compelled even to draw them in again for explanation and filling up. From his thoroughly misleading presupposition of the Johannean Gnosis (comp. § 141, 6), that the apostle had risen to a freer speculation as to the grounds and nature of Christianity (p. 84), there is spun out of it a finely articulated system of speculative dogmatics, which seeks in him the solution of the deepest problems (e.g. as to the relation of God and the world, of freedom and necessity, pp. 137, 242), and attributes to him the sharpest distinctions (comp. e.g. pp. 210, 259, 266), and the most abstract definitions (comp. e.g. p. 165). Naturally the Johannean type of doctrine is thereby separated entirely from its historical foundations; it is torn away from its connection with the Old Testament and the Jewish consciousness (comp. e.g. pp. 288, 308, 329), and it comes necessarily to be but a spiritualistic shadow of the apostle's doctrine. In the comparisons of the Johannean with the other doctrinal systems much is sought for and sharply conceived, while the kernel of the Johannean peculiarity is not touched. The representation runs away on the lines of a tendency, which, with its abstract reasons for its sections, draws the apostle's doctrinal system à priori into a false light. The representation of K. R. Köstlin (der Lehrbegriff des Evangeliums u. der Briefe Johannis, Berlin 1843) is from the standpoint of the Tübingen school, which puts in the forefront as its central idea, that Christianity is the absolute religion, and that in contrast to Judaism and heathenism, and asserts that the apostle's dogmatics is at the same time throughout both apologetical and polemical (p. 40 f.). But the absolute religion is Christianity as a religion of the Gnosis, which to the evangelist is one with faith (p. 66 f.). Köstlin admits, to be sure, that the author does not philosophize; but all his conclusions in the form of direct knowledge, contemplation, he draws from his experience (p. 82), but only because systematic reflection on the dogma, and therewith intelligent activity, are thereby completed and brought to a firm result (p. 160). There is thus, then, here a doctrine of God imposed on His nature and His trinity in unity, which draws into the Johannean theology philosophical results altogether foreign to it. From similar presuppositions Schwegler in his nachapostolischen Zeitalter has characterized the religious philosophical standpoint of the Gospel (ii. pp. 358-371). Hilgenfeld has also tried to class the Johannean system of doctrine in the development of the Gnosis, and he has therefore drawn from the Gospel a complete gnostic system occupying a middle place between Valentin and Marcion-a system with a fully pronounced dualism and anti-Judaism (comp. das Evangelium u. die Briefe Johannis, nach ihrem Lehrbegriff dargestellt, Halle 1849; Zeitschrift f. Wiss. Theol. 1863, 1, 2).1 1 (c) The general characterization of the Johannean theology by Reuss (ii. pp. 369-600 [E. T. ii. 331-543]) contains excellent suggestions as to its specific peculiarity. The arrangement of the representation of it, according to the leading ideas of a union of John iii. 16 and 1 John iv. 9, is a suggestive fancy, which cannot be carried through at least on his understanding of the Johannean doctrine. But the fundamental error of it consists, on the one hand, in this, that Reuss along with the historical assumes some speculative premises, which are to form the basis of the mystical contemplation of John; and, on the other hand, in this, that he understands the special Johannean doctrinal elements as much too modern and spiritualistic, and thereby puts it in sharp opposition to everything that is of the Old Testament or of Judaism. In consequence of this, he has at one time to assume that the author becomes entangled in contradictions to his speculative premises, and at another, that for practical use he appropriates popular ideas beyond which he has strictly gone. In this way, naturally, it is not possible to come to any uniform conception of the Johannean doctrinal peculiarities. Baur, in his Biblical Theology (pp. 351-407), represents the Johannean doctrinal system drawn from the Fourth Gospel simply as the highest stage and the most perfect form of the New Testament doctrinal type, a stage which presupposes all the others, includes them all in itself, and concludes them, which in like manner rises above Judaism and Paulinism (p. 401). Starting with the Logos-idea in the Prologue, taking 1 Of the smaller representations, comp. Holm, Versuch einer kurtzen Darstellung der Lehre des Apostels Johannes, Lüneburg 1832; Simson, summa theologiae Johanneae, Königsberg 1839; Niese, die Grundgedanken des johanneischen Evangeliums, Naumburg 1850. up the most important leading doctrines, he has discussed them to their natural results, and given many a deep glimpse into the peculiarity of the Johannean theology. But the Jewish-Christian element in it does not get justice done to it by him, and the supposition of an approach to Gnosticism, in which, however, he is far from going the length Hilgenfeld does, often misleads him, or makes him contented with inexplicit or contradictory results. The representation of J. H. Scholten (das Evangelium nach Johannes, übersetzt von H. Lang, Berlin 1867; comp. chap. iii. pp. 77-181) connects an interpretation agreeing in the main with Reuss, only, in contrast to him, the relation to Old Testament religion is more correctly appreciated, with an approach to the dualistic conception of Hilgenfeld, whose external hardness, however, is rubbed off, and it contains in clear representation much that is excellent along with gross blunders. Immer finds the main thought of the Gospel in the sentence, "Jesus, the Son of God, the light and life of the world," under which he appends by a strange selection and series the pretended secondary ideas of the Gospel (among which is the idea of faith!), and that of the Epistle in the sentence, "fellowship with God;" but he never comes to tangible and precise results as to the relation of the author to Judaism or to the other decisive questions (pp. 502-548). (d) In my writing der johanneische Lehrbegriff, in seinen Grundzügen untersucht, Berlin 1862, I have tried to forward the understanding of Johannean theology in three directions. It appeared to me, in the first place, that a clearer determination of the fundamental ideas of John (§ 141, c) was necessary.2 Then, in the former representations, justice had never been done to the Old Testament fundamental principles of the Johannean theology, principles which are to be necessarily presupposed in any tracing back of it to the apostle (§ 141, a). Just so, the indication of the special 2 By appealing to the mystical or intuitive character of John's method of thought, it has been thought justifiable in many ways to deny any exactness to these ideas, to regard them as in a nebulous twilight, or to give to them a width which left room for uniting or mixing the most heterogeneous. But just as intuitive forms of contemplation, they will have a plasticity which can be fixed by no logical definition, but by reference to the living significance they had for the apostle. intermingling of these, with what expresses the individual Johannean conception of the salvation given in Christianity, must be the key for many a mystery in our system of doctrine. Finally, it seemed to me to be required, in the sense of § 140, d, to separate that which John gives from memory as his Master's self-testimony, from what he has therefrom doctrinally developed. It is enough now to sum up in one connected and complete image what was there secured by separate investigations. That is, starting, according to § 141, b, from the Christology (chap. i), to set forth by natural order the salvation in Christ (chap. ii.), the conditions of its appropriation (chap. iii.), its historical realization (chap. iv.), and its consummation (chap. v.).3 CHAPTER I. THE CHRISTOLOGY. § 143. The Sending of the Only-begotten Son. Jesus has been sent as the only-begotten Son of the Father, and on this peculiar relation to the Father He grounds His claim for the Messianic character of His mission (a). As the Son of His love, the execution of the specifically Messianic works of God is entrusted to Him, and of these works His miracles are but signs (b). By them it is shown that the Father is in the Son, and works in Him as 3 For the fuller establishment and exposition with different conceptions, I refer once for all to my book mentioned above. Yet I hope that many an individual point which was there brought forward, will find in the complete representation of the whole Johannean system of doctrine, and in its comparison with other types of doctrine, a deeper establishment, and will acquire a more conclusive evidence. The simple numbers of passages quoted in the following pages refer throughout to the Gospel of John; the Epistles are designated by I. II. III.; of individual helpful works, comp. also Grimm, de joanneae christologiae indole paulinae comparata, Lips. 1833; Schulze, Vom Menschensohn u. vom Logos, Gotha 1867; Nösgen, Christus, der Menschen- und Gottessohn, Gotha 1869; Weizsäcker, in den Jahrb. für deutsche Theologie, 1857, 1, 1862, 4; Luthardt, pyo Toữ Osoũ und wioris in ihrem gegenseitigen Verhältniss nach der Darstellung des joh. Evang. (Stud. u. Krit. 1852, 2); Huther, die Bedeutung der Begriffe (wń und xiorsúsiv in den joh. Schriften (Jahrb. f. d. Th. 1871, 1); Zahn, de notione peccati, quam Johannes in prima ep. docet, Halis S. 1872. the perfect organ of His working on earth, as the Son abides in the Father in the continual obedience of love (c). From both is exhibited the unity of the Son with the Father, in virtue of which the Son is the highest revelation of the Father (d). (a) The self-testimony of Jesus with John, which, naturally in the form in which it lives in the momory of the evangelist, forms the basis of his idea of the person of Christ, arises, quite as the synoptical (§ 13, c) idea, from the fact that He has been sent by God (xvii. 3; comp. v. 38, vi. 29). This fact is the most important object of Christian faith and knowledge (xvii. 8, 21, 23, 25). But in everything which Jesus says on the point, it is ever again implied that in the truest and completest sense He has been sent out by God, that He fulfils all the duties, and can claim all the rights, of one so sent.1 He, no doubt, seems to class Himself only among the prophets (iv. 44; comp. Mark vi. 4); but the times of the prophets are gone past (v. 37; comp. Matt. xi. 13), the last of those messengers of God (comp. i. 6, 33, iii. 28) Jesus had acknowledged as His forerunner (v. 33-35); and therefore His expressions about the divine sending can be understood only of Him who was sent of God κατ' ἐξοχήν, ie. of the Messiah. His relation to God's other messengers is expressly characterized in this way, that the Father hath consecrated 1 He has not assumed this calling of His own will (vii. 28, viii. 42), but He has really come in the name, i.e. with the commission of God (v. 43). As His messenger, God has commissioned Him with what He is to say (xii. 49), and Jesus speaks only what He gave Him (ver. 50; comp. viii. 16, 26, 40). And hence His words are the words of Him who sent Him (xiv. 24, vii. 16), they are the words of God (xvii. 8, 14, viii. 47; comp. iii. 34) simply, as He has Himself ever characterized them, according to § 18, c. Just as little as His words are of Himself (xii. 49), as little are His works of Himself (v. 30); it is the purpose of His life to do the will of God (vi. 38, iv. 34), and to finish the work which He, who sent Him, gave Him to do (ix. 4). For this the Father helps Him (viii. 29; comp. iii. 2), and authenticates Him as His messenger by works which, without His help, none can do (ix. 16, 32, 33, xi. 42). As sent of God, He seeks unselfishly the honour of Him who sent Him (viii. 50, vii. 18); but it is implied in the nature of this representative relation, that He who sent wishes to be Himself seen in the Messenger (xii. 44, 45, v. 24), and that the former is received in the latter (xiii. 20; comp. Matt. x. 40). As such He is indirectly designated throughout wherever He speaks of the Father, who has sent Him (v. 23, 36, 37, vi. 44, viii. 16, xii. 49, xiv. 24), which is here all the more significant as He calls God the Father of the disciples only |