in general. He is humanity, or simply man, anonymous man. Philanthropy, then, is the focusing and concentrating of human will and action on the prosecution of one such anonymously human cause to a victorious and successful outcome. And there can be no doubt that the genuine humanity which is fellow-humanity does include philanthropy of this kind. The fact that there are always in human society questions and causes which claim the attention and loyalty of individuals and groups is in its~lf, because the ~ltim~te concern is always man, a sign of the great mter-relatedness m which alone we men can be men. This brings us back to the good creation of God. To be concretely with the other means always to be occupied with some such cause in relation to him. In relation to him? This is the critical point. For it is not at all self-evident that wh:n I ~m actually occupied with a cause of this kind I have concretely m mmd the other, the fellow-man, the neighbour and brother; that I am committed to him rather than free in relation to a purely abstract and anonymous man. I can so easily escape this being with him in the prosecution of a mere cause, and the more effectively ~he better and more important the cause by which I find myself clam~ed, and the greater the urgency with which it claims me. Even ~n the good creation of God, and as myself a good creature, I can shll evade the knowledge of God and therefore be stupid. In just the same way, again in the good creation of God and as myself a good creature, I can apply myself to a human cause, and give myself wholeheartedly to ~he prosecution and success of the relevant programme and enterprIse, yet always have my own activity and therefore myself in ~ind r~ther than the other man, thus thinking and speaking and actm~ Wlt~ a complete disregard for his quest~ons and needs an~ e~pectatlOnS,T~~ his existence generally, and provmg myself to be qmte mhuJ?~~' It inhuman element in us all is skilled to see and use this posslblhty.

2.

The Sloth of Man

439

plunges itself i~to phil.anthropy of this kind as though it were genuinely human.. I~ thiS way It conceals its true intentions and projects. And because It IS not human in fellowship, it is really inhuman. But the concealment can~ot be stripped off from inhumanity by frontal attack any more than It can from the stupidity which decks itself out as wisdom. In fact, we seldom encounter it in its naked form either in ourselves or in others. In the majority of cases we are most sure to find it where it is concealed in the service of a great or little cause artfully clothing itself, in its application to this cause, as the friend and .servant of anonymous m~n, ~~d therefore the more energetically turnmg away from concrete, mdlvldual man, trampling over him as ~hough he were a cor~se, which i~deed he is, since the living fellow-man IS regarded as non-eXistent, and IS treated accordingly. The field which opens up before us at this point is so vast that we can only give the briefest sketch with the help of one or two examples. The inhumanity of ~a~ may sometImes clothe Itself m the necessary establishment and defence of mstItutlOns, o.f law and order. On the other hand, it may equally well take the form of their no less. necessary criticism and overthrow. It may work Itself out m the conservatIOn of old, or the introduction of new, political and SOCial for~s. It may be active in the functions of the sacrosanct compulsory orgamsatlOn of ~he totalitarian, or the no less sacrosanct free play of the forces of the denwcratIc state, thus pretendmg to espouse either the claim of society on the mdlvldual or the freedom of the individual in relation to society. It can sometImes~ as m Europe and America, disguise itself as ceaseless activity. It can cloak Its~lf behmd pure scholarship or pure art, or behind the promotion of the ~ommon ~nte7ests of a natIOnal or economic or intellectual group, or behind offic~aldom With ItS concern for the regular functioning of an official apparatus, or Simply behmd the refinement of a technique with its different applications. It can find an mstrument m marnage to the extent that this has the character of an institution and therefore a cause. The family and its stability and possessIOns and honour are a cause m the emotIOnal respectability of which it can find partIcularly effectIve concealment. Again, it may give itself with particular zeal to th.e stern task of the schooling and education of the younger generation, which prOVides the necessary" educable material" for this purpose. Not least, the Church Itself, the proclamation and hearing of the Word of God the confession and doctrine and liturgy and order of the Church, and even its theology, offer a vast opportumty for philanthropic activity which is devoid of true humanity. ~ll these thmgs are ." causes" :which in their context do not lack the appearance human JustIficatIOn, necessity and value, which from some standpoint can and must also be the concern of the man who is directed to his fellow-man which have therefore a real claim to attention and service, which therefore cali for the appropriate devotion which we call philanthropy. But there is not one ~~ them which does not leave open the question how their p'romotion is going to ect the concrete man envisaged and embraced by them. Is he really considered at all, and if so to what extent? How far is he only an end or goal or even a ~ore or less useful means, so much material for the purpose, perhaps;' disruptive ~u stacle? There is not one of them which cannot be appropriated by the inman element m us. which IS not m fact appropriated by it both in little things a nd great, so that, screened by their humanity, it can dismiss the concrete man t tamm g so.verelgn aturni . t y WI·thout h·1m ~r over him, and therefore secretly or openly' i ng agamst him. It cannot eaSily be denied that somewhere at the back or n the depths of the promotion of even the best cause-simply because and as it

44 0

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Man

z. The Sloth of Man

is promoted by men-there may usually be seen the hard and evil face of the man who at bottom has no more time for his fellow than he has for God, who refuses to consider him, but who, in order not to have to confess this either to him, to himself or to God, takes refuge in an activity in which his true purpose, or lack of purpose, will necessarily be all the more active and powerful. The cause is carried through to success-and man is really brought under the wheel. Sometimes, rather perversely, one could almost wish that there were not all these human causes the ceaseless promotion of which only seems to make everything worse, postponing the peace on earth which they all seem to desire, and merely intensifying an internecine warfare. In their service the inhuman element in all of us not only finds particularly effective concealment, but finds itself particularly well supplied with offensive and defensive weapons. Yet of what avail would it be to abandon the causes? It is not the different causes themselves that are evil, nor the philanthropic zeal dedicated to them, but the inhuman element in us which has such an uncanny power of mastering and using them on the pretext of serving humanity. One such cause deserves particular mention. Could it be that the clearest antithesis to inhumanity-love itself, humanitarian and brotherly love-is calculated in its own way to create a cause, to give rise to philanthropic endeavour in the narrower sense, and therefore to offer particular concealment to inhumanity? It is a frightful thing to say, but this is actually the case. There is indeed a love which is mere philanthropy, a sympathetic and benevolent concern and assistance which we can exercise with zeal and devotion without taking even a single step away from the safe stronghold of being without our fellow-man, but in a deeper withdrawal into our shell. There is a form of love-mere charity-in which we do not love at all; in which we do not see or have in mind the other man to whom it is directed; in which we do not and will not notice his weal or woe; in which we merely imagine him as the object of the love which we have to exercise, and in this way master and use him. Our only desire is to practise and unfold our own love, to demonstrate it to him and to others and to God and above all to ourselves, to find for ourselves self-expression in this sublime form. There is thus a form of love in which, however sacrificially it is practised, the other is not seized by a human hand but by a cold instrument, or even by a paw with sheathed talons, and therefore genuinely isolated and frozen and estranged and oppressed and humiliated, so that he feels that he is trampled under the feet of the one who is supposed to love him, and cannot react with gratitude. The great tragedy is that it is perhaps in the sphere of the neighbourly love established and shaped by Christianity, in Christian families and houses and societies and institutions, that we seem to have more frequent and shattering examples of this than in that of the worldly love, courtesy, affability and fellowship which are so much more shallow and undiscriminating, and therefore so much the less exacting. Certainly we have no reason to think that as Christians we have easily escaped from this whole field of inhumanity and its concealment.

The effectiveness of the concealment of this inherent inhumanity by various forms of philanthropy is beyond question. As a rule it is broken only in relatively few individuals, and in the lives of the rest of us only occasionally in comparatively harmless and excusable fo~s. More widespread penetration can be expected at certain times of ~[1S~ Then inhumanity may and can burst every barrier and emerge m kinds of wild and savage forms-to the horror of those who are not directly implicated. The bottom of the steep incline may then be revealed in many p~ople, even in individuals or circles where. w~ wou1~ least expect to see It, Man collectively may take on a ternfymg an

monstrous appearance. But these critical periods usua HI they are followed by periods of relative calm in which ~1J:' .pass, and resumed and these dangerous man1'fest t' ,CIvIlIsed life is · I' a lOns are agam d regar e~ as excep.t lOna, The mhuman element withdraws for the the Wings. We are again ashamed of it We w Id t most part mto the names which it has assumed and' th ou t ra h~r not mention . e even s WhICh b t savagery. T he face of society is again dominated b e ray Its ~acred ~auses and the more or less sacred devotion th y .mo~e Or less lll. the light or half-light which they shed the situat' ey 1n~p1re, And ' appears to be lOnaagam 'becomes fairly and tolerable . It a gam . normal , . pessImIstIc and unjustifiable and di l' . n excIted and certain unsettling but isolated PhenosmrueP Ive exaggeratlOn to point to ' , na as a reason for 't" th t th IS ,a mhuman element is always present· th t 't' mam ammg III these various forms of philanthropy' th t' a 1 IS ~t work even . h ' a every man IS t b III uman; that according to the well-known and a ottom formula of the Heidelberg Catech;sm h . , I' d b mUch contested • e IS Inc llle y nat · , God an.d hIS neIghbour, Those who sa this r ure to hate accusatlOn as troublers of Israel enemie[of the ~ e themselves open to of a genuine inhumanity. Th~ inhuman n um~n :ace, and guilty prophets of t~is kind, lurking, until the nex~t~:ef~:.~t~n us lau~hs at loves to lurk, m the concealment of a good d ' Where It best exercised activity. In the same wa 't a~b necess.ary and solemnly indivi,dual are only the relatively few~~t~;:Pti~e:Sk~/~ the life of ~he ence m the concealment in which its d Its normal eX1stare. remembered as though it had neve;V~:e~ai~~ :~~~ and. a~titudes takmg the very human rather tha 'h ' f e actIVIty now n 1ll uman orm of d t' cause, Everything now seems to be intact and in order ev? IOn to a d agam, so that the charge that everything is really l'n d' d h ' 1sor er an prof dl' .uman, may easl1y be dismissed as irrelevant 1'h oun Y lllhveness of this concealment cannot be to h' h'1 e pOwer and effecY t th 0 19 Y assessed ,e e concealment cannot alter the fact th '. :Vh~ch disguises itself as philanthropy does act 11 at the mhumanity m ItS occasional individual or collective outbur~~s Yb e~e~ge, ,not only other spheres of that which makes a man a man ' u a so m all the If the bond which joins us to our f 11 . , mortally endangered, so too is (r) that ~ ~w-men, IS hazar.ded and We have described the dissolution of our rel~~~nu~ltes ,us WIth God, a~ the necessary consequence of the di I 1" s With Our fellows WIth God. But the folly of man is cau ~s~ u 1O~? ou~ relationship co~verse is also true that stupidity is afw~ 1ll a VICIOUS CIrcle, and the ~~.mhuman~ty. The clear-cut statements ~; : J~ce4s;oary conseq~ence l~ conneXlOn: "If a man say, I love God a ' are ~ppos1te in ~e IS a liar: for he that loveth not his brothe~~~~tet~ hIS brother, ow can he love God whom he hath not seen I " m e hath seen, The relationship of man with his visible fello~- He, canno~ d? so, and as such a relationship with God. But sl'n Gmda~ IShnot m Itself ce 0 IS t e God of his

f

.

l

44 2

2.

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Man

The Sloth of Man

443

forced to adm~t that, however earnestly he may desire or seriously he may attempt It, he cannot actually do so. At the point where it is a matter of God an? His words and acts, where there can and should and must b.e the mtellectus fidei, he is dealing with pure illusions and myths. WIthout one's fellow-man, God is an illusion, a myth. He may be the God of Holy Scripture, and we may call upon Him as the yahweh of Israel ~nd the Father of Jesus Christ, but He is an idol m whom we certamly cannot believe. This is the first thing which no conc.ealment of our inhumanity can alter. Agam, the way leads directly from man's inhumanity (2) to a c?llapse of the structure and order of his human nature as the soul of hIS body, of the order in which he is he himself. Without his fellowman he ca~not b~ that which he would obviously like to be when he WIthdraws mto hImself-he himself in this totality, as the soul of his body. And I cannot and will not be an I without a Thou. If he ~oes .n~t se.e and hear the Thou, the other I which lives in this Thou (m d~stmctI?n from ~ll other objects), the automatic result is that he for hIS part ~s .not senausly accepted and posited as a Thou (and therefor~ as .the hvmg I that he would like to be). How can he accept and POSI~ hImself wh~n by his very: na~ure he ~an be accepted and posited ~s hllHself, as thI~ man., only m hIS co-eXIstence with the other, only m hIS conf:-ontatIO~ WIth hIm? If he will not give himself to this other, he hImself WIther: and perishes. Nor can a preoccupation with causes ,afford any subshtute for that which only his fellow-man can offer hIm-~h~ acceptance and positing of himself. It can do this only whe~ Ir: It he has a concern for man, and not to be free from man. ,If It I~ ~erely an instrument of this concealment he will not find hImself m It; he will lose himself. He will lose both soul and fin.ally bodJ:' ~nd bec~me a mere vehicle of the cause, a wheel which dnves and IS .Itself dnven. He is then submerged in it. It consumes hIm .. But thIS need not happen. The fellow-man in whose company h: mIght come to hi~self is always there. Indeed, he is waiting for hIm. For ~e, too, mlg~t come to himself with him. But the help must be reCIprocal. It IS no use if he is indifferent or hostile to him In the meas~re th~t he is this, he brings about his own undoing. H~ can only achIeve .tns ow~ destruction. He can only live to his death. He. can only be sIck: SICk of the relationship in which he stands but whIch he ~lso lacks because he refuses to fulfil it; sick of his fellow~an who I.S always there but to whom he will not be a fellow. The al truth IS that we are all openly or secretly sick of one another of our mutual refusals, of the isolation in which we each think that' we ~~n hel~ ourselves better without the other, of the pricks or blows h Ith whIch we all try to assert ourselves and only do ourselves more arm than others. In the process it is we primarily who are abused a~d abased. Who among us does not in some way get on the nerves o all others? We should have to take one another to heart if it were

fellow as well as his God, the latter inexorably includes the former. The former is the horizontal line to which the vertical is related and without which it would not be a vertical. In non-mathematical terms, I cannot know and honour and love God as my God if in the words of the Lord's Prayer I do not do so as our God, as the God of the race which He has created, and therefore if I do not also know and honour and love in the appropriate way those who are members of this race as I am. If I choose myself in my isolation from other m~n, eo ipso I enter the sphere of the even more terrible isolation in whIch God can no longer be my God. If they are indifferent. to me, I am involved wittingly or unwittingly in indifference to .H.lm. If I .can despise men, the praise which I may bring ever so wI!lmgly a~d JOYfully to God will stick in my thro~t. If I .merely. explOlt my neIghbour according to my own needs, I wIll ce:-tamly thI~k that I can do the same with God, and it will be my pamful expenence to find that He will not permit this. I have in fact h~ted and despise? and :vounded and attacked God if I have done thIs-not perhaps m actIOns, but " merely" with my words or in my heart-in relation to my brot~er. And if I have not done to him what I ought to have done, eo tpSO I have not done it in relation to God. In short, if I am inhuman, I am also stupid and foolish and godless. The great crisis in which all worship and piety and adoration and prayer. and theology constantly finds itself derives of course from the questIOn whether and how far in these things we really have to do with the t:ue and livin!? God ~ho reveals Himself in His Word, and not with an Idol. But thIS questIOn is decided concretely in practice by another one which is inseparable from it-whether and how far in these things we come bef?r~ G.od together and not apart from and against one anot.her. Tr,:e ~hr.lshamty cannot be a private Christianity, i.e., a rapacIOus Chnshamty. Inhumanity at once makes it a counterfeit Christianity. It is not merely a superficial blemish. It cuts at the v.ery. root ?f the confiden~e and. comfort and joy, of the whole parresta, m whIch we should lIve as Christians, and of the witness which Christianity owes to the world. For all that the lack of faith, or plight of doubt, is so profound and tragic, it has also to be asked whether the doubter has not also to consider how many men he has evaded and rejected, how many he has wounded and tormented, how many he may even have murdered in the sense of the Gospel: an~ w~eth~r he seriously thinks that he can find joy or even ,sohd confidence In hIS faIth In the light of this fact. And if-not wIthout Justice-we usually complam from the Christian angle that the increasing disintegration of human soc:ety IS con~ nected with the great modern apostasy from faith, the counter-question h?,S a.ls to be put whether it may not be the great secularisation and de_humam~atlOn of human life in society which, having been so successfully accomphshe~wItho~; any serious or timely protest on the part of the Church or ChnstIamty, ha necessarily involved the great apostasy from faIth.

If man wills and chooses inhumanity, he can only imagine that ~e can believe and attain to a knowledge of God. After a time he IS

l

444

§ 65· The Sloth and Misery of Man

to be otherwise. But that is the very thing which our inhuman nature will not have. And its lordship triumphs always in the fact that most of all we get on our own nerves. The order of our psychical and physical nature, to which the nerves also belong, is not attuned to the lordship of our inhuman nature. It can only break under it. The price of the self-contradiction in which we involve ourselves with our contradiction of others can only be suffering; the suffering which we heap up to ourselves. And it is a mortal sickness which we give ourselves and from which we necessarily suffer. This is the second thing which the concealment of our inhumanity may conceal but cannot remove. Our inhumanity extends (3) to human life as characterised by its limited temporal duration. "It moves quickly away, as if we fled from it " (Ps. 9010). But how does it move away? The fulness, if there is such, of the time allotted to each of us (our life-time), that which when we have lived our lives will be before God and in His judgment, is our history. Our history? It is ours only as we have lived and experienced and actualised and suffered it together with others, in a stretch of time which is theirs too. It is our history as the history of our relations with our contemporaries in the narrower and wider and widest sense of the term, including the older generation which accompanied us yesterday and the younger which already accompanies us to-day. It is the consecutive series, constituted in our striding from the past, through the present and into the future, of our encounters and fellowship with concrete men, which may directly or indirectly include men of the preceding generation, and often does so, together with those who belong to the age which follows. It is our part, our responsible co-operation, in world history. But if we are guilty of withdrawal, i.e., from our fellow-men, in this history, what are we in our time? What is the meaning of our life? Why have we been given time to live and work? How shall we stand before God and in His judgment? Will this not be brought against us? Will we not be accused? You were no help to me in my history which was interwoven with yours. You ignored me. I was of no interest to you. You disappointed me when I waited for you. You had no time for me. You merely played with me. Or again, you only appeared to help, but in reality harmed me. You led me astray, so that it was only with the greatest difficulty, if at all, that I was able to get back to the right path. You confirmed me in that from which you ought to have kept me. And you kept me from that in which I needed confirmation. Or again, you would not yield to me. In your great righteousness, or simply because you were the stronger, you pushed me to the wall. You humiliated and wounded me. You trampled over me contemptuously and perhaps even derisively, pursuing yo~ own ends. For some reason which I cannot understand you blocke my path. You surrendered and betrayed me. You took from me the

2. The Sloth oj Man dearest that I had. The encounter . 445 we shall certainly have to r d WIth you cost me my life. Yes en er our acco t ' l' ., and we must see to it that th . un s In re abon to others '.\'ill have any real advantag ey arethlD good order. But who of u~ e over e rest? W'll our o,~n burden of accusation? And wh .. 1 we not all have us alllE the only upshot is an a f I fl' at WIll be the net result for Will it have been worth while to\~:vecf.n ~ct of n:utual recriminations? of our time? We have to 'd Ive for thIS fulness, this harvest . conSI er that th . h ' all wills that we should pass 0 t' . e III uman element in us ~ulness, this harvest, of our tim~~ ~~~Ill this ~ay:. It aims at this It conceals this. It hides from u th fakes thIS hIstory. Of Course · s e act that we . t .' t h. IS content. It consoles both itself and . gIVe 0 our tIme kmds of causes which we finel d us WIth the reference to all our time. It covers over the ja~~ th~tully espouse in the course of and even against the other man h .we espouse them apart from t~lis cover it makes our life a histo;; Of 7~lts for us. Openly and under tJe~. Nor will it save this history ~hat ~~e host aJnd wasted o~port1Jni­ whIch we have actually been busy I'th ~s a so been a hIstory in third consequence that we have to c: 'd va.no~. causes.. This is the Here, then, we have the second ansI er In t IS connexlOn. before God in the one Jesus and exa:r~ct ?f the. man who is affirmed God. As seen in the light of th' 0 e hWIth HIm to fellowship with shirker, not only in relation to d~d ~e, t e is ~his slo~hful and wicked God knows him as this sinner I ' ~t al ~o l.n r~latlOn to his fellow. on him, and continues to do;o ~ Spl. e a hIS .s~n,. He. has had pity of raising him up out of h' . h n ~IS reconCIlIatIOn It is a matter n?t know his fellow-man; ~el:i~~~~IZ- h'O~ the one hand, he will hIS murderer. But on the other .IS. eeper (Gen. 49) ; he is truth-he is told as the dI'S . 1 -and thIS IS the greater and final . ' C l p es were by th 0 ne h . III the place of Barabbas (Lk 23 25) . "A' 11 e b w a was Judged . '. ye are rethren" (Mt. 238)

. \Ve WIll again illustrate the situation from th . . it is exposed b t: BIble, and we will choose for o lil1pendmg judgment. We call him the y e prophet Amos in his message the oldest of the so-called writing proph t ~r~Chet, although he is not only ~ne 'hVho in 7 14 expressly refused to be C~l:doa e ~dt Testament but also the .ort ern Israel, where he ministered thi prop e or a prophet's son. In dId not wish to be regarded or aeee t' s could only. mean concretely that he had Its acknowledged representativ~se~:s a suecess~r In the. tradition which had aVon dIstmctive description of himself is a~of~~l~r e~Il"Jn Elz]ah and Elisha. His ~:~he{er ,?f sycomore fruit," and in the title he ::; t I was an h,~rdman, and a el e oa In the Southern state of Judah (II) n ro d uced as the herdman s ~SS, the agricultural proletariat but as h: ~eldoes not come from the peasant s7t a .proprietor. Yet his message ca~not ~: s y ~ ~ee:~ to suggest, he is himno uatIon. "Yahweh took me as I followed t~XP ame" ~shIS social origin and fU~ ~elong to the prophetic class but was enga~e~O~k f (7.). Although he did e Ion whIch seemed to be interchan eabl . m armmg, God gave him a rOhhets (as was recognised by Amazia~ th e ",:'th the speech and action of the \7:h IInself regarded as separate and distin~tn~t of Bethel in 7,101.), but which Weh and in proclamation of His will ad' e, too, speaks m the name of n purpose as the Lord of the historv

t~IS purpose the sin of Israel as

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Man 2.

of Israel. He, too, comes forward with a public denunciation. He, too, appeals directly to visions which he has been granted. Even the fact that his addresses contain warnings is not regarded as anything intrinsically new, as we learn from the account of that interview with Amaziah. vVhat is it then that gives him this consciousness of being out of the ordinary? It is the absolutely direct compulsion by which he is constrained to speak. He does not do so because it was foreseen and prepared in his earlier life, He does so because he is overtaken, as it were, by an impelling force which he cannot escape. "The lion hath roared, who will not fear? the Lord God hath spoken, who can but prophesy," he says himself in 38 at the end of a whole series of metaphors which all describe the same thing-that he is aware of himself only as the effect of an all-powerful cause which objectively is described in the first saying ascribed to him in I': "The Lord will roar from Zion, and utter his voice from Jerusalem." Because and as he must lend his human mouth to this voice, he has to go to Northern Israel and cause trouble in the national sanctuary of Bethel, being advised to leave the country as an undesirable alien (7 1Of .). His appearance is not just a continuation of the previous history of the country, but marks a critical turning-point which is no less surprising to himself than others. But there is a second peculiarity closely bound up with the first. This is that his message is so unequivocally a message of judgment. The evil which he proclaims is definitive and total. It is the destruction of the whole kingdom and nation and people of Northern Israel. As we read in Z13f. at the beginning of the book: "Behold, I will press the ground under you, as a cart is pressed that is full of sheaves. Therefore the flight shall perish from the swift, and the strong shall not strengthen his force, neither shall the mighty deliver himself : neither shall he stand that handleth the bow; and he that is swift of foot shall not deliver himself: neither shall he that rideth the horse deliver himself. And he that is courageous among the mighty shall flee away naked in that day, saith the Lord." And theJ;! again at the end in 9 8 & and 10: "Behold, the eyes of the Lord God are upon the sinful kingdom, and I will destroy it from off the face of the earth.... All the sinners of the people shall die by the sword, which say, The evil shall not overtake nor prevent us." The evil has not yet come. Amos speaks two years before the earthquake, as we learn from words in the introduction which are surely not without significance (1 1). But it is ineluctably determined and it draws inexorably near. The warnings given by the previous judgments of Yahweh had all been in vain: "Yet hath ye not returned unto me, saith the Lord" (five times in 4 8 f.). Amos had even entreated God for the " small" people Jacob. And" the Lord repented for this: It shall not be, saith. the Lord." This was the result of the first two visions in 7lf . and 7 4f . But then the result of the third is: "I will not again pass by them any more: and the high places of Isaac shall be desolate, and the sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste; and I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword" (7't.)· The result of the fourth is similar: "The end is come upon my people of Israel: I will not again pass by them any more, And the songs of the temple sh~ll ~e howlings in that day, saith the Lord God: there shall be many dead bodies ill every place; they shall cast them forth with silence" (Slf.). So, too, is ~hat of the fifth: "I saw the Lord standing upon the altar: and he said, Smite the lintel of the door, that the posts may shake: and cut them in the head, all of them; and I will slay the last of them with the sword; he that fleeth of them shall not flee away, and he that escapeth of them shall not be delivered. Though they dig into hell, thence shall mine hand take them; though they climb up !o heaven, thence will I bring them down. And though they hide themselves l~ the top of Carmel, ~ will search and take them out thence; and though they ~ hid from my Sight III the bottom of the sea, thence Will I command t~e serpen and he shall bite them ... and I will set mine eyes upon them for eVil, and no

t

The S'loth of Man

a d " ( If) , all summed up in 447 or bOO 9 ' , It IS t".' . h II an IClpatlOn 1ll the lament of 5 2 1. : " The virgin of Israel is fallen' h . , s e s a no more nse' h ' f her land; there is none to raise h r "Th " s ;' 1S orsaken upon and the voice of the herdrnan of ;'e~~~ is e roanng of yahweh from Zion, \nd none of the recognised prophet p . 't ~hat thiS 1S 1rrevocably resolved. U,jah, s nor o. mas had ever said this, not even i

But the third and decisive peculiarit, f' , and this is what makes it particularlv i~t~ren~s message consIsts in the factS context-that the accusation whicl h h t mg and relevant m our present and which is the reason for his proc:am:ti:~o~ ,make agamst Northern Israel, crete and specific Onl\' a centu 'h d Judgment, IS so one-SIdedly con.," • ~ TV as passe Slllce th b' tt ' Llljah and Ahab and Jezebel b t th r ' h . e 1 er conihct between which then triumphed on so wideua f o~te ~r~y a mentIon of the Baal-cult relevance? At any rate, Amos is n:t in' an a t 1S problem ceased to have any concerned, like his younger contem orar y _way concerned WIth It. Nor is he

'k

high politics which are contrary to tbe y IsaIah, ":'th actlOns m the field of of similar actions? It is not on th' covetllahnt. Was JerOboam II not guilty " 1S accoun owever that A I ' c('rtam and 1mminent and total d t t" f ' mas proc alms the , es ruc Ion 0 Israel N " h' , dm;cted (except perhaps tacitly) against the. . ,- or IS. IS accusatlO.n monarch, It is simply and solel th . h person 01' mternal policy of thiS obtaining in this kingdom which so ;erio~s:~a~~lamty of the SOCIal relationships Amos-and in the first instance Yah 1 h' rtdlcallyand blatantly challenges to it only His wrath, and the outpou~~ 1 o:~el -that there can be proclaimed mined and menacingly impends and t~ d'S ~vrath as It IS Irrevocably deterquence. His accusation-the re~son for ~hen thO the ~atIon as 1tS final consethat direct urgency and that b _ assin a ~s reat as It IS laId on his lips with with astonishing exclusiveness ~p~n th~ ~nethe prophetIc tradltlOn-is focused h pomt that m th1S state one man does not live and deal with oth Yahweh; that wrong is done o~rst:s he ought to do according to the will of e and therefore on the vertical level of th onz~~tal level of human relationships, to Yahweh Himself as the Creator and L~r~e a Io~sh1P of the people of Yahweh and their disciples had never spok 'th' of Its hIstory. The earher prophets a new character even for himself fr~~~he 'f:,;;;;arr; The ~rophecy of Amos acquires and-apart from the commission of Y h h at he refuses the role of a prophet only as a herdman and a gatherer of a we -wants to appear and to be heard Yahweh as the God of the fellow-m syco~o~e fr~'ts. In other words, he proclaims oppressed by man, and as the Av an w 0 as ,een wronged and humiliated and Implacable action by what has beeen~er w~o hhas been. challenged to direct and shawn to be the decisive matter in none 0 ,1m, It IS to be noted that this is ~gainst the neighbouring states_~~~~~plamt;fmade In the ,first two chapters Edomites (I"1.) the Am 't (13f) cus (I 'J, the Ph1listmes (I 6f.) the f ur , m o m es I . and the M a b't (If J ' ';?h transgressions of these other nations all consist I;S 2 " The three, 'yes ey are not in covenant with y , In 0 e?ces agamst humamty,

~~~~~~~do~\~~~r

\~i11,

~~k:e~~r:e~\~~;~a~r:i~~~:~On~fi~es]'~dbg:~~~

nt'ghteous and ransgresslOn m thiS respect B t th h and concentrated form only wh 't' d' u e c arge acquires sharp form that it dominates the Whol:: ' 1S ,ma e agamst Israel, and it is in this 11 t As It is uttered w'th th' , 0 ec IOn of pronouncements made by Amos. SOmething entirelylnew IsThone-sldedness and emphasis, the protest of Amos is gIven'm th e B 00 k s of Kmgs ' e presentatIOn P . repare us for the d, . , does not 1t has obviously ac~u~~~~~~~e~:of thfs as a reason for the wrath of Yahweh as an imminent threat h' 1 er a ong penod but has now suddenly become I? Isaiah, but in his'::a~ce\~~~n~~lbe averted. Certainly we find the same strand ~ounger prophet of Northern Isr Yl o~ amo~g many. It IS not omitted by the Irected elsewhere, The note sOl~:cied ~se~ ut the mam attention of Hosea is propheCY_and sometimes very loudly y Bm:Sthoccurs agam and again in later . u e remarkable feature of the

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Man

2.

message of Amos as the first to sound it is that his accusation is confined to this strand. That is why we cannot fail to hear him. That is why his particular contribution to the biblical message is that the affair of God is the affair of man; the affair of the fellow-man who is so severely and constantly hurt by man, and so inflexibly and relentlessly championed and defended by God. In the history of the active exposition of the Bible it is not for nothing that on the one hand Amos has been so frequently neglected and that on the other he has been the classical biblical witness for all the movements in which the conscience of the Church has been reawakened in this direction, and therefore to a repudiation of the base and dangerous overlooking of this basic element in Christian truth and the revealed Word of God Himself. The middle of the 8th century, in which the accusation of Amos was made, was not a time of war or crisis, On the contrary, it was for both the Northern and Southern kingdoms (d. M. Noth, Geschichte Israels, 195 0 , pp. 216 f.) a kind of golden age-the period of restoration after their long oppression by the Aram<eans, who had succumbed to the Assyrians about 800 B.C. It is true that according to 2 K. 14231. Jeroboam II fell under the stereotyped judgment passed on all the Northern rulers. He had done that which was not pleasing to Yahweh, and had not separated himself from the sin of the first Jeroboam, which according to I K. 12351. had consisted in the institution of a separate cult of Yahweh before images of bulls erected in Bethel and Dan. Yet the same passage acknowledges his services in the recovery of Israel's former territory (from Hamath to the sea of the plain) and the military skill and valour which he had demonstrated in this achievement. Indeed, it is expressly said that Yahweh did not will to " blot out the name of Israel from under heaven: but he saved them by the hand of Jeroboam the son of Joash." This relatively happy state of political affairs must be considered together (M. Noth, p. 1 89) with a certain high-watermark in a development which had begun already in the time of David and Solomon-that of a civic life modelled on the customs of the Canaanites, and the corresponding civilisation, the emergence of trade and commerce, the beginning of a monetary economy, and the consequent creation of distinctions between those who were economically, and then socially and politically, strong and those who were weak. This is the situation in which the Lord roars from Zion and the herdman of Tekoa speaks. Is he merely voicing the resentment of the older farming community against this modern development as such? As an educated countryman he might well have seen how mistaken it was far more clearly than those who had a direct part in it. But his accusation is far too basic and radical to be understood merely in terms of this kind of opposition. The prophet is not a statesman or sociologist. We must remember this if we are to understand his denunciation. For it means that, apart from a few flagrant instances, the evils of the situation as Amos censured them were not perhaps quite so palpable and blatant as his actual words might seem to suggest. To their own and our advantage and disadvantage, politicians and sociologists do not usually see visions. But a prophet does. And this means that in the historical reality around him he not only sees what is obvious and characterises it as any other critical and far-seeing observer might do. He is also given to see with the eyes of God, and he therefore sees to the bottom of things, and therefore gives them the name which they might not have, or generally have, in their external appearance, but which they have at root, in the light of the dominating factor in them, so that if they do not deserve the name according to human righteousness, they certainly do so according to the righteousness of God. It is for this reason that Amos stands under aIIIl compulsion, which is also as snch his prophetic freedom, to foresee and procl their inevitable consequence-the judgment to which they irresistibly move. How could Amos have been a prophet (the prophet who did not wish to be a prophet) if his picture of the present and future had not stood in opposition to

t~e

The Sloth of Man

the more. harmless or equivocal piC . t ures which . 449 a t have e contemporary might , pamted of the same sl'tuat'lOn, or any pragmnyt' acn h' t ' , a IC IS orlan might still form of It, On the level of ordinary h from the fact that he spoke th ~man0er~eption and thought and speech (apart :lOd is guaranteed only by the ~u~~~en~r of God), the truth of his vision was year 7 . It is in this sense theref thOft all that he had seen and said in the saw. 22 ' ore, a we have to ask what it was that he He saw first the prosperity and even lux . exploited that development and . d ury enjoyed by the circles which means of it. He saw their accumacqlutlred power .and authority and influence by . d i U a e possessIOns (310) th' h . , e l r ouses of hewn .,tone an peasant vineyards (5 11 ) th winter and summer (315) and th I' . ehconvemence of separate residences for ' .' e aVIs ness of th' f . h' " elr 15urillS mgs, espeCially the com ortable divans (312 and 6i) a n d th . i f had already so extravagantly aff t de (ivoKry-work (3 and 6 ) that king Ahab 22 39 ) H th , , ec e 1 rec mmg at their meals He sa d h . . e saw em luxuriously I . ' . w an eard tho "th t h t the VIOl,. and mvent to themselves son s li se.. a c ar: to the sound of and anomt themselves with tIle ch' f g, t ke David,il that drink wme in bowls ., Ie om ments" (6 .) H ' asan on the mountain of Sa . 1 . e saw the " kine of B the fat and greasy wives of thesema:~~a~4(~, namely, the ladies of this society, Propheten, 19 16 , p. 129), who sa t~ their 0 use th~ ~ords of B. Duhm, Israels Do. we really hear in these desrriPtions ,~~~ba~ds. . Bring, and let us drink." customs ... his opposition to new w e c ~mplOn of the old and simple I3 )? Is Amos to be hal'l d ays and foreign extravagance" (Duhm p 0 'I' e as a precursor of J J R ' . t lese thmgs are severely denounced and th . , . ous~ea.u ? Or when all they contested in the sense of modern ref reatened with dlvme Judgment, are luxury, gluttony and drunkenness . ormmg movements directed against studies)? This is certainly implied (a~ I~t.~rpreted by L. Ragaz in his biblical hardly one of these charO'es stand~ al; I IS to b~ noted that in the text itself Amos saw that all this s"trl' , ne or has mdependent significance If . vmg was condemned d . . an rejected by God, it was b ecause It constituted the folly of h t' 6 6 h for which this society has no conce: ~utl~h' e calls" the affliction of Joseph," or unconsciously, it has helped to cause an Ich directly or mdlrectly~ consciously fate of those for whom this golden h ~ to bring about; the situation and who were defrauded and oppressed a~e no rewards, who were its victims e abhor the excellency of Jacob and h t Yhihos who exploited it. Hence: "i N" , a e s palaces" (6 8 ) o pIcture IS given of the situation of . ness to offset the description of the lif t~os: who are oppressed and in darkattacks, however, we can see how the e 0 t e well-to-do. From the various ;te darkness by those who enjoyed th~ ~i~r::: t~~~ I?u~~ed more an.d more into . mas, and, according to his messa e Y . . I~ IS e pomt which concerns oppression .of those who are less fa:o~redahweh Himself. It is because of this further their own interest and in th . ' ~nd therefore ,;eaker, by those who thd.t God looks down in jud m t elr grea er glory constitute a higher society sentence of death. What is t~e :~ve:;'~d .must bring. this whole people under \/Yhat is the foundation of this pro d sl~e of all thiS prosperity and success? man is sold as a slave because he u : n ambitious structure? A righteous v~lue of a pair of shoes (2 6 ). Th~an~~n~e~:em.adebt~ and a poor man for the ~I\~ fines on defaulting tenants Yand they es;I~\w~~Ch they have purchased .0 es (28). The innocent are harassed (12 . re c emselves upon pawned crushed (for which the fine ladies of 1 5 ), the weakoppressed, and the needy are pushed to the wall and their he ~ are ~~t~er cUriously blamed). The sick 7 ~:caslOn for this kind of conduct mu~t IS ro e m the dust (2 ). A particular b hleh seemed to have been cornered b :a~:,offere~ Itsel~ m the wheat market, ,~rdened and cheated by all kinds or tri ,and m whIch the consumers were ~ making the ephah small and the h kC~s masqueradmg as honest dealino-s Y deceit," 8 5 ), and the d see great,. and falsifying the pro Hcers by all kmds of exactions (5 11 ). The

t

s~all

C.D. IV-2-15

balanc~s

45 0

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery oj Man

2.

inhabitants of Assyria and Egypt should come and see all these things, cries Amos: "Assemble yourselves upon the mountains of Samaria, and behold the great tumult in the midst thereof, and the oppression in .the midst thereof. For they know not to do right, saith the Lord, who store up vIOlence and robbery. in their palaces" (3 9f .). . . . . • And now there follows what is ObvIOusly the decIsive characteristic of the situation as it is seen in the message of Amos. There is no actual law to restrain the great and protect the poor. There is, of course, a traditional, and perhaps even to some extent a written, code. There are also Judges: In every town there is the " gate"-the open place within the city gate where markets were held and where on certain days there was the opportumty for complalllts to be laid before leading citizens appointed to hear them. But of what value was this when the" gate" was the very place where the poor were oppressed (5 12 ) ? when the justice which was sought was turned to wormwood (5') and even poison (6 12) ? when those who administered it took bribes (5 12 ) ? when they were the very ones against whom justice was demanded? or wh~n there was ~o wish to lose their favour, and it was known only too well that they hate him that 1o rebuketh in the gate, and they abhor him that speaketh uprightly" (5 )? Perhaps 513 refers to a cautious man of this kind who is uneasy about the whole matter: "Therefore the prudent shall keep Silent III that time; for It IS an evI! time." At any rate, there can be no doubt that the .voice of J:ighteousness is not heard even, and especially, at the gate; that might take~ precedence of right. \Vho, then, is to help the poor? Amos knows that eve.n III hIS day t~ere are obviously men of God in Samaria who might be conSidered III this connexl.on : " And I raised up of your sons for prophets, and of your young men for Nazantes. Is it not even thus, 0 ye children of Israel? saith the Lord" (2 11). But even this voice has been silenced: "But ye gave the Nazarites wine to drink; and commanded the prophets, saying, Prophesy not" (2 12 )-the very same. order as was given to Amos himself. Thus Yahweh alone was left as the Fnend and Champion and Helper and just Judge of t~e weak ::nd poor who had suffered through this development-no, through the mhumamty of man to man. I,~ was with His commission and in His name that Amos appeared III Samana: The Lord hath sworn by the excellency of Jacob (and therefore by Himself), Surely I will never forget any of their works" (8'). . . Yahweh Himself l But are there not centres of Yahweh worship III Israel--:13 especially the monarchy and the national shrine at Bethel (7 )? It is at this point that the accusation of Amos gai~s its full and final sharpness. ~t should be noted that his famous polemiC agalllst the cult III Northern Is~ael IS hard~y directed at all against its obvious syncretistic decadence. He certalllly saw this. But it was not his present concern. It is recalled only in the tilt at temple prostitution in 2' (for in 5 26 : "Siccuth your king, and Chiun the star of your 29f god," we seem to have a later addition, since according to 2 K. 17 • thes~ were the gods of the foreigners who settled III the country after the fall 0 Samaria). Even the bull-images of Yahweh set up by Jeroboam I do not figur~ in the attacks of Amos. He took the cult of Northern Israel as a serious cult o. Yahweh even in the form in which he found it. And he attacked it as suc~ , as usus and not in the light of an abusus. The truth was that the whol~ Ini humanity and injustice of Samarian society allied itself, not with a wors~P a gods or idols, but quite decor~usly wi~h the worship of Yahweh; that It : : concealed and legitimated by this worship; that It was from the shnne of Yah. . that the message of 7 10 could be sent by the high-priest Amaziah to the klllg " Amos hath conspired against thee in the midst of the house of Israel: ~he la~e is not able to bear all his words," and that Amos himself could be given hee command which almost sound like an entreaty: "0 thou seer, go, fle~ \ut away into the land of Judah, and there eat bread, and prophesy ther~. t' ns ca prophesy not again any mon' at Bethel" (7 12f .). These were the commum 10

d

The Sloth of Man

45 1

of an ecclesiastic (not a heathen ecclesiastic, but a representative of the Church of Yahweh) who obviously regarded as self-evident the union not only of throne and altar (the altar of Yahweh) but also of mammon and altar. It is because of thii alliance, because of the fact that the evil is masked by the good, the unholy by the holy, that Amos is even more severe in his condemnation of Samarian religion than in that of Samarian worldliness, proclaiming the pitiless judgment of God which will overtake this society not although, but just because, it is so religious a society. "Come to Bethel; and transgress; at Gilgal multiply transgressions; and bring your sacrifices every morning, and your tithes on the third day. And offer a sacrifice of thanksgiving with leaven, and proclaim and publish the free offerings: for this liketh you, 0 ye children of Israel" (4 4f .). What is the verdict of the One in whose worship and to whose glory all this is done? "I hate, I despise your feast days, and I will not smell in your solemn assemblies. Though ye offer me burnt offerings and your meat offerings, I will not accept them: neither will I regard the peace offerings of your fat beasts. Take away from me the noise of your songs; for I will not hear the melody of your viols" (5 211.). Yahweh is not dependent on their Yahweh-worship; He led Israel in the wilderness without Israel bringing any sacrifices (5 25 ). But their Yahweh-worship is dependent upon Yahweh. It can be offered only in fulfilment of His will and not to conceal its inversion. If it is offered only for the purpose of this concealment, it would be better not offered at all. This is what is meant when Amos says: "Seek ye me, and ye shall live : but seek not Bethel, nor enter into Gilgal, and pass not to Beersheba" (5 41 .). Seek me, however, means" Seek good, and not evil, that ye may live: and so the Lord, the God of hosts, will be with you, as ye have spoken" (5 14 ). "Hate the evil, and love the good, and establish judgment in the gate: it may be that the Lord God of hosts will be gracious unto the remnant of Joseph" (5 15 ). "Let judgment run down as waters, and righteousness as a mighty stream" (5 24 ). This is what has to be done, and because it was not done Israel's worship of Yahweh, far from compensating the unrighteousness of its life, demanded His wrath and judgment. He did not need the stream of their gifts; what was required was that they should exercise righteousness to their fellows. "Yahweh will not be worshipped, but will destroy, those who have no regard for justice" (Duhm, up. cit., p. 133). Finally, they hope for a" day of Yahweh"; for the fulfilment of His promise a" the Lord of the covenant which He has made with them, His people, in the lllauguration of a glorious age which will surpass, with God's help, even the prosperity which they already enjoy. Well, God has not forgotten that He is thE: Lord of the covenant, and that as such His promise must be kept. On the contrary, is He not accusing and threatening" the whole family which I brought up from the land of Egypt" (3 1 ) I-as He also brought the Philistines from Caphtor and the Syrians from Kir (9'). He can say indeed: "You only have I known of all the families of the earth," but it is for this very reason that He must also add: "Therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities" (3 2 ). The very grace which has been addressed to them and which they have rejected will necessarily be their judgment. That day will come, but it will be a very different day from what they think. It will come as a day of the judgment of God which Will necessarily fall on them with a final severity just because they are His people. Therefore, " woe unto you that desire the day of the Lord! to what end is it for you? the day of the Lord is darkness, and not light. As if a man did flee from a lion, and a bear met him; or went into the house, and leaned his hand on the wall. and a serpent bit him. Shall not the day of the Lord be darkness, and not hght? even very dark, and no brightness in it ? " (5 l8f ·). According to Amos, God has no other answer to the inhumanity of man than that it can only be, and has already been, rejected like his stupidity. God Would have to be unfaithful to Himself, and to the covenant with man which

45 2

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of 11Ian

He has made in His covenant with Israel, if He were to withdraw or even weaken this answer. He maintains the covenant by placing the inhumanity of man under His merciless denunciation and the judgment which remorselessly engulfs it.

3. Again we begin with the statement that in the existence of the man Jesus we have to do with the true and normal form of human nature, and therefore with authentically human life. He lives according to the Spirit even as He is flesh. This means concretely that He lives wholly to God and His fellow-man. He lives, therefore, in one long exaltation, purification, sanctification and dedication of the flesh, i.e., of the human nature which we know only as flesh, only in its' abnormal form, only in its decomposition. His life is its normalisation. It is thus the man who has come to himself who encounters us in Him; the man who is at peace with himself as the soul of his body. He lives in the unity intended for the human creature, in the relationship of soul and body ordained in conformity with our nature. He Himself is wholly soul and wholly body. And both as soul and body He is wholly Himself, the soul of His body in its free control, the body of His soul in its free service. He is man as we are, but in this royal freedom: not, of course, in a freedom which He has attained, or which has been lent or given Him; but originally, in His own freedom. He has His life in Himself. He fashions and normalises it. It is thus His own life which He both lives and can and does also offer as a free gift for us men in obedience to the will of God. He makes it a life for God and us, and therefore an incomparable life as His life in His time. He comes from the Spirit and lives according to the Spirit. The Spirit is not, therefore, an alien Spirit, but His own Spirit, in which He is flesh, and exalts and purifies and sanctifies and dedicates the flesh. Again we are forced to say that this is true only of Him, the Son of Man, who is also the Son of God; and that in this respect He is exalted above all other men. But in this way it is God's valid and effective direction for us which we meet in Him. In a man like ourselves there confronts us the truth of our nature, the sanctity and dignity and right of man, the glory of human life. If, therefore, we receive His Spirit, we know ourselves in Him as those who are elected and created and determined for existence in the truth of His human nature, for an authentically human life. . But in this respect, too, we are those who, confronted by HIm, refuse to be those we already are in Him, hesitating to make use of the freedom of the Spirit in the flesh which we are given in H~m. Inactive where we ought to be stirred to action, we remain in a bemg as flesh without spirit, and therefore in a state of disorder, living our lives accordingly. We may describe this-in keeping with the force of the two terms "stupidity" and "inhumanity" which we have already used-as a life of dissipation. This is the third form of the sloth in which we withdraw into ourselves instead of existing as those we already are in and by that One.

2.

The Sloth of Man

453

Here again, we must first maintain the futility of this form of withdrawal.. The normalisation of our nature, the event of the glory of human hfe, has taken place once and for all in Jesus. This man who in royal freedom is the soul of His body lives-and lives as our Lord and Head and Representative. His direction is issued and it comes to us all. It cannot be reversed. No dissipation of ours can form an absolute contradiction to it. His direction has reference to that to which we are elected and created and determined as men' to ourselves as God irrevocably and from all eternity wills to have us: It summons us to be those we originally are. We cannot be destroyed or expunged as such. We can certainly interrupt God's purpose. But ~e c3;n do so only as we involve ourselves in self-contradiction. DissipatIOn mvol.ves waste or neglect, and a resultant disorder, discord and degeneratIOn. But we cannot degenerate to such an extent that we cease to be that which God has created us-men. We can live as thoui?h we were either mere spirits or mere animals or plants-dissipation mvolves both-but we cannot actually be spirits or animals or plants.
454

§ 65· The Sloth and Misery of Man

God. And he does this by his own choice. He lets himself go. He lets himself be pushed. Where he himself can and should be. moving and pushing, he allows himself to be moved and pushed. ThIs means that he falls. He suffers a mishap. But it does not come upon him as a fatality. He brings it about himself by letting himself fall. Sin as sloth, in this particular form of dissipation, is indiscipline. To live as an authentic man would mean to keep oneself disciplined, to remain at the height to which one belongs as a man, to be what one is as a man even at the cost of severity against oneself. But it is here that (from this point of view) the great refusal tak.es place. In every ?ne of us-and we cannot seek him deep enough III ourselves-there IS a vagabond who will not accept discipline, and therefore will. not ex.ercise it in relation to himself, however gladly he may do so III relatIOn to others. He prefers to receive permissions rather than co.mmands, and because he regards himself as the supreme court he hves-the basic vagabond-by giving himself permissions rather th~n commands. But this involves a disruption of the unity in which he IS a man. He disintegrates. His soul and body begin to go. their separate. ways. His soul will no longer control his body, nor hIS body obey hIS soul. The two not only contradict one another in their mutual relationship, but also, refusing their distinct function in this relationship, contradict their own essence as the two integrated elements of human nature. If the dissipated man wills, as he does, to be without spirit, he has entered on the irresistible way on which he will finally be soulless and bodiless; the way which can lead only to death.. . Here again, we have to do with a decision ~rom WhICh we come I.n the details of what we do and do not do. It IS a matter of the baSIC perversion of the human will which precedes all th~ great ~nd lit~le aberrations which are possible, necessary and actual III the h?ht of I~, and in which it takes concrete form. What takes place III man s detailed aberrations reflects the dissipation which in its original fo~, in its bitter root, is nothing other than the disobedience of m~n, hIS unbelief, his ingratitude, his enmity against the grace of God dlr.ected to him, the transgression of its law. This transgressio~ as such IS the law which all his thoughts and words and works Will more or less ..' obviously follow. . We do not underline this in order to see the. practIcal dIsSIpatIOn of human life as a perhaps exculpating and atoning destin~. . To do so would be particularly inappropriate at a point where It IS a matter of our dealings with ourselves, and therefore of the neglect of our most direct responsibility. It has to be realised, however, that the dissipation of what we do and do not do has its efficacy from t~e fact that we want to be, although we are not, those who can .e~st only in a profoundly. and diversely dissipated activity and inactI~ty~ It was in the same lIght that we had to understand the ung?dhne~f and inhumanity of man. Everything would be so fine and SImple 1

2.

The Sloth of Man

455

to set. both ourselve.s and others on our feet we had only to indicate the vIleness and guilt of our carnal thought and speech and action, the deep unnaturalness of our enterprises and achievements in that dualism of soul and body, and the d~gnity of a life lived in the unity and wholeness marked out for us; If we had only to enlighten both ourselves and others, and call us all to order. This enlightenment and call to order is something that we can and should seek both for ourselves and others. But the power of sin in this form is greater than that of. any a~m?nition o~ this kind. The :vhole history of morality (mcl~dmg ChnstIan moralIty) ~as always tned to be a history of this partICular appeal, of warfare III the name of the spirit against the t1esh (as was thought), of the conflict for man himself, for his exaltation and preservation and against his disintegration and decline. Yet it is a fa.ct that: superior to all morality, his sloth is continually reenacted III contIllually fresh manifestations in this form; that the vagabond in us can always merrily escape the discipline which is brought to bear on him; that even the reference to the ruinous nature o~ his action never. seems to make any serious or final impression on lum. The appeal IS finely made, perhaps, but it does not stick or penetrate.. ~n th~ contrary, it se.ems to be defeated already by the power of SIll III thIS form, so that It cannot gain a foothold even with ~he ?est of moral teachi~g. It is an unfortunate and supremely IrratIonal fact, but one whIch we have obviously to see and to try to understand, that man himself, even as he makes this appeal to him~elf or others,.eve~as he seriously participates in the history of morality, m that conflIct, IS the lazy and dissipated creature who sinks back into himself and hates and shuns discipline; that in relation to hims~lf n.o ~ess ~har: to God and his fellows he is sinful man. That is why hIS diSSIpatIOn IS so powerful. That is why the appeal against it is so feeble and ineffective. How can human dissipation be arrested when in the first instance it is at work in the man who tries to make the moral appeal to himself and others, when he himself is one who in this respect wills what he ought not to will and does not will what he ough~? If we do not realise this, especially in relation to ourselves, then Ir: f~ce ~f that unfortunate and irrational fact we can only take refuge III IllUSIOns or throw up our hands and finally give up in despair. The power of human dissipation, like that of human stupidity and Inhumanity, is so great because man himself is no less dissipated than stupid and inhuman. It is from this source, from within ourselves that our sloth draws its inexhaustible strength in this form too. That :Which is born of the flesh, and thought and said and chosen and done In the flesh, can only be flesh, and cannot overcome the flesh even tho~gh ~t may have the character of a most serious and sharp protest agamst It. It is to this as the source of evil that we must also look if we are to realise from this standpoint the dangerous nature of sin. We are

456

§ 65, The Sloth and Misery of Man

2.

again asking concerning the ~nner dan~er which is th~ ba~is .of its awful effectiveness. From this standpomt, as we consIder It m the form of man's dissipation, we have to say especially that it has a power which is released by man but itself enslaves h,im. We usually admit with some astonishment that the vagabond m ourselves and others is interesting to us; that he captivates us; that he fascinates and bewitches us; in a word, that he has power over us. If we examine the matter more closely, we find that it is the power of an inclination which we allow ourselves to follow. This is a serious matter because it is actually the case that its power leads to a disarmament of man and therefore to a supreme disinclination. But we are not aware of this. We do not want to be aware of it. More will have to be said about this later. In the first instance it is a power which is at work; the power of a definite inclination. It might be. compared to ~he impulse of many children completely to take to pIeces a toy whIch they are given, to divide it up into its constituent parts,. an?, of. course, to make it quite useless. But do we not have ~n mc~natI?n-an irresistible inclination-to do this? We are all chIldren m thIS way. It is our pleasure-and this is the awful positive element in what we have called our indiscipline-to decompose our human nature. We promise ourselves a certain .satisfacti~n in doin? this. We think that we are particularly human m our deSIre to do It. , It may be that we relieve our soul of its office as the ruler and guardIan and preserver of our body so that, freed from the material concerns ~nd problems .of the body, it may wander and hover and flyaway o.n ItS own, IneVItably it seems desirable to us to lead what we consIder to .be a purely spiritual or inward life; to build a new and, as we ,think, e~e:nal house in an academic world of thought or an <esthetIc or religIOUS world of dreams; to look, if possible, wholly to the thi!1gs which are invisible and as little as possible to those which are visible. This possibility can appear very fine and tempting? and the desire to gra.sp it very noble. It is only if we do not know It that we do not realIse its power, When we give way to. it, w,e will not .so eas~ly accept the fact that it is the power of an evIl desIre; that It too IS only ~ :particular form of the lust of this world; that it is a form of our dISSIpation; that it is sloth and therefore sin. Why should it not be hol~ ? On the other hand, it may be that we release our body from the serVIce of our soul and give it free rein to pursue its own impulses and ~eeds. Surely it is desirable that we should grant it its sovereignty and nghts, that in a true honesty and realism and self-acknowledgement we shou.ld express ourselves confidently and uninhibitedly in this way ~ ThI~, too, can appear fine and tempting, and the desire to grasp, thIS pOSSIbility justifiable, or at any rate strong. If we do ,not know It, or kno: it closely, we must not conclude to,o r~shly that It :las no power. have only to acquaint ourselves WIth It to learn dIfferently. Sensu desire, carnal lust, worldliness? Evil lust ? The outworking of human

.":.1

The Sloth of Man

457

dissipation, sloth and sin? A protest may be lodged aga1' t d fi . , . th' W· ns e mng It m IS way. hy should It not be holy even in this form? But of course, these are only extreme possibilities which are seldom 'f ' li d' . 1 ever rea se m practIce. The vagabond within us usually hovers Some~here bet~een the two. One moment he goes off as a liberated soul mto the helg~ts; the next as a liberated body into the depths, Indeed, ~e does not Just do one or the other. He does both at once. In what IS perhaps the supreme a~d mo.st refined form of desire, he darts from the one to ~he o.ther, toymg WIth both at once, denying himself here and confessmg hImself there, confessing himself here and denying h' _ self there, putting forth his attractions now in the one form and 1m in the ~the:, and del(loying his power to the full in this coquet~~~ da.nce '.'l1th ItS aln:ost,mnumerable variations, When man has released thIS. p~wer, .and IS hImself enslaved by it, how can he ever be free agam, It IS dangerous because, in the one form or the other l't . th ' deSlre ' of the heart which exercises a distinctive , IS . e power 0 f a genume co~trol over man, but also proceeds from within him. We must also pomt finally ~o the fact that in this form too, as the desire of one ~wakens and mfla~es that ?f .ot~ers, sin is infectious and propagates Itself, Ra~her cunously, thIS IS J,ust because it is so expressly in this form the sm .of weakness. To yIeld on the one side or the other, to let .go the rems, and then to take them up again and let them go ~gam, merely ~or the sake ~: change and because of a new attraction, ~s ~ot for nothmg the mos.t popular" form of sin; the one in which It IS known to a,ll of us dIrectly. In relation to this form we will all u.sually confes~, If we ,must, that we too are sinners, and perhaps great smners. Bu~ m relatIOn ,to 'it, because it is so common, we think that we can readIly find forgIveness, and even that it is assured to us in adv:ance, We are all. of u~ human. We do not realise what we are saymg when we talk m thIS way. We are in the process of denying and dest:oying. and dissipating ourselves as men. We are busily engaged m se~tmg up our own caricature. We are sawing off the branch on whIch we sit, Yet it is true enough that we cannot reproach one another in this respect. The one can take comfort in the fact that the other is at least not much better and probably much \~orse, .We a,re all ali~e at this point. The only trouble is that when \\e realIse thIS we thmk that we are justified in doing what we see others do. And so the one calls and draws the other after him. one At this ~oint we are reminded of the host of the damned plunging down in th . great clIngmg mass of flesh as portrayed by Michelangelo and Rubens in so eIr pIctures of the Last Judgment, But we may also wonder how they dared fro self-e:ndently to oppose to them a host of saints who were obviously excepted rea~ thiS attachment to the flesh and its lusts and corruption, Is there any !llen (and not merely pamted) samt who can say that he is free from this attachof t~ and therefore knows that he does not participate in this downward plunge the e mass of all flesh? Is not the true samt distinguished from the false by fact that-without taking comfort or finding forgiveness in consequence_

45 8

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Man

he too must confess that he is one with the rest, and that he as little, or even less, deserves anything but this plunge as any habitual sinner, however great or small? Is it not the false saint who thinks that he can so easily separate himself from this mass?

We live indeed in the solidarity before God and with one another in which, fused together by the power of weakness, we do actually live in dissipation, in negligence, in the more spiritual or material desire of the flesh, and therefore in the childish destruction of the dignity of our human nature, but in which we make the foolish boast, as though it made everything good, that we are all of us human. Yet we can see that this is futile, that it merely represents the mortal danger to which we expose ourselves, in which we are indeed already involved, only as we see the origin of our desire, only as we know the source at which it is evil; the place at which it consists in the fact that we are too lazy to follow the movement of God which lifts us up, that instead we let ourselves sink and fall. Fall into what? Into our graceless being for ourselves. It is there in our own heart that death is already enthroned. It is from this point that there necessarily follows our mortal dissipation, just as it is from this point that there necessarily and always follow our stupidity and inhumanity and their deeds. We cannot properly discuss the problem of sin in this form without here too considering the matter of concealment. Sin in this form seems more open and acknowledged than in its other forms. The obvious reason for this is that we here find ourselves in the most direct and concrete dialectic of the self-contradiction in which we are all involved. It may be presupposed, however, that sin will know how to camouflage itself at this point even more effectively, if anything, than in its other forms. We do not confess it. merely by admitting that in relation to it all men and therefore we ourselves are sinners. If we did, we should be involved in a denial and destruction of our dignity as men and therefore of ourselves. We are again prevented objectively from allowing that this is the sum and end of what we will by the good reason that we are in the hand of God, who according to Ez. 18 23 does not will our death but that we should be converted and live. But what do we really know of this reason? It is not in God's hand that we wish to hide. This would mean to will what He wills; to be converted and to live. What we want-and this is not a good reason for not admitting the self-destruction in which we are involved-is simply to live: to live but not to be converted; to live on in the powerful weakness of our evil desire. Here, too, this minus is the very thing that we try to conceal from God, and others, and especially ourselves. The thing we will not accept is the corrupt tendency of the will in which we will not live of God, but only of ourselves. Here, too, hypocrisy arises as a repetition and confirmation and concentration of the sin itself.

2.

The Sloth of Man

459 And here, too, hypocrisy and therefore th take place under the title and glory f th' e co~cealment of the sin is that since their work consists in ~ t e~r OpposIte. The only thing can.not be reduced to a single denomin~t~reavage of human nature it des.Ire of the flesh with the twofold retext' f ;ne protect that twofold It IS so easy on the one hand p 0 reedom and naturalness. from the link with the body a~~ ~~:~:~~rt~at the releas.e o~ the soul its lord and keeper, and the release of thee rom the oblrgatlOr: to be control of the soul, the two-sided s If- b dbody from the serVIce and is the liberation from a twofold yo: ~:n ~nment and self-assertion, which prevents these releases a kinedaof ~~ ~ge. Is not .the discipline not need to accept, which-far fr re~g?- rule whIch man does repudiate? Does he not be in to eO~ t exer~IsIr:g-he can and must when he sees that this discf r . XIS, achIevmg a genuine vitality, pulsion; when he resolutel p ~~~i~~s a. superfluous and harmful comas and when, therefore, for his ~wn sakeI\n an at.tack up.on h~mself; totality as a man, he dares to take th~ steexp(FesslOn of hIS ~llIty and dam, thus undertaking those releases p r?m f~eedom) mto freeor leave, for either that upward or' ~nd gran~ng. hImself p~rmission, quite serious for both at once? Can t~7nwafI ~Ight, and .If. we .are degradation, the work of a man who is s ~ea y e ~~lled dIssIpatIOn, soulless and bodiless' Surely't' th wIthout spmt and therefore · . . 1 IS e courageous wo k f th wh 0 IS free III spirit; the work in whi h h d . . r o e man an~ body, thus achieving maturit c e oes JustI:e to b?th soul mamtaining his di nit y a~ a man and discovenng and

~~~I~nW?ha~he ;hi~kS.~:~ ~~~~'be;:r~ ~~;se~fgr~~i~si~r~~:dt:~es~~~~h? not to

c~rry~~~;u;~t~ets~~~fe~~:st~e r;:l~ of f~ee spirit,

and

therefor~

expo~nd the results of these releas;s theISt~~fo~~ ~asy t~O reg;rd and

~~ee~~~:;c=s:~~~~SnStPoirnitaUtaliSedton 'tbh~ one side an~c~~~:i~lis~;~~

b

.'

ure, 0 a emg as ge' I . to a suppo~ed spirit which fals?;~~~~~~. °b~:~u~~~ egm a e an authentIc soul and b d h connexion in which only this 50-called . ~ y w en h~ transcends the Does not the discipline which th'ls .s.p;r~ can be claImed as human? that we should exercise, lead to a sPI[I . em~nds of us, ~nd .requires we are not merely permitted butpara YSIS ~nd ~e1f-deceptIon III which to consider and seize and en' 0 thcornman e, m th~ name of reality ence in antithesis and contialct' at rele~seh Is thIS. re.ally. an existand sin? May it not be that !Ot' an. t erefor~ dIs~lpatron, sloth ~ictiop. of these two elements, t~~Sd~~~~t~~ ~~~h~ntrthesisf alnd contraIS normal and natural' M 't IS power u weakness, their dualism? May it 'not ~:t~ ~?: .b~.t~at true spirit triumphs in dualism, to try not to be in the ~e~hl~ l~ Ol1~st to try to esc.ap.e this proper thing to be two and n t .d .hay It not be that It IS the Is there not a whole anthro°polone, abn t. erefore to be in the flesh? ogy, earmg the name of Christian,

mOa~'~n ~onttrabst

4 6 0§ 65 . The Sloth and Misery of Man " . hi dualism which finds It grounded In which expressly rec.ogmses t : on uit~ inconsistently, to refuse any necessity, al~houg~ It thenh gO~od 'a; the mere prison of the soul, to serious consIderatIOn to t ~. Y t ange abstraction to describe the disqualify its impulses, a~ :\~ ~~eration from this prison? Why life of the soul as the. ac 0 1. dualism which is confirmed by such sho?ld we ~ot tak~ senous~~ ~~shave to speak of sin when it is merely t both soul and body, and therefore anCIent testlI~o.ny. Why 1 a matter of .gIvmg a J?rope~ p ace h~ir s ecific needs? of freedom III the satI:factI~ntO~~ hav: here called the dissipation of ays in which it tries to conceal We cannot recogmse ~ a d th man until we have fully ea~ 'te;- We cannot know it until we and vindicate and even glor~f~ I;e s~ with which it knows how to have considered the sho~ 0 . ~ net d The vagabond in us is not invest itself, as w~ ha;e J~~~;~ u~ah: r~ally is. He prefers to portray prepared to be deplcte a~ i ht ~nd hero. Although he is the very himself as a nobleman, ~ g d trivial humanity he flaunts the essence of the rule, of ordma~y an nd pretends to b~ the interesting banner of freedom and n~tur; ness a we all want to be free and natural exception to the .rule. An.' 0 co~se~eeds this concealment. Without and the interestm? excep~IO~s.t s\he fool in us would be frightened it ' he wOl,lld WIse aour I"nhumanity if it did not espouse d . t be fnghtene t d to be,J~s if he dId no pre en Without this concealment we woul s~are some very humane cause. t d to be the man who is truly alIve. death in the face. He thus pr~ ~n :. n cannot fail to be effective. It And the concealment of o~r disslpatJ°h th power of every destructive allies itself with the effec~Ivenrs~ p~tenc; to this power. It carries desire always ~as. Itll\,:es ~~s diance and beauty. So long as this its work to a ~hmax. t .g1Ve~~e r~issi ation of man will. no.t merely f hPand highly qualified Impulses. concealment IS not lacking,. continueonly but say cons~adntl)dT rtehCetlve /~:rnal being lives decisively by the m ee, a ou W e can . .' . f this concealment. impulses which It ~ecelv~sh~~m ot do It cannot arrest or even conThere is one t~mg WhIC 1. ca~F our dissipation. Like our stupidity ceal the destructIve outworkmg h taI'n I'neluctable consequences. . h 't the latter as cer f and our m umam 'j, . I f We shall now conSIder these m re a IOn to the three aspects 0 our human life and essence.. .. g of ourselves which is necessarily selves instead of maintaining It is inevitable that the JeoPdardlsm h bandon an asser t our b . g di ctly (r) a jeopardising of our . ~1D involved wen. we a ld a disciplined life s~ou meanHe:: too we are caught in a VICI~US before God andf W1t~ G:d~wledge ~f G~d we are involved in a decline circle. As we re use e n b' as man' And as we become and are

~~~~~ed~~~~~~~~ ~~~u~e~:~ar~~;gb~co~e:~~ ~;:~~~~r : : : ~~:~l:;to;~~

He is a God ~f orddefrorand o:;snature as the soul of his body. the peace desIgne manpe.~c~is 1

The Sloth of Man

4 r 6 To break this peace is to break with God as its Creator and Guarantor. In our unity and totality as it is constantly renewed by the Holy Spirit we belong to God, and we express the fact in the exercise of the discipline which is simply the obedience that we owe to God. But if we choose the flesh, i.e., one or other form of that dualism, we reject God. We are blind to His work and deaf to His voice. We are no longer able to pray in any true sense. We cannot do so even if our libertinism takes a more spiritual form: perhaps a very pronounced idealism; or a bold inner enthusiasm; or even an intensive religiosity, a very zealous concern for God and His cause. Born of the flesh, this will always be flesh. Far from binding us to God, it will separate us from Him-quite irrespective of the fact that we do not give free rein to the physical side but show it all possible severity. It is obvious, of course, that the more flagrant and customary form of libertinage, the so-called emancipation of the flesh in the narrower sense of the term, necessarily has the same result. Primarily, although not exclusively, it is in this sense that the lists of vices in the Epistles of the New Testament speak very emphatically of those who shall not inherit the kingdom of God. How can the debauched and dissipated slaves of their Own rampant senses and impulses enter the kingdom of God? Renouncing self-mastery, they have rejected the lordship of God. How, then, can they return to it? But whatever form our debauchery takes, whether it is upward or downward, whether it is the libertinage of thoughts and feelings or that of the appetites, God is not there for the vagabond in us. He may pretend to be free, but he is not free for God. He can neither know Him nor serve Him. Again, he may pretend to be natural, but it can never be natural for Him to be before God and with Him. The habit of self-forgiveness spoils his taste for a life by free grace. Evil desire extinguishes the love of God, and therefore faith and hope in God, first in his heart, then in his thinking and action, and finally in the whole of his life. It may combine itself with the more crude or refined pretence of Christianity, but it can never go hand in hand with a true Christianity which keeps itself in temptation and is powerful in its witness to the World. It disturbs us when we seek God, and come before Him, and call upon Him, and try to do many things with Him and for Him. In the grip of its power, we are not really thinking of God at all, and we need not be surprised if we find that God for His part can make nothing of us and has no use for us. We can only repeat at this point what we said in our discussion of inhumanity as the true reason for the lack of faith, or plight of doubt, both in individuals and on a more general Scale. The dissipation of man has to be reckoned as one of the basic reasons for these unfortunate phenomena. This is the first thing which cannot be obliterated by any concealment that it may use. Again (2) it evokes inhumanity, as it is also its consequence. ere B , too, there is a fatal action of cause and effect. How can a man 2.

2.

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Man

have openness and gladness of heart for others, and plan and achieve the co-ordination of man with man, if he will not keep to the order of human being in himself? How can he respect the dignity of man in others if it escapes him in his own person? What can the dissipated man be for his fellows, or offer to them, apart from the fatal power of a bad example by which he confirms others to their hurt rather than to their salvation, or perhaps, if the other is a little less depraved than he is, the fatal impulse to exalt himself above him, and thus to enter an even more dangerous path. We cannot take the point too seriously that in the measure that we abandon and assert ourselves we are useless for society, refusing our responsibilities in relation to our fellows, our neighbours, our brothers. The destruction of the I in which we are involved necessarily means that there is a vacuum at the point where the other seeks a Thou to whom he can be an 1. The dissipated man becomes a neutral, an It which is without personal activity and with which the other cannot enter into a fruitful personal reciprocity. But we have also to say that the vagabond in me not only causes me to refuse my responsibilities in relation to others, but actually to be a disruptive and harmful influence. My inward unrest necessarily expresses itself outwards. Unable to satisfy myself, I am forced to seek compensation in all kinds of attacks and outrages on that which belongs to my fellows. My conflict with myself necessarily conceals but also reveals itself in disputes with others. The man of disorder is as such a dangerous man. He is potentially a menace to others. As inward and outward peace are indivisible, so too, unfortunately, are inward and outward dispeace. This is the second form in which the dissipation of man always finds expression in spite of every concealInent. It will also work itself out (3) in the fact that our allotted duration of human life will become quite unendurable. The revolt against this limitation, the attempt to escape it, is itself an original form of human sloth. We shall return to this in our final discussion. For the moment, we are concerned with a direct consequence of the destruction and disintegration of human nature, of being in the flesh, as it now concerns us in the form of man's dissipation. The dissipated man is full of anxiety about himself and life and the world. He is not at all the free spirit he pretends to be. He finds no pleasure in the merriness he affects both to himself and others. "Be self-sufficient," he calls to his proud heart. But if everything is going well, why does he nee~ to give this word of encouragement? The truth is that his heart IS not at all self-sufficient. He is anxious. He is afraid. He may not be afraid of dying as such. He can neutralise and even explai~ the thought of dying. We can all do this. What we cannot do IS. to reconcile ourselves to the fact that all things, and therefore man hImself have their time and are thus limited. It is not a matter of dying. It is a matter of death as the determination of human existence in

. t

f

h'

The Sloth of Man

6 4 3

w. Ich ~e is finite. And the dissipated man can never Come wIth this determination. He may pretend that he does but his actiOns prove the contrary. He is the man who seeks eith~r upward ?r a do:wnward flight, or both, from the unity and totalit ~~ llUI?an lIfe...Either, wa~ he condemns himself to an endless an/insatiable stnvmg. . 't fi d 1 he. aim .of every desire is infinity . It I'S re neWe d ~s soo.n as i. ~ ~ satisfactiOn. Satisfaction can only lead it to seek it agam. ThIS is Just as true of the desire of our thoughts and feelin s as of. t~at of our sen.ses. On~e un~eashed, it can never be appease~. It dn:res us from deSire to satisfactiOn, and in satisfaction it gives rise to deSire. Its ess~nce and beauty consist in the fact that both upwards an~ do~nwards It 0J?en~ up magic casements with unlimited views WhiC~l give us the thnll eIther of solemnity or of an arrogant rejoi . But :s n~t the heart of this thrill a terrible, irrepressible and irresis~~~f~ longmg m f~ce of the infinity opened up on all sides by these c ments? Is it not a t~ri~l of horror at the actuality which consist~S7~ the fact that we are lImited that our st nVIng . . can " . . and not unlimited never Ie~d us anywhere m ~ts infinity? Carpe diem is the word of exhortatiOn ~n~ c~mfort WhiCh the dissipated man addresses to himself. .sut thIS IS simply an expression of the panic in which he lives as he IS confronted .by a c1ose~ door. Do we not always think that we are too la~e, sometimes even m youth, then in dangerous middle-a e and espeCl~lly ~hen we are old, and cannot conceal from ourselves fh~ fact that m thiS or that respect we are indeed and finally too late a~d we try .to snatch the flowers that may be left, or surprisin I ' gIVen, by the lat: aut~mn? And then it is again too late. In yo!th ?r ag~, the hunt IS pomtless, because its object does not exist Th IS no ~n~nite to satisfy our infinite desires. But this is somethi~g wh~~~ the diSSipated man, who has broken loose from the unity and total't ~f ~oul an~ b.ody in which God has created him for existence in ;h~ lImit of hIS ti~e, cannot grasp, but must endlessly repudiate in his own endl~ss ~issatisfaction. In what he takes to be his succeSsful hun~, .he IS himself the one who is hunted with terrible success b anxle~y. He may try to smother it, but he cannot do so. He maY tell himself th.at he has it under control, but this is not the cas: When we con.slder all the yearnings in what he plans and does, qUit~ apart. from hI~ c~aracter ~nd achievements, of what man can it not be said ~hat hiS lIfe-story is one .of anxiety? And the same is true of ;V0rld history as ~ who~e .. The history of the nations, and their politics ~nd c,:ltures, theIr artistic and scientific and technical achievements is a .history. of th~ great pursuit of man in which he grasps at th~ ~nfi~Ite and is contmually brought up against his finitude in whi h h IS hi~self hunted by his anxiety, gripped and controlled 'by his ~ani~ at thIS closed door, and therefore incapable of any quiet or continu pr??ress. Is .not ma~ S? gr.eat in all ages just because he is so littl~~~ tillS fear of hiS own lImitatiOn, and this attempt to escape it? And is

VIr ue

0

t~ ter~s

2.

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Man

he not so little in this fear just because he lives in this attempted flight, the dissipated man who is essentially, of course, the slothful man? Engaged in this flight, he necessarily doubts and finally despairs of even the modest success which may come his way. For it is always far too modest. The infinite which is his true goal is still unattainably distant. There can be no modesty in the man who is involved in this upward or downward course of dissipation. For him it is not natural but unnatural to be modest. It is not his glory but his shame. And because he cannot be modest, he inevitably plunges himself (and, as we have seen, his fellows) into one disturbance after another-in utter antithesis to the life for which he is ordained by the divine election and creation, the life which is basically peaceful and inwardly assured, and which therefore radiates peace and creates assurance in others. This is the third thing which our hypocrisy may conceal but cannot alter. We return to our starting-point. What we have here is a third aspect of the man whom God took to Himself in the man Jesus, exalting him in this One to fellowship with His own divine life. In the light of the existence of this Saviour he is the slothful man; the man who, from the standpoint of what he himself does and does not do, lets himself fall, thinking to attain on all sides this imposing profusion of wild growth. God knows us as men like this when He addresses His mercy to us in this One. He sees us as those who are in the flesh because we wish to be so. What is the plan and purpose of God when he wills and creates and sustains the existence of this One in the mass of men plunging headlong into the depths? Merely to show the law from which we have fallen? Merely to set in relief the fall itself? These are inevitable implicates of the divine work which it is our particular purpose to consider in this context. The sickness of our being as a sinful being in the flesh is undoubtedly revealed in the light of this One. But we must not forget something which is even more true-that "he hath borne our griefs, and carried our 4f sorrows," and that" with his stripes we are healed" (Is. 53 ·)· We must not forget that it was positively our salvation, our sanctification, that God willed and accomplished as the mighty direction to us all in the existence of the Son of Man, the free and royal man Jesus. Yet we for whom this was done are men like this. We will again turn to the Old Testament for an illustration, and this time to the strange story of David and Bathsheba in 2 Sam. III-I., '.. It is a story which is strange even in relation to its context. It is set at the very heart of an account of the exploits of David after he was instituted king. It therefore forms an intrusive element, and the painful impression which it makes is not removed, although it is perhaps mitigated, by the tragic and yet conciliatory and even hopeful conclusion. If we note how the story of the Ammonite war which was begun in 2 Sam. 10 is taken up again at once in I2, 6f ., we may indeed suspect that the incident was supplied by another source in the redaction of the Book of Samuel, especially as it is not to be found in the corresponding passage in

The Sloth of Man

4b-5

ehron. 19 1-20 3, Is it 'ust a rna ' . who according to 12" isJ the mot~ter ~fsl~troducJng the person of Bathsheba of the whole later house of Dav'd er 0 oomon. and therefore the ancestres~ other curious women (Thamar I ~aepea~mg m the New Testament with three Jesus (Mt I3f.), If thl's ' 'll a a an Ruth) as one of the ancestres~es of .' " IS rea y one of the . h . . . It IS only with the very different one of th I~asons wythe story ~9 ,mserted, the shadow of which thO " e emonstratlOn of DavId s sin in establishment of the IS mtroduced who is so important for 'the figure of Bathsheba remains rather 'a ~;/~ to be noted m thIs respect that the In supreme antithesis to Abigal'l sh 0 rltessbone throughout the narrative. , e seems 0 e only a b' t ' occurrence. She never has th e ml ' 't'Ia t'Ive and she d n 0th'Jec m the whole progress of events The tr " oes no mg to shape the ates the story of her intro::~~~~slO~n01~avid ~~ the backgro~nd which dominall the previous narratives of th:B It IS thl~ that makes It so strange. In David sinned, but that he alwae s rO~ksi of Samuel ~e have never been told that and Abigail, was restrained fro~ d~[:-n~~, or, as III the encounter with Nabal to that earlier story, he does not refr ,g, th But now, m remarkable contrast to restrain him, He now does what ~~~~ld ~ very slIghtest, and there is no' one of the promise. And he does it w'th t . ot pos~lbl~ do earlIer as the bearer act of wicked arro ance He I ou any shred of JustIficatIOn, but in a sudden Nathan (who is als~ int;oducedc~~r~~~ fi~~~ei,t the ~~usation of the prophet the Lord God of Israel I anointed ,Ime m IS story): "Thus saith out of the hand of Saui. and I t~~e kmg over Is;ael, and I delivered thee thy wives into thy bosom a~d gave ~~:: theeh m~ster s house, and thy master's that had been too littie I would e ~use 0 , Israel and of Judah; and if things. Wherefore hast tho d more%vter ave gIven unto thee such and such evil in his sight? " (12 7f.) ~ tes~~e h he commandment of the Lord, to do David, who now occu ies 'th 0 e e s arp contrast between the divine I and message of the proph~ts; t~/~~~e whflc~ normally belongs to all Israel in the good at the hand of Yahweh and h~ser~ a' e. one who. has receIved nothing but this evil he has not ceased to be David ~h Id It wIth eVIl. To be sure, in and with He proves this at once by the fact th' t ehonehwhom God has elected and called. admits: "I have sinned against the tor~ '~(I 2 ~3)IS ~ct:se~ by Nathan he freely • that, unlike Saul (I Sam . 1530) , he's' IS a "Th so proved I grven th e answer' L dby 1the fact put away thy sin; thou shalt not die" H' . , " e o~ a so hath place with all its consequences. If the at/: ~n I~ ~rgl."en. But It has taken chIld of Bathsheba reveals a g reatnes . I u. e 0 aVId on the death of the cannot alter the fact that the child s WhlC~ I~ wholly worthy o~ himself, this And it is surely intentional that thec:~~~:est m the act of hIS sm had to die. vIctorious war against the Amm't . ' ory, embedded III .the ultImately hitherto been the continually mo~:~i:s, ~anstI~~es a sombre cnsl~ in what had at once into the great catastrophe of ~he ;e~olt ~~I~b~~r~~d winCh htehPlun/?es onwards DavId no lono- r t d t. . rom IS pomt light. We might al~~stS : : s °rt~n contrast to Saul as a figure of unambiguous quite foreign to the accounlits:lf~t~~~~ ~ould be a consideration which is The whole point of the sto , e eco~es a more human character. Bathsheba, is simply to p;;~:~~!tt~ ~odf~r as It serves as an introduction of Israel to Yahweh a I 00 shares m the unfaithfulness of faithfulness) unde; t~~djut~;~e~:~~Sy:~~~~~rael(although not destroying His I

Ii

ho~~ep~;s~~~f~

The decisive content of th t .. . affair in which David becomes : ~ ory IS glvetnhwlth startling swiftness. In the ness ev n' h' ~ansgressor ere IS no element of human greatially in eth~nS~r:t~~~~c~;~~ic~t~~~;l~~tlle'vsetaond untdignihfiedhand brutal, especca d ' . mam am IS onour Ho 1 It except as an act of dissipation? When we turn to' it of rejected Saulmu;~elt ~urely s~nSkeslus that the same cannot be said of the sin . 0 ence 0 au was to want to be a melek like the kings

fir~t ~eoo~s~~I~:

fro~~~:

66

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Man

4

. he ceased to be a charismatic and was of other nations, In this perverslOln hole man even in his transgn'ssion '1 . 't But Sau was a dw 't) . h'IS possessed by an eVI spIn. He was great even m (which was so. slight from. the mora~s:~~ cft~~~ hand, the elect David who is demon-possesslOn and tragIc e?d. .Of 11 mean and undignified when he transcalled and set. up m hIS place IS pam fUth~ Lord (IZ 9 ). Indeed, he iscontemphble gresses, desplSlng the commandment 0 ht u in an evil princIple and proeven to himself, If only he had been ca~g ho,fn his fallibility in a significant gramme! If only he had gone astray an dS't ~ only a trivial intrigue, however entanalement! But as far as he is concerne 1 I to an almost casual departure b . ., t It amoun t s on y h' h savage and eVIl In ItS ou come, db sicall recognises, although one for w IC from the order WhICh he knows an. a, ~ as it were in which he takes on he himself is fully responsIble, It IS. a slde-s ep, of whi~h he does that which . t 0 h'lmse, If and consequence , w h'IC h a character foreIgn . m 11' I ' g the greater transgressiOn is equally foreign, almost mechamca dY m~o ;1~om that order At every point, is obviously inevitable once he has .~p.ar ~I below his usuall~vel and petty and both at the outset and m the sequel,1 IS a repulsive. ' k of Yahweh II ll) is encamped under The manhood of Israel (WIth thhe ar ' d behl:nd in Jerusalem, and has fi Id Th king as remame . I e 2 He is there on the flat roof of ~IS pa ace. J oab in the open e s'. just awakened f~om :: SIesta ,(II ). ver romising one. He gazes mdolently It is not an evil SItuatiOn, but It IS not a y p h ses "Thou shalt not covet at the courtyards of the lower neiTghhboUnngg DOauvI'd' covets the woman-Bath' 'f" (E ZOI') e gapm h' thy neighbour s WI ~. x. .', he is told-whom he there sees was lll,g sheba. the wife of Unah the Hlt~lteda~t "(Ex Z 14). David wills to commIt 0 herself. "Thou shalt not commIt a u ~rYt com'mand her as the king, and he adultery with this woman, He ~:it~~lit~n his heart (Mt. 5'8) as he looks .on does so. Has he not already ~o f ther) But he does commit that whIch her and lusts after her-the wIfe 0 ana b 'comes pregnant 'Vill he stand by has already been committed: The w~~a~utein that of her h~sband, of all Jeruwhat he has done, not only m h.er sig , b ) The king of Israel an adulterer? salem, perhaps of the child who IS yet ~e ~~n~fraid of them, not unreasonably, The consequences are mcalculable., , ' e r It is only by further pnson but unjustly, Already, h owever, he IS hIS own f the wrong. which he has alread y wrong that he can avert the ~onseq~~:=s ~eception. Uriah is recalled. The done. First, he tnes to practise a rt {o David on the progress of the camostensible reason is that h~ should repohim to his own house and therefore to paign. The real purpose IS to ~estore en at worst cannot prove a contrary Bathsheba. He will therefore ~hlr:k,h8:nd ev But this plan is defeated by an opinion that the expected ChIld. Ihs l~downt'o DavI'd The ark and Israel, and ' I " And Una sal un , , d are unexpected obstac e : I r d J b and the servants of my lor , Judah, abide in tents; fi al~d ,myhaft I t~:n' go into mine house, to eat a.nd t~ encamped in the open e s, s 'vest and as thy soul liveth, I wIll no drink, and to lie with , when he is pressed to do so, and ll my wIfe? as tho~ II do this thing" (lI ). He '~Ill n~t ~~ ~kev;~ sleeps two nights at the entranc,~ invited to the royal table an rna e u H' "went not down to his own house to the 13 palace with David's bodyguard. ma~-and it is almost a final appeal ~o (1I ). David has come up agamst ad ho keeps to it even in his cups. HIS himself-who knows what IS nght, an w h is obviously unable to do-only option therefore-if he is not tod:etrea\;:r t~at he may marry Bathsheba is to cause this man to dIsappear, to Ie, m 0 'tt d As king he has the po~ and conceal ~~e aduI~ritWh~c~i~~'hi~~x~O:~)I, \Vell, he ha~ the power. to his to do thIS, Thou sa. no ' I f And he does It by sendlllg e without having to admIt It even to h~~S~eturning husband himself, to p.l:

~~:oi~st~~r~~~:e~/;.a!~~~' t~:lr~~~~hlebrg~~n~t:~~sb~~A:~e~;i~heo::~i~:U:~~~el: and then to leave hIm the urc ,so a III

2.

The Sloth of Man

His orders were obeyed, involving an unnecessary, imprudent and costly attack which in itself David could only have censured. But he was quite unable to do so. For the report sent by Joab concluded with the news which he desired: " Thy servant, Uriah the Hittite, is dead also." This makes up for everything --even the death of the others Who had lost their lives in this futile enterprise. " Then David said unto the messenger, Thus shalt thou say unto Joab, Let not this thing displease thee, for the sword devoureth one as well as another: make thy battle more strong against the city, and overthrow it: and encourage thou him" (II 25). He has no real interest now in Joab or the army or the city of Rabbah. The true encouragement is for himself. He can now enjoy the peace which he desires, and which is created by the death of Uriah that he has so skilfully arranged. Bathsheba mourns for her husband. "And when the mourning was past, David sent and fetched her to his house, and she became his wife, and bare him a son" (II 27). He could now be born without any scandal. It all belonged to the past. It had all been covered over, " But the thing that David had done displeased the Lord." This was the message that the prophet Nathan had to give him. He had done what he should not and could not do as the elect of Yahweh. He had contradicted at every point himself, his election and calling, and therefore Yahweh. He had allowed himself to stray and fall into lust and adultery and intrigue and murderous treachery-the one follOWing the other by an iron law-and therefore into the sphere of the wrath and jUdgment of God. "As the Lord liveth, the man that hath done this thing shall surely die," is his own confession when his act is held up before him in the mirror of Nathan's parable. And it invites the crushing retort: "Thou art the man" (IZ·f.). He is the one Who has been involved in this incident. No, he is the one who has willed and done it even to its bitter end. He, the bearer of the promise, is also a man of this kind. This is what is revealed with such remarkable frankness in the story of Z Sam. II-IZ. David is now playing the role and aping the style and falling to the level of the petty melek, or sultan, or despot of other peoples, David is like all other men. He cannot be relieved of this charge. On the contrary, this is a charge and burden which rests on all Israel and every man. And this has to be brought home by David's very human, yet not on that account excusable, but supremely guilty slip; by what is revealed to be at bottom the normal manner and action even of the heart and life of those who are elected and called.

4· The man Jesus, whose existence forms our starting-point for the fourth and last time, exercised and demonstrated His royal freedom finally and supremely and all-comprehensively in the fact that He gave up His life to God and man, that He allowed it to be taken from Him by men. To lose it? Yes, but also in that way to win and keep it. To perish? To be no more? To belong only to the past? Yes, but to reveal Himself as the One who is incorruptible in the very fact that He perishes and belongs to the past; to live eternally and for all times as the One who was crucified at the conclusion and end of His time. It was in this way, as His life moved towards this coronation and found fulfilment in it, that it became and was and is His life for God and for us: the life of Jesus the Victor, the faithful servant of God, who as such is with the same faithfulness our Lord and Head and Representative; the life of the new and holy and exalted man in Whose person we who are still below are already above, we who are still sinners are already sanctified, we who are still God's enemies are lifted up into fellowship with His life; and all this as the life of the

468

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Man

4 9 6 n~tural .order, in virtue of which we and all things are corruptible and WIll pensh? This pedestrian thought cannot form a sure foundation for our statement. Always, and rightly, man will struggle against nature or ~estiny.. It i~ not on this account that he will regard his care as. futlle. It .IS futile because our perishing, the terminating of ou~ ~xlst.ence, which we think we should oppose without anxious stnvmg, ~s the good order of God, one of the tokens of His gracious an.d merCIful and invinci?le will as Creator. We do not choose somethmg better b~t somethmg worse, a definite evil, our own rejection and comp~ct WIth chaos, if we oppose this order when we ought thankf~Ily and Joyfully to .accept it. Chaos is what God did not will and Ill never do so,. It IS, ~herefore, that which is not. Hence our care IS empty and futIle. It IS for this reason that we have to accept the fact that we cannot add to our lifetime (Mt. 6 27) and that it is senseI to try to do it. It is for this reason that we have also to accept t~: fact t~:t our hea:renly Father knows what things we have need of (Mt. 6). Th~re IS thus no ground for anxiety on our part. It is empty and fUble because we have already been told that this is the case by the earthly Son of our heavenly Father-the One who became and was revealed as the Victor at the very frontier which causes us ~o start b~ck and. retreat .a~d ta~e anxious thought, at the end and Issue of HIS o~n .1Ife. ThIS mvaSIOn and destruction of the object of all care (even m ItS form as destiny and the natural order) has taken place and cannot be reversed. We may continue in care but thi canno~ affect the force and validity of the veto which H~ has lai~ ~pon It, not only by His words, but by the act of His life as He sacri~ced and fulfilled it on the cross. It cannot alter the fact that He is m fact the hope of the world and our hope. Against what, then,do we s~ek to assure ~)Urselves? We may be anxious, but we cannot prOVIde for ~ur anXIety the object which it must have if it is to have any final sen~usness. We cannot give it an absolute character. We can only d.ecelVe ourselves and others if we think that there is good reason ~or It, an? that we achieve ~nything by it. Our care is empty and futIle. By It we can only realise and reveal our sin and shame But we do ~o this, and in this way (even from this standpoint) we create the evIl fact of our self-contradiction. We act as though the work and Word of God were nothing; as though Jesus were not risen. :Ve m~ke no use, of the freedom which we are granted in Him. The ImP?SSIb~e-mans unrest as he tries to reject the ineluctable finitude of hIS eXlst;~ce-:~ake,~ place. ~he ne?,ation which he permits himself The evIl of hIS fear of this frontier, which is becomes a pOSItIOn. g?od order of God, acquires historical form and significance both ndlvIdually and ~lobal1y. The life of man becomes an unbroken chain of r:novemeD:ts. ?~ctated. by his anxious desire for assurances; either ~gal11st P?ssI.bIhtIes whIch he fears and tries to avoid because he has a recogmse m them the approaching shadow of the frontier which he 2.

man who did not refuse death, and therefore the conclusion and end of His time, but accepted it to find fulfilment in it. We are alwa~s unlike Him in the fact that the issue of His life in this fulfilment, HIS end in the character and significance of this goal, took place once and for all for us, and cannot be repeated in the issue of our lives or our end. But our end or issue is set in the light of His. It can an~ s!I0uld reflect it. His end and issue, His crucifixion, i.e., His lif.e ~s 1~ IS fulfilled and triumphant in His crucifixIon, because and ~s .It IS hve~ for us, shines as a direction on the existence of us all as It IS determmed by our finitude. We are not He, nor He we. But as and because He is for us and therefore with us and not without us, we for our part are with Him and not without Him. Weare this final~y and s~p~en:ely and all-comprehensively in the very fact that our eXIstence IS lim~ted and under sentence of death; an existence in the short space of hme which we are pitilessly given. As the Crucifi.ed, He lives at the. very point where our frontier is reached and our tIme runs out. He IS the Victor there. He not only calls us, then, to look and move forward confidentially and courageously. He gives us-and this is the power of His direction-the freedom to rejoice as we arrive at our end a~d limit. For He is there. He lives there the life which as eternal life includes our own. He is our hope. And He bids and makes us hope. But we-again this bitter turn has to be executed-start back at the very place where we should not only be calm and confi.dent b~t also hope. We fret at the inevitable realisation that our eXIstence IS limited. We would rather things were different. We try to arrest the foot which brings us constantly nearer to this frontier. And because we know that we cannot change things, that we cannot cease to move remorselessly towards this place, we look frant.ically arou~d for assurances on this side of the moment when they WIll all be stnP1?ed awax, anxiously busying ourselves to snatch at life before we dl~. ThIS, too is a form of our sloth. In this, too, we set ourselves agamst God ami shun His grace; the grace of partici~ation in the movement and exaltation which come from Jesus. In thIS, too, we fa~l back. and are behindhand. And this, too, is responsible transgresslOn-sl~. Our term for this fourth aspect of it is human care. We have met It three times already (under different names) as the fruit and ~onsequence of our stupidity, inhumanity and dissipation. It necessanly entered. 0l.!r field of vision in relation to these aspects of huma? sloth. Bu~ It IJ also an autonomous fonn of our sloth, and as such Itself the ~asls a? cause of our stupidity, inhumanity and dissipation.. A:t e~ll begm: with the fact that we will not thankfully accept the lImItatIOn of ~u existence where we should hope in the l~gh~ of it, and be. certa~~ joyously certain, of the fulfilment of our hfe m the expectatIOn of 1 end. The root of all evil is simply, and .po,,:erfully, ?ur huma~ car~te We must begin, as before, by assertmg ItS emptmess. It .Is q the futile. Why? Because of the inexorable nature of the destmy,

:n

Jhe.

The Sloth of Man

47 0

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Man

approaches; or in relation to possibilities which he desires because he expects from them fulfilments which for a time at least conceal his certain end, allowing him temporarily to forget that which is before him. Care is the remarkable alternation and mixture of this fear and desire against the background of what we think we must regard as a threat rather than our hope. From this angle, the disobedience and unbelief and ingratitude of man consist in his tragic persistence in this opinion, and the evil will which permits it. This opinion is the inexhaustible source of care, both as fear and desire, in all its great and little, all its more or less exciting or apparently only incidental and superficial, forms. On the basis of this opinion man is always one who is anxious in some way, although he is the one who ought to be without care, the one from whom all care is removed at the very point where he thinks that he is threatened, at his issue and end which is his appointed future. Because his care has its basis in this opinion, however, it cannot be overcome by a frontal attack. No other man, not even an angel from heaven, can successfully summon me-and I certainly cannot summon myself-to abandon these fears and desires and therefore not to be anxious. If we ever take the risk (and it i~ a risk) of preaching on Mt. 6 25 -34, we at once meet with all kinds of sullen or dispirited or unwilling reprimands (expressed or unexpressed), and most of all, if we are honest, from our own hearts and minds. For how can we help taking care for our life? How can we model ourselves on the fowls of the air and the lilies of the field? How can we seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness in the assurance that food and drink and clothes will be added to us? How can we leave the morrow and its anxieties-the storm which may mount and break, or the sun which may shine through-and confine ourselves to the troubles (and perhaps the joys) of to-day? How is all this possible?

How can man let go his care when he is of this opinion? We may remove all the things that he fears, or give him all that he desires, but new fears and desires will rise up at once from the inexhaustible source of this opinion and new cares will be his portion. For one day he will inevitably reach his end. If he has no positive joy and comfort, but only anxiety, in relation to this fatal point, if in his approach to this point, this far side of all his fears and desires, he does not see God but nothingness awaiting him, he can only be filled with care. He is a prisoner of the ceaseless movements of care which he himself has to make and has automatically made. We have to see this if we are to realise the power of man's sloth, his culpable negligence, even in this respect; a power which is very real even though the opinion in which this negligence originally consists, and the whole tormented existence to which it gives rise, are quite pointless and therefore empty and futile. Just as inexplicably but in fact man is first a practical atheist, inhuman and a vagabond, and then can only think and speak and act accordingly, so first-how shall we describe him from this final standpoint ?-he is the dissatisfied man who necessarily becomes his own

2. The Sloth of Man slave and lives in the b d ' 471 grasp this if we are to b~r:n~!eet~f hI~ need of security. We have to individual and racial care in whic;n mdolently surprised at the sea of But when we do see I't we. are all almost submerged we recogmse the d . . d. e~cn'b e thIS for~ally by saying that, altho ar:ger. ~e ~ay again ugh like man s dIssIpation It seems to consIst in a ki d f h supposed to be an overwh~l ? uman wea~ness in face of what i~ tinctive feature of care is tha7I~gd0I:pon~nt, It has pOwer. The disfrom that which causes it and ~gai~r:t:;h~~s power f:om its opponent, self. It has all the power of th d f d h ~an tnes to secure himhope. This illusionary oppon::~ '~ eath wIthout God and without !orm of nothingness, is the force 'W~ic~ ~:s al~eady been routed, this In human care and affects th n f explIcably but in fact rules man dissatisfied. He thinks t~a~ ~ a . man. The th.ought of it makes he can only be anxious He e ~s menaced by It. Believing this future with the deep unr~st of ~:~ 0: ~ lo?k and move forward to hi~ And it is this illusory picture th w 0 IS discontented with his finitude with great definiteness and c;nsi:t Phan~~sy of a hopeless death, which :is he is anxious, he gives life t;~~s Ictates the law .of his conduct. Illusory weapons and directI'ng't '11 phantasy, armIng it with its 1 S 1 usory arm C '. ence from and to this death b " . . are IS In fact existsmitten and maimed and u~ne;~:~se It IS .exlstence wh~ch is already therefore a wasting and perI'sh' . and dIseased by thIS death and mg eXIstence Th f .' an d d eepens and becomes more acute' t' e care a man Increases to find expression in that alternati m h~ measure that he allows it ~s man refuses to find joy and c:~ or ~Ixtl.l;re of fe?-rs and desires. (Ill the form in which he sees it, and thfor~ III h~s end,. It thrusts itself b~t ~enacingly) into his present .Jre ore WIth0l.l;t Jay and comfort, sbtutIng it a graceless determinati e tu~ns t.o hIS own grief, confull o! grace but which he fears as hi~~ .o~ hIS eXIstence, t~at which is h: tnes to avoid, and from which h IS ~nt end, the commg of which kInds of fulfilments And h e tnes to conceal himself in all e' he has conjured up.' He falls I~ ~OWt m~r~ed by this phantasy which so concerned to secure his fu~IC 1m 0 It m t~e present in which he is ~n~a~ed in that frantic hunt inu~hiC:~mh.thIS l~t~ndpoint, too, he is hIS IS the curious power of care r . e Imse IS really the hunted. '. ~tIS .only pseudo-creative. But all the same it is a real power e . . ven m 1 s Impote A d D? escapIng ItS effectiveness For as m ~ce. n there can be ~Iew o.f his end, the end as h~ views andan conceIv~s and nou:ishes that Itself Illto his present. We mu t 1 empowers It necessanly thrusts ~as great powers of expansion ~nda ~fer;:~ntlOn the fact that it, too, Into these anxious fears and d ' ~on. We push one another h~esen~. We mutually increase e~~:~ a~ke t~ corre.spon~ing joyless e wIldfire from one or a fe ' e pamc WhICh spreads also be recalled in th'· w'. to whole masses of people It may h IS connexlOn that . . W ole can be decisively represented 1 many world-~Ituations as a on y as states of epIdemic anxiety,

47 2

§ 65 . The Sloth and Misery of Man

.

I. f hopeless death in one of Its forms, in which the .call an? campu SIOn 0 s defence or rapacious attack, and manifesting Itself eIther I~ nervou ftute the main and universally bringing inevitable sUffer~ngl' cons I nce When we realise that this . . f h'stonca occurre helms us like an avalanche or an menacmg stream o. 1 . is not just somethmg :Vh~h. over; m ourselves and takes place in earthquake, but that ~~lee~~~sanr~ecisions,th~re is every reason to consequence of responsl th egrettable human weakness or an understand care as far more ,an a r and negligence it is from the . I . t k A.s man s re fus al occasIOna miS ~ tempora e.. nI 'j th e human sin. In its unity and total'tI y standpoint of hIS the sloth of man ha~e~~~t~~:so~7~cknOWledgingwhat he is and does man Of course, and t h erefore the prisoner of care. The . 1selff . . . .mvoIve d I'S too striking and when he. .IS anxIOUs . h' h he IS . pamfud or contradictIO-?- m w IC.. rhat he really intends and wIlls and oes. him to admIt that thIS IS V. • h'ch it may be compared to the Ca~e has a merely lu~cro.usd~I~;e°f~rwa ~ird in the bush (or for fear of actIOn o~ a m~n who m ,hIS 0 the bird in his hand. But w~o of ~s a menacmg bIrd of prey) let~·ghl . this way? And in realIty thIS will admit tha~ he .a~ts foo IS Ys m In his anxiety man sets his own ludicrous folly IS SUICIdal r;:a~n~ .which protects his land from floodhouse on fire. He bursts t he ~r:self. In his attempt to find security, ing. He torments and crus eS' il d 't this? Behind our reluctance he loses it. But W~lO of us WI a :~where the will of God in virtue to do this there senously stan;s ·~f d does in his care is transcended of which what man intends ~n WI ·~tn He the living God, is really and superseded and mad~ Impo.ssl t e. e an'd mercy Is it not inevit. W . . f . ail HIS ommpo enc the limIt 0 man, m . . to confess our care? e are able, then, that we shOUld ?esltate enuinely by the fact that there obviously prevente? from domg s~ gd 't Objectively, there is only is no objective. reality to ~a~~e us s ~u; ~~mented relationship to the the bitter realIty of our u lCroU . t d on the wall. Unfortunately, shadow whic? we ourselve\h~ve ~~o~~~s efact which really restr~ins. us however, it IS not a .kno~ eweg~ w this if we lived with the objectIve from confessing o~r sm. n . ~~e ene~y which threatens us or !he truth that there IS no rea 1 y m. th hand and under the protectIon abyss before us because ,:e areol~areein the first place, and then we of God, we should not Ylel~ t d be ashamed of our confession. As should not hav.e to confess 11 a~e ashamed of our confession, the only we do yield to It, and can on y I f ourselves and others and even, alternative is to try t~ ~once~ ~~~ness of what we do. In a shame as we think, God, th~ 0 Y a~t tr to find a cover, a fine pse~d.onym which is not authentIc .we m. y ite of what we do, an alibI. which will declare the Imposm~ opp~s man different forms becaus.e, The concea~ment of car~ WIllI t~e~ (bot~ as regards its origin In although ~s the that false car~ opmlOn an ~a~~ a s I~S ~~gards its outward expression), there

The Sloth of Man 473 are different views' as to the imposing opposite by which it may best be covered. 2.

There is the man who by force of circumstances, environment and history is essentially activist; in general terms, the man of the western world to which w~ ourselves belong, although it is an open question how near or distant the time may be when the man of the east will bear the same activist stamp. The concealment which this man chooses is the high concept of conscientious work. He defends and justifies and magnifies his anxiety as the work which is laid on mal' by an inner as well as an outer necessity. He takes the side of that which he desires against that which he fears. He tries to Use and exploit the time given and left to him, and in this time his abilities and power and opportunities and possibilities; to pursue his own development within the natural and historical cosmos by which he is surrounded; to make himself his own master both in great things and in small. He sets himself higher or more modest, nearer or more distant, but always binding ends. He can never be too serious or zealous in his efforts to attain them. He is out for success. He must have it. He must achieve something. He creates. And it is by this measure that he assesses himself and others. If he is not creating and achieving, he feels a want; he is restless and fretful. He views with suspicion those who are not creating anything at all or anything worth while. He is happy when he finds himself Co~pelled to work by definite obligations. He is refreshed and comforted by the thought that he is fUlfilling his tasks to the best of his knOWledge and ability; that in his Own place he is a cog which is pushed and pushes, or at any rate rotates, according to a specific plan. All his fears and desires against the background of the great overhanging threat, all his attempts to find security, flow into this canal with its solid banks. His care becomes his glory as it drives the mills and factories-his own or those which are collectively owned-erected by the waterside, so that something is actually achieved for himself and others by the fact that he is anxious. It may be that human care occasionally shines through at the heart of all his activity, but how gloriously transformed it is! How its true character is hidden! When it is translated into conScientious work, who can possibly recognise it as a form of human sloth? The man who is hounded into activity by his care seems to be the very opposite of a slothful man. We need not waste words shOWing how effective is the concealment of man's denial (expressed as care) when it takes this attractive form. But there is also the man who is essentially passive. Generally Speaking, he is more at home in the tropical east and near the equator than in northern Europe or the United States. And he may not long Survive even there-who knows? Yet we must take him into account for he appears even amongst ourselves. He, too, is a man of care: Be, too, knows that human life is threatened by that limit, by death.

474

§ 65· The Sloth and Misery of Man

He, too, does not know that this limit or frontier means hope because it is the mercy of God which sets it for man. He, too, has to wrestle with what he knows and does not know. He, too, is concerned to hide his care. But he solves the problem in a different way. He conceals it behind the no less high concept and title of resignation, non-resistance and contemplation. He sees the illusions operative in the zeal and works and morality of the activist. He shakes his head over him no less than the latter does over him. And who is really in the right? He is not the slave of a clock constantly reminding him of what has to be done. He has plenty of time, and for him time is not money, or anything else particularly valuable. He does not find sanctity in work, but in leisure for deliberation and self-adjustment and expectation. His law is not the law of duty but of relaxation. Why should he wish to be a cog which is pushed and pushes? Is not this all empty-a mere snatching at the wind? If in these fortunate territories two days' work are enough to sustain oneself and one's family-why work six? Why create merely for the sake of creating? If the inscrutable will of Allah is done in any case, why not reduce to the very minimum the flame of fear and desire which we cannot altogether extinguish? If we cannot avoid the menacing of our existence by death, why act as though we could prevent it? Why not simply endure it as it declares itself at every moment and at the last definitively? We can only say that this, too, is in its own way a glorious transformation and therefore a concealment of care, and that in many, if not all, its forms it is far superior in dignity to the activity with which the activist usually tries to hide it. Is the passive man really anxious at all? Is it not superfluous, because irrelevant, to speak to him about the fowls of heaven and the lilies of the field? Is he not himself-perhaps too much so-a kind of fowl or lily? a sluggard? a lazybones? He may appear to be so to the activist. But he is also guilty of sloth in the stricter, theological sense. Even with the alternative which he has chosen, he too is the victim of a great illusion. The only thing is that as we say this we have also to recognise that in its own way his illusion too, is a fine one, and even heroic in a way which we do not readily understand, and certainly effective. How strong the concealment of care is in both forms may best be gauged by the fact that on both sides it is easy not only to reject with a superior gesture the charge that we have here the evil concealment of an evil business but to go over to the counter-attack with the question whether an ethic of work or resignation is not a better antidote to what the Christian message condemns as care than this message itself. The positive content of this message is, of course, overlooke~­ the assertion of the being and life of God for man at the very POInt where man thinks he sees only his frontier and the threat this involves. In the light of this the assertion seems necessarily to be a mere postulate

2. The Sloth of Man the optative. That J " 475 grasped. if it is to be und::~~;~ n~n da;d lives has to be heard and not denve, or does so anI " n I the Christian messa e d assert!on be made with th~ u~:eriamly, fr?m this point, how ~an ~;s easy It then is either to mr~ ~c H e ' . mlmIse the . , ow d Ivestmg it of its character as sin an seno~sn~ss of human care but natural deposit of human we ~ representIng It as an unfortunat~ It c~n be met with conscientious a ness, or t.o show how effectivel not Impossible mixture of the two~ortor herOl c. resignation or even ~ !hat the Christian assertion can '. o~ easy It then is to make out tace of which these two ways ~[~Inf t at frontier is an illusion in a m.ore sober and solid methods of brin :vays commend themselves as ;Ith ;hat we had to say concerning th~I~grF°~r man r~lease r In line nlI.aSndo't~fan, we can only say of his care °tl{a'tlllhuhmalllty and dissipae l l we have n t 'd we ave not y t itself in its concealme~t~aII'f c10se attention to what it has t~ sar~cofgI . . , we h ave not h J or on>:, Itself and as such but also i 't seen ow pOwerful it is not realIsed how excellentl "t n 1 S concealment· if We h ' d ' ave not Y 1 can defe d and express itself in the very act of n a~ strengthen and confirm One thing, however, it cannot dconcea ment. conseque~ces by any form of can ~. It cannot avert its inevitable acter as SIn, which means ruin . ce ment. It cannot deny its charclear, We will look back from t~~ ese co~sequences. To make this ~~e first thr~e, The disruption of t~al ~o~nt In o:,r investigation to IS temporality, which we have now e !Ig t relatIOnship of man to at each of the three earlier oints -deSCrIbed as care, appeared alread we t!Ien considered from ttos e d'~s a consequence of the sin Which task 1S t~ see it as also a cause of th: erent ~tand~oints. Our present i In thIS form, as the false view of f;;~ersIOns ~th which we started. t~ face of that frontier, it plays (r) a d ~:at which causes us anxiety G e dev~lopment of what we first d eCI~~ve and very special role in od; .hIS unwillingness to honour ande~cn as man's ignorance of ,

In

!

In

v:

e;i, ~~e;~~~o~ %e~~: ~~tt:l Yre~pect conSiS~sv!n t : ~:~O~atT~;e~eci~~

lllCo m prehensibly desired

re~~~eral t~rlllng

away from God

bur an

~here
ImpressIvely and concretely as God ,d, w~ere. He ,encounters him most ~pposed to ~s and all His creatures' . a~s ~dd~ Hls,holy sovereignty as w~~c~a~e :VlhthlHis own distinctive ~fficacyo. I::S HGlsdP?wer to take up

f H' ' a In the mercy i e IS a y and makes God meets us like this is the ~~i~ I~ so:vereignty. The point wher~ ~lear expression in the fact that I't :vhlch IS set for us and which finds ~~ not self-evident, but needs the w~~:p~oin.ted to us once to die. It · at We should know Him at tho , a HIS Word and Holy SpirI't But If H ' IS pomt where H . , it e i.S near to us anywhere it is ,e IS ou~ hope in death. ely at tl11S frontier that His self- h~re, at t.lllS !rontIer. It is defin' reve atIOn IS gIven , and I't conSIsts

6

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Man

47. ve oint where we meet our end specifically m the fa~t :~a:n~t~~:ato;:%d Reconciler and Redeem~r, we are met by ~ur . o . . His character as the Lord of life and that His bemg Illu.mmes a~s~~ncan see only the darkness of death. and death, where we thm~:i~atelY insists that what he c~n expect at In care, however, man a d t light only destructlOn and not this point is only darkn~ss an f no and n~t the definitive answer-a salvation, only an eterna hues IOn 0 out to meet, and with whom t menacin~ opponent whom tl e mr~~a;ed either for conflict on the o~e he must m some .way wres e, p In care man makes his future hIS hand or capitulatIon ?n t~t~ot~~'avert or to bring about that which own problem.. He tnes el er to know it and in some w~y-~y ~s it might entaIl.. ~e presume~ 't His reading of the sItuatIOn IS as activity or paSsIvIty-to ;~ 1God who awaits him at that point, e the opponent of man. He is not wrong from the very out~e '. t and comes to him from It, ~s n~ hould not try to strive with God. man's problem. Man canno an s t know and master God of himMan cannot and should.not pres~~e ~derstanding that anxious man self. Yet it is. with thisGP~~~it: f; him and wills to encounter him looks to the pomt. where o. xious care man has secured and bolted in His self-revelatIOn. In his an t t He thinks that he can and himself against God from th~ very ou s~ God but a schema or shadow should deal with ~od as if e were no it not inevitable, then, that ls which he has projected .on the wall. 'ng eyes for His self-revelation? he should not have heam;g ears or see~. and hope in Him and pray How can he believe in HIm and love ~~d or tell himself, that it is b to Him, ho.wever earnes~ly hed ~~~e:er °siu'cerely he may wish to do good and nght to do thIs, an h t' for him too open access to. t~e so? In his ~are he blocks '!p w tar~s makes a man stupid. ThIS IS hICh fountain fl.ows for h~m. t of its concealments cannot alter. the first thing WhICh ev~n ~h e ~~;tzontal plane care also (2) dest~oys But when hwe 0 . t ue of the unreality of its object. It does t he.. IS m VIr 't · turn human fellows Ip. f d th without hope has no power to um e The ghost of the .threat 0 a ~~. g that it is the product of the m~n and gather. It IS not for ~ d m As such it necessarily isolates hIm who isolates himself frolm to. ly does not gather us but disperses h in an individual charfrom his fellow-men. t no ?n and scatters us. It represents Itself to eac hi~~e he looks to the future acter corresponding to the burro.7 frO~dwward off its dangers. Care and seeks to grasp its opportum Ies ~ith centrifugal force. We can does not unite us. It tears us apart . 't of care and constant and will make constant appeals to th~so~dar;h~ir fears 'and desires to attempts to organise anxIOUS men, .re ,!cmg 'r effects. But two or

7

w.

~~~:~~e~:~o:~~f~~;so:~~ai~~-~~~~~~,:~o~:~e~ tig~~~i~~:yU:~~sb: rily

moment3: cares which others mere gram of comPdres~ed'hc~ndr:i~~ar~se~sr~~~ san. ac m

2.

The Sloth of Man

477

cannot share with him and which do not yield to any companionshIp or friendship or fellowship or union or brotherhood, however soundly established. By his very nature he is isolated and lonely at hear"t and therefore in all that he does or does not do. Even in society with others he secretly cherishes his own fears and desires. His decisive expectation from others is that they will help him against the threat under which he thinks he stands. And it is just the same with them too. Cares can never be organised and co-ordinated in such a way as to avoid mutual disappointment and distrust and final dissolution. And behind disappointment and distrust there lurks, ready to spring, the hostility and enmity and conflict of those who are anxious. It is a rare accident if different cares, although not really uniting, do at least run parallel and thus do not lead to strife. For the most part, however, they do not run parallel for long, but soon intersect. And, unfortunately, they do not do so in infinity, but in the very concrete encounters of those who are anxious. What is thought to be the greater anxiety of the one demands precedence over what is supposed to be the lesser anxiety of the other. The desires of the one can be fulfilled only at the expense of the desires of the other. Or the intersection is because they fear very different things, or-even Worsebecause the one desires what the other fears, or the one fears most of all what the other desires most of all. It is only a short step from a fatal neutrality to the even more fatal rivalry of different cares and those who are afflicted by them. If care itself remains-and it always does, constantly renewing itself from the SOurce of the false opinion of human temporality-we find ourselves willy-nilly on this way in our mutual relationships, and we have no option but to tread it. There can be no genuine fellowship of man with man. There can only be friction and quarrelling and conflict and war. Care dissolves and destroys and atomises human society. In its Shadow there can never arise a calm and stable and positive relationship to our fellow and neighbour and brother. It awakens the inhuman element within us. This is the second ineluctable consequence of care, no matter how fine or strong may be its concealment. It leads no less necessarily (3) to the disorder which we have called the disintegration of the disciplined unity of man as the soul of his body. So strong is the self-contradiction into which the anxious man plunges himself in his discontent with his finitude that it is inevitable that this unity should be severely jeopardised. We remember the shadow and its pOwer-the hopeless death-which the anxious man portrays on the wall as the picture of the future which supposedly menaces him, in this way summoning and introducing it into his pr:s~nt, and necessarily living with it, or rather dying of it. To do t~lS IS radically unhealthy. It pierces his heart and reins. In these CIrcumstances he cannot be a whole man. He can no longer rule as a soul or serve as a body. He reacts against it as a soul by that roving

478

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Man ,'

flight into better regions which he himself has selected or invented. And his body reacts against it in the form of all kinds of self-assertion, or in the form of renunciation, or in the form of sickness in all its organs. In this respect, too, care involves the dissolution of humanity. Weare describing the process only in its basic form. It will never express itself quite so crudely, or at any rate be revealed quite so abruptly. But there can be no question that care does bring man on to this steep incline. It constitutes a mortal danger. It consumes him. It has the character and effect of hopeless death. It is poison. It cannot serve to build him up, but only to pull him down in what we called dissipation. It introduces not only the atheist and the inhuman man but also the vagabond within us. The man who is dissatisfied with his finitude has all these three within him, as he himself is within all these three. This is the third thing which no concealment of our care can arrest or deny. We pause and reflect that the man whose reconciliation with God and exaltation, sanctification and purification are at issue when the name of Jesus is proclaimed and believed is this man-the discontented man who in the hopeless attempt to deny his finitude necessarily destroys his peace with God and his fellows and does nothing but harm to himself. God has in mind this man wh
2.

The Sloth of Man

fashwned, or invented' 1 479 " , m a ater and svntl t' , IS received and mal'nta'me d an d hand . d dIe IC review-it denotes a st orv w h'IC h I ' ' . n relatIOn to the biblical histories we ~an own m a definite kerygmati~ sense. nons and even make them h 0 ' ' of Course, ask concerning the distincmatlc sense in which they a~:t;~JtlC;llr dBut If we do we shall miss the kerygand the more normative we re ad' n ee , the more definitely we make them surely we shall miss this sens/ rTot~e~ fO; the purpose of exposition the more h:;'e asked at all concerning these d~s~:::c~ce to this sense, we must 'either not o er words, we must still or ' . Ions, or have ceased to do so I totahty. It is only then th~t th agam, read these histories in their unity' an~ sure;. the history of the spies doese[o~~y,s'~Lthat they are trying to say. To be lcal ele~ent in the stricter sense t~~ I erent eleme.n~s. There is a " historboned). 1 here is also an element Of( sa ape(~~ons and cIties and localities menearned by two men, and of h ' g . e account of the branch of ra the element which has I't t, e giants who mhabited the land) The g PIes d s ongm m the s th t' , r e IS a so an present almost into one) which is so ln . e I~ or composite view (fusing past t III Old and New Testament alike It is t ISt~ncilve a feature of historical writing particular attention in our readi~g of th 0 t e ,att~r elements that we must pay for th~y usually give us an indication ot:~ s ones If we are to 'understand them mto te texts. But in relation to th .e purpose Which led to their adoptio~ ~~t o~erlook the historical elements o~u:;v~~~\:Xe discerning readers, we shall ,e C aracter of saga. \Vhen the d" . Je ISon those which seem to have pushed again into the background an~tmctlOns have been made they can be and entical naivety) as the totality't t~e Whole can be read (with this tested The purpose of N . 1 pro esses to be. retarding role played ~;'e~3-:~x::ttoishow how d~eadful and dangerous is the ness to the promised land as an actiO: :~e t~ansltlOn of Israel from the wilder-

t

~~ :h:~t:a;~:i~;hep~~~~~:a~ft~h:Stir::~t~~~rh~i~~~;s~~a~i~~\oIt~~::,r~~~~ ,angerous return to its own land-I

I e . xlle when It was confronted by a ae saw ItS p~st. Yet this does not mean exactly the same , or very much the s nee m theu Wilderness its attl't d was not e ame noW' ;-onsider the picture which it ives , as reported in the story. We shall Tne Wilderness wanderin s g .

~Jlat at the earlier period of its exis::

~~dt~~ss;~~~~~~ ~~~~nj~~;~e~~}~Z~:~y~~::s~~~~/~~ee~~~~~O~o~hiC;sra:~o~

~~d ea

E;Kr~~h~coun~ry

t

descen~ants

now left far behind the; The which their t.l , which was their deliverance and I'b weh 10 the great act by the Red I :;m, had had as their goal that they I ertdl~n, an? Yahweh's covenant with h ~;~~or~ t~cm, Other nations lived the~eo~ t ,~ell 1ll the land which was now tl err an ; for Yahweh had promised 't' u 1 was still, and already again c~c \nlderness the inhabitation of this l~n~ :hem. In all their march through t"!,~talll future, guaranteed by God Himself been theIr absolutely sure and o,·y are not to be brought in blindl a . ~d now It IS to take place. Yet ut the hand of Moses they them I y nd passively. Although led by Yahw h are g , , se ves are to act d' e This ~~g, "tnd d knOWing the land and its inhabita~~ aadre, knOWing where they " owe ge IS to be given them b s ~n SOlI and cities (13181.) ~~elll to JOyous action. That is why ~:r~st70rthY witnesses Who will summo~ of chosen from among them, one from eac";;,e ve spies are selected and sent out ~Iothe pnnces or leaders. Caleb from th ~f~he ~nbes. and in each case on~ i se" called Joshua) from the tribe e ,n e 0 Judah and OShea (whom pa:let~ b~c~~e the . leading tribes in t~~~~~~~I~ ~et~he representatives of what of th c~ ar} promment later in the story Th n , e north, and they will be WitI e oly people, and When they have s~en t ese spies are to be eyes for the rest ('. lesses to this people. With this com ' hey are to be the mouth of authentic ,or] has promised Israel, which already ~IStlOn they: are to enter the land which e ongs to It according to His will and

ld

Once again a biblical passage will give concretion to our analysis. And this time we turn to Num, 13-14-the history of the spies whom Moses sent to investigate the promised land. . We call it a " history," and this calls for a short hermeneutical observahon which applies in retrospect to the three preceding excursi as well. The .term " history" is to be understood in its older and naive significance in which; quite irrespective of the distinctions between that which can be hlsto~lcalt proved, that which has the character of saga and that which has been consCIOUS Y

J

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Man Word, and which has only to be appropriated; and they are then to return and tell. This is all arranged by Moses at the commandment of Yahweh (13 1 • 21). There will, of course, be a certain element of risk in crossing the frontier, both for them and for the whole people after them. It will be a venture, as we can see from the exhortation of Moses: "Be ye of a good courage," Note that they are also told to bring back some of the fruits of the land: "The time was the time of the firstripe grapes" (13 20 )-not the true grapes, but those of the approaching harvest. The Israelites themselves will actually see these first-fruits. And Moses is confident that these will speak for themselves and kindle the gratitude and joy and courage of the people. In all this we have to remember that there is no question of establishing the glorious content of the promise or the certainty that Yahweh will fulfil it and bring them into this good land. On the contrary, the whole being of this people rests on the promise of Yahweh, The only purpose, then, is to confirm the promise and to remind the people of its content and certainty. The spies can only be witnesses of the promise, and the people is to hear it attested by them and see it attested by the proofs of fruitfulness which they bring. But it is at this point that-~quite unexpectedly and incomprehensibly from the standpoint of the story-there comes the invasion of anxious care. It arises first amongst the spies themselves. Ten of these prove to be fainthearts, They have faithfully and eagerly fulfilled the first part of their commission. They have gone through the whole of the south as far as Hebron, At Eshcol they have cut off the great branch of grapes" and they bare it between two upon a staff; and they brought of the pomegranates, and of the figs" (13 24 ). And they return and tell Moses and Aaron and the whole congregation about the land, and show the fruits, and say: "We came unto the land whither thou sentest us, and surely it floweth with milk and honey; and this is the fruit of it. Nevertheless . , ." (13 261 .). After all, there is a serious" But." It is not for nothing that they were told to be of a good courage. And without courage the promise given to the whole people cannot be fulfilled. There was a risk. A venture had to be made. All the spies had been aware of this. But ten of them had obviously not proved to be very courageous on the journey. It is these ten-the overwhelming majority-who, as is only right, act as the spokesmen, And the second part of their report is as follows: "Nevertheless the people be strong that dwell in the land, and the cities are walled, and very great: and moreover we saw the children of Anak there." There then follows a list of all the warlike people they found; the Amalekites, Hittites, Jebusites, Amorites, and Canaanites (13 29f .). The report is amplified later: "And they brought up an evil report of the land which they had searched unto the children of Israel, Saying, The land which we have gone to search it, is a land that eateth up the inhabitants thereof; and all the people that we saw in it are men of a great stature. And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight" (13 321 .). Even the mil.k and honey and great cluster of grapes did not compensate in their eyes for thiS drawback; what they feared was incomparably greater than what they desired. The truth and power of the divine promise to attest which they had been chosen and now stood before the people could and should have been thrown in the scales against those hosts of people and their strong and secure cities and even the giants. But they themselves had not taken the truth and power of the promise into account, and so their report concluded: "We are not able to go up against the people; for they are stronger than we" (13 31 ). They had not really seen as witnesses of Yahweh, and therefore they could not sp~ak as His witnesses. They could not encourage His people, but only attest their own anxious care. I We remember that they are speaking to the people of Yahweh-the peop e to whom the promise and its content and certainty are not something new. for

2.

The Sloth oj Man

4

Sr

WhOl" Ul~Y are onlv to be confirmed, who are to be .. .. . .. aetle-n, :"urelv theY will una· 1 't ,umllloncd oy ,'un to resolute "J mIl10US v reJec as false witne tl' , cone 1llSlon, Unfortunately not I 1: d '" 5S l1S report and ]ts Leard this report there aro~e a m'u ns ea ,\:~ read tnat when the people of God '[J the people too, There rm· urmg , e murmunng of the care ena-enaered were, a f course two wItnes'e h '" ,owl who were therefore tru.e witne'se 'h . S s ":' a were not anxious (13;U) that Caleb" stiiled the peoples bSe'f o'~Iua CaleD. And we are told ore .\ 05e, w'th the "'a d "I gu oj> a t once, and possess it for we are 'v II 1" • r s; .•et us ,;ontinuation of the report of tIle othe~ ten ~,:e a)<J, ~o overcome it," But the ',,'cnt. \Vhen the people heard of ' pt aSlCle thIS word of encourageaJI tilE' congreo'ation'lifted up th ,glan s, eve~y restraint was east aside; "And ",ght" (ql). "'The following daye1~hVeam1ce, an ,cned; and the people wept that urmunng was against M· d A ,',) l h at we h ,tve good reason to sus eet that tl ases an aron, supremely radical rdusal which Cal! romised u" ~as not ,111 aCCIdental but a whole congregation said unto them II G ~ver}-thIl1g, And mdeed; "The U Egypt! or would God we had died"i tOh ( 'lad t.hat we had dlcd in the land of ],Of(i b n . IS I ' h the rought us unto this land to f II b WIth erness . ,\nd wh ere fore nat c!llJdren should be a prey) " (I' 2f) a l'h y f e sword, that our wives and our , t" v h h ' . 4' , us rom the future in wh' 'h th d ,10 s"e 1 a we and HIS promise and its fulfilment an d '. " 1C ey a but only these people and their strongholds ani h HIsfalthtulness and power, spies saw themselves as grasshoppers de~th y ~ e,se gIants, before whom the form of this mad desire and even l'nt' t l ' reac e, mto theIr present in the , ., a IeJr past Th' f' wIves and children i-of what God p ' d . e.\ are a raId-their poor n '-athe.'r .have been long since dead rOhmtIS~S at'h tel.ls them to do, They would f -w a IS . e value of milk d h I t ellS er, 0, grapes and pomegranates and fi 'S '~-i " , ,an oney and 1.3etter thIS than meet the obv'ousl" tgd' n Egypt or m the WIlderness, t) , ' }- gIgan IC an
J

:r:?

t

'0

"

••

-&

c:t

at

t

\Vhat follows in face of this situation i s ' " . Aaron fell on their faces before all th qUlte maJestIc; "1 hen Moses and children of Israel" (145) Th d'd e assembly of the congregation of the any word of warning or 'exhor~~ti~n n00~y t~h contradict. They did not speak n the only hope for this people is Yahweh:r e!fpeople of Yahweh holds back, \I 01 ship before Him; the intercession of t~::e wh the absolute prostration of do not, of those who persist in His callin a ~ know HIm tor those who thOse Who forget and deny and surrender n~ ~he e~taIllty of HIS promise for told of anv intercession itor is the , e III t e first mstance we are not 'Imply told that they f~ll on their7a~~Yb:~pres:h:eferenceto Yahweh, \Ve are Its anXiety, are IS crowd m all the madness of

ft

But this is not all. C.D. IV-2-16

For at a lower level,

nearer to the people but resisting

482

3. The Misery of Man

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Man

ready to march northwards into the lane! : "Lo, we be here, and will go up unto the place which the Lord hath promised." Has their fear of the death which they desired in the wilderness, and which has been ordained for them, suddenly become greater than their fear of the giants? At any rate, they are not ready to accept the destiny which now impends in consequence of their own guilt. They will march out and fight. But they can do this only in defiance of the command of Yahweh. The courage of those who are anxious is no more pleasing to Him than their cowardice. "It shall not prosper. Go not up, for the Lord is not among you; that ye be not smitten before your enemies ... because ye are turned away from the Lord, therefore the Lord will not be with you" (14 411 .). " But they presumed to go up unto the hill top. . . . Then the Amalekites came down, and the Canaanites which dwelt in that hill, and discomfited them, even unto Hormah" (14 44 1.). Ubi cessandum est, semper agilis, prompta et audax est incredulitas, ub·i autem pergendi autor est Deus, timida est, pigra et mortua, is Calvin's observation on this incident (G.R., 25, 209). Their incredulitas met with the fate which it must always suffer whatever form it takes. The only note of comfort at the end of the story-apart from the existence of the little ones about whom they had been so anxious (1431 )-is that in this careless enterprise the care-ridden Israelites did not take with them the ark of God, and therefore it was not involved in the catastrophe (14 44 ).

.' " t' y tl ' true cause of the people because the calIse of theIr anxlOlls care. represen wg Ie d . there also stand the two faithful 'h h i ting in HIS callmg an promIse, . l: a we., pers s J h and Caleb (the two referred to, perhaps, m Rev. and relIable WItnesses as ua Id ncerning them is that they rent their 3 II 1.). Th~ first thing t~~~e~:\~rere~1C~~rror at what they recognised to be an clothes (14 ) as a SIgn o . T~ then follows their entreaty in which in all ~~t ~f ~:1~e~~:~~~:~~S:I~~~iety~~eey issue their call, their final appeal, ~o~ry e u . . " The land which we passed through to searc I, IS and courage and ~ctI~n 'If the Lord delight in us, then he will bring us into this d an exceedmg goo an.. 1 d which f10weth with milk and honey. Only rebel land, and gIv~ ~~ uSior~ ~~ither fear ye the people of the land; for they are not ye agallls e '. t d from them and the Lord IS WIth us: bread for us: their defeHnce IS depareehave the clea; line of the obedient human ere again w . t " (I 71.) fear t h em no 4' dness and certainty of the divine promIse and actIOn correspondlllg to the goo h racter Yahweh is with us. Hence our sharhlg a prwr~ ItS ~r~~ph:ntgi~n~s are' impotent, and we shall overw~elm enemIes, even thoug . e Y t e 't at fear i e we must not be obstlllate Th 1 thmg IS t h a we mus n , .., them. e on y t' d therefore forfeit perhaps his benevolence. But

t

~~t:n~~sYa~~:~~~a~;:~:~~h~he pelolple ieS malorer,aedt~edep~;~~s:h~~ ~:~~~h~al;, .' . th f re that t ey reca onc .

iIi IS m vam, ere 0 , th with stones" (1410). The two faithful wItnesses? the congregatIOn bade stone 11 ~m Either way there can be no doubt that raging Or Moses and Aaron as we. . lithe' rotest made against it in the name anxiety now aims to d~stdroy P~i:I~~vi~e Judge in the person of these men, and of the dIvme promIse, JU gmg 1

3. THE MISERY OF MAN In this sub-section we shall be investigating man as the one who commits sin as we have learned to know it in the form of sloth. Who and what is he in the determination and character which he gives himself and has to bear as he commits it? The starting-point for our answer to this question has already been decided in the first part of this whole section. In relation to the situation which sin creates, as to sin itself, we do not have to think and speak according to our own mind and judgment, but according to the act and revelation and Word of God. Our gaze must be directed on the Son of Man Jesus, on the royal freedom of His existence as exalted and sanctified man, which includes our own true and authentic existence. And it is in the light of this that we must consider our false and inauthentic existence as those who commit acts of sloth. The situation which we create (in our stupidity and inhumanity and vagabondage and discontent) is the misery of man in the sense of his exile as the sum of human woe. To this far country of ours the Son of God has come in order that He may return horne as the Son of Man, not in isolation but as our Lord and Head and Representative, bringing us with Him. But instead of being those who are exalted in and with Him, as we are in truth, we are revealed in His light as those who lead a false existence, remaining in exile and therefore in misery as though the true God had come to us in vain, as though He had not taken us up with Him, as though we were not already at home in and with Him, sharing His royal freedom. This is what gives to the human situation the determination and character of human misery. It is the evil fruit of the evil sloth of man. It is the unavoidable fate of the slothful man. Remaining

makin? this its fin~l ;~~ddreadful climax that at this moment the glory of the It IS to preven . . th si ht of all Israel avertlllg the Lord appears before ~he tenta~dr~~:l~r~~~o::blee ap~stasy of the p~ople, but also murder of the two WI nesses h h made an enemy of the God whose as an act of judgment on them. 'I .eyt ~ve The have evoked death by fearing friendship t~ey have despIsed an~ reJec e t: (1:11 '2°) which tells us hoW God it. There IS now lllterposed a ong sech~~ it is averted by the explicit interthreatens what they have deserved an~ is the consequence of their extreme cession of Moses. \Ve see h;re hO\~:.X r~~: than their destruction and therefore rebellion against Yahweh. t IS no ~ng e . But this does not take place. the l\annulment ~f '~~a~~~:n~~~s~~Ch~~~:'I~~'e iniquity of this people accorfdin g For 1oses prays. , d as thou hast forgiven this people, rom unto the greatness of thy mercy, an , . . "I have pardoned . "( 19) And Yahweh s answer IS. Egypt even until now 14· . d t n however that what has . h d" (I 20) Tlus oes no mea , ' accordmg to t y war 4· The ten false witnesses happtedned h~sdndoent hdae~f:n(~d43~)r h~~:~h~~~s;,;::c~~ question of an entry 1'nt o mus Ie a su . . f th hole generat 10n the land, and therefore of the fulfilment of ih~ pr~~~~idi~~ a~dWthen in a raging which has been guilty of the anxIOUS cared ~\ I~ ho" h;d another spirit with form. With the exceptIOn of Jos,~ua ~~ "a e , ~all not see the land" (14 23 ). him and hath followed me fully (14)' they . t e in this wilder" This evil congregation, that are gathered tog:the~i:~~m~ot~~Egypt, for the ness they shall be consumed, and there they s a d romise are not will and act of God ca~lndot be revetrhsed, ~~~e t~:s~~~en:~~~~t J:periencing the annulled, but in the WI erness as ey , fulfilment. .. t ( 391.) " The people The story ends on a dark and unconcillatory no e 14 . Th suddenly mourned greatly" when Moses reported what had happene~.the e~e so very realise that they have sinned. But It does not appea~ tha yhand thereconcerned about their sin, their care, theIr obstinacy agalllsi Yahw~f'sin goes sO fore their transgression of the covenant, or that theIr can tess~~~ses armed and ., very d e., ep whe n earl" . J the followm" mornmg they come 0

I 1

484

§ b5· The Sloth and Misery of JUan

behind instead of going up with Hnn, he is .r:ecessariJy tlle O1~e .who. is left behind in misery. He prefers hIS own lIfe helow t? lhe dlvlr:e hfe above. .He chooses to persist in it. He must have. It as he lllmse~f wills to have it. He must be the onc he hImself wIlls to be. He ~s t 1-llUS the man who remains below where he , .does1 not belong, andh ~s 1 not at home but where he irrev;Jcably has ms p ace~--·s~ .on~ as IS corrupt will 'is not broken by the direction of Jesus. 1 ?lS 1:', from the standpoint of the sin of man as sl?th,. what v:e d<::scnbed as the fall of man from the standpomt of hIS SI~ ~s pnde.(C.D., IV, I, S60, 3). It is what the older dogm~ti~s called. I~ I~S totality the status corr-uptionis. Our present ter~ fo~ It IS t~e mIsery o~ man. Even in this status conuptlOms man IS not outsIde the sphere of influence of divine grace. With all his acts of sloth he cannot leave this sphere. When he remains behind, the conse.quen~esof thIS dreadful act are severe, but he does not give God the shp. God does not cease t b the God and Lord and Creator and Covenant-partner even .of the and inhuman and and or.lll the far country which is necessanly the ~)lace of ~hIS .m~n. And mal: too, in all his slothful action and the mIsery whIch It, mvolves, doe~ not cease to be the creature and covenant-partner of G~d.As he has no: created himself, he cannot disannul or transfor~ hImself. As he has not instituted the covenant, he cannot destroy It or even c~ntract out of it as though it were a free compact. Let us say. at once III con~rete terms that the descent of the Son of God to our mIsery and the ascent of the Son of Man to God's glory, the existence of t~e ~an Jesus within our slothful humanity, His victory in t?e cruC1f~XIO~ as o~r Lord and Head and Representative, the revelatIon of .this VIctory m His resurrection, the issue of His direction, the outpounng of the Holy Spirit on all flesh---all these are facts. As man has not brought them about, he cannot reverse them by anything t?at ~e does. Th~y a~~ facts even in face and at the very heart of hIS m.lsery. Even ~n hIS turning to nothingness and under the o:en~rhel~mg threat of It, ~~ himself has not become nothing. Even m hIS mIsery h: ~e1ongs, n. to the devil or to himself, but to God. The Yes of ~I,:me grace IS terribly concealed in the No of divine judgment, but It IS spoken to him too: even to unhappy Nabal; even to the people of Northe~n Israel; even to David with his petty sin; even to the murmure~~;n the wilderness. Jesus lives as very man, and ther:for~ as. the. Y God who humbled Himself to man. who cam: to. hIm. m hIS ml~~~ who took his misery to Himself. ~hus e:Ten ~n hIS ~Ise~y man an's as the man for whom Jesus lives. fa omIt thIS qualificatIOn of m misery is necessarily to deny Jesus Christ as the Lord who beca~~~ servant and the servant who became Lord, and therefore to blasp e

s~up~d

va~abond

disco~tented n~an,

God. . . h f t hich make We have to realise, however, that It IS t ese very ac s ~ which the misery of man so severe. The seriousness of the mIsery

3· The .~fisery of Man

485

results from the sin of sloth is distinguished from that of a fate by the very fact that the man who is overtaken by it is not in any sense released fro~ the sphere of influence of God and His grace. We can draw the stlllg from even the worst of fates by not merely suffering but bearing it. It disturbs only so long as we are ourselves unsettled and resist it. In face of it there is a rest in which man can transcend master and defeat it by surrendering to it. But this is not the case i~ relation to the hard hand of the living God which is the basis of the misery that results from sloth. Just because God does not let go the man who has plunged into this misery, just because His grace does not depart .fr.om him (Is. 5410), he. cannot find in any opposing rest a way of aVOldmg unsettlement by It. No surrender can enable him to outmatch it. He cannot, then, transcend or defeat it. He cannot master it. There is no refuge, not even in hell itself, in which he can cease to be in misery. The work and Word of God's grace are still actual and valid for him. Even in this place he himself has not ceased to exist as the creature and covenant-partner of God. But he does so as one who is reluctant, in a perversion of his human creatureliness, as a covenant-breaker whom the Yes of God must strike as His No who must. suffer the grace of God as His disfavour and wrath and jUdg~ ment. HIS misery consists in his ill-founded insufficiency, his inexcusable shame, his self-contradiction which cannot be smoothed over. The very. thing which limits his misery-the fact that in it he belongs to GOd-IS also the very thing which makes it so sharp. It is for this reason that we had first to think of its limitation. . But what is this misery which is the ineluctable consequence of hIS sloth? In reply to this question we shall make three assertions, none of ~hich is to be derived from, or proved by, a supposed empirical observatIOn or conceptual abstraction, but all of which have reference to that which, as the reconciliation of man including his liberation from this misery, is a reality, our living hope, in the being and work ?f the man Jesus. In the light of this hope we acquire authentic Illfo~at~on ~oncerning our exiled present which is already our past III HIm, 1.e., m the Jesus who lives for us. ~. The liberation of man from the misery created by his sloth is a realIty and therefore a living hope for all other men only in the crucified Jesus. To free us He took it to Himself. He made it His own misery. d Ar-r as the bearer of it He could only die. It was only in His death tha~ He could set this term to it; that He could make an end of it. :4. SIckness which can terminate only with the death of the patient, tram which he can be liberated only by death, is an incurable sickn~ss, or one which can be cured only as it reaches its goal and end WIth. the d:struction of the sick person, thus coming up against a frontIer whIch even it cannot pass. If Jesus is the patient for us, in OUr place, burdened with our sickness, it is obvious that we have to say of our sickness that as the misery to which the stupid and inhuman

486

§ 65. The Slath and Misery af Man

and dissipated and careworn. man ~as fa11~n victiJ.ll it is incurable-a fact which emerges with partlcular ImpressIVeness III 3;11. the. Old Testament passages to which we referred. Our first proposItIOn I~ t~us that it is a mortal sickness, i.e., that if we ourselves had to bear It, If Jesus had not carried it in our place, it could end only with our death and destruction. It does in fact end with our death to the extent that Jesus, burdened with our sickness, suffered our death. It is true that in ~is death, triumphing for us even as He suffered for us, He. accomplIshed our new and healthy birth. But this. does no~ alter Its character .as a mortal sickness. On the contrary, It reveals Its characte~. The n::lsery of man is of such a kind that an end could be made of It (negatlvely) only by the death suffered by Jesus an? (posit.ively) only in a new life inaugurated by Jesus as He crosse~ ~hI.S fr.on.tIer.. By wh,~t Jesus has done and is in order to free us from It It IS dIstmgmshed as my boundless misery" (Luther), i.e., the n::is~ry which ~a: no measur~ or limit within my human being and thinkmg and wIllmg and achIevement, in the sphere of the whole act i~ which I exist as. a m~n. .There ~re no reservations, no islands on WhICh and no pauses m WhIC?, m.relatlOn to myself and apart from what I am in Jesus, I am not m mIsery. I am wholly and utterly encompassed and penetrated by it. ~t is coextensive with my existence. I can toss and turn on my sIck-bed. I can transfer or be transferred from one sick-bed to another. When it is particularly severe, I can change hospita~s, or, if I prefe:, arran~e for private treatment. But I am alw~ys sIck: and n:y sIckness. IS always the same. It is the incurable mIsery WhIch dommates my lIfe and always emerges in one form or another. To what do we refer? We refer simply to the fact that we have no option but to be those we are in the power or i~'potence of w~at we do. We refer to the destruction and decomposltlon of ou~ bemg which takes place in the fact that we .think we .ca.n a~complIsh the actions of our stupidity and inhumamty a?d diSSIpatIon and care. We have seen what is the source of these actIOns: our groundless and inexplicable but unfortunately real and dangerous turning to that which is not; the perverse love of chaos in which we let ourselves fall where we ought to stand and lift up oursel,:es.. We. have ~ls~ seen where this leads: to the net of our self-contradIctIOn WIth all ItS mterwoven meshes; to our own devastation; to the perversion of ?ur relationship to God and our fellows and ourselves and our temporalIty. Coming from the one we are necessarily on the way. to the oth~r, hastening towards it. Deriving from the one, our bemg necessarily bears all the marks of the other, of this. w~ole per,,:ersio.n a~d de~ast~~ tion. This is the misery of man. It IS mdeed .hIS ?emg m. eXIle, ~ the far country. For he is not really at home m hIS hurrymg alo g this way. The marks of his being on this .way do not really belong ;~ him. But it is he who bears them. It IS he who must bear the

3· The Misery af Man

487 For i~ is he who hurries along this wayan which he has no future bu~ hIS. o~n destruction and decomposition, nothingness and himself as Its VIctIm. . It i~ to be noted that we are not yet dealing with death. Man stIll ~xlstS. He still lives. The goal has not yet been reached. Or he him~elf has no! yet been ~eached. by the final thing that comes upon hIm from thIS source; Just as m the pictures of the headlong plur:ge of the. ~amned the jaws of hell are only opened and eternal ~re I~ only waI~mg for them. The misery of man is " only" his bein m thIS plunge mto them. It is " only" his being in the movemen~ to~ar~s death. Only! As though this were less serious r As though ?eIll?, ~n death m~ght .not. eve? seem to be better r As though the IrresIstIble pl~nge III thIS dIrectIOn, which is the inevitable consequence of n:an'~ lettIllg himself fall in his sloth, were not as such-in this qualItatIve sense-" my boundless misery": the very fact that I c~nno~ be free of it; that I am still there; that I have to accept this SItuatIOn and. can find no release from it. It is here that the sharpness of human mIsery as groun~ed in man's limitation works itself out. -!'-s God does not abandon hIm, he cannot abandon himself-not even If he .wants to, or tries to realise his desire in what we call suicide. !Ie ~Imsel~ does what he does-the work of sloth. And he himself me.vltably IS what he does. He can only follow the law of sloth under whIch he has plac~d himself. He can only hurry along this way. He cannot do so a,s hIS own spectator, as he would like. He can do so only as ~he actIve and therefore the suffering person; the one who is not yet III death, but already, and hopelessly, on the way to it. . Note. that we are refernng to an objective reality which obtains ~rrespectI,:,e a! our ?wn recognition of it. There is thus no substance In th~ obJectIOn raIsed by experience, i.e., by a deficient experience of thIS mIsery. No man but Jesus has ever known the true breadth and depth, the true essence and darkness, of human misery. What ~ve see and note and know and more or less painfully experience of it IS only t~e ~hadow of His cross touching us. In all its essence and ~arkness It IS, of course, our mis~ry. It is we who make that headong plunge. But we can see thIS only before the passion of Christ cry: "My God, my God, why hast thou forsake~ as ';'<:, hear Hi~ 3 me.. (Mk. 15 ). We cannot see it in the terror and doubt and despair WhIch n:ay come on. us. Or we can see it in these only as a distant recollectIOn of the mIsery of which He has made an end in His death' B~ly as a weak echo of Hi~ cry; ?nly as a sign that we are truly i~ ~' and therefore share HIS suffenngs. We have no direct experience ~~ It. We cannot speak of it as though it were an element in our own ti~tory. Ho:v,ever se":,erely we may be buffeted, there can be no quesn of repetItIons of Golgotha. Not merely quantitatively, but quali~atIvely, all the content of our experience is completely transcended y Golgotha. But the fact that Golgotha never becomes the content

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Man

of our own experience and consciousness does not alter the fact that the misery of man as it is there borne and revealed by Jesus and as it may also reflect itself in our experiences is objectively and truly our own misery. Whatever we ourselves may see or not see, God sees us as those who are on the way to death, and we are this in truth. And the fact that we are this is something that we have to let ourselves be told from the place where God has seen us all in the One; from the cross and passion of Jesus. Those who think that they are particularly touched by that shadow in their own lives must not think that human misery is only theirs. And those who are able in their own lives to escape the shadow which reaches them with a certain gaiety and abandon must not think that the misery of man is any the less theirs. It is objectively the case that we are all away from home-exiles, In Jesus we are all back home again. Human misery is behind us. We have passed through the far country. We have died as those who lived there and are born again as new men. We already walk in the light. But it is in the light of Jesus in which we participate that we are accused as those who let themselves sink into their own past and therefore as those who sink in this our past; as those who are still in the far country, still in misery. We have thought of man's misery as an exile (a sense which used to be borne by the German word Elend). But if we take it in the customary sense (as miseria) the dreadful feature of this hurrying and plunging to death is that at every point man necessarily exists in a radical perversion. "Perversion" is the term that we must use-not transformation or destruction. Even in that which he is in virtue of his folly in all its forms, he is the good creature of God. Even in his sickness he does not lack any of his members or organs. All the features which make him a man still remain, He has not become a devil or an animal or a plant. Even in his misery he is not half a man, but a whole man. His misery consists in the corruption of this best. The perverted use which he makes of it is followed at once by his corrupt state-the worst. Things which are bright in themselves are all dark for him. Things that he desires all slip out of his grasp. His true glory becomes his shame. The pure becomes impure. The joyful is enwrapped by the deepest sadness. That which uplifts becomes a temptation; every blessing a curse; salvation perdition. We do not see deeply enough if we think and say that there is here only darkness, want, shame, impurity, sadness, temptation, curse and perdition. In the strict sense, the misery of man is not a status, a continuum, but his being in a history in which there can be no abstra~t "only." Thus the light is still there, but quenched; the wealth It slips away; the glory as it turns to shame; the purity to impunty; the joy to sadness. They are all there in this movement from the right to the left, from above to below, in their perversion and corruption; or, strictly, in the event of their corruption. The slothful man

-:s

3· The Misery of Man 8 . d . 4 9 IS an ~XIStS in the context of this event in th events, III this sinister history. It is the hist;r of h ~ ~equence .of s~ch of t.h~ grace of God present to him. It is h .IS ImpotentIgnon ng tUI:l.ltl~S c?ntinually offered to him and conti~ua~~to~~to;l/he opp.or!t I~ hIS. hIstory under the judgments of God Hi bY' . p. by. hIm. IS hIS mIsery. As he is in this history he' th . 5 . eIllg 1~ t~IS h~story be lost and in death without the m;s' . IS d' e Dmz~e1 who WIll InevItably • v encor za ez. . We emphasIse the fact that he is this at ev . . III the .whole fulfilment of his existence and ine:JI ~~In; ThIs mea~s humamty. It does not mean that h . b I e . eatures of hIS everything that he is and does On t~ IS ~ OW a~d III darkness in he is and does he is above Bu't he' e cton rary , In everything that . . IS no merely abov H' engaged III that slipping and sinking and fallin h e. e IS also from above to below. There is no firm . t on. t e one-way street he is involved in any other movement ~~~ t~ wFlch and .from which e.re or~ n~t III that corruption. He is wholly and utterl cau ht is no depth of his soul where he not g. ~? III t~IS hl~tory. There It is quite futile to talk about a" li Im P Icadted III thIs perversion. re c 0 f goo ness" h' h . . W lC remaInS to man even as a sinner and which is us l ' with the faculty of reason or a religiou:~:y Ide~tlfied ~at.her unea:,ily In answer to this kind of assertion we h ~ora a p(non or the lIke. which remains to man as a sinner is no~v~e~etay t~at"the good totality of His God-given nature and it d t a. relIc but the in th~ same totality he exists in the his~o/ ~~~~natIon, a~d (2) th~t good Into evil and is caught up in the y t f e perverSIOn of thIS .' . movemen rom abo t b I ' H IS total belllg In this movement' h' '. . ve? e ow. only in the misericordia Dei. IS IS mzsena whIch has ItS limit

t1

f

?s

.r

9

What we call the misery of man corres d f . Testament calls his being in the flesh A .ponllskalrly exactly to what the New IS we - nown ' l:'1S ambigu. S O h ous. n t e one side like the Old T t . '. the t erm uaps . ' es ament basar It IS a t · . . : .erm WhICh IS simply use d to descnbe man and his person a totality of his human nature and es e s l~n .exlstIng temporal SUbject in the is a physical being in this totality. Po ~~:s~ ~~dthe det;','"~ination in which he bnng out this sense. To be or 11've ' , blood IS sometimes used to . EV GapKI. or even " . SImply to be, to exist, to live as a living hum Karu. uapKO. In this sense is emphasis on the physical aspect, on the con~~x~reature In tUHe, with a special to w~lch we belong. The fact that this is the c: f the physlc.o-natural order that In It man is regarded if neutraJJy f t~peclal reference IS an indication ponents of his being. On the other sid~ h e standpoint of the lower cornman In the sphere which is dominated b ~h as a peJoratzve sense. It means means the whole man, but in the corm ti;n" e power of hIS own sin. It again Itself out as a result of his sl'n It p vhlch has entered and which works . h· . means man as h h t In IS Jwn lust, as he is hostile and a p d t e a s umed away from God as he has faJJen a total victim to "'B 1? oyse b a God, as he lacks His Spirit and u ' . . 'I' opa. a e and walk a d t' " apKa In thIS sense is to be a man-the 10' .. n ac €v uapK' or KaTD. 'IualIfied-in this sphere and therefore d\\ert~lde IS no longe:- neutral but diss pc:wer , ln thIS perversion, and \\"ltb. desires which are opposed to Godu~n~r :!'8 opa . In relation to this twofold mea' ' t ' Spmt. thus fallmg a victim to iilready indicated in the first. Even i:l~l~ I fi IS to be no~ed .that the second is erst sense aap( IS not unequivocal

:t;

I-Ii:

§ 65, The Sloth and Misery of Man

490

.

. t term used in a normal, but only III a pat~o(like .puXTJ' awp.a or vous} , It IS no a lr ady as the subject of the history III which logical, anthropology, It sees m~n a e Conversely however we must not lose he will become aapg in t~e secon sen;e. The man who lives i~ the flesh in the sight of the first sense m the sechon. h as described by the same term, . th same as t e one w 0, . pejorati~e s~nse IS e . . time. We cannot dissolve with a word the. tenslOn simply hves l.n ~IS humamty llld which emerges in these changes of meamng. In which there IS m the term an . t d re to the one side or more to the the various passage~ we may be )~I~:e r~~tionshiP of the two meanings the other, but the tenslOn remams. which confronted the New Testament authors term describes the fatal hlstor~ thers but primarily themselves (Rom.. 7}-as when they looked at man:-no 0 e s opposing His Spirit and III total he is apart from his bei?-g m the onetmahn J SUng.' l'n the history of the division of t' b Him To deno e IS b el , t. 't . need of hbera lOn . y . ' d If ntradiction, they used the term aap~ m 1 s his ego, his self-ahenatlOn dan s~ ~c~he -raAa{7Twpos avOpw7ToS (Rom. 7") who can twofold sense. The term esc~1 e . . only cry for redemption-man III his misery, ,-

"

hi' a new man the saint of In our redemption ~ro~e\r~~~~r~an Jesus in ~hom our old God, has taken our place 1tnh t b)'ect of new and different acts which . di d . new man as e su man e , a I ' t God We are freed from our rmsery are obedient and we~l-p~~smg 0 too ~re new men and therefore the to the extent that m 1m ~e the new birth of man did not and subjects of new acts. :e~ a~oer of these new acts in which his does not suffice to ma e . mad reco nisable in which instead of slot~ is no l~m~er ope~~velittnu hir!self and stand and ?e act~ve contmually smkmg he fh Pceed from the new beginmng Wh1Ch as a true man. ,Except ah~ e~ pr~nd this. is our second propositionhas been made m Jesus 1S ac s 2.

will always be the acts of ~s slot~:~~e~l~Yhe light of his liberation The misery of man as 1 may t' uum in the further sense that it is a hi~tory ::nd not ~ st~~~~~ ~:;i:uallY confirms and renews itself has a hfe of 1tS, own l~W have already stated that what man does ~e in an endless cIrcle. . e What he is he does. And he Will is, But t?e converse 1S al~~;:~~at he does not become another ma? do it contmually to the ex t b that of the other man who IS d h' f on does no ecome " l in Jesus an 1S ac 1 f lder dogmatics peccatum ongma e in Jesus. T~ use ,the language 0 0 lia Peccata ;ctualia (acts of sin) necessarily glves rIse toTPheccati! actuoa m'an l'S characterised bv the fact . t 'one e m1sery f • . If are peccata 2n ac 2 : , H certainly is and makes himse , e , h f ct t only 2S a smner, that man no . . B t we might accustom ourselves to tea. this as h~ co~m1ts Sl1~i h~ learn to master it. We might explain It that he IS thIS, We . gd f but to be borne and endured ~y ki d f f te-mente , 0 course, 't In as a n 0 a . I'd't with all history and humam y, . the individual only m so 1 an y Adam and on all men In subjection to. the senten~e p~on~~n~i~u~~erstood, For its refere~ce him. But th1S. s,entence 1Sa~ ~~e basic act of evil, in which h~m~mt):'~ is to the cu~pab1hty~~~~esub:ect in each individual, was and 1S l1~pli which from has 1tS t m . idam . And what characterises the nusery cated therespon very fi rs,

3, The Misery of Man

of man is that he is evil, not only in his participation in this basic act, not only as a child of Adam, in his heart from his youth up, but also (as this) from moment to moment, "in evil thoughts and words and works from his youth up even to this present," in individual decisions which are wrong decisions in virtue of their source, each of them having its fatal aspect and consequence, each in its own way being an act of unfaithfulness, unbelief, disobedience and ingratitude, each in its own way a work of the sloth for which he is again and no less strictly responsible as for the basic act of his existence. It is true, but it does not release him (for he himself is the one who wills and does it), that as the child of Adam he proceeds continually from the great sloth of man. It is also true, but does not release him (for he himself is again a willing and acting subject), that in the form of concrete, the most concrete, achievements he continually returns to the sphere of that sloth. The liberation of man as it has taken place in Jesus is his true liberation from this circle. That he (he himself) moves in this circle is his misery. And to the misery of his being in individual wicked acts there belongs the contradiction that there is no action which is evil in itself and as such, by disposition and constitution, but that the whole action of man is necessarily evil as it takes place in this circle. "For every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving" (r Tim. 4 4 ). Yet that is the very thing which is lacking. The psychical and physical, spiritual and sensual functions in which the evil I5 acts of men are done can be pure as the functions of the pure (Tit. r ). They are this in themselves and as such. The good creation of God persists. We are forced to say this finally not only of the functions of those who are healthy but also of those who are sick in body or soul. The evil does not consist in a disposition of the psyche or physis but in the sloth of their physical and psychic action as it derives from the sloth of their heart. It is in this, and in its service, that that which is not evil in itself becomes evil-the psychic and physical occurrence in which the acts of men are done. Even to the smallest details the slothful man acts in contradiction and conflict with himself. Even to the smallest details he exists in the history of this perversion. In his actual sins it continually acquires new actuality in a whole inter-related sequence of open and secret detailed histories. Apart from his new beginning, apart from the new birth which has already taken place in Jesus, apart from his becoming a different man, and therefore the subject of new and different acts, in the power of His direction, there can be no question of an end of his misery in this respect too. A dogmatico-historical observation is required at this point. It concerns the locus De peccato actuali which presents rather a curious picture in older Protestant dogmatics. It consists for the most part in a remarkable and very fInely Woven net of concepts which are intrinsically antithetical but which are

49 2

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Man

paired off to show how from any particular standpoint the act of sin may take place between two very widely separated points and yet always have the essential character of sin, There are thus, it was taught, peccata commissionis and peccata omissionis, peccata infirmitatis or ignorantiae and peccata malitiae, peccata voluntaria and peccata involuntaria, peccata regnantia, i.e.. sins which dominate a man, or which he aIlows to master him without a struggle, and peccata non regnantia, those which are not overcome by him, yet which he does not acquiesce in but contests. There is a peccatum mortuum, and in some sense latent or potential sin, of which we are not conscious, at least in its full range and extent, and a peccatum vivens, sin living and recognised in the sense of Rom, 7 8 ••• There are peccata spiritualia, of which the soul is particularly guilty (e.g" pride, envy and theological heresy), and peccata carnalia, like gluttony, drunkenness and lechery, There are peccata clamantia, those which cry to heaven, and peccata tolerantiae, those which for all their culpability are endured for a time by the long-suffering of God. The doubtful nature of the whole understanding emerges at once in the obvious difficulty and even impossibility of many of these distinctions. The general purpose was very largely perhaps to differentiate one sin from another as more or less dangerous and disruptive. It is tempting to try to do this, but it constitutes a threat to the presupposition which was sometimes maintained very strongly, that all sins are alike in this, ut vel minima minimi peccati cogitatio, mortem aeternam millies mereamur (Bucan, Inst, theol., 1602, XVI, 9). Yet if we consider the results rather than the purpose of this whole theologoumen, we have to recognise, not merely that it has a certain practical value as a constituent element in a kind of penitential mirror, but that it helps us to realise that the whole action of man, caught in the cross-fire of the questions put by these distinctions, is unable to avoid the judgment that it is sin, and that it is brought under this judgment, not indiscriminately. but in its differentiation, in its own particular nature and character, If we keep before us the net of these opposing concepts in its totality, we realise that the judgment under which we stand is comprehensive and yet that it is also concrete and specific, If the Word of God pronounces us all guilty, it does not do so generally and amorphously, but with particular reference to each individual in his own place, and again with particular reference to this or that specific action, so that the misery of man is not a night which makes all cats grey, but in it each of us, in each specific action, has his own profile and his own shade of darkness, One pair of concepts suggested in relation to peccata actualia was a subject of dispute between the Romanists and Lutherans on the one side and the Reformed dogmaticians on the other. This was the distinction between so-called mortal sins (peccata mortalia) and venial sins (peccata venialia). According to Roman doctrine there are some sins which are so slight that they do not leave behind any macula in anima (Thomas Aquinas, S. th" II, I, 89, I). They are inevitably bound np with human life since the fall, But they are to be compared with what Paul in I Cor. 3 lZ calls wood, hay and stubble, They do not prevent the attainment of salvation (89 2 ) and they are reparable in themselves even apart from the counteraction of divine grace, In contrast, there are the seven deadly sins-according to Thomas (84, 4) inanis gloria, gula, luxuria, avaritia, tristitia (quae tristatur de bono spirituali propter laborem corporalem adiunctumJ, invidia, ira. These are not reparable in themselves, They can be made good only by grace, which means in practice the renewal of baptismal grace by the sacrament of penance, The older Lutheran dogmatics could also speak of a peccatum mortale as opposed to a peccatum veniale. "Venial" according to Hollaz (Ex. theol. ac"oam., I 707, II, 4, qu, 20) is O11Zne peccatum involuntarium ~n renatis, quod neque gratiam inhabitantem Spiritus sancti excutit, neque fidem extinguit, sed eadem momento, quo committitur, venial/! indivulso nexu coniunctam habet. Mortal sin, on the other hand, is that which is committed in transgressIO~ of the divine commandment contra dictamen conscientiae delibcrato voluntat~s

3· The Misery of Man /Jroposito (qu, 9), The older R f . , 493 As t.hey saw it, they can be n~ ~:~"~~~7 tefcbcrs rCJectcd this wholc distinction one side cvery sin, however slight it m;~Ps:~e eV0n for the regenerate, On th~ other SIde every sin can be forgiven b m to be, IS mortal sin. And on the In the light of our pres .t' y e mercy of God, position in relation to this c~~~~~~.~~:s tt:;re can be no doubt as to our own between mortal and venial sin assurl:~s he Roman ,and Lutheran distinction cannot be Uluted with the I·, ',' , . a quantItatIve concept of s'n h'! .. (eCISlve senousness f t! d ' · ' ' w IC I h uman SItuatIon under this judcrment I 0 Ie IVllle Judgment and the human mIsery and therefore the'" depth /t~anf serve only to veil the depth of ground we have to reject the distinctio ~ I. e ree grace of God, On the same and especially the notion that in res ~t e ween volunta;y and involuntary sin a.dvantageously placed than the un pec of mvoluntary sms Christians are more' 1 t I ' regenerate Eve ' ry sm, even the smallest, is ILor a sm to the extent that it is worth of' ness, , How, then, can we restrict the t{,.m tdeath :nd mvolves our mortal sicka vemal sm not In this list could not b ' 0 the ~even deadly sms, as though greater than all of them put together ~ J~~ as great as any of these, and even smaIlest, is not committed l'n an I'n . fillch sUpposedly little sin even the ' t' . ner con Ict f ' . < t lIa It IS not at one and the t' 0 man and the will of man 'h t . • same Ime volunt T · · , so v. a IS meant by the idea of a sin which' .ar) S1l1 and mvoluntary? And apart from the merciful God and i d ~s pardonable in itself, and therefore there any other forgiveness but thatnott~~ ;ntly of His pardoning grace? Is absolute need of His forgiveness fOl' .' Does not each one of us stand I'n • II t every sm' Is t H'IS f orgn'eness ' e'llla Y 0 every sinner for every sin ,_ ,,~t. no promised revealed, and by whom He J's k . excel' mg only those to whom He . t H' nown as the m "f I G ' IS o IS mercy, who try to evade forgivene ' , e~cI u ad, but who do not keep case of some of their sins, and who th s~
ih'

T

3· The liberation of man from hi ' sh~Ihsery has taken place and is a fact only in the royal freedom' ' h ea' 1't b y gIvmg .. pI IS up Himself mHisw nIC the man Je sus h as aCComt? death for us in obedience to' Go 1 e as very God and very man, nd R.epre,sentative. This is the act ofdf: Cl:s our Lord. ~nd Head and arbztnum in which the l'b t' f ee WIll, the deCISIOn of liberum , 1 era IOn a man f h' , once and for all accomplished J ]. rom ~s mIsery has been :~is act of the free and victO;iou:s~~rnl:I~S. . He live~ as the 1?oer of :>mful human action and bein g . th . WIll breakIng the CIrcle of man introduced by God l' H· , e wlll of the new man the holy n IS person t h e h ' ' and for us. As such He I' f ' . man w a IS free for Him , h ,Ives or us And In H' l' 0, t e same free will as those k 1m we a so hve as men wh' overcome and conqu;r our miser a ~ea through that circle, who of God which limits our miser is ~e:~ ree men. In H~m the mercy -our own freedom B t thY y present as the gIft of freedom we are liberated by iIimu. I.S means that in the misery from which b .. , J.e., In our own tarruin ' . Your sloth, we are not free a art f H,J g In our past as caused l~ t~e free and victorious will ~iCh ~om k II~, nor do we participate SInnmg. Our third Proposition is th rea strough that CIrcle of our , erefare, as follows, Our misery,

b

i''II i

r

I I

!

494

~

65. The Sloth and Misery of Man

as we have to learn continually from our liberation by Him, is the determination of our will as servum arbitrium. It is always a mistake to try to establish or understand the assertion of the bondage of the will otherwise than christologically. It cannot be either proved or disproved by empirical findings or a priori reflections. As a corollary to the confession of the freedom which has been won for us and granted to us in the man Jesus it is a theological statement--a statement of faith. As such, it has nothing whatever to do with the battle between determinism and indeterminism. It is not a decision for determinism; and the fact that this is not clear in Luther's De servo arbitrio is the objection that we are forced to raise against this well-known work and also against the ideas of Zwingli and Calvin. It can take up into itself both determinism and indeterminism to the extent that they are to be understood as the hypotheses of an empiricist or a priori philosophy. It necessarily excludes both to the extent that they set themselves up, on this or that foundation, as metaphysical dogmas. It describes the perversion of the human situation which results from the sloth of man in his relationship with God. It does not consist at all in the fact that man cannot any longer will and decide, i.e" that he is deprived of arbitrium, that he has no will at all. If this were the case, he would no longer be a man; he would only be part of a mechanism moved from without. This would involve the transformation of man into another and non-human being-an idea which we have exerted ourselves to repudiate from the very outset in this whole context. But the freedom of man does not really consist ---except in the imagination of the invincibly ignorant-in the fact that, like Hercules at the cross-roads, he can will and decide. Nor does the bondage of his will consist in the fact that he is not able to do this. Freedom is not an empty and formal concept. It is one which is filled out with a positive meaning. It does not speak only of a capacity. It speaks concretely of the fact that man can be genuinely man as God who has given him this capacity can in His freedom be genuinely God. The free man is the man who can be genuinely man in fellowship with God. He exercises and has this freedom, therefore, not in an indefinite but in a definite choice in which he demonstrates this capacity. But since this capacity is grounded in His fellowship with God this means in the choice in which he confirms apd practises his fellowship with God; in the election, corresponding to his own election and creation and determination, of faith and obedience and gratitude and loyalty to God as the One who is the Creator and Giver not only of his human essence and existence but also of this capacity. Again, we must not say that this great name is merited by the " freedom " so often described as posse peccare and posse non peccare : as though the possibility of peccare were a genuine possibility offered to man by God and not one which God has forbidden and excluded;

3, The Misery of Man as though he could have this 'b"', 495 free~o~ to be genuinely man. P;~~I I~ty m genume freedom; in his posSIbIlIty is already the ma h ~an who has, or can desIre, this , Of n w 0 1S not free and h ' It. the free man it has to b 'd w 0 must desIre excludes this. It excludes th e sal ,~,?-on pote~t p~ccare. His freedom sin in the capacity granted toe toss~ Iity of smmn~. He" cannot" only believe and obey and give tI~n!s God. , In thIs capacity he can G~d the response of his Own 10 It Hand gl\~e to the faithfulness of thIs capacity and therefore a ya e can sm only as he renounces ?O use of his freedom. Th~ sIs ~e fave r~peate~ly maintained, makes mhumanity dissipatI'on and 0 0 man.m all1tS forms (as stupidity ,,' care) and m all't 'eli'd ' omISSIOns consists in his failure t k 1 ~ m VI ual acts or this is negative. It does not res~ ~a e use, of hIS freedom. And all ? aGnydthm.g that h'can seriously be called a posse . It has no basI' s el'th er moor , It can be explained. It can b e d 'b d m man Imself by which free--which is nonsense Y t escn ,e onl,r as a freedom not to be it does actually take pla~e ~ t ~s man s tu.rnlllg to that which is not is no possibility but can' b IhS thetgr~spmg of the possibility which · ,,' e c arac ensed only . , " I t IS the choosing" which is not a I ' as an 1mposSIbilIty. of faith and obedience and gratit nda t~r~atIve to the genuine choosing of this genuine choosing It' t~ e. u ,only the dreadful negation decision of man. It is a fact o~~ a: IrratIOn~1 an~ incomprehensible -:et i? this character it is a real kct Pi~c,!"re, a'!a,pravE£v, tran~gression. Illummed by any posse. It is the fa~t I~ a. sIms~er fact WhICh is not demonstrates that he is inex licabl o~ sm III WhICh man reveals and make any use of his freedo p H Y t e sloth~ul man who does not uses it, in the choice of the ;~ssibi~'tan:a~e hIS freedom only as he does not use it, he goes out ' t t~ y w IC corr~sponds to it. If he be~ief and disobedience and i~~r~tit:dab~o~ute ~O~d of a. bei,ng in un?emg. And this means that he loses i:' I~0 a emg whIch ~s no true IS no freedom in this unreal b . . e does not have It. There eo ipso the sphere of bonda e~mX and ~or those who turn. to it, It is hIS, freedom to be genuinelygman. s ln~n,ner r;nan ~a~ decIde~ against sanly continue to decide a a' t't "m thIs decislOn h~ wIll necesthe servant of sin" (In. 83~ llltn ~h' b ~hosoeve~ c?mmitteth sin is we have the whole doctrine' of the ~on~efest of b1bhc~1 formulations non peccare is what w h age of the wIll. Non potest sin excludes his freedo~ j~:t to s~y ~f t~e sinful, slothf.ul man. His IS no middle position F as IS ree om excludes hIS sin. There alternative, He has 'not or the Stlothbful man there is only the first H ceased 0 e a man H '11 ercules, the arbiter of what h d . e WI s. He is a the corruption of his will H e oes. But he does what he does in servo arbitrio In a de . e dohes not, therefore, do it libero but . eper sense t an the p t h d . , . ,oe, a m mmd, It is the curse of an evil deed that it inevitabl be Sure the slothful h . Y gives bIrth to fresh evil To " man c ooses-m that d df 1 ' . rea u negatlOn of true cJ100smg-as he always did B t h h . . u e c ooses only on the path that

h'

~

65 The Sloth and Alisery of Alan

he has entered, A,nd on this path, however he may choose, he cannot choose as a true man (for he has turned aside from this genuine possibility), but in all his choices, having yielded to corruption, he can only ~lct corruptly. His starting-point is the repudiation of his freedom. He cannot, therefore, do that which corresponds to his freedom. He necessarily cloes that which he could not do in the exercise of it, This is the bondage of the human will which is the bitterest characteristic of human misery. It has its limit 1Il the mercy of God, or concretely in the liberation accomplished for man in Jesus. This limit is set for it in the sanctification of man of which we shall speak in the next section, But as a precaution we must already make the following statement. The concept of limitation (which we are forced to use in relation to the sanctification of man) includes that of a subject of limitation. The liberation of man in Jesus is his new birth and conversion as it has taken place in Him. The freedom which man has and exercises in Him is a new creation, In Him he is free from the committal of sin and for faith, obedience and gratitude. He is, therefore, genuinely free, OllTWi; d'AEUfJEpo<; Un, 83G ). This is the limit which is set to his bondage by his sanctification. But in this life even the sanctified man who partakes of this freedom, even the Christian, is not only in Jesus, not only what he is in Him, and therefore not only free. In solidarity with all other men he is also in himself, in the flesh, in the past which is continually present. He is the one who is limited by this limitation, and as such the one who needs sanctification, liberation. To the extent that he is this, he is not free, and everything that we have said about the bondage of the human will applies in all seriousness to him too. To the extent that he is in the flesh and not in the spirit he is " dead in sins" (Col. 2 13 ; Eph, 2 1 ), He is not just half-dead, or apparently dead. He is a corpse awaiting the resurrection, and we have to speak in all seriousness of his past which unfortunately is always present. He is engaged in the conflict of the Spirit against the flesh, but also of the flesh against the Spirit (Gal. 517 ), and in the last resort he will not refuse to confess with the apostle Paul" that in me (that is, in my flesh) dwelleth no good thing" (Rom. 718 ). Conflict does not mean peaceful co-existence, let alone co-operation. Even in the Christian the old man is quite unambiguously the old man. In relation to the new he can be compared only to a rebel whose insurrection is so checked by the power of his sovereign that it cannot work itself out freely but as a limited operation will even serve to promote the general good. Yet even in this way he is a rebel; he is not a servant of his king. The old man, even in the Christian, is not a herald and precursor and partner of the new. In the sense described, he is in bondage, He does not will tibero arbitrio, but servo arbitrio, He does not believe or love or hope or pray-or he does so only in appearance, deceiving himself and others. He is useless, absolutely useless, ,,~ far as concernS the

J. The Misery of Man ' 497 inhum '" t cc1and discontented He ,1 btl. '.t, an, C1IssIpa 11 le never chooses the rigH "ni T th . c lOoses, the limitation but w'th' 't'.' L, :> ,e ~\[ong, All thIs stands within non-Christian 'who d~e- Ill(~, It IS, J,ust the sar:1c as in, the case of the the limitation as t'he cJnsenwD'h h~vel' a'tPajrt, m, that lllUltation, Within , ' · " 0 IS llUl el b y It t1 Ch" f ' , a practical non-Christiall F"d d I' .' le ~ II~ Ian IS hImself 'iame ' - '_, " ree am a~ Jondage clash In one and the and hz:-a~~dh~s:rcedom as a new rnanm Jesus and in the Holy Spirit; the fle-h' ,g as an ~ld man" outSIde Jesus, in and for himself in tot~' m hIS vast WhICh IS stIU present; and both of them t t l ' ,10 ct 1/on, no bndge, no mediation or svnthpsis b , a a , only. the antithesis of that conflict l'f' : -.' '. . 'fi eh~een them, but Ch "T a co-operation th" b t,' 1 e 11l catIon ,the n i't' , ' ,ns't't, l~ hsanctI . t t t ta be co-a " . ' , en, e ween t e two! For how can there , yeratlOfl between total freedc,m and total bo d ? LI the Spmt give .'.. . " n age, r ow can , aSSISLance to the ilesh, or the flesh to the Spirit? ' . 'j H ' t ' g ooc , e IS s UT)[d

T

.'

,

'

"

~'he doctrine which makes this cali,Tal n "." ." , man S co-operation in the accolIlpli-I' - "~ t c~~sar) IS tne Homamst doctrine of IS,S use the term mcludes wI' ,me~l ,IS JUstIilcatlOn (which as Roman',lUtu, in quo ho,>no nasei'ur fir ,a p we ,cA'a sanctitication); his translatio ab eo Ad] I tus ' rzmt d ae tn "tatum" t' '.' am esum Christum (Trid VI ) E' " bra lae : . , per secundum cannot, of course, take pl:~e ~i:h:ut r ~:n on the Roman vIew this translatio ,he merits of His passion (e 3) a d th e~neratlQn m ChrIst, participation in oj baptism, It cannot take' lac; wi ere ore ,concretely the sacramental grace case of adults at least rea 1 p d thout the gratta praevemens which in the ' c les an calls alld "up t t) b aptlsm (c, 5), On the oth' h d ' t · pOI'S .lem even before their moved by prevenient gra er an d~ 1, cannot take place unless they themselves zustifieationem. to a free a,~:'nt~~; a ,~pose: ad convertendum se ad ;uam ipsoru~ to it man is neither inacti~e nor acItiv~o~ eran WIth t~lIS grace. Thus in relation pomt (we are still in a prior sph t "I patI tftrom .It lG. 5) when lIe comes to the 'fi ' ere 0 t la 0 an acceptance f th t ' , 0 e rue grace of JUStl cation) of assenting to revelatio seeking refuge in the mere of G 'd n, of recognlSlng that he is a sinner, of ot beginning to hate his sY ,;~. of behevmg In Chnst and loving Him, and e and begins. a new life and"~beWys~ ththd , ultImate result that he receives baptism e',t" Ivme all(I .must take place on the Ro , commandments . , ., (e" 6) All t h'IS can sin the liberum arbitrium of no~aIlls ,"Iew oecause even m a state of original t'I inclinatum (c x) In th l~ dIS rmmme exst,nctum, viribus lieet attenuatum " 0 er WOr S It IS t 1 the presuppOsitlOn of grat"' ' , n o so weaKened or perverted that on " a praevenuns man IS,capat) not· ' 1e 0 f that assentire et cooperart of that se d'sp t , onere e praepara1"e (can ) If th' , h , lIlan who has not vet part" t d 'j " 4 ' ,IS IS t e case with the more is it the case~ with th,c:pa,~ ~n t le true grace of Justification, how much its renewal in penance (c os) \\ 0 lave receIved the grace of baptism (c. 7) or sin in the strict sense (t ,- X4. Th~ sacramental grace has cleansed away all \Vhat remains is a co o,um t .' ~uo ' veram et propnam peccati rationem habet), although it derives frr::muPstISnc.enhda ~'ellfomes peecatt, a painful relic of earth whirh . . an mc mes to It (V c -' t h - , GO not give place to it b u t " " )), canno arm those who n f 11 those who do this are' ca a:::: u y reslst It per gratlam Christi]esu, Indeed, ,ood works (VI ex) ~h. of an Hleremer;tum 2ustificationis in the form of which they do n~t ·ce~~~ to b:~iS~~l comm,',t ttte little, everyday, venial sins in they are free even from ' I g if eous, but they also do good works in which vema om and must theref b 0 ences (c, rr), Even if they fall into mortal , ore eam aoam £ro'n th 1 ' , :nent of penance, they wiltnot lose faith (e ~ )eg1l1mng by receiving the s"cra:Ylent (mereri e x6 can d) ,5. can, 28). In addItIon, they can If they die in' a ~tat~ of ~r:~eaI~he3~ct~n1a~:gme:ltum gratiae by good works, and, , a r _cep JOn of eternal hfe, and ultimately

t '

°

0,

d

§ 65. The Sloth and Misery of Man even an augmentum gloriae, a commensurate enhancement of their eternal blessedness. These were the statements of Trent as they were drawn up in the year of Luther's death in opposition to Reformation teaching. They had been carefully worked out in a conscientious and critical scrutiny of the development of doctrine in Scholasticism and later Scholasticism, and they were formulated in such a way as to counter at every conceivable point the objection of the Reformers. At the heart of the exposition of the meritum bono1'Um operum (c. 16) we even come across the sincerely meant statement: Absit tamen, ut christianus homo in se ipso vel confidet vel glorietur et non in Domino. It is hard to see, however, what force this statement can have in conjunction with a doctrine the whole point of which is to maintain man in an unshaken self-consciousness balancing not only the grace of God but also and primarily his own sin. Both sin and grace are understood as quantities, and on this assumption they are compared and pragmatised and tamed and rendered quite innocuous. The meaning of the conflict between the Spirit and the flesh, of the new man in Jesus and the old in whose form we confront Jesus, of freedom and bondage as totalities which do not complement but mutually exclude one another, is not only unperceived but actually concealed in a whole sea of obliterating formulre and objections and protests which are directed against every kind of quietism and fatalism, which have nothing whatever to do with what has to be said seriously concerning either the liberum or the servum arbitrium, and which can only secure us against having to see and say what really ought to be seen and said at this point. The teaching office the Roman Church neither willed nor could say this. It will not and cannot say it to-day. Instead it speaks on the one hand of that assentire and cooperari of the unregenerate man in his relationship to the obscure gratia praeveniens which is arbitrarily invented and cannot be defined with any precision but which results in his capacity for faith and penitence and a turning to grace. And on the other it speaks of the good works of the regenerate man, who is only a little sinner and commits only tiny sins, and who is in the happy position of being able to increase the grace of justification in co-operation with it, and even to augment the degree of his eternal bliss. The practical consequence of all this is that the misery of man is not regarded as in any way serious or dangerous either for Christians or non-Christians. The Reformation communions could not reunite with a Church which held this doctrine, and they cannot accept the call to reunion with it to-day. We ourselves have looked at the matter rather differently from the Evangelical theologians of the 16th century. 'We have considered the misery of man in the light of the liberation which has taken place and is actually present in Jesus. Our understanding of the enslaved will of sinful man has nothing whatever to do with determinism or pessimism. But for this very reason we cannot accept any more (indeed far less) than they could the mitigation of this misery offered by the Romanist doctrine. "Thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ" (I Cor. 15 57 ). It is a matter of the positive affirmation of this thanksgiving if in substantial agreement with the older Evangelical theology we are committed at this point to a decided negative.

§ 66

THE SANCTIFICAnON OF MAN

bee~h:c~~:~~~ti~: ~~e~~~t:h~~~ i~e~l:~a~c~

reluctan~e

of his has ] esus C~rist, is as such the creation of ~is ~:~h;o resurrec~lOn of rm of eXistence as the faithful covenant-partner of God It t on his justification before God and like t~~S ~t?Ol1Yh~nd utterly !n ~: one ] :sus Christ, but eff~ctively and ~~:hol:it:~iv~;e~o;~iI I ~rec~~~, i~ ~~:~~~~a~t;sted, by its operation ~m0!lg them as His to discipleship which h:s p~~~: ~~ ~:mw~~ m ~lrtue of t~e call co~vers.ion, .of the praise of their works, ~f th:h~~r:w~kt~mng to which IS laid upon them have th f d o e cross d' , e ree om even as sin t ~en er ob.e~lence and. to establish themselves as the saints ~~r~ ~ In ~1~ovlsdlOI?'al offenng of the thankfulness for which the wh ~ wor IS or amed by the act of the love of God. 0e

I.

JUSTIFICATION AND SANCTIFICATION

U~der the title "sanctification" we take u

the them . particular scope of this second ~rt of the ~ ~h!ch o reconcIlIatIOn. The divine act of atonement . oc nne ~:~~e~ !n J e~us .Chhris~ ~oes not consist only in t~~Co~~~~~~?ona~~ . u In an WIt thIs In the exaltation of man Th . d ~~nsJIstdonly in the fa:t that God offers Himself up 'for mUe~I~ t~:: ~ot e u ge, allows HImself to be judg d' th' 1 .' e,

c~nstItute.s. t~e

~~~:~~~~:;~i{~~%~n~ ~m~:~h':~~iL:~f ~Kn~?~;:~ ~:~

of re 1m. It ?oes not ~ons1st, therefore, only in the 'ustification b m~n. It. cons~st~ al~o In the sanctification which is ~ndissolubl oun. up wIth hIS JustIfication, i.e., in the fact that as H t y m~n In defiance of his sin He also, in defiance of his sin t e urns to p1ms elf. The reconciliation of man with God takes "pl~ ur~s an ~o orm that He introduces as a new man the one . 1 ~e a so In t e

n:

~~a~~~ ~~t ~::s~~~~ i~~h~:;~~~r~~~c;~~Tm~~ ~E~:~:~:~et;:;~o0

~~~:e~ ~ f~~hful ~a;en.~nt-partner

"y

who is well-pleasing to Hir:~~d y 1m. W11,?~ yo~r God" is the justification of man e shall be my people IS hIS sanctification. It is not the fi l' 499 na

§ 66. The Sanctification of Man 500 thing that has to be said concerning the alteration of the human situation which has taken place in the reconciliation achieved and revealed in Jesus Christ. In a third part of the doctrine of reconciliation we shall have to consider the whole in relation to the provisional goal of the covenant newly and definitively established in Jesus Christ and therefore in relation to the calling of man. But our present problem is that of his sanctification-his reconciliation with God from the standpoint of his conversion to Him as willed and accomplished by God. What is meant by sanctification (sanctificatio) might just as well be described by the less common biblical term regeneration (regeneratio) or renewal (renovatio), or by that of conversion (cnnversio), or by that of penitence (poenitentia) which plays so important a role in both the Old and New Testaments, or comprehensively by that of discipleship which is so outstanding especially in the synoptic Gospels. The content of all these terms will have to be brought out under the title of sanctification. But there is good reason to keep the term sanctification itself in the foreground. It includes already, even verbally, the idea of the" saint," and therefore in contradistinction to the other descriptions of the same matter it shows us at once that we are dealing with the being and action of God, reminding us in a way which is normative for the understanding of the other terms as well of the basic and decisive fact that God is the active Subject not only in reconciliation gen~rally but also in the conversion of man to Himself. Like His turning to man, and man's justification, this is His work, His facere. But it is now seen and understood, not as his iustificure, but as his

sanctificare. In the Bible God Himself is the One who is originally and properly holy, confronting man in his creatureliness and sinfulness, and the whole created cosmos, with absoluteness, distinctness and singularity, with inviolable majesty. " I am God, and not man" (Hos. II"). The seraphim proclaim Him (Is. 6 3 ) as the One who is thrice holy-" holy as it were to a threefold degree" (Proksch in Kittel, I, p. 93l-in this sense, in this uniqueness and superiority. But in this as in other respects the biblical teaching about God is not theoretical. It is given in the context of accounts of God's action in the history inaugurated by Him. Nowhere, then, does it look abstractly to this One who confronts us, in His own inner being. He is indeed holy in and for Himself. But he demonstrates and reveals Himself as such in His establishment and maintenance of fellowship with man and his world. The prophet Hosea was the first and, in the Old Testament, the only writer to understand and describe this Holy One as specifically the One who loves His people. But this equation is the implicit declaration of the whole of the Old Testament. In it we have to do with the Holy One who encounters the man who is so very different from Himself, and who does SO in that unapproachable majesty, and th'~refore effectively, but who demonstrates and reveals Himself as the Holy One in the fact that He sanctifies the unholy by His action with and towards them, i.e., gives them a derivative and limited, but supremely real, share in His own holiness. The reference is to the Holy One of Israel, to use the term which dominates both parts of the Book of Isai~. " God that is holy shall be sanctified in righteousness" (Is. 5 18 ). It is by HIS

1. t

Justification and Sanctification

f' d

50 1

ac s a ]U gment and grace among and to this as Its Lord (Ez'.37 28 ) "before the heathen" (Ez peoPlle ;,hat He sa~ctifies it (Ez. 3 623 )-and III so doing sanctifies H' If' 20), before theIr eyes" reveals Himself in His mal' esty I'U the f Imse d I~ he world, I.e.. activates and ' arms an clrcumstan fh . Th IS people may and shall and must be "hoI t "ces a uman history. 3 to worship ;vIe, the Holy One, and therefore t:at~e~eM (Lev. 10 ), i.e., e!1:abled world. To use the classical definition of Le 2 ('f - e as the Holy One III the 16 1 : "Ye shall be holy: for I ... am hal ;: 19 c. II", 20') quoted in I Pet. and enforces the holiness of His pea I Yit The holiness of thiS God demands frontation of the world and all men ~h~~ld fi~~q~I~S that HIS own divine conadequate, but for all its inadequac 1 uman (and as such very inmode of existence of this people ItYr very rea ) correspondence and copy in the . ' , . equlres tl liS alread d' h . an d caIlmg of thiS people, in and with the fact th .v III an Wit the election God of thIS people and this people H' I T at He has. made HImself the holy," is simply the imperative indi~sab~oP e. he Imperative: "Ye shall be indicative: "I am holy" e I am h a Iy an n dOfactthe . , i .., amIrreSistible dynamic of the fore I make you holy-this is your lif~ 'and norm ongyou as such, and thereman or creature, not even of Israel, but that of Yah~v It IS not the glory of any the tent of meeting (Ex. 2943). And at the e~ H~mself, which sanctifies --·in spite of all the appeals and eXhortationsc~~traIp~mt m. the New Testament presuppositIOn-there is set as the prl'mar • t'thO!l(~~ss of9 !lfe, or rather as their ,. , y pe I IOn At 6 . Lk 2) , TO OVOJLU aou. The" name" of God is the hoI G . '. ' . 1 I . : uytaaO~TW such m His holiness present to His 1. ad Himself, who IS present as d. oing to sanctify Himself "Th peop e a~ le Lord, to sanctify it, and in so ' . . e name a f God IS as 1'ttl h 11 If IS kmgdom comes or His will 's d b " I e a owed by men as " It is God Himself who proves Jlis n~:e h~l t~~( (P)roksch, op. c~t.,. p. II3). men. He sanctifies men. His sanctif in in!c,lve P . 91. He proves It III and to bon and constitution. They have t :d ~ th s a modlficatlOn of their situaBanctifying by which He claims and rna: uce e consequences of it. But the service and as His possession is " a es and thel.r actIons usable in His (E. Gaugler, Die Heitigung im Zeugnis~~llIS~Sh a. ~on of HIS own divine power" r wholly and exclusivelv His own a t d ~ rifi, 194 8 , p. 13), and as such it is . • C ,an not theIrs "A d th peace sanctIfy you wholly" (I Thess 523) H 't' '1 .n e very God of not only His own turnine> to man b' t . ,e 1 IS w 10 Wills and accomplishes . b" u. man s converslOn to H' th J' . ' a f .man for HIS service. And He wills that w 1m, . e CalmIllg thIS may happen. "I am th L d h' h e s~.ould call upon Him daily that 8 · e or w IC sanctIfy yo ., (L t h mg that we have to sav further on thO c • • u ev. 20). In everyto start from this point. .. IS .,UD]ect we must exert ourselves always

t

i;

/h.:n;.

~~~~g~~~;~f:£~£i~;tO~;;~k~~c;~~r~:';'~~~~;l~~:~~~'a~~ justification and

sanctificat~o:~~c:~:~~1y~~tli~~.ual

relationship of

For what follows, ct. Alfred Gohler C I . . p. 81 f., 107 f., and G. C. Berkouwer F . a vms Lehre von der Hetligung, 1934, azth [ am particularly happy to record my' ge alnd Sanctijicatzon, 195 2, with which nera agreement.

ar

As we. now .turn to consider sanctification in and for itself ddivine action which either takes Pla~: f G'" 1 , or prece es or follows it in time Th . o. (:d III HIS reconciliation of the world with Himself i~ J e ~~tI?n :~ Ullltary. It consists of different" moments" 'th d'ffesus fIst lUg It r h . WI a Ierent bear. accomp IS es both the Justification and the sanctification of I.

si~u.~~:n~~~~inyg~:~~h.: second

1.

§ 66. The Sanct~fication of Man

502

.

't' 't If both the condescension of God and the exaltatIOn man for 1 IS 1 se . th Th of ~an in Jesus Christ. But it accom~hshes the two toge er. e 'S done wholly and immediately wIth the other. Th~;e are also l one . h d'ff t " ments C We cand different aspects correspondmg to t e l eren. mo not see it all at once or comprehend it in a smgle word. orrespon. g to the one historical being of Jesus Christ as true Son of God and ~~ue Son of Man, we can see it only as the mov:me.nt fr?m above t? below or the movement from below to above, as JustIficatIon. or san~~l­ ficati~n Yet whether we look at it from the one standpomt ~r e other o~r knowledge can and may and must be a knowledge of e.~n~ totality of the reconcili~g action of God, of the one whole and un 1V1 e Jesus Christ, and of HIS one grace.

1.

protestantlleddo~r;d~ti~:l~~~;dpt~e~e~~~s~~n~~~~~~~

In its later stages the older d sanctiftcatto as steps m a so-ca ' . d :~o ift~minatio, and followed by the separate pro~esse~n~f;!!~fi~:~~~~ a~orc~~~ versio and then (in the Lutherans) by a untO mys tca nce in which the most 'part this ordosalutis was thought of asr:e~emf::~u~:~~r~ingof the reconHoly Spirit does HIs work here and now m Gol otha This temporal sequence ciliation accomplIshed thel; a~d t~~~no;~he te~por~l relationship between the rea corresponded °dllly toItO t I Yf C~rist as it was viewed in the Christology of the humilIatIOn an exa a IOn 0 . ded to older dogmatics. A psychologistic pragmatics in sotenol~gYT~~:r~!so~ot the

t'

the

histoi~~~~ti~~ag~~t~~sw~fs;nh;~~;ttO;[fea;~C~I~~~~~;I~n'topsychology, intto a

~::a;rcording

of 'the spiritual experience of the Christian, which fo: : ~~~~e ~~: h restrained the older orthodoxy from construc~m~:s~~~~o::~u~:d: of the gratia temporal sequence.. The ongmal aim w~s 0 ed human subject of Spiritus saneti apphcatrtx, of the appropnaJtion t~hthet neth!t which is summed the salvation objectively. accomplis~eg ~n. ;s~s tit:es--: De modo percipif.ndae up in the title of the third book 0 a vm s ns u 'ui effectus consequantur Christi gratiae et qUt tnde fructus nobts provemant, et q how can it better be But if this percipere consists In a senes of different steks, . d movements made apprehensible than as a. s~ries of spmtual ~w~ e~~~s :e~ter and more and actions and states of a relIgIOUS and moral tYle. this w~y-and this was explicit the emphasis on the ordo saluttS understoo III I d by the unthe tendency in the. 17th century-the more a~~ar~~;~ew:are:~~i~rariness and certainties, contradictions and exegetical PI d that they were on artificiality in which those who espoused It were entang e 'd the time-the the point of leaving the sphere of theology. And ~h,e ne:~e~ie~~:m_in which a time of the Enlightenment which dawned a~~:r Yth:\eadership and suppress religious and moral psychology would take h C t ' ly there are rays of theolo first at this point, and then everyw ere. er am III c. 10, light ~'when we suddenly read in Quenstedt (Theol. dtd. ~OI"Jl~85'spirit, and th 1'6) that all these a.7TouT£Mu/LaTa of Jesus Chnst and e . y I et quovis p~rticularly justification and sanctification, take place tempore u~~":t~ ,cohaerent. q puncto mathematica arctiores adeo ut dwelh et sequestran ne · t ~es to man This is inevitable if we are really thinking of the act of ~Od a~ \ c~heology had in Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit. If Quenstedt and t at woe ld not have taken this insight seriously, it would have. meant that they o~~u as the order derstood that ordo as a series of different dJVllle actIOns, but Y t man in ufn d'ff t" moments" of the one redemptive occurrence commg 0 of the o I eren . I d t collapse the simul of the one event. This would perhaps have e 0 a n an objective, historicist pragmatic, and even perhaps to the dualism betwee

Justification and Sanctification

50 3

achievement of salvation there and then and a subjective appropriation of it here and now, in favour of a recognition of the simultaneity of the one act of salvation whose Subject is the one God by the one Christ through the one Spirit" more closely united than in a mathematical point." The God who in His humiliation justifies us is also the man who in His exaltation sanctifies us. He is the same there and then as He is here and now. He is the one living Lord in whom all things have occurred, and do and will occur, for all. Unfortunately, however, the recognition of this simul did not lead even to a serious consideration of the relationship between justification and sanctification, let alone to any general advance in this direction. We cannot escape to-day the task of taking this recognition seriously. 2. When, however, we speak of justification and sanctification, we have to do with two different aspects of the one event of salvation. The distinction between them has its basis in the fact that we have in this event two genuinely different moments. That Jesus Christ is true God and true man in one person does not mean that His true deity and His true humanity are one and the same, or that the one is interchangeable with the other. Similarly, the reality of Jesus Christ as the Son of God who humbled Himself to be a man and the Son of Man who was exalted to fellowship with God is one, but the humiliation and exaltation are not identical. From the christological aavyxvTwS and aTp€7TTWS of Chalcedon we can deduce at once that the same is true of justification and sanctification. As the two moments in the one act of reconciliation accomplished in Jesus Christ they are not identical, nor are the concepts interchangeable. We are led to the same conclusion when we consider the content of the terms. In our estimation of their particular significance we must not confuse or confound them. Justification is not sanctification and does not merge into it. Sanctification is not justification and does not merge into it. Thus, although the two belong indissolubly together, the one cannot be explained by the other. It is one thing that God turns in free grace to sinful man, and quite another that in the same free grace He converts man to Himself. It is one thing that God as the Judge establishes that He is in the right against this man, thus creating a new right for this man before Him, and quite another that by His mighty direction He claims this man and makes him willing and ready for His service. Even within the true human response to this one divine act the faith in which the sinful man may grasp the righteousness promised him in Jesus Christ is one thing, and quite another his obedience, or love, as his correspondence_ to the holiness imparted to him in Jesus Christ. We shall speak later of the indestructible connexion between these. But it is a connexion, not identity. The one cannot take the place of the other. The one cannot, therefore, be interpreted by the other.

It is a duplex gratia that we receive in the participatio Christi (Calvin, Instit., II, I). Similarly, its reception in faith and penitence is twofold: etsi separari non possunt, distingui tamen debent. Quamquam perpetuo inter se vinculo cohaerent, Ill,

§ 66. The Sanctification of Man

0

1.

54

non . . lunt quam con/un d't (3 " 5) For: Si. solis claritas '11 ' magis atamen .. mus luce calefieri terram, calore vera t ustran potest calorecontungt. separan,va. an tdeo dtce

(II, 6) ? . . . . n If we do not take care not to confuse Sanctification IS not JU~I:ca:~~£e'r, allowing justification (as in the case of and confound, sotenology y ' t following of Augustine, but also of m~ny much of Roman Cathohclsm m 1 sm r e into the process of his sanctJficatJ?n varieties of Neo-ProtestantIsm) to e'f· or by allowing faith in Jesus Chnst initiated by the act of the forglven1ehss 0 sms , lY view the most serious objection . I d' r place t IS IS m rr Ch . t' as the Judge JUc ge m ou , erITe into the obedience in which the "ns Ian to the theology of R. BUltrnant~~~emwo7-ld and himself. The" I am holy IS not in his dISCipleship has to dIe ted -'.'Ilable introducing the really Important merely a kind of pre1ace or una,~cef Il'the thinking along these lines abo~t the statement: "Ye shall be holy. ten::ar relevance of the atonement, where IS t~e J'ustifiable emphaSIS on the eXls J.' h 't the bowinIT before the freedom of HIS h G d b regard for t e TO w ho accomp IS es . I .,J . h He really says an unmen't ed N 0 t 0 grace, the adoration of the mY~i~~~:~o;~~~s benefit? Where is the pr~supp.osi­ sinful man, the JOY of pure gra h ' Is it not better to make Justification, tion of a sanctification worthy °tflt \~~:~~nuinelv justification, instead of t~ying even in its significance for sanc lIe: t ' ely as the beginning of sanctificatIOn? to understand it from th~ verK o~. se i~~ot sanctification. If we do not t~ke On the other hand, Justl ca lO~eriolo may also suffer by allowing sanct?ficare not to confuse and confound , SOt·grtYmay be because of the overwhelmmg fi II d ca tion to be swa owe up m Justl ca lOn. h' h' effective and has t 0 b e un der _ . f t f the grace w IC IS . . t'fi _ impreSSIOn of the com or 0 • b ' . of the true consideratIOn that JUs I ca stood as justification. It may e m v~::u osition of sanctification. It may be tion is in any event the dommatmg £is be~rworks the sanctified man still sta.nds with the correct IllSJg~t that even {,nfore God It may be in a justifiable anxIety in continual need of Justlficatl~fic=tion a p~ior or subsequent se1f-justificatlO~ that under the name of. san~ I f the sovereignty of grace. These are all !egltJmay creep. in to the detnmen ~ traced back to the younger Luther and Zll?zenmate consIderatIOns whJ:h ca~ ~d with the help of some of the more I?Olnted dori and H. F. Kohlbrugge, ad xaggeration (and therefore distortion) ~f statements of these wnters, an a.~ elead to a monism of the theologia cruets their basic teachmg,. the~ c~n easlI~ this monism the necessity of good wo~kS and the doctrine of Just! Ica IOn.. 11 and spasmodically, with little place or may be maintained only lethadrgfilcat Yt lk about a life of forgiveness, or com. . . If anythmg mOL than rather III e III e r thea love active III faith. . w e do not forted despair, or Christianireed~rr~~~he problem of sanctification, do we not give any independent slgm c~~~PiCious way the existential reach of the a~o~~; •

0

:~:~~a:~7~~~~e~~~tat~:?j~~t~~~~t~~nitI~v~y~o~~so:~~~~~~hs;~~:st~~:

action, and that falt III I , ev th fact that in the Bible the work 0 d decision of man? Can we Ig~~~e of Jesus Christ and the Holy. Spirit inch~ e: sovereign grace of from his ? . Is It the sanctificatIOn 0 . t and authority of grace III thiS form: . h ss matter to mIss the sovereIgn Y not onl do despite to ItS nc ne , not understand it as san~t!fr?;e~;t~~iy~ ~e begin ro look for the indisp~n~a~: but far too eaSily, and III ee of life elsewhere than in the Gospel (Ill whlc d to norm of the word of Justifying grace), and are for?:Ie or y • f - med either by considerations drawn from the .BI olved think we have seek and grasp a_ ~~st~:ical convenience. But this means that ,;e are l:avother natural law, or b j . g nd either tacitlv or openly we are subjected tence in double book-keeplll h , al ft '0'1 as to the Lord Jesus Christ whose compe ake . k' dom on tee as \\~, . . d . ble to III lords m a Illg . think to the forgiveness of sins. Is It not a visa t'ficatio , n extends o~ly, ase\~e sancbficadon, en in it; connexion with justification, genumely sanc I

~~a~sa~ ~i~tinct

Chnst:a~:~';nsOling

on:

justificati~m

n~t ~/:~o~o

JUstification and Sanctification

5°5

lllstead of trying to understand it from the very outset merely as a paraphrase of justification?

3· Yet it is even more important to remember, and the warning we have to give in this respect must be correspondingly sharper, that since justification and sanctification are only two moments and aspects of one and the same action, they do belong inseparably together. We have had to draw attention to the unavoidable dangers of confusion which threaten on both sides, and which have actually overwhelmed the Church and theology with very serious consequences. But we have to say that to ignore the mutual relationship of the two can only lead at once to false statements concerning them and to corresponding errors in practice: to the idea of a God who works in isolation, and His "cheap grace" (D. Bonhoeffer), and therefore an indolent quietism, where the relationship of justification to sanctification is neglected; and to that of a favoured man who works in isolation, and therefore to an illusory activism, where the relationship of sanctification to justification is forgotten. A separation of justification and sanctification can have its basis only in a separation within the one actuality of Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit; in an isolation of the self-humiliating Son of God on the one side, and of the exalted Son of Man on the other. If we have also to accept the dxwp{a-rws and do,a,p/ s of 7w Chalcedonian Christology, justification and sanctification must be distinguished, but they cannot be divided or separated. We have only to ask ourselves: What is the forgiveness of sins (however we understand it) if it is not directly accompanied by an actual liberation from the committal of sin? What is divine sonship if we are not set in the service of God and the brethren? What is the hope of the universal and definitive revelation of the eternal God without striving for provisional and concrete lesser ends? What is faith without obedience? And conversely: What is a liberation for new action which does not rest from the very outset and continually on the forgiveness of sins? Who can and will serve God but the child of God who lives by the promise of His unmerited adoption? How can there be a confident expectation and movement in time without the basis of eternal hope? How can there be any serious obedience which is not the obedience of faith? As God turns to sinful man, the conversion of the latter to God cannot be lacking. And the conversion of man to God presupposes at every point and in every form that God turns to him in free grace. That the two are inseparable means that the doctrine 6f justification has to be described already as the way from sin to the right of God and man, and therefore as the way from death to life, which God goes with him. And it means for the doctrine of sanctification that it has to show that it is really with man that God is on this way as He reconciles the world with Himself in Jesus Christ. It was Calvin who saw and expressed this point with particular clarity. There is hardly a passage in which we have any doubt whether the reference is

I ,

§ 66. The Sanctification of Man

06

5

. . nd et he everywhere brings out the mutual to justifying or sancbfymg grace, a nd as ects. His primary statement and relationshi~ of. the two mo.me;i~~tnon p~test discerpi Chris:us m ~a.rtes,. ~ta starting-pomt IS as follows. . 1 t oniunctim in ipso perc~p~mus. ~usM~am

inseparabilia sunt haec duo, quae s~mu'ne ;atiam recipit Deus, simul Spiritu adopt~et sanctificatwnem. Quoscunque ergo ~ ~uam ima inem (Inst., III, II, 6). . on is donat, cuius virt~te eos reformat ad ut sanctilcation. Sola fide et mera vema There is thus no JustificatIOn WlthOt . t't;ae;m "utatione separatur reahs (ut t en a gratu~ a ~us ~, ' r ' . . t reclamation of forgiveness has as Its aim u .a iustificatur homo, neque am ita loquar) v~tae sanctttas. The p . v;tute v;ti')rum hberatus peccator m t . go et m~sera ser , , tyrannide satanae, pecca ~· ZIt h d the, grace of the Gospel WI'th ou t regnum Dei transeat. Thus no one can ~ppr~ e: in virtue of our holiness that ot meditatio poenitentiae .(3, ~). I;dls~: ~I:V~ to stand in this already if, engulfe~

we enter into fellowship With G ' . to follow where He calls. But It by His holiness (eius sanctitate perf~s~)t ~e a[e for there can be no consortium belo ce ngs to His glory that this shou d . a e Pdat" (6 2) We cannot. therefore, .. 't and ~mmun t ~a , . . between Him and our ~mqu~ as d h' . for Calvin the basic act of pemtence glory in God without eo ~pso-an ft liS I~ g and thus beginning to live to God's and the new life-renounc.lllg all sel -g o~y~od calls for a symmetria, a consensus, glory (13, 2). Thus t~e nghteousn~~~~nce of the believer. It calls for a conwhich must be actuahsed III th~ a h' (6 I) For this reason the one grace firmation of our adoption to. dlvme sons Ip ~Il' In Christi participatione, qua of God is necessarily sanctIfymg .gr~~=ti~Set:r q~am iustitia. . , . Inseparabiliter

iustificamur, non mmus sanc.tificatto Nullum ergo Christus iustificat. quem non . l'n 3 Ig) Fatemur dum. nos, ... utrumque Christus in se cont~net. . , . . d find the same stmu I . ' ...' simul sanctificet (I6, I, an we. d natos pro iustis habet: cum eu~smodt m~senDeus gratuita peccatorum rem~ss~one ~us beneficentiam, quod per Spiritum suum cordia coniunctam s~mul esse. hanc. t te nos sanctificamur. hoc est consecramur sanctum in nobis ~abitat, ~u~us vtr u There can thus be no doubt that, .as Domino in veram v~tae pur~t'!tem !I4, 9twish to give to the problem of the v~ta

Calvin saw it. the Reform.atlOn dId noood works any less but a much greater hominis cht-istiani, of peU1te~~e an~ g tion than ~as done either by the Humanand more serious and penetra mg a en 'd or contemporary Romanists on the ists (who followed Eras~us) ~m t~e one S\ ~ him the sola fide obviously could other. In the context m which It was se y ,

not become a comfortable kiss of p~ace.. sanctification without justification. On the other hand, of course, t ere IS n~ t;J Minime! (3 5). There is no An vera poenitentia citra fidem conH~tere to the man who i; righteous before spatium temporis between the two lUi ~t ~o Him, But it is only this man,who God in faith is not als.o holy and abed w could he be seriously penitent. I,f h~ can and will be obedIent and holy. °se esse nemo vere persuasus est, ms~ qUI did not know: se De~ esse? D.M autem How can there be a free and ~a~py eius gratiam prius appre~endentt (3. 2 )'nd therefore in the life of the Chnsthlan . Go d lU . pem ence a ss before God which . he .IS, conSCIence towar d s given. and as without the certainty of the nghte~usne ) Even the obedient and holy an~ to be given continually, by GO~ t'hi's righteousness still lives in the fles loving man who pe~l1tent~yflaYSG ~ ~ence it follows: Nullum unquam exsttt~s.~: and therefore as a smner : ore 0 Dei iudicio examinaretur, non esset damna t~r pii hominis opus quod, st severo . opus quod si in se censeatur, non mere~ 'n (14, II) and: ~ec unum a sanctzs eX~~ven the regenerate and converted stan a~d iustam opprobru mercedem (q, l)'ustification in all their works of pemtenc~ood absolute need of forgI::ness tv:s lcannot possibly justify them (14, 13)· gress. obedience,. WhICh of e~7sed to reward (I8, 1 f,), in which we have to pr~esent works, God we may find confidence (I4, 18 f.), our free goodness justifies not on(;Y4 and , , works ( 17, 5 f)., as assidua peccatorum rem~sswne

;s

-!r

'IP3i

WhIC~

h~\~~fch

~~~yI~St~:d o~~gHfs

ca~ ~eafso

~~r p~:)o~e a~sesses

r I

1.

justification and Sanctification

50 7 recognises and accepts as good, on the basis of the righteousness ,)f Jesus Christ ascribed to us, that which we do in supreme imperfection and even guilt and corruption (14, 8 f.). There can be no doubt that Calvin-the reformer at the time of the reconstruction of the Evangelical Churches and the developing Counter-Reformation, and therefore with different interests from Luther-stands squarely on the basis of his predecessor. The notion of duplex gratia was not his own. Even the older Luther (ef. C.D., IV. I, p. 5 2 5 f.), in passages which are, of course, rather remote and obscure, had referred in the same sense as Calvin, and with the same conjunction and distinction, to justification and sanctification, healing, purification, etc. And Calvin for his part had not surrendered one jot of the decisive insight of Luther concerning justification. The only distinctive features-and they were not really un-Lutheran, or prejudicial to the content and function of the doctrine of justification-were the formal consistency with which he spoke of this duplex gratia and the material emphasis which he laid on the doctrine of the novitas vitae based on justification.

4· It remains only to ask whether there is perhaps an ordo (salutis) in the relationship of justification and sanctification and therefore a superiority and subordination, a Prius and Posterius, in the one event of grace and salvation. We presuppose that there is no such order in the temporal sense. The simul of the one redemptive act of God in Jesus Christ cannot be split up into a temporal sequence, and in this way psychologised. The justification and sanctification of man, manifest in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and effective in the Holy Spirit, are an event in this simul, and not therefore in such a way that his justification first takes place separately (as though it could be his justification by God if it did not also include his sanctification), and then his sanctification takes place separately (as though it could be his sanctification by God if at all its stages and in all its forms it Were not based upon and borne by the event of his justification). No, they both take place simultaneously and together, just as the living Jesus Christ, in whom they both take place and are effective, is simultaneously and together true God and true man, the Humiliated and the Exalted. Yet this does not mean that we can lay aside the question of their order. It has to be raised and answered because it is necessary that we should dissipate the last remnants of the monistic ane! dualistic thinking which occupied us under (2) and (3). If there can be no question of a temporal order, the only order can be that of substance. And it is not quite so easy to answer the question of this order as might at first sight appear. From our deliberations under (2) and (3) it is clear in what sense justification has to be understood as the first and basic and to that extent superior moment and aspect of the one event of salvation, and sanctification as the second and derivative and to that extent inferior. It is indeed in virtue of the condescension of God in which the eternal Word assumed our flesh that there takes place the exaltation of man in the existence of the royal man Jesus. It is in virtue of the forgiveness of his sins and his establishment as a child of God, both fulfilled in the gracious judgment and sentence of God, that man is called and

508

§ 66. The Sanctification of Man

given a readiness and willingness for discipleship, for wnverSlOn, for the doing of good works, for the bearing of his cross. It is in virtue of the fact that he is justified in the presence of God by God that he is sanctified by Him. Surely it is obvious that if we ask concerning the structure of this occurrence justification must be given the priority over sanctification, Yet is this the end of the matter? Do we not have to recognise that the existence of the royal man Jesus, and therefore the true answering of the question of obedience, the summoning and preparing of man for the service of God, have a radiance and importance in the Bible which are not in any way secondary to those of justifying grace? Is the first the only possible answer? In the question of the material order of this whole event do we not have to take into account-irrespective of the question of its inner movement-its meaning and purpose and goal? And does it not seem that that which is second in execution (executione posterius), i.e., sanctification, is first in intention (intentione prius) ? What is it that God wills and effects in the reconciliation of man with Himself? By the incarnation of His Word does He not will and effect the existence of the royal man Jesus and His lordship over all His brothers and the whole world? By His humiliation to be the Judge judged for us, and therefore by the justification of man before Him, does He not will and effect the existence of a loyal and courageous people of this King in covenant with Himself, and therefore the sanctification of man? And even this may not be the ultimate, or penultimate, word concerning the telos of the event of atonement. Yet in relation to the relationship between justification and sanctification are we not forced to say that teleologically sanctification is superior to justification and not the reverse? It is obvious that we cannot help putting and answering the question in this form too. Yet there are still good reasons for the first answer; and it is not without its significance. This being the case, is it really necessary or wise to choose between them at all? In so doing, might we not be encroaching on the actuality of the one grace of the one Jesus Christ? And this is something which cannot be permitted merely out of a desire to systematise. In any case, are we not asking concerning the divine order of the divine will and action revealed and effective in Jesus Christ? Might it not be that in this----oin this particular function and respect-the Prius is also the Posterius and vice versa? This would mean that both answers have to be given with the same seriousness in view of the distinctive truth in both-intersecting but not cancelling one another. In the simul of the one divine will and action justification is first as basis and second as presupposition, sanctification first as aim and second as consequence; and therefore both ~re superior and both subordinate, Embracing the distinctness and Ull1!y of the two moments and aspects, the one grace of the one Jesus Chnst

r, Justification and Sanctification 0 is at work, and it is both ' ~n ' , , 5 9 t.o the glory of God' and thJu~ llYlllt,g and· sanctIfylllg grace, and both , , e sa va lOn a f man \VI 1 I. tile (Jod known in Jesus Christ) seek a d ' . ,lere e se does God .,.alvation of man? And yet wh' n hcreate HIS glory but in the 'T ., , . 0 can say t at the glory f G d "a, \ atIOn of man IS greater or '1'.." . .0 a to the ..,), sma, er III man s ]UstIficatlO ' catIOn" ~galll, where is the salvation of n or sanctl~_ Jesus ChnstJ, to be found but in the I r ,man. (the man known 1ll Hll11Self III HIS action to and with ~ o,~ whIch ?od prepares for salvation of man to the glory of G:ra~: ' et who IS to say that the that m:lll is justified by God or sanctifi~~e~terl~.rs~aller ill the fact thIS pomt, and therefore at the y 1m, It We start at reve.aled in Jesus Christ, we have ~~~c~r:efdthe covenant effective and to /?lve to the question of the order of the r~~\but~~e are also ?OU~d, catl::m and sanctification this twofold a ~ : lOn.s Ip b~tween Justlfi(lIcbon, As a twofold answer it n~wder. [here IS no contramatter, ' correspon s to the substance of the The question of the order of this relationsh'. " and it will help to elll,'d t h Ip was one whIch clanned Calvin's .I'.lttcntlOll, . . CI a e w at we hav t 'd 'f 11sansweL \Ve might almost sa that th' , e JUs sal I we briefly recall ,.ue.l.h.ad m the third book of th", I Y 1'1 I' lSI questIOn poses the great problem of .[ , t ! " ns, u to s It Oll ] ffi t' .:la t le emphasis must fall in what is t . b ' us 1 ca Jon or sanctification ,hnst and its fruits and effects? When Ow e S~ld ~oncernmg the grace of Jesus l1<)t necessarily_be baffled by thl', t' e read Calvlll we may still-although T SqU~I00, here can be no doubt that in ractic h' ", , the problem of. sanctification, Th~e wh~ c~smdeCISIve mterest IS primarily in almost estranged when rio-ht at th b " . e to hIm from Luther will be not without justificationbin the l~ng~7~~~~mg ot th~ t~ird book (I, I), although ;I1lphasis on the sanctifying power of the ;t~~ge 0, t e Bi~le" he lays all the l.lIne (onl}' in chapter II) th t h Y Spmt, and It IS not for a Ion • a e comes to speak of' t'fi ' g to h,s own explanation (II I) h fi t . h JUs 1 cation at all. A. ccording . , ' , e rs WIS es-and the \ h I 3 IO IS subservlent to this aim-to show (I) th v 0 e s~quence of chapters through the mercy of God we attain t at, the falta by which alone ~lot a faith which is indol~nt in relatio~et~race of nghteousness b~fore Him, i~ ;.nd more positively, qualia sinl sanetorum bogood works, a fides ot,zosa, and (2), [Ie descnbes faith itself as regenerat' t na opera. It IS for thIS reason that pcmtence (chapters 3-5) and tl e ,lOn, he regeneratIOn which is realised in character as self-den-ial, 'as the ~e~rf~eso~~~~ portray the Christian life in its and as a nght relationship to earthl fnd t cross, as, med:taho fUlurae vitae, (Lhctpters 6-ro), It is only at tl' Y temporal posslblhtzes and possessions "' . lIS pom -we mIght al t ' ::s a great quahfication and corrective-that h ' mos say at a first glance "catIOn (chapters IT-rS), Then in wh e mtroduces the doctrine of justiat 119) and prayer (20) we seem to have follows cOncern111g Christian freedom mterrupted theme '\nd since th's ba cbontrnuatJon and completion of the g] ,,' " I can e a andoned I ft " a~ce at ItS ongin in God's election (21-2 and a on ya er a retrospective hoa, 111 the resurrection of the dead (2 \ 4{t b " prospectlve glance at its final ~;~,e and proper substance of Calvin's t~~chino ,VI~U;ly seems to constitute the us quos pro tuslts gratis censet (IT 6) In t~ r h eolendam tushttam renovat constantly emerges as +h'" admonl't' t' e Ig t of this sketch, and what as t ' < ory enor of the wh I ' es abhshed beyond any doubt that a d' t' 0 e, we mIght regard it called the theologian of sanctification ' ~e I,S ~~t ~rom Luther, Calvin must be ~~derscoring of the new life and alt~red col~ve IS t? the extent ~hat the sharp rsa nst, the reference to his essential inn d IOn of the behever in JeSU! er an outer transformation was the v

510

§ 66. The Sanctification of 111 an

particular concern which he took up in practice against the exccsses which somctimes gained the upper hand in his own epocK (not without some support from the Reformation Gospel), and in answer to the humanistic and Romanist criticism of the sola fide of Reformation teaching. And quite apart from the contemporary background and occasion, his question was one which has also a true biblical foundation: What is it that God in His grace wills of man and achieves in his life? In this-we might almost say, strategic-respect there is good reason for the primacy of sanctification in Calvin. But the picture undergoes a curious transformation when we turn our attention from the practical intention to its execution. For we then have to say that it is on the doctrine of faith developed in the great second chapter of the book that he bases everything that follows as seen from the dominating standpoint of regeneration in conversion. But Calvin could not speak of faith (d. especially sections 16, 23, 24, 29, 30 and 32 of chapter 2) without anticipating the decisive content of the doctrine of justification. Faith is a sure and certain knowledge grounded in the truth of the promise of grace given in Jesus Christ, and revealed in our understanding (mentibus) and sealed in our hearts by the Holy Spirit. The regeneration of man, and therefore his sanctification in all its stages and forms (2, 7). does not take place except in this faith; in the faith whose proprius scopus is the promissio misericordiae, the evangelical Word concerning the free divine benevolentia to man (2, 29). Thus at the very beginning of the doctrine of justification (II, I)-rather surprisingly, but not really so in view of this second chapter-we are told that this iustificatio which has hitherto been touched on only lightly is the cardo praecipuus sustinendae religionis to which we must give particular care and attention (maior attentio curaque) and in relation to which sanctification is only the secunda gratia. Primum omnium is necessarily to be found quo sis apud Deum loco et quale de te sit iUius iudicium. Without this foundation there is neither assurance of salvation nor pietas in Deum. It should be noted with what extreme precision that which, in the light of so many Old Testament verses and passages, Calvin can say about the importance of the good works of the believer even in justification (especially chapters 13-14 and 17-18) is qualified by the most urgent recollections of the continuing freedom of justifying grace, and by a constant recall to the rest of faith in the promise which alone enables us to speak of the goodness and comfort and reward of the works of the believer. And it is to be noted finally that even in the description of the novitas vitae (chapters 3-10 and 19-20) which so strongly characterises the third book he not only does not lose sight of the totally unmerited establishment of man in a state of grace by the act of majesty of the divine mercy, but obviously sets that which he describes in the reflection of this act. His real subject is self-denial and the cross, the orientation to the life beyond, Christian freedom and prayer. And in the strict sense these are all critical and limiting determinations of the vita hominis christiani. Even in chapter 10, where the emphasis falls on the thisworldly qualification and responsibility of the Christian life, there is little real trace of the fabled activism of calvinistic ethics. This reserve in the portrayal of sanctification is connected with the fact that in Calvin this is not only related to the simultaneous justification of man but in this relationship and from justification it acquires the character of a submission to this act of majesty. When all this is taken into account we may well ask whether Calvin was not primarily a theologian of justification. In fact we can and should learn from the classical example of his mo.de. of treatment that we can give only a twofold answer to the question of pnonty in the relationship of these two moments and aspects. Calvin was quite in earnest when he gave sanctification a strategic precedence over justification. He w~ also quite in earnest when he gave the latter a tactical precedence. Why coul t he be so free, and yet so bound, in relation to the two? Because he starte~ at the place which is superior to both because it embraces both, so that in the 1Igh

2.

The Holy One and the Saints

5II ",e can and must give th " according to the different sta e lnm~c~ now to the one and now to thc other which they are a Whole, in Whic~ ft~n :re rom WhICh we look. The basic act i~ WIthout any contradiction_the ~ve :~ted and yetdIiIerent, and in whichthey must each be given the .y . 1 eren~ functIOns according to which in the first chapter of the th;ra~~:~rt~S ;alvlll sees it (and as he describes it Holy Spirit. What this involves calls fear zczpatzo C~rzstt given to man by the or separate conSIderatIOn. ot'"t 1

0

"

;3

2.

THE HOLY ONE AND THE SAINTS

The reconciliation of the world with G d' . tion takes place as God fashions a I Of ~n Its for~ as sanctificain spite of their sin have the freed!~OP ~.o holy men, I.e" ~hose who HID! to live in it to represent H' ' w IC they have receIved from Him in what the~ are and do an~m among ,~ll other men and to serve is relevant in this connexion too ~~ffer. ~od ~o loved the world .. version to God, is, like his justifi~atione sanctIficatIOn .of man, his conmination, which has taken plac d .' a ~ransformatlOn, a new detere 't e. Jure or the world and therefore for all men, De facto howe "fi J', ver, 1 IS not known by all . JustI cation has not de facto been gras d d k men, Just as ar: d confessed by all men, but onl p~ at~ ac nowledged and known faIth, It is the people of these y;:, h ~se who are awakened to tion. Only God Himself knowmetnh w lC as also known sanctificaI d . . . s e extent of this mem b ers. The mvitation to belon t °t' peop e, an Its it is not co-extensive with the h g OIlS extended to alI. Certainly . uman race as such C t ' I ' . k d ff f . er am y It IS a speCIal people of special men who are they are set aside by God f mar e a rom all others because . rom among all others Y t 't . , k d ' e 1 s speCIal eXIstence IS not an end in itself It others, in order that it rna ~ak ,~s mar .e. off from the race, from fulness for which the whJe ~d .a pr~vl.slOnal offering of the thankof God." It is the livin - wor. IS or amed, ~y the act of the love g the act of atonpment God hpromISet ofdthe pOSItIve meaning which in ore not anI t 't . b ut to that of all men. It isastres h't y 0 1 S.own eXIstence has loved the world What h e WI ness o,f the love WIth which God men de iure. But in' so far as ,as. come to ~t de fa~to has come to all (with the provisional task w . It IS ~nl'y to It th~t ~t has come de facto entiated and separated fromh~::ethIS ~~vOlves), It IS concretely differextent it is a holy people of hoI wor and all other men. To this y m~n, Among those who de facto are not holy it is the creaturel confronts-not indolently 6urfie~~1~ of the ~oliness in which God addressing it even as He is disti~C tl~e Y-:bot~ Itself and the world, in His holiness acts to and with H~s rom It. t is with this. Go~ who that we have to do in our present l~?tle-:thepeo~le of HIS samtssanctification. e 1 eratIOns. HIS action is man's 0

inf The phrase" holy people" is an obvious on b " . requency In the canonical Old T t e, at It IS used WIth astonishing es ament. The most striking example is in

)12

§. 66. The Sanctification of Man

, , 9 ) where Moses is charged by Yahweh to tell the Ex. I<j" (quoted III j ret. - 'I . to be His possession (" for all the earth IS Isr,aelites that they of all peop ets ale kingdom of priests, and a holy nation, '" " d "e shall be un 0 me a '" fi d mine ): an. J ~ . ' a lied onl to the Gentiles) qadosh. "e n goy (a word WhICh IS uSdudlslli PP6 12 and ban 727. For the most part, however, D "ut _6 an 2 d h s. 2 . . h' h am qa os 1Il " . / . ' r e ation (or more exactly its convemng,l w. IC it is only the worshlppmg cong gl ., ch In many cases (as in the combma, "I I "and not the peop e a" su . , is called 10 y, . , S 5 d' the Book of Daniel) the q'doshm are ' I 'I 'dosJltm III Ps 9 an m 'd " . t " twn gala q "d' h' h Luther regularly translate as sam s the angels. The word (last Im, w ~c el On one occasion Aaron is called" the in the Psalter, de~?tes t~:~~~usb::t~: r~ference here is to his office rather than saint of the Lord ,(Ps. t)' t d' the Old Testament many words and things his person." In th~ nIstory a te: ~e:~ meaning and function. It is in this sense are called holy m VIrtue 0 "hoi dnces " of Is. 4328, \\'hen the remnant that we have to underst:nd ~~~ I ' se~l" in Is. 613 the drift is obviously eschato, of destroyed IsraelIS called a. 0 Y nces as far as I can see are Ex. 2231: " Ye . I l'h' nl" other genume re f ere . h th " 10gIca . e 0 J "P8 63 . " The saints that are m t e ear , shall be holy men unto me, h . 1 t'" and Deut. 333: "All his saints are in 9 "0 f ar the Lord ye IS sam s, h t . Ps. : e ermthIS . h34 d" There seems t'0 b e no doubt that the restrained use of t e 'th hIS an. ' .. t d in the Old Testament clearly has to do WI e deliberate. The hIstory attes e d th men But since the references to theIr sanctification of thIS peopl~ a~ I th:s~ain ~mphasis is obviously on the sanctifisanctity are so few and mC1 e~ a h as the Holy One is the active subject who cation itself, or rather on the ne wleo and the men who belong to it. l sovereignly confronts the hOI peoPlicated are the results of an investigation of p Even more an cfom d t Y at once that the number of texts T t surpnSlIl~ 0 sa . . t \\ e are orce the New es amen. I th' 0 tant credal formula sancta eccles1a IS even from which we can dec uce h ~ ~ml sr ribe Israel as the holy people. This does less than that of passag~s IC. t ~e~ But in our interpretation of it we must not mean that the formu a 1~ mI~a h the New Testament does seem very occapay attention to the sense m w IC ecclesia As far as I can see, there are only sionally to speak of a kmd of sa';{ta t' n The first is the Old Testament quota, two passages which call for conS1 erahlO · ti~n" (llivos aywv). But the lUT€ is . . P t 9· "Ye are . . . an 0 l y na . b' Iy tron m 1 e. 2 . h' I tical statement. The meamng 0 VlOUS lacking which would mak~~ol~:en:~:rrssed (in contrast to the rejected of th~ seems to be that those d II d to execute as a holy people the wm preceding verse) are elected an ca e fterwards. The other passage is E~h. mission which IS descnbed Immedlate~r ~hat the Church is holy but that Chr.1st 241 5 ., and thIS, ~oo, d?es not say d~~~s~lf for it in order that, cleansing it :WIth has loved the €KKATJuta and fV~ord He might sanctify it and "present It t~ the washmg of water by. t e dt havin sot, or wrinkle, or any such thIll~ , himself a glonous church (€vSogov), n t bl~~sh" In this passage it is qUIte but that it should be holy and wlthou 't is the goal and intended result of obvious that the holiness of the cO~lmu~~{as an inherent quality but as the the sanctifying actlOnllof. JeS~\C~~~S;~lfilmentof this action. And it may wel~ character which He WI gIve 1 I • 'does not refer to the form 0 be asked in all seri?tuSn~t~w~:~~e::~:u~:~ :~::~h:; action is completed, anddt~~ the commumty as 1 WI e . t we can speak only of conSI e last time in which it I~ves ~~: ~h~~~~ a~~~li(:~ 7n the corresponding Old Tes:~ able reserve III deserl mg . st this however, the men who compose ment references to Israeli)' A)s agamt only described with astonishing frequency , (I'k the Israe 1tes are no ., does Church un I e l l ' II d "the saints." The term aYWt or at aYLOt d as holy but are actua Y ca e . f e tl in Acts but in the earher an

v:

figt~ret ino/~:eiOps~~~:~ ~~~ ~:~e!:ti~;~t~a~

~Imos)ttatechndicsaple~r~~

not become later s ,a a (C 61 . 2 Cor S4 etc 1 IS use y for Christians, and in mhan J.?assalges ~m:~;t1y at Jerus~len'r. Yet rather strangely ally of the members of t e ongma co

2.

The Holy One and the Saints

51 3

no individual Christian is ever called a saint. John the Baptist is called" a Just man and an holy" in Mk. 620, hut this does not constitute a genuine exception The saints of the :New Testament exist only in plurality. Sanctity belongs to them, but only in their common life, not as individuals. In this plurality tbev are, of course, identical with the Christian community, so that the term " h:Jly community," although it is only thinly attested, i~ not in any sense foreign to the New Testament. Indeed, in 1 Cor. 1433 the congregations are generally referred to as "churches of the saints." Yet we must not imagine that their holiness derives from that of the individual members who constitute them, for as we have seen these are not called" saints" as individuals. The trn til is that the holiness of the community, as of its individual constituents, " to be sought in that which happens to these men in common; in that which cumes to it and thepl in the course of this happening. \\!e may hazard the provisional definition that the aYLOt are the men to whom aytoTTJS comes in a common history which constitutes them an i!livos ayLOV. Thus the linguistic usage of the New Testament, for all its important differences from that of the Old, points us basically in the same direction. In other words, we are required to consider tile history in which there takes place the sanctification, the aytau",os, of these lllen and therefore their unification as a community. But this means automatically that we are required to consider the One who as the Holy One is the acting Subject in this history. The Holy One constitutes the saints.

In the original and proper sense of the term, the Holy One who is the active Subject of sanctification, and who constitutes the saints in this action, exists only in the singular as the saints do only in the plural. None of those who are outside Him is different as God is; none is high and distant and alien and superior as He is. There is, of course, difference, gradation, and therefore holiness even within the visible and invisible, the material and spiritual world which is outside God. But with the exception of that which God Himself creates as He sanctifies this can always be transcended and the distance which it involves bridged. And if the final mark of the holiness of God is that, without destroying or even denying His own superiority, He can not only bridge but cross the distance which separates Him from that which He is not and which is therefore unholy, and that He does in fact do this in a genuine exercise and revelation of His superiority, this only means that no other holiness can be compared with His even in respect of this quality. For outside God there is indeed a superiority of one thing to another. And the distance may be bridged, the relationship reversed, the superiority of that which is superior destroyed. But there can be no crossing the gulf in such a way that that which is superior not only does not lose but exercises and reveals its superiority. To put it more simply, as the One who is always holy in His mercy, in virtue of His revelation as Creator, Reconciler and Redeemer, God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit is the only Holy One in the true sense. If there is any other holiness, it is the special work of His special act, the fruit of the action in which He, the Holy One, makes saints in reflection of His own holiness. Saints! We are not yet this by a long way. Sanctification, the action of the God who is always holy in His mercy, the activity in C.D. 1V-2- 1 7

I

I J

I.

514

§ 66. The Sanctification of Man

which He crosses this gulf, does indeed involve the creation of a new form of existence for man in which he can live as the loyal covenantpartner of God who is well-pleasing to and blessed by Him. But these are far-reaching and pregnant words if we take them literally. They sound like" idle tales" (Lk. 2411 )-no less strange (since t~ey refer to man and therefore to us all) than the report of the resurrectIOn of Jesus Christ. Where is man in this new f~rm ~f existence, as the loyal covenant-partner of God? Wh? of us IS thIS man? yet less sweeping words (and even these words. If w~ do n.ot tak~ them l~teral.ly) are quite insufficient to describe what IS at Issue. In man s sanctificatIOn by God. Even if .it i~ only a matter. of ~rea.tIng a copy o,f HIS own holiness its reflection In the world whIch IS dIstant from HImself, the reality ~fthis reflection can be no less than that of a man who is marked off from the rest of the world, not as a second God, but as a man who can live the life of a true covenant-partner of God, i.e" not disloyal but loyal, not displeasing but well-pleasing, ~ot ~urs.ed but blessed and in this freedom able to exist in a form whIch IS dIfferent from that of all others. At any rate, this is not too strong ail expression for the content of sanctification as it is understood in the Bible. Later, we shall have to find even stronger expressions. At the very least we have to say of sanctification that its aim is the m~n w~o does not break but keeps the covenant which God has made wIth hIm from .all eternity. The man who is awakened a~d empowe~ed by. the action of the holy God does this. He is sanctified. He IS a saInt of God. But who and where are the men of whom this can be said? We shall certainly speak of them, but we are well-advised not to speak of them too quickly or directly. . . For if, as the Subject of the occurrence III the course of WhICh there arises the existence of saints, God alone is originally and properly holy, this necessarily means that even human holine~s, as the new human form of existence of the covenant-partner of thIS God, cannot originally and properly be that of many, but only of the one man who on the human level is marked off from all others (even the holy people and its members) as sanctified by God and therefore ~s the Holy One. It is with a view to Him that the people Israel eXlst~ as the people of God, and from Him that the com~uni~y of the last tI~e derives as the community of God. The sanctIficatIOn of. n:an WhICh has taken place in this One is their sanctification. But ong~nally a?d properly it is the sanctification of Hi:£? and not of th~m. ThelJ: sanctI~­ cation is originally and properly HIS and not t~elrs. For It was III the existence of thii> One, in Jesus Christ, that It really came about, and is and will be, that God Himself became man, that the Son of God became also the Son of Man, in order to accomplish in His own person the conversion of man to Himself, his exa~tat~on fr~m the dept~ of His transgression and consequent misery, hIS hbe~atIOn ~rom. hIS unholy being for service in the covenant, and therefore hIS sanctificatIOn.

2.

The Holy One and the Samts

SIS

This is t~e divine act ,of. sanctification in its original and proper, because direct, .form.; III ItS once-far-all uniqueness. All its other forms, the sanctIficatIOn of Israel and the community with the distant goal of, that. of the whole of the human race and the world, are induded, m. t~IS form, by which they are all conditioned. We look into the vOId, If In respect of everything that takes place as sanctification on the CIrcumference of Jesus Christ (whether in the Old Testament or the New), and in exposition of all its forms (discipleship, conversion, good works and the cross), we do not fix our gaze steadfastly on this centre as the place where alone it is a direct event, reaching out with the same realIty (but only in virtue of the reality of this centre) to a.ll the. other places. How much false teaching, and how many prac~Ic~l m.Istakes, would have been avoided in this matter of sanctification If In dIrect analogy to the doctrine of justification by faith alone we had ,been bold or modest enough basically and totally and definitively to, gIve precedence and all the glory to the Holy One and not to the samts; to the only One who is God, but God in Jesus Christ; and therefore to the royal man Jesus, as the only One who is holy but in whom the sanctification of all the saints is reality! ., Accordifolg to I Cor. I"" Jesus Christ Himself is made unto us sanctification as well as JusbficatlOn. As E. Gaugler rightly observes (oP, cit., p. 76 ), this saymg expresses m the shortest possible compass the truth that even sanctification has to be thought of in terms of the history of salvation. Sanctification t~kes place as hls~ory because and as this man who is directly sanctified by God b .ltS actmg SubJect m the royal authonty thereby given Him by God, God Hlm~~lf bemg the One who acts through Him. In J n. r0 3 • He calls Himself the One whom the Father hath sanctified." But being man as the Son of God He. can 2;qu~lly well say: "): sanctify myself" (In, 17 19). For according to Heb. Io It IS He HImself who m the first mstance is sanctified by His blood as t~;1 blood of the covena~~. He certainly addresses God: "Holy Father" Un. I I ). And He prays: Sancbfy (thou) them through thy truth" (In. 17"), But He 27 3 HImself IS the fulfilment of this request as the Son of the Father. In Ac. 4 - °, as the One who is directly sanctified He is called" the holy servant 14 us J,es ," and in Ac, 3 " the Holy One and th~ Just" whom the Jews denied. L~; wa;; recogmsed as such by the demons who cried after Him (Mk. I " ; Lk. 4'); 9 I. know thee who thou art, the Holy One of God." And according to J n. 0. thIS was also the confession of Peter: "And we believe and are sure that thou art. , , the Holy One of God." As such He is the One of whom it is said (I Pet. I'5); "He which hath called you is holy." Heb. 211 is even stronger' He is th~ aYL,~'wV, the One who sanctifies, by whose existence and action ther~ ~re also aYLa~OI-'El'OL. samts. Everything that follows flows from this source and ,s nounshed by th,S root. It is on this basis that the call goes out to others that they can and should and must" be holy in all manner of conversation" (r Pet. r I5 ),

._ For this .O~e is ,no more holy in isolation than the holy God. He I~ What He IS III thIS unique and incomparable and inimitable fashion

a,3 the One who is elected by God and Himself elects as God the One In Whom the decision has been made concerning all men 'in whom they have been set in covenant with God and therefore o:dained for conversion to Him. He is thus the Lord and Head and Shepherd

516

§ 66. The Sanctzfication of Man

and Representative of all men, but primarily of His own particular people, of His community in the world. It has not always been taken with sufficient seriousness that He took our place and acted for us, not merely as the Son of God who establish~d God's right and our own by allowing Himself, the Judge, to be Judg~? for ~s, but also as the Son of Man who was sanctified, who sanctlfied Hlmself. Far too often the matter has been conceived and represented as though His humiliation to death for our justification by Him as our Representative were His own act, but our exaltation to fellowship with God as the corresponding counter-movement, and therefore our sanctification, were left to us, to be accomplished by us. "All this I did for thee' What wilt thou do for me?" The New Testament does not speak in this way. It knows nothing of a Je~us who lived and. died for the forgiveness of our sins, to free us as lt were retrospectively, but who now waits as though with tied arms for us to act m accordance with the freedom achieved for us. It is natural that He should be thought of in this way when it is overlooked ~nd ~org~tten t?at He is not only the suffering Son of God but also the vlctonous and tn,!mphant Son of Man. He is this, too, in our place and favour. Thls too, declared in His resurrection from the dead, is a moment and aspect of the mighty reconciling action of God which has taken place in Him. This too is the free and freely disposing grace of God addressed to us in Him. ' This means, however, that in and with His sanctification ours has been achieved as well. What remains for us is simply to recognise and respect it with gratitude in that provisiOl:al praise, t~e offering of which is the reason for the existence of HIS peor:le, HIS community and all its individual members. .We are not sanctified by this recognition and respect, by the poor praIse that w~ offer. We a~e not saints because we make ourselves such. Weare samts and sanctIfied because we are already sanctified, already saints, in this One. Already in Him we are summoned to this ~ctio~. And ~he fact that this is so-not in ourselves but supremely m this One-IS the rea~on for this action and the object of our recognition, respect and praIse. The creation of man's new form of existence as God's covenant-partner is not therefore, something which is merely before us, even as co~­ cerns 'ourselves. We have not to achieve it by imitation. Even If we could do this-and we cannot-we should be too late; just as we should be far too late in any attempted creation of heaven and ear~h. All that we can do is to live under the heaven and on the earth WhlCh God has created good. Similarly, our only option is to see and ac~ept as an accomplished fact man's new form of existence, our sanctificatlOI?' and to direct ourselves accordingly. He Himself has accomplished It in a way which is effective and authoritative ~or all, for His who~e people and all its individual members, and ultlmately for the who ~ world. The fact that it is accomplished in Jesus as our Lord and lIe: . means that we are asked for our obedience, or supremely our loY ,

2.

The Holy One and the Saints

517

just as the fact that our justification is accomplished in Him means th.at -:e are asked for our faith. There is no prior or subsequent contnbutlOn. th~t we can make to its accomplishment. As we are not aske~ to J~stlfy ou~selv~s, we are not asked to sanctify ourselves. Our sanctIficatlOn conslsts m our participation in His sanctification as grounded in the efficacy and revelation of the grace of Jesus Christ. In this r~s~ect" t?O, the New Testament is quite unambiguous.

"And for

thel~, sakes (v;.€p aVTw.v) I sMlctIfy myself, that they also might be truly sanctified (In. 17 ). Cunous samts, we mIght thmk, especially in view of the warn91 ing of I Cor. 6 . : "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kmgdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effemInate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kmgdom of God. And such were some of you." How will Paul continue after thIS solemn statement? With the demand that there should be no backsliding m thIS dIrectIOn? that there should be a destruction of every remnant of this type of conduct? that there should be a concern for restitution and a corresponding new beginning in the opposite direction? Is there not every occasion ;or ~~IS? Is It not th~, natural drift of what he says? Yet he himself develops ;]IS .. Be not deceIved and hIS charge very differently. For in the immediate contmu.atIOu m :. I I he says: "But ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but }~e are JustIfied m the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." 10 Oppose to the rag~ng flood of hum~n ';ice a barrier by which it is set effectively m the past all that IS needed IS the aAAa of recollection of what has taken place In Jesus Chnst, and In HIm for them and to them. It is exactly the same in If Col. r· ., where the readers are addressed as those who" were sometime alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works," but whom Christ" hath reconciled m the body of his flesh through death, to present you (d. Eph. 527) holy and unblameable and unreproveable in his sight." So, too, in Heb. 13 12 : "Wherefore Jesus also, that he might sanctify the people with his own blood, suffered WIthout the gate." The meaning of all these iva sentences is not that-by His own example maybe.-He should offer them the possibility or chance or opportUllIty of sanctIficatIOn, or that H~ sh?uld set them in a decision which they themselves have to make, but that III HIS death and passion He should make the deCISIon and accomplish their sanctification in their place, laying the foundation on whIch th~y actually stand and are called and ordained to be ready to stand ~nd go. ThIS comes out most clearly.in Heb. IOSf., where Ps. 407.9 is quoted and ~xpounded as follows: The t.rue HIgh-priest Jesus has taken away the first, the gIfts and offerIngs of men whIch God did not desire, in order to establish the second, the: "La, I come to do thy will, 0 God" (v. 9). Hence we can be tole! III v. 10: "By the which will we are sanctified through the offering of the b~dy of Jesus ChrIst once for all.'" Note the use of <,po.7Tag in this context and "lth thIS reference. In substance, the statement is repeated in v. 14: "By one off';;lllg he hath perfected for ever (
5 IS

§ 66. The Sanctification oj A1 an

2.

resolved-and since the resolve is God's already taken. It is at this depth that Jesus Christ is and acts for us as our Lord and Head even as concerns our own conversion to God. In so far as thIS IS ItS meanmg and content, the hIstory of the royal man Jesus crowned in His death at Calvary had this di:nension fro~ the eternity of the will of God fulfilled by HIm on earth and m time. That IS why Paul can hazard a statement like that of 1 Cor. 3 17 : "The temple of God is holy, which temple ye are." That is why those gathered mto the c~m,:,umty can and must be called" saints." They are sanctIfied and therefore samts m Christ Jesus" (I Cor. I'; Phil. I'); in and wit~ the One who originally ~nd properly is alone the Holy One. For He IS theIr Bead and Lord and Ku~g. They do not belong to themselves, but to HIm. They are samts, not propna, but aliena sanctitate,. sanctitate ] esu Chnstt. They are holy III the truth and power of His holiness. It is not in defiance but in virtue of this fact th~t we can never take too literally the New Testament statement about the eXIstence of sanctified men and therefore saints. Where has the New Testament to be ta~en more literally than in the passages where it speaks of the power and authontatIveness of the new form of human existence achIeved m Jesus Chnst and there~ore created by God? The realism with which it speaks about the eXIstence of saI~ts (in Jesus Christ) may be gathered from the fact that mCldentally, but qUIte categorically, Paul hazards the statement in I Cor. 714 that the existence of these men involves the sanctification of those around them who m the,:,selves are not sanctified: "For the unbelieving husband is sanctIfied by the (belIevmg) wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the (believing) husband: _els~ were your children (also) unclean; but no~ (m the New Testament thIS vvv ~~ recalls the christological reference WIth whIch all thIS IS saId) are .they. holy .. That it is given to men to be saints (only, but Wlt~ supreme realIty) m the~r participation in the sanctity of the One who alone IS holy means that the~e IS created in the world a fact by which the world cannot be unaffected but IS at once-wittingly or unwittingly-determined and altered .. It is now the world to which there belongs also the existence of these men, thIS people. And It has to contend with this fact.

J

In the participation of. the saints in .th.e sanctity of esus .Chri~t there is attested the sanctIty of man as It IS already achieved m thIS One who alone is holy. We shall have to ask later, in the specifically Christian ethics which will form the subject of the fourth and c:mcluding part of the doctrine of reco~ciliation, .what is th: pr~ctIc~1 result of this self-attestation of man s accomplIshed sanctlficatIOn III what he does and does not do. Our present concern is with this se~f­ attestation as such. This consists in the participation of the s~ifolts I? the sanctity of Jesus Christ; in what Calvin called the partrcrpatw Christi. . th We must first speak about its presupposition. It consists III e fact that the sanctification of man attested in it is actually acc~m­ plished in the one Jesus Christ in a way which is effective and authontative for all, and therefore for each and every man, and not merelr for the people of God, the saints. ~~t a .little depen~s or: our realis~ng and considering this. In the partlcipatlOfol of t~e samts m the ~anctIty of the one Jesus Christ, we are not dealIng With the. conc~usIOn of; private arrangement between Him and them. but With ~IS cau~e _ the King, and the execution of His office as such. In ~helr s3:netIfi~a tion He attests that He is the Lord of all men. In all ItS partlculanty

The Holy One and the Saints

51 9

the.ir sanctification speaks of the universal action of God. which has as Its purpose and goal the reconciliation of the world, and therefore not merely of this group of individuals in the world. As it creates the fact ~f the. existence of these men. this people, within the world. their sanctificatIOn attests the great decision of God which in Jesus Christ has been J?ade not only conc~rning them but concerning all the men of every hme and place. ThIs takes away from the particular existence of these men any appearance of the accidental. It gives it the stamp of supreme necessity and obligation. It removes its declaration .and expression from the atmosphere of the pride of religious selfseekmg and self-sufficiency. It sets it in the larger sphere of the creation of God. It gives it a solidarity even with secular things with which it is contrasted. Even in its antithesis to these it is characterised as a humble rendering of service. This is the basis of both the dispeace and the peace ~f th~ saints in their relationship to others. They know tha~ t.he ~anct!ficat!on of man, of all men. is already fulfilled (like theIr J?sh?cahon) m t~e on.e man Jesus, that it is effectively and authontahvely fulfilled m HIm, and that it calls for their faith and love. But this knowledge is the knowledge of the man Jesus as the" firstborn among29 many brethren," as He is called with magnificent breadth in Rom..8 , .or ." the firstborn of every creature" (Col. r 15). The one who In HIm IS elected by God and has elected Him is man' man ~s SUC? in thi~ On~. Thus the humanity of Jesus in the partic~larity tn which He IS thIS one man is, as the humanity of the Son of God humanity as such, the humanity for which every man is ordained ami in. which every p~rt already has a part in Him. What took place in HIm-the exaltatIOn of man, and therefore His sanctification for God -took place .as the new impression of humanity as such. It was accomplIshed m the place of all oth.ers. In the exercise of His kingly office It took place for them too: wIth all the mercy of the love which seeks all; with all the seriousness of the will which extends to all . with all the power of the act which is done for all; with all the authori~ tativeness of the decision which has been taken for all. In all His singularity Jesus Christ never was or is or will be isolated. For in this singularity He was and is and will be, and worked and will work, from and to all eternity for all. We do not see Him at all if we do not see Him in our place.; if we do not therefore see the direct relevance of His being and action for ours; if we do not therefore see ourselves as determined by His being and action. But all this is not a private arrangement between Him and us. He is not merely our Lord and Representative. As He takes our own place He takes also that of OUr fellows and brothers. The relevance of His being and action is f.or ours, but also for that of others who are beside and around us in lIkeness with us. They no less than we are determined by Him. The knowledge of the man Jesus includes the knowledge and enclosure of

§ 66, The Sanctification oj Iv! an

520

ai~~se:~rd s:~n;s .

our owns a:ion

fO::ti~O

i~

h r human existence in His, There are, thereare those who know the man Jesus) to whose the sanctity of this One there ,does, not als.o J:>elong a

~~;~~~~ ~~:~~l~~~~:~~i~~e~h;~~~\~~~~ ~~ce~~~:~c~t~h~~~~~~

"' . Ch "S t" has one weakness which we can Calvin's doctrine of the part~c~?ahtw nn ~never forget in an his thoughtful tl d lore and WhIC we c a . "" , never too g~ea y ep.. . stification and sanctification. ThIS conSIsts m and instructlve presentatlon of JU d' , of his distinctive doctrine of prethe fact that he found no placefan m vlewition of the universal relevance of destination he could not do so- ~\~ re~~~~ification of all men as it has been the existence of the man Jesus, ~ t' e s h"ch according to Eph, 14 has been achieved in Him .. The eternal e ec I~n I v.: lonly to those who in God's eternal made in Jesus Chns.t was ref~rre~ by ~ ~~~refore to reconciliation, justification counsel are forwrdamed to sa v~ I~~i~~ His existence has no positive significance and sanctlficatlOn m Jesus Chns, th' f rdination for the reprobate. The for those who are excluded from IS. o:~~e work of the Holy Spirit in which consequence is that when Calvm descnbe 'n th" first chapter of the third book). Christ illum;nates and calls men to ~~~~i~cle of the elect. Thus the participatio he restncts It from the. very first ,to t'fication and sanctification of man grounded or commumcatw Ch;~stt, and the JUSII t". lar significance. For the reprobate, in it is a divme a.ctlOn which has on YHpar ICt,I h mbled Himself to be man as ' . 'd t d' F them e nel h er u Jesus Chnst dl no Ie, o~ It d to fellowship with God as the Son of the Son of God, nor has He een ex~ e th r has He acted representatively for Man. Neither in the one way nor ~he °h e \Ve will not now develop either d them as their Lord and Head ,and ep er ~ which this involves (cf. C.D., II, the serious distortion of th~ blbl~al me~s~l say'that it carries with it (I) a 2 2, §§ 3 -35) or ItS mhumamty, . e nee n tJ!e lor of God and the salvation dissolution of the stnct correlatl~~b~t;ee hs ~nl: in the salvation of specific of man, For ~al~in the glory ~ 0 dit~~~mJ the rest. It ~arries with it (2) the men, although It IS served by t e per f I tion even of the elect is not to fact that the final and proper ?ro~nd 0 e ~c ble and immovable decision by be sought in Jesus Christ, but III Ie Illscru a to the elect in Jesus Christ, It which it is decided whether or not theY bt~o~gelection on the basis of this foreh carries with it (3) the fact that'palt~oUpg t" ~~risti and therefore their justificaordination, and therefore their ar U~ a ~o f G d 'the are also an end in themtion and sanctification, do serve th; glor~~tab;: , sinc~ in their realisation th~y selves, and are thus pomt~ess an . unpr the re~t of God's creation. It carnes have no positive functIOn III relatIOn to I t ttest the holiness of a God whose with it (4) the fact that they canhserv~ on ~~ r~~ricted by a limit which He Himmercy is limited to them, and w ose ave 1 t " e this is not a total love It self has arbitrarily and inscrutably set. E Bu ;~~\hose who are just and holy cannot be accorded a total confidence. . ven ears to be their exalted in Jesus Christ this seriously compromises" wphatt aCPPhr;sti there is lacking that t'on of the part~Ct a 20 , . f I . , position. In Ca vm s concep I ." osition of the participatIOn 0 which we have described as the obJect~~~:~:u!a~ctificationwhich has come to the saints in the sanctlty of J esus Chn~ t the saints and which gIves to man a priori in Him, which IS absolute y sureot~er men. In place of it there their existence teleological meanmg amoF g G d who is absolutely hidden a~d yawns the abyss of the absoltute dJecree C~r~t ~ho cannot be seen or known 10 anonymous, who does not ac III esus" L , "ver different mvstery, Him who is God, not in His merCiful ommpotence, b~t I~ a t~ve the fouddatio n This'means that Calvin's we have to look which is finally needed to carry 1 " resolutely beyond his conceptIOn.

doctrine~f s~~c~~i~aptI~:t,o:~e~~fore,

2.

The Holy One and the Saints

52 I

What has to be said about the sanctification which comes de facto on the saints in virtue of their participation in the sanctity of Jesus Christ acquires its weight from what has to be said concerning the sanctification which has already come on man-on the saint, but also on every other man-de iure in Jesus Christ. But now that we have referred to this presupposition we must turn to the question how the transition is made from this presupposition to the participation of the saints, of the particular people of God in the world, to the sanctification which has come on them de facto. How do they become witnesses of that which has come on the whole world and all men in the one Jesus Christ? What is the happening which constitutes it this particular people of God armed and commissioned with this witness? The development of the answer to this question is the task of this whole section. In this basic sub-section we must first indicate its general features and scope. There can be only one point of departure. These saints, the people of God in the world, are men whom the Holy One, the royal man Jesus Christ exalted in His death to fellowship with God, does not confront only in a certain objectivity, as the" historical Jesus," as a problem set for them, as a possibility and chance offered them, or in such a way that they have still to actualise the relevance of His existence for themselves (and for all men). Do they not have to "wrestle" with Him? Later they do, and this in all seriousness. This is the problem of Christian ethics. But they have to do so only on the basis of the fact that there is no separation between Him and them, but only a companionship in which He Himself has set them as the One who has been raised again from the dead and lives, who was and is and will be in the power of the eternal will of God triumphing in His death, the crucified Lord of all men and therefore their Lord, and now their Lord in particular because it is not hidden from them, but revealed to them, that He is the Lord of all men and therefore their Lord. In the particularity of their existence it is not (or only subsequently) a matter of their understanding and interpreting His existence and its relevance. It is a matter of its self-interpretation as this is not now concealed from them but revealed to them. This is not without its effect on their existence. In it the basic decision is revealed which has been taken concerning them. It compels them at once to a re-interpretation of themselves in accordance with the truth concerning them which has hitherto been suppressed. If He lives, this royal man, and if He does so as the Lord, their Lord, this means even for their own self-understanding that they are His, the people of His possession. They for their part cannot, then, confront Him neutrally as those who are remote and alien-which would really mean hostile, for there is no such thing as neutrality at this point. They belong to !fim, and in such a way that they belong to Him. They are not Identical with Him, and never will be, He and He alone is the Holy

~ 2'7

~

§ 66. The Sanctification of Man

. . d ro erly is the Holy One among them One of God, who ongmally aln p. Pt e God and therefore the true , h · h d for He a one IS ru and at t elr ea, H th e Holy One being revealed to them as and royal man. But e, t their living Lord has laid His hand , such and not hidden, pre~e~ 1 ~.' and thinking' and action and inon their creaturely and ~m u emg h making them witnesses of His . 1 'm'ng it for Hlmse lf as suc , . h H' actIOn, cal 1 d t that extent fellow-saints WIt 1m, sanctity, and. therefore an thO are He has placed them and their even as the smful ~re~tures ey . ~nd inaction-we must now take whole ~einghand t~m~~~:;'~~ta~~IOo~r christological basis (§ 64, 4)up agalI~ t ~ m~m s New Testament puts it, He has reached under HIS dIrectIOn: As the. . ower of His Holy Spirit. The and tou~~e~ themH~n thl~ .qu~~~e:~~i~:inwhich He reveals and mak:s Holy SpIrIt IS He Imse m th One He is placing them under HIS Himself kno,":,n ~o other men~~ e as the ~tnesses of His holiness. ~Wj\us Christ Himself in the work of direction, cla.lI:l1~g the~ ~s in the world, of His community and all its members.

:>

t

;~e ~~~i~~~~~~~s ;F~::I;!rti~~lar ~eoPle

. . . W cannot overlook the weakness introduce? At this point we reJom CalVIn: ~is establishment of the participatio Chnst~. by his doctrine of predestmatlOn I~to k the exemplary determination and power Much less, however, can we over 00 thO d book (within this limit). he asse~ed with which, in the first ~~apt.er of iht~e ~:ints in the sanctity of Jesus ~hnst, the Christ-created partIcIpat~on ~. their Lord as the basis of all sotenology. and therefore their membershIp mIt Ir::,s thinking from this centre, that he has It is because of this, as the re~u bOt IS . stification and sanctification which the clear insight into the relatIon e ween tJ.u r first sub-sec IOn. h . d .. t ld' I if He existed extra nos, as a C nstus we had cause to a mIre m ou It would not be Christ, we are °b' 1'3)' as though He were the subject of otiosus frigide extra nos, procul ~ no ~s / 'm ~sum' or as though He were One the divine act of redemption m Pr!v':-I~ nd b~lieving that He exists outside about whom, as those separate~ fr~~ula~::' a Our task is to be " graffed in." to us we thought that we could sPH' . (Gal 3 27 ) to form with Him a smgle Christ (inseri, Rom. II 17) , to 'Who does this by the Holy whole (in unum coalescere). u . of salvation would be qUIte empty. Ghost. Without the Holy Ghost the lr~Irr:rIs~an teachers would cry in vain (1,4), It would reach only our ears (1,3), an a) b u h'ch Christ binds us effectivel:f to The Holy Spirit is the bond (~t~C~lu';he ra~ ~hat He enlightens us as m~g~s~' Himself (I, I). HIS wor~ consIS s m entiae as the Spirit of truth. That IS, e or doctor internus, as SP~r!tus mtelhg , , ' us e es to see, causing us to grasp brings us to the light of the Gospd: glvm fJth in which the communic~tJO S 1he the heavenly wisdom, and thus gI~ng ur justification and sanctification, Christi with us as His own, au: t )re ~~~c~ the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of t~: become a concrete event (I, II a~, I: 4;f course the work and gift of Jesus Chnss Son as wellItasisthe a h mg , ISt~'t as the ~econd Adam (I Cor. IS") Jesu H'mself notFather, for not a,. . ChI, t H' 'mself is called the Spiritus vwificans (I, 2). ns 1 • • 'nt In

Ii

~u~ itI~ ~e Hi~self

t

ke some further steps from thIS startmg-pol f We must no~ ta . t 'th the most general features 0 an attempt to gaI~ an ~cquam ance '~ation of man becomes an event the specific event m whIch the sanetlfi th "saints" are those whose de facto. From what we have seen, e

2.

The Holy One and the Saints

5 3 2

existence is affected and radically altered and re-determined by the fact that they receive direction in a particular address of the One who alone is holy. He creates saints by giving them direction. This expression might seem to be too weak and external and therefore ineffective in relation to what it is meant to describe. But even in itself the word "direction" speaks meaningfully and dynamically enough of man's indication to a particular and new situation, of the correction which he must receive in it, and of the instruction which he is thereby given to adopt a particular attitude. Nor is this direction merely the type that one man may give to another. It is the direction of the royal man Jesus, who is the one true Son of God. And it is given by Him as the Lord as in the work of His Holy Spirit He is revealed and present to these men as the One who is risen and lives, as their Head and Shepherd. Thus, unlike any direction which one man may give to others, it falls, as it were, vertically into the lives of those to whom it is given. It is thus effective with divine power. It is the sowing and the deVeloping seed of new life. It crushes and breaks and destroys that which resists it. It constitutes itself the ruling and determinative factor in the whole being of those to whom it is given. As is brought out by the German word Weisung-and it is in this sense that we are using it-it becomes their wisdom. We do not use the word in any restrictive sense. We use it merely for the sake of precision. It reminds us that the power or sowing which proceeds from the existence of the royal man Jesus, the critical and constructive force with which He invades the being of men and makes them His saints, is not a mechanical or organic or any other physical operation, nor is it in any sense a magical. It is the power of His Word spoken with divine authority and therefore in illuminating fruitfulness and power. The sanctification of the saints by the Holy One takes place in the mode appropriate to the being of the Son of the God who is the eternal Logos, and to the relationship of the Son of Man to other men. He speaks. He does so forcefully, not merely in words but in acts, in His whole existence, and all-comprehensively in His death. Yet He speaks. And others hear Him. They do not hear Him only with their ears, or as they hear other men, but effectively-as a call to obedience. Yet they hear' Him. Hence the sanctification of man as the work of the Holy Spirit has to be described as the giving and receiving of direction. It is in this way that the Holy One creates the saints. It is in this way that He shares with them, in supreme reality, His own holiness; man's new form of existence as the true covenant-partner of God. Again in the most general terms we ask how this impartation is to be understood, and our best plan is to begin from the bottom upwards. These saints are indeed at the very bottom. They themselves are not royal men, nor are they exalted to fellowship and cooperation with God, as has to be said of this One. He indeed is

5 4

§ 66. The Sanctification oj Man . . d of God the Father. But thIS means that, enthroned at the :lgh~ ha~ reco nise Him as theirs and themas in virtue of HIS dIrectIon ~hey 'th~ the world as God confronts selves as His, He ~~fronts t ~m ::el;~reatures. They are slothful, the whole world. . ~y are no ~areworn sinners. And as His direcstupi~, i~human, dIssIpated ~n~ see and confess that this is t~e c~se. tion IS gIveIl: th~m, they ~av . t these recipients of the dIrectIon They are stIll smners-t ese ;~I~f\1an who is also the Son of ~od. of the exalt.ed man, o\~he~rection given and received is one thmg ; They are shll be~ow. e. with it are quite another. What, then, they themselves In companson ld from other men, from those who wor differentiates them from theb 'd bt that they are differentiated are not saints? There ca~ ~~rd ~~ spoken to them and heard by from the world; .t~a~ a;ello~-saints with the Holy One, His people. them they are san~ s , . and can it be said concerning them ? But in what sense ~s thIS t~ue. 'ew of the fact that they are unTo describe theIr sanchtY~I~ v: use a very modest and restrained, doubtedly s.till.sinners-we m.us r~hey are disturbed sinners. Their yet quite Slgn~ficantkexpr~~~fr'course as such is slow ~nd l~me and sleep as such .IS br~ ~n. h' hemmed in by qualIficatIOns and halting. TheIr actiVIty as suc hIS in the cause that they have er doubts. They a:e .no 10tngt llaPsePl~evident that man should be a . d Now It espouse.. .IS'no a a The unreconclled man, t h e man t 0 disturbed smner .1~ ~hlS ~a~e world with God, which comprehends whom the reconcl~atlO~ o l d is an undisturbed sinner. Naturhis own sanctificat.lOn, IS contce~ e ' and periods of unrest. But he is h S hIS own res ram t s . ally, h e t 00 a d t them It is his conscious or unconscIOUS, able to surmount an mas e!. t' be able to master them, and thus primitive or refined art Of.~~I~?m~lf to pursue his sleep and course in peac~ .and h~rmony ;~is w~ole activity below, are possible, n~ces­ and actIVIty. T ~se, a~ f all his unrest. And he cannot gen.umely sary and natural In spIte. 0 f no oint in accusing him, or disturb hi:ns~lf.. There IS, t~:rse ~~;'undefstand what we are talking treatin.g hIm lr0Il:lcal~~t~eO~ght to be seriously disquieted. The only about If we tell hIm t . h' h can be overcome not one disturbance that he knows IS TO;:: ~r~~tion of the Son of 'Man, the which cannot be ove.f(~o~e. eeded if he is to be disturbed in a way work of the Holy Spmt, IS nTh saints are sinners who are disturbed which cannot be o~erc.ome. the~ still are they are confronted by the in this way. As t e SInners nd therefore by the name and kingdom existence of the Holy On; a I d from them that the kingdom has and will of God. It IS no cO:e~~:hers as well as themselves.. But. as drawn near. It has approac f the fact and they have to live distinct from others .th~y ~e aware °But the kingdom of God is ~he with th~ ~act ~ha~ Ii ~~ a~dc~~:~efore of their own. It is an active contradich~n 0 ~ ~ ~hey' do and do not do here below. They have protest agamst w a 2

2.

The Holv One and the Saints

to accept this protest. As it is made and revealed to them, it applies to their own being. They themselves are still sinners, and they have to recognise and confess that this is so. But there is now no room for complacency. They cannot happily pursue their course. They do what they do. But they do it as thos!" to whom it has been said, and who have heard, that it is wrong. They have been deprived of all authorisation to do it; of every possibility of extenuating or excusing it. They can no longer continue to do it with confidence. Why not? Because in the exalted Son of Man, the royal man Jesus, they have perceived and have before them their Brother, and themselves as His brothers. It is He who disturbs them in their activity here below. And He continues effectively to disturb them. They are His saints as those who are effectively disturbed. Sanctification is a real change even in this restricted sense-the creation of a new form of existence in which man becomes the true covenant-partner of God. As an undisturbed sinner he is always a covenant-breaker, unreconciled with God and unusable by Him. The better he succeeds in achieving inner harmony, the less he can be reconciled with God and used by Him. But when, although he is a sinner and here below like all others, he meets and has to accept, in virtue of the direction of the incarnate Son of God, the name and kingdom and will of God, and therefore that active protest, even here below he is already placed where he belongs, at the side of God, made a partisan of God even against himself and the world, and radically and definitively separated from the unholy, who may not be so great sinners as he, but who are still undisturbed sinners. It makes a tremendous difference whether a man is on the one side or the other; whether in his person the sin of the world is arrested sin or unarrested. The people of God in the world are those who still stand in daily need of forgiveness but upon whose hearts and consciences there has been written, not their own or a human, but the divine contradiction of their sinning. We will now choose another less restricted and rather more penetrating term to describe the men of this people. They are not merely disturbed in their sinful will and action. A limit is set to their being sinners by the direction which they are given. Within this limit their being is still that of sinners. They still live in the flesh. In relation to this " within" everything that has to be said about the misery of man, and especially about his lack of freedom to do the will of God, applies to them too. But this "within" is not infinite. On the contrary, a definite limit has been set for it. And this is their sancbfication. It is from this limit that there comes on man that which we have already described as the disturbance of his sinful action. There can be no reducing the seriousness with which he has still to recognise himself as a creature which is slothful towards God, and which constantly reproduces its sloth. Nor can there be any reducing the seriousness of the fact that he stands under the accusation and

526

§ 66. The Sanctification oj 11,1 an

condemnation of God. Yet we have also to recognise that this being is overwhelmingly limited (not IToter~ly. de iure b,ut "de /a~toL by t~e direction which he is given. It IS hunted to thIS wlthm. It IS, therefore relativised. Its continuance is radically threatened. What limits it is again the revealed name of God, His imminent kingd~m, His will which is done for man, claiming him as His creature, negatmg his being as a sinner, and destroying the ~or,ce :vhich ?inds him and reduces him to misery and bondage. The lImItatIOn WhIch thus comes to him is his sanctification. Because it is God's act, it is an o~er­ whelming limitation. It is not. at a.ll the c~se, then, that the bemg of saints is compromised by theIr bemg as smners. On the .contrary, their being as sinners, their life in the flesh, is overwhelmmgly an.d totally compromised by their being as saints: A.s God .enters theIr life actively and concretely in virtue of the dlrec~IOn wlllch they a~e given, in the act of lordship of the Son ~f. Man, .m th,e truth .of HIS Word and the actuality of the Holy Spmt, theIr bemg as smners, however seriously it may still assert itself, is pushed into a corner. It may still intrude into the present, but it belongs to the past. The' " within" is in this corner, and is itself the past. It no longer counts, What really counts is its limitation. For the reali~y of this limit~t~on has its basis in the exaltation of Jesus Christ. It IS, therefore,. dIVIne reality. The being of man as a sinner, on the other hand, ~as its reality only in virtue of that which is not. The people ?f ~od m the world are those to whom it is revealed, and who may bve m and by the knowledge, that their being as sinne.r~ is one which is assailed by God, and therefore basically and defimtIvely; that the ground on which they are sinners has been taken ~wa~ from them,. e:ren though they are still sinners. This is what dlstmgU1sh~s the reCIpIents of t~e direction of the Son of God from the world whIch does. not share t~IS knowledge-although the ground has already been cut from under ItS sinful being as well. . . The word" disturbance" which we used first to descnbe sanctIfic~­ tion as participat1:o Christi refers to its critical character, although It is not on that account only a formal term. W~ m~st now take a further step. As sinners, the recipients of the dIrectIOn ~f the One who alone is holy are disturbed in their sinful will and actIon by.the fact that their existence is positively placed under a new determmation. In other words, they are called. In their totality they are the EKK/.:1)uta, a gathering of those to wh0ITot the Son of Man has ~poken and who have heard His voice. In thIS sense they are set aSIde by Him. Or better, here below, within the world which is not yet aw~re 01 its reconciliation with God accomplished by Him, its sanctificatlO? in Him, they are set at His side, in order that they may be t~ere HIS witnesses, the witnesses of the Holy One. As such they are dIsturbed sinners' sinners who are disturbed by the fact that He has made ~lear to'them the divine No to their own sinful will and action, and

2.

The Holy One and the Samts

5 7 2

that of all men. Because it is His No it is effective It th . 1 for them an irresistible ~nd invincible disturbance B' ut aga~S Ibnvo ves 't' H' N . . . m, ecause 1 IS .IS a It IS not a~ e~pt~ or abstract No. It is concretely filled ?ut Wlt~ the y~s of HIS dIrectIOn. This is not merely correction. It IS also InstructIOn. As those who are called by Him, they are not merely ~alled ou.t; t~ey are also calleq in. They are called into the fellowshIp of theIr eXIster;ce with His. It is to be noted that they are called as those. they ar~, In their action here below, which still has all the marks of .smful actIOn. They still exist here below. "Whilst we are at home m the body, we are absent from the Lord" (2 Cor. 56). For we ar~ not above where He, the royal man, exists. But there abov: He IS our Lord and Head and Representative: the Son who is sanctIfied by the Fa~her, and who sanctifies Himself, for us and for all me.n; t~lC tr~e Cove~ant-pa:tner of God in fellowship and cooperat~on WIth ~Im. He IS all tillS, not for Himself, but for the saints as. theIrs, as theIr Brother. It disturbs them below that they hav~ thIS Brother above, bone .of their bone and flesh of their flesh. For as the One who, exalted In this way, is theirs, their Brother, He is not c?ncealed fro~ th~m as ~e is from others of whom it may also b~ saI.d that He IS theIrs, theIr Brother. He is not distant, a mere hlstoncal Jesus. He i.s revealed and near to them, their living Lord. As such He att~sts HImself to them, imparting Himself in the truth and power. of HIS, the Holy Spirit. As such, and speaking to them as such, H~ dIsturbs them in their slothful sleep and course and activity. Awake~mg them as such, H~ startles them out of the peace in which they thmk th~t they can contmually express their sinful being as others do. But calI~ng ~hem out in this way, He calls them to Himself. As those who stI~l live below He calls them to fellowship with Him as t~e One who IS e:-:alted ab?ve. This does not mean only the critical dIsturbance but m and WIth it a positive alteration of their being below. They may and can and must lift up themselves as those who are su~moned by Him. "Lift up your heads" (Lk. 21 28), is the call. What IS meant IS that they should l.ook to Him, the exalted, royal man, wh~ has co.me to them as theIr own, their Brother, and will come agam, and IS now present with them below even though He is abo,:e; that. they sh?uld look to Him, the Holy One, and in this look~ng to HI.m as theIr Lord and Representative be His saints. This lookIng to HIm, ~ot wi~h bo:v.ed but uplifted head, is the setting up of these men. .It IS theIr pOSItIve sanctification-in contrast to others upon whom thIS has come. de iure but not de Jacto. "Looking unto ]es,us, th~ a~thor. and fimsher of our faith" (Heb. 12 2), they live. ThIS lookmg IS ~heir sanctification de Jacto. As they are called by Him, and look t~ HIm an~ therefore lift up themselves, they have a part here below In the holIness in which He is the One who alone is holy. We speak ,of men who are always si~ners like others; who at every ll10ment and In every respect need forgIveness, the justification before

')zS

§ 66. The Sanctification of Man

, .. Their sanctification takes place here below God whIch IS. sheer m~rcy. d t have the marks of sloth or can where there IS no ~chon .tha~ ~sdno This is true even of their lifting be anything but dlsPleas1~gth~ir~o~king to the Lord, which is their up .of them~elves\~~~nisOthere who really lifts up his head, and looks 1 h 0 ho is the Holy One for us, as we actlOn as smnts. directly ~nd steadf~stl.y at t b : w~l~-~easing to God and to show that must do If our actlOn IS to of Go~? How painfully we lift up ourwe are true covenant-partners . d is our attempt to do so by so selves! How ba~calW fO~~~~;~ Is it really more than the e~dy much mdolen~ an WI u s , erfully flowing stream but which hole? These men are which may anse and be seen m a pow h of the stream as a w . ca~mot alter t .e course mselves in obedience to the call which comes samts as they hft up the . t 1'n virtue of the seriousness or conto them. But they are not sakm Sth . movement or look to the One 'th h' h they rna e IS , . h . . t only in virtue of the sanchty of t e slstency WI w 1C who calls them. Theydare sa~ s their gaze is not very well directed. One who calls them an °70:k °tr:kes from that which they do, their He alone on whom the Yth d btful and questionable character from lifting up of themselves., e dOfu 'tself He alone takes from it the . h" r free In an or 1 • h' h WhlC It IS neve . "fi e the inability to bear witness, w IC powerlessness and mS.lgm canc , f 11 other men. He alone sanctires r it inevitably sh3: .wIth th~f aCt I:~~ t~erefore by continually justifyfies it by acceptmg.lt a~ p~~ ~~r~ below in the world, where these men alone gIVes ing it. . He th wer an°dI"fi sigm cance of a right answer to His selfalso eXIst, e po f f attestation and there ore a a WI't n ess to the sanctification of man as accomplished in Him. e however is the fact that More important for. our p~esen~ Pu~~P~~y call whidh comes to them He does actually do thIS. I~ IS ~~t J themselves and look to Him. and which they obey as t e y . up f the stream and the eddy, It is His call. If we accept the h1Cliu~eva to say that the eddy does to make it true to the. facts we s a or~ese within the stream, but by not arise through th~ mter-play of f owerful wind which comes hen the op.eration of ~n 3: f.ac~or-p~h~snaehected by his sa~cti~cation sweepmg across It. . f?e ~Ift.m~ ~! all his other acts. Yet it IS dI~erent is hIS own act, and It IS sIm~~a t t that the initiative on WhICh he from .all his other act.s to 't~ ~hi~~ he expresses himself. in it, does does It, the spon,tanelty WI motions or understandmg or cannot arise from h1~ ow~ ~ea.rt ~~e e ower of the direction which has science, b~t has ItS on~n m It i~ necessary and indispensable that come to hIm III these sp e r e s . . her and find courage he should rouse himself and pull h1m~lf. t?ge: but this is only the and confidence and take and execute ~C1SI:~ich does not originate spiritual and p~lysicalh~orm of a hkaPbP:tn~~~ gift of God. It is not as If d IS not IS own wor , , h h the . h' In 1mselord anbut as t h " t 0 f this gift that he carnes t roug his own e reClplen

2.

The HoZy One and the Saints

5 9 2

movement which we call his lifting up of himself. He executes it as the answer to a call which does not come from himself but from the One who encounters him, and is present and revealed to him, as the Lord and therefore as his Lord. No matter how similar this movement may be to those of all other men-for he has no other means to hand than those common to all men-it is absolutely dissimilar in the fact that it is his correspondence to the life-movement of his Lord as produced, not by his own caprice, but by the will and touch and address and creation and gift of this Lord. Those who receive Him, who are given the power to become the children of God, who believe in His name, are not born of blood, or of the will of the flesh, or of the will of man, but of God (In. 1 12f.). Their action is nourished by the mystery of the life-giving Spirit by whom the Lord has united these sinful human creatures to Himself. Their action attests this mystery, and therefore the One who has united them to Himself. This is what has to be said of them, and can be said only of them. This is their sanctification. Because and as and to the extent that it comes to them from Him, and is His work, it is a real alteration of their being, They are still sinners. Their action is still burdened with all the marks of human sloth. It still stands in need of the forgiveness, the justification, which they cannot achieve of themselves, and which God does not owe them. All this is true. But even more true is the fact that as they lift up themselves they fulfil a movement in which their being -however questionably they may fulfil it-becomes and is conformable to His being, the being of their Lord. Yes, their being below is conformable to His above. Their painful lifting up of themselves in the flesh, in the world from which they are not yet taken, is conformable to his enthronement at the right hand of God the Father Almighty. " I, if 32I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men unto me " (In. 12 ). The constitution of His people on earth takes place in the power of His drawing unto Himself. This draWing unto Himself is His kingly work fulfilled in divine power. It cannot, then, be called in question. But if this is the case, the same is true of the existence of His people, His saints, and the lifting up of themselves in which they are drawn to Him. As that which corresponds to His exaltation, as the attestation of the elevation of man accomplished in Him, it is a historical event. In what takes place to them as He calls them to lift up themselves, His exaltation has its concrete consequence in the World and its continuing and not yet arrested development. The eddy arises and is visible in the stream, first in the lives of these men, but then-seeing that they have their fellows-as a fact in the common life of all men. It is now not merely human sloth which rules here below. As it is given to these men to lift up themselves, in opposition to human sloth and defiance of it (in its sphere and not unhampered by it) we find also a willingness and readiness, a courage and joyfulness,

§ 66, The Sanctification oj Man 0 . 53 'th h . 10 al to His covenant-partnershIp WI to be the new maf wI ~ I~·S human brothers. The stream flows on, God and therefore oy~ 0, It for they are still here below-flow and all men-even t ef StIn. sd 's blowing from above. And stirred with it. But t~e p:~~r u e :~n w:U as disobedience. It is highly unup ,by it there IS ,a e Ien~t stands in constant need of forgiveness, satIs~ac~ory o1;>edienceTo that extent there is the sowing seed ?f new ~ut ,It IS obedIence:, world, It is only a sowing. .It IS o~ly lIfe III the fiel~ whlc~~s:h;ie if it is to bear fruit. But it IS genuIne seed. And thi~ seed. 't' wn below does not come from below, seed-seed WhICh ~~~~ei~ s~n~~ification, the actual sanctifying of the but from above, It di 't and reality are no less than those saints by the Holy O~e. s g;~~ human situation does not remain of justification~ but t ~e sa~s:'aril do in itself, and as it seems. to do to unchanged, as It waul nee t y The change is only relative. For those who.do I?-0t have eyes. a see. a enultimate, word. Like sanctific~tIOn ,IS ,not anre~::~~~~ O~yglorftIcation. Yet for all its justificatIOn, ,It aISreal not ch ange.p F or there are now men who lift up relativity it IS

themselves and raise theirhheads. t the second word which we used We must no~ ~eturn, oweve~'sa~ctificationas participatio Christi. to describe the cnt~c3:1 ch~a~t~~~et for man in his being as a sinner. t now step on to the positive We called it the lim~t w c And in the case of thIs ter~d' tthOOt' wthee~~~e and kingdom and will of "ficance. We have sal . 1't'Int a a sigm d . a bl being of man pushing God limit t~e C?ITUpt ant m~~~: hi relativising it. It is the act of , thH' Jir:::tion which in this way cuts as corner, makmg It hIS an, 'st~~ce of m~n and draws this front~er. lordship ~f the Son 0 it were nght acro~ th~ ex~ ust the meaning of this event by sayIng Now obviously w~ 0 no ex a ' e r is attacked and limited and that in it the bemg of man as a ~mn from 2 Cor. 517 there has also made a thing, of the past: As we :;~ s ace which the Holy Spirit come into bemg somethmg new. h He limits cannot be an makes outside the si~fuII~~~g.~f ~~~ ;: ~~ere the Spirit of the Lord empty sp~ce., He ~Im(2s~or ;l~)~the liberty for being on behalf of hi' h th s'nful man does not have as such, is, there IS liberty God and one's brot~ers.w c e I oe in which he finds himself and the lack ~f whIchI IS h~he . d;~r:~\i~ty he should not merely find plunged as a smner. n IS s m . t hi but awakened himself disturbed by the direction WhIC~ ~~~~sd~ing~o be sanctified to lift up himself, to look to JesW~t an bility the freedom, to do and holy. But he needs the capaci y'.the a h in the world. But this, It has to take ~lace hfere ~elowi m .~he~: ~xists servo arbit1"io. in this sphere there IS no ree ~m or 1 . . new sins No true He is a prisoner of sin who c?ntmually com~~f~sion that 'within the Christian has ever, s?ffedr~d ste:IOuhs~1~~~n~estilllive in this bondage limit set by the dIvIne lrec Ion

r:

K.

2.

The Holy One and the Saints

531

in which he cannot even think of this lifting up of himself, of this looking to Jesus, let alone accomplish it. Yet as his sinful being is limited in the power of the divine direction he is given a total freedom in face of this total bondage. And in the New Testament sense of the term this freedom does not mean the possibility of either lifting up himself or not, of perhaps looking to Jesus and perhaps looking elsewhere to other lords. No, the One who has accomplished this powerful limitation could not be the Lord if He had merely opposed to the sinful being of man this paltry freedom of choice, What He imparts to man when He gives him His direction is not a possibility but the new actuality in which he is really free in face of that bondage: free in the only worthwhile sense; free to lift up himself in the sense described. He can do this, not because he should, but because he may. The imparting of this capacity is the liberation of man-his sanctification. In this capacity he is set in sovereign antithesis to his being as a sinner. He is not compelled continually to commit new sins. He may refram from doing so. He may do the opposite. In the capacity which is imparted to him, on the basis of the permission which he is given, he Will-if he makes use of it-do the opposite. He cannot do anything else. Whether he makes use of it is, of course, another matter. Our present concern is with the permission which he is given; the sovereignty in which he is set in opposition to his Own being as a sinner. And to this as such there is no limit. We say this even of the saints who are all' very obviously and palpably sinners, in whose lives there is continually to be found much that is very different from this lifting up of themselves, who clearly continue to make use of very different freedoms and permissions from those given them by the divine direction; of all kinds of supposed freedoms and permissions which they think they can and should give themselves, but which are in fact illusory. The total, unlimited, sovereign freedom of the Spirit is given them even though they are still in the world like all other men. Their being as sinners is radically assailed, but not destroyed. They still think and speak and act as those who are not free, but who, according to the classical formula of the Heidelberg Catechism, are" inclined by nature to hate God and my neighbours," What ".-ould become of the freedom of the saints if it had to be guaranteed by the use they make of it; if its possession were dependent on the power with which they exercise it? They do indeed have to use and exercise it. How can they receive it if they do not do this? But the freedom of the saints is grounded and enclosed, not in the dignity and power of this reception, but in the dignity and power of the gift made, or rather of the Giver of this gift, in the freedom of the royal man Jesus to whom they are summoned to look. They do not look to Him very well, But they are made free, and are free, only in the fact that it is He to whom they look. They are saints unly in the fact that He sanctified them. What Paul says in Gal. 4 261•

/

532

§ 66. The Sanctification oj Man

with reference to the Synagogue may rightly be applied to every form of the people of God on earth-that" the Jerusalem which is above is free, which is the mother of us all." Here again, however, the emphasis must fall on the other aspect. The Holy One does actually give it to His saints to be free: free to lift up themselves and look to Him; and therefore freed from the compulsion to sin which results from their being as sinners. Even here below, as those who live in the flesh, they need never again bewail the fact that they have to sin: that they have therefore to make use of other ostensible freedoms and permissions; that they have therefore in certain respects to persist in the general sloth of man which characterises them too; that they cannot therefore lift up themselves. They have no time either for the arrogance of the indeterminists or the pusillanimity or melancholy or idle dissuasions of the determinists. In view of the One to whom they look-however well or badly-in their participatio Christi, everything is in good order as regards their freedom. Their sovereignty over their being in the flesh and in sin is unequivocally established and secured against every assault. There may often be good cause to bewail both new and old connexions with that which is below. They may often do things which apart from the forgiveness of sins would inevitably involve their ruin. But they cannot ascribe this to the incompleteness of impotence of the freedom which they are given. They lack it as they fail to make use of it. But it is still given, and in their fellowship with the Holy One they still have it. As they are called, so they are also equipped to be a brave people of their Lord. They make themselves equivalent to the children of this world, to whom they are supposed to be His witnesses, if they leave this in any doubt, accepting in relation to themselves the general deploring of human incapacity instead of resolutely doing what they are well able to do. The fact is that they are able to lift up themselves and look to Jesus and be what they are-His saints. For, as they well know, He has stooped down to them and looked on them. The positive element concealed in the limitation of their unholy being, the freedom which has become a factor in their life, has also to be thought of as real. Otherwise there would be no place for the apostolic admonition given in the New Testament to Christians. This is not given as a law or ideal proclaimed in the void. It is not given as though the question whether or not they can obey were still open and to be answered. It is obviously given on the assumption that they are free, and that they can make use of the freedom in which they have been made free in Christ (Gal. SI). Without this assumption there would be no such thing as Christian ethics even for us.. All the things that we have to develop in ethics in relation to the command of the God who reconciles the world with Himself can only be concre~ons of the lifting up of themselves, the looking to Jesus, of which Christians are capable because they have been given the freedom for them. It

3· The Call to Discipleship is true that in its original and f 533 not in themselves, but in the On!~:e~ arm they have this freedom, fellowship with Himself pI d' .a IS a.bove.. But ~alled by Him to Spirit, they are free he~e a~~ III It: umted WIth HIm by His Holy rule at the right hand of God t~OWFI~hcor~esp?ndence to His kingly tion they are free only for this ~ut ther Imlghty: To their salva. ey. are genulI~ely free for this. They can look to Him and b .H' in ~his look. 2 Cor. 517 is truee o:St~~:t~ 1.~ everythmg tha! they do he IS a new creature'" and e ' 11 H'b If any man be m Christ, · h l' ,speCla y e 12 10 . th " a f h IS a mess"; and above all Jn 836 . : , ' eyare partakers mak~ you free, ye shall be free indeed ;, the S,on t?erefore .shall proVISIOnal, for the saints are still ca t' OVTWS .',A~Ue€pOt. It IS all for they are already liberated If 't' rIves. But It IS all very real, it does not count. The capti~it i~ ~\~U~ that they are still prisoners, A.nd all this is in their fellows~p ~t~nth th:rm , freedom before them. VIrtue of the fact that they are c;{ed b e H. Oly ,?ne. All this is in through the word that I have s k Y 1m. Now ye are clean po en unto you" (In, 153).

--.!!,

3· THE CALL TO DISCIPLESHIP " Follow me " is the substance of th 11' Jesus makes men His saints It· t e ,ca m th~ power of which t~at we must now turn. The l'f .IS a thIS concretIOn of His action gIves them freedom is not a mo~ tmg up o.f t~emselves for which He they themselves have to give th ement whIch IS formless, or to which form .. It takes place in a definite form and direction Si~,?e~ess:~y: I Lord is not an idle gaping' It. ar y:. elr l~okmg. to Jesus as their whom it is given to a defi~'t I~,a VISIOn whIch stlmulates those to call to discipleship. 1 e ac IOn. The call issued by Jesus is a We must not waste time describin d .. . of very earlier traditions, the later Mi~d~~ A cntIdsmg th~t Which, in adoption understood and attempted as an . . , ges and certam Evangelical trends kno wn, It lDvolves . t ·lS well enough a programme~mtlattO in h' Christi . Th e rna t er e~~mple of the life of Jesus as sketche(~.\~C~w~ try to shape our lives by the which He gave to His own people and to a e ospels and the commandments to lt are obvious, and therefore facile It lil men generally. And the objections purpose if we turn at once to the r~blemwi be more mstructive for our present movements, and especially by the T which IS unavOldably posed by these problem will enable us to wei h b t~W . ~stament Itself. The discussion of this exercise of the imitatio Christi g 0 cntlcally and positively the doctrine and Easily: the best that has b'een writte . . . Cost of D~scipteship, by Dietrich Bonhoe::e;n( th~s subject IS to be found in The anginal Nachfolge, 1937). We do not ref t abndged E.T., 194 8 , of the German compiled from different sources er 0 all the parts, which were obviousl IhsClpleship," "Simple Obedien~e~~t(oto the openmg sectIOns, «The Call t~ and the IndividuaL" In these t mlt~ed In the E. T.) and «Discipleshi clsion that I am almost tempted s~~;at:er lS handled with such depth and pre~ bon. For I cannot hope to say anyihO re~roduce them in an extended quota. mg etter on the subject than what is

t

534

§ 66. The Sanctification of Man

.

't

' written on discipleship, was ready.to achieve I said here by . a mand who, d'd' havmg his own way ac h'lev e l't even to the pomt of death. in own life, m In his following myanown Icourse, I am h appy that on this occasion I can lean as heavily as I do upon another. h 't may be as well to consider briefly Before we take up the p~oblem aSf::~ t~e biblical use of the decisive term what is to be learned lmgUlstlcally b d t G Kittel's article in his Worterbuch. a,: ;j ship in this pregnant sense, lS a gift, tion as disciples, and t~erefore ;r ~c(r~ g6'} a capacity with which they are G a .iJO..ros .lva, for the kmgfdom tOh t °they ~re e~dowed in this way means alsO t d d Normally the ac a . Ie s who do not en owe . H' Y t there are some quall'fi e d d'ISCIP that they accompany 1m. e h a company Him but are no do so, and on the other .hand there ~re otht~Sn~ti~ ~ conclusion that the New qualified disciples in thiS sen~\ \~ IS ~~:scipleshi~ .. (a/(oAovO')Ots) but only ~e Testament never uses the su s an lYe '. . a warning that in our consideratlO.n oOa verb a/(oAovO.
\0

d

1. We will again begin by stating ~hatw~~hca~s~S~~~~fl::s ~d the particular form of t.he s~m~o~:i: and sanctify him as His reveals Himself to a man III or er 0 f command 0 and as His witness in the world. It has t~e forr 0 a for what is Jesus directed to him. It means the comlllg 0 grace,

own;

3· The Call to Discipleship

.'i35

disclosed and revealed in Jesus is the reconciliation of the world with God as his reconciliation and therefore the fulness of salvation. But as it encounters him in this summons, grace has the form of command, the Gospel the form of the Law. The grace which comes to him requires that he should do something, i,e., follow Jesus. It is thus a grace which commands. Jesus is seeking men to serve Him. He has already found them to the extent that He has elected them as ordained to this end. They are already His people even as He claims them. He thus establishes His particular relationship to them by commanding them. He does this in His authority as the Son of Man who is their Lord, who can thus dispose concerning them, who has already done so, and who addresses them accordingly. Both Jeremiah and Paul understood that even from the mother's womb they were ordained for the action commanded. Jesus is already the Lord of those whom He calls to follow. He calls them as such. He commands them as those who already belong to Him. This is what constitutes the overwhelming force of His command. This is why there can be no legitimate opposition to it. This is why there can be no question of any presuppositions on the part of those who are called: of any capacity or equipment for the performance of what is commanded; of any latent faith; of any inward or outward preparation. This is why there can be no question of self-selection on the part of those who follow. This is why those who are called cannot think of laying down conditions on which they are prepared to obey His command. Just because the command of Jesus is the form of the grace which concretely comes to man, it is issued with all the freedom and sovereignty of grace against which there can be no legitimate objections, of which no one is worthy, for which there can be no preparation, which none can elect, and in face of which there can be no qualifications. Disobedience to the command of Jesus: "Follow me," as in the case of the rich young ruler in Mk. 101'f. and par., is a phenomenon which is absolutely terrifying in its impossibility. It provokes the question of the disciples: "Who then can be saved ?", for in it there is revealed the far too common rule of the natural, or unnatural, attitude of man to this command. In the light of the command of Jesus given to a man, disobedience is inconceivable, inexplicable and impossible. On the other hand, we might ask who is the man Levi that when Jesus sees him at the receipt of custom (Mk. 2141.) He should at once issue the same Command: "Follow me "? How much we should have to read into the short account if we were to try to explain from Levi himself, and his moral and religious qualifications, Why it is that he is given this command and proceeds at once to execute it. We can only abandon the attempt, The secret of Levi is that of the One who calls him. Again, we are told in Lk. 957-58 about a man who met Jesus in the way with the offer: "I will follow thee whithersoever thou goest," He is obviously one who has presumed to do this on his own initiative. And his answer is the terrible saying about the foxes which have holes, and the birds of the air nests, "but the Son of man-whom he is going to follOW-hath not where to lay his head." He does not realise what it is that he thinks he can choose. He does not know how terrible is the venture to which he commits himself in the execution of this choice, No one of himself can or

§ 66. The Sanctification of Man will imagine that this is his way, or take this way. What Jesus wills with His .. Follow me" can be chosen only in obedience to His call. \Ve can see this from the saying of Peter in Mt. 14"8: .. Lord, if it be thou, bid me come to thee on the water." Without being bidden by Christ, he could not do this. It has also been noted that there can be no conditions. The man mentioned in Lk. 9 61 - 62 lacked true discipleship, not merely because he offered it to Jesus as a matter for his own choice, but because he also made a condition: "But let me first go bid them farewell, which are at home at my house." Those who offer themselves to be disciples are obviously bound to be of the opinion that they can lay down the conditions on which they will do this. But a limited readiness is no readiness at all in our dealings with Jesus. It is clear that this man, too, does not really know what he thinks he has chosen. It is certainly not the following of Jesus. This is commanded unconditionally, and therefore it cannot be entered upon except unconditionally. The answer of Jesus makes it quite plain that this man cannot be considered as a disciple: "No man, having put his hand to the plough, and looking back, is fit for the kingdom of God." 2. The call to discipleship binds a man to the One who calls him. He is not called by an idea of Christ, or a Christology, or a christocentric system of thought, let alone the supposedly Christian conception of a Father-God. How could these call him to discipleship? They have neither words nor voice. They cannot bind anyone to themselves. We must be careful that we do not conceal the living Jesus behind such schemata, fearing that the One who can issue this call, who has the words and voice to do it, and above all the right and authority and power to bind, might actually do so. Again, discipleship is not the recognition and adoption of a programme, ideal or law, or the attempt to fulfil it. It is not the execution of a plan of individual or social construction imparted and commended by Jesus. If the word" discipleship " is in any way used to denote something general and not a concrete and therefore a concretely filled-out happening between Jesus and this particular man, the command "Follow me" can only be described as quite meaningless. For the only possible content of this command is that this or that specific man to whom it is given should come to, and follow, and be with, the One who gives it. In this One, and the relationship which it establishes between Him and the one He calls, a good deal more is involved. But there is nothing apart from Him and this relationship. That a man should come to Him is the one complete work which he is called to do. We may say. therefore, that in practice the command to follow Jesus is identical with the command to believe in Him. It demands that a man who as such brings no other presuppositions than that he is entangled like all other men in the general sloth of man, and has to suffer the consequences, should put his trust in God as the God who is faithful to him the unfaithful, who in spite of his own forgetfulness has not forgotten him, who without any co-operation or merit on his part wills that he should live and not die. In the call of Jesus he is met by the fulfilled promise of God as valid for him. In and with the command of Jesus, solid ground is placed under his feet when he is on the point

3· The Call to Di,cipleship _ ' . ~37 of f a 11mg mto the abyss. What the co . . SImply, but comprehensively that . ~mand reqUIres of him is should regard it as able to b h' m prac Ice as well as in theory he leave it. This is what we d ear 1m, and stand on it, and no longer h all that is required of us. ~oe~h~e. trust; .and in so ~oing we do here required we do not have a tru~St I~ to bbeheve. ~ut m the faith In a stract~ or m general, nor do we have the rash confidenc f It is d~manded by Jesus-the ~:n ~f h~:~dous Journey into space. speaks m the name and with th f 11 ~ho as the Son of God les.us demands is trust in Himsel: u authonty.of God. And what d whIch this involves, trust in God a~ t~erefore, m .the. concrete form ob~dience; obedience to Himself' Te. e.mands falth.m the fonn of WhICh constitutes the content of the c~~ ~~ t~e ~om~Itment to Him separate anyone moment of thi h . dISCIpleshIp. We cannot That He, the Son of Man who is :heappemng from any of the others. as the Lord of all men' that th S~n?f the Father, lives and rules a particular man, who i~ as lit~: w~rt:VlO;~ of all men He comes to HImself known to him as the 0 y.o It as ~ny others, to make so doing He simply claims him f~e;ho Il~ also hIS Saviour; that in service; that He thus demands r of lI~se a.s on.e of His, and for His Hi~se1f; that the faith demanded of hI~ faIth. m God and trust in whIch has to be rendered to Jesus' ali his man I~cludes the obedience . . t~es.e are mseparable moments of the one OCcurrence Th who calls to it. There' is n~r~i:~' no ~Isclpleship without the One determined by the One who 11 rle,shlp except as faith in God as discipleship which does not ~~ s, ~ ~t and frees for it, There is no this faith in God and therefore i~s~i~~ the act of the obedience of

fo

It is with these contours that the ". and attested in the Gospels. Ever t~all to dlsclplesh,p goes out as recorded H,mself is the:-e and lives and calls mrn ;~g ?epends upon the fact that Jesus WIllIS for LeVI or Simon Peter or th th HI~self. We are never told what His made to. est~blish or explain J.fis a:t~or7:s whom He calls. Nor is any attempt EvangelIs.ts III their description of the 0 . y to call them. It IS enough for the must obVIously be enough for us too' ngm of the dISCIple-relationship, and it actually c~U them, and call them to h~~~~tn~rstandmgof it, that Jesus does give to H,m the faIth of which God is w . e summons them. They are to faith and therefore the confidence th t ~rthy and which IS owed to Him; the by God; that within the world of hat ey are helped by HIm and therefore ~elpe? to overcome these and to be ~e~:n ~lo~,h and its consequences they are valk III darkness, but shall have the Ii ht P f']'f I!e that followeth me shall not of the 144,000 who" follow the L g Ole (In. 8 12 ). Or, as we are told hrstfruits of the redeemed from a amb Whithersoever he goeth," they are the ~tme of His Father in their fore:~~~ me'd :~d they bear His name and the lrone (Rev. 14'1.). His summons is ,an ey smg a new song before the and therefore to God a true and ser' ,h0"'ctever, that they should give to Him of the fact that He is their Lord no~o~s ~~ total faith: not a mere acceptance ~lm; but this acceptance and confide n I Ie cotfidence that the\' are helped by ISed by them; a faith which i n~e as a aith which is live'd out and pra~fact that it inclUdes at once thei: 01r~ve to be a true and serious faith bv the e Ience-what Paul called the vrruKo-ry rr{uTEw>

538

§ 66. The Sanctification of Man

in Rom. J" and J6 26 , and the inraKo~ TOV Xp'UTOV in 2 Cor. 10". "Why call ye me. Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say? " (Lk. 6 48 ). There can be no doubt that what moved those who were called to be disciples as they followed the call of Jesus was simply their faith in Him as the Lord, and therefore in God. But it was a faith which at once impelled them to obedience. There is nothing in the accounts of the call of the disciples to suggest a kind of interval, i.e., that they first believed in Him, and then decided to obey Him, and actually did so. It is never an open question whether, when and how obedience has to begin if faith is presupposed. Faith is not obedience, but as obedience is not obedience without faith, faith is not faith without obedience, They belong together, as do thunder and lightning in a thunderstorm. Levi would not have obeyed if he had not arisen and followed Jesus. The fishermen by the lake would not have believed if they had not immediately (EMus) left their nets and followed Him. Peter on the lake (Mt. 14 29 ) would not have believed if he had not obeyed Jesus' call to come, and left the boat and gone to Him on the water. But Peter and all of them did believe, and therefore they did at once and self-evidently that which was commanded. It is true that in the continuation of the story Peter looked at the raging wind instead of Jesus, and was afraid, and doubted. and could go no farther, but could only sink, and would have sunk if he had not been gripped by the hand of the One in whom he had so little faith. But this only shows that the disciple cannot obey without believing, or conversely that when he believes he must and can obey, and actually does so.

3. The call to discipleship, no matter how or when it is issued to a man, or whether it comes to him for the first time or as a second or third or hundredth confirmation, is always the summons to take in faith, without which it is impossible, a definite first step. This step, as one which is taken in faith, i.e., faith in Jesus, as an act of obedience to Him, is distinguished from every other step that he may take by the fact that in relation to the whole of his previous life and thinking and judgment it involves a right-about turn and therefore a complete break and new beginning. To follow Jesus means to go beyond oneself in a specific action and attitude, and therefore to turn one's back upon oneself, to leave oneself behind. That this is the case may and will not always be equally perceptible from the particular step, the particular action or attitude, which is demanded as the act of faith. But-however imperceptible that which we do may be-it can never be a question of a routine continuation or repetition of what has hitherto been our customary practice. It always involves the decision of a new day; the seizing of a new opportunity which was not present yesterday but is now given in and with the call of Jesus. Inevitably the man who is called by Jesus renounces and turns away from himself as he was yesterday. To use the important New Testament expression, he denies himself. Where it is used in a pregnant sense, and not merely of a simple denial.

apvEiulia, always denotes in the New Testament the renunciation, withdra~al

and annulment of an existing relationship of obedience and loyalty. Peter denies that he was ever with Jesus of Nazareth: "I know not, neither understa~d I what thou sayest" (Mk. 14 68 and par.). The Jews deny Jesus, their own Mes~Iah, the Servant of God, in the presence of Pilate (Ac. 313 ). There are also ostensIble, but in reality anti-Christian, Christians who deny the Lord who bought thelU

2~).

3· The Call to Discipleship

In particular, the den that J e " 539 selves gUilty of a denial of th YF thY d sus IS the Chnst, thus making themd 'th' e a er an the Son (r In 22) J em~s " at he himself is the Messiah (In 120) d ' ' 2.. ohn the Baptist but mdlrectly recognises that J . ' D' an In so domg he does not deny - Ii' ' esus IS. emal IS t h ' , • , (0/J.0/\OYHU a,), m whicb a man stands both in d e opposite of confession of obedience and loyalty in which he finds him;~~ and deed, to a relationship do thiS to others in respect of his It' b' . The disciple who does not a shall be ashamed of me and of mv w~ed ~OntShlp to Jesus-" wbosoever tberefore (Mk. 8'8)-denies Him as Peter did .r a~~ tb ~s adulterous and sinful generation" ls and to the extent tbat he does this the relatio ~utomatlcally means that so long for him before God is dissolved' "H' nSlll P of Jesus to bim, His advocacy ' b' , ' . 1m WI I also d b "eny e.fore. my Fatber wh lC , IS In beaven " (Mt. 103', d. 2 Tim 2 12 the bitterness experienced by Pet' ' ), ThiS IS the objective factor in sense, and with the menace of thee~a:ec~~:=d~ence of hiS denial. In the same of the name of Jesus (Rev. 38) or of His 1TlUT' (~cons;~uences, there is a denial the same verb which in this preanant s ev. 2 ). It IS remarkable that which the disciple can conceivably be :~~~e ~en~tes the .most dreadful tbing of used (although this time with reference t y m IS relatIons~lp to Jesus is also 1ll th~s relationship, the characteristic tur~i:lm~elf) to descnbe the peak point culnunatmg reason for the impossibilit f d go. obedle.nee. In 2 Tim. 2 13 the It IS the fact that" he cannot deny hi~ ff" e~ym~ Chnst as the Christian sees t~at He is the Son of God? But at th: ~ or o~ ca~ the Son of Man deny 8 4) the very opposite is true of ourselve~~Cl~l~hPOlntIII the Synoptists (Mk. 1et hIm deny himself" (u1TapVTl 'Ii • " osoever will come after me . . "uau W EauTov). The ide' I ' man w h 0 IS called to follaw J h' a IS exact y tbe same. Tbe . I' esus as Simply to re annu an eXisting relationship of ob d' nounce and withdraw and to himself. Wben he is called to di:c:e~e~~.and loyalty. Tbi~ relationship is and totally. He can and must say of {:. ,Iff' . be abandons blmself resolutely the man" (Mt 2672) H Imse mstead of Jesus; .. I know t , . . e cannot accept th' no acquamtance. He once stood in a IS ~an even as his most distant and tenderly nurtured. But he now c~e~nant Wlt~ him which he loyally kept He can confess only Jesus and th f ou~ces thIS covenant root and branch and will only deny himself. ' ere ore e cannot confess himself. He ca~ (2 Pet.

But in the context of disci lesh'

t

'.

h~p'pening, this is a very definife st~P °I/~sUS, WhICh IS a definite

entIcal and negative mind and . p. . IS n?t merely a new and will also be involved. But in anda~tIt~~el~n. relatIOn to himself. This of inwardness, this might be pres~~tI :th In the uncom~itted~phere a man from himself and therefore 'th out the defimte lOOSIng of In this case discipl~ship would onl; b o~~ a de~nite act of obedience. e an actual event. The call to disci 1 h· eoretIcal. It would not be )~shIP w?uld not have really reached and affected the man or he rendered it innocuous in the s ~ou f ave I~prisoned and tamed and withdrawal from oneself is norbere ~ emotIOn or reflection. An inner or denial of acquaintance with ya ong way a breach of the covenant sense of discipleship. In itself ~~~self, an~ t?erefo~e self-denial in the matter, it might be the most radic I as ~uc ,~f thIS IS ~he whole of the o~ renunciation. Indeed wher ~h~n. obstInate demalof this breach WIll certainly be such S'elf d e. 1 ~s IS the whole of the matter it . '. - ema In the' t t f f ' Involves a step into the open into th f ~on ex 0 ollo.wing Jesus e ~tee om of a defimte decision and act, in which it is with a'real cammi ment that man takes leave

540

§ 66. The Sanctification oj Man

of himself, of the man of yesterday, of the man he himself was; in which he gives up the previous form of his existence, hazarding and totally compromising himself without looking back or considering what is to become of him, because what matters is not now himself but that he should do at all costs that which is proposed and demanded, having no option but to decide and act in accordance with it-cost what it may. "For God's sake do something brave," was once the cry of Zwingli to his contemporaries. Not feel, or think, or consider, or meditate! Not turn it over in your heart and mind! But do something brave. If it is to this that Jesus calls man in His discipleship, there can be no avoiding genuine self-denial. To be sure, we have not 'merely to do anything that is brave, or that smacks of bravery. Even though we might find precedents for it in history, or Church history, or the Bible, a mere act of bravery might well be performed without self-denial. Indeed, it might even be an act of supreme self-assertion. For all his sloth, the old Adam whom we have to leave behind loves sometimes to emerge in great acts. It is a matter of doing that which is proposed to us by Jesus. It may be great or it may be small. It may be striking or it may be insignificant. But its performance is laid upon us, not by ourselves, but by the One who has called us to Himself, who has willed and chosen us as His own. And we are to perform it in the act of that obedience which cannot be separated from faith in Him. As a man renders this obedience, he will certainly not be able to assert himself. He can only deny himself. The call with which Jesus calls and binds him to Himself means that he should leave everything that yesterday, and even yet, might seem self-evident and right and good and useful and promising. It also means that he should leave a merely inward and mental movement in which he does not really do anything, but only speechifies in an idle dialectic, in mere deliberations and projects concerning what he might do but cannot and will not yet do, because he has not yet reached the point of action in his consideration of it and of the situation in which it is to be done. He takes leave of both, for in both the old Adam is enthroned-the self whom he has to deny in the discipleship of Jesus. This Adam is denied in the new act demanded by the call of Jesus, and the brave thing demanded of His disciples consists in what D. Bonhoeffer calls "simple obedience." Obedience is simple when we do just what we are told-nothing more, nothing less, and nothing different. In simple obedience we do it, and therefore we do not finally not do it. But what we do is literally and exactly that which we are commanded to do. The only possible obedience to Jesus' call to discipleship is simple obedience in these two senses. This alone is rendered in self-denial. This alone is the brave act of faith in Jesus. Bonhoeffer is ten times right when at this point he inveighs sharply against a theological interpretation of the given command and the required obedience

3· The Call to Discipleship which. is to the effect that th II f . 54! be taken to mean that th: ~~e~e1~sus IS to be heard but His command mav form of the act which is obviously de~:~d~~~ WIll n~t necessarily take th~ III the neglect of this act and th f ut may III certain cases consist dJirerent.. e per ormance of others which are quite ThIS mterpretation may be stated as f naturally to be heard and accepted and fOllo~~~~i !he command of Jesus is grace of God, and therefore the salvation of th h \h JOY· It IS the commanding hI,S hfe as a free offer. How can he resist it ,ew 0 e world and of man, entering \\ hat IS. commanded is obviously that he sh'o ~ut what does It mean to follow? beheve m Him as God; that he should b IU come to Jesus; that he should e eve that he should trust Him wholly and utte / m God by belieVing in Him; ready, therefore, for every hazard or vent r y, that he should be Willing and ~llIght prove to be necessary to confirm t~:\~r stcn~ce that in a given situation arm of the command of Jesus, in which we hus . et as concerns the concrete ave that we are commanded to do or not d th to do WIt? something definite more sharply to describe and em hasise ~h IS concrete thmg is only designed command requires faith and with faith th e tOi~hty and depth with which the may in certain circumst~nces be th e WI mgness and readiness for what . e supreme and m t f ence t 0 It means an inward liberation fro • . os per ect sacrifice. ObediwIse put our trust; the loosening of all : : ' e?th~ng m which we might othersever them at any moment. We ne d t ~r les 0 the point of being able to Jesus explicitly demands. The pOinte of ~~e a preCIsely what the Command of that wc should believe, and that in ou f 'th exphclt command is the implicitwhIch IS explicitly commanded or so~e~~in we. should be alert to do either that \Vhen ~e have accepted that which is implie~ ~~~~ar,and along the same lines. obeyed m the true sense, We have" as thou h e command, we have already III the command, and the willingness and rega we had not.:' By what is meant else that we have is radically called in tdmess we bnng to it, everything ques though we did it not." Inwardl the· Ion. We do everything only" as perhaps to do that which is eXPli;tl refore, we are free. We are free even .N~' for that would be a legalistic int~;;e7a~~~de1thBut do we have to do it ? w at seems to be its concrete demand 0 e command, which even in e ~hoUld do this or that is really calImg us only to the freedom in which On a true and proper interpretation the c y 0 lt but do not have to do so. us to do thIS specific thing. There is no ueo~mand of Jesus does not command to the command we may just as well do s~ st~on of havmg to do it. In obedience For example, instead of giving all that : e h:~~ ~lse and even the very opposite. and Illcrease our possessions' or instead f t 0 the poor, we may maintain retu~n the blow which we ha~e received ~ll urlllng the ,~ther cheek, we may not ! All III a Willingness and readin~ss on~ of course, as though we did it tUlllty and situation offer-to do that w h' h' day perhaps-when the Opportrue and spiritual understanding d' IC IS concretely demanded I All on a faith! ~ll in a grateful appropr;a~~nI~f ~ genuine exercise, of the obedience of call to dISCIpleship r But with the result t~e salvatIOn whIch comes with Jesus' hterally asks remains undone and the 0 t aJ for the moment that which Jesus war unchanged by His command 'and our obued state and Course of affairs remain~ Bonh oe ff er ' s commentary on th' r lence. (Nachjolge, p. 35): "Where orderslsar~n~.of thought and its result is as follows doubt how matters stand. A father sa Iven.m other spheres, there can be n~ knows what has to be done. But a ' ys to hIS c~J1d : .Go to bed, and the child argue as follows. My father says: c{:li~ ~e~se~n thIS pseudo-theology might does not want me to be tired. But I can e.. e means that I am tired. He to play. Therefore, when my father sa S' ~sslpate my tiredness by going out to play. If this were the way in whirh 'chit to bed, he rea.lly means: Go out fathers. or CItizens in relation to the st t th dren reasoned III relation to their a e, ey would soon meet with a language

e::u:

542

§ 66. The Sanct~fication of Man

,

' t of P unishment, It is only in relatIOn to that cannot be mlsunderstood-tha d t be different," the command of Jesus that thmgs are ~U~t~S~oo ~UicklY laid, The commanding The ghost of this mterpretatlOn ,can 0 J ' call to discipleship never come d th f e salvation as esus .' d grace of God, an e~e or that he is iven leave to conSider wh~ an Y into the life of a man m such a wa d " Th~ command given is recogmsable how he may best follow the com:~~ctg:~:~;t is ~uite unambiguous, It requires as the command of, Jesus by th, , _ nd his reception or non-receptIOn of to be fulfilled by him only as It IS gh~ven da or not The faith which Jesus d whether t IS IS o n e , , salvation depen supan d' 1 eadiness and willingness for all contmgenactually demands IS not lust a ra Ica ~ d aw u on as required but is stored up cies-a kind of supply ,whKh IS th~ed ~s t~ust iJ Jesus, and therefore as ,gen,uine for the time bemg. It IS dlstmgms . e , 'ven to man and grasped by him It at trust in God, by the fact f t~:: ~~fil~i~~ ~~solve and act indicated by the call of once takes on the form a b Jesus is not given to the one who Jesus. Th~ command given t~e ~~~~reJy distinguish between what is meant receives It m such a way that. r '\ tent and the explicit form, the former and what is willed, be.tween the Imp ICI cOlin, ed It bas its content only in " t hitter prOVISIOna y Ignor. being accepted bu t e a t tl 1 tt r can it keep seriously to the former. its specific form. Only as it turnsbOd' Ie ate the call of Jesus we can and should Again, it is not the case that moe ~ence a f 11 inward and outward rendenng and even (in all prudence) must pos ~~::i: ~nd situation; the psycholo~ical, of it until we find a favourable ~ppo ion i~diS ensable to its integral achlevehistorical, economic or political SItu~t ve not create a situation of this kind. ment. To be sure, we for our part a d of Jesus given us itself creates the But we have to realise that the co:ma; ation in which we have to obey, ,so situation and all the conditions of e s~/ for a developing situation or SUltthat there is no place for any further .~aJa~~;n appraisal or selection of different able moment, nor for any f,urther cobnsdl . er in obedience we are not about to a e Ience. POSSI'b'l't' Illes, but only for mstant .

tI:

leap. We are already leapm&,' h e have been reconstructing has, of course,. a The line of argument WhIC t' hant answer to monks and fanatics lY rin of profundity. It seem~ t<;> give .a rlUmp It I'S not simple obedience that is " l' t B t this IS an 1lluSlon. . d and other lega IS s. . u , . . d dialectical obedience whIch ev~ es legalistic but the arbltranly discursIve dan . d as obedience of a flight mto ' , th d' b dience IsgUise , . If the command. It IS elSa e , 'd n can and should express hlmse inwardness at the point. where. the 1~7~~e :~ht into faith at the point w~ere outwardly. It IS the dlsobe~enCte 1 ntlessly involves the obedience of actlOn. faith as the obedience of the ear rede f J that there comes the threat of h 't he It is not from t e concre t e cornman a 1 esus b'ect ourselves' it IS from the Law to wh.ose dominio?, we ~~~~~ow~nt~i~tu can arbitrarily release ourforced conceptlOns m the ~Ight a crete command of Jesus. Those who selves from concrete obedIence t~ ~he c~n the lake who at the bidding of Jesus acted legalistically were not the b \ ers )ike the rich young ruler who when he left the nets and followed HIm, ~ ~~~ t saying and went away grieved: for heard what he had t~ do :: was sa 2~ ;f we wili not bear the yoke of Jesus, he had great possesslOns (Mk. 10). 1 s have chosen, and it is a hundred we have to bear the voke whIch we ourse ve . t that line of argument has times more heavy. The attitude corre~pond mg 0 On the contrary, it is a th'ng whatever to do with the true flIght to Jesus. d H'm and therefore from Him. We refuse to take the Iflight to Him, it we cannot take any further steps. Where anded not merely the oute; but ' , vitable that in and with the first step dem f rroundings WIll be IS me f r lives and there ore our su , hen the inner state and cour~e 0 ~~ ltered The call of Jesus makes hIstory w t it affected and in some way as;ca b this that we may know whether or no. I it is heard and takenorsenotus heard; whether no It y. IS I1 ea:~ a~d taken seriously as a call to self-dema . is

:v

Je

~~gh~

fir~es~Jd;~~~e~he

{to

3· The Call to Discipleship

543

4· The call to discipleship makes a break. It is not the obedient man who does it, not even with his simple obedience. What he does in this obedience can only be an indication of this break. If he is not to be disobedient, what option has he but to do as he is told? But good care is taken-and he has to realise the fact-that in his action he can never accomplish more than an indication, demonstration and attestation of this break. It is the call of Jesus, going out into the world and accepted by him, which makes the break; which has already made it. The kingdom of God is revealed in this call; the kingdom which is among the kingdoms of this world, but which conc front and contradicts and opposes them; the coup d'etat of God prochumed and accomplished already in the existence of the man Jesus. The man whom Jesus calls to Himself has to stand firm by the revelation of it. Indeed, he has to correspond to it in what he himself does and does not do. His own action, if it is obedient, will always attest and indicate it. It will not do this in accordance with his own judgment or pleasure. It will do it in the way commanded. But because it is the man Jesus who causes him to do what he does it will attest and indicate only this revelation. It may do so to a smaller or lesser degree. It may do so in strength or in weakness. But always it will set forth the kingdom of God drawn near, and therefore the greatest, the only true and definitive break in the world and its history as it has already taken place in Jesus Christ and cannot now be healed. It is with this that we have to do in the discipleship of Jesus exercised in self-denial. While it is a matter of the personal self of the individual called by Jesus, of the dissolution of the covenant with himself, the self.-denial of the disciple is only a kind of culminating point in the great attack in which he is called to participate as His witness, and which he has to recognise and support as in the first instance an attack upon himself. If we are not ready to deny ourselves, of what use can we be as witnesses of the great assault which is directed against the world (for the sake of its reconciliation with God) in and with the coming of the kingdom? Our self-denial, and the first step which we are commanded to make by Him who calls us, are not ends in themselves. They stand in the service of this great onslaught.

But in this onslaught it is a matter of God's destruction, accomplished in the existence of the Son of Man, of all the so-called" given factors," all the supposed natural orders, all the historical forces, Which with the claim of absolute validity and worth have obtruded themselves as authorities-mythologically but very realistically deScribed as "gods "-between God and man, but also between man and his fellows; or rather which inventive man has himself obtruded between God and himself and himself and his fellows. The dominion of these forces characterises the world as the world of the slothful

544

§ GG. The Sanctification oj Man

man. It continually makes it the world which strives against God, but which is for this very reason in a state of hopeless disintegration and in need of reconciliation with God and of His peace. When they are posited absolutely, possessions (which are significantly described as the" mammon of unrighteousness" in Lk. 169 ) and worldly honour, the force which defends them, the family with its claims and even the law of a religion (and worst of all a religion of revelation) are all gods which are first set up by man, which are then worshipped in practice and which finally dominate him, interposing themselves between God and him, and himself and his fellows, and maintaining themselves in this mediatorial position, It is not men, or anyone man, who can make the break with these given factors and orders and historical forces, What man does of himself may take the form of an attempted repudiation but it will always serve to confirm and strengthen them, continually evoking new forms of their rule, The little revolutions and attacks by which they seem to be more shaken than they really are can never succeed even in limiting, let alone destroying, their power. It is the kingdom, the revolution, of God which breaks, which has already broken them. Jesus is their Conqueror. If we are His disciples, we are necessarily witnesses of this fact. We are awakened by Him from the dream that these forces are divine or divinely given actualities, eternal orders. We can no longer believe, and therefore we can no longer think or accept, that men, including ourselves, are indissolubly bound and unconditionally committed to them. In their place there stands for us the Conqueror Jesus, the one Mediator between God and man, and man and his fellows; He who is the divine reality; He who decides what can and cannot be, what is and is not, a divinely given reality for us. If we are His disciples we are freed by Him from their rule. This does not mean that we are made superior, or set in a position of practical neutrality. It means that we can and must exercise our freedom in relation to them. It must be attested in the world as a declaration of the victory of Jesus. The world which sighs under these powers must hear and receive and rejoice that their lordship is broken. But this declaration cannot be made by the existence of those who are merely free inwardly. If the message is to be given, the world must see and hear at least an indication, or sign, of what has taken place. The break made by God in Jesus must become history. This is why Jesus calls His disciples. And it is for this reason that His disciples cannot be content with a mere theory about the relativisation of those false absolutes; a mere attitude of mind in which these gods no longer exist for them; ~n inward freedom in relation to them. It is for this reason that 1ll different ways they are called out in practice from these attachments, and it is a denial of the call to discipleship if they evade the achievement of acts and attitudes in which even externally and visibly they break free from these attachments, They can never do this, in any

3· The Call to Discipleship respect, on their own impulse or acco d ' . 545 IS not a matter of Our Own re , r m~g. to ,t~eIr own caprice. It with those likeminded It' volt, eIther aOi mdlvlduals or in company' , I S a matter of the k" d . Ga d 's revolutIOn, But the d' 'I f J' . mg am of God and attest this in a specific wa bischIl? e 0 esus IS always summoned to . ht· y ,y IS own act and tt't d H ng ,nor IS he free, to avoid the " a 1 u e, e has no where we see the relevance of wh~~n~\~:t:Zdgiven co~mand. This is III 3· Ther~ can be no question in self-deni ' about ~Imple obedience lIsmg mystIcism of world " al of a soanng and tranquil, -renunClatlOn and f d WhICh the obligation to the dl .ree om and conquest in in Christ is not only maintai~~d ~sst a,~d host~le orders already broken ned, If this is all that I'S I'n I u Ithanythmg validated and sancti, va ve d en no m tt h or ,at~ractlvely it is present it is a h' hI' a er ow profoundly It IS Important only as I'n b d' Ig Y Irrelevant enterprise. No , " , 0 e Ience to the 0 h d ' IS an mdlcation of His attack and victor ne w a emands it, it step out into the open country O f d "y, and therefore a concrete and act in which even though h eClsI~n ~n~ act; of the decision at issue, man ca~ only seem to be c:n on y IndIcate what is properly the world around him I 't teO s r~nge and foolish and noxious to I ' ' SIno mevltable th t' th fi ' le w~ll have this appearance even to' h' If? a In erst mstance the nsk of, being an offence to tho' Imse h" He must and will run '. 'th h ' ::;e aroun d 1m-and' f Oiees WI t elr eyes, to himself. He will I~ so ~r as he he cannot avoid the risk that it will be s~ot seek or ~eslre tl11s, But he cannot, then restrict hI'mself t t ' In relatIOn to the world a an a tempt'd ' . . wh'Ich he will ' not be off - ' e " mner emIgration" m ensIve, or at least ~u " 1east conspicuous, to those who still war :' SPIC~OUS, or at the very mer~ly a matter of saving his own soul in ~~IP the,Ir gods, It is not beatItude. He loses his saul d h e ~ttamment of a private he will not accept the public' r:~ on ~~;:ds hIS, eternal salvation, if he becomes a disciple of ] esus i~' SIlty whIch he assumes when IS ~oing this if his existence d~es n~~ fore t~an doubtful ,:hether he notIce-with all the painf I orce t ose around hIm to take But ~hey, will not take no~~ce~o~;~~~~~ethis m,ay involve for him, by hIS eXIstence if he d t ,y be dIsturbed or annoyed " ' oes no come out mt th IS, dOIng what they do not do and t d' 0 e open as the one he attItude to the given factors 'and o~~ersomg w~at t~ey do; if in his they regard as absolute there is no diff and hlstoncal. forces which but only uniformity and conform't eren<:e between hIm and them, advantage that he will not be dist~rb' d ThIS m.ay have for him the hve by his faith and find . d e or assaIled by them, but can perhaps be a ve; radical JOy ~r: e:ren, secret pride in what may trouble is that he\vill be qu~PtposltllOn m mward attitude. The only G d I e use ess as a wit f h ' nes~ 0 ,t e kmgdom of o " As a quiet partici ant in aVOId giving offence to a:yone b~~~ cau~e of thIS kIngdom he will :vl l1 ch he is reQuired to render 'F t : wIll ~lso evade the obedience r In the fact th;t publicly befo; t: hIS obedle~ce necessarily consists C.D. IV-2-18 ease around hIm he takes what is in

546

§ 66. The Sanctification of Man

a specific form a new path which leads him out of conformity with them to a place to which he specifically is pointed, so that to those who still persist in conformity he involuntarily but irresistibly makes himself conspicuous and suspicious and offensive, and can expect to meet with serious or petty forms of unpleasantness from them. He will not provoke them. Like Daniel in the lions' den, he will be cautious not to pull the lions' tails. But he will encounter what he must encounter if God does not unexpectedly decree otherwise. He will have to endure it. It is better not to describe him as a warrior. If he is in his right senses, he will not think of himself as such. He does not go on his way out of conformity in'opposition to any other men, but on behalf of all other men, as one who has to show them the liberation which has already taken place. The militia Christi will arise of itself, although there can, of course, be no question of Christian contentiousness against non-Christians, let alone of violence, crusades and the like. And even the militia Christi will not really consist in conflict against others, but decisively in conflict against oneself, and in the fact that one is assailed, and in some way has to suffer, and to accept suffering, at the hands of others. It is certainly not our commission to add to the sufferings of others, and therefore to fight against them. Even for the sake of the kingdom of God which we are ordained to serve we need fight only by indicating, in what we do and do not do, the fact that it has dawned, that it has broken into the old world, so that visibly-and not just invisibly-we refuse respect and obedience to all the generally recognised and cultivated authorities and deities, not lifting our hats to the different governors set over us. We know that the battle against them is already won; that the victory over ,them is already an accomplished fact; that their power is already broken. Our task is perhaps offensive to others, but intrinsically it is the friendly and happy one of giving a practical indication of this fact. In its discharge we are concerned with the release and liberation of these others too. And we cannot escape this task. At this point we must think of the concrete form of the demand with which Jesus in the Gospels always approached those whom He called to discipleship. It is common to every instance that the goal is a form of action or abstention by which His disciples will reveal and therefore indicate to the world the break in the human situation, the end of the irresistible and uncontested dominion of given factors and orders and historical forces, as it has been brought about by the dawn and irruption of the kingdom. It is common to every instance that the obedience concretely demanded of, and to be achieved by, the disciple, always means that he must move out of conformity with what he hitherto regarded as the self-evident action and abstention of Lord Everyman and into the place allotted to him, so that he is inevitably isolated in relation to those around him, not being able or willing to do in this place that which is generally demanded by the gods who are still fully respected in the world around. At this particular place he is freed from the bonds of that which is generally done or not done, because anel as he is bound now to Jesus.

3· The Call to Discipleship We m

t·

,

~

54/

. us [.mphaS1se the" because anel a ., \<'. " to Jesus, a man is never called out of . s," ~xcept as he IS dIrectly bound fore loosed from the bonds of tl 't .~o~lO:mlty w1th those around, and therethis binding to Jesus must be th~'~'Th~ IC 1 1S ~enerally, done or not done. And which comes to each ind1'v1'd 1 ' " hofh~S a \ ery partIcular matter-something " a 19 j " v , partIcular' ' !' tIme and sltuation To th" ua 1ll II ' \\ay 1U lIS own particular , • 15 man e now glves a d th' tIllS command as the concrete f .' -, n 1S man now receives-It is not the case then that horm,of tnde fcall to dlsClplesfllp now issued to him , " e 1S loose rom one g' !f ," ' the legalzsm of the world as determined b • .'.nera ann of actIOn, from be bound to the legalism of anoth } the dommlOn of those gods, only to systematic and consistent penetr:~i~~lC;:;~~'tX'~vlllch Simply consists in a radical, the solid front of the action wh' h' , estructlOn of the first, In face of , 1C 1S normative for the f ' commandmg of Jesus does not e t bl' 'h h, ,man a tne world the s a " w at we m1ght call th ' o f ,an actIOn which is normative for all Hi d' , , ' , e counter-front H1s b1ddmg-and this is rather dOff t S l~hClples m every age and s1tuation, ' h' I eren -1S t at m acco d 'th t IOn w Ich He gives to each discip!' t' 1 . r ance WI the directions of this front and the estabI7s~~~a\IC~ aI there should be different penetrawhich is ruled by the gods and sUb':~t Oi s1gns of the kmgdoIll in the world Himself as the Lord, there is no new an]d to lthtelr legalIsm, Thus, apart from law to w h"Icn H'IS d'Isc1ples , are no 1ess subject than others are t threvoIdu 1IOnarv ' these false absolutes, There is no sU~h t~i~ a aw of t~e cosmos dominated by law and which has to contend f 't th gsa part} whIch IS rallIed by this fight for their different concept~~~s ~~ the )ar:les .~f the divided world have to IS only the new commandin o ' , e a\\s ,w 11ch rule the world. There elected by Him and in thisgpa~t{~S~lS 1~, Its rel~tlOnshIp to this particular man 1 This new commanding of His is th~ :nc::::e ~n s1tuatlOn which He has fixed, bere and now, to discipleship and th f o r m 1U which He calls these men, It' , ' ere are sanctifies them 1S clear that m the dircctions to di' ' 1 ' , . , tion we have to do with collectI' . SClp eShlp embodwd III the Gospel tradi, ve accounts even (and " 11 ' ;s generally addressed to a majority of H' 'd' " 1 especla YJ where the Call The fact that this was vcrv quickly ob IS '~Clr ~s or 1t may be to all of them. create out of these directio~s a I scurc e to the mIstaken attempt to , , nova ex a general mod f Ch" , 'Th ,e 0 nstIan action in OPpOSItion to that of worldly act' ' lOn. e tru th 1S ho th C,ospel sayings about the followin of l ' " ' wever, at what the prominent lines alan a which the co~ t -IIS diSCiples really preserve are certain for concrete obedien~e alv'ays n crde e com 1 mandmg of Jesus, with its demand " ' , lOve III reahon to' d' ,'d 1 " It as H,s commanding in distinction from that of . III Iv 1 ua s, charactenslllg saymgs are read aright by individual' Who all other lords, And these are caHed to obedience to th L d s h accept theIr witness that they too e a r w a may be k h' [act that His commanding wh'l 't d ,nown as t 1S Lord by the ur even of the same ma', 1 e 1 ,oes not reqUIre the same thing of evervone n III every t1me and I't t' 1 0 , or more of these prominent lines. " And "the li: ua lOn, a ways moves along one that man is always called to make , e s recorded III the Gospel all agree genera! action and abstention of othea ~a~tIcular penetratIOn of the front of the uf the legalism determined by th d rs: ,0 cu~ loose from a practical recognition depends upon the fact that 't' Je omIlllon 0 worldly authorities, Everything ' 1 IS esus who demand th t . , ,t Ion and cut loose in this wa If tl' , s a we make thIS penetraIs not the command of J~sus y. c\nd ,t~ :s nott dffemanded, we can be sure that it Is no obedience to Him E' " , 1 " 1S no e ected, we can be sure that there (arms of His demands there ~:~ ~ acti~n along the main lines of the concrete ) inll, i,e" except as it is done for ~~sos::ee actlOn apart from a commitment to no CommItment to Him if the action of the Co~versely, however, there can be SC1P e IS ,not along one or more of the ~rcat lines and if the freedom of the k' Lhe cammon element in every case-to th mg 01:r of God 1S not attested-this is For us Westerners at an rat e Impnson~d world m a visble concretion, On which Jesus, according the 6;;peel~os~sttnkIllgbOf these main lines is that , , ra I lOn, a vlOusly commanded many

d'

d

tI

~

66. The Sanctification of Man

men, as the concrete form of th'elir obedient discipleship, to renounce their general attacliment to the authority, validity and confidence of possessions, not merely inwardly but outwardly, in the venture and commitment of a definite act. We' do not have here the realisation of an ideal or principle of poverty as it was later assumed into the monastic rule, Nor do we have the basis of a new society freed from the principle of private property, It is simply, but far more incisively, a question of the specific summons to specific men, as in :\1t, 5 42 : "Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away" (severely sharpened in Lk. 6 35 : "Lend, hoping for nothing again "); or in Mt. 5 40 : "And if any man will, .. take away thy coat, let him have thy cloke also" ; or 6"': "Therefore take no thought, saying, \Vhat shall we eat? or, \Vhat shall we drink? or, vVherewithal shall we be clothed, For after all these things do the Gentiles seek"; or 6'9: .. Lay not up for yourselves treasures upon earth, where moth and rust doth corrupt, and where thieves break through and steal" ; or 6 24 : "No man can serve two masters . . . . Ye cannot serve God and mamman"; or in the charge to the disciples in Mt. 109f ,: .. Provide neither gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses, nor scrip for your journey, neither two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves"; or the demand, illustrated in the parable of the unjust steward, that we should make friends with the mammon of unrighteousness as long as we have it (Lk. 16 9), and in this sense be " faithful" to it; or the radical command addressed to the rich young ruler whom Jesus loved: " One thing thou lackest: go thy way, sell whatsoever thou hast, and give to the poor" (Mk. 10 21 ); and the echo in the words of Peter (Mk. 10 28 ): "Lo, we have left all, and have followed thee," The line along which all this is said is obviously the same, although it cannot be reduced to a normative technical rule for dealing with possessions. On the contrary, it is palpable that these are specific directions given to specific men at specific times and to be specifically followed, not in a formalised or spiritualised, but a literal sense. The drift of them all is clearly that Jesus' call to discipleship challenges and indeed cuts right across the self-evident attachment to that which we possess. The man to whom the call of Jesus comes does not only think and feel but acts (here and now, in this particular encounter with his neighbour) as one who is freed from this attachment. He not only can but does let go that which is his. By doing exactly as he is commanded by Jesus he successfully makes this sortie, attesting that the kingdom of mammon is broken by the coming of the kingdom of God. Along a second line the instructions given by Jesus have to do no less directly with the destruction by the coming of the kingdom of what is generally accepted as honour or fame among men: "Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely for my sake" (Mt. 5 11 ). For" if they have called the master of the house Beelzebub, how much more shall they call them of his household" (Mt. 1025 ). And therefore "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Mt. 539 ). Or according to the parable of the wedding-guests (Lk. 14'1.): " Sit not down in the highest room ... but in the lowest room. , .. For whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted." Or again: "Whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister" (Mt. 20 26 ). Or again, in the presence of a real child whom Jesus called and set in the midst when His disciples were concerned about the question of the greatest in the kingdom of heaven: "Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven" (Mt. 18 H .). Or again, in direct contrast to those who love and claim the uppermost rooms at feasts and the chief seats in the synagogue and greetings in the market, we are not to be called Rabbi or father or master (Mt. 23 6 f.). "How can ye believe, which receive honour one of another," is Jesus' charge against the Jews (In. S44J' and by way of contrast He demands that the disciples should wash one another s

3· The Call to Discipleship

_

;)49 1 you an examp e, that ye should do as I have done to y ou" (In 13uf.) T • • 0 come to Jesus IS to t k k ox (Mt..II2B). All this can hardl be formu~at:; yo e Upon one~elf like a gallant rule for Improved social relationshi It . . ' l~t alone practised, as a general the existence of men who are free~sb agam c ear that these sayings assume from the universal domI'nI'on and y t le concretely given command of Jesus , cons Tamt of ordina t' constitutes social status and d " t d ' ry concep IOns of what these men that all such conce I~~I y an :mportance. It is not concealed from cursion of the kin dom of ~ IOns are ranscended and outmoded by the inthe grace of Godg rules. ~~~; :~:ta~~re~s a transvaluatio~ of all values where abstention in which they are n I s ould reveal thIS m their action and as honour 'or dishonour The ~ong~r c~nJcerned with what those around regard the little throne perha~s Whic~C1P e 0 h esus can descend from the throneeven He does not do this wilfully or of h e hmay be allotted in human society. as he is commanded he does it. IS own c OIce, but as he is commanded. Yet Along a further line the command of J to be shown m it, takes the concrete for e;us, and the obedience which has God as the end of the fixed idea of th moan attestation of the kingdom of The direction of Jesus must have e necessIty and beneficial value of force. disciples in this respect. They we:embe~~ed :tS~lf particularly deeply in the They were not to fear it as brought to n;1 er ? ear force nor to exercise it. worst their enemies could kill only th be~ aga~nst themselves, for at the very inward selves would remain inviolate e ~ y a: l~ot the soul. Their true and degree? Because the very hairs of their ~ s ou , they not fear, and to what themselves as they might be sub'ect d t ad whIch might be hurt, and they of the fatherly assistance and 'pr~tec~ionoo~~r~l attack, are all under the care sparrow can fall to the ground And th ~ , apart from which not even a They may have to suffer forc~ as it is :~~re 0 , more value than many sparrows. face of it. Hence they are commanded' ,,;gams\t~em, but they are secure in hand, those who have no need to fear th~ ex ear no (Mt. 1028f.). On the other because it cannot finally harm them herclse of force agamst them by others can others. Ought fire from heaven to b llarddl Y expect to apply force against ca e d own on the S 't 'II h ' c h would not receive Jesus (Lk. e52f) w: , A' amar~ an VI age tacit answer was given in His turnin 9and '" ccordmg one vanant only a the other He said explicitly' "y ; threatenmg them, According to For the Son of man is not co~e t e now not ~hat manner of spirit ye are of. the story ends with the short st~t~~s:~~Yt:~n,~;~ves, but to save them." And ey went to another village." To this there corresponds the dI'rect' , , M , IOn given m t I013f. th t h not received the disciples are to shake off the d t f' . a were they are The peace which they aim to brin to t us rom theIr feet and move on. unworthy of it will then return tog th hose who for the moment are obviously it if they adopted any other attitud jmsl1ves (w~ereas they would clearly lose the high-priests with swords and sta: . gam, w en the multItude came from of the disciples" stretched out his han~s as dagamst a robber (Mt. 26 47 1.), and one of the high-priest's, and smote off his ~a~~' ~rew hiS sword, and struck a servant the sword back into its scabbard' "Fo' II et:as :mmanded by Jesus to put perish with the sword. Jesus might hav; ~ d t e Y ~t take to the sword shall Father. But He does not ask for th Fa we1ve eglOns of angels from His and is not prepared to make use of item. or He does, not need thIS protection must be delivered from this vicio : Hence the dISCIple who draws his sword with killing. It begins when we ~~eC1rcIe. Nor does the exercise of force begin raca or fool, when there are judicial p:~;er~i:I~h ~~r b;lother, when ,we call him Will have nothing to do with this kind of be~a ( ·5). The dISCiple of Jesus for the sake of glory or possession (Mt. 5 38 1.) Iti~ur let alone With retaliation saymgs there is no reference to the . , 0 be noted that III all these mescapably where force is exercised gr::~terd or lesser atrocIties usually involved . e eClSIve contradiction of the kingdom f ee. t · "For I have given

tt

,:0

§ 66. The Sanctification of At an

550

Go~ ag~:s~ .

,

t~0~c~:17nv~1~dates d

blatant kingdoms of force is to be seen qUite o.f ail the whole friend-foe relationship between slmpl) m e aCE'th . force is the ultima ratio in thiS relatIOnship. If we man and man. I er way,. bI" nd sinners can do the same. love only those Wh~ lovel u~ a~~I;'b;~:h;e: ~~~I~:athen do likewise (Mt. 5 46 f.). If we show humam y ~n y ~ ite of it, fo~ce is everywhere exercised bec,:use Of what avail IS thiS. In p ff t d b 't What the disciples are enJomed friend-foe relatlOnshlps are :not a ec e(M/ ~4') This destroys the whole friendis that they should love their enelmles 'e5nem'y he' ceases to be our enemy. I t· h' for when we ove our . h' foe re awns Ip, 'I . f fo ce which presupposes this relatIons Ip, It thus abolishes the who ~ ~xOercli~e 0 Thi~ i~ attested by the disciple in what he and hasdno mea:I~; aPQa~ite\:iou'SIY and concretely he himself now drops out does or oes no . I f nshi Once again there can be no of the reckoning in I thi~e t:~~~?st~=: :~ste:~onfronting th~t of the ~orld, in questlOn of a genera ru .' to be brought into harmony with It. But competition with It, and mJsome ~aYHis call to discipleship places under this . f r the one whom esus, In '. t bl d' agam, 0 d h'bT there is a concrete and mcontes a e Irecparticular command an prdo 1 ~ lOn, tl as it is given. According to the sense tion which has to be carne ou exac y: . .. I I in ractice But of the New Testament we calnn~t b~:e~~~rst~/~~r~:~I~=ir~~ ro di~ciPleship, we we have to conSider very c o~e y .' can avoid being praCtical.p~~lhstsi~~ef~~x~~ ~; ~~'estion we have to do with the If al~ng the thIrd maII~ m~h~ incursion~of the kingdom of God, of t~e false overcommg, proclaimed WIt~ man revealed in the friend-foe relationshIp and separatIOn betwee?- ~~:el:~n the exercise of force, along a fourth line we have, concretely expressmg. f lf vident attachments between man and man. conversely, the dlssolutlOn 0 s~ -e e although not in that of the Bible, is It is a matte.~ o~ wh~~ l~a:K; a\~~a~eiationships between husband and wife, usually descn e as e . d . t rs etc are not questioned as such. parents alndd relationships. What iSfqludesdMan wou no e . , . . h h' h he allows himself to be en 0 e tioned is the impulsive mten~~tYhwlid :d~~d those who stand to him in these by, and t~inks that he hlmse s dO?s his self-~ufficiency in the warmth of these relationships. "What IS quest~o~~ . 1 roblems and the sphere of their joys and relationships, the resolvmg °d . ehir p prl'sonment in them in which he is no u'h t 's questlOne IS IS 1m , Th sorrows. " a 1 . t he rna be to possessions or fame. e less a capti:-e th,m m othe~or~~~e~n Sthis caprivity to the clan. Thus the excus~ message. of. hberatlOn . dr n a wI'fe d t ·comes " I h ave m a e , and therefore I cannot c<;>me h d of the lllvite gues . h same level as those of others who a (Lk. 1420), is seen to b~O~ el~~~~~ ~h:ir prior interest. And in the same conbought land oroxen w IC c k bl I to the man who was ready to be a nexion Jesus gives the remar a ~,rer tber. "Let the dead bury their dead: disciple but first wanted to bury d IS ~f God" (Lk. g.9!.). To the same series g but go thou and preacth the klOgs ~7Jesus about the leaving (d1>'ivm), dividi~g belong all the provoca Ive saym . . ) which are involved 10 (ll,xa~Hv!, dis~nitingJ (llwll€pt~~''1e:~~y~~;nt~a;~~~ti~~~~;Psa s such, but certai?ly the discipleshIp of esus no . . and obtain in them. Accordmg dissolving29the connexions ~hl~h fontm:oa~~:~~elands but even brother or sister, to Mk. r0 we have not on y 0 ea~eor" sbows us that we are dealing with inmother or father or chlld~en (~h~ the sa~e of the Gospel. Jesus also warns us dividual cases), for HIS sa :::on: to bring peace on earth (Mt. 1034t.). He has agamst the VIew that He h d A d 'f a man loves father or mother, son not come to bnng p~~ce, n t~~a ~:~: ~ot ~O:thY of Him. Or, according ~o th: or daughter, more L: I2.'" "F~~ from henceforth there shall be five In ?~e

c:~dr~~n ~;~~~~ ~~t s~~n~ i~ the~e

h~~~~e~i;i~:~~~h:e

against two, and two against three." Tdhe· . IS . use d'III Lk . 14 26 . "If any man come to me, an h expressIOn

:~:a~;:~::f::~er,

3· The Call to Discipleship

55!

and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple." Hate? It is not the persons that are to be hated, for why should they be excluded from the command to love our neighbours? It is the hold which these persons have and by which they themselves are also gripped. It is the concentration of neighbourly love on these persons, which really means its denial. It is the indolent peace of a clannish warmth in relation to these persons, with its necessary implication of cold war against all others. The corning of the kingdom of God means an end of the absolute of family no less than that of possession and fame. Again, there is no general rule. No new law has been set up in competition with that of the world, which points so powerfUlly in the opposite direction. But there is proclaimed the freedom of the disciple from the general law as it is given to him, and has to be exercised by him, in a particular situation (by the particular direction which he receives). There can be no doubt that in its fear of the bogy of monasticism Protestantism has very radically ignored this proclamation of Jesus Christ, as also that of other freedoms. To a very large extent it has acted as though Jesus had done the very opposite and proclaimed this attachment-the absolute of family. Can we really imagine a single one of the prophets or apostles in the role of the happy father, or grandfather, or even uncle, as it has found self-evident sanctification in the famous Evangelical parsonage or manse? They may well have Occupied this role. But in the function in which they are seen by us they stand outside these connexions. In this respect, too, no one is asked to undertake arbitrary adventures. But again, no qne who really regards himself as called by Jesus to discipleship can evade the question whether he might not be asked for inner and outer obedience along these lines. The life of the new creature is something rather different from a healthy and worthy continuation of the old. When the order is given to express this, we must not refuse it an obedience which is no less concrete than the command. Along a fifth line, to which we can never devote too much attention, the required obedience consists finally in a penetration of the absolute nomos of religion, of the world of piety. It is worth reflecting that what Jesus has in mind was not the piety of heathen religion, but that of the Israelite religion of revelation. He has not, of course, come to deny or destroy or dissolve it (Mt. l7t 5 ·). He Himself accepts it, and He does not require His disciples to abandon or replace it. But He does demand that they should go a new way in its exercise; that they should show a "better righteousness," i.e., not better than that of the people, the common herd, but better than that of its best and strictest and most zealous representatives, the scribes and Pharisees; better than the official form which it had assumed at the hands of its most competent human champions. This better righteousness is not more refined or profound or strict. It is simply the piety which the disciple can alone exercise in face of the imminent kingdom of God. It has nothing whatever to do with religious aristocracy. On the contrary, the kingdom knocks at the door of the sanctuary of Supreme human worship. The disciple must act accordingly. According to two groupS of sayings (both contained in the Sermon on the Mount) Jesus summoned to this advance on two different fronts. It is a matter of morality on the one side and religion on the other. Morality is dealt with in Mt. 5 21 - 49 • The commandment: " Thou shalt not kill," is universally accepted. But what does it mean? There is something worse than killing because it is the meaning and purpose in all killing. This is anger against one's brother; a state of contentiousness and strife. And it is here that the obedience of the disciple must begin. Again, what is meant by adultery? The real evil, from which the disciple refrains, is to be found much further back than the actual deed. It consists in the evil desire Which is present prior to the act. And it is at the point of desire that we either refrain or do not refrain. Again, what is false swearing? It is all swearing because this as such is an illegitimate questioning of God. The disciple renounces this

55 2

§ 66. The Sanctification of Man

because it is enough for him if according to the best of his knowledge and with a good conscience he says either Yes or No, and not secretly both at once. What is meant by just retribution? The disciple does not exercise it in any form. \Vhat is neighbourly love? There is enjoined upon the disciple a love which includes the enemy. But, of course, when we talk like this, what becomes of the whole structure of practicable morality? And how will its representatives and adherents react to this interpretation? Religion is dealt with in the sayings concerning almsgiving, prayer and fasting (Mt, 6 1 '18). and the main drift in all of them is that these things are not to be done publicly but secretly. Where, then, is the witness i-we might ask. The answer is that the witness of the disciple consists in the fact that he refrains from attesting his piety as such. If he is to display the kingdom of God, and proclaim it from the housetops (Mt. 10 27 ), he will not make a show of his own devoutness but keep it to himself, allowing God alone to be the One who judges and rewards him. This restraint will be a witness to the pious world with its continual need to publicise itself, and perhaps even to the secular world. It will speak for itself-or rath"r, it will speak for that which does seriously and truly cry out for publicity. No official religiosity will readily acquiesce in the silent witness of this restraint. But here too, of course, it is not a matter of formulating and practising principles, Nor does this twofold invasion of the sphere of common sanctity mean that a clear line of demarcation is drawn. How can we fail to see that here, too, His command refers to particular men in particular situations, demanding from them a no less particular obedience, the obedience of discipleship. (There is another equally prominent line of concrete direction which we have not yet touched upon, and shall not do so in this context, In many of the New Testament records the call to discipleship closes with the demand that the disciple should take up his cross. This final order crowns, as it were, the whole call, just as the cross of Jesus crowns the life of the Son of Man. In view of its outstanding significance we shall reserve this aspect for independent treatment in the final sub-section,) Looking back at what we have said about the concrete forms of discipleship, we may make the further general observation that the general lines of the call with which Jesus made men His disciples in the Gospels enable us in some sense to envisage the situations in which these men were reached by His call and how they had to obey it concretely. Indeed, the New Testament kerygma not only permits but commands us to do this. The picture of these men and the way in which they were concretely ordered and concretely obeyed is one which ought to impress itself upon us. In this respect it forms, with the call issued by Jesus, the content of the New Testament kerygma, The reason why we have to bring out these main lines along which it takes concrete shape is that the call to discipleship as it comes to us will always be shaped also by this correlated picture. Yet as it was for them, it will be a call which here to-day is addressed directly and particularly to each one of us, so that its specific content is not fixed by the specific content of His call there and then as we have learned it from the Gospels. To be sure, the call of Jesus will be along the lines of the encounter between the kingdom of God and the kingdoms of the world. And it will have to be accepted in this form. But this does not mean that the living Son of Man is confined as it were to the sequence of His previous encounters, or that His command~ng moves only in the circle of His previous commanding and the obedience whIch it received. It is not for us simply to reproduce those pictures. That is to say, it is not for us to identify ourselves directly with those who were called then, and therefore to learn directly from what they were commanded what we are necessarily commanded, or from their obedience what our own obedience must be. We will always know that it.is His voice which calls us from the fact tha~ in what is demanded of us we shall always have to do with a break with the grea self-evident factors of our environment, and therefore of the world as a whole,

4· The Awakening to Conversion

' h WI'II have to be made in fact both 553 w h IC ' indicated in the New Testament ' out;ardl y and mwardly, along the lines of the kingdom of God In othe' corrdespon Ihn g to, and attesting, the irruption . r war s, we s all always h t d ' of the free activity which Paul described in t h ' ave a a wIth a form uuu)(T}fLaT{~£a8€ TciJ alwvL TOVTW. But from what : Im~eratIve of Rom. 12': fL~ HIS commanding and of thOe abed' d he New Testament tells us of ' rence emanded from th ' an d rendered by them we have to hea H" ese partIcular men 'th" r IS VOIce as He speak t ' m e partIcular situation of obedience determined b , s a us, callIng us enough, then, merely to copy in our activit th tl' Y HIS vVord. It IS not men had to obey His demands This of 't Ylf .e au mes of that III which these As we have to remember in r~lation to Ie~~r IS"nro;l a~ entry into discipleship. e~erythmg that Jesus demanded and that thY e, d we might try to copy fall to be disciples, because we do not do it aes~hmen, Id, and yet completely and command to us There I'S o f ' s ey dId, at HIS partIcular call . ,Course no reason wh H h exactly the same of us as He did of th 'B . y e s ould not ask He may just as well command somethi~m'd'ff ut agam-:-along the same linessame thing in a very different a licatio g 1 erent, posSibly much more, or the it might well be disobedience toPl'e conte::~d co~cretIon. In these circumstances sImple obedience it must be to the One ~ ImI a~ them, for If we are to render o to-day. It is now our affair to render obwd , as .e called them then, calls us " , e Ience WIthout d' " ISCUSSlon or reserve, qUIte lIterally, III the same unity of the inward correspondence to the New Testament wit and the outward, and in exact There can certainly be no question of a devt~ss t? HIS encoun~er with them. we find along these lines can never be a m a IOn rom these mam hnes. VVhat a b~nding mandatum evangelioum which dee~:cons2z,um evangez,cum. It is always deCISIon and action. And there will alwa ~ds the response. of a corresponding selves if we think that what ma b ys e reason for dIStruSt against oursomething less, or easier, or more ~o~f~;~~f:~h~~~h~long these lines will be Grace-and we again recall that in the call to dis' 1 ' t was reqUIred of them. of the salvation of the world and th f f Clp eShlp It IS a matter of grace become more cheap to-day (to use an~:hore 0 our. own salvation-cannot hav~ well have become even more costl 0 e~ expressIOn of Bonhoeffer's). It may that the freedom given in and with' Ob~' 0 p~t It another way, it may well be become less but greater But ho e t~n~e 0 the call to discipleship has not way was then, and still is, our san~:i~~~tio~. may be, the freedom given in this

4· THE AWAKENING TO CONVERSION Our starting-point is ag'

th

l'

J:~~~~het~~~t:t ~~~~\~c~!~;o~~:r:~:;~~~~~so~n;~;ll~:~~~g ::~h

w~Ch we are ?iven in the strength of His Ho~~ Sp~~t ~~ l~hekf;ee~~m 1 ~~thiuhlusn ttO lift u P ourselves in ~pite ?f the downward d~ag ~f 0 ::;

a ure. W e are now dealing With thO l'ft' in and f 't If 1 ' . IS 1 mg up of ourselves or.l .se -or, et us say qUlte plamly from the ve . With the di,:,me myst~ry and miracle of this liftin ry outset, It charactenses sanctIfication as a real happenin g~? hof ourselves. to men here and now in time and on earth . g w lC takes place because it takes place as human and earthl I~i~~ real, of course, n~t takes pl~ce. in fellowship with the life of th~ hoI o~n but because, It all that It IS so provisional and limited the sancYti'fi t. of Mfan. For , ca lOn 0 man as

554

§ 66. The Sanctification of Man

his lifting up of himself is a work which is eternally resolved and seriously willed and effectively executed by God. In this divine reality, however, it takes place in time and on earth. It consists in the fact that as men may lift up themselves they acquire and have here and now, in all their lack of freedom, a freedom to do this of which they avail themselves. Vie must now turn our attention to this happening as such. How does it come about that men become Christians in fulfilment of this divinely real work. The theme of our third sub-section was itself, of course, an answer to this question. It comes about as Jesus calls them to discipleship, We can never go beyond this answer. But we can and must put the counter-question: How does it come about that they are actually reached by this call in such a way that they render obedience, becoming the disciples of Jesus and doing what they are ordered to do as such? We shall see at once-as already in our opening sentence we have taken up again and repeated from our earlier discussions-· that it is a matter of the freedom which they are given by the One who calls them, by Jesus. How can it really take place except in freedom? But we must now see how it takes place in the freedom which is given by Jesus to these particular men. Our present questions concerns the inward movement in which they are the men to whom this freedom is given and who may and must at once exercise it in the obedience of discipleship as we have described it. To put it metaphorically, we are investigating the source from which this living water has its direCt and unimpeded flow.

The first thing that we have to say is that Christians (and therefore those who are sanctified by the Holy One) are those who waken up. This, too, is a picture. But it is a biblical one, and it tells us more clearly than any abstract term that we might substitute what is really at issue. As they awake they look up, and rise, thus making the counter-movement to the downward drag of their sinfully slothful being. They are those who waken up, however, because they are awakened. They do not;waken of themselves and get up. They are roused, and are thus caused to get up and set in this counter-movement. Thus strictly and finally this awakening as such is in every sense the source in whose irresistible flow they are set in the obedience of discipleship. But we will leave this point for the moment. Where someone is awakened and therefore wakes and rises, he has previously been asleep, and has been lying asleep. Christians have indeed been lying asleep like others. What distinguishes them from others is that this is now past; that they have been awakened and are awake. Or is it not the case that they are still asleep, or fall asleep again? Is there not still a Christianity which sleeps with the world and like it ? " Therefore let us not sleep, as do others; but let us watch and be sober" (I Thess, 56), "Now it is high time to awake out of sleep" (Rom. 13 11). " Awake thou that sleepest. and arise from the dead. and Christ shall give thee light" (Eph. 514 ). This is not missionary preaching-or it is so only in the sense that the call is also and primarily to the Christian community, How the ey~s of the disciples were overcome by sleep in Gethsemane (Mk, I {40)! And dId

4· The Awakening to Conversion not all the virgins become slee a d I ' 555 according to Mt. 255, "BI PYd n tSheep-the Wlse as well as the foolish_ , esse are ose servant h h cometh shall find watching" (Lk 3J) B' s, w am t e lord when he case? Do we not all need contin~:l~y t'o beu:e~~~~~;;~s/he highly exceptional

We cannot, therefore, define Christians . 1 awake while the rest sleep but mo t' SImp y as those who are up !n the sense that they ;re awake::e~a:~~~sr as those who w~ken theIr shame and good fortune Th . tIme and then agam to stand in need of reawakeni~g anJ :~e~ I~ act, those who constantly they are continually reawakened Th epe~d upon the fact that be hoped, continually waken up. . ey are t us those who, it is to The sleep from which they awaken is th move~ent. consequent upon their sloth. Like:U re~~ntless downw~r? 0 pate m thIS movement, dreaming many bea t'f 1 e~s, they partIcInot really knowing what is happening to th~~.u ~;he~dt~~eams but or. are wakened, they experience a jolt which b th Y wake~, thIs movement and sets them in the coun t a arrests them m where their way was leading that th ert-movement.. They realise , e y mus not tread It an f th an d th at t h ey now can and must take the '" y ur er, event and realisation-whiCh are both incl °d~o~ItehdIrectlOn. In this receive-they wake up for the first t' _u~. m t. e shoc~ that they the last. In this awakening they b~~;mewC~c~ ;111 certamly not be now free, and who make use of thei f tIS Ians-men who are themselves. The verse 2 Cor 517 I'Srt reedofm'h to look u:p and raise "Old h' t mgs are passed away'. beholdrue110 thOt em as thIs h appens: For in this awakening they ar~ "in Ch'· ~ " . m'h are become new." the term ~s it applies only to them. ns III t e narrower sense of But thIs awakening is also-and here the an awakening and therefore a risin fr metaphor breaks downsleep from which there can be n g kon:r the sleep of death; the o awa emng exce t ' th the mystery and miracle of God Th' . th pIlle power of descent, the downward plun e ~f sinf~IIs e real truth about the unawareness with which he ;akes a~d SUff~~:i:.lothful man, and the selves from the sleep of all kI'nds of d We can waken ourerrors an phanta' d f I h oods. The very violence of the dream in whO h SIes an a semay rouse us. Or we may be wak d f IC we surrender to them or drowsiness by an accident an ex~ne {am these states of slumber tional or unintentional intrdsion of e~~e/ve~ or fate, or the intencovenant-breaking humanity of the world ~. ut. fro~ the sleep of III conflIct wIth God, there can be no awakening not e~en b th crashing in ruins of ~hole cities ~ the ?rea~est catastrophes, by the personal evils, by the thunderou~ voice: ~T~Illent threat of the worst iertain~y none of us can of himself supply th: j~[r;~~:~es\roPhets, rom thIS sleep. No salvation or erdition aff' WI a:v aken ~~n reach him in this sleep, and !taTtle and il~~tI~g ~a~ .from WIthout 1m to his feet. Nor are there any impulses or :mIlloatI'oe 1m, and fetch n a1 movements, ,

556

§ 66. The Sanctification of Man

.

. . h'ch he can reach and awaken himor deep-burrowing reflecilOns, ~~ ~ ~e sleeps is the sleep of death, and self in this sleep: The seep w lC akened and waken from death. what is needed IS ~hat he shoul~ ~~ '::t act of God Himself if there is There is thus req,!Ire~mawnhi~whan lr\ecomes a disciple, a Christian. to be the awakemng c a man 'n at the conclusion of the story of the At this point we maY23~0ca~hti~~~:~~: same in all the parallel accounts. It rich young ruler (Mk.. 10 h 'd than for a camel to go through the eye of a tells us how hard It IS- ar er . t th kingdom of God. And It causes the needle-for a rich man to enter III a e. 'g ,\ 'UUWTO) for they rightly perdisciples the greates~ astoniSht~ent/;:;:u~~~ ~~; ~f all m'en and even of themceive that it is not Just a m~ ergath general rule rather than an unfortunate selves, the r!~h young rll(ler t:me cir~umstances) can be saved (at all) ~ ". t~ey exception. Who th~n I~ es looking upon them saith, With men It IS Imsay one to another: An. Jesus ith God all things are possible." That a man possible, but not wIth God. f~r w t . to the kingdom and become a fellow should follow Jesus, and there. are en er with God, but only with Him. ble and witness of the kingdom qu~ter p~~ ;he Prodigal Son: "This thy brother Hence the saying at the end of t e soy d' f nd" (Lk. 15 32 ). Hence . l' "n' and was lost an IS au . h was dead, and hIS a Ive agal , th d 'd" Hence the statement III Ep . E 14· "Anse from e ea. d . . the call of p. 5 . . who were dead in trespasses an SIllS, 1 2 1.: "And you hath he qmckened ,· t the course of this world, according . .. t e walked accord mg 0 . h'ld whereIll III tIme pas y h ' r the spirit that now worketh III the c 1 ren to the prince of the power of t ehal.' . h I'n mercy fat his great love wherewIth ., n chath , quickened us toget h er WI'th of dIsobedIence. . . . But God , w a IS d" . IS . th e gi'ft he loved us, even v.·h en we were . dea IIId SIllS, that not of yourselves: It Christ (by grace are ye saved ,) . . . an h Id b t" We have really passed k I t any man s au oas . . H' of God: not of war s, es.. ar the Word of Jesus, and believe III lID (p.era{3€{3'1I<€v) from death to lIfe If ,;:e he 24. I In. 3 14). Nothing less than that sent Him, and love the bret .ren O dn 5 o~rselves or any experience of our this transitioI?' WhICh cann~t ~~ ~~I:I:::urr:Ction of Jesus Christ from ~he dead, own but has ItS analogy on y . . tt of the awakening and nsmg up to can even be considered w~en It IS a rna er the obedience of discipleshIp.

1\

1:'

b

. fbi to the order and takes The awakening to whIch we. r~ er ;ti~~gs This does not exclude, place according to the law ~f dlvme ~ace i~ the context and under but includes, the fact that ~t tak;; p ould it be the real sanetificathe conditions of human .actlOn. ow c sent in his inner and outer tion of real man if man hImself were nO~f~;al height or depth without activity, if it took place at someksup~rn 'thout him It takes place him? It certainly.does not ta e p fce;l t inten~ive conscription to and in him. It mvol,:es. the tota an mf;rces of his whole heart and co-operatior: of al~?~ ~nnt~ea~it~~e:ense i~ which these terms and soul and mmd, w IC III . . Oth rise it would not are used includes his whol~ phYSIcal bem g :ls: indispensable if h' wakening And hIS fellow-man, w 0 IS assive a man: is certainly not absent, present is spectator, but also takes. part in his awakenm~~e~~~~Sstated already, e It has therefore, a himself waking, perhaps m some ot~er w;Y:" h!s a,:,aalkendi~ng is .aon ev~~~ ~~r~~~er a:ndI~i~: ~ocial cir~les in which n hIstonc menSl.

~: isl~o\e

h .

o~

t

onl~sa~:/who

4· The Az.c'akening to Conversion

557

he lives are deeply implicated in it. It does not in any sense lack creaturely factors of every kind. Taking place wholly and utterly on the earthly and creaturely level, it does not merely have an aspect which is wholly and utterly creaturely, but it is itself wholly and utterly creaturely by nature. But, while all this is true, it has its origin and goal in God. It belongs to the order of that action which is specifically divine. It is a subordinate moment in the act of majesty in which the 'Vord became flesh and Jesus Christ rose again from the dead. On this aspect-its true and proper aspect-it is a mystery and a miracle. That is to say, the jolt by which man is wakened and at which he wakens, his awakening itself as the act in which this takes place and he rises, is not the work of one of the creaturely factors, co-efficients and agencies which are there at work and can be seen, but of the will and act of God who uses these factors and Himself makes them co-efficients and agencies for this purpose, setting them in motion as such in the meaning and direction which He has appointed. We are thus forced to say that this awakening is both wholly creaturely and wholly divine. Yet the initial shock comes from God. Thus there can be no question of co-ordination between two comparable elements, but only of the absolute primacy of the divine over the creaturely. The creaturely is made serviceable to the divine and does actually serve it. It is used by God as His organ or instrument. Its creaturelineS3 is not impaired, but it is given by God a special function or character. Being qualified and claimed by God for co-operation, it co-operates in such a way that the whole is still an action which is specifically divine. For the moment we will postpone our investigation of the jolt or shock which initiates it, thus making it in its totality a divine action which seizes and dominates, while it does not exclude, all creaturely factors and their motions. Our first question must be simply concerning the awakening as such, and the meaning and content of this event. No matter what may be its origin and goal, which factor may be first and which second, or where the preponderance may lie, it does at any rate take place. And it takes place all at once. It does not take place in stages. It does not take place in such a way that first one thing happens with its own particular meaning and content, and then another with a different meaning and content; the divine on the one side and the human on the other. Nor does it take place on two different levels, so that we are forced to look first at what happens on the top deck as it were, and then at what happens on the lower; the gift and work of God in the one case, and the task and action and abstention of man in the other. This awakening and waking of man is one event with one meaning and content. In the first instance, therefore, it must concern us in its unity as such. We call it the awakening of man to conversion. The Christian Church counts on the fact that there is such a thing

558

§ 66. The Sanctification of ,vIan

as the awakening of man to conversion. If it did not do so, it would not believe in God the Father; in the Son of God who became flesh and who in the flesh was the holy Son of Man, the royal man; or in the Holy Spirit. In its supposed confession of God it ,,:ou~d be. thinking of a mere idea and staring at ~. dea~ Idol. If we .beheve m God in the sense of the Church we belleve m an awakemng of man to conversion. We count on the fact that there is such a thing. No, we count on the fact that God Himself gives and creates and actualises it. \Ve do not, therefore, count only on the chance or possibility of it. We do not count merely on the fact that there may be such a thing. To do this is itself quite impossible without faith in God. For we have to do here with the awakening which has the character of an awakening from the dead, with the conversion to which a man is awakened in this way, with his wakening and rising from the dead. How can we count on this apart from faith? But in faith in God we do not count only on the fact that it may be so, or that God may give it. We count on the fact that God does actually give it. We count on the awakening of man to conversion as an actuality. As truly as God lives and is God, so truly this awakening takes place. To say God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost is to say also the awakening of man to conversion. This is the first nail that we have to drive in securely. The reality of this event depends wholly ~r: the reality. of God. And it depends on it so seriously and uncondItIOnally and mdissolubly that we can also say that the reality of God stands or falls with the reality of this event. Only for us? It is 1?erhaps better ?l'0t to make this restriction. God would not be God If this awakemng did not take place. For He would not be the .God of the. covenant; of His free grace. He would not be the God who IS true to thIS covenant as the Reconciler of the world which has fallen from Him, and therefore as the One who awakens man from the sleep of death and calls him to Himself. He would not, then, be God at all. As truly as He is God, so truly He does this. The basis of Christian ~xisten~e lies as deep as this. It is not the Christia~ ~ho guar~ntees ~t. It IS God Himself. God Himself takes responsIbIlity for ItS realIty. We a~e thus given a simple test. Do we believe in God.? W ~ do so only If we believe in the awakening of man to converSIOn. Conversely, do we believe in the awakening of man to conversion? We do so only if we believe in God. The Christian Church also counts on the awakening of man to conversion because it cannot conceal the fact that the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament count on it and call on the Church to do so. It is true that the Bible is one long account of the great acts ~f God which have their centre in Jesus Christ and which still have theIr hidden goal of which they are themselves the hidden beginning. B~t these acts of God take place, and the One in whom they have theIr centre and goal and beginning exists, among and in relation to many

4· The A wakening to Conversion en

559

.. They are God's ~ealings with these men. They are God's revelatlOn m the po,,:er of ~h1~h these men become its witnesses. As we have alr~ady est~blished mCldentally at an earlier point, they also have theIr pl~ce m the biblical account to the extent that the divine speech a~d ~ctlon has ~eference to them and constitute them its witnesses As w1t~esses to It they for~ an integral part of the biblical witnes~ to G~d s work and revelatIOn. The totality of the biblical account t?US l~cludes the ~act that, grounded in the acting and self-revealing God, m. the promIsed. an~ incarnate and expected Jesus Christ, the awakenmg to converslOn IS a reality among these men. It is just a real as God: or Jesus Christ, is real. For our present purpose it make~ no odds ~Ith. w.hat degree of clarity or confusion, of perfection or ~mperfectlOr:, It Impresses itself upon these men and finds expression III them. E1th~r way, it is a reality. In and with the history of God and Jesus C~nst there also takes place the history whose meaning and cont~nt IS t~e aw.a~ening of men to conversion. There are men w~ose e~lstence 1.S pOSltlve.ly or ne~atively or ~ritically determined by ~hI~ ~eality. It 1.S determmed by It because It is determined by the JudICIal and graclOus speech and action of God who h' . d' . I db" . , IC IS JU ICla as ar: ecause It IS ?raclOus. It is determined by it because it is determ.med by the eXIstence ?f Jesus Christ. The whole weight of the WItness about God and HIS Holy One carries in and with it fa th who .let Scripture speak for itself, the witness which is les~ p;rha;:e but mseparably connected with the greater: the witness not only of the Holy One but al~o of the saints; the witness concerning Abraham and Moses and DavId and the people Israel and its major and minor prophets and the community and the apostles as they are determined by the 0r: e t? ~hom they themselves bear witness. In all its distinctness ~nd mdlstmct~ess, hominum confusione et Dei providentia this is the WItness cOncernlllg this reality. When the Church allows Sc' . t to P k t ' t 'f" np ure s. ea a 1 , even.1 It WIshed, it could not help counting on the realIty of the a~aken~ng to conversion in view of these men. It could not .prevent thIS reahty from impinging upon it as a problem posed ~o~ Itself-not ~erely the reality that there is such a thing, but that It I~ God ~ho gIVes and creates and effects it. The witness of Holy Scnpture I~ that God does this. We should have to reject its witness ~together If we were to den~ t~at it is also the witness to this reality. hat th~ Church makes of It IS another question. It has made of it ~nany thlllgs-some good and some bad. It has often seemed not to now how to ~ake .anythi.ng of it at all. But it can never, or never altogether, set It. aSIde or Ignore or forget it. The Church? We are the Churc~. It IS thus our turn to tackle it as we try to understand an~ explalll the san~tification of man, and especially the way in whIch the men who lIe asleep as slothful sinners look up and lift up themselves and. become obedient instead of disobedient. Let us go nght to the heart of the matter at once and say that

n:

560

§ 66. The Sanctification of Man

this nsmg up of man takes place in his conversion. The sleep from which man is awakened according to Scripture consists in treading a wrong path on which he is himself perverted, and can never be anything else. Thus awakening from this sleep, and the rising which follows, is far more than a vertical standing up. It makes no odds whether we go this false path erect or stooping. As Scripture sees it, waking and rising from sleep is turning round and going in the opposite direction. That God awakens us to this is the problem set for the Church, and therefore for us, by Holy Scripture. It cannot be exchanged for the (in themselves) very interesting problems of improvement or reformation or more noble effort in our further progress along the same path. It is not a question of improvement but alteration. It is not a question of a reformed or ennobled life, but a new one. And the alteration and renewal mean conversion-a term which we cannot avoid for all its doubtful associations. As it emerges in Holy Scripture, the human reality which is inseparably connected with, and determined by, the reality of God and Jesus Christ is the awakening of man to convert. The movement which we see made by the men of the Bible, or which is always aimed at, is this movement. We cannot say-for it simply would not be true-that we see in the Bible converted men. What we can and must say is that we see men caught up in the movement of conversion. 1£ conversion is not behind them, it is also not in the mists before them. They are at the very heart of the movement. They had moved away from God. And it is saying too much to claim that they have moved right back to God. But what we must say is that they can no longer proceed without God. On the contrary, they are compelled to rise up and come to Him, and are now in the process of doing so. This is the movement of conversion. And the awakening to this movement which in some way comes to these men and characterises them is the reality which impinges upon us, and becomes our own problem, in and with the reality of God and of Jesus Christ. Conversion, and therefore life in this movement, means renewal. In relation to a life which is not engaged in this movement, it is the new life of a new man. Conversion means the turning on an axis. The life of the old man, which is not engaged in this conversion, also involves movement. But it has no axis-and that is why it is not engaged in conversion. It moves straight ahead, and this means straight ahead to the descent-the plunge-to death. It is a life which is encircled by death. The difference between the life of the one who is engaged in conversion and that of others is not that t~e former moves itself, but that it has an axis on which to turn. It IS properly this axis which makes this man a new man, giving him a part in its own movement. But the axis which makes his life a mQ~e­ ment in conversion is the reality which is not concealed from him, but revealed as the truth, that God is for him and therefore that he

. 4· The Awakening to Conversion 56r IS for God. God is for him as '. . tecting and guarding and cheri~8~~p~~e:~r~s iorl hIs possess~ons, proanswering for them but also dis osin th u a so c~ntrol1mg. them, purposes. And he himself is for ~od: 1 em a.ccordmg to hIS own protection and control . . ~ possesslO~s stand under the owner. This is the axis' w~~hres,hons~tb1.hty an~ dlsp.osit~on, of their 't n' ,i\ en 1 IS establIshed m hIs life m k ~ ale 1~ conversion. For with this twofold "for "-th' a es ",rounded 1ll the first-he is told both to hal e secon.d d h . t and to. proceed. HIS former movement is halted' direction And the t ,an e IS ~old to proceed 1ll the opposite · ." wo moments whIch belong to t h ' . d1ssoluble unity constitute his ' . ge er m an lllthe reality that 'God is for him ~nn;~:I~on. G~vealed.to ?im ~s truth, ment, in the conv .' 1" : IO sets hIm m thIS moveof this twofold p;;~~~p~l1C~e~~~:es~c~ ht s ;enohv~tio. In the dynamic he can a d s or 1m and he for God and begi: t:~~vcee~~:~t:ro~::~. in the old direction and turn round Calvin summed up this princi Ie of . brevity and comprehensiveness inPth hconverslOn and renewal with masterly Domini (Instit. III, 7, I). In this wa~ ~o~~: ~:tement: Nostri non sumus, sed and the consequent turnin from and t s to man and man's Yes to God vVe do not belong to our~elves vVh0, are b~o~g~t together in a single formula: knew only that we belonged t; er we 1 elong to ourselv·es, when we descent and headlong plunge on ~~:s~l~e~awe were o!d men involved in that our Lord. As we belong to Him we are f/' But \\enow belong to God as proceeding on the old way and to enter on ~~e and It IS for .us only to cease now belong. Nostri non sumus s d D .. way appropnate to where we this axis, we become new men. , e O1mm. As we follow the movement of The establishment of this axis in human j' of human life on this axis-and the chan e of d~e-or better, the establishment Illaugurates, is obviously the theme of ~h ~r:ctlOn III human Ide which this me a clean heart 0 God' and ren e pe 1 l?n III Ps. 5r 10I .: "Create in away. from thy p~esence ; , and take t~gh~ospmt. within me. ,~ast me not pnnclple of conversion and renewal is also th: subl~c~Plnt from33m e . . The same 1 of the "Iu wl'll P t my Iaw III . the"J of Jer. With ItS promise . new covenant', d 3 theIr hearts; and will be their God· d th ~r Illwar parts, and write it in at issue in Jer. 3239. "And I w]l : an ey s all be my people." It is also th . I gIve th em one heart and may fear me for ever for the ood f th , o n e way, at they and of the parallel, i~ Ezek. le~;I.a)~d .?~their children after them." ; 261 . you, and a new spirit will I put 'th' new heart also wIll I give heart out of your flesh and I ·11 WI III you: and I will take away the stony . . , W I gIve you an heart of fI h A d I spmt within you, and cause you to walk in m es. n will put my Judgments, and do them" Th h y statutes, and ye shall keep my the much misunderstood ~ords ~:eR~: t21~[.rassages to w.hich Paul referred in Gesetzes bei den Heiden nach Rom 14f1' Th (d. Felix Fluckiger, Die Werke des contrasted the disobedience of th~ Jew~ with at~ Basel, 195 2 , p. 17 f.), when he are called to the God of Israel by th G lose Gentiles-the Gentiles who Who ef>vaEL, of themselves do what t~e ~spe Who do not have the Law but themselves, showing that'" the work of th:~aw emands and are thus a law to conscience also bearing witness and th' th ~s wntten III their hearts, their else excusing one another." " elr aug ts the meanwhile accusing or vVe can see what is meant bv the passa es i n J . that they are developments of th . g d eremlah and Ezekiel if we note e promise an summons which we find so often

e;ot

;6 (d.

d

562

§ 66. The Sanctification of Man

.

4. The Awakening to Conversion

.

A Hosea Isaiah and JeremIah hImself that and so urgently in the prophets :~s, h ' "to an unconditional and obedient Israel should and must return to t a ;~ , I;;; or in strange gods, and therefore trust in Him in contrast to any rus .I~ ~f everything that is evil, i.e., that to a no less uncondItIOnal renu~~I~tlO the basis of the reality of the covenant, opposes the lordshlf, of Yahweh. Glsdo,~ as well as the" Ye shall be my people," which includes the I will be your 0 seek Yahweh and live (Am. 54)' to return that the imperative call I~ sounded JO 0 1) to break up the fallow ground to Yahweh instead of fleeIllg from. 1m .er. 4 t'he Lord taking away the foret0 th s and to CirCumCiSe, . . instead of SOWIllg om,3 B t h d 0 es this? In all the ancient prophecIes skin of the heart 0 er. 4 t.). l~l w ~ of this demand is never really envisaged. the actual or even pOSSible fu men h' h actuall converts to Yahweh. Even They do not know of any peopl~ w IC t d sayi~g (54). "They will not frame in the passionate Hosea w~fin~t de.p~l~ :he spirit of whored oms is in the midst their doings to turn unto t elr 0 'th~ Lord." And in Isaiah (I3r.): "The ox of them, and they have not know; ter's crib' but Israel doth not know, knoweth his owner, and ~~e assAhIssi~f~~ nation, ~ people laden with iniquity, my people doth not consl er. . th have forsaken the Lord, a seed of eVildoe~s'dc~~~d~~l~h~~:~f~~~~f~~Sa~ger~~heyare gone away backthey have provo e . n more' e will revolt more and more: ward. Why should ye be stncken a Y t F;o~ the sale of the foot even unto the whole head .IS sIck, and the ~e~~:,faI~n'd again in Isaiah (3015!.): "For thus the head there IS no soundn~ss~n 1 . f I rael' In returning and rest shall ye be saith the Lord God, the !I0 y fi~e 0 ~all be your strength. But ye said, No; saved' in quietness and III con ence s . . th 'ft" And again in , . h we wIll nde upon e SWI . for we. will flee uf,0n orsesE'tl~'~ ian change his skin, or the leopard his spots.? Jeremiah (13 23 ) : Can the I p tomed to do evil" That a remnant will then may ye also do goo~, t~a: are a~c~~ure (Is 1021) is significantly emphasised t return in a not ;,ery close: ~.I~e~he prophet g~ve to his son (7 3 ), but this is the by the name sh ar Yas.hu w IC e For when we read in Is. 30.or. about the most that can be saId III thiS dlrectIo~. I d "but thine eyes shall see thy teacher of Israel who will nl~ ~o~~e~ :o~~n~=~i~d' thee, saying, This is the wa~: teacher, and thIlle ears sha e th . ht hand and when ye turn to the left, walk ye in it, when ye turn to \~~e here i; a voice from the later prophecy it may be suspected that what we ..t d heart and conversation given to which dared to speak of th;l~=~ ~r~~e ~~fulfilled and unfulfillable dem.an~ of Israel, and therefore of a ful h' d b Israel itself but achieved on It, I.e., earlier prophecy which was tnottahc trIeuvteh re~ealed to man and forcefully changing t rt of the covenan as e . . t h. e ac ua I y . . , I . Nostri non sumus, sed Domlm. . his hfe; the dynamiC bnn~:; ~~rk folly attested in the older prophecy If we are We have to remem er e . to conversion and renewal in the to appreciate what is reallyTmeant b~ ~o~~~he establishing of the life of man sense of the Old and New estame~ s ~vement The order in which this takes on that axis so that It IS set mllt~a I m SO!.• ,: I have shewed thee new things place is defined once and for a. m s. c1 tho~ didst not know them. They are from this time, even hIdden t~hI~gs"::ing' and previously thou heardest them created now, and not from e egI I knew them Yea thou heardest not; not· lest thou shouldest say, Behold, t . ' I op~ned" It is a matter yea: thou kne~est~ot ; Je~o~hitJ: ea;3)a;f ne:t~::ti~~rit iJ n. '3 5 ). But thiS13i~ of seeing the mg om who is' nev:.l conceived and born of God On. I , possible only for the man t' "( 60r 517) and" the wind bloweth where 9 I In. 3 ). It is " a new crea iOn 2 'f but canst not tell whence it cometh. it listeth, and thou hearest .the soun~n~h~~:~ is born of the spirit." The question and whither it goeth: so IS every. .t sound'" How can a man be of Nicodemus i~ nOI~r,e~~~ ~e s:~f:: t~Se Ise:~~ time i~to his mother's wo~~: born, when he ,~s 0 . 4) \V may well ask: "How can these thmgs be . and be born? On. 3 · e

On. 3 There can be no question of any IlvvaC78aL, of any general possibility, of this Y€VEC78aL. The fact is that the reality of this twofold " for" is revealed as the truth; that it takes place in its own possibility, as a " birth from above" On. 3 3 ). Thus, in relation to everything that man previously was or otherwise is, it is a beginning newly posited by God. The walking Ev KaLVOTTJTL 'wijs (Rom. 6 4 ) which corresponds to the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a transformation (" metamorphosis," Rom. 12) which comes over man in the form of a avat
We continue at once that in conversion we have to do with a movement of the whole man. There are in his being no neutral zones which are unaffected by it and in which he can be another than the new man involved in this process. By the establishment of his life on this axis everything that he is and has is brought under its influence. If anything is not brought under its influence, and thus remains in the continuity of his previous being as the old man, he can be and have and do it only per nefas. This is the case because in the principle of his conversion and renewal, at the centre where his life is bound to this axis, we have to do with God. That God is for him, and he for God, is a total reality which asserts itself in his life in the power of total truth, setting him wholly and not merely partially in this movement, placing him wholly under the call to halt and proceed. We will try to see what is meant by the totality of this movement in some of its most important dimensions. 1. We cannot interpret the conversion and renewal of man merely in terms of a relationship between him and God, to the exclusion of any relationship with his brother. To be sure, we are dealing with the fact that God is for him, and he for God; with this reality as a revealed truth which forcefully sets him in motion. But he is not a man without his fellow-men. How can this truth set him in motion if, as he makes this movement, it does not encroach at once upon his relationship with his fellows, necessarily involving the perishing of the old and the emergence of a new thing in this relationship? It would not be the conversion of the whole man if it did not commence and work itself out at once in this relationship. Calvin was on good biblical ground-that of the Old Testament prophets from Amos onwards-when in his detailed explanation of the main proposition. under the title De abnegatione nostri, he did not keep to the sphere of Deus et anima preferred by Augustine, but followed up his general development of the theme of self-denial, and his (rather cold) elucidation of the terms sobrietas, lustitia and pietas (which he took from Tit. 2 11 1.), by showing (Instit. III, 7, 4-7) how abnegatio nostri expresses itself in the community and society generally as humility, gentleness, a readiness to serve, responsibility, and loyalty; how this cannot be refused to any man, however mean his estate may be. however little

§ 66. The Sanctificqt£on of Man he may mean to us, and however unworthy he may be of it; and how finally and supremely it consists in the acts of an affectIOnate love which does not humiliate or bind others but exalts and liberates them-and all thiS Just because it is a matter of the gloria Dei in the life of the new man, ut sibi in tota vita negotium cum Deo esse reputet (7, 2). It was in exactly the same way, and just because thev understood it in the strictest sense, not merely In terms of ethICS or reformation but as a return of Israel to its God, that at once and most emphatically the prophets interpreted it as a conversion and renewal in ~he practical, cultic: economic and political cond~ct of IsraeC as a radical alteration of the ruling SOCial relationships, so that Israel s great unwlllmgness for conversIOn was seen by them above all in its obstinacy in respect of human relatIOnships.

Again, we cannot try to see and realise the conversion of man in a new movement and activity (whether purely inward or purely outward). Because God is for him, and he for God, it is a matter of his heart, his thinking, his will, his disposition and also of his consequent action and abstention on the same ultimate basis. It is a matter of his disposition and action together; of the two as a totality. Conversion in a separate inner or religious sphere, or conversion in a purely cultic or moral, political or ecclesiastical sphere, is not the conversion of man as it is set in motion by God. The conversion in which he returns to this peace embraces in this sense too the whole man. 2.

In explanation of the term tJ.ET<1.vo,a we may take as our starting-point the fact that literally it speaks first of a change of mmd, of a shift of Judgment, of a new disposition and standpoint. But we must be careful not to leave it at that. For this would be to reduce the term from its biblical meaning to that of a mere change of mind, possibly linked with repentance, which it bore in the Greek world. As against this, the avaKalvwa" roD voo, of Rom. 12 2 takes place within the comprehensive movement which is described in Rom. 12 1 as a 7TapaU'TfjUUL Tn aWfLaTa VJLWV Overlay 'waav aylav 7'ijJ eE~ EVap€UTOV. Tel (]wp.aTa .Vl-'WV means your bodies, i.e., your whole persons. Even the tJ.ETa~odv proclaimed by John the Baptist is a tree which at once bnngs forth frUits (Lk. 38 ). It extends (Lk. 3101 .) to the performance of very concrete acts in practical alteration of a prior human attitude. But again, it cannot exhaust itself merely III the performance of these or any other acts. It is here that the criticism of the prophets was brought to bear against an ostensible conversion suppo:rted. ~y. all kinds of wactice. \Ve have only: to t~lllk of the well-know.n prophetic cnt1cls~ of sacrifice, noting the context m which It appears, e.g., mHos. 61!·.. In thIS passage there is first quoted a pilgrim song of exemplary beauty, Illvltlng to a penitential service: "Come, and let us return unto the Lord; for he hath torn, and he will heal us; he hath smitten, and he will bind us up_ Afte~ tv:o davs will he revive us: in the third day he will raise us up, and we shall hV~ III his" sight. Let us seek earnestly to know the Lord. As soon as we seek him, we shall find him; and he shall come unto us as the ram, as the latter and former rain which refresheth the earth." How often this passage has served as a text even for Christian ministers on days of fasting and penitence! The only thing is that we often overlook the continuation, the answer given by the prophet, which is as follows; "0 Ephraim, what shall I do unto thee? 0 Judah, wb~t shall I do unto thee? For your love is as a morning cloud, and as the dew ~ goeth away. Therefore have I hewed them by the prophets; I have slain tbeh by the words of my mouth; and thy judgments are as the light that goetb fort t~ For I desired love, and not sacrifice; and the knowledge of God more than burn of offerings." What is lacklllg i-we might ask. There IS obVIOusly no lack ut deeds, nor of willmgness, nor rehglOus zeal, III the performance of them. B

4· The Awakening to Conversion

565

there is lacking in this case, not the outward but the inward thing which makes the II10vement In which they are engaged conversion-the true and radical and persl~tent love In whIch thiS willingness and its achievements must have their basIs If they are to have any meaning. For a more radical and extended version of thIS passage we might well think of 1 Cor. 13 3 : "And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and ~~ou.gh I give my body to be burned, and have not love, It profiteth me nothIng -It has nothing to do with conversion.

3· We cannot ~ake the conversion of man into a purely private mat~er, as thoug? It ~ere only a concern of the individual, the ordering of hIS OWJ.l relatIo.nship to God and his neighbour, of his inward and ?ut:vard hfe, of hIS. OW? achievement of pure and essential being. It ~: ng~t t? eml?hasls~ I.tS pe.rsonal character, its singularity, and the !:solatIon m whIch thIS mdIvIdual must perish as the man he was and can. and may become ?e.w. But we m~s~ remember at this point the baSIs on whIch alone, If It takes place, It IS an affair of the individual Th~ biblical individual is not selfishly wrapped up in his own concerns: It IS a ~atter of God-~hat God is for him and he for God. But to say G.od IS to mak,e ment~on ?f the name of God which is to be hallowed, the kingdom of God whIch IS to come, the will of God which is to be do~e on earth as it is d?ne i~ hea:ren.. That God, the Subject of this un.lvers,:l mystery,
5 66

§ 66. The Sanct£jication of Man

promised personally to each individual. It is a happening which applies particularly to him; which reaches to the heart and veins, the bones and marrow, of this or that particular man, And there is biblical precedent in the Book of Proverbs for what becomes so important in the later Church as the individual cure of souls. In general, however, we cannot overlook the fact that in the Bible the call for conversion is usually addressed--even when it is in the singularto a plurality of men, to the people Israel, to J acob-Israel in its totality, to Jerusalem or Ephraim. We have to remember this especially in Deutero-Isaiah, where many statements are formulated in the second person singular and seem to call for an understanding in terms of an individual application, To be ~ure, they can and should be read in this way too, But in so doing, we must not lose sight of the original meaning in which they are addressed to a people, The preaching of the Baptist opens with a general /l-€TaVO€
4. We cannot understand the conversion of man as a matter for only one period in his life, which others will follow in which he can look back on what has happened quasi re bene gesta, or in which he might have to repeat it at this or that specific point, the prior or intervening times being periods in which he does not live in conversion, either because he is already converted, or is in need, and capable, of conversion but is only moving towards it. If it is the revealed truth that God is for him and he for God which necessitates his conversion and sets him in this movement, the movement is one which cannot be interrupted but extends over the whole of his life. It is neither exhausted in a once-for-all act, nor is it accomplished in a series of such acts. Otherwise how could it be an affair of the whole man? It becomes and is the content and character of the whole act of his life as such. Certain moments in the totality of the fulfilment of this act, certain impulses and illuminations, disturbances, changes and experiences which we undergo at particular times, may have the meaning and character of a particular recollection of its total content. But sanctification in conversion is not the affair of these individual moments; it is the affair of the totality of the whole life-movement of man. To live a holy life is to be raised and driven with increasing definiteness from the centre of this revealed truth, and therefore to live in conversion with growing sincerity, depth and precision. As seen by contemporaries the Reformation of the 16th century began on October 31, 1517, when Luther nailed his theses on indulgences to the door of the Castle Church, Wittenberg. The first two of these theses were as follows,: (I) Dominus et magister noster Jesus Christus dicendo " penitentiam agite, etc."

omnem vitam fidelium penitentiam esse voluit.' (z) quod verbum de penitentJa sacramentali tid est eonfessionis et satisfactionis, que sacerdotum ministerio eelebratur) non potest intelligi, We have substituted the word conversion for what

4· The Awakening to Conversion

567

Luther called penitence because the latter t 1 '. hons which link the matter under discussi;~:~:ostlllev1tably evokes associaonce-for-all or repeated). Now momentar a momentary event {whether Romanist form of the reception of th y events of th1S kllld~lther III the and Methodist form of a sl'm 1 e sacrament of penance, or III the Pietist , p e or more complex exp' f ' not 1dentical with conversion to God becau th enence 0 converslOn-are movement of sanctification which d;m' t se de latter 1S the tota!lty of the movement in which there can be billakes an charactenses human life-a no rea s or pauses h " longer needed or only needed afresh b t h h ,wen converSiOn 1S no it for the second or third, or hund;ed~h ~,:; e m1ght also propose to fulfil understood sacramentall e ' " No matter whether they are kind, and all the specifi!iit::~:~~na~~ or et~l1cally, individual moments of this and achievements of penitence can b expe~len~es and confl1cts and confessions inent moments in the whole Iife-move':n~:t~~s ood only as particularly promthe we can hardly lack such moments, none of themo:n old to the new man, If w1th such precision that its specific content c b be fix~d, let alone eshmated, happenlllg in which we become saints of G ~n e ::~pons1bly 1denhfied wIth the in motion from this centre, If the latter ~ake W1 our con,verslOn as it is set S and not in the whole context of human I'f 't d place only III these moments, T t l e, 1 oes not take place at all o conver , fL.-ram.iv, in the sense of the B ' : does, of course, include the new be innin aphst and the synophc Jesus It also includes all kinds of action gcomm~:~e~U~t~ !lfe ~t a parhcular time, respect we have already recalled Lk 31Of' I t' parhcular hme, In th1S d ' ' m re a lOn to Joh re fer to what we said on the subject of d's' I h' B n, an we may also is differentiated from the well-know~ Clp ~s ~P'hl ut New Testament /l-€TaVO€
§ 66. The Sanctification of Man

568 "

d I tand at the door and knock: if any man hear well-known verse: Behol, I s'll tl in and:.vill sup with him. and he with my voice. and open the door. tWh~ com to~dav that is the" overcomer" who " (20) It IS he who does IS now. J'. . d th' me 3.· A d th Spirit tells the commumtles that they are to 0 IS. shares HIS glory. n e • . d 'ng He tells them then-and m thIS and to be overcomer.s. VIctorS, ~nc~~te~~ of the present day can only be that consists theIr /l.ETavoELv-:-that:=h ' t on Iy in a steadfast and responsible moving of the first day; that It can "onSlS g forward from this beginnin f t th t Paul uses the terms /l.ETavofiv and /l.ET
t

c:: h

which is constantly renew~d. h to onsider what has always been regarded In this context we ~ut t6P~~ al~ tel~ us plainly and sharply that there can as a difficult passage, e.. e once it has taken place, it determines be no repetition of c':JllVerSIOn eC~llsh' brooks of no interruption. It is instructhe whole life of man m ~ proces~ w IC nd ex lained in the passage. The section tive to consider how thIS IS es~asb~~~:~~ristia~s should leave behind (aq,€VT€S) the opens In v. ra wIth a su~m,o ~ f the beginning which Christ has made problem (AOYOS) of the aPX'\XP~~TO~e~n solved and decided. We must not act wit.h us, as on~ which has a;e in~in with Him. Instead, we should resolutely as If we had stIll to make a eg g 'd b Him from this begmnIng made and decidedly allow ourselves to be cartned IYn other words we should be con. h d h'ch He has appom e . , wIth us to teen W I " , , w dJa. We should, thus refram (vv. stantly in mov~ment,1"'" :'1~;;;~w;;;~~1=~i:rr with answers to questions which rb-z) from trymg to . ay . . as thou g h it had not been made, as though grop~ back beyond thI~ b~~~:r:fhOugh we had still to posit it. Some of these we dl~ not come fr.om It,. H i it that I have turned away from dead works? questIOns are n::entI?n~ o~;at is the meaning of my baptism? Is there a How can I belIeve III o . t ' t by eternal judgment? In themselves resurrection of th~ dead? ~~fi:~l:e~:stions-andit is not for nothing that these are all pOSSIble and JUs qt' d But they can be raised only as ' ' t h first to be men lOne . . that of e been answere d a Irea dy . And they must be set aSIde . /l.ETaVOta h' h IS h I as questIOns w IC fit ~~e to the extent that they represent the ,attempt to al ~ Idle and unpro a e t t that they are posed in the VOId. where the apX'] fresh foundation; to the ex en . nd faith and baptism, and the XpurroiJ, ~nd t~mf~re a~:~e~~n::{;I~~, f:ture pos~ibilities. "This. will we res';,rrec~lOn~an JU, ugmen. the resolute continuation in v. 3. We Will lea:ve do (Kat TOVTO 7TOt'l ofL€V) IS f h f o u dation which is in any case a futI!e behind us the attempt to Jay ,~ ::~ do n~t have' to do so. We will ~et all th.IS attempt, SInce we dId not ay 1 r s the oal .. if God permit: We Will in the past and move constantly to~ae ddom t; do' it. If we have the freedom. do it. But of oursel:,es we have n~:d e But according to vv. 4- ' we can count 6 we have it only as It IS gIv~~ us l~y nati~e of falling behind is quite impOSSIble. on this freedom because e ~ .e\ ldl assumed that we are among those who For who are ;veh : :ho have tasted heavenly gifts,

b

d,

ou;

I~ ::~:-;;.~~ :~r a~l,

';;hO/~~~

~;: :::~ee;:!ta::: of theldHtolyco~ost~:~~ayv:n~s~~stt~~~~~~:~rou~selves and the powers of the wor e. 0

4· The Awakening to Conversion

569

as such. For us a such it is quite impossible (v. 6) that as those who have fallen behind or away (7Tapa7TEaovTES) we should come afresh to conversion (avaKa
57°

§ 66. The Sanctification of Man

proroganda est homini Christiano (Instii. III. 3. 2). Believers know that this warfare (militia) will end only with their death (3, 9).

We may sum up as follows. By the revealed truth that God is for him and he for God, the whole man is set in the movement of conversion. It is for this that he is awakened in sanctification, and it is in this that his raising of himself consists. In every dimension we have to do with the whole man, as already explained in detail. In the light of this conclusion, we must now go on to make a second main proposition-that in this movement we have to do with a warfare, or, to put it a little more precisely and less dramatically, with a quarrel, or falling-out. It is a pity that there is no English or French equivalent for the very useful German word Auseinandersetzung, which exactly sums up what we have in mind. Of course, it is a word that has to be used very cautiously and selectively in theology. We cannot wish to fall out with God. with Jesus Christ, with the Holy Spirit. We can only be glad and thankful that God is on our side. It is also better not to fall out with Holy Scripture or the Church as the communion of saints. And it is better that there should be no falling out in our relationship with our neighbours. But there is every cause-and it is with this that we are concerned in the present context-to fall out with oneself. It is just this that the man engaged in conversion can never cease to do. It can and must be said that his conversion consists in the fact that he is seriously at odds with himself.

We cannot overlook the fact that in the fulfilment of this movement a man finds himself under a twofold determination. The first consists in the powerful summons to halt and advance which is issued, and by which he is set in this distinctive movement, in virtue of the fact that God is for him and he for God, and that this fact is clearly and powerfully revealed to him. In this determination he is the new man; the man who is impelled by the Spirit of God, to use the phrase of Rom. 8 14• In this determination he repents and renounces what he previously was and did, leaving his old way, abandoning himself as he was, boldly enterprising a completely new and different being and action, entering a new way, affirming and apprehending himself in the future which thereby opens up for him-and all this, commensurate with the powerful cause which sets him in this movement, in the unqualified totality of his existence and being as a man. But the second determination under which he finds himself consists in the fact that it is still he himself who is wholly placed in this movement and constituted the one who makes it. It is he himself, i.e., the one for whom this call to halt and advance previously had no meaning or power. As he gives himself to enter this way, he comes from the old way. He repents, but he does so as the one who previously knew nothing of repentance. He boldly enterprises a new being, but he does so as one who previously had no boldness to do so. He affir;ns and apprehends himself in the future indicated by this cause whIch

4· The Awakening to Conversion

. I 57 1 e ffectIye y moves him, but he does so as th . Even III the turn which he executes at the o.ne w~o has usa hIS past. of this happening he is never witho~t his every eart of the pres.ent p~lled by the Spirit, he is still in the flesh 01~:~te~:;ay[.t~ea~y Imd t e new man, but he is still the old. Onl in art ~ . e IS a. re.a y e:c tent ? O~ly in respect of certain reli!s? PTh' Only to a lImIted nght when III relation to the sinful ast a e ol?er ~heology was the present of conversion it referred to t~ man a~ It stIll l?ersists in old r:ran, of the flesh and its sinful .e remaIll~ or relics of the remams that the being and action f actIOn. It IS. only as sorry m~natt~on caBn be. seen and understoo~ i~at~eU~~~~ ~~I~~:C~~s~ ~e~er­ mma IOn. ut It was an unfortunate d I ' '. e erregarded as fortunately smaller in relati~:s~~n If t~~. remnant was better. On the contrar'f . . some lllg other and ~a~ we ~ill be in seriow;~~n:e:s~~~/u~~~~~:t honest ~ihth °furselves con~ea ~ e act that It IS agam the whole man with who ' that it is still the whole man who :::r;e ~~ye to do 10 thIS residuum; ~n puzzling contrast with himself under ~~e ~:s~ec~~d determination is IS confronted by that call to halt and ad .hemaD: who .to-day movement, in the totality of his eXist::c:c~n~ ~ ~o-dab IS shet m that ful truth that God is for him and h f . elllg, y t e powerin the totality of his existence and ~e:-gG~:, I~ ~ls~ to-day, and again Thus in the to-day of repentance we h~ve ens~~ ~nlman of yes~erday. presence of certain regrettable traces of h' b' Y to do wI~h the yesterday. No, the one who is under th IS e~ng .and actIOn of process of becoming a totally new m . e. deht.ermllla~IOn and in the of yesterday. an IS m IS totalIty the old man

The situation can be understood th f . terms. In the twofold determination'of t~re ore, only m !he following we have to do with two total h e man engaged III conversion . men w 0 cannot be .t d b um e . ut are necessanly in extreme contradiction W mutually exclusive determinations.' e are confronted WIth two It is worth pointing out that Calvin did '. the new and the old in the 1539 edition of t~otler~eIve thIS relatio'lship between e to do so by 1559. In the former case he k ~stItutes, but had obviously corne o tion remains subject to the yoke of sin si .: 0 a ~ars nostri which in regeneraThe soul of the believer is thus divided ni~tow~ clIng to an aliquod de vetustate. other lIke two wrestlers (duo athZetae) the parts WhICh confront each although attacked and hampered b him ne emg stronger than the other, belIever strives after God hI"S sup Y p' PraeClpuo cordIS voto et affectu the , enores artes fo11o' th S . . and condemns the evil which per lOmb 'IZ"t t wmg e pmt. He hates " " eCl 1 a em he still c " t " 1 f h' h ommI S. He can Sill consC10 1sly only III face of the oppositio IS by this fact that the regenerate is di£f:r~ t' I~ d e~rt and conscience. And it the corresponding point in I howe n 1:' e rom the unregenerate. At abandoned (Ill, 3, 9 i"). Th~5~id and Vt~~ ~:I~ w~ole mterpretation has been two parts m the being of the regenerate Th Ii sm and grace, are no longer mere infirmitas, still present and active i~ the ~ 1" omanrst Ideas of fomen mali. a oPPOSItIOn even to Augustine and in st . t e lever havenow dIsappeared. In • rIC agreement WIth Paul, Calvin now

0 ;;0

57 2

§ 64. The Sanctification of Man

speaks of the pravitas peculiar even to the regenerate, of the sin which dwells in him too, and which can obviously be met, not by something higher (the superiores partes) in himself, but only by the new man as such, who is begotten of the Spirit, It is clear that on this basis-but only on this basis-what Calvin said about the justification and forgiveness needed by even the regenerate is possible and necessary and cogent in the strict sense intended, If, on the other hand, the saints are in some degree not sinners, we can hardly avoid the conclusion that to this degree, in respect of the stronger of the two wrestlers, they no longer stand in need of justification,

Luther's simul (totus) iustus, simul (totus) peccator has thus to be applied strictly to sanctification and therefore conversion if we are to see deeply into what is denoted by these terms, and to understand them with the necessary seriousness. It is certainly hard to grasp that the same man stands under two total determinations which are not merely opposed but mutually exclusive; that the same man, in the simul of to-day, is both the old man of yesterday and the new man of to-morrow, the captive of yesterday and the free man of to-morrow, the slothful recumbent of yesterday and the erect man of to-morrow. But there is no easier way of seeing and understanding the matter. Static and quantitative terms may seem to help, but they are not adequate to describe the true situation. They involve a separation into constituent elements. It is true that the situation seems to cry out for this separation. It seems to be much more illuminating if, instead of saying that the whole man is still the old and yet already the new, in complete and utter antithesis, we say that he is still partially the old and already partially the new. But if we put it in this way we mistake the matter. For the new man is the whole man; and so too is the old. And conversion "is the transition, the movement, in which man is still, in fact, wholly the old and already wholly the new man. We are badly advised if we abandon this statement because we fear the severity of the antithesis. To do so, and thus to proceed to transform and divide the simul into a partim-partim, in which the old man of the past is sharply and a little triumphantly separated from the new man of the future, is to leave the sphere of the vita christiana as it is actually lived for a psychological myth which has no real substance. The vita christiana in conversion is the event, the act, the history, in which at one and the same time man is still wholly the old man and already wholly the new-so powerful is the sin by which he is determined from behind, and so powerful the grace by which he is determined from before. It is in this way that man knows himself when he is really engaged in conversion, But now we must go on to emphasise no less sharply that the conversion in which he is simultaneously both, is an event, an act, a history, The coincidence of the" still" and" already" is the content of this simul. Because this " still" and " already" coincide in him, it is not the simul of a balancing or co-ordination of two similar factors. Nor are the positions of the two moments which are simultaneously

4· The Awakening to Conversion 573 present-the old and the new man-in an ' On the contrary, they are wholly and utterl: d~:~,se'lmterchange~ble. order and sequence in this simul There' d' ~ml ar. There IS an to a goal. The old and t h ' IS ,lrectlOn-the movement , emwman~@m~ I ' the relatIOnship of a terminus a quo d t ' aneous Y present m conversion, in which at one and th an a ~rmtnus ad quem. Thus man and already the new and both e ~a~e tm~e we are still the old a jug~Iing nor a moveme~t in a circ; a / an altogethe~, is neither that It is initi~ted by the divine com~an~ :cc~rfance WIth the fact man engaged m it finds that-with . ~ . a t a~d advance, the is wholly denied as the old man of no fO~Iblht~ of mterchange~he the new man of to-morrow' that h y~s erhaft an wholly affirmed as with the former and wholl; set in i~ ISt ~ a :y ~aken out of identity is in n? sense taken seriously by Go~:~ ~h:l:or~he latter; that ,he ~nquahfied, seriousness by God as the latter' tha er but taken WIth IS wholly gIVen up to eternal death a d th' I t as the former he into etern~l life. ,When ~e is SimuItan~ou~~y t~e ~~~e:~ho~ly taken up ~nd bot~ m to,ta~ty, he IS not only forbidden to b . ~ e new m,an, m a statIc eqUIpOIse of the two' he find- th t thO e.thls ,m neutrahty, in practice. He can be the tw~ only in~ th a h 1~ IS qUI~e impossible one to the other, We speak of thl'S t . e w hO e turnmg from the.' . urnmg w en We spea k a f h'IS ' converSIOn, And we emphasl'se th e senous an d radi I t, wh en we speak of the twofold total d t '. ca na ure of It in it. , e ermmatlOn of the man engaged In these circumstances the thought of f Iii . best to describe the situation To be in ~ n?,-o.ut ,IS perhaps the coincidence of the" still" and' th " 19 dWl,~h, It mdlcates that the , e a rea y of th ld new, of the homo peccator and the ho ' t e o man and the , mo sanc us cannot ' I IS true that there is no present in which I 'k remam. t in which the man engaged in conve ' ,:e can 00 beyond this simul, of sin and wholly under that of rac:SIO~ IS not, wholly under the power ised by the content of the two dget '. et~ he IS ~ot merely not author, ermma IOns comcid' . th' , 'f I mg m IS stmul, nor IS he merely prohibited but he ' standing this simul as som'ething 1~~B~gSI alvnedYdPfire':'te,nted from under' h e h as no contmumg . , city If 't ' e III Ive. To his own sal ' va t lOn, at any time see beyond this simul it i- 1 IS true that we c~n ~ever m virtue o~ its dynamic as a mom~nt i; :~u~~~ true that thl~ stmul, and man WIth God, points beyond itself im pe Iii ory of God WIth man decision between the two total dete .' t· ngh~o the only possible rmma Ions w Ich no "d' man, . ,H e cannot remain what he t'll' , . S 1 IS tn toto H W ComCII e m b, e thIS m face of what he already is in toto A d he can no onger In toto" he may become and be in such a ~; n w at ~e al~eady is ,(excludmg what he still is in toto), What in t~ th~t h~ IS ~hls alone m conjunction as a twofold determl'nat' f s StmullS stIlI present IOn 0 one and th ' cannot b y ItS very nature remain in this c ' , e same man and movement and impulse is to fall out OnltuncftIlOln, Its whole will or a a apart, and to do J

§ 66. The Sanctification of Man 574

' " so In the content 0 IS or re-stabilised

,

I d'ff

t

c 11 characterised by the radIcal y 1 eren not dualistically in division WO • f old man and a new a SInner and ~O-~xlste~ce 0 an, d death and' definitive end ,

drt~,tJ~n u~;ldu~:~e:Jnation;

~

~~~td,,~,:~,'ra~n~::~:e~~£lai::~i~t~~::::t:~~~~;~~:no~~:~~a~~

exclusIve, lU?comhP h a man finds himself engaged in converSIOn-as he the quarre III W IC h he has

:~of~~l:~l~~h~~~h~~~~~ ~~~ti~~~a~~t~~~;ir//~ ~~:~:~r;-~~~t~:

end and goal of the dispute IS t~at he can no anger was and can be only the one he wIll be,

e

e

, " (li ht-darkness, etc,), and the alternative The great antmomles In ) ohnff gd d ath of the old and putting on and expressions of Paul (the puttIngtO an d ~onflict between the Spirit and the rising of the new, or the opp~)SJt~n an exion We have to reflect that the flesh), may again be rec,alle~,In IS o~o~~e pre~ent of the community and its New Testament speaks In t IS ~aYof Christ) The references are all to the life members (the members of the bo y 'iven to understand that the one of believers, the regenerate, We ~r~ n~~~~e~sion the Christian man, is seen determination of the man engage J In, h past and the other only as his future, and regarded only as hIS heathenfobr l~wls the' Chrl'stian present which is here ' t ' the life 0 e levers, ,'" I On the contrary, I IS ' t h l' ht of this twofold determInatIOn, as Il uspitilessly but resolutely set In't' e Ig d promioes of the Epistles, Again, howtrated by the concrete, admolll I~ns ~n d that there will arise even momentarily ever, we are nowhere gIV,en to un ers an wo co-ordinated factors, Christians are a state of rest or eqUIpOIse as bet~een t 'se or co-ordination by the fact that forcefully ejected from any fan~eto ~~~~O~ery concrete warnings and promises in this s1mul there are addresse t I ced before or in a choice or deCISIOn, concerning their presen~, They :re n~lr~a~y made, a decision which has been but under a chOIce whIch has, ee~ The have been brought face to face resolved and executed, concernIng e;:, d y And it is a divine summons with a powerful summons to halt an ~ v~~~:h on the one side and life on the which has a total reference in b~t~ ~~sesst~ll are in their totality cannot contin~e other; in the power of whIch"'! ,a w;i~h therefore the old thing, their being m but only cease and dIsappear, m I I ced by that which they already are the flesh, cannot be ~omI?leted, ~~\O~rltreJt~ey ~an now walk only as those they in their totality, theIr bemg m t 'I P " the Spirit and not in the flesh. But already are, not as those they stIl are; In behind them and it is only what this means that what ,they stillt~:~IS are not engaied in conversi~n, n~r they are already that IS b~foreT t ' t sense if we are not involved In thIS are we Christians in the New ,es am:nnot me~el a matter of this or that on falling-out with ourselves In Wh~C~ I\~ on the on~ side and life on the otherthe one side or the other, but 0 ea g in this order and,with this teleolo n he raised as scriptural the traditional Calvin was nght, therefore, we, Jd vivificatio as Melanchthon and M. description of repentance as m;r7ficah~':n doctrine (III, 3, 3), But he added Bucer had introduced It mto d e o;m~ I He was obviously dissatisfied with th~ that it needs to be properly un r~rsc~~o' as a mere contritio cordis; a dolor an . scholastic understandIng of mo the knowledge of sin and ensuing jUdgmen~~ even a terror ammae on the grou. hlch 1 n sees that he is lost and wants to . a basic self-dissatisfactIOn III nan in self-despair, He was no less dlsdifferent; the Illward shattenng of rna _ ' reI the comforting of man satisfied with the understandmg of vwificatw as me : ce of God; his liftIng by faith in the light of the goodness and mercy an d "ra

:r::J:

h·

ntof

:v

4· The A wakening to Conversion

575

up of himself, and coming to himself, in relation to the promised salvation in Christ, There is nothing wrong with these descriptions, in which the psychological aspect of conversion is considered and perspicaciously and on the whole accurately represented. But we may learn from Calvin himself (3, 8) why they are inadequate, This is obviously because they have to do only with the subjective and psychological side of the process, and therefore cannot do justice to the objective content of the weighty words mortificatio and vivificatio-no matter how strong may be the expressions used (consternatio, humiliatio and even desperatio), or how fine the description of the consolatio. By mortificatio, Calvin tells us in his own language, we have to understand totius carnis, quae militia et perversitate referta est, interitus. This involves the res difficilis et ardua of an action in which we have to put off ourselves like a garment, being forced to take. leave of our nativum ingenium. If everything that we have of ourselves is not done away (abolitum) , we can only suppose that interitus carnis, and therefore mortificatio, has not really taken place. Thus the first step to obedience is the abnegatio naturae nostrae; the abnegatio nostri which later supplies a title for the decisive chapter in his doctrine of sanctification. This, he believes, is what the Old Testament prophets meant by conversion. And by vivificatio-again in the sense of the prophets-we have to understand the fruit of righteousness, justice and mercy which grows out of the heart and soul and mind of a man who has been filled by the Holy Spirit with what may rightly (iure) be called a new thinking and willing. But Calvin returns at once, almost anxiously and with striking emphasis, to the first point. Because by nature we are turned aside from God, we will never do the right nisi praecedat abnegatio nostri. There can be no awakening to the fear of God, no initium pietatis, nisi ubi gladio Spiritus violenter mactati in nihilum redigimur. There is needed the interitus communis naturae (the nature common to all men) in the above sense if God is to be able to reckon us His children. Is not the impression left by this presentation strangely mixed? There can be no doubt that Calvin brings out with great clarity the literal seriousness of the biblical terms, and therefore the radical sharpness, the objective and strictly antithetical character, of the dispute with himself in which the man engaged in conversion finds himself, of the resolute falling-out or falling-apart which is involved (as opposed to a mere tension of two Opposing spiritual states, in respect of which terms like mortificatio and vivificatio might appear to be only rather exaggerated metaphors). Calvin was quite right When, renouncing all attempts at plastic representation, he spoke so inexorably of interitus, abnegatio and reductio ad nihilum, of the slaying sword of the Spirit, and then of the Spirit as the only principle of what may be seriously called a new life. There can be no objection to the radical nature of his presentation. Calvin points us most significantly to the height beyond all psychologising where the conversion of man is real and all the spiritual processes which attest it have their basis and superior truth. On the other hand, it cannot be denied (and the explanation is to be found in an even more deep-seated defect in his teaching) that the doctrine of Calvin obviously suffers (d. A. Gohler, op. cit.. p. 41 f,) from a curious over-emphasising of mortificatio at the expense of vivificatio which might be justified to some extent from the older but not from the later prophets of the Old Testament, and certainly not from what is understood by J1.€TaVOLa in the New. What we have called the divine call to advance is in Calvin so overshadowed by the divine summons to halt that it can hardly be heard at all. The result is that his prese!l.tation is not merely stern, as is inevitable, but sombre and forbidding. And this is quite out of keeping with the themes presented. It does not enable us to see the decision operative in the simul peccatoy et sanctus, the teleology of man's falling-out with himself. Man seems almost to be left in the air. The truth is that in the New Testament the real dying and passing and perishing of th,.. old man is matched by a no less real rising and coming and appearing of the

§ 66. The Sanctificat~'on of Man

57 6

4. The A wakening to Conversion

_

. . . of this the viviftcatio, that there can be also the new, and that ,t IS III the power '1 t the emphasis in statements llke , ' T t k nly one examp e, no e . morhficatw. 0 a e o . lf I t ' " of the Yes pronounced to I,nan m C 1 If. d Eph 2 . IS m VIeW . ' those of o. 3 an .. . • that there arises this fallmg-out with ourthe omnipotence of the dlYme ~:r~o to our being in the flesh. But this aspect selves and we hear the ,mexora d d t clearly emerge in the presentatIOn of , .' r ~ lace an oes no ' . 11 • IS not gIVen Its prope j J . f tl t th interitus of the old man IS what rea y Calvin. The ImpressIOn IS e t la ~ st to this the viviftcatio is introduced d matters in this happemng, an I~t ~~nn~~ for nothing that in the description of only as a pale and feeble hope. . h' so im ressive in the presentatIOn of the the latter we miss the reallsm whlc CIS1 . , tPrue intention-the emphasis falls , . d that---contrary to a vIll S k morttficattO, an ., ffi t Why is it that Calvin could not spea . on the rise of new cogttatwnes et ~ ee us. less radical and categorical-indeed, of the life of the new man III e~r;t~ r~~~tion to the death of the old? h more so---than those which e u~e ~dressed (in an even sharper form) to the The same questIOn has to : : H. F. Kohlbriigge (d. on this point W. ce doctnne of converSIOn advan,. Yb . H F Kohlbrugge 1936, esp. p. 90 f.). Kreck, Die Leiwe von der H~~~gt:;fheet re;t pietistic, rati;nalistic and romantic It must never be forgotten t .. gwas one of the few who revealed a precIse twilight of the 19th century Kohlbtrhugge ersI'on of man has its actuality and h' ht where e conv .. th f knowledge 0 e e1g . erful advocacy to the proposItion (mo.re origin. In the h?ht of thiS .he l~~e r~~at the renovation of man consists declsthan once expliCItly stated ma \ m 1d of sin In the light of the Law . . d deepemng k now e ge . ively m a growmg an " more and more corrupt, and more and more (Kreck p 98 f.) he becomes " "He is a great SaInt sinful, ~ntil he finally realises that ~e i~o~~:~~;t~~om:~~wsof himself only that before God, and the best ~oc6.0rda~iSl~cates th~ hips of His saints, SO that they O he is a great transgressor. h h' f God acquires an attitude and galt like ,saIll ' ts 0f walk WI'th a l'Imp. " That. w IC IS f0 11 through the world." , The sau Jacob's, whereas stndes po.werv~r ~hing is taken out of their hands . . . God can do nothmg m advance,1 e Y wisdom and even no faith when it is aClty of themse ves, n o , . "Th they h ave no caP f d t e mbling and hesitation and anXIety. e needed, but are full ~~ d~a~~nhid: the fact that they are not pious, and are pious are those who . G d" "Even when you are a hundred years prepared to live only by the PlOuhs o. f 1 and God will be the same merciful 'H' . ou WIll be t e same 00, . d h t old III IS serVice, y k d t·VI·t" and faith is of such a km t a ) " All my own wor an ac I J • h " God . (p. 94 . ith all the faith and works of all saints and patnarc s even If I were clothed wand stood before you with an unvarnished faith, I and prophets and apostles, d h ke it off like refuse in the presence of my God. should cast it all from me an s a k d" ( 95) Can we read all this without For there is grace only for t~es ~~ ~ur he~~ts-'-:and yet without also having to assentmg from the very dep, A t these propositions different from those 't' really true' re no . ' 1 th ask whet h er 1 I~. . ) t th extent that the mortiftcatto of whlc 1 ey of Calvin (to theIr d~sadv~ntage. 0d o~ a ain-for Kohlbriigge was a child of hiS plainly speak IS obVIOusly 1 ~onc~l~eeing u~derstood and described as a process of age-on the psychologlca eve, t' t ? And the res'ult is that Kohlbriigg e awareness of an extremely n;gabl~~l y~:lification that Calvin had abandoned: can take up agam a rather ou Idr q. ou may sink below the level of cattle " You may i~deed s~n ~I~~:re~~rsti~f~heypossibility of repentance and sorroW and demons ..... u . annot remain in it; we have the means to dea we cannot persist III It,. we ~ fl it ( .99 f.). And this has the further-resul t with it; we are to hate .It an eedesc~be the viviftcatio which begins beyond that conversely Kohlbrugg;s c~~ich make it difficult for us (because t?ey ar~ this self-humiliatIOn III ~e; 1) t t catch suddenly the ring of perfectlOms m . still on the psychologica eve nO l~e in the sight of God. I live before His I " Yet I live, says .theHbell~ver. Ilrve in His favour, light and love. I am judgment throne m IS brace. I

I

.E

i

577

perfectly redeemed from my sins. The ledger contains no debt against my name. The Law no longer demands, accu~es, or condemns. I am holy as my Father m' heaven is perfect. The whole good-pleasure of God embraces me. It is the around on which I stand the rock bv which I am sheltered. All the blessedness ~nd rest of God lifts and' bears me.. I breathe in it, and am eternally whole. I have no more sin; I commit no more sin. I know with a good conscience that I am in the ways of God and do His will, that I am wholly in accordance with His will-whether I go or stand, sit or lie, wake or sleep. Even what I think and say is according to His will. \Vherever I may be, at home or abroad, it is according to His gracious will. \Vhether I work or rest, I am acceptable to Him. My guilt is eternally expunged, and I cannot incur new guilt which will not be eternally expunged. I am well kept in His grace, and cannot sin. No death can kill me. I live eternally like all the angels of God. God will no longer be incensed against me and chide me. I am redeemed for ever from future wrath. The world will no longer touch me, nor the world entangle me. Who will separate us from the love of God? If God is for us, who can be against us ? " (quoted from Bonhoeffer, Nachfolge, p. 205 f.). Even though it is conceivable that in extremis a Christian may use the extravagant language of Kohlbriigge both negatively on the one side and positively on the other, the fact remains that with him as with Calvin the emphasis falls on the negative side, on the destruction of all our own holiness even as Christians, on the annihilating attack on all forms of self-righteousness, even the most refined, even those which appeal to the grace of God, to Christ, and to the Holy Spirit. Once we have read Kohlbriigge, we can never again forget this attack, and we shall be grateful tllat he has conducted it so radically. In some of his disciples the matter was pressed almost to the point of becoming a triumph for the publican and sinner, who almost jubilantly flaunts his self-consciousness as such and looks down on the poor pietists and others. This would never have happened, and the attack itself would have been more serious and lasting in its effects, if Kohlbriigge had been in a position to offset his exposition of mortificatio by a no less (and even more) powerful exposition of the corresponding viviftcatio. Not, of course, in the form of " a depiction of Christian character" (Kreck, p. I02) and the like, which rather strangely he did attempt on one or two occasions, and rather pregnantly in the passage quoted above, but in the form of an exposition of the law of life under the rule of which a man finds himself when his own autonomy is irrevocably brought to an end. It is the power of this law which distinguished the attack from the mere assault of a half-depairing, half-complacent defeatism which it might easily seem to be as represented by Kohlbriigge. It is this power which makes it serious, effective and helpful, leading man to the humility of the genuine publican, not the arrogance of the false publican who is really in his own way a Pharisee. It is because and as God issues the command to proceed that He also issues the command to halt, and not conversely. He kills the old man by introducing the new, and not conversely. It is with His Yes to the man elected and loved and called by Him that He says No to his sinful eXIstence, forcing him to recognise that we are always in the wrong before God. This is what is obscured, or at any rate does not emerge clearly, in the discussions of both Calvin and Kohlbriigge, where the accent is placed on the other side. Both of them knew the superior place from which alone there can be conversion, and therefore a serious dispute with oneself. But both failed to allow Its origin-in Jesus Christ-to speak for itself with sufficient force and clarity, and therefore to bring out the teleology of the dispute, i.e., the fact that viviftcatio is the meaning and intention of mortiftcatio.

'Ve must now speak more specifically of the basis and ongm of conversion, of man's awakening to it, and of the power which sets and keeps it in motion as his falling-out with himself. At the beginning C.D. TV-2-19

57 8

§ 66. The Sanctification of Man

of this discussion we described it as an axis w~ich establishes itself in the life of man, or on which his life is estab~Ishe~, so th~t he has to follow its movement in his own life and bemg, Its tur.rung aut~­ matically making his life a life in conversio~. We ~alled this dynamIc principle the power of the reality that G~d IS for hIm, and he for God, as this reveals itself to him and shows Itself to be the truth. Some elucidations are now needed in respect of this c~ntr~ of the pro~lem. We must (1) abandon the ?~re of t.he ~XlS :mth th~ magical or mechanical or automatic aSSOCiatIOns whIch It mIght conJure up, and call the thing intended by its pr~p:r name. ~~en Paul speaks of a man led to conversion by the SpIrIt of ~od, It IS not at all the c~se that he is betrayed into the sphere and ~nfluence of an overwhelmmg impulse with the alien movement of w~Ich he. has to co-operate and by which he nolens volens sets himself m totalIty und:r that t-;ofold determination as an old and new man, and therefore m t~at dIspute 'th h' self It is true of course, that it is by the ommpotence of WI 1m., d t ' thi t s m0.vemen . God that he is awakened to conversion an ~e m But the omnipotence of God is not a force which works magI~ally or mechanically and in relation to which ~an can b~ only an obJect, an alien body which is either carried or Impell:d, like a. spar of wood carried relentlessly downstream by a gre~t. nver. It IS a matter ~f God's omnipotent mercy, of His Holy SpIrIt, a~d therefore. of ~an s liberation, and therefore of his conversion to bemg a~d action m .the freedom which he is given by God. To be sure, there I~ a ~ompuls~on. He must pass from a well-known past to a future WhICh IS only Just . up, " to a land that I shall shew thee'" openmg . ' from himself h hito the old man to himself as a new man; from his own de~t to s 0:vn true life. There is necessarily a compulsion. No que.s~IOn of a ChoIce can enter in. He is not merely set in, i.e., before a decIsIOn. He makes the decision looking neither to the right hand nor to the l~ft, nor especially b~hind. But the compulsion is not a mere comp~lsIOn. It is not abstract. It is not blind or deaf. We h.ave to realise tha~ a mere compulsion is basically evil and dem~mc. The cO~pulsIOn obeyed in conversion is not of this type. It IS the cO~pulsIOn o\a permission and ability which have been granted. It IS tha~ of t e free man who as such can only exercise his freedom. The o~mpoten~: of God creates and effects in the man awakened to conVerSlO? a tr _ ability. He who previously vegetated to. death unde.r a hellish co m pulsion, in a true compariso? with the dnftwood carned dow~strea~~ ma now live wholly of hImself and be a man. T~e . commg, t s op!rting up of this" may" is the revelation ?f ~he .dI,,:me summ.o~ to halt and proceed; the power which makes hIS lif:.hfe m conversI~l . Because and as he is given this permission an~ ablhty~ he necess;i~J stands at this point. He must leave ~hose thmgs whIch ~re be ard and reach forth unto those things whIch are b.efore, pressmg tow In the mark (Phil. 313f .). It is for this that he IS freed, and free.

4. The A wakening to Conversion

579

this freedom there has been taken from him once and for all any mere choosing or self-deciding. In the exercise of this freedom-still as the man he was, already as the man he will be-he fulfils his conversion. Calvin was well aware of this (III, 3. 21): singulare esse Dei donum poenilentiam. He rightly recalled that when the Christians in Jerusalem heard what Peter had to say in Ac. II, "they glorified 'God, saying, Then hath God also to the Gentiles granted repentance unto life" (/L£To.voLav £is 'w~v, v. 18); and 2 Tim. 2 251 ., where Timothy is exhorted to instruct in meekness those that oppose themselves, hoping that God may give them" repentance to the acknowledging of the truth, and that they may recover themselves (lit. become sober) out of the snare of the devil, who are taken captive by him to do his will." He also observes with justice that it would be easier to create ourselves as men than proprio marte to assume a new nature. But this is what is at issue in Eph. 210. We are created by God unto good works. Quoscunque eripere vult Deus ab interitu. hos Spiritu regenerationis vivificat. Penitence is inseparably connected with the faithfulness and mercy of God. According to Is. 59'°, He is the Redeemer of Zion, who comes in and with conversion from transgression in Jacob. But if the case is as Calvin saw and stated it, it is hard to see why his penitential teaching as a whole could and should become that sombre picture in which the main features are the thunderings and lightnings of mortificatio. On his own presuppositions, ought he not to have described vivijcatio as God's opus proprium, and mortificatio only as its reverse side, God's opUs alienum? Why did he not do this? Who authorised him almost completely to conceal what is from its very basis and origin the clear and positive meaning and character of conversion as liberation by giving to vivificatio only a minor position as the reverse side of mortificatio (A. Gohler, op. cit., p. 43)? Or who forbade him to understand the relationship as it is truly established by the basis and origin of the whole?

But as we enquire (2) concerning the specific character of the basis and origin of 90nversion, and therefore the particular nature of the awakening of man to it, we must take a step backwards. The dynamic principle of this movement is the truth, revealing itself to man, that God is for him, and that-in virtue of the fact that God is for himhe is for God. It is this truth which frees him for God, and therefore for that dispute with himself. It is this truth which kills and makes alive. Thus in its origin and basis, at the superior place where it is set in motion, the conversion of man is a decision of God for him which not only makes possible a corresponding decision of man for God, the free act of his obedience, but makes this act and obedience real, directly causing it to take place. If in this basis and origin the order were different, and the truth revealed to man were that man is for God, and therefore God for man, the truth would not make us free. It would simply be a demand that man should be what he is not free to be. It would then have nothing to do with vivificatio. For how can the man who is against God become a new man merely by being asked to make a decision which is quite alien to him and to be for God? But it could also have nothing to do with mortificatio. It might startle and frighten man, but it could not and would not in any way raise him out his existence as a sinner, or even affect this existence. It would simply be an abstract law-a law without any

580 § 66. The Sanctification of Man locus in a life fulfilling and embodying it, but merely advancing the arid claim that it is the law of God, and that as such it has the right to demand that man should be for God, and thus fulfil the condition under which God will also be for him. This abstract law has never yet led a man to conversion, even by killing him, let alone by making him alive. It has no power to do either. For it is not the living God, nor His quickening Spirit, who places man under this law. The revealed truth of the living God in His quickening Spirit has its content and force in the fact that it is He first who is for man, and then and for that reason man is for Him. God precedes therefore, and sets man in the movement in which he follows. He says Yes to him when man says No, and thus silences the No of man and lays aYes in his heart and on his lips. He loves man even though he is an enemy (Rom. 510), and thus makes him the friend who loves Him in return. As it is revealed to man that this is how matters stand between him and God-and this is what is revealed to him by the Holy Spirithe comes to have dealings with the living God and the quickening Spirit. He is awakened to conversion. He is plunged into the dispute with himself in which he dies as an old man and rises again as a new. In short, it is unequivocally and exclusively by the Gospel, the revealed grace of God, that conversion is effectively commanded as a radical termination and a radical recommencement. But effectively means as a gift of freedom, and therefore as the law of his own free act apart from which he has no freedom to choose any other. The law which he obeys has its locus in his life as it is freed by the Gospel. As the " law of the Spirit of life" (Rom. 82), it frees us, but in so doing it genuinely binds and engages us. It makes the divine summons to halt and advance quite unavoidable. It makes quite natural and selfevident the being in transition from what we still are to what we are already. This brings us to the deep reason for the difficulty which we have in following Calvin's doctrine of penitence-for all our admiration for its many excellent features-and for the similar difficulty which we experience in relation to that of Kohlbrugge. Was it not Calvin himself who told us that conversion has its origin in faith (III, 3. 2), that no one can seriously repent unless he knows God. and no one can know God unless he has first laid hold of His grace, that the preaching of repentance by John as well as Jesus derives its weight from, and has to be understood in the light of, the approaching kingdom of God? If only we could keep him to his statement about mortificatio and vivificatio (3,9) : utrumque ex Christi participatione nobis contingit. or to the section (3. 19) where he returns to the same truth: per evangelii doctrinam audiunt homines suas o»znes cogitationes. suos affectus. sua studia corrupta et vitiosa esse! But we cannot do this. He certainly does state unequivocally that it is the free and liberating grace, goodness and mercy of God revealed in the Gospel, His mighty Yes to man, which leads man to the Yes to God and to life according to H~S promise, and therefore to a No to self and to his previous life. But this line IS continually crossed by another which tells us (3, 7) that the fear of God. the thought of impending judgment. the dread of sin, the obligation to give God the glory which is owed, is the true principium. the exordium poenitentiae. and therefore

4. The Awakening to Conversion

58r

that which leads us to the knowledge of Christ (3,20). Is not this the very opposite of the earher vIew? And unfortunately, in face of the striking over-emphasis on mortificatzo, we can hardly maintain that in practice it was the first view which shaped his understanding of penitence. Why did he so morosely argue that vwificatzo IS not to be regarded as a joy (laetitia) , but consists rather in the studzum sancte pzeque vivendi ?-as though there were any necessary antithesis betwe~n the t~o, or as though this studium could have any other origin than in a great JOY. the JOy of the one who has been m'ade free for this zeal! Why does the .chapter which had begun so finely by relating faith and repentance end in sectIOns 22-25 With a rather Irrelevant ?iscussi?n of. the threatening sin against the Holy Ghost, and finally With a gnm remmder of king Ahab and similar examp,les of a. hypocritical and therefore useless repentance? In so far as Calvm s tea~hmg IS shaped by these considerations, finding the principium poen~tentzae In fear of God and its primary fulfilment in mortificatio, and thus acquIrIng a predomInantly sombre character, we can only say that, contrary to hiS own InitIal statements, he develops his doctrine in the light of a concept of law whiCh, cannot .be regarded as identical with the" law of the Spirit of life" of Rom. 8. And It co~ld eaSily be shown that the same is true of Kohlbrugge, who In thiS context (With Similar results for his total view) made explicit use of the con~ept of the law w~ich. kills as that which initiates the movement of converSIOn. ~hat conversIOn IS rea~ly a liberation, and how this is the case, is ,on:eth~ng which does not emerge With adequate clarity either in Kohlbrugge or m CalVIn. And ~ow can it possibly do so if we do r:.0t see and say that it has its baSIS and ongInIn the Gospel, or if we do not take this fact with true seriousness?

Finally (3), ~e. have to ask concerning the superior place itself and such where It IS a real ~a?t, and can thus emerge as potent truth the w?rk of the Holy Spmt, that God is for man and man for God. l:,verythmg that w,e .have so far said depends ultimately upon whether we ca? say tha~ thIS IS not a mere suspicion, or hypothesis, or construct, or ~xIOm of phI1osophic~1 metaphysics, or dogma of theology, but that It IS really the' cas~ WIth .unassailable objectivity. In other words, t~e ev~nt of revelatIon which has been our starting-point in all these dISCUSSIOns must be merely the manifestation of a real event which t~kes place with incontestable objectivity. It is in relation to this chmax that-to look back for a moment from the point we have just re~ched-all our previous statements have been made: about the pnmacy of the Gospel in virtue of which the decisive work of that e.vent ?f re.velation is the new life, the vivificatio, of man; about the h~eratIOn Impart~d to ~im i~ it; about the force and depth and teleo~ogy ?f the dIspute m whIch he fulfils this liberation; about the total~ty With which, awakened to repentance, he finds himself claimed and Impelled. How do we know all these things? How is it that we can treat them as a reality, and interpret this reality only as has actually been the case? On what basis have we thought and spoken about the totality of conversion, and reached our detailed decisions partly for ~nd pa!tly wit~out and even against Calvin, by whom w~ have espeCIally trIed to onentate ourselves in this field? ~he answer is qui~e.sim'ple. yv~ have merely taken seriously what Calv.m called the partzczpatzo Chrzstz, making it the ultimate foundation of hIS whole doctrine of sanctification. The actual event which is an ~s I~

582

§ 66. The Sanctification of Man

event of revelation in virtue of the enlightening work of the Holy Spirit, and as such sets in motion the conversion of man, is the Christevent. Jesus Christ is the climax, the superior place, where it is properly and primarily and comprehensively real, where it originally takes place, that God (vere Deus) is for man, and man (vere homo) is for God. If the conversion of man is the movement which is initiated and maintained from the point where this is primarily and comprehensively real, this is only to say that it has its basis and origin in this climax, in Jesus Christ. We ask how it may really come about that the divine summons to halt and advance breaks into the life of man, our life. And the answer is simply that when it comes about, then in the power of the Holy Spirit it is in virtue of the one man who is like us and near us as our Brother, but unlike and quite above us as our Lord, seeing that He has not merely received this summons to halt and advance primarily and properly and directly from God, but has properly and immediately and perfectly fulfilled it as a man, accomplishing it in the act of His own life and death. He, and in the strict sense He alone, is the One who hears and does what God summons us to do 'with His call to halt and advance. We ask where and when there has taken place, takes place and will take place, as an actual event, this movement of man in the totality and with the radical dispute in which the old man dies and the new arises, this liberation by God's free grace. And the answer is simply that in the strict sense it is an actual event only in Him, in His life, in His obedience as the true Son of God and true Son of Man. In Him it is an event which is effective and valid for many in the power of the truth of the Holy Spirit. But properly it is an event only in Him. We ask who is the man of whom we hav~ spoken continually as one who is engaged in conversion. And the answer is simply that in the true sense it is He alone. It is not He without those to whom He is revealed as such in the power of the Holy Spirit. It is He as their Head. But it is He, and He alone, as the origin and basis of the conversion of the many. Let us be honest. If we relate to ourselves, to you and me, to this or that Christian (even the best), that which is said about the conversion of man in the New Testament, and which we have to say with the New Testament, it will have the inevitable smack of hyperbole and even illusion-and the more so the more we try to introduce it, either by way of analysis or assertion, in the form of statements about the psychico-physical conditions or impulses or experiences of individual Christians or Christians generally, or in the form of general or specialised pictures of the Christian life. What are we with ?ur little conversion, our little repentance and reviving, our little endIng and new beginning, our changed lives, whether we experience theIll

4· The Awakening to Conversion

58 3

in the :vilderness, or the cloister, or at the very least at Caux? How feeble I~ th: rela~ionship, even in the best of cases, between the great categones m whIch the conversion of man is described in the New ~estament and the corresponding event in our own inner and outer hfe! How can we say, in relation to our own persons or those of others, that we or these others have come out of darkness into light that we have passed from death to life, that the old man has died and the new is risen, that we are in
584

§ 66. The Sanctification of Man

5· The Praise of Works

movements of our own inner and outer life, our hearts and ~ands, which we have to make and judge modestly and sober.l~, of which we h t to boast in which the great critical and posItIve movement a,,:,e no has m~de for us and with us must and will be r~flected, we can only attest this (i? the measure of fidelit which we are given and WhICh we h~ve to exercIse) .. It and. fy t k that in the whole capacIty of our ChnstIan remams or us 0 now . h H h f Ifill d . e as tu. e, eXIstence we are b orne b y the great movement WhiC d nd which far transcends all the measures of our movemen. s, an ~herefore as those who are His to love Him as the One who IS oursalways and wholly and exclusively in response to the fact that He has first loved us.

~::c~n ~~iCh

ser~ousness

5. THE PRAISE OF WORKS Works are primarily the acts and fruits of. human operation in contrast to the processes and products of orgamc nat.u~e. The ~er~ thus refers to history in the strict sense. As man e~s s as suc , orks His life is a sequence of conscious o~ unconscIO~s,. greaterkor important or less important, or And where can we define with any certamty or preCISIOn even limits indicated by these distinctions, let alone say that tdhe ,sequenc: . works IS . ever b ro k en.? "Oh may the soul do gooh e h' en as w f hIS b ," To our works there also belong, of course, t e t mgs we 01 with. all the of works in whIch our lIves conSIst can an WI ki f the life and death In the present context we are spea ng 0 . ' the works, of ments' of those who are sanctl e m e . ' . . l' hi d wakened by Him to converSIOn. diSCIp es .p, an ~ f h . k nd this will be the theme of our There IS a praise 0 t. elr wor s-a " raise" in the general fifth and shorter sub-sectIOn. We use the term ) d lause In f affirmation acknowledgment, approva an app . ril to the works'of praise refers in some sense to theIr partIcula\relat:o~~;~n~Son ~f Man is cretely to Jesus Christ, who as th~ tru~ Ion 0 and by whom they and their Lord and Head, to whom. t ey t e ~~~e " praise" of works can the works are measur~d. In thiS con ex ( ) that God praises them, have a twofold meanmg. It can mean. I . d it can mean affirming and acknowledging and approvmg th~m ,:n ledging and (2) that their works praise God, affirming an ac now y approving Him.

:mall~r

~e~~i:~;om do~ng,

~~~refore ~f ~:~:t~o~

im~osmg

ne~l~gIble wort;~

c?nsequenc~si~l~~:e~;Ok~~eO~~u:~~

Chris~ifiands ~cc~~di~o{yO ~~e p~:'i't~;\~t~~~

Chri~tians, ~he

o~ th~~e ~or~~ec~~s~o~

f "praise" wewhich rna For a New Testament illustration of the fi rs t sense °th . dgment . f C 6 where in relatiOn to e JU s think of the conclUSIOn 0 1 or. 4 , d' f G d Paul says: TOTE & <"alVO ersonally expect at the han s 0 o. f G d" An he also II1;a~ p ,. _ () €OV__" then shall every man have praise 0 O. Y£ll~aE''TaL €KaCTTctJ arro 'TOV

585

example of the second. sense is to be found in Eph. 1 12 , where it is said of Christians that they are elected and called and ordained of God Els TO €Tva, ~fJJis £ls <1rawov 8og7J s atlTO';, "that they should be to the praise of his glory." Both passages envisage only that the Christian with his action and its fruits will either receive praise from God, or be to God's praise. This is the more striking in 1 Cor. 4 5 because in this verse the context is that of future judgment. It might have been expected that Paul would speak of receiving praise or blame. But it seems to And in 12 be taken as axiomatic that we have all to expect only praise. Eph. 1 the possibility is never even considered that the works of Christians might serve the very oppo<;ite of the praise of God.

If we are to speak of the praise of works, we have to keep this twofold use of the term constantly before us. The two meanings converge in the fact that the works to which they refer are obviously good works. If they were not good-in a sense still to be fixed-they would not be praised by God, nor praise Him. If He praises them, this includes the fact that He finds pleasure in them as good works. And if they praise Him, this includes the fact that as good works they are adapted and able to do this. We might well have given to this subsection the more usual but hotly debated title" Good Works." We prefer" The Praise of Works" because (in this twofold sense) it at once tells us something definite and even decisive concerning what constitutes the goodness of works: that GQd can and will and actually does praise them; and that they for their part can and may and actually do praise Him. We may begin by saying in a very general way, and without detailed elucidation, that it is obligatory that ChristiaI1S should do good works in this twofold sense. They cannot be Christians, and belong to Jesus Christ as their Lord and Head, to no purpose. If they are sanctified in Him, and called to His discipleship, .and awakened to conversion, and engaged in conversion under His powerful rule, and if they are all these things in their lives and therefore in the sequence of their works, inevitably there will be in their works some element of the praise of God (in this twofold sense), and therefore of goodness. Otherwise the whole event of reconciliation, to the extent that it consists also in the conversion of man to God and therefore in his sanctification, would be quite futile. It would be in vain that the true Son of God became the true and royal man among all others, their living Lord. And we would have to add that the event of reconciliation would be futile even as God's gracious turning to man, even as the justification of man before Him; and that it would be all for nothing that even as true God Jesus Christ had taken our place and given Himself up for our sins. If there are no human works which are praised by God, and praise Him in return, and are thus good, in what sense can we speak of a real alteration of the human situation effected in the death of Jesus Christ and revealed in the power of His resurrection by the Holy Spirit? And how can our attestation of it fail to be pointless and empty?

586

§ 66. The Sanctification oj Man

But we may dismiss this hypothesis. The scriptural testimony to the great acts of God includes the witness to what has come and comes and will come to men in and with these acts of God. And to this clearly attested work there undoubtedly belongs also the existence of men who do in fact do good works (whatever we mean by this) ; who do works in which God takes pleasure, which have therefore a share in His praise and which also serve to praise Him. It is the case according to the Old and New Testament that words are not only required of specific men but spoken by them, that acts are not only demanded but achieved, that attitudes are not only expected but adopted: words and acts and attitudes which God can affirm, which for their partindicate an affirmation of God, and in which the turning of man to God takes place no less than the turning of God to man; good works which as such are clearly and sharply distinguished from other words and acts and attitudes as bad works. It is also the case according to the Old and New Testaments that a reward is promised for these works. The concept is eschatological, and we cannot discuss it in this context. We mention it only to emphasise the definiteness with which Scripture counts on the occurrence of good works.

The divine judgment on all men is very sharply formulated in the Bible-that all are sinners (even and especially the saints). The absolute dependence of all on the free grace of God is unconditionally recalled. Yet while this is the case, what man does and does not do is never described, either in a recognition of the universal sinfulness of man or an acknowledgment of the sovereign mercy of God, as a night which makes all things dark. Just because God alone is righteous and holy, not remotely but in His acts among and to men, there are also righteous and unrighteous, holy and unholy men, goodness and evil, good works and bad, in the life of each individual man (including the holy and righteous). We have dealt with the evil works of men in the previous section. Our present concern is with their sanctification. We are thus concerned with the fact that there are also good worksgood because they are praised by God and done to His praise. If we are to accept the witness of Scripture, we cannot ignore this, let alone deny it. Scripture not only trusts the God of the covenant, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit, that this will be the case. It attests it as a reality within its witness to God the Father, Son and Holy Spirit and His works. This must be our starting-point. In all that we say (foHowing the example of the Epistle of James) we presuppose the Pauline and Reformation doctrine of justification by faith alone without the works of the Law, as already understood and developed in C.D., IV, I, § 61. This gives rise to certain delimitations which we have consciously to bear in mind. No works, however good (even the best). have the power to justify before God the man who does them; to reinstate him in the right to exist before Him which he has forfeited, and continually forfeits, as a sinner; to make him a

5· The Praise oj Works

8

child of God' to earn for h' th . 5 7 try to do with this intentio~~nde fromlse of eternal life. Works which we may c and are not therefore ood works balm are as such works o.f an unbroken pride, the child of God and h~ir of eternal ri~eb~~l Man can be nghteous before God, m faith alone and not in any work and by. the pardon which he can grasp active and revealed in Jesus Christ-a w Ich IS that of the .grace of the God forgiveness of sins. grace which consists m the unmerited It thus follows that there is no man even . the doer of good (or the best) works, even the most saintly-who does not ness of sins and therefore of that pard d ~tand In lifelong need of the forgivethe faith which grasps that pardon ..o~h a~ Ishn.ot referred wholly and utterly to It follows further that because' man e. ~ut. IS that we are beggars" (Luther). of his works, as well as he himself t e~ls.s In the sequence of his works, each justification, and therefore of forgi~e~:s~ ~ I~ ~~ed, f as the work of a sinner, of mtlOn of God. His boast as the man wh n ~re ,are of the unmented recoggrace of God turned to Him-a grac h' °hdoes It, IS grounded only in the free and his works and acts and the fr .~ w f I~, can be related only in faith to man himself or his works immediatelv di~~:a~fi ISt~C~S. Any other glory ascribed to they may be the best, es e atter as bad works, even though Finally, since it is only in faith and not b d' . that we can seize our righteousness and th {' f Irect perception or appropriation our sins, even of those which we comm·t. ~h 0 bour works (as the forgiveness of concerning our right and wron and t~ III e est of our works), the final word versal and definitive revelationg~f th . of our works, IS reserved for the uninow await but in which we do not ee{U ~m~nt of G~~-a revelation which we before the judgment seat of Christ. rh rtlclpate. For :,e must all appear in his body, according to that he h' th ~ everyhone n:ay receive the things done 510). Our onl confiden a. one, w e~her It be good or bad" (2 Cor. the JUdge wh~ has exp~:e~n~i~:~~~~/~: ~f t~s ~eservation is .. that I expect away all the curse from me" (H 'd C t Q 0 e Judgment of God, and taken sight, even in respect of our ce~~~in ak~ U ~2). ietth we walk by faith, not by thiS Judge. ow e ge 0 e pardomng sentence of All this is behind us as we now 0 on t k not mean that it is forgotten or set ga'd 0 spea of good works. This does which we cannot cross again It is t~ e. On the <:ontrary, it is the frontier beneath us if we are to read ~ecurely. ~e~r~u~d ~hlc~. we must a.lways have no:, move away, so that it need not cra a ron ICr fro~ which we may which we may securely advance 0 mp o,r confuse us. It IS the ground on in general but to the good works' of t~r (;~e~t~?n does not relate to good works can be seriousl called d e n s ran, an? therefore to works which As a special fo~m of th~O~ue~~o~~r~~~u~~~s~t~ont,?f Justification by faith alone. to be recogmsed in its own ri ht and c I ca IOn of man, thIS question has Scripture so blatantly countsgon'th P?tt and answered, In VIew of the fact that e eXIS ence of good works.

?-

a;;

t

i

Ikt is a step .forWar? if we note that in the Bible the concept of wor or works IS applied' th fi t . th t f 11 III e rs Illstance, and decisively for all it ~s GO dOw~ t? the acts of God and their consequences. Primarily b o w 0 IS at work. And this shows us what is fact .that .man. is also at work. But the works of God ~::n~o y the IS .said pnmanly and properly of God Himself that "H g d. It thing that H h d e saw every"d . . e a made, and, behold, it was very good" (Gen 1 31 ) r·m pnmanly and p l ' t ' H' . . If th h roper y I IS IS works which praise their Master

themer~ :~: c:n~:;t:~~~~ ~o;~~;~~~~sc~~~~;aid, we have to seek

588

§ 66. The Sanctification of Man

That this is no mere surmise is proved by the fa~t that. according to the witness of Scripture the work of God stands m a .pnmary and basic relationship to man. It is, of course, a ~o~k whIch. em?rac~s all creation, heaven and earth and all that the:em IS. But I~ bmds It together. It directs it to a specific goal-Hl~ covenant WIth. mar:, H" n glory in this covenant and the salvatIOn of man. It IS HIS w~~:: the history of this covenant, in which the his.tory of the whole cosmos participates, and which constitutes the mean~ng and tru: content of the history of the whole cosmos. As creatIO~, accordmg to I'S the outward basis of this covenant, and thIs covenant !he G en. I, basis of creation, there begms " inward at once m an d WI'th creat 10n the history of this covenant, and ther:fore the proper work of God to which all His other works are subord~nate. ThIs .hIstory,. and therefore the proper work of God, emerges wIth the :lectI~n, callIng, I?reservation and overruling of the people Israel, m whIch, accord:ng. to t h e WI't ness 0f the Old Testament , there is heralded the.actualIsatIon . I . of the glory of God and the salvation of man. It attams ItS goa m the fact that God Himself becomes man and as such p~rforms t.hat · h IS . promi'sed , actualising His own . glory and man s .salvatIOn.d wh IC That this has taken place in Jesus Chnst, that all ~uman hIsto~y an that of the whole cosmos can only hasten to the dIrect a~d umversal and definitive revelation of this completed. w~rk of God, IS what the community which has derived from !srael m ItS Lord and Head no:" has to roclaim, according to the wItness of the New T~stament,. m the last~ime which is still left to its~lf and the w.orld. ThIs happemng in its totality, beginning with cre~tIon, proceedmg b:y way of the ~e­ conciliation resolved and accomplI~he~ m Je~us Ch:Ist,. an~ cu;lmmf g 'n the redemption awaited WIth ItS mamfestatIOn, thIS hIstory a /~hei covenant is the work of God which all His other works serve ~nd to which they are subordinate. It is the good work of God. He · elf to be good by nature , and proves H Ims '" therefore the source d h fand norm of all goodness, by the fact that thIs ~s H.IS work an t ere ore His will. It is the will of His goodness whIch IS her.e at w~rk. Go.d ordains that in all His holiness, righteousness and wIsdom, m all ~IS omnipresence omnipotence and glory, He Himself sh~uld be aCJI~e in this work ~hich has man as its aim and goa~. He ?-Id not nee .0 do so. He does not do it for Himself. He ~Ives HImself up to It~ In this work He is good in Himself 0,nly as H.e IS good to man, ac~~~ isin His own glory only with man s salvatIOn. He has to do . g. thI'S work He has turned wholly to man. He has even gIven man m . . . f H' ase Himself up to him. In a relentless compromlsmg 0 IS own c , He has addressed Himself wholly to the cause of man. We have first to consider again the work, the act and acts of God as the ~:i~ f His covenant with man; and Jesus Christ as the One ~ho co.mpletes ath o k " Come behold the works of the Lord, what astoundIng thIngs ~,e me wor 468) , Or as a summons to the whole earth: 0 done '.In th e ear'th" (Ps"

t

5· The Praise of Works

S8g

and see the works of God: he is terrible in his doing toward the children of 5 men" (Ps. 66 ). The complaint lodged against the careless in Jerusalem (Is. 12 5 ) is that" they regard not the work of the Lord, neither consider the operation of his hands." There can, of course, be no question, as we are told in Eccles. '6 8 -'7 , of fathoming and understanding and explaining this work in its totality, in relation to everything that takes place under the sun by day or by night. But it may be known-it makes itself known-at its heart and centre, as the history of the covenant of grace. "The works of his hand are verity and judgment; all his commandments are sure. They stand fast for ever and ever, and are done in truth and uprightness. He sent redemption unto his people: he hath 7 commanded his covenant for ever: holy and reverend is his name ,. (Ps. 1II !.). It is of this heart and centre of God's work, and therefore of the true and proper work of God, that Jesus speaks according to the J ohannine 17 saying (In. 5 ) : "My Father worketh hitherto, and I work," doing the work of my Father (In. I037), and He Himself working as He dwells in me (In. 14 'O ). The meat of Jesus-His very life-is to do the will of Him that sent Him, " and to finish his work" (In. 434 ). According to In. 17 4 He had already finished it, thus glorifying on earth the One who sent Him. The divine work in question is the actualisation of the covenant between God and man, the achievement of reconciliation, as heralded in Israel and proclaimed by the community. We must start with this as the completed good work of God if we are to see what is the possibility and actuality of good works on the part of man.

If there are good works on the part of man-and the Bible says that there are-we can state (without defining the matter more closely) that it is only in relation to this good work of God. What man does and achieves is thus in some sense bright and powerful in the light and power of what God does and achieves. The distinction of a human work is to declare the occurrence of the good work of God. A human work can do this, because God in His work always has to do with men and what He does does not take place at a distance from men, but among them. From first to last it is God's history with men and among them. Why, then, should it not be declared and, as it were, reflected in a human work? The works of the man Jesus show that human works are capable of doing this. The inner quality of man, not only by man's judgment but God's, is another question the answer to which is not decisive for the present question whether there can be a good human work which declares the good work of God, The man Jesus did the good works of His Father as He lived and died in our stead, in the place of sinners, in the flesh, in our character. We conclude that even a sinful man in his sinful work-and we are all sinners and all our works are sinful-may declare the good work of God, and therefore, even as a sinner and in the course of sinning, do a good work. " I shall not die, but live, and declare the works of the Lord. The Lord hath chastened me sore: but he hath not given me over unto death" (Ps. Ir8 1 ?!.). The people are chastened-the reference seems to be to Israel chastened for its sins-but even as such they are rescued from the death they have deserved, and may live, in order that they may proclaim the works of the Lord. The Lord is their strength and song, and has become their salvation, they have been told (v. 14)· And so they are those who according to Ps. I0731 " praise the Lord for his goodness, and for his wonderful works to the children of men"; who

59°

§ 66. The Sanctification of Man

have seen His wonders in the deep and whose soul melted because of trouble: " Th"v reel to and fro, and stagger like a drtlnken man, and are at their wits' E:nd ,,'(v. 24 f.). And so we may but should n~t be surprised that. after Paul has had to bring so many warnings and accusatIOns agamst the ConnthIans he can finallv address to them the supremely natural summons: "Therefore, my beloved brethren, be ve stedfast, unmovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord" (I Cor. IS"); and then again: "'Watch ye, stand fast m the faith, quit vou lik'e men, be strong" (16 13 ).. Evet.t in relation to the Connthlans the graunrl of the work of the Lord and faith ill It IS obVIOusly assumed to be strong enough to bear this ,;urious people, so that Paul has only to summon them. to stand fast on it and they will be a strong and manly people always aboundmg in God's work. There is absolutely no question of any work of their own, but only of what the fpyOV 70;; KVp{OV may do concerning them, an~ of. their own capacity for it as granted by this work. '\'e may appeal 111 elUCidatIOn ~o Tit. ZH. where it IS Said of Jesus Christ that I-Ie gave Himself for us to purIfy for Himself a people for Hio o\\n possession, zealous of good works. "Vhatever else it may mean for a peopk, the completed work of the Lord can cleanse It, thus making it a people which in spite of its sin may be used III HIS service.

It is evident that there can be no question of any meritoriousness of works, or of any glory in their achievement which ca~ .either be claimed by or ascribed to the one who performs them. ThIS IS equally the case ~ven when we are dealing with the less sinful and to that extent better works of someone who is not so notoriously a sinner. Works can be good only as they declare what God has done and ac~om­ plished--the goodness in which He has turn:d to ma~ and gIven Himself for him. That works are capable of thIS declaratIOn does not alter the fact that they are the sinful works of great or li~tle ~inners. It is with such men and their works that God has to do m HIS good work. If He is good to them, why should they not be ~ble to decl~re His goodness as the men they are ?-not, of course, WIth a capaCIty that they have brought, but because there is something to declare, i.e., because the good work of God takes place, God being good to men (to these men who with t~eir correspo~ding ~orks are not good), turning to them and interposmg and offenng HImself up for them. It is only in this context and relationship that there can be, and are, good works on the part of men. All the works. whi~h are called goo.d and described as good in the Bible take place m thIS context. .T~eIr goodness comes down from above into the human depths: It IS Imparted to them from above. Ar:d i? th~ .human depths It can only magnify the majesty of God to which It ongmally and properly belongs. Only that which comes down from above, from the divine wor~ of the f.ulfilled covenant, of completed reconciliation, into the human depths, IS accordlllg to Jas. 1 17 "a good and perfect gift." There can be no good human wo~k unless it has this divine work as its basis and source. Bad works--those WhlCh Eph 14 ci 5 11 calls" unfruitful" and Heb, 6' and 9 " dea.d " (which may Illclude a dea. faith, Jas. z17f.)--are simply works which do no t h ave thIS d"Ivme w ark as their the basis and origin. They are blind mirrors which do not reflect or declare nd work of God. They do not in fact take plaCt~, as they might, m thIS context ~on relationship. Conversely, the good action demanded by God III the Law-aC on the way continually proposed to Israel eqpecially i.n the Book of Deuteron omY O

5· The Praise of Works

59!

-is simply action which takes place in relationship to the work of Yahweh and corresp.onds to the grace of His covenant. Without this, and without recogmsmg It, Israel could not even choose let alone perform this action. If it does choose and perform it, if it does works which are described as good and demanded by the Law, It does not do anything extraordinary but simply declares in its own works the w?rk o~, the. God who is gracious to it, confessing that it is His work and possessIOn: It IS he that hath made us, and not we ourselves; we are his people: and the sheep of hi.s pasture" (Ps. 1003). Is there any trace here of a ~entonousness of ItS actIOn? What can this people earn that has not b~en gl'\~en already as a work of the hands of God? Is there any trace of glory m achievement? How can they glory when they do only the good works which are expected and with which they can only declare that which they are by the goodness of God? "When ye shall have done all those things which are commanded you, say, We are unprofitable servants: we have done that which was our duty to do" (Lk. 1710). Why is the Law of God so glorious as descnbed m Ps. II9? Certamly not because it shows Israel, and sets in its hand, an mstrument to make God gracious, and to assure itself by its own correspondmg ~chlevements of His faithfulness and assistance. The glory of the L~w IS that It gives Israel a direction which it gladly hears and obeys because, as It IS contmually given, it is c0D:tinually aware that the power and mercy of God are already present, and that It knows already, and increasingly, His faithfulness and assistance. Where the will and command of God are not understood as a demonstration of His free goodness and favour to man but as a demand the fulfilment of which is the condition on which God's go~dness and favour will be addre~sed to Him, or on which he may direct them to himself; where, then, an believes that he must earn merit and achieve self-glory in his relationship With God, there. can be no question of true obedience or good works. He does not do that which he ought to do. Everything that he does is perverted from the very first. And according to the witness of the Old Testament it was the sm of Israel, as of all nations, not to recognise the grace of God, and therefore not t? be capable of obedience, but only of bad, unfruitful and dead works. I t IS not mSlgmfican.t that .in these circumstances it continually turned to the gods of the surroundmg natIOns. Only for very brief periods was Israel grateful to God, and therefore self-evidently faithful and promptly obedient. For the most part It was only m the life and words and works of individuals, of the prophetIc men of the remnant, that the relationship between divine and human goodness was kept alive and maintained as a witness to the rest of the people as they co.ntmually fell mto fresh transgression. In their protest against Israel's transgressIOn they merely announced the, fulfilment of the good work of God, and therefore the actualisatlOn of good human works, which had been from the very first the goal of Yahweh's covenant with Israel. The witness of the New Testament proclaims the fulfilment of the good work of God and the actualisa:IOn of good human works as the message concerning Jesus Christ and the ~ummons to faith m Him. I t regards Himself, and faith in Him, as the right way which has. alre~dy ~;en chosen for us men; the wayan which we already find ourselves m HI~: For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves; It IS the glft of God; not of works lest any man should boast. For we are his :-"orkmanship (7To{TJll-a) , created (KTLaOEV'T£,) in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath before ordained that we should walk in them" (Eph. 2 81 .).

n:

We have now established that it is the good work of God which alone. makes possible the good works of man. But the good work of God Itself assumes always a special form as good works are done by man, and man's work declares the good work of God. What is meant by " declare" but to participate in the annunciation of the history

592

§ 66. The Sanctification of Man

of the covenant in the New Testament or its proclamation in the New, and, therefore, because this history is the work of God, in the attestation of this work ~ But even if our work has a part only in its attestation, in so far as this is possible for a human work it has a part in the divine work itself. It takes place in its service. And it is as it is done in its service that it is a good work. It is not self-evident that a man should really stand in the service of the good work of God, or that his own work should really be done in this service. It is not at all the case that all the works of all men are the work of God simply because it is done among them, and that they thus declare it and take place in its service and are therefore good works. Since all men are sinners and their works sinful, is it not more reasonable to suppose that there can never be any declaration of the work of God by human works, that it cannot be said of any human work that it takes place in the service of God's work and therefore as a good work? We do not need to be particularly pessimistic to come to this melancholy conclusion. We might say that it is shaped by the common rule which is broken when good works do in fact take place. But the rule is not broken from below by better sinners and their less sinful works. Even the best man cannot place himself and his work in the service of the work of God, or make his work a declaration of God's work and therefore a good work. When this takes place, it is obviously because God's own work assumes a special form. This work itselfand it is of this that the Old and New Testaments speak when-they speak of good human works-takes place in a very special way to particular men, declaring and indicating and attesting and making itself known to them, and in so doing impressing them into its service, empowering them for it, giving them a willingness and readiness to take part themselves in its declaration. We can put it in this way. The work of God which has taken place for them as for all men also takes place in them in the form of this illumination, with the result that as the men they are they have a share in it-only as its witnesses, but as such a real share. The history of the covenant, whose acting Subject is God, now takes place in its relationship to them in such a way that their personal history, whose subjects they themselves are, can no longer be alien or neutral in its relationship to it, but necessarily takes place in actual correspondence with it. To the extent that this is the case, they and their works are declarations of the work of God, having a part both in the annunciation of Jesus Christ in the Old Testament and His proclamation in the New, and thus being good works. It is to be noted that the men in relationship to whom the good work of God has this particular form are sinners like the restpossibly to a less degree, possibly to a greater, but still sinners. They are not differentiated from others by the fact that they are not transgressors in the judgment of God, or that even their good works are not full of transgression. They are differentiated only (but genuinely)

5. The Praise of Works 593 by the fact-and he t h . . . re we re urn to t e controllIng concepts of the prev~ous sub-sectlOns-that they are sanctified in and b th H 1 ne , that. they are.called to His discipleship; that they ar~ aW:ke:e~ o converSIOn and th t th ey are engaged m . con a . T by HIS Holy Spirit·, vers~on. t Ok th: extent that they are this, and exist as such thei; wor s are a en mto service by God and d k ' tive of what th . ht b are .goo wor s, quite irrespece apart from thIS relationship in the eyes f d b ey mIg fac~~~ ~n a ove all in the eyes of God, and quite irrespective of the th a e~en as good works they are full of transgression What ese men 0 as thos~ who are in Jesus Christ, and in love 'to H' and correspondence WIth the work of God, is well done. 1m,

7

~~~tO~~~~gat:t~:~~/~~:~w Tes~aments

ing it!s an absolutely new and astoundhis works, as an attestation of °t:eo~~rk(au;€tiaJJ with God (I Cor. 3 9), and that of being well done and therefore good ~O~k 0 Of may stand unde.r the promise S nature. And none of us can take it u on h ' none o~ us IS thIS the case by only on the basis of a special attitude of I~~~lf. 't~' It ~~ true of us, it is true HImself and man It is true onl WI m e covenant between called out to the ~ide of God q Yt as we :~e elected by God for His service, and From us as such ood w k ' UI e apar rom any fitness or value of our own. and will do them~ We ~~r:e~::se~p~~~d~uAs ~~Ch ~e can and should and may free action as the men we are d r ca mg IS to obedIence, to our own will be our ver own H . ur goo works can and should and may and " Let vour ligh~ s h'· ebncfe the saymg of Jesus to His disciples in Mt. 516r.. J 0 S me e ore men that they m . glorify your Father which is in heaven" B t tha Y see your good works, and this light-" ye are the light of th 'ld ,,~ .e f act that they have or are candle which is not" put under ~ w~\ 'b t a CIty that IS set on a hill," the

6

~~~~gh:~~tb~~~::~:~i~~~tchedo~ r~:ol~~d ~f ~~e~~:~~~s~~~'~o~:t~?~gS~r;::~

their works are good wor:s o~v~~s~:l~~g. It IS m the power of this calling that His hand and touche ,. elr own.. It IS as Yahweh stretches out him here ~nd now ove~ :hman slIps, and puts HIS words in his mouth, and sets ment (Jer. 19r.) the proph:tn::~~~e~nt~:lllgdoms,.t hat already in the Old Testa-

~th?sS~~ ~~a~~iS ;~rk even before he was :~~i~~e~~t~~eo:o;:~oUe;aI~i.ehAhn~

stan?s his eXi~ence:~~~:~;e:~~~tt~es~ea~;~~t~~::t ~ostle (Gal. II') underout ItS salvatIon III a certain willing and doing b t "t d e people of God works the One who w rk (" -. ' U I oes so because God IS speaks but he '~w'~ a t~P'YWV) HIS own willing and doing (Phil. 2 121 .). Paul l wrought by him to m~~e t::eG~~~1::~b~~~erz ~ t~eo things that ~hrist has not He hastens to apprehend (Phil. 312) b t h d' Y rd aud deed (Rom. 15 18). hended by Christ. He works and' fiuhts e oes JO only ashe IS already apprewhich works in him mightily (Col. 1 29 ) g It . a~cor I~g to HIS wor.king (Ev
d

th~ f;ll)~n~~~~i~;l~:~t~~it~~~~c~a~~n

594

§ 66. The Sanctification oj Man

"Vhen we do trust it we can only affirm: "Unto him be glory in the church and in Christ Jesus." A good work as Scripture understands it is one which is set in motion by Him, which finds itself in this motion, and which understands and demonstrates that this is the case.

We can now repeat with greater emphasis our previous statement that it is in the particular goodness of the work of God that a man may participate with his own good works. It is God's free gift if he fmds that he and his life-history are set in this distinctive relationship with the history of the covenant, and impressed into the service of the work of God and used to declare it. And in each individual instance of working it is again God's free gift if His work is a real declaration of God's work, and in the performance of it he may genuinely share in the annunciation or proclamation of Jesus Christ. As he cannot make himself one of the particular men of whom this is true, he cannot assume that any specific work really takes place in this correspondence, in the light and power of the divine work, and therefore that it is well done. He can only believe in the grace of God encountering and and revealed to him. Even when he is supremely enlightened and filled and impelled by it, he can only be thankful that-as it is not hidden but revealed-it has come to him in this particular way. He can only pray that God will not hide His face or let him fall, as he must recognise each passing moment that he has deserved a hundred times. He can only dare to make use of the freedom given; to keep before him, in all that he does, the fact that both in the totality and in specific works he may and must be thankful. He will then act calmly and resolutely and vigorously, but always knowing that he must lay himself and what he wills and does and achieves wholly in the hand of the God who has so graciously chosen and called him to participate in His work. He will constantly commend it to Him, that He may forgive that in which it is sinful, that He may receive it like himself, that He may sanctify it, that He may use it and order it, that He may give it the character of a service rendered and acceptable to Himself-which is something that can never be given by the man who performs it. None of the true saints of God can ever imagine that in his works he is really doing something outstanding in the sense of putting God under an obligation or earning His grace and favour. If he succeeds in restraining this foolish idea for a short time, or even inures himself to some extent against falling into it again, this is a sure criterion-though not a guarantee-that what he does is well done. He cannot create any such guarantee by his own humility of disposition in what he does. It can only be given by the God who elects and calls him, and grasped in faith. But in faith he can and may ami will grasp it. And by the faith in which he does this, and the" divine DO"uarantee which he grasps in faith, there will be created • tll" radical claimlessness, but also the calm and resolution and VIgour, the frf'e humour, which distinguish the work that is well done, the

5· The Praise oj Works

595

good wor~, fairly. distinctly if not quite unequivocally from others. And. he wIll ~o thIS work confidently. It will even be legitimate and possIble for hIm to derive confidence, and the assurance of his freedom an? the~efore his holiness, from the fact that he lives cheerfully and gaIly stndes to work as one whom God has endowed with freedom. He ~oes it in the same way as a good tree (to use a favourite New Testament companson) p~oduces and bea:s good fruit. He does it as the work (Ac. 2620) or fruIt (Mt. 3 ) of hIS converSIOn, corresponding to its occurrence. He does it as the work of love (Heb. 610) or faith (I Thess. 1 3 ; 2 Thess. III). In In. 6 28f • ;:e have the extremely succinct answer of Jesus to those who asked Him: ~ha! s~~ll ;:e d.o, that we might work the works of God «pya,w",
n)

If in all good works it is a matter of their participation in the good w~rk of God, to w~ch certain men are selected and brought by God ,HImself, a~d for whIch they are empowered by Him in specific actions, It necessarily follows that they are distinguished from all other human ,,:orks by the fa,ct .that they are dO,ne ~s ordered and commanded by ('o~, or ~o pu.t It lTI another way, lTI the freedom given by God. In con)UnctlOn WIth the work of God, and in the service of its declaration theIr works have a particular function. In the exercise of this functio~

596

§ 66. The Sanctification of Man

this particular man can and must and may and will on this particular occasion say this or do that or take up this particular attitude. If he recognises and fulfils this function, his work is a good work. His speech and action and attitude are not according to his own inclination or desire or plan or caprice but according to the direction given to him and received by him. He hears this. And he obeys it, not mechanically impelled from without, but in the freedom which is given him; yet in this freedom and not another. In any other freedom he would really be a captive. He serves, not to his humiliation and shame, but to his exaltation and honour; yet only in the glory and dignity for which he is ordained as a participant in the work of God, and not therefore in any which he might fashion for himself (to his own true shame and humiliation) by serving himself or the opinion and plans of men or the dark forces of the cosmos and history. He is integrated into the communion of saints. With a particular place and commission he accompanies the people of God, the community. At his own place and time he is absolutely indispensable and responsible for the whole of its history. But he is this as a brother among brethren. And in this way he genuinely comes to himself and lives by his own faith. By this integration it may be recognised, and by integration in the doing of a particular work he himself may be assured, that all is well with his obedience and service and therefore his freedam; that the direction which he hears is not secretly the voice of his own inclination or desire or plan or caprice. He will consider how the law and command and direction of God is received by others at other times and places. He will note the multiplicity which has characterised its declaration and reception in the history of the people of God as a whole. Thus, in order that he may hear the direction for himself here and now-the direction of God, and not that either of human tradition or his own heart or head-and to obey and serve this direction and not that of a collective or individual daemon, he will also listen to his brethren, and listen together with all or many of them, and then and on this basis exercise himself to obey. This is not because he does not trust the participation in the work of God grant.ed to him, but because he knows that for all the particularity with which it applies to him it is granted to him only in his togetherness with them, as one of the fellowship of the saints. He will then go his own way all the more certain of his commission and all the more convinced of his freedom. In this sense, and on all these presuppositions, we must say of man's sanctification that it already takes place here and now in works which are really good, i.e., which are praised by God and praise Him. We have had to consider rather more precisely, in the light of scriptural teaching, the way in which this happens (and does not happen). But the fact that it happens is something that we can deny only at the l'xpense of questioning the whole divine act of atonement and

5· The Praise of Works 1 597 ;:~e atioffn atnd concealing a main aspect of the biblical witness, with ous e ec s Upon all other aspects. A single illustration will be enou h . what is stated in the great passa gH ~o prove this. \V"e surely cannot evade whole. It is sufficient to note t ge e. II. We need not develop this as a fidence of things hoped for the c~:tt th: c~af:er IS dealing with faith as the conof this faith we have to 'do t am yo mgs not seen. But in the depiction those of Abel and Enoch an~ ;~:~y pomt with human acts and attitudesMoses and Rahab the harlot and th and Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and dieri in faith, not having receive~ t~:s. r~f ~1l these it is said (v. 13) that" they and were persuaded of them and b p m lShes , but havmg seen them afar off str d , e m race d t em and confe d th ' . a?gers an pilgrims on the earth" But it· ' sse at they were m his own particular relationship to'th t IS also stated of them that-each people by this common relationshi ~/heea acts of God, and united to a great obedience. Their acts are of great ~ Y wor~ed actively and passively in and they are thus depicted in rather ~ntsequence m the context of that history dam s, wroug h ' x ravagant terms . They" su bd ue d kmg. ' t nghteousness obtained' quenched the violence of fir~, escaped th~o:I~~s'otopped the mouths of lions, were made strong, turned to flight the armie I:> th~ sW~,rd, out of weakness for exploits w.hich belong very characteristic:ll~ft~h~hah~~:i T some being praised at h.ers for their SUffering and constan . e estament (v. 33 f.), It IS said of them-with reference toCihI~/~e:o~VIOlent persecution (v. 35 f.). -that the world was not worth of th aI, ut to the works of their faith piction emerges clearly in 121f. y Th ~m (;: 3 8). The purpose behind this desurrounded on all sides, and it is Pled;ect ::d c~~~ament community is as it were tIon and summonS-by the existence and acts o~~~d-as by one mlghty declarapeople. It cannot escape them "Th f ese believers of God's former about with so great a cloud of witn e~e are, seemg we also are compassed sin that doth so easily beset us an~s~:t et us lay. aSlde ~very weight, and the set before us, looking unto Jes~s the t~S run dWIth patience the race that is J e,sus who is obviously attested by this aUrea~r ~n finIsher of our fa~th." It is (.,..Ao s) of the work of God H . 1 ~ c oud of wltnesses. Bemg the end ~ll .th~se men with their ~or~sI~~r:O;it~e:~dtOof t~e ~aw of God (Rom. 104). Chnstlans can and should and rna d ' n b HIm, and It IS to Him that their good works. y an WI ear WItness with their works-

We conclude by saying th t ' dd" also good th?ughts and words aa~~ ~or~~~on to ~any bad. there a~e work sees to It that this is the case None of ~~d lilt th\dOlilg of HIS of God is revealed-no Christian-~ll doubt ose a w the work no excuse, therefore, if his own work' t or contest thIS. He has not try to hide the fact th IS no a. good work. He will called and empowered toa~he too and ~e partICularly, is elected and d el~ction and calling and em~o~e~in;o~es'Wil~nd~c~~rdance with his faIth, conversion and love Th w i l l ' em as works of the Christian as the one who doe;the ce~tatJg' not. praise himself or of God and will rai H' . m. . u t ey WIll have the praise sloth ;nd corrup~ionsean~~isi~~edgr~~~~ 1~~0 His own that .in all their Works. ey may and WIll do such

0:n

He sees to it that among His people (know . good works performed by its memb W n only to HImself) there are genuine ers. e may mentIon a few examples drawn

§ 66. The Sanctification of Ivlan from our own observation (and well below the level of Heb. II), There is the good assistance which one gives another. There is the good co-operation between few or many. There are good meetings and partings, There is the good attempting of big things and the good fulfilment of small. There is good conduct in difficult and testing conditions. There are good achievements in family and social life. There is the good upholding of the old and the good establishment of the new. There is good speaking and silence; good laughter and weeping; good work and repose; good seeking and finding, There arc also good political resolves and decisions. There is good Christian profession. There is also good prayer, good hearing and reading and study, and sometimes good preachingand all the other concrete things we might mention. In all these things, of course, it is not of him that willeth and runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy (Rom. 9 16 ). But there is no point in trying to avoid the fact-we can do so only in unbelief-that these things do exist because God gives them, and in His mercy will continually give them. Thae is no time when the Christian should not count seriously on the fact that God gives them with the superfluity to which there are so many allusions in the epistles, The sanctification of man decidedly consists also in the fact that God does give them, not merely in general but individually, and not magically or mechanically or when he is asleep, but for him to do. The saints of God receive and do them. We will bring the discussion to a dose by citing two questions and answers from the Heidelberg Catechism which are highly relevant in the present context. Qu, 86. As we are redeemed from our plight by grace through Christ without any merits of our own, why should we do good works? Answer-Because Christ, having bought us by His blood, has also renewed us by His Holy Spirit, that we should show ourselves grateful to God for His benefits with our whole lives, and that He should be magnified through us. Also in order that we may have assurance of our faith from its fruits, and win our neighbours to Christ by our godly conversation. And Qu. 91. But what are good works? Answer-Only those which of a true faith take place according to the Law of God and to His glory, and are not grounded in our own opinion or the c\'aluation of men.

6. THE DIGNITY OF THE CROSS The cross-we have left to the last this indispensable element in any Christian doctrine of sanctification. It ought to be given this place (r) because it marks the limit of sanctification as the raising up of slothful man in the power of the resurrection of Jesus Christ-the point at which this event reaches out beyond itself to the second coming of Jesus Christ, the resurrection of the flesh and the last judgment, when the saints will be revealed as such, the contradiction will be ended between what they still are and what they are already, and they will enter into the eternal life, the light, to which as the people of God they are now moving with the whole cosmos. It ought also to be given this place (2) because under all the aspects so far considered-as participatio Christi, the call to discipleship, awakening to conversion and the praise of works-it is with reference to the crosJ that man's sanctification is seen to be his movement to that goal, an therefore set in the light of the great Christian hope.

.

6. The Dignity of the Cross

5~

.,1 t IS at the corresponding place that t h ' . . In Calvin (Instit III 8) and' d Q , e c:o~s of the ChnstJan is introduced " "". e uervam (Dze Heil' I . D" B onhoeffer has given it em hasis b s . zgung" 194 2 , pp. 15 1-- 22 1), t Y ~eakmg of It m the baSIC sections of 1 he Cost of Discipleship alreadP that in Kohlbriigge's doctrine ::~t:~~=ti' On the other hand, it is striking Kreck) the cross whl'le I't j's t' d on. (at any rate as presented by \V . ' no Ignore or unl fl t· I ' . ' pronllnent position or role. n uen la , IS 1I0t gIven any very

J

refer to the erass wh'IC h everyone who IS . sanctified' Ch We . to ?ear as. such, of

~~d :~dt~~e:e:~l~ ~~i~? ;~~f~~~\~as

J

th~npe~~~;

~~;sc~~~~~~ ~~:h~~~~S~~~~;~~:i~~ShiP tobt;:t I~f J~~~t: ~~:~~t ~r~st~~~

and the Ch . t' A . rm of the fellowshIp between Christ . . ns Ian. s the beanng of the cross wa d' Chnst HIS coronation as the one S f M h s an IS for Jesus the Christian the cross which he h~nt~ s~:n, .t e. royal m.an, so for the distinction glory and d' 't e~ IS hIS mvestiture with

~~~s!r~~~l~~l£i;i~~St~:s~~:~t!%~e~(~~~s~~r~~~:n~e~~~~.tiafvit~~~

ians. It is by the fact that H ~re IS n~ cross of the dISCIples, Christare sanctified and called to ~scf;~s~~p ~~~ere~ I!is cross t~at they freed for the doing of good works. And it is ~e ;~ converSIOn and they also come to bear and suff th'I y . e same fact that !lis exaltation in His death on t~: croes; ~:oss. It IS on the b~sis of

~:a~~~ ~~~c~a~~~th~~et~eleyta~es come place their el:~ti~~ew:~oi~:a~i::lt~~~ to bear and suffer their cross. 00

According to all the synoptic accounts (Mk 8 J4f of Jesus that those who Would be H' d' . I ' . and paL) the declaration up the cross comes immediately afte~sth~c: es m~st deny themselves and take first annunciation of the passion B h ffesslanl~ confesslOn of Peter and the on th.e fact that in this annunciation a~~Z~ae;eliSt :Ig~kwh3~n he lays his finger mentIOn IS made of His re' ection b I l l . . 8. and Lk. 9 22 express the crucifixion of Jesus christ we Yh the ~de~s and hlgh-pnests and scribes. In One who is rejected and destroyed a~~e s~am~dw~th the ~artrcular suffering of men, but by the spiritual leaders of the eo Ie y men ~nd not Just by any understandable that the disciple who hid p of God.. It IS qUIte obviolls and to be the Messiah should take offence at thO Just recogmsed and confessed Jesus ally implied his willingness to follow J IS profhecy. But hIS confession naturesus protest being brushed aside by the stern .. ,n1 lt receIved the answer-his who make this profession and share th' sa~;~g 0 ~esus-that he and all those of the Rejected and Crucified, must t:~ew~ mt~ness, If they are to be disciples theIr own place enter into the passion of Jes p theIr own cross a~d therefore in IS despised and rejected. us, e shameful passIOn of One who

600

§ 66. The Sanctification oj Man

cross with His. And they certainly do not precede Him in the sense that His cross acquires reality and significance only as they take up their cross. Behind this view there stands the ancient mystical notion that it is Christ's own cross that Christians have to take up and carry. This notion is quite false. 'Apa-rw TOV uTavpov mhov is what is said in Mk. 8 34 and par., and the continuation is that the disciple must lose T~V .pvX~v aln-ov (to save it). He is to do it &EI<EV e/loov, in the sense that he thus proves and confesses himself to be My disciple. But it is his own life, just as it is himself (EavTov) that he has to deny in the preceding verse. What Simon of Cyrene did (Mk. 15 2 ' and paL), he did not do at the bidding of Jesus but under the ~ompulsion of those who led Jesus away to be crucified. And it was Jesus Himself, not Simon, who was crucified. He gave up His own life (Mk. 10 45 ), not that of Simon.

The cross of Jesus is His own cross, carried and sufferedjor many, but by Him alone and not by many, let alone by all and sundry. He suffers this rejection not merely as a rejection by men but, fulfilled by men, as a rejection by God-the rejection which all others deserved and ought to have suffered, but which He bore in order that it should no more fall on them. Their cross does not mean that they have still to suffer God's rejection. This has been suffered already by Him (as their rejection). It can no longer be borne by them. Similarly the exaltation accomplished in His crucifixion and therefore in the suffering of that rejection is His and not that of His disciples or the world above which He was exalted as the Lord in His death. To His exaltation there corresponds that of His elect and called, the elevation which now comes to Christians and is promised to all men, their awakening from the mortal sleep of the slothfulness of sin. And we have seen already that this upraising of man has its basis and thrust in Him, in His exaltation to the right hand of the Father as effected in His death; that it becomes and is a fact wholly and utterly in virtue of this exaltation. Yet their elevation is not identical with His exaltation. It is only thanks to His exaltation, and in the strength of it, that it takes place at all. The relationship between the two is irreversible. And if their elevation consists ultimately in the fact that they have to take up and carry their cross, this is not a re-enactment of His crucifixion. It takes place in correspondence to it; with the similarity proper to a disciple following his Master; but not in any sense in likeness, let alone identity. His own crown and the dignity which comes to the disciple in discipleship are two distinct things. The crown of life, which the disciple is promised that he will receive at the hand of the King (Rev. 210), is the goal of the way which he may go here and now as the bearer of this dignity. When Paul says concerning himself in Gal. 2. 0 that he no longer lives, ~ut Christ lives in him, this does not mean that he identified himself with Christ, or gave himself out to be a second Christ. He at once interpreted the statement by that which followed: "And the life which I now live in the flesh I live by

6. The Dignitv -

Of

~

the Cross

601

the faith of the Son of God wh . hImself did not take part' ~ l.oved me, and gave. hImself for me." Paul for him-in this self-Offeri~0~c~1ri~~sOhfa~ :s ~e receIved it in faith as done loved by Christ. He did not mean 't: IC h 00h place for him as one who was (Gal. 2 19) that he was crucified with ~~r:ten( X e s:-id in the preceding verse 6'7 that he bore the marks ( , p'UT,!, UUVEUTaup0/loa,) or in Gal bore about in the body the drn:'Y(T~) of th)e Lord Jesus, or in 2 Cor: 4'0 that h~ it in Gal. 6" when he made h::~ VEl
Id

?ts

a;

We may now turn from thO d r ' . which must be made in this CIS t e ~mlt~tlOn to ~he positive statement Christ that man is set in thiso:~~l~ ecause It ~a~es. place in Jesus event of sanctification-the particiPati:~~e~~nihIt IS mte!?r~l to the the awakening to conversion and th ~tS t, f e call to dISCIpleship, e praIse 0 good works-that as

§ 66. The Sanctification of Man 602 h' t ' 1 hristian-as a human, earthly- IS onca the life-moveme?t .of th~ Cll and relentlessly fixed and held and life-movement-~t IS radic~:the literal sense it is a happening which broken at a specIfic p~c~, d t rmined and characterised by a cross. is crossed through, w IC I~ e e . h 'ef ain and finally death. The cross involves hardshIP: angUls , ~nwilli~gly undertake to bear hs But those wh.o ~re set i~ : ~~:e:::~~ement that it should finally, this because 1~ IS essentla b O d through in this way. We are i.e., in its basIs. and goal, e cr~~~ewe will not take up and bear our necessarily outside the moveme~ rantia crucis (Calvin). cross; if we try to escape the/~ er dship pain and death in themselves not a matter me~ely andItillis general, just as It IS 0no merel' y a matter of the human life-

i

t

movement i.n i~self and a~ s~~~" man should not wish to see himself It is qmte m order t ~ b n that he should try to ward off arrested and disturbed ~ Chr~ t: ~ does this. In themselves and as pain an~ death. .Evenn ~eat~Sa~~ a questioning, a destruction and such, pam, su~enng ~ lif The Christian especially cannot try finally a negation of '~~~~m e' He cannot find any pleasure in them. to transform a~d glon yk th' For he sees and honours and loves He canno~ deSIre ~ d he~~ responsible for its preservation. ~e in life a gIft of Go. n e th natural man may easily become m cannot be a lover of death, aSk' e f his retended affirmation of life g a strange reversal a~d un~ays m t °life I'S Pnot one which can surrepti'd d ' f It HIS es 0 l'f . and aVI eSlre. or. He knows better than others what IS, tiously change mto a No. h himself against its negatIOn. h . d' when e secures l'f and what e IS omg . . f h' more than a matter of 1 e. He affirms it just. because It I~ or ~~ should be done, which is his WIll What is at stake IS that 3the B at G does not love his life in itself ecause h e ..h . . (Th S 4 ) sanctificatIOn I es. . ,t tion and therefore pam, angms and as such, he cannot love 1 st?set~e in this context. and death as such. He affi71 ay and can and must also affirm But in the same contex e mI' we live unto the Lord; and . " For whether we Ive, f its negatIOn. . th L d' whether we live, there are, or whether we die, we ~e ::n~ e o~ . We are His poss('ssion "b~th die, we are the L?rd.s (d0:~t~4... To be His possession, the .dOlI~g in body and soul, .m lif~ an. . hat which is more than dymg. m th~: :he Lord's includes this alternatIve of His will, sanctIfic.at~on, the dying of the Ch?S~lank a better than others-than those who of dying. The Chnshan nows. t for life and long for its end for different reasons have .lo~ ~heI~~~~ he says Yes to the negation and dissolution-what he IffS ?mg d death He says Yes to the~e of his life, to pain an~ su .enng an. .'h Jesus Christ, in HIS because his sanctificatIon. m .fe~~?~S~Ityw~im in the doing of goo~ discipleship, in the. converSIOn 1111 la \at he ha~ to see and feel an f his Christian existence works, ultimately Illclud:s th~ fact t ' ce the limit of hIS eXIstence-even 0 expenen

11 .

1

sel

1:

1;'

6. The Dignity of the Cross

3 60 engaged in sanctification_as the limit of his human and creaturely life, which necessarily leads to pain and suffering and death, leading to death, and proclaiming it, and finally involving it. To save his life he must surrender and lose it. He will not seek or induce this loss, It will corne to him. But as a Christian, and because it is a matter of life, he will not negate but affirm it, just as elsewhere and right up to this frontier he will not negate but affirm life. He will not affirm either for their own sake. But he will definitely affirm both, even death, E/!€KH'Ip.ov, for Jesus' sake. He will accept the fact that this limit or frontier is set, and that he has to note it. He will take up his cross. "Whether we die, we die unto the Lord." It is Christ who sets this term to Our life. It is not set accidentally, by fate or by an unknown God. It is not set merely with the limit of death itself, which belongs to our nature as a mark of our finitude. To be sure, natural death also belongs to the cross which the Christian has to take up. But this limit is not set according to a law of nature which the Christian has in common with all other men. It is set in his special fellowship with Jesus Christ, and therefore-because He is the King who controls this fellowship-according to the law of Him who is also Lord over nature and that which takes place according to its laws. Jesus Christ Himself has, of course, endured suffering and death as it is appointed for all men and in some form comes on all. But He endured it in obedience to His Father and the exercise of His office. He endured it in order supremely to glorify His Fath.er and His love by taking on Himself the diVine sentence of rejection on all men and thus opening the way for the actualisation of the election of all men. He endured it in the act of reconciling the world with God, as the man in whom God humbled Himself in order that man should be exalted. He endured that that limit should be set for Him in the negation of His life. And in so doing He tore down the wall of partition which separated man from God. Offering and losing His life, He was the living and true and royal man, as was revealed in His resurrection. This is the law of His crucifixion. It is in accordance with this law that a term is set for Christians and they have to bear their cross. In the sphere of this lordship they are wonderfully free from any other laws, divine, human or demonic, inward or outward, spiritual or natural, Or rather, they become free from any such laws as they corne under this law. They do not have to fear any overwhelming force, but only the Lord who brings them under it because He is theirs and they are His. And they cannot really fear Him-only their own disloyalty_ because His law which leads them to take up their cross is the law of the grace of God directed to the world and known by them; because in the fact that He gives them to bear their cross they can see that God has given them this special light, and that they are honoured by this special fellowship with Jesus Christ.

§ 66. The Sanctification of Man

604

d (III 8 II) Calvin points out that At the end of the chapter alr~ady q~o~ and Ch~istian patience is that the the difference between phIlosophIcal !S 0 f) 't The Christian does not ' f suggestion 0 neceSSI y. latter is qUIte free ro~ any d because it is quite futile to resist One who take up hIS cross, and yIeld to Go 'b G d only because we must, our secret is so superior in strength. If we 0 ey ~ and we refrain from these only thoughts are all ,of dis,?bedie~~: ~~~iS~r:~I~~ldS in recognition of the righte,?usbecause they are ImpossIble. 'd hI'ch rules his life He obeys a hvmg, ' d f th d'vine provi ence W "H ness and WIS om 0 e knows that resistance or impatience I~ wrong, e not a dead, commat.Jd, e v tion that God lays his cross on hIm. He thus understands that It IS for hiS sal ~ot with his natural bitterness, but in tha~~ful accepts It grata p'lactdaqu~an~,!,~ is a true picture, and it is extremely surpnsI,ng and cheerful praIse of Go., ,I C I ' d 'd not make use of the mSIght wIth that to underline this dIstinction ,a vI~ha~ the God with whom the Christian which the chapter as a whole begms ff n'ng is God in Jesus Christ, so that d h ets him even m su e , , , d ' has to do, an W 0 me H' I with this free and WillIng an JOyous he for his part can encounter 1m o~ y t' n of the Stoic with his necesse est. patience, and not with the' gloomy reslgna 10

k

. I fellowship of the Christian with Christ involves particie.specla. . As Christians take up and bear pation m the paSSIOn of Hffls crofss. e with the direct and original h . they do not su er a cours , If t elr cross" hi h f ' II 'ts bitterness it was natural and se _ and pure obedIence w c or a I also the Son of Man to render evident for the Son. of Go~ who ~~snever be more than the work of to His Father. .TheIr obedieD:ce WI It will always be subsequent. It the freedom WhICh th~y ~r~ gIv~~ ds of disobedience that if in the will always be. so stame . y ~ted ~th the character of obedience it mercy God It were ntotblnve lled obedience Nor is their suffering ld of hardly deserve 0 e ca . ... f th ld wou . , 'b fans to the reconcIlIatIOn 0 e war even the tImest of contn u l't t on the fact that this has been with God. On t~e contrary, I t~:~ but by God Himself in Christ, nted by their suffering or by any perfectly accomplIshed, no\ by so that it do~s not need to e ~u~~~ Christians are simply those .to lesser Calvanes. Among o~he ' I d (not hidden). They anse whom nly it:, tru~h and pe~~tI;~ha:;sr~~:~:s not what Jesus s~ffere?­ °h . adS ItS WIt on man of unrighteousness, the t e JU gmen t b comphshe IS tion without which the electi~n ~h~~~n~~~~oan~ ~~erefore for' them. h-in the echo of His sentence, was suffered by J esus ~o~ t e. They exist onflYH---:-a~ddtgmhl~~Stq~~~e~~~~~ains of His rejection. In theidr the shadow a IS JU 'b nt taste of what the world an cross they have only a s:ra~ ~~ s~qu~ of God and Jesus endured in they themselves deserve . a e an . . 'I e' It is true-and all its frightfulness as theIrt~ea~:~dt~~;~~~ ~a~~ to suffer rejection we shall have to return to not have to suffer rejection by at the hands of men. But they h knowledge that they are God. On the contrary t~ey have t e sure us did that they are reHis elect. Again, they Wll1 not find, tasthJeeys will b~ reJ' ected only by . b 11 n At t h e very wars will Jected y a me. . 't y. An d in this as in other respects they many, perhaps a maJon Th

tonfe~~~

th~

~ivmde reTJeh~­

IS-;O

6. The Dignity of the Cross

5 60 never be quite innocent in their suffering. They will never suffer merely through the corruption and wickedness of others, or through the undeserved decrees and buffetings of fate or the cosmic process. There is always a very definite (if sometimes disguised) connexion between the sufferings which befall them and their Own participation in the transgression and guilt in which all men are continually implicated. And whereas Jesus was quite alone as the One who was rejected and suffered in their place, they can always know that even if they are rejected by ever so many they suffer as members of His community and therefore in company with at least a few others, and can count on the support and intercession, or at least the remembrance, of many more. Finally, whereas the suffering of Jesus is obviously on behalf of aU other men, and for their salvation, liberation and exaltation, it is only with serious qualifications that we can say of the suffering of a Christian that it is significant and effective for others, and takes place in their13favour. What it means to lay down one's life for one's friends (In. 15 ) is only indicated from afar by any conceivable relationship of a human sufferer to others. In short, the statement of the Heidelberg Catechism (Qu. 37) "that during the whole time of His life upon earth, and especially at the end, He bore both in body and soul the wrath of God against the sin of the whole human race, so that by His suffering as by a propitiatory offering He redeemed us in body and soul from eternal perdition and won for us God's grace and righteousness and eternal life," is one which cannot be referred to any Christian bearing his cross, not even to the greatest martyr. There applies. to the Christian what is said in Qu. 44: "That in the greatest trials I have the assurance that by His unutterable anguish, pain and terror which He suffered even in soul both on and before the cross, my Lord Christ has redeemed me from the fear and pain of hell,"

Between Christ and the Christian, His cross and ours, it is a matter of similarity in great dissimilarity. There is, of course, a great and strong and obvious similarity. It is because of this that we can speak of the dignity of the cross. Christians are distinguished and honoured by the fact that the fellowship with Jesus into which He Himself has received them finds final expression in the fact that their human and Christian life is marked like a tree for felling. The sign of the cross is the sign of the provisional character of their Christian existence. It is not the whole or even the heart of the matter that these men find themselves on the way with their little looking to Jesus as the author and finisher of their faith, with their little obedience in His discipleship, in their noticeable transition (which has to be renewed day by day) trom the old to the new, from death to life, and with their very problematical good works; just as the life and speech and action of Jesus on His way from Jordan to Gethsemane was not the whole or the heart of the matter, the form in which He was truly Lord, apart from the fulfilment which came so terribly with the completely new development of the passion. In the life of Christians it is not just a

606

§ 66. The Sanctification of Man

matter of themselves and the fulfilment of their sanctification, but (since they have their activating cause in Jesus) of something far greater than themselves-of the glory and Word and work of God, compared with which they and all that they may become can never be more than dust and ashes. Or, from a different angle, it is a matter of themselves as God's witness, of their existence as individuals and as a community, but in the strict sense of the earth which is God's, of the whole world in all its blindness, need and care, which God so loved that He gave for it His only begotten Son. What are little Christians, with all the little things which may take place in the sphere of their existence in virtue of this Son of God, compared with this embracing plan and will of God? And, from another angle again, it is a matter of these little Christians, but of them only in so far as, watching and waiting with all the great world for the revelation of the glory of its Creator and Lord (2 Pet. 312), they may look and move towards it. What is all that they can see and experience and grasp and attest here and now-even on their way in fellowship with Jesusalongside the eternal future announced from God both to themselves and to the world? What are they and have they compared with the glory of their Lord, who has risen again from death, and of whose fulness they have here and now received grace for grace, but whom they still confront as beggars, completely unworthy even in their fellowship with God by Him, sighing concerning themselves and the world which does not yet know Him, sighing for the true manifestation of that which has taken place for the world and themselves in this One? This is the limit which is set for the Christian especially, and as a sign of which he comes to bear his cross, not in identity but in similarity with the cross of Jesus. His cross points to the fulness and truth of that which he expects, and to which he hastens, as one who is sanctified in Jesus Christ. It points to God Himself, to His will for the world, to the future revelation of His majesty, to the glory in which his Lord already lives and reigns. As he comes to bear his cross, he finds himself prevented from forgetting this truth and fulness, and encouraged to take comfort in it and stretch out towards it. His cross inter-crosses his Christian life. He will not desire, or will, or try to bring it about, that this should happen. It will come unasked and unsought. As he belongs to Jesus, it is inevitable that it should come. His sanctification is fulfilled in its coming. Calvin was at his best in this context (III, 8, I). In what has to be thought and said concerning the Christian's cross, it is not for him a question of manufacturing a violent paradox, but of an altius conscendere; of the recognition of the point where the sanctification of man points beyond itself from its root in the Holy One. Quoscunque Dominus cooptavit ac suorum consortio dignatus est, ii se ad duram, laboriosam, inquietam plurimisque ac variis malorum generibus refer/am vitam praeparare debent. The heavenly Father did not make things easy but hard for His only begotten Son, the One whom He loved above all and in whom He was well-pleased (Mt, 317 , 17 6 ), so long as He was upon earth.

6. The Dignity of the Cross 60 7 We can say, indeed, and it is to th' the Heidelberg Catechism' t t IS passage that reference is made 'n Q crucis speciem. He to . 0 am etus Vttam nihil aliud fuisse I u. 37 of (Heb. 58). And b~gin':;i:ad ~o lea~ obedience by the things wh1~~7rPerpetuae e according to this rule. C~ri:~ f,!lm, th~ Father deals with all His ;~,ffered cannot be emancipated from . avmg subjected Himself to it for our l1dren His likeness (Rom. 829) It Itkas . those Who are destined to b takes, we regard as hostile and ~vil ~O:n s Itself ou~ in the res durae et asepe~~~ :h~ehd to CalVIn em h ' . we experIence th (A IC we is hard, a~da:~~~~~~so~~f;:~~o:~~th~ teachin~ of t~~StoiC:'dIA~el.;~e ~his, as all these things it is a matt • s ~n:'e galling, and death terribl' overty (like Him and with Him) " t~r of ~hrtstt passionibus communicare' e-; Yet. In 22 (~c. 14 ).. The fiercer the affii~~i~~ w~U~h tribulation into the kingdo~ o~ni;~~n~ o our SOCIetas cum Christo. IC assails us, the stronger the confirmat. , Of the many New Testame t Ion

:n:~i~~r::t(:~~c~hi:

qU~~/~~r~:~::n~e~a~d~~~:i~nly

also two The first f a knowledge of the KO,;~~:r..~1I HIS re~urrection? The answer~:a~haor, Paul to a8 T as an apostle "Vhat dO't -rr "lf-UJ l.tJ1I am-oii in which he find h' t It means The answer i~ that it ;:a~sn::~a~eto go forward to the resurrecti~n~7~~: ~lace~ ne (avp.p.op¢,,{6/J.aoos T{ji 8alla:rl.tJ am-oii) ;h Who is ~ade conformable to His deadth' It not strange (f "a8) • . e second IS I Pet 12 .. ea rejoice, inasmuc;:" a: ;e concerning the fiery trial which 1s t~ ~eloved, think glory shall be revealed, yea:ayP~ta~erds of C~rist's sufferings; thIt°U~h" ~~t g a also With exceeding joy" ' en IS

In the light of this we can and . mu:st say a few words concernin the fact and extent that in the ha.ve t? do with the fulfilment o~r~: laId ~pon .the Christian we reall; Hung IS, of course, the all-compreh sa,nctIFcatIon: The only decisive ?f, depa~ture-that as the cross of ;~slVe .ac~ which forms the point JS In all Its forms an awakening call ~ ChnstIan comes from Jesus it therefore, as we have already an ~ummons to look to Him and en that. we can say anything mo:: , to ans.e. It is only in this co~text dublO?-S moralising. concrete Jf We are not to be guilty of . WJth this backward reference and necessary and good for the Christi prOVISO ~e may say (r) tha.t it is to be kept in the humility which .an, ~nd servICeable to sanctification to. be. continually recalled to it b IS t~O natural ~o any of us, or r~the; thJS limit were not set for h' , y e cross WhICh he has to bear If begin to hold up his head ~~thand pal~ablY before him, he might e~sily hJS OWn ~hristianity; seeking i~ ~~ou confidence, not in God, but in be a Chnstian, to be strong i~ his e stren~th of the fact that he may and thus jeopardising no less th own fee~ngs and thought and acts lus c:oss, he will be prevented ev~~thmg.. If he really takes up only In an ordinary toothache it r~~ OI~g t~s. Even if it consists of even his Christian existen~e :; :emm.d hIm of the limited nature restrain him from taking himself his. fral!ty an.d pettiness. It will lt~ p~actical achievements with and ?IS spmtual~ty and his faith and c.ntJcIsm or humour. It will su a seno~sness whIch has no place for tlOn and God's glory and th mman ~Im to seek and find his salvacrtra se from which thev c~J:~7~\~f hIS o~ sen,:ice only in the place " 1m and In whIch alone they have

;n

boS

§ 66. The Sanctification of Man

an unshakeable foundation. They will teach him speedily to range himself again, as he ought, with other men; not merely with Christians, but with the children of men generally. The cross breaks over Christians constantly to teach even officers of the highest rank to begin again at the beginning as privates. We may say (2) that for the Christian it is also helpful to sanctification that he should accept the punishment which in some real if hidden sense somes in and with his cross. Jesus Himself has borne the great punishment for him and for the whole world. But it is inevitable that in the following of Jesus all sorts of lesser punishments should have to be borne by the one who belongs to Him, and that he will have good reason to see and accept that these are just. It will certainly not be the sword which smites him-the sword of the wrath of God. But it will be the rod of His fatherly love. And the Christian is yet to be found who has not deserved it, who in what befalls him may rightly see only the work of an alien evil or cosmic destiny and not the answer to his own corruption. It is the latter which is directly or indirectly brought before him in the suffering which overtakes him. And it may and will remind him of the great punishment which he is spared. It may and will renew his gratitude, and give to his movement of conversion the fresh impulse and seriousness which are always so badly needed. We may also say (3) that the cross which is really taken and carried by the Christian is a powerful force to discipline and strengthen his faith and obedience and love. In this respect it makes common cause with his impulsion by the Holy Spirit. When this is translated into the impulsion of his own spirit, even in the man seriously engaged in sanctification it may easily happen that he falls into what he thinks to be a spiritual roving and wandering and marauding and even plundering, or perhaps into a higher or lower form of pious idling. He is not aware of this himself. But it is noted by others, especially by the sharp eyes of worldlings. And they have then good reason to shake their heads, to laugh or to be annoyed, and in any case to dismiss Christianity as valueless. When the cross comes, he is given the opportunity, and even forced, to see it himself. As it sets for him and shows him his own limit, it causes him to be startled at himself. It forcibly teaches him to think of the one necessary thing, to focus and concentrate all his attention upon it. It presents some form of an ultimatum, for it is really the last thing which is announced in his life and thinking and conscience. When the cross comes, man's own spirit is rightly directed by the Holy Spirit as it previously refuse.d to be-although pretending to be full of the Spirit. The Christian IS taken in hand. And this is obviously to the benefit of his sanctification, his faith and obedience and love. From this crisis-which will have to come more than once and in different forms-he will obviously emerge stronger than when he was engulfed by it.

6. The Dignity of the Cross 9 60 We may finally say (4) b t 'tl . that in the bearing of his cross ~e;:Imlap~~7ular care ,an,d restraintverifications, That is to sav th y b or th~ Chnstlan particular faith and love works Whl'C'h'a'r eret~aYI Ie par.tlcular good works of , ' e par lCU ar y well-pIe' t G " fG d asmg a ad and wInch redound particularly to the , . , praIse a a The Rom Ch 1 IS qUIte nght when in its legend- and t h" ,an urc 1 it understands and portrays the~ all as e~c mg concernmg the saints and have and think and do and attem g eat su~e~ers. ,What we are when t~e situation is calm and favourabie a:n~hr~stlans In good days, any senous assaults from within or witho t . ~e are not ,exposed to its conscious zeal and sincerity t th d'~' lIS a way~ subject, for all ho~ f~r it is tested, and harden~d~an; sO~dcu t questI?n whether and affiJctwn or distress which comes on a man and endunn~. ,Not every itself and as such-however ter 1'bl 't ' even a Chnstlan, has in this attestation to make him thre de I mfa y be-th~ power to give k B ' oer 0 an accredIted th e fact that opportunities are often missed d war. ut that the cross is for the Christian the a o~s not alt~r the fact and bears it the power as well as th ppor,tumty-and If he takes fore to purify and deepen his Ch e. ~l?portur.lJty-to veri~y and theref ns Ian eXIstence and mtensify his Christian work When hI'S 0 . wn orces are reduced h h ' of more than one of the aids which he valu ' w e~ e IS ro~bed the corner and his back is against th II eS'hwhen he IS pushed mto and possibly crumbling ground and i: ~~ , ;h en he stands. on unsafe !?reater intensity on God and referred t:Sth rown back w~th all the trom the covenant with Him th Ch' t' e strength w,hlch comes bears it will on this basis set his ~andr~~ ~~~ :~kta~es up hIS cro~s ~nd ness and energy and althou h h . '\lth renewed wlllmghe .will certain1; do those $hic; ~'Zenotl~o .better or greater things, or IS not yet felt or burdensom~ will ~r~~I\ h~s not yet been set, purified a.nd substantial, and ma~ indeed b:I~ ~t e m:;re tested and ever before. There can be no doubt th t e er an. greater, than of the Christian acquires finally th fi a every ~enUIn~ good work But so far we have referred onf .er~ grow mentIOned m I Pet. 4 12 . we have to understand specificall! ~nc~~entally to t!le question what has to carry. We must now tr to y e cross 1nch the Christian at any rate as far as the main o~tr take our beanngs in this respect, mes are concerned I n th e 1NT ew T estament 0 e t f h . dominance in the foregrounnd aspedc 'to, t e cr~ss stands with absolute ". -an I IS a senous que t' f 1,ater Chnstlanity, including that of d s IOn or, much If this aspeCt has to 1 Our ,own ay, whether all IS well isolated instances I~ tahregeNexteTnt 1tost ItS actuality except for a few ewes ament the era '. , . ~erse,cutlOn; the persecution of Christians b t ss means pnman1y (,entIles, among whom Christians .7 he worl~, by Jews and wolves" (Mt 1016) In th N Tare sent as sheep m the midst of dd . . . e ew estament ,an unng the centuries which followed the ChrI'st' " t , ~ Ian eXls ence and co f ' d' always latently at lea't (if t' n eSSIOn an hfe was C,D. rV-2-20" no umnterruptedly) an enterprise which

:v

610

6. The Dignity of the Cross

§ 66. The Sanctification oj Man

stood under the threat of repression even to the point of physical violence. Later and in our own time, the cross indicated in the New Testament has become rare, and for the most part exceptional, in this unequivocal form. At this point, the~efore, w~ can speak o~ly with great caution and in the light of certam analogIes to persec~t~on in the full sense. There can be no doubt that even to-day a Chnstlan is a rara avis, under constant threat, even in an environment which is ostensibly, and perhaps consciously and zealously, Christian. ~o~­ ever great may be the solidarity which Christians feel and practlse m relation to the world, their way can never be that of the world-a.nd least of all that of the supposedly Christianised world. From the pomt which inspires them, they have to go their own way in great and .little things alike, and therefore in their thought and speech and attltude they are always at bottom, although in .som: cases more markedly than others, aliens and strangers who w1l1 gIve plenty of cause for offence in different directions. To some they will appear to be far too ascetic. To others they will seem to affirm life far too unconcernedly. Sometimes they will be regarded as individualists, sorne~im~s as collectivists. On the one hand they will be accused as authontanans, on the other as free-thinkers; on the one hand as pessimists, on the other as optimists; on the one hand as bO:lrgeois,. o~ the, othe.r as anarchists. They will seldom find themselves ~n a ma)(;mty.. Certamly, they will never swim with the stream. It IS only occaslOnally a~d against their true character that they can ever tol~rate th~ offiCIal and officious. Things generally accepted as self-evIdent wIll ?e~er claim their absolute allegiance, even though they take on a Chnstlan guise. Nor will they command their complete negation, so they can hardly count on the applause of the revolutionari~s of t.heir da~ . .Nor will their freedom to which we referred in our discusslOn of dIscIpleship, be exercised'by thfm in secret, but revealed openly in free acts and attitudes which will never be right to the world. And the world will not like this. They do not even need to make an explicit con~es­ sion, although this will sometimes sharpen the offence ~hat they gIVe. To-day, however, in an age of doctrinal tolerance, thIS may we~.be allowed. But there will be all the less tolerance for the free dec.lslO n and act of Christians. To this the reaction VI'ill be sour and bItter. It will be met with mistrust and repudiation, with suspicion an~ scor?, and even sometimes open indignation. Its disruptive tendencle~ Wl~ ll b_ be quietly or forcefully accused and condemned: . Measures taken to silence or destroy it, or at least to render It mnocuoUS. Some times matters may be pressed even further, and counteracti.on undertaken which brings Christians at least in sight of the situatlO~ of ~\ 1016-39, if not quite so far. They do not need to g.o ~ey~nd t~s pOlnd to be marked by the cross of rejection. Surely It IS dlstur~mg and wounding and confusing and hampering enough always to be so Is~la~en~ and subject to attack, among our fellows. How much rather Chnstla

w:

6II

would please than displease! How much they would prefer honour than shame for an attitude that is to them so clear and simple and necessary t But whether the shame be less or greater, they cannot cease to go the way which at the end will turn many, perhaps the majority, against them, and thus lead to their complete isolation. And even though they may not have to do with a Nero or a Diocletian, this will mean severe restriction by the limit which is so palpably and effectively set to their life-movement. Is it not surprising-when we think of the shame in which Jesus died, rejected not only by God but by men-that this particular cross seems to come upon relatively so few Christians? Or is it the case that so many succeed in evading it by refusing to go the distinctively Christian way on which they will inevitably be threatened and assailed by their limitation in this form ? Not by a long way, however, does the New Testament pretend that the sufferings of this present time are restricted to persecution. A passage like Rom. 8l9f • is shot through by the conception that the cross of Christians also consists in their particular share in the tension, transience, suffering and obscurity by which every man is in some form constricted and disturbed and finally condemned to death and in which man also seems to find himself in a painful connexion' with creation as such and as a whole. The older Evangelical hymn depicted the cross of the Christian primarily in this light. In so doing, it departed to some extent from the New Testament. But it did it very impressively. If it is in its own way right, then in relation to the cross laid on the Christian we have also to think of the afflictions of creaturely life and being which come on him either suddenly or gradually, momentarily or continually, but in the long run with overwhelming force: misfortunes, accidents, sickness and age; parting from those most dearly loved; disruption and even hostility in respect of the most important human relations and communications; anxiety concerning one's daily bread, or what is regarded as such; intentional or unintentional humiliations and slights which have to be accepted from those immediately around; the inability freely to develop one's life and talents; the sense of a lack of worthwhileness in respect of particular tasks; participation in the general adversities of the age which none can escape; and finally the dying which awaits us all at the end. If Jesus Himself was a suffering creature, and as such the Lord of all creatures, we are not only permitted but commanded to regard all the human suffering which we have only briefly sketched as a suffering with Him, in His fellowship, and therefore to understand the irruption of this suffering into the life of the Christian as the sign of this fellowship, and thus the manifestation of the supreme dignity of the Christian. Finally, we must think of the suffering which-perhaps quite apart from persecution, or the participation in other ills of human life, but perhaps also in connexion with them-arises in all its terror from the

612

§ 66. The Sanctification of Man

fact that the Christian too, in spite of what he already is, still stands under the law of sin, and is still afflicted with the burden of the flesh, and is therefore subject to temptation, and is in fact tempted, always latently and sometimes acutely, notwithstan?ing. his ,age or maturity or serious Christian achievements; tempted m hIS faIth and love and hope, and therefore in the fulfilment of his relationship to God a~ it has been perfectly restored in the atoning death of Jesus. TemptatIOn in the shape of intellectual or theoretical doubts is r~l~tively the. most harmless form of this cross. There too, of course, It IS a questIOn of truth. But in so far as it arises in a theoretical form it can be answered in an orderly induction by correct study ~nd refl~cti?n. The trouble is that it then suddenly or gradually anses agam m the new form whether the truth-that which is or can be known theoretically as true-is even for the Christian an authoritative and effective and illuminating truth-the truth of life. Here we have the practical doubt by which the real Christian espe~ial~y ~s often attacked and perhaps steadily beleaguered as by an mvmClble enemy. He may accept and repeat the creed. But does he really believe, a! ?O~to~, in the presence and action of the Father, Son and Holy Spmt m .hIS own life? Has he really experienced His grace? Does he know It ? Can he live in and by it? Has it really been addressed to him? ~an this really be the case when in the innermost place where as a ChnstIan he would be satisfied with even a little he is so empty and dry, so helpless in his attempt to seize and exploit the help which he knows is there, so unable to pray a prayer which ~s worthy of the One to whom he prays, and certain to be heard by HIm? Is he not alway.s a fool before God, an unprofitable servant? Has not ~od long smce removed His face from him-if it ever lighted on hIm at all? Would he not do better to be something other than a Christian? In this form we may doubt even the truth which we know and sincerely confess. And God knows that-whether we are aware of it or not-we all stand constantly on the edge of this doubt. We must beware of transmuting and even glorifying it dialectically.. Onc~ we re.ally ~now it, we will not do this. It is the sharpest form m whIch a lI~mt IS s~t to the Christian. It is the bitterest form of the cross. In thIS form It has been laid, with its hostile stimulation, even on what are humanly 34 speaking the greatest of Christians. According t~ Mk: 15 Jesus Himself experienced the cross finally and supremely m thIS form. He, the only begotten Son of God, had to ask: "Why hast thou f?rsak~n me?" This is comforting. What are our doubts and despaIrs, dISguised or acute, compared with His dereliction, which was also and especially suffered by Him in our place? T~is mean~, however, that in fellowship with Him we have to reckon ~enously WIth the f~ct tha~ our cross will take, and may never lose, thIS character. In thIS char acter it cannot form part of an intellectual game. Unless we a.re to evade our sanctification at the decisive point, we have to bear It, to

6. The Dignity of the Cross

613

see it through, in this character. The. only thing is that in so doing we are not forsaken by the One who raIsed and answered the question whether ~e was not forsaken by God. At this point, then, we find ourselves m the deepest fellowship with Him. We may conclude the discussion with two observations. First, we must emphasise again that those who know what the cross. is will not desire or seek to bear it. Self-sought suffering has not~mg whatever to do with participation in the passion of Jesus Chnst, and therefore with man's sanctification. The cross which we h~ve to be~r in following Jesus comes of itself, quite apart from any WIsh or actIOn of our own. No one need worry that there will be no cross. for him. Our only concern is not to avoid it; not defiantly or craftIly to refuse to bear it; or not to cast it away again when it is only ~alf taken up. C?ur only concern, since we have to suffer in any case, IS not to do so lIke the ungodly, which means without the comfort and promise of suffering with Jesus. It must be our constant prayer, not only when adversity comes but in the good days which precede it, that this should not happen, that the Holy Ghost should make us free to accept and therefore to bear the appointed cross, i.e., to make it our own. Second, the tolerantia crucis is not an end in itself, and the direction to it, like every direction to sanctification, is not an ultimate but ?nl~ a. penultimate . ~ord. The dignity of the cross is provisional, mdlcatmg the proVISIOnal nature of the Christian existence and all sanctification. The crown of life is more than this. It is of the very essence of the cross carried by Christians that it has a goal, and therefore a? end, ~n~ ther~fore its time. It signifies the setting of a term. That IS why It IS so bItter. But this limitation is not itself unlimited. Bo.rne in pa~-ticipationin .the suffering of Jesus, it will cease at the very POlI~t to whIch the suffenng of Jesus points in the power of His resurre.etIOn,. and t~erefore to which our suffering also points in company WIth HIS. It IS not our cross which is eternal, but, when we have borne it, the future life revealed by the crucifixion of Jesus. Rev. 21 4 will then. be a present reality: "And God shall wipe away all tears from theIr eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are .p~ssed away." .P. Gerhardt is thus right when he says: "Our ChnstIan cros~ IS bnef a?d b,oun~ed, One day 'twill have an ending. When ~us.hed IS sn?wy WInter s v~Ice, Beauteous summer comes again; T~u~ ~;Vlll be WIth human pam. Let those who have this hope reJOIce. There cannot lack a foretaste of joy even in the intermediate time of waiting, in the time of sanctification and therefore in the time of the cross. '

1.

§ 67

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND THE UPBUILDING OF THE CHRISTIAN COMMUNITY The Holy Spirit is the quickening power w~th whic~ Jesus the Lord builds up Christianity in the world as HIs bo.dy, ~.e., as the earthly-historical form of His own existen~e, causlI~g It .to grow, sustaining and ordering it as the communion .of HiS samts, ~nd thus fitting it to give a provisional representatton of the sanctt~­ cation of all humanity and human life as it has taken place m Him. 1.

THE TRUE CHURCH

The upbuilding of the Christian co~muni~y and then Christ~an the two themes which we have stIll to discuss at the conclUSIOn o~v:h~:~econd part of the doctrine of reconciliatio~. I~ these spher~s, t have to do with the divine work of sanctIficatIOn as a specl~l f~~x'nw;f the reconciliation of the world with ~od whic? was ~nd IS and will be an event in Jesus Christ. The difference m relatIon. to our revious path can consist only in the fact that '!'e a:e n.o~ lookmg es e~ially at what is effected, and therefore actual, m thIS dlvme ~o.rk. T6e powerful and living direction of the Resurrected, of the livmg Lord Jesus and therefore the Holy Spirit, whom we have. h~d to understand' as the principle of sa~ctifica tio~, e~ects the up bUlI~mg ~: the Christian community, and m ~nd wIth It t~e event~atI?n he Christian love; the existence of Chnstendom, and m and wIth It t existence of individual Christians.

The True Church

61 5

nos alat suis uberibus, denique sub custodia et gubernatione sua nos tueatur (I, 4). Did he perceive the full reach of the assertion expressed in this image? If so, why is it that it is only in the Fourth Book that he comes to speak of the Church, and that he thinks of it as one (if the chief) of the externa media vel adminicula by which God invites us to fellowship with Christ and maintains us in that fellowship? E. Brunner (Das Missverstandnis der Kirche, I95I, E.T., p. 9 f.) is surely right in his conjecture that no apostle would ever have thought of the community merely as an external means to serve a quite different end-the sanctification of individual Christians. To be sure, we have not to speak too exclusively in terms of ends and means. The existence of that mother, and therefore of the community, is also a means, as is that of its children, individual Christians. Another point not brought out by this comparison is that the community exists only in the common being and life and action, in the faith and love and hope, of its members, and therefore of individual Christians. Again, the existence of individual Christians is also an end, as is that of the community. For individual Christians exist in the community, living by the special grace addressed and for the special service allotted to it. Both are ends and both are means. And if it is not merely externally that the sanctification of individual Christians belongs to the fulfilment of reconciliation, the same is true of the upbuilding of the community. By an inward necessity the one takes place in and with the other. But because we cannot see and understand the individual Christian except at the place where he is the one he is, and because this place is the community, we have first to consider the community, although remembering at every point that in it we have to do with the many individual Christians assembled in it.

I

It seems as though we might (and perhaps should)reverse the order an~ ~~ that the Holy Spirit effects the eventua~ion of Chnstlan love an~ ~~~refo~f the existence of individual Christians, and III ?-nd Wlth ~~s . t~e ~p UI ~~~ this is Christian community and therefore the eXIstence 0 f ns en. om. . . tian onl in appearance. If it is true that Christian love is that w~lch (WIth C~;:e to and Christian makes man live as m mber that the Illdlvldual man oes no ecome.. ' . h th upre he. vacuum but in a definite historical context, l.e., III and WIt e 'ng suc , III a , H d the basis and in the meam °i: his sp'ecific its uP b~lding and in the exercise of Its faIth and love and hope. AC ustine thus he takes up a comparison and . and calls the Church (Instit. IV, I,. I) the mother 0 a e levers;riat, nisi non a l'LUS es t'ttl vitam ingressus n~s~ nos 4~psa conc~ptat ~n utero, nls~ p

fai~

hope~

andindividtu~

~ ~~~~~~li~r;; :~d

~~~di~gO:s~h~fC~~~s~:fst~~~;:t~~~co~m~~i:~, particip~~v':~ i~ ~ight whe~ al~~ady use~.bYfc~yr~a~ u~uando 61

At the beginning of the previous section we stated that in the work of sanctification God has to do with a people of men (consisting, of course, of individuals); and that this corresponds to the fact that in this work, as in that of reconciliation generally, His purpose is originally and ultimately for the whole world of men as such. As Jesus Christ is the Reconciler of all men, and in this way (in His fellowship with all) the Reconciler of each individual man, so as the Head of His community He is the Lord of its many members, and in this way (in His special fellowship with these many, with this particular people) the Head of each of its constituents. At a later stage we shall have to raise the question what makes a man a Christian, and speak of Christian love. But we have first to see and understand the context to which this question and the answer to it belong, and thus to consider that what takes place in the work of the Holy Spirit is the upbuilding of the community. The fact that we are now considering what is effected in the work of sanctification cannot mean-either when we speak of the Christian community or of Christian love-that we have to turn our back on the action of God in Jesus Christ by the Holy Spirit and to occupy ourselves in abstracto with a being and work of men as its result. We are, of course, dealing with a work done in common by a group of men within the race and its history when we speak first of the upbuilding of the community. Sanctification generally is concerned with the being and work of men; with the wholly divine stimulation and characterisation of the existence of those upon whom it comes as

616

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and upbuilding of the Christian Community

something distinctive. So, too, the form of sanctification which we have now to discuss is concerned with the work of the quickening power of His spirit with which Jesus Christ builds up Christianity within the world; with the divine inauguration, control and support of the human action which takes place among Christians. For this reason I find it hard to see what Brunner means when (oP, cit" p. 106 f,) he says of the New Testament community that it was not" made" as the Churches of the Reformation were constituted by the acts of men, but that it " became" by a direct action of the Holy Spirit; and when he argues that it is one of the advantages of the Orthodox and Roman Churches that the same can be said of them to the extent that they have become what they are to-day by a long and continuous and uninterrupted process of development (involving, of course, the fatal transformation of the original nature of the ecclesia). This is a curious alternative. The men responsible for the Reformation of the 16th century would hardly have recognised themselves in the statement that their Churches were '~ fabricated by a human act," Did not these Churches expressly see and understand and say of themselves that they were reformed by the Word of God and that they therefore stood in continuity with the one Church of the first and every age as formed by God's Word? Naturally there had to be all kinds of human decisions and acts, and therefore fabrication, corresponding to and serving this divine reformation. But these are also to be found-although of a very different kind-in the process by which the Orthodox and Roman Churches have evolved. They are also to be found even in the primitive community of the New Testament, It would be a strange historical development (even that of the Christian community as " the great miracle of history," op, cit" p. u6). and a strange divine work of sanctification, which did not involve a human being and work, and therefore fabrication, inaugurated and controlled and supported by God.

It is clear, however, that to see and understand that which is effected by God, the Church, in its true reality, we have not to lose sight even momentarily or incidentally of the occurrence of the divine operation, and therefore concretely of the divine work of upbuilding the community by Jesus Christ. The Church is, of course, a human, earthly-historical construct, whose history involves from the very first, and always will involve, numan action. But it is this human construct, the Christian Church, because and as God is at work in it by His Holy Spirit. In virtue of this happening, which is of divine origin and takes place for men and to them as the determination of their human action, the true Church truly is and arises and continues and lives in the twofold sense that God is at work and that there is a human work which He occasions and fashions. Except in this history whose subject is God-but the God who acts for and to and with specific men-it is not the true Church. Nor is it visible as such except in relation to this history. Thus, to see the true Church, we cannot look abstractly at what a human work seems to be in itself. This would not be a genuine phenomenon but a false. The real result of the divine operation, the human action which takes place in the true Church as occasioned and fashioned by God, will never try to be anything in itself, but only the divine

I.

The True Church ffi f

· opera t lOn, the divine work of sa

ianity by the Holy Spirit of

Jesu~~~e C::o~~n'bthe ~?~u.il~in.g

6

17

of Christ-

~nd c~ntrolled and supported. To the ex'te ~ wh~c .1t:S maug~rat~d Itself, It is the phenomenon of the ~l t at It IS anythmg m

it is only this semblance, and not t~e~~;:~han~e of a Church, and when we consider this phenomenon. urc , that we shall see . The abstraction which this entails and of which' , I,S betr,ayed at once by the fact that all the bib!' we Decome gUilty on this view EKKATJUta can be applied only po t' 11 Ical statements m praise of the what is here seen, or thought to ~el~: y o~I mythologically and not literally to thing in itself be the people of God en o~ can that which tries to be someor th the flock of Jesus Christ or His b :d e CI y or house or planting of God or , t ( , n e, or even HIs body th ' sam s, or according to I Tim 315) th '11 ,or e communion of which is a Church only in a' e pi ar and ground of truth? The Church d' ppearance may try to deck 't lf pre Icates, but by its very nature (as a me ' I se out with these Impossible for these predicates to be tak re sembla nce) will It not make it quite l classical description of the Chur h (' ~~ S~IOUS X? The same is true of the catholica et apostolica (on this poin~, cf~nC,De. I~c,;Const, creed) as una, sancta, terms can be applied to anything but the div' ' ,pp, 668-7 2 5), None of these ~he Church, None of them can be sustained me operatIOn which takes place in IS only the sum of what seems to be th m respect of a phenomenon which Church, as a human work ostensibly som~ m itself, pretending to be the they are conducted with reference to t~~cas~ne and fashioned by God, When order and task of the Church about l't IS P le,nfomenon, all discussions about the are pointless and obscure All kl'nd s mfntehr I e ",:nd its commission in the World ,,' s 0 eoretlcal and p t' I " ' d ' an restramed, optimIstic and pessimistic 'd ' rac Ica, enthUSiastic of Course, be advanced, but they are n ~Ot~SI eratlOns and statements may, case WIth thinking and speech about t~ne~h ~m necessary, \Vhere this is the that we are looking at a human work e t urc , It IS always an alarming sign thinking that we can formulate state!:~t:n~ngt t~hbe something in itself, and work of man which takes place in the true Ch a ou IS w,ork as such, But the God is revealed as such only as it 0' t b u r ch as occaSIOned and fashioned by that it is occasioned and fashione~ li~ stheyond Itself and witnesses to the fact sanctification, the upbuilding of th IS way, attestmg the divine work of 't' , e commumty by the Holy S ' 't b I IS maugurated and determined and characterised, pIn, y which

11

The Christian community the true Chu h ' d ' th H I 'S . . ' rc , arIses an IS onl e. 0 y pmt works-the quickening power of th 1" L Y as t.efi lVIng ord Jesus ChrISt. And it continues and is only as H h uman wor, k b mldmg . . up them and th ' e sane ' k ' 1 es men and th elr elr wor mto the true Church. He does this however in h ' return of Jes~s Christ ~nd :h:r:~:: ~ne~~:e~~~eo;~~urrection a?d the . e ~ommumty (d, on this point C.D., IV I § 62 3) in the the human world which ;artici at I ~orld, I.e" !n this context visional revelation of Jesus Chrift a~~~~ rh~~ ~~~e~~r.hcU~tr an~ prob I IS sh I a prIsoner to the flesh and sin and death. Christianit t and works ,and thinks and speaks and y't O?' ,e ongs to thIS world, t" . ac s m It-even though 't ac IOn IS occas~oned and fashioned by that of the HoI S" 1S at best, then, ItS action is an e uivocal w't y pmt. Even occasioned and fashioned in th[s way ~ ~es:hto the fact that it is good cases, the bad and even the worst . whe~ th er: may hbe ~he less , e WI t ness t at It ought

618

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and Upbuilding a/the Christian Community

61 9 foll?ws, namely,. tha~ the true Church (its upbuilding by God as the b~~IS and ?etermmatIOn of what men want and do and achieve) becomes ~sIbl~ as m the P?we~ o~ the Holy Spirit (the same Holy Spirit by whose VICto~ous operatIOn It IS the true Church) it emerges and shines out from ItS concealment both in that which is established and traditional and cu~t?ma~y and also in innovation and change? This emergence and .shimng. I~ustrate the f.reedom of grace; the mighty act of the particular divme mercy WhICh takes place when in spite of its sinful tendency the human action of Christians does not attest itself but its basis and meaning, depicting and expressing the divine sanctifying and upbuilding. This takes place only as we can see and read the dark letters of an electric sign when the current is passed through it. We can never see the true Church as we can see a state in its citizens and officials and organs and laws and institutions. We can, of course see the members of the Church, and its officials and constitutions and orders, its dogmatics and cultus, its organisations and societies its leader~ with their polit~cs, ~nd its laity, its art and press-and all ~hese m the context of ItS hIstory, Where else is the Church visible If not in the~e.? If it is. ~ot ,,:isible in these, it is obviously not visible at ~ll. But I.S It rea!ly Vlsl.ble m these? Not immediately and directly. This something WhICh claIms to be the Church, and is before us all in these manifestations, may well be only the semblance of a Church in whic~ the will and :vork of man, although they allege that they 'are occasIOned and. fas~?ned. by God,. are striving to express only themselve~. What IS VISIble m all thIS may be only a religious society. And If we ass~me, not only that this is not the case, but that what we have here IS really the true Church, it is not self-evident that this will be visible as sU~h in all these things; that its actuality will be eloquent truth. As It cannot create or confer its reality the same is true of its visibility. It can only be endowed with it." , If it is also Visible. as a true. Church, this means that the victory of the divine operation, the mIghty act of the Holy Spirit in face of the sinfulness of hu.m.an action, finds further expression in a free emergence and outshmmg of the true Church from the concealment in which it is enveloped by the sinfulness of all human volition (and therefore of ecclesia~tical), .and .in which it must continue to be enveloped apart from th~s contmuatIO? of the operation of the Holy Spirit. It will be ~lways m the revelatIOn of God that the true Church is visible. And It will be always in faith awakened by this revelation that it is actually seen by men-at the place where without revelation and faith there is to be s:en (perha:ps i~ a very c.onf~sing ~nd deceptive way) only this many-sIded eccleSIastIcal quantIty m all ItS ambiguity. It is in this sense that we count on the fact that the Church is a true Church, and visible as such, and in this confidence thus turn our ~ttention to the history in which its being and visibility as the true Church have their living basis. We have called this the divine 1.

to give is either omitted or obscured and falsified; when the pride or sloth of man, or both together, is what is e~p~essed and reve~le?- as the work of the divine sanctifying and upbUllding. In short, .It IS to be feared-for this is where its determination by human p~de and sloth ultimately leads-that it will :xpress and reveal v~ry lit~le ?ut itself; itself as occasioned and f~shion:d by God, but Wlt~ ~his hIgh consciousness and pretentious claIm; Itself and .not the divme occasioning and fashioning which are its true meamng and power; . t~e semblance of a Church, therefore, and not the true Chur~h. This IS the particular sin which to so~e extent is always commItted where the community arises and contmues here and now. . Nor is it something self-evident, but always the ommpotent act of a special divine mercy, if the Church is not merely the sem?lance of a Church, but in spite of the sinfulness of the human action .of Christians a true Church, and expressed an~ re:vea~ed as such. ~~ Its own strength this is quite impossible. Its mstItutIOns ar:d. tradItions and even its reformations are no guarantee as such that It IS the true Church, for in all these things we have to do wi~h human and th~refo~e sinful action, and therefore in some sense WIth a self-ex~r~ssIOn m which it can be only the semblance of a C~urch. If the ~vme .occasioning and fashioning of this human actIOn take place m spIte ?f it, i.e., of its sinful tendency, this is no~ a quality of the Church m which it actualises its reality but the tnumph of th~ po~e: of Jesus Christ upbuilding it; an omnipotent act of the specIal. dlvme ';llercy addressed to it which makes use of the human and smful action of the community'but does not proceed from it and cannot be understood in terms of it. Let us accept for once the well-known definition of the una sancta ecGlesia perpetuo mansura in the Confession of Augsburg, VII. , It IS the congregatw t 'n qua evangelium pure docetur et recte admtmstrantur sacramenta. ~~o;:~'t~en that in Art. VIII we read that ': in thi~ life there are many false Christians and hypocrites and even notorious smne~s amongst the PI~US" and that scribes and Pharisees sit in Moses' seat? ObVIOusly t~IS does not mdicate donatistic lack of faith in the superiority of the Holy Spmt to all Chnstlan t' 'What it signifies is that the pure docere and recte admtmstrare of ~I~U!r~o~. matter of the human action of those gathered in the Church" and cannot therefore be presupposed as a self-evident q~antlty: They are a dlvI~e ift which is certainly promised to the Church, yet IS not mherent to It as t. e ~ontent of the romise but has to be continually prayed for and receIved by It. With reference ~o the faith mediated and to be attamed through preachmg a:~i~ the sar.raments it is said expressly in Art. V that It IS the gIft of the Holy Spi awake~ing faith by preaching and the sacraments tamquam per instrumenta;:ubi et uando visum est Deo. This is not meant by Mela~chthon many p t destina~ian sense, but with the pure and recte of Art. VII It IS certamly mea~h to restrict the idea which is to be found in some forms and CIrcles of a Ch~r of which is true and effective ex opere operato, havmg no need of the free grac God and living by a very different grace.

We have also to consider the relevance of the matter to the question of the visibility of the Church. Are we not forced to put It as

The True Church

620

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and Upbuilding of the Christian Community

inauguration and control and.suPP?rt of t~e ~UI!1an a~tio~ which takes place in the community and m whIch Chr.lstlamty eXIsts m the world. And we will gather up this whole ha1?pemng un~er the concept. of the upbuilding of the Christian commumty. In thl.s first sub-~ectIOn w.e shall take a comprehensive glance at the whole m explanatIOn of thIS title. . . . This history has a direction and a go~l. ThIS I~ the. first pomt to be noticed if we are to see and understand It. What IS at Issue has been stated in the concluding part of our introductory thesis. The Holy Spirit is the power by whic~ Jesus Christ ~ts H.is community ".to give a provisional representatlon of t~e s~nc~~ficatIOn of all humamty and human life as it has taken place m HIm. The existence of the true Church is not an end in itself. The divine operation by which it is vivified and constituted makes it quite impossible that its existence as the true C~u:ch shoul~ be. un~erstood as the goal of God's will for it. The divme ~peratIOn m vlr~ue of which it becomes and is a true Church ma~es It a movemen~ m ~he direction of an end which is not reached WIth the fact t~at It eXIsts as a true Church, but merely indicated and attested by thIS fact. On the way, moving in the dir~cti?n of this goal, it can and should serve its Lord. For this reason It WIll not be the true Chur~h. at all to ~he extent that it tries to express itself rather than the dlvme operatIOn by which it is constituted. As such it will reveal it~elf, or be revealed, in glory at this goal; yet only as the Church whIch does :rot t~y to seek and express and glorify itself, but absoh~tely to sub.ordmate Itself and its witness, placing itself u~reserv~dly m the ser:Vlc.e ~nd under the control of that which God WIlls for It and works WIthm It. The goal in the direction of w~ich ~he true Church. proceeds and moves is the revelation of the sanctlficatIOn of all humamty and human life as it has already taken place de iure in Jesus Christ. In the exalt~­ tion of the one Jesus, who as the Son of God became a servant m order as such to become the Lord of all men, there has bee.n accomplished already in powerful archetype, not only the can~ellatIOn of the sins and therefore the justification, bU~ also the elevatl~n and e~tab­ lishment of all humanity and human lIfe and therefore ItS sanc~lfica­ tion. That this is the case is the theme and content of the wItness with which His community is charged.. It comes from t~~ fi:st revelation (in the resurrection of Jesus Ch~lst) ?f the reconcllIatIO!1 of the world with God as it has taken place m thl~ sense ~oo. And It moyes towards its final manifestation in the commg a~am of J ~sus Ch~st. g Christianity, or Christendom, is the holy ~ommumtyo~ the mte:venm period; the congregation or people whIch knows. thIS elevatIOn and establishment, this sanctification, not merely de ture but alre.ady de facto, and which is therefore a witness to all others, r~presentmg ~he S sanctification w~ich .has al~e~dy come .upon t.h~m too m Jes~s ChO \ This representatIOn IS prOVISIOnal. It IS provIsIOnal because It has no

I.

The True Church

62I

yet achieved it, n?r will it do so. It can only attest it " in the puzzling form of 3: reflectIOn" (I Cor. I3 12 ). And it is provisional because, although It. comes from the resurrection of Jesus Christ, it is only on th~ way WIth others to His return, and therefore to the direct and u~lversal and definitive revelation of His work as it has been accomplIsh~d ,for them and for all men. The fact that it is provisional means that It IS fragmentar~ and. incompl.ete and insecure and questionable; for even the. c?mmumty stlll partlclpates in the darkness which cannot appr~h~nd, If I.t .also cannot overcome, the light (In. I 5). But the fact that It IS provls~onal. means also-for in this provisional way it represen~s the sanc.tl~catIOn o~ humanity as it has taken place in Jesus ~hnst-th~t ~Iv~ne work I~ done within it truly and effectively, genumely and I.nvmclbly, .and m all its totality, so that even though it is concealed m. many dIfferent ways it continually emerges and shines ou.t from. t:llS concealment in the form of God's people. It is with ~lllS proVISIOnal representation that we have to do on the way and m t.he movemen.t of ~he true Church. It is to accomplish it that it is on. ItS. way a~d In. thl~ m?vement. It is in order that it may accomplIsh It that ItS tIme IS gIven; the time between the times between the first a.nd the final re:velation of the work of God accomplished in Jesus Chnst. The meamng and content of our time-the last timeIS the fulfilment of this provisional representation as the task of the community of Jesus Christ. We must assert. alrea~y-and it. i~ something that has significance for the wh~le of thIS sectIOn-that It IS necessary that this provisional representa~IOn should take place. It is not merely possible. Nor is the necessIty only external or technical or incidental. It is internal and material and decisive. It is a saving necessity. The true Church IS no mere. ~or~ of grace, of the salvation directed to men by God, of the reconCIlIatIOn of the world w~th Him. It is not something which has ~ mere form we can take mto account merely accidentally or relatlvely ?r perhaps e.ven optionally. It is not just the means to an end WhICh can be dIspensed with, or treated with a certain aloofness, when other and perhaps better means are perceived. We may and c3:n ~nd should hold aloof from the semblance of a Church whose only aIm IS to seek and express and glorify itself. But the true Church -and where is the semblance which does not conceal the true Church from which it may not emer~e and shine out ?-is savingly necessary: We see an~ understand t~IS when we understand this provisional repres~ntatl?n as. the meanmg of the way on which-and the movement m whIch-It ~nds it~elf. The salvation addressed to man by God, and therefore m partlcular the elevation and establishment of man, of all r,nen, as it has taken place in Jesus Christ, is not a selfe,n~losed savmg fact either far behind us or high above us. It is a hv~~g redem~tive happ~ning which ~a~es place. Or, more concretely, Jt IS the savlllg operatIOn of the lIvmg Lord Jesus which did not

622

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and upbuilding oj the Christian Community

conclude but began in His revelat~on on.Eas~er Day. In its totality, in its movement to His final mamfestatIOn, It has the po~er of t~at which was once for all accomplished by Him at Calvary. It IS essentIal, and therefore necessary, to Him (Heb. 138 ), to .be n?t mere.ly ~ester­ day and for ever, but to-da~-in t.h~ intervemng tII~e w.tnch IS our time. And it is to-day in thIS provISIOnal representatIOn,.1Il the form of the true Church. It would not be God's and therefore It wo,:ld not be our salvation if it did not create and maintain and contmually renew the provisional representation in whic~ it i~ to-day. If we do not take it seriously in this, we do not take It senously at all. If .we hold ourselves aloof from this, we hold ourselves aloof from salvatIOn and the Saviour. For the Jesus Christ who rules the world ad ~exter~m Patris omnipoteniis is identical with t~e Ki?g of this people of.HIS whIch on earth finds itself on this way and m thIS movement. He I~ revea~ed only and can be claimed only in the histo~y ruled by HIm. 1he Christian love and life of even the greatest samt cannot be more than a provisional representation~ limited both in t~me and Rer~on, of t~e sanctification of all men as It has taken place m Jesus Chnst. In ItS limitation it is referred to the fact that it must be .surrounded a.nd supported and nourished and critically limited by thIS ~epre~e~t~tIOn in its totality, i.e., by the life and love of t~e c?m~umty,. If It IS to make its own contribution to this representatIOn m Its totalIty. Even the greatest saint is only this one man-a saint with othe~s in t~e communion of saints. And he is not perpetuo mansurus. He ~s a .samt o~ly in the ecclesia perpetuo mansura. He wou!d not .b~ a saInt If he tr~ed to be so in and for himself-apart from thIS prOVISIOnal rep~esentatIOn of the sanctification which has taken place in Jesus Chnst. Ext~a ecclesiam nulla salus. We shall have good reason to remember thIs assertion. . The question arises, however, whether the Churc? IS fitted to make this provisional representation. We have to remm~ ~urselv:s. that we are speaking of the representation ~hi~h,.although It IS p~oVlsIOnal, is a true and effective, genuine and mvmclble representatIon ?f the elevation and establishment of all men as it has been ~u~filled m the exaltation of the man Jesus, and therefore of the dlv:ne work of sanctification in its totality. Is the people assembled 1Il the community-a race of men an'd not of angels--fitted for this necessary If for 1't?. We recall . fit't 1 se . (this savingly necessary) event? Can It that it is a worldly people. If we can speak justly of its awakemn~ and gathering to be the people of God, we can speak also of th~ slot and pride which it is quick to pe~ceive in other. p~oples but whIch ar~ revealed all the more starkly in Itself because It IS the people of Go t (as we see from the history of Israel). Nor have we to forget wha seems to be the characteristic sin by which the Church seems a~way~ o to be threatened and into which it seems always to be on the pomt. falling: that of trying to represent itself rather than the sanctIficatIon

1.

The T1'tte Church

62~ ,J

wl:ich ha~ taken. place in Jesus Christ; of trying to forget that its eXIstence IS prOVISIOnal, and that it can exist only as it points beyond itself; of defining itself in terms of a present status before Go~1 in which it can believe and argue and proclaim that it is well-pleasin~ to men and ~herefore worthy to be represented. No, this people is never fitted of Its~lf to. make the representation which is the meaning and purpose of Its eXIstence. There can never be any question of this in the history of which we speak. It never takes place in virtue of the quali.ties of this'p'eo~le itself. Jesus the Lord, in the quickening power of HIS. Holy Spmt, IS the One who acts where this provisional representatIOn takes place, and therefore where the true Church is an event. He does not act di~e:tly-withoutthis people. He gives to this people th~ necessary qualItIes. He thus makes possible the impossible-that thIS race of men, just as it is, acquires and has the freedom to be able ~o serve Him. We .are speaking, therefore, of the history of this race m the sequence of ItS human thoughts and efforts and achievements. But we .are spea~in~ of the history in which it is unfit, but continually fitted, 1Il and WIth ItS human thought and word and will and work to make th~s prov~siona~ representation. More precisely, we are speaking of t~e hIstory 1Il WhICh God continually sets this people on the way a.nd 1Il move~ent, continually indicating both the goal and the direc·· tIon towa~d~ It. More precisely still, we are speaking of the history of the aC~Ivity of Jes~s, o~ the Lord who has come already, and will come ~gam,. but who IS alive to-day; of the activity of this Lord to and w~th H~s peopl~. As H~ acts. to and with His people, this people fills WIth HIS actIVIty the tIme gIven to itself and the world. As a witness of that which has taken place in Him for all men, it looks and moves forward to the direct and universal and definitive revelation of this event. There is a passage in Ephesians (4 12 - 15 )-we shall have to come back to it again in another connexion-which speaks with singular force and beauty and yet sobnety of thIS fittIng of the Christian community for the provisional representation of the universal scope (concealed as yet) of the person and work of Jesus Christ. • In v. 12 we read of. a p:eparation or equipment (Ka7"ap7"'u!-,o,) of the saints (ay,o,). The chansmatrcs gIven by Christ to the community, some apostles, s~m~ prophets.. some evangelists, some pastors and teachers (v. II), are all, WIthIn the lImIts and WIth the determination of their particular endowment (Ka7"d 7"0 !-,hpov 7"1], owp.as 7"OV Xp'U7"OV, v. 7). the human instruments of this preparation in which Jesus Christ is at work to and with them. But it takes place-and this is our present concern-with a view to the service which they ~re to render by theIr human work (.is
6 4 2

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and Upbuilding of the Christian Community

", . d describe the direction of the work for WhIC,h the 1TUVTES as),' ' . -these wo:, s L' d to serve the edifying of the body of Chr~st, commumty IS empov.ered ~y I,tS or to have a wider -reference than the Imit is a matter--:-and the Ot 1TUVT~~ see~s f their reaching a ccrtain place-of their mcdiate circle mdlcated by the we b 0 tt' d but to which their existence, , ' 1 h' h h not yet een a ame attammg a goa w IC as fitt d is directed as to an eschaton, so that they the work for whIch they are e, ' I ' A threefold Els is used in v. 13 must allOW themselves to be shafie1 :cceor~~~g~hich in its futurity already deterto describe this goal WhICh IS stI u u~ 'th ork of their ministry, and their mines and charactenses their presen, e w equipment to achieve it. , _, , ov- v
ot

1£

f

1.

The True Church

62 5

He is not yet revealed to it any more than to the world, but concealed from it. lt is for this looking and moving to Him that it is already fitted.

Els I-'ETpOV ~},tKtUS ToD 1TATJpwI-'UTOS TOD XpwToD. If it is again correct to assume that what is stated here is identical with what is described in the preceding phrases, so that (1) we are given fresh light on the one point not yet reached by the community and (2) there is a recognisable identity between what is denoted here and the earlier" unity" and .. complete man," the result is that ~AtK{U has to be translated" stature" rather than" age." METpOV ~},tK{US means the fullest possible measure, the maximum extent, to which a body can grow or stretch. This might refer, of course, to the av~p TE},fLOS. But in this case the third phrase would not really add anything new. And it is not Christ Himself, but the 1T},~pwl-'a, to which reference is made. But according to 1 23 His 1T},~PWI-'U is the community, His body. It is called His 1T},~pWl-'a because, as He belongs to it and it to Him, He is the complete man, the Christ, the totus Christus, together with it. The present reference is thus to the community as this 1T},~pwl-'a ToD XpLlnoD. It is of the community that it is said that it looks and moves towards the full measure of its stature, of which it still falls far short. This measure cannot be greater than that of the stature of its Head, but it cannot be smaller. For according to 1 23 , as the community is His 1T},~PWp.a, He is the One who for His part is Tel 1TaVTa €V 1Tfi-ULV 1T},TJPOVl-'fVOS (d. Col. 3 11 ). It is to be noted that this is a thought peculiar to Ephesians and Colossians only in its christological form. In substance, exactly the same thing is said in I Cor. 15 28 in its description of the eschaton (O«;s 1Tana €V 1Tauw). and here too it is Christ who introduces this eschaton, this complete presence and lordship of God in and over all things. The totality of created essence, in aU its forms (€V 1TaUtv), cannot be and consist without Him who according to 1 22 is its Head. And it must not be without Him. He has subjected it to God (1 Cor. 15 28 ), and God to Him (Eph. 1 22 ). He has" ascended up far above all heavens," iva 1T},TJPW07J Tn 1TaVTa (Eph. 410). The avaKfepa},a{wutS " of aU things" (110) has already taken place in Him. The fulfilling of the Katpo{, which without Him would be empty, has already been brought about in Him. If the community for its part is the 1T},~pwl-'a of Him who is Himself the 1T},~pwl-'a of the cosmos, this means that in the full measure of its compass it will embrace no more, but no less, than the cosmos. In other words, the totality of the heavenly and earthly world now has no existence distinct from that of the community, which is the 1TA~pWl-'a ToD XptuToD. It will still be the €KK},TJu{a even when everything that is will be only in it. For it will be the body of Christ-Christ in and with this 1T},-rypwl-'a. Obviously, in this form, in this measurc of its extent or compass, the community itself is absolutely future, just as Christ is absolutely future to it as the av~p TE},fLOS, the One in whom all this is comprehended, and just as that €VOTTJS of the knowledge of faith is also absolutely future to it. But it now looks and moves towards itself in this future form. It exists as an " heir" (1 11 ), being predestinated according to the decision (1TpOOfatS) of the One who works aU things according to the counsel of His Will, and therefore already in this status as an heir (1 12 ), to magnify His glory as the community of those who already (as 1TPOTJ},1TLKOTfS) hope in Christ, the totus Christus, and therefore in their own hidden but realised futurc in the form of this full extent of their compass. And it is for this that the community is already fitted-to look and to move forward to Him in His future form, and thercfore to itself in its future form, giving a provisional representation both of Him as the 1T},~PWI-'U of all things, and of itself as His 1T},~pw!J-a. After this comprehensive glance at the eschaton to be attained by the community, and at its O\\Tl absolute future, a surprisingly sober turn is given to the continuation in v, Lj, which is linked with the preceding sentence by a iva, but wbich returns us to the Christian present. We now see ourselves again in our present form, within the present world, and therefore as a collection of men \\ ho at the very least are in great danger. who are still 1'~1TLO', immature, "tossed

626

§ 67. The Holy Spird and up building of the Christian Community

to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunni~g craftiness which they practise i~ the service of the !-,dJooEl~ Tfis 1TAav~~ (TOV Owf3oAov, 6 11 )." As it is determined and directed by thl~ vanegated method of the world, which always claims to be solemn OLOaaKaALa, the commullity will obviously be incapable of that movement of thought and life towards the eschaton. The world around does not know Christ, who is really its Head. Hence It does not know this eschaton. If the community, which is itself a race of men, listens to the world around, and thinks in its categories, and seriously (and not just occasionally) speaks its language and conforms its life to its standards, It makes itself incapable of its own hope, which also has reference to and embraces the world. Its view of that &oT7JS, of the av~p T'Anos, ofthe measure of Its own stature, is then obscured, and its way to this goal blocked. With its goal, it also loses its direction as suggested by the picture of the wind and waves. This IS what need not au'd must not happen any more (!-,1]K'Tt), for in respect of this danger arrangements have now been made by the Lord, through the ministry of the charismatics mentioned in v. I I f., to fit it for this looking and movmg. The preparation (KaTaPTLu!-,os) of the saints consists in the recollection, first of what Christ already is, that as the Head of all thmgs He IS their Head, and second of what they already are in Him, that as the commullity they are HIs body, summoned to hasten towards this being of His and theirs, and therefore to that £voT7Js. This is the truth by which they are determined, and it is absolutely superior to every sleight of men or " method of error" (v. IS). The preparatIOn of the saints consists in their equipment for all1]liwnv, I.e., for a life which here and now is lived by and for this truth; in a love for their Head which will not fail to give inner unity to the Church. 'AA1]Ii£vOVTES & aya1l7l in virtue of this preparation, the saints .will do the .P'Yov Tfis OLaK~v{~~ (v. I;) and therefore fU.lfil the meaning of their eXistence as samts. They: will. grow (~cc:n?ept to whl?h we shall have to return in the second sub-sectIOn), I.e., grow ns aVTOV, mto Chnst who is their Head in the direction which He thus gives, and towards the goal which He thus appoints. As the community makes this movement and is engaged m this growth, it exists £Is E1TaLVov o&'1]S aVTOv (1 12). And it may at least be, as~ed whether " in every respect or part" is not too weak a rendering for the Ta -n:avTa of this statement; whether in accordance with the common usage of Ephesians, and the whole tenor of the passage, we ought not to give to the phrase the mclusive sense that in and with the life by and for the truth which the commullity lives in love the totality of things, the whole world, grows into the One who as its Head is also its 1TA~pw!-,a. If this is so, the meaning corresponds to. that of the ol1TaVT£S of v. I3-that the cosmos, represented it;' the commumty ~hlCh li~es its separate life within it, participates in the provIsIOnal representation which is the special task of the community.. . .. In v. 16 a description is given of this growmg, which m the first instance and intrinsically is, of course, that of the community as such. But we will postpone until later our exposition of this statement.

It is, then, for this provisional representation, for its upbuilding, that the community is fitted. Other terms can, of course, be u~ed to describe it, as, for instance, the grow~h .or maintenance or ?rd~r~ng of the body of Christ. But" the upbUllding of the commumty IS the main heading which comprehends the others and enables us to s~e the main outlines of the whole. The important role which it has ill the New Testament invites us to begin at this point. Significant contributions to its understanding have been made by P. Viel~auer. Oikodome, 1939, K. L. Schmidt, " Die Erbauung"der Kirche mit ihren Ghe~;; als den Fremdlingen und Belsassen auf Erden (Verhandl. des SchweM.

r. The True Church

62 7

Pfarrvereins, 194 6 , published 1947), and O . .Michel, Art. OtKos, etc., in Kittel's W drterbuch, V.

In the sense in which we are here using it on the model of the New

Testam~n~, the unequi.vocal re~erence of the term" upbuilding " is to

the Chnstian commumty. It IS not the Christian individual as such but the com~~nity ,":hich,. ~n its individual members and through thei; :eClprocal mimstry, IS edihed, and lets itself be edified, and edifies Itself. In modern times, under the influence of Pietism, we have come to think in terms of the edification of individual Christians--in the sense of their inward lllsplratlOn and strengthening and encouragement and assurance. The cognate Idea has also ansen of that which is specifically edifying_ Now all this is not dellled._ It IS~ mdeed, included in a serious theological concept of upbuilding. But It .IS only Included .. In the abstract, It IS qUIte Imposslble_ Even in Jude 20, which as t~r_ as I know IS the only verse to which appeal may be made, €1TOLKOOO!-'£lV cann~t pos.slbly mean pnvate edificatIOn. No such thing is ever envisaged in th~ ~ew lestamem. Th~ New Testament speaks always of the upbuilding of the commulllty. I can edify myself only as I edify the community.

It is a ma~ter ~f the actual occurrence, the event, the fulfilment, the ~ork of edificatIOn, and therefore of the construction of a building. The Ide~ of so~e parts which have already been built, and are already present III rudImentary form, is no doubt unavoidable and included in the met~phor. ~ut it is not intrinsic to it. Naturally the Christian commumty has III fact attained to certain states. But it is not the community in virtue of these states. It is so in virtue of the fact that th~y .are the result of ~ts previous development and history and upbUlldIllg, and the startIllg-point for that which is to follow. It is in ~h~ process of pa~sing through these lower or higher rudiments. But It IS not actually III any of them. Even more important is a further distinction that we have to make. The image of building naturally includes the idea-as a focal point for the human work of construction-of the completed edifice. We can and must ~ay: of th~s th~t it is essential to the whole metaphor. What would ChnstIan edificatIOn be if it were not with a view to the future totality? If the community did not look and move towards this its building :vo~l~ be futile and it would not-in the course of bUildi~g­ be. the ChnstIan. community. But in this instance the completed e~lfice-and the Image breaks down at this point-is not identical wI~h t~e resu!t of the construction. As the community is edified and edifies Itself, It looks and waits for the completed edifice which in face of the development and construction in which it is here and now the Christian community will, as its own eschaton, be something completely n~w: not the result of its own existence; not the final word of its hIstory; but something which comes to it from God; its genuine eschaton, and therefore that of the whole cosmos.

628

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and upbuilding of the Christian Community

In the New Testament passages which speak of the oIKooof'~ we do find occasional reference to the outlines of the building as already present. MentIOn IS also made of its complcled form. But for good reason the latter IS never Identified with the result of the work of construction in which the commumty IS engaged. Nor is it regarded as the supreme achievement of the commumty, even as m~de ~)ossible by the grace of God. The reference is always to another actuality in which the community is not merely future to Itself, but transcendent. The holv city, new Jerusalem (l{ev, ZI 2 ), does not grow up from earth to heaven, but " c~mes down from God out of heaven, prepared as a bnde adorned for her husband," And according to the voice from the throne (v. 3), It IS the tabernacle of God with men, in which He will dwell, and they shall be HIs people, and He shall be with them. The structure and plan and eqUipment of thiS city which comes down from heaven are expressly descnbed III the VISIOn of Rev. ZI IO - 23 . But they are those of the building which is future and t.ranscendent to the community. There is no correspondlllg passage III the Ne\V Testament to describe the oIKooo/,-~ which is the present actuality of the commumty. The community knows already that it is at home-but only 1ll the there, and. 0r:e day, not in the here and' now. "Our 1ToAiTw/,-a (and therefore our 1TOA,S) IS I~ heaven; from whence also we look for the Saviour, the Lord Jesus Chnst. (Phil. 3 20 ). In our present OlKOOO/,-~-K. L. Schmidt h~s laid hiS finger on thiS point (ap. cit., p. zs)-we are in a foreign land (1TapO'KLa, lit., ~way from homle, I Pet. 1 17 ) like Israel in Egypt, so that, even though elect E1T'01)/,-O' (I Pet. I ), we c;an be regarded only as 1T
and cf. P. 39 ). " 11 . th t th As I see it, we may also inquire at least whether It IS rea y certalll a e passage z Cor. SI.5 speaks only of the individual anthropological eschatan and does not belong rather to our present context, beanng als~ (although r:ot exclusively) an ecclesiological and eschatologlc~l,sense; !"le~t~on;s mad,e III v ..1 of our earthly house which is a tabernacle (E1TLYELOS 1)/'-WV O'KLa T1)S aK1)v1)S). ThiS house is obviously temporary and will be pulled down. But as we"movetowards the pulling down of this house there IS already prepared for us a bUlldlllg ~~ God (oIKoo0f'~ EK IJwv) , an house not made with hands, eternal III the heaven.s. In the first house we " groan" (vv. Z-4), i.e., with reference to the transItion from the first to the second. As we desire to be clothed upon, or covered, by this house (oIK1)T~pwv) from heaven, we await fearfully the moment when the first house will have gone and we are not yet surrounde,~ and protecte~,by t~e second when we are found naked, and find ourselves on the street. It IS no good removing out of the old if there is no assurance of the new. But cor.rection and comfort are at hand. God Himself assures us of a certalll entrance Illt~ the new, and therefore a calm evacuation of the old (v. S), by glvlllg us th pledge of the Spirit in our hearts (d. I Cor. 1 22 ). . To what does all this refer? Accordlllg to the verses which precede ~nd follow there can be no doubt that it has an indlvl~ual ~nd anthrop,ologlca~ reference to the transition from our present abode (EV01)/,-ELV) III the aw~a, th present physical existence of the apostle and Christians generally III which we are not really at home (EK81)/,-E"iV) with the Lord (as may be seen from the fact that we now walk by faith and not by Sight, vv. 6-7), to a correspondlllg abode with the Lord, which negatively includes the fact that w~ are no longer at hO:: . the ' but lose our present physical eXistence (v. 8). The old house-. III aw/,-a 0 ", "IJ hlch earthen vessels in which we now have the treasure (vv. 4,7), our ESW av P~1TOS ~ 1 oes to destruction (4 16 )-is certainly (4") our mortal flesh III the Illdlvlduad ~nthropological sense of the term. Similarly, the new house prepared by Go and awaiting us in heaven is certainly the incorruptible body,. the new bel1lg, in which the apostle and Christians generally Will be at hon;e With the Lord. t On the other hand, the" we" of whom Paul says all thiS are not III the las

1.

The True Church

62 9

resort a plurality of individuals who, taught by the Christian religion, engage III anxIOUS and hopeful reflection concerning their individual death and that which lies beyond. What we have here is another instance of the well-known pluralis apostolicus et ecclesiasticus. It is also to be noted that the eschaton is expreSSly described as oIKooo/,-~, which, when the E1TlYELOS oLKla perishes, will come down EK IJEov upon those who can longer live in the former. Here, too, their present state is described as only a transitory abode. Nor can we agree with P. Vielhauer (op. cit., p. ro8, although he is generally right in his exegesis) that " building" and "house" are anthropological terms in rabbinic Judaism. If they are to be understood as such (which is possible, but unnecessary), we shall have to appeal to Mand<ean or Iranian sources. In the New Testament, however, these terms are used with a thoroughgoing ecclesiological connotation. In view of these various points it seems obvious to me that by " our earthly house, which is a tabernacle" and which is therefore doomed to perish, we have first and comprehensively to understand the community in its present form, and only then, and included in this, the present physical existence of the individual Christian as he lives in the aW/,-a. Similarly, by " the house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens," we have first and comprehensively to understand the new form of the community (identical with the 1ToAlTw/,-a of Phil. 320 and the heavenly Jerusalem of Rev. Z1 2), which here and now is future and transcendent, but which is perfect and comes down from heaven, from God, upon it, and only then the specific incorruptible oIK1)~pwv, the eternal tabernacle (Lk. 169 ), of the individual Christian which is included in it. In view of the context it cannot be contested that the second thought is in both cases comprised in the first. But in my view it cannot be maintained that the second thought exhausts what Paul has to say in this passage. On the contrary, it has to be recognised that the second is included in the first-the passage having primarily an ecclesiological and eschatological character. At any rate, it is of this form of the community which here and now is absolutely future that we have to think in the closing words of the passage in Eph. ZI9'22, where in v. zo (as in I Pet. Z6) Christ is described as the chief Cornerstone (aKpoywv,a"iov) of the bUilding erected on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, in v. 21 the whole oIKooo/,-~ is said to grow in Christ Els vaov uywv €v Kupl,!" and in v. 22 it is said that in Him" ye also are builded Els KaTo'K1)T~PWV TOV IJwv EV 1TVEuf'an." The antitheses of 2 Cor. SI.5 are lacking in this passage, nor is there any explicit indication of a subsidiary anthropological meaning. Here too, however, we have to do with an eschaton described first in christological, then in ecclesiological, terms. If the two Els of vv. 21 and 22 are to be understood on the analogy of the three Els of Eph. 4 13 , and if the habitation of God to which the community is built up is to be thought of in terms of the city of Rev. 21", this KaTo'K1)T~PWV and the vaos which is also mentioned are again the building which is built by God Himself and which comes down from heaven, being now constructed with a view to this coming and in the direction of it. In this respect the vaos of v. 21 reminds us of the passage I Cor. 3 16 . 1 '. Here the community is no less than three times given the direct name of the temple of God, although immediately before, and with particular emphasis, there is express mention (in vv. 10-IS) of the oIKooo/,-~ of the community on the basis of the IJEplAwS Christ. But perhaps we must assume with Vielhauer (op. cit., p. 8S) that the identification of the community with the sacral building of the temple has nothing whatever to do with the previous building; or that it has to do with it only indirectly in the sense that the attitude of Christians in this building should correspond to the fact that as those they are in the world they are (like the temple in the state and country of Israel) the place where God's glory dwells (Ps. 26 8 ). The tertium camparationis in this identification is not, then, the building of the temple, or the temple as a work of construction, but its holiness. That" the Spirit of God dwelleth in you" (v. 16) is what makes the

630

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and up building of the Christian Community

community of God a temple which-at the risk of being destroyed by God-it must not defile. This does not mean that this temple is the work and result of the oi/(oSof'o~ which is the problem of the existence of. the community of Christ, It is not this, nor is its holiness. In thIS respect, too, It IS helpful to use the term " provisional representation" as a description of what is proper to t~e commumty, and supremely obligatory for it. Paul was certamly not addressmg eIther ~he Corinthian or anv other Church as the temple of God already present or bemg constructed in their ol/(oli0f'o~' He could hardly do this! The same considerations apply to the statements in I Cor. 6 19 (" Y our body is the temple of the Holy Ghost") and 2 Cor. 6 '6 (" We are the temple of the living ~o.d "), ,Bot,h these refer to the holiness of the place indwelt by the Holy Spmt (WhICh IS Christianity). Both have an exhortatory character. Neither makes agains~ a strictly eschatological understanding of the holy temple of Eph .. 2 21 • Ag~m, this temple is identical with the temple not made WIth hands whIch accordmg to Mk. 14 68 Jesus was to build in three days after the dest.ructIon of the old. Certainly this is the community, but it is the commumty In Its eternal form which is still hidden and awaits a future manifestation.

After this necessary delimitation, we return to the concept of upbuilding understood as the actual work of construction. It is as . this work takes place that the Church is the true Churc? What kind of a work is it? What is meant by thIS constructIOn which is identical with the existence of the Christian community as a historical entity? We have called this concept a metaphor. In its relationship to the description of what we understand by the construction of a house or any other building, it is this. But this does not mean that we are speaking only improperly of a building, and in ~he strict sense of a very different process which for th~ sak~ of ~la?ty we compare with the work of building. Compared w~t~ thIS building, what is the work of an architect and the masons and JOIners and other craftsmen directed by him? Do we not have here the proper sense of the term building, and elsewhere only the improper and secondary sense, so that the metaphorical usage is in respect of ordinary construction, and the realistic reference is to this real and original upbuilding ? But there is no need of Platonic conceptions. We have only to touch on the problems involved in this concept to be on our g~ar~ against any attempt to start from a general idea of. wh~t the upbmlding of the community means rather than from the thmg Itself. Here too, of course, we do have different and diverse elements which in mutual dependence and support are so arranged and related and integrated with other elements prepared for the purpose as. to form a solid structure. But in this case we are forced to use a term hke "elements." We cannot possibly speak of "materials" as in ordinary building. For it is living men who are it;ltegrated in .this way; each with his own original and spontaneous hfe; each different from all the rest; each having his own place and nature, so that he cannot .be easily fused with or exchanged for others; each in his freedom.' WIth his own thoughts and speech and attitudes and acts; each on hIS .own life's journey and with his own life's work; each with his own direct

1.

The True Church

631

and un~on~ti~nal responsibility. It is with these men and their works that thIS bUIlding is done. Ag~in, there. is a purpose behind the building, and direction in the executIOn of thIS purp~se. But whereas in ordinary construction we ha:,e an ?wne: WIth hIS fixed and declared intention and a masterbuIlder WIth hI~ corresponding plans and directions, in the upbuilding of the commumty there is only the Lord whose purpose and plan are conceal~d, or ar~ revealed and made known only in the orders which He contInually gives, so that He cannot be nailed down to any intention or proc~dure sUI?posedly known to those who take part. Agam, the:e IS h~re a definite arranging and relating and integrating. But whereas m ordmary construction there are finished tasks which cat;l ~e succeeded by others until the work is complete, in the upbUIldm?, of the Chri~tia~ community-although it takes place in a successI~n o~ events In time, and there is a progressive building upon th~t which IS. already built-it is remarkable that there is no such thIng as a fimshed task. Every step forward includes a repetition of th~se. already taken and those which have still to follow. All further b.uI1dmg must be a fresh building from the very first, from the foundation upwards. And there can never be any question of a completion of the whole work. Again, in the. work of those who have a part in the building of the one Lord .ther~ IS a definite order in which they and their work are graded,. wI~h dIfferent levels of responsibility and achievement. The only ~hmg IS t?at, .as distinct from ordinary construction, there are no s';lpenor and mfenor .functions and tasks, nor can there be a !igid hlerar:hy of those .takIng part. but only a very flexible hierarchy correspondm~ to the directness WIth which each receives orders from the ~ord HImse!£. In. this building new dispositions may be made at any tIme by w?Ich (WIthout any question of degradation on the one side or dec.oratIOn on the other) the last become first and the first last: a le~dmg w?rker or overseer again dropping back into the ranks and havmg an Important contribution to make as a labourer' and a labourer or aI?prentice, without any long training or experienc~, having the opportumty to work at a higher or even the very highest job. Fmally, h~vin~ considered various aspects at random, we must also ~ake thIS pomt.. The picture presented by this upbuilding is certaI~ly one of well-dIrected effort and manifold activity on an excellent SIt~ .. We are at ,the, heart of human history in which man, even the Ch::ls~Ian,. ~ust stir hImself for good or evil. But whereas in ordinary bUIldmg, It IS only this human activity that we see, we misunderstand .the pIcture presented by this building if we do not see that ther: ~~ ~ere. also a simple, quiet, natural development, an "automatrc yIeldmg ,of the fruits of the good earth (Mk. 4 28). It is not for no~hmg ~hat m.the Ne~ Testament the picture of building is often confusmgly llltermmgled WIth that of the divine planting. We have

632

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and upbuilding of the Christian Community

here a growth which is as little the result of human industry as the completion of the building, and a: human industry which is only the effect and symptom of this growth, so that whether man sets his hands to work or folds them or even lays them in his lap he can only be a spectator and affirm that it takes place " he knoweth not how" (Mk. 427 )-in a process which continues both when he works and also when he does not, but is perhaps, in the words of Luther, " drinking Wittenberg beer with Philip and Amsdorf." An ordinary building does not grow in this way. And there are, of course, other ways in which we might bring out the difference. But what we have said should be enough to show that we should not allow the notions suggested by the image of building to prevent us from seeing the true nature of this building. It indicates that we must not expect a closely knit structure of thought in our attempt to do this, but only certain points which mark the movement which here (as so often, and at root always, in dogmatics) is the subject of our consideration. The decisive question is simply this: Who is the true builder? And there can be no doubt as to the answer. In the strict and primary and ultimate sense it is God Himself and He alone. This is the only correct answer. It is the only one which meets the comprehensive and imperious character of the action in question. It has to be tacitly implied as a self-evident addition even where other builders are seriously named. We are again referred back at this point to what we said at the beginning of the doctrine of sanctification. The upbuilding of the Christian community is a particular aspect and mode of operation of the sanctification in which, wqatever may have to be said about the human subject and his work, it is God Himself who is primarily at work: not merely in the totality but in all the details; not merely in the inauguration but in the completion; not merely in the background but in the foreground. It is the same God who has created heaven and earth, and among whose earthly creatures are Christians with all that makes them even in the physical sense capable of this activity. It is the same God who in a completely new work of His hand sets and gives a goal for the upbuilding of the community: a goal which is only the further upbuilding of its earthly form in which even Christians are still strangers and pilgrims who seek a country (Heb. lI I3 f.); but which He sets and gives as the builder and maker of a city which hath foundations, although for the moment they have only the promise that they will see this city and dwell in it (Heb. lI 10). The upbuilding of the community in the present time which is the time of its" sojourning" (I Pet. 1 17 ) is wholly and utterly the work of this God. This is expressly stated in 1 Cor. 39 : BEaU olKooo/-t77 EaTE (and just before in the same sense: B€ov l'"vpl'wv, the field in which God is the husbandman). So, too, in Ac. 15 16 with its quotation from Am. 9 11 : "After this I will return, and will build again the tabernacle of David, which is fallen down." As God

1.

The True Church

6'

33

creates a people for His name among the Gentile . this passage He accomplishes the rebuilding f ths, accordIng to the context of firming in a wonderful way His faithfulness 0 e rUll1ed house of David, conby Him. and fulfilling the promise i . to Judah-Israel as elected and called Again, it is to God and the \Vord of fr:e~r~~ea~~t~thIthIS election and calling. elders in Ac. 20 32 ; to God as the One who has the au commends the Ephesian (as His second and new work) to give them a . h ~ower to build them up and are sanctified. Finally, we may refer to 2 ~i~. e:;91~nce among all them which IS called a great house with all kinds f I bl In WhICh the communIty God is both the sure foundation and a~sov~hua e and less valuable vessels, but distinguishes between them' "The L d k e mahster of the house who as such . or nowet them that are his,"

This one God who builds is not however an power and activity. It is in and tm:ou h the 'rna anonYJ:lous God of of His Spirit that the one God is at ;ork in th: J es~s .~~ the pow~r community.. It is He concretely who is the Lord who~~ a~~iv~g ~~ H;s and determInes all the activity of men in this w k f Y Ir~c s and who is Himself the One who is primarily and orr 0 IconstructlO~, every human work The Ch . t' ..P oper y at work In H" . ns Ian commuruty IS what it is as H Imself IS present and speaks and acts as the Author (in th f 11 ~ ~ense .of the term); as it is therefore His commun' . e .u es IS baSIcally His history. As we shall have t I~dY' and Its hIstory I I . 0 conSI er more parti ar y In the second sub-section it is His bod th thl . .cu~orm of His existence. The mo;e faithfully an~'dis~inec~~y Ji:~~~n~al ISfinott , °bf ~ourse, com'p~eted, let alone replaced-but attested :~1~ re. ec ed y Its own actIVIty, the more definitel th . edIfication in and with that which is done in arl here t.atke: p.lace Its sphere. umam Y In Its own In Mt. 16 18 , where what is said about the arti I f ' at once to the eye, we must not overlook th P cu ar unctIon of Peter leaps " • e mam part of the sentence' , • , p.ou T7JV €KKA7)aLav. which even here and now in all th t . ' OLKo<>op.7)aw of world history, will not be overcome by the e ;mptatIons and threats not Peter who builds. Peter, proved to be a J:~~ers 0 death and hell. It is pIe ~y hIS confeSSIOn, serves as the rock on which, according to Mt .. a wi Himself who builds His Church. And'if i; beca~~e~~:Il~dbUlld. Butit is J~sus To the best of my knowledge this is the I UI s that It IS mVInclble. Vielhauer calls it" an erratic block" 0 . c~~ y passage m the New Testament_ , p. 76 ) In WhICh Jesus IS expliCItly descnbed as the One who bUI'lds up t(hP . e communIty But h H thIng else when He is called its Lord a d H . ow can e be anyproclamation within it the first and fidal ~utho~i~s. ~~ the normatIve apostolic tent? Who else can be the builder' A H ' } , e theme and unIque con· .. . s e IS a man among me h b 'ld H IS commUnIty, mtegrating-not all men-but those h n, e Ul ~ up a common knowledge and faith and life and mi' w 0 are called by HIm Into dIfferently applied, but the meaning is ObViOUSI~Is:~~. The I~ea of bUIldmg is 11 He is called the one 8€p.fAws of the Corinthian Church b:~:: wh e~ I~ 1 Cor. 3 no oth£r. Why not? Because this and this alone is laid b w ~c ere can be n;mlstry of Paul. and the existence and function of others w~ od through the OLKOOOP.7) of the community including Paul h' lf a take part m the with it. If we do not build on this foundati~mse '. cannot pOSSIbly compete Heb. 6 1, we act as if the foundation had still t~' ;:r l~e those addressed in build at all. There is yet another a lication e oun and laid, we do not 4 2 1. (and rather less clearly Mt. 21 42;Lk. 20 17 'a~~t~he sI~)me meanmg, m 1 Pet. • c. 4 ,where a verse whIch

f

;t'

634 § 67. The Holy Spirit and Upbuilding of the Christian Community . . e arded as very important, Ps. !IB", is related the first commun.It~ ObvIOusly r g. called the stone which was rejected by the to the idea of buddmg, and J es¥\IS I b t chosen and honoured bv God and human builders of the house 0 s~ae .; t 2' He is called the" living stone," made the headstone of the cor~:L . n I to:e~ " which are built up into Him ~n S and Christians are themselves d.~VIngt applications it is perfectly clear that In OlKOS 1TVfVl"aT£K6s. In all these ~ eren d function which in their sovereignty are this work of building He has a p ace an absolutely unique.

But theb act:~ St~b~~~ ~i~~eo~~~ :e~,a~~~C~i~go~~~ i;a~~~~~~; Jesus but y H' Th although the reference to Jesus IS deCISIVe, them as well as 1m. us,. ct of the sub' ect of this building. it cannot be our last word III re~pe . J" Ch ist" is to say . I ' f 'th and not III SIght, to say r . !7'ven. If on "-Christ in and with His fulness, which is HIS Chnst an . 't (H' body) this cannot be merely a I S . . , I b 'lds itself. And community. As HIS commUDl '! passive fobje~t tor sPye~~~~o~sOit~t~;;~r~~;f~ W~011;l and utterly the we are orce 0 sa h 11 and utterly its own work. As O .. work of God or Chrisdt, St 1tt1~bslwe °ItYconstantly needs to be corrected h 't' of course es rue . . . f sue '. 1 IS, . ' d nee with the instruction and adm?DltlOn 0 forget that it is subject to future lud&n: en\

I J?s o~n

~~d 1mp;l~:edJ~r~~~~ ~e

~~o~ll it~

~n~ dUb~OyU~~~ai~t~ ~~ ~~~o~~~~aa

Y:t weakness and need representation of the ~o~l set adn gIven· · and therefore its own matter of its own actIvIty an respons1bIlity, glory.

.. h Paul describes himself and Apollos, There is thus no contradI~tlO~ w en evelo ment of the Corinthian Church, who had been particularly 9a)ctIve Ihn thhe d Phimself the ao.J.os apX''TIKTlJJV who ' , ( Cor 3 or w en e calls 'f'. ( ) as God s aw£fYYO' I . , 'bl f 0 undation preaching Jesus Chnst v. 10. has laid in Corinth the only POSSI e f I 19' he has been given by the Lord 8 o As he writes in 2 Cor. 10 and 13~ , ~ . a s~ ~~ twice adds in a clear allusion to egovola10to build up--and nott to t~S r~~ti~ction between the office of the New Jer. 1 ; the clear and no ewor Yaid Testament prophet being that in the Testament apostle and that of t~e f d'fication and not of destruction. If former it is uneqUivocally a mat er 0 elwell this will be a matter for the account has to be taken of a pU~I~fd down ~= is gi~en egovo{a to do this. Acc?rdcoming Judge. 121He, :r'auI, ha~ to u~l u~~an that a similar authority is not gIven ing to I Cor. 3 • thIS canno pOSSI y olIos And Paul realises. as we see from Ap in different thers who have it in the same way as 20 ways to others, e.g., to d Rom. 15 , that there have been an are 0 hat in a secondary sense, they himself, as those who la? the f?unda~~~hes~o~m~nitygathered by their w?r~. themselves are a foundatIon (BfIJ-Ellwv) f th first of all th()se to whom It IS It is in this sense that in Mt. I6~; re:~r, Bas on which Jesus will build H~s iven to know and confess, .IS ca e e fJ.l.f' . m of heaven. It is in thIS

'lI:v ~ommunitY'hentrus~n~p.t~2~I:et~;0~~re~ o:n~~:;;~~~ ndareforeIgners called th~.foun~a~~~~ sense too, t at In re a " on which Gentile Christians .. are no more st~anger~ ~f the household of God,. srael but" fellow-citizens WIth the sam s, an . f David. It IS In

~~i~g in~orporated into ;~~cr:~oc:~ir~c:~~nfi~s~~ue::~n~~i1~~~:,ea~d other cha~::

~att~~~,s:~:et~~:stu;!:fo~ that hreparation ~~:~~~~~:~~~nI~fiSt~~e~~:~~n7:;:the sised in Cor. 14'1. that prop ecy serves I

r. The True Church doubtful nature of speaking with tongues (which was so valued in Corinth) emerging in the fact that it is of use only for private edification (the possibility of this is here raised as it were on the margin, only to be rejected at once), but can edify the community only if there are interpreters. "Even so ye, forasmuch as ye are zealous of spiritual gifts, seek that ye may excel to the edifying of the church" (v. 12). "Ye "-note how the circle of those taking part has widened. In this building the apostles are workmen of the first rank, the charismatics of the second, but in I Thess. 5 11 it can be said of Christians generally: OiK08oJ.l.dn 23 fis TOY £Va, and in I Cor. 10 that which edifies is a criterion of the action which is not merely possible but also 'pf' and therefore commanded. Edification 16 takes place in love (Eph. 4 ) and therefore in that which specifically characterises the action of all Christians. Love itself edifies (I Cor. 81), whereas the gnosis practised in Corinth does not do this but puffs up. In short every Christian, the whole community, is the subject of edification. Within it there are, of course, degrees-the first and the last, the great and the small, those who begin and those who continue, teachers and pupils. But there are no delegated or diminished responsibilities. No single member can evade the question whether and in what sense, in what he now is and does, he participates or not in the upbuilding of the community.

Building up means integration. This is what is done by God, by Jesus, by the apostles and charismatics too, and tinally, if it is a true Church, by the whole community in all its members. We have a plurality of men, gathered by the proclamation of the Gospel for the purpose of proclaiming it in the world. These men need to be brought together, to be constituted, established and maintained as a common being-one people capable of unanimous action. For as men they are not in the tirst instance a common organism, but a heterogeneous collection of individuals who even if they do not conflict do not cooperate. By no natural or historical ties can they be what they have to be in the service of the one Father, as disciples of the one Lord Jesus Christ and in obedience to the one Holy Spirit. Men may sometimes be united in other ways to achieve specitic individual goals, but they cannot be united in any full or total sense. When they are gathered into the community, they are dedicated to the goal of all goals, and therefore their union must be total and complete and unconditional. It must be a union in brotherhood. Not in a collective in whose existence and activity the individual is not required as such and his particularity is a pudendum. Union in brotherhood is a solid union, but it is a union in freedom, in which the individual does not cease to be this particular individual, united in his particularity with every other man in his. In this context, therefore, upbuilding and therefore integration does not mean the erection of a smooth structure with no distinctive features, but of one in :which the corners and edges of the individual elements used all tit together in such a way that they are not merely <Esthetically hannonious but also exercise their technical function of mutual dependence and support. The establishment of a wholly positive relationship, in which the different pieces are fitted together, is thus the main problem in the construction of this building. It is love (for one's neighbour) which builds the community.

636

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and Upbuilding of the Christian Community

If this does not do it, the community Will not be built. Thus the upbuilding of the community consists concretely in the fact that there is mutual love between the members of the community which is loved by God, by Jesus as its Lord. This leads us to the theme of our final section. For the moment, however, our concern is with the converse that love as the brotherly love of Christians (with no sentimental undertones) consists in the fact that, integrated by God, by Jesus, they mutually adapt themselves to be one organism which can be used in the world in His service. Without this integration and mutual adaptation, there can be no reciprocal dependence and support. And without this the community will inevitably fall apart and collapse. It cannot then be the provisional representation of the humanity sanctified in Jesus Christ. The temporal and historical judgments which overtake the Church in the form of aberrations and confusions, petrifactions and dissolutions, arrests and defeats, are all symptoms that there is no mutual integration. Its upbuilding by God, by Jesus, counteracts this failure, and its own task as it builds up itself is to counteract it. What it has to do in its life and teaching and especially its worship must be done in the mutual dependence and support which have this integration as a presupposition. As it integrates itself in this way, or rather allows the Holy Spirit to exercise it in self-integration, it is the true Church, prepared to look and move forward, to give this provisional representation, and thus to offer the witness which is the meaning of its existence in world-history. We are using" integration" as an equivalent for the word C1vvap/,-o>'oy"v as it is used in Eph. 2 21 in replacement of the Attic C1VVap/-,6~€tv. It need only be mentioned, and seems to have no exegetical implications, that C1vvap/-,6~€tv could also be used of musical composition. In Eph. 4 16 avvap/-,o>'oy'oy€tV in the New Testament seems to consist always in an action as between man and man which necessarily has the character of aya1T1/. And the simplest form of this action consists in a reciprocal relationship in which the one man is neighbour and brother to the other, and vice versa, and they meet and act accordingly. This is the" joint." If we ask what it is that takes place at this joint-or at the many joints which limit and bring together those who are built up-so that there is mutual edification «is TOV Eva. I Thess. s"). we do well to follow the hint given by O. Michel (op. cit., p. 143, 28 f.) and note that in this passage the imperative OtKOIJO/-,''Tja,s and 'TI'apa/,-v(){a (comfort). The answer, then, is that at this joint it takes place that" each one receives the consolation of the Gospel and passes it on to others." In some measure there is thus a repetition of the relationship in which the community as such lives in and with the world. ~ut whereas in the latter case the relationship is irreversible, within the commun~ty it is reciprocal. We may recall all the passages in which a'\'\~'\wv occurs to descnbe the mutual attitude and action of Christians as they mind the things of others (Rom. 12 16 ), have salt and keep peace among themselves (Mk, 9 50 ), receive one

1.

The True Church

6

another (Rom.IS7) ' 37 . , a d momsh one another (Ro . 14) f ' (Col. 3'"), subject themselves to one another E ~n. 2~S , orglve one a~other toward another (I Pet 4') b, th ,t P . S ), practise hospitality one ,ear one ano er s burdens (G I 62) ' , a Iso thlllk of the passages in "'hl'ch th d I ,. a . , etc, We may .. e ec enslOns of the pr '- d ' ' onoun
~~~~e~~i~~st~f~~f~~~~~~~,~:~r~~l~;;~I~~f~~~ii~l~h:i~~~c~fK~~:~~o~ts~~o~e~::

of the completed community (of the coming of the N ayJO ~ mamfestatlOn from heaven Rev 212 or the d '" ew erusa em from God, the day of tile fin~l a~d univer:~e~;v~~a~~~no';:J~~~~o~~~l;~s :~('~s, 2 ;or. ,51) ; not only for the world but also for th ., " e a zes zrae, ~ill 1~~ ~he day of ju.dgment which begi:sC~%~~~lihel~ol~:eP~;s~~~°f;O~~7f. 1ft bui7t in ~ha day of fi:;, when everything unserviceable and false that has' b~e~

bUilding is ~c~~~~~~n~=~~~ :~~~r~~~ ha~ and stubble with which so much understand 2 Cor. 510: "For we m t tf(th t IS I~ the same sense that we must appear before the -jUdgment seat C~rist .os;h:t 0 now take part in building)

;t

~~~?,s ct;nehin hllis body, according to that h~ hath J~~?:~:th~:;tr~~e~~~dt~; . ac WI receive hiS reward we are told in 1 Co 8 14 '. ~~)~ whosework stands, being tried by the fire (v. I3),r. ~~t ~h;~~a~~:;:~do;

b ,11d'su~ mzser tunc dzcturus? Paul certainly does not think that those h . UI mg IS shown to be false and valueless, and will be burned as wood w ose and stubble, Will themselves perish (1 Cor 315) Rom 8 1 ' , and hay cOllnexion: "There is therefore now no ~ond' t" IS pertment m thiS Christ Jesus" B b ' emna IOn to them which are in loss. This i~ inev~:bl:~s:~:k::~ ~~~kti~I~~~~:~:ncludes us all) will suffer all the genuine but misplaced zeal they have brought ;oa~d desftroyed as If, for never been. Yet they themselves will be sav' I s per ormance, It had good or worthy about them' but from the e~e' n~t b~cause there IS anythmg 'TI'vp6s, like brands plucked fr~m the burning) b7c:au:~nth~fr~st{dUCt10~ (w~ lJ,a Upon the foundation of Christ, and on this f~undation it is fO~~iv~n; fo:sall e~~

638

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and Upbuilding of the Christian Community

uselessness. It is to be noted that this is the final standpoint from which Paul views, not merely polemically the OLKOSOp,Eiv of others like ApoHos, but his own work. On the authority of Christ Himself it is not only necessary but permitted and commanded that all Christians without exception should set their hands to the upbuilding of the community. The integration of Christians, and therefore the edification of the community, must and shall take place. As each has a brother in his neighbour, to whom he must adapt himself and whom he must adapt to himself, the site of building is always present and clearly marked off, No one can excuse himself on the ground that this is a matter which is too high for him. No one can complain that he is unemployed. Each, with equal responsibility and honour. is required and able to be God's <11JVEpyOS, actively cooperating in this work which is decisively important for the whole cosmos and its history, for all men near and distant even outside the frontiers of Christendom. But the same Christ on whose authority this is necessary and permitted and commanded will also be the Judge of his co-operation; of the understanding or lack of understanding that he brings to it; of his obedience or disobedience in its performance; of the zeal or sloth with which he works at the community as a provisional representation of the sanctification of all men as it has taken place in Jesus Christ. As this Jesus Christ will be definitively and universally manifested, he and his particular avvEpyEiv and the avVEpyEiv and olKoSop,Eiv of all Christians will be revealed at their true worth, or worthlessness, i.e., their usefulness or otherwise in the service of this provisional work of God in a world hastening to its end. The divine glory and his own salvation demand that each should take his Christian being seriously from this standpoint, not regarding the certainty of his salvation ws Sui 1TVPOS as a feather-bed, or as a liberation for all kinds of capricious ravings (both pious and impious). He can have this certainty only as he takes seriously his obligation to this OiKOSO/LEiv, and the thought of the coming and perilous conflagration which will destroy all that which has been built in vain. If we do not take either the one or the other seriously, we cannot have the certainty of Rom. 8 1.

We conclude with a point which is quite indispensable if the picture is to take concrete shape. The work of construction in which the' community is the true Church is at its centre, where it continually begins and is directly palpable and perceptible, the work in which, true to its name of €KKA7Jvla, the community comes together as the congregation of the Lord and is at work and confesses and gives itself to be known as such before God and His angels and the world and not least itself and its individual members. This work is its common worship. In connexion with what has to be said on this subject both here and in the fourth sub-section. I must not omit to make express reference to a work of Peter Brunner which is distinguished both for its breadth and profundity-" Zur Lehre vom Gottesdienst der im Namen Jesu versammelten Gemeinde" (in Leiturgia. H andbuch des evangelischen Gottesdientes, Vol. I, 1951), If I cannot follow him at every point, I have been deeply impressed by the seriousness of his investigation and research, and I am pleased to record that we have many essential things in common.

It is not only in worship that the community is edified and edifies itself. But it is here first that this continually takes place. And if it does not take place here, it does not take place anywherp This is the

1. The True Church _ point where the build' fG b39 of Christians as those 0 od, and .of t~e di,:ine-human Lord, and from the dominion and aOpha ve a part m thIS bUlldmg, is distinguished . . pearance 0 f a mere id Th" . where m Its totality it become ea. IS IS the pomt place. Here all Christians are ;r:s~~~cre~e e~ent at a specific time and He~e there is a general" integration. ,~n Hno ~~rely a few individ~als. baSIC equality of rece tivit d ~re a are turned to all m a the Word of God (]a~ 1 22{ a~nds1o~tanelty, as hearers and doers of power of the Holy Spirit of their ris::'La;r~ht~tr~ s:mmoned in the to HIS future manifestation and th . 00 orward together monly set in motion in th di f elr own eschaton, they are com~s given and set for the co~mu~~~ I~~ ~~ the/oal of their. edification Its elements, not merely in th ~ .. e e~ of the last tIme. In all its goal in c . . ~ a mIillstratIOn of the Supper but in Jesus, and Ofo~~~~:;:~U~i~ns;;:~f~orship is the ~ction of God, of the upbuilding of the commInit F~~ thth~ommullI~y, and therefore spr~ad out into the wider circle:f th m IS cen~re It can ~n? should theIr individual relationships Th' ede,:tryday lIfe of ChnstIans and tudes are ordained to be "d elr dal y speech and acts and attihowever, at this centre th:t :~~r an. transformed worship. It is, worship takes place in its prI'mary m ullIonffas ~he essence of Christian form a ectmg enga . . b d I . m~, ut also supporting, all individuai Ch '.' ' . gmg an c aIm. nstIans In common. And It IS again at this centre that th living community of living Ch .et~Omm~llIty:-not a collective but the '1 " . ns JanS-iS uilltedly at k d san y VISIble as such both b indi'd 1 C " wor an necesworld. It is here that it edi~es its:~fu~nd ~~I~tI~ns anhd t~e out~ide whether and in what ".' 1 IS ere t at It decIdes wider circle of everYda;e~~: .Itw~I~S Itself. elsewhere, outside, in the demonstrate to the world that it e er and.I~ what sense it w!lI finally i :econciliation, justification and san~~fi~r~:'IsIOnalrepresentatIOn of its In Jesus Christ. If it does not edif 1 ~~nh as th,ey hav~ taken place do so in daily life, nor in the exec;' se f . ere, .It. certaInly. will n?t the cosmos. IOn 0 ItS mIllIstry of WItness In

:-ff

·t

The hint given by Vielhauer (op, cit.. , I I ) ' " It IS hardly a historical accident or a P S I S to be noted III thIS respect: esult Paul uses the word (olKooop,~) most f;e uen:r of the h1stoncal situation. that gathered for worship, as in I Cor, I .q The y \~here he speaks of the congregation 01 manIfestation, TI1I'S I'S th t 4 cu t IS for the ecclesLa the true mode . . . e rue seat f d'fi t' ,. quoted to this effect· "I b h o e I ca lOn, Rom. 12 1 may be Cd' eseec you therefore b th b ,0 , that ye present your bodies a livin . ' re, ren, y the mercies of God, and thus (render) your ,\ , ,\ ? :,ac:;'fice (f)va,u) , holy, acceptable unto OY of Christian existence But 't .'K1] UTpEOr:. a be sure, the aim is the totality . 1 IS no aCCIdent th t th' , (appropriate) worship, and that the" f f ' ,. ~. . IS IS called ," reasonable ,. as a " sacrifice" It I'S to d' , a enng a 1t IS deSCrIbed m cultic terms . ' Ivme serVIce that all ' meetmg, and therefore in worshi th ' ., come III a common physical place and is revealed as it were ~n at the ~h:lstlan existence as a whole takes that we have also to understand R nuce. 16 IS WIt~ a reference to this centre to the Gentiles Paul stvles himsel~r;:',\1 5 . w~erXe III hIS quahty as an apostle " . ElTOVPYOS p,uTofi '[1]uofi, charged in the "

640

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and up building of the Christian Community

Gospel of God to fulfil a holy service (l.poupy.iv), offering the Gentiles as a sacrificial gift (rrpoufop6.) pleasing to God because sanctified by the Holy Ghost. The same is true of Phil. 2 17 , where in reference to his awaiting martyrdom he says that he will be poured out (urr€voo/Lat like a drink-offering) with a view to the Ouuia Kat ItEtToupyia T7j~ rriuT'w~ V/LWV, i.e., the sacrifice, the priestly service, which the community for its part has to offer in and with its faith. Worship and the everyday life of Christians-a point which seems to be obscured at least in what seems to me to be the rather abstract presentation of E. Brunner (op. cit., E. T., p. 60 f. and 108)-are not two departments which are separate although they belong together, but two concentric circles of which worship is the inner which gives to the outer its content and character-an understanding which obviously enabled Paul (Rom. 13 6 ) to speak of ItEtTOUpyOt O,ov even in relation to a wider circle still, that of the representatives of a heathen state. This does not mean that what takes place at this centre, in Christian worship, is a new sacrifice (as in the basic misunderstanding of the Eucharist from the 2nd century onwards). Paul and the first community could not possibly have said or intended this. For, as they saw so clearly, the sacrifice of Jesus Christ had been offered once for all and could not be repeated. The point of this terminology is to show that the action which was conjoined for Jews and Gentiles with the idea of sacrificethat of the concrete assembling of the people of God-has to represent the fulfilment and termination of human sacrifice in the concrete uvvap/Loltoy.iv of Christians: i.e., in their common speaking and hearing of the Word of God; in their common calling upon God in thanksgiving, penitence, intercession and especially praise; and finally and supremely in their common eating and drinking in remembrance of the death of the Lord, in joy at His resurrection, and in the expectation of His coming again. It is from this point that their whole life (in an extension and transformation of the term) has to be appropriate worship and thus to take the form of mutual edification-the upbuilding of the community. It is true that although the occurrence and forms of divine service are continually touched on in the New Testament it is difficult for us to form a clear picture of it from the canonical texts. It is also clear that there are few explicit references to its central importance and necessity. To be sure, the warning of Heb. ro 23 r. is most instructive in view of the context in which it occurs. But as far as I know this is the only place where Christians are expressly told to " hold fast the profession without wavering," to "consider one another to provoke unto love and to good works" (the concrete action of olKooo/L.iv) , and not to forsake" the assembling of themselves together (T~V '1Ttuuvaywy~v
2.

The Growth of the Community

64 1

blessings and doxol' d " th a t · . ogleS an other lIturgIcal elements It is not for n th' tfhelr language has to some extent a directly liturgical character ThO mg th ere ore mIsunderstood both hId . . . . ey are but also and primarily in this a:r~i:l~r~ta~ III detaIl If-not merely in gen.eral Y specifically designed to edify t b 'ld theydare not understood as wntmgs , .., 0 Ul up an mtegrate, the community.

Fe

2.

THE GROWTH OF THE COMMUNITY

We ~ave been considering how far that which is called the Church

~~d t c~alI~s anfd seem" .to be the Church, is really the true Church'

.a ~s, ow a:- does It correspond to its name? How far does it eXIst . 1't'm fact h t m .t a practIcal expression of its essence?. Ho w far IS w a 1 appears to be? How. far does it fulfil the claim which it makes and the expe:t~tIOn whIch it arouses? We have given the general a~swer th.at .It IS the true Church in the event or occurrence ~~ act of ItS upbUll~mg as a community. Our next task is to explain . e concept. of t~IS event of upbuilding, unfolding it in its most Important dImensIOns. f ~t will repaJ:' us if we first interpret it in terms of the credal concept o t e co~mumo .sanctorum. The upbuilding of the community is the commUlllon of samts..

If we are to use .it in interpretation of the concept of 'I upbuildin " the ter~ commumon must be given the strict sense of the Lafin com~u~o ~nd the Gr:e~ KOtJJw!'{a. Communion is an action in which on e aSlS of an eXlstmg umon (unio) many men are enga ed in a common moveme~t towards the same union. This takes plac~ in th p~~;r 3.nd operatIOn of the Holy Spirit, and the corresponding actio~ o ose wh.0 a~e .assembled and quickened by Him. Communion takes place as v I't m '" as thISh' dlvllle h' . and human work is in train', o e " ,- from 1't s ongI~ m w IC It IS already complete to its goal in which it will be mamfest as such. Communion takes place in the sphere of the incomplete between completion and completion i e betwe . cn. IV-2-21 ' .. , en umon

642

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and up building of the Christian Community

and union. At each stage of its fulfilment it is itself per definitionem incomplete. It takes place in the completion, the u;tio, from which it comes and to which it goes. In the measure that It takes place at this centre among many men, and their participation in this fulfilment, there also takes place the fact that these many are together and act in common, so that they are united among themselves-not because their unity has still to be established, but because it has taken place already, and they come from it together, and together move toward the revelation of its concealed reality. As they look backwards and forwards from this unity to the same unity, they are united, and are together, and act in common. In this communion there takes place the upbuilding of the community. It is the saints who are and act in this communion. The saints are men who exist in the world, and after the fashion of the world, but who, in virtue of the fact that they come from the union presupposed in the event of their communion and move forward to its revelation, are integrated and engaged in self-integration. The saints are men who are gathered by the power and work of the Holy Spirit and appointed to do the corresponding work. They live and act in the occurrence of this communion, and therefore in mutual conjunction. As they now live and act on earth, in time, at the heart of world history (or as they have lived and acted, for those whose life is ov~r have not dropped out of this fellowship), they are still the eommumo peeeatorum, members of the race of Adam, pa.rticiRant in ~he tran.sgression and fall and misery of all men. But III spIte of thIS, and III triumph over it, they are already distinguished from all. other men, constituting in face and on behalf of the world the e.om",!umo san~torum -a provisional representation of the n~w humarut!, III the mIdst. of the old. These men-the saints-who live and act III the commuruon of the one Holy Spirit, and therefore in communion one with another, are Christians. But what makes them Christians? In a final description of the basis of their particular being and action, we can and must reply that it is God's eternal election, His love directed towards them and embracing and activating them in this particular way, which makes the~ Christians not onlv as individuals in their solitariness, but also III their com~on life,· and therefore all together as a people of single descent. For the moment, however, we are concerned to know what it is that distinguishes their being and activity as men on ea~th ~nd in time. What is the distinctive thing which becomes a histoncal event in their fellowship? To see this, we have to remember the twofold sense in which the Church is called the eommunio sanetorum in the creed. The genitive certainly indicates that it is the communion of the sancti, i.e., of those who are sanctified by the Holy Spirit, of all Christians of every age and place. But it also means-and apart from this we cannot see what it is that makes them sancti in their human

~.

The Growth of the Community

being and activity-communion in the saneta : the holy relationships in which they stand as saneti; the holy gifts of which they are partakers; the holy tasks which they are called upon to perform; the holy position which they adopt; the holy function which they have to execute. From this standpoint the eommunio sanetorum is the event in which the sancti participate in these saneta. We may thus give the following material definition of the communion of saints. It takes place as the fellowship of Christians in the knowledge and confession of their faith. It undoubtedly takes place also and even basicallyif we understand the terms in their comprehensive sense-as a theological and confessional fellowship. It takes place as the fellowship of their thankfulness and thanksgiving. It takes place as the fellowship of their penitence (leading to conversion), but also with the joy without which there cannot be this penitence in the conversion of the saints. It takes place as the fellowship of prayer, which, even when it is in the secret chamber, cannot be a private talk with God but only the prayer of the community. It takes place, in relationship to the world, as the fellowship of the need of those who are moved by the burdens of the world, and the promise given to it, as their own innermost concern; yet also, in this relationship, as the fellowship in arms of those who are determined, in order to be true to the world and meaningfully to address themselves to it, not in any sense to be conformed to the world. It takes place as the fellowship of service in which the saints assist and support one another, and in which they have also actively to attest to those outside what is the will of the One who has taken them apart and sanctified them. It takes place as the fellowship of their hope and prophecy looking and reaching beyond the present, but also looking and reaching beyond every temporal future. Above all, of course, it takes place as the fellowship of their proclamation of the Gospel, of the Word by which they are gathered and impelled and maintained. For this reason, and because it takes place as the fellowship of prayer, it takes place as the fellowship of divine service-a liturgical fellowship. And in and above all these things it takes place as the fellowship of worship, of the silent or vocal adoration and praise of Almighty God. We do not claim that this is an exhaustive list, but these are the saneta with which we are concerned in the being and action of the sancti, of Christians, and therefore in the eommunio sanetorum. The sancti are those to whom these sancta are entrusted. They are not entrusted to any of us as private individuals. They are entrusted to us all only in conjunction with others. In this way, but only in this way, they are entrusted to each of us personally. Thus the eommunio sanetorum, as the upbuilding of the community, is the event in which, in the being and activity of ordinary sinful men, in a communio which is still and always a eommunio peeeatorum, we have to do with the common reception and exercise of these saneta.

644

§ 67· The HolySpirit and Up building of the Christian Community

On the presupposition that the upbuilding of the community takes place in the communion of saints, we may now address ourselves to the proper task of this section. This is to see and understand the dimensions in which this event takes place. In this sub-section we will take an inward look and try to understand the character immanent to this event as such. To describe this, we will venture the proposition that it takes place as a growth. The term growth (augHv, avgavHv) is one which in the New Testament is parallel to the main concept of olKo8oJL~' Sometimes, indeed. the two seem to cross and the idea of growth seems to confuse the sense III wh1ch the B1ble speaks of building. In fact, however, it clarifies it. And we have already been forced to touch on it in our treatment of the thought of building, when we recalled the seed which grows of itself in Mk. 4 26 ,2'. The term denotes the distinctive character of this olKo8oJL~' It points to its secret. The commumty does not grow only because and as it is built by God and men. In this sense we can say of any other building that it grows. In this particular building the growth 1S pnmary. God and men build the community in consequence, confirmatlOn, concretlOn and glorif1cation of its growth. It grows, and its upbuilding manifests the fact that it does so. This is the secret of 1tS constructlOn.

Growth is an image taken from the organic world. Its use does not mean that the communion of saints is an organism, any more than the use of that of building denotes that it is an edifice. If we press them logically, the two images are mutually exclusive. In fact, however, the image of growth elucidates that of building. It shows us t~at the occurrence of the communion of saints, and therefore the upbUIlding of the community, takes an analogous form t.o that of .organic growth. The tertium comparationis is its augme!ltatlOn, extenslOn and increase from within itself; its development WIthout any outward or alien assistance in the power of its own form and direction; the aVTof-Lc1.TT] of Mk. 4 28 . The secret of the communion of saints is that it is capable of this expansion and engaged i? it. That h.uman planning and speech and faith and love and deClslOn and actlOn are ~ls.o involved according to the divine will and order is also true. ThIS IS not compromised by the reference to the secret of the growth of the community. But in itself this is no explanation of the secre.t, nor can it call in question the reference to it. That the commumt~ as the communion of saints grows like a seed to a plant, or a saplmg to a tree, or a human embryo to a child and then to ~ man, is ~he pr~­ supposition of the divine as well as the hu.m~n actlOn by \~h1ch It IS built. It grows-we may venture to say-:-m ItS .a~n so:ere1gn po:ver and manner, and it is only as it does thIS that It IS bUIlt ar:d bUIlds itself. The fact that the saints become, that they are conceIved and born and then live and act in the communio of all these saneta and therefore in mutual communio, is something which from first to last is primarily and properly a growth. As I see it not merely the parable of the seed which grows secretly but also , . . t'mg 1'n the that of the sower (Mk. 430 - 32 and paL) refers to the commumty eX1S

2.

The Gro1.f.'th of the Community

last age of world history. Growth is a process which takes time. To what can the parables refer if not to the kingdom of God come in time and proclaimed in time? It is in this form, and only in this form, that the kingdom can be compared to a seed which grows irresistibly larger until it reaches its full stature. As long as it has a history, the kingdom of God has its history in the community which exists in history. The two parables tell us that the history of the community. because and as it comes from the kingdom of God as the communion of saints, and moves towards this kingdom and proclaims it, is the history of a subject which grows of itself.

But before we probe the matter more deeply we must ask in what this growth consists. The most obvious, although not necessarily the final answer, is not to be summarily rejected-that the communion of saints shows itself to be fruitful in the mere fact that as it exists it enlarges its own circle and constituency in the world. It produces new saints by whose entry it is enlarged and increased. Of course, we are not told, even by the parable of the seed, that it will become constantly greater in this way so that all living men may eventually become Christians. What we are told is that it has the supreme power to extend in this way, that it does not stand therefore under serious threat of diminution, and that as a subject which grows per definitionem it has an astonishing capacity even for numerical increase. It is not self-evident that this should be the case; that it should have this capacity; that there should always be Christians raised up like stones to be Abraham's children. The more clearly we see the human frailty of the saints and their fellowship as it is palpable both at the very outset and in every epoch, the !pore astonishing we shall find it that from the very first and right up to our own time it has continually renewed itself in the existence of men who have been reached by its feeble witness and have become Christians in consequence. It is no doubt true that its power in this respect has been largely denied through the fault of Christians, or its exercise confined to a limited sphere. But it is also true, and perhaps even more true, that it has always had and demonstrated this capacity. It has propagated itself even where everything seemed to suggest that this was quite impossible. It has continually, and often very suddenly, assumed new forms-sometimes for the better, sometimes not for the better, but without forfeiture of its essential and recognisable essence. For always, directly or indirectly awakened and gathered by its existence, there have been Christians, and therefore men who have come to this fellowship and then lived and acted in it. As these men-often in the strangest places, and the very last that one would expect-have arisen and come to it, i.e., have discovered, and confirmed the fact, that they belonged to it, the community has grown. It does not matter whether the growth has been big or little. The fact remains that it has continually grown. And it still grows. It has the power to do so.

h46

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and up building oj the Christian Community

The New Testament itself knows and emphasises this primitive, if we like, but not really non-essential aspect of the growth of the community, or its immanent power to grow in this sense. The Book of Acts is particularly relevant in this connexion. \Vhen Peter gave his witness on the day of Pentecost, some 3000 people were added to the Church, receiving the Word and accepting baptism (Ac. 2"). The joyful worship of the community had as its consequence that the Lord added daily to the Church those who are saved (2"). Very soon the number of those who had heard the Word and come to faith had jumped to about 5000 (4 4). Further increase created the administrative problem solved by the commissioning of Stephen, and his fellows (6 1!.), and this in turn resulted in a further increase in numbers (including a great company of priests), but also in the persecution which claimed Stephen as the first Christian" martyr." The remarkable expression used in 6 7 is that" the word of God increased; and the number of the disciples multiplied greatly." The phrase occurs again in 12 24 , and also in 19 20 where it is added that" it prevailed," i.e., for the winning of others. Similarly we are told in 16 5 that the faith of the Churches in Asia Minor was strengthened, and that they increased in number (in membership) daily. What Luke has in mind in these passages is the avgavEullat KaL "ATJllvvEUllat over the whole earth promised to the first man in Gen. 1 28 (LXX), and also of the growth and increase of the people of Israel in Egypt (Ex. 1 7 and Ac. 7 17 ), which for its part was the fulfilment of the corresponding promises already given to the patriarchs. It is clear that for Luke, with his universalistic outlook, this was an important matter. The community exists in universal history, and it undoubtedly has the power to multiply in this history and therefore extensively (or, as we may say with Luke, numerically), and thus to grow in this sense.

On the other hand, it would clearly be quite inappropriate to understand this distinctive power of the community only, or even predominantly, as a power for extensive growth. It is obviously vital to it, as a society existing in history, that it should continually increase and extend its numbers. It has constant need of more saints if it is to fulfil the purpose of its temporal existence. Its task is so varied and comprehensive that it can never have enough. But the process of numerical expansion is not as such unequivocal; the less so when the increase is most imposing, but basically even when it is only slight. Where there is expansion, is it really to the saints that other s~in~s are added, becoming disciples and witnesses with them? Or IS It merely a question, as in other human societies, of men drawing large crowds and thus enjoying success? Is the growth in virtue of a power absolutely distinctive to the community of saints, or merely in terms of a dynamic which might also be, and is, that of the eommun:io peeeatorum as well? A power which has only an abstractly extenSIve effect is certainly not the power which characterises the community;. an.d in the same way a growth which is merely abstractly extenSIve IS not its growth as the eommltnio sanetorum. Thus it. can ne:rer ~e healthy if the Church seeks to grow only or predommantly m thIS horizontal sense, with a view to the greatest possible number of adh~r­ ents; if its mission to the world becomes propaganda on behalf of ItS own spatial expansion. It has to attest the Gospel. It has to seek .a hearing and understanding for the Gospel's voice. ~t cannot do thIS without exerting itself to win new witnesses. But thIS cannot become

2.

The Growth of the Commumty

047

an end i? itself. It knows of only one end in itself-the proclamation of the kIllg~Orr: of God. A;nd it has to achieve this, not merely in its :nor~s, but m I~S whole eXIstence. In the service of this end in itself It ":~ neces~anly also be a.n end to win new witnesses and by their addItion to Increase extenSIvely. But it will not forget that it is a gre~t and rare matter when a man comes to faith; when he becomes a WItness of the Gospel, a saint, a Christian. As it is out for the existe?ce of as .many Christia?s ~s possible,. it will have to resist the temptatIon ~o wm t~em by dIlutIng the WIlle with a little water. It will ~ertamly. be disturbed and sad, but it will not be horrified, that the mcrease In ~he nUI?ber of Christians is not so easy; that it does not go forwa~d mdefi~Itely;. tha~ a clearly defined limit always seems to be set to It. It Will not ImagIne that, as itself only a race of men with others charged to give ~ pr~visiona.l r~presentation of the new humanity at the he~rt of the old, It WIll ever III ItS present historical form embrace ~he. totality or even t~e majority of men. It will never equate itself III ItS pres~nt form wIth the esehaton which comes to it afresh from God.. It wI~1 not, therefore, be of the opinion that it can and should actualIse thIS esehaton here and now. It will be confident that the p~we.r of growth ?perative within it will not fail in this world, accomplishIng no le~s, If no more, t.han. that which is right and necessary here and now III accordance With ItS own law. It will thus allow this power to rule and give i~self to serve it. But always it will be more con~e~ned about the qualIty than the quantity of those who are already ChnstIans, or who may become such. And it will be even more concerned about the realisation of its own communion' the common ' reception and exercise of the sancta by the saneti. It is no reproach to Luke, but it must be noted that he is the only one of the New Testament wnters who IS so obviously concerned about the numerical Illcrease of the commullity. And the question may well be raised whether the fe,:" places ~n wh~ch he speaks of an increase of the \Vord of God, while they have thiS undellla~le .Immedlate reference, do not point also in a different direction. At any rate, It 1~ worth noting that it is the same Luke who in the Gospel has recorded the saymg about the lIttle flock to which the kingdom is given (12 32), and al~o the saymg.whlchls qUIte unparalleled in the New Testament in respect of the ImplIed restnctlOn III the extensive increase of the community; "Nevertheless, when the Son o~ man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? " (18 8 ). In thiS bleak utterance It IS shown to be questionable whether He will find and encounter the faIth of anyone at all, even the faith of the community. How, then, .can there be any questIon of the totality, or even the majority, of men standmg III the C~1ristian faith? We can thus learn from Luke himself that the Lucan view has ItS lImits-although we have also to learn from him that the ~)ersona: and extensive and quantitative increase of the community is a serious ~nd neces~ary problem. For ~he rest, on a right understanding there is no contradictIOn betw~en Illcrease III this sense and the fact that in relation to the world. the commullity must always recognise and confess that it is a little flock kno,:"mg o~:y too well what it is to sigh with Ps. 12 1 (in the familiar Prayer Book versIOn) : Help me, 0 Lord. for there is not one godly man left: for the faithful are mllllshed from among the children of men."

648

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and Upbuilding of the Christian Community

Of course a rather different and wider conception may easily insinuate itself in the conte~t of the legitimate concept of the extensive growth of the community, and of this we can only say that it has to be rej~cted out of hand. Can it really be characteristic of the com mUllion of salllts to Illcrease III consequence and prestige and influence and outward pomp III the world around; to command increasing authority and esteem for Itself as a recoglllsed force, both from the state and from all other human societies; to Will an assured and generally acknowledged place in the structure and activity of worldly po1Jtlcs and scholarship and literature and art? We need hardly demonstrate or bemoan the fact that the Church has often acted as If a posItive answer had to be given to tillS question. But the very opposite is the case. The Church has the promise that " the gates of hell shall not prevail against it " (:vIt. 16 18 ). but It has no promIse to this effect. Its glory will be manifest when that of ItS Lord IS malllfest tothe world. In the time between it is thankful for all the necessary space that It IS granted in the world to fulfil its task.. But the enlargement (or dlmlllutlon) of this space has nothing whatever todo wIth ItS nature or commissIon. Its enlargement is not promised. nor ItS dlllllnutIOn demanded .. It has ItS hands full wIth the task of filling it in the service of its cause accordlllg to measure III WhIc.h It is given (whether great or small). It will not be surprised or annoyed If It IS pushed into the corner; or if sometimes It IS forcefully depnved (per fas or nefas) of its outward majesty and pushed ev~n more IlltO the corner. It IS always seriously mistaken if it tries to grow III thIS dimenSIOn. The Church of Jesus Christ can never-in any respect-be a pompous Church.

The true growth which is the secret of the upbuilding of .the c?mmunity is not extensive but intensive; i.ts vertical growth m heIght and depth. If things are well-and the.re Is.no reason why they sho~lld not be-this is the basis. The numencal mcrease of the commumty indicates that it is also engaged in this very different in~re~se. ~ut the relationship cannot be reversed. It is not the case that Its mtenslVe increase necessarily involves an extensive. \Ve cann?t, therefore, strive for vertical renewal merely to produce greater honzontal extension and a wider audience. At some point and in some way, where it is really engaged in vertical renewal, it. will alw.ay~ experi~nce the arising of new Christians and therefore an mcrease m I~S constItuency, but perhaps at a very different point ~n~ in a very dIfferent manner and compass from that expected. If It IS use.d only ~s a means for extensive renewal, the internal will at once lose ItS meamng and power. It can be fulfilled only for its own sake, and then-un:planned ~nd unarranged-it will bear its own fru~ts. As t~e commum?n o~ samts takes place, the dominant and .effectIve f~r~e IS always pnmanly and properly that of intensive, vertIcal and spmtual growth. . This is the power in which the saints increa~e in ~he receptIO~ and exercise of the holy things entrusted to them; m whIch as sanet~ they increase in relation to the sancia commonly addressed t~ them, and by them to others. In this relation there is enacted a hIstory. For it is not just a step or two but a whole wide way from .the .low~r t~ the higher, which in turns becomes a lower to that whIch IS .hlghe still and so continually. Where do we not have to make thIS way frodr good to better faith and knowledge and confession, to better

2.

The Growth of the Community

649

though.t and penitenc.e and joy, to better prayer and hope and proclamatIOn and. worshIp or any other sancta, in short from good to ?etter commun~on.of the saints in holy things? The power immanent m the c~mmumty IS the power of this history, and therefore the power to ~o ~hIS way (or these many ways) as we should, not as individual ChnstI~r:s but together as the community in which there is mutual admomtIOn and encouragement and warning and comfort and assistance a.nd. support. It is as the community goes this way, or these ~ays, m ItS Immanent power that it knows inward increase and extenSIOn and expansion-inward growth. But we must not understand the matter too much in pedagogic terms, as though there were a general curriculum of instruction which ~ust be follo:v ed point by point with a view to passing an examinatIon, and whIch has actually been followed in the course of Church history.. ~or th~ sancti of the different times and places in which their ~ommunto IS achlev~d, wha.t is lower and higher and higher still, what IS go.od and b~tter m relatIOn to the sancta may differ very widely in detaIl. Old alms may drop a,~ay altogether, '}nd new ones arise and f?rce ~hemselves on our attentIOn. There may be remarkable inversI~ns III recognised and ~pparently immutable evaluations. Everyt~mg may take a very dIfferent course here and now from what it dId t?ere and then. Nor can there ever be any question-we are :efe~nn!S to the community in ti~e and on earth, and therefore engaged m pIlgnm.age as also a communto peccatorum-of achieving the highest and ?est m any of these relationships; of a point at which the commumty, or ~ome .Christians within it, think that they have already brought theIr lambs to safety. We have always to reckon with the ~act that t~e community, and all the Christians living and acting in It, are contmually set on the way-and rather ungently sometimes if they are disposed to slumber. We have also to accustom ourselves to the thought that on all the ways on which Christendom journeys we sh~l1 be constantly faced, not only by the limit of its creatureliness and sll:fulness, but also by the fact that, as in respect of its outward extenSIOn, so also of its inward growth, there is a limit which it cannot and should ??t pass because it is not ordained to give a. perfect but only a ,PrOVISIOnal ~nd therefore imperfect representation of the new ~umamty, .Go~ havIllg re~erved the ~efinitive and perfect representatIon for HIS kmgdom whIch comes III the final manifestation. The community of. the saneti has to respect this limit of its relationship to th~ s~nc!a. FI?ally, we have also to accept the fact that even within thIS lImIt the ~nward g:owth of the community may often have the aPl?ear~nce of ItS OpposIte: of apparent pauses; of narrow straits in whIch It seems to be hemmed in inwardly by steep walls with no way of ~scape or advan~e; of apparent retrogressions in which even that whIch has been belIeved and known and confessed or given seems to be taken away again, but which have to be passed through and endured

650

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and upbuilding of the Christian Community

and suffered in order that there may be real growth and increase and expansion. Nothing is more as~onishing. than the true, intensive, spiritual growth of the commumon of samts on earth. In Church history-but who really knows how it really haJ.>pe:r:ed an~ does happen ?-we are given a glimpse. of the po~er whIch IS contmu~lly at work in new and often contradIctory and mterrupted but ongomg processes of growth. To conclude, we may obs~rve tha~ this force effects even the spiritual increase of the commumon of sam~s according to its own law. To be sure, it is the p~wer of gro.wth Immane~t in the community itself-and we have stIll to consIder what thIS means. But its rule and efficacy are not according to the plans and efforts of Christians. It is a matter of their spiritual growth, and not therefore of a growth which they themselves can direct. It will continually have for them the greatest of surprises, sometimes glad and sometimes bitter. In moments when it is resolved to offer "reasonable service" the plans and efforts of Christians will have to be ruled by it and'not the reverse. To their own astonishment it will continually e~alt the lowly, enrich the poor, give joy to the sad and make heroes of the feeble. The rule and efficacy of the power of this growth can never be measured, foreseen or assessed by the ordinary standards of history even when Christians try to think of their own history in relatio~ to that of the world. It leads the community on a new and distinctive path through world history. But i~ leads them, an~ as .it does so the community grows, either with or WIthout repercussIOns. m world history. And as it grows spiritually: there is no co.mpulsIOn but it may also grow in the first way, extensIvely and numencally. It is hard to decide formally which of these two directions in the growth of the community is denoted by the parables in Mk. 4 26 -29 and 30-.2. It would be foolish, however, to argue that in their exposit~on ~here can be no other understanding than that illustrated in Acts, so that III view of these passages we can speak quite freely of the extension ?f the kingdom of God over the whole earth, or the evangelisation of the world m our own or the next or the next but one generation. The rest of the New Testament obviously poi.nts i?- the second of the two directions. Avgav
z. The Growth of the Community Testament primarily and predominantly, although not exclusively, spiritual progress; the progress of the sancti in their relationship to the sancta. Progress means. that they go forward together on the appointed way from their origin to their goal. The New Testament sees that where there is the communion of saints this progress may be expect:d. And it finds in this progress the true form of the I?rowth .whlch the commumty has to owe to the power immanent within It. It IS m thiS happening that there is actualised its true nature and essence' its appointment to give a provisional representation within the old humanit; of the new humamty sanctified already in Jesus Christ.

It is. legitimate and even incumbent to gather together what has to be saId about the occurrence of the communion of saints, in so far as it consists in its growth (both horizontal and vertical), in the simple statement that the community lives as the communion of saints. Gr~wth is the expr~ssion, ful~lment ~nd mark of life. The power by whIch the commumty grows IS the Immanent power of life. As we r.eco.gn~se the life of the community in its growth, and its power of hfe. m ItS power to grow, we are brought face to face with the question whIch has not yet been answered in this discussion-that of the nature o~ this ind:v~lling or imma.nent power of the community. We may gIve a prehnmary answer m the second and very simple statement that the community lives as the communion of saints because and as Jesus lives. Jesus is the power of life immanent within it; the power by which it grows and therefore lives. This is what we must now explain. . I.n the thesis ~t th: head of the section we have spoken of the Holy Spmt as the qu~ckemng power by which Christianity is built up as the true Church m the world. But as we made it clear it is Jesus the Lord who is at .work in this quickening power of the Holy Spirit. And we must now take up again that which we have already said, and maintain that according to the normative view of the New Testament the Holy Spirit is the authentic and effective self-attestation of the risen and living Lord Jesus; His self-attestation as the Resurrected, the living One, the Lord, the exalted Son of Man, in whom there has already been attained the sanctification of all men, but also the particular, factual sanctification of Christians-their union with Him and therefore with one another. In the Holy Spirit as His selfattestation we know Him; which means again that we know Him as the Resurrected, the living One, the Lord, the exalted Son of Man in whose exaltation all men are sanctified, and especially, factually and concretely Christians, who are distinguished in the first instance from all other men by His. self-attestation and therefore by their knowledge. In the Holy Spirit as the self-attestation of Jesus they thus know themselves in and with Him; themselves in their union with Him, and also with one another, in the fellowship of faith and love and hope in which they express themselves as His and find selfawareness as this people which has a common descent. It is in this sense that the Holy Spirit as the self-attestation of Jesus is the

65 2

2.

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and Upbltilding of the Christian Community

quickening power by which Christianity is awakened and gathered and built up to a true Church in the world. As the self-attestation of Jesus the Holy Spirit achieves the communio sanctorum and causes it to grow (intensively and extensively). It lives by His power-from the very first and on all its way and ways in the realisation of the relationship of the sancti to the sancta right up to its goal at the end of all history when it will meet the eschaton which will be the eschaton of the cosmos. But to understand this in all its fulness of meaning we must be clear that the Holy Spirit by which the community lives and becomes and was and is and will be is the self-attestation of Jesus. The power with which He works is not, then, merely a remote operation of Jesus. It is this. Risen from the dead, ascended into heaven, seated at the right hand of God the Father, Jesus is remote from earthly history and the community which exists in it. He is unattainably superior to it. He is separated from it by an abyss 3 which cannot be bridged. He is even hidden from it in God (Col. 3 ) and with Him, of course, the true life of the community. He. (and its true life) cannot be violated or controlled by it. If in spite of this He is still at work in earthly history, and in the community as it exists in it, by the quickening power of His Holy Spirit, we can certainly call this His operation at a distance. From the point to which there is no way, from heaven, from the throne, from the right hand of God, from His hiddenness in God, He overcomes that abyss in the Holy Spirit, operating here from that exalted status, working in time, in which the communio sanctorum is an event and has its history in many events, from the eternity of the life which He has in common with God. The man Jesus has also that form of existence, so that it is quite true that His action towards His community in the quickening power of the Holy Spirit is a remote operation. But this is only the one aspect of His action, and if we are to understand it as the power of growth and life which does not only reach it from the majesty of God, touching and impelling it from without, but also as that which indwells and is immanent to it, it is the second aspect which we must now consider. It is to be noted that this does not replace the other. The first aspect remains. The man Jesus is above, superior even to His community and remote from it in absolute transcendence; and with Him, so too is its own true life. He has and maintains also that heavenly form of existence characterised by His unique fellowship with God. He exists also at the right hand of God the Father where we men, even we Christians, are not; where even the communio sanctorum is not. Thus the Holy Spirit, too, is the power which quickens from above, from a distance, from God; from the God who dwells in light unapproachable. But the second aspect has also to be considered. For what does it mean to speak of there and here, height and depth, near and far, when we speak of the One who is not only the true Son of Man but also the true Son of God,

The Growth of the Community

653

th~ man who, ex.alte~ by the self-humiliation of the divine person to bemg as man, eXIsts m hvmg fellowship with God? It certainly does not mea~ th~t these antitheses are removed and obliterated and ~quated m ~Im. But ~ince God is not limited to be there, since He IS no! the pnsoner of HIS own height and distance, it certainly means that m the man Jesus who is also the true Son of God, these antitheses whIle they remain, are comprehended and controlled; that He ha~ power over them; that He can be here as well as there in the depth ~s well as in th~ height, near as well as remote, and theref~re immanent m the commltmo sanctorum on earth as well as transcendent to it. He c~n h~ve an earthly-historical form of existence as well as a heavenlyhlstoncal. He can create and sustain and rule the communio sanctorum o~ earth. He can exist ~n it in earthly-historical form. We speak of HI.S heavenly: form of eXIstence, of the form in which He exists in the heIght and dIstance and hiddenness of God, when with the New Testament. we speak o~ Hiron as the Head of His community. But we speak of HIS ear~hly--hIstoncal form of existence, of the form in which, in t~e sov~relg~ty of the same God, He also exists here and now with smne~s In thIS history which has not yet conclnded, when again with th~ New Testament ;ve speak of th~ commu~ity as His body (d. on thIS concept C.D., IV, I, pp. 662-661)). And m both cases, and either way, we speak of the one man Jesus Christ. It is He who is both there and ~ere. It ~s .He who is both the Head and the body. Similar.ly, th~ hfe o~ ChnstIans as the life of those sanctified in Him is one. Wlt~ .HIm as ItS Head it is hidden in God, but with Him it is also prov~sIOnal manjft;s~ i~ the teronporal being and activity of the commumty on. earth. SIm.llarly, HIS Holy.Spirit is one. As the quickening power WhICh accomphshes sanctIficatIOn, He comes down with utter novelty and strangeness from above (as described in the story of Pentecost) and thus constitutes an absolute basis and starting-p;int. But as the same power He also rules and works in the events in the sequence and. m~ltip~icity, of the temporal history of the co:nmunio sanctorum :vhI:h IS stIll the communio peccatorum, in all the relativities ~f that wlll~h IS called Christian and ecclesiastical and even theological lIfe. All thIS depends, h?wev~r, upon the fact that first and supremely the ~ne man Jesus Chnst HImself exists both in the first form and also m the second: not in any contradiction of the one to the other and therefore to Hi:nself; but because in the one, therefore also in the other, and thus In the whole glory of His being as the true Son of l\:~an. Our present concern is with the second form: God and Son .HIS e~xthly-hlstoncal form. of ~xistence; His body; the community 1~1 whIch, as the One who IS WIth God, He is also with us as the true Son of God and therefore the true Son of Man, in whom we are already um ted and sanctified. For a. ~etter understanding, let us return to the equation that the Holy Spmt, as the power which quickens the community, is the

.af

654

§ 67· The HoZY Spirit and Up building of the Christian Commtmity

self-attestation of Jesus. Thus the only content of the Holy Spirit is Jesus; His only work is His provisional revelation; His only effect the human knowledge which has Him as its object (and in Him the knowing man himself). But as the self-attestation of Jesus the H?ly Spirit is more than a mere indicati0D: of J e~us or record concer~n.g Him. Where the man Jesus attests Himself m the power of the Spmt of God, He makes Himself present; and those whom He approaches in His self-attestation are able also to approach Him and to be near Him. More than that, where He makes Himself present in this power, He imparts Himself; and those to whom He wills to belong in virtue of this self-presentation are able also to belong to Him. In the Holy Ghost as His self-attestation He reveals and discloses Himself to certain men living on earth and in time as the Holy One who represents them before God and therefore in actuality, and also grants them the knowledge that He is theirs; the Holy One in whom they al~o are holy, and are His-holy in His holy person. He reveals and discloses and grants to them the knowledge of His unity with them and their uni~y with Him. In this knowledge they find that even on earth and m time they are with Him, and therefore at unity with one another. It is in this way, by this self-attestation, self-presentation and selfimpartation, that He founds and quickens the community, which is the mighty work of the Holy Spirit. In virtue of and in the occurrence of this mighty work, the community lives and grows within the world-an anticipation, a provisional representation, of the sanctification of all men as it has taken place in Him, of the new humanity reconciled with God. Thus it can never be understood as a society which men join of themselves and in which they are active in the pursuit. of their own ends: ho,:"ever re~igious. They are united only by and Wlth Jesus, and only m this way Wlth one another, and only for the fulfilment of His will and purpose. Nor can the community be understood as an organisation set up by H~m, a machine for whose efficient functioning it has to provide, thus havmg its essential existence in its offices. It exists only as the mighty work of Jesus is done on earth, and as it allows it to take place .in itself, and through itself in the world. It can be understood only with re~er­ ence to Him, and only in Him can it recognise itself in its true actuah.ty. It is only in Him. Even in its human being and action and operatIOn it is from Him and by Him. It cannot recognise and take itself seriously in anything that is not from Him. What He is not, it is .not, a~d in what He is not it is not His community, but can only be alien to Itself, and withdraw in shame before Him and become small and as it were disappear. It does not live apart from the mighty work of His sel~­ attestation. It lives as He Himself lives in it in the occurrence of thIS mighty work; as it is the earthly-historical form .of His existe~ce, His body, standing at His disposal, and ruled and Impelled by HIm, in all its members and their various functions.

2.

The Growth of the Community

655

. This brings ~s back to the statement which was a kind of axiomatic startingpomt. antIclpatmg all that was to follow, at the beginning of the prolegomena of our Church Dogmahcs (1. I, p. 3J-that the being of Jesus Christ is the being of the Church, and Its self-understandmg and proclamation and practice and enquIrIes and conclusIOns and mternal and external politics and theology must all be dIrected accordmgly. T We cannot avoid the statemen~ t~at J~sus Christ is the community. ~or ~o ~e refer onl~ to Jesus Chnst m HIS form as its heavenly Head, m ~IS hlddenness with ~od. In Jesus Christ as the Head it can only

?eheve. Here and now It can o.nly look up to Him from the depths as ItS Lord. It can only love Him as the One whom it has not seen 8 (I Pet. 1 ). It can only wait for His revelation: "Amen. Even so come, Lord Jesus" (Rev. 2220). It can only move towards Him~ Thus the statement cannot be reversed. It is a christological statement, an~ only ~s such an ecclesiological. The community is not Jesus Chns.t. It IS not the ~ternal Son of God, the incarnate Word, t~e Reconciler of t.he world wIth God. The justification and sanctificatIon all men did n~t an.d does not. take place in it, but only its provISIOnal representatlOn, ItS attestatlOn by a handful of sinful men amongst others-saints who are holy only in the fact that He is and has revealed and disclo.sed Himself to them as the Holy One, and that they have been recogmsed and confess Him as such. There does not belong to it th~ power of the sending and outpouring and operation of the Holy Spmt. It does not "possess" Him. It cannot create or control Hi~. He is. promised to it. It can only receive Him and then be o?edient to ~Im. There can be no thought of the being of Jesus Chn~t enclosed.m that of His community, or exhausted by it, as though ~t were a ki?d of predicate of this being. The truth is the very opposite. The bemg of the community is exhausted and enclosed in His. It is a being which is taken up and hidden in His and abso~utely d~termined .and .governe~ by .it. The being of the ~ommunity IS a predicate of HIs bem&. As It eXists on earth and in time in virtue of the mighty work .of the Holy Ghost, it is His body; and He, its ~e~ven~y Head, the Incarnate Word, the incomparable Holy One, has In It HIs own earthly-historical form of existence' He Himself who is not yet. di~ectly and universally and definitiv~ly revealed t~ the world and It, ~s already present ~nd at.work in it. The community is not .Jesu~ Chnst. But I;!e-and In reahty ~nly He, but He in supreme reality-Is the commumty. He does not hve because and as it lives But it lives, and may and can live, only because and as He lives: "Because I ~ive, ye shall live also" (In. 1419). The sequence and order are all-Important. But i~ t~is sequence and order it may and must be affirmed that Jesus Chnst IS the community. We may say the same with reference to the central New Testament concept of th~ king?om of God.. The kingdom of God is the lordship of God establIshed m the world m Jesus Christ. It is the rule of God

.o!

656

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and UPbuilding of the Christian Community

as it takes place in Him. He Himself is the k~ngdom of God. Thys we cannot avoid a statement which ProtestantIsm has far too hastIly and heedlessly contested-that the king~oI? of God is .th~ community. We do not refer to the kingdom or dommlOn of God m Its completed form in which it obtains for the whole world in the person of the one Son of Man, the one Holy Spirit, and in which it will be directly and universally and definitively revealed and known at the end and I?oal of all history. We refer to it in the guise of the new and ?bedle~t humanity, as in the historical time which mov~s towards ~hlS end It is provisionally and very imperfectly but genumely a~tuahsed where in virtue of the mighty work of the Holy Ghost there IS an awareness of its incursion and therefore the communion of saints. The community is not the kingdom of G~d. But-p~oclaimed and b~lieved in its earthly-historical form of eXIstence by smners among smners, .as the unholy may become the. saints of Go~ in an. awareness of .ItS coming-the kingdom of God IS the commumty.. It IS r:ot for nothmg that it comes from the resurrection of Jesus Chnst as ItS first rev~la­ tion, and goes towards its final revelation in the return of Je:ms Chnst. As the kingdom of God itself. is on the way. from the first to the la~t revelation, it is the commumty. As the kmgdom or rule o.f God ~s engaged in this movement, it creates the .sphere corresronding .to It and is to be found on this way too. And thIS takes place m th.e mIghty work of the Holy Spirit founding and qUickeni~g t.he commumty. The community is not the kingdom of God, n~r ~II~ It ever be before the kingdom encounters it, and is revealed to It, m ItS glory at the en~ of all history. It prays for the coming of the ~ingdom, that ~ncountenng it in its true and perfect form it may be dIrectly and umversally a~d definitively revealed. But already on this ~ide of ~he end, ~ven m the form of the community which prays for ItS commg, ~he kmgdom is really on earth and in time and hist~ry. The commumty wo,:l~ ~e nothing if it did not come from the kmgdom and go towards It, If the kingdom were not present in this transit~onal movem.ent.. The community can only follow it in tm,s tran~itlOn; otherWIse l~ surrenders its particularity and betrays ItS reahty as the comI?umon of saints. Its proclamation can only serve the self-proclam~tlOn of the kingdom of God which is present here and now because It has c~me and comes. If it does not stand in this service it is absolutely nothmg. If it does, for all its unpretentiousness it is greater than all the greatnesses of world history, for it has to speak the final word among all the words spoken by men and to m e n . . . In sum there is a real identity, not present In abstracto, but gIVen by God an'd enacted in the mighty work of the Holy Spirit, ?etw~en the Holy One, the kingdom of God as per~ect1y estab~shed m HIm, and the communion of saints on earth, whIch as such IS also a cOI?munion of sinners. Thus the power of this Holy One, of Jes~s Chn~t as the heavenly Head, in whom God's rule is perfectly estabhshed, IS

2.

The Growth of the Community

657

also the indwelling power of life and growth which is immanent in the community on earth. It is in the light of this identity that ~e have to understand everything that falls to be said concerning its lIfe and gro~th (both. in the extensive and the intensive sense). He, Jesus Chnst, must mcrease (In. 330), and He does in fact increase. The kingdom of God grows like the seed. It is for this reason that the community also grows-the fellowship of men who with open eyes and ears and hearts come from Jesus Christ, from the kingdom of God, and move towards Him. It grows as it gives Him room to grow, and. to the extent that it "decreases," as the Baptist said of himself. It lIves because and as its Lord lives. It lives wholly and utterly as His people. We will verify what we have said by the direct utterances of the New Testa-

ment~and first in relation to the concept which has been prominent in the later part of our dehberatlOns, that of the kingdom of God. \Ve have already proved 26 29 from Mk. 4 - and 30-32 that it is something which grows, so there can be no doubt that it is a temporal and historical subject. But apart from Jesus Christ what subject can be meant but HIS community in which the kingdom is proclaimed and beheved and prayer is made for its coming? Again, we are told 32 m Lk. 12 that it is the good pleasure of the One whom the disciples may call Father to give (/loilva,) the kingdom to them, the little flock. What can this mean ~xcept that it is already present in this little flock, so that it is not merely to be m the exalte~ Son of Man in heaven, but wonderfully yet genuinely on earth among men 1Il the heavenly power of Jesus Christ? Again, what can entry mto the kmgdom of God mean in passages like Mk. 9 47 and 1024 or In. 3" except to become a disciple and therefore to 'enter the community? To do this we have to be " fit" for it, according to Lk. 9 62 , and this is not the case if w~ set o~r hand to the plough and look back. Again, we are told in Lk. 17201. that the kmgdom of God does not come P.€TU 7TapaT7JP~U€WS, i.e., in such a way that we can estabhsh ItS presence directly, indicating it with a Here or a There; nevertheless it is EV70S vp.'v, :' in. the midst of you" (not with the invisibility of a mere Idea, but m concrete If hidden form, so that the Pharisees see it and yet do not perceive it). The primary reference is to Jesus Himself, but according to the mmd of the community which preserved the saying there is also a reference to itself in its wonderful but genuine existence as the provisional form of the kingdom in the world. The kingdom of God is used in the same sense in m I Cor. 4 ., ~here Paul says that the kingdom of God is not EV '\oy,!, but EV /lwup.€< and that It IS by thiS standard that he will measure certain folk when he comes to Corinth. The same is true of Rom. 14 17 , where the kingdom of God is said not to be a matter of eating and drinking, but of righteousness, peace and joy m the Holy Ghost. We may also refer to what is said in Col. 411 about Paul's UW€PYOt €LS T~V {3au,'\dav Toil IlEoil. Again, the reference can only be to the kingdom of God as provisionally actualised in history and therefore in the communi:y when in I Cor. 15 24 it is said that Christ will finally deliver it up to God the Father. It IS to be noted that the concept is not usually given this sense. Hence Augustine's general equation of the civitas Dei with the Church is quite ImpossIble. But the reference in the passages mentioned (and we could easily strengthen them from the synoptic parables of the kingdom) is emphatic enough to warn us agamst a general and indiscriminate rejection of Augustine's identification. Apart from the absolute, christological and eschatological meaning of the term there IS also an apphed and relative and historical, and in this case the kingdom is in fact the Church. In this restricted sense the pietistic and AngloSaxon version of the kingdom of God may well have a place.

65 8

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and Up building of the Christian Community

Yet, as Origen and Tertullian rightly perceived, on the New Testament view the kingdom or lordship of God is absolutely identic~l with Jesus Christ. He is the kingdom--the aVTopa'''>'f{a. It is as HIS lordshIp that It IS set up as the lordship of God in the world. The paa'>'fla cannot be separated from HIm any more than it can frolll God. This is true in the absolute sense. It IS also true in the relative, to the extent that the kingdom is also the community. We re,ad in Mt. 18 20 : .. \Vhere two or three are gathered together in my name (avV7]yp.fvO' ds TO ..las TOO alwvos). What is meant by the P.fe' vp.wv? . Does it mean tha; He is there as an interested spectator who occasIOnally gIves fnendly help. Does it not mean rather that when and as they act in accordance with His orders in the time which hastens to the end He is present every day to sustain and protect and save in His mercy, to accompany the~ in His omn~potent concursus, to rule them by His will which alone is holy-HImself the pnmary. and proper Subject at work with and amongst them? That is why it can be saId explIc.ltly in Lk. 10 16 : .. He that heareth you heareth me." That is also why the natIons assembled for the Last Judgment in Mt. 25 31 . 46 are asked by the Son of Man concerning their attitude to His brethren and judged accordingly. What they have done or not done to the least of His brethren, they have done, or not done, to 11im. It is not merely that there is a solidarity between Himself and [-jis brethren. But He Himself is hungry and thirsty and a stranger and naked and sick and in prison as they are. That is why it is said to the perse~?tor of !Ile community in Ac. 9': .. Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? And '-hat is why the eucharistic action as the crowning act of worship---rovTo, thIS, ,e., the co;nmon eating and drinking of the disciples accordin to Hi.s command -is no more and no less than HIS body and blood (the Ko,vwv,a of HIS body and .'lood according to I Cor. 10 16 ). This action then, accomplished fls ~v EP.~V 28 ivaJLI'7l atv , is the direct proclamation of His death unt~l He ~ome~ (I Cor. 1.1 ): !.n this provisional form as the actIOn of the commulllty, It IS. HIS own actIOn.• the work of His real presence. Here and no,,:, He Hmlself IS for them-HIS offered body and His shed blood-the commUlllon of samts thankmg and confessing Him in this action. . . . . Similarly the formula Ev ('/7laoO) Xp,aTciJ, WhICh IS so common m the Pauh?-e Epistles, indicates the place or sphere in ,,:,hich (determined absolutely by It) there takes place the divine working, creatmg and endowmg WhICh m~ves. the apostle and his communities, and also the divine revealing, qu~stI?mng, mVltIng and demanding, and the corresponding human thankmg and thmkmg and speakin" and believing and obeying. The EV Xp,aTciJ denotes the place where the sanc~a ar~ proffered and the sancti are engaged in the realisa~ion of .thei~ co"'!mum o with them and therefore with one another. Jesus Chnst tS, and m HIS bemg ~he apostles and communities are. For this reason, directly or indirectly everythm~ that is said about the being of Jesus Chnst can be only an explicatIOn of t~ being of Jesus Christ, and everything that is said about the being of J esus C?~Ist applies directly or indirectly to the being of Christians. A single presupposItIOn emerges, and for Paul and His communities this is not a hypothesIs or theory (and therefore not a problem); in the light of Easter, and i?- a present be~a~~~ renewed. confrontatIOn WIth the revelatIOn of Easter Day, ~t IS as self-evldhat 'IS the all' which they breathe. For this presupposItIon IS SImply the fact t. t ;he cruClfied Jesus Christ lives. But He lives-and this is now the decisiv.e p~ -as the totus Christus. And this means that, although He lives also and prIma ~ as the exalted Son of Man, at the right hand of the Father, in the hiddenness 0

7

2.

The Growth of the Community

God (with the life of Christians), at an inaccessible height above the world and the commumty, He does not live only there but lins too (in the power of His Holy Spmt poured out from there and working here) on earth and in world hlstor.y, III the little communities at Thessalonica and Corinth and Philippi, in GalatIa and at Rome. He does not live primarily in their knowledge and faith and p~ayer and confession, or in their Christian being, but as the place in which all thIS can and may and must and will happen, in which they are Christians; as the aIr whIch they breathe, the ground on which they stand and walk. As we are told III In. IS,r., they have no being or life apart from Him, just as the branches are nothing apart from the vine but can only wither and be burned: " \Vithout me ye can do nothing." But they need not t;y to do anything without Him. He is the vine, and they are the branches. Thus we are brought back from every angle to the main statement that the community lives, not only because, but as Jesus lives, the kingdom of God m person. It IS He who lives as it lives and grows as it grows. Thus the 1TPOKOTT~ TOO ft\ayy.>.tov (Phil. 1 12 ) is His work. He is the rrpoKoTTTWV, the One who strides forward, the inner man who renews Himself from day to day (2 Cor. 4 16 ), the Subject of all progress in the Church. It is as He indwells the community and IS Immanent to It (as the Head to the body) that it grows: from Him as its Head, but also in and with Him as He has in it His body; the earthly-historical form of His existence. . It remains only to conclude the discussion of Eph. 4 11 . 16 which we left unfimshed III the previous sub-section. It is the final phrase (in v. 16) which particularly concerns us. We saw in v. IS that Christians are summoned, ci>'7lefvoVTfS a>'ry T7l~ fKK>'7la,as In Eph. 523 . And we have seen that according to r 20 • 23 He is primanly the Head of all things. God has raised Him from the dead, set Him at His own right hand in the heavenly world, and exalted Him over every cipX~ and Egovala and i%vap.,s and KVp'OT7lS, over every name that may be named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come. He is the TT>'7lPOVP.fVOS T'~pwp.a (r 23) to the extent that it is only with it, only as He also lives and reigns in it, that He is the civryp T'>'fWS (just as it is only with Him, as filled and ruled by Him, that all things can consist). But in this heavenly form, as the Head of the cosmos and also the Head of the community, He is absolutely future, because not yet revealed, both to the community and the cosmos. And its own form as the aWl-'a and therefore the TT>'~pWl-'a of this Head IS stIll future, because not yet revealed, to the community. It believes in Him as its Head. It looks and moves up towards Him from the depths and distance as to the One who exists in this heavenly form. And believing in Him it believes also in itself as His awp.a and therefore His TT>.~pwp.a. But it does not see this, It is still on the way to this fnture when it will be; revealed that He is the TT>.~pwp.a of all things and it is His TT>'~pwp.a; that He is the One who rules the world and it is ruled by Him; that He and itself with Him, as the totus Christus, is the av~p T€>'fWS. Of course, all this-the totus Christus·-has not still to evolve or to be made. In accordance with the predetermination of God, He has been instituted as such once and for all: not only in His relationship to the community but also in His relationship to the cosmos; and both not merely in heaven but also on earth; yet not visibly on earth even to Christians, and to that extent only in the sphere of the future. Thus, the community is His body, the TT>'~pWJla without which He wmlld not be that which He has been appointed by God.

660

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and Up building of the Christian Commumty

f 15· '~' aWfL€V d~ aVTov. How can the This is the point of the summons 0 4 ,' ~v ~ . can it do this) According w H community be summoned to grt up ~~~~s ~i~~dv t:\~ing place quite apart from to v, 16 it can do It because I sgr~)\\ 'he deduc'tion to be drawn from it, that its own actlOn, and It IS to tlm" and t , , , that we are now told that this attention is directed m ~hls ,Sur~1~10~S, kl~~S~~r~~t who is the Head of the comtakes place, And thIS
't

e -

«t

It accomplishes its own growth-in virtue of HIS real presence,

3· THE UPHOLDING OF THE COMMUNITY

Communio sanctorum! We no~ t~rn to another a~? .~s i\7~~: outward aspect-that of its constltutlOn and t?e possIbIhtXerstand effective action in the world around: And we wI~1 try to ~n the conits history as the history of its gr~clOus preservatlOdn: As. m nd the 'pt of "'upbuilding " which dommates the whole .ISCUSSI~:m, a have concept of the" growth" of ,?ommumty both just analysed, so in that of its" upholding we have to consI

~(~rticular

~he

whIch.~~

3· The Upholding of the Community

66r the divine and the human side of the happening under review. Here, too, both God and men (Christians) are at work: God in His omnipotent grace; and Christians (if only they were it in this sense 1) in the gratitude which corresponds to the grace of God. But in this case it is best from the very outset to see these two aspects together at the place where they are originally together, understanding the whole occurrence (in the light of what we have already learned from its character as growth) as a Christ-occurrence; the work of the totus Christus. Our particular theme at this point must be the human weakness of the communion of saints on earth, but its preservation in defiance of this weakness. How could it be upheld were it not that it exists in Christ, and the Lord is its strength? It is surely relevant to quote in this connexion the magnificent definition of the Heidelberg Catechism, which might well have been used as the thesis for our whole section, Qu, 54: "\Vhat dost thou believe concerning the holy, universal Christian Church? Answer: That from the beginning of the world to its end the Son of God assembles out of the human race an elect community to eternal life by His Spirit and (His) \Vord in the unity of true faith, that He protects and upholds it, and that I am a living member of the same, and will continue to be so to all eternity," Note who is the acting subject in this definition, It is not a believing people which has to gather and protect and uphold itself as such. It is not a ministry controlling the \Vord and sacraments, It is not the Virgin Mary as a patroness who has already ascended into heaven and there represents it and acts for it, It is the Son of God, He it is who sees to it that in spite of everything the Church is, We may add to this first definition the explanation of the request: "Thy kingdom come," in the answer to Qu. IZ}: "Rule us therefore by Thy \Vord and Spirit that we may be subject to Thee, maintain and increase Thy Church, and more and more destroy the works of the devil, and every power that vaunts itself against Thee, and all evil counsels that are devised against Thy holy Word, until the perfection of thy kingdom is attained in which Thou shalt be all in all."

The communion of saints needs defence, protection and preservation because it is in danger. It was always in danger. As long as time endures, it will always be in danger. For it is a human society among men. I t belongs to the sphere of very different human societies -domestic, political, economic, social and academic-which have no thought of orientating from and to Jesus Christ and the kingdom of God which has come and comes, but the existence and activity of which is intersected in the most diverse ways by that of the community, And what is the community itself, from the standpoint of its human constitution and its own human action, but a part of the world? It is given to exist as such in its own peculiar fashion, not as though its existence were an end in itself, but in order to be a witness and messenger pointing the world around to the truth of God which has relevance and validity for it too, to Jesus Christ and its own true reality which is unknown and ignored and even denied both in theory and practice; in order to be a provisional representation of the new humanity, and therefore in the words of 2 Pet, r 19 to be a light shining

662

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and Up building of the Christian Commtmity

in a dark place, to the salvation of all those who d\:ell !he:e. To be this light in the world is its task even as that WhICh m Its hum~n constitution and action is only a part of the world. The danger m which it finds itself is obvious. In order to be what it is commissioned to be, in order merely to maintain itself in the world, let alone to do justice to its commission in the world, it must be the true Church, engaged in its upbuilding as such, and therefore a~ we have seen, living and growing. But its life and growth are contmually menaced. They are threatened both outwardly by the. w?rld and inwardly by itself (in so far as it is a part of the world m Its human status an.d activity). The question is whether it will be able to overcome thIS . . danger, to be upheld in it. We will consider first the danger whIch threatens from wIthout. In both the forms to be mentioned it is a matter of the restriction of what we have called its extensive growth and therefore the vital upholding, i.e., the constant renewal of its h,-:m~n position. .In both forms the danger arises from the fact that It IS not self-evIdent, or to be expected as a matter of course, tha~ the world will acce~t .at once the existence of this little fragment of It, or other human socIetIes the existence of this particular society. For it claims both a very different origin and a very different goal. B~t. how can. the :"orld and other human societies fail to be alienated If It does thIS senously and effectively, if it exists within it as a living and growing community, and if it looks like making itself pro:ninent. both by the. audible presentation of its universal message and If pOSSIble by the mcrease of its adherents? Will they not feel that they are unsettled and questioned and disturbed and perhaps even menac~d ~y it? Its message is sufficiently revolutionary (as the commumty Itself knows better than anyone) to make this a very understandable reaction. It proclaims Jesu's Christ and therefore a ne:v .and different humanity; the dominion of God over all other dommlOns; the great freedom and necessity of conversion, of the vivificatio which ine:rita~l~ involves mortificatio; discipleship and the cross. To he~r thIS w11hngly an~ not unwillingly, or even thoughtfully and not wIth scorn and anger, to accept the Christian community if not seriously to r~cei~e its Word: this is not a human possibility, but (as the commumty Itself knows better than anyone) that of the Holy Spirit who moves whe~e He wills and whom no one can command. Where this possibility IS not given, the community must be reconciled to the fact that in some form it will meet with the resistance and even the counter-attacks of the outside world; that it will find that it is itself unsettled a~d questioned and disturbed and even menaced; that its presence Wl~ be bewailed and deplored and unwanted, its activity ridicul~d an misunderstood and suspected, and its propagation, i.e., the VItal. renewal of its constituency, represented as a danger and as far ~s posSlb;~ hampered even to the point of definite attempts to prevent It. It w

3· The Upholding of the Community

603

be acc~sed of, odium humani generis and it will be assailed by odium humanz g~nens. Its o~ly prospect may then be the ghetto and in the near ?r d1.stant future Its external repression and extinction: the less certamly m prop?rtion as it is not perhaps the true Church' but all the ~ore surely ~n proportion. as it is a living and (even e~ternallv) gr~w.mg con:n:umty. Though Its external growth may not be all th~t stnk1~g, a hvmg .community will always have to reckon with the fact that It must be m some form a community under trial and perhaps even under the cross. . The first form in which this may happen consists in the fact that It comes u~de: pressure from the world around which seeks either to do away ~th It altogether or at least to reduce it to a more innocuous form. It IS not perhaps required to surrender to error or unbelief or to suspend its ac~ivity, or to disband, or to deny its confession, ~tc., but only t~ practIc: .greater reserve, to adopt a more positive attitude to the dommant spmtual and unspiritual powers of the world to make a few. concessions which may well appear at first sight to' be nOIless~ntIal, to accept certain restrictions and adjustments the extent of which may well be a subject' for discussion. In the first instal'ce the word" persecution" is probably far too dramatic for what take~ place. The pressure is not exerted equally. It falls heavily only on a fe~, perhaps only.on the more responsible and active of its members, and m such .a ~ay, 1~ proportion as it is not really a living communio, that .the ma]onty of Its members are hardly aware of it at all. More m.ass1ve attempts may,. of course, follow. There are means-and they w11l be .used-to stop ItS mouth, or at least to make its voice more ?r less lIfeless. Perhaps there will be the attempt to separate its most ~mportant spokesmen from it, and it from them. Perhaps it will be Isolat:d fron: the rest of the world, its connexions with wider circles, espec~al~y WIth the younger generation, being restricted or broken, so that It IS reduced to a cult, and as such pushed aside and made an object of r~dicu~e and scorn and even hatred. Perhaps all the countermeasure~ It mIght ~ake will be made difficult or even impossible. Perhaps m our own tIme the campaign will be conducted by the many~eaded ~onster of the pres~, even by what are called its more responSIble sectlOns (t~emselves dIrected by the invisible forces which it has to serve). Or It may be .the state, either in the background or the foreground, and .pe:haps m the fom: of an omnirotent state-party, that ~as a hand m 1~ and even orgamses the whole affair, and is able to do It :ery. energetI.cally throu~h i~s public and secret organs and the fo~ce whIch 1~ can bnng to bear mdlrectly on individuals and relationShIpS. A~d It may :vell be that m~ny Christians come to realise (for t.h~ first hme) ~hat It costs somethmg to be a living member of the hvmg commumty; that it will mean decision and act and quiet but also open. endurance; and that the question has therefore to be faced whether It has been a good thing to confess oneself a Christian, or

66

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and Up building of the Christian Community

4 . t o.d o.so. whether it is wise to contmue

Perhaps " it is' n going toto hinder affect

the most importatt. rela~~~~:f~s~no~I~:'of:S:~~:~~:~~li~~~J. Perh'ap~ advancement, or o. mvo one day the forfeiture of liberty, in the near future I~ may even mea~o knows ?-of life itself. "And and in the more dIsta~t futu~~s ~onour children, wife, Yet is their though they take our lIfe: Go '. h 11 ' " Let these things vanish profit small; Let these thmgs vams a ... it-so Ion as we had only all? It sounded veryhwel\ when .;er:~:fred in fact ~ Will there not to sing it. But now t hat I it~:Yno~ to be taken literally? Yet the be man~ who allow t at ommunio sanctorum, lives in the persons commumty on earth,. the ch O re so terribly assailed and harassed; of these many Christians w h d as individuals are also peccatores, of the sancti who bot?as a w ~ee;~ling enough but the flesh is weak. and in whom the spmt may '1 d It can grow only The communio itself is assailed as. th~\~:~ea~~::b~rs in relation both as there takes place the comm;~mo 0 Will it take place and maintain to the sancta and to .one ano er.. situation in which each one itself even in these Clrcumstanct~s, m ~ether it is not better to yield is concretely faced by theldques lOndw contract out of the common s re of the wor aroun, to th to e pres u . . b h Id in these circumstances and not come community as such is brought to

t

:o:e~~~~:l s~~11s~till,eS~~h:t. th~

dissolution, death and destuctlOnaiso take a very different form, and But the external attac may . d form is not more it is hard to say wheth.~r ~~ the/~~!~~;~~~i~~~onExperienceold and dangerous to the constI u lOn 0 fi d ersecution may well have the new S?OWS that more brut~\or~:dne Tbe community is strengthened OppOSIte effect from that m ~n th chaff from the wheat means under pressure. The separ~lO~ ~rom ~he human standpoint there is new and stronger growth. ve . b violent or subtle tyrants. consolidation in defiance of oppresslOn hY e that the world around it is not always or everyw er . . In any ca.se, .. '11'11 t the existence of the commumty m It is natural for Christians to expresses Its hostilIty or 1 -WI 0 the form of this typ.e of pressu:e. N 0 and Diocletian and Louis dramatise unnecessanly figures hke d' ~r t s with their" anti-God" d XIV and Hitler and other ern b 1~ ~h~~e have not really been so g movements and new ~tate-re I lOn:, ofUthe Church's history. On the very many ?f them 1~1 ~e t~~~r~he hostility and ill-will of the world other hand, It may ,:e e The world does not allow itself to take express themse~ves dIfferently. d b the existence of the community. seriously the distu:bance caus~h y t terrible weapon of intolerance

f

TO.

~t~~~;~~o~~ceftts~~~tslitu~~~~ s~e~ro~n~iffe~en~~~rslettr;;~ra~:l~~;i~~: arded by the world as the WIser-or WIses . loosing ~nity alone, to go its own w ~tYs as if i~:~:; ~;iri~~:ds::~~d~Pof its to it the factum brutum f I sown s 0

3· The Upholding of the Community

665 Own sure and seCUlar technics and economics and politics and art and science and wav of life. There can thus be presented to it in action the fact that things work out very well after the fashion of what the communitv describes and attacks as sin; that we are here on solid ground; and that there is no need of the fantastic knowledge of our beginning and end in God, of the grace of God and our reconciliation with Him, of a renewal of humanity already accomplished and universally relevant, in short of Jesus Christ and the quickening power of the Holy Spirit. This may well be, and often is, the reaction of the world to the existence of the Christian community. And it is powerful enough even though it never considers giving itself the superfluous trouble of oppressing the community. For what is the result of this type of attack upon it ?-now that there is no planned or purposeful but only the factual opposition of a world preoccupied with its own concerns, and completely uninterested in its message, and assuming that its action is quite irrelevant to what the world regards as important and opposes to it as such; now that the world carries its toleration, or scorn, to the point of laying occasional claim to the ministrations of the community to give light and colour to its practical atheismas concerts and theatres and art galleries are used for its adornmentin the forms of baptisms and confirmations and weddings and festivals and national days of prayer and the like; now that it has nothing to fear in the world but also nothing tq hope, or to fear only that it is absolutely superfluous, like the fifth wheel which is obviously not essential to the movement of a car; now that it does not have the consolidating and winning power of persecution because the world does not persecute it, but quietly or hurtfully ignores it. How will it be with Christians, and how will they maintain themselves, when, with no particular malice and perhaps even with friendliness, the world treats them in this way? What will be the meaning for them, from this standpoint, of their Old and New Testament, their worship, their mission, their whole Christian thinking and willing and action? " Where is now thy God? " (Ps. 4210). Will the saints continue to believe and love and hope when they are harassed in this manner? Will they not be possessed by the desire to leave their own sphere for that where the lord Omnes is at work? How can the community continue to grow? How can it maintain itself? Will not the occurrence of the communio sanctorum be arrested and cease for lack of breath? Will the community be upheld and not disintegrate in face of this neutral but for that reason all the more weighty attack? \Ve will proceed at once to consider the danger which threatens from within. It is not now a matter of its constitution but of the effective action which corresponds to its nature. Here, too, we shall have to speak of two forms of the danger. But first we must refer to that which is common to it in both forms. In both forms it arises

666

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and Up building of the Christian Comml-t1tity

out of the fact that the community in its human activity is a part of the world. The world, therefore, is not just around it but-in all its members-within it. But the world is the flesh of sin, the old man in all the variations of his pride and sloth, with all his possibilities and works. There is no single form of sin, of the rejection of God's grace, which cannot enti~e the communio sa~ctorum, an~ which in its history has not in fact entlced and overcome It. The entlc:ment may come from without, caused by the pressure exerted or sImply by the impression made upon it by t~e ~orld ~ro~nd. But the I?en outside are no different from those InsIde-Within the commuruty. The saints are not, as it were, artless children unfortunately led astray by wicked rascals. They themselves are wicked rascals. They are only too ready to follow those o.utside. Inde.ed, they s~metimes set those outside a bad example. BasIcally, the entlcement WhICh threatens the community is always the same. Stimulated from without and welcomed from within, it may suddenly or gradually feel that the requirement is too hard that its action should b~ wholly ~rected by what the Heidelberg Catechism calls that progressIve sUbjectIOn to the will of God; that its own life and growth (in subtraction from it 1) should be stimulated and determined by the fact that it is in the power of the Holy Spirit of Jesus Christ Himself who lives and grows in it. It may feel that it knows better .and di~tr~st the ~ace ~f God by ~nd in which it lives. It may grow tIred of It like a SPOIlt chIld. CovetIng majesty and greatness f?r itself, it may repudiate ~he sovereignty in which it wills to rule in It. It may long for the solid bases, the clear principles, the success of promising met~o~, the sober. or enthusiastic realism which it sees in other human socletles. There IS no thought of treason' or deviation, of heresy or apostasy. To give way to this desire, the community need not wish to becom~ pagan or godless, ~et .alone actually to become this-which is not so sImpl~ a matter. It IS ~Imply a matter of relaxing a little its friendlessness In the world, the I~C?n­ gruity of its existence as compared with t~at of other human ~oclet~es. It is merely a matter of taking the tenSIOn out of the relatlonshlp; of trying to find a suitable fo~m ~n ~hic~ to ~e a .worl.dly c~mmumty as well as a Christian. An InClinatIOn In thIS directIOn WIll always exist and show itself in the assembled saneti to the ex;tent that they are also peccatores. We can only say that.in prop?rtion as this in~lin~­ tion gathers strength and achieves dommax:~e In the. co.mmumty It will also relax its relationship to the Holy Spmt and HIS gifts, and t~e intensity of its growth will decline, its substance evaporate, and ItS existence become problematical both to itself and to th.e wor~d arou~d, In proportion as it will not live by the grace of God, It begins to die. At the end of this development it will still seem to be there as .a Chu~ch both in its own eyes and in those of the world around. But In realIty it will not be there. The more it is enticed in this direction, the less need it be the community under affliction and even the cross. But

3· The Upholding of the Community

667

then (howev,er ~mposing ~ay ,be its outward aspect) it can be only the con:mumty m corruptIOn, m a process of inner decomposition, Ag~lI~, th~re are two, forms in which this may happen. It may fall vl~tlI? eIther to alIenation (secularisation) or self-glorification (sacrahsatIOn). I w~,s led to this distinction by ~ rem~,r~able passage in the essay by Heinrich Vogel, Wesen u~d Auftrag der Klrche III Bekennende Kirche (for the sixtieth birthday of Martlll Nlemoller), I952, pp. 49-50. Vogel rightly emphasises the fact that the one form. usually involves the other, so that it is not difficult to see the face of the one III the other. All the same, it is as well to consider th ~~

=

-r:he co~munity i~ betrayed into alienation when instead of or side by SIde Wlt~ the VOIce of the Good Shepherd to whom it belongs it ~ears the VOIce of a stranger to whom it does not belong but to whom It comes to belong as it hears his voice. This is something which does not have to happen, but which can happen in so far as it is in the world .and forms a part of it. It does not have to happen, for it is not alie~ated by the mere fact that it belongs to the framework of the habIts and customs ax:d views of the men of this particular time a.nd place an~ s~eaks t~e~r.lan~age and shares their general limitatl?ns and aSpIratIOns, reJOICIng With them that do rejoice and weeping With t~em that weep. (Rom. 1215)., Alienation takes place when it allows Itse~f to be r3;dica~ly dete.rmm~d and established and engaged and comn:ltted and I~pnsoned In this 'respect: in its knowledge by the adoptl~n of a parhcular philosophy or outlook as the norm of its understandmg ~f the Word of God; in its ethics by the commandm:n~ of a speCIfic .tradition or historical kairos; in its attitude to eXlstmg world-relatIOnships by a distinctive ideology or by the most respect~ble or nov~l ?r simply the strongest of current political and eC?nOmlC forces; In ItS proclamation by allowing itself to be determmed by. what see~s to be the most urgent and sacred need in its ?wn p~rtlcular enVIronment, It is always alienated when it allows ItS envlronmex:t, ?r spontaneous reference to it, to prescribe and impose a law whIch IS not identical with the Law of the Gospel, with the control of the f~ee grace of God and with the will of Jesus as the Lord and Head of HIS people. As and so far as it hears this law as a law it does not hea~ the voice of the Good Shepherd but that of a stranger: !t hears ~he v~Ice~.t the world in one of its phenomena, accommodating Itself to It, .bemg . confor:ned " (Rom. 12 2) to its pattern, and there~ore belonging to It. It IS to be noted that this may often happen I~ weakness and therefore in the form of a movement of retreat or flight, or an ~ttempt at self-preservation, in face of the all-powerful world. .But It can also take the form of offensive action in which by heann!5 the world and subjectix:g its:lf .to its laws, the community seeks to hV~ and grow ~nd as~ert Itself m It, conquering the world at the very pomts where It lets Itself be conquered, subjecting it to its

668

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and Upbuilding of the Christian Community

own law, or even to that of God and Jesus Christ, and thus acting in maiorem gloriam Dei. It will usually be argued that i~ is a question of mediation, of bridging the gap between those outsIde and thosc inside of works of " sincerity" on the one side and serious and necessary ~ttempts to win the world for Christ on the other; or that it is a question of the translation of the Christian i.nto the secular at. the command of love; or conversely of a translatIOn of the secular mto the Christian of a kind of baptism of non-Christian ideas and customs and enterpri~es by new Christian interpretations and the giving of a new Christian content, or of a minting of Christian gold on behalf of poor non-Christians. And it is ~ll very fine and good so lo~g as. there is no secret respect for the fashIOn of the world, no secret lIstemng to its basic theme, no secret hankering after its glory; and, conversely, no secret fear that the community cannot live solely by Jesus Christ and the free grace of God, no secret unwillingness to venture to allow itself to live and grow simply from its own and not a worldly root as the communio sanctorum in the world (not against the world but for it, not in conflict but in what is, rightly considered, the most profound peace with it). Where there is this respect, this listening, thi~ h~nker­ ing, this fear and unwillingness, it always means the seculansatI.on ~f the community. Secularisation is the process at the end of whIch It will be only a part of the world among so much else of the world; one of the religious corners which the world may regard as necessary to its fulness but which do not have the slightest practical significance for its manner and way. Secularisation is the process by which the salt loses its savour (Mt. 513 ). It is not in any sense strange that the world is secular. This is simply to say that the world is the world. It was always secular. There is no greater error than to imagine that this was not the case in the much-vaunted Middle Ages. But when the Church becomes secular, it is the greatest conceivable misfortune both for the Church and the world. And this is what takes place when it wants to be a Church only for the world, the nation, culture, or the state-a world Church, a national Church, a cultural Church, or a state Church. It then loses its specific importance and meaning; the justification for its existence. But its secularisation-the entry on the steep slope which leads to the abyss in which it is. o~ly the world-is its alienation. And it consists of mere men-ChnstIans, of course-who are only flesh, and in whom there may be at any. mon:ent a triump~ant insurgence of the inclination and desire for alIena~lOn. It c~rta~nl.y needs to be kept from corruption, from the declenSIOn by whIch It ~s threatened in this form. . The other form of this decay is its self-glorification. Its aim ~s still to develop and maintain itself in the world. But in this case It tries to do it, not by self-adaptation, but by self-assertion. It noW has a highly developed consciousness of itse~f in the part~cularity of its being and action in the world. It now dIscovers that It has good

3· The Upholding of the Community

669

reason to r~gard and represent itself as a world of its own within the world, I~ Its o~n structure and dignity, grounded on the well-known secret of ItS eXls~enc~, it is ~ltimately no less imposing than other factors. Indee?, m VIrtue of ItS sec:et, it is really the most imposing ?f a~l. Itce:tamly knows the lordshIp and glory of Jesus Christ. And It .dlscloses I.tself to be His body, the earthly-historical form of His e:mtence, HIS ambassador to all other men, the representative of His ng~lt .and claim to the world. It thus renounces any feelings of infenonty as ~on:pared wi~h other societies ~nd forms of life. It rejoices and bo~sts m Its own VItal a~d constructIve power, in its own being as t~e mC,omparable communw: the communio of the sancti in their relatIOnshIp to. the sancta; the civitas Dei on earth, which cannot be confused. WIth any o~her society, but towers over them as once cathe~rals dId over the httle towns clustering round about them. Is not thIS the case? Is it not right? The answer is that this is indeed the case, a~d that it. is p~rf~ctly r~ght, but that the terrible thing is that by trymg to be nght (mltself) It can set itself in the worst possible wrong. We have seen already that, although Christ is the community ~here can .be no r~v~rsing t?is important statement. The communit~ IS not Chnst, .nor IS It the kmgdom of God. It is the very last purpose of the lordshIp and glory of Jesus Christ (which it has to proclaim) ~o exalt .these lit.tle men, Christendom, above all others; to set them m the nght aga~nst the :vorld; to invest them with authority and powe:; ~o magn~fy them m ~he wor~d. If the community nevertheless permIts It~elf th.ls reversal, It sets It~elf mos~ terribly in the wrong. It makes Itself hke the ~or~d.. ~nd m so domg, by trying to be importa~t and powerful wlthm. It mstead of serving, by trying to be ~reat mstead of small, by trymg to make pretentious claims for itself mstead of s?berly advocating the claim of God, it withdraws from the world. It IS not inevit~ble.that .it will try to do this. But it may :,.~ry ~ell do so: thus settmg Itself m ~h~ wrong and supremely jeopardIsIng ItS true hfe and growth. For If It does, its own common spirit replaces the Holy Spirit, and its own work the work of God-its offices and sa:rame~ts, its pure preaching of the Gospel, its liturgies and co.nfessIOns, Its act~ of .wltness ~nd love, its art and theology, its faIthfulness to th~ BI?le, ItS sover~Ign com~unities or collegiate governments or authontanan heads WIth or WIthout their vestments and g~lden crosses, its institutions and the specific events of its encounter WIth God's revelation, its whole Kyrie eleison, which is no longer a c.ry for the mercy of God and in which it does not even take itself lIterally, let alone allow the world to do so. And the result is the ~evelopment in the world-for why should .not. Christians too enjoy ~ome measure of worldly success ?--of eccleSIastIcal authorities which m some degree: greater or s:naller or even very small, are self-exalting ~nd self-est~bhshed. In thIS respect we are not thinking only of the I ope and hIS Church, but of what can happen in even the tiniest of

670

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and Up building of the Christian Community

sects. We are thinking of what can and does always and everywhere happen in a hundred different forms; of the slipping of the community into the sacralisation in which it not only cuts itself off from its own origin and goal and loses its secret by trying to reveal it in itself, but also separates itself for its own pleasure from poor, sinful, erring humanity bleeding from a thousand wounds, trying to impose itself where it owes its witness, and denying and suppressing its witness by witnessing only to itself. Sacralisation means the transmutation of the lordship of Jesus Christ into the vanity of a Christianity which vaunts itself in His name ,but in reality is enamoured only of itself and its traditions, confessions and institutions. Sacralisation means the suppression of the Gospel by a pseudo-sacred law erected and proclaimed on the supposed basis of the Gospel. Sacralisation means the setting up of an idol which is dead like all other images of human fabrication; which cannot hear or speak or illuminate or help or heal; in which the man who has discovered and created it cannot in the last resort admire or worship anyone or anything but himself. Sacralisation as well as secularisation (and the two are very closely related) means the end of the community. But the men-Christians-who constitute the community are fiesh, and it is only too natural that they should have an inclination and desire in this direction. Indeed, the surprising thing is that the community has not perished long since in consequence of this particular inclination. In this respect too-and supremely-it stands in need of preservation. This is the danger, or the complex of dangers, by which the Christian community and its constitution and action are threatened in the world. There is no lack of examples, both from history and our own day, to prove its reality. The world and man being what they are, both extra et intra muros, the dangers are unavoidable. And to some extent they threaten the Church from all four quarters. If for the time being one of them is, or seems to be, warded off and overcome, the only result is that the opposite one usually threatens all the more seriously. There are no final safeguards against any of them. Each has the tendency continually to present itself in new forms, and then to evoke a new form of the others by way of reaction. We may thus compare the Church both past and present to a boat betrayed into the very heart of a cyclone, so that there is every reason to fear that at any moment the very worst will overtake both the boat itself and its helpless and unskilled crew. How often outward pressure or the isolation of the community has been so bad, its alieJ;l~­ tion or self-glorification so blatant, that we could only think that It was all over-finis christianismi 1 Nor is there any point in concealing the fact that each of the dangers which threatens the community, and especially all of them in their inter-action and co-operation, have the power to destroy it. Both outwardly and inwardly it is not merely a matter of human wickedness and sloth, severity and weakness, error

3. The Upholding of the Commun " . ly 67l an confusIOn, but in and behind all th of a ~orld on the point of perishin th ese the downw,ard movement out wlldly in its final death-throes i~' thi~ f07e~ of not,hm~ness lashing the community, the violence of chaos wh::h ~me whIch I~ the time of come and, knowing that it cannot h t th 0 nows that ItS hour has ~nde~foot, makes its last and suprem~ratta~k ~: ~?O has trodden it tIon III an attempt to suppress and f I 'f d IS ?uman attesta~ower against the lordship of God \~Itrb~~h de~troy It. If it. has no d SIgns are all in favour of the fact that it ~n Je~us Chnst, the WI, stIll enJoy a long and easy mastery over afflicted and anx' relative considerations and Provisio~ofs Chnste?dom. All kinds of fensive movements are no doubt Possib~e'~~~slola,tI.ons and partial dem face of this multiple threat B t egltImate and demanded to blind us to the fact that finall u w~ must not allow any illusions a~ roperly and incisively only one knOWledge, and only one S avail against it. No one and not~ Je~ ~h knOWledge, c~n be of any as Christianity and its constitutio~g IIId e ~hole world IS so menaced and nothing is so totall referred an, ac IOn a~d future. No one superior" hold" or sup~rt. for Its upholding to a single and d

'J

6-

It is no accident that of all the bo k Of always been found the most relevant 0 ;h ,the Old Testament the Psalter has becaus~ of it, that in so many pass~ es i~s ~~hnot In spite of the fact, but just tremblIng for its preservation in final ~xt 't o~s the people of the covenant The Christian community always has r~mI y efore its all-powerful enemies. and to take on its Own lips the words ~f~ts reason to, se~ Itself in this people, utters from the depths of its need It t helpless SIghIng, the cries which it fa~t, but just because of it, that as'the co%ns to, the Psalter, not in spite of the It IS established on the rock (as powerfull mUlllty of Jesus Christ it knows that but on the rock which although lOt' Y atdtested by the Psalms themselves) 11 'd ' IS sure an Impregn bl ' , , on a SI es, and seems to be of very doubtf I a e In Itself, is attacked therefore in its own. u secunty In the eyes of all men and That is why-to mention anI a ' 1 verses like Eph, 610-20, What is~all:~n~o: ta9sage-we catch the same notes in fidence and boldness but somethin ver ere IS not ~erely patience and conand In the power of His might (v. lO)g and ih differen~-:-EvoVVaJLE'CTOaL in the Lord the JLEOoO€
/ 67 2

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and Upbuilding of the Christian Community

to prayer and watchfulness "with all perseverance and supplication for all saints," including himself, the apostle adds, that to him too (for it is not selfevident even in his case, or something peculiar to him) " utterance may be given," to open his mouth boldly and joyfully to make known the mystf'l"y of the Gospel. It is with this exclusive confidence that the community looks for its preservation from the danger which engulfs it. \Ve remember that it is in Ephesians that the glory of the community is so finely described, But if we re-read the first two chapters and Eph. 4 11 - 16 from this standpoint, we shall understand that the reference is to the glory of the community as it is genuinely threatened in the world.

If the radical jeopardy in which the community stands is not perceived, it will be difficult to understand the statement to which we must now proceed-that although it is destructible, it cannot and will not actually be destroyed. It is indeed destructible. It belongs to the creaturely world, which is the world of flesh, the world of the perishing man who is assailed by nothingness and all its demons, the world of death. With all that men think and imagine, will and do, plan and achieve along Christian lines, it is part of this world. Like so many other constructs and kingdoms and systems it might well have had its time and then disappeared. It might well have come to an end. It has no miraculous power to protect it against this fate, guaranteeing in advance its continuance in the world, the perpetuo mansura est of the Conj. Aug. VII. It might have been destroyed. But it cannot and will not actually be destroyed. It may be hounded into a corner, and reduced to the tiniest of minorities, but it cannot be exterminated. It may be destroyed at one point, but it will arise all the stronger at another. It may be ignored and humiliated and scorned by the world which rushes past it in triumphant hostility, but it cannot and will not break under this burden. On the contrary, it will reach a height which will put to shame the superiority of the superior. Its own sloth and dissipation may result in its secularisation, but this will never be so radical that even in its most serious alienation there does not remain an element which resists that which is secular-a remnant from which in some form a sudden or gradual counter-movement can and will always proceed. It may stage some form of the masquerade of sacralisation and suffer the consequences, but at some point, even in all the false glitter with which it is surrounded, the genuine light of the Gospel will again strangely shine out among the sancti united round the saneta, and the constitution of the communio will be maintained. In short, the community may often be almost overwhelmed by the danger which threatens from without and within; but it will never be completely overwhelmed. It may become ill-and where and when was it not dangerously ill ? in what great or small society? at what time of resurgence any less than in ages of decline ?-but it cannot die: non omnis moriar. There will always be a strange persistence: remarkable reformations and prophetic renewals; notable discoveries followed by notable reversions

3. The Upholding of the Community 6 t't .. 73 o 1 s O~Igll1~ and equally notable advances into the future To be fbTt sure, thIS WIll all stand in the shadow of the dest (e,:en Christian) works both old and new, an ll1dlcatI~n of the presence of the indestructible beyond all h works. Nelt.her the wise and powerful of this world no th uma~ form:> of Chnst~anity it~elf, will succeed in setting a te~m t~e ;~~­ mumty befo~e ItS tIme IS up and it has attained its goal I 't f every opposmg force it will always still be there or be 'th n Spi e. 0 d . h'dd " , e r e agam . an m .some 1. en ,:ay It WIll always be as young as in the first da s' m~~ntI~g up wIth wmgs as eagles. The gates of the underworld (~t' ~t6 ) wIll open up powerfully against it, but will not in fact swallo~ 1 up. B':lt why not? Do not all the indications suggest that it mi ht d? thIS, an.d ~hat It ought to have done so long since? All the i:diVIdual and small ' good and bad' -m w h om t h e com.t ChnstIans-great h r m.~~~ Yth a~ Ived, and who have lived in the community in all ages WI m east time, seem not to have been immune against this ower to t.he extent that. they. have come like all flesh and then de P~rted ha.vmg played theIr vanous parts in the faI'th and error an d super-, ff d . s 1 IOn an unbelIef of the community, in its action and passion A d we cannot too ~~nfidently say that any of the societies and do m'as a~d cults and of the Church h ave enJoye .g d any b' and. tradItIons . . institutions . o. VIOUS Immumty agamst t~l1S power. How much artificial conservatIsm, and how many later mterpretations and constructions conceal the sober fac.t that eve? what seem to be the most solid forms'in which th~.commumty has eXIsted and still exists in time are no less radically s':l Je~t to. decay and destruction than all other forms of human hlstonc~l lIfe!. T.hey may go back four or ten or fifteen centuries but theIr contmmty does not constitute a solI'd b ' on w h'IC h we' aSlS k h ~ay . now t e truth of the promise of Mt. 16 18 and dare to confess it m spI~e of a~l appearances to the contrary. At very best it can onl be a SIgn of ItS. truth and therefore of the upholding of the 'communit ~ And at wors.t It may even be a product of human anxiety obstina[ mend3:c1ty, and. thus a very misleading indication of 'this trut: IS certamly not m and by the strength of continuit itself an' more th~n by th~t o~ the existence of individual ChristiIns th~t tt!e commumon of samts IS upheld. ' ~?W, the?, is it upheld, and how is the promise kept? In re I t? biS questIOn, our safest plan is to begin with the simple fa t th ~ nght up to our own day the Old and New Testament Scri turecs ha~e n.ever been reduced to a mere letter in Christian circles buPt h tmuall b l' . ' ave cony ecome a Ivmg voice and word, and have had and exercised power as. such. .To be sure, they have sometimes been almost complei~;y s~le:;ce? m a thicket of added traditions, or proclaimed only mil ~rgl~. smg-song,. overlaid by bold speculation, or searched on y or tcta probantta m favour of official or private doctrine or

hu~an.

b~~~tI ~i~/al~~ ~l~

;0

~~~

0:

C.D. IV-2-22

'

674

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and Upbuilding of the elms/l'an Community

treated merely as a source of piou~; or ev,;n natural and impious morality, or torn asunder into a thousand shreds (each more unimport~nt than the other) by unimaginative historico-critical omniscience But they have alwavs been the same Scriptures and the commu'nitv has n~ver been able to discard them. Scriptures? A mere book then? ~o, a chorus of very different and independent but harmonious voices. An organism which in its many and varied texts is full of vitality within the community. Something which can speak and make itseif heard in spite of all its maltreatment at the hands of the half-blind and arbitrary and officious. There are many things~even things sllpposec~ly taken from ~cr~pture~to .whic;l we cannot return once '1';e have chscovered and suffiCIently adnllred L1em. But in some way there has always been a return to the Bib.l~. There are many things which sooner or later become mere repetItlOns and therefore hollow and empty and silent. But the Bible has always spoken afresh, and the more impressively sometimes when ~t i.s surrounded by all kinds of misuse and misunderstandmg. That ;:,cnpture upholds the community is not sOIr:ething that Christians can fab.ricate by their own Bible-lectures and BIble-study or even by the Scnpture principle, but it is something tha.t Scripture achieves of itsel~. l.t often does it by very strange and devIOUS ways. It may not do It dIrectly, to the shame of its most faithful and attentive readers, but in the fonn of an echo awakened in the outside world, so that its readers have to begin to study it in a new way. But at some poi?t, as ~ fellowship of those who hear its voice, the threatened commumty begms to group and consolidate and constitute itself afresh around the Bible, and in so doing it again finds itself on solid ground when every~hing s~e~1s to totter. It is the Holy Spirit who upholds the commumty as It IS He who causes it to grow and live. But according to the defiant sayin.g in Eph. 617 the" sword of the Spi~it " which p~oteets and defends It is the Word of God. And accorc1mg to what IS often the reluctant recognition of the communit~ o.f all time~ ~nd places the ~ ord of God has always been heard m Its one, ongmal and authentrc form where Scripture has again made itself to be heard and created hearers for itself. Thus when the harassed community prays for its preservation its prayer must always take the concrete form: "Preserve us, Lord, by Thy Word," with the co?crete meaning: ~y Thy Word attested in Scripture. The preservatlOn of the commumty tak.es place as it is upheld by this prophetic and apostolic word, or as It IS led back as a hearing community to this word. And so we can only say to Christians who are troubled about the preservation of the community or the maintaining of its cause that they should discard .all general and philosophico-historical consideratio:rs (however uI1:settlrng or cheerful) and hear, and hear again, and contmually hear thIS word, being confronted both as !ndividual and unit~d hearers by the fact that the community certamly cannot uphold Itself, but that all the

3· The Upholding of the Community

675

same it i,., in fact upheld, bell1g placed in the communion of saints as this continually takes place in tIle hearing of this word. With the flowing of this stream, however low or sluggish its waters may sometImes be, the communion of saints takes place, and is therefore upheld. But the reference to Scripture obviouslv cannot be our final and decisive answer to the question of the sur~ and reliable mode of its preservation. The word of all the prophets and apostles put together can only be a witness which reqnires·-·and cloes not lack--verification by the One whom it attests. It is in the power of this verification that Scripture is the instrument by which the Church is upheld. As the One whom it attests verifies its witness, it is He who primarily and properly upl.lo~ds the Church. He verifies Scripture simply by the fact that He IS ItS content; that as it is read and heard He Himself is present to speak and act as the living Lord of the Church. There concretely, as the One who was and is and will be according to the word of the prophets and apostles, He exists for the world and community of our time~the last time. There concretely, i.e., in the form attested there, I:Ie .is .revealed and may be known. There concretely He encounters Chnstlans and therefore the world. From there concretely His Holy Spirit comes and works and rules. It is thus true ~lr~:~dy that .fr~m there concretely the Church is upheld by the Holy S~rnt. But It I.S uphe~d only as He who is attested in Scripture does t~IS; as He Hnnself IS there not merely as letter but as Spirit and LIfe; as He is not past and inactive and silent, but the Son of God and Man, and Saviour of the world, who is present to-day, and acts here and now, and speaks with His own. It is because He is within His community, conducting its cause (both for itself and therefore for the world) in face of the great impending danger, that the destructible Church cannot in fact be destroyed; that the mortal Church cannot die; that the gates of hell cannot s\vallow it up. It stands or falls with Him. But He does not fall, and so the Church cannot fall. It. can only stand. It can and must and will rise again even though It falls. He cannot deny Himself, or be untrue to Himself. An.d as the One who cannot do this, He upholds the community, and It IS always upheld--·simply by the fact that He is who He is and that in it we always have to do with Him, because it is His bod~, the earthly-historical form of His existence. The outward and i;;'ward threat which overhangs the community, the whole onslaught of the chaos which He has mortally wounded, is no match at all for Him. It cannot defeat Him, nor can it separate Him as the Head from the community as His body. He, as the to/us Chrt'stus, cannot die. That IS why the community of His harassed and anxious saints also cannot die. Confidence in its cause and continuance and future and triumph depends absolutely upon the fact that it is always confidence in Him; that renouncing all other helpers it keeps only to Him who is not

676

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and

Up building of the Christian Community

only a Helper but already the Conqueror, th: Vic~or, .the de:-th of death and who as such is not apart from but wIth HIS sa1l1ts. For the comm'unity everything depends upon its. readiness n~t to try to be anything more or better or surer than HIS people, HIs body, and to live and grow as such on earth. In every deviati?n from confidence in Him, it can only be deceived as to its preservatIOn, and kno:-v Ylat it is doomed and lost. There is no objective need, or even ~osslblht~, of concern and anxiety or despair concerning its pr~servatIOn. ThIS can arise only when there is deviation; when search IS made for other helpers; when there is a desertion of the Victor b~ whom the community-even though it may be threatened on all sIdes, even though it may be under assault or the cross, even though It may be sec1!larised or sacralised-is objectively victorious, and thus. a?le .at. all tImes to throw off every fear. There is objectiv~ nee~ t~ re]OlCe.I~ Its actual preservation. As the community does thIS, It IS 111 a pos:tIOn to take up its human responsibilities with new than~fulness, senousness an.d soberness, not foldings its hands, but when It has prayed, and as It continues to do so, going boldly to work as if it were ~ot threatened by any dangers. Fluetuat nee mergitur. The One who IS attested an.d attests Himself in the Bible will never have any other message for HIS threatened community than that it should be confident, not because it has no reason for anxiety as it exists in the world, but because of the counter-reason which radically removes this reason-that He has overcome the world (In. 1633 ).

4. THE ORDER OF THE COMMUNITY Conscious always that we have to do with t~e eommunio sa.netoru.m, we will now look in a third direction and conSIder th~ form 111 whIch there is accomplished the upbuilding of the comm1!mty ~u~derstood also as its growth and upholding). The form essentIa.l t.o It IS t~at of order. We can put it in another way and say that It IS essentIal t.o the upbuilding of the community and theref~re to the eomn:-umo sanetorum that its eventuation should not be wIthout form, or 111 ~n indefinite or haphazard form, but that it should have a very defi~lte form. Building is not something w~ich is l.eft to chance or capn~e. It is not a wild or anarchical happemng. It IS controlled .by.a d~fimte form and aims at the application, representation. and :'1I1~IcatIOn .of this form. Building follows a law and is accomphshed 111 I~S. exerCIse and fulfilment. It is in this way-not in derived but ong1l1al and typical fashion-that there also and primarily takes place the up: building of the community. In the spher~ of human hIstory. t~e u~f building of the community .as th~ attestat!on. of. the reconClhatIOn. n the world with God accomphshed 111 Jesus Chnst IS the great campalg' against chaos and therefore against disorder. How, then, can It fal l

4· The Order of the Community

677

to have its own order? Is it not vital to it that even in the form of its occurrence it should oppose law to lawlessness? Even when we understand its upbuilding in the first instance as its growth and life, we have to say at once that its growth takes place in a definite form and according to a definite law peculiar to it. And when we understand it secondly as its preservation in the world, we have to say again that it is not a blind power but its distinctive form, its law, which is fulfilled and vindicated in the fact that it can find continuance and consistence in the world. We speak of order where definite relationships and connexions prove to correspond and thus to be necessary to the matter in question; where they call for recognition; where they find confirmation and demand and receive acknowledgment and respect. The upbuilding of the community, the event of the communion of saints, is accomplished in definite relationships and connexions, and to that extent in order. Let us again put it in another way. In the upbuilding of the community we have to do with that which is lawful and right. It is right particularly in the sense that it corresponds to the matter in question. If we are to speak of the order of the community we cannot help speaking in the same breath and with the same meaning of the right which is revealed and known and acknowledged and valid in it. Disorder is wrong, not merely as participation in chaos, but as the dissolution of the form essential to the community, as the destruction of the distinctness of its peculiar relationships and connexions. It is a wrong way of handling the matter in question. Order, on the other hand, is right, i.e., a right way of handling it, not merely as a protest against chaos, but as a confirmation of this form and distinctness. The words" right" and" law" are an indication that we are about to enter a sphere which has been hotly contested in recent years. I may refer to some contemporary works which reveal not only the state of the discussion but also its historical presuppositions: Wilhelm Vischer, Die evangelische Gemeindeordnung 13 20 (nach Mallh. 16 . ,28). 1946; Eduard Schweizer, Das Leben des Herrn in der Gemeinde und ihren Diensten, 1946, also Gcmeinde nach dem Neuen Testament, 1949, and Geist und Gemeinde im Neuen Testament und heute, 1952; Emil Brunner, Das Missverstandnis der KiYche, 1951; Erik 'NoH, " Bekennendes Kirchenrecht " (in Rechtsgedanke und biblische Wei sung, 1947, pp. 65 fl.), and" Zur Rechtsgestalt der Kirche " (in Bekennende Kirche, p. 254 L), 1952; Max Schoch, Evangelisches Kirchenrecht und biblische Weisung, 1954; Max Geiger, Wesen und Aufgahe ktrchlicher Ordnung, 1954. The contributions of Erik "VoH are particularly illuminating and deserve special mention.

To what do we refer? What is it that must take place in order and therefore in a definite form, according to law and right? The answer is that it is nothing more nor less than the whole human being and action of the Christian community as a provisional representation of the sanctification of man as it has taken place in Jesus Christ. For the sake of clarity we will mention some of the most important points at which the problem of order continually arises and demands an

67R

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and Upbuilding of the Christian Community

answer. It is a matter of the order of the particular event in which the existence of the community finds not merely its most concrete manifestation but also its central point, namely, public worship. It is also a matter of the determination and distribution of the various interrelated responsibilities, obligations and functions to be discharged. by individual Christians within the general activity of the commumty. It is also a question how the community is to maintain its common cause, and the maj esty of this cause, in relationship to its individual members; how it is to exercise discipline and oversight and rule among its members in respect of the particular functions entrusted to them and their Christian life in general. It is also a matter of the relationship of individual Christian congreg~tions to other .congregation~ both near and distant; of the preservatIOn and exerCIse of the umty of all congregations; of the achievement of reciprocity iI.r acti.on ~nd therefore of mutual understanding; of a comprehensIve dIrectIOn which will co-ordinate their existence and action. It is a matter of the regulation-so far as this is possibl? and necessary-of t.he relationships of the community to other .soclal forms, and especIally. to t~e most outstanding and comprehensIve.: of the order of ItS relatronshlp to the existing and authoritative state and its laws, organs and measures. We cannot undertake to develop and answer in detail these questions of order. This is a matter for canon law rather than dogmatics. But dogmatics cannot refrain from considering the standpoints norn:ative for canon law. It has to take account of the place from whIch all the detailed questions of order have always to be a:ns~e:ed and which must always be the starting-point of canon law If It IS to be true law, but also the law of the Church. If we have been on the right track in our previous deliberations concerning the upbuilding of the co~munity, an~ if we ~ave to follow the same track in the present questIOn, the deCISIve pomt for everything that follows is that in this question of the order a~d ~herefore the right or law of the community there should be mamtalI~ed tl.re true relationship between the primary and the secon~ary ~ubJects. m the concept" community," and therefore that even m thIS questIOn the relationship should not be reversed, or made dependent on any of its ramifications, or bracketed by them, or, for the sake of an .answ~r, replaced by its opposite. In .ca.non law there c~n be no questr~~ ot a fLETuf3aatS Els aAAo yEVOS. If It IS the ca~e that I~ the co~cept co.mmunity" Jesus Christ as the Head of. HIS body IS the pn:nary ac~mg Subject compared with whom the actmg human commumon of samts can be 'regarded only as secondary, then in .rel.ati?n to t.he o.rder of the community this fact must not only remam mVIOlate, l.e., It .m~st not only be respected as theological truth, ~s a statement of Chnstran faith and its confession, but It must be gIven ItS proper place ~nd expression in relation to the order of the community and in the solutIOn

4· The Order of the Community

b79

of all the problems of order involved. In the Church law is that which is ri~ht. by the norm of. this relationship. Ever;thing else is WI.on.g. TillS I~ the aXIOm whIch dogmatics has to proclaim to all eXlstmg or projected canon law, by which even its most detailed provisions must be measured, and to the acknowledgment of which it is invited or recalled. .It would.be f?lly to try to derive canon law from any but a christo10gico-eccleSI?lo~ICal concept. of the community. The community is as Jesus Chnst Is-·He who IS the Lord of the human communion of sa~nts, the J:Iead of His body, which is the earthly-historical form of HIS own eXIstence. Or, conversely, it is the human communion of saints in which, as in His body,in the earthly-historical form of His e~istence, He is the Hca.d and the Lord. Only as we start with this VIew of the communitx can t\~o d.esiderata be fulfilled in the grounding of canon law. For only on thIS VIew (r) can it be shown that we have to inquire, a.nd why we. have to inquire, concerning order, and therefore conce:m.ng a defimte form, concerning law and right in the life of th.e Chnstran community; that a distinction has to be made, and how It has t~ be made, be~.ween a~ orderly an~ a disorderly community (or, as we mIght also say m relatIOn to our WIder context a sanctified and an unsa:nctified) .. And it is only on this view (2) that it can be shown ~hat IS ~he speCIfic order and form, the particular law and right, con~e~mng whIch .we ha,:e to inquire when it is with respect to the Chnstran commumty, whIch as such cannot be equated with any other human society. The terms used by Rudolph Sohm, and by Emil Brunner after him, to describe the essence of the ChnstJan community, evade the christological question and answer. As they see It, the community is the spiritual and voluntary Church the Church of l,~ve and faith (invisible according to Sohm). Or, according t~ Brunner, It IS a pure fellowship of persons" (ap. cit., E.T., pp. ro, 17), a fellowShIp of brothers (p. 84), or a living fellowship (p. llO). I do not overlook the fact that Brunner constantly uses the alternative term " fellowship of Christ" and that the. phrase" Christian fellowship" occurs in no less than fIve of his chapter headmgs; But I have not found a single passage where he improves on Sohm b:y senously thmkmg through and formulating the concept of the communIty m terms of Chnst. As he sees it, itis not the existence and lordship of Jesus Chnst WhICh ~onstJtute the communIty, but the relationships which those who belong to Hlm-ChnstJans--have acquired in relation to Him and especIally to one another. ,Vhat Brunner calls the fellowship of Christ does not dIffer In, substance fro:n what Sohm calls the spiritual Church or the Church of love. For hIm, too, Chnst IS a predicate of the Christian community, and not v"ce versa. But however that may be, It is clear that on his view as on that of Sohm there can be no fulfilment of the first desideratum; no serious inquiry concernmg order and law m the hfe of the community. And self-evidently_ for the concepts are deliberately selected in order that the question itself (not to speak of the answer) should be rejected as a ., misunderstanding of the Church," and the true communIty, whIch IS not burdened with problems of law and order polemIcally opposed to the organised Church. This being the case, it is point~ less and ungenerous to ask whether these views are of any value from the standPOlllt of our second deszderatulIl; whether they can result in a useful investigation

680

§ 67. The Holy Sp£r£t and UPbu£ld£ng of the Chr£st£an Commun£ty

of the specific order which characterises the Christian community. They can obviously have no value in this respect. Presupposing these views, it might of course be asked that evidence should be adduced to show that the distinctive rejection of the problem of order is in any sense peculiarly Christian. For there are other fellowships of persons and brothers, spiritual fellowships of love (e.g., private friendships and academic and artistic societies) which have no intrinsic interest in questions of order. The particular sense in which this is true of the Christian community is not shown by Sohm and Brunner, and it cannot possibly be shown on their view.

Our first proposition (r) is that the christologico-ecclesiological concept of the community is such that by its very nature it speaks of law and order, thus impelling and summoning us to take up this question. In the light of it, we cannot evade this particular problem, because it is itself a concept of law and order, and we cannot adopt it without being brought face to face at once with the whole question. If it is the case that the Christian community is the human fellowship in which Jesus Christ as the Head is the primary Subject, and the acting communion of saints as His body is the secondary, to say " community" is at once to say" law and order." The very term implies a definite form which is always peculiar to the event denoted by the communio sanctorum, a law to which it is always subject, a relationship and proportion which it must necessarily assume in correspondence with the point at issue. The point at issue is a provisional representation of humanity as it is sanctified in Jesus Christ. In correspondence with this centre it is always a question of the ordering and commanding and controlling of the Holy One in whom all are sanctified, and therefore of Jesus Christ, on the one side; and on the other side side of the obedient attitude of the human communion of saints in subordination to Him. This relationship constitutes the Christian community. It is its principle of order, its basic law. As it is the Christian community, it has it within itself as the law of the Church, i.e., as the law established in the Church and valid for it. The many questions of what this means in the detailed life and action of the Church are not answered by this reference to its basic law. The community will have to answer these as it considers the legality of its life and action. But the fact that this is its basic law means that these detailed questions are continually raised. It cannot possibly be what it is unless it accepts them and makes some attempt to answer them. On this basis we cannot ignore the question of true Church law, or treat it as a matter of secondary importance. The main definition of Erik Wolf hits the nail on the head. As he sees it, the Christian community is " the community of the Lord and of those who are elected bv Him and thus made His brethren" (" Rechtsgestalt," p. 258 f.). It is a " brotherly Christocracy " (p. 26r, note the relationship of subject and predicate). In a subsequent and subordinate sense, it can thcn be regarded and undcrstood and dcscribed as a "christocratic brotherhood" (PP.259, 261). Even so, thc idea of Christocracy is dominant. And by it the brotherhood is

4· The Order of the Commun£ty

68r

characterised as a fellowsh' fl' law of Jesus Christ. Ip 0 aw, I.e., a fellowship ordered by the superior As against this the defi T f S h because without a~ . ill IOns 0 a m and Brunner are quite impossible which i~ y genu me supp~rt from the New Testament, they ignore that prevails i~e~~~e~o~~~:eChtermhChrNlstocracy,and therefore the basic law which . . urc . ~ or IS It any help that 't" d d' cnmmate against all Ch h I I IS III or er to 15"lov " urc aw as such the terms " spirit," "voluntariness" J esus\h~:~t. ar~huesee~~~;~~:~I~~v:h~o~~tu~~e~e ~here ought to be reference to evil, or " misunderstanding," which has to be s~t ~~ IS, .we ~re told,. the great As Brunner sees it "th d .. ght III thIS drastic fashIOn

~~~~~tion

r;~~I~~t~~~h~fb~~:~::'~frt~~r;;~~~~;~r~:a:a::ic~h,?

of the( theses ;f in faith r~~~~20 P·97)· Church law as such is the work of those who are weak (B ( ). It IS a substitute for the mlssmg fulness of the HoI S " t

~~~~~~f~ ~g~~ci~~~sn~~:(~c~~iitl,l,~~s~ Mess~anic

we~ke~:~lg

of of existence or a Of course we do. But a . '. la we nee IS the Holy Ghost" (p. II5). order, inevitably abandoni~~~~~?;:YtoW~~~C~o=~dnotask con~erning law and be just as much in contradiction t O th .. capnce an . confusIOn, wIll sets its answers to tho t' b e Holy Spmt of Jesus Chnst as one which IS ques IOn a ove or III pIa f th HIS .. of :hich onl one I A d we ave escnbed as sacralisation). But is it the ider of Churc~ l~':.vn)we/ea~ly mteet. It by disputing and anathematising the whole . .. . S I no wIser to argue wIth Erik Wolf ( f) th t Jundlfication and bureaucratisation i e th d t' f C p. 254· a

::n~:~e~a;o~t~~~t~~n~h~~e ~he gr~at danger~e

ethr~ItenP~~~.C1~u~~~(~~

~~ f~r:je~~~nt~cfh~~~u;~~:!eemS)~~1:~~~r 0l i~so~~~~~~iCh h~:c~;~ec~~~t:~~~~

recognition and assertion of the true orde~ o~s~~ u IOn of order, but only by a stitute a lawlessness of the Church in face f ~c~mmuillty; that they conform of law who h O W IC we have to malIitalll the true Church la~c (:~~~~s;:'~ldsIto the t~bstance of the matter, and therefore a a true Church law is that w~' h ~o .exc u e every form of Chiliasm). But this . f . IC enves from the baSIC law valid in the Ch h ~:~' p:~bml thetchlnstologico-ecclesiologiCal concept of the community Fo~r~li ema Ica nature of his concrete (d f . fundamentally right wh h t t answer an 0 all answers) Calvin was qu' elle doit estre ouvernee~el e s a ed: Quant est de,la vraye Eglise, nous croyons, (Con' Gall A / ) N on la polzce que nostre Setgneur Jesus Christ a establie l' ., r. 29 . ote that he says' nous croyon faith. It is thus a statement h' h h j . s'. Th"IS IS a statement of But because it has Jesus Chri:, 1ft al:~ h=:u:h;h~;~~:s ItS theme and content. therefore the consequent obliaation to rule the Ch I estabhshed III HIm, and this order. In face of this tt urc 1 III correspondence with a vicious circle. Because the e arguments ofSohm. and Brunner are caught in of the Ch h th Y Ignore the baSIC chnstologlco-ecclesiological law the quest~~~ ~f c~u~~~ ~orced to see~l a definition of the Church which will make question of Church law a;:m~~:s~e:~a And because they try to eliminate the and are necessarily blind to iis basic

chri~:~lo~~~-~~~~e~~f~~:~~fl~~the Church,

. It i; a~o the case .however (2) that on a christologico-ecclesiological VIew 0 1 t .e c?mmumty law and order are distinguished as Christian and ecc.eslastlcallaw and order from every other form d . 'bl and effect' . thO d" . ,an are VlSl e . lve .In. IS lstlnctl.ve form. The basic form which characterIses the Ch~lStl,:n commumty necessarily demands that the whole structu:e of ItS lIfe whould. be unique. There can be no question of its s\lbJe~tlOn to the :ules whIch are valid, either generally or on certain hIStoncal assumptlOns, for the constitution and action of other human

b8z

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and Upbuilding of the Christian Community

societies. When they ask concerning law and order in the life o~ ~he community, the men at work in it cannot .start fr?m the pr:suppos~tIOn that they and their fellowship are the subject whIch has as Its predIcate their common faith and confession and prayer, their common message to the world, and finally and supremely the Lord Jesus Christ commonly recognised and acknowledged by. them.. They canno~ st~rt, then, from the presupposition that as this parbcular .fellowship (like all other human societies) they themselves have to dIscover th~ la:v and order valid in their case. On the contrary, He, Jesus Chnst, IS here the Lord and Head, the primary acting Subject. It is He who gives them, not only their faith and. co~fession and prayer and proclamation, but also the form of theIr Me, th~ law and order ?f ~ll that they do. .The comm~mity is .not ~ law to. Itself, ~ea~t o~ ~ll m Its relationship to Him. In ItS relatIOnshIp .to HIm He 1~ Its hvmg l~w. What the men who act in the commumty must do IS to recogmse, and continually recognise, that He is th~ regulativ.e law of their relationship to Him, and therefore to be obedIent to HIm, and .constantly to be better and more exactly and more perfectly obedIent. A true inquiry concerning what is right in the Clll~rch will alway~ be an inquiry concerning His ordering and commandmg and control!ing, a~d the corresponding obedience. From the very outset, and m all Its ramifications the law of the Church must be " spiritual" law in the strict sense ~f the term, i.e., a law which is to ~e sought and fo~n? and established and administered in the fell?wshlp of the Holy. SJ;nr~t of Jesus Christ. As such, all valid and proJe~ted Ch.urch law, 1f It IS true Church law, will be clearly and sharply dlfferen.bated fr?m -"very other kind of "law." In great things and small, m all thmgs, true Church law arises from a hearing of the voice of Jesus Christ. Neither formally nor materially does it ar~se els.ewhere. To seek and ~nd a?d establish and administer ~his law IS an mtegral part of the actIOn WIth which the community is charged in and in relation to the world. For this reason, too, we cannot eliminate the question of true Church law, or treat it as a question of minor importance. True Church law as it has to be continually sought is an integral part of the true confession of the community, which has also to be contmually so~ght and safeguarded both inwardly ar.d outwardly. Erik Wolf agam ~~t the nail on th.~ head when in his 1947 essay he described true Church law as confessmg law. It is astonishing that neither Sohm nor Brunner seems to have conSidered that b nd the curt alternatives of enslavement to law or lawlessness th:s third p~~i~ion is possible and indeed necessary; for it is difficult to see what nght the Church has not to confess, but to be inactive and to suppress ItS Witness, on thiS level.

But we must be more precise and say that the voice which has t.o be heard is that of Jesus Christ as attested in Holy Scripture. It IS in the form attested there that He is the Head, the living Lord, of the community. It is His Spirit as active in His attestation by the

4. The Order of the Community

683

prophets and apostles that is the Holy Spirit, the power of His commanding and controlling with their requirement of obedience. It is c?ncrete1y to Scripture that the community has to listen in the quesbon of law and order, in the conflict against ecclesiastical lawlessness and disorder. It has to receive direction from the Bible. It is a matter of the Bible in which He is attested. Or, to put it in another way, it is a matter of Himself as attested and self-attesting in the Bible; of His activity as incarnandus in the Old Testament and incarnatus in the New. His activity there and then is the law which the community must obey here and now. The direction given by the Bible is His direction. In the question of the form of its life as determined by Him the Church has not, then, merely to copy and adopt and imitate that which in response to His direction was achieved there and then, and may be seen in Scripture, as the form of life of Israel old and new. We can never handle the Bible in this way. On the other hand, it cannot listen to His direction here and now without paying close attention to the way in which He acted there and then as the Head of His body, and to the form, the laws and ordinances which corresponded there and then to His activity in the life of His body. As in its teaching and life generally, it must always orientate itself by the life of the Lord in the Old and New Testament community as the first and original form of "brotherly Christocracy ": not in order to reproduce it in the same form; but in order to be induced by it to know Him there and then, yet also here and now, as the Lord Himself living and acting in His community. There can be no question of its obeying any given form of the body of Jesus Christ-not even the biblical-but only Jesus Christ Himself as the Head of His body. It is not a matter of adjusting itself either to the economy of the Old Testament or to that of the New, but of subjecting itself to the One who in both cases was the Director of the economy, the Head of the house, and who is still the same to-day, and rules as such here and now. How can it listen to Him if it will not listen to Scripture? But it listens to Scripture-and in it to the witness of the Old and New Testament people of God and its laws and ordinances-in order to listen to Him, so that beyond that which must be law and order in its own life it will receive His own immediate direction. In this sense Scripture (itself norma normata) is the norma normans of its inquiry concerning true Church law, and confessing law must be in practice the confession of the law of Jesus Christ attested in Scripture. A final note is demanded on the doctrine of a community without law (the invisible Church in the sense of faith, according to Sohm, and the visible ecclesia, according to Brunner). It is interesting that the representatives of this view still seem to be concerned about the question (as is indeed inevitable) how their purely spiritual fellowship of love is to exist in the world, and to co-exist with other human societies. Why IS it that--whether they think of it as visible or invisible--they have not sufficient confidence in its pneumatic superiority and

68 4

4. The Order of the Community

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and upbuilding of the Christian Community

power boldly to oppose it as the one true Christian Church or community or fellowship to the world and all other Churches which on account of their apostasy are subject to canon law? Why is it that according to Brunner (p. II6) .. it can never be a question of deriving from this distinction between the ecclesia and the Church a merely negative judgment upon or a hostile attitude towards the latter"? Or why are not the erring Churches summoned to repent and become the ecclesia? Why are we even assured that they cannot and should not do this (p. l07)? It is hard to see why either the one or the other should not be the logical deduction from the assumptiorrs of Sohm and Brunner. But the conclusion is not drawn. On the contrary, we are surprised to gather that apart from and alongside the ecclesia, which is so polemically exalted at the expense of Church law and the institutionalised Church, there may, and must be ecclesiastical institutions, which can never as such be the true Church (for they have obviously fallen hopelessly victim to the misunderstanding of the Church), but which do at least have the task of constituting the" shell in which this precious kernel has been contained and preserved" (p. 116), SO that not only are they indispensable" from the point of view of contIllUlty of doctnne and preaching" (p. III), but it is even required of them that they should serve, or at least not hinder, .. the growth of the ecclesia" (p. 107). .. In spite of everything the institutional Church has shown itself to be the most powerful externum subsidium of the Christian communion" (p. Il6). The questions which I myself would find it impossible to answer if I were to adopt this view are as follows. I. Who or what institutes and orders this Church in the sense of law, which is not really the true Church, and is to be sharply and definitively distinguished from the ecclesia (the Church in the sense of faith)? By definition, the Holy Spirit cannot do so. According to the assumptions on which this view rests, He either will not or cannot have anything whatever to do with the discovery and establishment of this Church. But who then, or what? A general, legal or historica-positivist conception of the nature of unions, and especially religious unions? But who then is to interpret this conceptIOn? The state with ItS own law? Or members' of the Christian communion, who are naturally interested in the existence of this shell, and who for the sake of its proper construction will occasionally defy the veto of the Holy Spirit and enter the sphere of this general, legal or historico-positivist conception? \'Vhatever may be the answer, there can be no doubt that the principle which is at work in the formation and preservation of this shell will have to be essentially different from that" precious kernel." 2. \Vhat will become of the precious kernel in this essentially different shell ? \Vill the life of this lawless spiritual construct of love maintain itself in face of the alien law of this legal construct, a law by which its own existence in the world is protected and governed? Or will it be forced to adjust itself to it, so that sooner or later it will be conformed in practice to the course and life of the world? It must be remembered that the task of proclamation and doctrine has been confidentlv entrusted to this construct. And even if the danger which threatens from this "quarter is not acute in practice, in what sense can we imagine or expect that this shell will serve, or at least not hinder, this kernel, that the legal institution will serve, or at least not hinder, the growth of the pneumatic ecclesia? Are we then to gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles? 3. \Vhat will become of the pneumatic purity of the ecclesia if, as Brunner sees it, it is a historical quautity (p. 109), and even as a non:ecclesiastical construct it is characterised bv ecclesiastical extension and activity (p. 108 f.), SO that with reference to th~ past (quite apart from the primitive community) it is possible to point, e.g., to the Quakers as an approximate realisation of what IS meant, or with reference to the present to the Home 1\lISSlOn of \Vlchern, the \Vorld Alliance of Y.:l:I.C.A.s and Y.\V.C.A.s, the Student Christian :Vlovement, the Oxford Group 1\Iovement (now 1\I.R.A.) and the J3asle and China Inland Missions, or with reference to the future to expect the appearance of new and

685

hitherto unsuspected forms of the ecclesia? Forms! But that is the whole point. If the eccles"a eXists VISibly, thiS means that it exists in a form. But if it exists m a form, the questIOn of the rightness of this form cannot be ignored and we are forced to attempt an answer. . In all the spheres mentioned by Brunner ther~ have been attempts of thiS kmd. There has never been complete spontaneity (p. 58) .. There have always been umons and institutions on the basis of reflectIOn and diSCUSSIOn. And we have to ask seriously whether this has not meant III every case a more or less evil enslavement to law. The same will always be the case III the future envisaged by Brunner. But this means that at no time or place has Brunner's ecclesia ever been a completely non-ecclesiastical co~struct. It IS dlstmguished from the Churches-not always to its own advantage--:-only by the fact that It makes as light as possible of the problem of order deSIrIng to suppress it instead of tackling it openly, radically and seriously. ' 4: What Will become of the witness to the world which is incumbent upon the Church III the sense of faith If accordmg to Sohm this cannot be visible, but can on eXist mVlslbly III the framework and shadow of the Church in the sense of law. If It refuses to take on a dlstmctive form in the world, if it is content or even. deSires to be anonymous, or to be represented by the alien form of the Church III the sense of law, surely this can mean only that it relies for its Christian witness III the world on mdlvldual members and their word and life and work. Indeed, It Will probably IllSISt that this is the only possible and true form of its witness. But does not this mean that it withholds itself from the world in its essential belllg as the body of Jesus Christ? And in so doing, does it not inevitably depreCiate from the very outset the witness of individuals, exposing it to the SuspiCIOn that It IS only a questIOn of the expression of private opinions and piety which are rIOt III any way obligatory for others? Is it not also inevitable that the world Will Judge it, ~nd with it the whole sphere of the Christian spirit and faith and life, by the alien screen through the chinks of which these indiViduals can be seen but behmd which it is itself concealed, and with it the earthlyhistorical f~rm of eXistence of Jesus Christ in its world-wide significance ?-and all because III misplaced self-Will It regards itself as too superior in the fulfilment of ItS public miSSIOn to assert itself publicly for what it is, thus accepting and ~oslllg III all seriousness the question of ItS appropriate and distinctive form. Can Christendom really adopt this course? 5. Our fi~al question is ,the most incisive. How authoritative really is this controlllllg picture of ,~he Ch,urch III the sense of faith, or the supposed New Testament ecclesza ? The Christ community is the great miracle of history" says Brunner (p. II6). To portray the Church of the first centuries as such w~s the enterprise undertaken at the turn of the 17th century-a period which was particularly fateful for the history of Protestant theology-in the comprehensive and m ItS own way very scholarly work of Gottfried Arnold: Die erste Liebe der GemeLnden /esu ChnstL, das zst wahre Abbildung der ersten Christen und iltres lebendzgen Glaubens und heiligen Lebens (1696). The evaluation and purpose were much the same as those of Sohm and Brunner. But did these first Christian of Arnold, Sohm's spiritual Church of love and J3runner's ecclesia ever exist i~ such a way that they can even be conceived of as the source and norm of all subsequent reflectIOn on the problem of the Church? Does it not need a good deal of ImagmatlOn to accept thiS portrayal as a genuine portrayal? To put it bluntly, did thiS great _mlra~le really happen? Even according to what we find In the witness of the New 1estament, not to speak of the first centuries, which Arnold adduces m eVidence of this miracle) Does not this picture belong to the sp~ere of that which never was on land or sea, to the world of ideas and Ideals. But e"en supposmg that a kmd of pneumatic community did actuallv eXist m a recogmsable form, the decisive question still remains how this corri'mumty, or ItS portrayal, acquires the authority ascribed to it on this view. \Vhen we say: credo eccleswm, does this mean that I believe in a model picture

Ii

C>86

S 67.

The Holy Spint and Uphuilding of the Christl'an Commumtv

of Christian COn1111Unity WhICh L have discovered or add ucect, ur \vl:ich ha~ presentee! itself to me, and which I descrIbe as a gre
~

Before we try to press on to a recognitio~ of ,the basic principl~s of true canon law, an intermediate explanatlOn IS demanded. It IS inevitable that initially---and at the decisive point, so long as the present world lasts, finally-the world wil~ ha:,e a very ,different understanding of the community from that WhICh :t has of Itself. In other words, it will be guilty of a misunderstandmg. For what do~s the world know--and what c,an it know prior to the re~,urn and mamf~sta­ tion of Jesus Christ on the clouds of he3:v~n--of bro~her!y Chns.tocracy" as the basic law valid in the C~nstIan commumty t. Lackmg the categories necessary to understand It, the ~orld re~ards It merely as one society with others, and it will necessanly c~asslfy an~ e<;tu~te it with the other groups which have arisen and still anse ~lthm .1tS own sphere. It will think of these as sociological constru~ts m :vhlCh the men united within them are the actmg subject and theIr partIcul~r convictions and efforts the predicate. No exceptio~ ~ill be made. 111 the case of so-called religious societies. The ChnstIan, commun!ty will be regarded and treated merely as one of these SOCle~le~-a u~lOn or corporation of men united in Christi3:n view~ an.d Chnst,lan actlOn. With respect, or indifference, or sometimes reJectlOn, theIr common confession of Jesus Christ as their Lord, and the Lord of the world, will be heard and noted. Some explanation will be ad.vanced fa: the fact that large or small groups hold this belief (i~ one of Its confesslOnal forms). But it cannot possibly agree-otherWIse It would not be the

4, The Order oj the Community

68 7

world---to treat with the Church on its own basis (taking seriously its faith and confession). In spite of its confession, it will still interpret it as a sociological construct. It will expect that at any rate in its relations with the world it will keep within the framework of that which is understood generally as the legal subject of a union, a corporation, a natural group, or one which has arisen or been formed historically, for the pursuance of a particular end. The community for its part cannot possibly accept this interpretation. The root of almost all the errors which have arisen in this question is to be found in the fact that it has more or less consistently done so; that it has understood itself in terms of the world'" misunderstanding. It cannot forbid the world to interpret it in this way, and thus to misunderstand it. It has to realise that this is only to be expected from outside. It can and must dearly and firmly oppose to this interpretation its own COllfession and self-understanding. But it cannot force the world--and it must not try--to take this confession and self-interpretation seriously. It will always have to count on it in practice that it is surrounded by a whole ocean of world which is neither able nor willing to do this, and which it cannot therefore prevent from understanding it very differently from the way in which it must understand itself. This is particularly true of the most important partner which stands in concrete juxtaposition to the Church in the world-the state. It is a separate question that of all human societies the Church has to understand the state, which comprehends and co-ordinates all the others, as a divinely appointed institution, as an element of the lordship of Jesus Christ, as the great human representative of His lordship over the world outside, so that in this wider sense its officials can be regarded as the" ministers of God" (Rom. 13 6). It certainly can and must confess in relation to it that it understands its own spiritual centre to be the centre of the being and constitution of the state as well. But even when it might have the chance to do this in a particular historical situation, it cannot trv to force it to understand itself in the same way as the Church understands it; or to understand the Church in the same way as the latter understands itself. It will always find that even though the majority of citizens and many officials are good Christians the state confronts the Church as its worldly partner, and that in their mutual relationship it is always on its own presuppositions that it will think and reason and deal with it in its various laws and decrees. The most that it can ever expect from the state in practice is to be assigned a more or less exalted position and function within its own law in relation to corporations and societies. The form in which the state regulates its connexion with the Church, i.e., the Church's assimilation into its own order within the framework of its understanding (or misunderstanding) of its nature and essence, is the law of Church and state, in which as the possessor of sovereignty in its own sphere, and the supreme guardian of all law and order

688

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and upbuilding of the Christian Community

established and valid within it, the state guarantees an appropriate place to the Church, but is also vigilant to see that it does not transgress the appointed limits. It does this in virtue of the fact that with many other rights it also claims and exercises a ius circa sacra: not in sacra, in an attempt to shape its will and rule its inner life; but circa sacra, as that which guarantees these limits on both sides. It may be the state itself which lays down the law of the Chur~h, e.g., by definite articles of constitution and by the sanctlOnmg of correspondmg legislation in the Church. Or sometimes It IS a matter for mutual arrangement in the form of concordats. The state may even grant certain privileges extending either to public recognition of the Church as a legal corpor~tion, or even to its recognition (as everywhere in Europe once, and even yet m Spam) as the Church of the official state-religion.

Even at best, there can never be any question of the state adopting the Church's understanding of itself. This understanding will not, therefore, find expression in the legal status laid down by the state or arranged in conjunction with it. But this means that the law of Church and state can never be, or try to be, the law of the Church, nor can it be accepted and recognised as such. There can tf,us be no place for the provisions of this law in the constitution or order of the Church. For they presuppose, and directly or indirectly express, an understanding of the Church which the Church itself cannot adopt. The Church can only allow this legislation to come into being, and acquiesce in it. There is no reason W?y it ~hould not do this. It cannot deny that it is one human socIety WIth others, and that as such it comes within the jurisdiction of the state, of which its own members, individual Christians, are citizens, and which it regards and recognises as of divine appointment. I ~ will thus adapt itself l?y~ll'y to the ius circa sacra claimed and exercIsed by the state. And If It IS given the opportunity directly or indirectly to i.nfluence it~ form and exercise, it will do so with thankfulness, and wIth a conSCIOusness of its responsibility for the existence and continuance of the state as well. But it will always realise that even in the best law of Church and state we have to do with a misunderstanding of the Church which ignores the basic law valid within it; t~at the Church is always s~en and understood as a union or corporatIOn and therefore a sovereIgn subject of law (which it is not); that ~t i~ subjecte~ ~o a tremendo~s optical distortion in whic? it ca~ recogmse Itsel~ only If It t.akes energetic measures to see things m theIr true proportIOn. It WIll thus adapt itself to all the legislation imposed or granted by the state, or agreed with it, only as it adapts itself to the w~rld and its affa~rs ~en~rallY· The phrase ws fL~ is applicable at this pomt-as though It (lid It .not. Within the framework of the law of state it will not cease for a smgle moment to accept its original and true responsibility, which even the best state does not and cannot take from it. It can never be a ques~ tion of its own power or prestige. But in all that it does and does not

4. The Order of the Community

689

do within this framework it must keep clearly and constantly before It that which is entrusted to it in contrast to the state. As far as possible, it will understand all the provisions of the law of Church and state in accordance with the conception of law which it derives from its self-understanding. It will be vigilant to see that the state's ius circa sacra does not openly or surreptitiously-and there is always a tendency in this direction, even (and perhaps especially) in the most loyal state-develop into a ius in sacra; the interference of the state in its own order, and ultimately an attempt to control its preaching, doctrine and theology, i.e., the practical fulfilment of its confession, if not the confession itself. It cannot allow itself to be secularised by the law of Church and state and its definitions. If necessary, it will not hesitate actively to withstand those responsible for its application (whether it is a matter of officials or political majorities). A frontier will always be perceived which it has to guard in virtue of its own self-understanding and beyond which it cannot accept either the commands or the prohibitions of the state. Above all, it will tirelessly give positive expression to its own understanding of itself. It will do this decisively in the contours of its life and activity within the sphere of the state. Ignoring the distorted picture presented in the law of Church and state, it will be present and speak and act in its own character, and the discharge of its commission, as a human society which does not belong to itself or govern itself, as the sphere which is ruled by Jesus Christ. It will demonstrate its faith in Him by serious and confident obedience. Even in the most critical of cases, it will not do this against the state, but with a true sense of responsibility for it; in order that by its loyalty to itself, to its own basic law, it may remind the state of that which is the ultimate basis and commission and dignity of the state itself-the fact that it is from God, that it does not exercise an intrinsic but a transmitted authority, and that it too is a subject of law only in a restricted sense. What the state needs, within the framework of a particular law of Church and state, is a free Church, which as such can remind it of its own limits and calling, thus warning it against falling either into anarchy on the one hand or tyranny on the other. As a free Church, and only as such, the Christian community will always allow itself to be integrated, and willingly and gladly integrate itself, into the order instituted by the state. After this preliminary clarification, we may now take up the task of stating the general presuppositions which on a christologico-ecclesiologica.l view of the community as its basic law will always be normative for every true Church law, and operative and revealed within it. By Church law as distinct from the law of Church and state we mean the order which on its own basic law and in obedience to its Lord the community has to seek and establish and execute of itself, in complete independence of the law of Church and state, and without even the

690

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and Up building of the Christian Community

slightest interference on the part of national authority (in the form of constitutions or establishment). In this connexion we can only indicate the general presuppositions which are theologically binding on all Churches and their law. We cannot develop the law itself. This is a matter for the different Churches in different plases and times and situations, and it may often demand special legal knowledge and skill in addition to the necessary theological insight. There is, of course, this basic law, and its analysis will yield certain general presuppositions which umlerlie all Church law. But there is no such thing as universal Church law. On the basis of this laY\'. and the presuppositions to which it gives rise, true Church law may develop in many different directions. Our present concern is with the presupp03itions of all Church law as they arise out of the ba.slc law and expla.in it. These presuppositions have a demonstrable theological validity for all Church law. To clarify and assert them as valid in this way, thus furthering their recognition and acknowledgment, is one of the tasks of dogmatics. It is to this task that we now address ourselves. 1. In the light of its basic law, the law to be sought and established and executed in the Christian community must always have the character and intention of a law of service. It must always be law within an order of ministry. The community of Jesus Christ, as the body of which He is the Head, exists as it serves Him. And its members, Christians, as members of this His body, exist as-united by the service which they render to their Lord-they serve one another. This first and decisive determination of all Church law has its basis in the fact that the Lord Himself, who rules the community as the Head of His body, " came not to be ministered unto, but to minister" (Mk. r0 45). Revealed as such in His resurrection, and ruling as such by His Holy Spirit, He is the King and Lord of the world and the community as the One who on the cross was defeated and in that way victorious, humbled and in that way exalted. He is the King and Lord as the One who serves His Father, and therefore His own and all men. It is as this One who serves that He rules and requires obedience. He is not, therefore, one of the lords who do not serve but only rule and leave the serving to others. He is the Lord as He is first the servant of God and all others. The two things cannot be separated or reversed. It is not the case that He rules and at the same time serves, or serves and at the same time rules. It is as He serves that He rules. It is as the humiliated Son of God that He is the exalted Son of Man. Thus the obedience of His community corresppnding to His rule can only be service, and the law which obtains in it, in accordance with the basic law which consists in the lordship of Jesus Christ established within it, can only be the law of service. The community attains its true order as His body when its action is service. And its members, Christians, attain their true order when they serve. In the Christian community, unlike all other human societies, there is no distinction between privileges and duties, claims and obligations, or dignities a~d burdens. There can be privileges and claims and dignities only In

4· The Order of the Community

69 1

and with the duties and obligation.; and burdens of service. "And whosoever of you will be the chidest, shall be the servant of all " (Mk. roll). F~om the point of view of the community and all its members, sanctlficatlOn means exaltation, but because it is exaltation m fellowship with the One who carne to serve it is exaltation to the low~in:,ss in which He served and still serves, and rules as He serves. As m ltS L?rd, and typically for all mankind, the community participates m thlS exaltatlOn and rules with Him, both as a whole and in e~ch. o~ its members it can only serve, and in the law which obtains wlthm It-Church law-the only real question is that of the correctness of its service. . . This determination is (r) unequivocal, non-dialectical and irreverslble.. In ~he community it is not at all the case that the Jaw of service carnes wlth it an accompanying law of rule, as if the burden which h~s ~~ be borne by and within it were bound up with all kinds of dIgn~tJes, or the oblIgation laid on it and each of its members authorised all kmds of claims, or its active commitment to service were the basis of all ~inds of privileges. This. may well be the case, and quite in order, m other human societies. But it is far otherwise in the Christian community. Upon it, and each of its members, there is laid a demand -the demand that it should serve. Its whole law consists and is ful~lled ~n t~e fact that it stands under this demand. The questio~ whIch anses IS that of the right form in which both as a 'whole and in each of its members it must correspond to this demand. For and in the community a demanding which is abstracted from and even in some way conflicts with the fact that it is demanded is quite unlawful. There c~n be no aut0n.0~ous demanding. For the community and each of lts .me~bers legItImate demanding can be only the demanding of tha~ w~llch IS necessary to fulfil the common requirement of service. The digmty can be only that of the burden, the claim that of the obligation and the ?ri,,:il~ge that of the fulfilment of duty. The rule can be .only that whIch m Itself and as such is service--and only service. UneqUIvocally, and unconfused by any speculative end, the freedom of the community and each of the Christians assembled within it is the freedom to serve. No true Church law c~n hesitate to take into account the unequivocal nature of thiS determll1atlOn. .No true Church law can follow the example of the law of other societies and give place to a demanding which conflicts with the fact that I,t stands under a demand; to a rule which is distinct from service. No true Church law can open the door, or leave it open, for this kind of rule. To be sur~, th~re is rule in the community. There are also privileges and claims and ?Iglllties.. There are demands which the community has to address to its memoers and Its members to the community or to one another. There may even be demands which one commulllty has to make on another, or which have to be made on many communities by a central authority. or which have to be made on the ~tate or other worldly partners. But they must all be closely and strictly scrutmlsed-and this is where the true Church law that we seek must give gUIdance and direction-to ensure that it is not a question of the abstract

69 2

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and upbuilding of the Christian Community

demanding of dominion, or the abstract assertion of pri~ileges and claims and dignities, but only the demanding of serVIce, I.e., that whIch IS made excluSIvely in the context and fulfilment of service, and expresses only the fact that a demand is laid on the community and all its members. This kind of demandmg-and only this-can and should be recognised and regulated and protected m true canon law. On the other hand, the demanding which aims only to assert or secure the community or someone within it is not merely to be checked but eliminated. Neither for the community as such nor for any of Its members can true Church law be anything but a law of servIce. The commumty knows and takes into account the fact that there are other laws in other spheres. But its own law is a law of service.

This determination is (2) total. That is to say, in the life of the Christian community it is not the case that there is one sphere which is ordered by the law of service but side by side :vith t.his there ~re others in which it does not have the character and mtentlOn of serVIce but stands under another determination or is open to many different and even perhaps changing determinations. Serv~ce is n~t just ~ne of the determinations of the being of the commumty. It IS Its bemg in all its functions. Nothing that is done or takes place can escape the question whether and how far wit~in it the community serves Its Lord and His work in the world, and ItS members serve one another by mutual liberation for participation in the service of the whole. That which does not stand the test of this question but is done merely because, even though it does not serve, it has always been do~e or is regarded as a possible. line of. action, is quite unlawful, and It must either be jettisoned as me~sentIal and harmf~l ballast or made to serve (which is often easier saId than done). EIther way, there must be no dead corners where an alien lord pursues his doubtful or at any rate useless way. The community has neither time nor strength to waste on allotria. Nor must this question of service be put only by way of criticism. It can be a diviner's rod as well as a measuri~~ ~~d. There are many old and disused and unjustifiably obsolete possIbIlItIes of service to be re-discovered and revitalised, and many new and. unjustifiably disregarded possibilities to be discov:red afres~ a.nd r~alIsed. When can the community ever be content WIth what It IS dOIllg,. as though this were the totality ~f t.he. service ~equired, and that whIch is right and lawful for it and wlthm It were eI.ther exha.usted or on the point of exhaustion with ~r(Jsent-day.e~panslOn? It I~ n~t the .co~­ munity itself which constItutes the lImIts of the totalIty III WhICh ~t has to serve its Lord and its members must serve one another. It IS its living Lord Himself, whose call. to halt and a~van~e it has ~o follow as His living community. Thus It ~ay .never .Im~gme that It knows already and finally what is the totality III WhIC~ It has to s.erve. .It must know only that it has always to serve WIth the totalIty of Its being and action.

We may recall in this connexion how futile have been the att~mpts to ~~: the terms OLUKov[a and mtntstenum to denote partIcular functIOns wlthm the of the community: diaconate to describe the loving assistance extended by the

4. The Order of the Community Church to the sick and the poor, etc.; and ministry the regular preaching office. Surely the freedom to serve granted to the community and practised by it cannot be narrowed down in this way. Surely its whole action can and must be a diaconat~ and the ministerium verbi divini. Surely there are no spheres in whIch thIS IS not the case. Surely there can be no new activity, in spheres as yet undIsclosed, whIch wIll not necessanly take the form of service. True Church law must guard against the emergence of these false distinctions; and where they have been made already it must remove them. It must declare and maintain the radical openness of the whole life of the community for its determination to service. To take one or two examples, Cburch administration (which wIll largely be concerned with financial questions) is also a question of service. and It cannot therefore be regarded as self-evidently autonomous and suddenly bureaucratisedor commercialised. Or again, the Church's scholarship (tbeology) IS also a questIOn of serVIce, so that though It may and must claim the widest possible freedom in the choice and application of its methods there can be no question of any other freedom than that of serving-not the Church, let alone any authority within it, but in the Church. Again, there can be no question of an autonomy of philosophical or historical interests from this standpoint. The same is true of its discipline, in the order and exercise of which the motto: fiat zustztza et pereat mundus, is quite illegitimate because it is incompatible with the whole character of this activity as service. And because in the direction of the Church's affairs we are still in the sphere of service, it is better either to avoid altogether terms like monarchy, aristocracy or democracy, with their clear suggestion of the exercise of power, or at any rate to use them in such a way that m the understandmg of the rule of the Church on a Christocratic basis " rule" is always firmly interpreted as outstanding service.

Finally (3) the determination of the law which obtains in the Church as the law of service is universal. That is to say, as there is no sphere of the Church's activity to which this determination does not apply, there are no individuals within the community who are exempt from service or committed and engaged to serve only to a less serious degree. To be a Christian, and therefore a saint in the communion of saints is to serve in and with the Christian community. All Christians d~ not have to serve equally, i.e., in the same function. But they all have to serve, and to do so in one place with the same eminence and responsibility as others do at other places. As the community exists only as the body of its Head Jesus Christ, so it exists only in the totality of the members of this body, which as the communio sanctorum is not a collective where the individual is of no importance because if he dropped out he could at once be replaced by someone else. In the life of the Christian community each individual has his own necessary place, and the service of each individual is indispensable to that of the whole. This service is not the privilege or concern of a few whose selection stands in marked contrast with the exemption of the rest as a lowliei" or better portion. Exalted into fellowship with Jesus Christ, each Christian as such is set in the lowliness of His service. How then can he be forced or how can he presume to think that he is set there and therefore claimed, to a less extent than others? At bottom, ther~ is something wrong with the community itself if even one of its members has dropped out of its ministry or never had a share in it.

694

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and Upbuildmg of the Christian Community

At bottom, all the members suffer if even one defaults in this way. This is something which must be avoided at aU costs. In fact, of course, it may well be the case that when some drop out either totally or partially there are others w.ho will ma~e go?d the service which is not rendered. But when tlllS happens, It pomts to an emergency and not to the normal state of affairs in the :ommunity. Basically, there is neither discharge nor total or partIal leave of absence' from this service; nor can there be any question of delegation or substitution. Each one is called, with equal seriousness, to play his part, and to do so as if everything depended on him. And the fact that each has his own particular and different part to play, or service to render, cannot mean that those who are particularly responsible at one point have no responsibility but ca~ le~ve it .to thos.e responsible at another. The service of the commumty IS a dIfferentiated service. But it is a differentiated whole. Hence the concern of one, quite irrespective of the fact that it is his conce:n i~ particular, is also the concern of others. None can try to serve 1Il hIS own small sphere without considering all the other spheres for which his o~n service will always have indirect significance, and may even acqmre and have direct significance as in the pursuit of his concerns he .is also involved in the problems of these other spheres as well. It wIll thus be an emergency and not the normal state if the differentiation and distribution of service leads in practice to disintegration; if it means that the individual and different ministries flourish in mutual unconcern, robbing one another of soil and air and sun like the plants in an ill-tended garden, and generally competing with one another. All Christians equally will constantly need remission of their sins i.n their co-operation in service. But they must not calculat~ upon thIS in advance in the sense that it leads them to regard what IS really an emergency as justifiable, and to proclaim it as the normal state. If we ask concerning law and order as we must, we cannot argue that we are even partially discharged from the obligation to serve because others can replace us, or that we have no responsibility for all other spheres because we are competent on~y in our. own. Law and order in the community are never the particular pnesthood of a few, but the universal priesthood of all believers. It will be the task of true Church law to guard and constantly to rescue this truth from distortion and oblivion. Even linguistically, it must avoid the ~atal word" office" and replace it by" service," which can be applied to all Chns~Ians. Or, if it does use it, it can do so only on the understandmg that m the ChnstIan community either all are office-bearers or none; and If all, then only as servants. Even where this is recognised in theory, true canon law WIll have to be all the more vigilant against practical clericalism: against ~very distinction ?et",:een the active and the inactive (or passl\'e) Church; agamst every separatIOn mto the ruling and the ruled, the teaching and the hearing,. the confessing and th: established, the taxable and the enfranchised commumty. \\ hatever may b the actual circumstances, in true Church law we cannot regard them as descended

4. The Order of the Community

695

from heave? and therefore normative. The unity and universality of the Church's Imll!~try WIll always be, not a beautiful ideal, but the absolute law of the commumty,. and therefore that which must be maintained as the conditio sine qua non of Its hfe. DIstInctions of this kind cannot, therefore, be iustified and sanctIfied. On the contrary, there is a constant summons and direc'tion to overcome them:. within the limits imposed by time and expedience, but clearly and progressIvely WIthIn these limits; suavitey in modo, but fOYhteY in Ye, uncompronllsmgly as regards the thing itself. And if it is one of the duties of canon law to regulate the distribution of different functions to different members of the community, clearly declaring that they are qualified and instituted to serve m thIs or that sphere, in the unavoidable distinctions which this involves it must see to it that there is no possibility of a departmental isolation and autonomy or a struggle for power and prestige; that with all the respect for particular gIfts and tasks and their limits the responsibility of all for all and for the whole IS maintained and asserted; that the disorder which Paul reproved in I Cor. 14 m ~elatlOn to the gIft of speakmg WIth tongues (which had achieved a false preemmence. m Cormth) does not arise and gain the upper hand in very different for:ns WhICh are perhaps more obvious and tempting in different circumstances. It IS the task of canon law to guarantee to the community the freedom to obey, and therefore the peace and harmony of service. 2. We are looking from the same place and in the same direction, but more concretely, when in a rather bold expression we describe the law which has to be sought and established and executed in the community as liturgical law. Church law has an original connexion with the particular happening of Christian worship. It is here that it has its original seat. It is in the act of worship that it is originally found and known. It is to worship-as the order of divine service-that it is originally applied. It is from this point that it embraces and orders the whole life of the community. At an earlier point we have described and emphasised public worship as the centre of the whole life of the community; as the true act of its upbuilding. The time has now come to give our reasons for this emphasis. The necessity and central significance of this happening-or this particular service, as we may now call it in retrospect of our first point-have their immediate derivation in the basic law (the christologico-ecclesiological concept) of the community in virtue of which it is the body whose Head is Jesus Christ. According to Holy Scripture Jesus Christ is the One who exists in a history-His own particular history-within universal history. In virtue of His resurrection from the dead He will be this One, and therefore the Head of His community, in every age and to all eternity. Our first emphasis must fall on the fact that He is the One who exists in His history. The One who is the Head of the community is the man who not only went but still goes and always will go the way from Bethlehem to Golgotha. The One who goes this way is manifested on Easter Day as the living Lord, and His Spirit, His quickening power, is the Holy Spirit, who has created and rules and upholds the Christian community. The being of the Head of the community is the event of the life of this man.

696

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and Up building of the Christian Community

But we must also emphasise the fact that He is the One who exists in this particular history. The event of this life is indis~olubly co~­ nected with His name. It is the event WhICh exhausts Itself In thIS name-concrete limited in time and space, singular and unique. It is this event and not another; a" contingent fact of history," to use the phrase of Lessing. . . . . . It is in this way, i.e., in Jesus Chnst, In HIS partIcular h~s~ory, that there was and is and comes true God and true man, the humIlIated Son of God and the exalted Son of Man, the One who fulfils the covenant between God and man, the Reconciler of the world with God, the Word which was in the beginning with God and will also be His final Word His eternal Word. In heaven, hidden in God, He whose being is thi~ once for all act, this particular history, is the Head of His community. . If His community then, created and ruled and upheld by HIS Holy Spirit in the time between His resurrection .and .His retu~n in. g~o~y, is His body, the earthly-historica~ form .of HIS ~xlstence; If thIS. IS ItS basic law it is inevitable that HIS partIcular hIstory, both as hIstory and in it~ particularity, should be actively and recognisably reflected and represented in its life. . . . . . . . Hence it is not enough, but conflIcts WIth ItS basIc law, If It IS merely present in the world as His legacy and endow~ent, as an establishment and institution founded and ordered by HIm, and therefore as a mere phenomenon. It is true that it is His :ralid and living .begu.est to this intervening time. It is also true that It cannot be thIS liVIng bequest unless in obedienc.e to Him it take~ a~l ~inds of forms and establishes all kinds of institutions. But as HIS lIVIng bequest, as the body of which He is the Head, it is itself history. The Christian community is not a mere phenomenon, however distinguishe~l. It is an eve?t. Otherwise it is not the Christian community. It IS another questIOn that in this event it takes different forms and establishes di~erent institutions. The fact remains that it is not itself a foundation or institution. In correspondence with the hidden being of Jesus Christ Himself, it is an earthly-historical event, and as such it is the earthlyhistorical form of His existence. .. . . But it is also not enough, and conflicts with its basIc law, If In ItS life there is no correspondence to the particularity of His history. By the event of the Christian community there certainly can and must be understood the more general truth that as the human fellowship of those who are elected and called and sent, who believe in Him a~d obey Him, it is comprehensively at work in time ~nd. spac~ as Its me;Dbers belong together in virtue of their relationshIp wIth HIJ?' and are inwardly and perhaps outwardly united, an.d meet occasIOnally on the basis of their common convictions and Interests and .hopes, and take certain steps together, and give various forms. of assIstance to one another and to those outside, in view of that whIch they have

4· The Order of the Community

697

con:mo~. ~n act.ual fact, there. is ~o doubt that for the most part t~ey lIve In dIspersIOn, each one In hIS own place and occupied with hIS own. needs and, co?c~rns as a C~ristian, although grouped in various in

,,:ays WIt? other ChnstIans. And In this form, they will not be recog-

lllsabl~ elt?er to themselves or others as the concrete communio sanctorum In tIm.e an~ space. To be sure, the Christian community is an event even In thIS form. Its history does have this character and aspect.. It h~s a r~al existence submerged in this way under the seculanty ~f ItS ~nvI~onment. It wears also the working clothes of ~n anonymIty whICh IS broken only occasionally and haphazardly. It IS a secret conspiracy whose members are largely unknown to one another, or. meet only rarely, and cannot regard it as over-important -because ItS hour has not yet struck-to manifest it even to themselv.es, let alone to others, in its full dimension. The inward life of Chnstia~s will, i.t is to be ho~ed, shine out-decisively in the private or combIned attItude and actIOn and abstention of individuals-even though they may be "scorched by the sun outwardly." We refer to the everyday life of Christians, which must not be undervalued ~lth01!~h it has often been one-sidedly and thoughtlessly exalted. It IS legltJmate and necessary that the community should exist in this form. For one thing, it belongs to the everyday life and traffic of the world. But more than that, its Head is the One in whom God took the wo.rl~ to Hims~lf, and therefore the everyday life of all men and of C~nstI~ns. It IS n~t .enough, however, if the community exists on~y In t~IS form. If thIS IS a,ll, if it does not correspond to the particulanty of ItS Head Jesus Chnst and of His history, it does not attest the conc:ete, unique and limited actuality of this history, nor does it attest HIm as the One who exists individually as this man and not another. In its representation of His history there is lacking the offence and the glory of the fact that it is a "contingent fact of history. " This is where the particular happening of worship is supremely relevant. The ev~n.t of th~ c~mm~nity takes place in other ways. And conversely, dIVIne serVIce In thIS particular sense of the term is not a continual but a particular event within the total event " community." As the total event" community" stands out from the world within the world, so divine service stands out from the total even~ " com.munity" within this event. And it is only as the commUlllty has Its distinct centre in its worship that it can and will stand ?ut clearly from the world. But this is necessary as in its history there IS to be a representation of the particular history of its Head an attestation of Jesus Christ. ' In divine s~rvice there ta~es place that which does not take place anywhere else m the commulllty. In divine service the sabbath intervenes between six working days on the one side and six more on the other. In it it exchanges its working clothes for its festal attire. It

690

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and Upbuilding of the Christian Community

is now an event as community. Unpretentiously but distinctly it stands out from the secularity of its environment in which it is for ~he most part submerged. It now. casts off the ~nonymity of that whIch is distinctive and common to It; the occaslOnal and haphazard and private character elsewhere assumed by .it,s .~anifestation. It n.ow exists and acts in concrete actuality and VISIbIlity as the congregatlOn to which manv individuals-each from his own human and Christian place in dispe~sion-come together to one plac~ at one time in or~er that together, occupying the same space and tIme, they may realIse the communio sanctorum in a definite form. There can be no doubt that not merely their life in the world, but their own everyday life ~s Christians as it was lived yesterday and will be resumed to-mor.row, IS now left behind. There can be no doubt that the hour for whIch the conspirators otherwise wait in dispersion ha? now. struck~ even if only provisionally and not definitively. The .dlmenSI?~ whICh embraces individual Christians and Christian groups IS now VISIble to themselves, and in their common action to the world around. This is the distinctive feature of this action within the wider context of the life of the community; the feature by which it is distinctly sho~n to be the centre of its life, not to be confused with the everyday eIther of the world or of Christians. It is shown to be its centre because hereand in this way only here-the community exists and acts in direct correspondence to its basic law, in a particular ~n~ not mer~ly a gene~al historicity. In divine service it becomes and IS Itself a wltn:ss to ~ts own being, to its determination in the world, to the factualI~y of I~S existence. And in divine service it exists and acts prophetIcally m relation to the world to the extent that in divine service-and here alone directly-there is a serious discharge of its com~ission to b~ a provisional representation of humanity as it is sa:r:c~ified m.1esus Chnst. We must not be too pretentious and say that dlvme serVIce or any of its parts is an "eschatological event." It is quite sufficient, ~nd startling enough, to say tha~ on it~ jourr:eJ: bet~een the resu.rrectlOn and the return the commumty achIeves m It thIS representat~on ~ro­ visionally but in concrete reality, so, that it is o~ly ~ere that It eXIsts and acts in its true form. From thIS centre of ItS lIfe there can and must and may and will be also true Christian being ~nd action on the circumference, in the Christian everyday. From It there can a~d must and may and will be general law and order. Thus. from I~S liturgical root Church law must be m~derstood as a law whI~h .(1). I~ ordered bv divine service; (2) IS contmually to be found agam 1ll It, and (3) h~s itself the task of ordering it. We shall now consider the problem from these three standpoints.. . We must begin by asserting (1) that all law 1ll the ~h~rch .has ~ts original seat in the event of divine worship, ~nd that It IS pnmanly est2.blished in this particular happenmg. V\here two or three are gathered together in the name of Jesus, i.e., by the fact that the name

4· The Order of the Community

699

of Jesus is r~vealed to them, He Hj~sel1 is with them and among them (accordI.ng to Mt. 1820). The saymg has unmistakeable reference t? the. gatherIng (" :ynagogue ") of the community. If the saying is nght, It means that m that.whi~h is done and takes place in the coming together of th~se men theIr Kmg and Lord is present and at work; the ?ne who IS as such the source and guarantee of the law which obtams for ~he~. As they have not met by accident, or gathered toget.her arbltr~nly, but have been brought together by the revelation of ~IS name, t~ey a.re not left to their own devices in their common actIOn, but theIr Kmg and Lord Himself gives them direction and o:-ders and commands, and consolation and promises. It is He who g.lves the freedom for what takes place. Because and as He, the nghteou.s O~e, is present i.n their gathering, there takes place in it t~at ~vhlch IS lawful a~d nght f?r these men, His own, in spite and eve.n m defiance of the ImperfectIOn and corruption of their action, in w~Ich they set themsel:es wholly or very largely in the wrong. It is qmte .out of the questl?n t~at the community assembled for public worship can exalt Itself m thIS action, or even try to do so, to be itself the source and guarantee of the law which obtains within it. The ~en assembled, even if they act in His presence and under His directIon and as those. who are co~forted by Him, are always sinners and t~erefore never nghteous or m a position to establish a valid law a n~ht by their action. They themselves are not and will never be th; Kmg and Lord. They.are only His people; worthy only as He makes them worthy to be WItnesses in their activity to His presence and therefore to the :-ig?t est~blished and made a law for them by 'Him. That ~e does th~s m theIr assembly, that He Himself is the right or ~aw whIch underlIes and shapes and orders this event of divine service IS the secret of this action which makes it the original seat of all thei; law. Ess.ential.ly a~d decisively there are in this action four concrete elements m ~hlch, m spite and ev~n in defiance of all the imperfection and corruptIOn of the human actIOn of Christians, Jesus Christ and the~efore the law of the communio sanctorum, the right which obtains for It, IS really present. . First, where two or three are gathered in His name, they speak WIth and to one .another in human words. They do not do this merely because speech IS the chara~terist~c vehicle of human fellowship, but because fro.m the very first thIS par~Icular fel~owship has its meaning and substance m the fact that there IS somethmg specific which calls for common utter.ance and .must be declared by those who have been brought to thIS fellowshIp. In general terms, it is a matter of the commor: confession of the One. who has ?rought them together by awakenmg. the~ all to. know Him and belIeve in Him and love Him and hope m Him. ThiS knowledge and faith and love and hope, or rather the One who IS .known and believed and loved by them and the object of their hope, Impels the two or three to make this common

700

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and Up building of the Christian Community

confession as He gathers them together. They hear Him together as the Word of God addressed to them, and they cannot do this without making their common human response. But they also owe this response to one another: for the mutual ratification and confirmation, consolation, correction and renewal of their knowledge and faith and love and hope; for the mutua consolatio fratrum. And they cannot make this response merely in private, or in the accidental, local and optional encounters in which Christians may speak with and to one another. They can and may and should make it in this way too. But under the impulsion of the Word of God, the human response to this Word calls for something public. The unity of knowledge, faith, love and hope, and of the One who is known and believed and loved and the object of their hope, calls for the unity of their confession. Confession may well be the confession of individual Christians or groups of Christians. But it cannot be only this. Indeed, it cannot really be this unless it is first the confession of the community, and flows into the confession of the community, in which the human response to the Word of God is the common word of all, and the mutua consolatio fratrum does not take place in a corner between individuals hut is the objective and obligatory work of all to all. This common response in the common hearing of the Word of God, the confession commonly spoken and received in the renewal of the common knowledge, is the first element in the public worship of Christians. It may include the common recitation of a creed. It will certainly involve singing. But it will take place decisively in free witness, bound only to its object, as the Word of God is proclaimed and published and taught and preached and heard by the community according to the commission of its Lord. As this is done, that which is lawful and right takes place in and for the community. It is constituted as a fellowship of confession: not in the power or weakness of the human words spoken and received but because these words are an answer to the Word of God; because in these human words spoken in power or weakness it is a matter of witness to Jesus Christ; because it is He who wills that they should be spoken; because He Himself is present where they are spoken and heard by those whom He has gathered. Thus in the confession of the community that which is lawful and right takes place, and the community is .consti.tuted, even tho.ugh:and when is this not the case ?-it sets Itself m the wrong WIth Its human speaking and hearing; even in impotent witness and poor proclaiming and publishing and teaching and preaching. The right may be totally or partially concealed. Failing to see it, it may not be set to rights by it. But these are later questions. What is unquestionable is that in the liturgical act of confession as such we have to do with that which is lawful and right in the community and has to be perceived and practised as such. As the community gathers, and there is not merely speech but confession in this gathering, it

4· The Order of the Community

7

01

is already constituted even tho~gh it may not be aware (or clead aware) of the fact, and however It may constitute itself and th . . y . t 0 ItS . 1aw, on this foundation. ' us gIve expressIOn Second, w?ere two or three are gathered together in the name of Jesus they WIll mutually recognise and acknOWledge that th thos.e who are gathered by Him as their one Lord, and regarel a~~ r~celve one another as brothers because they are all brothers of this FIrst-~egott.en. Who really belongs to them? Who is awakened b the qmckenmg power of the Holy Spirit, and therefore a saint and / s~ch a. m~mbe: of the communion of saints, a brother of thos~ unite~ WIth hIm m thIS fellows~ip? They all see and judge one another with human eyes and not WIth those of God. They do not see into the heart.. They can only trust on~ another. And which of them, lookin even. mto ~IS own heart, can gIve more than a human judgment tha~ he hlms~lf IS aW~kened by the Holy Spirit and a true member of the commUlllon of samts, so that he belongs to this assembly ~ Th' t and b 11' 1. . IS, 00, . a. ove a , IS samet lIng that he can know only in trust Th ChnstIan community is built on the fact that this trust is per~itte~ and commanded: the mutual trust in which one recognises and acknowledges the other as a brother belonging to it· and the trust tha~ each m~s~ hav~ concerning himself for glad and c~nfident participatI~n. It IS In thIS authorised and commanded trust that the commun~ty gathers for divine service. How would its members stand in relatIOn to one another and themselves if they did not h 't 'f th b't'l' aveI,orI ey ar 1 ran y assumed It on the basis of their own fancied knowledge of themselves and one anot~er? In these circumstances they could only as.semble and at once dIsperse again. But they have this t t WhICh IS not grounded in their own opinions of themselves andr~~~ another, even though they can see only that which is before their human eyes, and they know that appearances may deceive. What do they see? They cannot see the Holy Spirit who has awakened and assembled the~, nor can they see the knowledge and faith and love and hope to whIch He has awakened themselves and the others. The cannot see one another as brothers. But they see that these me: and they.themselves, are baptised-in the one new name common t~ them all, m the name of Jesus, and therefore the name of the Father the Son and the Holy Ghost. They see only that these men and th ' themselves, are those ~ho ~ave obviously begun to know th~ salvati~;: of the world enclosed In thIS name, and therefore their own salvation' to k?ow themselv~s a.s peopl.e who stand in absolute need of it-of th~ f?rgiveness of theIr SIllS, of Justification and sanctification, of converSIOn. They see. only. that these men, and they themselves, have come to the commumty WIth. the desire and request for this salvation' that they ha".'e confessed thIS name with their lips; that they have 'asked for baptls.m and therefore for recognition as members of the body of Jesus Chnst, and acceptancp into the body of Jesus Christ; and that

702

§ 67. The Ho(y Sfn'rit and Uphuilding of the Christian Community

this recognition and acceptance have been granted in their baptism, not in the name of the community, but in the name of its Lord. They see these others and themselves accepted only as those who are baptised, and in the frame of mind in which they came to baptism, as beginners in this know.ledge" with ~his desire an.d request, as t~ose who make thIS confesslOn wIth theIr bps. But 111 respect of oLlers and themselves they hold to the fact that they all come from the fact that they are bapt'ised in the name of the Lord. Because they. all stand under this sign in the name of the Lord, they acc~pt t~e SIgn. Hence they are permItted and commanded to do that whlCh a' themselves they have no right or power to do-to take the~e ?thers and themselves seriously as members of the body of Jesus Chnst, and t.o be with them gladly and confidently in t~e congregatio~. A.s thIS takes place, there takes place that which IS lawful and nght m t~e community, It could not take place were it not for the prese~ce m the midst of the One who has brought them together; were 1t not that baptism is His permission and command, and therefore the. sign which not merely gives us good reasons for that trust but makes It an act of obedience undertaken in perfect confidence. And so our second point is that the Christian community is a fellowship of 1;JaptisJ? That is to say, when it comes together. m the nan:e ?f Jesus, m all ItS members it does so in virtue of baptlsm; and 1t IS m the freedom given and received in baptism that it .hold.s its pu~lic worship. Wh.atever else may be said either for or agamst 1tself or 1tS men:bers, com111.g and coming together from this. point it is already constlt~ted ~nd 1S in the right, even though it may set itself a thousand hmes m the wrong against this right. Third, where two or three are brought together in the name of Jesus, it is in order that they may be unitedly streng.thened and pr~­ served to eternal life. Eternal life is then human bfe, but as theIr true life, hidden and glorified with God. They assemble as members of the Christian community, and celebrate divine service, to be l?repared for the attainment of their life in this fon~. In going: or com~ng, to public worship they perform a m?vement wInch h~s a WIder, tYPl,cal significance. For all men are ?rdam,ed to eternal hfe. ~h~ q~estlOn of strengthening and preservatlOn, at preparatlOn !o ~tt,a111 It, IS thus necessarily a question which concerns them all. Chnshans are those who are awake to the question. Impelled by it, they hasten together; together because they know that. the answer to. this question ~a.n be received only unitedly in the Chnshan :om.mumty as the provlSlonal representation of the whole race for whIch It has already taken place and which needs to receive it. They know the truth about huma.n life--their own life too, and especially their own. They know that It is the wonderful gift of God the Creator, to be enjoyed in thankfulness and lived out by man in daily prayer and labour in his allotted ~pan. They know, too, that it is a life which is encumbered and radlcally

4, The Order of the Community

7 .3 0

je?pa,rclisecl,by the pride and SlOtll of man towards God and his fellows' a ,wrfened ~lfe~ But they also ~now that it is a life which is infleXibly: O1~alDed tu b" eternal ~lfe; hw 1D concealment and glory with God and therefore true hfe. fhey know all this as they are brought togethe; by the revelatlOn of the name. 'of ,Jesus and unl'ted to tlle cern' ,I , ' , - . '. ' ) nlunI't y \\ llere He IS present lI1 the illJclst, And so they go and come to Him a~ they go and come to the community, concretely participating in Ito> assembly. They seek the answer to this question of the attainment of ete.rnal hfe; the answer which is gi,,-en in Him, which is He ,Hlmself.. 1.hey hun~er and thir:"t to ~e prepared, to be strengthened d a.n preserv ed, for tne ~te:~la~ hfe, whIch lI1 defiance of the frailty of !he present. ,for~ of th,elr lite IS HIS work, and can be only His work. ~he promIse wILh whIch they are brought together is that He will gIVe them food and drink, that in the life in which they too are surr.o:lD,d~d by death He wIll provide, and will Himself be,' their wayside sUstenance. .And so they go and come to the gathering of the comr~umty to seat themselves, and to eat and drink, as brothers and SIsters at the table where He Himself presides as Lord and Jlo,t d th H'" d . s, an ey ,ar~. IS lIlVlte and. welcome guests. They go and corne to the Lord s Supper. In s~ denng, they do the very thing which they also d~ for the str~ngthenmg and preservation of creaturely life; j~ISt as \\h~n tl.leY talk WIth and to one another they do something which is ordmanl!' done ?y ~en when they meet. They eat and drink. But as m theIr ~peaklJlg In the community .it ~s not a matter of the private and optIOnal exchange of human .convIctlOns and opinions, but of the common ,ut~erance.of. the confesslO~, so in the eating and drinking of the Lord s Supper 1.t IS not a questlOn of the nourishment of one here and another there m. co.mpany with neighbours, but of the eating of one bread a~d the d~m~lI1g from one cup, of the common nourishment of t,hern all, becaus.e It IS He, Jesus Christ, who brings them to it, who lDvItes then:, who IS .the Lord and Host, who is Himself, indeed, their food and drmk: It 1S thus a question of their nourishment by Him. It takes place 1Il the fact that, as often as they here eat and drink together, He proffers and gives Himself to them as the One He . . '1 0 h' - b 1 ' IS, as t Ie ne w a IS a so ntely theIrs; and conversely, that He continually makes the.m wh~t t~ey are, absolutely His. 'He strengthens and uI?11Olds them 1Il ,the~r eXIstence as the 'e whom He, the Crucified and RIsen, acco~pames 1Il the vall~y of ~he shadow. More strongly, He strengthens and upholds them m theIr eXIStence as His bodv and its members, and the:efore to, eternal li,fe in the concealment ci'nd glory ?f God. He constItutes HImself theIr preparation to attain this. It ~s to be noted how the event o.f His own life is reflected and repeated 1D the event of the ?upper (as 1D that of confession and baptism). In r.emembrance of HIm there takes place here and now exactly the s~m~ as ~ook p,lace there and then between Himself and His first dIscIples, 1mmedlately prior to His death and resurrection. Provisionally

70 4

§ 67. The Haly Spirit and Upbuildil~g af the Christian Community

in the place of all men, the community. in its reaching out in all its members for eternal life necessarily lives by and in the fact that in its life here and now there may be this reflection and imitation. And the fact that this takes place is again the right or law established in divine service. The community may set itself in the wrong against it. It has continually done so, and ,vill continually do so again. From the standpoint of the community itself, of the company assembled round the table of the Lord, what takes place will always be highly problematical. Yet in spite of this it is a fellowship of the Lord's Supper, united by Him both with Him and also, because with Him, in itself; communio sanctorum as a fellowship of the sure and certain hope of eternal life. In its worship, which is also communion in this concrete sense, this is made palpable and visible; as is also, in the event of this communion, the law or right which indwells it in spite of all the wrong committed by it, and which in this special form demands that it should be observed in every aspect of its life. Fourth, where two or three are gathered together in the name of Jesus, they are called by Him to pray with one another. Those gathered by the revelation of His name are men who are wholly referred and directed to God. That they are referred to God is something that they have in common with all men. But they are also directed to Him. They know that in the last resort they are not in their own hands and under their own control. They know that they are only creatures and not the Creator. They know also that they are God's ~inful creatures; that because of their own corruption their activity is a corrupt activity. They thus know that they cannot avert the sorrow and suffering of the world; that they cannot avoid their own misery; that they cannot alter the human situation; that they cannot accomplish the reconciliation of the world with God as a genuine transformation; that they cannot hallow God's name as they should; that they cannot bring in the kingdom of peace and salvation; that they cannot do His will. Hence they know that they cannot and will not of themselves receive their daily bread, know the forgiveness of their debts, withstand temptation and overcome evil and the evil ope. They know that they can only pray that these things should happen. They will do so in faith and love and hope, and therefore not indolently but in practical act and activity to God's glory. Yet in principal and as the climax of everything else they can only pray, seeking Him and calling upon Him that He should begin and execute and complete all the things for which they find themselves quite inadequate even in their most zealous and eloquent action. The decisive work and the driving force in their daily defensive and offensive action will consist in their surrender; the decisive work of their hands in the fact that they lay all things, both great and small, in the hands of God. They know that all that man can do can be helpful only in the renunciation of all self-help, and the cry to God that He will be the helper and help

4. The Order af the Community

705

of man and all men. ~ut they know that they may pray for this, ~nd be ce.rtall1 that theIr prayer is heard. They have freedom and JOy for fthIS. And. so d' they 'd meet to pray with one another . Th ey a 1so pray, 0 . course, m. IVI :rally and in small groups. But this is not enough, Just as theIr prIvate speech and their individual opinions of one another an~ their meals .in one another's houses are not enough, but the con~esslOn and baptIs~ and Supper, in short the action, of the commumty ar~ ~lso needed If everything is to be lawful and right. The prayer o.f ChrIstIans, too, demands that it should find its true and prorer form m the r.rayer of the assembled community; in the united callIng Our. Father h . upon God: . ' which art in heaven . . . . "The reason w y It. must be um~ed IS not merely that it is easier and finer and more conso~ng to ~ray In company than individually-for this is an open q~estlOn. It IS because those gathered to the community may pray WIth t~e One b.y whom they are united and who is Himself present in ~he mIdst-theIr predecessor in prayer. The distinctive value and Importanc~ o~ the" Our Father." as the Lord's Prayer consist in the f~ct. that m It ,Jesus. ranges HImself alongside His disciples, or His dIscIples alongSIde HImself, taking them up with Him into HI'S f t h'IS prayer is the We to which the Lord own prayer. Th. e "We. " o. attaches HImself WIth ~IS people. The We in which He does this is the We of the. c0.mmum~y. And the We of the community has its concrete form .m ItS commg together. That is why Christian prayer demands that It should be the prayer of the assembled community s we!l a.s ~he prayer of individuals and groups. That is why the pray:r of ~ndlvI~uals and groups can be true and serious calling upon God only as It de:lves from·the prayer of t~e a~sembled community. To be true and serIOUS, to be the prayer whIch IS heard by God, it must first and last be the prayer of the One who as the true Son has the authority a.nd power truly. to address Him as Father. As His brothers and SIsters, as the chIldren of God in His name, Christians can and may call upon God .as Fat?er. As and because their prayer is that of His ?roth~rs and SIsters,. I~ does not. need any particular art or power or ~n~enslty. B~cause It IS prayed m fellowship with the First-begotten, It IS a spreadmg.out of the totaJity of man's true need, and a reaching ?ut for the ~ot~ty of ~ha~ G?d will be. for him and give him. Prayed m fellowshIp WIth HI~, It IS neve.r m vain. It is always rightly addressed and pra~ed WIth the certamty of being heard and answered. In pray~r p:ayed m the assembled congregation, there is done again that w~ch IS lawful and right. As it is prayed as the prayer of the Lord ~lmse~f, for all the. po,:,ert~ and thoughtlessness and uncertainty a.nd dlstractlO.n from whIch It WIll suffer on the lips of Christians, the nght of God IS set up on earth. For it is right before God that He should b.e c~lled upon as H~ may be called upon by the assembled con:mumty 111 the pra~er of Its Lord. The community is constituted as It prays. And as It faces the many-sided question how it is to C.D. IV-2-23

7 06

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and Upbuildingof the Christian Community

constitute itself, it will always hold and return to the fact that it is already constituted; that the public worship i~ which it pra'ys as the community, for all the weakness with whIch It may do so, IS the place where that which is lawful and right ~or it both out:vardly and inwardly already takes place, in its concrete hfe as a fellowshIp, not only of confession and baptism and the Lord's Supper, but ~ls? of l?rayer. But in our explanation of the fact that Church law IS lIturgIcal we must now go on to state (2) that it is originally to be sought and foun? and known in the occurrence of Christian worship. Church law has thIS in common with all human law~and it is itself human law in the fact -that it must be found and known. The direction in which it is to be sought, in which we have to look when drawing it up, i~ a~ready fixed; for here as elsewhere we have to turn only to Jesus Chnst, the Lord and Head of the community as He is attested in Holy Scripture. It is solely and exclusively in'the light of His relati~nship to i~, which is its basic and constitutive law, that we can consIder what IS lawful and right in the Church. But the concret~ form .of His ~elati?nship to it and therefore the concrete form of ItS baSIC law, IS HIS own pres~nce and lordship in its assembling for divine service, in the occu~­ rence of confession, baptism, the Lord's Supper and prayer. . Th~s being the case, we have to consider all questions of t.hat whIch ~s lawful and right in the Church in the light of its assemblmg for pu~hc worship and therefore of this fourfold occurrence. In the formulatlOn of all statements about Church law we have thus to look first in this direction. This does not mean, of course, that the community should orientate itself by its own action, making this a law and unfolding it as such. It cannot try to be its own Lord and King and Lawgiver: not even in its liturgy; not even if this is ever so old;. and .not even if it is sincerely thought to be in supreme agreement Wlth thIS or that biblical precedent. In this respect we have t? take .into accoun.t at every point the human weakness and Co~fuslOn of .1tS own actlOn; the wrong of Christians contradicting the nght of theIr Lor~. B.ut we have also and even more so to take into account Jesus Chnst HImself present in their human action as the Lord of their confession~ of t?eir coming from baptism and going to the Lord's Supper, o~ theIr umt~d calling upon God. He is their law; He, the One wh? IS atte~te~ m Holy Scripture. We do not therefore violate the Scnpture pnnClple when we say that the divine service of Christians is the concrete ~our~e of our knowledge of Church law. If the Lord present and ~ctlve m divine service is its law (and therefore the law of the whole hfe of the community), it is clear that when we ask concerning Him as the Lo~d present and active in the divine service of Christians we are agam referred wholly and utterly to Holy Scripture. But H.e w~o is attested in Scripture is the basic law, normative for that whIch IS lawful a.nd right in the Church, in the form in which He is present and actlve here at thf' heart of thf' Church's life.

4. The Order of the Community The lordship of Jesus Christ in His community takes place as in divine service it makes to His summons the response of its confession. To this confession there must correspond even formally that which is regarded as law in its life. The propositions of canon law must follow the confession of the community. expounding and applying it with particular reference to the order of its human action. They themselves will not be liturgical (whether in the form of confessional statements, hymns, proclamation or preaching). Nor will they be theological. They will be juridical statements orientated by the liturgical event of confession and based on theological reflection. They have to fix the rules of the human shaping of the existence of the community as these are required by its message and commensurate with it. vYhether they are right or not will be decided by the question whether and how far in their establishment and execution the community is committed and faithful to its message, or to the One who has entrusted its message to it; whether and how far they are calculated to free and bind its members by keeping them to their faith as their response to the vVord of their common Lord; whether and how far they are adapted to reveal practically to those without the distinctive nature of the Christian community as grounded in its doctrine and preaching. Not directly but indirectly true Church law is necessarily" confessing." i.e., it is human law drawn up in view of the confession and therefore of the man who confesses it, and thus to be executed with this reference. The confessing community needs this confessing law, for its existence in the world is worked out and expressed in human and therefore in sociologico-juridical form, and as a community it is faced at this point by the question of obedience. If it does not ask concerning this law, this can only mean that it does not ask concerning the obedient fulfilment of its confession-at the very place where this is most directly commanded. In true Church law the community undertakes to fulfil its confession first in relation to itself. If the lordship of Jesus Christ is an event within it, this is something which has to be attempted. The lordship of Jesus Christ in His community takes place as the community, assembled for public worship, comes in all its members from baptism in His name. We have seen that the confidence which each can and should have in respect of all others imd himself rests on the permission and command received by the members in their baptism. But all the propositions of canon law rest on this confidence. In the community men trust that in spite of the dubious nature of all human seeking and finding they are summoned and able to seek and find these propositions. Their establishment and formulation take place, therefore, in this confidence. "Without it they could not take place at all. Again, in the community there is trust that the propositions sought and found in this way will have sufficient authority for each and all to claim acceptance and respect. Even in their application the only appeal can and will be to this confidence. Negatively, this means that the competence of Church law (in contrast to all other) cannot at bottom be proved, because all possible determinations of its competence (e.g., of the authority of its assembly or representatives or other officers) can be reached only in the confidence that the few or the many are authorised in virtue of their baptism. Thus the definitions of canon law (in contrast to all other) are not at bottom enforceable, because even the grea:est ngour with which they are asserted can consist only in their power to claim the confidence and obedience of those concerned. No true Church law can be established or executed apart from the common recollection of baptism and therefore apart from this mutual confIdence. Conversely, the confidence which, having its basis in baptism, enables this law to be established and executed-far from being a hindrance-gives to it a spiritual power which no other, no worldly, law can ever have. The lordship of Jesus Christ in His community takes place as the community, assembled for public worship. goes to the Lord's Supper and therefore to the

708

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and Upbuilding oj the Christian Communi(y

common nourishment which the Lord provides on the way to eternal life. Drawn up and applied with reference to this happening, its lawful ordering necessarily acquires the character of a common ordering of the present life of the men assembled in it. We recall at this point the thought of the commumo of the saneli in and in relation to the sancia. There are no sancia, no gifts and powers of knowledge and love, which anyone of the saneli can and should have and use and enjoy alone and not with some of the others and even all the others. Even in the particular form in which they are his he can have them only m interchange with others. In the Lord's Supper, when it is rightly administered, there is no distinction of persons in the distribution of the bread and wine, but all eat the one bread and drink from the one cup and are strengthened and preserved to eternal life by the one Lord and Host. And this i~ something which has to be brought out in true Church law, and safeguarded agamst the disruptIOn of its spiritual life into the private spheres of individuals, or of certalll piOUS or more pious or wholly pious groups. Naturally, there can and should be all kinds of active fellowships for the promotion of specific ends and in the discharge of specific tasks which cannot be the particular concern of all but only of those specially called or endowed for the purpose. But the Idea of an eecleswla tn eeelesia, of a special eommunio within the one, always involves either openly or tacitly an abandonment or relativisation of the one. No ecclesiola, however, can find any basis or authority in the Lord's Supper, to which all.come with the same hunger and thirst, and at which all are equally nounshed with food and drink. It may sometimes be the case that the living and true Church has to arise and is compelled and empowered to take new shape in a dead Church or a false. But in an order of fellowship derived from the Lord's Supper there can be no place for a true Church within the true Church. And we have to remember especially that in the Lord's Supper it is distinctively a question of outward and inward, visible and invisible, physical and spiritual nounshment at one and the same time. vVhere the human mind normally separates these two spheres, in the action of the Holy Spirit, and drastically in the action of theLord's Supper, they are comprehended and united. And the eternal life to which the community is strengthened and preserved in the Lord's Supper is the glorification of the whole of human life. Thus the Church order to be derived from the eucharistic action will necessarily embrace, protect and claim the life of the community and its members as it is now lived in its totality and therefore at one and the same time in its physical and spiritual' nature. It will aim at the living fellowship of Christians in both spheres. In each respect it will make the strong responsible for the weak, the healthy for the sick, the rich for the poor. It will make Christians answerable for one another and for the contmuance of the community, outwardly no less than inwardly. It will claim the help of. all in both spheres. And it will promise help to all in both spheres. It Will remmd the community that what is lawful and right in the Lord's Supper is lawful and right everywhere: fellowship in heavenly and therefore also in earthly things; the eommunio of the saneli in and in respect of the sancia. . The lordship of Jesus Christ in His community takes place as the commullity assembles in public worship for prayer as the fellowship of those who are referred only to God, and therefore directed wholly to Jesus Christ. They address God as " Our Father" as they are freed to do so by the Son who has Himself the power to address Him in this way. From this standpoint the law which holds sway in the community must always be the law of men who have been.freed to do this and have therefore become brothers. vVhat has to be expressed III canon law is that they are united to one another both as a whole and individually by the fact that they all have equal need of God and all have equal access-:-wlth the same certainty, directness, fulness and worth. There Will necessanly be stronger and weaker, older and younger, higher and lower brothers, and III their common life the law valid in the community will have to give them as such the

4· The Order of the Community

70 9

necessary directions. But it will also have to make clear that the necessary differentiations not only cannot harm but can only strengthen the brotherly umty III which they are together III callmg upon the Father in the name of the one true Son of God; in which-with the exception of this One, the First-bornnone can argue that he has any less need of God or claim any higher access; m which none can try to be a mediator between God and others, or commend or Impose himself upon them as one who is directly commissioned by God, or be accepted and proclaimed as such by others. In the community canon law cannot pOSSibly establish a " hierarchy" because this term contains and evokes the idea of a ruling for which there is no place among brothers. Its task is to show in what ,,:ay the one can be to the other a real brother: stronger, older and higher pernaps; but a brother all the same, with the same need of God and the same access; and th~refore, without any essential precedence and claim but only m the name of the First-born and as His human witness, able to be a true helper and adViser, and therefore, With an actual and not an institutional authority, a leader ~nd teacher and pastor. The man who most seriously and unreservedly ranges mmself With others, even the most lowly; who most sincerely gives ~Imself to the d~pths where the sun of the Father shines on good and evil, the Just and the unjust, the wise and fools; who with them (and as one of them) can most humbly and. joyfully call upon Him from these depths-he it is, and only he, who proves hiS call to be a true leader in the community. And he does thiS by the fact that he. really is a leader and does not merely claim to be such, ~r .recelve mvestlture w~th the dignity of leadership. The freedom of the Holy Spmt, to .order the chnstocratic brotherhood in this way, not preventing but guaranteemg the actual leadership of one brother in relation to another, poses the task and concern of true Church law.

Our final statement in defining Church law as liturgical law is that in divine service it not only has its original seat and its source of ~nowled~e but ~lso (3) its true and proper theme. It has to guard Its pecuhar baSIS a;nd source. Even public worship as the centre of the life of the community is at every point a human action. It is men who confess, who baptise, who administer the Lord's Supper who pray" ?ur Father.': Hence this whole occurrence is not prot~cted fro~ misunders~andlllg and abuse. In this respect the community has ItS treasure III earthen vessels. It cannot escape the risk involved. !'Jor can it console itself with the reflection that everything human is Impe~fect, .or the recollection that its sins are forgiven. The grace of sa~ct~fi~atIOn, and therefore of Jesus Christ generally, is surely alien to It If It doe~ not try to co~nt~ract the continual menace and process of a profanatIOn of that whIch IS holy by its own human and therefore unholy hands; if it does not resist to the best of its ability and conscience. It is to do this that it asks concerning true Church law as the true ordering of its worship. It is well aware that only He who is present and acti:re within it as its Lord has the authority and competence to order thIS and therefore to protect it against perversion. Its human orderi.ng can thus consist and take place only in an obedient :ega~d for HI~. 'It cannot refuse this. It cannot, therefore, regard Its hturgy as mVlOlable because inerrant. It cannot shelter it (least of all for reasons o.f pi~ty) from the critical question whether it is rightly done, or whether It mIght not be done differently and better. For this

710

§ 67. The HoZy Spirit and Upbuilding of the Christian Community

reason its concern for Church law as the ordering of divine service must be unceasing. We can only indicate the questions involved. For example, who is to be responsible for the confession of the community, for its expression at the right time and place, and in the right form, as proclamatIOn, teachmg ,:nd preachmg, for its purity and depth and ongoing. interpretation and applicahon, for g~vmg it the appropriate form here and now m thiS or that speCific hlstoncal situatIOn? Again, what are the conditions for the reception of baptism and therefore acceptance into the community, and what are the parhcular obhgahons of members of the community resulting (in this mutual confidence) from the fact that they are baptised? Again, who is to be admitted to the Lord's Supper and who is not to be admitted or not yet or no longer to be admitted? What will be the shape of the living fellowship which is shown to be necessary by th.e Lord's Supper? What activities are necessary for its achievement, and who IS to discharge them? Finally, how and by whom is Christian worship as a whole to be shaped and fashioned in accordance with its centre in a common callmg upon God the Father? What will be the relationship of the different elements? Will there be place or not for subsidiary elements, e.g., <esthetic or social? How far, if at all, can there be spheres, not of chance or caprice, but of free responsible judgment, of individual decision? And what ought to be the rdatlOnshlp between spontaneity and receptivity in the frame of mind of those who take part in divine service? All these questions can be gathered up in the one question how the community thinks that itself and its members are brought under discipline by its Lord at this centre of its life, and are thus to bring and keep themselves under discipline-Church discipline. Church law must give a decIsive answer to this question, and in so doing it will implicitly give an a.nswer in principle to all the questions which arise on the circumference of thiS centre. It will do so along the lines already indicated. Confession has not Just to be spoken but fulfilled; there is to be c,?mmo~ a~tion on the basis of confidence; comprehensive and complete fellowship of hfe IS to be attamed; and men are to deal with one another in brotherhood. Let us leave it all to the Holy Ghost, cry some impetuously. They are right enough, but the fact that we leave it to the Holy Ghost does not mean that we leave it to the rash and wilful, but that we ask ourselves unitedly and conscientIOusly, and m the hght of Holy Scripture, what obedience means in this matter. The answer will lead us at once to Church order and therefore to canon law.

3. Church law is living law. This, too, derives directly from the basic law of the community by which it is the body whose Head, or the fellowship whose law, is the living Jesus Christ. Who He is emerg~s from the sketch of His person or history attested and made known m Holy Scripture. But His person as attested in Holy Scripture liv~s to-day and to-morrow in all its historical singul~rity. An~ as thIS living person He rules and upholds and orders HIs commumty ; . ~e Himself at every moment in the quickening powt:r of the Holy Splfl~. It is He the Upright who decides what is now right and lawfuI.for It and in it. Thus in the investigation, establishment and practice of what is right the community has to listen uninterruptedly and co~­ tinually to Him, to have regard to His control a.nd to respec~ HIs direction-yesterday, to-day and to-morrow. Its fIght or law WIll ~e all the more surely grounded and clear and firm and therefore valle! and serviceable the more its development and application are rooted

4· The Order of the Community

7 1I

in the fact that the community is engaged in this listening, regard and respect; the less it loses in its discovery and administration a proper attentiveness, reverence and willingness in relation to its Head; the less it evades the power of the Holy Spirit, thus inevitably falling victim to all kinds of arbitrariness old and new. As the living Lord Jesus is the law to which it is obedient in the discovery and administration of the law appropriate to it, its own law, Church law, necessarily acquires the character of a law which is living and dynamic. It cannot be moved by the spirit of the age, by political and social changes and revolutions in the world around, or by the whims and vacillations of Christians. But the Holy Spirit, by whom the Lord attested in Holy Scripture speaks to it, necessarily sets and keeps it in motion. No dynamic from below can or should have any influence on Church law. To the extent that this takes place, it ceases to be Church law. But it is certainly not Church law if it is not always wide open to the dynamic from above, both in its development and then in its continuance and application. We took this into account in our previous deliberations as we referred always at the decisive points to the investigation of valid law which the community that stands under obedience cannot possibly discontinue. It is actually the case that this law, as and because it is living law, demands constant re-investigation by a community which is open for new direction and instruction (not from below but from above), and is therefore willing and ready for new answers. It is willing and ready for new answers. This is the first point that calls for emphasis. The recognition that canon law can arise and continue only as living law must not deprive it of the courage and pleasure of finding specific answers to its investigation of this law. They must not be arbitrary answers created from an alien or polluted source. They must be the answers of attention and obedience. But they must be definite answers. Concretely, they must be answers which mean the formation of legal propositions. Even more concretely, they must be answers which involve the establishment and execution of ecclesiastical and congregational ordinances in which one thing is commanded, another forbidden and a third permitted, or left to free and responsible judgment within certain limits in which explicit decisions are made according to the best of our knowledge and conscience. They must be answers which have legal form and precision, although without unnecessary refinement. If the inquiry is genuine, it will not seek to prolong itself ad infinitum. Those who ask will seek answers, definite insights and conclusions, on the basis of which they can then proceed to further inquiry. They will not be afraid of finding answers. They can and must venture these provisional insights and conclusions. Where there is the genuine dynamic from above, the power of the Holy Spirit (who is obviously no sceptic), the community cannot refuse this venture. Nor can the individual Christian

712

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and Upbuilding of the Christian Community

tarry eternally in ethical reflection and deliberation, and because of the daunting profundity and difficulty of ethical tasks and problems fail to press on to ethos, i.e., to ethical decision and action. Living law does not mean law which is formless, which is unexpressed, which exists only in instincts and emotions, which finds utterance in uncontrollable inspirations and intuitions, which escapes juridical statement and codification. Like all human law, it will contain important unwritten elements. But it is not in any sense basically or exclusively unwritten. Nor is it characterised by the greatest possible vagueness, bv a restriction to general lines, by a purposeful elasticity in its detailed provisions which allows the greatest possible latitude of interpretation. It is not distinguished and commended as Church law by the fact that its significance for the life of the community is reduced to a minimum. Like all the living expressions of the community (not excluding dogma, preaching and theology), it can have only the character o.f service. But this does not mean that it can have merely a subordmate and incidental and not a constitutive importance. As living Church law, it can offer no occasion but only resistance to the crude or· refined ecclesiological Docetism which threatens in all these forms. As the community constantly agrees and states what, with reference to the form of its existence as an earthly-historical and therefore a visible community, it regards as responsible and irresponsible, as right and wrong, in the sight of God and man, it takes itself with exactly the same seriousness as is demanded in divine service in the narrower and wider senses of the term. Here too-and in the closest possible connexion with divine service, as we have seen-it is a question of obedience. But when this question is raised, it is hard to see how it can be put and answered with a greater emphasis in the on.e case ~ha~ the other. If Church dogmatics, for example, cannot achIeve thIS dIfferentiation (in an awareness of its own character as service and of the limits thereby imposed), it can hardly commend it to the community in respect of the necessary formation and ,Practice of. la~. It .has. to investigate living law in the sense descnbed, but ItS mvestrgatIOn must be serious. And if it is serious, this means that it must venture definite decisions in which it has to remain open for further decisions but which it takes courageously and does not seek to evade. If it is serious, this means that it is concerned to express itself as plainly and unequivocally and precisely as it can in accor~ance ~it~ its e.xisting knowledge, giving a clear Yes or No even on pomts w~lch ~t behev~s should be totally or partially exempted from a general ruling. If It is serious, this means that it must be willing to state and even codify what can be stated and codified according to the nature of the case and its own knowledge, and what must be stated and even codified to safeguard against the disorder which threatens or has already entered. If it is serious, this means that without affectation, because under compulsion, it must leave the sphere of a non-committal " It seems

4· The Order of the Community

71 3

to me" ar: d use and. even record obligatory expressions which in this context ~Ill necessanly be legal. If it is serious, this means that the commu~Ity has to ask and has also in the true sense to answer: to an.swe: m order to as.k again; but. genuine.ly to answer; to say somethIng an~ not to be sIlent-even WIth the sIlence of edifying eloquence. Eve~ythIng else that w: have to say about the living quality of Church law IS based on the senousness of the concrete venture in which it has to be sought and established and practised. Apart from this, it can be regarded only as unprofitable Liberalism. But when we have said this we have also to say that all Church law, .ho~ever great the seriousness with which it is sought and found and Instrt.uted,. c.an only be human law and not divine (ius humanum and not zus dzVtnum). The same can and must be said of all law. ~ut the kno~ledge of God and man necessary to make this differentiatron and to. I~dicate it.s implications cannot be presupposed with the necessar~ distm~tness m ~ll human societies, but only in the Christian comm~n~ty. ~t IS only thIs ~hat can know unconditionally and plainly what It IS. s~ymg and what IS meant when it calls its law human law and not dlvme. A.ll other law reveals an ultimate vulnerability to the danger of a confUSIOn of these two determinations and therefore to its own absolutisation. In Church law, however, this danger is averted by t~e very root and essence of this law, by the basic law of the comm.umty, by the lordship of Jesus Christ over His body. Church law w~ll respect absolutel~ th~s basic law of the community as the authority :V1th referenc.e to .whlch It has to order the community and to which It has to subject It, and above all itself, in all its determinations. It ~annot try. to be .this basic law, to replace it, to give its authentic mte:pre~atIOn, to invest itself wit~ its authority. Like Church dogmatrcs, It cannot choose and decIde and determine and state and declare and enforce from .h:aven, but only on earth. It must always remembe~ th~t ~he zus dlVznum of Christocracy is not only its origin but also ItS lImIt, and thus understand itself in all strictness as ius hu.manum. And as it does this, it is living law in a sense in which thIS ~an never be t~ue of earthly law because the latter usually arises an~ IS e~ec?te~ WIthout any direct or necessary knowledge of this fru~tful distmctIOn and antithesis. This distinction and antithesis are ~rUltful because they prevent canon law from becoming sterile, which ~s the con~ta.nt danger bese~tin~ ~ll other .law. They continually drive ~t on. T~IS IS ~he secret of ItS livmg qualIty. As it respects this limit, It places It~elf In. the. c?ntext of the life of the community which under the lordshIp of ItS In':Ing Head is engaged in its upbuilding, growing both outwardly and Inwardly; of the community which necessarily surre~ders or does not take itself seriously if it tries to be only an ecclesza formata refo.rmata and not. as such an ecclesia semper reform~nda. How can It eXIst and know Itself as such if it regards itself as ItS own lord and therefore the sovereign subject of its law instead of

0:

714

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and up building of the Christian Community

being strictly and exclusively the attorney of J:sus Christ, a~are that at every step it is directly and freshly responsI.ble a~d c~mnlltted to Him? It is when it acts as His attorney,. ~specla~y ~n t~IS matter of its law, and therefore when its law particIpates III I~S l~f~ as the body of which Jesus Christ is Head, that Church law IS lIvlllg and growing law; a law which calls co?tinually for. ref~rmation whate~er its existing formation or reformation, and whIch IS therefore unlIke any other law, a ius sui generis. . But this has the following implication. Let us assume that III the Christian community there has been serious inquiry at this par!icular point, and in this particular situation in its inner and out~r hI~tO~y, concerning that which deserves to be regarded and practIs~d III Its life as law. Let us suppose that this inquiry has been senou.s and therefore undertaken in the venture to receive and give, even III the form of statement and codification, definite answers. to th~ be~t. of belief and conscience; and yet also with respect fo.r Its basIC dIVIne law, and therefore with a full realisation that what IS no~ found and enforced as law is human law and no more. What, then, IS to be the community's attitude to-day to the law which. it saw. and acknowledged and enforced yesterday:? . It may be af!iI.cted wIth a. bad conscience which it had already m ItS earlier decIsIOn and actIOn. But it must not doubt that the will in which it decided and acted yesterday, as its will to be obedient, was necessary-we may even say, necessa~y to faith and salvation-and therefore holy, jus~ a~d good. It WIll thus adhere to-day to the conclusions and determInations of yesterday, to the canonical statements which were then formulated and wholly or partially committed to writing; as must also be the case mutatzs mutandis in Church dogmatics. It will d.ecla~e .and acc~pt to-day !he confessing law of yesterday, both folloWIng It In practIce and gIv~ng it the necessary emphasis. It will live on to-day as the c?mmumty which yesterday was ordered in this or t~at fashIOn: For It was .not dreaming or playing yesterday, but genulll.ely p~a!,mg and workmg. And it was not obedient to its own or an alI~n spmt, ~:mt t? the HoI!, Spirit, so that along the lines of yeste~day It may st~ll tlunk that It will be obedient to-day. In its freedom It has an~ ex~rclses the freedom to accept and practise as true law the law .w~Ich It then found an~ established. To-day-until to-morrow, until It takes furt~~r .order . As it accepts and practises it in the freedom of the Holy Spmt It r~t~s it as high as this, but no higher: To-day-until to-morrow, until It takes further order! It will not regard it as an eternal work o~ law, or even as one which is created and valid for all ag~s. The ba~Ic law from which it proceeded in the discovery and establIshment of ItS law was and is necessary to salvation-an authority for all ages. and to. all eternity. No less necessary to sal:ation was the required WIll to ~hmk and resolve on this basis; the WIll to be obedIent t? Jesus Chnst as its Head. But it will be no less necessary to salvatIOn to-morrow to

4· The Order oJ the Commumty

715

be newly obedient to Jesus Christ regarding the form of its law' to think and decide afresh in the light of that basic law. Hence'the c~mmu:n~ty will refuse to regard as necessary to salvation, or to invest wIth dlvllle authority, the work of its obedience, and therefore the ecclesiastical propositions which it discovered and enforced yesterday. I~ may have prayed and worked very seriously yesterday when it dIscovered them. It may be quite convinced that in them it discovered that which is important and right. It may have observed them excellently in its life. But surely, to be valid and serviceable, they do not ha,,:e to be .necessary to sal,,:ation, or enjoy divine authority! Surely theIr force IS. not weakened If they are not protected by the idea that they are valId for all ages and even for eternity! As ius humanum no Church law can or should advance this claim. As it derives, in concrete obedience, from Jesus Christ present and active to-day and here, it necessarily relates to specific times and circumstances, to the ~ife of the co~munity: in a parti~ular stage of its history. Its necessity IS thus relatIve. It IS the partIcular necessity which it cannot have for the community in other times and places. Above all the obedience in which the Church here and to-day confesses this o~ that form of law .to be r.ight is. never unadU:lterated.. Even at best it is only a par~Ial obedlen~e dIluted by all kmds of mIsunderstandings and corrupt ~eslres. On thIS ground, therefore, we cannot possibly ascribe perfection and .the.refo~e permanent validity and divine authority to the r:sult of ItS .mqUIry .and concern. Its law is always basically conditioned, and III practIce as well as theory it is a fallible work which must always be improved and reformed. The fact that it takes it seriously includes rather than excludes an awareness from its inception and. fir?t enforcement that it is not definitive. The lordship of Jesus Chnst IS not exhausted by its emergence and continuance. It has not lin: it.ed .itself by the fact ~hat the community is here and now granted thIS mSIght and led to thIS conclusion. If the community is conscious with ultimate fidelity of its faith in its Lord and obedience to Him it J?1us~ remain open for new direction and guidance from the point whIch It ~as now reached. And it cannot think that it has really been so faIthful and successful a pupil in His school that no further ins~ruction and b:tter learning are required. We have already descnbed the establIshment and execution of Church law as a venture. What we mean is the necessary venture of obedience. But we can be genuinely bold for this venture only when we are bold for that which is provisional; for an order of Church life which will obtain until it is replaced by a better. The community can find and have this boldness o~ly where .there is the conscious and explicit (and best of all fully explICIt) proVISO: the proviso of humility, i.e., that it has still to receive better instruction, that it will achieve a fuller obedience in the future and that .it w~ll h~ve to revise, not just to-morrow, but even to-day th~ work whIch It dId yesterday; but also the proviso of freedom, i.e.,

716

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and Up building of the Christian Community

that it has the power to do this. Only in the form of this ~ree humility can it be the true courage needed to answer the questIOn. o~ order. As courage in this free humility it is courage for ~he wh~lly lIvmg law, and its living exercise, which are alan: appropnate t? ~t as the. co~­ munity of Jesus Christ. As it takes this coura~e for l~vmg law, It wIll be protected against fatal indifference and. neglIgence m ~esp~ct of the question of order, and therefore al?ains.t disorder. B~t It Will also be protected against the fatal.ove~estl~atIOn~f any par~l~ular answe: t,o this question; against petr~fac~IOn.m a partlcular traditIOn an? agamst the legalism of sacrosanct mstltutIOns. As the fre.e commu~l.1~y-free in humility towards its Head-inquires c0:r:-cermng the lIvmg .law normative for it, and as it is protected by thiS law both on t~e nght hand and on the left, it steers between these two dangers like the horseman between death and the devil. It honours it? past becau~e it lived in its past with and therefore under Jesus Chnst. And as ~t honours it, it looks to the future in which it longs .and hopes and IS sure that it will again live with and under J~~us Chnst. In respect of its order, as generally, it lives in the transl~IOn. from the one to the other. And it is as a transitional order that It Will Rrov.e to be helpful and redemptive, and above all worthy of the law ~hlch It ~as ~d?pted, under which it is placed, and under the lordship of which It IS the Christian community, the communio sanctorum, the earthly body of its heavenly Head. From this standpoint, it is obvious that there can be better an.d worse canon law. There can be that which at one point 0: a:r:-other IS strong or weak, serviceable or less serviceable, sober or turgId, m ?hort, right or less right or even wrong-and all measured by the questIOn of obedience which has to be answered in it.. In. p'ractice, t~erefore, the Christian community both as a whole and mdlvldually Will always be somewhere on the way in the movement from yesterday to to-morrow, and therefore Deo ben"e volente from the worse to the better. If Churc? law is living law this means that it wil.l always .have to. move. on ~hlS way. It will always have to tread thiS way-m the nght dlrectlon, it is to be hoped. It will always have to move away from the worse and move forward to the better. If it were not somewhere :~gaged in this movement, it would be a sure si~n that t.he Holy Spmt had left it and it had lost the attitude of obedIence to ItS Lord. We recall again how much i:, involve~ in this-that it has t? understand and fashion its whole lIfe as service. We remember agam the w~lOle m~ss of problems raised at the centre of its life by and in relat~on t~ ItS divine service. Where and when will the Church not find. Itself m a situation in which a host of questions-some more pressmg at one point and others at another-are awaiting. a new and .better answer. ? We also remember the actual tension which there Will always be m some sense between the possibilities of the necess~ry op~n~:s:, and yet definiteness of its order on the one side and the Imposslblhtles of the

4· The Order of the Community

7 17

evil inefficiency or rigidity of ecclesiastical jurisprudence on the other. Where and when does not the community need to judge itself seriously either on the one side or the other (and perhaps both), and thus to look and boldly work for an improvement of its law? And as it takes part in this work, at different times and places it can and will find itself at very different points in this transition, so that its law can and will assume very different forms. It is not important or necessary to salvation that at this particular time or place it should be at this particular point, but that this point should always be a point of obedience and therefore of transition and not a final point; and that it should really be passing from one point to another in the constant movement from the worse to the better. It is not, therefore, important or necessary to salvation that at this particular time or place its law should assume and for the time being maintain this particular form, but that in this or that form it should be known and grasped and applied as living law-in obedience as the law which is here and now commanded, but which both in its origin and provisional constitution is only a ius humanum pointing beyond itself, and not therefore a ius divinum the establishment and execution of which it cannot control since it is subjected to it as its own law, and is not therefore its master. Presupposing that it is done in obedience, the community can and should give itself here and now, until it takes further order, this or that particular form of law. And it can and should also keep to it with a good conscience and in all seriousness, presupposing that in so doing it does not fall out of obedience, but is always open-as ecclesia semper reformanda-for the new ordering of its Lord, and is .therefore ready for fresh obedience and prepared for the discovery and establishment of a new and better order on the basis of new and better instruction. If it is always and everywhere a matter of living Church law, there can and should be a tolerable and meaningful and fruitful relationship between differently constituted and ordered Churches in different historical situations and at different points on the way: a calm appraisal of the positions which they themselves have adopted and maintain; and an equally calm-and attentive and curious-appraisal of the positions which others are seen to adopt and mairitain. Where it is a matter of living Church law, and we live consciously and willingly in this transition, we will not regard even the law which in obedience to the Lord of the Church we believe we must ilOW choose and apply and provisionally respect as a perfect form of law which is therefore universally valid for the Christian community at all times and in all places. Similarly, even in respect of the different forms of other Churches, which in obedience we cannot approve or accept or allow to be imposed on us, we can at least ask ourselves whether in their own place they have not been found good and chosen and enforced in obedience-in the obedience there demanded-and do not therefore

711)

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and Uplmilding of the Christian Community

constitute a true Church order: always assuming, of course, that they are not perfect but supremely in need of amendment; and that even in their own place they are not seriously regarded and treated as i1~s divinum, but honestly and soberly as ius humanum. Indeed, the same judgment is demanded even where we think we see this confusion in an opposing system. When we have a right understanding of ourselves as the Christian community, we are at liberty to understand in meliorem partem-better than it understands itself-even that which seems to be, and is, an obstinately antithetical order; so that in this judgment, and our contact with it, we will be guided by this better understanding. This has nothing whatever to do with "relativism." In this encounter between Churches of very different order and constitution the only possibility is the open question whether the Lord has not spoken and been heard on the other side too. And this question cannot alter the loyalty of obedience on our own side. In matters of Church law, as of dogma and dogmatics and everything else, what is demanded sempe,' et ubique et ab omnibus is that thought and decision should always have their source, not in principles, but in the manifest lordship of Jesus Christ, and therefore that they should always be in obedience. If we accept this demand-and we are all aware how imperfectly we do so-we are at liberty, and under an obligation, to count on it that others may also do so in their own way, and to count on it even though they may not return the compliment. Indeed, when the latter is the case, it ought to be a more intense provocation to do it more seriously. The suspicion of relativism is removed by some words of Paul in relation to different attitudes in the community at Rome. " Hast thou faith? Have it to thyself before God. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth" (Rom. 14 22 ). And: "\Vho art thou that judgest another man's servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand" (Rom. 14 4 ). No Church order is perfect, for none has fallen directly from heaven and none is identical with the basic law of the Christian community. Even the orders of the primitive New Testament community (whatever form they took) were not perfect, nor are those of the Western Papacy, the Eastern Patriarchate, the Synodal Presbyterianism which derives from Calvin's system, Anglican, Methodist, Neo-Lutheran and other forms of Episcopacy, or Congregationalism with its sovereignty of the individual community. Nor are the orders of all different systcms which are derivative variations of these basic types. There is no reason to look down proudly and distastefully from one to the others. At one time they may all have been living law sought and in a certain exaggeration found in obedience, and therefore legitimate forms of the body of Jesus Christ. Indeed, they may be this still. Thus for all the problems to which they give rise they must be respected by the others. Indeed, as we have reason to leave this question open, we have equally good ground to put the counterquestion how we ourselves are fixed in relation to living law; whether the removal of the beam in our own eye (:\It. 7 4 ) is not a more urgent task than concern about the mote in our brother's eye; and whether in the last analysis we do not need to learn from this brother' something for our own reformation. It is always perfectionism which makes Church law sterile, as it does also the life of the individual Christian, and theology. \Vhat is needed is openness and readiness to learn in the comparison of different forms. \Vhat is needed is a sincere ecumenical encounter--which will lead to integration as well as debate. Where there is this, the law of the community, like its theology and preaching, will always be fruitful in its particular forms. For these forms will not act as a restraint on any Church, but stir tlwm, at the transitional point which they have

4· The Order oj the Community reached, to seek and find afresh, and with fresh seriousness, th' I' . d therefore their true law. elr lvmg an

. 4· True Church law is ~xemplary l~w. For all its particularity, it IS a pattern for the formatIOn and admlllistration of human law generally, and therefore of the law of other political, economic cultural and other human societies. ' I can best introduce this theme by quoting a passage from Erik Wolf (Rechts-

gedank~ und blbhsche Welsung, 1948, p. 93): "\Vhat might it not mean for the world If Church order and law were not merely spiritual adaptations of worldl constitutIOns and codes, but genuine and original witnesses to the brotherl~ fellowship of J esus ~hnst! What might it not mean if Church law were no longe.r a posltivlstic-Junstic order on the basis of a historical form of state or a pos~tivls~lc-theologlcal or?er on the basis of a historical confession, but; confessmg Church law, a livmg order of fellowship, constituting for all other men a witness to the centre and Head of this fellowship-Christ! "

What i~ at issue? ~~imar~ly, it is a matter of the insight that in the. fo~m~tlOn and admI?~stratIOn of its law the Christian community, whlle. It IS first an.d .~ecisively responsible to its Lord, assumes also a two-sIded. r~sponsIbIh.t'y:-both inward and outward-on the human level.. ThIS IS not a .d~V:Ided or twofold responsibility. It is two-sided. The lllwa~d resp?nsIbllity to itself involves an outward to the world. It orders I.tself-I~s own life which is distinct from that of the World. !t does t.hIS from ItS centre in public worship. It does it above all in ~ts ordermg of public worship. But it does not do it for the sake of Itself. It d?es not ~? it in self-seeking, however holy. If it did, it would c?me mto COllI~IO? with its basic law-the law that in its totality and all ItS members It IS p~e~ged to service in the discipleship of the One who ca~e, not to be mimstered unto, but to minister. We return to our defimtlOn that the C~risti~n Church, as the body of Jesus Christ a?~ therefore the e~rthly-histoncal form of His existence, is the proVISI?nal . representat~on o~ the humanity sanctified in Him. Jesus Chnst ~Id not sanctify HImself for His own sake, but for the sake of humamty. ~hat .He did this, and that humanity is therefore sanctified already III HIm,. IS :vhat the Christian Church has to represent to it; ~o the world whIch IS not yet aware of it because it does not perceive It. It has. to represent it provisionally, for the full and definitive rep~esentatlOn of this alteration of the human situation is not its affaIr but can only be that of its Lord in His manifestation to which here a~d now it move~ with the world. Provisionally to represent this alteratI.on, .the humamty sanctified in Him, is, however, the task, the determ~natlOn,.the clear commission, which the community cannot evade III the time between His resurrection and return which is its time. It exists in the service of the witness which in its existence as the c?mmunity it owes to the world, and cannot therefore withhold from It. And its legal order is the form in which it represents itself

720

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and

Up building of the Christian Community

outwardly to the world; in which it stands out visibly and conspicuously as·one human society with others, and. firs~ an? f~remost i.n contrast to the state. But this has the followmg ImplIcatIOn. It IS right enough that Church law is a ius sui generis; a law which in its basis and formation is different toto coelo from that of the state and all other human societies. It is right enough that it must be sharply distinguished, as ius in sacra, from the ~aw of Church ~nd.state, which can be only the expression of a ius area. sacra. It IS ngh~ enough, therefore that it should be understood stnctly as an expressIOn of the majesty ~f the community itself, or rather as a reflection of ~he maje~ty of its Lord. But it would be quite wrong for the commumty to thmk that in its formation and administration it has to do only with itself, with its own affair, with its divine service as the centre of its life. For its own affair, that with which it is concerned in its divine service and in its whole life understood as service, is the witness that it owes to those who are without. In relation to those who are without it cannot therefore be indifferent or silent or preoccupied with itself. It can 'be genuin~ly preoccupied with itself only when it is also concerned with them and is aware of its responsibility towards them. It has to converse with them, and one way in which it has to do so is by showing them the law valid within i t . . . . To what end? Certainly not in order to claIm that the law valid m the Church must also be the law of the state and other human societies. Certainly not to demand or invite these to appr~priate the provisions of ecclesiastical law and therefore to replace theIr own law by canon law. Certainly not to ecclesiasticise the. world ~nd esp:cially the state as the all-embracing form of human SOCIety. 1 here WIll, of course, ~e only one law in the redemption which comes with th.e future mamfestation of Jesus Christ, in the heavenly Jerus3:lem, m the glory of eternal life. But this will be the law of Jesus Chnst over every sphere of life. It will be the law of the kingdom of God. It will not be a human law at all, and therefore it will not be Church law. What law of what Church at what stage of its transition from yesterday to to-morrow, from the worse to the better, can ever be held up to the world as a norm, or commended as an example to follow? And, above all, how can it be expected that the world will even unde~sta~d and recognise as useful for its own purposes, let alone practIse .m any meaningful sense, a Church law which may perh~ps be aPl?roxlmately perfect? To do this it would have to recogmse what It does not recognise and acknowledge what. it does not a~knowledge: the l?~d­ ship of Jesus Christ as the authonty of the One :n whom the re~oncllia­ tion of the world with God has been accomplIshed; the majesty of His Word and the power of His Holy Spirit. The law of the state and all other human societies is worldly law in the sense that, even though its members and representatives may themselves be Ch.ristians 3:nd belong to the community, it does not reckon with the baSIC law whIch

4· The Order of the Community

7 21

is decisive ~or t~e community b~t is ba.sed upon, and shaped by, very dIfferent (lllstoncal and speculatIve) pnnCIples. Directly to take over the law of the community even at a single point the world would have ~o abandon its own assumptions and become the community. And If the Church makes this demand, if it tries to play the part of a schoolm~s~er, where is the required respect for the independent divine commISSIOn revealed and operative especially in the existence of the state? The exemplary nature of Church law cannot, then, be understood in this way, in the sense of a law which has to be imposed upon the world and observed by it. But why not in the sense that it has to express the Gospel to the world in the form of its particular law? What the Christian community owes to the world is not a law or ideal, not an exactment or de~an~, bu~ th~ ~ospel: t~e ~ood news about the actuality of Jesus Chnst III whIch It IS helped, ItS sms are overcome and its misery ended; t~e word of hope in the great coming light in which its reconciliation Wlt~ God will be manif~sted. This is not the place to develop even in ?utlme the whole questI?n of th~ prophetic mission of the community m the world and especIally of ItS responsibility to the divine order ope~ative and visible in the existence of the state. It is not the place to dISCUSS the whole complex of the Christian and the civil community. There can be no doubt however--and we may say this in anticipation -that the decisi,:,e .contribution which the Christian community can make to the upbUlldmg and work and maintenance of the civil consists in the witness which it has to give to it and to all human societies in the form of the order of its own upbuilding and constitution. It cannot give in the world a direct portrayal of Jesus Christ, who is also the ~orld's Lord and Savi?u-:, ?r of the peace and freedom and joy of the kingdom of God. For It IS Itself only a human society moving like all others to His manifestation. But in the form in which it exists among them it can and must be to the world of men around it a reminder of the law of the kingdom of God already set up on earth in Jesus Christ, and a promise of its future manifestation. De facto, whether they realise it or not, it can and should show them that there is already on earth an order which is based on that great alteration of the human situation and directed towards its manifestation. In relation to those who are without it can and should demonstrate, as well as say, that worldly law, in the form in which they regard it as binding, and outside which they believe that they cannot know any other or regard any other as practicable, has already ceased to be the last word and cannot enjoy unlimited authority and force; that there are other possibilities, not merely in heaven but on earth, not merely one day but already, than those to which it thinks that it must confine itself in the formation and administration of its law. It cannot produce any perfect or definitive thinking or action on this question of law. It can produce only a thinking and action which are defective because

7 22

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and Upbuilding of the Christian Community

provisional. But for all the fact that they are defe:ti:re and provisional, they can and should be different, corrected, pomt~n~ beyond the~­ selves, and to that extent higher and better. The hmlts, the .s~venty and weakness, the impossibility and inadequacy, the vulner~blhty and peril of a ius humanum drawn up i~ ignorance of the l?rdshlp ~f Jesus Christ will not be concealed from It. It knows that If there IS to be right and order and peace and freedom. on earth e.v en in the defectiv.e and provisional forms of the present tIme, there IS needed a reco!?mtion and acknowledgment of the law of the One who has reconcIled them with God and in whom the sanctification of humanity has already taken place. The law' of the Church is the result of its attempt to think and act in recognition and acknowledgn: ent of the l~~ of Jesus Christ-this human attempt which is so defectIve and provIsIOnal. On this basis and in this respect it has a relative-althoug~ not .an absolu~e -advantage over all human law. On this basis and m this respect It attests the Gospel of the kingdom of God to all human law, whether it be common or statute law, civil or criminal, the law of property ~r the law of contract. The community knows perfectly well that It IS itself in greatest need of hearing, and ~ont~nually hearing: this Gospel. But this must not hinder it from causmg It to be heard m the world, even in the form of its canonical order. In fact, it makes this all t~e more obligatory. Again, the community knows pe~fectly well that It cannot exemplify the law of God directly, but only m the broken for~ of its human law in which it can only point to the law of God. But It cannot and must not refuse to point to it in this way. Even though the world may not recognise the origin and basi~ of this indication, in the form of its relatively higher and better law It may be helpful and salutary to it, and therefore good news in this conceale~ fonn: the proffering of possibilities which it had never even consl~ered; the invitation to revise or correct its own legal thought and actIOn at least in the direction of the possibilities suggested, clarifying here and deepening there, simplifying in one ca~e and differentiating in anoth~r, loosening at one point and strengthemng at another. The com~um~y cannot withhold this indication from the world, but must realIse ItS responsibility towards it as it form? and administer? its own law, because it recognises that Jesus ChrIst has .and e~erclse~ not merely the claim but also sedens ad dexteram Patns ommpotentts, the power to rule in' the world, so that it is no accident that even in the :,"orld which does not know and acknowledge Him as the One He IS the question of law always arises, and some form of law is sought and found, in an attempted movement from the worse to the better. ~he community does not see in this a mere chaos of endlessly self-renewlll.g human error and wrong. In a way which is opaque but very real, It sees the same Lord at work who is revealed to it in contrast to t~e world, and to whom it is consciously respons~ble and commit~e~, a!?aI~ in contrast to the world. Thus, although It can seE' the hmItatIOn

4. The Order of the Community

723

and weakness of this whole process, it cannot be scornful or hostile or . even indifferent. It knows that it is itself involved in it. It accepts . the fact that there too-from the centre which is its own centrethere is a real perception of law and a real wav from worse law to better. And it knows that it is Itself responsible for the fact that this way should be sought and found and traversed: not the way to the kingdom of God, for it is from this that even the world comes and its manifestation comes without any human aid; but the wa; to better law, more serious order, more certain peace, more genuine freedom, and a more solid maintenance and fashioning of human life, and human life in society. If the community were to imagine that the. reach of the sanctification of humanity accomplished in Jesus C~nst were restricted to itself and the ingathering of believers, that it dId not have corresponding effects extra muros ecclesiae, it would be in flat contradiction to its own confession of its Lord. But if it accepts the fa:t that there a.re corresponding effects outside, it cannot escape but wIll confidently If modestly undertake the task of contributing to the improvement of human law, especially by its own order as this is founded on the recognition and acknowledgment of the Lord Jesus Christ. The exemplary quality of Church law, and therefore the contribution of the comn:unity to the improvement of worldly law, may consist simply in the fact that It dIsplays to those around the fact of an order which as an order of service has completely transcended the dialectic of fuHilment and claim, of dignity and responsibility, of taking and giving. Even in the best state, worldly law never transcends this hampering dialectic. It is always confronted by it as its true problem. And it suffers in consequence. How valuable it might be for the overcoming of this problem, even in an imperfect way, to have exemplified in Church law a pure order of service, or at least an indication in this direction! Or it may: be that Church law is a model because it is a concrete expression to humamty III Its search for law of the order of a society which knows, strangely enough, that It IS not quahfied to be the subject of law, which is not therefore referred to any historical authority or speculation of natural law but to an authority which it cannot make clear to the world--that of Jesus Christ. Is it not salutary for the legal thinking and action of the world to find itself confronted by a human society which has no need to join this merry-go-round? Does it not contribute to its own improvement to have to encounter in Church law the riddle of this freedom, the mystery of a subject of law which transcends human society? It may be model law because neither in its establishment nor its execution is it supported by any alien power, but can arise and be practised, as is actually the case, III mutu.al trust. N? worldly law can be satisfied with this presuppositIOn. But mIght It not serve ItS own amendment to be reminded by the existence of Church law of the basis apart from which no order can ultimately be set up or admIlllstered even III state and society? Of what value is the force which compels observance if it cannot also appeal to the mutual trust which is the law within law? Again, Church law may be a model in the sense that the men united in the Christian fellowship are not merely bound by it from certain aspects, but are totally bound together, so that they are placed under the protection and control of the fellowship at the very point where worldly law reaches its limit in the

724

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and Upbuilding oj the Christian Community

personal life of the individual. Church law is not content with anything less than a total common and reciprocal responsibility. No worldly law can imitate it in this respect. But is it not as well, and even perhaps necessary, for the development and continuance of good human law, that those responsible for it should be concretely reminded that this fellowship in the true sense of the term aims to be a true life-fellowship or communion, and in the last resort cannot be achieved even in part without the total self-giving of each to all? The existence of canon law can demonstrate this truth in paradigmatic form. Again, it may be a model to the extent that in it every member of the community-irrespective of his estate, endowment, background or nature-is in the first instance treated absolutely as a brother. \Vorldly law sees a man in purely material relationships. It regulates his integration into society and the state, and the duties which this entails. It protects and limits his living-space, his activity, his possessions and his honour. It determines the liberties which he is allowed or denied. But it does not touch the man himself, although in all these relationships it is first and last he who is concerned. In this respect, too, true Church law begins at the very point where all worldly law breaks off. Is it not salutary that the latter-even though and as it remains true to its own field-should be concretely reminded that man is its true theme and subjectmatter? Finally, Church law may be a model in its character as wholly living law: human as opposed to divine; but as such serious and fluid and open; with an equal responsibility both to the past and to the future. Do those who are responsible for worldly law realise that even the law which they have to find and guard and apply can be true law only as living law? How many of the severities and weaknesses of this law are caused by the fact that this is only too easily ignored or forgotten or disregarded in state and society? By the established fact of its own law the Church can warn and encourage the world that even in the defective and provisional form of the present age true righteousness cannot be a frozen or static pond, but must be a living stream continuously flowing from the worse to the better.

We must not misunderstand the relationship between ecclesiastical and temporal law. The world and its law are evil. But even apart from their confrontation with the Church and its law they are not wholly evil. They are also in the hand of God and have not escaped His judgment and grace. For it is under the direction and guidance of God that even outside the Church the question of law is raised in the world, and law is proclaimed and respected and practised. Jesus Christ is the King over all men and all things, and as such He is not idle even extra muros ecclesiae. It is not the case, then, that the relatively higher and better and to that extent exemplary law of the Church is indispensable or always and everywhere new and strange to the world and its law. If it were the case that ecclesiastical and temporal law confronted one another in absolute antithesis and mutual exclusion, the witness which the former has to bear to the latter would be impossible and pointless. But the two have one thing in common. They are both human law, and in their humanity they can be established, and enjoy validity and force, only in the sphere of divine law. There is thus no reason in principle why there should not be reciprocity between them, for an absolute superiority of ecclesiastical law to temporal is quite out of the question. In the last resort it is genuinely

4· The Order of the Community . 72 5 sup~nor-and it is so toto coeta-only by reason of its cognitive basis In ~~s ~or~sh however, ~s the. recognised and established law of thi~ ~ar. IC~ ar urch at thIS partIcular time, it has no small shar . llmitatlOns. and weaknesses of worldly law. And its co nitiv: I~ t?e th; l~r~sh~p Off Jesus Christ ad dexteram Patris omnipo~entis is a:~~ ac ua aSlS 0 all temporal law as well Is it not to b ' therefore, that in its forms-however defective these rna \ expe~~ed, do not proceed from .a knowledge of the basis of alllaw-~he;e~ill ~~ at least ~o.me analogIes .or correspondences to ecclesiastical law? B reason 0 ItS actual baSIS, which it has in common with Church la ':( even worldly law both needs a parallel and can itself be \\, It needs a parallel be~ause it is true right and not wrong o~l~a;al~~l. o e e.x tent that the lordshIp of Jesus Christ is actually at work in its fo tIon and ad~inistration, And it can be a parallel because the lor;~r ?f J e~us Chnst c~n .actually work itself au t in its formation and admin~ Is~rat~on, In ~rmClple, therefore, we have to reckon no less definitel WIth. Its sh~re. m ~he true basis of law than with the share of Church ~aw m t~e limitatlOns, severities and weaknesses of worldly law And m practIce we have to reckon with at least the occasI'onal . I' A" emergence of th ana ogles, oyOt UTrEPfLUTtKOt, of temporal law to ecclesiastical For e very fact a~d reason that the Church has to keep so strictI 'to the revealed lordshIp of Jesus Christ when it asks concerning it/la 't i cannot refuse t,o be reminded of this, and perhaps recalled to i;"b actual. outworkmgs, outwith its own sphere. In its encounter with' th~ world It may sometImes happ~n that in this particular field the children ?f the world. prove to be WIser than the children of Ii ht th m the questIOn concerning its law the Church has g , .so I at f th ld ( . reason to earn rom e wor whIch does not know what it knows) " f 't th 't h" ,recelvmg rom 1 e WI ness w Ich It ought to give For all I'tS f ' . . awareness 0 the . d d m epen. er: ce of ItS task, It ~annot exclude this possibility, . But If It beco~es a reallt!" it will gather from it only that it is Itself the more senously reqUIred to give as it should d d b th b f h' . , 0, an etter an ever ~ o:e, t e WItness enJomed upon it, Nor will it do this in morose pessI~Ism, as. though it could not be received and acce ted by those outs~de, but I:n co.nfident expectation that so long as it f~th­ fUlly. makes Its contnbutIOn to the improvement which b G d' apPo.lr:tment can and should be achieved in spite of the defec~ve ~n~ prov~sIOnal nature of a~l pre,sent occurrence, this contribution will de~mtely not be made m vam. but will bear fruit within the limits whIch are set for all humar: actIon. It is not a question of setting u the law and therefore the kmgdom of God on earth F thO h b P tId '. ' or IS as een se up a rea y, and ItS mamfestation,is the work neither of the world More modestlv I 'f' f' '. . J , It is a questI'on of Can ymg an d dnor of .the Church, e~pen~ng, a simplifymg.and differentiating, of loosening and stren th~mng, I,n short of correctmg the la~ which obtains in the world. fhis IS genumely necessary at every pomt. Is it not incumbent upon the

7 26

§ 67. The Holy Spirit and upbuilding of the Christian Commumty

Church to hear how men cry for it, for righteousness, peace and freedom in a form and measure unknown in what was previously regarded as " law"? Already the law of the world has been improved, and not without some assistance on the part of the Church. In many ways and by-ways is not the witness of the Church much stronger perhaps than Christian dispiritedness, and the sloth concealed behind it, will often allow? The community must not be vexed that the model which it has to give to the world cannot have more than a corrective influence. How much it would mean for the world and its law if only in the formation and administration of this law it always stood under the modest but salutary corrective influence of the existence of the community and its law! Men live in the world (even Christians) by the fact that, although there can be no question of perfection, this law is in process of correction. ~oes not ev.en the community itself and as such live by the fact that It must contmually let itself be corrected by the Word and Spirit of its Lord? With the world and for the world, it waits and hopes for the eventide at which it will be light. In the meantime, it cannot and must not be too small a thing for it to give a provisional but real representation of the law of God in its concern for its own law, and in this way to be in the world of provisional but real assistance to the world and it~ children. In this way it will show that its law is true law; a law WhICh on the basis of the Gospel proclaims the Gospel.

§ 68

THE HOLY SPIRIT AND CHRISTIAN LOVE The Holy Spirit is the quickening power in which Jesus Christ places a sinful man in His community and thus gives him the fr~edom, in active self-giving to God and his fellows as God's wltn~ss, to correspond to the love in which God has drawn him to HImself and raised him up, overcoming his sloth and misery.

1.

THE PROBLEM OF CHRISTIAN LOVE

.. A~ we come to the end of this second part of the doctrine of reconclhatlOn, we turn to the problem of the individual Christian. The san:e question occupied us at the end of the first part, and will do so agam at the end of the third. The individual Christian is the individual member ~f the C~ristian co~mu~ity and therefore of the body of Jesus Chnst as HIS earthly-hlstoncal form of existence. When it is a m~tter of the name and kingdom and will of God, of the grace and electlOn of the covenant, and the fulfilment of the covenant and therefore of reconciliation, the individual Christian is not the centre of all things. He is only on the circumference of the true centre. In this matter he i~ the basis. nei~her of. reality nor knowledge. He merely has a part m that whIch IS and IS to be known; an important and supre~~ly. real part, but no. more than a part. He belongs to the reconClhatlOn of the world WIth God. He does so because he is in the world, and therefore the reconciliation is his and has reference to him . .sut he does so decis~v:el~ as and because he belongs to the man Jesus m who.m the reconclliatlOn of the world with God has taken place. There IS no mat,t who does not belong to this man, who is not His b:other. But .thls is true of the Christian in a very special way because l1lS human .exlstence has bee~ altered and re-determined by the fact that what IS true of all men IS no longer concealed from him but revealed to him; because he, a man like all others, may live in the knowledge that he belongs to Jesus, and live in a very different way from those who do not have thIS knowledge. That God has reconciled ~he. ~orld wit~ !"Iimself in Jesus Christ is not merely true for each mdlvldual.Chr~stlat,tpersonally,. as it is for all men, but it acquires shape and ~orm ~n IllS eXlsten~e .. It IS given to him actually to live in commumon WIth J.esus Chnst, m and with Him. In this way and to this extent he receIves and has his own specific part in the reconciliation 7Z7

728

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love

'H' When therefore we speak of this 1m, spea k a '1 0 of hl'm' And at the end which has ' , taken place md must s. reconClliatlOn, we C~? ':In It d~es not take place in him, let alone we must y, so m , such sort that I't applies to him in _this h h do ' soBexp t itICIdoes . throug 1m. u" h's advantage in this particular way WhlCh special way; that It IS to I God ~ddressed to all men; de facto and is exemplary for the grahce of '1' t'on of the world with God takes 1 d 're T e reconCl la I , not mere y e t U " 'ct is that of God. But the eXlstplace with its O\~n pecuhar fO~~~t wh~nd in and with this that of the ence of th~ Chnstlan comm h,y'h nin And when this reveals t ~~ ttPt:ow;'each individual Christian Christian, IS the. expon~nt and attests Itselt, when It rna (es I se, d'mith the Christian com., 1 d· econdary witness m an " IS Invo ve as a s, f 11 and precisely to understand the 't Hence If we are u y , d"d 1 mum ~'" " finall try to understand the m IVI ua reconclhatlOn, v. e, must k bl Y d even astonishing phenomenon too-thdls, Christian of men who stan mremth~r IS.:pe~ia~nrelationship to its occurrence and y

°i

revelation.

., t -

the first part of the doctrine we

tho~;h:h;f ~~~e;~~~ft s~~I~:~r~a~~it~'r !se~~s0~~1~:n~~et;O~~~

who as the Son o. 0 e , f God as the basis and power Father; tl~is gr~clOus c.ondescenslO~a~ the reality which determined of the justlficatlOn of smful, man, 'I' t' In relation to the f th d ctnne of reconCl la lOn. this first form 0 e , 0 n -the Christian-what other question man confronted by thiS reda I, Yt that of the Advent hymn: "How ld b put and answere DU t b d h?" \Vhat can and should and mus e one cou e . nd Lord of heaven and earth has shall I then receive t e~, C t by the man to whom t. e rea or a. 'naccessible majesty in inconstooped down from HIS etern~l ande/r. to take man to Himself by ceivable goodness and ove.rfio~~ng,m~ JYnd burden? What can and e taking his place and beanng IS cur"t ~hom it is given in the quickshould and must be ~o?e ~y, t!~etmancP~t the fact that God is for him ening power of the 0 y ~lfl f 0 athc - Christian to do? What is his 'th' y? What remams or e , . dm IS wa. . h a t ._ h allowed and comrmsslOned an com

~~~l~d~~ ~~t~erSi:ce th~:? is et~:r~a~:~a~:v~::r;o~s~~l~no::~~~~~;

sists hiS Chnshan fre~d~mti T. Ie and unequivocal answer that he to this question. ThiS IS Ie simp h to him and that which must acc~pt and rece~ve .th~~n~ewm~s~o~e~ontentin unconditional is give~ I~ and bfiYd Him ~ ~d to the fact that God is for him; that and chIldlike con ence 0 0 , f ss this' that he must he must acknowledge and r~cogn~se a~~ ~~ni~ witho~t hesitation or place himself on this groun b an r'~t d nd rejoice and constantly vacillation; that he m~st e sl~n~e:erv:dly but quite indisputa~ly return to the fact that ,e I?~y , t" faith' the faith be the child of God, ThiS, hvmg, active ~ce~t~o~tISthe faith of the of the Christian commumty, and m an WI

t

1.

The Problem of Christian Love

7 9 2

individual Christian. Christianity consists wholly in this reception and therefore in the act of faith. We say wholly-and this is quite right. But we must not say eXclusively. Christianity consists wholly but not exclusively in this reception, and therefore wholly but not eXclusively in the act of faith. The Advent hymn of P. Gerhardt to which we referred is everywhere concerned with justification by faith alone, And it does not contain a single superfluous word, Yet the first verse goes on at once to speak of meeting Jesus as well as receiving Him, And there is then the prayer that He will Himself provide the torch to show us what delights Him, And the closing verse also speaks of " the one who loves and seeks Him" and will be found as such in the judgment of the world by Jesus, In the 17th and 18th centuries Protestantism (even Lutheran Protestantism) tried to bring out this aspect in many different Ways, not all of them wholly legitimate, We ourselves must now take up the question how we are to meet Him, It is on (and from) this point that we must proceed to deliberate.

The occurrence of the reconciliation of the world with God has also the aspect which has occupied us from the very outset in this second part of the doctrine of reconciliation-the aspect not merely of the high-priestly but also with undiminished clarity of the kingly office of Jesus Christ, in the exercise of which He the servant, as a man like ourselves and among us, is exalted to be the Lord who as such draws to and after Himself and raises up in the power of God sinful man, the man who is slothful and miserable in His sin. And so it has not merely the form of the justification of this man, of the promised forgiveness of his sins, of his free acceptance to divine sonship, but also of his sanctification, of his no less gracious claiming and endowment and institution for obedience, work and service. Accordingly, we have now to say that in the vital action of the Christian it is not merely a question wholly and purely of this reception, but no less wholly and purely of the decision for a definite direction in the lifemovement of man, and therefore of his breaking out in this direction, In Jesus Christ a new man, the true man, has dynamically entered the human sphere, not merely demanding conversion and discipleship, but in the quickening power of His Holy Spirit calling and transposing into conversion and discipleship. Christians, then, are the men to whom Jesus Christ, and in Him their own completed sanctification, is revealed and present as this new, true man, and who know that they are co-ordinated with Him as their first-born Brother and subordinated to Him as their King instituted from all eternity. But this being the case, as they exist totally in the existence of this reception and therefore of faith, they do so no less totally in the act in which they can and must confirm their co-ordination and subordination in relation to the man Jesus exalted by God, not on their own impulse or in their own strength, but in the quickening power of the Holy Spirit in the unity ~f this second act with the first. The second act is the pure and total confirmation of What Christians are as those who purely

730

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love

and totally receive in the act of their faith. It is the act of a pure and total giving, offering and surrender corresponding to this receiving. When we ask how we are to meet Him the answer is that it is in the great self-giving which corresponds to the great reception and in which there takes place that which is pleasing to Him. Before we proceed, it is essential that we should recall the context in which we have to speak of this matter. In the preceding section we were concerned with the upbuilding of the Christian community. The counterpart of Jesus Christ, which as the provisional representation of the world of men reconciled with God in Him is His body, His earthly-historical form of existence, is not in any respect the individual Christian as such, i.e., as an individual, but His community. In it, it is also the individual Christian, as its living member, in the freedom which he is given as such. His determination for faith, and therefore for the reception of that which is given the world by the condescension of the Son of God to our flesh, is his determination for faith in and with the community. He does not have it for himself, but as one who gives in the communion of saints, participating by the quickening power of the Holy Spirit in its gathering, in its acknowledgment, recognition and confession of Jesus Christ. In exactly the same way the freedom for this surrender on the basis of the exaltation of man in Jesus Christ is not given him privately but only with the fact that by the quickening power of the same Holy Spirit he is set in the community of Jesus Christ and made its living member. Conversely, it has, of course, to be said of the Christian community-whether from the standpoint of the condescension of the Son of God or of the exaltation of the Son of man, as in the preceding section-that it is not an amorphous collective but exists only as the differentiated communion of saints and therefore in the saints, in individual Christians, in that which distinguishes them both as a whole and personally, in the act of their reception and therefore of their surrender. In the existence of the community and in that of individual Christians we have to do materially with one and the same happening brought about by the Holy Spirit and having Jesus Christ as its primary Subject. We might almost say that the one is the macrocosmic form of this happening and the other the microcosmic. When we apply to this the determination with which we are now particularly concerned, this means that in and with the upbuilding of the Christian community there takes place as the act of the individual Christian-an act which is different but cannot be separated from it-that which we have provisionally called self-giving. And conversely, in and with this act of the individual Christian in his unity with all others there takes place the upbuilding of the Christian community. We must now give to this act of self-giving its biblical name. We are speaking of Christian love. Love as self-giving stands contrasted with faith as reception. Yet on the divine side we do not have in the

1. The Problem of Christian Love ~umiliatibn and exaltation of J ' 731 tIon and sanctification and th esu~C~nst, and therefore in justificathem, two separate divine actioen:~r t ~ the ~o~y Spirit which reveals 0 un IVIded and simultaneous although distinguishable mome 't u Similarly, on the human' side fa~~ or dorms of the ?ne divine action: are two indivisible but distinguish b~n ove, receptIon and surrender ment and act which constitutes ~h~~?ment~ of the one vital movethen, is only relative, and we can ha~dtn eXIstence. The. contrast, other terms) making use of the view Y speak of l~ve WIthout (in has also to be described, or of faith s ~nd conceJ;>ts ~lth which faith Whlthout attnbutmg to it certain features which in the strict s ense are t ose of love.

7

.

In this relative sense faith and lov

I~ the New Testament, from which wee are often compared and linked together

t,Imes ,they stand alone, as in

I

Thess

h~ve of .course taken the terms, Some-

~ometrmes they are grouped with ho e' 3 '. I TIm.

14 1 and 4 12, and 2 3 I Th~ss 1 and 58, and I III I TIm, 6 11 and Tit 22,

Tim, 113 Cor, 13 'Tim, 2 22 In the 1 knce, as " • ' g e n e r a characte'sa t' f " " or peace III these and similar passages we ob' Ion 0 Chnstran action attempted st~nd in a particular relatio~ship w~~u~: have two or more concepts which Wlt~the particul?-r relationship between fait~ an~tfer, Our present concern is , ost lllstructrve for the meanin , a n , Ove. III Gal. 56, where the 1TtUTt, l), ayd.~ ~~}h~~ r:la~lonship is the fam~us passage ~~ the Jews and the uncircumcision of th~G IJ. ; { IS opposed to the cIrcumcision , nst. Paul never even dreamed of th k' e~ 1 es ~s that ~hich avails in Jesus m Jas, 2 14 - 26_the faith which has no; III of 1T<~,~ enVIsaged and criticised amount to anything more than a mere k pya ~hlch IS Illactive, which does not by James. in v, 26 as without spirit ~~hedge. and which is rightly described even conSIder this kind of faith as n a~ erefore dead. Indeed he did not that" which worketh by love." Thae 1T~UT~rnatl~e" There is no oth~r faith than Testament refer in their positive statemen~stf whIch h~ and th,e rest of the New a defimte act. And generally s eakin ' ,s as such €V€PyovlJ.
So~etrmes they are linked with pat'.p , as I~

as ,

III 2

7

i

0,totr" ,

,

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love

732

1.

, ' " mentioned in v. 8 (prophecy. tongues and kn<:wthe spiritual gifts and activities 'th' the triadic concept by which the Chnstian ledge). No, it surpasses them WI tIn1 d nduring character and differentiated ' 'b d 'n Its essen la an e , 'th ' existence IS descn e I ' A d it does so because ill It ere IS ' ks and expresslOn, n . h' th from its transitory mar , t' rm its active character (whlc IS e ' ' "bl and conspicuous 0 ' t the expressed ill VISI e 11 Th whole of I Cor. I3 IS an answer a , character of faith and hope"a::e.,l' Thee Corinthian community thinks that It question of the Chnstian, y, j itual ifts and the correspondmg activities. sees this in the possesslOn 01 th~se sPI-{e enc;ura aes them to go farther along these Paul does not blame them for t(,IS,. of the disunities and disorders involved) lines. But at the same time m VI~: ct which in and beyond all these activIhe draws their attentlOn to the way, e~), d 's to be understood as such. Our " f3 \' '0' (I Cor I2 an I , ties is the Ka(J V1rEP. OIlT/V ,0 ~s this true way. vVhy does it not take ""aTtS, chapter then descnbes. aya1rT/ as nmistakeablv active? vVhy does It not take like Heb, II, where faith too IS u il be said? These are not forgotten, as we ,his of which the same might eas y ," t 'hich Paul directs the Connthians see v, I3· The" more costly w:Yand The three together, in canis indeed the way of faith and of hop scntial and enduring element in the hfetrast to all these actiVities, a,re hth~ :~ be named and described here because ill act of the Christian, But 10\ e a k ff the essential and enduring Chnstian this context the main need ;.~~ :~:~;an~itory activities. It was by love th~t act as such from non-essen ia , , 1 b love that there could be ma e there had to be made clear, as it w~,s on y Ytl way" which the Corinthians clear, what is the true nature of t~~heU;°~~t~~~ie~ and might still proceed along Christians, as they went the wayto b ~ ght not to have forgotten as the way this way, seemed to hav~ forgot en "~ ~u which is living and will outlast the and the act. The true Chnstian eXls en e d act But it shows itself to . d t ' in ItS totality wayan , fire of the last jU gmen IS b the fact that it is love. be this, and may be rec.ogmsed as suc~, / tion of a third saying of Paul-the We may also antiCipate our consIde ';. , " ' , . , For this statement ' 10· ovv VO/LOU TJ aya1r". terse statement m Rom. I3 t~eA~pW/La Christian finds its climax and :risible expresagain shows how the life-act a ' 8 makes it incontestably plam that sian in love. The precedmg sentence '~ v; , 7TWV n)v EUPOV VO/LOV 1rE1rA~PWKEV. the reference is to the Christian ~C~j: w~ yafh:~ who do what the Law requires In this context the meanmg IS a:n~ t~er~fore those who love them, confirm ~nd in relation to their neIghbours, 'h f lfil the law and therefore love God. prove in this way that they are thos: : a~soUthe required love of the neighbour l A love of God, whIch does ~ot lll~~e will return to this later. Our present canis not the reqUIred love of ?fd't that the Law requires a definite action. ThIS cern is only WIth the baSIC ac fil t f the Law The man who loves has action is love, This love is the ~l h~~e~ul~l1ed the Law, The same ,could not done what the Law demands, e 'dered) nor could it be sald of hope be said of faith (abstractly taken and conSI t and' aspect of the life-act of the ' '1 t s an act-a momen or patience, I~alt 1, 00,.' , f a ure and total reception, A s t h'IS ac t Christian. But as faIth It IS the act a ~ t f lfil it but it comes thankfully it does not have to fulfil the Law, or ttr~ a l~ce fa; us in Jesus Christ. But from the fulfilment which has already a e; p 'ts posit've statements) knows Paul (and the rest of the New Testamen 'dill ' but o~ly the faith which has ' b t 'tl taken and consl ere d , , t ly nothing of a faIth a s rac y 't 1 t of the Christian (and no on ,'th'n the one VI a ac t 1 love as a complement '" .' " <\ d in love (not an abstrac ave, love, but also hope and patIence an)d ~~a~~~reio~e in the self-giving which correbut the love by which faIth wo~ks.' a f lfil' tlp I aw doing that which God ' recep t'10, n the" Chnstlan u se , , d,eO f _~ins sponds to thiS ' , , ' 'Tht That love- covers a multitu requires and which IS nght 111 ,HISa~~e ~f the sins committed by the neIghbour (I Pet, 4') is said III the first mst J" t t l ' sins 01 those who exercise love towho is to be loved, hut It applIes ~ s~ °Ch'r~stia;l
f~om

~t"love,

f

The Problem of Christian Love 733

justified before God, and, in and with what he himself does, he passes into a place which is sheltered from storm and sin, He is empowered and free to do this, and passes into this place, as OLe who receives purely and totallv in faith. Ama et fac quod vis. If you love as a Christian, you cannot and will not sin. You can and will sin only if you do not love as a Christian, The man who loves as a Christian cannot blame the Law or be backward in respect of its demands. He fulfils it. For the pure and total reception of justification by faith alone cannot be separated from his pure and total self-giVing in love. The two are one and the same. And conversely, the fact that against all his deserts but in genuine earnest God shows benevolence and beneficence to him as a sinner, and that he may know this, is confirmed by the Christian in the act of this surrender: " Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much" (Lk. 7"). When a man performs this act, the will of God does not remain undone in his life, nor the Law of God unfulfilled. But the will of God is done, and His Law fulfilled.

We have first equated the concept of love in a general way with that of self-giving. Or rather, we have explained it by this term. What we have here-in Christian love-is a movement in which a man turns away from himself (in what amounts at first to much the same thing as the self-denial of which we spoke earlier). But this is only the critical beginning. In the continuation love turns Wholly to another, to one who is wholly different from the loving subject. Yet the critical beginning is not left behind, but is still at work in the continuation. For it does not turn to this other, the object of love, in the interests of the loving subject, either in the sense that it desires the object for itself because of its value or in pursuance of Some purpose, or in the sense that it attempts to perpetuate itself in its desire. Christian love turns to the other purely for the sake of the other. It does not desire it for itself. It loves it simply because it is there as this other, with all its value or lack of value. It loves it freely. But it is more than this turning. In Christian love the loving "subject gives to the other, the object of love, that which it has, which is its own, which belongs to it. It does so irrespective of the right or claim that it may have to it, or the further use that it might make of it. lt does so in confirmation of the freedom in respect of itself which it has in its critical beginning. It does so with a radically unlimited liberality. Nor is this liberality confined to that which the loving subject" has." For in Christian love the loving subject reaches back, as it were, behind itself to that which at the first it denies and from which it turns away, namely, itself: to give itself (for everything would lack if this final thing were lacking); to give itself away; to give up itself to the one to whom it turns for the sake of this object. To do this the loving man has given up control of himself to place himself under the control of the other, the object of his love. He is free to do this. It is in this freedom that the one who loves as a Christian loves. Where this movement is fulfilled in all its aspects, and reaches its goal in this self-giving of the loving subject, there is Christian love. And this movement, together with faith (and hope, etc.) and inseparably and simultaneously fulfilled

734

§ 61). The Holy Spirit and Christian Love

with them, is the life-act of the Christian both in detail and finally as a whole. Its fulfilment is the particular problem of Christian love. As is apparent from this preliminary analysis, it is very different from any other movement which may have the name of " love" and in its own way is love, but which from first to last takes a very different form and direction. To sharpen the picture of the movement with which we are now concerned, we will attempt a brief analysis of this other kind of love. It does not have its origin in self-denial, but in a distinctively uncritical intensification and strengthening of natural self-assertion. It is in this that the loving subject finds itself summoned and stirred to turn to another. It is hungry, and demands the food that the other seems to hold out. This is the reason for its interest in the other. It needs it because of its intrinsic value and in pursuance of an end. As this other promises something-itself in one of its properties-there is the desire to possess and control and enjoy it. Man wants it for himself: for the upholding, magnifying, deepening, broadening, illuminating or enriching of his own existence; or perhaps simply in a need to express himself; or perhaps even more simply in the desire to find satisfaction in all his unrest. And so it takes place that, however much he may seem to give what is his, lavishing and dissipating it on the object of his love, he does not really give it up, but uses it as a means to win or keep or enjoy this object of his love (as the peacock displays its tail before its mate, or the woman exerts, as her own, all her inner and outer, natural and artificial advantages that the man may be hers also). And so it also takes place that the one who loves, however much he may apparently forget himself or however much he may transcend himself (in very high and noble and spiritual transports) in the direction of the object of his love, merely asserts himself the more strongly in face of it as he wins and keeps and enjoys it, since all the time it is himself that he has in view, and his own affirmation and development that he seeks. For all the selfemptying on the part of the one who loves, union with the beloved as the supreme goal of this love consists in the fact that this obj ed of love is taken to himself, if not expressly swallowed up and consumed, so that in the event he alone remains, like the wolf when it has devoured, as it hopes, both Red Riding Hood and her grandmother. The movement of this love takes the form of a circle. It seeks the infinite in a transcendence of everything finite, but from the very first it is disposed in such a way that (even by way of the infinite) it must always return to its beginning. Its objects do not need to be sensual. It may be directed to the good, the true and the beautiful. Even in its sexual form, it may have reference (perhaps wholly and utterly) to the soul and not merely the body. Beyond all other goods and values, it may even reach out to the Godhead in its purest form and thus be a most wonderful love of God. But in all its forms it will always be a grasping,

r. The Problem of Christian Love t k' . 735 ,a I~g, possessive love-self-love-and in sam h e way and at some point It Will always betra" itself a J s SUC . B ut as such it is the direct op osite f Ch' . lf o. . nstIan love-the love which seeks and attains its end as th to the object of his love It· ~ -gl.vmg of the one who loves criticise and disqualify it' froml~h:ost~nJ t~mg, of c~ur.se, to dare to one thing although Ch . t' 1 ' pomt of ChnstIan love. For , ' ns Ian ave IS both p 'tt d 111 the case of Christians in a erml e and commanded they all love in this way too ~ude ;.r subtle form (and perhaps both) different love. Thus they a:e ~ft~hm% to the standar.ds of this very ever may be said for the o l e rst to be conVIcted by whathave so much to do to wi ne ave and .against the other. And they long time before they can See t~e~n ~h~lr OW? slate t~at it will be a love and condemnation of the tOhe~~ /n ItheIr exalt~tIOn of Christian other (whether Greek or othe' eBlca and practIcal forms of the by the fact that this other 10~:lse). 1 ~t above all reserve is enjoined in the history of the human s iri~an ~ aII~ some of the ~eatest figures ab!e enterprise to reject and ~ep 'd"': tO~ It would be a hIghly. questionamty, especially on the part of Ut~~s: ~~ha c~rt and dogmatIc Christiand cannot therefore estimate them t thO, a not really know them to be taken into account that 11 f a elr true w?rt? It has also world which in its best and fi a t a us l(leve~ we ChnstIans) exist in a . nes as we as ItS m t b . 1 IS for the most part built upon thO th as aSlC p lenomena and that we live by the works I~ Of ~r rather th~n Christian love, love, so that when the C . . an r~lt~ and achievements of this Christi.an love he always ~~~~::~a~l\~t~~ quest.ion in the light of What IS clearly brought out by thO d' t. g y ambIguous appearance. every other love as it ma b IS IS mctIon between Christian and e life of the Christian himseft is t~eenh~e st:ess this point-even in the in relation to the world aro' dew a y allen character of Christianity y un . .. . e.t ~hese considerations must not thiS dIstmction. Christian love t:event a sober affirmatIOn of other, or with any of the forms canna m f,act be equated with any ot,her, just as this other love ha~e~~n. the hIghest c: nd purest) of this WIth Christian. Nor can Christian taus ly no desIr~ to b.e confused form a higher synthesis W ave be fused WIth thIS other to th " ' d . e cannot say of any oth 1 km er ave at It IS a of preparatory stage for Chr' sl' . 1 Christian love by representin and Ian o,:,e. .Nor can we commend the supreme climax, of this o~her lo~~rtr~ng I~ as the purified form, to both types of love-we shall have t ' ere IS. an element common ably enough it is recisel i ' a s~eak of thIS later. But remarkmust and will ah~ays b/ d~ci:~~w of ~h~ c?~mon element that there only in the history of the Ch . ~ an eCIsI~ns ?et:veen them: not the world; but also in th e h' ~stIan commun~ty. m ItS relations with which is also of the world anisdory o.ftthefChnstIan community itself, ,conSIS s a men who b th h . " 0 as a wale an d as mdIvlduals can be moved b b th y 0 types, but cannot possibly

t

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love

be moved by both at the same time or in the same way; and finally and above all in the individual histories of these men themselves. Even a superficial glance at the two phenomena and concepts, or rather at the realities of the two types of love, necessarily discloses that we have to do here with two movements in opposite directions, so that there can be no harmony but only conflict between them. The first type cannot pass over and be transfonned into the second, nor the second into the first. Man loves either in one way or the other, and he has to choose whether it is to be in the one way or the other. If in fact he loves in both ways at the same time, as is often the case even with the Christian, this can only be with the disruption, the " falling out," which we had occasion to discuss in relation to " conversion." Where Christian love enters, there always begins at once the unceasing controversy between itself and every other love. The Christian life is existence in the history of the distinction between these opposing types of love. It has not yet begun, or has been extinguished again, where there is the desire or ability to be superior, or neutral, or tolerant in relation to the two; where Christian love (perishing as such) can be brought to terms with this other love. Not the moment of this other love as such, but the moment of tolerance, of the agreement of Christian love with this other, of truce in the controversy, constitutes a hiatus, a cessation, a vacuum in the Christian life-a definitely non-Christian moment. There can be only conflict and not compromise between Christian love and this other. And there can be only conflict and not compromise between this other love and Christian. The biblical basis for this distinction and opposition will emerge, like the material, only as we take up the various themes of the section. Our present task is simply to show that there is always this distinction and opposition. Nevertheless we are given a prior indication of the biblical basis when we remerr bel' the linguistic usage of the Bible. It is immediately apparent that the New Testament consistently avoids the use of the verb Jpav and the substantive €pws-the terms which in classical Greek plainly describe this other grasping, taking, possessing and enjoying love. Even in the apostolic fathers we find only a single occurrence of EPWS (Ignatius, ad Rom. 7, 2), and here it is used only to denote the love which the author declares that he has left behind him as crucified. In the New Testament, however, it is not used at all, even in a depreciatory sense. The reader who meets the concept of love in these pages is obviously not even to be reminded of this other love. Apart from an occasional use of ,p'A€iv with its emphasis on feeling, the normal term for love in the New Testament is ayu7Tav, with the substantive aycl7T7), which is unknown in classical Greek and only sparingly used in hellenistic. It is only in New Testament usage that this word has acquired the well-known meaning and content of a love opposed to €pws. In itself it is rather colourless. It has something of the sense of the English" like." It speaks of the acceptance or approval of something or someone. Perhaps this lack of distinctive significance was the very reason why it was adopted in the New Testament. It lent itself readily to the receiving of a new impress. But the New Testament was only following the Septuagint, which had had to find a supportable rendering for the verb aheb (and substantive ahabah), and its synonyms. Aheb can describe, with a positive emphasis, all kinds of familiar and friendly relationships. Indeed, in the first

1.

The Problem of Chr£st£an Love

instance it is also used for tl1~t h t 737 h t . . " e ween a man and h', 'f th . u .no ImgUistic distinction in Hebrew betw IS WI e, ere bemg a material s,lgmficallt and that which was later called ,;en the"love which is theologically Septuagmt seized on the colourless term"' ,erotic." To aVOld the latter, the enough, even in the picture of the mar;i:Y:7T~V and aY~7TTJ, using them, strangely Book of Hosea, and even more stran elv ig etween y a~weh and Israel in the a reason for the choice of aYQ7TTJ onl fh"' ~ th~ Song of Songs. \Ve can give as €PWS to describe the love found in th em entlOn to <1:v~id at all costs the use of hellenistic Judaism in its interpretat~~~~~s~~~e~ld This mtention was shared by amty m its attestation of Jesus Christ \Vhate Testament and early Christimust be determined by the meanin ~nd co vel' we .may say concerning aYcl7TTJ and which were actually given, to ttis t ntent which It was desired to give, ated) m the light of the origin action e~n (the other bemg completely eliminso ve;y differently described. ' an manner of this love which has to be . We .must not form too impoverished a . lingUistically eliminated by the Sept . t conceptIon of the love which was nd was the opposite of the kind of love ~~~~n th: the New. Testament because it to say, we must not seek it only in sexu I 1 Y were seekmg to attest. That is forms of this love. The image of life a ; ove, or in degenerate and excessive up under the catchword eros and whic~ d power and thought which is summed of Greek antiquitv and even the environm O~!~a~d to a large extent the world tude which does "of Course include sexua/~ov~ t e New. Testament, is a magniand which no doubt has in this a strikin s m even m ItS more cU~ious forms, be understood III its depth and richnes g bol, but whIch cannot III any sense love, if it is considered eXclusively o~' an ItS d:ngero us opposition to Christian actuality in this sphere. Nor is it a event erentlally with reference to its only in that particular period On thmagmtu. e which was potent and effective · . e con rary h't par t Icularly forceful expression in the M t .' .alth oug. I d'Id of course find by outstanding philosophers like PIa; ys ~r~religlOns and m thinking influenced general and very real human Phenome~o~Whi~~stotle and l~ter Plotinus, it is a mngs of history and forward into ev b reaches back to the very begin"Ve are f orced to say indeed that thery su .sequent age, mc . I . , , e warnmg gl. I d udmg our o\vn . usage was largely in vain, and that the ositive ven a r~a y by the biblical has been a largely if not wholl,' futile p . proclamatIon of Christian love of eros-love. As a proof of it/ sWlm~l1ng against the overWhelming flood s life from the end of the 2nd cePnOtwer, ero Ihnvaded even Christian thought and . ury, an d as been bl t ff d d efimte an. penetrations (sometimes with the c .a e 0 e ect very radical ChnstIans, but the more effectively wher th O~sClOUS help or connivance of mfluence). The caritas which the M'ddt Aere as been no awareness of its Augustine was a synthesis of b'bl' II e ges had learned decisively from '. I Ica agape and a t' . . · W h lch the antitheSIS between the two ct'll b n lque or hellemstlc eros in unequivocally, the tension havin cr bee;~ s I 1 edPercelved, but not in any sense results. This was inevitable ADs 1 arge y estroyed with all its beneficial ' . . ong as men lov h eh . nstJans they will always live within th f e, even tough they are to effect a synthesis between eros and a e ramewor~ of eros, and be disposed great and small to bring this about. gape. exerclsmg all their powers both . Hemnch Scholz (Eros und Caritas, I 2 ) ha S ". difference between platonic love and lov~ i; the su~ceeQed m bnnging out the sary plasticity and clarity (almost indeed in the ;~;lstJan sense with the necesway which compels to decision. The onl tro . m of a WOOd-cut), and in a historically by gathering Christian I y d uble IS that he confuses the reader ' . ove un er the d zz r an d b y bnngmg together as its exponents the Gos mg concept .of caritas, and Pascal. I also find it rather difficult t o f 11 pe s, Paul, AugustIne, Dante ~IS pr~sentation the platonic love practised e;cl~~ hIm when at .the climax of Chnstlan love in various women like D t ' B sIvely by men IS opposed by Sh tl an e s eatnce or y afterwards Anders Nygren wrote his bo k'E o ros und Agape, 193 0 and

d'

PIe

t

C.D. IV-2-2 4

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love 1937, and with eyes sharpened (perhaps over-sharpened) by the controversial theology of Sweden. and especially of Lund, he certainly saw the hlstorical contours more exactly, and was able critically to grasp and bring out the process of amalgamation between the two loves, and the inner contradiction in medIaeval cari/as. There is thus no real need to go back behind the work which he has done on this histon'. But it is another, and rather singular, matter that he has portrayed it as a history which reached its conclusion with Luther's destruction of the cari/as-svnthesis and reconstruction of agape"love. Is It not of the very essence of this 'history that the opposition can never be fully overcome? For this reason I prefer Scholz's book, in spite of its doubtful features. In Scholz, too, the material antithesis is clear enough. And he does not offer any triumphant ending in favour of agape, being obviously obhvious to the fact that all the ways of God can and must end with Luther. Hence the question raised by the (llsclosure of the antithesis is finally left to the reader, no attempt being made to satisfy and dismiss him with a strongly reasoned answer and solution: I might also whisper that I am finally more at home with Scholz because III hIm I thmk I see better practised that which in Nygren is (from the historical standpomt) more consistently and polemically set forth in words-the Christian love whIch does not assert itself but gives itself even in the person of the historical investigator and critic, That even the representatives of eros-love and the can/assynthesis are objects of Christian love is something which in my view is more forcefully brought out by Scholz than Nygren, and with it the ecumenical and missionary power of Christian love. We will now attempt to give some indication, in a few light strokes, of the form in which eros confronted and was perceived by the New Testament and later Septuagint-Judaism with their view of love, Who and what was this eros? What was the experience, and action, of the one who loved III thIS erobc fashion? This is the form which our question must first as·sume. \'Ve are asking concerning a definite experience and practice. In its origin in Orphism and its myth and mysticism eros was something far more than the philosophical concept which was first and unforgettably introduced into Western thought by Plato. Eros was a doctrine of redemption and salvation claiming to be revealed, and believed and proclaimed as such. Indeed, it was an experienced actuality of redemption and salvation which found expression both in solemn rites and everyday practice. As such, and hence not unlike Christian agap~, ~t could and inevitably did stand in direct opposition to the latter, rousIllg III Its advocates the critical concern so stJikingly illustrated by the consistent elimination of the term eros, As such it could also provoke the questIOn, WhICh was often to be given a positive answer, whether eros and agape were not intrinsically comparable and combinable realities, and even at bottom one and the same reahty-a VIew which was first explicitly held by Origen. In the actuality of eros, and its varied literature, edifying, poetic or dialectical, mythological or rational, it is always a matter of man, his limitation and its meaning and removal, his existence and transcendence, his need and hope. More precisely, it is always a matter of man hovering but in some sense moving upwards between a lower world and a higher, a world of darkness and a world of light. It is a matter of the experience and practice of this twofold reality. As it is seen and portrayed, this reality consists in his inalienable want and the desIre whIch It kmdles, or m hIS mahenable desIre and the want to which it gives rise, as the very essence of this central position, This position is necessarily that of want and desire because it is the centre between his below and above, between his proper and improper being, between hIS fulness and emptiness, between his being in disintegration and in reintegration with himself. Eros is the experienced and self-attained turning from his being down below in darkness and return to his being up above in light. Eros is the power and act in which he must lose himself on the one hand to find himself again on the uther. And so eros is a hypostatised form of man himself in this central

1.

The Problem of Christian Love

739

position and the movement~~the turning from and to,~,which is commensurate with it. As this hypostasis of man himself, the (Lemon of man, powerful and manifest in him and known and expressed by him, eros is understood as a, and finally the, metaphysical link ("'fTagU) between the world of appearance and the world of reality, as the sum of the movement from the one to the other. It was explained along these lines by Aristotle, who in this respect was more consistent than Plato. As he saw it, it is not merely an anthropological but a cosmological principle. It is the impube in the power of which---at this point the concept of eros verges on that of entelechy-not merely psychic individuals but all cosmic elements, even the lower and higher physical bodies, strive after form in their materiality, actuality in their potentiality and the unmoved One in their movement and plurality, thus seeking their normal state, and being engaged in a universal dissolution and ascent. Plato was more restrained in his depiction of this great turning away and return, confining his gaze to the seizure and exercise of power by eros in man. Un his view, in the visible eidola of transitory things and their relative values, there encounters man, not in visible form but perceptible to the enlightened eye, the eidos, the absolute value of that which immutably is, the beautiful, by which he is both attracted and impelled and therefore set in movement. How can he tarry with the eidola without being forced to flee them at once in the direction of the eidos? It is only for the sake of the eidos that he can love the eidola. But again, how can he flee them for the sake of the eidos without being forced to tarry with the eidola which have a distinct part in the beauty of the eidos? For its sake he may and must love them too. Plotinus brought out very strongly the religious significance of the eros-actuality, although here again we see affinities with originally platonic notions. His main contribution was to expand the theory to the point of maintaining that there is a departure of the soul from the higher world prior to its ascent from the lower, or an emanation of the soul from the deity prior to its return from the world, so that the want and desire, the turning from and to, the being in vacillation between world-denial and world-affirmation, can be described as a homecoming, as a return of the soul to its origin and therefore to itself-an innovation which merely serves to reveal the circular movement to which the practice and theory of the eros-actuality were exposed from the very outset. It is the actuality of the man who in his relationship to being both visible and invisible, and finally in his relationship to the Godhead, is engaged in realising his own entelechy, i.e" in needing and therefore in seeking, desiring and successfully finding and enjoying himself in his particularity, As he knows and approves and takes himself seriously in this actuality, as he presupposes himself in this form, he orders and understands the process of his life, and therefore loves. This was the Epav and
740

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love

important a matter in the sphere of Christian. nor finally the necessity of thinking and speaking of Christian love in a restrained and sober manner, I.e., on the basis of its own presuppositions, and therefore not 111 the schema of the actuality and doctrine of eros, and therefore not along orphic, platonic, aristotelian or neo-platonic lines. We have to do here with an opp:ment whom we must estimate at his true stature, and whom we can fully appraIse as an opponent only If we do so.

We cannot be content, however, merely to state that there is a difference and antithesis between Christian and every other love. As we bring this introduction to a close we will thus. turn to the question at what point and in what sense the two loves diverge. Unless we do this we cannot understand their relationship and antithesis, nor can we understand either eros on the one side or agape on the other. But to ask concerning this critical point is to ask concerning a common place from which they both come. We cannot ask concerning a place where they can be seen together and understood as components, as partial forms and aspects, of one and the same reality, and therefore in the last resort as one. The question of an original point of identity necessarily involves that of a synthesis, compelling to a new identification which eros as well as agape (being what they are both in actuality and conception) must very definitely resist. Yet we can and must ask concerning the point from which they both come in their true nature and can therefore be seen in full antithesis. We can and must ask co~cerning the point from which they cannot possibly co-exist in compromise or mutual tolerance, but only in the history of t~eir controversy. We cannot fathom this matter unless we put thIS questIOn and make ~ome attempt to answer it. " We can compare two forms only when they have at least one quality in common. If this does not exist, there can be no comparison" (H. Scholz, op. cit., p. 47). This statement seems to be incontestable. The only point is that when we are speaking of the quality which eros and agape have m common I prefer not to speak, as Scholz does, of the point of coincidence of these two movements but of their point of departure. A. Nygren, on the other hand, assumes frdm the very outset, when he first takes up and describes the problem, that we have to do with two things which cannot be compared at all. Eros and agape (op. cit., Vol. I, p. 14 f.) are two phenomena which" originally have nothing whatever to do with one another," but between which there can be only "the chasm of an origin.al lack of relationship:" U. von WilamowitzMoellendorf is cited as the leadmg witness for thIS baSIC assertIOn-hIs eVIdence being to the effect that Paul knew nothing of eros and Plato nothing of agape. When this is decided a priori, Nygren himself can ask what reason there IS for a comparison. "Is there not something arbitrary and therefore meaningless i~ a comparison of two phenomena whIch rest on so very dIfferent presupposItions. We may justly ask whether the correct answer to the question of the relationship between eros and agape in this sense (Nygren means as hlstoncal forms) IS not necessarily that there is absolutely no relationship between them at all." This is perfectly true if his prior decision is true. It is a matter for surpnse, however, that he seems to think he can give another answer when he works back from the historical forms to the " basic ethico-religious forms which underlie the two," finding here a relationship in the very antithesis between them. This is true in

1.

The Problem of Christian Love

74 1

~,ubstance. . B~t it is no real answer to the question. For what is meant by relatIOnshIp, and how can It be thought of 111 terms of antithesis, when the two partners in this mutual relationship and antithesis are absolutely unrelated and cannot theref.ore be compared-which is the consistent assertion of Nygren on the presupposItions of the theology of Lund with its strangely manichean tendencies? Is It enough merely to wnnkle our brows and dismiss it as an unfortunate circumstance that in English as in German (and presumably in Swedi~,h) we"suffer from the same poverty as Hebrew. and have only the one wor~ love to denote both eros and agape? Does thIs mean only that we are reqUIred to make the most speedy and energetic distinction possible between eros and agape.? Is it not also an indication that we are perhaps required to consIder what IS possIbly the one quahty that the two have in common, and thus to inquire at what point and in what sense they divide? Unless we answer this question, will it not be quite impossible to make clear historically how it comes about that eros and agape can and do continually replace and efface one another, or how agape can prevent itself from being hemmed in by eros as it :nanaged to do in New Testament Christianity and again (as Nygren believes) 111 ~uther after the. long regime of the caritas-synthesis? What was and is really at Issue m thIs antithesIs? Can we take It senously even in substance if we are so afraid that an answer to the question will result in a levelling down that we refuse to consider either the point at which or the manner in which the antithesis arises, being unwilling to do more than assert the existence of the cleft or chasm between them? If it is really God who rules the world and not the devil does not every abyss-without ceasing to be such, and as such to be dange;oushave a bottom somewhere ?

An obvious answer, and one which is not without real content is that on both. sides-whethe~ we are thinking of eros or agape---":'we have to do WIth man, and WIth one and the selfsame man in the case of the Christian. It is man who loves either in the one way or the other, or in both ways in the Christian conflict between the two. However sharply we may see and define the difference there is no question of the love of two different beings, or even of'different individuals when we are dealing with Christians. In this very different and even antithetical determination, direction and form we have to do with the same human being. It is always man who encounters us in the two forms. This does not mean, in the case of either determination, that the two are peculiar to or inherent and grounded in the nature of man. We can say this neither of eros nor agape. Neither the one nor the other rests on a possibility of human nature as such. Neither the one nor the other is a perfection of human nature achieved or to be achieved in the actualisation of such a possibility. We can only say a~d n,tust say-a~d ,:,,"e now take a second step-that they are both hIstoncal determmatIOns of human nature. It is the same human nature which, as man loves in one way or the other, shows itself to be capable of this or that form of love, not with a capacity which is pr0'pe~ to it, l:>ut with one which .is (shall we say) generally contingent to 1.t, l.e., whIch comes upon it, m the history and existence of man. It IS merely the case that man does actually express himself in the form of eros or agape or (in the case of the Christian) the two in

74 2

§ 6i'. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love

contradiction; and that to this extent (in view of the fact that he actually does so) he can express himself in. this way. It is merely the case that man does always encounter us m these two forms of love, and to this extent in the corresponding forms of his nature. He does so in a definite expression of his nature-this is the third step that we have to take. What actually comes upon him as. the ?ne who loves in the one way or the other is a distinct and even antlthetIcal determination and direction of the act in which he himself, existing as the man he is, gives expression to his nature in its totality. H. Scholz (op. cit., p. 46) speaks at this point of an attitude of mind. 1 myself would rather avoid the idea of a purely mward and abstractly spmtual affection and disposition whIch possIbly, If not necessanly, lurks behmd thIS expression; and the danger that it might perhaps obscure the fact that m thc case of either love we have to do WIth an actIOn on the part of man. In both cases, therefore, I prefer to speak of the act in which man expresses himself,. in which he exists in his essence; and in both cases as the whole man, expressmg himself in the totality of his nature.

Neither in eros nor agape therefore-this is the fourth step-can there be any question of an alteration. of human nature. Whet~er he loves in the one way or the other he IS the same man engaged m the expression of the same human nature. W~at c?mes upon him .in his history, in the fulfilment of his self-expr~sslOn, IS the fact t~at 1~ the two cases he is the same man in very dIfferent ways. As m nelther case God ceases to be the Creator, in neither case does man cease to be the creature that God willed and posited when He made him a man with the structure of human nature. Whatever form the history of m'an may take, there is broken neither the continuity of the divine will for ma~ nor that of the nature which man is given by God. And although this may be seen in very different ways in th~ tW? forms of his loving, it can be seen in both of them. The only thmg .IS t~at the human act is very different in the two cases. The only thmg IS that, as man loves in one way or the other, it comes upon him that the one unchangeable, perennial human nature is put by him t~ a very different use and given a very different character. The basIs of the difference is not to be found in itself (so that it cannot be explained in terms of itself or deduced from itself), but in its historical determination. Concerning this difference in the use and character of human nature in eros-love on the one hand and agape-love on the other, we have first to make-the fifth step-a formal statement. 'vVe can and must speak of the difference of the new thing (in relation to human nature) which, as a matter of historical fact, overtakes or comes on man as he loves in the one form or the other. Without being groumled in his nature, this act of love takes place in a distinctive relationship to it, to that which makes him a man. This is not by a long way the whole of what has to be said about this love. Our present inquiry concern~

1.

The Problem of Christian Love

743 only the common point of departure where comparison is possible, and at once becomes impossible, between the two ways of loving. The common point of departure consists in the fact that they both take place in relationship to the human nature chosen and willed and posited and ordered by God. They are both new in relation to this human nature, but they both take place in connexion with it. They are together in this relationship, and therefore comparison is possible. But they diverge in it, and therefore comparison becomes utterly impossible. The decisive statement must be ventured-decisive for the distinction-that agape-love takes place in correspondence and eroslove in contradiction to this nature; the one as its" analogue" and the other as its "catalogue"; the one as man does that which is right in relation to it, and the other as he does that which is not right in relation to it. Agape-love takes place in affinity, eros-love in opposition, to human nature. As we see, they both take place in relationship to it (and in this they can be compared). But in the one case the relationship is positive, in the other negative (so that they cannot be compared). In this antithetical use and character, in which the one unchanging human nature takes on form but which differ as Yes and No, being related only in respect of their object, eros and agape go their divergent ways. This formal statement requires material clarification and substantiation in two directions which demand attention in this question. Our starting-point for a sixth step is that it is essential, natural and original to man, that it belongs to his very structure as this particular creature of God, to be with God, who is His Creator and Lord, as with his eternal Counterpart: deriving wholly from this God, participating from the very first and in all circumstances (as His elect) in His preservation and effective help, and being sheltered absolutely by Him and in Him; and moving wholly towards Him, thanking Him (as the one who is called by Him), in responsibility before Him and obedience to Him, calling uppn His name. From this vertical standpoint, as it were, the very nature and essence of man is to be freed by and for this God; to be engaged in the act of this twofold freedom (d. C.D., III, 2, § 44, 3). Man cannot escape or destroy or lose or alter the fact that it is only in this that he is truly and naturally and essentially a man. But in the life-act of every man (both as a whole and in detail) it is decided whether and to what extent, in relationship to that which he really is in his togetherness with God, he is true or untrue, in correspondence or contradiction, to himself (from this standpoint his being from God and to God). It is in this decision that there arises the new thing either of his agape-love in which he corresponds to his being from and to God or of his eros-love in which he contradicts it. In this respect agape-love consists in the fact that he accepts God as his eternal Counterpart, and therefore his own being as that of one who is elected by this God, being absolutely sheltered by His preservation

744

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love

and help, but who is also called by Him to thanksgiving, responsibility, obedience and prayer. It consists in the fact that he is determined and ready to live from and to God to the best of his knowledge and capacity: not raising any claim; not trying to control God; not with the ulterior motive of winning God for himself or demanding anything from Him; but simply because He is God, and as such worthy to be loved. Agape consists in the orientation of human nature on God in a movement which does not merely express it but means that it is transcended, since in it man gives himself up to be genuinely freed by and for God, and therefore to be free from self-concern and free for the service of God. Eros-love consists in this respect in the new thing (which is absurd in relation to human nature) t~at man shuts off himself against this freedom. In it he prefers a bemg from and by and in and for himself to togetherness with God as his eternal Counterpart, and makes God the origin of this self-inflated and selfenclosed being. In it he thus fabricates his God out of the compulsion and impulsion to this being, and t~erefore his own .caprice. ~n the name of this reflection he chooses hImself as the basIs from WhICh he comes, and therefore accepts the whole burden and responsibility for his help and preservation, for the securing and sheltering of his being. He also makes himself his goal, and therefore finds no place for thanksgiving, responsibility, obedi.ence and c~~ing upon God, bu.t tr~nspo~es them into a desire and longmg and stnvmg and transcendmg III whIch he spreads himself with some degree of coarse or refined appetite and more or less skill and consistency in the sensual and spiritual world, using it and making it serviceable to himself, as his environ?lent, as that which satisfies his needs, as a place to sow and reap, as hIS sphere of work, or it may be only as his gymnasium and playground. Eros is love which is wholly claim, wholly the desire to control, wholly the actual attempt to control, in relation to God. This is inevitable, seeing it is the love in which the one who loves and the object of love are one and the same, so that from first to last it is self-love. In both cases we are dealing with love, even with the love of God, although in verv different senses. In both cases it is love in relation to that which "is essential to man, to that which is peculiar to him in his nature as it is formed and fashioned by God. The difference is that agape (irrespective of its. stren?th or wea~ness) . correspond~ to .this nature, and eros (irrespectIve of ItS form or mtenslty) contradIcts It. The one transcends it; the other falls short of it. It will always be the case in practice that human ~ature orient.ated on Go~, and there~ore agape as its correspondence, wIll be recogmsable even m the negatIve of the most radical form of the contradiction and therefore of eros; and on the other hand that the most perfect form of the correspondence, and therefore agape, will reflect to some extent the contradiction, and therefore eros, in and with human nature. Yet the distinction, and the necessity of deciding, between them is perfectly clear from that which

1.

The Problem of Christian Love

745 they have conceptually in common, and in the way in which they accompany one another in practice. The starting-point for a seventh and final step is that it is essential and natural to man not only to be with God but also, on the horizontal level and in analogy with this togetherness with God, to be with his fellow-man: not in isolation; not in opposition or neutrality to this other; not united with him in a subsequent relationship; but bound to him basically and from the very first; directed, that is, to the I-Thou encounter, in which there can be no I without the Thou no m.an without the f:llow-man, any more than there can be any ~an ~Ithout God. He I~ a man as he se~s the other man and is seen by hIm; as he hears hIm and speaks wIth him; as he assists him and receives his assistance. He is a man as he is free to do this; as he can be a comrade and companion and fellow to the other, not under constraint, but voluntarily (d. C.D., III, 2, § 45, 2). In this respect too the nature of man is immutable, quite independently of his history. But in this respect too, in indissoluble relationship with his decision in the connexion with God, it is decided in the history and life-act of man whether and how far he is true or untrue, in correspondence or contradiction, to his nature, to his humanity in this special sense, and therefore to himself. And in this connexion too agape means correspondence and eros contradiction. In agape-love the essential fellowhumanity of man is respected. For the one who loves in this way there can be no opposition or neutrality in relation to the other. In his l?ve there takes place the :ncounter of I and Thou, the open perceptIOn of the other and self-dIsclosure to him, conversation with him, the offering and receiving of assistance, and all this with joy. In this respect too the real man is at work in agape, not merely expressing but transcending his nature. In this respect too agape means selfgivin~: not the losing of oneself in the other, which would bring us back mto the sphere of eros; but identification with his interests in utter independence of the question of his attractiveness, of what he has to offer, of the reciprocity of the relationship, or repayment in the form of a similar self-giving. In agape-love a man gives himself to the other with no expectation of a return, in a pure venture, even at the risk of ingratitude, of his refusal to make a response of love, wuich would be a denial of his humanity. He loves the other because he is this other, his brother. But as the one who loves in this way sees a brother in his fellow, and treats him as such, he also honours him as a man. While agape transcends humanity, the man who loves in this way is genuinely human; he gives a true expression to human nature; he IS a real man. The same cannot be said of eros-love. In most cases this does, of course, consist in an address to one's fellow, and perhaps with considerable warmth and intensity. But as in relation to God so also to his fellow, the man who loves erotically is not really thinking of the other but of himself. His fellow is envisaged only as an expected

746

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love

increase and gain for his own existence, as an acquisition, a booty, a prey, to be used by him in the pursuance of some purpose. In these circumstances how can he really be a comrade, compamon and fellow? How can he see him openly, or disclose himself to him? How can he enter into honest conversation with him? How can he assist him and receive his assistance? It is only in semblance and not in truth that the one who loves erotically is well-disposed to him. As he grasps at him he has already let him fall and rejected him. And it is inevitable that sooner or later he will do this openly. In the duality apparently sought and found by the one who loves. eroti.cally th:re lurks the isolation which he has never really left and m whIch he WIll finally remain. Erotic love is a denial of humanity. To be sure, it is love; love for man; an action in relationship, in this relationship, to hur:nanity. Hence humanity and to that ~xten~ agape may be neg~tlvely seen in it, and it may be confessed m thIS perverted form; Just as agape-love as the act of man in his human nature is never so. pu e .as 7 not to betray in some way the proximity of the eros-love whIch IS Its opposite. Yet the two love~ are still di~erent-basically ~ifferent in their relationship to humamty. And smce they have thIS common point of departure from which they both come, it will always be the case that man can onlv choose between eros and agape. The problem of Christian love had to be develop~d with this attempted clarification of its relationship to that· very dIfferent love. This was essential, and its antithesis to that different love had to be clearly stated. Occasionally we shal~ have ~o .touch on it ag~in in what we have to say further concermng Chnstlan love. But It can have thematic significance only in this introduction.. Christian. l?ve lives in this antithesis, but not by it. And a presentatIOn of Chnstlan love cannot live by this antithesis, or be confined to a ~evelo~ment of this problem. "Love envieth not; love :aunt.eth ~ot Itsel~, IS not puffed up" (I Cor. 13 4)-even in its. relatlOnship WIth erotl: love. How it disavows itself if it regards it as ItS only greatness to be dIfferent from this love not to be " as this publican," to nourish itself constantly on thi~ opposition! It is a strangely lo:el~ss l?:e which ~s content with that. Above all, it does not need to mSIst ngldly on tlus antithesis. As we have seen, it comes from human nature, like that other love. But it does not have its basis in it. It does not derive from it-any more than that other love. .Hence ~ros-Io:e. is .not a kind of twin sister whom it would have reJected, If possIble, m the nature of man as their common womb, and with whom it must necessarily be in conflict to maintain itself as Chris~ian. On ~he ~on.trary, it is a new thing in face of human nature. It IS not pOSIted mIt.. It is a contingent occurrence in relation to it. It merely happens to man as he loves in this sense. Even of that other love we have to say that it is not posited in human nature, but takes place c~ntingently and in relation to it. But how different the two loves are m the way

1.

The Problem of Christian Love

747

in which they come to man! The difference is not merely that the one, as. we ~ave seen, corresponds to human nature and the other contradlc~s. It. T.he primary and decisive difference-and here we m~s~ antlClpate-is t~at it is in the quickening power of the Holy Spmt, and therefore m a new act of God who is man's Creator and Lord,. that in his !ife-act and individual actions a man can actually love .m the Chnstlan sens~ and thus be a true man in this positive :vay, ~hereas the new thmg about eros-love can consist only in the mc?nceI.vable and abs~rd and materially impossible fact that man arbitranly e~tangles hImself in a contradiction of his own creaturely nature, of hlms.el~, and therefore of God and his neighbour. This mean.s that Chnstlan love-and the seriousness of the antithesis and seventy of the conflict between it and eros-love must not conceal or cause us to overlook the fact-does not have in the latter a kind of equ~l p.artner, but sta~ds to it, i~ spit.e of all its pretence and posturing of.dIgmty and power, m a relatIOnshIp of absolute and radical superi?nty. How. can t~ere be any equality between the agape-love which IS g~ounded In Go~ s. Yes and th: eros-love which is grounded in man's No. Where Chnstlan lo,:,e anses, the other can only sink to the ground. ~hen the s~n arIses, the shadows and mists in the valleys can only. yIeld and dIsperse. Hence Christian love does not need to n:easure Itself by eros-love, or to find strength and satisfaction in its ~I~erence from ~t. It l,ives its own life as the love which is true because It IS gro~nded. In ~od s love for man and not in man's self-love. It ~oes so ~n antlthe~Is to that other. But it does so as the love which IS supen0 7 ~nd tnur:tphant in this antithesis. It is not, therefore, forced to mSIst on thIS antithesis. I say this in face of the rigidity with which A. Nygren constantly underlines the antitheSIS between eros and agape. But I say it also in face of S. Kierkegaard's stImulatmg exposition of the" life and rule of love." If only the final impression left by thiS book were not that of the detective skill with which non-Christian love IS tracked down to its last hiding-place, examined, shown to be worthless and haled before the judge! If only it were not so rarely that in its preaching of the Law and JUdgme~t we come across profound and beautiful reflections on the ChnstIan love which IS so relentlessly marked off from its opposite! \Ve must be grateful for the preCISIOn With which this distinction is made, for we ourselves have Fist been trymg to make clear the merciless severity of the antithesis. But It IS dlsturbmg to see from the example of Kierkegaard how easily reflection on thiS antitheSIS can be deflected from Christian love and find itself rivetted even by way of oppOSitIOn (and the more firmly because inimically) to erotic love.. It IS even more dlsturbmg to see how easily in reflection and discussion of thiS aspect pure zeal can result in a disregard or obscuration of the fact that Chnstlan and this other love do not finally confront each other in equal dign't and power (or unequal in favour of the latter), but that in agape we have\~ do. With a supenor and tnumphant human action, and in eros with one which IS mfenor and already routed-and this for the simple reason that the former has Its baSI? m the good bemg and action of God, and the latter in the corruption of n;an. I-or all our a,cnteness of definition, are we not perhaps speaking of somethlllg other than Chnstlan love (perhaps of the el'os with which we think

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love we can lay hold of agape 1), so long as we oppose the love which lives by God's grace to human and sinful love only in the final form of Law, of the sum of a demand, and not primarily and ultimately and decisively as the Gospel of the kingdom and lordship of God?

We will establish and explain this in what follows. But is not this a primary insight upon which we can and must and should agree? Since agape is from God-as we shall see in the next sub-section-and eros from self-contradictory man, is it not one of the things which make comparison impossible that the former is absolutely superior to the latter, not only in dignity, but also in power? Eros can only flee and perish and cease, and with it the whole world which is dominated and impelled and built up and characterised by it. But love, agape, never fails (1 Cor. 13 8). With that which issues from it (as it does from God), it is imperishable even in the midst of a world which perishes. For this reason, our final word can and must be conciliatory as we look back on our development of the problem of Christian love and therefore of its antithesis to eros. There can be no question of mediation, or of a weakening of the antithesis. But we can speak a word of reconciliation, not in respect of eros, but in respect of erotic man contradicting himself and shunning and opposing God and his neighbour. Agape cannot change into eros, or eros into agape. The one love cannot, then, be interpreted as the other. But if this is impossible, it is even more impossible that God should change into, or be interpreted as, another God who is no longer the God of man, even of the man who loves erotically; and that this man should cease to be man, and therefore the creature elected and willed and fashioned by God, and therefore in the hands of God even in his corruption. But if he is in the hands of God, even erotic man must and will be affirmed in and with the love which is from God-Christian love. His erotic love will not be affirmed. But he himself will be affirmed as the man which he does not cease to be even as he loves erotically-Gad's man. And this affirmation proclaims his reconciliation; the fact that God has loved, and loves, and will love even him. How can we love as Christians if we forget this, if we do not hold out this affirmation, this proclamation, even to the one who loves erotically? How we judge ourselves -for we, too, love erotically--if we withhold this affirmation from the heathen who in contrast know no other love! But if we love as Christians, and therefore with the love which is from God, and therefore in self-giving to God and our fellows, then in respect of the man who loves erotically our love must consist wholly and utterly in this affirmation: in the declaration that he, too, is loved by God and therefore in His hands; that overlooking his erotic love God in His genuine, non-self-seeking love is the One who in His self-giving wills to be God only as his God, God for him, and to be majestic, all-powerful and glorious as such. If Christian love does not make this declaration to

I.

The Problem of Christian Love

749

t~he non-Christian,. it is ~ot Christian love. It stops where the love of God, from ~h1ch 1t aenves, does not stop. And in so doing it parts company w1th the love of God. If a Christian believes, as he can and should, that he himsel~ is not separated from the love of God by the fact that he loves erotIcally, he cannot refuse this declaration to the fellow-man whom he thinks he sees wholly entangled in the bands of eros-love. .. The concrete content of this declaration, and therefore of the conClh~tory. word with which we must close our consideration of the antitheSIS between agape and eros, is to the effect that God simply esp~uses the caus~ of man, and therefore even the man who loves erotlcally. But thIS means that he understands him-far better than he understands himself. He cares for him-far better than he cares or ca~ care, for himself. This is how it is when he calls him out of ~he kll1gdom of ero~ ~nd into the kingdom of His love, which consists 111. t~e act o.f self-glV1I1g and not in a campaign of aggression. And thIS IS how It must be between the Christian and the non-Christian' the man. who loves erotically. It is. not a question of subjecting ma~ to an allen, cold and gloomy law, 111 the following of which he will be afraid of falling short, and can expect only to be invaded and disarmed and o~pressed an~ destroyed, so that he has every reason to t~y ~o ev~de It. There IS no reason for this. For it is a matter of ~IS liberatlOn wh.en God lo.v~s h~m-even him-in spite of his corruptIon,. and calls hIm ~o decislOn 111 favour of agape against eros. This cal~ IS a message of hght and not darkness, of promise and not threat of J?y and ;lOt sorrow. What is it, then, that the man who love~ erotIcally WIlls and desires and seeks and strives after? What is it ~hat ~e would achieve and maintain? We have seen that in the circle 111 whlCh he .tu.rus to the natural and spiritual world, to God and his fel~ow-man, It IS fi~st and last himself. May he not, then, be himself ? ~Ill God. refuse hIm this? Can the God who has created him as he IS refuse. It? Most certainly not. The truth is that he can never in all etermty fi~d himself, his being as this self in the world before God and amon.g !tIS fellows,. but, chasing his own shadow, can and will only lose It ~n all etermty, so long as he tries to will and desire and seek an? stn:ve after and achieve and maintain himself as the erotic mar: ~h1l1ks It .necessary to do. The love which is from God, the ~hnstI~n love 111 -:hich man can respond to the love of God, is his hberatlOn fr?m ~hIS supposed necessity, his dispensation from this fo~ward-se~k1l1g ~n need and desire, his release from the obligation of thIS c~ase 111 whIch he is both the hunter and the hunted and which for th.IS. reason can only be utterly futile. Man can cease from this self-wI1l1l1g, and therefore from all the frenzied activity in which he ~an see~, ?et never find, but only lose himself. For if the only mean1I1g of. hfe IS .that. man ~ust seek himself to find himself, he can only lose hImself 111 thIS seek1l1g, and life is meaningless. Christian love is

75 0

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love

his deliverance because the one who loves as a Christian gives up trying to save himself, to be his own deliverer. In Christian love a man can finallv leave that circle of destruction, which is in the true sense a vicious "circle. And not become himself? Quite the contrary! It is only in this way that he can and will become himself. To renounce that seeking, to leave that circle, is indeed a conditio sine qua non of Christian love. But positively this love is man's self-giving to God (not for what He can give, nor for the sake of some purpose that can be achieved with His help, but for God Himself), and his self-giving to his fellow (again, not for what he can give, nor for the sake of some purpose, but for the man himself). As this self~giving, the Christian love which is from God is man's response to God's own love. It is in this way that God loves man. He does not seek Himself, let alone anything for Himself, but simply man, man as he is and as such, man himself. And God does not in any sense fall short of Himself when He loves in this way. In this self-giving to man He is God in all His freedom and glory. If the love of man, as his response to the fact that God loves him in this way, itself consists in his self-giving, this certainly means that there can be no more self-love, no more desiring and seeking the freedom and glory of the self. But why, and how far, is this really the case? Simply because he has already found himself in great freedom and glory. What he cannot win by desiring and seeking, he has already attained, not in the power of his renunciation, but in the power of the self-giving in which he may respond to the love of God. He himself is the one who is loved by God. He himself is the one to whom God has given Himself in His Son, and gives Himself as He gives him His Holy Spirit. He is cut off from eros-love, and taken out of that circle, by the fact that, loving as a Christian, he is already at the place which he was vainly trying to reach in the Icarus-flight and self-assertion of eros-love. There is no further point in erotic love. Eros is made superfluous by the agape in which man may find himself and therefore has no more need to seek himself. He himself discovers himself to be secure in his response to the love of God. It is obviolls that at this point a second and theoretically more dangerous aberration would be worse than the first. I cannot try to love as a Christian in order to attain the goal and end which escapes me as one who loves erotically. An ttt finale necessarily means a relapse into eros-love. The only valid ttt is the radiant ttt consecutivum. But this is indeed valid, and it makes any such relapse quite impossible. For in Christian love I am already at the goal. I have found myself, and cannot therefore lose myself by trying to love as a Christian III order to come to myself.

I have only to love continually as a Christian, and therefore without regard or purpose for myself, in self-giving to God and my fellows, and I will come to myself and be myself. This is what we are told in the saying in Mk. 835 , which speaks about the saving and losing and the

2.

The Basis of Love

75 1

losing and saving of life; and also in the saying in M1. 6 which tells us that if we seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness all other things are added to us. These sayings are not Law but Gospel. They describe the agape which conquers eros by making it pointless and superfluous. They describe the man who loves as a Christian as already at the goal which the man who loves erotically-poor dupewants to reach but never can or will reach in erotic love. They make no demand. They take nothing away. They do not blame or judge. They merely show him that he is understood and accepted and received by God-not his erotic love, but he himself. He may save himself and find himself and be himself. But this is something which is given, which comes, as he loses his life, as he renounces his whole self-seeking -" for my sake and the Gospel's "-so that he is saved and has found himself already. This is the concrete content of the declaration which the man who loves as a Christian owes to the other who does not seem to do so. It is with this declaration that the Christian encounters the heathen. It is this that he may-and only this that he can-say to himself, seeing that he too loves with erotic as well as Christian love and is to that extent a heathen. He encounters others as one who holds to this truth and lives joyfully in this conquest of eros by agape. In his very existence, then, he speaks the reconciling word in this antithesis. He does not merely discuss the problem of Christian love. He also lives it. And he lives it as it is meant to be lived, and in the last resort can only be lived. 33 ,

2.

THE BASIS OF LOVE

We could not expound the problem of Christian love without touching finally on the theme to which we must now give specific attention -that of its basis. In the explanation of love the question of its basis has the same function as that of the object in the explanation of faith. The Christian believes in, and it is from this in, from the description of that which encounters him as a believer, of that which he is given and receives and apprehends in faith, that there proceeds (d. C.D., IV, I, § 63) everything that has to be thought and said in the definition of the act of the Christian life as the act of faith. But the Christian loves because, and it is as he is confronted and impelled by this definite basis that there takes place his self-giving. vVe might substitute the word "origin" for" basis." But" origin" can easily give rise to the idea of an identity between what takes place where the Christian act derives and is set in Illotion and what takes place in and with the act itself; the idea of a stream in which the same self-giving takes place at two different points. But this understanding is very wide of the mark. There is a strict and conditioning connexion and similarity between what takes place at

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love

7J the two points, and the Bible uses the same word" love" to describe both of them, But the fact that there is similarity does not mean that there IS Identity. The first and evocative love is not the same as the love which is evoked. The relationship between them is that of a word and answer, of p~rmission an~ the use made of it, of command and obedience; not of the begmnmg and contmuahan of one and the same movement. In order not to obscure thIS dIfference, it is better to use the term" basis," which preserves the distance between the two. At the climax of his book Eros und Agape (Vol. II, p. 555 f.), A. Nygren has the following train of thought under the heading: "The Ch.ristian as the Cha~nel of God's Downstreaming Love." Not man, but God HauseH, IS the subl ect of Christian love. But He is so in such a way that divin~ love uses the ~hristian as its tool and instrument. The Christian receives the love of God m faIth, and in love he passes it on to his neighbour. Christian love is " as it were a continuation and prolongation of the love of God." It is thus" through and throurrh a divine work." It is the view of Luther (W.A., 10', I, 100, 9) that the Christian is set between God and his neighbour as an " instrument" ". which receives from above and gives out below, like a vessel or pipe through WhICh the stream of divine bounty should flow unceasingly to others." Now, with due respect to Luther, this is the view which I must set aside at the very outset and carefully avoid in all my future dehberatlOns. Have webeen released from eros only to say the more pietistically about agape that whIch effaces all clear contours and destroys all healthy distances? It seems to me that If we are. to say anything really worth while at this point we must say much less than thIS. ~2

Love is a free action: the self-giving of one to another without interest intention or goal; the spontaneous self-giving of the one to the oth~r just because the other is there. and confronts him. .It .is not an action which has no ground or baSIS. The man engaged mIt, the Christian, exists as and because God is his basis, and has di~close.d Himself to him, and is known by him, as such. He loves on thIS baSIS in God as one who is called and impelled by God to do so by the fact that H~ has disclosed Himself and is known as the One who first loves, and first loves him, in the glory and majes~y of ~is divine esse~ce. It is for this reason, in response to the Word m Wh1C? God loves hlIJ.l ~nd tells him that He loves him, in correspondence to It, that th~ ChnstIan may and must and will also love. He does not do so as If he were himself God, or a second God. But he loves because God loves, and loves him' because he belongs to God; because he would not be a man with;ut God and without being related to Him; and because this is not concealed from him, but revealed in the love in which G~d has turned to him. He is called to follow as a man the movem~nt m which God Himself is engaged; to do as.a man, and the~e~ore m the form of a reflection or analogy, that whIch God does ~ngmally and properly. He does this as he loves-freely, and y~t not w.Ithout reason, but with good reason. This go?d ~round f?r hIS love m the love of God thus precedes his love, qUl~e 1rrespe~tIve .of whe.ther or not he follows, or of the perfection or 1mper~ectlOn w1~h which he ?oes s.o. It is there as an active summons. It IS not a SIlent and statIc baSIS, but an eloquent and dynamic. And it is. so in all t~e glor~ and majesty of the divine essence. It is so at all tImes and m all Circumstances,

2.

The Basis of Love

753

without waiting for response and correspondence on the part of man, or being referred to them. Even the greatest refusal of human love does not mean that this good reason will be withheld. There can be no cessation of its summons and impulsion. Man must and may always receive it. And he may always come back to the fact that God loves, and loves him, to find that he for his part is set in motion by this first and divine love, following it with his human love. Hence love (and we are thinking now of the act of Christian love) has a basis -a good and powerful basis-which determines and evokes and impels it, from which it derives and may and will always derive as a human action. This basis is the love of God whose omnipotently enlightening and impelling action it may follow, as a secondary love following the primary. But the more precise delimitation is inescapable that it never can or will precede the divine love. It never can or will begin of and with itself, or continue of itself. In both its inception and progress it stands in absolute need of this basis. In no element or form can it be a primary love, but only a secondary following the primary. It could not take place, or be maintained, apart from the summons and impulsion of the latter. For it is only the action of man confronted by God, whereas the latter is the action of God. Its dependence on this action does not violate its character as a spontaneous and responsible human action; its character as decision. God and man, the one as Creator and the other as His creature, do not exist on the same level. There is no rivalry between the divine freedom and the human. Thus the dependence of man's action on God's does not involve any weakening, alteration or finally destruction of its freedom and its character as decision. That human love is dependent on divine love means that in its very freedom it can take place only on the basis of the latter, as a human response to the \Vord spoken in the love of God. If God did not love originally and properly, and if He did not love man, how could there be any reflection or analogy of His love in the love of man? Man never can or will take the initiative in love. He can and will love only because God has first loved, and loves, him. And if he loves for this reason, and therefore secondarily, this does not mean-the relationship is irreversible-that there arises any dependence of the divine love on his love, or determination of the divine action by his action. The love of God is the basis for that of man, but the love of man is never a basis for that of God. The love of God always takes precedence. It always has the character of grace, and that of man the character of gratitude. There always remains a great difference in the order, nature and significance of divine and human love. The latter cannot repeat or represAnt the former. It cannot attain equality with it. It can only follow it and therefore be analogous to it. It can only correspond to it as a likeness and copy. Even in its highest forms human love always and in every respect needs to be

754

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love

called and impelled by the love of God. As love takes place from above, it can and may and must do so below, on the creaturely level which is the sphere of human sloth and the ensuing misery. But it is only as it takes place from above that this can and may and must be the case. The great saying of I Jn. 47-that " love is of God"is true in this sense. To control the positive and limiting assertion with which we have begun, it will be helpful to consider some of the statements made m the contex;, of thIS saying. In the same verse it serves as a basis for the exhortatIOn: . Let us love one another." How can the Christians addressed come to do thIs? In this passage we cannot explain the fact that they are called &.ya7r"T)To{ merely as a convention of rhetoric. Those who are exhorted to love are already loved (above all by God), and in respect of what they are to do they are urge~ and claimed on this basis. The fact that they are loved (and therefore the posslOlhty and necessity of the exhortation to mutual love) is established by the saying OTt ~ dya.7r"T) EK B£Ov EClTtV. In the context this means quite. concretely that t~e love to which I exhort you is " of God." Nothmg strange IS demanded by thIs exhortation, nor attained if it is fulfilled. The man who loves does so merely, but necessarily, because it comes to him" of God" to do so. As he loves, he testifies that this is the case; that he is " born of God," to use the later phrase; that he is a child who receives and takes of the fulness of his Father as he knows God to be his Father and himself to be His child, to whom there naturally belongs, and must therefore accrue, that which belongs to his Father. As against this, he who does not love (v. 8) bears witness to the terrible fact that he has not known God and therefore does not know and understand that God is love, and that what ~omes to him from God is again love. We will not introduce at this point the equation'; BEOS dya.7r"T) EClT{V, or its most. important, expa~sion in v. 9. But v. 10 is worth noting in the general explanatIOn of the EK BEOU whIch IS our present purpose: "Herein is IQve (EV TOIJTCjJ EClT'V,,~ &.ya.7r"T)), ~ot that we loved God but that he loved us." So, too, are v. II: Beloved, If God so loved us, we ~ught also to love one another," and v. 19: "We love him (~fLEtS &'ya7rWfLEv), because mhos 7rpWTOS ~ya.7r"T)ClEV ~fLas, he first loved us." (There is a clear parallel in I Cor. 8 3, where we are told that" if any man love God, the same IS known of him.") All these statements speak of divine and human love; of th~ priority of divine love; of the determination of human love by dlvme; of the IrreversIbility of the relationship; but also of the necessity with which it comes about " of God," in virtue of the precedence of HIS love, that there follows a corresp0T;Jding human love. No one can love except" of God," in ;:Irtue of ~he precedmg love of God as one who is already loved by HIm. But of God, m vIrtue of the precedi~g love of God, as one who is already loved by Him, man too can and may and must and will love.

In order that the basis of love (our love) may be established conceptually, as is only proper in dogmatic~, we n:ust b~gin our description of it in the transcendent sphere where It has Its pnmary and ultImate foundation, namely, in the being and nature of God Hims.elf. -r: he authority with which God calls us to love, and t~e po,:er ~Ith whIch He impels us to do so, have a specific force. ThIS conSIsts III the fa~t that they are the authority and power of the One who does not beglll to love only when He loves us, but who love~ i~ the very fact t~at He is and is in the very fact that He loves. ThIS IS what gIves we~ght to the love with which He loves us and the Word and act by which He

2.

The Basis of Love

755

impels us to love in return (d. CD., II, I, § 28, 2). Even in Himself God is God only as One who loves. In this respect there is a real element of truth in the popular German designation recently suspected and decried by stricter theologians. God is per se " der liebe Gatt." We say of Him, of His divine being and essence, of God Himself, that which it is possible and right and necessary and true to say-and we say it without making the reservation that our knowledge is limited, and thus toying with the question whether deep down, in a secret basis of His Godhead, He may not be very different-when we say that He is the One who loves in the freedom of His divine being, or that He loves and in this way exercises the freedom of His divine being. The statements " God is " and " God loves" are synonymous. They explain and confirm one another. It is in this way, in this identity of being and love, that God reveals Himself to us as He loves us. He reveals Himself as the One who, even though He did not love us and were not revealed to us, even though we did not exist at all, still loves in and for Himself as surely as He is and is God; who loves us by reason and in consequence of the fact that He is the One who loves in His freedom in and for Himself, and is God as such. It is only of God that it can be said that He is in the fact that He loves and loves in the fact that He is. The same cannot be said of the Christianeven the perfect Christian-who is only a creature summoned and impelled to love by the love of God. But it must be said of God. And it means that God loves, and that in the fact that He does so He is the origin and sum of all true being and therefore of all true good; the summum esse as the summum bonum. God loves, and in the fact that He does so He is worthy to be loved, and is actually loved prior to and in independence of any response of love on the part of the creature. He is both the One who loves and the One who is loved even though there were no creature for Him to love and to love Him in return. God loves, and the purpose of His being is to do this. As He loves, He fulfils His purpose, in accordance with which all His intentions regarding a being distinct from His own can be actualised only as purposes of His love. God loves, and to do so He does not need any being distinct from His own as the object of His love. If He loves the world and us, this is a free overflowing of the love in which He is and is God and with which He is not content, although He might be, since neither the world nor ourselves are indispensable to His love and therefore to His being. Thus the love of God is free, majestic, eternal love. And self-grounding and self-grounded, as it is addressed and revealed to us as eternal love, as it precedes our love in this majesty, it is the firm basis of our love. It is the eternal love in whose free and non-obligatory overflowing we are loved. With the authority and power of this love it is revealed to us that we are loved. It is God Himself in all the depths of His deity who summons and impels us to love. On this basis there can be no question of parity between

756

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love 2.

our love and His. Vie are loved with eternal love, but it can come to us only to love in time. Yet our temporal l~ve,. a~ it .must take place in time on this eternal basis, will take place In slmtlanty to wh~t God is in Himself as He proves to us. For all the distance t~ere wIll thus be supremely real fellowship with God: not merely wIth an eve~t inaugurated by God; but first and last with God Hims:lf. More wtll have to be said about the basis of love. But everythIng that characterises and distinguishes this basis derives from the transcendent height that it is the basis which consists in the being and nature of God. What we have been discussing is the equation of I In. 48 and 18: ,; OfO~ dYU7T7)
We are not guilty of arbitrary speculation ~hen we begin our description of the basis of Christian love in ~?e beI?~,and ~~ture of Go~ Himself. The equation of the statements God IS and. God loves (the Johannine "God is love ") is merely the most SUCCInct formula

The Basis of Love

757

to desc:ibe ~~e re.ality in and as which God declares Himself according to the ImplICIt WItness of the Old Testament and the explicit witness of the New. The One who there spoke to man and still speaks to us, and in so doing discloses His own being and nature, is not an isolated monad which as such cannot love, or can love only itself, so that love is fundamentally alien to it, and it is only casually (not internally but externally) that it does also love. On the contrary, He is revealed to us as first existing in Himself as the One who loves. For He does not exist only in one mode. He exists in the mode of the Father and the Son. And He exists-this is the decisive point in the present context-in the mode of the Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son, who is common to the Father and the Son, and who unites the Father and the Son. In this triunity of His essence God loves both as and before He loves us; both as and before He calls us to love. In this triunity of His essence God is eternal love. In Himself He is both the One and the Other. And He is this, not in any reciprocal self-seeking, indifference, neutrality or even enmity, but in the selfgiving of the Father to the Son and the Son to the Father which is accomplished in the fact that He is not merely the Father and the Son but also the Holy Spirit, and therefore as the Father is wholly for the Son, and as the Son wholly for the Father. In virtue of His trinitarian essence God is free and sovereign and competent and powerful to love us. He can and may and must and will love us. He does in fact love us. And He makes Himself the basis of our love. In so doing, He does not place us merely in an external and casual fellowship with Himself, but in an internal and essential fellowship in which our existence cannot continue to be alien to His but may become and be analogous. In virtue of His trinitarian essence the life and rule of love is the most inward and proper life and rule of God. It is on this ground that He loves us. And it is on this ground that, as He declares His love to us, it is decided that to His glory and our salvation the life and rule of love is also our determination-a determination which on this ground is truly eternal. The equation of I In. 48 , 18: "God is love," is a peculiarity of the Johannine witness. So, too, is that of In. 4 24 : "God is Spirit." The two explain one another. To say" love" in the J ohannine sense is to say" Spirit"-the Spirit in whom God is wholly the Father of the Son and wholly the Son of the Father and as such the One who first loves us. And to say" Spirit" in the J ohannine sense is to say" love "-the love which as and even before God loves us is the love in which as the Father He loves the Son and as the Son the Father. It is again in ,Tohn's Gospel that this eternity of the basis of Christian love in the Trinity is expressly indicated: "The Father loveth the Son, and hath given (this is His eternal love, His fatherly and divine self-giving) all things (no less than His whole divine worth, His whole divine sovereignty and power over all things) into his hand" (In. 3", cf. 520). He has given Him His glory (In. 17 24 ) as and because He loved Him from the foundation of the world. But this love of the Father for the Son is described (J n. 10 17 ) as an answer to the fact that the Son (this is His eternal love, His self-giving) staked Himself, His life, in obedience

758

§ 68. The Holy Sp£r£t and Chr£st£an Love

z. The Bas£s of Love

to the Father, to receive it again in so doing. And it is to be revealed to the world (In. 14 31 ) that He loves the Father according .to whose cOIn mISSIOn He acts. He abides in the love of the Father (IsiO-the gemtlve IS to be take~ both subjectively and objectively) so that to be obedient to the Father HIS ~wn are required only to abide in His love. For He loves them as the One who IS loved by the Father and loves Him in return (In. IS"). But the same IS true of the Father (and is also to be declared to the world). He loves them wIth the same eternal love with which He loves the Son (In. 17 23 ). It is from the fact that the Son loves them as the One who loves the Father and loves Him in return; that the Father loves them with the same love with which He loves the Son; and that they are free to love the Son (In. 14 15 • 'If., 16"); that th~.new c?mmandment given them by the Son, I.e., to love one another (In. 13 ), denves its seriousness and force. The basis of love in God Himself is nowhere else so explicitly denoted and explained as in John. But there is an indication of it,. naturally without. the trinitarian development, in Has. II 8f.: "How shall I gIve thee up. EphraIm? how shall I deliver thee, Israel? how shall I make thee as Adr:rah ? how shall I set thee as Zeboim ? mine heart is turned within me, my pltymgs are kmdled together. I will not execute the fierceness of mine anger, I will not return to destroy Ephraim: for I am God. and not man; the Holy One m the mIdst of thee, and not a destroyer." Vvhat is the meanIng of th~s mablllty of God, of hIs pityings of the holiness in which He will not forsake HIS mercy to an ungrateful people, because He is God and not man? Does it not ~ignify that the love wIth which He loved this people in its youth and called HIS son out of Egypt (Ill) was a love which according to the witness of this prophet belonged mtegrally to His essence, so that He could deny it only as He demed HIS very nature. as God? Again, in Jer. 313 we are told expressly that Yahweh loved Israel wIth an everlasting love, and that "therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee," reminding us of the" cords of grace" and" bands of love" of Has. II'. And quite apart from these isolated sayings we have ~o ask whether It was mere accident a casual choice with no inner ground or basIs, that the God of the Old Testame~t elected to be the God of the covenant-a pure and free covenant. of grace-with Israel compromising Himself with this people in a history whIch , . . lonous ' 1y. B u t 1f thIS begins so inconspicuously and contmues and ends so mg was not a casual or capricious choice, who and what was this God? The eternally unmoved deity of Plato and Aristotle would never have compromIsed Its~lf wIth this history or drawn this people to It. How could It? And ho~ could ,It have loved it with an everlasting love and been the Godhead In thIS love: ThIS would involve a flagrant self-contradiction. There is no self-glvmg m thIS deIty. It cannot, then, summon or impel to self-giving. It can be loved only wIth that demanding love, with self-love, erotically. The God of the Old Testament, ho:wever can obviously be loved only because He is not merely the first to exerCIse love' but the One who loves primarily and eternally, and as such the self-moved and therefore the living God, who as such calls for an analogous and therefore a pure and free self-giving. ., . When we come to the New Testament, we cannot say that e~en the tnmtana~ development of the basis is absent except m the J ohannme wntIngs.. For ,,:ha_ does it mean when we are told in Col. 1121 • that the Father has set us m the km g dam of " the Son of his love"; the same Son who IS descnbed m v. IS f. ~ns " the firstborn of all creation," in whom, by whom and to whom all thmg.s heaven and earth were created, who was before all things and in whom all thm g: consist? That He became the Son of the Father's love a pastertan, for th.e :i~ of our deliverance from the power of darkness, is excluded by thIS descnp No, it is in the One who was already the Beloved (Ev T0 ~ya1T'Y}!LEV'I') that God sho~~e us this grace (Eph. 1 6 ). But if He is this already. love-the love between t' I Father and the Son~·is here too ascribed to the eternal God as such as an essen ,a

ci

759

determination. H.eferences are made to the same basis, to the same inner movement in which it is the basis of love, in the accounts of His baptism (Mk. III and par.) and transfiguration (Mk. 9 7 and par.) in which Jesus is addressed or designated by the voice from heaven as " my beloved Son (or" elect Son" in 35 Lk. 9 ) in whom I am well pleased"- a variation of the saying about the 1Tais OEaU (quoted in lUt. IZI8 from Is. 4ZI) which is considerably heightened in its effect by the introduction of the term vi,)" the words " Hear him" being also added in the transfiguration story. The One baptised on this occasion is confirmed, proclaimed and revealed by God to be the Beloved of the Father: "Thou art," or " This is." He is it already, and therefore as the One He is He is already the object of the divine €,',OoK{a. A prophet or apostle is elected in time (even if in his mother's womb), but the servant of God who is His own Son is already elected, His Beloved, the object of His good-pleasure, and enters time as such. And it is as such that He is to be heard by others. 'With reference to His epiphany others too can be described as o.VOPW1TOt €,',OoK{a, (Lk. z1&), and in J n. 3 16 it can even be said that God loved the world-in the giving of His only-begotten Son, but with the same eternal love with which He loved the Son. Finally (in relation to the close connexion between the terms" love" and " knowledge ") we may refer to the saying in Mt. I I " and Lk. 10", which tells us that all things have been delivered to the Son by the Father, that no one knows the Son but the Father, and that no one knows the Father but the Son, and those to whom the Son will reveal Him. \Vithin the structure of the thought and language of the Synoptists this element of pre-J ohannine tradition is rather like a foreign body. But whatever may be its origin and age, according to this saying the revelation imparted to the V7/1TWt (Mt. II'· and Lk. 10 21 ) is grounded in a preceding movement in God Himself between the Father and the Son; in the fact that the Father has already delivered all things to the Son. The saying tells us with what authority and power the Son calls the v7/mot and enables them to know Him, and (within the appointed limits) to know the Father as the Son knows Him. The very least that we can say is that this saying is a close, exact and illuminating parallel to the J ohannine statement about the love of the Father and the Son and those called by the Son. The New Testament as a whole forces us even more than the Old to the question whether it is only casually and externally that the One whom it calls God fulfils the fellowship with man foreshadowed in the Old Testament covenant by humbling Himself so deeply, and exalting man so highly, that He was ready to take the being and nature of man to Himself and to be concealed and revealed as the Lord in the man Jesus of Nazareth. If this act was not casual, if in it He did not estrange Himself from His divine essence, if on the contrary He was supremely true and just towards it, in this act and in His essence He was again the God who cannot in any sense be equated with the unmoved deity of Plato and Aristotle and therefore with a God who is to be loved erotically. In His very essence He was the Father who loves the Son and the Son who loves the Father, and as such, in the communion and reciprocity of this love, as God the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, the God who is self-moved, the living God, the One who loves eternally and as such moves to love.

We will now turn to the question of the basis of love in so far as this is identical with the opus De£ ad extra, the act of God's love in His relationship with the world and us men. We can see the force of this act. God Himself loves us. He loves us as He turns to us directly, as the One He is. He does not keep to Himself His being and nature as Father, Son and Holy Spirit-the eternal love which He Himself is. He is not the prisoner of His own Godhead. He has and exercises the freedom to be our God. As the One He is, and without ceasing to be this, but in a supreme revelation and expression of Himself, He

760

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love

goes beyond Himself into the sphere of that which He is not, which is only by Him, which is only His creature. In the love which is only His, and which, one might suppose, can be only in Him, He loves His creature, ourselves, triumphing over every supposition concerning Himself and His deity. When He loves us, what comes on us to our benefit is an inconceivable overflowing of His eternal love which we can only acknowledge, recognise and confess in its actual occurrence. It is no more and no less than that. And as God causes this to come on us to our benefit, He makes Himself the basis of our love. Called and impelled on the basis of His action to us, our Christian love arises and takes place as the human act which answers and corresponds to His act. Only His act can be the basis of ours. And only as it is determined by His can and will ours be the act of Christian love, of the love which gives itself purely and freely. We have thus to gain a full and clear picture of the act of His love before we can speak meaningfully of the act of ours. What is involved in the act of God's love to us we learn decisively, centrally and comprehensively-in a first survey of the total substance of this act-from the Old Testament witness to the covenant of Yahweh with Israel and the New Testament proclamation of the kingdom, of the lordship of God on earth, which has been inaugurated in the existence of the one man Jesus of Nazareth. God loves us as He establishes and maintains the covenant with us and as He causes His kingdom to come to us. In both cases we have to do with the same reality of the act of God's love. The covenant is the promise of the kingdom. The kingdom is the fulfilment of the covenant. The covenant is God's encounter with man with a view to being man's salvation in His own person. The kingdom is God as man's salvation and therefore the meaning and goal of His encounter with man. The covenant is the divinely inaugurated and directed history of a nation in which His will is at work to unite with all nations and all men, and to unite all nations and all men with Himself. The kingdom is the divinely inaugurated and directed history of a man of this one nation as the representative of all others in which God has united with this One in the accomplishment of His will, and in this One has united all nations and all men with Himself. The single and continuous factor which links these two forms of His act is His self-giving to man, and therefore His love for him, as it is actualised in this willed and completed union. In this act it took place that He made Himself our God and therefore very small, and us His men and therefore very great; that He humbled Himself to us and exalted us to Himself. This is God's self-giving; His love. The revelation of God in the work of His Holy Spirit means the revelation of the covenant and the kingdom, the promise and the fulfilment, the will and the accomplishment of God, in their necessary and indissoluble connexion. It means the revelation of the one eternal act in which He has loved, and loves, and will

2.

The Basis of Love

7 6r

love us in the power of His eternal love. It means the revelation of ourselves as those to whom God has turned in this act and th f as those wh ? were an d are andWill ' be loved by Him as ,e e are th r 0 ne h performs thIS act. In this act in which He willed to b e b w a d d e a n ecame ours, an we. were to be and ?ec~me His, God is the authoritative and powerful baSIS of the love whIch IS. the subject of our present in uir _ love as the human act correspondmg to the act of God. q y According to the witness of the Old Testament the love f G d'iS h II act and therefore not a feeling, disposition, attitude or fixa~ionaon wayan Yahweh. He remembers the people of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob th~par.t of strange land when He makes it His own. He sends Moses t b ' cap Ive III a brings it ~ith a strong hand out of Egypt. He delivers it a~ t~eI~e~a~er. ~e gIVes It HIS Law at Horeb as a direction to remain under the lordshi e~f e gracIOUS WIll. He leads It across Jordan into the land promised to its f Pf thHIS It IS not III the revelation of any theory, or the form of an cer' are ~ er~. action as the God of Israel, in His treatment of Israel Hemony, but III thIS establishes t.he covenant between Himself and Israel and e ItS bPl~ohPle, .that He P?SIT Ive an d cn't'Ica I order within which, determined ,b" Hiss aa t' IS es. It as . the WIll develop, It is as He does this first and basic thi:g, and Ct~~~' ;~s thI~~?rh corresponds to It, to and with Israel, that He loves it, a Vi IC SO far as the written records go, Hosea was the first t d 1 the action of Yahweh in His covenant with Israel is in a ec are expressly that th t' f H' I H' every respect and form e ac Ion 0 IS ave. e dId so very graphically by using the i t f marnage between Yahweh and His people; and his presentat' ,Pllctuh,e a a Imp b 't . t ' IOn IS a e more , ress:ve ecause 1 1s;;e In. con,trast and connexion with the severest rocla ma_ h~n of Judgment. God s actIOn IS that of love at the beginning of thY I t ShIp: "When Israel was a child, then I loved him and call d IS re a IOn~gypt" (III). But it is also that of love in the p;esent Whi~h ~y son out of jeopardised by its disobedience: "A.nd I will betroth thee t IS sOfsenously '11 b t th th ' un ta me y~a, I WI e ro' ee unto me in righteousness and in J'udgm d' orI ever' ' ' kmdne d ' . I 'll ' en ,an III ovmga d tl ss, ahn It Ikn merchies , ~I even betroth thee unto me in faithfulness' 19 L n lOU s a now t e ord (2 f.). It is also that f l ' I' . f t · "I WI'II h eaI t h e1r ' backshdmg, " ove m u ure . I will love thema freel . fre a tIOn ' to the 4 IS turned away from him" (14 ) ; and" Therefore beholdYI' airI m 1ne anger ' t othe WIlderness, ' " a l1ure her ' an db' nng Iler m and speak to her heart A d WI I 'll' her vineyards from thence, and the valley of Achor (woei fo n d WI f~e her and she shall sing there, as in the days of her youth, and as inrt~e ;~r a hope: came up out of the land of Egypt. And it shall be at that da 't~ t';;, e e~ she that ;,hou shalt call me " My husband"; and thou shalt call ~es~~ m r "ord, 14 ,saal (2 f.). The proclamation of the love which Yahweh exercises as a ~~Sb;~~ m the covenant WIth Israel IS also a characteristic of the prophec of J ' More prep.onderantly even ~han Hosea, he descrihes it as a love wJCh e eremlah. only the mgrahtude and mfidehty of Israel, and is therefore threate:ce~u~e:~ extmctIOn. Here, too, It emerges clearly that the loving action of Y a h h 1 take the form of the most terrible judgment, But we cannot f 'I t wet c~n ' pOSI't'Ive un d er t one w h'IC h nngs through a passage like the rem kal bl a nol'le tne of Yahweh in Jer. 3120: "Is Ephraim my dear son) is h ar la e so 1 ~quy for' I k ' t h' . e a peasant chIld) smce spa e agams 1m, I do earnestly remember him t'll' t h f . my bowels are troubled for him; I will surely have merc s 1 'h e,~e are Deutero-Isaiah there is again a recollection of God's jUdgm~tup~nt ~~. ,In the positive note is predominant, and nowhere in the Old Testa s, tUd IS hme m ore e Ioquen , t 111en ,t'IOn a f G,od ' s love, It sounds almost l'k menI '0 we have , th . I e a po emlc agamst ,e more extreme prophetic utterances of an opposinc charact h y thngs out the question: "'Where is the bill of your m,;'the " d' er w en ahweh r 5 lvorcement, whom

Is

762

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love

1 have put away? or which of my creditors is it to whom I have sold you? " (50'). No: "Fear not; for thou shalt not be ashamed; neIther shalt thou be confounded' for thou shalt not be put to shame: for thou shalt target the shame of thy ;outh, and shalt not remember the reproach of thy widowhood any more. For thy Maker is thine husband; the Lord of hosts IS hIS name; and thy Redeemer the Holy One of Israel; The God of the whole ear~h shall he be called. For the Lord hath called thee as a woman forsaken and gneved m spirit, and a wife of youth, when thou wast refused, saith thy God. For a small moment have I forsaken thee; but with great merCIes WIll I gather thee. In a little wrath I hid my face from thee for a moment; but with everlasting kindness will I have mercy on thee, saith the Lord thy Redeemer" (54 4 1.). "~nd hence the positive pledge: "Thou shalt no more be termed Forsaken; neIther shall thy land any more be termed Desolate:, but thou shalt be called My delight, and thy land Married: for the Lord dehghteth m thee, and thy land shall b~ married. For as a young man marneth a vlrgm, so shall thy sons marry thee. and as the bridegroom rejoiceth over the bride, so shall thy God rejOICe over thee" (62 4 1.). And in a different but no less eloquent image: "Can a woman forget her sucking child, that she should not have compassIOn on the son of her womb? yea, they may forget, ye; will I not forget the~; .Behold, I have gra.ven thee upon the palms of my hands' (49 '5I ·). Or agam : Smce thou wast precIO~s in my sight, thou hast been honourable, and I have loved thee: therefore WI~~ I give men for thee, and people for thy life. Fear not: for I .a~ WIth thee (43 4 1.). In the same connexion we mIght ~lso quote Zec~. 2 8 . For he that toucheth you toucheth the apple of hIS eye ;, or Hagg. 2 ,where It IS saId of Zerubbabel that he will be made as the Lord s SIgnet. The other book where there are frequent references to the lo,:e of God-not r:ow in relation to the future, as in Deutero-Isaiah, but in relatIOn to the past-IS the Book of Deuteronomy. Why it is that Yahweh has inclined His heart to Israel, the smallest of all peoples and elected it? There is only one reason. It IS " because the Lord loved y~u and because he would keep the oath which he had sworn unto your fathers" that He "hath broug~t you out,~ith a mighty hand ..." (Deu;; 7 8 ). Again and again we read. that It IS only because he loved thy fathers (4 37 , 10 '5 , 23 5 ). It may be seen that from the literary standpoi~t the concept and term " love" are introduced only at a relatively later penod to descnbe what God has done, and does, and will do in covenant with Israel. But there can be no doubt that it is not a kind of later explanation or interpretation-the embell.lshment of something which was originally very different. The covenar:t relatIOnship was not in the first instanc~ one of pure law, or the .w1l1 and actIOn o~ God recognisable within it only the Jealous assertIOn and valldatIOn of the claIm to Israel's respect and obedience which resulted from HIS electIOn. ,To be sure, the action of Yahweh as the Lord of this covenant does also estabhsh and develop a relationship of Law (as is particularly well brought out in Deuteronomy). But behind the whole form of the covenant as Law and hohness there always stands the great context of the act of liberation (and the corresponding acts that folJowed) which was constitutive for the eXIstence of Israel and qUIte unforgettable to it. But this is an act in which the WIll and achievement of Yahweh cannot be balanced by anything that Israel does, so that no demand can be ,?ade on Israel. It is on the basis of this act that the question of obedIence WIll be put in its strict and supremely decisive character. But in the first instance the response of Israel will have only the character of a protecttve measure. By keeping the revealed commands of Yahweh the people will bekeptfrom leavmg the safe sphere in which He is present and known to It as Its LIberator (~nd therefore in grace, in an evangelical character-if we may venture the expreSSIOn -and only latently in His majesty as Judge)., And what was It that underlay this act of liberation, or took place m and WIth It, but the free, unmottvated

2.

The Basis of Love

7 63

chOIce in which Yahweh elected and posited Himself as Israel's God and Israel as HIS people, bmdmg HImself m holmess and righteousness, and therefore Israel to respect for HIS holmess and righteousness, but, because in the free choice of thIS concrete, contmgent relationship, decisively-and in a way which characterIses even HIS holmess and righteousness-in love? What else is this free choice whIch takes place m thIS act, m His unmotivated reality, but love? This is what Hosea and those who followed him in the introduction of this term and the pIcture of marrIage, far from mventmg or Importing into the matter, drew from the actual relatIOnshIp, dlscovermg and affirming and proclaiming it as in some sense the nerve of the whole bemg and action of Yahweh as the Lord of th covenant. e Why is it they who do this? . Why does older Israel seem not to have used the word aheb and Its synonyms m relation to God's action in this relation h' ) To t l ' th'IS, re f erence h as been made to the sobriety with which s Ip. ry t 0 exp am th older penod tried to maintain the distance between God and man avoid'ng the app~!cation to God of " terms which derive from the sphere of the free em~tiona~ hfe and the consequent approximation to the eroticism of Canaanite religion (c!. W. Elchrodt, Theol. d.A.T., Vol. 1,.1933, p. 127). I cannot accept this explanatIOn because I fall to see why, If these conSIderations are relevant laxer VieW should have obtained a foothold in prophecy, which was engaged'i: so VItal a confhct for the holmess of Yahweh and against any equation, confusion or exchange of the worshIp of Yahweh with the Canaanite fertility-cults. Is it not more natural to suppose that the thing itself, the mystery of the reality of the free and unmotIvated act of Yahweh in which Israel's election was fulfilled as hIStOry, was present to the men of this people with such directness and impreSSIveness that to say:. " God 'loves' Israel" was not necessary because it was superfluous, because It could only be an analysis of the actuality in which Israel breathed and llved? Naturally, however, this analysis could and had be made, and the self-eVIdent nature ~f the actuality in which Israel livedthe power of love a~ the ulttmate baslsot the covenant-relationship" (Eichrodt) --could and had to De made expllclt, m all the later situations in which that whIch was most self-eVIdent was no longer so, and that which was most primT had to be recalled; situations in which Yahweh the Liberator had to provelaI:J reveal HImself to an ungrateful and unfaithful people as also Yahweh the J d He derived His majesty as Judge from the very fact that He was still-pre~s~l~ -the One who had acted and revealed HImself as the Liberator, as the One who had elected WIthout external motivation, and dealt for and with Israel as such. It was WIth the authonty and power of the Liberator of Israel that He now revealed and proved Himself to be its Judge. And in face of the apostasy of Israel, underlmmg the ternble senselessness of ItS in"ratitude and dislo It l"Ig ht'mg up t h yadisy, e 'Impene t ra bl e d ar k ness of the necessaryb consequences of its obedience,. reference had now to be made to the love of Yahweh, not as an arbItrary InnovatIOn, but to emphasise that which always was and always will be accordmg to the ongm of Israel in that act of its God, and with an assurance and warmth, yet also the sharp antitheses, which we find in Hosea and Jeremiah as they faced the mfidehty of whIch Israel was guilty, and sought to convict Israel of ItS gUIlt and recall It to fidelity, by speaking of the fidelity of the d' , Husband which had constituted and maintained this marriage. It is not I~~~~ the prophets m faIth break through the opus alienum of the wrath of God to H,S love, but that the wrath of God evinces itself by way of revelation to the prophets as rebus h~mams szc stantzbus the necessary form of His opus proprium whIch IS .HIS love; Ihls declaratIOn could not be weakened but, as we have seen (and agam m all ItS antttheses), It could only become stronger and more ex l" 't at a later date when the situation had developed and the people of the ~~~{e seemed to have become finally unworthy of the fultilment of the promise and to have penshed, so that, 111 sharpest contrast to the situation of its election and

;,0

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love deliverance from Egypt, it could only think that it now had to do exclusively with Yahweh the Judge, with His No and not with His Yes. This was the situation of Deutero-Isaiah, in which prophecy could and had to become consolation-the consolation of the people of Yahweh. Not a light or empty consolation-for there is plainly implied an affirmation of the judicial majesty of God under which the people found itself bowed and had still to bow-but real consolation; an affirmation of its election, and therefore of the love and loving promise of this God as evinced and revealed in His judgment and maintained even in its fulfilment. "For the mountains shall depart, and the hills be removed; but my kindness shall not depart from thee, neither shall the covenant of my peace be removed, saith the Lord that hath mercy on thee" (Is. 54'°). According to the tradition, neither lI10ses, the prophet of the Exodus, nor Samuel, the prophet of the incipient crisis, ever spoke like this. It was only now that the crisis had broken, and in its outworking, that this kind of language could be used. And it was only now that a book like Deuteronomy, not by way of interpretation but to indicate and emphasise the actuality, could look back to the act of liberation from Egypt and the act of the election of Israel as acts of the love of Yahweh for the fathers, speaking of them as the secret of the covenant which is to be perceived in all its relevance for the present. When we consider the love of God as attested in the New Testament, we cannot possibly say that it has the character of an emotion or attitude ascribed to God. As we have seen, in the New Testament no less than the Old, it is the determination of God's own inner nature on the one hand, and on the other, and as such, His quite unsentimental action. But according to the witness of the New Testament the act of God is the goal of the covenant whose history is recounted in the Old; the fulfilment of the promise actively given in the love of God to Israel. As such it is the establishment of the lordship or the kingdom of God on earth. But the establishment of the kingdom of God is identical with His own existence among His people and all peoples, all men. It is identical with the existence and history of the Son of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the Son of David, the man Jesus of Nazareth. God acts as, giving Himself up to humility in His Son, He introduces this man of Israel. He acts in the ,Vord and work of His life and death in time, in the revelation of this man by His resurrection from the dead, in the life and rule of His Spirit. And this man acts as, sent by God and obedient to Him, He interposes His ,Vord and work in human history, in His person justifying and sanctifying man as such before God, and exalting him to fellowship with Him. This action of the true God and true man is in its unity the love of God attested in the New Testament. No abstract term ~an describe it. It can be adequately denoted only by the name of Jesus ChrIst. But it is adequately, exhaustively, comprehensively and definitely denoted by this name-as the divine act to Israel, the world and all men which belongs to the very essence of God, beginning in His history with the poople Israel, and completed in His history with this man of Israel. Everything that we have.to say about the love of God can only be an exposition of this name, of the actualIty of the history of Jesus Christ. TQ cease to expound this name is to miss the actuality of God's love. It is an interesting parallel to the problem which concerned us in relation to the love of God as attested in the Old Testament that there is no express reference in the Synoptics either to the love of God in general or to this love as particularly incorporated and revealed in the life of Jesus. At a pinch we might appeal to Mt. 5 45 , where those who heard the Sermon on the Mount were warned, as children of their Father in heaven, not to love only those who loved them III return, since this Father causes" the sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust." This is perhaps a very indirect reference to the love of God. And as far as the love of Jesus Himself is concerned we have only the isolated observation in Mk. 10 21 that when he looked on the

2.

The Basis of Love

76 5

rich young ruler He loved him. Apart from this, it is only in John (II', 5,36) th,at we ~,re told that He al~~ loved. Lazarus and Mary of Bethany, and that we read (13' and passtm)?f the disciple whom Jesus loved." May we again suspect that the reality Itself-the act of God's love, the life-act of Jesus Himse!f, the kmgdom draw~ near and concretely established in human history in H,S Word and work, H,S death as the crowning of His action in obedience to the Fath~r and on man's behalf, His manifestation as Lord and Saviour in His resu~ectIOn from the dead-was all so directly present in its relevance and slglllfic~nce to the bearer~ of the most primitive tradition that they did not regard It ~s necessary ~o gIVe this explicit name to the event which they sought to record. Or, when ~t was a matter of the Simple evangelical recording of this event, did they thmk It appropriate and incumbent not to make this reference but to allow the event to speak for itself, to attest itself in all its sovereignty? At any. rate, the Gospels say of the man Jesus that He is present among other men With the authority and power of the Son of God; that in what He says and .does and proclaIms and reveals the kingdom of God is a concealed but also mamfested, or at any rate present, reality on earth; that He sits at table with the PharIsees but also with the publicans; that He is the friend of sinners but the enemy of those. who are evil-disposed in spirit; that He forgives sins against God and a;s:amst HImself; ~hat He heals the sick; and that finally and comprehenSIvely, Instead of assertmg Himself, He sacrifices Himself, and is not concealed a~ the Lord and Helper active in His death and passion, but revealed to H,S dISCIples, and through them to the world, as the One who represents them to God, and God to them. They portray Him as this One who works in the name of God for us men. But what was this action but that of His love and therefore of the love of God, which was the final ,Vord of the history of I~rael and as such the first W?rd of the history of a new people and a new humanity? It was spoken m H,S life and death and recounted by the Gospels, and heard and understoo~ III the power of the Holy Spirit of the Resurrected, as whom He IS .attest~d m t~e closing section of the Gospels. W,th thIS hearmgand. understanding, in recognition of the act of God as it had tak~n place III H,m, It was both possible and necessary to begin to use the approprIate term: It IS part of the distinctiveness of the Fourth Gospel that in thiS respect t?O I~ ~akes no dIfference between before and after, between the ,Vord spoken III H,S hfe and death and its hearing and understanding, but already deSCrIbes the pre-Easter love ~f Jesus as manifested, and causes Jesus to reveal H,mself from the very first. 1 hIS IS Why we find so many sayings in this Gospel wh~ch speak expressly ,:,f the reciprocal love of the Father and the Son-a love WhICh IS turned. to men III the person of the disciples. In fact, it is not addressed only to the dISCiples, but to them first. Quite early in the Gospel-and adduced be It noted, as a saying of J.esus Himself-we read of God's love for the world expressed III the gIvmg of HIS only-begotten Son. It is of this divine love that e read. III the Epistles, expressed in terms of proclamation and instruction. 1he baSIC note, or rath~r .the basic chord in which no one note can be separated from the others, IS that It IS (I) the love of God in Jesus Christ, i.e., in His sacrifice for us;. (z) the love of Jesus Christ in His self-sacrifice as the embodiment and revelatIOn of the love of God; and (3)-for this aspect is not omitted-the love of God re.vealed to us, and operative in and towards us, by the Holy Spirit of Jesus ChrIst. As regards the first point, we may consider z Thess. ZI6, where in an order '."hl~h ~as n? p~r~lle~,elsewhere we read: aUTOS O€" KVpLO, ~I'-wv '1"1 C70U, XpUYTOS Kat o (ho~ 0 7Ta7'''Ip "II'-WV, which hath loved us, and hath given us everlasting consolatIOn a~d good hope through grace." When these two are mentioned together the orde:- IS :,s~lally t.he reverse: No creature can" separate us from the love of God, which I.S III ChrIst Jesus our Lord" (Rom. 8 39 ); or: "God, who is rich in mercy, for hiS ~reat love wherewith he loved us ... hath quickened us together

v:

§ 68 The Holy Spirit and Christian Love . ' ., " 4 h ")nfess that. I csus is the Son of Gou we (Eph, 2 1.); or w en h" e;~ I i ~th to ~s .. /1 J n, 416), In meanmg

66

7

with Christ" I u bclien'd the love t at ,-,oe 1, \ . " B h ld have <nown an ., I' 1 relevant in this conneXlQn : eo. and context, however, I J n, 3 IS: ~o t . d pon us that we should be called what manner of love the Father hat h' ehs o~\el ,u th'c ,,'God in Christ" are I<.om, f -, 1" Other passac<es w IC exp am L . the sons a Goe, " b ' t s ) He that spareu not hiS own 8'1f.: "If God be for us, who can eiagamlsalul h~ not with him also freely give d I' d h' up for us a ll 10\\ S I . th t Son, but e Ivere )" R 1m m 58, " But G' a d commen deth his love toward us,, m, 1 a, us all things. ; t '0ners , ',. 'd f " , and I In, 410: "Herem IS ave Chnst die or us , , " while we were ye sm " . h' S n to be the propitiation for our sms, . , . that God loved us,. and sent IS, ~T the world unto himself" (2 Cor. 5 19 ), In short, " God was m Chnst, recotnCtllm'the love of Jesus Christ Himself which I I t to the seconu pam I IS " C 14) It n re a IOn d ' 1 or constrains us (uuv<XEL, 2 or. 5 ' in the power of the love of Go Iml?e s 1 nowledae' (Eph. 3 19 ), It is from is a matter of knowmg thiS love Whl~l\~~S~:sa~ate us "(Rom, 835 ), This is the this that no one and nothmg cabn °th f' 'thPof the Son or God who loved me, ' f G 1 ,,20, "I hve y e al , , I h th declaratIOn a Ta, - , ", h 2. "'Valk in love, as Chnst a so a and "ave himself for me , or Ep l' 5 l' . u the church and gave himself for "" E h 2 5 , " Chnst a so ave ., , . loved us R ; or .p ,5, ' h' tl t lo\'ed us and washed us from our sms m 5 · " unto 1m la " d l' F the it"; or ev, I ' k' d of priests unto God an liS ~a r. " his own blood, and hath made us a ,I~gw~:a consider Rom, 55: "And hope ,,yith reference to the third Phami f G';d is shed abroad in our. hearts by t h· ed' because t eave 0 L d J maketh no as am, " '. " It is in the power" of our or esus the Holy Ghost which IS g~ve; m~?, ~~~t Paul admonishes the Roman Christians Christ and of the love of t e pm R 30) to together with him in their prayers1 (dOnmg of 2 Cor, 1313 with its '1 d P in the famous cone u I ' " IJ " , It IS al summe u , " , 'f v Xp'U'TOV Ka, 7]' aya7T7] 'TOV
stri~e

'f~;mu'la

I

,.,

(

,

,

. now conSl'der the three decisive definitions of divine love We WIll th b . of our own human love. , h t as e a~ls 1 t'In love This is merely another way of sayIng t a , . 1. It e ect God' It is not a process within a given state and It IS the ree ac a . f 'f' h 't belongs that God loves. In no situation to the nat~lre ls .0 ; ~lcco~mitted and bound to love. It is relationship t.o anot er'd H h f H mself deCI es toa d a th'IS. He determines and makes Ithis . ~ '~ He differentiates him as such. t IS e woo other the object, of I:II~ ;f~~~ essential love of the Father for the S~n true even and pnmarFI1Ytl that it is free' that it is not necessary l1l d the Son for the 'a ler , 1" t of an l ' that it is necessary on y In vIr ue the form of ~ na~r~ E~~c~~~~s eternally and is God i;;' the fr~edom the f~eedo~ In w lC h ch more is this true of His love l1l the of thIS actIOn. But ow ~u t' t d' or rather it is its own opus ad extra. This is qUlte unmto ~ea l~v~d by God' because there t· There can be no claIm a 'th' g f rt on the basis of which anyone or any In rna Ive. . is no qualhtydobr must be ave ypOHt~; ,l~:i~g a natural object of His love. To be loved

t

1

2.

The Bast's of Love

by God is not an immanent attribute of any of His creatures, For there is no value indwelling the one loved by God as the basis of God's love. The one loved by God acquires his worth from the fact that God loves him, and it stands or falls with the continuance or cessation of this love. The truth about God's love in His opus ad extra is that He loves the man whom He has made worthy of His love by electing and willing and determining him as His creature, but who for his part has made himself unworthy, proving himself undeserving of this love, adopting an attitude of hostility, so that in defiance of God's good will he can actually be only worthy of the divine hatred. God loves man as this enemy. He does not fail to hate that which is worthy of His hatred. He does not relax His wrath (of which we shall have to speak later). But so sovereign is He in His electing love that He loves this hostile man Who is unworthy of His love. He loves him notwithstanding his unworthiness and hostility. Indeed, He loves him just because of it. He loves him in his pride and falL He loves him in his sloth and misery. He loves him as He takes pity on him as this sinful man. He loves him not merely apart from his deservings -which is also true of His love as Creator-but in spite of, overlooking and overcoming, his deservings, He does not elect and love him because of what he has to offer. This could lead only to the divine rejection and hatred. He elects and loves him for His Own sake; for what He is for and to him as He gives Himself for and to him; for what He awakens in him and gives to him; for his new humanity which is exclusively the gift of His love. As this freely electing love the love of God for us is unconditional, strong and victorious. It is a burning fire which cannot be quenched, It is wholly trustworthy. It is a rock to which we can cling without fear of its crumbling. It is a refuge to which we can flee without doubting whether it will stand. It is nourishment which is always prepared for those who hunger and thirst for love, and never withheld from them. We have only to see that we are not worthy of it, that we have forfeited it, that we cannot secure it of and for ·ourselves, that we can only receive and accept it. We can only long and trust that God is the freely electing God for us, and that we ourselves are freely elected by Him. \Ve then participate already in the unconditional nature and strength and victory of the love of God, in its sovereignty which consists in the fact that God is absolutely free to love man first irrespective of what he deserves or does not deserve. \Ve then find that we are loved by Him, and therefore genuinely, basically and effectively. And in spite of every objection our understanding of God kindles directly a selfunderstanding: amabar, amor, amabor. Everything depends upon the fact that God's love is not a general function of His being in relation to the world and therefore ourselves, the particular reference of which to ourselves may well be questioned, but from the very outset a differentiation based on the free decision of God and having a

768

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love

particular reference to us which is originally an~ c?nclusi,vely assur~d, not because it is appropriate to us, but because it is God s differentiation in our favour. Everything depends upon the fact that God's diligere is His own free eligere, and that the man who needs. Him, who hungers and thirsts for Him, is content to be elected by Him, and as such to be loved by Him in all his intrinsic unworthiness to be loved. As that which elects him in particular the divine love is the eloquent and compelling basis of his own human love. It is with this freely electing love that according to the witness of the Old Testament Yahweh concluded His covenant with Israel. The gods of the ancient world surrounding Israel also had their own peoples, and these peoples h~d their gods. But the relationships between these other gods and peoples were III some sort natural relationships, this particular god being originally and essentially and inescapably bound to this people as. its genius or ideal or d<emon, and this people to this god, in a reciprocal relatIOnship of solidanty and ~ontrol. On every hand there was the temptation to construe the covenant with Yahweh along these lines, Yahweh being the bull in which Israel thought to see a reflection of its own power. It was against this temptation that, according to the tradition, Moses warned the people after the great apostasy at Sinai (Ex. 32 f.), as did all the prophets with greater or lesser concreteness. As is clearly emphasised by the traditional accounts of the call. of Abraham (Gen. 12 f.) and that of Moses (Ex. 3 f.), Yahweh is not just the national God of Israel, but t~e sovereign Lord of all peoples and their history, as even the older prophets realIsed and declared. What, then, is the advantage of Israel? Absolutely nothing. "Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me, 0 children of Israel? salth the Lord. Have not I brought up Israel out of the land of Egypt? and the Philistines from Caphtor, and the Syrians from Kir ? " (Am. g7). The one-and only-advantage is: "You only have I elected of all the families of the earth " (A~. 3 2 ). "F~~ the Lord hath chosen Jacob unto himself, and Israel for hiS peculiar treasure (Ps. 135'). It is not that Israel has chosen Him, but He Israel. Nor is there any natural or historical claim that it should be Israel whom Yahweh chose and who should be chosen by Him. It is as Yahweh decides that IsraeliS separated from other peoples. It is as He elects Himself to be its God that it becomes His elected people. Yahweh has created and formed Israel-and we have to give to this statement the strict se~se that He has caused it to be made new. It is for this reason, in the free grace III which He IS ItS Creator, that He addresses it: "Fear not: for I have redeemed thee, I have called thee by thy name; thou art mine. 'When thou passest through the waters, I will be with thee; and through the rivers, they shall not overflow thee: when thou walkest through the fire, thou shalt not be burned; neither shall the flame kindle upon thee. For I am the Lord thy God, the Holy One of Israel, thy Saviour" (Is. 43 11 .). This" I " must be taken in all its sovereignty. It is He, Yahweh, who guarantees this promise, and the fact that ·Israel is the people which may receive it and live with it comes from Him, from above, and not from below, from Israel, which is only the creation and construct of His free good will. It simply happened: " The Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people uIito himself, above all people that are upon the face of the earth ... because the Lord loved you" (Deut. 7 6r ., 142 ). "Behold, the heaven and the heaven of heavens is the Lord's thy God, the earth also, with all that therein is." And it simply happened: " Only the Lord had a delight in thy fathers to love them, and he chose their seed after them, even you above all people, as it is this day" (Deut. IOU!.). The contingence of this event, the elective character of the covenant with Yahweh, is the basis of everything else. The faithfulness with which in self-decision Yahweh will maintain this inconceivably actual differentiation, this covenant,

2.

The Basis of Love

underlies the impregnable validity which it has for Him, and therefore the COllfidence With which Israel may cling to it but also the seriousness with which it IS req~.11red to keep that which it has not instituted of itself, but the institution of which has co~e to It as the. free act of the love of Yahweh. It also explains, of course, the fnghtfulness, pitilessly mdicated by the prophets, of the abvss mto whIch It causes Itself to fall by breaking it. . There IS an obvious continuity between the witness of the Xew Testament to the love of God and that of the Old Testament. In the Xew Testament this l?ve has not ceased to be the love which elects Israel. If it is now said that Cod loved the world (In. 3 16 ), this means positively that the purpose of the electIOn of Israel~ as emphatically declared in the Old Testament (especially in Deutero-Isalah), IS now revealed as ItS determmatlOn to be God's witness to all natlOn.s. It doe~ not mean negatively-which would be a foolish thought in this context-that "God IS no longer the God who elects Israel, or Israel His elect p;ople; It IS not as though the word of God hath taken none effect" (Rom. ?). No unfmthfulness of man can overthrow the faithfulness of God (Rom. 3 3 ). The gifts and calling of God are without repentance" (Rom 1129) H' I " t t . , . . e las no cas away hiS people' (Rom. III). On the basis of the election even thou~~ they are ;~ardened, they. are still His ?ranches, " beloved for the f~thers' sake (~om. II.). And Paul s final word m relation to his people-it is not for nothmg that m Rom. 9 3 he made that awe-inspiring declaration of solidarity With them-IS qUite unmlstakeably that" all Israel shall be saved" (H.om. 11 26 ) -somethmg which IS not at all self-eVident now that the election and love of God have transcended the sphere of this one people. That the election is primanly of Israel and not of other nations is sharply expressed in two synoptic saYI~gs o! Jesus whic~,w_e must not overlook. The first is in His charge to the 5 diSCiples m Mt. 10 : Go not mto the way of the Gentiles. and into any city o,f the Samantans enter ye not." The second is the answer to the request of tne wOl~an of Can~~n m Mt. 15 24 :. "I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel -the parallel m Mk. 7 27 being even more emphatic: "Let the children first be filled: for it is not meet to take the children's bread ano to cast It unto the dogs." How can Samaritans and Gentiles possibly hav~ any claim to be the fellow-elect of the children of Abraham? How can God owe it to them to make them such? If they are this, it is in a new and no less inconceivable revelatIOn of HIS free good-will than that in which the children f Abraham are first elected. It is simply a fulfilment of the passages from Hos~a 23 (2 and 110) quoted in Rom. g251.: "I will call them my people, which were not my people; and her beloved, which was not beloved. And it shall come to pass, that m the place where it was said unto them, Ye are not my people; there sh~ll they be called. the children of the living God." The Gentiles will then be cut ~ut of the olive tree which is wild by nature, and graffed contrary to 2~atu~e (agamst every rule of horticulture!) into a good olive tree" (I~om. I I ). The one-and only-thmg which helps the Gentiles is that there has now actually taken place a new and inconceivable revelation of the free goodWill of God. The .crumbs do fall from the table of the Lord, and the request of, the, Syro-phemcmn woman IS fulfilled (Mt. 15 28 ). There has actually taken place an engraftmg of the branches of the Wild olive into the fruitful branches of the good (Rom. III?). Gentiles who followed not after righteousness have attamed to nghteousness (Rom. g30). The dividing wall between Jews and Gentiles IS broken down (Eph. 2 14 ), and Gentiles" are no more stran"ers and forelgn~~s, but fellow-citizens with the saints, and of the household ;f God" (E~~l. 2 ). Hence the G,~latlan con;munities can and may and must be addressed ~s the Israel. of c;.0d Irrespective of their composition (Gal. 616), and the ~hurches of ASia Millor as a whole are unreservedly described in I Pet. 29 as th~, :hos;-,n ,~eneration, the royal priesthood, the holy nation, the people of PossbslOn. And they shall come from the east, and from the west, and from CD.

IV-2-~25

77 0

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love

the north, and from the south, and shall sit down in the kingdom of God" (Lk. 13 29 ). The critical converse of this election of the Gentiles is a confirmation of something that the prophets of the Old Testament had long since and very clearlv revealed, namely, that the constant election of Israel m vIrtue of the dlvme faithf-;'lness is not placed under the control of the men of this people. It has to be known and apprehended and obediently believed as a grace which is and remains free. \Vhere this is not the case, it is concealed under the terrible garb of rejection. \Ve see this already in the sa.ying of the Baptist in Mt. 3 9 !. when against the false confidence of the Pharisees and Saducces: "\Ve have Abraham to our father," the sharp warning is given: "I tell you, that God IS able of these stones to raise up children unto Abraham. And now also the axe is laid unto the root of the trees: therefore every tree \Vhich bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire." The confidence which Paul maintained in relation to Israel's election even in the present and future was not then a cheap or facile confidence. He faced the terrible fact that" they are not all Israel, which are of Israel" (Rom. 9 6 ), and that it is not merely one or two branches of the good olive which have been broken off (Rom: II"'), but that things have again come to such a pass as in the days of Elijah, that only a " remnant" of Israel, and this only on the basis of the 'KAoy~ Xap'TOS, has escaped the hardness brought about by the spirit of blindness and deafness with which God has afflicted them (Rom. I 1 2 "0). There is no reason for the engrafted Gentiles to think that they for their part have escaped and found shelter. "Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you" (In. 15 '6), is true of them too-··and especially. They too-and especially-cannot and will not stand except in faith. They, too, must be warned: "Be not highminded, but fear: for if God spared not the natural branches, take heed lest he also spare not thee" (Rom. II 20 !.). Nor is there any reason to think that the election of Israel has been negated. God still has, and will exercise, the power to graft in again the branches which have been broken off (Rom. II 23L ). The mercy now imparted to the Ge,:tiles is the pledge that they too will find mercy (I{om. 1I 30!.). Ex. 33 19 , whIch ments senous consideration as an explication of the divine name of Ex. 3 14 , has come to be regarded as axiomatic in the New Testament: "I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy" (Rom. 9"). Always and in all cases, as m the decIsIOn concerning Jacob and Esan (Rom. 9 '3), the love of God is God's free election of grace. In love He has foreordained us (1Tpoop£aas) for the adoptIOn of sonshlp to Himself (Eph. 1 5 ). Those who are elected by HIm are those who are loved by Him (Col. 3 (2 ). They and they alone are those who also love God and for whom as such all things work together for good (Eom. 8 28 ). The parable of the labourers in the vineyard is relevant in this connexion. Accordmg to thIS parable (Mt. 20 16) the Lord selects thc earlier or later hours at which He personally " goes out to call the various men, some to longer and more arduous and others to shorter and less difficult work. And when It comes to payment, It IS agam the free good-will of the Lord to make the last first and the first last, so that the latecomers do not receive less than those who had started earher, nor the former more. The protest of the former is quite irrelevant: "Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? Take that thme IS, and go thy way: I will give unto this last, even as unto thee. Is It not lawful"for me to do what I will with mine own? Is thine eye eVIl, becausc I am good? According to Rom. 9 '6 this is the freedom the divine election of grace which is not conditioned by any autonomous willing and running of man and whIch overthrows all human boasting. It is in this freedom that the love of God hves and rules according to the teaching of the )iew Testament. To love God in retu~n is to love Him in the exercise of this freedom, i.e., for the very reason that m its exercise He leaves no room for buman boasting but only for gratitude. \\'e can onlv indicate very briefly why this is necessarily the case in the witness of the New T"stament (in profoundest unity with that of the Old). \Vhen

2.

The Basis of Love

77 1

they speak explicitly or implicitly of the love of God. the New Testament authors look always to Jesus Christ. They thus look to the manifestation of the promised Son of David and therefore to the fulfilment of the promise of God in His faithfulness evinced to Israel. They thus look to the indestructibility of Israel's election and its status as the first-born of all nations: "Salvation is of the Jews" (In. 4 22 ). But they also look to the act by which at the goal of its history Israel itself handed over its Messiah Jesus to the Gentiles. On the one side, therefore, they look to the fulfilment of the counsel of God concerning all nations, the whole world, as it is declared in God's covenant with Israel. And on the other side they look to the supreme obscuring of the cov"nant of God with an Israel which could and would serve the counsel of God only in this way, with the rejection of its Messiah. They look to the one beloved Son of God as the remnant of the remnant to which Israel has now been melted down, but also as the One in whom the true Israel had finally been introduced and who was therefore still the sure and certain hope of all Israel. They look to this one Beloved in whose crucifixion salvation for Jews and Gentiles, and therefore for the world, has been achieved and manifested. They look to the act of the electing God in the act of this elect man. Looking to this One, they are forced to describe the love of God with a distinctness no less, and if anything even greater, than that of the Old Testament witnesses, as an electing love. 2. The love of God is a purifying love. This term sums up all that has to be said concerning the character of the divine act of love in its relation to the perversion and corruption of man, to human sin. Man is not worthy, and does not deserve, to be loved by God. Yet, as we have said, God loves him in spite and even because of this fact. He loves him as He has mercy on the man who is lost by reason of his transgression. His love is addressed to man in all his weakness and godlessness and hostility (Rom. 5 6f ,). It can never be sufficiently underlined that God loves man in spite and even because of his worthlessness, for this helps to bring out the fact that as His self-giving to this man the love of .God is grounded only in God and not at all in man, or relatively only in the sense that man is seen to need God's mercy. But we have still to define rather more precisely what is meant by the fact that God loves in spite and because of man's worthlessness. If it is the case that we have to understand God's love as His act, there can be no place for the notion of a static paradox-sinful man on the one hand and the God who loves him in spite and because of his sin on the other. The true God, the God who has mercy on man, cannot be content, in face of the fact that man is a sinner against Him, with an empty and passive Nevertheless in which there does not take place something very radical in His relationship to man in this respect, If this were the case, the definition of His love as His self-giving to and for man would be absurd. What can self-giving mean if God is only a kind of strangely benevolent spectator of sinful man who can and does acquiesce in his sin? In such circumstances love is not selfgiving, but only a kind of capricious and irrational divine disposition concerning man the contemplation of which·-if such is possible-gives man good reason to believe that, since the love of God is not disturbed by his sin, he may quietly acquiesce in the fact that he is a sinner.

772

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love

No, in the relationship of God to man determined by His love there takes place something-something very radical. For God's love is not a divine state. It is an act. Indeed, it is the life-act of God. It is the act of His self-giving, of His self-giving to sinful man as such. If He loves this man in spite of the fact that he is sinful, this carries with it the fact that He opposes to man's sin His divine defiance and therefore His contradiction and resistance. If He loves him because he is sinful, being moved to compassion by the fact that He finds him in this weakness, godlessness and hostility, this carries with it the fact that He wills to free him from the necessity of being a sinner. He thus loves him in opposition to his sin. He says Yes to him, but in so doing He says No to his sin. As He gives Himself to and for man, there takes place in the one loved by Him the victorious encounter between Him and his sin. The sin of the one loved by Him is a stain which cannot stand against the fact that God loves him and gives Himself for him, but must yield and perish. It is the work of the love of God to cause this stain to yield. This is why we call it the purifying love of God. And we cannot afford to neglect this aspect of God's love. Without it it would be idle to talk of the God of love. God's love is total grace for sinful man, but also total judgment over him. It is total grace because it is God's perfect turning and goodness and friendliness: not in the impotence of a distant and inactive benevolence but in the power of His own presence in the inner and outer life of man; in the fact that He proves Himself a benefactor and deliverer by concrete assistance and vivifying action, thus turning man away from his sin and to Himself, and summoning him to obedience to His will. But it is also total judgment because it is the holy severity of God: again not in the impotence of a distant and inactive disapproval but in the power of His whole presence and action in the psychic and physical occurrence of human life; in the fact that God forcefully withstands man on his evil way, concretely revealing Himself as the pitiless avenger of his mistakes and follies, commanding him to halt: Thus far and no farther. The grace in which God loves man is distinguished from the other favours which he receives by the fact that he has not at all deserved it, that as this thing which he has not at all deserved it represents that which is God's aim and end for man, that in some degree of distance or proximity it always includes a painful, humiliating, hurtful and destructive judgment, that it may indeed be altogether hidden in the form of judgment, and yet that it always remains grace, and is not wholly unrecognisable as such. But the judgment which cannot be avoided if God loves man is also distinguished from the other ills which befall man by the fact that it represents what he has deserved as a transgressor but not God's final will for him, so that it has no independent significance or definitive character, but can only serve the grace of God, being a form of grace, and recognisable as such, even in its most frightful manifestations.

2.

The BaS1S of Love

773

Thus grace and judgment do not take place in an accidental or arbitrarv parallelism or sequence, but in the context of the purifying love of God, so that as the grace and judgment of God they work together in their coming and going according to the order and purpose which He Himself gives. Their binding order consists in the fact that God's will is to keep man in grace, or to lead him to it, by means of judgment. And their common purpose is to separate and liberate man from His sin. This purpose is served both by the enticement of His grace and the threat of His judgment, both by His chiding and His blessing. Man can and should, therefore, rise up and rejoice thankfully in the incomprehensible comfort and forgiveness of God, in all the assistance which he is given, in all the great and little lights which shine on his way, in all the strengthenings and encouragements, in short in all the unmerited favours addressed to him by the love of God. Yet he should also be prepared sooner or later to be recalled in some way to his limits by this love, to find himself forcefully redirected to the humility which he so easily forgets and loses when he basks in the divine sunshine. For it is God Himself, and not just a lucky fate, which is favourable to him. And so, when that which he has deserved overtakes him, the same man can and should bow before it, humbling himself to the dust, finding himself absolutely directed to accept the awful things which he does not like, allowing himself to be led where he does not want to go, yet clinging to the fact-for it is in the same love of God that these things come to him-that he will not fall into the abyss but will still be upheld. Even in these circumstances, there are always lights in the darkness, forgiveness in guilt, new life in death, breaks in the engulfing clouds, encouragements in despair. There is always reason for thankfulness even in the anguish in which he thinks to perish. For it is God Himself and not a sinister and hostile force who judges him. In both respects we have to do with the presence and action of God in its dynamic opposition to his perversion and corruption. In both cases the aim is his purification. God utters a Nevertheless, a merciful Therefore, both when He gives what is undeserved with goodness and what is deserved with severity. It is always His fatherly hand which is active both morning and evening, by day and by night, to his purification and therefore his liberation. In both cases God really gives Himself to him and for him. In both cases He comes into his life. In both cases He has a part in him as he is, and gives him a part in His Yes (which precisely in virtue of the No which it encloses is a strong and helpful Yes), and also in His No (which is wholly enclosed in His strong and helpful Yes). In both cases it takes place that he may find himself received and adopted by God-as the man who is loved by Him. In this matter we may distinguish and integrate the witness of the Old and New Testament by finding in the one the initiation and in the other the completion of the divine love understood as purifying love. Since the relationship

774

§ 68, The Holy Spirit and Christian Love

between God and man derives from God's election of sinful man, in both cases it is, from the divine standpoint, an unconditionally positive and yet also an unconditionally critical relationship. Even in the history of Israel, and especially in that of Jesus Christ, there can be no question of a breach of this relationship, and therefore of a withdrawal and cessation of the love of God in consequence of human sin. On the other hand, there can be no question of a toleration of human sin, and therefore of an armistice, or termination, in the movement of God in opposition to it. The divine Yes to man stands, as attested in both the Old Testament and the New. But in this Yes, just because and as it is unshakeable as the divine Yes to man, the merciless No of God is also pronounced against man's transgression. His love and election and grace necessarily have also the shadow-side of His hatred and rejection and judgment. According to the witness of both Testaments it is a question of the purification of the man affirmed and loved and elected and blessed by God. To be sure, it often seems likely in the Old Testament that the One who has established and guaranteed the covenant between Yahweh and Israel will terminate and destroy it. It was broken by Israel, not only before its institution, but in a flagrant manner immediately afterwards, and then continually. According to the explicit testimony of earlier and later tradition alike, the history of Israel consisted in an almost unbroken series of breaches of the covenant. The first of these, as we learn from Moses' conversation with God in Ex. 32, might well have been answered by a complete repudiation of the covenant on the part of Yahweh. And among the later prophetic utterances in later situations there are some which come very near to declaring that Yahweh has grown tired of His partner and therefore ended it. But He never actually did this. "He hath remembered his covenant for ever, the word which he commanded to a thousand generations" (1's. 10S8). The history of Israel continues to be a history of the faithfulness which Yahweh maintains in relation to Israel in spite of Israel's failure and unfaithfulness. And so there constantly takes place in it the unmerited but real deliverance, preservation, assistance, blessing and triumphing of Israel, the hearing of its cries for help in all kinds of emergencies (as described in 1'8. 107), the remission of all its guilt, the healing of all its transgressions, its redemption from destruction and crowning with glory and honour as extolled in 1's. 1032[, Obviously in answer to tangible grace, there is continual thanksgiving and praise and rejoicing and solemn festivity and singing and playing and even dancing before Yahweh. All as if nothing had happened? As if God overlooked and dismissed the fact that He had to do with a nation of transgressors? On the contrary, it is obvious that according to the understanding of the relevant texts it is just when Yahweh saves and helps and blesses and gladdens that we have to do with His contradiction and active resistance against Israel's transgression and apostasy. He does not put Himself in the wrong but maintains His right in face of His people when He is so kind, when according to the depiction in the Book of Judges (with a notable parallel in 1's. I06) He responds to the constant defection and need of His people with the continual raising up and sending of new saviours. But the fact that in and with His favours, in a strict execution of His covenant, He maintains His right against His people, and in opposition to its unfaithfulness and transgression He does so on its behalf, emerges also in something which is particularly emphasised in the Old Testament witness to the history of Israel. As a sequence of breaches of the covenant it is an almost interminable sequence of the judgments which God causes to fall on its sins of commission and omission. To be sure, Yahweh does not break the covenant. But in the covenant which is not broken but kept by Yahweh, Israel necessarilv learns-already in the wilderness according to the traditional account, and then 'in a terrible crescendo up to the destruction of Samaria and Jerusalem and its leading away to exile-what it means and involves to sin against so gracious a God. His grace does not yield but smites its enemies and despisers.

2.

The Basis oj Love

775

The election is not set aside but it is concealed and turns to the rejection of the disobedient. Love never fai!s·--the saying might well have stood in the Old Testament-but it burns and shrivels and destroys where it is ignored and meets With no response, where it is spurned and trodden under foot. It was just as and because the prophets held fast to the promise and covenant of Yahweh, or rather proclaimed the fact that Yahweh Himself held fast to it,. that the accusation against His people, the threat of the judgment which necessarily accompanied its transgression, and lamentation when it burst upon it, became'a terrifymgly strong--'If not the strongest-note in the witness of the Old Testament. But we must not miss the basic note which not only holds together the antithesis of Yahweh's grace and judgment but gives to its strange conjunction the character, if not of a clear manifestation, at least of an indication whether grace or judgment is to be the final Word in the history of Israel. In spite of everything it is indisputably clear that the God of the fathers, whether He blesses or curses, does not cease to speak with Israel; that in grace or judgment it is He and not an alien lord who rules its history. Hence it is also clear that the faithful love of Yahweh, whether it brings salvation or perdition, is not in vain; that by the \Vord and work of its God the history of Israel is the history of a promise, or rather of a purification from sin which has not been completed but has genuinely begun in the twofold conflict of God for Israel and against its sin. This history does not lead, therefore, to a contradiction and a riddle. It is not a history which can proceed only as that of Israel dashing itself to pieces on God. There is no decision, no definite result, but in its issue it does point in a very definite direction; and to the completion of that which has been begun in it, \Vhen we turn from the Old Testament to the New, the dominant impression that we receive at once from the very outset, and can never lose again, is that the eventuality of a breach of the positive relationship of God to the race of men, which in the Old Testament had always been at'least a marginal threat, has now become quite impossible. That which in the history of Israel, as the final and decisive Word in the antithesis of grace and judgment, is still awaited as an unfulfilled promise, is now the first \Vord of the history of Jesus Christ and His community which is now attested. That which was only future is now the basis and beginning behind which we cannot go but from which we can only proceed. It is still a question of God's grace and judgment, of His love which strives against human sin. But this conflict which was taken up according to the witness of the Old Testament is now carried through and victoriously ended according to the witness of the New. This is revealed in the fact that in the event from which the New Testament witness derives and which it declares grace and judgment are no longer two related but different and distinguishable sides or aspects of the love of God. But it is in His grace that God has exercised judgment, and in His judgment that His grace has triumphed. In the history of Jesus Christ-quite otherwise than in that of Israel-it is one and the same thing (not two) that Goel chides and blesses; that He humbles and exalts; that He smites and heals; that He kills and makes alive. That which is deserved is itself that which is undeserved. And that in this history God has triumphed in the twofold conflict against human sin is shown in the fact that there is now-quite otherwise than in the history of Israel-no reversal of the two elements of His action; that after His blessing there is no return of His wrath and curse; that after His exalting and healing and making alive there is no renewal of His humbling and smiting and killing. This history therefore-again quite otherwise than that of Israel-does not need any continuation and completion. It needs only the proclamation that it has taken place, and the final revelation of its meaning and significance for all creation in all the developments and dimensions of its temporal existence. It is the completion of the history of the purifying love of God. For in it God has accomplished His judgment on sinful man in such a way that He has taken it upon Himself in the

77 6

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love

person of His Son, suffering it as the judgment of death, and thus removing it once and for all. And in it God has evinced His grace to sinful man in such a way that again in the person of His Son He has brought in once and for all the man who is pure and free from sin. It is in this, and in this way, that God loved the world, interposing and giving Himself for it. This history of Jesus Christ--in which He gives a share to His disciples, and through them to the community founded by their ministry, and through this to the world-is the act of God in which His movement for man and against His sin is in its fulfilment an event for all times. As this began in the history of Israel, we cannot say of the latter that it ended merely in an aporia or riddle. On the contrary, we have to say that for all its provisional and contradictory character it belongs to the history of Jesus Christ as a real promise of a real fulfilment, a real beginning to a real completion. And together with it the history of ] esus Christ, the conflict completed in it, is the act of the love of God in which He has definitively ordered and revealed His relationship to sinful man. It is of this act of God that we speak when as sinful men we may speak of the love with which God has loved and does and will love us. When we speak of the love of God, we can do so only with reference to the fact that it is God's love for sinful man. vVe can speak only of the love of the One who is faithful to His covenant with Israel, and therefore of the love of Jesus Christ. And this is the basis on which and in the strength of which we too may love, loving in return the God who has first loved us.

The love of God is (3) creative, i.e., a love which causes those who are loved by Him to love. At this point we touch on the theme of the next sub-section in which we shall have to speak of the act of Christian love. The connexion between the love of God and this effect is not accidental or external. It is not the case that it might or might not follow. It is a terrible thing-impossible and inexplicableif it does not follow. The fact that this terrible thing does continually happen is our condemnation to the extent that as those who are loved by God we ourselves do not love. But it does not contradict God's love. It does not alter its essential character. As it is essential to it to be elective and purifying love, it is also essential to it to be the basis of human love; the creative basis; not merely a rational basis, as though man had to draw from it the practical conclusion that he for his part can and may and should love; nor a purely moral basis, as though the love of God were a rule or example that he ought to follow; nor a quasi-physical basis, as though the impact of the love of God caused man to love like a ball which is set in motion. Of themselves these explanations are quite inadequate. To be sure, we certainly have to do with God's Word when God loves, but it is a creative Word. We certainly have to do with His command, but as in Gen. 1 it is a creative command. We certainly have to do with His power, but it is His power as Creator. Loving is not a human possibility which we may and must actualise in certain prescribed conditions. We have learned already that it is" of God" (1 In. 4 7). But this means precisely that (as He made heaven and earth ex nihilo, or formed Adam from the dust of the earth according to Gen. 2 7, or can raise up from the stones children to Abraham) He can make of

2.

The Basis of Love

777

those who cannot and will not love (for they are sinners) men who do actually love, proving the inconceivable fact that they are free to do so by the fact that they actually do. New and different men are needed in order that love may take place as a human act. And God creates these new and loving men. It is in this wav that He is the basis of human love. . His love is His self-giving to and for man. He does not love, therefore, merely to be loved in return. He does not long for this, or court it, or bargain for it. He does not make this response a condition of His own love. His wrath where it is lacking has nothing whatever to do with the fury of scorned and unrequited love. And His grace where it is made has nothing whatever to do with the pleasure of a triumphant love which attains its desire. We must be careful not to make the love of God a kind of original or model for our own wellenough known self-love in which we all seek our own. What is it that God wills when He loves us? He certainly does not will anything for Himself-for what have we to give Him? But He does not will Himself without us. In all the fulness of His Godhead, in which He might well have been satisfied with Himself, He 'rills Himself together with us. He wills Himself in fellowship with us. He wills Himself as our Lord and therefore as our summum bonum, or rather as the one and perfect bonum of our existence, our being under His lordship. He wills Himself, not as the object of our wishes and desires, of our imagination and aspiration, of our willing and running, but as His gift freely imparted to us. It is in this way that God loves, that He is eternal love. It is in this way that He loves us-man. And in this sense His love is creative love; love which does not ask or seek or demand or awaken and set in motion our love as though it were already present in us, but which creates it as something completely new, making us free for love as for an action which differs wholly and utterly from all that we have done hitherto. We have to be liberated for an action of this kind, in which there can be love and therefore self-giving on the part of man. Of himself man is not free for this action. The action for which he is free of himself-in the fool's freedom of the one who is really captive-is that of eros, i.e., of the self-love which desires that which is another's, and the other himself, so that although it may also take the form, in a fulfilment of duty and exercise of virtue, of an ostensible self-giving and therefore an apparent suppression of eros, there is no freedom for genuine love. The presupposition of genuine love is the existence of a man who is free for it, and therefore-since he is not and cannot be this of himself-freed for it. The love of God is this liberation of man for genuine love. When it comes about that God loves a man, that He gives Himself to him and for him, that He gives Himself into his life, by this act of God that man becomes a different man; not a second God, but a man whom God takes into fellowship with Himself just as he is and in

77[',

§ 68. The Haly Spirit and Christian Love

spite of what he is, so that his existence is given a determination which is not only new, but so radically and totally ne\~ that the change can be described only as a new creation or a ~new bIrth.. The newn~ss of his existence consists in the fact that as God gl ves HImself to hIm he is stamped by God. In the words of ~t. 5 4 .5 , he becomes a " child of God" and as such free to model hIS actIOn on what God does, shaping it in correspondence wit~ the act~on of his Father. But .If love is the action of his Father, ItS reflectIOn and correspondence m the action of man can consist only in the fact that he also may love and therefore give himself. He is not God, of course, but only a child of God--and this by grace and not by nature. Whe~ he loves, therefore, he cannot give what God gives. Even that whIch h~ ~an give he gives only on the basis and accor~i~g to the model of the dlvme self-giving. Hence it follows that the dlvme love and the ~ur~an are always two different things and cannot be confused. Yet It IS J?ore important to assert positively that. when the love of God. es.tablIsh~s fellowship between God and man ~t J?akes ma~ free to ImItate .HIS divine action in the sphere and wIthm the lImIt.s of. ~uman actIOn, and thus to love in human fashion as God does m dlvme. The one who is loved by God acquires and has this freedom. It is not that he should love-but that he may and will. . . . Now that we have introduced the ideas of new creatIOn, lIberatIOn and therefore the radical alteration of man by the establis~ment of fellowship between God and himself, we have reached the po.mt where we must take up expressly the theme indicated by the he~dmg of the section: "The Holy Spirit and Christian Love." In theIr fulfilment in which they become the basis of Christian love the act and .work of God are the act and work of the Holy Spirit in whom man IS calle~ and drawn by the Father to the Son and the Son. to the Fat.her. ThIS is the new creation of man, his liberation, his radIcal alt~ratIO~ by the established fellowship between God and himself. In thIS callmg and drawing of the Father to the So~ and the S~n to the Father there takes place the divine love. by whIch ma.n to.o IS made one who loves. But the power of this callIng and drawmg ~s .the po~er ~f the Holy Spirit. We can say only in retrospect that.lt IS also m HIS pow~r, of course, that there takes place the free electIOn and the great pun~ca­ tion of divine love fulfilled in grace and judgment. What we descnbed in the first two characterisations of love was the sovereignty of the Holy Spirit and His mercy and righte~usness maintained in. face. of human sin. We now speak of the creatIve character of love m whIch it is the basis of human love. At this point we must ~e bold to make the direct equation-that the love of God is the creatIve work of the Holy Spirit. As God is Spirit, t~e Spirit. o.f the Father and the. Son, as He gives Himself into human lIfe as Spmt, and as He bears wlt~ess as Spirit to our spirit that w.e are .His children (Rom. 816 ), God gIves us to participate in the love m whIch as Father He loves the Son and

2.

The Basis of Love

779

as Son the Father, making our action a reflection of His eternal love, and ourselves those who may and will love. The fact that human action becomes the reflection, the creaturely similitude, of the divine can and must be described both a.s the work of God's love and also as the work of His Spirit. It is, in fact, both. As God loves man, giving Himself to him and for him, it comes about that the latter in his action can imitate the love of God, responding and corresponding to it. And it is the power of the Spirit, in which God gives Himself to man, to free him for this imitation, response and correspondence, and therefore to make his action the reflection of His own. In the light of this equation we must close our deliberations with the statement that in its concrete form the love of God is identical with the action in which Jesus Christ builds His community, calling men to Himself, gathering them in it, giving them a part in its faith and mission, sanctifying them, and therefore treating them as His own, as members of His body. The power of the Holy Spirit works concretely in Church history and the many individual histories included in it, or in the many individual histories which together constitute Church history. And it is in the same sphere, we may now continue, that there operates and lives and rules the love of God as the creative basis of the liberation in which men become those who love; in which they become Christians and therefore those who love, those who love and therefore Christians. We may distinguish but we cannot separate the upbuilding of the community from the sanctification of its members, or vice versa. We may distinguish therefore but we cannot separate the Holy Spirit who edifies and sanctifies the community from the love with which God creates a people of those who love Him. We may distinguish but we cannot separate being a Christian from loving (as though the fact that the one includes the other constituted a problem). We may distinguish but we cannot separate the love with which God by the Holy Spirit loves the community first and then Christians and the love with which, attested by the community and its members, He has turned to all men, to the whole world. By the love of God we have to understand the totality of this happening not only in its inner inter-relationship and movement but also in its unity. In the totality of this happening it is the creative and also the electing and purifying basis of human, genuine, Christian love. To understand the biblical attestation of this third and final characterisation of the love of God we must start from the simple fact that in both the Old Testament and the New divine and human love are denoted by the same word. In the first instance this means that we are challenged to consider what gives precedence to divine love over human. And in distinguishing between the two, there can be no question that we have first to ascribe a creative character to God's love in its relationship with that of man. Duo faciunt idem when God loves His people Israel, or in Jesus Christ the community, Christians. and typically in them the world, and when love seems also to be expected from Israel. from the community and its members and from men in the world. But duo

2.

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love cum faciunt idem, non est idem. And to understand the difference and the connexion between divine love and human we have to take into account the fact that the second can take place only as it is absolutely conditioned by the first, by the fact that the first takes place, so that in the first love we have to do in fact with the creative basis of the second. How does it come about that the Israelites do what is very definitely expected of them in Deut. 6", loving Yahweh their God "with all their heart, and with all their mind, and with all their strength"? As their whole history with God demonstrates, it is not that they can produce and achieve this love of themselves. The very idea is unthinkable in view of the radical and total nature of what is expected. But according to Ezek. I I 19 and 3626 (d. Jer. 3239) it is possible only as the God who has begun and does not cease to love them will finally give them another heart, putting a new spirit within them, taking away the stony heart out of their flesh and giving them a heart of flesh. Or, according to Deut. 306: "Yahweh thy God will circumcise thine heart, and the heart of thy seed, to love Yahweh thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live." And how can there be any fulfilment when in Mt. 12 29 and par. Jesus takes up expressly the " Hear, 0 Israel"? In His community too, even in the person of His disciples and apostles, the only possibility is that of Rom. 5", that" the love of God is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us "'; or of In. 17 26 , that the love with which the Father loves the Son is also in themnot self-evidently, but on the basis and in fulfilment of the petition of the 50nwhen in the words of In. 15 91 . they abide in His love. According to I Cor. 29, in that which God has prepared for those who love Him, we have something which the eye of man has not seen nor his ear heard, and which has not entered into his heart. Thus the imitation of the divine action by a human rests on the presupposition that by this preparation certain men are made free and able to accomplish this imitation. The use of the same term to describe the divine and human action draws our attention to the fact that in the action for which man is freed by the action of God we really have to do with imitation. In this connexion we may first refer to a very explicit New Testament saying in Eph. 5': "Be ye therefore followers (or imitators, JL'JL"ITat) of God as (His) dear children, and walk in love, according as (Kullws) Christ also hath loved you, and hath given himself for you an offering and a sacrifice to God." Paul often described his own apostolic existence as an imitation of this kind-a new " magnifying" (JL£YaAvvwlla', Phil. 120) of the sacrifice of Jesus Christ. He obviously has this in mind when he opens the concluding exhortation of Romans by summoning his readers to present their bodies (themselves) a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God. But we can hardly understand the radical and total nature of what was expected from the people of Yahweh according to the "Hear, 0 Israel," if we do not see in the " all thine heart, and all thy soul, and all thy might" a reflection of the radical and total intervention of God Himself on behalf of His people. Indeed, in Deut. 30"1. we read the remarkable words (quoted by Paul in Rom. 10 61 .) : " For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it." What Word and Law is this, which is near and not far off, known and not unknown, practicable and not impracticable, because it has already been set in the mouth and even in the heart of Israel? It is obviously that which is revealed and declared by the very fact that Yahweh Himself has turned to His people, thus taking up its action into fellowship with His own, determining and qualifying it from the very first as an action which responds or corresponds

The Basis of Love

781

to His own, being the " analogue" of His own "Logos." According to the dIstmchve outlook and terminology of Deuteronomy, Israel must choose in exact correspondence wIth the choice or election of Yahweh. It must choose, that is to say,. between hfe and death, between blessing and cursing (Deut. 30191.), or accordmg to Josh. 24 '5 between the serVIce of the God of its fathers and that of the gods of other peoples. It must make a right choice, i.e., one which in analogy to that of Yahweh means hfe and n?t death, blessing and not cursing, the service o! Its own God and not that of alIen deities. In this right choice it will love "ahweh Its God, he.anng His Word, cleaving to Him, obeying the Word which has been spoken to It and which is nigh and known and practicable. According to Deut. 3011. the Israelites will also do this when, as both blessing and cursing act~ally come upon them, they return, and thus give place, in their response of pe~Itence and t~ankfulness, to the love of God in its character as purifying love. It IS .surely ObVIOUS that III the Old Testament as in the New obedience (to the deCISIOn and act and revelation, to the voice and Word and commandment of God) Illv?lves a correspondence; that the whole Law (especially at its heart as a sacnficialorder, but also III ItS legal and other ceremonial provisions) is the comprehensIve dIrectIOn to an attitude on the part of the people which will reflect that of Yahweh; ~h~t the evangelical and apostolic exhortation as a ~hole IS an mVItatIOn to dIsCIpleship of Jesus Christ and therefore to the imitahon of God In what is done and not done by the community and its individual members; that the prophetic denunciation of Israel has decisive reference to and acquires its awful severity from, the fact that Israel's declension from it~ God and. HIS commandments. consists concretely in the breach of fellowship between Its own bemg and .Hlmself, whIch means in practice the breaking of the ~nalogy between ItS actIOn and that of its God; and that, conversely, all the JOy and thankfulness WIth whIch Paul thinks that he can affirm the faith and love and zeal and steadfastness of His communities has its substance in the fact that he sees, or hopes to see, Christ in them (Gal. 4'9). The ~mblvalence of the biblical terminology forces us, finally, to understand t.he poslhve connexIOn between God and man which is obviously envisaged as a lIberatIOn WhICh comes to man from God, and not therefore as a demand which God addresses to him. Since the love of God is a creative love which introduces true human love as a new reality, the idea that this has to be demanded from man is rendered quite superfl~ous. Indeed, do we not have to say that the Idea tha\ love demand~ l~ve I~ ?ne which is intrinsically impossible, at least ~hen we .a.ke the term m ItS bIblIcal sense as m both cases self-giving? Giving IS a very dIfferent thmg from demanding. If God's love as His free self-giving to and for m~n IS the. ba~Is of man's love, it can have the character only of a lIberatIOn whIch man IS gIven for an action which in correspondence to that of God can only be free and not one which is required or imposed from without which he is constrained to fulfil. It would be a strange love which demanded lov~. And It would be a strange love which was merely a response to this demand. It IS the nerve of the whole relationship between the love of God and that of man that by the love of God man is put in a position to love, that he may do so, t~at he IS not b~lhed or prodded to do so by any compelling authority from WIthout, that he IS really free-made free-to do so of himself in imitation of the self~gIvIllg of God. if this is not the case, what does it mean that in this conneXIOn the Old Testan:e~t ~peaks so emphatically of the heart as the place where thIS whole movement IS mlhated? Surely it is not love from the heart, or with the ~hole heart, If there is any question of compulsion, if we have to love in the requIred fulfilment of duty Or exercise of virtue? It was, of course, upon the constraint of a" Thou shalt love" that Kierkegaard thought It necessary to construct ~is whole book.: The Life and Rule of Love. As ~e sa~ It, l?ve IS a duty, and It IS as such that It is the revelation which with dlvme ongmahty enters the lists against human self-love, the" eternal change"

§ (1). The Hal)' S'tJirit and Christian Love

3· The A.ct of Love

which not only astonishes 1nan but stirs and provokes him (eel. Diederich, 1924, p. 27). It is only the duty to love which eternally protects love against every change, making it eternally free in happy independence, eternally assuring it against all despair (p. 3I f.). The" Thou shalt" of eternity is that which saves and purifies and ennobles. "\Vhere that which is only human seeks to press forward, the commandment restrains; where that which is only human loses heart, the commandment strengthens; where that which is purely human becomes lifeless and prudent, the commandment gives tire and wisdom. The commandment consumes and burns up that which is unhealthy in thy love. By the commandment thou canst inflame it again when it bids fair to die down. \Vhere thou thinkest thou canst easily counsel thyself, the commandment intrudes upon thy counsels. \Vhere thou turnest to thine own counsel in despair, thou should est turn to it for counsel. \Vhere thou canst think of no counsel, it will create it for thee, and all will be welL" It may be sensed what Kierkegaard has in mind. But as he states it here, it is quite false. It is hardly surprising, then, that for all its individual heauties his book assumes on this presupposition the unlovely, inquisitorial and terribly judicial character which is so distinctive of Kierkegaard in general. It is not at all the case that we can be silent, as Kierkegaard is, about the creative, generous, liberating love of God, and speak instead only of the naked commandment: "Thou shalt," as the basis of Christian love. There are certainly no biblical grounds for doing so. It is not at all the case that eternity (at least in the biblical sense) must be described as the overhanging wall of this: "Thou shalt," which impresses because it provokes, and then suddenly becomes as such a saving power and the source of all good counsel. It may be so according to a particular understanding of Kantian ethics, but it is detinitely not the case according to the Bible that a rigid" Thou shalt" confronts that which is human with the power to change self-love into love. And it is not the case that a love which is imposed and enforced as a duty-however it may be understood~can ever be more than an eros with its back to the wall as it were. It certainly is not the love in which man really gives himself. The doubtful translation of ahabta (dya7T~a
(Jer. 3 1 ""). This and this alone is the basis of the love which is the fulfilment of the whole Law. And as God does this His Law, in virtue of which love is expected of man, IS the Law of the Gospel.

7 83

3· THE ACT OF LOVE We are not forgetting, or leaving behind, what we have said about the b~sic love of God if now, in a turn of 180 degrees, we direct our attentIO~ to .the h~m~n, Christian love based on it. Our specific concern m thIS sectIOn IS to unfold the action of the Christian subject as such. What does the Christian do? He does what he may do, what he has the freedom to do, as one who is loved by God. He loves. He is a man, inde:d a sinful man. He has a part in the pride and fall, the sloth and mIsery, of all men. He is a sinner more intensively than all others because he ~nows that h~ is. And so he does many thingsfar too many-whIch have nothmg whatever to do with, but are in fact opposed to, the love for which he is liberated as one who is loved by.God. But in so far as he is a Christian he also loves, just as he beheves and hop~s as such, in spite of all the other things that he is and does. We WIll have to come back to the limitation which results from the fact that we canno~ truthfully say that he loves wholly and utterly and therefore exclUSIvely, but only that he also loves. For the moment, however, we will keep to the positive fact that this action also consists in the fact that he loves. With its own limitation and in its own way, this too does take place in his life. And the fact that on the basis of the love of God this too does take place in his life has to be taken into account. It cannot be without significance for his other activity, howeve: different ~r. opposed. His love will secretly openly: cou?teract. hIS other actIVIty (not in the strength which he ~Imself gIves It, but m the strength of its divine basis). It will leave ItS mark upon the character of his life-act as a whole. To be sure t~is will not be une:Juiv~cally evident. And he himself, we may hope: WIll be the last to Imagme that his love is co-extensive with the rest of. his acti:ity. For to the extent that he reflects concerning it, and tr~es to chng to the results of this reflection, he will not love, and :-Vlll thus destr?y the very thing to which he clings. We cannot love m order to achIeve so~ething--not even the peace of a relatively good, or not too bad, conSCIence. Love is betrayed if we try to make it the object of this type of calculation. And in any case, the calculation ~tsel.f is f~tile from the very outset, since there can be no question of a JustificatIOn of man before God by his action, not even by that of a most powerful love in his life. This does not mean, however that it is witho~t significance if in his life it may also happen, with many other thmgs, that he loves. For if this were the case, it would mean

0:

§ G8. The Holy Spirit aild Christian Love

3· The Act of Love

that it is without significance that God loves him, and that there may be an imitation of the love of God in his life. No, that which, surrounded and covered and compromised by a very different activity, takes place in the life of a ma'1 as the act of love, does so on the basis of the divine creation and is therefore a reality which counts in the sight of God, not to the praise or defence or justification of this man, but in the context of what He wills for him, of the service for which He has determined and uses him. In relation to the other things which the man is and does, it may be only like a spark under a heap of ashes. But apart from and side by side with everything else that he does, he does also love-because he may do so, because he has from God the freedom also to do so-and this makes his whole life different from what it would be if he did not love. As this too takes place in it, it is a Christian life. It would be unchristian only if the act of love did not take place in it at all. And this would mean that God cannot use him at all in His service. But we must now be more precise and ask: \Vhat takes place in this act? What takes place when a man and therefore the Christian -a sinful man, to be sure, and therefore one who does very different things as well-may love? It is obvious that to understand the content of this act, we must consider its object, and therefore the fact that in it we have to do with the love of God and one's neighbour. But certain considerations concerning its general form will not be irrelevant or superfluous.

there is realised the deepest and true being of man-his determination for God and for fellow-humanity. It is that which is expected on the part of God. In view of the corruption of human existence it is not self-evident that it should take place. Eros, self-love (in its higher and lower manifestations), is the supremely natural, the old and accustomed thing, the repetition and outworking of which are to be expected with the necessity of a law. The same cannot be said of Christian love That it takes place because and as a man like all the rest is free for it and made capable of it, can never be deduced from some existing factor, and therefore foreseen and expected, since it can be based only on the event of new creation and new birth. If it takes place at all, it does so in a mighty act of the Holy Ghost for whom we can only pray, whose presence and action can only cause grateful astonishment even to those who are active in love, let alone to others. That a man loves will always be a source of wonder and surprise. It will always be the great exception in his life. For a proper estimation of th~ greatly devalued term" love" it is as well to be clear that where love takes place we have to do with nothing more nor less than a revelation of the real presence of God in Jesus Christ.

7R4

It is evident that the New Testament words aya1T1) and ¢,,>.ta, and the corresponding verbs, are not infrequently used absolutely, i.e., without any express mention of that to which they refer. Instances may be found in the passage [ Jn. 4 7t . to which we have already referred, in the various combinations of love (already quoted) with faith and hope and patience and other leading concepts which characterise Christian existence, and especially in I Cor. 13-a chapter which is central to our whole subject. As Christ dwells in their hearts by faith, Christians are EV aya1T17 EppL'WjJ-
\Ve must first put the general question what kind of a form this is. And (r) there can be no doubt that in the life of the one who may perform it the act of love will have the character of something .ne~· and unusual and (from the human standpoint) unexpected. For 111 It

We cannot rightly interpret any of the .New Testament passages which point to this human act if we do not realise that the use of the term" love" is tacitly enwrapped in thankful adoration, in sheer joy at the presence of the unexpected, of what we can only pray for. This is brought out very clearly by the introductions to the Pauline Epistles, which deserve our closest attention.

But (2) we have also to underline no less definitely that we have to describe love quite unequivocally as a free act of man. Already we have found it necessary to think of it as a human response, correspondence, imitation, or analogy to the love of God as we spoke of the latter as its basis. Two delimitations are essential in this regard. Christian love, as we have had to indicate already, is not a kind of prolongation of the divine love itself, its overflowing into human life which man with his activity has to serve as a kind of channel, being merely present and not at bottom an acting subject. It is not the work of the Holy Spirit to take from man his own proper activity, or to make it simply a function of His own overpowering control. Where He is present, there is no servitude but freedom. This false conception is contradicted by the great frailty of that which emerges as love in the life of even the best Christians. If it were merely identical with the flowing of the stream of divine love into human life, if our little love were o. manifestation or particle of the love of God, it could not and would not be so weak and puny. But the work of the Holy Spirit consists in the liberation of man for his own act and therefore for the spontaneous human love whose littleness and frailty are his own responsibility and not that of the Holy Spirit. Christian love as a human act corresponds indeed to the love of God but is also to be distinguished

786

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love

3. The Act oj Love

from it. It is an act in which man is at work, not as God's puppet, but with his own heart and soul and strength, as an independent subject who encounters and replies to God and is responsible to Him as His partner. .. . The second idea that we have to reject IS that m the human response to God's love we have only a correspondence in disposition or in thought and emotion. This is false because in the love of God we do not have to do primarily with a disposition or with thOUg~lt and emotion but with an act which God has willed and executed wIth all the energy of the crucifixion. It is this act which is the basis, the creative model, of true human love. If the latter is its imitation, it too is an act, and not merely an internal but an external act, the act of the whole man. A man may have many thoughts and emotions of love and yet not love or give himself by a long way. If he d?es l~ve, he does rIOt do so partially, and therefore he does not do so Just mwardly or Just o~t­ wardly. It is another question how much or little of hIS whole bemg is lacking when he loves. There will always .be ~ good deal.. But no unfortunate deficiency in this regard can be Justlfied theoretlcally by reducing the love for which he was liberated to something merely inward. He is freed by the love of God to love" in deed and in truth" (r In. 318 ). Where there is love, there takes place something God, but in space and time, "with hearts and hands and VOIces .." Where there is no human act in the full sense of the term, there IS no love. For there is no imitation of God. The new thing that man does as he may love has (3) the form and character of an impartation. To love is to do that which is " better than to receive" (Ac. 20 35), namely, to give. It is because it is a matter of giving that we must insist so strongly that love c~nnot be a merely inward action. Dispositions and thoughts and emotlOns may be very lofty and profound, bnt their movement is i.nward.; they are n~t giving. A merely inward action is not a genume ~ctlon at all. It IS not one in which something happens. But accordmg to the example of God Himself love is the action of giving, and it is therefore one in which man moves out from himself. "God loveth a cheerful giver" (2 Cor. 9 7 ). Giving is very different from.keeping and takinl?' .Eros takes and it then has to keep and take agam. Love breaks thIS Clrcle. The one who loves gives. He is marvellously freed to do this.. In the power of the Holy Spirit he does this new and unexpected thmg. It is not that he has not received and does not have-for how else could he give? He is most generously endowed-the wealthiest ~an on earth-and he is correspondingly grateful. But he does not thmk about this. He simply is it. And he is it, and enjoys it, only as he gives. We recall that it is only side by side wit~ and among. many other and very different things-and not exclUSIvely-that 1.t also takes place in his life that he gives. But it is as he .does thIS. also that, while he is not justified, yet, as the great and mIserable smner

,trom

that he is as well, he is useful to God, and set in His service-a Christian. Where there is love and therefore giving, there is always this happening; and a house, if not a temple, of God is established in the midst of sinners. But giving, as we know, means self-giving-sacrifice. And in practice this includes many kinds of giving. It is not sacrifice if-to speak with brutal frankness-it does not involve the offering of money, from which not even the Christian is parted too easily. The sacrifice of time will also be required, even at the risk of becoming victims of the terrible race of " Chronophagi."

But what is the value of all our giving of money and time and other good things if they are not given sacrificially-in self-giving? The one who loves gives himself instead of trying to keep and maintain himself. It is in so doing and to this extent that he also gives the other things which are his. He gives nothing, and he does not love at all, if he does not give himself. Self-giving has a most impressive sound. It smacks of heroism and sacrifice. But in reality it is nothing out of the ordinary. For to love and therefore to give ourselves is simply to affirm in practice that we do not belong to ourselves, and never have done, or will or even can do. We give from that which is not ours, which we have seized unlawfully if we make it our own, which can be ours only as we give it. The love of God frees us for this action which is basically so self-evident. It is possible as we are newly created and enlightened and called and taught and impelled by the Holy Spirit. We may be rather startled at our own temerity as we do it, or concerned as to the possible outcome, but when we love we do it. It is as though a cave-dweller were brought out into the open, blinking a little because the sun shines so brightly, and concerned a little because there is also wind and rain, but at any rate emerging. And since love consists in the fact that man gives himself and therefore emerges from himself, it has the form and character of what is, in the most profound and comprehensive sense of the term, an impartation. The one who loves does not divide up himself, but without thought for what may become of him he imparts himself, so that he does not have his "part" (himself) only for himself, but together with the other, the one whom he loves, to whom he gives himself. This does not mean, as the matter is often represented, that there is an extinction or annihilation of the one who loves in favour of the one whom he loves. How can this be love? On this unhealthy view how can there he anything but a withdrawal from the loved one -by a departure in death? It is a matter of giving ourselves to the loved one, and therefore, as we continue to be ourselves, of renouncing the false idea that we belong to ourselves and being ourselves together with the loved one, in relationship with him. This relationship is the open into which the cave-dweller emerges when he is made one who loves by the love of God, by the work of the Holy Spirit. When he

788 § 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love does not keep and maintain but gives himself, he does not exclude himself in relation to the loved one, but at all costs and whatever else betide he includes himself in the being of the loved one. He does not include the loved one in his own being (which would be eros), but his own being in that of the loved one, so that it is his own on behalf of the loved one. The one who loves gives to the one whom he loves no more and no less than his" heart." So seriously is love self-giving that his life is an " eccentric" life, i.e., one which has its centre outside itself. This is what God does when He loves us, and therefore gives Himself to us and for us. He does not cease to be the One He is the eternal God who is love in Himself. But as such He comes aiongside us. In His life and work He does not exclude our .life .and work but includes them. He imparts Himself to us, entenng mto relationship and fellowship with us. H~ gives. us His hea~t, and i.n this way He not merely procures but HImself IS 0.ur. salvatIOn: .ThiS divine action is what the man who loves, the ChnstIan, may ImItate in his action. A most important feature would be lacking in this fo:mal descr~p­ tion of love if we did not emphasise expressly (4) that It necessanly means exaltation, gain and joy for the one who may perform thIS action, for the Christian. He does not perform it for this reason. We cannot insist too sharply that we do not love for any external reason, with any ulterior motive, or in the execution of any design or purpose. The one who loves does not want anything except to love, except more fully and seriously and perfectly to give himself, to ente~ into relationship with the loved one. If he has any other plan or proJect-however noble-it means that his love is betrayed and ended. It is perhaps because this is continually forgotten that w!th all the talk of love-even among Christians-there is so little of the love WhICh gladdens those who are supposed to love and therefore those who are supposed to be loved, and so much of the love which seems to be to them a burden rather th~n t~e joy it can and ought to be. In baroque fashion, this is just becaus~ the Idea IS prevalent that we can and sh<;>uld love .f~r the sake of our own enJoyme~t, or more seriously our own elevatIOn, Imagmmg that (m the best sense) It WIll be to our advantage to do so.

But this warning must not be allowed to hide the fact tha~ love not only brings with it, but definitely is, that which w.e cann?t (wIth~ut betraying it) seek to attain with its help: exaltatIOn~ gam and JOY for the one who may love. It is only with the most stnngent reservations and in the last resort not at all, that we can say the same of eros.' At bottom the well-known cycle of eros, with its alternation .of possession and loss, intoxication and soberness, enthus~asm and dISillusionment, is a tragic and therefore a melancholy busmess: But of love we have to say unconditionally that the man who loves IS as such -and we may confidently use the captious term-a happy man, a man who is to be counted blessed. We may even add that the man

3. The Act of Love

789

does not love at all who does so with a tragic countenance, who does not find in so doing a well-being which far surpasses any other. If his action as one who loves is a burden to him, this merely betrays the fact that his real concern is elsewhere. God certainly does not like an uncheerful giver. The one who may love and therefore give, offering and imparting himself, entering into relationship with the loved one, may have joy-great joy-in doing so, no matter how high may be the cost or how little the success in the form of a response of love on the part of the one whom he loves. Nor is this merely because his liberation for love, whenever he avails himself of it, means his release from a whole mountain of unnecessary worry and anxiety created merely by the fact that his previous concern was so much with taking and keeping instead of giving. This is certainly one of the reasons. For no one can adequately describe the liberation which actually takes place when a man is finally prepared to give his heart instead of cherishing and pampering and nursing it as though this would in some way help. When love brings about even a momentary change, the quickening of the whole man beggars description. Yet the true and positive and genuinely indescribable joy of the one who loves consists simply in the fact that he may love as one who is loved by God, as the child of God; that as he imitates the divine action he may exist in fellowship with Him, obedient to His Holy Spirit. This is exaltation and gain; this is peace and joy. This is a reason for laughing even when our eyes swim with tears. For in face of this what is the significance of all the cares and failures which even those who love as Christians are certainly not spared? This is the blessedness of him who loves-unsought, unplanned and undesired-even when his love beats against a stone wall, receiving no answer, or only a more or less hostile answer, from the one whom he loves. He does not love him for the sake of his answer, but because he is made free to do so by God. The peace and joy of the one who is liberated and who therefore loves in this way can never suffer disillusionment. The praise laid in his heart and on his lips of the God who has freed him for this action, and who orders it as the One who has freed him for it, is neverending, as drastically revealed in the seemingly never-ending magnifying of the Law in Ps. II9, and attested in the shorter but all the more intensive magnifying of agape in I Cor. 13. Love and joy have it in common-and therein reveal their profoundly necessary interconnexion -that neither of them is ordered or can be produced or practised to order. Both grow of themselves from God the Liberator, and from the occurrence of His act of liberation. And the one is the infallible criterion of the other. The man who genuinely loves is also a cheerful man-if he is not he does not genuinely love. And the genuinely cheerful man is also one who loves-if he is not he has good reason to ask how genuine is his cheerfulness. We now turn to the main theme of this sub-section and the whole

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love 790 of this concluding section-the question of the meaning and content of this act. We will now have to speak of the object of Christian love. What self-giving is and means can be known only in the relationship in which the act takes place. But it takes place in the relationship of the one who loves to the one whom he loves. If this is the case, however, it is obvious that its meaning and content are not to be sought in the action of the one who loves in itself and as such, but where he gives himself, where his heart is-in the loved one from whom he does not exclude but in whom he includes himself, entering into a relationship of love. ,It is the loved one who decides what is done when he loves, and it is with reference to this one that we must understand it. In the first instance this question does not present any difficulty. Christian love is the response of love based on the electing, purifying and creative love of God. It is thus love for God as the One by whom the Christian is first loved. In the act of love of which we have to speak in the concluding section of the second part of the doctrine of reconciliation it takes place-and this is its unfathomable meaning and content-that the relationship of the covenant, the covenant of grace, becomes two-sided instead of one-sided. The space which confronts the Word and work of God's grace does not remain empty. On the contrary, the monstrous hostility of man to God which invaded and dominated this space disappears. The word and work of human gratitude encounter and respond and correspond to the Word and work of God's grace. No more and no less than this takes place when man-the Christian-may love. "Being justified by faith, let us have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ" (Rom. 51), is realised by man too in the act of love, for this is an irresistible consequence of the fact that Jesus Christ is very God and very man. The Christian attests this in the fact that he may love God, This is the meaning and content of the act of his love. And this explains all that we have had to say concerning its formal character. It is because it is no more and no less than an integral element in the divinely inaugurated and controlled history of the kingdom and salvation that it is so new and strange, that it must and may be the free act of man in the liberating power of the Holy Spirit, that it is that step into the open, into fellowship, and that it is necessarily the act of the cheerful man. No more and no less than the reconciliation of man with God attains in it its provisional goal and end. It is worth pausing a moment to consider how inconceivable is this clear and simple fact-that to the eternal love which is in God, and with which He has turned to man, there corresponds the fact that man may love God. Is not the mystery of reconciliation almost greater on this human side, from below, than it is on the divine? It is at least as great. For how can it be true, possible and actual, that a man loves God as God loves him? We will leave aside for the

3. The Act of Love

79 1

time being the frail~y and im~erfection and doubtfulness with which even th~ greatest, samt ,does ~h1S. In spite of all that may rightly and necessanly be saId agamst hIS love, in face of the whole heap of mud ~nd dross and rubble and ashes under which his little love is hidden m face of ~he f~ct that there is nothing praiseworthy or meritoriou~ m ,t~IS actlOn, It takes place by the quickening power of the Holy Spmt t~at small an,d ,sinful man may love the great and holy God, respondmg t? the dIvme self-offering with his own. This is the will of God, a,nd, It, takes place in fulfilment of His will-which is done on earth as It ~s m heaven, G,od wills that this should take place, and He sees t~ It that He acqmres that which He does not need which a~ds n.othmg to Him, ,which does not make Him richer, which He mIght Just as -:e,ll do WIthout, but which He does not will to be without-th~ sel~-gIvmg of man, and therefore man as the one who imitates ~nd caples hIm, and the action of man as the echo of His own " What IS, man, t~at t~ou art mindful of him? and the son of man, that thou V~SIt~St hIm? (Ps. 8 4 )-that Thou art mindful of him and visitest hIm,m such a,way that Thou wilt and dost have pleasure in the praise of hIS love. WhICh he himself offers in his own free act? Is it not enough that God IS good to man? Does He really will and bring it about that m~n s~ould be good to Him? Is it really the case that He has caused fIls "'ord ,to become flesh not merely in order that He may be and act for w~ m HIS own person, b~t in order that we also may be and ~ct for HIm? Does H~ really wIll and need us to serve Him? There IS no end to the questlOns that we might put in face of that which G~d has actually willed and done, and does actually will and do in thl~ respect. .B.ut we m~st not ignore the fact that even the ~ost senous an~ cn,tIcal questlOns in this regard can arise only from the answer whIch IS alr~ady given with the fact that the Christian may love God, a!1 d that m s.o f~r as ~e is a Christian he does actually do so" !here IS, n? sense m mvolvmg ourselves in these questions and chIldIshly omIt~m~ to do what we may do. As truly as God loves us we ~ay love HIm m return. It is quite incomprehensible, but we may d~ It. Le~ us therefore d? it: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God "nth ~ll, thme heart, an~ WIth all thy soul, and with all thy strength." The tImest movement m the freedom which we are given is better than th~ most elaborate deliberations whether or not it is permitted or pra~tIcabl~. But the fact that we have the freedom for this moveme?t IS a mlfacl~ which we can rightly value only as we grasp it. I t I~ no less a ~Iracle than the Virgin Birth of Jesus Christ or His b~dIly resurr~ctlOn from, th~ ~ead. ,Only if ~e measure it by the mIracle of EpIphany, wh~ch IS ItS baSIS and anginal, can we comprehend the mystery by WhICh the act of love is surrounded as the love of man for God, ..

The Old Testament concept of love for God is older than Deuteronomy, Those that love thee ?~e as the sun when he goeth forth in his might," is the

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love

3· The Act of Love

concluding verse of the Song of Deborah (Jud. 531 ). Hosea, too, seems to presuppose it when he brings against Ephraim and Judah the accusation (6') : " Your love (and the context makes it plain that what is meant IS your respo~~e of love to Yahweh) is as a morning cloud, and as the early dew It goeth away ; or when he states (4 1) that as there is no faithfulness nor knowledge of C?od, so there is no love in the land; or when he says (6 6) that Yahweh dehghts m love and not in burnt-offerings. The latter antithesis is instructive. In the burntoffering the Israelitish peasant offers a part of his most valuable possession. With the shedding of the blood of the animal he yields up its" soul" to God, i e its life as a substitute for his own. And with the sacrifice of the animal, ;r 'part of it, to be burnt on the altar he offers him~elf to the fire of the might and holiness of the holy God. In the burnt-offenng there thus takes place figuratively that which takes place literally and strictly in love for God. The offering can be brought either with or without that which it represents-love for God. The prophetic antithesis: Love, not sacrifice, is made in fac~ of the offering which is brought without it. It points to the centre of the culbc event and the whole covenant with Yahweh; to that which ought to take place as the human complement on the part of the people, but which is omitted and does not take place, being represented but only represented in the cultus. The positive point at issue emerges clearly in Ps. 18 1, where the thanksgiving ascribed to the victorious David (ef. also 2 Sam. 22), and especIally the descnptlOn of Yahweh as "my rock, and my fortress, and my deliverer; my God: my strength,. m whom I will trust; my buckler, and the horn of my salvatIOn, and my hIgh tower," is prefaced by the statement: "I will love thee, a Lord, my strength.:' In the Old Testament to love God means not to have any strength of one s own in face of Him; to give oneself wholly to Him; to act as one who is enclosed and upheld by Him and sheltered in Him; and thus to call upon Him with assurance as the One who delivers from death (Ps. 116 11 .). Accordmg to the usage of the Old Testament, exactly the same is meant, and not something weaker, by the more usual indirect references, i.e., to the acts of God in revelation. The pious Israelites love the name of Yahweh (Ps. 511 ), or the salvatron WhICh comes from Him (Ps. 4016), or His \Vord (Ps. IIg 140 ), or HIS Law (Ps. IIg 9 '), or the habitation of His house (Ps. 26 9). There is obviously a sense of saying something extraordinary in these statements. There is obviously an awareness of touching on the inner secret of the existence of Israel on the side on which it is continually and most severely compromised by the Israelite. It is not surprising, the~efore, if it is relatively seldom and only by individuals-like King Solomon (wIth hiS eschatological traits) in I K. 33-that there is express mention made of love for Yahweh. When we turn to the New Testament, we can only say that the situation is the same in this respect-that while the references are definite enough they are not particularly numerous. Mention has already been made of such well-known verses as Rom. 8 28 , I Cor. 2 9 and I Cor. 8 3 . \Ve may also add 2 Thess. 3 5 : "And the Lord direct your hearts into the love of God," and Jas. 112 , which speaks of " the crown of life, which the Lord hath promised to them that love him." The accusation against the Pharisees in Lk. I I 42 is that they neglected (7TapEPXEu8E) judgment and the love of God, and against the" Jews" generally in In. 5 42 that they did not have the love of God in them. This is about all-apart from the" first" commandment in Mk. I2 2' f. and par., which claims our attentIOn from the very outset. But, of course, we have to add the more numerous passages --corresponding formally to the love of God's name or salvation or 'Vord i.nthe Old Testament-which speak of love for Jesus. In the older Pauline wr1trngs this expression occurs only once, and it is used in a way which is almost terri~y­ inglv categorical: "If any man love not (
\Ve may alsq refer to 2 Tim. 4 8, where there is mention again of the crown which according to Jas. 1 12 is to be given to them that love God but this time-and it obviously amounts to the same thing as the New Testa~ent understands itit is promised to those who love the £7TL<pavE,a of the Kyrios. In I Pet. 1 8, too, ChnstIans as such are addres.sed ~s th~se who love Jesus Christ although they have not seen Him, and beheve m Him although they do not now see Him. For. the most part, however, we have to turn to the Johannine writings. Here agam we see ~hat love for Jesus is identical with love for God: "And everyone that loveth hIm that begat loveth him also that is begotten of him" (I In. 51) ; or m th,: saymg of Jesus .to the Jews: "If God were your Father, ye would love me (J n. 8 42 ). Hence m J n. 14 15 , 21, 23f., 28 and I6 2'love for Jesus is expressly pr~s~pposed as. the self-evident attitude and mark of the disciple. And that thIS IS the case IS something which finally we cannot overlook in the conversation between the risen Christ and Peter in the second concluding chapter of the Gospel 15 1 (21 - '), where Peter is asked three times: "Lovest thou me?" and three times, and the last time" grieved," he answers: "Lord, thou knowest itthou knowest all things; thou knowest that I love thee" (v. 17). According to the whole context love for Jesus and therefore love for God is obviously the presupposition of the discipleship laid upon and expected from Peter-hence the twofold "Follow me" (vv. Ig and 20)-which implies both his mission !" Feed my ~heep," v. IS f.) and also what will become of him, namely, that mstead of bemg one who girds himself and goes where he wants, he will now be one who is girded by another and taken where he does not want. Love for Jesus and therefore love for God is the disciple's determination for both these things, and its nature is reflected unmistakeably in this twofold determination.

79 2

793

The Christian's love for God, identical in the New Testament with his lov~ for ~esus, consists in the fact (if we may be permitted an expreSSIOn WhICh sounds banal but in the strict sense is full of content) that he is a man who is interested in God, i.e., in " God in Christ." God has him, and therefore for good or evil he must have God. God is for him, and so he has no option but to be for God. He is this not merely peripherally but centrally; not merely momentarily but-no matter how often he may forget or deny it-in the continuity of his existence, of his life-act. He does not cease to confess that he is a great sinner. But like Jeremiah (IS) and Paul (Gal. 115) he will think of himself
794

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love

men or the whole world or even himself, He has significance as the axiom of all axioms. He loves God in that he makes use of the freedom to give himself to Him. He has himself, and every~hing else, only as God has him. His heart, and all that he may desIre and need, and not only his heart but ~lso his reason. and c~nsci:nce and instinct for life, are really above WIth God. He IS God s pnsone~, an~ therefore stands strongly on this rock and is solidly at home. m thIS fortre~s. Worldly things and relationships affect and move hIm, and worldly problems burden and excite him. He lives ~n the hope an~ ~esp.aIr which are his lot in face of them. But he also hves under the dIstmctIve constraint (which is his distinctive freedom) to gi:e. t~e preceden~e over these things to Him that is above; so that If It ~s beyond hIS capacity simply to see them in the light of God, ~e wI.ll ~onstant1y reconsider them with the question how they appear m thIS hght, what corresponds to the will of God in his o~n relati~nship to them, what is His secret in and behind all the mystenes of bemg, and therefore what is the task which He has laid upon him. The Christian and therefore the man who loves God is no heaven-storming idealist. But his interest is in the ens realissimum: the cause of God on earth; His cause for and against and with the world and men and himsel~; H~s cause which is not a cause but His work, His kingdom, and m HIS work and kingdom He Himself, the living God, the living Jesus. He hears Him speak through every other noise. He sees Him at w?rk through all the clouds and mists. Whi.le he knows all the obstr~ctlOn and sabotage with which various indiVIduals and above all he .hImself oppose Him, ~e may ~nd must conti~m~lly .discover and reahse that he is not at hIS own dIsposal but at God s disposal, and that he must serve Him. He accepts this as right and good. And he thus learns by experience that" all things work together for good" (Rom. 8 28). He tastes and sees" that the Lord is good" (Ps. 348 ). And he therefore trusts Him. He is not afraid to cast himself on Him. He fears neither the solitude to which he condemns himself by this curious action, the strangeness by which he too seems to be enveloped, the divine invisibility which conceals him too-not only from the ey:s. of others but also from his own eyes-as he loves HIm, nor the dIvme sovereignty which he learns to know a!l the more tangibly the more he submits to it. He has only one thmg to fear: that God, Jesus, will no longer love him-which would mean the end of his own lo~e. But this is the last thing he really has to fear or can fear. He .IS, therefore, strong and ready. He is salted with salt and ~ar:iso~ed \,?th peace. His love for God can and may .and ~ust be hIS JOy m. HIm, his rejoicing even in the deepest depth m whIch he may find hI.mself of his own guilt and need and lostness or that of others. What I~ the meaning of love for God, for Jesus? It mea~s that G?d, Jesus,. IS so urgent and pressing that he may and .m.ust yIeld to t.hIS constra~nt ?f love in the experience of its glory, gIvmg place to It, and takmg It

3· The Act of Love

795

into account, in concrete thoughts and words and works. And in this yielding he really gives himself to Him. And as he does so he acquires good cause and reason continually to do so again. A short excursus may be inserted at this point in answer to possible criticism. In the course of the modern theological renewal, and under the influence of the ethics of Kant and the theology of A. Ritschl, a pronounced Puritanism has become the fashion in relation to love for God or for Jesus. The proviso of the Old and New Testament, that it is possible only in obedience to the will of God or Jesus, and in unity with love for one's neighbour, has not only been observed as it ought, but has been expounded in such a way as to eliminate any direct love for God or Jesus, identifying the Christian act of love in practice only with obedience in love for one's neighbour. And to prove that anything beyond this is a debased religious eroticism, terrifying examples are adduced from medi<eval Mysticism, from older and more recent forms of Pietism, from Zinzendorf, and from the Romanticism of the early 19th century. Hymns like" How beauteous shines the morning star." .. I will love Thee, Thou my strength," and others which point in a similar direction, are either omitted or sung only with inner misgivings. A kind of holy sobriety has mounted guard against all sentimentalisation, and with a strong insistence on justification by faith alone, and the practical demonstration of faith in deeds and works, it has been zealous to have the last word, sometimes expressing itself in strict prohibitions and condemnations. In his bitter fight for agape against eros A. Nygren (op. cit., I, p. 10 4 f.) has even decreed that there can be no question of a spontaneous love of man for God, and that in the first part of the twofold command there is in the Synoptics a lack of clarity in this respect which is happily overcome in Pau!. Since in my earlier period I myself made some direct and indirect contribution to this attitude I think it only right briefly to state my present views on the matter. ' There can be no contesting the relative justification of reactions of this kind (and this one in particular). Christian love, especially in its form as love for God and for Jesus, is continually exposed to transformation into its erotica-religious opposIte. There have been and are manifestations of it in which this inversion is not merely a danger but, unless appearances deceive, has actually become and is a fatal event; incursions of paganism which may well be compared to those of Canaanite religion into the worship of Yahweh. It was this that we had in view some forty years ago. The only thing is that we were a little late with our protest, since the final and true epogee of the type of love rejected was long since past. It lived on only in the form of reminiscences and repristinations. There was no obvious superfluity of living mystics and pietists of the first rank, and therefore no acute danger from this angle. All the same, it was a time when we had to deal with Neo-Protestantism, and since in the investigation of its origins we rightly came on Mysticism and Pietism it was natural that we should be sharp-sighted and rather severe in this respect. In the process, as often happens, we were only too wise and superior, and instead of arguing and speaking in Reformation categories, as we thought, we sometimes slipped back unconsciously in our zeal into the other basic aspect of Neo-Protestantism, that of rationalistic moralism, thus giving vital and earnest Christians of various types every reason to ask whether anything useful had been achieved with this kind of temple-cleansing. \Ve imagined that we had freed ourselves from Mysticism, Pietism and Romanticism and their dangerous off-shoots. But were we not on the point of subscribing to a no less dubious antithesis (that of A. Ritschl and his disciples and successors), according to which the work of the Holy Spirit must be reduced to the management of an eternal working-day, and with the abolition of a true and direct love for God and Jesus there is basically no place for prayer? There was scope for better instruction at this point. Perhaps we may put it this way. Since this had never been our intention, there was need

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Lave for a better understanding of ourselves than had been possible, or communicable to others, in that revolutionary time. The first point to be made is the simple one that the biblical witness to love for God and for Jesus is much too strong and explicit to permit us conscientiously to regard the concept merely as an alternative for .. obedience" or .. love for one's neighbour," thus evading its true meaning. To be sure, its content does call immediately and inexorably for that of these other concepts-we shall have to turn to this aspect later. But the biblical authors were surely introducing unnecessary complications if when they spoke so emphatically of love for God and for Jesus they had in mind only what in other places they called obedience and love for one's neighbour. \Ve cannot overlook the fact that in the passages in which it occurs this'concept has its own distinctive ring, and that this points to the fact that in relation to these other concepts it has also its own distinctive content, which cannot be separated from, but cannot be identified with, that of the other concepts. The restraint with which Scripture speaks of the matter, but also the unmistakeable solemnity with which it does so when the occasion arises, make it plain that in this respect we are not dealing with deductions (however necessary) but with the original, the presupposition, which gives rise to deductions; not with the periphery which inalienably belongs to this centre, but with the centre itself. Without love for God there is no obedience to God or love for one's neighbour. \Vithout love for Jesus there is no discipleship. Obedience, love for one's neighbour and discipleship arise automatically from this centre. But at this centre there takes place that which is their presupposition: the fact that man is comforted, and allows himself to be comforted, and comforts himself, with the one and only comfort; that with body and soul, in life and death, he is not his own, but belongs to his faithful Saviour Jesus Christ; that as one who is saved by God he is sheltered in God; and that as such, but only as such, he is at once ordained and pledged and moved to obedience, love for his neighbour and discipleship. At this centre, where he has to do directly with God in Christ, he begins to make use of the freedom in which he is necessarily free for these things too. J f he does not use his freedom for love for God, he is not free for these things. It is neither accidental nor without significance that the command to love God in Mk. 12 291 • and par. is called the first commandment. .Nor is there any evading the Gospel account of the anointing of Jesus; the story of the woman who according to Mk. 14 3 , as Jesus" sat at meat," brought .. an alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious; and she brake the box, and poured it on his head." According to Lk. 738 she did more, for she .. stood at his feet behind him weeping, and began to wash his feet with tears, and did wipe them with the hairs of her head, and kissed his feet, and anointed them with the ointment." And in In. 12 3 we read that" the house was filled with the odour of the ointment." The tradition is uncertain concerning the time and place and leading character in the incident. Indeed, even in relation to the point of the story it is unequivocal only in the decisive matter. According to Lk. 7361 • the incident took place in the Galil<ean period in the house of Simon the Pharisee. According to Mk. 143 and Mt. 26 6 it took place in Bethany in the house of Simon the leper shortly before the treachery of Judas and the Last Supper. In. 12 1 agrees that it took place in Bethany, but places it in the house of Lazarus and his sisters, prior to the entry into Jerusalem. And while Lk. 737 speaks of a y~ o./kap7CJJ),6s, Mk. 14 3 and Mt. 26' refer to her indefinitely as a .. woman," and In. 12 3 identifies her as Mary the sister of Lazarus. It is to be noted that what finally made the incident significant for all four Evangelists is that it gave drastic and unexpected concretion to the anointing of the One who in the New Testament is called" the Anointed." This woman accomplished it; and she did it, as we read not only in Mk. 14 6 and Mt. 26 '2 but also in In. 12', .. against the day of my burying," in direct preparation for the coronation of the

3· The Act of Love

797

royal ~an completed in His death. This is what took place, and it did so on the laVIsh scale mdIcated by the narratives. The same truth emerges in the ~ucan account, except that here what gives offence to those present is that it IS a smful woman (7 39 ) who IS at work, and whose work is accepted by Jesus (surely a poor Judge o~ men i). In the other three accounts it is the lavishness whl.ch arouses mdlgnatlOn: ". But wh~n his disciples saw it, they had indignation, saymg, To what purpose IS thiS waste (or" rubbish," according to the unrevised translatIOn of Luther used in the text of Bach's St. Matthew's Passion). The re~son why they were so critical is plainly given in Mk. 14 5 (d. Mt. 26 9) . .. It nllgh!, have been sold for three hundred pence, and have been given to the poor. Accordmg to In. 12 4 1. It was Judas Iscariot who advanced this worthy argument, although the EvangelIst notes that he said this, .. not that he cared for the p<;or;, but because he was a thief, and had the bag, and bare what was pu~ therem. However that may be, it is praCtical love for one's neighbour which IS played off agamst an act which can be made explicable only as an act of l.ove for Jesus. Ethico-r~li~ious (or" religio-social " 1) Puritanism protests agalr:st a :<ery douJ;>tful pletlstr,~ undertaking. But Jesus ignores these ethical conslderatrons m HIS answer: Let her alone; why trouble ye her 1 she hath wrought a good work (Ka),ov lpyov) on me. For ye have the poor with you always and whensoever ye will ye may do them good: but me ye have not always' She hath done what she could'.' (Mk. 14 6 1., d. Mt. 26" and In. 12 6). And then: after the reference to HIS bunal, to which the woman has anointed Him He continues: .. Verily, I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be prea~hed throughout the wh~!e world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memonal of h.er (Mk.14 9 , Mt. 26 13 ). The point of the story, and of the saymg of Jesus, IS rather different but no less significant according to the Lucan account (7 47 1.) . .The woman is a great sinner and Jesus knows this. But in her gr~at love for Him she recogl1lses that her sins are forgiven her, and (although It IS t<;> be noted, she. does not .. confess" them or ask for absolution) He tell~ her thiS qU.lte categoncally: .. Thy sins are forgiven . . . . Thy faith hath saved thee; go m peace." The question is left open whether the Pharisee Simon who has not shown Him this love, is forgiven to this extent or can receive such absolutlO~. Appearances are to the contrary. What emerges clearly in all four accounts IS that .Jesus not only defends unconditionally the act of the woman but m all soleml1lty ackr:owledges that it is a good act which belongs necessarily to the history of salvatIOn, even though it seems to be wholly superfluous an act of sheer extravagance, which can serve" only" the purpose of representing direct and perfect self-giving to Him. Even in .the light of thi~ story it would be unwise to maintain that love is real only m ItS form as obedlen?e and love for one's neighbour, and thus to deny that, ev~n to be real as SUCh, It must have basically, and with reference to its baSIS pnmanly, the true and distinctive form of love for God. The fact that the source must and doe.s b~come a river does not mean that the source is not somethmg true and dl.stmctrve as opposed to the river. Indeed, without this true and dIstmctrve thmg which we call the source there could be no river. We must be clear what we are about if we attempt to deny this, and thus contribute to th~ concealment or damming of this source just because it has self-evidently no. Widespread or vital movement of its own. If we do, the result will be verv qmckly todry up the river-bed. It was because they were once confronted b;" dr~ed-up nver-be?s of this kind-the concealment or damming of the sourc~ bemg due sometrmes to orthodox or internal, sometimes to rationalistic or exte~nal causes-:that the older Mystics, Pieti~ts and Ro~a.ntics revolted, defying the mstructlOn gwen by a do~estrcated Chnstramty, ralsmg again the question of the source, findmg (or thmkmg to find) it again, and thus, as it was given to them and as they were enabled and constrained, bringing and breaking and pourmg out their alabaster boxes of omtment, and raising their corresponding hymns

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love of devotion. Thus P. lSicolai: "Pour into mr heart deep down, Thou glistering jewel, precious stone, The flame and fire of love; That I, 0 Lord, for ever may, In Thine elected body stay, And in Thee live and move: Let me, m Thee u,~­ ceasingly, Be caught in love's increasing tide, That death Itself may not dIVIde ; or P. Gerhardt: "0 Lord, my Shepherd, fount of joy, Thou art mme, I am Thme, Our love can none destroy. I am Thine for Thou didst give, Thine own blood, For my good, Thy life that I might live. Thou art mine, to Thee I cleave, In the night, Thee, my Light, From my heart I do not leave. 0 let me, let me, find a place, Where Thou me, and I Thee, For ever may embrace." To be sure, a good deal of this smacks of religious eroticism, and it would be easy t? adduce passages in which this aspect is even more pronounced. But how and would be our hymn-books if we were to purge out all elements of thIS kmd! And how deficient would be our preaching and teaching and pastoral work If there were no conscious utterance along these lines! For, as far as the substance IS concerned, what reason is there to carp and cavil? In substance, is there not ~uch more reason circumspectly but energetically to advance along these lmes '. Is it very remarkable or meritorious that we do not fall into the temptatIOn mto which we may, of course, fall in this matter merely because we do not kno.w from our own experience what is at issue and what has to find expreSSIOn 111 some wav? If a choice has to be made, is it not better to say a httle too much and occa:'sionally to slip up with Nicolai and even with Zinzendorf and Navalis than to be rigidly correct with Kant and Ritschl and my 1921 Romel'brtef and Bultmann, but in so doing to create a zone of silence in relation to the central matter of which the former rightly or wrongly tried to speak, and thus perhaps to do what the Pharisees did when, according to Lk. I I " , they" passed over" the love of God, joining the company of the horrified disciples, if not of the 22 treasurer Judas, but either way coming under the anathema of Paul in I Cor. 16 ? But we do not need to choose. It may well be that the older" fnends of God" did sometimes slip into the sphere of religious eroticism, and that in so doing they ceased to think and speak as true '.' friends of God." If this is the case it cannot be condoned and must not be ImItated. But It does not mean that' what they had in mind and tried to attest can b~ ignored or juggled away, namely, that which takes place at the centre where Chnstlan love IS ongmally direct love for God and for Jesus. Did Mary in LIe ro"r. really choose the good part, or did she not? Here, then, we must think and speak with the measure of sober passion or passionate soberness which corresponds on the one hand to the fire which burns at this centre and on the other to Its holmess and punty, In no case must we evade or suppress that which cannot be evaded or suppressed. If we do, we do not guard against the paganism of religious se~timentalism and religious eros. On the contrary, we open up the way for It. For thIS pagamsm tinds its excuse in the vacuum created by such evaSIOn and suppreSSIOn. It flourishes all the more vehemently in this vacuum. \Ve must not help it in this way. The only thing which has power against it is positive: that at this critical point we should think and say the right thmg and not the wrong; and that we should think and say the right thing in all earnest, . The Puritanism in relation to which this excursus is required was an unavOldable but a dangerous contraction. The warning which it had to deliver is still valid. But as a contraction it has played its part and is no longer necessary.

If love for God in its distinctiveness and particularity is recognised and acknowledged as the content of the first commandment: we ~an and must emphasise by way of closer definition that the hberatlOn of man for the love of God carries with it from the very first the liberation for obedience to God, so that it is ineluctably followed by man's obedience. To love God is to give oneself to Him, to put one-

3· The Act of Love

799

self at His disposaL And when man does this, his freedom for love becomes and is his freedom for obedience. Already in the Old Testament we find that while they are separate these two thmgs are also inseparable, being brought together into what amounts almost to a definite formula: To love God and to keep His commandments (Ex. 20'; Deut. 510, 7', ro 1:'I., Ill; Dan. 9 4 ; Neh. I'), or: To love God and to walk in His ways and cleave to Him (Deut. 11 22 , 19", 3016; Joshn'), or: To love God and to fear HIm (Deut. 10 12 ). In the same connexion we may recall the stnkmg conneXlOn in Hosea (220, 4', 6", .) between love for God and the knowledge of God, in which there is an obvious relationship-and a very important one m the present context-between knowledge and obedience. Along the same ImesPaul m PhIl. l'r. prays that the love of the Philippian community may mcrease m knowledge and full understanding" that ye may test what is good and bad; that ye may be sincere and without offence till the day of Christ." Love, according to Eph. 4 15 , is the action in which it is a matter of ciArylhJHv; which has to show itself" unfeigned" (2 Cor. 6 6 , Rom. 12", I Pet. 1 22 ). It is the decisive action in which the community is to be edified (I Cor. 8 1, Eph. 4 '6 ). It has to be " pursued" --obviously as regards its consequences (I Cor. 14 1). And it is worth noting how explicit the johannine writings are in thIS ~espect, for all that they give such prominence to love for Jesus. They certamly do not allow us to smk back mto an idle contemplative enjoyment. The warning of Lk. 6 4 • is sounded again: "And why call ye me, Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" Even verbally there is a recurrence of the Deuteronomic formula: "For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous" (I In. 53, 2 Jn, 6). "If ye love me, keep my commandments" (In. 14 15 ). "He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me" (In. 14 21 ). "If ye keep my commandments, ye shall abide in my love" (In. 1510). We should have to be deaf to miss the indications of this connexion. How can it be said of love in Gal. 56 that faith" worketh " by it if love is inactive, or if the order in which it expresses itself can be different from that of the obedience of act?

For the man who really loves God, and really loves Him, there can be no question of any other order of his relationship to Him. How can he love God if he may even think that the relationship to Him can be fashioned either as one between two equal partners with claims to be asserted and respected on both sides, so that the only obligation is that of the easiest possible fulfilment of his own share in the contract, or tacitly or blatantly as one in which God is there to satisfy his needs, to carry out his wishes, to ans", cr his questions, to fill the vacuum of his life, so that at root he himself is the lord and God is only his servant, mysterious perhaps, but pledged to obey him? And how can he love God if he can ever imagine that he may control Him in this way? This is how the heathen love their demons and genii and protective spirits or whatever else they regard as their gods, not knowing who God is or what it means to love Him. The Christian loves God and therefore the Lord, in relation to whom he has neither a total nor a partial claim, nor indeed any claim at alL He loves the God who is his Creator to whom he belongs; the Holy One in face of whom he knows that he is guilty and hopelessly in arrears; his merciful Father who does not rebuff him as he deserves but forgives his transgression

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love

3· The Act of Love

and addresses and treats him as a son; the Saviour who takes up his cause and draws him by His Spirit and makes him living and free; the eternal love by which he finds himself first loved as God gives Himself to him in all his unworthiness. When the Christian loves this One and therefore God-not a figment of his own dreams and desires, but God-he cannot choose or will or even imagine any other order of this relationship but that of obedience. Love for God can express itself onlv in this order. Obedience is the act, willingly and readily and ther~fore freely accomplished, in which man subordinates himself to, and orientates himself by, that which God wills of him and commands him to do in His commandment. He does not love God because God commands him to do so, but on the basis of the electing, purifying and creative love with which God has first loved him, and in the quickening power of the Holy Spirit. But as he has-or rather receiv~s from God-the freedom to do this, he inescapably discovers that m this freedom, which is the freedom to give himself to God in return, he has no option but to place himself under the will and Word and command and order of God as he hears it, and therefore to be obedient. Obedience is the required action of love, i.e., the action of love which is demanded by love itself, resulting directly from the fact that as man loves God he places himself at His disposal. Since it is only the consequence of his love, this action is required, but as such it is also free. It is the action for which he is made free and willing and ready as he may love God. If it were not his free action, but took place naturally or inevitably or automatically that he had to love what God wills, under constraint and not voluntarily, how could it be real obedience? A puppet does not obey. It does not move itself. It dances and gesticulates as it is moved. But to be quickened by the Holy Spirit is to move oneself, and ~o do so in obedience, listening to the order and command of God. It IS now .cle~ar why in our general consideration of the act of love w: had to mSIst so strongly that it cannot be understood as a, prolongatIOn or effluence of the divine action, of the love of God. 1 he apparent grandeur of this theomonistic conception must not blind us to the fact that if it is true there can be no question of a free act of human love for God, and therefore of an act of obedience enclosed in it and following from it. Nor can we describe as a covenant relationship the kind of relationship in which God alone is really at work and man i~ onl~ the instrument or channel of the divine action, so that the antlthesls of Creator and creature, of Saviour and saved, of the One who loves and the one who is loved, has no significance. In the covenant relationship-the true relationship between God and man according to the witness of Scripture-the initiative is wholly and excl.usively on the side of G?d. But this initiative aims at a correspondmgly free act, at genume obedience as opposed to that of a puppet, on the part of the man with whom the covenant is made. And this is the fulfilment of the

~ov~naI~t in the recon.ciliation of man :vith God accomplished in Jesus Chnst, I.n so far as thIS has a human SIde and may now be considered from tillS lower, human aspect. As certainly as Jesus Christ is very God .and also. very man, it includes also the fact that there may be genume obedIence on the part of man; the obedience of man as his free act.

800

801

We must lay express emp~asis on the thought of act. We again look back to what we stated m our general consideration-that love for God acts. It does not merely think. It does not merely feel. It does not n:erely will. Naturally, it does think and feel and will. How else could It be the love of a real man, which means a man who thinks and feels and wills? But it bursts through the limitations of an inwardness which reposes and moves only within itself. It acts. In t~e. act .of obedience it demonstrates the fact that love is giving, sel£g1Vmg> m contrast to a human-an only too human-reserve and selfass~rtIOn. For th~ act of love man needs and fills time and space. In It he compromIses and entangles himself by representing himself to the world as one who loves, entering (even with the smallest move~ents) int~ its relationships, responding with definite actions towards God and hI~ fellows, participating in his own place in the history of the world wIth God. The one who loves God does not stand aside as one who is obedient to God. In weakness or strength, in wisdom or fol~y, he takes definite steps in the fonns of words and works and a.ttltu?es; st:ps which lead him into the complexities of his time and sItuatlon, which he cannot altogether escape in any case. It is there, and as one who is obedient there, that he loves. If he does not do it there, he does it only in semblance, and his love has nothing whatever to do with love for God. . . We have still to make the final point that in the obedience of love It IS a matter of obedience to the living God, or-and this is the same thi~l.g-to. the living Jesus Christ. It is Him as such that he loves. It IS to HIm as such that he gives himself. Thus in the action of love as an answer and correspondence, an imitation of the love of God there cafol be no question of the setting up of a static counterpart: perhaps m the form of a way of life which is fixed once and for all acc?r~ing to certain standpoints and regulations. The obedience of Chnstlan love has often been under~too.din this way, and corresponding ~ttemp~s have been made to pr::ctlse It. But understood in this way It loses ItS character. as a fr.ee actIOn. It necessarily acquires the nature o.f a custom or routme whIch can be applied without concrete motivatIOn by.the lo,:,e of ~od but follows its own laws and is thus performed mechamcally m a gIven case, in actions which are soulless and love~ess, which .e,:,en the heathen can perform, and for which they will mdeed be wlllmg and ready in certain circumstances. Above all when obedient action c~ns.ist~ in ~he esta~lish~e~t of the rigid counterpart of a compact Chnstlamty, It loses ItS sIgmficance as an imitation of C.D. IV-2-26

802

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love

God's own love. For God, and therefore its original, is not a fixed and static and rigidly determined figure which is dead for all the majesty ascribed to it. He is a living and acting person, who for all His faithfulness to Himself is continually electing and willing and creatively producing new things, and thus speaking and commanding and ordering new things. Obedience to Him can consist only in a continual readiness and willingness to follow His action, to do justice in a continual subjection to His electing and willing and producing, and therefore to His speaking and commanding and ordering, and thus to correspond with the greatest possible loosening of one's own rigidity. Obedience to Him can take place only in the history of man with God in which love for Him can never be dispensed with but must be continually renewed, and in which man is constantly referred to God's own presence and encounter with him, to the eternal love which is the basis of his love, to the work and gift of the Holy Spirit. It is in this history with God that he loves Him and gives himself to Him. Its continuity is guaranteed by the faithfulness and immutability of the God who is not an idol that man can easily copy and therefore master, but his living Lord and Saviour. The Christian, the man who loves God, must demonstrate his love, and therefore render his obedience, in face of the continuitv of His living action and commanding-a continuity which cannot be denied and may in fact be easily recognised. The act of love stands in need, however, of a second and no less indispensable and decisive definition. From its basis in the love of God addressed to man, it follows naturally that in it we do not have to do only or exclusively with love for God, but that the human love which responds to God's love, even as love for God, has also another object side by side with and apart from God, and different from Him. According to the clear assertion and direction of the biblical testimonies this other ,who is loved by the Christian is his fellow-man, who stands to him'in a definite historical relationship or context. We must first be clear what this description involves, namely, that the one who apart from God is loved in the act of Christian love, being necessarily loved together with God, is the fellow-man who stands in a definite historical relationship to the Christian who loves. It may sound harsh at first, but we have to note that neither the Old Testament nor the New speaks of a love for man as such and therefore for all men; of a universal love of humanity. As the Bible understands it, love both for God and for man has the character of an action. The universal love of humanity can be thought of, if at all, only as an idea which dominates man or an attitude of mind which fills him. But Christian love, as we have seen, is an act of obedience which as such, even if we think of a sequence of such acts, takes place somewhere in time and space, which does not, therefore, take place always and everywhere, but in which there is always a demarcation and limitation of its object or objects. It is the concrete and not the

3. The Act of Love

abstract loving of someone who is concrete and not abstract.

In

c~rrespo~dence to the love of God, it is a loving which cho05'os and

dIfferentiates. That this is the case in its form as love for the one God (this God and not another) is self-evident. But it is also the case in its form as love for men, and this emerges in the fact that the latter belongs to love for God, standing in an indissoluble connexion with it. Love for one or more men, or a category of men, presupposES that the one or many who are loved stand in a certain proximity to the one who loves-a proximity in which others do not find themselves. This does not mean that the connexion with others is necessarily negative or neutral. There are other positive relations between men than that of the love which is bound up with the love for God-relati\ms to which there are emphatic references in Scripture. Our present concern, however, is with what is called love in Scripture. This love between men takes place on the assumption that there is between them, ~o~ an indefinite, but a very definite and specific proximity; a proxImIty between the one who loves and the one or manv who are loved whic? is not general or accidental and which could not' apply to all men, or mdeed to any except on a particular basis. It is in this proximity that there takes place the act of Christian love. It may, but need not, be a geographical proximity. The proximity between the one who is loved and the one who loves can be supremely real even at a. g~ographical distance. It may, but need not, be a temporal proxImIty. The one who loves and the one who is loved may bs contemporaries, b~t this is not essential, for a man alive to-day may love someone long Slllce dead. The proximity in which the act of Christian love takes place between man and man is that of a historical relationship in which the one who loves and the one who is loved both exist. Their relationship is not one which exists in any case, but it takes place that they are brought together and directed to one another in fact, either in the form of an event or in consequence of an event. And within the framework of this relationship, which is not beltween all men as such but between these specific men, there takes place the act either of the love of the one for the other or of their reciprocal love-:--an act which does not customarily take place between all men, and IS not therefore to be expected of all or in relationship to all, but only of, and in relationship to, specific men. . \Vhat we have been attempting is a general and formal description of the Important biblical concept of the" neighbour." The" neighbour" (rea, rrA7)alov) IS the one who IS loved apart from and side by side with God, but for th:~ sake of love for God. In the original and not the derivative sense the rea is, of course, the fellowIsraelite. The Greek word rr).,7)alov is essentially much weaker, but in its biblical usage it has to be understood in the light of the much fuller Hebrew word and it signifies the one who in fact, as may happen, becomes and is a neighbour. In fact, this one is a "fellow-man." But this term is foreign to the Bible. And If we have to love our fellow-man, it is not because he is such, but becalse as

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love such he is the neighbour of the one who loves. The Israelite is expressly commanded to love his neighbour in Lev. 19 '8 . The saying concludes and transcends a whole list of things that he is not to do to his neighbour: he is not to defraud or rob him; he is not to keep back the wages of him that is hired until the morning; he is not to curse the deaf or be a stumbling-block to the blind; he is not to do unrighteousness in judgment; he is not to despise the poor or favour the powerful; he is not to slander or threaten his neighbour, to hate him. to take vengeance on him. or to bear any grudge against him (vv. 13-18). On the contrary (and the final saying obviously gathers up the opposite of all these things. and therefore fills the vacuum declared by these warnings), he is to love him as himself (v. 18). "I am Yahweh "-this, and this alone, is clearly the basis of this commandment. The reference is to fellow-Israelites as fellowmembers of the covenant with Yahweh. although v. 34 expressly includes the " stranger" in this circle. and with the same direction: "But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you. and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am Yahweh. your God." For all this extension, however, the circle to which the direction applies is a closed circle. To be sure, it is commanded in Ex. 23 41 . that if the ox or ass of an enemy is found straying it is to be restored to him. and his overburdened ass is to be helped-exactly the same treatment as Deut. 22 11 • prescribes for the animals of fellow-Israelites. And in Prov. 25 211 . we have a saying quoted by Paul in Rom. 12 20 which refers to the enemy himself: .. If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat; and if he be thirsty. give him water to dnnk: for thou shalt heap coals of fire upon his head. and the Lord shall reward thee." But in both Old and New Testaments the" enemy" here is not a personal opponent; he is the enemy of one's people who threatens them with persecution. And in neither case is there mention of love for this enemy. The most that can be said in relation to the members of other nations is found in Deut. 23': "Thou shalt not abhor an Edomite; for he is thy brother: thou shalt not abhor an Egyptian; because thou wast a stranger in his land." It is to be noted that even here we have to do with foreigners who stood in a specific and close relationship to Israel and its history. As we see from Deut. 23 3 • even this could not be said of an Ammonite or Moabite. Similarly, in the New Testament the man whO is loved is not the fellow-man as such. The closed circle to whose members the command to love refers is no longer that of the people of Israel and strangers casually associated with it. But-however irksoml}. this may be to those who regard Christian love as a human virtue-it is still a closed circle: the circle of disciples. brothers, the saints. members of. the body of Christ; the circle of the community of Jesus Christ gathered by the Holy Spirit from Jews and Gentiles, and ruled and quickened by Him. All men may, of course, belong to this community. Every man is called to enter it. To quote only one passage, God offers faith to all (Ac. 17 30 ). But this side the end of all things with the coming again of Christ. faith is not a matter for everyone (0'; ya.p mlvTwv ~ TT{aT'S. 2 Thess. 3 2 ), and all men do not belong to it. Thus the fellow-man can be loved only in the form of the other Christian who is brought into a definite relationship to the Christian by the love of God and of Jesus Christ. In this form he can be loved with all the necessity of love for God and for Jesus. but it is in this form alone that he can be loved. As the recurrent expression has it. Christians love one another. There are. of course, important and positive active relationships to others and to all men which demand unconditional realisation by Christians. Above all, they must be ready to give an answer (ciTToAoy{a) to all those who ask concerning the hope which lives within them (I Pet. 3 16). Their light is to shine before men. that they may see their good works and glorify their Father which is in heaven (Mt. 5 16 ). They are to be the witnesses to all men of God and of Jesus Christ and of His lordship. And this includes the fact that while they have to

3. The Act of Love

80 5

011<,"',

do TO ciyal!6v especially (p.
But what is this historical relationship in which a fellow-man stands to another in this definite and specific way as a neighbour in the concrete sense of the term, so that it is decided from the very outset

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love

3. The Act of Love

that in all circumstances the latter must love him, and will in fact love him as, and as surely as, he loves God? The relationship or context is simply that of the history of salvation, which does of course apply to all men and take place for all men, although not with the active participation of all. The history of salvation is the nexus of the particular speech and action of God for the reconciliation of the world with Himself which at its centre and climax is the history of Jesus Christ. On the part of the worldin a way which is typical for all but which therefore entails differentiation-the people of God, namely, Israel, and arising out of Israel the community awakened, assembled, built up, maintained and ruled by the Holy Spirit of the risen Jesus Christ, has an active part in this history. Indirectly the same is true of others, in the form of the stranger who dwells among this people, or the enemy who persecutes it. But it is true only with reference to this people and not another, to the men of this people and not others. It is here in this people that Jesus Christ has His body, the earthly-historical form of His existence. It is here that God speaks with man and is heard by him. It is here that He acts with him in the judgment of His grace and the grace of His judgment. It is here that according to I Pet. 2 9 He seeks and finds witnesses of His glory, elected and called out of darkness to His wonderful light and the proclamation of H;is great acts. His purpose is for all men, and He addresses Himself to the whole world. But-without prejudice to His fatherly providence .ov.er all creaturel? happening-He does so here and only here. For It IS here that HIS love is active as an electing, renewing and creative basis of the response of human love. That it may be this response is the new and wonderful thing in the act of love as a free huma? act. But it i~ a free hum~n act in the relationship or context of the hIstory of salvatIOn, of the hIstory of God with His people. The one who loves God cannot then be solitary. He cannot be a religious individual with his individual concerns and joys and wishes and achievements. As .one who has an active part in the history of salvation he is accompamed from the very outset not merely by fellows but by brothers, by those who belong with him to the people of God, by fellow-partners in the covenant, by the" household of faith" (Gal. 610). He. does .not lo:e God on .the basis of a revelation directly vouchsafed to hIm or III a pnvate relatIOnship. He began to love Him as there was in t?e wor~d-even before he himself was or loved God-the commumty whIch, called and gathered by th~ Holy Spirit, attested the love of God to .him, and summoned him by its ministry to love God in return. And If he does love God in return, this simply means that he for his part is called to the same ministry and will live in and with the community. But the life of the community, by whose ministry he is summoned to love God and in whose ministry he may participate as one who does, is not the functioning of a mechanism but a nexus of human relationships between

those who have become and are members of the one body, having their common Lord and Head in the one person. To love God is, then, to live at a specific point in this nexus, and at this point to be together with the men who are also called to the service concerned and participate in life in this service. To love God, since it is always a question of definite action, is to stand at this point in one of the many human relationships which exist here, being united to this man or that by the fact that he too is awakened by the love of God to love God in return. And the content of the relationship and union which has this basis, and the saving character of human activity in this relationship and union, consist in the fact that one loves the other. We must now try to see why it is that this activity-the life-act of man in relationship to his fellow-has the character of love in this context of the history of salvation; why Christian love, apart from and side by side with the fact that it is love for God, has also the form and dimension of love for the neighbour; and what is meant by the command: " Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." But before we take up these questions a parenthetical statement is required. There can °be no question of an extension in principle of the concept of Christian love for the neighbour into a universal love of humanity, unless we are radically to weaken and confuse it. On the other hand, there can be no question of a restriction in principle of this concept to love for those whom we know or think we know as those with whom we find ourselves in this context of the history of salvation. The sign of baptism under which we are united with our fellows has to be taken with positive seriousness. In any case, therefore, we must love those whom we know or think we know as our neighbours in the concrete sense. In any case we must regard as our brothers those who give outward testimony of love for God and tangibly confess Jesus as Lord. In any case we must accept the relationship and union between them and us in the history of salvation, and draw the resultant consequences. But this positive fact does not involve the negative one that we must in no case love the fellow-men whom we do not know or think we know as our neighbours in this specific concrete sense. Baptism and visible fellowship in confession are for us an inclusive sign, but they are not for this reason a limine an exclusive sign. Tertium datur. The other man may not have made himself known, i.e., visibly and tangibly, as one who stands to us in this relationship, and therefore as a neighbour. Yet he may well have been a neighbour-or on the way to being a neighbour-for a long time, the only thing being tb.at we have not noticed the fact. In the last instance it is not we who have to decide whether or not this other man loves God. God may well have loved him as He has loved us, and his love for God (greater perhaps tha'! our own) may have been a fact even though he has not so far been recognised by baptism as a member of the people and community of God. If we cannot count

806

808

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love

on this possibility it is difficult to see what is meant by the death of Jesus Christ for the sins of the whole world and therefore of all men, or by His lordship over all men as revealed in His resurrection. Notable figures may be recalled even from the Old Testament in this connexion: the Moabite prophet Balaam and his fellow-countrywoman Ruth; the Canaanite harlot Rahab; Hiram, king of Tyre, and the queen of Sheba; the Syrian Naaman, and Cyrus with his outstanding role in Deutero-Isaiah and the Book of Ezra. In the New Testament we can think of the wise men from the East, and rather strangely of a whole series of Gentile soldiers-the centurion of Capemaum, the centurion at the cross and the centurion Cornelius of C<esarea. Above all, and typical in his significance, there is king Melc.hizedek of Gen. 14'81., who in Hebrews is set even against Abraham as a type of Jesus Christ. And it is not for nothing that in the parable of Lk. 1029!· it was a Samaritan who by showing mercy to the man who fell among thieves provided the classic instance and definition of a neighbour in answer to the question of the scribe. If it is the case that God can and actually does raise up children to Abraham from .. these stones" (Mt. 3 9 ), in what relationship do these stand to the children of the household, and the latter to them? They bring both comfort and warning, reminding them that they are not in their own house but in that of the Father of Jesus Christ, and that in this house (In. 14') there are many mansions, including some which they themselves do not yet know.

The statement that the neighbour is always the fellow-man who encounters and is united with me in the context of the history of salvation is not suspended by the recollection that we have to reckon with the hidden presence, and emergence, of these" foreign" children. But in the light of this recollection it certainly requires modification in the following direction-that in respect of the question who encounters and is united with me in this context, and who is therefore my neighbour, I have to be prepared and continually ready to receive new light beyond what I now think I know, always making new discoveries, and thus finding it possible and necessary to love to-morrow where to-day it seems out of the question to do so because I do not yet perceive the relationship in which the other stands to me. Hence the restriction of Christian love to the circle of brothers known to me cannot be theoretical and definitive, but only practical and provisional. In any case I have to exercise love at this point, and yet all the time I have not to be closed but open to the possibility that the circle of the brothers whom I must love may prove to-morrow, or even within the next hour, to be wider than I now realise. I thus address my love to the brother whom I know to-day, and am continually prepared to address it to-morrow to the brother whom I do not know to-day. I anticipate in my love to the brother of to-day what I shall be bound to do in relation to the brother of to-morrow. In the narrower love I am always reaching out to the wider. And since I cannot know of any man that he will not prove to be my brother to-morrow, I cannot withhold from any of my fellows an attitude of openness, of expectation, of good hope and therefore of readiness for love. I love neither God nor my brothers if I do not show openly to every man without distinction

3. The Act of Love

809 the friendliness emphatically recommended and even commanded in so many New Testament passages. The New Testament does not call this" love." And what the New Testament calls " love" is in fact other and more than this friendliness. But the latter is a kind of anticipation of it, as may well be indicated by the unique saying in 12 I Thess. 3 • It is the position of readiness of the Christian as he looks and moves to the neighbour or brother of to-morrow in each of his fellows, even including the" enemy" of the people and the community. Those who themselves exist in this context of the history of salvation, and may therefore love God and their neighbours, have no option in this respect. They must be ready and on the way to love for all, even in relationships in which its realisation is at the moment impossible. If-unlike the Bible-we want to say more than this, we must be careful that we do not say less. But it certainly must be said that, while the circle of vital Christian love for the neighbour is not the sphere of all men indiscriminately, it is not a hermetically sealed circle within this sphere, but one which continually broadens out into it. Our present theme, however, is the act of Christian love as such' the love which the Christian addresses in any case to the neighbou; and brothe~ known to him to-day, and is ready in given cases gladly to address III the same way to-morrow to the brother and neighbour not known to him to-day. We must now turn to the question why Christian love is also love for the neighbour. How and in what sense does the neighbour come to stand side by side with the God whom we must love with all our heart and soul and strength? How and in what sense does the second commandment come to have a place alongside the first? To what extent does love for God necessarily entail love for the neighbour? Before we attempt any explanation, it is as well to state plainly and simply that this is the case. Christian love has these two dimensions and is thus love for the neighbour. The history of salvation is both a history between God and man and also a history between man and man. It is the second as and because it is the first. That is to say, as and because it is first a history between God and a people (Yahweh and Israel in the Old Testament and Jesus Christ and His community in the New) and only then a history between God and'the world, between God and all men, the life of this people, the common life of its members, becomes part of the event and itself the history of salvation. Because these men are together in relation to God they are among one another in a very distinctive way. As the history of salvation takes place vertically as the act of God's love and the corresponding act of human love for God, it also takes place on the horizontal plane where these men are together reached by the divine act and together engaged in the corresponding act. It takes place unavoidably that there is a definite connexion of these men among themselves posited in and with their twofold passive and active relationship to

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love

3. The Aet of Love

God. This connexion is their mutual love; the love of each for his neighbour. It is their love for one another because they are those who together are loved by God and love Him in return. Since it is a matter of love on the vertical plane, how can it be anything else on the horizontal? The two planes are distinct and must not be confused. But they are also inseparable. Liberation for God is one thing, and liberation for our fellow-men another. But if in the liberation for God we have the liberation of a people, it is followed at once by the liberation of the members of this people for one another. The awakening to mutual love succeeds instantaneously the awakening to love for God. The history of salvation is fundamentally this twofold history, and therefore 8ide by side with that indicated by the first commandment, and inseparably from its fulfilment, it is also the history indicated by the second: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself." As the one who loves God you cannot do otherwise. As you love God, you will love your neighbour; the one who with you is loved by God and loves Him in return.

I write no new commandment unto you, but an old commandment which ye had from the begmnmg. The old commandment is the word which ye have heard from the begmnmg. Agam, a new commandment I write unto you, which thmg IS true m him and in you: because the darkness is past, and the true light now shmeth." \Vhat is meant is disclosed by the remarkable" because" and by what follows: "He that saith he is in the light, and hateth his brother, is m darkness even until now. He that loveth his brother abideth in the light, and there IS none occasIOn of stumblmg in him. But he that hateth his brother is in darkness, and walketh in darkness, and knoweth not whither he goeth, because that darkness hath blinded his eyes." The content of I In. 3 141 . is to the same effect: "We know that we have passed from death unto life, because we love the brethren. He that loveth not his brother abideth in death. Whosoever hateth his brother is a ri1Urderer: and ye know that no murderer hath ~ter~al life abiding in him." It may now be seen in what sense equal emphasis IS laId upon the fact that the commandment is both old and new. It is obviously called old to remmd us that we have here a decisive element of instruction handed dow? through the Old Testam~nt and known from the very outset to every ChnstJan. In thIS respect the wnter may perhaps have in view Christians :who tried to resist the urgency of this command by claiming that it was an mnovatlOn: or a special concern carried to excess by John or the J ohannine CIrcle. It IS called new to draw attention to the fact that we have here a concretion of that which characterises the Gospel message as distinct from its Old Testament form, so that in the observance or non-observance of this commandment lit.erally everything is at stake for the Christian, since the only alternative ~o love IS hatred of one'sbrother, murder, the fratricide of Cain (I In. 3 12 ), and It IS concretely at thIS pomt that a decision is made between light and darkness, hfe and death. In thIS respect the author is perhaps thinking of Christians who know and accept the command to love as an Old Testament direction but do not appreciat~ the new serious,::ss which it ha~ acquired (" the darknes~ is past, and the true hght now shmeth ). Presented m thIS ultimate way, according to whIch the Ime between ItS observance and non-observance is the frontier between two worlds (and what worlds I). it is obviously like (o/-,o[a, Mt. 22 39 ) the first and great commandment. Presented in this way, and therefore as a strict and ~nconditional requirement, it is asserted in a form in which it is not yet asserted m the Old Testament but is necessarily so-obviously on the basis of its fundamental presupposition-in the New. As it is taken over in the New it does not say verbally anything more than what was demanded of Israel in the Old. But as repeated in the New it has acquired a function which is perhaps latent but not yet patent m the Old. Now-and only now-it has become the second and no less significant and important element in the twofold commandment to love. If we think in New Testament terms, or in Old Testament terms as interpreted III the Ne:w, we cannot draw back from the view that the history of salvation has two dImenSIOns, that It IS therefore played out on two different but inseparable le~els, and that ChnstJan love has therefore a twofold object and direction. ThiS 'new belongs to the very rudiments of Christian thought, because of the ChnstJan life, at which we have always to start.

.':ira

It is to be noted that this is not stated quite so precisely by the Old Testament, but only by the New. It is the Jesus of the Synoptics who gathers together Deut. 6 41 . and Lev. 19" into the twofold commandment of love. Vie cannot deduce from Lev. 19 18 that there is this direct relationship between the two. Certainly it cannot be denied that in this text the command to love one's neighbour sheds a distinctive light in the true sense of the term. Yet it is also unmistakeable that it is prej udicially affected by the host of detailed provisions by which it is accompanied and which hardly seem to be of the same importance. And while the" I am Yahweh" is added as a solemn basis to many of these directions, it does not serve to distinguish the central character of the command to love, nor does it cause us to think specifically of what is commanded in Deut. 641. The decisive demand of the prophets and the various strata of the Law in respect of the relationship between man and his fellows in Israel is not for love but honesty and justice. But these are, of course, very definitely demanded: so definitely that we cannot overlook the second and horizontal dimension resulting from the covenant with Yahweh, the significance of the fellow-countryman as the other to whom the Israelite owes respect side by side and together with Yahweh Himself; and in such a way that there may be traced at least the indications of a line leading up from the Old Testament to the New. All the same, the emphasis on love for the neighbour, and its express connexion with love for God, corresponds to the insight and witness of the New Testament rather than the Old. It is only now-obviously post Christum natum -that God and the fellow-man who is an associate in covenant with God are seen together in such a way that love for the latter as well as for God, and in consequence of love for God, becomes a second, strong and autonomous theme of proclamation, so that the command to love one's neighbour can even be called the j3aa').'Koo; yo/-,o<; (Jas. 2 8). or its fulfilment the 11').~pw/-,a yo/-,ov (Rom. 13 8 ,1°). An apparent contradiction in the J ohannine literature is explicable along these lines, and if the explanation attempted here is correct, fresh light is shed by it on the problem of the difference in accent as between the Old Testament witness and the New. That the disciples should love one another is described by Jesus Himself in In. 13:14 as an EYTO).~ Kaw~. But in 2 In. 5 '.\'e read the direct opposite: It is not an EYTO).~ Kaw~, but that which we had 0.11" dpX~o;. And in I In. 3 11 the same commandment is described as " the dyy.Ala that ye heard 0.11" dpX~o;." The two thoughts are brought together in I In. 2 71. "Brethren,

Srr

So far we have been concerned only to establish the fact that Christian love for God necessarily means Christian love for the neighbom. But having done this we are still confronted by the question why and to what extent this is the case, i.e., the problem of the knowledge of this rudimentary fact. For instance, who is my neighbour, my brother, the one who encounters me? And who am I in relation to him on this second horizontal plane of the events of salvation? In what quality is he one whom, in loving God as a Christian, I have

3. The Act oj Love 812

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love

also to love, and will love, with the same seriousness? And in what quality do I for my part stand in ~elation t~ him as one who,. in loving God, has to love and will love hlm too wlth the same senousness ? What is the function which as those who together are loved by God and love Him in return we have to fulfil among ourselves, the one in relation to the other? And to what extent is love the fulfilling of the function in which we have to be and are there the one for the other? In fact these different questions all reduce themselves to one, and the all-embracing concept which suggests itself to answer them all is that of the witness. The neighbour is a witness to me, and I am a witness to him. It is in this quality that we mutually confront one another. It is this function that we have to fulfil in relation to one another.' And we can fulfil this function only as we love one another. A man is a witness to me when he gives me information which would otherwise be inaccessible, confirming it when otherwise I have no other means of confirmation. And I am a witness to him when I impart and confirm information in this way. The witness answers, therefore for the information which he imparts and confirms. For the one to whom he imparts it, the truth and reality of what is told stand or fall with the human existence and activity of the man who imparts it. The more important and .indispen~able the infor~~tion, the more important and indispensable lS the eXlstence and activIty of the one who gives it, the witness. If it is t~e case, then, ~ha~ what two men have to tell one another is absolutely Important and mdispens" able to both, this means that its truth and reality stand o~ fall with their mutual existence and activity as its witnesses. The one IS referred absolutely to the existence and activity ~f the other as a witnes~ of that which is supremely important and mdispensable. They are umted absolutely by the mutual expectation that it will be i~parted. !hey can thus have no more pressing concern than not to fall to pass lt on, but to be to one another the mutual witnesses as which they confront one another. The Israelite is a witness to the Israelite in this sense, and the Christian to the Christian. They have continually to proclaim to one another by their human activity ~he love of Go~ w~i~h co~stitutes Israel the community and the eXIstence of each mdlvldual m Israel and the community, and this love as the basis of their freedom t.o love God in return. The love of God and these men need that thIS love should be continually proclaimed because God's love is a reality, not as a general truth about God, but in God's constant activity, and because the love of these men for God which is based upon it is not a state which can ever be .presupposed, but finds realisation in constant human action. Thus its proclamation can never be rendered superfluous or unnecessary by earlier proclamation, but has continually to take place, to become an event. B~t the ~ove of God and these m~n need that this love should be proclalmed, Imparted and confirmed m

813

~he form of human action because the love of God, and the correspondmg human love for God which is based upon it, is also an event on the level where man is confronted by man, so that the relationship between the God who reveals Himself in His love and the man who is loved by Him and loves Him in return must be reflected in a relationship of man to man in which in the form of human action man answers to man for the truth and reality of that which primarily and intrinsically takes place on the other, vertical plane-the event of love between God and man and man and God. Finally, the love of God and the men who correspond to it with their love need that this love should be proclaimed reciprocally because on the horizontal plane now under consideration we have to do with a people loved by God and loving Him in return, among whose adherents and members there is none to whom the love of God is not addressed and who is not therefore free to love Him in return, none who is not referred to the fact that this is proclaimed to him by human action, and none who is not under obligation to proclaim it to others by his action. What, then, would I be, what would become of me, and how could I become and be and remain what I am as a member of God's people loved by Him and loving Him in return, if this being of mine, the being of the whole people of God as such and in it my being, were not continually proclaimed to me by the human action of the one who is a member with me, i.e., if he with his being did not guarantee the truth and reality of mine? What would I be if this other were not to me a witness of God, of the history of salvation in which my life too has a part, of the divine work which affects me too, of my liberation for the love of God? If thlS were the case, then on the level where man is confronted by man I should be referred to myself even in respect of the relationship between God and me and me and God, receiving neither light nor strength from my fellow. Would the love of God then be revealed? Would I be able to perceive it and respond to it ? Without the ministry of the people of God and its members, would I be loved by God at all, or free to love Him in return ? Conversely, what would I be, and how would it stand with my being as one loved by God and loving Him in return, if even for a moment I could cease to proclaim it to the other man who also has a part in this being and needs this proclamation, i.e., if I for my part were unwilling to answer for the truth and reality of his being as a member of the people of God? What would I be if I for my part were not to this other a witness of God, of the history of salvation in which he too has a part, of the work of God which is for him too, of his liberation for the love of God? This would mean that on the level on which I confront him I would ignore the other in respect of his relationship to God, leaving him to his own devices. But if I can do that, is the love of God really revealed to me? Am I really one who knows it and loves God in return? Holding aloof from the ministry of His people

814

~ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love

as one of its members, do I not show that I am not really loved by God, and do not have the freedom to love Him in return? Do I not automatically exclude myself from participation in the life of this people? . " ,., No, the Israelite cannot be an IsraelIte, or the ChnstIan a ChnstIan, without having the other as a witness of what makes him such. And he cannot be an Israelite, or Christian, without being to the other a witness of what makes him such. The other whom he has as a witness is his nf'ighbour, his brother. And as he for his part is a witness to the other; he is his neighbour, his brother. Without this neighbour, this brother, and without being to him a neighbour, a brother, he would not be what he is. We can call it the law of the common life of the people of God that none must be alone and that none can leave the other alone; that each is set there as a witness to the other; that each is ordained to accompany the other as a witness and continually to encounter him as such-a witness of the divine covenant which upholds and embraces them both of the election from which they both derive as members of the people' of God and by the authentication of which they both live, of the grace and mercy of God which are addressed to them both and without which they would instantaneously perish. The law of the people of God, the command which is continually given to each of its members, is to the effect that they are and may and should be to one another witnesses and therefore neighbours, brothers and sisters, in this way. As the members of this people are God's children loved b'y Him and loving Him in return, they are placed under thiS law and It is written on their hearts. What the members of the people of God have mutually to attest and guarantee is simply that God loves them, and that they may love Him in return, as the first-fruits and precursors of the whole of the human race, typically and representatively for all men, as those who bear the message throughout the world and for the sake of their mission. The law particularly given to them is thus the law of their universal mission. Thev are to one another witnesses of that which as the people of God they have commonly to attest to every man. But to be this people and therefore God's witnesses to every man and to the whole world, it is indispensable that they should first anD. foremost be this to one another. As it is revealed and known among them that God loves them and that they may love Him in return, as this hidden thing is light in their midst, they are elected from among ~ll human races and societies, and they of all men are gathered and bmlt up as a community. They of all others are thus placed under this law and made witnesses to one another in order that together they should be witnesses to all men: not therefore for themselves but to be a sign of what God is and does for all and what all may be and do for God; but from and among all others in order that they particularly

3. The Act of Love

should be this sign. To them first there has been vouchsafed that gracious inter-relating of man and man in virtue of which none can be his own neighbour in respect of the divine love which descends to man and the human love which ascends to God, but each mav have a neighbour in the other who continually attests this love to him, and each may be to the other a witness of this love. Among them first there is a clear realisation that the event of reconciliation and salvation has also this dimension; that there is no revelation or knowledge of that great love apart from this inter-relating of man and man; and that the freedom for life in that great love is identical with the freedom of the neighbour to be to me a witness and with my own freedom to be a witness to him. They first-the members of the people charged with the ministry of this witness to the world-are thankful for the fact that they have human witnesses of God, and willing to be themselves His human witnesses. But how can and may and should and will the one be to the other a witness of God, i.e., of the fact that God loves us and that we may love Him in return? The concept of the witness carries with it a restriction which we cannot ignore. \Vhen a man is a witness to another, he can only tell him about something, and answer for the truth and reality of what is told. He cannot produce the thing itself. None of us can reveal to the other that God loves him and that he may love God in return. This can be revealed to both only as it takes place that God evinces His love and in so doing gives the freedom to love Him. There can be no transmission of this event and freedom (e.g., by persuasion or suggestion) from one man to another. What can take place on this level, between man and man, as the one is witness to the other, can be only a reflection of what takes place on the vertical level, between God and both. It can be only a copy of it in a reciprocal human action. In the form of this human action, within the limits set to all human action and with the frailty and ambiguity characteristio of all human action, there is passed on from the one to the other, and v£ce versa, news of what God is and does for both, and of what both may be and do for God. But in the indirectness of this declaration the neighbour can and may and should and will guarantee to his neighbour, and the brother to his brother, the fact that God does really and truly love Him, and that he may really and truly love God. They and all the members of the people of God, each in relation to the other, need this declaration and are capable of it. And they are placed under this gracious law as mutual witnesses in order that they may by this means serve and help and uphold and comfort and admonish and therefore befriend one another-not as gods but as neighbours and brothers loved by God and loving Him in return. This witness will be genuine and useful to the extent that between man and man, with all the imperfection of what one man can be and do for another, there is a true reflection and imitation of what takes

8r6

~

68. The Holl' Spirit and Christian Li,'e

place between God and man, so that while there is no replacement of the latter, or identity with it, there is a similarity, and what is done is calculated to give a ~ecessary reminder of it. If e~'en the best proclamation cannot take the place of what is proclaimed, there is no proclamation at all if what is proclaimed is not visible and perceptible in outline and may not be known even if only indirectly. But the similarity of the witness to God's love and to the freedom to love Him in return is to be found quite simply in the fact that the neighbour will love the neighbour, the brother the brother. He will do so in a human act of love. But within the limits and with all the frailty of human action he will do so in reality and truth. For he himself is loved by God and may love Him in return. He cannot conceal or deny this fact. He cannot place this light under a bushel. He cannot withhold it from the neighbour, the brother. On the level of what takes place between man and man he can proclaim it only in such a way that here too, in this encounter, there is love, the mutual love of these men. To be sure, there are other relationships between them as well. Apart from many that are unimportant, or only externally and technically important, there are those that involve a very inward and profound and significant and meaningful intercourse and exchange. These, too, may be a means of love. But in them they may withhold the witness which they owe to one another. In them they may still be isolated and left to their own devices. What counts in the inter-relating of the members of the people of God, and under the gracious law which obtains among them, is whether or not in the form of this or that relationship they love one another. If this is not the case, then even the most profound words which pass between them, the most effective works which they do for one another and the most devoted attitudes which they work up in their contact one with another, cannot alter in the very slightest the fact that they are transgressors of this law, that they are not fulfilling their reciprocal obligation and that they are seriously deluded in relation to their love for God and their experience of God's love. This great love must be declared in the inter-relationship of the children of God, and it can be declared only in love; in the act of love for the neighbour and brother. If they fail to make this declaration they give the lie both to God who loves them and to themselves in their love for God. Their mutual love is the fulfilling of this law. Otherwise it is not fulfilled but broken. And where this is the case, it means that as far as they are concerned the life of the community is arrested and thrown into confusion, and its mission in the world is compromised. For" by this shall all men know that ye are my disciples, if ye have love one to another" (In. 13 35 ). That is to say, what makes the community a distinctive and serious partner in discussion with the world is the fact that within it-but visible outwardly-it takes place that the men united in it do what is not done elsewhere: upholding (dvexo!-,evoL, Eph. 'I') one another instead of causing one

3. The Act of Lot'C

8r7

another to fall; serving (oou'\eVET<, Gal. 51:1) one another by love instead of ruling over one another; showmg a c/>L,\aoe,\c/>ia which is inward (c/>L'\oaTopyoL, H.om. 12 '0 ), unfeigned, sincere, and constant (1 Pet. 1 2 ', 4 8 ), not stagnating or declining but increasing in each individual member (2 Thess. 1'1) and confirming itself even to the one who has fall:;n (2 Cor. 2 8 ). This action is so constitutive for the existence of the communih' and its members, and seems so self-evident in the New Testament, that Paul 'in I Thess. 4 9 can say to his readers that he has no need to write about it explicitly. They are taught by God (Ow8toaKTOt) , to love one another, as is proved by their obvious action in relation to their l\1acedonian brethren. Paul did not 'always flnd this self-evident thing quite so self-evident. Nor did the author of I J olm, whose writings are at once the sharpest and in every way the most illuminating in the exposition of this subject. vVe may refer to 4 11 : "Beloved, if God so loved us (namely, in the sending of His Son to be the propitiation for our sins), we ought (oc/>ei,\o!-,ev) also to love one another" ; or 4 '9 ; .' vVe love him, because he first loved us"; or 4 16 : "He that dwelleth in love dwelleth in God, and God in him" ; or 4'0: "If a man say, I love God, and hateth his brother, he is a liar: for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath seen, cannot love God whom he hath not seen" (ou ovvaTat, he cuts the root of his whole Christian existence); or finally 4 21 : "This commandment have we from him, That he who loveth God love his brother also," It is to be noted that in this concluding verse we do not really have an imperative but an indicative: 0 dya1Twv (on the vertical plane, in direct answer to God's own love) dya1T~ (on the horizontal plane, in indirect but necessary repetition of this answer). There is thus a general inter-connexion, the one thing entailing the other. God's love evokes the love of the Christian for Him, and the two together the mutual love of Christians.

The function of the love for the neighbour and brother which corresponds to God's love and the love for God is thus to be the ministry of human witness in which the one guarantees to the other the turning of God's love to His people and the turning of His people to God, giving him a visible reflection and therefore reminder of the twofold movement of and in which this people and within it all its members live, and thus helping to maintain him in this twofold movement. What takes place in love is that the one calls the other to his true business as a Christian. No words or works or attitudes are able in themselves and as such to render this service. The rendering of this human, but on the human level indispensable, service takes place in love. It may well be said that what we have here is the ministry or service which continually renews and maintains the whole life of the community (as a common life of men), and therefore makes possible the life of the Christians united in it. It is, in fact, the conditio sine qua non of the life of this totality and its individual constituents. Nor may we playoff against the decisive significance of love for the neighbour and brother either grace, or the Holy Spirit, or faith in the remission of sins. To do so is to overlook or forget or deny the second (and therefore the first !) dimension of the history of salvation, in which there must necessarily be, in the light and power of the first, an action of man not only in relation to God but also to the fellow-man who is also participant in it, to the one who is a neighbour and brother. Here, too, it is naturally a question of the free and sovereign grace of

818

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love

3. The Act of Love

God. But it is this grace which so vehemently demands brotherly love. It is this grace which neither God's people as a whole nor any individual member possesses in its own strength. It is this grace which has obviously to be mutually attested. It is in relation to this grace that it may be said that there is none that does not need its witness, but also none that can boast of it without becoming its witness to the other-which is the work of his brotherly love. Naturally, too, it is a question of the work and gift of the Holy Ghost. The members of the people of God should never imagine that they can and should help themselves and one another, exerting and forcing themselves to love one another. This kind of exertion is quite futile, since none can do it. Only by the Holy Spirit do they become free for this action. But by the Holy Spirit they do become free for it. By the Holy Spirit the individual becomes free for existence in an active relationship with the other in which he is loved and finds that he may love in return. The one who is most deeply filled with the Spirit is the one who is richest in love, and the one who is devoid of love necessarily betrays the fact that he is empty of the Spirit. Naturally, it is a matter of faith in the remission of sins, sins which will be present even where men stand in this active connexion as Christians filled with the Spirit and with love. There can be no question of their activity dispensing them from living by forgiveness. But it is a matter of practising faith in this forgiveness where one sinner (whose sins are taken away) may love as a neighbour and brother another sinner (of whom it may also be said that his sins are taken away). The one to whom much is forgiven (Lk. 7 47f ·) can love much, whereas little is forgiven to the one who loves little. No, it is not advisable to try to escape by appealing to the primacy and over-riding importance of what can take place only between God and man and not between man and man. There can be no limiting or contesting this primacy. The first commandment is always the first. But it is a matter of confirming this primacy in the fulfilment of the second commandment. As there can be no above without a below, no before without an after, so there can be no divine revelation witho1Jt a human ministry of witness, no history of salvation between God and man without its reflection and repetition in a history between man and man. The one without the other would necessarily prove to be a mere mythology and illusion in the form of a "positivism of revelation." But its reflection and repetition can take place only as the men who are loved by God and love Him in return enjoy and make use of the freedom to love one another. If it is ever the case that they seem to be missing God's love and their own love for God, and no help is found by turning to the Bible and to prayer, the root of the trouble may be quite simply that they are not ready to make use of this freedom, and are not engaged in this confirmation of God's love and their own love for Him. There are no legitimate reasons for

evading this confirmation. If we try to do so, we must not complain at the immediate consequences. But what does it mean to love one's neighbour or brother? More than once in our description of the ministry of witness which the one owes and for which he is indebted to the other we have spoken of the one guaranteeing to the other that God loves His people, that He therefore loves the two concerned, and that they may both love Him in return. \Ve must take this thought quite seriously if we are to penetrate to a true understanding. To guarantee something to another is to do more than offer something, or even to do or achieve something in his favour. We may do as much as this when we are well-disposed to someone, when we like him and wish him well, and desire that he should do the same to us. Many remarkable things, even the greatest, may be done simply to please him. But one thing we do not do---and that is to stand surety for him, to make ourselves responsible for him, to offer and give ourselves to him. On the contrary, in all that we do to please him we simply maintain and assert ourselves over against him. We do not want to be without this fellow-man who pleases us so much. We want to bind him to us, to make sure of him for ourselves. To take up the important biblical expression, we do not love him as ourselves, i.e., with the interposition of ourselves. On the contrary, we love ourselves and for this reason, for the sake of ourselves, we love this fellow-man. There are instances of this, of course, even among Christians and between Christians and others. The Christian does not like all his fellows, not even all his fellow-Christians. But he likes some of them and he is ready to do a good deal, perhaps the very greatest things, to please them. May he continue to do so, and may what he does on this presupposition be to the benefit of both parties! But although Christian love for the neighbour and brother does not exclude this presupposition-it may indeed be realised on this presupposition -it is not in any way tied to it. It does not really depend upon the fact that the one likes another nor does it find realisation necessarily in what the one usually does for the other on this presupposition. It may also be realised in an action in which he does not earn his favour or win him to himself. Christian love for the neighbour and brother does not guarantee that the one will make himself " lovable" to the other in the shallower sense of the term. It begins as such at the very point where the pleasure which men have in one another, and the favours which they may show in consequence, do not necessarily cease, but may very well do so, or for various reasons find no place. It consists in the fact that (whether he likes him and can earn his liking or not) the one interposes himself for the other, making himself his guarantor and desiring nothing else but to be this. It consists in the fact that he has no place for himself except as the guarantor of the other. It resembles God's love and love for God in the fact that

81 9

820

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love

it is self-giving; the self-giving which reflects and therefore guarantees to the other the love of God and the freedom to love him. That it may be the pledge of this great love is the presupposition which marks it off from all the love which is based on liking and finds realisation in favours because its aim is to be liked in return. And the fact that it has to pledge this great love means that it cannot be less or other than self-giving. It means that the one has to love the other" as himself": not as and because and in the same way as he loves himself (according to the well-established and frightful misinterpretation) ; but as he delivers himself to this other with the sale purpose of guaranteeing in his own person the fact that God loves him too, and that he too is free to love God. How can he bear witness to this fact except by imitating and reflecting it, by giving a representation of it in outline? But how can he imitate it-this love of God and the love for Godexcept by interposing no less than himself for this other instead of asserting himself against him, by pledging himself in this service instead of seeking to win him to himself ? Christian love for the neighbour and brother differs, of course, from that which it declares in the fact that it can be only a self-giving which pledges and guarantees. A man cannot be to another more than a witness even in the life of the people of God-a fact which is realised among this people, so that there no attempts are made to violate this frontier. Even Christian love for the neighbour and brother is a ministry of witness. What is to be attested in this self-giving which guarantees is itself more than witness or a pledge. It is the self-giving of God to man, and the event of man's liberation to give himself to God. In human love for the neighbour and brother we have only an imitation and reflection of this event; its representation in outline. I cannot take the place of God and love another with the love with which God loves him. I cannot take the place of another and in his person use the freedom given him to love God in return. I can only answer for these two things in the representation of my person. And I can do so only as I love him, i.e., as I interpose and give myself as their pledge, unreservedly placing myself at his disposal as such. There is no point in trying to pretend to God, the other man or myself that I cannot do this. I can and may and must do it. If I am to be a Christian, this is the content of my life-act as such on the plane of dealings between man and man, just as on the plane of dealings between God and man it consists in the fact that I may and must respond to the self-giving of God to me with my self-giving to Him. I am not asked concerning the value of my self-giving, Le., of my person as I give it to the other as a guarantee. Nor am I asked concerning the art or address with which I accomplish it. Nor am I asked concerning the success which I mayor may not have with the other; the impression which I mayor may not make. Nor am I asked concerning the limits set to the perfection of my self-giving by my nature,

3. The Act of Love

821

by the fact that I am only a poor sinful man. I am asked only concerning my self-giving, my interposition as an only too human pledge, as the necessary and only possible form of my ministry of witness. I am asked only whether (however well or badly) I do this; whether I lo,:,e y neig~bour as myself, i.e., in such a way that I place myself a~ hIS dIsposal Just as I am, so that my heart is no longer my own but hIS. But I am asked concerning this. And I cannot find any way of eva~ing ~his ~uestion. On this question depend my election and calling, my JustIficatIOn and sanctification, my eternal and temporal future. In th~s question I have to do with the Law and the prophets. And I have JOy in the Gospel if I rejoice in the fact that I am asked concerning the pledge of my self-giving to the neighbour; if the act of this self~ving is ~tself a cause of r~j?icing to me. I do not really perform it If I do so Joylessly and unwIllmgly and grudgingly and with a thousand " ifs " and" buts." And I will then find no joy in the Gospel, but prove only that so far I have not really heard the Gospel at all. It. is neither arbitrary nor accidental that the Gospel has to be descnbed as the basis and meaning of Christian love for the neighbour. We have to do with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The mystery of Christian love for the neighbour is finally and decisively, because originally, His mystery.

n:

There can be no doubt that it is more clearly and emphatically attested in the New Testament than the Old. The Old Testament does, of course, know the neighbour and brother, and the importance of the relationship to him. But the fact that he and the relationship to him belong to the history of salvation that an Israelite is ordained and called to be to the other a witness of the covenant' that th~ substance of this witness is to be to the other a guarantor of the covenant: that thiS action means mutual self-giving and therefore love-all this seems in the Old Testament to be still concealed in the settled order in which the shepherds and peasants and citizens of Israel are associated (within the framework of the order of their common relationship to their God). It all seems to be envisaged indirectly rather than directly, as promise but not yet as fulfilment. It does not yet seem to be expressly brought into relationship with the commandment of love for God in its twofold form. From this standpoint alone, in an abstract exposition of the Old Testament, we could not have said what we have said on this point. But from the ~tandpoint of the New Testament witness we could not help saymg It. For thiS witness does not only look to the epiphany of Jesus Christ. It does do this. From first to last it declares His future, final and universal manifestation and revelation. But it looks to it in this second form only as it already derives from it in its first form, from the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. The theological difference between the times ante Christum and post Christum may perhaps be perceived at other points too. But there can be no doubt that-in a very remarkable way-it is to be perceived here. It was only through the Gospel of Jesus Christ, which as the goal and meaning of the Law and the prophets could be proclaimed by the apostles not only to Israel but also to the Gentiles, that the neighbour and brother, and the love of brother for brother, necessarily took on this central significance. In the New Testament there is therefore a distinctive pattern (usually indicated by the adverb KU(JWS) of which Jesus Christ is the original and which the members of His community have to copy by mutual love. We can see this in In. 15 12 , where Jesus says to

822

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love

His disciples that it is His commandment that they should love one another as (KaOw,) He loved them, or in In. 13 34 where this love is shown to be the aim of those who belong to Him: Lva Kal VJL"s. \Ve may also refer to Rom. 15': .. Receive ye one another, as (KaOws) Christ also received us"; to Col. 3 12r . where" the elect of God, holy and beloved" are summoned to " put on" (as the new clothes which suit them) a heartfelt mercy, kindness, humbleness of mind and longsuffering, " forbearing one another (av€xoJL€vOt), and forgiving one another ... as (KaOw,) Christ forgave you, so also do ye (OUTW, Ka, vJL€'s). And above all these things put on charity, which is the bond of T€A€LOT1/S (of the common goal set for and to be attained by you). And let the peace of God rule in your hearts, to the which also ye are called in one body (His) ; and be ye thankful" ; and finally to Eph. 5 2 ,25 where the demand of v. I, that Christians should be followers or imitators of God, is explained by the further demand that they should .. walk in love, as (KaOws) Christ also hath loved us (the €KKA1/,,{a in v. 25), and hath given himself for us" (the €KKA1/Uta in v. 25). The secret of the brotherly love of Christians is to be found in this KaOws.

The man Jesus, whom we have particularly had in view in the whole of this second part of the doctrine of reconciliation, is both this secret and at the same time its revelation-He who is the new thing in the New Testament beside which all other things we can think of may only be called relatively new. Common to both Old and New Testaments is, of course, the proclamation of the covenant of grace as the promise of the lordship and salvation of God among men and for them; and to that extent the proclamation of the love of God, and the freedom to love Him in return, as the promise of life for all men, of peace on earth to the men of His good-pleasure. But in the Old Testament this is only a promise. To be sure, there is there a people with whom this covenant is concluded and faithfully maintained on the part of God. But among all the men of this people there is none who corresponds on the human side to this faithfulness of God. It can be seen that Yahweh is the God of Israel. But it cannot be seen that Israel is the people of Yahweh. The promise given to it is not visibly fulfilled. The man Jesus is the fulfilment of this promise, the Messiah of Israel who in the place and name of all Israel does as man that which corresponds to what God does. Thus, although the New Testament still proclaims God and His covenant and will and lordship, it does so by proclaiming as His Word and work, not to be separated from Him, this man, the one man Jesus, elected and sent by God and exalted to His right hand. The new thing in the New Testament is the present and action of the invisible God in the existence, the words and deeds, the death and resurrection of this man, and therefore in the historical sphere in which there is a confrontation not only between God and man but also between man and man. And now, as we look back on the" act of love" which has been our theme in this sub-section, we may ask: Who is the man who is loved by God and loves Him in return and who may be to His fellowman as such the neighbour attesting and pledging that God loves him too and that he too may love God in return? Who is the man who

3. The Act oj Love

guarantees this to his fellow-man, sacrificing himself to render him this service? Is there any such man? If there is no such man, the fulfilment of the covenant of grace leads into the void as a mere promise which is not kept and fulfilled on the part of man. We have spoken all the time as if there is such a man and this service is rendered from man to man. But who is the man who renders this service? Our answer has been that it is the Israelite, the Christie.n, the member of the people of God in the world in whom it takes place that the one may be to the other a neighbour and brother, a witness and pledge; that the one may love the other. We have not spun this answer out of thin air. We have repeated it from the New Testament, and in the light of the New Testament from the Old. But even if we do meaningfully repeat it from Holy Scripture, and may thus boldly count on the fact that this does take place in the people of God, we have still to ask: Who is the Israelite? And who is the Christian? And our answer must be that in the true sense it is obviously not this or that, let alone every, Israelite, but the one Israelite, the Messiah of Israel who has come as promised, the man Jesus; and that is the true sense it is obviously not this or that, let alone every, Christian, but, identical with the one Israelite, the one Christian from whom all others receive their name and in whom the community of Jews and Gentiles has its Lord. In the true sense this One who is the Head of the whole body is the man who is loved by God and loves Him in return and as such the One who loves His fellow-man. In the true sense He is the Samaritan who in Lk. 10 25f . does not, like the priest and the Levite, pass by on the other side, when he comes on the man who had fallen among thieves and was left half-dead by the roadside, but shows mercy on him, thus acting as, and proving himself to be, the neighbour of the lawyer's question. In the true sense it is He who fulfils the commandments of Deut. 6 4 and Lev. 19 18 • In the true sense it is He who performs the act of love in both its dimensions. If He did not perform it in the true sense, how could it be said that others perform it, that there may be and have been and are and will be other neighbours, brothers or Samaritans, and that we may count on mutual love not merely as an ideal concept and construct but as a plenitude of events which have actually taken place, and will take place, among the people of God in every age? The love of the one for the other, by which there is evinced the love for God, has in fact a secret but very real history. The history of salvation would not itself be real if it did not find real reflection and repetition in this history in a varied series of human acts of neighbourly and brotherly love. Vye cannot say this, however, merely on the basis of an interpretation of the history of Israel and Church history as such, but only in the light of the history in which that of Israel has its goal and that of the Church its beginning-the history of the man Jesus. In relation to this history we may and can and must say it because in the uniqueness

824

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love

of His person and action He is not an isolated individual but the Head of His whole body and all its members;' because He constitutes an indissoluble whole with those who are His; because what He is and does in the true sense is in their favour and determines their being and action. We may quietly admit that in relation to His action theirs will always be improper. But this action of theirs which imitates and reflects the love of God, the human response of love for God and the corresponding love for man as they are all actualised in Him, is as such a real action. Certainly the one will not be to the other-I prefer not to use Luther's expression-a" second Christ." But in the name and school of Christ he will represent what Christ is to them all. He will be a little witness, pledge, neighbour, brother and Samaritan who as such lives only by the fact that He is the great witness, who may live by this fact and who does not desire to live by anything else. The clearer the relation of discipleship in which" He is the Head and we His members" and not vice versa, the more forceful the reflection of the original in the copy, the greater the impress of similarity made by the action of the Master on that of the disciple, the more certain it will be that even among disciples there will be not merely a little love but much love, not merely little acts of love but great acts, and in any case a genuine actualisation of love. The direction in which the one to whom the man Jesus has acted as a neighbour by showing mercy on him (0 7To,~uas TO .lIfOS tJ.ET' aVTOV, Lk. 103 ') has himself not merely to look but to go is plainly indicated in the same verse; 7TOp'';OV Kat aU 7Tat.. OJLO{WS. In the 0JLo{wJLa, or likeness, of Christ's act of loveand this is the aim of the KaOws which led us to this train of thought-he not only can perform acts of love and wants to perform acts of love but does actually perform them. Another J ohannine passage may be recalled in conclusion. The story of the washing of the disciples' feet begins in In. 13 with some words of ' the Evangelist. He tells us that Jesus knew that the hour had come when He should leave the world and go to the Father. and that" having loved his own which were in the world (TOUS li){ovs TOUS EV Tej) KOUfL'P). he loved them .ls TO TElIos" (to the final point of love, as described in the story that follows). That is to say, He washed their feet the one after the other (Judas Iscariot was still w!th them) and then dried them with His own garments. The account closes WIth Jesus' own words (vv. 12-17): "Know ye what I have done to you? Ye call me Master and Lord: and ye say well; for so I am. If I then, your Lord and Master, have washed your feet; ye also ought (or/>.tIl'T£) to wash one another's feet. For I have given you an example (v7ToFwYfLa). that ye should do as (KaOws) I have done to you. Verily, verily, I say unto you. The servant IS not greater than his lord; neither is he that is sent (u7TouTollos) greater than he that sent him. If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them." This benediction is the secret of the commandment: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself " -its promise and its fulfilment.

4. THE MANNER OF LOVE In this section we have been treating of love as the life-act of the individual Christian as a member of the Christian community; of its

4· The Manner oj Love

82 5 difference from the action of human self-love; of its basis in the love of Godin Jesus Christ; and of its fulfilment as the act of self-giving to God and the b~other. We will conclude with an attempt to describe the. manner of thIS. love. What we have in mind is (I) the manner in whIch love determmes human life in the community as Christian life' (2) the manner in which human life is lived in the Christian communit~ as de~ermined by l~ve; and (3) the manner of the promise which [s pecuhar to human life as determined by love and as such lived in the ~ommunity. The answers to these three questions are as follows. It 1~ (~) the ma~n~r of love that it alone decisively determines human life m the ChnstIan ~om.munity as Christian life. It is (2) the manner of love .that llUI?an life 1~ t.he community is lived victoriously only as det.ermmed by It. And It IS (3) the manner of love that the promise whIch has eternal content is peculiar only to human life in the community as it is determined by it and lived as such. In short, it is love alone that counts, love alone that triumphs, and love alone that endures. This is the nature of love, and only of love. Hence these three st~t~mentsc~n properly be made only of love when it is a question of descnbmg the life-act of the Christian. We have not spun these statements out of the void. To be sure, the New Testament also described the life-act of the Christian as the act of faith. But there is in the New Testament no hymn of praise to the.m~nner of faith. Again, it describes it as the act of hope. But there IS m the New Testament no hymn of praise to hope. Yet the New Testament does contain such a hymn (corresponding to the Song of Son?s. of the Old Testament with its magnifying of marital love) to ChnstI~n love and the. ma~mer of Christian love. This hymn is to be found m I Cor. 13, whIch IS obviously built around the three statements that love alone counts, love alone conquers and love alone endu~es. . Hence we cannot do better than give to our attempt to descnbe the manner of love the form of a paraphrase and exposition of the context and content of this chapter.

.w

. A recent . 0rk which is particularly stimulating for the study of this chapter IS that of Gotz HarbsmeIer: Das Hohelied der Liebe, 1952-a book which will also be found helpful because of the references to other modern literature on the subject. For the rest, I have again found great profit in the observations of J. A. Bengel in his Gnomon N.T.

The Ho~y Spirit is the quick~ni~g'powe~which underlies, capacitates ~n?L actual?ses t.h~ act ~f the l~dlvldual m the Christian community m hS totahty, glvmg to It both ItS distinctive character and scope and also its distinctive direction. It is He who awakens man-each one in the form and to the task which He Himself allots to him. It is He who endows him with the corresponding abilities and freedoms and powers. It is He who enriches the whole Christian community with this endowment of the individual Christian, thus deepening and broadening

826

§ 68. The Holy

~pirit

and Christian Love

its whole life, and extending its power for the fulfilment of its mission in the world. But those to and in whom the Holy Spirit is mightily at work in this way are men. Indeed, they are sinful men. And it is their human action which by His action He authorises and claims for service. This means that His gifts are jeopardised both in the person of each individual among them and also as they accrue to the Christian community as such. When the Holy Spirit bears witness with our spirit (Rom. 816 ), it happens all too easily that in the hearts and heads of Christians the spiritual riches entrusted to them are unfortunately transformed into intellectual, moral and religious riches which each can begin to handle as if he had himself created them, as if they were at his disposal, as if he could claim them as his own possession and power and glory, playing them off against others and what seem to be their corresponding possessions without any regard for the fact that what is given him is not given him for himself but to equip him to serve the community, and that it is only relatively that what is entrusted to him is of greater or less importance. It always hangs by a hair's breadth whether this misfortune is avoided or whether, in consequence of the natural drag of human corruption, it takes place to a more or less dangerous degree, involving at o?ce the external and certainly the internal dissolution of the commumty, the more or less radical transformation of its life into that of a religious society and finally the personal disqualification of those who succumb to the temptation. The more intensive the work of the Holy Spirit, the richer and more powerful His gifts, the greater obviously is the attraction and danger of this transformation and the more urgent the critical question, which no appeal to the power and plenitude of the life of the individual and the community must be allowed to suppress, concerning that which genuinely characterises as Christian the forms of their action (even as a human action) as awakened by the Holy Spirit. The more urgent it is indeed to call them back to this distinctive reality, which is love. We have been describing the background and context of I Cor. 13. This short chapter interrupts the two sections of instruction given concerning the right way to deal with the different charisma in which the .Corinthian community seems to have been particularly rich but in the expresslOn and apphcatlOn of which it was correspondingly endangered. Paul does not question for a mom.ent that they were genuine gifts. But in the light of the fact that they are genume, and therefore that they derive from the Holy Spmt, the commumty IS (I) admonished in chapter 12 to remember the unity of the derivation of that which is entrusted to it and therefore the fellowship of those who as members of the one body of Christ are counted worthy of one or other of these gifts; and it is later (2) reminded in chapter 14 that their importance is only relative and therefore greater or less. This second note is sounded already in 12 31 : "But covet earnestly the best (!,d~ova) gifts." In 14 1 and the whole of chapter 14 we learn that what Paul had particularly in mind was the precedence of prophecy over the speaking with tongues which was obviously so rampant and so great!y overestimated in Corinth. Among the higher gifts he clearly counts the yvwa" and

4. The Manner of Love 2

82 7

1TLa'''' of I 3 and the readiness for poverty and martyrdom of 13", while those of secondary importance seem to include (IZ 281.) miracles (ouva!,,,,), gifts of healing. helps, governments and the interpretation of tongues, which are not mentioned again. Bengel has described as thealagia camparativa the process indicated in I~31 and carried thro~gh in 14.. But before Paul goes on to the second part of hiS presentatIOn With ItS clear dlfferentiatlOn, he cuts right across his own thinking and that of his readers with a threefold statement in which he brackets and leaves behind him for a moment the whole problem of charisma and questIOns concernmg their dlstmctIOn, their umty and their greater or less importance, and turns expressly to the factor which forms in some sense the key to the exposition which both precedes and follows: "And yet beyond this (beyond all spiritual gifts, beyond all that has to be said concerning the right way to handle them) I will shew you the way" (IZ 31b ). He refers to the way which Christians have always to tread whether or not they are endowed by the Holy Spirit or however they may be endowed. He refers to the human action which has as its basis, not a special liberation and endowment of the Spirit, but the one liberation and endowment which precedes every special liberation and endowment. He refers to the action whose occurrence is the criterion of a right handling of all the others. This way, this action, which is necessary" beyond all this" (KaT' i!'lT£p{3o>.~v), which is the unum necessarium, is the distinctive reality concerning which the Christian is asked before and in and after the reception of all particular charisma if he is to use them as gifts of the grace of the Holy Spirit. The way or action to which Paul refers is love. There can be no doubt that he is speaking of the love which is grounded in the love of God; of the love whose primary human subject is Jesus Christ; of the love which takes place in His fellowship wi~h n:at;J and His discipleship; of the dya1T7] ToD 1Tv£vp.aTo, (Rom. 15 30 ). There IS thiS m common between love and the charisma to which it is opposed. The freedom for it too is the freedom of the children of God. It too is the freedom originally realised in Jesus Christ and then awakened in man by the Holy Spirit. It is no mere rhetoric that in the verses which follow Paul describes love almost hypostatically as a person coming and acting independently. If we read vv. 4-7 (and especially 7) we shall soon realise which person he has seriously and ultimately before him. And except with reference to this original. love could not be described in vv. 8-13 as the unceasing and never-failing element in Christian existence. To this extent it was quite in order that at an earlier point (C.D., I, 2, p. 330) I stated that we best understand the concept of love in I Cor. 13 if we simply insert the name Jesus Christ in place of it. All the same, we must not allow this to obliterate the fact that Paul describes love as a way, obviously meaning that his readers must tread it, that they can and should do something for themselves, and that in the transition to chapter 14 (v. Ia) he could ask them to " follow after" love. Man does not merge at this point into God or Jesus Christ, but lives in and with Him as a new man in the human freedom given him by the Holy Spirit. It is to be noted that the word 11<6" and even the name Jesus, does not occur in the whole chapter. The reference of the text is obviously to what is to be done by Christians in the freedom given them by God in Jesus Christ through the Holy Spirit. The idea of A. Nygren that love is to be understood only as an "effluence from God's own life" flowing through man (ap. cit., Vol. I. p. 120) is quite impossible in an exposition of I Cor. 13. How could Paul Oppose love to the practical exercise of the charisma at Corinth if he was not thinking of it as itself a practice, as the true practice of the Christian, as the via maxime vialis (Bengel)? On the other hand, it is certainly a matter of Christian love as grounded in the love of God. Thus in regard to the debate forty years ago between A. v. Harnack and R. Reitzenstein whether what is meant is love for the neighbour or love for God (d. Nygren, ap. cit., p. 114 f. and Harbsmeier, ap. cit., p. 33 f.), we must say quite definitely that in relation to I Cor. 13 this is a false alternative. It is as well to

828

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love

avoid both abstractions and look constantly at both ~h~ dimensions in whi~h Christian love takes place. On the basis of God's self-glvmg to man. It IS man s self-giving to God and therefore also his self-giving to his neighbour. 1. I Cor. 13 1 - 3 . Because it is in virtue of. the quic~eni~g power of the Holy Spirit that the Christian commumty, and m hIS own way each individual member. lives and works and acts and ~peaks, we cannot think too highly of the breadth and depth a~d. he1~ht .of the possibilities given to the community and to each Chnstlan. m hIS own way. God shows Himself to His people as a Lord who IS not only kind but noble and generous, so that it is always ?etter t.o expect great things-the very greatest-from Him than too httle thmgs. Accordingly, the Christian community can and must be the. sc~ne of many human activities which are new and supremely astomshmg to many of its own members as well as to the world around because they rest on an endowment with extraordinary capacities. Where these ~re lacking, there is reason to ask whether in pride or slo~h ~he ~ommu~llty as such has perhaps evaded this endowment. thus fa~slfymg ItS relatlonship to its Lord, making it a dead because a nommal and .not a re~l relationship. Yet none of these activities decides the. reali~y of t~IS relationship as such. even though they may have the1: basIs: n?t I~ illusions, but in a spiritual endowment of the commumty or ItS 1.nd1vidual members; even though their power may be ever so mamfest in all kinds of successes and fruits; and even though they may be activities which not only provoke surpris~ and astonishmen~but compel regard and admiration becaus~ as aC~levements of serVICe they are supremely illuminating in theIr meamngfulness and purposefulness. Why not? Why should there be no direct and unimpeachable perc~p­ tion by this means of the reality of the relationship of the commumty and its members to their living Lord? Why cannot th~se acts. be regarded directly as acts of God? The. ans~:r I~ that, notw1thstandmg the fact that they genuinely have theIr ongm m the act.s .of God, the lordship of Jesus Christ and t~e gifts of the I:I0ly Spmt, they are human acts which cannot be directly charactensed by the. fact t~at there takes place in and with them the true and proper thmg whIch must take place if this relationship is to be a. real one. Wh~t takes place in and with them is not as su~h the hIstory of salvat~on. It may be done with great fulness, w~th ~he greate.st ~xtensIve and intensive splendour, with supreme s~b]ectlv~ and obJec~l\~e power and with every conceivable mark of bemg speClfically Chnshan, and yet be lacking in that which really ~ounts, so that there does not take place in it the history of salvatIOn: Whether the true a~d proper thing takes place is decided exclUSIvely by whether the l~f~ of t~e Christian and the community not only denves from t~e Spmt but IS lived in the Spirit; whether it is conducted not o~ly m the nam.e ?f Jesus Christ but in the discipleship of Jesus C.hnst; whether It IS offered not only with the appeal to God but to HIS glory and therefore

4· The Manner of Love

82 9

as a sacrifice which gives Him pleasure. And it may be that in spite of everything this does not take place. If it does not, this betrays itself in the fact that on the way from the divine endowment and equipment to the human acts there is a secret transformation of the freedom given by God into caprice exercised by man, of a spiritual dynamic into an intellectual and moral and religious which will very quickly cease to be dynamic and become static.' No splendour or power of Christian activities as such is proof that in the course of the transition there has not taken place this transformation which makes impossible the fulfilment of the real relationship of the community and individual Christians to their living Lord, and therefore the enactment within it of the history of salvation. The true and proper thing which must take place within it may not take place for all the genuineness of the origin and glory of its activities. But if it does not take place then its activities lack no less than everything, for they lack the very thing which must characterise them as service in the cause of God in the world. And since there is no alternative they are then performed in the service of the cause of the world in conflict with that of God. They are then in truth secular activities, and as empty and futile and useless as the action of the world without God, the nonChristian world, always is. The whole strange world of the possibilities given where there is the community and Christians stands always, to the extent that it is actualised in human activities, in the crisis of the question whether in and with these activities there takes place or not the true and proper thing which must be actualised; and if it does not take place it stands under the decision already taken that what the community or Christians do, in spite of everything that may commend them and suggest their sincerity and good intentions, is just as corrupt as any other human activity enterprised and executed without God and in opposition to Him. The true and proper thing which must take place, and the non-occurrence of which gives the lie to even the very best of anything else that may be done, is love. It is love alone that counts. V. 1: .. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not love. I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal." Paul begins by contrasting love with the exercise of one of the endowments which he will later describe quite clearly as of the second rank. In the eyes of his readers, however. it is of primary importance. He does not question that it is genuine, nor does he desire to suppress it: .. I would that ye all spake with tongues .. 5 (14 ). Indeed. he knows and exercises it himself: "I thank my God, I speak with tongues more than ye all .. (qI8). He has no wish to" quench" the Spirit in this respect (1 Thess. 5 19 ). Speaking with tongues lies on the extreme limit of Christian speaking as such. It is an attempt to express the inexpressible in which the tongue rushes past. as it were, the notions and concepts necessary to ordinary speech and utters what can be received only as a groan or sigh. thus needing at once interpretation or exposition (q 7f.). The fact that this is possible seems to show that we are not to think of it as a wholly inarticulate, inhuman and bizarre stuttering and stammering. Certainly there can be no question of

4. The Manner of Love

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love purely" emotional eruptions" (Ilarbsmeier. op. cit., p. 14), otherwise Paul could hardly have described the capacity for them as pneumatic. On the other hand, it is a speech which in its decisive utterances leaves any clear coherence behind, necessarily falling apart unexpectedly in its clements, or recombining in equally unexpected equations, and finally consisting only of hints or IOdications with very forcible marks of interrogation and exclamation. In the last resort, it may well be asked whether there is any Christian speech, any utterance of the evangelical kerygma, which does not finally become speaking with tongues, overleaping ordinary notions and concepts in its decisive statements, and then, of course, having to return by way of exposition to ordinary speech. In any case, however, this point cannot be reached artificially. It is not open to all and sundry to advance to it. Such advance presupposes a gift, a permission and a freedom, or it is simply a movement to absurdity. Human speech may reach here the limit in which it becomes the hymn, but even as Christian speech it is held within this limit. The Corinthian community enjoyed in its gatherings a superfluity in respect or the advance to this limit of Christian speech. Paul does not try to dissuade them from it. He knows that there are points where a choice has to be made between speaking with tongues-even at the risk that some will not understand-and illegitimate silence. He tries to curb their over-estimation of this advance, but not to dissuade them from it. He presupposes in I Cor. 13 that it may be lawful and right. He maintains, however, that it is possible to speak with tongues (as enabled to do so by the Holy Ghost) and yet not to have love but to omit all self-giving to God and one's neighbour. The capacity for the highly pregnant statement in which it is a matter of expressing the inexpressible, the esprit needed for it, cannot make good this lack. And where there is this lack, speaking with tongues-Paul takes his own case as an example -is an instrument which is not really a musical instrument because, although it is sound, it has only the one note and is therefore hollow and empty and inexpressive and wholly unmusical. The sound of a bell or a gong is not music. It is simply a noise. And so, too, is speaking with tongues without love-no matter how significant and arresting it may sound, or how seriously it may have God and Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit in intention. If it is without love, its good intention is of no more value than the spiritual wealth which seeks expression in it. What sounds in it is only the exalted self-enjoyment and the forceful self-expression of the one who speaks with tongues, and it is something which is monotonous, tedious, uninspiriting and finally irksome and annoying. No Kyrie or Gloria can help a performance of this nature. Even if the one who speaks with tongues were mir'tculously placed already among the 144,000 of Rev. 14 21 ., and therefore able to learn and sing the new song of the angels before the throne of the Lamb-a song which is undoubtedly of an all-surpassing wealth -it would be of no avail if he is without love. Even in this exalted company he would still be " as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal." It is love alone that counts-and not speaking with tongues, not even statements which are full of content and spoken or sung enthusiastically in the best sense of the term. V.2: "And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not love, I am nothing." It is now a matter of the gifts which according to 12 31 and chapter 14 are higher and most to be desired. By rrporP"ITELa we have to understand a definite, important form of Christian speech, not given to all or to any in the same way, which differs from speaking with tongues-with which it is contrasted in 143-in the fact that it makes use of distinct notions and concepts. In 12 29 (and Eph. 4 11 ) the Christian prophet ranks im mediatelv after the apostle. The foretelling of the future is not the essential thing which constitutes the prophet. vVe are to think, perhaps, of the demonstration of the divine revelation in the hie et nunc as it takes place in consequence of the apostolic kerygma, of the" intelligible call to the obedience here and to-day" (Harbsmeier,

up. cit.,

P.27), which may, of course, also and not least of all include the opening up of certain vistas into the future. Understanding of J.LUCIT~p
4. The Manner of Love

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love

conquers and triumphs and is victorious. To this extent it reflects the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead and prefigures the coming general resurrection. It is the revelation of the superiority of the divine Yes, the Yes of the free grace of God, over the deiected No of the man who is alienated from Him and his neighbour and therefore himself. It is the revelation of the superiority of life over death. What takes place in love is the transformation of the aId creation or creature into the new; the yielding of the old ceon and the coming of the new. We have said already that the statements in this second part of the chapter about love as the life-act of the Christian are so strong that they are quite intolerable unless we refer them to the man Jesus as the original of all Christian action. But again we cannot fail to recognise that the reference is to what is done or not done by men-Christians, to be sure, but even as Christians men. It has to be said of this human action that in so far as it is love it triumphs over the forces which menacingly resist its fulfilment as self-giving to God and the brother, and therefore the fulfilment of the Christian existence as such (r) in the Christian himself as a sinful man, (2) in the brother who is also a sinner, and finally (3) its fulfilment as self-giving to God. Love triumphs over these forces, not in an idea of their inferiority or its own superiority, but by proving and demonstrating both in action, by actually overcoming and defeating these forces. The forces are not to be despised. They are powerful indeed. But love-the Christian in the act of love-has the longer wind, the light which outlasts and outshines, the more solid ground. When the Christian loves, he is their master and drives them from the field. Love is not a weak action but a strong. It is in this form and strength that it is the true reality concerning which the Christian is questioned in all his works, even the most spirituaL It is in virtue of this strength that love alone counts. What would the life-act of the Christian be if it did not attest and reflect the kingdom of God, the existence of the royal man Jesus? And what would it accomplish if it were not a strong act and therefore itself a victory, an overcoming, a triumph? As love, it is this, and in it the history of salvation takes place, the glory of God in Jesus Christ becomes an event in space and time, the Christian is qualified as such, and it serves to promote the edification of the community and its equipment for its mission in the world. Of no Christian activity can this be said unconditionally, not even of faith or hope. It is love alone that conquers. Of love it may and must be said unconditionally. It triumphs indeed. V. 4a: "Love suffereth long, and is kind." This is a kind of heading for aU that is to be considered in this section. If we were right to describe Christian love as free self-giving, we may now expound as follows. Just because it is selfgiving it is longsuffering, it has that staying power, it is that bright and neverfailing light, it stands on that solid ground. 'Where the wind is short, and the light necessary to the life of man flickers and fades, and the ground is uncertain

under his feet, it is finally because he tries to live otherwise than in self-giving; because he is not ready to be free for God and the brother and therefore himself ; because he wants always to be free for himself. In love he gives himself up. He has God and the brother always before him-and only in this way, in them. himself. And because love is self-giving it is also" kind" or friendly. The word is not to be understood in a weak sense. In the sense of the New Testament XP~ ; it is literally "fitness" and therefore the very opposite of anything \ 30ft. A man is " kind" when he has the freedom, the ability, to be s eously good to another-a voluntary friend of God and therefore of men. _.1 he does not do anything alien or accidental. He is not " friendly" 'st other things--casuallv-when he gives himself to God and his brother. ;es that which is most proper to him. He loves in doing it. It is this . makes him a priori superior. As, therefore, love is longsuffering and " it conquers and triumphs and is victorious, no power being able to ~ch it. VV. 4b-Sb: "Love envieth not; vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, doth IJt behave itself unseemly. seeketh not her own." It is to be noted that Its s periority is not easy; that there is genuinely something to overcome. The r .ny negations in this first list, which are increased in the second, have ~lways ( manded the attention of the exegete. In the light of these many negatlOns It s .ems appropriate to regard the whole of this central part of the chapter from t le standpoint of a conflict triumphantly waged by the Christian against hostr!e hrces. The words quoted refer first to sinister powers which he encounters m himself-for he is only a man. All his other actrvities, even though they denve cirectly from the Holy Spirit. do not exclude the manifestations of these forces in his own thinking and volition. But love does. Even as one who speaks with tongues, or as a prophet, or as a theologian, or as a miracle-worker, or as an ascetic or martyr, he can still" envy," still covet rights and honour and the recognition he deserves and the clear-cut success of his action. But if he loves, there is no place for envy, and in the fact that this is so lo:,e conquers .. Agam, in all these activities he can" vaunt himself," displaying hImself and hIS spmtwrought accomplishments and achievements (perhaps set off against his weakness and cares and concern for the world) for the admiration of God and the world and himself. But if he loves, there is no place for boasting, and in the fact that this is so love conquers. Again, he can" puff himself up" like a bubble or a balloon. In defiance of the Holy Ghost to whom he owes it all, he can try to make of himself, perhaps as a pneumatic or gnostic (I Cor. 8 1) or in an unnatural estimation of his particular interests and efforts, his particular" cause," a gigantic figure whose proportions bear no relationship to what he really is and has .to offer and represent. If he loves, there is no place for this exaggeration. Agalll, in an obvious confusion of the freedom he is given with one arbitrarily fixed and extended by himself, he may think that he should ignore and transgress the bounds of what is proper, of decorum, of custom, of civilitas (Benge!), makmg himself of interest to himself and others as a kind of bohemIan gemus. If he loves, there is certainly no place for this. Love cannot in any way-the final phrase sums up all the rest-seek" her own"; which means that the man ~ho may love cannot seek" his own." The whole threat to hIS endowment WhICh would at once poison its exercise at the root, the whole danger of a he~dlong fall from genuine spirituality into unspirituality, consists in the temptatlO~ to use the Holy Ghost for the self-assertion and self-preservation and self-embelhshment of the man endowed by Him. If he loves, he gives himself (with the by-product that he is ilO longer of interest to himself), and thus overcomes thIS temptatlOn. The fact that he is a man means that at any moment he may seek" his own." But the fact that he loves means that there is no place for the envy and boasting and exaggeration and affectation of genius in which he seeks " his own." For if he loves, then per definitionem he cannot seek" his own," himself. Thus far C.D. IV-2-27

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love

4· The Manner of Love

concerning the sinister forces which love has to conquer in the man who loves, and which in virtue of its power it does in fact easily conquer. VV. 5c-6: "It is not easily provoked, thinketh nc, evil, rejoiceth not in iniquity, but rejoiceth in the truth." In this second list we have to do with the sinister forces which the Christian encounters not only in himself but also very definitely in the being and action of his neighbour. It is to be noted that the list is shorter than the previous one, and that at the end there is for the first time a positive definition of love. The neighbour, the fellow-Christian (more perhaps than one's fellow-man generally, in whom much may be overlooked), is also a serious problem to the one who has noted that he is himself the most serious problem of all. It may be gathered from this passage that even those who were spiritually gifted in Corinth did not strike one another at once as pure angels. The neighbour can get dreadfully on my nerves even in the exercise of what he regards as, and what may well be, his particular gifts. And he can then provoke and embitter and in some degree enrage me. Love cannot alter the fact that he gets on my nerves, but as self-giving (and this perhaps with salutary counter-effects on my poor nerves) it can rule out a limine my allowing myself to be "provoked" by him, i.e., forced into the position and role of an antagonist. The Christian cannot become an antagonist of his neighbour. Love neither has nor cherishes nor tolerates any "anti"-complexes. This is one of the secrets of its superiority, its victory. But it may find itself even more seriously blocked by the neighbour. The fact cannot be altered that in his person, even if it is that of the most outstanding Christian brother, I will encounter at some point and in some form the" evil" in which he (like myself) unfortunately has a part. Shall I then reckon it to him (Aoyl'wliuL)? Shall I take it down in writing against him? Shall I always hold it against him? Shall I nail him to it so that in part at least I always interpret him in the light of it, shaping my attitude accordingly and always regarding him as in some degree a bad man? I can do this, and there is no little inclination to do so. But love cannot and does not do it, not only because it is self-giving, but because as such it is a reflection of the love of God, which has to do with men who are wholly bad but according to 2 Cor. 5 19 does not impute or reckon their trespasses to them. The man who loves does not compile a dossier about his neighbour. There is, however, a third possibility-the most dreadful of all. This consists in the blatant perversity of actually" rejoicing" that even the most upright of our neighbours continually put themselves in the wrong in relation to us and others, not to speak of God. There is a refined satisfaction which I can procure for myself by making perhaps a show of the deepest sympathy, by actually experiencing it in the guise and feeling of the greatest readiness to forgive, but by seeing that I am set by contrast in a much better light myself, that I am equipped and incited to a much more worthy representation of that which is good, and that I am thus confirmed and strengthened and exalted and assured in my own excellence. Is it not easy to come to the point of waiting expectantly for others continually to do something culpable, to put themselves in the wrong, in order that we may be nourished in this way? How much of the impulse of private and common Christian action would fail at once if deprived of its basis and nourishment in this" rejoicing!" But love finds no nourishment here. It does not live by this" rejoicing." How can it be self-giving- if it rejoices because it stands out against the dark background of the wickedness and folly and confusion of others? It does indeed rejoice, but with a very different joy. And this leads us to the first positive definition-what we are to do in face of the wrong of others. We might have expected to be told that instead of rejoicing in the wrong of others love rejoices in the right that we always find in them as well. But this is not the case. The verse tells us rather (with the same antithesis to allLKLu as is found in 2 Thess. 2 10 ,12 and Rom. 2 8 ) that it rejoices in the truth. It is worth noting perhaps that the verse uses the compound uvyxalpn, thus

sig~ifying that love rejoices together or in union with the trut\l which triumphs objectively over all human wrong. It is certainly a matter of the truth in whose

service love itself may stand as an attestation of the divine covenant of grace, and therefore for the Christian of aA"Ilinfnv
3· I Cor. 13 8 '13. The life-act of the Christian takes part in the strict and proper sense only to the extent that it takes place in the

836

§ 68. The Holy Spirit and Christian Love

fonn of love. It is again only in the form of love that it breaks the dominion of the sinister forces to which the man alienated from God, the neighbour and himself is subject. And we must now continue and conclude by saying that it is only in the form of love that it has an absolutely indestructible content and therefore an absolutely certain continuance; that it is participation in the eternal life of God. Only as and to the extent that the Christian loves does he find him~elf already, in the temporal present of his existence, at the goal set for his and all existence and all the history enacted in time, and therefore in their eternal future. To be more precise, it is only as and to the extent that the Christian loves that the eternal future of his own and all existence becomes and is near even though it is distant, present even though it is future, at the heart of the temporal fulfilment of this existence. We have already called love the reflection of the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead; the reflection of the first revelation of the exaltation and enthronement of this one man and therefore of the establishment of the lordship of God over all men and His whole creation. The second and final and universal and direct revelation of the royal dominion of God in Jesus Christ is the eternal future to which the whole world and each individual moves, and in the community each Christian as a witness of that first revelation. All the gifts of the Holy Spirit-deriving from Easter, from that first revelation-are designed to empower the people of God and its members for this movement, this pilgrimage. This is the greatness but also the limit of these gifts. They are exercised in works which have to take place between the times, in this time of the ministry of the community. But when the Resurrected, the living Christ, returns, i.e., when He is finally and universally and directly manifested as the One He is, they will reach their goal which is also their end in their present fonn, since the ministry of God's pilgrim people will then be completed and cannot continue. There is, however, one continuing form in which this ministry will outlast the present, the time between; in which it will be rendered even when this goal is reached; in which it is thus identical already with the eternal ministry of creation in the light of the final and conclusive revelation of the royal dominion of God in Jesus Christ. It is already an eternal ministry, taking place as a prefiguration of the return of Jesus Christ and therefore of the consummation, of redemption, as and to the extent that it is love. It is only in the form of love that the life-act of the Christian has this promise. To be sure, it also has it as faith and hope. But it has it as faith and hope only to the extent that love is the form of the Christian life-act accomplished in faith and hope. In the form of love, however, this act has the promise of a continuity reaching right into the goal and therefore beyond the end of the time between when the present ministry of the community and the gifts necessary for its discharge and the exercise of these gifts will all cease. Love-and all

4· The Manner

of

Love

837

that was love in this exercise, in faith and hope-will never end, not even at this goal. Thus love is the indestructible element in the lifeact of the Christian. It is, as we are forced to say, the promise fulfilled already in the present. Love alone abides. Everything else which may and must be done, even by Christians and on the basis of a supreme spiritual endowment, abides only to the extent that it is done in love and is thus itself the act of love. V. Sa: "Love never faileth." There is a particular emphasis on the" never" (best brought out in German by Luther's rendering: Die Liebe haret nimmer auf). OVOETrOT€ TrLTr7'ft means that it is the one form of Christian action which does not require and is not subject to transformation or absorption into another, higher and future form, and to this extent to destruction. In virtue of love there is already in the temporal existence of the community and Christians a lmoJL€v€