The teaching of St. The Apostle Paul on Sin, Redemption and Justification

Redemption and justification and analysis of assumptions about the dependence of St. The Apostle Paul - in revealing these truths - from the views of Jewish theology. Their fundamental difference on this subject and its reason is their unequal attitude towards the idea of ​​the divine Messiah, which is necessary in the apostolic gospel and secondary for rabbinic theology. The discrepancy is in the factual prerequisites for the discrepancy in the teaching about sin, which for the Apostle of the tongues - contrary to the Pharisaic understanding - was not primordial, but, having invaded forcibly after the era of paradise innocence, became primordial, not in the sense of the fleshiness of people, since it is not essentially connected with materiality, as is undoubtedly both exegetically and psychologically. The dogma of atonement and the injustice of critical-genetic judgments about its origin from rabbinism according to 1) the latter’s differences in the assessment of suffering in general, 2) their accidental connection with the work of the Messiah, 3) the absence of a fundamental and only saving importance in his feat, 4) not allowing a propitiatory death. The apostolic concept of justification, not identical to the Pharisaic one, since it was neither purely legal nor simply imputative, but a completely real good of regeneration, acquired by everyone through union with Christ in faith, and not by external joining to the chosen union, why it is individual and universal. The final result of the comparisons is the recognition of the frankly divine nature of the considered teachings of St. Paul, who developed them on the basis of apostolic tradition and in full agreement with the Gospel of Christ. The purpose and essence of the messianic ministry of Christ the Savior was the redemption of mankind from sin, with all its consequences, and justification for renewed life in righteousness and the excellence of the truth (Eph. 4:24). It goes without saying that this or that understanding of the teachings of St. Paul about the person of the Messiah-Deliverer inevitably outlines a certain definition of interpretation of his views regarding the redemptive work of Christ. But if the supporters of historical-genetic criticism in the first case see and find in the Apostle of Languages ​​only an original transformation of school Jewish elements, then in the second they are necessarily forced to assume and recognize the most perfect reflection of rabbinic theology. Here it is even more energetic and sharper, because it was righteousness that was the basis of the entire existence of the evangelist before and after conversion, which is why at this point the content of the Pharisee’s previous hopes should have been revealed especially clearly and deeply. Then it is quite possible to admit the presence of the Jewish element in the apostolic solution to the issue under consideration, even if we reject direct dependence on the old rabbinic principles. In this way, human inquisitiveness is instilled with a high probability that the dogma of atonement is formulated by St. Paul in a Jewish way, both materially and formally. Here the indelible stamp of Judaism 2 was reflected in his theology so strongly that the influence of this heritage is undoubted even where completely different means are used exclusively and everywhere for the theoretical disclosure of a fact 3 . This means that the latter is the same in meaning both in rabbinism and in the Apostolic Gospel, for the difference is smoothed out to the point of imperceptibility. This is the fundamental point of departure for genetic interpretation, and it directly determines the true understanding of the nature of the relationship between the Pharisaic doctrines and the gospel of St. Pavel. Correct coverage of this subject, important in itself, is also required because it provides a reliable key to a proper assessment of the similarities put forward. For this reason, it is first of all necessary for us to clearly clarify whether the idea of ​​atonement really had equal dignity in Judaism and in apostolic preaching. As for the second, it is indisputable for him in every way that messianic deliverance occupies a central place here and - in a sense - exhausts it completely, since everything that follows turns out to be only a fruit and a result. But inextricably linked with them is the unshakable and universal position that redemption is as necessary in every way as it is universally inaccessible to anyone with his own effort and desire. All have sinned and come short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23), so that in fact no one is righteous (Rom. 3:10), and people receive justification only through deliverance, which is in Christ Jesus (Rom. 3:24): this is the root and firmest conviction of the saint. Apostle. For him, our redemption is conceivable solely because it is accomplished by the Messiah and is an extraordinary manifestation of divine love. Was there any need for such a supernatural medium in rabbinism? - this is the whole question, and for all scientific reasons it has to be answered with a categorical negative. Let us take a closer look at the matter and we will be convinced of this truth with sufficient irresistibility. Messianic participation is absolutely inevitable, since without it there is no, does not exist and will not be righteousness; with it, it is unnecessary, as a useless intrusion into the normal process, and - at least - only leads to its supreme imprinting and final crowning. This indissolubility was accepted in full force by learned Judaism, with the exception that it did not feel hopeless regarding original and independent religious and moral success. His theological premises even contained a lot of data for sweet self-gratification and ideal serenity in one’s salvation, apart from any external interference 4 . The reason is that God's covenant with the people of Israel had a somewhat contractual character only because of the goodness of the Lord, which induced man to keep the commandments by the promise of reward until he was raised to the ability to appreciate and practice goodness for its own sake. This was a temporary pedagogical method of divine economy, but then - with the predominance of the legal principles of nomism - the adaptive element received overwhelming importance in rabbinism 5. Then the law directly turned into a contract with equal mutual obligations of both parties 6 and with the elimination of everything that went beyond the limits accepted by them. Therefore, the scope of the requirements was here outlined by precise limits, and to extend beyond them would, perhaps, be an impermissible admiration of divine differences. Jewish righteousness, then, was not an endless improvement of the individual; it was expressed in complete agreement with known norms and at the same time achieved its impeccable completeness 7. It is easy to understand that such a convention necessarily presupposed the availability of what was prescribed for natural human means and thereby excluded higher assistance. It is not at all necessary if the problem can be solved satisfactorily without it. And for happy hopes there were all the desirable supports in the very legal structure of the contract. Under him, man remained a slave to legalistic duty and a mercenary of its founder, this is indisputable; however, it is no less true that he himself acquired rights of action for every little thing done 8 according to the formula “measure for measure” 9 . “Today is a commandment, tomorrow is a reward” - under this motto of mathematical compensation, any zealot could gradually accumulate capital for himself 10, which was his inalienable property in fact or in the form of a bill of exchange with certainty of payment 11. In this way, each Jew compiled his own reserve, with which he conveniently covered all expenses, and he could neither be declared bankrupt nor brought to justice, since the balance sheets matched 12. Legally, he was right and did not have to worry at all about his fate, that he would not be deprived of earnings and would always maintain normal relations. Now it is not only not surprising, but even inevitable that Jewish integrity was rather a dead point in the balance between merits and demerits than a positive possession 13. Since this is true, it was not difficult for a person to adapt his behavior in such a way as to prevent a dangerous outcome for himself through the extreme tension of his nomistic devotion. That is why the Apostle of the Gentiles, from a Jewish point of view, found his persecution against Christians to be in complete agreement with the “good conscience” (Acts 23:1) of the champion of the law, for it flowed from the pure motives of serving God for the sake of abundant improvement and to atone for internal insufficiency. Therefore, in general, in Judaism there were many saints who penetrated into the secret places of paradise and helped Jehovah in clarifying difficult problems 14 . And the evangelical Pharisee, with sincere conviction and unashamed orthodoxy, professed his moral and religious correctness, because - in the spirit of Judaistic concepts - he embodied it to a sufficient extent. Now we have that real righteousness in rabbinism was an accessible opportunity for everyone, which is why there was no need for special assistance for its establishment on earth. St. Paul thinks on this subject in the sense of a categorical denial of such self-deception and based his teaching on absolute non posse, when Judaism loudly spoke esse. Here is an irreconcilable contrast of the most energetic mutual exclusion, which cannot be brought closer or smoothed out. In revealing his Christian views, the evangelist had to begin by eliminating the previous foundations of “living in Judaism,” as disastrous due to their deceptive cunning. Naturally, he would contradict himself and would not be a complete individuality if he sought materials to explain salvation where he saw fundamental destruction. Previously, the cross of Christ was an irresistible temptation for him precisely because it “took away all its holiness from the holy people of God, turned nomistic performance into insignificance and challenged the law’s ability to produce righteousness” 15; like this and with even greater force, he closed all avenues for borrowing from the treasury of Jewish traditions, for the Apostle decisively rejected what was dogmatically asserted in them. But the difference goes much further and is more profound. Since the whole task is to establish a balance of moral and religious antimonies, and this is possible, there is no obstacle to recognizing that in this direction the inclination will always be on the side of good deeds. Only moral restraint and spiritual insight are required in order to relentlessly increase the severity of exploits as an abundant supply 16. It is a supernumerary remainder, unnecessary for personal nomystical sophistication, and thus will be a surplus against the norm 17. However, in its essence it is merit; they require remuneration and cannot remain unpaid according to their merit 18 . How is repayment made? This perplexity was resolved in rabbinism in favor of the best provision of universal righteousness. The support here was the true principles of the divinely established theocracy, which elected into a special inheritance and thereby sanctified the entire people of Israel, in which there was no isolation, and everyone formed a single organism 19 . In it, each member was a participant in the glory of God by his very belonging to the covenant union, and the new one joined in the benefits of the latter by virtue of his carnal origin from his parents 20 . Due to such close mutual solidarity 21, the extraordinarily valorous virtues of private individuals became public property 22 and in this case again caused imputation 23 . It is carried out, of course, in the same spirit of direct enrollment in the interests of balance and, of course, to those who especially need it. Sinners acquire the replenishment they need and will already be righteous along with all other heroes of nomistic prosperity. The gloomy suggestions of an unsightly reality are replaced by the brightest hopes for the triumph of all Israelis in their truth and right. There is no room for any fears here, because the transfer of someone else's excess occurs without any conditions of personal tension and with the inevitability of natural assimilation. Therefore, in Judaism it is recommended to look for a wife in a pious family, because - with a dowry or instead of it - she brings the precious capital of family virtues to her husband and future children as their inalienable property 24 . As a result, sinfulness completely disappears if the factual certainty of overabundant integrity is admitted. But we know that in rabbinism it was taken as an axiom, and he was unshakable in his hope for the complete salvation of all those under the law. “All Israel will receive an inheritance in the world to come, for it is written (Is. 60:21): Your people, all righteous, will inherit the earth forever, keeping the garden, the works of His hands to glory. Only the following will not have a part in it: those who say that there is no resurrection of the dead according to the law, that the law is not given from heaven, and the Epicureans” (despising the schools of the wise, religious skeptics) 25. This is a sharp contrast to the expectation of St. Paul (Rom. 11:1ff.): contrary to him, it is not the Jews who should be grafted into the “wild olive tree,” but, on the contrary, everyone else needs to merge with them, since they are the ones who bear the fullness of righteousness, sufficient to cover various shortcomings. Then they could not have the slightest need for extraordinary atonement independent of individual human efforts. They reach the desired height with their own energy and, by invading its boundaries, provide the right cure for particular infirmities, if the latter does not express the stubborn renegade of unbelief, cutting off a living branch from a healthy trunk. We agree that this means of abundant merit is extraordinary, but in any case it is quite common among chosen children, and its beneficial influence has not weakened throughout world history. And this action is all the more universal and energetic because it finds support in the sinner himself, who has at his disposal a rich array of ways to eliminate all his guilt. We have seen that the mere fact of belonging to the covenant union provides unshakable guarantees of participation in its glory for every Israeli 26 , which is why the main task of religious and moral life here was actually only protecting oneself from sin 27 . At the same time, inheritance rights increase with the gradual attestation of one’s devotion, and it is revealed by the unchanging confession of one God through the recognition of His law 28. Through this, faith becomes a merit 29 - with a tinge of demands regarding reward 30 - and in itself acquires the dignity of special valor, retaining all its importance in the face of contradictory actions 31 or smoothing out their unsatisfactoriness. All acts of exercise of such faith add to its value, and simple nomistic correctness - even in prayer 32 and Sabbath keeping 33 - is a distinction of high quality with a propitiating character. It imprints all the usual manifestations of moral humanity, such as humility 34 and love for one's neighbor 35 . Unnoticed, everyone accumulates a considerable supply for the needs of his sinfulness 36 . But then it is directly removed by confession 37 and repentance 38, which in their essence only mean readiness to be in the law, despite private deviations from it. Moreover, punishments accompanied by suffering 39 contribute to this cover-up of the nomistic insufficiency. The latter, of necessity, attracted the exclusive attention of rabbinism, because they finally crushed their entire theory of equal and inseparable retribution 40, since the principle of “good for good, sin for sin” 41 did not always triumph. Of course, rabbinic theology could not solve this cruel collision of existing reality in the spirit of Ecclesiastes - through the proclamation of the vanity of earthly existence - and the book of Job, where it is overcome by the idea of ​​​​resurrection. It was necessary to use the legal method of legalism, that “there are no... disasters without crimes” 42, and the former cover up the latter. Such are, for example, leprosy and unexpected torn to pieces by wild animals 43 . Here the supposed correspondence of retribution was fully maintained, and for the sake of it, school Jewish scholasticism distinguished between those who suffered who were completely sinners, and those who were not entirely righteous, and those who were not entirely sinners. Hence, “a sinner who has done some good is rewarded in this life, as if he had fulfilled the entire Torah, so that in the future he will be punished without interruption for his sins; the righteous, who committed a crime, is punished for it here - like people who burned the law - in order to be fully rewarded in the new world" 44. Thus, suffering directly helps maintain legal balance and thereby corrects the unfortunate fluctuations in religious and moral behavior 45 . From this point of view, they were the most beautiful panacea against any abnormality, they destroyed it without a trace and opened the way to the “future century” 46. All Jewish-rabbinic sources are imbued with this idea 47, and in them we find many striking illustrations 48. Even a serious villain condemned to execution - in the absence of excuses from himself and those close to him - could say that he was dying for his restoration and through this he was getting rid of the afterlife torment 49 . It further followed that the sorrows of the righteous were to be considered as propitiation for others and were imputed to them to cover their guilt. For this reason, the suffering righteous man appeared as atonement for the sins of his contemporaries 50, as R. actually expressed this about himself. Ishmael 51, and p. Simon ben Yochai undertook to make amends for all humanity 52. Sometimes intentional sins are also permissible - like how Moses himself broke the tablets of the covenant in order to be condemned with Israel (for their worship of the golden calf) or so that the latter would receive forgiveness through him and in him. This was recommended for every ordinary Jew 53. We again find the correct outcome for human helplessness, 54 but it applies equally to entire generations. In Israeli history there have been eras of general decline with nationwide humiliation, which is impossible without the condition of his guilt. Rabbinicism did not deny it and, according to its principles, only asserted that it was completely destroyed by such disasters. It is in this sense that the Babylonian captivity is understood: it abolished all sins 55 and thereby even prepared (through repentance and righteousness) the coming of the Messiah 56 . Then there was the most severe shame in the destruction of Jerusalem, which limited the actual scope of the law and constrained the boundless freedom of the Jew in achieving merit - and this sad event was not without right commented on as revealing the mercy of God in favor of the elect and in any case did not lower their hopes for salvation in its entirety 57 . The same must be thought about the fatal inevitability of death. In its natural inevitability, rabbinism rightly saw a special ethical significance and only arbitrarily individualized it in a legal sense. “There is no death without sin” 58, but for this very reason the first abolishes the second without a trace 59. Exceptional examples of it, which did not coincide with this rule, to a very extreme extent should have retained the usual power of redemptive substitution for others 60, which is why the death of infants did not tear the hearts of parents, for it alleviated their guilt and placed them in a position of chastity 61. With further deviations from the covenant, the coffin - along with the body - covered the moral shortcomings of everyone 62 and paved the way for everyone to the blessings of Abraham's bosom with its indescribable sweets 63 . Here the question was simply a qualitative gradation between plus and minus, and for no one the answer was reduced to a negative value, if a person professes the law and shrines of Israel 64. One cannot help but be amazed at the amazing logical resourcefulness of rabbinism, which so skillfully overcomes all sorts of obstacles and transforms everything divine and human into a holistic concept. What is important for us is only the main tendency of this age-old and grandiose work in the unshakable affirmation of religious and moral well-being for all those under the law 65. And theoretically, these attempts were crowned with brilliant success, because perfect righteousness was certainly guaranteed for every Jew. It is not only possible for him, but is actually achieved even apart from him and becomes his personal property. This is an indisputable dogma, and, in our opinion, it categorically and fundamentally predetermines the scientific understanding of the problem under consideration about the borrowing of the Apostle of Languages ​​from Pharisaic theology. It's all about simple conclusions that are inevitable and irresistible. We note them briefly. 1) Rabbinicism - in the name of its faith and therefore with absolute certainty - recognized that for a normal nomist one’s own integrity is quite accessible 66; St. Paul rejected even the remote possibility of this with all the fervor of religious animation and with the indestructible energy of irrevocable conviction. This mutual and irreconcilable denial testifies that a genetic connection of direct dependence between them is unthinkable in the very essence of the subject. Otherwise, it will be necessary either to consider the evangelist of Christ a disguised Jew, or to see the guardians of the law as the forerunners and preachers of the Crucified One 67 . 2) Diverging at the very beginning, they cannot merge in the continuation. Rabbinicism did not feel the need for extraneous redemption beyond ordinary human potentialities, and in this direction it was true to itself to the extreme limits. Of course, “only the righteous will participate in the Messianic kingdom 68, but each Jew creates this righteousness for himself through legalism and handy propitiatory means, which is why the search for internal renewal from sin through the unity of faith with the Messiah, as was the main point of Paul’s Christology, was completely alien to the Jewish outlook” 69. According to R. Eliezer, son of R. Simon ben Yochai, “the world is judged by the merits or demerits of the majority: here an individual, with his good or bad actions, is able to decide the fate of his contemporaries, since it may happen that he forms this majority” 70. Given the undeniable provision of all virtues in Judaism, such a vote should always be accompanied by a favorable result, and there would be no motive for seeking external extraordinary deliverance 71 if “the soul of one righteous person is equal in weight to the whole world” 72, and the virtues of Abraham are capable of reviving even a dead (morally) corpse 73 . Therefore, Pharisaism said that the people of Israel and all its members are sufficiently propitiated for themselves 74; The Apostle Paul considered such an idea to be the greatest wickedness of inevitable destruction: then all pretexts for their coincidence in the very interpretation of redemption were directly eliminated. 3) The latter for the evangelist of Christ was solely and exclusively messianic, independent of man neither in its source nor in its objective dignity. Rabbinicism thought completely differently on this subject and did not find the messianic element fundamentally necessary. We know that both before and now Judaism freely admitted decisive opinions that there is no need to wait for the Messiah at all 75. Without him, everything is fine, and he cannot change this happy trend, or rather, he himself is obliged to join it. For this reason, messianic expectations had a subordinate meaning in Judaism, and their implementation was largely conditioned by human behavior from a wide variety of angles 76 . The beginning of implementation was determined by the fact that all salvation depends on repentance and good deeds 77 . Hence the dilemma that “the son of David will not come until everyone is guilty or righteous” 78 . In the first case, of course, he will not act, because “if the Israelites do not repent, they will not be delivered by Goel” (the Reconciler) 79 . The chronological moment of his revelation is partly in the power of man, since “God will hasten salvation when Israel is worthy of it, and - otherwise - will postpone it for a while” 80. No less than that, the character of the Messianic era is predetermined on earth with immutability: “if the Israelites are worthy, the Messiah will appear on the clouds of heaven, but if not, then humiliated and riding on a donkey” 81 . The dependence here is too great, and it entailed the final elimination of divine will. On the contrary, it was assumed that as soon as the chosen people fully preserved one Saturday or one fast 82 or repented one day 83, the Messiah would arrive to establish his kingdom. Of course, this is an exaggeration, but it is extremely important for us because, based on general views, it clearly reveals their root meaning. It lies in the fact that for rabbinism messianism was a factor both accidental and secondary in the work of redemption, which was created in addition to it. It is hardly necessary to add to what extent the deviation from the views of St. is sharp at this point. Pavel. Naturally, he could not interpret Christian dogma in the Pharisaic spirit and with the aids of Jewish theology. She distorted this concept and, together with it, went along her own path in understanding the messianic feat according to its consequences. 4) According to the teaching of the Apostle of tongues, they are expressed in justification through the communication of righteousness to people. Since, according to the consciousness of Judaism, it exists and is provided for, there is no urgent need for a special message about it. On the other hand, it is a merit that requires reward, possibly immediate and within the limits of its achievement and action or on earth: this was necessary due to the legal principle of equal retribution. But in this respect life did not at all correspond to the ideal; however, the Jews repeated with unshakable conviction: no one has worked for anyone (John 8:33). Obviously, for such self-delusion they had sufficient support in the fact that the expected Messiah had no choice but to capture the available valor and, of course, where antimony was seen. Then the main (if not the only) task of the Conciliator was precisely political restoration in the interests of establishing a normal order 84. Therefore, “the difference between the present age and the days of the Messiah is limited only by slavery” 85, and all his advantage over Moses is exhausted by the greater and more complete liberation of the Israelites from external dependence 86. At the same time, the former enemies of the people of God will exchange their mutual position with them, and here is a new feature of the messianic glory, that the pagans will be enslaved 87: they will be brought to the triumphant Jerusalem only to become powerless servants, and each nomist will have (according to Zech. 8:23) no less than 2,800 people 88. In relation to the dominant system, this thought was expressed by the hope of overthrowing the Roman yoke 89 . For all this, from the Jewish-rabbinic point of view, it is quite fair to judge that in messianic hopes the most ancient and purely biblical is the national-political image 90, and its true content is perfectly defined by the classic phrase of the later confessor of mosaicism: “The Messiah is the revolution of 1789” 91 ... In general, his entire role is in the political revolution 92 and the crowning of righteousness 93, but not at all in rewarding it. There is no Christian justification here and the Calvary atonement is directly rejected. For the Jews, the cross of Christ has always been and remains a temptation, from which they cannot completely renounce even with the most sincere change of their beliefs; for the Apostle, he eternally served God's power and God's wisdom (1 Cor. 1:24): is it possible with such a relationship between them to borrow at least for the theoretical disclosure of the teaching? We think that an answer is not required due to its obvious and irreducible negativity. Now the last result of our considerations acquires fundamental significance. We have seen that in rabbinic theology there is no place for either atonement or justification, and these terms are interpreted contrary to Christian understanding. This thesis, since it is indisputable, strictly speaking, resolves the entire question of the genetic connection of both doctrines, which is why we devoted so much time to a comprehensive substantiation of it. This is necessary because it creates a solid basis for reasoning, takes away from them the character of chance and determines all examples of similarity in their proper value. If the death of Christ killed the Pharisee in Saul, 94 then the latter’s views could not be reborn in the evangelist, who had everything new (2 Cor. 5:17). This directly excludes the direct application of the old, and particular coincidences will turn out to be of no significant importance. They do not constitute the main members of the apostolic system, do not support it either materially or formally, and have a completely different meaning in it, alien to the Jewish coloring and rabbinic spirit. Then it is clear that speech about the construction of St. Paul of his teaching from Pharisaic principles and the supposed naturalness of his dogmatic development are deprived of all probability. Individual convergences in this case prove absolutely nothing and are more likely to be factual illustrations of a fundamental difference. Under such premises, it is easier to achieve lasting scientific results with a closer examination of individual points, to which we move on, guided by the logical gradualism of the problem being analyzed. Its starting point is the idea that messianic deliverance is required to atone for guilt, since it cannot be eliminated by other means. Hence the essential element of any theory of atonement is sin, because without it the first would be unnecessary. This subject is also touched upon by St. Paul, but, being a rabbinist in general, he allegedly remains faithful to his school pre-Christian heritage at this point 95. It is said that “his doctrine of sin shows the influence on his thought of the Jewish theology in which he was brought up, and, since Jesus taught nothing about the origin and nature of sin, can be credited with transforming the gospel through rabbinic speculation. Jewish theology provided him with both a natural and historical explanation of the ascent of sin into the world” 96 ; Likewise, in his judgment regarding his power, the Apostle coincided with the opinions of Jewish theologians 97. The canonical books of the Old Testament were not taken into account at all by the evangelist 98, and he uses the language of his age and country 99. Then it would be fairer to admit that St. Paul drew materials for his amartology from the obscure sources of apocryphal Jewish literature, such as the fourth book of Ezra and the Apocalypse of Baruch, 100 and this irresistibly demonstrates how deep his dependence on national-religious traditions was. He “did not renounce the Jewish assessment of sin” and “after being freed from this crushing force, he retained the old theories about its origin and essence” 102. Genetic succession leads to almost complete identity of views, and our task will be to accurately define them and compare one with the other. Let's turn to rabbinism. For all his vacillation between sinfulness and freedom, 103 he was too imbued with the consciousness of absolute and universal supreme dominion to eliminate from it such an important factor in human life. This also corresponded to his soteriological intentions - to more firmly protect the certainty of salvation for all Israelites and to affirm the inevitability of the death of the pagans. Therefore, the phenomenon under consideration is raised to God. From the beginning He created people not only with the possibility of sin, but even with a direct inclination towards it. “The Shekinah put good and evil natures into them and thus made sin become an inseparable and natural part of human life, for which a person cannot be considered guilty” 104, since it is “the evil nature that serves as the cause of (all private) sins” 105. The fact is that during creation itself the personality received two opposing aspirations 106 . Her origin from the good Lord was imprinted through הַטּוֹכ יֵצֶר, which inspired and directed her to goodness, but such inclinations encountered hostile dispositions חׇרׇע יֵצֶר (cf. Gen. 6:5; 8:21). This is “the thought of the human heart, evil from his youth,” because it is integral to our very organization. It, of course, is balanced by its negation, but empirically it acquires such a predominance that it turns out to be alien to God 107, and this leaven is able to destroy the soul 108, which is why Jehovah had to repent later 109. For now, this general definition is sufficient for us to understand its immediate and necessary application 110 . It is obvious and is expressed by the formula that, in the proper sense, there was no innocence in humanity at all; at most it is “moral indifference” 111 or even the purest animality of an unilluminated consciousness of serenity, ethically not exceeding the virtues of tabulae rasae 112 . In this case, Adam does not differ at all from his descendants of childhood 113, because for them, too, the moral struggle - according to rabbinism - arises from maturity, no earlier than thirteen years 114. "According to Jewish theology, the first parents in paradise were in a state of 'peace', peace with God, nature and themselves. True, 'evil desire' was in their body from time immemorial, but it did not act, but 'rested'; their state was pure and sinless only to the extent that childhood innocence is such" 115. A similar view is considered most likely for St. Paul 116, even if it was not the only one and allowed the introduction of foreign elements. This position is justified by references to various apostolic sayings. Thus, “in (1 Cor. 15:45–48) the first person is described in contrast to the second as a living soul, a psychic being, as opposed to a spiritual one, and earthly from the earth. These expressions indicate a natural direction not different from our own, and support the idea that the original state of man did not fully correspond to the theological concept of original righteousness." 117 At the same time, the Hellenic evangelist does not note anywhere that “the natural existence of earthly man became flesh only through the entry of sin” 118 . The factor implied here is, of course, indisputable, and the whole point is in its correct interpretation. In this regard, it is extremely characteristic that the Apostle makes absolutely no mention of sin in the entire section. His speech concerns exclusively the bodily resurrection 119, which seemed irreconcilable with the law of universal mortality. But then St. Paul finds support for himself, since this speaks in favor of his thought that the future uprising, neither in its source nor in its qualities, is equal to the natural process and presupposes a new “spiritual body.” Since Adam was earthly and the living soul gave him the basis for existence only in the earthly sphere of his origin, it follows from this nothing more than that he was not naturally immortal 120. To recognize even embryonic and hidden sinfulness in this requires new elements that do not yet exist 121. There is no place for them in the entire analyzed passage, for the writer takes the progenitor in his detachment from God and considers it from the point of view of the strength of his personal and independent existence. For this reason, the evangelist decisively omits all the clear biblical evidence about the great advantages of the primordial and indicates only one of its properties, that he received the opportunity of life, began to possess it through an external act of divine inspiration. Therefore, not being original, Adam himself was perishable due to his limitations and had to undergo the inevitable fate of all created things 122. It is clear that it does not logically follow from this that - despite the extraordinary means of grace-filled interaction with the Almighty - even then he was deprived of any means of avoiding mortality 123. On the contrary, comparing him with Christ as the absolute life-giver convinces that St. Paul simply emphasizes the natural position of the forefather and thereby allows for him a special state of dominion over death 124. In this case, the latter was not invincible for him in its natural irreducibility and does not in the least postulate the presence of sin 125. Rather, it eliminates it, because it is inseparable from nature itself and is not associated with guilt. The result will now, of course, be the opposite of the fortune-telling criticism, and he makes sure of his certainty with categorical words that by one man there is sin in the world below (Rom. 5:12). According to the Jewish-rabbinic template, this thesis would only say that he appeared along with people because they were sinners, and some are inclined to adopt such an idea as St. Paul 126. We do not need to go into details, because the flatness of this truism, bordering on absurdity, is too obvious. It is much more important to evaluate attempts to eliminate the crushing power of the above apostolic thesis. In these interests, individual expressions that outwardly seem incompatible with each other are brought together. The main principle of the Hellenic evangelist was the rule that “death is the dues of 127 sin” (Rom. 6:23), but the latter is not imputed to the non-existent law (Rom. 5:13) and without it does not produce its necessary effect. For all this, even before the law, there was no sin in the world, for there was royal death from Adam even to Moses and upon those who had not sinned in the likeness of Adam’s crime (Rom. 5:13, 14). In appearance, the disagreement here is irresistible, requiring special reconciliation so that there is no such blatant antimony, unacceptable in one head at a time. The key to the solution can only be in the thought that with the word νόμος the Apostle defines different concepts and in Romans 5:13 he calls “the law (without a member: ἄχρι γὰρ νόμου) not that of Moses, but given by God to humanity originally, the crime of which produced in Adam and his descendants the knowledge of good and evil, or the natural law” 128. But “how could sin be in the world before the law was given to Adam, if it was through Adam that it entered the world (v. 12)? The answer will be that the sin that preceded this moment is different from that which entered the world through the fall. It was a hidden sin, not recognized and therefore not imputed. Hence the term ἁμαρτία without a member. Before receiving the law, Adam and Eve were not saints; It is true that they were innocent, or, more precisely, innocent, but in a latent state there was a certain kind of sin in them, which the law was not slow in revealing.” 129 As a result, we will have a purely Jewish amartological concept for the Apostle of tongues. It is achieved by ascertaining external disharmony in the relevant instructions of the evangelist, while the stated argument itself suffers from extreme vagueness and confusion of the main provisions. It is easy to see in it a rather crude substitution in the definition of the meaning of ἁμαρτία. It refers actually to the “law in general” (une loi en general), or “natural” (la loi naturelle), which rests in human nature and is not separable from it. But, obviously, then there will be a blatant and colossal absurdity, that even before the appearance of human existence on earth, sin existed in the world, and it would have neither an author nor an owner. To eliminate this insane inconsistency, they admit that the Apostle most closely understood the paradise commandment 130 on the basis of the natural moral law. Let us agree for the time being to accept this exegetical conjecture even in its unlimitedness, as if it is not the Sinai Institute that is being spoken of. And there doesn’t seem to be sufficient motivation for this. In such cardinal matters, the petty fact of the inarticulate use of the term νόμος cannot have the weakest persuasiveness and should not be exaggerated 131. And this is all the more so because the law in the proper sense for St. Paul was always Moses, and he considered everyone else in him and through him. From this side, the material dissolution between νόμος and ὁ νόμος is not permissible, because through this legislation the divine would be deprived of real support in human nature and would be estranged from it, although it was appointed to regulate and morally structure it. The Apostle was a stranger to such oversights, and in reality he does not have any imaginary differences 132. It is even less possible to justify the bold idea that the law completely coincides with the heavenly commandment, since there is not a single clear indication about it in all the apostolic epistles (cf. 2 Cor. 11:3; 1 Tim. 2:14). Here the scientific hypotheticalness turns directly into arbitrariness and is deprived of any scientific basis. Everything in the structure of the considerations excludes such an interpretation. Art. The 13th states in the pre-legal period the cosmic presence of sin, and earlier it was categorically expressed that it entered the world and had not been in it before. This first contradiction is aggravated by the fact that sin is closely associated with death as its inseparable companion, meanwhile, then it appears outside the conditions for imputation or in an incomprehensible numerical singularity. In all this, it must be admitted that the thought in the 13th Art. is not completed, since, if isolated, it would be absolutely superfluous and aimless, confusing the whole issue. Therefore, it is necessary to think that it is revealed by further antithetical ἀλλά, which, with its adversariness, more sharply highlights the inseparability of sin and death, for it is preserved even in addition to the data for imputation 133. The contrast with the primitive "pre-legal" period of time from Adam to Moses with the reign of sanity 134 is in every respect impossible - except for its uselessness for apostolic argumentation. It will be resolved by a new strangeness, darkening the matter hopelessly and hopelessly. We would then have the formula that in the post-Eden and pre-Mosaic period, death reigned and, therefore, sin was counted. It is such only when the law exists, and within this chronological framework people did not sin in the likeness of Adam’s crime through violation of a mandatory norm. Therefore, it was not the heavenly prohibition that served as the motive for the imputation, which was not based on the Mosaic instructions, if there were none. Only the natural moral law remains, but it is rooted in nature itself and functioned in the ancestors with its characteristic imputative energy, which is why there was not and is not a situation in which sin is not internalized by people, not existing in the law. Here the theory being analyzed denies its own original statement and thereby convinces that Art. The 14th captures precisely the era of “insane illegality”, and νόμος refers to a strictly defined historical institution. This is equally obvious under Art. 20th, where the inarticulate νόμος means the heavenly commandment supposedly placed on Adam, since sin followed him into death (v. 21), and it prevailed after the ancestral offense (v. 14). Let us not emphasize that everything here rests on unproven premises, which themselves need justification. It is important for us that such a judgment is completely artificially tied to the text. His imaginary justification is the idea that otherwise the influence of grace will be diminished, while the Apostle wants to highlight its abundance (v. 20): the latter will not happen, since we are all talking about the Code of Moses, for the sphere of grace-filled application is limited to the Jewish people 135. We boldly say that this is an unscientific and unworthy argument, very close to a sophistical forgery. It is true, of course, that the Sinai Institute operated fully within certain national boundaries; however, the pagans also do the law by nature, since the work of the law is written in their hearts (Rom. 2:14, 15), and they, despite the irresistibility of the cosmic signs of the greatness of God, are unrequited (Rom. 1:20). It is clear that the Law of Moses is not unconditionally national in its moral basis and, when compared with the Christian revival, it is not commented on spatially, because from this side it was universal. It is viewed purely in an intensive way, and from this point of view perfectly illustrates the superiority of the “gift of justification.” As a moral regulator, the Sinai formulas made the path of moral improvement easier for a person and saved him from more forgivable wandering in the vagueness and darkness of the suggestions of a natural moral sense. Therefore, it is there that sin acquires the special energy of moral transgression. For all its subtlety, it is ἁμαρτία in full measure of intense and recognized energy, although in other cases it coincides with or degenerates into simple animality. And in the midst of even this sinful bitterness, “grace began to overflow” with victories everywhere and constant crushing over the enemy: is this not a bright and dazzling testimony of the saving power of God in Christ Jesus? She has an incommensurable inner strength in front of the enemy and therefore triumphs over him extensively, as revealed above. The Apostle proceeds with strict logical gradualism and does not simply state facts, since they are often random and controversial without any fundamental justification. He first certifies the quantitative predominance of grace and then reveals the inevitability of such spatial comprehensiveness in its very essence. Hence in the 20th Art. The comparison is qualitative-intensive. The consistent terminology of the phrase also convinces us of this. We do not deny that the verb παρεισῆλϑεν itself does not necessarily mean the period later than Adam 136 with the introduction of a new element into it, but it necessarily requires the presence of what it leads to. This is τὸ παράπτωμα with the consistently qualified content of the crime of this compulsory norm, without which it actually does not exist. And such a specific offense was already real even before the law, because the latter simply multiplies (ἵνα πλεονάσῃ) it, and a qualitative or quantitative increase is impossible without the existence of what is being increased. The interpretation under consideration is again resolved by the absurdity that there was a transgression against the (paradise) commandment, since there was none at all. If this is not allowed and is intolerable in every possible way, we find the law of Moses and get rid of anomic sinfulness in the paradise life of our first parents. At the same time, Jewish commentaries on the teachings of the Apostle collapse. Other intentions of the rabbinic-genetic attempt to liberate St. will also not come true. Paul from internal contradictions. They rest on a purely external convergence of individual expressions and do not necessarily follow from them. Without the law there is no imputation for sin, and, however, before it the second was accompanied by death (Rom. 5:13, 14), although it is the wages of sin (Rom. 6:23). But the hypothesis itself also does not restore the harmony it requires, because the principle remains intact in all its integrity: those who sin lawlessly will perish lawlessly (Rom. 2:12). This means that death is no less inexorable outside the sphere of nomistic inclusion, which is why the Apostle’s reference to the latter indicates that the former is essentially independent of him. This is irresistibly confirmed by the entire era from Adam to Moses. In this case, it is necessary to conclude that even then there was a corresponding cause for mortality, which entered the world through a single person. And it was not a property of nature itself, because it would not require any special explanation, since everything happens with physical inevitability. It is necessary to allow an unfortunate turning point in the very life of the ancestor, who brought general disaster upon his descendants, and we will have a period of virtual immortality or complete innocence. The phrase “from Adam even to Moses” speaks about this. In it, both persons are taken, of course, inclusive, but the leader of Israel died under the law and was only half subject to this inclusion. Therefore, the same should be thought about in the forefather. Here we are again forced to assume for him a state of sinlessness, violated by his destructive self-will, which turns out to be within the boundaries of human existence and does not coincide with it at first. And indeed, St. Paul uses the terms ἡ παράβασις ( Rom. 5:14 ) and τὸ παράπτωμα ( Rom. 5:15, 17:18 ), and they apply only to the trampling of the special commandment 137, produced ( Rom. 5:19 ) by disobedience (διὰ τῆς παρακοῆς). Obviously, all this was not primordial in the world, since it was brought into it through man and was not previously given directly to it. Based on all that has been said, there is no doubt that the Hellenic evangelist - contrary to rabbinic theology - recognized the historical existence of innocence and considered sin to be a later phenomenon 138. This idea was so indisputable and important that he attaches to it his thoughts on the transitory effect of the law. The latter is added (προσετέϑη) beyond what exists, and this is akin to it, because otherwise there would be no accession. The result of such interaction was actually a crime (ἡ παράβασις), marking a legally punishable act of sinfulness. It precisely served as the point of “application” and through the addition of a new element acquired special energy. Therefore, in actual application, the law increased transgression (Rom. 5:20) and was even the power of sin (1 Cor. 15:56). The Apostle certifies in (Gal. 3:19) that this was not an accidental, unexpected and unforeseen consequence that frustrated the plans of the Divine will. On the contrary, it lay in the original intentions, for the law was given τῶν παραβάσεων χάριν - for their sake and in their favor, so that “natural” sinfulness would turn into legally imputed crime, would receive a clear expression and through this would lose the character of natural security for everyone. Thus, a conscious and convinced disgust towards her was inevitably evoked, and an unquenchable thirst for deliverance arose in the human heart. And the wisdom of the supreme providence triumphs over the darkness of human depravity, since where sin has multiplied, grace abounds (Rom. 5:20). Thus, the law indirectly served the salvation of humanity and was a beneficial institution. It was quite normal to desire continuity in his good influence, and the Judaizers proclaimed the infinity of nomism. Contrary to this, the Apostle categorically affirms its temporary nature in the gift itself, because the “application” was only to the limit, until the seed arrived, and then completely stopped. Logically, this conclusion does not necessarily follow and, by its very sharpness, required a tangible reason, equally indisputable for everyone, meanwhile, in St. Paul notes only the indissolubility of accession and chronological limitation. Here we need to look for a fundamental explanation, which legalism certainly eliminates in Christianity. We have seen the close connection between the law and sinfulness, why the former is closed in its action by the latter. If he is not eternal, then sin does not have a similar quality or is a moment in time. It is not surprising, therefore, that the legalism attached to it by its very essence will be so. The Apostle’s argumentation has absolute validity, but it is based solely on the dogmatic basis that sin is not original and is therefore a transitory factor in world history. The totality of all the data considered leaves no room for doubt that St. Paul considered sinfulness to be not original, and on this subject borrowing from rabbinism is impossible, since the opposite is preached there. The evangelist decisively shares the biblical teaching 140 that there was an era of human innocence, and now the whole task is to determine its degree and properties. Was it not a state of latent sinfulness not subject to imputation? If the answer is affirmative, the result will simply be legal innocence, and we will have before us the formula of Jewish theology 141 about the primitive peace יֵצֶר הׇרׇע 142 . Such an idea is theoretically not at all improbable and is conveniently reconciled with all other provisions. That is why it is taught to the Apostle for the purpose of the rational genesis of his system, which supposedly means that “ἁμαρτία, dormant (schlummernde) in the final σάρξ. It is revealed through the παράβασις of the divine commandment of the first man, when the impurity (Unheiligkeit) that lies in human nature and is repugnant to God first actually entered the world of the visible as reality,” 143 although previously it was an “objectively natural property,” 144 or “sinful principle,” in Adam no less than in other people 145. We are obliged to especially consider this method with all its factual justifications, which are considered invincible, since they are borrowed from direct apostolic testimonies. St. Paul rejects the insidious sophism of his opponents that, in his opinion, the most productive power of sin lies in the law. Contrary to this, he considers the latter only a means of knowledge, for I do not know lust, unless the law said: You cannot lust (Rom. 7:7). From this side it is still true that without the law sin is dead (Rom. 7:8). This was once the case with Saul: I sometimes lived outside the law; But the commandment that came, sin lived, and I died: and the commandment which came to life was found unto me, and this unto death (Rom. 7:9-10). Here the full possibility of “dead sinfulness” is categorically allowed, which is explained in a purely rabbinical spirit 146. We do not deny close external similarity at this point, but in itself it does not at all equal unconditional identity. It doesn't really exist. First of all, this period of “sinful deadness” was not free from imputation, since death reigned in humanity and destroyed people lawlessly (ἄνομως). Consequently, there is no Jewish thought here about the legal innocence of Adam in the heavenly life. Then the very reason is obvious, because the evangelist speaks of the historical era before the Sinai institution and determines its influence, literally quoting (Rom. 7: 7) the prohibition of the decalogue on desire. In this case, his speech is completely inapplicable to the ancestors and does not cover the time before their fall. Otherwise there will be a lot of inconsistencies. Then the entire period of time from the beginning of existence to legislation will be a continuous “rest” of sinfulness, and the ancestors will turn out to be no different from the forefather. In reality it was not at all like that, and St. Paul clearly names Adam's crime as the actual culprit of sin. Of course, it is permissible to interpret this formula in a rabbinic way, that here there was only an awakening of a dormant sinful power, potentially existing from time immemorial 147, why it does not depend on the “devilish murder” (John 8:44). Criticism diligently uses this hypothetical argument, but it forgets or is silent that the Apostle understands the law of Sinai and only to it ascribes “the work of all lust” (John 7:8). It does not yet concern sin in general and motivates its invasion in a different way: through its introduction into space by a single person, who will be the historical source of sinful infection not by nature, but by its perversion 148 . Without this, the inevitable absurdity will arise that the sins of the awakened conscience were irresponsible for a long time, and yet retribution for them was revealed with the inexorable cruelty of universal mortality throughout the world. This means that the apostolic remarks about the commandment cannot be attributed to the heavenly state. It is too certain that they are associated solely with the Sinai Institute and do not touch upon fundamental amartological issues. Further personal instructions should also be looked at from this point of view, although they present more difficulties. They usually emphasize that the Apostle actually “did not live outside the law” and, being a Jew by birth, already on the eighth day received its seal in circumcision (Phil. 3:5). His words supposedly characterize all of humanity, and we are obliged to see the universal in the individual. Hence, in world history, the only difference will be that at first sin was dead and then came to life: tertium non datur 149. The conclusion in itself is correct and only needs to be limited in its application within a rigid chronological framework. With any understanding, it remains unshakable that the starting point of reasoning is the private “I”, and St. Paul reveals the whole matter. But he is an empirical personality of the sinful system and can be a standard for individuals absolutely identical to him in nature and position. He is naturally sinful - by his very origin, since he appeared during the reign of sinfulness, and therefore is similar to others under a similar condition of the predetermined existence of sin. It is now clear that the apostolic testimony embraces an already sinful humanity and does not in the least express that sinlessness did not exist at all: it is simply not mentioned. This consideration is all the stronger because an individualistic interpretation is far from impossible. It is true that Saul was not “except for the law,” but it is no less true that he lived without it (ἔζων) while he was a child and did not feel its moral-regulating influence on himself 150. This was an extralegal period, which was also accepted by Judaism, because in it a child did not become a “son of the commandment” (בַּר מִצְוׇה) from the moment of birth. Authoritative Jewish sources inspire everyone that he himself has made the natural inclination (יֵצֶר הׇרׇע) evil, since a child from six to nine years old is not sinful, and the evil inclination is revealed no earlier than ten 151. Henceforth it falls under the normalizing influence of the law and through it achieves clarity for knowledge, and - with human weakness - it will be more energetic. It “comes to life” as a certain force of meaningful activity, and the former serenity of moral peace disappears without a trace. Man is then the culprit of law enforcement, and not a single wave of his escapes from it. In this respect, he completely “dies” in his originality and insubordination, because he is bound by unconditional nomistic dependence 152. The strictly personal coloring of the entire image inclines precisely towards an individualistic understanding, and it, in our opinion, corresponds more to the letter of the expressions and in content is conveniently suitable for Saul’s own personality. Therefore, “dormant sinfulness” will be an infallible property of all humanity in its empirical state, but this does not exclude the possibility of a different order and only raises the question of its very change. The latter happened within the confines of Adam’s earthly existence and divides him into two halves of innocence and sinfulness, of which the second turns out to have arisen during the cosmic period and was not originally there. The sin that reigns everywhere is a historical phenomenon in its origin - this is a logically strict conclusion, and even sound criticism does not dare to suspect it. And she agrees that “Paul traces the stream of sin to the sin of the first man as its source,” and yet the “traditional doctrine of originality” is categorically rejected. The reason is that “there is no need to confuse the beginning of a known thing with its cause, and regarding the first sin it is necessary to know whether it was both the cause and the effect of a deeper and more general cause” 154 . “It is necessary to distinguish between the ἁμαρτία that entered the world and the sin of Adam, since it is specifically παράβασις. through this particular positive act, universal potentiality is realized and enters historical life, which is why ἁμαρτία embraces the crime of both Adam and all his descendants, just as the principle contains the consequences or race of all individuals. Then there can be no doubt that - according to Paul's teaching - a particular act was the action of a general principle, and not vice versa. Παράβασις did not create Adam in the world ἁμαρτία; on the contrary: this sinfulness was productive for the first crime of Adam and all subsequent ones. However, this does not mean that the first sin is of equal importance with others. Such is its nature, but the first is the source of all others, for Adam’s disobedience was the first gap through which sinful potentiality invaded and continues to unfold in an endless chain of crimes” 155. This reasoning captivates with the palpability of the purest dogma and can seduce with the naive simplicity of its motivation; meanwhile, it is erroneous both logically and exegetically. No one denies that the (actual) “beginning” of a thing does not necessarily coincide with the cause and even presupposes its separateness, without which there would be no “beginning” itself. What happens is not causal for itself and requires a special factor; this is an eternal and unshakable axiom. But it no less convinces that the conditioning is not so identical to its result that it differs from it only intensively - in the energy of detection - with qualitative unity in existence itself. It will most likely be true that in fact the latter does not exist at all, because now it “begins.” Of course, there must be a similar support for it in the previous one, because light does not radiate darkness and cold does not warm. If the category of being is directly eliminated, then speech is only permissible about the early potentialiter. Only this will be an empty possibility, and it does not yet contain a hidden reality, since possible wealth is far from “dead” capital and is often reconciled with extreme poverty. Therefore, the fall of Adam presupposes one posse peccare in continuity with posse non peccare, which the blessed one beautifully and subtly formulated. Augustine. In this case, there was no sinfulness before, and it was introduced by the crime of the forefather. The terminology itself conveys such an idea with all its immediacy, and it is worthy of the greatest amazement that it is forcibly distorted contrary to its direct meaning. It is indisputably true that ἁμαρτία means the sinful principle, manifested in certain sinful acts and receiving a special imprint in them. But he entered the world through one man (Rom.5:12), because this one sinned (Rom.5:16), allowing τὴν παράβασιν - the action of transgression (Rom.5:14) in τὸ παράπτωμα (Rom.5:15, 17, 18), or in particular and a certain offense of disobedience (Rom.5:19) of the commandment of God, and thereby opened the place for the sinful kingdom in ἡἁμαρτία (Rom.5:21) with the fatal reign of universal death (Rom.5:14). In this regard, the relationship is clearly noted that it is not ἁμαρτία that precedes and causes παράβασις, but the second element ensures the action of the first, since it did not exist at all earlier in cosmic life. Such a conclusion, by its self-evidence, does not require special argumentation and is supported by all other considerations. At St. Paul draws a parallel between Adam and Christ in their quality and the degree of their influence on humanity in a strictly oppositional spirit. Only on this side 156 the progenitor was and remains (ἐστί) a type of the future (Rom. 5:14); having actually produced universal sinfulness, he prefigures by contrast the absolute power of saving redemption by grace 157. Let us assume that ἁμαρτία does not depend at all on it, and any analogy will disappear. Then it turns out that by their nature all sins are the same 158; therefore, the words πάντες ἥμαρτον (Rom. 5:12) allegedly testify that “death overtook all people because they all transgressed in the same way; they suffer death not for the sin of Adam, but because of their own sins” (leur mort arrive non en vertu du péché d’Adam, mais en vertu de leur propres péchés) 159. Naturally, here each person will be equally “typical” if she completely repeats the fall from paradise, turning “virtual” sin into active. And it is incomprehensible to us why and why the “single man” is treated with such decisiveness, since his guilt is photographically accurately and uniquely reproduced by everyone. “The first breach” is an empty sound of sophistical deceit. It does not at all follow from this that through this “the first sin was the source of all others, and they hold on to it, like all the rings of a chain - to the first, the flow of a stream - to its source.” It is even less permissible to say that “the whole power of sin, now scattered and fragmented in endless private sins, was concentrated and contained in the first sin” 160. By these properties, the latter was the exclusive producer of cosmic sinfulness and denies it in the earlier one, for the key serves to the emergence of the flow solely because before this point it does not exist at all. This means that the ancestral fall was the actual historical beginning of actual sinfulness in the world, preceded by complete innocence. It was interrupted by the criminal disobedience of Adam, who, having lost and abolished it forever, spreads the sinful infection to all descendants 161. They receive it successively by the very connection with him and turn out to be sinners through him (Rom. 5:19). The transgression of Paradise was an “original sin,” for it caused a new state, passing on to everyone with inevitable continuity. Such an idea is rooted in the essence of the apostolic thoughts and is rightly considered an indisputable member of the church faith. It is equally necessary that it is certainly eliminated by the conviction of original sinfulness and is fundamentally unacceptable in Jewish theology. And it is indisputable that such a doctrine “was not accepted by the ancient rabbis” 162. “The dogma of original sin as originating from Adam, inherited through his fall, spreading sinfulness in people at birth when they become sinners without any of their faults and have neither free will nor their own energy to do good - this dogma is alien to Judaism (ist dem Judenthum fremd), which recognizes the concept of free will as fundamental and assimilates to man the full ability to do good and evil” 163 . This categorical statement is very significant 164 because it immediately erects an impenetrable mediastinum between Rabbinicism and St. Pavel. Their dependence will be absolutely impossible until the differences are smoothed out through mutual reconciliation. since the apostolic views are derived from the Jewish ones, the former are adjusted by criticism to the latter. Here the success achieved is apparently brilliant and indestructible, judging by the amazing courage of the learned verdicts. All people “sinned like Adam” and “by themselves” 165; “the father was naturally similar to the children, and his story is in every way reminiscent of theirs” 166. The text of Paul's writings not only does not justify the orthodox Augustinian theory, but “contains and expresses the directly opposite” 167. “The dogma of original sin, proclaimed by the Church, does not follow legitimately” from the epistles of the Apostle, and “his explanation of the power of sin is essentially Jewish,” that “the mediating cause is the sin of Adam, and the immediate (and own) is the sin of each individual,” his “personal crime” 168. Mortality, in essence, is torn from sinfulness, which was supposedly expressed in all later literature 169. But based on these considerations, the apostolic teaching is formulated 170 in the sense that “Adam, through his crime, fell into death, and, having once invaded the world, it passed on to all people because they all sinned”; the Hellenic evangelist does not know at all about either the necessity or the originality of sin 171. In all these arguments, the center of gravity of the issue is rightly placed in terms of the imputation of sinfulness in mortality, because with the individuality of the latter, the former will also be so. From this point we set off in our research, limiting ourselves to the most important - according to special purposes. But in this regard, it is indisputable that in fact death entered the world through sin (Rom. 5:12) and was called into historical existence by it. It is further stated that it is inevitable and universal, since it operates even where there is no legal support for it, reigning in the pre-legal period of insanity (Rom. 5:13:14). From here it is clear that death is causally rooted in the first sin of a single person and passed on to all people taco (οὕτως), that is, not in any other way, but precisely by the fact that they received ἁμαρτία. Regarding the very method of this perception, the Apostle speaks rather mysteriously 172, and his words ἐφ’ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον are unlikely to ever find a final philological interpretation 173. Nevertheless, their immediate significance is obvious, and it provides sufficient basis for scientific conclusions. The unshakable truth is that death is inseparable from sin; since it dominates all of humanity, we are obliged to think that “all have sinned.” It turns out, however, that from Adam to Moses there was no ancestral convention for these phenomena, since people then did not sin in the likeness of Adam’s crime and did not have to bear the responsibility of retribution. In this case, it is inevitable to admit that death reigned in addition to personal offenses, but without them there is no sin, meanwhile, universal mortality is undeniable. Now it is in every way unshakable that it established itself through one and captured many as a result of his crime (Rom. 5:15, 17), which will be the property of everyone and equally without their individual participation, but by inheritance 174. Otherwise, bringing in the forefather would be the greatest injustice, if everyone is guilty on his own 175. That he set an example is not yet a reason, for others did not imitate him in their falls (Rom. 5:14) and were not fatally carried away by his bad example. Despite this, they are condemned with no less severity, although we do not see in them the guilt that is obligatory under the reign of death. And the certainty of the latter in the offspring - in the absence of factual motivation for it - forces us to think that the sought-after causality lies in the initial act, and in such continuity, both of these factors pass successively to the entire human race. It is clear that Adam’s sin is both primary and hereditary, naturally assimilated by every new member of the universal human family. Here the subtle trick does not change the matter at all, as if it is not sin that passes from the forefather, but death 176, or - with a limitation - not so much the first as the second 177. True, St. Paul speaks more about the kingdom of death (Rom. 5:14, 15, 17), but this is not at all according to the pattern of rabbinic formulas 178. He moves from the real-tactile to the disclosure and affirmation of his principle 179. This one says that death in its existence is maintained by sin, and its dominion irresistibly convinces of the latter’s dominion 180. Therefore, in the analyzed text it is said directly that by disobedience of one man many sins were caused (Rom. 5:19), as by his transgression many died (Rom. 5:15). It is equally important that along with this there is a special nuance of a legal nature. Along with the crime of one, there is condemnation for all people (Rom.5:18) εἰς κατάκριμα, which for Adam himself was judgment (Rom.5:16) τὸ κρίμα ἐξ ἑνὸς εἰς κατάκριμα. This idea is energetically noted by the evangelist and deserves deep attention in such a delicate issue, where only general strokes are sketched without clear details. Every feature in them is extremely significant. The Apostle admits the natural frailty of human nature - according to its origin from the earth - and thus does not eliminate the possibility that by created nature it was subject to death, which will no longer be the result of legal imputation. Then we have an irreconcilable antinomy. To weaken it, they usually point out that in the section under consideration it is not the physical process of bodily decomposition, but spiritual death that affects the higher side of the human being. Despite all this, this element is not unremarkable and is always closely connected with another, purely physical one. We know (Gal.6:8) that “he who sows to his flesh will from the flesh reap corruption (φϑοράν), but he who sows to the Spirit will from the Spirit reap eternal life” (ζωὴν αἰώνιον). In the first case, the immediate presupposition is, of course, a visual revelation of solidity in its destruction, and yet it is - by contrast - compared with a moment from the category of “eternity”. Therefore, there must be an internal mediation between the physical and the ethical in their indissoluble relationship. And it’s not difficult to guess it if we think about all the details of the phrase. It states sowing into the flesh with a corresponding rich harvest, which is why it is indisputable that the material for sowing is absolutely akin or entirely fleshy, like all productive forces. Here everything is confined to the sphere of fleshiness and is permeated by it, and there is not the slightest place for other influences. It is clear that with such a combination the flesh will be the only actor and will give only what is characteristic of its limitations. But since a person in these conditions does not have better reserves, he will carry only the fruit of the flesh beyond the grave 181, and corruption, not inheriting incorruption in itself (1 Cor. 15:50), turns for him into “eternal destruction” (2 Thess. 1:9; cf. Rom. 6:23; 2 Cor. 2:15, 16; Phil. 3:19) 182 . The physical turns into the moral 183, which grows out of that and St. Paul could not talk exclusively about the second, forgetting the other. Rather, the exact opposite will be true, because it relies on what is empirically undoubted and convincing to everyone, and this was the death of everyone, apart from any further classifications. And this is all the more compelling because, contrary to Scripture, the Apostle would not dare to deny the existence of righteousness over the long period from Adam to Moses and he himself repeatedly calls Abraham righteous. The mystery remains unsolved for now. We should remember again that if higher elements are not found, material frailty triumphs everywhere due to the uncontrollable absolutism of carnality. When it is suppressed, corruption, obviously, will not be invincible in fact, and the opposite turns out to be really possible. The evangelist expressed this by the fact that he depicts the earthy one primarily in a fallen state, when death entered the world through sin and, therefore, was not in it before. With his natural mortality, the primordial received the ability not to die, which was superior to cosmic potentialities and served as a special divine distinction, for judgment is compared with the gift of grace (Rom. 5:16). But sin is an offense least worthy of reward, which is why it caused punishment by taking it away. The truth of God, true to itself, necessarily reveals its anger 184, although it is essentially not subject to offense and in the most punitive mood is moved by inexhaustible love for mankind, stigmatizes the vicious and through this prepares for its destruction in people 185. Therefore, first of all, the superfluous is taken away from the disobedient, and physically ordinary death, by God’s definition, becomes a punishment in the sense of retribution for sin 186, just as in Christianity the natural communion of a man and a woman (1 Cor. 7:2, 9) is transformed into the great sacrament of marriage, reflecting the union of Christ with the Church (Eph. 5:32). Of course, from now on this death, as a sin, becomes not only natural, but also terrible, it becomes a sign of guilt and brings all its terrible consequences. However, in essence, it does not actually lose its naturalness and continues to be physically inevitable 187. The denial of this primary character is defended tendentiously, and the connection we have outlined is broken in the interests of the objective-legal theory of justification with the purely ideal imputation of it in atonement. The line of reasoning here is as follows. Adam and Christ are type and antitype and are contrario similar to each other in their influence on humanity. Therefore, if the first conveys to the human race only a death sentence, then the Lord Savior only justifies believers imputatively 188. But for the Apostle, the matter is revealed completely differently, for in the forefather, “judgment” resolves physical frailty into death, which for all other people is “condemnation” in its very inevitability 189, since they are by nature children of wrath (Eph. 2:3). The physically irremovable becomes legally punishable. There must be a legal basis for this, so that there is no arbitrariness and injustice. Death has its real support in sin and for the progenitor it is motivated by his “crime”, subject to “tribute”. Here the legal validity is fully observed. This cannot be said of all people, because they have not sinned in the likeness of Adam and are not legally responsible. Then, apparently, the fundamental principles of human truth 190 waver, and for the destinies of God our mind demands the most perfect legality. We are obliged to admit its presence in the apostolic speech, where we find it upon careful and impartial analysis. Death passed through one, and all others are subject to it solely because they are genetically related to him. The same thing happens in the descendants as in the ancestor. They have no less doubt about the legal conditionality of universal decay. Since it is not actually seen, it follows that it was received directly with mortality, and this is retribution for sin. Obviously, the latter extends through Adam to everyone, and they pay the guilt for his fall, since sin in itself is always deadly. From this point of view, the mysterious formula ἐφ’ ᾧ πάντες ἥμαρτον is somewhat illuminated for us. We readily agree that the proposed combination does not contain a local nuance, which, in any case, is not predominant to such an extent that it is permissible to say “in it” without hesitation, 191 although even then the subject is not indisputable. It is much more likely to assimilate causative power 192 to him, and philological observations will be in sufficient consonance with exegetical ones 193. Rom.5:12 breaks down, in fact, into two parts, of which in the first the cause of death in a single person is stated through his sin. Naturally, we expect this in the second for all people, for they are equally mortal, and what we want is given to us in ἐφ’ ᾧ, which explains the energetic οὕτως with its deliberate logical emphasis. And they die in exactly the same way - according to the law of sinful retribution, because 194 παντες ἥμαρτον. In their lives, absolute similarity is not noticed; this observation loudly indicates that something is being thought of in the past, outside of each individual individual. The aorist expresses this idea with all certainty, since it is usually applied to a completed act of the past 195. As a result, it turns out that all people are guilty of death through sin at the moment when it has established its dominance in the world 196. Regarding the very essence of this phenomenon, we are left without definite guidance and must be careful in our judgments so as not to degrade the apostolic understanding with our guesses 197 . “Dogmatics should not force exegesis,” 198 which is always content with factual material and cannot go beyond the boundaries of the original. They taper at St. Paul's immediate goal, which was not at all, was a detailed disclosure of the amartological problem. He touches on it lightly and solely to clearly illustrate the greatness of grace, without touching on the details. This current permeates the entire speech and gives it a highly encouraging character, if the abyss of sin only highlights more clearly the unsearchable nature of salvation. Confessional calculations and the petty curiosity of human inquisitiveness violated the living harmony of the apostolic image, and contrary to its essence, the enthusiastic hymn of joy and triumph was scholastically transformed into a lamentable song of gloomy condemnation over the entire history of mankind 199 . Without forgetting this, we must limit ourselves to the immediate conclusion that for all, death is sufficiently motivated at the source itself by the inseparability of sin, which inevitably brings it, why the ubiquity of mortality in the absence of individual justifications necessarily assures of hereditary sinfulness. Any theoretical objections, with all their external validity, will, of course, be idle from a biblical and theological point of view. For her, the immutable axiom is that “one must turn to the texts of Paul in order to find out not what he should have thought, but what he actually thought” 200. Everything else is not subject to exegesis, and it would have the right to eliminate the insidious reference to free will with a bare indication of the lack of solid data. But they still provide some support for approximate considerations. It is important, first of all, that the sinfulness of everyone is interpreted to reveal the legal justification of their mortality in the sense that the latter was credited to people legally. Of course, this was the case before the positive commandment, because it only produces “the increase of transgressions” (Rom. 5:20), making “sin extremely sinful” (Rom. 7:13), when “condemnation” becomes the punishment of “curse” (Gal. 3:10). This means that it does not at all appear that there were no other grounds for imputation, but on the contrary, it is obvious that they are in sin, the penalty of which is death (Rom. 6:23). Its universality convinces us that the reason received - along with that - by heredity was no less universal, for innocent children often die, not distinguishing their right hand from their left. If death befalls everyone personally, then sin must also be personal. With this understanding, it is difficult to completely agree with the widespread theory that the Apostle supposedly strictly and decisively distinguishes between general (pre-legal) sinfulness and individual (legal) sins 201 . This leads to terrible confusion. We will be forced to admit that from Adam to Moses there were no private sins, since the deadly enrollment rested on hereditary natural perversity, but this is a factual absurdity, exposed by historical impartiality. With the opposite judgment - that they all sinned enough and in themselves deserved punishment 202 - it will be absolutely incomprehensible how the forefather introduces death into the world, since it is caused without him. It is equally mysterious to attribute legal causality to a distant era of the past, given its undoubted tangibility in every person. It is clear that such termination is artificial and arbitrary. In its replacement we have a close internal connection, where the universal is necessarily also individual, because in every subject it is embodied with all its energy and with all the inevitable consequences 203. And the pre-legal deadness of sin (Rom. 7:8), presupposing its reality, is not at all covered by complete passivity; it means only that there hereditary sinfulness did not acquire an individual appearance and was more determined by its own nature 204. But in this form it was the property of each individual person and is imputed to him personally de facto and de jure no less than congenital morbidity or physical deformity 205. The whole difference from Adam is that here it is not produced in an original way, passing through natural succession with inextricable legal responsibility. From this side, the correct assessment of death again confirms the presence of the element about original sin in the apostolic gospel, which will be far from the Pharisaic influence. Hence, attempts arise to find possible analogues for such a view in rabbinic theology, and with diligent desire they turn out to be not fruitless. “The idea, adjacent to the story of the book of Genesis, that death spread to all humanity as a result of the fall of Adam, belonged to Jewish school traditions. This was an idea of ​​​​the terrible retribution that befell not only all those guilty like Adam, but through his fault also many innocent ones. During the previous Pharisee period, this judgment of God, not commensurate with an intelligible legalistic scale, was both a difficult and painful mystery for Paul. With Christian understanding, he saw it in a different light. The universal punishment of death, brought on by Adam's sin, was now opposed by the universal grant of eternal salvation, conditioned by the obedience of the Messiah, the second Adam. In the fact that at the very condemnation God intended grace, the strongest and most extensive disasters, for the consciousness of the Apostle lay the solution to the riddle” 206 . Rabbinic theory serves to understand Christian dogma and is completely assimilated by the Hellenic evangelist. “He took his teaching about hereditary sin from Judaism, because it is found in the fourth book of Ezra and in the Apocalypse of Baruch, and there can be no question that Romans 5:12 influenced the development of amartology in the Jewish scriptures. Quite similarly to Paul, the Jews of his time understood the fall of Adam in the sense of the fall of his descendants. And they held to the idea that the sinful predisposition introduced into the human race by Adam's sin is carried out by certain individuals by virtue of their simple descent from this race. Finally, Adam’s sin, which prevailed over his descendants, is associated in the Jewish scriptures with the death that strikes them” 207. As a result, the Apostle’s judgment, which is contrary to the previous interpretation, is imposed on him with no less conviction 208. We will not say that both such interpretations cannot be true at the same time, and their equal relative probability rather makes us think that both do not correspond to an object that will be independent in its content. This is usually countered with a statement about the internal disharmony of the apostolic doctrine, where elements of different quality are mechanically united, and the matter is again confused by a heap of all sorts of fantastic hypotheses. We also do not enter into an analysis of Jewish theology, assuming in advance that the critical instructions are correct. Let us only note that the denial of any influence of Christianity on the structure and character of rabbinic doctrines is often considered an indisputable scientific dogma; however, in a sharp form, this is Bacon’s idol, devoid of solid support outside of prejudiced tendentiousness. Once material interaction is established, it must necessarily be mutual, even if not identical in degree, so the opposite is no less theoretically permissible 209 . There is no need to determine the position of a given particular point in Jewish dogma. Its taxonomists are too imbued with Pharisaic orthodoxism and are ready to blame on “mysticism” everything that does not fit their template 210. They needlessly forget that the mystical element was perceived by the Talmud, and this monument, supposedly “embracing heaven and earth,” according to its religious admirers, has its roots in the era of the return from Babylonian captivity and “undoubtedly is the most reliable canon of the Jewish tradition” 211. Therefore, we take only the fact itself in all its real immediacy. And here there is no doubt that the rabbis have repeatedly expressed that the forefather infected his offspring with his fall 212. Despite all this, this disaster is far from inevitable and not everywhere. It is limited both quantitatively and intensively. It was even said that “only four persons died as a result of the temptation of Eve by the serpent, or not for their own sins: Benjamin, the son of Jacob, Amram, the father of Moses, Jesse, the father of David, and Kilab, the son of David” (2 Sam. 11:27; 12:14). However, here too one can see more of a desire to protect from any stain the glorious names of Israeli history, which was not limited to them. Therefore R. Johanan hastened to weaken his formula that “the snake that deceived Eve poured poison into her,” and no less decisively testified that “among the Israelites who stood at Mount Sinai (to receive the law), this poison disappeared; the pagans, who did not stand before Sinai, did not lose this poison,” but for them, perhaps, there was antiseptic relief through slavish submission to nomism 213. This extends to the sinful reflex in death. Jewish sources mention: “when Israel called to Moses: “We will do everything that the Lord has said and be obedient” (Ex. 24:3, 7), the Lord declared to the angel of death: “The whole world is in your power - except this people,” since it is written about them: “And you who have clung to the Lord your God are all alive to this day” (Deut. 4:4); also: that the Scripture of God is carved (חרות) on tablets, in this place (Ex. 32:16) you need to read not cho(a)ruth (חׇרוּת) - inscribed, but cheruth (חֵירוּת) - free - from the angel of death, from the yoke of foreign slavery, from suffering.” Everything was upset by the worship of the golden calf 214 and the sinful cowardice of the spies, so that God spoke to His people: “You have destroyed My counsel; I thought that you would all be gods and sons of the Most High, but now you will perish like Adam” (Ps. 81:6) 215. Despite this, even after there was only an analogy of universal mortality without its direct dependence on Adam’s sin, and, therefore, everything happened on the basis of personal imputation. Given its nature, the judgment in question is conveniently reconciled with the most important rabbinic principles and was in no way a heretical deviation from the norm. It expressed nothing more than that the natural “evil desire” initially acquired energetic vitality through external influence and, having gained dominance, gave a fatal inclination to all of humanity. However, in their essence, all people sin only by imitation and on their own, without having an irremovable perceived poison, because it is not inevitable. The same is true for Jewish apocryphal literature, for it fully recognized partial human sinlessness. “When those who inhabit the earth do not sin before You (God), and what people keep Your commandments in this way?” - these alarming questions of Salaoil find in the fourth book of Ezra a rather comforting answer that “there are people who keep the commandments,” although there are no such peoples 216. For this reason, sinfulness is not beyond reproach, and the main point of St. Paul remains without the necessary parallels in the Jewish system in all its modifications. Now we have the right to assert that the Apostle of the tongues did not draw his teaching from rabbinism, revealing the biblical truth of the heredity of ancestral sin, which brings the condemnation of death to everyone. This is the line separating primitive innocence from the ubiquitous and sinful work of corruption, which everyone receives with natural necessity. Jewish taxonomy could not confess this in the indicated form and smoothed out the world destruction of the fall of paradise, because it considered the “evil principle” to be a natural property of primordial human nature. Therefore, it merged with humanity itself in general and had to have its eternal and conditioning root in it. Logical compulsion was also dogmatically enshrined in the immediate definition of הׇרׇע יֵצֶר. Actually, this is a natural instinct required to preserve peace through the reproduction of people, and from this side it is equal to carnal lust. But the body is essentially unclean 217 and, being the receptacle of “evil desire,” turns it into sinfulness 218 . Then the latter is directly mixed with the density and covered with it. This is a decisive Jewish assumption, 219 which, given genetic dependence, would clearly be reflected in the apostolic understanding. And indeed, in the name of science we are told that this actually happened. “Paul's idea of ​​the flesh was essentially Jewish, that in the body lies the incentive to evil. The flesh for him was the seat of sin with an evil inclination opposed to the spirit" 220. It is here that he allegedly sees the discord of the confrontation of the double law in man - with his physicality and spirituality, and sinful energy does not stem from personal free acts of human sins. But the Old Testament writers did not share this view; therefore, its source will be Jewish theology 221. It is the basis of what exceeds biblical boundaries in Paul's theory of the flesh in its relation to sin. We notice the transition to this later Jewish understanding in the fact that Paul, speaking about “flesh and blood,” understands by them the weakness and fallibility of human complacency in opposition to the true revelation of God... He does not stop at a negative understanding, but, together with Jewish theology, takes a further step: for him the flesh serves as a nest of positive force, adversative to the spirit, evil attraction or sin as a power, which is expressed in lawful wishes and, contrary to the best knowledge and desire of the inner man, turns them into evil actions... This νόμος τὴς ἁμαρτίας ὁ ὢν ἐν τοῖς μέλεσίν μου the same thing that Jewish theology called the evil desire living in the human body, and νόμος τοῦ νοός μου coincides with the good aspiration that dwells in the soul; that they are at enmity with each other - and this is revealed in countless variations and images. Judaism described the evil inclination as a robber and tyrant, which, with a weak reflection of the good, takes possession of the will and makes it a captive or slave, in order, through the members of the body, to carry out its anti-divine inclinations in all kinds of sins. All the sayings of Paul that fit here correspond with perfect punctuality to this description, and... in amartological reasoning, he never erases the fundamental material meaning of the flesh, which, on the contrary, is the foundation for the moral, for - both according to Paul and according to Jewish theology - sinful desire and sinful power are based on the earthly materiality of the body. Therefore, any interpretation of σάρξ different from this one will be erroneous. Regarding the dogmatic question, whence the sinful power dwelling in the flesh is explained, Paul has no direct answer, since he refers to it simply as a universal fact of experience; but based on everything that has gone before, it seems most likely that he here shared the opinion of Jewish theology... According to this, the evil desire was not produced for the first time by the fall of the first parents, but was there from time immemorial and through external temptation only came into action and became stronger. since in Romans 7:8 Paul describes the process of individual fall in exactly the same way, it will be most likely that he also imagined the first fall of this kind and considered the sinful desire to be original... Then, according to him, man is essentially sinful due to his carnal nature” 222. In this respect the Apostle did not give anything new; he only carried out the Pharisaic theory with all its consequences with greater determination 223. According to the latest biblical critical research, this is certainly undeniable, and we need to determine how indisputable such a conclusion is based on the own monuments of the apostolic teaching. It rests on the recognition of the close connection between carnality and sinfulness. This idea is expressed more than once by St. Paul and she was subjected to careful scientific examination. A tendency towards understanding it in the spirit of genetic continuity, which many asserted in all extremes, has long been noticed. Private hints and random guesses were developed into a harmonious system, where all members were harmonious and, with their reciprocity, captivated the most suspicious conscience 224. It is not surprising now to hear the final conclusion that the Hellenic evangelist “the flesh, or the gross material earthly body, has the seat and source (der Sitz und die Quelle) of sin” 225. The formidable power of this thesis is all the more terrible because it is supposedly justified exegetically with the most obvious irresistibility from the Apostle’s own depiction in the well-known analysis of the internal struggle in man (Rom. 7:13). The underlying idea is that the commandment itself is entirely holy, righteous and good (Rom. 7:12), and yet what was good came to death for people (Rom. 7:13) through sin. Regarding this, everyone knows (Rom. 7:14) that “the law is spiritual, but it is carnal, sold under sin” ἁμαρτίαν). All the best wishes, when fulfilled, are broken down to complete denial through sin living in the person (Rom. 7:17:20): (ἡ οἰκοῦσα ἐν ἐμοὶ ἁμαρτία), and she necessarily agrees (Rom. 7:18) that good does not live in her, that is, in the flesh (οὐκ οἰκεῖ ἐν ἐμοί, τουτέστιν ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου, ἀγαϑόν). In his members, everyone sees a different law, enslaving him to the law of sin (Rom. 7:23): αἰχμαλωτίζοντά με τῷ νόμῳ τῆς ἁμαρτίας τῷ ὄντι ἐν τοῖς μέλεσίν μου) precisely through the flesh, since with it he serves the law of sin (Rom. 7:25): Therefore, the latter merges with the flesh to the point of indistinguishability, and for his deliverance from sinful captivity (Rom.7:23) a person must and can only cry out (Rom.7:24): who will deliver me from the body of this death (τίς με ῥύσεται ἐκ τοῦ σώματος τοῦ ϑανάτου τούτου)? The actual impression of this gloomy picture is truly striking in its realistic plasticity of human “damnation” due to natural fleshiness, where there is no good at all, and as a result only evil comes out of it. through this, sin is almost directly identified with the flesh, and in the Apostle we seem to find a perverse exaggeration of school rabbinic opinions. But according to them, carnal desire gives way to legalistic purity and is crushed by the special tension of nomistic correctness. Beyond these strongholds his victorious influence does not extend, paralyzed by strict orthodoxy. From here it is easy to assume that St. Paul depicts before us an exclusively natural man in the spirit of Jewish theology, and its principles do not predetermine the understanding of the blessed. In this they often find an anchor of salvation against the stormy onslaught of critical superstition. The tactility and simplicity of such an answer are, of course, seductive, and yet the success is far from certain. For our part, we are also more inclined to believe that the evangelist primarily considers the natural state, untouched by the beneficial revival of Christian renewal 226. The very contrast between the law and its actual operation is convincing of this, because the former decisively refers (Rom. 7:7) to the Sinai institution. In this case, sin, which abolishes his ideal intentions, enters into an indissoluble union even earlier than this institution or naturally happens to be carnal. True, in other expressions a person acquires sharpness and energy in the conduct of good, and his spiritual co-congratulation, according to the law of the mind, also presupposes a deep attraction of the will, which is why there is undoubtedly the introduction of living features of Christian experience 227. Despite all this, good aspirations do not go beyond ardent impulses and are not actually realized: all this is hardly applicable to the redeemed 228. Human helplessness is too deep and hopeless to be tolerated through grace-filled salvation. And the individual-personal coloring of the speech testifies that the sad memory of his personal past hovered before the Apostle’s gaze until the time when he could exclaim with the delight of inexplicable relief: I thank my God Jesus Christ our Lord (Rom. 7:25). This interpretation is at least probable, but the desired goal is not fully achieved, because the repetition of sinful carnal overwhelm also happens in Christians. And they sometimes sow into the flesh (Gal.6:8) by such deeds that spiritual errors are in no way inferior to physical lewdness (Gal.5:19-21), and the flesh even turns out to be contrary and hostile to the Spirit in its own lusts (Gal.5:17): (σάρξ ἐπιϑυμεῖ κατὰ τοῦ Πνεύματος). This means that here it only becomes more obvious how strongly everyone is affected by sinfulness and in what close connection they are, if the slightest deviation beyond the boundaries of spirituality inevitably threatens with enslavement to carnal lusts (Gal. 5:16) with the whole sum of all kinds of sinful acts. Thus, the considered apology for apostolic identity turns into a radical opposition. Hence the desire to illuminate the issue from a Christian point of view and in its interests is understandable. It is accepted that “σάρξ, to designate a person in his renunciation from redemption, is associated with sinfulness only under the condition that direct definitions in this sense are attached to it.” Without this, the term embraces the “whole “I” as it recognizes itself contrary to the law, because it is the “I” of the old man that is equated with σάρξ" (Rom. 6:6). And "if sin is assimilated into the body and members, it is because the “I” does not recognize itself as the old man, or σάρξ, and yet sees sin in its personality. This says, that such an understanding could only arise with the idea of redemption. And Paul, with the consciousness of his redemption, notes two different situations in which sin is attributed only to the body. First of all, this happens with believers: they live in the Holy Spirit, why their sins can be rooted exclusively in the body or members (Rom. 6:12, 8:13; Col. 3:5). Then this understanding is applied back to the case where the thirst for redemption reaches the highest tension, and the “I,” even without practical success, distinguishes itself from its own sin. This we have in (Rom. 7:6:6) On the contrary, in the pagans all lusts are “the lusts of the hearts” (Rom. 1:24) - of their entire inner personality, since in them sin has not yet been shaken in the slightest degree." In general, “in relation to the unredeemed, σάρξ embraces the whole person, and in relation to the redeemed, this σάρξ, which opposes the Holy Spirit, is limited to one body" 229 In this sense, in each “concrete individual there are two “I”: the carnal, serving sin by its natural connection with Adam, and the spiritual, born under the influence of the Holy. Spirit and possessing the desire and ability to do good. Both of these factors mysteriously merge in the unity of personal consciousness and give the individual a certain measure of freedom, which also determines the measure of his responsibility before God. From the free decision of this "I" in its unity depends the acceptance or rejection of the grace provided by God through His mercy to all sinners. In this case, such a "I" finds itself in the same conditions of freedom in which Adam was before the fall. If he falls, it is his own fault. This means, according to the theology of Paul, a pure natural man, that is, a descendant of Adam, apart from any action of the Spirit of God, does not really exist; even less does a spiritual man exist on earth pure - without flesh and blood. The "I" of a particular person, thanks to the constant and direct influence of the Holy Spirit, always possesses a greater or lesser measure of "spiritual" forces. From this point of view, we can say that the idea of a "natural man" is simply a theological abstraction, which does not receive vitality before the moment of Christian insight, but in all its rigor belongs exclusively to the past. Likewise, the "I" of Paul himself is dual - “carnal” and “spiritual”: the first - by natural connection with Adam, the second - by a mysterious connection with the risen Christ. With all this, this dual "I" speaks in the consciousness of its psychological unity. Ἐγώ is always the "I" of the Apostle at the moment of writing; only it is simultaneously considered in two different spheres: fallen humanity, corrupted, vicious, mortal and restored humanity, pure, righteous, holy. Depending on which of them he addresses, Paul expresses himself differently, being, in fact, in personal unity. This explains the original character of the seventh chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, where too heterogeneous elements are mixed, apparently, to the point of indistinguishability” 230. The above considerations complement each other. It follows from them that the depicted antinomy is permissible only with Christian grace and only with it is it perceived in thought and happens in fact. This happens because the highest principle of human nature now ascends through Christ to God and gravitates entirely towards heaven; Such an attraction is opposed by material inertia, which, naturally, already appears in opposition to the divine with all the energy of sinfulness. through this, the latter inevitably becomes sarkic and, as it were, fuses with the flesh, receiving a shade of causal dependence on it. But in all truth, this is rather an optical mirage of external and short-sighted observation that does not penetrate into the depths of the subject. It sees the enemy at a certain point and thinks that this is his natural stronghold and exceptional fortress, while he is simply driven there by a victorious onslaught and takes refuge in the last refuge. It is clear that when there is no such grace-filled enlightenment, division itself is impossible, since there is no basis for oppositional division under the absolutism of the enemy, who embraces the entire natural person outside and before the grace-filled renewal. In this case, sinfulness does not essentially coincide with carnality. The result is again favorable, ensuring the inviolability of the law of responsibility and imputation and delivering St. Paul from slavish subordination to the traditions of the Jewish schools in amartology. It seems especially probable because it is achieved in the opposite way to the previous one, which is sufficiently attested to its dissatisfaction and insecurity. However, one must agree that this success is acquired with great artificiality and requires an unnatural fragmentation of individual self-consciousness in its very unity 231. Here lies a contradictio in adjecto with dubious real value, for understanding and desire for the best do not change the actual structure, which is not akin to these ideal impulses in its sinfulness due to carnality. Σάρξ continues to remain sinful even in a heavy siege, and this only more irresistibly shows to what extent it is saturated and impregnated with sin, if it does not part with it and with the help of grace to disunity. Therefore, its equality with the entire “natural man” contributes least of all to the validity of the hypothesis and essentially destroys it completely. We are only more firmly and undoubtedly convinced of the sinful intensity of the flesh, since it takes possession of the entire human nature and makes everything spiritual carnal. The whole root of evil lies in her, since it is her highest inclinations that are reduced to sinfulness, which will be carnal in origin and character. Here the sphere and the method of expression are completely indifferent, because the only producing and stimulating agent is important, and it lies in σάρξ, as long as what goes beyond its limits is not naturally sinful. The good intentions of the attempt under analysis are frustrated by its own premises, which flow from its very principles. Therefore, it is indisputable that it is devoid of a solid exegetical foundation and its heaviness does not rest on the words of the Apostle of Languages. And we have already mentioned that they relate most of all to the unregenerate state and everywhere consider the person in isolation from the gracious influence in redemption, even in the light of the New Testament revelation. This is an unshakable truth, and it must be the starting point and guiding idea for all interpretations. Let us apply it again to the apostolic testimonies. They state the existence of sin before and apart from the law, since by it it is called to energetic vitality. Therefore, there is a natural basis for it, independent of external influences, and it is given in the fact that the entire individual “I” in each subject or the entire person is “carnal” (Rom. 7:14), and “sin lives in him” (Rom. 7:17, 20). But this is not entirely his property, because it is hostile and violent, accompanied by an everlasting protest of desperate helplessness. Any private “I” is sinful not by its nature, but only in fact - in its real manifestation, which often appears contrary to the will and desire. It is clear that not the entire person is sinful, 232 and St. Paul carefully eliminates misunderstandings with the clause “τουτέστιν ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου” (Rom. 7:18) 233. It, therefore, serves as the real cause of actual sinfulness, inevitable and inescapable for the human race due to its spiritual weakness 234. It is necessary that this latter is actually the discrepancy between the act and its idea, the negation and opposition of the second in the first. And the Apostle writes: “I do not do what I want, but what I hate, that I do” (Rom. 7:15); “I do not do the good that I want, but I do the evil that I do not want” (Rom. 7:19). In its source, everything here is good by design and is upset by the only unsuccessful outcome, its inconsistency with the intended goal. This is what sinfulness consists of, first of all, that what is good becomes ethically bad when it is performed. It is in such unsatisfactory doing that the whole guilt of the sin that really dominates the world lies. Meanwhile, it is unshakable that by its intention it was good, and the person “according to the inner man delights in the law of God” (Rom. 7:22), agrees with it (Rom. 7:16), has a desire for good (Rom. 7:18) and desires to do it (Rom. 7:21). If, despite all this, the exact opposite turns out in reality, then it means that completely sufficient and absolute means are not found. The main problem is that I do not acquire good deeds, although they are due to me (Rom. 7:18), are rooted in my needs and are reflected in my requests. They are always put to shame because they have to work with the help of the flesh, which does not have the necessary qualities and, naturally, ruins all good undertakings 235. In this regard, she also serves as the actual producer of sin 236. This is the most natural result so far, and it is imperative to pay special attention to it and determine its true strength. It is exhausted by the formula that σάρξ spoils all the goodness of human aspirations by intruding into the process of doing, and it, despite itself, resolves itself in one sin or another. It is obvious that the flesh is the source of sinfulness, primarily in the sense of an unsuitable means when a better one is not available. This concept 237 is expressed by calling it “members” with the sinful law nesting in them (Rom. 7:23). In itself, it indicates a holistic, articulated organism, where all parts are closely united and give something unified. This is what each individual “I” is like, with its many components and variety of functions. Each of them is a “member” of the human personality, for which the heart and will are no less necessary than the arm and leg. But the Apostle deliberately highlights the carnal side, and sufficiently notes his thought in qualifying it as “my” inalienable property. In this dignity, she is inseparable from individuality and should contribute to the general interests, because she is a member, and for him, of course, it is true that “all that is mine is yours” 238 . The flesh turns out to be an organ of the spirit and only from this side is it practically sinful, since it does not fulfill its direct functions 239. Therefore, it is then identified with the body of death (cf. Col. 2:11), meanwhile it can be spiritual (1 Cor. 15:44) and not involved in corruption (1 Cor. 15:42). Now it is not difficult to combine all the arguments and briefly express them in the position that σάρξ is sinful and produces sin, closest and first of all - as an instrument not adapted for the highest moral goals of human destiny 240. This is the main feature of its ethical unworthiness. It follows from this that its actual amartological definition, which de facto prevails over all others, does not constitute a primordial and essential property 241. Let it be actually unsatisfactory even always - this only confirms its insufficiency of limitations and weaknesses and does not deny the possibility of overcoming them in different ways. The actual effect of each remedy often depends on the method of its application, and what is bad in some hands is often beautiful in others. In our case, this is where the whole disaster lies, since the desire for good is innate and intense, but is not realized only because of poverty. It is clear that with wealth the picture changes, the conflict reaches a favorable conclusion and disappears forever. Therefore, the flesh, being only an instrument of sin, is not naturally connected with it, no matter how ubiquitous and harsh this may be in impersonal life. Carnal sinfulness is not equal to carnality in itself, although it is most clearly revealed in the latter. This inevitable outcome is confirmed by the fact that this situation is not original and not normal. First of all, the indignation of spiritual instincts and their decisive opposition irresistibly indicate that man instinctively considers the fleshly baseness to be disgusting and hostile to his being, which should be completely pneumatic. Such a mood is unacceptable with the carnal attack of sin and is in fact impossible, because it would mean hating one’s own individuality with all its natural necessity, denying one’s being for the sake of being, when it is only conceivable within the marked boundaries. Since we see exactly the opposite, it inevitably follows that the phenomenon here is not natural if a member does not obey and does not serve the whole. And the Apostle categorically testifies (Rom. 7:14) that such an attitude is conditioned by carnality to the extent that a person is “sold for sin” (πεπραμένος ὑπὸ τὴν ἁμαρτίαν) and is in its power 242. Then it is clear that he was not always in this shameful slavery, and at one time enjoyed sufficient freedom. True, this yoke is heavy, oppressive and hopeless: nevertheless, it has its historical origin and goes only from the moment of this enslavement, which is inseparable from the early autocracy. The very phrase speaks about this with all firmness, because the speech concerns exclusively sin and does not affect personal misconduct. The second ones serve simply as detections of the first one in my doing, but it itself happens apart from me and does not depend on my behavior, since it is perceived together with the body and simultaneously with the real emergence of each private “I”. Here we directly refer to previous arguments, where it was discovered that sin invaded the world as an energy alien to it and then genetically passed on through successive inheritance. Thus, it is undeniable that St. Paul, of course, is a fallen state and this presupposes heavenly innocence with the harmonious subordination of the flesh to the spirit. The stated understanding is consistent with all other data and is fully justified by them. The individual flavor makes one think that the writer relates his words closest to himself, and then there is no doubt that he is capturing the period under the guidance of the law with the sin that actually existed before it. Here we get a new additional result that the flesh turns out to be an unsuitable instrument for the highest goals of the primordial destiny given the sinful perversity of the human race. The immediate consequence of this observation is clear and contributes to the further revelation of the apostolic analysis in its deepest principled foundations. All antimony is exhausted by the fact that natural flesh does not satisfy spiritual intentions and breaks them completely. Therefore, we must agree that the flesh must be a direct organ of the spirit, since in the absence of a close relationship and internal subordination between them there would be no conflict itself, and both of these principles would freely perform their functions without interfering with each other. Service, and only service, embraces the entire existence of the flesh. The deviation from the providential order occurred because she fell under another influence, which destroyed the ability of spiritual adaptation in her and through this directed hostility towards her closest ally. The flesh does not resist the spirit in itself, but because of its enslavement to an external force, which uses it to fight irreconcilably against it 243 . However, even after this, σάρξ invariably retains its purely instrumental dignity as a passive material for the realization of certain aspirations, being indifferent by nature. However, now it is already an arena for the competition of oppositional clashes and it is necessary to be imbued with the energy of the winner, working for him with the usual submission and equal precision. But in the specific individual of every descendant of Adam, spirituality is weakened and suppressed, devoid of activity (Rom. 5:6) and does not go beyond the ideal impulses of good will and theoretical pleasure. It is not surprising that the flesh yields fatally and irreparably, and the place is left to the triumphant rival, who cultivates it according to his plan and erects upon it formidable strongholds for his own protection and in the interest of securing his eternal dominion. He takes possession of a person, inhabits him and dictates his laws, and with no less regularity they are actually fixed by the flesh with the help of its bodily members. She is a weak-willed slave and cannot help but follow the orders of her despot, because she does not find support and salvation in spiritual poverty. Thus, σάρξ can be sinful and inevitably destroys all spiritual needs 244. Despite all this and in the fallen race, it is essentially just soil, why is it not guilty if tares grow on it, as long as a kind hand does not throw good seeds into it; otherwise, “the earth itself produces first greenery, then an ear, then a full grain in the ear” (Mark 4:28). The whole trouble is that, not having its own initiative, the flesh submits to sin and necessarily serves it in its anti-divine inclinations, contrary to its nature. Here we rise to a new level in the understanding of the apostolic teaching and can more accurately comprehend the categorical nature of the harsh sentences over the flesh. Σάρξ does not correspond to the spirit with the moral exhaustion of humanity in its abnormality 245. But this is only because it fell under sinful influence during its implementation 246 and ceased to be an environment for the revelation of spirituality. That's why St. Paul testifies of himself (Rom. 7:25): “I also work with my mind the law of God, but the law of sin with the flesh,” which is only a blind instrument of the “sinful law” operating in it (Rom. 7:23). Hence, the subject of sinfulness everywhere is an integral personality, captivated by sin in its entire composition, irrevocably 247. It is obvious that ἁμαρτία is not covered by σάρξ 248 and is not connected with it solely by its source 249 in the Manichaean sense 250 . It is not difficult to move one step further. The instrumental nature of the flesh ensures that it is incapable of activity, being the executor of other people's orders. Even less permissible is her own resistance to the spirit with which she is in organic communication, and her adversativity is conditioned by the predominance of a higher factor. This latter, through her, is at enmity with the spiritual, although they clash with each other only because they are naturally similar and imbued with oppositional aspirations 251. Given their essential difference, the struggle itself is impossible, since there would be no material for it given the deep inequality of the parties, and the disparity of goals would not allow the slightest contact. There is no doubt that these forces follow a common path and have identical benefits in their natural structure. But the law of good is spiritual (Rom. 7:14), which is why sin will be the same in essence. Then for his activity there must be a sufficient qualitative basis of a negative nature, that he is not holy, not righteous and not good (Rom. 7:12). This means that this is a spiritual potency with anti-divine properties, and it takes up arms against the spirit because it naturally “belongs to good.” In this case, sin will be a demonic principle in human nature, corrupting it with the help of fleshly frailty. This thought 252 follows with logical inevitability from these premises and merges in harmonious harmony individual biblical messages about the sinfulness of the human race. The participation of the seducing serpent turns out to be the charm of the devil (Wis. 2:24), and his appeal primarily to Eve finds a sufficient explanation in the fact that she was primarily “flesh of the flesh and bone of the bones” of Adam, was only his helper (Gen. 2:23:20) and was more easily succumbed to the fleshly pressure of external temptation. It was the devil who was a murderer from time immemorial (John 8:44), and whoever commits sin is of the devil, as from the beginning the devil sinned (1 John 3:8). In his hands is the power of death (Heb. 2:14), and, catching in nets (2 Tim. 2:26) in his wiles (Eph. 6:11), he plunges into judgment the devil (1 Tim. 3:16) everyone who “gives him a place” (Eph. 4:27). Crushed by God (Rom. 16:20), he continues to tempt people with intemperance (1 Cor. 7:5), draws them into his area (Acts 26:18) and corrupts them after his own (1 Tim. 5:15). That is why the children of wrath, who live according to the lusts of the flesh and fulfill the desires of the flesh, become vassals of the “prince of the power of the air,” and he is the spirit who works in the sons of disobedience (Eph. 2:3, 2). It is clear now if sin is depicted as a living energy entering the world and asserting its dominance in it with royal claims (Rom. 6:12, 14) and enchanting seductiveness (Rom. 7:11). He is demonic and therefore indestructible for a person who has broken his union with the Lord. Given such data, sinfulness develops extreme intensity among fallen people, since behind it lies the satanic power, which has gained access and right through the free consent of the human will 253. But she is not able to directly conquer the human spirit in everyone, for which she needs to kill him completely and replace him with herself. This happens only to a few (John 13:27, and cf. 2), since for this it is necessary to first distort the spiritual nature itself, take away from it all individual content and destroy it. Naturally, sin uses a suitable weapon in the indifferent and mortal flesh and makes it its organ to such an extent that, due to the weakness of the fallen, spirituality almost completely disappears in it. She is completely sinful because she is demonically captured by sin. This is the only reason that, inert in itself, σάρξ achieves the active intensity of energetic confrontation with spiritual drives 254. For this reason, its particular discoveries cease to be fragmented facts of deviation from the norm, but are imbued with a connecting idea and in it acquire the genetic gradualness of the fulfillment of a certain plan 255. This is undeniable in the depiction of the works of the flesh (Gal. 5:19–21), where strict methodology is expressed in the enslavement of man, when the prevailing unbridledness introduces its uncleanness everywhere 256, materializes religious feeling 257 and ends in wild orgies 258. The carnal funeral feast crowns the carnal plan, and the end coincides with the beginning, because σάρξ serves as a means for the organizing principle in sinfulness 259. The latter actually happens to be carnal, because it has no other point of support for the opposition with the “inner man”; however, in itself it is spiritual 260 and represents a powerful demonic force. Therefore, liberation from it is possible only on the condition that the person paralyzes the sinful onslaught through submission to another, more powerful, principle and under its protection becomes invulnerable. The struggle on the basis of the flesh is resolved by the defeat of sin, and it is deprived of any real foundation for taking up arms against man. But God condemned sin in the flesh through His Son (Rom. 8:3), and, being united mysteriously with Christ, believers are no longer in the flesh if the Spirit of God then lives in them (Rom. 8:9). In this way, everyone leaves the sinful sphere and, beyond its borders, enjoys complete immunity from sinful attacks 261. It follows that the most minimal deviation from this fertile environment entails disastrous results, because it opens access to the enemy and gives him material for sinful operations in the same way as carnal enslavement. This contains an equal opportunity for independence from the flesh and for falling into it justified. The first testifies to the nature of sinfulness, that it is essentially not carnal, for otherwise sinful deliverance in the existing order of being would be unattainable for anyone, yet it is indisputable. The second no less irresistibly convinces that sin is higher and beyond carnal frailty, since through it it pulls a Christian out of the bright region of bliss. Therefore, the immediate duty of the redeemed will be to always abide in the Spirit and be invariably led by it: then sinful agitation must be eliminated, and he will not at all fulfill the lusts of the flesh (Gal. 5:16). On the contrary, the slightest hesitation in this spiritual walk (Gal.5:25) is disastrous and is accompanied by a sad return to the old. Thus, the most important moral sign of a Christian is freedom (Gal. 5:1), which is not equal to either illegality or lawlessness, because, in fact, it means filial unhindered communication with the Heavenly Father through the Lord Savior. In this sense, it is both the seal of revival and the guarantee of glory, if it happens, it is true to itself with all accuracy and relates only to the spiritual needs of a renewed heart. But as soon as it descends even for a moment, its autonomy becomes the actual basis (ἀφορμή) for the flesh (Gal. 5:13), and instead of the freedom of the law of Christ, the triumph of carnality is revealed with the usual definitions of energetic opposition to the Spirit, forcing a person to do both undue and undesirable things (Gal. 5:17). After this, the only means of return will be in formal renunciation of the usurper by repentance and in the closest union with Christ through participation in the gifts of redemption. Then again the liberation of the believer occurs, since in him the flesh is dead for the sake of sin (Rom. 8:10), although it continues to be an inevitable condition of our existence in this world. At this point, our considerations receive visual confirmation and the highest sanction of justice, for from now on it is clear that sinfulness is not genetically and causally connected with the flesh and is an external demonic force that brings into our nature by the consent of free will and in it takes possession of the most suitable element of carnal weakness. Σάρξ ceases to be obedient to spiritual demands; with the weakness of fallen humanity, it completely submits to sin and becomes sinful through its influence and through it, since it is saturated with it and fulfills only the sinful law. In itself, it is no less passive and inert, and the whole metamorphosis consists in the fact that from an instrument of the spirit it turns into an organ of sinfulness, apart from any of its natural dispositions. A close connection of mutual penetration is born between them, and carnality actually happens to be sinful, and sin is predominantly revealed in carnality 262. However, for all their solidarity, they do not merge to the point of identity by nature and are rather different in essence, like evil spirituality and mortal inertia 263. We have seen that the amartology of St. Pavla is fundamentally alien to naturalistic overtones. This is its fundamental disparity from Jewish theology with purely physiological prerequisites for the teaching in question. The apostle of tongues holds on to biblical soil and builds upon it 265 . True, even there the primary concept of carnal sin approaches the idea of ​​weakness, 266 but the latter, being a natural-absolute ἀδιάφορον, is sinful only when assessed ethically. Therefore, the anthropological views of the Hellenic evangelist always and in everything have an ethical flavor. They deserve our analysis as they come into contact with amartological ones and to clarify them on a psychological scale 267. To a certain extent it is true that “Paul is the psychologist among the Apostles” 268; however, it would be unfair to interpret biblical terminology according to a template suitable for a psychology textbook 269 . On the contrary, the basis here is entirely Old Testament religious, 270 and in it everything else has its true meaning. And here, first of all, the creatureliness of man is indisputable despite his unconditional non-originality. Therefore, the closest definition of any personality will be its complete lack of independence in contrast to God the Creator 271. When considering a creature, its most inevitable and natural designation is that it was created and - due to equal dependence on the will of the Almighty - is an equal member in the chain of created being. In this regard, Adam, even before his fall, was simply a “living soul” and an organism spiritualized through divine inspiration, among all the others to which he was completely similar in origin. There is not yet the slightest distinction in human individuality, since it is taken in its entirety and is not decomposed in its composition. Therefore, the “living soul” does not mark a psychological date and states only the fact of human life in the created world 272. From a strictly psychological point of view, it in no way points to any original element in man and does not lead directly to a trichotomous interpretation of biblical messages 273. In principle, tripartiteness is quite conceivable 274 because it affirms the mediation of disparate elements and their internal unity among themselves, 275 but it is devoid of factual foundations in the word of God 276, for “spirituality” it refers only to created “animation”, which does not possess self-originating energy for vitality. Then a noticeable differentiation begins, and man clearly stands out from the circle of all living creatures as the bearer of the “spirit of God.” He sets Adam apart from other creatures and gives him natural dominance over them with a decisive subordination, which is irresistible for them. This natural advantage indicates that the forefather received a special beginning, which naturally elevated him above everything around him. It lies in him, in his very being, and, surpassing “soulfulness,” will be “spirituality.” This latter satisfies the exclusive relationship of God to man and thereby gives a special direction to human life. The advantage necessarily turns into debt - and the psychological turns out to be ethical 277. Therefore, Adam’s actual position on a common level with all animate things does not exhaust his duties and requires further upward movement. The dignity of man, as a man with the spirit of God, least of all coincides with the reality of his existence. It is not revealed before the idea itself is actually embodied (Phil. 3:13). Hence the paradise commandment for moral growth in accordance with the character of human individuality. It defines the universal law in the continuous progression of moral and religious character and on the basis of spirituality, which connects us more and more closely with the Creator. For this reason, the lower side will be secondary and subordinate, subject to transformation according to the desires of the spirit. He attracts it to himself and gradually lifts it into his realm, where he must be the unconditional principle of the entire animate organism. This is how the main theoretical distinction between σώμα and πνεύμα is formulated, the first embracing the entire holistic personality in its createdness 278 . But it goes without saying that the frailty of a person actually depends on the material and is therefore not absolute. Although the “body of sin” actually occurs and even predominates (Rom. 6:6), τὸ σώμα τής άμαρτίας, the possibility of a different content is always allowed in it without loss of individual typicality when the previous elements are changed 279. Therefore, at the peak of moral development we see σώμα πνευματικόν (1 Cor. 15:44) - an organized body with spiritual properties arising under the influence of the spirit 280. It is clear that σῶμα is completely alien to shades of sinfulness, although it does not exclude it, since it is only a ready-made form for the perception and expression of certain demands, a service tool of the ruling principles 281. Then the whole process of spiritualization comes down to eliminating this sad accident and making the body your perfect organ. This is significantly hampered by the coarseness of carnal matter, which does not correspond to spiritual soaring and chains people to the cosmic sphere 282. In it they are regulated most of all by their inertia, since it is this that hinders spiritual flight 283. Naturally, σάρξ, indicating the materiality of the finger, will be an appropriate term for itself 284 when it is inseparable from it until the moment it reaches pneumaticity 285. Until that time, man remains predominantly an organized creature with its specific property of “soulfulness,” which gives him life among other links of created existence. Now we directly see that “psychic” turns out to be synonymous with “carnal” (1 Cor. 2:14, 3:3) and equally denotes the insufficient spirituality of the created personality. And this is not at all surprising, since the principle of created-material existence best characterizes it by its internal meaning, and not by its appearance alone. It can also be a natural support for spiritual transformation, being the center of our unity with the spirit. In a similar way, the latter comes into direct contact with the body and is subject to its limitations. Under such conditions, it attaches itself to the flesh and is exposed to considerable danger of gradual degradation with final consolidation. But its primary source is in God, and therefore its purpose lies there. It must be fulfilled always and in everything, because otherwise the spirit is deprived of its own distinctiveness and betrays itself. He, too, must have his own organ of spiritual functions, illuminating the path and preparing for the implementation of what is commanded. Such is the mind (νοῦς) in its highest dignity as an instrument of spiritual progress and spiritualization. It serves as a connecting link between the human spirit and the spirit of God and embraces everything that is necessary for this on the subject itself. The cognitive power dominates in him, because without accurate knowledge rational striving is impossible, but it is directed towards the divine and requires understanding of this area. since the theoretical is important here only in the interests of its actual consolidation in the personal behavior of everyone, νοῦς contains a different element of active activity and will be the law of spiritual existence, firm in its destiny. This is a faithful regulator of the religious and moral order in the created world, the creative beginning of his communication with the Creator and approaching Him in his spirituality. From him comes the impulse of spiritual work, and it is carried out invisibly in the recesses of our individuality, transforming it into our own image and likeness 286. Therefore, it expresses the whole person on the spiritual side with the contrast of the external, which opposes him with its tactile passivity and mechanical attraction to the earthly. Therefore, νοῦς in its indissolubility from the subordinate spirit is identical to the “inner man”, imbued with and enjoying the divine, and is decisively distinguished from the “external”, mentally inseparable from the created in its outer structure. Next, you just need to merge them into an integral unity - and the natural task of human life will be achieved. This means that this is the end of the analytical dissection of man in biblical psychology. It is far from any naturalistic background and rests on the religious idea of ​​creatureliness, which gives the first difference with a distinct and natural contrast between God and His work. This separation is strictly metaphysical, but it is formulated on the basis of the fact of origin and mutual dependence and does not have an ethical character. The latter is conditioned only by the predestination of man, when the duality of carnality and spirituality appears in him. They do not coincide with each other in their original properties, and this is the whole difficulty of spiritual achievement in realizing the ideal. However, the noted dissimilarity does not at all border on incompatibility, because σῶμα is simply an organ of perception of a certain content, and it, in σάρξ, is passive, does not extend beyond earthly inertia and fully allows the influence of spirituality. It is clear that in moral terms we still see only some obstacle to moral development without the slightest attack on sinfulness. Rather, on the contrary, for inertia itself opens up a direct opportunity for overcoming it, so much so that, serving the soul as a living organism, the flesh is even more subordinate to the spirit. In a specifically psychological sense, this exhausts the entire essence of Pavlova’s anthropology, and we now have the right to compare the obtained data with amartological research. It is not difficult to notice that the former categorically confirm the latter along the entire line and again certify their inviolability. Actually, psychological analysis does not touch upon sin and does not provide it with natural support. On the contrary, σάρξ and ἁμαρτία - by nature - do not have the slightest contact, and - contrary to rabbinism - sinfulness is not causally covered by carnality; therefore, in human history, an era of moral innocence in the harmony of spirit and flesh, and not just innocence due to the absence of legal violations, is quite acceptable. These results are all the more important because they take away the very basis for critical interpretations, by which something that is not in his nature is forcibly imposed on a person. Similarities with Jewish formulas are eliminated by themselves, since Pharisaic theology at this point was, first of all, naturalistic. Further we see that the undoubted dominance of sin in the world presupposes a terrible revolution that has shaken the original harmony in human organization, and here the theological contemplation of St. Apostola finds independent confirmation in “amartological psychology,” which examines the fallen state of humanity. It was previously shown that, from both the religious and moral sides, the primordial personality was not a real embodiment of the ideal of humanity, but had sufficient means for this in the energetic tension of the spirit to dominate the flesh and in the desire for unity with God with spirituality. Deviation from this path does not follow with logical inevitability, and its indisputability necessarily requires recognition of the great catastrophe that shifted the human race from its primary and natural destiny. And it is easy to understand how it happened and what form it was cast into. It is enough to remember that the purpose of human existence was to transform carnality into spirituality. All this is possible only under the exclusive dominion of the second, when the first is an instrument and medium of spiritualization. It is clear from this that abnormality must be expressed in the denial of this subordination and replacing it with the opposite. Here the center of gravity moves from the highest to the lowest, which paralyzes pneumatic activity and causes moral and sinful shortcomings. The closest characteristic of sinfulness will be the predominance of σάρξ with the clinging of man to the cosmic-earthly and with the suppression of spiritual attractions to the divine by the mind 287 . Therefore, it is the flesh that turns out to be the point of departure and the basis of sinfulness. It displaces the natural life of the spirit and enslaves it to its lusts. The union with God is weakened and sometimes even interrupted, and all religious and moral practices are perverted both in their intention and in their nature. From now on, man is sinful because he becomes flesh, which, directing the personality against divine plans, causes their constant trampling, and sinfulness is fragmented into an immense mass of private individual sins. At the same time, σάρξ keeps a person in his natural sphere of the mortal and corruptible, which is why sin necessarily produces death. With all this, the violation of the original normal balance of individual aspects of the human being simply states and describes a real fact and itself requires a fundamental motivation. It could not be original, because what is irreducible and necessary is not guilty and is not subject to imputation. It is equally impossible to see the sought-after reason in the natural superiority of the flesh, since then its victory would be no less inevitable and completely legal. It remains to be assumed that the sinful disorder is caused by an arbitrary and violent invasion of the human will 288, which turned the servile into the dominant and opened up space for demonic influences. And it is known that there is no slavery more evil and shameful than that which is created by ourselves and rests on our relaxation with the refusal of any active confrontation, except for tearful complaints about lost freedom. It is not surprising that the yoke has acquired terrible dominion among people, has established its indestructible power over them, and they worship it in spite of their best aspirations. Carnal sin, being spiritual in its origin, continues to retain this property in all subsequent periods, because each person now tramples on the commandments of God in his own nature and with a clear understanding of his eternal criminality. The clearer this consciousness, the deeper the fall, and in the light of the divine commandment sin turns out to be “much sinful” (Rom. 7:13) with an active offense to everything that is holy and righteous. And the inexorability of higher demands only testifies more sharply and decisively that man himself has deprived himself of the means to fully satisfy them and, of course, is responsible for his behavior, although in fact it is almost not changed at all by individual zeal. In this sense, the amartological psychology of St. Paul accurately depicts to us the conditions for the development of carnal intensity and its ethically sinful qualities, excluding any idea about the originality of sin, its naturalness and inextricable connection with the materiality of the body. In this case, our previous observations will be completely undeniable in all respects and, in their totality, directly convince us that the Apostle of Languages ​​is not in the least obliged to rabbinism in all parts of his amartological teaching. This point is also of extreme importance for judging the doctrine of atonement, because its meaning and content are determined by amartological elements. Where sin abounds, grace abounds (Rom. 5:20), and the degree of the former predetermines the entire structure of the redemptive work. Based on previous considerations, it goes without saying that Jewish theology at this point did not have sufficient fundamental data. First of all, she turned ἁμαρτία into a natural need 289 and deprived the concept of its most essential content 290 . From the physical side, sinfulness is even salutary, since it contributes to the continuation of the human race. Otherwise - without “evil desire” - no one would build a house, get married, have children, etc., which is why Scripture says: “And I saw all labor and all art, and noticed that they were caused by envy (competition) between people” (Eccl. 4:4). And when, upon returning from captivity, God took away the inclination towards idolatry from the Israelites, the most zealous also begged for the mortification of sensual attraction, but the voice of the Most High declared: “Be wise and know that with its destruction the world will end” 291 . The same is true in moral evaluation. True, God created an “evil desire” in man, but in His teaching He gave him the means to overcome 292 so that through victory everyone could become a hero 293 and achieve bliss 294 . This is quite natural in the Jewish view, since divine revelation turned out to be national in it and, merging with the Torah, turned into a “book religion”, based on tradition 295. Here the main evil was “ignorance” 296, and it was overcome by suffering 297 and served as an indirect incentive for nomistic hardening through its elimination. Therefore, rabbinism was not afraid to think that sinfulness stems from God 298 and is absolutely necessary in the economy of human life 299 where everything is supported by rewards, which do not happen without struggle and deeds of valor. Accordingly, we find an immense mass of the most scrupulous and petty commandments. Their immensity frightens the mind, but if even the smallest is followed by retribution, then it logically followed that their multitude should bring special glory to Israel 300 . From this point of view, sin should rather be considered a beneficial factor in moral development, and there will be no strong dogmatic support for redemption. It is no less undermined by the naturalness of ἁμαρτία, since it is partly irresponsible and partly easily eliminated by individual energy, and here the Christian recognition is unacceptable that we - in an apt expression - need deliverance most of all from ourselves 301. After all the previous observations, it is not difficult for us to understand the question of the redemptive feat of Christ the Savior - according to his image in St. Apostle Paul. We have already been sufficiently warned that only external similarities with rabbinism are conceivable here, despite their most fundamental difference in essence. The courage of approaches and the extreme decisiveness of the conclusions of criticism will only help to more clearly reveal and assimilate the subject. Defending the idea of ​​the natural transformation of the spiritual content of Saul, the luminaries of historical genesis, of course, were obliged to present a Jewish commentary on the most important Christian dogma. And they categorically assert that the ancient synagogue knew and confessed the Messiah, who suffered for the sake of propitiation instead of people and for their sake, and on this issue the New Testament teaching is in “best agreement” with it 302. “The faith of the ancient Jews, based on Scripture, directly coincides with the most holy hopes of Christians” 303. The latter - in agreement with the Hellenic evangelist - always honored in the cross of Christ the source and sign of their salvation; but they saw in it the completion of divine providence and therefore it was necessary to distinguish several points. The general concept inevitably decomposes into its component elements and is itself exhausted by them. Such, first of all, was innocent suffering, by which human guilt is abolished, since there it brings due satisfaction and receives just retribution. For this reason, such a means has a mainly negative meaning of the destruction of sin and, of course, eliminates the presence of righteousness, for it creates the very possibility for it. The absoluteness of the method and action also requires an extraordinary performer, which is why Christian redemption is necessarily and exclusively messianic. These are the basic and unshakable concepts of St. Paul, and only with their exact similarity with the rabbinic ones is it permissible to talk about his material dependence on Jewish contemplations. Do they contain all the required prerequisites? – that’s the whole point. There is no doubt that Judaism energetically and exaggeratedly put forward the salvific value of other people's merits 304, and among them, almost in the first place, it put all kinds of suffering 305. They were the surest path to their own purification and often turned out to be ethically unmotivated, because they also comprehended the impeccable heroes of nomism. In this case, their misfortunes were an unnecessary gain and were passed on to their “neighbors” with the dignity of a propitiatory gift, since they could not remain unpaid by God. It is clear from this that the fundamental assumption of rabbinism was the decisive belief that complete righteousness is available to the individual diligence of man, who often exceeds the norm and raises capital for the benefit of others. It hardly needs mentioning that this judgment is radically contrary to the Christian truth of universal sinfulness. This is obvious and compelling, and it takes special skill to give the question the desired direction. Therefore they say that St. Paul took one idea from rabbinism and concentrated its scattered reflections in many into the single person of the Messiah, where it received greater relief 306. As a result, he formed a “half-Jewish and half-mystical theory of the atonement” 307 with the dominance of the guiding Jewish assumptions 308, which the Apostle “simply applied to the given facts of history as the given formula of his school” 309. Although theoretically possible, this interpretation is actually erroneous, because it turns external analogy into identity. Judaism has always and firmly held the view that every misfortune in itself is closed only by an individual application. It is both sent and received for personal improvement, and only after summing up the results is it beneficial for fellow tribesmen if there is an excess in the score. From this side, the complete innocence of disasters was for Pharisaic theology the worst absurdity, trampling and insulting the truth of God or disastrous atheism. Therefore, such a thought did not exist in rabbinism, but it was the deepest confession of the entire faith of the Apostle of Languages ​​and penetrated all his hopes. They everywhere proclaim that the Calvary sacrifice was the blood of an immaculate and sinless Lamb and was offered specifically for others. Without this there would be no propitiation, and the Christian system would inevitably collapse. The whole importance in it is that for the Jew it was purely secondary and derivative, as a side effect of a process pursuing completely different goals. This fundamental discrepancy in the position of the idea of ​​suffering necessarily confirms that in essence they have different meanings, even in their beneficial influence on others. In rabbinism they were a kind of extraordinary feat and were utilized in soteriology most of all because life shattered all his egoistic dreams regarding fame and happiness. He uses factual denial to cover up the shortcomings of his teaching, in order to smooth out the contradiction to it in the innocent sorrows of the righteous. They have tempered themselves through this, and at the same time they are gradually accumulating a certain amount of good that goes towards national needs. Then the imputation of such excesses is carried out mechanically to help the infirm and weak, who assimilate “fatherly” distinctions and become sufficiently rich. It is clear that the primary element of Jewish “innocent” suffering is the purely legal concept of merit, credited to a fellow man in his original dignity. Therefore, what is alien here passes on with all the properties of achievement, meaning positive virtue, and retains all its power when it is possessed by uninvolved persons. For those who received this, this is simply a replenishment that helps them out of temporary difficulties - and we again see the influence of rabbinic amartology with a downgraded assessment of sin to the level of natural deficiency. In the biblical Christian teaching, it is replaced by active crime, which does not allow correction before its final destruction. Such a revolution was brought about by the Lord’s atonement on the cross, but it is obvious that it is not drawn according to the Pharisaic template, if its effect is completely different: deeper and even the opposite. It is aimed at erasing the previous abnormality and thereby prepares for the grace-filled revival that comes after and means the complete abolition of everything that came before. On the contrary, the latter in Judaism serves as a real support for the salvation of “innocent” suffering, built on a ready-made foundation of personal nomistic correctness. For this reason, and when imputed, they turn out to be a direct virtue and an inalienable advantage of the recipient. He acquires them for his own use and in turn sees in them an individual advantage. In all severity, here is his personal righteousness, which belongs to him no less than other manifestations of legalistic zeal. This is fully consistent with the legal nature of the rabbinic view, where the right to reward does not lose its energy when it is legally passed into different hands. It is always the same and everyone deserves it. Jewish theology remains true to itself and, as a result, returns to its origin. Everywhere we notice in it the dominance of a fundamental principle, which is diametrically opposed to the Christian and cannot be its ancestor. It rests on the concept of human autocracy in its moral structure and essentially denies any deliverance 310. In this regard, it is beautifully and correctly said that “the Jew wanted to be obligated with his salvation only to himself, both in time and in eternity. Therefore, he did not need either a bonus or a mediator” 311, meanwhile, the Hellenic evangelist had all things from God, who reconciled us to Himself Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 5:18). After this it is easy to comprehend how little St. Paul may have been determined by rabbinic opinions in his understanding of messianic deliverance. Here they usually try to bring his entire teaching under the legal standard 312 of the “Pharisee theory of atonement of imputation” 313 and, not without reason, they put forward suitable parallels. If there is no sin without retribution, then there is no propitiation without blood 314 - such was the decisive Jewish conviction, and its reproduction is found in the apostolic understanding of the Calvary feat 315. It is fair, of course, that he was bloody for the same purpose, but from here it is still far from the idea that St. Paul preached only the old truths of his “Judaism.” First of all, here we are talking about a real fact, and its interpretation will be Jewish only because it itself was identical in reality for both sides. However, we know that it took place apart from and contrary to the intentions of the Jews and, naturally, was not the embodiment of their messianic hopes, bringing upon them the punishment of eternal condemnation. For him, there were other biblical foundations in the Old Testament bloody sacrifices, which foreshadowed Calvary and were unconditionally revealed in it. At this point, there is no doubt that their significance is both factual and as a support for the development of apostolic dogma 316, and doubt 317 on this subject shakes the entire Old Testament economy or diminishes its historical dignity, taking away all soteriological importance 318. However, we must also agree that this does not exhaust everything in our subject 319. The sacrificial blood of the Old Testament cult only aroused and supported the feeling of guilt, causing a thirst for liberation from it, but it did not directly predetermine anything regarding the methods of this saving revolution 320. The Old Testament symbols themselves did not logically inevitably provide the entire content of the Christian idea. In the latter we see an immeasurable qualitative difference in the victim itself, and this should have intensified the previous effect to the extreme. Then, closing in the sphere of Old Testament sacrificial ideas, St. Paul would not have gone further than the fact that the Lord's suffering on the cross was an extraordinary means of moral sobering up of people and aggravated in them the need for salvation, which again would be unknown. In this case, the result would have been a reformed Judaism, because for him all disasters were a sign of the wrath of God according to the law of strict retribution. We consider it clear that with such prerequisites we have not yet approached the apostolic gospel, and it contains its own elements of a higher order. And in it we find a shade of satisfaction, because without it the very truth of God could not be preserved. Here it is motivated by the presence of sin, which, being a voluntary violation, inevitably brings damnation, and this closes all the promised benefits. According to its purpose, the law was designed to alleviate this situation, but in reality it was accompanied only by the greatest trampling, and the Jews became typical bearers of the oath, which extended to the whole world, although it was not so obvious to the pagans. For this reason, it was imperative to remove this oath barrier in advance, so that space would open up for the application of God's blessings 321. For this it was necessary that the de facto curse itself be fully accepted and then completely cease; this is what happens when it falls upon the innocent and is finally destroyed by its own action, without having sufficient justification for itself in its object. It was in this way that Christ “ransomed us from the curse of the law, becoming a curse against us” (Gal. 3:13), and in this submission He was also “sin for us” (2 Cor. 5:21) with all reality, since He bore all its consequences in His forsaking of God (Matt. 27:46; Mark 15:34). The inevitable completion of such a dispensation was the complete cessation of the oath yoke with a return to proper harmony. How this is created is not important to us yet. Closer to our reasoning is another observation that propitiation here receives a new light and loses its confusion about who it is intended for, since only a pure mind and a right heart are dear to God. This question has given rise to many hypotheses of ecclesiastical and rationalist origin, but all of them are quite problematic and deviate from the subject into the realm of purely theoretical inquisitiveness. In essence, the Golgotha ​​satisfaction was actually a change in the prevailing order and, along with it, turned out to be, of course, real 322. This is a beneficial act of abolishing perverted relationships and restoring normal communication between people and God. It was the actual redemption of man from his own slavery and in this sense is alien to the nature of external legal imputation or substitution, and rabbinic analogies do not coincide with it in the least because we have before us a living ethical action. In this case, the Jewish claim that Christianity, justifying the death of its Messiah, imitated the method of the fans of Barkokhba 323, who did not want to come to their senses with the shameful death of their hero 324, also falls by itself. All these connections are absolutely vain, since the Apostles held on to an event independent of them and simply explained its true meaning. And in this latter they were far from rabbinism, because it was imbued with contrary tendencies. Woven from legal principles, Pharisaic nomism categorically allowed for righteousness, saw the salvific value of suffering beyond due deservingness, and saw its beneficial influence in the legal replenishment of cash. There can be no talk of replacement here, and the central idea of ​​St. Paul about saving redemption does not find the faintest hints in Judaism. The conclusion reached is fundamentally inevitable, and its inviolability should be our constant protection against being carried away by the methods of genetic interpretation of the apostolic teaching. And if it comes down to rabbinic principles, it is only because, even unintentionally, falsity is allowed here in the selection and coverage of factual material. On this point, the Jewish dreams of two Messiahs 325 are especially interesting. One of them is the son of Joseph or Ephraim; he only clears the ground for the second - the son of David, who reaps all the glory when he endures sorrows and hardships in preparation for the coming triumph. Therefore, the first will be completely suffering and resembles Christ the Deliverer, who later took on the features of dominion. This is how the guess is formulated that the Apostle of tongues merged the dual image into a holistic representation and directly applied it to the Lord Savior. Let’s not talk about the logical recklessness of such a judgment, because in this way the subject itself is not revealed to us at all, and it requires real data. However, it is worthy of mention that then for St. Paul would not have been prompted to such a unification, and he would have avoided a painful break with both his past and his people. But for the emergence of a Christian mood in him, a severe turning point was required, and this indicates that in Saul’s existing beliefs there was no support for natural transformation. Therefore, we cannot consider the concept of the suffering and death of the Messiah either original or vicious in the Jewish system. She conveniently dispensed with even the very person of the Reconciler and did not profess messiahship with dogmatic unconditionality. since righteousness was recognized as attainable by man, he did not need extraordinary intermediaries. This is an indisputable truth, and in rabbinism it eliminated in advance the idea of ​​​​the divine extraordinaryness of justification in the absence of factual reasons in the demands of religious and moral life. She was doing well and was quite secure in her prosperity. What was further necessary was only its crowning (cf. on p. 301 to approx. 92) in rewarding Israel by removing external obstacles to her complete and undisturbed prosperity. Therefore, in Jewish messianic expectations everywhere and always, bright moments of victory and happiness are sharply highlighted, not overshadowed by the faint shadows of sorrow 326. From this point of view, it is not at all unexpected that the news about the son of Ephraim-Joseph is of rather late origin and does not go back beyond the 2nd century AD 327. We do not attach decisive importance to the chronological date itself and are theoretically ready to admit that it serves as an echo of hoary Jewish antiquity. For us, this observation is valuable only because of its internal connection with others about the unmotivated nature of messianic sorrows for rabbinism, which, according to its principles, absolutely denied them. Therefore, factual information from an earlier time and of a different nature, due to its indisputability, is valuable to us as confirmation of other fundamental considerations. They reveal to us the very process of Jewish messianic thinking and show its actual course. It obviously consisted in the gradual dismemberment of the general messianic idea, and not at all the other way around, because through this all the Pharisaic hopes would have collapsed. From this it is clear that such differentiation was allowed to satisfy factual irresistibility, for it did not fit into the framework of ordinary Jewish scholasticism. And it cannot be denied that in the real conditions of the era there were enough compulsory reasons 328. Messianic aspirations reached extreme tension, and their self-proclaimed bearers were replaced by a continuous succession. And the more painful and crushing was the bitter experience of severe grief that killed all hopes. The people longed for freedom, but every attempt only tightens the ring of the foreign yoke and keeps them in shameful chains. Under the blows of Roman swords all miserable privileges fall, the shrine of Israel perishes in streams of blood, the church itself is overthrown amidst a stormy flame, and in the ominous glow of this colossal fire the blasphemous eagle rises victoriously. Finally, the city disappears from the face of the earth, and its glorious name is consigned to complete oblivion for the sake of the hated Elia, with the imposition of the offensive fiscus judaicus on everyone as a sacrifice to Jupiter Capitalius in replacement of the previous half-shecle tribute. It is not easy to imagine to what extent these fatal blows were terrible for Jewish religious contemplation 329. But their strength still rose to excess due to special circumstances. From the roar of these amazing and deafening catastrophes, no strictly defined and distinct echoes have survived to us. However, reliable historical evidence speaks decisively that the entire struggle was waged by the Jews on a religious-messianic basis and from it they drew energy for heroic valor. Political upheavals were at the same time messianic disappointments, which naturally caused attempts to save cherished hopes. Otherwise, one had to abandon the very thought of the Deliverer, and with it it was necessary to accept the corresponding restrictions. It is not surprising now that mournful touches themselves invaded the bright messianic type and, through their disharmony with the whole, caused fragmentation in it 330. Thus, a new concept 331 gradually emerged, embodied in the suffering son of Ephraim 332. The example of Akiba and Barkokhba guarantees all the certainty of such an interpretation, since their supporters - after the shameful defeat of the recognized Messiah 333 - began to talk specifically about the anticipatory messianic dignity. It is clear that the process we described did not occur immediately, and this exactly coincides with the fact that regarding its conclusion we have rather late data, which here receive a fundamental explanation 334 . It is no less natural that such an interpretation could only come from a circle of enthusiasts and was confined within narrow boundaries in its dissemination, and this is again justified by the paucity of information and the fragility of the point in question in Judaism, where it is categorically rejected by Orthodox taxonomists, since the invention of messianic suffering is adopted by sectarian mysticism 335 . Based on all of the above, we have the right to think that the idea of ​​messianic sorrows was not developed and distinct in the age of St. Paul, and there will be no material for imaginary borrowings 336. In this regard, the persistence of scientists rather speaks of the tendentiousness of their intentions and, in any case, is devoid of actual probability 337. The instability of the analyzed teaching in rabbinic theology convinces us that it does not contain the dogmatic importance that it acquired in the sermon of the Apostle of Languages ​​338. It is enough to at least state that there messianic suffering is considered only a preparatory moment of messianic deliverance and plays an extremely subordinate role - contrary to its primary significance in Christianity. For this reason, their internal meaning in the Pharisaic doctrine is completely different. She is concerned specifically with ensuring that Israel has the best possible possession of all the benefits that they deserve and unconditionally belong to. External obstacles of political misery and religious constraint are the main obstacles, and their removal should be the main task of the mediator. The latter appears solely for this purpose and takes on a mission that is beyond the capabilities of the people. But all outbreaks of freedom-loving enterprises were accompanied by great disasters and absorbed entire masses of victims. Naturally, the feat of the expected reconciliator turned out to be inseparable from many sorrows, inevitable in any struggle 339. From here arose the idea of ​​​​the oppression of the Messiah, and in it they usually see the source of the apostolic gospel of the cross of Christ. However, at first glance it is undoubtedly that it has no direct connection with the redemption itself if it refers to the previous period of its anticipation 340. It rather describes the actual character of the messianic ministry in the midst of the unfavorable circumstances to which it is entirely caused. Therefore, the messianic passions (הֵטְּשִׁיחַ הֶבְלֵי) are determined solely by historical complications and coincide with the well-known New Testament torments (ὠδῖνες in Matthew 24:8; Mark 13:9), in which a new world order of universal happiness is founded 341. These are simply fierce and difficult times, and in their necessity they are quite equal to the efforts of a woman suffering from stomach pain. And the Gemara energetically notes that “the son of David will not come until the kingdom of evil (Rome) has spread over Israel for nine months - according to what was said (Mic. 5:3); therefore He will give them over for the time necessary for the giving birth” 342. For this reason, in Judaism there is no fundamental inevitability for messianic suffering, since they primarily express the disasters brought on by human depravity. And the Saint at Mount Sinai directly told the Jews that for preserving and fulfilling the law he would deliver them from three punishments: from the war with Gog and Magog, from the sorrows of the Messiah and from the condemnation of hell 343. It is undeniable that here we are talking only about the people’s terrible hardships during the messianic revolution and does not affect the very essence of Goel’s calling. Therefore, all catastrophes are far from inevitable. On the contrary, R. Eliezer strongly testified that through nomistic zeal and zeal for good deeds one can be saved from messianic troubles 344. Their actual inevitability forced R. Ullu and others directly renounce the desire to live to see the messianic upheavals 345. Apocryphal literature no less firmly stated similar views in the spirit of rabbinism. She also taught about the era of the “great sword”, when all the animals and birds of the sky will scatter 346, powerful kings will beg for at least a little peace 347, the strong will perish and people’s lives will end 348 with the eradication of untruth 349 and for the liberation of cities, peoples and kingdoms among the general enmity 350. All these are partial stages in the process of transition of the present century to the future 351, in which “the Lord himself will strike the earth with the word of his mouth forever” 352. The Messiah will reveal himself to restore the world 353, but this will entail great suffering and cruel persecution if only because under the son of David the scientists will decrease in number and the eyes of others will go out of grief 354. This means that messianic upheavals serve as a side effect of deliverance, since it will be a bloody clash of good and evil, and here any complications are irremovable due to cosmic perversity 355. In this sense, messianic difficulties are mentioned even in Jonathan and in other trades 356 without any application to the person of the Redeemer. These sufferings do not concern him individually and do not form the basis of his mission; they rather mark a painful operation on the corrupted organism of the universe 357 . It further follows that the idea under consideration is devoid of a strictly dogmatic foundation and is motivated primarily by existing imperfection, because there was no better means for it. From this side, we must agree that it was an expression not so much of faith as of despair 358 from the consciousness of man’s complete helplessness to change the actual system and give it the desired normality. This randomness of messianic depressions again reveals that they were formulated according to actual needs, which are associated with rabbinism. “The Son of David will not come until everyone is guilty or righteous” 359 - in this dilemma p. Johanan only the first part met a real correspondence. Naturally, it was precisely towards this that the messianic hopes were driven towards their very salvation and to ensure the triumph of Israel. Therefore, it was said that the Messiah would arrive during the humiliation of the people and amidst crushing suffering, during the extraordinary development of religious and moral decline, with the contempt of young men for the elders and the trampling of all blood ties, with the desecration of schools and devastation everywhere. In such a mood, political adversity did not darken the bright hopes of the Jew, but R. Akiba even thought that “if the prophecy about the destruction (of the church) is fulfilled, then the other one about reconstruction and deliverance will also be fulfilled.” Likewise, R. Judas saw messianic harbingers in modern misfortunes 360. We now see how rabbinic logic cleverly adapts to the conditions of real life and varies its opinions according to them. This is the reason that messianic sorrows are alien to dogmatic support and have not received an accurate revelation. They are attracted for temporary needs and have only official dignity, because they are necessary to clear the cluttered path to the exaltation of the chosen people. They note the antecedent and secondary effects of the messianic work, and in itself it is, of course, carefree and dispassionate. It is hardly necessary to add that all this radically contradicts the views of St. Paul, who, on the contrary, considered the cross to be the crown of the entire messianic feat, meanwhile Pharisaism decisively excluded it. It simply removed political-cosmic barriers by allowing crushing upheavals to establish a glorious messianic kingdom. But the latter was predetermined by one worthy one, and here again great obstacles arose. It was difficult to completely deny that the mass of Jews do not possess the obligatory qualities and vices flourish among them no less than virtues. The legal art of the theory of imputation of merit lulled the conscience without changing the surroundings, which were painted with a gloomy coloring. And among the thick clouds the sun does not shine brightly and does not send its beneficial rays. The Messianic day was fatally swallowed up by the darkness of the night and was pushed back into infinity. It was necessary to disperse the storm clouds in advance so that the horizon would become transparent. Human efforts were insufficient and were put to shame by living experience. Naturally, this task is entrusted to the Messiah, which is why he is depicted as suffering in order to prepare Israel to receive the benefits promised to the sons of the covenant 361. Hence, mournful tones of a truly redemptive nature are introduced into the messianic ideal. They are not numerous and not quite distinct, but they are virtually undeniable, and cannot be ignored without special consideration. First of all, we must agree that in Jewish theology there are sometimes hints of the salvific value of messianic suffering. By the way, it is said that “King Messiah is humiliated and diminished for the sake of the apostates” from the people of Israel 362, since none of them can remain outside of participation in the common glory. This is the essential purpose of messianic deliverance, and it pursues exclusively national interests. Therefore, the Messiah reveals a readiness to accept all griefs, “so that not a single Israelite perishes and in his days not only those living, but also those hidden in the tombs may be rewarded with salvation” 363. According to this, it was assumed that he “will sit at the doors of Rome among the poor (unfortunate), burdened with illnesses, and they will all untie their wounds at once and tie them up, but he will untie and bind (each of them in succession), saying that he may be demanded and he must not delay” 364. Jewish commentators see here the idea of ​​messianic wounds, and this is quite probable, since the difference relates only to the method and thus marks the unity of the situation, although the Messiah is more prudent 365: he does not open all his ulcers at the same time, so as not to be delayed by the duration of the medical rite when there are many of them. From this point of view, the Messiah is also called “leper” because he bears our infirmities 366. In all the evidence noted, the idea of ​​​​the general usefulness of messianic oppression is undeniable, and the whole question is in their correct understanding. It is extremely important for him that the Deliverer is placed in a row with other sufferers and does not stand out from them by anything other than his insight 367 . In this case, there is still no relation to the people's shortcomings, and everything is limited to his own personality. The disasters described concern, first of all, the Messiah himself and serve for his individual improvement, strengthen his character and give a special shine. Therefore, they do not define the messianic work and fall entirely on the period of preparation, thus recalling the preliminary suffering discussed above. And indeed, “The Eternal will lay commandments and tribulations on the Messiah - like millstones” 368. But the former are obligatory personally - in the sense of a regulator of behavior, since the Deliverer must be the highest embodiment of nomistic correctness. He does not repeal the law 369, and the controversial evidence about the granting of a new one says only that it will establish the unshakable influence of the Torah, free it from external constraints, capture Jewish zeal and open up space for the purest nomistic influence with all spontaneity and absoluteness 370. The changes do not extend beyond what the transformation in the external environment will cause, and people will no longer exercise, but enjoy. It is clear that the Messiah is equally guilty of fulfilling the commandments, which helps his religious growth to the possible extent. Of course, suffering also contributes to this as an extraordinary tool for achieving abundant rewards. They are simply a means of his moral self-development and are necessary for him for the latter 371. This is sufficiently confirmed by the Rabbinic portrayal of the dignity of the Messiah. He is great, but most of all compared to other holy men 372 because he is higher than Abraham, Moses, the angels and all of us 373. His personal superiority is accompanied by an equally superior result, although the essence of the mission itself remains the same in content 374. “As the first Deliverer (Moses) was, so will the second (Messiah): he appeared and disappeared (during the flight from Egypt), and then, nine months later, appeared again; this one, in turn, will appear, will be invisible and will open again” 375. “Both the first and the second Deliverer. It is said about this (Ex. 4:20): “And Moses took his wife and his sons and put them on a donkey”; it is noted about this (Zech. 9:9), that he is “the meek (poor) sitting on a donkey”” 376. With such a view, it is quite normal that, according to Jewish theology, “the exaltation of the Messiah is preceded by the time of his humiliation” 377, when he himself grows and strengthens to the required maturity 378. His “defeat” does not go beyond this framework either. On the contrary, it was assumed that “whoever has one of the four colors of leprosy (cf. Lev. 13), then he is like an altar of atonement”: so propitious is this suffering! For a righteous person, it is a guarantee of a special reward in this life or a future life, 379 and in both cases this exactly satisfies the Pharisaic image of the Messiah. We have reviewed the entire group of relevant rabbinical messages and find that they do not at all coincide with the apostolic gospel. They depict the internal moral struggle of the Conciliator for his moral strengthening. This is the most important thing in all data, where the good of the people is mentioned only because the messianic liberation is designed for them. We have not yet heard anything about the redemptive role of messianic suffering. Of course, it would be illogical 381 to deny the Messiah that which is categorically acquired by people of excellent virtue 382 , and at this point scientists 383 in vain deny that he has any propitiatory power. The wealth of his virtues will necessarily and involuntarily entail the inherent results, and they are as follows: “the righteous in the (evil) generation are taken away in his place,” and someone must take strict judgment for the crimes of children 384. It is not surprising, therefore, that the Messiah is also credited with a redemptive influence 385 . It is only necessary to add that this deliverance is entirely exhausted by the ordinary law of imputation of merit 386. According to rabbinic theory, they are transmitted mechanically, by reason of the organic connection of all members of the Israelite union, and then contribute to the general national salvation, which in principle belongs to the chosen people by covenant with God. These moments stand out clearly in messianic Jewish expectations. They are dominated everywhere by the idea of ​​universal national triumph, the establishment of which is fatally hampered by human limitations. In the cosmic order it is inevitable, and therefore the remedy against it was provided by Jehovah from time immemorial. He always cared for His closest children, and His contrition over their unpreparedness from the beginning predetermined the fate of the Deliverer. The Lord said to him: “You have taken upon yourself suffering since the six days of creation; your torment will be similar to what I experienced when the wicked Nebuchadnezzar destroyed My house, burned the temple and took My children into exile among the pagans” 387. It is clear that this is primarily a sorrow of condolences, which is why it lies in the very idea of ​​peacemaking undertaken for the sake of the glory of Israel. The Messiah in this case occupies a place along with other righteous people and is superior in size to the propitiatory feat 388. But it was carried out with unremitting energy throughout Jewish history and is inherited by the Conciliator only to the extent that it was not completed earlier. R. Huna on behalf of R. Aha directly asserted that the entire amount of “suffering is distributed into three parts: one falls on David, the fathers (patriarchs) and other generations, the other on the age of extermination (of the stiff-necked race in captivity), and the third on the era and on the king Messiah himself” 389 . The latter propitiates in the same way as the others, even if quantitatively he exceeds them. The quality of the process itself and its effect is, of course, the same as the moral excesses usually credited to the heroes of nomistic zeal. This observation is all the more important because the solution presented is associated with biblical features (Isa. 53:5) about the servant of Jehovah, who is wounded for our iniquities 390, depriving them of their own redemptive value, which was rejected by the dominant Jewish interpretations of the gospel of the Old Testament Evangelist 391. As a result, we had that the Jewish Messiah only crowns and concludes the early attempts of mournful covering by pious men of the people's sins 393 and destroys them to the ground 394. He is the final link in an unbroken chain of passive satisfaction and is not the only redeemer. Naturally, the nature of its mission is essentially no different from the imputation we know. It must smooth out the human roughness of religious-national deviations from the legalistic norm and in this regard it is necessary to rely on a ready foundation of personal capacity for moral development. The Messiah supports and strengthens him and, with his coming torments, makes up for the shortcomings of others. His body is exceptionally replenishing not only for the past, but also for the present 395 . Therefore, Elijah and other righteous people exhort him to be firm in saving sorrows, in order to later bring them a blessed life 396. This idea is expressed more clearly in the following image. “The souls of the pious float in peace; and when they see people stricken with disasters and punishments for profaning the name of God, and notice that the wicked are helping to continue the captivity, then they return and report this to the Messiah. He immediately goes to the palace of the Garden of Eden, which is called the palace of the sick, joins them and takes upon himself all the sorrows and suffering of Israel, therefore they pass on to him. If he had not in this way alleviated the sufferings of Israel and delivered them from them, then not a single person in the world could have endured the suffering that would have befallen him according to the prohibitions of the law. While the Israelites were in their land, they were removed from suffering and disasters by sacrifices, and now the Messiah takes it away from them, as it is written (in Is. 53:5): that plague was for our sins 397 . From what has been said it inevitably follows that the Deliverer accepts only part of the sorrowful burden, which is beyond the strength of human weakness. Otherwise, everything is arranged by the people themselves and is their individual acquisition. Then you just need to finish the work and iron out its shortcomings. Of course, it goes without saying that at this point the Messiah - along with all the righteous - acts according to the usual legal method. He tries to ensure the personal advantage of everyone and, above all, assists him in this endeavor. For this reason, the unsuitability of other paths is perceived as the most depressing. They, while strengthening it, at the same time gradually accumulate a huge reserve of merit and through this ensure national well-being. The very process of such redemption is accomplished by the familiar order of imputation and enrollment with all its inseparable properties. In this case, there is no doubt that, in all its severity, suffering brings righteousness to the Messiah and only to the extent of its supererogation do they prove salvific for others 398 . Otherwise, his national-redemptive influence would be absolutely incomprehensible, and it can only be explained by the fact that the Conciliator acts in accordance with the great heroes of the faith, even if stronger than them, and they created their own righteousness. From this it is clear that messianic redemption is only a by-product of the individual deed of the Redeemer and serves as an indirect reflection of his abundant holiness and purity. Then everything happens with the same energy of mechanical inevitability, and Israel, without any effort on its part, takes advantage of someone else's victory. He comes to life with warming rays, but they are sent simply because the sun cannot help but shine, dispersing the darkness of the night. In the same way, messianic valor necessarily revives, since it is not necessary for the owner himself, and it cannot be lost according to the legal law of retribution. Then it completely, inalienably and naturally belongs to the people, who assimilate it directly by inheritance. In this sense, the true meaning and ever-present expression of rabbinic theology (Jer. 23:6) regarding the Messiah, that he is “the Lord is our righteousness,” 399 receives, and his special advantages belong unconditionally and undividedly to the chosen tribe 400 . Its members again justify themselves no less than if the family property of their ancestors passes to their descendants and becomes their indisputable wealth. The difference here is very small, and it lies in the fact that, to a certain extent, the Messiah suffers with such humanitarian goals as often moved and animated the pillars of self-sacrifice of the people. However, here too he primarily contributes to the normal prosperity of Israeli greatness and is the intercessor and protector of the people. All authoritative Jewish commentators speak strongly about this. They testify that “Jehovah justifies in the days of the Messiah” (Rashi), without mentioning that this happens through him. “He is God’s mediator, so that through him we may achieve justification from God” (Yoseph Albo) according to divine judgment. Moreover, his suffering will not be fundamentally obligatory and will not be inextricably linked with the 401 mission itself. On the contrary, it is categorically accepted that the Messiah only asks and pleads with the Almighty 402. Therefore, in essence, messianic sorrows do not exceed rabbinic “advocates” (פרקליםין = παράκλητος) in the repentance and purification of every sinner 403. They are only more unusual in their lack of motivation in the individual faults of the Redeemer and in their closeness to national needs. In this capacity, messianic torments are salvific for others and by their very intention, but they only help personal zeal and make up for private shortcomings. This is their whole dogmatic importance, why it should be clear that the Conciliator enters into the continuous Israeli work, supports and strengthens it and participates in all the inevitable hardships and sorrows. He suffers not for the people - due to their inability for their own moral maturity - but solely and exclusively with them 404 or does not at all agree with the apostolic understanding of the Calvary sacrifice. But such a view is in harmonious solidarity with the nomistic hopes about the possible integrity of every lawful son of the covenant. It is not surprising now that the messianic cause in Pharisaic theology is portrayed as specifically Jewish in its consequences, “limited to national boundaries” 405 and does not quantitatively extend beyond the boundaries of the society of Israel 406 . From all these data it is certain that from all sides the messianic suffering is portrayed in the rabbinic system as essentially Jewish. They were designed to secure Israel's salvation in absolute triumph. But it fundamentally and necessarily belongs to all the people of God and therefore was steadily prepared for them, and this certifies that Israel has reliable ways to achieve righteousness. For this reason, the Messiah cannot disrupt and change the prevailing historical order and eliminate it with a completely new one. On the contrary, he must protect the original institutions and bring them to the highest development, so that their influence is not inhibited or weakened. His first task is to destroy cosmic and political barriers through a militant revolution, always accompanied by difficulties and hardships among the menacing soaring of the angel of death in bloody devastation. For the success of such an enterprise, the leader himself must be invulnerable and, of course, in accordance with the nomistic ideal. In this regard, the extraordinary means of great suffering is used, which tempers and strengthens the personal valor of the Messiah. Only then is he able to continue the tireless national work in its previous normal course. Therefore, the Conciliator delivers the Jews along with the forefathers and all other religious ascetics and, therefore, in their spirit and tone, without differing in the least in the inner meaning of his work. He only helps national progress and bears its natural troubles, suffering with the people and for them, and not for them. In this case, its propitiatory dignity is directly equal to the legal imputation of merit with the aggravation of individual correctness, which is why it does not redeem a person by the abolition of natural sinfulness, which does not exist either ideally or in fact. It is clear that under these conditions it is absolutely unacceptable for the Jewish Messiah to die 407. She interrupts his heroic “revolution” and takes away any result from it, and completely humiliates him and relegates him to the category of “seducers.” According to the best assessment applied by enthusiasts to Barkokhba, this is just a beginning and a preliminary, but far from being the real salvation, since the feat has ceased and requires new successors. Naturally, the Jews did not comprehend the divine speeches about the ascension of the Son of Man and remained stubborn in their unshakable conviction that Christ abides forever (John 12:34), and the Emmaus travelers fell into deep despair about the crucified Lord, since it shook their hopes that He was the one who would deliver Israel (Luke 24:21). Based on this, one must agree with the solid scientific observation that the ancient synagogue knows nothing about the death of the Messiah, 408 for this would be an internal contradiction and a ridiculous absurdity 409 if the liberator himself perishes. And we know that a tradition of this kind in the doctrine of the son of Ephraim or Joseph of later and accidental origin has no distribution and is not sanctioned by Jewish dogma, which directly rejects it (Gaon Saadiah) 410 and identifies the biblical “servant of Jehovah” with an ordinary righteous man (Abrabanel) 411 . Then messianic sufferings are deprived of their fundamental force in the very plan of deliverance, for it does not at all depend on them and is actually the fulfillment of the divine covenant. Various adversities and dejections serve solely to increase national integrity through legal enrollment and do not in the least abolish sinful insufficiency, contributing to the quantitative elevation of existing virtue. They do not contain a redemptive element at all, and from this side they were categorically denied by rabbinism, 412 which only allowed them as a tool for the development of righteousness. In the Christian sense, they are contrary to the spirit of Jewish theology 413 no less than death 414. The latter is absolutely impossible in the deed of the Deliverer and, of course, was not accepted in the substitutionary-redemptive sense 415. Accordingly, messianic sorrows lose all redemptive importance among other factors for the establishment of the national Israeli triumph. As a result, it turns out that in the authoritative Jewish teaching about the Messiah there is neither a saving passion 416 nor a life-giving death 417, and therefore there is not even atonement itself 418, just as it was not required by all other Pharisaic convictions about the suitability and fruitfulness of the ordinary nomistic regime 419. For the Christian gospel of the Apostle of tongues, on this point there is no weakest support in rabbinism, 420 which paid him with irreconcilable hatred both directly and indirectly - in Judaistic reflections. But atonement frees a person from the oath and restores his normal relationship with God, erasing sin. It is the beginning and basis of our righteousness, which does not exist without it, since from the unclean the bright is not born. It is therefore necessary that rabbinism could not provide material to the Apostle on the subject of justification. This shortens and simplifies our discussions on this issue. He often leans towards a purely Jewish interpretation, introduced entirely into the apostolic sermon. Some boldly say that the whole difference here is St. Paul's pharisaism does not extend beyond the fact that he replaced the name of Abraham with the name of Christ, 421 seeing in the grace-filled revival only the legal crediting of the Lord's super-due merits. And indeed, “just as the Jewish theologian argued that God imputes the righteousness of the patriarchs to other Israelites, so Paul imputes the righteousness of Christ to the believers,” which is why he also talks about the divine judgment seat. The Savior himself is punished and through this stands up for the unrighteous - in the spirit of Jewish theology. Pavlov's terminology in this department is no less reminiscent of school rabbinic 422. “It is of a strictly legal nature, for the Apostle had in his mind the processes in the Sanhedrin, when he considered the redemption of the soul under the form of releasing a prisoner” 423 and - in essence - took it as an amnesty itself 424. This conclusion clearly reveals to us the center of gravity of historical-genetic considerations. They rest on the assumption that justification is exactly equivalent to the release of the captive on indisputable legal grounds. In this case, the enslavement itself is recognized as being fully motivated by an adequate offense. But it is a debt to God and requires repayment, carried out with all the inexorability of criminal law 425. Satisfaction with him St. Paul finds in his cardinal thesis about the replacement of human sins with the messianic sufferings of the Lord 426. Is the external similarity so close to the internal coincidence? There is no doubt that, according to the apostolic belief and conviction, Christ was the atonement in our stead and for us. All the particulars of His saving ministry were directed towards this, which was entirely aimed at the benefit of humanity and therefore had to take place under human conditions. Hence the fundamental necessity of the incarnation, and it cannot be considered a concession to Jewish dogma with a sacrifice of the primary understanding of the ideal heavenly personality 427. Obviously, there was an unavoidable need that people themselves could not achieve mandatory reconciliation. For this reason, the Messiah suffers for us. This is an unshakable Christian truth, and it is applied by St. Paul is not at all Jewish. Pharisaism stemmed from the view of debt due to non-payment of a bill by virtue of a covenant agreement. In it, all guilt is exhausted by the external discrepancy between the fact and its purpose and disappears without a trace when the balance is legally restored. Here individuality does not play the slightest role and is decisively faded in front of the indistinguishable mass of the people in its indivisible totality, and small numbers are imperceptibly absorbed by the overall result. There will be enough national merit for the legal amount - and all abnormality will evaporate forever. Therefore, the Jewish atonement, being purely legal, is identical with justification itself, and they mutually cover each other. The Apostle of Languages ​​has nothing of the kind, and his “Gospel” on this issue is contrary to Jewish theology. He firmly adhered to the biblical basis of the predestination of creation to unite the closest communion with God. The Almighty, having produced all of existence, could not be the culprit of its deviation from the natural path, and the fall turns out to be an act of free human will. On the other hand, condescension towards a sinful violation of duty is also inconsistent with the essence of God, because this would be condoning and approving vice. The union is inevitably interrupted by itself, and humanity is subjected to the gravity of an oath, most noticeable among those under the law. It is clear that in its deep sadness this is the most compelling and living reality. Naturally, it requires an actual means of actual properties. This is what the death of Christ possessed to the fullest degree. She was retribution for sin and had to absorb all the oath's energy so that it could fully demonstrate its merciless sharpness. To do this, it was necessary to provide unobstructed space for its onslaught, without delaying it with reflection or persistence. Therefore, what is required here, first of all, is a voluntary sacrifice, meekly and unquestioningly submitting to all the insults of punishment. It is no less necessary that she be absolutely innocent. Otherwise, the vowed defeat will have objective support and legal justification and through this will receive a new basis for its everlasting punitive domination. Otherwise, it reaches its peak and is destroyed forever, because it is deprived of material, due to the absence of a point of attraction, and by an immaculate death it itself is killed irrevocably. Now his power is dying fundamentally, and a special life is emerging, alien to any shadow of the former gloom 428. Christ “was an oath for us,” which, being completely satisfied, then abolished itself and opened the way for the revival of freedom. This means that the messianic redemption of St. Paul is depicted as a real matter of changing the existing order of things, cosmic detachment from the Creator, and does not at all resemble the Jewish concept of paying a bill 429. All attempts at legal commentary on the Calvary feat are unsuccessful in their unsuitability and, in their extreme development, border on naked absurdity, poorly covered by the haze of external rationality. By the way, they claim that - according to the Apostle of Gentiles (Gal.3:13) - Christ was cursed because he hung on a tree. In this capacity He was a desecration for the society of Israel and was cast out of it like an unclean thing. At the same time, He left the scope of the covenant and died to the law, which lost all its formidable power of condemnation for him. His confessors, along with Him, were also subject to the same banishment, and all were legally exempt from nomistic pardons. This is supposedly the whole essence of Christian redemption, and it turns out to be only a theoretical exception from the host of the people of God 430. With its mechanical plane, this interpretation 431 only more clearly shows the entire internal weakness of a purely legal understanding of the great sacrament of Golgotha ​​and from this side is an impressive warning against historical-genetic reconstructions. Its absurdity is self-evident without any further words, because then each “hanged man” would achieve the noted results through a criminal offense or through his renegade - besides the Messiah. By all accounts, there is no doubt that the terrible legalistic formula did not express liberation from punishment, but the deprivation of the divine benefits of the union of Israel. That is why - in the name of conviction in the natural indelibility of national privileges in all the descendants of Abraham - Jewish logic hastened to turn the death penalty into a special way for criminals to propitiate their offenses. Even more difficult for rabbinism was the fact that during the political struggle with the Romans, entire masses of people were subjected to crucifixion with excellent heroes of the faith, shining with nomystical dazzling. For both religious consciousness and national feeling, the idea that they were all cursed by Jehovah was equally intolerable, which is why it was assumed that they swore an oath before God against foreign tormentors 432 . Everywhere here the idea of ​​real condemnation is put forward, and it is natural that the members of the Sanhedrin were afraid that with their teaching about the purity of the divine Lamb the Apostles would bring upon them the blood of “that man” (Acts 5:28). For this reason, the death of the Lord was accompanied by the actual consequences of the destruction of the oath burden through the perception of it. But if the oppression of this yoke closed the very access to the divine heritage, now it becomes the property of the Redeemer and is achieved by everyone exclusively from Him through the closest unity. Hence the first result - the universality of Christian deliverance, in which the blessing of Abraham extends to the pagans 433. The racial isolation and national limitations of the nomistic system fall completely, 434 and the second effect of the Calvary reconciliation is that the Jews receive the promise of the Spirit on an equal basis with the Greeks under the obligatory condition of faith for all (Gal. 3:14). Therefore, the redemption of Christ is an entirely real good, and St. Paul could not take him out of the Jewish legal redemption. Then: in the apostolic confession of messianic death, only the destruction and cessation of the prevailing abnormality of the separation of the creature from its Lord is indicated with the affirmation of the possibility of restoring the necessary connection and consolidating it in life. What was objectively acquired by Christ must become subjectively individual, so that a person personally enjoys the fruits bestowed upon him. The doors of the prison are open, and it is up to the zeal of the prisoners to throw off the shameful shackles and prosper in the shadow of freedom with the life-giving breath of grace. Then the task of achieving the righteousness of Christ in their own justification begins for people. In the meantime, God was for them only “righteous” (Rom. 3:26), and how He is actually “justifying” is another further question, not inevitably predetermined by the completed redemptive feat. And at this point we again see a deep dissimilarity with Judaism, because for it the very distinction between these moments, which coincided exactly with each other, was unacceptable. Thus, the Hellenic evangelist had a starting point exactly where all rabbinic reasoning ended, and here mutual material dependence is fundamentally incredible. We can only talk about external analogies, and we are protected in advance from being seduced by bold critical approximations. They are created by the usual method of belittling apostolic truth to the theorems of the Pharisaic school. She proclaimed the crediting of other people's merits to the sinner. While legal in its process, this act culminated in a no less formal assimilation without actually imparting the truth, because it was a mere balancing of the balance on the basis of a meaningless confession. Repaying a bill of exchange - out of respect and goodwill towards the debtor's close relatives - does not enrich him in the least and rather states irreparable poverty. Therefore, in rabbinism there was no moral renewal of the individual if she was simply forgiven of all faults for the sake of her belonging to the society of the elect. A similar view is imposed on St. Paul with the categoricalness of confessional confession and based on faith, and not just reason. The Catholic concept of satisfaction was thoroughly imbued with the legal element, and its influence triumphed dominantly in Protestantism 435 . Rejecting the excesses of Catholic abuses, the latter - with considerable hesitation in the detailed formulation 436 and later objections 437 - settled on an objective theory of justification of a similar nature 438 . It proceeds from the observation that the atonement was accomplished by Christ and constitutes His personal acquisition, which is why only in it is the whole truth fully contained. Humanity uses it no differently and no more than that God, contemplating it in His Son the Redeemer, is satisfied with its abundance and in its light ideally 439 declares people righteous, forgetting and forgiving the former depravity 440. Justification turns out to be “the merciful judgment of God” through “imputation (to the elimination of earlier) imputation” 441. This is a “state of benign acceptance” in the legalistic spirit, 442 and it rests on the faith of self-denial and surrender to the Lord 443. In Him the truth is real, objective, but it is only legally credited to people 444. Briefly, in the Apostle of tongues justitia imputativa 445 returns, as it was in Pharisaism 446. Hence, it is as if “it is clear at first glance that Paul’s teaching arose from the circle of thoughts of the Jewish school” 447. In this hypothesis it is indisputable that St. Paul first of all and unshakably confesses the righteousness of Christ, and for him it serves as the foundation of all grace-filled revival. Therefore, there is no need to reject 448 the position 449 that δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ indicates the property of God as His property communicated to man 450. Without the objective presence of truth, there would be no corresponding action, and without a righteous person there would be no support for its application in the absolute predominance of sinfulness 451. This is an irresistible truth, and the question further is how real righteousness becomes subjective and individual: then the essential dignity of the latter will be directly determined. But we saw that its mediator was Christ, Who achieved the possession of the benefits of the promise and became the only and exclusive dispenser of them, since they are in him and with Him. It is inevitable, therefore, that all others are partakers of the divine inheritance precisely through Him and must follow the path of the Lord. He actually exhausted on Himself all the burden of the sinful oath and got rid of it forever by His death. For this reason, every person is obliged to no less actually share it - and he is crucified to Christ (Gal. 2:19) and merges with Him in His Calvary feat. Thus, for the Apostle, the entire cosmos is finally nailed down in the cross of Christ, because by the execution of the Redeemer he renounced the Suffering One and he himself irrevocably renounced minimal communion with Him. It is necessary that the relationship between them is decisively interrupted, and - together with the “Hanged Man” - the evangelist, in turn, is crucified for the world and leaves the sphere of its limitations (Gal. 6:14). For him, all cosmic conditions are deprived of their former force (Gal. 5:6), and circumcision loses its significance along with uncircumcision. The crucified person is outside of cosmic constraints, and his undoubted existence directly testifies that he lives according to other special principles and in this sense is a new creation (Gal. 6:15; 2 Cor. 5:17), independent in its existence from the usual worldly laws of condemnation and alienation from God. The right to sin, destroyed by the Calvary sacrifice 452, henceforth ceases for people, which is why they gain access to the blessed inheritance. But since it is in Christ, inner and close unity with Him is necessary here. This is accomplished (in baptism) by faith, which brings a person into actual connection with the Lord until the complete absorption of sinful individuality, and it becomes free from oath defeat. It is clear that this faith provides the real benefit of actual deliverance from cosmic enslavement with all its “tributes” 453. It imputes to us the redemption of Christ with its actual assimilation, because without it the oath barrier would continue to close the very path to Abraham’s blessing. It is now found in the Messiah Jesus and is therefore borrowed only from Him. Here again an indissoluble union with Him is required in order to share His saving heritage, which is contained entirely in the Lord. And, provided from the side of possibility by faith, justification is then directly drawn from faith. By uniting the personality with Christ, it is filled with the content of the Calvary sacrifice and rewards the person with all its acquisitions. Objectively - in the Son of God - they were real and they turn out to be the same subjectively, in every confessor of the Crucified 454. In this way, a justified person achieves truth itself 455, or becomes righteous 456, in complete moral rebirth 457. However, not being his personal creation, it is not an integral and indelible property of nature. On the contrary, the living water of renewal is obtained only from a fertile source and inevitably dries up at the slightest disruption. Hence the possibility of falls and sinfulness in a Christian, when he withdraws into his limited isolation of created frailty. Therefore, the union with the Lord must be absolutely indissoluble and everlasting, functioning with all its energy at every moment of existence 458. It is natural that, having arisen through faith and being nourished from it, the grace-filled life necessarily moves in faith, does not remove one iota from its atmosphere and does not deviate even for a moment. Here its effect will be ordinary, that it strengthens a person in the righteousness of Christ so much that Christ himself actually lives in him (Gal. 2:20). In this form, true faith is necessarily accompanied by the fruits of Christ, 459 and the nature of its expression is self-explanatory. Redemption was not caused by people at all, since in reality they were damned and, through sinful helplessness, were deprived of all hope of rebellion. Therefore, the grace of God did not have actual support for itself and did not manifest itself in its entirety, for it would be connivance and its own denial. For the very beginning of redemption, boundless divine love was required, and it is only by this that the entire messianic work is sustained in all its stages 460. It is not surprising that apart from it it is impossible to enter into the redemptive feat and be in unity with the Lord, and outside of Him there is no communication with God, inaccessible to human perversity. Therefore, at St. John the Theologian, the very knowledge of God is conditioned by love (1 John 4:7–8) both objectively and subjectively 461. In this case, it is precisely this that penetrates righteousness in faith, which works through love in itself and from itself (Gal. 5:6) 462. Here the faith of the new man is expressed not only in righteousness, but already in the holiness of truth (Eph. 4:24) and marks sanctification with the completion of Christian growth to the measure of the fullness of Christ 463. It is undoubtedly all created by faith. By it a person is justified in redemption, from it he continually borrows truth and remains in it unchangeably. So: through faith (διà πίστεως), from faith (ἐκ πίστεως) and in faith (ἐν πίστει) - this is the path of Christian justification according to the teaching of the Apostle of Gentiles (Gal. 2:16, 19). In this sense, through the Gospel, “the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith” εἰς πίστιν (Rom. 1:17) In connection with the stated views, this formula is an abbreviation of the entire Christian confession. It does not at all mean that faith passes through different stages and at each of them takes on a special character, which is why righteousness is not identical in quality or intensity. Such an idea is alien to the expression under consideration, and it asserts only what is subjective in the process. the assimilation of the blessings of Christ, justification is certainly indissoluble from faith. It is mediated by it in its very origin in us, it is nourished by it in its continuation, and without it it is impossible even for the shortest moment. For this reason, faith is the creative element and the sphere of the entire existence of Christian righteousness in people, and here every movement is closed within its limits - from faith to faith - without end or outcome. To put it briefly, righteousness does not exist apart from, outside and without faith, in which it is born, grows and strengthens. Thus, it is quite rightly put forward in the gospel of St. Paul's overriding importance of the element of faith. But it does not simply remove guilt, which is destroyed by death on the cross. The Calvary feat abolishes the oath, removes the burden of condemnation, and from this side has the legal effect of canceling the terrible sentence of the divine. However, in itself it does not save from the abyss of sinful destruction, and people would actually remain in their former perversity with the usual consequence of wandering in the darkness of alienation from God 464 . The latter has actually been stopped, because the disastrous system of the fall has actually been overthrown and replaced by a new order of pure relations of mutual love between worthy children and the benevolent Father. Therefore, faith leads a person to the real source of the Calvary sacrifice and bestows all its necessary fruits. Without this, it would be a dead and cold conviction of a theoretical recognition of a known truth, without giving actual results 465. Here St. Paul, no less than the Apostle James (James 2:14 ff.), rejected abstract rational faith and considered it downright impossible, since it must unite with Christ internally. And then this faith was imprinted with the authentic properties of the real righteousness of Christ and became justifying with all the factual certainty of natural regeneration by grace. To put it briefly, Christian righteousness is quite real and in this respect exactly corresponds to a curable disease, where the condemnation for sin turned out to be natural death 466. It was precisely this justification that Judaism sought 467; only it did not have a proper source for receiving, it recklessly turned the hope of the future into an eternal dogma and limited itself to the legal for the lack of reality. Without it, even in the Old Testament revelation, righteousness is depicted as more 468 legally imputative, 469 although this applies exclusively to the period of filial waiting. When it is considered in the light of the fulfillment of messianic hopes, it assimilates the moral energy of communicating a factually normal moral state 470. Through the ministry of Christ everything was achieved, and the Hellenic evangelist assimilates this to the believers in its entirety. Therefore, for him, both justification and righteousness are the greatest reality of possession and do not at all bear the legal features of the rabbinic understanding, which did not participate at all in the construction of the apostolic teaching 471. According to this, faith does not express a bare theoretical enrollment or a mathematical repayment of minuses with pluses; it imputes to us the righteousness of Christ as an inalienable personal property 472 upon the reception of the promise of the Spirit (Gal. 3:14) 473 . But justification is the same always and everywhere, because it comes only from Christ, and the means to obtain it lies in faith, which in turn must be identical for all the redeemed. Here, it is worthy of special attention and reminder that the observation that in essentials the Christian faith is characterized equally in all New Testament writings 474 is inevitable and fundamental, because no one could create equal righteousness with a different basis for it in faith. Recovering from the positions formulated by criticism, we come to the completely opposite conclusion that Christian justification in St. Paul there is, of course, the real benefit of liberation from the curse of condemnation and the gift of internal renewal of all nature by inheriting the promise of God in the Son. This apostolic understanding is completely contrary to the Pharisees, which is why it does not coincide with the latter in revealing further relationships. In Judaism they rested on the legal theory of deliverance and were themselves only legal. Here, for the sake of the final sum of Israeli virtues, Jehovah forgot about private figures and treated all the descendants of Abraham as blameless, since they were in a chosen union and naturally enjoyed the national capital of merit, which accumulated and gradually increased in interest. There are some attempts at a similar interpretation of the apostolic teaching in a sense similar to the rabbinic view 475, where “the subject of all righteousness was the people” 476. It is known that A. Ritschl gained fame as the founder of an entire school with his special judgment on this subject. He argued that Christian redemption marks the gathering of the saved, and the individual achieves it only through affiliation and membership. Therefore, holiness is commented on in Jewish terms as communion with the ideal brotherhood of saints 477 and does not exist individually apart from joining it 478 . In this case, the idea of ​​righteousness merges with the kingdom of God 479, and in its analysis 480 is the closest path to resolving the issue, since “this concept (supposedly) belongs to the Judeo-Israelite foundations of Pavlov’s teaching” 481. But βασιλεία marks the actual system, where the will of the owner absolutely, unhindered and completely dominates. This is God for us - the owner of the kingdom of grace and its unlimited ruler in all functions. For this reason, when one speaks with dogmatic rigor about the content of God’s truth in people, with all its properties of the real identity of norms, God is active in them, both willing and deeding in good will (Phil. 2:13), not delayed in its discovery 482. In this form, ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ was precisely embodied in the Lord Christ, because in him the human will, without being absorbed by the divine will to the point of disappearing, was in complete agreement with the divine, which was expressed unconditionally in that will. In the glorified Savior, the Kingdom of God was a living reality 483, but it has not yet been established throughout the world and for him remains ideal, serving as the goal of Christian blessing 484. In fact, the Kingdom of God is narrowing from the quantitative side, for not everyone is delivered, and the power of God does not triumph everywhere, but only in a certain circle of Christian influence. Likewise, it is limited qualitatively, because believers are not free from falls, they strive for salvation, with an effort of tension they remain at the height of their calling 485 and for this reason alone they constrain the supreme dominion, although in principle it is the law of their existence. During the period of our earthly pilgrimage, the Kingdom of God is truly unique in Christ Jesus and coincides with the Kingdom of Christ 486. For its true implementation among people, it is required that each member is essentially and always unshakable in goodness with the full contact of his divine life to that inviolability that is undoubted for the Redeemer. And the will of the Father reigns in him, and with the achievement of human co-kingdom, He will submit to the Submissive One through replacing His headship with the Fatherly, because then God will be all in all (1 Cor. 15:28). From here, the Kingdom of God will become real for believers, but this will happen at the end - in the Kingdom of God and the Father (1 Cor. 15:24). From what has been said, it follows that the concept of the Kingdom of God does not exhaust the entire wealth of God’s truth if it is considered in the sense of the justification of people. It is indisputable that the first contains all the abundance of goods, and, nevertheless, they are still valid in Christ alone and for a person they are only assimilated. Therefore, in fact, the idea of ​​​​a society of the saved is still simply a real possibility and is insufficient to justify personal justification. It is in it that it itself is fixed by people and in this sense should be recognized as derivative. Thus, again, the tendentious hypotheses of both school theological understanding and the genetic rapprochement of the apostolic gospel with the formulas of rabbinic theology are categorically eliminated. She remains on the eve of the contemplation of St. Paul, who himself sought and provided others with his own individual salvation in trembling fear that Christ would be a servant of sin if we turned out to be sinners in our quest for justification (Gal. 2:17). It is clear that Ritschl's interpretation, which opens up space for a comparison of apostolic teaching with rabbinic schemes, does not touch upon the subject of man's personal righteousness. This is a very special issue that requires special consideration. It is clearly outlined by our previous considerations. In them we found that justification is achieved by faith, but under the indispensable condition that it is filled with the content of the Calvary sacrifice. The latter was both the deed and the acquisition of the Messiah-Christ and therefore belongs to Him undividedly. It is necessary that all her gifts are received by people through Him and from Him, and for this it is necessary to be in an indissoluble union with Him. Then, uniting with the Lord, we assimilate all His prerogatives, which were crowned in him and expressed in His sonship to God. From this side, the ultimate goal of the sending of the Son of God was that - after the redemption of those under the law - we would receive "childhood" (Gal. 4:4-5) This quality in the Savior was rooted in nature itself and was inseparable from it, which is why it can be real in believers. This means that this term in the mouth of the Apostle does not at all have the legal character of “adoption” as opposed to “alienation”, formulated by Roman law 487 . He notes no less and no more than that our sonship with God is not direct and is mediated by the Deliverer (Eph. 1:5) Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ εἰς αὐτόν), in which it has always been a natural quality. Therefore St. Paul further directly states that Christians are sons, and their entire confession is concentrated in the prayerful exclamations of the Spirit: Abba, Father (Gal. 4:6; Rom. 8:15). It serves as living evidence of the actual order and for this reason alone is a symbol of the Christian confession, just as the Lord’s Prayer primarily captures that now God is truly our Father and, moreover, ours by virtue of our true sonship to Him 488 . The cardinal difference between grace-filled relationships comes down, first of all, to the “spirit of sonship,” which rewards us with the privileges of heirs of God (Rom. 8:15–17). However, this dignity is achieved by everyone “through Jesus Christ” (Gal.4:7) and is impossible without internal communication with Him individually. There is no doubt from this that, from a fundamentally logical point of view, believers are sanctified not by entering the Kingdom of God, but through union with the Son of God. In it they receive His perfection of the absolute dominion of the will of God and through this possession they find themselves fellow citizens of Christ 489 . Such an order is inevitable for every believer, and all of them are justified only in the Lord the Savior. He, being the basis and source of deliverance, at the same time is also the constant center of the merging of people, since without Him they can acquire neither justification nor the promised benefits. Everything here flows from Christ and everything in him is “headed” in the closest fusion of all the regenerated. Then, naturally, the desired harmony of compliance with the commands of God is established in them, and they become real bearers of the Kingdom of God through their participation in the Kingdom of Christ, which is revealed on earth in fact in the Church of Christ 490. It does not coincide with it both intensively and extensively and is only a moment 491 of its implementation 492, preparing for complete glorification in the Kingdom of God and the Father 493. Consequently, in our salvation the idea of ​​the Church will be to a certain extent secondary, since it already indicates its further result in the actual blessing of many through the Redeemer. He brings us truth and sanctification and penetrates every believer with equal energy. A Christian is only the recipient and organ of its action, which is the same in everyone. The necessary outcome is self-evident, and it is enough just to state it. All Christians are united in the Lord and are united in Him to the point of inseparability by the power of the incarnation of His spirit. In this sense, they do not form an external union, but constitute an organic whole, where in the different positions of the individual members the common functioning element of the grace of Christ is revealed 494. It is not surprising that the Apostle of the Gentiles so often and definitely calls the Church the body of Christ (Rom. 7:5; Eph. 1:22–23, 4:12, 5:23; Col. 1:18, 24). But it is not outside the believers and not independent of them, which is why it does not in the least express its objective presence apart from individuals who would be grafted onto it as given in advance 495. On the contrary, they themselves form a living church of a spiritualized organism, because they are united in Christ to the point of indissolubility. The name of the body of Christ is the most accurate analogical characteristic of the actual structure of the Church, which embraces the entire community of those being saved, both by its historical origin and by the nature of its internal development. Christians are in an organic relationship with each other, and it only marks their actual combination. It is undeniable that the latter must have a special reason for its real quality and finds it in sonship to God, when we become brothers in the Son of God with identical properties of freedom. In this case, the concept of the body of Christ is precisely covered by Christian brotherhood, and in turn will capture a new and derivative moment of grace-filled salvation. And again it is obvious that it fundamentally arises in us not through inclusion in the kingdom of Christ in the Church, because in the world it itself actually exists after the individual sanctification of many 496 . In the light of these dogmatic axioms of the gospel of St. Paul receives full meaning and that indisputable formula of Christian teaching that “outside the Church there is no salvation.” She actually explains that it is impossible to be justified without merging with all the “saints,” since here it is necessary that everyone organically unite in Christ in advance 497. Therefore, being outside the church would certify the fictitiousness of the self-assumed righteousness 498 or its actual absence with the person remaining in his former sinfulness 499 . In turn, the achievement of holiness in sonship with God is necessarily resolved by the real brotherhood of Christians in the organic articulation of the body of the Church 500. She is the guardian of the Gospel of Christ and leads to the knowledge of the Lord, and then in the sacraments and actually communicates with Him, when a person is an equal co-heir of the gifts of grace in the church union 501. In the end, here too, true belonging to the Church of Christ - not without its mediation - is conditioned by the personal communication of the believer with the divine Savior, which is why, given the current cosmic limitations, unworthy members and even ἐκκλησία πονηρευομένων are possible (Ps. 25:5). We have examined the process of justification by grace at its various stages and from all points of view, and everywhere it appears to us as individual. This is the deepest difference between Christian revelation and both the Old Testament and Jewish theology. From the beginning God provided for human salvation, but it was inaccessible to the perversity of the fallen descendants of Adam and, naturally, served only as an object of promise until it was fulfilled. In all severity, it was simply the hope of obtaining future benefits, 502 and in this case they should be known to those who seek the inheritance of God. In this form, it is entrusted to selected bearers for safekeeping and becomes the property of the entire divinely established union. Here the distant acquisition of this blessing was guaranteed solely by being numbered among the people of God, who owned its very deposit. Old Testament justification was necessarily built on the idea of ​​a sacred assembly, and all rights to it were held only by actual belonging to those who sought the consolation of Israel 503. Any other arrangement was impossible if during the waiting period the whole point was to secure hereditary prerogatives, which required blood ties that confirmed the legal privileges of each private individual. For this reason, with subordinate legislation, we find the triumph of nationalism, which limited the very scope of application of divine foretellings. It is clear, however, that this system served as a temporary moment of supreme care and was calculated for its historical abolition during its implementation. Judaism did not want to see or acknowledge such an inevitability and turned the pedagogical measure into a dogmatic norm. This was the deepest and most disastrous debasement of frank contemplation, since it was deprived of the vital force in the idea of ​​obligatory realization. Here the blessing was merely a theoretical member of a religious profession without any further desire except its sanction by the intervention of God to remove the obstacles to the dazzling radiance of the glory of Israel. Thus, the legal nature of the relationship to Jehovah on the part of those justified imputatively - through the imputation of national merits 504 - was forever consolidated. It goes without saying that there was no real righteousness being achieved here at all, for it was an intellectual abstraction. For actual action, the actual embodiment of the truth was required so that it could be perceived in direct borrowing. It is easy to see that this was unthinkable without an individual bearer of all the truth of God, because otherwise, while remaining the hope of many, it continues to maintain theoretical inaccessibility, and with him it will be his real property, which is gained by everyone in communication with the owner. Therefore St. Paul expresses energetically that the promised seed is unique in the strictest degree and coincides with Christ, since it was He who broke the oath and - as our Lord - acquired all the promised benefits 505. The gracious atonement was absolutely individual from an objective point of view, since it was accomplished by only one divine Deliverer. It is clear that it is the same for all people, for - by the very meaning of their salvation - they achieve it through assimilation to themselves in a living union with the Risen One. In Him is contained the fullness of wealth, which, being an individual prerogative, is personally appropriated by all. This method is fundamentally the same for every person, and no one is justified without fully applying it. In this, everyone is equal without the slightest limitation, why the influence of grace for everyone is determined by clinging to Christ in faith and in fact is not national, but worldwide. His inner divine immensity in the Son of God finds its exact correspondence in the very means of receiving, which is provided for everything undividedly. Christian salvation is universal, and this is because it is strictly personal, independent of racial, social and other characteristics that do not lie in human individuality. Therefore, the relationship of the blessed to God is alien to legal convention and is imprinted by the freedom of actual sonship. They are not created on the arithmetic calculation of the advantages of the chosen society according to the blood-religious connection with it and rest on direct unity with the Lord 506, which can be real or turns into fiction 507. In the first case, it automatically produces a union of the justified and integrates the believer into the organism of the body of Christ in the Church. As a result, we have that the Christian life of those being saved grows on individualistic soil, and the Apostle of tongues could not borrow materials for its dogmatic disclosure in the alien sphere of Jewish nationalism. This mutual difference presupposes a fundamental dissimilarity in the earlier understanding of justification itself. For rabbinism it was only legal, because it was carried out by imputation of the merits of Israel, but for St. Paul is portrayed as completely real, since it is drawn from the actual source of the embodiment of righteousness in Christ Jesus. It is clear that Pharisaism did not feel an irreducible need for messianic deliverance through the suffering and death of the Reconciler, since integrity was satisfactorily protected by the usual method of nomistic correctness 508 . At most, messianic sorrows were supposed to help increase national capital to cover the moral shortcomings of the Jews and had a purely legal dignity. On the contrary, the Hellenic evangelist asserted the absolute necessity of the Golgotha ​​sacrifice as the only means of atonement, for the actual order of alienation from God was changed only by its actual destruction after the complete discovery of the oath of condemnation. The latter was based on human sinfulness, which was criminal because it arose from the fight against God of free will. In this form, sin could not be a primordial and necessary property of human nature and essentially has nothing to do with materiality. Of course, it is predominantly expressed in carnality, but even here the volitional element is noticeable in the forcible enslavement of the spirit to its natural organ. Ἁμαρτία means spiritual and moral perversion caused by the fall of Adam and transmitted hereditarily with all the perniciousness of individual imputation in death, which is why it cannot be eliminated without natural rebirth. Rabbinicism did not look for it, because it considered sinfulness to be inevitable and, in its materialistic view, was perhaps obliged to see in it a blessed instrument for achieving special religious success in the feat of tireless struggle. And from this side it is obvious that there were no barriers to the creation of one’s own righteousness, which in Jewish theology was dogmatically guaranteed to every Israeli. On the contrary, the Apostle of the tongues declared it absolutely unattainable by personal effort due to general natural and sinful weakness. Therefore, he found all salvation only in the divine deliverance of the incarnate Son of God, when Pharisaism theoretically did not introduce the messianic ideal itself into the symbol of its faith due to its fundamental uselessness in the logical structure of its legal system 509. She had all the data for her commitment to the inalienable prerogatives of the chosen union and, confining herself within its borders, she preached a national theocracy, while St. Paul, it directly transitioned into the unconditional universality of the equal grace of all by the divine Reconciliator and one Intercessor in Christ Jesus our Lord. Now it is absolutely scientifically irresistible that atonement and justification - along with other related subjects - are understood and revealed by the Hellenic evangelist not at all in the tone of rabbinic theology, and his views did not at all coincide with the apostolic ones either in the presentation of the factors themselves or in their theoretical justification. Even the Old Testament biblical teaching - due to its gloominess and economic adaptation - did not provide all the materials for understanding the salvation of Christ and was itself illuminated in all its clarity through its actual implementation. In this case, it is indisputable that this is the mystery of the will of God (Eph. 1:9), silent from time eternal (Rom. 14:24) and hidden from ages and generations (Col. 1:26), and from this side true knowledge belongs only to God and the Father and Christ (cf. Col. 2:2) - as its primary author and accomplisher. It is natural and necessary that the Apostle of the Gentiles, solely by revelation, was told this mystery (Eph.3:3), which later became the mystery of his gospel (Eph.6:19). But in reality it was revealed to the world in the mystery of Christ (Col. 4:3), and in his “pronunciation” each messenger always and invariably had to adhere to the most exact correspondence with the historical discovery of it in the Son of God. He was the only source of all wisdom and understanding (Eph. 1:8) for everyone, and in His gospel teaching and dogmatic formulation of the truths of the redemption and justification of St. Paul affirmed himself on the common ground of the apostolic tradition, because here no one can lay another foundation than the one who lies, which is Jesus Christ (1 Cor. 3:11). Christian Reading 1898 No. 4, pp. 471–516. Eugène de Faye, La théologie paulinienne et la théologie juive in “Revue de théologie et de philosophie” 1891, p. 460. Der israelitische Hintergrund in der Lehre des Apostels Paulus von der Gottesgerechtigkeit aus Glauben. Nebst einem neutestamentlichen Bedenken über alttestamentliche Schrift und Geschichte. Von Prof. Lic. Dr. Georg Schnedermann. Lpzg 1895. S.5 = “Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift” VI. Jahrgang. 8. Heft (Erlangen und Leipzig 1895), S. 653. In the future, many thoughts, judgments and instructions set out earlier are reproduced (for example, in the first treatise on p. 33 f. 68), but this is necessary and inevitable, because historical-genetic reconstructions of the apostolic teaching move in a vicious circle of the same concepts. Assuming what was previously disclosed is known, we limit ourselves here to additional data. Cp. Landmarks of New Testament Morality by the Rev. George Matheson (third edition, London), p. 39: “To the Jew the Law becomes the symbol of Divine communion, or rather the substitute for such communion.” It should also be noted that “der Glaube an den nomistischen Heilsweg ist zugleich der Nerv der Apokalyptik”: see y Doc. Eugen Ehrhard, Der Grundcharakter der Ethik Jesu, Freiburg i. B. und Lpzg 1895, S. 40. Prof. Heinrich Julius Holtzmann notes (Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie, erster Bd, Freiburg i. B. und Lpzg 1897, S. 63) that in later Judaism “aus dem Gnadenbund ist ein Pact geworden.” Wed. Ferd. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud = Judische Theologie, S. 4–5. Even in the Psalms of Solomon (Ps. 14:1) righteousness is characterized, first of all, as the fulfillment of the commandments, for it consists of ἐν δικαιοσύνη προσταγμάτων. See Ψαλμοι Σολομωντος. Psalms of the Pharisees, commonly called The Psalms of Solomon. The text newly revised from all the mss. edited, with introduction, English translation, notes, appendix, and indices by Prof. Herbert Edward Ryle and Lecturer Montague Rhodes James. Cambridge 1891. P. 110 et cf. XLIX. Prof. J. Wellhausen, Die Pharisaer und die Sadducaer, Greifswald 1874, pp. 157–158. Prof. Ad. Hilgenfeld, Messias Judaeorum, Lipsiae 1869, p. 18. O.Fr. Fritzsche, Libri Veteris Testamenti pseudepigraphi selecti, Lipsiae 1871, p. 15. Ψαλμοι Σολομωντος. Die Psalmen Salomo’s zum ersten Male mit Benutzung der Athoshandschriften und des Codex Casanatensis herausgegeben von Oscar con Gebhardt (= “Texte und Untersuchungen” XIII, 2), Lpzg 1895, S. 123. Psalms of Solomon with an appendix of the odes of Solomon, translated by Fr. prof. Archpriest A.V. Smirnova, Kazan, 1896, p. 82. A. Fr. Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils, zweite Abtheilung (Stuttgart 1838), S. 169: “Jedes gute Werk hat seinen besondern Lohn.” F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 47. 290 flg. = Jüdische Theologie, S. 48, 302 f. u. 409 zu 310. Sota 8 b y F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 235 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 244. Wed. also N. Pereferkovich: Talmud, its history and content. Part one. Mishna. St. Petersburg 1897., p. 120. M. Bazilevsky: Rabbi Yehuda Ganasi, compiler of the Mishnah, his life and work. Odessa 1894, p. 25. Prof. H.J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der neutestamentl. Theologie I, S. 64: “hat im Talmud jeder Mensch geradezu sein Conto im Himmel.” Prof. H.J. Holtzmann sees (ibid. I, S. 64) in Judaism “grellsten Formen eines rein kaufmännisch gestalteten religiösen Verhaltens.” Prof. Jules Bovon, Théologie du Nouveau Testament II, p. 184. See Schriften des Institutum Judaicum in Berlin Nr. 2: Einleitung in den Thalmud von Prof. Hermann L. Strack. Zweite, teilweise neubearbeitete Auflage, Lpzg 1894, S. 82, 91. N. Pereferkovich, Talmud I, p. 33. (Prof.) A. Schlatter, Der Glaube im Neuen Testament, Leiden 1885, S. 501. Hence the direct instructions in the sense that every Jew should take care of acquiring merit: see A. Fr. Gfrӧrer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils II, S. 175 flg. Similar thoughts are found in the Jewish apocrypha: see Die christliche Lehre von der Sünde. Eine Untersuchung zur systematischen Theologie von Privatdoc. Dr. Carl Clement. Erster Theil. Die biblische Lehre. Göttingen 1897. S. 106. For similar views in the apocalypse of Baruch, see John E.H. Thomson, Books which influenced our Lord and His Apostles: being a critical Review of apocalyptic jewish Literature. Edinburgh 1891. P. 259. Cp. Die Bücher Exodus und Leviticus für die zweite Auflage nach Dr. August Knobel neu bearbeitet von Prof. Dr. August Dillmann, Lpzg 1880, S. 211. According to rabbinic legends, Israel constitutes the family of the king-God and was dedicated to Him even before the creation of the world: see S. Schechter, The Rabbinical Conception of Holiness in The Jewish Quarterly Review Vol. X. No. 37 (October, 1897), p. 1–2, and cf. F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 282 flg. = Jüdische Theologie, S. 294 flg.; Michel Nicolas, Des doctrines religieuses des Juifs, Paris 1967, p. 412. See Alfred Edersheim. The Life and Times of Jesus the Messiah I (London 1884), p. 86. Let us remember that in Philo “the righteous serve as the guardian of the human race”; see prof. M.D. Muretova Philosophy of Philo of Alexandria (Moscow 1885), pp. 171–172, Prof. Carl Siegfried, Philo von Alexandrien (Jena 1875), S. 154, and James Drummond, Philo Judaeus; or, The Jewish-Alexandrian Philosophy in its Development and Completion. Vol. II, London 1888. P. 239. F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 280 flg. 285 flg. = Jüdische Theologie, S. 292 flg. 297 flg. Wed. also from F. Weber. Jüdische Theologie, S. 409 (zu 296) Pesachim 49 b, that one must sacrifice everything in order to marry the daughter of the high priest; if this is not possible, then on the daughter of generally pious parents: the head of the synagogue, the head of the distribution of alms, a teacher, etc. A.Fr. Gfrӧrer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils II, S. 163–164. Dr. Aug. Wünsche, Die Leiden des Messias in ihrer Zusammenhang mit der Lehre des Alten Testaments und den Aussprüchen der Rabbinen in den Talmuden, Midraschim und andern alten rabbinischen Schriften, Lprg 1870, S. 79. Studies in Judaism by S. Schechter, London 1896, p. 191 (The Dogmas of Judaism). Cp. F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 313, 375 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 326, 393. F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 53. 382–383 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 54 (“es ist jeder [Israelit] heilig, sofern jeder Mizwoth hat”). 401 (“… und zwar hat jeder Israelit als solcher Anwartschaft an den חבא עוֺלם [die zukünftige Welt], es sei denn, dass er seine Eigenschaftals Israelit durch Abfall verloren hätte”) Therefore J. Wellhausen rightly says (Israelitische und jüdische Geschichte, dritte Ausgabe, Lpzg 1897, S. 376) about the Pharisees that “sie wollten nicht Gutes thun, sondern sich vor Sünde hüten.” A. Schlatter, Der Glaube im N. T., S. 36, 42–43. A.Fr. Gfrӧrer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils II, S. 159 flg. Prof. H.J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der neutestamentlichen Theologie, zweiter Bd, Freiburg i. B. und Lpzg 1897, S. 133. A. Schlatter, Der Glaube im N. T., S. 45. A. Schlatter, ibid., pp. 490–491. A.Fr. Gfrӧrer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils II, S. 142 flg. A.Fr. Gfrӧrer, ibid. II, S. 165. Cp. S. Schechter, The Law and Recent Criticism in Studies in Judaism, p. 289: a woman extinguished (at the fall of her ancestors) the “light of the world” and must atone for this guilt by lighting candles on Saturdays. A.Fr. Gfrӧrer; Das Jahrhundert des Heils II, S. 139 flg. A.Fr. Gfrӧrer ibid. II, S. 136 flg. Oehler † (υ. Orelli), Art. "Messias" in "Real-Encyklopadie" von Herzog-Hauck IX (Lpzg 1881), S. 670. F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 7, 273 flg = Jüdische Theologie. S. 7, 285 flg. On the meaning of alms according to Rosch Haschana, see Prof. J. Rendel Harris, The Teaching of the Apostles (Διδαχη των Αποστολων) newly edited, with Facsimile and Commentary,.. from the MS. of the Holy Sepulchre, Baltimore – London 1887, p. 66. On the various forms of propitiation - according to Jewish concepts - cf. also William Sanday – Arthur C. Headlam, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh 1895), p. 88. A.Fr. Gfrӧrer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils II, S. 154 flg. A.Fr. Gfrӧrer ibid. II, S. 152 flg, Cp. F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud. S. 252 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 261–262. See for more details F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 308 flg. 311 f. 313 f. = Jüdische Theologie, S. 321 f. 324 f. 326 f. Alfred Edevsheim, History of the Jewish Nation, p. 301: “In general, it was thought that punishment and rewards stood in exact correspondence with man’s actions.” Dr. J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopadie des Judenthums, Abtheilung III, Supplement III (Lpzg 1896), S. 34: “The righteous man with whom everything goes well is a true righteous man, and the sinner with whom everything goes badly is a real sinner. On the contrary, a prosperous sinner is not a true sinner, and a righteous man in need is not a true righteous man.” Prof. Frz Delitzsch, Paulus des Apostels Brief an die Römer, Lpzg 1870, S. 75 (zu I, 24). C.G. Montefiore, The Doctrine of Divine Retribution: in the Old Testament in The Jewish Quarterly Review Vol. III, No. 9 (October, 1890), p. 7, – in the Rabbinical Literature by S. Schechter ibid., p. 34, and in Studies in Judaism, p. 260. F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 48, 237 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 49, 245. J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopӓdie des Judenthums III, 3, S. 33. See also footnote No. 58: “J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopӓdie III...” S. Schechter in The Jewish Quarterly Review III, 9, p. 35. 37, and in Studies in Judaism, p. 261. 263–264. Of course, there is no small internal contradiction in rabbinical views, but Jewish scholars console and gratify themselves with the words of “the great writer, that the best theology is that which is not consistent, and this advantage the theology of the Synagogue possesses to its utmost extend” (S. Schechter ibid., p. 50 = 280). S. Schechter in The Jewish Quarterly Review III, 9, p. 39–40, and in Studies in Judaism, p. 266–267. In Taanith bab. 11 b (in A. Fr. Gfrӧrer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils II, S. 171) it says: “Quemadmodum in seculo future piis rependitur praemium boni operis etiam levissimi, quod perpetrarunt: ita in seculo hoc rependitur impiis praemium cujusque levissimi boni operas." Wed. A.Fr. Gfrӧrer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils II, S. 171 flg. 186 f. Frz Delitzsch, Brief an die Römerr, S. 87 (zu VIII, 18). Schriften des Institutum Judaicum in Berlin Nr. 4: Der leidende und der sterbende Messias der Synogoge im ersten nachchristlichen Jahrtausend von Prof, Dr. Gustaf H. Dalman, Berlin 1888, S. 46, 82. Cp. Prof. D. Chuolson, Das letzte Passamahl Christi und der Tag Seines Todes, St. Petersburg 1892, S. 130 a–b. Aug. Wunsche, Die Leiden des Messias, S. 22–23. A. Edersheim, History of the Jewish Nation, p. 319: "R. Yehuda (editor of the Mishnah) suffered from illness for 12 years because he denied the calf the protection it sought at his feet, but for a corresponding act of love he was restored (cf. M. Bazilevsky Rabbi Yehuda Ganasi, pp. 34–35:38). It is remarkable that during the entire period of suffering R. Lazarus, all people reached venerable old age, and during the illness of R. Yehuda’s water sources did not dry up - such is the power of the suffering of the pious righteous, for whose sake alone God created the world!” See also F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 314 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 327–328; Schriften des Institutum Judaicum in Berlin Nr. 13: Jesaja 53 das Propheten wort vom Sühnleiden des Heilsmittlers mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der synagogalen Litteratur erortert von D. Gustaf H. Dalman, zweite Ausgabe, Berlin 1891, S. 17, and his Der leidende und der sterbende Messias, S. 37; Hermeneutik der neutestamentlichen Schriftsteller von Dr. Johann Christian Carl Dopke, erster Theil, Lpzg 1829, S. 160. Cp. Also tract. I, approx. 87 on page 46. Wed. A.Fr. Gfrӧrer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils II, S. 187. F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 311 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 325. S. Schechter in The Jewish Quarterly Review III, 9, p. 43, and in Studies in Judaism, p. 272. S. Schechter, ibid., p. 44=274: “he exclaimed, ‘I am a ransom for the Jews,’ which means that he accepted all sins in order to suffer for them.” Cf. J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopӓdie des Judenthums II, S. 527. He says: “Abraham, by his merits, could redeem the whole world from his time to mine, but I want to redeem him until the end of the age; if this is difficult for me alone, then I will invite Ahijah the Shilomite, and together we will redeem the whole world” (cf. F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 313–314 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 327; A. Edersheim, History of the Jewish Nation, p. 437). According to A. Fr. Gfrӧrer'a (Das Jahrhundert des Heils II, S. 181), a similar view “schnurstracks aus der jüdischen Lehre von Lohn guter Werke folgt”. S. Schechter in The Jewish Quarterly Review III, 9, p. 44–45, and in Studies in Judaism, p. 273. Wed. Aug. Wünsche, Die Leiden des Messias, S. 21–22. A.Fr. Gfrӧrer calls it (Das Jahrhundert des Heils II, S. 187) “kaufmännische Abrechnung”. F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud. S. 266, 310 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 276 (“der Zorn Gottes… durch die Zerstörung Jerusalems sich ein Genüge that”). 323–324 (“die Zerstörung Jerusalems gereiche Israel zur Freude, insofern es an dem Tage, da das Heiligtum zerstört ward, eine Quittung über seine Sünden, und zwar eine grosse „Hauptquittung” erhalten habe”). S. Schechter, Srudies in Judaism, p. 189: “The evil inclination to the worship of idols was, as the Talmud expresses it allegorically, killed by the Men of the Great Synagogue, or, as we should put it, it was suppressed by sufferings of the captivity in Babylon.” J.Chr. C. Dӧpke, Hermeneutik der neutestamentl. Schriftsteller I, S. 16, 149, 165. The forty-year wandering was also so that the Israelites could study the Torah more easily and better (F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 28 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 29). See Adolph Frank's sketch of "The Pharisees" in the magazine "Voskhod", 1896, IX, pp. 83-84. Jost consoles himself with the fact that the Mishna is “our fatherland”, rewarding the loss of the promised land with all its shrines (see [Prof.] W. H. Bennett, The Mishna as illustrating the Gospels, Cambridge 1884, p. 2), since “the unity of God rests only on the possession and use of the Torah, and not on worship; where even two have gathered to study it, God is with them” (Prof. O. Pflciderer, Das Urchristentum, S. 164), - and with such the Shekinah is inseparable (W.H. Bennett ibid., p. 82); The Torah is the only way of salvation, and its study is higher than prayer and even any sacrifice, because the latter provide only temporary life, eternal life is also acquired there (F. Weber, Die Lehre des Talmud, S. 21, 24, 39, 42, 46 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 21, 24, 40, 42:47). In Midrasch Levit. Rabba sect. 7 says: “If you study the Mishnah diligently, it is as if you were making a sacrifice” (H.L. Strack, Einleitung in den Thalmud, S. 62), and Berachoth 17a says: “Rab Sheshet (a third-generation Babylonian Amorai) during fasting after the usual prayers used to exclaim: “Master of the world! It was revealed before You that when the holy house (church) stood, the sinner made a sacrifice, and only the fat and blood were his propitiation. Now I fast and drain my fat and my blood: may it be Your pleasure to receive such a drain of my fat and blood as if it were an offering on Your altar” (J. Rendel Harris, The Teaching of the Apostles, p. 88). Therefore now “a Synagogue can exist not only without priests, but also without sacrifices for which prayer and charity are a sufficiently substitution” (S. Schechter, Studies in Judaism, p. 229. Cp. F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 157 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 162. Oehler † (r. Orelli) in “Real-Encyklopӓdie” von Herzog-Hauck IX, S. 670, and historical sketch by M. Bazilevsky Bar-Kokhba, Odessa 1897, p. 4). R. Joseph (at the end of the 1st century) thought that “God sent Israel to the nations into captivity so that he would multiply through proselytes” (J. Hamburger Real-Encyclopӓdie des Judenthums III, 3, S. 17), and R. Joseph ben-Ki(o)sma in the Roman enslavement “saw the predestination of God” (J. Hamburger ibid. III, 3, S. 38 and compare below to footnote No. 360: “J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopadie des Judenthums II, S. 736...” See also F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 76 flg. 59 f. = Jüdische Theologie, S. 78 f. J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopӓdie III, 2, S. 87; F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 240 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 242, and see footnote no. 42: “C.G. Montefiore, The Doctrine of Divine..." Cp. Prof. J.A. Eisenmenger, Entdecktes Judenthum II (Königsberg 1711), S. 283 flg. A.Fr. Gfrӧrer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils II, S. 187: “Als das grӧsste Leiden betrachteten nun die Juden Tod, namentlich gewaltsamer, galt daher als Versӧhnungsmittel aller Sünden.” Talmud, Moed Katon 28a; Maccoth 11b, Succoth 59a and Tanchuma Achare moth 7: “Der Tod der Gerechten versöhnt” oder “siihnt” (G.H. Dalman, Jesaja 53 das Prophetenwort vom Sühnleiden, S. 19. Aug. Wünsche, Die Leiden des Messias, S. 20. F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 314 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 328). R. Simon ben Jochai argued that “he who buries his sons (abducted by death) receives forgiveness of sins.” See J. Ckr. C. Dӧpke, Hermeneutik I, S. 155, and F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 224 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 232. Sifre 33a: “Alle Todten werden durch den Tod versöhnt”; Berachoth 60a: “Der Tod sei eine Sühne für alle meine Sünden” (F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 311 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 324). Therefore Sanhedrin VIII, 5 says (in W. H. Bennett, The Mishna, p. 89) that “the death of the wicked is pleasant both for them and for the world, but the death of the righteous is evil both for them and for the world.” Wed. F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud = Jüdische Theologie, S. 52, that not a single Israelite will perish, that God, forgetting the bad, firmly remembers all and all good deeds (ibid., S. 53), why mercy always reigns, which does not mean love, but only the suspension of judgment (ibid., S. 149 = 154). So “the Israelite lives by the law, but does not die through it”: p. Ishmael in J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopӓdie des Judenthums II, S. 528. It is remarkable that “according to a strictly rabbinic view, even divine revelation had no other purpose, in fact, than to put man in such a state through the knowledge of the law, that through due performance he would acquire the right to a reward from God and through the righteousness of his deeds could best settle his accounts with heaven” (O. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristenthum, S. 164). Cp. H.J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der neutestamentl. Theologie I, S. 56: “In moral terms, rabbinic doctrine not only allowed for the abstract possibility of sinlessness, but according to it there actually were individual sinless individuals (the rabbis had patriarchs) and even more relatively righteous ones, whose sins were easy to count (for example, Moses had only six of them).” A.Fr. Gfrӧrer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils II, S. 180 formulates Jewish teaching in the sense that there are people whose good deeds far exceed the norm. Even the late prof. Fvz Delitzsch thought (The Hebrew New Testament of the British and Foreign Bible Society. A Contribution to the Hebrew Philology. Lpzg 1883) that “the New Testament is the great product of the Jewish genius” (p. 6) and is the “new Torah” (p. 31), why an accurate translation of it into Hebrew will be possible only when it is accepted by the reborn Israel (p. 29–31), which turns out to be correct “his interpreter and apostle” (p. 34); and W.H. Bennett even went so far as to make this concession: “When we read in the ancient Christian writers of Jewish manners and customs for the sake of illustrations of the New Testament, we are sometimes ready to suspect that these illustrations were invented or altered for predetermined purposes, but such a suspicion is impossible in the case of Jewish books handed down by the Jews” (The Mishna, p. 25). Regarding all these and other similarities, sometimes bordering on the idea that all Christianity is contained in the Talmud, one must always and firmly remember the impartial warning of J. Wellhausen (Die israelitische und jüdische Geschichte, S. 384, Amn. 1): “Ja, alles und noch viel mehr! Πλέον ἥμισυ παντός.” No less true is the remark of Rev. Geprge Matheson, that the identification of Judaism and Christianity is actually an optical illusion - like how a simple eye sees a continuous luminous mass in the sky, while a telescope decomposes it into many parts separated by enormous distances; likewise “the two systems (= Judaism and Christianity), which to the distant gaze seemed to constitute one doctrine and one life, are seen in their immediate prospect to be animated by mutual antagonisms”: Landmarks of New Testament Morality, p. 26–27. Wed. in Treatise I on pp. 17, 22, 32 (to note 39, 49:64) and Prof. E. Schürer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes im Zeitalter Jesu Christi II (Lpzg 1886), S. 456, 463. H.J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der neutestamentl. Theologie I, S. 85. S. Schechter in The Jewich Quarterly Review III, 9, p. 43, and in Studies in Judaism, p. 271. Eug. de Faye, Les Apocalypses juives, p. 112. Cp. G.H. Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias, S. 69. This is also true in another respect, since there is also “the shield which was never far distant from the consciousness of Jew, – tenderness and compassion of God (but see footnote No. 64: “Cf. F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud...”). Recalling these, he (the Jew) felt no need of an atoning mediator or a superhuman sacrifice; the agonies of Paul’s doubts and difficulties could have been swept away by the mere recitation of the 103rd Psalm”… Then: “Many before Paul may have felt the conflict between duty and desire, but they will also have felt that God was with them in their struggle to fulfill his Law.” “The Jewish liturgy and the Midrashic literature make me shrewdly suspect that on the question of sin and forgiveness, the theology of the Rabbis extended little beyond that of the.” 103rd psalm, though united, with unobserved and sometimes painfully inconsistency, to the far less spiritual teaching of the annual Day of Atonement. No man was sinless: but it was God’s métier to forgive sins. In this simple way and with this simple belief, you could live a life of peace and communion with God in spite of earthly failings and occasional wrongdoing, and after death you could secure your share of life eternal." Montefiore, First Impressions of Paul in The Jewish Quarterly Review VI, 23 (April, 1894), pp. 440-441. G.H. Dalman, Jesaja 53, S. 18. A. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus I, p. 84. The whole world stands by the merits of Abraham: see G.H. Dalman, Jesaja 53, S. 29. Cp. F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 313 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 327. On the means and methods of propitiation, see also F. Weber ibid., S. 301 flg, 303 f. 316 f. = Jüdische Theologie, 314 f. 316 f. 330 f. See tract. II, ch. 3, pp. 249–250 to approx. 79–82. About Hillel cf. also G.H. Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias, S. 24, and S. Schechter in Studies in Judaesm, p. 216, and about Joseph Albo (about 1380–† 1444) - G.H. Dalman in “Realencyklopӓdie für protestantische Theologie und Kirche”, in dritter Auflage herausgegeben von Prof. D. Albert Hauck, erster Bd (Lpzg 1896), S. 303; F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. XXXI = Jüdische Theologie, S. XXXVI. J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopӓdie des Judenthums I, S. 750: “Israel does not need the doctrine of the Messiah; his work is to gather the scattered and teach the nations, because it is said (in Is. 2:1-5): the Gentiles will follow him.” Cp. Schnedermann at Prof. G.H. Schodde in "The Bibliotheca Sacra" No. CXCVIII (April, 1893), p. 212: “in Judaism the Messiah did not have a controlling significance with the dignity of an extraordinary divine messenger, but was regarded only as a servant of the people of God.” J.Chr. C. Dӧpke, Hermeneutik I, S. 164. A. Fr. Gfrӧrer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils II, S. 153 flg. Oehler † (r. Orelli) in Real-Encyklopӓdie von Herzog-Hauck IX, S. 665, F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 333–334 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 348. J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopӓdie des Judenthums II, S. 167, 519. F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 334 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 349. J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopӓdie II, S. 486. Chr. Schoettgenii Horae hebraicae et talmudicae II, p. 534 = Jesus der wahre Messias, aus der alten and reinen jüdischen Theologie dargethan und erläutert, Lpzg 1748, S. 750. J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopӓdie des Judenthums I, S. 329. Chr. Schoettgenii Horae hebraicae et talmudicae II, p. 969. J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopadie II, S. 523. The very delay in the coming of the Messiah occurs so that for their patience and long wait the Jews will receive an even greater reward: F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 335 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 350. Chr. Schoettgenii Horae hebraicae et talmudicae II, p. 969. Aug. Wünsche. Die Leiden des Messias, S. 70. Chr. Schoettgenii Horae II, p. 963 = Jesus der wahre Messias, S. 734, F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 334 = Judische Theologie, S. 349. Brooke Foss Westcott, An Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, London 1888, p. 143. Cp. Treatise I, p. 48 to note. 97. F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud. S. 334 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 348. Oehler †(v. Orelli) in Real-Encyklopӓdie IX, S. 665. A. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus I, p. 169. S. Schechter, The History of Jewish Tradition in Studies in Judaism, p. 245: According to Jewish tradition, “in the days of the Messiah, Israel again received its national independence.” Wed. J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopadie des Judenthums III, 3, S. 17. Prof. E. Schürer, Die Predigt Jesu Christi in ihrem Verhaltniss zum Alten Testament und zum Judenthum. Darmstadt 1882, S. 9. N. Pereferkovich, Talmud I, p. 80. Similar views are expressed in the apocryphal Jewish monuments, which depict only “a theocracy dominating the world, having its center in Jerusalem and embodied in the chosen people, exalted to absolute dominance. The chimera of political greatness made one forget or even despise all expectations of a less earthly character” (Eug. de Faye, Les Apocalypses juives, p. 74). Thus, in the Psalms of Solomon, it is said that the Messiah will overthrow the dominion of the heathen, crush wicked rulers and drive out arrogant sinners from the inheritance of God, and then establish the worldwide kingdom of Israel on the foundation of wisdom and justice: see H. Ed. Ryle and M.R. James, Psalms of the Pharisees, p. LIII. LVII. Of course, there were opposite judgments: J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopӓdie des Judenthums III, 2. S. 25. F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 363 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 380. J. Hamburger, Real-Encyklopadie des Judenthums I, S. 750 Oehler (r. Orelli) in “Real-Encyclopӓdie” von Herzog-Hauck IX, S. 664. Prof, Frz Delitzch, Ein Tag in Kapernaum, Lpzg 1886, S. 108, 150. Doc. Eug, Ehrhard, Der Grundcharakter der Ethic Jesu, S. 27. J.Chr. C. Dӧpke, Hermeneutik I, S. 153. Eug, de Faye, Les Apocalypses juives, p. 32. A Study of St. Paul: his Character and his Opinions. By S. Baring-Gould. London 1897. P. 99. F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 364 flg. = Jüdische Theologie, S. 382 flg. G.H. Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias, S. 69. J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopӓdie des Judenthums I, S. 329; III, 2, S. 47, 60 and cp. II, S. 519, 743. J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopӓdie II, S. 738. J.H. Schwarz, Geschichtliche Entwickelung der messianischen Idee des Judenthums, S. 98. This situation is vainly and incorrectly smoothed over by prof. Oscar Holtzmann, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte, Freiburg i. B. und Lpzg 1895, pp. 243–244. See Adolf Frank in the magazine "Voskhod" 1896, IX, p. 83. Cp. Thèse par J. Henri Dangler, Examen des citations messianiques de l'Ancien Testament dans le Nouveau, Strasbourg 1851, p. 3–4. 15 that in Judaism messianic concepts were “enriched” with materialistic elements and imbued with political tendencies. Therefore it is truly said of the Jewish messianic expectations that their “das Ziel ein eudemonischer war”: H.J. Holtzmann Lehrbuch der neutestamentl. Theologie I, S. 29. Prof. A. Sabatier, L'Apotre Paul, Paris 1881, p. 53. Privatdoc. Hermann Gunkel, Die Wirkungen des Heiligen Geistes, Göttingen 1888, S. 107: “wenn irgendwo, so wird Paulus in seinen anthropologischen Ausdrucken und Anschauungen den zeitgenössischen Vorstellungen folgen.” Orello Cone, the Gospel and its Earliest Interpretations, New York 1894, p. 171. O. Cone op. cit., p. 173. Prof. A. Immer, Neutestamentliche Theologie. Bern 1883, S. 256. Eng. De Fayc in “Revue de théologie et de philosophie” 1891, p. 462: “Ce n’est pas dans l’Ancien Testament que la pensée de saint Paul plouge ses racines, du moins par le côté de sa notion du péché.., mais dans la théologie juive” or (p. 467) “dans les conceptions courantes de théologie juive.” Benjamin Jowett, The Epistles of St. Paul II, p. 312. Alfred Sceberg, Die Heilsbedeutung des Todes Christi im Hebräerbrief, Jurjew 1895, S. 82 thesis 9. Cp. Wilhelm Karl, Beitrӓge zum Verstӓndnis der soteriologischen Erfahrungen und Spekulationen des Apostels Paulus, S. 63, as if “die paulinische Lehre vom Menschen ist… die des populären Bewusstseins bis auf diesen Tag.” Der Christ und die Sünde bei Paulus von Lic, theol. Paul Wernle, Freiburg i, B. und Lpzg 1897, S. 138, 125. Prof. August Kayser, Die Theologie des Alten Testaments, Strassburg 1888, S. 232. Prof. I. A. Olesnitsky. From Talmudic mythology in the journal “Proceedings of the Kiev Spiritual Academy” 1870, I, p. 189. Prof. I.A. Olesnitsky in “Trud. Kievsk. Spirit. Academy" 1870, III, p. 314. See J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopӓdie des Judenthums III, 3, S. 24–26. F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 204. 208 flg. 220 f. = Jüdische Theologie, S. 211, 215 f. 228 f. J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopӓdie II, S. 1231. A. Edersheim, History of the Jewish Nation, p. 433. F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 214 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 222. We don't think with Wilh. Karl (Beiträge), as if “die Jezerlehre des Talmud muss einer späteren Zeit entstammen” (S. 62), since “das schriftstellernde Judenthum zur Zeit des ersten christlichen Jahrhunderts von der rabbinischen Jezerlehre nichts weiss” (S. 61). Of course, this teaching was not universal and dogmatically indisputable for everyone, but it has its foundations in the fundamental theological premises of Judaism. Prof. Hermann Schultz, Alttestamentliche Theologie, Göttingen 1889, S. 643. In this sense, one must also understand the rabbinical testimonies (in A. Fr. Gfrӧrer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils II, S. 128 flg.) about the purity and innocence of the ancestors. It is also characteristic of the Jewish opinion that "God decided to create such a person who would be a combination of angel and beast, so that he would have the ability to follow good or evil desire": see S. Schechter, The Child in the Jewish Literature in Studies in Judaism, p. 347. A. Kayser, Die Theologie des A.T., S. 124, 202. A. Kaiser, Die Theologie des A.T., S. 125. So in the fourth book of Ezra (4:30; in the Russian Slavic translation of the Bible 3 Ezra 4:30) it is said about granum seminis mali seminatum in corde Adam ab inito (A. Hilgenfeld, Messias Judaeorum, p. 121; O. Fr. Fritzschc, Libri V.T. psendepigraphi selecti, pp. 26–27, and cp. Eug. de Faye, Les Apocalypses juives, p. 106 suiv. 119), and C. Clemen refers (Die christl. Lehre von der Sunde I, S. 173:60) to the very creation of man. Regarding apocryphal literature, see also Pseudepigrapha: an Account of certain Apocryphal Sacred Wrightings of the Jews. By the Rev. William J. Deane. Edinburgh 1891. P. 150. 151. St. Paul's Conception of the Christ; or, The Doctrine of the Second Adam. The sixteenth series of the Cunningham Lectures by Darid Somerille. Edinburgh 1897. P. 288. A. Edersheim, History of the Jewish Nation, p. 433. This idea is argued by the fact that only from the 13th year the full effect of the “good aspiration” begins: F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 208 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 216. See, however, footnote No. 151: (Eug. de Faye in “Revue de théologie et de philosophie” 1891). O. Pfleiderer, Der Paulinismus, S. 57. O. Pfleiderer, Der Paulinismus, S. 71. Entwickelung des Paulinischen Lehrbegriffes in seinem Verhältnisse zur biblischen Dogmatik des Neuen Testamentes. Ein exegetisch-dogmatischer Versuch von Prof. Leonhard Usteri. Vierte Ausgabe. Zürich 1832. S. 31: “Paulus keine solche ursprüngliche sittiche Vollkommenheit und Unsündlichkeit des ersten Menschen vor einer ersten Sünde lehrte.” Eug. de Faye in “Revue de théologie et de philosophie” 1891, p. 474: “la ἁμαρτία paulinienne n’est autre que le הׇרׇע יֵצֶר de la théologie juive.” Wed. also B. Jowett, the Epistles of St. Paul I, p. 288. Prof. A.B. Bruce, St. Paul's Conception of Christianity, p. 142 = “The Expositor” 1893, VII, p. 34–35. Prof. Carl Weizsäcker. Das apostolische Zeitalter der christlichen Kirche, Freiburg i. B. 1892, S. 127. Wed. Jules Bovon, Théologie du N.T. II, p. 258. 261. Of course, this applies only to physical life and concerns one body, since the natural destructibility of the soul cannot be allowed - with the denial of the eternity of torment - in the sense of the theory of “conditional immortality”; about the latter, see Prof. Stewart D.F. Salmond, The Christian Doctrine of Immortality, Edinburgh 1895, p. 597 sequ., and its latest justification is given in the book: Conditional Immortality a Help to Skeptics. A series of letters addressed by Professor Sir G.G. Stokes to James Marchant. London 1897. Cp. Der Stand im Fleisch nach paulinischem Zeugniss. Theologische Dissertation… von Johannes Gloel. (Halle an S.?) 1886. S. 45 = Der Heilige Geist in der Heilsverkündigung des Paulus, Halle a. S. 1888, S. 45. No other definitions of the flesh are given here, which is why C. Clemen in vain asserts (Die christl. Lehre von der Sünde I, S. 212) that otherwise Adam before the Fall of St. Paul must have attributed “the σάρξ that leads to sin.” Cp. Prof. C.Fr. Aug. Fritzsche, Pauli ad Romanos Epistola I (Halis Saxonum 1836), p. 292 not. Jo. Alb. Bengelii Gnomon N.T., p. 561 (Rom. 5:12): “ergo mors non potuit intrare ante peccatum.” From this side Gotth. V. Lechler quite rightly notes (Das apostolische und nachapostolische Zeitalter, Stuttgart 1857, S. 105) that immortality is understood by St. Paul not in the sense of a natural property of a person, but as “ein wesentlich sittliches Gut”. J.J.'s position van Osterzee (Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments, Barmen 1869, S. 168): “Paulus deutet offenbar an, dass der erste Mensch ursprünglich nicht sündig oder sterblich war” is not true even with the indisputable amendment “blieb der erste Mensch als solcher stofflich, so war darin die Möglichkeit, nicht Noth wendigkeit des Sterbens gegeben.” Cp. O. Pfleiderer, Der Paulinismus, S. 59: “Paul thought about the Fall in exactly the same way as the Jewish theologians of his time,” and “seine Auffassnug vom Sündenfall aus seiner jüdischer Erziehung mitgebracht... hat” (Prof. W. Baldensperger, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu, Strassburg 1892, S. 115), for he (F. Chr, Baur, Paulus II, S. 151) “die σάρξ ist der Sitz und das Organ der ἁμαρτία, der Sold der Sünde aber ist der Tod. Wo Sünde ist auch Tod, wie schon in dem ersten Menschen mit der Sünde auch der Tod in die Welt gekommen ist”, since “durch die Beschaffenheit seiner σάρξ, seiner leiblicher Natur, ist der Mensch der Sünde und dem Tode unterworfen” (S. 178). Let us note by the way that the term ὀψώνιον means not only salary and maintenance for soldiers (cf. V.N. Myshtsyn’s Teaching of St. Apostle Paul on the Law of Works and the Law of Faith, Sergiev Posad 1894, p. 99:1), but also payment in general. G. Adolf Deissmann: Bibelstudien. Beitrӓge, zumeist aus den Papyri und Inschriften, zur Geschichte der Sprache, des Schrifttums und der Religion des hellenistischen Judenthums und des Urchristentums. Marburg 1895. pp. 145–146. Neue Bibelstudien. Sprachgeschichtliche Beiträge, zumeist aus den Papyri und Inschriften, zur Erklärung des Neuen Testaments. Marburg 1897. pp. 93–94. Cp. at the deceased Rev. S.K. Smirnova, Features of the Greek language of the New Testament, Moscow 1886, pp. 2–3. (Prof.) C. Bruston, Le parallèle entre Adam et Jésus-Christ in “Revue de théologie et de philosophie” p. 37–38. C. Bruston ibid., p. 39–40. This is a renewal of the theory of Peyrerius (cp. C. Clemen. Die christl. Lehre von der Sünde I, pp. 38–39. C. Fr. Aug. Fritzsche, Pauli ad Romanos Epistola I, pp. 309–310. Der Brief Pauli an die Römer übersetzt und erklärt von weil. D. August Ebrard. Nach dem Tode des Verfassgegeben von Ph. Bachmann. Erlangen und Lpzg 1890. S. 216:1), but a similar idea is already found in the blessed. Theodoret (Rom. 5:12; 7:9:12): Migne, gr. ser t. LXXXII, col. 100. 117. 120 and Creations VII (Moscow 1861), pp. 57. 74. 75. This is all the more true since, according to the late Bishop Thomas Fanshaw Middleton (The Doctrine of the Greek Article, London 1841, p. 307–308) – “here νόμου is equivalent to τοῦ νόμου, but the Article is omitted on account of the Preposition”, St. Paul terms ἁμαρτία, νόμος, sometimes ϑάνατος (as in general in New Testament abstract concepts) prefers to be used without a member; then “one can rather ask why it stands (in such a case), and not why it is omitted”: Prof. Friedr. Blass, Grammatik des Neutestamentl. Griechisch, § 46, s (S. 146–147). Cp. G.B. Winer's Grammatik des neutestamentl. Sprachdioms. Achte Aufl. von Prof. P. Wilh. Schmedel, § 19; 13 h (S. 173 fig.). See Prof. Ed. Grafe, Die paulinische Lehre vom Gesetz, Freiburg i. B. und Lpzg 1893, S. 2 flg.; Jules Bovon, Théologie du N.T. II, p. 140, i; V.N. Myshtsyn, Teachings of St. Apostle. Paul, pp. III–IX. 21.1. 45.1. For this alone, the impossible assumption that ἄχρι in (Rom. 5:13) means “during” is incorrect, about which cf. at Prof. J.Chr. K.v. Hofmann, Der Schriftbeweis I (Nordlingen 1857), S. 531. C. Bruston in “Revue de théologie et de philosophie” 1894, p. 38: “…ἀλλὰ oppose à une periode anterieure à la loi, pendant laquelle le péché n’etait pas imputé, l’époque d’ Adam à Moise, où la mort a régné et où par conséquent le péché etait imputé.” Cp. Vom Ursprunge der Sünde nach paulinischem Lehrgehalte in besonderer Berücksichtigung der einschlägigen modernen Theorien. Von H. Fr. Th. L. Ernesti. Erster Bd. Zw. Ausgabe. Die Theorie vom Ursprunge der Sünde aus der Sinnlichkeit im Lichte des paulinischen Lehrgehalts betrachtet. Göttingen 1862. S. 13: here παράβασις is understood in the sense of breaking the law in general, in whatever form it reaches the consciousness of man, which is why (Rom. 5:13) the author refers to the period of the paradise life of the first parents. C. Bruston in “Revue de théologie et de philosophie” 1894, p. 38–39. C. Bruston in "Revue de théologie et de philosophie" 1894, p. 39. Cp. Adam und Christus. Rom. V, 12–21. Eine exegetische Monographie von Prof. Dr. August Dietzsch. Bonn 1871. S. 200–202. Cp., however, footnote No. 139: “O παρεισῆλϑεν (Rom. 5:20) J.B. Lightfoot notices..." Ἁμαρτία occurs 174 times in N.Z. and 71 at St. Paul, παράπτωμα – 21 and 16, παράβασις – 5 times in the Apostle of Languages ​​and twice in the Epistle to the Hebrews. Παράπτωμα means an offense in general, and παράβασις a violation of a specific commandment in a special act of will, while ἁμαρτία indicates sinful power or sinfulness. See more The Place of Christ in Modern Theology by A.M. Fairbairn (fifth edition, London 1894), p. 312 and not. I. Biblisch-theologisches Worterbuch der neutestamentlichen Grӓcitӓt. Von D. Hermann Cremer. Siebente Auflage, Gotha 1893. S. 134–136. 173. 778–780. Archbish. R. Ch. Trench, Synonyms of the New Testament (London 1890), p. 239 sequ., and in French. lane Par Clementde Faye (Paris 1869), p. 266 suiv. Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul from unpublished Commentaries by the late Bishop J.B. Lightfoot, London 1895, p. 293. Prof. H.P. Liddon, Explanatory Analysis of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, London 1893, p. 103. Cp. still in the dissertation † of Archpriest S.K. Smirnova Philological remarks on the New Testament language in comparison with the classical one when reading the epistle of the Apostle Paul to the Ephesians, Moscow 1873, pp. 40 ff., where, however, the terms ἁμαρτία and παράπτωμα are not entirely clearly distinguished. Prof. completely in vain objects to this distinction - based on dubious analogies and incorrect interpretations. J.G. Reiche in Commentarius criticus in N.T. Quo loca graviora et difliciliora lectionis dubiae accurate recensentur et explicantur. Tomus I, Epistolas Pauli ad Romanos et ad Corinthios datas continens. Gottingae 1853. P. 45–46. Cp. Chr. F. Schmid, Biblische Theologie des Neuen Testamentes, Stuttgart 1859, S. 503. About παρεισῆλϑεν ( Rom.5:20 ) J.B. Lightfoot notes (Notes on the Epistles of St. Paul, p. 293) that “the law came in by the way, by a bye-path, had only a temporary application, a partial dominion,” and Jules Bovon says (Théologie du N.T., p. 223): “la loi apparait comme une parenthèse,” as in the opinion of W. Sanday - A.C. Headlam (A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, p. 143) “St. Paul is regarded as a “parenthesis” in the Divine plan.” Cp. Prof. Wilh Lotz, Geschichte und Offenbarung in A.T., Göttingen 1885, S. 224: “... die ohne jede Spur von Bösen in ihrem Wesen geschaffenen Menschen”, for then “der Mensch sündlos und ohne bösen Trieb” (S. 234) was. See F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 205–206 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 213. Entwickelung des Paulinischen Lehrbegriffes in seinem Verhältnisse zur biblischen Dogmatik des Neuen Testamentes. Ein exegetisch-dogmatischer Versuch von Prof. Leonhard Usteri. Vierte Ausgabe, Zürich 1832. S. 38. 39: “ist die Sündhaftigkeit in ihm (in man before any law), als Anlage, aber sie ist todt, νεκρά, oder schläft gleichsam... Als einen solchen Zustand todter, unbewusster Sündhaftigkeit mussen wir den sogenannten Zustand der Unschuld, oder das paradiesische Leben der ersten Menschen ansehen.” Wed. Die Eschatologie des Paulus in ihren Zusammenhängen mit dem Gesamtbegriff des Paulinismus dargestellt von Lic. Rich. Kabisch, Göttingen 1893, S. 154. Carl Holsten, Zum Evangelium des Paulus und Petrus, S. 418. Dr. (Prof.) Hermann Lüdemann, Die Anthropologie des Apostels Paulus und ihre Stellung innerhalb seiner Heilslehre, Kiel 1872, S. 88. H.J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der neutestamentl. Theologie II, S. 42: “das Sündenprinip wie in jedem Menschen so auch in Adam als schon gegeben, wenngleich schlummernd, vorausgesetzt wird.” For other similar suggestions, see C. Clemen, Die christl. Lehre von der Sünde I, S. 61–62. Cp. O. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristenthum, S. 182: “Perfectly in agreement with the rabbinic theory, Paul in (Rom. 7:7-24) describes the human condition (regardless of Christian redemption) as a discord between two things, good and evil, the “law,” that is, desire,” and for him “dead” sin means “not that it did not exist at all, but only that it was not yet active and rested as a hidden force or potential evil attraction” (Der Paulinismus, S. 57–58). See also Hofmann, Philippi and Sabatier in C. Clemen, Die christl. C.G. Montefiore in The Jewish Quarterly Review VI. 23 (April, 1894), p. 436: “by Adam’s disobedience the power of sin evoked, and the flood-gates of iniquity were unbarred.” Cp. Aug. Dietzsch, Adam und Christus, S. 76 flg. Cp. C. Clemen, Die christl. Lehre von der Sünde I.S. 63. Cp. H.Fr. Th. L. Ernesti, Vom Urspunge der Sunde I, S. 101. Leonh. Usteri, Entwickelung des Paulinischen Lehrbegriffes, S. 39–40. Aug. Neander, Geschichte der Pflanzung und Leitung der Christl. Kirche II (Hamburg 1833), S. 528. James Fr. Clarke, The Ideas of the Apostle Paul, p. 147. The Gospel according to St. Paul. Studies in the first eight Chapters of his Epistle to the Romans. By the Rev. J. Oswald Dykes (third edition, London), p. 205. Eug. de Faye in “Revue de théologie et de philosophie” 1891, p. 466. The period of human innocence (resp. innocence) according to rabbinic views ends at ten years of age (F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 206, 221 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 213:229), and according to Philo – at seven (Quis rerum divinarum haeres 59 in Mangey I, p. 515). Pirke Abboth V, 21 says: “It is time for a five-year-old to study the Holy Scriptures, for a ten-year-old to study the Mishnah, for a thirteen-year-old to fulfill religious duties (zur Ausübung der Gebote).” See Aug. Wünsche, Der Babylonische Talmud II, 3 (Lpzg 1889), S. 464, and E.B. Levina Pirke Abot (St. Petersburg 1868), pp. 104. 105, and cf. A. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus I, p. 235; N. Pereferkovich Talmud I, p. 91. 121; Prof. E. Schürer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes II (Lpzg 1886), S. 355. See footnote no. 114: “A. Edersheim, History of the Jewish Nation...” See the March book of Christian Reading, no. III. Prof. Auguste Sabatier, L'origine du péché dans le système théologique de Paul, Paris 1887, p. 6. A. Sabatier, L'origine du péché, p. 7–8. In thought, the judgment of D. David Schulz in eine biblische Entwickelung under the title “Die christliche Lehre vom Glauben” is similar in everything. Mit ciner Beilage uber die sogenannte Erbsunde.” Lpzg 1834. S. 266. It is hardly necessary to refute the opinion of C. Bruston (in “Revue de théologie et de philosophie” 1894, p. 44) that ὃς does not refer to Adam, since - according to Jo. Beniam. Koppe (Novum Testamentum graece perpetua annotatione illustratum. Vol. IV, complectens Epistolam Pauli ad Romanos. Gottingae 1783. P. 114) and Jo. Alb. Bengelius (Gnomon N.T., p. 562) – he sees an attraction here, vm. ὃ. and τοῦ μέλλοντος counts as neutrum (cp. Prof. F. Godet – E.R. Wunderlich, Commentar zudem Brief an die Romer I, S. 239). See also Car. Fr. Aug. Fritzsche, Pauli ad Roma – nos Epistola I, p. 319, and Rud. Cornely, Commentarius in S. Pauli Epistolam ad Romanos (in "Cursus Scripturae Sacrae": Commentariorum in Nov. Test. pars II in libros didacticos I), p. 290. Both philologically and exegetically, everything excludes such an interpretation, the more clearly the inconsistency of Bruston’s hypothesis is revealed. It is also true philologically that τύπος means only partial similarity, and in this case not in moral character, but in action. See the Rev. Leuis B. Badford, Some New Testament Synonyms. The Five Words conveying the Idea of ​​Pattern in "The Expositor" 1897, XI, p. 383. A. Sabatier, L'origine du péché, p. 8. A. Sabatier, L'origine du péché, p. 9. H.J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der ueutestamentl. Theologie II, S. 44.2: “die Individuen der, durch Adam in die Welt hereingedrungenen und allgemein herrschenden, Sündenmacht nur dadurch und darum unterlegen sind, dass Jeder auch für seine Person sündigte.” Leonh. Usteri, Entwickelung des Paulinischen Lehrbegriffes, S. 29. Prof. Aug. Ferd. Dähne, Entwickelung des paulinischen Lehrbegriffs, Halle 1835, S. 52: “... ein doppelter Grund des Todes einem jeden einzelu Menschen vorliege, seine einzeln Sünden,.. und das adamitische Vergehen.” Cp. Albert Thomas, Étude sur la rédemption au triple point de vue judéo-chrétien, paulinien et johannique, Genève 1891, p. 63–64. A. Edevsheim, The Life and Times of Jesus I, p. 165. J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopädie des Judenthums III, 1, S. 58. J.H. Schwarz, Geschichtliche Entwickelung der messianischen Idee des Judenthums. S. 75–76: “Representatives of the sound (i.e., Pharisaic-rabbinical) trend do not know the doctrine of original sin.” C. Clemen, Die christl. Lehre von der Sünde I, S. 60: “von angeborener Sünde weiss auch Judenthum nicht.” O. Cone, The Gospel and its Earliest Interpretations, p. 172. It also shows us how unfounded the judgment about. prof. Archpriest T.I. Butkevich (Evil, its essence and origin, Kharkov 1897, pp. 58–59), as if “even the rabbis taught about original sin in accordance with Divine Revelation, as it was announced to us in the first chapters of the book of Genesis.” Let us also add that the justifications given by the author are almost completely incompatible with the formulated conclusion. C. Bruston in “Revue de théologie et de philosophie” 1894, p. 34. 37. Prof. Edouard Reuss, Histoire de la théologie chrétienne au siècle apostolique II (Strasbourg 1852), p. 119: “Paul ne dit pas mot d’un changement que le péché d’Adam aurait introduit dans la nature humaine... Le passage Rom. VII. 7 ss. s’applique à Adam aussi bien qu’à tout autre homme.” A. Sabatier, L'origine du péché, p. 19.9. The same is true for C. Clemen (Die christl. Lehre von der Sünde I, S. 52–53, 56, 62, 65, 67:247), asserting (p. 57) that only in the 3rd chapter of the book of Genesis the doctrine of original sin is found, and D. Schulz even states (Die christl. Lehre vom Glauben, S. 282) that it is alien to the Bible in general. O. Cone, the Gospel, p. 174. 173. O. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristenthum, S. 181: “The teaching of Augustinian-Protestant dogmatics, that the death of everyone, even small children, is a consequence of punishment for the original sin acquired by everyone or directly for the guilt of Adam, is no less alien to Paul than it is to Jewish theology. It stands in decisive contradiction with the position: “death spread to all men, because all sinned,” since here the death of an individual is associated not with Adam’s sin, but with his own, and not simply with potential or innate sinfulness, but with his actual sinful act. The church-dogmatic concept of “original sin” is as far from Paul as from Jewish theology, ( Rom. 5:12) does not contain anything of the kind. It says nothing more than that through Adam sin and death became a force in the world; however, death befalls people not for hereditary guilt, but for that which is created by their personal sin, although, of course, it is in an indirect connection with the original guilt of Adam. See Das Leben nach dem Tode nach den Vorstellungen des alten Israel und des Judenthums einschliesslich des Volksglaubens im Zeitalter Christi. Eine biblisch-theologische Untersuchung von Friedrich Schually. Giessen 1892. S. 84. Dr. Heinrich August Schneemann, Die Versöhnungslehre der evangelisch-protestantischen Kirche, Sondershausen 1844, S. 146. Cp. H.J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der neutestamentl. Theologie II, S. 90: “Von einer absoluten Nothwendigkeit der Uebertragung des Sündenzwanges durch die Zergung weiss Pls nichts, wie auch die jüd. Theologie die Moglichkeit, ja ausnahmweise Wirklichkeit von sündlosen Menschen zugestand” (cf. note 65 on page 295). Also Albrecht Ritschl (Die christl. Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung III (Bonn 1895, S. 327), who recognizes imputation only for personal sins (ibid., S. 330), but against him see Ernest Bertrand, Une nouvelle conception de la redemption. La doctrine de la justification et de la reconciliation dans le systeme theologique de Ritschl. Paris 1891. P. 242 suiv. Let us note by the way that grammatically (Rom. 5:12) is considered not completely complete in the context of speech. See Grammatik des Neutestamentlichen Spachidioms. Im Anschlusse an Ph. Buttmann's Griechische Grammatik bearbeitet von Prof. Alex. Buttmann. Berlin 1859. S. 331. Grundzüge der neutestamintlichen Gräcität nach den besten Quellen für Studirende der Theologie und Philologie. Von Prof. Dr. S. Ch. Schirlitz Giessen 1861. S. 351. The Language of the New Testament by the late Rev. William Henry Simcox. Second edition, London 1892. P. 199. You can even read about different opinions on this subject in the thesis of the priest. V.N. Veltistova, Sin, its origin, essence and consequences. Critical-dogmatic study. Moscow 1885. Pp. 261 words Wed. George Fulliquet, La pensé religieuse dans le N.T., p. 332 suiv. This objection applies especially to Ferd's formula. Chr Baur'a (Paulus II, S. 200): “der durch Adam gesetzte Zusammenhang zwischen Sünde und Tod für jeden Einzelnen durch seine eigene Sünde vermittelt ist.” Aug. Ferd. Dähne, Entwickelung des paulinischen Lehrbegriffs, S. 68. 50 flg. F. Godet – E.R. Wunderlich, Commentar zu dem Brief an die Römer I, S. 230, 237.1. Prof. H.H. Wendt, Die Lehre des Paulus verglichen mit der Lehre Jesu in Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche IV (1894), 1, S. 34, 37–38 (but cf. D. Paul Gloatz in Studien und Kritiken 1895, IV, S. 790). See J. Chr. K.v. Hofmann, Der Schriftbeweis I, S. 530 (from pp. 535–536), and Rud. Cornely, Commentarius in S. Pauli Epistolam ad Romanos, p. 276. A. Ritschl also speaks in a similar way (Die christl. Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung III, S. 328). See F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 217 = Judische Theologie, S. 224: “there is hereditary sanity, but there is no hereditary sin.” This also eliminates the objection that they think is to be affirmed by referring to the contradiction that 1) πάντες in (Rom. 5:12) is used unlimitedly, and 2) the children Enoch and Elijah who died early should be recognized as having not sinned (cf. C. Clemen, Die christl. Lehre von der Sünde I, S. 55); but the first shows only that ἐφ’ ᾧ is not exclusively and strictly causal “because” or “because” in the individual sense (see above: “That he set an example...” and below: “As a result, it turns out that all people ...”), the second convinces that the connection between sin and death is not invincible (in principle), and in both cases the doctrine of original heredity is rather justified. Cp. Das System des Paulus nach seinen Briefen dargestellt von Superintendent Hermann Opitz (Gotha 1874), S. 105. Ferd. Chr. Baur, Paulus II, S. 138: “Sünde und Tod sind so correlate Begriffe, dass aus dem Dasein des Einen auf das Dasein des Anderen geschlossen warden kann. So allgemein also der Tod ist, so allgemein ist die Sünde.” Cp. Prof. Willibald Beyschlag, Neutestamentliche Theologie II (Halle a. S. 1892), S. 56–57: “Die σάρξ als das Materielle ist das an sich Vergängliche, Nichtige, das trotz aller selbstsüchtigen Begierde nach Leben es niemals zu wahrem Leben bringt, sondern – sich selbst überlassen – nothwendig der Vergänglichkeit, der φϑορά unterliegt;... sie resist... mit sich in ihren naturgemӓssen Untergang, in ihre ἀπώλεια hinab.” Cp. J. Gloël, Der Heilige Geist in der Heilsverkundigung des Paulus, pp. 182–183. From this point of view the misplaced claims of grammatical literalism, which asserts that the term αἰώνιος does not mean “infinite” but only “continuous”, are directly and decisively eliminated (see Note on the Meaning of the Word αἰώνιος by the Rev. J.H. Wilkinson in The Expositor 1897, I, pp. 78-80). Therefore, it would be extreme to understand in the Apostle Paul (Rom. 5:12) only physical death, as C. Fr. Aug. Fritzsche (Pauli ad Romanos Epistola I, p. 293 sequ. 296), Aug. Dietzsch (Adam und Christus, S. 86 flg.), F. Godet – Wunderlich (Commentar zu dem Brief an die Rӧmer I, S. 230), R.A. Lipsius (in "Handcommentar zum Neuen Testament" II, 2, Freiburg i. B. 1892, S. 124), Rich. Kabisch (Die Eschatologie des Paulus, S. 94), B. Jowett (The Epistles of St. Paul I, p. 287). It is equally unjust to dissolve both of these elements from weil. D. August Ebrard (Der Brief Pauli an die Rӧmer, S. 213). Cp. D. Somerville, St. Paul's Conception of Christ, p. 88; V.N. Myshtsina Teachings of St. Apostle Paul, p. 87 ff. It seems to me that Dr. is also correct in this regard. Ferdinand Weber (Vom Zorne Gottes. Ein biblisch-theologischer Versuch. Mit Prolegomenen üder den bisherigen Entwickelungsgang der Grundbegriffe der Versӧhnungslehre von Prof. Frz Delitzsch Erlangen 1862) in its main tendency, although it illuminates the matter exaggeratedly and reveals it extremely realistically, as already noted by A. Ritschl (Die christl. Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versӧhnung II, S. 121 flg.) and Fr. prof. P.Ya. Svetlova (The meaning of the cross in the work of Christ. Experience in explaining the dogma of atonement. Kyiv 1893. pp. 18–19). It is also true that this subject is sometimes treated by Protestant writers in denominational interests if they assert that “the doctrine of the wrath of God is of particular importance to the theologians and the Church of the Reformation, since on it is built the most important treasure of justification sola fide” (see Satisfactio vicaria, das ist Die Lehre von der stellvertretenden Genugthnung des Herrn Jesus. Von Dr. Wilhelm Kӧlling. I. Bd. Die Vorfragen. 1897. S. 17, and on page 72 the corresponding interpretation). A more calm, impartial and thorough review is given by Lic. th. Dr. Aug. Dieckmann (Die christliche Lehre vom Zorne Gottes nebst Kritik der betreffenden Lehre A. Ritschl’s in “Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie” XXXVI, 2 [1893, 3. Heft], S. 321–377), which legitimately eliminates Ritschl’s opinion (Op. cit. II, S. 38 flg. 40 flg.) and others (Dr. Ernst Kühl, Die Heilsbedeutung des Todes Christi Berlin 1890, S. 52 flg. D.H. Cremer, Biblisch-theologisches Wörterbuch, S. 688 f.), as if the concept of the wrath of God contains the only eschatological meaning, since it will be revealed only at the Last Judgment: see about this also Prof. Bernh. Weiss, Lehrbuch der Biblischen Theologie des N.T. (Berlin 1895), S. 241, r. W. Beyschlag, Neutestamentliche Theologie II, S. 63. Prof. C.F. Nӧsgen, Geschichte der neutestamentl. Offenbarung II, S. 294. Likewise, one cannot, together with E. Kühl (Op. cit., S. 48:51), consider this anger as a “momentaner Affect”, for it expresses God’s constant attitude towards sin. Cp. H.Fr. Th. L. Ernesti, Vom Urspunge der Sünde I, S. 146-147: “Since sin on the part of man is represented by Paul as enmity against God, then its correlative on the part of God is ὀργὴ ϑεοῦ or the affect of His holy love directed towards sinners, by virtue of which He imposes a corresponding punishment on those who offend His commands.” D. Ed. Riehm, Der Begriff der Sühne im Alten Testament in "Studien und Kritiken" 1877, 1. Heft, S. 92: "The biblical concept of righteousness is that the attitude of God - in the matter of saving His people and individual godly persons - is in agreement not only with His love, but also with a will energetically supporting good and energetically reacting against evil." This point is no less important as a necessary element in the general concept, which is why, on another occasion, Prof. HELL. Belyaev says quite rightly (Divine Love. Experience in revealing the most important Christian dogmas from the beginning of Divine love. 2nd edition, Moscow 1884. Page 313:1): “It is not easy to distinguish in death what constitutes the inevitable consequence of sin from the fact that it is the result of God’s punishment; because both are closely related.” Therefore, one must recognize the interpretation of Beruh as downright sophistic. Weiss'a (Lehrbuch der Bibl. Theologie des N.T., S. 244 u. Anm. 4; cp. C. Clemen, Die christl. Lehre von der Sunde I, S. 176), as if only “the causal connection of sin and death established during Adam’s sin produces the fact that then all people are subject to death for their sins.” See, for example, Prof. Eduard Bӧhl, Von der Rechtfertigung durch den Glauben. Ein Beitrag zur Rettung des protestantischen Cardinal-dogmas. Lpzg 1890. S. 137: “Sowie Adam gefallen, setzte sofort das Urtheil über ihn und alle seine Nachkommen ein – sie seien schuldig (rei) vor Gott. Als Christus dagegen durch seine Aufopferung für Alle starb – da setzte das Urtheil über Alle ein: sie sind gerecht.” Cp. Prof. Alfred Seeberg, Der Tod Christi in seiner Bedeutung für die Erlӧsung, Lpzg 1895, S. 234. The same tendency is reflected in the objective understanding of sin and truth, at least in C. Holsten, Das Evangelium des Paulus (Berlin 1880), S. 418.6. Κατάκριμα is “gerechtliche Belastung”, but in the sense of “poena condemnationem sequens”: see G. Ad. Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien, S. 92–93. Similar perplexities from the point of view of an objective understanding of Adam’s sin were noted by A.V. Bruce, St. Paul's Conception of Christianity, p. 135. 134 = “The Expositor” 1893, VII, p. 30. 29. There is no doubt, however, that in the Slavic translation the original and ubiquitous reading was and remains “about him.” See prof. G.A. Voskresensky: Ancient Slavic Apostle. Epistles of the Holy Apostle Paul according to the main lists of four editions of the handwritten Slavic apostolic text from fifty-one manuscripts of the Apostle of the 12th–16th centuries. First issue. Epistle to the Romans. Sergiev Posad 1892. Pp. 106–107. Actus Epistolaeque Apostolorum palaeoslovenice. Ad fidem codicis Christinopolitani saeculo XII0 scripti edidit Prof. Aemilianus Kałušniacki. Vindobonae 1896. P. 119. Jesuit Rud also agrees with this position. Cornely (in Commentarius in S. Pauli Epistolam ad Romanos, p. 283), adapting to it the indisputable “in quo” of the Vulgate. Firmly adhering to the Russian translation, Fr. prof. T.I. Butkevich considers (Evil, its essence and origin, p. 67) a technique of “clever interpretation” of the apostolic words (Rom. 5:12), if “they assure that in this saying instead of the expression ἐν ᾧ (in it) one should read ἐφ’ ᾧ.” On the contrary, it seems to us that the venerable author himself fell into a grave error, accepting the edition of ἐνᾧ, which cannot be justified textually and, of course, was not recognized by anyone except him... Interpretation is a completely different matter. This interpretation is also correct grammatically and philologically [see. William Edward Jelf, A Grammar of the Greek Language, vol. II (Oxford and London 1881), p. 320 (§ 635, 3 c). Etude sur le Grec du Nouveau Testament. Le verbe: Syntaxe des Propositions. Par M. l'Abbé Joseph Viteau. Paris 1893. P. 95. 97 (§§ 175.1. 176). Hebraisms in the Greek Testament. Exhibited and Illustrated by Notes and Extracts from the Sacred Text. With Specimens of (1) the Influence of the Septuagint on its Character and Construction; (2) the Deviations in it from pure Greek Style. By William Henry Guillemard. Cambridge 1879. S. 57. Grammaire grecque du Nouveau Testament par Prof. Ernest Combe, Lausanne 1894, p. 122], a Prof. Johann Weiss confirms it with an analysis of the rhetorical structure of the apostolic speech (Beiträge zur Paulinischen Rhetorik in “Theologische Studien, Herrn Wirkl. Oberkonsistorialrath Professor D. Bernhard Weiss zu seinem 70. Geburtstage dargebracht”, Gӧttingen 1897, S. 226–227, and in a separate edition ibid. 1897, S. 64–65). Cp. More W. Sanday – A.C. Headlam, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, p. 133. Prof. Ernest De Witt Burton, Syntax of the Moods and Tenses in the New Testament (second edition: Chicago 1893), p. 28 (§ 54): “the verb ἥμαρτον takes its point of view from the time of speaking, and the apostle accordingly speaks here of sin then past.” W. Ed. Jelf, A Grammar of the Greek Language II, p. 66 sec. (§ 401) and cf. I (Oxford and London 1881), p. 322 (§ 319). C.W. E. Miller, The Imperfect and the Aorist in The American Journal of Philosophy XVI, 2. In refutation of this, C. Clemen refers (Die christl. Lehre von der Sünde I, S. 56) to Rome. III, 23, but in vain, since here too the usual meaning of the aorist is conveniently retained, if we agree that the Apostle considers humanity in the past - before the manifestation of grace. Then one cannot understand ἥμαρτον - together with Wetstein, Fritzsche, Tholuck and others (see C. Clemen ibid., S. 55) - as indicating only the ability or disposition to sin. Wed. also Prof. George B. Sterens, the Pauline Theology (New York and London 1892), p. 38. 130. 131. 136; A.B. Bruce, St. Paul's Conception of Christianity, p. 131 = “The Expositor” 1893, VII, p. 26. Cp. H.P. Liddon, Explanatory Analysis of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans (London 1893), p. 103: “all sinned when through the one man sin entered into the world.” For this reason alone, ἥμαρτον for each individual person cannot mean only “ideal sin,” as H.H. claims. Wendt in "Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche" IV (1894), 1, S. 34.1. Therefore, the commonality of expressions, for example, in G.B. Sterens, The Pauline Theology, p. 37, 38, 39, 129, 133, 156: “all sinned when Adam sinned.” A. Sabatier, L'origine du péché, p. 10. Wed. G.B. Sterens, The Pauline Theology, p. 49. Sin by Rev. R.W. Dale in "The Expositor" 1893, IX, p. 173. Rev. J. Oswald Dykes, The Gospel according to St. Paul, p. 134. A. Sabatier, L'origine du péché, p. 20. See C. Holsten, Zum Evangelium des Paulus und Petrus, S. 412 flg., and H. Ludemann, Die Anthropologie des Apostels Paulus, S. 86 flg., but cf. H.H. Wendt, Die Begriffe Fleisch und Geist im biblischen Sprachgebrauch, Gotha 1878, S. 193 flg. Compare, for example, the thesis of C. Weizsäcker (Das apostolische Zeitalter der christl. Kirche, S. 125), that the condemnation of Adam passes on to the descendants because “dass sie selbst sündigen.” In this sense, one must understand the words blessed. Theodoret (Rom. 5:12), that “not for the ancestral, but for his own sin, everyone takes upon himself the definition of death,” since “when Adam sinned and because of sin became mortal, both spread to the whole race,” and “all, as descended from one condemned to death, had a mortal nature”: Migne, gr. ser. t. LXXXIII, col. 100; Creations, VII p. 57. Therefore, it is in vain to assume that original sin is “the common sin”, which “does not involve culpability or guilt” (A.M. Fairbairn, The Place of Christ in Modern Theology, p. 459), because for each individual descendant of Adam it is supposedly “not his and cannot be (?) imputed to him personally” (V.N. Myshtsina The Teachings of St. Apostle Paul, pp. 44–47). Where then does death come from as a condemnation? And B. Jowett rightly notes (The Epistles of St. Paul I, p. 287) that the Apostle Paul connects sin and death just as closely as the latter and illness or health and life. H.H. Wendt in "Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche" IV (1894), I. S. 36. Alfr. Seeberg, Der Tod Christi, S. 232–233. Ditto Christoph. Frid. Ammon (De vestigiis Theologiae Judaicae in epistola Pauli ad Romanos in Nova opuscula theologica, Gottingae 1803, p. 71 sequ.), who therefore states that “Paulum Pharisaeorum allegorematis et interpretamentis midraschicis initiatum, in sua ad Romanos epistola multas attulisse doctrinas rabbinicas, quibus dogmata Christiana involveret et sublimiora Messianismi cum allegorici, tum moralis placita animis Judaeorum insinuaret.” Leonh. Usteri, Entwickelung des Paulinischen Lehrbegriffes, S. 25: “Diese Beziehung der Sünde aller Menschen auf die Sünde des srsten Menschen hatte Paulus als eine gangbare Theorie aus der rabbinisch-jüdischen Theologie in das Christenthum hinübergebracht.” A. Sabatier, L'Apôtre Paul, p. 32: “The idea of ​​original sin, inherited in the offspring of Adam, seems to have already been formulated by Pharisaism.” Even C. Clemen admits (Die christl. Lehre von der Sünde I, S. 176–177:249) that the concept of the nature of the connection and the very connection of sin with the fall of the forefathers of St. Paul borrowed from Judaism, but thinks that there it was a private learned opinion, inferior to another (S. 179), about the flesh, “als dem Anlass zum Sünde” (S. 213). Cp. still Mich. Nicolas, Des doctrines religieuses des juifs, p. 393–395; C. Weizsäcker, Das apostolische Zeitalter der christl. Kirche, S. 125. Cp. Prof. A. Hausrath, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte. Vierter Theil: Das nachapostolische Zeitalter (zw. Aufl., Heidelberg 1877), S. 87 flg.; H.L. Strack, Einleitung in den Thalmud, S. 68; prof. I.G. Trinity in “Christian Reading” 1897, XII, pp. 823–824 (in a report on N. Pereferkovich’s book Talmud I). See also footnote No. 212: “Similar ideas occur...”. This is a favorite trick of J. Hamburger, who applies it to this case in Real-Encyclopädie des Judenthums III, 1, S. 58. So E. Deutsch, The Talmud in “Literary Remains of the late († May 12, 1873) Emanuel Deutsch.” With a brief Memoir. London 1874. P. 12. 41. Without going into the analysis of the presented judgment, we only note the no less true and indisputable opinion of A.B. Bruce (St. Paul's Conception of Christianity, p. 132 = "The Expositor" 1893, VII, p. 27) that "Jewish theological thought underwent a development during the centuries that elapsed between the apostolic age and the Talmudic era." Wed. treatise II, ch. 3, pp. 237–238. Similar ideas are found in the Jewish apocrypha (cf. W.J. Deane, Pseudepigragha, p. 150–151), but D. Somerrille (like A. Hausrath 1. cit in footnote no. 209: “Cp. Prof. A. Hausrath, Neutestamentliche Zeitgeschichte ...”) considers “closer to the truth that (for example) 4Ezra stands depending on Paul, and not vice versa,” why in general “it is impossible to say that the apostolic teaching about hereditary sin and death was borrowed from the rabbinic doctrine of that time” (St. Paul’s Conception of Christ, p. 288). After considering this side of the issue, C. Clemen comes (Die christl. Lehre von der Sünde I, S. 49–50) to the following conclusion: “the sins of posterity (and his suffering) are brought into connection with the fall of Adam, but nowhere in Judaism do we find the doctrine of original sin or even the community (among people) of sin.” Wed. A. Edersheim, History of the Jewish Nation, p. 433. Wed. F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 264 flg. = Jüdische Theologie, S. 274 flg. J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopädie des Judenthums III, 1, pp. 58–59. Bibliotheca Rabbinica. Eine Sammlung alter Midraschim zum ersten Male ins Deutsche ubertragen von Dr. Aug. Wunsche. 20–21 Lieferung: Der Midrasch Bemidbar Rabba. Lpzg 1883. S. 426–427 (Sect. 16). F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 262 flg. = Jüdische Theologie, S. 272 ​​flg. IV Ezr. III, 35–36 (in Ad. Hilgenfeld, Messias Judaeorum, p. 117–118, and O. Fr. Fritzsche, Libi V.T. pseudepigraghi selecti, p. 24): “... homines quidem invenies per nomina servasse mandata tua, gentes autem non invenies”; Wed sl. - Russian ( 3 Ezra 3:35–36 ). Cp. Pirke Abboth II, 7 (II, 9): “Je mehr Fleisch, desto mehr Würmer” (Aug. Wünsche, Der Babylonische Talmud II, 3. S. 448; E.B. Levin, Pirke Abboth, p. 24). A. Edersheim, History of the Jewish Nation, p. 433. 432. See F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 204, 220 flg. = Jüdische Theologie, S. 211, 228 f., and for the apocrypha cf. C. Clemen, Die christl. Lehre von der Sünde I, S. 184 flg. Similar to this, Philo “the corporeality of man is a natural and necessary source of impurity, sin and discord,” for “human nature itself is sinful both in the first man and in all others,” which is why “sin, as well as virtue, are always considered by him as equally necessary and completely legitimate expressions of the divine harmony realized in the world, which therefore stand in eternal reconciliation with the divine mind and will.” Prof. M.D. Muretov, Philosophy of Philo of Alexandria, pp. 166, 167, 163. The same – in essence – is the theory of C. Clemen. He does not find in the Apostle a connection between the fall of the first parents and the sinfulness of their descendants (Die christl. Lehre von der Sünde I, S. 175:212), admitting only that “Paulus gelegentlich den Sündenfall ebenso wie die späten Vergebungen auf das Fleisch zurückgeführt, aber nicht diese auf jenen” (S. 213). It will rather be true that “das Fleisch ist in der That die Ursache der Sünde, nicht nur – was man allerdings vielfach nicht scharf genug unterscheidet – ihr Sitz” (S. 202), although “the flesh does not necessarily lead to sin” (S. 206), but “only if one gives in to it” (S. 208). In this sense, “das Fleisch in den alttestamentlichen Hagiographen und fast dem ganzen neuen Testament als Anlass zur Sünde gilt, bei Paulus zur Sünde überhaupt” (S. 215. 213), when “ein Hang zur Sünde” arises out of carnal weakness (S. 212:207) (S. 177) due to the fact that “das Fleisch ist nicht nur Sitz der Sinnlichkeit, sonderm vor allem der Selbstsucht” (S. 209), which is why it produces ἁμαρτία as “die Macht der Sünde” (S. 63). See O. Cone, The Gospel, p. 177, 175, 179. O. Pfleiderer, Der Paulinismus, pp. 65–73. Cp. O. Pfleiderer, Lectures on the Influence of the Apostle Paul on the Development of Christianity, p. 78: “Nor on this point of doctrine has Paulus put forward anything like an entirely new theory, but only with greater rigour drawn out the Pharisaic theory into its consequences.” Ferd. Chr. Baur, Paulus II, S. 151 flg. 157. 178. C. Holsten, Zum Evangelium des Paulus und Petrus, pp. 395–399, 403–420. H. Lüdemann, Die Anthropologie des Apostels Paulus, pp. 53–71. O. Pfleiderer: Der Paulinismus, S. 55, 66 flg.; The Influence of the Apostle Paul, p. 78–79; Das Urchristentum, S. 186 flg. C. Weizsäcker, Das apostolische Zeitalter der christl. Kirche, S. 124 flg. For a general overview of theories, see, for example, Fr. V.N. Veltistova, Sin, pp. 20 ff. Heinrich Lang, Das Leben des Apostel Paulus, Winterthur 1866, S. 33. Cp. Gesammelte Abhandlungen zur biblischen Wissenschaft von weil. Prof. Dr. Abraham Kuenen. Aus dem Holländischen übersetzt von K. Budde. Freiburg i. B. und Lpzg 1894. S. 362.1 (in the critical treatise “Verisimilia?”): “σαρξ is not lust, but the sensual body or - general - sensuality, the seat and source of vices and sin.” W. Karl, Beiträge zum Verständnis... des Apostels Paulus, S. 66: “dem Fleisch hängt die Sündigkeit, als sein Wesen an.” Eug. de Faye in “Revue de théologie et de philosophie” 1891, p. 473: “la ἁμαρτία est inhérente... positivement à la matière animée de notre corps”, for (p. 474) “dans notre nature physique que saint Paul nous montre... l’origine actuelle, présente, observable du péché.” Wed. V.N. Myshtsina Teachings of St. Apostle Paul, p. 50, approx. Of course, you can’t do it together with Prof. A. Wabnitz (see Jules Bovon, Theologie du N.T. II, p. 220:1) to deny the existence of any moral struggle in Saul, the disciple of the Pharisees, why is it idle and indecent the remark of C. Clemen (Die christl. Lehre von der Sünde I, S. 112), as if with this understanding “in Wahrheit macht man den Apostel zum Komodianten.” On the contrary, J. Weiss (who finds in Romans 7 an image not of the present situation, but of a pre-Christian state or in detachment from the action of the Spirit) says that there is nothing unworthy (garnichts Abschätziges) contained here, even if we look at this section only from a rhetorical point of view (Theologische Studien für B. Weiss, S. 233–234 = Beiträge zur Paulinischen Rhetorik, Göttingen 1897, S. 71–72). Wed. Treatise I on pp. 65–66. Forgetting this moment forces H.P. Liddon hesitates in the exact definition (Explanatory Analysis of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans, pp. 121-123, 124:126) so much that he doubts the correctness of even his understanding (p. V). Therefore, one cannot agree with Jean E. Meyer (Apparition de Jésus à Paul sur le chemin de Damas, Paris 1873, p. 73) that “plusieurs paroles de ce passage semblent en effet s’appliquer aussi bien à l’homme qui a déjà connu la grâce de Dieu, qu’à celui qui n’a jamais encore goûté les consolations de l’Evangile.” This assumption not only does not clarify anything, but is incorrect even in the sense of describing a fact that receives a very strange coverage. Albrecht Ritschl, Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche, Bonn 1857, S. 69, 70, 71, 72. Prof. Eugene Menégoz. Le péché et la redemption d'après saint Paul, p. 68–69, 50–51 suiv. Wed. treatise I, approx. 131 on page 66; however, Bishop G.A. Chadwick suggests (The Soul's Emancipation in The Expositor 1898, I, pp. 70–71) that “the clue to this remarkable passage we discover that he (St. Paul) is thinking of neither (Christian and wordling) in opposition to the other, but of man, any man at any stage of his experience, contemplated apart from divine grace and the steady support of the Spirit,” why in (Rom. 7:24–25) “in the act of confessing the misery of this condition, St. Paul, being in experience an Apostle, declares his emancipation from it." Similar Rev. J. Oswald Dykes, The Gospel according to St. Paul, p. 223. It is too general and – in a special appendix – incorrect to define in Die christliche Lehre von der Sünde dargestellt von Julius Müller I (fünfte Auflage, Breslau 1867), S. 458, that “er (der Begrift der σάρξ) bezeichnet das gesammte erscheinende, offenbare Dasein des Menschen, das Leben desselben in der Welt nach allen seinen Beziehungen”, since the Apostle Paul speaks of the flesh as an active force, why one can rather accept the opinion of Theodorus Joannes van Griethuysen (Disputatio exegetico-theologica de notionibus vocabulorum σωμα et σαρξ in Novi Testamenti interpretation distinguendis, Amstelodami 1846, p. 59), that here it is depicted as causa movens. Wed. H.Fr. Th. L. Ernesti, Vom Ursprunge der Sünde I, S. 81, that this clause “nicht sowol bestimmend, als verbessernd”. Rev. J. Oswald Dykes rightly asserts (The Gospel according to St. Paul, p. 218) that Rom. 7:17 “conveys this idea, that the sinful principle is distinguishable from the real man, since it does not lie at the root of the man’s personal life.” Hence H.H. Wendt comes to the conclusion (Die Begriffe Fleisch und Geist, S. 180–216) that analytically σάρξ is expressed no more than that “it is incapable of fulfilling the law,” and only “on the basis of experience a synthetic judgment is applied to it that it has come into conflict with the divine law” (S. 207). Similar to this Aug. Neander, Geschichte der Pflanzung und Leitung der Christl. Kirche II, S. 510 flg.; A. Tholuck, Die σάρξ als Quelle der Sunde in Studien und Kritiken 1855, pp. 477–497; P. Eklund, Σαρξ vocabulum quid apud Paulum Apostolum significet in "Lunds Universitets Arsscrift VIII, 1 for år 1871", Lund 1871–1872. Wed. J. Gloël, Der Stand im Fleisch. S. 32–33 = Der Heilige Geist, S. 32–33: “Good intentions are possible for a person, but when implementing them, he must make sure that the organs assigned for this purpose are bound by an alien law, that he is not the master of himself, not the master of his σώμα, but, on the contrary, a captive of an alien force, which is uncontrollably rooted in his members, forcing the body given to him to do hateful work.” to fulfill ἐντολή εἰς ζωήν, and rewards himself with death for slavery.” Therefore, it is impossible to settle on too narrow a definition of H. Fr. Th. L. Ernesti (Vom Ursprunge der Sünde I, S. 71–90), as if flesh means “the direction in which the principle of the sensible animate body has gained dominance over the principle of the spirit” (S. 81). It is especially clear in Philippians 1:20. The instrumental meaning of “members” is clearly expressed in (Rom.6:19), and when used pervertedly they are called in (Col.3:5) μέλη τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς (Rev.8:3). Therefore, even the reasoning of H.J. is fundamentally incorrect. Holtzmann, as if “ist das Fleisch zwar nicht selbst Sünde, wohl aber mit naturgesetzlicher Nothwendigkeit Princip und Sitz, Organ und Instrument der Sünde vermöge der ihm von Natur innerwohnenden Lust oder Begierde” (Lehrbuch der neutestamentl. Theologie II, S. 38), since “innerhalb des Paulinismus aus Gegensatze physisch verschiedenen Substanzen (= ein metaphysisch zu fassender Dualismus: S. 20) ein Dualismus ethisch sich widerstreitender Principien gevorden” (S. 21); subsequently this “Sünde an sich, als objective Macht, ist mit der Existenz des aus Fleisch bestehenden Menschen irgendwie schon gesetzt” (S. 46). Here the author only obscures his purely naturalistic understanding of sin, falsely assimilating it to St. Pavel. Cp. J. Gloël, Der Stand im Fleisch, S. 53 = Der Heilige Geist, S. 53: “Intended to serve man as an obedient instrument in the fulfillment of his highest task, σάρξ has in fact completely deviated from its destiny, in accordance with created nature.” C. Holsten does not see the main reason behind the actual phenomenon, why A. Sabatier rightly said about it (L’Apôtre Paul, p. 265) that in his theory he captured only “une ombre fugitive”. From this point of view, the remark of J. Gloel (Der Stand im Fleisch, S. 27 = Der Heilige Geist, S. 27) is quite fair that this expression does not so much strengthen the concept of carnality by assimilating positive evil to it (as H.H. Wendt, Die Begriffe Fleisch und Geist, S. 208), but rather explains it. And in Judaism there was a belief that the soul and body sin together: J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopädie des Judenthums II, S. 1253, 1256; F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud. S. 222–223 = Jüdische Theologie. S. 231; M. Bazilevsky, Rabbi Yehuda Ganasi, p. 28. Wed. Thèse par Édouard Roerich, Étude sur les principals idees morales contenues dans les Épitres de saint Paul, Strasbourg 1872, p. 9: “Elle (la chair) est non la cause, mais le siége du péché, et il faut la considérer moins comme une substance que comme un ensemble d’organes ni bons ni mauvais en eux – mêmes (2 Cor. 8:1; 6:18), mais pouvant le devenir par l’usage qu’on en fera. Leur destination est d'être employés à une activité conforme à la justice selon Dieu, loi suprême de l'humnité. Or le moi étant devenu infidèl à cette justice, il s’ensuit que ses organes s’en sont détournés aussi. La chair deviant l’organe et l’instrument du péché; mais, comme une arme qui échappe des mains de celui qui la tient et le blesse, elle se retourne contre son maître: moi, qui s’étant surfait et qui avait voulu remplacer la justice selon Dieu par sa propre justice, n’est plus assez fort pour diriger ses organes et en devient l’esclave à son tour; le moyen deviant but, l’instrument s’érige en maître et le moi tombe sous l’esclavage de son esclave.” This image is also true from the side that the primary role in the entire tragedy of overcoming sin remains with the spiritual principle of the human being (cf. the text “It is not difficult to move further” and footnote No. 251 “Therefore P. Eklund rightly says...”, as well as footnote No. 260: “Adolphe Sohier, recognizing...”). Therefore, we can admit the thesis of J. Gloël (Der Stand im Fleisch, S. II) that “σάρξ in concrete (real) humanity is the seat of sin.” Of course, in this very sense, Prof. I.N. Korsunsky said (New Testament interpretation of V.Z., Moscow 1885, p. 93. 94.1. 282): “the flesh, therefore, according to the biblical concept, is sin”; “sin and its product the flesh” [cp. Wuttke, Handbuck der christl. Sittenlehre II, Berlin 1862, S. 93 (in Ernesti, Die Ethic des Apostels Paulus, S. 14 Anm.): “das Fleisch, σάρξ, – Product der Sünde”], and V.N. Myshtsyn believes (Teachings of St. Apostle Paul, p. 29) that “the flesh of a natural man is nothing more than the direct action and manifestation of sin.” However, with their artificial vagueness, such expressions, not without reason, can cause strong bewilderment. Cp. Jules Bovon, Théologie du N.T. II, p. 154.2: “L’apôtre ne dit donc pas: Le foyer du péché en l’homme, c’est la raison; ou: Le foyer du péché en l'homme, c'est la matière. Il dit: Le foyer du péché en l'homme, c'est l'homme; ou, lorsqu’il tient compte des protestations du principe supérieur: Le foyer du péché en l’homme, c’est l’instinct naturel de l’homme.” And from the philological side it is noted (in G. Winer - P.W. Schmiedel, Grammatik der neutestamentl. Spachidioms § 22, 3. S. 197) that (Rom. 7:25) “denotes either a person in his detachment from divine grace, or = ὁ ἔσω ἄνϑρωπος 7:22, and Paul wanted to oppose him to the flesh itself as something independent,” of course, because of the predominance of sin in it. Cp. Jules Bovon, Thelogie du N.T. II, p. 153. Joh. Ant. Berth. Lutterbeck, Die neutestamentl. Lehrbegriffe II (Mainz 1852), pp. 196–197. A. Sabatier, L'Apôtre Paul, p. 265: “Ce n’est pas la loi physique de la chair qui devient péché; au contraire, c’est la loi du péché qui est devenue et qui reste la loi de la chair”, why (p. 268) and “le dualism qu’établit l’apôtre reste toujours essentiellement éthique”. See, for example, C. Holsten, Zum Evangelium des Paulus und Petrus, S. 396: “Die σάρξ ist als sinnlichkeit der lebendig materiellen substanz des menschen zugleich das böse. Alle ἐπιϑυμία τὴς σαρκός ist böse. Aber auch alles böse hat sein prinzip nur in der σάρξ, der sinnlich materiellen substanz des menschen.” Wed. also from Prof. J.S. Banks, St. Paul and the Gospels in The Expository Times V, 9 (Juine, 1894), p. 414. Even Prof. rebels against such Gnostic-Manichaean interpretations. A. Hausrath, Neutestamenl. Zeitgeschichte II (Heidelberg 1872), S. 468–469. Therefore P. Eklund rightly says (Σαρξ vocabulum apud Paulum, p. 11) that in (Rom. 7) “certamen igitur re vera voluntatis cum voluntate Paulum depingere.” Lately it has been expressed by Lic. Dr. Theodore Simon. Die Psychologie des Aposteles Paulus, Göttingen 1897, S. 52. See also W. Sanday – A.C. Headlam. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, p. 145–146; Wilh. Karl, Beiträge zum Verständnis... des Apostels Paulus, S. 17; Rev. Principal J. Oswald Dykes, The Diabolic Image (John VIII. 43–47) in The Expositor 1897, XII, p. 47–48. For this reason alone, it would be unfair to see St. Pavel is only the personification of “realistic objectivism,” as G.B., for example, thinks. Stevens, The Pauline Theology, p. 41 sec. Understanding Jul is also not enough. Müller that the flesh is “the direction that in lust and desire inclines a person towards the goods of the world and therefore turns him away from God” (Die christl. Lehre von der Sunde I, S. 452; cp. Gotth. V. Lechler, Das apostolische und nachapostolische Zeitalter, S. 95); Without introducing Manichaean-dualistic elements, it remains unclear where this “trend” comes from and why it turns out to be sinful. So, Eug. de Faye is lying when he claims in “Revue de théologie et de philosophie” 1891, p. 460 that these “les énumérations de péchés... reposent également sur l’idée du péché conҫu comme acte isolé” and that in general (p. 461) “les péchés... n’ont aucun lien organique entre elles.” Wed. also Friedrich Zimmer, I Thess. 2.3–8 erklärt in “Theologische Studien für B. Weiss”, S. 251–252: “Ἀκαϑαρσία... bezeichnet allgemein... eine objective Gemüthsbeschaffenheit: Unreinheit, Unheiligkeit.” There is not the slightest reason to understand εἰδωλολατρία as die Unzucht, as C. Clemen, Die christl. Lehre von der Sunde I, S. 76, although, of course, moral perversity is also reflected there. See Treatise I on pp. 75–76 for details. Therefore, in no case can it be assumed that the Apostle took his classification of sins from Judaism (Der Christ und die Sünde bei Paulus von Lic. theol. Paul Wernle, Freiburg i. B. und Lpzg 1897, S. 133) or, more honestly, from the “liturgy” of the great day of purification (J. Rendel Harris, The Teaching of the Apostles, p. 83–86), or owes it to Orphic literature (Nekyia. Beiträge zur Erklärung der neuentdeckten Petrusapokalypse von Albrecht Dieterich. Lpzg 1893. S. 174 flg.). Adolphe Sohier, recognizing (in Thèse “Étude sur la doctrine de saint Paul concernant la personne de Christ”, Strasbourg 1868) in σάρξ “siége et cause du péché” (p. 21), rightly stipulates that “le mal n’est pas inherent a la matiere meme de la chair. Le corps est l’instrument, l’organe du péché qui s’affirme par les victoires de la chair sur l’esprit, grâce à lafaiblesse de celui-ci; mais le principe du mal est spirutuel” (pp. 22–23). Such an understanding is impossible for C. Hosten, why he is forced to reject authenticity without solid factual grounds (2 Cor. 7:1) (Zum Evangelium des Paulus und Petrus, S. 381.1, 386, Anm.; cp. P.W. Schmiedel in “Hand-Commentar zum N.T.” II, 1, S. 256, 253, and C. Clemen, Die christl. Lehre von der Sünde I, S. 58–59), thereby showing the insufficiency of his theory, since it does not fit the entire body of apostolic testimony. The empirical connection between flesh and sin is rightly noted in J. Chr. K.v. Hofmann, Der Schriftbeweis I (Nördlingen 1857), S. 559; Rich. Schmidt, Die Paulinische Christologie (Göttingen 1870), S. 24 flg., 44; D. Somerille, St. Paul's Conception of Christ, p. 38. Cp. footnote No. 234: “Hence H.H. Wendt comes to the conclusion...” and footnote No. 245: “The thesis can therefore be assumed...”. Wed. Th. Jo. van Griethuysen, De notionibus vocabulorum σωμα et σαρξ, p. 61: “carnem, etiamsi principium illud (i.e. agendi) ei inest, peccandi tamen necessitate non teneri.” From this point of view, it is rightly said (in Rev. G. Matheson, Landmarks of New Testament Morality p. 63) that “the earliest exponent of the ethical nature of sin was the Apostle Paul,” since “to him in a special sense the problem of sin presented itself as a problem of ethics.” See the April Christian Reading booklet. 1898. No. 5. pp. 629–666. Cp. Dr. phil. G. Samtleben, Die heilige Psychologie des Neuen Testaments in “Der Beweis des Glaubens” XVIII, 10 (Oktober 1897: Gütersloh), S. 388: “The Bible, especially the New Testament, looks at man exclusively as a moral-religious subject in his relation to God and the will of God... Thus, everything psychological is colored ethically, why for the New The covenant can only be spoken of as an ethical or sacred psychology.” Prof. Ernst Kühl, “Kein Rühmen vor Gott”, Königsberg i. Pr. 1896, S. 11: “Es genügt zur Erklärung dafur (woher Paulus seine Anschauung von der menschlichen σάρξ geschöpft hatte) die Grundlage alttestamentlicher Vorstellungen.” Wed. Dr. Georg Ludwig Hahn, Die Theologie des Neuen Testaments I (Lpzg 1854), S. 453. Rev. James Stalker, Names for Sin in The Expositor 1894, XI, p. 215. Cp. footnote No. 277: “Therefore, it must be recognized as unmotivated...”. For a review of the latest theories, see W.P. Dickson, St. Paul's Use of the Terms Flesh and Spirit, Glasgow 1883. Th. Simon, Die Psychologie des Apostels Paulus, S. 2. J.Chr. K. von Hofmann, Biblische Hermeneutik, Nordligen 1880, S. 77. On this side, for a description of biblical psychological terminology - mainly in the LXX translation - see the dissertation of Prof. I.N. Korsunsky “Translation LXX. Its significance in the history of Greek language and literature." Sergiev Posad 1898. Pp. 350 cl. Wed. else †Dr. Edw. Hatch, Essays in Biblical Greek, Oxford 1889, p. 96 sec. See footnote No: 265: “Cp. Dr. phil. G. Samtleben...” † Prof. R.A. Lipsius to (Rom. 8:14–18) in “Hand-Commentar zum N.T.” II, 2, S. 140: “Die paul. Anthropologie ruht durchaus auf at. Grundlage; ihre angeblich hellenistisch-dualistische Bestandtheile sind einfach zu bestreiten.” Wed. D. Somerille, St. Paul's Conception of Christ, p. 36. Wed. Prof. John Laidlaw, The Bible Doctrine of Man; or, The Anthropology and Psychology of Scripture (New edition: Edinburgh 1895), p. 59–60. H.H. Wendt in “Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche” IV (1894) 1, S. 28.1. Wed. Prof. J.Chr. K. von Hofmann, Weissagung und Erfüllung im alten und im neuen Testament. Ein theologischer Versuch. Erste Hälfte, Nördlingen 1841. S. 23: “Dieses vom Geiste gewollte Leben des einzelnen körperlichen, sei es Thier oder Mensch, heist man Seele.” Trichotomy is defended or assumed, for example, by J. Georgius Krumm. De notionibus psychologicis Paulinis, Gissae 1858, p. 1st sequ.: J.J. van Osterzee, Die Theologie des N.T., S. 169; Frz Delitzsch, System der biblischen Psychologie, Lpzg 1855, S. 64 flg.; H. Messner, Die Lehre der Apostel, Lpzg 1856, S. 207; J.Fr. Clarke, The Ideas of the Apostle Paul, Boston 1884, p. 157; Jules Bovon, Théologie du N.T. II, p. 148, etc. (cf. W. P. Dickson, St. Paul’s Use of the Terms Flesh and Spirit, p. 173). Against, see, at least, G.L. Hahn, Die Theologie des N.T. I, S. 391 flg.; John Laidlaw, The Bible Doctrine of Man, p. 66 sec. 95 sec. Likewise W. William H. Hodge (Biblical Usage of "Soul" and "Spirit" in "The Presbyterian and Reformed Review" Vol. VIII, No. 30 [April, 1897], pp. 251-266), who - in our opinion - says too much in asserting that in the New Testament the term πνεύμα means only the spirit regenerated and renewed, standing under "the actual or prospective influence of the Holy Spirit" (pp. 251, 252, 260:263). Wed. Die christliche Eschatologie in den Stadien ihrer Offenbarung. Mit besonderer Berücksichtigung der jüdischen Eschatologie im Zeitalter Christi. Von Prof. Dr. Leonhard Atzberger. Freiburg im Breisgau 1890. S. 10.2. As for the views of Spinoza and many modern psychologists (Höffding, Wundt, Paulsen, Jodl, Bain, Spenser, James), see Privatdoz for an analysis of it. Franz Erhrdt in eine Kritik der Theorie des psychophysischen Parallelismus under the title "Die Wechselwirkung zwischen Leib und Seele", Lpzg 1897 (cp. Th. Elsenhans in "Theologische Literaturzeitung" 1898, I, Sp. 23–25). Therefore, Fr.’s objection is factually correct. prof. N.Ya. Svetlova (An experience in the apologetic presentation of Orthodox Christian teaching. Issue 1, Kyiv 1896. pp. 264–267) seems to us not so firm and too sharp in theoretical terms. Thus, regarding (1 Thess. 5:23) W. Beyschlug remarks (Neutestamentl. Theologie II, S. 44) that this is “mehr rhetorische als psyshologische Stelle,” (cf. William H. Hodge in “The Presbyterian and Reformed Review” VIII, 30. p. 295: “Paul throws together, in his own rhetorical manner, the various terms in common use for man’s material and immaterial nature”, albeit with a distinction between “the rational and renewed spirit” p. 261, and see footnote No. 273: “The trichotomy is defended or assumed ...”), H.H. Wendt also sees (Die Begriffe Fleisch und Geist, S. 123 flg.) in it a figurative phrase instead of a simple “you”, and Pfarrer K. Kecrl argues (Die Bildung des ersten Menschen aus Staub der Erde. Ein Beitrag zur biblischen Psychologie in “Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift” VIII [Erlangen und Lpzg 1896], 6, S. 494): Here “the spirit, insofar as it can be defiled, is considered not according to its divine origin and essence, but as a created human soul according to its ideal side. In a similar way one must understand (Heb. 4:12). The trichotomy of human nature is rooted in dichotomy, since the soul differs from the body - in the sense of the life principle - (which W.H. Hodge resolutely denies in op. cit.) and already in it the intellectual (volitional and cognitive) element or spiritual activity is distinguished.” In a certain respect, all this is true and in any case much more probable than the assumption of Greek philosophical influence or the adoption of καὶ ἡ φυχή for a later gloss (P.W. Schmiedel in “Hand-Commentar zum N.T.” II, 1, S. 33), but I think that in these interpretations the most important moment of the apostolic speech is not fully guessed. Throughout its entire course there is no doubt that St. Paul speaks exclusively about moral and religious activity in all its possible manifestations, what are purely physical, mental and strictly spiritual functions, why does it not contain a psychological date; then any conclusions of theoretical generalization will be unfounded. Without defining this aspect exactly, Bishop. Theophan is forced to lean towards a trichotomous interpretation (Interpretation of the Epistles of St. Apostle Paul to the Philippians and Thessalonians, Moscow 1883, p. 383 ff.), and Assoc. (priest) F.I. Titov almost completely takes away the special meaning of the term φυχή (First Epistle of St. Apostle Paul to the Thessalonians. Experience of isagogical-critical-exegetical research. Kyiv 1893. pp. 285–286) and thus shakes the independence of the concept of “spirit”. Therefore, we must recognize as unmotivated the complete elimination of the “physical” moment in the concepts of “spirit” and “flesh” for the sake of the ethical, as we find in Joh. Ant. Bernh. Lutterbeck, Die Neutestamentl. Lehrbegriffe II, S. 198. Cp. in footnote No. 279: “It is clear from this that the form...”. From this point of view, H.H. Wendt rightly asserts (Die Begriffe Fleisch und Geist, S. 1–17) that in the Old Testament, too, flesh signifies not so much materiality as appearance and weakness, although this does not exhaust the entire content. Therefore, neither Tholuck’s definition (in “Studien und Kritiken” 1855, S. 488) that “σάρξ is (everything) human with the secondary concepts of weakness and sinfulness”, nor the judgment of Rev. H.A. A. Kennedy (Sources of New Testament Greek; or, The Influence of the Septuagint on the Vocabulary of the New Testament, Edinburgh 1895, p. 103) that it is “man’s earthy nature apart from divine influence.” Wed. footnote No. 283: “According to this H.H. Wendt..." From here it is clear that form and content are inextricably linked, and the first actually does not exist without the second. Therefore, we cannot agree that “der Begriff σώμα in dem der Körperform einfach aufgeht” and “durchaus ohne Rücksicht auf eine bestimmte Materie verwendet wird” (H. Lüdemann, Die Anthropologie des Apostels Paulus, S. 7; cp. C. Clemen, Die christl. Lehre von der Sünde I, S. 211), that this terminal “an dem begriffe der form hat seine qualitative bestimmtheit” (C. Holsten, Zum Evangelium des Paulus und Petrus, S. 376). Regarding such judgments, H.H. Wendt expressed (Die Begriffe Fleisch und Geist, S. 108) justifiable surprise at how “a person can simply make his bodily form the object of his moral and religious sanctification - in detachment from corporeal matter and, therefore, in the most general sense.” Unsound in principle and in fact, this view is often carried out tendentiously “in the interests of the theory that St. Paul shared the Greek (philosophical) view of the flesh and all things material as naturally evil” (A.B. Bruce, St. Paul’s Conception of Christianity. p. 264 = “The Expositor” 1894, III, p. 190). Closer to the truth is the formula that “the body is an organized material form under the conditions of space and time,” and “the flesh is an organized material” (J. Fr. Clarke, The Ideas of the Apostle Paul, p. 156), since “Fleisch nirgends etwas Anderes heisst, als die materielle Substaz des thierischen inclus. Menschlichen Lebens" (Rich. Schmidt, Die Paulinische Christologie, S. 28). Therefore Prof. Gerhard von Zezschwitz rightly considers (Die Profangräcität und biblischer Spachgeist. Eine Vorlesung über die biblische Umbildung hellenischer Begriffe besonders der psychologischer. Lpzg 1859. S. 27:66) “it is a misunderstanding if from individual expressions of Paul they think that through σώμα it denotes the whole person.” Compare, however, footnote No. 278: “From this point of view...”. The instrumental meaning of σῶμα (Rom.1:24, 6:12–13, 19, 12:1; 1Cor.7:34), as an organism (1Cor.12:12); Wed J. Muller, Die christl. Lehre von der Sunde I, S. 460), noted, for example, in G.L. Hahn, Die Theologie des N.T. I, S. 431. H.H. Wendt, Die Begriffe Fleisch und Geist. S. 103–104, W. Beyschlag, Neutestamentl. Theologie II, S. 31. Therefore, fleshiness sometimes directly expresses immaturity and weakness; see (1 Cor. 3:1): ὡς σαρκινοῖς, ὡς νηπίοις ἐν Χριστῷ. According to this H.H. Wendt (Die Begriffe Fleisch und Geist, S. 153) and Bernh. Weiss (Lehrbuch der Bibl. Theologie des N.T., S. 247, 249:250) not without reason emphasize that σάρξ designates man in his created distance from God. Wed. A. Sabatier, L'Apotre Paul, p. 267. Ferd's judgment is essentially correct, but somewhat harsh and from a psychological point of view still hasty. Weber'a (Vom Zorne Gottes, S. 83): “a person who is not pneumatic is called σάρξ, not because of his created properties or difference from πνεύματα, but because he set himself against the πνεῦμα that previously ruled him, and became flesh.” In this regard, the judgment of Dr. is too general, but actually correct. C. Ackermann’a (Beitrag zur thelolgischen Würdigung und Abwägung der Begriffe πνεῦμα. νοῦς und Geist in “Studien und Kritiken” 1839, 4, S. 900–901), that “νοῦς usually means something subjective and human, the sensory-spiritual being of man, while πνεῦμα usually indicates something objective, a vitalizing force.” From a psychological point of view, the image of W. Beyschlag is correct (Neutestamentl. Theologie II, S. 41): “Die σάρξ sollte im Menschen das Dienende, Werkzeugliche, und das πνεῦμα das Regierende und in diesem Regieren als Selbstzweck sich Entfaltende sein. Und dass es nicht so... dass die σάρξ mit dem in ihr wurzelnden Triebleben sich aus der Gewalt des νοῦς und seines Gottesgesetzes entfesselt und ihrerseits den Geist mit seinen Thätitigkeiten des Denkens und Wollens sich dienstbar gemacht hat, das ist nach Paulus unsere, allgemein-menschliche Sünde. Nicht die σάρξ als solche ist böse; ( Rom.7:17), die uns anhaftende Principielle “Verfehlung”, ἁμαρτία". Of course, this is far from exhausting everything in the concept of sin, as it appears from E. De Pressense (Histoire des trois premiers siècles de l’Église chrétienne II, Paris 1858, pp. 134–135) and H. Messner (Die Lehre der Apostel, S. 209), but the addition of W. Beyschlag (ibid. II, S. 46), as if - on the basis of personal experience - the Apostle’s σάρξ seems to be “als Sitz und Herd der Sünde im Menschen”, gives a completely false light to the subject and even inclines towards a dualistic-materialistic understanding, since our death in the forefather (1 Cor. 15:22) comes down to “nicht auf Adams That, sondern auf Adams Natur” (S. 60). Wed. at o. prof. T.I. Butkevich. Evil, its essence and origin, p. 52 ff. R. Hiya (in the 3rd century) said: “Der Leib ist von dem Irdishen, wo Sünden unvermeindlichsind” (J. Hamburger. Real-Encyclopädie des Judenthums II, S. 1256), for “der Körper Sitz der Unreinheit ist” (Tosephta Judaim, sect. 2 s. fin. III, 4, Lpzg 1897, S. 70). Meanwhile, without carnality, sin would be impossible (F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 214 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 221–222). Therefore, even A. Edersheim states (The Life and Times of Jesus I, p. 165) in Judaism “the absence of felt need of delivery from sin.” J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopadie des Judenthums II, S. 1231; III, 3, S. 31. Cp. A. Edersheim. The Life and Times of Jesus I. p. 167; F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud. S. 204 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 211; Prof. Dr. Jacob Lery, Neuhebräisches und Chaldäisches Wörterguch II (Lpzg 1879). S. 259a. Wed. J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopädie des Judenthums III, 3, p. 34. F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, p. 209–210 = Jüdische Theologie, p. 217. O. Cone, The Gospel, p. 172. J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopädie des Judenthums III, 1, S. 4. F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 210 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 218: “God has given us an evil desire, so that for overcoming it we should receive a reward” (Sanhedrin 64a). J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopädie des Judenthums II, pp. 1231–1232. H.J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der neutestamentl. Theologie I, S. 62, 36, 39. Cp. in treatise I on pp. 50 (to notes 94–95), 47–48; tract. II, ch. 2, p. 186 ff. J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopädie des Judenthums III, 3, S. 32. F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud = Jüdische Theologie, S. 24, 42 flg. J. Wellhausen, Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer, S. 16. B. Strassburger, Geschichte der Erziehung und des Unterrichts bei den Israeliten. Von der vortalmudischen Zeit bis auf die Gegenwart. Stuttgart (1885?). S. 32. Cp. Pirke Abboth II, 5 (II, 7) at Aug. Wünsche. Der Babylonische Talmud II, 3, S. 449, and E.B. Levina Pirke Abot, pp. 22. 23: “An ignoramus (ein Unwissender) cannot be pious.” Therefore, in Judaism, doctrine was sometimes placed above deeds (F. Weber ibib., S. 24; J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopädie des Judenthums III, 4, S. 24–27, and cf. Treatise I on p. 33 to note 66). J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopädie des Judenthums III, 3. S. 31. Oehler † (v. Orelli) in “Real-Encyklopädie” von Herzog-Hauck IX, S. 649–650 flg. F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 214, 234 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 221, 242–243, and cf. on pp. 303–304, although for strong restrictions see, for example, J. Hamburger, Real-Encydopädie des Judenthums III, 4. S. 11, 77. Cp. A. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus I. p. 509. H.L. Strack, Einleitung in den Thalmud. S. 32 and Anm. A.A. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus I, 84. Prof. Dr. Jacob Lery, Neuhebräisches und Chaldäisches Worterbuch I (Lpzg 1876), S. 534a. N. Pereferkovich, Talmud I, p. 120. F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 262–263 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 272. The Soteriology of the New Testament by Prof. William Porcher Du Bose, New York 1892, p. 25. Aug. Wünsche, Die Leiden des Messias, S. V, 3–4, 108. Chr. Schoeltgenii Horae hebraicae et talmudicae II, p. 550 = Jesus der wahre Messias, S. 770. Cp. Aug. Wünsche, Die Leiden des Messias, S. 17–18. Cp. A.Fr. Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils II, pp. 180–184, 186–190, 286. O. Pfleiderer: “It is clear that in Judaism we have the source of the Pauline doctrine of the atonement, which doctrine is in reality nothing more than the application of the theory developed in Pharisaic theology of substitutionary propitiation to the special occasion of the death of Jesus, but naturally its action is extensive and intensive, superior to any other propitiation, just as in Paul Christ is raised above the level of the Jewish righteous man” (Das Urchristenthum, S. 170–171; cp. 233–234). “That there is a close kinship and historical connection between the Pharisaic school theology and Paul’s doctrine of atonement and justification cannot be doubted” (Der Paulinismus, S. 23), for “Paul had long been familiar with the Jewish theory of his school, which is why he subordinated the special case of the death on the cross of the righteous Messiah to this point of view” (S. 137). In general, it is “obvious how natural it was for Paul to use the prevailing views of Pharisaic theology to explain the death on the cross of the Messiah Jesus” (The Influence of the Apostle Paul, p. 61). Equally, O. Cone considers it indisputable (The Gospel, p. 195) that it is rabbinical views that underlie all the theoretical judgments of St. Apostle about the Sacrament of Calvary. O. Pfleiderer, The Influence of the Apostle Paul, p. 211. O. Pfleiderer, Der Paulinismus, S. 145, 153, 158. O. Pfleiderer, Der Paulinismus, S. 151. Wed. above on pp. 287, 295–297. Another characteristic remark of one Jewish righteous man in Jalkut Rubeni in Aug. Wünsche, Die Leiden des Messias, S. 86: “I have not committed serious sins, but only light ones, why do I not need such great suffering. It is true that the Messiah takes away the sins of Israel, but I do not at all wish for my sins to be taken away by anyone other than myself.” G.H. Dalman, Jesaja 53 das Prophetenwort von Sühnleiden des Heilsmitters, S. 41. H.J. Holtzmann in Paul's theory of the atonement sees (Lehrbuch der neutestamentl. Theologie II, S. 109) the dominance of “purely Jewish ideas about the legal relationship between God and man” with the use of “concepts about the possibility of the transfer of merit, about the propitiatory power of the suffering and death of the righteous,” but with that significant difference, “dass es sich bei der, auf Zurechnung des Verdienstes Anderer beruhenden, Rechtfertigung jüd. Seit um Ergänzung, christl. Seits um Ersetzung des eigenen Verdienstes handelt” (S. 133; cf. footnote No. 395 “Even O. Pfleiderer admits this,..”). O. Pfleiderer, Der Paulinismus, S. 356. This is shaded even by Prof. G.B. Sterens, The Theology of Paul and of John Compared in "The Biblical World", continuing The Old and New Testament Students: March, 1894 (Chicago), p. 170 sec. = The Jonannine Theology. A Study of the Doctrinal Contents of the Gospel and Epistles of the Apostle John, New York 1895. P. 361 sequ. Aug. Wünsche, Die Leiden des Messias, S. 7. J. Chr. C. Döpke. Hermeneutik der neutestament. Schriftsteller, S. 33. O. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristenthum, S. 186: “Sin is a debt to God and without payment is not forgiven by Him, no less than by a civil judge. This position... is also important for understanding Paul’s teaching on the atonement.” Wed. Der Paulinismus, S. 22. This idea is especially developed by Albr. Ritschl'ya, Die christl. Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versohnung II, S. 162 flg., and is shared by some other scholars: see, for example, E. Kuhl, Die Heilsbedeutung des Todes Christi, S. 73 flg. (but cf. 85–86); C.F. Nosgen, Geschichte der neutestamentl. Offenbarung II, S. 244. There are perhaps even more opponents; are: Leonh. Usteri, Entwickelung des Paulinischen Lehrbegriffes. S. 111 flg.: Rich. Schmidt, Die Paulinische Christologie, S. 84, 86; W. Beyschlag, Neutestamentl. Theologie II, pp. 132–133; A. Seeberg, Der Tod Christi, S. 187 flg. 377; D. Somerville. St. Paul's Conception of Christ, p. 84–85. 277–278 (with a limitation to this in Prof. Marcus Dods in “The Critical Review” VII [4 October 1897], p. 461) and especially harshly to the point of rudeness by Prof. Charle Carroll Ecerett, The Gospel of Paul (Boston and New York 1893), p. 1 sequ. In O. Pfleidererer it even acquires a tinge of tendentiousness in the fencing of historical genesis, since school Jewish theology has deviated far from Old Testament concepts. See, for example, Das Urchristenthum, S. 171, and Der Paulinismus, S. 143–144. Therefore, in the reasoning of the Apostle Paul related here, one cannot see only an accommodative device, as in Études historiques et dogmatiques par A. Réville De la rédemption, Paris 1859, p. 142. Cp. Die Lehre des Apostels Paulus vom erlösenden Tode Christi von Galat. 3. 13 und 14 aus beleichtet von Prof. D. Alex. Schweizer in "Studien und Kritiken" 1858, S. 471. Prof. Frz Delitzsch, Der Messias als Versöhner, Lpzg 1885, S. 25 flg. P. Kölbing, Studien zur paulinischen Thelogie II in "Studien und Kritiken" 1895, I, S. 27 flg. Wed. Ed. Riehm in “Studien und Kritiken” 1877, S. 91: “If the saving effect of the death of Christ is illuminated by the New Testament writers from the point of view of sacrificial propitiation, then in any case they speak of such a propitiation of sins, which goes far beyond the realm of those who were propitiated according to the ritual of the Old Testament worship.” Wed. A. Schweizer in "Studien und Kritiken" 1858, S. 438, 450–451. Cp. A. Schweizer in "Studien und Kritiken" 1858, S. 444–445. J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopadie des Judenthums II, S. 765. Cp. Treatise II, ch. 3, approx. 93 on page 252 et cf. Prof. E. Schürer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes I, S. 571, II, S. 310; J. Derenbonrg, Essai sur l'histoire et la géographie de la Palestine I (Paris 1867), p. 425. G.H. Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias, S. 2 flg. F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 346–347 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 362–364. Joh. Buxtorfii P. Lexicon chaldaicum, talmudieum et rabbinicum, Basileae 1640, col. 1273. Even Philo, “together with other Jews of that time, expected in the Messiah only a great king-prophet (like David or Moses), who, with the assistance of the divine Logos, would return the Jews from dispersion to the Promised Land and would give them primacy among the nations of the earth.” See prof. M.D. Muretova Philosophy of Philo of Alexandria, p. 174. G.H. Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias, S. 21. Der Antichrist in. der Überlieferung des Judenthums, des neuen Testaments und der alten Kirche. Ein Beitrag zur Auslegung der Apokalypse von Privatdoz. Wilhelm Bousset.Göttingen 1895. S. 65, 170. J.H. Schwarz, Geschichtiche Entwickelung der mesianischem Idee des Judenthums, S. 84 flg. Even Aug admits this. Wünsche. Die Leiden des Messias, S. 109. Cp. Prof. W. Baldensperger, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu, pp. 146–151. Prof. Leonh. Bertholdt rightly assumes (Christologia Judaeorum Jesu Apostolorumque aetate, Erlangae 1811, p. 157) that the transformation of Messianic Jewish ideas is due to “mutate inde ab exilio balylonico rerum publicarum statu ejusque consiliis nulla ex parte idoneo,” but his hypothesis about the influence of the Essenes and especially the Samaritans (p. 157:158), of course, is unfounded already because among the latter the Messiah was just a man (cf. treatise II, chapter 3, note 94 on p. 252), which is why he dies at the end of his activity (G.H. Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias, S. 16). No less doubtful is the guess, for example, by Oehler † (v. Orelli) about the relationship of Joseph’s son Ephraim to the ten tribes of Israel (“Real-Encyklopädie” von Herzog-Hauck IX, S. 669–670). See A. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus I, p. 168, et cf. treatise II, ch. 3, p. 237 and approx. 19. And Frz Delitzsch admits (Der Messias als Versöhner, S. 20) “die Spaltung der Einen Person in zwei,” but we can in no way agree with him that this presupposes in Judaism the most ancient idea of ​​the suffering and death of the Messiah, since a sufficient answer to the author’s question has been found: “woher käme denn diese dunkle Grundierung in das talmudisch-midrasische Messiasbild? Cp. H.J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der nentestamentl. Theologie I, S. 85: “Eine Unterscheidung des Messias aus Joseph’s und aus Juda’s Stamm, gelegentlich auch die Vorstellung eines leidenden Messias, wahrscheinlich nach Sach 12,10–12.., sind bedingt theils durch das Unglück der Nation unter Titus, Trajan und Hadrian, theils durch die Controverse mit den Christen" (cf. footnote no. 374: "From this point of view of W. Baldensperger..."). It is worthy of note that the Karaites, who have largely preserved the ancient (anti-Pharisee) traditions (cf. Prof. D. Chwolson, Das letzte Passamahl Christi, S. 14:1. 19-20), expect the coming of only the (glorious) son of David: S. Schechter in “Studies in Judaism”, p. 195; Wed J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopädie des Judenthums III, 4, S. 113. See treatise II, ch. 3, approx. 93 on page 252 et cf. H.L. Strack, Einleitung in den Thalmud, S. 81; G.H. Dalman, Art. "Akiba" in "Realencyklopädie für protestantische Theologie" von Hauck I, S. 281; Prof. A. Klostermann ibid. II, Lpzg 1897, S. 405; N. Pereferkovich, Talmud I, pp. 32. 82; L.M. Shahray, Rabbi Akiba, his life and work, Odessa 1894, pp. 36–37. Wed. Br. F. Westcott, An Introduction to the Study of the Gospels, p. 145, no. 6; Prof. Cr. H. Toy, Judaism and Christianity (Boston 1891), p. 280 and not. 1. J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopädie des Judenthums II, pp. 765–767; III, 4, S. 70 Cp. W. Feilchenfeld at G.H. Dalman, Jesaja 53, S. 15. J.H. Schwarz, Geschichtiche Entwickilyng der messianischen Idee des Judenthums. S. 83–84: “The doctrine of the suffering Messiah, who raises many sufferings to atone for the sins of the Israeli people and all humanity in general, is the fruit of Jewish mysticism; it was disputed and rejected by representatives of the sound (Pharisee) trend,” which “does not know the suffering Messiah and strongly protests against the messianic understanding of the 52nd and 53rd chapters of the book. Isaiah, contrasting him with something completely different” (S. 95; cf. footnote No. 391: “Cf. treatise I, pp. 44–47 and note 87”). A.Fr. Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils II, S. 271: “Nothing is stronger than the proposition that in the age of Christ not a single Jew recognized the Messiah, suffering or accepting an atoning death,” and all such concepts appeared later (S. 270). V.H. Stanton, The Jews and the Christian Messiah (Edinburgh 1886), p. 122–123: “The idea of ​​the suffering of the Messiah is not found in any Jewish document until the end of the first century.” This remark also applies to the judgments of Prof. YES. Khvolson, Das letzte Passamahl Christi, S. 83–85, 130, and even more to the statement of C. Weizsäcker (Das apostolische Zeitalter, S. 133), that “ist auch unter den Juden jener Zeit der Glaube, dass der Messias durch Leiden hindurchgehe, nicht fremd gewesen, wenn er auch andererseits bestritten wurden”, why supposedly “für die jüdischen Christen war der leidende Messias der Uebergang zum gekreuzigten”. Wed. weil. Prof. Gust. Fr. Oehler, Theologie des Alten Testaments (Stutthart 1882). S. 829. H.H. Wendt, Die Lehre Jesu II: Der Inhalt der Lehre Jesu (Göttingen 1890), S. 541: “If in later Judaism the idea of a suffering Messiah was found, it was not only only the theological theory of individual rabbis and in the time of Jesus was completely alien to the religious consciousness of the Jewish people, but suffering itself, in the sense of possibility, had been internalized by the Jews of the Messiah, who falls to them at the head of his people in the era of struggle against the powers of the world for the restoration of the messianic kingdom and for his victory and glory - these sufferings are completely different from those to which Jesus is subjected through the leaders of the people and which - from the outside - He endures in death. Likewise, A. Edersheim finds (The Life and Times of Jesus I. p. 165) “there is only an extremely unclear attitude towards the elimination of sin through the Messiah, in the sense of voluntary suffering.” This explains the death of the Messiah, the son of Joseph, but G.H. Dalman makes (Der leidende und der sterbende Messias, S. 22) the important caveat that “keine der mit ihm sich beschäftigenden Stellen gibt seinem. Tode einen Suhuwert" (cf. footnote no. 357: "V.H. Stanton, The Jews and the Christian Messiah..."). Cp. G.H. Dalman, Der Leidende und der sterbende Messias, S. 43. In this sense, the following observation is also characteristic. Evidence from the Babylonian Talmud, where (Sanhedrin 97b) the opinion of r. Eliezer on the meaning of repentance as a messianic preparation is sharply disputed by R. Yehoshua, is explained by the Talmud of Jerusalem, which (in Taanith 63b) assimilates the first limitation that, in any case, the severe disasters of the “last days” will force the Israelites to repent and through this will lead them to salvation. For further details see Israël Lévi, La discussion de R. Josué et de R. Eliézer sur les conditions de l’avènement du Messie in Revue des Études juives, t. XXXV. No. 70, Octobre–December 1897 (Paris), p. 282–285. Cp. F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 336 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 350–351. G.H. Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias, S. 42. Other evidence from Sota IX, 16 and Sanhedrin XI, 27. 28 See also J. Rendel Harris, The Teaching of the Apostles, p. 90. Aug. Wünsche, Die Leiden des Messias, S. 74. J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopädie des Judenthums II, S. 737. Aug. Wünsche, Die Leiden des Messias, S. 61. J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopädie des Judenthums II, S. 738. G.H. Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias, S. 43. J. Schoettgenii Horae hebraicae et talmudicae II, p. 546–547, 971. Book of Enoch XL, 19, translated by Prof. O. A.V. Smirnova on pp. 443–444 = Das Buch Henoch von A. Dillmann, S. 63; The Book of Enoch by R.H. Charles, p. 254. Book Enoch LXIII by Fr. A.V. Smirnova on pp. 366–367 = A. Dillmann, S. 34–35; R.H. Charles, p. 166–169. Book Enoch XXXVIII, 5–6 in Fr. A.V. Smirnova on page 324 = A. Dillmann, S. 18–19; R.H. Charles, p. 113–114. Book Enoch XLI, 11 at Fr. A.V. Smirnova on page 450 = A. Dillmann, S. 66; R.H. Charles, p. 267–268. Br. F. Westcott, An Introduction to the Study of the Gospels p. 114, from IV Esdras. (sl.-Russian 3 Esdras.) XIII, 31 in Ad. Hilgenfeld, p. 175, and O. Fr. Fritzsche, p. 66. Cp. Br. F. Westcott, An Introduction to the Gospels, p. 121. Ps.17:39 by Fr. A.V. Smirnova on page 100 = Ad. Hilgenfield, p. 23; O.Fr. Fritzsche, p. 20; J. Wellhausen, S. 162; Rule and James, p. 144. 145; O.r. Geghardt, S. 133. J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopädie des Judenthums II, S. 743. J. Schoettgenii Horae hebraicae et talmudicae II, p. 509 sec. 513 sec. J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopädie des Judenthums II, S. 486. Oehler † (v. Orelli) in “Real-Enzyklopädie” von Herzog-Hauck IX, S. 666. F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 336. 349 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 351. 365. Cp. W.H. Bennett, The Mishna, p. 114–115. Thus, the suffering spoken of, for example, in the Ruth Rabba, consists of the temporary loss of royal power by the Messiah who has already appeared: G.H. Dalman, Der Leiden de und der sterbende Messias, S. 51. Br. F. Westcott, An Introduction to the Gospels, p. 125. 126; cp. even O. Pfleiderer, Das Urchristenthum, S. 17. V.H. Stanton, The Jews and the Christian Messiah, p. 124: “Messiah Ben-Joseph... is not according to the original conception of his character a sufferer, but a warrior. Though he falls, there is nothing specifically atoning in his death” (cf. footnote No. 339: “Hence the death of the Messiah is clear...”). Br. F. Westcott, An Introduction to the Gospels, p. 142. J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopadie des Judenthums II, p. 486. J. Schoettgenii Horae hebraicae et talmudicae II, p. 969. Oehler † (v. Orelli) in "Real-Encyklopadie" von Herzog-Hauck IX, S. 665. J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopadie des Judenthums II, S. 736 cp. his Real-Encyclopädie III, 4, S. 5 (“Der Sohn Davids [Messias] kommt erst, wenn die Angebereien überhandnehmet warden”). 36 (the fall of Rome will be the beginning of the kingdom of God); Aug. Wünsche, Neue Beiträge zur Erläuterung der Evangelien, Göttingen 1872, pp. 306–307; N. Pereferkovich, Talmud I, p. 106, and above approx. 56 on page 293, to which see also J. Hamburger III, 4, S. 14, 94 (for p. Ioce). 3 (for p. Ioce ben-Kisma). G.H. Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias, S. 66–67. Aug. Wünsche, Die Leiden des Messias, S. 66. Cp. Frz Delitzsch, Brief an die Römer, S. 83. Aug. Wünsche, Die Leiden des Messias, S. 79. J. Schoettgenii Horae hebraicae et talmudicae II, p. 435–436. A.Fr. Gfrorer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils II, S. 268. Frz Delitzsch, Der Messias als Versohner, S. 18–19. G.H. Dalman, Der Jeidende und der sterbende Messias, S. 61. J. Chr. C. Dopke, Hermeneutik der neutestamentl. Schriftsteller, S. 166. Aug. Wünsche, Die Leiden des Messias, S. 58. J. Schoettgenii Horae hebraicae et talmudicae II, p. 969–970. Frz Delitzsch, Der Messias als Versöhner, S. 20. Cp. V.H. Stanton, The Jews and the Christian Messiah, p. 123–124. G.H. Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias, S. 39. Aug. Wünsche, Die Leiden des Messias, S. 63. Cp. F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 343–344 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 359. Hence the different attitudes towards an image that is similar in appearance, as noted in W. Baldensperger, Das Selbsbewusstsein Jesu, S. 151–152: “For the Jews, the suffering Messiah is a leper, from whom they turn away with horror, - on the crowned thorns the eyes of Christians rest with joy; some asked how to get rid of messianic sorrows, others believed in their deliverance through the cross.” Aug. Wünsche, Die Leiden des Messias, S. 57. F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 343 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 359. Frz Delitzsch, Brief an die Römer, S. 78 (ad III, 21 sequ.). For an explanation of this point (with an analysis of the opinion of A. Fr. Gfrörera about the Messiah as the second lawgiver) see W. Baldensperger, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu, S. 138 flg. Since the Torah is the only way of salvation (E. Schürer, Die Predigt Jesu Christi, S. 12; cp. notes 56, 63, 64, 293 on pp. 292–293, 294:642), then the abolition of the law is not the work of the Messiah: J. Hamburger, Real-Encyclopädie des Judenthums III, 3, S. 51. Cp. F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 37, 192, 360 flg. = Jüdische Theologie, S. 38, 199, 378 flg., and in treatise I on page 81 to approx. 138–141. G.H. Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias, S. 39. F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 343 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 359: “Ueberdies ist er (Messias) auch voll von Züchtigungsleiden. Denn Leiden sind nöthing, um ein vollendeter Gerechter zu werden. Nirgends ist angedeutet, dass der Messias sündlos sei. Auch er sündigt, auch er büsst und wird auf diesem Wege durch Thun und Leiden ein vollendeter Gerechter" (cf. footnote no. 398: "Cp. G.H. Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias..."). The Gemara even states that the Messiah will be the same as “our holy Rabbi,” i.e. the editor of the Mishnah, Yehuda: see G.H. Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias, S. 37. Aug. Wünsche, Die Leiden des Messias, S. 42, 67; Wed treatise II, ch. 3, pp. 275–276. From this point of view, W. Baldensperger, not without right, believes (Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu, S. 140 flg.) that the rabbinic image of the Messiah is - to a large extent - copied from the story of Moses and even pursues polemical anti-Christian goals (cf. note 207, note 210 and 328 on pp. 341. 342. 654, and also A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Gospel according to S. Luke by the Rev. Alfred Plummer, Edinburgh 1896, p. 193–194, but see for limitations G.H. Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias, S. 21–22, 87–88). Hence the later development of this idea is understandable, especially in the Zohar, which can be read about at least in F. Nork, Rabbinische Quellen und Parallelen zu neutestamentl. Schriftstellen, Lpzg 1839, S. Cp. CIII–CIVz. Cp. F. Weber. Die Lehren des Talmud. S. 348 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 364. Aug. Wünsche, Die Leiden des Messias, S. 72, 73. G.H. Dalman, Der leidinde und der sterbende Messias, S. 41. According to Abrabanel (1437–1509), the Messiah surpasses Abraham in greater piety. Moses - the most perfect deliverance of Israel ex omnibus mundi regionibus, Angels - ratione suae victoria contra gentes, for praevalebit virtus regis Messiae - and all this, of course, due to his personal moral toughness. See Antonii Hulsii Theologia judaica de Messia, Bredae 1653, p. 435–436. G.H. Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias, S. 46. G.H. Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias, S. 47. Cp. Oehler † (v. Orelli) in "Real-Encyklopadie" von Herzog-Hauck IX, S. 670. Cp., for example, F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 343, 345 flg. = Jüdische Theologie, S. 359, 361 flg. G.H. Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias, S. 46–47. In this sense (but no more) it is true what Aug says. Wunsche, Die Leiden des Messias, S. 27: “Nach der Lehre des meist lehrstreitigen rabbin. Schriftthums ist der Messias der Versohner der Welt, der durch sein Selbstopfer sich ein Verdienst erworben, das sundentilgende Kraft hat,” but – qualitatively – this merit is the same as that of other righteous people. Cp. E. Schurer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes II, S. 466: “The idea that prevailed in Judaism was applied to the Messiah: that a perfect righteous person not only fulfills all the commandments, but also atones for the sins committed by suffering, and the excessive suffering of the righteous serves to benefit others.” Aug. Wünsche, Die Leiden des Messias, S. 81. In Pesikta Rabbati even this exclamation of the patriarchs has been preserved: “Oh! Ephraim, Messiah, our righteousness! Although we are your fathers, you are much greater (better) than us, because you took away the sins (of us and) of our children.” See Aug. Wünsche, Die Leiden des Messias, S. 67; G.H. Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias, S. 63. Aug. Wünsche, Die Leiden des Messias, S. 73, 74, 76. G.H. Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias, S. 52. G.H. Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias, S. 52, where - in connection with some other considerations - it is concluded that this is actually about bodily oppression. Wed. treatise I, pp. 44–47 and note. 87; F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 344–346 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 360–362. G.H. Dalman thinks (Jesaja 53, S. 9) that in general “die Synagoge ist der Beziehung von Jesaja 53 auf den Heilsmittler nicht allgemein gefolgt” (cf. note 332 on p. 655), admitting however (S. 2. 20) that the relation of this chapter to the Messiah “auf kein Fall kann vollständig unjüdisch sein.” See May 1898 Christian Reading, No. 6, pp. 793-840. See G.H. Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias, S. 69. This is probably why the time of the coming of the Messiah is called הגאולה קץ - “the end of redemption.” See S. Schechter, Studies in Judaism, p. 424, not. 8 to "Nachmanides". Even O. Pfleiderer admits this when he says that “the early Christian community thought about the saving power of Christ’s death” in such a way that “die sündentilgende Wirkung des Leidens der Gerechten sollte für die Ihrigen nicht etwa an die Stelle ihrer eigenen Gesetzt Gerechtigkeit treten, sondern vielmehr unter Voraussetzung des relativen Vorhandenseins einer solcher nur ergänzend zur Deckung ihrer Mängel und Lücken hinzutreten” (Das Urchristentum, S. 21). Cp. approx. 309 at page 384. Aug. Wünsche, Die Leiden des Messias, S. 90. Aug. Wünsche, Die Leiden des Messias, S. 88. Cp. A.Fr. Gfrörer, Das Jahrhundert des Heils II, S. 267. Cp. G.H. Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias, S. 39: “Zur vollendeten Gerechtigkeit des Messias darf ein reiches Mass von Leiden nicht dehlen” (cf. note 368 on p. 401), since “ein Messias als Person, und zwar ausdrücklich als Mensch, sogar bestimmt als Sohn Joseps (Efraim) und Sohn Davids tritt zwar bei den Rabbinen noch hervor" (Die Sittenlehre des Judenthums andern Bekenntnissen gegenüber. Nebst dem geschichtlichen Nachweise über Entstehung und Bedeutung des Pharisaismus und dessen Verhältniss zum Stifter der christlichen Religion. Von Bezirksrabbiner Dr. E. Grünebaum. Strassburg 1878. S. 157). For this reason “seine Kraft beruht nicht, wie der Prophet (Isaiah) lehrt, auf seinem Sühnopfer, sondern auf der personlichen Gerechtigkeit, die ihn würdig macht, das Werk des Messias zu vollbringen”: F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 346 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 362. It should also be noted that this distinction belongs to all the righteous and to Jerusalem: F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 342 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 357–358. G.H. Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Massias, S. 75. F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 362 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 379. Cp. G.H. Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias, S. 75–76. Aug. Wünsche, Die Leiden des Messias, S. 41, 42. According to the Targum of Jonah, “He (the Messiah) will ask for our sins” and “offer prayers for our (many) sins”: - then he will be exalted. A. Edersheim, The Life and Times of Jesus I, p. 511. F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 302 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 315. W. Baldensperger, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu, S. 151. Cp. Treatise I, approx. 87 on page 45. In Pesikta Rabbati, the Messiah says to the patriarchs: “What I have done is only for the sake of you and your children, so that they may share in the good things that are intended for the Holy Ones of Israel” (Jehovah). See Aug. Wunsche. Die Leiden des Messias, S. 68. G.H. Dalman, Der leidinde und der sterbende Messias, S. 63–64. F. Weber, Die Lehren des Talmud, S. 344 = Jüdische Theologie, S. 360. G.H. Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias, S. 2,1: “Von einer Totung dieses Messias (ben David) Weiss die alte Synagoge nichts.” 86–88. W. Baldensperger, Das Selbstbewusstsein Jesu, S. 145. J.H. Schwarz, Geschichtliche Entwickelung der messianischen Idee des Judenthums, S. 87: “weiss die jüd. Mystik von keinem Tode des Messias Davididen.” True, the 4th book of Ezra speaks of the death of the Messiah after 400 years, but the author remains completely alone with such an indication, which rests with him on the recognition of the Deliverer as an ordinary person (see Das vierte Buch Esra auf seine Quellen untersucht von Lizen. Richard Kabisch, Göttingen 1889, S. 155-156) and “have nothing to do with the idea of redemptive death." E. Schürer, Geschichte des jüdischen Volkes II, S. 464: “Din Weissagung des vierten Buches Esra, dass der Messias nach 400 jähriger Herrschaft sterben worde, hat selbstverständlich mit der Idee eines Versöhnungstodes nichts gemein.” V.H. Stanton, The Jews and the Christian Messiah, p. 123.1: “The words of 4 Esdr. VII. 29, 30 (words - Russian 3 Esdras 7:29–30: “and after these four hundred years my Son Christ will die”)... evidently do not refer to an expiatory death, or to His (of the Messiah) sufferings properly so called.” G.H. Dalman: Jesaja 53, S. 1–2; Der leidende und der sterbende Messias, S. 68–69. G.H. Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias, S. 15. Aug. Wünsche, Die Leiden des Messias, S. 36. Cp. G.H. Dalman in "Realenzyklopädie" von Hauck I, S. 101–102. Cp. G.H. Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias S. 22, 30. G.H. Dalman certifies (Der leidende und der sterbende Messias, S. 22) this even for the Messiah, the son of Joseph, and Bezirksrabbiner Dr. E. Grünebaum refers the doctrine of it (Die Sittenlehre des Judenthums) to “die extravaganten Ansichten späterer Rabbiner” (S. 302:2), claiming that it is “ist spatern Urspungs” (cf. on p. 389 to note 324), since “das ältere Judenthum hat davon nichts gewusst" (S. 229:1). See Prof. Heinrici, Jesus und Paulus in "Neucs Sächsisches Kirchenblatt" 1895, Nr. 49, Sp. 786. Undoubtedly, it would be the extreme of the greatest delusion to think that even the entire “V.Z. teaches nothing about the suffering and dying Messiah" (H. Aug. Schneemann, Die Versöhnungslehre von evangelisch-protestantischen Kirche, S. 159. Mauricius Vernes, De notione fidei apud Paulum Apostolum: mysticane in ea continentur elementa, necne. Argentorati 1871, P. 18), since this idea contained in Moses and all the prophets (Luke 24:25–27) and lay at the basis of the hay economy with its essential concepts of sin and redemption. But, of course, the opposite statement by Rev. will be an exaggeration. N.I. Sokolova (History of the Old Testament writings in the Christian Church from the beginning of Christianity to Origen inclusive, Moscow 1886, p. 16), as if “in the Old (Testament), as in a dim mirror, one can contemplate the entire life and activity of the God-man about whom the New one narrates.” E. Grünebaum, Die Sittenlehre des Judenthums, S. 227, 228: “Dieser paulinische Messiabegriff ist wesentlich der leidende Messias... Aber dieser leidinde Messias selbst ist entschieden gegen alle biblische und acht rabbinische Auffassung... Auch die alten Rabbinen kennen keinen leidenden Messias"; on the contrary, “das ältere Judenthum kannte nur einen siegreichen Messias” (S. 229, 1. 258–259 and cf. pp. 300–301). Wed. E. Schurer, Geschichte des judischen Volkes II, S. 446: “We can safely say that the idea of ​​the redemptive suffering of the Messiah was alien to all Judaism.” Prof. Ernest D. Burton in "The Biblical World": 1893, Jannary, p. 14–15. G.H. Dalman, Der leidende und der sterbende Messias, S. 23: “kennt der alte Rabbinismus keinen Sübutod eines Messias.” 68. Prof. Joseph Langen, Das Judenthum in Palästina zur Zeit Christi, Freiburg i. Br. 1866, S. 416, 423 flg. C.F. Nösgen, Geschichte der neutestamentl, Offenbarung II, S. 238. Therefore, we cannot agree with the opinion of Prof. I.G. Troitsky (Interpretation of the book of the Holy Prophet Isaiah [chapters XLIX–LXVI], St. Petersburg, 1895, p. 832:2), as if “Wünsche convincingly proved that the belief in the redemption of people (namely) through the suffering of the Messiah was the common faith of the Hebrew synagogue.” On the contrary, G.H. Dalman even thinks (Der leidende und der sterbende Messias, S. III) that “August Wünsches “Die Leiden des Messias”, von Verfasser selbst schwerlich noch im vollem Umfange vertreten, hat nur als Materialiensammlung cinen gewissen Wert,” why the tendency of this book is most accurately explained by the remark H.L. Strak’a (Einleitung in den Thabnud, S. 126) about another work of this author (Neue Beiträge zur Erläuterung der Evangelien), that in it “viel Material, aber einseitig zu Gunsten der Pharisäer”. Delitzsch, for example, in the brochure “Der Messias als Versöhner”, S. 20–21. Even “for Philo there could not have been any serious and real need for the redemption of the world and in general in the history of the divine economy for the salvation of creation.” “From the rabbinic-deistic point of view of Philo’s philosophy, there is no place in it for the Old Testament idea of ​​the Messiah-reconciler. From the messianic idea, Philo, like most of his compatriots, has only the external and sensual side.” See prof. M.D. Muretova, Philosophy of Philo of Alexandria, pp. 151, 168, 173–174. Wed. Br. F. Westcott, An Introduction to the Gospels, p. 137. Cp. Prof. Heinrici in Neues Sächsisches Kirchenblatt 1895, Nr. 51, Sp. 819: “stellvertretender Tod Jesn von Nazareth keine Analogie in den rabbinischen Theologumena findet.” The Rev. S. Baring-Gould, S. Paul's Mind and Method in "The Expositor" 1897, IX, p. 206: “Paul adopted the second alternative (that a Jew – for his justification – should take refuge under the imputed righteousness of Abraham and the Fathers), merly changing the name from Abraham to Jesus. The doctrine was conveyed by Paul bodily out of the Synagogue into the Church." Eug. de Faye in “Revue de théologie et de philosophie” 1891, p. 480–483. A. Hausrath (in “Bibel-Lexicon” von D. Schenkel IV, S. 410) sees decisive proof of the scientific-rabbinic education of the Apostle Paul in the fact that “seine ganze Rechtfertigungslehre hat im Grunde diesen stark juristischen Charakter” O. Cone, The Gospel, p. 208: “Paul’s theological genius found corresponding formulas in Jewish theology and in the terminology of the LXX.” The Theology of the New Testament by W.F. Adeney (London 1894), p. 156: “His (of Paul) whole attitude to the question of justification is forensic; he has the proceedings of the Sanhedrim in mind when he regards the salvation of a soul in the light of the acquittal of a prisoner." Prof. E. Grafe, Paulinische Theologie in "Theologische Rundschau" I (Freiburg i. B. 1897), S. 24: "Mit Recht halt R (iggenbach Ed., Die Rechtfertigungslehre des Apostels Paulus, Stuttgart 1897) an dem forensischen Charakter des Rechtfertigungsbegriffs fest". Prof. Ernst Kühl, Die Heilsbedeutung des Todes Christi, Berlin 1890, S. 45: “Paulus, aus der pharisäischer Schule commend, in seiner Rechtfertigungslehre die ganze Regelung des Verhältnisses zwischen Gott und Menschen nach der Analogie eines Rechtvorganges verstehen lehrt.” Wed. v. H. Ziegler in Studien und Kritiken 1894, S. 425 flg. Prof G. Schnedermann, Der israelitische Hintergrund in der Lehre des Apostels Paulus von der Gottesgerechtigkeit aus Glarben, Lpzg 1895, S. 10 = “Neue Kirchliche Zeitschritf” VI (1895), 8, S. 658. Wed. also A. Sabatier, L’origine du péché, p. 27. 28. Let us note by the way that this treatise was reprinted by the author during the third edition (Paris 1896) of his book L’Apôtre Paul - in the appendix under the title “La question de l’origine du péché dans le système théologique de Paul” (pp. 371–420). Eug. Menegoz, Le péché et la redemption, p. 226. A. Sabatier, L'origine du péché, p. 3. Thus O. Cone, The Pauline Teaching of the Person of Christ in The New World III, 10 (Juine, 1894), p. 278. From what has been said, it is clear how unfair the judgment of O. Pfleiderer is (Der Paulinismus, S. 147), as if in this case St. Paul "simply took (Rom. 6:7) the prevailing position of Jewish theology and applied it to Christ and Christians, in order to explain how sin had lost its dominion to the latter as partakers of the death of Christ." Therefore, the remark of O. Cone (The Gospel, p. 199) that St. Paul here applied to Christ and the believers the doctrine of Jewish theology. On the contrary, Aug. Dietzsch rightly reproaches (Adam und Christus, S. 193) the Protestant theory that it forgets about the fundamental “re-creation” of the justified, for “es giebt keine Vergebung ohne Erneuerung” (Wilh. Karl, Beitrage zum Verständnis... des Apostels Paulus, S. 55). So Prof. (Unitarian) Charles Carrol Everett, The Gospel of Paul, p. 111 sec. It is noted by Fr. prof. N.Ya. Svetlova, Gladstone’s Thoughts on Redemption, Kazan 1896, pp. 14–15, reviewed by A.V. Bruce. St Paul's Conception of Christianity, p. 184-185, and branded with just indignation by Frank Hugh Foster in "Bibliotheca Sacra": January, 1896 (Oberlin. Ohio), p. 89–99; see also Vortrag von Prof. Arnold Meyer, Die modern Forschung über die Geschichte des Urchristentums, Freiburg i. B. 1898, S. 38. See Treatise I, pp. 50–51. Therefore, one cannot agree with the idea (A. Ritschl, Die christl. Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung II, S. 256; III.S. 247. D. Somercille, St. Paul’s Conception of Christ, p. 82), that here St. Paul speaks only of Jews and for Jews. Wed. Prof. Wolfgang Friedrich Gess, Christi Person und Werk nach Christi Selbstzeugniss und den Zeugnissen der Apostel II (Das apostolische Zeugniss), Basel 1878, pp. 85–91; C.F. Nösgen, Geschichte der neutestamentl. Offenbarung II, S. 248; Marcus Dods in The Critical Review VII, 4. p. 461; Prof. Johannes Dalmer, Der Brief Pauli an die Galater, Gütersloh 1897, S. 119. This explains the injustice of O. Pfleiderer’s judgment that, along with “the whole depth of Christian knowledge” of St. Paul also showed here “all the sharpness of his rabbinical dialectic” (The Influence of the Apostle Paul, p. 89), since the “final destruction of the law of writing” was allegedly “completely unknown to the primacy of the Church” (p. 27). For an explanation and analysis of this issue from the theoretical and dogmatic side, see Fr. prof. P.Ya. Svetlova (The significance of the cross in the work of Christ, p. 3 ff. The shortcomings of Western theology in the doctrine of atonement and the need to adhere to the patristic teaching when explaining this dogma, Sergiev Posad 1893, p. 4 ff. Gladstone’s thoughts on atonement, p. 4 ff.) and Archimandrite. Sergius (Orthodox teaching about salvation. The experience of revealing the moral and subjective side of salvation on the basis of Holy Scripture and the works of the Holy Fathers. Sergiev Posad 1895, p. 1 ff.). Cp. St. Paulus und St. Jacobus über die Rechtfertigung (in II. Bd, 1. Heft series "Biblische Studien", herausgegeben von Prof. Dr. O. Bardenhewer in München). Von Dr. theol. Bernhard Bartmann. Freiburg im Breisgau 1897. S. 57. See, for example, Die Lehre von der Sunde und vom Versöhner, oder die wahre Weihe des Zweiflers, von A. Tholuck, Hamburg 1836 (fünfte Auflage), S. 105 flg. Lic. Theol. Pfarrer Ernst Cremer even admits (Die stellvertretende Bedeutung der Person Jesu Christi, Gutersloh 1892, S. III) that “die Lehre von der Rechtvertigung aus dem Glauben, wie sie reformirte Theologie ausgeprägt hat, ist nur die andere Seite der Lehre von der stellvertretenden Bedeutung Christi,” why (S. 118) “in der Erkenntniss der stellvertretenden Bedentung der Person Christi finden die Räthsel seiner Geschichte, findet inbesonders sein Kreuz, in welchem alle Rathsel sich zusammenfassen, seine Lösung.” So does Superintendent Zitzlaff (Die wahre Bedeutung der Glaubensgerechtfertigung in “Studien und Kritiken” 1897, III, S. 489–574), arguing that “auf dieser Lehre ruht das ganze evangelische Bekenntniss, von ihm aus empfangen alle einzelne Bestimmungen desselben ihr Licht und ihren Wert” (S. 489), although he thinks that the formulation of the term about faith justifying in a purely legal sense (cf. S. 491–492) “is untenable in itself, incompatible with the concept of faith and does not agree with the teaching of the Reformers and the Holy Spirit. Scripture" (S. 496 and cf. note 467). R. Schmidt, Die Paulinische Christologie, S. 9. R. Schmidt, Die Paulinische Christologie, S. 89. A.B. Bruce, St. Paul's Conception of Christianity, p. 155 = “The Expositor” 1893, VIII, p. 88: in the “Protestant theological tradition, not the act of believing, but the object believed in, the righteousness of Christ, is imputed,” but even this author, rejecting the distinction between formal and material principles in the teaching of St. Paul on justification (at least in G.B. Stevens, The Pauline Theology, p. 275), believes that “for the apostle, objective righteousness was more than a form, it was a great essential reality, pardon of sin for Christ’s sake” (St. Paul Conception of Christianity, p. 212–213 = “The Expositor” 1893, XI, pp. 352–353). Likewise, D. Somerville argues this way (St. Paul’s Conception of Christ, pp. 92–93. 94): “We naturally transfer part of our affection to a person dear to us and to those who in themselves would not attract our love if they were not dear to him. We favor them and do good for his sake... The attitude of grace into which humanity is brought by Christ by His death for us is the highest realization of this principle. That God acts with us so inconsistently with what our sins deserve, for this we see no other reason than that Christ, our head, is the most perfect revelation of God's love and holiness to humanity, that He is infinitely dear and - in this capacity - delivers to humanity those benefits that belong to Him, bringing us into a new relationship of acceptance by God. We join Him for the sake of Christ... God can bless us for the sake of Christ only because Christ, whom we recognize as the revelation of God’s love, causes in us trust in God and repentance for sin. The condition for our participation in divine favor, of which Christ was the greatest object, is our union with Christ, our union with Him by a living faith that reconciles us to God.” Prof. Ed. Böhl, Von der Rechtfertigung durch den Glauben, S. 165, 137. G.B. Stevens, The Pauline Theology, p. 264 (cp. 269). 269. Lic. theol. Pastor Paul Althaus writes (Die Heilsbedeutung der Taufe im Neuen Testamente, Gütersloh 1897, S. 100 and cf. 151:174): “Der den Korinthern zu teil gewordene Heilsact der δικαίωσις (vgl. Röm. 4:25) kann demnach einzig und allein in dem gewöhnlichen forensischen Sinne als diejenige Bethätigung der göttlichen Gnade verstanden warden, durch welche der an sich sündige Mensch (vgl. V. 9: ἄδικος mit dem ἀσεβῆ in Röm. 4:5) als an vor dem richterlichen Urtheile Gottes schuldbefreiter bezw, als ein in seinem Verhältniss zu Gott gerechtfertigter d. i. δίκαιος hingestellt wird (vgl. Röm. 3:21)." See also Karl Wieseler, Commentar über den Brief Pauli an die Galater, Göttingen 1859, S. 176 flg. F. Godet – K. Wunderlich, Commentar zu dem Briefe an die Romer I, S. 101 flg. Chr. Fr. Schmid, Biblische Theologie des N.T., S. 562 flg. A. Ritschl, Die christl. Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versöhnung II, S. 304 flg, Bernh. Weiss, Lehrbuch der Biblischen Theologie des N.T., S. 316 flg. W. Beyschlag, Neutestamentliche Theologie II, S. 181 flg. H. Cremer. Biblisch – theologischer Wörterbuch, S. 302 flg. Cp. Maur. Vernes, De natura fidei apud Paulum Apostolum, p. 5: “Πίστις Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ aut ἐν Ἰησοῦ Χριστῷ significat fiduciam quam peccator saluti in Jesu Christo positae habet, non autem conjunctionem intimam qua jam peccator regenertus et Christus invicem devinciuntur.” See also Ferd. Chr. Baur. Vorlesungen über Neutestamentliche Theologie, S. 154. This element is overemphasized even in G.B. Stevens (in "The Biblical World", March, 1894, p. 173 = The Johannine Theology, p. 366) and stipulates the definition of δικαιοῦν in Chr. Fr. Schmid, Biblische Theologie des N.T., S. 562. A characteristic exponent of historical-genetic criticism is the late († January 26, 1897) Professor Carl Holsten writes (in Das Evangelium des Paulus. Teil II. Paulinische theologie nebst einem Anhang: “Die gedankengänge der paulinischen briefe" herausgegeben und mit einem abriss von Holsten's leben eingeleitet von pastor D. Paul Mehlhorn. Mit dem Bildniss Holsten's. Berlin 1898): "Die gerechtigkeit ist ergebniss eines urteils Gottes, das den sünder, dem die sünde um des todes des Messias willen vergeben war, zugleich als einen durch diesen tod umsonst (Rom.3:24), d. h. one eigene taterfullung des gesetzes, gerecht geurteilten hinstellte (Rom. 5:19). Diese gerechtigkeit ist also ein lebenszustand, in den der glaubige sunder durch ein urteil Gottes versetzt wird; und damit geht der judische begriff der gerechtigkeit in den paulinischen der rechtfertigung, die justitia in die justification über, obwol das wort δικαιοσύνη bleibt... Er (der glaubige) besitzt sie (die gerechtigkeit) in der zurechnung Gottes, der den gläubigen um seines glaubens an die gnade Gottes im kreuzestode Christi willen als einen gerechten beurteilt und ihm den lon der gerechtigkeit, das leben, verleiht” (S. 55–56). "Die vielen, one subjectiv gerecht zu sein, objective in der heilsweltordnung Gottes durch einen akt der weltordnung als gerechte hingestellt warden... Die gerechtigkeit ist hier nicht als eine inhärente, subjective eigenschaft, sondern als ein objective lebenszustand gedacht, in welchem der mensch in der anschauung des weltordnenden Gottes lebt und dasteht” (S. 66). Eug. de Faye in “Revue de théologie et de philosophie” 1891, p. 480: “God imputes the righteousness of Christ to the believers,” and it is δικαιοσύνη ἐκ ϑεοῦ, comes from outside and is credited legally through δικαιοϑῆναι – justum pronuntiare. Same Prof. D. Gustav Adolf Fricke, Der Paulinische Grundbegriff der δικαιοσυνη Θεου erörtert auf Grund von (Rom. 3:21–26), Lpzg 1888, S. 26, 28. Despite all the opposition to Judaism in the final conclusions of the letter to Romans, - “yet the arguments which the Apostle uses are Jewish from first to last... The conception, too, of imputed righteousness, of faith which God reckons as righteousness, of the sacrifice of reconciliation which God has appointed as the vindication of his justice – all these are thoughts which has sprung up upon Jewish ground”: Prof. († R.A.) Lipsius, Introduction to the Epestle to the Romans in A Short Protestant Commentary on the New Testament, edited by Prof. P.W. Schmidt and Prof. Frz von Holzendorf, translated by Fr. H. Jones, II (Romans-Galatians) London 1883, p. 31. Cp. Prof. J. Wellhausen, Die Pharisäer und die Sadducäer, S. 18,1. O. Pfleiderer, Der Paulinismus, S. 180. In extreme cases, it is allowed (G. Schnedermann. Der israelitische Hintergrund, S. 5 = “Neue Kirchkiche Zeitschrift” VI [1895], 8, S. 653) no more than that “due to the difference in the means (to achieve righteousness), the basic concepts should have changed, but it should be emphasized with particular sharpness, that Paul’s thesis (about justification by faith) must be understood precisely from the point of view of this opposition” (Jewish); in general, the teaching of the Apostle on this subject "can only be accurately assessed in relation to the 'Israelite' premises" (S. 6 = 654). Likewise, Rev. Prof. Joseph Agar Beet (Difficult Passages in Romans. 3. Justification through Faith) sees in the teaching of St. Paul on justification by faith the influence of the lessons of Gamaliel, thinking that here we are obliged "to the legal training and disposition of the great apostle of the Gentiles": see "The Expositor" 1898, pp. 287-288. Also Arn. Meyer, Die moderne Forschung über die Geschichte des Urchristentums, S. 34: "van Leeuwen hat im besonderen den jüdischen Hintergrund im Briefe an die Römer untersucht und den Begriff der δικαιοσύνη ϑεοῦ wesentlich nach Analogie alttestamentlicher Ausdrücke bestimmen wollen.” Especially Catholics do this (for example, Prof. Dr. Hub. Theophil Simar, Die Theologie des heiligen Paulus, zweite Auflage, Freiburg im Breisgau 1883, S. 185 flg.) according to Concil. Trid. sess. VII, cap. 7: “Demum unica formalis causa (justificationis) est justitia Dei, non qua ipse justus est, sed qua nos justos facit” etc., but see Prof. Wilh. Schmidt, Zum Römerbrief in "Studien und Kritiken" 1898, 2, S. 256 flg., and V.N. Myshtsyn, Teachings of St. Apostle Paul, pp. 86.1; Wed also Prof. T.K. Abbott, Essays chiefly on the Original Texts of the Old and New Testaments, London 1891, p. 108; Rev. J. Oswald Dykes, The Gospel according to St. Paul, p. 15. Such denial is especially strongly expressed by C. Holsten: “Die δικαιοσύνη ϑεοῦ nicht als subjective eigen schaft, sondern als ein von Gott bewirkter zustand des menschen zu denken ist.” Der genitive ϑεοῦ ist genitivus auctoris und bezeichnet eine von Gott nicht nur im allgemeinen ausgegangene, sondern bewirkte gerechtigkeit... Die δικαιοσύνη ϑεοῦ ist daher ein von Gott gewirkter objective lebenszustand des menschen zu denken, in welchen dieser durch eine objective tat Gottes, durch ein δικαιούν ( Rom.3:24 ) oder eine δικαίωσις ( Rom.4:25, 5:18 ) versetzt wird "... “ein lebenszustand, in den die menschen durch Gott auf grund des kreuzestodes des Messias versetzt sind” (Das Evangelium des Paulus II, S. 65:66). Prof. Theodor Häring, δικαιοσύνη Θεοῦ bei Paulus, Tübingen 1896. S. 34, 32; Noch einmal δικαιοσυνη ϑεου in (Rom. 1:17) in "Studien und Kritiken" 1896, S. 139–141. Bernh. Bartmann, St. Paulus und St. Jacobus über die Rechtfertigung, S. 60. Bernh. Weiss, Lehrbuch der Biblischen Theologie des N.T., S. 317. Cp. G. Schnedermann, Der istaelitische Hintergrund, S. 9 = “Neue Kirchliche, Zeitschrift” VI (1895), 8, S. 657. G.A. Fricke, Die Paulinische Grundbegriff der δικαιοσυνη Θεου S. 23, 26. Rev. J. Barmby, The Meaning of "Righteousness of God" in the Epistle to the Romans in The Expositor 1896, VIII, p. 124–139 ​​(“God’s own eternal righteousness”). So does P. Kölbing, but in the sense that here “dasjenige gereche Richterwalten Gottes verstanden ist, welches durch helfendes Eingreifen oder Heilsspendung den Menschen als einen vor Gott gerechten hingestellt, ihm Gerechtigkeit vor Gott verleiht”: see “Studien zur paulinischen” Theologie" I in "Studien und Kritiken" 1895, 1, S. 13. This understanding is directly given by the recognition of gender. case for indicating the source, as stated, for example, Rev. Prof. Joseph Agar Beet in "The Expositor" 1898, IV, p. 281: “the genitive of God describes the source of this righteousness, as given by God, in contrast to a righteousness earned by human effect.” Wed. his Difficult Passages in Romans. 4. Death of Christ in “The Expositor” 1898, V, p. 372: “The justice or righteousness of God is the divine attribute underlying the sequence of sin and punishment,” and in this sense “St. Paul traced to an essential element of the nature of God, viz. His justice" (pp. 374–375). So does W. Beyschlag in Neutestamentl. Theologie II, S. 183. Cp. G.H. Schnedermann, De fidei notione ethica Paulina commentatio biblico-theologica, Lipsiae 1880, p. 26. See J. Chr. K.v. Hofmann, Weissagung und Erfullung II, S. 161. This means that even at its very origin, faith presupposes a moral feat in a person, why, “excluding self-justification, but not moral self-activity” (Die Lehre des Apostels Paulus von Prof. D. Wilh. Schmidt, Gutersloh 1898, S. 28), “der Glaube nicht eine Sache ist, die man bei übrigens unveränderter Gesinnung haben oder ubernehmen kann, sondern dazu eine grundsätzliche Umkehr der ganzen Grund – und Willensrichtung unerlasslich ist” (ibid., S. 59 and cf. 29 Anm.). In this sense, “der Glaube... ist der sittlich bedingte Glaube” (S. 101) does not agree with the concept of “the verdict of God, which justifies in contradiction to the internal mood of the judged” (S. 28: 1). "Damit ist ausgeschlossen, dass die paulinische Theologie eine Rechtfertigung aus Gott, ein δικαιοῦν, kennt, welches ohne Rücksicht auf die wirkliche Herzensstellung des Menschen oder gar im direkten Widerspruch mit ihr in einem lediglich forensichen Akt, das will sagen, einem von dem inneren Sachverhalt unabhängigen Gottesurteil bestehe” (S. 94). In general, “wird es evident, dass das Christenwerden dem Apostel keineswegs ohne einen wirklichen Wandel des Herzens vonstatten geht und zustande kommt, sowie, dass es sich bei der Erlösung ganz und gar nicht bloss um einen juridisch-forensischen. Akt des Gottesurteils ohne einen ihm entsprechenden Stand des Herzens des Gläubigen handelt; m. a. W. der grundsätzlich ethische Charakter des Christentums” (S. 103 and cf. footnote no. 456: “From this point of view it is more correct...” and footnote no. 471: “Rev also came to the same result...”). In this sense, the statement of Prof. is characteristic of Protestantism. Theodor Häring'a (Zur Versöhnungslehre. Eine dogmatische Untersuchung. Göttingen 1893. S. 25): “Paulus Stellvertretung kennt, aber nicht das, was dort Imputation heist, vielmehr eine “inclusive Stellvertretung”, ein Mitsterben und Mitlebendigmachtwerden mit Christus.” Therefore, “δικαιοσύνη ϑεοῦ bei Paulus ist...eine Bestimmtheit des Menschen, von Gott ausgehende menschliche Gerechtigkeit” (Wilh. Schmidt, Die Lehre des Apostels Paulus, S. 23) and on this side “es ist eine Gerechtigkeit des Menschen, die dieser von Gott empfängt” (ibid., S. 24; cf. footnote no. 473: “This is energetically expressed...”). From this point of view, the terms δικαιοῦν, δικαιοσύνη and δικαίωσις from the Apostle Paul are more correctly illuminated by Prof. Arthur Cushman Mc Giffert (a student of Adolphe Harnack) in his work “A History of Christianity in Apostolic Age”, New York 1897. He admits that “the word δικαιούν has the forensic meaning of accounting or treating as righteous, at least a part of the time. And yet, in spite of this fact, to regard such expressions as formative in Paul’s thinking, and to read his conception of salvation in their light, is to misinterpret him. The truth is that his tendency was predominantly ethical (cf. footnote No. 453: “So, already with his own ...”), and the forensic terms were secondary, not primary, with him,” which is why “the forensic element, which so many have emphasized to the exclusion of every other, is seen to be subordinate, not supreme” (pp. 144–145). This means: “it is the common opinion that the word δικαιοῦν is used by Paul solely in the forensic sense, but the opinion is not justified by the facts” (p. 144.2 and cf. footnote No. 471: “The Rev came to the same result...”). vollig neuen Geist einzugiessen” (Bernh. Bartmann, St. Paulus und St. Jacobus über die Rechtfertigung, S. 68). Therefore E. de Pressensé correctly notes (Histoire de trois premier siècles de l’Église II, p. 130) that “la justice consiste dans la conformité de notre être à être de Dieu.” Of course, we cannot agree (see D. Somerville, Paul’s Conception of Christ, pp. 293-295, and Prof. D. Johannes Haussleiter, Was versteht Paulus unter christlichem Glauben. Eine Untersuchung der Formel πίστις Χριστοῦ in Greifswalder Studien für Hermann Cremer”, S. 164) with a realistic-localistic interpretation of G. Ad. Deissmann’a (Die neutestamentliche Formel “in Chisto Jesu”, Marburg 1892, S. 97–98; cp. “Theologische Literaturzeitung” 1898, 1, Sp. 11), as if the formula ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ means “das Verhaltniss des Christen zu Jesus Christus als ein local aufzufassendes Sichbefinden in dem pneumatischen Christus”, and necessarily “die Vorstellung des Verweilens in einem der Luft vergleichbaren Pneuma-Elemente”; but in terms of its generality, another understanding is also insufficient (H.H. Wendt in “Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche” IV [1894], 1, S. 49 Anm.), that it expresses “nur allgemeine Vorstellung der Zugehörigkeit zu Christus.” In this sense, the Wilh restriction is also acceptable. Karl'a (Beiträge zum Verstandnis... des Apostels Paulus, S. 40, and cf. footnote No. 429: “Therefore, the remark of O. Cone ... is erroneous”) that “die δικαιοσύνη nur deshalb aus der Pistis kommt, weil mit Pistis der Pnemaempfang gemeint ist", although here several intermediate points are vainly and unfairly omitted. This explains the injustice of the judgment (G. Ad. Fricke, Der Paulinishe Grundbegriff der δικαιοσυνη Θεου, S. 29) that the main element in redemption is χάρις, and not ἀγάπη. Natural for a Protestant, these words do not correspond to the fact and rest on a purely theoretical distinction, since, according to the excellent expression of A. Sabatier (L’Apôtre Paul, p. 275) – “si le mot χάρις indique l’acte d’amour par lequel Dieu sauve l’homme, celni de δικαιοσύνη ϑεοῦ marque la nature, la qualite morale de cet act divin.” It is equally artificially said by D. Somerville (St. Paul’s Conception of Christ, p. 77): “it is not hat God reveals His love in the death of Christ, but rather God redeems us by the death of Christ, and so reveals His love”; This means that the death of Christ was a revelation of God’s love, and then all the author’s trick turns out to be a completely empty logical twist. Wed. in our speech “The Conversion of Saul and the “Gospel” of St. Apostle Paul”, St. Petersburg 1896, pp. 147–148 = “Christian Reading” 1896, issue II, pp. 385–386. Wed. treatise I, pp. 134 and note. 236. Of course, like justification, this sanctification is “sacramental” or accomplished through the sacraments (cf. Bernh. Zippel, Der Christus als zweiter Adam, Königsberg 1896, S. 15; see footnote No. 498: “So, die Aufnahme in die Lebensgemeinschaft ...”), because only in them does faith receive a real basis for communion with God in Christ and the Spirit. We assume this beyond doubt with all firmness, although we do not reveal it in detail, since this side of the issue is beyond the scope of our study. That is why the Protestant-rationalistic understanding is not able to substantiate real righteousness with its “psychological theory of sanctification” (for an analysis of which see V.N. Myshtsyn, The Teachings of St. Apostle Paul, p. 241 ff.), as can be seen in the characteristic example of C. Holsten and in footnote No. 465: “So it turns out...”, or falsely merges “reconciliation” reborn with his very redemption, which is noticeable in Ernst Kühl, Die Heilsbedeutung des Todes Christi, S. 156 (but cf. 160:170). However, all this is inevitable given the conviction of Protestant orthodox dogma that the Apostle Paul does not at all admit that new life (regeneration) comes from justification (“lehrt noch keine Ableitung des neuen Lebens aus der Rechtfertigung”): see W. Beyschlag, Neutestamentl. Theologie II, S. 190. This is how it comes out according to the objective-legal theory of justification, used by historical-genetic criticism, for example, by C. Holsten. According to him, “... ist sie (die πίστις) die innere beziehung des religiösen ich auf ein geistiges object, auf eine offenbarung, verheissung Gottes, die nicht an den willen des ich sich wendet und eine in die erscheinung tretende handlung fordert, sondern an das wissen eine im inneren des ich sich vollziehinde betätigund der anerkennung fordert” (Das Evangelium des Paulus II, S. 72). Therefore, the most important point here is purely theoretical, since “die offenbarung Gottes im Christentum hat zum inhalt ein seiendes – der messiastod ist ein sünetod, – das ware, und wendet sich an das denken, dass es ein seiendes als das ware anerkenne. Dadurch erhält das christlich religiöse leben sein unterscheidendes gepräge, das theoretische: freilich nur als moment, aber als ein mitentscheidendes moment” (ibid., S. 113). The whole matter is limited to the fact that “mit der πίστις ward die γνῶσις, die anfangs als wissen nur inhalt des theoretischen bewusstseins des νοῦς war, inhalt der καρδία, des gemütes, lebendige innere herzensbewegugn (Rom. 10:10), und aus dem drange des lebendig bewegten gemütes ward die πίστις zum ὁμολογία, zum bekenntniss der dem denkenden geiste gewiss gewordenen warheit und der das gamüt bewegenden gewissheit (Rom. 10:10)" (S. 112). So “schaut in dem kreuzestode des Messias das religiöse ich sich selbst als kreuzestot an, so wird, was nur eine dem ich aussere und ausserliche tat schien, die eigenste innere lebensbewegung des religiösen ich” (S. 106). But it goes without saying that no actual change occurs in a person, since “der sünder nun, als wäre er ein gerechter, Gott gegenüberstehe, der ihm also die folge des gerechtigkeit, das leben, zuerkennen musste” (S. 69 and cf. footnote No. 444: “This element is unnecessary is emphasized..."), why there is no real action here: "die, welche zuvor sünder waren, nun in dem namen Jesu Christi objective abgewachsen, geheiligt, gerechtfertigt sind, one subjective damit schon δίκαιοι zu sein, und in dem geiste Gottes objective den grund eines neuen gerechten lebens empfangen haben, one damit schon subjective in ihrem leben gerecht zu sein” (S. 68–69 and cf. I, S. 291:3). Therefore “die messiasgläubigen gelten... (only) ideell als wirkliche δίκαιοι” (S. 67), and “nur in diesem sinne eines logischen factitivs (= infolge eines urteils für gerecht erklären) kommt nun das wort (δικαιούν) bei Paulus vor” (S. 68), although they “τὸ πνεῦμα, der positive grund eines neuen lebens im wollen und handeln, (ist) gegeben” (S. 117). For these reasons, rebirth into a new creature is only a theoretical-intellectual act (S. 59: “wer in Christus ist, der ist ein neues geschöpf, ein neu geschaffenes religiöses bewusstsein”; S. 60: “diese καινὴ κτίσις ist... eine umformung durch erneuerung des bewusstseins”; S. 119: “der gläubige ist ein mensch eines ganz neuen bewusstseins”), and righteousness turns out to be actually unattained, for “ist auch der gläubige, obwol Χριστός und das πνεῦμα τοῦ ϑεοῦ in ihm lebt (Gal.2:20; Rom.8:10:9), dennoch als ein an die sünde noch gebundener” (S. 119). This is categorically denied by Prof. William Arnold Stevens (in his note "On the Forensic Meaning of δικαιοσύνη"; see "The American Journal of Theology" Vol. I. No. 2 [April 1897: Chicago], pp. 443-450), who states that the Apostle Paul "does not teach at all in all his writings that the ethical righteousness of Christ becomes ours" (p. 450), meanwhile, even Luther recognized that faith also presupposes the perception of salvation (see Zitzlaff in “Studien und Kritiken” 1897, 3, S. 527). This is the fundamental mistake of the author, why all his arguments in favor of the thought of supposedly St. Paul understood justification legally in the Old Testament-legal sense, when for him - in Christianity - the slogan became not law, but grace (p. 443 and cf. paragraph: “But redemption delivers...”). Particular considerations are far from being justified. Thus, seeing in δικαιωϑείς simply non-ὑπόδικος (p. 445, 446–447), W.A. Stevens concludes (p. 446): “conviction is the act of declaring guilt and sentencing to punishment; if justification is directly contrary to this, then it will also be an act of release from legal responsibility and the abolition of punishment, nothing more.” Here the most important thing in the subject is silent, that just as in the first case the decision rests on the actual crime, so in the second there must of course be a real basis of the corresponding quality or actual righteousness, and therefore the ethical element cannot be considered only secondary and collateral in justification (p. 444), not organically connected with the latter (cf. footnote No. 429: “Therefore, O. Cone’s remark is erroneous...” and footnote No. 453: “This means that already with himself"). Cp. Bernh. Bartmann, St. Paulus und St. Jacobus uber die Rechtfertigung, S. 68. Therefore A.B. Bruce certainly correctly observes (St. Paul’s Conception of Christianity, p. 148 = “The Expositor” 1893, VIII, p. 83): “for the ex-legalist Paul, who passionately thirsted for righteousness and left Judaism because he recognized its righteousness as vanity and vexation of spirit, - for him the new righteousness of God is the greatest reality.” The observations of Prof. are instructive in this regard. Gustaf Dalman (Die richterliche Gerechtigkeit im Alten Testament, Berlin 1897. Sonder-Abdruck aus der Kartell – Zeitung akad. Theol. Vereine aufdeutschen Hochschulen: Studien zur biblischen Theologie, Nr. 2). Distinguishing in the term ערקה different elements and stages of development (about which cf. R. Kraetzschmar in “Theologische Literaturzeitung” 1898, 3, Sp. 76–77), the author thinks that by the age of Christ the Savior the definitions of goodness and mercy had long been established for him (S. 8) with the elimination of legal aspects. Therefore, it was even said that in judgment there is no place for ערקה: where there is judgment, there is no “righteousness” (and vice versa), since then it lies chained under the throne of God (S. 6-7). On the contrary, in V.Z. there is a legal element. In its legislative parts, “the one who is released by the court is righteous, and the accused is godless” (S. 9), while in the later parts the concept of compassion and reward prevails; if there “righteousness” resembles a maiden with a blindfold and scales in her right hand, here she directly stretches out her hand to the helpless and rejects the oppressor (S. 12). However, the idea of ​​divine retribution was not excluded at all (S. 16 flg.), just as the legal connotation is generally undeniable. Its abolition in Judaism is explained by formalism in the understanding of judicial administrations with the complete loss of the idea that a just action can at the same time be saving (S. 18). Therefore, for rabbinism, the righteous God was not a deliverer and needed to be enrolled, meanwhile, with St. Paul, both of these predicates coincided to the point of indissolubility in the integral act of redemptive and renewing justification in absolute agreement with the teaching of the Old Testament revelation. See Prof. Emil Kautzsch, Ueber die Derivate des Stammes צרק im alttestamentlichen Sprachgebrauch, Tübingen 1881, S. 12. G. Ad. Fricke, Die Paulinische Grundbegriff der δικαιοσυνη Θεου, S. 7. G.B. Stevens, The Pauline Theology, p. 45.1. Cp. E. Kautzsch, Ueber die Derivate, S. 9, 10, 16, 18, 23–24, 29, and about δίκαιος - in the sense of normal - see also G. Ad. Deissmann, Bibelstudien, S. 112–113, and, however, “es ist grundfalsch, wenn die Erkkarer (only) mit diesem Wortsinn (der πίστις) beginnen, um zum Verstandnis der paulinischen Heils-πίστις zu gelangen” (Wilh. Karl, Beiträge zum Verständnis... des Apostels Paulus, S. 43). Rev came to the same result. Prof. E.P. Gould in his treatise “St. Paul's Use of δικαιοῦν" (see The American Journal of Theology Vol. I, No. 1 [January 1897: Chicago], pp. 149–158). He states that “ˆ1) the meaning of judging righteously cannot be applied to the writings of St. Paul when paying attention to grammar or context and that for a number of passages it - with rational exegesis - turns out to be absurd; thatˆ2) the rejected meaning - to make righteous - is the most basic one that we need and which satisfies both grammar and context; thatˆ3) in those cases where a legal act is understood, the support of the court is δικαιοσύνη in its proper sense of righteousness” (pp. 149–150). Therefore: “ˆ1) The verb δικαιοῦν sometimes directly means “to make righteous,” and precisely in those places where faith seems to act in this direction, and its relation (to justification) would be impossible if it were a legal act. 2) The construction of thoughts forces us to retain this general meaning even in those cases where a legal action is understood, since only such a meaning shows us the root from which various special meanings grow, while this is not the case in the understanding of judging righteously... 3) Study of the discussion of St. Paul πίστις and δικαιοσύνη and their mutual relations shows that the righteousness of faith is an internal, ethical quality, or real righteousness, and not an external position (justification of a person) in contradiction to his internal state (cf. footnote No. 453: “That means, already in one’s own way...”), or fictitious righteousness. Thereforeˆ4) and where δικαιοῦν means a legal act, the judgment is based on the possession of an actual moral quality in the person being judged, but not on external considerations on the part of God.” From this it follows that “St. Paul does not deny the moral quality of faith; he only asserts that it is not the righteousness of works” (pp. 156–157). Then we get that “St. Scripture does not consider justification for a legal act to be a mere declaration from God as righteous, which does not condition any essential change in the justified": this is revealed by Superintentent Zitzlaff (in "Studien und Kritiken" 1897, 3, S. 555 (and cf. footnote no. 438: "Lic. Theol. Pfarrer Ernst Cremer even admits..."). He insists that here “δίκαιος is one who corresponds to his essence, and this applies equally to both God and people” (S. 557). Then “πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων will be δίκαιος or in such a state as God desires to have it, revealing his essential righteousness; therefore, he achieves the righteousness of God as power; Therefore, δικαιοῦν does not simply mean a legal act of God, but with this δικαιοῦν a significant change is necessarily associated with δικαιωϑείς, which actually becomes δίκαιος before God, and is not simply declared as such by judgment, remaining ἄδικος and only by virtue of the righteousness he has acquired, beginning to be δίκαιος” (S. 567–568). Even with the declarative meaning, it is assumed that “δικαιωϑείς is truly righteous, because God cannot declare ἄδικος for δίκαιος. The expression λογίζεσϑαι εἰς δικαιοσύνην (Rom.4:3, 5:9) does not change anything, since faith, which is counted as righteousness, is precisely righteousness before God (Rom.3:28; 1:16–17), and together with δικαιοῦσϑαι or λογίζεσϑαι εἰς δικαιοσύνην at the same time there is an internal significant change” (S. 568). It is clear that in Apostle Paul “the terms δίκαιος, δικαιοῦσϑαι, etc. must be understood not in a legal, but in a religious and moral sense” (S. 571 and cf. footnote No. 456: “From this point of view, more...”). Wed. Prof. Wilh. Schmidt, Zum Römerbrief in “Studien und Kritiken” 1898, 2, S. 282 flg., 293, 296. Therefore, A. Schweizer correctly (albeit too sharply in exclusivity) gives the preposition ὑπέρ (ἡμῶν) the meaning “in favor.” See "Studien und Kritiken" 1858, S. 426 flg., 462 flg. This is energetically expressed in Prof. Arthur Cushman McGiffert. He writes (in A History of Christianity in the Apostolie Age): “To have believed that the work of Christ was only substitutionary in its significance; that he died merly as a sacrifice by virtue of which other men, though sinful, might be relieved of death, the penalty of their sin to have believed that there was only an arbitrary and forensic connection between the work of Christ and the salvation of men, – would have do violence to his (of Paul) most sacred convections and to run counter to all his religious experience” (p. 129). “The righteousness of faith is the divine righteousness which a man receives when he receives Christ. It is not a mere declaration by God that the sinner is justified or forgiven for his past sins and accounted righteous without regard to his actual character; it is not a mere status into which he is introduced by such declaration, but it is at the bottom the real righteousness or the righteous nature which is bestowed upon the believer by God... Thus the righteousness of God, or the righteousness of faith, of which Paul has so much to say, is not primarily, as he uses it, a forensic or legal term, but stands for a real thing, the actual divine righteousness or righteous nature which man receives from God when he receives God’s Spirit. It is righteousness non imputed, but imparted to man; and imparted just because the divine nature of Spirit, which is itself righteous, is imparted to him” (pp. 142–143). See Dr. W. Wilke, Ueber die πίστις in den Briefen des Neuen Testaments, Lauban 1884. Wed. O. Pfleiderer, Der Paulinismus, S. 8: “Righteousness imparted to the whole people (Israel) a character indelebilis of holiness, or sanctification to God, according to the firm judgment of Jewish theology, which Paul also shared, since he says in (Rom. 11:16): if the first fruit is holy, then is the mixture; and if the root is holy, so are the branches.” H.J. Holtzmann, Lehrbuch der neutestamentl. Theologie I, S. 28. Lic. theol. Paul Wernle, Der Christ und die Sünde bei Paulus. Freiburg i. B. und Lpzg 1897, S. 65: “Ueberall, wo das Wort “heilig” hier auftritt, bringt es einen jüdischen Zug in die Religion des Paulus”, since it is (S. 77) “der jüdesche Religionsbegriff, den er nicht preesgegeben hatte, als er die Rettung durch den Giauben ergriff, bestimmt sein Heiligkeitsideal und seine Hochschätzung der sacramentalen Gemeinde... Dies Jüdische ist zugleich das Katholische in der Praxis des Paulus, das, womit der Protestantismus aufgeräumt.” Hence it is clear why A. Ritschl relates (for example, in Die Entstehung der altkatholischen Kirche, S. 63) the perfect justification (σωτηρία) of a person only to the future judgment of God at the Last Judgment. Similar to this is P. Kölbing in “Studien und Kritiken” 1895, 1, S. 8, 15, 15, 16: “Die rechtskräftige Verleihung des ewigen Heils vollzieht sich aber, wie nach der Lehre der judischen Apolalyptik, so nach übereinstimmenden Aussagen des Neuen Testaments bei dem in den messianischen Epoche abzuhaltenden himmlischen Weltgericht" with the limitation that "ist es in allen neutestamentlichen Stellen einschliesslich der paulinischen ein noch zukünftiges", why "war es Paulus eine ganz nahe liegnde und leicht zu vollziehende Vorstellung, dass das himmlische Weltgericht Gottes, dessen endgultiges Vollzug noch bevorstand, gleichwohl schon in der Geagenwart sich zu vollziehen beginnt"; in general “hat sich diese Kombination al seine, speziell bei Paulus durchaus warscheinliche erwiesen.” A similar opinion is expressed, by the way, by Theod. Häring (Δικαιοσυνη Θεου bei Paulus, S. 33; see also note 488 on p. 432), but cf. against him at Wilh. Schmidt, Die Lehre des Apostels Paulus, S. 29, 30. See A. Ritschl, Die christl. Lehre von der Rechtfertigung und Versohnung II, S. 160–161 (St. Paul “presents no justification apart from or prior to belonging to the Christian community”), 216–219, and the latest presentation of the main points of this teaching (in connection with the previous movement of theological and philosophical thought in Protestantism) is given by Dr. Richard Wegener, A. Ritsch’s Idee des Reiches Gottes im Licht der Geschichte, Lpzg 1897, S. 61 flg. (cf. H. A. Kennedy in The Critical Review VII, 4 October 1897, pp. 446–448). W. Sanday and A.C. are also inclined towards Ritschl’s theory. Headlam in A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, p. 122–124. Let us also note that some authors (for example, Privatdozent Lic. Gennrich, Studien zur Paulinischen Heilsorfnung) consider (in “Studien und Kritiken” 1898, 3, S. 404) an idle (gegenstandslos) dispute about whether by ἡγιάσϑητε the Apostle Paul in ( 1 Cor.6:11) simple separation for God (Rückert, Olshausen, Schmiedel), i.e. integration into the society of Christ (Hofmann, Ritschl), or actual assimilation of the Christian-moral direction of life (Heinrici), fundamental moral renewal and sanctification (Pfleiderer, Beyschlag), since the second is given directly with the first and lies in it. This judgment is correct only from the point of view of the objective-legal theory of justification with the “ideal” holiness of the regenerate (cf. notes 460 and 461 on p. 429–430), meanwhile, the actual question under consideration is extremely important and, for the Hellenic evangelist, is resolved in the sense of the real (even if relative) sanctification of those blessed with grace. Wed. also comments from C.F. Nösgen, Geschichte der neutestamentl. Offenbarung II, S. 314; Bernh. Weiss, Lehrbuch der Biblischen Theologie des N.T., S. 319 u. Anm 6; Joh. Gloel, Der Heilige Geist, S. 102.1; E. Schäder, Die Bedeutung des lebendigen Christus, S. 29.3. G. Schnedermann, Der israelitische Hintergrund, S. 3 = “Neue Kirchliche Zeitschrift” VI (1895), 8, S. 651, and cf. Ueber den judischen Hintergrund im Neuen Testament, Lpzg 1890, S. 17. With a fundamentally incorrect and tendentious treatment of the subject, such a view is sharply expressed by Prof. Dr. Ludwig Paul, considering the presentation of the Kingdom of God in Christ the Savior “purely Jewish-apocalyptic” (Die Vorstellungen vom Messias und vom Gottesreich bei den Synoptikern, Bonn 1895, S. IV–V. 116–117). Likewise, the so-called “new school” with its subjectivism, which denies all authority - even Scripture - sees in the Church a return to Judaism: see Louis Guilliny, Saint Paul et l'autorité, Montauban 1896, p. 4. From this point of view, Albert Hoffmann correctly says (Abraham, Moise et le Christ ou l'economie du salut d'apres Saint Paul, Strasbourg 1872, p. 10) that St. Paul, “righteousness is an expression of the normal relationship between the will of man and the will of God” and, therefore, is affirmed on a factual basis, which is why the author falsely assimilates (pp. 10–11) this concept an exclusively declarative meaning. Therefore, the judgment of those who assert that “das Reich Gottes ist... der Inbegriff des messianischen Heils Gottes in Christo” is correct in this regard (cf., however, note 486 on page 442). See Das Reich Gottes nach altem und neuem Testament oder Weissagung und Erfullung. Eine biblisch-theologische Untersuchung zum Erweise dessen, dass Jesus von Nazareth der von den israelitischen Propheten geweissagte Messias Israels und das von ihm gepredigte Reich die verheissene Konigsherrschaft Jahves ist. Von einem Theologen. I. and II. Theil. Jurjew 1897. S. 190. Cp. Prof. A.B. Bruce, St. Paul's Conception of Christianity, p. 363 = "The Expositor" 1894, IX, p. 200: “the Kingdom is a pure ideal hovering over the reality, or in advance of it, a goal which the Church seeks to approximate but never overtakes.” This means that in relation to believers, we can actually only talk about “the introduction of God into the kingdom of His beloved Son” (Col. 1:13), which is why the latter is depicted by the Apostle Paul as either present (Rom. 14:7; 1 Cor. 4:20), or with a hint of the future (1 Cor. 6:9–10, 15:50; Gal. 5:21), as one to which Christians are called to receive glory ( 1 Thessalonians 2:12). Therefore, the Church as the body of Christ grows (Eph. 4:16), and “das Christenleben ist für Paulus mehr als Bethätigung oder gar nur Bewahrung eines Seins, es ist Fortschritt und Entwickelung in extensiver wie in intensive Beziehung”: Prof. J. Gottschick, Paulinismus und Reformation in Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche VII (1897), 5, S. 415. Cf. more pages 265 and 446. Cp. Prof. D. Erich Haupt, Reich Gottes, Gemeinde, Kirche in ihrer Bedeutung für christliches Glauben und Leben in “Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kurche” II (Freiburg i. B. 1892), 1, S. 4–5: “Lexikalisch ist die Bedeutung (des Reiches Gottes) Königsherrschaft, nicht Herrschaftsgebiet... und das Königthum Gottes ist der Zustand, wo der göttliche Herrscherwille (compare, however, notes 485 and 486 on pp. 441. 442)... zur vollen Anerkennung und Auswirkung gelangt.” S. 10: “Dieses Reich hat nun Chrisrtus in die Welt gebracht”, why (S. 27) “das Himmelreich in und mit Christo eine gegenwärtige Realität geworden ist”. If even in recent times this legal meaning has been emphasized with vigor (for example, in G. Ad. Deissmann, Neue Bibelstudien, S. 66–67), then it should be noted that here “the primary antithesis is lost sight of, and the new antithesis takes its place,” since “in the apostle’s mind the antithesis was between a son indeed, and a son who is nothing better than a servant” (A. B. Bruce, St. Paul’s Conception of Christianity, p. 191 = “The Expositor” 1893, X, p. 269); therefore, “the privilege consists in one being made a son who was formely a slave” (p. 189 = 268), and “υἱοϑεσία in St. Paul’s vocabulary means the solemn investment of persons formally sons in an imperfect degree with a sonship worthy of the name, realizing the highest possibilities of filial honor and privilege” (p. 206 = 282). Wed. Joh. Gloel, Der Heilige Geist, S. 197: “Wenn... die υἱοϑεσία den direkten Gegensatz der δουλεία bildet, und wenn unter der δουλεία ohne Frage der Stand des δούλος zu verstehen ist, so kann auch unter der υἱοϑεσία nicht der Akt der Adoption als solcher verstanden werden, sonder nur der Stand, der das Ergebnis dieses Aktes ist, das Verhӓltnis, in welchem dieser Akt stetig fortwirkt.” D. Somerville, distinguishing two stages in Christian adoption itself, thinks (St. Paul’s Conception of Christ, p. 46:1) that “‘Adoption’ in the kingdom of God is consistent with a previous filial relationship of an inferior sort, and means... the investment in fuller privileges and powers, in a sonship worthy of the name, of persons who had sons in an imperfect degree.” It is also important that “according to Roman law, completely alien by blood a person through adoption became a member of the adoptive family in the same way as if he had been born into it. He became a member of this family even in a higher sense than those who had family blood flowing in their veins, such as emancipated children and descendants through the female line. He took the name of this family, participated in its mysteriously sacred rites and was a member of the adoptive parent’s house not by condescension or permission, but in all respects, which is why the connection formed in this way could only be dissolved in the ceremony of emancipation.” See W.E. Ball, St. Paul and the Roman Law in The Contemporary Review No. 308 (August, 1891: London), p. 280 sec. Therefore it will be little to say (at least with Éd Roerich, Étude sur les principals idées morales... de Saint Paul, p. 7; cp. Bernh. Weiss, Lehrbuch der Biblischen Theologie des N.T., S. 432-433) that Christian redemption was only the restoration of primitive paradisiacal innocence (cf. Wilh, Schmidt, Die Lehre des Apostels Paulus, S. 114–115: “dies “neue Kreatur” ist mehr als die ursprungliche Natur des Menchen”) On the contrary, due to attention to the greatness of the mystery of our salvation in its result and further goal, some authors accepted a double incarnation of the Son (pre-worldly and in the conditions of time), and in connection with this, others even admitted that the second was necessary in the case if the fall of the first parents had not occurred. See D. Somerville, St. Paul's Conception of Christ, pp. 53–54, 209–210, 305–306, Prof. E. Kühl, Die Heilsbedeutung des Todes Christi, S. 206: “Auf die Menschwerdung Christi war es in Gottes Rathschluss von Ewigkeit her.” abgesehen,” because “diese Offenbarung zum Zweck der Erreichung des gottgewollten Zieles der Menschheit nothwendig war – nothwendig auch abgesehen von der menschilichen Sünde,” and cf. A.M. Fairbairn, The Place of Christ in Modern Theology, p. 477; Friedr. Gess, Christi Person und Werk, III: Dogmatische Verarbeitung des Zeugnisses Christi und der apostolischen Zeugnisse (Basel 1887), S. 476 flg. In this form, citizenship of the kingdom of God also becomes a gracious-factual reality, which is why it is impossible to assert with such exclusivity that “der Ausdruck (ἡ βασιλεία τοῦ Θεοῦ) bezeichnet niemals “une Domaine”, sondern immer Herrschaft und Herrlichkeit (cp. approx. 482. 486 on page 438. 442)... So giebt es auch keine “Bürger”, sondern nur “Besitzer” einer von Gott verliehenen Herrschaft"... Expressing this position (in the report on the book Frédéric Krop, La pensee de Jesus sur le Royaume de Dieu d'apres evangiles synoptiques, Paris 1897), Prof. Arnold Meyer (in “Theologische Literaturzeitung” 1898, 10, Sp. 271) shares the usual error of the intellectualistic understanding of Christian salvation, since this undermines the very idea of the Church, while it is a necessary moment of the actual ascendancy of the Kingdom of Christ among people (cf. pp. 442-443). The relationship we have noted protects the actual peculiarity and saving action of the Church of Christ, as a real discovery of the Kingdom of God on earth. Forgetting this forces Protestantism to reproach (and from the well-known, opposite side, rightly) Catholicism for completely identifying these concepts in re (see, for example, Dr. K. Köhler, Freie Vereinsthatigkeit und amtliche Kirchenthӓtigket in “Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche” II, 5, S. 420), it itself allows it for the Church in the sense of “societas fidei et Spiritus Sancti in cordibus” (Apologia Conf. Aug. IV, 5; cp. † Hans Hinrich Wendt, Das Verhaltniss der inneren Mission zur kirchlichen Organization in “Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche” II, 2, S. 148: “die Kirche in diesem Sinne lӓsst sich nicht principiell unterscheiden von dem Reiche Gottes, welches Jesus lehrte und aufrichtete”) or relates it only to external random forms, distinguishing in ἐκκλησία a) community, i.e. a society of subjects possessing a complex of goods of the Kingdom of God (Prof. Erich Haupt in “Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche” II, 1, S. 6, 7:11), andˆb) the church, to which is attached “nur dasjenige, was zu der ӓusseren, wechselnden Erscheinung der Gemeinde, also nicht zu ihrem eigentlichen Wesen gehört” (ibid. S. 19). It is not surprising from this that Protestantism actually turns out to be without the Church (cf. note 491 on p. 433), and Catholicism does not recognize the Kingdom of God outside and apart from it. This testifies that each private church is truly Christ’s only insofar as it realizes the Kingdom of Christ in itself or is catholic, which is why ideally and in fact “die Gesamtgemeinde, nicht die Einzelgemeinde bei Paulus das Erste” (Arn. Meyer, Die moderne Forschung über die Geschichte des Urchristentums, S. 38; cp. approx. 496 on page 446). In this regard, it is very well said by Prof. A.C. McGiffert (The Apostolic Age, p. 638) that “the church in the city or in the house is simply a local manifestation of the church of God; there is in reality only one church as there is only one bode of Christ.” Wed. Διδαχὴ τῶν δώδεκα Αποστόλων XI, 4 (in Prof. Ad. Harnack in “Texte und Untersuchungen” II. 1, Lpzg 1884, S. 30–31, and in Priest. I.I. Solovyova, Moscow 1886, pp. 79–80): “just as this (Eucharistic) broken bread was scattered over the hills, but gathered together became one, so may Thy Church from the ends of the earth be gathered into Thy Kingdom.” If Privatdoc. Lic. Arthur Titius denies (Die neutestamentliche Lehre von Seligkeit und ihre Bedeutung für die Gegenwart. Erster Theil: Jesu Lehre vom Reiche Gottes. Freiburg i. B. und Lpzg 1895. S. 176) the idea that “the present is a “stage” of the Kingdom of God,” this contradicts even his own the conviction that the dominant definition of the latter in Jesus Christ was eschatological (S. 184–185; but cf. note 474 on p. 435). See also The Christian Ecclesia: A Course of Lectures on the Early History and Early Conception of Ecclesia; and Four Sermons. By † Prof. Fenton John Anthony Hort. London 1897. (Cp. E.P. Boys-Smith in The Critical Review VII, 3 for July 1897, pp. 273-278.) R. 19: “Since the time of Augustine, the Kingdom of Heaven, or the Kingdom of God, about which we read so often in the Gospels, has been directly identified with the Church of Christ. This is a fairly natural conclusion from some of the Lord's sayings on this subject, taken separately, but I think it is impossible to justify it when we examine the whole sum of His teaching in its entirety. We can speak of the Church as the visible representative of the Kingdom of God, the primary instrument of its dominion, and under other similar forms of expression. However, we do not have the right to identify them to such an extent as to directly apply to the Church everything that is said in the Gospels about the Kingdom of God or Heaven.” T. Fallot, Qu'est-ce qu'une Église? Un chapitre de christianisme pratique. Seconde édition, Paris 1897. P. 19 (and cf. 23–24): “Le Christ mort et ressuscité... est l’auteur de notre salut, le chef et la vie de l’Église. L'histoire de l'humanité toute entière devient un drame qui n'a d'autre raison d'être que la glorification du Christ. A la vague notion du Règne de Dieu, se substitue la notion précise du Règne du Christ qui se réalize progressivement dans l’Église et par son moyen.” Cp. T. Fallot, Qu'est-ce qu'une Église? P. 8: “La doctrine du corps du Christ n’est que la mise en oeuvre de la doctrine du salut.” When this point is eliminated, one gets such radically erroneous judgments as “l’Eglise visible est une chimere” (Qu’est-ce qu’une Église? Étude d’histoire chrétienne par C.G. Chavannes. Paris 1897. P. 88), why visible churches are only external unions of like-minded people - “des associations pour le progrès du règne de Dieu” (p. 89) - like “une académie est formée des personnes appartenant ou professant appartenir à la république des lettres” (p. 73). Wed. approx. 486 on page 431. Cp. P. Althaus, Die Heilsbedeutung der Taufe im N.T., S. 111: “Erst aus der Thatsache der ein für allemal hergestellten Vereinigung mit Christus ergiebt sich folgeweise die weitere Thatsache der Einverleibung in den Organismus derer, welche das σῶμα an diesem geistlichen Haupte bilden.” Therefore “als Gerechtfertigter ist der einzelne zugleich Glied der Gemeinde Christ, weil ἐν Χριστῷ”: see Studien zur Paulinischen Heils ordnung von Privatdoz. Gennrich in "Studien und Kritiken" 1898, 3, S. 406.1. Thus, “die Aufnahme in die Lebensgemeinschaft mit Gott in Christus vollzieht die Taufe” (Wilh. Schmidt, Die Lehre des Apostels Paulus, S. 75 and cf. note 459 on p. 428); therefore “wer die Taufe versäumte, obwohl er sie haben könnte, der würde grosses Misstrauen dagegen erwecken, dass sein etwa behaupteter Glaube derjenige ist, der den Christusgeist unmittelbar zur Folge hat oder bereits einschliest” (ibid., S. 79). So “die Kirche ist aus der Christenheit haraus geboren, nicht diese aus ihr”, but “die Kirche für überflüssig erklären, heist sich selbst als von Christo losgelöst erachten” (see Ein Theolog, Das Reich Gottes, S. 394:401). This limitation is important to keep in mind when assessing theories that the individualism of the Apostle Paul in the doctrine of justification completely eliminated the ethical significance of the Church, as argued, for example, by P. Wernle (Der Christ und die Sünde bei Paulus, S. 66–67: “...das Christentum existiert nur als Kirche; aber gerettet werden nur die Einzelnen. In letzter Linie bedeutet dem Paulus die Kirche nichts für die Seligkeit") and which even Prof. rightly rejects. J. Gottschick in "Zeitschrift für Theologie und Kirche" VII (1897), 5, S. 411.1. Therefore, it is certainly unfair (cf. Church Quarterly Review Vol. XLV, No. 90 [January 1898], pp. 325-327) Dr.'s exclusively individualistic understanding of the Church. F.J. A. Hort’ a (The Christian Ecclesia, pp. 168–170), as would be an extreme (cf. “Der Beweis des Glaubens” 1898, I, S. 17 in “Theologischer Literatur-Bericht”) and its limitation to local communities, proposed by C.G. Chavannes (Qu'est-ce qu'une Église? P. 67). On the contrary, it is the idea of ​​the universal Church that serves St. Paul as a necessary prerequisite for all his expressions about individual church communities: see Einleitung in, das Neue Testament von Prof. D. Theodor Zahn (Erster Bd, Lpzg 1897) S. 356; Wed approx. 487 on page 442. This also shows the entire injustice of the Protestant understanding of the Church as a society of saints or people of God who are saved by Christ directly and therefore do not need either church unity or the sacraments for this. Such thoughts found quite sharp expression in the book by C.G. Chavannes, Qu'est-ce qu'une Église? P. 17 suiv. 20–22. 68 suiv. 73: "L'Église est le peuple de Dieu et est constituée, sans aucune organization possible ni désirable, par les hommes qui, individuellement, sont enfants de Dieu." 82 suiv. Cp. approx. 459 and 494 on page 428. 445. Wed. V.N. Myshtsyn, Teachings of St. Apostle Paul, p. 120. Wed. W.S. Bruce, The Ethics of the Old Testament, p. 22: “The prophets recognize the people of Israel, not the individual Israelite, as Jehovah’s chosen... and the hope of the saints lay rather in a great national liberator than in a personal redeemer.” Therefore, the very (p. 65) “salvation in Israel was given to a person by birth in the family founded by Abraham... A Jew could turn out to be unworthy of his forefathers’ inheritance; however, in the Pentateuch, birth into the family of Israel is directly considered birth into the Kingdom of God.” In this regard, it is quite natural that “in ancient Israel the deep and crushing consciousness of sin, so characteristic of the New Testament saints, was not outstanding”: W.S. Bruce, The Ethics of the Old Testament, p. 68–69. See treatise II, ch. 2, pp. 211 seq., where approx. 96 Wed. L.H. Strack, Einleitung in den Thalmud, S. 103, and The Hebrew New Testament of the British and Foreign Bible Society by Prof. Frz Delitzsch, p. 25. The latter in (Gal.3:16) remarks: “Mn. Part זַרְעִיּוֺת is used in the Talmud in similar arguments, for example In Sanhedrin 37 b, and the collective ורע is similarly concentrated in חורע אותו in one seed, which “will come from another place” (Esther 4:14), i.e. attached (in Midrasch Ruth sect. VII extr. and often) to the king Messiah." Therefore: if it is said about Christ that “sein Universalismus ist abhängig von seiner Person” (Ein Theolog, Das Reich Gottes, S. 275), then this is no less true for us in the sense that only through personal communication with the Lord we are freed from cosmic restrictions in the matter of our salvation. Therefore – in the spirit of rabbinic theory – “das Neue Testament schlechthin nichts davon weiss, dass der “Lohn”, welcher einer Personlichkeit von Gott zugedacht ist, auf einen andern Menschen übertragen werden und so seine Stellung zu Gott ändern könne.” See eine dogmatische Frage vom ethischen Gesichtspunkt aus betrachtet von D. Hermann Schultz under the title “Der sittliche Begriff des Verdienstes und seine Anwendung auf das Verständnis des Werkes Christi” in “Studien und Kritiken” 1894, 1, S. 17. Wed. also Dr. E. Grünebaum, Die Sittenlehre des Judenthums, S. 231: “If Paul proclaims the redemption of mankind from sin through Christ and with that “tun (ohne Verdienst) by His grace, the redemption that is in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 3:24), then this is a direct perversion of the basic Jewish teaching (was die Grundlehre des Judenthums gerade auf den Kopf stellt), according to which everyone, by his own personal efforts, must be his own redeemer" (Jeder durch seine selbsteigene Thatkaft, sein eigener Erlöser werden muss). See also Dr. E. Grünebaum, Die Sittenlehre des Judenthums, S. 172–173; Sayings of the Jewish Fathers comprising Pirqe Aboth in Hebrew and English with Notes and Excursures. By Charles Taylor. Second Edition with Additional Notes and a Cairo fragment of Aquila’s version of the Old Testament. Cambridge 1897. P. 60.